Editorial Panel:

Technical Editor:

Translation by:

GM R.Khusnutdinov GM D.Kryakvin GM R.Ovetchkin IM S.Soloviov

IM Semko Semkov

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright ©Alexander Khalifman 2010

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 78-4

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4

Book XIII

l.e4 c5 2.liJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.liJxd4 l2Jf6 5.l2Jc3

5 ... e6 6 . .ie3 Scheveningen Variation

5 ... a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 English Attack

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Other CHESS STARS Books

Repertoire books: Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.c!tlf3 by A. Khalifrnan

Volume la: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume lb: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008 Volume 3: Maroczy, English (l...c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined

Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifrnan Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006 Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007 Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007 Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009 Volume 12: The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2009

Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifrnan

Current theory and practice series: An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008 The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008 The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008 The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008 Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009 The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire by Victor Bologan, 2009 The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009 The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2010 Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2010 The French Defence. A Complete Black Repertoire by Nikita Vitiugov, 2010 The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2010

More details at www.chess-stars.com

4

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part 1 Scheveningen Variation l.e4 cS 2.lt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S.lt:Jc3 e6 6.i.e3

1 various; 6 . . . i.e7 7.f3 various; 7 . . . lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 without 8 . . . 0-0 and 8 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 6 . . . i.e7 7.f3 lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Part 2 English Attack without b7-b5 l.e4 cS 2 .lt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S.lt:Jc3 a6 6.i.e3

3 without 6 . . . e5, 6 . . . lt:Jg4 and 6 . . . e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4 6 . . . e6 7.f3 without 7 . . . b5 and 7 . . . l2Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5 6 . . . e6 7.f3 lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 without 8 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 6 6 . . . e6 7.f3 lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 i.e7 9.0-0-0 without 9 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . 110 7 6 . . . e6 7.f3 lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 i.e7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.g4 wjo 10 . . . lt:Jxd4 . . . 133 8 6 . . . e6 7.f3 lt:Jc6 8.\Wd2 i.e7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.g4 lt:Jxd4 . . . . . . . 157

Part 3 English Attack with b7-b5 l.e4 cS 2 .lt:Jf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S.lt:Jc3 a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.f3 bS 8.\Wd2

9 without 8 . . . i.b7 and 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 10 8 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 11 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 9 .g4 without 9 . . . h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 12 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 without 10 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 13 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 i.b7 11.h4 without 11 . . . b4 . . . . . 312 14 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 i.b7 11.h4 b4 12.lt:Ja4 dS;

12 . . . \WaS 13.b3 without 13 . . . lt:Jc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 15 8 .. . lt:Jbd79.g4 h6 10.0-0-0i.b7 11.h4 b4 12 .lt:Ja4 WaS 13.b3 l2Jc5 . . . . 353

Index ofVariations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376

5

Preface

Dear readers,

You hold in your hands book 13 of the series "Opening for White According to Anand - l.e4". This volume is devoted mostly to the Eng­lish Attack in the N ajdorf system, that is the variation beginning with l.e4 c5 2.ll:\f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.ll:\xd4 ll:\f6 5.ll:\c3 a6 6 • .ie3 e6 7.f3. White's plan is simple and clear in the majority of cases: �d2, g4, cas­tling long and then a pawn-offensive on the kingside. Naturally, Black cannot be happy following this script and he tries to create counterplay in the centre and on the queenside. There are numerous variations in which he leaves his king in the centre, since castling short early may turn out to be even more dangerous.

The Najdorf system has become the most popular in the Sicilian defence long long ago. Robert Fischer and Garry Kasparov were under­standably its most famous exponents. Still, it looks like it will remain tremendously fashionable in the future as well. White began to play the English Attack (that is the plan with .ie3+f3+ �d2) regularly during the middle of the 1980ies of the past century, while prior to that, the main theoretical discussions concerned the lines with 6 . .ig5 and 6 . .ic4. It would be sufficient to mention that in the "Chess Encyclopaedia", edi­tion 1984, only two lines were devoted to it. I would like to point out something without any intention to try to change the already estab­lished name of this system. It concerns only its origin. Long ago, during the same year - 1984, some young Leningrad masters like Aseev, Yu­dasin and Khalifman started trying regularly this sharp and relatively new plan. At first, the Soviet masters were obviously underrated then and secondly the rate of the popularization of information was quite different in comparison to nowadays. Therefore, during the next year, when the British players Short, Nunn and Chandler followed suit, the system acquired its present name - the English Attack almost instan­taneously. Meanwhile, there is a line called the Leningrad Variations system in the opening theory, so we better let the sleeping dogs lie.

Starting at that moment, the popularity of the English Attack has only been increasing. Naturally, the evaluations in this system have been constantly changing, just like in every other sharp and fashion-

6

able variation, but this exact plan has become White's main weapon against the Najdorf system for many years. It is also worth mentioning that contrary to some other opening variations, which are popular only at the top-level, or only among amateurs, the English Attack is top­fashion at all levels.

Having discussed all that, the readers will be probably amazed that we have dealt in the first part of our book with . . . the Scheveningen variation (l.e4 c5 2.tiJf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tiJxd4 ltJf6 5.ltJc3 e6). It is only the senior twin-brother of the Najdorf system, but we have de­cided that it would be reasonable to analyze this line in this particular volume. The Scheveningen variation used to be considered for a long time as semi-correct, or at least very dangerous for Black, due to the possible Keres Attack ( 6 .g4 ). Still, the computer monsters of the third millennium proved convincingly that evaluation to have been too opti­mistic for White. Accordingly, I suggest to you to counter the Scheve­ningen variation with the same plan �e3+f3+'1Wd2. In the majority of the cases Black will have to play the standard a7 -a6 move, so typical for most of the Sicilian set-ups, so at the end there would arise a transpo­sition to the English Attack. In case Black tries to save that tempo for something more useful, then as a rule, he usually tries to prepare the pawn-advance d6-d5 in some lines. He fails to equalize in that fashion however, if White plays precisely.

The second part of our book begins with the analysis of some sel­dom played moves for Black in the N ajdorf system after 6.�e3. It would be reasonable to add that we do not consider 6 . . . tLlg4 and 6 . . . e5 (to­gether with the main line 6 . . . e6) as rarely played and we will deal with them in the last volume 14 of our series. It should be mentioned that after 6 . . . tLlc6 7.f3 d5, Black succeeds in simplifying the position consid­erably and minimizing the danger of coming under a direct attack. In that case however, he suffers great positional pressing without any real counterplay, so this is hardly his best choice. We have also analyzed variations of the English Attack in which Black develops his knight to c6. In that case, the developments are rather similar to the Rauzer At­tack, since White often retreats with his bishop from g5 to e3 after h7-h6. Accordingly, here most of the fine points depend on whether this move, present or absent, would be useful or harmful in every particular position. Presently, the system with the development of Black's knight on c6 is in a crisis. The last attempts for its rehabilitation, made at the beginning of this century by some players and among them Kramnik

7

and Gelfand, were not successful, since White's attack proved to be faster in most of the critical variations.

Finally, in the third part of our book, we have analyzed the main lines of the English Attack arising after 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5. This is ex­actly where the main theoretical disputes are taking place nowadays, moreover that we can even say that the correctness of the N ajdorf sys­tem and maybe even the entire Sicilian Defence hinges on the evalua­tion of this particular variation. Black is trying to exploit the fact that White's set-up in the centre is built a bit too slow and he tries to obtain an immediate counterplay in the centre and on the queenside even be­fore completing his development. Black's king remains quite often in the centre for long in this variation in the majority of cases. This is not only due to the fact that the g8-square may be even more dangerous for Black's monarch than the e8-square, but also because castling is a loss of tempo in a way and he can use it for the creation of concrete threats. White must play very energetically in practically all sub-variations and he should be ready to part with material if necessary. He has sacrificed so many knights on the e6-square in this variation that we have even lost count. We hope this book will help you to play beautiful combina­tions and games and may they be not only spectacular but effective as well.

8

A.Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Partl

l.e4 c5 2.lt�f3 d6 3.d4 4.!t)xd4 tLlf6 5.tLlc3 e6

Scheveningen Variation

This is the basic position of the Scheveningen variation on the diagram. White's sharpest weap­on against it is considered to be the move 6.g4 - the Keres at­tack.

6 . .ie3

I believe, this useful develop­ing move is also a very well jus­tified method of countering the Scheveningen variation. White's plan includes development of pieces according to a scheme, which we know from the Dragon variation (volume 11). He usually plays, in different order of moves, f2-f3, ®'cl-d2, g2-g4, 0-0-0, fol­lowed by a kingside attack. Black must play a7-a6 in order to obtain counterplay and in the majority of cases the game transposes to the English attack against the Najdorf variation, which we analyze in de­tails in the second and third part of this book.

9

Chapter l l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3

Now, the moves, which de­serve most attention for Black are a) 6 •. .tbc6 and b) 6 . • . i.e7. His alternatives either lead quickly to very difficult positions, or they transpose to other lines.

6 . . . g6 - see volume 11; 6 . . . a6 7.f3 - see Parts 2-3; 6 . . . .id7 7.'W'd2 lUc6 (about 7 . . . a6 8.g4 - see Chap­ter 4) 8.lUdb5 - see 6 . . . lUc6.

6 .. . e5? ! - This move compro­mises the light squares in the centre of the board. 7 . .ib5+ . The exchange of the light-squared bishops will increase White's dominance in the centre. 7 . . . .id7 (It would not be better for Black to opt for 7 . . . lUbd7 8.lLJfS 'W'c7 9 . .ig5 ! - see volume 12, Chapter 2, variation a) 8.hd7+ 'W'xd7 (In

10

response to 8 . . . lUbxd7, Chambers - Ngu, Email 2000, White can continue with 9.lUfS lUb6 10 . .ig5 g6 ll.lUe3 .ie7 12.'W'f3 0-0 13. 0-0-0± and he obtains excellent attacking prospects in addition to his control over the centre.) 9.lUfS dS? (It is hardly preferable for Black to opt for 9 . . . lUxe4 10.lUxe4 \1ffxf5 ll.lUxd6+ hd6 12.\1ffxd6 lUc6 13.0-0-0 l"\d8 14.'W'a3± and in a position with material equal­ity, White's bishop is stronger than Black's knight and in addi­tion his king is stranded in the centre, impeding the coordina­tion of his own forces. Still, Black was not losing by force in that fashion . . . ) 10.lUxd5 lUxe4 11.'11ffd3 lUd6 12.lUxd6+ hd6 13.0-0-0 \1ffc8 14 . .ih6 ! +- Black has failed to complete his development, Spen­cer - Richards, England 1988;

6 . . . d5? ! Drummond - Brien, Canada 1991, - Black ends up de­liberately with an isolated pawn in the centre and he has problems protecting it, because of his lag in development. 7.exd5 exdS (7 . . . lUxdS 8 . .ib5+ .id7 9.lUxd5 exdS 10.0-0 .id6 11.'11ffh5±) 8 . .ib5+

.id7 9 . .ixd7+ �xd7 10.0-0 .ib4 ll . .igS± White is threatening the rather unpleasant check 12 J!e1, as well as the not less danger­ous move 12 . .ixf6, Black's only defence seems to be ll . . . tt:le4 12.tt:lxe4 dxe4 13.c3 .icS 14J'!el±, but he will have to part with his central pawn, because he loses af­ter 14 . . .f5 15.tt:le6 !+-

6 . . . tt:lbd7? ! V.Bykov - Al.Iva­nov, Leningrad 1967, - Black must have his pawn on a6 in or­der to develop his knight like this. 7.tt:ldb5! - Now, his d6-pawn is threatened and Black cannot pro­tect it comfortably.

We will analyze the following possibilities :

after7 . . . d5 8.exd5 a6 9.dxe6+-, or 7 . . . tt:lb8 8 . .ixa7± and White has a solid extra pawn;

7 . . . tt:lc5 - After this move, White ends up with advantageous pawn-structure and a lead in de­velopment. 8 . .ixc5 dxcS 9.e5 tt:ld7 (It is worse for Black to play 9 . . . tt:ldS? ! lO.tt:lxdS exdS 11.�xd5±, it is not preferable for him to opt for 9 . . . a6 10.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 ll.exf6 axbS 12 .0-0-0+ 'it>c7 13.tt:lxb5+

5 . . . e6 6 . .ie3

'it>b8 14.fxg7 .ixg7 15.a3± and in both cases Black has no compen­sation for the pawn whatsoever.) 10.tt:ld6+ .ixd6 11.�xd6 a6 12.f4 bS 13.0-0-0 .ib7 14 . .ie2 l'!c8 15 . .if3± - White dominates on the only open file, while Black can hardly complete his development without material losses.

7 . . . tt:le5 - Black provokes his opponent to begin active opera­tions in the centre. 8 .f4 ! tt:leg4 9. .ixa7 l'!xa7 (Black loses after 9 . . . b6 10.e5+-) 10.tt:lxa7 �b6 ll . .ibS+ ! 'it>d8 (It is even worse for him to choose ll . . . id7 12 . .ixd7+ 'it>xd7 13.�e2 and White should realize his extra exchange without any problems after 13 . . . �xb2 14.�b5+ �xbS 15.tt:laxb5 tt:le3 16.'it>f2+-, as well as following 13 . . . �xa7 14.e5 �b6 15.exf6 �xb2 16.0-0 tt:lxf6 17.�e3+-) 12 .�e2 �xa7 13.e5 tt:le3 14.exf6 gxf6 15.a4 l'!g8 16.g3 e5 17.tt:ld1 tt:lxd1 18.fud1 ! ? - White gives back the exchange and he obtains complete control over the light squares. 18 . . . .ig4 19.�e4±

a) 6 •• .-lilc6 We will analyze this move only

in variations in which Black tries to create some piece-counterplay, before he has completed his de­velopment; otherwise, there arise transpositions to other lines.

7.%Yd2 (diagram)

7 • . . tt:lg4 He has also tried in practice: About 7 . . . .ie7 8.f3 - see 6 . . .

1 1

Chapter 1

i.e7; 7 . . . a6 8.f3 - see Chapters 5-8; 7 . . . tt:lxd4 8.i.xd4 i.d7 9.f3 a6 10 .g4 - see Chapter 5, line bl; 7 . . . e5 8.tt:lb3 - We will analyze these positions in details in the next volume. Black has pushed e7-e5 in two moves and this means that in comparison to the variation 5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e5 7.tt:lb3 tt:lc6 8.�d2, he has lost a tempo. Still, if he begins actions connected with a7-a5, there arise theoretical variations.

7 . . . .td7? ! - This move weak­ens the d6-pawn. 8.tt:ldb5 tt:lg4 9.i.f4 e5 10.i.g3 i.e6 11.0-0-0 �a5, Ibarra Jerez - Lasinskas, Malaga 2009 and here, White's most energetic reaction seems to be 12 .i.h4! tt:lf6 (After 12 .. .f6, Black's bishop on e6 is not pro­tected and White wins an impor­tant tempo because of this. 13.f3 tt:lh6 14.tt:lxd6+ i.xd6 15.�xd6 �f7 16.i.f2 �hd8 17.�c5+- with an extra pawn for him, which is very important, since simplifications are unavoidable.) 13.�e3 �c8 (It is worse for Black to opt for 13 . . . �d8 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.a3. Now, he loses after 15 . . . h5 16.b4 �b6

12

17.�xb6 axb6 18.tt:la4+- with an extra pawn for White in the end­game, as well as following 15 . . . �d7 16.tt:ld5 i.g7 17.�g3 i.h6+ 18.�b1 �d8 19.tt:lbc3 �f8 20.�h4 i.g7 21.�h5+- and after White ad­vances his pawn to f5, Black will be completely stalemated.) 14.a3 ! a6 15.tt:lxd6+ i.xd6 16.�xd6 �c7 17.�d2± White has much better prospects with an extra pawn and a couple of powerful bishops.

After 7 . . . d5, Black is doomed to a passive defence in a position with an isolated pawn, because of his great lag in development. 8. i.b5 i.d7 9.exd5 exd5, S.Smits -Welling, Hengelo 2002 (The sim­plification after 9 . . . tt:lxd5 10.tt:lxd5 exd5 11.0-0-0 i.e7 12.tt:le2 i.e6 13.tt:lf4± is in favour ofWhite.) 10. tt:lde2 ! ? a6 (10 . . . i.e6 11.0-0-0 �c8 12.�b1 i.b4 13.a3 i.a5 14. f3±) 11.i.a4 .tb4 (After 11 . . . .te6 12. 0-0-0 i.e7 13.i.b3t Black has problems protecting his d5-pawn.) 12 .a3 i.xc3 (It is not advis­able for him to choose 12 . . . i.a5 13.b4 i.c7 14.tt:lxd5±) 13.tt:lxc3 i.e6 14.�d1 0-0 15.0-0± There arose a standard position with an isolated d5-pawn and Black cannot create any active actions to compensate its weakness.

8.i.g5 (diagram)

8 . . .'�b6 The alternatives for Black are

not better at all : after 8 . . . tt:lf6 9.0-0-0± there

arises the Rauzer attack (vol-

ume 12) with an extra tempo for White.

8 . . . i.e7 - After this move, the best that Black can hope for is a very unpleasant endgame. 9.i.xe7 �xe7 10.tt::ldb5 d5 11 .�e2 tt::lf6? (He has no compensation for the pawn after ll . . . d4 12.�xg4 0-0 13.0-0-0 dxc3 14.tt::lxc3±. The only way for him to offer some meaningful resistance is 11 . . . 0-0! with the idea after 12.�xg4 a6� to regain his piece and to obtain a dangerous initiative, thanks to his better development, therefore White must play 12.exd5! exd5 13.�xe7 tt::lxe7 14.i.e2 :1:ld8 15.h3 tt::lf6 16.0-0-0± with a stable edge in the endgame, because of his ac­tive pieces and the vulnerability of Black's isolated pawn.) 12.exd5 tt::lxd5 13 .tt::lxd5 exd5 14.tt::lc7+ 'it>d8 15.�xe7+ tt::lxe7 16.tt::lxa8+- and even after Black captures the knight on a8, he will be an ex­change down, Dziel - Azzi, Email 2001.

8 .. .f6 - Black weakens delib­erately his pawn-structure. 9.i.h4 i.e7 (After 9 . . . tt::lxd4 10.�xd4 i.e7

5 . . . e6 6.i.e3

11.i.e2 tt::le5 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.f4 tt::lc6 14.�c4 �b6 15.\t>bl± Black's central pawns are weak and he has no active counterplay, Zyrjanov -Evans, Email 2007.) 10.i.e2 tt::lge5 ll.f4 tt::lxd4 12.�xd4 tt::lc6 13 .�d3 0-0 14.0-0-0 a6 15.i.f2 �a5 16. 'it>bl±. One of White's possibili­ties is to play i.g4 and �h3, attack­ing the e6-square. Black's attempt to organize some queenside coun­terplay, led to the loss of a cou­ple of pawns for him after: 16 . . . b5? ! 17.tt::ld5 exd5 18.�xd5+ 'it>h8 19.�xc6 i.e6 20.b3 �a3 21.�b7 d5 22.exd5 i.f5 23.i.d3+- Black's queen is active, but it is not sup­ported by the rest of his pieces, Bocanegra Moreno - Velilla Ve­lasco, corr. 2005.

9)bdb5 f6 It is bad for him to play 9 . . .

tt::lce5? 10.0-0-0 h6 11.i.h4 i.d7 12.f3+-, because his pieces are repelled easily and the d6-pawn falls, 12 . . . a6 13.�d4 �c5? 14.�xc5 1-0 De Sa - Navarro, Email 1999.

Black has no compensation for the pawn after 9 . . . �a5 10 .h3 a6 11 .hxg4 axb5 12 .i.xb5± Toma -Lang, Detroit 1994.

10 .i.f4 tt::lce5 ll.h3 g5 Or ll . . . tt::lh6 12 .i.e3 �d8 13 .

0-0-0 tt::lhf7 14.i.xa7+- and White remains with an extra pawn and much more active pieces.

12.hxg4 gxf4 13.'�xf4 (diagram)

13 . . • a6 After 13 . . . i.e7, Black would

13

Chapter 1

have offered tougher resist­ance: 14.0-0-0 a6 15.l2:Jd4 i.d7 16.i.e2±

14.�xf6 l2:Jxg4 15.l2:Jxd6+ �xd6 16.�:xh8 �c5 17.c!L!dl �b4+ 18.c3 �xe4+ 19.i.e2 �xg2 2 0 .l�xh7+- Cernousek ­Mrva, Slovakia 2005.

b) 6 . . . �e7 This is the most natural move

for Black. He wishes to evacuate his king from the centre and then to create some counterplay.

7.f3 This is a purposeful move. It

looks premature for White to play 7.g4 h5 !?

14

7 . • .tbc6 Black's alternatives usually

transpose to other variations. About 7 . . . a6 8.�d2 - see Chap­

ter 4; 7 . . . i.d7 8.�d2 l2:Jc6 (8 . . . a6 9.g4 - see Chapter 4) 9 .l2:Jdb5 -see 7 . . . l2:Jc6; 7 . . . l2:Jbd7 8.�d2 a6 9.g4 - see Chapter 4, line dl; 7 . . . h5 8.'�d2 tLlc6 (8 . . . a6 9 .0-0-0 -see Chapter 4, line c) 9.0-0-0 a6 10 .i.e2 - see Chapter 4, line c; 7 . . . Wffc7 8.�d2 a6 (8 . . . l2:Jc6 9.0-0-0 -see 7 . . . tLlc6) 9.g4 - see Chapter 4, line d2.

7 . . . 0-0 8.�d2

and here: 8 . . . l2:Jc6 9.g4 - see 7 . . . l2:Jc6; 8 . . .

a6 9 .0-0-0 - see Chapter 4, line d3; following 8 . . . d5 9 .e5 l2:Jfd7 10.f4 l2:Jc6 11.0-0-0, the game transposes to the French defence - see volume 6; 8 . . . e5 9.tLlb3, leads to positions from the Naj­dorf variation, but with a pawn on a7. If Black plays a7-a5, there arise positions, which will be ana­lyzed in our next book; otherwise, Black has no active counterplay at all.

8 . . . i.d7 - This is a strange transfer of the bishop to c6, where

it is restricted by White's e4-pawn. 9.0-0-0 .ic6 10 .g4 l2Jbd7, Marchadour - Priser, Hennebont 2006 and here White obtains excellent attacking prospects af­ter ll.g5 lLle8 (11. . .l2Jh5 12.f4 g6 13 . .ie2 l2Jg7 14.h4±) 12 .h4 d5 13.exd5 exd5 14.h5±;

8 . . . lLlbd7 9.g4 lLlb6 (9 . . . a6 10.0-0-0 - see Chapter 4, line d3) 10.0-0-0 .id7 11.h4 d5 12. e5 lLle8 13 . .ig5 f6 14.exf6 gxf6 15 . .ih6± - Black's king shelter has been destroyed and he has failed to organize any counterplay, A.Horvath - Kadar, Nagykanizsa 1994.

In response to the strange move 8 . . . l2Jfd7? ! , Sinzhuk - Efre­mova, Lvov 1999, it looks very strong for White to play 9.l2Jdb5 ! l2Je5 (Black has no compensa­tion for the pawn after 9 . . . d5 10.exd5 a6 ll.dxe6±) 10.0-0-0 �a5 11.�b1 l2Jbc6 12.�f2± Black loses unavoidably his d6-pawn, since he loses the game after 12 . . . �d8? 13.l2Jxa7+- l2Jd7 (In case of 13 . . . lLlxa7 14 . .ib6 �b4 15.a3+­Black loses his queen, while in the variation 13 . . . �xa7 14 . .ib6 �b4 15.ha7+- he remains an exchange and a pawn down.) 14.lLlab5 l2Jc5 15.a3+- White should realize his extra pawn without any problems, since Black has no counterplay whatsoever.

7 . . . e5 - This move compro­mises the light squares in the cen­tre. 8 . .ib5+ �f8 9.l2Jde2 h5 (It is not preferable for Black to play

5 ... e6 6 . .ie3

9 . . . .ie6 10.�d2 a6 11..ia4 lLlc6 12.0-0-0 b5 13 . .ib3 lLla5 14.�b1 lLlxb3, Gazic - Richter, Moehne­see 2005, because after the obvi­ous reply 15.axb3, he must fight long and hard for equality in the variation 15 . . . h5 16 . .ig5 lLle8 17. he7 + �xe7 18.f4±, as well as in the line: 17 . . . b4 16.l2Ja4 a5 17.g4±) 10 .�d2 .ie6 11.0-0-0 l2Jc6 12. l2Jd5 hd5 13.exd5 l2Jb8 14.l2Jc3 a6 15 . .ie2 l2Jbd7 16.g4±, because Black's king, stranded in the cen­tre, might come under a very dan­gerous attack, Santos - Baptista, Bobadela 2001.

8.�d2

8 ... d5 Black's most principled reac­

tion here is 8 . . . 0-0 9.g4, which we analyze in our next chap­ter. About 8 . . . a6 9 .0-0-0 - see Chapters 6-8; 8 . . . h5 9.0-0-0 a6 - see Chapter 4, Bapu:aHT c.

The positions after 8 . . . e5 9. l2Jb3, but with a black pawn on a6 will be analyzed in the next vol­ume.

8 . . . l2Jxd4 9.hd4 .id7? ! (Black

15

Chapter 1

has better moves here: 9 . . . 0-0 10.g4 - see the next chapter; 9 . . . eS 10 .i.e3 0-0 ll.g4 - see the next chapter; 9 . . . a6 10.0-0-0 - see Chapter 6, BapHaHT c) 10.0-0-0 \WaS 11.<i>b1 0-0 12-'t:JdS '\Wd8 13.lt:Jxe7+ '\Wxe7, D.Melnikov -Y.Zakharov, St. Petersburg 2003, White has obtained the two-bish­op advantage and he can capture his opponent's d6-pawn without giving him any chances of creat­ing counterplay with 14.i.c3 ! E1fd8 1S.i.b4 i.a4 16.eS lt:JdS 17.i.xd6+-

8 . . . '\Wc7 9.0-0-0 tt::lb4? Now the endgame is completely hope­less for Black (9 . . . 0-0?! lO.tt::ldbS - see Chapter 2, 9 . . . '\Wc7. It is bet­ter for Black to play 9 . . . a6 10 .g4 - see Chapter 6, line a) lO.tt::ldbS '\Wb8 11.tt::lxd6+ i.xd6 12 .'\Wxd6 '\Wxd6 13.E1xd6+- Colmenares -Castilleja, Barranquilla 1999.

8 .. . i.d7 - This development of the bishop is premature and White can exploit this with 9.tt::ldbS ! ?

9 . . . i.c8? - Black has presented his opponent with two tempi. It is not amazing that his position is already lost. 10.0-0-0 dS ll.exdS exdS 12. tt::lxdS lt:JxdS 13. '\WxdS '\WxdS

16

14.lt:Jc7+ 'it>d7 1S.tt::lxdS+- Slaa -Wierenga, Hengelo 1994;

9 . . . 0-0?! - Black fails to ob­tain compensation for the loss of his central pawn. 10.tt::lxd6 i.xd6 11.'\Wxd6 \WaS 12 .'\WcS+- Boscolo ­Oblak, Porto San Giorgio 2004;

9 . . . '\Wb8 - Black loses a pawn indeed, but White must play pre­cisely not to lose a piece because of the pin. 10.0-0-0 0-0, Roiz Baztan - Muniz Giron, Spain 1994 and here White can capture on d6, for example: ll.tt::lxd6 E1d8 12 .i.bS ! a6 (Black cannot exploit effectively the pin of the knight with 12 . . . i.c8, after 13.i.cS lt:Je8 14.eS+- the number of pieces is equal, but White has an ex­tra pawn and Black's pieces are squeezed to the last rank. It is hardly preferable for him to opt for 12 . . . eS 13.lt:Jc4 '\Wc7 14.'\We2 i.e6 1S.hc6 bxc6 16.E1xd8+ E1xd8 17.E1dl± and the further simplifi­cations are unavoidable, so White has excellent chances of realizing his extra pawn.) 13 .hc6 hc6 14.eS lt:JdS 1S.i.cS f6 16.f4 b6 17.i.a3 aS 18.E1hel± White has an overwhelming advantage, thanks to his extra pawn and the power­ful outpost on d6.

9 . . . dS ! ? - This is evidently Black's best chance. lO.exdS exdS (but not 10 . . . tt::lb4? ll.d6+- Sprik - Janus, Email 1999) 11.0-0-0 (White should better leave his opponent's weak pawn on the board, because after ll.tt::lxdS tt:JxdS 12.'\WxdS, Vavric - Belyayev,

Kharkov 2004, Black can play 12 . . . tt:Jb4 13.1Wb3 '\WaS� and he ob­tains some compensation for the pawn.) ll . . . a6 12.tt::ld4 0-0 13.g4 ib4 14.a3 iaS 15.g5 tt:JhS 16.b4t. White's initiative is very danger­ous and after the natural move 16 . . . ib6 17.tt:Jxd5 hd4 18.hd4 tt:Jxd4 19.1Wxd4 1Wxg5+ 20.f4 1Wh4 21.ie2± Black manages to keep the material balance, but White's pieces are deployed much more harmoniously.

9.ib5 id7 It is worse for Black to play 9 . . .

1Wc7, Hector - Lind, Uppsala 1985, because after 10.if4 id6 (Black loses immediately in case of 10 . . . eS? ll.heS '1Wxe5 12.tt::lxc6+-; his pieces are very awkwardly placed in the line: 10 . . . 1Wd7 11.e5 tt::lhS 12 .ie3±) 11.hd6 1Wxd6 12.exd5 tt:JxdS (In the variation 12 . . . exd5 13 .1We3+ ie6 14.hc6+ bxc6 15. tt::lfS 1Wf8 16.0-0-0± White leads considerably in development and controls the dark squares in the centre of the board.) 13.tt::le4 '1Wc7 14.c4 tt:Jde7 15.tt:Jxc6 bxc6 16.tt::ld6+ lt>f8 17.ia4± White is ahead in development and his knight is very powerltd, while Black's king impedes the coordination of his forces.

10.exd5 (diagram)

10 • . . tt:Jxd5 10 . . . tt:Jxd4!? - This move has

not been tested in practice, al­though it looks the best for Black: ll.hd7+ 1Wxd7 12.1Wxd4 (After

5 ... e6 6.ie3

12 .hd4 tt:JxdS, Black has ex­cellent chances of equalizing.) 12 . . . 0-0 13 .0-0-0 (He obtains a good compensation for the pawn in the variation 13.dxe6 1Wxe6 14.\t>f2 Ei:fd8 15.1Wa4 1We5�) 13 . . . Ei:fd8 14.Ei:he1 tt:JxdS 15.tt:Jxd5 exdS 16.1Wg4± - White controls reliably the important d4-square and this provides him with excellent pros­pects in the fight against Black's isolated pawn.

lO . . . exdS - White leads in de­velopment and he has more space, so the fact that Black avoids sim­plifications is clearly in White's fa­vour. 11.0-0-0 0-0 (After 11 . . .a6 12 .i.e2 0-0 13.g4 ib4 14.a3 hc3 15.1Wxc3 Ei:c8 16.tt:Jxc6 hc6 17.1Wd4 Ei:e8, Dgebuadze - Boensch, Meis­dorf 1996, White can continue with 18.Ei:he1 tt:Jd7 19.ci>b1 1Wh4 20.if4 tt:Jf8 21.ig3± and he pre­pares the advance of his kingside pawns, which guarantees his ad­vantage, because he has also a bishop-pair, while Black has no counterplay at all.) 12 .tt::lb3 a6 (In reply to 12 . . . ie6, Hartston - Barc­zay, Sochi 1979, it seems natural

17

Chapter 1

for White to continue with a king­side pawn-offensive: 13.g4 'Lle5 14.'Lld4 !'1c8 15.g5 'Lle8 16.f4t. His initiative looks very dangerous in case of 16 . . . 'Llc4 17.hc4 !'1xc4 18.f5 i.c8 19 .f6t, as well as follow­ing 16 . . . 'Llc6 17.i.d3 'Lld6 18.�b1 '\WaS 19.!'1hel±) 13.i.e2 i.e6 14.g4 i.b4 15.a3 i.xc3 16.'\Wxc3 'Lld7 17.f4 f6 18.i.f3± Black loses unavoid­ably his d5-pawn and he has no compensation for it at all, L.Milov - Zatulovskaya, Berlin 1994.

1l.c!ijxd5 exd5

12.tlje2 !? White neutralizes all active

possibilities for his opponent and he enters a very favourable posi­tion for him.

12 • . . 0 - 0 13. 0 - 0 - 0 i.e6 14.tL!f4 a6 15 . .ia4 ttJa5 16.ttJxd5

t2Jc4 17.t2Jxe7+ '\Wxe7 18.'\Wf2 b5 In the variation 18 . .. 'Llxe3

19.'\Wxe3 '\Wc7 20.�bl± Black can­not obtain sufficient compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn, but White's task to realize it does not seem easy either.

19.i.b3;t (White's wishes to prepare an advantageous transi­tion to a position with bishops of opposite colours and that is to en­sure maximal safety for his king and to obtain attacking chances.) 19 . . J'�ac8 2 0 .i.d4 a5 21.!'1he1 a4 22 . .ixc4 gxc4, Wang Yu -Dembo, Moscow 2004, White's king is completely safe, there­fore he should begin his assault against his opponent's monarch: 23.f4 l:k6 24.a3 gfc8 25.gd2 '\Wf8 26.f5±

Conclusion In this chapter, we have begun our analysis of the Scheveningen

variation. In response to 6.i.e3, we deal with all the possibilities for Black, with the exception of those which transpose to the English at­tack against the Najdorf variation and some other schemes, which we analyze later.

18

5 . . . e6 6.�e3

The rarely played moves, as a rule, lead quickly to very difficult positions for Black and they require from White neither great preci­sion, nor extensive opening knowledge.

The logical move a) 6 . . . tt:lc6 most often transposes to variations dealt with in the next chapters, since Black can can hardly avoid play­ing the move a7-a6 in the Sicilian defence. We study the possibility for him to organize some rather premature piece actions. After 7. Wid2 ttlg4 8.�g5 Wib6 9.ttldb5 Black has great problems with the defence of his d6-pawn.

In variation b Black again begins active operations in the centre ignoring his development. As a result he ends up with an isolated pawn and he has great problems protecting it, because of White's su­perior development.

19

Chapter 2 l.e4 c5 2.ti�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.ti�xd4 lL!f6 5.lL!c3 e6 6 . .ie3 .ie7 7.£3 lL!c6 8.Wfd2 0-0

This is the most natural move for Black. He ensures the safety of his king, completes the devel­opment of his kingside and is ready to begin active actions in the centre and on the queen­side.

9. 0 - 0 - 0 White plays often here 9 .g4

and after 9 . . . d5 lO.gS lt:lhS !? he has a choice between: 1U!g1 W!c7 12.0-0-0 l:!d8 13.Wfc3 eS� and Black solves the problems with his development, and the pawn­sacrifice - 11.0-0-0 lt:lxd4 12. W!xd4 .ixgS, after which his compensation for it is obvious, but it is not easy to prove that it is worth more than equality.

20

Black has tried numerous moves here, but we will deal mostly with a) 9 .. .it)xd4 and b) 9 . . . d5.

His alternatives are: About 9 . . . a6 10.g4 - see

Chapters 7-8. It is bad for Black to play 9 . . .

lt:ld7?, with the idea to transfer his knight to the queenside. The basic drawback of this move is that it weakens the d6-pawn. 10.lt:ldb5! W!aS ll.lt:lxd6 lt:ldeS, Lapinski -B.Grabarczyk, Grodzisk Mazow­iecki 2007 and here after 12.f4 lt:lg4 13.e5 !!dB 14.Wie2 lt:lxe3 15. W!xe3±, besides the extra pawn, White obtains a considerable space advantage and he neutral-

5 . . . e6 6. �e3 �e7 7 ..f.3 lilc6 8. Viid2 0 - 0 9. 0 - 0 - 0

izes easily the potential activity of Black's bishop-pair.

9 . . . Wd7? ! - Black's queen is misplaced on this square. 10.g4 Eid8 1l.h4 eS? 12 .lilf5 Wc7, Linden­berg - Tausch, Oberhof 1998 and now, White wins by playing 13.g5 lilh5 14.lild5 Wd7 15.�h3+-;

9 . . . e5 - This move compro­mises the light-squared complex in the centre, Ferracin - De Na­dai, Montebelluna 2007 and after White plays 10.lilf5 hfS 1l.exf5 Viic7 12 .g4i he obtains excellent attacking prospects and Black's attempt to seize the initiative by playing 12 . . . d5 leads after 13.lilxd5 lilxd5 14.Wxd5 Eifd8 15.Wie4 E!:xd1+ 16.'it>xd1 lilb4 17.�c4 E!:c8 18.�b3± to a position with a solid extra pawn for White.

9 . . . Wc7, Topalov - Trujillo Del­gado, Tenerife (simultan) 1997.

10.lilcb5 ! Wd7! (He ends up with an extra pawn and an over­whelming advantage after 10 . . . Wib8 ll.lilxc6 bxc6 12 .lilxd6 E!:d8 13.e5 lile8 14.i.c5+-) ll.g4 a6 12.lilxc6 Wxc6 13.lild4i White is much ahead of his opponent in the development of his initiative,

for example: 13 . . . Wc7 14.g5 lilhS 15.�h3 g6 16.�g4 lilg7 17.h4± He controls the centre with excellent chances of organizing a check­mating attack.

After 9 . . . Wa5 - the juxtaposi­tion of the queens is in favour of White. 10.'it>b1

10 . . . 'it>h8 (Black loses after 10 . . . a6 ll.lilxc6 bxc6 12 .lild5+- Mi­hevc - Tzoutzakis, Ikaria 1993; in answer to 10 . . . E!:d8, Boros - Mo­hanty, Denizli 2003, White fol­lows with ll.lildS and after this Black loses in case of ll . . . exdS 12.lilxc6 Wxd2 13.lilxe7+ 'it>f8 14. E!:xd2 'it>xe7 15.exd5+-, while in the variation ll . . . Wxd2 12.lilxe7+ lilxe7 13.E!:xd2 dS 14.lilb5± White ends up with a powerful bishop­pair and a superior development. It is hardly preferable for Black to opt for 10 . . . E!:e8 ll.g4 h6? 12 .h4 lilh7 13.g5--+ - White's attack is overwhelming and it may be even decisive, Segui Patino - Shen Yue, Palma de Mallorca 2008.) ll.g4 a6 12 .h4 lilxd4 13.hd4 eS 14.�e3 i.e6 15.Wif2 lild7 16.lild5± - White dominates the important central dS-outpost and he has a clear-cut

21

Chapter 2

plan for kingside actions, so he is definitely better, G.Makropoulos - Maris, Athens 1988.

9 .. . i.d7 - Black's bishop has occupied a square, which belongs rather to his knight. 10.g4 eS (About 10 . . . a6 - see Chapter 7; as for 10 . . . ct:Jxd4 11.hd4 - see varia­tion a; it is bad for Black to play 10 . . . h6? ll .h4 tt::lh7 12 .g5� Lowke - S.Meyer, Sebnitz 2002; it is not advisable for him to try 10 . . . a5? ! ll.gS tt::le8 12 .h4 ct:Jes 13.h5± and White has dangerous threats on the kingside, Chabradze - Mon­tassier, Gorges 2008.) 11.tt::lf5 hfS 12.exf5 'WaS 13.g5 tt::ld7 14.i.c4± -White occupies the light squares in the centre and he is threatening to open files on the kingside, Priy­anka - Sattarzadeh, Teheran 2006.

a) 9 . . . ttJxd4 Black's desire to simplify the

position and to facilitate thus his defence is quite understandable.

10 .bd4

1 0 . . . .id7

22

The transfer of the bishop to c6 costs Black even more than two tempi, because it closes there the c-file, which is very important for his counterplay.

About 10 . . . a6 11.g4 - see Chap­ter 8.

The line: 10 . . . tt::ld7 11.h4 a6 12 .g4 is analyzed in the following chapters.

The move 10 . . . e5 weakens the dS-outpost. ll.i.e3 i.e6 (ll . . . a6 12 .g4 - see Chapter 8) 12. Wb1 'Wc7 (It is better for Black to play 12 . . . a6 13 .g4 - see Chapter 8) 13.g4 :Bfc8, Butkiewicz - Janocha, Wro­claw 2004 and here it looks very attractive for White to continue with his kingside offensive 14.g5 tt::lhS (It seems very risky for Black to play 14 . . . tt::ld7 15.h4 a6 16.h5t, since White has excellent at­tacking prospects.) 15.tt::ld5 hdS 16.exd5 'Wd7 17.h4 :Bc7 18.i.h3 'WbS 19 .i.g4±

lO .. .'�aS - This move loses time, because the juxtaposition of the queens forces Black to con­sider all the time the possibility for White tt::ldS. 11. Wb1 eS (It is not any better for Black to choose here ll . . . Wh8 12 .tt::lb5 'Wxd2 13.:Bxd2 a6 14.tt::lxd6 hd6 15 . .txf6 i.f4 16.:Bd8 :Bxd8 17.hd8 i.d7 18.i.b6 :Bc8 19.c4±, because after this practi­cally forced variation has ended, White has an extra pawn in the endgame, Szaszak - Donko, Hun­gary 1993 ; ll . . . 'Wc7 12 .g4 a6 - see Chapter 8.) 12 .i.e3 'Wc7, Graft -Lingelmann, Kassel 1994, White

5 . . . e6 6 . .ie3 .ie7 7 .j3 tt:Jc6 8. Vf:fd2 0-0 9. 0 - 0 - 0

can capture a pawn here by play­ing 13.tiJb5 Vfffc6 (Black should better avoid the line: 13 . . . Vfffb8 14.ttJxd6 Eld8 15.ttJxc8, because he loses here immediately after 15 . . . Elxd2 16.ttJxe7+ mf8 17.Elxd2 mxe7 18 . .ic5+-, but even in case of 15 . . . Vf:fxc8 16 . .id3± he has no com­pensation for the pawn whatso­ever.) 14.ttJxa7 Vfffc7 15.ttJxc8 Elfxc8 16 . .ib5 !'laS 17.a4 dS 18.exd5 ttJxdS 19 . .if2 (Strangely enough, but in the variation 19.Vfffxd5 Vfffxc2+ 20.ma1 !'leaS 21.b3 _ib4gg Black has an excellent compensation for the piece, because his forces are very active and White's king is too vulnerable.) 19 . . . ttJf4 (Now, the piece-sacrifice would not work for Black: 19 . . . .ib4? 20.c3 ttJxc3+ 21 .bxc3 hc3 22.Vfffd7+­the queens are either exchanged, or Black's queen is repelled to the b8-square.) 20.g3 ttJe6 21.Vfffe2±

ll.g4 .ic6 ll . . . h6? ! - This pawn becomes

a target for White and his attack­ing chances increase considera­bly. 12 .h4 ttJh7 (Or 12 . . . e5 13 . .ie3± and Black can avoid g4-g5 only if he gives up a piece: 13 . . . hg4? 14.fxg4 ttJxg4 15 . .if2 ttJxf2 16. Vfffxf2+- Le Quang - Trinh Binh Nguyen, Ha Tinh 2000.) 13 .g5 hS 14.f4� De Jong - Niens, Nether­lands 1988.

It is not advisable for Black to try 1l. . .e5 12 . .ie3 Vf:faS (After 12 . . . a6 13 .g5 ttJe8 14.ttJd5± White oc­cupies the dS-square prevent­ing Black's counterplay and his

advantage increases, Booth -Eliezer, Dos Hermanas 2004.) 13. h4 .ie6 14.a3 Elfc8 15.h5± Black has lost tempi for the maneuver .ic8-d7-e6 and White is clearly ahead in the development of his initiative, Schnelle - Simanowski, Duisburg 2006.

ll . . . VfffaS - The juxtaposition of the queens will lead to a loss of tempi for Black, or to a much inferior endgame for him. 12.mb1 Elfd8 13.tiJd5 Vfffxd2 14.ttJxe7+ mf8 15.Elxd2 mxe7, Volz - Frick, Liech­tenstein 1994, White has a stable edge in this endgame, thanks to his bishop-pair. 16 . .ie2 eS 17 . .ie3 .ie6 18.Elhdl;!;

12.g5

12 . . . ttJd7 It is worse for Black to play

12 . . . ttJh5, because on this square the knight would not stop White's offensive, but just the opposite it would become even more effec­tive, Burden - Tate, USA 1989, 13 . .ie3 Vfffc7 14 . .ih3 g6 (Black can­not ignore the threat 15 . .ig4, be­cause after 14 . . . b5 15 . .ig4 g6 16.

23

Chapter 2

.b:h5 gxh5 17.tt:le2 l"i:ac8 18.tt:lg3� White destroys the shelter of his opponent's king and his attack becomes crushing, for example: 18 .. . d5 19.tt:lxh5 dxe4 20.tt:lf6+ .b:£6 21.gxf6 <i>h8 22 . .ih6 l"i:g8 23.l"i:g1 +- and Black can avoid be­ing checkmated only at the price of heavy material losses.) 15 . .ig4 tt:lg7 16.h4 b5 17.h5± White is clearly ahead of his opponent in the creation of threats.

13.h4 White has obtained good at­

tacking chances. 13 • • • 11Ma5 After 13 . . . l"i:b8? ! , Rosin - Ber­

ni, Italy 2005, White can capture the pawn 14 . .b:a7 l"i:a8 15 . .if2 b5 16.1!Md4 1!Ma5 17.a3 tt:le5 18 . .ie2±

13 ... d5 - This move does not impede White's kingside pawn­offensive, but it forces him to play precisely. 14.exd5 exd5 15.f4 tt:lc5 16.f5 l"i:e8 and here in the game Trifunovic - Pomar Salamanca, Palma de Mallorca 1966, White followed with the seemingly attractive move 16.f6 and after 16 . . . .id6 17.fxg7 tt:le6f± Black obtained a good counter­play. Instead, White had better prepare his pawn-offensive with 17.1!Mf2 ! ? Black's position seems just terrible, for example: 17 . . . 1!Ma5 (He loses quickly after 17 .. tt:le4 18.tt:lxe4 dxe4 19 . .ic4 b5 20 . .ib3 e3 21.1!Mg3 !+- and he is helpless against his opponent's numerous threats. After 21 . . .l"i:f8 22 .1!Me5+-, or 21 . . .e2 22 . .ixf7+ <i>h8 23 . .b:g7+

24

<i>xg7 24.l"i:xd8+- Black is com­pletely lost.) 18.f6 .id6 19.fxg7 tt:le6 20 . .id3+- and Black is no doubt beyond salvation: 20 . . . tt:lxd4 21..b:h7+ <i>xh7 22 .1!Mxf7 l"i:g8 23 .11Mh5+ <i>xg7 24.1!Mh6+ <i>f7 25.l"i:hf1+-; 20 . . . .if4+ 21.<i>b1 1!Mb4 22 .tt:le2 tt:lxd4 23.tt:lxf4+-; 20 . . . tt:lf4 21 .<i>b1 l"i:e7 22 .h5+-

14.<i>bl lUeS, Magem Badals - Landenbergue, Horgen 1994,

15.tt:ld5 1!Mxd2 (The transfer to an endgame seems forced, be­cause it would be a disaster for Black to opt for 15 . . . .id8? 16 . .ic3 1!Mc5 17.b4+- and White wins his opponent's queen, while after 15 . . . 1!Md8 16.tt:lxe7+ 1!Mxe7 17.h5 d5 18.g6� his attack is overwhelm­ing.) 16.tt:lxe7+ gxe7 17.gxd2;t. White's bishop-pair provides him with a stable advantage in this endgame. Black's d6-pawn is so weak that he will have to advance it - d6-d5 sooner or later. This will present White with a pleas­ant choice to open the game with exd5, or to push e4-e5, restricting Black's bishop considerably.

5 . . . e6 6.�e3 �e7 7 .f3 t:i:Jc6 B.fid2 0 - 0 9. 0 -0 -0 d5 1 0 . �e2

b) 9 . . . d5 Black has developed his king­

side and his king is safe, so his ac­tive actions in the centre seem to be completely justified.

1 0 .�e2

Black usually plays here b1) 10 . . . dxe4, but it looks at least as strong for him to try b2) 1 0 . . . tl:la5!?

10 . . . �d7?! - This is a blun­der. ll.exd5 t?Jxd5, Cvek - Babu­la, Havlickuv Brod 2008 and here White can win a pawn with 12 .t:i:Jxe6! �e6 (It is worse for Black to opt for 12 . . . fxe6 13.t:i:Jxd5 exd5 14.fixd5+ Elf7 15.fixd7 fixd7 16.Elxd7 �g5 17.Eld3+- and he remains two pawns down.) 13. 'Llxd5±

10 . . . fia5 - This pawn-sacrifice is interesting but insufficient. 11.'Llb3 fic7 12.exd5 'Llxd5 13.'Llxd5 exd5, Stankovic - V.Todorovic, Kragujevac 2000.

(diagram) White creates numerous prob­

lems here for his opponent with the intermediate move 14.�f4 !

fib6 15.fixd5, for example: 15 . . . 'Llb4 (Black has no compensation for the pawn after 15 . . . �e6 16.fib5 fif2 17.fixb7 Elfc8 18.Eld2±, and he has no chances of equalizing in case of 18 . . . �g5!? 19.�g5 fixg2 20.Elhd1 fixg5 21.fib5 fih4 22.'it>b1 Elab8 23.fic5 'Llb4 24.fie5± -White is dominant in the centre and he neutralizes easily Black's queenside counterplay.) 16.fie5 �f6 (After 16 . . . �e6 17.�e3, the endgame is very difficult for Black in case of 17 . . . f6 18.fie4 f5 19.fie5 �f6 20.�b6 �e5 21.�c5±, but even in the variation 17 . . . fic6 18.'Lld4 fic8 19 .fie4 �c5 20.'Llxe6 �e3+ 21.'it>b1 fixe6 22.fixb4± Black will have great problems to draw, despite the presence of bishops of opposite colours on the board.) 17.fie4 �e6 (Black loses after 17 . . . 'Llxa2+? 18.'it>b1 'Llb4 19 .Eld6 fif2 20.Elf1 fixg2 21 .Elxf6 gxf6 22 .fixb4+-) 18.�e3 �f5 19 .�b6 �e4 20.�c5 �c2 (It is also possible for Black to play 20 . . . �g5+ 21.Eld2 �d2+ 22.'it>xd2 Elfd8+ 23.'it>c1 'Llxa2+ 24.'it>b1 �g6 25.'it>xa2 �c2 26.Elcl±, but White's two bishops are stronger

25

Chapter 2

than Black's rook and a pawn. White will not realize his advan­tage easily, though . . . ) 2 1.i.xb4 �ac8 22 .�d2 i.xb3+ 23.'i!?b1 i.e6 24 . .txi'8± - Black's two bishops are no doubt powerful, but he does not have even a pawn for the exchange.

10 . . . a6 - This preparation of a pawn-advance on the queen­side does not combine well with Black's play in the centre, started on the previous move. 11.g4 tt:lxd4 (In answer to ll . . . dxe4, White obtains a better endgame after 12.tt:lxc6 �xd2+ 13.�xd2 bxc6, Kosintseva - Timofeev, Mos­cow 2010, 14.fxe4 i.b4 15.i.f3 e5 16.�g1 i.e6 17.g5 tt:ld7 18.�gdU) 12 .�xd4 dxe4 (Following 12 . . . �a5?, Huesca - Salo, Email 1995, White wins his opponent's central pawn and he increases his lead in development by playing 12 .g5 tt:ld7 13.exd5+-) 13.�e5 tt:ld7 14. �xe4::t

White dominates in the centre and he has a clear-cut plan for the development of his kingside ini­tiative. After 14 . . . �a5 15.f4 tt:lf6, Kopelevich - Monacell, Email

26

2002, the most precise line for him seems to be: 16.�g2 ! i.b4 (The idea behind White's previ­ous move is that he can counter 16 . . . i.d7 17.g5 i.c6 with 18.i.f3t) 17.i.d4 i.xc3 18.i.xc3 �xa2 19. .txf'6 gxf6 20.c4gg and he has an excellent compensation for the pawn. His pieces ate very active, while Black's king is unsafe. This evaluation is correct and this can be proven by concrete variations : 20 . . . a5 (It is not preferable for Black to play 20 . . . �a1+ 21.'i!?c2 �a4+ 22.'i!?b1 e5 23 .i.d3 �c6 24. �e2 exf4 25.�hf1 �e8 26.�f2t and White's attacking prospects are excellent, while his pawn-deficit is immaterial, for example : 26 . . . 'i!?g7 27.�xf4 �e6 28.i.c2 a5 29.�d5 h6 30.�h5 �h8 31.�d4� and White's attack is successful.) 21.�e4 �a1 + 22 .'i!?c2 �a4+ 23.'i!?b1 �c6 24.�e3 e5 25.i.d3gg - White's active piec­es are very dangerous. 25 . . . 'i!?h8 (Or 25 . . . �e8 26.fxe5 fxe5 27.�g5+ 'i!?h8 28.�hfl± and Black must give back the pawn, while in the varia­tion 25 . . . i.e6 26.�c1 �d6 27.�hd1 'i!?g7 28.g5� the pawn-shelter of his king is destroyed.) 26.h3 i.e6 27.�c1 �adS (27 . . . �c7 28.�e4+-) 28.fxe5 fxe5 29.�xe5+ f6 30.�c3::t - White has regained his pawn and Black's king is rather unsafe as before.

10 . . . i.b4 - Black loses time trying to exchange the dark­squared bishops and this trade is advantageous for White. ll.a3 i.a5 12.tt:lb3

5 . . . e6 6 . .ie3 .ie7 7.j3 tiJc6 8. Wffd2 0-0 9. 0 - 0 - 0 d5 1 0 . .ie2

12 . . . .ib6 (It is even worse for Black to play 12 . . . h:c3 13.Wffxc3 e5 14.exd5 tiJxd5 15.Wffel .ie6 16 . .ic4 tiJce7 17.tiJc5± The position is open and White's bishop-pair is tremendously powerful.) 13.h:b6 Wffxb6 (After 13 ... axb6, Black's doubled pawns impede the organ­ization of his counterplay. 14.Wffe3 Wffc7 15.g4 dxe4 16.fxe4 W!e5 17.g5 tiJd7 18.�bl± - The material is equal indeed, but Black's defence will be difficult since he has no ac­tive counterplay.) 14.exd5 exd5 15.tiJxd5 tiJxd5 16.Wffxd5 Wfff2 (It would not be preferable for him to opt for 16 .. J�e8 17.:1'1hel, because here after 17 . . . :1'1e5 18 . .ic4! .ie6 19.Wffd3±, as well as in the varia­tion 17 . . . .ie6 18.Wffc5 Wffc7 19 .g3± Black has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 17 . .ic4 Wffxg2 (17 . . . .ie6 18.Wffd2 Wffxd2+ 19. tiJxd2+-) 18.:1'1dgl Wfff2 19.:1'1xg7+ �xg7 20.Wffg5+ �h8 21.:1'1gl Wffxgl+ 22 .Wffxgl± - White's queen is much more mobile than Black's rooks, Hracek - Baumegger, Plov­div 2008.

lO . . . tiJxd4 - Black simplifies the position, but this does not fa­cilitate his defence. ll.Wffxd4 dxe4,

Wang Yu - Bakre, Moscow 2004

and here, it deserves attention for White to continue with the in­termediate move 12.Wffe5!?, with the following exemplary varia­tions: 12 . . . tiJd7 (In case of 12 . . . .id7 13.fxe4 .ib4 14.:1'1hfl :1'1c8 15 . .id4 Wffe7 16.Wffg3t White's piece-ac­tivity seems rather threatening.) 13.Wffxe4 Wffa5 14.f4 :1'1d8 (The trade of the dark-squared bishops after 14 . . . .if6 15 . .id4;!; is advantageous for White.) 15.g4 tiJc5 16.:1'1xd8+ Wffxd8 17.Wffe5 tiJd7 18.Wffb5 a6 19.Wffc4t - He has occupied space on the kingside and dominates on the only open file. Black will hard­ly manage to develop his queen­side without creating additional weaknesses.

bl) 1 0 ... dxe4 This is the most natural move

for Black. 10t)xc6

(diagram) ll ... W!xd2+ He should better refrain from

ll . . .bxc6 12.Wffxd8 h:d8 (After 12 . . . :1'1xd8 13.tiJxe4 tiJxe4 14.:1'1xd8+ h:d8, White has the resource

27

Chapter 2

15J�d1! - this is an important in­termediate move, enabling him to occupy the only open file. 15 . . . i.c7 16.fxe4 g6 17.h3;t; - White's pieces are much more active than their black counterparts, for example 17 . . . Wg7 18.i.c5 i.f4+ 19.Wb1 a5 20.b3 a4 21.b4 i.a6 22 .c4± and Black fails to improve his position in any fashion.) 13.tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 14.fxe4 i.b6 15.hb6 axb6 16.a3 i.a6 17.ha6 :1'1xa6 18.:1'1d6± - The exchange of all the light pieces has not facilitated Black's defence at all. His queenside pawns are weak and White's rooks are very active. Following 18 . . . :1'1a4 19.:1'1xc6 :1'1xe4 20.:1'1xb6 :1'1e2 21 .a4 :1'1xg2 22 .a5 g5 23.a6 :1'1a8 24.Wb1 g4 25.b4+- White's pawns are very fast, Smeets - Ljubojevic, Am­sterdam 2009.

12.l'�xd2 bxc6 13.ti�xe4 llJxe4

Or 13 . . . 'Dd5 14.i.c5 hc5 15. 'Dxc5 a5 16.c4 lt:Jf4 17.i.d1 e5 18. i.a4± Black's c6-pawn is weak and White dominates on the open d-file, Spoelman - S.Smits, Vliss­ingen 2009.

28

14.fxe4 e5 15.i.c4 Wh8 16. gfl f6 17 .h3±

White's pieces are very active. Black's queenside is compromised and he has no active counterplay. His position remains relatively solid, though . . . , Bogacheva -Shaidullina, Smolensk 2005.

b2) 10 . . . llJa5!?

This move has not been tried in practice yet, but it seems to be the most unpleasant for White.

ll.exd5 llJxd5 After ll . . . exd5 12 .g4 lt:Jc4 13 .

hc4 dxc4 14.�e2 'Dd5 15.'Ddb5 tt:Jxc3 16.tt:Jxc3 �a5 17.�xc4 i.e6

5 . . . e6 6 . .ie3 .ie7 7.j3 ltJc6 8.vt:fd2 0-0 9. 0 -0-0 d5 1 0 . .ie2

18. vtffb5;!; Black will hardly manage to prove that his compensation for the sacrificed pawn is suffi­cient for a draw.

12.liJxd5 vtffxd5 13.b3

13 • • • ltJc6 Following 13 .. J'!d8 14.vtffc3!

vtffc5 15.ltJb5! vtffxc3 16J:'!:xd8+ .ixd8 17.ltJxc3 ltJc6 18J=!dU, the posi­tion is simplified considerably but Black's defence will be rather dif­ficult. White leads in development and he has seized the open d-file.

13 . . . b6 - This is a solid move, but it leads to a slightly inferior endgame for Black. 14.ltJb5 vtffc6 15.vtffc3 .ia6 (It seems worse for him to play 15 . . . a6 16.vtffxc6 ltJxc6 17.liJd6;!;, or 15 . . . .if6 16.vtffxc6 ltJxc6 17.c4;!;) 16.vtffxc6 ltJxc6 17J'l:d2 l=!fd8 18.l'l:xd8+ .ixd8 (The seemingly natural recapture - 18 . . . l=!xd8 turns out to be a blunder after: 19.ltJxa7! .ia3+ 20.<i>b1 .ixe2 21. ltJxc6 l=!d7 22.ltJd4± and White ends up with a solid extra pawn.) 19.l'l:d1 .if6 (19 .. . ltJb4 20 . .id2 .ie7 2l.a4 .ic5 22.@b2 ltJd5 23 . .id3;!;) 20.l'l:d7 ltJb4 2l.a4 l=!d8 22.l=!xd8+

.ixd8 23. 'i>dl ltJd5 24 . .id2 .ixb5 25 . .ixb5;!; and despite the consid­erable simplifications Black's de­fence would be long and very dif­ficult, because White has two powerful bishops and pawn-ma­jority on the queenside.

14.f4!? This is the most aggressive

move for White. 14 • • Jbg2 In case of 14 . . . .id7 15 . .if3 vtffa5

16.vtffxa5 ltJxa5 17.'i>b1 l=!fd8 18. l=!d3;!; White occupies the d-file and dominates in the centre.

15.:Bhgl vtffh3 Black comes under a crush­

ing attack after 15 . . . vtffxh2? 16.l=!hl vtffg2 17.l'l:dg1 vtffd5 18 . .if3 vtffa5 19. 1Mfh2+-

It is now good for White to fol­low with 16.i.g4 1.Mfh4 17.ltJxc6 bxc6 18 • .if3!� -Black's queen is isolated from the actions and White's piece-activity provides him with an excellent compensa­tion for the pawn, for example: 18 . . . .ib7 19.vtffd7 l=!ab8 20.l'l:g4� and his attack is crushing. Black

29

Chapter 2

loses after 20 . . . . b3+ 21.<;1:;>bl Wfd8, in view of 22.E:xg7+ i>xg7 23.E:gl+ @f6 24.i.d4+ i>f5 25.i.e5!+­and it becomes obvious that the checkmate is unavoidable. It is also very good for White to play the prophylactic move

16. i>bl!? , after which it is bad for Black to play for example: 16 . . . i.d7 17.E:g3 Wfxh2 18.E:dgl+-, or 16 . . . E:d8 17.Wfc3 .!Llxd4 18.i.xd4 e5 19.he5 E:xdl 20.hdl g6 21.i.f3± - he can hardly complete his de-

velopment, while after 16 . . . .!t:Jxd4 17.hd4 g6 18.E:g3 ! White has developed all his forces and his attack becomes crushing, for ex­ample : 18 . . . Wfxh2? 19.Wfe3 E:d8 20.f5� and Black will not save his king without material losses, or 18 . . . Wfh4 19.Wfe3 i.f6 20.i.e5 he5 21.fxe5 Wfe7 22 .h4± and his extra pawn is insufficient to compen­sate the vulnerability of the dark squares on Black's kingside and his lag in development.

Conclusion In this chapter we analyze variations, which do not lead to the

English Attack. If Black exchanges knights on d4, he simplifies the position, delay­

ing his active actions for a while - variation a. As a result, he slows down the organization of his counterplay and he either comes under a dangerous attack, or he is forced to enter a very unpleasant end­game.

It looks sensible for him to try some active actions in the centre with b) 9 . . . d5. In reply to this, White should better complete his de­velopment and prepare the advance of his kingside pawns by playing 1 0 .i.e2. After this, Black's most popular response is bl) J O . . . dxe4. Its main drawback is that he has no active counter chances in this end­game, but White must work very hard to break his opponent's defence there.

His problems are much greater if Black chooses b2) J O . . . .!Lla5. White must play energetically; otherwise, Black will deploy advan­tageously his pieces. Therefore, after the logical moves ll.exd5 0.xd5 12 . .!Llxd5 Wfxd5 13.b3 0.c6, it seems obligatory for White to continue with the aggressive move 14.j4. The positional threat 15.i.j3, activat­ing the light-squared bishop, practically forces Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice, but White obtains for it a more than sufficient com­pensation as it is proven by the variations which we show you.

30

Part2

l.e4 c5 2.tl)fJ d6 3.d4 4.tl)xd4 tl)f6 5.tl)c3 a6

English Attack without b7-b5

grammed position. 6.i.g5 - is one of the most popular, 6.i.c4 - the Sozin attack, 6 .i.e2 - this is an at­tempt by him to enter the classical Scheveningen variation etc.

6 . .ie3 This is just one of the many

possibilities. The main idea of the move is

to deploy the pieces according to a scheme used against the Dragon

White has tried in practice variation and then to organize a numerous moves in the dia- kingside offensive.

31

Chapter 3 l.e4 c5 2.ttlf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.tl:lxd4 tl:lf6 5.ttlc3 a6 6 . .ie3

In this chapter we will analyze thoroughly the following lines: a) 6 . . . b5, b) 6 •• .cllJbd7 and c) 6 . . . ttlc6.

Black has tried many other moves as well :

About 6 . . . g6 - see volume 11; 6 . . . e5 7.tt:Jb3 will be dealt with in volume 14; 6 . . . e6 7.f3 - see Chap-ters 4-15; 6 . . . 1Wb6 7.tLlb3 1Wd8 (7 . . . 1Wc7 - see 6 . . . '\WaS) 8.£3 - see 6 . . . '\WaS;

After 6 . . . .id7 7.f3, there arises either a position from the Dragon variation with a7-a6, or variation c (following 7 . . . tt:Jc6 8.1Wd2), or in case of e7-e6 - the English at­tack with the rather strange move .ic8-d7;

6 . . . b6 - This is a passive move for Black, because he needs this

32

pawn on b5, in order to obtain counterplay. 7.f3 .ib7 8 .1Wd2 tt:Jbd7 9.0-0-0 1Wc7 10 .g4 h6 11. �g1 �c8 12 .h4t. White is much ahead of his opponent in the crea­tion of concrete threats and after 12 . . . tt:Jb8 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:Jfd7 15.g6 fxg6 16.tt:Je6 1Wc6 17.1Wg2+­his attack is decisive, Truong Quoc Thang - Hoang Thi Hung, Vietnam 2001;

6 . . . 1Wa5 - That is simply a loss of time. 7.tt:Jb3 1Wc7, Katsios Ner­antzis - Zabrakos, Pireus 2005 (After 7 . . . 1Wd8, Soares - Head, Email 1992, the natural line : 8.f3 e6 9 .1Wd2t, leads to positions, in which White can transpose to the­oretical setups coming back with his knight to d4, but he can also try to utilize advantageously the gained tempi by playing 8.tt:Jd5 ! ? tt:Jxd5 9.exd5t and he occupies additional space with a clear-cut plan for queenside actions. Black can hardly complete his develop­ment without positional conces­sions .

6 . . . 1Wc7 7.f3 tt:Jbd7 (About 7 . . . e6 - see Chapter 4; 7 . . . e5 8.tt:Jb3 - see 6 . . . e5, volume 14; 7 . . . tt:Jc6

8.�d2- see 6 . . . tt:lc6, variation c; 7 .. . bS 8.g4 !? e6 9 .'\Wd2 - Chap­ter 9.) 8.g4 h6 (Or 8 . . . bS 9.gS b4 10.tt:lce2 tt:lhS, Demuth - Hoelzl, Austria 2000 and after 1l.�d2 eS 12 .tt:lfS g6 13.tt:lfg3 tt:lg7 14.0-0-0 aS 1S.<;!ib1 i.e7 16.h4± White ob­tains a powerful initiative on the kingside, controlling the centre, while his king is safe.) 9 .�d2

9 . . . bS (About 9 . . . e6 10.0-0-0 - see Chapter 4, variation a.) 10. 0-0-0 i.b7 (about 10 . . . e6 - see Chapter 12) ll.a3 E:c8 12 .h4 dS 13. i.h3 eS 14.gS exd4 1S.i.xd4!--+ and White has a crushing attack for the piece against Black's king, stranded in the centre 1S . . . tt:lhS, Krstic - Kunin, Salzburg 2003 and here his most energetic reac­tion seems to be 16.i.g4! tt:lg3 17. E:he1 i.d6 18.eS! i.e7 19.e6 fxe6 20.E:xe6 tt:lcS 2l.E:xe7+ ! <j;lxe7 22. gxh6+- and White regains his sac­rificed material with an interest.

a) 6 . . . b5 This is a typical move for the

organization of Black's counter­play, but in this particular case it looks premature.

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3

7.a4! This a timely reaction and now

Black's queenside is compromised considerably.

7 . . . b4 It is not preferable for him to

opt for 7 . . . eS 8.tt:lb3 b4 (After 8 . . . bxa4 9.E:xa4, Black has tried in practice 9 . . . i.b7 lO.tt:laS �c7 ll.f3 tt:Jbd7 12.tt:lxb7 '1Wxb7 13.'1Wa1 aS 14.i.bS±, but White's pieces are better placed and he has obtained the bishop-pair, while Black's aS-pawn needs permanent pro­tection, Basheer - Maen, Beirut 2000. In reply to 9 . . . i.d7, Wagner - Wuest, Germany 1992, White can exchange advantageously the light-squared bishops with 10 .i.bS i.xbS ll.tt:lxbS i.e7 12.tt:lc3 0-0 13.0-0±; in case of 9 . . . tt:Jbd7 10.'1Wa1 tt:lb6 1l.E:b4 tt:Jbd7 12.'1Wa4± White has a considerable lead in development and although his rook looks a bit strange on the b4-square Black can hardly ex­ploit this. After 12 . . . dS? ! 13.i.b6 '1We7 14.i.cS '1Wd8 15.bf8 <j;lxf8 16. exdS+- White won Black's central

33

Chapter 3

pawn and deprived him of cas­tling rights in the game Perenyi -Lukov, Decin 1978.) 9.tt:ld5 tt:lbd7 (9 . . . tt:Jxd5?? 10 .�xd5+- Stephan - Vidal, Nantes 2007) 10.tt:lxb4 �b7 ll.f3± White ended up with a solid extra pawn.

Black has played here: 1l . . .a5 - He blocks the pawns

on the queenside trying to obtain counterplay in the centre. 12.tt:ld5 tt:lxd5 13.exd5 f5 (Black has no compensation for the pawn in the line: 13 . . . �e7 14.�b5 0-0 15.�d2± Thomas - Bouma, carr. 1996.) 14.�b5 �e7 15.0-0 0-0, J.Howell - Kokkila, Groningen 1986 and by playing 16.c4 �c7 17.�d2 tt:lf6 18J�1acl± White is preparing the pawn-break c4-c5, squeezing his opponent's forces with the protec­tion of weak e5-pawn.

ll . . . �e7 - Black allows his op­ponent to fix the vulnerable pawn on a6. 12.a5 �c8 (He should better avoid 12 . . . 0-0, O'Brien -Seberry, Canberra 1996, because after 13.�e2 Vfic7 14.0-0 tt:lc5 15. �d2± he has no counterplay at all and his pieces are forced to defend the weak pawns on a6

34

and d6.) 13.�d3 0-0 14.0-0 h6 15.�e2 d5 16.tt:lxd5 tt:lxd5 17.exd5 hd5 18.'it>h1 Vfib7 19.�d2± Black succeeded in getting rid of the weak pawn on d6, but he would still need to protect the a6-pawn, Suarez Prendes - Alvarez Gonza­lo, Ortigueira 2004.

He did not achieve anything much with the aggressive sortie ll . . . tt:lxe4? ! 12 .fxe4 �h4+ 13.'it>d2 �xe4 14.tt:ld3 d5 15.�h5 ! d4 16. hd4 g6 17.�h3+- De la Villa ­F.Lucas, Alcobendas 1993.

He has tried in practice also 7 . . . bxa4 8.Ei:xa4

There may follow: 8 . . . g6? ! - White accomplish­

es an advantageous pawn-break in the centre after this move. 9.e5 ! ? dxe5 10.�f3 �d7 11.�xa8 ha4 12.tt:le6! �c6 (After 12 . . . fxe6 13.tt:lxa4 'it>f7 14.b4 �d6 15.c3± Black has won a pawn, but his pawn-structure is absolutely in ruins.) 13.�xc6+ lt:lxc6 14.tt:lxd8 tt:lxd8 15.ha6 �g7 16.�b5+ lt>f8 17.\t>e2+- He will hardly complete the development of his kingside to the end of the game, Votava ­Dalecky, Czech Republic 1995.

In answer to 8 . . . e6, Steiner - Wilfling, Austria 1993, it de­serves attention for White to begin immediate active opera­tions with 9 . .ibS+ ! ? .id7 10.0-0 ,bbS 11.tLldxbS tt:lc6 12.tt:ld4 tt:lxd4 13.1Mfxd4 .ie7 14.E1fal± and Black's a6-pawn is weak and he will prob­ably lose it.

8 . . . tt:lbd7 - Black does not pro­tect his a6-pawn anymore and he will soon part with it. 9.1Mfa1 tt:lcS 10.tt:lc6 1Mfb6 11.tt:lb4 aS 12.tLlcdS 1Mfb7 13.E1xaS+- His kingside is not developed and he has lost a pawn, Sikora Lerch - Gruczynski, Tatranske Zruby 2001.

8 . . . .id7 - This move enables White to trade advantageously the light-squared bishops. 9 . .ibS hbS lO.tt:ldxbS tt:lc6 11.1Mfa1 1Mfc8 (11 . . . tt:lb4 - This attempt by Black to solve his problems in a tacti­cal fashion leads practically by force to a very difficult endgame for him: 12.E1xb4 axbS 13.1Mfd1 E1b8 14.1Mfd3 \MfaS 1S.E1xbS E1xbS 16.\MfxbS+ \MfxbS 17.tLlxbS tt:lxe4 18.'it>e2 g6 19.E1a1+- White's piec­es are so active that his advantage is decisive.) 12.tLldS tt:lxdS 13.exdS tt:lb4 14.tt:lxd6+ exd6 1S.E1xb4 .ie7 16.1Mfa4+ lt>f8 17.1Mfc6+- White has won a pawn and he should not have problems realizing it, Mot­wani - Tate, Berlin 1990;

8 . . . .ib7 9.tt:lb3 e6, Rjabzev -Ryzhov, Dagomys 2004 (Or 9 . . . tLlc6 10 . .id3 g6 11.1Mfe2 1Mfc8 12.0-0 lLleS, Szalanczi - U.Steiner, Ger­many 1991, and following 13.tLlaS

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3

tt:lxd3 14.1Mfxd3, White creates great problems for his opponent. Black loses after 14 . . . .ig7 1S.E1b4 E1b8 16 . .ia7 he4 17.E1xb8+-, as well as following 14 . . . 1Mfc7 1S.E1fa1 .ig7 16.E1c4 1Mfd7 17.tt:la4 'IMfbS 18. tt:lb6+-). White's lead in develop­ment enables him to create quick­ly queenside threats: 10 . .id3 tt:lc6 11.1Mfe2 aS 12 . .ibS tt:ld7 13.0-0 .ie7 14.E1fal±

8.tt:ld5

s . . .lL!xd5 8 . . . tt:lxe4? - This move loses.

9 .tLlbS ! .ib7 10.tt:lbc7+ 'it>d7 11. tt:lxa8 1-0 Edwards - Berzanskis, USA 1988.

8 .. . eS? ! - Black loses the ex­change after this move and his king remains in the centre. 9.tLlbS axbS 10 . .ib6 1Mfd7 11.tt:lc7+ lt>e7, Tyutyunnik - Wisnet, Email 2006 and White wins easily here after 12.tt:lxa8 bxa4 (Following 12 . . . 1Mfc6 13.axbS 1Mfxe4+ 14 . .ie3 .ib7 1S.E1a7 tt:lbd7 16.tt:lc7 tt:lg4 17.1Mfd3+­White wins the exchange, forcing a transition into an endgame.) 13 . .ie3 1Mfc6 14.tt:lb6+- White's

3S

Chapter 3

knight is out of the corner and Black loses his queenside pawns.

8 . . . i.b7 - The pawn-structure is changed in White's favour after this move. 9 .tt)xf6+ gxf6 10.f3 e6 ll.i.c4 Wfc8 12 .Wfe2 tt)d7 13.0-0 h5, Kislik - S.Farago, Budapest 2009 and by playing 14.a5 h4 15. h3 �h5 16.i.f2 Wfc7 17.f4± White occupies additional space imped­ing considerably Black's possible counterplay.

8 . . . e6 9.tt)xf6+ Wfxf6 10.Wfd2

and now : 10 . . . d5 - Black protects his

b4-pawn, but his d5-pawn re­mains vulnerable. ll.exd5 exd5 12.0-0-0 i.e7 13.tt)f3 0-0 14. Wfxd5 tt)c6 15.i.d3+- White has an extra pawn and considerably better development. Black can hardly exploit the defects of his opponent's king shelter, Meule­mans - F.Mueller, Email 2003.

In answer to 10 . . . tt)d7, Zieher - Stelting, Hamburg 1987, the simplest reaction for White would be 11.f3 tt)c5 (ll . . . a5? 12.tt)b5+-) 12.Wfxb4 i.d7 13.Wfb6 i.e7 14.tt)c6± and besides an extra pawn, he ends up with a powerful bishop-pair.

36

10 . . . e5 - Black weakens the light squares in the centre after this move, Naroditsky - A.Smith, Reno 2007, White's most energet­ic reaction here would be 11.tt)f5! i.x£5 (It would be very bad for Black to continue tentatively with ll . . . tt)c6 12.Wfd5 i.b7 13.0-0-0 �d8 14.i.xa6! +-) 12 .exf5 tt)d7 13. Wfd5 �b8 14.i.xa6 Wfxf5 15.i.d3± ­The material is equal, but White dominates on the light squares in the centre and his passed a4-pawn is very dangerous.

10 . . . i.e7 - Black does not pro­tect his pawn, hoping to obtain a lead in development and to create counterplay on the kings ide and in the centre. ll.Wfxb4 0-0 12.i.d3 d5 13.Wfd2 i.b7 14.exd5 i.xd5 15.0-0 tt)d7 16.c4 i.b7 17.Wfc2 Wfh4 18.g3 Wfh5 19.i.e2 Wfh3 20 .i.f3± After an accurate play White has parried his opponent's threats preserving his extra pawn, Claridge - Hoenig, Email 2005.

9.exd5

9 . . . i.b7 9 . . . a5 - Black protects reliably

his b4-pawn, but he weakens his queenside. 10 . .tb5+ .td7 11.0-0 g6 12.Wff3 hb5 13.axb5 .tg7 14.l2Je6 !+- Jenal - Schweizer, Bad Ragaz 1991.

He falls behind considerably in development and ends up with an inferior pawn-structure after 9 . . . e5 10.dxe6 fxe6, Neumaerker - Heinel, corr. 1974. White can exploit this by playing 11.Wff3 ! d5 12 .Wfh5+! 'it>d7 (12 . . . g6 13.Wfe5+-) 13.g3 ! ? and in view of the danger­ous threat 14 . .th3, Black will have to reply with 13 . . . Wfe8 14.Wfe5 t2Jc6 (14 . . . Wfg6 15 . .th3+-) 15.t2Jxc6 'it>xc6 16 . .tb5+ ! axb5 17.axb5+ 'it>b7 18.1'!xa8 'it>xa8 19.0-0+- -he has managed to keep his e6-pawn, but his king is beyond sal­vation.

9 . . . .td7 - Black impedes the development of his own queen­side with this move. 10.id3 g6 11.Wff3 .tg7 12.t2Je6 ! ? (This ex­change is not forced for White, but it is very advantageous for him.) 12 . . . fxe6 13.dxe6 l'!f8 (Black could have defended more tena­ciously sacrificing the exchange with the line: 13 . . . he6 14.Wfxa8 hb2 15.1'!dl 0-0 16.0-0±) 14.Wfxa8 ic6 15.Wfa7 hb2 16. 0-0! +- His king is stranded in the centre and his pieces are dis­coordinated, so he will not save this position. 16 . . . ha1 17.1'!xal idS 18 . .th6 l'!f6 19.Wfxa6 t2Jxa6 20.ib5+ 1-0 Sakai - Batres Bi­anchi, Email 2001.

10 . .ic4

5 . . . a6 6. ie3

1 0 • • • ti'c7 10 . . . g6? ! 11.Wfd2 a5 - Black

saves the pawn, but he will pay a dear price for this. 12 .ib5+ t2Jd7 13.t2Je6 Wfc8 14.Wfd4 1'!g8 15.Wfb6+­and he is helpless against the threat t2Jc7+, Ledezma Alvarez, -Batres Bianchi, corr. 2008.

10 . . . Wfa5?! 11.0-0 Wfc5 (Black has lost two vital tempi with his queen moves.) 12 . .tb3 Wfc7 13.a5 t2Jd7 14.t2Jc6 hc6 15.dxc6 t2Je5 16. .tb6 Wfc8 17.c7+- He has failed to develop his kingside, A.Barskij -Orlowski, Dortmund 2005.

10 . . . Wfc8 - Black's queen is more passive here than on the c7-square. 11 . .tb3 t2Jd7 (In case of 11 . . . a5 - he loses an impor­tant tempo protecting this pawn. 12.0-0 g6 13.1'!e1 .tg7 14 . .tg5+­Now, he must either compromise his centre irrevocably, or just give up his central pawn, Marcks - Berning, Germany 2004; it is hardly better for Black to opt for 11 . . . g6 12.a5 .tg7, Salgado Lopez - Bestard, Spain 2008, White can continue with 13.1'!a4 Wfc7 14. 0-0 t2Jd7 15.1'!xb4 t2Jc5 16.Wfal±

37

Chapter 3

and he ends up with a solid ex­tra pawn after 16 . . . tt:Jxb3 17.�a4+ @f8 18.�xb3+-, as well as fol­lowing 16 . . . 0-0 17 . .ic4±) 12.0-0 tt:JcS, Schreiber - S.Spasov, corr. 1999. It would be reasonable for White here to avoid the exchange of his powerful bishop and af­ter 13 . .ia2 ! ? the most principled decision for Black seems to be 13 . . . tt:Jxa4 14.c4 tt:JcS 15.tt:Jb3 e6 (He should better avoid 15 . . . tt:Jd7 16.tt:Ja5 g6 17 . .id4±, since his piec­es will remain very passive, while White will regain easily his pawn.) 16.dxe6 fxe6 (In the variation 16 . . . tt:Jxe6 17.tt:Ja5 :1'1b8 18.tt:Jxb7 :1'1xb7 19 . .ib3± Black's king remains stranded in the centre and his ex­tra pawn is immaterial.) 17.tt:Jxc5 dxcS 18.�h5+ g6 19.�e5 �c6 20. f3 :1'1g8 21.:1'1ad1gg - Black's king is in the centre and it might come under a dangerous attack, while his pieces are discoordinated.

10 . . . tt:Jd7 11.a5 �c7 (After ll . . . g6 12.0-0 .ig7 13.�d2 :1'1b8 14.tt:Jc6 hc6 15.dxc6± White ob­tains a powerful outside passed pawn, supported by his two bish­ops, T.Horvath - Thallinger, Balatonbereny 1995.) 12 .�e2 tt:Jf6 13.tt:Jc6 hc6 14 . .ib6 �c8 15.dxc6 �xc6 16 . .ha6 �xg2 17 . .ib5+ tt:Jd7 18.0-0-0 e6 19.�c4±. After this forced line, Black lags consider­ably in development and follow­ing 19 . . . �b7 20.�xb4 dS 21.�a4 @e7 22 . .ic6 tt:Jxb6 23.�a3+ @d8 24.hb7 ha3 25.ha8 hb2+ 26. @xb2 tt:Jxa8 27.c4+- there arises

38

a technically winning endgame for White, Pugh - Sidenko, Email 1999.

ll . .ib3 tl:ld7 12. 0 - 0

1 2 • • • tllc5 (It would be much worse for Black to choose here 12 . . . tt:Jb6 13.:1'1e1 tt:JxdS 14.hd5 .ixdS 15.tt:Jb5±. White regains his pawn preserving an overwhelm­ing lead in development. After 15 . . . axb5 16.�xd5 :1'1b8 17.axb5 e6 18.:1'1a7+- Black is beyond salva­tion, Tseitlin - Durban Piera, Be­nasque 1993.) 13.�el (Black's queen is more active on c7 than on c8, so the pawn-sacrifice after 13 . .ia2 is not so clear.) 13 • . • �c8 14 • .ic4 tl:ld7 (Black loses after 14 . . . tt:Jxa4 15.ha6! ha6 16.:1'1xa4 .ic4 17.:1'1xb4 .ixdS 18.tt:Jb5+-) 15 . .ia2 tllf6 16.tllf5 g6 (It is pos­sibly more tenacious for Black to defend here with 16 . . . �d7 17.�d3 g6 18.tt:Jh6 .ig7, although he has no active counterplay in sight. 19. h3±) 17 • .id4 gxf5 18 • .ixf6 �g8 19 • .ib3 c.t>d8 2 0 .�e2 �g4 21.f3 gg6 22 . .ih4± - Black's pieces are very passive and his pawn-struc-

ture is compromised, De Sa No­brega - Rensen, Email 2000.

b) 6 . . A�bd7 Black is trying again to save

time for the move e7-e6.

7.g4!? This seemingly aggressive

move is perfectly justified, be­cause the knight on g6 does not have a good square to retreat to and Black must either lose time to free the d7-square, or weaken his position by playing h7-h6, or start active actions in the centre and White is much better prepared for this.

7 . . . d5 We must have a look at some

other possibilities for Black: 7 . . . g6 - He loses numerous

tempi with this move. 8.g5 tt:lh5 9.i.e2 tt:lg7 10 .h4t - Black has made three moves with his knight and it has ended up at the place of the dark-squared bishop and his lag in development has even in­creased, Varga - Bilek, Hungary 1988.

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3

7 . . . b5 - Black ignores the basic threat of his opponent. 8.g5 tt:lg8, Rodi - Szmetan, Pinamar 2001. White has won a couple of tempi and he has occupied space in the centre and on the kingside. He can begin active actions all over the entire board: 9.a4 bxa4 10J�xa4 e6 ll.i.g2 Wffc7 12 .'\We2±;

7 . . . e5 - This move weakens the complex of central squares in Black's camp. 8.tt:lf5 tt:lb6 9.g5 tt:lxe4 10.tt:lxg7+ i.xg7 ll.tt:lxe4 d5 12 .i.c5 !? i.e6? (He has some chances of a successful defence after a transition into an end­game: 12 . . . dxe4 13.\Wxd8+ 'i!fxd8 14.i.xb6+ 'i!fe7 15 . .ig2 i.f5 16. 0-0-0 Elc8 17.c3t, although even then his pawns on on e6 and e5 do not beautify his position at all.) 13.tt:ld6+ 'i!fd7 14.c4!± White opens files in the centre, emphasizing the unfavourable placement of his opponent's king. 14 . . . Wffc7 15.cxd5 \Wxc5 16.dxe6+ fxe6 17.tt:lxb7+ '!Wd5 18 . .ig2+- Thorhallsson -Tate, New York 1996;

7 . . . tt:le5 - Black's knight is very unstable on this square. 8.h3 e6 9.f4 tt:lc6 10.Wif3 \Wc7 11.0-0-0 i.d7 12 .g5± White has a great lead in development, Ten Hertog -Van der Auweraert, Venlo 2008.

7 . . . tt:lb6 - Black's knight pre­vents on this square his stand­ard counterplay connected with the advance of the b-pawn. 8.f3 (Now, White would not need to consider the possibility tt:lg4 in re­sponse to g5.) 8 . . . h6 (After 8 . . . e6

39

Chapter 3

9.Wfd2 i.e7 10.0-0-0 tLlfd7, Lefe­vre - Mancini, France 2007, it de­serves attention for White to opt for ll.<i>b1 0-0 12 .h4 tLle5 13.b3 ! ? and Black's knights are deprived of the c4-square and they have no other comfortable outposts. 13 . . . Wfc7 14.h5 d5 15.exd5 tLlxd5 16.tLlxd5 exd5 17.g5±)

9.W!'d2 Wfc7 10.0-0-0 e6 11.h4 i.d7, Prasad - Bozinovic, Biel 2001. Here, White should con­sider 12J'!g1 ! ? with the following exemplary variations : 12 . . . tLlc4 (It is worse for Black to play 12 . . . g6 13.tLlb3!?, since it is incon­ceivable how he can complete the development of his kingside and his attempt to organize some queenside counterplay after 13 . . . tLlc4 14.i.xc4 Wfxc4 leads following 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 tLlh5 17.i.d4 l'l:g8 18.i.e5± to the loss of his d6-pawn.) 13.i.xc4 Wfxc4 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 tLlh5 16.g6 fxg6 17.l'l:xg6t - White has seized firmly the ini­tiative and his pieces are much better prepared for the fight, while Black can hardly organize any counterplay and his king is rather unsafe.

40

7 . . . tLlc5 - The knight does not prevent the advance of the b5-pawn from this square, but it is not so well placed here at all. 8.f3 h6 (In case of 8 . . . g6, Varga -Csom, Hungary 1993, there arise positions typical for the Dragon variation - see volume 11, but af­ter Black has lost time for the move a7-a6 and has a misplaced knight on c5. 9.W!'d2 i.g7 10. 0-0-0t; or 8 . . . e5 9 .tLlb3 i.e6 10. g5.

Black has tried in practice both retreats of his knight and after 10 . . . tLlh5 ll.W!'d2 i.e7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.<±>blt - White's pieces are very comfortably placed and he has a clear-cut plan for the im­provement of his position. 13 . . . b5 14.l'l:g1 Wfc7 15.tLld5 i.xd5 16.exd5 tLlxb3 17.cxb3 ! - White occupies now the c-file and penetrates to the c6-square. 17 . . . Wfd7 18.i.d3 l'l:fc8, Chandler - B.Larsen, Hast­ings 1988 and here after 19.i.e4! l'l:c7 20.l'l:c1 l'l:xc1+ 21.l'l:xcl l'l:c8 22 . l'l:c6± he either seizees the only open file, or ends up with a dan­gerous passed pawn. It is hardly better for Black to choose here

10 . . . tt:lfd7 11.'?;Vd2 and now after 1l . . .i.e7 12 .h4 h6 13J;:g1 hxg5 14. hxg5 g6 15.0-0-0± Munoz -Tjipueja, Mallorca 2004, as well as following 1l . . .'?;Vc7 12 .0-0-0 tt:lxb3+ 13.cxb3 '?;VaS 14.@b1 ii.e7 15.h4 tt:lc5 16.ii.c4± R.Perez - Mar­tinez Zazo, Pamplona 2003, White is clearly better in the centre and he has an obvious plan for a king­side offensive, having occupied the key d5-outpost.) 9.'?;Vd2

9 . . . e5 (It is not better for Black to opt for 9 . . . b5 10.0-0-0 e6, Er­delyi - Orgovan, Hungary 2003, because after ll.tt:ldxb5 ! he loses in case of ll . . . axb5 12.ii.xc5+-, but even after the more tenacious de­fence ll . . . tt:lcxe4 12 .fxe4 axb5 13. ii.xb5+ ii.d7 14.ii.xd7+ '?;Vxd7 15. '?;Ve2 '?;Vb7 16.ii.d4 ii.e7 17.h4± White ends up with an extra pawn and a superior development.) 10.tt:lb3 ii.e6 11.0-0-0 '?;Vc7 (Black fails to organize sufficient counterplay after ll . . . b5 12.tt:lxc5 dxc5 13.tt:ld5 ii.xdS 14.exd5 ii.d6 15.h4± White has a powerful passed pawn and a dangerous kingside initiative as well as a bishop-pair, Rosito - B. Larsen, Buenos Aires 2002.)

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3

12 .@b1 ii.e7 (After 12 . . . tt:lh7? ! Black isolates deliberately his knight from the fight for the cen­tre 13.h4 '?;Vc6 14.tt:ld5 ii.xdS 15. exd5± C. Hansen - B. Larsen, Dan­mark 1998.) 13.h4 0-0-0 14.tt:ld5 ii.xd5 15.exd5 @b8 16.ii.e2 tt:lfd7 17.c4 tt:lf8 18.tt:la5 tt:lg6 19.b4 tt:la4 20J:kl± Black's king can hardly be safe on the queenside, C.Han­sen - B.Larsen, Taastrup 1998.

7 .. . h6 - This move compro­mises Black's kingside. 8J;:g1

Now, he has tried in practice: 8 . . . g6 - transposing to the

Dragon variation pawn-structure with the obviously obsolete moves a7-a6 and h7-h6. 9 .h4 e5 (It would be more in the spirit of the Drag­on variation for Black to play 9 . . . tbe5, but even then after 10.ii.e2 '?;Vb6 ll.tt:lb3 '?;Vc6 12.f3 tt:lc4 13. ii.xc4 '?;Vxc4 14.'?;Vd2 b5 15.a3 ii.d7 16.tt:la5 '?;Vc7 17.tt:le2± White is con­siderably better developed.) 10. tt:lb3 b5 (Or 10 . . . ii.e7 11.g5 tt:lh5 12. tt:ld5± and Black has problems with the protection of his d6-pawn, S.Klimov - Tate, Maas­tricht 2008.) ll.g5 hxg5 12.hxg5 tt:lh5 13.a4 b4 14.tt:ld5± Black's

41

Chapter 3

pieces are scattered all over the entire board and they are discoor­dinated, Varga - Tate, Budapest 1997;

8 . . . b5 - This attempt is some­what premature, although it is a more typical Sicilian move. 9.a4 bxa4, Dgebuadze - Tate, Deurne 2000, Black's a4-pawn is not running anywhere and it is es­sential for White to fortify now his position in the centre. 10.f3 tt:leS 1U�xa4 gS ! (In case of 11 . . . E:b8 12 .ha6 ha6 13.E:xa6 E:xb2 14.'�a1 E:b8 15.E:a7± Black might fail to complete his development altogether.) 12 .i.b5+ i.d7 (In the variation 12 . . . tt:Jfd7 13.�a1, it is bad for him to play 13 . . . e6 14.ha6 ha6 15.E:xa6 E:b8 16.b3±, be­cause he obtains no compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn, but even after 13 . . . h5 14.gxh5 E:xhS 15.E:xg5 E:xh2 16.f4 E:h3 17.'i!?f2± the material balance will hardly last for long. White has completed the development of all his pieces, while Black has only a rook in action.) 13.E:xa6 E:xa6 14.ha6 �b6 15.i.b5 hbS 16.tt:lcxb5 dS 17.'i!?f2i �b8 (Black loses after 17 . . . dxe4? 18.tt:le6+-, as well as following 17 . . . tt:Jc4? 18 .�a1 �b8 19.�a4 tt:ld7 20.tt:lc6+-) 18.exd5 tt:lxdS 19.�e2±. White has won a pawn, but before he commences the process of realizing it, he must bring his king to safety and con­solidate the position by exchang­ing his opponent's active pieces. 19 . . . h5 20.gxh5 tt:lxe3 21.�xe3

42

E:xhS 22 .h3 !± White's king is completely safe now and Black achieves nothing with the line: 22 . . . E:xh3 23.E:xg5 tt:Jc4 24.�e4 E:h2+ 25.E:g2+-

8.�b3! This move is not so attractive

at first sight, but it is the best for White.

Black obtains an excellent play after 8.tt:lxd5 tt:JxdS 9.exd5 tt:lf6 !? 10.c4 tt:Jxg4+!, as well as following 8.exd5 tt:lb6 9.i.g2 hg4+±

8 . . . �xe4 8 . . . dxe4? ! - This move seems

very risky. 9.g5 tt:Jg8 10.�d4 h6 ll.g6 ! ? tt:Jgf6 12.0-0-0± White's lead in development may soon turn into a decisive attack, Perry - Sampieri, corr. 2007.

8 . . . h5? ! - White is much bet­ter prepared for tactical actions. 9.g5 tt:lg4 10.g6! (White presents his opponent with a bishop-pair indeed, but he destroys his op­ponent's king shelter.) 10 . . . fxg6 ll.'�xdS tt:Jxe3 12 .fxe3 �c7 13.0-0-0 tt:Jes 14.i.b5+ ! axbS lS.tt:lxbS �b8 16.�d8+ 'i!?f7 17.tt:lc7+-

Black's king can only be saved at the price of huge material losses, De la Paz Perdomo - Gongora Reyes, Santa Clara 2000.

9.lilxd5 tt:\d6 It is hardly better for Black to

play 9 . . . e6 10.ttlb6 l'!b8 ll.tt:lxc8 E:xc8 (In reply to 11 . . . �xc8, N.Pedersen - Cardoso Contreras, corr. 1999, it seems attractive for White to continue with 12 .�d4 tt:\ef6 13.0-0-0 �c6 14 . .ie2± and he has a better development, a powerful bishop-pair and a clear­cut plan for a successful kingside offensive.) 12 . .ig2 tt:ld6 13.0-0t ­White has a long-lasting initiative thanks to his lead in development and the powerful light-squared bishop, which has no opponent at all, Lounek - Hruby, corr. 2005.

1 0 .�e2

10 • • • e6 10 . . . b5 - This move is played

with the idea to neutralize White's light-squared bishop. 1l ..ig2 .ib7 12 .0-0-0 e6 13 . .if4 l'!c8 14.:1'1he1 tt:lc4 15.tt:ld4± Black has failed to trade the light-squared bishops

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3

without positional concessions and he has no defence against 16.tt:lxe6, McKenzie - Booth, Aus­tralia 1991.

ll . .if4 tt:\b6 12.tt:\xb6 �xb6 13. 0 - 0 - 0 .id7 14 • .ig2

14 • . • .ic6 It is possibly more resilient

for Black to defend with 14 .. .Ek8, Fiensch - Windhausen, Email 1999, although after 15.:1'1he1! .ibS (But not 15 . . . h5? ! 16.g5 .ibS 17.�e5! �xf2 18.:1'1d2 �b6 19.g6+- and Black will need to give up material in order to save his king.) 16.�d2 l'!d8 17.�d4 �xd4 18.:1'1xd4± - White's forces are perfectly mobilized and de­spite the exchange of queens, he maintains dangerous threats, for example - 19.ttla5.

15 . .ixc6+ ti'xc6 16.tt:\d4 �c8 17.ghe1 tt:\c4 18.tt:lf5!+- (All White's pieces are concentrat­ed around the enemy king and Black is beyond salvation.) 18 . • .

�c5 19.�d3 ti'b5 2 0 . �d4 l3g8 21..ig5 tt:\d6 22.�xd6 1-0 Sax ­Radulov, Baile Herculane 1982.

43

Chapter 3

c) 6 . . . ttlc6 This a natural developing

move. 7.f3

Among the numerous possi­bilities for Black, we will mention: cl) 7 .. :�b6, c2) 7 ... i.d7 and c3) 7 . . . d5.

About 7 . . . e6 - see Chapters 5-8; 7 . . . e5 8.ttlb3 - see 6 . . . e5, vol­ume 14; 7 . . . g6 - see volume 11;

He has also tried in practice: 7 . . . ttle5 - This is an attempt

to organize some quick counter­play, but his development suffers. 8 .�d2 b5 (In case of 8 . . . .id7 9.g4 ttlg6, Fraga Castro - Marques Ma­roto, Binissalem 2002, it seems at­tractive for White to continue with 10.g5 ttlg8 11.h4 h6 12.E1h2± and he has an overwhelming lead in development.) 9.a4 ttlc4 10 . .ixc4 bxc4 11.ttld5 e6, Cvicela - Mrva, Tatranske Zruby 2005. Now, he should consider 12.ttlc6 ! ? �d7 13. ttlxf6+ gxf6 14.ttla5 �c7 15.0-0 E1g8 16.b4 .id7 17.c3 E1c8 18.�f2± ending up with a clear advantage. Black's bishops are passive and

44

his pawn-structure is seemingly impressive, but quite static.

7 . . . ttlxd4?! - Black only acti­vates the enemy queen. 8. �xd4 e6? ! He has lost an important tempo, since White's queen has come to the d4-square in one move (Black had better play 8 . . . e5 9 .�d2 - see 6 . . . e6 7.f3 ttlc6 8 .�d2 ttlxd4 9 . .ixd4 e5 10.i.e3, Chap­ter 5, line a). 9 .g4 fi.e7 10.0-0-0 0-0, Lutley - Tsagarakis, Ade­laide 2004 and after 11.g5 ttld7 12 .h4t White maintains excellent attacking chances.

7 . . . �c7 8.�d2 ttlxd4 (About 8 . . . e6 9.0-0-0 - see Chapter 5, variation c; 8 .. . g6 - see volume 9; 8 . . . .id7 9.g4 - see variation c2 ; 8 . . . e5 9.ttlb3 .ie6 - see 6 . . . e5 7.ttlb3 fi.e6 8 . .ie3 ttlc6 9.�d2 �c7, while after 9 . . . .ie7 10.g4 h6 11.0-0-0 ttla5, Di Berardino -Chemin, Brazil 2005, White con­tinues with 12.ttlxa5 �xa5 13.�f2 �c7 14.h4t leading in develop­ment and proceeding with his standard kingside initiative. It is hardly any better for Black to opt for 8 . . . b5 9 .ttlxc6 �xc6, Nguyen Due Viet - Thanarotrung, Vung Tau 2008, because White follows with 10.a4 ! organizing a powerful offensive on the queenside, analo­gously to variation a, for example : 10 . . . b4 11.ttld5 ttlxd5 12.exd5 �b7 13 . .ic4± and Black is noticeably squeezed and he has problems completing his development, or 10 . . . bxa4 11.E1xa4 e6 12 . .id3± and White has Black's weak a6-pawn

as a very juicy target.) 9.�xd4 e6 10.g4 ttld7 11.0-0-0 ttleS 12 .ie2 ,td7 13.f4 ttlc6 14.�b6!? (Black has great difficulties in this end­game, because he has no coun­terplay, due to the evident lack of space.) 14 . . . �xb6 1S.hb6 l:'!:c8 16.h4 !J.e7 17.gS± Brkic - Abergel, Brno 2006.

cl) 7 . . . �b6

Black postpones for a while the advance of his b-pawn and he forces his opponent to make a choice. White must either sacri­fice the b2-pawn, or make the not so active move a2-a3, which is in fact very useful for him in many variations.

8.a3 After 8.�d2 �xb2 9.l:'!:b1 �a3

10.ttlxc6 bxc6 11.f4gg, White's compensation for the pawn is beyond doubt, but he will hardly prove this to be sufficient to claim an advantage.

8 . . . e5 8 . . . �xb2?? 9.ttla4+-8 . . . �c7 9.g4 h6 10.�d2 ttlxd4,

5 . . . a6 6.!J.e3 ttlc6 7 j3

Landais - Blanchard, Arradon 200S and now, it seems very at­tractive for White to play 11.�xd4 eS 12 .�a4+ !d7 13.i.bS! and af­ter the trade of the light-squared bishops, the vulnerability of the dS-square will be hurting Black. 13 . . . l:'!:c8 14.hd7+ �xd7 1S.�xd7+ ttlxd7 16.0-0-0 i.e7 17.h4;!;

8 . . . i.d7 9.g4 h6 10.i.c4 l:'!:c8 (It is not preferable for Black to play lO . . . ttlaS 11./J.b3 ttlxb3 12.cxb3, because after 12 . . . g6 13.�d2 l:'!:c8 14.b4 �d8 1S.O-O-O i.a4 16.b3 !J.d7 17.<±>b2 eS 18.ttlde2± he has reached a position more typical for the Dragon variation, but with the crucial defect that his kingside is completely out of action, while in the line: 12 . . . e6 13.�d3 �c7 14.0-0-0 !J.e7 1S.<±>b1t White can seize the initiative on both sides of the board.) ll.i.b3 ttleS 12 .�e2 �aS 13.0-0-0 bS, Solak - Lopez Martinez, Patras 1999. He must continue here with the standard prophylactic for similar situations - 14.<±>b1 and after 14 . . . e6 1S.h4 il..e7 16.gSt White is much ahead of his opponent in the creation of concrete threats.

8 . . . e6 9.�d2 �c7 (It would be worse for Black to play 9 . . . �xb2 10.l:'!:a2 �b6 ll.ttlxe6 �aS 12.ttlxf8 l:'!:xf8 13.i.e2± the material is equal, but White dominates in the centre and he has a powerful bishop-pair.) 10.g4

(diagram) 10 . . . i.e7 (After lO . . . bS, P.Smir­

nov - Michelakis, Mumbai 2004,

4S

Chapter 3

he should better play ll.lt:Jxc6, forc­ing his opponent's queen to occupy an unfavourable position, after for example: ll . . . �xc6 12.0-0-0 i.b7 13.g5 lt:Jd7 14.h4 lt:JeS 15.i.e2 l'!c8 16.h5 lt:Jc4 17 . .b:c4 �xc4 18.i.d4± White is much ahead of his oppo­nent.) ll.gS lt:Jd7 12.0-0-0 0-0, Schmaltz - Joachim, Germany 2002 (Black should better avoid 12 . . . b5 13.lt:Jxc6 �xc6 14.lt:Je2t and White's knight goes to d4 and it is tremendously active there. 14 . . . lt:Jc5? - This is a blunder of a piece and practically every other move is preferable. 15.�c3 0-0 16.b4+- Moberg - Ikonic, Swe­den 2001), 13.h4t White has ex­cellent chances of organizing a kingside attack.

9.tl)f5

46

9 . . . �c7 Naturally, it is again a disas­

ter for Black to play 9 . . . �xb2?? 10.lt:Ja4+-

After 9 . . . �d8 10 . .ic4 i.x£5 11. exfS i.e7 12.g4 h6 13.�d3 bS 14. i.b3 0-0 15.0-0-0t White has excellent attacking prospects. 15 . . . b4 (This move looks forced.) 16. axb4 lt:Jxb4 17.�d2 dS 18.g5 hxgS 19.i.xg5. Now, after the aggressive move 19 . . . �a5, White organizes a powerful attack following 20.\t>b1 l'!fd8 21.l'!hg1 l'!ac8 22 .�g2�, for example: 22 . . . \t>fS 23.i.d2 lt:Je8 24. lt:JxdS l'!xdS 25.i.xd5 �xdS 26.i.xb4 �b7 27.i.xe7+ �xe7 28. l'!dS l'!b8 29.b3+- and he will win easily with the extra exchange, while in case of 19 . . . �c8 20.l'!hg1 �xfS 21.i.h6 lt:JhS 22 .lt:Jxd5 lt:JxdS 23.i.xd5± White has the two-bish­op advantage and his king is com­pletely safe, contrary to its black counterpart, camp. JONNY -camp. PANDIX 2009, Pamplona 2009.

1 0 .�d2 White completes his develop­

ment. It is worse for him to continue

with the seemingly attractive line: 10.g4 i.x£5 ll.gxfS lt:Je7 12 . .id3 dS! 13 .lt:Jxd5 lt:JexdS 14.exd5, H.lvanov - Dibley, Email 2002, because after 14 . . . i.c5 ! ? 15.i.xc5 �xeS 16.�e2 �aS+ ! 17.c3 0-0-0 18.0-0-0 l'!xdS 19.i.c4 l'!xd1+ 20.l'!xd1 �c7?- Black has good counter chances.

10 . . . .txf5

In case of lO . . . d5 11.lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 12.\WxdS .ie6 13.\Wd2 g6 14.lt:Jg3 ig7 15.\Wc3± Black does not ob­tain an adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

ll.e:xf5

ll . . . .ie7 ll . . . dS - This is an insufficient

attempt by him to activate his dark-squared bishop at the price of a pawn. 12 .lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 13.\WxdS l':1d8 14.\We4±

11. . .lt:Je7 - Black enables his opponent to sacrifice advanta­geously a piece with this move. 12 .ib5+!? axbS (Accepting the sacrifice seems forced; other­wise, White wins an important tempo for his development: 12 . . . ttlc6 13.ic4!? lt:Jd4 14.ia2 lt:JxfS 15.i.f2gg. Black has an extra pawn, but he lags in development, hav­ing presented his opponent with a complete control over the light squares in the centre of the board. 15 . . . h5 - This is a prophylactic move against g2-g4 and it is nec­essary, but insufficient. 16.0-0-0 g6 17.'i!?b1 i.g7 18.:Bhf1!? :Bd8

5 ... a6 6.ie3 ttlc6 7 .j3

19.\We2±. White advances una­voidably his kingside pawns and this provides him with a stable advantage combined with his con­trol over the centre and Black's passive pieces, for example: 19 . . . lt:Je7 20.g4 bS 21.g5 ttJh7 22 .lt:Jd5 lt:JxdS 23.hd5 0-0 24.\Wd3 'i!?h8 25.h4±) 13.lt:Jxb5 �aS 14.ttJxd6+ 'i!?d7

15.c3!? White tries to avoid ex­changingqueens. 15 . . . �d5 (Black's defence is much more difficult with queens present on the board: 15 . . . lt:Jed5 16.lt:Jxf7 :Bg8 17.lt:Jxe5+ 'i!?c7 18.i.d4 :Be8 19.b4 1Mfa6 20. 'i!?f2 .id6 21.:Bhe1 bS 22 .'1Mfd3± White has already four pawns for the piece and Black's monarch is completely unsafe.) 16.lt:Jxf7 :Bg8 (It is not preferable for him to opt for 16 . . . \Wxd2+ 17.hd2 :Bg8 18.ltJxe5+ 'i!?c7 19.g4± White's four pawns look much stronger than Black's knight in this end­game.) 17.0-0-0 'i!?c7 18.1Mfxd5 lt:JexdS (18 . . . lt:Jfxd5 19.ic5±) 19. if2 ttJf4 20.:Bhe1!± The position has been simplified considerably, but White still has very dangerous threats against the enemy king.

47

Chapter 3

20 . . . ltlxg2 (20 . . . Ei:a5 21.i.g3 ltl6h5 22.ltlxe5 ltlxg2 23J:!d7+ 'it>c8 24. Ei:ed1 i.c5 25.ltlc4+-) 21 .Ei:xe5 ltlf4 22.Ei:d4 ltl4h5 (Retreating to the centre is bad 22 . . . ltl4d5 23.i.g3, after 23 . . . 'it>b6 24.Ei:e6+ 'it>a5 25.i.e1+-, as well as follow­ing 23 . . . 'it>d7 24.c4 Ei:a4 25.b4+­and Black suffers huge material losses.) 23.Ei:c4+ 'it>b8 24.Ei:b5 Ei:a6 (After 24 . . . i.e7 25.ltle5+- White corrects the material balance in his favour.) 25.ltld8 i.c5 ! - This is the most tenacious defence for Black. 26.Ei:xb7+ 'it>a8 27.Ei:xc5 Ei:xd8 28.Ei:cc7+- White's pieces are much more active and he will soon advance unavoidably his pawns.

12. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 Or 1 2 . . . Ei:d8 13.'\Wf2 '\Wd7 14.g4

h6 15.h3 ! b5 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for 15 . . . d5 16.i.b6 Ei:c8 17.f4 exf4 18.i.g2±) 16.f4 0-0 17.i.g2 Ei:c8 18.'it>bl± White con­trols the centre and has excellent attacking chances. Even after a transfer to an endgame, he will be much better thanks to his power­ful bishop-pair.

13.g4 The pawn-offensive on the

kingside is very attractive in this situation.

(diagram) 13 . . . d5 Black is trying to liven up his

pieces sacrificing a pawn. 13 . . . h6? - This move entices

White to attack outright. 14.i.xh6! ll:Jd4 (In case of 14 . . . gxh6 15.

48

�xh6--+ Black is lost in case of 15 . . . �d8 16.g5 ll:Jg4 17.�h5 i.xg5+ 18. 'it>bl+-, as well as after the more resilient defence 15 . . . ll:Jh7 16.ll:Jd5 '\Wd8 17.h4 Ei:e8 18.g5+- and White's attack is decisive, or 16 . . . i.g5+ 17.'\Wxg5+ ll:Jxg5 18.ll:Jxc7+­and he has a couple of extra pawns in the endgame.) 15.i.xg7 'it>xg7 16.g5 ll:Jd5 17.f6+ 'it>g8

18.'\Wxd4!--+ White obtains only two extra pieces for the queen, but he will soon win much more mate­rial, because of his activity and the open position of the enemy king: 18 . . . exd4 (It is a disaster for Black to play 18 . . . ll:Jxc3 19.'\Wh4! Ei:fc8 20.bxc3 '\Wxc3 21.i.d3+-) 19.ll:Jxd5 '\Wc5 20.ll:Jxe7+ 'it>h8 21.Ei:g1 Ei:g8 (In the variation 2l . . .Ei:fe8 22 .Ei:e1 Ei:xe7

23. fxe7 :Be8 24 . .id3+- White ends up with a material advantage and Black's king is endangered.) 22.f4 E:ge8 23 . .id3+- White's power­ful knight on e7 paralyzes Black completely and if Black gives up a rook for it, then White will have a material advantage and a power­ful passed e7-pawn.

13 .. .\WaS - This move is rath­er timid. 14.g5 lt:Jh5 15.'i!lb1 b5 16.f6--+ White opens the shelter of the enemy king at the price of only a pawn.

14.lt:Jxd5 lflxd5 15.'Wxd5 l3ad8 16.'We4

16 • • • l3xdl + (In the variation 16 . . . ltld4 17.i.d3 lt:Jb3+ 18.'i!lb1 lt:Jc5 19.hc5 hc5 20.f6 g6 21.i.c4± the presence of bishops of op­posite colours on the board does not facilitate Black's defence at all.) 17.�xdl lfld4 18 • .id3 .ic5 19.c3 lflb3 2 0 .f6 g6 21 . .ih6 l3d8 22. �c2 lfld4+ 23. �bl lfle6 24 • .ic4± - White has an extra pawn, a powerful bishop-pair and safer king and this provides him with a stable advantage.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 lt:Jc6 7 .fJ

c2) 7 • • • .id7 This is not the most active

position for this bishop. If Black plays e7-e5 - then it belongs to e6, while in case he keeps his pawn on e6, then it should be placed om b7.

8.'Wd2

8 . • . 'Wc7 About 8 . . . e6 9.g4 - see 7 . . . ttJc6

8.'\Wd2 i.d7 9.g4, Chapter 5, line b.

8 . . . g6 9 .0-0-0 i.g7 10.g4 -see volume 11, Chapter 10, varia­tion c.

8 . . . '\WaS?! - This is just a loss of time. 9.lt:Jb3 '\Wh5. White can ex­ploit the inadequate placement of Black's queen by playing 10 .g4 '\Wg6 ll.g5 ttJhS (It is even more risky for Black to play ll . . . lt:Jg8 13.0-0-0 e6 14.h4+-, because his queen is totally misplaced.) 12 .ttJd5 :Bc8 13.tDb6 l=k7 14. 0-0-0± - and he has great prob­lems with his development.

8 . . . b5? ! - This move is prema­ture. 9.a4 b4 10.lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5 11.lt:Jxc6 hc6 12.exd5 .ib7 13.'\Wxb4±.

49

Chapter 3

White has won a pawn and Black's attempt to regain it with 13 . . . i.xd5 14.i.b5+ axb5 15.�xb5+ �d7 16.�xd5 l"lxa4 17.0-0+- led to a position in which his king re­mained quite endangered in the game Hamm - Schmidt, Germa­ny 2001.

8 . . . e5 (In this variation, the move 7 . . . i.d7 is evidently a loss of time.) 9 .l2Jb3 b5 (9 . . . i.e7 10.0-0-0 0-0 11.g4. Now, Black only loses two tempi with the line: 11 . . . �c7? 12 .g5 l2Je8 13.l2Jd5± D.Czar­nota - Lowry O'Reilly, Peniscola 2002, but even after 11 . . . l"lc8 12 .g5 l2Je8 13.l2Jd5t White has a bishop­pair and excellent attacking pros­pects, Gomez Enguita - Garcia Mendez, Zaragoza 1995) 10 .g4 i.e7 11.g5 l2Jh5, Goransson -Keesman, Haarlem 2002. Now, it seems very attractive for White to play 12.l2Jd5 l"lc8 13.l2Jxe7 @xe7 (It is worse for Black to opt for 13 . . . �xe7? 14.0-0-0+- White wins a pawn and Black's attempt to organize some counterplay with 14 . . . i.e6 15.�xd6 �xd6 16.l"lxd6 l2Jb4, is futile, because of 17.l2Jc5.) 14.a4 !? (Naturally, White can continue calmly 14.0-0-0 i.e6 15.@bU) 14 . . . bxa4 15.l"lxa4 l2Jd4 16.l2Jxd4 i.xa4 17.l2Jf5+ @f8 18.b3 i.e8 19.i.xa6 l"la8 20.i.e2± -White has a more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. He has a pawn and a great lead in development, while Black's rook on h8 will hardly enter the actions any time soon.

50

8 . . . l2Jxd4 9.i.xd4 e5 - In this pawn-structure, the place of Black's light-squared bishop is on e6 (9 . . . e6 10.g4 - see Chapter 5, line bl). 10.i.e3

10 . . . i.e7 (10 . . . i.e6 11.0-0-0 -see 7 . . . l2Jc6 8.�d2 l2Jxd4 9.i.xd4 e5 10.i.e3 i.e6 11. 0-0-0, Chapter 5) 11.0-0-0 h6 (11 . . . i.e6 12 .g4 -see Chapter 6, line a) 12 .g4 �a5, Rerabkova - Valtr, Tabor 2007. White can follow here with 13. �f2 �c7 14.h4 b5 15.@b1 b4 16.l2Je2 i.e6 17.l2Jg3t and he is prepared to begin tactical operations on the kingside, while Black's king is completely unsafe. His attempt to seize the initiative with the move 17 . . . d5, can be countered by White with 18.g5 hxg5 19.hxg5 l"lxh1 20.gxf6 ! l"lxf1 21.�xf1 i.x£6 22.exd5 i.d7 23.l2Je4± and despite the numerous exchanges, Black's defence is very difficult. White's pieces are very active and he has a powerful central passed pawn.

8 . . . l"lc8 9.0-0-0 e6 (About 9 . . . l2Jxd4 10.i.xd4 e5 11 .i.e3 i.e6 12.g4 - see 8 . . . l2Jxd4 9.i.xd4 e5 10.i.e3 i.e6 11.0-0-0 l"lc8 12 .g4, Chapter 5; 9 . . . b5 10.g4 e6 11.g5 l2Jh5 12.

tt:lxc6 - see Chapter 5, line b2; 10.g4

lO . . . tt:leS? ! Black increases de­liberately his lag in development and this provokes White to start active actions. ll.gS tt:lg8, Diaz -Piombino, Buenos Aires 2003. Now, after the attractive line: 12. f4 tt:lg4 13.i.gl h6 14.g6 !--+ White's attack is crushing. Black loses, for example after: 14 . . . fxg6 15.e5 dxeS 16.i.d3 'tt>f7 17.fxe5 tt:lxe5 18.�f4+ . In case of 12 . . . tt:lc4 13.i.xc4 bxc4 14.f5± Black's kingside ends up completely stalemated.) 10.g4 h6 (Black can also play here: 10 . . . i.e7 ll.gS - Chapter 6; in response to 10 . . . g6, Basiev - Osmiev, Krasno­dar 2003, it seems attractive for White to opt for ll.h4 bS 12 .h5± with dangerous kingside threats; lO . . . tt:leS ll .gS tt:lg8 12.f4 tt:lc4 13. i.xc4 l!xc4 14.f5± and he is con­siderably ahead in development, Ni Hua - Mas, Beijing 2001; 10 . . . 4:lxd4 ll.i.xd4 �aS, Mikhalichen­ko - Soldatov, Kharkov 2004, White can continue here with 12.g5 tt:lhS 13.'tt>bl eS 14.i.e3 i.e6 15.a3 i.e7 16.l!gl t and he acquires extra space and has the typical

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 tt:lc6 7 .j3

initiative for similar positions; lO ... bS - Black's knight on f6 is repelled to the edge of the board after this move. ll .gS tt:lhS 12.f4 b4 13.tt:lce2 �a5 14.'tt>bl dS? - This active try leads to a loss for Black. 15.tt:lb3 �c7 16.exd5 tt:laS, Zbirka - Chyla, Slovakia 2006 and White wins now by following with 17. dxe6 i.xe6 18.tt:led4 tt:lc4 19.i.xc4 i.xc4 20.l!hel i.e7 21.tt:lf5 0-0 22 .i.b6+- Black has succeeded in castling, but he cannot avoid ma­terial losses.) ll.h4

ll . . . bS (After ll . . . i.e7 12 .i.e2 �aS, Forsaa - Rudi, Hammerfest 2003, it looks consistent for White to choose 13.g5--+; Black should better avoid ll . . . tt:leS 12 .i.e2 bS 13.a3 i.e7 14.g5 tt:lg8 15.f4 tt:lc4 16. i.xc4 l!xc4 17.f5--+ and he may fail to develop his kingside, Sofranov - G.Nagy, Vidin 2007.) 12 .i.d3 tt:lxd4 13.i.xd4 i.c6 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 l!xhl 16.l!xhl tt:ld7, S.Ru­dolf - Biel, Germany 2004, after 17.a3 tt:leS 18.i.e2 i.b7 19.f4± White parries his opponent's counterplay on the queenside and he creates dangerous threats in the centre and on the kingside.

51

Chapter 3

9.g4

9 . . . h6 9 . . . e6 10.g5 - see Chapter 5,

line b, 9 . . .'®c7. In response to 9 . . . e5, Radiga­

les Mauri - Parra Pena, Spain 1996, it seems natural for White to continue with 10.ttlb3 h6 11. 0-0-0 !ie7 12 .h4 bS 13.�blt and his pieces are much better de­ployed for the oncoming fight.

9 . . . tt:lxd4 10.hd4 !ic6, Black has played two moves in order to place his bishop on the long di­agonal, but it closes the c-file for him and he will need soon to re­deploy it to b7. (It is also possible for him to try 10 . . . e5 ll.!ie3 !ie6 12 .g5 tt:ld7 13.ttld5 hdS 14.�xd5. It is now too risky for Black to capture on c2, because after 14 . . . �xc2 15.!ic4 �xb2 16.�xf7+ �d8 17.0-0+- his king is doomed in the centre of the board, but even after 14 .. J�c8 15.c3 !ie7 16.h4t White's initiative is running un­opposed, Drabke - Lisanti, Bad Homburg 2006.) 11.0-0-0 h6, Matejov - Bezeg, Slovakia 1997.

52

It deserves attention for White to continue here in the standard fashion 12.�b1 b5 13.h4 e6 14.!ih3 b4 15.ttle2 �b8 16.g5t and he has dangerous kingside threats, for example after 16 . . . tt:ld7 17.g6 tt:leS 18.ttlf4! ttlxf3 19.�e2 tt:lxd4 20.�xd4 eS 21.ttld5 hdS 22 .�xd5 fxg6 23.�g4± Black has great problems defending against the attack along the light squares.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 ? ! It i s much stronger for Black

to play here 10 . . . e6 10.h4 - see Chapter 5, line c1.

In the variation 10 . . . e5? ! n.tt:lfs fix£5 12.gxf5 �as 13.�f2 tt:ld7 14.!ic4± White has stale­mated his opponent completely and controls the light squares in the centre, Redlicki - Sobczynski, Malbork 1999.

It is not better for Black to play lO . . . bS, Lakos - Buzas, Ajka 1997, since following ll.tt:lxc6 hc6 12.ttld5 tt:lxdS 13.exd5 !ib7 14.f4± White impedes the development of his opponent's kingside.

ll.h4 ges, Markovic - Krsnik Cohar, Umag 200S (ll . . . g6 12 .i.e2 i,g7 13.gS hxgS 14.hxgS ltJhS 1S. ltJdS+- Balabaev - Prazak, Li­berec 2003). Black's dark-squared bishop has been developed too late and White can emphasize this with the line: 12.ctJfS ! �aS 13.�b1 lLleS 14.i.e2 �b8 1S.gS±. He is much ahead of his opponent in development and begins immedi­ate active operations.

c3) 7 . • • d5

The position is simplified after this move, but White has superior development and maintains bet­ter prospects.

8.C2Jxd5! After 8.exdS C2Jb4, Black has

good chances of equalizing. 8 •• .li�xd5 9.exd5 �xd5 1 0 .

.!bxc6 (diagram)

10 . • . �xc6 10 . . . bxc6 - He only creates ad­

ditional weaknesses with this move and it is clearly worse for

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 ctJc6 7 .j3

him than the main line. ll.i.d3 i.fS (In answer to ll . . . eS, Kovchan - Gershon, Kharkov 2002, it is good for White to play 12.0-0 with the following exemplary var­iations: 12 . . . i.cS 13.�e2 0-0 14. 1'!ad1 he3+ 1S.�xe3 and here af­ter 1S . . . �xa2 16.�xeS i.e6 17.�c3 1'!fc8 18.1'!a1 �dS 19.1'!fdl±, as well as following 1S . . . �aS 16.a3 g6 17. i.c4± White's pieces are much more active, so Black has no com­pensation for his weak pawns. It is also dubious for him to opt for 12 . . . i.e7 13.�e2 0-0 14.a3 �aS 1S.�f2 i.e6 16.i.b6 �a4 17.1'!ael± and in connection with the threat 18.1'!e4, Black will have to part with a pawn.) 12.hfS �xfS 13. �d4 �aS+, Sulypa - Ivanisevic, Kladovo 2001.

53

Chapter 3

Now, White should better try to increase his lead in develop­ment by playing 14.@f2 ! ? eS (It is riskier for Black to choose here 14 . . J'l:d8 1S.�a7 e6 16.l'l:ad1 i.e7 17.l'l:xd8+ hd8 18.l'l:dl± He lags considerably in development and his queenside pawns need addi­tional protection, so it seems he must follow with 18 . . . 0-0, but in that case after 19.i.c5 l'l:e8 20.b4 �c7 2l.�xc7 hc7 22.l'l:d7 i.eS 23. l'l:a7+- White ends up in an easily winning endgame.) 15.�c4 �bS 16.'1Wc3 i.e7 (16 . . . i.b4? 17.a4+-) 17.l'l:hd1 0-0 (Or 17 . . . l"lb8 18.a4 and Black loses after 18 . . . �xb2? 19.�xc6+ @f8 20.l'l:ab1+-, while in case of 18 . . . �b7 19.�xe5 0-0 20.l'l:ab1 l'l:fe8 2l.�f5± White wins a pawn without any compensa­tion for Black.) 18.l'l:d7 i.b4 19. �b3 �aS 20.�c4 �bS 2l .�xb5 axbS 22.a3 i.aS 23.l'l:ad1 l'l:fd8 24.@e2 f6 25.l'l:1d6± - White is clearly better in this endgame thanks to his dominance over the d-file and his pawn-majority on the queenside.

ll . .id3 e5 The move ll . . . e6 is not so ac­

tive for Black. 12 .i.e4 '!WbS 13.�d4 fS 14.i.d3 �b4+ 1S.@f2 �xd4 16.hd4 .id7 17.l'l:he1 @f7 18.i.c4 l'l:c8 19.i.b3;!:; - White has a sta­ble edge, because of his superior pawn-structure and more active pieces. After 19 . . . l'l:e8 20.l'l:ad1 i.c8, Velcheva - Bojkovic, Belfort 2002, he can ensure the occu­pation of the only open file with

54

2l.i.b6 i.e7 22 . .ia4 l'l:ef8 23.i.d7± 12.Wd2

12 . • . Wc7 In case of 12 .. .f5 13.0-0-0;!:;,

Black's eS-pawn may turn out to be vulnerable in the future.

The activity ofWhite's pieces is very threatening in the variation 12 . . . i.e7 13.�a5 0-0 14.0-0-0!;!:;

The trade of the dark-squared bishops is not facilitating Black's defence after the move 12 . . . i.c5, since White plays 13.0-0-0 0-0 14.i.e4 he3 (It is worse for Black to continue with 14 . . . '1Wc7 15.hc5 �xeS 16.�d6 �xd6 17.l'l:xd6±) 15. �xe3 �a4 16.�b3 Wxb3 17.axb3;!:; White occupies the only open file and therefore his pieces are much more active than their counter­parts.

12 . . . i.e6 13.�a5 ! i.d6 (In case of 13 . . .f6 14.i.e4 �bS 15.�xb5+ axbS 16.hb7± Black has no com­pensation for the pawn whatso­ever. It is not better for him to opt for 13 . . . �d5 14.�b6±) 14.i.e4 �c4, Barnsley - Weber, carr. 2002. Now, White must complete

his development with 15.0-0-0 ,tb4 (It is too risky for Black to choose 15 . . . i.c7 16.�a3 �bS 17.b3 l'!c8 18.�b1t, because his king re­mains stranded in the centre and it impedes the coordination of his own pieces, for example in the variation 18 . . . h6 19.l'!he1 fS 20.c4 �aS 21.�xa5 haS 22 .hb7 !k7 23.ha6 he1 24.l'!xe1 �f7 25.i.d2 l'!a7 26.i.b5 l'!d8 27.i.b4+- Black completes his development in­deed, but he is completely help­less against White's queenside pawns, supported by his two bishops.) 16.�b6 0-0 17.i.d3± - Black's pieces are hanging and the following line looks absolutely forced: 17 . . . �h4 18 .g3 �e7 19.a3 i.d6 20.�xd6 �xd6 21.i.xh7+ l!txh7 22 .l'!xd6± White will have problems realizing his extra pawn, but his opponent's defence seems difficult enough.

13. 0 - 0 - 0 .ie6 14.�bl .ie7 15.¥Nf2 ¥Na5

This aggressive move is pos­sibly better than the natural line : 15 . . . 0-0 16.i.b6 �c6 17.l'!heU. Black has difficulties finding an active counterplay, for example : 17 .. .f6 18.i.e4 �bS 19.b3 aS 20 .a4 �b4 21.i.d5 hd5 22 .l'!xd5± -White has occupied the only open file and Black's queenside pawns need protection. After 22 . . . l'!fc8 23.l'!e4 �c3 24.l'!d3 �c6 25.l'!c4 �e6 26.!i:xc8+ l'!xc8 27.ha5± White ends up with a solid extra pawn.

16.b3 0 - 0

5 . . . a 6 6 . .ie3 lt:Jc6 7 .f3

This move seems to be the most reliable for Black.

16 .. .f5?! - This is too risky. 17.�e1 �c7 (In the endgame, arising after 17 . . . �xe1 18.l'!hxe1 �f7 19.i.c1 i.f6 20.i.b2± Black remains a pawn down.) 18.i.d4 i.d6 (He should better avoid 18 . . . i.f6 19.�e3 ! ? and now he loses after 19 . . . 0-0-0? 20.i.b6 �c3 21 .i.c4! +-, it is also bad for him to opt for 19 .. .f4 20.�e4±, while in the variation 19 . . . 0-0 20.l'!he1 ! Black loses after 20 . . . hb3 21 . i.b6+-, so he must play 20 . . . exd4 21.�xe6±, but White has an extra pawn and good attacking chanc­es.) 19.f4 ! 0-0-0 (It is bad for Black to choose 19 . . . e4 20 .he4! fxe4 21.�xe4, because of 21 . . .�f7 22 .f5+-, as well as in the varia­tion 21 . . .�e7 22.l'!he1+- White regains his piece, ending up with an extra pawn and excellent at­tacking prospects.) 20 .fxe5 i.cS 21.hc5 �xeS 22.'�'g3 !i:d7 23.i.e2 !i:c7, Adams - Svidler, Moscow 2001 and here White's advantage is overwhelming after 24.c4!± fol­lowed by !i:d6.

17.ghel gac8 It is worse for Black to play

17 . . .f5? 18.i.b6 �c3 19.�e3± and he will have to give up a pawn.

18.¥Ne2 .if6 Black should refrain from 18 . . .

f6 19.f4 i.b4 20.i.d2 hd2 21 . �xd2 �xd2 22J'!:xd2 l'!cS 23.fxe5 !i:xeS 24.l'!xe5 fxeS 25.i.e4±, be­cause despite the considerable simplifications, his defence will

55

Chapter 3

be difficult, since White's pieces are very active.

19 . .icl!;!;

The transfer of the bishop on b2 ensures the safety of his king, emphasizes the vulnerability of

Black's e5-pawn and provides White with superior chances. This can be confirmed by the following variations:

19 . . . g6 2 0 . .ib2 lUeS 21.f4 l:k5 22.g4 .ih4 23.f5 .bel (23 . . . i.d7 24J'Ul±) 24.fxe6 .ih4 25.exf7 + �xf7 26. fYf3+ �g7 27.fYxb7+ lk7 28.Wfxa6±. Black's defence will be difficult no matter whether there will remain queens on the board or not. He will have to fight against White's passed pawns in the endgame, while in the middle game his king is bound to remain unsafe. (We have used the comments of GM P.Svidler).

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed all the responses for Black

against 6.i.e3, in which he tries to avoid entering the English attack and the transfer to other schemes, which we have already dealt with.

The premature move a) 6 . . . b5 enables White to begin immediate active actions on the queenside with 7.a4. Now, after 7 . . . bxa4 8. 'i'J.xa4, Black has problems with his development and the protection of his a6-pawn, while in case of7 . . . b4 8. l£Jd5 White occupies additional space and in combination with his better development and the possibility to play on both sides of the board, he has much better prospects.

Black can play b) 6 . . . l£J bd7, with the idea to follow this with b7-b5, saving an important tempo for the move e7-e6, therefore White must exploit the fact the the knight onf6 cannot retreat to d7 and he must counter this with 7.g4!? The most logical reply for Black, against White's attack on the flank, seems to be the counter strike in the centre 7 . . . d5, but White can react to this precisely with 8. l£Jb3! After this his play is much easier. His pieces are developed naturally to active posi­tions, the his rooks operate on the d and e-files and his bishops occupy the excellent squares g2 andf4.

The standard move c) 6 . . . l£Jc6, most often transposes either to situ­ations we analyze later, or to the Dragon variation, volume 11. Here,

56

5 . . . a6 6.�e3

we deal with Black's attempts to avoid playing e7-e6, or g7-g6, in re­sponse to 7 .j3.

After cl) 7 . . . Wib6 - Black tries to impede White's development by attacking his b2-pawn. The interesting pawn-sacrifice 8. Wfd2!? is at­tractive and with good prospects, but his compensation is not so easy to prove. There is not sufficient tournament practice on this theme, moreover that White obtains a clear advantage (a powerful bishop­pair in the main line) with the simple move B.a3.

In case of c2) 7 . . . �d7 - Black plans at first to create queenside counterplay. He has later problems however to develop his kingside pieces.

It is also interesting for him to try to solve all his problems, simpli­fying the position with the help of the move c3) 7 . . . d5. After the forced variation B.ti:Jxd5! li:Jxd5 9.exd5 Wixd.S JO .ti:Jxc6 Black is faced with a choice:

He can capture on c6 with the pawn,jortifying his centre. He lags in development however and his pawn-structure deteriorates. White dominates on the only open file and Black can hardly create any counterplay.

Black can also opt for 1 0 . . . Wixc6, but then the position only seems equal. White exploits his lead in development and creates powerful pressure along the central files.

57

Chapter 4 l.e4 c5 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.lbxd4 lL!f6 5.lbc3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3

Black's main line in the dia­grammed position is considered to be 7 . . . b5 - see part 3. He often plays too 7 . . . tt:lc6 - see Chapters 5-8.

We will analyze here his other possibilities and with the most thorough attention we will treat the moves a) 7 • . . f!c7, b) 7 • • .

tt:lbd7, c) 7 • • . h5 and d) 7 . . • §J.e7. The alternatives are only sel­

dom played: 7 . . . d5 8.e5 tt:lfd7 9.f4 - This is a

position from the French defence - see volume 6; 7 . . . tt:lfd7 8.f!d2 b5 - see Chapter 9; 7 . . . e5? ! 8.tt:lb3 -this move transposes to situations after 6 . . . e5 - see volume 14, but with an important extra tempo for White;

58

7 ... b6? ! - This is just a loss of time, because in this scheme Black's counterplay includes the occupation of space on the queen­side with the move b7-b5. 8 .W/d2 .ib7 9.g4 .ie7, Kreitz - Grawe, Dortmund 2002 and here it would be in the spirit of the English at­tack for White to continue with 10.0-0-0 0-0 (10 . . . tt:Jbd7 ll.g5 tt:lh5 12.f4±) 12.g5t with excellent attacking prospects.

7 . . . W/b6 8.a3 - This is his standard reaction against Black's queen sortie. 8 . . . tt:lc6 (Naturally it is bad for Black to play 8 . . . W/xb2 9.tt:la4+-, it is dubious for him to choose 8 . . . d5? ! 9.exd5 tt:lxd5 10. tt:Jxd5 exd5 11.fie2± and White en­joys a considerable lead in devel­opment.) 9 .W/d2

9 . . . Wffc7 (But not 9 . . . Wffxb2 10.!!a2 'fffb6 11.lilxe6 WffaS 12.lilxf8 !!xf8 13.a4± - White has regained his pawn and obtained a bishop­pair in an open position.) 10.g4 il,e7 ll .h4 h6, Zunker - Litvinov, Bad Z�schenahn 2003 and by playing 12 .0-0-0 lt:JeS 13. l!lb1 bS 14.ie2 lt:Jfd7 15.g5t White occu­pies space on the kingside and he has his typical, for the English at­tack, initiative there.

7 . . . id7 - In this scheme Black usually develops his bishop on b7, because it supports the pawn­break d6-d5 and eyes White's pawn on e4 impeding his massive pawn­offensive on the kingside. 8 .g4

8 . . . ic6 (About 8 . . . h6 9 .Wffd2 lilc6 10.h4 - see Chapter 5, line h3; 8 . . . ie7 9.'fffd2 - see 7 . . . :ie7; 8 . . . e5? ! - this move weakens the dS-square and loses in fact two tempi - one that he played e7-e6-e5 in two moves instead of e7 -eS in one and the second for the maneu­ver of the bishop, which �ll have to go to e6. 9.lilb3 :ie7 10.'fffd2 bS, Mitsyk - Balkin, Illichevsk 2008 and after ll.gS lilhS 12 .lild5 ie6 13.lt:Jxe7 l!lxe7 14.0-0-0± White

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 .j3

obtains the two-bishop advantage and keeps his opponent's king stranded in the centre.) 9 .g5 lilfd7 10.'fffd2 :ie7 11.0-0-0 bS (It is worse for Black to opt for 11. . .lilb6 12 .f4±, because he has hampered maximally the creation of his own counterplay, Schoel - Moyles Johnson, Cologne 2004.) 12 .h4 WffaS 13.1!lb1 :ib7 14.h5± S.Smits ­Greeuw, Hengelo 2003, White is clearly ahead of his opponent in the development of his initiative.

a) 7 • . • flc7 This is the standard place for

Black's queen in numerous varia­tions of the Sicilian defence.

8.'ifd2

8 . . .ltJbd7 About 8 . . . lilc6 9 .0-0-0 - see

Chapter 5, variation c; 8 . . . b5 - see Chapter 9; 8 . . . h5 9 .0-0-0 - see variation cl; 8 . . . :ie7 9.g4 - see variation d2; 8 . . . e5 9.lt:Jb3 leads to positions from volume 14, but �th an extra tempo for White, because Black's pawn has come to the eS-square in two moves.

59

Chapter 4

8 . . . .id7 - The bishop deprives here the knight on f6 of a good square to retreat to. 9.0-0-0 .ie7 (About 9 . . . lt:Jc6 10.g4 - see Chap­ter 5, variation cl; 9 . . . b5 10.g4 lt:Jc6 ll.g5 - see Chapter 5, variation cl, it is not preferable for Black to fol­low with 10 . . . b4 1l.lt:Jce2 e5 12.lt:Jf5 .ixf5, Thorfinnsdottir - Wilsbeck, Copenhagen 2007, it is good now for White to capture 13.exf5, with the following eventual develop­ments: 13 .. .'�a5 14.1t>b1 h6 15.lt:Jg3 lt:Jc6 16.lt:Je4±; 13 . . . '1Wb7 14.lt:Jg3 h6 15.f4±; 13 . . . h6 14.h4 lt:Jbd7 15 . .ih3 l"lc8 16.g5 lt:ld5 17 . .if2± and in all the cases his far-advanced king­side pawns with his superior de­velopment provide White with ex­cellent attacking chances against Black's king stranded in the cen­tre.) 10.g4

10 . . . b5, Hartling - Stavridis, Leipzig 1998 (About 10 . . . h6 ll .h4 - see variation d2; 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.g5 - Chapter 6, variation cl, 10 . . . .id7; 10 . . . 0-0 ll.g5 - see Chap­ter 7, variation a; after 10 . . . .ic6, B.Socko - Stopka, Warsaw 1993, White continues with ll.g5 lt:lfd7 12 .h4 b5 13.1t>b1 tt:lb6 14.b3 tt:l8d7

60

15 . .ih3± and he deploys per­fectly his pieces, well-prepared to organize a kingside offensive, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever.) ll.g5 lt:Jh5 12.f4 b4 13.lt:Jce2 aS 14.lt:Jg3 tt:lxg3 15.hxg3 '1Wb7 16.g6 ! ?t - White's initiative is tremendously dangerous, be­cause he has a huge lead in de­velopment, controls the centre and destroys easily Black's pawn­structure on the kingside. After for example 16 . . . f:xg6 17.ic4 '1Wc8 18.'1We2 lt:Ja6 19.f5� Black's king remains stranded in the centre and it comes under attack.

8 . . . b6? ! - This move is too cautious and it does not help the creation of Black's counterplay. 9 .0-0-0 .ib7 10.1t>b1 tt:lbd7 ll .g4 h6 12 .h4 d5, Zeltner - Krauss, Germany 2005 and in connec­tion with the fact that White has a superior development, while Black has not even castled yet, the opening of the central files is clearly in favour of White. 13.exd5 lt:Jxd5 14.lt:Jxd5 .ixd5 15.if4 e5 (The alternatives are not any bet­ter for Black: after 15 . . . '1Wb7 16.c4 .ic6 17.'1Wc3 l"ld8 18 . .ie2± White can obtain the two-bishop advan­tage at any moment, while Black can hardly complete his develop­ment; or 15 . . . .id6 16 . .ixd6 '1Wxd6 17.tt:lf5 exf5 18 . .ic4 lt:Jf6 19 . .ixd5 tt:lxd5 20.l"lhe1+ lt>f8 21.'\WxdS '1Wxd5 22.l"lxd5± The position has been simplified considerably in­deed, but Black's defence is very difficult, since his rook on h8

has problems entering the ac­tion and his queenside pawns are very weak.) 16.i.g3 i.c5 17.i.e2± White's pieces are much more ac­tive than their counterparts.

9.g4 h6 About 9 . . . b5? ! 10.g5 - see

Chapter 11; 9 . . . i.e7 10.g5 - see variation d2; 9 . . . li:Je5 10.0-0-0 - see Chapter 5, variation c3; 9 . . . lLlb6 10.0-0-0 li:Jc4 ll . .bc4 - see Chapter 5, S . . . Wfc7 9.0-0-0 li:Ja5 10.g4 li:Jc4 ll . .bc4.

9 . . . e5? ! (This move weakens important squares in the centre.) 10.li:Jf5 g6 ll.li:Jg3± and the light squares in the centre are vulner­able in Black's camp, as well as the dark squares on his kingside, Guettler - Burzler, Germany 1997.

9 . . . li:Jc5 - His knight looks well-deployed here, but in fact it is not active at all on this square. 10.g5 lLlh5 11.0-0-0 b5 12.@bl±. White leads considerably in de­velopment and he obtained a decisive advantage after the in­accurate reaction by Black 12 . . . g6? 13.li:Jdxb5! axb5 14.li:Jxb5 Wfc6 15.li:Jxd6+ .bd6 16.\Wxd6 1Wxd6 17J:!xd6+- White's dark-squared bishop was dominating all over the entire board, Uribe - Sarat, Cali 2001.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 (diagram)

to . . . gbs This move is too slow. This

rook is often needed on cS and even on aS.

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 .j3

About 10 . . . li:Je5 ll .h4 - see Chapter 5, line c3; 10 . . . b5 - see Chapter 12 ; 10 . . . i.e7 - see 7 . . . i.e7, variation d2.

The move 10 . . . b6?! is not on the spirit of the variation. ll.h4 i.b7, Sammalvuo Tapani - Nils­sen John Arni, Torshavn Faroe Islan 1991, White can exploit here the absence of any activity by Black on the queenside and he can proceed with his standard kingside initiative by continu­ing with: 12 .i.e2 li:Je5 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 �xh1 15.�xh1 li:Jfd7 16.f4 li:Jc4 17 . .bc4 1Wxc4 1S.g6±

ll.h4 b5 12.i.h3 tileS 13.g5 tilh5 , Borisek - Kozul, Bled 2002.

It seems more consistent for Black to follow with 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 b4 15.li:Ja4 li:Jc4 16.1Wf2 li:Jxe3 17.1Wxe3t, but even then White's initiative is tremendously dangerous, for example after: 17 . . . e5 1S . .bcS �xh1 19.�xh1 exd4 20.1Wd3 �xeS 21.gxf6 gxf6 22.b3± Black's bishop is much more pas­sive than White's knight and his pawns are weak.

61

Chapter 4

14.b3. White restricts quite sensibly the mobility of the enemy centralized knight. Now, in or­der to create some threats on the queenside, Black must strive to open the a-file and his rook on b8 does not assist in this. 14 • • • hxg5 (14 . . . b4 15.lLlce2 �a5 16.\t>b1 i.b7 17 . .ig4±) 15. hxg5 tilg3 (It would be worse for Black to play 15 . . . �a5 16.g6 and his position is lost after 16 . . . l2Jxg6 17.lLlc6 �a3+ 18.\t>b1 �a8 19.\t>al+-, as well as follow­ing 16 . . . fxg6 17.\t>b1 l2Jg3 18.�h2 i.d7 19.f4+-) 16J�h2 g6 17.S:gl tilh5 18.f4 b4 19.tilce2 tilc6 2 0 .tilxc6 �xc6 21 . .ig2±

b) 7 . • . tilbd7 This move transposes most of­

ten to variations, analyzed in part 3.

8.g4 (diagram)

8 . . . h6 About 8 . . . b5 9.�d2 - see 7 . . .

b5, Chapters 11-15. After 8 ... �c7? ! - White is

presented with a tempo for the development of his kingside ini-

62

tiative. 9 .g5 lLlh5 10.f4 g6 ll.i.e2 l2Jg7 12.�d2 b5 13.0-0-0 i.b7, Jonsson - Magnusson, Reykjavik 2008, following 14.a3 lLlc5 15.i.f3 i.e? 16.h4± White will unavoid­ably prepare the further advance of his pawns.

After 8 . . . i.e7? ! Black's knight either goes to g7, or he must weaken the d5-square. 9 .g5 (It is not so aggressive for White to play 9.�d2 - see variation d1.) 9 . . . l2Jh5 10.f4 g6 ll .i.e2 l2Jxf4 12.i.xf4 e5 13.i.e3 exd4 14.�xd4 0-0 15.h4± Black has obtained the excellent e5-outpost for his knight, but he has lost control over the equally important d5-outpost, wasted too much time and weakened his d6-pawn, Casini - Foucaud, France 2006.

8 . . . lLlc5 - The knight is not well placed here, since it covers the c-file and has no active pros­pects on this square. 9.�d2 b5 10. 0-0-0 i.b7? (Even after the best for Black 10 . . . b4 ll.l2Jce2 �b6 12. <Jib1 i.e? 13.g5 l2Jfd7 14.h4t White's kingside initiative devel­ops effortlessly.) ll.lLldxb5 ! axb5

12 .hcS dxc5 13.hb5+ �e7 14. '!;Vg5 1l;Vc7 15.e5+- Now, White not only regains his piece, but he has a dangerous attack against Black's king stranded in the centre, Nyys­ti - Wikstrom, Stockholm 2003.

8 . . . tt.lb6 Black usually places his knight on this square only af­ter b7-b5, while now he has prob­lems organizing counterplay. 9 .g5 tt.lfd7, Pfrommer - Wohlfahrt, Germany 1996. Black's e6-pawn is not sufficiently protected and he has no pressure against his opponent's e4-pawn, so it looks quite sensible for White to con­tinue with the aggressive line : 10.f4 !? h6 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for 10 . . . e5 11.tt.lf3 exf4 12.hf4 tt.lc5 13.1!;Vd2 .ig4 14.1l;Vg2 .ih5 15.0-0-0± , since he has nu­merous problems - his d6-pawn is weak and he lags in development.) ll.g6 ! �h4+ 12.�d2 �f6 13.gxf7+ �xf7 14.�c1 tt.lc5 15 . .ie2t White's king will be placed on b2 at any moment, while Black fails to bring his king to safety, because he lags considerably in development. 15 . . . g6 (It is also too risky for him to choose 15 . . . e5 16.fxe5 dxe5 17J'l:f1 �g8 18.tt.lb3±, because the centre is opened and his king is terribly endangered.) 16.f5 exf5 17.exf5 .ixfs 18.tt.lxf5 �xf5 19 . .ig4 �e5 20J.'l:elgg. White has kept his op­ponent's king in the centre of the board only at the price of a pawn and Black's attempt to evacuate it on the queenside leads to the loss of material: 20 . . . �d8 21 ..id4

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3

tt.ld3+ 22.�xd3 �xe1+ 23 . .id1+­White obtains at least a couple of light pieces for his rook and his attack continues.

8 . . . tt.le5 Black's knight will be attacked with tempi on this square. 9 .g5 tt.lfd7 10.f4 tt.lc6 (In response to 10 . . . tt.lg6, Schoel -K.Fischer, Plzen 1996, it seems very attractive for White to con­tinue with ll.f5 exf5 12.exf5, be­cause now in case of 12 . . . tt.lge5 13.�d2 tt.lb6 14.0-0-0 .id7 15.b3 �c7 16 . .ig2±, as well as following 12 . . . tt.le7 13 . .ig2 tt.le5 14.0-0± he obtains a considerable space ad­vantage, superior development, the important d5-outpost and excellent attacking prospects.) ll .�d2 tt.lxd4 (Black solves his problems neither with ll . . . �c7 12.0-0-0 g6 13.h4± and he has no counterplay whatsoever, Grey - Riese, San Francisco 2000, nor with ll . . . .ie7 12.0-0-0 �aS, Pinel - Andre, France 2004 and White can force his opponent to evacu­ate his king to the queenside and occupy additional space by con­tinuing with 13.�b1 tt.lc5 14.h4 .id7 15.h5 0-0-0 16.a3 �b8 17. Wf2± Black has no active coun­ter chances, while White has the dangerous resource tt.lb3, opening the c-file.) 12 .hd4 e5 13 . .ie3 exf4 14 . .ixf4 .ie7 15.0-0-0 tt.le5 16.h4 .ig4 17 . .ie2± Black's d6-pawn is weak, the d5-outpost is vulnera­ble and his bishop is very passive, so White is clearly better, Poulsen - Kallenbach, Esbjerg 2008.

63

Chapter 4

9 . • • b6?! This is a loss of time. It is pref­

erable for Black to opt for 9 . . . b5 10.0-0-0 - see 7 . . . b5, Chapters 12-15; 9 . . . .ie7 see variation d; 9 . . . Vjjc7 10.0-0-0 see variation a; or 9 . . . tt:Je5 10.0-0-0 - see Chapter 5.

9 . . . tt:Je5 10.0-0-0 .id7 (It is better for Black to play here 10 . . . b5 - see Chapter 12 . ) ll.h3 'Wfc7 12.f4 lt:Jc4 (It is not preferable for him to continue with 12 . . . lt:Jc6, since his knight could have come to this square in just one move. 13 . .ig2 l'k8 14.lt:Jb3 b5 15.i>b1 .ie7 16.Vjje2i - Black can hardly or­ganize a counter attack without his rook on h8. It is too risky for him to castle short, but leaving the king in the centre is not a rem­edy at all.) 13.hc4 Vjjxc4 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 lt:Jh5 16.'Wif2 g6 17. l'!hf1 l'!h7 18.lt:Jb3± His pieces are discoordinated and his king has no safe shelter, I .Almasi - Bilek, Hungary 1997.

9 . . . g5? ! - White only opens

64

more easily files on the kingside after this move, Weeks - Mar­quardt, Email 2001, here, he can play 10.h4 gxh4 11 . .if2±, regaining his pawn and destroying his op­ponent's kingside. After ll . . . .ie7 12 .�4, Black has great prob­lems in case of 12 . . . tt:Jxe4 13.he7 tt:Jxd2 14.hd8 lt:Jxf1 15 . .ic7 tt:Je3 16.i>f2±, because he lags in devel­opment and has numerous weak pawns to worry about. He will not only fail to hold on to his extra pawn, but he will hardly maintain the material balance at the end.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ie7?! , Nunn -Comp Tasc R30, The Hague 1995 and now, after the attractive line for White: ll.tbc6 flc7 12.tbxe7 i>xe7 13.h4 .ib7 14 • .ie2 b5 15.g5± he obtains the two-bishop advantage and keeps his oppo­nent's king stranded in the centre. Later he follows with a massive kingside offensive.

c) 7 • • • h5 This interesting move prevents

the standard attacking move g2-g4, but compromises the king­side.

8.Vjjd2 White will obtain better chanc­

es after the alternatives as well, for example 8 . .ie2;!;, or 8 . .ic4;!;

(diagram) Black has tried many different

moves here and we well deal in details with cl) 8 • • • flc7, c2) 8 . • .

b5 and c3) 8 . • . tt:Jbd7. 8 . . . .ie7 - This looks like a loss

of time, because it would be very unsafe for Black to castle short. 9.0-0-0 bS 10 .i.d3 ! ?

and here there may arise the following variations :

10 . . . 0-0? - He castles directly under the attack. ll.h3 eS 12.lt::lb3 ie6 13.g4±;

10 . . . i.b7 - White breaks in the centre after this move, S.Nikolic - Mazi, Ptuj 2009, ll.eS !? b4 (ll. .. dxeS 12.tt:lxe6! +-) 12.tt:lcbS ! axbS (It is even worse for Black to play 12 . . . lt:JdS 13.tt:lxd6+ ixd6 14.exd6 �xd6 1S.i.e4± and he is helpless against the move 16.tt:lfS, after which White forces a trans­fer into a very favourable end­game for him.) 13.exf6 gxf6 !? (Black loses following 13 . . J:'!xa2?

5 .. . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 h5 8. �d2

14.c;f;>bl �aS 1S.tt:lb3+-; he has no compensation for the pawn after 13 . . . txf6 14.ixbS+ �f8 1S.�xb4 �c7 16.�bl±) 14.�xb4 E:xa2 (He should better avoid 14 . . . tt:ld7 lS.�bl dS 16.�xbS i.a6 17.�b3 tt:lcS 18.tt:lxe6! fxe6 19.ixcS ixcS 20.ixa6 0-0 2l.i.bS+-, since White remains with two extra pawns and his king is completely safe.) lS.�bl �aS 16.ixbS+ �f8 (16 . . . tt:ld7? 17.ixd7+-) 17.�xaS E:xaS 18.b4 E:a8 19.�b2± Black has problems completing his de­velopment and his central pawns are bound to remain static.

lO . . . eS - Black fixes his op­ponent's e4-pawn. ll.tt:lb3 i.e6 12.�bl tt:Jbd7 13.h3 h4 (After 13 . . . �c7 14.g4 tt:lb6 lS.gS tt:lfd7 16.f4t, White occupies space on the kingside.) 14.f4 exf4 lS.ix£4 �c7 16.tt:ld4t and he has problems in­deed to finish his attack off, but Black's king has no safe shelter either.

8 . . . tt:Jc6 9.0-0-0 i.d7 (About 9 . . . �c7 lO.�bl i.e7 ll.h3 i.d7 12 .i.e2 - see 9 . . . i.d7; 9 . . . i.e7 10. i.e2 tt:JeS ll.f4 tt:Jeg4 12 .i.gl tt:Jd7 13 .h3± Black has maneuvered very unsuccessfully with his knights and he lags catastrophically in de­velopment, Kulaots - Krupenski, Estonia 2003.) lO.�bl

(diagram) 10 . . . i.e7 (10 . . . �c7 ll.i.e2 i.e7,

Brendel - Nevednichy, Saint Vin­cent 2003 and after 12 .h3 h4 13.f4 bS 14.i.f3 b4 1S.lt:Jce2, White has deployed comfortably his pieces

6S

Chapter 4

and kept his opponent's king in the centre, because in reply to 1S . . . O-O, he can continue with 16.g4i and after the natural line: 16 ... hxg3 17Jl:hg1 ! tt'lxd4 18.tt'lxd4 eS 19.tt'lfS .txt'S 20.exfS e4 21 .�e2 dS 22.:Bxg3 :Bfd8 23.�d4__. Black's central pawns are reliably blocked, while White's attack along the g­file should be victorious.) ll.f4 �aS 12.tt'lf3 :Bc8, Zontakh - Dam­ljanovic, Novi Sad 2000, White can exploit here his opponent's compromised kingside by play­ing 13.tt'lgS bS 14.h3 b4 1S.tt'le2 eS 16.tt'lc1i - Black has no counter­play and it is very risky for him to castle, because his kingside is weakened.

cl) 8 . . . �c7 Black prevents the appearance

of White's bishop on c4. 9. 0 - 0 - 0

(diagram) 9 . . . tt'lbd7 About 9 . . . tt'lc6 10.'it>b1 - see

8 . . . tt'lc6. 9 . . . �d7 -Black's bishop is not

so active here as on the b7-square. 10.'it>b1 �e7 ll.�d3 tt'lc6 12 .h3 h4

66

13.f4 tt'lxd4 14.hd4 eS 1S.�e3 exf4 16 . .txf4± - his pawns on d6 and h4 are weak, as well as the dS-square, Nijboer - Goldstern, Dieren 2008.

In reply to 9 . . . bS, Katte - I. Donchenko, Germany 2006, it seems very attractive for White to follow with the standard piece­sacrifice 10 .hbS+ axbS 11.tt'ldxbS, with the following exemplary var­iations : ll . . . '\Wc6 12.�f4 ! tt'lbd7 13. tt'lxd6+ hd6 14.hd6 �b7 1S. :Bhel± - White has three pawns for the knight and he has kept the enemy king in the centre; 11 . . . '\Wd7 12 .�f4! eS 13.heS dxeS 14.'\Wxd7+ tt'lbxd7 1S.tt'lc7+ 'it>d8 16.tt'lxa8 �cS 17.tt'la4± - White's three connect­ed passed pawns and his rook are much stronger than Black's two light pieces; 11.. .'\WaS 12.tt'lxd6 hd6 13.'\Wxd6 tt'lbd7 14.a4!? - avoiding the trade of queens. 1S . . . '\WeS 1S. '\Wa3 �a6 16.:Bd2 '\Wc7 17.:Bhdl±

1 0 .\t>bl i.e7 After 10 . . . bS, in the game

V.Akopian - Kotanjian, Mos­cow 2008, White followed with ll.hbS axbS 12.tt'ldxbS and here

Black could have played 12 . . .'�b8 13.tt'lxd6+ i.xd6 14.'\Wxd6 tt'ldS! 1S. E!xdS exdS 16.'\WxdS E!a6gg. White's compensation for the sacrificed rook is more than obvious, but the position remains absolutely un­clear. White however could have played much better. It is very in­teresting for him to sacrifice the knight ll.tt'ldxbS! ? axbS 12.tt'lxbS '\Wc6 (but not 12 . . . '\WaS 13.'\WxaS E!xaS 14.i.d2 ! E!xbS 1S.i.xbS±, since White's passed pawns are very dangerous) 13.tt'lxd6+ i.xd6 14.'\Wxd6 '\Wxd6 (Naturally, it would be quite risky for Black to preserve the queens on the board, because his king is stranded in the centre 14 . . . '\Wa4 1S.a3 \WaS 16.i.c4 h4 17.g4 !t - White's threats are very dangerous, for example Black loses after 17 . . . '\WeS 18.'\Wc6 E!b8 19.i.d4 \WaS 20.gS ! �xgS 21.E!hg1 '\Wh6 22 .i.xe6! +- and White's at­tack is decisive, while in case of 17 . . . gS 18.i.d2 �eS 19.i.c3 '\Wxd6 20.E!xd6 0-0 21.Eihdl± he enters an endgame even under more fa­vourable circumstances.) 1S.E!xd6 <J:;e7 16.E!d2 i.a6 17.c4 E!hc8 18.b3:t - It is not easy for White to organ­ize a pawn-offensive on the queen­side, but Black has no counterplay at all, so White is better.

ll.i.e2 tLlb6 Black has also played ll . . . tt'lcS,

Nisipeanu - Ghinda, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993, but it looks natural for White to react to this by devel­oping his kingside initiative with 12 .h3 h4 13.i.gSt

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .fJ h5 8. '\Wd2

12.{4 i.d7 13.ghfl 0 - 0 - 0 14.tLlf3 i.c6 15.tLlg5 ghf8 16. h3± White has occupied space and he has created great problems for Black to organize counterplay, Gallagher - Nemet, Brocco 1990.

c2) 8 . . . b5 This move enables White to

begin active actions on the queen­side.

9.a4!? This is a logical reaction if we

have in mind that Black's queen­side has been weakened, while White is clearly dominant in the centre.

9 • • • b4

67

Chapter 4

His game is tremendously easy after 9 . . . bxa4 10.:Bxa4 i.e7 ll.i.e2 0-0 12.0-0 i.b7 13.:Bfa1 h4 14.i.f1 lt:Jfd7 1S.lt:Jb3 lt:JeS 16.lt:JaS i.c8 17.h3± Black's a6-pawn is weak, he has insufficient space and no counterplay whatsoever, Fressi­net - Nevednichy, Khanty-Man­siysk 2007.

1 0 . .!Da2 d5 After 10 . . . eS ll.lt:lb3 aS 12 .i.bS+

i.d7, Olivier - M.Ivanov, Cannes 199S, White can follow with 13.0-0 i.e7 14.c3 bxc3 1S.lt:Jxc3± and he obtains much better chances thanks to his superior de­velopment and Black's queenside weaknesses.

ll.e5 .!Dfd7 12.f4 f;Ye7 Or 12 . . . c!DcS 13.i.d3 aS, De la

Villa Garcia - Spraggett, Burguil­los 2007 (Black is too far behind in development in the variation 13 . . . lt:Jxd3+ 14.cxd3 aS 1S.0-0± and after the transfer of White's knight from a2 to b3, he will occu­py the c-file.) . He can exploit the vulnerability of the light squares on Black's queenside with the line : 14.i.bS+ i.d7 1S.0-0 g6 (It would be too risky for Black to capture the pawn, because after 1S . . . lt:Jxa4 16.i.xa4 i.xa4 17.fS--+ White be­gins an attack along the f-file.) 16.lt:lc1 i.e7 17.lt:Jcb3t - he has a long-lasting initiative due to his better development and Black's queenside weaknesses.

(diagram) 13.i.e2 i.b7 14. 0 - 0 c!Dc6,

Wessendorf - Krieg, Germany

68

2008. In this position of the type of the French defence, White can utilize his better development and Black's weaknesses on the queen­side continuing with: 15 • .!Dxc6 hc6 16.c3 bxc3 17.f;Yxc3 i.b7 18.�fcl!? - occupying the only open file and planning to create a dangerous passed b-pawn.

c3) 8 . • • c!Dbd7 This is the most popular move

for Black.

9.i.c4!? White tries to exploit the weak­

ening of Black's kingside. He can also play simply 9.0-0-0.

9 • • . c!De5

Naturally, Black loses after 9 . . . bS? 10.he6! fxe6 ll.tt:lxe6 'l!t!aS 12 .b4 'l!t!xb4 13.tt:lc7+- - he is an exchange down, his king is strand­ed in the centre and the compen­sation is by far insufficient.

9 . . . \1t!c7 - This move forces White to sacrifice a piece, but he had that in mind anyway.

10.he6 (It is worse for White to choose 10 . .ib3 tt:lcS? - Black has protected reliably the e6-square and he is threatening to exchange at any moment White's active bishop.) 10 . . . fxe6 ll.tt:lxe6 'l!t!c4 12.tt:lxf8 �xf8 13.\1t!xd6;!; -White has three pawns for the piece and better development, while Black's king is completely unsafe, so White is clearly better.

It is not advisable for him to open the central files with 9 . . . d5, because after lO.exdS tt:lb6 ll . .ib3 tt:lfxdS 12.tt:lxd5 tt:lxdS 13.0-0-0t White leads considerably in devel­opment and Black has problems with the safety of his king, for example : 13 . . . tt:lxe3 14.\1t!xe3 'l!t!aS 15.Wbl .ie7 (It is too slow for him to play 15 . . . g6 16.\1t!e4 and he loses outright after 16 . . . .ig7 17.tt:lc6+-,

5 . . . a6 6 . .te3 e6 7 .j3 h5 8. 'l!t!d2

while the move 16 . . . .ie7 seems a bit awkward, since White can continue with 17.tt:lc6 'l!t!fS 18.\1t!a4 .if6 19.tt:ld4+ bS 20.tt:lxf5 bxa4 21.ha4+ Wf8 22.tt:ld6± ending up with a solid extra pawn.) 16.f4 0-0 17.f5 eS 18.tt:lf3 .if6 (It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 18 . . . .txf5 19.�d5 Wffc7 20.�xe5+-, because White remains at least with an extra pawn and attacking chances.) 19.\1t!e4 'l!t!c7 20.h3 .id7 21.g4 .ic6 22 . .id5 �fd8 23.c4± Black's pieces are passive, while White dominates in the centre and he has excellent attacking prospects.

In reply to 9 . . . tt:lc5, Gritsenko - Kosarev, Peterhof 2006, it would be interesting to test the active move 10.b4 !?

with the following exemplary variations :

10 . . . tt:lcd7 ll.he6± Black has lost his important central pawn, since White's bishop is untouch­able, because of the loss of the ex­change;

lO . . . bS ll.hbS+ axbS 12 .bxc5 dxcS (12 . . . b4 13.tt:lcb5 dxcS 14. .if4+- Black loses the exchange)

69

Chapter 4

13.tt:ldxb5± and White has a solid extra pawn;

10 . . . d5 ! ? - Black ends up de­liberately with a weak pawn in the centre, but he prevents the possi­ble piece-sacrifice of his oppo­nent, which provides him with good attacking chances. ll.exd5 exd5 12 .i.e2 tt:lce4 (It is not so ag­gressive for Black to play 12 . . . tt:le6, because after 13.a3 i.d6 14J':ld1t White has a powerful initiative, for example: 14 . . . tt:lc7 15.tt:la4 0-0 16.tt:lb6 .B:b8 17.0-0± and Black has no active counter chances. It is hardly better for him to opt for 14 . . . �c7 15.tt:lf5 i.xh2 16.tt:lxd5 tt:lxd5 17.�xd5 g6 18 . .B:xh2 !� and White has a dangerous attack: 18 . . . �xh2 19.i.b5+ axb5 20.�xb5. Now, Black gets checkmated in case of 20 ... 'it>f8 21 .i.c5+ 'it>g8 22 . �e8 'it>h7 23.�xf7+ tt:lg7 24.�xg7#, while following 20 . . . i.d7 21.�xd7 'it>f8 22 .�e7+ 'it>g8 23 . .B:d7 .B:f8 24. tt:lh6+ .B:xh6 25.i.xh6, he fails to regain his pawn, since he loses af­ter 25 . . . �g1+ 26.'it>d2 �xg2+ 27.'it>c1 tt:lg7 28.�e5+-, but even in case of 25 . . . tt:lg7 26.'it>f2 h4 27. �f6 tt:lh5 28.�d6± Black will hardly manage to save the game.)

70

13.tt:lxe4! (His idea will be jus­tified after 13 .fxe4 i.xb4gg, since it becomes clearthatWhitewillhard­ly preserve his extra piece. After, for example: 14.e5 �c7! 15.i.b5+ 'it>f8 16.tt:lde2 tt:le4 17.�d4 i.xc3+ 18.tt:lxc3 �xc3+ 19.�xc3 tt:lxc3+ his powerful dark-squared bishop provides him with some compen­sation for the pawn, but it is suf­ficient at best only for equality.) 13 . . . dxe4 14 . .B:d1 exf3 15.i.xf3 i.e7 (The more aggressive alternatives for Black, with the idea to obtain a bishop-pair, are worse: 15 . . . tt:le4 16 .i.xe4 �h4+ 17.'it>f1 �xe4 18.i.g5 �d5 19.�e2+ i.e6 20.tt:lxe6 �xe6 21.�d3+- - he loses a lot of mate­rial ; 15 . . . tt:lg4 16.i.f4 �h4+ 17.g3± Black is too far behind in develop­ment.) 16.tt:lc6 !? - White enters a favourable endgame after this move. 16 . . . �xd2+ 17.'it>xd2 i.g4 (After the passive line : 17 . . . i.f8 18 .i.d4 i.e6 19.a3 .B:c8 20.tt:la5± Black's kingside remains undevel­oped.) 18.tt:lxe7 i.xf3 19.gxf3 'it>xe7 20.i.d4± and in the fight on both flanks, White's bishop is much more active than Black's knight and his rooks enter the fight for the centre much faster.

1 0 .i.b3 (diagram)

1 0 . . . b5 Black has also tried in prac­

tice 10 . . . �c7 11.0-0-0 i.e7, Van Haastert - Bosboom, Wijk aan Zee 2007 (After 11. . .tt:lc4 12.i.xc4 �xc4, Scherer - Singeisen, corr. 2007, 13.tt:lde2 ! ? i.e7 14.i.f4 e5

15.i.g5 i.e6 16 . .ixf6 gxf6 17.l2Jg3 E:c8 18.tt:Jf5± White has compro­mised his opponent's pawn-struc­ture and occupied the important dS and fS-outposts.) . Now, he must prepare a kingside offensive starting with 12 .h3 h4 (It is worse for Black to play 12 . . . i.d7 13.g4 hxg4 14.hxg4 0-0-0 15.g5 tt:Jh5 16.tt:Jf5± and White has an over­whelming advantage.) 13.i>bl

and then: 13 . . . 0-0 - Black loses his h4-

pawn with this move. 14.i.g5 b5 15.E'lhe1 i.d7 16.f4 tt:Jc4 17.'�d3 �ac8 18.hh4±;

13 .. . i.d7 - White here breaks through in the centre. 14.f4 tt:Jc4 15.hc4 �xc4 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 ctJd5 18.tt:Jxd5 �xdS 19J:l:hfl!t

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .f3 h5 8 . �d2

Black's king has not castled yet and he can hardly cope with White's initiative. 19 . . . i.b5 (It is too risky for Black to play 19 . . . �xeS 20 .tt:Jf5--t, because White's attack is very powerful.) 20 .tt:Jxb5 �xb5 2 1.i.g5 hg5 22 .�xg5 0-0 23.:B:fel± Black loses unavoidably his h4-pawn;

13 . . . b5 After this move, White has a very attractive piece-sac­rifice. 14.tt:Jdxb5! ? axb5 15.tt:Jxb5 �b8 16.tt:Jxd6+ i.xd6 17.�xd6 �xd6 18.:B:xd6± He dominates on the only open file and his queen­side pawns are very dangerous, while Black's pawn on h4 may be­come vulnerable after he activates his rook on h8.

11. 0 - 0 - 0± It is also good for White to play

calmly 11.0-0±

We will analyze now c3a) 11 . . •

i.d7 and c3b) 11 . . • i.b7.

c3a) 11 . . . i.d7 Black wishes to advance at first

his queenside pawns and develop the kingside only later.

71

Chapter 4

12.f4! b4 He has two other important al­

ternatives: With 12 . . . li:Jeg4 Black goes af­

ter his opponent's bishop.

13.h3! White gives up the bishop-pair, but he activates maximally his pieces and obtains a huge lead in development. 13 . . . li:Jxe3 (It i s not advisable for Black to choose 13 . . . b4 14.hxg4 bxc3 15.�xc3 li:Jxe4 16.�e1 h4 17.g5±, because White wins the h4-pawn, maintaining his lead in develop­ment at a moment Black's king is stranded in the centre.) 14.�xe3 b4 15.li:Ja4t. White's initiative is tremendously dangerous and this can be confirmed by the following variations : 15 . . . �a5 (His game is even easier after 15 . . . l':'k8 16.\t>bl. Black is in a great trouble after the too active move 16 . . . �a5, in view of17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 li:Jg8 19.li:Jxe6! .ha4 20 .�a7 fxe6 21.�hfl li:Je7 22 . .he6+- and White wins easily, while after the more tentative ap­proach by Black 16 . . . �c7 17.li:Jf3 :!e7 18.li:Jb6 �b8 19.li:Jxd7 li:Jxd7 20.f5± White organizes effortless­ly powerful pressure in the centre

72

and on the kingside.) 16.e5 .ha4 (It is bad for Black to opt for 16 . . . dxe5 17.�xe5! �xe5 18.fxe5 li:Jd5 19 . .hd5 exd5 20.li:Jb6± White wins a pawn and his pieces are very active. It is also perilous for Black to choose 16 . . . li:Jh7. White has numerous attractive possi­bilities here, but his best seems to be 17.exd6 .ha4 18.�e4� with a decisive attack, for example : 18 . . . �a7 19.li:Jxe6! fxe6 20.�d5+- and Black loses plenty of material, or 18 . . . �c8 19 .li:Jxe6 ! li:Jf6 20 . .ha4+ �xa4 21.d7+ li:Jxd7 22 .li:Jc5+ and he loses his queen; 18 . . . �b8 - this is the most tenacious defence for him. 19 . .ha4+ �xa4 20.li:Jc6, but here he saves the game nei­ther after 20 .. J'lb7 21 .li:Ja5 �xa5 22 .�xb7+-, nor following 20 . . . li:Jf6 21.d7+ li:Jxd7 22 .li:Jxb8 li:Jxb8 23.�b7 li:Jd7 24.�c8+! lt>e7 25. �d4+- and the knight on d7 is lost.) 17.exf6 0-0-0 (In the varia­tion 17 . . . .hb3 18.�xb3 gxf6, White has the pleasant choice between the calm line: 19.f5 e5 20.li:Jc6 �b5 21.li:Jxb4 �c8 22 .li:Jd5± with an obviously superior centralized knight over Black's passive bish­op, and the aggressive approach 19.li:Jxe6!? fxe6 20 .�xe6 :!e7 21. �he1 �c7 22 .�xf6 �f8 23.�g6+ lt>d8 24.�e6±. He will soon gain a third pawn for his bishop after which his centralized pieces will provide him with a stable edge, since his opponent's monarch has no safe shelter.) 18.Wb1 gxf6 19.c3± Black has an extra pawn

indeed, but he is too far from equality, because his king lacks a pawn-shelter and White has ex­cellent attacking chances.

12 . . . l2Jc6 - This is an attempt by Black to exchange White's ac­tive knight.

13.f5 ! �c8 (It is not better for Black to play the seemingly at­tractive move 13 . . . b4, since after 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.l2Jxe6 ! bxc3 16. �xc3gg White gains a couple of pawns for the piece, keeping his opponent's king in the centre and he dominates on the light squares in the middle of the board. Black's defensive problems can be best il­lustrated by the following varia­tions : 16 . . . �c8 17.i.f4 ! i.xe6 18. i.xe6 �b7 19.i.xd6 Ei:d8 20.e5± White's attack is tremendously powerful in a position with mate­rial equality. Black loses, for ex­ample after: 20 . . . l2Je4 21.i.f7+ ! i>xf7 22 .�c4+ i>g6 23.�xe4+ i>h6 24.g4+- and he cannot save his king without huge material losses.) 14.fxe6 fxe6 15.l2Jxc6 i.xc6 16.a3 a5 (It would be too risky for Black to capture the e4-pawn: 16 . . . l2Jxe4 17.�d3 ! --+ White's at-

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .f3 h5 8. �d2

tack is just crushing at the price of only a pawn. Black is lost, for ex­ample following 17 . . . l2Jxc3 18. �g6+ i>d8 19.i.b6+ i>e7 20.E!:hfl i.e8 21.�g5+ i>d7 22 .i.xe6+ i>xe6 23.�f5+ i>e7 24.E!:de1+- with a checkmate; or 16 . . . i.xe4 17.i.d4--+, and now Black is beyond salva­tion after 17 . . . i.f5 18.E!:de1 i>d8 19.Ei:hfl+-, but even in case of the more resilient defence for him 17 . . . d5 18.i.xf6 gxf6 19.l2Jxe4 dxe4 20.�d4--+ White is attacking in a position with material equality and the presence of bishops of op­posite colours on the board only enhances his offensive.) 17.�e2 a4! ? (Black cannot achieve any­thing much in the variation 17 . . . b4 18.l2Jb5 a4 19.i.xe6 �b7 20. c4±, since his king is stranded in the centre, impeding the coordi­nation of his pieces.) 18 .i.a2 b4 19.axb4 a3 20 .�c4! Now, the po­sition is simplifies unavoidably and White ends up with an extra pawn in the endgame. 20 . . . axb2+ 21.i>xb2 Ei:b8 22 .i.b3 l2Jg4 23.i.d4 l2Je5 24.�xe6+ �xe6 25.i.xe6 E!:xb4+ 26.i>a2 Ei:h6 27.i.d5±

73

Chapter 4

13.liJd5! exd5 After 13 . . . li:Jxe4 14.Wfel, Black

loses in case of 14 . . . li:Jg4 15.li:Jxe6 fxe6 16.i.b6+-, as well as follow­ing 14 . . . exd5 15.i.xd5 �c8 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.li:Jc6+-

14.fxe5 dxe5 It is very risky for him to

capture on e4, because in the variation: 14 . . . li:Jxe4 15.Wfel Wfa5 16.exd6 i.xd6 17.li:Jf5± White not only regains his pawn, but he ob­tains the two-bishop advantage in addition, as well as excellent at­tacking prospects.

15.li:Jf3 Wfc7! Black loses in the line: 15 . . .

dxe4? 16.li:Jxe5 i.e6 17.i.a4+-, as well as after 15 . . . �c8? 16.li:Jxe5 i.d6 17.li:Jxd7 Wfxd7 18.�hfl +-

16.li:Jxe5! The attractive idea 16.li:Jg5 !?,

trying to fix Black's d5-pawn at its place can be refuted by the com­puter line: 16 . . . i.b5 17.Wff2 li:Jg4! 18.Wff3 �h6 !t± and after Black's rook on a8 enters the actions, the position becomes completely wild and unclear.

16 . . . Wfxe5 17.i.f4!

74

17 . . . �e6 This is the most interesting

move for Black. 17 . . . Wfe7? - leads to a diffi­

cult position for him. 18.e5 li:Jh7 19.Wfxd5 �d8 20.E1hfl!±, for ex­ample after: 20 . . . i.b5 21.Wff3 i.xfl 22 .Wfc6+ E1d7 23.E1xfl !+- he is helpless against the threats 23 .i.xf7, or 23.e6.

17 . . . li:Jxe4 - This transfer into an endgame only helps Black to avoid the immediate demise. 18.i.xe5 li:Jxd2 19.�xd2 f6 (19 . . . 0-0-0 20.E1xd5 f6 21.i.f4 - see 19 .. .f6) 20 .i.f4 0-0-0 21.E1xd5 g5 22 .i.e3 i.c6 23.E1xd8+ 'it>xd8 24.i.d4 i.e7 25.�fl E1h6 (It is worse for him to play 25 . . . i.xf2 26.E1xf6±) 26.g3;!; - White's pieces are so much more active than their counterparts that Black must still fight long and hard for the draw.

18.exd5 Wfb6 19.�hel+ 'it>d8 2 0 .d6 i.g4 21.d7!

21 . . . i.xd7 White can punish his oppo­

nent in a spectacular fashion, with a long forced variation, for the

greedy move 21 . . .i.xdl? 22J"l:e8+! tt:Jxe8 23.dxe8�+ �xe8 24 . .ia4+ cl1e7 25 . .ig5+ cl1e6 26 . .id7+ �e5 27.�f4+ �d5 28.�xf7+ �e5 29. if4+ �d4 30.�f5 !+- ending with a quiet beautiful move, after which Black will be checkmated, despite his two extra rooks.

After 2l . . . .ic5 22 . .ia4 .ie6 23.�d3 !?gg - Black has an extra piece, but he can hardly find a sensible move, which does not lose by force. He is almost in a zugzwang in the variation 23 .. . !!a7 24 . .ig5±, for example: 24 .. . ie7 25 . .ie3 .ic5 26.i.xc5 �xc5 27.�g3 �c7 28.�xg7 �f4+ 29.�bl !!g8 30.f1xe6! fxe6 31.�f7+- and against 32 .�e8+ Black has no de­fence, just like after 23 . . . h4 24.�f3 �e7 25 . .ie5 f1ad8 26. �f4±, in con­nection with the threat 27 . .ic7+-, he must give away his pawns.

22 . .ixf'7 ga7 23.ge6 �b5 24.ge5 .ic5

He loses outright in case of 24 . . . �c6 24.�e3+- and in the variation 24 . . . �b6 25.�d3 ! �c8 26 . .ie3 �c7 27.i.xa7 �xa7 28 . .ie6+- he cannot save his king against the coordinated actions of White's forces.

25 • .ig3 gc7 26.�g5 �c6 (diagram)

It looks at first sight like Black has coordinated successfully his queenside pieces and has a threat - 27 . . . .ie3+ , but . . .

27.gxd7+ ! �xd7! (He los­es after 27 . . . f1xd7 28.f1xc5 �e4 29.gc4 �e2 30.b3 !+- and for

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 h5 8. �d2

the exchange, White has a pawn and an overwhelming attack. It is bad for Black to play for ex­ample: 30 . . . f1xf7 31.�f4! f1b7 32 .�d6+ and he must give back his rook, because after 32 . . . f1d7 34 . .ih4+ �e8 35.�g6+ he gets checkmated.) 28 . . . �e7 (In case of 28 . . . �d6 29.f1d5 .ie3+ 30.�xe3 tt:Jxd5 31.�g5+ �e7 32.�xd5+ �e8 33 . .id6 l"l:d7 34.i.xd7+ �xd7 35.b3± Black's king is in the open and his rook is passive, so White has the chance to gobble up all his opponent's queenside pawns.) 29 • .ih3 �d6 3 0 .ge6 �d4 31. gel! h4 32.i.xc7 + �xc7 33. �xg7+ tt:ld7 34.�xd4 i.xd4 35.i.xd7± Black is faced with an unpleasant choice between play­ing with bishops of opposite col­ours with rooks present on the board and two pawns down, or in a rook and pawn endgame, but with only one missing pawn.

c3b) ll . . . .ib7 (diagram)

12 . .ig5!?

75

Chapter 4

White exploits the absence of tt:Jxd5 �xd2 20J'!xd2 .ixd5 21 . Black's pawn on h7. l:'!:xd5+- White's material advan-

12 • • • ea5 13.1t>bl tt:lc4?! tage is decisive; This move leads to the change 17 . . . dxe5 18 . .ixf6+- with a

of the pawn-structure in favour of checkmate. White and facilitates his attempts 17 . . . '.t>d7 18.exf6 g6 (or 18 . . . to open the e-file. \!;}'b6 19.fxg7 .ixg7 20.tt:la4 \!;}'c6

Black had better play 13 . . . i.e7 21.l:'!:e7+ '.t>c8 22.�f4+- and Black 14.l:'!:heU, or 13 . . . l:'!:c8 14.l:'!:heU can avoid the checkmate only at

14.hc4 bxc4 15.ghel± the price of huge material losses) White has completed his de- 19.i.f4 �c5 20.i.xd6 i.xd6 21.l:'!:e7+

velopment and controls the cen- '.t>c8 22 .tt:la4 ec6 23.exd6+-; tre, so he begins a direct attack. 17 . . . tt:lh7! - This move would

15 • . • gbs? not save Black either, but it is Black ignores his opponent's still his best defence. 18.exd6+

threats, but he fails to create '.t>d7 19.l:'!:e7+ he7 20.dxe7+ .idS counterplay along the b-file. 21.ef4! This is the most precise

He had some chances of a reaction by White and now Black successful defence after 15 . . . i.e7 is lost in all the variations: 21 . . . 16.f4± '.t>c6 (After 21 . . .�b4 22 .\!;}'xf5+

16.tt:lf5! exf5 '.t>e8 23.b3 cxb3 24.axb3 tt:lxg5 It is worse for him to play 16. . . 25.tt:lxd5+- White attacks with a

l:'!:d8? 17 . .ixf6 gxf6 18.tt:ld5 ! \!;}'xd2 material advantage, or 21 . . .l:'!:xb2+ 19.tt:lxf6# 22.1t>xb2 �b4+ 23.'.t>c1 �a3+ 24.

17.e5! '.t>d2 tt:lxg5 25.�xg5+- - Black (diagram) loses his bishop, since it has no

17 • • . .tc8 safe haven against the discovered Now, it is easy to understand check.) 22 .�xf5! g6 23.�e5 tt:lxg5

that Black loses in all the cases : 24.lLJxd5 '.t>b7 25.�xg5+- White's 17 . . . tt:ld5 18.exd6+ '.t>d7 19. powerful passed e7-pawn sup-

76

ported by all his pieces and Black's bare king guarantee for White an easy victory.

18.exf6+ J.e6 19.fxg7 hg7 2 0 .'ffxd6! �b2+ 2U�xb2 (Of course not 21.i>c1?? :B:xc2+-) 21 . . . tfxc3+ 22.<!>cl 'ffb2+ 23.<!>d2 tfd4+ (23 . . . '1Wc3+ 24.i>e2 Wfxc2+ 2S.<!>f1+-) 24.'ffxd4 hd4 25. <!>e2 J.b6 26J:!bl! J.c7 27. gb7+- .bh2 28.{4 0 - 0 29. ght J.g3 3 o .gxhs <!>g7 (30 . . .f6 31.hf6+-) 31.J.h6+ <!>g6 32. gg5+ 1-0 Khalifman - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 1983.

d) 7 . . . J.e7

This is one of the main lines for Black together with 7 . . . b5 and 7 . . . lt:Jc6. He completes the devel­opment of his kingside, without being afraid of White's oncoming attack.

8.tM2 After this, Black has tried

many different moves in practice. We will pay thorough attention to dl) 8 . . . lt:Jbd7, d2) 8 . . . 'ffc7 and d3) 8 . . . 0 - 0 .

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 j3 i.e7 B. Wfd2

He has played too: 8 . . . d5 9 .e5 lt:Jfd7 10.f4 - this is a

position from the French defence, volume 6, for example: 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.i.d3 - Chapter 15, variation c; 8 . . . b5 9.g4 - see Chapter 9 ; 8 . . . lt:Jc6 9.0-0-0 - see Chapters 6-8 ; 8 . . . h5 9.0-0-0 - see variation c.

8 . . . i.d7 - This move leads to original positions only seldom. Black usually develops later his knight on c6 and this transposes to variations, we deal with in the next chapter. 9 .g4 0-0 (About 9 . . . lt:Jc6 10.0-0-0 or 9 . . . h6 10. 0-0-0 lt:Jc6 11.h4 - see Chapter 6, line a; 9 .. . b5 lO.gS - see Chapter 9.) 10 .g5 lt:Je8 ll.h4 g6, A.Karpov - Kartavcev, Voronezh (simultan) 1997 and now, it is very attractive for White to continue with 12 .h5 lt:Jg7 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.0-0-0± and it is inconceivable how Black can parry White's oncoming attack along the h-file.

dl) 8 . . . lt:Jbd7 This move deprives the knight

on f6 of a square to retreat to. 9.g4

77

Chapter 4

9 . • .lbb6 About 9 . . . Wfc7 10.gS - see vari-

ation d2; 9 . . . 0-0 10.0-0-0 - see 8 . . . 0-0, variation d3.

9 . . . lt:lcS - Black's knight is re­stricted by White's pawn on e4 on this square and it is bound to remain passive. 10.0-0-0 Wfc7 11.gS lt:lhS (In reply to 11 . . . lt:lfd7, Adontaki - Naxakis, Chania 1997, White can win a piece with 12 .b4! lUeS ! 13.f4 lt:lcd7 14.fxeS dxeS 1S. lt:lb3 hb4 16.i>b2 0-0 17.a3 fi.e7 18.h4± and after the forced play, Black's two pawns are insufficient to compensate his missing knight.) 12 .i>b1 g6 (After 12 . . . fi.d7 13.fi.e2 g6 14.f4± Black must waste time in order to retreat his knight to g7; otherwise the pawn-structure will be changed unfavorably for him.) 13.lt:lde2 bS 14.lt:lg3 lt:lg7 1S.h4± He fails to prevent the opening of the h-file and his knight on g7 does not contribute much to his defence, Mohr - Mikhalchishin, Podlehnik 2001.

9 . . . h6 - Black stops White's pawn-offensive for a while, but he compromises his kingside. 10. 0-0-0 bS? ! (It is preferable for Black to play 10 . . . Wfc7 11.h4 - see line b2 or 10 . . . lt:leS 11.fi.e2 - see Chapter 6, 9 . . . lt:leS) 11.lt:lc6 Wfc7 12.lt:lxe7 i>xe7, Heinz - D.Lutz, Oberhof 1998. White has ob­tained the two-bishop advantage and has kept his opponent's king in the centre. After 13.i>b1 lUeS 14.Wff2t, his activity seems quite threatening. For example, Black's

78

natural move 14 . . . fi.d7, with the idea to obtain some queenside counterplay. enables White to sacrifice advantageously the ex­change: 1S.fi.b6 Wfc6 16.l'!xd6! i>xd6 17.Wfd4+ i>e7 18.fi.cS+ i>e8 19.WfxeS l'!c8 20.fi.d6± and Black has practically no moves at all.

9 . . . lt:leS - His knight only comes under an attack with tempi on this square. 10.gS lt:lhS (About 10 . . . lt:lfd7 11.0-0-0 Wfc7 12.f4 -see Chapter 6, line cl) 11.0-0-0 fi.d7 12.l'!gl bS? ! 13.f4 lt:lc4 14.hc4 bxc4 1S.Wie2 g6 16.Wfxc4 0-0 17.fS± - White has won a pawn and he has complete control over the centre, Rudnev - Sapojnikov, Togliatti 2001.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .!Dfd7 It is also possible for Black to

play 10 . . . 0-0 11 .h4 - see 8 . . . 0-0, variation d3, or 10 . . . Wfc7 11.gS lt:lfd7 12.f4 lt:lc4 13.hc4 Wfxc4 14.fS - see Chapter 6, line cl.

ll.g5 .!be5 Naturally, White should not

allow this knight to come to the c4-square and with this Black's entire set-up becomes senseless.

12.b3! .id7?, Cabart - Novot­ny, Prague 2006, Black's position was already difficult, but after this blunder it became lost. 13.f4 c!Dg6 (In case of 13 . . . tt:lg4 14.i.g1 h6 15.i.e2+- he loses his knight on g4, while in the variation 13 . . . tt:lc6 14.tt:lxc6 hc6 15.�d4+- he loses his g7-pawn.) 14.h4 e5 15.fxe5 c!Dxe5 16.c!Df5+- Black has no adequate defence of his d6 and g7-pawns, because it would be bad for him to choose 16 . . . i.xf5 17.exf5 and White's light-squared bishop becomes a monster and his kingside pawns are very dan­gerous as well.

d2) 8 . • • �c7 Black postpones for a while

his queenside counterplay, trying at first to deploy comfortably his pieces.

9.g4

9 • • • h6 About 9 . . . tt:lc6 10.0-0-0 -

see Chapter 6, line c; 9 . . . b5 - see Chapter 9; 9 . . . 0-0 - see 8 . . . 0-0, variation d3.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 i.e7 8. �d2

9 . . . e5? ! - This move compro­mises the light squares in the cen­tre. 10.tt:lf5 .ixfS, Pawlick - Riess, Mecklenburg 2004 and here it would be best for White to capture the pawn ll.gxf5 (In response to ll.exfS, Black can inflict a coun­ter strike in the centre ll . . . dS !�) ll . . . g6 (ll . . . tt:lbd7 12.0-0-0 tt:lb6 13J!g1 g6 14.�f2±) 12 .0-0-0 gxf5 13.l"!gl± White's compensation for the pawn is more than sufficient, dominating on the g-file and exploiting the vulnerable light squares in Black's camp.

9 . . . b6? ! - This is a loss of time, since Black's only possible coun­terplay is connected with the ad­vance b7-b5. 10.0-0-0 i.b7 (Af­ter 10 . . . tt:lc6 ll.gS tt:ld7, Romero Holmes - E.Gonzales, Barcelona 1985, 12.tt:lxc6 Wl'xc6 13.h4t White is clearly ahead of his opponent.) ll.h4 tt:Jbd7 12 .g5 tt:lh5 13J:!g1 tt:leS 14.f4 tt:lc4 15.hc4 �xc4 16.f5± -Black has great problems creating counterplay, since his king has no safe shelter and impedes the co­ordination of his pieces, Bozanic - Florjancic, Bled 1997.

9 . . . tt:lfd7 - Black retreats his knight in anticipation of the at­tack with g4-g5. 10.0-0-0 tt:leS, Kanefsck - Najdorf, Mar del Plata 1994 (About 10 . . . b5 - see Chapter 9; 10 . . . tt:lc6 - see Chap­ter 6, line c5; after 10 . . . tt:lb6 ll.gS tt:l8d7, Cioara - Mozny, Germany 2004, White can emphasize the awkward placement of Black's knights with the natural reac-

79

Chapter 4

tion 12.f4 tt:lc5 13.f5±). The knight has avoided the attack of one of White's pawns, but now it comes under threat by another one and following ll.g5 0-0 12 .f4t White has excellent attacking prospects, for example: 12 . . . tt:lc4 (12 . . . tt:Jec6 13.tt:lb3 tt:ld7 14.h4±) 13.hc4 �xc4 14.f5 b5 15.f6 gxf6 16J:\hg1--+ and Black's king is probably be­yond salvation already.

9 . . . tt:Jbd7 - After this move, the knight on f6 is repelled at the edge of the board. 10.g5 tt:lh5 (Natu­rally, it is even worse for Black to play 10 . . . tt:lg8 11.h4t. Here af­ter ll . . . tt:lb6 12.0-0-0 f6 13J:!gl± he falls behind catastrophically in development, Herrera Sosa -Baquero, Bogota 2004, but it is hardly better for him to opt for ll . . . tt:le5, Melnikova - Kilimnik, Alushta 2005, because after the natural reply 12.f4 White has ex­tra space and Black has no coun­terplay in the variation 12 . . . tt:lg4 13 . .ig1 b5 14.a3 .ib7 15.0-0-0±, as well as after 12 . . . tt:lc4 13.hc4 �xc4 14.0-0-0 .id7 15.f5±) 11. 0-0-0 tt:le5 (His queenside activ­ity with ll . . . b5 12.'it>b1 b4 13.tt:Jce2 l'!b8 14.tt:lg3± leads to a situation in which White will either com­promise Black's pawn structure, or he will dominate on the h-file, Tsuboi - Desideri, Americana 2001.) 12.f4 tt:Jc4 13.hc4 �xc4 14.f5± He has occupied space on the kingside and leads consider­ably in development, Fressinet -Mansilla, Internet 2001.

80

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 • . .tl:Jbd7 About 10 . . . tt:lc6 ll.h4 - see

Chapter 6, line c3; 10 . . . b5 - see Chapter 9, 8 . . . .ie7 9.g4 h6 10. 0-0-0 �c7 11.h4.

10 . . . .id7 ll .h4 b5, Se.Novikov, - Korzeb, Internet 2004 (ll . . . tt:lc6 12.l'!g1 - see Chapter 6, line c3),

White can continue here with 12 . .ih3 b4 (or 12 . . . tt:Jc6 13.g5±) 13.tt:lce2 e5 14.tt:lf5 hf5 15.exf5 tt:lc6 16.g5± and he controls the centre and has a dangerous initia­tive on the kingside.

ll.h4 ll:Jb6 It is preferable for Black to

play ll . . . b5 - see Chapter 12 ; as for ll . . . tt:Je5 - see Chapter 6, line c3.

ll . . . tt:lh7 - Black retreats delib­erately his knight away from the centre and he comes under a dan­gerous attack. 12 .g5 h5 13.g6--+ Bombin Pinera - Fuente Gutier­rez, Asturias 2000.

12.�g2 g6 13.g5 hxg5 14. hxg5 ll:Jh5 15.f4 e5?! T.Ernst -Silseth, Gausdal 1992.

Black's position was rather dif­ficult, because of his lack of active counterplay, but after that move he was lost: 16.�gl!+-. It is easy to understand that Black is be­yond salvation and that is mostly due to his unfortunate knight on b6:

16 . . . tt:Jc4 17.lt:Jd5+-; 16 . . . tt:Jd7 17.tt:Jds �as 18.tt:Jb3

\l;Yd8 19.fxe5 dxeS 20.lt:Jb6 l":\b8 21.i.h3+-;

16 . . . exf4 17.lt:Jdb5 axb5 18 . .ixb6 \l;Yb8 19.lt:Jxb5 l":\xa2 20.�b1+-;

16 . . . i.d7 17.lt:Jf5 gxfS 18 . .ixb6 \l;Yc6 19.i.e2+-

White remains with extra ma­terial in all the variations and it is sufficient for victory.

d3) 8 . . . 0 - 0 This is Black's most natural re­

sponse. 9. 0 - 0 - 0

(diagram) 9 • . . \l;Yc7 About 9 . . . b5 10.g4 - see Chap­

ter 9; 9 . . . lt:Jc6 10.g4 - see Chap­ters 7-8.

9 . . . �a5 - This is just a loss of

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 ..fJ i.e7 8. � d2

time. 10.�b1 lt:Jc6? (After 10 . . . \l;Yc7 ll .g4t, there arise standard po­sitions, in which White's king is much more comfortable.) ll .lt:Jxc6 bxc6 12 .lt:Jd5+- Milde - Suer­mann, Email 2006.

9 . . . i.d7 - that is too slow. 10.g4 eS? ! (Black has tried other moves here as well: lO . . . bS ll .gS - see Chapter 9; 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.gS -see Chapters 7-8; 10 . . . h6? ! - this move only creates a target for White's attack: ll.h4 lilh7, Masta­can - Anusca, Sovata 2001, he can continue here with 12 .g5 h5 13.f4± with excellent attacking pros­pects, while Black has no coun­terplay. In answer to 10 . . . lt:Je8, Sakic - Irimia, Gelsenkirchen 2001, it is attractive for White to follow with his standard massive kingside pawn-offensive ll.h4 bS 12 .g5 - see Chapter 9.) ll.lt:JfS MS, Blanc - Cheraki, Marseille 1999 and here it is reasonable for White to increase the number of his kingside pawns in order to de­stroy easier the pawn-shelter of Black's king - 12.exf5 ! tt:Jbd7 13.g5 tt:Je8 14.lt:Jd5 lt:JcS 15.h4+-

81

Chapter 4

9 . . . lLlbd7 10.g4 and now Black has tried in practice:

10 . . .'�c7 ll.g5 - see 9 . . . �c7; 10 . . . e5? - This move weakens

the important d5 and f5-squares. 11.lLlf5 b5, Ibanez Iglesias - Cal­deron Diestro, Matinhos 1999, White's attack becomes decisive after the natural line : 12 .g5 b4 (In case of 12 . . . lLlh5 13.lLld5+-, Black loses at least an exchange and a pawn.) 13.gxf6 bxc3 14.lLlh6+ !--+ and he is lost: 14 . . . 'it>h8 15.fxg7+ lt>xg7 16.�g2+ 'it>h8 17J!g1 cxb2+ 18.'it>b1 i.f6 19.�g8+ �xg8 20. lLlxf7# ;

In reply to 10 . . . b5?, White can simply win a pawn with: ll.lLlc6 �e8, Winkler Dunlop, Caleta 2010, 12.lLlxe7+ �xe7 13. �xd6+-;

10 . . . h6? - This move only en­hances White's attacking chances. ll.h4 lLle8 12 .g5 h5 13.f4--+ Rem­pel - Butz, Balingen 2006;

10 . . . g6? ! - It is very bad for Black to try Dragon schemes with his bishop on e7. ll .i.h6 �e8 12 .h4± Cukrowski - Bednarkie­wicz, Polanica Zdroj 2008;

10 . . . lLlc5?! - Black's knight has no good prospects on this square. ll.h4 �c7 12 .h5 b5, S.Novikov -Tristan, Dos Hermanas 2004 and White's attack becomes very dan­gerous after the attractive line: 13 .g5 b4 14.lLlce2 lLle8 (In case of 14 . . . lLlcxe4 15.fxe4 lLlxe4 16.�el i.b7 17J!g1 �ac8 18.\t>bl± Black does not obtain sufficient com­pensation for the piece, since his

82

threats are parried and White's attack begins with a decisive ef­fect.) 15.g6--+;

10 .. . lLle5 - The knight will be attacked with tempi on this square. ll.g5 lLle8 (The other re­treats of the knight are not satis­factory either: ll . . . lLlh5 12 .i.e2 b5 13.f4 lLlc4 14.i.xc4 bxc4 15.lLlc6 �c7 16.lLlxe7+ �xe7 17.�xd6+­White ended up with a solid ex­tra pawn in the game Giroyan - Yuksel, Herceg Novi 2006; or 11. . .lLlfd7, Vo Thi Bich - Truong Thi Hong, Vietnam 2002, 12 .f4 lLlc6 13.h4--+ Black has lost two tempi for the maneuver lLlc6-e5-c6, thanks to which White's at­tack is running effortlessly.) 12 .f4 lLlg4 13.i.g1 e5, Tomizawa - Ho­rie, Japan 2001, White open files advantageously with the help of a temporary piece-sacrifice : 14.h3 ! exd4 15.i.xd4 lLlgf6 16.gxf6 lLlxf6 17.�gl±;

10 . . . �e8 ll.g5 lLlh5 12 .i.e2± Black's knight on h5 only enhanc­es the development of White's at­tack, while after 12 . . . e5? 13.lLlf5 i.f8 14.lLlxd6+- Black loses his central pawn, Blancho - Sauvan, France 2004;

10 . . . lLlb6 - This knight is only very seldom placed well in front of the b7-pawn in the Sicilian de­fence. ll.h4 i.d7 (In case of 11 . . . lLlfd7 12 .f4 lLlc5 13.\t>bl± White's game is tremendously easy - he develops a pawn-offensive on the kingside and Black has no active play at all, Papadopoulos

- Maloney, Batumi 2006.) 12 .h5 Ek8 13.g5 ltJe8 14.g6± - White is opening files on the kingside and soon his attack will become deci­sive, Costa - Dorado Martin, corr. 2008.

1 0 .g4

l O . . . lLlbd7 About 10 . . . ltJc6 - see Chapter

7; lO . . . bS - see Chapter 9. 10 . . . h6? - Black facilitates the

development of White's attack by creating a target in this fashion. ll.h4 ltJh7 12 .g5 h5 13.f4 ltJc6 14.f5 ltJxd4 15 . .b:d4 exfS 16.lLld5 \Wd8, Witt - Sefeloge, Bad Homburg 2007, White can play here 17 . .ib6 �d7 18.exf5+- and he practically stalemates his opponent.

10 .. J''1d8 - Black fails to organ­ize counterplay in the centre, so this move only compromises the protection of his king. ll.gS ltJe8 12 .h4 ltJc6 13.h5 ttJxd4 14 . .b:d4 bS 15.g6-+ Basin - Ghiata, East Lan­sing 1991.

10 . . . ltJfd7 - This move does not contribute to Black's counterplay and it does not slow down White's

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 .ie7 8. \Wd2

attack. ll.h4 bS 12.h5 b4 13.ltJa4 aS (13 . . . �a5 14.b3 .ib7 lS.gS ltJc6 16.g6-+) 14.g5 .ib7 15.g6± Black is faced with a difficult defence, Or­tiz Aguirre - Bednikova, Cannes 1997.

ll.g5 ltJe8 ll . . . ltJhS - This knight will

come under attack on this square. 12.f4 g6 13 . .ie2 ltJg7, Torres Es­pallardo - Valles Calvo, Escaquer 1996, the bad placement of Black's knight can be best emphasized with the line: 14.f5 gxfS 15.exf5 exfS (White's attack is not less dangerous after 15 . . . ltJxf5 16.ltJxf5 exfS 17.ltJd5 \Wd8 18 . .id4 ltJeS 19. Elhg1-+) 16.ltJd5 �d8 17.Eihg1 ltJcS 18 . .if3 .id7 19.h4-+ - Black's extra pawn does not help in the defence of his king.

12.h4 White's position is so good

that he can attack with the other pawn as well: 12.f4 bS 13.f5t, and Black lost very quickly after the hasty reply 13 . . . exf5? 14.ltJd5 \Wd8 15.ltJc6 1-0 Rusyniak - English, Niskayuna 2003.

12 ... b5 13.h5 b4 White's attack develops ef­

fortlessly after 13 . . . ltJc5 14.g6 b4 15.gxh7+ c;!;>h8 16.lLlb1 .if6, Dae­chert - Kouwenhoven, Rimavska Sobota 1992, since White can con­tinue with 17.h6 g6 18.\Wxb4 Elb8 19.\Wa3+- ending up with two extra pawns, a safer king and very active pieces.

13 . . . ltJe5 - This move does not prevent the opening of files on the

83

Chapter 4

kingside. 14.g6

There may follow: 14 . . . hxg6 15.h6-7 White opens

the h-file and the dark squares around Black's king.

14 . . . fxg6 - This move weak­ens the e6-pawn. which protects the vital dS-square. 15.hxg6 tl:lxg6 16 . .ih3 WaS, Scherber - Sim­sheuser, Ruhrgebiet 1997 (White's attack is very strong too after 16 . . . b4 17.he6+ he6 18.tl:lxe6 Wc4 19.tl:ld5 l"lxf3 20.tl:ld4 l"lf7 21. b3 WeB 22 .Wh2-7). Following the natural line: 17.he6+ he6 18.tl:lxe6 b4 19.tl:ld5 l"lxf3 20.'i!?b1 .if6 21 .Wh2+- Black's king is be­yond salvation.

14 . . . b4 15.gxh7+ 'i!?h8 16.tl:lb1 dS (White's game is even sim­pler after 16 . . . f5 17.exf5 exfS, Eggenstein - Becker, Reckling­hausen 2002, he continues with 18.h6 g6 19.f4 tl:lc4 20.hc4 Wxc4 21.Wg2+- and Black's king is in

a mortal danger.) 17.h6 g6 18.f4 tl:lc4 19.hc4 dxc4 20.f5 eS (20 . . . gxfS 2l.Wg2+-; He fails to create counterplay after 20 . . . exf5 2l .exf5 c3 22.bxc3 bxc3 23.Wd3 ! l"lb8 24. l"ldgl±) 21.tl:lf3 gxfS 22.tl:lxe5 c3 23.bxc3 .if6 24.Wd5 l"lb8 25.tl:ld7 hd7 26.Wxd7 fxe4 27.Wxc7 tl:lxc7 28.l"lhf1 .ieS 29 . .ic5+- White ob­tains a decisive material advan­tage and he only needs to play ac­curately to realize it.

14.tl:la4 ti'b7 It would be a disaster for Black

to opt for 14 . . . Wa5? 15.tl:lc6 Wxa4 16.tl:lxe7+ 'i!?h8, Husemann - Het­tel, Ruhrgebiet 1998, 17.'i!?b1 tl:leS 18.h6 g6 19.f4 tl:ld7 20 . .ih3+- and he is helpless against the threat 21.Wd4+.

15.g6 tl:le5, Meier - O'Brien, Saint Vincent 2005, White can provoke now the weakening of his opponent's e6-pawn with: 16 • .ig5!? .ixg5 (It would be even worse for Black to choose 16 . . .f6 17.gxh7+ 'i!?h8 18 . .ie3 .id7 19.b3±, since his kingside is compromised, his king has no safe shelter and he has no counterplay.) 17.gxh7+ 'i!?h8 18.lYxg5 f6 19.'�e3 .id7 2 0 .b3± Black's e6-pawn is weak and his king is rather unsafe. To make matters worse, he has no counterplay either.

Conclusion In this chapter we begin our analysis of the English attack, which

is characterized by the moves: l.e4 c5 2. tLlj3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. tLlxd4 tLlf6 5. tLlc3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 j3. Black's most popular replies 7 . . . tl:lc6 and 7 . . .

84

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 .j3

b5 will be dealt with in the next chapters, while here we have analyzed the rest of Black's alternatives.

a) 7 . . . V9c7 - This is a standard Sicilian move and it is played in many other schemes, as well as in the other variations of the English attack. Black should better try to transpose to them; otherwise, his attempts to reach original positions only lead to situations in which White organizes a dangerous kingside offensive quite easily.

b) 7 . .JiJbd7 - This good move enables Black to enter schemes, we analyze in part 3 after he pushes b7-b5. His tries to avoid playing this move deprive him of chances of obtaining any counterplay.

c) 7 . . . h5 - Black weakens his kingside with this move, but impedes White's pawn-offensive there. After the natural response 8. V9d2, Black can choose his further course of actions:

in the variation cl) 8 . . . V9c7, he prevents the appearance of White's bishop on c4. The drawback of the move is that in some variations White's standard piece-sacrifice on b5 becomes very attractive. In order to avoid this, Black sometimes must refrain from the thematic pawn-advance b7-b5 and this helps White to develop comfortably his pieces;

the premature move c2) 8 . . . b5 enables White to begin active ac­tions on the queenside with 9.a4!? In the main line, there arise varia­tions similar to positions from the French defence and White has extra space and better development;

Black's most popular move is c3) 8.J i Jbd7, but it presents White with the possibility 9. �c4, after which Black, in order to avoid the sacrifice 1 0 . he6, is practically forced to play 9. J iJe5 1 0 . �b3 and here the bestfor him seems to be 10 . . . b5, but following 11. 0 - 0-0 , he is again faced with a choice between ll. .. �b7 and ll . . . �d7. The conse­quences are somewhat similar - White must play very actively, try­ing to attack the enemy king and sacrificing material if necessary. If you study well these forced variations in our book, this willfacilitate considerably your calculations over the board.

When Black plays d) 7 . . . i.e7, he wishes at first to complete the development of his king side and begin active queenside actions only later.

In the lines: dl) 8 .. . liJbd7 and d2) 8 . . . V9c7, if Black tries to avoid transposition and reach original positions, he usually fails to castle and create any counterplay. Even after the natural move d3) 8 . . . 0-0 , White's kingside initiative is tremendously dangerous and it usually turns into a crushing attack.

85

Chapter S l.e4 c5 2)L!f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4)L!xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 �c6

This move is at least as popu­lar as the move 7 . . . b5, which we analyze in part 3, because it is fully in the spirit of the fight for the centre.

8.ti'd2 This is the most natural move

for White. He prepares castling long, followed by an offensive on the kingside.

Black replies to this most of­ten with 8 . . . .ie7 - see Chapters 6-8, while here we will analyze the moves a) 8 . . . .!Llxd4, b) 8 . . . .id7 and c) 8 . . . ti'c7.

The alternatives for him usu­ally lead to transpositions:

About 8 . . ,gb8 9.0-0-0 .ie7 10.g4 0-0 ll.g5 - see Chapter 7; as for 8 . . . h5 9.0-0-0 - see

86

Chapter 4, variation c. 8 ... d5 (White is much better

prepared for the opening of the centre.) 9.exd5

Black has tried in practice both captures here:

After 9 . . . exd5, he ends up with an isolated pawn and lags in development, so he risks los­ing rather quickly. 10.0-0-0 .ib4 (10 . . . .ie7 ll.g4 - see Chapter 6) ll.a3 .ixc3 12.Wfxc3± White has obtained the two-bishop advan­tage and threatens to organize a dangerous attack, I. Poulsen - Ag­ger, Esbjerg 2004.

The move 9 . . . . .!Llxd5 leads to calmer positions with a stable ad­vantage for White. 10 . .!Llxd5 Wlxd5 (About 10 . . . exd5 11.0-0-0 .ie7 12 . .!Llxc6 - see Chapter 6, 9 . . . d5.)

1l.c4 WI' aS (About ll . . . Wfd8 12.lt:Jxc6 - see 11. . .Wfa5; it seems riskier for Black to play ll . . . Wfd6 12.0-0-0 ,id7 13.Wff2 tt:Jxd4 14.hd4 B:c8 15.f4 i.a4 16.b3 i.c6 17.i.d3t and his lag in the development of the kingside may present White with good attacking chances, W.Watson - A.Greenfeld, Beer­sheba 1987.) 12.lt:Jxc6 Wfxd2+ 13.hd2 bxc6 14.i.c3 cS, Svatos - Rajnys, Prague 1995, White can continue here with 15.B:d1 f6 16.'i!?f2 il.e7 17.i.d3 mf7 18.i.e4 !!b8 19.b3± and he maintains a stable advantage, thanks to his superior pawn-structure, domi­nation over the only open file and more active pieces.

a) 8 . . . tL'Jxd4

This move looks quite natural. Black wishes at first to provoke a conflict on the kingside and then to complete his development.

9 . .ixd4 b5 About 9 . . . i.e7 10.0-0-0 - see

Chapter 6, variation b. After 9 . . . e5, Black's pawn

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 tt:Jc6 8. Wfd2

comes to eS in two moves and White wins a tempo. 10.i.e3

and then: 10 .. . i.e7 11.0-0-0 - see Chap­

ter 6, variation b; In response to 10 . . . h6, Coelho

- C. Martinez, Brazil 2000, it looks natural for White to complete his development with 11.0-0-0 i.e6 12.'i!?b1 bS 13.g4t;

10 . . . Wfa5 - This is an aggres­sive sortie. 11.0-0-0 i.e6 12.\!tbl i.e7? ! 13.Wff2 Wfc7 (Black must re­treat in view of the threat 14.i.b6.) 14.g4 0-0 (It is hardly better for him to opt for 14 . . . h6 15.h4 bS, Vallejo Pons - Rodriguez Var­gas, Lanzarote 2003, because White continues with 16.i.e2 Wfb7 17.g5 b4 18.lt:Ja4 tt:Jd7 19.b3± and he practically stalemates Black's queenside counterplay and has his standard kingside initiative unop­posed and controls the centre.) 15.h4 bS 16.g5 lt:JhS, Kovacevic -Bistric, Herceg Novi 2002, White can exploit the weakness of the dS-square by playing 17.lt:Jd5 .ixdS 18.B:xd5 fS (In the variation 18 . . . b4 19.i.h3 aS 20.i.g4 lt:Jf4 21..ixf4 exf4 22 .h5� White's kingside at-

87

Chapter S

tack is tremendously powerful, even enhanced by the presence of bishops of opposite colours on the board.) 19.exfS :i'!xfS 20.i.d3 :i'!ff8 21.i.e4± He ends up with a stable advantage, because of his light­squared bishop, perfectly placed in the centre of the board, which has no opponent at all ;

10 . . . i.e6 - This is the best square for Black's bishop. 11. 0-0-0 :i'!c8 (About 11 . . . \WaS 12. �b1 - see 10 . . . '\WaS; 11 . . . bS 12 .g4 \WaS 13.a3 - see 9 . . . bS; 11 . . . i.e7 12 .g4 - see Chapter 6, variation b.) 12 .g4 h6 13.h4 \WaS 14.�b1 tt:ld7 (Black's standard exchange­sacrifice 14 . . . :i'!xc3 1S.\Wxc3 i.xa2+ 16.�a1 1Wxc3 17.bxc3 i.e6 18.c4± would not facilitate his defence: White controls the centre and he can attack the b7-pawn, while Black can hardly create any seri­ous threats against the c4-pawn. The move 14 . . . bS enables White to weaken the entire complex of Black's pawns. 1S.tt:ldS \Wxd2 16. tt:lxf6+ gxf6 17.:i'!xd2 i.e7 18.hS± His kingside pawns are very weak and White will gradually prepare advantageous opening of files on the queenside, Tautiva - Meza Saavedra, Medellin 2009.) 1S.i.e2 tt:lb6 16.a3 tt:lc4 (In the variation 16 . . . tt:la4 17.tt:lxa4 1Wxa4 18.gS hS 19.g6 fxg6 20.:i'!hg1 i.f7 21.i.gS l'!c6 22 .f4�, White obtains a powerful attack for the pawn, while after 18 . . . hxgS 19.hxgS :i'!xh1 20.:i'!xh1 �d7 21.i.d3 �c7 22 .:i'!h7t, despite the considerable simplifications,

88

Black's defence is very difficult, because he has no active counter­play.) 17.i.xc4 :i'!xc4 18.gS hS 19. f4± Campant - Dille, corr. 1998.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

10 . . . .ib7 About 10 . . . \Wc7 11. g4 - see

variation c, 9 . . . tt:lxd4; as for 10 . . . i.e7 11.g4 - see Chapter 6, varia­tion b.

10 . . . i.d7 11.g4 h6 12 .h4 - see variation b3.

In response to 10 . . . '\WaS, Wete­schnik - Csom, Paks 1996, it seems reasonable for White to restrict the mobility of his op­ponent's pieces on the queenside with 11.a3 i.b7 (11 . . . eS 12 .i.e3 i.e6 13 .g4 l'!c8 14.gSt) 12 .g4 tt:ld7 13. �b1 t and Black can hardly cre­ate any meaningful threats on the queenside, while White's play on the kingside looks very easy.

ll.g4 (diagram)

ll . . . b4 This is the most natural move

for Black - he occupies space on the queenside.

ll . . . lt:Jd7 12 .a3 l'!c8 13 .h4 - see n . . . l'!c8.

11. . .h6 - This move seems to be a loss of time. 12.cj;>b1 l'!c8 13.i.d3 tt:Jd7 14.f4 lt:Jc5 15.a3 tt:Jxd3 16.�xd3 �c7 17.l'!he1 �c4 18.�d2± Black has problems completing his development, Jirovsky - Pas­chall, USA 2000.

After 11 . . .�a5, he prevents opening of files on the queenside. 12.cj;>b1 b4 13.lt:Je2 l'!c8 (In case of 13 . . . i.e7 14.h4 e5? ! 15.i.e3 l'!d8 16.g5 lt:Jh5 17.c4 ! bxc3 18.lt:Jxc3 lt:Jg3 19.l'!g1 lt:Jxf1 20 .l'!gxf1 l'!d7 21.h5± Black ended up in an un­pleasant position without any counterplay in the game Sikorova - Alexandrova, Frydek-Mistek 1997, but even after the natural move 14 . . . 0-0 15.g5 lt:Jd7 16.lt:Jg3 lt:Je5 17.�f2t, White has excellent attacking chances.) 14.lt:Jg3 d5, Ju­rcik - Pozin, Olomouc 2007 and here it seems very attractive for him to play 15.i.xf6 gxf6 16.lt:Jh5 i.e7 17.�h6t, because he has de­stroyed his opponent's kingside and obtained excellent attacking prospects against Black's king

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lt:Jc6 8. �d2

stranded in the centre. After 17 . . . �c5 (Black loses in case of 17 . . . �d8 18.exd5 i.xd5 19.i.xa6+-, as well as following 17 . . . l'!g8 18.\1tfxh7 cj;lf8 19.i.d3+- White has a solid extra pawn and much more active pieces.) 18.i.d3± Black can hardly find a safe haven for his king, or create any serious threats on the queenside, because his kingside pieces are bound to remain very passive.

After ll . . . l'!c8 12 .h4 lt:Jd7, Win­slow - London, New York 1993, White can contain his opponent's queenside pawns with 13.a3 lt:Je5 14.�e3 tt:Jc6 15.i.b6 �d7 16.cj;lblt

12.lt:Je2 a5 13.cj;>bl gcs

This position was reached in the game Dominguez Santos -Jimenez Valcarcel, Orense 1997. White can try to exploit his op­ponent's lag in development by playing: 14.lt:Jg3 .ic6 (In case of 14 . . . �c7 15.l'!c1 lt:Jd7 16.c3 �b8 17.i.b5± he dominates all over the entire board.) 15 • .ia6 gbs 16.\1tfe2 tDd7 (It is not advis­able for Black to opt for 16 . . . a4

89

Chapter S

17.eS lt'ldS 18.exd6 b3 19.cxb3 axb3 20.a3±, because his queen­side counterplay has reached its dead end and his lag in develop­ment is noticeable.) 17,ghel ffc7 18.c!Llf5± White's pieces are very active and he controls the centre completely, so this provides him with a clear advantage.

b) 8 . . . J.d7 That is hardly the best square

for this Black bishop. 9.g4

He has tried numerous moves here like: bl) 9 .. .c!bxd4, b2) 9 . . . b5 and b3) 9 . . . h6.

9 ... .ie7 10.0-0-0 - see Chap­ter 6, variation a.

9 . . . hS? ! - Black weakens his kingside and White's attack there becomes even more fierce. 10.gS lt'lh7 11.0-0-0 \WaS 12.lt'lb3 \Wc7 13.f4± Thana Balasingam -Schulze, Kranenburg 2008.

9 . . J:'lc8, Mikhalichenko - Sol­datov, Kharkov 2004, Black fails to organize counterplay on the queenside, since he lags in de-

90

velopment. 10.gS lt'lhS (It is not better for him to opt for 10 . . . lt'lg8 11.0-0-0 lt'lge7 12 .lt'lb3 lt'lg6 13.f4± White has occupied plenty of space and he plans a powerful kingside offensive.) 11.0-0-0 lt'laS 12.�b1 bS 13 . .id3 lt'lc4 14 . .ixc4 bxc4 1S.f4t Black usually fails to create any meaningful threats along the b-file, moreover that he lags in development.

After 9 . . . \Wc7 10.gS, contrary to variation cl, White is perfectly prepared to repel the knight on f6 to the edge of the board. 10 . . . lt'lhS 11.0-0-0 g6 12 . .ie2 (Now, Black's knight must go to g7 and there it impedes the coordination of his pieces, or he must comply with the irrevocable weakening of his kingside pawn-structure.) 12 . . . lt'lg7 13.f4 lt'lxd4 14 . .ixd4 .ic6, Liebscher - Gaebler, Dresden 2008, White can obtain a great advantage here by playing 1S.\We3 bS 16.a3 �b8 17 . .id3± Black is al­ready beyond salvation, since he loses after the natural reply 17 . . . aS 18.lt'ldS+-

9 .. . lt'leS 10.gS lt'lg8 - His knight is not better placed here than on hS. ll.�gl �c8 12.f4 lt'lc4 13 . .ixc4 �xc4 14.0-0-0 bS, Mascarell Can­et - Plaza Pardo, Valencia 2004, White can utilize now his great lead in development by transfer­ring his knight on c3 to the king­side - 1S.lt'lce2 lt'le7 16.lt'lg3±

bl) 9 . . . lt'lxd4 This is a logical move. Black

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lt:\c6 8. 'Wffd2 i.d7 9.g4

understands that his bishop on d7 has no good prospects and he wishes to deploy it on the long di­agonal, freeing the d7-square for his knight in the process. Still, the bishop on c6 will be restricted by White's pawn on e4.

1 0 .hd4

1 0 . . . .ic6 Black has also tried in practice

now: 10 . . . h6 11.0-0-0 i.c6 12 .h4 -

see 10 . . . .ic6; 10 . . . e5 11 . .ie3 i.c6?! (It seems

more reasonable for him to play 11. . .i.e6.) 12 .g5 lt:ld7 13.0-0-0 'Wffa5 14.h4± Black has developed his pieces rather awkwardly, weakened the d5-outpost and failed to create counterplay, Ko­smo - Kiviharju, Lahti 2002.

11. 0 - 0 - 0 'W1c7 The move 11 . . . h6 contains for

a while White's kingside pawn­assault, but weakens the kingside. 12.h4 d5 (About 12 . . . b5 13.E:g1 -see variation b3; the move 12 . . . i.e7 is not better, because Black can hardly castle short in this situ-

ation. 13.i.h3 'Wffa5 14.g5± White's kingside initiative is tremen­dously powerful and after 14 . . . hxg5 15.hxg5 lt:Jh5 16.E:dg1 0-0-0 17.i.g4+- Black lost the exchange in the game S.Movsesian - Meins, Groningen 1997, but even after the more resilient defence for him 16 . . . e5 17.i.e3 g6 18.i.g4± White enjoys a considerable advantage, because of his better develop­ment and powerful kingside pres­sure. The move 12 . . . 'Wffa5 is pas­sive, but more reliable. 13.'it>b1 0-0-0 14.i.h3 lt:ld7 15.g5 i>b8, M.Czerniak - Filipowicz, Polanica Zdroj 1964, White can play here 16.'Wffe3 lt>a8 17.lt:Je2 hxg5 18.hxg5 e5 19 . .ic3 'W1b5 20.lt:lg3t with a powerful kingside initiative, while Black has no active counterplay.).

He has superior development, while Black's king is stranded in the centre, so it seems attractive for White to follow with 13.exd5 (This move is more energetic than 13 . .ih3 dxe4 14.g5, Mohr - Bukic, Bled 1996, because after 14 . . . lt:Jh5, the position remains completely unclear after the line: 15.i.g4 lt:Jg3 16.E:hg1 hxg5 17.E:xg3 i.d6oo, while

91

Chapter S

after the other natural move 1S.g6, Black can enter a slightly worse endgame with 1S . . . eS ! 16 . .heS \Wxd2+ 17.fud2 fxg6 18.tt:lxe4 @f7 19J:'!hd1 i.en) 13 . . . tt:lxdS 14.i.c4t and he has dangerous threats, for example : 14 .. J'k8 (It looks too indifferent for Black to opt for 14 . . . tt:lb6 1S.i.xe6! fxe6 16.\We3 tt:ldS 17.\Wxe6+ V!fe7 18.fffS--+ and White at least regains his piece.) 1S.i.xdS! .hdS 16.\Wf2 f6 17.i.b6 ffd6 18.tt:lxdS exdS 19.Ei:d3± Black will hardly manage to save his dS­pawn.

ll . . . bS - This is a natural at­tempt by him to create some counterplay. 12 .h4 b4 (12 . . . ffc7 13.gS tt:ld7 14.a3 - see ll . . . ffc7) 13.tt:le2 dS, Senff - Kotter, Ger­many 2000 and here after the at­tractive line: 14.gS tt:ld7 (It seems even worse for Black to choose 14 . . . tt:lhS 1S.i.h3 dxe4 16.i.g4 exf3 17.i.xhS, since he loses after 17 . . . fxe2 18.ffxe2 .idS 19.Ei:hf1+-, as well as following the more te­nacious defence 17 . . . eS 18.Ei:hf1 g6 19.i.xf3 i.xf3 20.Ei:xf3 exd4 21.fff4+-) 1S.tt:lg3 ffaS 16.@b1 dxe4 17.tt:lxe4 Ei:d8 18.i.e2± Black is likely to not even complete his development.

In the variation 11 . . . \WaS 12. @b1 0-0-0 13.gS tt:ld7 14.h4 h6 1S.Ei:g1 hxgS 16.hxgS tt:leS 17.fff2± White occupies space and Black has no active counterplay, because White dominates on the kingside and Black's king impedes his counter­play on the queenside, Molnar -

92

Mossakowski, Szekszard 1994. Or ll . . . i.e7 12.@b1 eS 13.i.e3

\WaS 14.h4± Black's light-squared bishop is misplaced, therefore he has no compensation for his weakened central squares, Deep­an Chakkravarthy - Abed, Tehe­ran 2004.

In response to ll . . . Ei:c8, Emel­janov - Ryzhkovich, Novokuz­netsk 1998, it looks good for White to continue with 12 .gS tt:ld7 13.Ei:g1 bS 14.a3 tt:leS 1S.fff2± and he leads considerably in develop­ment and has a clear-cut plan for a successful kingside offensive.

12.h4

12 . . .ti�d7 (In case of 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.gS

tt:ld7 14.i.h3 @b8 1S.hSt White's pieces are obviously much more active, Kiss - A.Nagy, Hungary 1996.) 13.g5 tt:ld7 14.a3 /Oc5 (14 . . . tt:leS - The transfer of the knight to c4 is not sufficient for Black to create a meaningful counterplay. 1S.'\Wf2 tt:lc4, Yu -Harp, West Ryde 2004, White continues with 16.i.xc4 bxc4 17.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 ..fJ tLlc6 8. Wid2 .id7 9.g4

�e2 .id7 18.�dg1! �b8 19.h5 Wib7 20.tt:Jd1 eS 21..ic3 Wic6 22.lLle3± and his pieces are perfectly placed in view of his oncoming kingside onslaught, as well for the sake of the safety of his own king.) 15.h5 ggs 16.g6 hxg6 17. hxg6 fxg6 18 . .ih3± Black has great prob­lems with the protection of his king, Sandipan - Himanshu, Vi­sakhapatnam 2006.

b2) 9 . . . b5

1 0 .g5 This is the most natural move

for White, because he repels the enemy knight to a bad square.

1 0 . • . ttlh5 After 10 . . . lLlxd4, Korchagina ­

Chuvakov, St. Petersburg 2008, it seems more aggressive for White to play 11.i';Vxd4, because in case of ll . . . tLlg8 12.a4± his advantage in development enables him to play actively all over the entire board, while after ll . . . lLlhS 12.0-0-0 .ie7 13.�g1 WiaS 14.a3t, he seizes the initiative for long thanks to his control over the centre and

more active pieces. 11. 0 - 0 - 0

ll . . . !k8 Or ll . . . .ie7 12.lLlxc6 .ixc6 13 .

.ih3 - see Chapter 6, variation a,

lO . . . bS. It is not any better for Black to

play 11 . . .tt:Je5 12 .f4 l2Jc4 13 . .ixc4 bxc4 14.Wie2 l2Jxf4 15 . .txf4 e5, Al­lemann - Schneider, Switzerland 2005, because White continues with 16.lLlf3 exf4 17.e5--+ and his attack against Black's king, which has not castled yet, is tremen­dously powerful.

After 11. . .l2Ja5 12.f4 �c8 13.a3 g6, Veroci - Madl, Hungary 1987, it looks good for White to play the prophylactic move 14.<i>b1 with the following exemplary varia­tion: 14 . . . l2Jc4 15.i.xc4 bxc4 16.f5 �b8 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.�hf1 .ie7 19. tt:Jde2 1l;Vc7 20.Wid4t - Black's king is stranded in the centre and it impedes the coordination of his pieces, so he risks coming under a dangerous attack.

12.lLlxc6 �c6 It is not good for him to play

93

Chapter S

12 . . . .b:c6 13.i.h3 i.e7 14.i.g4 g6, Mestel - B.Ivanovic, Belgrade 1982, because after 15.hh5 gxhS 16.h4± White will soon capture the hS-pawn and he will have a very strong attack.

13 . .ih3!± Now, you can see the draw­

backs of the placement of Black's knight on hS.

13 . . . h6 Even after the more resilient

defence for him 13 . . . g6 14.i.g4 tt:lg7 15.h4±, his knight is in a ter­rible position.

14.gxh6 gxh6 In the variation 14 . . . g6 15.'it>b1

tt:lf6 16.i.g5 i.e7 17.l'l:hgl± Black has no compensation for the pawn, because White's pieces are much more active.

15.ghgl .i.g7 16.�e2 ti'e7 17.\t>bl! +-

(diagram) White's position is strategi­

cally winning, because Black is helpless against the maneu­ver tt:le2-c1-d3-b4, after which White wins either the a6-pawn, or

94

the d6-pawn, Short - Tukmakov, Hastings 1982 (We have used the comments of GM N.Short).

b3) 9 . . . h6

Now, the d7-square is occu­pied by Black's bishop and the threat g4-g5 looks very unpleas­ant for him.

There arise positions from the Rauzer attack with an extra tempo for White.

1 0 .h4 b5 About 10 . . . i.e7 11.0-0-0 - see

Chapter 6, variation a; as for 10 . . . Vfic7 11.0-0-0 - see variation cl.

10 ... d5 - Black creates volun-tarily a weak pawn in the centre

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 liJc6 8. Wid2 :id7 9.g4

and his development is worse. ll.exdS li:JxdS 12.liJxd5 exdS 13. 0-0-0±

His position is difficult to de­fend and this can be confirmed by the following variations: 13 . . . WaS (In the endgame, White en­circles Black's weak dS-pawn at least as easy as in the middle game.) 14.Wixa5 li:JxaS 15.li:Jf5 i.e6 16.i.b6 li:Jc6 17 . .ig2 g6 18.l'!hel± The main drawback of Black's po­sition is that he can hardly com­plete his development, Salinnikov - Siuniakov, Novosibirsk 1999. In response to 13 . . . i.e7, Maupin - Della Corte, Nereto 2002, it seems quite convincing for White to transfer his knight to f4 : 14.li:Je2 .ie6 15.li:Jf4 hh4 (After a transi­tion into an endgame with 15 . . . d4 16.li:Jxe6 fxe6 17.hd4 li:Jxd4 18.Wixd4± Black's difficulties are far from over. With the presence of heavy pieces on the board, it is not easy at all for him to defend this position with bishops of op­posite colours.) 16.li:Jxd5 hdS 17.Wixd5± He has succeeded in preserving the material balance, but White's bishop-pair is a pow-

erful force in this position with an open centre.

10 . . . li:Jxd4 ll.hd4 eS (11 . . . i.c6 12.0-0-0 - see variation bl) 12 .i.e3

12 . . . i.e6 (12 . . . i.e7 13.0-0-0 - see Chapter 6, variation a) 13. 0-0-0 l'!c8, Motwani - Fedoro­wicz, London 1988 and here White can prepare his further kingside offensive, and the advantageous trade of the light -squared bishops, with 14.i.h3 li:Jd7 (14 . . . Wffd7 15.g5 hh3 16.gxf6 i.e6 17.fxg7 hg7 18.!!hgl± Black's king is stranded in the centre and impedes the coordination of his pieces. His d6-pawn is weak and he has no counterplay.) 15.li:Jd5 bS (The move 15 . . . Wffxh4 presents White with two tempi for his attack. 16.Wig2 Wid8 17.g5--+; It is hardly better for Black to opt for 15 . . . li:Jf6 16.li:Jb6 !!c6 17.g5 hxgS 18.he6 fxe6 19.hxg5 !!xh1 20.!!xh1 li:Jd7 21.li:Jxd7 Wixd7 22 .g6± His king is not safe at all, despite the con­siderable simplifications and his counterplay is nowhere in sight.) 16.g5 hxg5 17.hg5 li:Jf6 18.Wig2±

11. 0 - 0 - 0

95

Chapter S

n . . .lL!xd4 About 11 . . . '\Wc7 12.1':l:g1, or 11 . . .

lt:le5 12.!'1g1 '\Wc7 13.g5 - see vari­ation cl.

11 ... '\WaS 12.<i!tb1 lt:le5 13.'1Wg2 g6, Dgebuadze - Kupreichik, Bad Woerishofen 1999, Black relies on exchanging his passive rook after the natural move 14.g5 and then, covering the h-file with his night on h5 to thwart for long White's kingside offensive. White can pre­vent the second part of this plan by transferring his knight to the g3-square: 14.lt:lce2 lt:lc4 15 . .ic1 E1c8 16.lt:lg3t. Now, everything has been prepared for his assault, since he can counter practically every sensible move by Black with 17.g5 either immediately, or after the exchange on c4.

11 . . . !'1c8 - It is not so easy for Black to organize some counter­play along the c-file. 12.'i!lb1 lt:le5 (After 12 . . . .ie7 13 . .id3, he came under a very powerful attack play­ing 13 . . . h5 14.g5 lt:lh7 15.g6 fxg6 16.lt:lxc6 hc6 17.'1Wg2 lt:lf8 18.e5� Norris - Shepherd, Perth 1997, but even in case of the more tena-

96

cious defence 13 . . . lt:le5 14.g5 lt:lh5 15.gxh6 gxh6 16.lt:lce2t White's initiative would be difficult to contain, since Black's king was doomed to remain in the centre.) 13.a3 .ie7 (The alternatives would not facilitate Black's defence 13 . . .

lt:lc4 14.hc4 E1xc4 15.g5±, or 13 . . .

'\Wc7 14 . .ie2 lt:lc4 15.hc4 bxc4 16.g5±) 14 . .ie2 '\Wc7 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 lt:lh5 17.f4 lt:lc4 18.hc4 '\Wxc4 19.g6� White's attack was very powerful in the game M.Matulovic - Dimitrijevic, Su­botica 2003.

11 . . . b4 - This move only weak­ens Black's queenside. 12.lt:lxc6 hc6 13.lt:le2

13 . . . d5 (13 . . . '\WbS - This is too passive. 14.lt:ld4 .id7 15 . .ih3 g6 16.g5 hxg5 17.hxg5 lt:lh5 18 . .ig4± Alsina Leal - Gardela Batlle, Sants 2006; it is not preferable for Black to choose 13 . . . '\Wa5 14.'i!lb1 e5 15 . .ih3 lt:ld7 16.g5 h5 17.g6�, since his pieces are obviously incapa­ble of helping his own king, Stets - Kravchenko, Yuzhny 2009.) 14.lt:ld4 '\Wc7 15 . .ih3 ! t White's kingside threats are so power­ful that they can soon tum into

5 . . . a6 6 . .te3 e6 7 .j3 lt'Jc6 8. Wffd2 .td7 9.g4

a crushing attack. 15 . . . dxe4 16.g5 'Lld7 17.g6 lt'lc5 18.gxf7+ �xf7, Stets - Belunek, Zvolen 2000, The position of Black's king is endan­gered and White can best empha­size this with 19J:'lhf1 ! +-, with the following exemplary variations: 19 . . . Ele8 20.fxe4+ �g8 21.lt:Jxc6 Wffxc6 22 .Wig2 Wffxe4 (Black fails to save the game with 22 . . . lt:Ja4 23 . .id4 Ele7 24.Wffg6+- with the terrible threat 25 . .txg7.) 23.Elxf8+ Elxf8 24.hc5+- _,_ White's mate­rial advantage is sufficient to win the game and Black cannot even bring his rook on h8 into the ac­tions without additional material losses.

12.i.xd4

12 • • . b4 The move 12 . . . .tc6 frees the

d7-square for the retreat of the knight. 13.!'lg1 lt:'ld7, Bakre - Mas, Vung Tau 1999 (Black should better avoid 13 . . . b4 14.lt:Je2 a5 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 lt:'ld7, Ben­er - Kroager, Jonkoping 1987, since White can continue with 17.g6 Wffe7 18 . .te3 e5 19.lt:'lg3 fxg6

20 . .tc4± and he is clearly ahead in development and deprives his op­ponent's king of a reliable shelter. Accordingly, his compensation for the pawn is more than suffi­cient.). Black is now well prepared for the advance of his queenside pawns, so it would be sensible for White to think about prophylac­tic: 14.Wffe1 !? b4 15.lt:Jd5 a5 16.b3 Wffb8 17.�b1 Wffb7 18.Elg3t - Black's main problem here is that he can­not find a sensible way of deploy­ing his pieces. After 18 . . . lt:'lc5 (It is hardly preferable for him to con­tinue with 18 . . . lt'le5 19.lt:'lb6 Elb8 20.f4 lt:Jg6 21.lt:'lc4± and White's threats are very dangerous, for example: 22 .hg7.) 19 . .ib2 Eld8 20.Elg2 lt:Jd7 21.lt'le3 lt'le5 22 .Wig3± He is perfectly prepared for his kingside offensive.

13.li�e2 Wffa5 It is not better for Black to opt

for 13 . . . a5 14.lt:'lg3 Wffc7 15 . .id3 .ic6 16.Elhe1 e5 17 . .tf2 0-0-0 18 .g5 hxg5 19.hxg5 lt'lh5 20.Elhl± and his king on the queenside only impedes the organization of his counterplay there, while White has obviously squeezed his oppo­nent on the kingside, Kovchan -I.Pastukhov, Alushta 1999.

(diagram) 14.1t>b1 e5 15 • .ie3 .ie6 16.

c!bc1 d5 17 . .ih3 �d8, Glek - Van der Poel, Bussum 1995 (Black cannot achieve much if he gains some additional space with 17 . . . d4, because White can counter this with 18 . .if2 Elc8 19.g5 .txh3

97

Chapter S

20.gxf6 i.e6 21.fxg7 i.xg7 22 .!!hgl i.f8 23.f4± and he deprives the enemy king of a safe shelter and his attack will be soon victorious.) 18.c!t)b3 Wc7 19.g5 hh3 (In the variation 19 . . . hxg5 20.i.xe6 fxe6 21.hxg5 .!i:lhS 22.exd5 exdS 23.�d3+-, Black loses unavoida­bly material, due to the miserable situation of his king.) 2 0 .gxf6 i.e6 21.fxg7 .hg7 22.�xb4 d4 23.i.d2± White has ended up with a solid extra pawn.

c) 8 . . . �c7 This is the best square for the

queen in many variations of the Paulsen system, but here Black must consider in numerous situ­ations the positional piece-sac­rifice on bS, so he will need to lose a tempo for the retreat of his queen.

9. 0 - 0 - 0 (diagram)

We will analyze thoroughly the following moves: cl) 9 • • • i.d7, c2) 9 • . • c!Dd7 and c3) 9 . . . c!De5.

Black has also tried in prac­tice :

98

About 9 ... .ie7 10.g4 - see Chapter 6, variation c; 9 . . . h5 10. l!tbl - see Chapter 4, variation c.

9 . . . .!i:lxd4 - This exchange is more often encountered after the opponents have castled. 10.i.xd4 bS (About 10 . . . i.e7 ll.g4 - see Chapter 6, variation c4; 10 . . . i.d7 ll.g4 i.c6 12 .h4 - see variation bl; lO . . . eS ll.i.e3 bS 12 .g4 - see lO . . . bS, it looks a bit strange for Black to play ll . . . i.d7? ! , because the place of this bishop is on e6. 12 .g4 h6 13.h4 i.c6 14J�gl 0-0-0 15.�f2± Black has no active coun­terplay at all, Denzinger - Muel­ler, Ascona 2005.) ll.g4

About ll . . . .!i:ld7 12 .h4 - see variation c2; ll . . .i.b7 12.a3 .!i:ld7 13.h4 - see variation c2.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 J3 tt:lc6 8. 'Wffd2 'Wffc7 9. 0 -0 -0

In the line ll . . . e5 12 . .ie3 .ie6 13.g5 tt:lh5 14.tt:ld5 hd5 15.'Wffxd5t White has the d5-outpost and a powerful bishop-pair, so he has the initiative, following 15 . . . l"1b8 16.l"1d3 tt:lf4 17 . .b:f4 exf4 18.l"1c3 'Wffb6 19.e5 .ie7 20.e6± the pres­ence of bishops of opposite col­ours on the board makes Black's defence even more difficult, Sleisz - Ooms, Belgium 2005.

In response to ll . . . l"1b8, Samu­elson - Kunte, Philadelphia 2005, White continues with his stand­ard initiative after 12 .g5 tt:ld7 13.\t>b1 b4 14.tt:la4 .ib7 15.b3t, for example in case of the seem­ingly attractive line for Black: 15 . . . .ic6 16.tt:lb2 tt:le5 17 . .ig2 .ib5 18.f4 tt:lc6 19 . .ie3 .ie7 20.h4± it becomes clear that White;s pieces are much better coordinated than their counterparts.

ll . . . b4 12.tt:le2 l"1b8, Gorbea Yoller - Bibas, Ustron 1994, White can exploit his lead in de­velopment by organizing a break­through in the centre 13.e5 tt:ld7 (13 . . . dxe5? 14.he5+-) 14.exd6 'Wffxd6 15.tt:lg3 e5 16 . .ie3 'Wffxd2+ 17.l"1xd2 tt:lb6 18.tt:lf5± The posi­tion has been simplified indeed, but Black has not even completed his development yet.

9 . . . b5 - Black provokes his opponent to make an attractive piece-sacrifice. 10.hb5!? axb5 11. tt:ldxb5 'Wffb8 (It is worse for Black to opt for ll . . . 'Wffa5 12.tt:lxd6+ hd6 13. 'Wffxd6±, since he has difficulties protecting his centralized king

with queens present on the board. It is hardly preferable for him to continue with ll . . . 'Wffb7 12.tt:lxd6+ hd6 13.'Wffxd6 .id7 14.1t>b1 0-0-0 15.tt:la4± and Black's king is not better placed on the queenside than in the centre, Solomunovic - Hoffmann, Deizisau 1997.) 12.tt:lxd6+ hd6 13.�xd6 'Wffxd6 14.l"1xd6;!;

White has three pawns for the piece in this endgame. He domi­nates on the only open file and has a powerful dark-squared bishop without an opponent, so all this provides him with better chances : 14 . . . .ib7 (After 14 . . . tt:le5 15.l"1hd1 0-0, Santana Montero -Bolanos Hernandez, Las Palmas 2005, White can prepare further advance of his pawns with 16. b3 .ia6 17.a4 E1fc8 18.\t>b2±) 15.b3 h5 (In reply to 15 . . . 0-0, Berthelot - Nezar, France 2007, it seems attractive for White to improve his position with 16.a4 E1fc8 17. tt:lb5 tt:le8 18.l"1d2±) 16.a4 h4 17.h3 l"1c8 18.\t>b2 l"1h5 19.tt:lb5± and despite the fact that Black's pieces look well-placed, he has no chances of active counterplay,

99

Chapter S

Zaragatski - Lupulescu, Dresden 2007.

9 . . J�bS? ! - This move is pre­mature, because Black's rook may be necessary on the cS-square and even on aS. 10.g4 bS (10 . . . g6 - This move leads to a position resembling the Dragon variation, but it is unfavourable for Black. ll.h4 b5 12.tilxc6 W/xc6 13 .i.d4 i.g7 14.g5 tilh5 15.hg7 tilxg7 16.W/xd6± White has a solid extra pawn, Mencinger - Podvrsnik, Kranj 2005; it is not any better for Black to play 10 . . . h6 11.h4 tileS 12 J'�g1 bS 13.g5 tilfd7 14.g6 tilb6 15.gxf7+ Wfxf7 16.b3±, because his knight are restricted in their movement and his king is without a reliable shelter, Ermolaev - Zub, Kharkov 2002.) ll .tilxc6 W/xc6 12 .e5 b4 13.tile4 tildS (In the variation 13 . . . tilxe4 14.fxe4 W/xe4 15.exd6 i.d7 16.l'igl± Black has problems com­pleting his development.) 14.exd6 hd6 15.i.c4± White has occupied the key-squares in the centre and has a much superior develop­ment, Wang Yu - L.Gutman, Bad Zwesten 2003;

9 . . . tila5 - This move with the knight to the edge of the board aims at obtaining the two-bishop advantage, but Black's develop­ment suffers. 10.g4 bS, Borisek - Ilic, Bled 2001 (10 . . . i.e7 11.g5 -see Chapter 6, variation c2; 10 . . . tilc4 ll.hc4 - see variation c3). Now, White's most aggressive line seems to be: ll .hbS+ ! ? axbS 12.tilcxb5!

100

with the following exemplary variations:

12 . . . W/c5 13.b3 ! (White does not have a leeway for his king on b2 and he loses after the seeming­ly attractive line: 13.tilxe6 tilb3 + ! . White is only slightly better if he regains his piece after 13.b4 W/c4 14.bxa5 i.d7::!:) 13 . . . tilc4 (Black must give back the piece, because of White's threat 14.tilxe6, against which he can defend with 13 . . . 'it>d7 14.g5 tileS 15.b4 W/c4 16.bxa5 eS 17.W/e2±, but then White ends up with an extra pawn.) 14.bxc4 W/xc4 15.g5 tilhS 16.W/d3 W/xd3 17.l'ixd3 l'ixa2 1S.'it>b1 l'ia5 19.l=ihdl± Black's d6-pawn is weak and his entire kingside will hardly enter the ac­tions any time soon;

12 . . . '\Wd7 13.W/c3 'it>dS 14.i.f4 tileS 15.e5� Black's king is strand­ed in the centre and it will soon come under a dangerous attack. 15 . . . W/b7 (But not 15 . . . d5 16.i.g5+ i.e7 17.he7+ W/xe7 1S.b4+-, or 17 . . . \t>xe7 1S.'IWc5+ 'it>dS 19.b4+­and in both cases White regains his piece, maintaining powerful threats.) 16.exd6 i.d7 17.tilc7 tilxc7 1S.dxc7+ 'it>cS 19.a3 ! f6 20.tilxe6± Black can hardly coordinate his

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 ..fJ tt:lc6 8. 'Wffd2 1ltfc7 9. 0 -0 -0

pieces any more and his material advantage is gone and forgotten;

12 . . . 'Wffb7 - This move would not solve his defensive problems either. 13.'Wffc3 \t>d8 14.tt:lxd6 .bd6 15.ltJf5! exf5 (15 . . . tt:lb3+ 16.cxb3 exf5 17J!xd6+ i.d7 18 . .tb6+ \t>e8 19.'Wffe5+ \t>f8 20.i.c5 \t>g8 21. Eixf6 ! +-) 16J'ixd6+ i.d7 17.Eihd1-+ - White regains unavoidably one of his pieces and he restores the material balance having danger­ous threats against his opponent's bare king: 17 . . . Eia6 18.i.b6+ ! Eixb6 19.'Wffxa5 \t>c7 20.e5 i.c6 21.exf6 g6 22.gxf5±

cl) 9 . . . i.d7 This is not the best square for

Black's light-squared bishop in the English attack.

1 0 .g4

1 0 . . . h6 This is the most popular move,

but now there arises a position from the Rauzer attack (l.e4 c5 Vof3 tt:lc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tt:lxd4 tt:lf6 S.ltJc3 d6 6.i.g5 e6 7.'Wffd2 a6 8.0-0-0 h6 9.i.e3 'Wffc7 10.f3), except

that White has an extra tempo. 10 . . . e5? ! - Black weakens the

light-squared complex in the cen­tre. ll.tt:lf5 i.xf5 12.exf5 ! h6 13.h4 0-0-0 14.'Wfff2 tt:ld7 15.i.c4± Pare­des Sanchez - Losada Gallego, Ourense 2008.

10 . . . tt:lxd4 ll . .bd4 i.c6 12 .h4 -see variation bl.

10 ... b5 - This move enables White to repel Black's knight to the edge of the board. ll.g5 tt:lh5 (In answer to 11 . . .tt:lg8, Bo­brov - Iljin, Volgograd 1996, it is again good for White to include the exchange line: 12 .tt:lxc6 .bc6 13.h4 b4 14.tt:le2 d5 15.tt:ld4 i.b7 16.i.h3± with excellent attacking prospects.) 12.tt:lxc6 .bc6 13.i.h3 g6 (It is not advisable for Black to try 13 . . . b4 14.tt:le2 d5 15.i.g4 g6 16.hh5 gxhS 17.tt:lf4±, since the dark squares are very weak in his camp and his king has no safe shelter, Zesch - Sperhake, Bad Bevensen 2000.) 14.i.g4 tt:lg7 15.h4± Black's fianchettoed knight does not beautify his position.

lO . . . tt:leS - He is trying to ob­tain the bishop-pair, but he lags in development after this. ll.g5 tt:lh5 12.f4 tt:lc4 13 . .bc4 'Wffxc4, Ocytko ­Mainka, Katowice 1993 and here, White's most energetic reaction seems to be 14.f5 ! ? b5 15.a3 .te7 16.'Wffg2 b4 (Black should better avoid 16 . . . Eib8 17.f6, because af­ter 17 . . . gxf6 18.'Wfff3+- he loses his knight, while in the variation 17 . . . i.f8 18.tt:lb3 'Wffc6 19.'Wfff3 g6 20.Eid3± his kingside remains iso-

101

Chapter S

lated from the actions.) 17.axb4 l'!b8 (The move 17 .. .'\Wxb4 seems more natural, but it also leads to a difficult position for Black. 18.1Wg4 g6 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.lLlxe6 l'!b8 2l.lLlc7+ lt>d8 22 .1We2± White has won a pawn and occupied the important d5-outpost. Black los­es, for example, after the attrac­tive line: 22 . . . 1Wxb2+ 23.1t>d2 lt>xc7 24.l'!b1 1Wa3 25.lLld5+-) 18.1Wf3 g6 19.f6 i.d8 20.lLlb3 1Wxb4 2l .l'!d4± - his d6-pawn is weak and the knight on h5 is out of actions.

ll.h4

ll . . . tl:le5 ll . . . i.e7 12 .l'!g1 - see Chapter

6, variation c3. ll . . . lLla5 12.l'!g1 lLlc4 (In re­

sponse to 12 . . . g6, Perunovic -Markovic, Valjevo 2000, it is good for White to continue with 13.Wff2, threatening 14.lLlxe6 and 15.i.b6+-, while in case of 14 . . . lLlc4 14.i.xc4 1Wxc4 15.lLlb3 b5 16.lLla5 1Wc8 17.a3 1Wb8 18.i.b6 i.g7 19.l'!d3± Black is deprived of almost any counterplay.) 13.i.xc4 1Wxc4 14.g5 lLlg8, Gallinnis -

102

Wacker, Germany 1991, White can play 15.g6 fxg6 16.lLlb3 lLlf6 17.l'!xg6± and he not only weak­ens his opponent's position in the centre and on the kingside, but he deprives his king of a reliable shelter, since it is bad for Black to choose 17 . . . 0-0-0 18.i.b6 l'!e8 19.tt:la5 1Wb4 20.1We3 d5 2l.a3 1We7 22 .e5+-

11 .. . 0-0-0 He evacuates his king to the queenside, but now he cannot obtain counterplay. 12.Wff2 tileS 13.tl:lb3± Oliver Ser­rano - Rodriguez Sanchez, Palma de Mallorca 2000.

ll . . . b5 12.l'!g1 (White's game is very easy. His task is to push his pawn all the way up to g6, after which the key e6-square becomes vulnerable and Black's king is en­dangered.)

12 ... b4 (The move 12 . . . g6 is a

logical attempt to thwart White's plans, but it weakens the dark squares on the kingside. 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lh5 15.tt:lxc6 i.xc6 16.1t>b1t. Black's d6-pawn is very weak and he cannot complete easily his development. After the seemingly attractive line: 16 . . . !'!d8

5 . . . a6 6 . .te3 e6 7 .fJ tDc6 8. Vfid2 Vfffc7 9. 0 -0-0

17.Vffff2 Vfffb7 18 . .tb6 E:d7 19 . .td4± he must either weaken the dS­square or comply with the unfa­vourable exchange of the dark­squared bishop, by playing 19 . . . ,tg7 20.E:h1 ! hd4 21.Vfffxd4 eS 22.Vfib4 Vfffc7 23 . .th3 E:d8 24 . .tg4 'i!;>f8 25.tDe2+- and Black is inca­pable of preventing the destruc­tion of his kingside after 26 . .txh5, followed by 27.tDg3, Vasiukov -Savon, USSR 1980. It is not better for him to opt for 12 . . . tDa5 13.g5 hxgS 14.hxg5 tDhS, Maupin - Ha­rovelo, France 2006, since White can counter this with 15.g6 f6 16.E:h1 b4 17.tDb1 eS 18.tDf5 E:c8 19.b3+- and he deprives his op­ponent of any counterplay end­ing up in a strategically winning position.) 13.tDce2 tDeS, Lamza - Sarosi, Budapest 1990 and here it seems quite natural for White to play 14.tDf4, threatening g4-g5-g6, while in case of 14 . . . tDc4 15.hc4 Vfffxc4 16.b3 \Wc3 17.Vfffxc3 bxc3 18.tDde2± Black will hardly manage to avoid losing his c3-pawn.

ll . . . tL:Jxd4 12 .hd4 .tc6 (In case of 12 . . . e5 13 . .te3 .te6, Black places his bishop on the best possible square for it, but at the price of losing too much time for this. 14 . .th3 tDd7 15.tDd5 hd5 16.Vfixd5 E:c8 17.Vfffd2 tL:Jb6, Nun - Lechtynsky, Czech Republic 2001, after 18 . .tf2 tDc4 19.Vfffc3 '&as 20.\WxaS tDxaS 21.g5 E:c6 22.b3 bS 23.'it>b2± White main­tains a stable advantage, because

has a bishop-pair and the light squares in Black's camp are very weak. After 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.Vffff2 E:e8 14 . .tb6± White dominates all over the entire board, Homuth -Bua, Gluecksburg 1988.) 13 . .th3 tDd7 14.Vffff2 0-0-0 15.'it>b1 'it>b8 16.g5t - White has a clear cut plan for actions on the kingside and Black is helpless to counter it, Korinek - M.Movsesian, Czech Republic 2006.

12.ggl

12 . . . b5 Black should better avoid

12 . . . 0-0-0 13.g5 hxgS 14.hxg5 tDhS (But not 14 . . . tDe8? 15.Vffff2 tDc4 16.hc4 Vfffxc4 17.tDb3+- and Black loses at least the exchange, Sakelsek - Brecevic, Slovenia 2002.) 15.Vffff2 .tc6 16.f4 tL:Jd7, Va­radi - Pasztor, Goch 2004 and now White reaches a strategically winning position with 17.g6 tDcS 18.gxf7+-

12 . . . g6 - This seemingly at­tractive move prevents the ad­vance of White's pawn to g6, weakening the light squares, but

103

Chapter S

it compromises the dark squares on the kingside for Black. 13.g5 hxgS 14.hxg5 tt:lg8 (The retreat to the other squares is not any bet­ter: 14 . . . tt:lh5 15.f4 tt:lc4 16.i.xc4 �xc4 17.tt:lb3 bS 18.�f2 aS 19.a3 �c8 20.f5± and White is clearly ahead in development, while in case of 20 . . . i.e7 21.f6 i.f8 22 .Elge1 b4 23.ltld5 bxa3, Zontakh - Mar­kovic, Jahorina 2000, he plays 24.i.b6! exdS 2S.exd5+ i.e6 26. dxe6 fxe6 27.£7+ me7 28.bxa3-t and he organizes a decisive offen­sive against Black's king stranded in the centre.) 15.f4 tt:lc4 16.i.xc4 �xc4, E.Vorobiov - Sidorov, St. Petersburg 1999, White can im­pede the development of Black's kingside with the line : 17.tt:lf3 ! �c7 (but not 17 . . . tt:le7? 18.�xd6 tt:ldS 19.�xd7+ mxd7 20.ltle5+ mc7 21.tt:lxc4+- and Black has lost a piece) 18.mb1 i.c6 (In the varia­tion 18 . . . tt:le7 19.ltlh2 tt:lc6 20.tt:lg4 i.e7 21.�f2 bS 22 .Elh1+- Black fails to evacuate his king without material losses.) 19.Elh1 Elxh1 20.Elxh1 tt:le7 21.Elh7±

13.g5

104

13 .. .tbh5 It is also possible for White

to play 13 . . . hg 14.hxg5 tt:lhS 15.f4 tt:lc4 16 . .b:c4 �xc4, M.Pribyl - Kupreichik, Germany 1995. Here, he develops a powerful initiative with the line: 17.g6 b4 (Black should better avoid 17 . . . fxg6 18.e5 dS 19.Elxg6 b4 20.ltlb1 �xa2 21.tt:lxe6± and he remains at least a pawn down.) 18.gxf7+ mxf7 19.tt:lce2 �xa2 (He comes under a very powerful attack even if he plays the not so greedy line : 19 . . . tt:lf6 20.b3 �c7 21.e5 dxeS 22.ltlf3-t) 20.�xb4 Elc8 21.tt:lc3 Elxc3 22.�xc3 tt:lf6 23.ltlb3 tt:lxe4 24.�c7± He has sacrificed the ex­change, but his compensation for it is insufficient, because his king has no safe shelter as before.

14.f4 ttlc4 It is hardly preferable for Black

to choose 14 . . . b4 15.ttlb1 tt:lc4 (15 . . . tt:lc6 - This retreat of the knight would not equalize either. 16.g6 fxg6 17.�g2 tt:le7 18.ltld2±. White will regain unavoidably his pawn, while Black will likely fail to mo­bilize his kingside pieces, which are tangled like in a web, for ex­ample in the variation 18 . . . e5 19. fxeS dxeS 20.tt:l4f3 tt:lf4 21.i.xf4 exf4 22 .tt:lc4+- he has no satisfac­tory defence against 23.ltld6+.) 16.i.xc4 �xc4, D.Schneider - Blu­vshtein, Budapest 2003 and here it looks attractive for White to open files with 17.g6 fxg6 18.e5 ! (Meanwhile, Black's knight on hS is isolated from the actions.)

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 liJc6 8. Wid2 Wic7 9. 0 - 0 - 0

18 . . . 0-0-0 19.�xg6± Black's king­side is not developed and his king has no safe shelter and the e6-

pawn is weak. His attempt to re­pel White's active pieces would not facilitate his defence - 19 . . . ,ie8 20.b3 Wid5 21.�xe6 .if7 22. V9d3 .ixe6 23.c4! Wg2 24.li:Jxe6+-

15 • .ixc4 Wixc4

Black has not succeeded in activating his kingside pieces and his defence is tremendously difficult after the attractive line for White: 16.g6 b4 (His attack is overwhelming after 16 . . . f:xg6 17.e5� and this can be confirmed by the following variations: 17 .. . dxe5 18.li:Jf3 Wic7 19.li:Jxe5+-; 17 .. . l"1c8 18.<i>b1 b4 19.li:Je4 d5 20 .Wig2 g5 21 .f:xg5 dxe4 22 .gxh6+-; 17 . . . b4 18.Wig2 0-0-0 19.Wia8+ <i>c7 20.Wia7+ <i>c8 21 .li:Jxe6 .ixe6 22. ltla4+- and in all the cases Black will suffer huge material losses in order to save his king.) 17.gxt7+ �xf7, Vokarev - Strukov, Mos­cow 1999, 18.li:Jce2 Wixa2 19. 1'xb4 �k8 (It is also risky for him to opt for 19 . . . .ie7 20.li:Jc3

Wia1+ 21.<i>d2 �hb8 22.Wic4 Wixb2 23.f5±) 2 0 .c!i)c3 'ti'c4 21. 'ti'b7 gc7 22.'ti'b6 j.e7 23.e5±

c2) 9 • • • c!i)d7 Black retreats in advance his

knight against the attack of his opponent's g-pawn. Still, in this case, White is not obliged to push it forward immediately.

1 0 .g4

1 0 . . . c!i)de5 It is better for Black to play

here 10 . . . .ie7 11.g5 - see Chapter 6, variation c5.

10 . . . li:Jce5 ll.g5 b5 12 .f4 or 11 . . . li:Jc4 12 . .ixc4 Wixc4 13.h4 - see variation c3.

10 . . . li:Ja5? - This move enables White to make a standard Sicilian piece-sacrifice, Wang Lei - Tong Yuanming, Jinan 2005, ll.li:Jf5 ! exf5 (White obtains the two bish­op-advantage with a better de­velopment and control over the centre in the variation 11. . .li:Je5 12.li:Jxd6+ .ixd6 13.Wixd6 Wixd6 14.�xd6 tt:Jxf3 15.li:Ja4±, but possi­bly this might be the least of evils

105

Chapter S

for Black.) 12 .ttld5 Wfd8 13.exf5 ttlc6 (13 . . . i.e7 14.ttlxe7 Wfxe7 15. i.f4+-) 14J:�e1 i.e7 (After 14 . . . ttlce5 15.Wfc3 i.e7 16.ttlc7+ @f8 17.ttlxa8+- White's knight cannot be trapped and he remains with an extra exchange.) 15.f6 gxf6 (15 . . . ttlxf6? 16.i.b6 Wfd7 17.ttlc7+ @f8 18.ttlxa8+-) 16.i.b6 Wfxb6 (16 . . . ttlxb6? 17.ttlxf6+ @f8 18.Wfh6#) 17.ttlxb6 ttlxb6 18.Wfxd6 i.e6 19. Wfc7 i.d8 20.Wfxb7 ttle7 21.Ei:xe6 fxe6 22 .i.c4 @f7 23.Ei:d1+- Black's king is vulnerable and his pieces are discoordinated.

10 . . . b5 11.ttlxc6 Wfxc6, Wang Zili - Liu Wenzhe, China 1987 and now, White can change the pawn­structure in his favour with the line : 12.i.f4 b4 13 .ttle2 e5 14.i.e3 aS 15.ttlg3 g6 16.h4±

10 . . . ttlxd4 ll.i.xd4 b5 12 .h4 i.b7 13.a3 Ei:c8 A.Bogdanov -Fauth, Bayern 2008 (The move 13 . . . 0-0-0? loses for Black. 14. i.xb5 ! axb5 15.'Llxb5 Wfc4 16.Wfa5 d5 17.'Lla7+ 1-0 Madl - A.Fuchs, Germany 1993. Instead, it seems more reliable for him to opt for 13 . . . 'Lle5 14.i.e2 ttlc6 15.i.e3 b4 16.axb4 ttlxb4 17.@blt, but even then, White controls the centre and he has a clear-cut plan for the development of his kingside initi­ative.) . Presently, he obtains a clear advantage after the standard plan for the massive kingside pawn-offensive: 14.g5 ttle5 15.Wff2 ttlc6 16.i.b6 Wfd7 17.f4 b4 18.axb4 ttlxb4 19.i.g2±

ll.YU2

106

ll . . . b5 In reply to 1l. . .i.d7, Jordan -

L.Gutman, Schwarzburg 2004, White obtains a powerful initia­tive after 12.ttlxc6 bxc6 (or 12 . . . i.xc6 13.i.b6 Wfc8 14.h4 i.e7 15. @b1t) 13.i.e2 c5 14.f4 ttlc6 15.f5 i.e7 16.g5t

12A:Jxc6 This is a natural move for him,

because Black's queen is not so well placed on c6, as on c7, since later White will bring to d4 his other knight with tempo.

12 . . . YlYxc6 13.lLie2 .te7 14. ttld4 YlYc7 15.g5 .ib7 16.h4 d5

In case of 16 . . . 'Llc4 17.i.xc4 bxc4 18.'Lle2 0-0 19.h5t, White's kingside threats look much more dangerous than Black's queenside counterplay.

(diagram) 17.exd5 hd5 18.ttlf5 exf5

(Black is forced to compro­mise his pawn-structure; oth­erwise, White will sacrifice the exchange on d5 and his attack against Black's king stranded in the centre will be crushing, for example: 18 . . . i.f8 19.Ei:xd5 exd5

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .j3 tt:lc6 8. Wid2 Wic7 9. 0 - 0 - 0

20.i.d4 'it>d7 21.tt:le3�, o r 1 8 . . . l:'lg8 19.tt:lxe7 Wixe7 20.l:'lxd5 exdS 21..ic5 Wic7 22 . .!h3�) 19.gxd5 0-0 2 0 .i.b6 Wib8 21.f4± White has a stable advantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure and more active pieces, Y.Malinin -Biriukhatnikov, Voronezh 1991.

c3) 9 • • .tl:\e5 This move is consistent with

Black's general line of counter­play. He wishes to obtain the two­bishop advantage by playing tt:lc4 at some moment. The main draw­back of this idea is that it takes too much time, detrimental to his de­velopment.

10 .g4

1 0 . . . b5 About 10 . . . i.d7 ll.gS - see

variation cl; 10 . . . i.e7 ll.gS - see Chapter 6, variation cl; 10 . . . tt:Jfd7 ll .gS bS 12.f4 - see 10 . . . b5.

10 . . . tt:lc4 ll.i.xc4 Wixc4 12.g5 tt:ld7 13.h4 bS (Black should better avoid 13 . . . tt:le5 14.f4 tt:lg4 15.f5 i.e7 16J�hf1 i.d7 17.i.g1 b5 18.Wig2 tt:leS 19.'it>b1 l:'lc8 20.tt:lce2±, because his king remains stuck in the centre and he can hardly organize any counterplay, Petr - Vachal, Czech Republic 2003.) 14.'it>b1 V!Jc7 15. hS± and White enjoyed a consid­erable lead in development, Aro­shidze - Gvetadze, Tbilisi 2001.

10 . . . h6 ll.h4 tt:Jfd7 (1l. . . . i.d7 12.l:'lg1 - see variation cl; ll . . . bS 12.l:'lg1 - see Chapter 12, varia­tion b2) 12 .l:'lg1 ! ? tt:lb6 (The best for him here is the line: 12 . . . b5 13.f4 - see ll . . . bS.) 13.b3 dS !? , because after 14.f4 i.b4 15.'it>b2 tt:Jec4+ 16.i.xc4 dxc4 17.tt:lde2 0-0 18.V/Jd4± his hasty attack is parried and White maintains a considerable lead in development and dangerous kingside threats.

ll.g5 �d7 12.f4

107

Chapter S

12 . . . �c4 This is the most attractive

move for Black. 12 . . . lt:lg4 - This sortie has not

been tested in practice, maybe be­cause this knight is misplaced on g4. 13.i.g1 b4 14.lt:la4 eS 15.fxe5 lt:lgxeS 16.�xb4 i.b7 17.i.g2 gbs 18.�c3± He has no compensation for the pawn at all.

12 . . . b4 - White can break through now on the queenside. 13.lt:lcb5 ! axbS 14.lt:lxb5

14 .. .'�b7 (It is hardly advis­able for Black to opt for 14 . . . �c6 15.fxe5 dxeS 16.<it>b1 gas 17.lt:ld6+ i.xd6 18.�xd6 �xd6 19,gxd6 rtle7 20.gc6 i.b7 21.gc4 gha8 22 .i.d2± His b4-pawn is weak and he has no active play, Stanach - Littke, carr. 2007.) 15.fxe5 dxeS 16.i.c4 �c6 17.�d3 .ia6 18.ghe1 i.e7 (18 . . . lt:lc5 19.lt:ld6+ .ixd6 20.�xd6 �xd6 21.fud6 i.xc4 22 . .ixc5±) 19.lt:lc7± White has obtained the two-bishop advantage, dominat­ing on the only open file and he has better development, G.Evans - Febland, Email 2006.

13 . .ixc4 �xc4 Naturally, it is more difficult

108

for Black to create counterplay along the b-file than along the c­file, so it would be worse for him to choose 13 . . . bxc4 14.rtlb1 gbs 15.�e2 g6, Diaz Diaz - Espasa Gonzalez, Martorell 1997, 16.h4 .ig7 17.h5±

14.b3!? �c7 15.f5

15 . . . b4 The alternatives are not any

better for him: 15 . . . lt:lb6 16.fxe6 fxe6 17.ghfl

i.d7, Dukaczewski - Kaczorows­ki, Warsaw 1997. White can have here some difficulties, because his knight on c3 is unstable, so he should consider seriously 18.lt:lce2, with the following ex­emplary variations: 18 . . . d5 (Black would not mind opening more files, since he is striving to acti­vate maximally his pieces.) 19.lt:lf4 .b3+ 20.rtib1 0-0 21.W/a5 W/d6 22 .e5! (White wins quickly after this move.) 22 . . . �xe5 23.W/xa3 �xe3 24.�d6 eS 25.lt:lfe6+-; or 18 . . . �b7 19.W/d3 gcs 20.lt:lg3 g6 21.lt:lf3 gc6 22 .�d4 ggs 23.e5 dS 24.�h4± Black's king is stranded

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 ll:Jc6 8. �d2 �c7 9. 0 - 0 - 0

in the centre and his pieces are discoordinated.

15 . . . ll:Je5 16Jlhfl i.d7 17.ll:Jce2 ! 'tlfb7, Bindrich - Mozny, Ger­many 2006, White can continue here with 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.ll:Jf4 �c8 20.'it>b1 aS 21.ll:ld3± and he disrupts the coordination of his opponent's pieces and obtains excellent chances of organizing an attack against the enemy king, deprived of a reliable shelter.

In reply to 15 . . . ll:Jc5, Garcia Lainez - Navarro Castan, Aragon 1998, it looks very attractive for White to prepare a standard piece­sacrifice with 16.l"lhe1!? , with the following eventual developments 16 . . . b4 17.ll:Jd5 exd5 18.exd5 and after 18 . . . 'it>d7 19.�xb4 .ib7 20.f6 l"lc8 21.�c4±, as well as following 18 . . . �b6 19.ll:lc6 'it>d7 20.�e2 'it>c7 21.�h5± his active pieces more than compensate the knight­sacrifice, particularly if we have in mind the perilous situation of Black's king.

16.ll:Ja4 It looks also good for White to

play 16.fxe6 bxc3 17.exd7+ hd7 18.�f2±, because Black's c3-pawn is not supported by the rest of his pieces and he will soon lose it.

16 • • . e5 17.ll:Je2 J.b7 18.ll:lg3 �k8, Kohut - Rychlik, Bartkowa 2002.

White's game is very easy with his far-advanced kingside pawns, but he will still need to take care about some prophylactic: 19.®bl J.c6 2 0 .ll:Jb2 a5 21.�d3± Black is incapable of creating any real counter threats.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have begun studying the move 7 . . . ll:Jc6. After

8. �d2, it seems quite sensible for Black to trade the knights a) 8 . . .

ll:lxd4, but he needs to bring the pieces of his kingside into the actions, in order to create counterplay, so he must castle as quickly as possi­ble, transposing to variation dfrom Chapter 7.

In case of b) 8 . . . i.d7 and c) 8 . . . �c7, there often arise positions from the Rauzer attack, but with an extra tempo for White (This is because his bishop goes to e3 in one move. The concrete analysis shows quite convincingly that Black's defence without a tempo is very difficult in­deed.

109

Chapter 6 l.e4 c5 2 .ll:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.ltlxd4 ltlf6 5.ltlc3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 ltlc6 8.�d2 J.e7

This is a basic move for Black and it is his most natural.

9. 0 - 0 - 0 H e has tried numerous possi­

bilities here and we will analyze a) 9 • . . .id7, b) 9 .. .l!)xd4 and c) 9 • • • ti'c7.

9 . . . 0-0 10. g4 - see Chapters 7-8 ; 9 . . . E!b8 10.g4 0-0 ll.gS lt:Jd7 12 .h4 - see Chapter 7; 9 ... hS 10 . .ie2 - see Chapter 4, variation c.

In reply to 9 ... eS, Szanto - Uz­sonyik, Hungary 200S, it looks very attractive for White to play 10.lt:JfS i.xfS ll.exfS \WaS 12 .g4±, because the e4 and dS-squares become comfortable outposts for his pieces.

9 . . . lt:JeS Black's knight will be attacked with tempo on this

110

square by the pawn on f3. 10.g4 h6 (About 10 . . . 0-0 - see 9 . . . 0-0, Chapter ?; 10 . . . \Wc7 11.gS - see var-iation c; it is hardly any better for Black to opt for 10 . . . bS ll.gS li:Jfd7 12.f4 lt:Jc4 13.hc4 bxc4 14.lt:Jc6 \Wc7 1S.lt:Jxe7 �xe7 16.fS± White has kept his opponent's king in the centre and he leads noticeably in development with excellent at­tacking chances, Pena Gomez -Ferreiro Pailos, Santiago de Com­postela 2002.) ll.i.e2 bS, Sirvente - Hait, South Wales Masters 1998, it seems very reasonable for White to continue here with 12 .h4 i.b7 13.gS lt::lfd7 14.f4 li:Jc4 1S.hc4 bxc4 16.g6± Black's king remains stranded in the centre and White opens advantageously files on the kingside.

9 . . . \WaS 10.g4 i.d7 (10 . . . 0-0 ll.gS - see 9 . . . 0-0 10.g4 \WaS ll.gS; 10 . . . lt::lxd4 - see variation b) ll.gS lt:JhS and after White plays now 12.lt::lb3 \Wc7 (but not 12 . . . \Wd8 13.f4 g6 14.i.e2 lt:Jg7 1S.h4 bS 16.hS+- Garcia Lopez - Sanchiz Marti, Internet 2004) 13.lt:Ja4 0-0 14.lt::lb6 !!adS 1S.lt::lxd7 E!xd7 16.f4± he obtains the two-bishop

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .j3 tt:\c6 8. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0-0

advantage, occupying additional space on the kingside.

9 . . . d5 (White is much better prepared for opening of files in the centre.) 10.exd5

10 . . . tt:lxd5 (After 10 . . . exd5, Black ends up voluntarily with an isolated pawn lagging in develop­ment. 11.g4 0-0 12 .g5. Now, in the variation 12 . . . tt:leB 13.f4 i.b4 14.a3 hc3 15.Wfxc3 tt:lxd4 16.hd4 .tfs 17 . .id3± White's bishop is much more active than Black's knight, his d5-pawn is weak and his rook on fB cannot be activated easily at all, Bucek - Nevole, Email 2002, while in case of 12 . . . tt:lh5, Renna - Vucic, Mineola 1993, White can try to exploit that Black's knight on h5 is hanging by playing 13.i.e2 tt:la5 14.f4i. Now, in case of 14 . . . tt:lc4 15.hc4 dxc4 16.\We2 g6 17.tt:lc6+- the dark squares on Black's kingside are so vulnerable that he has no chances of a suc­cessful defence at all. He would not fare much better even after the more tenacious line: 14 . . . g6 15.hh5 tt:lc4 16.\Wf2 gxh5 17.tt:lb3± The shelter of his king has been destroyed and he can hardly save

his d5-pawn.) 11.tt:lxd5 \Wxd5 (It is worse for Black to opt for 11 . . . exd5 12.tt:lxc6 bxc6 13.\Wc3, be­cause he loses a pawn and obtain­ing compensation for it is difficult in view of 13 . . . 0-0 14.\Wxc6 i.e6 15.i.b6 IWbB 16.\Wc7 \WeB 17.i.d4 �cB 1B.Wfg3±, as well as in the variation 13 . . . Wfd6 14.\Wxg7 .if6 15.'\Wh6 �gB 16.'\Wf4 .tes 17.'\Wa4 �bB 1B.c3± Kaminski - Kem­pinski, Gdansk 1994.) 12 .tt:lxc6 Wlxc6 (The endgame is very dif­ficult for Black after 12 . . . Wfxd2+ 13.�xd2 bxc6, Tylecek - Socha, Ostrava 2006, because White can continue with 14.i.c4 0-0 15.i.f4 i.c5 16.'i!;>bl± occupying the only open file with excellent chances of proving that Black's queenside pawns are very weak.) 13.i.d3 0-0, Kausilaite - Golovey, Riga 1975, White can play now 14.�he1 �dB 15.Wif2 i.d7 16.i.b6i and he ensures the complete control over the d-file with much more actively deployed pieces.

9 . . . tt:ld7 - Black is trying to uti­lize his knight on f6, before it has been repelled by White with the g-pawn. 10 .g4

111

Chapter 6

10 . . . tt:Jde5 (About 10 . . . 0-0 -see Chapter 7; 10 . . . �c7 11.g5 - see variation c5; 10 . . . tt:Jxd4 11 . .ixd4 0-0 12 .h4 - see Chapter 7, vari­ation d; 10 . . . h6 11 . .ie2 - see 9 . . . h6 . lO . . . hS? ! - This move looks strange, because White domi­nates on the kingside. 11.gxh5 E1xh5 12.f4 tt:lf6 13.�g2± Ochoa de Echaguen - Fraguela Gil, Linares 1991.) 11.g5 ! ? - White occupies space on the kingside with ex­cellent attacking prospects. 11 . . . tt:Jxd4 12 .�xd4 0-0 (He is bet­ter following 12 . . . hg5 13.f4 ttlc6 14.�xg7 .if6 1S.�h6 .ixc3 16.bxc3 �c7 17.�f6 E1g8 18.E1gl± Black's king is stranded in the centre, his queenside is not developed and he can hardly exploit his opponent's pawn-weaknesses.) 13.f4 tt:lg4 14. .id2 eS 15.�g1 exf4 16.h4 .ie6 (Black has an interesting sacrifice here - 16 .. .f3 17.tt:ld5 .ie6 18 . .ic3 tt:leS 19.tt:lb6t and although he loses the exchange his position seems pretty solid.) 17 . .txf4 WaS 18.ttld5 .idS, A.Fedorov - Neve­rov, Kstovo 1994, it looks attrac­tive for White to follow simply with 19.\ilb1 tt:leS 20.�g3t with excellent attacking prospects.

9 . . . h6 - This move compromis­es Black's kingside, but it impedes somewhat White's pawn-offen­sive. There arises a well-familiar variation of the Rauzer attack, ex­cept that White has an extra tem­po, since his bishop has come to the e3-square in one move. This provides him with an advantage

112

in all the variations. 10 .g4

and then: 10 . . . �c7 11 .h4 - see variation

c3; 10 . . . .td7 11.h4 - see variation a; 10 . . . tt:le5 11 . .ie2 - see 9 . . . tt:le5; 10 . . . tt:Jxd4 11.hd4 - see variation b;

After 10 .. . d5? ! Mantovani -Vallifuoco, Italy 1987, Black opens files in the centre, but this does not combine well with his previ­ous move. 11.exd5 tt:JxdS (After 11 . . . exd5 12 .h4± the vulnerability of Black's dS-pawn becomes quite obvious.) 12.ttlf5! 0-0 (About 12 . . . .if6 13.tt:lxd5 exdS 14.'Wxd5 �xd5 15.E1xd5 0-0 - see 12 . . . 0-0; after 12 . . . exf5 13.tt:lxd5 .ie6 14.gxf5± White opens the centre and in connection with the threat 1S . .ib6, wins a pawn,) 13.tt:lxd5 exdS 14.�xd5 �xdS 15.E1xd5 .if6 16.tt:ld6! - He gives back the pawn and ensures the comfortable de­velopment of his pieces. 16 . . . tt:Jb4 17.l:'1d2 tt:Jxa2+ 18.\ilb1 .ie6 19.f4 tt:lb4 20 . .ig2± Black has no active prospects at all, since White con­trols completely the centre;

10 . . . tt:ld7 11 . .ie2 tt:lf8?! Ristoja - Veingold, Helsinki 1990, This is

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lt:\c6 8. Vfld2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0

a rather strange transfer of Black's knight from a good position to a clearly inferior one. White's most natural reaction seems to be the further advance of his kingside pawns. 12 .h4 i.d7 (In case of 12 . . . .hh4 13.lt'lxc6 bxc6 14.Vflxd6 Vflxd6 15J:'1xd6 i.e7 16.Elxc6+- he must realize gradually his extra pawn.) 13.f4 bS (White's h4-pawn is again untouchable, because in the variation 13 . . . .hh4 14.lt'lf5 ! exfS 15.lt:\d5 lt:\e6 16.i.b6 Vflc8 17. Eixh4+- he regains his piece and begins a decisive offensive against Black's king.) 14.a3 fffc7 15.g5± White has good attacking pros­pects thanks to his extra space and superior development.

a) 9 . . . .id7?! Now, we have a position from

the Rauzer attack, which usually arises after l.e4 c5 2 .lt'lf3 lt'lc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lt:lxd4 lt'lf6 5.lt'lc3 d6 6.i.g5 e6 7.Vfld2 a6 8.0-0-0 i.d7 9.f3 ie7 10.ie3, except that here it is White to move.

1 0 .g4

1 0 . . . �xd4 This is the standard attempt

by Black to create counterplay on the queenside.

10 . . . 0-0 ll.gS - see 9 . . . 0-0, Chapter 7; 10 . . . Vflc7 ll.gS - see variation c, 10 . . . .id7.

lO . . . eS? ! (He cannot stabilize the situation in the centre in this fashion.) 11.lt'lf5 h£5 12 .exf5 WaS 13.g5± White's pieces control the dS and e4-squares and his far­advanced kingside pawns provide him with good attacking chances, Reichel - Fichtner, Germany 1997.

10 . . . g6 - This looks like some strange Dragon variation with a bishop on e7. ll.h4 h6 12.lt'lxc6 hc6 13.hh6+- Purcell - Sainz, San Francisco 2006.

lO . . . lt:leS, Dang The Nam -Nguyen Hoang Gia, Vietnam 2002, after this move White is presented with tempi to con­tinue with his kingside offensive 11.g5 lt'lhS 12.Elg1 Vflc7 13.f4 lt:\c4 14.hc4 Vflxc4 15.f5t and he has his standard initiative against the enemy king.

lO . . . dS (White is better pre­pared for the opening of the central files.) ll.gS lt:lhS, Vazquez Casado - Fernandez Villar, Valladolid 1987 and now it looks attractive for him to follow with 12.exd5 exdS (It is not preferable for Black to play 12 . . . lt:lxd4 13.Vflxd4 hgS 14.dxe6±, since he loses after 14 . . . he6 15.Vfla4+ .id7 16.Vfle4+ <i>f8 17.f4 ie7 18.Vflxb7+-, but

113

Chapter 6

even in case of 14 . . . fxe6 15.'Lle4± White's advantage is nearly deci­sive.) 13.'Llxd5 0-0 (Black loses too much material after 13 . . . 'Llxd4 14.�xd4 ixg5 15.�e5+-) 14.'Llxc6 .txc6 15.f4± White has a solid ex­tra pawn and a complete control over the centre.

10 . . . b5 ll.g5 'Llh5 (In case of ll . . . b4?? 12.'Llxc6 bxc3 13.�xc3+­Black is just lost, Le Ray -Wuthrich, Montigny le Breton­neux 2004.) 12.'Llxc6 .txc6 13.�h3 g6 14.�g4 �c7, Vescovi - Fier, Sao Paulo 2005, after the obvious line: 15 . .txh5 gxh5 16.h4 0-0 17.'Lle2± White gobbles up unavoidably Black's weak h5-pawn, organizing a powerlul attack against Black's compromised king's position .

10 . . . h6 - This move weakens the kingside. ll.h4

ll . . . 'Llxd4 (ll . . . �c7 12J-:l:g1 - see variation c3; after ll . . . b5 12.'Llxc6 .txc6, Sammalvuo - Massinen, Helsinki 1992, White should bet­ter prepare his kingside assault with 13 .�g2 'Lld7 14.�b1 b4 15.'Lle2 l"i:c8 16.'Lld4 �b7 17.g5±. The move ll . . . 'Llh7, Cardona Cervera - Este­ban Hernandez, Silla 2001 is too

114

passive and after 12 .g5 'Lle5 13.f4 'Llg4 14.�gl± Black's pieces are evidently misplaced. . ll . . . 'Lle5 -White gains important tempi for his attack after this move. 12 .�e2 b5 13.g5 'Llg8, Pamatmat - New­man, Dallas 2008 and continu­ing with 14.f4 'Llc4 15.ixc4 bxc4 16.f5± he emphasizes Black's lack of development. In the variation 1l. . .�a5 12.�bl, Black's next move looks like a strange loss of time 12 . . . �c7, Valko - Palko, Nyiregy­haza 1998. White can follow with 13.�e2 b5 14.g5± and he is clearly ahead of his opponent in the crea­tion of threats, while in response to 12 . . . l"i:c8, Chirila - Toader, Baile Tusnad 2000, it seems very good for White to react in the analo­gous fashion: 13.'Llb3 �c7 14.�e2 b5 15.g5±) 12 . .bd4 b5 (About 12 . . . �c7 13 .�h3 - see variation c3; after 12 . . . e5 13.�e3 �e6, there arises a position from variation b, but with an extra tempo for White. 14.�b1 �a5, Shekhter -Eichinger, Augsburg 2001, he can play here 15.�f2 'Lld7 16.'Lld5± and he obtains the two-bishop advan­tage, controlling the vital central squares.) 13.�d3 b4 (Black should better avoid 13 . . . e5 14.�e3 �e6 15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 'Llh5 17.'Lld5±, because all his pieces remain pas­sive and he has created numerous weaknesses advancing his pawns, I.Komissarov - Tjutjunnikov, Podolsk 1992.) 14.'Lle2 e5 15.�e3 �e6 16.g5± White not only has broken through on the kingside,

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 ..fJ tt:lc6 8. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0 -0

but he would unavoidably win the b4-pawn, Rodriguez Perez -Gonzalez Carpintero, Valladolid 1988.

10 . . Jk8 11.g5 tt:lh5 12.tt:lxc6 ! (White deprives his opponent's

pieces of their habitual coordina­tion.) 12 . . . Eixc6 (Black should bet­ter avoid 12 . . . hc6, De la Villa Garcia - Ljubojevic, Szirak 1987, because after 13 . .ih3 g6 14 . .ig4± he loses quickly with 14 . . . 0-0 15. ,ixh5 gxh5 16.h4 b5 17.tt:le2 d5 18. eS Wfc7 19 . .id4+-, while in the variation 13 . . . tt:lg7 15.h4 b5 16.\t>b1 b4 17.tt:le2± Black is helpless against 18.h5 destroying his king­side.) 13.f4 g6 (The move 13 . . . b5 just ignores the threat of the com­promising of Black's kingside pawn-structure. 14 . .ie2 g6 15. hh5 gxh5 16.e5 ! ? dxe5 17.tt:le4 ic8 18.Wfg2 Wfc7 19.fxe5� The dark squares in his camp are so weak that his king cannot find a safe haven, Mrva - Lane, Trnava 1988.) 14 . .ie2 tt:lg7 15.h4±. Black's fianchettoed bishop is the main drawback of his position, but it is not the only one. He has no space and his kingside is weakened and the king is stranded in the centre, Lehto - Pukkinen, Jarvenpaa 1996.

ll . .ixd4 (diagram)

ll . . . e5 About 11 . . . 0-0 - see 9 . . . 0-0,

Chapter 7, variation d. In reply to 11 . . . b5, it looks

very attractive for White to follow With 12 .g5 lt:lh5, Tkeshelashvili

- Peptan, Menorca 1996, 13.ie3 (This move is more precise than 13.Eig1, since the rook might be handy in some lines on the h­:file.) 13 . . . Wfa5 (In case of 13 . . . Eic8 14.tt:le2 Wfc7 15.tt:lg3± the h-:file is opened and that leaves Black's king in the centre, because castling short for him looks like a suicide.) 14.a3 0-0 15.\t>b1 Wfc7 16.f4± He has completed his development indeed, but his position is very difficult, because White will gain several tempi for his attack due to the misplaced black knight on h5.

It is not better for Black to play 11 . . . Wfa5 12.\t>b1 Eic8, Hautot -Van Leeuwen, Belgium 2004, be­cause White continues with 13.g5 tt:lh5 14.f4 .ic6 15.f5 e5 (15 . . . exf5 16 . .ie2+-) 16 . .ie3± occupying the d5-outpost and additional space on the kingside.

11 . . . .ic6 - This is futile at­tempt to deploy this bishop well, because here it is restricted by White's e4-pawn. 12 .h4 Wfc7 (About 12 . . . e5? ! 13 . .ie3 - see 11 . . . e5; it is almost the same after 12 . . . Wfa5, R.Perez - S.Castillo, Buenos

115

Chapter 6

Aires 2002, while in case of 13.gS tt:lhS 14 . .ih3± Black's pawn-struc­ture will be unavoidably compro­mised.) 13.gS tt:lhS 14.i.h3 l':l:g8 1S.i.g4 g6, Dochev - Posharsky, Bankia 1990, White can play here 16.i.xhS gxhS 17.'!Wf2 bS 18.tt:le2± and he wins the hS-pawn with ex­cellent chances of exploiting the vulnerability of the dark squares in Black's camp.

12.i.e3

12 . . . i.e6 12 . . . i.c6 - This bishop looks a

bit strange on this square with a pawn on eS. 13.h4 '\WaS (In answer to 13 . . . l':l:b8, Mucha - Swieszek, Sielpa 2004, it looks attractive for White to continue with 14.gS tt:ld7 1S.tt:ldS hdS 16.'\WxdS bS 17.i.h3 '\Wc7 18.f4± and he leads in development and has extra space in addition to his two pow­erful bishops, while after 13 . . . '\Wc7, Straka - Tretina, Orlova 2004, it is very good for him to opt for 13.gS tt:ld7 14.i.c4 bS 1S.tt:ldS±) 13.gS tt:lhS 14.i.h3 l':l:g8 1S.i.g4 g6, Dochev - Posharsky, Bankia

116

1990, he plays here 16.hhS gxhS 17.'\Wf2 bS 18.tt:le2±, winning the hS-pawn with excellent chances of exploiting the weakness of the dark squares in Black's posi­tion.) 13.gS tt:ld7 14.@b1 bS 1S.hS± White's kingside initiative is run­ning effortlessly, because he leads in development and controls the centre.

12 . . . 0-0 - Black castles di­rectly under the attack. 13.gS tt:le8 14.tt:ldS i.e6 (but not 14 .. .f6?? 1S.i.b6+- Booth - Eliezer, Dos Hermanas 2004) 1S.h4± Ould Ahmed - Scott, Email 2006.

13.g5 tt:ld7 13 . . . tt:lhS - This knight is not

better placed here. 14.l':l:g1 '\WaS, Hadac - Tejkal, Znojmo 2002, White can follow with 1S.'\Wf2 '\Wc7 16.tt:ldS hdS 17J':ixdS± and he controls the light squares in the centre thanks to his powerful light-squared bishop and has ex­cellent attacking prospects.

14.h4

14 . . . b5 Black can hardly create any

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 .j3 ltlc6 8. Wid2 �e7 9. 0 -0-0

counterplay without this move. 14 . . .1''1c8 1S.ltld5 i.xdS 16.Wixd5

Wic7 17.Wid2 iDeS 18 . .th3± He has failed to organize anything real on the queenside, while his kingside is seriously endangered, Vonlan­then - Bleisch, Winterthur 2002.

14 . . . Wia5 1S.'i!?b1 ltlb6, Stub­benid - Wibe, Gausdal 2006, Black's pieces are disharmoni­ously placed and this can be seen even in the endgame after 16.f4 ltla4 17.ltld5 Wixd2 18J:'1xd2 !1c8 19.c3 iDeS 20 . .ig2±

15.ltld5 .ixd5 16.Wixd5 0 - 0 17.\t>bl ltlb6, Stopa - Boskovic, Richardson 2008, White can con­tinue with 18.Wic6 �b8 19.b3 feeS 2 0 . Wixc8 �fxc8 21.�h3 �c7 22.'.t>b2± and this provides him with a stable advantage due to his dominance over the light squares and extra space.

b) 9 . • • ltlxd4 We will analyze now Black's

attempts to create counterplay on the queenside, leaving for a while his king in the centre.

1 0 • .ixd4

1 0 • • • e5 10 . . . Wic7 11.g4 - variation c3. 10 . . . 0-0 11.g4 - see 9 . . . 0-0,

Chapter 7, variation d. 10 . . . h6 11 .g4 eS (11 . . . b5 12 .h4

eS 13.�e3 .ie6 - see lO . . . eS, in case of 12 . . . !1b8, Ribshtein -Y.Gruenfeld, Israel 1999, it is good for White to impede the advance of his opponent's pawns with 13.a3 with the following exempla­ryvariations: 13 . . . b4 14.axb4 !1xb4 1S.It>b1 e5 16 . .te3 .te6 17.ltld5±, or 16 . . . !1b8 17 . .ic4± and Black can­not obtain any real counterplay despite opening of the b-file; 13 . . eS 14 . .ta7 !1b7 1S . .te3 .te6 16 . .te2 WiaS 17.g5 b4 18.ltlbl± - White's kingside threats look much more dangerous.) 12 . .ie3 ltld7?, Bar­bosa - Lemos, Guimaraes 2004, (Black should better choose here 12 . . . i.e6 13 .h4 - see lO . . . eS .), while after 13.ltld5 .th4 14.Wib4+­he loses at least a pawn.

lO . . . bS - This is a natural move for Black and he is trying to oc­cupy quickly space on the queen­side with it. 11.g4 WiaS, De la Villa Garcia - Damljanovic, Seville 1994, (About 11 . . . .td7 12 .g5 - see variation a, 11 . . . b5 12 .g5; 11 . . .0-0 - see Chapter 7, variation d; 11 . . . eS 12 . .ie3 - see lO . . . eS; 11 . . .�b7 - this development of the bishop looks quite reasonable. 12 .g5 ltlh5 13.!1g1 Wic7 14.'.t>b1 b4 15.ltle2 dS 16.f4! dxe4 17.i.e5 WicB 18.ltld4-+ - White leads in development at the price of only a pawn and he has a powerful attack. After

117

Chapter 6

18 . . . 0-0 19.i.e2 g6 20.hhS gxhS 21.'1We2+- Black's king is beyond salvation, Davydenko - Kreines, Moscow 2007.)

12 .gS (This is an attractive move and White comes ahead of his opponent in the development of his initiative.) 12 . . . tt:lhS 13.i.e3 b4 14.tt:le2 i.b7 (Following 14 . . . \Wxa2 1S.'!Wxb4 dS 16.'1Wb6 \Wa1 + 17.\t>d2 \Wa4 18.tt:lc3 \Wd7 19.exdS 0-0 20.\t>cl± Black loses a pawn without any compensation.) 1S.It>b1 dS (1S .. . E1d8 16.tt:ld4 dS 17.eS g6 18.f4 tt:lg7 19.h4±) 16.eS \Wc7 (16 . . . d4 17.tt:lxd4 E1d8 18.i.e2 \WxeS 19.E1hf1 \Wc7 20.f4±) 17.i.d4 aS (In case of 17 . . . E1c8 18.E1c1 aS 19.ttlg3 tt:lxg3 20.hxg3± White not only opens advantageously the h-file, but he is ready to open a second front, exploiting the c-file as well.) 18.tt:lg3 tt:lxg3 19.hxg3 a4 20.i.bS+ lt>f8 21.i.d3± Black has advanced far his queenside pawns, but he can hardly cre­ate any counterplay, because his pieces are very passive.

118

ll . .ie3 (diagram)

ll . . . .ie6

Black covers the vulnerable dS-outpost. Without a bishop on e6, his position would not look at­tractive at all :

11 . . . \WaS 12.'1Wf2 tt:ld7, Wagen­voorde - Braun, Groningen 2004 (or 12 . . . \Wc7 13.g4 i.e6 14.gS tt:lhS 1S.tt:ldS± and White is clearly ahead) 13.tt:ldS .idS 14.\Wg3 g6 1S.It>bl± Black has great problems completing his development.

11 . . . bS 12 .g4 .ib7 (About 12 . . . i.e6 13.gS - see 11 . . . .ie6; 12 . . . 0-0 - see Chapter 7; 12 . . . h6 13.h4 i.e6 14 . .ie2 - see 11.. . .ie6; in re­ply to 12 . . . \WaS, Ungurs - Juranic, Rimavska Sobota 1996, it seems very good for White to react in the standard fashion 13.'1Wf2 b4?? 14 . .ib6+-; 13 . . . E1b8 14.gS tt:ld7 1S.It>b1 tt:lb6 16.f4±) 13.gS tt:lhS, Netzer - Stepenko, St. Chely d'Aubrac 2008. He can exploit the unfavourable placement of Black's knight and the absence of the bishop on e6 with the line: 14 . .ih3 tt:lf4 (In the variation 14 . . . 0-0 1S . .ig4 tt:lf4 16.hf4 exf4 17.h4 b4 18.tt:le2± Black loses his f4-pawn without any compensation for it

5 . . . a6 6.il.e3 e6 7 .j3 ttJc6 8. Vfid2 il.e7 9. 0 -0-0

whatsoever.) 15.hf4 exf4 16J'':ihg1 0-0 (16 . . . .b:g5 17.l'!xg5 VfixgS 18. vtixd6 Vfie7 19.Vfixe7+ i>xe7 20. l=!d7+ i>f6 21.l=!xb7+- White's two light pieces are consider­ably stronger than Black's rook.) 17.Vfffxf4 Vfib6 18.i>bl±

12.g4

12 . . . h6 Black prevents the further oc­

cupation of space by White on the kingside, but he compromises the light squares.

12 . . . 0-0 13.'it>b1 - see Chapter 7. In case of 12 . . . b5 13.g5 tt:Jd7,

Bosnjak - Hamzic, Neum 2005 (13 . . . tt:Jh5 14.l'!g1 0-0 15.i>b1 -see Chapter 7) , it seems logical for White to continue with 14.h4 tt:Jb6 15.f4 exf4 16.hf4 l'!c8 17.Vfid4± and he has a complete control over the centre.

12 . . . Vfffa5 13.Vfif2 - He avoids the trade of queens preserving more attacking chances. 13 . . . lt:Jd7 14.i>b1 l'!c8 (After 14 . . . 0-0 15.lt:Jd5 .txds 16.l=!xd5 Vfic7 17.g5 lt:Jc5 18.h4± Black's defence is very difficult, because the light squares

in the centre are vulnerable in his camp, Motwani - Machulsky, Dublin 1991.) 15.lt:Jd5 lt:Jf6 (Or 15 . . . i.d8, Rosing - Krumboeh­mer, Muensterland 2003 and af­ter 16.g5 bS 17.h4± White avoids simplifications and he is prepar­ing to continue with his initia­tive on the kingside.) 16 . .ib6 Vfia4 17.b3 Vfic6 18.lt:Jxe7 i>xe7, Leiva -T.Rodriguez, Sants 2001, now he must parry the threat 19 . . . .b:g4 and he should better do this with 19.i.a5 tt:Jd7 20.h4 tt:Jcs 21.l'!h2± - ending up with a clear advan­tage with a powerful bishop-pair, while Black's king is stranded in the centre.

12 . . . l'!c8 13.g5 tt:Jd7 14.h4 VfiaS (14 . . . h6? ! - This move is too risky, since Black opens files voluntar­ily on the kingside where White is clearly dominant. 15.gxh6 gxh6, Kagan - Speelman, Hast­ings 1977, naturally, it would be too perilous for White to capture this pawn, because after 16 . .b:h6 l'!xc3 ! 17.bxc3 Vfffasgg Black obtains an excellent compensation for the exchange. White creates serious problems for his opponent with the line : 16.lt:Jd5 il.xh4 17.i>b1 hS 18.Vfffb4 tt:Jcs 19.l'!g1 bS 20.i.e2± Black has an extra pawn indeed, but he has no active plan at all. In fact he has no reasonable move to play without losing material.) 15.a3 bS, Papapostolou - Escher, Potsdam 1997 (15 . . . tt:Jb6 16.'it>b1 tt:lc4 17 . .b:c4 l'!xc4, Har Zvi - 011,

Antwerp 1993, after 18.h5 bS

119

Chapter 6

19.h6 g6 20J�!:hfl± White can pre­pare his further kingside offen­sive with 21.f4) and here White should better not be in a hurry to occupy the d5-outpost, because of the exchange of queens. Instead, it looks attractive for him to con­tinue playing on the kingside, for example with: 16.mbl l''k6 17.h5 i.d8 18.f4±

13.h4

13 • . • �a5 It is not any better for Black to

opt for 13 . . . l'!c8 14.i.e2 �a5 15.a3 b5 (The move 15 . . . h5 enables White to occupy additional space on the kingside. 16.g5 ttld7 17.mbl �c7, Antal - Madl, Budapest 1996 and by playing 18.f4 g6 19.l'!hf1 exf4 20.i.d4 0-0 21.l'!xf4± White has excellent attacking prospects thanks to his dominance in the centre and extra space. After 15 . . . 0-0 16.g5 ttlh5 17.gxh6 g6, Martie - Cvetkovic, Belgrade 2005, he can follow with 18.l'!hg1 mh7 19.i.g5 hg5 20.hxg5 ttlf4 21.i.d3 l'!c6 22.mbl± ending up with an extra pawn.) 16.mb1 l'!c6

120

(About 16 . . . ttld7 17.g5 h5 18.f4 -see 16 . . . h5; in the variation 16 . . . h5 17.g5 ttld7, Kohlweyer - Opitz, Leiden 2003, following 18.f4 exf4 19.i.d4 f3 20.hf3 ttle5 21.i.e2 g6 22.l'!hfl± White controls the cen­tre and his pieces are much more active. In case of 16 . . . �c7 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 l'!xh1 19.l'!xh1 ttld7 20.l'!h8+ ttlf8 21.ttld5± he breaks through on the kingside, Chan­dler - L.Vogt, Thessaloniki 1988.) 17.g5 ttlh5 18.gxh6 gxh6 19.i.d3± White has developed a powerful initiative on the kingside, keeping his opponent's king in the centre, while Black has failed to organize any counterplay at all, Coleman -Vayser, Email 2004.

13 ... b5 14.i.e2 �as 15.mb1 b4 (15 . . . l'!c8 16.a3 - see 13 . . . l'!c8) 16.ttld5 ttlxd5 17.exd5 i.c8 18.f4± White is evidently better, since he has extra space and superior development, Mohale - Mphuti, Bloemfontein 2005.

14.�f2 f!c7 After 14 . . . ttld7 15.mb1 b5 16.

ttld5 l'!b8 17.i.d2 b4 18.i.c4± Black has no counterplay on the queen­side, while White has a firm con­trol over the centre with a clear­cut plan for kingside actions, Dim­itrov - Krivokapic, Paris 2000.

15 • .ie2 gcs 16.mbl b5, V.Anand - Mithrakanth, Coim­batore 1987.

(diagram) Here White can prevent Black's

queenside counterplay for long, by playing: 17.a3 lDd7 18.g5

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.j3 lLlc6 B. Wid2 �e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 Wic7 10 .g4

�c5 19.lt:Jd5 i.xd5 2 0 .exd5± White has plenty of space and a couple of powerful bishops with excellent attacking chances, for example after 20 . . . hxg5 21 .hxg5 E:xh1 22 .E:xh1 Wib7 23.f4 ! Wixd5 24.E:h8+ �f8 25.fxe5 dxe5 26.g6 f6 27.�g4 �c7 28.�d2�, Black has great problems protecting his king, because of his vulnerable light squares.

c) 9 . . • Wic7 In the English attack, contrary

to the Paulsen system and the ma­jority of the Scheveningen varia­tions, Black's queen is not so well placed on this square.

1 0 .g4

This is a natural move for White, because his plan includes a pawn-offensive on the kingside.

We will analyze thoroughly now the following possibilities for Black: c1) 1 0 . • • c!lJe5, c2) 1 0 • • •

�a5, c3) 10 . • . h6, c4) 1 0 . • .

c!LJxd4 and c5) 1 0 • . . c!LJd7. He has also tried in practice: 10 . . . b5 - see 7 . . . b5 8.Wid2 �e7

9.g4 Wic7 10.0-0-0 lLlc6, Chapter 9; 10 . . . 0-0 - see Chapter 7;

10 . . . �d7? ! (This move de-prives Black's knight of the most comfortable square to retreat to.) ll.g5 lLlh5 12 .f4 g6 (It is hardly preferable for him to choose 12 . . . lLlxd4 13.hd4 h6 14.h4 0-0-0, Nikolin - Turvey, Rijeka 1997, because after 15.Wif2 �de8 16.�e3 g6 17.�e2± Black is squeezed to the last two ranks and his pseudo­active knight only enhances the development of White's kingside initiative.) 13.�e2 lLlg7 14.h4± All White's forces have joined in the actions, while Black still needs plenty of time to complete his de­velopment, Rosen - Lachmaier, Grieskirchen 1998.

10 .. . �b8 - This move is pre­mature. He usually needs this rook on c8 and sometimes it comes handy even on its initial square. ll .g5 lLld7 (After ll . . . lLlh5 12.f4 lLlxd4 13.hd4 b5 14.�e2 b4 15.�5 bxc3 16.Wixc3+- White forces a transition into an end­game with a pawn up, Stahl - Bal­cerak, Hachenburg 1995.) 12 .h4 b5 (12 . . . 0-0 13.g6 - see 9 . . . 0-0)

121

Chapter 6

13.tDxc6 �xc6, Andreescu - San­du, Romania 1994 and here he has a powerful attack after 14.h5 tDe5 15.f4 t2Jg4 16.�d4 b4 17.h6! 0-0 (17 . . . bxc3 18.hc3 0-0 19.hxg7 -see 17 . . . 0-0) 18.hxg7 l'!e8 19.�h3 bxc3 20.hc3 e5 21.�e2+- White regains his piece and begins his final checkmating attack.

c1) 1 0 . . . c!Lle5 This move enables White to

advance his kingside pawns with tempi.

ll.g5 tLlfd7 12.f4 c!Llc4 13. hc4 ti'xc4 14.f5

14 . . • c!Lle5 Black loses too much material

after 14 . . . e5? ! 15.tDb3 t2Jc5? (He would not save the game after 15 . . . b5, Sowa - Starczewski, Barlinek 2007, 16.l2Ja5 �c7 17.l2Jd5+-, or 16 . . . �b4 17.l2Jc6 �c4 18.t2Jxe7+-) 16.tDxc5 dxc5 17.a3+- Specht -Koellmer, Frankfurt/Griesheim 2006.

In case of 14 . . . tDc5, Butze -Gregory, corr. 1989, Black's e6-square is reliably protected, so

122

White must attack along the f-file - 15.E!hf1 and here it is bad for Black to play 15 . . . e5 16.�g2 ! and White's knight is untouchable, be­cause Black would lose his queen, while after 16 . . . �d7 17.f6± White takes the d5 and fS-squares un­der control. In the variation 15 . . . tDa4 16.tDxa4 �xa4 17.1t>bl± Black falls behind considerably in de­velopment and his king is rather unsafe.

15.ghfl!? b5 It is hardly better for him

to opt for 15 . . . i.d7 16.f6 gxf6 17.gxf6 �f8 18.tDf3! - his only ac­tive piece is either exchanged, or repelled from its excellent out­post. Following 18 . . . t2Jg4 19.�f4 0-0-0 20.h3 tDxf6 21.�g5 �e7 22 .e5+- Black is beyond salva­tion, Rasmussen - Khedkar, Win­nipeg 1993. And 18 . . . tDxf3 19J'l:xf3 �c6 20.It>b1 b5 21.b3 �b4, Lopez Martinez - Dasaolu, Caleta 2010, 22 .�b6! ? he4 23.l'!e3 �h6 (23 . . . �b7 24.�e2) 24.t2Jxe4 is also bad for Black.

16.1t>b1 .id7 He has some alternatives as

well: 16 . . . 0-0 17.f6--+ with an at­tack for White, or 16 . . . �c7 17.b3 �d7 18.t2Jce2 ! followed by tDf4±; it is not preferable for Black to opt for 16 . . . �b7 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.�g2 tDd7 19.�h3 tDc5 20.e5--+ and White's attack is overwhelming, possibly decisive, for example : 20 . . . d5 21.lDdxb5 axb5 22 .E!d4+­and Black loses his queen, or 20 . . . E!d8 21.tDdxb5 t2Je4 22.E!d4 tDxc3+

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 .j3 l2Jc6 8. W!d2 �e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 W!c7 1 0 .g4

23.lLlxc3 Wic8 24J%h4+- and his kingside is defenceless, after 20 . . . dxeS 21 .b3 Wffxc3 22 .lLlxe6+- Black must give up too much material in order to avoid being checkmated.

The move 16 . . . b4, Antoniewski - Neuman, Czech Republic 1998 only helps White to transfer his knight to the kingside. Following 17.l2Jce2 aS 18.lLlf4 �d7 19.lLlhS-+ his attack becomes tremendously powerful.

17.l2Jce2 Wic7 17 . . . aS, Lahiri - Jitendra,

Gurgaon 2010, 18.l2Jf4 !? a4 (18 . . . ix:gS 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.lLlhS ix:e3 21.lLlxg7±) 19.lLlhS±

18.l2Jf4±

Black has great problems with the protection of the e6-square. 18 •• .tbc4 19.Y«e2 l2Jxe3 2 0 . �xe3 e5 21.lLld5 ti'a7 22.f6-+ (White's attack is decisive.) 22 • . •

gxf6 23.tLJxe7 <.!i>xe7 24.Y«f3 1-0 Adorjan - Ramos, Email 2006.

c2) 10 • • • tLJa5 Black's knight is removed from

the centre and this enables White

to continue with the standard piece-sacrifice for an attack.

ll.g5 tLJd7

12.tLlf5!? This is the most resolute re­

action by him. He wins several tempi for his attack thanks to the unfortunate placement of Black's knight on aS and the queen on c7.

12 • • • exf5 13.tLld5 Y«d8 In reply to 13 .. .'<Mfc6, Brod­

sky - Miton, Bydgoszcz 2001, it seems attractive for White to re­gain his piece with 14.l2Jxe7 <.!i>xe7 1S.Wffxa5±. He has restored the material balance, obtained the two-bishop advantage and kept his opponent's king in the centre, which provides him with excellent attacking chances, for example in the variation 1S . . . fxe4 16.�f4 lLleS 17.ix:eS dxeS 18J%dS bS 19.Wia3+ <.!i>e8 20.EkS W!b7 21.�xeS+ �e6 22.�xe4+- White ends up with a solid extra pawn, while Black's king has no safe haven at all.

14.exf5 0 - 0 H e cannot avoid the attack

with the line: 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.f6 !

123

Chapter 6

gxf6 16.gxf6 i.xf6 (16 . . . lLlxf6 17. �b6+-) 17.ge1 0-0 (After 17 . . . lLlceS 18.f4 �h4 19.ge2 bS 20.fxe5 dxeS 21 .�c3+- White's attack is decisive at the price of only a pawn.) 18.gg1+ <±>h8 19.lLlxf6 �xf6 20 .�3!� He restores the material balance and has a pow­erful attack thanks to the almost defenceless black king: 20 . . . lLlde5 (Black saves the game neither with 20 . . . ggs 21.gxg8+ <±>xg8 22 .�g5 �g6 23.ge8+ <±>g7 24.hd7+-, nor with 20 . . . lLlce5 21.�g5 �xf3 22 .gg3 �hS 23.hd7+-) 21 .�g5 �g6 22 .�h6 hh3 23.gxg6 lLlxg6 24.�xd6 �e6 25.�c5 ! gac8 26. i.xf8 lLlxf8 27.f4+-

15.f6

It is easy to see that White re­gains unavoidably his piece, de­stroying the shelter of the enemy king in the process.

15 • • )ijc6, Bratanov - Navara, Plzen 1997, Black cannot save his piece anyway, so it looks most energetic for White to opt for 16 . .ih3! with the following exem­plary variations:

124

16 . . . gxf6 17.hd7 hd7 18 . �b6+- and Black must give up his queen; otherwise, he will be quickly checkmated after 19.gxf6;

16 . . . lLlxf6 17.gxf6 hh3 18.�b6 �c8 (after 18 . . . �d7 19.�g5+­Black loses his queen) 19.fxe7 ges 20.ghg1 <±>h8 21.gxg7+- his pieces cannot participate in the protection of his king;

16 . . . ges - This is the most re­silient defence for Black. 17.fxe7 lLlxe7 18.hd7 hd7 19.�b6 �c8 20.lLlc7+- and he has remained "only" an exchange down.

c3) 1 0 . . . h6

Black impedes for a while White's kingside pawn-offensive, but weakens his kingside The dia­grammed position arises more of­ten in the Rauzer attack after the moves l.e4 cS 2 .lLlf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 S.lLlc3 lLlc6 6.�g5 e6 7.�d2 a6 8 .0-0-0 h6 9 . .ie3 �c7 10.f3 �e7 ll.g4. It is easy to notice that White has an extra tempo in our case.

ll.h4

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lLlc6 8. Vfid2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 Vffc7 1 0 .g4

ll . . . i.d7 The move ll . . . b6? ! Havranek

- Belaska, Czech Republic 1995 is too slow and White can continue with 12.lLlxc6 Vf/xc6 13.i.e2 l2Jd7 14.g5± leading considerably in development.

ll . . . l2Jh7 (this move is too passive) 12 .g5 h5 13.f4 g6 14.f5± Black's centre is on the verge of destruction, Hernandez Garcian - De Andres Barrena, Erandio 2005.

ll . . . b5 - This is one of the most natural moves for Black. 12.lLlxc6 Wfxc6

13.lLle2 (The transfer of this knight to d4 provides White with the possibility to exert a long­lasting pressure against his op-

ponent's central pawns.) 13 . . . Vf/c7 (Black should better avoid 13 . . . i.b7 14.l2Jd4 Vf/c7 15.'it>b1 l'l:c8 16.i.h3 !±, since he will have great problems with the protection of the e6-square. It is bad for him to play for example : 16 . . J'�g8? 17.g5 hxgS 18.hxg5 l2Jd7 19.g6+- and although he does not lose his e6-pawn yet, White's kingside attack is decisive, Ruiz Jimenez - Gar­cia Gomez, Santa Cruz de Tener­ife 2006, it is more resilient for him to defend with 16 . . . lLld7 17.g5 hxgS 18.i.xe6! , but even then after 18 . . . gxh4 19.i.xd7+ Vf/xd7 20.lt:lf5 g6 21.lLlxe7 �xe7 22.i.g5 Vf/e5 23J'�xh4± his dark squares are so weak that White has excel­lent attacking prospects, while in the variation 18 . . . fxe6 19.lLlxe6 Vf/c6 20.l2Jxg7+ 'it>t7 21.i.xg5 i.f8 22 .lLlf5± he obtains three pawns for the piece, destroying the en­emy king's shelter.) 14.l2Jd4 dS 15.e5 lt:ld7 16.f4 lLlcS 17.i.g2 i.d7 18.'it>b1 aS 19.f5±. There arose a position of the type of the French defence, in which White led in development and had excellent attacking chances and after 19 . . . lt:la4 20.Vf/d3 Vf/xe5 21.fxe6 fxe6 22 .l'l:he1 0-0 23.i.g5 lLlcS 24.Vfih3 Vf/d6 25.lLlf5+- Black ended up with an exchange down without any compensation whatsoever, Tukhaev - Annageldyev, Alushta 2005.

In response to ll . . . lLlaS, Pieper - Pflichthofer, Wuerttemberg 1992, it seems very good for White

125

Chapter 6

to continue with 12 .l'!g1t, with the idea to sacrifice a piece after 12 . . . tt:ld7 13.tt:lf5 ! ? exf5 14.tt:ld5 �d8 15.tt:lxe7 �xe7 (In case of 15 . . . 'i!txe7 16.�xd6+ 'i!te8 17.gxf5 �f6 18. �g3± he gobbles up unavoidably a third pawn for the piece and his attack against Black's king, stranded in the centre, is running unopposed.) 16.gxf5 ! (this is White's most energetic response) 16 . . . tt:lc6 17.l'!xg7 �f6 18.l'!g1 b5 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 18 . . . tt:Jde5 19 . .ie2 'i!le7 20 . .ib6+-, because he has prob­lems with the protection of his d6-pawn and if he loses it with queens present on the board, White's attack becomes decisive.) 19.�xd6 �xd6 20.l'!xd6 .ib7 21. l'!xh6± He has already four pawns for the piece and his dark-squared bishop dominates the entire board.

ll . . . tt:Jxd4 - This exchange does not facilitate Black's de­fence. 12 .hd4 e5 (He should bet­ter avoid 12 . . . .id7 13 . .ih3 0-0-0 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 tt:lh7 16.f4 l'!dg8 17 . .ig4±, because White has a powerful pressure on the king­side, while Black has no counter­play at all, Gaponenko - A. Fuchs, Germany 2001.) 13 . .ie3 .ie6 14. 'i!tb1

(diagram) 14 . . . 0-0-0 (The move 14 . . .

tt:ld7 presents White with the possibility to occupy the key cen­tral d5-outpost. 15.tt:ld5 hd5 16. �xd5 �c6, I.Moiseev - Sviatnen-

126

ko, Kiev 2007, in the endgame after 17 . .ic4 �xd5 18.hd5 l'!b8 19.g5± White has a stable advan­tage thanks to his couple of bish­ops and extra space. Meanwhile, Black has no counterplay at all and after 14 . . . b5 15.tt:ld5t, he fails to activate his pieces by playing 15 . . . hd5 16.exd5 e4 17 . .ie2± and in the variation 15 . . . tt:Jxd5 16.exd5 .id7 17 . .id3 �b7 18 . .ie4± White occupies plenty of space and has a clear-cut plan for a kingside of­fensive, Acs - Blaskowski, Ger­many 2003; in answer to 14 . . . l'!c8, A.Horvath - Somlo, Hun­gary 1994, White obtains an edge simply with the line: 15 . .ie2 tt:ld7 16.g5 h5 17.f4 exf4 18 . .ixf4 tt:le5 19.tt:ld5 hd5 20.exd5± He has occupied space and has obtained the two-bishop advantage. Black has deployed his knight on the excellent e5-square, but it cannot remain there for long. ) 15.tt:ld5 hd5 16.exd5 tt:ld7 17.�b4 tt:lc5, Vargic - Medancic, Djakovo 2005, White can continue with 18.g5 hxg5 19 . .ih3+ 'i!tb8 (19 . . . g4 20.hg4+ 'i!tb8 2l.h5±) 20.hxg5 g6 2l..ig4t seizing the initiative

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7.j3 tt:lc6 8.W1d2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 �c7 1 0 .g4

for long, because Black has no counterplay at all.

ll . . . tt:ld7 - He retreats his knight before it has been at­tacked, eying White's h4-pawn, preventing his idea to prepare g4-g5 with the move Ei:gl. 12 .i.e2 bS (In the variation 12 . . . tt:Jce5 13.g5 hxgS - 14.hxg5 l"i:xh1 15.Ei:xh1 tt:lf8 16.f4 tt:lc4 17.i.xc4 �xc4 18.f5 i.d7 19.�f2± White establishes a com­plete control over the kingside, Schon - Neudel, Queenstown 2009.) 13.g5 b4 (but not 13 . . . hS? ! 14.g6 !± White keeps his op­ponent's king in the centre, Ruiz - Herrera, Bolivar 2001) 14.tt:la4 tt:JcS 15.tt:lxc5 dxcS 16.tt:lxc6 �xc6 17.gxh6 gxh6 18.i.xh6±. He is ahead in development and has won a pawn and Black's attempt to obtain some queenside coun­terplay with 18 . . . c4 enabled him to regain his pawn with 19.i.g7 c3 20.�d4 cxb2+ 2l.Wb1+- and Black's pieces were so discoor­dinated that his position was hopeless in the game Matta - Ab­hishek, Nagpur 2008.

ll . . . tt:leS (This knight will come under an attack with tempo after f3-f4.) 12.Ei:g1 tt:lfd7 (In the vari­ation 12 . . . b5 13.g5, Black fails to fortify his kingside with 13 . . . tt:lh5 14.gxh6 g6 15.f4 tt:lc4 16.i.xc4 �xc4 17.f5 !�, while in case of 13 . . . hxgS 14.hxg5 tt:lfd7 15.g6 ! tt:lb6 16.gxf7+ Wxf7 17.�g2+- White's attack is decisive, Becker - Szyle, Kassel 1999.) 13.f4 tt:Jc4 14.i.xc4 Wfxc4 15.g5 ! hxgS 16.hxg5 g6

17.Ei:h1 Ei:g8 18.f5 tt:leS 19.f6 i.f8? (After 19 . . . i.d8 20.i.f4± Black's position is difficult, but maybe still defensible.) 20.�h2 !+- and Black loses his rook, Macieja -Gdanski, Ksiaz 1998.

12.ggl

12 . . .loxd4 12 . . . 0-0-0 - He evacuates his

king to a safe place, but he has no counterplay, because ofthis. 13.g5 hxgS (In case of 13 . . . tt:Jh7, Ftacnik - Vojtek, Slovakia 2001, it looks attractive for White to continue with 15.g6 fxg6 16.Ei:xg6±, break­ing through on the kingside.) 14.hxg5 tt:lhS (Following 14 ... tt:lg8 15.f4± Black has problems with his development, Bertok - Pirc, Ljubljana 1951; in reply to 14 . . . tt:le8, M.White - C.Smits, Email 1994, White plays 15.tt:lb3 Wb8 16. �f2± squeezing his opponent to the last two ranks.) 15.f4 Wb8 (or 15 . . . l"i:de8, Taborsky - Jarabek, Czech Republic 2000, 16.f5 tt:lxd4 17.�xd4 �c5 18.�d2 and in all the variations : 18 . . . �c6 19.i.g2±; 18 . . . �c7 19.Wbl±; 18 . . . �e5 19.i.c4±

127

Chapter 6

Black has great problems creat­ing reasonable counterplay.) 16.f5 tt:lxd4 17 . .ixd4± Farias - Lopes, Rio de Janeiro 2002.

12 . . . ttle5 - This move only presents White with tempi for his attack. 13.g5 hxgS 14.hxg5 tt:lhS (but not 14 . . . ttlg8 15.f4 tt:lc4 16 . .bc4 1Mrxc4 17.f5± Clark -P.Smith, St. Helier 1999) 15.f4 tt:lc4 16 . .ixc4 1Mrxc4 17.g6 f6 (After 17 . . . fxg6 18.Ei:xg6± White compro­mises his opponent's pawn-struc­ture and opens files on the king­side.) 18.f5 eS 19.tt:lde2± - Black's knight on hS is not something to brag about in his position, Pine­ault - Schuetze, corr. 1988.

12 . . . g6 - This is a solid move, preventing White from opening the g-file. 13.g5 hxgS 14.hxg5 tt:lhS 15.f4 Ei:c8 16.Wb1 tt:laS, Gdanski - Pedzich, Warsaw 1990. Black's knight on d4 restricts White's dark-squared bishop, so he should better continue with 17.tt:lb3 ! tt:lc4 (Black should avoid the line : 17 . . . tt:lxb3 18.axb3 i.c6 19.i.e2 bS 20. b4±, since his queenside activity comes to a dead end and White has extra space, being well pre­pared for actions in the centre and on the kingside.) 18.hc4 %lfxc4 19.i.d4 0-0 (It is better for Black to opt for 19 . . J=lh7 20.i.b6± with a passive, but still defensible position.) 20 .Ei:h1 Ei:fe8 21.Ei:xh5 gxhS 22 .'1Mrh2+- White's attack is just crushing.

13 • .b:d4 e5 13 . . . g5? ! - This pawn-sacrifice

128

would not bring any pluses to Black. 14.hxg5 hxgS 15.'1Mrxg5 eS, P-H.Nielsen - Mateo, Mallorca 2004, White's most precise re­action here seems to be 16.i.f2 ! i.e6 16 . . . tt:lxe4 17.%lfxe7+ lt>xe7 18.tt:ld5+ Wd8 19.i.b6+-) 17.iWe3 0-0-0 18.g5 ttlh5 19.g6+- He has a solid extra pawn and his pieces are much more active.

13 . . . i.c6 (Black's bishop is not better placed here than on on e6.) 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 tt:lhS 16.g6± Hansson - Marcussen, corr. 1989.

14 . .ie3 .ie6 It is hardly preferable for

Black to opt for 14 . . . i.c6 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 tt:ld7 17.i.c4 tt:lf8 18.tt:ld5±White obtains the two­bishop advantage with good at­tacking prospects, Sergin - Lee Choon, Bad Homburg 2005.

15.g5 hxg5 16.hxg5 tt:ld7 17.g6 f6 18.ttld5± The light squares in the centre belong to White and he will soon occupy the h-file as well, Gruskovnjak - Orel, Ljubljana 2000

5 . . . a6 6. il.e3 e6 7.f.3 Ci:Jc6 8. Wid2 il.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 Wic7 1 0 .g4

c4) 1 0 . . . Ci:Jxd4 Black leaves his king in the

centre with the idea to seize the initiative.

u . .ixd4

n . . . e5 He ensures an excellent square

for his light-squared bishop with this move, but weakens the im­portant central dS-outpost.

About 11. . .0-0 - see Chapter 7, variation d; ll . . . h6 12 .h4 - see variation c3.

12.i.e3 i.e6 In response to 12 . . . 0-0, Kyllo

- Keller, Email 1995, White can win a pawn with the line : 13.g5 Ci:JhS 14.Ci:Jd5 Wid8 15.Ci:Jxe7+ Wixe7 16.Wffxd6+-

12 . . . b5 - Black falls behind considerably in development af­ter this move and he cannot cre­ate any real counterplay on the queenside. 13.g5 b4 (The alterna­tives are not any better for him: 13 . . . Ci:Jd7 14.Ci:Jd5 Wic6 15.h4 il.b7 16.i>b1 Ci:JcS 17.il.h3± White has occupied the dS-outpost and has obtained good attacking chanc-

es, Goodger - Stalmans, Aintree 1997; or 13 . . . Ci:Jh5 14.Ci:Jd5 Wffc6 15. Wffb4 and here Black loses after 15 . . . il.e6 16.Ci:Jxe7 i>xe7 17Jl:xd6+­Torok - Katona, Paks 1994, but even after the more tenacious de­fence 15 . . . il.d8 16.a4 bxa4 17.Ci:Jb6 hb6 18.hb6 0-0 19.g;:xd6 Wffb7 20.il.c5± his defence would be very difficult.) 14.Ci:Je2 Ci:JhS (In answer to 14 . . . Ci:Jd7, Vallejo Pons - Bergas Ferriol, Palma de Mal­lorca 1991, White can win a pawn with 15.Wffxb4 dS 16.Wic3 Wffxc3 17.Ci:Jxc3 d4 18.Ci:Jd5± and Black ends up a pawn down; otherwise, he loses after 18 . . . dxe3 19.Ci:Jc7+ i>d8 20.Ci:Jxa8 il.cS 21.il.h3 e2 22J'l:d3 h6 23.g6+-) 15.Wffxb4 0-0 16.Ci:Jc3 il.e6 17.Ci:Jd5 il.xdS, Nguyen T Diem - Nguyen T Lan, Vietnam 2002 and now White's most accu­rate reaction seems to be 18Jl:xd5 g;:fc8 19.Wid2 aS 20.a4 Ci:Jf4 2l .il.xf4 exf4 22 .h4± He would win una­voidably a second pawn and Black cannot do anything real along the open files on the queenside.

13.g5 Ci:Jd7 It is also possible for Black to

try 13 . . . Ci:Jh5 14.Ci:Jd5 il.xdS, Ber­ente - Fazekas, Hungary 2003, but after 15.Wffxd5 0-0 16.il.h3 Ci:Jf4 17.il.xf4 exf4 18.il.g4 bS 19.h4 WicS 20.Wid2± he is faced with an un­pleasant choice: after 20 . . . Wffe5? - he loses several tempi, since after 21 .Wih2+- Black would have to part with his f4-pawn; the line: 20 . . . f6 21 .il.e6+ i>h8 22 .g6� leads to an attack for White. In case of

129

Chapter 6

20 . . . a5 21.�xf4 a4 22 .l'!d5 �c6 23.�d2± Black has no compensa­tion for the pawn at all.

14.h4 b5 It would be worse for Black to

play 14 . . . l2Jb6 15.f4 i.g4 16.i.e2 he2 17.�xe2±, since White ob­tains the d5-outpost for his knight to the end of the game, Grinwis -Bruno, Email 2004.

15.h5 l2Jb6 Following 15 . . .f6 16.i.h3 i.xh3

17.l'!xh3± it would be difficult for Black to protect the vulnerable light squares in his camp, Pepino - Mazzariol, Bratto 2007.

16.f4 b4 17.l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 18. exd5 i.g4 19.i.e2 he2 2 0 . �xe2 0 - 0 (It is too risky for Black to play 20 . . . exf4 21.i.xf4 0-0 22.l'!d4 �c5 23.l'!hdl±, be­cause White controls the centre and his kingside pawn are capable of advancing at any moment de­stroying the pawn-shelter of Black's king.) 21.f5 gfc8, Ashwin - Sujendra, New Delhi 2008 (Black fails to block the kingside after 21 . . .f6 22 .gxf6 l'!xf6 23.h6

130

l'!xf5 24.hxg7 i.g5 25J'l:dg1 �xg7 26.'it>bl±. His king's shelter has been destroyed and here he loses after 26 . . . a5? 27.�d3+-, while in case of 26 . . . h6 27.�g4 l'!af8 28. �xb4± the material is equal, but White has a stable edge thanks to his safer king.), now, it looks very attractive for White to continue with 22 .f6 gxf6 23.gxf6 i.xf6 24.l'!df1 �e7 25.�g4+ 'it>h8 26 . �f5--t and his attack is decisive.

c5) 1 0 . . . l2Jd7 This move often leads to trans­

positions to other variations. ll.g5

ll . . . l2Jc5 Black's knight is not active at

all on this square. About ll . . . b5 - see Chapter 9 ;

11. . .0-0 - see 9 . . . 0-0, Chapter 7 ;

l l . . . l2Ja5 12.l2Jf5 !? - see variation c2; ll . . . l'!b8 12 .h4 0-0 13.g6 - see 9 . . . 0-0.

ll . . . l2Jde5 - White gains tempi for the development of his ini­tiative after this move. 12.f4 l2Jd7 (After 12 . . . l2Jxd4? Black loses his

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7.j3 tt:Jc6 8. W!Jd2 �e7 9. 0 -0 -0 W!c7 1 0 .g4

g7-pawn. 13.W!xd4 tt:Jg6 14.W!xg7 i,d7 15.h4 �f8 16.W!d4+- Villuen­das Valero - Llanes Luno, Aragon 2003; 12 . . . tt:Jg4? - This knight might be stuck on this square. 13.i.g1 tt:Jxd4 14.hd4 eS 15.'Lld5 \Wc6, I.Saric - A.Volodin, Penis­cola 2002. White wins simply now with 16.�c3 exf4 17.W!xf4 and in the variation 17 . . . �e6 18.�h3 tt:JeS 19.he6 fxe6 20.tt:Jxe7 mxe7 21.he5+- he wins a pawn and has a powerful attack against his opponent's king stranded in the centre. It is even worse for Black to play 17 . . . tt:Je5 18.he5 dxeS 19.W!xe5 �e6 20.'Llc7+ mf8 21.'Llxa8+- and he loses a rook.) 13.h4 bS, Anisimov - Zverev, Togliatti 2000, 14.tt:Jf5 ! - This looks like the most energetic way for White to realize his huge lead in development. 14 . . . exf5 15.'Lld5 (In case of 15 . . . W!d8 16.'�'c3 �b7 17.W!xg7 !'!:f8 18.W!xh7 W!aS 19. W!xfS+- he obtains three pawn for his piece and his attack is over­whelming.) 15 . . . W!b7 16.exf5 0-0 17.�g2� - White will follow with 18.f6 on the next move and he de­stroys the pawn-shelter of Black's king with a decisive attack.

ll . . . 'Llb6? ! - This is not the best square for Black's knight and he will need to lose time to bring it back from there. 12.'Llxc6 '!Wxc6 13.W!d4 W!cS - this is the only move, Puntier - Duarte, Santo Do­mingo 2006 and after 14.h4 tt:Jd7 15.Wfd2 W!aS 16.h5t White's king­side initiative is very dangerous.

ll . . . tt:Jxd4 12 .hd4 tt:JeS - Black loses important tempi simplify­ing the position (About 12 . . . 0-0 13.h4 - see Chapter 7, variation d; 12 . . . e5 - this move weakens the key dS-outpost. 13.�e3 tt:JcS 14. tt:JdS W!c6 15.�g2 �e6 16.f4± Beck­mann - Moyles Johnson, Cologne 2004.). 13.W!e3 0-0 14.f4 tt:Jc4 15.hc4 W!xc4 16.f5 �d8 17.f6 g6 18.�b6+- and after the trade of the dark-squared bishops, Black is incapable of protecting the dark squares in the centre and on the kingside, Kozakov - Koziak, Kras­nodar 1996.

12.h4 �b8 It is worse for him to play 12 . . .

�d7 13.mb1 0-0-0 14.tt:Jfs !� and White's attack is very dangerous. Black must accept the knight-sac­rifice; otherwise, he would remain a pawn down. 14 . . . exf5 15.tt:Jd5 W!b8 16.hc5 dxcS 17.'Llb6 mc7 18. tt:Jxd7 W!a7 19.W!f4+ mc8 20. �3+­White has regained his piece and his attack continues, Spoelman -Verhoef, Vlissingen 2006.

13.h5 b5 14.�xc6 ti'xc6 15.�e2 b4

131

Chapter 6

This is a position from the game Ashley - Robovic, New York 1998.

Now, White needs to prepare

his breakthrough on the king­side with 16.tL!d4 ti'c7 17.�b1 .td7 18.ti'g2 ltla4 19 . .ld3 0 - 0 2 0 .g6±

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed Black's attempts to organize a

queenside counterplay, saving a tempo for castling short. By playing a) 9 . . . i.d7?!, he reaches a familiar position from the

Rauzer attack, but with an extra tempo for White. He seizes easily the initiative because of this and in the main line he obtains the two­bishop advantage, controlling the important central squares.

b) 9 . . . ltlxd4 - This is not a bad move for Black, since without it he can hardly create anything active on the queenside. Later, he will need to evacuate his king castling short, entering the variations we analyze in Chapter 8.

There is another popular move for Black - c) 9 .. . '�c7. His queen is placed on a comfortable square without impeding the maneuvers of his other pieces. Still, White often gains tempi for his attack, just because of the placement of this queen on the c7-square:

In variation cl), Black transfers his knight to c4, via e5 and he ob­tains the two-bishop advantage, but he loses plenty of time because of this and White seizes quickly plenty of space on the king side, exerting a powerful pressure against the e6-pawn.

In variation c2) lO .. JijaS, Black is trying to accomplish the same plan - to place his knight on c4. Here, his queen turns out to be mis­placed and after 1 0 .g5 ltld7 11. ltlj5!, White's attack becomes tremen­dously powerful and he regains the sacrificed material with interest.

By playing c3) 1 0 . . . h6, Black again reaches a familiar position from the Rauzer attack, without a tempo, and White is very active on the kingside.

In variation c4) 1 0 . . . ltlxd4 ll. hd4 e5, Black stabilizes the situa­tion in the centre, but he weakens the important ciS-outpost. In that case, his king may remain safely in the centre for long, nevertheless he fails to create any meaningful counterplay on the queenside.

Following c5) 1 0 . . . ltld7 and ll.g5, the game transposes to other variations. We analyze here Black's attempts to reach original posi­tions. In that case, his pieces turn out to be misplaced and he cannot create any counterplay, while White's initiative in the centre and on the kingside runs effortlessly.

132

Chapter 7 l.e4 c5 2.�fJ d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.fJ �c6 8.�d2 .ie7 9.0-0-0 0-0

This is the most natural move for Black. You must have seen in the previous chapters that he can hardly create any meaning­ful counterplay with a king in the centre.

1 0 .g4 This move is necessary and

consequent, because it is useful for the kingside offensive as well as for the prevention of Black's counterplay in the centre.

Now, Black's strongest and most often played response is 10 . . . lLlxd4 - see Chapter 8.

Here, we will analyze thor­oughly his other popular replies: a) 10 • • • J.d7, b) 10 • • .'�c7 and c) lO • • .tL!d7.

The alternatives do not create any problems for White:

About 10 . . J'lb8 11.g5 lL:Jd7 12.h4 - see variation c.

10 . . . e5? - This move weakens the light squares in the centre and enhances White's oncoming king­side onslaught. ll.lLlf5 i.xf5, An­tosiak - Mazurek, Augustow 1997 and here his most aggressive line seems to be 12.exf5 ! ? �d7 13.g5 lLlh5 (Black's defence is very dif­ficult too after 13 . . . lLle8 14.i.h3 b5 15.i.g4±) 14.i.h3 f6 15.i.g4 �e8 16.h4± - his king is very unsafe, because the light squares in his camp are vulnerable and he has not created any counterplay yet.

10 . . . h6? - This move only fa­cilitates the opponent to open files on the kingside. ll.h4 lL:Jh7 (Black defends against the attack neither with ll . . . lL:Je5 12 .g5 lLlh5, Rukavina - auxboy81, Internet 1999, 13.�g2 \t>h7 14.f4 lLlg6 15.f5 lL:Jgf4 16.�f3 e5 17.lL:Jde2+-, nor with ll . . . lL:Jxd4 12.i.xd4 e5 13.i.e3 i.e6 14.g5--+ kto - PagaPau, Internet 2000. It is not better for him to opt for 11 . . . e5, Maidana - Colmenares, Guay-

133

Chapter ?

mallen 2001, because White can continue with 12.lt'lfS hiS 13.exfS tt:lh7 14.i>bl± preparing a dan­gerous attack against the enemy king.) 12.�h2 tt:JeS 13.i>b1 i.d7, Muhren - Martis, Willemstad 2003 and now White can empha­size the misplacement of Black's knight on h7 with the simple line: 14.gS hS 1S.f4 tt:lg4 16.�g3t and White's pieces remain much more active, for example : 16 . . . bS (In case of 16 . . . tt:Jxe3 17.�xe3 bS 18.fS �b6 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.i.h3 ga7 21.�g3+- Black fails to pro­tect sufficiently the e6-square.) 17.i.h3 b4 18.tt:Jce2 tt:Jxe3 19.�xe3 �b6 20.�b3± and after the una­voidable gS-g6 or f4-fS White's at­tack will become very dangerous.

10 . . . �e8? ! - This move only causes disharmony in Black's camp. ll.h4 tt:ld7 12 .gS tt:lcS 13.hS bS 14.i>b1 b4 1S.tt:lce2 gb8 16.g6� - he has occupied some space on the queenside, but without having created any real threats. Mean­while, White will open files on the kingside and his attack will be crushing, Betko - Sedlacek, Slo­vakia 199S.

lO . . . dS - Black counters his op­ponent's aggression on the flank with a standard counterstrike in the centre, but White is very well prepared for that. ll.gS tt:lhS (It looks more passive for Black to play ll . . . tt:Je8 12 .h4 i.b4 13.hS dxe4 14.tt:lxc6 �xd2+ 1S.hd2±, because his compromised pawn­structure and passve pieces doom

134

Black to a long and laborious de­fence. After 1S . . . hc3? 16.tt:le7+ 'it>h8 17.hc3+- White ended up with an extra bishop, A.Garcian - Gemio, Spain 1998, but even after the best line for Black: 1S . . . bxc6 16.tt:lxe4 aS 17.h6 g6 18.hb4 axb4 19.gd8+- he would hardly save the game.) 12.f4 g6 13.i.e2

13 . . . tt:lg7 (Black's attempt to organize some queenside coun­terplay backfires after 13 . . . tt:laS 14.�e1 bS lS.hhS gxhS 16.tt:lfS !� and White's attack is decisive, for example : 16 . . . exfS 17.tt:lxdS fxe4 18.i.b6 �e8 19.�xe4 i.e6 20.haS+- he has regained his piece, ending up with an extra pawn and dangerous threats.) 14.exdS exdS, Z.Szabo - Ko­vacs, Kaposvar 1999, 1S.i.f3 i.e6 16. �f2± - Black has a weak pawn on dS and vulnerable dark squares on the kingside.

10 . . . ge8 - This rather indif­ferent move does not help Black's queenside counterplay. 11.h4 �aS (About ll . . . tt:ld7 12.gS - see 10 . . . tt:ld7; after ll . . . i.f8 12 .hS tt:ld7 13.gSt, it would be a blun­der for Black to choose 13 . . . bS??

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7:f.3 ttJc6 B. Wld2 i..e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4

14.4Jxc6+- Ngo Ngoc Thao - Do T Thu, Vietnam 2004, but even after the more tenacious defence 13 . . . 4Jxd4 14.hd4 b5 15.g6 fxg6 16.hxg6 h6, Pecas Hernandez - Trujillo Delgado, Spain 1998, White's attack is very dangerous - 17.<i!;>b1 i.b7 18.4Je2 Wlc7 19.4Jg3 dS 20.4Jh5�; it is hardly prefer­able for Black to opt for ll . . . dS 12.g5 4Jh5, Khamidov - Berger, Vung Tau 2008, because White continues with 13.Wif2 4Jxd4 14. hd4 b5 15.f4 Wlc7 16.e5 b4 17.4Ja4 E!b8 18.i.e2±, destroying his op­ponent's pawn-shelter on the kingside with excellent attacking chances against the enemy king.) 12.4Jb3 Wlc7 13.h5 bS 14.g5� -Black has failed to complete his development and White will con­tinue with his standard kingside attack, Teeriaho - Johansson, corr. 2006.

10 . . . Wla5 - Black's queen is ac­tively placed here, but its juxtapo­sition against the queen on d2 is in favour of White. 11.i>b1 - Now Black will have to consider the possibility 4Jd5. ll . . . i.d7? (11 . . . 4Jxd4 12 .hd4 - see 10 . . . 4Jxd4) 12.4Jxc6 hc6 13.4Jd5 Wld8 14.i.b6 Wid7 15.4Jxe7+ Wlxe7 16.Wixd6+­White has won a pawn and he has the two-bishop advantage, Kay­sfeld - Che Hassan, Email 2001.

10 . . . 4Je5 - Black's knight will be attacked with tempi on this square. ll.gS 4Jh5 (It is hardly ad­visable for him to opt for 11 . . .4Je8 12 .f4 4Jg4 13.i.g1 e5, Tomizawa

- Horie, Japan 2001, because White can sacrifice temporarily a piece, opening advantageously files on the kingside: 14.h3 ! ? exd4 15.hd4 4Jgf6 16.gxf6 i.xf6 17.E!g1 hd4 18.Wlxd4 Wlh4 19.f5±; in reply to 11 . . . 4Jfd7, Vo Thi Bich -Truong Thi Hong, Vietnam 2002, White continues with 12 .f4 4Jc6 13.h4± and he gains several extra tempi for the development of his offensive.) 12 .i.e2 b5? (Black's dif­ficult position is already lost after this mistake.) 13.f4 4Jc4 14.hc4 bxc4 15.4Jc6 Wlc7 16.4Jxe7+ Wlxe7 17.Wlxd6+- White has won a pawn and occupied the d-file, Giroyan ­Yuksel, Herceg Novi 2006.

a) 10 ... i.d7? ! This move deprives the knight

on f6 of the best square to retreat to.

ll.g5

11 • • • 4Je8 In reply to 11 . . . 4Jh5, it looks

very good for White to choose 12. 4Jxc6 ! ? bxc6 (Or 12 . . . hc6 13.i.h3 g6 14.i.g4 4Jg7 15.h4 b5 16.h5±

135

Chapter 7

with excellent attacking chances.) 13.f4 f6 (After 13 . . . g6 14.i.e2 ttJg7 1S.h4__., White's kingside attack develops effortlessly.) 14.i.e2 i.e8 1S.i.g4 eS (Black fails to obtain counterplay after 1S . . . i.f7 16.l=!hfl dS 17.fS exfS 18.l=!xfS g6 19.l=!ff1 fxgS 20.i.xhS gxhS 2l.exdS cxdS 22 .hgS! hgS 23.l'!gl± White wins a pawn and his king is safer.) 16.gxf6 i.x£6 (In the variation 16 . . . ttJxf6 17.i.e6+ i.f7 18.fxeS he6 19.exd6 ttJg4 20.dxe7 �xe7 21. l=!hgl± Black has no compensation for the pawn, while following 18 . . . dxeS 19.�g2 �as 20.i.h6 ttJhS 2l.�g4 i.a3 22 .hg7!+- he suf­fers unavoidable material losses.) 17.fS i.e7, Pawlowski - Runow­iecki, Poland 1990 and after 18. l=!hg1 'i!;>h8 19.i.f3 i.f7 20.i.gS ttJf6 21.h4 l=!b8 22 .hS± Black's central pawns are static and he can hardly create any serious threats against White's king along the b-file.

12.h4

12 . . . b5 About 12 . . . ttJxd4 13.hd4 - see

Chapter 8.

136

After 12 . . . l'!c8 13.ttJxc6 hc6 14.'i!;>b1 bS, Angelis - H.Georgiou, Ano Liosia 1996, White's most natural reaction would be to con­tinue with his kingside offensive 1S.hS b4 16.ttJe2 aS 17.g6__.

12 . . . ttJc7 - This is an attempt by Black to activate his misplaced knight. 13.ttJxc6 hc6 (In case of 13 . . . bxc6 14.hS cS 1S.f4 i.c6 16. l'!gl± White will push unavoidably gS-g6, opening files on the king­side.) 14.hS ttJbS 1S.'i!;>b1 ! (It would be worse for White to play the seemingly attractive line: 1S.ttJa4 dS 16.ttJb6, Aleksic - Ljubisav­ljevic, Italy 2000, because after 16 . . . d4?, Black obtains an excel­lent position.) 1S . . . ttJxc3+ 16.�xc3 hgS 17.h6 i.f6 (The move 17 . . . gxh6 - looks too reckless. 18.l'!g1 eS 19.i.h3 'i!;>h8 20 . .ifS �f6 2l .f4 .ih4 22 .l'!g2 l'!g8 23.l=!gd2± Black's doubled extra pawns on the h-file cannot compensate the vulner­ability of his king, while White ex­erts pressure along the d-file and his pieces are very active, so he has much superior prospects.) 18 . .id4 hd4 19.l=!xd4 �f6 20.hxg7 l=!fd8 2l .�e3 'i!;>xg7 22 .l'!d2± He will re­gain unavoidably one of the two weak pawns (h7 or d6) and he will have a stable advantage thanks to Black's bare king.

In answer to 12 . . . �aS, Kuehn - Scholz, Templin 2004, it seems very good for White to choose 13. ttJb3 �c7 14.f4± - and Black's knight on e8 has no good pros­pects.

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 J3 lbc6 8. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 JO .g4

13.tbxc6 hc6 14.h5

14 . . • b4 After 14 ... g6? 15.W/h2+- White's

attack along the h-file is decisive, Antoniewski - Dwyer, Zagan 1997.

In response to 14 . . . ltJc7, Armas - M.Ginsburg, Naestved 1988, White should continue with the energetic line : 15.g6 hxg6 (15 . . . if6 16.W/xd6+-) 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.W/g2 W/e8 18.i.d3 b4 19.W/h3 ! l'!f6 (19 . . . bxc3 20.W/h7+ <iffl 21. e5+-) 20 .e5 dxe5 21.ltJe4 E:f5 22 .W/h7+ <ilf8 (22 . . . <ilf7 23.l'!dg1 i.f8 24.!l:xg6 <ile7 25.i.c5+ <ild8 26.ltJd6+-) 23.i.h6 Wffl 24.W/h8+ WigS 25.hg7+ <iffl 26.ltJd6! hd6 27.hf5 exf5 28.!l:xd6 W/xg7 29.W/xg7 <ilxg7 30.l'!xc6 ltJd5 31. l'!e1 !+- and he ends up with a de­cisive material advantage.

14 . . . f5 (This move weakens the important e6-square.) 15.i.h3 ltJc7 16.ltJe2 W/d7, Pablo Marin - Pares Vives, Roses 1992 and here it looks very attractive for White to follow with 17.exf5 exf5 (17 . . . hf3 18.fxe6 W/c8 19.h6+-) 18.ltJd4 i.d5 19.<ilbl± Black's piece-coordina-

tion has been disrupted and he has no active counterplay at all.

14 . . . !l:c8 (He is trying to cre­ate some action along the c-file.) 15.i.h3 b4 16.ltJe2 W/a5 17.<ilb1 i.a4 18.ltJd4± Black's queenside activity has reached its dead end and White will push g5-g6 in the next few moves with a very pow­erful attack, Degerman - Schnei­der, Stockholm 1987.

15.tLle2 a5 It is not any better for Black to

choose 15 . . . W/a5 16.<ilb1 e5 17.ltJg3 i.d7 18.ltJf5� and White's attack is decisive, Bonte - Soerdjan, Hengelo 2001.

16.g6 .if6 17.c!L!f4±

He opens unavoidably files on the kingside, with a powerful at­tack, while Black has no counter­play. 17 • . • b3 18.cxb3 a4 19 • .ic4 a3 2 0 .bxa3+- (Black has man­aged to bare his opponent's king at the price of several pawns, but his pieces cannot come to join in the attack at all.) 2 0 •• J�c8 21.gxf7+ gxf7 22.c!L!xe6 1-0 C.Werner -Kammer, Nittenau 2005.

137

Chapter 7

b) 1 0 .. .'�c7 This is a good square for

Black's queen, because it does not impede the coordination of the rest of his pieces.

ll.g5

ll . • .lt:ld7 ll . . . tLle8 - The knight will re­

main out of action for a long time here. 12 .h4 bS (Black should bet­ter play 12 . . . tLlxd4 13.hd4 bS - see Chapter 8.) 13.tLlxc6 '\!!!fxc6, B.Jaracz - G.Espig, Germany 1996, White can continue here with 14.h5 b4 15.tLle2 aS 16.tLld4 '\!!!fb7 17.g6�, following with the standard kingside attack.

In response to ll . . . tLlhS, Putz­bach - Kurbangulov, Hamburg 2004, White can exchange the knights under very favourable cir­cumstances : 12 .tLlxc6! ? bxc6 (He has excellent attacking chances af­ter 12 . . . '\!!!fxc6 13.f4 g6 14.i.e2 tLlg7 15.h4±) 13.f4 dS (In case of 13 . . . g6 14.i.e2 tLlg7 15.h4 :B:b8 16.h5± White opens unavoidably the h­file.) 14.i.e2 d4 ! (Black's position is not attractive at all after 14 . . .

138

g6 15.i.xh5 gxhS 16.f5±) 15.hh5 eS ! ? (His compensation for the sacrificed pawn is insufficient in the variation 15 . . . dxe3 16.'!Wxe3 cS 17.e5±) 16.f5 g6 17.i.e2 gxfS 18.exf5 i.xfS 19.:B:hf1 i.h3 20.:B:fe1 i.fS (The position is simplified in favour of White after 20 . . . i.b4 21.hd4 :B:ad8 22 .a3±) 21.i.d3 hd3 22 .'\!!!fxd3 dxc3 23.'\!!!fxc3± Black has succeeded in regaining his piece, but his pawns are weak and he has no active play.

12.h4

12 . . . ttJde5 This move provides White

with tempi for his offensive. It is better for Black to opt for 12 . . . tLlxd4 13.hd4 - see Chapter 8 , but he would not survive against the attack with 12 . . . b5 13.g6 ! ? -see Chapter 9, variation b2.

12 . . J�!b8 - This move is too slow. 13.g6 ! tLldeS (In case of 13 . . . hxg6 14.h5 gxhS 15.:B:xh5 tLlf6 16.:B:h1�, White's attack is deci­sive, because Black loses after 16 . . . g6 17.'\!!!fh2 tLlh5 18.ha6! bxa6 19.'\!!!fxhS+-, as well as following

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 ..f.3 ttlc6 8. Wffd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 JO .g4

16 .. J1d8 17.Wffh2 mf8 18.Wffh8+ tt:lg8 19.Ei:h7 i.f6 20.ttlf5 exfS 21. ttJds+-) 14.gxh7+ mh8 1s.EJ:g1 f6 16.Wffg2 Ei:f7 17.f4+- His kingside is in ruins and he has no satisfac­tory defence, Gashimov - Arba­kov, Alushta 2002.

In response to 12 . . . tt:lce5, it seems attractive for White to continue with 13.f4 tt:lg4 (Or 13 . . . tt:lc4 14.i.xc4 Wffxc4 15.f5± and White controls the centre with ex­cellent attacking prospects thanks to his far-advanced kingside pawns, Nolan - Willets, Oban 1996.) 14.i.g1 bS 15.i.h3± Black's misplaced knight on g4 will only help White to open advantageous­ly files on the kingside.

12 . . . Ei:e8 - This rather timid move is played with the idea to fortify the e6-square. Black fails to do that however and he is too slow in creating counterplay, Cole - Frazier, Boston 2001, 13.g6 ! - White exploits the fact that is is bad for Black to opt for 13 . . . fxg6 14.tt:lxe6+-, so the h-fi.le is opened after 13 . . . hxg6 14.h5 gxhS 15.Ei:xhs� with a crushing and probably decisive attack for White.

13.f4 ttlxd4 14.Wffxd4 ttlg4 It seems more precise for

Black to play 14 . . . tt:lc6, Spangen­berg - Cifuentes Parada, Buenos Aires 1988, but even then after 15.Wffd3 ! ? bS 16.h5 i.b7 17.g6t, White obtains excellent attacking chances.

15 . .igl b5 16 • .ie2 �b8

In the variation 16 . . . h5 17.gxh6 tt:lxh6 18.i.f2 mh8 19.Ei:hgl± White opens advantageously the g-file and his opponent's knight is iso­lated from the actions for long.

17 • .ixg4

17 • • . b4, G.Garcia - Liu Wen­zhe, La Valetta 1980 (Black loses in case of 17 . . . e5 18.ttld5 Wffd8? 19.Wffa7+-, but even after 18 . . . exd4 19.ttlxc7 i.xg4 20.Ei:xd4± he has no compensation for the sac­rificed pawn.) and after 18.�d3 bxc3 19.Wffxc3 Wffb7 2 0 • .if3 .id7 21 • .id4± White not only wins a pawn, but his pieces are much more actively placed.

c) 1 0 • • • ttld7 Black's knight retreats in an­

ticipation of the pawn-advance g4-g5.

ll.h4 (diagram)

ll . . . ttlde5 His wish to activate the knight

seems to be the most natural reac­tion.

About ll . . . Wffc7 12 .g5 - see 10 . . .

139

Chapter 7

Wic7; ll . . . lt:lxd4 12 . .bd4 b5 (12 . . . lt:le5 13.Wig2 - see ll . . . lt:lde5) 13.g5 - see 10 . . . lt:lxd4 ll . .bd4.

11 . . . 13b8 12 .g5 13e8, Palekha -Himaras, Nikea 2005 (About 12 .. . Wic7 13.g6 - see variation b, 12 . . . 13b8; 12 . . . lt:lxd4 13 . .bd4 b5 - see 10 . . . lt:lxd4 ll . .bd4, Chapters 8 ; in answer to 12 . . . lt:lde5, Moulin -R.Anderson, Los Angeles 1988, it looks attractive for White to play 13.f4 lt:lxd4 14.Wixd4 and here af­ter 14 . . . lt:lg4 15.i.d2 ! b5 16.Wig1 h5 17.gxh6 lt:lxh6 18.f5± Black has considerable problems on the kingside, as well as in the varia­tion 14 . . . lt:lc6 15.Wid2 b5 16.�b1 b4 17.lt:le2 lt:la5 18.lt:lg3 Wic7 19.h5±).

White's attack becomes very dangerous after the typical re-

140

source for this variation 13.g6 ! hxg6 14.h5 gxh5 (14 . . . lt:lxd4 15.hd4 lt:Jf8 16.Wih2 i.g5+ 17.�b1 i.h6 18 . .ic5±) 15.13xh5 lt:lce5 (Black loses by force after 15 . . . lt:lf6 16.13h1 lt:le5 17.Wih2 lt:lg6 18.e5 ! dxe5 19.lt:lc6 Wixd1+ 20.lt:lxd1 bxc6 2l.i.d3 .id6 22 . .bg6 fxg6 23.lt:lc3+- and the mass of dou­bled pawns impedes Black to ac­tivate his own bishops.) 16.Wih2 lt:Jg6 17 . .id3 lt:lf6 18.13h3� and he can hardly find satisfactory de­fence against White's attack along the open files on the kingside.

ll . . . lt:lc5 - The endgame is very difficult for Black after this move. 12.lt:lxc6 bxc6 13.hc5 dxc5 14.Wixd8 13xd8 15.13xd8+ .bd8 16.lt:la4 aS 17.lt:lxc5± - his light­squared bishop is very passive and his compensation for the pawn is insufficient, Timmer - Schulz, Berlin 1988.

11 . . . 13e8 - This rook belongs to the queenside for the sake of

organizing counterplay. 12 .g5 lt:lde5, Balk - Marie, Germany 1992, White can exploit his oppo­nent's slow play by following with 13.lt:lxc6 bxc6 (In the variation 13 . . . lt:Jxc6 14.h5 Wia5 15.�b1 i.d7 16.g6� White can continue with his standard kingside attack.) 14.f4 lt:lg4 15 . .ig1 Wia5 16.�g2 h5 17.gxh6 lt:lxh6 18 . .ie3 �h8 19.13g1 13g8 20.f5�. After opening of files on the kingside, Black's defence will be very difficult.

12.�g2 White's wish to deploy his

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.j3 lbc6 B. Wid2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 1 0 .g4

queen against the enemy king is quite understandable, particu­larly if we have in mind that after 12.Wif2 .id7 13 . .ie2 b5 14.£4 b4!? his knight will be repelled to the b1-square, which would provide Black with a good counterplay.

12 . • . l2Jxd4 About 12 . . . b5 13.l2Jxc6 l2Jxc6

14.g5 - see 12 . . . l2Jxd4. 12 . . . !!e8 - This move is too

slow and it does not help the or­ganization of Black's queenside counterplay. 13.g5 l2Ja5 14.'tt>b1 i.d7 15.f4 l2Jec4 16 . .ic1 !!c8, Riem­ersma - Suba, Ostend 1989, White can continue here with 17.b3 Wlb6 18.Wig3 Wlb4 19.h5 l2Ja3+ 20 . .ixa3 Wlxa3 21.e5! l2Jc6 22 .g6 l2Jxd4 23. gx£7+ 'kt>xf7 24.!!xd4± and despite the fact that he has compromised a bit the position of his own king, he forces his opponent's king to the centre of the board.

In reply to 12 . . . i.d7, Tiitta -Seeman, Helsinki 1993, it is very good for White to choose 13.l2Jf5 ! ex£5 14.gxf5gg with an excellent compensation for the piece, for ex-

ample : 14 . . . b5 (After Black's fear­less reply 14 . . . h5 ! ? 15.l2Jd5 'kt>h7 16. i.b6 Wle8 17.8:g1 !l:g8 18.l2Jc7 Wic8 19.l2Jxa8 Wlxa8 20.i.e2± White re­stores the material balance and obtains better prospects thanks to his opponent's unsafe king and the passivity of his pieces.) 15.£4 l2Jc4 16 . .ixc4 bxc4 17.!!hg1 g6 (Black should better avoid 17 . . . .if6 18.!!xd6 !!b8 19.e5 l2Jxe5 20.fxe5 .ixe5 21..ih6 g6 22 .fxg6 hxg6 23.!!xg6+ 'kt>h8 24.i.g5+­White wins his opponent's queen for a rook and a bishop and his attack continues.) 18.h5 WeB 19. Wie2 !!c8 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.fxg6 fxg6 22 .Wih5 !!f6 23.l2Jd5+- Black will suffer unavoidably heavy ma­terial losses.

12 . . . Wlc7 13.l2Jf5 ! ? - This is the most energetic reaction for White. He activates maximally his pieces, trying to open files on the king­side.

13 . . . b5 (13 . . . exf5 - This is a principled decision. Now, White's hasty knight-sortie - 14.l2Jd5? ! will lose the advantage for him af­ter 14 . . . Wla5 15.gxf5 Wlxa2 16.£6 .tx£6 17.l2Jxf6+ 'kt>h8+, therefore

141

Chapter ?

he must continue with 14.gxfS !gg Here, it is bad for Black to opt for 14 . . .'�t/a5 15J�g1 g6 16.f4 and White either takes back his piece, or he gains additional tempi and his at-tack becomes decisive after 16 . . . tt:ld7 17.h5+, while in case of 14 . . . @h8 15.f4 tt:ld7 16J�g1, Black will not save the game in the variation 16 . . . g6 17.h5 gS 18.fxg5 l:'i:g8 19. tt:ldS 'Wd8 20.tt:lxe7 'Wxe7 2l .g6+­with decisive threats for White. Following 16 . . . l:'i:g8 17.i.c4 tt:lf6 18.hf7 i.f8 19.i.xg8 @xg8 20. �e2±, the material is approxi­mately equal, but White's pieces are much more active.) 14.f4 (The play remains calmer, but White has a stable advantage after 14. tt:Jxe7+ tt:lxe7, Fleck - Solodov­nichenko, Germany 2005, 15.h5 b4 16.tt:la4 i.b7 17.@b1 l:'i:ab8 18. b3;!; - his dark-squared bishop has no opponent and this provides White with superior prospects.)

14 . . . tt:lc4 (Following 14 . . . exf5 15.gxf5 tt:lc4 16.i.xc4 bxc4 17.tt:ld5 'Wd8 18.i.b6 �d7 19.f6+- White regains his piece, remaining with several extra pawns, while in the variation 14 . . . b4 15.fxe5 bxc3

142

16.exd6 'Wb7 17.tt:lxe7+ tt:Jxe7 18 . b3± he has a solid extra pawn and although his king's shelter is a bit compromised, Black cannot ex­ploit this at all.) 15.i.xc4 bxc4 16.tt:lxe7+ tt:Jxe7 (16 . . . 'Wxe7 17. 'We2±) 17.f5 ! l:'i:b8 18.f6 tt:lc6 (After 18 . . . gxf6? 19.i.h6 'Wb7 20.'Wf1+­Black cannot save his king with­out huge material losses.) 19.fxg7 l:'i:d8, Luther - And.Sokolov, Ger­many 2007. Now, White obtains a

great advantage by transferring his bishop to the f6-square. 20 . i.gS l:'i:d7 2l.i.f6 'Wb6 22 .b3 aS 23. gS tt:Jb4 (Black loses after 23 . . . 'Wc5 24.tt:la4 'Wa3+ 25.ib2+- and the pawn on a2 is untouchable, be­cause of the loss of the queen, while after its retreat, White's at­tack becomes crushing following h4-h5 and then g5-g6.) 24.l:'i:h3 eS 25.l:'i:g3 'WcS 26.@b2± - Black has lost only a pawn and he has avoid­ed being checkmated. He has con­centrated his forces on the queen­side, but he can hardly create any real threats because White's piec­es have perfect coordination.

12 . . . tt:Ja5 !? - He wishes to de­ploy his knight on c4. 13.@b1 (It also deserves attention for White to try here 13.b3 ! ?, preventing the accomplishment of Black's plan.) 13 . . . b5 (About 13 . . . 'Wc7 14.f4 tt:Jec4 15.i.c1 bS 16.g5 - see 13 . . . b5 ; it is hardly better for Black to opt for 13 . . . tt:Jec4, Ryszkiewicz - Rosiak, Leba 2008, because White plays 14.i.c1 and then he continues with b3, i.b2±, fortifying his queenside

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 tLlc6 8. Wffd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0-0 0 -0 1 0 .g4

and increasing the pressure against Black's kingside. There may follow: 14 . . . .id7 15.b3 Wffb6 16.'it>a1 tLle5 17 . .ib2 tLlac6 1S.tLlce2 tLlxd4 19.tLlxd4 aS 20.a4 l:l:fcS 2l.g5 tLlc6 22 .tLlxc6 hc6 23.h5± and af­ter White has neutralized his op­ponent's counterplay, he can be­gin organizing his attack.) 14.f4 tLlec4 (14 . . . b4 15.tLlce2 tLlec4 16. ,tel - see 14 . . . tLlec4) 15 . .ic1 Wffc7 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 15 . . . b4 16.tLlce2 .ib7 17.g5±, or 16 . . . Wffb6 17.g5 l:l:bS 1S.f5± and in both cases White creates effort­lessly dangerous kingside threats, while Black's pieces are hopeless­ly stranded on the queenside and cannot create any real threats.) 16.g5 (White is better even after the simple move 16 . .id3;t)

16 . . . tLla3+ (In answer to 16 . . . :i=ibS, Ragger - Grigoriants, Dres­den 2007, White can begin ac­tive actions with 17.f5 ! and now it would be bad for Black to continue with 17 . . . tLla3+ 1S.bxa3 Wffxc3 19.f6 .i.dS 20.fxg7 :i=ieS 2U l:h3± and af­ter 21 . . .Wffc5 22.tLlb3 Wffc7 23.tLlxa5 %1/xaS 24.h5 e5 25.l:l:f3 \t>xg7 26. g6-+, White's attack is decisive,

while in case of 17 . . . b4 1S.tLlce2 e5 19.tLlb3± his far-advanced king­side pawns are just threatening, while Black has no real counter­play.) 17.bxa3 Wffxc3 1S.f5 exf5 (It would be even worse for Black to play 1S . . . e5 19.tLlb3 tLlb7 20.f6 .idS 21 .h5 .ie6 22 .fxg7 lt>xg7 23.1=id3 Wffc7 24.g6-+ with a victorious at­tack for White.) 19.tLlxf5t - His king's shelter has been destroyed indeed, but Black cannot create any meaningful threats, while his own king is in great danger, for example: 19 . . . .txf5 20.exf5 l:l:abS 2l ..ib2 Wffc5 22 .f6 .idS 23.fxg7 l:l:eS 24 . .id3 tLlc4 25.Wfff3-+. White begins the final assault after 25 . . . tLlxb2 26 . .txh7+ ! and Black loses in view of 26 . . . \t>xh7 27.Wffxf7 l:l:gS 2S.g6+ 'it>h6 29.WffxgS+-, as well as following 26 . . . lt>xg7 27.l:l:hf1 l:l:e7 2S.Wffh5 lt>fS 29 . .ig6 lt>eS 30 . .txf7+ 'it>d7 3l.Wffg4+ lt>c7 32.'it>xb2+-, while even the seemingly more resilient defence 19 . . . Wffc7, can be countered by White with 20.tLlxg7! lt>xg7 2l ..ib2+ lt>gS 22.Wffd2 tLlc4 23.Wffc3 and since Black loses af­ter 23 . . .f6 24.l:l:gl 'it>f7 25.gxf6+-, he must give back the piece with 23 . . . tLlxa3+ 24.Wffxa3 and now, in the variation 24 . . . .ie6 25 . .ial Wffc5 26.Wffb2 Wffe5 27.Wffxe5 dxe5 2S.he5± White remains with an extra pawn in an endgame, while in case of 24 . . . .ig4 25.l:l:d2 Wffc5 26.Wffg3 .ie6 27 . .th3±, or 24 . . . Wffc5 25.Wfff3 .ie6 26 . .id3± Black's king is rather unsafe in comparison to its counterpart.

143

Chapter ?

13 . .ixd4

In the diagrammed position Black's main replies are cl) 13 . . .

.id7 and c2) 13 . • .lt)c6. About 13 ... �a5 14.1!lb1 tt:lc6 15.

.ie3 bS 16.g5 - see 13 . . . tt:lc6. The alternatives are not any

better for him: 13 . . . tt:lg6?! This move

presents White with tempi for the development of his attack. 14.g5 bS (It would not work for Black to try the combination 14 . . . tt:lxh4? 15J:'!:xh4 .ixgS+ 16.1!lb1 .ixh4, due to 17.�xg7#) 1S.I!tb1 b4 16.tt:le2± Jirovsky - Zavadsky, Mlada Bole­slav 1995.

13 ... �c7 - Now, White can at­tack on the kingside without the pawn on f3. 14.g5 bS (14 . . . tt:lc6 15 . .ie3 bS 16.h5 - see 13 ... tt:lc6) 15.h5 b4 (It is worse for Black to play 15 ... .ib7, because White can prevent the advance of his oppo­nent's queenside pawns with 16.a3 tt:lc4 17 . .ixc4 �xc4, Notshulwana - Aldrovandi, Szeged 1994 and here it seems very attractive for him to inflict the standard tactical

144

strike 18 . .if6 ! �c7 19.�g3 Elfd8 20.Eih2 Elac8 21.Eihd2 eS 22 .f4± -Black's d6-pawn is weak and his pieces are passive.) 16.tt:la4

16 . . . �a5 (His queen has come to the aS-square in two moves and this provides White with an extra tempo for his attack.) 17.b3 Elb8 {Black cannot capture the gS­pawn, because after 17 . . . .ixg5+ 18.1!lb1 .if6 19 . .ib6+- he loses his queen, while in case of 18 . . . tt:lc6 19 . .ixg7 l!txg7 20.Eid5 !--+ White's attack will end in a checkmate in the variation 20 . . . exd5 21.�xg5+ l!th8 22.�f6+ l!tg8 23.h6 and even after the more tenacious defence 20 . . . �d8 2l.Eixg5+ l!th8 22.Eig1 .ib7 23.Eig7 �f6 24.tt:lb6+- Black will remain an exchange down.) 18.1!lb1 .id7 19.tt:lb2 (It deserves attention for White to try the more aggressive approach with 19.f4 !? .ixa4 20.bxa4 tt:lc6 21 . .ib2--+ and despite his compromised queen­side pawn-structure, his prospects are much better, since Black has no chances of attacking his king, while White's kingside attack is very dangerous enhanced by the absence of Black's important light-

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 ttlc6 8. Wid2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 - 0 10 .g4

squared bishop.) 19 . . . ttlc6 20.i.e3 W!c7 21.g6--+ - White's queenside is very reliably protected and on the kingside he will open files the way he pleases, Staszko - Micha­lik, Trinec 2001.

cl) 13 . . . .id7 14.g5

14 . . . b5 Black will have to play this

move sooner or later. 14 .. J'k8 - He needs this rook

most of all on b8, while he usually places on c8 the other rook. 15.f4 ttlc6 16.i.e3

16 . . . Wffa5 (About 16 . . . b5 - see 14 . . . b5 ; it is not any better for him to play 16 . . . ttlb4 17.Wb1 b5, Dorf­man - And.Sokolov, Val d'Isere

2004 and here White obtains ex­cellent attacking prospects after 18.h5 Wffa5 19.a3 ttlc6 20.ttla2t, for example in the variation 20 . . . Wia4 21 .f5--+, his attack looks very dangerous - 21 . . .exf5 22.ttlc3 Wffa5 23.ttld5 i.e6 24.i.d3± and he is perfectly prepared for the deci­sive onslaught, while in the vari­ation 20 . . . b4 21.i.d2 d5 22.exd5 exd5 23 . .id3± Black only creates additional weaknesses on the queenside.) 17.Wb1 d5, Sukhoru­kov - Neborak, corr. 2006. He has managed to bring his dark­squared bishop into the actions, but his light-squared bishop can­not be activated, since White will not capture on d5. After 18.h5 ttlb4 (18 . . . .ia3 19 . .ic1 d4 20.ttle2 .ic5 21 ..id2 Wffa4 22.ttlcl± Black can­not create any serious threats on the kingside, while White is ready to push decisively 23.g6--+) 19.a3 l'!xc3 20.axb4 �xb4 (Black obtains an extra pawn in the variation 20 . . . hb4 21..id4 l'!cc8 22 .g6 fxg6 23.hxg6 h6 24 . .ie5 .ia4 25 . .id3±, but it is good neither for defence, nor for the organization of his counterplay.) 21.l'!d4 l'!xe3 (Af­ter 21 . . .Wffb6 22 .l'!d3 .ic5 23.l'!xc3 he3 24.l'!b3 Wffc5 25.exd5± White has deployed his forces quite com­fortably and Black's compensa­tion for the exchange is by far in­sufficient.) 22J'!xb4 hb4 23.exd5 exd5 24 . .ie2 l'!fe8 25 . .if3± and in a position with approximate ma­terial equality White's queen is more mobile and his king is safer.

145

Chapter ?

15.f4 tt:lc6 16 . .ie3

16 . . . b4 16 .. J:i:c8 17.<;!;>bl lt:lb4 18.h5 -

see 14 . . J:'k8. In case of 16 . . . :B:b8 17.<;!;>bl b4

18.lt:le2 aS 19.h5t

it looks like Black has created some counterplay, but in fact his pieces do not support effectively his pawn-offensive, therefore White is much ahead of his op­ponent in creating threats. After 19 . . . a4 20.g6 b3 21.cxb3 axb3 22 .a3± Black's activity reaches its dead end and White's attack just begins. 22 . . . \Wc7 (Black should better avoid 22 . . . fxg6 23.hxg6 h6 24.lt:lg3 Wffc7 25.lt:lh5--+ and White dominates in the centre and his

146

pieces are much more active. ) 23.gxh7+ <;!;>xh7 24.lt:lc3 :B:fc8 25 . .id3 <;!;>h8 26.:B:dgl--+. He has opened files on the kingside and Black will hardly manage to parry the direct threats, because after 26 . . . .if6 27.e5+- he is just help­less, Anand - Ljubojevic, Monte Carlo 2000.

It is hardly any better for Black to play 16 . . . lt:la5 17.<;!;>bl :B:b8, Pal­ciauskas - Chytilek, corr. 2007 and now, it seems very attractive for White to choose the straight­forward line: 18 .h5 b4 19.lt:le2 lt:lc4 20 . .icl Wffb6 (After 20 . . . a5 21.li:ld4 Wffc7 22 . .ixc4 Wffxc4 23.f5 eS 24.f6 exd4 25.fxe7 :B:fe8 26.g6--+, his at­tack is crushing.) 21 .li:ld4 :B:bc8 22 . .ixc4 :B:xc4 23 . .ie3± - The po­sition has been simplified advan­tageously for White and he has excellent attacking chances, while his king is reliably protected.

17.tt:la4 gbs 18.b3 �c7, Van den Doel - Solodovnichenko, Lei­den 2009.

Here White's attack is very powerful after:

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 J3 lDc6 8. Wffd2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 10 .g4

19.h5 c!ba7 2 0 .g6! In response to 20.f5, Black

succeeds in playing 20 . . . i.xa4! 2l.bxa4 b3 !

2 0 . • • i.xa4! This move creates most prob­

lems for White. 20 . . . fxg6 - Now, his attack

becomes quickly decisive. 21.i.c4 l!Jb5 22 .hxg6 h6 23.:8h5 Eife8 (In case of 23 . . . l!Ja3? - Black fails to capture his opponent's danger­ous light-squared bishop. 24.Wffh3 l!Jxc4 25.:8xh6+- with a quick checkmate.) 24.f5 l!Ja3 25.i.xh6 gxh6 26.:8xh6 l!Jxc4 27.g7! l!Je5 28.:8gl Wffc8 29.Wffe2 !+-

After 20 . . . h6 21.i.c4! Black has great problems with the protec­tion of his king.

for example: 21 . . .i.xa4 - This is his most

principled defence. 22 .gxf7+ :8xf7 23.i.xe6 i.e8 24.i.d4� and White begins his final onslaught. 24 . . . i.f8 25.:8dgl lffh8 26.Wffg6 Eif6 27.Wffxf6 ! gxf6 28.:8g8+ \tlh7 29.:8xf8 Wffe7 30.:8xf6+- He has only a rook and several pawns for the queen, but Black's king is so vulnerable that White will remain unavoidably with material advan­tage, or he will checkmate his op­ponent.

21 . . .f5 22.exf5 :8xf5 23.Wffe4 d5 24.i.xd5exd5 25.Wffxe7l!Jc6 26.Wffh4 :8c8 27.i.b6 Wffxf4+ 28.Wffxf4 Eixf4 29.:8xd5 i.g4 30.:8h4± Black has avoided the checkmating attack, but he is a pawn down.

It is not preferable for him to opt for 21 . . .\:tlhS 22 .gxf7 :8xf7 23.:8hgl i.f6 24.e5 ! dxe5 25.i.c5 i.xa4 26.i.d6 Wffc8 27.Wffg6� and he will fail to hold on to the ex­tra material. 27 . . . :8bb7 (He los­es immediately after 27 . . . �e8? 28.i.d3+-) 28.i.d3 Wffg8 29.fxe5 i.g5+ 30.:8xg5! i.b5 31.:8g3± Black's pawns are weak and his pieces are passive.

20 . . . l!Jb5 - This is an attempt to seize the initiative. 21.gxh7+ (White can also try here the calm­er line: 21.h6 !? fxg6 22 .f5 .if6 23.fxg6 l!Ja3 24.i.d3 i.xa4 25.hxg7 Wffxg7 26.gxh7+ \tlh8 27.Wffxg7+ hg7 28.bxa4:t. He has ended up with an extra pawn and the two­bishop advantage, while Black can hardly exploit the vulnerability of

147

Chapter ?

his opponent's pawns.)

21 .. . �h8! (He loses after 21 . . . �xh7 22 . .id3 and now it would be a disaster for Black to opt for 22 . . . .ic6 23.�g4 �h8 24.l'%dg1 l'%g8 25.�g6 �b7 26.l'%h2 e5 27.�xf7 +-, while in case of 22 . . . e5 23.fxe5 dxe5 24.l'%dg1, he would lose quickly after 24 . . . l'%g8 25.�g6+ �h8 26.l'%fl+-, but even follow­ing 24 . . . .if6 25 . .ic4 tLla3 26.�g6+ White checkmates in the variation 26 . . . �g8 27.�xf6+-, as well as af­ter the more resilient defence 26 . . . �h8 27.h6! fxg6 28.hxg7+ �xg7 29.i.h6+-) 22.�d2 l'%fc8 (After 22 . . . a5 23.tLlc5 dxc5 24.�xd7 l'%fd8 25.�xc7 tLlxc7 26 . .ic4± Black will be forced to defend a very difficult endgame.) 23.l'%h2 aS 24.h6 g6 25 . .ic4 tLla3 26.�d4+ f6 27.tLlb6 l'%xb6 28.�xb6 �xb6 29.hb6 tLlxc4 30.bxc4 �c4 31.e5 d5 32.l'%d4± - White is much better, although it will not be so easy for him to realize the extra exchange.

21.h6! It would be more difficult

to continue the attack after 21 .gxh7+? ! �h8 !

21 . . . fxg6

148

The move 21 . . .hxg6 loses. 22 .�h2 l'%fc8 23.hxg7 .th4 24. c4+- and after 24 . . . l'%b5 25.e5 ! gS 26.fxg5, Black's king will be com­pletely helpless.

22.hxg7! It also deserves attention for

White to continue in a calmer fashion with 22 .�h3! ? l'%f6 23 . hxg7 hS 24.bxa4 b3 25.axb3 l'%xb3 26 . .id3 l'%a3 27.i.d4 e5 28.i.b2 l'%xa4 29.f5t. He has ensured the safety of his king and has excel­lent attacking chances.

22 . . . gf6! It is bad for Black to opt for

22 . . . l'%fc8 23 . .ic4 .id7 (After 23 . . . �xg7 24.l'%xh7+ �xh7 25.l'%h1+ �g7 26.f5 i.e8 27.�h2+- his pieces are stranded on the queen­side and are incapable of ensur­ing the safety of his king.) 24.f5 dS 25.�7+- White's attack is crushing.

22 . . . �xg7 - Black captures this dangerous pawn, but now his king remains practically de­fenseless. 23.i.d4+ .if6 (He loses quickly after 23 . . . �g8 24.l'%xh7!

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lt:\c6 8. 'W!d2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4

r;t>xh7 2S.'W!h3+ 'i!tg8 26.'W!xe6+ E!.fl 27.i.c4 dS 28.i.eS E!.b6 29.'W!xdS '!'Nxc4 30.bxc4+- and Black's piec­es are so discoordinated that he will unavoidably lose material.) 24.eS dxeS (In case of 24 . . . 'i!tg8 2S.exf6 i.bS 26.E!.h6-+ White's at­tack is decisive, for example: 26 . . . B:fl 27.E!.xg6+ hxg6 28.%Vxg6+ 'i!tf8 29.i.xbS lt:JxbS 30.E!.hl+-, or 26 . . . %Vf7 27.i.c4 i.xc4 28.bxc4+- af­ter 28 . . . b3 29.axb3+-, as well as following 28 . . . E!.fc8 29.E!.dhl lt:Jc6 30.E!.xh7 %Vxh7 31.f7+- Black is beyond salvation.) 2S.fxeS-+

White's attack is very power­ful, although Black still has defen­sive resources:

2S . . . i.xeS - This move leads by force to a very difficult endgame for him. 26.'W!h2 E!.fS 27.'W!xh7+ 'i!tfB 28.i.xeS 'W!xeS 29.'W!h8+ %Vxh8 30.E!.xh8+ 'i!te7 31.E!.xb8 i.bs 32.E!.b7+ 'i!tf6 33.i.h3 E!.hs 34.he6! 'i!txe6 3S.E!.xa7 gS 36.a4 bxa3 37.c4+- and he loses his queenside pawns.

2S . . . i.c6 - His light-squared bishop is incapable of helping his king. 26.exf6+ 'i!tg8 27.'W!g4 'W!fl (It is also bad for Black to opt for

27 . . . i.xhl 28.'W!xe6+ 'W!fl 29.i.c4 E!.bd8 30.'W!e7! .idS 31.i.xa7 i.xc4 32.E!.xd8 i.bS 33.i.cS 'W!xe7 34.fxe7 E!.eB 3S.i.xb4 'i!tfl 36.'i!td2 aS 37. i.d6+- and White will promote easily his queenside pawns.) 28.E!.h6 lt:lbS 29.i.d3+- and it be­comes obvious that Black is be­yond salvation: 29 . . . i.f3 30.%VgS ! i.hS 31.i.eS+-;

2S . . . i.e7 26.i.d3 ! - White is bringing the last reserves. 26 . . . i.e8 27.E!.xh7+ ! 'i!txh7 28.E!.hl+ 'i!tg7 29.'W!h2-+. His attack is over­whelming, for example: 29 . . . E!.fl+ ! (Black gains several tempi for the protection of his king at the price of a rook.) 30.i.xfl i.gS+ 31.'i!tbl i.fl 32.'W!h7+ 'i!tf8 33.i.d3 E!.d8 34.E!.fl!+- and he can parry the threat 3S.i.xh7 only by giving up his queen - 34 . . . E!.xd4 3S.'W!h8+ 'k!te7 36.E!.xf7+ 'i!txfl 37.'W!h7+ 'i!tf8 38.'W!xc7 lt:lbS 39.'W!c8+ 'i!te7 40. 'W!xa6 lt:Jc3+ 41.'i!tb2 i.e3 42 .'W!b7+ 'i!tfB 43.a3 lt:ldl + 44. 'i!tal +- Black fails to build up a fortress.

23.bxa4

23 . . . b3!

149

Chapter 7

Black's only chance is to seize the initiative; otherwise, his po­sition will remain practically de­fenseless.

23 ... 1t>xg7 24.£5 ! Ei:h8 (It is bad for him to opt for 24 ... ttlc6 25.fxg6 Ei:xg6 26.\Mfh3 Ei:h8 27.i.c4 tt:ld8 28.Ei:dgl Wxc4 29.Ei:xg6+ lt>f8 30.�h5+- White is an exchange up with a powerful attack. It is not preferable for Black to opt for 24 . . . exf5 25.exf5---+ and here he loses after 25 . . . b3 26.fxg6 hxg6 27.axb3 Ei:xb3 28.i.h6+-, as well as following 25 . . . Ei:xf5 26.i.d3 �c3 27.i.xf5 �xe3+ 28.1t>bl '!Wg5 29. '!Wh3 b3 30.axb3 '!Wxf5 31.'1Wxh7+ lt>f6 32.�h4+ lt>t7 33.\Mfc4+ lt>g7 34.Ei:dfl Ei:c8 35.'\Wd4+ \Mfe5 36. Wxa7+-) 25.i.d4 e5 26.i.e3 d5 (In case of 26 . . . h6 27.i.d3 ttlc8 28.Ei:dgl '!Wc3 29.lt>bl+- Black's kingside is helpless.) 27.i.h6+ lt>t7 28.exd5± His king is bare and his pieces are discoordinated.

23 . . . ttlc6 - Black is trying to bring his knight back into the actions. 24.i.c4 d5 25.exd5 ttla5 26.i.b3 ! (the simplest move) 26 . . . tt:lxb3+ 27.axb3 i.c5 28.hc5 �xeS 29.d6 lt>xg7 30.It>bl± White's king is much better placed than its counterpart and he has a danger­ous central passed pawn.

24.axb3 �b3 (diagram)

25.B:d3! He must trade the rooks. I t is

worse for White to play 25.i.d3 '!Wc3 26.'1Wh3 h5 27 . .id4 Wxd4 28.cxb3 '!Wal+±

150

25 . . . B:xd3 Black can hardly avoid the ex­

change: 25 . . . Ei:b4 26.i.d4!? Ei:xd4 (But

not 26 . . . Ei:xf4?! 27.'1Wh3 Ei:xfl +

28.Ei:xfl i.g5+ 29.i.e3 and after 29 . . . '1We7 30.Ei:xd6 ! +-, as well as following 29 . . . he3+ 30J;'!xe3 '!We7 3l .Ei:g3 ! lt>xg7 32 .Ei:hl+- Black is beyond salvation.) 27.Ei:xd4 lt>xg7 (It is hardly better for him to opt for 27 . . . �c3 28.Ei:c4 '!Wal+ 29.1t>d2 Ei:xf4 30.�h3 Wxg7 31.'1Wxe6+ lt>h8 32 .e5!±, Black is not only an ex­change down, but his knight on a7 is terribly misplaced.) 28.Ei:c4 '!Wb6 29.�gl i.d8 30.\Mfxb6 hb6 3l.e5 dxe5 (31 . . J1xf4? 32.exd6+-) 32 .fxe5 Ei:f5 33.Ei:b4± - he loses either the a6-pawn, or the h7-pawn.

26.hd3 ttlc6 27.�dl ttlb4 In case of 27 . . . 1t>xg7 28.�h2 h5

29.Ei:gl---+, Black is much behind of his opponent in the organization of his counterplay.

He should better avoid 27 . . . i.d8, because the activation of his dark-squared bishop would take too much time. 28.'1Wh3 h5 29.Ei:gl

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 lLlc6 B. Wid2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 - 0 1 0 .g4

Wixg7 (29 . . . lLlb4 30.e5±) 30 . .te2± 28.e5 dxe5 29.fxe5 �US (In

the variation 29 . . . Wxe5 30.1Wa8+ <l;xg7 31..ih6+ wt7 32 . .if4 E!:xf4 33.E!:xh7+ \Wg7 34.E!:xg7+ Wxg7 35.a5±, Black loses his a6-pawn.) 3 0 • .ixf5 exf5 31 • .ih6 Wd7+ 32.�cl t0c6 33J�h3 t0xe5 34.ge3 t0f7 (34 . . . lLlg4 35.\WaB+ .id8 36.E!:e8+ \Wxe8 37.\Wd5+ Wit7 38.\WxdS+-) 35.\WaS+ t0d8 36.Wxa6 f4 37.gd3 We8 38. \Wb5 1Wf7 and here the fastest road for White to victory is the spectacular move 39.\Wc5 !+- with the idea 40.E!:xd8+ .ixd8 41.\Wf8+.

c2) 13 • • . t0c6

This move is played very often by Black. He removes his knight from the attack and repels the en­emy bishop to a seemingly less ac­tive position.

14 . .ie3 b5 14 . . . \Wa5?! - This move ena­

bles White to squeeze his oppo­nent's queenside for long, Agnelli - Brunelli, Crema 2003, after 15.1Wf2 ! \Wc7 16 . .ib6 \Wd7 17.f4±

White disrupts the coordination of his opponent's pieces and de­prives him of any counterplay.

14 . . . .if6 - This is a loss of time and is almost never played. 15.lLle2 1Wa5 16.g5 .ie7 17.Wbl .id7 18.h5± White has two extra tempi in comparison to the main lines.

15.g5

15 • • • 1Wa5 The alternatives for Black are

not any better: 15 . . . f5 - He weakens the light

squares in the centre. 16.exf5 exf5 17.f4 .ib7 18.h5 \We8 19.\Wd5+ \Wt7 20 . .ig2± Schlosser - Guichard, Cannes 1990;

15 . . . b4 16.lLla4 (After 16.lLle2 a5 17.h5 a4?, Black's counter­play should not be underesti­mated.) 16 . . . E!:b8 (The move 16 . . . .id7 presents White with several important tempi and the two­bishop advantage. 16.lLlb6 E!:b8, Aginian - Warmelink, Groningen 2009, after 17.tt:lxd7 \Wxd7 18.h5 a5 19.g6�, White is much ahead of his opponent in the develop­ment of his attack.) 17.h5

151

Chapter ?

17 . . . dS (Black can hardly cre­ate any counter chances after 17 . . . �aS 18.b3 and now in the varia­tion 18 . . . dS 19.exdS exdS 20.g6± White creates threats much faster, while the seemingly aggressive re­ply 18 . . . �eS 19.i.d3 �a1+ 20.�d2 �eS 21.f4 �aS 22.�cl± leads only to the loss of a couple of tempi.) 18 .g6 i.f6, Soumya - Gupta, Balaguer 2008 (The position af­ter 18 . . . d4 19.gxh7+ �xh7 20.i.d2 �aS 21 .b3± seems very difficult for Black. White has opened files on the kingside and his queenside is completely safe.). Now, White obtains a winning position by playing 19.gxh7+ �h8 (19 . . . �xh7 20.f4 �as 21.i.d3 �h8 22 .eS+­with a decisive attack.) 20.f4 �aS 21 .eS .!LlxeS 22 .fxeS i.xeS 23.h6 g6 24.�gS fS 2S.b3+- It has become quite obvious that Black has no compensation for the piece. His king is under attack and he has not created any real threats on the queenside.

1S . . . �c7 16.hS 8:b8 (He fails to organize counterplay after 16 . . . b4 17 . .!Lla4 8:b8 18.f4t. Here, in case of 18 . . . .!LlaS 19.b3 i.d7 20 . .!Llb2 i.c6 21.g6± White continues with his

1S2

standard kingside attack, while Black has no counterplay. It would not be any better for Black to try to counter attack with 18 . . . b3, Godoy - Arancibia, Chile 1993, because after 19.axb3 i.d7 20.g6+-, White fortifies his king, wins a pawn and proceeds with his standard attack.) 17.g6 b4, P.Adams - Kol­bus, Port Erin 2004 and having in mind that White must try to open files on the kingside, it seems very attractive for him to play 18.gxh7+ �xh7 (18 . . . �h8 19 . .!Lle2 i.f6 20.�bl±) 19 . .!Lle2 i.f6 20.�bl .!LleS 21..!Lld4± - Black's king is so unsafe that he is doomed to a long and difficult defence.

1S . . . i.b7 - This natural devel­oping move enables White to save a vital tempo for the prophylactic move �bl. 16.hS !

16 . . . 8:c8 (16 . . .fS - Black weak­ens his kingside. 17.h6 g6 18.exf5 8:xfS 19 .i.d3 i.xgS 20.f4± He fails to preserve his material advan­tage, so White is better. 20 . . . .!Lla5 21 .�d2 i.xh1 22.8:xh1 i.f6 23.i.xf5 gxfS 24.i.d4--+. Black's king is not safe enough and White begins a di­rect attack. 24 . . . dS? ! 2S.8:gl+ �h8

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7..fJ lt:Jc6 8. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0-0 0-0 1 0 .g4

26.lt:Jxd5 ! 1-0 Gonzalez Rodri­guez - Real Naranjo, Cuba 2001.) 17.g6 i.f6 18.h6 fxg6 19.hxg7 ,bg7 20.Wih3 c;f}f7, Pavasovic -A.Rotstein, Mattersburg 2007 and here it is important for White to exchange the vital defender of the dark squares on Black's kingside - 21..ih6 ! E!g8 (In the variation 21 . . .hc3 22 . .ixf8 Wfxf8 23.bxc3 hS 24.f4 Wfh6 25.'�e3 c;f}e7 26 . .ih3± Black's compensa­tion for the exchange is insuffi­cient, because White's pieces are much more active. His queen is ready to go to b6 and his king is much better protected.) 22 .hg7 E!xg7 23.Wfg3 Wff6 24.E!xd6 lt:Jd4 2S.c;!}b1 b4 26 . .ih3 bxc3 27.e5 Wfe7 28.E!xd4t, the material is equal and White has excellent attack­ing chances against Black's king, which lacks sufficient defence, for example: 28 . . . c;!}g8 (But not 28 . . . cxb2?, because after 29.E!d6, Black loses either his pawn on e6, or his bishop following 29 ... .id5 30.E!xd5+-) 29.E!hd1 E!e8 30.E!d6 idS 31.b3 Wfc7 32 .E!d3± His c3-pawn is weak and he will lose it soon.

15 . . . .id7 16.h5 (This move is much more aggressive than 16.f4 - see variation cl.) 16 . . . b4 17.lt:Ja4 l'!b8 18.b3 f5 19.exf5 E!xfS, Costan­tini - Mantovani, Saint Vincent 1999 and here it looks very useful for White to play 20.f4, denying his opponent an access to the im­portant eS-square and after 20 . . . Wfc7 2l..id3 E!ff8 22 .c;!}bl± White

controls the centre with excellent attacking prospects.

16.c;!}bl

16 . . . b4 16 . . . .id7 - This is a waste of

time, since Black's bishop is not much better placed here than on c8. 17.h5 b4! (17 . . . E!ac8? - This move loses quickly. 18.g6 fxg6 19. hxg6 h6 20.E!xh6! gxh6 21.Wih3+-; Black should better refrain from 17 . . . lt:Je5? 18.f4! lt:Jc4 19 . .id4� and White's attack is tremendously dangerous. For example, Black loses quickly after 19 . . . Wfb4 20. hc4 bxc4 2l.g6 fxg6 22 .hxg6 h6 23.E!xh6! gxh6 24.Wfh3 E!ab8 25. lt:Jd5+-) 18.lt:Je2 fS ! ? 19.gxf6 .ix£6 20.f4 hb2 (It looks very passive for him to play 20 . . . '1Wc7 21.lt:Jg3t, and here, in case of 21 . . .lt:Je7 22 . Wfd2 ! ? E!fc8 23.E!h2± Black has problems with the protection of his kingside and his d6-pawn is very weak, while in the variation 21 . . .c;!}h8 22 .Wid2 dS 23.exd5 exdS 24.'\WxdS .ig4 25 . .id3 !± White wins a pawn and his king is safer.) 2l .c;!}xb2 ! Wfa3+ 22 .c;!}b1 Wfxe3

153

Chapter 7

23.E!:d3 ! Wffa7 (It seems much more resilient for Black to defend with 23 . . . Wffc5 ! ? 24J!g3 E!:f7 25.h6 g6. Now, White can force a transition into a bishop and pawn ending with an extra pawn by playing 26. E!:xg6+ ! hxg6 27.Wffxg6+ 'it>f8 28.h7 'it>e7 29.h8Wff E!:xh8 30.E!:xh8 lt'ld4 31.ltlxd4 Wffxd4 32.Wffg5+ Wff6 33. �g8 ! E!:f8 34.Wffxf8+ Wfxf8 35.E!:xf8 'it>xf8 36 . .b:a6±) 24.E!:g3 .ie8 - this is the only move for Black, Berkes - Stevie, Rabac 2003 (He loses outright after 24 . . . E!:f7? 25.h6 .ie8 26.hxg7+-, or 25 . . . g6 26.E!:xg6+ hxg6 27.�xg6+ 'it>f8 28.h7+-) and here White's most energetic reac­tion is 25.f5 ! lt'le5 ! (The alterna­tives for Black lose quickly: 25 . . . E!:c8 26.lt'lf4 exf5 27 . .ic4+ 'it>h8 28.ltlg6+ .b:g6 29.hxg6 h6 30. E!:xh6+ gxh6 31.g7+ Wffxg7 32. E!:xg7+-; 25 . . . exf5 26.E!:gl E!:f7 27. exf5 'it>h8 28.h6 g6 29.E!:xg6 ! hxg6 30.fxg6+-) 26.E!:gl E!:f7 27.h6 ! exf5 28.exf5 .ic6 29.E!:xg7+ E!:xg7 30. Wxg7+ Wffxg7 31.E!:xg7+ 'it>h8 32. lt'ld4± (F.Berkes; L.Hazai) , the material is equal indeed, but White's pieces are considerably more active.

16 . . . E!:b8 17.h5 b4 (It is hardly better for Black to play 17 . . . lt'le5 18.f4 lt'lc4 19 . .b:c4 bxc4 20.�d4t and White neutralizes easily his opponent's activity on the queen­side and begins a dangerous at­tack, for example: 20 . . . .id7 21.ltle2 .ic6 22 . .ic3 Wffc5 23.g6--+) 18.ltle2 d5 19.exd5 b3, Tofte - Caspi, Gi­braltar 2008 and now it seems

154

attractive for White to continue with 20.axb3 - this capture does not weaken the bl-h7 diagonal. 20 . . . exd5 (Black loses after 20 . . . lt'lb4 21.ltlc3 exd5 22 . .id3 .id6 23.g6 ! .ie5 24.gxh7+ 'it>h8 25.h6 g6 26.Wffg5+- and White's attack is decisive.) 2 1.lt'lc3 d4 22 . .b:d4 lt'lxd4 23.E!:xd4 Wxg5 24.ltld5± He has an extra pawn, while Black will hardly hold his two-bishop advantage.

17.lLJe2

17 . . . e5 17 . . . lt'la7 - This transfer of

Black's knight would not provide him with sufficient counterplay when White's pawn is on b2. 18.lt'ld4 .id7 19.h5 ltlb5 20.g6± (analysis of A.Morozevich).

17 ... b3 ! ? - This aggressive move is not sufficient for equality. 18.cxb3 (White can also continue with the accurate line: 18.axb3 lt'lb4 19.lt'lcl±) 18 . . . d5 19.ltld4! -Naturally, he should not activate the enemy light-squared bishop by exchanging on d5. 19 . . . lt'lxd4 20 . .b:d4 dxe4 21.fxe4 .ib7 22 . .ic3

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7.j3 lt:Jc6 8. Wid2 W.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 10 .g4

WicS 23 .i.c4± White's queenside is reliably protected thanks to the extra b-pawn and he has excel­lent attacking prospects on the kingside, Kryvoruchko - Grekh, Alushta 2006.

After 17 . . . Wffc7 18.h5 f6? ! Sin­zhuk - Efremova, Lvov 1999, Black's light squares on the king­side and in the centre are weak­ened considerably. White can fol­low with 19.g6 h6 20.Wif2 lt:JeS 21. i.h3 i.d7 22.lt:Jd4 Wffc8 23.Wffe2±, occupying maximum space on the kingside and the further advance of his pawn f3-f4-f5 provides him with control over the vital dS­square. In addition, Black must consider all the time the possible sacrifice on h6.

17 .. . d5 - This is an attempt to organize an attack. 18.exd5 b3 (After 18 . . . exd5 19.lt:Jd4 tt:Jxd4 20.hd4 i.f5 21.i.d3± White sim­plifies advantageously the posi­tion.) 19.axb3 lt:Jb4 20.tt:'lc3 (It is also good for White to try the more reliable, but not so active line: 20.lt:Jc1 lt:JxdS 21.i.d2±) 20 . . . exd5 21.i.d3± Black has failed to create any real threats, while White has remained with a solid extra pawn and begins a danger­ous kingside attack, Jaracz - Ara­khamia-Grant, Triesen 2007.

17 . . . i.b7 This quiet piece-de­velopment cannot contribute to the creation of effective queen­side counterplay. 18.h5 l':lac8 (Af­ter 18 . . .fS?, the vulnerability of the e6-square helps White to or-

ganize a crushing attack. 19.tt:'lf4 ! and now Black loses quickly after 19 . . . fxe4 20.i.c4 dS 21.lt:Jxd5+-, but he would not change anything much with the inclusion of the in­termediate move 19 . . . b3 20.cxb3 ! fxe4 21.i.c4 l':lxf4 22 .he6+ @h8 23.h6 ! WffxgS 24.hxg7+ ..t>xg7, Salgado Lopez - Spraggett, Se­villa 2006 and here the most ac­curate response for White seems to be 2S.Wffd2+-) 19.g6 i.f6, Sei­del - Palac, Hartberg 1991. Now, White should try to exchange his opponent's most active pieces by playing 20.lt:Jd4! tt:Jxd4 21.hd4 hd4 22 .l':lxd4 fxg6 (Black should better avoid 22 . . . Wffc5 23.Wid2± and he loses unavoidably a pawn and after 23 . . . fxg6 24.l':lxb4 l':lb8 25.hxg6 h6 26.l':lb3+- he has no compensation for it.) 23.hxg6 h6 24.i.c4 WffeS 25.Wffd2 l':lxf3 (2S . . . a5 26.f4 ! Wfff6 27.l':lel±) 26.l':lxd6 i.dS 27.l':lxd5 exdS 28.hd5+ @f8 (28 . . . @h8? 29.l':lxh6+ gxh6 30.Wffxh6#) 29.Wffxb4+ Wffe7 30.Wffa4 l':lf6 31.i.f7± The material is about equal, but White's king is much safer than its counterpart.

18.f4 f5 After 18 . . . i.e6, Black weakens

considerably the light squares in the centre and on the kingside. 19. b3 fS (It is even worse for him to opt for 19 . . . exf4 20.lt:Jxf4 lt:Je5? 21.tt:'lxe6 fxe6 22 .Wffh3 ! +- (Moro­zevich) and Black loses his impor­tant central pawn. It seems more resilient for him to defend with 20 . . . lt:Ja7 21.tt:'lxe6 fxe6, but even

155

Chapter ?

then after 22 .\Wg4 tt:Jb5 23.\Wxe6+ c.t>h8 24 . .ixb5 axb5 25.i.d4 \Wxa2+ 26.c.t>c1 l.':1ac8 27.l.':1h2± White ends up with a big advantage, thanks to the vulnerability of Black's queen­side pawns, Lastin - Akhmadeev, Kstovo 1997.) 20.ef .ixf5 21.tbg3±

19.gxf6! (White would not achieve much with the seem-

ingly attractive line: 19.exf5 i.x£5 20.tt:Jg3 i.e6+t; 20.\Wxc6 l.':1ac8 21.\Wd5+ \Wxd5 22.l.':1xd5 .ixc2+ 23.c.t>a1 i.e4-+ Moroze­vich; 21.l.':1d5 ! l.':1xc6 22.l.':1xa5 .idS ! 23.tt:Jg3 ! exf4 !+t and Black's pros­pects are at least equal.) 19 • . .

.tx£6 2 0 .f5 \Wc7 (He should bet­ter refrain from 20 . . . i.b7 21 .h5 l.':1f7 22 .h6-+, or 20 . . . tt:Je7 21 .tt:Jg3 \Wc7 22 .h6 g6 23.fxg6 tt:Jxg6 24.tt:Jf5± and Black's king is so vulnerable that his opponent has excellent attacking chances.) 21.tLlg3 tt:Jd4 22.tLlh5 i.b7 23.tLlxf6+ gxf6 24 • .ixd4 exd4 25.gxd4 gxf5 26.gxb4± - White has won a

pawn, his king is much safer and his pieces are at least as active as their counterparts, Morozevich -Short, Sarajevo 1999.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have begun the analysis of Black's most natural

move 9 . . . 0 - 0 . After 1 0 .g4, we have paid most thorough attention to Black's responses a) 1 0 . . . i.d7?!, b) 1 0 . . . \Wc7 and c) 1 0 . . . tbd7. His main line: 10 . . . tbxd4 is the subject of our next chapter, while the rest of his alternatives are only seldom played, since White can obtain effort­lessly a stable advantage against them.

In variation a), Black deprives voluntarily his knight on f6 from the good d7-square to retreat to and after the attractive move ll.gS, Black's knight is repelled to a very passive position for long.

In variation b), after 10 . . . \Wc7 11.g5 tbd7 12.h4, he must play 12 . . . tbxd4 and we analyze this move in our next chapter. Here, he have dealt with Black's alternatives and among them his most popular re­ply 12 . . . tbde5, which provides White with additional tempi to attack.

Black impedes temporarily the pawn-advance g4-g5 in variation c) and he transfers his knight on f6 to the queenside with the idea to organize counterplay there. The variations we analyze show how­ever, that his pieces are too far away from his king and White has excellent chances of organizing an overwhelming attack.

156

Chapter S l.e4 c5 2)�fJ d6 3.d4 cd 4)�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.fJ �c6 8.VNd2 J.e7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.g4 �xd4

If you have studied well the variations analyzed in the previ­ous chapters, you should know by now that Black can hardly obtain a sufficient counterplay without this exchange.

ll . .ixd4 b5 This is the most natural move

for him to create counter chanc­es.

He has tried in practice some alternatives, though:

ll . . . l2Je8 12 .h4 b5 (Naturally, it is bad for Black to play 12 . . . .bh4? 13.�h2+-) 13.g5 - see 11 . . .b5;

ll . . . l2Jd7 - He retreats his knight in anticipation of White's pawn-offensive on the kingside. 12.h4 hh4? - The voluntary opening of the h-file leads to the

loss of a piece for Black. (It is better for him to choose 12 . . . l2Je5 13.�g2 - see Chapter 7, variation c, although White can play more naturally. After 13.�e3, Black's knight is hanging, while in case of 13 . . . l2Jc6 14 . .ib6±, his queenside is paralysed, or 12 . . . b5 13.g5 - see ll . . . b5.) 13.'�'h2 .ig5+ 14.f4 hf4+ 15.�xf4 e5 16.�h2+- Figler -Zamodics, Hungary 2003;

ll . . . .id7 - The bishop occupies here the natural square for the knight. 12 .g5 l2Je8 13.h4 .ic6 (13 . . . b5 - see u . . . b5) 14.mbl b5 15 . .id3 l2Jc7 16.f4 b4 17.l2Je2 �b8 18.:B:hg1 �b7 19.f5--t - Black has failed to create any counterplay on the queenside and he has come under attack, Sammalvuo - Luik, Hel­sinki 1992 ;

ll . . . �a5 - The juxtaposi­tion of the queens is in favour of White. 12. mb1 e5? - This is a blunder. Black had better comply with the loss of a tempo. 13.l2Jd5 �d8 14 . .ib6 �d7 15.l2Jxe7+ �xe7 16.�xd6+- White has won a pawn and obtained the two-bishop ad­vantage, Zengin - Svendsen, An­kara 2007;

157

Chapter S

11 . . .'\!t/c7 - This move leads only seldom to original positions. 12 .g5 lt:Jd7 13.h4 e5? - Black loses now (He had better opt for 13 . . . b5 14.1t>b1 - see ll . . . b5 ; 13 . . . lt:Je5 14.'\!t/g2 b5 15.h5 - see Chapter 7, variation c, 14 . . . lt:Jc6 15 . .ie3 -see Chapter 7, variation c2.) 14. lt:Jd5 \1f/d8 15 . .ie3 �e8 16.lt:Jxe7+ �xe7 17.\1f/xd6+-, S.Nikolic - Ka­mensek, Ljubljana 2001;

ll . . . e5 - Black can activate his light-squared bishop after this move, but he weakens the im­portant d5-outpost. 12 . .ie3 .ie6 (12 . . . b5 13.g5 b4? - This line loses for him, Mrazik - Fecko, Slova­kia 2006, White can play 14.gxf6 bxc3 15.\1f/d5 ! cxb2+ 16.1t>b1 .ie6 17.fxe7+- ending up with an extra piece. It is also bad for Black to continue with 13 . . . lt:Jh5? 14.lt:Jd5 .ie6 15.lt:Jxe7+ \1f/xe7 16.\1f/xd6 \1f/xd6 17.�xd6+-, because White obtains the two-bishop advantage and remains with a solid extra pawn, Guennigmann - Szczap, Syke 2004; 13 . . . lt:Je8 14.h4 g6? Rodriguez Lapetra - Barcons Ruiz, Padron 2008, Black cre­ates a target for his opponent to attack. After 15.lt:Jd5 .ie6 16.h5--+, White's threats along the h-file are decisive; 14 . . . b4, Pericas Rechi - Fornelli, Fermo 2009 and here it looks very attractive for him to choose 15.lt:Jd5, for example: 15 . . . .ie6 16.\1f/xb4 hd5 17.exd5 �b8 18.Wa4+- White has won a pawn and his light -squared bishop has no opponent and is very powerful,

158

or 15 . . . a5 16 . .ib6 \1f/d7 17 . .ih3 \1f/b7 18.hc8 �xc8 19.ha5+- Black's queenside has been deprived of the a and b-pawns. It is better for him to play 14 . . . .ie6 - see 12 . . . .ie6.) 13.g5

and now: 13 . . . lt:Jd7 - He transfers his

knight to the queenside with the idea to organize a counter offen­sive. 14.1t>b1 b5 15.h4 lt:Jb6 (In re­sponse to the rather slow move 15 . . . �e8, S.Kristjansson - Gisla­son, Reykjavik 2001, White has a strong attack after the natural line: 16.h5 '\!t/a5 17.g6 b4 18.lt:Jd5 hd5 19.exd5--+) 16.h5 \1f/c7 (Black should better avoid 16 .. .£5 17.exf5 .ix£5 18.g6--+, since his light squares in the centre and on the kingside are very weak and White has a very dangerous attack, Mateus - Univio Sanchez, Bo­gota 2009; it is also too risky for Black to opt for 16 . . . �c8 17.g6 b4, Agardi - Jagicza, Hungary 2003, because White can continue with 18.gxh7+ lt>h8 19.lt:Jd5 lt:Jxd5 2 0 . exd5 .if5 21..id3± and he has ex­cellent chances of organizing a

powerful attack against the badly

B. 'W1d2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 l:iJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 l:iJd7 13.h4

sheltered black king, despite the considerable simplifications.) 17. g6 fxg6 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.i.h3+­Black's king is not safe, his g7 and g6-pawns are weak and White's knight will occupy unavoidably the d5-outpost, Vehi Bach - Ba­sas Gamazo, Manresa 1998;

13 . . . 1:iJh5 - This knight is away from the fight for the centre, but it prevents temporarily the advance of White's h-pawn. 14.1"!g1

14 . . . b5 - This is a standard attempt by Black to organize some counterplay on the queen­side. (14 . . . g6 - he plans to bring his knight back into the actions. 15.1:iJd5 .ixd5 16.'W1xd5 'W1c7 17.i.h3 'W1c6, Chereches - Apro, Hungary 2003, naturally, it would be rea­sonable for White to avoid the trade of queens, because he would have excellent attacking pros­pects in the middle game. After 18.'W1d2 l:iJg7 19.i>b1 l:iJe6 20.i.g4 b5 21.h4±, Black's knight is back in the centre, but he will have problems defending his kingside. 14 . . . 'W1a5 - The juxtaposition of the queens is again in favour of White. 15.i>b1 b5? - This is a

blunder. 16.1:iJd5 'W1d8 17.1:iJxe7+ 'W1xe7 18.'W1xd6+- Black has no compensation for the pawn, Lub­son - Gade, Copenhagen 2004. 14 . . . 1"!c8 15.i>b1 'W1c7 16.1:iJd5 .b:d5 17.exd5 'W1d7 18.h4 g6 19.'W1h2 'W1c7 20.i.h3 1"!b8 21.i.g4± He has failed to create any real counterplay on the queenside, while his kingside is endangered, Bittencourt - Mas­carenhas, Dois Irmaos 2008; 15 . . . !!c6 - Black protects excessively his weak d6-pawn, but delays his active actions for long. 16.h4 i>h8 17.1:iJd5 'W1d7 18.i.d3 i.d8, Delek­ta - Khomyakov, Warsaw 1992, White can continue here with 19.c3 i>g8 20.i.c2± and he plans to open the centre after advancing f3-f4.) 15. i>b1 'W1c7 (It would be al­most the same after 15 . . . b4 16.1:iJd5 .ixd5 17.'W1xd5± Kola - Jeric, Nova Gorica 1998.) 16.1:iJd5 hd5 17.'W1xd5 !!tb8 18.h4± (White's powerful bishop, without an op­ponent, dominates all over the light squares.) 18 . . . i.f8 19.i.h3 aS 20 .i.g4 l:iJf4 21.hf4 exf4 22 .g6 !-t He has begun his decisive on­slaught and the presence of bish­ops of opposite colours even en­hances it as usual. 22 . . . hxg6 23.h5 ! gxh5 (Black could have offered a more tenacious defence after 23 . . . 'W1c5 ! 24.i.e6! ? 'W1xd5 25 . .ixd5 gxh5 ! 26 . .ixa8 1"!xa8 27.1"!d5+-, he has just a pawn for the exchange and his position is lost, but White must show some good technique in order to realize his advantage.) 24.'W1xh5 g6 25.i.e6 ! (All White's

159

Chapter S

pieces have joined in the attack, so Black's king is beyond salvation.) 25 . . . i.g7 26.�xg6 fxe6 27.�xe6+ �fl 28.ID:g7+ 1-0 Grosar - Alexa­kis, Katerini 1993;

13 . . . tt::le8 - Black fortifies his d6-pawn, but he impedes the co­ordination of his forces for long. 14.h4 bS (Or 14 . . . E:c8 15.\t>b1 11Jc7 16.h5± and White has excellent attacking prospects, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever, Orriols Miro - Montoliu Daroca, Barcelona 2003.) 15.11Jd5 E:c8, Petijevic - Talic, Jahorina 2001, Black has no useful moves at all and it would be reasonable for White to play 16.\t>b1 hdS (It would not be preferable for Black to choose the waiting move 16 . . . \t>h8, because after 17.h5t, he has nothing else left to do except 17 . . . hdS 18.exd5 fS 19.f4±) 17.�xd5 �aS 18.i.h3 11Jc7 19.�b3 E:cd8 20.h5� - The light squares in Black's camp are very weak and his pieces are passive, so this pro­vides White with a stable advan­tage and his far-advanced king­side pawns spell future defensive problems for Black.

12.g5 (diagram)

12 . . . tfld7 This is the most popular re­

treat of Black's knight, since it can be activated easily from that square.

12 . . . tt::le8 - This move is too passive. 13.h4 b4 (In case of 13 . . . i.d7 14.E:g1 b4 15.tt::le2t, Black has

160

no compensation for the pawn -15 . . . i.b5?! 16.�xb4± Burchardt - Eretova, Halle 1987, while in the variation 15 . . . �a5 16.\t>b1 eS 17.i.e3 i.e6 18.11Jc1 �a4 19.h5±, White's kingside offensive is run­ning unopposed.) 14.11Je2 �aS 15. \t>b1 eS (15 . . . 11Jc7 16.i.e3 eS 17.h5 i.e6 18.11Jc1 - see 15 . . . e5) 16.i.e3 i.e6 17.11Jc1 tt::lc7, Dietrich - Kalin­ski, Germany 2006, he can play here 18.h5 E:ac8 19.g6 tt::lb5 20.tt::lb3 �a4 21 .i.h3±, obtaining excellent attacking chances, controlling the centre and having a completely safe king.

12 . . . tt::lh5 - Black's knight is misplaced here and it will be at­tacked with tempi. 13.i.e3

and now:

8. Wid2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 CiJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

13 . . . b4 14.CiJe2 e5 15.CiJg3 CiJf4 16.h4 Wia5 17.@b1 i.e6 18.b3 - see 13 . . . Wia5;

13 . . . i.b7 - Black allows with this move his opponent to exploit the misplacement of the knight on h5 in order to open files on the kingside. 14.CiJe2 f5 (It is not preferable for him to opt for 14 . . . g6 15.CiJg3 CiJg7 16.h4 d5 17.h5 Wic7 18.f4± and the h-file will be opened unavoidably.) 15.gxf6 8:xf6 16.i.h3 8:xf3 17.he6+ @h8 18.8:hg1 he4 19.CiJd4 8:f6 20.i.g4 WigS (After 20 . . . Wie8 21.i.g5 Wif7 22 .Wie3 d5 23.@bl±, Black loses at least the exchange.) 21.i.xh5 Wixa2 22.Wic3 d5, Zentgraf - Rau, Ueberlingen 2000 and now, the best way for White to combine at­tack and defence of his own king seems to be 23.Wic7! .if8 24.Wib7 8:d8 25.CiJb3±. Black's queen is isolated on the queenside and his rooks cannot come to the c-file, so his best chance is to activate his dark-squared bishop with 25 . . . g6 26.i.d4 i.h6+ (26 . . . i.g7 27.8:gf1 ! if5 28.Wie7! 8:df8 29.8:xf5 gxf5 30.c3 ! Wixb3 31.8:g1+- and Black's king is beyond salvation) 27.8:d2 ig7 28J'!f2 ! +-. His two extra pawns would not help against White's checkmating attack, for example: 28 . . . ih6+ 29.@d1 Wib1+ 30.@e2 Wixc2+ 31.@e1 Wixb3 32. Wie7+- and in order to save his king Black will suffer huge mate­rial losses.

13 . . . Wia5 - This is an attempt by him to activate maximally his

queenside. 14.@b1 b4 15.CiJe2 e5 16.CiJg3 CiJf4, M.Yu - Chua Zheng Yuan, Singapore 2008 (In answer to 16 . . . i.e6, Oliger - Pecotic, Email 2000, it seems most reliable for White to play 17.b3 and then 17 . . . CiJf4 18.h4 - see 16 . . . CiJf4, while in case of 17 . . . g6 18.CiJxh5 gxh5 19.f4±, Black has no compensa­tion for his destroyed kingside.) . Now, it seems very attractive for White to continue with 17.h4 ie6 18.b3 d5 (It is not any better for Black to opt for 18 . . . 8:fd8 19.CiJf5 1f8 20.1xf4 exf4 21.Wixf4 d5 22 . e5± - White has an extra pawn and excellent attacking pros­pects.) 19.1xf4 exf4 20.Wixf4 dxe4 21.CiJxe4 8:fc8 22 .1d3± - Black has obtained a bishop-pair in­deed, but that is not sufficient to compensate the sacrificed pawn, because White's pieces are much more active.

13.h4

In the diagrammed position Black has tried in practice numer­ous moves, but we will analyze most thoroughly the following

161

Chapter S

lines: a) 13 . . J:�b8, b) 13 • • • ti'a5, c) 13 . • . .tb7, d) 13 . . • b4 and e) 13 . . • ti'c7.

About 13 .. J'ie8 14.'i!?b1 �b8 1S.�a7 - see 13 . . . �b8, variation a.

In response to 13 .. .'ueS, White can transpose to variation c from the previous chapter by play­ing 14.'1Wg2 tt:lc6 1S.�e3, or 14 . . . '!WaS 1S.'i!?b1, but it looks much more aggressive for him to opt for 14.'1Wf2 !

White ensures for him the b6-square and that prevents the aggressive sortie of Black' queen to aS, reducing considerably his active possibilities. 14 . . . '1Wc7 1S.f4 tt:lc4 (After 1S . . . tt:lc6 16.�b6 '!Wb7 17.fS �b8 18.�e3 �e8 19.f6 �f8 20.hS±, Black's pieces are disharmoniously deployed and he fails to create any counter­p l a y , Suri - Mantzouneas, Biel 2000.) 16.fS tt:leS 17.f6 �d8 18. fxg7 �e8 19.�e2 �b7 20.a3 �c8 21.�hf1 �e7 22 .�hS+- White has an extra pawn and a crushing at­tack, Stoilov - Bochev, Teteven 1991.

13 . . . tt:lb6, Rawlinson - Mor­due, West Bromwich 200S,

162

Black's knight covers the b-file on this square and White can stop his opponent's pawn-offensive by playing 14.a3 �b8 1S.f4 tt:lc4 16.'1Wf2± with excellent attacking chances, having extra space and completely safe king.

13 . . . tt:lcS - Black concentrates pieces on the queenside, hoping to come in front of the opponent in the development of the initia­tive. 14.'i!?b1 b4 (About 14 . . . \Wc7 -see variation e; it looks too slow for Black to play 14 . . . �b7, B.Socko - Kosiorek, Biala Podlaska 1994, because after the aggressive move 1S.g6 ! he is faced with a choice : 1S . . . hxg6 - this move enables White to open the h-file. 16.'1Wh2 tt:ld7 17.hsgg, and here Black loses immediately after 17 . . . gS 18.h6+-, but even after the more resilient defence 17 . . . eS 18.hxg6 fxg6 19. �h3--t, White's attack is decisive. 1S . . . fxg6 - This move weakens the e6-pawn and this enables White to win a piece with 16.hcS ! dxc5 17.Wfd7± and here Black's most te­nacious defence seems to be 17 . . . �dS 18.1Wxd8 ha2+ 19.'i!?xa2 �axd8 20.�h3 'i!?f7 2 1.eS± - his compensation for the knight is in­sufficient indeed, but White must show some good technique in or­der to realize his advantage.) 1S.tt:le2 aS, Paehtz - Sebag, Hera­klio 2002.

(diagram) White can hardly organize an

effective attack without the move gS-g6, but he must prepare this

B. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0-0 1 0 .g4 tiJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 tiJd7 13.h4

pawn-break well. 16.CiJf4 !? i.b7 (After 16 . . . e5 17.hc5 dxc5 18.tiJd5 a4 19.Wih2 i.d6 20.h5±, White is clearly better thanks to his far­advanced kingside pawns and the powerful knight on the d5-out­post.) 17.Wig2 Wib6 18.g6 ! e5 (Black loses immediately after 18 . . . hxg6 19.h5 g5 20.h6 e5 21.hxg7 <i>xg7 22.tiJh5+ ci>g8 23.i.e3+- and his king is beyond salvation.) 19.E:g1 hxg6 (19 . . . i.f6 20.gxh7+ <i>h8 21.tiJh5+-) 20.tiJxg6 fxg6 (In the variation 20 . . . i.f6 21.tiJe7+ <i>h8 22 .Wfg4 g6 23.hc5 dxc5 24.tiJxg6+ fxg6 25. Wfxg6 Wfc7 26.i.h3+- Black must give up plenty of material in order to save his king.) 21.Wixg6 i.f6 22 .he5 !-t. White's attack is decisive, for ex­ample: 22 . . . d5 (The alternatives would not save Black either: 22 . . . dxe5 23.E:d7 tiJe6 24 . i.c4+-, or 22 . . . he5 23.i.c4+ d5 24.Wfxb6 dxc4 25.Wfxc5+-) 23.Wixg7+ hg7 24.E:xg7+ <i>h8 25.E:xb7+ Wff6 26.hf6+ E:xf6 27.E:b5+- White has failed to checkmate his op­ponent, but his four extra pawns should be sufficient to win the game.

a) 13 . . . �b8 Black's rook is perfectly placed

here. 14.�bl

14 . . . CiJb6 It is better for him to play 14 .. .

Wfc7 15.h5 b4 16.tiJa4 - see 13 .. . Wfc7, White's game is much easier if Black plays something else:

14 . . . tiJe5 - This knight will come under attack with tempi on this square. 15.Wig2 tiJc6 (about 15 . . . i.d7 16.f4 tiJc6 17.i.e3 - see variation c1 from Chapter 7, Anand - Ljubojevic, Monte Car­lo 2000) 16.i.e3 b4, Grigoriants - Bragin, Kazan 2005, White's most aggressive line here seems to be: 17.tiJe2 a5 18.h5 a4 19.g6 b3 20.cxb3 axb3 21.a3 fxg6 22.hxg6 h6 23.f4t and his pieces are much better placed, both for the defence of his own king as well as for the attack of the enemy king. His knight can be deployed on c3, or it can go to the h5-square.

14 . . . i.b7, Lastin - Goldin, Elis­ta 1996, This bishop covers the b­file and therefore the position of

163

Chapter S

the rook on b8 looks less sensible. It seems attractive for White now to continue with concentrating forces on the kingside with 15Jl:g1, for example 15 . . . b4 16.tLle2 tLle5 17.�e3 �c7 18.tLlg3 �fc8 19.�g2 ttJc4 20.i.xc4 �xc4 2l .h5t and he has excellent attacking prospects.

In reply to 14 . . . �e8, Varga -Kastek, Budapest 1987, it looks good for White to continue with 15.i.a7 �b7 16.i.e3 tLle5 17.f4t -he has disrupted the coordination of forces of his opponent with the bishop-maneuver and begins his kingside attack.

14 . . . tLlc5, Hennigan - Howell, Eastbourne 1991, Black's knight only seems active on this square, but after 15.i.e3 b4 16.tLle2 �c7 17.h5 tLla4 18.c;f:;>al± White's king­side actions are much more dan­gerous than Black's counterplay.

14 . . . b4 - After this move White succeeds in parrying Black's queenside actions. 15.tLla4 (It de­serves attention for White to play even more aggressively 15.tLle2 ! ? with the idea to transfer the knight to h5 and this will provoke weakening of Black's castling po­sition.) 15 . . .'�a5 (About 15 . . . i.b7 - see variation d, 14 . . . �b8 ; 15 .. . �c7 16.h5 - see variation e, 13 . . . �c7 14.c;f:;>b1 b4 15.tLla4 �b8 16.h5.) 16.b3 tLlc5 17.tLlb2 e5 18.i.e3 i.e6 19.h5 �fd8 20.i.c4± White ex­changes the main defender of the light squares in Black's camp and later he will advance g5-g6 with a crushing attack, Teran Alvarez -

164

Portalo Ordonez, Seville 2001. 15.Vg2 b4 16)tle2 Vc7,

N.Mamedov - Gormally, Hast­ings 2008. White has failed to place his knight on a4, but he can use it in the attack against the en­emy king 17.ttJf4!

with the following exemplary variations:

17 . . . e5 - Black cannot win a piece in that fashion. 18.i.xb6 Vxb6 19.tLld5 �d8 20.Vd2 i.e6 2l.i.xa6 i.xd5 22.�xd5 �b6 23.i.c4± - White has an extra pawn and excellent attacking chances;

17 . . . tLla4 - This move is played with the idea to sacrifice this knight at an opportune moment and to seize the initiative. 18.h5 i.b7 19.g6 e5 20.h6--t hxg6 (Af­ter 20 . . . fxg6 21.tLle6 �c6 22 .i.a7 �a8 23.tLlxf8+- White wins the exchange and his attack contin­ues.) 21.�h2 �fc8 22 .hxg7 i.h4 23.i.d3+- Black has failed to cre­ate counterplay and he is helpless against White's attack along the h-file;

8. Vfffd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0 -0 0-0 1 0 .g4 Ci:Jxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 Ci:Jd7 13.h4

17 .. J�d8 - Black wishes to organize a breakthrough in the centre. 18.h5 d5 19.g6 ! fxg6 (19 . . . hxg6 20 .hxg6 Vfffxf4 21 ..ie5 ! Vfffxe5 22 J3h8+-) 20.hxg6 h6 21.e5 Ci:Jc4 22 .Ci:Jh5± and against 23.Ci:Jf6+ he has no satisfactory defence.

b) 13 . . . 'Wa5

Black activates maximally his queen and deprives the enemy knight of the a4-square, with the idea to create counterplay on the queenside.

14.�bl It is worse for White to play

14.a3 Ci:Je5 ! (but not 14 . . . .ib7? 15. �bl± and Black's queenside activ­ity reaches its dead end.) 15.Vffff2 l'!b8t and his opponent has excel­lent attacking prospects.

14 . . . b4 Black must act resolutely;

otherwise, White will seize the initiative without too much of an effort.

In answer to 14 . . . tt:le5? ! , Diaz ­J.Rodriguez, Villa Ballester 2002,

it is good for White to continue with the natural line: 15.tt:ld5 Vfffd8 16 . .ib6 Vfffd7 17.Ci:Jxe7+ Vfffxe7 18.f4 Ci:Jc4 19.hc4 bxc4 20 . .ia5 ! ? .ib7 21.1'!hel± and Black will lose his d6-pawn, while White will cap­ture it with his bishop, avoiding the trade of queens and preserv­ing excellent attacking chances.

14 . . . .id8?! Kozhuharov - Pet­kov, Plovdiv 2004, This move loses a couple of tempi and after White plays 15 . .ie3 b4 16.Ci:Je2 .ie7 17.Ci:Jd4 .ib7 18.h5±, he will pre­pare unavoidably the pawn-break g5-g6 with a crushing attack.

15.Ci:Je2

Black's main responses in this position are bl) 15 . . . .t.b7, b2) 15 . . . e5 and b3) 15 . . . tt:le5.

It is not preferable for him to opt for 15 . . . Ci:Jc5 16.Ci:Jc1 l'!b8, A.Nikitin - I.Marchenko, Sim­feropol 1990, because White can continue with 17.h5 Ci:Ja4 (17 . . . e5 18 . .ie3 .ie6 19 . .ih3 - see variation b3) 18.Vffff2t. He obtains excellent attacking prospects and it would be too risky for Black to capture

165

Chapter S

the gS-pawn, because after 18 . . . hgS 19.\Wg3 Wd8 (But not 19 . . . i.b7 20.i.xg7 lt>xg7 2U�ds� and White will have a very dangerous attack along the opened g-file.) 20.i.eS± He regains his pawn and Black's castling position is quite worrisome for him.

1S . . . E1b8 - He does not need his queen on aS in order to con­tinue with his queenside pawn­offensive. 16.ltlg3 lt:leS 17.i.e2 :1'1d8, Kafka - Moore, Birmingham 2006 and here it seems natural for White to apply central strate­gy - 18.f4 lt:lc6 19.i.f2 dS 20.exdS E1xdS 21.'1We3 i.b7 22.:1!xdS WxdS 23 .:1'1d1 '!WaS 24.fS ! exfS 2S.E1d7 lt>f8 26.Wf3± The activity of his pieces more than compensates the sacrificed pawn.

bl) 15 . . . .ib7 Black will try to put up a fight

in the centre. 16.ltlg3! White must play accurately,

because after 16.a3 dS�, or 16.ltlc1 lt:leS 17.lt:lb3 Wc7!�, Black obtains a good position.

16 . . . gfc8 In case of 16 . . . :1'1ac8 17.f4 :1'1c7

18 . .id3 Wa4 19.b3 WaS 20.fS E1fc8 2l.f6±, White's king is perfectly safe and its counterpart will be in trouble, Dorer - Uifelean, corr. 2006.

16 . . . dS - Black fails to organ­ize meaningful counterplay in the centre.

166

17.g6 ! (This is White's most resolute reply.) 17 . . . fxg6 (After 17 . . . dxe4 18 .fxe4 fxg6 19 . .ic4 ltlc5 20.h5�, there will be files opened on the kingside and White's attack will be overwhelming, Amd-XP ­Jasmin, Internet 200S.) 18.i.h3 eS (Following 18 . . . \t>£7, Black's king will not be safer in the cen­tre than on the kingside. 19.\Wf4+ lt>e8 20.'1Wg4 Wc7 21.'1Wxe6 E1xf3 , Shredder 8 - Deep Fritz 8, Inter­net 2004, White wins here simply with 22 .exdS! :1'1d8 23.:1'1he1 lt:lf8 24.'1We2, after 24 . . . :1'1xg3 2S. i.eS '!Wc5 26.i.xg3+-, as well as fol­lowing 24 . . . :1'1xd5 25.'1Wxf3 :1'1xd4 26.lt:le4 E1xd1+ 27.Wxd1+- Black has lost the exchange and White's attack against his king continues.) 19.h5 gxhS (In the variation 19 . . . E1f6 20.i.xd7 Wc7 2l.hxg6 hxg6 22 .f4! exd4 23.e5+-, Black will lose the exchange, Ultima - Fili­pino, Internet 2006.) 20.i.xd7 exd4, Fritz 9 - Hiarcs 9, Internet 2005 and here, White's most con­vincing line seems to be: 2l .i.e6+ ! lt>h8 22.:1'1xh5 E1f6 23.exd5+- and Black is completely defenceless against the attack along the h­file.

8. '�d2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 JO .g4 toxd4 11.:ixd4 b5 12.g5 tod7 13.h4

The move 16 . . . toeS has been played until now only in games between computers. 17.�f2t

and then: It is not good for Black to play

17 . . . toc6 18.i.b6 �a4 19.f4 :B:ac8 20.b3 - see 17 . . . :B:ac8 ;

After 17 . . . tod7 18.f4, in the var­iation 18 . . . :B:ae8 19.hS eS 20 .i.e3 toeS 21.i.g2 exf4 22.i.xf4± White's pieces are dangerously concen­trated in the vicinity of the en­emy king, Brain-damage - raid­ersrule, Internet 2007, while in case of 18 . . . tocS 19.i.g2 �c7, Bozo - PertsaPera, Internet 2006, he can continue with 20.fS f6 21.gxf6 i.x£6 22.i.xf6 :B:xf6 23.:B:hgl±, with excellent attacking chances along the g-file and a completely safe own king;

17 . . . :B:fc8 - Black removes one of the defenders of his king­side. 18.f4 tod7 19.fS �c7, Bozo -DaGreatestishere, Internet 2006, White can play now 20.i.h3 eS 2l.f6 !� and he creates numerous weaknesses in his opponent's po­sition, having a dangerous attack;

After 17 . . . :B:ac8 18.f4, Black has tried in practice 18 . . . . toc6, Great

Ozzie - MM-Chess2, Internet 200S, but here, it looks very good for White to opt for 19.i.b6 �a4 20.b3 �a3 21.fS toes 22 .id4� Black's queen has been isolated on the queenside and it must go back, so he will lose a lot of tempi doing this. On the kingside, White will push unavoidably fS-f6, open­ing his opponent's king, while in response to 18 . . . tod7, BloodyMa­gicians - LuBWy, Internet 2006, it seems very attractive for White to continue in a standard fashion with 19.fS toeS 20.ih3±, or 19 . . . <i>h8 20.i.h3± and in both cases, Black must worry about fS-f6 with a powerful attack for White, as well as about the possible captur­ing of the e6-pawn at an oppor­tune moment;

17 . . .fS 18.i.h3 ! (fixing the fS­pawn at its place) 18 . . . <i>h8 19.f4 b3 (The alternatives would not save Black, because after 19 . . . toc6 20.i.b6 �bS 21.exfS exfS 22 .i.fl �a4 23.i.d3� Alpha7 - Tondern, Internet 200S, as well as fol­lowing 19 . . . fxe4 20.he6 :B:ae8 21.tofs� IrishSetter - Proview2, Internet 2004, White's attack is decisive.) 20.axb3 toc6 21.i.c3 tob4 22.1�'d4+- Black has failed to create any counterplay and he loses a piece, Fritz 8 - Deep Fritz 8, Internet 2004.

(diagram) 17.g6!? This seems to be White's most

energetic move. 17 . . . fxg6

167

Chapter S

After 17 . . . hxg6 18.h5 tt:JeS 19. i.e2gg, he has an excellent com­pensation for the pawn and the following variations confirm this:

19 . . . i.d8 - This is an attempt by Black to activate his bishop. 20.he5 ! �xeS 21.f4 �f6 22 .hxg6 fxg6 23.�xd6 i.c7 24.�d7 hf4 25.i.g4+- and his king is help­less;

19 . . J�c6 20.hxgf) tt:lxg6 2U:&h5 eS 22.tt:lf5 i.f8 23.fi:dh1 !� - Black cannot parry his opponent's attack without huge material losses: in the variation 23 . . . exd4 24.tt:lh6+ gxh6 25.fi:xa5+- his two light piec­es do not compensate his missing queen; after 23 . . . fi:e8 24.�g5 fi:e6 25.fi:Sh3+-, he has no satisfactory defence against 26.�h5, while in case he tries to activate his forces in the centre with 23 . . . fi:d8 24. �gS dS 25.he5 fi:e6 26.fi:h8+ ! tt:Jxh8 27.fi:xh8+ <±>xh8 28.hg7+ Wg8 29.i.f6+ White checkmates.

18.h5 g5 19.h6 g6 2 0 . .th3 lilf8 21 . .ig7 �e8 22.f4 d5, Kue­rten - Kurylo, Email 2001 and now, it seems attractive for White to open additional files with

168

23.f5!? YHc7 (In case of 23 . . . exf5 24.exf5 �c7 25.lile2 i.cS 26.lild4 �f4 27.�g2±, Black's king is vul­nerable and his pieces are pas­sive, so his extra pawn is imma­terial.) 24.lile2 dxe4 25.fxg6 hxg6 26.ti'd4 .ic5 27.ti'f6 'tt>h7 28. YHxg5± His kingside pawns are weak and his king has no safe shelter.

b2) 15 . • • e5 Black does not allow the ene­

my knight to the f4-square, but he compromises the dS-outpost with his last move.

16 . .ie3

16 . . • lilc5 16 . . . tt:lb6 - This knight is

placed worse on this square. 17.tt:lc1 fi:b8 (It would be a disas­ter for Black to play 17 . . . i.e6?, H.Rudolf - Schunk, Rostock 1990, 18.tt:lb3 ! hb3 19.axb3 fi:fd8 20.�f2 fi:ab8 21.�g3+- White has forced the exchange of the important light-squared bishops and has deprived his opponent of counterplay. In addition, now

8.V:fffd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 10 .g4 l:iJxd4 11. i.xd4 b5 12.g5 tiJd7 13.h4

Black's light squares are weak and he is helpless against White's oncoming kingside attack.) 18.h5 i.e6 19.g6--+ - His kingside threats are much more dangerous than Black's virtual counterplay . . . , Gonzalez Rodriguez - Morales Romero, Cuba 2002.

17.lilcl White must take care of the

safety of his king, before the start of his kingside offensive.

17 . . . .ie6 18 • .ih3!?t

The trade of the light-squared bishops is usually in favour of White in this pawn-structure.

18 . . . 'M>5 Black fails to advance his

queenside pawn indeed, but he forces White to begin tactical op­erations.

The alternatives for Black are: 18 . . . Vfffc7 - This move is too

passive. 19.h5 i.xh3 20.Eixh3 l:iJe6 2l.g6± - After the exchange of the light-squared bishops, Black has no counterplay whatsoever, Rodriguez Vila - Milos, Santos 2005.

18 . . . l:iJa4 - He fails to create any real threats against White's king. 19.tiJb3 Vfffb5 20.h5 Eifc8 2l .i.xe6 fxe6 22 .g6+- - it would be very bad for Black to opt for 22 . . . h6, because of 23.i.xh6 ! , so he must comply with the opening of files on the kingside, Martins -C.Rodrigues, Petropolis 1996.

18 .. . Eiad8 - This move is played with the idea to counter White's kingside offensive with a strike in the centre. 19.h5 d5 20. i.xe6 fxe6 21.exd5 Eixd5 (Black should better avoid 21 . . .exd5 22 . g6 Eixf3 23.h6--+, since the pawn­shelter of his king will be de­stroyed completely.) 22.'�'g2± White has a clear advantage, due to the vulnerability of Black's cen­tral pawns, Wiersma - Van den Doel, Enschede 1994.

18 ... Eiab8 19.h5 l:iJa4, Klim­pel - Schaefer, Wiesbaden 1996, Black's only threat 20 .. . tiJc3+ will be easily parried by White and he will begin his offensive with 20.tiJb3 VfffbS 21.g6±

19.h5 �adS He has excellent attacking

prospects after 19 . . . l:iJa4 20.tiJb3 tiJb6 21.g6t

2 0 .g6 fxg6 Black loses in case of 20 . . . h6

21 .i.xh6! d5 22 .i.xe6 tiJxe6 (In the variation 22 . . . fxe6 23.i.xg7 i>xg7 24.h6+ i>xg6 25.Vfffg2+ @f7 26.Vfffg7+ i>e8 27.h7 i.f6 28. Vfffxf6+-, White not only regains his sacrificed material with in­terest, but maintains a crushing

169

Chapter S

attack.) 23.exd5 tiJc7 24 . .ixg7 @xg7 25.h6+ @f6 (After 25 . . . @xg6 26J:'ldgl+ @h7 27.11tlg2 tiJe8 28.11tlg7+ White checkmates.) 26.g7 tiJxd5 27.gxf811tl .ixf8 28. h7+- and he has an extra ex­change and a crushing attack.

21.hxg6

21 . • • hxg6? It seems more re­silient for Black to defend with 21 . . J�xf3 22 . .ixe6+ tiJxe6 23.Elxh7 i.f6, but even then White can continue with 24.i.b6 ! Ei:d7 (Black loses even quicker after 24 . . . 11tlxb6 25.11tld5 Ele8 26.Ei:dhl+-) 25.11tlh2 @f8 26.Ei:h8+ @e7 27.Ei:b8+­White ends up at least with a queen against a rook and a bish­op. 22.h:c5 .ixh3 23.11tld5+ Ei:f7 24.1'lxh3 dxc5 25.lMhl and the checkmate is unavoidable 1-0 Nij­boer - Solodovnichenko, Utrecht 2009.

b3) t5 • . .loe5 This is a very attractive move

for Black. His knight goes to c4, forcing White to lose time protect­ing his f3-pawn in the process.

170

16.�e3 After 16.f4 tiJc4 17.11tld3 e5 18.

f5 tiJa3+ 19.bxa3 exd4+±, White's queenside pawn-structure is com­promised.

16 . • • J.b7 It is worse for Black to play

16 . . . tiJd7 17.b3 i.b7 18.tiJg3 Ei:ac8 19.Elh2t - White has completed his prophylactic actions and en­sured the safety of his king, so he is ready to begin his kingside of­fensive.

16 . . . i.d7 17 . .ixe5!? - He presents his opponent with the two-bishop advantage indeed, but he wins im­portant tempi for his attack. 17 . . . 11tlxe5 18.f4 '\Wa5 19.h5 Elfc8 20.i.h3t

16 . . . tiJc4 - This move enables White to regroup advantageous­ly his forces. 17.'\Wb3 11tlc7 (After 17 . . . e5 18.tiJg3 tiJb6 19.tiJf5 .ixf5 20 . .ixb6 '\Wxb6 2l.exf5±, he has excellent attacking prospects, be­cause his bishop is much stronger than its counterpart.) 18.tiJf4 tiJe5 19.tiJh5 i.b7, Felgaer - Alonso, Santiago 2009 and here, he must prepare the pawn-advance f3-f4, which will provide him with good

8. Wffd2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 JO .g4 'Dxd4 11. i.xd4 b5 12.g5 'Dd7 13.h4

attacking chances. The best way to do this is 20.i.g2 !'!fc8 21.f4 'Dc4 22 .i.xg7 'De3 23.i.f6±. White has won a pawn and has compro­mised his opponent's king shel­ter. It is now bad for Black to play 23 . . . 'Dxd1 24.!'!xd1 i.f8 2S.!'!d2 aS 26.i.d4 i.e7 27.Wffg3�, because White's threats are decisive, but even in the endgame after 23 . . . Wffxc2+ 24.Wffxc2 !'!xc2 2S.i.f3! !'!f2 26.i.xe7 !'!xf3 27.!'!c1 !±, Black will hardly survive.

17.ti)g3 lUc8 18.f4 .!Llc4, Lind - Akesson, Karlstad 1988.

19.Wfff2! White must keep the g1-a7 di­

agonal under firm control, mean­while his queen will be perfectly placed in case the f-file is opened.

19 • • • d5 It is hardly better for Black to

play 19 . . . eS 20.i.xc4 !'!xc4 21.fxeS dxes 22.!'!hf1 !'!f8 23.i.b6 WffbS 24 . .!LlfS Wffe8 2S.b3 !'!c8 26.Wffe2t, since White has deployed perfect­ly his pieces and has seized the initiative for long.

2 0 .f5 dxe4

It is worse for Black to opt for 20 . . . eS 21.i.xc4 dxc4 22 .i.b6 i.cS 23.i.xcS !!xeS 24.f6±, because White is dominant on the only open file and he has excellent chances of organizing a successful attack, for example after 24 . . . b3 ! ? 2S.axb3 cxb3 26.cxb3 Wffb6 27.Wfff3 !'!bs 28.!'!d3 g6 29.hs�

It is also bad for Black to con­tinue with 20 . . . i.d6 21.g6 ! (It is less resolute for White to choose the seemingly attractive line: 21.fxe6 fxe6 22 .i.h3 eS 23.i.e6+ �h8 24.i.xc8 !'!xc8gg - he has won the exchange indeed, but Black has consolidated his position and all his pieces are well placed. In addition, his central passed pawn, supported by his bishop-pair pro­vides him with some compensa­tion for the exchange.) 21 . . .hxg6 22 .hS Wffc7 23.hxg6 i.xg3 24.gxf7+ �f8 2S.i.xg7 +! This tactical strike is decisive and here after 2S . . . �xg7 26.!'!g1 +- Black's king is be­yond salvation, while in the vari­ation 2S . . . �e7 26.Wffe2 i.eS 27.f6+ �d6 28.Wffxc4+- White ends up with a huge material advantage.

171

Chapter S

21.fxe6 fxe6 22.hc4 gxc4 23.hg7 e3 (Black loses after 23 . . . 'i!ixg7 24J�d7+-, White's at­tack is decisive too following 23 . . . Wfc7 24.tt:Jhs�) 24.'ti'xe3 .id5 (After the rather greedy line for Black: 24 . . . i.xh1? 25.Wfxe6+ 'i!ixg7 26.Wfxe7+ 'i!ig8 27J''ld7+-, White checkmates.) 25.b3 gxc2 ! (25 . . . 'i!ixg7? 26.Wfe5+ 'i!ig8 27.tt:Jh5 i.f8 28.bxc4+-) 26 • .ib2 'ti'c5 27 • .id4 'ti'a5 28.c;!?xc2 (White's bishop is safe now and he can capture the enemy rook.) 28 . . . ti'xa2+ 29. c;!?d3 ti'xb3+ (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 29 . . . .id6 30. tt:Je4 Wfxb3+ 31.'i!ie2 �c2+ 32.'i!if3 l'lf8+ 33.i.f6 .icS 34.l'lc1 Wfg2+ ! -This move creates the illusion that Black can save the game, but fol­lowing 35. 'i!ixg2 i.xe3 36. 'i!if3 i.xc1 37.l'lxc1 aS 38.'i!ie3+- his vulner­able king would not allow him to utilize the power of his queenside passed pawns.) 3 0 .'i!ie2 ti'c2+ 3l,gd2 ti'c4+ 32.ti'd3 ti'xd3+ 33. 'i!ixd3 .ixhl 34.lilxhl gds 35.'i!ie4 a5 36.c!Llf2 a4 37.c!Llg4 b3 38,gf2±. White has coordi­nated his pieces and Black has no satisfactory defence, for example: 38 . . . .if8 39.c!Llh6+ .bh6 4 0 . gxh6 gd5 (He cannot draw by a perpetual after 40 . . . e5 41.'i!ixe5 l'le8+ 42.'i!id6 l'ld8+, in view of 43.'i!ie7! +-) 41 . .ib2 gbs 42. gg2+ 'i!its 43,gg4 c;!?n 44. c;!?d3+- White should gradually manage to gobble up all his oppo­nent's pawns, preserving his pawn on h4, having an extra bishop.

172

c) 13 . . . .ib7 This is a natural developing

move, but its main drawback is that the bishop covers the b-file.

14.c;!?bl

This prophylactic is necessary. Now, it deserves serious atten­

tion for Black to continue with cl) 14 . . . b4 and c2) 14 . . ,gcs.

About 14 . . . Wfc7 - see 13 . . . Wfc7. White obtains an advantage

easier after Black's alternatives : 14 . . . e5 - This move weakens

the important dS-outpost. 15.i.e3 tt:Jb6 16.h5 b4 17.tt:Jd5±. White is much ahead of his opponent in his kingside actions and has occu­pied space in the centre and after 17 . . . . i.xd5 18.exd5 tt:Ja4, Matoewi - Lautan, Paramaribo 2008, 19.g6�, Black has great difficul­ties to cope with White's attack.

14 . . . l'le8 - This move looks like a loss of time. 15.a3 ! ? .ic6, Mc­Shane - Matthias, Lippstadt 1998 and here White must act quick­ly, after 16.l'lg1 l'lb8 17.h5 tt:Je5 18.Wff2 WfaS 19.tt:Ja2 Wfa4 20.f4 tt:Jc4 21.i.d3±, his kingside threats

8. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 -0-0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 li:Jxd4 11. il.xd4 b5 12.g5 li:Jd7 13.h4

are much more dangerous than Black's queenside counterplay.

In answer to 14 . . . li:Je5, it is very good for White to continue with 15.Wif2 ! - he does not allow Black's queen to go to a5.

15 . . . Wfc7 (15 . . . li:Jc4? ! Prentos - Tsiolakidis, Kavala 1991, This move enables White to exchange advantageously this knight, after which the b-file is opened and the move i.b7 becomes obsolete. M­ter 16.hc4 bxc4 17.f4 �b8 18.i.a7 �c8 19.h5± he obtains excellent attacking prospects and his king is completely safe. 15 . . . li:Jd7? ! - This move loses two tempi. Practically every move is good for White, but still his most purposeful reaction seems to be 16.a3 - containing Black's pawn-offensive on the queenside. After 16 . . . �c8 17.�g1 Wia5 18.Wid2 i.d8 19 .h5±, White has excellent attacking chances and his king is quite safe. Black loses, for example after 19 . . . li:Je5 20.g6 fxg6 2l.i.h3 �e8 22 .he5 dxe5 23.hxg6 h6 24.�d7+-) 16. �g1 �ac8 (16 . . . li:Jd7? ! - The at­tempt to place this knight on e5 now loses two tempi for Black,

Hamm - Martinovic, Bad Wies­see 2000, White can play 17.a3 !± preventing Black's counterplay altogether and his hands are free for kingside actions.) 17.a3 li:Jc4 18.hc4 Wixc4

19.i.f6 .idS 20.hd8 �fxd8, Hjartarson - L.Vogt, Winterthur 1996, White can increase consid­erably his advantage, weakening Black's dark squares on the king­side. He should better do this with 2l .h5 Wic5 22.Wih4 d5 (It is worse for Black to play the indifferent line: 22 . . . �d7 23.h6 g6 24.Wif4 �cd8 25.li:Jd5--+ and White's attack is decisive in case of 25 . . . exd5 26.Wff6 'ttf8 27.exd5+-, as well as in the variation 25 . . . hd5 26.exd5 f5 27.dxe6 �e7 28.�ge1+-) 23.h6 g6 24.exd5 hd5 25.Wif4± Black must protect his weak dark squares on the kingside with his queen and therefore he cannot organize any counterplay whatsoever.

cl) 14 . . . b4 This move is quite principled

now. Black wishes to come in front of his opponent in the creation of counterplay on the queenside.

173

Chapter S

15.tlJe2

We will analyze now cla) 15 . . . a5 and clb) 15 • • • d5.

About 15 .. .'�a5 16.lt:Jg3 - see variation b.

After 15 . . . lt:Je5, Black cannot obtain compensation for the pawn, because the b-file is covered by his own bishop and opening it would take too much time. 16.1MI'xb4 1MI'c7 17.i.b6 aS (In answer to 17 . . . 1MI'c8, Mihalichenko - Yastreb, Simfero­pol 2003, it seems very attractive for White to enter an endgame with an extra pawn with 18.1MI'c3 ! 1Mfxc3 19.lt:Jxc3 tiJxf3 20.i.e2 lt:Je5 21.i.c7± - Black has succeeded in regaining his pawn indeed, but he will not hold his weakness on d6.) 18.1MI'b3 1MI'b8, Czarnota - Du­rarbeyli, Cappelle la Grande 2008 and here White must combine the preparation of his kingside attack with the protection of his own king. He should do this by playing 19.lt'lg3 a4 20.1MI'e3 l'l:c8 21 .f4 lt:Jc4 22 .hc4 1'l:xc4 23.h5 1Mfc8 24.1'l:h2± and Black can hardly prove suffi­cient compensation for the pawn.

174

cla) 15 . • • a5 16.tiJg3

16 . • . 1MI'c7 16 . . . d5 - This activity in the

centre is premature. After 17.i.b5 ! Black has great problems, for example in the variation 17 . . . a4 18.lt'lh5 g6 19.hd7 1MI'xd7 20.lt:Jf6+ hf6 21 .gxf6 ctlh8 22 .1MI'xb4± White wins a pawn and his king is much better protected than its counterpart, while in case of 17 . . . dxe4 18.hg7! ct?xg7 19.1MI'xd7 1'l:b8 20.fxe4±, he remains with an extra pawn and Black's compro­mised kingside would enable him to create dangerous threats even after the trade of queens: 20 . . . h6 ! ? 21.lt'lh5+ ctlh7 22 .i.c4! 1Mfxd7 (otherwise, White's queen would avoid the exchange) 23.1'l:xd7 he4 24.1'l:e1 1'l:b7 25.1'l:xe7 l'l:xe7 26.lt'lf6+ ctlg6 27.lLlxe4+- Black has practi­cally no chances of defending this endgame.

16 . . . 1'l:e8 - He fortifies the g7-square, but fails to organize coun­terplay. 17.lLlh5 .if8 18.i.b5! l'l:c8? , Solomunovic - Mandel, Germany 1994 and after White continues

8. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0-0 1 0 .g4 CiJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

with 19.CiJf6+! he either remains with an extra exchange in the variation 19 . . . CiJxf6 20 .gxf6+-, or obtains a decisive attack along the g-file after 19 . . . gxf6 20.gxf6 'it>h8 2Ul:hg1+-

16 . . . CiJe5 17.Wff2 ! - White en­sures the g1-a7 diagonal for his bishop and Black will have great problems creating counterplay because of that. 17 . . . CiJc6 18.i.b6 1!9c8 19.f4 !!e8 20.h5 a4 2l.g6� - His pawns are far-advanced in­deed, but they are not supported by the rest of Black's pieces, Shy­am - Kulkarni, Mumbai 2008.

17.f4 tt'lc5 The move 17 . . . d5 has not been

tried in practice, because Black's rooks cannot join in the fight for the centre. 18.i.g2 dxe4 19.hg7! !!fd8 20.i.d4±

17 . . . e5? ! - White is much bet­ter prepared for the opening of files in the centre. 18.i.e3 exf4 19.i.xf4 CiJe5 20.h5 CiJc4 2l .Wfd4±. Black cannot create any mean­ingful threats on the queenside, while White organizes a crushing kingside attack with quite natu­ral moves: 2l . . .!!fc8 22.CiJf5 i.f8 23.h6 g6 24.hc4 gxf5 ( 24 . . . Wfxc4 25.CiJe7+ he7 26.Wfg7#) 25.b3 and Black is helpless against the threat 26.g6, 1-0 Lorin - Beghin, corr. 2008.

17 . . . !!fc8 (This is a quiet look­ing move.) 18.f5 exf5 19.CiJxf5 i.f8 20.i.d3t - White has completed his development and he is ready to begin his kingside attack, Firn-

haber - Gysi, corr. 2008.

This position was reached in the game R.Rahimov - Aghasary­an, Kerner 2007 and it looks very good for White to continue with 18 • .tg2! :!!fc8 19.f5 d5 2 0 .e5t with excellent attacking pros­pects, for example: 2 0 • . . exf5 (In the variation 20 . . . CiJd7 21 .i.h3 !!a6 22.h5 a4 23.g6� White is clearly ahead of his opponent in the de­velopment of his attack and after 23 . . . hxg6 24.hxg6 fxg6 25.fxg6 CiJf8 26.!!dfl CiJxg6 27.Wfd3 CiJh4 28. CiJh5 b3 29.c3 !+- Black's king is beyond salvation after 29 . . . bxa2+ 30.'it>a1+-, as well as following 29 . . . a3 30.axb3 axb2 31.!!hg1+-. It is not any better for him to play 20 . . . i.f8 2l.g6 exf5 22.gxh7+ 'it>xh7 23.CiJxf5 CiJe6 24.!!hfl± and in this position with material equality, White has managed to open files on the kingside and his pieces are very aggressively de­ployed.) 21.tt'lxf5 tt'le4 22 . .ixe4 dxe4 23.e6 e3 24.Wfd3! .txhl 25.exf7 + �xf7 26.:!!xhlgg. Black's king is vulnerable and that

175

Chapter S

provides White with more than sufficient compensation for the exchange, for example: 26 • . .'ti'c4 27.'tfe4 .if8 28.h5 <!>g8 (After 28 . . . 'tfe6 29.g6+ hxg6 30.hxg6+ \1;l/xg6 31.Ei:f1+-, Black either loses his queen, or he gets checkmat­ed.) 29.h6 g6 3 0 .tDxe3 'tfc6 31.tDd5+- White has succeeded in opening completely his oppo­nent's king and his centralized knight is more powerful than any of Black's two rooks.

clb) 15 • . • d5 This is a principled decision

for Black and it has been prepared by his previous moves.

16.e5

16 . • . a5 16 . . . .tc5?! Koepke - Brink, Bad

Wiessee 2009, This is a blunder of a pawn and after 17.hc5 ./tJxc5 18.\1;l/xb4 Ei:c8 19 . ./tJd4±, Black has no compensation for it at all, since White controls the centre and his king is reliably safe.

16 . . . \1;lf c7 - This move only helps the opponent to fortify his centre.

176

17.f4 a5 (In answer to 17 . . . ./tJc5, Thorhallsson - Murugan, Gausdal 1991, White can capture a pawn: 18.'?9xb4 ./tJe4 19.\1;l/b6 '?9d7 20.'?9b3 a5 21.'?9e3 a4 22 . ./tJg3± Black's ac­tive knight will be exchanged and after that he can hardly prove that his compensation is sufficient.) 18.h5 g6 19.hxg6 fxg6 20 . .th3 Ei:a6 21../tJg3 a4 22 .'?9h2 Ei:f7 23.f5--+, he has succeeded neither to create threats on the queenside, nor to ensure the safety of his king. 23 . . . exf5 (He loses in case of 23 . . . gxf5 24.g6 Ei:g7 25.hf5+-, as well as following 23 . . . ./tJfS 24.fxg6 ltJxg6 25 . ./tJf5 ! hg5 26 . ./tJd6+-) 24.e6 Ei:xe6 25 . ./tJxf5+- Black suffered huge material losses in the game Golubka - Nazarenko, Illichevsk 2008.

17.g6!? This is the most energetic line for White. 17 . . . hxg6 (His game i s very easy af­ter 17 . . . fxg6 18 . ./tJf4 <ilf7 19.h5 g5 20 . ./tJxe6! <ilxe6 21..th3+ <ilf7 22 .e6+ <ilg8 23.exd7+-, because besides his dangerous attack against the enemy king, he has

8. Wld2 i.e7 9.0 -0 -0 0-0 I O .g4 Cjjxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 Cjjd7 13.h4

a far-advanced passed pawn in the centre, Van der Plassche -Schilperoord, Netherlands 1989.) 18.f4 .ia6 (After 18 .. . a4 19.h5 g5 20.f5 exfS 21.h6�, White opens completely his opponent's king.) 19.h5 g5, Pavel - Katajainen, Bu­dapest 2004 and here White's at­tack is decisive after the resolute line: 2 0 .f5!? exf5 21.h6 and after 21 . . .g6 22 .h7+ <±>h8 23.e6+ Cfjf6 24.Wlxg5+-, as well as in the variation 21 . . .gxh6 22 .Cjjg3 ! +-, Black cannot save his king with­out considerable material losses.

c2) 14 . . . �c8 This is a natural move and

therefore most often played.

15.a3! Now, Black cannot occupy ad­

ditional space on the queenside and the attempt to open the b-file would take too much time.

15 . . . Cjje5 It is worse for him to play 15 . . .

Wlc7, Topalov - Wojtkiewicz, Po­lanica Zdroj 1995, because White's most dangerous line seems to be:

16.h5 ! dS ! ? (After 16 . . . Cjje5 17.Wle3, Black loses in case of 17 . . . f6? ! 1 8 . .ih3 f5 19.exf5 exfS 20.f4 ! hh1 21.�xh1 Wlb7 22.�f1+- White wins a second piece for the rook and his attack is raging. It is hardly better for Black to opt for 17 . . . Cjjd7 18.g6 hxg6 19 .hxg6 fxg6 20 . .ih3�, since his king is not reliably protected and his extra pawn is absolutely immaterial.) 17.exd5 eS 18 . .ie3 b4 19.Cjje4 ! (This is stronger than Topalov's recommendation - 19. axb4 .ixb4oo) 19 . . . bxa3 20.d6 .ixd6 21 .Cjjxd6+-. White's posi­tion is absolutely winning and this can be confirmed by the following variations : 21 . . .�b8 2V t)xb7Wlxb7 23.b3+-, or 21 . . . .ixf3 22 .Cjjxc8 .ixd1 23.Cjje7+ <±>h8 24.Wlxd1 Wlb7 25 . .ib5 'IWxbS 26.b3+- and White has an extra piece in both cases.

16.Wle3

16 . . . Cjjc4 After the alternatives for Black

his defence is much more diffi­cult:

16 . . . Cjjc6? 17.i.b6 WleB 18.h5 b4 19.axb4 Cjjxb4 20.h6+- and in con-

177

Chapter S

nection with the threat 21.�d4, he cannot avoid opening of files on the kingside, Ponomariov - Mo­rozevich, Moscow 2008.

16 . . . �e8?! 17J:�g1 lt:Jc6 18 . .if6 ! (This is a standard resource for White.) 18 . . . 1fih8 19 . .ixe7 �xe7, Motylev - Maherramzade, Ubeda 2000 and here he can increase his advantage with 20.h5 l=l:fd8 21.h6±, since the dark squares on Black's kingside become vulner­able.

16 . . . �c7 17.l'l:g1 lt:Jc4 18 . .ixc4 �xc4 (Black's queen is not bet­ter placed on this square than his rook.) 19 . .if6 �c7 (After 19 . . . .id8 20.l=l:xd6 .ia5 21.l=l:d7 l'l:c7 22 .l'l:d3±, Black has no compensation for the pawn, Fercec - Rezan, Medu­lin 2002.) 20 .h5 �d8 21..id4 l'l:c4 22.f4± He must consider now all possible pawn-breaks on the kingside - like with f5, as well as with g6 and even h6, Stojanovsk -Gecovski, Struga 2008.

17 . .ixc4 gxc4 18.ghgl!

This is the best move for White according to one of the best theo-

178

retical experts in the world - Gar­ry Kasparov.

18 . . . b4 This is the most principled

move for Black. 18 . . . �c8 - He only loses time

with this move. 19 . .if6 ! Vfffc7 20. l=l:d3 l'l:e8 21..ixe7 l'l:xe7 22 .�d2 l=l:d7 23.l=l:d1 l=l:c6 24.h5± White will push unavoidably h5-h6, weaken­ing the dark squares around the enemy king, N.Mamedov - Antal, Chalkidiki 2001.

18 . . . .ia8 - Black opens in ad­vance the b-file for his rooks. 19. h5 �c7 20 . .if6 b4, Hyldkrog -Pigg, Finland 2001, White can continue here with 21.axb4 l'l:xb4 22 .b3 l'l:c8 23 . .ixe7 �xe7 24.g6t and he not only obtains good at­tacking chances, but after, for ex­ample: 24 . . . fxg6 25.hxg6 h6 26 . l=l:d3 aS 27.E!gdl± he will begin to gobble his opponent's weak pawns.

18 . . . �d7 19 . .if6 ! l=l:fc8 20 . .ixe7 (White is better too following 20.h5 .if8 2 1.h6 g6 22.l'l:g2:t, but in that case Black's dark-squared bishop remains on the board and it protects perfectly the weak dark squares on his kingside.) 20 . . . �xe7 21.l=l:d3 1fif8, Palmo - Pyrich, corr. 1999, White can choose now 22.l=l:gd1 d5 23 .h5 �c5 24.�d2± and he wins unavoidably the weak d5-pawn, but it seems even more energetic for him to opt for 22.h5 ! d5 23.g6 hxg6 24.hxg6 �c5 25.�g5� and his attack is very dangerous, since Black would fail

8. 'W!ld2 .ie7 9. 0- 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 'Dxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 'Dd7 13.h4

to exchange queens by playing 25 . . . d4, because of 26.'Wffh4! +-

lt is hardly better for him to opt for 18 . . . 'Wffc7 19 . .if6±

White forces a very favourable exchange of the dark-squared bishops and after that Black will have problems with the protec­tion of his d6-pawn and the dark squares on his kingside. 19 . . . b4 (About 19 . . . E1c8 20.he7 'W!lxe7 21.E1d3 - see 18 . . . 'Wffd7; 19 . . . 1!lh8 -this move looks like a loss of time. 20.he7 'W!lxe7 21.E1d3± Black has great problems with the defence of his d6-pawn and he failed to cope with them. 21 . . .b4 22.axb4 E1xb4 23.E1gd1 E1d8? 24.'1Wc5 1-0 Motylev - Selin, Tula 1999; it is also pos­sible for him to try 19 . . . .id8 20.h5 'Wic5 21 .'Wffd2 e5, Rinesi - Jaeder­holm, Email 2005, but White can counter that with 22 .hd8 E1d4 23.'Wffh2 E1xd8 24.h6 g6 25.E1xd4 exd4 26.'De2 'W!le5 27.'1Wf2 d5 28.f4 'W!lxe4 29.'Dxd4± and he obtains a powerful blocking knight and ex­cellent chances of attacking his enemy king on the dark squares of his kingside.) 20.axb4 fub4 21.he7 'Wffxe7 22 .E1d4 a5 23.E1gd1

E1b8 (In the variation 23 . . . E1d8 24.E1xb4 axb4 25.'Da2 d5 26.'1Wb6 E1e8 27.E1d4± White wins a pawn and deploys comfortably his piec­es in the centre and it would be impossible for Black to prove ade­quate compensation for the sacri­ficed pawn.) 24.E1xd6 .id5 25.'Wffc5 E1xb2+ 26.'i!lcl± (White's pieces are so well centralized that he will win at least a pawn.) 26 . . . E1xc2+ (Black has better seek counter chances in the variation 26 . . . E12b7 27.E1d3 ! E1c7 28.'Dxd5 exd5 29.'Wffxd5±, although even then af­ter the unavoidable exchange of the queens, he will hardly manage to save the game.) 27.1!lxc2 .ib3+ 28.'i!lc1 hd1 29.E1b6 '1Wd8 30.E1xb8 'Wffxb8 31.'i!lxd1+- He loses his aS­pawn and White remains with an extra knight for nothing, Jenni ­L.Vogt, Scuol 2001.

19.axb4 fucb4

2 0 .Ac5! This bishop is transferred to

square from which it can attack his opponent's weak d6-pawn and take part in the defence as well.

179

Chapter S

2 0 • • J;c4 In the variation 20 . . . dxc5

21.�xd8 �xd8 22 .�dl �bd4 23. W/e2 !± White is ready to trade a couple of rooks and after that Black will have to fight long and hard for the draw.

2t.J.a3 W/c7 It is even worse for him to

play 21 . . . g6, Schoonhoven - Van Melis, Netherland 2002, because White will penetrate with his knight to the fS-square after 22 .e5 dS 23.lt:Je4± and he will organize a powerful attack against the en­emy king because of that.

22.gd3

22 • • • gbs After 22 . . J!:d8 23.h5 �c6 24.

�gdl .tf8, Benko - Giobbi, Email 2002, Black's pieces were com­pletely squeezed with the protec­tion of the weak d6-pawn and White did not have to be in a hurry to advance e4-e5 and to ex­change the dark-squared bishops. Instead, he should have weakened additionally his opponent's dark squares on the kingside 25.h6 g6

180

26.W/f4± and only then, for exam­ple after 26 . . . .ie7 to continue with 27.e5 ! dS 28.he7 W/xe7 29.lt:Je4 �b6 30.W/f6+- dominating com­pletely on the dark squares in the enemy camp.

In response to 22 . . . .ta8, Vokarev - Lastin, Moscow 1999, it is very good for White to pro­ceed with 23.�gdl! ? �d8 (In case of 23 . . . d5? ! 24.he7 W/xe7 25.exd5 �xh4 26.lt:Je4!±, his cen­tral passed pawn is tremendously dangerous.) 24.W/d2 �c6 25.f4± (Vokarev) - Black's pieces are forced to protect the vulnerable d6-pawn and White's hands are free for kingside actions.

23.ggdl J.c6 24 • .ixd6 .ixd6 25.gxd6 J.e8 26.g6d3±

He has won a pawn and he par­ries easily Black's temporary ac­tivity thanks to his perfectly cen­tralized pieces. 26 • . • a5?! (Black could have defended more tena­ciously if he had provoked first the advance of White's queen­side pawns with 26 . . . �cb4 27.b3 aS 28.lt:Ja2 �4b7 29.h5 a4 30.b4

B. Vf!fd2 �e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 J O .g4 CiJxd4 11.hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

�b5 3Uk3 Vf!fe7 32 .h6±) 27JUd2 gcb4 28.CiJdl a4 29.gd4 g4b7 3 0 .h5 fia5 31.h6 gbs 32.f4 fib6 33.fic3+- White parried with an accurate play all his oppo­nent's threats and began a counter offensive in the game Korneev -Pogorelov, San Sebastian 2000.

d) 13 • . . b4 Black occupies space on the

queenside. 14.CiJa4

This knight is quite well placed at the edge of the board, because it can go to b6 at some moment and it stops his opponent's a-pawn.

14 . • • ti'a5 This is what Black plays most

often. About 14 . . . a5 15.c;i>b1 Vffc7 16.h5

- see 13 . . . Vffc7. 14 . . . �b7 - This is an interesting

pawn-sacrifice, but White should better not accept it. 15.CiJb6 ! (It is worse for him to play 15.Vffxb4, Arenas - Chavarro, Cali 2008, because Black can gain additional tempi for the development of his

queenside initiative by playing 15 . . . �c6 16.Vffc4 �b5 ! 17.Vffb3 Vffa5 18.CiJc3 :Bfb8� with an excellent compensation for the pawn.) 15 . . . :Bb8 (It is worse for Black to opt for 15 . . . CiJxb6 16.Vffxb4! :Bb8 17.i.xb6 d5, Najer - Ehlvest, Minneapolis 2005, White has won a pawn and after he plays 18.Vffa5 Vffd7 19.�b1 :Bfc8 20.�d3± he impedes maxi­mally his opponent's queenside activity.) 16.CiJxd7 Vffxd7 17.h5 Vffc7 18 .�d3 Vffa5

19.g6 ! h6 (Black loses after 19 . . . Vffxa2 20.gxh7+, since fol­lowing 20 . . . �h8 21.hg7+ ! �xg7 22 .:Bdg1+ �h8 23.Vffh6+- White checkmates quickly, while in the variation 20 . . . �xh7 21 .e5+ �g8 22.Vfig2+- Black can avoid the worst at the cost of some mate­rial. It is not preferable for him to choose 19 . . . �g5 20.gxh7+ �h8 21.i.xg7+ �xg7 22 .:Bhg1--t, and the endgame is losing for him af­ter 22 . . . �f6 23.e5+ ! Vf!fxe5 24.f4 i.xf4 25.:Bdf1 �e7 26.Vffxf4! Vffxf4+ 27.:Bxf4+-. Here, after 27 . . . a5 28.:Bg7+- White's powerful h7-pawn decides the issue, while in case of 27 .. .f5 28.:Bxb4 �f7

181

Chapter S

29J3g8 �xg8 30.hxg81Mf+ l!lxg8 31.i.xa6+- he wins the exchange and promotes easily his queenside pawns. Therefore, Black should better defend with 22 . . . f6 23.f4 1Mfxa2 24.1Mfxb4 .ia8 25.1Mfa3±, but even then White's extra pawns, despite being doubled, pro­vide him with excellent winning chances.) 20 . .ic4 dS 21..ib3 fxg6 22 .hxg6t

His plan includes the prophy­lactic move 23.'i!?bl, after which his hands will be free for attack. We should have a look at Black's two most natural responses :

22 . . . .ig5 - This is the first one. He forces the trade of the bish­ops and he parries the possibility of his opponent's deadly tactical strike - i.xg7! Still, this would not reduce by much White's at­tacking potential. 23 . .ie3 i.xe3 24.1Mfxe3 �f6 25.1Mfa7! - His pieces are so active that White can af­ford playing enterprisingly. Now, his queen is eyeing the h7-square. 25 . . . 1Mfd8 26.exd5 exdS 27.�xh6! (The analysis shows that White's attack has become decisive.) 27 . . . gxh6 28.�xd5! i.xdS 29.1Mfh7+

182

'i!?f8 30.g7+ 'i!?e7 31.g81Mf+ �t7 32 . 1Mfxd8+ �xd8 33.1Mfd3--+ - He has a very mobile queen against a cou­ple of rooks and their coordina­tion is impeded by Black's king stranded in the centre. The follow­ing moves are practically forced : 33 . . . i.xb3 (33 . . . �xf3 34.1Mfe2+ 'i!?f8 35 . .b:d5+-) 34.1Mfxb3 aS 35.1Mfe3+ 'i!?d7 36.Wa7+ 'i!?e6 37. WxaS �d4 38.1Mfb6+ 'i!?dS 39 .a4 bxa3 40.Wb3+ �c4 41.Wd3+ mcs 42 .Wxa3+ 'i!?c6 43.1Mfa6+ 'i!?cS 44.b4+ ! After the end of the forced variation, it becomes quite evident that Black is beyond sal­vation: 44 . . . 'i!?d5 (The pawn is untouchable, because after 44 . . . 'i!?xb4 45.Wb6+ l!la4 46.Wb3+- he loses a rook. The other capture is not any better: 44 . . . �xb4 45.Wa3 ! mb5 46.Wd3+ l!lc5 47.Wc3+ l'k4 48.1Mfe5+ 'i!?b4 49.1Mfd6+ l!la4 50 . Wa6+ 'i!?b4 51.Wb6+- and the rook on c4 will be again lost. 44 . . . 'i!?d4 - This retreat would not save the rook on c4 either. 45.Wd6+ 'i!?e3 46.Wd3+-) 45.1Mfb5+ 'i!?d4 46.1Mfb6+ md5 47.Wd8+ l!le5 48 . WeB+ 'i!?f6 49.We3+-. White has managed to advance his central pawns and they, supported by the queen, should easily cope with his opponent's rooks;

22 . . . .if6 - This is the sec­ond possibility for Black. It ena­bles White to preserve his dark­squared bishop. 23 . .ie3 Wfc7 24. �h5! This rook not only attacks the d5-pawn from this square, but prevents too the possibility of

8. 'Wffd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0-0 1 0 .g4 CiJxd4 11.hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

the enemy queen to be activated, depriving it of the e5-square. 23 . . . Wffg3 (The idea behind the move 24 . . . a5 is to deflect White's light­squared bishop from the pres­sure it exerts against Black's d5-pawn. 25.exd5 a4 26.ha4 hd5 27J3xd5! After the exchange-sac­rifice, White ensures the safety of his king and that allows him to begin his decisive offensive : 27 . . . exd5 28 . .ib3 <ilh8 29.<ilb1 'Wffe5 30.'Wffc1-t. Black's only threat has been parried and he has no de­fence against the bishop-sacri­fice on h6: 30 . . . Wffh5 3U'l:h1 Wffxf3 32 .hh6 <ilg8 33 . .ie3+- White's powerful light-squared bishop is at least as strong as a rook and Black has no chances of saving the game, because of his weak d5-pawn and the open position of his king, or 30 .. J3bd8 31.hh6 Wffxb2+ 32.'Wffxb2 hb2 33 . .id2 ! +­He loses his b4 and d5-pawns and after that White's bishops will be tremendously active in this open position.) 25.exd5 'W1xf3 26.dxe6 'Wixh5 (After 26 . . . .ie7 27J3h2 'Wfff6 28.Wffd7 Elfe8 29 .Eif2+- Black is beyond salvation.) 27.e7+ <ilh8 28. exf8'Wff+ Elxf8 29.'Wffxb4 Elb8 30. idS±. White has a stable advan­tage, thanks to his extra pawns and the active placement of all his pieces, Moreira - Livie, corr. 2008.

14 . . . Eib8 - Black has protected his b4-pawn and he is ready to im­plement a plan including the ex­change of his opponent's perfectly

placed knight. 15.b3 ! ? - White is ready to counter the move CiJc5 either by exchanging that knight, after which Black will have great problems advancing his queen­side pawns, or by retreating to b2. In some variations, he can also leave the protected knight at its place. (It is also good for him to opt for 15. <ilb1 - see variation a). 15 . . . .ib7 (Black should better avoid 15 . . . Wffc7 16 . .ic4 tt::le5 17 . .ie2 .ib7, Greet - Oral, Gausdal 2007, because White can continue with 18 . .ib6 Wffd7 19.f4 CiJc6 20.h5± with a powerful kingside initia­tive, while his king will be com­pletely safe for long.) 16.<ilb1

Black has tried to prove that White's knight on a4 is misplaced in three different fashions:

16 . . . Wffc7 - This is the first one. Black ignores his opponent's knight on a4 and he is trying to deploy comfortably his pieces. 17. h5 d5 (The move 17 . . . .ic6 is too slow, because White can simply leave his knight at its place. 18.g6 ! h6 19.Eig1 .ig5 20.f4 .if6 21 .gxf7+ Elxf7 22 .f5 exf5 23 . .ic4± - Black loses the exchange and his king

183

Chapter S

remains bare, D.Evans - Sueess, corr. 200B.) 1B.g6 .if6 (Black should better avoid 1B . . . h6 19J'!g1 fS 20.exfS exfS 21..id3 .id6 22 . Ei:gel±, since he suffers, due to the lack of space and the vulnerability of the dS-pawn. Meanwhile his king is rather unsafe and White is dominant on the only open file, Kryvoruchko - Benitah, Guin­gamp 2007.) 19 . .ih3 dxe4 20. gxf7+ i>xf7 21.fxe4 Ei:fdB, Laznicka - Dydyshko, Cartak 2003 (After 21 . . . .ixe4 22 .Ei:he1 .idS 23.h6 g6 24.c4±, White regains his pawn and he has better prospects thanks to his opponent's bare king.). Hee can play 22.'®e2 '®c6 23.Ei:he1 ltleS 24.Wf2 i>gB 2S.h6± and he opens his enemy king with excellent at­tacking chances.

16 . . . .ic6 - This is the second possibility. 17.ltlb2 WaS, Maupin ­Sorin, France 200S, here, it seems very attractive for White to play 1B.ltlc4 '®c7 19.hS dS 20.exdS exdS (It is not advisable for Black to play 20 . . . .ixdS 21 ..ie2 aS 22 .ltle3 .ic6 23.g6--+, since White contin­ues with his standard kingside at­tack.) 21 .g6 ! h6 (Black loses after 21 . . .dxc4? 22 .h6 ! fxg6 23.hxg7+-, because he ends up an exchange down and under a dangerous attack.) 22 .ltle3 fxg6 23 . .ib2 ! 'tlb6 24.ltlg4 .igS (After 24 . . . gS 2S.'®e3 Ei:f7 26 . .id3--+, the trans­fer of White's bishop to g6 seems very strong.) 2S . .ieS ! WeB (In the variation 2S . . . .ixd2 26 . .ixc7 .if4 27 . .ixbB hbB 2B . .ixa6± Black's

1B4

compensation for the exchange is insufficient.) 26.'®xb4 gxhS 27.Ei:xhS±, White's threats Ei:xgS and .ixbB make Black's defence tremendously difficult.

16 . . . ltlcS - This is the third al­ternative for Black. 17.ltlb2 '®c7, Cheparinov- Hamdouchi, Linares 2009 (After 17 . . . aS 1B . .ixcS dxcS 19.Wf4 WeB 20 . .ic4 .ia6 21.hS--+, White has ensured the safety of his king and he begins his king­side attack, 21 . . . .ixc4 22 .ltlxc4 a4 23.h6 g6 24.ltld6 '®d7 2S.ltlfS WeB 26.\WeS+- Black will hardly man­age to protect his king without material losses, Bruzon Bautista - Aguera Naredo, Candas 1999. ) . Here, White can capture the b4-pawn: 1B.Wxb4 .ixe4 19.Wc3 .ifS 20 . .id3 ! (Now, the exchange of Black's most powerful piece -the bishop on fS is unavoidable.) 20 . . . Ei:fcB (20 . . . g6? 21..ixfS gxfS 22 .ltld3 Ei:fdB 23.hS aS 24.g6+-) 21..ixfS exfS 22 . .ixg7 ltlxb3 ! (This is the only way for Black to offer some resistance.) 23.axb3 '®xc3 24 . .ixc3 Ei:xc3 2S.f4 Ei:b4 26.Ei:d3 Ei:xd3 27.ltlxd3 l:'i:e4 2B.i>b2± All Black's pawns are weak and White plans to capture the a6-pawn after l:'i:a1, or if Black plays 2B . . . .ifB, he can organize a march of his king towards the enemy a6-pawn after the preliminary 29.b4!

15.b3 (diagram)

In this position, Black has tried the moves dl) 15 . . . tL!c5 and d2) 15 . . . .ib7.

8. Wld2 1i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 10 .g4 CiJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

d1) 15 • • )L'lc5 He exploits the circumstance

that White's knight cannot retreat to b2, because of the loss of the pawn on a2 and he simplifies the position by exchanging.

16.tilxc5! The change of the pawn-struc­

ture is favourable for White, be­cause now his light-squared bish­op will be perfectly placed on c4 and there it would be practically untouchable.

16 • • • dxc5 17 • .ib2 gds It would be dangerous for

Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice with 17 . . . Wxa2 18.Wf4 Wa5 19.1i.c4 f6 20.Wg4--+ with a very powerful attack for White.

18. Wff4 gxd1 + 19. <>t>xd1 %Yxa2 2 0 .<>t>c1 %Ya5 21 • .ic4�

(diagram) He has completed his devel­

opment and deployed his pieces perfectly with excellent attacking chances. This more than compen­sates the sacrificed pawn on a2.

21. • • %Yb6 The alternatives for Black are: 21 . . .Wd8 (He transfers his

queen to the kingside, but his de­fensive resources are insufficient.) 22 .E!dl Wf8 23.h5 f6 24.gxf6 ii.xf6 25.1i.xf6 Wxf6 26.Wc7--+. White's attack is decisive and Black can save his king only at the price of huge material losses: 26 . . . Wal + 27.�d2 Wf6 28.�e2 .ib7 29.'1Wxb7 E!f8 30.E!d3+- White should win easily with an extra piece;

21 . . .E!a7 (Black plans to bring his rook into the defence.) 22 .g6 ! hxg6 (It is a disaster for him to choose 22 . . . fxg6? 23.Wb8+-, since he loses his bishop. He would not save the game either after 22 . . . ii.fB 23.gxh7+, because in case of 23 . . . �h8 24.Wg5 f6 25.1i.xf6 E!f7 26.1i.b2 <>t>xh7 27.h5+-, as well as following 23 . . . �xh7 24.E!gl Wfc7 25.Wfg5 f6 26.Wg6+ �g8 27.Wxf6 Wfh2 28.Wg5+- White has a de­cisive attack in a position with material equality.) 23.h5 Wc7 (23 . . . Wd8 24.Wg3 !--+) 24.1i.e5 Wd8 25.Wg3 ii.f6 (Black is defence-less after 25 . . . g5 26.h6+-, for example : 26 . . . .if6 27.hxg7 ii.xg7 28.hg7 �xg7 29.Wh2+- and he can hardly save his king. He loses

185

Chapter S

too after 2S . . . �e8 26.hxg6 fxg6 27J''!h3 ! .id7 28.wb1 gS 29.�h2 �g6 30 . .ib2+- and he is helpless against 3l.�b8+. In the variation 2S . . . .igS+ 26.f4 .ih6 27.hxg6 f6 28J''!d1 �e8 29 . .id6 aS 30.�g4 wh8 3l.Wb2± all Black's pieces are tremendously passive and he is incapable of protecting his cS-pawn.) 26 . .ixf6 �xf6 27.eS �e7 (After 27 ... �d8 28.hxg6, it is bad for Black to play 28 . . . �d4 29.Wb1 ! +-, as well as 28 .. J''k7 29.gxf7+ l:'!xf7 30.�g6 �d4 3l.Wb1 .id7 32 . .id3+- and against the threat 33.l:'!h8+ Wxh8 34.�h7# he has no defence at all.) 28.hxg6 fxg6 29 . .id3 l::&d7 30 . .ixg6+­Black's king is doomed.

This position was reached in the game Diaz - Blanco Fernan­dez, Havana 1994.

22.h5! This is the most resolute line

for White. 22 . . . .id6 It is worse for Black to defend

with 22 . . . �d6 23 . .ieS �d8 24.l:'!d1 .id7 2S.g6�, and he loses after

186

2S . . . .igS 26.gxf7+ wf8 27 . .ixg7+ ! Wxg7 28.f8�+ �xf8 29.�xgS+ Wh8 30.l:'!xd7+-, as well as fol­lowing 2S . . . f6 26 . .id6 ! - White does not need to capture the ene­my queen for a rook and a bishop, because he has a much simpler winning line: 26 . . . .ic6 27.�f5 .ixd6 28.�xe6+ Wh8 29.l:'!xd6 �aS 30.h6+- and Black's king is helpless.

23 . .ie5 �a5 It is not good for him to choose

23 . . . .ixeS 24.�xe5 �b8 2S.l:'!d1 !�, since White's attack is decisive in case of 25 . . . Wf8 26.�xcS+ We8 27.g6 ! hxg6 28.hxg6 fxg6 29.l:'!h1 wv 3o.l:'!hs �f4+ 3Lwb1 .tb7 32.l:'!xa8 .ixa8 33.�a7+ Wg8 34. �xa8+ Wh7 35.�xa6+- and the forced line has ended with a trans­fer into an endgame with an extra bishop for White, as well as fol­lowing 2S . . . .ib7 26.l:'!d6 Wh8 27 . .ixe6 ! �g8 (27 . . . fxe6 28.h6 �c7 29.l:'!d8+ l:'!xd8 30.�xc7+-) 28 . .ic4 l:'!e8 29.�xc5+- White has ex­tra material and a crushing attack.

24.\t>bl!

8. Wfd2 J.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 liJxd4 11.fl..xd4 b5 12.g5 liJd7 13.h4

This prophylactic move is the introduction to the decisive at­tack.

24 . • . .ixe5 25.ti'xe5 ti'd8 26. fixeS a5 27.h6 .ia6 28.ti"e5 fif8 29.g6+-. Black has failed to trade the light-squared bishops and he loses by force: 29 . • . hxg6 3 0 ;.ixa6 gxa6 31.hxg7 Vxg7 32.ti'b8+ ti"f8 33.gh8+ c;!?xh8 34.fixf8+

d2) 15 . • • .ib7 This is an attempt to organize

a pawn-break in the centre. 16.c;!?bl

16 • • • d5 In answer to 16 . . J'Ud8, Divis

- Zvolanek, Luhacovice 1993, it seems natural for White to cen­tralize his pieces with 17.i.d3 l"(ac8 18.Wff2t

16 . . . l"(fc8 - This move weakens the kingside. 17.i.d3 .ic6 18.ltlb2 dS, Wozniak - Von Rosenberg, Email 2007, White can continue here with 19.exd5 .b:dS 20 . .ie4 .b:e4 21.fxe4 liJeS 22 .l"(hf1 l"(c7 23.Wlf4t and he obtains excel-

lent attacking prospects, for ex­ample Black loses after 23 .. .f6 24.Vg3 c;!?h8 25.lt:ld3+- and after some checks 25 . . . l"(xc2 26.@xc2 Wlxa2+ 27.liJb2 l"(c8+ 28.@d2 liJd7 29.gxf6 liJxf6 30.@e1+- he has no compensation for the rook, while in case of 23 . . . J.d6 24.i.g1! �d8 25.i.h2 VcS 26.Wff2±, Black's pieces come under very danger­ous pins.

Black should better refrain from 16 . . . J.c6 17.liJb2

and now: 17 . . . Wfc7 18.h5 dS, Le Ruyet -

Danet, France 2006 and White can begin his attack by playing 19.g6 h6 20.i.h3 !--+; while in the variation 17 . . . l"(ac8 18.liJc4 Wfc7, Guzinski - Merten, corr. 1996, White can simply end up with a solid extra pawn with 19.Wfxb4 i.a8 20.i.b2±

After 17 .. . d5 18.g6!--+, Black comes under a crushing attack: 18 . . . e5 19.i.e3 liJf6 (It is hardly preferable for him to choose 19 . . . dxe4 20.gxf7+ fuf7 2l..ic4 exf3 22 .i.xf7+ @xf7 23.Wid3 ti"c7 24.ti"c4+ @f8 25J'!hgl± Black has two pawns for the exchange in-

187

Chapter S

deed, but his king is stranded in the centre and his pieces are discoor­dinated.) 20.gxh7+ 'it>xh7 2l.�g2 Ei:ad8 (After 21 . . . .ic5 22 . .id3 ! , it would b e too risky for him to play 22 . . . he3 23.exd5+ 'it>h8 24.dxc6 Wffc7 25.ttJc4 .id4 26.f4 exf4 27 . .ie4 .ic3 28 . .if3± White's passed c6-pawn is very dangerous and Black's king is in a more peril­ous situation than its white coun­terpart, while in case of 22 . . . 'it>h8 23 . .ig5 .ie7 24.exd5, it becomes clear that no matter how Black captures on dS, his position will be very difficult: 24 . . . ttJxd5? - this move loses quickly. 25.he7 ttlxe7 26.Wg5 .ixf3 27.1'l:dg1 1'l:g8 28.Wffxe7 .ixh1 29.Wxf7 e4 30J'l:g5+- Black is forced to give up his queen and White's attack continues, 24 . . . WffxdS - This move leads to calmer positions. 25 . .ie4 Wffe6 26.hc6 Wffxc6 27.ltJc4 e4 28 . .ixf6 ! .ixf6 29.f:xe4 Ei:fe8 30.Ei:d5± White has an extra central pawn, while af­ter 24 . . . .ixd5 25.h5 Ei:ad8 26.Wffg3 �c7 27.h6 g6 28.1'l:del± Black is incapable of saving his e5-pawn.) 22.Ei:g1 Ei:g8 23.Wffg5 dxe4 24 . .ic4 Ei:xd1+ 25.ttJxd1 .idS 26.ttlf2 ! .icS (He cannot save the game after 26 . . . exf3 27.ttJg4 ttJxg4 28.�h5+ ttJh6 29 . .id3+ e4 30 . .ixh6 g6 31.he4+-, because Black loses at least a bishop.) 27 . .ixc5! (White wins by force with this move.) 27 . . . �xc5 28.hd5 WffxdS 29.ttlxe4 Wffe6 30.ttlxf6+ Wffxf6 3l.Wffxf6 gxf6 32.Ei:xg8 'it>xg8 33.a3. Black's king is helpless to cope with White's

188

passed pawns on both sides of the board, 1-0 Diaz - Giannetto, corr. 2007.

In response to 16 . . . 1'l:ac8, Gresshoff - Hamilton, Email 1995, the most precise reaction for White seems to be 17.g6 ! hxg6 18.h5 gxhS 19 . .id3 ! and Black has no satisfactory defence,

for example: 19 . . . g6 20.Ei:dg1 .if6 21.i.xf6

ttlxf6 22.Wffh6 - see 19 . . . .if6. It is bad for him to choose

19 . . . .ig5? 20.Ei:dg1 f6 21.f4 .ih6 22.Wffe2 !+- and he loses his h5-pawn, after which he is incapable of protecting his king.

19 . . . .if6 - The exchange of this bishop is an attempt by Black to weaken White's oncoming kingside attack, but it is already too late for that. 20 . .ixf6 ttlxf6 2l.Ei:dg1 Ei:fd8 (Or 21 . . . g6 22 .Wffh6 eS 23.f4! exf4 24.e5+-, it is not preferable for him to opt for 21 . . . WffeS? 22 .Ei:g5 ! Wffd4 23.Ei:xg7+­and White will soon checkmate, while following 21 . . .1'l:fe8 22 .1'l:g5, Black loses quickly after 22 . . . e5 23.Ei:hg1+-, but even in case of the more resilient defence 22 . . . Wc7

8. '�d2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 li:Jxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 li:Jd7 13.h4

23J'�hgl g6 24.eS ! dxeS 2S . .ixg6 WfB 26 . .ixf7! Yf:Jxfl 27.Yfffd6+, af­ter 27 . . . Yf:Je7 2B.Yf:JxeS Yf:Jfl 29.li:JcS idS 30.ig6+-, as well as in the variation 27 . . . !'1e7 2B.li:Jb6 WeB 29.�xeS+- Black's chances of survival are just minimal.) 22 .!'1gS Yf:Jc7 23.!'1hgl g6 (He can play here 23. : .ltJeB 24.!'1xhS WfB 2S.YfffgS li:Jf6 26.Yfffxg7+ We7 27.!'1h6 li:JgB 2B.E1hg6+- and give back to the opponent the extra pawns, but his king has no safe shelter any­way.) 24.!'1xg6+ fxg6 2S.l"1xg6+ whB (2S . . . wfl 26. YfffgS+-) 26.!'1xf6 Yfffg7 27.!'1xe6 E1fB 2B.eS+- and the rest is practically forced: 2B . . . Yfffgl+ 29.Wb2 Yfffd4+ 30.c3 bxc3+ 31.li:Jxc3 Yfffxc3+ 32 .�xc3 l"1xc3 33.Wxc3 dxeS 34.!'1h6+ WgB 3S.l"1xhS E1xf3 36.!'1xeS E1h3 37.Wd4 WfB 3B.ic4 l"1h7 39.!'1e6 i.cB 40.!'1c6 ib7 41.!'1g6 WeB 42 . .ixa6 l"1h4+ 43. WcS+- and White wins easily.

17.g6! This is the most resolute reply

for White. After 17.eS ic6 1B.li:Jb2 icS:t,

the game follows quiet strategical paths and he has a slight but stable edge, Hermansson - Mikkelsen, Skanderborg 200S.

17 . . . hxg6 It is bad for Black to opt for

17 . . . fxg6 1B.ih3 eS 19 . .ixd7 exd4 20.ie6+ WhB 21 .hS gS 22 .h6 g6 23.Yfffxd4+ .if6 24.YfffcS+-, since he loses at least his dS-pawn and this, combined with the terrible situation of his king, provides White with a decisive advantage.

17 . . . eS - This move weakens the light squares in the centre. lB.igl ! ? (This seems to be the best square for White's bishop.) 1B . . . fxg6 19.ih3 ic6 20 . .ixd7 .ixd7 21.icS ! (He begins advan­tageous simplifications.) 21 . . .!'1f7 22 . .ixe7 E1xe7 23.li:Jb6 !± Black los­es his pawns on dS and b4 and he has a weakness on eS.

18.h5

18 • . • Yfffc7 (He loses after the greedy line: lB . . . gxhS? 19 . .ixg7! Wxg7 20.!'1xhS f6 21 .Yfffg2+ wfl 22.!'1h7+ WeB 23.Yfffg7+-, since White checkmates quickly, as well

1B9

Chapter S

as after the attempt to pany his opponent's attack, by exchang­ing the dark-squared bishops 18 . . . .if6? 19.hf6 lLlxf6 20.h6+- and Black is helpless against the at­tack along the h-file.) 19.hxg6 fxg6 2 0 .i.h3 �d6 21.�g2--+ -

Black's extra pawn is absolutely immaterial, since his kingside is tremendously vulnerable.

e) 13 . • • �c7 This is a quite natural square

for the queen in the Sicilian de­fence.

14.g,bl It is premature for White to

play 14.hS b4 1S.lLle2 (Or 1S.lLla4 �aS 16.b3 hgS 17.f4 .ih6 and it would be rather difficult for him to prove that he has sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 1S . . . �aS 16.\t>bl (It would be worse to opt for the risky line: 16.g6?! �xa2 17.�xb4 E!b8 !+ and Black comes ahead in the development of his initiative.) 16 . . . hgS 17.f4 i.h6+± - He has an extra pawn and good counter chances.

190

14 . . . b4 This is the most popular and

natural response for Black. About 14 . . . E!b8 1S.hS b4 16.

lLla4 - see 14 . . . b4. The move 14 . . . E!e8? ! , Truwant

- Van Poucke, Worriken Buet­genbach 2004 is a loss of time, because the place of this rook is either on f8, from where it takes part in the defence of the king, or on c8, with the idea to organ­ize counterplay. White can ex­ploit the rather slow last move of his opponent by playing 1S.hS b4 16.lLle2 lLleS 17.g6 ! fxg6 (17 . . . lLlxf3? 18.gxf7+ lt>xf7 19.�f4+ lt>g8 20.�xf3+-) 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.f4 lLlf3 20.�d3 lLlxd4 21.lLlxd4 .if6 22 .�g3 �f7 23.eS--+ - He only needs to deploy his queen on the h-file behind the rook and his at­tack will be victorious.

14 . . . lLlb6? ! - The idea to ex­change this knight for White's light-squared bishop would be ex­cellent, but it takes too much time to do this. 1S.�f2 lLlc4 16.hc4 �xc4, Kolodziej - Didi, Karvina 200S and here White's attack is very powerful after 17.hS hgS (17 . . . eS 18.lLldS hgS 19.E!hg1 .ih6 20 . .ie3 ! +-) 18.�g3 f6 19.h6 eS 20 . .ie3 �f7 21.hxg7 �xg7 2 2 .E!dg1--+

14 . . . lLleS 1S.�g2 (His queen is perfectly placed on d2, so it de­serves great attention for him to try a move, which has not been tested in practice yet - 1S.i.e2 !? , for example after 1S . . . lLlc6 16 . .ie3

B. Wfd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0-0 1 0 .g4 CiJxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

W/a5 17.i.d3 b4 18.CiJe2 CiJe5 19.CiJd4 id7 20.h5t, White has completed his development and he has excel­lent attacking prospects.)

15 . . . i.d7 (About 15 . . . i.b7 16.a3 - see 14 . . . i.b7; it is not preferable for Black to opt for 15 . . . b4 16.CiJa4 E:b8 17.b3 i.d7 18.CiJb2 ibS 19.f4 CiJc6 20.i.e3t. He fails now to transfer his knight to bS, because after 20 . . . CiJa7 21.W/f2 E:b7 22 .i.g2 ic6, White has the resource 23.i.xa7! E:xa7 24.f5t, with dan­gerous threats on the kingside, while in case of 20 . . . E:fe8 21.h5 if8, Grandelius - Hillarp Pers­son, Stockholm 2007, it seems natural for White to continue with his aggressive actions on the kingside with 22.g6 dS 23.id3 i.xd3 24.1'�xd3±) 16.f4 b4 17.CiJe2 E:fc8 18.CiJg3 CiJc6 19.i.e3;!; - He dominates in the centre and has excellent attacking prospects. 19 . . . d5 20.g6 ! hxg6 21.h5 b3 (Black should better avoid 21 . . .d4 22.i.cl b3 23.axb3 CiJb4 24J1xd4 WfaS 25.Elxb4 W/xb4 26.hxg6 fxg6 27.ic4±. White's light-squared bishop is not weaker than a rook and his king is much safer.)

22 .axb3 gS 23.fxg5 id6 24.CiJe2 ieS 25.g6 ie8 26.gxf7+ hf7 27.h6± Black's king is completely bare and White has excellent at­tacking chances, Najer - Ulko, Moscow 2007.

14 . . . ib7 15.a3 ! ? - This is an interesting move, which impedes Black's active actions on the queenside, since he cannot open easily now the b-file.

15 . . . CiJeS 16.W/g2 (It also de­serves serious attention for White to choose 16.ie2 !? , for example after 16 . . . CiJc4 17.hc4 W/xc4 18.h5 eS 19.ie3 ic6 20.g6 fxg6 21.hxg6 hxg6 22 .Elh3±, he is much ahead creating threats on the kingside.) 16 ... CiJc6 (After 16 . . .f5 - the open­ing of the f-file would not bring Black any pluses. 17.h5 fxe4 18.fxe4 Elac8 19 . .ie2 Elf4 20.W/h3 i.xgS 21.W/xe6+ Elf7 22 .i.xe5 dxeS 23.Elhf1 .if4 24.i.g4± He has failed to organize any active counter­play and despite his bishop-pair, his position is worse, because his pieces are passive and his king is vulnerable.) 17.if6 b4 18.axb4 CiJxb4, Goth - Hovde, carr. 1987, 19.W/g3! t White has the initia-

191

Chapter S

tive, since Black's d6-pawn is very weak. After for example: 19 . . . l=!fd8 20.h5 l'!ac8 21..be7 Wffxe7 22 .g6 d5 23.i.h3-+, White has a danger­ous attack.

14 . . . l'!d8 - Black prepares a pawn-break in the centre. 15.h5 b4 16.tt:le2 tt:le5 17.g6 ! tt:lxf3 18.Wfff4 tt:lg5, Sergeeva - Kosteniuk, Mal­lorca 2004.

19.Wfff2 ! (White avoids the dou­ble attack with tempo.) 19 . . . l'!f8 (After 19 . . . e5 20.ib6 Wffc6 21..bd8 .bd8 22 .tt:lg3 ig4 23.gxf7+ tt:lxf7 24.ie2 ie6 25.tt:lf5 l'!c8 26.id3±, Black's compensation for the ex­change is insufficient.) 20.gxh7+ ! - This capture, contrary to 20.gxf7, prevents the activityofthe rook on f8. 20 . . . Wxh7 21.tt:lf4 ib7 22 .id3 e5 (It is worse for Black to play 22 . . . l'!ac8 23.l=!dgl, because he loses after 23 . . . a5 24.tt:ld5 ! Wffd8 25.tt:lxe7 Wffxe7 26.e5+ Wg8 27.exd6 Wffd8 28.h6+- and he would not save the game either following 24 . . . exd5 25.Wfff5+ Wg8 26.exd5+-. Even after the most resilient defence 23 . . . Wffd7 24.e5+ 'tt>h6 25.exd6 Wffxd6 26.tt:lh3 f6 27.l'!h2-+, followed by 28 . .ie3,

192

Black's king will be under attack from White's pieces for long.) 23.tt:ld5 Wffd7 24.ie3 ! .bd5 (The move 24 . . .f5 is an attempt to seize the initiative with an exchange­sacrifice. 25.tt:lb6 Wffe8 26.exf5 ! hhl 27.l'!xhl e4 28.ic4 l'!b8 29.tt:ld5-+ White pushes unavoida­bly h5-h6, opening his opponent's king completely and organizing a powerful and possibly decisive attack.) 25.exd5+ e4 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for 25 . . . f5 26.l'!dgl e4 27.ie2 f4 28 . .bf4 Wif5 29.l'!g4 Wffxd5 30.Wffh4±, since he loses at least the exchange.) 26 . .bg5 .bg5 (It is worse for Black to opt for 26 . . . exd3 27.he7 Wffxe7 28.Wfff5+ Wg8 29.Wffxd3 l'!fe8 30.h6 g6 31.Wffd4 Wffe5 32.Wffxb4 l'!ab8 33.Wffa3± White has won a pawn and his king is safer than its counterpart.) 27 . .be4+ f5 28.id3 l'!ae8 29.l'!helt The vulnerabil­ity of the light squares on Black's kingside provides White with ex­cellent attacking prospects, en­hanced by the presence of bishops of opposite colours on the board.

15.c!i)a4 After 15.tt:le2 tt:le5 16.f4 tt:lc4

17.Wffd3 a5 18.tt:lg3 ia6 19.Wfff3 a4+2, Black organizes counterplay on the queenside.

(diagram) We will analyze now el) 15 . . .

a5, e2) 15 . . . l3b8, e3) 15 . . . .ib7. Black has also tried: 15 ... Wffa5 - This move forces

White to make a useful move. 16.b3t and now there arises a

B. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 ttJxd4 11.hd4 b5 12.g5 ttJd7 13.h4

position from variation d, except that White's king is already on b1 and therefore he has an important extra tempo.

After 15 . . . ltJe5, Lobzhanidze - Kunte, Dortmund 2001, White can capture a pawn by playing 16.f4 ltJf3 17.W/xb4 ttJxd4 18.W/xd4 E:b8 19.b3 i.b7 20.i.c4±

In case of 15 . . . ltJc5, it would be very difficult for Black to prove that he has compensation for the pawn. 16.W/xb4 E:b8 17.W/c3 eS 18. i.e3 i.e6 19.ltJxc5 dxcS 20.i.c4± White has an extra pawn and his pieces are much more active, An­dreev - Chulivska, Cappelle Ia Grande 2006.

el) 15 . . . a5 This move looks like a loss of

time and it is played only very sel­dom.

16.h5 ltJc5 It is worse for Black to choose

16 . . . ltJe5? ! 17.W/g2 E:b8 18.f4 i.d7, Pham Guerrero - Abhishek, Sort 2009, because White's advantage becomes practically decisive after 19.ltJc5 ! i.c8 (Black loses quickly

after 19 . . . ltJc6 20.ltJa6 W/b7 21 .h6 g6 22 .ltJxb8+- White has an extra exchange and excellent attacking chances.) 20.g6--+ fxg6 (or 20 . . . h6 21.Wfg3 ttJc6 22 .hg7 lt>xg7 23.gxf7+- and Black will not save his king without huge ma­terial losses) 21.hxg6 h6 22 .Wfg3 ttJc6 23.hg7!+-. White's attack is decisive, for example: 23 . . . lt>xg7 24.E:xh6! 'it>xh6 25.g7 E:g8 26.i.c4+-, or 23 . . . dxc5 24.hh6 E:d8 25.E:c1 ! - he will still need this rook and Black has no defence in the variation 25 . . . b3 26.cxb3 a4 27.Wfh2+-, as well as following 25 . . . Wfd7 26.i.c4 i.f6 27.e5+-

17.g6! h6 Naturally, Black loses immedi­

ately after 17 . . . l1Jxa4? 18.h6 ! +-He would not save the game

either after 17 . . . fxg6 18.hxg6 h6 19.ltJxc5--+. White's attack is crushing and he wins in case of 19 . . . dxc5 20.hg7! i.gS 21.Wfxg5! hxgS 22 .hf8 i.b7 23.i.c4! WfeS 24.g7+-, obtaining two rooks for the queen, while Black's king is completely bare, as well as

193

Chapter S

following 19 . . . .ig5 20.\Wh2 .if4 21.'1Wf2 dxcS 22 .i.xc5 .ig3 23.�gl j'!d8 24.j'!xd8+ '&xd8 2S . .ic4 �c7 26.j'!h5+- and besides the solid extra pawn, White's pieces are much more active and he has ex­cellent attacking chances.

18.gxf7+ ! It is worse for White to play

the seemingly attractive line: 18.lbxc5 dxcS 19 . .ie3 j'!d8 ! 20.'&cl j'!xdl 21.'&xdl, Nechepurenko -Seeman, Moscow 2006, because Black can counter that with 21 . . . a4 ! 22 .gxf7+ 'i!?xf7 23.j'!gl .ib7!oo, reaching a completely unclear po­sition with good counter chances, while in case of 18 . .ib5, he ob­tains a comfortable game after 18 . . . j'!b8 ! 19.'&e2 fxg6 ! 20.hxg6 j'!xbS 21.'&xb5 .ia6 22 .\Wb6 '&xb6 23.tt:Jxb6 .ie2�

18 • • • �xf7 19.tLlxc5 dxc5 2 0 . i.gl!?t

Despite some simplifications, White's initiative is quite danger­ous and that can be illustrated by the following exemplary varia­tions :

194

20 . . . j'!xf3 - It is principled for Black to capture this pawn, but he may not even manage to develop his queenside. 21..ih2 '&b7 22 .j'!gl .igS 23.j'!xg5 ! (White opens maxi­mally his opponent's king.) 23 . . . hxgS 24.'&xg5 '&fl 2S.i.g2 j'!f2 2 6. i.gl± He regains unavoidably the exchange and obtains a much bet­ter position thanks to the vulner­ability of Black's pawns and his unsafe king;

20 . . . a4 - This move is too slow. 21 .i.h2 ! '&b7 22 .i.e5± White's bishop is perfectly placed for attack and for defence as well. Black's attempts to exchange it only present White with addi­tional tempi for the development of his offensive;

20 . . . c4 - This pawn will come under attack and White can en­ter a favourable endgame af­ter 21.i.h2 '&cS (It is worse for Black to opt for 21 . . .'&c6 22 .j'!gl 'i!?h7 23.\Wg2� and White's at­tack is tremendously dangerous.) 22 .i.d6! i.xd6 23.'&xd6 \Wxd6 24.j'!xd6 c3 2S.bxc3 j'!xf3 (After 2S . . . bxc3 26.j'!d8+ j'!f8 27.j'!d3±, Black loses his c3-pawn.) 26.cxb4 axb4 27.j'!b6± White captures the b4-pawn;

20 . . . �e5 - Black fails to build a battery on the al-h8 diagonal. 21.i.h2 '&gS (He should better avoid 21 . . .'&xh5 22 .i.e2 '&gS 23.f4 '&g6 24.i.f3�, since White's at­tack along the open files on the kingside is very powerful.) 22 .f4 \WxhS 23.i.c4! '!Wf3 24.\Wel!± and

8. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0-0 0-0 10 .g4 CiJxd4 11. :hd4 b5 12.g5 CiJd7 13.h4

Black has no satisfactory defence against the threat f4-f5.

20 . . . i.f6 21.i.c4! WfeS - It looks like he has a good counterplay, but this is an illusion. 22 .Wfcl i.gS (Black forces his opponent to enter an endgame; otherwise, if he tries to play actively on the queenside - 22 . . . a4 23.i.h2 ! WfxhS 24.i.f4 Wfxf3 25.e5 i.e7 26 . .bh6!-4, White will destroy the battery queen + bishop and his attack will be over­whelming.) 23.i.h2 Wfxh2 24.Elxh2 .bel 25.Eld8+ ! Elf8 (It is infe­rior for Black to opt for 25 . . . 1!7h7 26.1!7xcl and here he loses after the greedy line: 26 . . . Elxf3 27.e5+-, but even after 26 . . . i.b7 27.Eld3 Ele8 28.Elh3±, White's pieces are much more active.) 26.Elxf8+ l!?xf8 27.1!lxcU The position has been simplified considerably, but Black will need to defend for long this difficult endgame in which he has no counterplay.

e2) ts .. ,gbs 16.h5

16 . . . .ib7

His is trying to complete his development.

16 . . . CiJc5 - Black wishes to simplify the position by ex­changes and to neutralize thus his opponent's attack. 17.g6 ! ? h6 (He loses after 17 . . . CiJxa4? 18 .h6 CiJc3+ 19.1!lal fxg6 20.hxg7 CiJxdl 21 .Wfh6+- (Karjakin) and in order to avoid being checkmated, Black will suffer tremendous material losses.) 18.gxf7+ Elxf7 19.CiJxc5 dxcS 20.i.e3 Ei:b6 21.i.d3 Elc6 22 .b3 ! His queenside counterplay has not even begun yet. 22 . . . Elxf3 23 . .bh6 ! WfeS (Black loses after 23 . . . gxh6 24.Wfxh6-4, and here it is bad for him to opt for 24 . . . i.f6 25.Eldgl+ i.g7 26.Wfg5 l!?f8 27.Elfl +- and he must give up a rook and enter an endgame with an exchange down, because after 27 . . . Elxfl+ 28.Elxfl+ l!?g8 29.e5 !+­he will be soon checkmated. He would not save the game with the line: 24 . . . i.f8 25.Elhgl+ i.g7 26.e5 ! +-, or 25 . . . Elg3 26.Wff6 i.g7 27.Elxg3 Wfxg3 28.�d8+ i.f8 29. eS+- and in both cases Black's pieces are incapable of saving the king.) 24 . .bg7! (White wins by force with this move.) 24 . . . l!?xg7 25.Elhgl+ l!?f7 26.Wfg2 i.f6 27.�g8+ l!?e7 28.Wfh7+ 1-0 Skibbe - Kyas, Germany 2007.

16 . . . Wfa5 - Black attacks si­multaneously White's knight on a4 and his pawn on gS with this move, hoping to win material, but he comes under a dangerous at­tack. 17.g6 !

195

Chapter S

and now: It is bad for him to continue

with 17 . . . '\Wxa4 18.h6 fxg6 19. hxg7 +- and he must leave his rook en pris, ending up an ex­change down and under attack, since it would be a disaster for him to choose 19 . . J3xf3? 20. '\Wh6 and the game will be soon over.

After 17 . . . h6 18.gxf7+ E1xf7 19. b3 ttle5 20.i.e2 i.d7 21 .£4--+, White activates tremendously his forces, for example in the variation 21 . . . i.xa4 22 .bxa4 ttlc6 23.i.b2 '\Wxa4 24.i.c4 ttld8 25.f5± his bishops will be perfectly placed both for attack as well for the defence of his own king.

In case of 17 . . . e5 18.h6 fxg6 19.i.c4+ E1f7, Brendel - Kaiser, Germany 1999, White wins sim­ply, but spectacularly with 20 . hxg7! ttlf6 21.:!3xh7! 'it>xh7 (or 21 . . . ttlxh7 22 .'\Wh6 d5 23.i.xe5!+- and Black is helpless against the checkmating threats along the h­file) 22 .:!3h1+ ttlh5 23.g8'1W+ lt>xg8 24.'\Wh6+- Black must give up practically all his material in or­der to avoid the checkmate.

His most tenacious defence

196

would be 17 . . . ttle5, but after 18. h6! fxg6 19.hxg7 E1f7 20.'\Wh6 l"i:xg7 21.f4 i.f6 22 .fxe5 dxe5 23.'1Wh2± his king is bare, his pieces are dis­coordinated and his central pawns are weak. He loses now after 23 . . . '\Wxa4? 24.i.xe5+-, but even after the most resilient line: 23 . . . :!3bb7 ! 24.i.xa6 ! Black is beyond salva­tion, for example: 24 . . . '\Wxa6 25 . i.xe5 l"i:bf7 26.i.xf6 l"i:xf6 27.:!3d8+ E1f8 28.:!3xf8+ 'it>xf8 29.ttlc5--+ and he will hardly maintain the mate­rial balance, because his pieces are passive and his king is bare, or 24 . . . exd4 25.i.xb7 l"i:xb7 26.l"i:dfl and now after 26 . . . i.e5 27.'\Wh6 E1g7 28.'\Wg5 i.a6 29.:!3f2 h5 30. ttlb6 !±, as well as following 26 . . . '\We5 27.ttlc5 ! '\Wxh2 28.:!3xh2 i.e5 29.:!3g2 l3b5 30.ttld3 i.g7 31.e5± White has excellent chances of re­alizing his extra exchange.

17.g6 h6

This position was reached in the game Hala - Hostinsky, Email

2004. White must increase his pressure against his opponent's light squares on the kingside in

8. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 -0 1 0 .g4 l£Jxd4 ll. hd4 b5 12.g5 f£Jd7 13.h4

order to make his attack victori­ous.

18 • .th3! i.c6 The move 1B . . .f5 presents

White with enough time to com­plete the transfer of his knight on a4 towards the centre. 19.b3 i.c6 20.f£lb2t. His pressure in the cen­tre is very powerful and Black's attempt to seize the initiative with 20 . . . e5 2l..ie3 fxe4, can be coun­tered by White with 22 .i.e6+ lt>hB 23.hh6! exf3 24.i.xg7+ ! lt>xg7 25.h6� and his attack is decisive, for example: 25 . . . 1t>xg6 26.h7 i.g5 27.:Mg1 E:f4 2B . .igB+- and White promotes another queen, or 25 . . . 1t>f6 26 . .ic4 d5 27.i.xd5 hd5 2B.Wfxd5 Wfb7 29.Wfxb7 E:xb7 30.g7+- He ends up with an ex­tra-exchange, because after 30 . . . E:cB 3l.E:dg1, Black must give up a rook for each one of White's pawns.

19.gxf7+ @xf7 2 0 J��hgl ha4

It is worse for Black to play 20 . . . .ig5 2l.f4 .if6 22 .i.xf6, be­cause after 22 . . . f£Jxf6 23.e5 l£Je4 24.Wfd4 dxe5 25.Wfc4+-, he loses his central pawns, while in the variation 22 . . . gxf6 23.b3 lt>e7 24. E:g7+ E:f7 25.e5 dxe5 26.E:xf7+ lt>xf7 27.f5 exf5 2B.i.xf5�, Black comes under a crushing attack.

2 U�xg7+ lt>e8 22.he6� (diagram)

White has two pawns for the piece and Black's king is strand­ed in the centre. This more than compensates his sacrificed piece

and it can be illustrated by the fol­lowing variations :

22 . . . .ig5 23.Wff2 @dB 24.e5 !� (Black's king cannot find a safe shelter on the queenside either.) 24 . . . E:eB 25 . .if5 E:e7 26.E:gB+ E:eB 27.E:xeB+ lt>xeB 2B.e6 f£lfB 29.f4 .ie7 30 . .ig6+ @dB 3l.f5+­Strangely enough, White's passed pawns settle the issue.

22 . . . E:xf3 - This is an attempt by Black to collect as much mate­rial as possible in order to suffer later for something . . . 23.b3 .ic6 24 . .if5 i.fB (He would not save the game with the line: 24 . . . E:xf5 25.exf5 .ie4 26.E:e1 d5 27.f6 i.fB 2B.E:xe4+ ! dxe4 29 . .ie5+- White regains the sacrificed material with interest.) 25.E:gB lt>e7 26.Wfe1 ! Wfa5 27.Wfh4+ @f7 2B.Wfg4+­Black's king is helpless.

22 . . . E:cB - This is an attempt to counter attack. 23 .b3 i.b5 24. .if5 @dB 25.E:g6 Wfc6 26.E:xh6+­- White has restored the material balance, while Black has succeed­ed neither to evacuate his king away from the centre, nor to coor­dinate his pieces.

197

Chapter 8

22 . . . tt:Jf6 - He cannot capture the h5-pawn. 23.i.f5 <i>d8 24.e5 tt:Je8 (After 24 . . . tt:Jd7 25.i.xd7 \Wxd7 26.exd6 \Wxd6 27.\We3 ci>e8 28J'!e1 l:%t7 29.i.c5+-, Black suf­fers huge material losses.) 25. exd6 tt:Jxd6 26.i.g4 i.d7 27.i.e5 l:%b6 28.\Wxh6+- and despite the fact that Black will not be check­mated any time soon, his position is defenceless, because practically all his pieces are pinned and dis­coordinated.

e3) 15 . . . i.b7 16.�xb4 There arise wild complications

after 16.b3 dS 17.g6 dxe4oo. It is impossible to prove that they are favourable for White.

16 . . . i.c6 This is the most natural re­

sponse for Black. He is trying to utilize all the open files on the queenside.

It would be worse for him to choose 16 . . . l:%fc8 17.�d2 dS 18.exd5 i.xdS 19.i.e2 i.b4 (Black should better refrain from 19 . . .

198

tt:Je5 20.tt:Jb6 tt:Jxf3 21.�c3 and here after 21 . . .'\Wxb6 22.�xc8+ l:%xc8 23.i.xb6 tt:Jd2+ 24.l:%xd2 i.xh1 25.i.xa6 l:%c6 26.i.d8 i.b4 27.l:%dl±, there arises an endgame with an extra pawn for White with

bishops of same colour present on the board, while in case of 21 . . . ttJxd4 22 .�xc7 l:%xc7 23.tt:Jxd5 exdS 24.l:%xd4 l:%d8 25.i.f3±, White has an extra pawn, but in an endgame with bishops of opposite colour. He has excellent winning chances In both cases.) 20.c3 i.f8 21 .c4 i.c6 22 .lt:Jc3 l:%ab8, E.Prokopchuk - Dvorak, Millfield 2003.

White has placed his pawn on c4 and he has covered the c­

file for his opponent. This has provided safety for White's king and it seems attractive for him to

play aggressively on the kingside. 23.h5 tt:Je5 24.l:%h3 i.a8 (Or 24 . . . i.d7 25.he5 �xeS 26.i.d3 i.a3 27.b3 i.c6 28.f4 �c5 29.g6± and besides the extra pawn, White has dangerous kingside threats .) 25.h6 g6 (In the variation 25 . . . l:%d8 26.hxg7 i.xg7 27.�c2 tt:lg6

28.i.xg7 l:%xd1+ 29.'�fxd1 ci>xg7 30.�h1 l:%h8 31.i.d3± he has an

8. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0-0 1 0 .g4 ltlxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 ltld7 13.h4

extra pawn and powerful king­side pressure. 25 . . . lt1xc4 - Black fails to restore the material bal­ance. 26.hc4. His position is in ruins after 26 . . . e5 27.hxg7 i.xg7 28.:gxh7 'it>xh7 29.g6+ lt>g8 30.hf7+ 'it>f8 31.i.e3 hf3 32Jk1 Wfc6 33.'it>a1 ! e4 34.Wih2 ! +-, since his extra exchange would not help in the defence of his king. The situation is more or less the same in the variation 26 . . . Wixc4 27.hxg7 i.xg7 28.hg7 lt>xg7 29J'idh1� -The material is equal, but White has a crushing attack against the enemy king and his knight is untouchable, because after 29 . . . Wfxc3 30.:gxh7+ lt>g8 31.Wixc3 :gxc3 32 .:gh8+ 'it>g7 33.:gxb8+-, he will realize easily the extra ex­change in this endgame.) 26.'fffe3 tt:lc6 (After the move 26 . . . lt1xc4?, Black fails to restore the material balance. 27.hc4 Wfxc4 28.Wie5+-) 27.i.f6 WfaS 28.lt1e4 eS 29.'fffc3± He is practically forced to trade queens, because he loses follow­ing 29 . . . i.b4? 30.i.g7!+-

17.lt1c3 l3tb8 In answer to 17 . . . lt1e5, Smistik

- Czakon, Czech Republic 2006, White can give back temporar­ily the pawn in order to enter an endgame with 18.Wfb6! Wfxb6 (Af­ter 18 . . . Wfc8 19 .i.e2± Black has no active prospects.) 19.hb6 lt1xf3 20.i.e2 ltleS 21.i.c7± White wins again a pawn and Black will hard­ly have any compensation for it in this endgame.

18.Wfc4

18 • • • tt:le5 This is the most aggressive re­

action by Black. 18 .. J!b7 - That move is too

slow. 19.b3 ltleS (After 19 . . . lt1c5 20.g6�, White gives back the ex­tra pawn, but he organizes a very powerful attack.) 20.Wfe2±

In response to 18 . . . lt1c5, Del Vecchio - Schoen, Email 2006, it is good for White to continue with the prophylactic move 19.a3 ! ? Its idea will become clear after you follow the variation below. 19 . . . :gb6 (It is not better for Black to opt for 19 . . . Wfb6 20.1'9a2 ! aS 21. i.c4 :ga7 22 .lt1e2±, or 19 . . . a5 20. 'it>a1 Wib6 21.'fffa2 a4 22 .i.c4± and in both cases White has taken care of the safety of his king and begins a dangerous attack.) 20 .'it>a1 :gabS 21.b4±. Black has great problems maintaining his queenside activi­ty, for example in the variation 21 . . .i.b5 22.lt1xb5 axbS 23.Wfc3 :ga6 24.bxc5 b4 25.Wfb2 :gxa3+ 26.'it>b1 eS 27.i.g1 dxcS, it looks like he has a good compensation for the piece, but after 28.i.h2 i.d6 29.:gxd6 ! Wfxd6 30.he5

199

Chapter S

Wfdl+ 31.Wfcl E:d8 32 .i.c4 Wfxcl+ 33.�xcl E::xf3 34.hS �f8 3S.h6+-, there arises a technically winning endgame for White.

In case of 18 . . . Wfb7 19.b3 i.bS (It is worse for Black to play 19 . . . aS 20.a4, because he can hardly break White's pawn-barrier on the queenside.) 20.tt'lxbS axbS, Predojevic - Stevie, Djakovo 200S and here White should not com­ply with having his queen on a passive position and it deserves attention for him to continue with 21.\We2 ! ? b4 (Or 21 . . .E:aS 22 .c3 Wc6 23.E:h2 and after 23 . . . eS 24. i.e3 tt'lf8 2S.c4 bxc4 26.Wfxc4 Wfa8 27.E:c2±, as well as in the varia­tion 23 . . . E:ba8 24.Wfel E:a3 2S.E:b2 tt'leS 26.Wfe2± Black fails to obtain sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 22 .c4 bxc3 (After 22 . . . E:a3 23.E:d2 E:ba8 24.i.g2 eS 2S.i.e3 tt'lcS 26.E:hdl Wfa6 27.E:b2±, White consolidates successfully the po­sition and he can begin active kingside actions.) 23.i.xc3 tt'lcS 24.Wfb2 i.f8 2S.E:h2 Wfd7 26.i.d4± His pieces are very well deployed and despite the fact that all the files on the queenside are opened, Black does not have a sufficient compensation for the pawn.

19.Wfe2 (diagram)

We will analyze now e3a) 19 . • .

.ib5 and e3b) 19 • • .'�a5. The move 19 . . . aS forces White

to take care of some prophylac­tic: 20.�al ! (It is worse for him to play 20.E:gl E:b4 21 .a3? E:xd4

200

22.E:xd4 Wfb6+, since Black will re­gain unavoidably all his sacrificed material and he will be ahead in the development of his initiative.) 20 . . . a4 21 .a3± White will defend against his opponent's checkmat­ing threats with the move E:bl and he will continue effortlessly with his standard kingside offensive.

e3a) 19 • • . .ib5!? 2 0 .Wf2! After 20.tt'lxbS axbS 21 .Wfe3,

Black can play precisely - 21 . . . WfaS! 22.Wb3 tt'ld7!gg and he would obtain an excellent compensation for the pawn, Muhren - Sebag, Hengelo 2004.

20 • • • .ixfl

It is worse for Black to choose here 20 . . . tt'lc6 21.f4! WaS 22 .Wd2 tt'lxd4 23.Wxd4 i.c6 24.i.c4 E:b4 2S.Wd3 E:ab8 26.i.b3± White has parried his opponent's queenside activity without too much of an effort and he is ready to continue with his attack, Leiner - Jan­dovsky, Email 2004.

Black has not tried in practice yet 20 . . . WaS 21.f4 .txfl 22 .E:hxfl tt'lc4 23.b3±. Now, White can eas-

B. Wfd2 i.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0-0 1 0 .g4 4Jxd4 11.hd4 b5 12.g5 4Jd7 13.h4

ily consolidate the position after 23 . . . Wa3 24.4Je2 l:!b5 25.'iflal l:!ab8 26.i.c3 .if8 27.Wd4+-, while in the variation 23 . . . 4Ja3+ 24.'iflcl l:!c8 25.l:!d3 tiJbS 26.4Ja4 4Jxd4 27.Wxd4 l:!ab8 28.l:!c3± Black can hardly prove sufficient compen­sation for the pawn.

21.E:hxfl 4Jc4 The alternatives for him are

not so energetic and they do not create any serious problems for White.

After 21 . . .a5 22 .a4±, his knight is ready to cover the b-file from the bS-square, while in the variation 21 . . .d5 22 . .ixe5 WxeS 23 .Wd4 Wc7 24.exd5 .ia3 25.b3 l:!d8 26.1We3±, Black is already two pawns down and he has no real threats against the enemy king, just like before.

22.b3

22 • . . 4Ja3+ This is the most natural reply

for him. 22 . . . d5 - The idea to activate

the dark-squared bishop looks quite sensible. 23.f4 !? 4Ja3+ 24. 'iflb2 tiJbS 25 . .ie5! - see 22 . . . 4Ja3+.

22 . . . a5 - This pawn will not be allowed to advance further and the bS-square might turn out to be very useful for White. 23.a4 4Ja3+ (His game is much easier after 23 . . . .if8 24.f4 Wc6 25.'iflcl 4Ja3 26.h5 l:!b7 27.g6± White has parried all his opponent's threats, preserved the extra pawn and he can begin now his attack, K.Szabo - A.Horvath, Budapest 2004.) 24.'iflb2 dS! ? 25.exd5 eS 26.i.e3 l:!b7 27.l:!d3 l:!c8 28.l:!c1 1Wd6 (Black would not achieve anything much with 28 . . . 4Jc4+ 29.'ifla2 Wd6 30. tiJbl i.f8 31.'\Wel± White's defence on the queenside is super solid.) 29.'iflal! (Black has great prob­lems after this move.) 29 . . . l:!bc7 (It is worse for him to opt for 29 . . . 4Jc4 30.4Jbl 4Jxe3 31.Wxe3 Wc7 32 .l:!cdl! White has given back his c2-pawn, but his passed d-pawn has become dangerous. 32 . . . 1Wxc2 33.d6 .if8 34.d7 l:!d8 35.l:!cl 1Wh2 36.l:!c8+- and Black loses his rook.) 30 .1Wd2 .if8 31.h5! 1Wb4 32 .4Ja2 ! (White has returned one of his two extra pawns, but he forces his opponent to enter an endgame with a pawn down.) 32 . . . 1Wxd2 (After 32 . . . Wb8? 33.c4+-, Black's knight is stranded on the a3-square and its activity is not supported by the rest of his pieces.) 33 . .ixd2 4Jxc2+ 34.'iflbl 4Ja3+ 35.'iflb2 l:!xcl 36 . .ixcl l:!c2+ 37.'iflal .id6 38.l:!c3± Black cannot avoid the trade of the rooks and after that White's chances of win­ning with an extra pawn increase

201

Chapter S

considerably. In answer to 22 . . . !!b4, Aagaard

- P.Nielsen, Denmark 2004, it looks very attractive for White to continue with the aggressive line: 23.f4 !!c8 24.f5! ttla3+ (But not 24 . . . ttle5 25.f6 i.f8 26.he5 dxeS 27.fxg7 hg7 28J'!:d3± Black's kingside is in ruins and his bishop is restricted by his own eS-pawn, so it has no active prospects.) 25.'i!?b2 ttlc4+ 26.'i!?al ttla3 27.!!d2 i.f8 (It seems more aggressive for Black to sacrifice the exchange 27 .. J''!:xd4 28.Wfxd4, although his compensation for it is insufficient - he loses in all the variations : after 28 . . . Wfxc3+ 29.Wfxc3 !!xc3 30.'i!?b2 !!e3 31.f6+-, or following 28 . . . e5 29.Wfd3 Wfxc3+ 30.Wfxc3 !!xc3 31.'i!?b2 !!e3 32 .f6 i.f8 33.fxg7 hg7 34. 'i!?xa3+-, Black loses una­voidably his knight on a3, while in case of 28 . . . d5 29.!!f3, White par­ries easily his opponent's threats in the variation 29 . . . i.c5 30.Wfa4 d4 31.ttlbl+- and Black remains an exchange and a pawn down and he can not break White's re­liable defensive fortress on the queenside. It is more or less the same after 29 . . . i.d6 30.exd5 i.eS 31.d6 WfaS 32 .d7 !!d8 33.Wfe3 !!xd7 34.fxe6 fxe6 35.Wfxe5 ! WfxeS 36.!!xd7+- White has a slight material advantage, but his at­tack is overwhelming.) 28.fxe6 fxe6 29.ttle2±. Black is already beyond salvation. He loses after the aggressive attempt 29 . . . !!xd4 (It would be even worse for him

202

if he chooses 29 . . . ttlxc2+ 30.!!xc2 Wfxc2 31.Wff7+ 'i!?h8 32.Wfxf8+ !!xf8 33.!!xf8#) 30.Wfxd4 ttlxc2+ 31. !!xc2 Wfxc2 32.!!cl Wfxe2 33.!!xc8 Wfel+ 34.'i!?b2 Wfxh4 35.b4 !+- and the endgame is hopeless for Black, because of the vulnerability of his pawns on d6 and a6.

23.'i!?b2 ttlb5 Or 23 . . . ttlc4+ 24.'i!?al ! ttla3

25.f4 !!b4 26.'i!?b2 ! ttlc4+ 27.'i!?cl ttla3 28.f5 !!c8 29 .f6± and in con­nection with the weakness of the f7 -square it is bad for him opt for 29 . . . i.d8 30.fxg7 eS 31.i.e3+-

24.f4 d5, Korosec - Helbich, Email 2005 (He should better avoid 24 . . . ttlxd4 25.Wfxd4 aS 26.a4 !!b4 27.Wfd3, because after 27 . . . g6 28.ttlb5±, as well as following 27 . . . l"!:ab8 28.ttlb5±, White covers the b-file and his king is completely safe because of that.). He can avoid here the exchange of his im­portant bishop by playing 25.i.e5 .ia3+ (After 25 . . . Wfa5 26.ttlbl ! dxe4 27.f5--t, White organizes a

crushing attack with a completely safe own king. It is hardly bet­ter for Black to choose 25 . . . i.d6 26.ttlxb5 and he loses after 26 . . . axbS 27.exd5 exdS 28.!!xd5+-, because White ends up with two extra pawns in an endgame with heavy pieces, but even after 26 . . . !!xbS 27.i.xd6 Wfxd6 28.'i!?bl±, Black has no compensation for the pawn, while in the variation 26 . . . i.xe5+ 27.fxe5 axbS 28.exd5 WfxeS+ 29.'i!?bl± White preserves his extra pawn and has ensured

8. Wid2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 JO .g4 t[jxd4 11. i.xd4 b5 12.g5 t[jd7 13.h4

the safety of his king by trading the light pieces. After for exam­ple: 29 . . . :gb7 30.d6 :gd7 31.Wid4 Wig3 32 .We4 :gadS 33.:gd3 Wh2 34.:gfdl+- he adds to the pluses of his position the far-advanced passed d6-pawn.) 26.c;t>at i.d6 27.t[jxb5 axb5 28.exd5 i.xe5+ 29.fxe5 Yfa5 3 0 .c3 ! White ends up at least with an extra pawn and Black is incapable of inflicting any damage against his king, despite the fact that it does not look like that at first sight, for example: 3 0 • • • Wfxc3+ 31. c;t>bt gf8 32. Yfd4 Yfa5 33.Yfd2± - White either ex­changes queens, or he will obtain a powerful far-advanced passed d6-pawn.

e3b) 19 • • • Yfa5

2 0 .Yfe3!? In case of 20.f4 t[jg6 2l .f5

eS !?, Black's prospects are at least equal, but even after 21.Yff3 eS 22 .i.f2 Yfb4 23.b3 {:jxf4 24.i.el WicS?, he obtained some counter chances in the game Anand -

V.Akopian, Wijk aan Zee 2004. 2 0 • • • Y:rb4 It is worse for him to opt

for 20 . . . :gb4 21 .h5 :gabS 22 .b3 t[jc4 23 . .b:c4 :gxc4 24.Wd3 :gbb4 2S.t[je2 .b:gS 26.:ghgl�, because he regains the pawn indeed, but White's king is completely safe and he can begin his attack.

21.b3 a5 22.a4!? He gives back the extra pawn,

but exchanges favourably the ac­tive enemy bishop and his king will be safe because of that.

Instead, it is worse for him to play the seemingly attractive line: 22 .f4 C[jg4! 23.Wg3 eS 24.fxe5 dxeS 25 . .b:e5 t[jxeS 26.Wixe5 a4 27.:gh3 axb3 2S.cxb3 i.cS� and despite Black's two missing pawns, his position should not be underesti­mated. He has a powerful bishop­pair and White's king can be dan­gerously attacked on the queen­side by the enemy rook.

22 . • . i.xa4 23.�xa4 Yfxa4 24 • .ib2 Yfc6 25.f4 C[jg4 26.Yfe2 a4 27.gb3 a3

Black should better avoid 27 . . . axb3 2S.cxb3 hS 29.gxh6 t[jxh6 30.:gg3 eS 31.Wig2 ! .if6 32 .i.c4± ­his knight will hardly enter the ac­tions any time soon and his king is not safer than its counterpart.

28.i.c3 (diagram)

28 • • • a2+ In the variation 28 . . . h5 29.

gxh6 t[jxh6 30.:gg3 eS 31.Wc4 :gcs 32.Wxc6 :gxc6 33.i.c4 .ixh4 34. :gh3 i.f6 3S.:ggl± Black's knight

203

Chapter S

is misplaced and his pawns on a3 and d6 are so weak that his de­fence would be very difficult.

29.�al h5 3 0 .gxh6 l0xh6 31.gg3 e5 32.Wlg2 .if6 33 .

.ic4+- White's king is reliably protected by the enemy pawn and he can begin his decisive at­tack along the g-file, Kovchan -L.Guliev, Balaguer 2006.

Conclusion In this chapter we analyze one of the basic methods for Black to

fight against the English attack. After the moves l.e4 c5 2. (jjj3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. (jjxd4 (jjf6 5. (jjc3 a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 (jjc6 8. Vf!d2 i.e7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 1 0 .g4 (jjxd4 ll.i.xd4, the main idea for him to create counter­play is connected with the natural move ll. . .b5. The alternatives for him are played only seldom and in the best cases lead to a transposi­tion to other variations.

After the logical moves 12.g5 (jjd713.h4, Black has tried in practice different possibilities:

By playing a) 13 . . . 'i!bB, he shows that he plans to attack with pawns on the queenside and he will also need to play (jj b6, not allowing the enemy knight to the a4-square. As a result, White's knight on c3 will have to go to the kingside and there it will participate in the attack against the enemy king.

It seems very aggressive for Black to continue with b) 13 . . . Vfla5, since the queen eyes the a2-pawn and deprives in the process White's knight of the a4-square. After the moves 14. rllbl b4 15. (jje2, Black is faced with a difficult choice between 15 . . . i.b7, 15 . . . e5 and 15 . . . (jje5, because in the rest of the cases, White either begins immediately his standard attack with the pawn-sacrifice 16.g6!, or prepares this pawn-break with the move 16.h5.

In the variation bl) 15 . . . i.b7, White should play the precise move 16. (jjg3! and he fortifies his centre after which his kingside attack be­comes very dangerous.

In case ofb2) 15 . . . e5, White can continue with 16. i.e3,followed by 17. (jj cJ,jorti.fying his queenside. Later, it would be very good for him to continue with i.h3! followed by the advance of the pawns h4-h5

204

8. Wfd2 ii.e7 9. 0 -0 -0 0 -0 10 .g4 lt:Jxd4 11. hd4 b5 12.g5 lt:Jd7 13.h4

and g5-g6, weakening maximally the light squares in his opponent's camp and organizing a powerful attack thanks to that.

After b3) 15 . . . lt:Je5, White must play very precisely. The immediate move 16f4 would enable Black to obtain some counterploy, so White must make several preparatory moves: 16. Wfe3 ii.b7 17. lt:Jg3 'iJ.fcB and only then 18f4! and after 18 . . . lt:Jc4, the only way for him to maintain an advantage is by playing 19. WJ.f2, preserving complete control over the g1-a7 diagonal. In the sharp subsequent fight, our analysis will convince you that White's prospects are preferable.

It seems at first sight that Black has a strong move - c) 13 . . . ii.b7, but the bishop is restricted on this square by his opponent's e4-pawn and it covers the b-jile. After the prophylactic move 14. r;!;b1, Black has tried in practice most often c1) 14 . . . b4 and c2) 14 . . . 'iJ.cB.

In the first case, it is more dangerous for White when Black, in response to 15. lt:Je2, continues with 15 . . . d5 16.e5 a5, with the idea to create counterplay on the queenside. Still, after the energetic reply 17.g6!?, the analysis shows that White's attack is very powerful.

In the second case, it is essential for White to play 15.a3!, after which opening of the b-file would take too much time for Black and he has no other active counterplay in sight.

If he plays d) 13 . . . b4, Black occupies space on the queenside and sends White's knight to the edge of the board. It is not so badly placed there, however. Later, there usually follows 14. lt:Ja4 Wfa5 15.b3 and here Black most often chooses between dl) 15 . . . lt:Jc5 and d2) 15 . . . ii.b7.

In variation d1) White changes advantageously the pawn-struc­ture on the queenside with the move 16. lt:Jxc5! There follows a prac­tically forced variation 16 . . . dxc5 17. ii.b2 'i'J.d8 18. Wif4 'i'J.xd1+ 19. r;!;xd1 Wfxa2 20 . r;!;c1 Wfa5 21.ii.c4� - White's pieces are perfectly placed and he has a clear-cut plan for the development of his king side initiative. so this more than compensates the sacrificed pawn.

In case of 15 . . . ii.b7 16. r;!;b1, Black has numerous possibilities, but practically against all of them White can continue with 17.g6!-+, or­ganizing a powerful king side attack.

In variation e) 13 . . . Wfc7, Black's queen is well placed; it does not impede the advance of his queenside pawns and enables the rook on fB to join quickly in the queenside actions. White must reply very accurately and in the critical variation he wins his opponent's b4-pawn., but then he must play precisely in order to neutralize Black's activity. White postpones in that case his active kingside actions for better times . . .

205

Part 3

l.e4 c5 2.ltlf3 d6 3.d4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 b5

English Attack with b7-b5

In this part of the book we an­alyze the English Attack against the Najdorf variation with the in­clusion of the most popular move for Black - 7 . . . b5 in the dia­grammed position. After that, White is trying to develop his ini­tiative on the kingside and in the centre, while Black counter at­tacks on the queenside.

In Chapters 9-11 we deal with his attempts to organize counter­play without playing the move h7-h6, which weakens his kingside. In this case, White not only ac­quires easily additional s pace on the kingside, but he repels the en-

206

emy knight on f6 from its good position. He thus maintains a long-lasting initiative.

In the next chapters, we ana­lyze the basic order of moves -

s:tM2 tbbd7 9.g4 h6 t o . 0 - 0 - 0 .

In Chapter 12, Black is trying to create counterplay delaying for a while the move 10 . . . .tb7. Still, the variations show this only fa­cilitates the organization of White's initiative in the centre and on the kingside.

In Chapter 13, after the moves 10 . . . .tb7 11.h4, Black plays the thematic move ll . . . b4 with the idea to gain time for the develop­ment of his pieces. Naturally, he can hardly obtain any meaningful counterplay without that move.

After ll . . . b4 12.tLla4! however, the variations we analyze in Chap­ters 13-15 show that White seizes the initiative for long, although he must act aggressively and enter­prisingly for its successful devel­opment.

Chapter 9 l.e4 c5 2)t:�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4)i.)xd4 tilf6 5.tilc3 a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.£3 b5 8.'1&d2

In this position, his most often played moves are 8 . . . �b7 (Chap­ter 10) and 8 . . . l2Jbd7 (Chapters 11-15).

Here, we will analyze his al­ternatives and we will deal thor­oughly with the lines a) 8 . . . �c7, b) 8 . . . b4 and c) 8 • • • i.e7.

About 8 . . . '1Wa5 9.g4 �b7 - see 8 . . . �b7, Chapter 10; 8 . . . h5 9.a4 !? - see Chapter 4 , variation c2.

Black has also tried in prac­tice :

8 . . . e5 - he weakens the d5-square with this move and reaches a position analyzed in volume 14, in which White has an extra tempo. 9.l2Jb3 �e6 10.a4 !? (He can afford to try active actions on the queen­side as well thanks to his lead in

development.) 10 . . . bxa4 (10 . . . b4 U.l2Jd5 hd5 12.exd5 l2Jbd7 13.a5 l2Jc5 14.�c4 '1Wb8 15.0-0± - White has occupied additional space and has the two-bishop advan­tage with a considerable lead in development. Black's b4 and a6-pawns are weak, Van de Plassche - Landtman, Netherlands 1994.) 11.:B:xa4 �c8, Louise - Moulain, Val Maubuee 1990, White can continue here with 12.l2Jd5 l2Jxd5 (It is hardly any better for Black to opt for 12 . . . hd5 13.exd5 l2Jbd7 14.l2Ja5 �e7 15.l2Jc6±, since White ends up with a bishop-pair and a huge space advantage.) 13.exd5 �f5 14.�d3 hd3 15.'1Wxd3 �e7 16. l2Ja5 0-0 17.0-0± He has extra space and will deploy his knight on the c6-outpost, while Black will have a weakness on a6.

8 ... d5 - White is much bet­ter prepared for the opening of the central files. 9 .exd5 l2Jxd5 (Black loses after 9 . . . b4? 10.dxe6 ! bxc3 ll.exf7+ �xf7 12 .�c4+ l2Jd5 13.'1Wxc3+-, because his king, stranded in the centre, is beyond salvation.) 10.l2Jxd5 '1Wxd5 11.�d3 �b7, El Moumen - J.Rotstein,

207

Chapter 9

Leverkusen 2001, now, White can provoke compromising of Black's kingside, impeding his development, by playing 12.E1d1! fS (Black is lost after 12 . . . �xa2? 13.ltlxb5+-, as well as following 12 . . . ltlc6? 13.i.e4+-) 13.�e2±

8 . . . ltlfd7 9.a4 !? - This is the most resolute response by White, emphasizing the drawbacks of the transfer of Black's knight to the queenside.

9 . . . bxa4 (After 9 . . . b4 10.ltla2 aS ll .ltlb5 ltlb6 12 .c3± White has a great lead in development and he wins material, since it would not work for Black to play 12 . . . bxc3? 13.�xc3 ltlxa4 14.ltlc7 rtle7 15.�c2, because he loses his rook, 1-0 Kraft - Langschmidt, Email 2007.) 10.ltlxa4 i.b7 ll.i.e2 i.e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.c4 ltlc5 14.b4 ltlxa4 15.fua4 ltld7 16.ltlb3± - In this position, White has extra space and dan­gerous threats on the queenside, Tiviakov - Cvitan, Eupen 2000.

a) 8 . . . �c7 This is a comfortable square

for Black's queen and this move often transposes to variations an-

208

alyzed in the next chapters. 9.g4

9 . . . ltlfd7 About 9 . . . i.b7 - see Chapter

10; 9 . . . i.e7 - see variation cl; 9 .. . h6 10.0-0-0 ltlbd7 - see 8 . . . ltlbd7, 10 . . . i.b7 - see 8 . . . i.b7.

9 . . . ltlc6 10.0-0-0

and now: 10 . . . b4 - This move only helps

White to transfer his knight to a moreactiveposition. ll .ltlxc6 �xc6 12.ltle2 �a4 13.rtlb1 i.e7 14.h4i, Black can hardly create any real threats on the queenside, while White's kingside initiative is run­ning effortlessly. After 14 . . . i.d7? ! 15.g5 ltlhS 16.i.h3 i.bS 17.ltld4 g6

18.i.g4±, he compromises Black's

kingside pawn-structure, or he opens the h-file, Kernazhitsky -Brozhik, Kiev 2005.

After 10 . . . h6, White can play 11.lLlxc6! eliminating Black's de­fence from the dB-square. 11 . . . 1Wxc6 12 .e5t lt:Jd5 (The idea be­hind White's previous move was that the e5-pawn was untoucha­ble: 12 . . . dxe5?? 13.1Wd8#) 13.lt:Jxd5 1Wxd5, Santos - Vitor, Lisbon 1996. White can create great problems for his opponent with the trade of queens: 14.1Wxd5 exd5 15.exd6. He ends up with a solid extra pawn after 15 . . . hd6 16J==1xd5 �e7 17J==1d2±, while in the variation 15 . . . �e6 ! 16.f4!? , it would be very bad for Black to continue with 16 . . . hd6 17.f5 �c8 18.�g2 �b7 19.hd5±, therefore he would be forced to play 16 . . . hg4 17J''ixd5 and here, in the variation 17 . . . �f3 18.d7+ rtJe7 19.�c5+ @f6 20.d81W+ gxd8 21.gxd8 hc5 22J==1xh8 �e3+ 23. @b1 hh1 24J"ib8 h5 25.a4 bxa4 26.gb4± White has excellent chances of realizing his extra ex­change, while in case of 17 . . . gd8 18.gg1 �e6 19.l"id2 l"ixd6 20.l"ixd6 hd6 21.l"ixg7± Black fails to re­gain his pawn, because it would be too risky for him to opt for 21 . . . ha2 22 .b3 �a3+ 23.@d2 �b2 24.l"ig3 @d7 25.�b6!± and despite all the efforts, he would hardly manage to save his bishop on a2.

Black should better continue with 10 . . . �e7 - see 8 . . . �e7, or 10 . . . ib7 - see 8 . . . �b7, or 10 . . . lt:Je5 -see 8 . . . lt:Jbd7.

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. Wfd2

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 • • . lt:Je5 About 10 . . . �e7 ll .h4 - see

variation cl; as for 10 . . . �b7 - see Chapter 10.

It does not look advisable for Black to opt for 10 . . . lt:Jc5 - he deprives his opponent of the a4-square and plans ll . . . b4, but after 11.a3 !t , it becomes evident that the knight on c5 is misplaced and White has a clear-cut plan for a kingside offensive.

After 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.lt:Jxc6 Wfxc6, Wang Zili - Liu Wenzhe, China 1987, White can force his oppo­nent to change the pawn-structure in the centre, by playing 12.�f4! b4 13.lt:Je2 e5 14.�e3 a5 15.lt:Jg3 g6 16.h4 lt:Jb6 17.h5 �e6 18.@b1 lt:Ja4 19.Wie2 !± and here his task is to trade queens after which White's actions along the h-file will be very unpleasant for Black, since he will have no counterplay at all.

In reply to 10 . . . lt:Jb6, Korneev - Rodriguez Lopez, Seville 1994, it deserves attention for White to choose ll.a3 ! ? lt:Jc4 (It seems

209

Chapter 9

more accurate for Black to play ll . . . �b7 12 .h4t, but White has an easy game on the kingside. He is threatening to sacrifice a piece on bS in a standard fashion, ob­taining three pawns for it and a superior endgame.) 12.tLldxb5 ! -This move provides White with a dangerous attack in a posi­tion with material equality. 12 . . . axbS 13.tLlxb5 �c6 14.hc4 �xc4 15.�xd6 ! �d7 (It is hardly better for Black to play 15 . . . tLld7 16.tLlc7+ @d8 17.�g5+ f6 18.tLlxe6+ @e8 19. tLlxf8 l"\a6 20.�d3± and White's four pawns more than compen­sate his sacrificed piece.) 16.tLlc7+ @d8 17 . .ig5+ f6 (Black loses quickly after 17 . . . @c8? 18.tLlxa8 @b7 19.�b6+ @xa8 20 . .ie3+-) 18.tLlxe6+ @e8 19.tLlxf8 l"'xf8 20. �f4 �a4 21.�d3±

ll.g5

ll . . . c!Llc4 It seems no less dangerous

for Black to continue with ll . . . b4 12.tLla4 �aS 13.b3 �d7 14.a3 dS 15.exd5 ha4 16.f4± - the centre is opened and he may not even

210

manage to complete his develop­ment.

He should better refrain from ll . . . �aS 12.f4 b4, Papathanasiou - Siros, Greece 2001, because White has the possibility to in­flict the standard tactical strike 13.tLld5 ! exd5 14.fxe5 dxeS 15.tLlb3 �c7 16.�xd5 �b7 17.�c4± - Black is almost beyond salvation, since it would be bad for him to win a pawn entering an endgame with the line : 17 . . . �xc4? 18.hc4 he4? 19.l"\hf1 �g6 20.�d5+- and he loses a rook.

12.hc4 Yfxc4 13.@bl c!Lld7 14.h4 .ib7 15.h5 13c8, Gause­witz - Rotter, Schenectady 2003, White can continue here with 16.g6 !--+, opening files on the king­side and keeping his opponent's king stranded in the centre.

b) 8 . . . b4 It seems natural for Black to

repel his opponent's knight to the edge of the board, but that has one definite drawback - this knight is ready to go from a4 to the b6, or cS-squares at an opportune mo­ment.

9.c!Lla4 After 9.tLlce2 eS 10.tLlb3 c!Llc6,

White's knights are repelled to not so active squares.

(diagram) 9 . . . c!Llbd7 Black covers the weakened b6-

square just in case. 9 . . . �d7? - This is blunder.

10.�xb4 dS? (another one !) 11.

�b7 eS 12 .�xa8 ha4 13.lLlb3 d4 14 . .id2+- and White should not have any problems realizing his extra exchange, Konguve -Narayanan, New Delhi 2008.

9 . . . e5? Black weakens the light squares in the centre. 10.lLlb3 dS? This move loses ei­ther a pawn, or the exchange. (Af­ter 10 . . . lLlc6 ll.lLlb6 Elb8 12.lLlxc8 �xc8 13.lLlc4± White obtains the two-bishop advantage, while in the variation 10 . . . lLlbd7 11.c3 bxc3 12.lLlxc3 i.b7 13 . .id3±, he is ahead in development and has a power­ful queenside initiative.) ll.lLlb6 d4 12.lLlxa8 .ib7 13 . .if2+- Black's compensation for the exchange is by far insufficient, Castrillon -Durmaz, Antalya 2007.

9 . . . �a5 - This is an attempt to exploit the misplacement of White's knight at the edge of the board. It is however bad for Black and he has not tried it in practice. White's king is not on the queen­side yet, so the advance of pawns there would not compromise his castling position. 10.b3 lLlbd7 11. a3± - Black loses his b4-pawn,

5 . . . a6 6. ie3 e6 7 ..f.3 b5 8. �d2

since it would be a disaster for him to choose ll . . . d5 12.e5 ! lLlxeS? 13.lLlxe6+- and White wins, be­cause in case of 13 . . . he6 14 . .ib6, Black's queen would be lost.

9 . . . d5 - After this move, there arises a French defence pawn­structure, which would be very favourable for White. His initia­tive will develop effortlessly on both flanks, because of the far­advanced black b4-pawn. 10.e5 lLlfd7 1l.f4

and now: ll . . . �aS - This move only

helps White. 12 .b3 lLlcS (In reply to 12 . . . .ib7, he can opt for the calmer line: 13.a3 lLlc6 14.axb4 hb4 15.c3 .ie7 16.i.d3 lLlxd4 17. hd4t, with a space advantage, while Black has no counterplay at all, or for the sharper variation 13.f5 !? exfS 14.e6 lLlcS 15.exf7+ 'it>xf7 16.lLlxf5± White has kept his opponent's king stranded in the centre with excellent attacking prospects.) 13 .lLlxc5 hcS 14.a3 hd4 (After 14 . . . 0-0 15 . .ie2 �b6 16.axb4 �xb4 17.c3 �b7 18. b4 .ib6 19.0-0± Black seems to be completely helpless against White's

211

Chapter 9

oncoming kingside offensive, Hajnal - Nagyajtai, Hajduszobo­szlo 1999.) 15 . .bd4 tt:lc6 16.axb4 \Wxb4 17.\Wxb4 tt:lxb4 18.r;!(d2± -Black's a6-pawn is weak, just like the dark squares in his camp, Kristol - Litvinenko, Email 2006.

ll . . . i.b7 - This natural devel­oping move weakens the e6-square and this enhances the ef­fect of White's breakthrough on the kingside. 12 .i.d3 \WaS 13.b3 tt:lc6, Wurschner - Capezzali, Email 2003 and here it seems very attractive for White to play 14.f5 exf5 (Black's defence would not be any easier after 14 . . . tt:lxd4 15 . .bd4 i.c6 16.a3 .ba4 17.axb4 .bb4 18.c3 i.c5 19.b4 "!fic7 20.bxc5 "!fic6 21.fxe6 fxe6 22 .0-0i - His king is rather unsafe and White's initiative will soon turn into a dangerous attack.) 15 . .txf5 tt:ldxe5 16.0-0 "!fic7 17.tt:lxc6 .bc6 18.i.b6 "!fib8 19.i.d4± - Black is far behind in development and he will not only fail to preserve his extra pawn, but he will soon lose mate­rial, for example: 19 . . . i.d6 20.tt:lb6 E!:a7? 21.lt:lc8+-

ll . . . i.e7 12 .i.e2 i.b7, Sysoykina - Durmaz, Kerner 2007, and here it seems very attractive for White to continue with the energetic line: 13.f5 !? lt:lxe5 14.fxe6 0-0 15. 0-0 lt:lbc6 16.exf7+ E!:xf7 17.tt:le6 "!fid6 18.E!:xf7 lt:lxf7 19.lt:lec5± - he obtains the two-bishop advan­tage and this provides him with a stable edge in this position with material equality. In addition,

212

Black's queenside pawns are rath­er vulnerable.

ll . . . tt:lc5 - He complies with this move with the fact that his opponent's knight on a4 is not so badly placed after all . . . 12.lt:lxc5 .bc5, Johnen - Schaffarczyk, Werther 2006, White can exploit here his lead in development with the line: 13.a3 bxa3 14.b4i, occu­pying space on the queenside and creating a weakness on a6.

ll . . . "!fic7 12 . .id3 tt:lc5 - Black simplifies the position, avoiding the attack against his king, but he falls behind in development and enables his opponent to seize the initiative. 13.lt:lxc5 .bc5, Fluvia Poyatos - Ermenkov, Badalona 2005 and here it would be very advantageous for White to trade the dark-squared bishops with 14.lt:lb3 .be3 15."!fixe3 a5 16.a3i and Black's queenside comes un­der tremendous pressure.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 . . . d5 He is behind in development

and his king is in the centre, so it

seems too optimistic for Black to open the central files. White must react resolutely, though.

Black can also try: lO . . . lLleS?! - This is a very du­

bious pawn-sacrifice. 11.1Mfxb4 .id7 12.lLlb3 aS (It will be even worse for him to opt for 12 . . . dS? ! 13.lLlac5 .id6 14.1Mfc3 ggc8 1S . .ixa6 ggc7 16 . .id4+-, since he is already two pawns down and far behind in development, A.Smirnov - Vikharev, Ishevsk 2005.) 13.1Mfd4 !:lb8 14.lLlc3 .ie7 15.a4! 0-0 16 . .ib5± - The b-file has been covered and Black has failed to obtain compensation for the pawn, Lafarga Santorroman -Mrkvicka, corr. 2006;

10 . . . 1Mfc7!? ll.g4 (White should better avoid 11.1Mfxb4 dS 12 .1Mfc3 1Mfxc3 13.lLlxc3 eSoo - Black wins a piece for three pawns and they are rather static at the moment.) 11 . . . h6 12 .h4

and now: In response to 12 . . . lLleS, Veres

- Spirin, Pardubice 2007, White can capture a pawn 13.1Mfxb4. Black does not obtain a sufficient compensation for it in the varia-

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 j3 b5 B.'IMI d2

tion 13 . . . ggb8 14.1Mfc3 1Mfb7 1S . .ie2 .id7 16.1Mfa5±, as well as following 13 . . . d5 14.1Mfb6 .id6 1S . .ie2±. He cannot regain the pawn in view of the unpleasant threat g4-g5.

It is not preferable for Black to opt for 12 . . .'�a5 13.b3 .ib7, Perrin - Jean, Montigny le Bretonneux 2008, because White can con­tinue with 14.1':lg1 g6 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 lLlhS 17.<i>b1 dS 18.exd5 .ixdS 19.lLlb2± ending up with a stable advantage, since Black's king has no safe shelter.

After 12 . . . 1':lb8 13.1':lg1 g6 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 lLlhS 16.<i>b1 .ib7 17.b3i, Black has problems creat­ing an active counterplay, Popelka - Fuhrwerk, Email 2006.

In reply to 12 . . . .ib7, David -Verdier, Livry Gargan 2005, it looks very good for White to con­tinue his attack in the standard fashion with 13.1':lg1 and Black only weakens the light squares in the centre and on the kingside with the line : 13 . . . e5 14.lLlfS .ic6 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 lLlxe4 17.fxe4 .ixa4 18.g6±, while in case of 13 . . . d5 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 lLlhS 16.g6--+, he will have problems with the safety of his king.

It would be hardly better for Black to opt for 12 . . . .ie7 13.1':lg1 lLlcS 14.1Mfxb4 !:lb8 15.1Mfc3 lLlfd7, S. Krylov - Zsiltzova Lisenko, Dadaj 2005, because White continues with 16.b4 ! .if6 17.g5 hxgS 18. hxgS .ixd4 19 . .ixd4 eS 20 . .ixc5 dxcS 21.g6+- and his attack is de­cisive.

213

Chapter 9

12 . . . d5 13.i.h3 e5 (In the varia­tion 13 . . . tt:le5 14.g5 tt:Jc4 15.1lf/f2 hxg5 16.hxg5 tt:lg8 17.tt:lb3t, White is clearly ahead in development and this provides him with a pow­erful initiative, while after the rather risky move 17 . . . e5? ! 18.tt:lb6 :1!xh3 19.tt:lxa8 1lf/c6 20.:1!xh3 i.xh3 21.i.c5d4 22.i.xf8 <;!;>xf8 23.tt:lxd4+­Black's position is defenceless, since his pieces are totally disco­ordinated, Lastin - Petrushin, So­chi 2005; 13 . . . g5 - Black sacrifices a pawn, opening files on the king­side, which is very advantageous for White. 14.hxg5 hxg5, I.Saric ­D.Babic, Bosnjaci 2006, after 15. exd5 tt:lxd5 16.i.xg5 i.b7 17.i.g2± Black has no compensation for the pawn whatsoever.) 14.g5

14 . . . exd4, A.Smirnov - Petru­shin, Voronezh 2005 (In answer to 14 . . . tt:lh5? ! , Willemze - Tor­res Kuckel, Ruhrgebiet 2003, White's attack becomes deci­sive after 15.tt:le6! fxe6 16.exd5 exd5 17.�xd5+-). Here, he can organize a dangerous offensive with 15.1lf/xd4! hxg5 (Or 15 . . . tt:lg8 16.1lf/xd5 :1!b8 17.g6 fxg6 18.i.e6� and White's lead in develop-

214

ment is overwhelming.) 16.hxg5 tt:le5 17.gxf6 i.xh3 18.tt:lb6 l'!d8 19.tt:lxd5� - Black fails to main­tain the material balance, because he has obvious problems with the safety of his king.

10 . . . 1lf/a5 - This move provokes weakening of White's castling po­sition, so it seems to be justified. ll.b3 i.b7 (Black loses after 11 . . . tt:le5 12.tt:lf5! exf5 13.i.b6 tt:ld3+ 14. i.xd3 1lf/e5 15.<;!;>b1 fxe4 16.:1!he1+­- He fails to evacuate his king away from the centre. It would not be better for him to opt for ll . . . d5 12 .e5 tt:lg8 13.<;!;>b1t - White is evidently ahead in development and he maintains a long lasting initiative. Now, for example, it would be bad for Black to choose 13 . . . tt:Jxe5? 14.tt:lxe6 fxe6 15.i.b6+­and he loses his queen. After 11 . . . 1lf/c7 12 .g4 h6 13.h4 d5 14.i.h3t, White plays analogously to the variation 10 . . . 1lf/c7 and the fact the his pawn is on b3 is even better for him, because his knight on a4

is protected.) 12 .a3 (White must play this move, because it is worse for him to opt for 12 .g4 tt:lc5.)

12 . . . 1lf/c7 (It is important that

Black cannot play 12 . . . dS? ! 13.eSt, because after 13 . . . ltJxeS 14.l2Jxe6± he loses material, while in case of 13 . . . l2Jg8 14.f4 l2Jh6 1S.h3±, he has noticeable problems activating his pieces.) 13.axb4 dS 14.@b1 dxe4 1S.bS j,e7 (It seems more ag­gressive for Black to opt for 1S . . . ltJdS 16.fxe4 j,b4 17.\Wf2 l2Jxe3 18. \Wxe3 0-0 19.bxa6 ha6 20.ha6 E!:xa6 21.\Wd3 E!:fa8, Serfling -Solodovnichenko, Internet 2007, he has completed his develop­ment and seems to have good at­tacking prospects, but White can continue with 22 .lLlbS ! l:'!:xa4! 23.bxa4 \WaS 24.\Wxd7 \Wxa4 2S. l2Ja7± and he has excellent chanc­es of neutralizing the activity of Black's few attacking pieces, end­ing up with extra material, for ex­ample after 2S . . . \WaS 26.E!:hf1 h6 27.l:!d3 j,c3 28.'1Wxf7+ @h7 29. E!:xc3 E!:xa7 30.\Wxa7 \Wxa7 31.E!:b3±, his two rooks with a passed pawn are clearly superior to his oppo­nent's queen. It is also dubious for Black to chose here 1S . . . axbS - he annihilates White's potentially dangerous passed pawn, but this presents him with important tem­pi for development. After 16.hbS j,e7 17.j,f4 eS 18.j,g3 g6 19.\Wh6±, Black's king fails to evacuate to the kingside.) 16.b6 \WeB (Black must take care of his e6-pawn. It would be worse for him to opt for 16 . . . \WbS 17 . .ic4 ltJeS 18.he6! exf3 19.j,h3 0-0 20.j,f4 l:!d8 2U!hel± - White is totally domi­nant on the central files and

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 ..f.3 bS 8. \W d2

Black's queenside is idle. After 21 . . .l2Je4 22 J!xe4! he4 23.\We3 gS 24.j,g3 fS 2S.gxf3+- White re­gains his sacrificed material with interest, Daubenfeld - Oleksak, corr. 2008.) 17.j,c4 lLleS 18.j,e2 0-0 19.c4 aS 20.\Wb2 l2Jd3 21 .hd3 exd3 22 . .if4! (He activates his bishop and impedes maximally the organization of Black's coun­terplay.) 22 . . . l2Jd7 23.ltJbS l2JcS 24. j,d6 j,f6 2S.\Wa2 l2Jxa4 26.bxa4± Black loses his d3-pawn and al­though White's king is completely bare, Black cannot exploit this, since his pieces are stuck to the last two ranks, A.Schmidt - Filip­chenko, corr. 2008.

ll.exd5 l2Jxd5 12 • .ic4

12 • . • .ib7 He can defend against the

threat 13.hdS in some other ways, but they are hardly any bet­ter.

12 . . . \WaS? - Black loses ma­terial after this move. 13.l2Jb3 ! \Wxa4 14.hdS± - He has great problems, for example: 14 . . . exdS (In the variation 14 . . . E!:b8 1S.j,a7

21S

Chapter 9

fi.e7 16.fi.xb8 lt:Jxb8 17.1Mff4± White ends up with an extra exchange.) 15.1Mfxd5 !!b8 16.!!he1 fi.e7 17.fi.c5 0-0 18.fi.xe7 !!e8 19.1Mfa5± He has excellent chances of realizing his extra pawn.

12 . . . lt:J7f6 - This move enables White's pieces to be maximally active in the centre. Following 13.fi.g5

Black has tried in practice: 13 . . . fi.b7 - He comes under

numerous pins after this move. 14.!!he1 fi.e7 15.lt:Jf5! exfS (Black cannot avoid accepting this sac­rifice, because in the variation 15 . . . 0-0 16.fi.xd5 fi.xdS 17.lt:Jxe7+ 1Mfxe7 18.lt:Jb6 !!adS 19.lt:Jxd5 !!xdS 20.1Mfxd5+- White forces a tran­sition into an endgame with an extra exchange.) 16.fi.xf6 lt:Jxf6 17.1Mfg5 lt:Jd7 18.1Mfxf5 0-0 (Black cannot save the day even after the more resilient defence - 18 . . . !!f8 19.lt:Jc5 fi.c6 20.fi.d5 fi.xdS 21.1Mfxd5 !!a7 22 .1Mfc6+- - his king is com­pletely bare and his pieces are discoordinated, so White regains unavoidably his piece, maintain­ing excellent attacking prospects, for example: 22 . . . !!c7 23.!!xe7+

216

1Mfxe7 24.1Mfa8+ 1Mfd8 25.!!e1+ lt:JeS 26.!!xe5+ !!e7 27.1Mfc6+ and White checkmates on the next move.) 19.!!xd7 fi.gS+ 20.�b1 fi.c8 21.1Mfxf7+ !!xf7 22 .!!xd8+ with a checkmate, 1-0 De la Riva Agua­do - Matthews, Turin 2006;

13 . . . 1Mfc7 - This move would not equalize for Black either, but it forces White to play very ag­gressively. 14.fi.xd5 lt:JxdS 15.!!he1 fi.b7 16.1Mfe2 ! (He is threatening to attack the enemy king with the resource 17.lt:Jxe6 !�) 16 . . . 1Mfd6 (In case of 16 . . . lt:Jf4 17.fi.xf4 1Mfxf4+ 18.�blt, Black will be helpless against the threat of the knight-sacrifice on e6, he loses quickly after 18 . . . 1Mfh6? ! 19.lt:Jxe6 ! fxe6 20.1Mfc4 fi.e7 21.!!xe6 1Mfg5 22 .!!de1+-, but even after the most natural defence 18 . . . fi.e7 and 19.lt:Jxe6 fxe6 20.1Mfxe6 1Mfc7 21 . !!d2 fi.c8 22 .1Mfd5 !!a7 23.lt:Jc5 a5 24.!!d4!gg, he enters a position, in which he has no useful moves at all, for example: 24 . . . 1Mfb6 25. lt:Je6 fi.xe6 26.!!xe6 1Mfb8 27.g3± -Black can hardly protect his king stranded in the centre.) 17. f4 ! !!c8 (He loses after 17 ... lt:Jxf4 18.\Wg4 lt:Jd5 19.lt:Jxe6+-, as well as following 17 . . . g6 18.f5 fi.g7 19. lt:Jc5 !+- and in both cases he will lose material, because of his king stranded in the centre.) 18.f5 fi.e7 19.fi.xe7 1Mfxe7 20.fxe6± - White has ended up with a solid extra pawn, Potrata - Villar Ramos, corr. 2007.

13.ghel

13 • • • .ie7 About 13 . . . l2J7f6 14 . .ig5 - see

12 . . . l2J7f6. Black loses after 13 . . . 'Wc7 14.

l2Jxe6! 'Wxc4 (In case of 14 . . . fxe6 15 . .ixd5 .ixd5 16 . .if4+- White regains his piece, ending up with one, or two extra pawns.) 15.l2Jc7+ 'Wxc7 16 . .if4+ l2Je5 17.:1:1xe5+ .ie7 18.:1:1xd5 'Wc6 19.:1:1d7+- - He has won a pawn and has kept his en­emy king in the centre.

13 . . . 'Wa5? - This move enables White to inflict a typical tactical strike. 14.l2Jxe6 fxe6 15 . .ib6 'Wxa4 16 . .ixd5+- - Black cannot keep his extra piece, because of his cat­astrophic lag in development. Af­ter 16 . . . .ie7 17 . .ixb7 l2Jxb6 18.:1:1xe6 0-0 19.:1:1xe7 'Wxa2 20.'Wd4 E1f6 21.ha8, he ended up a rook down in the game Wang Hao - Nava, Is­tanbul 2005.

13 . . . E1c8 - Black again fails to evacuate his king away from the centre and this loses. 14 . .ig5 'Wc7 (Or 14 . . . l2J7f6 15.l2Jxe6! fxe6 16.:1:1xe6+ 'it>f7 17.:1:1b6 'Wd7 18.:1:1xf6+ gxf6 19.tLlb6 'Wf5 20. lLlxc8+- - Black is forced to en-

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. 'Wd2

ter an endgame with two pawns down.) 15.l2Jxe6 ! fxe6 16.:1:1xe6+ i'fl 17.:1:1e4! (This is the most pre­cise move for White and it forces Black to sacrifice his queen.) 17 . . . 'Wxc4! 18.:1:1xc4 :1:1xc4 19.'Wd3 :1:1c7 20.'Wf5+ l2J7f6 21 .:1:1xd5 .ixd5 22 .hf6+- - White obtains a queen, a knight and a couple of pawns against his opponent's pair of rooks and a bishop, but Black's king is tremendously vulnerable.

13 . . . l2Je5 - This seems to be the most tenacious defence for him. 14 . .ixd5 hd5 15.l2Jf5 l2Jc4 16.'Wd4! (White can force a transi­tion into an endgame in another fashion, but that seems worse: 16.'Wxd5 'Wxd5 17.:1:1xd5 exd5 18 . .if4+ 'it>d7 19.b3 l2Jd6 20.tLlb6+ Wc6 21 .tLlxa8 l2Jxf5 22 .:1:1e8t) 16 . . . 'Wf6 17.'Wxf6 gxf6 18.:1:1xd5 exd5 19 . .if4+ 'it>d7 20.b3 l2Jd6 21.hd6 .ixd6 22 .tLlb6+ Wc6 23.tLlxa8 :1:1xa8 24.Wd2± - Black has numerous weaknesses and his defence is very difficult.

14.l2Jf5! (White enters an endgame with an extra pawn

217

Chapter 9

practically by force after this move.) 14 • • • 0 - 0 15 • .ixd5 .ixd5 16.i.b6! tLlxb6 (In the variation 16 . . . i.g5 17.hd8 i.xd2+ 18.:1'!xd2 E!fxd8 19.tLle7+ i>fB 20.tLlxd5 exdS 21. E!xdS+- Black is beyond salva­tion.) 17.tLlxe7+ '.!?h8 18.tLlxb6 �xb6 19.tLlxd5 exd5, V.Vayser - Kunzmann, corr. 2006 and here it seems very attractive for White to continue with 2 0 .ges gadS 21.gxd5 gxd5 22.�xd5± and after the trade of a pair of rooks, Black's chances of obtaining coun­terplay have diminished consid­erably.

c) 8 • • . i.e7 His wish to evacuate his king

away from the centre is quite un­derstandable, but White is per­fectly prepared for his kingside offensive.

9.g4

We will analyze now the fol­lowing possibilities for Black: cl) 9 . . • �c7 and c2) 9 . • . 0 - 0 .

About 9 . . . i.b7 - see Chapter

218

10, as for 9 . . . tLlbd7 lO.gS - see Chapter 11.

He has also tried in practice : 9 . . . .id7 - This bishop occupies

a square, which is much more suitable for the knight. 10.g5 tLlhS 11.tLlce2 W!c7 (But not 11 . . . g6 12.tLlg3 eS?, Pepino - Belab­bas, Saint Vincent 2006, 13.tLlxh5 gxh5 14.tLlf5+- - White destroys Black's kingside pawn-structure and occupies key central squares. 12.0-0-0 tLlc6, Navarro Segura - Baltazar Pineda, Merida 2002 and after 13.tLlxc6 i.xc6 14.i.h3 g6 15.i.g4 tLlg7 16.h4±, White's king­side initiative is very dangerous, while Black has no counterplay at all.

9 . . . d5 - This active move is premature. lO.gS b4 11.tLla4 tLlfd7 12.exd5 exdS, Lopez del Alamo ­Sanchez Gonzalez, Spain 2009 and here White's most natural line seems to be: 13.0-0-0 tLle5 (But not 13 . . . W!a5 14.tLlf5 ! W!xa4 15.W!xd5 Wic6 16.i.c4+- and White not only regains his piece, but maintains a crushing attack.) 14.f4 tLlg4 (14 . . . tLlc4 15.i.xc4 dxc4 16.Wig2+-) 15.i.g1 h6 16.tLlf3 i.e6 17.tLlb6 E!a7 18.i.g2+- Black loses unavoidably his knight on g4.

9 . . . b4 10.tLla4 !? (This move is more energetic than 10.tLlce2 .) 10 . . . .id7 (After 10 . . . a5 11.tLlb5± Black has great problems protect­ing his queenside.) 11.tLlb6 ! (This is the most resolute move for White.) 11 . . . W!xb6 12.tLlxe6 W!aS (The queen-sacrifice would not

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. \Wd2 �e7 9.g4

work for Black after 12 .. .'�xe3+ 13.'�xe3 he6 14.g5 tt:Jfd7 15.f4 tt:Jc5 16.f5 i.d7 17.e5 dxe5 18.f6±. He obtains sufficient material equivalent for the queen, but he fails to coordinate his pieces.) 13.tt:Jxg7+ 'itlf8 (It is possibly more tenacious for Black to defend with 13 . . . 'itld8 14.g5 tt:Je8 15.tt:Jf5 ! hf5 16.exf5 \Wxf5 17.f4gg, although even then White has an excellent com­pensation for the piece. Black's king is stranded in the centre and he lags in development consider­ably.) 14.i.h6 tt:Jg8 15.i.c4 tt:Jxh6 16.\Wxh6 \We5 17. tt:Jf5+ 'itlg8 (17 . . . 'itle8 18.0-0-0 i.f6 19.c3 bxc3 20 . Ei:d5+-) 18.\Wh5 i.e8 19.hf7+ ! hf7 20.tt:Jh6+ 'itlg7 21.'1Wxf7+ 'itlxh6 22 .h4+- and Black is help­less against the pawn-advance g4-g5, with an unavoidable check­mate.

9 . . . h6 - He is trying to impede White's pawn-offensive and that seems quite natural. 10.0-0-0

10 . . . b4 (About 10 . . . 0-0?! ll.h4 - see variation c2; 10 . . . \Wc7 11 .h4 - see variation cl; 10 . . . i.b7 - see Chapter 10; 10 . . . tt:Jbd7? ! - This move enables White to obtain the

two-bishop advantage and to keep his opponent's king in the centre. ll.tt:Jc6 \Wc7 12.tt:Jxe7 'itlxe7 13.h4 tt:Je5 14.i.e2± Pena Gomez - De­vesa Raris, Santiago de Compos­tela 2002; 10 . . . g5? ! - this move only facilitates White's active ac­tions on the kingside. ll.h4± tt:Jg8? 12.hxg5+- Le Razavet - Primault, Hennebont 2006; 10 . . . tt:Jfd7 - This transfer of Black's knight to the centre is too slow and White can open quickly files on the kingside. ll.Elg1 tt:Je5 12.g5 !? hxg5 13.hg5 hg5 14.Elxg5 Elg8 15.f4± - he has an overwhelming lead in develop­ment and Black's king has no safe shelter, Delaire - Marchadour, Fouesnant 1998.) ll.tt:Jce2 \WaS (In answer to 11 . . . \Wc7, it would be too dangerous for White to play 12.\Wxb4 d5 13.\Wc3 �xc3 14.tt:Jxc3 e5? - Black enters an endgame with a piece for three pawns, but after 12.'itlb1 tt:Jbd7, Ilic - Ra­divojevic, Vrnjacka Banja 2009, White can continue with 13.tt:Jf4 tt:Jc5 14.tt:Jh5 ! tt:Jxh5 15.gxh5 Elb8 16.Elg1 i.f6 17.tt:Jb3 tt:Jxb3 18.cxb3 ! 'itle7 19.i.c4 Eld8 20.i.d4±, keep­ing the enemy king in the centre with possibilities of developing his initiative on both sides of the board.) 12.'itlb1 tt:Jfd7 (Naturally, it would be very bad for Black to choose 12 . . . Elg8? 13.h4 e5 14.tt:Jb3 \Wa4 15.g5+-, since he would be helpless against White's kingside offensive, Mamombe - Mauba, Cape Town 1995.) 13.tt:Jc1 i.b7, Roganovic - Dudukovic, Ni-

219

Chapter 9

ska Banja 2004 and here, before White begins his kingside attack, he can capture the b4-pawn with 14.a3 Vffc7 15.axb4 lt:JeS 16.E:g1 tt:Jbc6 17.Vffc3±

9 . . . lt:Jfd7 10.0-0-0

10 . . . b4 (About 10 . . . 0-0 ll.h4 - see variation c2; 10 . . . �b7 - see Chapter 10; 10 . . . h6 1l.E:g1 - see 9 . . . h6; 10 . . . \'9c7 ll.h4 - see varia-tion cl; 10 . . . lt:Jb6 - Black's knight is rather unstable on this square and that can be emphasized by White with the line: 1l.Vfff2 ! ? lt:Jc4 12 .i.xc4 bxc4 13.f4 Vffc7 14.g5 lt:Jd7, Izrailev - Schlierkamp, Dortmund 2008 and here after 15.f5 lt:JeS 16.!!:hg1 !!:b8 17.f6 i.f8 18.lt:Jf3t, he either exchanges Black's active knight, or repels it from its excellent placement; 10 . . . lt:Jc5 - This knight is not well placed here, because it covers the c-file. ll.h4 Vffc7 12 .g5 tt:Jbd7 13.@b1 lt:Jb6 14.lt:Jdxb5! - White enters a very pleasant endgame with three pawns for the piece and they will be supported by his active bishops. 14 . . . axb5 15.lt:Jxb5 Vffc6 16.lt:Jxd6+ i.xd6 17.Vffxd6 Vfixd6 18.!!:xd6 lt:Jbd7 19.�b5±,

220

Feletar - Dimitrijevic, Novi Sad 2003; after lO . . . lt:JeS ll.�e2 �b7, Koekoek - Wijbenga, Groningen 2000, it seems very attractive for White to continue with 12.f4 lt:Jec6 13.@b1 lt:Jxd4 14.i.xd4 0-0 15.g5t with excellent attacking prospects.) 11.tt:lce2 \WaS 12 .a3 dS 13.exd5 \'9a4? (Even after the best defence for Black - 13 . . . Vffxd5 14.axb4 0-0 15.@b1 Vffb7 16.c3 a5 17.b5±, he will hardly manage to prove sufficient compensation for the pawn.) 14.dxe6 bxa3 15.b3 a2 16.exd7+ tt:Jxd7 17.@b2 \'9a3+ 18. @a1 +- White has won a piece and his king is quite safe, Najer -Kouvatsou, Panormo 2001.

cl) 9 . . . fic7 Black places his queen on a

good square, but now he will be forced to consider the possibility of White sacrificing a piece on b5 on every move, since then Black's queen will be attacked with tempo.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 . . . h6

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. �d2 .ie7 9.g4

He slows down White's pawn­offensive on the kingside, but Black practically gives up the idea of castling short.

About 10 . . . 0-0 11.g5 - see var-iation c2; 10 . . . .ib7 - see Chapter 10.

10 . . . tt:Jbd7 - This move de­prives the other black knight of this wonderful square. ll.gS tt:lhS (After ll . . . tt:lg8 12 .h4± White has an obvious lead in development, Zaragatski - Mass, Germany 1998.) 12.'it>b1 tt:lb6, Vavric - Po­liakov, Kharkov 2004 (The move 12 . . . b4 only helps White's knight to go to the kingside. 13.tt:lce2 �b8 14.tt:lg3 g6 15.tt:lxh5 gxhS 16.�f2 tt:leS 17.�h4± Tsuboi - Desideri, Americana 2001) . Now, it looks quite attractive for White to fol­low with the standard piece-sac­rifice 13.tt:ldxb5 !? axbS 14.tt:lxb5 �b8 15.tt:lxd6+ hd6 16.�xd6 tt:ld7 17 . .ie2± and his three con­nected passed pawns, supported by the two powerful bishops are evidently superior to Black's extra piece.

10 . . . tt:lc6 ll.gS tt:ld7 (ll . . . tt:lxd4 - This piece-sacrifice is not cor­rect. 12.gxf6 tt:lxf3 13.�f2 .ix£6 14.�xf3 hc3 15.bxc3 �xc3, De Jong - ledoc, Internet 1998, Black has obtained three pawns for his bishop, but has fallen be­hind considerably in development and White can exploit this with the line: 16.�d3! �a1+ 17.'it>d2 �xa2 18.�g3 .ib7 19.�xg7+-; it is worse for Black to play 11 . . .tt:lh5

12.tt:lxc6 �xc6 13.'it>b1 .ib7 14 . .ih3 g6 15 . .ig4 tt:lg7 16.h4± - his knight on g7 is very passive and it does not impede White's actions at all, H.Braun - Kuttnick, Bad Wiessee 2003) 12.tt:lxc6 �xc6 13.tt:le2 (This knight will be most actively placed on the d4-square.)

13 . . . tt:lb6 (13 . . . 0-0 - This deci­sion is overly optimistic. 14.tt:ld4 �b7 15.h4 tt:leS 16.h5 �b8 17.�g2 tt:lc4 18 . .if2 dS 19 . .id3 eS 20.tt:lf5± - Black has a single active piece - his knight on c4, while White's pawns are a real threat for his king, Zacharias - Reddmann, Hamburg 2001; 13 . . . .ib7 14.tt:ld4 �c7 15.'it>b1 �c8 16.h4 tt:le5 17.�g2 g6 18.h5± Neelotpal - Sprag­gett, Calvia 2006; 13 . . . tt:le5 - This knight will hardly remain on that square for long. 14.tt:ld4 �c7 15.h4 .ib7 16.h5 tt:lc6, V.Kostic - B.Jovanovic, Golubac 2003, after 17.tt:lxc6 �xc6 18.'it>b1 0-0 19 . .id3±, White is perfectly pre­pared for his kingside attack and his king is completely safe. 13 . . . �c7 - Black's queen runs away in anticipation of the attack, but White is not forced to deploy im-

221

Chapter 9

mediately his knight in the centre either. 14.h4 .ib7 1S.hS 0-0-0 16.li:Jd4 'it>b8 17 . .id3 l!JcS 18.'it>b1 g6 19 .'1Wh2 Eihf8 20.l!Jb3± - He has occupied space and is ready to develop his initiative all over the entire board, Ye Jiangchuan - Si­tanggang, Jakarta 1994.) 14.l!Jd4 Wic7 1S.WiaS !? li:JdS (otherwise, Black will be forced to consider the possible sorties of the enemy knight) 16.\Wxc7 l!Jxc7 17.l!Jc6 .id7 18.l!Jxe7 'it>xe7 19 .h4± - White has a stable edge in this endgame, thanks to his couple of powerful bishops, Rozsnyai - Teglas, Hun­gary 2001.

10 . . . b4 ll.l!Ja4 \WaS, Sonnhal­ter - Micklich, Willingen 2007. Black's queen has come to the aS-square in two moves and White's knight on a4 is not pas­sive at all, since it has active pros­pects : 12.li:Jb6! \Wxb6 13.l!Jxe6 \WaS 14.l!Jxg7+ 'it>d7 (Black would not save the day with 14 . . . 'it>f8 1S . .ih6 \Wxa2 16.\Wxb4 'it>g8 17.l!JfS+- -his rook on a8 is out of actions, his pieces are discoordinated and his king is rather unsafe.) 1S.l!JfS \Wxa2 16.\Wxb4 Wia1+ 17.'it>d2 l!Jc6 18.Eixa1 l!Jxb4 19 . .ibS+ axbS 20 . Eixa8+- - White's rook and pawns are much stronger than Black's discoordinated light pieces.

10 . . . l!Jfd7 - He transfers his knight to the queenside before it has been attacked. ll.h4 (White may need the gS-square for the exchange of the dark-squared bishops.)

222

ll . . . l!JeS, Bochis - Nguyen Minh, Willingen 2008 (In re­sponse to ll . . . l!Jb6, Collas - Al­caraz Soriano, Albacete 2001, it seems very good for White to play 12 . .igS!? with the following exem­plary variations : 12 . . . f6 13 . .ie3 b4 14.l!Jce2 l!Jc4 1S.\Wd3 l!Jxe3 16.\Wxe3 WicS 17.\Wb3± - He is dominant on the light squares in the centre, or 12 . . . 0-0 13 . .ixe7 \Wxe7 14.'it>b1 .ib7 1S.gS dS 16 . .id3t, with a superior development and good attacking chances.) . It might be also inter­esting to test 12 . .igS f6 (In case of 12 . . . b4 13.l!Jce2 l!Jbc6 14.l!Jxc6 l!Jxc6 1S . .ixe7 'it>xe7 16.li:Jd4±, the position is simplified a bit indeed, but Black's defence is not easier at all. His king remains stranded in the centre and his pawns on d6 and b4 are weak. It is not prefer­able for him to opt for 12 . . . .ib7 13 . .ixe7 \Wxe7 14.gSt) 13 . .ie3 .id7 (It seems premature for Black to try 13 . . . b4 14.l!Ja4 l!Jbc6 1S.l!Jxc6 \Wxc6 16.\Wxb4 li:Jxf3 17.l!Jb6 Eib8 18.\Wc4 Wib7 19.b3± - his pawns on a6, d6 and e6 are weak and White will open unavoidably files on the kingside after advancing g4-gS.) 14.\Wf2 b4 1S.l!Jce2 l!Jbc6

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. 'ltfd2 i.e7 9.g4

16.tt.\xc6 Wfxc6 17.tt.\d4 Wfb7 18.\!;>b1 0-0 19.g5t - He has excellent at­tacking chances thanks to the imminent opening of files on the kingside.

ll.h4

ll . . . b4 About ll . . . tt.\c6 12.tt.\xc6 - see

variation c3 from Chapter 6; 11 . . . tt.\bd7 12 .i.e2 !? - see Chapter 12; ll . . . i.b7 - see 8 . . . i.b7, Chapter 10.

11. . .h5? ! - This move only en­hances White's kingside initiative. 12 .g5 tt.\fd7 13.g6 tt.\eS 14.gxf7+ \!;>xf7 15.f4 tt.\g4 16.f5+- Heil -Trommsdorf, Dresden 2001.

ll . . . eS - Black weakens the important dS and fS-squares. 12. lLlfS i.x£5 13.exf5 tt.\bd7, Kyllo -Malcolm, corr. 1996, White must prepare here opening of files on the kingside and he should bet­ter do this with 14.�g2 b4 15.tt.\e4 WfaS 16.tt.\xf6+ tt.\xf6 17.i.c4 l'!c8 18.i.b3±

12.tl:lce2 d5 In reply to 12 . . . tt.\bd7, Nones

- Drenchev, Mamaia 1991, he

must open the h-file by continu­ing with 13.tt.\g3. Black's attempt to organize some counterplay in the centre leads after 13 . . . d5 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 l'!xh1 16.tt.\xh1 tt.\hS 17.exd5 exdS 18.tt.\f5±, to a position in which White creates dangerous threats against the enemy king. 13.e5 ttlfd7 14.f4 ttlb6, E.Lopez - Ortiz Aguirre, Pensilvania 1998, White should restrict the mobility of his oppo­nent's knight on b6 with 15.b3 .id7 (In case of 15 . . . tt.\c6 16.tt.\xc6 �xc6 17.tt.\d4 Wfc7 18.f5t, White is much ahead of his opponent in the creation of threats.) 16.ttlg3 a5 17.ttlh5±. Black's kingside is endangered. He loses, for exam­ple, after the too optimistic line: 17 • . . 0 - 0 18.g5 a4 19.\!;>b1 axb3 2 0 .cxb3+-

c2) 9 . . . 0 - 0 After Black has developed his

bishop to e7, this move is its logi­cal consequence.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 . . • %Yc7

223

Chapter 9

About 10 .. ..ib7 - see Chapter 10. 10 . . . lt:Jbd7? - This is a blunder.

ll.lt:Jc6 �e8 12.lt:Jxe7+ �xe7 13. �xd6+- Falkowski - Oldigs, Ger­many 200S.

10 . . . h6? - This move only facil­itates White's task to open files on the kingside. ll.h4 lt:Jh7 (ll . . . lt:Jbd7 12.lt:Jc6 �e8 13.gS hxgS 14.hxgS lt:Jh7 1S.�h2+- Bellon Fernandez - Cobos Falcon, Malaga 2009) 12 .gS hS, Liviabella - Maschietti, Torino 2007 and here, White ob­tains a decisive advantage after 13.g6! f:xg6 14.i.h3 eS 1S.lt:Je6 i.xe6 16.i.xe6+ 'i!lh8 17.i.dS+- Black loses the exchange, his kingside has been destroyed and he has no counterplay at all.

10 . . . eS? Vit - Szabo, Buda­pest 2008, Black compromises the light squares in the centre of the board. ll.lt:JfS i.xfS 12.exfS ! ? - White has obtained another ex­cellent outpost for his pieces - the e4-square and he is well prepared for a massive kingside pawn-on­slaught. 12 . . . �aS 13.�f2 lt:Jfd7 14. lt:JdS lt:Jc6 1S.'i!lb1 l'!fd8 16.gS±

10 . . . i.d7? ! - Now, the knight on f6 is repelled to a less com­fortable square. ll.gS lt:Je8 (In answer to ll . . . lt:JhS, Unanua Gar­cia - Diaz Redondo, Pamplona 1998, the transfer of the knight on c3 to the kingside helps White to open the h-file: 12.lt:Jce2 g6 13.lt:Jg3 lt:Jg7 14.h4±; ll . . . b4? -This move speeds up the transfer of White's knight to g3. 12.lt:Jce2 lt:JhS 13.lt:Jg3--+ - Black must ei-

224

ther open the h-file for his op­ponent, or compromise his own pawn-structure on the kingside, Sanchez Cuchillo - Soriano Folch, Spain 2006.) 12 .h4 lt:Jc6 (Black is trying to come ahead. In the vari­ation 12 . . . b4 13.lt:Jce2 aS 14.'i!lbl lt:Ja6 1S.f4 lt:JcS 16.lt:Jg3 l'!b8 17.fS±, White is much faster, Korneev ­Rivas Crespo, La Laguna 2009.) 13.lt:Jxc6 i.xc6 14.hS

14 .. .fS (The move 14 . . . g6? helps the opponent to make his attack even more effective. 15. �h2 h6 16.hxg6 i.xgS 17.f4+­Antoniewski - Dwyer, Zag an

1997; in reply to 14 . . . l'!c8, Deger­man - L.Schneider, Stockholm 1987, White obtains good at­tacking chances with 1S.'i!lbl �c7 16.i.d3 �b7 17.�g2±; in case of 14 . . . b4 1S.lt:Je2, White's attack is much faster in the variation 1S . . . aS 16.g6 i.f6 17.lt:Jf4 b3 18.cxb3 a4 19.i.c4+- Werner - Kammer, Nittenau 200S, but even after 1S . . . �aS 16.'i!lb1 eS 17.lt:Jg3 i.d7 18.lt:Jf5 i.xfS 19.exfS lt:Jc7 20.f6--+, his at­tack is overwhelming, Bonte - So­erdjan, Hengelo 2001; in response to 14 ... lt:Jc7, Armas - M.Ginsburg,

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .fJ b5 8. W1 d2 i.e7 9 .g4

Naestved 1988, his attack is again running unopposed 15.g6 fxg6 16. hxg6 h6 17.Wb1--+, with the pow­erful threat to sacrifice the bishop on h6.) 15.gxf6 i.xf6 16.i.h3 Wle7 17.tt'le2 Ei:c8 18.tt'lf4± - Black's weak pawns on d6 and e6 doom his pieces to passivity, Montignies - Pfau, Germany 2005.

10 . . . tt'lfd7 - His knight runs away in anticipation of g4-g5, but White is not obliged now to play that move. ll.h4 b4 (About 11 . . . i.b7 - see Chapter 10; in answer to ll . . . tt'le5, Har Zvi - Walker, London 1993, it looks very good for White to continue with 12 .h5 b4 13.tt'lb1 and in case of 13 . . . a5 14.g5 i.b7 15.g6--+, he proceeds with his standard kingside at­tack, while after 13 . . . Wla5 14.h6 g6 15.a3 tt'lbc6 16.f4± Black loses material.) 12.tt'lb1 Wla5 13.a3 d5 14.exd5 Wlxd5 15.axb4 i.b7, Sterud - Torgersen, Email 2007, White has won a pawn, but his king is vulnerable. He should exchange queens, in order to deprive his opponent of counterplay and the best way to do this is by playing 16.i.e2 Ei:c8 17.tt'lc3 Wld6 18.tt'le4! Wlxb4 19.Wlxb4 hb4 20.g5 tt'le5 21 .h5t - he has given back his ex­tra pawn, but has seized the ini­tiative for long.

10 . . . b4 - White's knight is en­couraged to go to the other flank. 11.tt'lce2 (After Black's king has been evacuated to the kingside, this move seems more logical than tt'la4.)

11. . .a5 (The alternatives are not any better for Black: ll . . . e5 - this move weakens the light squares in the centre. 12.tt'lf5 i.xf5 13.exf5 tt'lc6 14.g5 tt'le8 15.Ei:g1 lt>h8 16.f4 Ei:c8 17.\t>bl± - White's pawns are all over Black's king, Tangatarov - Makin, Cheliab­insk 2008. ll . . . Wlc7 - This move blunders a pawn. 12 .g5 and now after 12 . . . tt'lfd7, Pooler - Cler­mond, Dalkeith 2005, 13.Wlxb4 i.b7 14.Wlc3±, as well as following 12 . . . tt'le8 13.Wlxb4 d5, Stiri - Na­kos, Korinthos 2001, 14.Wlc3 dxe4 15.Wlxc7 tt'lxc7 16.fxe4 i.b7 17.tt'lg3± White ends up with a solid extra pawn. ll . . . d5 - Black stabilizes the centre, but now White's hands are free for kingside actions. 12 .g5 tt'le8 13.e5 Wlc7 14.f4 tt'ld7, Piccoli - Cleto, corr. 2006 and he can continue with 15.h4 tt'lb6 16.h5 tt'lc4 17.Wid3 i.d7 18.g6±, opening files on the kingside with excel­lent attacking prospects.) 12.tt'lg3 d5 (Black should better refrain from 12 . . . i.b7 13.g5 tt'lfd7 14.h4 tt'le5 15.h5 d5 16.g6 ! dxe4 17.h6+-, since White's attack is decisive, Ferenczi - Revesz, Hungary 2003.) 13.g5 tt'le8 14.e5 a4 15.Wb1

225

Chapter 9

Ci'Jc7 16.f4 !%e8 17.h4 l!:'fd7 18.Ci'Jh5 l!fh8 19.Ci'Jf6� - Black's queenside pawns are far-advanced, but his pieces are incapable of support­ing them. Meanwhile, White;s kingside threats are very danger­ous, Fogarasi - Enders, Budapest 1995.

10 ... 1!:'fa5 - The juxtaposition of the queens is not in Black's fa­vour. ll .@b1 b4 (It is worse for him to opt for ll . . . i.b7? 12.Ci'Jd5 l!:'fd8 13.Ci'Jxe7+ l!:'fxe7 14.h4 Ci'Jbd7 15.h5 d5 16.g5± - White has ob­tained the two-bishop advantage and has created dangerous king­side threats, Volokitin - Meszaros, Rimavska Sobota 1996.) 12.Ci'Jce2

12 .. . !%d8, A.Asrian - Patsyk, Kimry 2007 (It is bad for Black to play 12 . . . d5? 13.Ci'Jb3 1!:'fc7, McKen­zie - Bielenberg, Brisbane 2006, because White can continue with 14.g5 Ci'Je8 15.exd5 i.b7 16.dxe6 hf3 17.i.h3 ! +- obtaining an overwhelming lead in develop­ment. In response to 12 . . . i.b7, Khamidov Stanislawowicz, Gdansk 2007, he has excellent at­tacking prospects after 13.g5 Ci'Jfd7 14.h4 Ci'Je5 15.Ci'Jc1 d5 16.1!:'fg2 Ci'Jbc6

226

17.Ci'Jcb3 l!:'fc7 18.h5t). White can play here 13.g5 Ci'Jfd7 14.h4 Ci'Je5 15.Ci'Jf4 i.b7 16.1!:'fg2 Ci'Jbc6 17.h5 Ci'Jxd4 18.hd4 Ci'Jc6 19.i.f6±, ex­changing the dark-squared bish­ops and this provides him with a stable advantage thanks to his kingside threats and the vulnera­bility of Black's d6-pawn.

ll.g5

ll • • • .!Llfd7 ll . . . Ci'Jh5? - This move only

enhances White's kingside at­tack. 12.i.h3 g6 13.i.g4 Ci'Jg7, Zai­tsev - Tyzinskiy, Tula 2005, 14.h4 b4 15.Ci'Ja4 l!:'fa5 (After 15 . . . i.d7 16.1!:'fxb4±, White has an extra pawn in addition to his attack. ) 16.b3 i.d7 17.h5� - Black is prac­tically helpless against his oppo­nent's threats along the h-file.

ll . . . Ci'Je8 12 .h4 b4 (White's at­tack is even faster after 12 . . . Ci'Jd7 13.h5 Ci'Je5 14.g6 fxg6 15.hxg6 Ci'Jxg6 16.i.h3± - the h and g-files have been opened and Black ei­ther loses his e6-pawn, or he must advance it forward, weak­ening the d5, e6 and f5-squares,

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. �d2 .ie7 9.g4

Scherber - Simsheuser, Ruhrge­biet 1997.) 13 .tt:la4 i.b7 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 13 . . . �aS 14.b3 .id8 1S.@b1 .id7 16.tt:lb2 eS 17.tt:Jfs�. since he fails to complete his development, Schweer - Akkaraju, carr. 2007.) 14.hS tt:lc6 1S.g6 h6 16 . .ic4 tt:Jxd4 17.�xd4± - His queenside coun­terplay is non-existent and he is helpless against White's oncom­ing kingside attack, Engineer -Hercules01, Internet 2007.

12.h4

Black has not made any obvi­ous mistake; nevertheless he is incapable of countering his oppo­nent's kingside attack.

12 . . .ti:Jc6 The alternatives are not any

better for him: 12 . . . Eie8? ! - This is a loss of

time. 13.hS lt:Jf8, Egger - Be­navidez, Maringa 1991, White obtains a crushing attack here with 14.g6 hxg6 1S.hxg6 tt:lxg6 16.�h2�, for example: 16 . . . .ih4 (16 . . . .if6 17.�h7+ @f8 18.tt:lfS exfS 19.tt:ldS+-) 17.f4 b4 18.fS exfS

19.tt:ldS �aS 20.exfS �xdS 2l.fxg6 �e4 22 . .if4+- - Black loses his bishop on h4, while White's at­tack is raging;

12 . . . tt:leS 13.hS tt:lc4 (Black is not out of the woods after 13 . . . tt:lbc6 14.tt:lxc6 �xc6 1S.f4 tt:lc4 16.hc4 �xc4, Kereszturi - Moz­na Hojdarova, Biel 1990, because following 17.b3 ! he is beyond salvation, for example: the move 17 . . . �c7? loses. 18.h6! g6 19.lt:JdS! exdS 20.�d4 f6 2l.�xdS+ Elf7 22. �xa8+- and White has won the exchange, having provoked com­promising of Black's kingside. In the variation 17 . . . �b4 18.@b2 Ele8 19.i.b6! dS 20.h6 g6 2l.exdS±, White ends up with an extra pawn and excellent attacking prospects; 17 . . . �c6 - this move seems to be the most tenacious defence for Black, but after 18.h6! g6 19.�d4, it is bad for him to play 19 . . . eS 20 .fxeS dxeS 21.�xeS .ia3+ 22.@b1 f6 23.�d4 .ie6 24.tt:ldS± - White has won a pawn, preserv­ing excellent attacking chances, as well as 19 .. .f6 20.fS exfS 21.tt:ldS .id8 22 .gxf6� with a dangerous offensive on the dark squares.) 14.hc4 �xc4 1S.g6�, Black's queenside is not developed yet and therefore his chances of parrying White's attack are just minimal. After 1S . . . lt:Jd7 (It looks more resilient for him to opt for 1S . . . b4, but it would not save the game - 16.gxh7+ @h8 17.h6 g6 18.tt:la4 �xa2 19.�xb4 aS 20.�c3 i.f6 21.tt:lb6 Ela6 22 .�c7!+- and

227

Chapter 9

Black loses unavoidably material.) 16.h6 ! fxg6 17.hxg7 1"!t7 18.1"!xh7 ttlf6 19.1"!h8+ Wxg7 20.�h2+­and he is helpless against White's threats along the h-file, Veres -Chernoukhov, Alushta 2007;

12 . . . b4 - Black only helps White's knight to be redeployed to the kingside. 13.ttlce2 ttle5 14. �xb4 .ib7 15.�c3 �d7 16.ttlg3 1"!c8 17.�d2 �a4 18.Wbl± - Black has no compensation for the pawn at all, Becker - Dudognon, Paris 2005;

In response to 12 . . . ttlc5, Pin­to - Cabrera, Internet 2005, it would be advisable for White to continue patiently with 13.h5 b4 14.ttlce2 ttlbd7 (14 . . . �b7 15.g6±) 15.g6 h6 16 . .ixh6! ttle5 17.Wb1� and Black is helpless against the attack, for example after: 17 . . . ttlc4 18.�c1 ttla4 19.hg7 Wxg7 20 .h6+ Wxg6 21.h7+- his king has come in front of the rest of his forces and will fail to survive: 21 . . . Wg7 (Or 2l . . . .ig5 22 .ttlf4+ wf6 23.ttlh5+ Wg6 24.�xg5+! 'kt>xg5 25 . .b:c4 Wh6 26.1"!dg1 +- with an imminent checkmate.) 22 .�h6+ Wh8 23.1"!g1+- and the checkmate is unavoidable;

12 . . . ttlb6 - Now, this knight is incapable of helping in the de­fence of the king. 13.h5 b4 14.ttlb1 d5 (Black loses too after 14 . . . ttlc4 15.hc4 �xc4 16.g6 d5 17.h6 ! fxg6 18.hxg7 1"!t7 19.1"!xh7+- and White's threats along the h-file are decisive, A.Smith - Vilchez, Sweden 2005.)

228

15.g6 ! e5 16.ttlf5 d4, Stefanidi ­Mietzner, Athens 2004, 17.hd4! .ixf5 (It would not be better for Black to capture the bishop, be­cause after 17 . . . exd4 18.gxh7+ Wxh7 19.h6 g6 20.ttlxe7 �xe7 21.�xd4 1"!g8 22 .�xb6+- White has won a couple of pawns and he leads in development.) 18.hb6 �xb6 19.gxt7+ 1"!xt7 20.exf5 �c5 (After 20 . . . h6 21.�d5 1"!a7 22 . .ic4 <i>h8 23.ttld2+- White has an ex­tra pawn and he is dominant over the central light squares.) 21.�d3 ttlc6 22 .ttld2 1"!d8 23.�c4± - He is clearly better, due to the vulner­ability of the light squares in his opponent's camp.

12 . . . .ib7 - This move weakens the e6-square and enables White to open the h-file, Husemann -Schlueter, Ruhrgebiet 1998.

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. �d2 .ie7 9.g4

13.g6! (This is the most en­ergetic move.) 13 . . . hxg6 (Black loses after 13 . . . fxg6? 14.�xe6+-; it is also bad for him to opt for 13 . . . b4 14.gxf7+ �xf7 15.�ce2 eS 16.�f5± - White has opened the g-file and occupied the central dS and f5-outposts.) 14.h5 gxhS (It is evident that Black could have re­sisted more tenaciously with 14 . . . gS 15.i.xg5±, but even then his ex­tra material would not compen­sate the defects of his position.) 15.�xh5 .if6 (Black loses after 15 . . . �e5 16.�h2 �g6 17.e5 ! dxeS 18 . .id3+- and White's attack is decisive, for example: 18 . . . exd4 19Jl:h8+ �xh8 20 . .ih7#) 16.�h1! �c8 17.�h2 @f8 (17 . . . g6 18.�h7+ @f8 19.�xe6+ fxe6 20.�xg6 .ig7 21 . .ih6+-) 18.�d5 i.xdS (After 18 . . . exd5 19.�f5 �xc2+ 20.�xc2 �xc2+ 21.@xc2 g6 22.�xd6+­Black loses his bishop on b7 as well.) 19.exd5 i.xd4 20 . .ixd4 eS 21..ic3 �cS 22 .f4--+. His king is terribly endangered and White's attack is victorious, for example in the variation 22 . . . �e3+ 23 . .id2 �cs 24 . .id3 @e7 25.�h4+ f6 26.�hg1+- Black fails to develop his queenside.

(diagram) 13.g6!? This is a standard pawn-sacri­

fice and it speeds up the opening of files on the kingside.

13 . . . �f6 In reply to 13 . . . b4, Mortensen

- Piranha, Internet 2004, it would be good for White to con-

tinue in a typical fashion with 14.gxh7+ ! @xh7 15.�xc6 �xc6 16.�e2 .ib7 17 . .ig5 �f6 18.�d4± He has opened the g-file and if we have in mind that he controls the centre and his king is completely safe, his attacking prospects are excellent.

13 . . . �c5?! - Black's king will hardly survive if its defenders are away from it. 14.gxh7+ ! @xh7, Shulga - Muhtarov, Alushta 2008 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for 14 . . . @h8 15.�xc6 �xc6 16.�g1 @xh7 17.�xg7+ ! @xg7 18. �g2+ White will play �g4 on the next move and he will bring more pieces towards his opponent's bare king. Black is helpless, 1-0 Domanov - Sherwood, Email 2006.) . Now, White should maim his opponent's queen to an unfa­vourable square and this would provide him with vital tempi for his decisive offensive. 15.�xc6! �xc6 16.�g1 b4 (It is also bad for Black to continue with 16 . . . �b8 17.�g2 �g8 18.�d5!--+ and White's attack is crushing in a po­sition with material equality. His knight is untouchable: 18 . . . exd5

229

Chapter 9

19J1xd5 g6 20J=lh5+ rtlg7 21.i.h6+ @f6 22 .'�g5+ rtle6 23.i.h3+ fS 24.i.xf5+ with a quick check­mate.) 17.i.b5! axbS 18J'=lxg7+ rtlxg7 19.'�g2+ rtlh8 20J'=lg1 i.f6 21.1MI'g4+- Black can give several checks, but the checkmate of his king is unavoidable anyway.

In the variation 13 . . . tLlxd4 14. gxh7+ rtlxh7 (After 14 . . . rtlh8 15. i.xd4 i.b7 16.!=1gl± White saves a vital tempo for the move h4-h5 and that enables him to bring his pieces faster into the attack against the enemy king.) 15.i.xd4 b4 (Black has also tried in prac­tice: 15 . . . tLle5 16.!=1g1 i.f6 17.1MI'g2 Wfe7 18.f4+- and he cannot main­tain the material balance, Span­genberg - Celi, Mar del Plata 1991; 15 . . . i.b7 16.!=1g1 eS 17.i.e3± - White is clearly better in this position, since Black's king is en­dangered, Vehi Bach - Alvarez Fernandez, Seville 2004; in reply to 15 . . . tLlf6, Rojas - Becker, Bargteheide 2007, White should better complete his development with 16.i.d3 eS 17.!=1dg1--+) 16.1Mfg2 tLlf6, Alvarez - de la Iglesia, Val­ladolid 1990 (16 . . . i.f6 17.!=1g1 g6 18.h5 ! i.xd4 19.hxg6+ rtlg7 20. gxt7+ @xf7 21.!'1xd4 bxc3 22 .Wg7+ rtle8 23.!=1g6+- - Black cannot save his king without huge material losses.) , White can continue here with 17.i.d3! eS 18.!=1dg1 lLlhS 19. tLldS �b7 20.f4 !--+ and his attack is crushing, because Black loses af-ter 20 . . . exd4 21.e5 rtlg8 22.i.e2+-

13 . . . tLlde5 - The transfer of

230

this knight to the g6-square does not achieve much in defending against White's attack. 14.gxh7+ rtlh8 (14 . . . rtlxh7 15.1MI'g2 b4 16. tLla4 i.f6 17.f4 tLlxd4 18.hd4 tLld7 19.i.xf6 tLlxf6, De la Villa -F.Garcia, Benidorm 1986, White can play here 20.!=1g1 tLle8 21.e5 dS 22 .i.d3+ and Black has great problems to worry about. He loses after 22 . . . rtlh8 23.1MI'g5 fS 24.h5+- , while in case of 22 . . . rtlg8 23 .h5, it would be bad for him to opt for 23 . . . i.d7? 24.h6+-, therefore he must play 23 . . . rtlh8 24.Wig5± and it would be very difficult to find any reasonable line for Black. For example, it would be wrong to try to exploit the placement of White's knight at the edge of the board with 24 . . . i.d7? 25.1Mfe7 !=1g8 26.1Mfxf7 i.bS 27.1Mfxe6+-) 15.!=1g1 b4 16.1MI'g2 tLlg6, Rosito - Panno, Mendoza 2003, now, the simplest win for White is 17.tLlxc6! 1Mfxc6 (17 . . . bxc3 18.tLlxe7 1Mfxe7 19.h5+-) 18.tLle2 i.xh4 19.tLlf4+- Black loses a pawn and White's attack is crushing.

13 . . . hxg6 - This principled move only spells trouble for Black. After the natural reply 14.h5 !

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. Wf d2 �e7 9 .g4

there may arise the following variations:

it would be a disaster for him to opt for 14 . . . b4? ! 15.hxg6 bxc3? 16J'�h8+ 1-0 Kryvoruchko - Ya­remko, Lvov 2006;

naturally, it is bad for him to continue with 14 . . . gxh5 15J'l:xh5 if6? 16.lLlxc6 Wi'xc6 17.Wi'h2 g6 18.hb5! axb5 19.!!h8+ hh8 20. l=l:h1 mg7 2Lig5+- ;

he has not tried in practice yet 14 . . . lt:lde5, because follow­ing 15.h6 !--t White's attack is crushing, for example after 15 . . . gxh6 16.hh6 l'l:e8 17.Wi'h2 lt:lxd4 18.ie3 !+- and Black has no sat­isfactory defence, for example: 18 ... lt:lb3+ (or 18 . . . �f6 19.hd4 b4 20.f4! bxc3 21.fxe5 cxb2+ 22 .hb2 dxe5 23.Wi'h7+ mfB 24.�a3+ l'l:e7 25.Wi'h6+ mg8 26.id3+- - The forced variation is over and after the unavoidable move !!df1 Black loses.) 19.axb3 if6 20.�d4 mf8 21.f4 lt:lg4 22 .�6 lt:lxf6 23.Wi'h6+ me7 24.e5+- - Black's king has run away from the kingside in­deed, but it would be checkmated in the centre as well.

It will be more tenacious for him to defend with 14 . . . lt:lxd4, but he cannot equalize with that either. 15.hd4 lLle5 (Black can create more problems for his op­ponent with 15 . . . b4! ? 16.lt:la4! -The idea of placing this knight at the edge of the board can be seen in the variation 16 . . . gxh5 17.!!xh5 lLle5 18.he5 dxe5 19.Wi'h2 f5 20.!!h8+ mt7 21.Wi'h5+ mf6 22.exf5

exf5 23.lt:lb6 ! WJ'xb6 24.!!h6+ gxh6 25.Wi'xh6+ mt7 26.Wi'xb6+- and White will have only minimal technical difficulties in realizing his extra queen. It is not prefer­able for Black to opt for 16 . . . lLle5 17.h6 if6 18.f4 lt:ld7 19.hxg7 mxg7 20.e5--t, since White's attack is decisive, while in the variation 16 . . . Wi'a5 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.ic4 mt7 19.ib3 ib7 20.a3±, he regains his pawn, maintaining dangerous threats on the kingside.) 16.h6 ! �f6 (Or 16 .. .f6 17.hxg7 mxg7 18 .Wi'h6+ mt7 19.f4 lt:lc6 20.f5+-) 17.hxg7 hg7 18.f4 !--t - and after the trade of the dark -squared bish­ops, the defence of Black's king will become tremendously diffi­cult, D.Schneider - J.Benjamin, Minneapolis 2005.

t4.gxh7+ mxh7 White's attack is very danger­

ous after 14 . . . lt:lxh7 15.l'l:g1 lLle5 16.f4--t, as well as following 14 . . . mh8 15.lt:lxc6 ! WJ'xc6 16.l'l:g1--t

15.li\xc6 WJ'xc6 16 • .id3--t

The threats 17.lt:ld5 and 17.e5 seem to be very unpleasant for

231

Chapter 9

Black. 16 . . . �h8 17.gdgl b4 (He should better avoid 17 .. JJ:g8 18.h5 eS 19.a3 i.e6 20.f4, because after 20 . . . exf4 21 .i.d4+-, as well as in the variation 20 . . . d5 21.exd5 tt:lxdS 22 .i.e4 E:ad8 23.f5+­Black's king is beyond salvation.) 18.i.h6! ggs (He is incapable

of protecting his king in case of

18 . . . g6 19.i.xf8 i.xf8 20.h5! bxc3 21.hxg6+ Wg8 22 .�g5+-) 19.e5 g6 (Or 19 . . . bxc3 20.hg7+ E:xg7 21.�h6+ E:h7 22 .hh7 and White will checkmate soon.) 2 0 .exf6 bxc3 21.�g5 1-0 M.Adams -Sheldon, Great Britain 1997.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have begun our analysis of Black's natural and

popular reply 7 ... b5. After 8. � d2, we have dealt most thoroughly with the moves a) 8 . . . �c7, b) 8 . . . b4 and c) 8 . . . i.e7.

In case Black plays 8 . . . � c7, he must consider, on practically every move, the standard piece-sacrifice on b5. If he plays most accurately, the game usually transposes to variations analyzed in other chapters. Here, we deal in our main line with the transfer of Black's knight from f6 to c4, but this maneuver consumes too much time.

The basic drawback of the move 8 . . . b4 is that Black loses time pushing pawns and his development suffers because of that. In fact, White's knight is well placed on the a4-square, since it controls the im­portant c5 and b6-squares. In the main line, after the moves 9 . . . tt:\bd7 1 0 . 0 -0 - 0 dS, White must act resolutely; otherwise, Black obtains a comfortable game. Following ll.exdS tt:\xdS 12. i.c4 i.b7 13. E!hel, White reaches an excellent attacking position. His knight on d4, de­pending on Black's response on the next move, will be either sacrificed on e6, or it will go to j5, creating very dangerous threats.

After the natural moves 8 . . . i.e7 9.g4, Black has numerous possi­bilities to choose from.

In the variation 9 . . . �c7 - he must worry on every move about the tempo-winning piece-sacrifices on b5, therefore he is practically forced to continue early with b5-b4, but this only helps White to trans­fer his knight to its most comfortable placement - the h5-square.

It seems more natural for Black to play 9 . . . 0 - 0 . He completes the development of his kingside and is well-prepared to organize counterplay on the queenside and in the centre. Still, after the logical moves 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 �c7 ll.g5 tt:\fd7 12.h4, it becomes clear that Black has great problems of countering White's king side attack. Depending on Black's next move, White will begin his attack either with the ac­curate pawn-advance 13.h5, or with the standard aggressive pawn­sacrifice 13.g6. The variations that we supply you with illustrate per­fectly Black's great difficulties in defending.

232

Chapter t O l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.9d2 i.b7 9.g4

White has a slight lead in de­velopment and he can begin ac­tive kingside actions prior to the evacuation of his king away from the centre.

Black has tried in practice numerous moves here, but we believe the ones, which deserve most thorough attention are a) 9 . . . .ie7, b) 9 .. .loc6, c) 9 . . . h6, d) 9 ... b4 and e) 9 . . .lofd7.

He has also played: 9 . . . lt:lbd7? ! 10 .g5 - see chapter

11; 9 . . .'1WaS - Black's queen seems

to be aggressively placed on aS, but it cannot participate there in the organization of counterplay. 10 .gS lt:lfd7, A.Frolov - G.Gins­burg, Smolensk 1992. The only

advantage for Black of the deploy­ment of the queen on aS is that White has some problems with castling long. Therefore, I advise him to play 11.a3 !? , with the fol­lowing exemplary variations: 11 . . . lt:lc6 (After ll . . . �e7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.�b1 Wic7 14.h4�, White organ­izes a dangerous attack. It is not better for Black to opt for 11 . . . lt:le5 12.0-0-0 lt:lbc6 13.Wif2 Wic7 14.lt:lxc6 Wixc6 1SJ!g1t and the subsequent advance of White's f-pawn will make Black's task to protect his kingside very hard.) 12.0-0-0 lt:ldeS (or 12 . . . lt:lceS 13.f4 lt:lc4 14.hc4 bxc4 1S.fS± and Black will have to surrender to the opponent the important dS-outpost) 13.lt:lxc6 lt:lxc6 (After 13 . . . hc6 14.f4 lt:ld7 15.�d3 lt:lc5 16.�b1 Wic7 17J!hfl Wib7 18.fS�. Black falls behind considerably in development and this enables White to create powerful threats against the opponent's king, which lacks a reliable shelter.) 14.�b1 b4 1S.axb4 Wixb4 16.h4 1'!b8 17.b3 �e7 18.�b2 lt:leS 19.�e2 �c6 20.Wid4t. White has extra space and Black's pawns on a6 and d6 are very weak

233

Chapter 1 0

both in the middle game as well as in the endgame. White will have the initiative.

9 . . . 1Mfc7 - This is a natural square for the queen in the Sicil­ian Defence. 10.0-0-0 b4 (About 10 . . . lt:lbd7 ll.g5 lt:lh5 - see chapter 11; 10 . . . d5 ll.g5 b4 12.lt:lce2 lt:lfd7 13.lt:lf4! - see 10 . . . b4; 10 . . . lt:lfd7 -see 9 . . . lt:lfd7; 10 . . . i.e7 ll.g5 - see variation a; 10 . . . lt:lc6 ll.g5 - see variation b; 10 . . . h6 ll.h4 - see variation c.) ll.lt:lce2 ! ? This move is much more aggressive than ll.lt:la4, because White is eyeing directly the e6-square.

Now, Black has tried in prac­tice :

ll . . . lt:lc6 - The exchange of knight parries the attack against the e6-square, but it does not fa­cilitate Black's defence. 12 .Nxc6 Qxc6, Kurmann - Hess, Switzer­land 2006 and now White should better occupy some space on the kingside, after which he can cap­ture his opponent's b4-pawn by playing 13.g5 lt:ld7 14.1Mfxb4 d5 (Black has no other active coun­terplay in sight.) 15.exd5 1Mfxc2+ (After 15 . . . 1Mfxd5 16.1Mfa4 1Mfb5 17.

234

1Mfxb5 axb5 18.lt:ld4 b4 19.i.c4±, he has no compensation for the pawn whatsoever.) 16.'it>xc2 hb4 17.lt:lf4± White has excel­lent chances of realizing his extra pawn in the endgame.

In response to ll . . . h6, Kosto­poulos - Ilandzis, Greece 2008, White can try to be greedy by playing 12.1Mfxb4 d5 13.1Mfa4+ lt:lc6 14.lt:lf4 !t with dangerous threats in the centre, for example: 14 . . . dxe4 (Black should better refrain from 14 . . . i.d6 15.lt:lfxe6! fxe6 16. lt:lxe6 1Mfd7 17.exd5 lt:le7 18.lt:lxg7+ 'it>f7 19.1Mfxd7 lt:lxd7 20. lt:lh5±, since White obtains too many pawns for his knight and his piec­es are much better coordinated.) 15.lt:ldxe6! fxe6 16.lt:lxe6 1Mfa5 (Af­ter 16 . . . 1Mfe5 17.i.c4+- Black is helpless against his opponent's numerous threats.) 17.1Mfxa5 lt:lxa5 18.lt:lc7+ 'it>f7 19.lt:lxa8 i.xa8 20. i.b6 lt:lc6 21.i.c4+ 'it>g6 22 .fxe4 lt:le5 23 .i.e6± White's rook and pawns are much superior than his opponent's light pieces.

ll . . . lt:lfd7 - Black retreats his knight in anticipation of the possible g4-g5, but he is leaving White's active knight unopposed. 12.'it>b1 d5 13.exd5 i.xd5 14.lt:lf4 lt:lb6, Dochev - Zdravchev, Pernik 2003 and now, White can even try to finish the game off right in the opening by playing 15.1Mfe1 ! i.e7 (15 . . . i.b7 16.lt:lfxe6+-) 16.lt:lf5 exf5 17.i.xb6 1Mfxf4 18.l"i:xd5+- and in connection with the threat of a

checkmate in one, Black loses his

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7.}3 b5 B. Wfd2 i.b7 9.g4 �e7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

f5-pawn and his chances of saving the game remain just minimal. ll . . . d5 - This is an attempt by Black to change the Sicilian pawn­structure into French. 12.g5 ! (It is not so convincing for White to play 12 .e5 'Llfd7 13.f4, Moberg -O.Yewdokimov, Stockholm 1990, because after 13 . . . �e7! 14.h4 0-0 15.@b1 'Llc6, Black parries his op­ponent's main threats and he can rely on obtaining counterplay on the queenside, although af­ter 16.g5t, White still preserves good chances of organizing an at­tack against the king.) 12 . . . 'Llfd7, Lafarge - Hirt, Massy 1993, he is clearly ahead in development and can exploit this by continu­ing in a maximally aggressive fashion: 13.'Llf4! e5 (After 13 . . . dxe4 14.'Lldxe6 fxe6 15.'Llxe6 Wfc6 16.�h3+-, Black cannot save his king without huge material loss­es.) 14.'Llxd5 �d5 15.exd5 exd4 16.�d4 i.d6 17J'i:e1+ @f8 (White has a couple of pawns for the piece, while his opponent's king is stranded in the centre, so his compensation is more than suf­ficient in case of 17 . . . @d8 18.@b1 'Lle5 19.'ffe3 lt:Jbd7 20.i.h3gg) 18. l'!e4 lt:Je5 19.�e5 �e5 20Jk4 Wfd7 (Black loses quickly after 20 . . . Wfb7 21.d6 lt:Jc6 22.'ffd5+­and White regains the sacrificed material with interest.) 21.Wixb4+ @g8 22 .f4± - His prospects are much superior with three pawns for the piece and a great lead in development.

a) 9 . . . .ie7 Now, Black is prepared to

evacuate his king to the kingside at any moment.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

He has tried in practice most often here al) 1 0 •. :�c7 and a2) 10 . . . 0 - 0 .

About 1 0 . . . lt:Jfd7 ll.h4 - see variation e1; 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll .g5 - see variation b; 10 . . . h6 ll.h4 - see variation c.

After 10 . . . 'ffa5 ll .@b1 b4, Klic­nar - Belousek, Czech Republic 1998, White can prove that his opponent's queenside activity has been premature by playing 12 .lt:Jb3 Wfc7 13.lt:Ja4 lt:Jc6 14.lt:Jb6 l'!d8 15.'Llc4 l'!d7 (In case of 15 . . . lt:Je5 16.Wfxb4 d5 17.Wfa5 Wfxa5 18.lt:Jcxa5 �a8 19.g5± Black has no compensation for the pawn.) 16.g5 'Llh5 17.�e2± and he can hardly coordinate his pieces.

10 . . . b4 ll.lt:Jce2 d5 - It looks like Black has obtained a suf­ficient counterplay, but he lags considerably in development and White can exploit this con-

235

Chapter 1 0

tinuing with 12.g5 ! ? lilfd7 13.exd5 hd5 14.lilf5 ! .txf3 (Black would not save the day with 14 . . . 0-0 15. �d4 f6 16.lilf4 ! i.c5 17.�d2 he3 18.lilxe3+-, since his king is weak and his queenside is not developed. He will lose unavoid­ably material.) 15.lilxg7+ 'tt>f8 16.lild4 .idS 17.i.g2+- and Black is helpless against the numerous threats, Sulskis - Astaneh Lopez, Gibraltar 2008.

10 . . . lilbd7 - This move enables White to repel his opponent's oth­er knight to the edge of the board. ll.g5 lilh5 12.a3 lilc5 (In reply to 12 . . . g6, Kasmiran - Roberto, Ja­karta 1997, White can exploit the fact that his e4-pawn is not under attack and choose 13.f4 0-0 14. i.e2 lilxf4 15 . .txf4 e5 16.h4 exf4 17.�xf4 fgc8 18.lild5;!; and his cen­tralized knights seem to be much more active than Black's bishops.) 13.i.h3 g6 14.i.g4 lilg7 15.h4 e5 16.lilde2± White's centre has been reliably fortified and he has the important d5-outpost, so Black has no chances of active play, Na­vratil - Ta Van, Sec u Chrudimi 2008.

al) 10 . . .'�c7 (diagram)

Most ofthe times Black's queen is well-placed on this square, so this position may arise very often after different move orders.

ll.g5 �fd7 The move ll . . . b4? Schoenfeld

- Hegemann, Lippstadt 2000,

236

enables White to continue with a standard tactical strike - 12.lilcb5 ! axb5 13.lilxb5 �d7 (It is even worse for Black to opt for 13 . . . �a5 14.gxf6 .txf6 15.�xd6 i.e7 16. i.c5 !+- and he ends up at least a piece down in an endgame.) 14.gxf6 gxf6 15.lilxd6+ hd6 16. �xd6 �xd6 17Jixd6+- White has won a pawn and this, in addition to his two-bishop advantage and better development, guarantees an easy win for him.

12.h4

12 . . . �e5 After 12 . . . lilc6 13.lilxc6, both

captures have been tried by Black:

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7j3 b5 B. Vffd2 i.b7 9.g4 i.e7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

13 . . . Vffxc6 - This is the first. 14.tLle2 dS (Or 14 . . . Vffc7 1S.tl:ld4 tLleS 16.i.f4 !? tl:lc4 17.i.xc4 Vffxc4 18.tLlb3 �c8 19.'i!?bl±, his d6-pawn is weak and the light-squared bishop is very passive, Vasquez - Fedorov, Esbjerg 200S; it is not good for Black to opt for 14 . . . 0-0-0 1S.tl:ld4 Vffc7 16.i.xbS±, be­cause he loses after 16 . . . axbS 17. tLlxbS Vffc4 18.VffaS 'i!?b8 19.i.a7+ 'i!?c8 20.�d3+- and he suffers heavy material losses, so he must remain a pawn down by playing 16 . . . tLleS 17.i.e2± De la Villa Gar­cia - Truyols, Palma de Mallorca 1992.) 1S.tl:ld4 Vffc7, Wilhelm -Maurer, Germany 1996 and here, it seems very attractive for White to open the central files, because he is very well prepared for that. 16.exdS i.xdS 17.tLlfS �c8 (Black loses after 17 . . . i.xf3 18.tLlxg7+ 'i!?f8 19.tl:lxe6+ fxe6 20.Vfif2+-) 18.i.f4 VffcS 19.�h2 0-0 20.i.e3 Vffb4 21 .Vfixb4 i.xb4 22 .a3;!; and White either obtains the two-bishop advantage, or he creates a weak pawn for his opponent on dS.

13 . . . .ixc6 - This is the sec­ond possibility. 14.Vffd4! eS (It is rather dubious for Black to

play 14 . . . 0-0-0?! 1S.a4 !� and White has a very dangerous at­tack. Now, Black is lost after 1S . . . tLlcS 16.axbS axbS 17.b4 ! +-, but even in case of 1S . . . Vffb7 16.axbS axbS 17.Vffb4! tLleS 18.tLlxbS, he will save the game neither after 18 . . . tLlxf3 19.tl:la7+ 'i!?c7 20.VfiaS+ 'i!?b8 21.tLlxc6+-, nor following 18 . . . dS 19.Vfic3 ! f6 20.exdS exdS 21.i.d4+- Sax - Pinter, Phila­delphia 1986; Black should bet­ter avoid 14 . . . �g8?! 1S.hS 0-0-0 16.a4± Sobirey - Olsson, Email 1998; his defence is difficult in the variation 14 . . . 0-0 1S.hS and here, in case of 1S . . . tLleS 16.i.e2 �ac8 17.h6± he has no satisfac­tory defence against 18.f4, Ven­timiglia - Stanley, Email 2003, while following 1S . . .f6 16.gxf6 tLlxf6 17.i.h3t Black will have problems with the protection of his e6-pawn and its advance will weaken the light squares in his camp, Bucar - Drnovsek, Mur­ska Sobota 2007. He has not tried in practice yet 1S . . . b4 16.tLle2 ! eS 17.Vfid2 ! aS 18.tLlg3� with a dan­gerous attack for White.) 1S.Vffd2 0-0 (After 1S . . . �c8, Van Kampen - K.Bachmann, Germany 2008, the line: 16 . .ih3 b4 17.tLldS .ixdS 18.exdS 0-0 19.'i!?b1 aS 20.hS± provides White with excellent attacking prospects and an over­whelming space advantage.) 16.hS fS? ! (Black weakens voluntarily the light squares in his camp and he will be doomed to a difficult defence.) 17.tLldS .ixdS 18.VffxdS+

237

Chapter 10

l!ih8 19.exf5+- Spasov - Sime­onov, carr. 1992 .

12 . . . b4 - He is in a hurry to cre­ate some counterplay, but White is perfectly prepared to play in the centre and on the queenside. 13.tt:Jce2 d5, Arutyunova - Kov­tonjuk, Kiev 1999. Now, White's most energetic move is the stand­ard resource for similar positions - 14.tt:lf4! with the following ex­emplary variations : 14 . . . e5 (The alternatives also lose for Black: 14 . . . tt:Jb6 15.g6 hxg6 16.tt:Jdxe6 fxe6 17.tt:Jxg6 Ei:h5 18.tt'lxe7, after 18 . . . �xe7 19.hb6+-, as well as following 18 . . . 1!lxe7 19.�xb4+­White regains his piece and his attack is decisive. It is hardly preferable for Black to opt for 14 . . . dxe4 15.tt:Jdxe6 fxe6 16.tt:Jxe6 �a5 17.tt:Jxg7+ l!!t7 18.i.d4+- and his king is beyond salvation.) 15.tt:lf5 exf4 16.i.xf4 �a5 17.exd5+­and White has two pawns for the knight, while Black's king is stranded in the centre. In addi­tion, he will hardly manage to bring his queenside pieces into action, because they seem to be hopelessly squeezed there.

12 . . . tt:Jb6 - Black is transfer­ring his knight to c4, avoiding White's attacks with tempi. 13.a3 tt:Jc4 (It seems more purposeful for him to play 13 . . . tt:J8d7 - with the idea to have the c4-square for both knights. In that case how­ever, White is perfectly prepared for 14.tt:Jdxb5 ! axb5 15.tt'lxb5 �b8 16.tt'lxd6+ hd6 17.�xd6 �xd6

238

18.Ei:xd6 tt:Jc8 19.Ei:d4:t - he has ob­tained three pawns for the piece and they are supported by his two powerful bishops, so he has a stable advantage.) 14.hc4 �xc4 15.h5 tt:Jd7 16.g6± and White's kings ide attack is running smooth­ly. After 16 . . . b4 17.axb4 �xb4 18.gxt7+ l!!xt7 19.i.g5 tt:lf6 20.�g2 Ei:hc8, Krieger - Becking, Rheda Wiedenbrueck 2001, he can claim a decisive advantage with the line : 21 .�h3 ! �c4 22 .h6! Ei:c5 (Or 22 . . . g6 23.b3 ! �xc3 24.�xe6+ l!!e8 25.i.xf6 Ei:c7 26.1!ib1+- and White has an extra pawn and a power­ful attack.) 23.Ei:hg1 Ei:xg5 24.Ei:xg5 g6 25.Ei:a5+- Black has succeeded temporarily in bringing his king to safety, but he has no active coun­terplay, so he has no compensa­tion for the exchange.

13.{4

13 . . . �c4 It is too risky for him to play the

seemingly attractive move 13 . . . b4. After 14.tt'ld5 ! exd5 15.fxe5 dxeS 16.tt'lf5 d4 17.hd4! exd4 18.�xd4 Ei:g8 19.i.c4gg, White obtains more

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 ..fJ b5 8. Wfd2 il..b7 9.g4 il..e7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed piece, because Black's king is completely bare and stranded in the centre, while his pieces lack coordination.

This evaluation can be il­lustrated by the following vari­ations: 19 . . . �f8 (The f7-square requires additional protection and after 19 . . . l2Jc6 20 . .ixf7+ @xf7 21.Wfd5+ lt>f8 22J'l:hfl+­Black's king is beyond salvation.) 20 . .ixf'7+ ! lt>xf7 21.Wfd3 ! ! il..c8 (He loses quickly after 21 . . .Wfc6 22.�hfl i>g6 23.h5+-, as well as following 21 . . .Wfc8 22.�hfl i>e8 23.Wfb3+-, while in the variation 21 . . .Wff4+ 22.i>bl Wfxe4 23.Wfb3+ Wfe6 24.l2Jh6+ gxh6 25J:l:hfl+ lt>e7 26.Wfxb4+ i>e8 27.Wfxb7+-White obtains a material advantage pre­serving all the pluses of his posi­tion.) 22 .�hfl i>e8 23.Wfd5 �h8 (Giving back the other rook to the opponent loses by force for Black: 23 . . . l2Jc6 24.Wfxg8 il..xfS 25.�xf5 Wfe7 26.�xf8+ Wfxf8 27.Wfe6+ l2Je7 28.Wfd7+ lt>f7 29.�fl+ i>g8 30.Wfe6+ i>h8 31.�xf8+ �xf8 32. Wfxe7+-) 24.Wfxa8 l2Jc6 25.e5 ! ? (This seems to be the most aggres-

sive move for White.) 25 . . . Wfb7 26.Wfxb7 il..xb7 27.�f4±. The mate­rial is about equal, but his pieces are much more active, while in case of 27 . . . g6 28.l2Jd6+ il..xd6 29.�xd6 aS 30.e6 l2Jd8 31.�d7+-, White's rooks penetrate to the seventh rank with a decisive ef­fect.

14 . .ixc4 ti'xc4, Thana Balasi­ngam - J.Schneider, Willingen 2009.

Now his most energetic re­sponse is 15.f5!? b4 (In case of 15 . . . e5 16.b3 Wfc7 17.l2Jde2 l2Jd7 18.l2Jd5 il..xd5 19.Wfxd5 �c8 20.�d2±, White occupies reliably the important d5-outpost, hav­ing extra space on the kingside and in answer to 16 . . . Wfb4, it looks very strong for him to sacrifice a piece with 17.f6 ! exd4 18.fxg7 �g8 19.il..xd4 l2Jc6 20.il..f6 il..xf6 21.gxf6 0-0-0 22 .lLld5!±. His powerful protected passed g7-pawn more than compensates the sacrificed piece both in the middle game and in the endgame.) 16.lba4 .ixe4 (Black loses quickly after 16 . . . Wfxa2

239

Chapter 1 0

17.�xb4 .tc6 18.lt:Jc3+-) 17.ghfl 0 - 0 (In case of 17 . . . e5 18.lt:Jb6 �xa2 19.lt:Jb3 :!"!a7 20.�xb4± Black's pieces remain scattered all over the entire board and they can hardly be coordinated.) 18.b3 �c7 19.f6!--.. White opens files on the kingside and destroys the pawn-shelter of the enemy king. The effectiveness of his attack can be convincingly illustrated by the following variations : 19 • • . .id8 2 0 .fxg7 ges 21.�f2! �e7 (After 21 . . .lt:Jc6 22 .lt:Jxc6 hc6 23.lt:Jb6 :!"!b8 24.:!"!xd6 .te4 25.lt:Jc4+-, White's main threat is the possi­ble regrouping of his forces with 26.:!"!d2 ! , followed by 27.lt:Jd6, af­ter which he protects reliably the c2-square and his kingside threats are very powerful.) 22 . .id2 a5 23.gdel .ig6 (Black loses after 23 . . . .td5 24.lt:Jf5+-, while in case of 23 . . . d5 24.lt:Jc5 .tb6 25.tt:Jxe4 dxe4 26.:!"!xe4± White exerts pow­erful pressure on the kingside un­opposed.) 24.¥«£3 d5 25.tt:Jxe6! .ie4 (In the variation 25 . . . fxe6 26.:!"!xe6 �xg7 27.:!"!xe8+ he8 28.�xd5+ <i>h8 29.<i>bl+- the threat of the transfer of the bish­op to b2 is impossible for Black to parry.) 26.Y«xf7+ ! Y«xf7 27.gxf7 <!>xf7 (After 27 . . . :!"!xe6 28.:!"!f8+ <i>xg7 29.:!"!xd8+-, his queenside is completely squeezed.) 28.gfl + <!>xe6 29. lH"8+- and White pro­motes unavoidably a new queen.

a2) 1 0 . . • 0 - 0 Black completes the develop-

240

ment of his kings ide and he hopes to start active actions ahead of his opponent.

ll.g5

ll . . . tt:Jfd7 The retreat of this knight to

the edge of the board cannot cre­ate any problems for White:

after ll . . . lt:Jh5 12.lt:Jce2 lt:Jd7 13 . lt:Jg3 g6 14.lt:Jxh5 gxh5 15.:!"!g1± Black's king shelter is destroyed and White's attack will soon be­come decisive, Vazquez Igarza -Cartelle Cudillero, Ferrol 2002;

it is not preferable for Black to choose ll . . . tt:Je8 12 .h4 lt:Jc6 (After 12 . . . b4 13.tt:Jce2 a5 14 . .th3 tt:Jc6 15.h5 lt:Je5, Heimer - Heyder, Dortmund 2005, White can con­tinue with the standard tactical resource 16.g6! and now Black loses immediately after 16 . . . tt:Jc4 17.lt:Jxe6! +-, while in case of 16 . . . hxg6 17.tt:Jxe6 fxe6 18.he6+ :!"!f7 19 .hxg6 tt:Jxg6 20.lt:Jd4--. White's attack is crushing and he can re­store the material balance at any moment. It is not good for Black to opt for 12 . . . lt:Jd7 13.h5 tt:JeS

5 . . . a6 6. W.e3 e6 7.f3 b5 B. '?fffd2 W.b7 9.g4 W.e7 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

14.'tt>b1 l'k 8 15.l:'!:g1 ltJc7, Priese -Knopf, Willingen 2008, because White's natural move 16.f4 pro­vides him with an overwhelming attack after 16 . . . ltJc4 17.hc4 bxc4 18.f5__., as well as in the variation 16 . . . b4 17.ltJa4 ltJd7 18.f5__.) 13. 'tt>b1 ltJxd4 14.hd4 l:'!:c8 15.l:'!:g1 '?fffd7 16.h5 b4 17.ltJe2 d5 18.e5 '?fffc7 19.ltJf4± Black has failed to organ­ize any counterplay on the queen­side and he comes unavoidably under the gun after: 19 . . . W.c5 20. hc5 '?fixeS 21.i.d3 ltJc7 22 .i.xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 23.g6+ 'it>g8 24.h6+- and his king is beyond salvation, Anand - Schnorr, Frankfurt 1994.

12.h4

12 . • . c!Llc6 This is Black's most natural

move, developing his queenside. About 12 . . . '?fffa5 13.'tt>b1 b4

14.ltJe2 - see 12 . . . b4; 12 . . . ltJe5 13.h5 ltJbc6 14.f4 ltJg4 15.ltJxc6 hc6 16.h6 ! - see 12 . . . ltJc6.

After 12 .. . ltJb6 13.h5 ltJ8d7 (In answer to 13 . . . '?fffd7, Vlasak -Rous, Usti nad Labem 2007, it is

good for White to continue with the standard move 14.g6__.) 14.g6 b4 15.ltJb1 d5 16.h6 ! +- and Black is helpless against his opponent's attack.

12 . . . ltJc5 - This knight is not stable here and it is not active either. 13.h5 ltJbd7 (Black should better avoid 13 . . . b4 14.ltJce2 g6 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.i.h3+- with de­cisive threats for White, Ramos - Vega, Lima 2002.) 14.g6 f5 (In answer to 14 . . . h6, Moncayo Romero - M.Lopez, St. Lorenzo 1995, the fastest road for White to victory is 15.gxf7+ l:'!:xf7 16.b4 e5 17.ltJf5 ltJe6 18.l:'!:g1+- - and Black is defenseless against the numer­ous threats.) 15.b4 f4 16.i.f2 e5 17.ltJf5+- The light squares in Black's camp are very weak and his pieces are discoordinated, so he has no chances of equalizing, Nowicki - Solnicki, Grodzisk Ma­zowiecki 2007.

After 12 ... b4 13.ltJce2

he has tried in practice: 13 . . . ltJe5?! 14.'?fffxb4 '?fffc7 15.

'?fffc3± Black has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Hallen­gren - Rooms, Email 2002;

241

Chapter l O

13 . . . %!fa5 - H e attacks his op­ponent's a2-pawn with tempo, but in fact Black postpones the development of his pieces and risks coming under a dangerous attack. 14.'i!?b1 lLle5, Sammalvuo - Niemel, Espoo 1989 (In case of 14 . . . d5 15.g6 ! , Black is incapable of protecting his kingside, for exam­ple: 15 . . . hxg6 16.h5 gxh5 17.flxh5 g6 18.flh1 i.f6 19.lLlf4� - his piec­es, stranded on the queenside, will hardly help in the protection of his king. It is not preferable for him to choose 15 . . . dxe4 16.gxf7 + flxf7 17.lLlxe6� and the critical situation for Black is best illus­trated by the following exemplary variation: 17 . . . exf3 18.lLl2d4 f2 19.flh2 lLlf6 20.lLlg5 ti:Jg4 21.ti:Jxf7 ti:Jxh2 22 .i.c4 f1%!f 23.ti:Jh6+ 'i!?h8 24.hf1 lLlxf1 25.flxfl idS 26.a3 lLlc6 27.flf5+- he cannot avoid huge material losses.) White can continue now with 15.lLlg3 and Black will have great problems. White's kingside offensive is al­ready well prepared, while Black's pieces on the queenside are idle, so any attempts to do something active in the centre are doomed to failure. After 15 . . . d5? ! 16.f4 lLlc4 17.hc4 dxc4 18.f5 c3 19.%!fg2�, White's attack is very dangerous, for example: 19 . . . %!fe5 (It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 19 . . . exf5 20.ti:Jgxf5 %!fc7 21.i.f4 %lfxf4 22.ti:Jxe7+ 'i!?h8 23.ti:Je6! fxe6 24.flhfl+- - and he must give up his queen.) 20 .f6 id6 21.lLlde2 fld8 22 .if4 %!fc5 23.%!fg1 %!fc7 24.

242

%!fd4+- - Black's lag in develop­ment has led to a situation, in which he loses a piece.

13 . . . d5 - He is trying active ac­tions before the completion of his development,

so White can begin a kingside attack acting in the most energetic fashion - 14.g6 ! hxg6 15.h5 gS (His task is even simpler after the simple minded response 15 . . . gxh5? ! 16.flxh5 g6 17.flh1 eS 18. ti:Jf5 ! gxf5 19.ti:Jd4!+- and Black's king is beyond salvation: 19 .. .f4 20.lLlf5 fle8 21.lLlxe7+ 'i!?f8 22 .ti:Jf5 1-0 Monasterio - Baygildin, Email 2000.) 16.flg1 dxe4 (After 16 . . . lLle5 17.hg5 hg5 18.flxg5 lLlc4 19.%!ff4�, White's attack is crushing, since there are only pawns to defend Black's king. It is a disaster for him to play 19 . . . e5? 20.flxg7+ 1-0 Rosen - Roeder, Badenweiler 1985.) 17.hg5 hgS (It is even worse for him to opt for 17 . . . exf3 18.i.h6 if6 19.hg7 hg7 20.h6 and here after 20 . . . fxe2 21 . he2 %!ff6 22 .flxg7+ 'i!?h8 23.id3 ti:Je5 24.flh7+ 'i!?g8 25.flg1+ ti:Jg6 26.lLlxe6 !+- Black loses plenty of material, while in the variation

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7j3 b5 8. Wffd2 i.b7 9.g4 i.e7 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

20 . . . Wffh4 2l.E:xg7+ mh8 2V Zlf4, Wffg6+ mh8 29.Wffg7+ ! White pro­he saves the game neither with motes a new queen checkmating.) 22 . . . Wffxh6 23.E:g3+-, nor follow- 24.Wffg3 V9f6 (The forced line: 24 . . . ing 22 . . . li:JeS 23.Wffe3 li:Jg4 24.Wffxe6 ! V9f8 2S.Wffg6 li:Jf6 26.i.d3 li:Jc6 V9xh6 2S.E:xf7 +-) 18.E:xgS exf3 27.E:f7 WigS 28 . .txfS V9xg6 29.hg6 19.h6 fxe2. Black has won some li:Jg4 30.E:dfl li:Jxh6 31.E:h7+ ffig8 material with the idea to give it 32.E:xh6 mg7 33.E:h2 mxg6 34. back eventually in order to defend E:hf2 figS 3S.E:gl + shows that against White's attack. (It is worse Black cannot save his king, de­for him to play 19 . . . g6 20 .li:Jxe6 spite the numerous simplifica­fxe6 2l.E:xg6+ mh8 22 .li:Jf4 E:f6 tions and the trade of queens.) 23.li:Jxe6+- and then, in the varia- 2S.E:gl li:JeS (The alternatives for tion 23 . . . Wffe7 24.V9gS Wffxe6 2S. him lose as well: 2S . . . li:Jf8 26.Wffh3 E:g7! +- he will be incapable of eS 27.h7+- and Black must give protecting his king against the on- up his queen, failing to collect suf­coming checkmate despite his :ficient material equivalent for it; three extra pieces, while following or 2S . . . li:Jc6 26.E:g8+ mh7 27.E:xa8 23 . . . WffaS 24.E:xf6 li:Jxf6 2S.h7 li:Jfd7 li:Je7 28.E:a7 li:JeS 29.Wffg7+ Wffxg7 26.Wffh6 WffeS 27.Wffg6+- Black will 30.E:xg7+ mxh6 31.E:gxe7+- and be forced to play 27 . . . li:Jc6 28.E:xd7 White will realize easily his extra li:Je7 29. Wffg7+ ! and after the trade exchange; after 2S . . . eS 26.E:g8+ of queens he will remain a piece mh7 27.E:g6 WfffB 28.E:g7+ mh8 down in an endgame.) 20.E:xg7+ 29.h7+- Black's two extra pieces mh8 21.he2 .idS (Black loses save him neither in the variation quickly after 21 . . .Wffh4 22 .i.f3 ! .idS 29 . . . li:Jc6 30.E:g8+ hg8 31. 23.hdS exdS 24.li:Jf3 WffhS 2S.li:JgS hxg8Wff+ Wffxg8 32.E:hl+ Wffh7 33. li:Jf6 26.Wffd4 ! li:Jbd7 27.E:gl+- and E:xh7+ mxh7 34.V9h3+ mg6 3S. he has no satisfactory defence, for i.d3 e4 36.he4 E:af8 37.Wffg4+ example: 27 . . . E:ac8 28.E:h7+ mg8 mh6 38 . .txfS+- and White wins 29.li:Jxf7+ and White will soon easily with an extra queen, nor in checkmate.) 22 .Wffd3 ! fS (It is not case of 29 . . . li:Jf6 30.Wffh3 Wffxg7 31. so resilient for Black to defend E:xg7 li:Jc6 32.E:g8+ li:Jxg8 33. with 22 . . . li:Jf6 23.li:Jxe6 ! fxe6 24. hxg8Wff+ mxg8 34.WffxfS+-) 26. Wffg6+- and he will have to give up E:g8+ mh7 27. Wffe3 li:Jg6 28.E:8xg6 plenty of material, while White's Wffxg6 29.E:xg6 mxg6 30.i.d3 li:Jc6 attack continues.) 23.li:JxfS! E:xfS 3l.Wffg3+ mhS (After 31 . . .mxh6 (It is even worse for Black to 32 . .txfS exfS 33.Wffd6+ Black loses choose here 23 . . . exfS 24.WffxdS his bishop.) 32 . .hf5 exfS 33.h7+­E:a7 2S.E:dgl aS 26.Wffg2+- and he and for the pawn on h7, Black is lost, because after 26 . . . Wfff6 must give up either a rook, or both 27.E:g8+ mh7 28.E:xf8 V9xf8 29. his light pieces.

243

Chapter lO

.tb5 20 . .tb3 a5 2l..ib6! Wfc8 22 . Wfh3+- and White's powerful at­tack will lead at least to a win of an exchange for him, Khalifman -V.Loginov, USSR 1984.

Black should better avoid 14 . . . �c8 15.g6 b4, Klippel - Nguyen Minh, Leutersdorf 2007 (In the variation 15 . . . h6 16.gxf7+ l'!xf7 17 . .th3 lLlf8 18.1Mfg2± he has no active counterplay, Sulypa - Vukmi-

13.c!Llxc6!? rovic, Internet 2002.) , and here, This move not only enables it seems very attractive for White

White to advance his kingside to play 16.gxh7+ lt>h8 17.ltJe2 d5 pawns, but he wins a tempo thanks 18.ltJd4 i.b7 19.�g1 !± to the misplacement of Black's light-squared bishop, which will have to free later the c-file.

13 . . . J.xc6 14.h5

14 . . . c!Lle5 About 14 . . . 1Mfa5 15.1t>b1 b4

16.ltJe2 - see 14 . . . b4 15.ltJe2 �a5 16.1t>b1.

It is bad for Black to play 14 . . . �e8 15.g6 fxg6 16.hxg6 hxg6 17. Wfg2 ! b4 (The position after 17 . . . liJf8 18.e5 ! , followed by .td3, will be probably impossible for Black to hold.) 18 . .tc4 ltJf8 19.ltJd5!

244

There may follow: 19 . . . ltJe5? 20.1Mfg2 .tf6 2l.f4+­

and Black loses a piece. 19 . . . ltJf6 20.�h2 Wfc7 2l.e5

ltJxh7 22 . .td3± and White has ex­cellent attacking prospects, while his king is completely safe.

19 . . . 1Mfc7 20 . .if4 e5 2l ..ih6 ! (His attack is very powerful after this move.) 21 . . . .tf6 22 .i.xg7+ ! hg7 23.ltJf5 .tf6 24 . .ih3--+ and despite the extra piece, Black can hardly find satisfactory defence, for example he loses after 24 . . . '<Mfc5 25.lLlh6 i.g7 26.�xg7! lt>xg7 27.i.xd7+-

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7..fJ b5 8.'�d2 ib7 9.g4 i.e7 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 9 . . . dxe4 - Now, White can ex­ploit advantageously the opened d-file. 20.'t:lxe6 ! fxe6 21.Wlxd7 Wfc7 22 .Wtxc7 l::lxc7 23.i.b6 i.c5 (In the variation 23 . . . l::lc6 24.i.d4 e5 25.he5 .if6 26.hf6 l::lcxf6 27.l::ld7 i.c8 28.l::ldxg7 exf3 29.l::lc7 i.f5 30. l::lg8+ l::lxg8 31.hxg8Wl+ @xg8 32. @d2 f2 33.l::\c4± Black will fail to prove that his passed f2-pawn is powerful.) 24.hc5 l::lxc5 25.l::\d7 i.d5 26.l::ldxg7 l::lxf3 (He loses af­ter 26 . . . l::\f5 27.l::le7 l::lf8 28.f4 ha2 29.ha6 i.b3 30.l::lg3 ! and then 30 . . . hc2 31.l::lg5 e5 32.l::lgxe5 l::lc6 33.i.b7 l::lc4 34.i.d5 l::lc5 35. @d2 +-, as well as following 30 . . . l::\xc2+ 31.@b1 l::lc6 32.l::lxb3 l::lxa6 33.l::lxb4 e3 34.l::le4+- and Black is be­yond salvation in this endgame.) 27.i.e2 l::lf2 28.@d1 a5 29 .b3± -White must prepare with an accu­rate play the centralization of his king, after which Black's chances of saving the game will be practi­cally nil.

14 . . . b4 - This move only helps White's knight to go to a more ac­tive position. After 15.'tle2

Black has tried in practice : 15 . . . 'tle5 16.'t:ld4 i.d7 (In re-

sponse to 16 . . . i.b5, Warakomska - Lvova, Urgup 2004, it seems attractive for White to play 17.f4 and it would be bad for Black to reply with 17 . . . hf1 18.fxe5 dxe5?? 19.'t:lc6+-, because White remains with an extra piece, while in case of 18 . . . i.b5 19.h6 g6 20.'t:lxe6 ! fxe6 21.exd6± Black will be a pawn down with vulner­able dark squares on the kingside, while in the variation 17 . . . 't:lg4 18.h6 g6 19.'t:lxe6 fxe6 20.i.h3 't:lxe3 21.he6+ @h8 22 .Wld4+ if6 23.'1�!fxe3± White regains his piece, remaining at least with an extra pawn.) 17.g6 h6 (It is hardly any better for Black to play 17 . . . fxg6 18.f4 't:lg4 19.hxg6 h6 20.ih3±) 18.l::lg1 fxg6 19.f4 't:lc6 20.l::lxg6� and White will have a power­ful kingside attack thanks to the open g-file and his active pieces, Mignon - Mukhin, Email 2006;

15 . . . d5 - This move would not organize any effective coun­terplay for Black and it only ena­bles White to create dangerous kingside threats. 16.'t:ld4 ib7 17.g6 'tlc5 18.h6 fxg6 19.hxg7 l::lf7, Schroeder - Putzbach, Hamburg 2001 and now he will have a more than sufficient compensation for the pawn after the natural line: 20.Wlh2 l::lxg7 21.i.h3�, for exam­ple: 21 . . .i.c8 (Black's position is completely lost in the variation 21 . . . e5 22 .'t:le6 't:lxe6 23.he6+ @h8 24.Wxe5+-, as well as after 21 . . . \Wd7 22.'t:lxe6 't:lxe6 23.Wle5 ic8 24.exd5+-) 22 .'t:lc6± and the

245

Chapter 1 0

moment Black's dark-squared bishop disappears from the board, he will be incapable of protecting his vulnerable dark squares on the kingside.

1S . . .'IWaS - His queen prevents the advance of his own rook­pawn on this square. 16.'i!ib1 tt'leS 17.tt'ld4

In reply to 17 . . . .ibS, Smistik ­Fiala, Olomouc 199S, it seems very attractive for White to play 18.f4! and now it is bad for Black to de­fend with 18 . . . tt'lg4? 19 . .ig1+-, because he will lose material due to his terribly misplaced knight, while after 18 . . . tt'lc4 19.hc4 hc4 20.b3 i.bS 2l.g6± White will con­tinue with his attack without any counterplay of his opponent.

It is hardly advisable for Black to opt for 17 .. Jl:ac8, Skinke -Askarova, Budva 2003. Now, it deserves attention for White to play 18.h6 ! ? g6 19.tt'lxc6 and then after 19 . . . tt'lxc6 20.f4t, he is threatening to transfer his bishop to b3, enhancing the effect of the pawn-advance f4-fS. Black can prevent that with 20 . . . dS 21.exdS l"!fd8 22 .i.g2 exdS 23.i.d4±, but

246

his pawn on dS and the dark squares on his kingside are so weak that his defence would be very difficult. In case of 19 . . . l"!xc6 20.�d4, Black has a choice be­tween defending the difficult end­game after 20 . . . f6 21..ih3 tt'lxf3 22 .he6+ l!ih8 23.�dS±, in which the main drawback of his position is his terribly weak king, or to try to make a draw in the ending with bishops of opposite colours, being a pawn down, after 20 . . . .id8 ! 2l..id2 .ib6 22 .�xb4 �xb4 23. hb4 tt'lxf3 24 . .ig2 tt'ld4 2S.c3 aS 26.haS haS 27.cxd4 .idS 28.dS exdS 29. E1xdS±, or to play in a po­sition with material equality, but with a passive king, while White has the two-bishops advantage following 24 . . . tt'lxgS 2S.hd6 E1e8 26.eS E1c4 27.b3 E1c3 28.E1h4±

17 . . . E1fc8 18.l"!g1 i.bS 19.b3 l"!c3 20.g6±. He is developing his standard attack and Black has no counterplay. In case of 20 . . . fxg6?, F.Donguines - Pialan, Manila 1991, White should win easily af­ter 21..ih3 ! .id7 22 .f4 tt'lc6 23.hxg6 h6 24.he6+ he6 2S.tt'lxe6 E1c8 26.E1g2+-

15.f4 (diagram)

15 . . . �g4 In reply to 1S . . . tt'ld7, Guillen

Buil - Demestres Lopez, Barce­lona 2002, White can make use of the loss of two tempi by his oppo­nent by playing 16.a3 l"!b8 17.g6� and he continues with his stand­ard kingside attack.

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7,/3 b5 B. Wffd2 i.b7 9.g4 i.e7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

It is not better for Black to opt for 15 . . . b4 16.tt:ld5! exdS 17.exd5 WffaS. He is trying to create some counterplay. (After 17 . . . i.b7 18. fxeS dxeS 19.g6 Wffd6 20.i.h3 fS 21.gxh7+ c;t>hs 22J'1hgl± Black has problems with the protec­tion of his king, Chandler - How­ell, London 1985.) 18.dxc6 Wffxa2 19.Wffg2 hgS! (It is worse for him to choose 19 . . . Wffa1+ 20.c;t>d2 Wffxb2 21.fxe5 dxeS 22 .Wffe4+- and he has no compensation for the bishop.) 20 .Wffd5 ! (In case of 20 .fxg5 Wffa1+ 21. c;t>d2 Wffxb2t Black has a good compensation for the piece.) 20 . . . Wffa1+ 21.c;t>d2 Wffxb2 22.Wffb3 Wc3+ 23.Wffxc3 bxc3+ 24.c;t>e2 tt:lxc6 25. fxgS+- His three pawns do not compensate the sacrificed piece at all, because they are weak, while White's bishop-pair will soon dominate all over the board.

16.h6! This is the most precise way

for White to maintain the advan­tage.

It is bad for him to continue in a routine fashion - 16.i.g1? b4 17.tt:le2 i.xe4+

White is slightly better after 16.i.h3 ! ? tt:Jxe3 17.Wffxe3 b4 18.tt:le2 eS (Or 18 . . . Wffc7 19.g6 .ia4 20 . gxf7+ E:xf7 2U'1d2 E:f6 22 .tt:ld4t and he has a slight initiative thanks to his pressure on the light squares.) 19.g6 exf4 20.tt:lxf4 .igS 21.gxh7+ c;t>hs 22 .c;t>bu - White can place his bishop on f5 and he will play with an extra pawn, but Black has some compensation, because of his powerful dark­squared bishop, Cuevas Araya -Godoy, Email 2007.

16 . . . g6 17.J.gl b4 18.lile2! �k8

Naturally, it is bad for Black to opt for 18 . . . he4 19.Wffd4+-

After 18 ... Wffa5 19.c;t>b1 fS (He should better avoid 19 ... E:ac8 20. tt:lg3 i.a4 21.b3 i.d7 22.E:h4 f5 23.Wffd4 1"l:f7 24.i.c4± and his de­fence will be very difficult, because of his terribly misplaced knight on g4.) 20.tt:lg3 !'lacS 21.i.c4 dS 22 .i.b3 !± White will exchange on fS on the next move and then he will transfer his knight to d4.

19.Wffxb4

247

Chapter 10

19 • • • a5 (Or 19 . . . eS 20J'l:h4 aS 21.�d2 i.xe4 22 .lt:lc3 .ifS and now, not 23 . .ih3 l'l:xc3 24.�xc3 �asgg, but the simple line: 23.i>b1 �d7 24 . .id3;!; guarantees supe­rior prospects for White thanks to his better placed pieces and safer king.) 2 0 .�c4 e5 21..ih3 .id7 (Black loses after 21 . . .�d7? 22.lt:lc3 exf4 23.�d4 f6 24 . .ih2+-) 22.YlYd3 exf4 23.�d4 tlJe5 24. hd7 gc4 25.�d5 f3 26 • .ib5 hg5+ 27.c!>bt fxe2 28.geu

b) 9 . . .li�c6

This looks like a very natu­ral move for Black. He develops his queenside and leaves the d7-square for his other knight.

l O .tlJxc6!? This exchange is practically al­

ways advantageous for White. 1 0 • . . hc6 11. 0 - 0 - 0

(diagram) ll . . . gcs Black has also tried in prac­

tice: About ll . . . h6 12.lt:le2 - see 9 . . .

h6 10.0-0-0 tt:lc6 ll.tt:lxc6 i.xc6

248

12.tt:le2; ll . . . .ie7 12 .gS tt:ld7 13.h4 - see variation el.

After ll . . . '!Wc7 12 .gS tt:ld7 13.h4 l'l:c8 (or 13 . . . .ie7 14.�d4 - varia-tion al) 14.a3 lLlcS 1S.i>b1 �b7, Garcia Garcia - Bayon Fernandez, Medina del Campo 2001, White continues with 16.l'l:g1 b4 17.axb4 �xb4 18.�d4 �b6 19.hS± and he obtains a considerable lead in de­velopment, occupying additional space in the centre and on the kingside.

It is not preferable for Black to play ll . . . �aS 12 .i>b1 b4 13.tt:le2 .ie7 14.h4 0-0 1S.gS tt:ld7 16.tt:ld4 .ibS 17.a3± and he fails to create any counterplay and loses his b4-pawn, Ehsan - Reutter, Calvia 2006.

ll . . . b4 - This looks like the most aggressive move for Black, but it only helps White's knight to go to a more active position. 1V1::le2 dS (It is worse for him to play 12 . . . l'l:c8 13.tt:ld4 �aS, Mar­tin Tarrio - Roca Diaz, Barcelona 2001, because now Black has great problems to protect his b4-pawn and after the attractive move

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7j3 b5 8. Wid2 �b7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 - 0

14.a3 ! , he loses for example fol­lowing 14 . . . d5 15.g5 .!Lld7 16 . .!Llxc6 l:!xc6 17.exd5 exd5 18.�h3+- -his d5 and b4-pawns are weak, the centre has been opened and his king remains stranded in the centre.) 13 . .!Lld4 �b7, Bruned -Stavrianakis, Oropesa del Mar 1999 and White has excellent at­tacking chances after 14.g5 .!Lld7 15.exd5 hd5 16.�g2 .!Llb6 17.b3 �e7 18.h4 0-0 19.Wif2 �c5 20.'it>b1 Wid6 21 .h5 l:!ad8 22 .�h3t

12.g5 .!Lld7 It is worse for Black to play

the pseudo-active line: 12 . . . b4 13.gxf6 bxc3 14.Wixc3 he4 15. �c4± and he has no satisfac­tory defence against the threat 16.fxg7+-, for example after 15 . . . l:!xc4 16.Wixc4 h£3 17.fxg7 hg7 18.l:!hg1 hd1 19.l:!xg7 �h5 20.�g5 Wid7 21 .�f6+-, despite his extra pawn, Black has no chances of successful defence, since his rook is hopelessly isolated and his dark squares are defenceless.

13.a3!? (White prevents his opponent's active play on the

queenside and has his hands free for kingside actions.) 13 . . . i.e7 14.�bl 0 - 0 15.h4 Wic7 16.h5 .!Lle5, Schroeder - J.Rotstein, Duisburg 2005 and now it seems very attractive for him to choose 17.f4 .!Llg4 (After 17 . . . .!Llc4 18.hc4 bxc4 19.h6 g6 20.Wid4 e5 21.Wixc4± White ends up with a solid extra pawn, while in case of 17 . . . .!Lld7 18.g6� he continues with his standard kingside attack.) 18.i.gl f5 19J'�h4± White's main idea here is to occupy the d5-outpost after the exchange on f5.

c) 9 . . . h6 This move stops for a while

White's kingside pawn-offensive indeed, but it weakens Black's kingside. Later, he should better transpose to the variations we analyze in the next chapters.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

1 0 . . . i.e7 It is better for Black to play

here 10 . . . .!Llbd7 ll.h4 - see Chap­ters 13-15.

10 ... .!Llc6 - This move enables

249

Chapter 1 0

White to exchange favourably the knights. 11.lLlxc6 i.xc6

12.lt:\e2 eS (After 12 .. J'k8 13.lt:\d4 i.b7 14.'it>b1t, he seizes the initiative, because Black can­not organize any active counter­play. It is for example premature for him to opt for 14 . . . e5 15.lt:\b3 dS 16.exd5 �xdS 17.i.d3± and not it is very bad for him to choose 17 . . . �xf3 18.i.f5+- and he loses at least the exchange, while in case of 17 . . . i.e7 18J'�hf1 0-0 19.i.xh6-t Black either comes under a crush­ing attack, or he remains simply a pawn down.) 13.lt:\c3 �aS 14.'it>b1 i.e7, Velcheva - Peptan, Halle 1995 and after 15.a3 �c7 16.h4t White continues with his stand­ard kingside attack, while Black's chances of creating active coun­terplay are just minimal.

lO . . . �aS - His queen only seems to be more actively placed here than on c7, while in fact it is doing nothing on this square. 11. 'it>b1 b4 12.lt:\b3 �c7 13.lt:\a4 lt:\bd7 14.�xb4 l'!c8 15.�c3± Black is a pawn down and he cannot create any threats along the b-file, Mol­ner - Simutowe, Parsippany 2007.

250

10 ... b4 - He occupies space on the queenside, hoping to come ahead of his opponent in the crea­tion of threats, but in fact he only helps White's knight to go to a more active square. 11.lt:\ce2 dS 12 .e5 lt:\fd7 13.f4 lLlcS (After 13 . . . lt:\b6 14.b3t, or 13 . . . i.e7 14.i.g2t, Black can hardly organize any counterplay, while White's offen­sive will develop comfortably af­ter the light-squares on the king­side have been weakened with the move h7-h6.) 14.f5 lt:\bd7 15.fxe6 fxe6 16.lt:\f4± Black has great problems to protect the e6-square and White has excellent attack­ing chances along the open cen­tral files, Wahls - Ostl, Germany 1988.

10 .. . �c7 - Black's queen is not so well placed here, because after the standard piece-sacrifice on bS, or e6, it will come under at­tack with tempo. 11.h4

11 . . . b4 (Black plays often 11 . . . lt:\bd7 - see Chapter 13 ; 11 . . . i.e7 -this natural developing move does not prevent White's active actions on the kingside. 12 .i.h3 lt:\c6 13.g5 lt:\d7 14.i.xe6! - White sacrifices

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.j3 b5 B. Wfd2 i.b7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0

a piece in a standard fashion, organizing a powerful attack in a position with approximate ma­terial equality. 14 . . . fxe6 15.li:lxe6 �aS 16.ti:lxg7+ i>f7 17.li:Jf5+-. He has obtained three pawns for the piece, having deprived the enemy king of a pawn-shelter, Makk -A. Kovacs, Hungary 2007; ll . . . li:Jc6 - Black is ready to exchange his opponent's active knight. 12.i>b1 l'l:c8 13.l'l:g1 g6 14.li:Jxc6 �xc6, Hul­pia - Latapie, Avoine 2007, White can continue here with 15.a3 ! li:Jd7 16.i.d4 li:Je5 17.�e3±, neutralizing Black's possible queenside activity and he creates effortlessly a pow­erful kingside attack.) 12.li:Jce2 dS (It is not preferable for Black to play 12 . . . li:Jbd7 13.l'l:g1 - see Chapter 12 - 13 . . . g6 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 li:JhS 16.i.h3t and White's threat 17.he6 ! looks very dan­gerous for Black and his attempt to evacuate the king away from the centre would not help either: 17 . . . 0-0-0 17.he6 fxe6 18.li:Jxe6 �c4 19.li:Jxd8 i>xd8 20.b3 �bs 21.li:Jd4 �eS 22.�xb4+- Gallagh­er - Kamber, Suhr 1992.) 13.e5 li:Jfd7 14.f4 li:JcS (Black should better avoid 14 . . . li:Jb6 15.b3 li:J8d7 16.f5 li:Jxe5 17.fxe6± and the open­ing of the central files is obviously in favour of White, Bocanegra Moreno - Zhdanenia, Internet 2005.) 15.li:Jg3 li:Jbd7 16.i>b1 a5 17. i.bS i.a6 18.ha6 l'l:xa6 19.�e2t - White can develop a powerful kingside initiative by advancing f4-f5, or g4-g5-g6 with dangerous

threats, Svidler - Bosboom, Wijk aan Zee (blitz) 1999.

ll.h4

ll . . . b4 Black has not played yet this

principled move. He plans to or­ganize a swift counter attack.

About ll . . . li:Jbd7 - see Chap­ter 13; ll . . . �c7 12.i.h3 - see 10 . . . �c7.

In response to ll . . . dS, De la Riva Aguado - Vonthron, Odessa 1990, it seems very attractive for White to continue with 12 .i.g2, after which Black should better transpose to the main line with 12 . . . b4 13.li:Jce2 - see 11. . .b4.

It is rather dubious for Black to choose ll . . . g6? ! , Powierski -I.Donchenko, Frankfurt 2009, because after 12 .hh6 li:Jbd7 13.a3 li:JeS 14.i>b1 l'l:c8 15.i.e2±, his compensation for the pawn is no­where in sight.

After ll . . . li:Jc6 12.li:Jxc6 hc6, White has numerous good moves to choose from, for example it looks very good for him to contin­ue with the natural line: 13.�d3

251

Chapter lO

1%c8 14.g5 hxgS 15.hxg5 1%xhl 16.1%xhl lLld7 17.f4 lLlf8 18 .1%h8± Bruno - Resende, Dos Hermanas 2004.

In reply to ll . . .lLlfd7, Fogarasi - At.Schneider, Hungary 1993, White should better react in a resolute fashion - 12.g5 ! ? hxgS 13.i.h3 lLleS (Black cannot parry his opponent's attack with the greedy line : 13 . . . gxh4 14.he6 ! fxe6 15.lLlxe6 '<MiaS 16.lLlxg7+ @f7 17.lLlf5 b4 18.'<Mig2 '<MieS 19.lLld5--+ - his king is bare and his queen­side is not developed.) 14.i.xe6 fxe6 15.lLlxe6 \Wd7 16.lLlxg7+ @f7 17.lLlf5--+ - Black is considerably behind in development and his king has no reliable pawn-shelter, so White's attack should be victo­rious.

12.lLlce2 d5 13.i.g2 dxe4 14.g5--+

His kingside attack is tremen­dously dangerous, for example : 14 . . . lLld5 (The opening of the h­file is in favour of White. After 14 . . . hxg5 15.hxg5 1%xhl 16.1%xhl lLlfd7 17.fxe4 lLlf8 18.lLlf4!±, the

252

threat 19.lLlh5 looks very danger­ous, after 18 . . . g6 19.lLld3 lLlbd7 20.@bl± Black's f7-pawn is very weak and his pieces are not well deployed for the creation of meaningful counterplay. It is hardly any better for him to choose 18 . . . e5 19.lLlh5 exd4 20. lLlxg7+ @d7 21.'<Mixd4+ @c8 22 . \Wc4+ i.c6 23 .'<Mixf7 lLlbd7 24. 1%h6±

White has three pawns for the piece and his activity in­creases.) 15.fxe4 l0xe3 16.1Mlxe3 %¥b6 17.g6 0 - 0 18.gxf7+ gxf7 19 . .ih3!± (Black has obtained the two-bishop advantage, but his queenside is not developed yet, so his defence will be very dif­ficult.) 19 . . . e5 (After 19 . . . i.c5 20.'1Wb3 i.c8 21.i.xe6 i.xe6 22 . lLlxe6 lLlc6 23.1%hfl +- Black has lost a pawn and come under at­tack. It is not preferable for him to opt for 19 . . . i.c8 20.'1Wb3 aS 21. he6 i.xe6 22 .'?9xe6 \Wxe6 23. lLlxe6±, although White will have to play accurately in order to real­ize his extra pawn.) 2 0 .i.e6 exd4 21.'?9b3± - Black loses the ex­change, so White only needs not to forget to move his king safely to the bl-square, depriving his op­ponent of any chances of a coun­ter attack.

d) 9 . . . b4 This is an attractive move for

Black. He occupies space on the queenside and prepares a counter strike in the centre, but falls be-

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. WI d2 i.b7 9 .g4 b4 1 0 .tiJ ce2

hind in development, which ena­bles White to be better prepared for the opening of files.

l O .tLlce2 d5 In answer to 10 . . . e5, Hector ­

Ornstein, Malmo 1986, White can capture the b4-pawn 11.Wlxb4!? Wlc7 (After l l . . . i.c8?! 12.tLlf5 d5 13 .i.c5± Black has fallen be­hind in development and lost a pawn.) 12.Wia4+ tLlbd7 13.'Llb3 h6 (He should better avoid 13 . . . Wlxc2 14J'k1 Wid3 15.@f2 and now he loses after the too risky move 15 . . . 'Llxg4+ 16.fxg4 Wlxe4 17.Wlxe4 i.xe4 18.l"i:g1 +- and White should realize easily his extra piece, but even in case of 15 . . . Wib5 16.Wlxb5 axb5 17.l"i:c7 i.c8 18.g5 @d8 19.fi:c2 'Lle8 20.a3±, despite the mate­rial equality, Black's defence is difficult, because his queenside pawns are weak and his pieces are passive.) 14.0-0-0 d5 15.'Llg3 dxe4 16.'Llxe4 i.c6 17.'Llxf6+ 'Llxf6 18.Wlc4 l"i:c8 19.i.e2± White has an extra pawn and a much superior development.

ll.g5

ll . . . tLlfd7 Naturally, in the variation 11 . . .

dxe4? 12.gxf6 exf3 13.fxg7 i.xg7 14.'Llg3± Black's compensation for the piece is insufficient, because his rooks cannot enter the actions any time soon.

In response to ll . . . 'Llh5, it looks very strong for White to play 12 .i.h3 ! ? - he is attacking the e6-square, ignoring the possible loss of his e4-pawn. 12 . . . dxe4 13.fxe4 i.xe4 14.l"i:fl g6 (After 14 . . . e5 15. 'Llf3 Wlxd2+ 16.'Llxd2 i.c6 17.i.g4 g6 18.'Llc4 'Lld7 19.0-0-0±, de­spite the trade of queens, Black has great problems with the safety of his king and his pieces are dis­coordinated, while his extra pawn is immaterial.) 15.0-0-0 ie7 (Af­ter 15 . . . 'Llc6 16.'Llf4 l"i:c8 17.'Llxh5 gxh5 18.i.g2± his king can hardly find a safe shelter and he has dif­ficulties completing his develop­ment.) 16.'Llg3 'Llxg3 17.hxg3 Wlc7 18.i.xe6+- White has regained his pawn and he has an over­whelming lead in development, Blehm - Petkevich, France 1995.

12.exd5 hd5 13.tLlf4

253

Chapter 10

13 . . • .ib7 It is very bad for Black to play

13 . . . tt'lb6 14.0-0-0 i.e7?, since after 15.tt'lf5 exf5 16 . .ixb6 Wxb6 17.tt'lxd5+-, he loses plenty of ma­terial, Kineva - Duisenova, Novo­sibirsk 2004.

13 . . . Wxg5 - Gobbling pawns, ignoring development, seems to be rather optimistic for Black. 14. 0-0-0 We5 15.tt'lxd5 Wxd5, Zecha - Hase, corr. 1996. Now, White can create great problems for his opponent with the aggressive line: 16.Wg2 ! tt'lb6 (After 16 . . . Wxa2 17.f4 Ei:a7 18.tt'lxe6 fxe6 19 . .ixa7 Wa1+ 20.i>d2 Wxb2 21.We4± White has an extra pawn and his king is much safer in the centre than its counterpart.) 17.tt'lb3 Wc6 18.tt'la5 Wc7 19.f4± White has not checkmated his opponent yet, but Black's defence is very difficult, because he can hardly complete his development.

13 . . . tt'le5 - Black presents his opponent with the two-bishop advantage, hoping to evacuate his king from the centre. 14.tt'lxd5 Wxd5 15.b3 tt'lbc6 16.0-0-0 i.e7

254

(The move 16 . . . i.c5? loses by force. 17.tt'lxc6 Wxc6 18 . .ixc5 Wxc5 19.f4 tt'lg4 20.Wd7+ i>f8 21.Wb7 Ei:c8 22 .i.c4+- and Black has no satisfactory defence against the threat 23.Ei:d7.) 17.ig2 WaS? (He could have offered more resilient defence with the line: 17 . . . tt'lxd4 18 . .ixd4 0-0 19.Wf2 tt'lc6 20.f4 Wb5 21.i.b2± and he would have avoided the immediate crush. Still , White's two powerful bishops on the long diagonals make Black's defence tremendously difficult.) 18.tt'lxc6 Wxa2 19 .Wd4+- Penttila - Vehkalahti, Lahti 2002.

14.ti)fxe6 This is the most consistent

move for White. He begins a crushing attack preventing the opponent from completing his development.

14 . . • fxe6 15AJxe6 ti'a5 It is not better for Black to

choose 15 . . . We7 16.i.h3 !--t, for ex­ample he loses after 16 . . . ixf3 17.0-0 tt'le5 18.i.b6 ! tt'lbc6 19. tt'lc7+ Wxc7 20.hc7 .ic5+ 21.Ei:f2 0-0 22 .i.d6 Ei:fd8 (Black should

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7..f.3 b5 B. Wffd2 i.b7 9.g4 b4 1 0 . liJ ce2

better avoid 22 . . . hf2+ 23.Wffxf2 :E1fe8 24.Wffc5+- and White's cen­tralized knight is much stronger than Black's rook and knight.) 23. !xeS :E1xd2 24.:E1xd2 .ie4 25. .ig2+-. White has exchanged the unnecessary pieces and he should not have any problems to realize his extra exchange. Black cannot save the game with 15 . . . Wffc8 16 . .ih3 't!?f7, Pinski - Mannke, War­saw 1996 and here the fastest road for White to victory is to activate his queen 17.Wffd4 ! +-, for exam­ple: 17 . . . liJc6 (17 . . . 't!?e8 18 . .if4+-) 18.Wfff4+ 't!?g8 19.'Llxf8+- and Black is helpless against the threat 20 . .ie6+ .

16.�h3! This is the most energetic

move for White, but Black will hardly parry the attack even after the simpler line: 16 . .if4 !? 'Lle5! 17.0-0-0 'Llbd7 18 . .ih3-+

t6 • • • mn It is bad for him to choose

16 . . . 'Lle5 17.0-0-0 'Llbc6 18.f4 b3 (but not 18 . . . Wffxa2 19.'Llc7+-) 19. fxe5 Wffxd2+ 20.:E1xd2 bxa2 21 .

'Llc7+ 't!?f7 22.g6+ ! 't!?xg6 23.:E1g1+ 't!?h5 24.�g4+ 't!?h4 25 . .if2+ 't!?g5 26 . .ie6+ 't!?h5 27 . .ixa2 g5 28. .ie3+-. The forced variation is over and White has an extra pawn and a crushing attack.

17.g6+!? This beautiful move wins, but

White has at least two other pos­sibilities, which seem very attrac­tive:

17 . .if4! (It is more or less the same after 17.0-0-0! .ie7 18. .if4.) 17 . . . .ie7 18.0-0-0+-. Black's king will be the easy vic­tim of White's numerous attack­ing pieces and the extra pawn is absolutely immaterial: 18 . . . :E1c8 (or 18 . . . '1Wxa2 19.'�d4 :E1g8 20. hb8! +-) 19.Wffd4 'Llf6 20.gxf6 h£6 21.'We3 Wffxa2 22 .'Llg5+ hg5 23.hc8+- White has an extra ex­change and a powerful attack.

17 . . • hxg6 This is the only move for Black. 18.liJg5+ 't!?e8 19. 0 - 0 - 0

19 • • • gxh3 (nothing else for him to play) 2 0 .ghel! .ie7 (Af­ter 20 . . . 't!?d8 21 ..if4! .ic6 22 .'Llf7+

255

Chapter lO

@cB 23.E!:eB+ \t>b7 24.E!:xfB lDxfB 25.4Jd6+- Black is either check­mated, or he loses his queen.) 21.J.f4 J.c6 (The alternatives for Black would not save him: 21 . . . @dB 22.E!:xe7! \t>xe7 23.�d6+ \t>eB 24.�e6+ with a quick checkmate; 2l . . .E!:hB 22.E!:xe7+ \t>xe7 23.E!:e1+ @dB 24.4Jf7+ \t>cB 25.4Jd6+ and Black loses his queen; 21 . . . i.dS - this is the most resilient defence. 22 .i.xbB ! E!:xbB 23.�e2 i.e4 24.lLlxh3 4Jf6 25.4Jf2 �xa2 26.4Jxe4 �a1+ 27.\t>d2+- and here after 27 . . . �xb2 2B.lt.Jd6+ White remains with an extra rook for nothing, while in case of 27 . . . E!:dB+ 2B.\t>e3 E!:xd1 29.E!:xd1 �xb2 30.�xa6+- he should re­alize easily his extra exchange.) 22.�xe7! +- Romero Holmes -Gil Reguera, Spain 19B6.

e) 9 . . .tiJfd7 Black is reluctant to play the

move h7-h6, weakening his king­side and he retreats in advance his knight to a more comfortable position.

1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

256

White is not in a hurry to push forward his kingside pawns and he prefers to complete his devel­opment.

Black's main replies here are el) 10 . . • i.e7 and e2) l O . • .tiJb6.

About 10 ... 4Jc6 ll .h4 i.e7 12 . 4Jxc6 - see variation el.

He has tried some other moves as well.

10 . . . �c7 11.\t>b1 i.e7 (White can counter ll . . . lt.JeS, Alvarez Diaz - Vidarte Morales, El Sauzal 2004, with 12.�e2 i.e7 13.f4 lLlec6 14.4Jxc6 4Jxc6 15.g5 0-0 16.�f2t and after having prevented the appearance of Black's knight on aS, he will have excellent attacking prospects on the kingside, while Black will have no counterplay. It is not preferable for him to opt for 11. . .4Jc6 12.4Jxc6 i.xc6 13.lLle2, this is a standard maneuver for White - he transfers his knight on c3 to a more active position. 13 . . . i.b7 14.4Jd4 lt.JeS 15.b3 dS 16. exdS hdS 17.i.f4 f6 1B.g5 i.cS 19.i.h3t. He has a powerful ini­tiative thanks to his lead in devel­opment and Black's weaknesses in the centre: 19 . . . i.xd4 20.�xd4 h£3 21.i.xe6 i.xd1 22.E!:xd1 E!:dB 23.i.d5�. His attempts to simplify the position by exchanges have led to a situation, in which Black's king is stranded in the centre for long and White has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. After 23 . . . E!:fB 24.�e4 E!:d7 25.gxf6 gxf6 26.he5 W/xeS 27.�xe5+ fxeS 2B.i.c6± White

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.j3 bS 8. Wid2 .ib7 9.g4 CiJfd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

remains with an extra pawn in a rook and pawn ending, Lukulus - Voxel, Internet 2007. ll . . . CiJb6 - Black fails to deploy his knight on c4, because White can exploit advantageously the placement of Black's queen on c7 with the line: 12.CiJdxb5! ? axb5 13.CiJxb5 Wic6 14.CiJxd6+ hd6 15.Wffxd6 Wixd6 16J;:xd6gg. He has obtained three pawns for the piece with a couple of powerful bishops and superior development and this is a more than sufficient compensation. Black has tried in practice here: 16 . . . CiJc8 17 . .ib5+ <J;;e7 18J'o;:d2 .ic6 19 . .ic5+ <J;;f6 20 . .ie2 CiJd7 21..id4+ <J;;g6 22 .h4± Magem Badals - Ro­driguez Lopez, Dos Hermanas 1998, while in response to 16 . . . CiJ6d7, Dochev - Patterson, Pan­ormo 2001, it looks very good for White to play 17 . .ie2 .ia6 18.c4 <J;;e7 19Jo;:hd1 �c8 20.b3± and after he has prevented the trade of the light-squared bishops, he can pre­pare his further pawn-offensive.) 12 .g5 CiJc6 13.h4

and now: 13 . . . 0-0-0? - This move

loses for Black. 14.hb5! CiJde5

(It is bad for him to opt for 14 . . . axb5 15.CiJcxb5 Wffb8 16.CiJxc6 hc6 17.CiJa7+ <J;;b7 18.Wib4+ <J;;c7 19.Wia5+ CiJb6 20.�d3+- and White regains his piece, remain­ing with two extra pawns and an attack.) 15.CiJxc6 CiJxc6 16 . .ie2 Wia5 17.Wie1 <J;;bs 18.Wif2+- and again he has an extra pawn and an attack, Reading - Roush, USA 1997.

In reply to 13 . . . CiJb6, Arakha­mia Grant - Stepovaia, Warsaw 2001, White wins with 14.CiJxc6 Wixc6 (After 14 . . . hc6 15.Wid4 CiJc4 16.hc4 bxc4 17.�xg7+- Black is left with two pawns down.) 15.Wid4 CiJa4 16.Wixg7 CiJxc3+ 17.bxc3 �f8 18.�d3+- and Black loses his h7-pawn without the possibil­ity to exploit the vulnerability of White's king.

13 . . . CiJxd4 14.hd4 e5 15 . .ie3 CiJb6 16.Wif2 CiJc4 17.hc4 Wixc4 18.h5± - White has occupied the important d5-outpost and he can follow with his standard kingside initiative, Shtyrenkov - Konstan­tinov, Alushta 2002.

In case of 13 . . . �c8, M.Garcia -Miranda, Mesa 1992, it is good for White to continue with the stand­ard exchange 14.CiJxc6 ! ? Wixc6 (or 14 . . . hc6 15.�d4 0-0 16.h5±) 15.Wid4 0-0 (After 15 . . . CiJe5 16.f4 CiJg4 17 . .ig1 0-0 18.�h3± Black's knight on g4 remains out of the ac­tions for long.) 16.h5 Wffc5 17.Wffd2 �c7 18.g6� - White attacks in the typical fashion for this pawn­structure.

257

Chapter 1 0

13 . . . 0-0 14.g6 ! ? - This is the most energetic move for him. 14 . . . lbxd4 1S.gxh7+ 'it>h8 (Or 1S . . . 'it>xh7 16.hd4 b4, Rodriguez Lo­pez - Fernandez Ramos, Mood­ariz 1999 and after 17.lba4 '\WaS 18.b3 .ic6 19.lbb2 'IWhS 20 . .ie2 .ibS 21.lbd3±, Black has no real counterplay on the queenside, while the open e-file dooms him to a long and difficult defence.) 16.hd4 b4, Rodriguez Lopez -Castellano Ojeda, Las Palmas 199S. Now, it looks very good for White to continue with 17.lba4 aS 18.b3 .ic6 (It is not any better for Black to choose 18 . . . eS 19.i.e3 .ic6 20.lbb2 lbf6 21.'1Wg2 a4 22 .hS axb3 23.cxb3 '1Wb7 24 . .id3± White will protect easily his a2-pawn, while Black will have great problems with his kingside.) 19.lbb2 a4 20J'!:g1 lbeS 21.'1Wg2 .if6 22 .bxa4 1!9b7 23 . .id3--+ and the threat 24.f4 will make Black's defence really hard.

After 13 . . . lbcS, Antal - E.Ko­vacs, Hungary 1992, his knight is misplaced on this square and fol­lowing 14.lbxc6 hc6 1S.1!9d4 0-0 16.hSt, White obtains excellent attacking prospects.

The move 13 . . . lbdeS, Kucypera - Nguyen Thi Tuong Van, Zagan 1997, provokes White to advance his kingside pawns. 14.f4 lbg4 (or 14 . . . lbd7 1S.lbxc6 hc6 16.'1Wd4 0-0 17.hSt with excellent attack­ing chances) 1S . .ig1 hS 16 . .ig2 0-0 17.fSt Black's knight on g4 is terribly misplaced and it helps

2S8

neither in the organization of counterplay, nor in the defence of the kingside.

13 . . . b4 - His pieces cannot support this pawn-offensive. 14. lbce2 lbdeS, Tayeb - Haytham, Asia 1989. Now, White must take the important c4-square under control and after 1S.b3 lbxd4 16. lbxd4 dS 17.'1Wh2 .id6 (Opening of the central files is in favour of White - 17 . . . dxe4 18 . .if4 .id6 19 . .ibS+ 'it>e7 20 . .ic6 hc6 21.heS !'!:hd8 22 .hd6+ !'!:xd6 23.'\WeS 'it>e8 24.fxe4±) 18 . .if4 0-0 19.g6--+ and he continues with his standard at­tack, which is even more danger­ous, because Black has no coun­terplay whatsoever.

13 . . . lbceS 14.hS b4 (14 . . . lbc4 1S.hc4 - This exchange is usu­ally in favour of White, because he gains additional tempi for his onslaught. 1S . . . '\Wxc4 16.g6! hxg6 17.hxg6 !'!:xh1 18.!'!:xh1 fxg6 19 .b3 ! '1Wb4 20.lbcxbS 1!9xd2 21.lbc7+ @f7 22 .hd2+- Lakos - Benderac, Zanka 199S; 14 . . . !'!:c8 1S.l!9g2 b4 16.lba4 '\WaS 17.b3 lbcS 18.lbb2±. He has regrouped advantageously his forces and is ready to continue with his kingside offensive, while Black's attempt to seize the initia­tive with 18 . . . lbxf3 ! ? 19.lbc4 1!9c7 20 .lbxf3 lbxe4, J.Jansen - Kame­neckas, corr. 2006, would not pro­vide any real counterplay for him after 21.!'!:e1 lbc3+ 22 .\t>al 0-0 23 . .id3±; 14 . . . lbb6 - Black cannot come to the c4-square with both his knights. 1S.b3 ! !'!:c8, Yatsishin

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. W!d2 �b7 9.g4 Ci'Jfd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

- Gunajew, Krynica 1999 and here, it seems attractive for White to sacrifice a piece in the stand­ard fashion with 16.Ci'Jdxb5 ! axb5 17.Ci'Jxb5 �dB 18.Ci'Jxd6+ hd6 19. �xd6 �xd6 20.Eixd6 Ci'Jbd7 21. �b5 @e7 22.Eihd1 �c6 23 .�e2± -he has two powerful bishops and three passed pawns and this is a more than sufficient compensa­tion for the piece.) 15.Ci'Ja4 �a5 16.b3 Ci'Jc5 17.a3 Ci'Jxa4 18.axb4 �c7 19.bxa4t. Black can hardly exploit the weakening of White's queenside, because he lags in de­velopment and has less space, Xie Jun - Tamin, Singapore 1995.

10 ... Ci'Je5 - This move helps White to gain important tempi for his kingside initiative. 11 .�e2 . He should not be in a hurry to ad­vance g4-g5. His e4-pawn is not under attack, so he can advance his f-pawn.

ll . . . Ci'Jbd7, Balleste - Vema­det, Paris 1993 (In answer to 11 . . . Ci'Jbc6, Popelka - Knostenbergs, Email 2006, it looks very good for White to play 12 . @b1 �e7 13.f4 Ci'Jd7 14.a3 0-0 15.g5t. His initia­tive is threatening and this can be

confirmed by the following vari­ation: 15 . . . Ci'Jc5 16.�f3 Ci'Ja5 17.b3 Ci'Jc6 18.Ci'Jxc6 hc6 19.Eihflt with good attacking chances. Black must consider the advance of the f-pawn, as well as the other pos­sible standard plan - h2-h4-h5, g5-g6.) 12.f4 Ci'Jc6 (It is worse for Black to play 12 . . . Ci'Jc4 13.hc4 bxc4 14.f5 e5 15.Ci'Jf3 �e7 16.g5±, because White not only controls the d5-outpost, but he can occupy the not less important f5-square with Ci'Jh4, followed by f5-f6.) 13.f5 Ci'Jxd4 14.�xd4 e5 15.�d2 E\c8 16.Ci'Jd5± - Now, if Black evacu­ates his king to the kingside, it will come under a massive attack, while if it remains in the centre, Black will have problems bringing his kingside into the actions.

10 . . . b4 ll.Ci'Jce2 d5. It may look like Black has obtained a satisfac­tory game, since he has occupied space on the queenside and accom­plished a freeing breakthrough in the centre, but now the drawback of his position has become quite evident - he lags considerably in development. 12.Ci'Jf4 !

White eyes the e6-square and

259

Chapter 1 0

his attack becomes very powerful. Now, Black can win a piece in two different fashions:

12 . . . dxe4 (this is the first) 13.tt'ldxe6 ! '\WaS (13 . . . fxe6 14.tt'lxe6 '\Wa5 15 . .ic4 - see 13 . . . '\WaS) 14 . .ic4! fxe6 15.tt'lxe6--+. White's powerful knight on e6 impedes Black's de­velopment and keeps his king in the centre, after 15 . . . tt'le5 16 . .ib3 tt'led7 17.fxe4 .ic6 18J'ihf1+- all White's pieces are taking part in the attack and it is victorious, Si­gala - Kouvatsou, Chania 2000;

12 . . . e5 (the second) 13.exd5 exf4 14 . .hf4 .ie7, Houtman -Oestergaard, Email 2004 and now, White's most energetic reply is to deprive his opponent of the f6-square with 15.g5 ! .ixd5 (After 15 . . . 0-0 16.d6+- White regains his piece, ending up with an ex­tra pawn.) 16.tt'lf5 tt'lb6 17 . .ie3 ! tt'l8d7 18J��e1 .ie6 (It is not any better for Black to play 18 . . . 0-0 19.tZlxe7+ '\Wxe7 20 . .ixb6 '\Wd6 21 . .ia5± and in connection with the threat 22 . .ic4, he fails to pro­tect his b4-pawn.) 19.tt'lxg7+ i>f8 20.tt'lxe6+ fxe6 21..ih3 e5 22 .f4--+ - All White's pieces are in the ac­tions and Black will hardly man­age to parry the attack against his bare king.

el) 10 • • . .ie7 This is a natural move, since

now Black is ready to evacuate his king from the centre at any mo­ment.

ll.h4

260

ll . . .lZlb6 This is an attempt to deploy

the knight to the c4-square with­out presenting White with tempi for his kingside pawn-offensive.

About 11 . . . 0-0 12 .g5, or 11 . . . '\Wc7 12 .g5 - see variation a .

After ll . . . b4 12.tt'lce2 d5, Kiril­lova - Bolon, Oropesa del Mar 2000, the simplest way for White is the standard line: 13.tt'lf4! e5 (or 13 . . . '\WaS 14.i>b1 dxe4 15.tt'ldxe6--+ with a decisive attack) 14.lZlh5 exd4 (In case of 14 . . . 0-0 15.tt'lf5--+ Black cannot parry the attack without heavy material losses.) 15.tt'lxg7+ 'it>f8 16 . .ixd4 h6 (16 . . . h5 17.tt'lxh5 f6 18.tt'lf4+-) 17.exd5 .ixd5 18.tt'lf5+- and he is helpless against the numerous threats.

ll . . . tt'lc5 - Black protects in advance the e6-square, but he has no counterplay connected with the occupation of the c4-square. 12 .g5 b4 (It is not preferable for him to opt for 12 . . . tt'lbd7 13.'it>b1 tt'lb6, Sakelsek - Ciglic, Dobrna 2002, because White continues with 14.tt'lb3 ! ? tt'lxb3 15.axb3 0-0 16.h5± and his kingside initia-

5 . . . a6 6 . .te3 e6 7.fJ b5 B.Wffd2 .tb7 9.g4 ttJfd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

tive is running effortlessly, while in case of 14 . . . Wffc7 15.tiJa5 0-0 16.tiJxb7 Wffxb7 17.b3± he obtains the two-bishop advantage, imped­ing maximally Black's queenside counterplay.) 13.tiJce2 d5 (In reply to 13 . . . ttJbd7, De la Villa Garcia ­Modr, Barcelona 1993, White can capture a pawn - 14.Wffxb4 0-0 15.tiJb3 !%b8 16.ttJxc5 ttJxc5 17.Wffe1 ttJd7 18. tiJc3± and Black can hardly obtain any meaning counterplay to compensate it.) 14.exd5 hd5 (He can create more problems for his opponent with the line: 14 . . . Wffxd5 15.'i!?b1 0-0 16.Wffxb4 tiJc6 17.Wffd2 !%fd8 18 . .tg2 tiJe5 19.tiJc3 Wffd7 20.Wffe2±, but even then White has a solid extra pawn and a clear-cut plan for actions on the kingside. He can ensure the complete safety of his own king by transferring his bishop to the b2-square.) 15.tiJf5 Wffa5 16.ttJxe7 l!txe7 17.ttJf4 !%d8 18.Wffd4+- The absence of Black's dark-squared bishop deprives him of a reliable protection of his king stranded in the centre, Rewitz - Pedersen, Copenhagen 1995.

ll . . . tiJe5 - The transfer of the knight to c4 leads to a change of the pawn-structure on the queen­side, which is unfavourable for Black. 12 . .te2 ttJbd7, Koekoek -Wijbenga, Groningen 2000 and here, it looks very attractive for White to continue with 13.f4 ttJc4 14.hc4 bxc4 15.Wffe2 0-0 (Black should better avoid 15 . . . ttJc5 16. tiJc6 hc6 17.hc5 Wffc7 18 . .ta31'

- White's king is completely safe and he has a clear-cut plan for the development of his kingside initiative and powerful pressure against his opponent's weak d6-pawn.) 16.f5 tiJf6 17.Wffg2 Wffd7 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.g5 tiJe8 20.Wffg4 tiJc7 21.'i!?b11' - Black's central pawns need protection, his pieces are passive and he has no coun­terplay.

11. . .tiJc6 - This is natural de­velopment. 12 .tiJxc6 ! ? hc6 13.g5

Now, Black has tried in prac­tice :

13 . . . 0-0 14.h5 - see variation a2; 13 . . . Wffc7 14.Wffd4 ! - see varia-tion al;

13 .. . b4 - Black only helps his opponent's knight to go to a more active position. 14.tiJe2 d5 (14 . . . Wffa5 15.'i!?b1 - see 13 . . . Wffa5 14.'i!?b1 b4 15.tiJe2) 15.tiJd4 .tb7, Pitters -Ertbjerg, Denmark 1984, White is ahead in development and he can obtain the two-bishop advantage by playing 16.exd5 hd5 17.tiJf5 0-0 18 . .te2 !%e8 19.ttJxe7+ Wffxe7 20.Wffd4 tiJb8 21 .h5 tiJc6 22.Wffh4±;

after 13 . . . tiJe5 14.Wffg2 Wffa5 15.'i!?b1 ttJc4, Engineer - Stabilo-

261

Chapter 1 0

boss, Inernet 2006, White can choose 16 . .b:c4 bxc4 17.�e2 i.b5 18.h5± and his kingside activity is running unopposed;

13 . . . �a5 14.@b1 l"'c8, Lobzha­nidze - Jobava, Tbilisi 2000 (It is worse for Black to play 14 . . . b4 15.ltle2 ltle5 16.tt:ld4 i.b5 17.f4 ltlc4 18 . .b:c4 .b:c4, T.Horvath -Cserna, Luxembourg 1986 and White can emphasize the inad­equate placement of Black's light­squared bishop with the unex­pected resource 19.a4! e5 20.tt:lf5 �xa4 21 .b3 hb3 22.cxb3 �xb3+ 23.�b2+- and he should not have great problems with the re­alization of his extra piece, while in case of 15 . . . tt:lc5 16.ltld4 i.d7 17.h5± White continues with his standard kingside attack, while Black has no counterplay, since his knight on c5 is absolutely use­less, Davila - Lorenzana, Guate­mala City 2001.)

15.�d4 !? - White's centralized queen provokes Black to evacuate his king to the kingside, but White is perfectly prepared for an attack there. 15 . . . 0-0 (Black should bet­ter avoid weakening the d5-square

262

and the h3-c8 diagonal after 15 . . . e5 16.�d2±) 16.a3 l"'b8 17.�d2 �c7 18.g6 ! (This is a standard pawn-sacrifice in order to open files.) 18 . . . hxg6 19 .h5 ltle5 20 .h6 tt:lxf3 21.�f2 ltle5 22 .hxg7 @xg7 23.i.h6+ @g8 24.�h2 tt:lg4 25.�f4 f5 (Black's attempt to seize the initiative with 25 . . . b4 26.axb4 �b7, can be countered by White with 27.b5 ! axb5 28.�xg4 b4 29.tt:ld5 ! exd5 30.exd5 b3 31.c3 �a7 32 .�d4 �xd4 33. l"'xd4 i.d7 34.hf8 hf8 35.i.d3 f5 36.l"'b4± and he has excellent chances of realizing his extra exchange.) 26.hf8 hf8 27.exf5 exf5 (After 27 . . . .b:h1 28.�xg4 exf5 29.�xg6+ �g7 30.�xf5--+, Black's king is completely bare.) 28.l"'g1 �fl 29. i.h3 i.d7 30.l"'df1 ltlh6 31.ltle4!±. He has enough pawns for the ex­change, but his pieces are mis­placed, his king is bare and the d6 and g6-pawns are very weak.

13 . . . l"'c8 - This clever move forces White to play precisely.

14.a3 ! (After the seemingly at­tractive move 14.h5, Kryvoruchko - Nolte, Beijing 2008, the game remains absolutely unclear after

5 . . . a6 6.fJ.e3 e6 7 J3 b5 8. Wid2 fJ.b7 9.g4 tojd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

14 . . . b4! 1S.toe2 toes 16.tod4 toxf3 17.toxf3 fJ.xe4oo, for example: 18. fJ.xa6 fJ..x£3 19.fJ.xc8 Wffxc8 20.Wffxb4 0-0 21.h6 Wffc6? and Black's pros­pects are not worse at all.) 14 . . . 0-0 (He has also tried in practice: 14 . . . E1b8 1S.toe2 toes 16.tod4 Wffc8 17.hS fJ.d7 18.f4 toc4 19.fJ.xc4 -this is the beginning of a forced variation, providing White with a dangerous initiative. 19 . . . Wffxc4 20 .b3 Wffc7 21 .g6 hxg6 22.hxg6 E1xh1 23.l"1xh1 fxg6 24.Wffg2 fJ.f6 2S.Wffxg6+ <tle7 26.<tlbli. The threats e4-eS and f4 look very dangerous and Black can hardly parry them both. After 26 . . . Wffc3 27.eS dxeS 28.fxeS fJ.xeS 29.l"1h3 fJ.f6 30.fJ.gS! Wffxh3 31.Wffxg7+ <tld6 32 .fJ.f4+ <tldS 33.Wffxf6 Wffh8 34. Wffe7±, he will have to give back the extra exchange. There would arise an endgame with queens and bishops of opposite colours and the open position of Black's king will be the key-factor, providing White with excellent chances of organizing an attack with mini­mal forces, Tiemann - Latas, Email 2007; 14 . . . toeS - this move presents White with additional tempi for his kingside offensive. 1S.f4 tod7 16.hS toes 17.fJ.g2 Wffc7 18.fS aS 19.h6± Weglicki - Sher­wood, Email 2006; 14 . . . fJ.b7 -Black wishes to create some coun­terplay on the c-file, but White is much ahead. 1S.hS toes 16.fJ.e2 toc4 17.fJ.xc4 l"1xc4 18.g6-+ - his attack is running effortlessly, Tischbierek - Fiensch, DDR

1990.) 1S.hS toeS 16.f4 tog4 17.fJ.g1 fS, Huuskonen - Kauppinen, corr. 200S. He can emphasize the mis­placement of his opponent's piec­es with the line: 18.fJ.e2 !± eS (after 18 . . . Wffd7 19.l"1h3 Wffb7 20.exfS exfS 21.todS E1fe8 22 . l"1c3+- - Black's knight on g4 is completely out of play) 19.exfS fJ.xh1 20.fJ.xg4± and the material is approximately equal, but the light squares in Black's camp are very weak and White's pawns are in dangerous vicinity of Black's king.

12 . .ig5 Now, it is evident that Black's

d6-pawn will need additional pro­tection.

It is worse for White to con­tinue in a standard fashion with 12 .gS to8d7 13.hS b4 14.tob1 dS 1S.Wffg2 ! Wffc7! 16.g6 .if6? - the central files are closed and White will not prove easily that Black's king is endangered in the centre.

12 . . . 0 - 0 After 1 2 . . . b4 13.toce2 dS 14.

tof4! dxe4 1S.Wffe3 to8d7 16.tofxe6 fxe6 17.toxe6 fJ.xgS 18 .hxgS Wffe7

263

Chapter 10

19.tt'lc7+ 'tt>f8 20.tt'lxa8 haS 21. .ixa6+-, the material is about equal, but Black's rook on h8 is isolated from the actions, Kubicki - Nedavny, Email 2006.

He should better avoid 12 . . . tt:J8d7 13 . .ixe7 Wffxe7 14.lt:Jb3 b4 1S.lt:Je2 dS 16.lt:JaS tt:Jc4 17.tt:Jxc4 dxc4 18.Wffd4 eS 19.Wffxc4 l:k8 20.Wid3 tt'lc5 21 .Wffe3±. White has a solid extra pawn and he will easily take care of the existing slight dis­harmony in the deployment of his pieces, because Black has no se­rious threats, Secer - Hribersek, Email 2006.

13.lt:Jb3

13 . • . b4 The move 13 .. .f6 weakens the

e6-pawn. 14 . .if4 b4 1S.lt:Je2

264

Now, Black must choose be­tween two principally different possibilities :

lS . . . dS - This is the first. He saves the pawn from the attack, but falls behind considerably in development. 16.lt:JaS Wffc8 17.lt:Jd4 eS 18.lt:JfS .icS 19 . .ih2 lt:Jc6 (It is also possible for him to opt for 19 . . . g6 20.lt:Jh6+ 'kt>g7 21.gS--+, but White has a dangerous attack, be­cause the dark squares on Black's kingside are vulnerable; 19 . . . dxe4 20 . .igl e3 21..ixe3 .idS 22 . .ic4 -see 20 . . . .idS; 20 . . . .idS 2l . .ic4.ixc4 22 .lt:Jxc4 and now after 22 . . . lt:J8d7 23.fxe4 aS 24.'tt>bl 'kt>h8 2S . .ixcS WffxcS 26.tt:Jcd6 a4 27J'l:h3± White seizes for long the only open file, providing his pieces with great activity, but even in case of 22 . . . e3 23 . .ixe3 .ixe3 24.tt:Jcxe3 tt:Jc6 2S.lt:JdS tt:Jxd5 26.WffxdS+ 'kt>h8 27. hS Wffb7 28.Wffe6 tt:Jd8 29.�d7 Wffxd7 30Jl:xd7 lt:Je6 31.1"lhdl±, he domi­nates on the d-file and on the 7th rank, so he has much better pros­pects in the endgame, despite the numerous simplifications. For example, after 31. . .1"lad8 32.1"lxd8 l:'lxd8 33.1"lxd8+ lt:Jxd8 34.lt:Je7 aS 3S.'tt>d2+-, Black will hardly save the knight and pawn ending with a knight on h8.) 20.tt'lb3 !± and his dark-squared bishop has no good square to retreat to, while in case of 20 . . . lt:Jd8 (In the variation 20 . . . tt'le7 21 .lt:JxcS WffxcS 22 . .igl d4 23 . .ixd4! exd4 24.Wffxd4 Wffxd4 2S.lt:Jxe7+ 'tt>f7 26.1"lxd4 'kt>xe7 27.1"lxb4+-, White regains his

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.j3 b5 8.Wffd2 i.b7 9.g4 ljjfd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

piece, remaining with several ex­tra pawns.) 21.exdS @h8 (Black loses after 21 . . ./jjxdS 22 .i.c4+-, as well as following 21 . . .i.xdS 22 ./jjxcS �xeS 23.i.g1+-) 22 ./jjxcS WffxcS 23.i.g1 WaS 24./jje3+- and White has an extra central pawn, the two-bishop advantage and more active pieces.

1S . . . aS - This is the second possibility for Black, with which he wishes to organize counter­play on the queenside as quickly as possible. 16./jjed4! \Mrc8 17./jjbS a4 18./jj3d4 b3 19.axb3 axb3 20. /jjxb3 dS 21.i.d6 i.xd6 22./jjxd6 �c6 23./jjxb7 \Mrxb7 24.exdS exdS 2S.i.bS±. His dS-pawn is weak and his pieces are not active enough, so Black can hardly prove a suffi­cient compensation for the pawn, Robs - Nedavny, Email 2007.

14.c!L\e2 d5 15.c!L\a5 ga7 16.c!L\d4 .ia8

It is possibly best for him to choose 16 . . . dxe4 17./jjxe6 \Mrxd2+ 18J:'lxd2 i.xgS 19./jjxgS exf3 20. /jjxb7 l"lxb7 21.i.d3 h6 22./jjxf3 l"le7 23.gS hS 24.l"leU and in the fight on both sides of the board, White's bishop is stronger than his opponent's knight, while his king is closer to the centre, so this provides White with a stable ad­vantage.

(diagram) 17.e5 c!L\6d7 18 • .b.:e7 \Mrxe7

19.f4 gcs 2 0 .g5 c!L\c5 21.h5 c!L\e4 22.�e3 Yl!fc7 (It is not preferable for Black to try the aggressive

line: 22 . . . /jjc3 ! ? 23.l"le1 c!L\bS 24.g6 fxg6 2S.hxg6 h6 26./jjxe6 ! Wffxe6 27.i.xbS±. White has won a pawn, but what is even more important is that his pieces are more active and his king is safer.) 23.c!L\ab3 a5 24.c!L\d2 a4 25.c!L\xe4 dxe4 26.gh2 Yl!fc5 27.h6 g6 28.c!L\f5± (Now, irrelevant of whether Black will enter an endgame or not, White will have a stable advan­tage thanks to his dominance on the open file and his more active light pieces.) 28 • . . �a5 (After 28 . . . i.dS 29. \MrxcS l"lxcS 30./jjd6±, Black will hardly hold on to his e4-pawn, while in the variation 28 . . . Wffxe3+ 29./jjxe3 @f8 30.l"ld4 b3 31.a3 /jjd7 32 .c3 ljjb6 33.l"lb4 /jjdS 34./jjxdS exdS 3S.@d2± all his pawns are on light squares and that would not enable him to activate his bishop.) 29.c!L\d6 gf8 3 0 .ghd2 a3 31.b3 gc7 32.c!L\c4 Yl!fa7 33.Yl!fxa7 gxa7 34.gd6+­Black's pawns on e4 and b4 are weak and his pieces have no ac­tive possibilities, Borowiec - Zu­grav, corr. 2006.

26S

Chapter 1 0

e2) 10 . . .c!!�b6 He frees a square for the other

knight, trying to occupy space on the queenside.

ll.t!Jb3 White's knight is eyeing the

aS-square, emphasizing the draw­backs of the placement of the knight on b6.

ll . . . t!Jc6 Taking the aS-square under

control seems to be the most nat­ural reaction by Black.

ll . . . b4 - His pieces cannot support this pawn-offensive, so he only helps his opponent to deploy his pieces in the most aggressive fashion. 1Vt:Je2 aS, Yakovich -Kineva, Serpukhov 2003. Here, it looks sensible for White to attack the e6-square by playing 13.lLlf4 !? lLl8d7 (Black attempt to continue with his pawn-onslaught fails af­ter 13 . . . a4 14.lLJcS b3 1S.l2Jxb7! White allows his opponent to have "an extra queen" for a while - 1S . . . bxa2 16.'11tfb4 a1'11tf+ 17.'it>d2 '11tfxd1+ 18.'it>xd1 \!tfc7 19.'11tfxb6± and his knight can come back to

266

his camp, so he ends up advanta­geously with two light pieces for a rook.) 14.i.bS i.e? 1S.l2Jd4 0-0 (It is worse for Black to play 1S . . . \!tfc8 16.lLldxe6 fxe6 17.hb6 0-0 18.i.e3 lLleS 19.l:!hfl± and his pow­erful knight on eS cannot com­pensate the lack of a pawn and the weakness on e6.) 16.lLlfxe6 fxe6 17.lLlxe6 \!tfc8 18.lLlxf8 \!tfxf8 19.l:!hf1 l'!c8 20.b3;t - White's rook with several pawns is more power­ful than Black's light pieces, since they have no active prospects.

ll . . . lLlc4 12 .hc4 bxc4 13.lLlcS - The change of Black's queenside pawn-structure facilitates the de­velopment of White's initiative.

13 . . . i.c6 (It is hardly any bet­ter for Black to opt for 13 . . . \!tfc? 14.lLlxb7 \!tfxb7 1S.i.f4 lLlc6 16.hd6 l'!d8 17.\!tff4 hd6 18.l'!xd6±. His attempt to organize an attack with minimal forces backfires after 18 . . . l'!b8? 19.l'!xc6 '11tfxb2+ 20.'it>d2 0-0 2l.eS l'!fd8+ 22 .l'!d6+- -White parries all the threats re­maining with an extra knight, Predescu - Patterson, Ottawa 2004, but even in case of 18 . . . 0-0 19.l'!xd8 l'!xd8 20.l'!d1 l'!b8 2l.b3±

5 . . . a6 6.i..e3 e6 7,/3 b5 B. Wfd2 §Lb7 9.g4 l:iJfd7 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

the position is simplified consid­erably and Black's compensa­tion for the pawn is insufficient, V.Kovalev - Lagarde, Moscow 2008.) 14.§l.f4 d5, Nolte - Maria­no, Manila 2006. Now, White can emphasize the vulnerability of the dark squares on Black's queen­side with the rather unexpected retreat - 15.1:iJ5a4! WaS (Black should better refrain from the greedy line: 15 . . . §l.b4 16.Wd4 0-0 17.exd5 exd5 18.1:iJxd5± White has won a central pawn and he should manage to realize it eas­ily, because Black cannot exploit the somewhat hanging position of his opponent's knights with 18 . . . Wa5 19.1:iJab6 §l.c5 20.1:iJxc4 hd4 2l.l:iJxa5 hd5 22J'l:xd4 h£3 23.l"i:f1 l:iJc6 24.l"i:d2+- and after the forced variation, White has ended up with a solid extra pawn in an endgame.) 16.exd5 .ba4 17.dxe6 §l.b4 (After 17 . . . fxe6 18.l"i:he1 §l.e7 19 .l"i:xe6+-, Black can save his king only with huge mate­rial losses.) 18.exf7+ lt>xf7 19.Wd4 .id7 (It is also bad for him to con­tinue with 19 . . . l"i:c8 20.1:iJxa4 Wxa4 21.Wd5+ - White checkmates his opponent's king, left without de­fenders on the kingside.) 20.hb8 !'!hxb8 21.Wxd7+ lt>f8 22.l"i:d5+-. He has a decisive advantage thanks to his two extra pawns and Black's vulnerable king.

1l . . .l:iJ8d7 - He ignores White's threats and allows him to ob­tain the two-bishop advantage. 12.1:iJa5 l"i:b8 (In reply to 12 . . . §l.c8,

it is very good for White to play simply 13.a3±, with the idea to counter the seemingly attractive move 13 . . . Wc7? with the tacti­cal strike 14.hb5! axb5 15.1:iJxb5 Wb8 16.1:iJc6 l:iJc4 17.1:iJxb8 l:iJxd2 18.1:iJc7+ lt>d8 19.1:iJxa8+- and White should realize easily his ex­tra exchange, as well as 13.§l.f4 e5 14.§l.e3±, weakening the important d5-square in Black's camp and leading considerably in develop­ment, Grandelius - Lyaskovsky, Herceg Novi 2008; in case of 12 . . . Wc7 13.§l.d4!? Black cannot equal­ize with 13 . . . 1:iJe5 14.Wf2 l:iJbc4 15. l:iJxb7 Wxb7 16.b3±, because White has a bishop-pair and a slight but stable advantage, while after 16 . . . b4 17.1:iJb1 1:iJa5 18.1:iJd2 §l.e7 19.1t>b1 0-0 20.g51', he obtains excel­lent attacking prospects. It is bad for Black to try for example the greedy line: 20 . . . hg5 21.f4 l:iJg4 22 .Wg3 §l.f6 23.e5 Wxh1 24.exf6 h5 25.fxg7 l"i:fc8 26.1:iJf3+- and his king is beyond salvation. Follow­ing 13 . . . l"i:c8 14.1:iJxb7 Wxb7 15.b3± White's two powerful bishops provide him with a better game, Kurgansky - S.Khromov, carr. 2007.)

267

Chapter 1 0

13.ltJxb7! (He is not better af­ter the seemingly attractive move 13.i.f4 in view of 13 . . . b4, Tran­chant - Terrieux, Chartres 2005 and here after the best move 14.ttJxb7! , it would be bad for Black to play 14 . . . bxc3 15.ttJxd6+ i.xd6 16.'\�lfxd6 cxb2+ 17.@bl± and White's bishops are much strong­er than Black's cavalry, but after 14 . . . gxb7 15.ltJb1 ltJc5 !?, Black has a solid position with good counter chances on the queenside.) 13 . . . gxb7, Feygin - Coenen, Germany 2003, 14.b3 ! ? White has obtained the two-bishop advantage, depriv­ing his opponent's knights of the important c4-square. There may follow 14 . . . ltJe5 15.i.e2 ! ? (White preserves additional control over the c4-square and is ready to oc­cupy the b5-square if Black ad­vances his queenside pawns.) 15 . . . b4 16.ltJb1 a5 17.f4 ttJed7 18.'\Wd4 d5 19.i.b5 '\Wc7 20.lDd2± All the White's pieces are into action, while Black's kingside is not de­veloped yet and his king is strand­ed in the centre.

12.�f2

268

12 . . . c!Od7 The alternatives for Black are

worse: 12 . . . ttJc4?! - the pawn-struc­

ture on the queenside is changed disadvantageously for him after this move. 13.i.xc4 bxc4 14.lDd2 ltJe5 15.'\We2 d5 16.exd5 i.xd5, Heinz-Werner, Winterberg2002 . Now, White can capture his op­ponent's weak c4-pawn: 17.ttJxc4 ! ttJxc4 18.ltJxd5 ttJxe3 19.'\Wxe3 gbs 20.'\We5 gb7 21.ghe1+- and his ex­tra pawn, excellent centralization and Black's undeveloped kingside make White's position absolutely winning.

12 . . . ttJc8 - This passive move enables White to obtain the two­bishop advantage. 13.ltJc5 '\Wc7 14.ttJxb7 '\Wxb7 15.f4 i.e7 16.g5 b4 17.ltJe2 a5 18.f5 a4, Rakay - Ric­cio, Email 2002, Black's queen­side pawns look impressive, but without the support of his pieces they cannot create any real threats against the enemy king. After 19.@b1 b3 20 .cxb3 axb3 21.a3 ltJe5 22 .lDc3 0-0 23.i.h3± White has dangerous threats on the kingside and his king is quite safe.

12 . . . ttJa4 - Opening of the b-file is not so advantageous for Black. 13.ltJxa4 bxa4 14.ltJc5 a3 15.b3 i.c8 16.ltJa4±. White has superior development and a safer king, so he has the edge. Meanwhile, Black has problems with the develop­ment of his kingside, for example after 16 . . . gbs 17.@b1 i.e7? 18.i.b6 i.h4 19.i.xd8 i.xf2 20.i.c7+-, he

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7j3 b5 8. Wfd2 i.b7 9.g4 CiJfd7 1 0 . 0 -0-0

remains at least two pawns down, Shahade - I.Novikov, New York 2002.

13.'.!.>bl This is the last prophylactic

move for White before the start of his kingside offensive.

13 . . . i.e7 After 13 . . . :1k8 14.g5 i.e7 15.Eig1

0-0, Andreev - Tukhaev, Simfe­ropol 2003, he can continue with 16.h4 CiJceS 17.h5t with excellent attacking prospects - see 13 . . . i.e7.

It is not preferable for Black to opt for 13 . . . CiJce5 14.g5 Eib8 (In case of 14 . . . Eic8 15.Eig1 Wfc7 16. a3 i.e7 17.h4 CiJc4 18.hc4 Wfxc4, Sammalvuo - Vasquez, Gothen­burg 2003, it seems very attrac­tive for White to continue with 19.f4 Wfc7 20.f5± with dangerous kingside threats, while Black has no counterplay, for example after 20 . . . Wfb8 21.Eigf1 eS 22 .f6 gxf6 23.gxf6±, his f6-pawn is untouch­able, because Black loses follow­ing 23 . . . CiJxf6? 24.i.g5+-, or 23 . . . i.xf6 24.i.g5+-, while in case of 23 . . . i.d8 24.Eid3, Black should better avoid playing 24 . . . Eig8 25. Eifd1 CiJxf6 26.Eixd6 CiJxe4 27.CiJxe4 he4 28.i.c5 Eig6 29.Eid7�, be­cause his king will be helpless against the combined attack of all White's forces. After Black's more resilient defence 24 . . . Eixc3 and 25.Eixc3 he4 26.i.h6 Eig8 27. i.g7±, there arises a position, in which he has no compensation for the exchange whatsoever.) 15.

h4 b4 16.CiJe2 i.e7 (Black cannot create any counterplay after 16 . . . aS 17.CiJed4 a4 18.CiJd2 a3 19.b3 i.e7 20.Eig1 Eic8 21.CiJb5 tLlcS 22. CiJc4± and White parries his oppo­nent's activity without any prob­lems and is ready to attack the weak pawns on d6 and b4, L.Ko­vacs, - Pugh, Cuba 2001.) 17.Eig1 Wfc7 18.h5 g6 19.CiJed4 gxhS !? (In the variation 19 . . . CiJc4 20.hc4 Wfxc4 21.CiJa5 Wfc7 22.CiJxb7 Eixb7 23.Eih1 Eig8 24.hxg6 hxg6 25. Wfe2±, despite the simplifications, Black's defence will be difficult, because his pieces are passive and his king is stranded in the centre.) 20 .Wfh4 Eic8 21.Wfxh5 CiJg6 22 .i.d3 dS (After 22 . . . CiJc5 ! ? 23.f4 !�, his king is terribly endangered, for example: 23 . . . CiJxe4 24.f5 exfS 25.CiJxf5± and his extra pawn can­not compensate the open position of his king in the centre of the board and in the variation 23 . . . CiJxd3 24.cxd3 eS 25.fxe5 dxeS 26. CiJfS± White's knights will have excellent outposts in the centre. In case of 23 . . . d5 24.CiJxc5 hcS 25.exd5 hdS 26.f5 exfS 27. CiJxfS+- Black cannot parry his opponent's numerous threats, for example 27 . . . Wfa5 28.i.b5+ axbS 29.Eixd5 and his king is complete­ly helpless. 23 .exd5 hdS 24.f4!± Black lacks a safe shelter for his king and this dooms him to a long and laborious defence, Bologan -V.Akopian, Stratton Mountain 1999.

14.h4

269

Chapter 10

14 . . . 0 - 0 His wish to evacuate his king

away from the centre is quite un­derstandable.

About 14 . . . \Wc7 15.g5 tt:lce5 16.a3 - see 14 . . . tt:lce5.

After 14 . . . tt:lce5 15.g5 b4 (It is hardly better for Black to opt for 15 . . . \Wc7 16.a3 l==1c8 17.h5 0-0 18.tt:ld4 tt:lc5, Marez - Merrifield, Internet 2005, because White can continue with 19.g6 ! ? fxg6 20.hxg6 tt:lxg6 21 .\Wh2� and he has a crushing attack, while in case of 20 . . . h6 21..ih3 l==1f6 22 .\We2 tt:lxg6 23Jl:dgl� he has an excel­lent compensation for the pawn. White's plan includes doubling of the rooks along the g-file af­ter l==1g3, meanwhile Black must always consider the possibility b2-b4, after which he will have problems with the protection of his e6-pawn.) 16.tt:la4 tt:lxf3 (Black would not fare any better after the calmer move 16 . . . \Wc7 17.tt:lb6 l==1d8 18 . .th3 0-0 19.f4 tt:lc4 20.tt:lxc4 \Wxc4 21.tt:la5 and here follow­ing 21 . . . \WbS 22 .tt:lxb7 \Wxb7 23.f5 \Wxe4 24.l==1hel� White regains un-

270

avoidably his pawn with a strong attack, while in case of 2l . . .'�xe4 22.l==1hfl ! e5 23.fxe5 tt:lxe5 24 . .ib6± too many of Black's pieces come under attack and he will lose unavoidably material. It is even worse for him to choose the seem­ingly solid line: 22 . . . .ic8? 23 . .ig2 \WfS 24.tt:lc6 l==1de8 25.\We2 and af­ter 25 . . . d5 26.tt:ld4+-, as well as following 25 . . . .id8 26.l==1xd6 .ic7 27.tt:ld4 \WaS 28.l==1c6 .ib8 29.tt:lb3 \Wf5 30.l==1c4+- Black's pieces are so passive that his position is hopeless.) 17.\Wxf3 .ic6 18.tt:lac5 dxc5 19.tt:lxc5 \Wc7 20.tt:lxd7 .ixd7 21.h5t White's kingside initiative is tremendously dangerous, Do­manyek - Miron, Tusnad 2001.

14 . . . l==1c8 - It is logical for Black to try to organize some coun­terplay on the c-file, delaying his castling. 15.g5 tt:la5, Figlio -Hauschild, Internet 2003. Here, it seems attractive for White to advance his kingside pawns: 16.h5 tt:lxb3 (But not 16 . . . tt:lc4 17 . .ixc4 bxc4 18.tt:lcl 0-0 19.tt:lle2 tt:lc5 20.g6±, because White obtains excellent attacking chances, while his queenside is completely safe.) 17.axb3 hg5 18.h6 g6 19 . .ixg5 \Wxg5 20.l==1xd6 \We7 (After 20 . . . We7 21.f4 \Wc5 22 .l==1d4 l==1hd8 23.b4 \Wc7 24 . .ig2t, White has good at­tacking prospects, because the dark squares in Black's camp are very weak and his king is stranded in the centre.) 21.\Wd4 e5 22 .\Wd2 l==1c6 23.l==1xc6 .ixc6 24 . .ih3t - He will have to castle in order to

5 . . . a6 6. :ie3 e6 7 J3 b5 B. Wfd2 :ib7 9.g4 CiJfd7 1 0 . 0 -0-0

bring his king's rook into the ac­tions, but then White's transfer of the queen to the d6-square will create great problems for him to protect his queenside pawns.

14 . . . CiJa5 - The trade of the knight would not facilitate Black's defence. 15.CiJxa5 WfxaS 16.g5 b4 17.CiJe2 dS 18.h5 !? dxe4 19.fxe4 he4 (After 19 . . . CiJc5 20.CiJg3 CiJxe4 21 .CiJxe4 he4 22 .:ig2 hg2 23.'Wfxg2 l:!c8 24.g6� White ob­tains more than sufficient com­pensation for the pawn, because his king is quite safe, contrary to its counterpart. Black's attempt to stop his opponent's kingside attack with 24 . . . fxg6 25.hxg6 h6 26.l:!hfl :if6 27.Wfg4 WfeS 28.:id4 hS 29.'Wfh3 Wfe2 30.l:!del+- led to a situation in which Black failed to evacuate his king in the game Teichmeister - Fleming, Email 2004.) 20.:ig2 hg2 2l.'Wfxg2 l:!d8 22.CiJd4 l:!c8, Zhang Pengxiang -R.Ibrahimov, Linares 2002. Now, White can realize his positional advantage in the most energetic fashion with the line: 23.g6 ! CiJf6 (The idea of his 23rd move is best illustrated in the variation 23 . . . hxg6 24.CiJxe6 fxe6 25.'Wfxg6+ 'i!ld8 26.'Wfxe6+- and Black's king is helpless.) 24.gxf7+ 'i!lxf7 25.l:!hgl CiJxhS 26.'Wff3+ CiJf6 27.l:!g5 l:!cS 28.CiJxe6 !-7 White's attack is de­cisive, although he must still play precisely, for example: 28 .. . l:!xgS (He wins easier after 28 .. . 'i!lxe6 29.hc5+-) 29.CiJxg5+ 'i!lg6 30.l:!gl 'WfdS 3l.'Wfg3 l:!g8 32 .:id4!

CiJg4 33.CiJh3 !+- and Black cannot parry the attack without huge ma­terial losses.

15.g5 �k8 It is not any better for him

to opt for 15 . . . CiJce5 16.h5 b4 17.CiJa4 l:!b8 (After 17 . . . hg5 18.h6 g6 19.hg5 WfxgS 20.CiJa5 i.c8 2l.l:!xd6 'Wff4 22 .:ig2± Black has great problems with his devel­opment.) 18.CiJb6 hgS 19.hg5 Wfxb6 (In the variation 19 . . . 'Wfxg5 20.CiJxd7 CiJxd7 21.h6 g6 22 .l:!xd6 l:!bd8 23.:ie2 Wff6 24.Wfd4± he loses his b4-pawn.) 20.'Wfg3 l:!fe8 (or 20 . . .f5 2l.:ie7 f4 22.'Wfh3± and Black can hardly protect his cen­tral pawns) 2l.l:!gl g6 22 .f4 CiJf3 23.hxg6 fxg6 (The greedy line: 23 . . . 'Wfxgl 24.gxf7+ 'i!lxf7 25.'Wfxf3 CiJf6 26.:ie2 he4 27.l:!xgl :ixf3 28.:ixf3 l:!g8 29.!!el± provides White with a slight material ad­vantage and very active pieces.) 24.'Wfxf3 Wfxg1 25.:ib5 Wfa7 26.hd7 he4 27.Wfxe4 Wfxd7 28.'Wfd4 dS 29.:if6 'Wfc6 30.'Wfe3 l:!bc8 3l.CiJd4± His king is completely safe, while the black monarch is in mortal danger.

271

Chapter 10

16.l:�gl lbce5, Grischuk -B.Grachev, Internet (blitz) 2006. White's pieces are perfectly de­ployed and he is ready to continue his kingside onslaught with 17.h5 lbc4 (Black's counterplay is insufficient after the standard exchange-sacrifice 17 .. J:l:xc3 18. bxc3 lt:\c4 19 . .icl Vfic7 20.g6 ! fxg6 21.hxg6 he4 22 .gxh7+ hh7 23 . .id3± - his king is not safer than White's king and the pawns

of both sides are equally vulnera­ble.) 18 . .ixc4 gxc4 19.g6 fxg6 2 0 .hxg6 h6 21.Vfih2!t White has obtained excellent attacking prospects and Black has no sa­tisfactory defence against 22 . hh6! , for example: 21 • . • tt:le5 22 . .ixh6 lbxf3 23.Vfih3 lbxgl 24.gxgl-+ and despite the extra exchange and White's "hanging" bishop on h6, Black is beyond sal­vation.

Conclusion In this chapter we analyze all the responses for Black after the

moves 1.e4 c5 2. lt:\]3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4. lt:\xd4 lt:\f6 5. lt:\c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 f3 b5 8. Vfid2 .ib7 9.g4.

White obtains usually a very powerful attack just by advancing his kingside pawns, beginning with the move g4-g5. The only excep­tion is variation e1, because in it, he should better exchange first the dark-squared bishops with 12 . .ig5.

If Black plays b5-b4, White's knight should go to the most aggres­sive f4-square,from where it not only supports the pawn-offensive on the king side, but can be sacrificed on e6 at any moment.

The move h7-h6 weakens the light squares on Black's kingside and that facilitates the development of White's initiative.

In principle, in reply to lt:\c6, it is always useful for White to trade the knights on c6, because in that case the c-file is closed and Black's counterplay is slowed down and White's other knight occupies com­fortably the d4-square.

In variation e2), Black is trying to obtain quickly counterplay using the c4-square for both his knights, therefore it is essential for White to prevent the deployment of Black's knights on b6 and e5 and he should better do that with the move ll. lt:\b3! - White not only is threatening to play lt:\a5, but in reply to Black's best move 11. . . lt:\c6, he thwarts Black's plans by playing 12. V!ifi.

272

Chapter ll l.e4 c5 2.lt) f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.ti:�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6.J.e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.ti'd2 �bd7 9.g4

Black's main move in the dia­grammed position is 9 . . . h6 and we will study it in the next chap­ter.

Now, we will analyze his alter­natives and we will deal in details with a) 9 . . . .ib7, b) 9 . . . b4 and c) 9 • • • <tlb6.

9 . . . .ie7 10.g5 (The attrac­tive knight-fork - 10.tt:lc6 will be countered by Black with the rather unpleasant counterstrike -10 . . . tt:Je5 ! and after the exchange of knights, his doubled central pawns will control important cen­tral squares.) 10 . . . tt:lh5 11.0-0-0 .ib7 12 .@b1 - see 9 . . . .ib7.

9 . . . tt:Je5 - Black's centralized knight will come under attack by White's f-pawn. 10 .g5 tt:Jfd7 (It is

hardly better for Black to opt for 10 . . . tt:lh5 11.0-0-0 Wic7 12.f4 tt:lc4 13 . .ixc4 Wxc4 14.f5t and White has excellent attacking chances.) 11.f4 tt:lc4 (After 11 .. . b4 12.tt:ld1 tt:lg6 13.tt:lf2 tt:lc5 14.0-0-0 WaS 15.tt:lc6 Wxa2 16.Wixb4± Black lags considerably in development and he has problems coping with the threat 17 . .ixc5; in case of 11 . . . tt:lg4 12 . .ig1 b4 13.tt:ld1 tt:Jc5 14 . .ig2 e5 15.h3± he is left with the weak pawns on d6 and b4 to worry about and his pieces are passive.) 12 . .ixc4 bxc4 13.0-0-0 Wic7 (In the variation 13 . . . .ib7 14.f5 tt:lc5 15.fxe6 fxe6 16.Wig2 Wie7 17.g6± Black's king will hardly find a safe haven, Chodorowski - Chris­tiansen, corr. 2008.) 14.f5 tt:Je5, Salgado Lopez - Picon Rodriguez, Madrid 2006 (It is worse for him to choose 14 . . . tt:lc5 15.Wie2± and Black will either lose his c4-pawn, or he must retreat his knight to d7.) , White follows here 15.@b1 E:b8 16. @al± and Black has no target to attack on the queenside. Later, White will occupy unavoid­ably the f-file, exchange the per­fectly placed black knight and his

273

Chapter 11

attack will run effortlessly unop­posed.

9 .. .'effc7 - This move enables White to repel the knight on f6 to the edge of the board and it will remain out of action there for a long time. 10.g5 lt:Jh5 (After 10 . . . b4 11.lt:lcb5 axb5 12.gxf6 gxf6 13.lt:lxb5 �b8 14.�xb4± Black has no compensation for the sac­rificed pawn, Wiegner - Fuchs, Finsterbergen 2000. He should better avoid 10 . . . lt:Jg8 11.0-0-0 .ib7 12.'tt>b1 �c8, Piroska - Balazs, Hungary 2008. White is clearly ahead in development and he has enough time for some queenside prophylactic: 13.a3 lt:Je5 14.�gl±, before the start of his standard kingside pawn-offensive. Black can hardly complete his develop­ment, since he loses outright after 14 . . . lt:Je7? 15.lt:Jdxb5+-, therefore he must play 14 . . . lt:Jc4 15 . .ixc4 �xc4 16.h4±) 11.0-0-0

and now: in reply to 11 . . . lt:Jb6, Sande -

Meise, Hamburg 2005, it seems very attractive for White to sac­rifice a piece in the standard fashion with 12.lt:ldxb5! ? axb5

274

13.lt:Jxb5 �b8 14.lt:Jxd6+ .ixd6 15.�xd6 lt:Jd7! (In case of 15 . . . �xd6 16.�xd6+- Black is likely to fail to keep his extra knight.) 16.�xb8 (White sends his oppo­nent's knight to its initial position, but it is also very good for him to opt for 16 . .ic4 !? �xd6 17.�xd6 0-0 18.�hd1 lt:Je5 19 . .ie2±) 16 . . . lt:Jxb8 17.�d6 0-0 (Black loses af­ter 17 . . . �xa2? 18 . .ib5+ .id7 19.'tt>b1 �a5 20.i.xd7+ lt:Jxd7 21.�hd1 lt:Jf8 22 .�d8+ 'tt>e7 23.�b8 ! +- and he suffers unavoidable mate­rial losses, for example : 23 . . . lt:Jg6 24.�b7+ 'tt>e8 25 . .ia7 lt:Jhf4 26.b4 �xg5 27 . .ib6+- and in order to avoid the checkmate Black must give back his extra knight, after which White's passed b-pawn will settle the issue.) 18.'tt>bl± - White has a stable advantage with three pawns for the knight, supported by his two powerful bishops. In addition he has occupied the only open file.

After 11 . . . .ib7 12.'tt>b1 lt:Jb6 13 . �f2 lt:Jc4 14 . .ixc4 �xc4, Skro­chocka - Weglarz, Poland 2007, it looks very strong for White to follow with the maneuver 15.lt:Jb3 ! �c7 16 . .ib6 �c8 17 . .ia5± and after the transfer of the bishop to b4, he not only attacks the d6-pawn, but he parries completely Black's queenside counterplay.

11 . . . g6 - He cannot activate the knight on h5 in this fashion. 12.'tt>b1 �b8, Audet Bouchard - Ghannoum, Montreal 2007. Here, it is very attractive for

5 . . . a6 6.W.e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. Wfd2 CiJbd7 9.g4

White to continue with 13 .CiJce2 CiJb6 14.CiJg3 CiJxg3 15.hxg3 CiJc4 16.bc4 bxc4 17.CiJe2± - Black's only counter chance is the open b-file, but he can hardly exploit it, because his bishops remain very passive and his pawns on d6 and h7 are very weak.

9 . . . CiJc5 - This knight is not well-placed on this square and White can exploit this immediate­ly with 10.b4 !? CiJa4 U.CiJxa4 bxa4 12 .b5 CiJd7, Gorjatchev - Chmelik, Ceske Budejovice 1996 and after 13J'!:b1 W.b7 14.W.e2 W.e7 15.0-0;!;, he leads in development and has active prospects on both sides of the board.

a) 9 . . . .ib7

The main drawback of this natural developing move is that Black's knight on f6 is repelled to a bad square.

1 0 .g5 White displaces his opponent's

knight. 1 0 . . .ti�h5 11. 0 - 0 - 0

n . . . gcs This is a natural attempt by

Black to organize some counter­play along the c-file.

It is also possible for him to try:

ll . . . Wfa5 12.Wif2 CiJc5? - this is a blunder - 13.CiJdxb5 axb5 14.bc5+- Mutschnik - Fernan­dez Aguado, France 2005;

ll . . . b4 12.CiJce2 d5, Zhdanov ­Petukhov, Ufa 2004.

Black's last move seems logi­cal, because he accomplishes the typical pawn-break in the cen­tre. Still, the misplacement of his knight on h5 does not enable him to obtain a good game. 13.CiJg3 CiJxg3 14.hxg3 CiJe5 (It is hardly preferable for him to choose 14 . . .

275

Chapter 11

g6 1S . .!t:lb3 dxe4 16.f4 Vfffc7 17.i.d4± and Black's lag in development, his passive pieces and the unsafe situation of his king dooms him to a long and laborious defence, or 14 . . . dxe4 1S.g6__. and White keeps for long his opponent's king stranded in the centre, with a dan­gerous attack.) 1S.f4 .!t:lc4 16.i.xc4 dxc4 17.g6 !__.. It looks like Black's king is safe and his queenside pawns are threatening ominously White's king, while in fact Black must look hard to find a move, which does not lose immediately, for example: 17 . . . c3 (After 17 . . . i.xe4 18.!!xh7 !!xh7 19.gxh7 i.xh7 20.Vfih2 i.e4 21 . .!t:lxe6+- he must give up his queen for a rook and a piece, after which White only needs to bring his queen to the aS-square.) 18.Vfie2 cxb2+ 19.\t>b1 fxg6 20 . .!t:lxe6 Vfie7 21.fS+- and it is quite obvious that Black's king is beyond salvation.

In response to ll ... g6, Aro­shidze - Kohlweyer, Sort 2006, it deserves attention for White to play 12.\t>b1 and it would be bad for Black to opt for 12 . . . i.g7 13 . .!t:lb3 ! .!DeS 14.�xd6 Vfixd6 1S.!!xd6 .!t:lxf3 16 . .!t:laS i.c8 17 . .!t:lxbS!±, since he would end up a pawn down in an endgame. So, he must choose between 12 . . . !!c8 13 . .!t:lb3 - see ll . . . !!c8 and the variation 12 . . . b4 13 . .!t:lce2 dS 14.exdS i.xdS 1S . .!t:lg3 .!t:lxg3 16.hxg3 �c7 17.!!h3 !k8 18.f4 .ig7 19.Vfih2t, in which he would have great problems cas­tling.

276

11. . . .!t:lb6 - The transfer of this knight to the c4-square takes too much time. 12.'&f2 b4 13 . .!t:lce2 .!t:lc4 14 . .!t:lg3 .!t:lxe3 1S.Vfixe3 .!t:lxg3 16.hxg3t. White has a considera­ble lead in development and initi­ative, but he must play accurately, because Black has two potentially dangerous bishops. After 16 . . . g6 17.i.c4 �b6 18.\t>b1 i.g7 19.i.b3 i.c6 20.!!d3 !!b8 21.Wfd2 i.d7 22.f4 WfcS 23.fS± he will fail to keep the important e6-pawn on its place, Korneev - Alonso Moyano, Mis­lata 2009.

ll . . . i.e7 - This is an attractive move, but it is not the best for Black. He completes the develop­ment of his kingside, but fails to create counterplay. 12.\t>b1 .!t:leS

13.f4 ! (This energetic resource for White leads to favourable change of the material ratio for him.) 13 . . . b4 (13 . . . .!t:lg4 14.i.g1 b4 1S . .!t:la4 i.xe4 16.i.g2±) 14 . .!t:la4 i.xe4 1S. i.e2 .ixh1 16.!!xh1 .!t:lxf4 17.i.xf4 VfiaS 18.b3 !!c8, Grkovic -Scekic, Subotica 2007. The mate­rial is approximately equal, but White's light pieces are much more active than Black's rook and

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 ..fJ b5 8. Vfffd2 t:iJ bd7 9.g4

pawns and White can emphasize his advantage by playing 19.a3 l"l:b8 20.l"l:g1 Wffc7 (Black loses too after 20 . . . 0-0 21.he5 dxe5 22. CiJc6 Wffc7 23.CiJxb8 l"l:xb8 24.axb4 l"l:xb4 25.Wffc3 Wffb8 26.Wffc6 e4 27 . .ic4 e3 28.h4+- White will re­alize easily his extra knight after the considerable simplifications.) 21.axb4 Wffb7 22 .b5 axb5 23.hb5+ CiJd7 24 . .ic6 Wffc8 25.l"i:e1 0-0 26. i.e4+- and Black is incapable of parrying the threat 27.CiJc6.

12.�bl

12 . . . g6 In answer to 12 . . . CiJe5, Garcia

Pantoja - A.Fernandez, Havana 2007, it deserves attention for White to play straightforwardly - 13.f4 b4 (The alternatives are not any better for Black after 13 . . . CiJc4 14.hc4 l"i:xc4 15.l"i:hf1 Wffc7 16. f5 e5 17.CiJde2 b4 18.CiJd5 hd5 19.Wffxd5± White has occupied the important d5-outpost and domi­nates all over the entire board, while in case of 13 . . . CiJg4 14 . .ie2 CiJxe3 15.Wffxe3 CiJxf4 16.Wffxf4 e5 17.Wfff3 exd4 18.l"i:hf1 Wffd7 19.l"i:xd4±

Black is likely to fail to evacuate his king to the kingside.) 14.CiJa4 CiJg4 (It is bad for him to opt for 14 . . . he4 15.ha6!± and Black is beyond salvation, since he loses after 15 . . . hh1 16.fxe5+-) 15.i.e2 CiJxe3 16.Wffxe3 CiJxf4 17.Wffxf4 e5 18.Wfff2 exd4 19.l"i:hf1 l"i:c7 (If he tries to prevent the appearance of White's bishop on c4 with 19 . . . Wffc7, then he must consider the possibility 20.i.g4 l"l:d8 21.CiJb6� and either White's knight will come to d5 with a crushing attack for him, of after 21 . . .he4 22 .l"l:de1 d5 23.CiJxd5 l"i:xd5 24.l"i:xe4+ �d8 25.l"i:xd4 l"l:d6 26.l"i:xb4+- Black's king is doomed to remain in the centre.) 20.i.c4± he will have great problems with the develop­ment of his kingside.

After 12 . . . i.e7 13.a3 g6, Alonso Gonzalez, - Hernaez Fernandez, corr. 2007, White obtains excel­lent attacking prospects, occupy­ing additional space on the king­side with 14.l"l:g1 0-0 15.f4 CiJb6 16.f5±

13.lbb3 White prevents the appear­

ance of his opponent's bishop on the g7-square.

13 . . . .ie7 14 . .id3 (diagram)

14 . . . lbe5 Black's desire to create quickly

counterplay on the queenside, saving a tempo for castling, is quite understandable.

It is worse for him to play 14 . . . b4 15.CiJe2 a5 16.CiJg3 CiJg7 17.h4±

277

Chapter 11

and Black can neither develop any initiative on the queenside, nor he will manage to bring his king to safety.

It is not preferable for him to choose 14 . . . 0-0 15J:'1hf1 ltJeS (After 15 . . . b4 16.ltJa4 dS 17.exd5 exdS 18.f4 t White has a clear-cut plan for kingside actions, while in case of 15 . . . ltJcS 16 . .ie2 ltJxb3 17.cxb3 !?t, he not only ensures the safety of his king and he can organize an attack, but he can also try to obtain an advantage on the queenside, exploiting the isolation of Black's knight on hS.) 16.f4 ltJc4 17 . .ixc4 bxc4 (17 .. . !:1xc4 18.1Wd3 - see 14 . . . ltJeS) 18.ltJd4 1Wd7 19.f5t - Black can hardly cre­ate any meaningful threats along the b-file, while his position on the kingside seems worrisome.

15.f4 tllc4 16.hc4 S:xc4 (diagram)

This position was reached in the game Tiviakov - Kohlweyer, Netherlands 2000. White can ex­ploit the fact the his e4-pawn is not hanging at the moment and he can evacuate his rook on h1

278

away from the x-ray. 17.S:hfl b4 This is the principled move for

Black. It is bad for him to opt for

17 . . . .ixe4? 18 . .id4 eS 19.fxe5 dS 20.ltJxe4 dxe4 2l.ltJa5± and he will fail to maintain the material bal­ance: 2l . . . .ib4 22 .1Wf2+-, or 2 1 . . . .ixgS 22 .Wff2+- and White wins the exchange, or 21 . . .!:1c8 22.ltJb7 '®dS 23.ltJd6+ .ixd6 24.exd6 0-0 2S . .ib6+- and Black will lose his d6-pawn, but even after 21 . . .!:1c7 22 .1We1 1Wa8 23.e6 0-0 24 . .ib6 !:1cc8 25.!:1d7 +- he is bound to lose material.

In case of 17 . . . 0-0 18.1Wd3 !:1c8 (18 . . . 1Wc7 19.ltJd2 !:1c6 20.f5 b4 2l .ltJe2t) 19.a3 1Wc7 20.1Wd2 !:1fe8 21.1Wf2 .if8 22 . .id4t, White con­trols the centre and he is threaten­ing to begin an attack with 23.f5.

18. Wfd3 1Wc7 Black should better avoid 18 . . .

1Wc8 19.ltJa5 !:1c7 20.ltJa4±, because he will fail to keep his only trump (the bishop-pair) and will end up in a cramped position without counterplay.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .f3 b5 B. � d2 ttl bd7 9 .g4

19.ltld2 gc6 2 0 .ltld5! This is a standard Sicilian tac­

tical strike after which Black's king will remain in the centre and his piece-deployment will lack harmony.

2 0 . • . exd5 21.exd5 gc5 22. hc5 ti'xc5

It is not preferable for him to choose 22 . . . dxc5 23.ltlc4 .id6 24J�de1 + 'it>d8 25.f5-+

23.gfel ltlxf4 Black loses too after 23 . . . �xd5?

24.�e3 �e6 25.�d4+-, while in case of 23 . . . \t>fS 24.f5 �xd5 25. 1M/xd5 .ixdS 26.f6 .idS 27.lt:le4± his rook on h8 is completely iso­lated and he will have to give up a piece on the f6-square.

24.'fYf3 ltlh5 25.ltle4 'fYc7 26.lt:lf6+ �d8 (26 . . . \t>fS 27.lt:lxh5 gxh5 28.�xh5±) 27.ltlxh5 gxh5 28.Wlxh5 'fYd7 29.h4± - Black's pieces are passive, his king has no safe shelter and his pawns on both flanks are weak.

b) 9 . . . b4

Black repels his opponent's

knight from its excellent place and he hopes to gain time for the freeing pawn-advance d6-d5.

1 0 .lt:lce2!? The transfer of this knight

to g3 is White's most aggressive plan.

1 0 • . . ltle5 About 10 . . . h6 11.0-0-0 - see

Chapter 12. ll.lL!g3 h6 Black can hardly continue the

fight without this move. It is worse for him to opt for

ll . . . h5 12.ltlxh5 ltlxh5 13.gxh5 d5 (In case of 13 . . . �h4+ 14 . .if2 �xh5 15 . .ie2± Black's queen turns out to be on the wrong side of the board.) 14.0-0-0 dxe4 (14 . . . .ib7 15.�g2 ! ) 15.�g2 �c7 16.fxe4 f1xh5 17 . .ie2 f1h7 18.'it>b1 .ib7 19 . .if4t - His king will remain stranded in the centre for long and he will have problems creating counter­play, while the attempt to evacu­ate his king to the queenside will lead after 19 . . . 0-0-0 20.ltlf3+-, at least to the loss of a pawn.

Following 11. . .�c7 12 .0-0-0 lt:lc4 (It is rather dubious for Black to opt for 12 . . . .ie7 13.'it>b1 lt:lfd7, Blazquez - Pinto, Prefer­ente 1992, because after 14.ltlh5± he cannot defend comfortably his g7-pawn, since after the natural move 14 . . . 0-0, White will have the resource 15 . .ih6 ! and Black will have to give up the exchange.) 13 . .ixc4 �xc4, Scott- Grochowski, carr. 2007, White can continue here with 14.b3 �c7 15.g5 lt:ld7

279

Chapter 11

16.%hb4 .tb7 17.WI'd2 .te7 18.@b1 0-0 19.h4± and he obtains excel­lent attacking prospects as well as a solid extra pawn.

12.h4!? d5 In reply to 12 . . . WI'c7, Pinol

Fulgoni - Tukmakov, Lausanne 2005, White has a powerful at­tack after 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 �xh1 15.lt:Jxh1 lt:Jfd7 16.lt:Jf2 lt:Jc4 17.hc4 Wl'xc4 18.b3 Wl'c7 19.0-0-0t

13.g5 hxg5 Black should better avoid

13 . . . .tc5 14.0-0-0 hxg5 15.hxg5 �xh1 16.lt:Jxh1 hd4 17.hd4 lt:Jxf3 18.WI'e3± and he will have to give up a piece.

14.hxg5 �xh1 15.lt:Jxhl tOgS It is rather dubious for Black

to play 15 . . . lt:Jxf3+ ? ! 16.lt:Jxf3 lt:Jxe4 17.WI'g2 .tb7 18.g6±, since his king is unsafe and he lags in develop­ment, so his compensation for the piece is insufficient, Zawadzka -Muhren, Instanbul 2005.

The diagrammed position was reached in the game Tissir - San­dipan, Cappelle la Grande 2008 and White's lead in development

280

was obvious. It could have been emphasized with the natural line :

16. 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 After 16 . . . lt:Je7 17.f4 lt:Jd7 18.

lt:Jf2 Wl'a5 19.@b1 .tb7 20.e5 Wl'a4 21.lt:Jd3± Black has great prob­lems with the protection of his b4-pawn, because in case of the seemingly attractive line : 21 . . . lt:Jc6 22 .b3 Wl'a5 22 .g6-+ White's standard attack is tremendously dangerous.

In response to 16 . . . dxe4, it is very good for him to follow with 17.f4 ! lt:Jg4 18.lt:Jf2 lt:Jxe3 19.WI'xe3 Wl'b6 20.lt:Jxe4 g6 21 .i.g2 �a7 (In the variation 21 . . . .tb7 22.lt:Jf6+ lt:Jxf6 23.hb7 Wl'xb7 24.lt:Jxe6 fxe6 25.WI'xe6+ Wl'e7 26.W/c6+ @f7 27. Wl'xa8 lt:Jh5 28.WI'f3 Wl'e6 29.@bl± his rook and two pawns are much superior to his opponent's light pieces with queens present on the board, because Black's king is exposed. If the queens are ex­changed, then White can easily create a dangerous passed pawn.) 22 .lt:Jd2 �c7 23.Wfd3 Wl'd6 (After 23 . . . .tg7 24.lt:Jc4 Wl'xd4 25.WI'xd4 hd4 26.�xd4 @f8 27.lt:Jb6±, Black will have great problems protecting his queenside pawns.) 24.@b1 .te7 (but not 24 . . . .tg7? 25.lt:Jb5+-) 25.W/e3 @f8 26.b3± -White's pieces are much more ac­

tive than their counterparts and his king is safer.

17.f4 t0c4 18 • .ixc4 dxc4 19.WI'e2 Wfa5

It is not preferable for Black to opt for 19 . . . WI'c7 20.lt:Jxe6 fxe6

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 ..fJ b5 8. �d2 l:iJbd7 9.g4

21.�h5+ �f7 (In case of 21 . . .i>e7 White can try to obtain an advan-22 .f5 he4 23.f6+ gxf6 24.gxf6+, tage on the queenside. it is bad for him to play 24 . . . 11Jxf6 25 . .ic5+- and he loses his queen, as well as 23 . . . i>xf6 25.�h4+ i>f7 26.�xe4+- and he cannot protect his king without huge material losses.) 22 .�xf7+ i>xfl 23.E:d7+ 11Je7 24.E:xb7+- White has a solid extra pawn in this endgame and his pieces are considerably more active.

2 0 .g6! l:k8 It would be a disaster for

Black to continue with 20 . . . �xa2? 21.gxf7+ i>xfl 22.�h5+ g6 23.�h7+ .ig7 24.f5+-

21.gxt7 <tlxf7 22.ti'g4 ges 23.e5-+ - His king is stranded in the centre and his kingside is not developed, so White's attack is likely to be victorious.

c) 9 • • • 11Jb6 Black frees the d7-square for

his knight on f6 and prevents the advance of his opponent's central pawns with tempo. Now however,

1 0 .a4!? He begins active actions ex­

ploiting the fact that his rook is still on al.

l O • • .c!iJc4 This is the most popular move

for Black, because he obtains the two-bishop advantage.

In reply to 10 . . . 11Jxa4, besides 11.11Jxa4 bxa4 12.E:xa4 - see 10 . . . bxa4, White has an even more dan­gerous alternative - ll.l:iJdxb5! ? 11Jxb2 12 .g5 l:iJhS 13.E:a2± with a considerable lead in develop­ment.

10 . . . b4 ll.l:iJa2

Black has occupied space on

281

Chapter 11

the queenside, but now he is faced with a difficult choice:

ll . . . l!Jxa4 - After this move, there arises an unpleasant end­game for Black, because his a6-pawn is weak and he lags in de­velopment. 12.ttlxb4 l!JcS 13.ttlbc6 �c7 14.�aS �xaS+, Erenburg -Nedobora, Tel Aviv 2009, White can continue here with 1S.l!JxaS h6 16.b4 l!Jcd7 17.cit>f2 l!JeS 18. l!Jdc6 l!Jxc6 19.l!Jxc6 i.b7 20.bS l:'lc8 21.ttlaS+- and his lead in de­velopment becomes decisive.

ll . . . aS 12.ttlbS (In answer to 12 .c3, Bady - Esserman, Miami 2007, Black has the resource 12 . . . dS !� with excellent counterplay. White has another attractive pos­sibility 12.0-0-0!? i.e7 13.ttlc6 �c7 14.b3;!; - he will easily rede­ploy his passive knight on b1 to the centre, while Black will hardly create any active counterplay.) 12 . . . i.e7 (He cannot remain with an extra pawn in the variation 12 . . . l!Jxa4 13.gS l!JhS 14.0-0-0 l:'lb8 1S.b3 l!Jb6 16.l!Jxd6+ �xd6 17.�xd6 hd6 18.l:'lxd6 l!Jd7 19. i.e2± - Black can hardly coordi­nate his pieces and he has no ac­tive play. In addition his queen­side pawns are very weak.) 13.gS l!JhS 14.0-0-0 0-0 (In the varia­tion 14 . . . l!Jxa4 1S.b3 l!Jb6 16. l!Jxd6+ <it>f8 17.�f2 l!Jd7 18.i.bS+­Black cannot avoid material loss­es.) 1S.b3 dS 16.f4! i.b7 17.i.g2± White will have excellent attack­ing prospects thanks to Black's terribly misplaced knight on hS.

282

Meanwhile, White's king is quite safe.

10 . . . bxa4 - Black creates vol­untarily a weakness on a6, so White's queenside initiative is very powerful and he has su­perior development. ll.l!Jxa4 l!Jxa4 (In the endgame after 11 . . . l!Jfd7 12.l!Jxb6 l!Jxb6 13.�aS l!Jd7 14.�xd8+ <it>xd8, Rubino - Gre­gory, St. Chely d'Aubrac 2001 and 1S.i.e2 i.b7 16.<it>f2 i.e7 17.ttlb3 l:'lc8 18.l:'lhc1 dS 19.ttlaS± Black remains at least a pawn down.) 12.l:'lxa4 i.b7 (In the variation 12 . . . l!Jd7!? 13.i.e2 i.b7 14.0-0 hS 1S.gS l!JcS 16.l:'la2 g6 17.b4 ttld7 18.ttlb3±, the standard transfer of White's knight to the aS-square emphasizes the vulnerability of Black's a6-pawn, Pasalic - Ar­

nold, Chicago 2008.) 13.ttlb3t

White will exert powerful queenside pressure after his knight goes to aS. There may fol­low:

13 . . . �c7 14.l!JaS i.c8, Edel­man - Yudasin, USA 1990 (14 . . . dS 1S.l!Jxb7 - see 13 . . . �c8), Black will have great problems here in the line: 1S.l:'lc4! �d8 (or 1S . . . �b8

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 ..f.3 b5 8. �d2 (jjbd7 9.g4

16.g5 (jjg8 17.�c3 �d7 18J:k7 {jje7 19.�e2± - he will hardly complete his development and his pieces are discoordinated) 16.(jjc6 �d7 17.g5 d5 18.Ei:c3 (jjhS 19.�e2± White has a much superior development, while Black lacks space;

13 . . . h6 - He preserves his knight on the f6-square with this move, but his development suf­fers considerably. 14.{jjaS .ic8 15.�e2 �d7 16.Ei:a2 �e7 17.{jjc4± Black has no satisfactory defence against 18.(jjb6 and White will win the pawn on a6;

13 .. . �c8 - He obtains the two-bishop advantage after this move. 14.{jjaS dS 1S.(jjxb7 �xb7 16.g5 {jjd7 17.exd5 exdS 18.lt>f2 .ie7 19.Ei:a5 �xb2? (Black had bet­ter complete his development by playing 19 . . . 0-0 20.Ei:xd5 (jjb6 21.hb6 �xb6+ 22 .�e3 �c6 23. �e4 Ei:fe8 24.Ei:e5± and despite the presence of bishops of oppo­site colours on the board, White would have excellent chances of realizing his extra pawn, because the queens would be exchanged unavoidably and Black's defence would be very difficult with rooks present on the board.) 20.Ei:xd5 �b4 21.�d3 (jjf8 22 .�d4+- His king is doomed, Penades Ordaz -Ramsden, Email 2006;

13 . . . d5 - This counterstrike in the centre seems a logical reply to White's flank actions. 14.g5 (jjhS 1S.{jjaS �d7 16.b3 �e7 17.{jjxb7 �xb7 18.exd5 exdS, Nolan - Ara­khamia-Grant, Edinburgh 2002,

White continues here with 19.�g2 0-0 20.f4 Ei:ad8 21.0-0 Ei:fe8 22 . lt>h1 g6 23.f5± and he completes his development with excellent attacking chances, exerting pres­sure against Black's weak a6 and dS-pawns;

13 .. . {jjd7 - The transfer of this knight to the queenside leads to a considerable lag in development for Black. 14.{jjaS �c8 15 . .ie2 dS 16.exd5 (jjb6 17.{jjc6 �c7 18.Ei:e4t White has an extra pawn already in addition to his actively poised pieces. After the attractive line for Black: 18 . . . (jjxd5 19.�xd5 �b7 20. Ei:xe6+ fxe6 21.W/xe6+ �e7 22 . Wlxe7+ �xe7 23.(jjxe7 lt>xe7 24. lt>f2± White's two pawns, sup­ported by his powerful bishops, more than compensate the ex­change, Joachim - Pieniazek, Germany 2006;

13 . . . �e7 - Black completes the development of his kingside, but White is very active on the queen­side as well. 14.{jjaS �d7 15.Ei:b4 �c8 16.g5 (jjhS, Firman - Ga­sanov, Kharkov 2001, he can play here 17.�e2 0-0 18.f4 g6 19.Ei:b6t and he not only attacks the pawns on d6 and a6, but is threatening 20 .(jjc6 as well;

In reply to 13 . . . �d7, Koepke ­Schenk, Munich 2009, it is very strong for White to choose 14.Ei:b4 ! dS 15.g5 ! (jjhS (Black loses after the greedy line: 15 . . . hb4 16. �xb4 (jjhS 17.{jjc5+- White obtains two pieces for a rook and he has excel­lent chances of collecting the a6-

283

Chapter 11

pawn too. Black can hardly bring his knight on h5 into the actions.) 16J!b6 fi.e7 17.tt:lc5 fi.x:c5 18.fi.x:c5±. His king has remained stranded in the centre and it looks like he has nothing better than entering the difficult endgame after 18 . . . dxe4 19.'\Wxd7+ 'tt>xd7 20J!xb7+ 'tt>c6 2U!xf7 'tt>xc5 22 .fxe4± White should parry gradually Black's temporary activity and then real­ize his extra pawn.

ll . .ixc4 bxc4 12.a5 White fixes the weakness on

a6 with this move and he obtains the excellent b6-outpost for his pieces, deep into his opponent's camp.

Now, we will analyze in details the moves cl) 12 . . . .ib7 and c2) 12 . . . c!Lld7.

Black has also tried in prac­tice:

12 .. . d5? - This activity is pre­mature. 13.g5 tt:ld7 14.exd5 exd5 15. tt:lc6 Wic7 16.Wixd5+- He has lost a pawn and has fallen catastrophi­cally behind in development, Dirksen - Munnik, Venlo 2009.

284

12 . . . .id7? ! - That move ena­bles White to repel the enemy knight on f6 to the edge of the board. 13.g5 tt:lh5 14.tt:lde2 �b8 15 . .ib6!± (Black has no active play whatsoever after this move.) 15 . . . �xb6 (In case of 15 . . . Wic8 16.tt:lg3 tt:lxg3 17.hxg3 .ie7 18.0-0-0 Wic6 19.f4± his kingside is weak and he has no counterplay.) 16.axb6 Wixb6 17.Wid4± - Black lags in de­velopment and his pawns on a6 and c4 are weak, so his compen­sation for the exchange is insuffi­cient, Grandelius - A.Andersson, Stockholm 2007.

12 . . . Wic7 - He protects his weak c4-pawn in advance. 13.tt:la4 �b8 (13 . . . tt:ld7 14.0-0-0 - see 12 . . . tt:ld7) 14.tt:lb6 tt:ld7 (In the var­iation 14 . . . .ib7 15.0-0 c3 16.Wixc3 Wixc3 17.bxc3± Black's pieces are so passive that his compensation for the pawn is questionable and after 17 . . . tt:ld7 18.�abl .ie7 19.c4 'tt>d8 20.�fd1 c!Lle5 21.c5+- White accomplished a breakthrough in the game, Perelshteyn - Sarkar, Las Vegas 2006.) 15.tt:le2 .ie7 16.'1Wc3

16 . . . 0-0 (It is hardly any bet-

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .j3 bS B. 'Wff d2 ttJ bd7 9 .g4

ter for Black to play 16 . . . i.f6 17.'Wffxc4 'Wffxc4 18.tiJxc4 d5 19.exd5 exd5 20.tiJd6+ �e7 21.tiJf5+ �f8 22 .i.d4± and he will regain his pawn, but not for long. Mean­while, his pieces remain passive, the pawns on d5 and a6 are weak and he lags considerably in devel­opment, Abreu Delgado - Pavia Miralles, Mislata 2007.) 17.'Wffxc4 'Wffb7, Quezada Perez - Sanchez Enriquez, Morelia 2007 (After 17 . . . 'Wffxc4 18.tiJxc4 d5 19.exd5 exd5 20.tiJb6± Black will probably re­gain his pawn, but his weaknesses on d5 and a6 and the absence of active counterplay doom him to a long and difficult defence, Za­drozny - Abbasi, carr. 2007.) . White can play here 18.'Wffd4! ? 'Wffc6 (It is worse for Black to con­tinue in an aggressive fashion 18 . . . i.h4+ 19.tiJg3 E!:d8 20.0-0-0 tiJe5 21.tiJh5±, since in addition to the extra pawn, White has excel­lent attacking chances.) 19.'Wffc3 i.h4+ 20.i.f2 hf2+ 21.�xf2 'Wffxc3 22 .tiJxc3 ttJxb6 23.axb6 E!:xb6 24. E!:a2:t. The endgame is advanta­geous for White, because of the vulnerability of his opponent's a6 and d6-pawns.

cl) 12 . . . �b7 This is a natural move with

which Black prepares the pawn­advance d6-d5.

13.tL!a4 (diagram)

13 . . . d5 Opening of the central files is

in favour of White, since he leads in development.

About 13 . . . tiJd7 14.0-0-0 -see 12 . . . tiJd7.

In case of 13 . . . E!:c8 14.'Wffc3 he4 (It is better for Black to chose here 14 . . . tiJd7 15.0-0-0 - see 12 . . . tiJd7.) 15.fxe4 ttJxe4 16.'Wffb4 'Wffh4+ 17.�d1 'Wffxg4+ 18.�c1 e5, White neutralizes his opponent's activity with 19.h3 ! ? (He did not play so well in the game Kasim­dzhanov - Anand, Leon 2005: 19.tiJb6 exd4 20.E!:g1 'Wffe6 21.tiJxc8 dxe3 22.'Wffb8, because here, Black could have obtained an excellent counterplay with the line: 22 . . . d5 ! ? 23.tiJb6+ �e7 24.'Wffb7+ �d6 25.E!:d1 �e5 !� and White would be unable to exploit the open position of Black's king, due to his passive rook on a1, but even in case of 25.'Wffxa6 �e5 26.'Wffb5 tiJd6 27.tiJd7+ �e4 28.tiJc5+ �e5 29.tiJxe6 ttJxb5 30.tiJxf8 E!:xf8 31. E!:xg7 f5�, Black's central pawns would have been very danger­ous.) 19 . . . 'Wffd7 (After 19 . . . 'Wffg2 20 .E!:d1 d5 21.'Wffb7 tiJd6 22.'Wffxa6 exd4 23.hd4 i.e7 24.E!:a3 !+- all

285

Chapter 11

White's pieces would be into the actions and Black would have no chances of a successful defence, Cortes Olivares - Aldrete Lobo, corr. 2007.) 20.tLlb6 dS 21.tLlxd7 hb4 22.tLlxe5 i.d6 23.tt:lef3± -White's knight is much superior to Black's two pawns, Csjernyik -Unen, corr. 2007.

He should better refrain from 13 .. .'�c7 14.0-0-0 Eic8 15.�c3 tt:ld7 16.tLle2 eS 17.tt:lb6 tt:lxb6, Abreu Delgado - Fedorchuk, Al­cala de Henares 2007, because White can continue with 18.axb6 �d7 19.h4 �e6 20.�a5 i.e7 21. tt:lc3±, obtaining a dangerous passed b6-pawn and an excellent outpost on dS for his knight.

14.g5 /0d7 15. 0 - 0 - 0

15 . . . gcs It is worse for Black to opt for

15 . . . dxe4 16.fxe4 and now: in case of 16 . . . �c7 17.Eihf1 he4

18.tLle2 i.c6 19.tLlb6 Eid8 20.�c3± he has problems completing his development;

after 16 . . . Eib8 17.Eihe1 i.a8 18. tLlfS i.c6 19.�c3 ha4 20.Eixd7!

286

�xd7 21 .tLlxg7+ hg7 22 .�xg7 �e7 23.�xh8+ �f8 24.�e5+­Black's king is beyond salvation, because he is incapable of defend­ing the vulnerable dark squares in his camp, Swaminathan - Gran­delius, Wijk aan Zee 2010.

It seems quite natural for Black to play here 16 . . . tt:lc5, since he at­tacks his opponent's central pawn and wishes to exchange some pieces, but after 17.tLlb6! tt:lxe4 18.�e2, it becomes clear that his defence would be very difficult. He loses, for example in case of 18 . . . c3 19.tLlb5 cxb2+ 20.1!lxb2 tt:ld6 21.Eixd6 hd6 22.Eid1 and after 22 . . . i.d5 23.Eixd5 exdS 24.i.f4+ l!lf8 25.tt:lxd6+-, as well as following 22 . . . i.e5+ 23.i.d4 hd4+ 24.Eixd4 �xgS 25.tt:ld6+ l!lf8 26.tLlxa8 haS 27.�xa6+-, or 25 . . . 1!le7 26.�c4 Eiac8 27.�b4! +-, he is beyond salvation. White has a very dangerous attack in the variation 18 . . . �c7 19.g6 !--+. Now, Black fails to seize the initiative with 19 . . . c3 20.gxf7+ l!lxf7 21. b4! Eie8 22 .tLlxe6 ! Eixe6 23.Eid7+ �xd7 24.tt:lxd7 hb4 25.Eif1+ l!le7 26.�g4+- and his king is help­less, while in case of 19 . . . hxg6 20.tLlxe6 ! fxe6 21.�g4, he loses quickly if he tries to simplify the position with 21 . . .Eid8 22 .�xe6+ i.e7 23.Eixd8+ �xd8 24.Eid1+-, while after 21 . . .c3 22.�xe6+ �e7 23.�xg6+ �fl 24.�xf7+ l!lxfl 25.Eid7+, White regains the sacri­ficed material, ending up with an extra pawn in the endgame.

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7..f.3 b5 B. Wfd2 ltJbd7 9.g4

16.exd5 hd5 17.'ti'c3 YlYc7 18J�hel W/b7 19.ltJb6 �xb6 2 0 .axb6t

Black's king is stranded in the centre and he has great problems with the development of his king­side.

2 0 . • . .id6 (He is lost after 20 . . . i.e7 21.ltJf5 ! exf5 22.W/xg7 l'!f8 23.g6 hxg6 24.i.h6 \t>d7 25.l'!xe7+ \t>xe7 26.W/e5+ i.e6 27.W/d6+ @f6 28.i.xf8+-; but even after his most tenacious defence 20 . . . l'!d8 21 .ltJe2 M3 22.l'!xd8+ \t>xd8 23.'ti'xc4± Black's king remains in the centre and his kingside is not developed. White has a dangerous passed b6-pawn, so Black will hardly save this po­sition.) 21.ltJf5 exf5 22 . .ic5+ Wd7 23.hd6 c.!?xd6 24.gxd5+ YlYxd5 25.gdl YlYxdl + 26. \t>xdl c.!?c6 27.YlYxc4+ c.!?xb6 28.YlYd4+ Wc6 29.ti'xg7+- White's queen is much stronger than his oppo­nent's rooks, because Black's king is vulnerable and all his pawns are weak, V.Akopian - Grigoriants, Budva 2009.

c2) 12 • . • ltJd7

Black can hardly continue the game without this move, since it covers the important b6-square.

13.�a4 .ib7 It would not be better for him

to opt for 13 . . . W/c7 14.0-0-0 l'!b8 15.ltJe2 i.e7 16.ltJb6 0-0 17.g5 i.b7 18.ltJc3 ltJxb6 19.hb6 1Mfc6 20.l'!hgl i.a8 21.h4t - he has no counterplay on the queenside, while White's kingside initiative is running effortlessly thanks to his domination in the centre, Kulaots - Gundavaa, Dresden 2008.

14. 0 - 0 - 0

14 • • • .ie7

287

Chapter 11

After 14 .. .'�c7 1S.tt::le2 il.e7 16. tt::lb6 tt:Jxb6 17 . .bb6 �c6 18.tt::lc3 0-0 19.Eihe1t, White can continue with the standard plan of the de­velopment of his kingside initia­tive, while Black has no active play at all. 19 . . . l':ife8 20 .f4 �c8 21.gS;t. White's pieces are perfectly placed and he can increase patiently his kingside pressure, while Black's attempt to free his position with the help of 21 . . .dS? ! 22.exdS .bdS 23.tt::lxdS exdS 24.�xdS c3 2S.b3 .ib4 26.'tt>b1+- leads to a loss of a pawn and after 27 . . . �g4, Anand ­Kulaots, Tallinn 2004, White wins immediately with 27 . .id8 !+-

14 . . . l':ic8 (threatening to create counterplay with the move 1S . . . c3) 1S.�c3 .ie7 16.h4 .bh4, Leko - Kasparov, Linares 200S (In the variation 16 . . . Eib8 17.gS 0-0 18.Eihg1 .ia8 19.hS dS 20.tt::lb6 tt::lxb6 21 .axb6 l':ixb6 22.tt::lfS exfS 23.h6 Eig6 24.exfS± Black re­mains an exchange down with an exposed king, Bocanegra Moreno - Perez Fernandez, corr. 200S; White has excellent attacking prospects after 16 . . . 0-0 17.gSt).

Here, after 17.�b4 Eib8 18.

288

l':ixh4! White obtains a more than sufficient compensation, because he has excellent attacking chances thanks to Black's bad piece-coor­dination. 18 . . . �xh4 19.�xd6 �e7 20.�c7 \Wd8 (It is worse for him to play 20 . . . 0-0 21.tt::lb6 Eifd8 22 . .if4± - he will fail to preserve his material advantage and his pieces are absolutely static, so even in the endgame with an extra ex­change after 22 . . . eS 23.lt:JfS �cS 24 . .beS ! �xeS 2S.l':lxd7 �xc7 26 . l':ixc7±, he will hardly save the game. Black will lose his c4-pawn and White's knight will come from fS to an even more aggressive out­post - dS.) 21 .�xc4 (White has an excellent compensation for the exchange after the attractive line : 21 .tt::lxe6 fxe6 22.l':ixd7 �xd7 23. �xb8+ �c8 24.�eS 0-0 2S.tt::lb6�) 21 . . .0-0 (In the variation 21 . . .�c8 22 .�b4 .be4 23.tt::lb6 tt:Jxb6 24. axb6 .ic6 2S . .igS f6 26.tt:Jxe6 @f7 27.Eid6� Black's king remains stranded in the centre and comes under a crushing attack.) 22 .tt::lxe6 fxe6 23.tt::lc5 �f6 24.tt:Jxd7 �:x£3 2S. .icS± - White regains the exchange, ending up at least with an extra pawn and maintaining the advan­tage thanks to his better placed king and more active pieces.

15.h4 h5 1S . . . dS - After this move

he is much better prepared for the opening of the central files. 16.exdS .bdS 17.tt::lfS 0-0 18.tt::lb6 tt:Jxb6 19.axb6 .if6 20.gS .tx£3 21.�b4 aS 22 .�a3 hh1 23.Eixd8

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. W:ld2 CiJ bd7 9.g4

i.xd8 24.liJg3 ! .idS 25.CiJh5± - The material is approximately equal indeed, but White's far-advanced passed b6-pawn and Black's un­safe king provide White with su­perior prospects, Csjemyik - Bie­lik, corr. 2008.

16.g5 g6 17.CiJe2 0 - 0 , Aro­shidze - Sakaev, Kusadasi 2006.

White can improve patiently his position. He should better do this with t8.mbt ges (After 18 . . . Wfc7 19.CiJec3 �ab8 20.CiJb6 CiJxb6 21. axb6 Wic6 22 .f4t, he has good chances of preparing the pawn­advance f4-f5, creating dangerous kingside threats, while in case of 19 . . . Wic6 20.i.f4 �fd8 21.Wih2;!;, Black has no comfortable way of protecting his d6-pawn.) 19.ghfl W:lc7 2 0 .CiJb6 CiJxb6 21.axb6!? (It is also very good for White to play 21.i.xb6 Wfc6 22.CiJc3 i.f8 23.�f2 �ab8 24.'\Wf4t and later his plan includes an exchange-sacri­fice on d6, followed by an offen­sive on the dark squares.) 21 . . •

W:lc6 22.Wia5 Wfb5 23.�a2 a5 24.CiJc3 �b4 25.�a4;!; - Black has no active counterplay in view

Black is practically deprived of of the vulnerability of his d6-active possibilities, therefore pawn.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed all the responses for Black

against 9.g4, with the exception of his main line 9 . . . h6. White usually succeeds in repelling the knight onf6 to the edge of

the board and this guarantees for him an advantage in the centre and impedes considerably Black's counterplay.

In case of b) 9 . . . b4, White must play 1 0 . CiJce2! The transfer of this knight to the king side facilitates considerably the organization of his attack.

In variation c) 9 . . . CiJ b6, Black frees a good square for his knight on f6, but enables White to occupy space on the queenside with the help of the advance of his a-pawn and as a result Black is left without any counterplay at all.

289

Chapter 12 l.e4 c5 2.ttlf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 b5 8.�d2 ttlbd7 9.g4 h6

In this chapter, we begin the analysis of Black's basic reply - 9 . . . h6. He prevents the pawn­attack against his well-placed knight on f6 and stops his oppo­nent's kingside pawn-offensive. He wishes to create counterplay on the queenside and to seize the initiative there. The main draw­backs of this move are the weak­ening of the light squares and the possibility of opening the h-file should White manage to advance his g-pawn.

After the natural reaction 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 Black has played most often in

practice 10 . . . i.b7 - see Chapters 13-15; here we will deal with his alternatives and we will pay most

290

thorough attention to a) 10 . . . lLle5, b) 1 0 .. .'�c7 and c) 1 0 .. . b4.

Black has also tried: 10 . . . �a5 ll.'i!?b1 b4 (ll . . . i.b7

12 .h4 - see 10 . . . i.b7 11.h4 �as 12.'i!?b1) 12.lt:lce2 - see variation c.

In answer to 10 . . . tt:lb6, E.Alek­seev - Shutzman, Tel Aviv 2001, it seems very attractive for White to opt for 11.�f2 ! ? tt:lfd7 12 .f4 i.b7 13.f5 e5 (In case of 13 . . . exf5 14.tt:lxf5 b4 15J�xd6± Black not only loses a pawn, but he comes under a dangerous attack.) 14.tt:le6! fxe6 15.fxe6 �f6 16.exd7+ tt:lxd7 17.�g2 ie7 18.h4± His king has no safe shelter, his pieces are passive and the important central d5-outpost is vulnerable.

a) 1 0 . . . lL!e5 Black frees the d7-square for

his knight on f6, but he ignores the development of his pieces and this only provokes White to play more aggressively.

ll.f4!? This is the most resolute con­

tinuation for him.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7..fJ b5 B. W!d2 liJbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 - 0

There arise standard positions with somewhat misplaced white knight on b1 after ll.h4 b4 12 .liJb1 and now it is premature for Black to play 12 . . . d5 13 . .if4t, because White's initiative is very power­ful.

It is obviously bad for White to choose ll.g5?! hxg5 12 .hg5 b4 13.liJb1 (or 13.liJce2 W/a5� and Black's prospects are not inferior at all) 13 . . . W/b6! 14.ie3 W/b7!� and he has an excellent game.

ll . . . ttlexg4 This is the most principled re­

ply. Black still lags considerably in development, but he gobbles some pawns.

After 11 . . . 4Jc4 12 .hc4 bxc4 13.W/g2 �b6 14.g5 hxg5 15.fxg5 lilh5 16.g6t, White has excellent attacking prospects.

It is hardly any better for Black to play 11 . . . 4Jg6 12 .e5 ! liJxg4 (Following 12 . . . dxe5 13.ig2 b4 14.ha8 bxc3 15.W/xc3 exd4 16.hd4 4Jxf4 17J;:he1 4J6d5 18. W/c4± White has an extra ex­change and leads in development,

having opened files for his rook.) 13Jl:g1 4Jxe3 (Black comes under a powerful attack after 13 . . . dxe5 14Jl:xg4 exd4 15 . .ig2 l'l:b8 16.hd4 ib7 17.f5 ! exf5 18.hb7! l'l:xb7 19.W/g2 W/c7 20.l'l:g3+- and he fails to develop his kingside.) 14.W/xe3

Here, we need to analyze Black's most principled respons­es:

14 . . . d5 - this is an attempt to avoid the opening of the central files. 15.f5 liJe7 (After 15 . . . exf5, Black gets crushed 16.4Jdxb5 axb5 17.hb5+ id7 18.l'l:xd5+-) 16.f6 lilg6 17.id3 (White has already completed his development, while Black's pieces are on their initial places, except the knight on g6, which will be soon annihilated.) 17 . . . gxf6 18.l'l:xg6 ! fxg6 19.hg6+ @d7 20.4Jxe6 ! @xe6 21.4Jxd5+­He can save his king only at the price of huge material losses.

14 . . . b4 - Black is trying to close all the files with tempo. 15. tt:le4 d5 16.id3 ! (White completes his development and is about to begin a crushing attack.) 16 . . . 4Jh4 (Black loses quickly after 16 . . . dxe4 17.he4 id7 18.4Jxe6! +-, for ex-

291

Chapter 12

ample: 1B . . . he6 19.i.c6+ i.d7 20. �xd7 Wxd7 21.hd7+ 'i!?xd7 22 . \We4 �bB 23.Wc4 i.e7 24.\Wxfl tt:lxf4 25.�xg7 +- and he does not have sufficient material for the queen.) 17.\Wg3 tt:lfS (The alterna­tives would not save Black either: 17 . . . tt:lg6 1B.f5 exfS 19.e6 fxe4 20. exfl 'i!?xf7 21.\Wxg6 'i!?gB 22 .i.xe4! dxe4 23.tt:le6 \We7 24.tt:lxg7!+- and White has a decisive material ad­vantage. 17 . . . 'tt>d7 - Black's king will be an easy prey for White on the queenside as well. 17.f5 exfS 1B.e6 fxe6 19.\WeS---+) 1B.tt:lxf5 exfS 19.tt:ld6+ i.xd6 20.Wxg7± - He has regained his piece and the central files have been opened. Black remains with an extra pawn indeed, but this would not com­pensate his numerous weaknesses and his passive pieces.

12.e5! White opens files rather con­

sistently.

12 . . . b4 This is the most principled

move for Black, but it is not the only one.

292

12 . . . i.b7 - This is a fruitless attempt to gain some time for the development of his pieces. 13.exf6 ! i.xh1 14.i.h3 b4 15.tt:la4! tt:lxe3 16.�xe3 .idS and here, White's quickest road to victory is the move 17.tt:lxe6 !+-

12 . . . dxe5 - Black intends to capture everything he is being given. 13.fxe5

and now: 13 . . . i.b7? - This is the way

for him to offer the weakest pos­sible resistance. 14.exf6 i.xh1 15. i.g2 ! tt:lxe3 (Black loses quickly after 15 . . . i.xg2 16.'!19xg2 'WeB 17. tt:lxe6! +-, his knight on g4 is hanging as well as the pawn on g7, while after 17 . . . tt:lxe3 1B.tt:lc7+ White checkmates.) 16.i.xh1 �cB 17.i.c6+ ! �xc6 1B.tt:lxc6 �xd2+ 19.�xd2 tt:ldS 20.tt:lxd5 exdS 21 . �xd5+- Black has no satisfactory defence against the checkmate on dB, so he loses at least his bishop.

13 . . . tt:lxe3 - He obtains the two-bishop advantage in an open position and this forces White to act maximally energetically. 14. 'Wxe3 tt:ldS (In case of 14 . . . tt:ld7 15. 'Wf3 ! Black loses after 15 . . . \WgS+

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 bS 8. �d2 tiJbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0

16.@b1 !!a7 17.tiJe4 �xeS 18.tiJc6 �c7 19 . .ig2 ! tiJeS 20.�c3 tiJxc6 2l.tiJf6+ gxf6 22.i.xc6+ .id7 23. E:xd7+-, but even following 1S . . . gbs 16.tiJxe6 fxe6 17.�hS+ @e7 18.gd6�, White's attack is deci­sive, for example : 18 . . . tiJf6 19.�g6 �as 20 . .ig2 ! b4 2l.exf6+ gxf6 22 . gdS ! +-, or 18 . . . g6 19.�h4+ @e8 20.:1!xe6+ .ie7 21.tiJdS gh7 22. tiJxe7 E:xe7 23.E:xg6 tiJf8 24. gd6 �c7 2S . .ie2 .ie6 26.i.hS+ .tt7 27.gf1+-) 1S.tiJxdS exdS (It seems too risky for Black to opt for 1S . . . �xdS 16.:1!g1 ! �cS 17.i.g2 E:a7 18.i.c6+ .td7 19.�f3� - he must develop his kingside, but after 19 . . . .ie7 2Q.gxg7 E:f8 2l.�e4± his king remains stranded in the cen­tre and that makes his position tremendously difficult if we have in mind that the material is equal.) 16.tiJxbS .ie6 17.ggl! gS 18.@b1 gbs 19.tiJd4 .tcs 20.b3± Black's king has no safe shelter and White has excellent attacking prospects.

13 . . . tiJxeS - Black collects a second pawn and he forces his opponent to play very precise­ly. 14.�g2 ! (White loses after the seemingly attractive move 14 . .tf4? .tb7! 1S. i.g2 tiJc4 16.�e2 �b6 17.i.xb7 �xb7 18.tiJxe6 fxe6 19.�xe6+ .te7 20.tiJdS tiJxdS 2l .E:xdS E:f8 22 .�g6+ gf7-+ and he has no material left to con­tinue with his attack.) 14 . . . .td7 (After 14 . . . gbs 1S.tiJxe6±, White will attack with a slight material advantage. It is hardly any better for Black to play 14 . . . tiJdS 1S.tiJxdS

�xdS 16.�g3± and against the threats 17.i.g2 and 17.tiJxbS, he has no satisfactory defence, but it is even worse for him to choose 1S . . . exdS? 16.i.f4� and White's attack would lead to huge mate­rial gains for him, for example : 16 . . . tiJg6 17.ge1+ i.e7 18.tiJc6 tiJxf4 19.�xg7+-) 1S.i.f4 !

1S . . . tiJeg4. This move is played with tempo and it creates most difficult problems for White. (Black loses quickly after 1S . . . ltlg6 16.tiJxe6! tiJxf4 17.tiJxf4 gS 18.tiJfdS tiJxdS 19.tiJxdS .ig7 20.�e4+ @f8 2l.�b4+ @e8 22 .i.g2+-, because the central files are open and his king, stranded in the centre, is helpless. After 1S . . . i.d6 16.tiJxe6 i.xe6 17.gxd6!± White regains the sacrificed material with inter­est and it is hardly preferable for Black to opt for 16 . . . fxe6 17.gxd6 tiJt7 18.gd2± White has an obvious lead in development for the pawn, as well as a bishop-pair, while Black's king has no safe shelter; 1S . . . tiJfg4 - this move looks ar­tificial, because a construction of two knights, protecting each other, is rather unstable. 16.i.e2

293

Chapter 12

and now Black loses after 16 . . . b4 17.tt:le4 gS 18.tt:lxe6 fxe6 19.he5 tt:lxeS 20 . .ih5+ and here after 20 . . . We7 21 .�f2+- White check­mates, while in case of 20 . . . tt:lf7 21.�f2+- Black suffers huge ma­terial losses. It is hardly any better for him to opt for 16 . . . g5 17.tt:lxe6 ! fxe6 18.he5 tt:lxeS 19 . .ih5+, be­cause by playing 19 . . . tt:lf7 20.:i!hfl l'!h7 2l.l'!xf7 l'!xf7 22 .�f3+- he loses material, while following 19 . . . We7 20.tt:ld5+ exdS 21.�xd5 �b8 22 .l'!hel Wd8 23.l'!xe5 .id6 24.�d4! l'!f8 25.l'!d5 �a7 26.�d3 .if4+ 27.Wbl+- White regains the piece preserving a decisive attack against his opponent's bare king.) 16.h3 ! (It is worse for him to con­tinue with the seemingly attractive move 16 . .ie2? ! , since if instead of 16 . . . b4? 17.hg4 bxc3 18.tt:lxe6 ! fxe6 19 . .ih5+ tt:lxhS 20.�g6+ We7 21..id6# , Blackplays 16 . . . h5 ! 17.h3 tt:lh6, it would not work for White to choose 18.tt:lxe6?? fxe6 19.�g6+ because of 19 . . . tt:lf7-+) 16 . . . b4 17.tt:lce2 ! eS 18.hxg4 exf4 19.g5 ! (This is the most energetic move for him.) 19 . . . tt:lg4 20.tt:lxf4--+. Black's king has failed to evacuate from the centre and White's at­tack is decisive, for example : 20 . . . .ie7 21.tt:lf5 .ixfS 22.l'!xd8+ l'!xd8 23 . .id3+- and he will enjoy the realization of his extra queen, or 20 . . . .id6 21.l'!el + Wf8 22 .tt:lfe6+ fxe6 23.�xg4 .ie7 24.Wbl hgS 25.tt:lxe6+ he6 26.l'!xe6 l'!a7 27.�xb4+ .ie7 28.WI'f4+ .if6 29. ha6+- White's attack is even

294

stronger, thanks to the presence of bishops of opposite colours on the board and his extra pawn pro­tects reliably his king.

13.exf6

13 . . . bxc3 In the variation 13 . . . .ib7 14.

tt:la4 .ixh1 1S . .ih3 tt:lxf6 (In case of 1S . . . tt:lxe3 16.WI'xe3 Wl'xf6 17.l'!xhl d5 18.f5 �g5 19.�d2± Black's cen­tral pawns are very weak.) 16.l'!xhl dS 17.�g2± the material is ap­proximately equal, but he lags is development and his king is stranded in the centre.

14.�xc3 tllxf6 It is not preferable for Black

to play 14 . . . tt:lxe3 15.�xe3 �xf6 (After 15 . . . �b6, White should not help his opponent to develop his pieces by playing 16.fxg7 hg7 17.l'!gl .if6 18 . .ie2 l'!b8 19.b3 �cSoo, but he should better rely on faster deployment of forces, choosing instead: 16 . .ig2 l'!b8 17.�c3 gxf6 18.tt:lc6 l'!b7 19.l'!hel .id7 20.f5--+ with a dangerous at­tack. Black's defence is very dif­

ficult too after 20 . . . �c7 20.f5 e5

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7.j3 b5 B. Wfd2 0.bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 Wfc7 11.h4

21.E:e4! i.xf5 22.E:c4 i.e6 23.0.a5 i.xc4 24.i.xb7--+, while in case of 20 . . . E:g8 21.i.d5 e5 22 .E:e4t, White has again excellent chanc­es of attacking the enemy king.) 16.i.g2 E:b8 17.i.c6+ 'it>d8 (Or 17 . . . .id7 18.i.xd7+ 'it>xd7 19.Wia3 E:b6 20.Wia4+ 'it>d8 21.f5--+ and he has a crushing attack against Black's king, stranded in the centre, moreover that his kingside is not developed at all.) 18.Wic3 ! ? E:b6 (He loses after the greedy line: 18 . . . Wfxf4+ 19.'1t>b1 WigS 20.E:hfl Wfe7 21 .i.b5! E:b6 22 .Wia5 and now, in the variation 22 . . . Wfc7 23.E:xf7 i.e7 24.E:d3+- Black cannot avoid huge material losses, while in case of22 . . . \t>c7 23.E:d3 axb5 24.0.xb5+ 'it>b8 25.\'9xb6+ Wfb7 26.Wfxb7+ i.xb7 27.E:xf7+- White has an ex­tra exchange and an attack in the endgame.) 19.E:hfl Wfe7 20.Wia5 Wfc7 21.E:f3 E:b8 22 .Wia4--+. Black's king is stranded in the centre and his kingside is not developed. The power of White's attack can be il­lustrated by the following exem­plary variation: 22 . . . .ie7 23.E:c3 Wib6 24.i.e8 ! Wfxb2+ 25.'1t>d2 E:b6 26.i.xf7 d5 27.0.c6+ E:xc6 28.E:xc6 Wib5 29.Wfxb5 axb5 30.i.xe6+­and he has excellent prospects of realizing the extra exchange.

15 • .ig2 .td7 In the variation 15 . . . d5 16.f5

Wid6 17.f:xe6 f:xe6 18.Wid3, Black preserves his extra pawn, but in case of 18 . . . \t>t7 19.E:hf1 \'9xh2 20.E:f2 Wfe5 21.E:g1--+, as well as following 18 . . . Wfc7 19.i.h3 Wfe7

20.E:he1 0.e4 21..if4 0.f2 22.Wif3 0.xh3 23.Wixh3 @f7 24.0.c6--+ he comes under a crushing attack.

16 • .ixa8 \'9xa8 17.�hgl 0.e4 18.Wfa5 g6 19.0.e2 .ig7 2 0 • .id4 0 - 0 21.hg7 'it>xg7 22. Wfb4 �c8 23. Wfd4+ mh7 24.0.g3± The vulnerability of the dark squares on Black's kingside would not enable him to obtain a sufficient compensation for the exchange, Morozevich - Ponomariov, Mos­cow (blitz) 2009

b) lO . • • YlYc7 In principle, Black's queen is

well-placed on the c7-square. ll.h4

295

Chapter 12

We will analyze now bl) 11 . . . i.e7 and b2) ll . . . �e5.

He has tried in practice some other moves too.

11 . . . ./LlcS, Grosar - Gostisa, Maribor 1993, 12.a3 ./Llfd7 13.�g2 E:b8 14.g5t

ll . . . ./Llh7 12 .g5 hS 13.g6--+ Spa­tariu - Nemes, Romania 2000.

ll . . . b4 12 . ./Llce2 - see line c; ll . . . �b7 - see 10 . . . �b7 11.h4 �c7.

11 . . . ./Llb6 - this move enables White to break through in the centre. 12.e5 ! ./LlfdS 13.exd6 hd6 14 . ./LlfS !? (It is also good for White to choose the more aggressive move 14 . ./Llxe6 !?--+) 14 . . . �e5 (In is considerably worse for Black to opt for 14 . . . �f8 15.hb6 ./Llxb6 16. �d4 and here, in case of 16 .. . exf5 17.hb5+ ./Lld7 18 . ./LldS �d6 19. hd7 hd7 20.�e3+ �e6 21 ../Llf6+ gxf6 22.E:xd6 hd6 23.gxf5+­White has only some minute dif­ficulties to realize his extra queen, while in the variation 16 . . . e5 17. hb5+ axbS 18 . ./LlxbS �xc2+ 19. i>xc2 exd4 20 . ./Llc7+ i>d7 21../Llxa8 ./Llxa8 22.E:xd4+ i>c7 23.E:cl± his rook and connected passed pawns are considerably stronger than Black's light pieces. After 14 . . . 0-0 15.hb6 �xb6 16 . ./LlxdS exdS 17 . ./Llxd6 �xd6 18.�xd5 �xdS 19. E:xdS �b7 20.E:d3 E:fe8 2Li>d2 E:e6 22.E:h2 E:f6 23 .�e2 E:f4 24. �dl± White has a solid extra pawn in the endgame.) 15.hb6 ./Llxb6 16.hb5+ axbS 17 . ./LlxbS �d7, Tsa­nas - Klokas, Athens 1996. Now, White wins with the obvious move

296

18.�b4! - he keeps the enemy king in the centre and organizes an offensive against it with all his forces, for example : 18 . . . l'!a4 (Black would not save the game with a queen-sacrifice, because after 18 . . . exf5 19.l'!xd7 ./Llxd7 20 . l'!e1 i>d8 21.f4± he fails to collect sufficient material equivalent for it, while in case of 18 . . . ./LldS 19. E:xdS! exdS 20.l'!e1 f6 21.f4 l'!xa2 22.i>b1 l'!a6 23.fxe5 i>fl 24.exf6+­White is attacking with a material advantage.) 19 . ./Llbd6+ i>f8 20 . �cS ! +- Black i s incapable ofhold­ing the extra piece and his rook on h8 will hardly enter the actions any time soon.

bl) ll . . . i.e7 12.i.e2 White must prepare the break

g4-g5 and for that it would be log­ical for him to connect his rooks.

12 . . . �c5 Black frees the d7-square for

his knight on f6. The move 12 . . . b4 has not been

tested in practice yet, but it seems to me the most resilient defence

5 . . . a6 6. 1le3 e6 7 j3 b5 B. Wfd2 tiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 Wfc7 11.h4

for Black. 13.tiJa4 l"lb8 14.g5 tiJh5 15.l"lhg1 hxg5 16.hxg5 tiJc5 (It is more precise for Black to choose here 16 . . . g6 17.f4t) 17.tiJxc5 dxc5 18.tiJb3± and now he loses after the seemingly attractive line: 18 . . . c4? 19.hc4! Wfxc4 20.i.c5 !+-, so he is forced to play 18 . . . i.b7, but after 19 .i.c4± he has practically no moves.

12 . . . i.b7 - This natural move leads also to a difficult position for Black. 13.g5 b4, Soerdjan -Van der Linden, Hengelo 2005 (he should better play here 13 . . . tiJh5 14.g6 b4 15.tiJa4 tiJg3 16.l"lhg1 tiJxe2+ 17.Wfxe2 i.f6 18.i>bl± with a rather unpleasant, but still de­fensible position). Now, White has a very powerful attacking re­source: 14.tiJcb5 ! axb5 15.tiJxb5 Wfc8 (but not 15 . . . Wfa5 16.gxf6 gxf6 17.tiJxd6+ hd6 18.Wfxd6+-) 16.gxf6 gxf6 17.Wfxd6 ! (This is the most beautiful and aggres­sive method for White to realize his advantage.) 17 . . . l"lxa2 18.i>b1 l"la1+ ! 19.i>xa1 Wfa8+ 20.i>b1 hd6 2 1.l"lxd6 i>e7 22.l"lhd1 l"ld8 23.i.d2 ! b3 24.i.b4 bxc2 25.i>c1 !+- and Black suffers huge material loss­es, or he gets checkmated.

13.g5 b4 The move 13 . . . tiJh5, Aabling

Thomsen - Tazbir, Krakow 2006, seems rather dubious for Black, because it enables White to open the g-file. 14.gxh6 gxh6 (It is bad for Black to play 14 . . . b4 15.hxg7 tiJxg7 16.tiJb1 l"lb8 17.tiJb3 tiJh5 18. tiJxc5 dxc5 19.i.c4± White has an

extra pawn and he has opened files on the kingside, while his king is completely safe.) 15.a3 l"lb8 16.l"lhg1t. He has excellent attack­ing prospects, for example: 16 . . . i.d7 (Black fails to create counter­play, because after 16 . . . b4? 17.axb4 !'lxb4 18.tiJd5+- he loses the ex­change.) 17.b4 ! tiJb7 18.f4 tiJf6 19. e5--+ with decisive threats for White.

Or 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 tiJh5 15. f4 g6 16.f5± and he has very dan­gerous threats, while Black has no counterplay at all, since the at­tractive move 16 . . . b4 leads to great problems for him after 17. tiJxe6 ! he6 (White's attack is de­cisive after 17 . . . fxe6 18 .fxg6 bxc3 19.Wfxc3 l"lg8 20.hh5--+) 18.fxe6 fxe6 (Black loses rather quickly after the greedy line: 18 . . . bxc3 19.exf7+ i>xf7 20.Wfd5+ tiJe6 21. l"ldfl+ tiJf6 22 .i.c4+-) 19.Wfd4 0-0-0 20.Wfxb4± White should realize effortlessly his extra pawn, since Black's king is vulnerable.

14.tiJbl

14 ... b3 (In case of 14 . . . tiJh5 15.gxh6 gxh6 16.Wfxb4 tiJg3 17.

297

Chapter 12

l'!hg1 hh4 18.�d2± the material is equal, but the weaknesses on d6 and h6 make his defence very dif­ficult, because he lags considera­bly in development and his king is unsafe.) 15.�xb3 �fd7 16.�xc5 �xc5 17.gxh6 gxh6 18.�c3+­White has a solid extra pawn, meanwhile Black's king would not find a safe haven anywhere on the board, Kazik - Palasthy, Bratis­lava 2002.

b2) ll . . . �e5 12.gg1

12 . . . g6 After 12 . . . ttJfd7 13.f4 lDc4 14.

hc4 �xc4 15.b3 �c7 16.f5t, all White's pieces participate in the actions and this provides him with a dangerous initiative.

298

for example: 16 . . . b4 - The position is sim­

plified a bit after this move, but following 17.fxe6 bxc3 18.exd7+ hd7 19.�f2 �aS 20.st>bl± Black's situation remains rather unpleas­ant, because of his lag in devel­opment and the vulnerability of the d5-outpost. The move 16 . . . lDc5 enables White to repel the enemy knight to a very awkward square. 17.b4! tDb7 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.�d3 i.d7 20.lDde2 fi.e7 (In case of 20 . . . l'!c8? ! 21.e5�, he man­ages to attack easily the enemy king, because Black's kingside is compromised.) 21.g5± The main drawback of his position is that his king has no safe shelter.

16 . . . ttJe5 - Black is trying to hold his pawn on e6, as well as the d5-square. 17.st>b1 i.d7 18.tDce2 a5 19.lDf4 �c8 20.g5 hxg5 21.hxg5 a4 22 .g6�. He has failed to create any real threats on the queenside, while White's attack will be soon victorious, Sinka - T.Niessen, Email 2001.

It is worse for Black to play ten­tatively 12 . . . b4 13.lDb1 g6 (After 13 . . . d5, White is better prepared for actions in the centre. 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 lDh5 16.exd5 exd5 17.f4 lDc4 18.hc4. Here, after 18 . . . dxc4 19.lDc6 i.e6 20.lDxb4± he remains with an extra pawn, while in the variation 18 . . . �xc4 19.l'!de1 i.e7 20.g6�, he organizes a crushing attack against the bare enemy king, which has no pawn­shelter.) 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 ttJh5

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. Vfid2 tiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 Vfic7 11.h4

16.f4 tiJc4 17 . .bc4 Vfixc4 18.b3 Vfic7 19.Vfixb4 dS 20.Vfic3 ! .ia3+ 2l.'i!?d2 Vfixc3+ 22.'i!?xc3 .id6, IMHarZvi - TheArtist, Internet 1994, af­ter 23.tiJe2 .ib7 24.exd5 .bdS 25.'i!?b2± Black has no compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn.

The diagrammed position was reached in the game Movsesian - Kozul, Batumi 1999 and here, it deserved attention for White to continue with the prophylactic move

13.'i!?bl!? b4 In response to 13 . . . .ib7, White

can play 14.a3, because Black can hardly manage to open the b-file, while after 14 . . Jk8 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5, irrelevant of where he retreats his knight to, White ob­tains excellent attacking chances: 16 ... tiJh5 17.!!h1 .ie7 18.Vfif2t, or 16 . . . tiJfd7 17.Vfif2 tiJc4 18 . .bc4 Vfixc4 19.tiJb3 !± and it is bad for Black to play for example: 19 . . . .ia8? ! , in view of 20 . .ic5 ! ? and the most resilient defence for him seems to be 20 . . . tiJxc5 2l.!!d4 dS 22 .!!d1+-, but his compensation

for the queen is insufficient. If he tries 19 . . . Vfic7 20 . .id4 !!h3 2l.!!h1t White breaks through easily along the h-file.

t4.loa4 .td7 After 14 . . . !!b8, Black must

protect somehow his knight and he can hardly organize anything creative. For example, it is sense­less for him to play 15 . . . .id7? ! 16,g5 hxgS 17.hxg5 tiJhS 18 . .ba6, because White wins a pawn and his king is completely safe.

15.Vfixb4 gbs 16.Vfic3 Vfid8 It is not preferable for Black

to play 16 . . . Vfib7, since besides the aggressive move 17.tiJc5 !? , White can even play calmer - 17.Vfia5 ! and Black's compensation for the pawn is nowhere in sight, meanwhile another of his pawns is hanging, for example: 17 . . . d5 18 . .ba6 Vfib4 - what else? 19.Vfixb4 .bb4 20 . .if4 .id6 2l.tiJc5+-

It looks like Black has achieved a lot - he has opened the b-file and White's knight on a4 seems a sorry sight, but suddenly he has a very powerful resource: 17.g5!

299

Chapter 12

hxg5 18.hxg5 �xe4 (It is worse for Black to play 18 . . . i.xa4 19.gxf6 �k8 20.�a3 �d7 21.f4± White has an extra pawn and he has begun attacking.) 19.fxe4 .b:a4 2 0 . ha6 gb4 21.�b3 hb3 (In the variation 21 . .Jl:xe4 22 .�a7 Ela8 23.�b7± Black loses the ex­change.) 22.cxb3! �d7 (It would be easy to understand why White has captured with his pawn away from the centre if you look at the variation 22 . . . Elxe4 23.�a7 Elbb4 24.a3+-) 23.a4 gxe4 24 • .ib5 gxb5 25.axb5 �xb5 26.�c8+ <!>e7 27.�d6!-+. His attack is al­ready decisive and the following forced variation confirms this : 27 • • • <!>xd6 28.�xf8+ <!>d7 29. gdl+ �d3 3 0 .�xf7+ <!>d6 31. �f8+ <!>d7 32.�g7+ <!>d6 33. �c3 �e3 34.�d4+-

c) 10 . • . b4 This is Black's most straight­

forward move, since he is try­ing to create counterplay on the queenside in the quickest possible fashion.

ll.�ce2 It is worse for White to play

ll.tt:la4 tt:le5 ! 12.�xb4 (or 12 .b3 i.d7 13.tt:lb2 d5?) 12 . . . �d7 13.�f4 (13.b3 d5?) 13 . . . g5 14.i.d2 (14. �g3 h5oo) 14 .. J'!b8 15.�a3 a5oo and Black has an excellent compensa­tion for the sacrificed pawn.

(diagram) Now, he has several possibili­

ties : cl) ll . • • d5, c2) ll • • • 'ti'a5!? and c3) ll • • • 'ti'c7!?

300

If Black does not protect his b4-pawn, then he may lose it without obtaining any compensa­tion for it, for example :

ll . . . tt:le5, Tiitta - Luukkonen, Helsinki 2007, 12.\Wxb4 �d7 13. �el i.e7 14.tt:lc3± and he has noth­ing for the pawn whatsoever;

or ll . . . �b7 12 .�xb4 �c8 13. �d2 d5 14.exd5 tt:lxd5 15.tt:lf4i and White has an extra pawn and good attacking prospects.

cl) ll • . • d5 Black opens files in the centre,

but he may fail to castle as a result of that.

12.exd5 �xd5 13.�f4! White concentrates all his

forces against the e6-square.

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.fJ b5 8. Vfid2 tDbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 b4 11. tDce2

13 . . . .ib7 Black completes the develop­

ment of his queenside, hoping to parry his opponent's oncoming attack.

He loses quickly after 13 . . . tDxe3 14.Vfffxe3 Vfib6 15 . .ic4 .ie7? (Black should better play here 15 . . . tDf6 16 . .id5 - see 13 . . . lt:J7f6, or 15 . . . .ib7 16 . .ixe6 - see 13 . . . .ib7.) 16.tDfxe6! fxe6 17.Vfffe4+- Sadzi­kowski - Kocwin, Krakow 2009.

13 . . . lt:J7f6 - He fortifies his po­sition in the centre. 14 . .ic4 lt:Jxe3 (14 . . . .ib7 15.l"lhe1 - see 13 . . . .ib7) 15.Vfffxe3 Vfffb6 (In reply to 15 . . . .ic5, Nevednichy - Vasiesiu, Bucha­rest 1997, it looks very good for White to centralize his queen with 16.Vfffe5 ! ? .ixd4 17.l':lxd4 Vfie7 18.h4 l':la7 19.tDd3± and it would be very dangerous for Black to castle, be­cause of 20.g5--+ and if he leaves his king in the centre, his rook on h8 will be isolated from the actions.) 16 . .id5 tDxdS 17.tDxd5 Vfffc5 18.lt:Jxb4 .id7 (In case of 18 . . . Vfffxb4? 19.tDc6+- Black loses his queen.) 19.tDd3 Vfffb6 20.f4± White leads in development, he has a sol­id extra pawn and his centralized knights are not inferior to Black's bishops, Fagundes - Poschmann, Email 2003.

In response to 13 . . . tD7b6, Zoldan - Voicu, Arvier 2008, White can provoke an advan­tageous series of exchanges by playing 14.tDc6 ! Vfffd7 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 14 . . . Vfffc7 15 . .ixb6 Vfffxc6 16.tDxd5

exd5 17.Vfffxd5 Vfffxd5 18.l':lxd5 .ie7 19.l':le5 .ie6 20 . .id3±, since he re­mains a pawn down and he has no compensation for it in sight.) 15 . .ixb6 tDxb6 16 . .id3 Vfffc7 (It is bad for Black to opt for 16 .. . Vfid6? 17.tDg6! and now he loses after 17 . . . fxg6 18.lt:Je5 !+- and he can­not avoid material losses, as well as following 17 . . . l':lg8 18.lt:Jge5+­and Black's king will remain in the centre, impeding the coordi­nation of his own forces.) 17.tDg6 .id7! 18.lt:Jce5 .id6 19 . .ie4 he5 20.tDxe5 l'=lb8 21.f4 a5 22 .Vfig2±. The main drawback of his position is his king, stranded in the centre and his passive rook on h8. Black can solve both problems with the move 22 . . . 0-0?, but after 23.g5--+, White's kingside attack seems im­possible to parry.

13 . . . lt:Jxf4 - Black eliminates one of the attacks against the e6-square, obtaining some chances of completing his development. 14 . .ixf4 .ic5, Kokkila - Rod­shtein, Ohrid 2009. Now, White creates most problems for his op­ponent if he completes his devel­opment with 15 . .id3 ! .ixd4 (His threat 16 . .ie4 leaves Black with no choice, since it would be bad for him to play 15 . . . .ib7 16.tDxe6! fxe6 17 . .ig6+ <lle7 18.l':lhe1+- and White regains the sacrificed ma­terial with interest, as well as following 15 . . . Vfffa5 16.lt:Jb3 ! Vfffxa2 17 . .ie4 l':la7 18 . .id6 .ib6 19.Vfixb4 .ie3+ 20.l':ld2+- and Black is com­pletely "stalemated".) 16 . .ie4 Vffff6

301

Chapter 12

17.ha8 .bb2+ 18.@b1 0-0 (Now, there arises by force an endgame in which White has an extra ex­change and Black can avoid the trade of queens only by playing 18 . . . . b1 19.�xb4 aS 20.�a3 �xf4 2l.@xa1+-, but then his king is much more dangerously placed than its white counterpart and the rook on h8 may not even enter the actions, while in case of 18 . . . .ic3 19.�d6 eS 20.�xf6 tLlxf6 2l ..ic6+ .id7 22 . .bd7+ tt:Jxd7 23 . .id2+-, or 18 . . . .ia3 19.�d4 0-0 20.�xf6 tt:Jxf6 2l..ic6+- White manages to keep his kingside pawn-structure intact.) 19.g5 hxgS 20 . .bg5 �c3 2l..ie7 �xd2 22.E!:xd2 .ic3 23 . .ix£8 .bd2 24 . .id6± All White's pawns are weak, but Black is incapable of exploiting that, because he is an exchange down and his pieces are rather static.

14 . .ic4

14 . . . ttlxe3 In view of a tactical strike,

which is quite typical for similar position, Black loses immedi­ately after 14 . . . tt:J7b6?, Molcha-

302

nov - V.Barsky, Czestochowa 1990, 15.tt:Jdxe6 ! fxe6 (Or 15 . . . tt:Jxc4 16.tt:Jxd8 tt:Jxd2 17.tt:Jxb7 tt:Jxf4 18 . .ix£4 tLlxf3 19J'l:d3+- and he loses at least a piece.) 16 . .bb6 tt:Jxb6 17.�e3+- and Black can save his exposed king only at the price of huge material losses.

14 . . . tLle5 - His knight is un­

stable on this square. 15 . .ib3 �d7 16.�e2 0-0-0 17.E!:he1 E!:e8 18.tt:Jf5--+ and Black's pieces are hanging in the centre, so this ena­bles White to develop a powerful attack after 18 . . . g6 19 . .id4 tLlxf4 20.�xe5 gxfS 2l.�xf4 .id6 22 . .ie5 .beS 23.E!:xe5 �c7 24.E!:d4+- and Black's pawns will be gobbled one after the other, Potrata - Gule­vich, Email 2006.

Or 14 . . . tt:J7f6 15.E!:he1

and now: 15 . . . .id6? - this move loses

quickly. 16.tt:Jfxe6 fxe6 17.tt:Jxe6+­Black's king is helpless against the numerous threats, Sokolov -Konstantin, Balkaniade 1986;

15 . . . �a5 - he allows a stand­ard piece-sacrifice, which is quite dangerous anyway: 16.tt:Jdxe6 ! fxe6 17 . .ib6 ! ? �xb6 18.E!:xe6+

5 . . . a6 6.:ie3 e6 7 j3 b5 8. Wid2 ttJbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b4 11. tiJce2

Wixe6 19.tiJxe6�. Black has col­lected enough material for the queen, but his king is so weak that he cannot maintain the ma­terial balance. 19 .. J''lc8 20.Wffd3 :ie7 2l .Wffg6+ 'tt>d7 22.:ixd5 :ixdS 23.tiJf4 l"icS 24.Wif7+- and Black loses his bishop on dS;

it is not preferable for him to play 15 . . . Wffd7 16.tiJdxe6! fxe6 17. ttJxe6 mf7 18.:id4 l"ic8 19.:ib3+­and the numerous pins enable White to regain his piece and to remain with several extra pawns: 19 . . . :ie7 (19 . . . !'1e8, Wurschner -Glaubitz, corr. 2003 20.:ixf6 !'1xe6 21.:ih4+- and Black's knight on dS is beyond salvation) 20.:ixf6 :ixf6, T.Ernst - Astrom, Uppsala 1992, here, White's simplest road to victory is 2l.tiJf4! :igS 22 .h4 :ixf4 23.Wffxf4+ 'tt>g8 24.!'1e5 l"icS 25.1MI'e4+-;

15 . . . :ie7 - Black fails to castle. 16.tiJfxe6 ! fxe6 17.tiJxe6 WicB 18. :icS 'tt>f7 19.tiJg5+ hxgS 20.!'1xe7+ 'tt>g8 2l.Wixg5 !'ih7 22.l"ixd5 :ixdS 23 .:ixd5+ ttJxdS 24.Wffxd5+ 'tt>h8 2S.:id4 WfffB 26.Wffg5 !'idS, E.Voro­biov - Petrushin, Krasnodar 1997, the forced variation is over and White has remained with three pawns for the exchange and an overwhelming advantage. He can emphasize the passivity of his op­ponent's pieces with 27.:ie5 ! +­with the following exemplary var­iations : 27 . . . !'1c8 (After 27 . . . !'1d5 28.!'1xg7+-, or 27 . . . a5 28.!'1xg7+-, there arises a queen and pawn ending with four extra pawns for

White.) 28.:ixg7+ l"ixg7 29.Wffh6+ 'tt>g8 30.!'1xg7+ Wffxg7 3l.Wffe6+ mh7 32.Wffxc8+- Black can regain one of the pawns, but White has three more left and that should be suf­ficient for an easy victory;

15 . . . Wffd6 - This move would not prevent a typical tactical strike. 16.tiJfxe6 fxe6 17.tiJxe6 mf7 18.tiJf4+- White regains his piece ending up with a couple of extra pawns, K.Mueller - Frost, Email 2002;

15 . . . ttJxf4 - This is the only move, which prevents the sacri­fice of the knight on e6. 16.:ixf4 :icS 17.:ie5 :ixd4 (It is even worse for Black to play 17 . . . 0-0 18.g5 :ixd4 19.:ixd4 hxgS 20.Wffxg5 tiJeB 2l.Wffxd8 !'ixd8 22 .:ic5+­and White should realize the ex­tra exchange without too many problems.) 18.Wfff4 tiJdS 19.Wffxd4 0-0 20.'tt>b1 f6 2l.:ig3 Wffd7 22 .f4± Black's knight on dS is rather un­stable, so he has no compensation for White's two-bishop advantage, Vorobiov - Gabrielian, Moscow 2007.

15.Wfxe3

303

Chapter 12

15 • . . ti'b6 Black loses after 15 . . . e5 16.

h£7+ ! l!txf717.�b3+ l!te8 18.tt:lde6 �b6 19.tt:lg6 !'gg8 20.tt:lc7+ �xc7 21.�e6+ l!td8 22.�xg8+-

It is also very bad for him to opt for 15 . . . i.c5 16.tt:lfxe6 fxe6 17. �xe6+ �e7 18.�g6+ l!td8 19. l:'ghe1 �g5+ 20.�xg5+ hxg5 21 .tt:le6+ l!tc8 22.l:'gxd7+- and White ends up at least two pawns up in an endgame.

16.i.xe6 fxe6 17.tt:lfxe6 b3 It would be a disaster for Black

to follow with 17 . . . 1!1£7? ! 18 .�b3+­and his king is quite bare in front of White's pieces. 18 . . . 'i!tf6 (Black loses by force after 18 . . . 'i!tg6 19. !'ghe1 tt:lf6 20.h4 'i!th7 21.g5 tt:ld7 22 .g6+ l!txg6 23.�d3+ 'i!tf7 24. tt:lg5+ hxg5 25.�c4+ l!tg6 26.l:'ge6+ �xe6 27.�xe6+ tt:lf6 28.hxg5+­and White has a powerful attack in a position with a material ad­vantage.) 19.h4 tt:lc5 20.g5+ hxg5 21.hxg5+ l!tg6 22 .tt:lf4+ l!txg5 23. !'ghg1 + l!txf4 24.1:'gg4+ l!te5 25.1:'gg5+ l!tf6 26.1:'gf5+ l!te7 27.tt:lc6+ and he checkmates on the next move, 1-0 K.Szabo - N.Guliyev, Zala­karos 2008.

18.axb3 l!tt7 19.�f4+ tilf6 2 0 .l�hel�

(diagram) White has completed his de­

velopment and centralized his forces. His compensation for the piece is more than sufficient and this has been confirmed by tour­nament practice: 2 0 . . • .ib4 (Black loses even quicker after 20 . . . i.d6?

304

21.�f5 i.b4 22.c3 1-0 Traut -!.Andersson, Email 2007.) 21.c3 .id6 22.�f5 gbe8 23.g5 hxg5 24.tilxg5+ l!tg8 25. ge6! (White can afford bringing patiently his pieces around Black's king, since he has no counterplay whatso­ever.) 25 . • . gad8 26.gdel gxe6 27.�xe6+ 'i!th8 28.tilt7+ 'i!th7 29.�h3+ l!tg8 3 0 .tilh6+ 'i!th8 31.tile6 1-0 Burmester - Nebo­rak, Email 2005.

c2) ll . . . �a5!? Black's queen runs away from

the d-file with tempo, as well as from the attack of his opponent's knight if it goes to e6.

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .fJ b5 8. Wid2 !Dbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b4 11. !Dce2

12.�bl It looks attractive for White to

play 12.!Db3, since it would be bad for Black to reply with 12 ... Wffxa2? 13.Wffxb4 aS 14.Wffe1 a4 1S.!Dc3 axb3 16.!Dxa2 bxa2 17.'i!ld2+­and his opponent would remain with an extra queen, but White's advantage would not be so great after 12 . . . Wffc7 13.Wffxb4 dS 14.Wffc3 Wffxc3 1S.!Dxc3 dxe4 16.!Dxe4 !Dxe4 17.fxe4 i.b7 18.i.g2 !Df6 19.i.d4 he4 20.he4 !Dxe4t. Meanwhile, Black is not obliged to give up his b4-pawn, since he can play 12 . . . Wffa4oo

12 . . . d5 About 12 . . . i.b7 13.h4 - see 10 . . .

i.b7 11.h4 WffaS. In case of 12 . . . !DeS 13.!Dg3 i.b7

14.h4± White's kingside offensive runs effortlessly.

13.exd5 tLlxd5 14.!Df4

Black has tried in the dia­grammed position c2a) 14 . • .

tLlxe3 and c2b) 14 • . . i.b7.

c2a) 14 • • . !Dxe3 He obtains the two-bishop ad-

vantage and hopes to complete his development.

15.Wffxe3 fi'e5 16.Wffd2 Wffd6 Black loses after 16 . . . i.cS?

17.!Ddxe6! fxe6 18.tLlg6 Wfff6 19. !Dxh8 gS 20.i.c4 !DeS 21.i.b3 i.e7 22 .h4+- and he succeeds neither in capturing the knight on h8, nor in completing his development, W.Browne - M.Ginsburg, San Di­ego 2006.

17.i.c4 Naturally, White must act

maximally energetically. It is not so active for him to

play 17.i.g2. 17 . . . i.b7 Black must evacuate his king

away from the centre as quickly as possible.

It is worse for him to opt for 17 . . . !Db6?! 18.i.b3 l"i:a7 19.Wffe3 WcS 20.Wffe4 ! i.b7 21.Wffd3 .idS 22 . tiJfxe6! +- and after the forced variation 22 . . . fxe6 23.!Dxe6 Wffd6 24.hdS !DxdS 2S.1!9g6+ 'i!ld7 26. !Dxf8+ l"i:xf8 27.Wxg7+ We7 28. l"i:xdS+ 'i!lc8 29.Wxh6+- White re­mains with four extra pawns and an attack.

18.�hel 0 - 0 - 0 It may look like Black's prob­

lems have been solved after his king has run away from the cen­tre, but that is not true at all.

19.tLlfxe6 (19.!Ddxe6 ! ? fxe6 20 .'�xd6 hd6 21.l"i:xd6 !DeS 22 . he6+ 'i!lb8 23.l"i:edl) 19 . . . fxe6 2 0 .�xe6 '9!/c7 (After 20 .. .'�cS 21 .ha6 !DeS 22 .hb7+ 'i!lxb7 23.!Db3± there arises an end-

30S

Chapter 12

game with a rook and two pawns for White against a knight and a bishop for Black in which White's rook-activity provides him with a great advantage.) 21.i.xa6 .!bc5 (In case of 2l . . . .!bb8 22 .�d3 ! �dS 23.\We2 �cS 24.Ele5--+, Black has problems parrying his opponent's aggressive actions, for example in the variation 24 . . . tt:Jc6 25.tt:Jxc6 \Wxc6 26.�b5 hf3 27.�c6 �e2 28.Elcl �g4 29.Elxc5 Eld4 30.c3± he remains a pawn down and White's connected passed pawns on the queenside seem rather threatening. In case of 24 . . . \Wb6 25.tt:Je6 �e6 26.Elxe6 \Wc7 27.Elcl ! Eld6 28.c3± White either opens the c-file and his last piece joins in the attack, or Black will be forced to play 28 . . . b3 and after 29.axb3, White obtains a fourth pawn for the piece and his piec­es continue to be very active.) 22.i.xb7+ 'tt>xb7 (After 22 . . . \Wxb7 23.\We2 �d6 24.\Wc4 \Wf7 25.b3 hS 26.Eldel± Black has no satisfactory defence against the threat 27.Elxd6.) 23.Wfxb4+ 'tt>c8 24,ge3!? (White is threatening to transfer his rook to the a-file and he avoids simplifications for a while.) 24 . . . .!bb7 25.\Wa4 .ic5 26.c3± He has four pawns for the piece and an advantage, moreover that Black's king is bare.

c2b) 14 . . . .ib7 He ignores the threats against

the e6-square and tries to develop as quickly as possible.

306

15 . .ic4! This is the most energetic

move for White. The game is not so clear af­

ter the standard piece-sacrifice 15 . .!bdxe6! ? fxe6 16.tt:Jxe6 Elc8 ! 17.�d3 (17.\Wd4 \Wb6oo) 17 . . . @f7 18.�f5 (It is not preferable for White to choose 18J:�hel 'tt>g8oo) 18 . . . tb7f6? and in this position White's bishop belongs to the a2-g8-diagonal, since Black's king would not be safe then on the kingside.

White cannot maintain an advantage with the calm line : 15.tt:Jb3 \Wc7 16.tt:Jxd5 �d5 17.�g2, Dorer - Maas, Email 2006, be­cause Black can counter that with 17 . . . �e7! 18.f4 Eld8 19.\Wf2 �g2 20.\Wxg2 0-0? and he completes his development with excellent chances of seizing the initiative.

15 . . . .!bxe3 15 . . . .!b7b6 16.�b3 �cS 17.�f2

tt:Jxf4 18.\Wxf4 0-0 19.\Wc7 �ds 20.�d5 Elac8 21.\WeS±

16.\Wxe3 0 - 0 - 0

5 . . . a6 6 . .te3 e6 7.j3 b5 B. Wid2 0,bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b4 11. 0,ce2

This is more precise than 17. i.xe6 fxe6 18.Wixe6 Wib6! 19.0,g6 .tc5 20.Wixb6 hb6! 21.0,xh8 l"i:xh8 22 .l"i:he1 gS 23.l"i:e3 hS;t and al­though White does not risk losing, but still Black's pieces are active and White's compromised kingside pawn-structure would not allow him to increase his advantage.

17 • • . fxe6 18.0,xe6! In the variation 18.he6 .tcS

19.Wie5 Wic7 20.0,g6 WixeS 21.0,xe5 riJc7 22.l"i:xd7+ l"i:xd7 23.hd7 .td4 24.0,g6 l"i:d8 25 . .tf5 .txf3g:: Black obtains an excellent compensa­tion for the pawn in view of his powerful bishop-pair in an open position.

ts . . . ges He should better avoid 18 . . .

.tcs 19.Wffd3 .te7 20.0,xd8 l"i:xd8 21..ie6 .tc6 22 .l"i:hel± White must prepare f3-f4 and exchange the light-squared bishops, or transfer his bishop to the long diagonal.

19.Wid4!? His centralized queen exerts

powerful pressure against Black's position.

19 . . . .tc6 It is worse for him to opt for

19 . . . 0,f6 20.l"i:hel± Black should better avoid 19 . . .

0,c5 20.l"i:he1 riJb8 21 .0,f4 .te7 22 . .tt7 .txf3 23.he8 l"i:xe8 24. Wie5+ Wic7 25.l"i:d4 WixeS 26.l"i:xe5 <tlc7 27.l"i:xb4 0,d7 28.l"i:c4+ riJb7 29.:i'!e3± White's rook and two connected passed pawns are con­siderably stronger than Black's two light pieces.

2 0 .Wffa7 0,b8 21.gd3 ge7 22. Wie3g:: (His kingside is iso­lated from the actions and White has an excellent compensation.) 22 .. ,ges (or 22 . . . riJb7 23.l"i:hd1 l"i:e8 24.a3) 23,ghdl �b7 24.a3 Wib6 25.Wie5 riJa7 26.axb4 .tb7 (Black loses by force after 26 . . . Wixb4 27.l"i:b3 \Wxc4 28.Wic7+ riJa8 29.l"i:b7 .tcS 30.l"i:xb8+ l"i:xb8 31.\Wxc6+ :i'!b7 32.0,xc5+-) 27.c3;!; White has obtained a third pawn for the piece and his pieces are very actively placed.

c3) ll . . . fic7!?

Black deploys his queen to an active position, preventing his op­ponent's move .tc4 and sets a trap in the process.

12.h4 It is worse for White to choose

12.Wixb4 dS 13.\Wc3 (or 13.Wia4 dxe4? and Black is not worse at all) 13 . . .'<Mlxc3 14.0,xc3 eSco and White will be forced to sacrifice a piece for three pawns after which the position remains very un­clear.

307

Chapter 12

12 . . . d5 In case of 12 . . . :B:b8 13.ttlg3 ttlc5

14.\tlb1 i.d7 15.i.e2 i.c6 16.g5± White is considerably ahead of his opponent in the organization of the attack on his flank, Benja­min - Harris, Boston 1988.

Black should better refrain from 12 . . . i.b7 13.:B:g1 g6 14.g5 hxg5 15.hxg5 ttlh5 16.i.h3t, because White's threat 17.i.xe6 ! looks very dangerous and the evacu­ation of Black's king away from the centre would not help either: 17 . . . 0-0-0 17.i.xe6 fxe6 18.ttlxe6 \Wc4 19.ttlxd8 \tlxd8 20.b3 \Wb5 21 .ttld4 \We5 22 .\Wxb4+- Galla­gher - Kamber, Suhr 1992 .

13 . .if4!? White has played often the

more attractive move 13.i.h3!? , but after 13 . . . ttlb6 ! , Black cre­ates the threat 14 . . . ttlc4, winning an important tempo for his de­fence and following 14.b3 dxe4, White has an advantage neither in the variation 15.g5, A.Fedorov - Jayaram, Dubai 2009, 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 ttlfd5 ! ?co, not in case of

308

15.i.f4 !? e3 ! 16.\Wxb4 (Black has no problems after 16.\Wxe3 ttlbd5 17.\Wd2 ttlxf4! 18.ttlxf4 g5 !?) 16 . . . \Wxf4! 17.\Wxb6 \Wd6?. White is practically forced to enter an end­game, but Black has a bishop-pair and his king is safe.

13 . • • Y!Ya5 White's initiative develops

easily after 13 . . . ttle5 14.i.h3 dxe4 15.g5 !t, for example: 15 . . . ttld5 (Black should better refrain from 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 ttld5 17 . .he5 \Wxe5 18.fxe4 \Wxe4 19.i.g2 \Wxg2 20.:B:xh8 i.b7 21.ttlb3 0-0-0 22 .ttla5±, because he has only a pawn for the exchange and that is not sufficient to compensate it, while White's pieces are tre­mendously active.) 16.i.xe5 \Wxe5 17.g6 i.c5 (After 17 . . . exf3 18.gxf7+ mxf7 19.:B:hf1 i.e7 20.ttlc6 ! ? \Wc7 21 .ttlxe7 \tlxe7 22 .ttld4 \Wd6 23. :B:xf3-+, White succeeds in pre­serving the queens and he will unavoidably prepare a strike against the e6-square, after which Black's king will be in a great trouble.) 18.gxf7+ mxf7 19.fxe4 \Wxe4 20.:B:hf1+ ttlf6 (Or 20 . . . \tle8 21.:B:del± He has a problem parry­ing the threat 20.he6, or 20.i.f5 \We3 21.i.xe6.) 21.:B:f4 !? (This move is more aggressive than 21.:B:g1 :B:b8 22 .i.g2 \Wxh4 23.tt:Jf3gg) 21 . . . \We5 (Black loses after 21 . . .\WdS 22 .\Wd3 e5 23.:B:g1 mf8 24.i.xc8 i.xd4 25.ttlxd4 exf4 26.\Wg6 :B:g8 27.i.e6 \Wh5 28.\Wg2 ! :B:a7 29.\Wf2 \Wc5 30.i.b3+- and he cannot parry the threats against his king

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. Wid2 4J bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0 b4 11. 4Jce2

without considerable material losses, because it has no pawn­shelter at all.) 22 . .ig2 l'%a7 23.4Jc6 Wie3 24.4Jxa7 ha7 25.1'%c4 ! 1'%d8 26.4Jd4 Wffg3 (After 26 . . . 1'%xd4 27.Wffxe3 1'%xd1+ 28.@xd1 he3 29 .l'%xc8+- White has only minute technical problems to solve in or­der to realize his extra exchange.) 27.�1± Black has a pawn for the exchange, but White's prospects are clearly superior.

It is not better for Black to opt for 13 . . . e5 14 . .ih2 4Jb6 (About 14 . . . Wffa5 15.@b1! - see 13 . . . Wffa5 14.@b1 e5 15 . .ih2 ; in the variation 14 . . . dxe4 15.g5 exf3 16.4Jxf3 !? 4Jg4, K.Szabo - Kislik, Budapest 2009, 17.4Jf4 !t White is evidently ahead in development and that pro­vides him with excellent attacking prospects, for example: 17 . . . 4Jxh2 18.1'%xh2 .ib7 19 . .ih3 l'%d8 20.4Jd5 Wffd6 21.1'%e2� and Black will not hold his e5-pawn in the varia­tion 21 . . .f6 22.gxf6 gxf6 23.4Jxf6+ 4Jxf6 24.1'%xe5+ @f7 25 . .ie6+ Wffxe6 26.Wffxd8 Wffc8 27.Wffd3± his king is completely bare and in a posi­tion with approximate material equality White has excellent at­tacking chances; in case 17 . . . . exf4 18 . .ixf4 Wffc6? 19 . .ig2+- Black has no satisfactory defence against the threat 20.4Jd4, while even after the more accurate 18 . . . Wffa5 19 . .ih3± he will fail to preserve his extra piece.) 15.g5 4Jc4 (Black loses after 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 4Jc4 17.Wffe1 1'%xh2 18.1'%xh2 exd4 19.1'%h8 4Jd7 20.exd5+- and despite the

about equal material, White has a superior control over the centre and much better piece-coordina­tion.) 16.Wffe1 4Jd7

17.4Jg1 ! ? (It is also good for White to play 17.g6 ! ? .ib7 18.exd5 0-0-0 19.4Jc6 hc6 20.dxc6 Wffxc6 21 .4Jg3± and he dominates on the light squares.) 17 . . . dxe4 18.hc4 Wffxc4 19.Wxe4 l'%a7 20.he5 4Jxe5 21.Wxe5+ l'%e7 22 .Wa5± He has won a pawn and has excellent at­tacking chances against his oppo­nent's king stranded in the centre. If Black tries to restore the mate­rial balance, he gets checkmated after 22 . . . hxg5? 23.Wd8+ @xd8 24.4Je6+ @e8 25.1'%d8#

After 13 . . . .id6 14 . .ih3 ! , the threat 15.g5 forces Black to play 14 . . . e5 (In the variation 14 . . . .ixf4 15.4Jxf4 e5 16.g5 exf4 17.gxf6 4Jxf6 18.e5 4Jh5 19.hc8 1'%xc8 20.Wffxb4± his rook on h8 will hardly enter the actions any time soon.) 15.4Jf5 exf4 16.g5 4Jh5 (Opening of the h-file after 16 . . . hxg5 17.hxg5 .if8 18.gxf6 4Jxf6 19.4Jxf4� is in fa­vour of White, for example: 19 . . . dxe4 20.fxe4 g6 21.e5 gxf5 22.exf6 Wffxf4 23.Wxf4 .ih6 24.Wxh6 1'%xh6

309

Chapter 12

25 . .ixf5+- with an easy win for him, or 19 . . . g6 20 .e5 gxf5 2l .exf6 .ih6 22 .@b1 .ixf4 23.\WxdS .ib7 24 . .ixf5 !+- and White's attack is decisive.) 17.\WxdS .ie5 18.tt:lxg7+ .ixg7 19 . .ixd7+ .ixd7 20.\Wxa8+ 1Wc8 (20 ... .ic8 21 .tt:ld4t) 21.1Wxc8+ .ixc8 22 J'�heU and White's rook and two pawns are stronger than Black's two light pieces, because his pawns are vulnerable on both sides of the board.

14.@bl dxe4 In the variation 14 . . . e5 15.

.ih2 exd4 16.tt:lxd4 dxe4 17.g5 hxg5 18.hxg5 tt:lh5 19 . .ih3 tt:lhf6 20 . .ig3± he lags considerably in development and he may not be capable of saving his king.

15.fxe4

15 . • . tt:lxe4 White has an excellent com­

pensation for the pawn in the variation 15 . . . tt:lxg4 16 . .ig2 \Wb6 (Or 16 . . . tt:lde5 17 . .ih3 tt:lc4 18.1We1 tt:lge5 19.\Wg3gg, and after 19 . . . .ib7 20.tt:lc1 :1k8 2l.tt:lcb3 \Wc7 22 .h5± it is inconceivable how Black can complete his development; in

310

the variation 16 . . . e5 17 . .ih3 h5 18 . .ixg4 hxg4 19.tt:lc6 \Wc7 20.tt:lxe5 tt:lxe5 2l..ixe5 \We7 22 .1Wd4± White has regained his material and is perfectly prepared to exploit his lead in development.) 17.e5 �a7 18.tt:lg3gg Black's king has no safe shelter and impedes the coordi­nation of his own pieces.

It would be too risky for Black to continue with 15 . . . .ib7 16.tt:lg3 e5 17.g5 ! hxg5 (The alternatives are not any better for him: af­ter 17 . . . exf4 18.gxf6 fxg3 19.fxg7 .ixg7 20.tt:le6 !� White regains his piece, keeping his opponent's king in the centre, while in case of 17 . . . exd4 18.gxf6 tt:lxf6 19.1Wxd4 \Wc5 20.1Wd2± Black's king will not find a safe haven anywhere on the board.) 18.tt:lb3 \Wc7 19 . .ixg5t He can hardly complete his develop­ment, since after the most prin­cipled reply 19 . . . tt:lxe4, White can play 20.tt:lxe4 .ixe4 21..ih3 .ic6 22.�he1 f6 23.tt:ld4 .idS 24.tt:le6 .ixe6 25 . .ixe6 0-0-0 26 . .ie3+­and he establishes complete con­trol over the light squares keeping the enemy knight on d7 under a deadly pin, which Black may nev­er get rid of.

16.1We3 J.b7 17.J.g2 tt:ldc5 18.tt:lb3 'i!lli6

Or 18 . . . �b5 19J�helt and White has excellent attacking prospects.

19.ghel The position remains unclear

after 19 . .ie5 tt:lc3+ 20.tt:lxc3 .ixg2 21.�hg1 .ic6oo

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 B. Wid2 tiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b4 11. tiJce2

19 . • • tiJc3+ It is worse for Black to opt

for 19 . . . tiJd7 20.tiJed4 ttJec5 (In the variation 20 . . . tiJc3+ 21.bxc3 hg2 22 .�c7! Wia7 23.tiJxe6 Wixe3 24.tiJxg7+ hg7 25J'l:xe3+ i>f8 26J'l:xd7 hc3 27.tiJd4-t, despite the numerous exchanges, Black is under a dangerous attack and the main drawback of his position is that his rook may not enter the actions to the end of the game.) 21 .tiJxe6 fxe6 22J'l:xd7 i>xd7 (He loses after 22 .. . hg2 23.l:l:c7 �d5 24.ttJxc5 hc5 25.Wie5 !+- and White's attack is decisive, while in case of 22 . . . tiJxd7 23.Wixb6 tiJxb6 24.hb7± he regains the exchange ending up with clearly superior prospects thanks to the weakness­es on Black's queenside.) 23.hb7 l:l:d8 24.ha6 Wixa6 25.Wixc5±

2 0 .t!�xc3 .ixg2 21.tLld5 .ixd5 22.�xd5 tlJd7 (22 . . . l:l:c8 23.Wid4 tiJa4 24.Wie5 l:l:d8 25.l:l:a5 Wic6 26. tiJd4± - Black will fail to hold on to his extra pawn and completing the development will be a problem for him as well.) 23.Wif3 �d8 24.g5� White has a more than sufficient compensation for the pawn, thanks to his opponent's king stranded in the centre for long.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed Black's attempt to impede with

the move 9 . . . h6 White's kingside pawn-offensive for a while and to create counterplay, saving an important tempo for the move i.b7. As a result of that, White very often leads considerably in development and creates dangerous threats in the centre, preparing a strike against the e6-square. The most interesting developments arise in variation c3) - Black repels the enemy knight on c3 in the standard fashion with 1 0 . . . b4 and in reply to his opponent's best move ll. tiJce2, he plays 11. . . WJ c7!?, preventing White's bishop from occupying its most aggressive position on the c4-square. After the natural moves 12.h4 d5, I sug­gest to you, instead of the habitual move 13.�h3, which leads to an interesting and very complicated game but with considerable counter chances for Black, to study the new idea - 13.�/4!? In the main line of this variation, there arise positions with an extra pawn for Black, but his king remains stranded in the centre and his kingside is isolated from the actions for long and this provides White with a more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

311

Chapter 13 l.e4 c5 2.li�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.lilxd4 lilf6 5.ltlc3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.�d2 lilbd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 J.b7 11.h4

Black refrains sometimes from advancing b5-b4, trying to play in the spirit of the Rauzer system, organizing an attack against the enemy king only with pieces. He places his rook on the c-file and his knights eye the c4-square, the queen goes to a5, or c7. If he manages to advance the freeing move d6-d5, then his bishops join in the offensive as well. Still, Black's pawn on h6 enables White to create threats against the en­emy king much faster, even be­fore it has been evacuated away from the centre. The march of White's g-pawn up to g6 leads to the destruction of the pawn­shelter of Black's monarch in the majority of the cases and after the pawn on f7 has been eliminated,

312

White's pieces begin to storm the e6-square. After the position has been opened, as a result of mu­tual tactical strikes, it becomes essential that White's king is safe at the corner of the board, while Black's king remains under fire from White's pieces. This factor often proves to be decisive for the evaluation of the position.

So, we will analyze thoroughly here the following possibilities : a) ll .. )i)b6, b) ll . . . d5, c) 11 . . .

l'k8, d) ll . . . .ie7, e) ll • • . �a5 and f) ll .. .li:\e5.

It is bad for Black to play 11 . . . lt:Jc5?, because White has a dan­gerous tactical strike at his dis­posal - 12.lt:Jdxb5 ! axb5 13.i.xc5 dxc5 14.i.xb5+ <!le7 15.�e3 �c7 (In case of 15 . . . �b6, White regains his piece with: 16.g5 hxg5 17.hxg5 l'l:xh1 18.gxf6+ gxf6 and after 19. l'l:xh1 l=l:d8 20.l'l:h7 �d6 21.a4+- he has an extra pawn and a powerful attack, so he should win easily.) 16.g5 lt:Jh5 (Or 16 .. . lt:Je8? 17.�xc5 ! 1-0 Kapnisis - Darmarakis, Greece 2000, Black resigned in view of the checkmate on the next move: 17 . . . �xc5 18.l=l:d7#) 17.l=l:d7+ �xd7 18.i.xd7 r!ixd7. It looks like

5 . . . a6 6. il.e3 e6 7 .j3 bS B. Wfd2 (fJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 iJ.b7 11.h4

Black has a more than sufficient compensation for the queen, but his pieces are discoordinated and this enables White to weave a checkmating net rather quickly. 19.:1M1+ rJlc7 (Black cannot pro­tect all his weak squares if he tries not to let the enemy knight to the bS-square: 19 . . . rJlc6 20.Wffd3 iJ..c8, since then White's queen will oc­cupy this square - 21.Wffb5+ rJ;;c7 22 .(fJa4 l':ia6 23.Wffe8! hxgS 24. (fJxcS iJ..xcS 25. Wffxh8 g6 26.hxg5+­and his queen and pawns are ob­viously stronger than Black's three light pieces, meanwhile he loses unavoidably his f7-pawn.) 20. (fJbS+ rJ;;c6 21.Wffd3 iJ..c8 22 .(fJc3 hxgS 23. Wffd8 gxh4. His main forces are on the queenside and this enables White to finish the fight quickly and spectacularly: 24.(fJa4! l':ib8 25.2':1d7! iJ..xd7 26. Wffxb8+- and because of the threat of a checkmate in one, Black will have to give up his bishop.

It is unsatisfactory for him to play the tentative move ll . . . Wffc7 - he does not create any coun­ter threats and White's pieces can attack fiercely the e6-square. 12.iJ..h3 (fJeS (12 . . . g6 13.g5 (fJg8 14.h5+- To Nhat - Kang, Buda­pest 2008; after 12 . . . b4 13.(fJce2, it becomes clear that Black loses a pawn: 13 . . . (fJeS 14.Wffxb4± Rojas Mirabel - H.Schmidt, Internet 2004; 13 . . . d5 14.g5+-; 13 . . . Wffa5 14.a3±; after 12 . . . (fJcS 13.g5 (fJfd7, White has the resource 14.b4 (fJeS 15.g6 (fJc4 16.Wffe2+- Vehi Bach -

Colet Fernandes, Spain 2003.) . Black must free the d7-square for the retreat of his knight, so he has no time to evacuate his king to the queenside. After 13.g5

he is faced with a rather un­pleasant choice:

The attempt to trade White's dark-squared bishop: 13 . . . (fJc4 14. Wfff2 (fJxe3 15.Wffxe3 (fJd7 16.g6 (fJc5 17.b4+- leads to an immediate demise for Black, Coelho - De Je­sus, Sao Paulo 2004, and his e6-square cannot be protected;

It seems more logical to cover the g6-square with the knight: 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 (fJh5 (In case of 14 . . . (fJg8, White must take care about defending against 15 . . . (fJc4 with 15.iJ..f2 l':ic8 16.(fJe6 fxe6 17.iJ..xe6 :!!xh1 18.2':1xh1 b4 19.(fJd5 iJ..xd5 20 .exd5--+ Delaire - Kaufmann, Email 1998; 14 . . . (fJfd7? this move blunders an important pawn 15.iJ..xe6+- Leito - Vetemaa, Par­nu 2002.) . It may look like Black's position is acceptable, but White has an interesting combination, which is by the way quite stand­ard for similar positions: 15.g6 ! (fJxg6 16.tt:lxe6 ! fxe6 17.iJ..xe6.

313

Chapter 13

Now, Black's king is stranded in the centre and its placement on e8 will enable White to regain his piece with interest. 17 . . . tt:le5 (After 17 . . . tt:lf6, White can knock his opponent out with the move - 18.'1!9g2+-) 18.'1!9g2 b4 (It is far from easy to suggest a reasonable move for Black, since his knights, bishops and the rook on h8 are just stuck at their places and he cannot repel the bishop on e6 from its place - 18 . . . 1!9e7 19.tt:ld5 hd5 20. hd5 and after f3-f4, White will capture one of Black's knights.) 19.tt:ld5 hd5 20J�xd5--+ Black's position is critical. He cannot parry the threats f3-f4 and �d5xe5, so he will lose unavoid­ably material;

Only the move 13 . . . tt:lfd7 ena­bles Black to prevent the blitz­krieg, but his position is so com­promised that White maintains a great advantage with a series of rather simple moves. 14.\Wf2 b4 (About 14 . . . tt:lc5 15.Wbl b4 16.tt:lce2 g6 - see 14 . . . b4; in the game Sunjaikin - Matytsyn, Rus­sia 2000, there followed 14 . . . tt:lc4 15.g6 tt:lxe3 16.\Wxe3 b4 17.tt:lce2--+; it is trickier for Black to continue with 14 . . . g6, Sasu - Vehi Bach, Spain 1991, 15.f4 b4 and after 16.tt:la4! - the position remains rather unclear following 16.tt:ld5?! - 16 . . . he4 17.fxe5 hhl 18.exd6 hd6 19.�g2± and despite the approximate material equality, White is clearly better, because of Black's vulnerable king.). White

314

is threatening to capture on e6 with his bishop, therefore Black must repel his opponent's knight from c3, so that it cannot occupy the d5-outpost. 15.tt:lce2 g6 (Cas­tling long is impossible, because of White's bishop-strike on e6, so Black must prepare castling short.) 16.Wb1 tt:lc5 17.b3 !±. This powerful move maintains a great advantage for White. His plan in­cludes the transfer of his bishop to b2 and then a victorious march of his f-pawn. Black's main prob­lem is that after the natural move 17 . . . �g7, White can use a brilliant geometrical motif - 18.\We1! WaS (18 . . . a5? 19.tt:lb5+-) 19.�d2 and Black loses his b4-pawn.

a) ll . . .tl:�b6

Black takes immediately the c4-square under control and cre­ates the threat b5-b4, but the placement of his knight on b6 is unstable and White exploits this outright.

12.'1!9f2! He is threatening tactical

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. Wfd2 CiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0 i.b7 ll.h4

strikes on b5 and e6, meanwhile the juxtaposition of his rook on d1 and Black's queen creates the threat e4-e5.

12 • • • CiJfd7 Black has no choice, since the

line: 12 . . . CfJc4?! 13.i.xc4 bxc4, enables White to destroy imme­diately Black's king shelter with 14.g5 CiJd7 15.g6.

13 • .id3

This is already a familiar situa­tion. After Black's pieces have re­treated, because of his opponent's pawn-offensive, White has time to improve the placement of his pieces.

Black is again forced to con­tinue playing with his king in the centre and he must plan how to create counterplay on the queen­side: al) 13 . • • W!c7, a2) 13 • • • b4, or a3) 13 .• Jk8.

al) 13 . • . Wfc7 If he wishes to place his knight

on cS, then he must remove his queen from the d-file in order to avoid the tactical strike on b5.

14.g5 White has developed all his

pieces and the e4-square has been reliably protected, so he only needs to continue his pawn-offen­sive against Black's monarch.

14 • • .tbc5 15.<.tbl This is sensible prophylactic.

Now, the exchange on d3 is abso­lutely harmless for White and af­ter he recaptures with his c-pawn, his centre will be fortified and his rook on d1 will operate along the c-file.

15 • . • hxg5 Opening of the h-file is no

doubt in favour of White, but Black has nothing else to do.

The move 15 . . . 0-0-0 leads to a very difficult position for him after 16.gxh6 gxh6 17.ghg1 and then Black's dark-squared bishop must protect the g7-square and his attempt to prepare capturing on d3 with 15 . . . <.tb8, can be coun­tered by White with 16.i.xb5 axb5 17.CiJdxb5 Wfe7 18.i.xc5 dxc5 19. Wffh2+ @aS 20.CfJc7+ <.ta7 21. CfJ3b5+ with a crushing attack.

16.hxg5 gm1 17J:�xhl

315

Chapter 13

17 • • • g6. Black prevents the de­struction of his pawn-structure. Now, White's rook penetrates the enemy camp and the differ­ence in the piece-activity becomes just threatening. 18,gh7 itlbd7. Black's knight has nothing to do on b6, so it must help in the defence. (It would be too optimistic for him to try 18 . . J'!c8? 19.itlxe6 ! ltlxe6 20.hb6+- and Black lost very quickly, Johansson - Andersson, Stockholm 1995.) 19 • .ifl! White must act swiftly and purposeful­ly, concentrating all his forces in the attack against the e6-square. His bishop has avoided being ex­changed and is ready to go to h3. 19 ... b4 2 0 .itlce2 gcs 21.itlf4±. Black's attempt to create coun­terplay along the c-file has failed. White needs just one move in or­der to bring his bishop into the at­tack against the e6-square. Black cannot win a knight with the move 21 . . .e5?, because after the obvious response 22 .i.c4!+- he suffers a catastrophe on the f7-square.

a2) 13 . . . b4

316

Black is trying to exchange im­mediately one of his opponent's bishops in order to reduce the attacking potential of White's pieces. This position was at the fo­cus of an argument between two Hungarian players and White had to find meaningful arguments in order to prove an advantage.

14.itlce2 gcs 15.'it>bl This prophylactic is again very

useful. The most important thing for White is to avoid some surpris­ing tactical strike by the opponent at a moment in which the game is still not a race.

15 . . . itlc4 16.g5! This move looks surpnsmg,

but in fact it is quite logical. White must preserve his light-squared bishop. We have already men­tioned that he wishes to fight for the f7 and e6-squares. He does not need his dark-squared bishop so much, meanwhile Black has no real counterplay along the dark squares.

16 . . . itlxe3 17.ti'xe3--+

It looks like the fight may be

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. Wid2 CiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 1l.h4

soon over. White is threatening g5-g6 and if Black tries to stop his opponent's pawns with the move 17 . . . g6, then White can counter that with 18.f4 �19.f5.

Still, the Hungarian master Gergely Antal came up with a very purposeful idea, connected with the isolation of White's knight.

17 • . . e5!? 18.CiJf5 hxg5 19. hxg5 lhhl 2 0 _gxhl g6

Black's idea is based on the fact that the retreat of this knight to e3 is completely harmless for Black, so the knight must go forward, closing the h-file. 21.CiJh6! �b6 22.�d2. Despite the smart efforts of his opponent, White is prepar­ing a dangerous attack against the enemy king. He is threatening 23.b3, therefore Black must be ready to take chances. 22 . • • �f2 23.�xb4 �xf3 24. gel! This is a precise move, because the rook is protected here and White can ac­tivate his knight on e2. 24 • . • CiJc5 25.CiJc3! The knight comes here just in time, so that Black fails to capture on d3. His queen is

harmless acting alone and White parries easily his opponent's tem­porary threats and begins an of­fensive with all his pieces. 25 • • •

�f4 (Black loses after 25 . . . CiJxd3? 26.Wixb7! , therefore he has noth­ing else to do except attacking the annoying white knight on h6.) 26 • .ic4 d5? (This move loses by force. Black should not have re­acted with only half-measures. He should have captured the knight - 26 . . . .txh6 27.gxh6 Wffxh6 and here, White would maintain the advantage only if he had found the spectacular line: 28.�b6! E:c6 29.Wffa7!--t penetrating into the enemy camp and having a pow­erful initiative for the sacrificed pawn.) 27.!:!fl! CiJd3. Black relied on this counter strike in the game A.Horvath - Antal, Zalakaros 2001, but White could win eas­ily with the line: 28 • .ib5+! axb5 29.�xb5+ .ic6 3 0 .�xd3 dxe4 31.�e2 �xg5 32.CiJxf7 �e7 (32 . . . Wffh5 33.W/c4+-) 33.CiJxe4+-

a3) 13 . . • gcs

317

Chapter 13

This is the most venomous move for Black. If you are reluc­tant to sacrifice the exchange on c3 in the Sicilian Defence, you should better not play this open­ing. White faces psychological problems and he must consider seriously his defensive task. Still, Black's pieces are rather passively placed and this reduces the ef­fect of the possible sacrifice. The analysis shows that White should manage to realize the exchange.

14.g5 l1!xc3!? 15.bxc3 f;lfc7

16.g6! Now, Black's king is also en­

dangered. White's faint-hearted attempt to preserve the c3-pawn would enable Black's knights to occupy excellent outposts with tempo.

16 • • • ltJc5 He should better not accept

the gift and continue concentrat­ing his forces on the queenside.

White parries easily his op­ponent's initiative after 16 .. .1!�'xc3 17.tt:lxb5 ! axb5 18.hb6 f;lfa3+ 19. lt>d2±, or 16 . . . tt:la4 17.tt:le2 tt:Jxc3

318

18. tt:Jxc3 '\Wxc3 19 . .id4± 17.gxf7+ f;lfxf7 It is bad for Black to play 17 . . .

lt>xf7 18J''!hg1 tt:lba4 19.tt:le2±, since White covers the c3-square and is ready to attack the enemy king along the g-file.

18.lL!xb5! This is the most precise and

direct move for him. All White's forces are into the actions, so he can inflict a decisive strike.

18 • • • ltJba4 Capturing the knight loses

immediately for Black after 18 . . . axb5 19.hb5+ lt>e7 (19 . . . tt:Jbd7 20.hc5+-) 20.hc5+-

19.J.c4!

Now, he is forced to capture the piece.

19 • . • axb5 2 0 .hb5+ �e7 21.e5!+-

lt is less precise for White to choose 2U:'!xd6 �xd6 22 .'1Wg3+ Prie - Valifuoco, Haifa 1989 and here, in the game, Black resigned, but he could have continued the fight with the move 22 . . . e5±. White however, after 21 .e5 set-

5 . . . a6 6. �e3 e6 7 ..f.3 b5 8. Vf! d2 tiJ bd7 9 .g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 �b7 ll .h4

ties the issue immediately, since Black cannot avoid huge material losses.

b) ll . . . d5

White is not ready yet to attack the knight on f6 with his g-pawn, so Black is trying to open the posi­tion in the centre.

12 . .ih3 This standard move is even

stronger now, because White at­tacks the e6-square at a moment Black does not control the c4-square.

12 . . . dxe4 This is the most principled de­

cision for Black, since he should capture the pawn if he can. White must play enterprisingly in order to prove the power of his attack.

The move 12 . . . b4 transposes to Chapter 14.

12 . . . �b4. This decision to pin White's knight is not satisfactory for Black. He has neither strength, nor time to increase the pressure against the knight on c3. 13.g5 tiJhS 14.g6. Once again, after the

appearance of White's pawn on g6, Black will have problems with the protection of the e6-square. His attempt to defend it is refuted outright: 14 . . . 4Jc5 15.gxt7+ @xf7 16.a3 ! This is the punishment for the move 12 . . . �b4, Black is forced to trade his bishop. 16 . . . .hc3 17.'\Wxc3 EJ:c8. Now, it is quite evi­dent that his knight on hS is ter­ribly misplaced and this enables White to obtain a decisive advan­tage in a very instructive fashion. 18.4Jxe6 ! 4Jxe6 19.'\WeS+- Black loses one of his knights and after that White has both a material advantage and a crushing attack, Podkriznik - Kierlich, Bled 2001.

12 . . . e5 - This is a logical try by Black to win a piece, but White's enormous lead in development helps him to crush Black's posi­tion effortlessly. 13.g5 b4. He is complicating the situation even more by attacking White's sec­ond knight. (Or 13 . . . exd4 14 . .hd4 hxgS 15.hxg5 and here after 15 . . . tiJhS, White regains his piece win­ning the game with 16.�g4+-, while following 15 . . . Ei:xh3 16.Ei:xh3 b4 17.4Jxd5 tiJxdS 18.exd5 '!WaS 19.'1We3+ <±>d8 20.Vf!f4� Black's position is very bad. His king is in the centre on d8, his t7-pawn is hanging and White's rook pen­etrates to the h8-square. Black's defence crumbles too in case of 18 . . . .hd5 19 . .hg7 .hg7 20.'\WxdS Ei:c8 21.Ei:h7+-) 14.4Jxd5 tiJxdS 15. exdS exd4 16 . .hd4. After the se­ries of forced moves, White has

319

Chapter 13

obtained two pawns for the piece and a crushing attack. He only needs to play precisely to finish his opponent off. 16 . . . \'NaS. Black must free the dB-square for the retreat of his king. 17J"1he1+ <;t>d8.

This position was reached in the game Svatos - Hausner, Usti nad Labem 1994 and the simplest road for White to victory would have been 18.'1'Nf4! .ic8 (18 . . . \'NbS 19 . .b:d7+-) 19.'1'Nxf7 <;t>c7 20 . .ieS+ .id6 21..b:d6+ <;t>xd6 22.'1'Nf4+ <;t>cs and here, after the simple line: 23J"1e6 ! 'I'Nxa2 24 . .if1 !+- Black's king would end up in a checkmat­ing net.

13.g5 b4 13 . . . hxgS. Black opens the h­

file with the idea to try to save the day by sacrificing the exchange on h3. On the other hand White has some additional tactical chances due to the juxtaposition of the rooks. 14.hxgS b4 1S.gxf6 bxc3 16.'1'Nxc3 gxf6 (It is bad for Black to play 16 . . . 'I'Nxf6, in view of 17.'1'Nc7 .idS 18 . .b:e6+-; 17 . . . 4JcS 18.4JbS ! axbS 19 . .if1+-; the move 16 .. J=k8 can be refuted by White in a routine fashion: 17.4Jxe6 fxe6

320

18.fxg7+-; 17 . . . Elxc3 18.4Jxd8+-; in case of 16 . . . \'NcS, the simplest for White is to enter a winning endgame with the line: 17.\'NxcS .b:c8 18.fxg7 .b:g7 19.fxe4+- and he should realize his extra pawn; 17 . . . Elxc8 this move loses, because the knight on d7 is not protected 18.4:'lxe6+-). Now, White has the spectacular resource 17 . .b:e6! Elxh1 18.Elxh1 fxe6 19.4Jxe6 'I'Ne7 (He checkmates beautifully in the variation 19 . . . '\'NcS 20.4:'lc7+ <;t>ds 21.�f4 exf3 22.Elh8 f2 23.Elxf8+ ! lt:Jxf8 24.'1'Nxf6+ <;t>d7 2S.'I'Nd6#) 20 . lt:Jc7+ <;t>d8 (20 . . . <;t>f7 2l.'I'Nb3+-) 21.4:'lxa8 .b:a8 22 .\'NaS+ <;t>es 23. 'I'Nxa6 .idS 24.f4± White can com­bine here the threats against the enemy king with the advance of

his passed pawns and he should realize gradually his doubtless advantage.

14.gxf6 bxc3 15.'1'Nxc3

15 . . • '1'Nxf6 After the alternatives for Black,

White's attack develops so effort­lessly that he wins rather easily.

1S . . . 'I'Nc8 16.\'NaS lt:Jxf6 17.Wa4+

5 . . . a6 6.�e3 e6 7 ..fJ bS B. W!d2 tt:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 �b7 11.h4

lt:Jd7 (White checkmates in an exquisite fashion in case of 17 . . . W!d7 18.lt:Jxe6 ! W!xa4 19.lt:Jc7+ rtle7 20.�c5#) 18.fxe4 �c5 (18 . . . �e4 19.lt:Jxe6 �h1 20 .lt:Jxg7+-) 19. rtlb1 and his attack is crushing. He is threatening 20.lt:Jxe6 and he can inflict this tactical strike even after Black castles short.

White's task is even easier af­ter 15 . . . E:c8 16.lt:Jxe6 ! fxe6 (16 . . . E:xc3 17.lt:Jxd8+-) 17.fxg7+-

Following 15 . . . gxf6, White can win in many different ways, but the most instructive is 16.lt:Jxe6 fxe6 17.�e6 E:h7 18.�f5 E:f7 19. W!b3 �c8 20.�f4+- and every piece-move by Black leads to ma­terial losses for him.

16.ec7 tlJc5 He losses immediately in

case of 16 . . . �d5 17.fxe4 �e4 18.lt:Jxe6+-

It may look like he has defend­ed successfully, but White has a knight-sacrifice, which settles the issue outright.

17.tlJb5! axb5

18.j.fl!

Suddenly, his bishop goes to the queenside and it will play a decisive role there in White's at­tack.

18 . . . j.e7 Black's desperate counter at­

tacking attempt would not save him after 18 . . . lt:Jb3+ 19.cxb3 i.a3, because White can simply col­lect cold-bloodedly all the sacri­ficed pieces with 20 .�b5+ rtlf8 21 .bxa3 E:c8 (21. . .ea1+ 22 .rtld2 W!xa2+ 23.rtle1+-) 22.i.c5+ rtlg8 23.Wixb7 E:xc5+ 24.rtlb1+-

19 • .ixc5 .ixc5 Black gets checkmated after

19 . . . E:c8 20.�b5+ rtlf8 21.E:d8+ E:xd8 22.'1Wxd8#

2 0 .excs ee7 He would not change much

with the line: 20 .. .'1Wf4+ 21.rtlb1 i.a6 22 .Wfc6+ rtle7 23.E:d7+ rtlf6 24.Wic3+ rtlg6 25.E:g1+-

21 • .ixb5+ st>f8 22.exe7+ rtlxe7 23,gd7+- White wins a piece and the game.

c) ll . . ,gcs

This is a flexible move. Black

321

Chapter 13

preserves the option to go with his knight to b6, as well as to e5, or after the preliminary move b5-b4, he can try to break through in the centre.

12.ggl! White must forget about the

routine idea 12 .i.h3 here, since after 12 . . . tt:le5 13.g5 tt:lfd7oo Black has very powerful threats in this wild position.

Now, he must make up his mind about his set-up.

12 . . . b4 About 12 . . . tt:le5 13.g5 - see var­

iation f. He has no time for 12 . . . d5 13.g5

hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lh5 15.g6+- phenix - Brause, ICS 1995.

It is quite dubious for him to opt for 12 . . . tt:lc5 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lfd7 15.g6 b4 16.gxf7+ Wxf7 17.tt:lce2 �a5 18.Wb1 tt:le5, P.Petersen - Henrichsen, Co­penhagen 2004. White can win immediately here by attacking the e6-square with 19.tt:lf4! �a4 (19 . . . i.e7 20.a3 ! +-) 20J';1g3 ! i.e7 21.i.h3 g5 22 .i.xe6+-

Black fails to block the ad­vance of his opponent's g-pawn: 12 . . . g6 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lh5. White can play precisely here, preventing Black from placing his bishop on g7: 15.tt:lb3 ! �c7 (after 15 . . . b4 White wins with the dou­ble attack - 16.�d4!) 16.a3 ! tt:le5 17.�f2± Black's situation is criti­cal, since White is threatening to advance his f-pawn. It looks also very strong for him to occupy the

322

dark squares with 18 . .ib6 and 19.tt:la5.

Black would not save the day if he sacrifices a piece: 12 . . . �a5 13.tt:lb3 �c7 14.g5 b4 15.tt:le2 hxg5 16.hxg5 tt:lxe4 (16 . . . tt:lh5 17.g6--t; 16 . . . tt:le5 17.tt:led4 tt:lxf3 18.tt:lxf3 tt:Jxe4 19.�e2 d5 20.g6+-; 18 . . . i.xe4 19.tt:lfd4 tt:ld5 20.ha6 l:'l:a8 2l.i.b5+-) 17.fxe4 he4 18.tt:led4 e5. His king is stranded in the centre and White can turn the complications in his favour after 19 . .\'l:g4! i.g6 20.i.xa6 exd4 (20 . . . l:'l:a8 21.tt:lb5 �b8 22 .tt:lxd6+-) 2l.i.xc8 dxe3 22 .i.xd7+ Wxd7 23. �e2 Wd8 (Black loses his queen following 23 . . . i.h5 24.�b5+ Wd8 25 . .\'l:e4+-, or 24 . . . �c6 25.tt:lc5+ Wc7 26.tt:la6+-) and here White wins with the elegant queen­maneuver 24.�g2 ! i.h5 25 . l:'l:h1+-

After 12 . . . tt:lb6, White only needs to continue with some rath­er standard resources 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lfd7 15.g6 �f6 (Black cannot save the game after 15 . . . b4 16.gxf7+ Wxf7 17.tt:lce2 ! tt:lc4, since White sacrifices temporarily a piece 18.�xb4 tt:Jxe3 and then he follows with a double attack, re­gaining his sacrificed material with interest: 19.�b3 ! tt:lc4 20 . �xb7 l:'l:b8 21 .tt:lxe6! +-) 16.gxf7+ �xf7 17.i.d3 tt:le5 18.b3 !± Black is almost beyond salvation, because White's f-pawn will soon advance like a wedge in Black's camp with a decisive effect.

13.tt:lce2

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7.f3 b5 8. �d2 tiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0 i.b7 11.h4

13 • • . e5 Black's position is pathetic af­

ter 13 . . . d5? 14.g5 and his e6 and f7-squares crumble.

It is slightly better for him to choose 13 . . . �a5 14.'i!lb1 CiJe5 (14 . . . CiJc5 15.a3±) 15.g5 CiJc4 16.�d3 ttJe5 (Black would not change much with 16 . . . ttJxe3 17.�xe3.) 17.�b3 and White again conquers the e6-square.

14.tLlb3 a5 Black is trying to trouble his

opponent's knight with another pawn-move.

White refutes in an amus­ing fashion the line: 14 . . . ttJxe4?! 15.fxe4 he4 and here the para­doxical maneuver 16.CiJa1 ! �xh4 17.CiJg3 �xg4 18.ha6+- settles the issue immediately.

It would not be surprising for the readers that after 14 . . . d5 15.g5, White's direct attack against the enemy king is very powerful. Black fails to cover the d-file 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 d4 17.CiJbxd4 exd4 18.CiJxd4 CiJg8 19.g6, because al­most all his pieces are on their initial squares and White's attack

should be soon victorious. For example: 19 . . . CiJgf6 20.gxf7 'i!lxf7 21.�d3 ! and the pressure of his queen along the a2-g8 should be decisive.

15.g5

15 • • . hxg5 The piece-sacrifice again

would not work for Black: 15 . . . ttJxe4 16.fxe4 he4, because of the exquisite maneuver of White's knight to the corner of the board - 17.CiJa1 ! , while the move 15 . . . a4 would enable White to use the already familiar motif with a tem­porary piece-sacrifice: 16.�xb4! axb3 17.�xb3 hxg5 18.hxg5 .ic6 19.gxf6 �xf6 20J�g3± and he maintains a great advantage.

16.hxg5 CiJh5 The inclusion of the exchange

of pawns would not change the ef­fect of the move 16 . . . a4, because White after 17.�xb4 transposes to what we have already discussed in our previous notes.

17.1!/bl a4 18.tLlbcl 'ti'c7 Black would not change any­

thing much with 18 . . . a3 19.b3 �c7

323

Chapter 13

20 . .ih3±, because the vulnerabili­ty of the b4-pawn in this situation is much more important than the weakness of the c3-square.

19.J.h3±

White has played numerous prophylactic moves on the queen­side and now the fortress around his king is quite solid. Mean­while, Black's king has remained in the centre and with White's next move, his g-pawn will open files for the decisive attack of his pieces.

d) ll . . . J.e7 This move is passive, but sen­

sible. Black is not in a hurry to castle. He simply activates his bishop and is ready to protect his e6-pawn with his knight from f8.

12.J.h3 (diagram)

12 . . . b4 He remains a pawn down after

12 . . . g5 13.hxg5 hxgS 14 . .ig2 E!:g8 lS . .ixgS± Laake - Sikorska, Ger­many 2006.

324

In case of 12 . . . lt:Jb6 13.g5 lt:Jc4, in the game csacho - crafty, ICC 1998, White sacrificed his queen with 14.gxf6 ! ?, but it would have been simpler for him to play 14.1Mfe2 !± Black would be incapa­ble of defending his kingside.

12 . . . lt:Jc5 13.g5�, and later in the game Gulbas - Biery, France 2007, there followed 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 b4 15.lt:Jce2+-

Black does not prevent White's main idea with the move 12 . . . E!:c8, because after 13.g5 lt:JhS 14.g6 ! lt:Jf8 15.gxf7+ '>f;>xf7, Black's posi­tion seems very brittle and after White's obvious transfer of the queen to the g-file, he will begin the hunt for Black's knight on hS. 16.1Mfg2 ! b4 17.lt:Jce2 'IMfaS 18.<;!;>bl .if6 19.1Mfg4 E!:e8 20.lt:lb3 'IMfbS (He cannot avoid the chase af­ter his queen along the fifth rank in case of 20 .. .'�e5 21..id4 'IMfbS 22 .c4! 1Mfxc4 23.1Mfxh5+ g6 24.1Mfa5 1Mfxe2 25 . .ixf6 '>f;>xf6 26.1Mfxb4 'IMfbS 27.1Mfxd6+-) 21.lt:led4 .ixd4 22 . lt:Jxd4 'IMfaS 23.lt:lb3 'IMfeS 24.E!:hgl E!:h7 (24 . . . g6 25 . .id4+-) 25.f4 1Mfb5 26.e5+- and White traps success-

5 . . . a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7 .fJ b5 8. � d2 ttJ bd7 9 .g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 - 0 .tb7 ll.h4

fully the enemy knight, Bonnet -Prodhomme, Hyeres 2002.

Black's other possibility here is 12 . . . tiJf8, protecting the e6-pawn in advance. Over defending may be an excellent resource indeed, but it is hardly applicable in the Sicilian Defence. Black's knight is passively placed and it impedes the coordination of the rest of his pieces. 13.g5 tiJ6d7! ? (He is in a big trouble after 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 tiJ6d7 15.he6 l:%xhl 16.hd7+ �xd7 17.l:%xhl+- White has an extra pawn and initiative, Strze­miecki - Gretarsson, Halkidiki 2003.) 14.f4! It is essential for White to deprive the enemy piec­es of the e5-square (The variation 14.gxh6? ! gxh6 15.l:%hgl tiJe5oo il­lustrates Black's possibilities.) . 14 . . . b4 (The weak spot in White's camp is the e4-pawn, so it is logi­cal for Black to try to exploit this.) 15.tiJd5 ! The placement of Black's knight on f8 enables White to make this standard sacrifice with a maximal effect. 15 . . . exd5 16.tiJf5 �a5 (Black must defend against the possible smothered check­mate and prepare a leeway for his king.) 17.exd5 g6 (He should not capture the pawn - 17 . . . �xa2, because after 18.tiJxg7+ 'kt>d8 19.�xb4+- Black is helpless against the checkmate from the b6-square.) 18.tiJxe7 'kt>xe7 19 . .id4 l:%h7 20.gxh6 ! This is a very impor­tant move, which enables White to open the position and to bring his rook into the actions. Black

should try to eliminate his oppo­nent's dangerous passed pawn: 20 . . . 'kt>d8 21..ig7+-, therefore he should better solve the prob­lem immediately with 20 . . . l:%xh6 (Black gets checkmated after 20 . . . �xa2 21.�e3+ 'kt>d8 22 . .ib6+-; he would not change much with 20 . . . .txd5 21 .l:%hel+ 'kt>d8 22 . .tg7 .ie6 23.�xd6 .txh3 24 . .if6+ 'kt>c8 25.�c6+-; Black would not save the game with the line: 20 . . . �xd5 21.f5 'kt>d8 22 .�xb4 �b5 23.�xd6 .txhl 24 . .tb6+-) 21.f5 l::1h5 (He loses a rook after 21 . . .l:%xh4 22 .�el+-) 22.�f4 f6 23.fxg6 tiJe5 (Black has no time to capture a pawn, because after 23 . . . tiJxg6 24.�g4+- White has a triple at­tack at his disposal.) 24.l:%hfl tiJfd7 25.he5 l:%xe5. Black's last defen­sive fortress crumbles (It is hardly any better for him to opt for 25 . . . dxe5, because after 26.�g4+-, White's queen captures one of the enemy pieces.) . 26.�h6 'kt>d8 27.�h7. This is the final fine point. White is threatening to checkmate and his queen on h7 supports the advance of his passed pawn all the way up to the square of pro­motion. 27 . . . �b5 28.g7+- and White will have a new queen on the board.

13.tiJce2 Y;Ya5 13 . . . d5 - Black cannot create

any serious problems for his op­ponent with this immediate break in the centre. White is again ahead of his opponent in the creation of threats against the king and he is

325

Chapter 13

capable of organizing an attack in a flash. 14.g5 lllhS 15.g6 lllc5 16.gxf7+ <ifxf7 17.e5. Now, most of Black's forces are cut off from the kingside and cannot assist in the defence of his king. Small wonder that White crushes his opponent swiftly. 17 . . . g6 (Black cannot cre­ate much of a counterplay after: 17 . . .'�c7 18.f4 a5 19.E:hf1 g6 20.f5 ! , and White's attack i s victorious 20 . . . gxf5 2l..ixf5 exfS 22 .E:xf5+ <ilg6 23.E:g1+-) 18 . .bh6 .bh4 19.E:dg1 Wfe7. He is ready to begin a tactical assault, since Black's king is bare and his bishop on h4 is misplaced. This enables White to inflict a hideous tactical strike. 20.lllxe6 ! lllxe6 21.he6+ <ilxe6 22 .E:xg6+ <ild7 23 .E:g4! This is the decisive move after which Black's bishop is trapped. 23 . . . Wixe5 24.E:gxh4+- Tokmachev - Frank, Faaker-See 2003.

14.g5! In case of the indifferent move

14.<ilb1? ! Vahtera - Salminen, carr. 1996 llle5oo the position re­mains quite unclear.

326

14 . . . hxg5 After 14 . . . lllh5 15.g6 lllf8 16.

gxf7+ <ilxfl 17.<ilb1 E:c8 18.E:hg1--> White again attacks without any sacrifices.

14 . . . Wfxa2 15.Wixb4 dS. This counter attacking attempt can be easily parried by White, because Black does not have sufficient sources to trouble White's king. 16.Wixb7 E:b8 17.Wfc7! Wixb2+ 18 . <ild2 i.b4+ 19.lllc3 0-0 20.E:b1 Wia3 2l.E:b3+- He has simply an extra piece and a superior position.

15.hxg5 /t)xe4 16.fxe4 .ixe4 17.g6!

White responds to a strike with a strike of his own. Black's bishop on e4 is very powerful, but it can­not protect the king and attack White's rook at the same time.

17 . . . .ixhl In case of 17 .. . hg6 18.lllc6

Wixa2 19.Wixb4 i.f6 20.lllf4+­White exchanges his opponent's powerful bishop and remains with an extra piece.

After 17 . . . fxg6 18.lllxe6 .bh1 19.lllxg7+ <ilf7 20.hd7 <ilxg7 21 . i.d4+ i.f6 22 . .ixf6+ <ilxf6 23. Wixd6+ <ilf7 24.Wie6+ <ilg7 25. Wfe7+- and Black's king is check­mated unavoidably.

18.�xhl f5 This is the only reasonable de­

fence against the loss of a rook, but now the e6-square is cata­strophically weakened.

19./t)f4! e5 Black's threat of a checkmate

in one with 19 . . . Wixa2 is easily

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 B. Wfd2 CiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 i.b7 11.h4

parried by White with 20.Wffg2+-, Black's rook on a8 is hanging and White's knights collect the e6-pawn.

2 0 .ti'g2 �k8 Now, he can finish the game

off with a beautiful final attack.

21.CiJxf5! exf4 22.ti'b7 gds 23.CiJxg7+ mf8 24 . .ixd7 gxbl+ 25.ti'xhl

Three of White's pieces are hanging, but if Black captures an­yone of them, he gets checkmat­ed. 25 • • . mxg7 26.ti'h7+ mf6 27. ti'f7+- and White checkmates.

e) n . . . ti'a5

This order of moves used to be very popular for Black some time ago. He takes under control the a4-square with the intermediate move with his queen. Now, after the advance of Black's b-pawn, White's knight will have to retreat to e2.

12.mbt b4 It is not satisfactory for Black

to continue with 12 . . . CiJc5, Pina -Marti, Oropesa 2001, because af­ter 13.a3 !±, White is threatening to win a piece and it would be a disaster for Black to opt for 13 . . . CiJa4? 14.CiJdxb5 !+-

12 . . . CiJe5 13.i.e2 �c8 14.a3 i.e7 15.g5 tt:lfd7 (It is even worse for him to choose 15 . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 �xh1 17.�xh1 CiJfd7 18.f4 CiJc4 19. hc4 �xc4 20.f5+- Fremiotii -Turner, corr. 2001.) 16.gxh6 gxh6 17.CiJb3 Wffc7 18.i.b6±

13.CiJce2 d5 Black tried successfully a brave

experiment in the game Nunn - J.Polgar, Amber (rapid) 1995: 13 ... CiJe5 14.CiJg3 �c8 (In case of 14 . . . i.e7, K.Szabo - V.Schneider, Budapest 2001, the simplest reac­tion for White would be 15.i.e2± - he is threatening 16.g5, as well as 16.a3.) 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 �xh1 17.CiJxh1 CiJxf3 18.CiJxf3 CiJxe4 19.ti'e2 g6 20.CiJd4 i.g7 21 .i.g2 ti'e5 and here instead of 22 .i.c1? ! CiJc3 !+ , the English GM had bet­ter choose 22 . .if3 !± and it would be sufficient for White to trade the knights and his win would become simply a matter of tech-

327

Chapter 13

nique. Black's pawns will hardly advance with queens present on the board.

The move 13 . . . .ie7 was tested in the game M.Bartel - Moskwin­ski, Warsaw 2000, but it was not satisfactory for Black in view of 14.tt:lg3, so he had no other alter­native but 14 . . . tt:le5 - see 13 . . . tt:le5 14.tt:lg3 .ie7.

14.J.h3! dxe4 Capturing on e4 is again a part

of Black's main strategy. His attempt to fortify his king­

side would only provoke the ad­vance of White's f-pawn. 14 . . . g6 15.g5 tt:lhS 16.f4 ! 0-0-0 (but not 16 . . . dxe4 17.tt:lxe6+-) 17.f5 gxfS 18.exf5 eS 19.tt:le6! d4 (Accepting the sacrifice would lead to a hope­less endgame for Black 19 . . . fxe6 20.fxe6 'i!?b8 21.exd7 d4 22.tt:lxd4 exd4 23.1Wxd4 .icS 24.'\WxcS 1Wxc5 25.hc5 hh1 26.!'1xh1 +- Ma­gem Badals - Brenninkmeijer, Novi Sad 1990.) 20.tt:l2xd4 exd4 21.tt:lxd8 hh1 (He is lost after 21 . . .'\WxdS 22 .1Wxd4 f6 23.!'1hel+-, or 21 . . . .id5 22 .a3 1Wxd8 23.1Wxd4

328

hh1 24.1Wxh8 .if3 25.!'1d4 i.cS 26.1Wxd8+ l!?xd8 27.!'1xd7+-) 22. 1Wxd4 1Wxd8 23.1Wxh8 .if3 24. l"1d4 '\WeB 25.f6+- White has a decisive advantage and his bishop on e3 is untouchable, since in case of 25 . . . 1Wxe3? 26.1Wxf8+ 'i!?b7 27.!'1xd7+ White checkmates.

It is interesting for Black to try to occupy the c4-square with his knight: 14 . . . tt:le5 15.g5 tt:lc4 (15 . . . tt:lfd7 16.tt:lf4� Leconte -Kr.Georgiev, Aubervilliers 1993) 16.1Wc1 hxgS 17.hxg5 and here in the game Rudolf - Pieniazek, Cuxhaven 1993, he was forced to sacrifice a piece: 17 . . . dxe4 18.gxf6 exf3, but after the precise interme­diate retreat of the knight 19.tt:lb3 ! White managed to regroup ad­vantageously his forces 19 . . . 1Wc7 20 . .if4 1Wb6 (but not 20 . . . e5 21..id7+-) 21 .tt:lg3 !'1d8 (Unfortu­natelyfor Black, he cannot capture the f6-pawn: 21 . . .gxf6 22 .he6 l"1xh1 23 . .id7+-) 22 .!'1xd8+ 1Wxd8 23.he6 ! l"1xh1 24.'\Wxhl fxe6 25.fxg7 hg7 26.'\WhS+ 'i!?f8 (26 . . . 'i!?e7 27 . .ig5+ .if6 28 . .ixf6+ 'i!?xf6 29.1Wh4+-) 27.1Wc5+ 'i!?g8 28.1Wxc4 1Wf6 29 . .ic1 f2 30.1Wxb4 .ig2 31.tt:ld2 fl'\W 32.tt:ldxf1 hf1 33.1Wg4± and White has an extra pawn and a safer king. He should win by advancing his queenside pawns.

15.g5 hxg5 It is essential that he can re­

fute the line : 15 . . . exf3 16.gxf6 ! fxe2 17.fxg7 exd11W+ 18.!'1xd1 hg7 19.tt:lxe6 .idS (If Black does not

5 . . . a6 6.i.e3 e6 7 ..f.3 b5 8. 'Wffd2 4J bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 i.b7 11.h4

cover the d-fi.le, then White will follow with 19 . . . fxe6 20.'Wffxd7+ Wf8 21.i.xe6+-; 19 . . . 4Je5 20. 4Jxg7+ Wf8 21 .'Wffd6+ Wxg7 22. l='lg1+ 4Jg6 23.l='lxg6 fxg6 24.'Wffe7+ and he checkmates on the next move, Henrichs - Zwelich, Ruhre­gebiet 2004.) 20.4Jxg7+ \tlf8 21. Wcl ! \tlxg7 (Black would not save the game with 21 . . .'Wffxa2 22. 'Wffxb4+ Wxg7 23.l='lg1+-) 22 .i.xd7 f6 23. 'WffxdS 'WffxdS 24.l='lxd5+-

He tried to survive at the price of a piece, but in vain : 16 . . . 4Jxf6 17.4Jcl (In the game Varavin -Neverov, Smolensk 1991, White did not play so well - 17.4Jg3±, but even then he maintained a considerable advantage.) 17 . . . 4Je4 (In case of 17 . . . i.d5, White collects the f3-pawn: 18.l='lhf1 +-) 18.'Wffe1 i.e7 (It would not work for Black to continue with 18 . . . f2 19.i.xf2 4Jxf2 20.i.xe6 ! fxe6 21.'Wffxe6+ i.e7 22 .'Wffg6+ Wd7 23.4Jc6+-) 19.l='lg1 i.f6 (White has a material advantage after 19 . . . 'Wffh5 20.l='lxg7 'Wffxh4 21.'Wffxh4 i.xh4 22.4Jxf3+-) 20.i.g4+-

16.hxg5 exf3 In case of 16 . . . 4Jd5 17.g6 ! Black

is forced to sacrifice the exchange 17 . . . l='lh3 18.gxf7 Wxf7 19.l='lxh3± Ma.Adams - Rees, Pontypool 2002.

17.4Jg3 Now, it would not work for

White to play 17.gxf6?! fxe2 , because after 18.fxg7 exd1'Wff+ 19.l='lxd1 i.xg7 20.4Jxe6 i.dS 21. 4Jxg7+ Wf8, Black's position is

quite satisfactory, Guliev - Noga, Polanica Zdroj 2001.

17 . . .tods White should not fear the at­

tack against his a2-pawn after 17 . . . i.d5 18.4Jb3 'Wffc7 19.gxf6! (The situation remains rather unclear following 19.i.f4 i.d6 20.i.xd6 'Wffxd6 21.gxf6 4Jxf6 22 .'Wffg5 l='lh6c:o Magem Badals - Vera Reynaldo, Barcelona 1990.) 19 . . . 4Jxf6 20.i.f1 ! l='lxh1 21.4Jxh1 4Je4 22 .'Wffe1 i.d6 23.4Jf2 i.g3 (23 . . . 4Jg3 24.i.d3±) 24.i.d3 l='ld8 25.'Wffgl± White has preserved his extra piece and he has considerable chances of real­izing it.

About 17 . . . l='lxh3 18.l='lxh3 CiJdS 19.g6 - see 17 . . . 4Jd5.

18.g6 gxh3 Black managed to survive in

the game Rahal - Ninov, France 2006: 18 . . . 0-0-0 19.gxf7 wb8 (19 . . . l='lxh3 20.l='lxh3 - see 18 . . . l='lh3). His task would have been much more difficult if instead of 20.i.xe6, White had cho­sen 22 .i.g5 4J7f6 23.i.xe6 l='lxh1 24.l='lxhl±. He is threatening to

329

Chapter 13

penetrate with his knight to h8 and Black's bishop on f8 cannot move, because it would come un­der attack by White's knights.

19.B:xh3 0 - 0 - 0 It would be interesting for Black

to opt for 19 . . . lbe5 20.gxf7 'it>xf7, Savko - Gedvilas, USSR 1991, but White's attack against the e6-square parries easily Black's ag­gressive intentions : 21 .�e1 ! lbf6 22 . .tf4 lbd5 23.lbb3!±

His king is so vulnerable that Black cannot equalize in the vari­ation 19 . . . lb5f6 20 .lbh5 ! lbxhS 21 . l"i:xhS .tdS (21. . .�xh5 22.lbxe6 ! .tc6 23.lbc7+ 'it>d8 24.lbxa8+-) 22 .gxf7+ 'it>xf7 23.b3 ! lbf6. White's queen joins in the attack in an ex­quisite fashion after 24.�h2 ! �cS (24 . . . lbe4? 25.�f4+-; 24 . . . lbxh5? 25.�xh5+ 'it>g8 26.lbxe6+-; 24 . . . .td6 2S . .tf4±) 25.:1'1h3± He has an extra exchange for a couple of pawns, but Black is in trouble, since his king is vulnerable and his pieces are not well coordinated.

2 0 .gxt7

2 0 • . • lbe5

330

The move 20 . . . lbc5, Rapp -Mold, corr. 1999, does not create any real threats: 21 .:1'1h8±

Black can avoid the attack against his e-pawn with 20 . . . eS ! ? 21..ig5! lb7f6 (He would not equalize with 21 . . .exd4, because White's f7-pawn is still alive and while Black prepares capturing it, White will neutralize his op­ponent's passed pawns: 22 .hd8 �xd8 23.lbf5 �f6 24.lbxd4 lbeS 25.:1'1h5 lbc4 26.�d3 lbce3 27.:1'1h8 �xf7 28.lbxe6 �xe6 29.:1'1xf8+ 'it>c7 30.:1'1g1 gS 31.:1'1xf3.g4 32.:1'1f8± Black will hardly manage to sur­vive with queens present on the board. It is stronger for him to defend with 22 . . . \t>xd8 23.�xd4 �b6 24.lbf5 f2 25.�xb6+ lb5xb6 26.:1'1h8 'it>c7 27.lbd4 .tdS 28.:1'1h2±, but after the trade of the f-pawns, White maintains a stable advan­tage in the endgame. Later, it would be important for him to exchange his knight for one of his opponent's bishops and after that Black's pawns will become juicy targets for attack.) 22 .lbxf3 lbc3+ 23.bxc3 :1'1xd2 24.lbxd2 bxc3 25.lbb3 �a3 26 . .tc1 �b4 27.:1'1h8 'it>c7 28.lbf5 .tdS 29.a3± and here White's f7-pawn continues to an­noy Black, while White's pieces are considerably stronger than Black's queen.

2l.ti)xe6! lbc4 He loses immediately if he en­

ters an endgame 21 . . .lbc3+ 22 . �xc3+ bxc3 23.:1'1xd8+ �xd8 24. lbxd8 'it>xd8 25.:1'1h8 lbg6 26.:1'1xf8+

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .f3 b5 8. Wid2 lLJbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0- 0 - 0 i.b7 11.h4

lLJxfB 27.i.cS+- M.Rytshagov -Banikas, Cappelle la Grande 1994.

22.fid4!

22 . . . lLJcxe3 White's exquisite idea can be

best illustrated by the following line: 22 . . . lLJc3+ 23.bxc3 l'!xd4 24. l'!xd4 i-dS 2S.l'!h8 lLJxe3 (In the variation 2S . . . @d7 26.ll1xf8+ @e7 27.i.gS+ @xf7 28.2'!f4+ @e8, White weaves a checkmating net with the brilliant move 29.lLJfS ! ! +-) 26.2'!xf8+ @d7 27.2'!xdS+ ! lLJxdS 28.2'!d8+ @xe6 29.f8fi lLJxc3+ 30. @c1 figS+ 31.@b2 fixg3 32 .2'!e8+ @dS 33.fixb4 f2 34. fib3+- Black's king is helpless against the chase of his opponent's pieces.

23.loxd8 ti'xd8 He loses immediately after

23 . . . lLJxd1 24.lLJxb7+-Black's position is very dif­

ficult after 23 . . . b3, Flor - Lehn­ert, Email 2001, 24.axb3 lLJxd1 2S.fixd1 @xd8 26.2'!hS±

24,gel ti'e7 White's task is much easier

in case of 24 .. .£2 2SJ:!e2+-, or

24 . . . @c7 2S.fieS+ fid6 26.fixd6+ @xd6 27.ll1e4+ @e7 (27 . . . @eS 28. !'!h8+-) 28.ll1f2 @xf7 29.2'!xf3+ @g8 30.2'!fxe3 ll1xe3 3U!xe3+-

25.lLJfl f2 26.gexe3 �xe3 27.�e3 tBxf7 28,ge2± - Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient and his vulnerable king would not enable him to ex­ploit fully the power of his bishop­pair.

t) ll . . . �e5 This is a very ambitious move.

He takes the c4-square under con­trol with his knight, as well as the f3-pawn, but White has the pos­sibility to organize a pawn-break in the centre.

12,ggl

12 . . . gcs Black's previous move be­

comes senseless after 12 . . . lLJxc4 13.hc4 bxc4 14.gS± Wozniak -Reilly, IECC 2003.

White's rook on g1 is very active after 12 . . . i.e7 13.gS hxgS 14.hxgS ll1fd7 1S.g6 ! lLJxg6 16.ll1xe6!± Vehi

331

Chapter 13

Bach - Ruiz Bravo, Barselona 2004.

Black cannot hold the position in case of 12 . . . 1Mfa5 13.g5 hxg5 (13 . . . b4 14.tt:lb1 hxg5 15.hxg5 tt:lfd7, Aroshidze - Odeev, Antalya 2009 and here, White could have captured a pawn with 16.a3±, since Black could not play 16 ... d5 17.g6 ! with a crushing attack for White.) 14.hxg5 tt:lfd7 (14 . . . b4 15. tt:lb1 tt:lfd7 16.a3 !± - see 13 .. . b4) 15.g6 ! fxg6 (15 . . . tt:Jxg6 16.tt:lxe6±) 16.f4 tt:lt7 17.tt:lxe6 .b:e4 18. .td3+-

White's attack is also very pow­erful after 12 . . . tt:Jfd7 13.g5 hxg5 14.hxg5 g6 15.f4 tt:lc4 16 . .b:c4 bxc4 17.'<Mfe2 V9c7, Becker - Hartmann, Metz 2006, 18.f5 ! e5 (Black will hardly hold the position in the variation 18 . . . exf5 19.exf5 tt:le5 20.fxg6 fxg6 21 .Elgfl.) 19.fxg6 exd4 20.gxf7+ @xt7 21.g6+ @e8 (In case of 21 . . . @g7 22 . .b:d4+ tt:le5 23.Eldfl .te7 24.Elf7+ @g8 25.'<Mff2 Elh5 26.he5 dxe5, White check­mates - 27.Elg7! +-) 22 . .b:d4 tt:le5 23.he5 dxe5 24.1Mfg4 i.g7 25.'<Mfe6+ '<Mfe7 26.V9xc4 Elc8 27.1Mfa4 and his attack is decisive.

12 . . . 1Mfc7 13.g5 tt:lfd7 (The e6-square will definitely crumble af­ter 13 . . . hxg5 14.hxg5 tt:lfd7 15.g6 tt:lb6 16.gxt7+ '<Mfxt7 17.1Mff2 b4, Ryvlin - Vol, corr. 1995, 18.tt:lce2 tt:lbc4 19.tt:lf4 tt:Jxe3 20.'<Mfxe3--+, but if Black retreats without ex­changing pawns, then White can penetrate to the a7-square.) 14.g6 tt:lc5 15.gxf7+ '<Mfxt7 16.b4! tt:la4

332

17.tt:Jxa4 bxa4 18.f4 tt:lc6 19.i.c4 tt:Jxd4 20.'<Mfxd4 0-0-0 21.'<Mfa7! +­His attack is victorious, Rios -Galarza, Bogota 1992.

12 . . . b4 13.tt:la4 d5 (After 13 . . . '<Mfa5 14.b3 tt:lfd7, in the game B.Socko - Kotwicka, Krynica 1998, White could have attacked his opponent's b4-pawn with 15.a3 ! d5 16.f4 and then after 16 . . . tt:lg6 (Black remains a pawn down in case of 16 . . . tt:lc6 17.exd5 exd5 18.i.f2 ! 0-0-0 19.ie1 !±) White can attack with tempi the e6-pawn - 17.f5 tt:lge5 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.tt:lxe6! tt:lf3 20.axb4 hb4 (20 . . . '<Mfxb4 21.tt:lc7+-) 21.'<Mff2 tt:lxg1 22 .exd5 !+- and his advantage is decisive. 14.g5 hxg5 (14 . . . tt:Jfd7 15.g6 !--+ De Long - Jens, Utrecht 1997) 15.hxg5 tt:lfd7 16.g6! Elc8 (It is hardly any better for Black to opt for 16 . . . tt:Jxg6 17.tt:lxe6 fxe6 18.Elxg6 @f7 19.exd5! .b:d5 20.Elg5 '<Mfa5 21.i.c4! tt:lf6 22 .tt:lb6 Eld8 23. id4+- and White wins easily. Black cannot capture the rook 19 . . . @xg6 20.'<Mfg2+ @t7 21.dxe6+ @g8 22.Elxd7+-) 17.gxt7+ @xt7 18.f4 tt:Jc4 19.hc4 Elxc4 20.'<Mfg2 '<M!e7 21.b3 Elc8 22 .'<Mfg6+ @g8 23.tt:lxe6 dxe4 24.tt:Jac5 tt:lxc5 25 . .b:c5 Elh2 26.Eld8+- and White won without any problems in the game Berkes - Kober, Rabac 2003.

13.g5 �fd7 After 13 . . . hxg5, Black fails

to capture on h4: 14.hxg5 tt:Jfd7 15.g6± Cvicela - Misaros, Banska Stiavnica 2006.

14.g6 ti'xh4

5 . . . a6 6. i.e3 e6 7 .j3 b5 8. 'Wf d2 0, bd7 9 .g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 i.b7 ll.h4

His attempt to take on h4 in another fashion - 14 . . . !iJxg6 15.!iJxe6 fxe6 16.E!xg6 'Wffxh4, Perez Rod - Borges Mateos, Cuba 2000 (Black may try not to give up his e6-pawn: 16 . . . \t>t7, Sakai - Capac­cia, Email 2001, but White has a powerful argument against that 17.'Wffg2 !iJe5 18.h5 ! 'Wffh4 18.E!g3 'Wffh5 19.f4� or 17 . . . 17 . . . 'Wffh4 18. !iJe2 !iJe5 19.!iJf4.) enables White to inflict a beautiful tactical strike - 17.:1!xe6+ ! lt>t7 18.!iJd5 ! ! and Black is helpless. He cannot cap­ture White's rook: 18 . . . \t>xe6 19. i.h3+ lt>t7 (19 .. . 'Wffxh3 20.!iJf4+-) 20 . .hd7 !!dB 21.i.f5 g6 (21. . .i.e7 22.l'!g1+-) 22 .hg6+ lt>xg6 23. 'Wffg2+ lt>t7 24.l'!h1 l'!g8 25.'Wffxg8+ lt>xg8 26.:1!xh4+-; Black's at­tempts to trap White's rook are not fruitful either: 18 . . . !iJe5 19. !iJf4 !iJxf3 20.'Wffb4! 'Wffh2 21.i.e2 !iJg5 22 .'Wffb3 'Wffxe2 23.!iJxe2 !iJxe6 24.l'!f1+-; finally the line: 18 . . . !iJc5 19.i.xc5 l'!xc5 20.!iJf4 i.c8 (20 . . . g5 21.!iJg6+-) also loses for him after 21.!iJg6 'Wffg3 22.l'!xd6 i.xd6 23.!iJxh8+ lt>e7 (23 . . . 1!/gB

24.'Wffxd6 'Wffxd6 25J'l:xd6 lt>xh8 26.b4! +-) 24.e5 ! fi.c7 25.'Wffb4 i.b6 26.i.d3+-

15.gxf7 + lt>xf7 16.f4 (It is weaker for White to opt for 16.i.f2 \Wf6, Jenni - J.Pinter, Zuerich 2000.) 16 .. .lL1c4 (Black is not well-prepared for opening of the centre: 16 . . . b4 17.!iJa4 !iJg4 18.e5 i.d5 19.f5�; 16 . . . !iJg4 17.f5 e5 18.!iJe6�) 17.hc4 gxc4 18.f5 exf5 (He loses in case of 18 . . . e5 19.!iJe6 'Wfe7 20.!iJd5 i.xd5 21.'Wffxd5 !iJf6 22 .!iJg5 !+ lt>e8 23.'Wffa8+-) 19.!iJxf5 tif6 2 Q ,gxg7! + hg7 21.lL1c4+- White's win is just a matter of time.

Conclusion In this chapter we deal with variations in which Black postpones

and sometimes he even gives up altogether the idea to advance b5-b4. The analysis and the tournament practice show that Black must pay a dear price for the delay in creating threats against his opponent's king. White has the initiative in all the variations and his pieces occu­py easily excellent attacking positions. The h6 pawn-target in Black's camp makes the evacuation of his monarch to the kingside a risky adventure. Leaving it it the centre however, is hardly a lesser evil. He often tries to castle long, but this requires time and White manages to organize a dangerous attack in that case as well.

333

Chapter 14 1.e4 c5 2)iJf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.£3 b5 8.�d2 �bd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 .ib7 ll.h4 b4 12.�a4

This is one of the key-posi­tions of this variation. Black has repelled the enemy knight to the edge of the board and will try to exploit this, but he does not have too many resources at his dispos­al. He can strike against the cen­tre, since White does not control so well yet the d5 and e4-squares, or he can try to exploit the some­what hanging position of White's knight on a4, which has no avail­able square. Still, it should be noted that Black's king is still in the centre and his kingside is not developed yet, so White has his trumps in the oncoming fight.

The main lines, the thematic variations, which are at the fo­cus of the attention of theoreti-

334

cians and are most often used by the best players in the world, will be analyzed in Chapter 15 (12 .. .'�a5 13.b3 tt:lc5), while now we will concentrate on the less popular variations. You should not think that their analysis is less useful. Sometimes the surpris­ing attempt to play some seldom played line, may take you out of your preparation and may lead to rather unpleasant consequences. Therefore, you should better be well-prepared for everything.

We will deal now with: a) 12 . . .

d5 and b) 12 . . . �a5. The alternatives for Black are

played only very rarely: 12 . . . �c7 - this move does not

combine well with his previous move and he loses valuable time. 13 . .ih3;!; (It also deserves atten­tion for White to choose 13 . .ig2 !? , David - Verdier, Livry Gargan 2005.);

12 . . . g6? ! - this prophylactic should better be avoided at this moment, since White can simply capture on b4: 13.�xb4±;

12 . . . e5 - this move would not lead to any original variations, be-

8. Wd2 Ci:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0 i.b7 1l.h4 b4 12. Ci:Ja4 d5 13.�h3

cause Black will have to play WaS anyway, after which the game transposes to variation b. 13.Ci:JfS dS (13 . . . WaS 14.b3 - see variation b) 14.exdS g6 (14 . . . WaS 1S.b3 -see 12 . . . WaS 13.b3 eS) 1S.Ci:Jxh6. Now, Black must prove why he has sacrificed a pawn in the first place. 1S . . . Wc7 (1S . . . WiaS 16.b3 WxdS 17.i.d3 .txh6 18.gS il.g7 19. gxf6 hf6 20J'�ihfl .txh4 2l.Wxb4:t Eckstein - Frost, Email 2002) 16.gS (16.b3 !?) 16 . . . Ci:JdS 17.il.g1! (White keeps free the second rank in advance.) 17 .. Jk8 (This is the most natural move.) 17.'tt>b1 hh6 Black must capture this knight; otherwise, it would be threaten-ing to capture on f7 at some mo­ment 18.gxh6 Ci:Jf4 19J'!h2 ! and there arises a very complicated position in which White's pros­pects are preferable;

12 . . J'!c8 - this is a good move, but now White can capture on

and more actively placed pieces.

a) 12 . . . d5 13.�h3 This is a typical maneuver for

this variation. White accomplish­es several purposes with his last move. He develops his bishop, which is already eying the e6-pawn, and prepares the thematic move g4-gS.

Black is faced with a choice - to allow g4-gS : al) 13 . . . dxe4, a2) 13 . . . Ci:Je5, or prevent it with a3) 13 . . . g5. b4: 13.Wxb4 Wc7 (This is the idea

behind 12 .. Jk8.) 14.Wc3 dS (In case of 14 . . . Wb8 1S.Wb3± Black b.

13 . . . WaS 14.b3 - see variation

has no compensation for the pawn.). Later, the developments are forced: 1S.Wxc7 �xc7 16.exdS Ci:JxdS 17.il.g1! This is an important fine point - White redeploys his bishop to a safe place in advance. 17 . . . eS 18.Ci:Jb3 Ci:Jb4. It looks like Black has seized the initiative. Still, we will continue this varia­tion: 19.�h3 ! �xc2+ 20.'tt>b1 �c7 2l.Ci:Jc3. White's advantage is doubtless in this endgame, since he has a superior pawn-structure

It would be too brave for him to play 13 . . . eS with his king in the centre and pieces along the 8th rank. 14.gS! exd4 (14 . . . WaS - see variation b) 1S.hd4 hxgS (In case of 1S . . . Ci:JhS, Eliseev - Dolbnia, Moscow 2008, 16.exdS! White will soon checkmate.) 16.hxgS �xh3 17.�xh3 Ci:Jg8 18.exdS hdS 19.�h8 Ci:Je7 20.hg7 WaS 21.We3 Wxa4 22.�xdS �c8 23.b3 Wc6 24.�d2 Wg6 2S.Wd4+- Lobzha­nidze - Chuiko, Tula 1999.

33S

Chapter 14

13 . . . g6 ! ? - This is an interest­ing prophylactic idea and we will encounter it numerous times in this chapter. 14.g5 lt:JhS 15.b3 Wie7 (Black is trying to cover all his weak spots, using sometimes not the most aesthetic methods . . . ) 16.exd5 ! (It is weaker for White to play 16.gxh6 dxe4oo Grandelius - Ibrayev, Olomouc 2007.) 16 . . . .b:dS 17.gxh6±

al) 13 • . • dxe4 14.g5

14 . • . hxg5 Black must open the h-file, in

order to be able to capture the bishop on h3 at some moment.

It is worse for him to opt for 14 . . . lt:Jd5, in view of 15.g6+- and the e6-square is about to crumble, Stiefel - Fucik, Karlsruhe 2003.

In case of the immediate cap­ture 14 . . . exf3 15.gxf6 (but not 15. g6? .idS+ C.Pedersen - Lonborg, Copenhagen 2005) 15 . . . lt:lxf6, White can try to exploit the cir­cumstance that the h-file is closed at the moment with 16.E1hf1 ! ? and after 16 . . . Wia5 17.b3 E1d8 18.Wih2

336

i.d6 19.Wig1 WieS 20.lt:lb2 !±, fol­lowed by lt:Jc4, he obtains an over­whelming advantage.

15.hxg5 exfJ This is forced, since it would

be very bad for Black to continue with lS . . . lt:JdS 16.g6± May - Jor­gensen, Denmark 1996.

The position is already ripe for tactical strikes :

16.lt:Jxe6! This move was found by GM

Sergey Erenburg. 16 • . . fx:e6 17 • .if5! exf5 This is the most resilient de­

fence for Black. After 17 . . . E1xh1, White check­

mates 18 . .ig6+ @e7 19.Wffd6# It would be interesting for

Black to opt for the trickier re­source 17 . . . E1h6 !? , but White can counter it with a powerful argu­ment - 18.E1xh6! (The position is not so clear after 18.gxh6 exfS 19.h7 lt:Jxh7 20.E1xh7 .ic6�) 18 . . . exfS 19.E1h8 - see 17 . . . exf5.

18.�lxh8 lt:Je4 This is relatively best for

Black.

8. Wid2 1:iJbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 i.b7 1l.h4 b4 12. l:iJa4 dS 13. i.h3

In the first game, in which that line was tested, Black played 18 . . . l:iJdS 19./:iJcS i.c6 (19 . . . l:iJxe3 20. l:iJxd7+-; 19 . . . /:iJxcS 20.i.xc5+-) 20.i.d4! and White's threats were impossible to parry� Erenburg -Sammalvuo, Budapest 2004 (it is also good for White to opt for 20. :!'l:e1� Henrichs - Sundararajan, Pardubice 2005).

Black would not save the day with 18 . . . l:iJg4 20.1:iJb6. This is the most precise move (He has also tried in practice 19./:iJcS l:iJxcS 20. Wixd8+ :!'l:xd8 21.:!'l:xd8+ i>xd8 22. :!'l:xf8+ i>d7 23.i.xc5± Zhang Peng­xiang - L'ami, Hoogoveen 2004.). 20 . . . /:iJgeS 2l .l:iJxa8 i.xa8 22 .i.c5 l:iJg6 23.i.xf8 and here, Black has a difficult choice to make: 23 . . . l:iJgxf8 24.g6 !+- White is threat­ening numerous exchanges on the d7-square, entering a winning endgame, or 23 . . . /:iJxhS 24.i.xg7 l:iJg6 2S.Wid6 l:iJe7 26.i.f6+- and Black is pinned all over the board and he is helpless against the march of White's g-pawn.

19.tbb4 Wic7 2 0 .l0b6! After this tactical strike with

the knight, Black's defence crum­bles.

It is also good for White to continue with 20.:!'l:xd7!

2 0 • . • lOdeS 21.l0xa8 haS 22.g6!+- This is the last fine point after which Black's position is defenseless.

a2) 13 • • • l0e5

This redeployment cannot be recommended at this moment.

14.g5

14 . • • l0h5 After 14 • . . hxg5 (Black would

not change much with the immedi­ate move 14 . . . l0fd7, because White will continue in the same fashion. In case of 14 . . . . l:iJc4, it is very good for him to follow with 15.Wie2± Nedev - Collas, Bulgaria 1996.) 15.hxg5 l:iJfd7 16.f4 l:iJc4 17.Wie2 WiaS 18.b3 l:iJcS 19.g6 ! White has obtained a considerable advan­tage by relatively simple means. He is already well-prepared for decisive strikes against his oppo­nent's king fortress with f4-f5, or g5-g6, while Black has wasted too much time on knight-maneuvers and his attacking counter actions are already too late.

15.exd5! .ixd5 15 . . . Wixd5 16.1:iJb6 Wixa2 17.

l:iJb3+-16.lOb6 This knight is again White's

main attacking force ! 16 . . • Wixb6

337

Chapter 14

In case of 16 . . . ltlc4 17.ltlxc4 hc4, he follows with the already familiar strike: 18.g6 !± and after 16 .. J1b8 17.ltlxd5, Black's position is hopeless.

17.ltlxe6 'frxe6 18 . .ixe6 fxe6

He has obtained sufficient ma­terial equivalent for his queen, but lags in development and his piec­es are disharmoniously placed.

19.'fre2! This is a powerful all-purpose

move, emphasizing the hanging position of Black's pieces. He has no satisfactory defence.

19 . . . ltlc6 It would not work for him to opt

for the seemingly clever resource 19 . . . tt'lg3 (19 . . . hf3 20 .'\Wh2+-) 20.�h2 i.d6, in view of the obvi­ous reply 21 .f4! ltld3 22 .l'l:d3 ltlhl 23.l'l:d5 ed 24.�hl hg 25.�d5+-

2 0 .B:d5! exd5 21.i.b6! ltle7 22.B:el+-

lt has become evident that Black has sufficient counterplay neither after 13 . . . dxe4, nor follow­ing 13 . . . tt'le5.

338

a3) 13 • . • g5

He is trying to thwart White's plans. This is obviously Black's most reasonable decision, because we have already seen that allowing g4-g5 would be too risky for him.

14.hxg5 This is obviously the most pre­

cise move for White. He exchang­es on gS immediately (while Black has no intermediate moves), in order to be able to recapture the pawn with his bishop. For ex­ample, in case of 14.i.g2 l'l:g8 ! ? lS.hxgS hxgS, Black must already consider some tactical possibili­ties connected with 16.i.g5.

14 . . . hxg5

B. Wid2 tDbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0-0 il.b7 11.h4 b4 12. tDa4 dS 13.�h3

15.e5 This is another typical maneu­

ver for this variation, as well as for the entire Sicilian Defence in gen­eral. White is trying, even at the price of a pawn, to prevent Black's plans to activate his pieces and particularly the bishop on b7 and the knight on f6. White wishes to open the central file on which Black's king is presently placed.

15 . . . tiJxe5 In case of 15 . . . Wia5, besides

the usual move 16.b3, it deserves attention for White to play 16. exf6 ! ? Wffxa4 17.<i!?bl and Black's defence would be very difficult.

16.i.xg5 i.e7, Pasierb -Chupin, corr. 2004.

After 16 . . J=!g8? ! , White can centralize his other rook as well 17J'!hel± Hertel - Tiemann, corr. 2001.

In answer to 16 . . . tiJc4, Topalov - Van Wely Monaco 2000, it is very strong for him to continue with 17.Wfff4 ! i.e7 18.l'!del, trans­posing to the main line.

17,gdel tilc4 In case of 17 . . . tiJfd7 18.i.xe7

Wixe7 19.g5;!;, White obtains a good attacking position in which all his pieces, including the knight on a4, are poised at Black's monarch.

18.YU4 gcs After 18 . . . Wid6, White can en­

ter an endgame: 19.Wffxd6 tiJxd6 20.tiJc5 l'!c8 and here his strong­est move is the simple 21.tiJdb3 (it is not so clear after 21.tiJcxe6 !? fxe6 22 .l'!xe6 @f7).

19.tilxe6! f:xe6 2 0 .gxe6! (This is even stronger than 20.i.f6.) 2 0 . . . 0 - 0 . That is Black's only chance of saving the game - to run away immediately with his king under fire. 21.Wif5 gf7. It is easily understandable - this is his only move. 22.i.h6! tileS. White can finish off his at­tack in a beautiful fashion after this move, but Black had no satis­factory defence anyway. 23,gg6+ tilg7 24. Wffxf7 +! @xf7 25,gxg7 + \!?e8 26,gg8+ @f7 27,gxd8 gxd8 28.b3+-. White's two ex­tra pawns are a powerful argu­ment. He has a winning position.

b) 12 . . . Wia5

339

Chapter 14

This is the main line for Black. He is beginning immediate active actions on the queenside with the idea to compromise the pawn­shelter of his opponent's king. The obvious defect of his set-up is that he delays the development of his kingside and his castling. It is far from easy for White to exploit this, however. The game becomes a race about who is going to attack faster the enemy king.

13.b3 This is the only reasonable way

for White to protect his knight.

Now, Black has many different moves. His main line is 13 . . . lt:Jc5 and it will be analyzed in Chapter 15, while now we will deal with bl) 13 . • . g6, b2) 13 • • • .ie7, b3) 13 . • • e5, b4) 13 • . • gcs and b5) 13 . • • d5.

bl) 13 . . • g6 Black prevents radically one of

his opponent's main ideas - the march of the g-pawn up to the sixth rank, undermining his de­fensive set-up in the centre.

340

14.a3! Now, Black must consider

problems arising on the other side of the board - his far-advanced b­pawn has come under attack.

14 • . • e5 It seems rather dubious for

him to choose 14 . . . 1Mlc7, Baramidze - Jens, Deizisau 2003, 15.axb4 dS and after the standard reply 16.e5 lt:JxeS, White can continue with 17.E:e1 ! i.d6 18.lt:Jc5± obtaining a powerful central formation, while Black's king is deprived of a safe shelter.

Or 14 . . . d5 15.i.h3 dxe4 16.g5 hxgS (In case of the standard piece-sacrifice 16 . . . exf3, White can follow with the no less stand­ard reply: 17.gxf6 lt:Jxf6 18.he6 ! fxe6 19.lt:Jxe6� and his attack is running effortlessly.) 17.hxg5 lt:JdS 18.lt:Jxe6 fxe6 19.fxe4� - He regains his piece, creating danger­ous threats against his opponent's king stranded in the centre.

15.axb4 1M!c7 16.lt:Je2

16 • • • d5 This is forced; otherwise, after

8. Wfd2 liJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 i.b7 11.h4 b4 12. liJa4 Wia5 13.b3

liJe2(a4)-c3, Black will have no compensation for the pawn.

17 .J.h3 dxe4 In case of 17 .. Jk8 18.g5 i.xb4

19.c3 liJh5 20 . .id7! 'it>d7 21.'tt>b2 .id6 22 .liJb6+- White obtains a decisive material advantage, Jens - Janssen, Deizisau 2003.

It seems too risky for Black to play 17 . . . d4 18.liJxd4 exd4 19 .i.xd4± and besides three pawns for the piece, White has excellent attacking prospects.

18.g5 exf3 19.gxf6 llJxf6 2 0 . .ib6! ti'e7 21.llJf4+-

The idea g7-g6 seemed logical, but White succeeded in break­ing Black's defence by combining threats on the queenside and in the centre.

b2) 13 • • . J.e7

This move is a bit inconsistent; nevertheless it is played quite of­ten. Black completes the develop­ment of his kingside, covering his king along the e-file in the proc­ess.

White has tried different

moves in this position and I be­lieve that the best for him is the standard maneuver

14.i.h3! He is acting in the most reso­

lute fashion - threatening already g4-g5, followed by g5-g6, or .ih3-e6, which seems very powerful with a black bishop on the e7-square.

14 • . . g5 This is forced, because Black

should think most of all about the safety of his own monarch.

Or 14 . . . liJc5 15.g5 liJxa4 16.bxa4 liJd7 (He would not achieve much with 16 . . . Wffxa4 17.gxf6 Wffxa2 18. Wffb4+-; 17 .. . .ixf6 18.'tt>bl±) 17.g6 liJfB (This move is ugly, but it is a necessity, since if Black pro­tects his pawn in another fash­ion - 17 . . . liJc5, then it would be very powerful for White to con­tinue with 18.liJb3 Wffxa4 19.gxf7+ 'it>xf7 20.i.xc5 dxc5 21.Wif4+ .if6 22 .i.xe6+ 'tt>f8 23.e5 1-0 Kunte - Sundararajan, Mumbai 2000.) . 18.gxf7+ 'it>xf7 19J!hg1 Wffxa4 20. 't!?b1 l:'lc8 21.liJxe6 ! liJxe6 22 .i.xe6 't!?xe6 23.Elxg7+- and it is easy to see that Black is beyond salva­tion.

14 . . . liJe5 15.g5 liJfd7 16.a3 d5 17.'tt>bl. Now, White can make all his useful preparatory moves be­fore the start of his final offensive. 17 . . . l:'ld8 (Black's attempt to close the kingside with 17 . . . h5 fails in view of the simple response 18.f4, for example: 18 . . . liJg6 19.f5+-, or 18 . . . liJg4 19.exd5 i.xd5 20.l:'lhel±)

341

Chapter 14

18.f4 tt:lc4 19.bxc4 \Wxa4 (19 . . . dxc4 20.g6 ! i.xe4 21.gxf7+ @xt7 22 .i.xe6+ @e8 23.\We2 ! \Wxa4 24. \Wxc4± White's attack is probably impossible to parry, at least by human players . . . ) 20 .g6 - Black needed only a tempo in order to neutralize his opponent's threats and now he would be in a great trouble. The pawn-shelter of his king will be destroyed in the near­est future.

15.a3! This i s another typical maneu­

ver for this variation. Black has created a temporary defensive block on the kingside, so White exploits the defenselessness of the queen on aS and he makes an attempt to win Black's b4-pawn.

15 • . • d5 He should protect it, though . . . 16.hxg5 hxg5 17 .e5 lbxe5

18.h.:g5 lbc4 In case of 18 . . . !%g8 (After 18 . . .

tt:led7, White can continue in an analogous fashion: 19.i.xf6 i.xf6 and here his strongest move is 20.g5 ! and Black will be forced

342

to play 20 . . . i.xd4 (In case of 20 . . . ii.e7, White would settle the issue with 21.i.xe6 and Black's rook on h8 remains defenseless.) 21 .\Wxd4 !!g8 21.axb4+-) 19.i.xf6 i.xf6 20.axb4 \Wc7 21.f4 tt:lg6 22 .tt:lxe6 fxe6 23.g5 ii.e7 24.i.xe6, his de­fence would be very difficult, Paramonov - Champion, RCCA 2004.

19.axb4 hb4 19 . . . \Wxa4 20.bxa4 tt:lxd2 21 .

i.xd2± Inarkiev - Janssen, Mos­cow 2002.

2 0 .\We2

2 0 • • • lbh7, De Groot - Chy­tilek, Argentina 2001. This is a difficult choice and naturally Black would be reluctant to place his knight on such an ugly square, but that is the only chance for him of avoiding the immediate catas­trophe. 21 • .ig2 @d7. His king is protecting personally the e6-pawn unpinning the knight on h7 in the process. (The counter attacking attempt 21 . . .tt:lb6 22 .tt:lxe6 @d7 would fail, because of 23.tt:lec5+ ! i.xcS 24.tt:lxc5+ §xeS 25.ii.e3

8. Wid2 tiJ bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 i.b7 11.h4 b4 12. tiJa4 Wia5 13.b3

Wffd6 26.Wffd3--+) 22.J.f4 c!Ob6 23. c!Oxb6+ Wixb6 24.WJe3 gac8 25.mbl± White is clearly better due to the situation, concern­ing the comparative safety of the kings.

b3) 13 . • . e5 Black will be trying to advance

d6-d5 without being afraid of e4-e5.

14.c!Of5 The price he will have to pay

for that is - White's knight has come closer to his king.

14 • • . d5 This is the idea behind Black's

previous move. After 14 . . . i.c6 15.tiJxd6+ i.xd6

16.Wixd6 i.xa4 17.bxa4 Wixa4 18. i.d3± White has a stable advan­tage, thanks to his powerful bish­op-pair and Black's vulnerable king.

15.exd5 It also deserves a great at­

tention for White to consider 15.i.h3 ! ?

15 • • • \!bd5

15 . . . g6 16.tiJxh6 (This is a natu­ral and powerful move.) 16 . . . Wixd5 17.tiJxf7! Wixf7 (Or 17 . . . i>xf7?? 18.i.c4; after 17 . . . Wffxd2+ 18J''!:xd2 mxf7 19.g5 i.xf3 20.i.c4+ i>g7 2l.gxf6+ tiJxf6 22J'!:fl e4 22 .i.d4, White has an obvious edge.) 18.i.c4. As a result of all, he has two pawns for the sacrificed piece, an excellent development and good attacking prospects against his opponent's king stranded in the centre. 18 . . . Wffe7 (In case of 18 . . . Wffg7, with the idea to prevent tiJc5, it would be very good for White to play 19.g5 tiJh5 20.i.d5 !--+) 19.g5 tiJh5 20.tiJc5! tiJxc5 (He will coun­ter 20 . . . i.c6 in the same fashion - 2l.i.d5 ! ; Black loses after 20 . . . i.xf3? ! 2l .c!Oxd7 �d8 22 .�hfl e4 23.Wffd5 ! +-) 2l.i.xc5 Wffc7 22 .i.b6 Wie7 23.�he1--+ and he will hardly manage to cope with his oppo­nent's numerous threats.

16.WJel! WJc6 This is evidently the most sen­

sible reaction for Black, since his queen remains in the centre of the oncoming active actions.

343

Chapter 14

After 16 . . . Wlxf3 17.Eig1 Wlc6 18. i.c4-t White is perfectly prepared for an attack on the kingside and in the centre, while in answer to 16 . . . Wla5, it would be very strong for him to choose 17.Eih3 ! - a multi-purpose move, combining defensive (the f3-pawn) and of­fensive (the preparation of g4-g5) functions. 17 . . . Eic8 18.g5t and White has excellent attacking prospects.

17 . .ic4 g6 Black will hardly complete his

development without this move.

18.c!LJxh6! We are already fa­miliar with this idea, but in anoth­er version. 18 • . • .ixh6 19 • .ixh6 gm6 2 0 .g5 �h5 21.gxf6 Wlxf6 22. Wlxb4 .ixf3 23.�hfl;!;. White creates a rather unpleasant pin for the opponent. His position is preferable, because of the safer king. It turns out now that it is very risky for Black to play e6-e5, allowing his opponent's knight to occupy the fS-square, since that knight creates too many prob­lems, impedes his development

344

and is threatening to penetrate to the d6-square just in case.

b4) 13 • • • �c8 This is a logical developing

move. Black's rook occupies the same file as White's king and that may be dangerous.

14 . .ih3

We will analyze thoroughly now: b4a) 14 •• .c!iJc5 and b4b) 14 . • .tiJe5.

White continues with his standard attack after 14 . . . i.e7 15.g5-t

In case of 14 . . . g5 15.hxg5 hxgS 16.i.xg5 i.g7 17.'it>bl± Black's com­pensation for the sacrificed pawn is insufficient, Caruana - Vachier Lagrave, Cap d'Agde 2008.

14 . . . e5 15.tt:Jf5 tt:Jxe4 16.fxe4 i.xe4 17.Eih2 ! (It is also possible for White to play 17.c4.) 17 . . . d5 (17 . . . Eic6 18.Wie1 tt:Jf6 19.\t>bl±) 18. Wie1 and he should manage grad­ually to consolidate his position preserving the extra piece.

B. Wfd2 li:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 i.b7 ll.h4 b4 12. li:Ja4 Vfla5 13.b3

b4a) 14 . . . �c5 15.g5 �xa4 In case of the immediate re­

sponse 15 . . . li:Jfd7, White should re­act in the same fashion - 16.g6±

15 . . . hxg5 - Black brings his rook on h8 into the actions (After the immediate move 15 . . . li:Jfxe4, he will have to take on g5 later an­yway: 16.fxe4 liJxe4 17.W/e1 hxg5 ! 18.hxg5 - see 15 . . . hxg5; 17 . . . liJc3 18.g6±) 16.hxg5 li:Jfxe4. This sac­rifice is forced (16 . . . liJxa4 17.bxa4 li:Jd7 18.g6 Ei:xh3 19.l'l:xh3 - see 15 . . . liJxa4) 17.fxe4 liJxe4 18.W/e1 liJc3. This was the idea behind the sacrifice of the knight on e4 (after 18 . . . liJxg5 19.i.g2 ! l'l:xh1 20.W/xhl± Black has no compensation for the material deficit). 19.g6 ! (It also deserves attention for White to play 19.li:Jxc3 bxc3 20.Wb1!? .) 19 . . . hh1 20.gxf7+ We7 21.i.f4! i.e4, this is the only move for Black; otherwise, he would be checkmat­ed 22 .he6 Ei:hl (In case of 22 . . . l'l:c5, White should play 23.W/e3 !) The move 23.hc8! is not only the most aesthetic and the best, but it is the only winning line for White : 23 . . . l'l:xe1 24.l'l:xe1 wxt7 25.liJxc3 bxc3 26.l'l:xe4 Vflxa2 27.Wd1 ! and after the series of forced moves, there has arisen a position with a non-standard material ratio, which White should manage to win after an accurate play.

16.bxa4 hxg5 It deserves attention for Black

to choose 16 . . . liJxe4! ? 17.fxe4 he4, but after 18.i.g2 ! White's prospects are superior anyway:

18 . . . hg2 19. W/xg2 Vfla4 20.Vflb7! The move 16 ... liJd7 would not

prevent White's main threat: 17.g6 liJc5 (Black would not change much with 17 .. .£5 18.li:Jxe6 W/xa4 19.Wb1 liJe5 20 . .ic5 !±) 18.gxf7+ Wxt7 19.liJb3 liJxb3+ (19 . . . W/a4 20.hc5+-) 20.axb3± Cadman -Forstik, Email 2001.

The clever move 16 . . . li:Jd5 !? would not help either, in view of 17.g6 ! (The position is not so clear after 17.exd5 hd5 18.a3 l'l:c3 19.axb4 W/xb4.) 17 . . . liJc7 (Black is trying to cover the e6-square in this original fashion, since it is at the focus of his problems in this variation.) 18.gxf7+ wxt7 19.l'l:hg1 l'l:e8 (over-defending) 20 .W/g2 ! (This precise maneuver empha­sizes White's edge.) 20 . . . Wg8 21 .Vflg6±

17.hxg5 �d7 About 17 . . . l'l:xh3 18.l'l:xh3 liJd7

19.g6 - see 17 . . . liJd7. Black is trying to reduce

White's attacking momentum, but his offensive is even stronger with a material advantage up his sleeve.

It is illogical for Black to play 17 . . . li:Jh5, because his knight is misplaced on that square. 18.g6 f5 19.liJxe6 W/xa4 20.i.d4 W/xa2 21..ixf5 b3 22 .i.c3 l'l:c6 23.liJxf8 bxc2 24.W/xc2 W/a3+ 25.Wd2 Wxf8 26.l'l:b1 +- Mrazik - Nicklich, Email 2001.

It would not work for him to opt for 17 . . . Vflxa4, because of a long forced variation: 18.gxf6

345

Chapter 14

b3 19.lLlxb3 1M/xa2 and now not 20.1Mfd3 dS, Mehar - Shetty, Pars­vnath 2007, but 20.i.xe6 ! Eixh1 21.i.xc8 Eixd1+ 22.'i!?xd1 i.xc8 23.1Mfc3 ! +- and White's double at­tack against c8 and g7 is decisive.

18.g6 �xh3 19.�xh3 �xa4 2 0 .gxf7+ mxf7 2t.<;!?bt (White parries all possible counter threats of his opponent on the queenside.) 21 . . . l2Je5 22.�h2± Stellwagen - Bosboom, Leeuwar­den 2004.

b4b) 14 ... l2Je5 15.g5

15 . . . l2Jfd7 The other possible retreats of

this knight are : 15 . . . l2Jh5, but it is misplaced

here. 16.'i!?b1 hxgS 17.hxg5 g6 18. l2Jxe6 (This tactical strike is so of­ten encountered in this line of the English attack that it has already become a typical resource. There­fore, this maneuver is at least as natural as White's move 'i!?c1-bl.) 18 . . . fxe6 19.i.xe6 Eib8 20.1Mfd4±

15 . . . hxg5 - Black must con­sider all the time in whose favour

346

the opening of the h-file would be. In this case it is advantageous for White. 16.hxg5 l2Jxf3 ! ? This is another version of the knight­sacrifice on e4 (In the variation 16 . . . l2Jfd7? you can see clearly the difference in comparison to the previous line - 17.i.xe6!+-) 17.l2Jxf3 l2Jxe4 18.1Mfg2 l2Jc3 (Black has no time for prophylactic, be­cause after 18 . . . g6, White plays 19.Eid3, consolidating his posi­tion.) 19.�b6 (This is an impor­tant intermediate move.) 19 . . . 1Mfb5 20.Eide1 (Now, White is perfectly prepared for a strike against the e6-square.) 20 . . . l2Jxa4 (20 . . . �

21.1Mfxf3 1M/xg5+ 22 .�e3±) 21.i.xe6 ! Eixh1 (Or 21 . . .fxe6 22 .1M/g4!± and the checkmate is imminent.). Lat­er, everything is forced: 22 .i.xf7+ 'i!?xf7 23.g6+ l!tg8 24.1M/xh1 Eixc2+ 25.'i!?xc2 WfS+ 26.'i!?d2 Wxg6 27. bxa4± and after the tactical storm, White has remained with an extra rook. His king is completely bare however, so Black may still rely on some miraculous chances. White should win easily though, after he manages to consolidate gradually his position.

After 15 .. . lLlxf3, he has some additional possibilities. 16.l2Jxf3 l2Jxe4, Fodor - Varga, Budapest 2001, 17.1Mfg2 hxgS 18.lLlxg5! ? (In case of the immediate hxgS, White would not have this resource. ) 18 . . . 1Mfe5 19.�d4 1M/f4+ 20.'i!?b2±

t6.mht hxgs 16 . . . g6? ! Sandi pan - I.Novikov,

Calvia 2004, 17.gxh6 (This move

8. �d2 t:2J bd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 il..b7 11.h4 b4 12.tiJ a4 �a5 13.b3

is played not so much for the sake of winning a pawn, but much rather to open the g-file.) 17 . . . t:2Jc4? ! 18.bxc4 �xa4 19.t:2Jxe6 ! f:xe6 20 . .ixe6+-

16 . . . t:2Jxf3 17.t:2Jxf3 .ixe4 18.t:2Jd4 .ixh1 19.E:xh1 hxgS 20.hxg5 - see 16 . . . hxg5 (White has again an interesting alternative here -20 . .ixg5! ?) .

16 . . . h5 17.a3 t:2Jc4 (17 . . . d5 18.E:he1±) 18.bxc4 �xa4 19.g6± Kowalsky - Fredis, playchess. com 2006.

The move 16 . . . W..e7 is a loss of time just like in the majority of the cases. 17.�g2;!; Ritter - Stabi­loboss, playchess.com 2006.

Or 16 . . . t:2Jc4 17.bxc4 �xa4 18. g6± V.Sergeev - A.Pavlov, St Pe­tersburg 2000.

17.hxg5

17 . . . �xf3 This is a standard sacrifice. The alternative for Black is 17 . . .

t:2Jc5. Still, if he exchanges White's knight on a4, that is more or less an admission of a strategy gone wrong. 18.t:2Jxc5 E:xcS (The move

18 . . . dxc5 does not combine well with the development of the rook to c8 and it can also be refuted by force with: 19.t:2Jxe6! fxe6 20 . .if4±) 19.f4 t:2Jd7 20.�g2 (White plays simply and effectively.) 20 . . . E:xh1 21.E:xhl±. His position is nearly winning, because Black has no counterplay on the queenside and seems helpless against White's threats.

18.�xf3 i.xe4 19.�d4 hhl 2 0 .gxhl g6

After 20 . . . t:2Je5 21 .�g2± Black must worry about the threat g6, followed by a strike against the e6-square.

It is hardly any better for him to opt for 20 . . . �d5 21.�eU and White is threatening g6, or .ig2 ! ?

21.�g2 (This i s his most en­ergetic continuation.) 21 . . . �c7 (21. . . .ig7 22Jl:fU) 22.gflt - The material is equal indeed, but Black has problems with the coor­dination of his forces, Morozov -Ruemmele, Email 2002.

b5) 13 . . . d5 This is evidently his best move

among the ones we analyze in this chapter.

14 . .ih3 Despite Black's strike in the

centre, White continues with his plan, preparing the thematic pawn-advance g4-g5.

(diagram) Now, Black must choose be­

tween: b5a) 14 . . . �c5, b5b) 14 . . . dxe4, or b5c) 14 . . . g5 .

347

Chapter 14

His alternatives are: 14 . . . e5 15.g5 exd4 16 . .bd4

hxgS (Or 16 . . . tt:lh5 17.i.g4 tt:lg3 18J3he1 and his position is lost -in addition to his vulnerable king, his knight has gone to the awk­ward g3-square.) 17.hxg5 Eixh3 (The move 17 . . . tt:lh5, looks again rather dubious: 18.exd5 i.d6 19.i.g4 Wffc7 20 .i.xh5 i.f4 21.Eide1 'it>f8 22 .i.e3+- crafty - JudgeT­urpin, ICC 1998.) 18.Eixh3 tt:lg8, Burgerhoff - Beeke, Vlissingen 2003, 19J3h8±

White can refute 14 . . . g6 with the forced line: 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 tt:lhS 17.tt:lxe6 fxe6 18 . .be6 i.c6 19 . .bd7+ .bd7 20.i.b6 WffbS 21 . Wffd4 Eih7 (otherwise, the check from the eS-square would be very unpleasant) 22 .i.c5 !+- and after this very important move, White's position is winning.

14 . . . tt:le5 We have already seen - this regrouping of the knights is seldom advisable for Black. 15.g5 hxgS 16.hxg5 tt:lfd7 17.'it>b1 ! (This move is always useful.) 17 . . . dxe4 18.f4 tt:lc4 19.bxc4 Wffxa4 20.tt:lxe6+-

348

b5a) 14 . . . �c5 15.g5 That is White's most natural

move. 15 . . . �xa4 The alternatives for Black

are : 1S . . . hxg5 16.hxg5 tt:lfd7 17.g6 !

(This motif is already well-fa­miliar.) 17 . . . Eixh3 18.gxf7+ 'it>xf7 19.Eixh3 tt:lxa4 20.bxa4 tt:leS and here, White has the powerful ar­gument - 21.\Wh2 ! +-

After 15 . . . tt:lh5 16.g6 eS 17.exd5 exd4 18 . .bd4--+ his attack is de­cisive, Stanley - Parwicz, Email 2001.

Following 15 . . . tt:lfd7 16.g6 fS, Black is trying to thwart his oppo­nent's plans (After 16 . . . e5, the situ­ation is analogous to the variation with tt:lhS: 17.gxf7+ 'it>xf7 18.exd5 exd4 19 . .bd4--+ Nedev - Palac, Yerevan 1996.) 17.exf5 eS. He is trying desperately to prevent the opening of the central files, but after 18.tt:le6 tt:lxe6 19.fxe6, White has both a positional and material advantage, Potkin - Guliev, Li­nares 2002.

16.bxa4

B.Wffd2 ti:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 i.b7 ll.h4 b4 12. 'Da4 Wia5 13.b3

16 • • . hxg5 16 . . . Wffxa4 17.@b1! (In case of

17.gxf6 Wffxa2, Black has a good compensation for the piece, since White has problems parrying the threats against his king.) 17 . . . 'Dd7 18.g6 'DeS. Black combines attack and defence (After 18 . . . eS, White wins with 19.gxf7+ @xf7 20.i.e6+ @e8 21.'DfS+-; 20 . . . @e7 21.exdS ! exd4 22 .i.xd4.) 19.'Db3 'Dxb3 (19 . . . ti:Jd7 20.gxf7+ @xf7 21.Wffg2±) 20.gxf7+ @xf7 21.axb3± and de­spite his extra pawn, Black has great difficulties, because of his vulnerable king.

17 .hxgs r:lxh3 It is equally bad for him to

opt for 17 . . . dxe4 18.'Dxe6, as well as 17 . . . ti:Jd7 18.g6, while in case of 17 . . . \Wxa4 18.@b1 ti:Jd7 19.g6, Black would be already forced to sacrifice the exchange on h3 - see 17 . . . :Bxh3.

18.l:!xh3 c!lJd7 19.g6 Wxa4 2 0 .gxf7 @xf7 21. @b1 dxe4

This is evidently his best practical chance, because every­thing else is even worse for him, for example : 21 . . .eS 22.'Db3 :Bc8 23.:BhS !+-Tiviakov- Rashkovsky, Linares 1999, or 21 . . .:Bc8 22 .Wig2 ! (White prepares the penetration of his queen to the g6-square with his last powerful move.) 22 . . . :Bc3 23.:Bg1 @e7 24.Wffg6 'DeS 2S.i.gS+ @d6 26 . .if4+ @e7 27.i.gS+ @d6 28 . .if4+ @e7 29.Wffxg7+ i.xg7 30. :Bxg7+ @d8 31.:Bh8+ 1-0 Butunoi - Dumitrescu, Romania 2000.

22 • .ig5!

This is a very purposeful move, since White prevents his opponent from occupying the f6-square with his knight, cementing the position in the process.

22 • • . .id5 About 22 . . . e3 23.Wffxe3 i.dS

24.'Db3 - see 22 . . . i.dS. 23.c!lJb3 e3! This is the only chance for

Black of continuing the fight. He would have lost immediately after 23 . . . ti:Jf6? 24.hf6 ! , as well as fol­lowing 23 . . . ti:Jb6? 24.Wfff4+-

24. Wxe3±. The situation has stabilized. The pawn-shelter of both kings has been compro­mised, but White has a minimal material advantage - an exchange for a pawn and this provides him with an edge.

b5b) 14 • • • dxe4

This is a very risky decision for Black. He hopes to capture later the pawn on f3 too and then to sacrifice a piece for the sake of the defence of his king, but White would not mind all that.

349

Chapter 14

15.g5 His game is simple - going

only forward! 15 . . . hxg5 15 . . . lLld5 16.g6± 16.hxg5 exfJ We have already mentioned

this motif. The alternatives would be worse for Black: 16 . . . lLld5 17.g6± Ustianovich - Oleksienko, Lvov 2003, or 16 . . J'�xh3 17Jixh3 lLldS, Khassanov - Gentes, Brantford 1999, 18.lLlxe6 ! fxe6 19.fxe4+-

17.loxe6 White is trying to come ahead

in the race. In case of 17.gxf6? lLlxf6, Black

achieves what he wants. The de­velopments are now forced.

17 . • . fxe6 18 . .ixe6 gxbl 19 •

.ixd7+ 'i!?f7 This is the only move for

Black, because after 19 . . . 'i!?d8, White wins simply with 20.i.b6 \Wxb6 2l .lLlxb6 l2Je4 22 .\Wf4! gxd1 23.'i!?xd1 i.d6 24.\Wf7! and Black is helpless.

2 0 .gxbl c!L!e4 After 20 .. .f2 , White has a pow­

erful argument - 2l.gd1 lLle4 and here, he only needs to find the move 22 .i.e6! . There may follow: 22 . . . 'i!?g6 23.1l<hb7 \We5! (Black de­fends enterprisingly. He is threat­ening \Wa1, followed by captur­ing on dl.) 24.i.f2 (It is essential for White to capture his oppo­nent's dangerous pawn.) 24 . . . gbs 2S.i.f7! lLlxf7 26.\Wxa6 'i!?h7 27.'i!?b1 - the tactical storm has subsided and he should manage to realize

350

his extra pawn. There has arisen a very com­

plicated and non-standard posi­tion, which is much easier to play for White, since his king is reli­ably protected.

21.g6+ ! That is an important fine point

and now Black is faced with a rather difficult choice.

21. . . 'i!?xg6 This is relatively his best, be­

cause after 21 . . .'it>e7 22 .'1Wh2 ! 'it>d7 23.\Wf4, he would have great prob­lems to worry about, Schmidt -Neumann, corr. 2004.

22.�h2 It is maybe possible that some

of the most powerful computer programs may defend Black's po­sition, but in a practical competi­tive game, a human player will hardly succeed in doing that.

22 . . • 'i!?f7 23. �f4+ c!L!f6 This is again the only move for

him, because he would lose out­right after 23 . . . 'it>e7 24.i.f5+-

24.c!L!b6 .ie4 (24 . . . \Wxa2 25.'\Wc4+-) 25 . .id4 '\Wxa2 26. gb2 gds 27.�c7!± Lutz - Sam­malvuo, Calvia 2004.

b5c) 14 • . • g5 We are already familiar with

variation a3, except with the in­clusion of the moves 12 . . . \WaS 13 .b3 and this would be in favour of Black, but that is only a small consolation for him, since White preserves the advantage anyway.

8.'Wid2 ti:Jbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 -0 -0 :il.b7 1l.h4 b4 12. ti:Ja4 'Wia5 13.b3

15.hxg5 It deserves a great attention

for him to consider the para­doxical move 15.:il.f1 ! ? and that would be good food for analytical thought . . .

15 . . . hxg5 16.e5 ltlxe5 17. hg5 lilfd7

In case of 17 . . . :il.e7, it is good for White to follow with the standard reaction 18.:il.xf6! (Black relied on the variation 18.a3? ! ti:Jxf3 19.ti:Jxf3 ti:Je4.) 18 . . . :il.xf6 19.g5 :il.g7, Korne­ev - Van Wely, Villarrobledo 1998 (19 . . . :il.e7 20 . .b:e6+-) and here White would have settled the issue with 20 . .b:e6+- (instead of what happened in the game 20.f4? !) .

18 . .ig2!? This is a new idea in the theory

of this variation, since White used to play before only 18.'Wffe2, for example in the game Zawadzka -Akesson, Warsaw 2006, after 18 . . . :il.c6, Black succeeded in obtaining a good position following 19.f4 .b:a4 20.bxa4 'Wffxa4.

18 . . . llxhl The other possibility for him

is 18 . . J'l:g8 (In case of 18 . . . ti:Jc4 19.'Wfff4--+ White has a dangerous attack.) 19.f4 ti:Jc6 20.ti:Jxe6 ! fxe6 21 .'Wffe3 ti:Je7 (Black had better give back the piece with the move 21 . . . ti:JceS ! ? impeding White's attack.) 22 . .b:e7 i>xe7 23.f5 e5 24.g5 and despite Black's extra piece, his position remains very difficult, in view of White's numerous threats.

19.gxhl lilc5 Black is trying to create coun­

ter threats as quickly as possible, because he may pay a dear price for acting too slow:

19 . . . ti:Jc6 20.ti:Jxc6 .b:c6 21.'Wfff4 :il.e7 (21. . .e5 22 .'Wfff5 .b:a4 23. �h7+-) 22 .�h8+ ti:Jf8 23.:il.h6±;

19 . . . ti:Jc4 20.'Wffe2± his knight on c4 is unstable and it impedes Black's main idea ti:Jd7-c5.

19 . . . �c8 20.i>b1 ti:Jc6 21.:il.e3;t 2 0 .ti'e3 White's queen is very actively

placed right in front of Black's king and White can follow at any moment with the standard knight­sacrifice on e6.

2 0 • • .t2�c4

351

Chapter 14

Black is playing following the principle "Forward march! ". In case of the retreat of his queen 20 . . .'�c7, White can follow with 21.tZlxc5 hcS 22 J!h8+ 'it>d7 23. l=!h?t

The move 20 . . . i.d6 can be re­futed with the line: 21.l'!h8+ 'it>d7 22.l=!h7 tZlxa4 (22 . . . 'it>c8 23.f4) 23.f4 ! ! +-

21.ti'el

21 . • .lL!xa4 There would arise interesting

variations after 21 . . .i.g7 (It would be a disaster for Black to try 21 . . . tZla3 22 .l'!h8+-, while after 21 . . . l'!c8, White has the powerful ar­gument - 22 .l'!h7±) 22 .tZlf5 i.f8 23.bxc4 ! ti'xa4 (He will coun­ter capturing with the knight in the same fashion - 23 . . . tZlxa4 24.�e5±) 24.�e5 ! tZld3+ 25.cxd3 �a3+ 26.Wbl b3 27.axb3 �xb3+ 28.�b2 �xb2+ 29.Wxb2 exfS 30.gxf5± and in the arising end­game White maintains the advan­tage not only because of the extra pawn (despite its being doubled), but also his more active pieces.

22.tZlxe6. There may fol­low: 22 . • .tL!c3 23.lZlxf8+ Wxf8 24.ti'e7+ Wg8 25.bxc4 tLJxa2+ 26.�dl tLlc3+ 27.�el+-

Conclusion Black's attempts to avoid the main lines may become a fatal deci­

sionfor Black, since White oftenfinishes off his attack victoriously in many variations. His game is not so simple, despite the fact that it looks like this at first sight. He must be well-acquainted with all the typical ideas and maneuvers in this system: i.jl-h3, e4-e5 in reply to d6-d5, the undermining resource on the queenside a2-a3, as well as with the Sicilian piece-sacrifices on the e6, j5 and d5-squares. White must take care too about Black's possible knight-sacrifices onj3 and e4, because he may fall into trouble if he ignores them.

In general, we can say that in the variations we have analyzed, the developments are definitely with a clear advantage for White. Black should better look for his chances in the main lines after the move -12 . . . lZ\c5.

352

Chapter 15 l.e4 c5 2.lb:f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.lbxd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.:f3 b5 8.�d2 �bd7 9.g4 h6 10.0-0-0 .ib7 ll.h4 b4 12.�a4 �a5 13.b3 �c5

·

It looks very attractive for Black to exploit the placement of the enemy knight on a4 in order to open files on the queenside.

14.a3! This move seems to weaken

the pawn-shelter of White's king, but Black can hardly make any good use out of that.

His main possibilities are a) 14 • . )ijxa4 and b) 14 . . Jk8.

About 14 .. .'\Wc7 15.axb4 tt:lxa4 16.bxa4 - see 14 . . . tt:lxa4.

In the variation 14 . . . d5 15.axb4 tt:lxb3+ 16.cxb3 hb4 17.�b2± Black cannot obtain a sufficient compensation for the missing knight.

a) 14 . • . tt:lxa4

He sacrifices a pawn and renders the enemy king complete­ly bare.

15.axb4

15 • . • ti'c7 The alternatives for Black are

worse: 15 . . . �b6 - White can exploit

the juxtaposition of his bish­op and Black's queen by play­ing 16.tt:lxe6! ? \Wc6 17.b5 ! ? �c3 18.\Wxc3 tt:lxc3 19.tt:lc7+ Wd7 20. tt:lxa8 haS 21.bxa6 tt:lxdl 22. i.b5+ He obtains three dangerous queenside pawns for the piece and Black's difficulties can be il­lustrated by the following exem­plary variations : 22 . . . i.c6 (It is not preferable for him to choose

353

Chapter 15

22 . . . \t>cS 23J:l:xd1 d5 24.'it>b2 .id6 25 . .id4± and White wins at least a fourth pawn for the piece, while after 24 . . . dxe4 25.fxe4, Black loses in case of 25 . . . he4 26.a7 .if3 27.g5 hxg5 28.hxg5 lt:lg4 29 . .ie2+-, as well as following 25 . . . lt:lxe4 26J:l:d7 .ib4 27 . .ib6+-, or 26 . . . .id6 27.l:l:a7 .ie5+ 28.'it>a3 .idS 29.c4+-) 23.hc6+ lt>xc6 24. l:l:xd1 .ie7 25.c4±. Black has great problems fighting against White's passed pawns, for example: 25 . . . lt:ld7 26.'it>c2 lt:le5 27.'it>c3 lt:lxf3 28.b4 'it>c7 29.b5 hh4 30.b6+ 'it>c6 31.b7 .if6+ 32.'it>b4 lt:le5 33. c5+- and the pawns will pro­mote.

15 . . . \WdS - This move is too passive. 16.bxa4 d5 (After 16 . . . .ie7 17 . .ie2 \Wd7 18.b5± White dominates all over the entire board, Kudela - Knoeppel, Email 2004.) 17.e5 lt:ld7 18.f4 \We7 19.c3 a5 Alvarez Sabor - Ciesielski, Email 2006, he can continue here with 20.bxa5 l:l:xa5 (or 20 . . . \Wa3+ 21.\Wb2 l:l:xa5 22 . .ib5±) 21.\Wb2 \Wc5 22.f5± and he not only re­mains with an extra pawn, but has a great lead in development, which provides him with excel­lent attacking chances.

16.bxa4 (diagram)

In this position, Black plays most often: al) 16 .. .t!:Jd7, a2) 16 . . . e5 and a3) 16 • . • d5.

In answer to 16 . . J'k8, Vallejo Diaz - Soler Polo, Madrid 2006, it is very good for White to con-

354

tinue in a standard fashion 17.b5 l:l:a8 (After 17 . . . d5 18.bxa6 .ia8 19.lt:lb5+- he has a couple of ex­tra pawns and a superior develop­ment.) 18.bxa6 ha6 19.lt:lb5 \Wc6 20.\Wa5+- and Black has no satis­factory defence against the threat 21.lt:lc7+.

al) 16 . . • lt:ld7 Black takes the e5-square un­

der control with this move, he prepares a counter strike in the centre and plans to redeploy his knight to the queenside.

17.a5

17 . . • d5 He should better refrain from

ll.h4 b4 12. C2Ja4 'fffa5 13.b3 CiJc5 14.a3 EUxa4 15.axb4 'fffc7 16.bxa4

17 . . . CiJeS 18.bS dS (It is too risky for Black to opt for 18 . . . axbS 19. .if4 WxaS 20.'fffxaS !lxaS 2l.CiJb3 !1a7 22 . .ixeS dxeS 23 . .ixbS+ �e7 24.!1d7+ �f6 2S.�b1--+ and despite the numerous exchanges, White's attack is crushing, because Black's kingside is not developed, for ex­ample after 2S . . . .ib4 26.gS+ �g6 27.hS+ �xgS 28.!1xf7 E:g8 29. .ic4+- he loses material, while in the variation 28 . . . g6 29.f4+ ! exf4 30.!1g1+ �xhS 31 ..ie2+ he gets checkmated.) 19.b6 We7 (He can­not complete his development, because after the seemingly at­tractive line : 19 . . . .ia3+ 20.�b1 Wffe7 21..if4 CiJg6 22 . .ic7 CiJxh4 23.'fffc3 .ib4 24.'fffb3 .icS 2S.exdS .ixdS 26 . .ic4+- Black fails to co­ordinate his pieces scattered all over the entire board, Yemelin - Kanep, Tallinn 2008.) 20 .�b1 '!Wa3 21..if4t - White has won a pawn ans seized the initiative.

There may follow: 21 . . . .id6 22.CiJb3 0-0 (22 . . .

CiJxf3? 23.'fffe3 - see 17 . . . dS 18 . .if4 lUeS) 23.exdS exdS (After 23 . . . .ixdS 24.'fffe3 CiJxg4 2S . .ixd6 EUxe3 26 . .ixa3 EUxd1 27 . .ixf8 �xf8 28.

lUeS+- Black loses his a6-pawn after which he will hardly man­age to stop White's passed pawn.) 24.gS hS (24 .. . EUxf3 2S.'fffcl±) 2S. 'fffc3 !1ac8 26.'fffb2± He should win easily thanks to his protected passed b6-pawn.

21 . . .CiJxf3 - Black regains his pawn, but he may never complete his development. 22 .CiJxf3 .ib4 (It is worse for him to play 22 . . . 1Wxf3 23.exdS 'fffxdS 24.'fffxdS .ixdS 2S. !lxdS+- and White's b6-pawn promotes, while following 24 . . . exdS 2S . .ic7 �d7 26 . .ig2+- Black loses his dS-pawn.) 23.'fffc1 '!Wxf3 24.exdS !1d8 2S . .ic4 exdS 26 . .id3± His king has no safe shelter and the rook on h8 is out of actions, since it would be a disaster for Black to continue with 26 . . . 0-0 27.!1df1 'fffg2 28 . .ixh6--+ with a de­cisive attack for White.

21 . . .CiJg6 - This is the most natural move for Black. 22 . .ic7 .ib4 23.'fffcl WxaS 24.CiJb3 'fffa4 2S.exdS 0-0 (He loses after 2S . . . .ixdS 26.!\xdS exdS 27.'fffe3+ EUe7 28.b7+-, as well as follow­ing 2S . . . exdS 26.'fffe3+ CiJe7 27. lUeS+-) 26.dxe6 fxe6 27.'fffe3 !1ae8 28 . .ie2± White has an extra pawn and it would be much easier for him to attack the enemy king, while Black has no chances of do­ing the same effectively.

18 . .if4 (diagram)

18 . . . e5 It is bad for him to play 18 . . .

lUeS 19.bS ! .id6 (In the variation

3SS

Chapter 15

19 . . . dxe4 20.fxe4 .he4 21.l3h3 !+­all White's pieces have joined into the attack.) 20.b6 �d7 (Black cannot save the day with 20 . . . �c5 21.'Llb3 ! �a3+ 22 .\!?bl and in the variation 22 . . . 'Llc4 23.hc4 i.xf4 24.i.b5+ ! axb5 25.�xf4 0-0 26.�c7+- he has no compensation for the lost pawn, while in case of 22 . . . 'Llxf3 23.�e3 'Lle5 24.exd5 'Llxg4 25.�g3 i.xf4 26.�xf4 'Llf6 27.i.g2 0-0 28.l3hgl+- White begins a decisive attack along the open g-file.) 2l .l!?b2 �a4 22.l3al �d7 23.i.xe5 .he5 24.f4 .if6 25. e5+- and he not only has an ex­tra protected passed pawn, but a great space advantage and ac­tive pieces, while his king is safe, despite being bare, Vitkevicius -Ferreira, corr. 2007.

19 . .lg3 dxe4 In response to 19 .. .l='lb8, B.

Benko - Figlio, corr. 2003, it deserves attention for White to play 20.b5 ! ? i.a3+ 21 .\!?bl axb5 22 .i.h3 �c4 23.'Llb3 i.b4 24.�h2 i.c3 25.g5t with excellent attack­ing prospects.

2 0 .ti)f5

356

2 0 • • • g6 After 20 . . . h5 21.gxh5 exf3 22 .

i.h3--+ Black fails to complete his development.

It is also dangerous for him to opt for 20 . . . l3d8 21.'Lld6+ hd6 22 .�xd6 �c3 23.\!?bl exf3 (After 23 . . . �xf3 24.i.c4!--+, White's at­tack is decisive.) 24.h5--+ and the power of his attack can be illus­trated by the following variations : 24 . . . �c6 (Or 24 . . . e4 25J'ld4! e3 26 . .ih4 f6 27.i.d3+- and Black will be forced to give up too much material in order to save his king, while in case of 25 . . . �c6 26.ha6 �xd6 27 . .hd6 .ha6 28.l3xe4+ 'Lle5 29.l3xe5+ l!?d7 30 . .ie7 l3b8 31.l3dl + l!?c8 32 .c4+- White's queenside passed pawns will settle the issue.) 25.�xc6 hc6 26.ha6 l3a8 27.i.d3 l3b8 28.c3± - Black's central pawns look beautifully, but they do not create any prob­lems for White.

It would be too risky for Black to continue with 20 . . . exf3 2l.i.c4 l3d8 (He loses immediately after 2l . . .f2? 22 . .ixf7!+-; in case of 21 . . .0-0-0 22 . .ixf7 i.e4 23.i.b3±

ll.h4 b4 12JiJa4 1Mla5 13.b3 lt:Jc5 14.a3 lt:Jxa4 15.axb4 1Mlc7 16.bxa4

Black's central pawns are weak, his kingside is not developed and his king is bare. It is hardly any better for him to opt for 21 . . . i.c6 22J'l: hel j:l:b8 23.c3 ! � and Black's king comes under a dangerous attack.) 22 .j:l:hel! i.e7 (He loses after 22 . . . 1Mlxc4 23.j:l:xe5+-, as well as following 22 .. .f6 23.1Mld3 ! i.xb4 24.lt:Jd6+ <i>f8 25.lt:Jxb7 1Mlxb7 26.j:l:xe5! fxe5 27.1Mlf5+ lt:Jf6 28.�d8+ <i>e7 29.j:l:d3 ! +-) 23. 1Mlc3 ! +- Black has no satisfactory defence, Kulaots - Hracek, Silivri 2003.

20 . . . j:l:c8 !? - This move forces White to act maximally energeti­cally. 21.i.c4 lt:Jf6 22 .i.b3 lt:Jd5 23.1Mlxd5 ! i.xd5 24.j:l:xd5 f6 (Or 24 . . . i.xb4 25.i.xe5 1Mlc6 26.i.xg7 j:l:g8 27.j:l:e5+ <i>d8 28.j:l:dl + <i>c7 29.lt:Je7 \Wb7 30.j:l:xe4� - White regains some material and his at­tack continues.) 25.i.a4+ <i>f7 26. j:l:d7+ '!Wxd7 27.i.xd7 j:l:c7 28.i.a4 exf3 29.i.b3+ <i>e8 30.i.el±. His light pieces are much stronger than his opponent's rook, since Black has not completed his de­velopment and after 30 . . . h5 31. gxh5 j:l:xh5 32 .lt:Jg3 j:l:h8 33.h5± he fails to advance his central pawns. Black succeeded in trading his passive rook on h8 with 33 . . . g5 34.hxg6 j:l:xhl 35.lt:Jxhl f5, but af­ter 36.lt:Jg3 <i>e7 37.lt:Jxf5+ <i>f6 38. g7 i.xg7 39.lt:Jxg7 j:l:xg7 40.i.d5, he had to lose unavoidably his last trump - the pawn on f3, 1-0 A. lsaev - Kristensen, carr. 2005.

21.lt:Je3 exf3 22.J.c4 tLlf6 Black loses after 22 . . . j:l:d8 23.

h5 g5 24.1Mlc3 j:l:c8 25.j:l:xd7 '!Wxd7 26.j:l:dl +- and he would not fa­cilitate much his defence with the line: 22 . . . i.e7 23 .1Mlc3 ! j:l:c8 24. j:l:d3 ! 0-0 25.j:l:hdl± and Black is faced with an unpleasant choice -to lose either his e5-pawn, or after 25 . . . j:l:fd8 26.\Wb3+- to part with his f7-pawn.

23.ghel f2, Kovchan - Ku­laots, Kharkov 2003 (After 23 . . . i.e7 24.1Mlc3+-, Black loses his e5-pawn and fails to evacuate his king away from the centre.). Here, the most convincing line for White seems to be: 24.ge2! J.e7 (After 24 . . . i.f3 25.j:l:xf2 i.xdl 26.j:l:xf6 j:l:d8 27.\Wc3+- almost all Black's pieces are hanging.) 25. Vc3 J.d6 26.gxd6 \Wxd6 27.Vxe5+ Vxe5 28.J.xe5 lt:Jxg4 29.J.xh8+- Black has only one passed pawn and despite its being far-advanced, it is insuf­ficient to compensate the lost piece.

357

Chapter 15

a2) 16 . . . e5

Black repels the enemy knight away from the centre and he pre­vents mechanically White's pos­sibility to counter d6-dS with e4-eS.

17.tob3 ds It is bad for Black to play 17 . . .

i.c6? 18.�c3 �d7 19.tt'lcS Wie7 20.tt'lxa6 E:c8 21.�b3+- White has won two pawns and he has excellent chances of organizing an attack against the enemy king stranded in the centre, Wang Yu - Z.Tan, Yongchuan 2003.

18.exd5

18 . . . .hd5

3S8

Black should better avoid 18 . . . 0-0-0 19.i.d3 E:xdS 20.gS e4 21.i.f4 i.d6 22 .hd6 E:xd6 23.gxf6 exd3 24.fxg7 E:g8 2S.E:hg1+- and thanks to the cS-squar�, avail­able to his knight, White's king is completely safe, so he has excel­lent chances of realizing his extra pawns, Aroshidze - Bakhtadze, Tbilisi 2001.

In response to 18 . . . E:d8, it deserves attention for White to play 19.E:e1 ! ? tt'lxdS 20.-tcS hcS 2l.tt'lxcS 0-0 22 .gS tt'lf4 (It is hardly advisable for Black to try 22 . . . hS 23.g6± and White has an extra pawn and excellent attack-ing chances. In case of 22 . . . aS 23.gxh6, Black loses after 23 . . . tt'lf4 24.�e3 axb4 2S.tt'lxb7+-, as well as following 23 . . . g6 24.�gS! tt'lxb4 2S.�f6+-, or 24 . . . axb4 2S.hS+-) 23.�e3 hS (The alternatives for Black would not save the game for him either: after 23 . . . aS 24.gxh6 gxh6 2S.E:g1+ 'i!?h7 26.�xeS �xeS 27.E:xeS+-, or 23 .. .f6 24.gxh6 gxh6 2S.tt'lxa6 ha6 26.ha6 �d6 27.�b3+ l!th8 28 . .ic4 �d4 29.'i!?b1+- White ends up with two extra passed pawns, while in case of 23 . . . E:d4 24.gxh6 E:xb4 2S.�xeS �xeS 26.E:xeS .txf3 27.E:g1 tt'lg6 28.E:fS .ig4 29.E:gS .tf3 30.hS+­White has extra pawns and a crushing attack) 24.�xeS �xeS 2S.E:xeS .ixf3 26.E:g1 !± His queen­side pawns are very dangerous, Alvarez - Siefring, Email 2001.

After 18 . . . tt'lxdS 19.i.c5, we will analyze the following variations :

ll.h4 b4 12Ji'Ja4 Wfa5 13.b3 ti:Jc5 14.a3 ti:Jxa4 15.axb4 Wfc7 16.bxa4

19 . . . 0-0-0 - Here, Black's king is safer, but he cannot obtain any compensation for the pawn in that fashion. 20 . .td3 a5 21.hf8 :Eihxf8 22 .Ci:Jxa5 ti:Jc3 23.ti:Jxb7 \tlxb7 24.\tlb2 ! Ci:Jxdl+ 25.:Eixdl \tlb8 26.Wfe2 g6 27.a5± - White's powerful passed pawns are sup­ported by his pieces and he has a more than sufficient compensa­tion for the exchange, Ruiz Vidal - Bresadola, corr. 2007.

19 . . . Ci:Jf4 - This is an attempt by Black to exploit the only weak square in his opponent's camp. 20.Wfe3 ti:Jd5 (After 20 . . . .te7 21. he7 W!xe7 22 .ti:Jc5±, he must give up his a6-pawn. It is too risky for him to opt for 20 . . . ti:Je6 21..tb6 W!c6 22.ti:Ja5 W!xf3 23.:Eih3 !± and all White's pieces join into the ac­tions, while Black's kingside re­mains static, while in case of 21 . . . W!cB 22 .Wfxe5 hf3 23.:Eid8+ W!xd8 24.hd8, he loses after 24 . . . :Eixd8 25.:Eih3 :Eidl + 26. \tlb2 hg4 27. .te2 ! +-, but even in the endgame after 24 . . . hhl 25 . .ta5± White's queen is much stronger than Black's two rooks.) 2l .Wfel Ci:Jf4 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 21 . . .ti:Jf6 22 .:Eih3 !±, or 21 . . . .te7

22 . .td3 with the idea .te4± and in both cases White has a solid extra pawn and a superior develop-ment.) 22 .hf8 @xfB (22 . . . :Eixf8 23.Wfe3+-) 23.ti:Jc5 .tc6 (23 . . . hf3 24.:Eid7+-) 24.Wfc3+- White should win easily with an extra pawn, better development and a safer king.

19 . . . .te7 - Black is trying to evacuate his king away from the centre. 20 . .tc4 :!:idS (It would be a disaster for Black to choose 20 . . . Ci:Jf4 21.he7 W!xe7 22 .:Eihel+- and in connection with the threat 23.:Eixe5+- he will have to play 22 . . . f6, leaving his king stranded in the centre.) 21.he7 W!xe7 (It is bad for Black to continue with 21 . . .ti:Jxe7? 22 .W!xd8+ W!xd8 23. :Eixd8+ \tlxd8 24.:Eidl+- and he will be a pawn down with weak­nesses on f7 and a6. After 21 . . . \tlxe7 22.ti:Jc5 ti:Jb6 23 .Wfc3, the endgame is hopeless for Black fol­lowing 23 . . . hf3 24.W!xf3 ti:Jxc4 25.W!e4 ti:Jb6 26.a5 lt:ld7 27.:Eid5+-, while in case of 23 . . . ti:Jxc4 24. ti:Jxb7 W!xb7 25.W!xc4± his king is not safer than its white counter­part, while he remains a pawn down.) 22 .ti:Jc5 .tc6 23.hd5 :Eixd5 (Black should better avoid 23 . . . hd5 24.Wle3 0-0 25.g5± and White has an extra pawn and at­tacking chances.) 24.Wle3 0-0 (24 . . . :Eixdl + 25.:Eixdl 0-0 26.g5±) 25.:Eixd5 hd5 26.g5± His knight on c5 is so powerful that Black has hardly any chances of obtaining a meaningful counterplay.

359

Chapter 15

19 . • . .ixc5 In case of 19 . . . .ib7 20 . .ie2 .ie7,

Makowski - Sadowski, Email 200S, it deserves attention for White to play 21.\Wc3 ! ? 0-0 (In the variation 21 . . .ti:JdS 22.\Wb3 ti:Jxe3 23J'l:d7 .idS 24J1xc7 hb3 2S.cxb3 ti:JdS 26.ti:Jxa6+- White should win easily with two extra pawns.) 22 .gS ti:JdS 23.\Wb3 aS 24.g6+- and Black will lose una­voidably material.

It is also bad for him to opt for 19 . . . .ixf3 20.ti:Jxa6 \WeB (In the variation 20 . . J'l:xa6 21.ha6 !J..e7 22 . .ibS+ 'iflfB 23 . .ics� Black is with a pawn down and his king remains in the centre. He loses too after 20 . . . \Wb7 2l.i.bS+ .ic6 22 .\Wc3 !+-) 2l ..ibS+ .ic6 22 . .ib6, since he fails to even develop his kingside, 1-0 Perez Garcia - Ley­va, Havana 2001.

2 0 • .ixc5 i.xf3

After 20 . . . .ic6 2l..id6 \Wb7 22 .\Wc3 ti:Jd7 23.i.c4+- Black's king is beyond salvation.

21 • .ig2

360

21 . • . .ixdl (He should better refrain from 21 . . .hg2 22 .\Wxg2 l"1bB 23.l"1hfl+-, since his king remains stranded in the centre, preventing the rook on hB to join into the actions.) 22 . .ixa8 .ixg4 23.ggl .ie6 (Black saves the game neither with the line: 23 . . . \Wd7 24.\Wg2 ! +-, nor following 23 . . . hS 24.\WgS 'it>d7 2S.'!Wxg7 l"1xaB 26.\Wxf6 WeB 27.l"1el+- Drosson ­Drobusch, Email 2003.) 24J3xg7 ti:Jh5 25.ggl +- - His pawns on a6 and eS are weak, his king is stranded in the centre and his pieces are discoordinated, Dore -Hudec, Email 2006.

a3) 16 • • • d5

ll.h4 b4 12Jija4 Wffa5 13.b3 l!Jc5 14.a3 l!Jxa4 15.axb4 Wffc7 16.bxa4

This is the main reply for Black. He is afraid neither of opening the position, nor of the fact that White will occupy addi­tional space in the centre.

17.e5 .!Lld7 But not 17 . . . Wffxe5? 18.i.f4+-18.f4 c!Llb6 It is worse for Black to play

18 . . . a5 19.bxa5 Wffxa5 (After 19 . . . i.a6 20.l!Jb5± he has no compen­sation for the sacrificed pawns.) 20.Wffxa5 �xa5 21 .i.b5± and White has a solid extra pawn, Michalek - Cavadas, Email 2002.

In response to 18 . . . .tc8, K.Rodriguez - Shulga, Email 2005, it is good for White to con­tinue in a standard fashion 19.�h3 l!Jb6 20.f5 l!Jxa4 21.i.f4± and he ends up with a considerable lead in development and excellent at­tacking chances.

18 . . . i.e7 - White can begin ag­gressive actions in the centre af­ter this move. 19.f5 Wffxe5 20.fxe6 fxe6 21.�e1 Wffd6 22 .i.f4 e5 23.l!Jf5 Wfff6 24.i.h3 e4 25.\t>bl± Black has no chances of attacking the enemy king, while his own king has no safe shelter, Roels - Venturelli, carr. 2007.

It is not preferable for Black to play 18 . . . �b8 19.�h3 i.c8 20.b5 l!Jc5 21.Wffc3 i.d7 22 .i.g1 h5 23.gxh5 Wffb7 24.Wffa5 �xh5 25.i.e2 �h6 26.�c3 �a8 27.bxa6 l!Jxa6 28.l!Jb5± he has problems coordi­nating his forces, Eloranta - Vir­tanen, carr. 2005;

After 18 . . . �c8 19.a5 i.e7 20.

�h3 Wffc3 21.Wffxc3 �xc3 22 .b5± White has an extra pawn and a dangerous initiative, while after 22 . . . .txh4? 23.bxa6+- Black loses at least the exchange, Anand -Bogner, Mainz 2001.

19J��h3! White's rook is perfectly placed

here, since it can be transferred to the queenside at any moment. The position remain rather un­clear after 19.f5 l!Jxa4 20.fxe6 l!Jc3 21.exf7+ mxf7oo

19 • . . ttlxa4 This move seems very attrac­

tive for Black. He restores the ma­terial balance and can attack the c3-square.

About 19 . . . i.e7 20 .f5 l!Jxa4 21. i.f2 - see 19 . . . l!Jxa4.

19 . . . l!Jc4 - Black's knight is not so well-placed here, because White can exchange it at any mo­ment. 20.Wffc3 �c8 (But not 20 . . . Wffb6?, Lievano Alvarado - Diaz, Guaymallen 2001, because in the variation 21.hc4 dxc4 22 .l!Jb5 Wffc6 23.l!Jd6+ hd6 24.exd6 f6 25.g5+-, or 24 . . . 0-0 25.g5 h5

361

Chapter 15

26.\We5+- White remains with an extra pawn and a crushing attack.) 21.i.f2 i.e7 22 .lt::lb3 \Wd7 23.i.c5 lt::lb6 24.\Wa1 \Wc7 25J:l:d2±. He has occupied space and has deployed his pieces harmoniously. He is perfectly prepared for actions on both sides of the board and Black's attempt to seize the initiative after 25 . . . hc5 26.lt::lxc5 a5 27.\Wb2 0-0 28.lt::lxb7 lt::lxa4 29.\Wb3+- led to a loss of a piece in the game Lounek - Sochor, carr. 2005.

19 . . J�c8 - This move often leads to the main line by a trans­position. 20.i.f2 (It is worse for White to play 20.f5 lt::lxa4 21.fxe6 lt::lc3� with a good counterplay for Black.)

20 . . . h5 (It is preferable for Black to play 20 . . . lt::lxa4 - see 19 . . . lt::lxa4; after 20 . . . \Wd7 21.lt::lb3 it seems very dangerous for him to continue with 21 . . .lt::lc4 22 .\Wc3 \Wxa4 23.lt::lc5 hc5 24.hc5 a5 25.hc4 dxc4 26.\Wb2 axb4 27. hb4 i.d5 28.E:a3± - He has prob­lems evacuating his king away from the centre, as well as bring­ing his rook on h8 back into the actions, Maksimenko - Kraemer,

362

Germany 2 008, while in answer to 21 . . .lt::lxa4, Rakay - W.Schneider, Email 2004, it deserves attention for White to choose 22 .lt::la5 ! ? \Wc7 23.c4! i.c6 24.c5t Now, in the variation 24 . . . i.b5 25.hb5+ axb5 26.@b1 i.e7 27.\We2 \Wd7 28.lt::lb3 E:b8 29.lt::ld4 0-0 30.g5--+ White has a dangerous kingside attack, while Black's knight on a4 can hardly enter the actions any time soon, but even in case of 24 . . . i.d7 25.@b1 E:b8 26.@a1 i.e7 27.E:a3± he will probably have to sacrifice the knight for some pawns with a rather questionable compen­sation.) 21.gxh5 \Wd7 22 .b5 lt::lc4 23.hc4 E:xc4 24.f5 E:xa4 25.fxe6 fxe6 26.\Wg5 i.a3+ (After 26 . . . axb5 27.\Wg6+ \Wf7 28.E:f3 \Wxg6 29.hxg6 i.c8 30.lt::lxb5± the main drawbacks of Black's position are the passive bishop on c8 and the bad coordination of his forc­es.) 27.@b1 0-0 28.i.g1 i.c8 (He loses practically by force after 28 . . . axb5 29.h6 E:fa8 30.E:g3 i.f8 31.lt::lb3 E:c4 32.hxg7 \Wxg7 33.i.c5 ! \Wxg5 34.E:xg5+ @h7 35.hf8 E:xf8 36.E:dg1 +- and he must part with his bishop on b7.) 29.b6 ! E:f7 30.h6 E:b4+ 31.@a2 i.b2 32 .lt::lb3 E:f5 33.\Wd2 E:xb3 34.E:xb3 he5, Lastin - Najer, Bar 2000 and af­ter 35.i.d4 ! i.f4 36.\Wb4+- White will force his opponent to lose ad­ditional material in connection with the threats 37.b7 and captur­ing on g7.

19 . . . \Wd7 - Black loses a tem­po placing his queen to a more

ll.h4 b4 12. l:iJa4 Wffa5 13.b3 l:iJc5 14.a3 l:iJxa4 15.axb4 Wffc7 16.bxa4

passive position. 20.1:iJb3 l:iJxa4 21.f5 l'!c8 22 . .id4 l'!b8 (In case of 22 . . . exf5 23.e6 fxe6 24.gxf5 exf5 25 . .id3-+, White organizes a dan­gerous attack against the enemy king, stranded in the centre, but even after 22 . . . h5 23.fxe6 Wffxe6 24.gxh5t his attacking prospects are excellent, since Black's king has no safe shelter.) 23 . .ia7 l'!a8 24 . .if2 .ic8 25.fxe6 fxe6 26 . .id3±. His only active piece is the knight on a4, but it is not troublesome for White and it cannot compen­sate the bad placement of Black's king and the passivity of the rest of his pieces, Cimicki - Verton­gen, Email 2006.

19 . . . h5 - Black is trying to bring his rook on h8 into the ac­tions, but dooms his king to re­main in the centre. 20.gxh5 l'!xh5, A.Smith - Lissang, Gothenburg 2006 (20 . . . 1:iJxa4 21 . .if2 - see 19 . . . l:iJxa4) and here White has a very powerful attack after the standard reaction 21.f5 l:iJc4 22 .Wffe2 l:iJxe3 23.l'!xe3-+

2 0 . .if2

2 o . . . gcs 20 . . . 1:iJb6 - The transfer of the

knight to c4 costs Black several im­portant tempi. 21 .f5 l:iJc4 22 .hc4 Wffxc4 23.fxe6 fxe6 (After 23 . . . hb4 24.exf7+ <jj>xf7 25.e6+ <;t>g8 26.Wffd3± White obtains a great advantage thanks to his power­ful passed e6-pawn and Black's passive rook on h8.) 24.l:iJxe6 l'!c8 25 . .id4+- and Black's king comes unavoidably under a crushing at­tack, Aplin - Rizal, Kuala Lumpur 2005.

It is not better for him to play 20 . . . h5 21.gxh5

and now: 21 . . . .ic8, Mauro - Cilloniz

Razzeto, Email 2006, this move seems dubious, because it only emphasizes Black's lag in develop­ment. 22 .f5 :Bb8 (He loses quick­ly after 22 . . . exf5 23.1:iJb5 axb5 24.hb5+ .id7 25.Wffxd5 :Bd8 26.e6 fxe6 27.Wffxe6+ .ie7 28.h6 !+- and Black's king is beyond salva­tion.) 23.:Bb3 exf5 (In case of 23 . . . hb4 24.:Bxb4 :Bxb4 25.Wffxb4 l:iJc3 26.Wffa3 l:iJxdl 27.<;t>xdl± White's pieces are considerably more ac­tive than his opponent's rook.)

363

Chapter 15

24.e6 fxe6 25Jl:el 'it>f7 (Black saves the game neither with 25 . . . Vf!f7 26 . .ixa6+-, nor following 25 . . J:l:b6 26.tLlxf5 l'l:xh5 27 . .ixb6 tLlxb6 28.l'l:c3 Vf!f7 29.tLld4+- and in both cases White continues his attack having a material advan­tage.) 26.tLlxf5 l'l:xh5 27.i.g3 Vf!b6 28 . .ixb8 W!xb8 29.tLld4+- Black's pieces are discoordinated, his king is bare and he cannot obtain a sufficient compensation for the exchange.

21 . . .l'l:xh5 - The pawns are equal after this move, but White has a crushing attack against the enemy king after playing 22 .f5 l'l:c8 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 22 . . . exf5 23.i.e2 l'l:h8 24.tLlxf5 g6 25.tLld6+ .ixd6 26.exd6 W!xd6 27.i.d4±, since his light pieces are out of action and the dark squares in his camp are vulnerable.) 23.b5 ! aS (Black loses after 23 . . . tLlc3 24.l'l:xc3 ! Vf!xc3 25.Vf!xc3 l'l:xc3 26.bxa6 i.a8 27.i.b5+ 'it>e7? 28.i.el ! +- and White regains with interest the sacrificed material, but even after 27 . . . 'it>d8 28.fxe6 l'l:xe5 29.exf7± Black can hardly cope with his opponent's far-advanced passed pawns, supported by his active pieces.) 24.fxe6 i.b4?! (He has some chances of offering more te­nacious resistance after the line: 24 . . . tLlc3 25.exf7+ 'it>xf7 26.e6+ 'it>g8 27.l'l:xc3 W!xc3 28.Vf!xc3 l'l:xc3 29 . .id3±, although even then White maintains a stable ad­vantage thanks to his dangerous

364

passed e6-pawn and more active pieces.) 25.�f4 tLlc3 (The alterna­tives for Black lose as well: 25 . . . fxe6 26.b6 ! tLlxb6 27.i.b5+ 'it>e7 28 . l'l:f3+- and he squanders plenty of material; 25 . . . l'l:xe5 26.b6! tLlxb6 27 . .ib5+ 'it>f8 28.i.d7+- White wins the exchange preserving a dangerous attack; 25 . . . f6 26.b6 ! tLlxb6 27.Vf!g4 l'l:xe5 28.i.b5+ 'it>d8 29.l'l:g3+-, or 28 . . . 'it>f8 29.�g6+­and Black is beyond salvation.) 26.b6 �e7 27.l=l:dd3 !+- White settles the issue by bringing this rook into the actions. 27 .. .f6 (It looks more resilient for Black to defend with 27 . . . i.a3+ 28.'it>d2 tLle4+ 29.'it>dl, but now in the variation 29 . . . i.b4 30.l'l:df3 fxe6 31.i.b5+ 'it>d8 32 .i.el+-, as well as in case of 29 . . . tLlxf2+ 30.�xf2 i.cS 31.exf7+ 'it>f8 32 .e6+- Black has insurmountable problems.) 28.l'l:xc3, in the game S.Mikheev - Smikovski, corr, 2003, Black resigned in view of the varia­tion 28.l'l:xc3 .ixc3 29 . .ib5+ 'it>f8 30.exf6 gxf6 (or 30 . . . �xf6 31.e7+ 'it>xe7 32 .�g4+-) 31.'it>dl !+- with the idea to follow with 32 .id7.

21 . . .l'l:c8 -This attempt by Black to organize counterplay along the c-file can be countered by White with the aggressive line: 22.c4 !? i.c6 (After 22 . . . dxc4? ! 23.Wic2, it is bad for Black to choose 23 . . . �d7 24.f5 exfs 25.tLlxf5 �bs 26.h6 gxh6 27.tLld6+ hd6 28.exd6+­and his king is helpless, as well as 23 . . . tLlb6 24.tLlxe6 fxe6 25.hb6 �f7 26.�a4+ ic6 27.�xa6--t with

ll.h4 b4 12.tiJ a4 V!fa5 13.b3 l:iJc5 14.a3 l:iJxa4 15.axb4 V!fc7 16.bxa4

a decisive attack for White. It is dubious for Black to opt for 22 . . . a5? ! 23.c5 .ic6 24.b5 .ia8 25.c6 l:iJc5 26.V!fb2 �b8 27.f5± and he has practically no active pieces left, Hnatovsky - Carroll, Email 2005.) 23.f5 V!fb7 24.fxe6 fxe6 25 . .iel .ib5 26.1:iJxb5 axb5, Wur­schner - Alvebring, Email 2005, White can continue here with 27.c5± forcing his opponent to sacrifice a piece, with only minute chances of obtaining compensa­tion; otherwise, his knight on a4 will not only remain out of ac­tions, but it will impede the rest of his pieces to create any active counterplay on the queenside.

20 . . . .ie7 - Strangely enough, this natural move is in fact a loss of a tempo, since White is perfect­ly prepared for a kingside offen­sive. Accordingly, it would be very dangerous for Black to evacuate his king there. 21.f5 �c8 (It would be too risky for him to play 21 . . . V!Jxe5? ! 22 .fxe6 0-0 23.�a3 l:iJb6 24.1:iJf5 .if6 25 . .id4 V!Jxe6 26.�el V!fc6 27.g5+- and White's attack is decisive, Kovchan - Truskavetsky, Kramatorsk 2002, while in an­swer to 21 . . . .ic8, Seljodkin -Dothan, Finland 2001, it deserves attention for White to cement his queenside with 22.�b3 ! ? Now, Black loses after 22 . . . 0-0 23.f6 gxf6 24.V!fxh6 fxe5 25 . .id3 e4 26.1:iJf5 exf5 27.gxf5+- and he will have to give up too much material, while in the variation 22 . . . .1d7 23 . .id3 a5 24.1:iJb5 V!Jxe5

25.fxe6 fxe6 26 . .ig3 V!fal + 27.�bl Vfia2 28 . .ie5+- Black's queen is trapped, so it seems more reli­able for him to continue with 23 . . . �b8 24 . .ixa6, but even then after 24 . . . �a8 25 . .ib5 .ixb5 26.1:iJxb5 V!fd7 27.1:iJd4±, besides the extra pawn, White has good attacking prospects both in the centre, as well as on the kingside. His rook on b3 protects reliably his king, while after 24 . . . 0-0 25.f6� Black should better enter an endgame with the line: 25 . . . .ixb4 26.�xb4 �xb4 27.V!fxb4 l:iJc3 28.V!fd6 V!Jxd6 29.exd6±, although he saves the game neither in the variation 29 . . . l:iJxdl 30.@xdl �d8 31..ib5 gxf6 32 . .ixd7 �xd7 33.1:iJb5+-, nor following 29 . . . �a8 30 . .id3 �al+ 31.@b2 l:iJxdl+ 32.@xal l:iJxf2 33 . .ib5+-) 22 . .iel ! White must control the c3-square (In case of 22 .fxe6 l:iJc3 23.exf7+ @xf7 24. V!ff4+ @g8 25. V!ff5 .ixb4oo there arises a complicated and rather unclear position, in which Black has good counter chances.).

Now, we must have a look at the following possibilities for him:

365

Chapter 15

22 . . . 0-0?! Black castles di­rectly under the attack. 23.f6 ! ? gxf6 (or 23 . . . i.d8 24.fxg7 �xg7 2S.�f4±) 24.�xh6 fxeS 2S.i.g3 i.d6 26.i.d3 f6 27.tt:lxe6 �e7 28.E\f1� and he can save his king only at the price of heavy material losses.

22 . . . exfS?! - Black opens vol­untarily files in the centre and on the kingside and this only fa­cilitates White's attack. 23.gxfS !? �xeS 24.E\a3 tt:lb6 2S.i.g3 �f6 26.Eie1 0-0 (In case of 26 . . . �f8 27.i.eS �xh4 28.bg7+ �xg7 29. f6+ �xf6 30.E\f3± Black must give up his queen and his king remains endangered anyway, Percze -Acevedo Villalba, Email 2006.) 27.i.eS �xh4 28.f6 ! .tx£6 (He los­es quickly after 28 . . . tt:Jc4? 29.bc4 .tx£6 30 . .txf6 �xf6 31.E\f3 �b6 32 .i.d3 �h8 33J3h1 +- and White has an extra piece and a decisive attack, W.Schoen - Van Kempen, carr 2003.) 29.tt:lf3 i.gS (After 29 . . . tt:lc4 30.bc4 �h3 31.i.f1 �e6 32.tt:ld4 �b6 33 . .txf6 �xf6 34.E\f3 �gS 3S.�xgS hxgS 36.tLlfS Elfe8 37.tt:le7+ �f8 38.E\h3+- Black will suffer additional material losses, Serban - Szczepankiewicz, Email 200S; in the variation 29 . . . �hS 30 . .txf6 gxf6 31.E\e2� he loses af­ter 31 . . .tt:lc4 32 .E\g2+ �h7 33.i.d3+ fS 34.�f4+- Gaze - Ainutdinov, Email 200S, as well as following the more tenacious defence 31 . . . E\c4 32 .tt:ld4, because after 32 . . . E\xd4 33.�xd4 �gS+ 34.Eiae3 ! tt:lc4 3S.E\g2+- Black loses his

366

queen, but even in the variation 32 . . . �h7 33.E\g3 ! E\g8 34.E\xg8 �xg8 3S.E\g2+ �h8 36.tt:lf3 ! +­he will have to part with a lot of material : 36 . . . �h1 37.E\g1+-; 36 . . . E\e4 37.!'\h2+-; 36 . . . E\h4 37.tt:lxh4 �xh4 38.E\h2+-) 30.tt:lxh4 bd2+ 31.�xd2 tt:lc4+ 32 .bc4 dxc4 (Black will not save the game af­ter 32 . . . E\xc4 33.lLlfS f6 34.i.d6 i.c8 3S.tt:le3 Eld4+ 36.�c3+- and White ends up with an extra rook, while after 33 . . . E\g4 34.i.d6+­Black is lost in view of 34 . . . E\g2+ 3S.�c1 E\d8 36.i.c7 E\d7 37.i.g3 g6 38.tt:lh4 E\xg3 39.E\xg3+- and White has again an extra rook, Cruzado Duecas Koskela, carr. 2007, as well as follow­ing 34 . . . !!d8 3S . .tcs f6 36.tt:ld6 i.c8 37.tt:lxc8 !!xeS 38.E\xa6 hS 39.E\d6 h4 40.E\e3+- and White will realize easily his extra bish­op, SantamarHa Perez - Horvat, carr. 2007, or 3S . . . !!d7 36.tt:ld6 E\g2+ 37.E\e2 E\xe2+ 38.�xe2 1-0 Sabaev - Garscha, carr. 2007.) 33.tt:lfS E\cd8+ (Black should bet­ter avoid 33 . . . Eifd8+ 34.�c1+-; it is not preferable for him to opt for 33 . . . !'\ceS 34.tt:lxh6+ ! gxh6 3S. E\g3+-, or 34 ... �h7 3S.tt:lg4 fS 36.E\h3+ �g6 37.tt:lf2 �f7 38.E\g3 E\g8 39.tt:lh3+- and his pawns are blocked and White will real­ize easily his extra knight; in case of 33 .. .f6 34.tt:le7+ �f7 3S.tt:lxc8 hc8 36.i.d4+- he will exploit his extra rook to attack Black's king.) 34.�c3 Elfe8 3S.tt:lxg7 !!xeS 36.!'\xeS �xg7 37. �xc4 �f6 38.!'\cS

ll.h4 b4 12Jija4 �a5 13.b3 !iJcS 14.a3 !iJxa4 15.axb4 �c7 16.bxa4

gd2 39.1!1b3 ge2 40.1!1a4 ie4 41. c4+- White's queenside pawns will advance faster than his oppo­nent's kingside pawns, therefore Black has no compensation for the exchange, Fric - Konieczny, Email 2006.

22 . . . �xe5 - It would be too risky for Black to open files in the centre. 23.ga3 !? !iJb6 24.fxe6 0-0 25.ge3 �c7 26.ig3 !iJc4 27.�el �d8 28.exf7+ gxf7 29.ixc4 gxc4 30.!iJf5 if8 31.!iJd6 �c7 32.!iJxc4 �xc4 33.�c3± - He has no com­pensation for the exchange, since all his pieces are passive, Amorim Net - Cillyniz Razzeto, corr. 2006.

20 . . . ic8 - Black fortifies the e6-square, but he falls even more behind in development. 21.f5 gbs 22 .gb3 ie7 (In response to 22 . . . !iJb6, Chkhaidze - Esen, Baku 2002, it seems very strong for White to follow the recommenda­tion of GM Stohl 23.gc3 !± with the exemplary variation: 23 . . . �b7 24.!iJc6 gas 25.fxe6 ixe6 26.ixb6 �xb6 27.ig2 ie7 28.g5 hxg5 29. ixd5+- and Black ends up at least a piece down.) 23.id3 !iJb6 24. fxe6 ixe6 25.if5 !iJc4, Cilloniz -Acevedo Villalba, corr. 2002, White can continue here with 26. �d3 ! !iJxe5 27.�xa6 ix£5 28.!iJxf5 0-0 29 .�a5!±, forcing his oppo­nent to defend a rather unpleas­ant endgame with a pawn down.

(diagram) 21 . .iel! Unfortunately, White cannot

maintain the advantage with the rather original move 21.c4 !? . It seems risky at first sight, but en­sures perfectly the safety of his king, since Black's knight is de­prived of the c3-square and his c4-pawn closes the c-file even better than a white pawn. Still, af­ter 21 . . .dxc4 22 .�c2, Black has an excellent resource at his disposal, connected with a piece-sacrifice -22 . . . ic6 ! 23.ga3 ixb4 24.gxa4 a5 25.!iJxc6 �xc6 26.ie3 �f3 27.�e2 �c6 28.ga2gg and his compensa­tion for the piece is sufficient for a draw, Cilloniz Razzeto - Beau­mont, corr. 2002.

21 . . . !iJb6 This is an attractive transfer of

the knight to a maximally active position.

In reply to 21 . . .gb8, B.Socko - Lesiege, Bermuda 2002, it de­serves attention for White to try a line, which has not been tested in practice yet: 22 .ga3!? �d7 (In the variation 22 . . . ic6 23.!iJxc6 �xc6 24.�d4 !J.e7 25.�al !± Black not only presents his opponent with the two-bishop advantage,

367

Chapter 15

but he loses his a6-pawn.) 23.f5 ii.e7 24J�f3 ii.c8 (24 . . . 0-0 25.f6�) 25.fxe6 fxe6 26.�d3 l=l:f8 27.�g6+ �!idS 28.l=l:xf8+ ii.xf8 29.b5� and White's attack is decisive.

21 . . .g6 - This move facilitates the development of White's ini­tiative. 22 .f5 ii.g7 23.f6 ii.f8, Chep­arinov - Urushadze, Batumi 2002, he can exploit the tempi lost by Black with an energetic play on the queenside: 24.b5 li:\c5 25.�a5 �xa5 26.ha5 axb5 27. hb5+ li:\d7 28J'1b3 ii.a8 29.l=l:dd3 ii.c5 30.l'l:dc3+- and Black fails to coordinate his pieces.

21 . . .�d7 22 .f5 liJb6 23.fxe6fxe6 24.�d3 'i!lf7 25.l=l:f3+ 'i!lg8 26.�g6 l'l:e8, Fierro Baquero - Gormally, Wrexham 2002, 27.b5+- li:\c4 28.hc4 dxc4 29.li:\c6.

21 . . .�b6 - His queen deprives the knight of the only good square to retreat to, Della Marte - Quar­racino, Villa Martelli 2002 and White can continue with 22 .l'l:a3 ! ii.c6 23.li:\xc6 �xc6 24.�d3 ii.e7 25.�b3 li:\b6 26.l'l:xa6±, winning a pawn and obtaining the two-bish­op advantage.

About 21 . . .ii.e7 22 .f5 - see 20 . . . ii.e7.

22.f5 exf5 22 . . . ii.e7 - Black cannot com­

plete comfortably his develop­ment. 23.fxe6 fxe6 24.�d3 0-0 25.g5 hxg5 26.ii.e2 !? (White has deployed perfectly his forces and he is ideally prepared to begin a crushing offensive against the enemy king.) 26 . . . gxh4 27.hh4

368

hh4 28.l'l:xh4 �xeS 29.�h7+ 'i!lf7 30.l'l:g4 l'l:g8 31.l'l:g6 1-0 Dare -Schwenger, Email 2005.

22 . . . li:\c4 - White exchanges now his opponent's only active piece, depriving him of active counterplay for long. 23.hc4 �xc4 24.mb2 a5 25.bxa5 ii.c5 26. l'l:c3 �a4 27.fxe6 0-0 28.l'l:xc5 ! (He obtains dangerous passed pawns for the exchange.) 28 . . . l'l:xc5 29.�b4 l'l:c4 30.�xa4 l'l:xa4 31.'i!lb3 l=l:c4 32 .e7 l=l:b8 33.ii.b4 ii.a6 34.c3+- Aroshidze - Donovan, Kalamaria 2009.

23.gxf5 li:\c4 24 . .hc4 �xc4 25.�b3

25 • • • a5 (It is not preferable for Black to continue with the not so aggressive move 25 . . . ii.e7, Silva - Marcinkiewicz, Brazil 2004, be­cause after 26.�g2 'i!lf8 27.'i!lb2 �c7 28.ii.g3± White dominates in the centre, while Black's king­side is completely paralysed.) 26.bxa5 .ia6, Soumya - Ka­lugampitiya, Ravana 2009 (In the variation 26 . . . ii.c5 27.�c3 ii.a6 28.�xc4 hc4 29J'1g3 l'l:g8

ll.h4 b4 12. tDa4 'fia5 13.b3 tiJc5 14.a3 'Bc8 15.axb4

30.h5± Black has two powerful bishops indeed, but they do not compensate the sacrificed pawn, because his rook on g8 is pas­sive, while White's central pawns are very powerful.) and here the most energetic line for White is to prevent Black's development with 27.'fig2!± and he cannot com­plete the development of his king­side, since he loses by force after 26 . . . -icS 28.'fixg7 .ixd4 29.'fixh8+ 'i!ld7 30.e6+ l!le7 31..ib4+ 'fixb4 32 .f6+ hf6 33.'fixf6+ 'i!lxf6 34. '8xb4 fxe6 35.'8b6+-

b) 14 • . . l3c8

Black maintains the material balance with this move and he plans to exploit the open position of the enemy king in the future.

15.axb4 tiJxb3+ 16.tiJxb3 'fixa4 17.'i!lb2

(diagram) 17 • • • d5 Opening the game is not only

the best possibility to organize an attack against the king, but also

the only way for Black to save his queen.

17 . . . tiJxe4 - He is trying to solve his problems in a tactical fashion. 18.fxe4 he4 19.'8al 'fid7 20 . .ixa6 '8xc2+ 21.'fixc2 .ixc2 22 . tiJd4±. White has a more than sufficient compensation for his queen, because Black's kingside is not developed yet and if he tries to sacrifice back his queen after 22 . . . .ie4 23 . .ib5 .ixhl 24.'8xhl eS 25.hd7+ l!lxd7 26.tiJf3± White's extra piece, together with his passed pawn should be stronger than Black's passed pawns.

17 . . . 'fic6 (He removes his queen from the danger zone, but places it awkwardly.) 18.b5 ! axbS (After 18 . . . 'fid7 19.bxa6 �a8 20.'�a5+- White not only has an extra pawn, but his pieces are more active, while Black's king­side may fail to enter the actions altogether.) 19.tiJd4 Wffc7 (In case of 19 . . . 'fic5 20.tiJxb5 'fieS+ 21..id4 tiJxe4 22 .fxe4 Wffxe4 23J'!gl .ic6 24.'8el+- Black either loses his queen, or he must send it to the kingside where his entire flank

369

Chapter 15

will be isolated from the actions.) 20.ltJxb5 1Mrd8 21.lLlxd6+ hd6 22 . \Mrxd6 \Mrxd6 23.Eixd6 <tle7 24.Eib6 i.a8 25.i.a6± White has excellent winning chances with a bishop­pair and an extra pawn.

17 . . . i.e7 - Black wishes to complete his development. 18.Eia1 (It would not work for White to continue with the attractive line: 18.b5? ! ltJxe4 19.fxe4 he4 20J':1a1 i.f6+ and only he may have prob­lems.) 18 . . . 1Mrd7 19.c3 l".\a8 (It is not any better for Black to opt for 19 . . . 1Mrc7 20.ha6 ha6 21.Eixa6 dS 22.e5 ltJd7 23.f4 1Mrc4 24.Ela7 �e4 25.Elh3± and White ends up with a solid extra pawn.) 20.ltJa5 dS 21.i.e2 i.c8 (21. . .dxe4? 22.1Mrxd7+ <tlxd7 23.ltJxb7+-) 22 .g5 ltJhS 23. gxh6 gxh6 24.l".\hgl± The mate­rial is equal indeed, but Black has practically no moves at all.

17 . . . g6 - It seems attractive for him to fianchetto his bishop, but Black has fallen considerably be­hind in development and he has problems completing it. 18.i.d4 i.g7 (But not 18 . . . e5? 19.b5 ltJxe4 20.fxe4 he4 21.Eia1 1Mrxa1 + 22 . ltJxa1 i.xh1 23.'1Mrh2+-, because White's queen and knight are obviously superior than Black's two rooks.) 19.b5 ! ltJxe4 (In the variation 19 . . . a5 20.Eia1 1Mrb4 21.c3 lLlxe4 22 .cxb4 ltJxd2 23.hg7 lLlxb3 24.<tlxb3 l".\h7 25.i.f6 i.xf3 26.l".\h3+- Black collects many pawns for the piece, but his rook is exposed, so White is likely to win this position easily with his

370

powerful passed pawn.) 20.fxe4 he4 (After 20 . . . i.xd4+ 21.\Mrxd4 1Mrxd4+ 22 .l"..xd4 ax:bS 23.hb5+ <tle7 24.Eia1 +- Black's two pawns cannot compensate his missing knight.) 21.hg7 l".\xc2+ 22 .1Mrxc2 hc2 23.<tlxc2 l".\h7 24.i.d4 ax:bS 25.Eia1 1Mrb4 26.i.c3 \Mre4+ 27. i.d3+- White's four light pieces should cope easily with Black's queen and pawns.

17 . . . h5 - This move cannot be recommended, because Black fails to create counterplay on the kingside. 18.b5 dS (In case of 18 . . . ltJxe4 19.fxe4, he loses after 19 . . .

1Mrxe4 20.bxa6 i.c6 21.i.d3 \Mrxg4 22.Eihg1 Wfxh4 23.i.g5 1Mrh3 24. ltJd4+- and Black cannot advance his kingside pawn-mass, as well as following 19 . . . he4 20.l".\a1 \Mrxa1 + 21 .lLlxa1 hh1 22 .bxa6 hxg4 23.i.b5+ <tle7 24.\Mrd4 EicS 25.1Mrb4+- White has a material advantage and a dangerous passed a6-pawn, while his pieces have superior coordination.) 19.Elal \Mrb4 20.bxa6± and now, the trans­fer to an endgame is unavoidable and White will have a far-ad­vanced passed pawn.

In reply to 17 . . . \Mrd7, F.Klein -Bogner, Willingen 2003, it looks very good for him to fortify his position with 18.i.e2 \Mrc7 19.c3 dS (In the variation 19 . . . ltJd7 20.ltJa5 ltJeS 21.lLlxb7 1Mrxb7 22 .l".\al ltJc4+ 23.hc4 l".\xc4 24.i.d4 eS 25.i.e3 :lie7 26.\MrdS l".\c6 27.g5± the nu­merous exchanges have led to a position in which the weaknesses

ll.h4 b4 12.ti:J a4 Wfa5 13.b3 ltJc5 14.a3 'i!.c8 15.axb4

on a6 and d6 doom Black to a long and laborious defence.) 20.g5 ltJd7 21.exd5 i.xdS (After 21 . . .exd5 22 .i.d4 @d8 23.ltJa5+- Black's king is stranded in the centre and his pawns on a6 and dS are so weak that he has no chances of saving the game.) 22 . .ha6 '8b8 23.W/e2 i.e7 (In case of 23 . . . .hb3 24 . @xb3 ltJcS+ 2S.i.xc5 �xeS 26.g6+- White not only has an extra pawn, which he will re­alize easily in the endgame, but also good attacking prospects.) 24.'8xd5 ! ? exdS 2S.gxh6 gxh6 26. 'i!.dl� He has a pawn for the ex­change and a couple of powerful bishops, while Black's king is de­prived of a reliable shelter.

18.c3

18 . . . dxe4 After 18 . . . W/d7 19.e5 ltJg8 20.

'i!.al± Black may not even com­plete his development.

18 . . . eS - This move creates the threat 19 . . . d4, but Black fails to seize the initiative due to his lag in development. 19.CfJa5 i.a8 (He loses after 19 . . . d4 20.i.xd4

exd4 21.W/xd4 ia8 22 .W/e5+ :!le7 23 . .ha6 0-0 24 . .hc8 .hb4 25. 'i!.al +- Black has succeeded in cas­tling, but he has lost too much ma­terial.) 20.i.xa6 '8b8 21.'8al '\Wd7 22 .g5 hxgS 23.hxg5 'i!.xhl (23 . . . ltJxe4 24.fxe4 'i!.xhl 25.'8xhl d4 26.'8h8 - see 23 . . . '8xhl) 24.'8xhl ltJxe4 25.fxe4 d4 26.'8h8+- and here after 26 . . . i.xe4 27.i.xd4 exd4 28.W/f4 dxc3+ 29.@a3 '8xb4 30. W!eS+ Wle7 31.W/xe7+ @xe7 32. @xb4 c2 33.ltJb3 g6 34.'8h7+-, as well as following 26 . . . W/d6 27.i.c4 i.xe4 28.i.b3 i.dS 29.cxd4 '8xb4 30.W/c3 @d7 31.dxe5 '8xb3+ 32.'\Wxb3 W/xeS+ 33.'\Wc3 i.a3+ 34.@c2 W/e4+ 35.W/d3 �a4+ 36. ltJb3+- White parries easily his opponent's attack remaining with an extra rook.

18 . . . :/ld6 - Black sacrifices a pawn and White should accept it. 19.'8al W/d7 20.i.xa6 ! ? i.xa6 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 20 . . . 0-0 21 .g5 ltJhS 22 .gxh6 g6 23.'8hgl @h7 24.i.xb7 W/xb7 25.'8a7 W/c6 26.exd5 '\WxdS 27.W/xd5 exdS 28J:rd7+- Korneev - Alonso Garcia, Lorca 2004.) 21 .'8xa6 ieS, Bologan - Lesiege, Bled 2002. Here, White can keep the enemy king stranded in the centre by playing 22.i.c5 ! dxe4 23.W/xd7+ ltJxd7 (In the variation 23 . . . @xd7 24.'8dl+ @e8 25.'8a7 i.c7 26.ltJd4+- Black is help­less against the threat 27.ltJbS.) 24.fxe4 '8b8 (24 . . . ltJf6 25.'8a7+-) 2S.@c2+- - White should realize easily his extra pawn.

371

Chapter 15

18 . . .'\Wc6 - This move only presents White with additional tempi for the development of his initiative. 19.tLlaS 'Wic7 20 . .if4 'Wib6 21..ieS .ia8 (Now, in the variation 21 . . . .ic5 22 .tLlxb7 'Wixb7 23.'Wfd3±, as well as in case of 21 . . . .ie7 22 . .id4 'Wic7 23.'Wih2 'Wid7 24.eS lLlh7 2SJ�al± Black has problems with the development of his kingside as well as with the protection of his a6-pawn. It is not better for him to opt for 21 . . .lLld7 22 . .id4 'Wfc7 23.lLlxb7 'Wixb7 24.!'1al E1a8 2S.exdS± and he loses after 2S . . . exdS 26.!'1aS+-, or 2S . . . 'WixdS 26 . .ixa6+-, but even after the most tenacious defence for Black - 2S . . . eS 26 . .if2 aS 27 . .ie2 axb4 28.!'1xa8+ 'Wixa8 29.cxb4 'Wfb8 30. bS± he can hardly exploit the open position of his opponent's king, because of his lag in development. Later, White's rook will go to c6 and he will begin the realization of his extra pawn.) 22 . .id4 'Wfc7 23.'1Wh2 dxe4 24.'Wfxc7 E1xc7 2S. .ixa6 lLld7 26 . .ibS cl;;e7 27.f4 f6 28 . .ie3 g6 29.!'1h2± The material is equal indeed, but Black's de­fence is very difficult, because he has problems activating his piec­es, Hala - Janous, Czech Republic 2004.

(diagram) 19.gal! This move forces a transition

into an endgame favourable for White.

It is worse for him to play in­stead 19.lLlaS .idS 20.!'1al 'Wfd7

372

21..ixa6 (or 21.c4 .ie7!?) 21 . . .exf3 22 . .ixc8 'Wixc8oo - Black has com­pleted his development and he has chances of proving that White's king is not so safely protected.

19 . . . '1Wd7 2 0 .'Wixd7+ cl;;xd7 It is rather dubious for Black

to play 20 . . . lLlxd7? ! 21.lLlaS .idS (He loses quickly after 21 . . . .ia8? 22 . .ixa6 !'1d8 23 . .ibS .ie7 24.!'1hdl .ixh4 2S.lLlc6+- and Black ends up at least a piece down, Motylev - Parligras, Eforie Nord 2000.) 22 . .ixa6 E1b8 (After 22 . . . !'1a8 23 . .ibS exf3 24.c4 hb4 2S.cxdS E1xaS 26.!'1xaS haS 27.dxe6 fxe6 28.!'1dl 0-0 29 . .ixd7 f2 30 . .ixe6+ cl;;h8 31..ic4+- White should realize easily his extra bishop, Shahade - Sarkar, New York 2002.) 23.fxe4 .ixe4 24.!'1hel .idS (Black loses swiftly after 24 . . . .if3? 2S . .if4 E1b6 26.lLlc4+- Yagupov - Korobov, Moscow 2002; it is also bad for him to opt for 24 . . . .id6? 2S . .ia7 !'1a8 26.!'1xe4 E1xa7, SH - Nakamura, Internet 2003, since after 27 . .ibS, Black is help­less against the threat 28.!'1d4+-) 2S . .if4 E1b6 26 . .ic4 .if3 (He should

ll.h4 b4 12. tiJa4 'f!a5 13.b3 tiJc5 14.a3 'i'k8 15.axb4

better avoid 26 . . . CiJc5 27J�edl �f3 28J!d4 e5 29.i.xe5+-, since all White's pieces are into the ac­tions and he has an extra pawn too, E.Vorobiov - Paramonov, St. Petersburg 2001.) 27.i.c7 i.d6 (It is even worse for Black to play 27 .. J'!xb4+ 28.cxb4 i.xb4 29J'!e3+- and White ends up with an extra rook in the endgame, Haslinger - Gormally, Torquay 2002.) 28.i.xb6 CiJxb6 29.i.b5+ We7 30.CiJc6+ i.xc6 31.i.xc6+- He should win easily with an extra exchange and connected passed pawns on the queenside, Hens -Moreira, Email 2005.

2U!!dl+! This is the only move after

which White will maintain his ad­vantage.

In case of 21.CiJa5 i.d5 22 .i.xa6 exf3oo, Black has excellent coun­ter chances thanks to his powerful f3-pawn, supported by his pieces.

It is not preferable for him to choose 21.i.xa6 ha6 22J'!xa6 exf3 23J'!a7+ WeB 24.E:gl e5 25. CiJd2 CiJd5 26.CiJxf3 CiJxe3 27.CiJxe5

i.e7 28.E:el hh4 29.E:xe3 i.f2+ and White loses the exchange.

In the variation 21.fxe4 CiJxg4 22 .CiJc5+ hc5 23.i.xc5 E:xc5 ! 24. bxcS i.xe4 25.E:gl E:b8+ 26.Wcl h5� Black's centralized pieces more than compensate the ex­change-sacrifice.

21 • • • <t/c7 He loses after 2l . . .We7 22 .

CiJa5 !? i.d5 23.i.xa6 E:c7 24.b5 exf3 25.b6 E:d7 26.b7+- and Black ends up with a piece down and undeveloped kingside.

It is also bad for him to opt for 2l . . .We8 22 .CiJa5 i.d5 23.i.xa6 E:b8 24.�a7±, because after the forced line: 24 . . . E:a8 25.i.b5+ Wd8 26.fxe4 CiJxe4 27.c4�, Black comes under a dangerous attack, despite the absence of queens on the board.

22.i.f4+ mb6

23.fxe4! White played in many games

23.i.e3+ forcing a draw, but he should better play for a win.

23 • . . CiJxg4 The other capture is not pref-

373

Chapter 15

erable for Black: 23 . . . he4 24J%gl i.f3 (In the variation 24 ... i.e7 2S . .ie3+ 'it>b7 26 . .id4 i.f3 27.lt:la5+ 'it>c7 2s.gd2 i.dS 29.ha6 lt:le4 30. gc2 gas 31.c4± White has excel­lent attacking prospects, despite the numerous exchanges.) 2s.ga1 gas 26.i.d3 hg4 27.b5 i.f3 (After 27 . . . lt:ld5 2S.gxg4 hS 29.c4, Black loses after 29 . . . hxg4 30.cxd5 exdS 31.bxa6 gxh4 32.a7+- with deci­sive threats for White, as well as following 29 . . . i.e7 30.cxd5 i.f6+ 31.'it>c2 hxg4 32 .i.e3+ 'it>c7 33.b6+ 'it>d6 34.i.c5+ 'it>xdS 3s.ga4 gadS 36.i.e4+ 'it>eS 37.lt:la5 lt>f4 3S.b7+- and he must give up a rook for White's b7-pawn, while he has no time to advance his kingside pawns.) 2S.i.e3+ 'it>c7 (In case of 2S . . . 'it>b7 29.lt:la5+ 'it>bS 30.i.f4+ 'it>a7 31.lt:lc4--+ Black can­not parry White's attack without losing too much material, since his kingside is isolated from the actions.) 29.b6+ 'it>d7 30.i.d4 i.e4 31.he4 lt:lxe4 32.ggdl .id6 33.c4 aS 34.c5 a4 3S.lt:ld2 lt:lxcS 36.lt:lc4 lt:lb7 37.i.e5+- The practically forced variation has ended and White has remained with an extra piece, preserving the dangerous passed b6-pawn, Riccio - Lapegi­nas, Email 2006.

23 . . . i.e7 - Black is trying to complete his development. 24.i.e2 he4 2s.ga1 gas (Natu­rally, he cannot play 2S . . . i.xhl ?? 26.gxa6+ 'it>b7 27.lt:la5#; in the variation 25 . . . i.b7 26 . .ie3+ 'it>c7 27.ghfl± Black's a6 and f7-pawns

374

are weak and his pieces are pas­sive.) 26.i.e3+ lt>c7 27.ghfl ghfS 2S.i.f4+ i.d6 29.hh6 lt:lhS 30. i.f3 i.x£3 31.gxf3 gxh6 32.gxh5 fs 33.ggl ggs 34.gg6± - White creates unavoidably a dangerous passed pawn on g6, Flying Sau­cers - Pandini, Internet 2006.

24.ggl The position remains rather

unclear after 24.lt:la5 he4oo, as well as following 24.i.e2 hS 2S.gd7 eS 26.i.g5 f6oo

24 . . . h5 Black should better refrain

from 24 . . . lt:lf6 2S.i.e5 he4 26. i.d4+ 'it>c7 27.ha6 gas 2S.i.e5+ 'it>b6 29.i.e2± - his kingside is isolated and White's pawn will advance unavoidably.

After 24 . . . g5 25.gxg4 gxf4 26.gxf4 gc7 27.lt:la5 i.g7 2S.e5;!;, White fixes the weak pawn on f7 and neutralizes Black's dark­squared bishop. Later, White's task is to transfer his knight to a more active position and to pre­pare the trade of the light -squared bishops, which will increase his

ll.h4 b4 12. tiJa4 Wffa5 13.b3 CiJc5 14.a3 '8c8 15.axb4

advantage. 25.�a5 �f6 The alternatives for Black are

not any better: 25 . . . he4 26.'8d7! f6 27.i.g2+­

and White's attack is decisive, for example: 27 . . . hb4 28.cxb4 Eic2+ 29.\t>b3 '8xg2 (29 . . . '8hc8 30.'8d6+! \t>a7 31.b5 ! +-) 30.CiJc4+ @bS (Black would not save the day with 30 . . . \t>c6 31.'8c7+ @dS 32.CiJb6+ \t>d4 33.'8dl+ i.d3 34.'8c4#) 31. '8c7 aS 32 .'8c5+ \t>a6 33.'8xa5+ \t>b7 34.'8b5+ \t>c6 35.Elc5+ \t>b7 36.'8c7+ \t>b8 37.i.d6!+- and he loses a lot of material, since he cannot play 37 . . . '8xgl 38.'8d7+ \t>c8 39.CiJb6#

Or 25 . . . i.c6 26.CiJxc6 '8xc6 27.'8d7±. White's piece-activity more than compensates the lack

of a pawn, for example : 27 . . . e5 28.i.g5 f6 29.'8xg4 fxgS (After 29 . . . hxg4 30.i.e3+- Black remains at least a bishop down.) 30.Elxg5 Eld6 31.'8gxg7± and White should realize easily his advantage, de­spite the presence of bishops of opposite colours on the board.

26.�xb7 g;,xb7 27.ggs (It is also good for White to choose here 27.i.e2±, but his last move leads to a more forced play.) 27 • . • gas 28.g;,b3 ggs 29.gas .ie7 3 0 .gdal �g4 31 . .ixa6+ \t>c6 32 • .ig3 CiJf6 33.e5 �g4 34 • .ib5+ g;,b7 35 • .ic6+ g;,xc6 36.gxa8+- White should win easily with an extra exchange and connected passed pawns on the queenside, Ultima - Iolaos, Inter­net 2006.

Conclusion In this chapter we analyze the main line of the English Attack.

Black tries to prove that his opponent's knight on a4 is misplaced and he continues with 12 ... Wa5 13.b3 CiJcS. After the best move for White 14.a3!, Black has two principally different possibilities:

He can sacrifice a pawn with a) 14 . . . CiJxa4, with the idea to exploit the fact that White's king is bare, or maintain the material balance with the move - 14 . . . '8c8.

In the first case, White succeeds in proving that Black has no compensation for the pawn, since his king side is not developed and it may not even enter the actions if White plays too energetically. It is worth mentioning that that he has a powerful maneuver with his rook - 19. '8h3! in variation a3 - in that fashion he not only covers the weaknesses around his king, but he can utilize the power of this rook on both sides of the board.

In the second case, Black manages to enter an endgame, but he still has problems with the development of his king side and after White's powerful line: 21. '8d1+! \t>c7 22.i.f4+ \t>b6 23fxe4!, it becomes clear that Black's king may come under attack even in the endgame.

375

Index of Variations

Part 1. 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 . . . 9

Chapter 1 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

a) 6 . . . tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 b) 6 . . . .ie7 7.f3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7.f3 ttlc6 8.�d2 various wjo 8 ... 0 - 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 2 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 .ie7 7.f3 �c6 8.�d2 0 - 0 9. 0 - 0 - 0

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 a) 9 . . . tt:lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 b) 9 . . . d5 10.i.e2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

b1) 10 . .ie2 dxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 b2) 10 . .ie2 ttla5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a6 6 . .ie3 . . . 31

Chapter 3 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

a) 6 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 b) 6 . . . tt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 c) 6 . . . tt:lc6 7.f3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

c1) 7.f3 �b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 c2) 7.f3 .id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 c3) 7 .f3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 4 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 • .ie3 e6 7.f3

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 a) 7 .. :�c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 b) 7 . . . tt:lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

376

Index of Variations

c) 7 . . . h5 8.'1Wd2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 c1) 8 .�d2 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 c2) 8 .�d2 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 c3) 8.�d2 tt'lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

d) 7 . . . i.e7 8 .�d2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 d1) 8.�d2 tt'lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 d2) 8.�d2 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 d3) 8 .�d2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 5 l.e4 cS 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 S.�c3 e6 6 • .ie3 e6 7.f3 �c6 8.ffd2

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 a) 8 . . . tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 b) 8 . . . i.d7 9.g4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

b1) 9.g4 tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 b2) 9 .g4 b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 b3) 9.g4 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

c) 8 . . . �c7 9 .0-0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 c1) 9.0-0-0 i.d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 c2) 9.0-0-0 tt'ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 c3) 9 .0-0-0 tt'le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 6 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 s.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 �c6 8.Wd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 a) 9 .. . i.d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 b) 9 . . . tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 c) 9 . . . �c7 10 .g4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

c1) 10.g4 tt'le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 c2) 10.g4 tt'la5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 c3) 10.g4 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 c4) 10 .g4 tt'lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 c5) 10 .g4 �d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Chapter 7 l.e4 c5 2.tilf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 �c6 8.ffd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 1 0 .g4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 a) 10 . . . .id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 b) 10 . . . �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 c) 10 . . . tt'ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

377

Index of Variations

Chapter 8 l.e4 c5 2.!0f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.!0xd4 !0f6 5.l0c3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 !0c6 8.Yfd2 .ie7 9. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 1 0 .g4 !0xd4 11 . .ixd4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1S7 ll . . . bS 12 .gS various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0

12 .gS !Od7 13.h4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 62 a ) 13.h4 l"1b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 b) 13.h4 �aS 14.'it>b1 b4 1S.lt:le2 various . . . . . 16S

b1) 1S .lt:le2 i.b7 . . . . . . 1 6 6 b2) 1S.lt:le2 eS . . . . . . . 1 6 8 b3) 1S.lt:le2 lt:leS . . . . . . . 170

c) 13.h4 i.b7 14.i>b1 various . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 c1) 14.i>b1 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 c2 ) 14.i>b1 l"1c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

d) 13.h4 b4 14.lt:la4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 d1) 14.lt:la4 �aS 1S.b3 lt:lcS . . . . . . . . . . 18S d2) 1S.b3 i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . 187

e) 13.h4 �c7 14.i>b1 various . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 0 e1) 14.i>b1 b4 1S.lt:la4 aS . . . . . . . . 193 e2) 1S.lt:la4 l"1b8 . . . . . . . . 19S e3) 1S.lt:la4 i.b7 . . . . . . . . 198

Part 3. l.e4 c5 2.lt:lf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4)ijxd4 !Of6 5.l0c3 a6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.Yfd2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 6

Chapter 9 l.e4 c5 2.!0f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.!0xd4 !0f6 5.!0c3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.Yfd2

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 a) 8 . . . �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 b) 8 . . . b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 c) 8 . . . i.e7 9.g4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

c1) 9.g4 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 c2) 9 .g4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Chapter 10 l.e4 c5 2.!0f3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.!0xd4 !0f6 5.!0c3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.�d2 .ib7 9.g4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 a) 9 . . . i.e7 10.0-0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23S

378

a1) 10.0-0-0 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 a2) 10.0-0-0 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

Index of Variations

b) 9 . . . tt:lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 c) 9 . . . h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 d) 9 . . . b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 e) 9 . . . tt:lfd7 10.0-0-0 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

e1) 10.0-0-0 i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 e2) 10.0-0-0 tt:lb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Chapter 11 1.e4 c5 2.lilf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.tt:lxd4 tilf6 5.tilc3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.WI'd2 tilbd7 9.g4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 a) 9 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 b) 9 . . . b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 c) 9 . . . tt:lb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Chapter 12 1.e4 c5 2.tilf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.tilxd4 tilf6 5.tilc3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.WI'd2 tilbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 0 a) 10 . . . tt:le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 b) 10 . . . �c7 ll.h4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

b1) ll .h4 i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 b2) ll.h4 tt:le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

c) 10 . . . b4 ll.tt:lce2 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 c1) ll.tt:lce2 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 c2) 11.tt:lce2 �a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 c3) 11.tt:lce2 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Chapter 13 1.e4 c5 2.tilf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.tilxd4 tilf6 5.tilc3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.ti'd2 tilbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 11.h4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 a) ll . . . tt:lb6 12.�f2 tt:lfd7 13 .i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

a1) 13.i.d3 �c7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 a2) 13.i.d3 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 a3) 13.i.d3 l:l:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

b) 1l. .. d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 c) 1l . .. l:l:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 d) 11 . . .i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 e) 1l. . . �a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 f) 11. . . tt:le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

379

Index of Variations

Chapter 14 1.e4 c5 2.lilf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.lilxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 e6 6 • .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.ilYd2 ttlbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 11.h4 b4 12.ttla4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 a) 12 . . . d5 13 . .th3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

al) 13 . .ih3 dxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 a2) 13 . .ih3 tt:le5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 a3) 13 .i.h3 g5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

b) 12 .. .'�a5 13.b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 bl) 13.b3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 b2) 13 .b3 i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 b3) 13.b3 e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 b4) 13.b3 �k8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 b5) 13.b3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Chapter 15 l.e4 c5 2.ttlf3 d6 3.d4 cd 4.ttlxd4 ttlf6 5.ttlc3 e6 6 . .ie3 e6 7.f3 b5 8.�d2 ttlbd7 9.g4 h6 1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 .ib7 11.h4 b4 12.ttla4 flYa5 13.b3 tileS 14.a3 a) 14 . . . tt:lxa4 15.axb4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

al) 15.axb4 Wffc7 16.bxa4 tt:ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 a2) 16 .bxa4 e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 a3) 16.bxa4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

b) 14 . . J'k8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

380