a complete chess opening repertoire for Black
LrlriSiopn
VVISneWSKI
play1 Nc6! ...
EVERYMAN
CHESS
Gloucester Publishers plc www.everymanchess.com
First published in 2007 by Gloucester Publishers plc (formerly Everyman Publishers plc), Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT Copyright © 2007 Christoph Wisnewski The right of Christoph Wisnewski to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN13: 978 1 85744 5220 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1 V OAT tel: 020 7253 7887 fax: 020 7490 3708 email:
[email protected]; website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under licence from Random House Inc.
EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)
Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in the US by Versa Press.
Contents
I
Bibliography
4
Preface: Why l . . .lbc6?
6
Part One: Black vs. 1 e4 - Nimzowitsch Defence
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1 1 1
e4 lbc6: Rare Second Moves for White e4 lbc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 'i!Vxd5 e4 lbc6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 f6 e4 lbc6 2 d4 d5 3 lbc3 e6 e4 lbc6 2 lLlf3 lbf6
Part Two: Black vs. 1 d4 - Chigorin Defence
6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1
d4 d5 2 lb£3 lbc6 and other Rare Second Moves d4 d5 2 c4 lbc6 3 lbc3 lb£6 (4 .ig5; 4 cxdS) d4 dS 2 c4 lbc6 3 lbc3 lbf6 4 lbf3 dxc4 d4 d5 2 c4 lbc6 3 lLlf3 .tg4 (4 �a4; 4 e3; 4 lbc3) d4 dS 2 c4 lbc6 3 lb£3 .tg4 4 cxd5 .ixf3 d 4 dS 2 c4 lbc6 3 e3 and 3 cxd5
Part Three: Black vs. 1 c4 - 1...lbc6
8 10 24 51 61 74 94 96 127 140 159 174 186 2 13 214 224 236
12 13 14
1 c4 lbc6 - Rare White Second Moves 1 c4 lbc6 2 lbc3 e5 (3 e3; 3 g3) 1 c4 lbc6 2 lbc3 e5 3 lbf3 lb£6
15
1 lb£3 lbc6
257 258
Index of Complete Games
264
Part Four: Black vs. 1 lbf3 - 1...lbc6
Bibliography
I
Books l .. Sc6! aus alien Lagen, H.Keilhack & R.Schlenker (Schachverlag Kania 2003) Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer Systems, T.Harding (Batsford 1979) Dangerous Weapons: The French, J.Watson (Everyman 2007) The Dynamic Reti, N.Davies (Everyman 2004) The Main Line French: 3lbc3, S.Pedersen (Gambit 2001) Modernes Skandinavisch, M.Wahls (Chessgate 1997) Nunn's Chess Openings, J.Nunn, G.Burgess, J.Emms & J.Gallagher (Gam .
bit/Everyman 1999) Pirc Alert, L.Alburt & A.Chernin (CIRC 2003) Play the Open Games as Black, J.Emms (Gambit 2001 ) Secrets of Opening Surprises Vol. 3, J.Bosch (New in Chess 2005) Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung, V.Bronznik (Schachverlag Kania 2001) Chess Software and Journals
Blitzln ChessBase 8.0 Crafty 19.01 Junior6
MegaBase 2006 Chess Informants 1-97 New in Chess Yearbooks 1 000 Opening Traps, K.Muller & R.Knaak (ChessBase 2006) 4
Bibliography
Albin Counter-Gambit, L.Henris (ChessBase 2003) Colle-System, D.Oleinikov (ChessBase 2003) Dutch Defence A90-A99, B.Schipkov (ChessBase 2004) English Opening 1 c4 e5 (A20-A29), M.Marin (ChessBase 2003) French with 3 tDc3, K.Neven (ChessBase 2000) Modern Chess Openings l . ttJc6!?, I.Berdichevsky & A.Kalinin (Convekta 2005) Nimzovich Defense Ultimate CD, H .Myers (ChessCentral 1999) Philidor Defence, A.Bangiev (ChessBase 2001) Queen's Gambit Accepted D20-D29, B.Schipkov (ChessBase 2001) Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung, M.Breutigam (ChessBase 2000) ..
Websites
www.chessclub.corn www .chesslab.com www.chesslive.corn www.chesspublishing.com www .chessvibes.com www.chessville.corn www.kenilworthchessclub.org
5
Preface: Why 1
...
lbc6?
I
Young players expose themselves to grave risks when they blindly imitate the innovations of masters without themselves first checking all the details and consequences of these inno vations. Alexander Alekhine -
I have come across many quotes during my sixteen-year chess career, but I have never seen a quote more to the point than the one mentioned above. Don't get me wrong, losing a game without really knowing why happens more than you would expect. But if such a game goes like "hey, I am ;!;; according to blah-blah-blah" (Move 16) followed by "hmm, what exactly is happening here" (Move 20) and "I resign, good game" (Move 25), there is hardly anything that is more frustrating. Luckily, I was spared that kind of experience in my youth, but if I told you that this was due to my superior opening skills, if questioned I would have to admit that I was overstating it a little. In fact, my opening skills were virtually non existent, and while playing intuitively is OK if you are a kid looking for fun at the chess board, an ambitious player actually needs a different approach. That said, I gladly caught at the offer of my club mates to lend one or two of their books, in order to build up a suitable opening repertoire for Black where I would actually understand what I was doing. But as soon as I took a look at their libraries, my head started to spin: which opening system to choose? More than 350 pages on just one line in a book written by Kindermann & Dirr about the French Winawer, a wide range of different Sicilians, not to mention the various Open Games. And what to play against 1 d4 ? To cut a long story short, I felt lost - until 1 ... lt:Jc6! stepped to the plate. What this book has to offer I know that many players were looking forward to reading this book, and it is likely that I will disappoint at least a few with my compilation of recommended 6
Prefa ce: Why 1 . lD c6? .
.
lines and ideas. But I hope that you will eventually reconcile with my ideas, as they are the result of more than six years of refining in thousands of games on and off the internet and thus are fondly covered. And to commend my findings to you some more, I have also tried to explain my choices, where appropriate, giving rea sons why I neglected certain lines. Following my recommendations will provide you with a coherent repertoire against all the main openings White can play. But before getting too excited, there are a few things I want you to keep in mind: the opening repertoire presented in this book is no panacea; neither will you learn it by just skimming over the pages; nor will you then exclusively give your opponents an easy wipeout. There will be a great deal of work involved, but once you have mastered the ideas your score with Black should considerably improve. How I can guarantee that? I can't. But looking at my tremendous improvement after picking up l ...<�:'lc6, I certainly like your chances. And who knows ... if you are still looking for an opening system for White, you could adopt the ideas from this book by playing 1 a3!?. How this book is organized Avid readers will notice that, while I do my best to keep up the l ...lbc6 spirit, some lines I recommend actually transpose into different opening systems, the ... eS English in Part 3 (Chapters 12-14) of this book probably being the most prominent example. It contradicts the predominant unorthodox flavour of l ...lbc6, but this is exactly what I want. While the Chigorin Defence, which I will be cover ing in Part 2 (Chapters 6-1 1 ), may already be acknowledged as a viable opening system, the Nimzowitsch Defence still struggles with a shadowy existence. It's time to change that, and this is where OJtr journey begins ...
7
Part One
I
Black vs. 1 e4: The Nimzowitsch Defence The Nimzowitsch Defence, 1 e4 tL.lc6, may by a long way be the 'weirdest' opening system covered in this book. Moving the queen's knight on move one may indeed seem bizarre, but it surely does have its merits. As you may notice over the course of this book, there are hardly any motifs that are typical for l . . .tZ.lc6, but instead gen eral game plans, each depending on the actual opening line. Therefore, I will provide you with a short overview of possible objectives before each game, though of course I will also try to give you a few general impressions. To start with, let us look at some basic ideas of the Nimzowitsch Defence. No early commitment There are two things every player should pursue in the opening phase: development and partial control of the centre. Developing the queen's knight complies with both aspects and has the additional benefit of not presenting White with a target he can shoot at. It is 8
now his turn to dictate the rhythm, something many players are uncom fortable with. This often results in im proper set-ups, and how those are to be treated will be examined in Chapter 1 . Clash in the Centre! The most principled answer to the Nimzowitsch Defence is 2 d4, immedi ately trying to seize the centre and therefore effectively forcing Black to strike back with 2 ds. White has dif ferent alternatives to respond to this counterstroke, the most straightfor ward being 3 exdS. The idea is to en force c2-c4 and d4-d5 on a long-term basis, gaining space in the process; but at the moment, thanks to his slight lead in development, Black can exhibit sig nificant counterplay against the white d-pawn. White is not able to solve all his problems adequately, as we will see in Chapter 2. ...
Ki ngside attack! Another frequently played system after
P a rt 1: Black vs . 1 e 4 : Th e Nimzo wits ch Defe n ce
2 d4 d5 is initiated by 3 es. White seizes more space in the centre, which seems additionally to be justified by the fact that Black, in contrast to the Advance French or the Advance Caro Kann, cannot attack the white d-pawn with ... c7-c5 (or ... c6-c5). However, given the closed character of the posi tion, there are other plans Black can employ. Many times attacking on the kingside is a key idea, which is often surprising to White players as a black kingside attack is something you don't see too often after 1 e4. When it comes to strategy, the whole system is quite instructive, and to get an idea of what I'm talking about I invite you to exam ine Chapter 3 in more detail. Tricky Transposition As you will notice, transpositions play an important role in this book. As a result, many games derive from a dif ferent move order; so wherever neces sary, I have adjusted the move order for the sake of convenience. The move 3 tt:lc3 is a problem to many Nimzowitsch devotees. White is ready and willing to temporarily sacri fice a pawn with 3 ... dxe4 4 d5 tt:le5 5 i.f4 tt:lg6 6 i.g3 - the resulting varia tions are sharp and quite dangerous for Black. This line is one good reason for
many players to abandon the Nimzowitsch Defence altogether. But there is no need to despair: Black can play 3 ... e6!?, transposing into a rather exotic line of the French Defence. Numerous new ideas have been re cently introduced, so Black players shouldn't be reluctant to use it. Detailed coverage can be found in Chapter 4. Activity versus Structure The most sensible and (for Black) most dangerous way to meet the Nimzowitsch Defence is definitely with 2 lLlf3. White develops a piece and adds pressure to the centre without presenting the d-pawn as a possible target. Many things have been tried, from passive (2 ... d6) to dubious (2 ... d5?!) to incorrect (2 ... f5?), but in my opinion it's clear as daylight: if White refuses to put a pawn on d4, it is the e pawn that needs to be attacked! 2 lt:Jf6 is the move that promises very interest ing positions. Usually White is pro vided with more space and the health ier pawn structure, but in return Black gets the pair of bishops and half-open files to play with. The whole system is relatively unexplored and leaves more than enough room to act out your crea tivity. Anyway, some exciting ideas can be found in Chapter 5. ...
9
Chapter One
I
e4 lt:Jc6: Ra re Second Moves for White 1
Trying to establish the Nimzowitsch Defence, 1 e4 tt:Jc6, as an accepted opening system has always been like tilting at windmills.
that the opening can be played arbitrarily - a faulty premise, as I would like to show you in this chapter, in which we take a look at White's rare second moves. White plays 2 c4?! The position after 1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 c4?! can also derive from the English Opening (via the move order 1 c4 tt:Jc6 2 e4), al though you will not encounter it regu larly either way. The idea, if there is one, is to get a good grip on d5, but the drawback of this approach is evident:
Many reactions have crossed my path during the last four years: amusement to commiseration to sheer disgust, but deli cate handling was rarely one of them. Most of the time even diligent players do not prepare more than one line against the Nimzowitsch Defence, and many players do not consider it even to be a viable system. This often leads to a cer tain sloppiness, with players thinking 10
After
2 ... es,
among other things the
1 e4 tiJ c 6 : Rare S e c o n d M o ve s for Wh i te
dark squares become chronically weak, with d4 literally deteriorating to a 'black hole'. This should be duly ex ploited, and our first game is a nice illustration of how to do just that. Game 1 T.Redlicki-M. Wodzislawski
Ma l bork 2000 1
e4 lt:Jc6 2 c4?! es 3 lt:lc3
3 lt:lf3 i.c5 4 lt:lc3 usually transposes to the text. Note that the common fork trick 4 lt:Jxe5?? does not work here be cause of 4 ...lt:lxe5 5 d4 .ib4+. 3 i.cs .•.
by . . . c7-c6) 7 ...lt:ld4 8 0-0 f5 9 exf5 lt:lexf5 1 0 i.xd4 .ixd4 1 1 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 and Black exploited the weakness of the d4square, just according to plan. A game I watched between two un known players on the Internet Chess Club revealed the true potential of Black's plan: b) After 4 g3 d6 5 i.g2 lt:lge7 6 lt:lge2 0-0 7 0-0 f5 (Black should not wait too long before initiating his assault; after 7 ... i.e6 8 d3 'iVd7 9 �h1 f5 10 f4 Black was only slightly better in V.Tarasova I.Paulet, European Girls Champion ship, Chalkidiki 2001) 8 d3 f4!, a rather typical pawn sacrifice was the prelude to a dangerous attack. The game con cluded 9 gxf4 i.g4 10 f5 (if 10 fxe5 dxe5 and White also has difficulties coming to grips with his situation, as Black's initiative on the kingside is very dan gerous) 10 ...lt:ld4 1 1 i.e3 lt:lf3+ 12 �h1 (after 12 i.xf3 i.xf3 13 i.xc5 tt'lxf5!, in tending 14 . . .'iVg5 or 14. . .'iVh4, is deci sive) 12 ... tt'lxf5! 13 exf5 'iVh4 14 h3 i.xh3 15 i.xf3 i.g4+ 16 �g1 i.xf3 0-1 . 4 ... d6 5 i.e3
4 d3
Instead: a) 4 lt:lf3 d6 5 d3 lt:lge7, intending ... 0-0 and .. .f7-f5, is a plan suggested by British GM John Emms. This was per fectly carried out in the game P.Petek J.Krajnak, Decin 1996, which continued 6 i.e3 0-0 7 ii.e2 (Black should not fear 7 i.xc5 dxc5 as his control over d4 will be everlasting, while a white knight hopping to d5 can be easily kicked out
s... i.b6
11
Play 1 . . . lLJ c 6 !
5 . . .'�Jge7 i s also a perfectly valid move, following the same idea intro duced in the note to White's fourth move. In the game Ed.Lasker-L.Evans, Havana 1952, White tried 6 i.e2 0-0 7 li:Jf3 li:Jd4 8 a3 aS 9 ..ixd4 exd4 10 lt:Ja4, and now Black left his bishop where it was and played 10 ...lt:Jg6 - a strategy that paid off, as after 1 1 �d2 ii.d7 12 lt:JxcS dxcS 13 'ii'gS 'ii'xgS 14 lt:JxgS fS 15 g3 h6 16 exf5 �xfS 17 lt:Je4 l:tae8 1 8 f3 .ixe4 19 fxe4 lt:Je5 the black knight was superior to the white bishop.
stop Black either: 10 ... li:Jxd5 11 cxd5 lt:Je7 12 0-0 c6 13 dxc6 lt:Jxc6 and the d4square will be exploited sooner or later, after which White is left with his puny bishop on e2) 10 ...h6 1 1 ..ixe7 lt:Jxe7 gives Black carte blanche to play on the kingside.
6 li:Jf3
'ii'b 6
6 li:JdS is premature as it allows Black to trade more potential defenders of d4. After 6... ..ia5+ 7 .id2 (7 lt:J c3 is again answered by 7 ... lt:Jge7 followed by ... 0-0 and ... f7-f5) 7 ... i.. xd2+ 8 'li'xd2 lt:Jge7 9 li:Jf3 0-0 10 �e2 .ig4 1 1 0-0 �xf3 12 i.xf3 li:Jxd5 13 cxd5 li:Jd4 Black has a clear advantage due to his far superior knight.
But now 14 .. :ifu4 would have been good. After 15 f3 (or 15 h3 h5) 15 .. J!b8 16 �c3 i.e6 White is virtually a piece down because of his poorly-placed bishop g2. The text move does no harm though.
9 ... lt:Jxds 10 cxds li:Jd4 11 ..ig2 c6
1 1 ... �4 looks tempting, but doesn't lead anywhere at the moment. White can play 12 h3 .id7 13 0-0 and it is not evident how Black should proceed. 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 0-0 �xd2! 14 �xd2
15 ..ic3 lt:Je6 16 �el �a6 17 'ii'd 2 �ab8 18 �e3 cs 19 b3 li:Jf4 20 �f1 ..ic8
6 ... lt:Jge7 7 lt:Jds .ta s+ 8 lt:Jd2 o-o 9 g4?!
White is without any play, so Black can calmly shuffle his pieces. White understandably tries to pre vent Black from playing ...f7-f5, but he does so at a high price. On the other hand, 9 i.e2 f5 10 �gS (10 f3 cannot 12
21 �g3 i.e6 22 'ife1 �b7 23 h4
Desperately seeking counterplay, but the result is just overextension. 23 ...'ii'd 8 24 hS 'li'h4 25 f3 'iile 7 26 .id2
1 e4 tDc6: R a re S e c o n d M o ve s for White gS?I
Although not evident yet, the drawbacks to this move will soon show. Retaining control of the dark squares with 26 ..."Yi'g5 is better: White cannot really loosen the grip, while Black can quietly improve his position. After 27 'ii'f2 (27 "Yi'cl allows 27 ... f5!, cracking the white pawn chain) 27 ... f6 he can choose between attacking on the kingside by opening the h-file with ... g7-g6, and playing on the queenside with ... !'1a8 and rushing his a-pawn forward.
Now the door is closed, and Black can turn his attention to the queenside again. 31 ..th3 cJ;h7 32 �g2 as 3 3 J:::!.b 2 a4 34 �ab1 axb3 3 5 axb3 �ab8 36 "Yi'e1 .l::!.b4 3 7 "Yi'c3 "Yi'f7 3 8 'ii'd 2 Wg7 3 9 "Yi'c3 �xb3 40 d4
Desperation, but what else is there to do? 40...exd4?!
Black starts to lose the thread. The reason he did not play 40 ... cxd4 41 "Yi'd2 .l:I4b7, followed by ... i.e6, is beyond my understanding.
27 Wh2 :as 28 I!g1 f6 29 ii..xf4 gxf4
41 "Yi'd2 �8b6 42 �xf4 c4 43 .l:tg2 l;'!,4b5
29 ... exf4 seemed more logical, but then White can try to break free with 30 d4!?. After 30 ... cxd4 31 .l::td l �c8 32 .l:!.xd4 the weak d6-pawn should pro vide White with sufficient counterplay.
44 .:tbg11:!.gs 45 'ii'd 2 l::!. b bs?
30 �h4?!
Returning the favour. White had to retain the possibility of g4-g5 with 30 h6. Then after 30 ... a5 31 'ifu4 a4 32 g5 f5 33 .th3 fxe4 34 dxe4 axb3 35 axb3 White would have had definite coun terplay. 30 ... h6
45 ... d3 46 f4 .l:i.cS 47 gS fxgS 48 fxg5 'ith8! was the only way to maintain the advantage. Now White strikes back. 46 f4 .l:tgcs 47 'iVxd4 Wh7 48 gs hxgs 49 es ·�d s so 'Yi'fzlitc7 1-o
And Black resigned in view of 51 exf6. It is hard for me to believe that it is actually possible to lose a game from a position like the one after move 19, but I am confident that you will not share this fate. Pursue the strategy outlined and you will be amply rewarded. White plays 2 d 3 I admit that I have not been fully able to uncover the secret why anyone would want to play 2 d 3 . If I were jaunty I would claim that this move is highly prophylactic and that it pays tribute to the fact that Black is ready to jump at the centre with ... d7-d5. But more realistically, it seems that White is merely trying to lure Black into a 13
Play 1 . . lU c 6 ! .
Reversed Philidor after 2 es. My ex cuses to all Philidor aficionados out there, but this is a demand I am more than happy to fulfil. The only thing I am willing to concede is that, with his extra move, White can equalize more easily. ...
Came 2 M.Autenrieth-T . Kabisch
West German Ju n ior C h a m pionshi ps, Dortmund 1982 1 e4ltJc6 2 d 3
exf4 5 �xf4 d5 6 e5 ltJhS 7 �g5 i.e7 8 �xe7 l!kxe7 is also better for Black, while 4 fxe5 ltJxeS 5 ltJf3 ltJxf3+ 6 'i!t'x£3 d5 is at least a quick equalizer) 4 ... �b4 5 fxe5 ltJxeS 6 lDf3 'iYe7 7 �£4 ltJg6 8 �g5 d5 the black position was favour able in V.Vorotnikov-M.Berkovich, Moscow 1990. 3 .. ltJf6 4 i.. e2 .
Instead, 4 g3 aims at a King's Indian set-up (after 4 lL\c3 Black naturally plays 4 . . . d5 with no problems), but Black can obtain a good position with 4 ... d5 5 lbbd2 (if 5 exd5 "Yi'xd5! 6 �g2 �g4 7 h3 i.h5 8 g4 �g6 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 ltJc3 'iit'e6 left Black with a good game in J.Heissler-D.Werner, German League 1997) 5 ... i.. c5 6 i.g2 0-0 7 0-0 .l::!:e8 8 c3 dxe4 9 dxe4 aS, followed by ...b7-b6 and ... i.. c8-b7. 4 ds s lL\bd2 ...
After 5 exd5 Black should play 5 . . ."i!t'xd5,
2 ...es
For those who don't like to play against the Philidor, I recommend 2 ...ltJf6 3 ltJf3 d5 4 e5 lL\d7 5 d4 ltJb6, which transposes to Game 20 in Chap ter 5 (see the note to White's 4th move), the only difference being that the white queen's knight still is on b1 instead of c3. 3 lDf3
According to Emms, 3 f4!? is ' the only way for White to make things ex citing' . Yet, after 3 ...ltJf6 4 ltJc3 (4 ltJf3 14
when White can choose between two sensible moves: a) 6 ltJc3 i.b4 is a kind of reversed Ruy Lopez, Steinitz Defence. This line is not very popular for good reasons:
1 e4 lb c 6 : R a re S e co n d Moves fo r White
Black had no problems due to hls firm control of the centre after 7 1Ld2 .ixc3 8 1Lxc3 0-0 in J.Hansen-H.Hjort, Vejle 1974. b) 6 0-0 circumvents the pin but also gives Black time to establish control over the central dark squares. After 6 ... -icS 7 tbc3 'Ylid6 8 iLgS .ig4 9 h3 ..ixf3 10 .ixf3 0-0-0 Black is not worse. s ... .ics 6 o-o o-o 1 c3 a s
Black ahead. 8 ... h6 9 'i/Vcz .ie6 10 h3 'Yi'd7 11 l::te1 .Uad8 12 Si.f1 l:tfe8
After centralizing all his pieces, Black is obviously better. 13 t2Jb3 i.b6 14 1Le3 i..x e3 lS .l:Ixe3 b6 16 t2Jbd2 d4!
Once again, occupying the d4square is the key idea. 17 �eel
17 cxd4 tbxd4 18 tbxd4 'Ylixd4 1 9 'ilixc7 does not work. After 19 ....l:Ic8! 20 'ilia7 �xb2 21 l:rd1 l:tc2 the black pieces are pouring in. 17 ... tbhs 18 Itecll:!.e7 19 cxd4 t2Jxd4 20 t2Jxd4 �xd4 21 tLlf3 'i!Vd6 22 d4
8 a4
Alternatively: a) 8 b3 is another common move, but the bishop is needed on its current diagonal as well. Following 8 ....l:.e8 9 a3 h6 10 .ib2 dxe4 1 1 dxe4 tbhS, the weak squares in the white camp cannot be denied. b) A.Groszpeter-P.Lukacs, Budapest 1981, saw a different plan: 8 'Yi'c2 "Y/Ke7 9 tbb3 J.b6 10 iLgS. Black reacted well with 10 ... dxe4 1 1 dxe4 h6 12 1Lh4 'ii'e6 13 tLlbd2 tbhS 14 .l:i.fe1 t2Jf4 15 ..ifl, but now instead of the committal 15 ...g5, Black should have played 15 ...�e8 and slowly improved hls position. c) 8 tbxeS would be nice if it worked, but 8 ... t2Jxe5 9 d4 tbxe4 leaves
For the moment it seems that White is solving his problems, but Black stays ahead. 22 ... exd4 23 t2Jxd4 cs 24 t2Jf3
Or 24 tLlxe6 'ifxe6 and White has to choose between surrendering the e pawn or the d-file. 24 ... 'Ylif4 25 .ie2
25 k!.d1 allows 25 ... �xd1 26 �xd1 (if 26 k!.xd1 .ixh3) 26 ...�d7 (but not 26 ...'Yi'xe4?? 27 'i!Vd8+) 27 '1i'e2 tLlf6 28 .i:f.e1 k!.d8 with a commanding position. 15
Play 1 . . . 4J c 6 ! 25 ...l::te d7 2 6 nd1 ttJf6 27 e s ttJds 28 g3 tLlb4! 29 l:txd7 l:!.xd7 30 'iVxcs 'ti'e4 31 �e3 'i¥xe3 32 fxe3 i.. x h3
playing 2 d3 in order to get his favour ite opening with an extra move, you can still choose the set-up recom mended in the note to Black's second move. White plays 2 f4?! We will now continue our toil with obscure opening schemes by looking at 2 f4?!. Again, even after extensive crea tive thinking I could not come up with a good reason why this move should be played at all, so I will limit myself to showing you how it is best handled.
After a few tactical finesses Black has reached a technically won end game. Nevertheless, precise play is re quired. 33 nc1 lle7
33 ...ttJd3! 34 .l:i.c8+ Wh7 35 b3 olte6 would have been even better.
Game 3 J.Kol ler-M. La m mers
Germ a n Jun ior C ha m pion s h i ps, Wi l l i ngen 2004 1 e4 ttJc6 2 f4?!
34 .l:tc4 .ie6
34 ... .id7, forcing 35 b3 (35 �c7? runs into 35 ... ttJd5) 35 ... .ie6 36 l::tc3 tLla2! 37 .l:td3 ttJcl, is another improve ment. Now White manages to achieve just enough counterplay. 35 .i:[d4 .ids 36 �2 i..xf3 37 'it>xf3 llxes 38 .ic4 ttJc6 39 l!d6 f[cs 40 i..d s tLlb4 41 i.. b 3 ttJc6 42 .ids ttJes+ 43 'it>e4 ttJc4 44 l:rd8+ Wh7 45 b3 f5+ 46 '.t>d4 ttJa3 47 i..g 8+ 'it>h8
Or 47 ... 'it>g6 48 �d6+ 'it>g5 49 l:!.xb6. 48 i..e 6+ Wh7 49 .ig8+ Yz-Yz
2 ... ds 3 exds
Fair enough. As long as White can only scrape a draw when Black shows technical deficiencies, I will not com plain. And if your opponent is inciden tally a Philidor expert, deliberately
Instead: a) After 3 e5 the position shows a structural resemblance to positions in Chapter 3, one difference being that Black has saved the move ... f7-f6. That
16
1 e4 !Dc6: Rare S e c o n d Moves for White
said, 3 ... ltJh6 still seems logical, but 3 ... d4! is even better.
For example: a1) After 4 ltJf3 Black can move his queen into a safe position with 4 .. .'tifd5!. The game F.Pearson-W.Faxon, Framingham 1993, continued 5 ltJa3 (5 g3 is strongly met by 5 . . .ltJb4!, the ideas being ...'iVe4+, . . .lbxc2+ and ... d3, which cannot all be coped with at once) 5 ... i.g4 (5 .. .'ife4+ 6 i.e2 �xf4 is too greedy: after 7 ltJb5 'it>d8 8 d3 "i¥f5 9 0-0 White has more than enough compen sation for the pawn) 6 i.. e2 (now if 6 ll..c4?! 'ti'e4+ 7 �e2 i.xf3 8 gxf3 Black can take the f4-pawn) 6 ...e6 7 0-0? (7 d3 is better, but after 7 . . .ltJh6 8 h3 i.h5 9 g4 .ig6, followed by ... £7-£6, Black still enjoys an advantage) 7 ... i.xa3 8 bxa3 d3! 9 cxd3 i.. xf3 10 i.x£3 ...d4+ 1 1 'it>h1 �xa1 and White could have resigned with a clear conscience. a2) 4 i.c4 prevents 4 ...'ii"d5, but does not solve White's development prob lems. Black, on the other hand, can play 4 ...ltJh6 5 ltJ£3 .ig4 6 0-0 e6 7 d3 ltJ£5 and once again a knight is superior to a bishop, A.Razumovski-V.Sukho-
rukov, Russian Cup, Smolensk 1997. a3) 4 d3 ltJh6 5 ltJd2 (after 5 g3 the Israeli GM Gadi Rechlis showed in a blitz game against an unknown player how the position should be handled: 5 ... ..tg4 6 lDf3 f6 7 exf6 exf6 8 i.. g2 .ib4+ 9 �f2 0-0 and Black is clearly better) 5 ... i.g4 6 ..'tJg£3 ltJf5 7 ltJe4 e6 8 i.e2 i.. e 7 9 0-0 'ti'd7 10 h3 ..txf3 11 i.xf3 0-0-0 and White has problems with his dark squares. b) 3 ltJc3 just provokes 3 ... d4 4 lDb1 (instead, V.Petrov-O.Attia, Paris 1995, continued 4 ltJce2 e5 5 ..'tJ£3 and now Black uncorked the spectacular 5 ... f5!? 6 d3 j_d6 7 fxe5 .ixe5 8 ltJxe5 ltJxe5 9 Jl.£4 ltJg6 10 �d2 lDf6 11 exf5 i.xf5 and this time the white light-squared bishop has a rather miserable exis tence) 4 ... e5 5 ltJf3 (5 d3 weakens the dark squares once more; Black is better either after 5 . . . £l.b4+ 6 c3 dxc3 7 ltJxc3 ltJf6 or 7 bxc3 iLd6) and Black can even hang on to the pawn with 5 ...exf4 6 d3 g5. 3 .. :iVxds 4 ttJc3 'i¥d6
This is the most sensible square for the queen, retaining maximum mobil17
Play 1 . . .tbc6!
ity while having a look at the £-pawn. s lbf3
5 ii.b5 i.d7 6 d3 lbf6 7 lbf3 a6 8 i.. c4 lbd4 9 lbg5 e6 10 lbge4 lbxe4 1 1 lbxe4 'ii b6 12 c3 lb£5 13 d4 �c6 14 �d3 �e7 led to a comfortable game for Black in X.Arroyo Valera-A.Heredia Tarrats, Sants 200 1 . s i.g4 6 i.c4 ..•
Unpinning the knight with 6 .i.e2 was probably the better choice. 6 ...0-0-0 7 d3 (7 0-0 lbd4 8 lbe5 lbxe2+ 9 lbxe2 i..h5 10 �e1 £6 1 1 lbf3 e6 12 d4 i.x£3! 13 l:.tx£3 £5 left the white bishop restrained in J.Petro-P.Dudas, Miskolc 1997) 7 . . .'iVc5 8 lbe4 'ih>6 9 lbe5 was played in A.Norris-J.Sherwin, British League 1999, and now 9 ...lbxe5 10 fxeS �£5 would have been only slightly better for Black. 6 0-0-0 7 d3 ••.
fxg4 �xd3 and Black is a healthy pawn up, while 1 1 dxc4 .l:!.xd1+ 1 2 'it>xd1 i.xf3+ simply loses. 9 tt:Jegs tt:Jh6 10 h3 i..xf3 11 tt:Jxf3 lbhfS 12 lbxd4?!
Failing to rise to the occasion with 1 2 lLleS!, when Black suddenly has dif ficulties protecting his only weakness, the f7-pawn. After 12 ... lLlg3 (if 12 . . . lbd6 then 13 �x£7 and it is hard to prove enough compensation for the pawn) there follows 13 !l:fl lt::Jd£5 (if 13 ... lbxfl 14 'it>xfl and Black can't defend f7) 14 'jlff3 lbxfl 15 'it>xfl lbh6 16 �xf7 with good play for the exchange. Certainly this was the lesser of two evils for White when compared to the course of the actual game, where Black is now back in control. 12 .. .'�xd4 13 '\i'e2 e6 14 c3 'i¥b6 15 'iif3 h5 16 a4 as 17 d4 �e7 18 g3 c s !
7 i.x£7?! '\!Vx£4 8 i.b3 lbd4 is nothing White should be aiming at. 7 ...lbd4 8 lbe4
With a useful lead in development it certainly makes sense to open the position. 8 ... 'iVb6?1
19 dxcs i.xcs 20 i.d3 �xd 3 ! 21 'ilxd3
But this is the wrong place for the queen. 8 ... 'iVb4+! is clearly better as 9 c3? runs into 9 .. .lL:lxf3+ 10 gxf3 'iVxc4! 1 1
�f2+ 22 'It>f1 lbxg3+ 23 'it>g2 lbxh1 24
18
'it>xh1
Being up in material and develop-
1 e4 liJ c 6 : R a re S e c o n d Moves fo r White
ment, Black is winning. 24 .'i!fc6+ 25 'ith2 h4 26 'i¥e2 i.g3+ 27 •.
'itg1 l:tdB 28 .id2 'i!Vd5 29 .ie1 'ii'f5 30 1i'c4+ Wb8 31 i.xg3 hxg3 32 'it>g2 l:td2+
Game 4 E.Gafner-V.Zolot u khin Alushta
2005
33 'it>xg3 'it'g6+ 34 'it>f3 'i!Vg2+ 35 We3 'it'f2+ 36 We4 l:!.e2+ 0-1
White plays 2 ii.bs Improbable as it may sound, 2 i.b5 is not as wacky as it looks. The main idea is to lure Black into playing 2 ...e5, after which White can gratefully transpose into the Ruy Lopez with 3 lt:Jf3, some thing Black is obviously not inclined to do. Instead, he should try to exploit the one drawback of 2 AbS - the neglection of the g2-pawn! This is done best with 2 d 5 !, asking for 3 exd5 'it'xd5 when Black is attacking both the bishop and the g-pawn.
1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 i.b5
..•
This would leave White to choose between the alternatives 4 i.xc6+ and 4 kfl - an almost satirical situation. Therefore, he should look for third move alternatives, but those are thin on the ground. Anyway, Black has noth ing to worry about.
2 ... d5! 3 t2Jc3
Instead, 3 i.xc6+?! gives the bishop pair away for no reason; the temporary defect in Black's pawn structure after 3 ...bxc6 does not justify this course of action; for example, 4 e5 (4 exdS?! cxdS is even worse, as it repairs the black pawns again) 4...c5 and Black reaches a favourable version of a French Defence. As noted above, 3 exdS 'ii'xdS shows the defect of 2 i.bS. White has nothing better than 4 kxc6+ (4 i.fl ?! leaves Black two tempi up, which is com pletely out of the question; while 4 lt:Jc3? 'i!Vxg2 5 'i*'f3 i.h3! is a motif worth remembering) 4 ...'iit'xc6 and the pair of bishops promises a small advantage. 3 ... dxe4 4 'iie 2
Instead: a) 4 l2Jxe4 'i¥d5! 5 'it'e2 k£5 6 l2Jg3 was played in J.Plaskett-J.Speelman,
19
Play 1 . ..li'Jc6!
Gibraltar 2003, and now Black should have simply collected a pawn with 6 ...i.. xc2. b) 4 .ltxc6+ bxc6 5 tt'lxe4 was subject of H.Schueler-C.Wisnewski, Hamburg 2003; then after s ...tt'lf6 6 tt'lxf6+ exf6 the pair of bishops compensates for the crippled pawn structure.
22 '>t>b1 tt'lf2 23 i.. h6 tt'lxd1 24 �xf8 tt'le3 2 S l::tf6
Now White is even better, but this is not the last time the tables turn... 2 S tt'lg4 2 6 iLg7 .••
Here 26 .l:i.xd6+ would have been possible as 26 ... 'it>c7 27 i.g7 .l::i.g8 is met by 28 .ltxeS.
4 i.. d 7 5 tt'lxe4 tt'ld4 6 i.. x d7+ 'ii'x d7 7
26 ...tt'lxf6 27 .ltxh8 tt'lg4 28 tt'lf3 tt'lfs 2 9
'iid 3 es
Wc1 h6 30 d4?! e4 31 tt'le1 tt'lxg3 32 dS
••.
h s 3 3 Wd2 h4 34 .ltd4 a6 3 5 tt'lc2 tt'lhs 36 i.. e 3 tt'les 3 7 b3 bs 3 8 cxbs axbs 3 9 �gs??
Black has comfortably equalized, with the position not being too sterile to play for a win. 8 c3 tt'le6 9 'i'xd7+ 'i.t>xd7 10 tt'lf3 i.. d 6
39 ... h3?
11 d 3 fs 12 tt'lxd6?!
39 ... tt'lf3+! would have been better as 40 gxf3 loses to 40... h3.
Although it is usually tempting to trade a knight for a bishop, this time White should have avoided it. 12 tt'legS would have maintained the balance.
40 gxh3 tt'lf3+ 41 �e3 tt'lxgs 42 tt'ld4?
42 h4! would have drawn here. 42 tt'lf6 43 h4 tt'lxds+ 44 �e2 tt'lf4+ 45 •..
12 ...cxd6 13 i.e3 f4 14 i.. d 2 gS 15 0-0-0
Wf1 tt'lf3 46 tt'lxf3 exf3 4 7 a4 bxa4 48
tt'lf6 16 c4 g4 17 tt'lh4 tt'ld4 18 llhe1 g3?!
bxa4 �e6?
But this is too optimistic. Black is trying to play for tricks but in the end is unsuccessful. Instead 18 ....M.hg8 19 �c3 .l:lgS! would have left Black in con trol as the white knight cannot get back into play.
Missing the important 48 .. .'!i:Jh3! af ter which White will not be able to go after Black's d-pawn in time.
19 hxg3 tt'lg4 20 .l:i.f1 fxg3 21 fxg3 .l:!.af8
20
49 'it12 'iitfs so 'it>xf3 tt'lds 51 as tt'lc7 52 hs 'it>gs 53 �e4 'it>xhs 54 a6?
The final blunder. Instead, 54 'it>fS followed by 'it>f6 and �e7 would have
1 e4 lt:Jc6 : Rare S e c o n d Mo ves for White
drawn. 54...'�g6 55 a7 'M7 Yz-Yz
According to MegaBase 2006 this game ended in a draw, but now Black is simply winning as White cannot trade pawns. White plays 2 tt:Jc3 I will conclude this chapter with the most sensible of all second move alter natives, 2 lLJc3 . Because of its close rela tionship to Chapter 4, I recommend 2 ... e6 as the move to play. Now White's best choice is indeed to trans pose to Chapter 4 with 3 d4. Apart from that there are only a few alterna tives worth mentioning, and it is no surprise that Black is not seriously put to the test by any of them. Gam e s F.J.Dos Santos-C.Doleza l
Carilo 2005
Chapter 4. White has also tried: a) 3 �c4 is not a serious attempt to prevent ... d7-d5 after 3 ... tt:lf6. b) 3 lLJ£3 d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 d4 trans poses to Stern-Alexopoulos (Game 1 7) also in Chapter 4. c) Finally, 3 f4 has similar draw backs to 2 f4 (as in Koller-Lammers) : 3 ... d5 4 eS d4 5 lLJe4 b6!? 6 .i.bS i.b7 7 d3 �d7 8 lZ:lf3 0-0-0 resulted in a space advantage for Black in A.Carvalho S.Rocha, Portuguese League 1994. White tried to generate some play with 9 c3 dxc3 10 'it'a4 cxb2 1 1 �xb2, but 1 l . ..a6!, with the idea 12 .i.xa6 tt:lxeS, leaves White empty-handed. 3 ... d5 4 ..l¥..g 2 d4 5 ttJb1
5 lZ:lce2 d3 6 cxd3 'Vixd3 7 tt:lf4 �d8 8 lLJge2 e5 9 lLJd5 �g4 again features the exploitation of the d4-square, while after 8 lLJf3 eS 9 tt:ldS l2Jf6 the white knight is politely shown the door. 5 ... e5
1 e4 lLJc6 2 lLJc3 e6
Black has already obtained a nota ble space advantage. 6 d 3 i.e6 7 a3 �d7 8 h3 ..l¥..d 6 9 l2Je2 h 5 3 g3
The main line 3 d4 dS is covered in
1 0 f4 f6 1 1 f5
Desperately trying to close the posi21
Play 1 . .lt:lc6 ! .
tion, but the attempt will fail misera bly.
Or 2 3 ltJxg6 h4! and the white king will be hunted down.
11 ... id7 12 liJd2 0-0-0 13 liJf3 g6
23
•.•
.l:!.xg6! 24 �f4
It is questionable if White rejected 24 ltJxg6 h4 25 .l::[£5!? because of 25 . . .hxg3+ 26 �gl l!xh3 27 .l::th5 �d8!.
With natural moves Black is crack ing open the position. 14 liJh4 ttJge7 15 o-o
Directly heading into the storm is hardly advisable. 15 fxg6 ltJxg6 16 liJf5 ..t£8 would have been the lesser evil, when there is at least some time for White to catch breath.
But that is one spectacular move too many. 24 ... .l::[g7 would have preserved the attack, whereas now there is noth ing more than a draw.
15 J�dg8 16 .i..d 2
25 �xg3 ng8+ 26 'it>h2 'i'f51 27 'i!Vd2
1 6 fxg6 ltJxg6 1 7 .Iitx£6 is just suicide: after 1 7...liJxh4 18 gxh4 i.e6 the attack is decisive.
27 liJxf5 l:!.g2+ 28 �hl J::tf2+ 29 �gl .l::[g2+ also results in a draw by perpet ual.
.•
24 .l:!.xg3?! •..
16 ...gxf5 17 exf5 e4! 18 i.xe4 liJd5 19
27 ...�g5 28 'ikf2 'ikxh4 29 �xh4 �g2+
�h2 i.e5 20 .txd5 �xd5 21 liJf4 ltJe7
30 �h1 .:I.g4+ 31 Wh2 �g2+ 32 '>t>h1
22 liJfg6 ltJxg6 23 fxg6
�g4+ Yz-Yz
22
1 e4 lLl c 6 : R a re S e c o n d M o ves for White
Summary The games in this chapter show that the Nimzowitsch Defence has to be taken seriously; any attempt to face it without a proper strategy is doomed to fail. That said, you will hardly ever encounter any of the lines examined herein. But if you actually do, I just have two words for you: happy hunting! 1 e4 l2Jc6 (D) 2 lLlc3
2 c4 eS (D) - Game 1 2 d3 eS - Game 2 2 f4 dS Game 3 2 i.bS dS Game 4 e6 3 g3 dS (D) - Game 5 -
-
2 ...
1 lLlc6 ...
2 e5 ...
3 d5 ...
23
Chapter Two
I
e4 CLJc6 2 d4 d s 3 exd s 'ii' x d s
1
Practice shows that the position after 2 d4 ds 3 exds iVxds, which can also
arise via the move order 1 e4 dS 2 exdS 'YWxdS 3 d4 tt:::lc6, is quite popular. Therefore this is a good starting point for a few strategic elucidations. The move 3 exdS features a clash of ideas: in an ideal world White would try to gain more space with c2-c4 and d4-d5, but in reality he first has to think about taking care of his d-pawn. White plays 4 i.e3 There is only one real advantage to 4 ii.e3, in that White circumvents the pin of his king's knight. However, there are many disadvantages outweighing this, the most important one probably being that after 4 ... e5 5 tt:::lc 3 SLb4 the bishop cannot help resolve the pin on the queen's knight. Because of that White is often left with doubled c-pawns, a structural deficit (see diagram) which has helped to decide numerous games. 5 c4 is the only way to avoid this
24
destiny, but then instead of doubled pawns there are now weak squares Black can aim at, as our next game il lustrates.
Came 6 W.G rund-R.Broem mel
German League 2003 1 e4 tt:Jc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5
Instead: a) 3 �e3? is a desperate attempt to
1 e4 l'Llc6 2 d4 dS 3 exds 'Viix ds
steer the game into a position typical for the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. However, the knight on c6 once more stands Black in good stead; for exam ple, 3 ... dxe4 4 £3 'Llf6 5 c3 e5! 6 i.b5 exd4 7 .i.xd4 i.d7 8 i..xf6 'ir'xf6 9 'ife2 0-0-0 10 fxe4 'Lle5 1 1 i.. xd7+ l:!.xd7 1 2 ctJf3 'Lld3+ 1 3 'it>fl 'Ll£4 and White re signed H.Schuhmacher m C.Wisnewski, Kiel 2004. b) 3 i.b5 only makes sense if the pin can be exploited, but this is not the case here. After 3 ... dxe4 none of the follow ing options are really convincing:
b1) 4 .ixc6+?! is completely harm less. After 4 ...bxc6 5 'Llc3 'Llf6 6 .ig5 .i.f5 7 'Llge2 ctJdS! 8 0-0 h6 9 .i.e3 e6 White had no compensation for the pawn in H.Borges-V.Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1993. b2) 4 'Llc3 eS! 5 dS?! (retrieving the pawn with 5 dxe5 led to complete equality after 5 .. .'iVxd1+ 6 ctJxd1 .id7 in I.Totos-F.Kiss, Hungarian Girls Cham pionship 1994) 5 ... a6 6 �a4 b5 7 'Llxb5 axb5 8 .txb5 'Llge7 9 dxc6 'ti'xd1+ 10 Wxd 1 has been the subject of many games. For example, 10 ...'Llf5 1 1 ctJe2
(11 c4 as played in D.Romito-W.Maly, correspondence 1999, is merely a fur ther weakening of the position: after 1 1 .. .'Lld4! White will have a hard time defending himself as the black pieces quickly join the attack) 1l.. .ii.c5 12 'it>e1 (12 4Jc3 seems to be a promising move, but 12 ... 'Lld6 13 .i.e3 i.. d4 14 i.. e2 .ixc3 15 bxc3 i.e6, intending to win the c6pawn with ... .i.e6-d5, offered Black good chances in A.Ponelis-R.Sicker, correspondence 1990) 12 ... .i.e6 13 a3 (13 i.. d2 looks like a more natural way to prevent ... .i.b4; however, the game A.Reichmann-S.Pickard, correspon dence 1990, showed that there are also disadvantages: 13 ... 'Lld6 14 'Llc3 0-0 15 b3 f5! 16 a4 f4 1 7 f3 e3 1 8 .i.cl i..b4 19 i..b2 'Llxb5 20 axb5 lha1+ 21 it..x a1 I:ld8 and White was busted) 13 ... 0-0 14 c4 !Ifd8 and Black had a dangerous initia tive in L.Schuler-A.Eger, correspon dence 1984. The game concluded 15 g3 i..b4+ 16 Wfl (or 16 'Llc3 'Lld4! 1 7 .Ub1 'Llc2+ 18 We2 i.. g4+ and Black is win ning) 16 ... 'Llh4! 17 'Llg1 (other lines are winning as well, e.g. 17 ..\rl.g5 i..h3+ 1 8 Wg1 'Llf3 mate, o r 1 7 gxh4 .ih3+ 1 8 'it>g1 l::td 1 mate, or 17 'Llc3 .i.h3+ 18 'it>e2 i.. xc3 19 bxc3 ..\rl.g4+ etc) 17 .. J�dl+ 1 8 '>i'e2 .l:!.e1 mate. b3) 4 d5 a6 5 .i.a4 (even worse than before; but 5 .i.xc6+ bxc6 6 dxc6 �xd1 + 7 'it>xd1 i.. g4+ 8 f3 exf3 9 gxf3 0-0-0+ 10 'it>e1 i..f5 1 1 'Lla3 e5 12 'Llc4 f6 led to a stable advantage for Black in R.Furdzik M.Ardaman, Internet blitz 1997) 5 ...b5 6 dxc6 (6 c4 is well met by 6 ... 'Llb4!) 6 ...�xd1+ 7 c;t>xd1 bxa4 8 'Llc3 and now Black could have gotten a significant 25
Play 1 . tD c 6 ! .
.
advantage in G.Simango-V.Afriany, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988, had he played 8 ...e5, intending to capture the c6-pawn with .JiJe7 and . . .<�)xc6. 3 .. �xds
not play 4 ... e5, the knight is misplaced on e2. I recommend 4 ... .i.f5 5 CLJbc3 'i'd7, and now 6 d5 ct:Jb4 7 lbd4 0-0-0 8 i.c4 e5 9 lbxf5 'iNxf5 is good for Black.
4 �e3
5 C4
4 lbc3 will be looked at in the next game, while 4 lLlf3 is the subject of Games 8-12. White has also tried: a) 4 c3 is a bit toothless. After 4. . . e5 5 ..ie3 (5 lbf3 .ig4 6 i.e2 0-0-0 trans poses to Game 10) 5 ... CLJf6 6 lbf3 .l1.g4 7 i.e2 0-0-0 8 dxe5 (8 c4?! 'it'a5+ 9 .lii.d 2 .l1.b4 10 d5 .i.x£3 looks like a position from Game 10, but with a key differ ence: here the black knight is already on f6, effectively giving Black an extra tempo) 8 ... 'i'xd1+ 9 .l1.xd1 ct:Jxe5 10 0-0 lbx£3+ 1 1 i.xf3 .l1.xf3 12 gxf3 lLldS Black enjoyed an endgame advantage in F.Zamudio-M.Tempone, Boca 1996. b) 4 CLJe2 is not as innocuous as it looks; the idea is to circumvent the pin on the d1-h5 diagonal. After 4 . . .e5 5 CLJbc3 .l1.b4 6 i.d2 .l1.xc3 7 .i.xc3 exd4 8 lbxd4 CLJxd4 9 "ifxd4 'i'xd4 10 .l1.xd4 the bishop pair guarantees a long-lasting advantage for White. But if Black does
Instead: a) 5 dxe5 �xd1+ 6 'it'xd1 CLJxe5 is obviously better for Black. b) 5 lbf3 transposes to a position covered in Game 8. c) 5 lbe2?! does not avoid the pin af ter 5 . . . ii.g4! as 6 f3? fails to 6 ... .l1.xf3!, for example 7 ct:Jbc3 (7 gxf3 �x£3 forks bishop and rook) 7 . . . .i.b4 8 .i.d2 (or 8 ir'd2 .i.xe2 9 lbxd5 i.xd2+ 10 'it'xe2 ii.xe3 l l lbxc7+ 'it'd7 1 2 ct:Jxa8 exd4 with a winning advantage for Black) 8 ... .i.xc3 9 lbxc3 i.xd1 10 CLJxd5 0-0-0 and Black has a clear advantage ac cording to H.Myers. Relatively best (after 5 ....i.g4!) is 6 lbbc3 i..b4 7 dxe5 �xe5 with the initiative. d) 5 ct:Jc3 .i.b4 shows the disadvan tage of playing 4 .i.e3, in that the bishop cannot help to resolve the pin, and other ways of coping with it are not as effective:
.-
26
4...es
1 e4 lL'lc6 2 d4 ds 3 exds 'ii x ds
antarian, Voroshilovgrad 1989, contin ued 7 dxe5 tbge7 8 .lit.c4 �e6 9 i.xe6 l::td 8! 10 i.x£7+ 'it>xf7 11 li'cl i.xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 'ilkxc3+ 13 Wf1 tbfS with a danger ous initiative for Black) 7 bxc3 tbf6 8 c4 'ii'd 6 9 d5.
d1) 6 tbge2?! leads to 5 tbge2 after 6 ... i.g4!. d2) 6 a3 i.xc3+ 7 bxc3 leaves White with an immobile centre. Following 7... i.f5 8 tb£3 'ii'a5 9 i.d2 (9 li'd2 led to a disaster in M.Spaans-J.Van Arkel, correspondence 1986: 9 ...0-0-0 10 i.c4 tb£6 1 1 0-0 exd4 1 2 i.xd4 tbxd4 1 3 tL'lxd4 c 5 and then 1 4 'it'g5? cxd4 15 .Jld3 l:!.d5 with an extra piece, whereas on 14 tbb3 l:txd2 15 tbxa5 .l:txc2 White would 'only' have been a pawn down) 9 ...'ika4! 10 tbxe5 tL'lxe5 1 1 dxe5 0-0-0 1 2 i.d3 i.xd3 13 cxd3 'it'xd1+ 1 4 �xd1 �xd3 Black had a nice game in Will C.Crouch, London 1974. Instead, 8 c4 was tried in A.Khadzhynov-V.Jashchenko, Ukrain ian Championship 2002, but after 8 ...li'a5+ 9 i.d2 'it'a4 10 dxe5 (or if 10 c3 'ifxd1 + 1 1 l:!.xd1 exd4 and Black was just a pawn up in S.Ludwig-S.Kuemin, Pizol 1997) 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 tb£3 i.xc2 12 �cl £6 Black had a clearly better posi tion. d3) 6 li'd2 .ixc3 (6 ... exd4?? loses to 7 tbxd5 dxe3 8 �xb4, but 6 ...'it'a5 is an other possibility: R.Akhundov-N.Kal-
Now if you were to compare the position with those examined in Chap ter 1 1, you would think that 9 . . .tbe7 is the right move. It is playable, as the game E.Keogh-M.O'Cinneide, Kil kenny 1997, showed: after 10 f3 (better is 10 tbe2 as played in F .Adamek M.Spal, Klalovy 1996, though Black should have no problems after 10 ... tbg4) 10 ...0-0 1 1 i.d3 c6 12 dxc6 �xc6 13 tbe2 i.e6 Black had a solid positional advantage. But the enterprising 9 ... tbd4!? is even more interesting. The game Bermuda T.Thorhallsson-R.Forster, 1999, continued 10 f3 (accepting the pawn with 10 i.xd4 is dangerous, as either 10 ...exd4 1 1 li'xd4 0-0 1 2 i.e2 l:te8 or 1 1 tbf3 0-0 1 2 tbxd4 .l:!.e8+ 13 ..te2 tbe4 provides Black with good attack ing chances) 10 ... 0-0 11 g4?!, and now following 1 l ...'ifa3! White would have 27
Play 1 . .tt:J c 6 ! .
hit on problems a s the knight can no longer be harassed with c2-c3 and the threat of 1 2 ...fk'xe3+ has to be dealt with as well. After 12 itd3 c6 the white posi tion is about to crumble.
The queen's task on aS is done. It is now time to assign her another one.
s JWa s+ 6 i.d2
11 'i!Ha4+ �8 12 b4 li'h6
.•
the white pawns being fixed on the light squares. 9 ... itfs 10 .Uc1 'Wb61
6 t"Llc3 exd4 7 itxd4 t"Llxd4 8 'ii'xd4 abandons the bishop pair for no rea son. 6 ... 1Lb4 7 ds iL.xd2+ 8 t"Llxd2
Or 8 1fxd2 'ifxd2+ 9 Wxd2 (if 9 t"Llxd2 t"Llb4 is annoying) 9 ...t"Lld4 with a comfortable position for Black. 8 ...t"Lld4
12 ...'ifg6, eyeing c2 and g2, would have been better. But the position is still far from bad for Black. 13 �c3 t"Llf6 14 t"Llgf3 a6 15 bS t"Lle4 16 t"Llxe4 ii.xe4 17 .ie2 i.xf3 18 ii.xf3 t"Llxf3+ 19 gxf3 'i!Vd6 20 o-o hs 21 cs 'ii'x ds 22 l:i.d1 'i!Ve6 2 3 c6 9 a3
9 .id3, preventing the c8-bishop from going to f5, seems to make more sense. But Black is also fine here; for example, 9 ...t"Llf6 10 t"Lle2 .tg4 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 f3? just drops a pawn t o 1 l . . . .ixf3!) 1 l . ..i.xe2 ( 1 l . . .e4?! 1 2 t"Llxe4 t"Llxe4 13 f3 'ii'c5 as in Cu.Hansen-N.Fries Nielsen, Danish Championship 1981, is too am bitious since 14 Wh1 ! wins material) 1 2 .ixe2 0-0. White has a bishop versus a knight (for example after 13 tbb3 t"Llxb3 14 'ii'xb3 'itb6), but I have always been fond of such endgames, especially with 28
2 3 ...bxc6?
Black probably did not play 23 ... b6!? because of 24 gd7, but after 24... �h6 25
1 e4 ltJ c 6 2 d4 ds 3 exds 'ifxds
.l:lxc7?! "ii'h3! 26 'i!Yb4+ 'it>g8 27 f4 'iig4+ 28 l:!g3 (but not 28 'it>fl? li'd1+ 29 Wg2 h4 and wins, for example 30 .l:td7 l::tg6+ 31 J::tg3 h3+! 32 �xh3 li'f1+ 33 wM nh6+ with a devastating attack, or 30 f5 h3+! 31 !:Ixh3 !hh3 32 'it>xh3 li'f3+ 33 Wh4 axb5 etc) 28 ... �d1 + 29 '>t>g2 h4 30 �d7 'ifcl he would have been more than compensated with attacking chances against the white king. Whereas now his position becomes difficult. 24 .l:txc6 'WeB 2 5 l:txc7
to spoil a better position. But that should not lure you from coming to the conclusion that 4 .i.e3 is just scanty. White plays 4 ctJc31? The pawn sacrifice with 4 l2Jc3!? is treated as an orphan in most publica tions, even though it is highly danger ous if it's not given some respect. After 4...'ir'xd4 5 'iVe2 White can accelerate his development by attacking the black queen, and Black has to be very careful not to go to the dogs. In my opinion, the best possible treatment was seen in the following game. Game 7 J.Ca n a l Oliveras M. Narciso Dubla n
Terra ssa 1994 1 e4 l2Jc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 'Wxd5 4 l2Jc3!? 25 ...'it'xb5?
The losing move; Black might still have defended with 25 ... axb5 26 'iie4 l:!.h6 27 .l:tdd7 bl£6. 26 'ii'e4 ltb8 27 .l:ldd7
27 'iff5! would have won immedi ately. But all the same, with the white rooks having penetrated the seventh rank, the game is technically over. 27 .. Jib1+ 28 �g2 �xe4 29 .l:txf7+ WeB 30 fxe4 g5 31 .l;!ce7+ '>t>d8 32 l:!.a7 �e8 33 .l:tfe7+ �8 34 .l:Ixe5 .t!h6 35 .l::l.f5+
4...'iVxd4 5 "ii'e 2
WeB 36 �xg5 Wf8 37 h4 J;!b3 38 .l:tc5
The only sensible way to prevent the queen from being traded off. a) 5 �d3 is met by S ... l2Jb4! as 6 �bS+ c6 7 'ir'xd4 allows 7 ... l2Jxc2+ fol-
llg6+ 39 Wh2 .l:[e6 40 �c8+ lieS 41 I:txe8+ Wxe8 42 �xa6 1-0
Too bad that one move was enough
29
Play 1 . . . tiJ c 6!
lowed by 8 ....�:'lxd4. b) 5 ..te3 does not offer enough for the pawn. After 5 .. .'it'xd1 + 6 l:txd1 ..t£5 7 tt:'lb5 I!c8 Black is safe. s ...e6!
"ii'a5+ 9 .i.d2 and Black has nothing bet ter than to repeat moves with 9 ...'ii'b6, as 9 ... tt:'lb4 10 "ii'e 5! i.xb5 1 1 .ixb5+ c6 12 ..ixc6+ tt:'lxc6 13 'i!Vxa5 tt:'lxa5 14 .i.xa5 is good for White. 6 'bbs
6 .i.e3 'it'd8 is a motif known from the Steinitz Variation in the Scotch Opening. After 7 .Ud1 .id6 8 tt:'lb5 (8 �g4 tt:'lf6 9 'iWxg7 llg8 10 'ti'h6 .l:tg6 1 1 'ti'h4 'ti'e7 results in Black leading in development, the main idea being ... i.d7 followed by ...0-0-0) 8 ... 'ir'e7 9 tt:'lxd6+ cxd6 Black has a safe position. 6 . .'ii'd8 7 ..tf4 i.b4+! .
Shutting in the light-squared bishop, but a pawn up you have to compromise a little bit. The natural looking 5 ... .i.g4?! is dangerous after 6 f3 and then: a) 6 .....th5 7 .ie3 ii'b4 8 0-0-0 e6 (Black does not have the time for 8 ... a6? 9 tt:'ld5 't!Va5 10 i..b 6! and White wins, or 9 .. .'ii'd6 10 tt:'lb6 tt:'ld4 11 .l::Ixd4 "ii'xb6 1 2 lidS! winning a piece) 9 .l::Id 5! tt:'lf6 10 l:Ib5 tt:'ld4 1 1 i.xd4 'ii'xd4 12 .l:hb7 and White has won his pawn back. But not 12 l'!xh5?, winning two pieces for the rook, as after 12 ...tt:'lxh5 13 "ii'b5+ c6 14 'ti'xh5 'ir'e3+ 15 �d1 'ir'f2 16 tt:'lh3 0-0-0+ 17 .id3 'ii'xg2 Black picks up too many pawns. b) 6 ... .i.d7 7 tt:'lb5 (7 .i.e3?! is harm less: Black managed to erect a safe po sition after 7 ...'ifb4 8 0-0-0 'bf6 9 tt:'lh3 e6 10 tt:'l£4 0-0-0 11 tt:'lb5 'ii'a5 12 'lt>b1 a6 13 tt:'ld4 tt:'lxd4 14 i.xd4 .i.d6 in P .Juslin K.Kiik, Naantali 1999) 7 ... ifb6 8 .i.e3 30
7....i.d6? is now bad: 8 ..ixd6 (not 8 l::td 1 ?! e5) 8 ...cxd6 9 0-0-0 and the d pawn is doomed due to 9 ... d5 10 .l::Ixd5! 'ti'xd5 11 tt:'lc7+, winning the queen. 8 c3 ii.as 9 l!d1
9 tt:'lf3 is too slow. With 9 ... a6 10 tt:'la3 tt:'lf6 11 tt:'lc4 0-0 12 tt:'lxa5 tt:'lxa5 13 �d1 'ii'e7 14 'ii'e5 tt:'ld5! Black could consoli date his position in D.Geiselman S.Wrinn, correspondence 1997. The game continued 15 .i.cl (15 l:!.xd5? founders on 15 ... 'bc6!) and after 15 ...�d8 White has nothing for the pawn.
1 e4 tt:J c 6 2 d4 d5 3 exds 'ii x ds 9 'i'e7 10 tt:lf3 tt:lf6 11 g3 a6 12 tt:lbd4 •..
tt:lxd4 13 tt:lxd4 cs 14 tt:lb3 ii.c7 15 .i.xc7 'ii'xc7 16 i.g2 .i.d7 17 o-o o-o
endgame, as once more the knight dominates the bishop. A theme worth remembering! 47 a 3 tt:lbs 48 a4 tt:ld6 49 .i.ds 'it'g7 so �2 fS 51 �e3 'it'f6 52 �d3 gS 53 We3 f4+ 54 gxf4 gxf4+ 55 �d3 �e7 56 i.. g 8 'it'd7 57 ..ids �c7 ss h3 �b6 59 Ji.e6 �CS 60 h4 'it>b4 61 .i.d7 tt:\b7 0-1
So 4 tt:lc3!? can be played against successfully after all, although it does take a bit of inside knowledge. I have seen many players suffer humiliating defeats following 5 ... .ltg4?!, and that is simply not necessary. Black has managed to repel the at tack and remains a pawn up. 18 .l:!.d2 c4 19 tt:ld4 es 20 tt:lc2 .i.fs 21 .l:te1 l:f.ad8 22 tt:lb4 Ji.g4 23 f3 .l:!.xd2 24 "i'xd2 Ae6 2 5 'ii'e 3 as 26 tt:lc2 Afs 27 �a3 �e8 28 ii.f1 ttJds 29 1i'd2 tt:lb6 30 l:d1 "ii'c 6 3 1 .i.e2 'ti'cs+ 3 2 �g2 h6 33 ·i'd6 "ii'e 3 34 �d2 'i'cs 35 'i¥d6 'i'e3 36 "i'd2 'iix d2 3 7 �xd2 .ie6 3 8 I:i.d6 tt:la4 39 tt:lxc4 Axc4 40 i.. xc4 tt:lxb2 41 Ads :!e7 42 .l:!.d8+ �h7 43 llb8 tt:ld1 44 i.. e4+ g6 45 .l:!.xb7 .ti.xb7 46 i.. x b7 tt:lxc3
Black has simplified into a winning
White plays 4 t2Jf3 As a result of the previous games the only sensible option left is the natural 4 ll:Jf3. Black is at a crossroads now, as he can choose between the rock-solid 4 . . . eS and the riskier 4 . . . �g4. I will ac tually cover both, as it will not hurt to be able to react differently to different (tournament) situations. As the consequences of 4...es are less complicated, we might as well start our investigation at this point. Its advan tages can be summed up quickly: not only does it renew the attack on d4, it also frees the path for the dark-squared bishop and therefore saves the queen from being harassed, as 5 tt:lc3 is met by s ... i.. b4. The most logical course of ac tion is 6 i..d 2 .i.xc3 7 i.xc3 e4 8 tt:\es tt:lxes 9 dxes tt:le7 when we have ar rived at the critical position of 4 ... e5. Some players may not feel comfort able in this position, as they have to face a pair of bishops in an open posi tion. 31
Play 1 . . .tl:l c6 !
reaching the same position with re versed colours. The more enterprising 4 ... �g4 will be covered in Games 9-12. 5 lt:Jc3
But this dogmatic view is one which should be quickly set aside - the knight can be a powerful piece too, and the great Nimzowitsch himself showed that Black has nothing to worry about. Game S S.Ta rrasch-A. Nimzowitsch Bad Kissi ngen 1928 1 e 4 lt:Jc6 2 d 4 ds 3 exds 'ikxds 4 lt:Jf3 e s
actually This game was A.Nimzowitsch-S.Tarrasch, and ac cording to ChessBase started 1 e3!? e5 2 lbc3 d5 3 d4 exd4 4 'ii'xd4 lt:Jf6 5 e4, 32
Other moves: a) 5 dxe5?! is not a serious alterna tive. After 5 .. .'iVxd1+ 6 'it>xd1 �g4 7 i.f4 lt:Jge7 8 i.d3 0-0-0 9 We2 lt:Jg6 10 i.xg6 lt:Jd4+! 1 1 �e3 �x£3 12 �d3 i.xg2 13 l:tg1 �c6 Black had a clearly better po sition in J.Juntunen-Se.Ivanov, Oulu 2002. b) 5 i.e3 could also occur via 1 e4 lbc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 'i!fxd5 4 �e3 e5 5 lb£3. But there is a reason the knight should not be put on £3 here: 5 ... ..ig4 6 lbc3 �b4 7 dxe5 ..ixc3+ 8 bxc3 i.xf3 9 gx£3 'ii'xe5 and the pair of bishops did not compensate for the totally crippled pawn structure in S.Fabian Nagy L.Szabadi, Hungary 1 997, while 6 �e2 exd4 (a more enterprising try is 6 ... ii.xf3!? 7 i.. x£3 e4 8 �e2 0-0-0 9 c3 £5 with counterplay according to M.Wahls) 7 lbc3 WNh5 8 lt:Jxd4 i.xe2 9 'ifxe2 Wf'xe2+ 10 lt:Jcxe2 lt:Jge7 1 1 0-0-0 0-0-0 was just equal in W.Besel A.Bandza, Giessen 1995. c) 5 c4 could transpose to Game 6 after 5 ...Wf'a5+. But even better is 5 ...'i!Ve4+ 6 i.e3 exd4 7 lbxd4 i.b4+ 8 lbc3 lt:Jge7, for example 9 i..e2 'ifxg2! 10 �£3 i¥g6 11 lbdb5 0-0 and White can hardly take on c7 as 12 lt:Jxc7 �xc3+ 13 bxc3 .Ud8 14 'ife2 lt:JeS! leads to a very dangerous attack. s ... � b4 6 i.d2 6 dxe5 is similar to 5 dxe5. After 6 .. .'il'xd1+ 7 'lt>xd1 ii.g4 8 i..£4 0-0-0+ 9
1 e4 lb c 6 2 d4 d5 3 exds �xds
i.d3 ttJge7 10 �cl .1i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 ttJdS 1 2 i.gS :r.de8 Black had a good game in correspondence F.Heritier-C.J.Roos, 1995. 6...i.xc3 7 .ixc3 e4
7 ... exd4?! 8 ttJxd4 ttJxd4 9 'i'xd4 ·i'xd4 10 it..xd4 only helps White. s
lLles
8 ttJd2 is too passive. 8 ...ttJf6 9 ttJc4 (if 9 ..ltc4 'i¥g5 and White has problems protecting his kingside properly) 9 ... .ie6 10 ttJe3 (or 10 'i¥d2 0-0 1 1 l:Id1 .:ad8 1 2 'i!Vf4 1i'd7 13 ttJe3 ttJe7 14 .1i.e2 -2led5 and it was White who had to struggle for equality in G.Saidy Kaplan, Puerto Rico 1969) 10 .. :�d7 1 1 d S ( 1 1 ..11Lb5 a6 1 2 ..lta4 0-0 1 3 .ixc6 �xc6 14 .ib4 was played in E.Rozentalis \ti.Petrov, Athens 2003, and now with 14 ...l:tfd8 Black would not have had any problems) 1 l . ..tLlxd5 12 il.xg7 .§.g8 1 3 ttJxdS ii.xdS 14 i.c3 0-0-0 and Black had a very nice game in L.Mazi \ti.Semri, Ljubljana 1998. 8...t2Jxes 9 dxes tLle7
is at a crossroads. 10 ..11Le2
The other pathways are: a) 10 'i'xdS ttJxdS usually transposes to the text and is only significant if White plays 11 .iaS. Nevertheless, this sideline has to be taken very seriously, as the game S.Kishnev-T.O'Donnell, Budapest 1991, shows: 1 l . ..b6 12 0-0-0 ..l¥..b7 13 ..11Ld2 0-0-0 14 i.e2 h6 15 l':'!.he1 .l:the8 1 6 c4 ttJe7 17 .ih5 l:tf8 1 8 ..I1Lb4 and the bishops' potential fully emerged . Better is 1 l .. . .ig4!, and after 12 c4 ttJb6 13 h3 i.e6 1 4 b3 0-0-0 15 We2 :Gfhe8 16 �e3 .ifS 17 i.c3 ttJd7 18 e6 .l:txe6 19 ii.xg7 (as in E.Prie-A.Haik, Lyon 1995) 19 ... ttJc5 would have promised Black good play. b) With 10 "i¥e2 White tries to go for the e-pawn, but Black does not really need to worry about that. For example, 10 ... i.e6 1 1 l:!.d1 Vic6 12 "i¥b5 (after 1 2 .l:!.d4 ttJf5! 13 lixe4 0-0-0 14 f3 'i!VdS 1 5 g3 hS 16 i.h3 'ii'xa2 17 0-0 h4 18 g4 ttJe7 19 b3 ttJdS Black was better in I.Veinger J.Klinger, Munich 1987) 1 2 ...�xb5 1 3 i.xbS+ c6 14 .ie2 ttJdS 15 .1i.d2 (15 .1i.d4?! allows 15 ... ttJf4 16 .ili.£1 0-0 1 7 g3 it.. g 4! 18 f!.d2 .if3) 1 5 . . .0-0-0 1 6 0-0 (16 .Ji.gS :r.d7 17 .l::td4 does not win a pawn as after 17 ...!i.e8 18 l:txe4 .itf5 White cannot hold onto his own e-pawn) 16 ...l:Id7 is nothing that Black should fear. 10 ... it..e6 11 �xds tiJxds 12 .itd2 o-o 13 o-o �fe8 14 c4
We have come to the actual starting position of this line as already men tioned in the introduction. Now White
Keilhack recommends 14 i.c4 ttJe3!? 15 .ixe3 i.xc4 16 �fd1 .l:!.xeS 1 7 .l:!.d7, but clearly this is not something White is looking for. 33
Play 1 . . .t'iJ c6 !
14...lbe7 1 5 f4 exf3 1 6 gxf3 16 .l:!.x£3 would not have damaged the pawn structure so much, but due to the isolated pawn on e5 Black should still have the more comfortable game. For example, 16 ....l:i.ad8 17 i.c3 .il..g4 18 .l:f.f2 i.. xe2 19 l:he2 lbc6 and it is difficult for White to protect his e-pawn on a long-term basis. 16 ... lbfs
Looking at this position I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to be able to play confidently with a knight against a bishop. And not only for this position. The knight is an excel lent piece to play with! 17 l:tf2 .l:tad8 18 .il..fl :td7 19 l:te1 h6 20 i..c 3 �ed8 21 .l:!.c2 lbd4 22 .l:!.f2 i.fs 23 I:l.c1 lbe6 24 f4 lbcs 2 5 .l:tf3 lba4 26 i.. e1 .l:!.d1 27 .llxd1 .l:!.xd1 28 �f2 .l:f.bl 29 b3 lbcs 30 .l:te3 .l:!.b2+ 31 �e2 lbd3+ 32 �e3 l:tbl 33 .lth3 �xh3 34 �xd3 .if1 35 �c2 .l:f.a1 36 �b2 lixa2+ 37 'it>xa2 i.xe2 Usually opposite-coloured bishops give the defending side hope of a draw even a pawn down, but here the defi ciencies of the white pawn structure are an additional disadvantage. 34
3 8 'i¥tb2 Wh7 3 9 cs r.t>g6 4 0 Wcl 'ltfs 41 wd2 .ltbs 42 We3 �c6 43 .id2 g6 44 b4 'it>g4 45 ..tf2 hs 46 .ltc1 'it>h3 47 �g1 b6 48 cxb6 cxb6 49 fs gxfs so i.d2 'it>g4 51 �2 f4 52 .ic3 �5 53 'it>e2 We4 54 ii.e1 'it>xes 55 .ic3+ 'it>e4 56 .lte1 �d4 5 7 i.f2+ �C4 58 i.e1 .il..e4 59 i.. d 2 �b3 60 Wf2 f3 61 i.. e 1 fs 62 �e3 'it>a4 63 �f2 bs 64 �e3 as 65 bxas b4 o-1 In short, I like 4 . . . e5. If I ever need a draw in a serious game, I would prefer 4 ...e5 over 4 ...i.g4 any day. The Main line: 4 CLJf3 ii.g4 As I already indicated at the beginning of this chapter, the main line after 4 lbf3 .ig4 can be characterized by dif ferent plans on both sides: White is heading for a static long-term advan tage (in the form of a notable space ad vantage), while Black is trying to make use of his current dynamic short-term advantage (in the form of his lead in development and more active pieces). The resulting complications are usually favourable to Black, but there are nu merous skirmishes which need a thor ough examination.
1 e4 tt::i c 6 2 d4 d5 3 exds 'Wixds
White plays 5 lbc3 Having regard to all the points just mentioned, the move 5 ll:lc3 does not really fit in. The knight blocks its own c-pawn, and without c2-c4 White will never be able to enforce d4-d5 under favourable circumstances. Black, on the other hand, can combine his counter play in the centre with a possible king side attack - a dangerous combination as we will see in our next game. Game 9 G.Noakes-T.Menzel
Correspondence 1998 1 e4 ll:lc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 'ir'xd5 4 ll:lf3 l.g4 5 ll:lc3 The main move, 5 i.e2, is the sub ject of Games 10-12. s :iVh5! ..
Before continuing, let's look at pos ;,ible alternatives for Black: a) 5 .. ."�f5?! is a different approach, two ideas being ...ll:lb4 (attacking c2) and ... ii.xf3 (crippling the pawn struc ture). Yet, I was not able to refute the
simple 6 d5 ll:le5 (6 ... ll:lb4 7 ..\tb5+ c6 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 ..lta4 l':td8 10 'ii'e2 is just bad) 7 i.b5+ c6 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 ll:lxe5! 'i!Vxe5+ 10 i.e3 i.d7 (after 10 ... ..\txd1 1 1 i.xc6+ Wd8 1 2 !!xd1 + <;t>c8 13 �xa8 White has more than enough play and material for the queen) 1 1 'ili'f3 with a clear advantage for White in R.Ginther M.Turcan, correspondence 1998. b) 5 ... i.xf3 is another popular op tion, but I cannot reconcile myself to this idea. After 6 ll:lxd5 i.xd1 7 ll:lxc7+ �d8 (7 .. st>d7? is worse as the king is more vulnerable to checks: 8 ll:lxa8 .ixc2 9 d5 ll:ld4 10 .ie3 e5 1 1 dxe6+ ll:lxe6 12 ..ltb5+ <;t>c8 13 .ixa7 and White wins) 8 ll:lxa8 ..ltxc2 9 d5! ll:ld4 (or 9 ...ll:lb4 10 i.e3 ..ie4 11 .l:tcl ll:lxa2 1 2 .la.c7 i.xd5 1 3 i.xa7 e5 1 4 i..b5) 10 iLe3 e5 11 dxe6 i.b4+ 12 i.d2 i.xd2+ 13 <;t>xd2 fxe6 (13 . . . ..ig6 14 .l:tcl ll:lc6 was played in K.Kirby-K.Blevins, Winston Salem 1996, and now 15 ..lta6! would have been decisive) 14 Ii.c1 ll:lf6 15 .l:i.xc2 ll:lxc2 16 <2i>xc2 �e7 17 i.c4 £ha8 18 J::!.e 1 l1c8 19 .l:i.xe6+ Wd7 20 <2i>d3 White has a stable endgame advantage (analysis by Wahls). c) 5 .. ."�a5?! is usually reached via 1 e4 ll:lc6 2 ll:\£3 d5 3 exd5 'ikxd5 4 ll:lc3 "t!fa5 5 ll:l£3 i.g4 and is a pet line of the Russian IM Nikolai Vlassov. In his analysis he states that 6 i.b5 0-0-0 7 i.xc6 bxc6 8 'i!Ve2! <2i>b7 (8 ...!hd4 is no improvement: after 9 h3 ..ixf3 10 'ii'xf3 White wins the pawn back and leaves Black with a scattered pawn structure) 9 b4! 'ii'f5 10 b5 iLxf3 1 1 gxf3 e6 1 2 bxc6+ <2i>xc6 i s the critical position. Black even managed to gain the upper 35
Play 1 . .JiJ c 6 !
hand in L.Kviatkowski-N.Vlassov, Po lanica Zdroj 1993, following 13 l!fa6+?! Wd7 14 "ifa4+ c6 15 Sg1 'ii'xf3 16 �e3 i.. d6 17 .l:!.b1 t/Je7 18 .l::!.b7+ We8. How ever, I could not find a way to cope with 13 l:!.g1! which brings the rook into action and slightly changes the move order, winning a precious tempo. Black must prevent 14 .l::!. g5 at all cost, but after 13 ...h6 14 .l:tb1 there is no satis factory way to prevent 15 'ii'a6+ fol lowed by 'fka6-a4 and .l::!.b 1-b7; for ex ample, 14 ...'it>d7 (if 14 ... .l::!.xd4 15 .l'.tb5! �£6 16 .l:!.b8 and the black king can only escape under large concessions) 15 .l:!.b5 't!fu3 16 .il.f4 c6 17 l:tb7+ '>t>e8 18 ..tc7 .l:!.a8 19 d5! and the white attack is devastat ing. 6 ii.e2
from going decisively to f3) 1 3... tbe4 1 4 0-0-0 g 6 and Black was O K in K.Kjolner-Po.Nielsen, Copenhagen 1991. 6 0-0-0 7 0-0 7 i.e3 is naturally met by 7 ...e5!, and if 8 d5 (8 h3 tZ:lf6 9 0-0 exd4 1 0 tbxd4 i.xe2 1 1 lt:Jcxe2 it..c5 1 2 c3 lDd5 is better for Black), then Black has the pleasant choice between 8 ...tbf6 9 0-0 e4 1 0 lDd4 tbxd4 1 1 il..xd4 �xe2 1 2 �xe2 �xe2 13 tbxe2 tDxdS and 8 ... i.b4 9 0-0 .ltxc3 10 bxc3 e4 1 1 tZ:ld4 i.xe2 12 �xe2 'ii'xe2 13 tbxe2 l:.xd5, winning the d5pawn in both lines. 7 h3 wants to shake off the pressure at once, but after 7 ... it..xf3 8 .ltxf3 'ii'g6 9 d5 lt:Je5 the d-pawn has a precarious future. Nor does 9 i.e3 e5 10 i.xc6 bxc6 solve all the problems (but not 10 ...'ii'x c6?!, allowing 1 1 'i!Vg4+ followed by 12 dxe5). 7 es 8 h3 t2Jf6! ...
...
6 i..b5 0-0-0 7 i.xc6 bxc6 is similar to the previous note, the crucial difference being that White cannot play b2-b4 with tempo. For example, 8 'ii'd3 .lii.x£3 9 gxf3 e6 10 �a6+ 'it>d7 1 1 ..ltd2 'ii'xf3 1 2 .l:!.g1 t/Jf6 13 t/Je2 (surprisingly, if 13 'ilt'xa7 t/Jg4 the white king is in more danger than the black one: after 14 tbd 1 tbxh2 White cannot prevent the knight 36
Offering a piece which White can hardly accept. 9 ds a) 9 ..ie3 transposes t o 7 i.e3, cov ered in the note to White's 7th move.
1 e4 tt'J c 6 2 d4 ds 3 exds �xds
b) 9 hxg4?! lbxg4 takes up the gauntlet, but the arising complications favour Black:
b1) 10 lLibS a6 11 a4 takes advantage of the fact that the knight is impervious to 1 l ...axbS 12 axbS, as 12 . . .tLlxd4 13 :aS+ '.td7 1 4 lLixeS+! wins and 12 ... tLlb8 takes the heat off d4. However, Black can play 1 l ...lbxd4 12 tL:lbxd4 .l:;!.xd4! when White has nothing better than 13 �d2 (or 13 Ad3 e4 14 .l::!.e 1 AcS! 1 S �xd4 Axd4 with a winning attack, while 14 i.f4 is countered by 14 ... Ad6!) 13 ...e4 14 tt:Jh4 e3! 1S g3 exf2+ 16 Wg2 (if 16 .l:tx£2 ..icS! 17 Wfl tt:Jxf2 1 8 i.xhS �xd1 leads to a better endgame for Black) 16 ... AcS and Black, now with three pawns for the sacrificed piece, still has an attack. b2) 1 0 lbh4 is a desperate try to con front the attackers, but d4 is also a mat ter of concern. For example, 10 ... fS 1 1 f3 ( 1 1 g3 lbxd4 is good for Black) 1 1 . . .tL:lf6 12 'ife1 lbxd4 13 Ad3 ..icS 14 i.e3 e4! 15 fxe4 lbg4 and Black has a deadly attack. b3) The critical move is 10 dS, but after 10 .. .fS! (planning ... eS-e4) 1 1 AgS
(other moves do not help either, as Wahls showed in his compelling analy sis: 1 1 'ifd2 Ae7 12 lLibS a6 13 i.d3 .l:;!.xdS 14 AxfS+ 'ik'xfS 1S 'ifxdS axbS 16 'ifxbS .l::!.f8 17 i.e3 �S when the threat 18 ....l:txf3 is decisive, or 1 1 tL:lbS a6 12 AgS tL:le7 13 d6 axbS 14 dxe7 �xd1 1S .Maxd1 Axe7 16 i.xe7 e4 1 7 tL:lh4 .l:i.e8 1 8 .MdS .Mxe7 19 i.xg4 'ik'xg4 2 0 tL:lxfS .Md7 and Black has a winning position) 1 1 ... e4 12 i.f4 Ad6 13 'ii'd 2 (if 13 i.xd6 .Mxd6 14 lLlh4 'ifxh4 1S i.xg4 fxg4 and White cannot prevent the invasion on the h-file, while after 13 lLih2 Axf4 1 4 lbxg4 tL:leS! 1S g 3 fxg4 Black again has a winning attack, e.g. 16 "Yi"d4 .l:i.d6!, or 16 lLlxe4 .MxdS!, or 16 gxf4 lLif3+ 1 7 ..ixf3 exf3 and mate is unavoidable) 13 ... exf3 14 Axf3 (if 1 4 gxf3 lbh2! 1S dxc6 tL:lxf3+ 16 i.x£3 "iixf3 1 7 cxb7+ Wb8 18 tLle2 "iig4+ 19 'lt>h1 gS and Black wins) 14 ... lLiceS 1S Axg4 'ifxg4 16 AxeS AxeS this time Black has a bishop, which is clearly superior to the white knight. 9 Axf3 10 Axf3 'ifg6 ...
11 Ae3 The best move among many. Instead: 37
Play 1 Ji:J c 6 ! . .
a ) 1 1 dxc6?! �xd1 12 cxb7+ Wb8 1 3 Itxd1 .ic5 does not offer enough com pensation for the queen. b) 1 1 .l:!e1 i.b4 1 2 .id2 lZJd4 13 l:!.xe5 lLlx£3+ 14 �x£3 'ii'xc2 15 ti'f4 (15 l:!.e2 'ii'g6 results in a comfortable position for Black) 15 ... .txc3 16 .ixc3 lZJxd5 1 7 �g4+ Wb8 1 8 "i!Vxg7 lLlxc3 19 bxc3 was played in H.May-Donner, Austria 1966, and now 19 .. J:thg8 20 'iVf6 (not 20 'i!i'xf7? l:!.gf8) 20 .. .'ihc3 would have given Black a slight endgame advan tage. c) 1 1 i.. d 2 lLld4 12 .l:!cl �f5! elimi nates the pair of bishops, while simul taneously keeping an eye on d5. 11 ...Wb8! 12 'ii'e 2
Again, other moves do not promise much: a) 12 .l:!e1 i..b4 13 .id2 lZJd4 is the same as 1 1 .l::te1 examined above, with the extra move ... �b8 for Black. b) 12 lLlbS? e4 13 dxc6 J:.xd1 1 4 .ixa7+ '>t>a8 1 5 cxb7+ �xb7 16 .ixd1 c6 buries any hopes White might have had. c) 12 lLle2? lLlb4 loses the pawn on dS, as 13 c4 lZJc2 14 �cl lZJxe3 15 fxe3 e4 38
is even worse. d) 12 a3 prevents the black knight and bishop from going to b4 but loses time. Black can play 12 ...lZJe7 13 �e1 (13 lZJbS a6 1 4 d6 is met simply by 14 ... cxd6 15 .ta7+ '>t>a8 16 .ib6 I:Id7 and Black is a pawn up) 13 ...lZJf5 14 .icl (14 .td2 al lows 14 ...lL\d4 15 l:txeS lLlxf3+ 1 6 'i!Vxf3 "it'xc2 and if 1 7 �e2 'i'g6 when Black should not be worse) 14 . . ..tc5 15 lZJa4 .i.d6 16 c4 lZJh4 1 7 g3 (or 1 7 c5 e4!) 1 7...e4 and Black has a huge attack. 12 ... lLld4? 12 ...lZJb4! was the road to success. The best White can do is 13 �acl, but after 13 ... e4 14 lLlxe4 lLlfxdS Black is OK. 13 .txd4 exd4 14 lLlbs i.. c s 14 ...a6 15 lLlxd4 lLlxdS is no im provement, as after 16 l:Iadl Black has problems completing his development. 15 'i!Vc4 i.. b 6 16 a4 as 17 lLlxd4 ii.xd4 18 'i!Vxd4 "it'xc2 19 b4
The white attack will soon be irre sistible. 19 ... axb4 20 �fc1 \'ifs 21 'iit'xb4 lZJxds 22 "it'bs 1i'd7 23 �ab1 �xbs 24 l'bbs c6 25 �xc6 lLlc7 26 .l:!.b1 1-0
1 e4 tiJ c 6 2 d4 dS 3 exds 'Wixds
What a pity. Black came this close to equality, but just one move screwed up his efforts. However, with proper preparation this will not happen again, and the fact that White has far more pitfalls to avoid should be an added consolation. White plays 5 i.e2 o-o-o 6 c3 After rejecting 5 tt:lc3, it is now time to look at the lines resulting from 5 .ie2 0-0-0. With his last move Black uttered the intention to take the d-pawn, a threat to which White can react in dif ferent ways. The value of 6 c3 depends solely on its interpretation.
seems bizarre, but with a pawn on e5 the black queen can no longer switch to the kingside via the fifth rank, which is quite powerful as we will see in Game 1 1 . In addition to that, the d-pawn can now safely advance to d5 without be ing picked on by a possible ...e7-e6. However, providing Black with an ad ditional tempo to attack the centre puts White in a slippery situation, and he can only struggle for a draw, as we'll see in our next game. Game 10 V.Kiyu ner-J. Koscielski
D u i s b u rg 2000 1 e4 tt'lc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 "iVxd5 4 tt:lf3 .ig4 5 .te2 o-o-o 6 c3 e5
The ideas behind the move are clear: White protects his central pawn, thus parrying the threat of 6 ....ixf3 7 .ltxf3 't!Vxd4. If allowed, he would like to complete his development with 7 0-0, 8 .ie3 and 9 tt:lbd2, followed by c3c4 or b2-b4. Obviously Black cannot tolerate this, so stabbing at d4 with 6 e5! is the logical continuation. Now 7 c4! is the only sensible way for White to avoid getting into difficul ties. Moving the c-pawn twice in a row ...
7 C4 Many other moves have been tried, but with only moderate success: a) 7 .lte3 ltJf6 has already been dis cussed in Game 6 (see the note to White's 4th move). b) 7 h3 i.xf3 8 .ixf3 e4 9 .ie2 f5 10 .if4 h6 11 tt'ld2 g5 12 i.c4 't!Vd7 13 .ih2 39
Play 1 . . .tb c 6 !
lbf6 14 lbb3 f4 and the black pawns were rolling down the board in A.Huellen-T.Meier, Olpe 2005. c) 7 0-0? exd4 8 cxd4 l2Jxd4 9 l2Jxd4 .ii.xe2 10 "Yixe2 "Yixd4 1 1 .ii.e3 was played in S.Rosta-I.Gosztola, Hungar ian Team Championship 1992, and now instead of 1 1 ..."Yid3, White would not have had any compensation after 1 1 .. ."Yie5. d) 7 dxe5 allows Black to choose be tween 7 ... "Yixd1+ 8 .ii.x d1 lbxe5 9 0-0 lbxf3+ 10 .ii.xf3 .ii.xf3 1 1 gxf3 l:td3 12 .ii.e3 lbf6 with a stable endgame advan tage in A.Lazar-P.Kovacic, Bled 1998, and 7 ..."Yie4 8 "Yib3 (8 lbbd2 .ii.xf3 9 gxf3 "Yixe5 is out of the question, while 9 lbxe4?! is not good either because of 9 ... l:txd1+ 10 .ii.x d1 .ii.xe4) 8 ... .ii.xf3 9 gxf3 "Yixe5 10 "Yixf7 l2Jf6 with the initia tive. 7 ... "Yia 5+ 8 .ii.d 2 6 .ii.e3 e5 7 c4 "Yia5+ 8 kd2 comes to the same thing and was in fact the course of this game. 8....lli. b4 8 ... "Yib6? is a trap many players have fallen victim of - White wins after 9 c5! AxeS 10 dxc5 "Yixb2 11 .ii.c3 l:txd1 + 12 'it>xdl. 9 d s .lli.xf3 9 ... e4 is not good. White is better af ter 10 lbg5 .ii.xe2 1 1 "Yixe2 l2Jd4 12 "Yid1 l2Jh6 13 0-0 .ii.x d2 14 l2Jxd2 "Yib6 15 l2Jdxe4 (analysis by Wahls). 10 .ii.xf3 .lli.xd2+ 11 l2Jxd2 l2Jd4 12 0-0 12 a3 seeks to expand on the queen side. In R.Lehtivaara-K.Tikkanen, Fin nish Team Championship 1994, Black seized the moment to play in the centre 40
with 12. . .f5, and after 13 0-0 e4 14 .lli.e2 lbf6 15 b4 "Yia6 16 l:te1 he should have continued 16 ..."Yid6 followed by ... c7-c6, which would have given him the ad vantage. 12 ..."Yib4!
Now 12 ... f5?! is dubious, due to 13 lbb3 lbxb3 1 4 axb3 "Yib6 15 "Yic2 and c4c5 proves to be rather inconvenient. 13 b3?! After 13 l:!e1 ! it was long thought that Black can take the pawn with 13 ..."Yixb2, but in fact after 14 l:!b1 "Yixa2 the move 15 l:!xe5! is very strong. Wahls only gave 15 ... l2Jxf3+ 16 l2Jxf3 "Yixc4 with complicated play (which he backed up with a few variations), but White can do better with 16 "Yixf3! when Black has serious problems, one example being 16 ..."Yixd2 17 d6! c6 (or 17 ...b6 18 "Yia8+ 'it>d7 19 "Yixa7) 18 "Yif5+ 'it>b8 19 "Yid7!! and White wins. There fore, the right way to continue is 13 ... l2Jf6 (instead of 13 ... "Yixb2) with the idea 14 l:txe5 lbx£3+ 15 l2Jxf3 "Yixc4 which results in a nice position for Black. 13 .. .f5 14 a3 "Yid6 15 b4 e4 16 Ji.e2 l2Jf6
1 e4 liJ c 6 2 d4 ds 3 exds 't!Hxds
The white pawns on the queenside have been successfully fixed as the dS pawn needs to be protected. Therefore Black is better. 17 li:Jb3 li:Jxe2+ 18 'iix e2 li:Jg4 19 g3 ·i'h6 20 f4 gs? 20. . . exf3! was obviously better. Fol lowing 21 �xf3 .l:lhe8 22 'iic2 (or 22 'i'd2 ·tvxd2 23 li:Jxd2 x:!.e2 24 li:Jfl g6 with a clear endgame advantage) 22 ... �e4! Black has at least a slight advantage, for example 23 .l:IxfS .l:!.de8 24 J::i.afl .:l.xc4! (but not 24 ... .l:Ie2? which loses to 25 'jVxe2! �xe2 26 .l:If8+ �d7 27 J::i. l f7+ .t>d6 28 �d8+ �eS 29 .l:Ie8+ c,t>d6 30 Il:.xe2 etc). Instead Black just collapses and loses quickly. 21 t2Jd4 gxf4 22 l:lxf4 �hg8 23 ttJxfs ·i!Vgs 24 J:af1 !IdeS 2 5 .l:!.xe4 .l:Ixe4 26 ·tvxe4 �b8 27 'i'f4 'ik'h s 28 h4 ft'e8 29 !Dd4 a6 30 li:Je6 1-0 White plays 6 c4 6 c4 is the most consequential attempt to realize the plan I outlined in the in troduction to this chapter. White reaches for space in the centre and forces the black queen to abandon her
central post. Various moves have been tried here, but 6 .. .'i'a5+ and 6 ...'iif5 are certainly the most attractive options. 6 ..Ji'fs has the merit that the queen retains an active position, without be ing forced to move again after 7 h3 .i.xf3 8 Jlxf3. The only thing Black has to look out for is the threat of 9 Jlg4, but this can be easily countered by 8 ...tLlf6, when White will experience difficulties keeping his fragile centre together as 9 ii.xc6?! fie6+! 10 i.e3 "tvxc6 drops a pawn.
The only sensible continuation is 7 0-0. Now Black should refrain from grabbing the d-pawn with 7 ...i.xf3?! 8 .i.xf3 .l:Xxd4 as White gets good attack ing chances after 9 'Vi'a4!. Instead, the quiet 7 ...li:Jf6 is simple and good. In his book Modernes Skandinavisch, German GM Matthias W ahls claims that after 8 .i.e3 e5 9 d5 e4 10 t2Jd4 li:Jxd4 1 1 Jlxd4 .i.d6 12 li:Jc3 it is White who has the better prospects, but I can't share this opinion. Our next game will feature the more common 6 .. -'i!Vas+, but I'd also like to support my theory that 6 .. .'iVf5 is a viable alternative. 41
Play 1 . . .llJ c 6 !
Game 1 1 B.Schra mm-P.Muehlig Versen
Sch l oss Sch ney 2002 1 e4 lt:Jc6 2 d4 d s 3 exds "ifxds 4 li:Jf3 .ltg4 5 .lte2 o-o-o 6 c4
6 .. Ji'a s+ As I said above, 6 ... "iff5 is a decent alternative. Now 7 .lte3 transposes to the text, while 7 0-0 li:Jf6!?, although being dismissed by Wahls, leads to a good game for Black. After 8 .lte3 (8 d5? heads for disaster after 8 ...e6 9 .ltd3 .ltxf3! 10 gxf3 ifu3 as 11 dxc6 loses to l l . . . ..id6 12 f4 lt:Jg4) 8 ... e5 9 d5 e4 10 li:Jd4 (10 li:Jh4? is bad due to 10 ...ifu5 1 1 ..ixg4+ lt:Jxg4 1 2 h3 lt:Jce5!; while on 10 li:Jfd2 ctJe5 Black has an advantage in space, and White cannot grab a pawn with 1 1 ..ixa7? as after l l . ..b6 12 .ltxg4 "ifxg4! the bishop is doomed) 10 ... li:Jxd4 1 1 ..ixd4 ..id6 12 lt:Jc3. Wahls claims that White has better prospects for an attack on the enemy king, but the game M.Lazic-N.Sulava, St Affrique 2002, proved him wrong: 42
12. . ...ixe2 13 "i!Vxe2 lt:Jg4 1 4 h3 lbh2! 15 l:!fdl lbf3+ 16
1 e4 lLl c 6 2 d4 dS 3 exds �xds
Black's idea is to exchange the white knight to win the c5-pawn. After that the two bishops and two pawns should provide more than enough chances in this unbalanced position. But those who do not like these com plications can choose 6 .. :�£5. b) After 8 d5 Black can choose be tween 8 ...lt:Je5 9 l2:lxe5 'ili'xe5 10 f3 (10 �e3?! is dubious because of 10 . . ...txe2 11 'i*'xe2 e6!) 10 ...i.h5 1 1 0-0 e6 12 �c3 'ife3+ 13 Wh1 with unclear play in Bardi-Jakobetz, Budapest 1986; or 8 .....txf3 9 dxc6 .ltxe2 (but not 9 ...i.xc6?? 10 i.g4) 10 cxb7+ Wxb7 1 1 ·tvxe2 e5 12 0-0 .ic5 13 b 4 i.d4 14 lt:Jc3 LL\£6 15 .l:lab1 as in J.Krajcik-J.Benci, Slo vakian League 1995, and now 15 .. .'i¥g4 would have held the balance. 8 i.xf3 9 1Lxf3
when Wahls gives 19 l2:lc3 lt:Jf6 20 lt::lb 1 .l:thd8 21 lt'\xd2 .l:txd2 with a slight ad vantage to Black) 15 lt'\xa7+ Wb8 16 lLlb5 e6, where Black's plan is to exploit the d4-square. A possible course of action is 17 0-0 .i.e7 1 8 nad1 lt:Jh6! 19 .if3 i.£6 20 b3 c6 21 lt:Jd6 i.e7 22 lt:Je4 lt:Jf5 23 l:!.xd8+ l:txd8 24 ki.d1 lt:Jd4 25 Wfl f5 and due to the activity of his pieces Black is better. b) More dangerous is 12 0-0!?:
...
9 'Llxd4 10 i.g4?! The critical line is 10 i.xd4 'it'e6+ 1 1 �e2 "i!Ve4! and then: a) 12 lt:Jc3 'i*'xd4 13 'i:Vxd4 .l:.txd4 14 LLlb5 .l:ld8 (also interesting is 14 ....l:ld7 15 LL\xa7+ Wb8 16 lt:Jb5 e6 17 0-0 i.b4 18 l:tfd1 i.d2!?, as in A.Nuevo Perez C.Matamoros Franco, Seville 2000, ...
b1) I played 12 . . Jhd4, but was con fronted with 13 'ii'a 4!, after which the only variation to be considered is 13 . . .'i!Vxe2 14 'i!Vxa7 'ifxb2 (the best try: 14 ... l:!.d1 ?? runs into 15 'iVa8+ �d7 16 'ti'a4+ and wins; 14 ... e5? obviously fails to 15 'i'a8+ c;t>d7 16 lt:Jc3 followed by 'ir'x£8; while 14 .. J::td6, planning .. Jla6, loses to 15 'i!Va8+ 'it>d7 16 lt::l c3, as after 16 ...'i'xb2 17 lt::lb5 lt:J£6 18 'i*'xb7 Black cannot parry both 19 'it'xc7+ and 19 lt:Jxd6) 15 lt:Ja3 (here 15 'i!Va8+ �d7 16 '1i'xf8 'ii'x a1 1 7 'iVxg7 is no good, since after 1 7... lt::lf 6! 18 'iVxh8 'ilfxa2 followed by ...'i'xc4, Black is just two pawns up!) 15 ...l:!.d3 16 'i*'a8+ 'it>d7 when W.Polischtschuk-C.Wisnewski, German League 2007, continued 1 7 l:!.fd1?! 43
Play 1 . . .liJ c 6 !
.l:!.xd1+ .l:!.xd1+ 1 8 .l:!.xd1+ We6 19 'ii'xf8 c6! 20 h3 'it>f6 21 �d3 'ii'c l + 22 'it>h2 'ii'f4+ and a draw was agreed. However, 17 tt'lb5! again is much stronger, when 1 7... tt'lf6 1 8 'ii'xb7 e5 (or 18 ...tt'le8 19 c5! threatening 20 c6+ 'it>e6 21 tt'lxc7+) 19 c5! .txc5 20 'ii'xc7+ We6 21 'ii'xc5 doesn't look too promising for Black. b2) 12 ...'ii'xd4 13 'ii'a 4! e6 (Karsten Muller's suggested improvement on 13 ...'ii'xb2? 14 'ii'xa7 e6 15 .tf3 tt'lf6 16 tt'lc3! 'ii'xc3, as in G.Shahade-M.Fierro Baquero, Paget Parish 2001, when 1 7 i'ixb7+ Wd7 1 8 .tc6+ would have led to a quick end either after 1 8 ... We7 19 i'ixc7+ tt'ld7 20 .l:!.fd1 or 1 8 ...Wd6 19 .l:!.ad1+ etc) 14 tt'lc3 .td6 (14 ... i'ib6 is also possible) 15 etJb5 i'ie5 16 tt'lxd6+ cxd6 1 7 .tf3 Wb8 18 .l:!.fe1 'ii'c5 19 b4 'ii'c7 20 .l:!.acl tt'le7 21 c5 �c8 22 .l:!.e3 tt'ld5 23 .txd5 (if 23 �a3 i'ib6! is an improbable defence; for example 24 cxb6 .l:!.xcl + 25 .td1 tt'lxb6 and if 26 i'ixa7+? Wc7 threatens both 27....l:!.xd1 mate and 27... .l:!.a8) 23 ... exd5 24 h3 dxc5 25 bxc5 'ii'c6 and Black defended in P.Carroll F.Rahde, correspondence 2004. 10 ... tt'lc2+ 11 'ii'x c2 'ii'xg4 12 0-0
44
1 2 ...tt'lf6?! 12 ... a6 is a simple move which keeps the a-pawn. After this, White has absolutely no compensation for the pawn. 13 .txa7 b6 14 cs 'ii'e4? Admitting his faulty play. Black had to try 14 ...Wb7 15 cxb6 cxb6 16 i.xb6 Wxb6, but playing without any shelter for the king is a daunting task. 15 i'ixe4 tt'lxe4 16 cxb6 e6 17 bxc7 Wxc7 18 f3 .tcs+ 19 .txcs tt'lxcs 20 tt'la3 tt'ld3 21 b3 �ds 2 2 tt'lc4
Here Black could have resigned with a clear conscience. 22 ... .l:!.a8 2 3 a3 Wc6 24 .l:!.fd1 'it>bs 2 5 J:!.d2 tt'lcs 26 .l:!.xds?! 26 .l:!.c2 looks better, the idea being to play b3-b4. 26 ... exds 27 tt'ld2 .l:!.e8 28 Wf1 .l:!.e3 29 l:te1 .l:!.d3 30 We2 .l:!.c3 31 Mb1 d4 32 Wd1 d3? Allowing White to exchange rooks just capitulates. More resilient is 32 ... .l:!.e3 when Black can play on. 33 MC1 .l:!.xc1+ 34 Wxc1 Wc6 35 Wb2 'it>bs 36 Wc3 f6 37 tt'le4 tt'le6 38 g3 tt'lc7 39 'it>xd3 Was 40 tt'lc3 tt'le6 41 b4+ Wb6
1 e4 tLl c 6 2 d4 d5 3 exds 'Wixds
42 a4 lbgs 43 We3 lDf7 44 f4 tiJd6 as+ Wa6 46 ..t>d4 lDfs+ 47 ..t>cs h s lt:Jd s h4 49 gxh4 lt:Jxh4 so 'it>c6 tt:Jfs lt:Jc7+ Wa 7 52 bs gs 53 b6+ Wb8 lt:Ja6+ 1-0
45 48 51 54
White plays 6 ii.e3 Our final game in this chapter deals with the natural 6 i.e3. This time it's the bishop that protects the d-pawn, providing maximum flexibility as White can still choose whether to play c2-c3 or c2-c4, and whether to put his queen' s knight on c3 or d2. Neverthe less, Black can now either transpose to Game 10, or even choose another op tion discussed in the following game a clear sign that the whole 3 exdS sys tem is flawed. Game 1 2 N .Vujmilovic-G.Rumia ncev
Pu la 1990 1 e4 lbc6 2 d4 ds 3 exds 'i!Yxds 4 ctJf3 �g4 5 �e2 o-o-o 6 .ie3
6 ...lbf6
With 6 ... e5 Black can transpose to Game 1 0 after 7 c4 'i!VaS+ 8 .ltd2 i.b4, as the alternatives are nothing to be wor ried about: a) 7 'Llc3 quickly leads to a comfort able game for Black after 7 .. .'�a5 8 ctJxeS .ixe2 9 �xe2 (9 lt:Jxc6?! i.xd1 10 ctJxaS .ixc2 11 .l::i.c l if.d3 was better for Black in A.lodo-N.Polyakova, Serpuk hov 2003) 9 . . . lbxe5 10 dxeS 'ti'xeS 1 1 0-0 'Llf6, since 1 2 ..txa7? 'ilfxe2 1 3 'Llxe2 b6 works as usual. b) After 7 c3 Black should not play 7 . . . exd4 8 cxd4 since White unnecessar ily gets attacking chances. Instead, he should choose 7 ... e4 8 'Llfd2 ..txe2 9 'ii'xe2 fS when his kingside initiative is developing fast. The game J.Schubert A.Wimmer, Niederbayern 1999, con tinued 1 0 0-0 �f7 1 1 b4 il.e7 1 2 'Llb3 gS 13 'Lla3 h5 1 4 l'Ifd1 f4 15 ..tcl "ti'f5 16 �el ctJf6 17 ctJd2 g4 with a huge attack. Note that 18 'Llxe4 is answered by 18 ... ..txb4! 19 cxb4 ctJxd4. c) 7 dxeS "iix d1 + 8 .ltxd1 'LlxeS 9 ctJbd2 ctJxf3+ 10 ..tx£3 lt:Jf6 is a bit dry, but Black can play instead 7 ... i.xf3 8 .ixf3 'ii'xeS 9 l2Jd2 i.. cS 10 i.xc6 (10 'ii'e 2?! is best met by 10 ...�xe3 11 'ii'xe3 'ii'xe3+ 12 fxe3 'Llb4! with good play for Black in A.Mihailidis-T.Gelashvili, Korinthos 2002) 10 ...i.xe3 1 1 i.xb7+ �b8 12 fxe3 'li'xe3+ 13 "ii'e2 �xe2+ 14 Wxe2 �xb7 when the endgame is not as dull. 7 0-0 7 l2Jbd2 is a prophylactic move which tries to strengthen control over d4. But after 7 .. .'iff5!, the white pieces are clumsily positioned. White has to 45
Play 1 . ..l'iJ c 6 !
choose between the following moves:
a) 8 h3?! is too slow. Black gets a good game after 8 ... i.xf3 9 tZ:lxf3 e5. b) 8 c4 seems natural, supporting d4-d5 in case of the typical ... e7-e5. But after 8 ... e5 9 d5 tZ:lb4! we see another advantage to 7 ...'iVf5. White has noth ing better than 10 0-0 (if 10 .:!.cl Black plays 10 ... e4! and is rewarded with a nice position after 1 1 tZ:ld4 'iVg6 12 f3 i.d7) 10 ... tLlc2 1 1 tZ:lh4 ( 1 1 .:!.cl is no bet ter, as I painfully experienced in C.Wisnewski-A.Neffe, German League 2003: after 1 l . ..tZ:lxe3 12 fxe3 i.c5 13 l:!.c3 h5! Black has excellent attacking chances) 1 1 ... i.xe2 12 tZ:lxf5 (12 'iVxe2? is answered by 12 ... 'iVg4!) 12 ... i.xd1 13 .a:.axd1 tZ:lxe3 (but not 13 ... g6?? because of 14 i.g5) 14 fxe3 g6 15 tZ:lg3 tZ:lg4 16 l:!.xf7 tZ:lxe3 17 l:!.e1 i.c5 18 �h1 l:!.df8 with a stable endgame advantage. c) Finally, after 8 0-0 Black can equalize with 8 ... e5 9 tZ:lxe5 tZ:lxe5 10 dxe5 i.xe2 11 'iVxe2 'iVxe5 12 tZ:lc4 'iVe6 13 :i.fe1 tZ:ld5 14 i.d2 (14 i.xa7? loses the bishop again to 14 ...'iVxe2 15 .l:!.xe2 b6 16 tZ:le5 .l:!.e8!) 14 ...'iVxe2 15 .l:!.xe2 i.c5. 7 J!Yh s!? ..
46
There are a few alternatives, but I do not like any of them: a) 7 ... e5?! doesn't work too well here, as after 8 c4 White is an important move up on Game 10 (Klyuner Koscielski).
B.Heim-D.Willing, Eberbach 1980, continued 8 ...'iVa5 9 d5 e4 10 tZ:lfd2 (10 tZ:lg5 is even better: after 10 ...i.xe2 1 1 'iVxe2 tZ:le5 1 2 i.d4 Black cannot avoid material losses) 10 ...tLle5 1 1 tLlc3 'iVb4 12 i.d4, and now Black collapsed with 12 ... i.d6? 13 tLlb5 (13 i.xe5 or 13 a3 would have won instantly) 13 ... i.xe2 14 'iVxe2 a6 15 .ic3 'iVc5 16 b4 'iVb6 1 7 .id4 and White won. But 12. . ..ixe2 1 3
1 e4 tt:\ c 6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 Wlxd5
'it'xe2 l:i.e8 is only relatively better (not 13 ... .id6? 14 a3 again), as after 14 a3 'ike7 15 lL'lcxe4 White, among other things, is a pawn up. b) 7 .. .'ii'f5?! does not promise much either. After 8 c4 e5 (8 ... .ixf3? 9 .ixf3 is bad, as the motif from Game 1 1 does not work here: 9 ...lL'lxd4 10 .i.xd4 e5 1 1 'in>3 o r i f 9 . . .lL'le5 10 .ixb7+ c.t>xb7 1 1 'ifb3+ followed b y 1 2 dxe5) 9 d5 e4 (not 9 ... lL'lb4? 10 a3 lL'lc2 1 1 .id3 e4 12 .ixc2 'irh5 13 lL'lbd2 exf3 14 lL'lxf3 and White is a pawn up, while after 9 ...il.xf3 1 0 .ixf3 e4 1 1 .ie2 lL'le5 12 lL'lc3 a 6 13 h3 the pair of bishops provides White with an advantage) 10 lL'lfd2 il.xe2 (or 10 ... lL'le5 1 1 lL'lc3 a6 12 il.d4 and again Black will have difficulties protecting his e-pawn) 1 1 �xe2 lL'lb4 (if 1 1 .. .lL'le5 12 lL'lc3 .id6 13 .ixa7 lL'leg4 14 h3 'ii'e5 15 g3 and White easily shakes off the attack, or 12 . . .a6 13 .id4 with well known problems for Black) 12 lL'lc3 lL'lc2 (or 12 ... a6 13 .i.d4! lL'lc2 14 .Jtxf6 and White wins the e-pawn) 13 �ad1 and again Black will be unable to save e4. Trying to launch an attack would not be crowned with success either, for example 13 ...lL'lxe3 14 'flxe3 �d6 15 'iWxa7 ii.xh2+ 16 '>txh2 'ii'h5+ 1 7 'it>g1 lL'lg4 18 .life1 e3 19 k!.xe3! and Black has nothing. c) 7 ...e6?! is too tame. Black needs to initiate counterplay, as the game German F.Hedke-N.Michaelsen, Championship, Bad Wildbad 1993, showed: 8 h3 i.h5 9 c4 �d7 10 lL'lbd2 h6 1 1 a3 g5 12 b4 .ixf3 13 lL'lxf3 g4 14 hxg4 lL'lxg4 15 b5 lL'le7 16 'Wa4 r.t>b8 17 tt:le5 tt:lxe5 1 8 dxe5 lL'lc8, and now 19 c5!
would have given White a huge advan tage. d) Finally, 7 ...ii.xf3 8 .i.xf3 'iib5 has been suggested by Wahls, but the sim ple 9 tt:lc3! promises White good play,
one example being the game B.De Schepper-V.Baci, correspondence 2000, which continued 9 .. . ii'xb2 10 lL'le4 lL'lxe4 ' 11 ..ltxe4 'ifc3 12 'iff3! 'if'c4 (12 ... lL'lxd4 is no improvement, since White can ob tain a good position with simply 13 �xf7) 13 .l:tab1 g6 14 �xb7! �xb7 15 .ixc6+ �c8 (if 15 ...'ii'xc6 16 �b1 + wins) 16 ii.b7+ '1td7 17 d5 f5 18 j_c6+ �c8 19 .txa7 ii.g7 20 !Ib1 and Black resigned as mate is unavoidable. 8 h3 8 lL'lbd2 only has independent value after 8 ...e5 9 dxe5 (9 h3 transposes to the text), but this proved to be ineffec tive in S.Del Rio Angeles-A.Minasian, Ubeda 2001, which continued 9 ... tt:lxe5 10 I:!.e1 .id6 1 1 lL'lxeS .lixe5 12 i.xg4+ 'Wxg4 13 c3 !Id7 14 'ii'xg4? .txh2+! 15 �xh2 lL'lxg4+ 16 �g3 tt:Jxe3 1 7 l:i.xe3 �xd2 and Black even gained the upper hand. s es!? ...
47
Play 1 . lb c 6 ! . .
l:!.fd1 and White had a commanding position. b) 10 ...'ii"g6 11 .ixc6 exd4 and now we have:
Offering an interesting piece sacri fice. 9 hxg4 9 lbbd2! is supposed to refute the whole line according to W ahls. While I tend to agree that White is generally better, the variations after 9 ... �xf3 10 i.xf3 are very complicated; for exam ple: a) 10 .. .'*1Vf5?! unfortunately does not work: 1 1 �xc6 exd4 ( 1 l . ..bxc6 is hope less, as White gets a good game after simply 12 dxe5 'iVxe5 13 'i'e2; for ex ample 13 ... .i.d6 14 'iVa6+ '.t>d7 15 lbf3 'ifb5 16 'iY'xa7 'i'xb2 1 7 .U.ad1 and White has nice attacking chances, or 13 ... Wb7 14 lbc4 and Black will have big prob lems preventing the knight from going decisively to aS) 12 tZ'lb3! (12 lb£3?! al lows 12 ... dxe3! 13 ..ltxb7+ 'it'xb7 1 4 'i'xd8 ex£2+, followed b y 15 ... lbe4 with the initiative) 12 ...bxc6 13 lbxd4. A.Magalotti-M.Van der Werf, Denmark 1999, continued 13 ...'iVe4 14 'i!fe2 'it>b7 (not 14 .. Jhd4? 15 'iia6+ and 16 �xd4 wins) 15 lbb3 (15 'iVc4! instead would have been even better) 15 ...'i'a4 16 .!:tad1 �d6 1 7 l:!.d4 'iVbs 18 c4 'i'a6 19 48
b1) 12 .ixb7+ Wxb7 13 'iV£3+ �c8! (but not 13 . . . c6? 14 lbb3! dxe3 15 lba5+ '.t>b8 16 ltJxc6+ �c7 17 lbxd8 �xd8 1 8 'iVa8+ �c7 19 'iVxa7+ with a decisive advantage, or 15 ...�a6 16 'iVxc6+ �xaS 17 a3 and Black cannot avoid being mated; while after 13 ...'tt>b8 14 ..lt£4 Black will have problems defending his weak queenside as he cannot now play 14 ...'iVf5) 14 ..\t£4 'iV£5 15 �fe1 lbd5 and Black seems to have enough counter play to compensate for his structural deficits. b2) 12 tZ'lf3 bxc6 13 'iNe2 d3!? 14 cxd3 'iVxd3 15 �xd3 l:txd3 16 lbe5 l:!.d5 1 7 lbx£7 .l::i.g8 and White i s slightly better due to the weakened black pawn struc ture. But anyway, those who don't like this turn of events can play the alterna tive 6 ...e5 and transpose to Game 10, as described in the note to Black's 6th move . 9 lbxg4 ...
1 e4 tb c 6 2 d4 dS 3 exds 'ii x ds
10 'bh4 Besides the text move, there are a few alternatives to examine: a) 10 dS e4! 1 1 'bh4 'beeS and while White won't be able to save the piece, the black attack is far from over. b) 10 'bbd2 looks more promising, but Black has definite compensation after 10 ...'bxd4 11 ..ixd4 l:i.xd4!, for ex ample 12 c3 �d6 (intending .. J::!.h6) 13 lae1 (if 13 'tWa4 fS and the queen covers e8) 13 ... fS (not 13 ... .l:th6?! 14 'bh4! fS 1 S g3 gS? 16 .ixg4 fxg4 1 7 .l::txeS and White wins) 14 g3 gS (14 ... i.e7!? is also inter esting) 1S 'iWc2 l::!.f6 16 'bfl i.cS 1 7 'bxeS .ltx£2+ 18 Wg2 i.xg3 19 .1i..xg4 fxg4 20 'bxg3 1Wh3+ 21 Wg1 'i!Nxg3+ 22 �g2 "iixg2+ 23 Wxg2 hS and Black has three passed pawns for the piece. c) 10 c3 seeks to protect d4, but 10 ... fS! issues the threat of ... eS-e4, and after 1 1 g3 �3! and White will have a very hard time defending himself; for example 12 �gS e4 13 'bbd2 ex£3 14 'bx£3 'beeS! wins. 1o...fs! Surprisingly, White seems unable to save himself after this move.
11 �xg4 If 1 1 g3 first, then 1 l ...gS 12 i.. xg4 fxg4 13 'bfS (13 'bg2 exd4 14 i.cl trans poses to the game) 13 ...exd4 14 'bxd4 (14 Ji..cl is the next note) 14...'bxd4 1S ..txd4 l::!.d6 and 16 ....t!.h6 wins. 11 ...fxg4 12 g3 exd4 13 ..tc1 g5 14 'bg2 14 'bfS is hardly better as the knight has a shaky position here; for example 14 ... 'beS 1S 'bd2 'iVg6 16 f4 gxf3 17 g4 d3! 1 8 'bxf3 'bxg4 1 9 'bxgS and now either 19 ... i.cS+ 20 Wg2 'beS 21 cxd3 h6 22 'iVe2 �he8 23 d4 .ixd4 24 'bxd4 ftxd4 (analysis by Wahls) or simply 19 ... �S 20 i.f4 h6 wins. 14 .. 'bes .
15 f4? White collapses, but the position was beyond repair anyway. Wahls sug gests lS 'bel as a possible defence, giv ing lS ...'b£3+ 16 'bxf3 gx£3 17 l:lel l:i.d6 18 'iVd3 i.g7 19 i.xgS 'i'xgS 20 'bd2, but Black can instead play the immediate 1S ... l::td 6! with a winning attack. lS 'bd2 does not help either, as after 1S ... i.cS! 16 b4 ..tb6 17 ftel l:the8 Black stands much better. 1S ... gxf3 16 'be1 f2+ 0-1 49
Play 1
. . .
t:i:J c 6 !
Summary Games 6 and 7 show that White has nothing better than to play 4 liJf3, after which Black has the luxury to choose between two almost equivalent alternatives. While 4 ...e5 in Game 8 is the more solid option, 4 ... iLg4 from Games 9-12 is my recom mendation if you are going for the full point. White can equalize with precise play, but it is a long way to go. 1 e4 ltJc6 2 d4 ds 3 exds 1ixds (D) 4 lt:Jf3
4 .ie3 - Game 6 4 lt:Jc3 - Game 7 4.. ..tg4 4 ... e5 - Game 8 5 i.e2 o-o-o (D) 6 iLe3 6 ltJc3 Game 9 6 c3 - Game 1 0 6 c4 - Game 1 1 6 ...ltJf6 7 o-o 'i!Vhs (D) - Game 12 .
-
3 "i'ixd5 ...
50
5 0-0-0 ...
7 �h5 ...
Chapter Three
I
e4 t2Jc6 2 d4 d s 3 e s f6
1
The move 3 es is of such great practical relevance that I can hardly wait to in struct you how it should be treated. Many sources compare the resulting position to the Advance French or the Advance Caro-Kann, stating that the current version is even more appealing as Black's queen's knight is now block ing his c-pawn, seemingly depriving him of his only chance of counterplay in the centre. As an enthusiastic advo cate I should really try to convince them of the contrary, but as long as I am scoring points against players blindly following such dogmatic statements, I will restrict myself to convincing just you. I do agree that Black should proba bly not opt for 3 ....if5. This deploys the bishop prematurely and offers White a way to obtain an advantage by going right after it with 4 lt::le2! . Following 4... f6 5 £4 the game J.Te Kolste A.Nimzowitsch, Baden Baden 1 925, continued 5 ... e6 6 lt::l g3 fxe5 7 fxe5 and
now 7 .. ."�d7 8 lt::lxf5 ex£5 left Black with a pawn structure which is not to my liking at least. Myers suggested 7 .. .'i!Vh4 as an improvement, but after 8 c3 there is no sensible way to avoid lt::lb l-d2-f3, driving the queen back with a better position for White.
I was not able to refute this idea, but fortunately that isn't necessary. A commendable option is the immediate 3 f6, directly attacking the white cen tre, to which there are different ways to react. .. ...
51
Play 1 . .JiJ c 6 !
White plays 4 i.d3 The move 4 i.d3 seems a logical an swer to 3 ... f6. As White is threatening 5 'tWh5+ there is no time to take on either d4 or e5. But Black can simply play 4 g6,
brings Black one step closer to equality:
...
which immediately reveals the draw backs of 4 .id3. Now White needs to take care of both his d- and e-pawns and, as a consequence, is not able to reinforce his centre with f2-f4. The only sensible alternative is 5 exf6, but that does not solve all the problems as it still leaves the d-pawn unprotected. So White needs to waste further time, which Black can utilize to enforce . . . e7e5 under favourable circumstances, resulting in a comfortable position. Game 1 3 L.Myagmarsuren-D.Van Geet
World Student Tea m Cha m pionsh i p, Va rna 1958
a) 5 tt::lf3 allows the annoying pin 5 ... .tg4. Now the only way for White to successfully prevent Black from play ing ... e7-e5 is by 6 ..llb5 (if 6 .te2 .ixf3 7 .txf3 e5 8 dxe5 tbxe5 and Black has comfortably equalized), after which T.Walseth-M.Ardaman, Internet (blitz) 1999, continued 6 .. .'it'd7 7 h3 .tx£3 8 'iVxf3 a6 9 i.xc6 'i¥xc6 10 tt::lc3 e6 1 1 .ig5 .tb4! 12 ii.xf6 0-0 13 0-0 l:txf6 14 'iVe3 l:ta£8 and Black was clearly better due to his more active pieces. b) 5 i.f4 is the only challenging move. Now Black should not play 5 ... .ig4, since after 6 ..te2 i.. xe2 7 tbxe2 e6 8 tt::lbc3 i.d6 9 tt::lb5 i.x£4 1 0 tt::lxf4 he cannot play 10 ... e5 because of 1 1 tbe6. Better is 5 ... .if5, when T.Thompson E.Cruz, World Junior Championships 1993, continued 6 c3 a6! 7 tt::lf3 e6 8 tiJbd2 .td6 9 tbe5 ..llxe5! 10 .ixe5 0-0 1 1 h3 tt::lxe5 1 2 dxe5 tbe4 1 3 tbxe4 .txe4 and Black had a very nice position. 4 g6 5 tLlf3 5 f4?! allows Black to reach a com fortable position after 5 ...tt::lxd4 6 i..xg6+ hxg6 7 'i¥xd4 i.f5. Instead, 5 exf6 solves ...
1 e 4 tt::lc 6 2 d 4 ds 3 es f6 4 ..td3 The immediate 4 exf6 tt::lxf6 directly defuses the situation in the centre, but 52
1 e4 tb c 6 2 d4 d 5 3 e 5 f6
the problem of the e5-pawn, but not of the one on d4. After 5 .. .lbxf6 6 c3 (6 lZ:lf3 i.g4 transposes to the text) 6 ... e5! 7 dxe5 lZ:lxe5 8 i.e2 il.g7 9 lZ:lf3 (9 f4 just weakens the kingside and Black gets a good game after 9 ... lZ:lf7) 9 ...lZ:lxf3+ 10 i.xf3 0-0 Black has the clearly better position. s ...�g4 6 exf6 tt:Jxf6 7 c3 ..1£.g7 8 h3 ..txf3 9 �xf3 0-0 10 'i1Ve2 es! 11 dxes tt:Jxes 12 o-o lZ:lhs
Black could have removed one bishop from the board with 1 2 ... lZ:lxd3, but he is looking for more. 13 ..te3 'ii'h 4 14 lZ:ld2 �adS 14 ... J::!.ae8 makes more sense, intro ducing the rook to a vis-a-vis with the white queen. 15 'it>h2 lZ:lf4 All the black pieces have moved into attacking positions. 16 ..txf4 �xf4+ 17 g3?? Admittedly White throws the game away rather too quickly, but after 17 :.t>g1 .l':.de8! the position remains ex tremely difficult; for example 18 lZ:lb3 �e7, followed by .. J'He8, and Black has fun on the e-file.
17 ... �xd2 18 it'xd2 lZ:lf3+ 19 'it>g2 lZ:lxd2 20 J::!.fd1 lZJe4 21 f3 lZ:lcs 22 �f1 c6 0-1 White plays 4 f4 4 f4 is the move you will most likely encounter. It seems that Black's en deavour to endanger the white centre bites on granite, and this is indeed the case for the moment. But Black can draw on another strategic idea - by moving his f-pawn White severely weakened his light squares, a fact that Black should try to exploit. The most important resource is the light-squared bishop, which has been fondly called 'the sweeper in front of the pawn chain' by Harald Keilhack.
The diagram shows the position af ter 4 ... Ji.f5 5 c3 e6 6 tDf3 �d7 7 Ji.d3 .te4 8 'ii'e2 f5 from O.Duras A.Nimzowitsch, Ostend 1907. The stra tegic implications arising are clear: Black will castle long and try to initiate an attack on the kingside. White, on the other hand, has to try to get counter play on the queenside, but he has al ways to watch out for the powerful black bishop on e4. And what is more, 53
Play 1 . . Ji:J c 6 !
scope for his own dark-squared bishop is virtually non-existent. However, Black needs to be careful about implementing the correct move order. The immediate 4 ... i..f5?! is still dubious, as 5 tt:le2! leads to the Te Kol ste-Nimzowitsch game mentioned above. More to the point is 4 tt:lh6!, which is a useful move as the knight is being deployed to f5 or f7 anyway. Only after 5 lLlf3 should Black play 5 ... .ltf5. For a nice illustration of a possible stra tegic course of action I urge you to sit back and enjoy the following game. •..
Game 14 B. Bengsch-R.Becker
Kassel 1998 1 e4 tbc6 2 d4 d5 3 es f6 4 f4 tLlh6 5 lLlf3 �fs
6 C3 Alternatives are few and far be tween: a) 6 ii.b5 'ifd7 usually transposes to the 7 �b5 line examined below. b) On 6 i.d3, carrying out the in54
tended plan with 6. . ...te4?! i s not advis able, as after 7 tbc3 f5 8 lLlg5! White can point his finger to the weak e6-square; for example 8 ... tt:lxd4 (8 .. .'it'd7 9 e6 'it'd8 10 lLlxh7! is completely hopeless for Black) 9 .lte3 tbc6 10 �xe4 dxe4 1 1 lLld5 and the threat of 12 lLle6 cannot be suc cessfully parried. Instead 6 ...e6 usually transposes to the text. c) After 6 .i.e3, the game T.Heinemann-C. Wisnewski, German Club Cup 2004, showed that White can go down quickly if he plays carelessly: 6 . . .e6 7 exf6 gx£6 8 i.e2 l'i.g8 9 tbh4 i.e4 10 i.h5+ �d7 1 1 0-0?? lLlf5! and White was already lost. 6 ... e6 7 i.. d 3 Instead: a) 7 i.b5 is not dangerous in this line as the critical e5-square is safely covered. After 7 ...1!i'd7 8 h3 a6 (or 8 ... i.e4 9 .i.e3 !iLe7 10 lLlbd2 f5 1 1 c4?! dxc4 12 0-0 .i.d5 13 �cl tbf7 14 lLlxc4 a6 15 i.xc6 i.. xc6 with a strategically won position in H.Schulz-C.Wisnewski, Bargteheide 2004, as Black's control over the light squares is decisive) 9 i.e2,
1 e 4 lt'Jc6 2 d4 d5 3 e 5 f6
Black showed a proper treatment of the position in the old game W.Von Holzhausen-B.Kostic, Berlin 1928: 9 ... ..te7 10 0-0 i.e4 1 1 �h2 f5 12 ii.e3 'Ll£7 13 'Llbd2 h6 14 'Llxe4 dxe4 15 'Lld2 g5 16 g4?! gx£4 17 .i.x£4 i.g5 18 'Llc4 'Lle7 19 'Lle3 i.x£4+ 20 .l:tx£4 'Llg6 with a huge kingside initiative. The attacking scheme with ... 'Ll£7, ... h6 and ... g5 is very instructive and should be imple mented whenever possible. b) The quiet 7 i.e2 poses no threat to the black set-up. After 7 .....te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 'Lla3 i.e4 10 'Llc2 "ii'e8 11 'Lle3 fxe5 12 fxe5 'ikg6 Black again had good prospects on the kingside in F.Gomez O.Castro Rojas, Colombian Champion ship 1977. 7.....te4! 8 'ii'e 2 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 9 'Llfd2 is met simply by 9 .. .f5, as 10 'itb3 'i!Vd5 1 1 'W'xb7 can be smoothly answered with 1 l. . .lt'lxe5!, while 11 'ir'xd5?! exd5 just leaves White with the worse bishop. s ...fs g lt'lbd2 'ii'd 7 10 o-o lt'lf7
11 b4 i.xd3 There was no need to swap the bishop right away, but the character of
the position is not dramatically changed by that. 12 �xd3 i.. e 7 13 lt'lb3 h6 14 a4 g5 15 h 3 o-o-o 16 as .l:tdg8 17 'Ll c s i..x cs 18 bxcs a6 19 'Llh2 'ii'e 7 20 1If3 l:tg7 21 c4 dxc4 22 �xc4 'ikd7 23 �a4 'Lle7 24 l:!.b4 c6
A beautiful sight. The white attack on the queenside has been stopped and the bishop rendered totally inopera tive. 25 .l:i.fb3 'Lld8 26 llxb7? lt'lxb7 27 fkxa6 'ii'xd4+ 28 .l;.e3 gxf4 29 'ii'a 8+ �c7 30 'ii'x h8 fxe3 0-1 Instead of 5 lt'lf3 above, 5 c3 is a useful move which puts Black more to the test. White has still not committed his king's knight and Black is out of sensi ble waiting moves. However, Black can adopt a different set-up with s ... il.g4!, the point being that after 6 i.e2 Black can reply 6 ... i.f5!, with a similar posi tion to the previous game. The only difference is the extra development of the white king's bishop, but that actu ally favours Black since the bishop is not doing much on e2 other than block ing the knight's way. 55
Play 1 . .JiJ c 6 !
'iVxd3 tt'lf7 1 3 �e2 �e6 1 4 tt'la3 h5! 15 .l::tg 1 hxg4 16 hxg4 'i'c6 17 �d2 fxe5 18 dxe5 e6 with a clearly better position for Black. 6 ...'iVd7
That leaves 6 tt'lf3 once more, but af ter 6 ...'i¥d7 7 i..e 2 tt'lfs we see another way of getting the black pieces into action. Both manoeuvres offer Black excellent prospects on the kingside, as can be seen in our next game. Game 1 5 M.Dupre G uega n-D.Bergez
French League 1998 1 e4 tt'lc6 2 d4 d s 3 es f6 4 f4 tt'lh6 5 c3 ..tg4 6 tt'lf3 As already mentioned, after 6 �e2 Black can afford to lose a tempo with 6 . . .i.f5, as the bishop can no longer be harassed by the white knight and the white bishop isn't doing much on e2 anyway. The game could continue 7 tt'lf3 e6 8 0-0 IM.e7 9 tt'lbd2 0-0 10 .Me1 fxe5 1 1 fxe5 "ife8 with good prospects on the kingside. Instead 6 'iWb3 puts the finger on b7, but Black can react with 6 ... tt'la5. The game Burkhanlansky-N.Mitkov, Bul garia 1977, continued 7 li'c2 'i'd7 8 i.d3 g6 9 h3 i.f5 10 tt'lf3 0-0-0 1 1 g4 �xd3 12 56
7 �e2 After 7 jLe3 tt'lf5 8 �f2 hS 9 tt'la3 h4 10 ttJc2 g5! was the correct treatment of the position in G.Sanders-M.Ardaman, Internet (blitz) 1999. The game contin ued 1 1 exf6 exf6 12 fxgS fxg5 13 'iVe2+ Jl.e7 14 0-0-0 0-0-0 and due to his space advantage on the kingside, Black was better. 7 h3?! just weakens the position. As the typical devotee of the Nimzowitsch Defence is not afraid to trade a bishop for a knight, 7 ...i.xf3 is the usual con sequence. After 8 'i'x£3 e6 9 tt'ld2 i.e7 10 �d3 0-0-0 1 1 tt'lb3 fxeS 12 dxeS �df8 13 �bS a6 14 i.xc6 'i'xc6 15 tt'ld4 'iVd7 16 b4 tt'lf5 1 7 tt'lxf5 l:txf5 Black con trolled the light squares in N.Cartier D.Berges, France 1999. 7 tt'lfs 8 'Yi'd3 e6 9 b3 o-o-o 10 a4 hs 11 as �e7 12 i.. a 3 i.xf3 13 i.. xf3 fxes 14 fxes tLlh4 15 jLxe7 tt'lxf3+ 16 'iVxf3 'iVxe7 ..•
1 e4 tt'l c 6 2 d4 ds 3 es f6
after 29 .. JH1+) 28 ... d3! 29 'iW'xd3 "ii'xe6+ White is without counterplay. 28 'iW'd2 'i!Vxd2+ 29 Wxd2 .l:If2+ 30 �d3 l:txg2 31 Wxd4 b6 32 axb6 axb6 3 3 �xd5 :&txh2 34 We6? Blocking the path of the e-pawn makes no sense. Instead 34 Wd6 makes use of the knight on b3 which prevents the annoying check from behind. 34 ... g3 3 5 l:tf1 :&tf2 36 .l:i.xf2 gxf2 37 ctJd2
The dust has settled. Black's only problem is the misplaced knight on c6. In exchange he has a lead in develop ment and good kingside prospects. 17 lLld2 l:tdf8 18 'ife2 g5 19 �f1 g4 20 b4 l'!.xf1+ 21 lLlxf1 l'!.f8 22 b5 lLlb8 2 3 ::Jdz c 5 1 24 c4 Lacking alternatives, White tries to unbalance the position, but with pre cise play Black should gain the upper hand. 24 ... cxd4 25 cxd5 exd5 26 �c1+ �d8 27 :�b3
27 'ifb4+?! 27 ... lLld7! was simple and good. Af ter 28 e6 (28 lLlxd4? �4+ 29 "ii'd2 loses .•.
37 .. .rtlc7? 37... lLld7! was evidently better. The endgame is probably still drawn, but White has to steer clear of rocks. For example, he cannot take care of the h pawn immediately as 38 WfS h4 39 '>t>g4 lLlxeS+ 40 Wxh4 runs into 40 ...lLlf3+!. 38 �7 lLld7 39 e6 lLle5+ 40 �6 ctJc4 41 lLlft lLld6 42 <;t>g5 lLlxb5 43 �xh5 '>td6 44 '>t>g4 'ltxe6 45 Wf3 '>t>d5 46 lLle3+ Wd4 47 Wxf2 lLla3 48 We2 lLlc4 49 lLlc2+ Wc3 50 \tldt b5 51 'it>c1 lLlb6 52 'itbt lLld5 53 Wc1 lLlf4 54 cio>b1 lLle2 55 lLle3 Wb3 56 lLlc2 lLlc3+ 57 Wc1 ctJe2+ 58 Wd2 Wb2 59 �d3 lLlf4+ 6o wdz lLld5 61 �d3 lLlf4+ 62 \t>d2 lLle6 63 Wd3 ctJc5+ 64 cio>d4 ctJb3+ 65 \t>d3 lLlc1+ 66 Wd2 lLle2 67 Wd3 Wb3 68 lLla1+ Wa2 69 ctJc2 Yz-Yz 57
Play 1 . . . ltJ c 6 !
White plays 4 i.bs White's best way to confront Black's plans is with 4 �b5.
By pinning the knight White takes pressure off his centre - and what may be even more important, Black can nei ther play the natural 4 . . . �f5 because of 5 �xc6+! bxc6 6 lL:If3 when his pawn structure is shoddy, nor 4 .. .fxe5 as White can sacrifice a pawn with 5 lL:\f3! for a dangerous initiative. Black has to settle for 4 �d7. After 5 lL:\c3 fxe5 6 dxe5 e6 his position is a bit more passive than in the previous games, but it still offers enough coun terplay, as our final game in this chap ter illustrates. ...
Game 1 6 R.Nocci-K.H.Johnsen
Correspondence 2000 1 e4 lt:\c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 f6 4 il.b5 il.d7
Black would like to reach positions similar to those in the previous games, but the simple 4 ... �f5 5 �xc6+ bxc6 6 lL:\f3 creates a problem. Black cannot 58
play 6 ... e6 as 7 lL:\h4! trades off the bishop, after which the black pawn structure is just a mess. 5 lLic3 This protects the bishop and there fore deals with the threat of ...lL:\xe5. Other moves are less accurate: a) 5 i.xc6 �xc6 leads to a different type of game where White tries to keep the position closed.
However, as his central pawns are on dark squares, a certain weakness of his light squares cannot be denied, even more so as his light-squared bishop has just been traded off. I was unable to find any practical examples, but I feel that after 6 lL:\f3 'iVd7 7 0-0 0-0-0 Black must be better, as it is easier for him to initiate a kingside attack than it is for White to get some play on the queenside. b) After 5 f4 Black could choose an inferior version of one of the previous games with 5 ... e6 6 lt:\£3, but 5 ...lt:\xe5 6 �xd7+ lL:\xd7 7 'iVh5+ g6 8 'iVxd5 c6 is better. After 9 'iVe6 lL:Ib6 10 l21f3 'iVd5 Black has nothing to worry about, while 9 'iVe4 allows 9 ... e5! 10 fxe5 fxe5
1 e4 tb c 6 2 d4 d 5 3 e 5 f6
11 dxe5 'it'a5+ 12 lbc3 'it'xe5 with equal ity.
c) 5 lLlf3 tries to force Black into an inferior position with 5 ... e6, but again Black can play 5 ... lLlxe5!, possible con sequences being 6 lbxe5 fxe5 7 ..txd7+ 't!kxd7 8 'tinS+ g6 9 'ii'xe5 lLlf6 10 0-0 .i.. g7 1 1 c3 (11 l:te1 does not disturb Black's development as 1 1 . ..0-0 12 't!kxe7 is countered by 12 . . ..ttae8 13 'ii'b4 't!ka4! 14 .ltd2 Itxe1 + 15 .llx e1 'i!Vxc2) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 ..tf4 c6 and Black will have no problems enforcing . . . e7-e5. s ... fxes 6 dxes e6 7 tLlf3 .ib4 8 a 3 .lxc3+ 9 bxc3 ttJge7 1 0 .ltd3
10 h6 Not 10 ... 0-0?! 1 1 .ixh7+! 'it>xh7 12 8g5+ �g8 13 �5 l:tf5 14 'ii'h7+ 'it>f8 15 i-l with a ferocious attack. 11 l:tb1 b6 12 c4 o-o 13 o-o i.e8?! After the superior 13 ... 'ii'e8 Black can be very happy with his position, as his only weakness (on e6) cannot be the target of attack any time soon. There ..•
fore White doesn't have anything to play against, while Black can calmly fathom his chances on the kingside. 14 cxd5 'ii'xd5 15 c4 �as?! After this bold move White gets unnecessary attacking chances against the king, and although Black manages to defend with precise play, 15 .. .'ti'd7, followed by . . ..l:i.d8 and/or . . ..ltg6, is bet ter. 16 l:tb5 'ii'a 6 17 lLlh4 gd8 18 i.xh61? J::lx d3 19 'it'xd3 gxh6 20 'i'h3
20..Ji'a4 21 l!Vxe6+ 'it>h7 2 2 'ifg4 'iVxa3 2 3 'ir'e4+ �h8 24 �bbl 'ii'c 5 2 5 .l:Ibel ..th5 26 g4 i.e8 27 h3 tLla5 28 l:Ic1 h 5 29 l:tc3 a6 30 l:tf3 �xf3 31 'ii'xf3 l!Vxe5 32 �a8 ttJg8 33 lLlf3 lie6 34 .l:i.el Ji.c6 3 5 �xa6 'ii'xc4 36 'it'xc4 lLlxc4 37 lLle5 ttJxe5 38 .laxe5 hxg4 39 hxg4 .i.d7 40 g5 �g7 41 f4 Wf7 42 f5 lLle7 43 f6 lLlf5 44 �f2 c5 45 Ite2 c4 46 .lad2 i.a4 47 l:td s c3 48 .l:i.d8 c2 49 .l:i.c8 tLld6 50 .l:i.c7+ 'it>g6 51 'it>e1 �xg5 52 f7 lbxf7 53 'it>d2 ttJes 54 .lac8 b5 o-1
59
Play 1
. . .
lbc6!
Summary Game 13 proves that 3 ...£6 is a viable move that cannot be refuted directly, so White has to think about how to retain control over e5. Doing this with 4 £4 weak ens the light squares and is best exploited by the set-up beginning with 4 . . . lbh6, explained in Games 14 and 15. Playing 4 .i.b5 is probably the smartest way to treat the position, but Game 16 showed that Black has no problems. 1 e4 lbc6 2 d4 ds 3 es f6 (D) 4 f4
4 .i.d3 Game 13 4 .i.b5 .i.d7 (D) - Game 1 6 4...lbh6 5 lb£3 .i.£5 Game 14 5 c3 .i.g4 (D) Game 15 -
-
-
3 .f6 ..
60
4 i..d7 ...
5 i..g4 ...
Chapter Fou r
I
e4 'Dc6 2 d4 d s 3 ttJc3 e6
1
I f not the most frequently played move, 3 4Jc3 is certainly the most an noying. I can imagine that many play �rs were hoping that I would cover 3 . dxe4 in great detail, but if you are among them I have to disappoint you there. I admit that I was simply too lazy to deal with a line that lives virtu ally on the brink of refutation every day. Even more so as I have a credible alternative at my disposal, as you will see in this current chapter. With 3 ... e6 Black transposes to an inconspicuous line of the French De ience that is usually reached via the move order 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 tbc3 tbc6. To pay tribute to its two pioneers, this Yariation has been named the 'Hecht Reefschlager' . I stumbled upon it about a year after I took up the Nimzowitsch Defence and I immediately scored well with it. Combine this with a largely increasing popularity these days and we have two good enough reasons to take a closer look. ..
White plays 4 exds The position after 4 exds exds bears a close resemblance to the Exchange French, but the inclusion of tbc3 and ... tbc6 is favourable to Black, as the only way that White can hope for an advantage is with c2-c4. But another thing is perhaps even more important: many White players underestimate the dangers lying in this seemingly quiet position - an attitude that spells brinksmanship. Came 1 7 M.Stern-G.Aiexopou los
Somerset, U SA 1985 1 e 4 4Jc6 2 4Jc3 e 6 3 d 4 d s 4 exds Besides the text, various other moves have been tried. 4 e5 is seen in Game 1 8, while 4 4Jf3 will be covered in Game 19. Also: a) 4 i.b5 is quite similar to Game 4, only with the moves d2-d4 and ... e7-e6
61
Play 1 . . . t:i:J c 6 !
included. After 4 ... dxe4 5 tL:lxe4 (5 �xc6+ bxc6 6 tZ:lxe4 'iVdS 7 'it'f3 �b7! 8 i.e3 0-0-0 9 tL:lc3 �b4 10 'ifxdS cxdS and Black enjoyed the advantage in form of the two bishops in F.Grzesik H.ReefschHi.ger, German League 1984) S ... 'ikdS 6 'ti'e2 (6 'ii'd3 lLlf6 7 tL:lxf6+ gxf6 8 tLlf3 �d7 9 c4 1\Vh5 10 0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .il..f4 eS favoured Black in K.Pinkas-J.Bany, Polish Team Championship 1990) 6 ... a6 7 �xc6+ �xc6 8 tb£3 tb£6 9 tZ:lxf6+ gxf6 10 0-0 bS!? 1 1 l:!.d1 'i!VdS 12 b3 �b7 13 c4 'i!Ve4 14 ifxe4 i.xe4 once more the two bishops provided an advantage for Black in C.Maier-L.Keitlinghaus, Ger man Championship 1989. b) 4 tZ:lge2 seems to be a sensible move, protecting both d4 and c3. But 4 ... �b4 shows that ... tt:lc6 does have its merits.
b l ) Now 5 a3 �xc3+ 6 llixc3 is not possible, as after 6 ... dxe4 the d-pawn is hanging. b2) 5 exdS is also harmless; for ex ample 5 ... exd5 6 a3 .il.. aS 7 b4 �b6 8 tlia4 �e7 9 �e3 and in F.Fronmueller K.Pomm, German League 1988, Black already seized the advantage with 62
9 .. .£5! 10 llixb6 axb6 1 1 llic3 llif6 12 �e2 0-0 13 0-0 �e6 14 �gS h6 15 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 16 tlibS l:.£7. Now White tried to stop a further advance on the kingside with 1 7 f4, but after 1 7....l:!.e7 18 �f3 �f7 19 'ii'd 2 Mae8 20 �ad1 llid8! 21 tlic3 c6 22 llie2 �g6 23 tlicl tlif7 24 'ii'c3 llid6 25 a4 tlic4 26 .l:tf2 �e3 Black was in complete command. So White has to take care of his fragile centre in another way, but the alternative does not look too promis ing: b3) 5 eS f6 and the knight is mis placed on e2; for example: b31 ) 6 llif4 �e7 7 ..i.bS fxeS 8 �xc6+ bxc6 9 �5+ �f7 10 'ilix£7+ (if 10 'ii'xeS lli£6 1 1 0-0 0-0 White can hardly prevent Black from preparing ...e6-e5, as 12 l:tel is met by 12 ... llie4!) lO ... '.t>x£7 1 1 dxeS llih6 1 2 tlid3 ..te7 13 tlia4 llif5 1 4 f4 �a6 15 ..td2 i.bS 16 llidcS �xa4! 1 7 llixa4 cS and Black achieved a nice po sition in H.Lopez Silva-L.Rojas, Chil ean Championship 2002. b32) 6 f4 llih6 bears a close resem blance to the positions examined in Chapter 3. The treatment here is about the same, for example 7 g3 (freeing the bishop with 7 tlig3 has too many dis R.Kammer-W.Reimer, advantages: German League 1990, continued 7 ...0-0 8 a3 i.aS 9 b4 ..i.b6 10 tlice2 fxeS 1 1 fxeS �4 12 i.xh6 'i'xh6 13 'ii'd3 �d7 and now 14 c3 tlixeS! 15 dxeS .i.£2+ 16 'it>d1 �a4+ is a rather abrupt end, while after 15 'ii'c2 tlic4 16 'ifcl 'ikf6 1 7 a4 aS 18 bS eS White had also had enough) 7 ... 0-0 8 �g2 i.d7 9 0-0 i.e8! 10 i.f3 i.g6 1 1 a3 i.aS 12 tlia4 �b6 13 llixb6 axb6 14 ..i.e3
1 e4 ltJ c 6 2 d4 d 5 3 lt:lc3 e6
tie7 and now White dropped a pawn with 15 ..tf2? fxe5 1 6 dxe5 lZ'lxe5 in \1.Jorquera Cahu-D.Barria, Chilean Championship 1995, but his position was worse in any case. 4...exds
We have reached an interesting po :;ition. White has a certain dilemma, as :-te is forced to commit himself in one way or another - 'zugzwang lite', as Jonathan Rowson would call it. 5 �f3 Instead: a) 5 g3 looks to put pressure on d5, :,ut Black can develop smoothly with 3 . i.f5 6 ..ii. e3 (or 6 a3 h6 7 i.g2 lt:'lf6 8 :�ge2 'iid 7 9 0-0 0-0-0 with a comfort able position) 6 ... i.b4 7 ..tg2 'ii'd 7 8 :�ge2 lZ'lf6 9 a3 ..txc3+ 10 lZ'lxc3 0-0-0 1 1 :-t3 lt:'le4 12 lZ'lxe4 .ixe4 13 f3 i.f5 14 'iWd2 i"d6 15 ..tf4 l!he8+ 16 <;tf2 �g6 an? :;tood better in W.Posch-J.Smolen, Aus :rian League 2005. b) 5 i.b5 might actually be the most :;ensible move as it gives Black no real :arget. The game could continue 3 .. i.b4 6 lt:'lge2 (6 .ixc6+ bxc6 7 Ji.. d 2 ::Jf6 8 lZ'lf3 .Jtg4 9 'iWe2+ was played in ..
.
J.Birinyi-Z.Sipka, Fuzesabony 1994, and now 9 .. .'1lr'e7 would have equal ized) 6 ... tt:Jge7 7 0-0 0-0 8 il..g5 (8 J::i.e 1 nes 9 a3 ..td6 10 ..t£4 was also com pletely equal in A.Jurkovic-D.Del Rey, Vila de Salou 1995) 8 ... £6 9 ..tf4 lZ'lf5 10 .ixc6 bxc6 11 lZ'la4 �e8 12 c3 .id6 13 .tg3 h5 14 'it'd3 l:te4 1 5 c4 as in L.Hansen-P.Bank, Aarhus 1994, when 15 ...h4 1 6 .ixd6 'it'xd6 is not worse for Black. s ...i.g4 6 ..te2 i.b4 7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 lt:'lf6 9 h3 .ihs 10 o-o lZ'le4 11 Ji.. d 2 'it'd6 12 h!e1 o-o-ol
Here we see a classical theme of the Nimzowitsch Defence: hiding the king on the queenside to attack on the king side! 13 a4 f6 14 as gs 1s lZ'lh2 .tg61 Black consequently avoids the ex change of pieces. 16 lZ'lg4 hs 17 lZ'le3 'ii'f4 18 ..ii.f3 lZ'lxd2 19 'i!Kxd2 g4! The attack just takes care of itself. 20 .ie2 gxh3 21 g3 Of course opening the g-file with 21 gxh3? is utter suicide. 21 ... h2+! 63
Play 1 . . tb c 6 ! .
After this fine move, Black is break ing through. 22 '.txh2 If 22 '.tg2 ii.e4+ 23 f3 Mdg8 24 lLlfl (24 fxe4 nxg3+ 25 '.thl 'iYxe4+ 26 ii.f3 'ii'xf3+ 27 lLlg2 .l:!.hg8 28 .l:!.e2 h4 is a nice finish as well) 24 .. Jhg3+! 25 lLlxg3 (25 '.tf2 allows the neat 25 ...h1N mate) 25 ...'iYxd2 and Black wins. 2 2 ...1i'xf2+ 23 ctJg2 Or 23 '.th3 i.e8!. 2 3 ...ii.e4 24 ng1 .l:!.dg8 2 5 'ii'f4 h4!
26 g4 Other moves lead to quick ends; for example 26 'iYxf2 hxg3 mate, or 26 ii.g4+ nxg4! 27 'ii'xg4+ f5 28 'ii'g7 hxg3 mate, or 26 gxh4 nxg2+ 27 '.th3 .l:!.h2+ 28 'iYxh2 Mxh4 mate. 26 ...'ii'x e2 27 naf1 nxg4 Only time trouble saved White from 27 ...h3. 28 Mf2 28 'iYf2 is still answered by 28 ... h3! 29 CDf4 Mg2+! 30 tt:Jxg2 hxg2+ etc. 28 ...nxf4 29 .l::txe2 ng4 White could have resigned here to save at least some dignity. 30 ne3 nhg8 31 ne2 h3 32 '.txh3 ng3+ 64
3 3 '.th2 M3g5 3 4 ne3 nxg2+ 3 5 nxg2 .l:!.xg2+ 36 '.th3 nxc2 37 ng3 ltJxa5 38 .l:!.g8+ '.td7 39 .l:!.g7+ '.td6 40 .l:!.f7 MXC3+ 41 '.th4 '.te6 42 .l:!.f8 b5 43 .l:!.e8+ '.tf5 44 .l:!.a8 .i.g2 0-1 As you can see, 4 exd5 is completely harmless. And the prospect of playing for a win without any real danger should whet everyone's appetite. White plays 4 es Similarly to the popular viewpoint in troduced in Chapter 3, here 4 e5 also seems a sensible move: White grabs some space and makes use of the fact that his d-pawn cannot be jostled by the black c-pawn. With 3 '2lc3 e6 inter posed it even appears White has reached a favourable version of the previous chapter as the black light squared bishop is now shut in. This poses the question of how Black should continue. 4 ... f6 still seems playable, as 5 f4 founders on 5 .. .fxe5 6 fxe5 'iYh4+. But White can successfully stay in control of e5 with 5 ii.b5!. Then 5 ... fxe5 runs into 6 tLlf3! with a white knight coming to e5, so Black's best answer is 5 ...Xi.d7. This is recom mended by French Defence expert John Watson in his book Dangerous Weapons: The French, but I don't much like this approach. My recommendation would be 4...tt:Jge7. Black opts for smooth development and wants to expose a disadvantage of 3 tt:Jc3 - White's inability to protect the cl pawn with c2-c3. 5 CDf3 protects the cl pawn in another way, but after 5 ... lLlf5
1 e4 liJ c 6 2 d4 d5 3 liJc 3 e6
(intending ... f7-f6) White can no longer bolster up his centre with f2-f4. Which leaves the immediate 5 f4, but this can cause difficulties along the g1-a7 diago nal, as the next game illustrates.
Game 1 8 E. Ton ni ng-H.Reefschlager
G a usda l 1995 1 e4 e 6 2 d 4 d S 3 tbc3 tbc6 4 es tbge7 5 f4 Instead : a) 5 �g5 tries to impede the knight's journey to f5.
Black has two ways to react: a1) 5 ... 'i¥d7 looks like a bughouse move, but as the c8-bishop is leaving home via the c8-a6 diagonal in any case, unpinning the knight in such a fashion is quite feasible. After 6 tbf3 b6 7 �e2 (7 �b5 a6 8 i.a4 h6 9 .if4 b5 10 .ib3 aS 1 1 a4 b4 12 tbe2 �a6 13 h4 lLlfS 14 c3 h5 15 .ic2 tbce7 16 i.d3 i.xd3 1 7 'i'xd3 tbg6 1 8 .igS .ie7 19 .ixe7 Wxe7 20 'iVd2 llab8 left Black with good prospects on the queenside in S.Ottens C.Dammer, Cologne 1991, while 7 a3 .ib7 8 i.bS a6 9 i.d3 tba5 10 b3 cS 1 1 ctJa4 'i'c7 1 2 .ie3 c4 13 .ie2 tLlfS 14 b4 ii.c6 15 tLlc3 tDb7 16 g4 tbxe3 17 fxe3 .ie7 18 0-0 b5 19 'iVb1 aS gave the same result in N.Kolev-V.Minchev, Bankia 1992) 7 . . . �b7 8 0-0 .!Da5 9 b4 ctJc4! 10 tbd2 h6 1 1 tbxc4 dxc4 Black enjoyed a nice position in Gattu-Cordara, Finale 1977. a2) S . . .h6 forces White to decide what to do with the bishop. After 6 .ixe7 (if 6 i.h4 g5! does not weaken the position at all; S.Sisnovic-R.Hauser, Austrian League 1996, continued 7 �g3 tLlfS 8 tbge2 �g7 9 'i'd2 �e7 10 f4 a6 1 1 a3 f6 12 0-0-0 b S - note that with the centre being closed and fixed, Black can attack on both wings - 13 tba2 aS 14 ..tf2 b4 1S a4 ..td7 1 6 b3 gxf4 17 tbxf4 fxeS! 18 tLlg6 'i'f6 19 tLlxh8 exd4 20 .id3 .ixh8 21 l'::i.de1 tLle3 22 l:!.e2 eS and the black pawn mass quickly decided the game) 6 . . . tbxe7 7 tbf3 tbf5 8 �d3 g6 9 tbe2 cS 1 0 c3 'iib 6 1 1 "ifu3 'i'c7 12 dxcS .ixcS and Black equalized easily in D.Wilde-C.Wisnewski, Biisum 2004. b) S tbf3 develops the knight with65
Play 1 . . . lLJ c 6 !
out protecting the e5-pawn with f2-f4, something Black should attempt to ex ploit with 5 ...tt::lf5 followed by ... f7-f6.
White usually tries to combat this plan with different set-ups: b1) 6 g4?! is a bit careless, as the pawn will quickly become a target after 6 ... tt::lh4 7 tt::lxh4 it'xh4. The game R.Miiller-D.Porth, German League 1996, continued 8 i.e3 i.b4 9 ii'f3 h5! 10 i.h3 hxg4 1 1 i.xg4 f5 12 exf6 gxf6 13 it'g3 i.d6 14 it'g2 i.d7 15 tt::lb5 0-0-0 and Black had a nice position with good prospects on the kingside. b2) 6 i.e2, when Black should not play 6 ... f6?! as after 7 g4 tt::lh6 8 exf6 gxf6 9 h3 he cannot play the freeing ... e6-e5 in the near future. Instead, 6 ... i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 g4 tt::lh4 9 tt::lxh4 i.xh4 10 f4 f6 was played in K.Jell M.Grundherr, German League 1990, which continued 1 1 exf6 .ixf6 12 i.e3 g5! 13 fxg5 .ixg5 1 4 lhf8+ 'it>xf8 15 ii'd2 h6 16 .if3 �g7 1 7 tL'le2 e5! and the white king was in more danger than his black colleague. b3) 6 .ib5 is a typical way to fight for control of e5. Now 6 ... i.d7 7 i.g5 66
(after 7 0-0, in V.Piber-G.Gara, Har kany 2001, Black took advantage of the closed centre and initiated a kingside attack: 7 ... a6 8 i.a4 h6 9 a3 g5! 10 g4 tt::lfe7 1 1 b4 tt::lg6 12 .ib3 i.e7 13 tt::le2 h5 14 h3 hxg4 15 hxg4 tL'la7 1 6 'it>g2 .ib5 1 7 l:lh1 l:txh1 18 'it>xh1 and now 1 8 . . .'it>d7!? would have provided Black with good attacking chances on the kingside) 7 ... i.e7 8 h4 was played in J.Polgar E.Rozentalis, Groningen 1993. The game continued 8... h5?! 9 ii'd2 a6 10 .ifl b6 1 1 0-0-0 g6 12 i¥f4 with a White advantage, but I do not see what is wrong with 8 ... f6!?. After 9 exf6 gxf6 1 0 .if4 (or 10 i.cl, but then 10 . . .h5 gives Black a more favourable position to the one in the actual game) Black can play 10 ...i.d6, followed by ...it'e7 and ... 0-0-0 with a good position. s ... tL'lfs 6 tt::lf3 b6
1 .tbs
White has also tried: a) 7 tt::le2 is a prophylactic move seeking to maximize the strength of the white centre. But Black can still get enough counterplay after 7 ... i.a6 8 c3 it'd7, for example 9 it'a4 tL'lb8 10 it'c2
1 e4 tiJ c6 2 d4 ds 3 tiJc3 e6
Ji.e7 1 1 lbg3 �xfl 12 l:txfl as played in M.Strange-C.Nielsen, Farum 1993, when 12 ...lbxg3 13 hxg3 c5 would have been fully satisfactory for Black. b) 7 .id3? is even worse than it looks, since 7 ...lbfxd4 8 lbxd4 lbxd4 9 Ji.xh7? 'iih4+! 10 g3 'ifxh7 1 1 'i!fxd4 ·iihc2, among other things, loses a pawn. c) 7 a3 prevents ....ib4, but serves no other purpose. After 7 ... ii.e7 8 .ib5 Ji.d7 9 g4 lbh4 1 0 �xc6 .ixc6 1 1 'i!Ve2 'ifd7 12 ii.. e3 aS 13 'ilff2 lbxf3+ 14 'i!Vx£3 a4! 15 0-0 0-0-0 1 6 b3 Wb7 1 7 b4 .ib5 1 8 :f2 'ii'c6 19 lbxb5 'it'xb5 Black elimi nated any counter-chances on the queenside in M.Bonfioli-H.J.Hecht, Lenzerheide 1964. 7 ... .id7
8 g4?1 This weakens the kingside, but it is hard to suggest improvements. 8 0-0? is a trap surprisingly many players fall \·ictim of: 8 ... lbcxd4! 9 lbxd4 lbxd4 and Black is a pawn up since 10 'it'xd4?? ..tc5 loses the queen. And 8 lbe2? is no better as it runs into 8 . . .lbxe5. 8 ...lbh4 9 �xc6 .ixc6 10 o-o h 5 ! 11
lDg5?! 11 g5 'Llf5 was a necessary, albeit humiliating concession. 11 ... hxg4 12 ii.. e 3 lbf5 13 .ltf2 't!Vd7 14 'i!Vxg4 0-0-0
With his king brought to safety on the queenside, Black can now concen trate on his attack on the kingside. 15 a3 l::1.h 6 16 'i!i'e2 1i.b7 17 b4 'ii'e 8 18 lbd1 .i.e7 19 lL'lf3 'Yi'a4 20 lbc3 'JWc6 21 1\t'd2 l::1.h 3 22 ..t>g2 .Udh8 23 .l:th1 g5 24 lbe2 g4 25 lbfg1 .U3h7 26 lbc3 �h4 2 7 lbd1 .i.xf2 28 lbxf2 'i'xc2 29 'i!Vxc2 lbe3+ 30 Wg3 lbxc2 31 i:!.d1 �a6 3 2 lbxg4 l::1.g7 0-1 White plays 4 4.Jf3 As closing the centre doesn't have a big impact, 4 lbf3 is the only option left to protect the d-pawn. It turns out that this move is also the best choice, as it maintains the tension in the centre and forces Black to make a decision. In the absence of sensible alternatives, 4 lbf6 is the best move. After 5 e5 lbe4 6 ii..d 3 nearly all theoretical sources on this matter (including the aforementioned book by Watson) give only 6 ....ib4, con••.
67
Play 1 . ttJ c 6 ! .
.
eluding that White has a stable advan tage. Without presenting further lines for the moment, I want to point out that I agree with this assessment. But I think that Black has an inter esting alternative in 6 ... fs!?.
As White can hardly allow the black knight to stay on e4, 7 exf6 tbxf6 is a logical consequence. After 8 0-0 .ltd6 9 .ltgS 0-0 10 .l:te1 the key idea is revealed with 10 ... 4Jb4. This attacks the bishop and enables Black to play ... c7-c5 with out giving White the opportunity to strengthen his centre with c2-c3. The resulting position might still be slightly better for White, but in my opinion Black has good chances of counterplay. In any case, the following game shows that White needs to play precisely to claim an advantage. Came 1 9 F.Lopez Gra cia A.Ansola Marqui nez
Za ragoza 1998 1 e4 tbc6 2 tbc3 e6 3 d4 d S 4 tbf3 tbf6 5 68
es Before going on, we need to look at several other moves: a) 5 exdS exdS is harmless as usual.
Black doesn't have to fear any of the various continuations: a1) 6 kf4 a6 7 tbeS looks active, but just helps Black to improve his posi tion: 7 ... .ltd6 8 tbxc6 bxc6 9 i.xd6 cxd6 10 'ii'd3 0-0 1 1 .lte2 'iib6 12 l:tb1 aS! 13 0-0 .ia6 1 4 'iid l i.xe2 1 S tbxe2 l:.fe8 resulted in a nice position for Black in V.Di Fonzo-F.Castaldo, Milan 2003. a2) 6 i.e2 .i.b4 7 0-0 (7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 .ig4 transposes to Game 1 7) 7 ... 0-0 8 i.gS i.xc3 9 bxc3 'ii'd6 led to a comfortable game for Black in German J.Hengelbrock-W.Beilfuss, League 1989. a3) 6 i.bS .Jid7 7 0-0 (or 7 .JigS 'ii'e7+! 8 "i¥e2 0-0-0 9 i.. xf6 'ii'x£6 10 tbxdS 'ii'd6 11 i.xc6 ..ltxc6 12 tbe3 i.x£3 13 'ii'x£3 'i!Yxd4 and Black was slightly better in H.Tiemann-F.Schober, corre spondence 1988), when Black can play 7. . . i.d6 8 l:te1 + tbe7 9 .igS c6 10 .i.x£6 gx£6 1 1 .id3 "i¥c7 12 h3 0-0-0. In M.Ebeling-J.Kekki, Helsinki 1993,
1 e4 ltJ c 6 2 d4 d5 3 liJc3 e6
White tried to exploit the doubled £ pawns with 13 tbh4 lbg6 14 lZJ£5, but Black managed to create counterplay down the g-file after 14 ...lZJf4 15 lZJe2 8xd3 16 'ikxd3 l:tdg8 17 tt:leg3 I!g5 1 8 i"£3 .i.xf5 19 lZJxf5 l:thg8. b) 5 i.d3!? is a move that has to be :reated with respect and accurate play:
b1) 5 ... dxe4?! 6 tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 7 ..txe4 is :10 good, as the black pieces are just :nisplaced in this position. b2) 5 ... .i.b4?! leads to a variation .:overed in many opening sources deal :.ng with 3 ... tt:lc6 in the French. After 6 e3 tt:le4 7 il.. d 2 tt:lxd2 8 'ii'xd2 f6 9 a3 \\'hite gets the advantage as both the :'allowing black moves are insufficient :'or equality: b21 ) 9 . . . .i.xc3 10 "ii"xc3 fxe5 1 1 dxe5 .id7 (11.. .0-0 12 h4!? 'tie7 13 'i!i'd2 i.. d 7 1-l 'i'e3 i.e8 15 c3 i..h5 16 tt:ld4! tt:lxd4 1 7 cxd4 'tif7 1 8 1i!.cl c6 19 f3 .i.g6 20 i.e2 left Black without counterplay in Tilburg l.Hjartarson-E.Rozentalis, rapid 1994) 12 0-0-0 'i!Ve7 13 h4 0-0-0 1 4 :h3 a 6 15 .l:!.g3 lLla7 1 6 'iib4! c5 1 7 'i!Vb6 ::Jb5 18 c4 tbc7 19 'i!Vd6 'iixd6 20 exd6 ::Je8 21 lZJe5 lZJxd6 22 .l:!.xg7 and White
was on top in S.Janovsky-T.Schiitz, Dortmund 1990. b22) 9 ... ii.e7 10 exf6 il..x£6 1 1 il..b5 0-0 (after 1 1 .. . .i.d7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 l:tfe1 Ite8 1 4 tt:le2 tt'lb8 15 .i.xd7 'i!Vxd7 16 lZJf4 tt:lc6 1 7 c 3 l:te7 1 8 l:!.e2 .Uae8 1 9 nae1 Black could not enforce ...e6-e5 in A.Mallahi S.Ghane Gardeh, Iranian Champion ship 2001; or if 1 1 ..."ii"d6 then White should probably should try 12 0-0 0-0 13 ..ixc6 'tixc6 14 .l:lfe1 when Black will have problems with his light-squared bishop and/or his weak e-pawn, while 13 . . .bxc6 14 tt:la4 just transposes to Mencinger-Soln) 12 .ixc6 bxc6 13 tt:la4 'iWd6 14 0-0 e5 15 dxe5 ii.xe5 16 tt:lxe5 �xe5 17 .llfe1 "ii"f6 1 8 c3 ii.f5 19 tt:lc5 and due to the superior pawn structure and minor piece, White enjoyed a slight advantage in V.Mencinger-P.Soln, Finkenstein 1994. b3) 5 . . .lZJb4!? is the right answer; for example, 6 e5 lLlxd3+ 7 'i'xd3 (7 cxd3 is not as dangerous, the point being that 7 . . . tt:ld7 8 ..ltg5 ..ie7 9 i.xe7 "ifxe7 10 lbb5 can be met by 10 ...'ii'b4+), and now:
b31 ) 7 . . .tt:ld7 8 .ig5 i.e7 (8 . . . f6?! 9
69
Play 1 . . l0 c 6 ! .
exf6 tt:lxf6 10 0-0 i.e7 1 1 tt:le5 0-0 12 k!ae1 c5 13 .U.e3 c4?! led to a disaster after 14 'ii'd 1 b5? 15 tt:lc6 'ii'c 7 16 tt:lxe7+ 'ii'xe7 17 tt:lxd5 in H.Sislian-O.Steffens, German League 1997) 9 ii.xe7 1i'xe7 10 tt:lb5! tt:lb6 11 'ii'c3 leaves White in bet ter shape. b32) 7 ... tt:lg8!? looks crooked, but seems possible since the closed charac ter of the position makes it difficult for White to exploit his lead in develop ment. After 8 0-0 (8 b4 tt:le7 9 tt:le2 ii.d7 10 0-0 tt:lc8 11 i.g5 i.. e 7 12 .ixe7 'ii'xe7 13 a4 tt:lb6 14 'ifb3 lLlc4 15 'ii'c3 a5 was fine for Black in M.Krakops-S.Dizdar, Werfen 1993) 8 ... .ie7, a game between YACE 0.99.56 and Monarch 2002-04 continued 9 b3 b6 10 .Md1 .id7 1 1 a4 h5 12 tt:lb5 a6 13 lLlc3, and now 13 ... g5!? 14 .ia3 g4 15 .ixe7 tt:lxe7 16 tt:lg5 tt:lg6 would have led to a position in which Black is not worse. c) 5 ii.g5 .ie7 leaves White a choice between three moves:
cl) 6 ii.d3 is met by 6 ...tt:lxe4 7 tt:lxe4 dxe4 8 .ixe7 'ifd5! as played in B.Rogulj-V.Kovacevic, Croatian Team Championship 2005, when 9 .ic5 exd3 70
10 'ii'x d3 b 6 i s good for Black. c2) 6 e5 tt:le4 and then:
c21 ) 7 lLlxe4?! dxe4 8 ii.xe7 'ifxe7 completely surrenders the centre. In E.Van den Doel-S.Ernst, Nijmegen 1992, White tried 9 tt:ld2 tt:lxd4 10 tt:lxe4 tt:lc6 1 1 'ii'g4, but after 1 l ...'ifb4+! 12 c3 'ii'xb2 13 �d1 ii.d7 14 J::!.d 2 (or 14 'ifxg7 0-0-0 and White will have serious prob lems getting his king into safety) Black could have played 14 ... tt:lxe5! with a slight advantage after 15 l::!.xb2 tt:lxg4 1 6 J::!.xb7 .ic6 1 7 .ib5 .ixb5 1 8 J::!.xb5 0-0. c22) 7 .id2 loses precious time. Black should immediately attack the centre with 7 . . .f6!, for example 8 exf6 .ixf6 9 tt:lxe4 dxe4 10 tt:lg5 l'ixd4 and Black was better in M.Mueller-U.Teich, German League 1987. c23) 7 .ixe7 'ifxe7 8 .id3 'ifb4 9 .ixe4 (9 a3?! tt:lxc3 10 axb4 tt:lxd1 1 1 '>t>xd1 tt:lxb4 just leaves Black a pawn up, while after 9 0-0 tt:lxc3 10 bxc3 l'ixc3 1 1 l:tb1 'iia3! 12 l'id2 'ife7 13 c3 lba5 14 lbg5 h6 15 tt:lh3 .id7 1 6 tt:lf4 0-0-0 White had a hard time proving any compen sation in B.Lengyel-L.Majzik, Budapest 1998) 9 . . .dxe4 10 a3 l'ixb2 1 1 tt:lxe4 and
1 e4 0J c 6 2 d4 d 5 3 0Jc3 e6
now Black can equalize with 1 l . . .'tib5!, for example 12 tbed2 tba5 13 c4 "ii'd 7 (but not 13 . . .tbxc4? losing a piece to 14 We2) 14 0-0 b6 15 .Ucl i.b7 16 tbb3 ·wa4!, as in P.Keres-A.Lein, USSR Championship, Baku 196 1 . c3) 6 i.x£6 .ixf6 and now:
c31 ) 7 eS aims for an advantage in �pace again, but Black has sufficient .::ounterplay after 7... !§..e 7 8 a3 (8 'ii'd 2 a6!? 9 0-0-0 b6 10 h4 !§..b 7 11 �f4 looks �uspicious as White seems to have good prospects on the kingside; but the game M.Zelic-V.Kovacevic, Solin 1996, showed that Black has resources too: l l . ..�d7 1 2 l:Ih3 h6 13 ii.e2 ii.f8 14 t2Jd2 .J-0-0 15 tb£1 '.t>b8 16 l:If3 f6! 17 exf6 gx£6 18 'i'xf6 i.g7 19 'i'g6 .ixd4 and Black was more than OK) 8 ... 0-0 9 'i'd2 f6 10 cxf6 i.x£6 11 h4 eS! 1 2 dxeS tbxeS 13 ::JxeS (if 13 �xdS+?! "ikxdS 14 tbxd5 ::Jx£3+ 15 gxf3 i.xb2 is obviously better ior Black) 13 ...i.xe5 14 iVxdS+ 'i'xdS 15 ::JxdS i.xb2 1 6 :.i.b1 !§.. d4 (16 ... :!:!.e8+ is :nore ambitious, keeping the game alive either after 17 �d2 .ieS or 17 .ie2 J..e5 18 0-0 c6 19 tbe3 .id4 with com pensation for the sacrificed pawn) 1 7
tbxc7, as played in V.Juergens M.Thesing, Dortmund 1992; now 1 7... i.xf2+ would have more or less forced White to repeat moves with 1 8 �d2 l:tb8 19 tba6 lla8 2 0 tbc7. c32) 7 i..b S keeps the tension in the centre. Black's best option is 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 (8 il.xc6 bxc6 9 0-0 cS 1 0 exd5 cxd4! 1 1 tbe4 exd5 12 tLlxf6+ �xf6 13 'i'xd4 'i!Vxd4 14 tbxd4 was played in M.Furlan-N.Praznik, Bled 1995, when 14 ... c5 would have provided Black with the better game, for example 15 tLlc6 l:te8 and the knight is not of much use) 8 . . .tbb8! ? 9 .l:i.e1 b6. The game G.Fish C .Wisnewski, German Club Cup 2007, continued 10 exd5 exdS 1 1 tbe5, but after 1 l . ..i.e6 12 �f3 'i'd6 13 ..id3 c6 Black had nothing to worry about. s tbe4 6 i..d 3 6 tLle2 again gives Black time to at tack the centre with the typical 6 ... f6. After 7 ex£6 (7 tbg3 fxeS 8 dxe5 i.e7 9 .1t..d3 tLlc5 10 .ib5 0-0 11 0-0 ..id7 1 2 .ixc6 bxc6! 13 t2Jd4 'iVe8 1 4 c4 was G.Garcia-G.Russek Libni, Granma 1987, and now 14 ...'11Vg6 would have been better for Black) 7...'ii'xf6 8 tLlg3 eS! was played in J.Heissler M.Schaefer, German League 1989, which continued 9 i.b5 (9 dxe5 tLlxeS 10 'i'xdS? runs into 10 ... i..b4+ 1 1 c3 tbxf3+ 12 gxf3 tbxc3, while if 10 tbxe4 dxe4 1 1 tbxe5 'i'xe5 the activity of Black's pieces and his advantage in space compensate for the long-term weakness of the isolated e-pawn) 9 ...exd4 10 'ir'xd4 iVxd4 1 1 tbxd4 tbxg3 12 hxg3 .1t.. d 7 13 tbxc6 ii.xc6 14 il.xc6+ bxc6 15 ii.e3 i.b4+ 16 c3 ..liaS 17 0-0-0 ...
71
Play 1 . . . lLJ c 6 !
i.b6 and Black's chances in the end game were not worse. 6... fs!? 7 exf6 tt'Jxf6
8 0-0 8 .tgs ..ltd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 l:!.e1 tt'lb4! shows the key idea of this chapter. By attacking the bishop on d3 Black gains the time he needs to attack the white centre with ... c7-c5, after which it will be easier for him to enforce ... e6-e5. Surprisingly, besides a few blitz games of mine there are no practical exam ples, but I urge you to try it! For White, 9 i.b5!? is a possible improvement, but after 9 . . 0-0 10 .ixc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0 c5 Black now has two c-pawns at his dis posal. Then 12 .ixf6 'i*'xf6? 13 dxc5 i.xc5 14 tt'lxd5! is a little trap, but after just 1 2 . . Jhf6 Black is fine. 8 ... i.d6 9 tt'le2 es! 10 dxes tt'lxes 11 .
72
lt'Jxes i.. x es 12 1Lf4 1Lxf4 13 lt'Jxf4 o-o Black has comfortably equalized. 14 h3 Vi'd6 15 'ii'd 2 c6 16 l:'lfe1 �d7 17 I:tad1 l:i.ae8 18 c3 lii.xe1+ 19 .Mxe1 .§.e8 20 .Mxe8+ JL.xe8 21 'ife3 i.. d 7 2l...i.. f7 is a better place for the bishop, leaving d7 for the knight. 22 lt'Je2 b6 23 f4 cs 24 'iVes 'i¥xes 2 5 fxes lt'Je4?
Underestimating the power of the white knight in the endgame. Now Black is constantly driven back. 26 ttJf4 i.c6 27 i.xe4 dxe4 28 h4 'it>f7 29 �2 iL.d7 30 'it>e3 ..ifs 3 1 c4 g6 32 tt'lds �e6 3 3 Wf4 h6 34 g4 .ixg4 3 5 �xg4 Wxes 36 ttJe7 Wd4 3 7 ttJxg6 Wxc4 38 lt'Jes+ Wd4 39 tt'lf7 'it>d3 40 lt'Jxh6 e3 41 ttJf7 e2 42 tt'les+ Wc2 43 lt'Jf3 �xb2 44 hS C4 45 h6 C3 46 h7 C2 47 h8'Yi'+ 'it>xa2 48 'ii'c 3 1-0
1
e4
4:\c6 2
d4 dS
3 4:\c3 e 6
Summary Transposing into the French is not a bad idea after all; it is quite likely that White ·sill be lured into unknown territory where careless play is immediately punished, :�s Game 1 7 nicely illustrated. Keeping the position closed with 4 e5 is probably :he line you will encounter most, so I recommend memorizing the ideas from Game 18. White's best choice is 4 iL'l£3, but Game 19 showed that Black does not :1eed to stand back. 1 e4 tL'lc6 2 d4 dS 3 iL'lc3 e6 (D) 4 iL'lf3
4 exd5 exd5 Game 1 7 4 e5 tL'lge7 (D) - Game 18 4 tL'lf6 5 es iL'le4 6 ..td3 f s (D) - Game 1 9 -
...
3 e6 ...
4 . 4:\gel .
.
6 .. j5
73
Chapter Five 1
I
e4 ct:Jc6 2 CLJf3 ttJf6
In my experience, 2 CDf3 is the move most responsible for players abandon ing the Nimzowitsch Defence. And it is quite cunning indeed: by developing his king's knight White increases his influence in the centre without present ing his d-pawn as a possible target. Now Black could give in with 2 ... e5 which transposes to the Open Games, but then there would be no reason not to play l . . .e5 in the first place. There has to be something else, and in fact there is. Choosing between the respectable number of sensible second move alter natives is by no means an easy task. Except for 2 . . . d6, which I dismissed as too passive, I have tried virtually eve rything; but nothing impressed me as much as 2 C'bf6. The resulting posi tions are highly unbalanced, which is perfectly suited my style of play. And hopefully this chapter will show that it will suit yours too.
White plays 3 ll:lc3 The passive move 3 CDc3 is often used by players who shun the complications arising from the more forcing lines re sulting from 3 eS tbg4. Black could now simply transpose into the Four Knights Game with 3 . . .e5, but apart from that being a sin against principles, the more thematic 3 ... ds offers greater chances to create the unbalanced positions re quired to play for the full point. White can equalize with precise play, but be ing the only one striving for a win should be comforting enough for any Black player. Game 20 R.Jiganchine-5.Wright
Richmond, Canada 1999
•••
74
1 e 4 tbc6 2 C'bf3 C'bf6 3 C'bc3
The quiet alternative 3 d3 was cov ered in Game 2. 3 ... ds
1 e4 t'Ll c 6 2 t"iJj3 t"iJf6
c) 4 ... d4 is another line related to the Alekhine. It is not my cup of tea, but as it is solid, I do not want to withhold it from you: 5 exf6 (5 tZ:lxd4 tbxd4 6 exf6 exf6 and 5 lZ:Je2 lZ:Jg4 are not to be taken seriously) 5 . . . dxc3 and now:
4 exds
And here 4 d3?! dxe4 5 dxe4 'iVxd1+ -J �xd1 �g4 7 i.e2 0-0-0+ 8 �e1 e5 is ;ust better for Black. Instead, after 4 e5, Black has a few ?Ossibilities I would like to mention:
a) 4 ... tbg4?! can be quickly dis :nissed after 5 d4 �£5 6 h3 tbh6 7 .lil.b5. b) 4 ...tbe4 5 lZ:Je2 mostly transposes :o a line usually reached via 1 e4 tZ:lf6 2 ::_c3 d5 3 e5 lZ:Je4. I could easily devote .=. whole chapter to examining this ·.-ariation, but as this line finally made :ne give up Alekhine's Defence after :Line years' practice, I will not recom :nend it.
cl) 6 bxc3 gxf6 (6 ...exf6?! is not to be recommended; White reached a better position after 7 il..b5 'i'dS 8 'iie2+ il..e6 9 0-0 .lil.d6 10 lZ:Jd4 0-0 1 1 il..xc6 bxc6 12 lZ:Jxe6 fxe6 1 3 d3 in I.Reyes Acevedo J.Ramirez Gonzalez, St Feliu 1994) 7 d4 (7 .lil.b5 �d5! 8 c4 'iie4+ 9 'ife2 .lil.f5 10 d3 'i'xe2+ 11 'it>xe2 i.d7 12 i.e3 a6 13 i.xc6 .1i.xc6 14 g3 0-0-0 15 �hb1 e5 left Black in complete control in D.Vega D.Levadi, Eastpointe 1993) 7 ... i.g7 8 jt_e2 .i..f5 9 �e3 0-0 10 0-0 e5 1 1 d5 lZ:Je7 12 c4 'i¥d6 13 �d2 .l:!.fd8 14 �fd1 .i.. g6 15 tbh4 f5 1 6 tZ:lxg6 hxg6 17 il..h6 b6 1 8 h4 Wh7 19 i.xg7 'lt>xg7 20 'Yi'c3 f6 and Black reigned over the dark squares in H.Ewin-H.Deuster, Braunfels 1998. c2) 6 fxg7 cxd2+ 7 'i'xd2 'i!Vxd2+ 8 .i..xd2 i.xg7 9 0-0-0 .lil.g4 10 .te2 (10 .lil.b5!?) 10 ...0-0-0 and although Black is by no means worse, there is just not enough action for my taste. 75
Play 1 . . ltJ c 6 ! .
d ) 4 ...l2\d7!? i s my favourite choice. After 5 d4 (here 5 e6 again bears re semblance to Alekhine's Defence, but compared to the original line 1 e4 l21f6 2 l2\c3 d5 3 e5 �fd7 4 e6, the moves l21f3 and l21c6 have been inserted - a factor which favours Black: for example, after the typical 5 ... fxe6 6 d4 g6 7 h4 i.g7 8 h5 e5! 9 dxe5 l2\dxe5 10 �xd5 l21xf3+ 1 1 �xf3 l21d4 Black has a significant ad vantage) 5 ...�b6 we have reached the starting point of a line regularly played by American FM Miles Ardaman.
Now White has a number of op tions: d1) 6 i.g5 tries to hamper Black from developing, but in the end Black is OK, as Ardaman has showed in numerous blitz games under his handle "ChessDoc" on the Internet Chess Club; for example, 6...i.g4 7 ii.b5 �d7 8 0-0 (or 8 h3 i.xf3 9 �xf3 a6 10 iLxc6 l!Vxc6 1 1 0-0 �g6! 12 i.f4 e6 13 �e2 c5 14 i.e3 ti'lc4) 8 . . .a6 9 i.e2 f6 10 i.f4 0-0-0 1 1 a4 e6 12 �e1 i.b4 13 h3 i.h5 14 exf6 gxf6 15 g4 �dg8 16 .ig3 i.f7 1 7 �d2 h5 and Black has a tremendous attack. d2) 6 h3 is fittingly met by 6 ...h6!, 76
creating an escape route t o h7 for the black bishop. White can try to prevent this with 7 i.d3, but after 7 ...l2\b4 8 0-0 l21xd3 9 �xd3 e6 10 l21e2 i.d7 1 1 l21f4 a6 Black had good prospects on the queenside in L.Bonet-A.Panchenko, Berga 1996. d3) 6 ii.b5 i.g4 7 he i.xf3 8 .ixc6+ bxc6 9 �xf3 e6 10 �g3 was played in K.Pulkkinen-T.Paakkonen, Finnish Team Championship 1999, but then 10 ...l21d7 1 1 0-0 c5 12 dxc5 l21xc5 13 i.e3 l2\d7, intending a second ... c5, threaten ing ... d4 and ...�8, is good for Black. d4) 6 i.e2 i.f5 7 l2\h4 (after the committal 7 0-0 Black can opt for a kingside attack with 7 ... e6 8 i.f4 i.e7 and ... g7-g5; but note that this is only possible due to the closed nature of the position) 7 ... i.e4!? 8 i.e3 (or 8 l2lxe4 dxe4 9 i.e3 e6 10 g3 �d5 1 1 l21g2 0-0-0 with a nice game) 8 ... e6 9 l21f3 i.g6 1 0 0-0 i.e7 1 1 l21e1 0-0 12 f4 f6 13 l21f3 fxe5 14 fxe5 l21b4 15 �cl c5 16 a3 l2\c6 and the position was almost too good to be true in J.Servitja Perez-A.Jerez Perez, Barcelona 1994. 4 l2\xd s ...
1 e4 ttJc6 2 ttJf3 ttJf6 5 .ic4
Or: a) 5 iLb5 'Llxc3 6 iLxc6+ (6 bxc3 al lows 6 .. .'i!Hd5 7 'ti'e2 il.g4 or 7 c4 �e4+ 8 iJe2 �xe2+ 9 'it>xe2 �d7 with equality) 6 .. bxc6 7 bxc3 'ti'd5! 8 h3 'iVe4+ 9 Wfl (if 9 "ife2 it'xc2) 9 ... e5 with a slight advan tage for Black. b) 5 g3 i-g4 6 i.g2 e6 7 h3 �h5 8 0-0 l.e7 gave Black an easy game in J .Houska-C.Wisnewski, German League 2004. c) 5 d4 features a funny line: 3 . ..Cbxc3 6 bxc3 i-g4 7 d5 'Lle5!?, invit ing White to play 8 'Llxe5 (on 8 i.e2 Black can safely play 8 .. .'Yi'd6) 8 ... il.xd1 'l .ib5+ c6 10 dxc6, and now after 1 0 ... ..ie2!! White collapsed with 1 1 �xe2? �d5! in R.Goldenberg F.Chevaldonnet, Bordeaux 1982. In stead 1 1 'Lld3 is necessary, though after 1 l .. .i.xd3 12 cxd3 b6 13 c7+ 'lid7 14 �xd7+ Wxd7 15 i-f4 e5! 16 ..l¥..g3 il.d6 Black still has a good game. .
s ...'Llb6 6 ..tb3 .ifs
'Llxd5 4 iLc4 'Llb6 5 i.b3 'Llc6 6 'Llf3 ii.f5 - a harmless line, if I might say so. 7 0-0
7 a4 aS 8 d4 e6 hardly makes a dif ference. 7 .. e6 8 d4 �e7 9 i-f4 The immediate 9 d5 is unable to get anything out of the position either; for example 9 ... exd5 10 lbxd5 'Llxd5 1 1 'tlfxd5 �xd5 12 .ixd5 0-0 13 .Me1 i.f6 14 c3 'Lld8 15 .if4 c6 16 ii.b3 'Lle6 and the game was equal in I.Almasi-K.Kaunas, Hungary 1992. 9 .. o-o 10 ds The calm 10 .l:!.e1 should be an swered by 10 ... 'Lla5, eliminating the bishop. .
.
1o ... exds 11 l2lxds 'Llxds 12 'ti'xds
Trying to keep the queens on board is dangerous. Instead after 12 i.xd5?! ii.xc2! 13 'i'xc2 'ti'xdS 14 ii..xc7 :tac8 15 i-f4 'Lld4 16 l\Vd3 'Llxf3+ 1 7 'Yi'x£3 'Yi'xf3 18 gxf3 Black had a significant end game advantage in B.Niedermaier D.Seyb, Nuremburg 2002. 12 .it'xds 13 ii.xds l:!.fd8 14 �b3 i-d6 ..
15 i.xd6 .lixd6
The game has finally transposed to a line from Alekhine' s Defence, usually reached by 1 e4 'Llf6 2 'Llc3 d5 3 exd5
Of course this position is dead level. 77
Play 1 . . .lu c 6 !
But the rest shows an aspect o f the game you should always remember: a strong player, you draw with him; a weak player, you beat him with your superior technique.
Ten moves into the game one could think that things have gone wrong for Black, but I invite you to look a little further ...
16 �ad1 �adS 17 c3 ii.d3 18 �fe1 li'la s
Game 2 1 M.Kraemer-C. Wisnewski
19 li'les li'lxb3 20 llxd3 �xd3 21 li'lxd3 �f8 22 li'les li'lcs 23 li'lf3 li'la4 24 l:tb1
Kiel 2003
li'lxb2 25 �f1 �d1+ 26 l:txd1 li'lxd1 2 7 c4 li'l c 3 2 8 a3 li'lb1 29 a 4 a s 30 'it>e2 li'lc3+ 31 �d3 li'lxa4 32 'it>d4 'it>e7 33 cs
1 e4 li'lc6 2 li'lf3 li'lf6 3 es lLJg4 4 d4 d6
f6 34 'i.t>c4 li'lb2+ 35 \t>bs a4 36 'it>b4 lLJd3+ 37 'it>xa4 li'lxcS+ 0-1
Rare sth and 6th moves The position after 3 eS lLJg4 4 d4 d6 5 h3 li'lh6
5 h3
can be seen as the starting position of the system I present in this chapter. The inventor, Spanish GM Marc Nar ciso Dublan, has called it 'El Colum pio'. This translates into 'The Swing', and if you look at the route g8-f6-g4-h6 taken by the knight, it seems indeed that it swings around the board. To give you a first impression, I would like to present a game I played shortly after I picked up 'El Columpio' . 78
Other moves: a) 5 ii.f4, from M.Mi.illerC.Wisnewski, Kiel (rapid) 2003, is not as dumb as it looks. Black has to play quite accurately in order to exploit it. 5 ... dxe5 6 li'lxe5 'i!Vxd4 7 'i!Vxd4 lLJxd4 8 ii.d3 and now 8 ... g5! 9 ii.g3 ii.g7 10 lLJxg4 ii.xg4 is the most precise way to take hold of the position. b) 5 e6 is similar to 6 e6 (the subject of the next game), but without the black knight being driven back, it is not as powerful. After 5 ... fxe6 6 li'lg5 li'lf6! 7 ii.c4 d5 8 ii.b5 'i!Vd6, ... e6-e5 must be prevented at all cost. White may have a certain amount of compensation for the
1 e4 lb c 6 2 lbj3 lbf6
pawn after 9 £4 (9 0-0 allows 9 ... e5 10 dxe5 ikxe5 1 1 l'!el 'it'd6 and White has hardly anything) 9 ... a6 10 i.a4 (or 10 �e2 l2Jd8!?, intending ...'i!Vb6 followed by ... c5 and ... 'Llc6 with play against d4) 1 0 ... g6 1 1 0-0 i.. g7, but no more than that.
8 .. .l2Jxe5 9 dxe5 'i!Vxd1+ 10 'it>xd1 l:Ig8 1 1 g4 ( 1 1 g3? loses a pawn to 1 l .. .�g5 12 l:te1 i.xh3) 1 l . ..h5 12 f3 �g5 13 e6 (or 13 I!.e1 hxg4 followed by ...i.g7), 13 ...i.. xe6 would leave White seeking even a spark of compensation.
s ...'Llh6
Black needs to parry the threat of 7 exd6 'i!Vxd6 8 'Llb5. 6 ... dxe5!? 7 d5 is a highly compli cated alternative that requires detailed knowledge of possible lines. Here 7 ...l2Jb8?! 8 l2Jxe5 looks suspicious, as after 8 ...l2Jf5 9 i..bS+ 'Lld7 White has the pleasant option of 10 tt:le4!, threatening 1 1 tt:lc5 or even 1 1 'Llg5. Instead, 7 ... 'Lld4!? has been suggested by Nar ciso Dublan,
6 ... a6!?
6 CLlC3
6 exd6, 6 ii.b5 and 6 e6 will be cov ered in subsequent games. Other pos sible alternatives: a) 6 i.xh6?! regularly transposes to other lines and therefore will not be covered separately. b) After 6 ii.d3 i.£5 is the simplest route to equality; for example, 7 i.x£5 7 iLxh6 is met by 7 ... i.xd3) 7 ... 'Llxf5 8 e6?! fxe6 9 0-0 'ii'd7 10 .l:.e1 g6 1 1 g4 8h6 1 2 lLlg5 lLld8 13 lLld2 i.g7 1 4 l2Jdf3 :�hf7 15 c3 e5 and Black even enjoyed an advantage in R.Myhrvold C .Wisnewski, Modum 2003. c) 6 i.c4?! is dubious, as after 6 . .. dxe5 7 d5 l2Ja5 is possible. Instead 7 Ji..xh6 gxh6 8 l2Jxe5 was played in D.Escobar-M.Narciso Dublan, Spanish Junior Championships 1992, but after •
when play can continue 8 'Llxe5 (8 l2Jxd4 exd4 9 't!Vxd4 - not 9 i.xh6?! dxc3! - 9 ...'Llf5 10 'ilke5 f6!? 1 1 1lt'e4 'Lld6 12 'i!Ve3 g6 13 i.d2 i.g7 14 0-0-0 0-0 is OK as Black is about to play ... e7-e5, qualifying the weakness of the e6square) 8 ...'Llhf5 and then: a) 9 ii.c4 f6 10 lL:J£3 ( 1 0 l2Jg4 e5! equalizes, but after 10 'Lld3 e5? does not work because of 11 dxe6 i.xe6 12 79
Play 1 ..l'i'J c 6 ! .
�xe6 lbxe6 1 3 0-0 and Black experi ences problems on the e-file; better is 10 ... lbd6 11 �b3 and only then 1 1 . ..e5) 10 ... e5 1 1 dxe6 �xe6 with equality. b) 9 lbb5!? lbxb5 10 �xb5+ c6 is ra zor sharp.
Many of the following lines were given by Narciso Dublan, who is a very imaginative and creative player. You could do worse than to study his games in this whole line. 1 1 �a4 (11 dxc6? �aS+ and 1 1 �c4?! lbd6 favour Black, while 1 1 lbxc6!? bxc6 12 i.xc6+ �d7 13 �xa8 �xa8 is unclear) 1 1 ...�d6! 1 2 lbxc6 (here 1 2 lZ'lf3 b 5 13 i.b3 i.b7 14 �d3 g6 is unclear, while 12 lbc4? �4+ and 12 �f4? �4+ are not) 1 2 ...�d7 13 �f3 lbh4 14 �e4 �g6! 15 �xh4 �xg2 16 .l:!.fl �xd5 1 7 4'lb4 �e6+ 18 �e3 �xa4 19 0-0-0 .l:!.c8 and after all those complica tions, Black is a pawn up. c) 9 g4 f6! 10 gxf5 (10 lbc4?! allows 10 ... lbh4! 1 1 lZ'ld2 e5) 10 ... fxe5 1 1 �5+ Wd7 12 �d3 �e8 13 �g4 \t>d8 14 �e3 g6 15 �xd4 i.xf5 16 �xf5 gxf5 17 �4 (17 �xf5 exd4 1 8 'i¥e5 �g8 19 'i¥xd4 �5 and ... �g5, ...'i¥f3 and ... i.g7 are all ideas justifying the pawn sacrifice) 80
1 7... exd4 18 �xd4 �g8 and i n this to tally weird position Black is not worse according to Narciso Dublan. What can I say ... You will have fun at the board, that's for sure! 1 �gs!?
This move is quite annoying and puts Black to the test. 7 exd6 'i¥xd6 will be looked at in Game 23. Instead, 7 i.xh6 gxh6 8 'i¥e2!? is an interesting idea from German FM Hanno Sislian. In H.Sislian-C.Wisnewski, Bargteheide 2004, I intuitively began the right treatment with 8 ... dxe5 9 dxe5 lbd4! 10 lbxd4 'i¥xd4 11 �d1 'i¥c5 1 2 lZ'ld5, but now misplayed the position with 12 ... i.d7?!, when White got a strong initiative following 13 b4 'i¥c6 14 'i¥e3. The correct move was 12 . . .i.e6, and after removing the knight from d5 Black should have no problems. 1 i.ts s g4 i.g6 9 i.g2 'i¥d7 ...
10 0-0
I played the exact position again about one year later, and the game M.Szelag-C.Wisnewski, German League 2004, showed that the black set-up is indeed playable. After 10 'i¥e2 d5 1 1 �d1
1 e4 Q:\ c 6 2 Q:\j3 QJj6
-':Jg8 12 tt'lh4 e6 13 f4?! Jl.e7 14 .i.xe7 iiixe7 15 i¥f2 i.xc2 16 J::!.d2 tt'lb4 Black had gotten rid of all possible problems.
Now the black king is safe and Black can prepare for his final assault on the kingside.
1o ... d s ! 11 'ifd2 e6
21 Ji.d4 tt'lh6 22 'ii'e 2 hxg4 23 hxg4 ..te7
Closing the centre helps Black to re group before coming from behind.
24 .l:!.h1 �df8 2 5 .l:taf1 't!Ve8 26 �g3 't!Vg6
12 a3 tt'lg8 13 b4 f6!? 14 Jl.f4 Jl.e4!?
This manoeuvre brings back memo ries of Chapter 3. It helps to know your ,;vstems!
27 ..tf2 �b8 28 .l:!.fg1 i.h4+! 29 .l:bh4 tt'lfs+ 30 Wh3 tt'lxh4 31 ..ixh4 't!Vh7 3 2 �e1 �xf4 3 3 l:th1 'i¥xc2 0-1
White plays 6 e6 Sacrificing a pawn with 6 e6 is not completely unfounded. It is usually followed by 7 Jl.xh6 (or vice versa) as White opts for attacking chances on the kingside. After 6 fxe6 7 i.. x h6 gxh6, ••.
15 exf6 tt'lxf6 16 tt'les tt'lxes 17 dxes l.xg2 18 'it>xg2 tt'lg8
This is the second time the knight has returned to g8, but each time it was tor a reason. 19 i.e3 hs 20 f4 o-o-o
White normally plays 8 tt'lh4, im mediately trying to exploit the weak ness of the h5-e8 diagonal, when Black has to be careful; for example 8 ... .i.g7 9 'iVh5+ \t>d7? (relatively better is 9 . . \t>f8, but I still prefer White here) 10 d5! and Black is lost either after 10 ... exd5 1 1 "@'g4+ o r 10. . .i.xb2 1 1 dxe6+ \t>xe6 1 2 �f5 mate! The key manoeuvre in this position is the bizarre-looking 8 .. Ji'd7!, a move serving multiple purposes. The most important point is to answer 9 'i¥h5+ .
81
Play 1 . . ltl c 6 ! .
with 9 . . .'it'd8, followed by . . .'iVe8, in tending to transfer the queen to help defend the kingside; but the now va cant d8-square can also be used as an escape route for the knight after a pos sible d4-d5 (in response to ... e6-e5). All in all I think this beautiful idea pro vides Black with excellent chances, as you will see in our next game.
was played i n Cardenas-M.Narciso Dublan, Spain 1992, when 10 ... 'it'd8!, intending ... 'i¥e8, would have been bet ter for Black) 9 ... g6 and then:
Game 2 2 M.Hom uth-C. Wisnewski
Luetje n b u rg 2003 1 e4 'Llc6 2 'Llf3 'Llf6 3 es 'Llg4 4 d4 d6 5 h3 'Llh6 6 e6 fxe6
b1) 10 h4 e5 1 1 h5 (or 1 1 d5 'Llcd8 12 h5 'iVg4!) 1 l ...'iVg4! 12 hxg6 (if 12 1!114 'iVxg2 13 .te4 gxh5 the queen cannot be harmed as any knight move would allow ...'ii'g l +) 12 ...hxg6 13 !:!.xh8 'Llxh8 and Black has a notable advantage. b2) 10 'Llg5 'Llxg5 1 1 .ltxg5 e5 12 d5 'Lld8 13 h4 e6 14 c4 (14 dxe6 'Llxe6 15 Ji..f6 is rebuffed with 15 ... il.g7, while 14 h5 is met by 14 ... exd5 15 hxg6 e4) 14 .. .'iVg7! 15 'Llc3 'Ll£7 16 'Lle4 i.. e7 and Black is in complete control. 7
7 i.xh6
Instead: a) 7 1i.. d 3?! is an inaccuracy that can be exploited by 7 ... 'Llb4, when White has nothing better than to play 8 .te2 'Ll£7 9 c3 'Llc6 10 i.d3 'ii'd7, transposing to 7 c3. b) 7 c3 shows a different idea, play ing on the b1-h7 diagonal. But again 7 ...'iVd7! is the right move, and now 8 �d3 'Llf7 9 'ii'c2 (9 'Llg5 'Llxg5 10 ii..xgS 82
...
gxh6 8 .ltc4
White has also tried: a) 8 'Llh4 Vi'd7! once more shows the key idea of this line. After 9 �5+ 'it'd8 10 c3 'i!Ve8 1 1 i.e2 �g7 12 'Lld2 'iVxh5 13 i.xh5 il.£6 White had no compensation for the pawn in Trias-J.Ramirez, Cata nia 1990. b) 8 'Lle5 'Llxe5 (but not 8 ... dxe5?! 9 �5+ 'it'd7 10 dxe5 �g7 1 1 f4 with at tacking chances for White, while 10 ...'iVe8?? leads to mate after 11 'i!Vd1+
1 e4 lb c 6 2 lbj3 lbf6
-t'ld4 12 'ii'xd4+ �c6 13 'it'c4+ c;t>b6 1 4 'ib4+ c;t>c6 15 'i'b5 or 13 .. .<�d7 14 'ii'd3+ �c6 15 'i!Vb5) 9 dxe5 and once more 9 .. .'ii'd7 ! 10 iV115+ c;t>d8 1 1 ctJc3 'ii'e8 saves the day. In D.Fox-K.Krug, Wolfsberg 2004, Black reached a safe and sound position after 12 'i¥f3 i.g7 13 exd6 exd6 14 0-0-0 'ti'c6 15 ifxc6 bxc6 16 -':Je4 c;t>e7.
This does not spoil everything, but there was a better move in 10 ... 0-0! with ideas similar to those in the previ ous note. After 1 1 .Ue1 liJdS there is lit tle that White can do to prevent Black from consolidating with ...�h8 and preparing ... e6-e5 afterwards.
8...i.g7
White could have won back his pawn with 15 'ii'xh6 (as well as on the previous move), but after 15 ...'ii'f5 Black becomes very active.
11 dxes ltJxes 12 ltJxes .ixes 13 'it'hs+ �d8 14 f4 .if6 15 ctJd2
1s ... 'iVfs 16 i¥f3 i.d7!
Completing development and cor rectly sensing that Black can afford to return the pawn. 17 'iVxb7 'tlfcs+ 18 'it'h1 i.c6 19 'iVb3 a s ! 2 0 a4 'iVa7 21 1lad1 .Ub8 2 2 .i b s 'iVcs
Through skilful manoeuvring Black is i mproving his position step by step. 2 3 'it'e6 'it'd sl 24 'it'xds i.xds 9 C3
9 0-0 e5 would be good for Black, if White didn't have the possibility of 10 -':Jg5! hxg5 11 ifh5+ c;t>d7 12 �g4+ c;t>es 13 'iihs+ with a surprising perpetual check. And this time 9 ... ifd7?! doesn't work either: after 10 .l:te1 e5?! 11 dxe5 -'t:lxe5? 1 2 ltJxe5 i.xe5 13 1Wh5+ 'it'd8 14 .:.xe5! dxe5 15 ctJc3 'iVeS 16 lld1+ i.d7 1 7 .i£7 Black resigned in U.Gebhardt R.Schober, Giessen 1996. The correct move is 9 ...0-0! as White cannot afford to take on e6; i.e. 10 .l:te1 �h8! 1 1 .ixe6 �xe6 1 2 l"'.xe6 �xf3! 13 gx£3 (or 13 \i'xf3 �xd4) 13 ...i.xd4!, threatening both 14 ....ltxb2 and 14 .. .'ti'g8+ which cannot be parried by White at the same time.
�b1 .Uxb1 29 .l:!.xb1 'it'c7 30 'it>g1 .Ub8 31
9...i¥d7 10 o-o es
l;Ixb8 'it'xb8 3 2 c;t>f2 c;t>c7 3 3 'it>e3 c;t>b6 34
With queens off the black king is safe, so Black can direct his attention to his two bishops. 25 ctJf3 c6 26 i.d3 .Uxb2 27 c4 .if7 2 8
83
Play 1 . .Ji'l c 6 ! .ixh7 .ixc4 3 5 g4 <;i;>c5 36 h 4 .tg7 3 7 g 5 .tb3 3 8 tt::ld 2 .1xa4 39 lbe4+ <;i;>b4 40 f5 hxg5 41 hxg5 .ic2 42 f6 exf6 43 gxf6 .ixf6! 44 tt:Jxf6 .ixh7 45 tt::lx h7 <;i;>c3 46 lbg5 d 5 47 tt::le6 a4 48 tt::lf4 a 3 0-1
White plays 6 exd6 From a positional point of view, 6 exd6 is the clearest attempt to prove that the black king's knight is simply misplaced on h6. Since either 6 ...exd6 or 6 ... cxd6 is strongly met by 7 d5, 6 ...'iVxd6 is prac tically forced.
Connoisseurs of the Scandinavian Defence will notice a similarity to the 3 ...'iVd6 variation, only this time the black knight has been developed to h6 instead of f6. The idea, of course, is to transfer the knight to f5 from where it will exert pressure on d4. White may be able to get a slight advantage, al though precise play is needed, as our next game illustrates. Game 23 Rod riguez-M. Narciso D u blan
St Cugat 1993 1 e4 tt::lc 6 2 'bf3 'bf6 3 e5 tt::lg4 4 d4 d6 5 h3 ctJh6 6 exd6
Inserting 6 .txh6 gxh6 and then playing 7 exd6 'iVxd6 gives a few dif ferent situations, as Black can now play ... .ig7 at any certain moment:
Following 7 ctJc3 a6 (the threat of 8 tt::lb5 followed by 9 .if4 had to be par ried) we reach the following position:
a) 8 lbc3 a6 9 .id3 (9 tt::le4 'iVg6 would be similar to the text, while if 9 .ic4 .ig7 10 0-0, then Black can safely take the pawn as White has no com pensation after 10 ... tZ'lxd4 1 1 lbxd4 'iVxd4 12 'iVe2 'iVe5 13 'iVf3 0-0) 9 . .tg7 .
84
.
1 e4 lLl c 6 2 lt'lf3 lt'lf6
10 li'le4 was played in O.De la Riva Aguado-J.Ramirez Gonzalez, Terrassa 1994, and now 10 ...'ifb4+ was the sim plest way to continue. b) 8 c3 1i.. f5 (here Black should re train from 8 ... �g7 9 li'lbd2 0-0 10 .ltd3 e5?! 1 1 li'lc4, when the game D.Sebastian-R.Stuermer, German Jun ior Championships 1 996, continued 11...'iie 7 12 dxe5 b5?! 13 li'le3 li'lxe5 14 �xeS .ltxe5 and now after 15 .ixb5 l:tb8 16 �e2 Black would not have had enough play for his pawn; instead 12 ...li'lxe5 13 li'lcxeS .ixe5 14 li'lxe5 ·t'Vxe5+ 15 "ife2 �eS would be the emer gency brake, though it is only White who can play for the full point) 9 li'la3 (9 .id3?! i.xd3 10 "ifxd3 'il'g6! 11 �xg6 hxg6 or 1 1 "iffl 'il'c2 is comfortable for Black; as is 9 �3 'ii'e6+! 1 0 "ifxe6 ..W..xe6 11 ..W..b5, P.Herweh-C.Mehne, Baden 1996, and now 1 l . . . .id5) 9 ... 0-0-0 10 !2'lc4 �f6 (10 .. .'ti'f4!? is also interesting) 11 "ifa4 h5 12 li'lce5 li'lxe5 13 li'lxe5 Wb8 14 iil.c4 1Ig8! 15 g3 (it is not immedi ately evident that 15 li'l:x£7? is bad, but after 15 .. J�.xg2! 16 li'lxd8 ..11i. d3! ! 1 7 l':tfl l.xfl 18 0-0-0 �xc4 19 i¥xc4 'lig6! and 20 ...�h6+ wins; White's best option is 16 .Ufl ::i.c8 17 li'le5 i.. xh3 18 0-0-0 .Mxf2 when Black is just a healthy pawn up) 15 ...e6!, and now White blundered in J.Lacasa Diaz-D.Bosch Porta, Barcelona 1992, with 16 li'lc6+? (although after 16 .:t:ld7+ J:!.xd7 1 7 'i!Vxd7 i.h6 Black would have had serious compensation for the exchange) when 16 ... bxc6 1 7 .ia6 li.d3! 18 '1i'h3+ (or 18 i.xd3 'iVf3 19 .1a6 ·t'Vxh1 + 20 'it>e2 i¥e4+) 18 ... i.b5 19 a4 't'V£3 20 axb5 i¥xh1 + 21 '>t>e2 (or 21 '.t>d2
li.h6+) 2l...�e4+ 22 �f1 c5 would have given Black a winning advantage. 6...'ii'x d6
7 li'lc3
7 g4!?, as played in L.Busquets J.Ramirez Gonzalez, Spain 1 992, should be answered by 7 ... f5!? 8 g5 li'lf7 9 li'lc3 a6, when Black can go for ... g6, ... .ig7 and ... e5. 7 li'la3!? is annoying in so far as, af ter 7 ... a6 8 li'lc4, Black can hardly avoid the repetition of moves with 8 ...'iYd5 9 li'le3 'iYd6 10 li'lc4; but at least he does not have to worry about 10 i.d3 li'lb4 or 10 i..e2 li'lf5. 7 ... a6! 8 li'le4?!
8 d5 li'le5 9 ..W..f4 l2Jd3+! 10 1Lxd3 'ifxf4 and 8 ..11Lc4 li'lfS 9 d5 li'le5 10 .ltf4 li'ld3+! 1 1 'ii'x d3 'iVxf4 12 0-0 li'ld6 13 .ib3 1i..f5 both lead to an equal game. However, 8 ..11i.e 2! (from V.Vehi Bach M.Narciso Dublan) offers White a chance to reach a better position if Black plays 8 ... li'lf5 9 d5 li'le5 10 li'lxeS 'ii'xe5 1 1 0-0. Narciso Dublan suggests 8 . . . g6! ? as an improvement, intending ... li.g7, ... 0-0 and only then playing ... li'lf5. 85
Play 1 . tLl c 6 ! .
.
8 ...1\i'g6 9 i.d3
If 9 tt:lg3 then 9 ...tt:lb4!, while 9 tt:lc5 is effectively met by 9 ...e5! 10 1lfe2 i.xc5 1 1 dxc5 0-0. 9 ...tt:lb4! 10 g4
After 10 0-0 Black can take the pawn with 10 ...i.xh3 as 1 1 tt:lh4 is met by 1 1 .. .1\i'g4.
cious tempo and Black is better (if 1 8 .llhe1 tt:lg8!). 12 ....txts 13 tt:Jfgs o-o-o
Finally Black has obtained a deci sive advantage. 14 i.f4 eS! 15 i.xeS i.. b4+ 16 C3
10 ... tt:lxd3+ 11 "ii'xd3 fS !
16...i.e7?!
12 gxfs
12 tt:leg5 can be answered by 12 ... fxg4! 13 'i¥xg6+ hxg6 and now 14 tt::le5 tt:l£5! 15 c3 (or 15 tt:lxg6 l:!.h6 16 tt::lxf8 tt:lxd4! ) 15 ... gxh3 16 tt:lxg6 .l:i.h6 1 7 tt:lxf8 �x£8 18 tt:lxh3 .l:i.h5 and Black is better. On 12 tt:le5, Keilhack gives 12 ...fxe4 13 tt::lxg6 exd3 14 tt:lxh8 .ie6 15 cxd3 0-0-0(?) as better for Black, but after 16 i.g5! I do not see how Black can pick up the knight; for example 16 ... g6 1 7 �d2 i.g7 1 8 .l:i.he1 .l:i.d6 ( 1 8... �d7 runs into 19 d5) and there is no piece left to take the white knight, as the bishop is tied to the protection of the black knight. However, slightly adjusting the move order with 1 5 ... g6 helps, as now 16 i.g5 i.g7 17 �d2 �d7 saves a pre86
16 ... 'i¥xg5! must be better, as after 1 7 tt::lxg5 i.xd3 1 8 cxb4 £ld7 the bishop on e5 is the only trump card White has with his shattered pawn structure. Af ter 1 9 b3 (19 0-0-0?! is inferior as it al lows Black to relocate his bishop to d5 by 19 ... i.c4 20 b3 i.d5) 19 ... tt:lf5 20 0-0-0 i.b5 Black is clearly on top, as once he has won back his pawn (and he cer tainly will) the white structure will be deficient. 17 h4?!
After 17 1\i'e3! ? it is not clear how Black should proceed. 17 ...tt:lg4 18 1lfc4 tt:lxes 19 dxes .l:i.he8
Instead 19 . . .h6! is more precise, for example 20 h5 hxg5 21 hxg6 .l:!.xh1 + 22 �e2 .l:i.xal . 20 .l:!.g1 i.xe4 21 1lfxe4 i.xgs 22 'ifg4+
Or 22 'i¥xg6? i.d2+. 22 ... Wb8 23 'ii'x gs? .l:i.xes+! o-1
1 e4 lLl c 6 2 lLlf3 lLlf6
White plays 6 ..tbs The move 6 ..tbs gives the black set-up its toughest test. Then after 6 ... a6 7 l.xc6+ bxc6 we have reached the most critical position to be found in this chapter:
Gam e 24 J.Sprenger-H.Kei lhack
Corresponde nce 1996 1 e4 tt:lc6 2 tt:lf3 tt:lf6 3 es tt:lg4 4 d4 d6 s h3 tt:lh6 6 �xh6
By swapping his light-squared bishop for Black's queen's knight, White has reduced the pressure on his pawn centre and is also equipped with the better pawn structure. As a rule of thumb, with his two bishops Black should try to open up the position. The typical counterstroke is now ... c6-c5, which not only opens the hl-a8 diago nal but also attacks the white centre. But most of the time (even more so if White decides to eliminate the other knight as well) it is the dark-squared bishop who is the hero of the day - and Black shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice material (up to an exchange) to broaden its horizons. The ensuing variations are highly complicated and only have a few prac tical examples, but they give ample scope to play for a full point, as the next game illustrates.
Playing this move prematurely de prives White of numerous options. The immediate 6 �b5 a6 leads to a different type of position: a) 7 �a4?! is dubious; for example, 7 ...b5 8 .tb3 dxe5 9 d5 e4! 10 tt:lg5 tt:la5 1 1 0-0?! �b7 12 tt:lc3 tt:lxb3 13 axb3 b4 14 tt:lcxe4 ltxd5 and Black won a pawn in A.Fabregas Fonanet-M.Narciso Dub lan, Barcelona 1992. 1 1 tt:lxe4 is better, but after 1 1 . . .tt:lf5 12 0-0 tt:lxb3 (just not 12 ... g6?? 13 'i!Ve1 and White picks up the knight as Black has to take care of 14 tt:lf6 mate! ) 13 axb3 �b7 14 c4 e6 White still has a tough game to follow. b) 7 �xc6+ bxc6 is the critical varia tion: b1) 8 tt:lc3 e6 usually transposes to 8 0-0. The only significant attempt to avoid these lines is 9 j_g5!?, as played in G.Langhanke-A.Korn, German League 2004. Now the correct answer is 9 .. .'ti'd7!?, for example 10 ..txh6 (if 10 0-0 Black can play 10 ...tt:lf5 with ideas similar to those after 8 0-0 ['b2'] below) 10 ...gxh6 1 1 tt:le4 .ig7 12 'i!Vd2 (or 12 0-0 c5!) 12 ... c5! with counterplay, for ex ample 13 'fi'f4 cxd4 14 tt:lf6+ ..ixf6 1 5 �xf6 �g8 o r 13 dxc5 dxe5 14 0-0-0 'it'xd2+ 15 .l:txd2 ..ib7. Instead, 9 ... i.e7?! was played in the actual game, but af ter 10 .ixh6 gxh6 1 1 'ti'd2 Black, unless 87
Play 1 . lt'J c 6 ! .
.
ready to be a pawn down for nothing, would have been forced to play 1 1 .. .dxe5 ( 1 1 . . .�f8? 12 tL:le4 �g7 13 1i'f4! is completely hopeless) 12 tL:lxe5 i.g5 13 1i'd3 i.b7 14 0-0 and now the black pawn structure is a bit too tatty. b2) 8 0-0 e6 (I was fond of 8 ... g6 for quite a long time, but during my preparation for this book I noticed a hole in the analysis of Narciso Dublan: after 9 tL:lc3 'Llf5 10 .l::!.e 1 he gives 10 ...1i'd7, but 11 'Lle4! buries the whole line; the simple threat is 12 exd6 fol lowed by 13 l2Jf6+ and there is nothing sensible Black can do about that), and now:
1i'xd6, when the dark-squared bishop compensates well for the inferior pawn structure, and 13 ... cxd4 14 'Llxd4 0-0 1 5 1i'g4 cxd6 16 .l::!.a d1 Wh8 1 7 tL:lxd6 1i'xd6 18 tL:lxe6 1i'xe6 19 .l::!.xe6 i.c8 when Black has a rook and two bishops for the queen in open terrain, or if 14 dxc7 1i'xc7 15 tL:lxd4 0-0-0 16 c3 .l::!.hg8 with attacking chances according to Narciso Dublan) 13 ... dxe5 14 1i'e2 1i'd5! 15 .l::!.a d1 1i'xa2 and this time it is White who has to look for adequate compensation. 6 ... gxh6 7 i.bs a6 8 i.xc6+
8 i.a4 was played in M.Sawadkuhi C.Wisnewski, Bargteheide 2004. The game continued 8 ... b5 9 i.b3 dxe5 10 d5 e4 11 'Llfd2 'Lld4 12 'Llc3 (12 tL:lxe4 i.g7 13 'Llbc3 transposes) 12 ... i.g7 13 'Lldxe4 0-0 14 'Llg3 and now 1 4 ... .l::!.b 8!?, with the idea 15 0-0 l"i.b6 to get the rook into play via the sixth rank, would have been very interesting. 8 ... bxc6
b21 ) After 9 i.g5, similarly to 8 'Llc3 e6 9 i.g5, Black should react with 9 ...1i'd7 10 i.xh6 gxh6 1 1 'Llbd2 i.g7 12 'Lle4 c5! . b22) 9 'Llc3 'Llf5!? 10 g4 tL:le7 1 1 'Lle4 1i'd7, followed by ... i.b7 and sooner or later ... c5, provides Black with suffi cient counterplay. b23) 9 i.xh6 gxh6 10 tL:lc3 i.g7 1 1 'Lle4 i.b7 1 2 .l::!.e 1 once more features 12 ... c5! 13 dxc5 (on 13 exd6 Black can choose between 13 ... i.xe4!? 14 .l::!.xe4 88
9 1i'e2 Besides this move, White has a vari ety of alternatives. Let's take a look: a) 9 'Llc3 .l"i.g8?! was played in P.De Laat-C.Tanis, correspondence 1996, but
1 e4 tt'Jc6 2 tt'Jj3 tDJ6 I do not like the black set-up. The game continued 10 g3 "ifd7 1 1 'i!Vd3 l::tb8 12 0-0-0 'iWfS 13 �e2 (13 tt::le4 is a worthy alternative) 13 . . .i.e6, and now instead of 14 g4 White should have played 14 ::Jh4! 'ii'g5+ 15 �b1 when I honestly cannot imagine how Black might gen erate any counterplay. More to the point is 9 ...ii.g7, and then after 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 tt::le4 (or 11 It.e1 ) Black should play 1 l . . . .i.e6 (but not 1 1 ...�h8 12 l'!e1 :.g8?? 13 tt::leg5! and Black is suddenly lost!) 12 l:!.e1 'if'c8 when we reach an unclear position. White has an advan tage in space and the superior pawn structure, but in return Black has two bishops and two half-open files to play with. I would advance my a-pawn next to try to pick on the white b-pawn, and/or play ...c;!;>h8 followed by ...l:tg8. To my knowledge there are no practi cal examples yet, so you are free to let mur creativity take its course! b) 9 0-0 ii.g7 10 It.e1 0-0 11 tt::l c3 is merely a transposition to 'a'. c) 9 'ii'd 3 is an interesting move, tak ing control over the usually important iS-square. Now the game H.Diek R.Schlenker, Germany 1 993, continued 9 .. i.g7 1 0 tt::lbd2 aS?! (the 'calm' 1 0 ...0-0 is the right move for those who do not want ultimately to burn their bridges behind them; after 1 1 0-0 .i.e6 Black has a passive, though solid position) 11 ·iic3 0-0 12 0-0 c;!;>h8 1 3 'i!Vxc6 l::ta6 1 4 iit'e4 Itg8, and now the move 15 'il'e3?! is a bit too convenient for Black. In stead of releasing control over f5, White could have played 15 c4!?, pre Yenting d5 and therefore denying the
a6-rook from joining his friends on the kingside. Black could then try to upset the centre with 15 ... c5!? but his com pensation is far from obvious. Instead, 9 ... :U.b8! ? from S.Kowalczyk-Y.Gerritse, Hengelo 1998, is my favourite. The resulting positions are so full of possibilities that I cannot possibly list them all. However, I shall try to give you at least a small impres sion: 10 ifc3 (10 b3?! unwarily weakens the a1 -h8 diagonal and gives Black time to work on the centre; for exam ple, 10 ... .i.g7 1 1 'iVe4 c5! 12 dxc5 'iVd7 or 1 1 0-0 dxe5 12 dxe5 i¥xd3 13 cxd3 ..tfS 14 d4 h5 and the two bishops compen sate for the inferior pawn structure) 10 ... ktg8 1 1 .Ug1 (after 11 'iVxc6+ .ltd7 12 i¥xa6 l:t.xb2 13 'iVd3 .:!lxg2 14 tt::lb d2 �a8! or 12 �c3 �xg2 13 tt::lbd2 'ii'c 8! 14 0-0-0 'i¥b7, Black again gets sufficient coun terplay). Now Black lost the thread af ter 1 l . . . .i.b7?! 1 2 tt::lbd2 1Lg7 1 3 0-0-0 'i!Vd7 14 'iid3 �e6 15 'iVxh7 Wf8 16 b3 and collapsed after 16 ... c5 17 dxc5 dxc5 1 8 'i¥d3 aS? 1 9 tt::le4 c4 20 'iVd8+ 1-0. But 1 1 .. . .ltg7! offers plenty of practical chances; for example:
.
89
Play 1 . . . lb c 6 !
c l ) 1 2 "i!t'xc6+ �d7! 13 �c3 (if 1 3 �xd7+ ..llx d7 14 b 3 c5! 15 c 3 cxd4 1 6 cxd4 dxe5 1 7 lt'lxe5 .l:t.b4 o r 17 dxe5 .l:.b5 and Black regains the pawn) 13 ... c5! 1 4 dxc5 (14 lt'lbd2 cxd4 15 'i!Yxd4 dxe5 must be better for Black) 14 . . . dxe5 and now 15 lt'lbd2 (15 lt'lxe5? loses to 15 ...'ii'f5) 15 ...e4 16 lt'le5 �d5 17 f4 exf3 1 8 lt'ldxf3 (or 18 gxf3 'lt>f8 19 f4 i.. xe5! 20 .l:i.xg8+ 'lt>xg8 21 fxe5 'ii'h 1+) 18 ....l:i.b5, and once again the two bishops make the difference. c2) 12 lt'lbd2 c5 13 dxc5 dxe5 14 0-0-0 e4 15 lL:le5 "ii'd5 16 lt'ldc4 'ii'xc5 17 �d4 �xd4 1 8 J:!xd4 .ltb7 and the bish ops rule the board. Instead, 17 "ii'd2 looks good at first sight, but after 17 ... .1te6 18 lt'ld7 'ii'xc4! 19 lL:lxb8 .ltxb2+ 20 'lt>xb2 "ii'xa2+ 21 'lt>c3 "ii'a3+ (2l ...'ii'c4+ 22 'lt>b2 'i!Ya2+ is a safety net) 22 'lt>d4 .l:i.g5! Black gets a devastating attack. 9 J:!g8! ...
A bold heart is half the battle! And indeed, from now on a furious fight ensues, and it is impossible to fully analyse all the potential implications. Nevertheless, I will do the best I can to offer you the most important ideas. 90
10 lt'lc3
10 g3 is best met by 10 ....l:i.b8 11 b3 (11 c3?! looks natural but is dubious, as it ties the queen to b2 and denies the queen's knight access to c3; after 1 l ...dxe5 12 lt'lxe5 ifd5 or 12 dxe5 �d5! 13 ltla3 c5 14 l:!d1 "ii'c6 15 �d3 .i.b7 16 lt'lc4 "ii'e4+ 1 7 ifxe4 .txe4 18 'lt>e2 e6 the black pawn structure is damaged, but this is compensated by the pair of bish ops and the option to play on the half open b- and g-files again). Now 1 l ...c5!? is recommended by Keilhack, leading to an unclear position after 12 dxc5 dxe5 13 lt'lc3 �d7 14 J:!d1 'i!Yc6 15 lt'ld5 f6; for example 16 'i!Yc4 (or 16 b4 .l:i.g6 17 lt'lh4 .l:i.xb4! 18 lt'lxg6 hxg6 and with two bish ops, one pawn and a more or less re paired pawn structure, Black has defi nite compensation for the sacrificed ex change; but not 16 ... .ltg7 1 7 c4 e6? 18 lL:lxe5! fxe5 19 �5+ 'lt>f8 20 �f3+ '.te8 21 lt'lf6+ and White wins) 16....l:i.g6!, protect ing f6 and intending to chase the knight on d5 away with ... e7-e6. But 13 �e4!? is a problem; for example 13 ....a:g6 14 lt'lxe5 .ltg7 15 lt'lxg6 .ltxa1 16 lt'le5 when I do not like Black's position. Therefore, I recommend 1 l ..:�d7!?, after which White does not have anything better than to transpose to the previously men tioned line after 12 lt'lc3 c5 13 dxc5 dxe5 14 .l:i.d1 "ii'c6, as 12 �e4 c5! 13 'i!Yxh7 .l:t.g6 14 lLlh4 is met by 14 ..."ii'c6! with a good game for Black. 10 .l:i.xg2 ...
Looking for the greatest possible complications, but in my opinion this move does not live up to its expecta tions. Perhaps more accurate is
1 e4 'Dc6 2 'Df3 'Df6
10 ... .te6!? 1 1 0-0-0 fibS with counter play on the half-open b-file. 11 tt'le4
If White tries to get his pawn back with 1 1 'ilke4, Black can play 1 1 . . .d5 12 ·ifxh7 'ilkd7, intending ... 'it'fS. And 1 1 tt'lh4 l:tg8 12 li'e4 is success fully answered by 12 ... e6! when White cannot take either pawn: 13 'i!Vxh7 (13 tfxc6+ �d7 14 'it'e4 .l::tb8 is similar) 1 3 . .�g7 14 'i!Ve4 l'Jb8! 15 0-0-0 (or 15 b3 iS! 16 exf6 'iixf6 and Black is much bet ter) 15 ... 'ilkg5+ 16 .l:td2 dS 1 7 'iig4 'ii'xg4 18 hxg4 l:txg4 and with the queens off the board and an extra pawn, Black must be better. 11 ....te6 .
exchange) 1 4. . .i.c4 15 'ii'd 2 .l::txg3 16 fxg3 dxeS and Black has sufficient compensation. b) 13 0-0-0!? 'iibS ! 14 'iie3 f.tb8 15 b3 'tit'aS 16 �b2 �dS 17 �al (or 17 c4 ..ixc4 18 tt'lh4 l':Ixg3 19 fxg3 .ie6 with unclear play) 17 ... �g7 18 c4 l:txf2! 19 'it'xf2 llr'c3+ 20 �b1 (20 'iib2? it'xb2+ 21 �xb2 il.xf3 is good for Black) 20 ... i.xf3 21 .l:ldfl �xh1 22 ir'x£7+ 'it>d7 23 'ikxg7 .ie4+ 24 tt'lxe4 'iid3+ 25 �b2 'Wxe4 and Black is slightly better. c) 13 b3! is the critical move. Keil hack claims an unclear position after 13 ... c5 14 �fl .l:!.xg3 15 fxg3 cxd4, but I am not yet entirely convinced. More practical tests are needed for an accu rate evaluation. 12 ...1li'b8!
Being a pawn up, Black seeks sim plification with ...'ii'b S.
12 0-0-0
If 12 lbh4 l':.g8 13 f4 dxe5 14 fS �d5 15 dxeS (or 15 0-0-0) 15 ... �xe4 16 'iixe4 'it'dS and Black has weathered the storm. With 12 tt'lg3 White tries to trap the rook, so Black must initiate counter play quickly by 12 ...fib8 and then: a) 13 c3 fibS! 14 tt'lh4 (or 14 'ilkxbS axbS 15 tt'lh4 .l:ixg3 1 6 fxg3 dxeS 1 7 dxeS .i.g7 18 lb£3 .l:txa2 19 ktxa2 �xa2 with two bishops and two pawns for the
13 C4
13 tt'lc3?! is another way to prevent ...'iVbS, but Black can react appropri ately: 13 ...'Wb4!?, and now for example 14 a3 fib6 15 tt'lh4 .l::tg7 16 f4 l:.tb8 17 b3 ifaS 18 �b2 .l::tg 3! with a strong attack. 13 ...'iib4 14 tt'lh4?!
91
Play 1 . l?J c 6 ! .
.
Instead, 14 exd6 ( 1 4 d5?! cxd5 1 5 cxd5 i s answered b y 15. . ..if5 16 .l:i.d4 �5! ) would have been the most dan gerous move according to Keilhack. Indeed, Black must be careful: a) 14 ... .ixc4? leads to instantaneous exitus after 15 'be5 ! ! .ixe2 (or 15 ... .ie6 16 d7+ .ii.x d7 17 lbf6+!) 16 d7+ Wd8 1 7 lbc5! and Black cannot avoid mate. b) 14 . . .\i'xc4+? is bad: 15 \i'xc4 .ii.xc4 16 d7+ Wd8 17 lbe5 .id5 1 8 lbc5 .l:i.a7 19 .l:i.hg1 and Black gets squeezed. c) After 14 ... cxd6 15 lbh4, Keilhack gives 15 ....l:i.g7 (15 ... .ixc4? runs into 16 \i'e1 ! \i'xe1 17 .l:i.dxe1 followed by 18 lbxd6+) 16 d5 cxd5 1 7 cxd5 .l':i.c8+ (or 17 ....ic8 18 f4 .l:i.a7 19 Wb1 .l:i.c7 20 .l:!.cl l:txcl + 21 .l:i.xcl Wd8 22 'li'c2 �7 23 f5 with attacking chances) 1 8 Wb1 .id7 19 lbf6+ Wd8 20 lbxd7 Wxd7 21 \i'xa6 and if 21...\i'xh4 22 .l':i.cl ! .l:i.c5 23 �7+ Wd8 24 �8+ Wd7 25 \i'xf8 with a slight advan tage for White. But 15 ....l:i.g5! is a far su perior move. White can hardly accept this sacrifice, as 16 lbxg5 hxg5 1 7 lbf3 .ii.xc4 nets another pawn, in addition to repairing Black's pawn structure. 14... .ixc4 15 \i'e3?!
15 'li'd2 was White's best option. But still, after 15 ...\i'xd2+ 16 lbxd2 .id5 1 7 lbxg2 .ixg2 18 .l:i.hg1 (or 1 8 .l':i.h2 .ii. d 5) 18 ....ixh3 Black has more than ade quate compensation for the exchange. 1S ....l':i.g7
15 ... .l:i.g6!? is also interesting, as 16 lbxg6 hxg6 again repairs the pawn structure. With his two bishops and two pawns for the exchange, Black en joys a nice advantage once more. Keil hack rejected this move due to 17 exd6
92
cxd6 1 8 a 3 � 8 19 h4!, but 19 ...h 5 stops any ambitions White might have had. Nevertheless, the text move suffices - here Black can already be choosy. 16 lbfs .l:i.g6 17 b3 .ids 18 'bh4 dxes! 19 lLlxg6 hxg6 20 .l':i.he1 a s !
Launching the final wave o f attack. Black can also play 20 ... .ig7 21 lbc5 .if6 22 lbe4 (not 22 dxe5? .ig5) 22 ... .ixe4 23 \i'xe4 0-0-0! 24 'ifxc6 'ifa3+ 25 Wb1 exd4 now with three p awns for the exchange. 21 dxes
21 lbc3 is unable to stop the attack, for example 21...a4! 22 bxa4 (both 22 lbxd5 cxd5 23 dxe5 e6 and 22 lbxa4 'iVa3+ 23 Wb1 �xa4! 24 bxa4 'ifxa2+ 25 Wcl 'ifa1 + 26 Wc2 \i'xa4+ 27 Wcl \i'a1 + 28 Wc2 \i'a2+ 29 Wcl e6 lead to a deci sive advantage for Black) 22 ...\i'a3+ 23 Wc2 .ixa2 and Black is breaking in. 21 Wb2 is the only way to avoid be ing squashed in an instant, but after 21...a4 22 \i'c3 'ifxc3+ 23 lbxc3 axb3 24 lbxd5 cxd5 25 Wxb3 e6, the black pawns are just too strong. 21 ... \i'a3+ 22 Wb1 a4 23 'iff3 axb3 24 lbf6+ exf6 25 exf6+ ite7! 0-1
1 e4 lD c 6 2 I:Oj3 I:Of6 Summary
tt:lf3 is the most cunning move against the Nimzowitsch Defence. Many players ·.,·ere banging their heads against a wall while trying to find a way to counter it, c-\·entually giving the Nimzowitsch up in the process. ' El Columpio' is a nice at :empt to unbalance the position, and while Black was not seriously put to the test :n Games 20-23, Game 24 shows the critical move order. There haven't been too :nany practical examples, but I think that Black shouldn't be afraid to face the con �quences. 2
1 e4 ltJc6 2 ctJf3 ctJf6 (D) 3 es
3 ltJc3 d5 - Game 20 3 lZ'lg4 4 d4 d6 (D) 5 h3 5 exd6 - Game 2 1 ...
s tt:lh6 6 ii.bs ...
6 ltJc3 a6 Game 21 6 e6 fxe6 Game 22 6 exd6 'ii'xd6 Game 23 6... a6 7 .ixc6+ bxc6 (D) - Game 24 -
-
-
2 I:Of6 ...
4 d6 ...
7 bxc6 ...
93
Part Two
I
Black v s . 1 d4: The Chi g ori n Defence tern besides the Chigorin Defence that enables the Black player to play confi dently for the full point is the King's Indian Defence. I have played both, but I favour the Chigorin for the following reason: in the King's Indian, the strate gic implications are often clear to both players; many lines have even been completely dissected, giving the White player the advantage of knowing ex actly what he is up against. As a result, room for creativity has been signifi cantly reduced. The Chigorin Defence, on the other hand, offers unusual types of positions, often to the extent that 1 d4 players have a hard time coping with them. But what are the exact ideas behind the Chigorin Defence anyway? Down with playing schemes!
In my opinion, the only opening sys94
The so-called Queen's Pawn Games originating from 1 d4 dS 2 CDf3 enjoy great popularity, especially at club level. Be it the Torre Attack, the Cata lan, the Colle or the London System,
B l a c k vs . 1 d4 : The C h ig o r i n D efe n c e
:he chance to play similar positions -.,·ith clear-cut plans against almost all ?OSsible set-ups is attractive to many :-layers. Against the Chigorin Defence, 2 lLlc6, those players are in for a rude �wakening. The special set-up of the =:-tack pieces has to be treated accord :ngly, and bone-headed adherence to a �ystem can quickly end in disaster, as :1umerous examples in Chapter 6 will �how. .•.
Dealing with overextension The Chigorin Defence is often marked :o\· a fierce battle for the centre. In :::1any cases White will gain space by ?ushing his pawns, while Black will try :_:� initiate counterplay by zeroing in on �e advanced forces. In addition to �at, seizing space is not totally free. ·,,lUte usually needs to sacrifice a :-awn, and winning it back takes time ·,,·hich Black can use to consolidate his
position, a s w e will see i n Chapters 7 and 8. There's also strategy involved! To many players the Chigorin Defence has a somewhat swashbuckling reputa tion, but there is more to it than that. Ambushes, skirmishes and scuffles are not the only actions the Chigorin De fence allows. You will see as well that Black can exploit weaknesses in the enemy pawn structure, as the games in Chapters 9 and 10 will show. Initiative versus Material Willingness to snatch the initiative is mandatory for a Chigorin player, and there are certain situations in which you are bound to sacrifice material. However, as the games in Chapter 1 1 demonstrate, you will b e more than compensated by a lead in development and attacking chances.
95
Cha pter Six
I
d4 d s 2 lbf 3 lbc6 a n d Other Rare Second Moves 1
One could argue that 1 d4 dS has no place in a book about l . . .lt:lc6, but ulti mately the difference is purely seman tic. Granted, you will not enjoy cover age of lines such as 1 d4 lt:lc6 2 d5, but as I am encouraging you to play the Chigorin Defence anyway, there is ab solutely no reason to give White an opportunity to circumvent it - even more so because, after 1 d4 d5, there is absolutely no sensible way to avoid it. Okay, there are a few moves besides 2 lt:lf3 and 2 c4 White can play, but those are hardly dangerous, as we will see in our first game in this chapter. Game 25 R.Schlindwein-V. Bukal Jr
Austrian League 2000 1 d4 ds 2 ii.f4
Other moves usually transpose to lines covered elsewhere: a) 2 e4 is the trademark of the
96
Blackmar-Diemer community. The simplest way for Black to react is 2 ... lt:lc6!, returning to the 1 e4 lt:lc6 2 d4 d5 lines in Chapters 2-4. b) 2 lt:lc3 should be answered by the system-compatible 2 ...lt:lc6.
Note that with the knight on c3 our plans are a little bit different here, as ... e7-e5 often puts d5 in the pillory. Let's look how the game could evolve: 3 �g5 (3 e4 e6 again transposes to Chapter 4, while 3 ii.f4 �g4 can be compared with 1 d4 d5 2 lt:lf3 lt:lc6 3
1 d4 d5 2 t:Dj3 t:D c 6 a n d Oth e r R a re S e c o n d M o ve s
�£4 ..tg4 examined i n Games 32-35, the difference being that the knight on c3 hampers any counterplay White might have against the d5-pawn) should be met by 3 ...i.f5 (I do not recommend 3 ... .ig4 here, as after 4 f3 .ih5 5 e4 Black cannot play 5 ... e6) 4 e3 'iid7, in tending ... 0-0-0. This gives added pro tection to the d5-pawn and allows Black eventually to think about ... £7-£6 followed by ...e5 or . . . g5, depending on White's response. c) 2 .ig5 lt:Jc6 3 e3 f6 4 ..th4 (4 .i£4?! e5 is already very good for Black due to his unchallenged presence in the cen tre) 4 ...lt:Jh6 most likely transposes to Game 27. However, 3 c4!? is not so bad. After 3 ... dxc4 4 e3 White tries to make use of the fact that Black cannot ad vance his e-pawn. Now 4 ... £6!? proba bly results in a mixture of different sys tems, so the simplest way to react seems to be 4 ...'i¥d5!? 5 lt:J£3 e6, when White will have a hard time regaining his pawn under favourable circum stances.
poses to the London System, with the Chigorin player being lured out of known territory. 3 C4
3 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 transposes to 1 d4 d5 2 t?l£3 lt:Jc6 3 ..tf4 .ig4, covered in Games 32-35. If instead 3 f3 i.h5 4 e3 e6 5 i.d3, Black can go for a Chigorin-style set-up with ... i.d6 and ...lt:J£6, or play the more aggressive 5 ...lt:J£6 6 .ig3 !i.e7 7 lt:Je2 c5 as in K.Bondick-D.Serrano, Internet (blitz) 2004. The idea is to show that by playing 3 £3 White has weakened his e pawn. The game continued 8 dxc5?! (White would do better to eat humble pie with 8 c3 t?lc6) 8 ... .ixc5 9 ..tf2 lt:Jc6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3 a6 12 t?lbc3 b5 and Black had the initiative. 3 ... tt:Jc6 4 f3
Here White should have transposed to Games 34-35 with 4 tLlf3 e6 5 e3. In stead, he opts for a dubious pawn sac rifice which is easily refuted by Black. 4 ... j.hs s cxds 'i!fxds 6 lt:Jc3?! 'iixd4 7 tt:Jds o-o-ol
2 . .ig4! ..
8 l'Vxd4 tt:Jxd4 9 l:i.c1 Iaxds 10 .l:'txc7+
2 ... lt:Jc6?! is inaccurate, as 3 e3 trans-
Wd8
97
Play 1 . . li:J c 6 ! .
White i s fishing for compensation, but he doesn't get any. 11 �Xb7 t"tJc2+ 12 c,i{f2 e5 13 �b8+ �C7 14 ii.xe5+ �xe5 15 J:;Ixf8 f6 16 �a8 �b7 17 �d8 �c7 18 l::ta 8 r;t>b7 19 l'::td 8 ii.e8
Black's development o n the kingside. Now 3 t"Df6?! 4 ii.xf6! results in a better pawn structure for White: if Black plays 4 . . . gxf6, a white queen on hS can be very annoying (an idea which is ac tually taken up by Black in Chapter 9, Game 45), while after 4 ... exf6 the pawn majority on the queenside provides White with a long-term endgame ad vantage. ...
20 f4 .l:Ie7 21 e4 t"Db4 22 i.c4 �xe4 23 a 3 .l:.xc4 24 k!.xe8 t"Dd3+ 25 'it>f3 .l:.c8 26 f!.xc8 �xc8 27 t"De2 'De7 28 b4 �d8 29 k1b1 �b7 30 h4 t"Df5 31 g4 t"Dxh4+ 32 �e3 t"Dg2+ 3 3 r;t>e4 g5 34 fxg5 fxg5 3 5 �5 h6 36 r;t>g6 l::i.d 6+ 3 7 'it>g7 t"De5 o-1
White cut a poor figure here, but that is what you get if you stray too far from known paths. The game also shows that you shouldn't be afraid of not getting your intended positions, while the number of transpositions to familiar systems is noteworthy. For the rest of this chapter we will deal with 2 t"Df3, a move especially popular at club level. After 2 ... t"Dc6, there are various systems White can choose from. White plays 3 ii.gs 3 ii.g5 is a move with a certain degree of originality. The idea is to hamper 98
However, there are reasons why this move is not commonly played. Disregarding the fact that it is just not to everyone's taste, there are also con crete positional adversities. Black can solve all his problems with 3 ... f6!.
1 d4 d5 2 l'Dj3 l'D c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re Seco n d M o ves
White's wasted tempo with i.cl-g5f4 means that he is now defending the black side of a Veresov (i.e. 1 d4 d5 2 l2Jc3 lLl£6 3 i.g5 i.£5 4 £3 with reversed colours). s lLlbdz
After 4 .tf4 we have a position similar to 1 d4 d5 2 lLl£3 l2Jc6 3 i.£4, (Games 32-35). The difference is that the £-pawn is on £6 instead of £7, but this favours Black, as it supports the advance ... e7-e5. Black will soon be on top, as we will see in our next game. Came 2 6 O.Springer-D.Koenig
Pa ssa u 1999 1 d 4 d s z l2Jf3 lLlc6 3 i. g s f6! 4 .if4
4 �h4 is the subject of Game 27. 4 1i.g4 ...
Numerous other moves have been seen as well: a) 5 e3? obviously loses a piece to 5 . . . e5 6 .tg3 e4. b) 5 h3 just forces Black to do what he was planning to do anyway: 5 ... -tx£3 6 ex£3 e5 7 dxe5 fxe5 8 1i.e3 tt:l£6 and Black has occupied the centre, re sulting in a comfortable game. c) 5 c4 e5! (5 ... dxc4!? 6 d5 e5 is also interesting; A.Morozevich-L.Van Wely, Monte Carlo blindfold 2005, continued 7 i.cl tt:lb4 8 e4 c6 9 a3 tt:ld3+ 10 i.xd3 cxd3 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 12 0-0 i.c5 and Black was clearly better) 6 dxe5 (Black is fine after 6 cxd5 1i.xf3 7 dxc6 i.xc6 8 dxe5 'ti'xd 1+ 9 'lt>xd1 0-0-0+ or 7 'ti'xd4 l2Jc6) 6 . . . i.b4+ (better than 6 ...-tx£3 7 exf3 fxe5 8 cxd5 exf4 9 dxc6 'i'xd1 + 10 Wxd1 0-0-0+ 11 'lt>c2 .tc5 12 cxb7+ Wxb7 13 l2Jc3 which resulted in a White advan tage in M.Olea Perez-P.Glavino Rossi, Ribadedeva rapid 1999) 7 i.d2 i.xd2+ 8 l2Jbxd2 fxe5 9 cxd5 'it'xd5 10 'ifa4 and a draw was agreed in G.Henriksen G.Gross, Kiekrz 1995. After 10 ...l2Jf6 1 1 e4 'i:Vc5 the position offers chances for both sides, as the potential weakness of the isolated e5-pawn is compensated by active piece play. d) The harmless 5 c3 can be met by 5 . . .e5 6 dxe5 i.xf3 7 ex£3 fxe5 8 i.e3 tt:l£6, but 5 ... e6 is good as well, for ex ample 6 �3 �b8 7 h3 i.h5 8 l2Jbd2 i.£7 99
Play 1 . .tiJ c 6 ! .
9 �h2 .td6 1 0 e4 ..ixh2 1 1 .l:txh2 4::l ge7 1 2 0-0-0 0-0 13 h4 b5! and Black quickly initiated an attack on the queenside in the game E.Heyken-C.Wisnewski, Ger man League 2004. s 4Jxd4! ...
Alternatively: a) 5 . . .e6 is a solid choice too; for ex ample, 6 c3 (6 e3?! is not as bad as be fore, but still not to be recommended: 6 ...e5 7 dxe5 fxe5 8 ii.g5 .ie7 or 8 .Yi.g3 e4 9 h3 .th5 and now 10 .th4 is possi ble, but Black is more than OK after 10 ... it..e 7 1 1 .txe7 tt:lgxe7 12 g4 .tg6 13 tt:lh4 0-0) 6 ...�d6 7 ii.xd6 (7 �g3 £5 ac tually transposes to Game 33) 7 .. .'i!Vxd6 8 e4 tt:lge7 9 exd5 exd5 10 ..id3 0-0-0! 1 1 0-0 g5 and Black developed a danger ous kingside initiative in O.Valaker S.Heim, Bergen 2001. b) 5 .. .'ii' d7 is the other Veresov move. The game C.Arduman P.Claesen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, continued 6 c3 0-0-0 7 h3 ..ix£3 8 tt:lx£3 e5!? 9 dxe5 'i'f5 10 e3 fxe5 1 1 g4 't!Ve6 12 .tg3 .td6 13 'i'a4 4::lge7 14 0-0-0 .l:Ihf8 15 ..ie2 e4 16 tt:ld4 'i'h6 1 7 g5 �xg5 when a draw was agreed, although this line is 100
certainly not my cup of tea. 6 ii.xc7?
After this terrible move Black ob tains complete control of the centre as well as the pair of bishops. 6 tt:lxd4 was necessary, although Black is also able to keep his game up with 6 ...e5 7 h3 (7 ii.xe5?! fxe5 followed by 8 ... tt:lf6 is clearly better for Black, while 7 .te3 exd4 8 ..ixd4 c5 seizes more and more space) 7 ....Yi.h5 (7. .. ..ic8?! is bad, as K.Lerner-S.Lejlic, Berlin 1 997, showed: 8 e4! exf4 9 "i!Vh5+ g6 10 'ii'xd5 'it'xd5 1 1 exd5 ..id7 1 2 0-0-0 and the two bishops could not compensate for the structural defects of the pawn structure), and now:
8 tt:le6 (if 8 tt:l2b3 then 8 ...exf4 9 tt:le6 'ifd6? runs into 10 'i'xd5!, but 8 ... c6 9 .lth2 exd4 10 'ifxd4 �d6 1 1 ii.xd6 "ii'xd6 12 0-0-0 tt:le7 is OK for Black) 8 ...'it'd6 9 tt:lxf8 exf4 10 tt:lc4 (or 10 tt:lxh7 !;txh7, and although Black's position looks plucked, the advantage in space cannot be denied) 10 .. .'�c6 (but not 10 .. .'ii'b4+? 1 1 c3 'i¥xc4 12 4::le6 W£7 13 tt:lx£4! 'ti'x£4 14 'it'xd5+ Wg6 15 g4 and Black could have resigned in G.Kuhn-M.Trescher,
1 d4 dS 2 t{JfJ t{J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re Seco n d M o ves
Stade 1992) 1 1 lba5 �6 12 'ii'xd5 (after 12 4Jb3 ..tf7 1 3 lbxh7 .Uxh7 14 'ii'd3 l:th5 15 'ii'£3 aS! 16 l:tb1 a4 1 7 lbcl .l:Ih4 18 g3 txg3 19 'it'xg3 g5 20 �g2 lbe7 Black en ioyed a tremendous advantage in \1.Galyas-G.Kallai, Budapest 2000) 12 ... 'ii'xb2 13 .!:i.d1 'ii'c3+ 14 'i¥d2 (if 14 :d2 'ilia1+ 15 .!:i.d1 'ii'c3+ invites a draw, though White still can decline with 16 'i'd2; or Black can play 14 ...Wxf8 15 ::Jxb7 i..£7 16 'it'cS+ 'ii'xcS 1 7 lbxc5 .lxa2) 14 .. .'iVxd2+ 15 .Uxd2 Wxf8 16 8xb7 (16 l:td7?! is dubious as Black can untangle himself with 16 ...b6 1 7 lbc6 .:.c8 18 lbxa7 ..lte8!) 16 ....l::i.b8 17 �d8+ �xd8 18 lbxd8 ..ltf7 19 lbx£7 'it>x£7 and Black seems to be better, although there is still plenty to play for.
this move, there was no need to aban don the pair of bishops. 8 ...0-0-0! would have been better: not only is dS now protected, it also prevents e2-e4. 9 lbb3 lbe1 10 h3 i.. h s 11 g4?!
After 1 1 e3 0-0 12 Sii.e2 S:i.d6 the Black advantage would not have been as big. 11 .....ig6 12 c3 hS
12 ... �b6 13 e3 0-0 14 lbh4 ..i£7 saves the bishops from being traded off and asks the question whether White can complete his development before Black opens the position with ... l':td8 and ... d5-d4. 13 lbxcs 'ii'x cs
6 ... 'it'xc7 7 lbxd4 es 8 lD4f3
Instead, 8 h3 ..td7 9 lD4b3 d4 1 0 e3 dxe3 1 1 fxe3 iL.c6 12 'iVg4 lbh6 13 �e6+ l.e7 14 0-0-0 was played in \'.Todorovic-M.Yeo, Belgrade 2003, and now 14 ... �d7 would have been the simplest way to maintain the advan :age.
14 'iVa4+?
The final mistake. White had to take g4 out of the line of fire. 14 ... bs! 15 "iia 6 hxg4 16 4Jd2 gxh3 17 e3 l::t b8 18 a4 b4 19 lbb3 'iVb6 20 �bS+ Wf7 21 c4 'ii'x a6 22 ..ixa6 h2 2 3 f3 �d3 24 lbd2 lDfs 2 5 Wf2 .§.h3 26 .l::i.a c1 lbg3 27 Wg2 4Jxh1 28 .l:.xh1 .§.hh8 29 .Uxh2 �xh2+ 30 '.txh2 dxc4 31 4Jxc4 il.xc4 32 ..txc4+ We7 3 3 b 3 .l:.c8 34 ..tds fS 35 8 ...-ltcs?!
Although Black is still better after
'it>g3 gs 36 f4 gxf4+ 3 7 exf4 l::tc 3+ 38 Wh4 exf4 39 a s Wf6 0-1
101
Play 1 ..tiJ c6 ! .
With 4 i.f4 inadequate, the only sensible alternative is 4 .lth4. Indeed, it makes much more sense to keep the bishop on the h4-d8 diagonal, as it would pin the f-pawn should Black play ... e7-e5. On the other hand its scope is limited on the rim, and Black can try to exploit its misplacement by playing 4 tt:Jh6!, seeking to trade the knight for the bishop after ... tt:Jf5. A proper treatment of the position will be the subject of our next game. .••
when things develop similar to the main game; for example: a1) 6 cxd5 exdS 7 lbc3 lbf5 8 .i.g3 hS 9 i.f4 g5 10 i.cl saves the bishop but leaves Black with a significant advan tage in space after IO . . g4 1 1 lbg1 i..e 6. a2) 6 e3 lbf5 7 i.g3 (7 i.d3?! is dubi ous because of 7 ... dxc4! 8 i.xc4 h5! 9 h3 g5 10 i.g3 lbxg3 1 1 fxg3 .id6 and Black is clearly better; 8 i.x£5 is even worse, as after 8 ... exf5 followed by 9 . . . i.e6 White will have a hard time getting his pawn back) 7 ...h5 8 h3 (8 i.d3 dxc4 transposes to the previous line) 8 ...lbxg3 9 fxg3 ii.d6 and again Black is better. a3) 6 lbc3 lb£5 7 i.g3 h5 8 h4 (trying to make a play with 8 lbb5?! backfires after 8 ... i.b4+ 9 lbd2 i.aS when White has to take care of his bishop and his d pawn) 8 ...lbxg3 9 fxg3 i.d6 with the usual advantage for Black in this type of position. b) 5 c3 lbf5 6 i.g3 h5 7 i.£4 g5 8 i.cl g4 9 lbg1 e5 10 e3 i.e6 had a funny re semblance to note 'a1' above in A.Kireev-I.Krush, Moscow 2002. .
Game 2 7 D.Ter Minasjan-H.Ju rkovic
Schwa rzach 1999 1 d4 ds 2 tLlf3 tt:Jc6 3 i.. g s f6 4 i.h4 tLlh61 5 e3
Instead: a) 5 c4 has to be handled with care. The game J.Dreesen-K.Bi.ichmann, Kiel 2001, continued 5 . . .e5?! 6 tt:Jxe5 tt:Jxe5 7 dxe5 lbf5 and now White could have won a pawn with 8 cxd5! lbxh4 9 'ii'a4+ followed by 10 'ilfxh4. The right answer is 5 ...e6, 1 02
s ...lbfs
1 d4 d5 2 liJj3 liJ c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ve s
that should positively influence the assessment towards Black. 11 ... Si.e6!? 12 "iVd2
12 ex£6? loses to 12 ...0-0-0 13 ii.e2 (or 13 ii.c2 "iic4) 13 .. ."�e4 and Black wins a piece. 12 lt'lxes 13 ttJxds ..ixd2+ 14 Wxd2 •••
..ltxds 15 f4 ttJxd3 16 �xd3 o-o-o
6 �d 3
6 ..ib5 g5!? 7 .ig3 h5 8 h4 tZ'lxg3 9 fxg3 g4 10 lZ'lfd2 'i'd6 1 1 'itf2 .ih6 12 !t::J£1 occurred in a game I played on the Internet Chess Club. Now 12 . . .i.d7 would have led to a big advantage, with the pawn structure and the pair of bishops being two important factors. Another game went 6 .ig3 hS 7 !Llh4? (a desperate try to oppose the enemy pawns; but in any case after 7 l.d3 tZ'lb4! 8 ..ixf5 i.xf5 9 tZ'la3 c6 10 0-0 e6 1 1 tZ'lh4 .ie4 12 f4 g6 Black is obvi ously better) 7 . . .tZ'lxh4 8 .ixh4 g5 9 i.e2 gxh4 10 .ixh5+ 'itd7 1 1 c4 e6 12 cxd5 )_b4+ 13 lZ'lc3 exdS, which was simply not enough for White in P.Martynov C.Wisnewski, Internet blitz 2001.
The white king is caught in the crossfire of the black pieces and can only be saved by making material con cessions. 17 �c3 .M.he8 18 l:!.he1 ..ll,e4 19 !te2
White cannot prevent Black from entering as 19 It.ad1 is countered by the simple continuation 19 .. Jhdl 20 .Uxd1 g5! 21 lt'l£3 ii.x£3 22 gxf3 It.xe3+ and Black is winning easily
6...ttJxh4 7 ttJxh4 g6 8 C4 eS!
19 .. J�d3+ 20 Wc4 l:te6 21 �d1 l:tc6+ 22
Finally Black can upset the white centre.
'it>b4 as+ 23 'it>bs !tb6+ 24 <&t>xa s i.c6 2 5 e 4 Itbs+ 0-1
9 cxds 'iVxds 10 lZ'lc3 ..ib4 11 dxes
11 0-0 .ixc3 12 bxc3 'iVd6 results in a position similar to one covered in Chapter 10 (see Game 52). Again there are no practical examples available, but the fact that White cannot fall back upon two bishops here is something
All in all, 3 ..ig5 does not cause any serious problems. In fact quite the op posite, as Black is effectively forced to play a move which helps him accom plish his main goal: the implementa tion of ... e7-e5. 1 03
Play 1
. . .
lU c 6 !
White plays 3 e 3 From a psychological point o f view, the Colle System is an opening system the Chigorin player should be especially happy to face. The reason behind this claim has a whiff of irony: as stereo typical play will result in quick equal ity, the only hope for White to obtain an advantage is to adopt a playing style that is completely contrary to a 'normal' treatment of the Colle. But that does not mean that 3 e3 should be treated lightly.
ing to pick on the doubled c-pawns. 6 .. .'�:Jge7 is certainly not attractive as it blocks the bishop and ends in an awk ward set-up. The Croatian GM Nenad Sulava has mastered this line and it takes precise play to enfeeble it. The most reliable method has been shown by the Swedish GM Stellan Brynell. Game 2 8 N.Su lava-S. Brynell
E u ropea n Tea m C h a m pion s h i p, Plovd iv 2003 1 d4 ds 2 lbf3 tt:Jc6 3 e3 ii.g4
After 3 ... i.g4 4 .i.bs!? e6 5 �xc6+ bxc6 6 c4 Black has to be very careful . 4 i.bs!?
With his last move White is prepar1 04
The only way to fight for an advan tage. Other moves are harmless: a) 4 c4 e6 transposes to Game 47 in Chapter 9. b) 4 ii.d3 is naturally met by 4 ...e5 with equality. c) After 4 i,e2 Black should develop in a traditional way with 4 ... e6 5 0-0 lbf6 6 lbbd2. The game T.Svensen C.Wisnewski, Oslo 2002, continued 6 ... i,d6 7 c4 0-0 8 a3 aS 9 "ifc2 .l:!.e8 10 h3
1 d4 dS 2 ti'Jf3 ti'J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ve s
�f5 1 1 .1i.d3 ..ll.xd3 12 'li'xd3 and after 1 2 ... e5 the game was equal. d) 4 c3 e5 5 dxe5 CZJxe5 6 CLJbd2 tt::lf6 7 .ie2 was played in A.Cremerius S.Lessing, Leverkusen 2005, and now instead of losing a pawn after 7 ... ..11..d 6?! 8 tt::lxe5 i.xe2 9 'ikxe2 i.xe5 10 tt::lf3 i.d6 'ii'b5+, Black should have played 7 ... CLJxf3+ 8 CLJx£3 i.d6 with a comfort able game. e) After 4 CLJbd2 Black should be content with 4 ...e6 ( 4 ... e5?! 5 h3 �xf3 6 :'2Jxf3 e4 7 CLJd2 CLJ£6 8 c4 led to a French type position in V.Dydyshko-J.Furhoff, Berlin 1997 - something I wouldn't want to aim at; while 4 ...CLJf6 5 i.b5 e6 6 h3 SL.x£3 7 CLJx£3 .1i.d6 8 c4 dxc4 9 'i!Va4 ·wd7 was played in M.M.Ivanov :\.Karpatchev, Stuttgart 2005, and now after 10 'iWxc4 a6 1 1 ..txc6 'ti'xc6 1 2 ·S\Yxc6+ bxc6 1 3 .1i.d2 White could have obtained the advantage due to his su perior pawn structure) 5 c3 il.d6 6 ..l¥..d 3 i5, which is a superior version of Game 33 as the dark-squared bishop is on cl rather than g3. 11
c) Finally, 5 h3 i!Lx£3 6 'iix£3 CLJge7 was just equal in J.Visser-J.Van den Bosch, Utrecht 1945 . S ... bxc6 6 C4
Here 6 h3 i.x£3 7 'it'x£3 1i'f6 8 'ii'd 1 it.. d6 9 .i.d2 CLJe7 10 0-0 0-0 11 a3 c5 fa Black voured in C.Caylor M.O'Sullivan, correspondence 1997. 6 ....ixf3!
6 ... dxc4?! is inadvisable: 7 't:Wa4 i.xf3 8 gxf3 "iVd5 9 t2Jd2 tt::l £6 1 0 e4 'iibs 1 1 ifxc4 'ii'xc4 12 CLJxc4 left White with a clear advantage in C.Wisnewski H.Hebbinghaus, Kiel 2006. 7 gxf3 cs!
Resolving the doubled c-pawns just in time.
4...e6 5 i.xc6+
Alternatives again prove to be less promising: a) 5 tt::lb d2?! CZJge7 6 c3 a6 7 .ltd3 e5 was equal in N.Sulava-C.Wisnewski, Cappelle la Grande 2001. b) 5 c4 CLJge7 6 cxd5 exd5 7 CLJbd2 a6 "3 ..lta4 't:Wd6 (8 ... g6, followed by ... i.g7 and ... 0-0, is a solid alternative) 9 0-0 '}-0-0 10 a3 g5 1 1 b4 was played in \1.Krysztofiak-M.Nemeth, European Junior Championships 2000, when l l ...h5! ? (planning ... h4-h3) would be quite unclear.
8 cxds exdS 9 'iVc2 "iid 6 10 dxcs 'ii'x cs 11 'ii'a4+ c6 12 i.d2 tt::lf6
1 2 ... i.d6?! 1 3 i.c3 CLJe7 was tried in N.Sulava-M.Geenen, Monaco 2003, but after 14 1Lxg7 .l::f.g8 (14 ...'ii'c l+ 15 'ii'd 1 'ii'xd 1 + 16 �xd1 .l::f. g8 17 .ltf6 l::tg2 18 We2 is not enough either) 15 .ltc3 tt::l£5 16 tt::ld 2 .l:tg2 17 CLJb3 'i¥b6 18 CZJd4 Black was driven back step by step. 13 CLJa3 'ii'b6 14 J::!.c1 �c8 15 CLJc2 !? 'ii'x b2 16 �e2
1 05
Play 1 . . . luc 6 ! 'tt>h 5 �7 4 5 i.c3 il.e7 46 h 3 i.. d 8 47 i.e1 .ie7 48 'it'h6 'it>g8 49 i.a 5 .if6 50 i.b6 .ie7 51 i.a s .if6 52 i.e1 .id8 53 'it>hs �7 54 i.h4 ..tb6 5 5 .tf2 i.ds s6 i.e1 ii.e7 57 'it>h6 �g8 58 h4 i.d8 59 h5 fi.e7 60 .ic3 i.d8 61 .i.d4 i.e7 62 .ia7 i.d8 63 .ic5 i.f6 64 .ib6 i.e7 65 i.. d 4 i.d8 66 .tc3 .ie7 67 .\te5 i.d8 68 li.d4 fi.e7 69 e4 dxe4 70 fxe4 fxe4 71 f5 .ih4 72 f6?
16 �bs+?! •..
16 ... .icS! was an excellent alterna tive and is the move I would recom mend in this position. White can now win the pawn back with 17 lbd4 1ib6 (not 1 7 ... i..xd4? 18 :S.b1 and the queen is trapped) 18 .l:l:b1 'it'c7 19 �xc6+ 'ifxc6 20 lbxc6 0-0, but after 21 lbaS d4 Black has nothing to worry about. 17 'it'xbs cxbs 18 lbd4 nxc1 19 lbc1 'it'd7 20 lbxb5 a6 21 lbd4
Compared with the previous note, White now has the better chances. Black manages to hold steady, but this is most certainly not the type of posi tion you would want to have as Black.
But this is gross. White is digging his own grave. 72 ... �7! 73 'it>xh7 .ig5 74 h6
21 ... .id6 22 lbf5 �b8 23 i.c3 lbe8 24
Or 74 .if2 i.d2 7S .ih4 e3 76 1i.gS aS 77 h6 li.cl 78 i.h4 1La3 79 fi.g3 .ib4 80 'it>h8 e2 81 'it'h7 e1 'it' 82 .ixe1 it..xe1 83 'it>h8 i.d2 84 h7 'it>f8 8S f7 .ic3 mate.
lbxg7 lbxg7 25 i.xg7 .l:.b4 26 f4 .l:i.a4 27
74 .id2 75 �h8 e3 76 h7 e2 77 i..f2 i..c3
l:!.c2 We6 28 i.c3 .laa 3 29 .id4 l:ta4 30
0·1
�3 f5 3 1 :S.b2 l:!.b4 32 Itc2 l:!.c4 3 3 l:tb2
And in view of 78 .i.h4 e1fi. (sic!) 79 aS .if2 80 .igS il.. fd4 White resigned. It is unlikely that you will encoun ter the idea introduced in this game very often. Most Colle players are crea tures of habit who unreel their playing scheme without keeping a close eye on their opponent's actions... something you shouldn't do against the Chigorin.
l:!.b4 34 �d2 l:!.a4 3 5 Wg3 i.e7 36 l:tb2 l:!.b4 37 .l:.xb4 i.xb4 38 Wh4
38 �f3, intending �e2-d3 and f2-f3 and e3-e4, makes no progress as Black simply holds his position, when it is impossible for White to break through. 38 ... .ie7+ 39 'it'hs Wf7 40 a4 .id8 41 'it'h6 �g8 42 f3 i.e7 43 .ie5 .id8 44
106
•..
1 d4 d5 2 l:i'Jf3 l:i'J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e co n d M o ve s
White plays 3 g 3 Fianchettoing the king's bishop with 3 g3 i.g4 4 i.g2 is characteristic of the Catalan way of life. White feigns quiet development only to attack the black centre by surprise, the intention being to exploit the h1-a8 diagonal by means of c2-c4.
Game 29 L.Spa ssov-T.Thiel
Bada lona 1993 1 d4 dS 2 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 g3 �g4 4 i.g2 i¥d7
The usual counterstroke ... e7-e5 does not make sense here. The e-pawn is needed to strengthen d5, even more so as the c-pawn is currently blocked by the queen's knight. But control of e5 still plays an important role, since the white player will frequently try to use it as an outpost for one of his knights. Don't worry though, the situation is not as bad as it looks. And in order to substantiate this statement I even offer \'OU two different ways to react to 3 g3. The first features a set-up with 4..Ji'd7 and ... 0-0-0, intending an attack on the kingside. The Ukrainian IM Valerij Bronznik dismisses this idea as probably too risky, but I beg to differ. Please allow yourself to be convinced by the follow mg game.
4 ... e6 will be examined in Games 30 and 31. 5 C4
Not the only move to have been played in this position: a) 5 tt:le5 is harmless as Black can easily defend the d5-pawn. For exam ple, 5 ... tt:lxe5 6 dxe5 e6 7 c4 c6 8 0-0 tt:le7 and now 9 tt:lc3 dxc4 10 'ii'c 2 tt:ld5 1 1 tt:le4 b5 i s even better for Black. b) 5 0-0 is too calm, since Black can successfully build up a kingside attack: 5 ...0-0-0 6 c3 (6 tt:lbd2 f6 7 c3 e5 8 b4 e4 9 tt:le1 h5 10 £3 exf3 1 1 ex£3 �f5 12 tt:lb3 g5 13 a4 �7 1 4 b5 tt:lb8 1 5 aS .id6 was played in M.Lehmann-A.Raetsky, Samnaun 2004, when Black is better as his attack is more menacing) 6 ... £6 7 b4 h5 8 �a4 (or 8 tt:lbd2 g5 with a strong initiative in I.Radulov-S.Lorenz, Bad 107
Play 1 . . .li'J c 6 !
Mergentheim 1989) 8 ...h4 9 b 5 t2'lb8 1 0 �d1 hxg3 1 1 fxg3 e5 12 .l:te1 a6 (or just 12 ... e4) 13 .lta3 e4 14 lLlfd2 �xb5 with a clear advantage for Black in I.Fancsy T.Ruck, Hungarian Junior Champion ships 1994. c) 5 c3 .ih3 6 0-0 .ltxg2 (6 ...h5?! is a bit too optimistic: 7 .ltxh3 'i!!Vxh3 8 t2'lg5 'i!!Vd 7 9 e4 and White is better) 7 'it>xg2 0-0-0 8 b4 f6 9 t2'lbd2 e5 10 b5 e4 1 1 bxc6 exf3+ 12 t2'lxf3 �xc6 left Black comfort able in J.Mellado Trivino-A.Pascual Arevalo, Barbera 1995. d) After 5 h3 .ifS there are again several alternatives:
d1) 6 .ltf4?! 0-0-0 7 t2'lbd2 f6 gave Black an excellent game in V.Ianov T.Ruck, Koszeg 1996. d2) 6 a3 has surprisingly led to nu merous White victories; but what sur prises even more is that nobody has played the simple 6 ...lLlf6 7 b4 t2'le4, which puts a halt to any queenside ac tions by White, as deploying the queen's knight to d2 runs into ... l2Je4c3. d3) 6 t2'le5!? t2'lxe5 7 dxe5 0-0-0 8 t2'lc3 e6 9 e4 dxe4 10 �xd7+ .l:txd7 1 1 t2'lxe4 1 08
was seen in B.Villamayor-J.Gonzales, Phillipines Championship 2001, which continued 1 l .. .f6 12 .\i£4 .l:td4 13 lLld2 .ltxc2 14 .l:tcl .ltd3 15 exf6 .l:td7 16 .lte4, and now after 16 . . ..1txe4 1 7 fxg7 .ltxg7 18 t2'lxe4 .ltxb2 it would have been for White to prove enough compensation for the pawn. d4) 6 g4 .lig6 7 t2'lh4 .lte4! 8 f3 .ltg6 9 t2'lxg6 hxg6 10 .ltf4 e6 1 1 .ltg3 .ltd6 12 .lif2 t2'lge7 13 lLld2 g5 14 c3 t2'lg6 and Black's control of the dark squares ac counted for his advantage in O.Issel R.Jenal, Saarlouis 2001. d5) 6 c3 plans to advance on the queenside with b2-b4, but Black can strike back in the centre with 6 ... 0-0-0 7 b4 f6 8 t2'lbd2 e5! . The game M.Rufener S.Kuemin, Swiss League 1998, contin ued 9 b5 l2Jce7 10 dxe5 �xb5 1 1 �3 'i!!Vd 7 12 .lta3 t2'lc6 13 .ltxf8 .l:txf8 14 exf6 t2'lxf6 15 lLld4 t2'le4 16 t2'lxf5 t2'lxd2 17 �xd5 �xf5 1 8 'i!!Vxf5+ .l:txf5 19 .lixc6 bxc6 20 'it>xd2 .l:td8+ (20 ... .l:txf2 would have been good as well) 21 'it>e1 .l:tc5 22 .l:tcl .l:ta5 23 .l:tc2 .l:tad5 24 'it>fl .l:td2 25 .l:txd2 .l:txd2 26 f4 .l:txa2 with a slightly better endgame for Black. d6) 6 c4 e6 7 t2'lc3 is best met by 7... .lib4 8 0-0 (8 �3 0-0-0 9 .\i£4 dxc4 10 �xc4 �d5! 11 'i!!Vxd5 exd5 12 �cl .lte4! 13 a3 .ixc3+ 14 .l:txc3 f6 was equal in P.Johansson-O.Valaker, Gausdal 2002) 8 ....\ixc3 9 bxc3 .ie4!? 10 cxd5 (10 .l'!e1 0-0-0 11 .ltfl t2'lge7 12 lLld2, as in S.Bromberger-M.Lyell, Banyoles 2005, is a complicated way to get rid of the e4bishop without trading it for the one on g2; now 12 ... .ltg6 13 .ig2 e5 would have been at least equal) 10 ...exd5 1 1 �3
1 d4 d5 2 tiJj3 tiJ c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ves
0-0-0 and Black had no problems in M.Drasko-D.Kosic, Herceg Novi 1999. If instead 7 0-0 tt:if6 8 tt:ic3 then 8 ... �e4!? is again interesting. R.Bilins kas-A.Gavrylenko, Wisla 2000, contin ued 9 tt:ie5 tt:ixeS 10 dxe5 i.xg2 1 1 Wxg2 d4 12 tt:ib5 l'ic6+ 13 <Jilg1, and after 13 ...'i¥xc4 14 exf6 'i¥xb5 15 'ifxd4 gxf6 16 'i'xf6 .l"tg8 the position is unclear.
V.Loginov-M.Dubois, Bad Worishofen 2000. But Black can simply play 10 ... tt:ixd4 1 1 'i!Vxc4 tt:ix£3+ 12 ex£3 tt:i£6 13 !tfd1 tt:id5 14 .Uacl c6 and White has hardly any compensation for the pawn. g i.xf3 10 �xf3 tt:ib4 ..•
s ...e6
11 'iia s
S ... dxc4 brings about complications which favour White: 6 d5 i.xf3 7 il.. xf3 .!t:'le5 (or 7...0-0-0 8 tt:ic3 tt:ie5 9 i.g2 e6 10 'i'd4 tt:ic6 11 'i!Vxc4 tt:ib4 12 0-0 exd5 13 'ib3 tt:if6 1 4 11dl' c6 1 5 1£.e3 'iii>b8 16 'ii'a4 .!t:'la6 1 7 b4 i.xb4 18 �ab1 with a very dangerous attack in T.Darcyl-A.Garba rino, Pehuaj 1983) 8 il.. g2 e6 9 'i¥d4 tt:ic6 10 'i¥xc4 exd5 1 1 'iVxd5 �b4+ 12 tt:ic3 'i'xd5 13 i.xd5 tt:ige7 14 i.g2 0-0-0 15 l.d2 tt:id4 16 0-0-0 J:!:he8 (not 16... .1txc3?! 17 bxc3 tt:lxe2+? 18 'it>b2 and the knight is trapped) 17 IDle1 and White was slightly better in V.Zaitzev-A.Raetsky, Russian Team Championship 1999. 6 o-o 0-0-0 7 tt:ic3 dxc4 8 'iWa4 W b8 9 :d1
9 il.. e3 .ltxf3 10 il..xf3 is an idea from
1 1 'iVxd7?! i s obviously nothing for White: 1 1 . ..J:!:xd7 12 e3 tt:i£6 13 i.e2 tt:id3 14 �xd3 cxd3 15 l:!.xd3 c5 16 l:!.dl il..e 7 (16 ... cxd4 17 .l:lxd4 .l:Ixd4 1/2-V2 was G.Sosonko-L.Fressinet, Cannes 1996) 1 7 dxc5 .l:!.xd1+ 1 8 tt:ixd1 .l:i.d8 19 tt:ic3 il.. xc5 resulted in a good endgame for Black in D.McMahon-T.Thiel, Badalona 1 993 . 11 ... b6!
Much better than ll ... tt::l£6 12 a3 tt:ibd5 13 e4 b6 14 'iVa6 tt:lxc3 15 bxc3 'iVc6 16 a4 which led to a dangerous attack in V.Loginov-P.Wells, Harkany 1994. 12 'iYes tt:if6 13 .ig2 h6 14 l'if4 tt:ifds 15 'iVd2 fS
Black is still a pawn up, controls the centre and has a lead in development. What more could you want? 16 f3?! tt:lf6
16 ... tt:le3! would have been more to the point. 1 09
Play 1
. . .
lU c 6 !
The other, more solid alternative is 4 ... e6. Black wastes no time before bol stering his centre, and prepares ... .id6 in order to increase his control over e5. After 5 0-0 lt:Jf6 White has two different set-ups to choose from.
After 17 'i'xe3 lt:Jc2 18 'i!VeS (pseudo active; but if 18 'it'd2 tt:Jxa1 and there is no sensible way to attack the knight on a1; or 18 �f2 lt:Jxa1 19 e4 e5 20 .ie3 exd4 21 .i:txd4 'it'xd4!? 22 i.xd4 .i:txd4, followed by ... .i.cS and the rooks are better as the knight still can't be won) 18 ... .id6 19 'it'bs ifxbS 20 lt:JxbS lt:Jxa1 21 �d2 (21 lt:Jxd6 cxd6 22 £i.d2 bS leaves no white piece to pick up the knight at a1) 2 1 . . . .ib4 the knight can escape, for example 22 lt:Jc3 eS 23 e3 exd4 24 exd4 and now 24 .. J:txd4! is possible as after 25 .l:txd4 i.cS 26 .i.e3 lt:Jc2 27 .l:td7 .ll xe3+ 28
2 l . . .'i!Kc8 would have maintained the advantage. 22 'i!Vxc4 tt:Jxc1 23 l:tbxc1 d3 24 b4 ftc8
Yz -Yz
This game illustrates why the whole idea of 4 ...'i!Vd7 is so popular. Although it has been cut down by other popular sources, I don't see why this line shouldn't be fully playable. You should try it!
110
The above diagram shows what I call the 'Anti-Catalan set-up'. Instead of going directly for the centre with 6 c4 and 7 lt:Jc3, White fianchettoes his queen's bishop with 6 b3, trying to as sume complete control of eS. The most promising formation against this plan seems to be a 'Stonewall' set-up similar to that in the Dutch Defence.
1 d4 ds 2 0.f3 0. c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ves 6 ... i.. d 6
7 ctJeS is a threat that has to be taken seriously. Hence 6 ... Ae7?! is already a mistake, since after 7 ttJe5!,
The first diagram shows a typical 'Stonewall' deriving from the Dutch Defence, the second diagram features its equivalent from the Chigorin De fence. You will quickly notice that the two positions have a lot in common. Black has a compact centre, a firm grip on the light squares and a slight advan tage in space on the kingside; the only drawback is the weakness of his dark squares, particularly e5. Other than that, Black's intentions are clear: At tack! Attack! Attack! Game 3 0 O.Jova nic-B.Kovacevic
Zadar 2000 1 d4 ds 2 tLlf3 lbc6 3 g3 .llg4 4 i.g2 e6 s 0-0 ctJf6 6 C4
6 b3 transposes to the text after 6...i.d6 7 c4. Instead, 6 c3 is harmless: Black equalized after 6 ...Ad6 7 "iib3 .:!.b8 8 Ag5 h6 9 .i.xf6 'i¥xf6 10 CiJbd2 0-0 1 1 e4 .ix£3 12 i.. xf3 dxe4 13 il..xe4 e5 in �.Krasenkow-C. Wisnewski, German League 2005.
Black experiences problems on the h1-a8 diagonal, as the following exam ples illustrate: a) 7 ...lbxe5 8 dxe5 ctJd7 9 cxd5 exd5 (or 9 ...lbxe5 10 i.f4 lbg6 1 1 .ixc7! 'i¥xc7 12 'iVa4+ �£8 13 'i¥xg4 and White won a pawn in C.Lingnau-P.Dittmar, German League 1987) 10 �xd5 .ltxe2 1 1 l:Ie1 c6 was played in G.Schlichtmann F.Polenz, Bad Zwesten 1999, and now 12 1We4 .ihS 13 e6! would have given White a nice advantage. b) 7 ... i..h5 8 lbc3 0-0 9 cxd5 exd5 (9 ...lbxd5 10 lbxc6 bxc6 results in a wretched pawn structure for Black) 10 .igS lLlxeS 1 1 dxe5 lbd7 1 2 .ixe7 'i¥xe7 13 'i¥xd5 and White was a pawn up in Vogel-Welling, Wijk aan Zee 1983. c) 7 ... h5 is a creative approach from P.Kemp-M.Goldberg, St Helier 1999 . The idea is 8 lbxg4 hxg4 with counter play down the h-file, but White can simply play 8 lbc3 and only after 8 ... 0-0 then 9 lbxg4 hxg4 10 cxd5 and White 111
Play 1
. . .
ltJc6 !
has the better position.
13 ...a 3 !
7 b3
7 tt:Jc3 is the subject of the next game. 7 0-0 8 Jl.. b 2 tt:Je4 9 tt:Je1 ...
A thoughtful move, preparing f2-f3 and i2le1-d3. After 9 tt:Jc3 Black can again opt for a 'Stonewall' set-up with 9 . . f5! as the d-pawn is indirectly pro tected; i.e. 10 cxd5 exd5 1 1 l2lxd5 Jl..xg3! 12 hxg3 'iVxd5, and now the bishop on b2 is temporarily out of the game. .
9 .....\rl.. h s 10 tt:Jd2 fs 14 �c1
14 cxd6 axb2 15 i2lxb2 i¥xd6 is no al ternative. 14... Jl.. e 7 15 �e3
1 5 e3?! provides more protection for the centre, but entombs the dark squared bishop. 15 ... b6?!
The immediate 15 ... �f6! is better when, as opposed to the text, White does not have any chances for counter play on the b-file. Because of the factors mentioned in the introduction to this game, Black is already better.
16 b4 bxcs 17 bxcs i.f6 18 �c2
11 i2ld3 a s !
Black's main idea is to play on the kingside, but preventing possible coun terplay on the queenside takes prece dence. 12 i2lf3 a4 13 cs
13 cxd5 exd5 14 bxa4?! is an extra pawn of no value. White will not be able to hold onto it after 14 ... l2le7 fol lowed by ... 'i'd7, and then Black will enjoy a healthy advantage due to his better pawn structure. 112
18 'i'e7 ..•
18 ...i..xf3! would have been the logi-
1 d4 dS 2 l:iJf3 11J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ves
cal conclusion, picking up the d4-pawn. After 19 exf3 (or 19 �x£3? �xd4 and White can resign with a clear con science) 19 ...'Llxd4 20 �xd4 �xd4 21 �ae1 (if 21 fxe4?! fxe4 22 'Llf4 �xa1 23 .::xa1 'iV£6 24 l!d1 c6 and Black has a rook and a massive pawn centre for the knight and the bishop, securing a big advantage) 21...'Llc3 22 'Ll£4 e5!? 23 'Lle6 'i'f6 24 'Llx£8 'iVx£8 would leave Black with a monster bishop on d4 and a pawn armada, giving him more than enough compensation for the exchange. 19 l:tab1 g5?!
The tables have turned. Now it is White who is in pole position. 28 ... 'i'h6 29 i.xe4 fxe4 30 nxf8+ ..t>xf8 31 'Llxe6+?!
This allows Black to escape with precise play. 31 ii..e3 was called for, when after 3l. ..'Llxe3 32 'i'xe3 we have a rare case of a 'good' white knight ver sus a 'bad' black bishop. 31 ... 'i'xe6 32 �b8+ Ji.e8
Black is still dreaming of a kingside attack, but after opening the b-file White's chances of a counterattack are getting real. Instead 19 ....Mfb8, neutral izing any play on the b-file and keep ing the pressure on d4, would have maintained the advantage. 20 'Llfe5 ..txe5 21 dxe5 'Lla5 22 �d4 ::Jc4 23 l1b4 g4
Black is getting stuck on the king side, whereas White can build up a battery on the b-file. 24 .a:.tbl r:ta 5 25 .:b8 �e8 26 �1b4 j_c6 27 �cl 'i/Ng5 28 'Llf4
Moving the king does not help. Ei ther 32 ... �g7?? 33 'i/Ng5+ �£7 (33 . . .'ifg6 34 e6+ mates in an even more beautiful way) 34 'i/Ng8+ �e7 35 �f8+ �d7 36 l:rd8 mate or 32 ...�£7 33 1Wf4+ '.t>g6 34 J::!.£8 is winning for White. 3 3 'iVf4+ �g8 34 'i*'g5+ Wf8 3 5 c6
Repeating moves with 35 'ii'£4+ was apparently not in White's interest. 3 5 ... h6 36 'ii'h 5 e3 37 l:txe8+ 'i!Vxe8 3 8 'ii'x h6+ �g8?
38 ...Wf7! was necessary, when White does not have anything better than perpetual check after 39 'iV£6+ (or just 39 'i/Nh5+ �e7 40 'i'g5+ �f7 41 'ii'h5+) 39 . . .�g8 40 e6 exf2+ 41 i.xf2 (not 41 �g2?? f1 'iV+! 42 �xfl 'i¥£8 and Black wins) 41...'ii'f8 42 'i*'g6+ 'i'g7 43 'i'e8+ 113
Play 1 . . . ltJ c 6 !
'it>h7 44 ft5+ Wg8 45 \i'e8+ etc. 39 e6 exf2+ 40 'it>f1
With his centre being immediately pressurized Black has no time to adopt the set-up from the previous game, since 7 ... t2Je4?! just loses a pawn after 8 cxd5 exd5 9 't!Vb3!. However, Black is flexible enough to shift gear.
40.. .tbd2+
40 ... t2Je3+ does not help either, as the black rook is simply too far away. After 41 .txe3 l:tb5 42 '1i'g5+ 'it>h7 (42 ... 'it>f8 43 'i'f6+ 'it>g8 44 i.h6 leads to mate) 43 �4+ 'it>g8 44 llt'xg4+ �h7 45 Wxf2 White has more than enough pawns for the exchange. 41 'iix d2 �bs 42 �gS+ 1-o
Although White managed to prevail in the end, the previous game shows why the plan with 6 c4 il.d6 7 t2Jc3 is much more common.
First you see the position after the typical 1 0-0 8 cxds ttJxd s!. The main idea is to lure White into building a seemingly strong pawn centre, so that Black can blast it afterwards. Another common idea is ... f7-f5, to force the knight's path to the strategically im portant d5-square. A nice illustration is the following game by the Greek Chi gorin expert Spyridon Skembris. •.•
114
1 d4 dS 2 Ci.Jj3 Ci.J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e co n d M o ves
Game 3 1 Y. Razuvaev-S.Skem bris Po rto San G i o rgio 1998 1 d4 ds 2 lLlf3 lt:Jc6 3 g3 ..ltg4 4 .tg2 e6 s
tion of this section. Black invites his opponent to build a strong pawn cen tre in order to undermine it afterwards. Instead, 8 ... exd5?! 9 i.g5 would give White a comfortable position with suf ficient play against d5. 9 h3 ii.hs 10 e4 lLlb6
o-o lLlf6 6 c4 ..td6 1 lt:Jc3 o-o
11 g4?!
As noted above, 7 ...lt:Je4?, intending to reach the Stonewall set-up from the previous game, does not work here. White can simply play 8 cxd5 exd5 9 "ti'b3! winning a pawn. 8 cxds
8 c5? is very comfortable for Black as it takes all pressure off d5. After 8 ... .i.e7 9 .tf4 h6! Black can safely relo cate his bishop to the b1-h7 diagonal and take a tighter grip on e4. And 8 ii.g5 is consequently met by 8 ... dxc4, when 9 'i¥a4 h6 10 .tcl (or 10 j_xf6 "it'xf6 and Black has nothing to worry about) 10 ...lt:Jd5 1 1 ii'xc4 lt:Ja5 1 2 "i'd3 lt:Jb4 13 'Wd1 lt:Jc4 14 b3 lbb6 is similar to the game, with control over d5 to be secured by ...f7-f5. s lt:Jxd s ! ...
We have now reached the key posi-
Understandably White wants to re solve the pin of his knight, but the price is a further weakening of his posi tion. 11 b3, in order to develop the bishop at b2 ( 1 1 i.e3 runs into 1 1 ...lt:Jc4 and is nothing for White), is a more regular move. However, Black can meet this with the typical 1 1 .. .f5!, when M.Todorcevic-G.Mohr, Ljubljana 1989, continued 12 e5 i.e7 13 lLle2 lL\d5 with the initiative. 11 ... i.g6 12 "it'e2 fs! 13 i.gs?
13 gxf5 was necessary. The resulting position after 13 ....lth5!? is very compli cated, for example 14 .l:l.d1 (if 14 i.e3?! exf5 15 e5 £4! 16 exd6 fxe3 17 dxc7 ex£2+ 18 'iVxf2 "ifxc7 and Black must be bet ter) 14 ...exf5 15 e5 i.b4 1 6 a3 (16 d5 lbe7 1 7 d6 cxd6 18 exd6 lbc6 19 i.£4 "ifd7 is also unclear) 16 ... i.e7 1 7 d5 lt:Ja5 115
Play 1 ..li'l c 6 ! .
with unclear play. 13 ...fxg4!!
after 20 g5 .l:Ig4 21 tDxb7 .llxg5 Black is still in command. 20 tDb3 Ji,xc3 21 bxc3 .l:If4 22 Ji,xb7 .l:Ixg4+ 23 �h2 J:i.f8 24 f3 .l:Ic4 25 tDd4 .l:Ixc3 26 .l:Iac1 .lld 3 27 tDc6 .l:Id2+ 28 �g3 tiJd5 29 .l:If2 .l:Ixf2 30 �xf2 .l:Ie8 3 1 .l:Ic5 tDf4 32 �g3
White has managed to create suffi cient counterplay, so Black decides to repeat moves. 32 ... tDh5+ 3 3 �f2 tDf4 34 �g3 Yz-Yz
Not really a queen sacrifice since accepting it has dire consequences: 14 Ji,xd8? gxf3 15 'il¥e3 (or 15 Ji,xf3 tDxd4) 15 ... fxg2 16 �xg2 Ji,f4 17 'il¥d3 .l:Iaxd8 and White will be stearnrollered by the black pieces. 14 hxg4 tDxd4 15 ttJxd4 i'i'xg5 16 e5
16 tDxe6? loses to 16 .. ."j/je5 . 16...'il¥xe5 17 i'i'xe5 Ji,xe5 18 ttJxe6 llf6
By the end of the opening phase, Black has managed to obtain an extra pawn and the pair of bishops. 19 ttJc5 .ii,d 4
19 . J'H4 would have been better, as .
116
White plays 3 .tf4 The London System with 3 Ji,f4 is by far the most popular of all third move alternatives. Indeed, it seems to be es pecially suited to playing against the Chigorin Defence, as White puts a hammer lock on e5 while conducting his usual playing scheme. Now Black is not able to enforce the freeing ... e7-e5 immediately, so a more subtle ap proach is needed: 3 ... Ji,g4 4 e3 e6.
The diagram shows the common developing scheme Black should ern ploy against the London System. The light-squared bishop is posted to g4, from where it can help to support ... e6-
1 d4 d5 2 CUj3 t:U c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ves
e5 by taking care of the white knight. But more important is understanding how Black should react if White, after ... i.f8-d6, chooses to trade the dark squared bishops.
Many players are reluctant to take the bishop with the c-pawn, even though this approach has its virtues. The doubled d-pawns are no weak ness; quite the opposite, as they serve several purposes: 1) The possible advance ... e6-e5 be comes more significant as Black can retake on eS with a pawn, resulting in a strong centre. 2) Black gains good prospects on the half-open c-file, plus the possibility of launching a useful minority attack with ...b7-b5-b4 should White play c2c3 (see the preamble to Game 48 for a more detailed description of these ideas). 3) After . . . c7xd6, the advance c2-c4 becomes less important, as Black can afford to play ... d5xc4 without having to fear being outnumbered in the cen tre. It is now time to look at a sample
game illustrating how the ideas out lined above can be implemented.
Game 32 V .Gudda h 1-C. Wisnewski
Oslo 2002 1 d4 ds 2 'Llf3 'Llc6 3 .ltf4 .i£.g4 4 e3 e6 s 'Llbd2
Instead: a) 5 c4 is the subject of Games 34 and 35. b) 5 i.bS should automatically trig ger 5 ...'Lle7, and now one of my games on the Internet Chess Club continued 6 'Llbd2 a6 7 j/_e2 'Llg6 8 i..g3 �d6 9 i.xd6 �xd6 10 h3 �xf3 1 1 ct:lxf3 0-0 12 0-0 £5! 13 g3 e5 14 dxeS 'Llgxe5 15 'Llxe5 tt:lxeS and already there is a clear advantage for Black. c) After 5 i.e2 .i.d6 6 i.. g3 (the im mediate capture 6 .i.xd6 cxd6 will transpose to the text sooner or later) Black should play 6 ... 'Llh6!? 7 c4 'Llf5 with a comfortable game. d) 5 c3 is the classical set-up for the Queen's Pawn Game. 117
Play 1 . . Jij c 6 !
1 l .. .'tWc7 1 2 'it'd4 lZ:lf7 1 3 ktg1 .l:tg8 14 0-0-0 was R.Marcolin-P.De Souza Haro, Sao Caetano 1999, and now Black could have won a pawn with 14 ....txf3 15 gxf3 'i*'xe5. 6 cxd6 7 C4 ...
7 i.e2 lZ:lge7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 i.xf3! 10 i.xf3 b5 1 1 c3 �b8 1 2 a4 was played in A.Adorjan-A.Morozevich, Alushta 12 ... b4 would be com 1994, and now fortable for Black. 7 ... dxc4 8 it..xc4 lZ:lge7 9 0-0 0-0
Once again Black employs the idea mentioned in the introduction: 5 ... .i.d6 6 i.xd6 (6 .i.g3 f5 7 lZ:lbd2 transposes to the next game, Hort-Wisnewski) 6 ... cxd6 7 lZ:lbd2 lZ:lge7 (7... e5?! is dubi ous as it would allow White to equalize after 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 i.b5) 8 .i.e2 (here 8 e4?! e5! 9 exd5 lZ:lxd5 10 dxe5 dxe5 leaves White to worry about his posi tion, while 8 i.d3?! e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 i£.e2 'iib6 is better for Black, or if 9 .i.e2 'iib6 10 �3 'i'xb3 11 lZ:lxb3 e4 and the doubled d6-pawn plays an exception ally good role, controlling the squares e5 and c5) 8 ...0-0 9 0-0, and now Black can choose between playing on the kingside with ... f7-f5 and playing on the queenside with ...b7-b5-b4. s .i.d6 6 .txd6 .. .
On 6 i.g3 Black should play 6 ... lZ:lh6!? 7 i.e2 (after 7 c4 lZ:lf5 8 .i.xd6 lZ:lxd6 the knight is misplaced on d2) 7 .. .£5 8 lZ:le5 (or 8 c4 lZ:le7, intending ... c7-c6, and if 9 lbg5!? �d7 10 f3 i.h5 1 1 'Wb3 l:!.b8 is fine) 8 ... lbxe5 9 .i.xe5 (after 9 dxe5 i.e7 the bishop on g3 lives a sad life) 9 ...i.xe5 10 dxe5 c6 1 1 lZ:lf3 (11 f4? drops a pawn to 1 l .. .'iib6)
118
We have reached the key position of the game. There are certain similarities to the Exchange Slav, but one impor tant difference: instead of being on d5, the black d-pawn is on d6. This is a big advantage for Black as the pawn con trols e5 and c5, squares which are often used as outposts by white knights. And what's more, ... e6-e5 is always in the wind - although Black is usually more interested in playing on the queenside . 10 h3 i. hs 11 a 3 After 1 1 .t'tcl i t makes sense to op pose the rook on the c-file with 1 1 . ..k!.c8, but I think that l l ... 'i*'b8!? is preferable. Then the other rook can go
1 d4 d5 2 li:Jf3 li:J c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e c o n d M o ves
c8, while the queen's rook can be :::-ansferred via a7, once Black has ad ·.-anced his pawns. :-.:>
Or 30 ll'lxb5? ..td3. 30...i.d3 31 .l:te1 I:\.c1 0-1
... as 32... ..tc2 wins a piece.
u. .. as
This temporarily weakens b5, but :-rewnting White from advancing on � queenside is more important. 12
'ih4
12 a4?! is no alternative, as it irrepa :-ably weakens b4. And 12 b3 is met by �2 .'iib8 with the same plan as in the :-.vte to White's 1 1 th move.
The next game features a different approach. White protects his d-pawn with 5 c3, retaining the possibility of playing e4 in one move. But after 5 ... i.d6 6 �g3 Black can take steps against this idea immediately:
..
u .. .'iVb8
13 !::ta c1 't!Ha7 14 'it'b5?! d5 15
.id3 a4!
Fixing the b-pawn. Now all that is left to do is to neutralize the pressure on the c-file. 16 �CS 'ii'b 8 17 �C2 h6 18 �b5 Z!c8 19 ..hc6 l:txc6 20 �d3 l:tb6 21 'ti'c3 lt:Jc6 2 2 ::Je5 'ii'd 6 23 tt:Jxc6 l:txc6 2 4 'ik d 3 l:tac8
The move that is most appropriate to meeting e2-e4 is 6 ...f51?. The plan is quite similar to the one introduced in Jovanic-Kovacevic (Game 30), but this time the black d-pawn is not under as much pressure, which makes the whole idea even more attractive. The only thing Black has to take care of is that White cannot exploit the weak e5square, but that's not too difficult at all.
25 .l:!.xc6 'iVxc6
Black has finally managed to get the c-file under his control. Now the game concludes quickly. 26 lt:Jb1 �g6 27 ifd2 'ii'c 2 28 'i'xc2
28 'ii'b4 .td3 29 .l:i.el b5 is only a marginal improvement. 28 ....ttxc2 29 ll'lc3 b5! 30 ll'ld1?
Came 33 V. Hort-C.Wisnewski
Germa n C h a m pionsh i p, Alte n k i rchen 200 5 1 d 4 dS 2 ll'lf3 lt:Jc6 3 i.f4 �g4 4 ll'lbd2
119
Play 1 . . .lu c 6 ! e 6 5 c3 .id6
prospects on the kingside in R.Wilczek R.Baumhus, German League 1999. 6 fs !? 1 e3 ...
7 'iVa4 was an idea in Janssen C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2002, but after 7 ... f4 8 .i.h4 tt:lge7 9 e3 fxe3 10 fxe3 'i>Vd7 1 1 ..¥f.b5 tt:l£5 12 i.£2 0-0 Black was clearly better. 7 etJh61 ...
6 i. g 3
White can also play one of the fol lowing moves: a) 6 ..¥f.xd6 cxd6 7 e3 (7 e4 tt:lf6 8 i.d3 0-0 9 0-0 e5 was good for Black in Joehnk-Wisnewski, Bargteheide 2007) 7 .. .<:t'lge7 was covered in the previous game (see the note with 5 c3). b) 6 tt:leS is a bit overzealous. After 6 ...1Lxe5 7 dxeS (7 i.xe5 tt:lxe5 8 dxe5 c6 leaves Black with the better pawn struc ture) 7...tt:lge7 8 't!Vb3 (if 8 h3 .ih5 9 g4 i.g6 10 e3 h5 and the white position gives an overextended impression) 8 ...0-0 9 .ig3 (9 �xb7 .l:tb8 10 �a6 J:Ixb2 is nothing White could possibly fancy) 9 ... tt:lg6 10 f4 .l::tb8 Black has a nice position, ...b7b5-b4 being one of many ideas. c) 6 e3 lt'lge7 (not 6 . . . e5? 7 dxe5 tt:lxe5 8 ..ltxe5 i.xe5, as in V.Gansvind I.Kudriashova, Moscow 2000, when 9 'i>Va4+ i.d7 10 't!Vb3 ..¥f.d6 1 1 'Yi'xd5 would have won a pawn) 7 .ie2 tt:lg6 8 �g3 (8 .ixd6 cxd6 9 0-0 0-0 10 h3 i.xf3 1 1 tt:lxf3 l"!.b8 was good for Black in R.Schoengart-H.Porth, Hamburg 2005) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 f5 and Black had good 120
A multi-purpose move: not only pro tecting the bishop but also enabling the knight to go to f5, should Black manage to play .. .f5-f4. But what is most impor tant is that with ...etJh6-f7 Black can put additional control over the weak e5square, a key idea in this system. 8 'i>Vb3
8 �b5?! was correctly dismissed by A.Finkel - after 8 ... 0-0 9 iLxc6 bxc6 10 c4 c5! Black has the better chances. 8
•••
.l:i.b8 9 ..txd6
Finkel suggested playing 9 c4 with out trading bishops first, but after 9 ... �xf3! 10 tbxf3 0-0 11 cxd5 ( 1 1 �xd6 admits the necessity to get rid of the bishop, but the other bishop is no bet ter; for example 1 1 ... 'iVxd6 12 c5 Vi'e7 13 .ibS tt:ld8! and given the solid black
1 d4 ds 2 ttJj3 ttJ c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e co n d M o ves
pawn structure, the bishop rams his head against a stone wall) 1 l .. .i.b4+ 1 2 ;i>d1 exd5 13 .l:tcl 'it>h8!? 14 .ixc7 'iii'xc7 15 �xb4 f4 Black has sufficient coun terplay for the sacrificed pawn; for ex ample 16 tt:Je5 tt:Jg4! 17 tt:Jxg4 �c8 1 8 ·tvd2 li'xg4+ 19 'it>c2 (or 19 'i¥e2 'i!Ve6) 19 ...�g6+ 20 'litb3 .l:!.be8 with ongoing pressure.
19 'i!\Vxa s tt:Jxa s 20 tt:Jes tLlf7 21 tt:Jd7 l:!.fe8 22 tt:Jcs tt:Jd6 23 .ltd3 l:te7 24 'it>e2 Wf7 2 5 .l:i.hc1 l!ec7
9... cxd6 10 c4 ii.xf3 ! 11 gxf3
1 1 tt:Jxf3 'i!VaS+ 12 tLld2 dxc4 13 .ltxc4 d5 14 ..\rl..e2 f4!, followed by ... 0-0 and . . . tt:Jf5, requires very precise play from White in order to defend himself prop erly. 11 dxc4 12 �xc4 ds 13 il.bs •..
Black's pieces are perfectly placed, but the position is too sterile to get any thing out of it. 26 b3 tt:Jc6 27 Wd1 as 28 a3 tt:Jb8 29 tt'la4 tt'ld7 30 l!xc7 Itxc7 31 .l:!.c1 l:Ixc1+ 32 'lt>xc1 b6 Yz-Yz
Our final two games in this chapter mark a White strategy that is a mixture between the quiet London realms and a more aggressive line of action against the black centre. After 5 c4 i.b4+ 6 tbc3 we arrive at the following position: 13 0-0 ...
I don't know why I didn't play the
natural 13 ... f4! . Maybe I was afraid of 14 �a4?!, but after 14 ... 0-0 15 ..\rl..xc6 bxc6 16 �xc6 l:!.xb2 17 �xe6+ 'it>h8 White will not be able to find a safe place for his king. 14 f4 tt:Ja s 15 �b4 a6 16 .ie2 tt:Jc6 17 ·.-a3 l:tc8 18 tt:Jf3 'iii'a S+?I
Hastily trying to secure the draw; instead with 18 ...tt:Jf7! Black still could play for a better result. 121
Play 1 . . . lD c6!
The idea of this set-up is simple: by playing l::ta1-cl and taking on d5 in due time, White wants to play along the half open c-file and/or initiate the kind of mi nority attack known from the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined (see the pre liminary notes to Game 48 for more in formation). Here Black has two valid options to choose from. The first one, seen in the next game, is 6 lbge7, with the idea of transferring the knight to g6 from where it supports a possible ...e6-e5 and ... f7-f5-f4. And of course it also at tacks the bishop on f4, a fact which White shouldn't completely ignore. .•.
1 0 ..id3 dxc4 1 1 i..xc4 lbd5 1 2 .l:i.cl (or 12 i.xd5 exd5 13 0-0 lbaS with good play on the light squares) 12...lba5 13 i.d3 lbx£4 14 �x£4 c5 and Black was in control in R.Christ-C.Wisnewski, Biisum 2004. b) 7 a3 i.. xc3+ 8 bxc3 0-0 9 h3 was played in S.Saljova-T.Fomina, Euro pean Women's Championship 2001, and now 9 ...il.xf3! 10 'i!kxf3 dxc4 1 1 i.xc4 lbd5 i s the same position as in Christ-Wisnewski, the negligible dif ference being that the white a-pawn is on a3 instead of a2. 7 0-0 •••
Came 34 P . Nemecek-R.Rybak
Correspondence 1999 1 d4 ds 2 lbf3 lbc6 3 i..f4 ..tg4 4 e3 e6 5 c4 i.. b4+ 6 lbc3 lbge7
8 il.d3
Black's second option, 6 ...lbf6, will be discussed in the subsequent game. 7 MC1
Alternatively: a) 7 h3 .ixf3 8 'ik'x£3 i..xc3+ 9 bxc3 0-0 122
8 a3 ..ixc3+ 9 11xc3 should be an swered by 9 ...lbg6 10 ..ig3 (10 h3 .i.xf3 1 1 'ilfxf3 lbxf4 12 'ifxf4 lbe7 13 il.d3 lbg6 14 'ilkg3 dxc4 15 .l:txc4 c6 was comfort able for Black in M.Saucey-H.Renette, Avoine 1999) 10 ... f5 1 1 h3 (or 1 1 cxd5 exd5 12 i..b5 £4! 13 exf4 'ti'e7+ 14 l1e3 'ti'f6 with an unclear position according to Bronznik, while 13 i..xc6? loses to 13 ...fxg3 14 i.xb7 J:i.b8 15 i.. c6 lt:Jh4) 1 l .. . ..ixf3 12 'i:Vxf3 f4! 13 ex£4 lbxd4 14 'ti'g4, as in V.Malakhatko-S.Kapnisis, Athens 2003, when Black should have
1 d4 d5 2 li:Jj3 li:J c6 a n d O t h e r R a re S e co n d M o ve s
played 1 4 ...'iif6 with a big advantage.
moves with 1 7....ia5 or play 17 ...lLlf5!?.
8 ... lbg6 9 h 3
13 ...lL'lxg2+ 14 Wf1 lbxe3+1
On 9 .tg3 Bronznik gives 9. . .e5 10
cxd5 'ii'xd5 1 1 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3 e4 13 c4 "i'f5, but after 14 .tb1! (instead of 14 ii.c2 :t::lb4) it is difficult to meet 15 'iib3. There fore, I suggest 9 ...dxc4 10 ii.xc4 .i.d6 as in A.Yermolinsky-Z.Rahman, Stratton Mountain 2000, which continued 1 1 ..tb5 !Llce7 12 0-0 lb£5 13 ii.e2 lLlxg3 14 hxg3 c6 15 lL'le4 ii.c7 16 lL'lc5 l:!.b8 17 'ii'c2 'ir'e7 and Black was not worse. 9 ... i.xf3 10 'iixf3 dxc4 11 ii.xc4 lL'lxd4!
This move is not mentioned by Bronznik in his first edition of Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung, but it is simply winning as the game shows: 15 fxe3 'iif6+ 16 'ite1 l:!.ab8 17 'iia 4 'i!Vgs 18 lbd1 li'g3+ 19 'itf1 'iif 3+ 2o Wg1 .l::Ix b2! 21 lLlxb2 'i'xe3+ 22 'itg2 'ii'd 2+ 23 'itf1 'ii'xc1+ 24 lbd1 'i'd2 2 5 lL'lt2 ttJfs 26 'ittg 2 'ii'g s+ 27 tDg4 .l:!. d 8 28 i.e2 h S 0-1 12 'it'xb7
After 1 2 exd4?! 'ii'xd4 Black wins back the piece with interest, and if White gets too greedy with 13 i.xc7 ·i'xc4 14 'ii'xb7? he will be punished by 14 ... l:tac8 15 ii.g3 Itfd8 16 'iiixa7 'tWd3.
All in all I like the implications of 6 ... lLlge7, but Black's other option, 6 ...lbf6, is certainly not worse.
12 ...lL'lxf4 13 'iixb4
Swedish H.Schiissler-J.Hector, Championship 1 986, saw 13 exf4 l:!.b8 14 "iVe4 (if 14 �xa7 'ii'd 6 15 0-0 .tc5 16 lra6 1i'xf4) 1 4 ... i.a5 15 b3 'ii'f6 and now 16 'ilie5? 'ilixe5+ 1 7 fxe5 lL'lb5 18 ii.xb5 :.xb5 19 0-0 l:lxe5 netted Black a pawn. Ii instead 16 'ife3 ..ltb6 17 lie4, Black ;:an choose whether he wants to repeat 123
Play 1 . . .t'iJ c 6 !
Black has two main ideas i n this system. One is to play the thematic ... e6-e5, which can be additionally sup ported by ...'Yi'd8-e7; the other is to swap the dark-squared bishop for the knight on c3 to get the light squares under control (by ... tt::lc6-a5). The fol lowing game well illustrates a proper treatment of the position. Game 35 S.Gia rdel li-C.Boissonet
B u enos Aires 1991 1 d 4 d5 2 tt::lf3 tt:lc6 3 i..f4 ..ltg4 4 e3 e 6 5
agreed at this point. c) 7 il..e2 is as dubious as 7 Si.d3. In either case Black can play 7 ... dxc4 8 l:i.cl (if 8 �xc4 tZ:ldS 9 .ixd5 'ii'xd5!? 10 0-0 ..ixc3 1 1 bxc3 0-0-0 once more allows Black to control the light squares) 8 ... ..ixc3+ 9 bxc3 (9 .!:lxc3 tZ:ldS 10 �xc4 tt:lx£4 1 1 exf4 leaves White with a weak isolated d-pawn) 9 ...b5 and Black was a pawn up in P.Zangiev-R.Jenetl, Kras nodar 1998. d) 7 'i¥b3 is best answered by 7 ... a5!, and now 8 a3 a4 9 'ilt'c2 ..ixc3+ 10 bxc3 leads to the usual play on the light squares after 10 ... 0-0 1 1 cxd5 exdS. 1 tt:le4 ...
c4 ..ltb4+ 6 tt::lc3 tt::lf6 7 l::!.c 1
Playing along the c-file is again the most popular choice. But before con tinuing, let's take a look at possible alternatives: a) 7 a3 immediately resolves the pin, forcing Black to trade his bishop instead of his knight. However, Black is flexible enough and can change to an other plan: 7 ... �xc3+ 8 bxc3 0-0 9 ii.e2 tt::le4 10 'i¥c2 and now 10 ...tt::la 5! 1 1 cxd5 exdS leaves Black in command of the light squares. After 12 0-0 (12 c4?! is problematic due to 12 ... Ji.f5!) 12 ... c6 13 l:!.fcl b5 14 a4 a6 15 h3 �£5 16 ii.d3 tt::l c4 Black had a firm grip on the position in Sorkin-C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2002. b) 7 h3 was played in P.Cramling R.Vera, Malaga 2000, and Black gained the advantage after 7 ... 1i.xf3! 8 'ii'x£3 1/Ke7 9 cxd5 i..xc3+ 10 bxc3 �a3! 1 1 e4 exdS 12 exdS tt::lxd5 13 .id2 0-0-0 14 ..lte2 'i!Vb2 even though a draw was 124
8 cxd5
8 'ii'b3 again triggers 8 ... a5! 9 cxd5 (9 tt::le5? is bad due to 9 ... a4 10 'ii'c2 tt::lxe5 1 1 ..ixe5 a3 and White is in serious trouble) 9 ... a4 10 'ii'c2 exdS followed by ... ..ltxc3+ and better play for Black. 8 h3 �x£3 9 "i!fx£3 iVe7 has not been seen in too many games as yet. Never theless, it is White who has to be care ful, one example being U.Krause C.Wisnewski, Lue�enburg 2003, which continued 10 ..td3? il.. xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 'iHa3!
1 d4 dS 2 CiJj3 CiJ c 6 a n d O t h e r R a re Seco n d M o ves
and White lost material. In their book Win with the London System, Johnsen and Kovacevic claim a White advan tage after 10 cxdS exdS 1 1 'i¥d1, refer ring to the game Kir.Georgiev-D.Pirrot, Bad Worishofen 2003, which continued 1 1 ...0-0 12 ..lte2 li:Jd8 13 0-0 i.xc3 14 bxc3 li:Je6 1 5 ..lth2 l:tfd8 1 6 c4. But as we will see later, Black went wrong on his 12th move. The right course of action is 1 2 ... ..1txc3 13 bxc3 li:JaS with good play on the light squares (see Chapter 1 1 for more information).
10 ...'i¥xe4 1 1 �xeS li:Jxe5 12 dxeS i.xc3+ 13 g_xc3 kld8 would have been roughly equal. 10 0-0-0 •..
11
i.xe4 'i'xe4
12
'ii'e 2
..txc3+ 13 bxc3
Not 13 l:txc3?? 'i¥h1+ and mates. 13 ....i:Ihe8 14 h3 li:Jxe5! 15 i.xe5
15 hxg4?? loses to 15 ... li:Jd3+. 15 .....txf3 16 'i*'xf3 'ifxf3 17 gxf3 .l:!.xes
8 .. :�Wxd5 !?
8 ... exd5 is perfectly playable as well, but the text move is more active. 9 i.d3 e51
Simple and good.
White's pawn structure is com pletely crippled. With the proper tech nique Black has the game in the bag. 18 l:tg1 g6 19 �g4 l:!a s 20 a4 l:!.d6 21 h:!.h4 .l:Lf6 22 'Ot>e2 b6 23 .l:Lxh7 l:txa4 24 e4 l!!c4 25 h4 l:tcs 26 r;t>e3 bs 27 f4 as 28 h5 gxh5 29 e5 I!.fc6 30 n:xf7 b4 31 C4 b3 3 2 llf8+ 'it>b7 3 3 kte8 a4 34 fs a 3 35 f6 a2 36 f7 b2 3 7 .i:.c3 b1'it' 38 f8'if 'ii'e 1+ 10 dxes?!
10
�xe4
39 'it>d3 .l:i.d5+ 40 cxds l:.xc3+ 41 'it>d4
was
necessary,
when
iYd2+ 42 r;t>e4 'ir'e2+ 0-1
125
Play 1 . . . Cu c 6 !
Summary Despite beginning the game with l . ..d5, Black cannot be prevented from getting 'his' positions, as we have seen in Game 25. The move 2 lDf3 is especially popular at club level, so examining this chapter in detail is advisable. No matter whether you have to face the Colle (Game 28), the Catalan (Games 29-31) or the London System (Games 32-35) - just follow the outlined strategies and you will score your fair share of points. 1 d4 ds 2 l"Llf3
2 i.f4 .ig4 - Game 25 2 . l"Llc6 (D) 3 .if4 .
.
3 i.g5 £6 4 ii.f4 ii.g4 - Game 26 4 .th4 l"Llh6 - Game 27 3 e3 .i.g4 - Game 28 3 g3 i.g4 4 i.g2 e6 4...'i!Vd7 - Game 29 5 0-0 t"Llf6 6 c4 i.d6 (D) 7 b3 - Game 30 7 t"Llc3 - Game 3 1 3 ...i.g4 4 e3
4 l"Llbd2 e6 5 c3 ii.. d6 - Game 32 5 e3 .td6 - Game 33 4... e6 5 c4 (D) l"Llf6
5 . . .t"Llge7 - Game 34 6 l"Llc3 .i.b4 - Game 35
2...lt'lc6
126
6 . . i.d6 .
5 c4
Chapter Seven
I
d 4 d s 2 c4 t2Jc6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 ( 4 Jl,gs ; 4 cxd s )
1
It is safe to assume that 3 tt::lc 3 is a red �ag to many Chigorin players. If I were :o give you a characterization of this :nove based on its public image, I ·.,·ould have to describe it as both fre -1_uently played and scoring exceed :ngly well. Two trends that ought to be �topped, particularly with regard to the :'act that 3 tt::lc3 is not as dangerous as :nany make it out to be. Since 3 ... dxc4 4 d5 often leads to a :ype of position many Chigorin players }re uncomfortable with, Black is well }dvised to look for more suitable op :ions. For that reason I recommend 3 .tt::lf6, after which the game usually :ransposes to the main line by 4 tt::lf3 j:xc4 (see the next chapter). But first, ·,,·e have to deal with possible alterna :: \·es.
By going after the black knight, White increases the pressure he was already putting on d5 with his third move. Un fortunately, this Chigorinesque style of play does not get rewarded, as Black has a smooth counter in the form of 4...tt::le4!?.
..
White plays 4 �gs -::;iven that attacking the centre plays a .::rucial role in the Chigorin Defence, it _ s hard to condemn 4 .igS at first sight.
The most natural response to the sally of the bold knight is to get rid of it immediately. While doubling the black pawns at the same time may addition ally justify this, there are certain draw backs to this course of action. Firstly,
127
Play 1 . . .liJ c 6 !
since the black knight has left the stage, the bishop on g5 serves no real purpose and is vulnerable to attacks similar to those seen in the previous chapter. And what may be even more impor tant, the transformation of the pawn structure helps Black to apply even more pressure on the white centre. Came 36 M.Dorn-D.Fiassig
Germ a ny 2001 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt:Jc6 3 tt:Jc3 tt:Jf6 4 iLg5 tt:Je41? 5 tt:Jxe4
5 cxdS is the subject of Game 37. Instead, 5 .l¥.h4 keeps the h4-d8 di agonal under control and prevents the e-pawn from moving.
Let's take a closer look at possible answers: a) s ... gs is rather reckless: a1) 6 i.g3 favours Black after 6 . . .h5! ? 7 cxdS (not 7 tt:JxdS? e6! when both 8 tt:Jxc7+ 'ii'x c7 9 JLxc7 ..tb4+ and 8 tt:Jc3 tt:Jxc3 9 bxc3 h4 10 i.eS f6 are win ning for Black) 7 ...tt:Jxc3 8 bxc3 �xdS 9 128
h4 (after 9 iLxc7 'i'd7! White can only decide between losing the bishop or playing 10 dS i.. g7 1 1 �cl 'ii'xc7 12 dxc6 'i¥xc6 with an overwhelming position for Black) 9 .. .'iVa5 10 'ii'd2 g4 and Black has the freer development. a2) 6 cxdS tt:Jxc3 7 bxc3 'ii'xdS 8 i.g3 e5! is unclear according to Bronznik. It is difficult to expand on this assess ment as there are so many possibilities. But to give you just one example, after 9 tt:Jf3 exd4 10 tt:Jxd4 iLg7 11 e3 iLe6 12 i.xc7 0-0 Black's lead in development and piece activity compensate for the sacrificed pawn. a3) 6 iLxg5!? is White's best option, when 6 ... tt:Jxg5 7 cxd5 e5 8 dxe5 (8 dxc6 exd4 9 cxb7 iLxb7 10 'i¥a4+ 'i¥d7 1 1 'ii'xd7+ 'it>xd7 12 0-0-0 c5 led to an un clear position in A.Romero Holmes V.Callcgo, Spanish Championship 1997) 8 ...tt:Jxe5 is more or less forced. Now 9 h4 was played in P.Lukacs H.Bartels, Copenhagen 1987, when 9 ... tt:Je6 10 dxe6 kxe6 would have given Black at least some compensation for the pawn. But before playing the position after 9 f4 il.d6 10 fxe5 i.xe5 11 �d3 I would rather go to the dentist. b) 5 ... g6 has been suggested by M.Breutigam. Indeed, after 6 tt:Jxd5 ii.e6 7 'ifu3 (7 f3?! .itxd5 8 cxd5 e6! is clearly good for Black, while 7 e3 i.xdS 8 cxd5 'ii'xd5 is just a bit better) 7 . . .tt:Jxd4 8 'i!Vd3 (not 8 �xb7?? i.xd5 9 exd5 tt:Jc5 and the queen is trapped) 8 ... i.xd5 9 'ii'xd4? c5! White is lost. Un fortunately, he can simply play 6 e3, after which Black has difficulties creat ing sufficient counterplay.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tb c 6 3 tb c3 tbf6 (4 it. g 5 ; 4 cxd5)
c) 5 .. .lt:lxc3!? is my personal favour ite. Black collects a pawn and waits for White to show whether he has anything in return - by no means an easy task, as 6 bxc3 dxc4 7 e4 lt:Ja5! (but not 7... b5?! when 8 a4 ..ta6 9 axb5 ..txb5 10 lt:Jf3 g6 1 1 ..ixc4! �xc4 12 'ii'a4 '1i'd7 13 'ii'xc4 led to a good game for White in P.Lukacs S.Maksimovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1987) 8 .lxc4 lt:Jxc4 9 '1i'a4+ �d7! 10 't!Vxc4 dashes against 10 .. .'�g4, attacking both the bishop and the e4-pawn. Instead, White should try to speed up his development, but even after 7 lt:Jf3 b5 8 a4 c6 his com pensation is murky at best. s ...dxe4
hS 1 1 h3 lt:Jxg3) 9 ...lt:Jf5 and now Switzerland A.Huss-M.Rufenacht, 1987, saw 10 kg3 hS 11 h3 ..tb4+ 12 lt:Jc3 kxc3+ 13 bxc3 lt:Jxg3 14 fxg3 £5 when the white pawn structure was severely crippled. 6 ...e6! 1 ..txd8
7 dxc6? is asking for trouble. Black quickly moves into attack mode with 7 .. .'Yi'xg5 8 'fka4 .l:i.b8! and now 9 e3 (9 'i'xa7?? .i.b4+ 10 \t>d1 "i'd2 mate and 9 cxb7+?? j_d7 10 'iic2 �aS+ 1 1 'iii>d 1 ..ta4 1 2 b3 �d8+ 1 3 Wcl ..ta3 are just two ways to a quick end) 9 ... bxc6 leaves White in search of a way to survive the coming assault. 7 .i.b4+ 8 'ii'd 2 ..ltxd2+ 9 Wxd2 lt:Jxd8 ...
6 ds
6 e3?! is already dubious. Similarly 3S in the previous chapter, Black can :-lay 6 .. .f6 7 ..th4 (7 ..l¥.. f4? is even worse: .:iter 7 ... e5! 8 dxeS ..l¥..b4+ 9 We2 ..lte6 3lack's lead in development is decisive; �.Rudyak-C.Wisnewski, Internet blitz .:1.103, continued 10 b3 fxeS 11 i.g3 'Yi'f6 md in view of 12 ... l:'!.d8 White quickly :hrew in the towel) 7 ... e5 8 dS lt:Je7 9 :�.e2 (9 a3, in order to prevent ..tb4+, is �imilar to the text after 9 ... lt:Jf5 10 ..ltg3
10 e3?!
White fails to acknowledge the vital importance of dealing with the e4pawn. 10 f3 was called for, although Black can still comfortably choose be tween 10 ... exd5 1 1 cxd5 .i£5 12 'it>e3 exf3 13 exf3 c6 with equality and 1 2. . .0-0!? 13 'ii> f4 ..l¥.. g6 14 fxe4 £6 15 lt:Jh3 ttJ£7 with play for the sacrificed pawn. 10 ... 0-0 11 f4 In
H.Fraas-A.Buckel, German League 129
Play 1 . . .li:J c 6 !
1988, White tried l l lbe2, but fell behind as well after 1l...exd5 12 cxd5 c6 13 dxc6 lbxc6 14 lbc3 l:!.d8+ 15 �c2 ..te6. 11 ... b6 12 g3 .ib7 13 �g2?
If there was a way to play on it was with 13 dxe6 tt:le6, although White is certainly worse. Now the game is over. 13 ... exds 14 .l:tc1 cs 15 g4 fs 16 gxfs �xfs 17 i.h3 l"r.f6 18 b3 �d6 19 'i¥1e1 d4 20 exd4 cxd4 21 �d1 e3 0-1
s ...tt:Jxc3 6 bxc3 'ifxds 7 CLJf3
Retreating the bishop with 7 il.f4? is inadvisable. D .Fleischmann-E.Almada, Uruguay 1983, continued 7 . .'iYa5 8 'iYd2 e5 9 dxe5 �f5! 10 tt:l£3 �d8, when White collapsed with 1 1 lbd4?? lbxd4 12 cxd4 .i.b4, but his position was hopeless anyway. .
7 il.g4 •••
Since a direct assault on the centre usually proves to be ineffective, White should opt for a 'stabilize-first-occupy later' strategy. However, the bishop on g5 needs to be taken care of as well, which gives Black the time he needs to organize his forces to get a grip on the light squares. Game 3 7 A.Ornstein-S.Brynell
Swed ish C h a m pions h i p, Malmo 1986
Since controlling the light squares is the key idea in this line, 7 . . il.f5 seems logical. Nevertheless, Bronznik right fully dismisses this move, giving 8 "iYb3 0-0-0 9 e3 'ii'a5 10 i.b5 il.e6 1 1 il.c4 il.xc4 12 'i'Vxc4, G.Kluger-P.Voiculescu, Bucharest 1954, and 8 ... il.e4 9 'iYxd5 il.xd5 10 lbd2 £6 11 e4 il.f7 12 il.e3, W.Nautsch-E.Fischer, Dresden 2002, with an advantage for White in both variations. One could be tempted to fall back on 8 ... e6 with ideas similar to those in the game, but after 9 e3 it is not possible to prevent White from pushing his pawns. .
8 'iYb3 e6! 1 d 4 ds 2 c 4 tt:Jc6 3 lLl c 3 tt:Jf6 4 i.gs
lbe4!? 5 cxds
130
Strictly playing for control of the light squares. 8 ... il.xf3 is inferior, since 9 gxf3 'iWxg5? does not work because of
1 d4 d5 2 c4 'Ll c 6 3 'Ll c3 'Llf6 (4 iLgS; 4 cxd5}
10 �xb7!, while 8 ... 0-0-0 9 'iVxdS l':i.xdS 10 e4 is everything White was hoping for.
long. Now the game concludes swiftly. 14 'iVxb7 i.d5 15 'ii'b 1 'i¥g4 16 h3 'i¥g6 17 li'xg6 hxg6 18 c4 .ie4 19 c5 1-0
The result of this game is the onIy blemish to this line. All in all, Black does not have to be afraid of 4 .tgS. White plays 4 cxds Relatively few players will choose 4 cxd5 on purpose. The majority will recognize a faint resemblance to the Grunfeld Defence (1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 tt:Jc3 dS) and treat the position accord ingly - a situation from which the Chi gorin player will benefit: 9 e3
Instead, 9 'iVxdS exdS is obviously nothing, while 9 'i'xb7 Ub8 10 'i'a6 .id6 leaves Black with enough compensa tion for the pawn. I wish I could shed more light on this, but lacking practical examples I can only provide you with a sample of my analysis: 1 1 .id2 0-0 12 :':JgS (in order to push the e-pawn to e4) 12 ... f6 and now 13 e4 is met by 13. .. 4Jxd4! 14 'i¥d3 (14 cxd4? leads to a devastating attack after 14 ... i¥xd4 15 .:cl lib2! ) 1 4 ... 'i'b7! with unclear play. 9... .itd6
9 . .il.xf3? is still bad: after 10 gx£3 'i'xf3 (or 10 ... 'ihg5?? 1 1 'ifxb7 as be fore) 1 1 l:tg1 it is White who takes command. .
10 i.e2 o-o 11 .ih4 'ii'e 4?1
11 ...tt:Ja5! was the right move, after which Black would have been success ful in putting a stop to White's central ambitions. 12 .tg3 e5 13 0-0 i.e6?
Neglecting the b7-pawn for too
Indeed, after 4 ... tt:Jxd5 5 e4 tt:Jxc3 6 131
Play 1 . ..lb c 6 ! bxc3 e s 7 lLlf3?! the central configura
tion remotely resembles a Gri.infeld like structure, but the arrangement of the black pieces makes the difference. Even with precise play, White will quickly fall behind. Game 3 8 P.Eijanov-Y.Sepman
St Pete rs b u rg 1999 1 d4 ds 2 c4 lLlc6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 4 cxds ltJxds 5 e4
Here 5 lLlf3!? is an interesting alter native which is definitely worth closer examination:
a) S . . . i.. g4? is a common mistake. Although g4 is usually the right place for the bishop, it is not in this particu lar line. After 6 e4 lLlxc3 7 bxc3 e5 8 d5 lbb8 (or 8 ....ixf3 9 �x£3 lba5 10 'i¥g3 �d6 1 1 1t..e3 with a clear advantage ) 9 �a4+ lLld7 (9 ... .id7 loses to 10 'i!Vb3 b6 1 1 lLlxeS �e7 12 .i£4 f6 13 d6! cxd6 14 'tWdS winning the rook on a8) 1 0 lLlxe5 �£6 11 .ie2!! White already gets a win ning advantage, for example 1 l .. .'ii'xe5 132
(or 1 1 . . ..id6?? 1 2 i.. xg4 �xe5 1 3 i.xd7+ 'i£td8 14 i.d2 1-0 P.Cramling C.Landenbergue, Biel 1987) 12 1t..xg4 .i:!.d8 (12 ... 0-0-0 13 0-0 i.. c5 14 .Mb1 .l::i.he8 15 .l:!.xb7! �d6 16 i.. f4 'i*'x£4 1 7 �a6 was a nice finish in Z.Gyimesi-F.Patuzzo, World Junior Championships 1995) 13 0-0 i.c5 14 1t..xd7+ lhd7 15 .ia3 i.xa3 16 �xa3 and White was a pawn up for nothing in H.Woestmann-J.Rehfeldt, German League 1989. b) 5 ... 1t..f5 is no help either. Bronznik recommends 6 e3 e6 7 i.b5 claiming an advantage for White, with which I agree. c) Although White has tried to pre vent the thematic . . .e7-e5, Black should play s ... es! anyway.
This temporarily sacrifices a pawn, but Black gets sufficient counterplay: cl) 6 lLlxe5 lbxc3 7 lbxc6 (V.Antoshin-P.Voiculescu, Helsinki 1956, saw 7 bxc3 lLlxe5 8 dxe5 �xd1+ 9 'i£lxd1 1t..f5 10 e3 0-0-0+ 1 1 'i£le1 and now 1 1 .. .g6 12 .ic4 .ig7 would have been unclear; or if 10 f3 0-0-0+ 1 1 'i£le1 1t.. c5 1 2 e 4 i.e6 13 1t..g5 .l:td7 and i t i s difficult for White to finish his development)
1 d4 dS 2 C4 tLl c 6 3 tLl c3 tLlf6 (4 i.. g S ; 4 cxdS) 7 .. .'�Jxd1 8 lL'lxd8 lL'lxb2 9 .1xb2 (but not
9 lL'lxf7?? as 9 ... .1b4+ 1 0 i.d2 ii.xd2+ 1 1 itxd2 Wxf7 is winning for Black) 9 ... 'it>xd8 provides equal chances in the upcoming endgame. c2) After 6 dxe5 precise play is needed. 6 ... lLlxc3?! 7 �xd8+ 'itxd8 8 bxc3 �g4 9 �f4 i.a3 1 0 Itb1 does not provide enough compensation for the pawn, J.Ulko-C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2001, being one example. In stead, Bronznik recommends 6 ... ii.b4!?, giving the following variations: 7 i.d2 �xc3 8 ii.xc3 (or 8 bxc3 .i.c5 when Black's lead in development and White's damaged pawn structure com pensate for the sacrificed pawn) 8 ....1txc3+ 9 bxc3 'it'e7 10 e3 (10 't!Vd5 �e6 is unclear) 10 ...'ii'c5 (or 10 ... lLlxe5 l l lL'lxe5 'ii'xe5 12 'i'd4 with equality) 1 1 "i'd2 .1g4 once again with compensa tion for the pawn.
7 .ib5 is rarely played, and with good reason. Black obtains a good game after 7 . . . exd4 when White can choose between 8 .1xc6+ bxc6 9 "i¥xd4 (9 cxd4 loses a pawn to 9 . . ..tb4+ 10 Wfl �c3) 9 ... i.a6 10 .ltf4 't!Vxd4 1 1 cxd4 0-0-0 12 0-0-0 .1a3+ 13 Wc2 J:i.he8 14 f3 'it>d7 as in A.Kriesch-P.Daus, Bad Zwesten 1998; or 8 cxd4 .1b4+ 9 'itfl 0-0 (here 9 ... i.. c 3?! is not so good; White has definite compensation for the pawn either after 10 l:!.b1 'Ylfxd4 1 1 'ii'c2 or 10 ... .i.xd4 11 .lta3) and Black stands well in both cases. 7 ...exd4! 8 cxd4 .i.g4
s... lLlxc3 6 bxc3 es
9 ds
7 lL'lf3?!
By keeping the tension in the centre White already gets into trouble. Here 7 d5 is necessary and will be discussed in the next game.
Instead: a) 9 �e3? is utterly terrible: 9 . . ..ib4+ 10 i.. d 2 (or 10 We2 i.. c3) 10 ... i.. xf3 1 1 gxf3 1i'xd4 and Black i s more than just a pawn up. b) 9 i.. c4 does not help either, as the simple 9 ....tb4+ 10 Wfl 0-0 leads to a very comfortable game for Black. c) Finally, after 9 i.b5 �b4+ 10 �d2 �xf3 11 i.xc6+ bxc6 12 gxf3 �xd4 13 l:.b1 i.xd2+ 1 4 'iVxd2 'iixd2+ 15 'it>xd2 it is White who has to fight for the draw. 133
Play 1 .J2l c 6 ! .
9 ....ib4+ 10 .id2
exf5 h5 and White still has problems.
On 10 We2 P.Motwani gives 10 .. .'i!Ve7! with the idea 1 1 dxc6 'i!Vxe4+ 12 .ie3 .l:!.d8 13 'tib3 �d2+ and Black has a winning advantage.
19 .ie2
10 ... Axf3 11 gxf3
1 1 'ii'xf3?! .ixd2+ 12 'it>xd2 0-0 is ob viously better for Black, as the white king is stranded in the centre where he will quickly become a target. 11 ... .ixd2+ 12 'i!Vxd2 'ii'f6!
19 ....l:!.h6?
13 .l:!.c1 tt:Jes 14 'i!Ve3
Trying to hold on to the pawn is dangerous. After 14 .ie2 tt:lxf3+ 15 .ixf3 'ii'xf3 16 0-0 0-0 17 .l:!.xc7 .l:!.ae8! 18 .l:!.e1 'i!Vg4+ Black will take the pawn on e4, when the weak position of the white king will secure a lasting advan tage. 14 ... tt:lxf3+ 15 We2 tt:Jes 16 f4
In an overwhelming position, Black starts losing the thread. 19 . . .f5! would have led to a winning position, e.g. 20 e5 (or 20 exf5 0-0-0 and the game will not last much longer) 20 ... 'ii'd2 21 .ib5+ c6 22 .ic4 (22 dxc6 loses the bishop to 22 . . .'i!Vd5+) 22 . . .h4 23 'ii'e 1 (23 'i!Vg1 is answered by 23 ... g5!) 23 ... tt:lxh2+ 24 �xh2 'i!Vxh2 with a decisive material advantage. 20 'ii'e 1 .l:!.f6 21 'ii'c 3 'ii'b6 22 'i!Vcs o-o-o 23 h3
White has managed to shake off the pressure. 23 ... tt:Jes+ 24 '>t>e3 tt:lg6 25 'i!Vxb6 axb6 26 .l:!.hf1 tt:lh4?
16 .l:!.xc7 is too risky. Black gets good attacking chances after 16 ... 0-0.
The final mistake, although by this stage it is hard to suggest anything bet ter.
16 ...tt:lg4 17 'ii'g3 'ii'b 2+ 18 Wf3 h S
27 .ixhs tt:lg2+ 28 '>t>f3 tt:lh4+
1 8 ... f5! is more direct: 19 �xc7 ( 1 9 exf5? 0-0-0 is completely hopeless for White) 19 ...'i!Va3+ 20 '>t>g2 'i!Vxa2+ 21 '>t>h3 0-0 and again Black is much better; for instance 22 .ic4 'ii'd2 23 .l:!.£1 'it>h8 24
28 ...tt:lxf4 29 .ig4+ 'it>b8 30 e5 is probably what Black had missed.
134
29 '>t>g3
Having regained the pawn, White now has a commanding position.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lb c 6 3 tb e3 lbf6 (4 i.. g 5; 4 cxd5)
on the dark squares. And there is more than just that: with a rather fixed cen tre, wing attacks are much more attrac tive; and while Black will have no diffi culties initiating a kingside attack with .. .f7-f5, any White ambitions on the queenside can be easily stopped by ...b7-b6. Game 39 J.La u rent-D.D.Popescu C reon 1999
29...l:th6 30 ii.xf7 lbg6 31 e5 lbe7 32 f5 �xd5 3 3 .Ufd1 ltJe3 34 iL.e6+ l:.xe6 3 5 .::!.x d8+ Wxd8 36 fxe6 ltJd5 3 7 Wg4 rti;e7
1 c4 lbc6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJc3 ltJf6 4 cxd5
38 Wf5 c6 39 .U.g1 Wf8 40 e7+ lbxe7+ 41
lbxd5 5 e4 lbxc3 6 bxc3 e5 7 d5
it>e6 ltJd5 42 Wd7 c5 43 I;If1+ 1-0
With 7 lLJ£3?! brought into disre pute, the only alternative to oppose the idea of a Black counterstroke in the centre is 7 d5. After this move the cen tre is no longer under pressure, and White even enjoys a certain advantage in space. But there are also drawbacks to this kind of action:
7 ...ltJb8
Rerouting the knight to a more suit able location. 7 ... ltJe7?! does not live up to expectations, as the knight simply does not belong here. White can easily get an advantage, for instance 8 lb£3 ltJg6 9 iL.b5+ i.d7 10 'ii'b3 b6 1 1 h4 ii.d6 12 h5 lbe7 13 h6 g6 14 �g5 with com plete control over the dark squares in D.Justo-N.Giffard, Evry 200 1 . An examination of the pawn struc ture reveals that Black has a good grip
8 lLlf3
8 £4 is an ambitious, albeit double135
Play 1 . . lt'J c 6 ! .
edged way to treat the position. S.Lputian-M.Sibilio, Nereto 1 999, con tinued 8 ... .il.c5 9 tt:Jf3 exf4 10 �xf4 c6 1 1 i.c4 ( 1 1 c4 strengthens the centre, but after 1 1 ...0-0 the dark squares remain incredibly weak, not to mention the white king who will not succeed in finding a safe haven) 1 1 . . .0-0 1 2 d6, and now 12 ... 'ti'f6! 13 'ii'd 2 �g6 14 .Jtd3 �e8 (not 14 . . .�xd6?? 15 e5) 15 �c2 (15 0-0-0 loses as Black can now take the pawn: 15 ... i.xd6 16 e5 .ii.. a3+ 17 'it>b1 ..ltf5 with a decisive advantage) 15 ... 'Lld7 16 0-0-0 tbb6 would have resulted in a comfort able position for Black. The centre is relatively fixed while the white queen side is wide open, inviting the black pieces to attack.
Chess Club. A game against a player nicknamed "PudelsKern" continued 1 1 'Llg5?! ( 1 1 exf5 .Jtx£5 leads to an unclear position: in exchange for the isolated pawn, Black has more active pieces and nice play on the half-open £-file, but more practical tests are needed) 11 ... £4 12 tt:Je6 (12 tt:J£3 tt:Jd7 would have given Black two precious tempi) 12 ... �xe6 13 dxe6, and after 13 . . ."ii'e7 1 4 'iib3 b6 15 a4 tt:Jc6 16 'ii'd 5 tba5 1 7 f3 .Uad8 1 8 Wh1 .i:If6 19 J::!.d 1 'ti'xe6 Black encircled and captured the pawn. The way White was denied any queenside activity is especially noteworthy. 9 'Lld7 ...
8 i.d6 9 �b5+ ...
9 �e2 is the most popular alterna tive. After 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 'Lld7 1 1 ke3 'iie7 12 'Lld2 .Jtc5 13 tt:Jc4 .ii..xe3 14 tt:Jxe3 tbc5 the game steered into calm waters in A.Botsari-F.Wohlers Armas, Dort mund 1988. An interesting try to spice things up is the enterprising 10 .. .£5!?, 10 0-0
which I played on the Internet 136
Besides this move, White has sev eral other options: a) 10 'ii'b3 peers hard at b7, but Black can still play 10 ... 0-0 1 1 i.xd7 .ii.. x d7! as after 12 ii'xb7 �£6! his pieces become tremendously active. The game A.Lesiege-I.Miladinovic, Montreal 2000, continued 13 'ii'b1 ii'g6 14 0-0 .ih3 15 tbe1 (both 15 tt:Jh4 'ilfu5 16 'i¥d3 ii'xh4 17 gxh3 £5! and 16 gxh3 'ifxh4 1 7 'it>g2 £5 provide Black with excellent
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLl c 6 3 lLl c3 lLlf6 (4 ii.. g 5 ; 4 cxds}
attacking chances) 15 ...f5 16 'ii'd3 i.g4 17 ex£5 'iWh5! 1 8 h3 (18 f3 allows 1 8 ... e4! 19 fxe4 �xh2+ 20 �f2 l:Ixf5+! 21 exf5 .=.e8 with a mating attack) 18 ... .ie2 19 ·j·e4 �xfl 20 �xfl 'fi'xf5 and Black con wrted his positional advantage into a material one. c) 1 0 ..te3 is another common move.
on e3. Nevertheless, Black can realize his plans and build up a kingside at tack after 10 ... f6 1 1 .lri.e3 0-0 12 0-0 tt:'lc5 13 tt:'ld2 £5 14 £3 (14 ex£5 .ixf5 was nec essary, when we have an unclear posi tion similar to the one described in the notes to White's 9th move) 14 ... �e7 (or immediately 14 .. .£4!?) 15 'ii'c2 a6 16 .lri.e2 £4 17 .if2 "ii'g5 18 �h1 .l::t£6 19 �g1 l:.h6 20 g4 it.. d 7 21 tt:'lb3 tt:'lxb3 22 axb3 .Uh3 23 Wg2 �6 24 l:th1 1:!£8 25 c4 i.xg4! 26 c5 l:txf3! 27 h4 �xf2+ 0-1 was A.Rashas S.Wrinn, correspondence 1990. Note once more how White was without any counterplay. 10 ... 0-0 11 i.e3
Now 1 1 'i!Vb3 is met simply by 1 1 . ..tt:'lc5, followed by 12 .. .£5 with the usual attacking prospects. 11 .. :�We1 12 'i!t'c2 tt:Jcs
After 10 ... 0-0 11 �3 (11 0-0 'iVe7 cransposes to the text) 1 l ...�h8 1 2 l.xd7 i.xd7 13 "ti'xb7 .l:tb8 Black gets a 5trong initiative; for example 14 "ti'a6 or 14 'ir'xa7 'ii'f6, threatening to win the �ueen with .. Jlb8-a8 and . . ..Uf8-b8, 15 l.g5 'iVg6 16 1i'e3 f6 1 7 ..th4 .ic5! 18 fihc5 1Vxg2 19 Ug1 'ii'xf3 20 'ii'e3 "i!Vh5 21 .ig3 ttb2 with a hopeless position :or White; no better is 18 "iid3 .ib5 19 .:-l "iVxg2 20 .l:!.g1 i.xc4! and if 21 Vi'xc4 iihf3 22 "iVxc5 'i'xe4+ and ...i'i'xh4) 1 -l ... .ib5 15 'ii'a5 �d7 16 h3 a6 1 7 tt:'ld2 l.d3 18 c4 .ib4 19 'ii'xa6 £5! and now Powell-P.Grimsey, correspondence 1980, concluded 20 ex£5 "ii'x£5 21 "ti'e6 i"e4 22 "iVg4 .l:!.f4! 23 "iVg3 i.xd2+ 0-1 as :nate is unavoidable. c) 10 Ag5 is meant to provoke a ·seakness before taking its usual place
The opening phase is nearly com plete and Black can be happy, as he reigns over the dark squares. 13 l:i.fe1 a6 14 .ie2 Wh8 15 c4 i.d7 16 a4 as 17 tt:Jd2 b6
Now the queenside is fixed White is without any counterplay. Time to look at the other side of the board! 137
Play 1 . . li:J c 6 ! .
20. . .£5 2 1 ex£5 .tx£5, then 22 1Ld3 would have been possible as the key e4-square is under control. 2o ...fs !
18 lLlb1 lLlb7 19 .l:tf1 .1i..c s 20 i£.d2
Now Black's attack develops quickly. Admittedly White does not put up too much resistance. Continu ing the redeployment of the knight with 20 lbc3 would certainly have been better, not fearing 20 ... ..ixe3 21 fxe3 lbc5 22 .U£3 since doubling rooks on the f-file would at least have promised some counterplay. Additionally, after
138
21 i.. d 3
21 ex£5? i.x£5 leaves White at the mercy of the black bishops. 21 ...f4 22 '>t>h1 'ifh4 23 g3 1i'h3 24 f3 fxg3 25 i£.e1 i£.f2! 26 .l:txf2 gxf2 27 1Lxf2 .l:txf3 28 i.f1 'i'xf1+ 0-1
1 d4 ds 2 c4 lb c 6 3 lb c3 lbf6 (4 .1L g 5 ; 4 cxds) Summary
White' s attempts to seize control of d5 are not successful. Neither 4 .lk.g5 (Games 36-37) nor 4 cxd5 (Games 38-39) is able to leave a lasting impression. Quite the opposite is the case, as White needs to be attentive that he is not strategically out played . 1 d4 dS 2 c4 lt:Jc6 3 tllc 3 tllf6 (D) 4 cxds
4 ..ig5 tlle4 (D) 5 tllxe4 dxe4 - Game 36 5 cxd5 l2lxc3 - Game 37 4 tllx ds 5 e4 lt:Jxc3 6 bxc3 es (D) 7 ds 7 tl'lf3?! exd4 8 cxd4 i.g4 - Game 38 7 tUbS - Game 39 ...
...
3 . .. lbf6
4...tbe4
6... e5
139
Cha pter Eight
I
d4 d s 2 c4 t2Jc6 3 t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4 tiJf3 dxc4
1
As we saw in the previous chapter, after 3 tt::lc 3 li:Jf6 taking immediate ac tion against d5 is not successful. There fore, White is advised to slacken off a bit - the move 4 tt::lf3 is sensible, as it develops a piece and protects d4. 4 tt::l£3 is much more dangerous for Black, as the thematic 4 ....tg4? presents a problem. After 5 cxd5 tt::lxd5 6 e4 tt::lxc3 7 bxc3 e5 8 d5 tt::lb8, White can play 9 "i¥a4+! tt::ld 7 (9 . . �d7 10 'ifb3 is equally bad) 10 tt::lxeS 'ii'f6, and now 1 1 .ie2! i s an important resource. .
Without giving all the substantiat ing variations again (for these see the first note to Game 38 in the previous chapter), let me just tell you that Black is already lost. Therefore, Black needs a different approach, and the best way to treat the position is with 4...dxc4, after which, White has various ways to react. White plays 5 �a4
After 5 "i¥a4 we have reached a po sition that can also arise via the
140
1 d4 d5 2 c4 liJ c 6 3 liJ c3 liJf6 4 liJf3 dxc4
Queen's Gambit Accepted, the move order being 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 lLif3 8f6 4 'iVa4+ lLic6 5 lLic3. As a rule of thumb it is usually not recommendable to bring the queen out so early, but playing l . . .tLic6 I have long abandoned such dogmatic views. The implications of 5 'i!Va4 are evi dent. White gets his queen into an ac tive position, pinning the black knight and attacking the c-pawn. In an ideal world White would just regain his pawn, play e2-e4 and delight in a sta ble centre, so Black has to think of ap propriate countermeasures. Being quite common in the Chigorin Defence, 5 .. i.g4, intending to play against the white d-pawn, seems a good way to continue; but the fact that, after 6 e3, :he white knight is not pinned forces Black to play 6 ...�xf3 in order to parry :he threat of 7 tLie5. Compared with the ;:)Qsitions after 3 lLif3 il.g4 4 't!Va4 �xf3 5 sxf3 e5 in Chapter 10, we see that here after 7 gx£3 the white centre is not in any imminent danger. The pair of bishops is therefore the deciding factor which should convince Black to refrain :Tom playing this variation. Another popular move is 5 ... e6. This ,;;huts in the light-squared bishop but also allows the dark-squared bishop to ;;et out of his closet. Confronted with :he threat of 6 . . ...ib4, after which it ·.,·ould be more difficult for White to win back the pawn, the game usually .::ontinues 7 'iWxc4 tt::lb4 8 �3 c5, but in :ny opinion Black just doesn't get enough play here. Instead, my recommendation is the
interesting s tLid S!?, with the idea of relocating the knight to the more useful b6-square, from where it supports the extra pawn. As a result many players will regain the pawn at once with 6 't!Vxc4, but Black has two good re sponses in 6 ...tt::lb d4 and 6 ...tt::lb6; the former being for lovers of a quick draw, the latter for a more energetic approach. The most critical continuation seems to be 6 e4, spurning the oppor tunity to win back the pawn and opt ing for a strong centre instead. The re sulting positions are not clear, but I certainly like Black's chances. ...
.
Game 4 0 T. Engqvist-M.Sad ler
Isle of Man 199 5 1 d4 dS 2 c4 tt::l c 6 3 tt::l c 3 tt::lf6 4 tt::lf3 dxc4 s �a4
5 e3, 5 d5 and 5 e4 are the subject of the subsequent games in this chapter. The remaining option, 5 jL_g5, is rarely played.
141
Play 1 . .ti'J c 6 ! .
Black can try to prop u p c4 with 5 ... a6 6 d5 (6 a4?! is bad as it denies fur ther access to a4, which makes ... '2la5 unconditionally possible) and now af ter 6 . . .'2la7!? 7 e4 '2lb5 (7 ...b5!? is an other option) 8 ik'a4 (if 8 i.xc4 '2lxc3 9 bxc3 '2lxe4, or 8 ik'c2 '2lxc3 9 bxc3 b5 10 a4 i.b7) 8 ... i.d7 9 ik'xc4 '2lxc3 10 bxc3 h6 1 1 i.f4 (or 1 1 i.h4 b5 12 ik'd3 c6), as in V.lvanchuk-W.Arencibia, Havana 2005, and now 1 l . . .b5 12 ik'd3 e6 is un clear according to R.Dautov.
Championship 1994. The position might be solid, but with nothing to play for, Black is in for a dull experi ence at best. c) 5 ... i.g4 is a 'normal' move in the Chigorin, and the fact that 6 '2le5 i.d7 7 ik'xc4 i.e6 8 'ik'b5 a6 9 '2lxc6 axb5 10 '2lxd8 'it>xd8 1 1 '2lxb5 .l:i.xa2 12 l:txa2 i.xa2 was good for Black in A.Alekhine E.Book, Warsaw Olympiad 1935, seems additionally to justify it. But White can play 6 e3 i.xf3 7 gxf3 and now 7 ... a6 (7 ... '2ld7 8 ik'xc4 '2lb6 9 ik'e2 ik'd7 10 f4 e6 1 1 i.g2 was better for White in T.Petrosian-W.Golz, Copenhagen 1960) 8 ik'xc4 e5 from M.Abatino-S.Skembris, Cutro 1999, is not too convincing after 9 d5 '2lb4 10 'ik'b3 '2lbxd5 (10 ...'2lfxd5? is bad because of 1 1 i.c4 c6 12 a3 b5 13 i.e2) 1 1 i.c4 i.b4 12 e4 '2lxc3 13 i.xf7+ 'it>f8 14 ik'xb4+ 'it>xf7 15 ik'xc3 resulting in an advantage for White.
s ... '2lds!?
Other moves do not promise much: a) 5 ... i.d7 is too passive. After 6 ik'xc4 e6 7 e4 '2lb4 8 'ik'b3 c5 9 i.e2 cxd4 10 '2lxd4 '2lc6 1 1 i.e3 White was better in V.Akobian-G.Small, Las Vegas 2002. b) Although 5 ... e6 enjoys a certain popularity, it is definitely not my cup of tea. Confining his light-squared bishop to quarters, Black never seems able to get rid of his passive position. One example is 6 ik'xc4 '2lb4 7 'ik'b3 c5 8 dxc5 i.xc5 9 a3 '2lc6 10 g3 '2la5 1 1 ik'c2 'ik'h6 12 e3 i.e7 13 b4 '2lc6 14 '2la4 ik'd8 15 i.g2 i.d7 16 0-0 .l:i.c8 1 7 'ik'b3 0-0 18 i.b2, I.Stohl-Y.Meister, Slovakian Team 142
6 e4
The main alternative is 6 ik'xc4 (6 '2le5 fails to frighten Black after 6 ... '2lb6 7 '2lxc6 ik'd7), when Black has two choices: a) 6 ... '2ldb4 is for lovers of an easy
1 d4 dS 2 c4 Cf:J c 6 3 Cf:J CJ COJ6 4 C0f3 dxc4
draw. White has nothing better than 7 "iVb3 tZ'lxd4 8 tLlxd4 ifxd4 9 i.e3 iL.e6 10 11Ha4+ i.d7 11 'iVb3 i.e6 12 'iHa4+ with a draw by repetition. b) 6 ...t2Jb6 is the enterprising alter native.
S.Reshevsky-L.Portisch, Tel Aviv Olympiad 1964) 9 ih>1 (9 'iHd1 �xd4 10 'i¥xd4 tLlc2+ 1 1 <;¥;>d1 t2Jxd4 also prom ises Black a nice game either after 12 e3 tLle6 13 'it>c2 �d6 14 tLlc4 tZ'lxc4 15 i.. xc4 .i.d7 or 12 i.e3 tZ'le6 13 g3 i.. d6 14 tLld3 tLlc4) 9 .. .'it'xd4 10 tLlf3 'i¥d6 1 1 e4 Si.g4 12 a3 i.xf3 13 gx£3 tbc6 14 tLlb5 'ii'e 7 15 i.e3 (or 15 i.£4 tLle5) 15 ... 0-0-0 and Black had a good game. 6 ... tZ'lb6 1 'i!Vd1 .tg4 s ds
8 i.e3?! i.xf3 9 gxf3 e6 left Black a pawn up in R.Cruz-R.Sanguineti, Bue nos Aires 1963. s tZ'les ...
Now it is White who has to choose: b1) 7 'iib3 .i.g4 8 d5 i.xf3 9 gxf3 � !2'ld4 10 "ii'd 1 eS 1 1 e3 lDf5 12 f4 i.b4 13 e4 tLld6 14 i.g2 was played in V.Bukal L.Hansen, Sitges 1999, and 14 ... exf4 would have led to an unclear game. b2) After 7 "ii'd3 Black should not be afraid to sacrifice a pawn with the typi .-:al 7 ... e5! . S.Conquest-M.Dlugy, New York 1984, continued 8 t2Jxe5 (or 8 dxe5 .lg4 9 ..ltf4 and in this unclear position a draw was prematurely agreed in \1.Drasko-S.Marjanovic, Sarajevo 1985; inadvisable is 8 .. .'iit'xd3, as played in Antwerp Y.Lavrenov-T.Bosschem, 2003, since after 9 exd3 tZ'lb4 10 Wd2 ..i.£5 1 1 tLlb5 0-0-0 12 tLlbd4 i.g6 13 a3 c5 1-1 axb4 cxd4 15 Itxa7 i.xb4+ 16 'it>c2 it :s difficult for Black to find enough .-:ompensation for the pawn) 8 ... tZ'lb4! ? 8 .. ."it'xd4 9 tbxc6 'i¥xd3 10 exd3 bxc6 was a bit better for White in •
9 .l1L.f4
Instead: a) 9 'ilfd4 is active, but not to be rec ommended: 9 ...tZ'lxf3+ 10 gxf3 Si.x£3 1 1 f:!.g1 'ii'd 6 1 2 'it'e3 (after 1 2 e5 'Yi'd7 the cl pawn is doomed) 12 ... i.h5 13 £4 (or 13 i.. d 2 e5 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 15 'iVgS .i.g6 16 tLlb5 'iVd7 17 i.h3 a6 18 tLlc3, as in R.Markus-S.Mannion, Calvia Olym piad 2004, when 18 ... i.d6 19 f4 0-0 20 0-0-0 .l:tae8 is unclear according to Huzman) 13 ...e6 14 .l:tg5 g6 15 �d4 !:!.g8 16 i..xc4 h6 1 7 J:re5 (or 1 7 J:i.g2 0-0-0) 143
Play 1 .lu c 6 ! . .
1 7. . .0-0-0 18 i.e3 .ltg7 1 9 i.b3 exd5 20 exd5 .l:!.ge8 21 CLJe4 'i!Vd7 22 a4 �f5! and White resigned in C.Crouch-C.Duncan, Hampstead 1998. b) 9 ii.e2 is no improvement: 9 ... .ixf3 10 gxf3 e6 1 1 f4 CLJd3+ 12 ii.xd3 cxd3 13 dxe6 (or 13 'ii'xd3 exd5 14 exd5 i.d6 and due to the disrupted white pawn structure Black has a clear ad vantage) 13 ...fxe6 14 �5+ g6 15 'iVe5 d2+! 16 �e2 was G.Rey-J.Berry, San Francisco 1999 (16 .ixd2 �xd2+ 17 �xd2 CZJc4+ 18 We2 CZJxe5 19 fxeS 0-0-0 is also good for Black), and now 16 ... �d7! 1 7 il.xd2 (17 �xh8? does not work because of 1 7... 0-0-0 1 8 �f3 i.b4 19 �e5 Cbc4 20 �f6 �f8 21 �4 .ixc3) 17 ...�xd2+ 18 �xd2 CZJc4+ 19 �e2 CZJxeS 20 fxe5 0-0-0 and Black is clearly better.
1 2 h4 .tg7!?
Sacrificing a pawn for the initiative. But 12 ...gxh4 13 .l::i.xh4 .tg7 would also have been good as 14 f4 Cbg6 15 f5 1Yb4! 16 fxg6 'iVxb2 causes serious problems for White. 13 hxgs �b4 14 l:tb1 o-o-o 15 f4 CZJc6 16 �c1 CLJd4
9 ... i.xf3 10 gxf3 �d6 11 i.g3
Regaining the pawn with 11 i.xeS �xe5 12 .txc4 runs into trouble after 12 ... 0-0-0, as Black can open the posi tion to his advantage with ... e7-e6.
Black is clearly the winner of the opening phase. He is fully developed, while White is struggling to find a safe place for 'her majesty'.
u ...gs!
17 .ih3+
After 1 7 .ig2 Black should try to open the position with 1 7...h6!?, search ing for attacking lanes towards the white king. 11 ... �b8 18 �f1 fs?!
Again Black should have opened the position with 18 . . .h6! . After 19 'it>g2 e6 20 dxe6 fxe6 21 g6 'ii'c5 the position remains difficult for White. 19 gxf6 exf6 20 .ie6?!
An excellent move which prevents the e5-knight from being molested by f3-f4. 144
Now it is White who misses an op portunity. 20 �e3 looks promising as now the black knight is in trouble. Af ter 20 . . . c5 (20 ... f5 21 e5 c5 22 .ig2 leaves White with a very nice centre) 21 f5+
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Cil c 6 3 Cilc3 Cilf6 4 Cilf3 dxc4
�a8 22 ..tg4 White manages to stabilize his centre and put a halt to the black attack. 20 ... f5! 21 exf5 'i'f8
would have been strong, since 32 lL:le2 (32 lL:lxc6? is countered by 32 ...'i'c4+, and 32 "i¥xc3 'Wxd4 33 iVxc6+ �b8 34 l:td5 .Uc7! is also bad) 32 ... :t:!.he8 33 'i¥f4 'i'x£4 34 lL:lx£4 cxb2 is clearly better for Black. Now the game quickly runs dry. 32 '1Wxd4 .Uhe8 3 3 a3 i¥b3 34 iVc3 nxe6 35 'Wxb3 cxb3 36 !:\.xh7 .l:i.e2 3 7 lih3 .l'.1c2 38 �xb3 �ee2 39 �f3 �xb2 40 l:\.xb2 lbb2 41 l::i.c 3 �b7 42 Wg2 c5 43 'it>f3 �c6 44 'ii>e 3 'iii>d 5 45 f4 l:th2 46 lld3+ �c4 47 l:td6 b5 48 �a6 �a2 49 .Sa5 .Sal 50 f5 llfl 51 �e4 b4 52 axb4 cxb4 5 3 1:\.as b 3 5 4 llc8+ Wb4 55 �e5 b 2 5 6 .l:':!.b8+ �c3 57 f6 b1iV 58 .l:.xbl .Sxb1 5 9 f7 .l':.fl 6 0 'ite6 'itd4 6 1 cj;e7 �e5 6 2 f8'ii'
22 .l:rh5 c6 23 f6 i.xf6 24 f5+ �as 2 5
l!xf8 63 Wxf8 Y1-Y1
�C7
25 dxc6 bxc6 26 lL:le4 .tg7 with an unclear position would have been a better choice. Now Black is in com mand.
White plays 5 e3 5 e3 has its pros and cons.
25 ....Me8 26 dxc6 bxc6 27 ..ltxb6 axb6 28 ::Je2?!
Here White should play 28 lL:le4 ::Jxe6 29 fxe6 :S.xe6 30 'i'xc4, when 30 ... 'i'f7 31 'ii'a6+ 'i'a7 32 'Y!\Yc4 'iY'f7 would probably have led to a draw by repetition. 28 ...lL:lxe6 29 fxe6 'Wb4?!
29 ....l:txe6 30 �xc4 'ir'f7 would have been better when, compared with the previous note, Black has the more ac tive minor piece. 30 'i'e3 Ite7 31 lLld4?
31 a3 would have prevented all the :hreats. After 31.. .'iY'b3 32 �xb3 cxb3 33 ::J£4 White is over the worst. 3 1 ... ..\1..xd4?
But Black returns the favour. 3 1 .. .c3!
On the one hand it shuts in the dark-squared bishop and leaves White with less control over the centre (com pared to 5 e4); on the other hand, the d pawn is now well protected, which allows for smooth development should Black not react quickly. One example is 5 ... �g4 6 j_xc4 when again we have 145
Play 1 . . . liJ c 6 !
reached a position from the Queen's Gambit Accepted, but this time with an odd-looking knight on c6. More to the point is the thematic s ... es!, which is not really a pawn sac rifice, as after either 6 lLlxe5 llJxe5 7 dxe5 "Yixd1+ 8 ctJxd1 .i.b4+ or 6 dxe5 "Yixd1 + 7 ctJxd1 lLlg4 Black is getting more than good play. Instead, 6 .i.xc4 exd4 7 exd4 .i.d6 leads to a position with an isolated d-pawn, something not all White players are comfortable with. However, 6 dS is the most logical move, effectively forcing 6 ... ctJe7 7 .i.xc4 tt:\g6. Then 8 h4! ? is an interesting attempt to barge against the knight on g6, but the developing scheme you will most likely face continues 8 e4 a6 9 0-0 i.d6, after which Black has excellent prospects on the kingside.
6 ds
Or: a) After 6 lLlxe5 ctJxe5 7 dxe5 'ii'x d1+ 8 ctJxd1 I recommended 8 ... lLlg4?! in an earlier publication, making a hasty judgment that Black can equalize this way. However, deeper analysis has now convinced me that Black is actu ally in trouble after 9 f4, as the knight does not feel that safe anymore on g4. Fortunately, 8 ....i.b4+ is better; for ex ample 9 i.d2 (or 9 ctJc3 ctJe4) 9 ... .i.xd2+ 10 �xd2 ctJe4+ 1 1 �e1 .i.e6 and Black was not worse in P.Meister J.Cavendish, London Lloyds 1990. Thanks to Bert Corneth for pointing that out to me. b) 6 dxe5 "Yixd1+ 7 ctJxd1 lLlg4, on the other hand, allows Black to easily get a good position. c) 6 iLxc4 exd4 7 exd4 i..d6 8 0-0 0-0
Game 41 B.Korsus-C. Wisnewski
Germa n League 2000 1 d4 ds 2 c4 llJc6 3 llJc3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3 dxc4 s e3 es!
is another frequently played posi tion (in fact a quiet line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e3 e5 4 iLxc4 exd4 5 exd4 .i.d6 etc), in which chances are roughly balanced. For example: cl) 9 .i.g5 h6 10 iLh4 iLg4 11 h3 (11 146
1 d4 dS 2 C4 t:U c 6 3 t:U c3 t:Uf6 4 !Uj3 dxc4
�e2?! ..ixf3 12 ..ixf3 tt'Jxd4 13 �xb7 l:tb8 14 tt'Jd5 .i.e5 15 .l:te1 'iVd6 16 f4 .l:hb7 1 7 �xe5 tt'Jxd5 1 8 '1i'xd4 was played in H.Pihlajasalo-N.Shalnev, Helsinki 1996, and now Black could have won a pawn with 18 ... tt'Jxf4! 19 'iixf4 .l:!.b4) 1 1 .. . .i.xf3 12 'iWxf3 tt'Jxd4 13 'i!Vxb7 tt'Jf5 14 .i.xf6 "i'xf6 15 �f3 !Iab8 16 b3 'We5 17 g3 tt'Jd4 was equal in F.Berkes-R.Rabiega, Ger man League 2003. c2) 9 h3 h6 10 a3 (on 10 l:!.e1 Black should not be afraid of 10 ....tf5 1 1 d5, when R.Vaganian-G.Souleidis, German League 2003, continued 1 1 ... tt'Je7 1 2 �d4 i.g6 13 tt'Jdb5 a 6 14 tt'Jxd6 'ii'xd6 15 ·tvf3 tLlf5 16 il.f4 'ii'c5 1 7 i.b3 l:!.fe8 1 8 �a4 'i!Vb4 19 .i.e5, and now 19 ...tt'Jd4 would have equalized) 10 . . ..i.f5 1 1 l:te1 ( 1 1 b4 a6 12 ..ib2 'tli'd7 is also fine for Black) 1 1 ...a6! 12 d5 again poses no threat: after 12 ... tt'Je7 13 b4 tt'Jg6 14 ii.b2 :e8 15 'i'd4 �xe1+ 16 l:txe1 'i'£8! 17 .tcl :.e8 the game was completely equal in P.Van der Sterren-J.Piket, Linares 1995. 6 tt'Je7 7 .ltxc4 tt'Jg6 ...
8 0-0
Besides this move, White has several alternatives:
a) 8 e4 a6 will most likely transpose to the game. b) 8 i.b5+!? avoids the events from the text, but after 8 ....td7 9 'i'b3 .l::tb 8 10 0-0 .ltd6 Black gets an easy position. The game P.Lukacs-O.Staudner, Austrian League 2002, continued 11 ii.xd7+ 'i'xd7 12 tt'Jd2 0-0 13 tLlde4 tt'Jxe4 14 tt'Jxe4 f5 15 tt'Jg5 l:tf6 16 g3 h6 17 tt'Je6? c6 18 e4 cxd5 19 exd5 tt'J£8 20 tt'Jxf8 l:Ifxf8 and a draw was agreed. However, I do not see what was wrong with 18 .. .fxe4! when the white knight seems to be lost. c) After 8 ii'a4+ Black must avoid stereotypical play with 8... .i.d7?! 9 'iib3 .td6 10 �xb7 .Ub8 1 1 'ifa6 as it is hard to prove any compensation for the pawn. Better is 8 . . . tt'Jd7! and after 9 0-0 ..id6 1 0 e4 0-0 1 1 ..ie3 tt'J£6 Black had no problems in J.Hampel-V.Lainburg, Dresden 2001 . d) 8 "ii'c 2?!, with the idea of castling in the opposite direction, was em ployed in B.Sitarek-B.Gibbons, corre spondence 1985. But after 8 ... .ltd6 9 ..id2 0-0 10 0-0-0 a6 1 1 h4 ..ig4! 1 2 1:!.dg1 b5 13 ii.b3 tt'Je7 14 lLlg5 h6 15 tt'Jge4 tt'Jxe4 16 tt'Jxe4 c5! 17 dxc6 !lc8 Black got excellent attacking chances. e) 8 h4, intending to poke the knight on g6, is a popular alternative which must be examined: 8 . . .i.d6 9 h5 tt'Jf8 (9 ...lLle7?! is not as good; after 10 h6 g6 1 1 e4 .i.g4 12 �a4+ ii.d7 13 'iic2 0-0 14 ..ig5 tt'Je8 15 0-0-0 White had the better position in V.Smyslov-J.Rogers, London Lloyds 1988) 1 0 h6 g6 11 e4 tt'J8d7 1 2 ii.g5 a6 13 a4 (preventing Black from advancing on the queenside with ...b7b5; instead 13 tt'Jd2 0-0 14 g3 was played 147
Play 1 . . .tlJ c 6 !
in A.Beliavsky-A.Morozevich, German League 2000, and after 14 ....ie7 15 f4 b5 16 .ib3 .ib7 1 7 �f3 c5! Black obtained sufficient counterplay) 13 ... 0-0 14 �e2 .ie7! 15 J:!.d1 lLle8 16 ..icl lLld6 17 .id3 .if6 18 lLld2 (on 18 .ie3 .ih8!?, intend ing ...f7-f5, is interesting) 18 ...lLlc5 and having successfully regrouped, Black was not worse in A.Khalifman A.Morozevich, Yalta (rapid) 1995.
1 1 .ig5 cannot stop Black either; for example 1 l ...h6 12 .id2 (12 .ixf6?! �xf6 just helps Black) 12 ... .id7 13 �e2 l:!.b8 14 aS lLlh5 15 g3 f5 16 exf5 .ixf5 with the initiative. 11 ... .tcs 12 l2lc2 �e7 13 i.. e 2 J:!.d8
8 . a6 9 a4?! .
.
This move prevents ... b7-b5, but that is not Black's main idea in this set up. 9 .id6 10 e4 0-0 ...
Playing on the kingside is not the only plan Black can follow. 14 .ie3 c6 15 .ixcs �xcs 16 lbe3 lLlf4 The d5-pawn is now under serious pressure. 17 J:!.c1?
White collapses. 17 .if3 was neces sary, but after 1 7 ...i..e6 the white centre is still in grave danger. We have reached the starting point of this line. Here White has tried many things to stop Black from advancing on the kingside. 11 l2le1
With this move White wants to pre vent ... lLlh5 and redeploy his knight to e3 via c2. The problem is that it loses precious time. Instead, 1 1 g3?! takes control of f4, but in return weakens the light squares. After 1 1 . . . .ih3 12 J:!.e1 h6 Black is ready to execute a kingside attack with ... tLlg4 followed by ... f7-f5. 148
17 ...4Jxe4!!
1 d4 ds 2 c4 liJ c 6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4 liJf3 dxc4 18 't!Ve1
If instead 1 8 tbxe4? then the reply � � . .'ti'xcl ! 19 'ti'xcl tbxe2+ 20 �h1 tbxcl : l .::.x cl cxd5 reveals the point of the �>:lmbination.
Game 42 U.Adia nto-W .Arencibia
.
Cap d'Agde (ra pid) 1998
18 . . • cxd5
With two healthy extra pawns for 3lack, the game is over.
1 d 4 d5 2 c 4 liJc6 3 tb c 3 lLlf6 4 lLlf3 dxc4 5 d5 tLla5
19 b4 �xb4 20 tbxe4 ltJxe2+ 21 'ii'xe2 ixe4 22 �b2 b5 23 axb5 axb5 24 ,l;!.fe1
d4 25 tbc2 'ti'f4 26 licd1 i.. e6 27 tLlb4 �c4 28 f3 f6 29 l:i.e4 'ti'f5 30 tbc6 Itd7 31 :::.. b4 h6 32 h4 �a4 3 3 lLld3 .l:1a2 34 'ii'b 1 .:.a 3 35 lbb4 l:lb3 0-1
White plays s ds Our next game features 5 d5 tba5 6 e4, ·,,·here White builds up a strong centre md secures an advantage in space, ·Ahile hoping to regain his pawn ;.ooner rather than later. But the ad ·:anced white d-pawn is currently lack :ng support, a factor Black should try :o exploit with a brisk ... c7-c6 and/or ... e7-e6.
6 e4
Instead: a) 6 �a4+ will be the subject of Game 43 . b) 6 b4? cxb3 7 axb3 is met by 7 ...e6, when 8 llxa5? loses to 8 ... �b4. c) 6 .igS still is not good enough. Following 6 ...h6 7 .txf6 exf6 8 e3 (White can win the pawn back with 8 fia4+ c6 9 0-0-0 .ii. d 7 10 dxc6 lDxc6 1 1 'i¥xc4, but after 1 1 .. J�.c8 he i s i n trouble) 8 ....td7 9 .te2 bS 10 0-0 .ib4 1 1 tbd4 a6 White had no compensation for the pawn in B .Zueger-Ye Rongguang, World Team Championship, Lucerne 1989. 6 ...c6 1 tbe5
For a proper treatment of the posi tion I kindly invite you to have a look at our next game.
7 dxc6?!, from Lont-C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2001, was not convinc ing. After 7 ... 'ti'xd1+ 8 'it>xd1 (or 8 149
Play 1 . . . lt"J c 6 !
lLlxdl? lLlxc6 9 i.xc4 lLlxe4 and Black is a pawn up) 8 ... lLlxc6 9 Jl.xc4 Jl.g4 Black was the winner of the opening phase. And 7 b4? still fails to 7...cxb3 8 axb3 e6! . After 9 dxe6 'ti'xdl + 10 Wxd1 Jl.xe6 1 1 l:!.xa5? i.b4 White resigned in L.Sokolin-C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2001. 1. . .e6
8 dxc6 'ti'xd1+ 9
xd1 ltJxc6 10
1 2...il..c 5 1 3 Jl.e2!
On 13 f3 ltJeS, followed by ... lLlg6 and ...e5, would result in a nice game for Black. 13 ...e5
But not 13 ... i..xf2+? 14 \t>£1 or 13 ...lLlxf2? 14 l:.£1 both of which lose material. 14 i.xg4 Jl.xg4 15 Jl.e3 i.xe3 16 fxe3
ltJxc6 bxc6 11 i..xc4
0-0-0
We have reached the critical posi tion for this line. Black has an isolated pawn on c6 and a bad bishop on c8. Is this worth being sought after?
White has managed to liberate him self by trading pieces, but Black still has the more active game. It is White who has to fight for the draw.
11 ... ltJg4!
17 h3 i.. h 5
Yes! By attacking the weakest spot in the white camp, Black manages to alter the course of the game.
I would have ordered the bishop to a more active post with 1 7 . . i.e6. Now White holds the balance more easily.
12 \t>e1
18 g4 i.g6 19 �e2 h5 20 J::t.a c1 hxg4 21
12 �e2? seems to make more sense, but after 12 ... lLle5! White is forced to trade his light-squared bishop, as abandoning the fl-a6 diagonal could involve dire consequences; i.e. 13 .i.d3 (not 13 il..b3? i.a6+ and the king be comes a puppet of the black pieces) 13 . . .ltJxd3 14 'it>xd3 and the two bishops are responsible for Black being better. 150
.
hxg4 J::i.x h1 22 l:.xh1 'it>c7 2 3 l::t.h 2 ki.b8 24 \t>f3 �d8 2 5 J::i.c 2 l:!.h8 26 \t>g3 .l:Ih1 27 lDb5+ �b6 28 ltJd6 f6 29 l::t.d 2 ki.g1+ 30 \t>f3 ki.f1+ 3 1 'it>g2 l::te1 32 \t>f2 .l:!.h1 33 \t>g2 Jle1 Yz-Yz
Since 6 e4 has not usually been crowned with success, the only critical line to look at is 6 �a4+ c6 7 b4, which
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lU c 6 3 lU c3 lUJ6 4 l'Uf3 dxc4 ::-:es
7 b4
:r,-"
7 dxc6 is harmless: after 7 ... lt:Jxc6 8 lt:JeS (or 8 e4 e6 9 �xc4 il.d7) 8 ... ..td7 9 lt:Jxd7 "ifxd7 10 'iWxc4 eS Black doesn't have any problems.
to exploit the exposed position of black knight.
1 ... bs
Forced, since 7 ...cxb3? 8 axb3 b6 9 dxc6 is good for White. The previously mentioned idea of 8 ...e6 (intending 9 "ifxaS "ifxaS 1 0 l:txaS? �b4) is no good this time, because 9 b4! bS (9 . .lt:Jc4 10 dxc6 bS 11 "ifxbS lt:Jb6 12 e4 also left Black in bad shape in K.Kaunas P.Lasinskas, Birstonas 2002) 10 "ifxaS "ifxaS 1 1 bxaS b4 12 lt:Ja4 exdS 13 ..ltb2 gives White a superior version of the game. Black does not have enough compensation for the piece here. .
White will win a piece in the process, :'Ut in exchange Black gets two pawns md a massive pawn centre which will ;.oon start to roll down the board. White � a hard time stopping them, the next �ame being one example. Game 43 D.J u sto-C.Wisnewski
8 't!Vxas 'ir'xas 9 bxas b4 10 lt:Ja4
Alternatively: a) 10 lt:Jdl (the other way for the knight to retreat) 10 ... cxd5 and now:
I nte rnet C hess C l u b (ra pid} 2002 1 d4 dS 2 c4 lt:Jc6 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 lt:Jf3 dxc4 s ds tt:Jas 6 �a4+ c6
a1) 1 1 .tf4 seeks to prevent ... e7-e5, but Black can react appropriately with l l .. .lt:Je4, intending ...f7-f6 and then ... e7-e5; for example 12 lt:Jd2 lt:Jxd2 13 '.t>xd2 (or 13 ii.xd2 eS) 13 ... £6. a2) 1 1 lt:JeS e6 12 f3 .td6 13 ..ltf4 151
Play 1 . .li'l c 6 ! .
j_b7! ( 1 3 ....:t'lh5?! runs into 14 tbxf7!) 14 tbxf7 j_xf4 15 tbxh8 �e7 provides Black with excellent compensation for the exchange. a3) 1 1 g3 e6 12 j_g2 j_e7 13 tiJeS j_a6 14 tbc6 lieS 15 tbxe7 Wxe7 16 llb1 llb8 17 tbe3 was good for White in M.Granados Gomez-A.Garcia Cano, Sant Cebria 1998. But 1 1 . ..j_f5, as sug gested by Breutigam, is definitely an improvement. b) 10 dxc6!? returns the piece, hop ing to be able to exploit weaknesses in the pawn structure after 10 ...bxc3 and:
ity) 1 3 i.a3 (13 tbxc4?! 'Llb4 1 4 llb1 e6 gives Black the better chances) 13 ... e6 14 .ixf8 llxf8 15 tbxc4 with unclear play (analysis by Bronznik) . 1o ...cxds
11 a 3
b1) 1 1 llb1?! ..ta6 12 tbe5 0-0-0! and suddenly White is in danger. G.Meins R.Rabiega, German Championship 2000, continued 13 tbxf7 (if 13 Ae3? c2 14 li.cl e6! 15 llxc2 j_b4+ 16 Ad2 llxd2 17 llxd2 tbe4 or 15 i.d2 'Lle4 wins) 13 ... c2 14 llb8+ �xb8 15 tbxd8 e5 and Black had a clear advantage. b2) 1 1 e3 .ia6 12 tbe5 'Lld5 (12 ... llc8 13 llb1 e6 14 .ixc4 i.xc4 15 tbxc4 j_c5 16 llb5 tbe4 17 f3 a6 was tried in O.Misch-G.Heisel, German League 1998, but after 18 llb3 tiJf6 19 j_a3 i.xa3 20 tbxa3 Black is struggling for equal152
Instead: a) In G.Kane-J.Silman, San Francisco 1977, White tried to control e7-e5 with 1 1 j_e3 e6 12 j_d4 (12 tbc5? runs into 12 ...tbg4 13 j_d4 e5!), but again 12 . . . tbe4!, followed by . . . f6 and ...eS. would have solved any problems Black might have had. b) 1 1 tbe5 was another attempt in Pohl-Plath, correspondence 1989, but after 1 1 .. .e6 12 i.f4 'Llh5 13 j_e3 j_d6 1-t j_d4 f6, the idea ... e6-e5 strikes again! c) 1 1 Ag5?! does nothing to preven: Black from occupying the centre, and after 1 1 . . . tbe4 12 j_e3 e6 13 'Lld2 tbxd.: 14 �xd2 Ad7 15 tbc5 j_b5 Black wa5clearly better in A.Alonso Roselli S.Zehnter, World Junior Champior ships 2005. 11 ... b3
Now Black has two connectee passed pawns, but for the momer.:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt::l c6 3 tt::l c3 tt::lf6 4 tt::lf3 dxc4
White can safely blockade them something which needs to be changed! 12 i.b2 Us 13 e3 e6 14 lt:Jd4 i.g6 15 f3 ..
J...e 7 16 lt:Jc6 i.d6 17 lLlc3 'itd7 18 lt:Jd4
20....l::th e8?!
I should have protected the bishop with 20 .. J:l�ab8, but I simply missed a move in my calculations. 21 �d2?!
At the time I didn't fear 21 lt:Jxb6+! axb6 as I thought I could just pick up the a6-pawn. It was only after the game that I realized .. Jha6 is always an swered by lbxb3! . 21 ...�d6 22 lLlbS+ �c6 23 lLld4+ i.xd4
18 ...i.c7?!
18 ... a6!? is an attractive alternative. Then the aS-pawn is fixed and b5 is no :anger accessible to the white knights, ,,,·hich makes ...e6-e5 a real threat. White can try to exploit the newly ac crued weakness on b6, but Black can �tay on top; for example, 19 lt:Ja4 i.c7 20 lbc5+ �e7 21 i.. c3 e5 and the pawns .3.re starting to roll. The immediate i8 ... e5! is possible, too. 19 a6 i.. b 6 20 lt:Ja4
24 exd4?!
24 i.xd4 would have been better, as the originally planned 24...'it>b5 25 lt:Jb2 'it>xa6 would have been countered by 26 lt:Jxc4! dxc4 27 �xc4+ ;t>b7 28 e4 with the better position for White. Of course Black could play 24 ... e5, but after 25 i.b2 it is not so easy to advance the pawns further. White might undermine them with e3-e4 at an opportune mo ment; for example 25 ....U.ad8 26 .!:!.cl Wb5 27 lbc3+ ;t>xa6?! 28 e4!, or even 27 ... �a5 28 a4 d4 29 e4! dxc3+ 30 ;t>xc3 returning a piece to eliminate the pawn mass, when 30 ... �xe4! 31 fxe4 lt:Jxe4+ 32 Wc4 'Lld2+ 33 �c5 lt:Je4+ leads to an unexpected draw by perpetual check. 153
Play 1 .li:J c 6 ! . .
2 4...4::ld 7 2 5 f4 �bs 26 4::l c s?
This just capitulates. 26 4::lc3+ was necessary, despite the fact that Black gets a third pawn for the piece with 26 ... �xa6 and an excellent position. 26 ... lt:Jxcs 27 dxcs �xcs 28 �cl f6 29 a4
kingside to pieces, leaving White to wonder what to do with his king. There is nothing more for me to say just that the overall results (62% for Black) of the games in MegaBase 2006 speak volumes.
llac8 30 i.a3+ �b6 31 �c3 �as 3 2 .i.b4+ �xa4 33 .Ual+ �bS 3 4 il.e2?? d4+ 35 �xd4 'iit>xb4 0-1
White plays 5 e4 The immediate building of a strong centre with 5 e4 is the most common plan employed in the Chigorin Four Knights. The 'only' thing left for White to do is regain the pawn, but there's the rub. Actually achieving this costs precious time - time Black can use to organize counterplay. The only sensible reply is s ... ..tg4, pinning the knight and thereby putting pressure on d4. Now 6 d5 is quite pos sible, especially as the apparently typi cal 6 ...4::l a5? loses to 7 't!!Va4+. But after 6 ...4::le5 7 il.£4 4::lg6 8 it..e3 eS 9 ii.xc4 a6 we get a position similar to that in Kor sus-Wisnewski (Game 41) which is not to every White player's taste. The most popular way to continue is 6 .ie3, and after 6 ... e6 7 i.xc4 i.. b4 8 �c2 0-0 9 kld1 it is Black who has to make a choice.
Game 44 E.Magerra mov-M.AI Modiahki
D u ba i 2000 1 d4 ds 2 c4 4Jc6 3 4::lc 3 4Jf6 4 4::lf3 dxc4 5 e4 i.g4 6 i..e 3
(seefollowing diagram) 9 . "iVe7, intending ... e6-e5, is consid ered to be the main line, but I don't like the implications of that. 9 ... .i.xf3!? 10 gxf3 4::l h s on the other hand, is a plan that should immediately appeal to you. Black, while pointing his finger at the now weakened f4-square, hacks the .
.
,
1 54
6 dS is also seen from time to time. Black must be careful not to play the
1 d4 ds 2 c4 0J c 6 3 tD c3 lDf6 4 lDf3 dxc4
'typical' 6 . . . l2Ja5? 7 'ika4+ c6 8 b4 cxb3 9 axb3 e6 10 b4 which loses a piece. In stead, 6 . . .lbe5 is the correct move, and then:
a) 7 .Yi.e2 is harmless. The game E.Jelling-J.Fries Nielsen, Danish Cham pionship 1988, continued 7. . .i.xf3 8 gxf3 e6 9 'ili'd4 l2Jfd7 1 0 f4 i.c5 1 1 iVd1 and now 1 l ...lbd3+! 12 i.xd3 cxd3 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 'ii'xd3 0-0 would have been good for Black. b) 7 .Yi.xc4 is equally benign.
After 7 ...lbxc4 8 "ifa4+ lbd7 9 'ir'xc4 e5 Black is at least equal. R.Wade V.Korchnoi, Buenos Aires 1960, continued 10 ..igS £6 11 .te3 i.x£3 12 gxf3,
and now Black could have improved upon his game with 12 ... a6! followed by ... ..id6. c) 7 ..tf4 i..xf3 8 gx£3 lbg6 (8 ... 1ifd6 and 8 ... l2Jfd7 are alternatives worth mentioning) 9 ..tg3 e5 10 dxe6 1ifxd1 + 1 1 l:!.xd1 fxe6 and Black is OK after ei ther 12 i.xc4 e5 or 12 ..ixc7 l:lc8 13 Ji.g3 e5. d) 7 'i'd4!? is dangerous if not treated accordingly; for example, 7. . .lbxf3+ 8 gx£3 Ji.x£3 9 l:!.g1 e6 and now 10 l:tg3 i.h5 1 1 i.xc4 or the immediate 10 ..ixc4 provides White with a dan gerous initiative. 9 ... e5! is a better move, though. After 10 11fxe5+ 'iVe7 1 1 'ir'xe7+ ..ixe7 White doesn't have the time to take the c-pawn because of his hanging e-pawn, while on 12 i.g2 .Yi.xg2 13 .Uxg2 i.b4 14 £3 l';lg8 15 i.d2, as O.Touzane-A.Dunnington, in Cannes 1995, Black would have been better after 15 ... 0-0-0 as White' s com pensation for the pawn is far from evi dent. 6 ... e6 7 .txc4 ..ib4
8 'i!Vc2
Instead: 155
Play 1 . . . li:l c 6 !
a ) 8 e5? i s utterly terrible. After 8 ... 'Lld5 9 i.xd5 iYxd5 10 0-0 .ltxc3! 1 1 bxc3 ..\ii,xf3 12 gxf3 'Lla5 the endgame is a perfect dream for Black. b) 8 �d3!? is meant to keep both central pawns protected, but on the other hand the light-squared bishop can no longer retreat down the fl-a6 diagonal. After 8 ... 0-0 White has tried:
9 ...e5 1 0 d5 'Lle7 1 1 f3 ..\lL.d7 1 2 0-0 a6!?, followed by ... tt:'lg6 and ... i.d6, offers Black good chances on the kingside, comparable to Game 41 (Korsus Wisnewski). 8 0-0 9 .l:d1 ...
9 0-0-0?! is dubious. After 9 ... ..11L.xc3 10 bxc3 'ife7 11 h3 il.x£3 12 gx£3 lifb8! 13 i.d3 b5! 14 e5 'Lld5 15 i.xh7+ 'it>h8 16 ..llL.e4 b4 17 i.xd5 (if 17 c4 b3! 18 axb3 'Lla5) 17 ... exd5 18 'it>d2 'Lla5 19 c;t>e2 tt:'lc4 Black had attacking chances in A.Shirov A.Morozevich, Amsterdam 1995. g .txf3 !? 10 gxf3 'Llhs ...
b1) 9 a3 .txc3+ 10 bxc3 il.xf3 11 gxf3 tt:'lh5, Z.Szabo-J.Dobos, Budapest 1994, leaves White wondering where to put his king. b1) 9 ..\ii, b5, when Bronznik suggests 9 ... il.xc3+ 10 bxc3 i.xf3 11 gx£3 'Lle7, but it is not clear to me why Black should trade both bishops here. In stead, 9 ... i.xf3 10 gxf3 'Lle7 was played in P.Neuman-G.Kuba, Pula 2003, and now 1 1 0-0-0 a6 12 .tc4 b5 13 i.b3 'Llg6 14 'it>b1 e5 15 d5 il.d6 shows a point of not trading the dark-squared bishop, while the original game continued 15 'Lld5 'Llxd5 16 .i.xd5 .llb8 17 .l:'l.hg1 �f6 with a good game for Black. b2) 9 'Lld2 gets the knight under shelter, but simultaneously relin quishes control in the centre. Then 156
11 e5
This opens the b1-h7 diagonal and makes e4 available for White's pieces, but it also weakens d5, f5 and the cl pawn. Then again, if 11 0-0 'ii'h4 12 'Lle2 e5 13 d5 'Lld4! and Black takes control of the dark squares. 11 ... tt:'le7 12 o-o c6! 13 i.gs
13 'Lle4 'Lld5 14 'Llg3 'Llh£4 15 �h1 played in M.Kopylov was C.Wisnewski, German League 2003, and now 15 . . .'it>h8, intending .. .f7-f5, would have given Black the advantage. 13 ... h6 14 ..\ii,c 1 'Llds 15 'Lle2 'ifh4 16
1 d4 d5 2 C4 l'iJ c 6 3 l'iJ c3 l'iJj6 4 l'iJj3 dxc4 'iVe4 it.e7 17 i.d3 fs! 18 exf6 'ii'xf6
30 tbfs .l:!.ad8 31 'it>g3 .l:!.d7 32 �e2 .l:Ifd8 3 3 I!fe1 t2Jf8 34 ii.d2 'ot>g8 3 5 �3 tbc7 36 i.b4 lt:ids 37 Jtcs b6
The white pawn structure is com pletely shredded. Black is clearly bet ter. 19 'ii'g4 'iVxf3 20 �xe6+ W/f7 21 'ii'e4
This is the weakness White needed to i nitiate sufficient counterplay.
�hf6 22 'i*'g2 �h8 23 ..tg6 \i'e6 24 t2Jg3
38 i.xf8 �xf8 39 .Ue6 tbe7 40 lt:ixh6
�h7! 25 Jl.. b 1 tbgs 26 .l:i.de1 \i'h3
..ltxd4 41 ct:Jfs .if6 42 b3 cs 43 a4 cJ;f7
Keeping the queens on the board with 26 .'�g4!? made more sense.
1I6e2 iLxh4 48 .l::!.x d1 .l:!.xd1 49 .ii. c 2 �d6
27 f4 \i'xg2+ 28 �xg2 tbh7 29 a3 i.f6
50 .l:!.e3 gS Yz-Yz
..
44 h4 ct:Jxfs 45 il.xfs g6 46 �b1 1:!d1 47
157
Play 1
. . .
liJ c 6 !
Summary
This chapter shows that Black shouldn't be afraid of the so-called 'main line' 3 tt'lc3. Early white queen moves need not be feared, as Games 40 and 43 illustrate. 5 e3 provides Black with a position that is easy to play, whereas White often strug gles to find an appropriate plan. Game 44 shows a relatively new idea to combat the white set-up, and Black's results have been more than adequate. 1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt'lc6 3 tt'lc3 lbf6 4 tt'lf3 dxc4 (D) s e4
5 'iWa4 tt'ld5 Game 40 5 e3 e5 Game 41 5 d5 tt'la5 (D) 6 e4 c6 - Game 42 6 'iVa4+ c6 - Game 43 -
-
s ... jLg4 (D) - Game 44
4 ... dxc4
158
5. ..lll a5
5... .1i.g4
Chapter Nine
I
d4 d s 2 c4 lt:Jc6 3 ttJf3 iig4 (4 �a4 ; 4 e 3 ; 4 t2Jc3 )
1
Developing the king's knight with 3 .!Df3 is quite logical, as it protects the d
pawn and makes it more difficult for Black to play . . . e7-e5. As a conse quence, Black should respond 3 .....l¥..g4, proceeding against the knight and therefore helping to enforce ... e7-e5 after all. Now the most popular move is 4 cxd5 (which will be the subject of the next chapter), but White does have other moves at his disposal as well.
White
plays 4 'i¥a4
The line that breaks the first ground is an invention of the great Alexander Alekhine himself. 4 fka4 bears com parison to the idea we encountered in Game 40, but this time it is more dan gerous as the threat of 5 lt:Je5 is immi nent. All in all White opts for quick development, and is ready and willing to sacrifice the d-pawn in the process. After 4 ...ii.xf3 both ways of retak ing the bishop have been tried, with
the uncompromising 5 exf3 being the more popular and more dangerous one. But before going into more detail about this, let's take a look at how to play against 5 gxf3 . Game 45 P.Etchega ray-V. Bukal Sr
Can nes 1997 1 d4 ds 2 c4 'Llc6 3 'Llf3 .ii.g4 4 'ika4
4 lt:\e5?! is similar to the idea with
1 59
Play 1 . . . lll c 6 !
4 . . .ltJe4!? I introduced in Chapter 7. However, the absence of a knight on f6 means it is less effective: 4 . . . ltJxe5 5 dxeS dxc4 6 'ii'a4+ 'ii'd 7 7 'Yi'xc4 0-0-0 8 ltJc3, and now the most accurate treat ment seems to be 8 ... .il.e6 9 �e4 .i.fS 10 1i'c4 e6 with a small advantage for Black due to the favourable pawn structure. 4 ..11i..xf3 5 gxf3 ...
5 exf3 is seen in the next game. s es! ...
Instead: a) s ... e6 6 CLJc3 is a bit too passive for my taste:
a1) 6 .. .'ir'h4 does not have the same effect as in the game. After 7 e3 dxc4 (7 ... 0-0-0 8 i.d2 ltJge7 9 £4 f6 10 b4! eS 1 1 cxdS exd4 12 dxc6 dxc3 13 i.xc3 ltJdS 14 �xa7 led to a decisive attack in L.Lengyel-A.Sydor, Polanica Zdroj 1966) 8 i.xc4 i.d6? 9 ltJbS (actually White could have thrown in 9 i.a6! already) 9 ... ltJf6 10 lDxd6+ cxd6 11 i.a6! bxa6 12 'ii'xc6+ cJle7 White was better in Z.Kozul-G.Mohr, Ljubljana 1994. a2) 6 ...ltJge7 7 i.gS! makes it diffi cult for Black to complete his develop1 60
ment adequately: 7 ... �d7 8 0-0-0 h6 (if 8 ...0-0-0 9 cxdS exdS 10 h4, intending 1 1 i.h3, gives White a nice advantage) 9 i.h4 gS 10 jj_g3 fS 1 1 e3 i.g7 12 cxdS exdS 13 h4 ltJd8 (or 13 ... 0-0-0 14 liJbS and Black is lost) 14 ctJbS .l::!.c8 15 hxgS hxgS 16 .l:!,xh8+ i.xh8 1 7 iVxa7 and White was a pawn up in E.Bukic M.Cander, Slovenian Championship 1991. a3) 6 .. .'�'d7 7 e3 (7 .i.gS is not that strong this time, as Black can play 7 ... h6! 8 .ih4 Cbxd4 9 'Yi'xd7+ cJlxd7 10 0-0-0 Cb£5, but not immediately 7 ... CLJxd4? 8 �xd7+ �xd7 9 0-0-0 when White has a good game) 7 . . . ltJge7 opts for a set-up which is good against 5 exf3. But here White's centre is stable, which allows for queenside action: 8 i.d2 g6 9 b4! .i.g7 10 b5 ltJd8 1 1 .llc l 0-0 12 Vi'h3 and White had the advantage in W.Schmidt-D.Bischof, Dortmund 1992. a4) 6 ...ltJf6 7 .i.gS .fl.e7 (7 ... dxc4 8 0-0-0 i.e7 9 'i!Y'xc4 CLJdS 10 i.xe7 ltJcxe7 1 1 '1t>b1 ltJxc3+ 12 1i'xc3 ltJdS was un clear in L.Portisch-V.Smyslov, Portoroz 1971; but simply 8 e3 is better, when I do not like Black's position) 8 e3 ltJd7 9 cxdS ctJb6 10 �d1 CLJxdS 1 1 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 12 f4 provided White with a small ad vantage in L.Lengyel-V.Kozomara, Sa rajevo 1965. aS) 6 ...i.b4 7 cxd5 exdS (7 ... iVxd5?! 8 'ii'xb4 lDxb4 9 ltJxdS exdS 10 'lt>d1 was clearly better for White with the bishop pair in G.Raptis-P.Kazantzidis, Kavala 2000) 8 a3 .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 ltJge7 10 I::tb 1 .l::!.b8 11 i.f4 and again the pair of bish ops dominates.
1 d4 ds 2 c4 tiJ c 6 3 tiJj3 .il.g4 (4 "fila4; 4 e3; 4 tiJc3)
b) 5 ... dxc4 is another alternative which requires precise play: 6 e3 e5 (or 6 ...e6 7 �xc4 a6 8 i.e2 tt:Je7?! 9 f4 'ii'd5 10 .I:tg1 tt::lf5 11 ..ltd2 b5 12 li'd1 tt:Jh4 13 .!Z'lc3 �d7 14 �cl and White was better in A.Korotylev-G.Gross, Budapest 1 994; instead Black should have tried 8... 'ti'g5!?, with 9 Wfl 'tWh4 leading to very interesting play) 7 dxe5 and then:
b1) 7...iVd7 8 .11..xc4 tbxe5 9 i'i'xd7+ .t>xd7 10 ..lte2 and the pair of bishops made the difference in C.Rivero J.Hedman Senarega, Fuerteventura 1992. b2) 7 ... �b4+ 8 ..td2 i¥e7 9 f4 i.xd2+ 10 tt:Jxd2 "ifb4, as in J.Kristensen-E.Nic olaisen, Copenhagen 2001, is not good either. After 1 1 'likxb4 tt::lxb4 12 .i:tcl b5 (12 ...tt:Jxa2? 13 .Uxc4 is disastrous) 1 3 a3 Black's position is beyond repair. b3) 7 ...iVd5! 8 tbc3 Vi'xf3 (8 ...i¥xe5 9 £4 'lika5 10 'ii'xc4 led to White's advan tage in N.lbraev-S.Iuldachev, Calvia Olympiad 2004) 9 llg1 'fi'h5 (not 9... 0-0-0?? 10 i,e2 trapping the queen in W.Schmidt-B.Grabarczyk, Polish Championship 1991; surprisingly this is not the only game which has ended this way) 10 �g2 tbe7 1 1 i.d2 0-0-0
with unclear play in J.Demina N.Hoiberg, Kuala Lumpur 1990. 6 dxes �h4!
This is an excellent square for the queen, from where she exerts pressure on h2 and £2 and along the fourth rank. 7 i.g2 Not the only move. Let's look at the alternatives: a) After 7 e3 d4 we reach a position similar to those covered in Chapter 1 1 (after 3 e3 e5 4 dxe5 d4). Black has more than adequate compensation, as the d4-pawn restricts White's devel opment: 8 �3 (8 exd4? is met simply by 8 ...'ti'xd4 when Black regains the pawn, while the white kingside is in ruins) 8 ... 0-0-0 9 £4 tLlh6 and Black has a dangerous initiative. b) 7 .l:!g1 ?! is just bad since 7 ... 'ii'xh2 8 cxd5 'ii'x g1 9 dxc6 fails to 9 . . . b6, as in I.Dubinka-A.Segal, Rotterdam 1998. c) 7 tbc3 is unable to shock Black ei ther. After 7 ... ..tb4 8 a3 (or 8 i.d2 d4 9 tLld5 �xd2+ 1 0 'it>xd2 0-0-0 and Black has a good game; 9 tbe4 is also met by 9 . . .i.xd2+ 10 tt:Jxd2 0-0-0) 8 ...i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 tbge7 10 .l:i.b1 .I:tb8 chances are 161
Play 1 . . Ji:J c 6 !
roughly equal, for example 1 1 f4 0-0 1 2 .i,g2 dxc4 13 0-0 tt:lg6 14 e 3 'ifg4 15 h3 'ife6 with unclear play. 1 ... 0-o-o
8 o-o i.c5 9 f4 tt:lh6 10 e3?!
10 h3!?, to prevent ... ttJh6-g4, has to be considered. Now 10 ...ttJd4 1 1 tt:lc3 dxc4 12 'ifxc4 favours White, but 10 ... i.b6!? is interesting, preparing ... tt:ld4 by ensuring the bishop won't be attacked (after ... dxc4) with 'ifxc4. After 1 1 cxd5 tt:lxe5 Black has sufficient coun terplay for the sacrificed pawn.
So that's that. Having seen that the move 5 gxf3 doesn't meet the needs of White's opening strategy, let's get down to brass tacks and have a look at 5 exf3 .
1o ... d4 11 'ifb3 tt:la5 12 'ifb5? dxe3! 13 .i,xe3
After 13 'ifxc5? Black's lead in de velopment pays off: 13 ... tt:lg4 14 h3 exf2+ 15 .l:i.xf2 (or 15 Wh1 'ifg3 with mate to follow) 15 ... b6! and the white queen can no longer protect f2. 13 ... .i,xe3 14 fxe3 tLlg4
The black attack is decisive. 15 h3 tt:lxe3 16 c5
Or 16 'ifxa5 'ifg3 with mate in four.
Taking the d-pawn with 5 ... dxc4?! 6 .i,xc4 'ifxd4 allows White too great an initiative, so Black should opt for the solid 5 ...e6 instead. Nevertheless, with a white bishop aiming for b5, there are still a few rocks to steer clear of. For example, after 6 tLlc3 the methodical 6 ... .i,b4?! runs into 7 exd5 exd5 8 i.b5, forcing 8 ... i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 with a big ad vantage for White as his bishops now rule the board with an iron hand. The immediate 6 ...tt:le7! is much better, as illustrated by the following game. Game 4 6 M.Meyer-H.La ngrock
Germa n League 1999
16 ... 'ifg3 17 'ife2 tt:lxf1 18 'ifxf1 tLlc4 19 tLlc3 tLle3 20 'iff3 'ifxg2+ 21 'ifxg2 tt:lxg2
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt:lc6 3 tt:lf3 .i,g4 4 'ifa4
22 Wxg2 .Md2+ 23 Wf3 J:txb2 24 1Ig1
.i,xf3 5 exf3 e6
.l:i.d8 25 We3 g6 26 f5 1Ic2 27 tt:le2 .Mxc5
5 ...dxc4?! has seen in numerous games, but it is White who gets the initia-
0-1
1 62
1 d4 d5 2 c4 t:D c 6 3 t:Df3 .1Lg4 (4 �a4; 4 e3; 4 ctJc3)
tive after 6 j,xc4 e6 (grabbing the pawn with 6...1Wxd4 is very dangerous: 7 lbc3 e6 8 0-0 .id6 9 �d1 "iVe5 10 J..a6! with a good game for White in L.Portisch S.Mariotti, Budapest 1975) 7 lbc3 lbf6 (if 7....td6 8 d5 exd5 9 .ta6! 'I:Wc8 10 lbxd5 tt:le7 1 1 lbxe7 JJ..xe7 12 'iYxc6+ bxc6 13 .ixc8 l1xc8 14 .ie3 and White had a sig nificant endgame advantage in J.Barle S.Truta, Bled 1996; while 10 ..."iVe6+ 1 1 .ie3 'ir'xd5 1 2 �xb7 just wins for White) 8 0-0 �e7 9 .l:i.d1 tt:Jd5 10 lbxd5 exd5 and now in L.B.Hansen-H.Porth, Bad Worishofen 1992, instead of 1 1 .ib5 as played in the game, 1 1 JJ..a6! would have led to a decisive advantage after 11...'i#'c8 12 .tb5 'i!t'd7 13 .tf4.
ther. Black equalized after 8 ... a6 9 JJ..xc6+ lbxc6 10 0-0 'ii'd 7 1 1 J::te 1 + j,e7 12 il.f4 0-0 in A.Constantinou-H.Leeners, correspondence 1986.
6 CLJc3 'be7 !
This turns out to be an unfortunate decision. White had to settle for 10 0-0 0-0 when the black advantage is only microscopic.
8 g6 9 i.b5 ..ig7 10 0-0-0?! ...
10.. .'�d7 11 h4 0-0
There is really no need to fear a white kingside attack... 12 h5 a6 13 ..ixc6 lbxc6 14 "ii'c 2 b5!
...as Black's queenside attack will be a lot faster!
A good move, supporting the centre and thwarting any Sl..b5 ideas. As al ready mentioned, 6 ... kb4?! seems logi cal but it does not work very well. Af ter 7 cxd5 exd5 8 i.b5 j,xc3+ 9 bxc3 the white bishops dominate the board. 7 cxd5 exd5 8 ..ie3
Instead, 8 .ltg5 "iVd7 9 .i::td 1 h6 10 �e3 g6 is comfortable for Black. 8 i..b5 does not pose any threat ei-
15 Ith3 b4 16 'be2 b31
163
Play 1 . . . l'il c 6 !
Time i s more important than a mea sly pawn. 17 '1Wxb3 .tf.ab8 18 �c2 tbb4 19 'ii' bl c5 20 tt:'Jc3 c4 21 .l:!.d2 tt:'Jd3+ 22 'iiid l l:Ib7 2 3 'it>e2 �fb8
The moves just fly off the shelves. There is no way White can withstand the mighty force of the combined black pieces.
squared bishop and does absolutely nothing to confront Black's presence in the centre. Now Black has two distinct ways to continue with his e-pawn. However, I do not like the reckless 4 ...e5?!, as after 5 't!Vb3! Black suddenly has some prob lems.
24 tt:'Jd1 tt:'Jxb2!
I prefer the more solid 4 e6. Since White is not putting any pressure on the black centre there is enough time for calm development. The position after 5 tbc3 tt:'Jf6 6 �d2 iLe7 can be compared to that in Game 48, the dif ference being that the dark-squared bishops have not been traded off. This situation favours Black, so White does best to force the issue with 6 h 3 . The best way to react is shown in the fol lowing game. ...
2 5 �c2
Both 25 tbxb2 c3 and 25 l:i.xb2 .l:txb2+ 26 tbxb2 c3 are moves of true finishing quality. 25 ... tbxd1 26 'i"xdl c3 27 .l:!.c2 �b2 28 .ltc1 'ii'b 5+ 29 'it>e1 .l:!.e8+ 30 i.e3 �bl 31 �cl l:txcl 3 2 �xcl �b2 3 3 'iiid 1 �c8 34 'ii'c 2 'ii'a l+ 35 'ot>e2 klb8 36 'ttd 3 l:rb2 37 'ii'x c3 'ii'fl mate
White plays 4 e3 Understandably enough, 4 e3 is not a move with which White can throw his weight around. Granted, by strength ening the d-pawn and protecting the c pawn White gets rid of any problems he might have had in the centre, but he also limits the scope of his dark1 64
Game 4 7 I.Sokolov-Ye Rongguang
Antwe rp 1997 1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt:'Jc6 3 tt:'Jf3 ..ig4 4 e3 e6 5 tt:'Jc3 tt:'Jf6
1 d4 ds 2 c4 t'Ll c 6 3 t'Llf3 li.g4 (4 '1Jfia4; 4 e3; 4 t'Ll c3)
6 h3
This immediately defuses the situa tion, but there are other alternatives worth mentioning: a) 6 i.e2 i.b4 (6 ... dxc4 is another safe way to equalize, for example 7 �xc4 J.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 .ie2 l::te 8 10 a3 �f8 1 1 b4 a6 12 .i.b2 ltJdS 13 �cl l2Jxc3 14 .i.xc3 l2Je7, Y.Rodriguez-O.Chervet, Bern 2004; note that e3-e4 is answered by ... £7-£5! in order to gain control over dS) 7 i.d2 (after 7 0-0 ii.xc3 8 bxc3 l2Je4, followed by ... ltJaS, with control over the light squares is the correct re sponse) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 i.xc3!? 9 j,xc3 l2Je4 10 .l:i.cl aS 1 1 h3 ii.x£3 1 2 i.x£3 £5 with a solid position for Black in M.Taus P.Nowak, Plzen 1996. b) 6 ..id2 works against ... i.b4, so Black consequently plays 6 ... i.e7. After 7 cxdS exdS 8 i..e 2 0-0 9 h3 i.hS 10 licl �d6 1 1 ii'b3 ltJaS 12 �a4 l2Jc6 13 �5?! a6 14 �3 ltJaS 15 �c2 .i.g6 16 i.. d3 �xd3 17 'i¥xd3 l2Jc6 18 a3 .Ue8 19 0-0 :t'le7 Black had no problems in I.Peroutka-B.Vyhnalek, Nachod 1998.
after 7 cxdS exdS White can try to seize the initiative with 8 .ibS ii.d6 9 g4! ? ii.g6 1 0 t'DeS 0-0 1 1 t'Dxc6 bxc6 12 ii.xc6 .l:i.b8. G.Timoshenko-A.Gross, Metz 1995, continued 1 3 0-0 llb6 14 ii.xdS ltJxdS 15 ltJxdS .ie4 (15 .. .'iVh4 1 6 'i'f3! was not good enough for Black in A.Kolev-G.Gross, St Ingbert 1989), and now 16 l2Jxb6 'iVh4 17 'i'e2! cxb6 18 f3 ii.d3 19 'i'g2 ii.. xfl 20 'lt>xfl ii..b4 21 ii.d2 ii.xd2 22 'i'xd2 'i'xh3+ 23 �g2 �6 24 kte1 would have given White a clear endgame advantage. 7 'iVxf3 .ib4 8 ii.d3 8 ii..d 2 is best met by 8 ... ii.xc3 9 i.xc3 l2Je4 with similar ideas to the note with 6 i.e2 J.b4 above. Instead, after 8 cxdS exdS 9 ii.. d3 0-0 10 i.d2 a6 1 1 0-0 Bronznik gives 1 l .. . .Ue8 1 2 .l::i.f cl ii'd6 13 a3 i.xc3 14 j,xc3 l2Je4 15 ii.e1 .l;Ie6 16 b4 .&1.£8 17 !!.ab1 £5 with counter play, but slightly adjusting the move order by 1 l ...�d6!? 1 2 .!:tfcl .l:tae8 13 a3 .ltxc3 14 i.xc3 t'De4 1 5 ..te1 fS, gaining two tempi on the previous line, seems even more accurate. s . . . es!
6 .ixf3 !? ...
I prefer this move to 6 . . ...11..h5, since
9 cxds 'ii'xds 10 �xds ltJxds 11 ii.d2
165
Play 1 . . . l?J c 6 ! o-o-o 1 2 i.e4!
12 lt:lxd5?! is rightly dismissed by Bronznik. After 12 ... i.xd2+ 13 'it'xd2 l'::!.xd5 14 ..ifS+ �b8 15 i.e4 .l:!.d6 16 i.xc6 l'::!.xc6 White has to struggle for a draw, as 1 7 dxe5 allows 17 ... l'::!.d8+ 18 'it'e2 l'::!.c2+. 12 lt:Jf6 13 .ltfS+ •..
After 13 ..ixc6 exd4 14 lt:le4 (14 ..ie4 dxc3 15 .ltf5+ �b8 16 bxc3 i.a5 is no alternative) 14 ...i.xd2+ 15 'it'xd2 bxc6 16 lt:lxf6 gxf6 Black is a pawn up and has the better chances, despite his piti ful pawn structure. 13 ... 'it>b8 14 a3 .lta s 15 dxes lt:Jxes 16 b4 lt:Jc4! 17 .ltc1 .ltb6 18 l'::!.a 2 l'::!.h e8 19 o-o c6
White has managed to free himself while remaining with a now strong bishop, but Black has sufficient coun terplay as the white pawns on the queenside are weak. 28 l'::!.d 1 f6 29 l'::!.d 4 lt:lb6 30 l'::!.x d7 l'::!.xd7 31 c;t>e2 c;t>c7 32 f4 l'::!.d 8 33 g4 l'::i.a 8 34 l'::!.c 3 lt:Ja4 35 l:td3 lt:lb2 36 l'::!.d 4 lt:Jc4 3 7 i.xc4 bxc4 3 8 l'::!.xc4 l'::!.xa 3 3 9 h 4 b 6 40 'it'f3 l:l.d3 41 ts l'::!. d s 42 c;t>t4 h6 43 gs hxgS+ 44 hxgs l:l.dl 45 bs cs 46 �a4 c;t>b7 47 l:l.a2 l'::!.fl+ 48 'it'e4 C4 49 l'::!.c2 l'::!. b 1 so l'::!.xc4 l'::!.x bs 51 c;t>f4 l'::!.b l 52 l'::!.c2 bs 53 l:l.h2 b4 54 l:!.h7 'it'c6 ss c;t>e4 b3 56 gxf6 gxf6 57 l:l.h8 'it'c7 58 l:l.h7+ c;t>c6 59 l:!.h8 Yz-Yz
The opening phase is complete and it is time to take a look at the position. White has two bishops, but the knight on c4 is well placed and momentarily dominates the bishop on cl, and in ad dition to that, Black has occupied the central files with his rooks. All in all, the position is roughly equal. 20 .ltbl l'::!.d 7 21 l'::i.c 2 �ed8 22 i.a2 tt:Jes 23 lt:Ja4 lt:ld3 24 lt:lxb6 axb6 25 f3 lt:Jxcl 26 l'::!.fxc1 lt:lds 27 c;t>f2 bs!
166
White plays 4 tt:lc3 For those players who like to avoid the complications arising from 4 cxd5, 4 lt:lc3 is the most popular move. To find out why this is the case, let's take a look at the position after 4 e6 5 cxds ..•
exds 6 ..tgs i.e7 7 i.xe7 lt:lgxe7 8 e3.
For the moment the position is defi nitely not oozing excitement. As op posed to the previous game, White has managed to trade his dark-squared
1 d4 ds 2 c4 l2J c 6 3 l2Jj3 il.. g 4 (4 �a4; 4 e3; 4 l2J c3 )
bishop for its black counterpart, Game 48 A.Piueg-C. Wisnewski
H a m b u rg 2003 1 d4 ds 2 c4 lt:Jc6 3 lL'lf3 .tg4 4 lt:Jc3
and as a result is provided with a plan that even has some chances of success: playing on the half-open c-file combined with the launch of a minor ity attack, hoping to procure a back ward pawn on c6 that he can then be siege.
4...e6
Black must remember not to play 4 . . . 4:Jf6? here, as it transposes to the unsound variation 3 lt:Jc3 lL'l£6 4 lt:Jf3 (or 4 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 5 lt:Jf3 .tg4?) 4 ... �g4? 5 cxdS lL'lxdS already dismissed in Chap ters 7 and 8 (see the first note to Game 38 for more details). 5 cxds
All in all, the position bears a cer tain resemblance to the Queen's Gam bit Declined, but the set-up of the black pieces is much more dynamic here. There are times where a black attack on the kingside almost appears out of thin air, the following game being a good example.
5 .ii.g S i.e7 6 ilxe7 lt:Jgxe7 can trans pose to the text after 7 cxd5 if Black plays 7 . . . exd5, but there is an alterna tive in the shape of 7 . . .4:Jxd5! ? . After 8 e3 (8 lt:JxdS 'i:VxdS 9 e3 i.xf3 10 gxf3 e5 gives Black a clearly superior version of Chapter 1 0) 8 . . .0-0 9 .ii.e2 lt:Jxc3 10 bxc3 lt:JaS (planning ... c7-c5) 11 'i:Va4 b6 12 Itd1 �d6 13 0-0 .l:!fd8 14 .l:He1 �ac8 15 It.d2 ..ixf3 (this trade is important, as 15 . . . c5 16 dxc5 sees the bishop unat tended) 16 .i.xf3 cS White had no coun167
Play 1 . . . l?J c 6 !
counterplay in Vinkovci 1 993.
K.Hulak-M.Muse,
6 ....te7 7 i.. x e7 lbgxe7 8 e3 0-0
s ...exds 6 .tgs
Here 6 'ib3!? can be dangerous if not treated accordingly.
9 .te2
After 6 . . . i.xf3?! 7 ex£3 l2lxd4 8 'i:Vxb7 8 ...�b8 White has 9 'irxa7! (instead of 9 'i¥a6, as given by Bronznik in the first edition of Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung), when S.Giemsa-O.Teschke, German League 2002, continued 9 ...t2lc2+ 10 c;i>d1 t2lxa1 1 1 i.b5+ .l:'rxb5 12 fte1+ c;i>d7 (12 ... .ie7 is not able to save the line, for example 13 t2lxb5 c6 14 tt::l d4 'ii'c8 15 b3 intending i.a3 and Black is lost; while 12 ... t2le7!? 13 l2lxb5 f6 14 l2lxc7+ c;i>f7 15 lbe6 'ii'c 8 16 t2ld4 remains difficult for Black) 13 t2lxb5 .tb4 and now the sim ple 14 i.d2 would have led to a great advantage for White. The correct answer is 6 .....ltb4, for example 7 tt::le5 (or 7 a3 .ixc3+ 8 bxc3 .ixf3 9 exf3 t2la5 and Black can try to exploit the weaknesses in his oppo nent's pawn structure) 7 ... l2lxd4! 8 'iVd1 tt::lc6 9 tt::lxg4 d4 and Black wins back the piece following 10 a3 �e7 11 t2le4 h5, after which the game will be equal. 168
9 i.d3 is the other popular choice, which prevents Black from adopting the set-up used in the actual game, as 9 ... 'Yi'd6? runs into 10 i.xh7+! 'it>xh7 1 1 t2lg5+ c;i>g6 12 'iYxg4 f5 13 'iHf4 'Yi'xf4 14 exf4 l2lxd4 1 5 0-0-0 when White is clearly better. The proper response is 9 ... f5! ? with ideas similar to those in the text; for example 10 h3 (or 10 'ib3 i.xf3 1 1 gxf3 .l:!.b8 12 0-0-0 b5 13 tt::le2 'iVd6 with good attacking chances for Black) 10 ... .,txf3 1 1 'iYxf3 f4!? 12 'i8g4 fxe3 13 fxe3 t2lb4 14 i.b1 'iYd6 15 a3 'Yi'f6! ? 16 tt::ld 1 (16 axb4 '¥1Vf2+ 17 'it>d1 'Yi'xb2 18 .l:ta2 'Yi'xb4 gives Black two pawns and an attack for the sacrificed piece) 16 ... t2lbc6 and the white king was caught in the middle in E .Bukic-J.Barle, Slovenian Championship 1995. 9 'Yi'd6! An excellent square for the queen. •••
10 h3 .ths
10 ... .txf3!? is even better. I was afraid of 1 1 Axf3 £5?! 1 2 'ib3 I:tad8 blocking the c6-knight's way, but the simple 1 1 ...tt::l d 8 leaves Black a tempo
1 d4 ds 2 c4 {jj c6 3 {jjf3 .il.g4 (4 'tWa4; 4 e3; 4 {jj c3)
up on the game. For example, 12 0-0 c6 13 g3 tZ:le6 14 ..ig2 f5 15 .l:tb1 �h8 16 b4 b5 1 7 a4 a6 1 8 h4 tZ:lc8 1 9 tZ:le2 tZ:lb6 20 aS tZ'lc4 and Black was better in D.Feofanov-V.Orlov, St Petersburg 2005. 11 o-o tZ:ld8!
provides a basis for two themes quite common in the Chigorin Defence: the kingside attack and the 'good' knight versus 'bad' bishop. 16 i.xf3 fS 17 g3 l::tf6 18 �b3 l::tb 8 19 l!c3 a6!
A prophylactic move, recognizing the 'threat' 20 fia3. 20 'ii'a 3 'ikd7 21 ..tg2 tZ:lc8 22 'i'a s tZ:ld6
The knight has reached its final des tination. 23 !1c2 �h8 24 h4 11gB 25 a4 gs 26 hxgs .Uxgs 2 7 ii.f3
After being redeployed to e6, the knight serves a dual purpose: it keeps an eye on c5 (which is often used as an outpost in this structure) and supports the thrust .. .f7-f5-f4. 12 MC1
12 tZ:lb5?! is an inferior attempt to prevent Black from consolidating his queenside: for example, 12 .. .'ti"b6 1 3 a4?! (but 13 tZ:le5 i.xe2 14 �xe2 c6 1 5 :�c3 �c7 i s also comfortable for Black) 13 ... .i.xf3! 14 iLxf3 c6 15 tZ:lc3 (not 15 :�d6? �c7) 15 .. .'i!t'xb2 with an extra pawn. 12 ... c6 13 tZ:la4 tZ:le6 14 tZ:lcs tZ:lxcs 15 :xcs
Playing by numbers. White's next goal is to begin the typical minority attack with b2-b4-b5. 1S ...i.xf3 !
By eliminating the knight Black
2 1 ...tZ:le4
Although clearly better, it is not easy for Black to improve his position. 27 ... f4?! is not as strong as it looks, as after 28 exf4 .a:.x£4 29 fid2 1li'f7 30 i.g2 the pawn shield is still intact. However, 27... h5!? is interesting: White needs to prevent 28 ...h4, but after 28 Wg2 (intending 28 ...h4 29 .Uh1) 28 ... £4! 29 exf4 .Uxf4 30 'i¥d2 1i'f5 Black has a strong attack, since the bishop cannot retreat to g2 this time. 28 �g2 'i¥d6 29 ..txe4 fxe4
Black still has a commanding posi tion, but it seems that White can with1 69
Play 1 . . . l0 c 6 !
stand the siege. 30 .l:th1 l!f3 3 1 l:th3 .l:lgfs 32 �e1 1If7 3 3 l':th4 'iKf6 3 4 'i'd2 �g7 3 5 .l:i.f4 .t!.xf4 36 exf4 hS 3 7 1We3 a s 3 8 Itc1 �h7 39 b3 Wg7 40 f3 h4 41 fxe4 hxg3 42 exds �h2+ 43 �g1 'i'h4 44 "iife S+ Yz-Yz
Despite its innocent appearance, 6 .ltf4 is a whole lot niftier than 6 .ig5.
Intending to let the light-squared bishop grasp at nothing after 7 li:'le5, it usually prompts Black to play 6 i.xf3 . Then as 7 gxf3 covers the e4-square, 7 ...li.b4 doesn't make sense - Black should only seek to swap this bishop for the knight if he is able to get a firm grip on the light squares. A more appropriate post for the bishop is on d6, and Black can place it there at once as, after 7 ... .id6, the d pawn is indirectly protected by 8 tt:lxd5 li:'lxf4 9 tt:lxf4 1Wxd4. If White renews the threat with 8 .ig3, then following 8 ... li:'lge7 9 e3 we have reached the critical position for this variation. .••
merous games, I cannot agree with this conclusion. In fact it is quite difficult for Black to get anything going: after 12 i.xd6 ifxd6 13 i.h3 the position re mains difficult, and limiting the scope of the bishop with 1 3 ... g6 14 �b1 £5 15 f4 0-0-0 doesn't much help, as White can easily create good play on the queenside with 1 6 li:'la4. A more compelling idea seems to be 9 ... 0-0!?, orientating the forces to the kingside in case counterplay is needed there; i.e. should White still decide to initiate his own play on the queenside. I have only found a handful of games featuring this move, but the results of my analysis are promising. Came 49 W .Schoebei-R.Vidonya k
Passau 1997 1 d 4 d5 2 c4 li:'lc6 3 lL'lf3 li.g4 4 lL'lc3 e 6 5 cxds
After 5 .ltf4 Black can choose be tween 5 ....1tb4, which usually trans poses to Chapter 6 after 6 e3 (see Games 34 and 35), and 5 . . .i.d6; for ex ample, 6 li:'le5 (6 i.g3 tt:lge7 7 e3 a6 was just equal in F.Baumbach-R.Marszalek, Warsaw 1988) 6 . . . i.xe5! 7 dxe5 d4 8 li:'le4 "ii¥e7 9 a3 0-0-0 1 0 �3 f6 and Black enjoyed a significant advantage in S.Rothman-M. Vecek, correspondence 1998. s ...exds 6 .ltf4 ..ltxf3 7 gxf3 .td6 8 i.g3
Now 9 ... a6 10 �c2 h5 1 1 0-0-0 h4 is assessed as 'unclear' by Bronznik. Hav ing experimented with this line in nu1 70
8 li:'lxd5 .ltxf4 9 li:'lxf4 'iWxd4 10 'ifxd4 tt:lxd4 led straight to equality in T.Henrichs-R.Rabiega, Altenkirchen
1 d4 d5 2 c4 lLl c 6 3 lLlf3 ii.g4 (4 iia4; 4 e3; 4 lLl c3)
2005, which continued 1 1 0-0-0 l:!.d8 12 e3 t:Lle6 13 l:txd8+ �xd8 1 4 t:Llxe6+ fxe6 15 l:tg1 g6 1 6 �c4 �e7 1 7 l':tg5 �d6 and a draw was soon agreed. 8 ... t:Llge7 9 e3 o-o!?
but eventually failed after 1 1 t:Llb5 Jtxg3 12 hxg3 t:Lld8? 13 iic2 t:Llg6 14 'it'xc7 with an extra pawn. Instead, 10 .. .£5?! was tried in Y.Seirawan B .Finegold, US Championship 1994, but Black still hit on problems after 1 1 f4 'ii'd 7 12 i.g2 'ii'e6 13 0-0 t:Lld8 14 b4 c6 15 b5. Therefore I suggest 10 ... a6, probably with similar play to the text after 1 1 .id3 f5 12 �xd6 'it'xd6 13 f4. 10.. .fs! 11 .ltxd6 'ii'x d6 12 f4 a6 13 .Ue1 !Iae8
Bronznik doesn't mention this move, but I find it quite compelling. I played the more common 9 ... a6 for a while, but realized that Black has prob lems in this line. For example, 10 iic2 h5 1 1 0-0-0 h4 (Bronznik stops here, assessing the position as "unclear") 12 i.xd6 iixd6 13 �h3 g6 14 �b1 f5 15 f4 0-0-0 16 t:Lla4 b6 1 7 a3 'iitb 7 18 ltd3 l:!.hg8 19 l:tc3 g5 20 fxg5 f4 21 l:tcl and White had a significant advantage on the queenside in V.Epishin-T.Bromann, Copenhagen 2002. I tried to improve on that game with 15 . . .t:Lld8 16 t:Lle2 t:Lle6 17 t:Llcl 0-0-0, but after 18 t:Lld3 g5 19 fxg5 t:Llxg5 20 il.fl �df8 21 l:Icl c6 22 a3 =rhg8 23 'it>a2 .l:l:f6 24 fia4 t:Lle4 25 l:tc2 ·f¥c7 26 f3 t:Lld6 27 t:Lle5 I still fell behind in V.Epishin-C.Wisnewski, Kiel 2004.
The game J.Rejfir-E.Zinner, Lu hacovice 1935, featured (by transposi tion) a different idea: 13 . . .�h8 14 a3 l:if6 15 'ir'f3 l:tg8 16 h4 .l:!h6 17 t:Lla4 t:Lld8 18 t:Llc5 and now, instead of dropping a pawn with 18 ...b6? 19 t:Llxa6, Black should have played 18...a5, intending ...b6, which results in a nice position. 14 't!i'f3 t:Llb8
The knight has a long journey to make until he finally gets to e4, but it is worth it. 15 a3 c6 16 t:Lla4 t:Lld7 17 0-0 t:Llf6 18 t:Llcs �b8 19 l:!c2 t:Lle4
10 .ltd3
The most logical move. After 10 a3, then 10 ... 'ii'd 7 was played in Z.Izoria A.Chibukhchian, Yerevan (rapid) 2004,
Black has obtained a very nice posi tion. The bishop is completely useless, 1 71
Play 1 . .lu c 6 ! .
and White i s far from having any ini tiative on the queenside. Black's next logical objective is a kingside attack.
superior minor piece.
20 llfc1 l!f6 21 i.f1 .l:th6 22 lbd3 g5
This ultimately fails, but it is under standable that White didn't want to await a slow death without counter play.
It would have been nice if this thrust could have been additionally prepared by ...'it>h8 and ...�g8, but with a white knight threatening to go to e5, Black does not have that kind of luxury.
29 �g2 cJ;;f7 30 'ii'b 3 I:!.h7 31 'it>g1 fie7 32 e4
32 ...fxe4 33 fxe4 lbxe4 34 llxc6 bxc6 3 5 �xb8 .l:th4
23 'fi'd1 gxf4 24 f3
After the natural-looking 24 lDx£4, Black plays 24... l2Jg6 25 f3 lbg5 26 .l::!.g2 'ife7 and then, besides the kingside at tack, playing against the e3-pawn is another item on his agenda. 24.. Jig6+
Now 24 ...lbg5 is not as effective, since after 25 l:.g2 l:tg6 26 lbx£4 llg7 27 '>t>£2 Black cannot easily get his other knight into action. 25 'it>h1 l2Jf6 26 l2Jxf4 ,g,g7 27 i.d3 lbg61 28 lbxg6 hxg6
36 i.xa6?!
This completely neglects the safety of his own king, but White's position was difficult anyway. For example, 36 i.xe4 eliminates the powerful knight, and White can even protect his highly endangered king, but it means aban doning his d-pawn. After 36 ... .l:i.xe4 37 .1:!.£2+ rj;g7 38 �g3 .l:i.xd4 Black has a de cisive endgame advantage. 3 6... l2Jd6 37 l:Ig3 lDf5 38 llf3 �g4+ 39 'it>f1 �g5 40 'ii'c 7+ Wg8 41 'ii'c 8+ Wh7 42 'ii'd 7+ rj;h6 43 J:!.h3+ lbh4 44 .l::!.e 3
Black has successfully repaired his pawn structure and remains with the
1 72
'ii'f4+ 45 cJ;;e 2 �g2+ 46 cJ;;d 3 'ii'f1+ 47 'it>c3 'iVc1+ 0-1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 CiJ c 6 3 CiJj3 if.. g 4 (4 'ifa4; 4 e3; 4 CiJ c3} Summary 3 tt:'!f3 is a sensible move, as long as it is followed up appropriately. 4 'i*'a4 can lead to quick victories against players to whom the implications are unfamiliar, but proper ways to react can be seen in Games 45 and 46. Game 47 featured the harm less 4 e3, but the increasing popularity of 4 tt:'!c3 is not for nothing. Nevertheless, I am surprised that the idea from Game 49 has not been played more often, and I strongly urge you to try it. 1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt:'!c6 3 tt:'!f3 .llg4 (D) 4 tt:'!c3
4 'ii'a4 j_x£3 (D) 5 exf3 e5 Game 45 5 gxf3 e6 Game 46 4 e3 e6 - Game 47 -
-
4...e6 5 cxds exds 6 �f4
6 .ig5
-
Game 48
6... .1txf3 7 gxf3 .id6 (D)
3 ii.g4 ...
-
Game 49
4 il.xf3 ...
7 i.d6 ...
1 73
Cha pter Ten
I
d4 d s 2 c4 lbc6 3 CLJf 3 i.,g4 4 cxd 5 i.,xf3
1
As we have seen in the previous chap ter, after 3 lLlf3 i.. g4, keeping the cen tral tension does not really benefit White. In consequence 4 cxds takes the bull by the horns, and a quick look re veals that 4 .. .'�xd5? 5 ctJc3 is bad:
The d-pawn enjoys sufficient pro tection, which renders any black coun terplay in the centre non-existent. Any black queen move will be followed up by 6 d5, after which White enjoys a tremendous advantage in space. A rather sad display was given in
1 74
A.Alekhine-V.Nenarokov, Moscow 1907: 5 .. .'iVa5 6 d5 0-0-0 7 i.. d 2 i.. xf3 8 exf3 ct:Jb4 9 a3 l2Jxd5 10 l2Ja4 and sig nificant material losses cannot be avoided.
Having witnessed this little mishap, the necessity of 4 i.. xf3 ! becomes evi dent. Now White must choose between three moves: 5 dxc6, 5 exf3 and 5 gxf3. ...
White plays 5 dxc6 The system after 5 dxc6 i..x c6 is one of the few where Black is actually allowed
1 d4 ds 2 c4 liJ c 6 3 liJf3 ii.g4 4 cxds ii.xf3
:o keep his light-squared bishop on a :ong-term basis. White's intention is to :>uild a strong pawn centre with pawns ��n e4 and d4; especially as, with the :>lack queen's knight gone, pressure is :aken off d4. After 6 tt:lc3, Black has two options i1 6 ... tt:lf6 and 6 ... e6. The first one, �,·hich usually involves a pawn sacri :lce, will be briefly covered in the notes :o our first game; although it is not :>ad, my recommendation is 6 e6. Then the occupation of the centre with 7 e4 will be answered by 7 .ib4, ·,,·hen Black's plan quickly becomes e\'ident. ••.
...
Game 50 E. Degtia rev-C.Wisnewski
German C h a m pions h i p, Hocke ndorf 2004 1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt:lc6 3 tt:lf3 i.g4 4 cxds i.xf3 5 dxc6 i.xc6
All of a sudden the white pawn cen :re doesn't look that strong anymore. Since opening the hl-a8 diagonal with � e5 is completely out of the question, :he only sensible way to continue is ·.,·ith 8 f3 - but then 8 :iVh4+! 9 g3 �hs �esults in a further weakening. The following ideas are simple: by :>laying . .0-0-0 and .. .£7-£5, Black puts :naximum pressure on the white centre a strategy that is hard to meet, as we ·.,·ill see in our featured game. ..
.
-
6 tt:lc3
6 f3 usually transposes to the text by 6 ... e6 7 e4 j,b4+ 8 tt:lc3, but a few play ers will try to circumvent the resulting positions and play 7 tt:lc3 instead. Then Black can try to exploit the slight weakness of the el-h4 diagonal with 1 75
Play 1 . . . ltJ c 6 !
7. . .i,d6, after which the game S.Kraemer-T.Escher, German League 1993, continued 8 g3 (if 8 i,e3 'Lle7 9 i,f2 e5 and the game is at least equal) 8 ...h5 9 e4 (9 .l¥.g2 is not a serious alter native: 9 ...h4 10 'it>f2 f5 and the black bishops dominated in R.Koepcke Y.Lapshun, Parsippany 2001) 9 ...h4 10 g4 a6! and Black had a good game as his bishops were out of harm's way. 6 e6 ...
6 ... 'Llf6 is a popular alternative. Let's take a look at the possible conse quences: 7 f3 e5 (7. . .e6 8 e4 is too pas sive, as there is no sensible way to put any pressure on the white centre in the near future) 8 dxe5 and now Black has two alternatives:
a) To my surprise, 8 ... 'iVxd1 +?! is quite regularly played. Being a pawn down, Black needs to initiate some ac tive play, and trading queens does not do the trick. After 9 'it>xd1 (9 'Llxd1 'Lld7 10 i,f4 i,b4+ 11 'Llc3 0-0 12 e4 l':tfe8 at least allowed Black to regain his pawn in M.Chetverik-H.Dusper, Harkany 1994) 9 ... 0-0-0+ (another try is 9 ... 'Lld7, but then 10 e6 fxe6 1 1 e4 'Llb6 12 i,e3 1 76
tt'la4 13 'Llb5 'Llxb2+ 14 'it>c2 i,xb5 15 i,xb5+ c6 16 i,xc6+ bxc6 1 7 'it>xb2 led to a significant endgame advantage for White in V.Karasev-V.Akopian, Dne propetrovsk 1970) 10 'it>c2 'Lld7 1 1 e6 fxe6 12 e4 i,d6 13 i,g5 l':tde8, as in F .De la Fuente Gonzalez-L.Bass, Collado Villalba 2003, White could have played 14 i,b5 with the better position. b) 8 ... 'Lld7 is more suitable. Now re turning the pawn immediately with 9 e6 favours Black, for example 9 ... fxe6 10 e4 i,d6 1 1 i,e3 'iVh4+ 12 i,f2 'iVh6 13 i,c4 0-0-0 and Black was clearly better in M.Brigden-A.Miles, Bristol 1982. Instead, after 9 i,f4 things are not so clear:
b1) 9 ...'iVh4+?! 10 i,g3 'iVh5 was played in L.Santolini-C.Cuartas, Reg gio Emilia 1981, but after 1 1 f4 and 12 e3, Black's compensation for the pawn is rather shady. b2) 9 ...i,b4, while common in other lines, is probably the wrong place for the bishop: 10 'iVb3 'iVh4+ (before pro ceeding to e7, the queen provokes g2g3 to cut off the bishop's retreat; but that move has its merits too, as we will
1 d4 d5 2 c4 t'U c 6 3 t'Uf3 JLg4 4 cxd5 i. xj3
�e soon enough, so 10 .. .'Yie7 seems to :nake more sense, but then after 1 1 1-0-0 Black will not be able to capture 0n e5 anytime soon) 1 1 g3 Wke7 12 i.h3 :�c5 13 'ikc2 g5 14 i.d2 'ikxe5 (or l-l ... l:Id8 15 0-0-0 'i'xe5 16 'ikf5! 'ikxf5 1 7 J...x£5 h6 1 8 h4 lig8 19 hxg5 hxg5 2 0 �h5 with a clear advantage) 15 a3 .ta5 1 5 ...�xf3 16 0-0 doesn't change any :hing) 16 b4 ..ixf3 1 7 0-0 and White ·.,·ent on to win in V.Babula \I.Kaminski, Lazne Bohdanec 1996. b3) 9 ... �c5 is much better: 10 it'b3 ie7 (10 ... g5?! is not as good; after 1 1 J...g3 Wke7 12 e6! fxe6 13 �xc7 Black's .::ompensation is hardly sufficient) 1 1 )-0-0 0-0-0 (on 1 1 .. .<=2'lxe5?! 1 2 tt'ld5! is Jwkward) 12 e4 was seen in G.Dizdar H.Porth, Hamburg 1993, and now in :>tead of 12 ... g5?! Black should have ?layed 12 ...tt'lxe5 13 tt'ld5 .l:i.xd5 14 �xd5 :xd5 15 'ifxd5 f6 when the chances would have been equal. b4) The aggressive 9 ... g5!? would be my favoured choice. S.Wehmeier-M.De Putter, Vlissingen 2000, continued 10 J... g3 �g7 1 1 e6 fxe6 12 e4 tt'le5 13 'iVb3 iie7 14 �d1 (14 0-0-0 0-0 15 i.c4 .:1ae8 16 �b1 b5! led to sharp play in E.Ibanez-W.Arencibia, Badalona 1995) 1-l.. .0-0 15 �e2 a6 16 0-0 tt'lg6 17 life1 and now 17 ... .i.e5 promises interesting play. 7 e4
7 e3 is a rather poor choice. After :-. . . .ib4 and either 8 £3 'iffh4+ 9 g3 'i¥h5 10 ..ltg2 0-0-0 1 1 a3 .i.a5 12 b4 �b6 13 J-0 e5 14 d5 tt'lf6 15 f4 �xd1 16 .l:!.xd1 .id7 17 fxe5 tt'lg4 (G.Ballon-G.Baches Garcia, Sitges 2003), or 8 .l:i.e2 tt'l£6 9 0-0
0-0 10 .i.£3 tt'ld5 1 1 tt'lxd5 exd5 12 a3 .l:i.d6 13 b4 a6 14 i.b2 f5 (Escher C.Wisnewski, Internet blitz 2002), Black gets the better game. 7 a3 'iVh4 8 e3 0-0-0 is no alternative either. 7 ..ib4 8 f3 ...
8 1i'd3?! fails to meet the required standard, due to 8 ... �4! when the only way to save the pawn is 9 e5, but after 9 ... 0-0-0 10 �e3 4Je7 the white centre just aroused pity in A.Joppien C.Wisnewski, Kiel 2003. s 'i¥h4+ 9 g3 'iVhs ...
10 i.e3
Besides the text move, White has several alternatives: a) 10 .l:i.g2 0-0-0 1 1 i.e3 transposes to the game, while 1 1 0-0 runs into 1 1 .. .�xd4!. b) 10 .i.d3?! is rarely played, since this is not the right place for the bishop, and Black can initiate play against d4 immediately with 10 ... 0-0-0 1 1 i.e3 ..lta5!, followed by ...�b6, as in H.Zoebisch-W.Wittmann, Austrian League 1981. c) 10 i.c4?! is also dubious. After 10 ...0-0-0 1 1 �e3 �c5! 12 0-0 4Je7 White 1 77
Play 1 . .lb c 6 ! .
experienced severe problems in K.Schlenga-A.Bartel, German League 1991; the ideas are ... e6-e5 or ... i.xd4 followed by ...e6-e5. d) 10 i.e2, when Black can play similarly to the game with 10 ...0-0-0 1 1 i.e3 ( 1 1 "ifu3?! l:!.xd4 12 i.e3 was beau tifully countered by 12 ... i.a4!! in Rolle Stek, correspondence 1990) 1 1 .. .£5! 12 "ifu3 i.xc3+ 13 bxc3 fxe4 14 'Yi'xe6+ (14 fxe4 'Yi'g6 just drops the e4-pawn) 14 ... i.d7 15 'Yi'xe4 tt'l£6 (improving on 15 .. Jie8?! 16 'Yi'd3 tt'le7 17 c4 tt'lf5 18 i.£4! and White was better in J.Granda Amsterdam Zuniga-A.Morozevich, 1995) 16 'Yi'e5 'Yi'f7! 17 'Yi'a5 (not 17 0-0? lihe8 18 'i¥£4 'Yi'e6 and White loses a piece) 1 7... tt'ld5 and Black had a strong initiative for the pawn in J.Verdier J.Gather, correspondence 1998; for ex ample, if 18 "VWxa7 i..c6 19 i.d2 .llhe8 20 '.t>£2 lixe2+! 21 '.t>xe2 lieS+ 22 �f2 tt'le3 and Black is winning. 10... 0-0-0 11 i.g2 fS
12 ...tt'lf6, when 13 e5 (13 exf5 exf5 was obviously better for Black in M.Kaabi E.Repkova Eid, Cairo 1997) 13 ... i.xc3 14 bxc3 tt'ld5 15 i.d2 (15 'Yi'd2 tt'lb6! 16 'Yi'e2 i.d5 1 7 lifcl tt:lc4 1 8 �ab1 g5 left Black in complete control in H .Rau W.Arztmann, Feffemitz 2004) 15 . . .£4 16 'Yi'e2 'Yi'g6 1 7 'i¥£2 fxg3 1 8 hxg3 h5 gave Black good attacking chances in V.Akopian-A.Reprintsev, USSR Team Championship 1990. b) 12 'Yi'c2?! is even worse: 12 ... fxe4 13 fxe4 tt'lf6 14 e5 tt'lg4 15 i.xc6 tt:lxe3 and Black soon won in J. Waffenschmidt-N.Gospodinow, Neumi.inster 2000. 12 ...fxe4 13 fxe4
13 'Yi'xb4? runs into 13 ... exf3 14 i.fl f2+, while 13 'Yi'xe6+ �b8 14 fxe4 tt'l£6 gives Black more than enough for the pawn. 13 ... i.xc3+ 14 'Yi'xc3
Or 14 bxc3 tt'lf6 15 'Yi'xe6+ �b8 again compensation with in good J.F.Campos-E.Mendez Ataria, Buenos Aires 1996. 14 ..tt'lf6 .
12 'Yi'b3
Instead: a) 12 0-0 allows Black to exert more pressure on the white centre with 1 78
After this move the position is as-
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tU c 6 3 t'iJf3 Ji.g4 4 cxd5 .ii.. xf3
sessed as unclear by Bronznik. Indeed, the position is not easy to play, but in my opinion it is White who has to be more careful - the unsafe position of the king and the unstable centre being only two important factors.
unable to escape. 23 ..�c8 24 d5 e5 25 'ii'b3 tt:Jd6 26 'ii'a4+ i.b5 27 'ii'a 7 iVd3 28 b3 'i'xd5 29 l:ld1
Allowing a neat finish.
15 .!:i.c1 l:i.d7 16 'ii'a 3 ..tb5 17 Ii.c2
29 .. Ji'xd1+
And White resigned in view of 30 '>t>xdl .i:i.fl + 31 '>t>d2 lbe4 mate. 17 ... ..ta6
0-1
Protecting the a-pawn with 17 ... �b8 would have been better, after which White should probably play 18 'ii'c5 "i'xc5 19 :Ixc5 iL.c6 20 ktfl il.xe4 21 �xe4 lbxe4 22 .l::te5 lbd6 23 l:i.xe6 when chances are roughly equal.
It should be pointed out that my opponent had already played this line in an earlier round of the tournament and therefore was not completely caught off guard. Looking at the diffi culties he experienced in the game, there is only one conclusion: White has to get rid of the bishop, one way or another.
18 Wd2 'ii'g 6 19 '>t>c1 lbxe4
Picking up the e-pawn, but now White manages to create sufficient counterplay. 20 il.f11 ii..xf1 2 1 't'ixa7 ?
White loses the thread. 21 l:i.xfl would have been the right move, when 21...a6 22 .l::t£8+ .l::txf8 23 'ikxf8+ I!d8 24 i'e7 lit.d7 25 'iV£8+ leads to a draw by repetition. 21 ..J1f7! 22 �a8+ 'iiid 7 2 3 'tWxb7
It was probably now that White re alized that 23 "¥i'xh8 loses, as after 23 .. .td3 24 l:Ig2 e5! the white king is .
White plays 5 exf3?! This move fully deserves its doubtful reputation. Without being coerced White 'produces' an isolated pawn on d4; and even though this pawn will be traded off most of the time, the devalu ated white pawn structure provides Black with a long-term endgame ad vantage thanks to his queenside major ity. 1 79
Play 1 . . l?J c 6 ! .
with smooth development. And what is more, after trading the central pawns Black enjoys a healthy endgame advan tage due to his queenside majority. 7 lbc3 i.b4 8 dxes
8 a3 is an attempt to keep a pawn in the centre. C.Burton-N.Davies, Chorley 1977, continued 8 ... ..txc3+ 9 bxc3 exd4 10 cxd4 li:lge7 1 1 i..d3 and now after 1 1 .. .0-0-0! 12 'ilfa4 li:lxd4, the complica tions favour Black; for example: The only trump card White might have left in this position are his two bishops, but in most cases Black is suc cessful in dissolving this factor rather quickly. Game 51 J. Rotstein-A. Ka l ka
Essen 2000 1 d4 ds 2 li:lf3 li:lc6 3 c4 it.g4 4 cxds it.xf3 5 exf3?! �xd s 6 ..te3 es!
At first, eliminating White's biggest weakness doesn't seem to make much sense, but in return Black is rewarded 1 80
a) 13 'i¥xa7 li:lxf3+ 14 gxf3 'ii'xd3 15 'ii'a8+ (if 15 .l::tc l li:lc6 16 'ii'a8+ li:lb8 and Black is a safe pawn up) 15 ... 'it>d7 16 'ii'xb7 l:tb8 1 7 �e4 'i!Vc3+ 18 'it>e2 'ii'b2+ 19 .ll d2 �5+ 20 �d3+ 'i!Vxd3+ 21 'it>xd3 �b3+ 22 .tc3 (22 Wc2? l:txf3 just loses a pawn) 22 . . .l:thb8 and the black pieces are much more active. b) 13 l!d1 �3! 14 �xb3 (if 14 'ii'xa7 lbec6 15 'ikc5 l:td5! 16 1i'c4 l:.hd8 and Black dominates the board; but not 15 ... li:lxf3+?? 16 gxf3 .l::r.xd3 as 1 7 'ii'f5+ picks up the rook) 14 ...li:lxb3 15 .ltxa7 £rd6 and Black has a tremendous end game advantage in the shape of his passed c-pawn. 8 'ii'xes 9 !i.c1 li:lge7 •.•
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt:\ c 6 3 tt:lf3 Jt.g4 4 cxds i. xf3 19 ....l:te3?
Unnecessarily complicating the po sition. 19 ... .i.e5 would have maintained the advantage.
10 i.c4
10
f4 is no real improvement:
10 ...1i'e4 1 1 1i'd3 'ikxd3 12 ii..xd3 0-0-0 13
l.c4 'LldS and Black was better in L.Klima-J.Jackova, Czech League 1995.
20 'ii'x d4??
After winning a pawn, winning the game is a matter of proper technique.
Immediately returning the favour. Instead, it would have been interesting to see what Black had planned after 20 'Lld5 .l:!.g3 21 �xd4 .l:i.xh3+ 22 '>t>g1, as 22 ... .l::!.h4 is now met by 23 1i'e3, shaking off the attack, while 22 ....ih2+ is an swered by 23 �f2 ii..g3+ 24 t>d2 when Black's com pensation is not evident.
14 'it>h1 o-o 15 'i¥g4 I!.ae8 16 .!Icd1 '>t>h8
20 Sxh3+ 21 �g1 �h4 22 lixh4 Wt'xh4
11 i.d3 'Lld4 18 f5 "i'h6 19 h3
23 .l:i.f3 .ic5+ 0-1
1o tt:lfs 11 o-o?! •..
11 'i¥e2 saves the pawn, but after l l ...'Llcd4 12 �xd4 'ii'xe2+ 1 3
•..
White plays 5 gxf3 After 5 gxf3 Wt'xd5 6 e3 Black once more has to make a choice between 6 ... e6 and 6 ... e5. Although both moves are perfectly playable, I do not like the resulting positions after 6 ...e6 7 tt:lc3 'li'h5 8 f4 'ifxd1 + 9 'tt>d 1, as the early trade of queens does not go with my aggressive style. Therefore, I recom mend the traditional (and most popu lar) 6 ... e5!, when play continues 7 tt:lc3 181
Play 1
. . .
ttJ c 6 !
i.b4 8 i.d2 i.xc3 9 bxc3, reaching a
way?!
position which has to be examined in great detail.
7 tLlc3 i.. b4 8 .il.d2 .ixc3 9 bxc3 'i¥d6!
It seems that White can be very sat isfied here. He is in possession of two bishops, each one with a great poten tial; he has a massive pawn centre that is ready and willing to advance by c3c4 and d4-d5, gaining more space and opening lines for his bishops; and he has two half-open files to occupy with his rooks, picking on the black pawns at b7 and g7. These strategic factors can hardly be denied - but they can also be fought against. Black's foremost con cern should be to stop a possible pawn advance, and 9 ."ifd6! does the trick. ..
It is important for Black to fix the white centre, but 9 . . e4? does not work because of 10 .ig2. Neither does 9 ... tLlf6?!, as after 10 c4 (but not 10 e4? tLlxe4 1 1 fxe4 'i¥xe4+) 10 ...'i¥d6 1 1 d5 tbe7 12 l::r.b 1 b6 13 i.b4 White was bet ter in A.Saidy-M.Al Modiakhi, Las Ve gas 2001. Finally, 9 ... exd4, although examined by Bronznik, is completely out of the question. Why release the tension and open the position for the pair of bishops at the same time?! After 9 .. .'ifd6 White has to decide whether he wants to play on the b-file, the g-file or even both. .
10 l::r.b 1
Came 52 M.Konopka-M.Muse
E u ro pean C u p, C l ichy 1995 1 d 4 ds 2 c4 tLlc6 3 tLlf3 i.g4 4 cxds i.xf3 5 gxf3 �xds 6 e3 es
6 ... e6 is more cautious. But the Chi gorin Defence is not about caution, it's about rampage! So why not play that 1 82
There are several adequate alterna tives: a) 10 .l::f.g 1 tLlge7 1 1 l:Ib1 b6 is merely a transposition to the text. b) 10 i.d3 is harmless. After 1 0 ....�:Jge7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 �1 tLlg6 13 'i¥xb7?! tLlh4 14 i.e4 f5! 15 'i¥xc6 fxe4 16 'i¥xd6 tbx£3+ 1 7 Wg2 cxd6 Black was clearly better in A.Mikhalev B.Rositsan, Istanbul 2002.
1 d4 d5 2 C4 ltJ c 6 3 ctJj3 il.g4 4 cxd5 i.. xj3
c) 10 i.g2 t'Llge7 1 1 l:tbl (11 £4 exf4 e4 is a temporary pawn sacrifice · -., hich is quite common in this system; ":>ut in this particular line, Black can get 3 good game after 12 ... 0-0 13 e5 'iVg6 1 4 )-0 t'Llf5 15 .ix£4 t'Llh4 16 .11L g3 t'Llxg2 1 7 i!ixg2 f!.ad8 as i n V.Moskalenko .-\ .Morozevich, Moscow 1994) 1 L .b6 1 2 }-0 0-0 13 £4 exf4 1 4 e 4 �ad8 15 e 5 �6 -,,·ith unclear play according to Bron znik. d) 10 f4 exf4 1 1 e4 t'Llge7 12 1if3 (12 .lg2 returns to 10 .11Lg2) 12 ... t'Llg6 13 h4 :--t 5 again with unclear play; for exam �le 14 e5 'iie6 15 i.h3 t'Llxh4! D.Bischoff-T.Schlager, Baden 2002) and now 16 1ixf4 leads to a draw after iidS 1 7 0-0-0 t'Llg6 18 'iVfS 'ii'xa2 19 e6 tra1+. e) 10 'i'b3 b6 11 i.c4 has occurred in a few of my blitz games on the internet. Black can play 1 L .t'Llh6 and after 12 e4 exd4 13 .11Lxh6 'ii'xh6 14 .11Lxf7+ We7 his king is surprisingly safe. Thelen CWisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2003, con tinued 15 iLdS h!ad8 16 'iic4 t'Lle5! 1 7 thc7+ 'it>f6 1 8 cxd4 t'Llxf3+ 19 'It>e2 ::Jxd4+ 20 Wd3 t'Lle6 and the white king was in more danger than his black .:ounterpart. 12
10 b6 11 .l:!.g1 ...
The critical variation 1 1 f4!? ex£4 1 2 e4 was introduced b y Kasparov, and Black needs to be very careful here: 12 . . t'Llge7 13 1if3 (13 .ig2 transposes to 10 i.g2 - see the note to White's lOth move) 13 ...0-0 (this time 13 ...t'Llg6 does not work well, as 14 e5 'ir'e6 15 i.bS ::Jge7 16 it.x£4 0-0 17 0-0 is just better for White) 14 ii.xf4 and now: .
a) 14 .. .'iVe6 15 .ixc7 (15 d5 is refuted by 1 5 ... t'Llxd5 16 i.c4 .llfe8 or 1 6 il.. h3 t'Lle5! 1 7 "*'g3 l2Jd3+ and Black wins, or if 15 .ibS £5! and Black strikes the white centre in due time) 15 .. .'ii'xa2 1 6 .l:!. d 1 (but not 16 .lii. d3 'ifa5! 1 7 0-0 'i¥xc3 1 8 d5 t'Lle5 19 .ixe5 'VWxe5 and Black is simply a pawn up) 16 ... !tac8 1 7 i.g3 f5! with attacking chances. b) 14 .. .'iWa3!? is another possibility. After 15 �e2 (or 15 ii.g2 t'Llg6 and now 16 �g3 is met by 16 .. .£5! again, when 17 ex£5 l:tae8+ 18 Wfl li:lce7 is much better for Black, or if 17 e5 t'Lla5 and the bish ops are not doing anything) 15 ... t'Llg6 (better than 15 ... £5?! 16 0-0 fxe4? 1 7 'ir'xe4 1ixc3 1 8 .ie3 'VWa3 1 9 �d3! and White was winning in G.Kasparov V.Smyslov, Candidates match, Vilnius 1984) 16 i.g3 (16 i..xc7 is too risky: 16 ....l::!.ac8 17 �g3 t'Llce7, when 18 0-0 �xc3 19 'tinS f5! and 18 l::!.b3 'il¥xa2 19 �d1 £5! both give Black good play, or if 18 c4 'iVaS+ 19 Wfl f5! with a strong ini tiative) 16 ... 'VWxa2 17 0-0 li:lce7 18 iLxc7 'i¥e6 19 d5 (or 19 l;Ife1 l:!.ac8 20 i.. g3 f5 and Black is afloat) 19 .. .'�d7 is totally unclear; for example, 20 Wkg3 (or 20 1 83
Play 1 . . Jij c 6 !
�g3 f5!) 20 . . . £5 21 ..ib5 'i¥c8 22 d6 f4 23 'i'g5 'DeS! 24 'ifus (24 'ii'xe5 'iig4+ leads to perpetual check) 24 . . . 'D7g6.
1 7 Zlxf7 'it'xe4+ 18 Wfl J::lx d2! or 18 i.e2 Zlhg8. 14 ...t5!
11... 'Dge7
15 'i'xf4 12 f4
It is now too late for this idea as Black can build up enough counter play. 12 l:txg7 is more interesting, al though Black has enough compensa tion for the sacrificed pawn after 12 ... 0-0-0 13 'i'a4 (13 .l:':tx£7? is too greedy: 13 ...'i'g6 14 ..ic4 tt::l d 5! and White loses material) 13 ...�he8 14 .ib5 'itb7 15 .l::tb3 exd4 16 cxd4 'i¥xh2, as in O.Cvitan-B.Maksimovic, Yugoslav Championship 1988. 12 ...exf4 13 e4 o-o-o
13 ... 0-0 is also good; for example, 14 'i¥£3 'Dg6 15 e5 'i¥e6 16 �x£4 �f5 17 �d3 'Dcxe5! 18 dxe5 'ii'x£4 and Black won in E.Yepes Martinez-M.Narciso Dublan, Terrassa 1994.
15 ex£5 is dangerous, as after 15 . . . .l::the8 16 i.e2 (not 16 'it>d1? 'Dxd4 and Black gets a ferocious attack) 16 .. .<.t>b8 White has to play very pre cisely to maintain the balance. 15 .. .'�a 3 16 .it.c4 g6
The white king is nowhere to run. Black has an excellent position. 17 'it>f1 J::lhf8 18 l::t b 3 WHa4 19 i.e6+ 'it>b8 20 e5 tt::ld 5 21 'ti'f3 �c4+ 22 'it>g2 'De3+! 23 i.xe3 'i!Vxe6
And again we have 'good' knight versus 'bad' bishop. 24 .lli..g 5 J::td 5 25 �gb1 llf1 26 �b5 J::rfd7 27 a4 a6 28 .l:I5b3 'ita7 29 i.f6 g5 30 'it>g1 g4 31 'i¥f4 h5 32 'i¥h6?
14 'iY'g4+
Missing his opponent's reply, but the position was by now hopeless anyway.
14 .l:!.xg7? now loses to 14 . . . 'Dxd4! 15 cxd4 'it'xd4; for example 16 �a6+ �b8
35 Zlxd1 'i!Vd5+ 36 f3 'it'xf3+ o-1
1 84
32 ... tt::lxe5! 3 3 dxe5 .l:Id1+ 34 'it>g2 �7d3
1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt:J c 6 3 tt:Jj3 ii.g4 4 cxds iL xj3 Summary While 5 dxc6 (Game 50) and 5 exf3 (Game 51) are simply inferior, the positions resulting after 5 gx£3 'i¥xd5 6 e3 e5 are highly complicated and require deep study. I recommend that you look at these lines repeatedly from time to time, as the ideas that lie within are typical for the Chigorin Defence. Master them, and you master the whole opening. 1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt:lc6 3 tt:lf3 ..ig4 4 cxds ..txf3 (D) 5 gxf3
5 dxc6 Axc6 6 tt:lc3 e6 (0) 5 exf3 e6 - Game 51
-
Game 50
s...'iVxdS 6 e3 es (D) - Game 52
4 il.xf3 ...
6 . . . e6
6 e5 ...
1 85
Cha pter Eleven
I
d4 d s 2 c4 t2Jc6 3 e 3 and 3 cxd s
1
Most games in this chapter feature the move order 2 c4 tt:'lc6 3 cxd5 'ii'xd5, but 3 e3 is just as good, as the main line can still be reached after 3 ... es 4 cxds. Adjusting the move order in this fash ion offers White a few more options options we are now going to examine. White plays 3 e3 es 4 dxeS After 3 e3 es, 4 dxes takes up the gauntlet and accepts the (temporary) pawn sacrifice just offered to him. The resulting positions bear a close resem blance to the Albin Counter-Gambit, with White having played the inferior e2-e3 instead of the usual lbgl -f3. The black queen's knight, on the other hand, is beautifully placed, exercising control over d4 and e5, while also ready and willing to join an eventual attack. With 4 ... d4! Black temporarily con stricts White's freedom, aiming to re gain his pawn with positional interest later; this is especially the case if White opts for the dubious 5 tt:'lf3?! . A better 186
move is the more persistent 5 exd4, but Black still has the comfortable choice between winning his sacrificed pawn back or trying to make use of his lead in development, intending to exploit the weaknesses that have accrued in the white camp.
Game 53 R.Reti-E.Bogolj u bow
Germa n C h a m p ion s h i p, Kiel 1921 1 d 4 dS 2 c4 tt:'lc6 3 e 3 e s 4 dxes
1 d4 d5 2 c4 l0 c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds
4 cxd5 'ifxd5 transposes to 3 cxd5 'i'xd5 4 e3 e5 and will be covered later (see Games 57-60). 4 tt:lf3 exd4 5 exd4 !2Jf6 transposes to a position from the English Opening, which we will exam ine in more detail in Chapter 13 (see Game 64). 4. d4 5 exd4 ..
Instead: a) 5 tt:lf3?! is highly unsound. After 5 ... �b4+ 6 �d2 dxe3 7 fxe3 (7 i.xb4 is even worse: 7 ...exf2+ 8 �e2 'i!Vxd1 + 9 �xd1 tt:lxb4 and White, already a pawn down, will have a hard time defending his e-pawn) 7 .. .'�:lge7 8 tt:lc3 tt:lg6 9 tt:ld5 �xd2+ 10 "iVxd2 tt:lcxe5 Black has a clear advantage as the white pawn structure is shattered. b) 5 a3 prevents the check on b4 but has the drawback of weakening b3. Black can play 5 ... a5! and then:
8 ... .ii.. f5 9 tt:Jc3 0-0-0 is obvious. b2) 6 tt:lf3 .ii..c5 7 exd4 i.xd4! 8 tt:lxd4 "ii'xd4 9 ctJc3 'i¥xe5+ 10 .ie2 (or 10 like2 .ie6 1 1 i.e3 tt:lge7 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 f4 likf6 14 'i¥f3?! tt:lf5 1 5 i.c5 .l:tfd8 16 ..'il..e2? ti:Jfd4 1 7 '1ii'f2 .tf5 and White could resign in I.Celedon-C.Wisnewski, Internet blitz 2000) 10 ...tt:lge7 1 1 0-0 0-0 12 lite1 .l:!d8 with a comfortable position in W.Wes chke-M.Kahn, Baden Baden 1993. s 1i'xd4! ...
6 1i'xd4
6 tt:lf3?! is not convincing either. Af ter 6 .. .'t!Hxdl+ 7 'it>xd1 �g4 8 i.f4 0-0-0+ 9 ti:Jbd2 tt:lge7 10 a3 tt:lg6 1 1 i.g3 tt:lgxe5 12 Wc2 ti:Jx£3 13 gxf3 tt:ld4+ 14 Wc3 ti:Jx£3 15 tt:lxf3 .ix£3, White is now a pawn down with no compensation. 6 ... tt:lxd4 7 .id3 i.g41 8 f3
b1) 6 exd4 is worse than in the ac tual game. After 6 ...'i!Vxd4 7 't!kxd4? (7 8f3 "iVxd 1 + 8 Wxd 1 i.g4 is similar to 6 8£3 in the text) 7 ...tt:lxd4 White has to play the pitiful move 8 .l:!a2 (8 Wd1 tt:lb3 9 �a2 .ii.. £5 10 tt:ld2 0-0-0 is not desirable either) when Black's advantage after
Of course not 8 tt:le2?? 1Lxe2! 9 1Lxe2 tt:Jc2+ and wins. Instead, 8 .2i.e3 0-0-0 9 ti:Jc3 was played in Muir-C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2001, and now after 9 ... ti:Jc6 Black could have regained the pawn with a better position. 8 .i.e6 9 .lte3 0-0-0 10 .ii..xd4 ••.
10 tt:le2? tt:Jxf3+! 1 1 gx£3 �xd3 is clearly better for Black 187
Play 1
. . .
lb c 6 !
1 o...nxd4 1 1 We2
Despite being a pawn down, Black is completely dominant. 19 tt::lg 3 Si..g 6 20 b4 .!:!.e3+ 21 Wf2 l:txe5
Now that Black has won his pawn back, the game is about over. 22 l:i.e1 l:txel 23 Wxel ..id3 24 tt::lge4 �d4 25 c5 f5 26 tt:Jf2 i.b5 21 tt::lf1 i.f6 28 �d2 .l:!.c4 29 tt::ld l �cl 30 Wt2 f4 31 g3 i.c3 32 tt:lxc3 l:lxc3 3 3 .l'!a2 ..ic4 34 !6.a1 1:tc2+ 3 5 �g1 .i.d5 o-1
11 ...tt::le 7
Taking the pawn is also possible. After 1 l . ..Slxc4 12 Si..xc4 .l::txc4 13 tt::lc3 (13 Wd3?! is dubious: 13 .. J:k5 14 f4 �cl 15 Wd2 �fl, when White's best chance is to give up a pawn with 16 We2 l:txf4) Black can play 1 3 ... Sla3!, winning at least a pawn.
White plays 3 cxds tt:Jxds 4 'Llf3 4 tt::lf3 seems to be an improvement on e2-e3, considering that it protects d4, does not restrict the dark-squared bishop and seems to work against ... e7e5 - all at the same time! But these ad vantages are all of an imaginary na ture, as the methodical advance 4 es is still possible (and necessary, as Black must be able to pin the queen's knight). ...
12 tt::ld 2 tt::lg6 13 il.xg6 hxg6 14 b3 �f5
Preventing tt::ld2-e4 and threatening 15 ... i.b4. 15 a3 �e7
Black is fully developed while the white kingside is still sleeping. 16 �a2 g5 17 Wel �hd8 18 tt::le2 .l':Id3
Tangling with the e-pawn is inad visable, as after 5 dxe5?! 'Yi'xdl+ 6 'it'xdl the positional concessions are just too great. Not only can Black win the pawn back easily, his lead in development and White's inability to castle will re sult in a very comfortable position. 188
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tZ:\ c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxd5
Game 54 D.Drzem icki-G.Mastern a k
G.Spanier-J.Head, 1996.
correspondence
7 �f4
1 d 4 ds 2 c4 lLlc6 3 cxds �xds 4 lLlf3 e s !
After 7 h3 0-0-0+ 8 lLlbd2 �xf3 9 gxf3 lLlxe5 Black has won back his pawn under favourable circumstances again.
s dxes?!
7 ... tbge7 8 lbbd2 lLlg6 9 i.g3 0·0·0
Sl u psk 1992
Accepting the pawn Black offered with his last move. In exchange, Black gets a quick lead in development and deprives White of his ability to castle. And even with the queens off the board, there is still enough attacking potential left. The stronger 5 lLlc3 will be covered in Games 55 and 56. s .. .'t!Vxd1+ 6 �xd1
By making obvious, natural moves, Black completes his development. White already is in serious trouble. 10 �C1
10 a3 �xf3 1 1 gxf3 (or 1 1 exf3) 1 1 ...lLlgxe5 regains the pawn, once more with better play for Black. 10 ... il.b4 11 a 3 i.xd2+ 12 liJxd2 liJgxes 6...i.g4
6 . . .�c5 is also possible; for example, 7 e3 (or 7 �e1 lbb4 8 lLla3 i.e6 9 b3
0-0-0 10 e4 lLle7 with compensation) 7 .. -ltg4 8 ..ie2 (or 8 i.b5 0-0-0+ 9 'it>e2?! .t::'lxe5 10 lLlc3 tb£6 1 1 h3 jL_h5 12 g4? .t::'lfxg4 13 hxg4 .ii. xg4 and Black won in C.Didner-S.Bouillot, French League 2002) 8 ... 0-0-0+ 9 �d2 lLlge7 10 h3 .ltxf3 11 .ix£3 lLlxe5 and Black regained his pawn with the better position in .
1 89
Play 1 . ..tiJ c 6 !
And again Black has won his pawn back, while White is still worrying about how to finish his development and bring his king into safety.
tion would improve dramatically.
13 f3 .te6 14 e3 li:id3+ 15 �c2
15 .ixd3 is hardly better, for exam ple 15 ... l'!.xd3 16 e4 l:i.hd8 17 l:!.d1 .ib3 18 li:ixb3 l:!.xd1 + and it is time to resign. 15 li:ixb2 16 i.b5 li:ia 5 17 �xb2 �xd2+ •••
18 'it>c3 l:i.hd8 19 Wb4
After this, the game sees ing end.
a
deserv
19 ... l::t b 2+! 20 'it>xa 5 .l::!.d 5 21 a4 \t>b8!
Not 2l...b6+ 22 'it>a6 Wb8? which would allow 23 i.xc7+. 22 .ixc7+ Wxc7 23 �het+ Wb8 24 e4
Black mustn't allow that, and fortu nately he is offered a fantastic resource in shape of the positional pawn sacri fice 8 ... e3!. After 9 fxe3 Black will usu ally retain control over the light squares, effectively paralyzing the white kingside. For more information about concrete ideas and variations please take a closer look at the follow ing game. Came 55 M.Loffler-C. Wisnewski
I nternet C h ess C l u b (bl itz) 2000
l:td6 25 ..tft .Ua6+! 0-1
In view of 26 i.xa6 b6 mate.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 li:ic6 3 cxd5 'ii'x d5 4 li:if3 e5 5 li:ic3 il.. b4 6 i.d2
After 4 li:if3 e5, 5 li:ic3 is a more common approach to the position, and following 5 ... i.b4 6 i.d2 ..ltxc3 7 .11..x c3 e4 the players, for a change, struggle for control of the light squares. White now has to choose between 8 li:ie5 and 8 ll'ld2. Both continuations have one thing in common: should White be able to play e2-e3, his posi190
6 e3 will be examined in the next game. 6 a3?! is rather pointless. Black wants to take on c3 anyway, and now the a3-pawn just blocks the way of the cl-bishop. After 6 ... .txc3+ 7 bxc3 e4 8 lLid2 lLif6 9 e3 0-0 10 c4 'ii'g5 1 1 'ii'c2 .l:re8 12 i.b2 i.f5 White experienced difficul ties completing his development in
1 d4 dS 2 c4 tb c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds
T.Klecker-J.Prachar, Prague 2005. 6 ..txc3 7 .i.xc3 ...
After 7 bxc3 e4 8 l2Jg1 l2Ja5 9 e3 .id7 Black can employ the usual 'massage' of the light squares. 7 e4 8 l2Jd2 The major alternative is 8 ttJes, but Black can play similarly to the text with 8 e3! and then:
17 dxc5 .ite6 1 8 .i.a5 .l:tc8 19 We2 .l:!.xc5 20 .ixd5 l:!.xa5 21 .ixe6 fxe6 with equal ity in A.Veingold-J.Kiltti, Helsinki 1996. b) 9 fxe3 tLlxeS 10 dxe5
...
...
a) 9 f3 is an attempt to encircle and ultimately collect the e3-pawn. Black has to react quickly: 9 ... l2Jge7 10 'Yi'd3 (10 'ikb3?! is not good: after 10 ... 'Yi'xb3 11 axb3 l2Jxe5 12 dxe5 �e6 13 b4 l2Jd5 14 g3 a6 15 .i.g2 t2Jxc3 16 bxc3 0-0-0 1 7 0-0 l:td2 Black had a commanding posi tion in H.Haselhorst-N.Tolstikh, Decin 1995) 10 ...l2Jxe5 1 1 dxe5 'ifxd3 12 exd3 �d5 13 g3 (after 13 d4 ..te6 14 .ic4? -2lxc3 15 �xe6 l2Jb5 16 �b3 l2Jxd4 leads to a much better position for Black, or if 14 g3 c5 15 ..ib5+ rJ;;e 7 16 We2 c4! ? 1 7 :.hct l::thc8 1 8 i.e1 l::t c7 and Black was OK in }.Mont Reynaud-J.Watson, Car doza 1998) 13 .....¥i.f5 14 d4 0-0-0 15 .ic4 .::5 ! 16 .l:i.cl (16 itxd5?! is dubious as it allows Black to keep the pawn on e3 after 16 ....l:txd5 17 dxc5 �d3!) 16 ... Wb8
10 ... l2Je7 (10 ... .i.e6 is only good for a draw after 1 1 'ii'a4+ �d7 12 "ir'd4 'jye6 13 0-0-0 l2Je7 14 e4 l2Jc6 15 'Yi'c5 0-0-0 16 e3 'ii'xa2 17 ..ltc4 'ii'a1 + 18 Wc2 'i!Va4+ 19 Wb1, as in M.Uimonen-J.Pystynen, Finnish Team Championship 1996, and now 19 ... .i.f5! 20 .l:i.xd8+ l:!.xd8 21 ex£5 .l:i.d1+ 22 l:!.xd1 'ii'x d1+ 23 Wa2 'ifa4+ etc) 1 1 'ii'xd5 l2Jxd5 12 i.d4 (12 il.d2 saves the bishop from being harassed with ... c7-c5 but also removes the protection from the e5-pawn; after 12 ... i.f5 13 g3 i.e4! 14 llg1 0-0-0 Black has no prob lems) 12 ... ..tf5 13 g4 i.e4 14 ng1 b6 15 b3 (or 15 rJ;; £2 c5 16 itc3 l2Jxc3 17 bxc3 0-0-0 and the white pawn structure has a certain comedy value) 15 ... c5 16 .i.b2 l2Jxe3 1 7 Wf2 l2Jd5 18 �d1 0-0-0 and Black was clearly better in }.Bonin C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2000. c) After 9 "iVd3 exf2+ 10 c;itx£2 Black can seize control over e4 with 10 . . .t2Jf6. The game A.Scheffner-R.Baumhus, 1 91
Play 1 . J i J c 6 !
German League 1988, continued 1 1 �f3 ( 1 1 lZ:lxc6 is answered by l l ...bxc6!, rather than 1 l . . .'�xc6, allowing 12 d5) 1 l . . .lZ:lxe5 12 dxe5 lZ:le4+ 13 'it>e1 lZ:lxc3 14 1i'xc3 0-0 and White was the side to be sorry for. 8 ... e3! 9 fxe3 t2lf6
With his control over the light squares and lead in development, Black has definite compensation for the pawn.
i.xd5 16 i.xg7 .l:tg8 17 i.c3 0-0-0 was better for Black in S.Loeffler-T.Thiel, Berlin 1993) 13 ...0-0-0 14 h3 l:!he8 15 �£2 l:!.e6 16 g4 hxg4 17 hxg4 lth8 ( 1 7... g5!?) 18 g5 lZ:le4+ 19 lZ:lxe4 i.xe4 20 :l,g3 .M.h2+ provided Black with suffi cient counterplay in F .Hager H.Grabher, Austrian League 1997. 12 ...lZ:lxe4 13 lLlxe4 i.xe4 14 e3
14 0-0 .•.
10 'iVb3
10 lZ:lf3 has been tried as well, the idea being to accelerate the kingside development. But now Black can win back his pawn in a favourable way af ter 10 ...0-0 1 1 g3 lZ:lg4 1 2 i.d2 �e8 13 i.g2 (not 13 'ii'c l? lZ:lxd4! ! and the white position instantly implodes) 13 ... lZ:lxe3 14 .txe3 l:Ixe3. 10 ... i.e6 11 'ilixds
1 1 �xb7 is answered by 1 l . ..lZ:lxd4! 12 'ir'xd5 lZ:lc2+ 13 �f2 i.xd5 or 13 �d1 lZ:lxe3+ and Black is fine. 11 i.. xd s 12 e4 ••.
12 !Ig1 tries to untangle the king side in another way. Following 12 ...h5! 13 g3 (13 e4 lLlxe4 14 lZ:lxe4 i.xe4 15 d5 1 92
14 ... 0-0-0 would have been even bet ter, when the black rooks get access to the central files more quickly. 15 �2 lLle7 16 .te2 lZ:ld s 17 i.d2 c6 18 �ac1 l'!.fe8 19 i.f3 Be7 20 l:the1 J:!ae8 21 h4 f6 22 a 3 �7
1 d4 ds 2 c4 lil c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds
Black can calmly improve his posi tion as White is without counterplay. The way the knight dominates the dark-squared bishop is an especially beautiful sight.
s ...exd4 6 exd4 we have a position that can also be reached from the Goring Gambit Declined via 1 e4 e5 2 ltJf3 4Jc6 3 d4 exd5 4 c3 d5 5 exd5 Vi'xd5 6 cxd4. Then one main line continues 6 4Jf6 7
23 i.b4 �e6 24 i.hs+ g6 25 j,g4 fs 26
4Jc3 i.b4 8 .td2 i.xc3 9 bxc3.
.•.
�d1 4Jf6!
White threatened to trade off the knight with i.b3. 21 �d2 .ids 28 .i.f3 h6 29 �g3 gs 30 hxgs hxgs 31 kth1 �g6 32 �f2 g4 33 kxds ttJxds 34 e4
Desperately trying to initiate some counterplay, but it is easily repulsed. 34 ... J:i.xe4 3 5 .l:i.h6+ �g7 36 I:!.ch1? l::re 2+ 37 �g3 �xd2 38 l:.h7+ 'lt>f8
The implications here are similar to those in Chapter 10. If White is able to get his central pawns going, Black is in severe danger of becoming a sitting duck. Therefore it is Black's main goal to keep the hanging pawns where they are by initiating a blockade on the light squares.
39 .:txb7
Game 5 6 G.Nyholm-A.Aiekhine
If 39 �h8+ �e7 40 .l:le1+ �d7 41 :hxe8 f4+ 42 'it>h4 (or 42 'it>xg4 lDf6+) -!2 .. Jhg2 43 �1e2 .l:txe2 44 .l:i.xe2 ltJe3! wins.
1 d4 ds 2 c 4 4Jc6 3 cxds 'ifxds 4 tDf3 e s
39 ... .l:!.e3+ 40 �h4 �xd4 41 �gs �e7 42
5 e3 exd4 6 exd4 4Jf6 7 t2J c 3 SLb4
:h8+ �7 43 l:th6 f4 44 l:th7+ e6 45
5 ltJc3 .ib4 6 e3 exd4 7 exd4 ltJf6 comes to the same thing, while the game took a different route entirely: 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 d5 4 exd5 'i!Vxd5 5 cxd4 ltJc6 6 ltJ£3 ltJf6 7 .Jte2 �b4+ 8 4Jc3 etc.
:h6+ �es 46 l:!.xe7+ 4Jxe7 47 �xg4 :d3 48 �hs+ �e4 49 l:th7 ttJds so g3 :xg3+ 0-1
Another major issue is 5 e3. After
Stockholm 1912
1 93
Play 1 . . . lb c 6 !
tt:Jxe2+ 12 'i'xe2+ il.e6 1 3 ..lta3 0-0-0. 9 ... .txc3 10 bxc3 o-o 11 o-o
1 1 c4 tries to avoid the plan em ployed in the game. But after 1 1 .. .'i'd6 12 d5 tt:lb8 followed by ...tt:la6 and ... tt:Jc5 Black can still fix the white pawns - only this time the dark squares are chronically weak. u ... tt:las! 12 .tte 1 bs 13 ..ltd3 fs !
8 .te2
After 8 i.d2 Black can either trans pose to the game with 8 ... .ltxc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 .te2 tt:le4 (10 c4 ?! is refuted by 10 .. J;le8+ 1 1 .te2 'ifxc4 or 11 .te3 'i'a5+ 12 'Yi'd2 tt:lb4!), or play 8 ... 'i¥d6 as in P.Lebed-V.Chichkin, Kiev 1999, when 9 a3 il.a5 10 tt:lb5 't!Ve7+ 1 1 i.e2 .txd2+ 1 2 'i*'xd2 0-0 13 0-0 �e6 left White with no positional compensation for the weak isolated d-pawn. If instead 8 a3 .txc3+ 9 bxc3, then 9 ...tt:la5! 10 .te2 0-0 1 1 0-0 b5 12 il.f4 c6 13 f!.b1 tt:Je4 14 't!Vc2 .tf5 1 5 iid3 �fe8 16 tt:lh4 il.g6 1 7 lZ:lxg6 hxg6 18 ..ltc7 tt:lc4 would be another way to play on the light squares. 8 tt:le4 9 .td2 •..
There is nothing else. 9 �d3? only helps Black: after 9 ... .tf5 10 'i'e3 0-0-0 1 1 0-0 tt:lxc3 12 bxc3 .l:!.he8 13 tt:Je5 (or 1 3 �d2 i.xc3 14 'i'xc3 l::txe2) 13 ... Jl.xc3 1 4 'ii'xc3 tt:lxd4 1 5 .tc4 't!Vxe5 Black already had a winning advantage in J.Mieses S.Freiman, St Petersburg 1909. While 9 0-0? just gives a pawn away for noth ing, since White has no compensation after 9 ... ..ltxc3 10 bxc3 tt:lxc3 11 'i'c2 194
14 a4?!
14 GtJe5 was played in V.Parginos C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2001, but Black obtained a nice position after 1 4 ... .tb7 15 f3 tt:ld6 16 a4 a6 1 7 'iVc2 tt:lac4. Instead, 14 tt:lg5 tt:lxg5 15 .txg5 �b7 1 6 £3 was tried in A.Waltemathe K.Schmidt, correspondence 1986, and now instead of 16 ... �ae8?? 1 7 ke7 J:;I£7 1 8 .tb4 1 -0, Black should have played 16 ... .l:!.fe8 when his position is not worse. 14...tt:lb3! 15 I:.a3 bxa4 16 .M.xa4 tt:lbxd2 17 tt:lxd2 tt:lxc3! 18 'i'c2 'i¥d7! 19 l!as 'i!Vxd4!
Now Black gets rewarded for his accurate play. Of course not 19 ... tt:ld5?? 20 .l:!.xd5 'ii'xd5 21 .tc4 or 19 ...tt:le4?? 20
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt:\ c 6 3 e 3 a n d 3 cxd5
2lxe4 fxe4 21 i.xe4 .l:t.b8 22 ii.xh7+ �h8 23 .l:t.h5 and White wins. 20 .Uc1 !1d8 21 'i!Vb3+ i.e6!!
Again not 21...lt:Jd5??, which unfor tunately loses after 22 lt:Jf3 �f4 23 .:!xd5! 'i!Vxcl + 24 .tfl i.e6 25 .ilxd8+ .:.xd8 26 "ikxe6+ �h8 27 lt:Je5. 22 �xe6+ Wh8 23 l:ie5 'it'xd3 24 .l:lce1
may be even more important, the f3square is yet not blocked, therefore allowing the £-pawn to use it and sup port its neighbour in advancing to e4 at a later date. After the practically forced 4 ... e5 5 lt:Jc3 .l¥.b4 6 i.d2 �xc3 White must choose between 7 bxc3 and 7 .lTl.xc3. While the latter is tactically motivated, the former flows into rather positional waters. 7 bxc3 leaves the dark-squared bishop temporarily incarcerated, but also provides a solid centre. Black will have no chance to undermine it in the near future; he even has to be on his guard not to be overrun by the pawns: c3-c4 together with d4-d5, or f2-f3 to gether with e3-e4 being just two exam ples.
h6?
An unnecessary weakening. Black could have consolidated with 24 .. :i!Vd6, since if 25 �e8+ .tl.xe8 26 �xe8+ 'ii'f8 or 25 iV£7 l:tf8 26 .l:le8 lt:Je4 defends. 25 'ili'g6??
Returning the favour with interest, as .:l:!,e8+ is not a threat at all. Instead, 25 �f3 and White is still in the game. 25 :�xd2 o-1 •.
White plays 3 cxds �xdS 4 e3 We are about to get to the main course of this chapter. Although in my re marks to Game 47 (from Chapter 9) I condemned White for playing 4 e3, in this position it is actually the best move. The main differences are that White can hope to gain a few tempi by pushing the queen about and, what
Following 7 ...tt:'lf6, Black has differ ent ideas, depending on the opponent's reaction. If White decides to seize space by advancing his pawns with 8 C4 'ifd6 9 d5 lt:Je7, Black can bring their ad vance to a halt by blockading them on the dark squares, after which he has three different objectives: 195
Play 1 . . .lb c 6 !
1 ) Redeploy the king's knight t o cS via d7 or e4. 2) Blast the centre with ... c7-c6 and possibly ...b7-b5 or ...f7-f5. 3) Utilize his lead in development by initiating an attack on the white king.
A nice illustration of all these possi ble ideas is implemented in the follow ing game. Game 5 7 S.Fa rago-R. Biga l iev
Buda pest 1996 1 d4 dS 2 c4 'Llc6 3 cxds 'ikxd s 4 e3 es 5 'Dc3 ..ll. b4 6 i..d 2
The alternative 6 a3 ..txc3+ 7 bxc3 'Df6 is similar to the text, although with the bishop still on cl and the pawn now on a3, there are a few independent possibilities:
(see following diagram) a) 8 f3 0-0 9 c4 (or 9 e4 'ikaS) 9 ... ifd6 10 dS, when Black can choose between 10 ...'Db8 1 1 e4 tLla6 12 i.. d3 tt:lcs 13 'De2 'bfd7 as in E.Arlandi-O.Renet, Al196
bufeira 1999, and 1 0 ...'Lle7 1 1 e4 'Lld7 12 'Dh3 'DeS 13 'bf2 fS 14 i..e3 fxe4 1 S fxe4 i.d7 as in E.Arlandi-S.Maze, Zemplin ska Sirava 2004, with a comfortable position in either case.
b) 8 a4 allows Black to target the a pawn after 8 ... exd4 9 cxd4 'De4 10 f3 �aS+ 1 1 i.d2 'Llxd2 12 'i'xd2 i.d7. c) 8 'Df3 ..tg4 9 ..te2 e4 10 'Dg1 ..ltxe2 1 1 'Dxe2 only weakens the light squares. After 1 1 ...0-0 12 la.b1 b6 13 "tlka4 'DaS 14 I:tb4 cS 1S c4 'ii'd8 16 dxcS 'Lld7! (or 16 ... 'Llb7!) 17 �c2 (17 cxb6 is answered by 1 7... 'DcS 1 8 'i'xaS 'Dd3+ 19 '>t>fl �£6!) 17 ... 'DxcS Black was in command in V.Kovacevic-A.Raetsky, Ge neva 200S. d) 8 c4 'ii'd6 9 dS and again Black has a choice of retreats: d1) 9 ... tt:lb8 10 a4 'Da6 1 1 .ia3 tt:lcS 12 'Df3 ..ltg4 13 iLe2 .ix£3 14 .ixf3 0-0 15 0-0 'Dfd7 16 Ji.e2 aS 17 �c2 fS 18 .l:!.ab1 b6 with a nice position for Black in D.Meier-M.Jaeckle, German League 2004. d2) 9 ...'Lle7 10 a4 'i¥b4+ (10 ... 'Lld7 1 1 Ji.a3 'DeS is similar to 9. . .'Llb8) 1 1 J.d2 �d6 12 Ji.cl (12 �1 is similar to the
1 d4 d5 2 c4 l2J c 6 3 e 3 a n d 3 cxd5
text) 12 .. .'t!Vb4+ leads to a draw by repe tition. Worse is 1 1 �d2?! �xd2+ 12 ..\txd2 lbe4 13 i.b4 cS! 14 dxc6 (or 14 �a3 b6 15 aS i.. a6 16 lbf3 f6 1 7 axb6 axb6 18 ii.e2 0-0 19 lbd2 lbd6) 14 .. .lt:lxc6 15 i.a3 i.e6, when White's queenside pawns require special care. 6 ..ixc3 7 bxc3 ...
The alternative 7 ..ixc3 is featured in Games 59 and 60. 7 ltJf6 8 C4 ...
White can also try: a) 8 f3 is covered in the next game. b) S lLl£3?! i.g4 9 �e2 (relatively bet ter is 9 h3 i.hS 10 .i.e2 e4 11 g4 �g6 12 c4 i¥d6 13 lDh4 0-0, but Black is still OK) 9 ... e4 10 lbg1 i.. xe2 1 1 tDxe2 0-0 12 0-0 lLlaS and Black was in control of the light squares once more in H.Mach elett-S.Brynell, German League 2000. c) 8 'i!Vb3 'ii'd6 and now:
cl) 9 ..icl i.e6 10 ii.. a3 (10 'iVxb7 0-0 11 ifa6 l::tfb8 12 dxeS tDxe5 13 'i!Vxd6 cxd6 and in this unclear position a draw was agreed in R.Bairachny P.Tishin, Tula 2000) 10 ...i.xb3 (10 .. .'ili'd7?! is a try to spice things up, but after 1 1 'iVxb7 l:tb8 12 �a6 exd4 13
cxd4 lDb4 14 .i.xb4 .l:!.xb4 15 'iVa5 l'tb6 16 lDf3 Black had no adequate compensa tion in K.Kluss-C.Wisnewski, Genoa 2004; while 12 ... l2Jd5 13 lDe2 exd4 is met by 14 lDxd4!) 1 1 ..ixd6 cxd6 12 axb3 0-0 was equal in Hoang Thanh Trang-A.Botsari, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. c2) 9 .i.b5 0-0 10 lLlf3 .i.e6 11 't!Vc2 e4 12 i.xc6 �xc6 13 CiJeS 'i"a6 resulted in a small advantage for Black in Internet Y.Shulman-A.Morozevich, (blitz) 1999. c3) 9 .td3 0-0 10 lDe2 b6 11 0-0 .i.e6 12 'i:!Vc2 .!ladS 13 £4 (13 lDg3? fails to 13 ... exd4 14 cxd4 lDxd4!, while after 13 �h1 Black can play 13 ... lDa5 followed by ...c7-c5 with good play) 13 ...e4! 1 4 i.xe4 tDxe4 15 1i'xe4 i.c4 16 1i'f3 fS provides Black with enough compensa tion for the pawn. c4) 9 lDe2 0-0 10 lDg3 is a rare de veloping scheme, but after 10 ... a6!? 1 1 i.e2 i.e6 1 2 1Wb2 �fd8 1 3 0-0 lDaS 1 4 l':!.fd1 lDc4 1 5 i.xc4 ii..xc4 1 6 �e1 e4 Black again managed to get a firm grip on the light squares in M.Franke F.Ferster, Bad Mergentheim 2003. An interesting alternative is 8 ... 'i¥'d8!?, for example 9 l2Jf3 (relocating the bishop with 9 i.cl 0-0 10 jL_a3 .l'!e8 1 1 lDe2 .litb8 12 .Ud1 �e6 13 'ifc2 oc curred in one of my games on the Internet Chess Club, but now 13 ... 1i'd5! simply was better for Black) 9 ... e4 10 tLleS lLlxeS 1 1 dxeS lbd7 (or 1 1 ...lDg4) 12 e6 fxe6 13 't!Vxe6+ 'ii'e 7 14 't\Vxe7+ 'it>xe7 15 l:!.b1 b6 1 6 i.. c4 .i.b7 17 'it>e2 lbe5 and once again the black knight is clearly superior. 19 7
Play 1 . . . liJ c 6 ! s . .:ii'd 6 9 ds f1Je7
1 6 'ii'c2 !1Jxc3 1 7 �xc3 b6 1 8 f1Jd2 fS with a good game for Black. 10 ... a 5 11 e4
Here 11 .id3 0-0 12 f1Je2 c6 13 e4 b5! 14 cxbS cxdS led to an advantage for Black in Y.Yakovich-N.Sulava, Bastia 1998. 11 ...0-0
10 'ifb1
Again White has many other moves to choose from: a) 10 i.d3 c6 11 e4 bS! 12 cxbS cxdS 13 'tia4 .1i.b7 14 .ltb4 'iVd7 was better for Black in M.Zivanic-C.Lupulescu, World Junior Championships 1998. b) 10 'ii'a4+ i.d7 1 1 �3 aS! 12 �c3 (12 'it'xb7? 0-0 13 .l:'!.b1 c6 was very dan gerous for White in V.Toporov P.Tishin, St Petersburg 2001, while 12 .i.d3 e4 13 i.c2 bS! 1 4 cxbS !1Jexd5 15 f1Je2 !1Jb4 promised Black good chances in D.Rogozenko-J.Fries Nielsen, Ham burg 1997) 12 ... !1Je4 13 'ii'xb7 (13 f1Jf3 l2Jxc3 14 'ir'xc3 f6 is slightly better for Black) 13 ... 0-0 14 'ifb2 l:lfb8 15 'it'cl !1Jxc3 16 'ii'xc3 'ii'b4! 17 'i'xb4?! (or 1 7 !1Je2 fS 18 a3 'ii'h2 19 'iVxb2 l:txb2 with counterplay) 17 . . . axb4 18 i.d3 b3 and Black went on to win in M.Mayo Mar tinez-V.Gallego Jimenez, Benasque 1997. c) 10 �3 aS! 1 1 f1Jf3 (or 11 .Jtd3 e4 12 i.c2 c6 13 dxc6 'iVxc6 and the c4pawn is a real target) 1 1 .. .4:Jd7 12 �e2 f1Jc5 13 fih2 !1Jg6 14 0-0 0-0 15 i.c3 !1Ja4 198
12 lL'lf3
On 12 i.d3 c6 13 i..e3 Black cannot play the usual ...b7-b5 because of 14 c5, but after 13 ... cxd5 1 4 cxdS !1Jg4 15 'ii'b6 'ii'a 3! 1 6 ffu3 'i!fxb3 1 7 axb3 !1Jxe3 1 8 fxe3 .i.g4 19 h3 i.hS 2 0 g 4 ii.g6 21 'it>e2 !1Jc8 22 f1Jf3 f6 23 .l:ta4 f1Jd6 Black could be more than happy in L.Seres R.Bigaliev, Budapest 1996. Instead, 12 f3 c6 13 a4 was played in G.Giorgadze-N.Sulava, San Marino 1998, but after 13 ... 4:Jd7 14 f1Jh3 f1Jc5 15 lb£2 i.. d 7 16 lt'ld3 cxdS 17 !1Jxc5 'iVxcS 18 cxdS fS Black again had the better chances. 12 ... c6 13 i.c3
13 .i.e3 cxdS 14 cxd5 lt'lg4 is similar to Seres-Bigaliev in the previous note. 13 ... f1Jg6 14 ii.d3 bSI 15 lt'ld2 lL'lf4 16 .tf1 cxds 17 cxds !1Jg4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tLl c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxd5
Black's initiative is compelling. 18 'ilr'c2
The idea is to push the pawns with e3-e4 and d4-d5, gaining space in the process and making room for the bish ops. Despite being propagated by sev eral theoreticians, I don't think that Black should allow this kind of ad vance. Therefore, 8 ...e4! is the logical consequence, and while White tries to get rid of this thorn in his flesh, Black should attempt to make use of his slight space advantage and lead in de velopment. A good illustration of a possible outcome is the following game.
If 18 'i!Vxb5 i.d7 (or 18 ... i.a6 19 �c6 "i'a3 20 i.xa6 �xa6! 21 'it'xa6 'ilr'xc3) 19 �c4 'ii'g6 20 'it'b1 �ab8 21 �c2 �b5 also leads to a huge attack.
Game 58 H.Gri.in berg-C. Wisnewski
German League 2002
18 ... ttJxf2 ! 19 '.txf2 ii'cs+ 20 'iti3 i.g4+! 21 �xg4 'it'f2 22 g3 h S+ 23 Wh4 f6 o-1
1 d4 dS 2 c 4 ttJc6 3 e3 e s 4 cxds iVxd s s
As the Chigorin Defence became in creasingly popular at the beginning of this decade, White players searched frantically for possible improvements. The system based on 8 f3!? constitutes such an improvement and has to be taken very seriously.
ctJc3 ii.b4 6 i.d2 �xc3 7 bxc3 CiJf6 8 f3 !? e4!
8 . . .0-0 completely ignores White's idea. After 9 e4 "iVd6 10 d5 ctJe7 1 1 c4 Black will have a hard time creating sufficient counterplay, the game R.Dautov-I.Miladinovic, Yerevan 199
Play 1 . t£J c 6 ! . .
Olympiad 1996, being one example. There may be improvements for Black, but why take such chances? 9 C4
9 £4 0-0 10 c4 iVd6 transposes to the text; while after 9 'iVb3 Black should play 9 ...'i¥f5, for example 10 'ilb5 (or 10 �a3 h5! 11 h4 ..ltd7 12 i.e2 't:fg6 13 �f2 tt:le7 14 �c4 tt:lf5 when White's kingside made a fragile impression in J.Avila Jimenez-M.Peek, Barcelona 2003) 10 ... 0-0 11 'Yi'xf5 i.xf5 12 g4 .i.g6 13 g5 tt:le8 14 f4 tt:ld6 and the white pawns were completely fixed in R.Janssen M.Peek, Amsterdam 2002.
C.Wisnewski, Dresden 2001, continued 14 ..ltc3 aS 15 h3 Ji.d7 1 6 i.e2 h5 1 7 tt:lxh5 tt:lxh5 1 8 ..lrt.xh5 1¥h6 19 'iid 1 b5!? with good chances for Black. b) 10 tt:le2 0-0 and then:
9 .'i!Vd6 ..
10 f4
White has also tried: a) 10 �1!? which practically forces 10 ... .1f5 1 1 f4 0-0 12 tt:le2 I::!.fe8 13 tt:lg3, but now instead of the immediate 13 ... �d7 (as in T.Radjabov-G.Antal, Budapest 2000), 13 ... ..11..g4! is an im provement I am quite proud of, the point being that 14 h3 .i.d7 15 .1e2?! allows 15 ...tt:lxd4! 16 exd4 e3 17 .1c3 't:fxf4 with a winning attack, or if 1 7 0-0 exd2. The game J.Gustafsson2 00
b1) 1 1 tt:lg3?! was played in D. Tyomkin-I.Miladinovic, Verona 2000, when Black could have initiated an attack with 1 l . . .exf3 12 gxf3 �e8; for example, 13 d5 tt:le5 14 e4 h5!? 15 f4 (15 h4? is crushed by 15 ... tt:ld3+ 16 ..ixd3 'iVxg3+ 17 'it>e2 tt:lxe4!, while if 15 �f2 h4 16 tt:le2 "i!Vc5+ 1 7 S&.e3 tt:lxe4+ 1 8 fxe4 tt:lg4+ or 16 tt:lf5 .1xf5 1 7 exf5 tt:lxc4! wins) 15 ... tt:leg4 16 e5 h4 17 tt:le2 'iVc5 and White is totally lost. Or if 13 ..ie2 ..ih3 14 d5 tt:le5 15 11b1 (or 15 �f2 c6) 15 ... c6!? 16 Ji.b4 'iVd7 17 e4 (White has no time to advance his d-pawn as after 17 d6 'iVe6 18 c5? .tg2 19 �g1 tt:lxf3+ Black is just winning) 17 ...b5!? 18 dxc6 'iVxc6 19 cxb5 �6 and Black has a strong attack. b2) 1 1 f4 is better, and then 1 1 .. ..l:!.e8 12 tt:lg3 tt:lxd4! 13 ..ic3 (or 13 exd4 'i'Uxd4, when 14 ..lrt.b4 'iVe3+ 15 tt:le2 ..ie6 16 'iVd4 'ikd3 17 �d1 'ii'xc4 18 'iVxc4 ..ixc4 leads to an interesting endgame
1 d4 ds 2 c4 ti:Jc6 3 e3 and 3 cxds
with Black having three pawns for the piece) 13 ... tt:Jf5 14 'i¥xd6 (14 tt:Jxf5?! 'i:Vxd1+ 15 M.xd1 Jtxf5 16 h3 .l:!.ad8 1 7 g4 .l:!.xd1 + 18 'it>xdl l:td8+ 19 �e2 i.d7 20 ..11.g2 �c6 was just good for Black in Halkida P.Giannoutsos-A.Botsari, 1997) 14 ... cxd6 (14 ... tt:Jxd6 15 �xf6 gxf6 16 tt:Jh5 l'i.e6 1 7 g4 is unclear) 15 tt:Jxf5 ..11.xf5 1 6 iLx£6 gxf6 17 g4 .id7 18 .l:!.d1 .l:!.ad8 19 I:txd6 .ixg4 20 .Mxd8 Ii.xd8 21 I1g1 �d1 + with a draw by repetition after 22 �f2 Z:.d2+ 23 'lt>e1 Md1+ (analy sis by Bronznik).
.ltxb4 axb4 17 c5 'i¥d8! 1 8 �xb4 tt:Jd5 and White is lost) 15 ... axb4 and now: a) 16 'iib3 M.a4! 17 cS (no better is 17 g4 l:tfa8 18 .ig2 .ltc6 19 cS 'i¥d8 20 Mxb4 �xa2) 1 7. . ."fia6 18 l:!.xc7 (18 �xb4? loses to 18 ... �a5) 18 ... .ie6 with a winning initiative. b) 16 \!Wd2 .l:!.a4! 17 c5 'ik'ds 18 Mxc7 (or 1 8 �xb4 l::txa2 19 'iVcl 'i¥h5 with ex cellent compensation) 18 .. .Iha2 19 'iixb4 'fka8! 20 'iib7 'i¥a5+ 21 �f2 jt_e6 and Black has a dangerous attack for the two pawns.
10 ... 0-0 11 tt:Je2 i.. g 4!? 12 h3
14 ... b6 15 .ltc3 tt:Jb4 16 tt:lc1 IUe8
Not 12 �1 l:i.fe8 13 tt:Jc3? tt:Jxd4 14 exd4 e3 when Black has a winning ini tiative.
Black can be happy with his posi tion. The e4-pawn proves to be very annoying.
12 ... .id1 13 :b1 a s !
17 ..te2 Wie1 18 l:!.e1 bS!
To get access to dS in this position, sacrificing a pawn is a small price to pay. 19 ..lixb4 axb4 20 'iWb3 I.ta4 21 cxbs .l:f.ea8 22 .l:i.d1 hS 23 'iWc4
A typical move which prevents the bishop from going to b4 (after a possi ble d4-d5). 14 �2
In an earlier publication I pro claimed 14 .l:txb7?! to be dangerous for White after 14 ... tt:lb4 without giving further proof. I would like to expand on this with the following lines: 15 i.xb4 (15 tt:Jcl is met by 15 ... .ic6 16
2 3 tt:Jg4+? .•.
Trying to go for the kill, Black misses a defending resource. Better is 23 .. .'ii' d6, when Black is a pawn down, but White can hardly move any of his 201
Play 1 . ..l'iJ c 6 !
pieces. The idea i s to bring the knight to d5 (and optionally to c3) and/or cap ture the b5-pawn. All in all the position is unclear, but I would take the black pieces any day. 24 hxg4 �h4+ 25 g3?
25 �g1 hxg4 26 �d5!, enabling 27 �5 after 26 ... g3, was the move I missed. Black can fudge with 26 ... i.e6 27 �g5 �g3, but nothing more.
A t long last I'd like to take a look at the line that is supposedly the most dangerous for Black in the Chigorin Defence. After 7 i.xc3 the dark squared bishop, usually a child of sor row in many different systems, nestles on the a1-h8 diagonal creating various threats. This makes use of the fact that after 7 ... exd4 White can play 8 lbe2!.
2S ...�h2+ 26 '.te1 b3! 27 �xb3
If 27 �xc7 �xa2! 28 lbxa2 l:txa2 mates. 27 ... �a3
When
Breutigam
published
his
ChessBase CD on the Chigorin back in
28 gxhs?
The last chance was 28 �c4, when 28 ... �xg3+ 29 '.td2 �xe3+ 30 �c2 �8a4 31 �b4 i.xb5! 32 �xc7 �xb4 33 �c8+ is a draw, or if 32 ... �xa2+ 33 .l:i.b2 �xb2+ 34 �xb2 �a3+ 35 �c2 i.xe2 36 �c8+ �f8 37 �xf8+ �xf8 38 lbxe2 �a2+ 39 �c3 �xe2 40 gxh5 and White survives.
2000, the piece sacrifice begun by 8 ... i.g4 9 f3 lbf6 10 lbxd4 0-0-0!? was still playable, but over time resources have been found that refute the whole idea. Fortunately, 8 ... lbf6 9 lbxd4 0-0 has managed to hold on to the present day. Before delving into the ambitious 10 lbb5, let's look at other options first. Game 59 F.La m precht-C. Wisnewski
28 ... �xb3 29 .l:i.xb3 �xg3+ 30 �d2 i.g4 31 �e1 �h2 32 �d1 �xhs 3 3 i.xg4
Germ a n League 2005
�xg4+ 34 �e2 g6 3 5 J:i.c3 �as 36 �b3 �g7 3 7 �c2? o-1
1 d4 ds 2 c4 lbc6 3 cxds �xds 4 e3 es s
Becoming aware of 37 ... �xa2+, White immediately resigned.
lbc3 i.b4 6 i.d2 i.xc3 7 i.xc3 exd4 8
202
lbe2
1 d4 ds 2 c4 l0 c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds
8 tt::'lf3?! is the wrong square for the knight, as it allows the pin after 8 ... ..tg4. Then after 9 ..ie2 0-0-0 White has nothing better than 10 tt::'lxd4 ..ixe2 1 1 't!Vxe2 tt::'lxd4 (or ll ...fixg2 12 0-0-0 tt::'lge7 13 l::!.hg1 �xh2) 12 i.xd4 'iixg2 13 0-0-0 tt::'le 7 14 �hg1 �c6 15 'it>b1 tt::'lf5 with advantage for Black in Wu Shao bin-Wu Wenjin, Wuxi 2005. 8 tt::'lf6! ...
Instead, 8 ... i.g4?! is a piece sacrifice that came into fashion in the late nine ties of the last century. But today, as the variation has been heavily ana lysed, the complications see White as the winner after 9 f3 and then:
b1) 1 1 ...'iixh1 12 i.xg7 �xh2 13 'ifa4 was clearly better for White in F .Peredy-H.Kleinhenz, Liechtenstein 2000. b2) ll .. tt::'l f6 12 tt::'lg3 tt::'lxd4 13 exd4 left Black with no compensation in G.Spiess-T.Escher, German League 2003. b3) 1 1 ...0-0-0 12 llg1 tt::'lxd4 13 exd4 tt::'lf6 14 ..ig2 �5 15 1Wb3 and White stayed on top in L.Krutwig S.Horstmann, Essen 2002. b4) 1 l ...tt::'lxd4 12 'i'xd4 'iixh1 13 �xg7 0-0-0 14 fixh8 "ii'xh2 15 �g7 �4+ 16 �g3 fib4+ 17 Wf2 tt::'l£6 (or 17 ... 'iVxb2 18 J::i. c l fih6 19 'ifu3+ Wb8 20 �xh7 tt::'l£6 21 �4) 18 Jl.h3+ Wb8 19 'ii'f4 and White went on to win in l.Khenkin-A.Czebe, Liechtenstein 1998. .
9 tt::'lxd4 0-0
a) 9 ...tt::'lf6 10 tt::'lxd4 0-0-0 (or equally 9 ... 0-0-0 10 tt::'lxd4 tt::'l f6) 11 "Yi'a4 �g5 (11.. .�he8?! is answered by 12 tt::'lxc6 i::i.xe3+ 13 Wf2 �xf3+ 14 Wg1 'ii'c5+ 15 i..d4 'iixc6 16 'iYxc6 l:!.xfl + 1 7 .Uxfl bxc6 18 J.. xf6 gxf6 19 h3) 12 tt::'lxc6 "Yi'xe3+ 13 ..ie2 l:!he8 14 �c2! bxc6 15 Jl.xf6 fol lowed by 16 fxg4 and Black had no compensation for the piece in S.Helms N.Gospodinow, German League 2002. b) 9 ... J.. xf3 10 gxf3 "i!Vxf3 11 ii.xd4 with the following possibilities:
10 tt:Jxc6
The critical 10 tt::'lb5 is the subject of the next game. Other moves are no bet ter than the text: a) 1 0 "it'f3?! tt::'lxd4 1 1 'ti'xd5 (if 1 1 i.xd4 tt::'le4! 12 a3?! c5 1 3 ..ic3 tt::'lxc3 1 4 bxc3 �3 and the white queenside i s in ruins, or 12 l:!cl "it'aS+ 13 ..ic3 tt::'lxc3 14 2 03
Play 1 . . .l'i:J c 6 !
l:ixc3 'i'Vxa2 and Black i s a pawn up for nothing) 1 1 ... 'L\c2+! 1 2 Wd2 'L\xd5 1 3 Wxc2 ..tf5+ 14 i.d3 i.. xd3+ 15 Wxd3 .l:!.fd8 with active play in M.Tyrtania R.Rabiega, Berlin 2000. b) 10 'ifb3 lt'lxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 ( 1 1 'il\Vxd5?! transposes t o 10 �£3?! above) 1 1 .. .1Wd6 12 l!d1 c5 13 ii.c3 'iNe7 14 .i.c4 b6 (or 14 ...lt'le4 15 0-0 b6 16 ..td5 l:tb8 1 7 f3 lt'lxc3 18 'ir'xc3 i..b 7 19 e 4 and a draw was agreed in R.Dautov-A.Moroze vich, German League 2000) 15 0-0 .Jtb7 16 ..1xf6 'ti'x£6 17 �d7 ii.c8 18 i:td2 i:te8 with equality in H.Kunze-C.Wisnew ski, Bad Bocklet 2002. c) 10 ..te2 lt'le4 (10 .. .'ii'xg2?! is too greedy: 11 i.. f3 'i�Vg6 12 lt'lxc6 bxc6 13 'it'd4 'iff5 14 i.xc6 lib8 15 .l:Ig1 Wh8 16 0-0-0 l:tb6 1 7 �d8! 'i/Vc5 18 l:tg5! lt'ld7 19 lixd7 ..txd7 20 'i�Ve7! and Black resigned in S.Kishnev-R.Rabiega, German League 2001; better is 13 .....1te6 and if 1 4 0-0-0 Black can play 14 ... .i.xa2 15 nhg1 'iih 1 + 16 Wd2 �xd1+ 17 ..ltxd1 lifd8, but the position remains difficult after 1 8 Wc2 :!.xd4 19 ..\txd4) 1 1 0-0 (or 1 1 lt'lxc6 �xc6 12 ..td4 �g6 followed by ... c7-c5 with a good game in P.Andreasen T.Bromann, Danish League 2001 ) 1 l .. .lt'lxc3 12 bxc3 'i/Vc5 13 'ifb3 l:tb8 14 liad1 was played in Se.Ivanov L.Madebrink, Sweden 2001, when 14 ... ..td7 would have been equal. 10 ... 1\i'xc6 11 �f3
Instead: a) 1 1 .l:r.cl �e8 12 Jid4 l'id6 13 .Jte2 (or 13 i.. c4 �4+ 14 'i'd2 'i'Vxd2+ 15 Wxd2 lt'le4+ 16 We2 c5 1 7 .i.c3 lt'lxc3+ 18 .l:Ixc3 b6 with equality) 13 ...b6 1 4 0-0 (14 i.. f3 lt'le4 15 �c2 i.b7! was also fine for 204
Black in M.Richter-M.Breutigam, Ger man League 2000, as 16 �xc7? would lose to 16 ... i:tac8) 14 ... c5 15 i.c3 �e6 16 i.f3 lt'le4 17 ii.xe4 'it'xe4 and Black had in no problems M.Richter I.Miladinovic, St Vincent 2000. b) 1 1 "ii'd4 ..te6 12 'ifu4 was tried in L.Verat-L.Dubois, Clichy 2000, but af ter 12 . . .I!.fd8 13 i¥g3 (if 13 i.xf6 gxf6 14 i¥xf6 i¥c2 15 "ii'c3 "ir'xc3+ 16 bxc3 .l:!.d6 gives Black sufficient counterplay for the pawn) 13 ...1l.f5 14 'iVg5 i.. g6 15 .i.b5 'ife4 Black was even a little bit better. 11 ...iVxf3 12 gxf3 ctJd5 13 ..\td4 i.e6
14 1:Ic1
Or: a) 14 0-0-0 was played in I.Rausis C.Wisnewski, Bad Bocklet 2002, and now instead of 14 .. .l:Hd8, the immedi ate 14 ... c5! would have equalized. b) 14 lig1 f6 (14 ... g6?! unnecessarily weakens the dark squares; White got a good position after 15 I:rcl �fd8 16 h4 �d7 1 7 h5 lt'le7 18 hxg6 fxg6 19 a3 lt'l£5 20 i.eS in S.Giessmann-C.Wisnewski, German Championship 2004) 15 a3 aS 16 .l:Icl l:tac8 1 7 Wd2 I:rfd8 18 e4 cS 19 �xcS l::!.xcS 20 ii.xc5 b6 21 exdS (or 21
1 d4 d5 2 c4 ttl c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxd5
iLe3 lt:Jxe3+ 22 Wxe3 l:!:.d 1 ) and here a draw was agreed in B.Gulko-S.Brynell, Copenhagen 2000. 14...c6 15 a3 f6 16 i.c4 lt:Jc7 17 i.e2 .l::tfd8 18 0-0 iLb3 19 �g2
Black has a significant lead in devel opment, but in order not to lose mo mentum a radical approach is required. The position is highly complicated with possibilities for both sides. I'd like to give you a few ideas by examining the following game. Game 60 M.Socko-C.Foisor
Athens 2004 1 d4 d5 2 c4 tt:Jc6 3 cxd5 "i'xd5 4 e3 e5 5 tt:ic3 i.b4 6 .id2 i.xc3 7 i.xc3 exd4 8 tt:ie2 lt:Jf6 9 tt:ixd4 o-o 10 tt:ib5 'iVg5
The position still offers enough room to play on, but... Yz-Yz
As I have already pointed out, 10 �b5 is the most ambitious attempt to
cause problems for Black. The position after 10 fig5 11 tt:Jxc7 iLg4 12 'iVb3 :tad8 13 'i¥xb7 l:!.d6 shows the implica tions of this line. ..•
10 ... 'iVxd1+ is too benign. After 1 1 l:i:.xd1 lt:Je8 12 i.c4 Black lacked pros pects in M.Lindinger-E.Maahs, Ham burg 1999. 11 tt:ixc7
In exchange for the two pawns
Choosing the most complicated way. Other moves promise less: 1 1 'iVf3?! was smoothly countered by l l ...i.g4 1 2 'ifg3? (12 �xf6 was nec essary) 12 ... tt:le4 13 'iVxc7 a6 14 'iVxb7 'iVdS 15 lt:Jc7 lt:Jd4!! in S.BatyrovC.Wisnewski, Bad Bocklet (blitz) 2002; 205
Play 1 . . . l'll c6 !
while the plain 1 1 �x£6 'ii'x£6 12 lbxc7 is met by 12 . . .i.g4!, e.g. 13 'iVxg4 'ii'xb2 14 !i.d1 'i¥c3+ 15 �d2 lLle5 and Black picks up the knight on c7. But 1 1 h4 is a cunning move, to which there are two ways to react: a) 1 1 ...'jj'g6?! eyes g2, but has the dis advantage that White can develop his fl-bishop with tempo: 12 l2Jxc7 ..tg4 13 �d3! �6 (after 13 ...�xd1 14 ..txg6 .l::tac8 15 �£5 .l:txc7 16 .lixd1 Black is already fighting a losing battle) 14 �a4 litac8 (or 14 ...l:tad8 15 �c2 �c8 16 l:td1 and Black had nothing for the pawn in R.Cifuentes Parada-I.Miladinovic, Dos Hermanas 2000), when White can play 15 lDb5 and now 15 ...Itfe8 (15 ... �d7 saves the bishop, but after 16 0-0 there is no com pensation in sight) 16 ..tx£6 .l:txe3+ 17 Wfl ! (but not 17 fxe3? 'iWxe3+ 1 8 \t>fl 'i¥xd3+ 19 ..t>£2 l2Je5 20 .i.xe5 :tc2+ 21 "it'xc2 1Wxc2+ 22 'it>g3 "iHd3+! and Black is better after 23 'it>h2 "iHxb5 or 23 Wxg4 £5+ 24 W£4 'jj'e4+ 25 'it>g3 1i'xe5+ and ...'jj'xb5) 1 7 .. .'ti'xf6 18 li'xg4 �d8 (or 18 ...l:txd3 19 'ii'xc8+) 19 .i.e2 li'xb2 20 I:.e1 when White keeps the extra piece. b) 1 1 . ..�6! sees another crossroads:
206
b 1 ) 12 'jj'£3?! again allows Black to play 1 2 . . . i.g4 13 'it'g3 l:tad8 14 i.c4 (if 14 �x£6 'ifx£6 15 'i'xg4 'jj'xb2 16 l!d1 l2Jb4! and Black gets a dangerous at tack) 14 ... �e6! 15 .i.xe6 fxe6 16 0-0 (tak ing the c7-pawn is good for Black after either 16 l2Jxc7 l2Je4 1 7 'ii'xg7+ li'xg7 18 �xg7 .l::tx£2 or 16 'ii'xc7 e5 intending 17 �xe5 .l::!.£7) 16 ... l2Je4 17 'ii'g4 l2Jxc3 18 lDxc3 1::!.£7 and in exchange for his de valued pawn structure, Black has good prospects on the half-open £-file. b2) 12 .1e2 I:td8 13 'jj'c2 l2Jd5 14 0-0-0 (14 �d2?! saves the bishop from being traded, but Black gets a good game after 14 ... a6 15 l2Ja3 'ii'£6 or 15 lLlc3 l2Jdb4 16 'Yi'e4 f5 1 7 'ifh1 l2Je5; while 14 �d1 i.e6 15 a3 litd7 gave Black a com fortable position in D.Rogozenko A.Morozevich, Istanbul Olympiad 2000), and now Bronznik gives 14 ... il.e6 15 g4 (or 15 a3 a6 16 l2Jd4 lLlxc3 17 'ii'xc3 l2Jxd4 1 8 !txd4 c5! ) 15 ... l2Jdb4 16 �xb4 lLlxb4 1 7 l:hd8+ .l:txd8 18 g5 "iHg6 19 li'xg6 lDxa2+ 20 �b1 hxg6 with a com plicated endgame, for example 21 lDxc7 i.b3 22 lDb5 l2Jb4 23 l2Jd4 (but not 23 lbxa7? i.c2+ 24 �cl .ie4 and Black wins) 23 ... .id5 24 .l:tcl .i.e4+ 25 Wa1 �d5 26 .l:1c8+ �h7 27 l:tc3, when 27 ... lla5+ 28 .l:ta3 l:tc5 29 �c3 �a5+ is a draw by repetition. b3) 12 l2Jxc7 ..11i. g4 13 li'h3 (13 li'd6 �adS 1 4 'ii'g3 was played in G.Dizdar M.Ivanov, Austrian League 2004, when Black continued with the methodical 14 ... �d7 15 i.c4 .tHd8, but fell behind after 16 l2Jd5 l:txd5 17 1l..xd5 �xd5 18 �x£6 'iVx£6 19 'ii'xg4; instead 14 ... l2Je4' would have been the correct response,
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tLl c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxd5
and after 15 fixg4 lLlxc3 16 bxc3 'ii'd6 1 7 i.e2 lt'Je5 Black regains the piece with sufficient compensation for the pawn due to his greater activity) 13 ....U.ad8 14 ·i'xb7 is similar to the main game, but with the moves h2-h4 and .. .'iVh6 in serted. This actually favours Black more than White, as can be seen in the following analysis: 14 ...lt'Je4 15 i.. b5 (not 15 i.. c4?! lLlxc3 16 bxc3 .Ud7 and White cannot extricate the knight) 15 ... i.d7 and now to show the number of pitfalls lurking in this line, I would like to give you a few sample varia tions:
b34) 16 �e2 11Yg6 17 .i.£3 (17 0-0?! lL:lxc3 18 bxc3 ltJd4! is as surprising as it is forceful; for example, 19 �f3 lt'Jxf3+ 20 'ikxf3 i.. c6 21 'ii'g3 'ii'xg3 22 fxg3 llc8 23 ltJa6 i.b5 and Black wins; better is 21 e4 �xe4 22 'iWg3 but after 22 .. .'iVc6 the knight is still in grave danger) 17 ... ltJc5 18 'ii'b5 and now Bronznik suggests 18 ... lt'Jb4!? 19 "iNc4 lt'Jc2+ 20 'iite2 ltJxa1 21 J::!.x a1 with unclear play. But I like 18 ... lt'Je5!? even better, for example 19 'ii'e2 'i¥d6 20 i.xe5 lt'Jd3+ 21 'i£;£1 lLlxe5 22 lt'Jb5 i.xb5 23 'ii'xb5 lLlxf3 24 gxf3 .!:!.b8 25 'ii'e2 iYf6 and despite being two pawns down, Black has suf ficient compensation as his forces are well coordinated while the white pieces are incredibly not. 11 .i.g4 12 'ii'b 3 .Mad8 ...
b31 ) 16 ltcl? is met by 16 .. .'�d6! when both . . .�b8 and ...lt'Jc5 threaten to win the queen which is still tied to the knight on c7. b32) 16 �c4? fails to 16 .. .<�)xc3 1 7 bxc3 'ii'd6, now with the triple threats of ... .S.b8, ...lt'Ja5 and ... i.c8. b33) 16 lLld5?! ltJd6 17 'ii'a6 lLlb8 18 ::Jf6+ gxf6 19 'iWxd6 i.xb5 20 11Yxf6 'iVxf6 21 ii.xf6 l:td7 22 .llh3 .l:I.c8 23 l'lg3+ 'iitf8 was clearly better for Black in C.Marcelin-S.Conquest, French League 2001.
13 'iWxb7
13 h3 wants to eliminate possible mating threats on dl. The game G.Flear-I.Miladinovic, Athens 1999, continued 13 ... ..tc8 14 "i¥b5 iVg6 15 �xf6 (15 .l:Icl was suggested as an im provement by Miladinovic, but after 15 ... lt'Je4! White has to be careful, for instance 1 6 'ii'b3 'ii'f5 1 7 'i'c2 l!d2! and 207
Play 1 . .lb c 6 ! .
Black i s winning), and now 1 5. . .�xf6 (instead of 15 ... gxf6 as played in the game) 16 lZ'ld5 (or 16 ..11. c4 �g6) 16 ...�e5 1 7 lZ'lf4 �d6 18 d3 lZ'lb4 would have led to active play according to Bronznik, for example 19 .l:!.d1 .id7 20 �c4? .if5 21 'it>e2 lZ'lxd3 22 lbxd3 .l:!.c8 23 �3 .ie6 and Black will invade the second rank. 13
...
.l:!.d6!?
The major alternative is 13 ...�c5, when White has several different moves at his disposal:
a) 14 �5?! does not work as well as in the text, as 14 ... �d6 simultaneously threatens 15...�xc7 and 15 . . .�d1+. White's best option seems to be 15 f3 �xc7 16 .ixf6 gxf6 1 7 fxg4 but after 17 ....l:!.fe8 Black has a dangerous initia tive, despite being two pawns down. b) 14 lba6?! �d6 15 �3 (no better is 15 f3 .ic8, for example 16 �3 .l:!.fe8 17 'it>f2 .l:!.xe3! as White gets mated after 18 'it>xe3 lbg4+! 19 fxg4 .l:!.e8+ 20 'it>f3 ..11.xg4+! 21 'it>xg4 .l:!.e4+ 22 Wh3 �6+ 23 Wg3 �e3) 15 ... lbe4 16 f3 was played in P.Wiebe-C.Wisnewski, Kiel (rapid) 2004, but after 16 ...�6! 17 �c2 .ixf3 18 i.b5 �xe3+ 19 'it>fl .l:!.d2 20 �xd2 lZ'lxd2+ 208
21 .ixd2 �xd2 22 gxf3 �xb2 White had to resign. c) 14 h3 should also be answered by 14 ... .ic8 15 �3 tt:le4 with compensa tion for the two pawns. d) 14 .ib5 .l:!.d6 15 lba6 �d5 16 0-0 .ic8 1 7 �c7 �xb5 18 �xd6 tt:le4 19 �f4 tt:lxc3 20 bxc3 .ixa6 resulted in a roughly equal position in L.Van Wely I.Miladinovic, FIDE World Champion ship, Groningen 1997. e) 14 �3 returns the queen to safety, but neglects development. After 14 ... tt:le4 15 .ib5 .l:!.d7 (15 ... �d6?! 16 �d5!) White has to be very careful:
e1) 16 tt:la6?! �f5 17 0-0 is surpris ingly punished by 17 ... .if3! and White is lost; for example: 18 gxf3 (if 18 .ixc6 �g4 mates, while after 1 8 .l:!.fcl .¥i.xg2 19 'it>xg2 �x£2+ 20 'it>h1 �f3+ 21 �g1 .l:!.d6 or 19 f4 i.h3 20 �c2 .l:!.d2! White cannot avoid being mated for much longer) 18 ....l:!.d6! 19 .l:!.fd1 (or 19 .l:!.fcl �3 20 .if6 lZ'ld2) 19 ... .l:!.g6+ 20 'it>fl �xf3 21 �c2 .l:!.g2 22 We1 (or 22 .l':td2 .l:!.xh2 and mates) 22 ... .l:!.xf2 23 �xe4 �xe4 24 Wxf2 �f5+ 25 Wg1 �xb5 with a decisive ad vantage for Black.
1 d4 ds 2 c4 tt'l c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds
e2) 16 h3 �f5 17 �c2 (better is 1 7 0-0 and i f 17 ... £i.xh3? 1 8 .ixc6, while 1 7... iJ3! 18 gxf3 ifxh3 19 CLJd5 tLlg3 20 fxg3 �xg3+ 21 Wh1 �3+ leads to a draw by perpetual check; but not 19 ixe4?! :Jld6 20 CLJe6 .Uxe6 21 1i'xe6 1i'xe6 22 f3 f5! when Black gets good attack ing chances according to Bronznik) 17 .. CLJxc3 1 8 1i'xc3 .1Ixc7 19 .¥t.xc6 �c8 20 hxg4 �xc6 21 '*'d3 (not 21 �d2? l:'!,d8 22 ·m4 .l:lcl + 23 '.t>e2 .Uc2+ 24 �fl kldd2 regaining both pawns with interest) 21...l:cl + 22 !ixcl '1!Vxcl + 23 'Yi'd1 1i'xb2 and Black, having already won back one of the pawns, had excellent com pensation in O.Kniest-A.Liebau, corre spondence 2000. .
14 'i'kbs!?
plays 15 . . Jhe3+! with a winning attack, for example 1 6 fxe3 'ii'xe3+ 1 7 tLle2 tLle4 18 1i'xc6 �d8 19 1i'xe4 '*'xe4 20 Ud1 l:txd1+ 21 '.t>xd1 .ixe2+ 22 .¥t.xe2 �1+ and White resigned in A.Martin C.Wisnewski, Internet (blitz) 2003. b) 14 h4 .l:!.fd8! 15 ii..e2 1i'g6 16 i.xf6 (or 16 .¥t.xg4 "iYxg4 1 7 0-0 'MVd7 18 i.xf6 gxf6 and White cannot save his knight) 16 ... ..ixe2! 17 ..lil..xd8 'Yi'c2 and mates. c) 14 h3!? is an interesting try that has not been tested in any serious game as yet. The idea is to force Black to make a decision about his bishop. Bronznik gives 14 ...Ub8 15 'Yi'a6 .lth5 16 �a4 .1Ibd8, but after 1 7 g4 it is not clear to me how Black is compensated for his two sacrificed pawns. Instead 15 .....111..£5 looks better, with the idea of ... tLle4 and ...�4, now that 14 h3 has weakened g3 and therefore enables ... tLlxg3 after g2-g3. The safest way for White to re spond seems to be 16 tLlb5 l:!.e6 1 7 tLlc7 with a draw by repetition (!), but in any case Black should not be afraid to make his stand here. 14 ."ii'g6 ..
Although discovered independently by other chess players as well, accord ing to my games database (more than five million games) this move was first employed by my clubmate Patrick Wiebe in a game we played back in 2002. But before we take a look at this, let's see how to treat the alternatives: a) After 14 tLlb5?! .l::!:e6 many games have featured 15 CLJd4?, when Black
14 ... .\t£5!? is an interesting alterna tive suggested by Bronznik in the sec ond edition of Die Tschigorin Verteidigung. I remember analysing this position for about three hours with the Danish expert theoretician S.Pedersen, and while we came to the conclusion that Black has definite compensation for the two pawns, the position is so rich in possibilities that it is simply not possible to give it an adequate cover age. But one advantage of this omis sion is that you are not deprived of the 2 09
Play 1 . tt.J c 6 ! . .
fun you will have when analysing this position for yourself!
19 'Llb5 .l:!.e6 20 'ii'e2 iVf5 21 .l:!.d1 'Lle4 22 'Llc7
15 .lte2
22 ...tt.:Jxc3?! 15 .txe2?! •••
Interposing 15 ... .l:!b8! makes more sense. After 16 'iVc4 (if 16 .ltxg4, then rather than accept the queen, Black should play 16 ...\i'xg4 17 iVfl 'Llb4! or 17 f3 'ii'xg2 18 iVf1 .l:!xb2! 19 'ii'xg2 .l:!xg2, regaining the sacrificed material and remaining with the better position) 16 ... .ltxe2 17 'ii'xe2 'ti'xg2 Black is virtu ally a move up on the text, as the rook is usually better placed on b8 than on f8. All the same, it doesn't seem to make a big difference here, but it many lines this kind of additional resource could be decisive. 16 'ii'x e2 'ii'xg2 17 'ii'f1 'ii'f3 18 .l:!g1 g6
I don't understand why Black didn't play 18 ... 11fd8. Perhaps she feared 19 'ii'e2 'ii'h3 20 .ltxf6 .l:!xf6 21 'ti'g4, but after 21...'ii'xg4 22 .l:!.xg4 'Lle5! Black gets more than sufficient coun terplay. Then again, even after the text move the position is more difficult to play for White, and Black has definite compensation for the pawn. 210
Now White manages to consolidate her position, but there was no need to capture the bishop at this point. I would prefer 22 ....l:!e7!? here, for exam ple 23 tt.:Jb5 (if 23 'Lld5 11d7 24 'Llf4, then 24 ...ctJxc3 25 bxc3 l1xd1 + 26 'ii'x d1 .l:!bS leaves Black with a dangerous initia tive) 23 ... .l:!fe8 24 'Lld6 (or 24 'Lld4 'Llxd4 25 .ltxd4 'Llg5!? with decent chances on the light squares) 24 ... 'Llxd6 25 .l:!xd6 ctJe5 26 .l:!.g3 iVh1+ 27 'iVd1 'ii'xa2 and Black has evened out the material. 23 bxc3 l1e5 24 f4 .l:!a 5 25 c4 .l:!b8 26 tt.:Jd5 '.t>f8 27 r;t>f2 iVh3 28 1:!g2 'Lle7 29 tt.:Jxe7?!
The immediate 29 r;t>g1 ! would have been a better choice. The white knight on d5 is much better, so why not profit from a possible trade by improving the pawn structure? 29 ... 'ii'h4+ 30 r;t>g1 iVxe7 31 'ii'd 2 .l:!a3
Now Black manages to create enough counterplay by attacking the numerous white pawn islands. 32 .l:!e2 r;t>g8 33 'ii'd 6 'ii'x d6 34 M.xd6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 tLl c 6 3 e3 a n d 3 cxds �b1+ 35 'i:tf2 1':!.c1 36 l:c6 !ta4 37 cs .Ua s
this one.
38 J:.i.c8+ cJlg7 39 c6 rJa6 40 c7 It.ac6 41
43 Md2 l:i.c3 44 a4 !tc4 45 l;!d4 l:.c2 46
�f3 .Uxc7 42 .Uxc7 nxc7
h3 lia 2 47 l:.c4 hS 48 lad4 as 49 .l::i.c4 Wf6 50 Se4 �a1 51 cJlg3 'lt>g7 52 �d4 'Ot>h6 53 �c4 .l:ta3 54 �f3 h4 55 'it>g4 �xe3 56 �xh4 fs 57 l:!d4 l:'!b3 ss �c4?? �b4 59 lic7 l:i.xf4+ 60 �g3 blxa4 61 h4 .Ug4+ 62 cJlh3 a4 63 l:i.a7 l:i.b4 64 cJlg3 l;!b3+ 65 �g2 a3 66 l:i.a8 'it>hs 67 l:ta6 :b4 68 l:!.xa3 l:i.xh4
It is really time to resign. 69 l:ia6 .Ub4 10 Wf3 gs 11 1:ta s .l::i.b 3+ 72 �2 'Ot>g4 7 3 .Ucs .Ub2+ 74 '<W1 f4 7 S l:i.as 'Ot>h4 76 l:i.fs .l:!.b4 77 .l:!.cs g4 78 .l:!.c2 �b1+ 79 c.ti>g2 f3+ so 'lt>f2 l;!h1 81 .l::!.c4
The endgame is completely equal, but White, probably disgusted by her earlier poor technique, manages to lose
llh2+ 82 'it>g1 .l:i.a2 8 3 Itc1 Wh3 84 .l:tf1 '>t>g3 85 !tb1 J:i.g2+ 86 '>t>h1 �h2+ 8 7 'it>g1 f2+ o-1
211
Play 1 . .ti:. c 6 ! .
Summary The games in this chapter have shown that you shouldn't be afraid to sacrifice a pawn or two as you get compensated in many ways, be it a lead in development (Games 53-54), a positional advantage (Games 55-56) or simply a dangerous initia tive (Game 60). But what may be even more important, you don't have to worry about being strategically outplayed either, as Games 57-59 demonstrated. 1 d4 dS 2 c4 tt'lc6 3 cxds
3 e3 eS Game 53 3 :ir'xds (D) 4 e3 4 tt'lf3 e5 5 dxe5 - Game 54 5 tt'lc3 j.b4 (0) 6 .id2 i.xc3 7 .txc3 e4 - Game 55 6 e3 exd4 7 exd4 tt'lf6 - Game 56 4... es s tt'lc3 .ib4 6 �d2 .txc3 7 .txc3 7 bxc3 4Jf6 8 c4 'i¥d6 - Game 57 8 f3 e4 Game 58 -
•.
-
7 exd4 8 Cbe2 tt'lf6 g tt'lxd4 o-o 10 Cbbs ...
10 CDxc6 - Game 59 10 .'ir'gs (0) ..
-
Game 60
3 . . . fixd5
212
5 Ji.b4 ...
l O . . . 'ilfgS
Part Three Black v s . 1 . . . ct:Jc6
1
I
c4:
I have to tell you, the English Opening is a bit of a nuisance to the l . . .<�:Jc6 player. White refuses to occupy the centre with any pawns but opts for piece development instead, effectively trying to play Black at his own game! Therefore, a change of gear is needed. and I recommend transposing to the l . . .eS English. Normally l . . .tt'lc6 is hardly associated with main lines, but I think that the resulting positions will be to your liking. Take the game into uncharted territory!
Even if the game will most likely transpose to 1 c4 eS, there are still a few independent options to entice the Eng lish adherent away from his known territory, resulting in positions that perfectly fit the style of the l . . .tt'lc6 player. We will take a closer look at these options in Chapter 12.
Swim against the strea m!
It is not always necessary to adhere to common assessments of certain open ing lines. As I would like to show you in Chapter 13, systems that are suppos edly known to be dubious can actually be faithful companions. Once again I can only say: know your systems, and you will be amply rewarded. The class conflict: knight(s) versus bishop(s)
As you have already seen in my ex amination of the Chigorin Defence, parting with the pair of bishops does not necessarily result in a worse posi tion; Black is usually provided with positional compensation in the form of a weakened enemy pawn structure and/or sufficient counterplay in the centre. More examples can be found in Chapter 14.
213
Chapter Twelve
I
c4 'LJc6: Ra re Secon d Moves for Wh ite 1
As I have already indicated, playing l ...ltJc6 against the English Opening has little independent value. After 1 c4 ltJc6 very few players will accept the invitation to transpose to the Chigorin Defence with 2 d4; most of the time you will encounter the typical 2 ltJc3. Black could then play 2 ...ltJf6, once more hoping to reach the Chigorin De fence after 3 d4 d5, but there is no rea son to believe that White players will fall for this bait if they already have declined it on the previous move. And what is even more important: White could play 3 e4, when 3 ... e5 would reach an inferior version of Chapter 1, as Black has already committed his king's knight to f6 while White is not obligated to develop his own to f3 (which incidentally would lead to Game 68 in Chapter 14). Therefore, Black has nothing better than 2 es, which is subject of Chapters 13 and 14. However, there are a few players who deliberately choose other second ...
214
moves, the most sensible being 2 g3 and 2 tt:lf3, which we will now examine in more detail. White plays 2 g3 As you may notice over the course of this part of the book, a frequent Black plan in the English Opening is to trade the dark-squared bishop for White's queen' s knight in order to get a better grip on the light central squares. Some White players do not like to play such positions and therefore choose 2 g3, in order to reach their familiar fianchetto systems while denying Black that pos sibility. However, Black has an opportunity to ginger things up with 2 d5!, mak ing use of the fact that White has both neglected to bring d5 under his control and temporarily weakened the h1 -a8 diagonal. After 3 cxds 'YWxd s 4 ltJf3 tt:Jf6 5 ltJc3 (or 5 �g2) s .'it'hS!? Black in tends ... ..th3 to exchange the light squared bishops. This has been played ...
..
1 c4 liJ c 6 : R a re S e co n d M o ves fo r White
only a handful of games so, besides :he great potential lying within this :me, it is quite probable that you will :ake your opponent by surprise ;.omething that usual works out well. :.n
Came 61 C.La qua-C.Wisnewski
German League 2006 1 C4 ltJc6 2 g3 dS
3 cxds
3 ll'lf3?! is a peculiar attempt to reach the Reti Opening; peculiar as ... lbc6 serves Black especially well here. Bargte \1. Lindinger-C.Wisnewski, heide 2006, continued 3 . . . dxc4 4 .ig2 :b8! 5 'ii'c2 b5 6 b3 i.b7 7 0-0 (7 bxc4 would have regained the pawn, but after 7 ...ll'ld4 8 'ifc3 b4 9 'iib2 e6 Black is still better, or if 8 'ii'd 1 ?! ll'lxf3+ 9 exf3 i"d4 10 lbc3 'ii"xc4 wins it back again) ;-... cxb3 8 axb3 e6 9 i.b2 tt:Jf6 10 .l:i.cl l.d6 and White had no compensation for the pawn.
5 . . .'i¥h5!? as well, when White can react differently: a) 6 h3 has pros and cons. On the one hand, White simultaneously pre vents . . ...ig4 and ... i.h3; on the other, he can no longer castle without further weakening his position with g3-g4. Meanwhile Black has to be careful not to get his queen trapped. After 6 ... e5 7 g4 (7 d4 exd4 8 tt:lxd4 lbxd4 9 'i¥xd4 i..c5 is at least equal, while if 7 d3 i.b4+ 8 .liL.d2 i.xd2+ 9 'ii'xd2 i.d7 or 8 ll'lc3 e4 9 lbg5 exd3 10 'ifxd3 0-0 and Black has no problems) 7... 'iVg6 8 d3 (if 8 lbh4 'i!Vh6 9 tt:lf3 lbd7 leads to comfortable play for Black) 8 ... i.b4+! is again the key idea to provide the queen with much needed breathing space: 9 i.d2 lbd7, and once Black has regrouped his forces, the extended white kingside will be the main target. b) 6 'itb3 is another way to prevent ... i.h3, but Black can easily shift gears: 6 ... e5 7 d3 i.cS 8 tt:lc3 i.b6 9 h3 ll'ld4 10 lbxd4 exd4 1 1 'ijflJS+ li'xb5 12 ll'lxbS a6 and Black got a good position in M.Niesel-D.Suhl, German League 1991 . s 'iVhs!? ...
3 ...'�/Vxds 4 ll'lf3 tt:lf6 s tt:lc3
After 5 SL.g2 Black should play 215
Play 1 . tU c 6 ! . .
6 d3
There are a few alternatives, but none of them is too appealing: a) 6 d4?! is dangerous only for White as the d-pawn quickly loses sup port. Luckhaus-D.Suhl, Wiirzburg 1987, continued 6 ... .1g4 7 dS �xf3 8 exf3 0-0-0 9 .i.e2, and now Black could have picked up the pawn with 9 .. .'�Jxd5! 10 f4 �g6 1 1 lt:lxd5 �e4. b) 6 i.g2 j,h3 7 0-0 0-0-0 is the kind of position Black is dreaming of, his ideas being ... lt:lf6-g4 and . . . lt:lc6-d4 with a strong attack against the white king. c) 6 h3 is similar to 5 i.g2, when 6 ...e5 7 d3 �b4 8 i.d2 (for 8 i.g2 e4 see the note to White's 5th move) 8 ... 0-0 results in a nice position for Black
position. But maybe more importantly, this is no typical position for the Eng lish Opening. There is a good chance that White players will mistreat it, as my opponent did in this game. 10 lt:lgs?!
Post-mortem analysis with my op ponent showed that, sad as it may seem, White should probably seek to trade queens, beginning with 10 llfa4 "iVg4, but the position still leaves more than enough room for Black to play. 10 0-0-0, on the other hand, allows Black to remove the white bishop with 1 0 ... lt:lg4! . 1o ... i¥hs 11 �a4 lt:ld s 12 g4?!
Not being familiar with the posi tion, my opponent already slides downhill.
6 ....1h3 7 jj_xh3 �xh3 8 �b3 0-0-0! 9
12 .. .'ik'g6 13 h4 lt:lxe3 14 fxe3 h6 15 lt:lf3
SLe3
15 lt:lge4 15 . . . f5! . 1 s .. � cs
9 �xf7? is too greedy. After 9 ... e6 the queen is mouse-trapped and can only be freed at a high price: 10 lt:lgS 'i!Vg2 1 1 i¥xe6+ .l:td7 12 J:\.fl lt:ld4 and Black collects the rook on al.
is effectively
met by
.
9 . . e6 .
16 'iii>d 2
We have reached a roughly level 216
16 d4 was not to my opponent's lik ing, but was probably still the better choice. I would have played 16 ... i.b4 1 7 l::!.g 1 eS! 18 0-0-0 .ixc3 19 bxc3 'i¥e4
1 c4 CiJ c 6 : R a re S e c o n d M o ves for Wh i te 20 l:id3 exd4 21 cxd4 l:!.d5 with a firm
grip on the light squares. 16 ... fs ! 17 llhg1 \'i'f6 18 gs hxgs 19 :.xgs tt:les 20 l:!.f1
Against 20 tt:lxe5 �xeS 21 'iYf4 I planned 21.. . ..11.d 6! 22 �xeS i..xeS, when it is extremely difficult for White to defend the h-pawn.
Black who is grabbing some space. The game usually continues 4 lZ'lf3 es 5 d3 lZ'lf6 6 0-0 .ii. e 7 when we have reached (by transposition) a variation of the Reti Opening.
20 ...tt:lg4
21 tt:ld1
21 l'lxg4 fxg4 22 'iYxg4 was White's only hope to complicate Black's task. :-.Jaw the game resolves itself quickly. 21 l:!.xh4 22 'ti'c4 l2Jxe3! ..•
23
'iYxh4
�xf1+ 24 '>i?e1 lZ'le3 25 lZ'lc3 i.b4 26 i¥Jd2 lZ'lds 27 �c4 l:td6 28 e4 fxe4 29 'i¥xe4 l2Jxc3 30 bxc3 �xc3+ 31 'it>e2 'i'c2+ 32 'it>e3 �cS+ 3 3 'iti4 �f2 34 axg7 l:!.d4 3 5 l:ig8+ '5t>d7 36 .Sg7+ ..t>e8 37 l:txc7 0-1
The next game features a different approach. Instead of allowing Black to commence action on the kingside, White calmly continues his develop ment with 3 i.g2, knowing that taking on c4 is no serious option for Black. However, after 3 ...d4, for a change it is
This position also resembles a re versed Classical Modern Benoni, and while it is already unlikely that your opponent will actually play the Mod ern Benoni (or the Reti for that matter) and be familiar therefore with the cor rect treatment, this is one of the few positions where being a move down actually benefits Black! That is because, in the Benoni, the d4-square plays an important role for the fianchettoed bishop - which in the reversed position means the dS-square, but with the black c-pawn still back on c7 (instead of the usual cS) this feature is put into perspective. Nevertheless, the plans usually em ployed in the Benoni are not signifi cantly altered here. White will still aim to advance on the queenside, while Black tries to break through in the cen tre and play ... e5-e4 under favourable circumstances. Check out the next 21 7
Play 1 . . lb c 6 ! .
game for a proper handling of the posi tion. Game 62 A.Serebro-R.Bairach ny
U kra i n ian C h a m pion s h i p, Donetsk 1993 1 c4 lt:Jc6 2 g3 ds 3 .tg2 d4 4 lt:Jf3 es s d3 lt:Jf6 6 o-o J..e 7 7 b4
Instead: a) Attacking the centre with . . .e7-e6 is a standard plan in the Modern Be noni. But here, since the d5-square is not weak (with the c-pawn still on c7), Black is more inclined to answer 7 e3 with 7 ... dxe3.
13 �g2 lt:Jxc4 14 e5 tbxe5 1 5 i.xb7 ftd8 is roughly equal) 1 1 . . .11.xf3 12 .txf3 lt:Je5 13 ii.e2 c6 14 a3 a5 15 I!.b1 a4 16 b4 axb3 1 7 llxb3 l:i.a7 1 8 11.d2 lt:Jfd7 19 a4 lt:Jc5 20 ftb2 0-0 and Black had definite compensation for the pawn. b) 7 lt:Ja3 is another common idea, as White reroutes the knight to c2 in order to support a possible queenside pawn advance. In return, Black looks for ways to enforce ... e5-e4 under favour able circumstances: 7 ... 0-0 8 lt:Jc2 l!e8 9 .Ub1 a5 10 b3 (not 1 0 a3?! a4! and the white queenside is fixed) 10 ...lLld7 1 1 a3 f5 12 b 4 axb4 13 axb4 11.f6 1 4 b5 lt:Je7 15 tbb4 lt:Jc5 provided Black with the better chances in B.Pingas-F.Quiroga, Potrero de los Funes 1995. 7 e4! ...
After 8 fxe3 (or 8 ii.xe3 lt:Jg4 9 lt:Jc3 0-0 10 'it'e2 lt:Jxe3 1 1 fxe3 .tg4 12 h3 .it..e6 with a comfortable position), Black can disrupt the white pawn structure with 8 ... e4 9 dxe4 ifxd1 10 .l:t.xd1 .tg4! (10 ...lt:Jxe4?! 11 lt:Jd4 gives White un necessary chances on the long diago nal). The game S.Gelzenleichter K.Brandenberg, Bad Wiessee 1999, con tinued 1 1 lt:Jc3 (11 h3 ii..x£3 12 i.xf3 lt:Je5 218
7 ... J..xb4?! 8 lt:Jxe5! is just what White wants. 8 dxe4 ..txb4 9 es
Black is put more to the test by 9 �b2!?, and then: a) 9 ... tbxe4?! just runs into 10 tbxd4. b) 9 ... ..tc5 has been tried in numerous games, but White gets an easy ad vantage with 10 lLlbd2 'i!Ke7 1 1 lLlb3
1 c4 ltJ c 6 : R a re S e c o n d M o ves for White
-i'lxe4 12 lL'lfxd4 lbxd4 13 lL'lxc5! lbxc5 14 'ii'xd4, V.Salov-R.Hiibner, Barcelona 1989, being one of many examples. c) 9 ... i.e6 is better. White temporar ily wins a pawn, but in return Black can safely complete his development, while the scattered white pawns re main weak. Play continues 10 e5 lbd7 (10 ... lbg4?! is the wrong place for the knight; after 1 1 lbxd4 lbxd4 12 .ixd4 'ii'd7 13 i.b2 0-0-0 14 'i¥b3 c5 15 a3 i.aS 16 lbc3 lbxe5 1 7 lbe4! i.xc4 1 8 lL'ld6+! or 17... lbc6 18 lbxc5 White had a decisive advantage A.Zakharov in V.Doroshkievich, Lvov 1986) 1 1 lbxd4 -i'lxd4 12 'ii'xd4 c6 and then:
seems appealing, an additional point being that 13 ...lbb6 and 13 ... lbc5 are refuted by 14 lbd5!. Nevertheless, it seems that after 13 ... 'ii'a5 14 lL'le4 0-0-0!? Black has enough compensation for the pawn due to his active pieces. Two sample variations are 15 lL'ld6+ �b8 16 M.ab1 lL'lb6 17 a3 �c5 1 8 'i'f4 .l::l d 7 and 15 a3 .ic5 16 'ir'c3 'Yi'xc3 1 7 .ixc3 .ii.xc4 18 .l:lfd1 Ji.d5 19 lL'ld6+ i.xd6 20 exd6 .ixg2 21 �xg2 f6 both with highly unclear play. Practical tests are needed. g lbe4 ...
10 'ii'c 2
cl) 13 lba3 0-0 14 .l::lfcl 'ijVa5 15 lbc2 ..\¥.c5 16 'ii'e4 lbb6 17 lbd4 �xd4 1 8 'ii'xd4 .l:tfd8 19 'ijVe4 WVcS 2 0 e3 lbxc4 and Black regained his pawn in R.Keene P.Griffiths, British Championship, Coventry 1970. c2) 13 a3 i.cS 14 'ii'f4 'itb6 15 i.c3 'ii'b3 16 'ii'f3 1ixc4 17 lL'ld2 'ijVg4 18 lbe4 and a draw was agreed in S.Shestakov A.Vaulin, Moscow 1996. c3) 13 lbc3!? has not been played yet, but the prospect of a knight on e4
Now 10 i.b2 is not as effective: 10 . . . Ji.c5 l l lL'lbd2 (or l l lL'lxd4 .ii.xd4 12 i.xd4 'ii'xd4 13 'i¥xd4 t2Jxd4 14 i.xe4 lbxe2+ 15 �g2 lbd4 16 lbc3 c6 and Black is not worse) 1 1 ...lL'lc3 12 .txc3 dxc3 13 lL'le4 'ii'x d1 14 .l:tfxd1 c2 15 l:!.d2 .tb4 16 �xc2 .ifS 1 7 lL'lh4 i.xe4 18 i.xe4 lL'ld4 19 ltb2 ltc3 20 �ab1 il.xb2 21 M.xb2 .l::tb8 and Black had the slightly better position in D.Vigorito A.Cherniack, Marlborough 1999. 10 ttJcs 11 a 3 ...
1 1 i.gS i s smoothly countered by 1 1 .. .'i'd7 12 l::f.d 1 'iWfS! 13 'ilk'xf5 il.xf5 14 219
Play 1 . .lb c 6 ! .
i.f4 ( 1 4 tt:Jxd4?! runs into 1 4 ... tt:Jxd4 1 5 .l:!.xd4 tbe6 16 i.xb7 .l:i.b8 1 7 1L.c6+ �f8 1 8 i.e3 tt:Jxd4 19 i.. xd4 .l::!. d8 2 0 e 3 h S and the black rook swings into action via h6) 14 . o-o-o 1s tt:Jgs Itd7 16 i.ds tt:Jd8 17 i.d2 .itxd2 18 tt:Jxd2 h6 with the ad vantage in D.Barash-R.Shabtai, Ramat Hasharon 1990. .
.
11 ...i.a5 12 lld1 i.g4 13 i.e3 tt:Je6
moment, thus depriving Black o f cer tain options. However, it is my opinion that, after 2 ... e5, White should actually transpose to Chapter 14 with 3 tbc3, as his other options are impractical. But you can convince yourself by looking at the following game. Game 63 R. Wied ner-H.Grabher
Austri a n League
1996
1 c4 tt:Jc6 2 ctJf3 e 5 3 d4
With the d4-pawn enjoying full support, Black is better. 14 h3 it.h5 15 tt:Jh4 i.b6 16 �h2 �e7! 17 tt:Jf5 iYcs 18 ..ltxc6+ 'ii'xc6 19 tt:Jxd4?!
3 d3 and 3 e3 usually transpose to Chapter 14 after 3 . . . tt:Jf6 4 tt:Jc3, while 3 e4 �cS was dealt with in the first game of this book. Instead, 3 g3 e4 4 tt:Jh4 is a trade mark of Israeli GM Jacob Murey. Black must now suppress his urge to punish this bizarre idea. Instead, if he manages to keep his pawn on e4, the knight will be a sad sight on h4. After 4 ... tt:J£6, White has two possibilities:
Getting rid of this pawn was proba bly what White was aiming at for the whole game, but Black has other strengths too. 19 ...i.xd4 20 i.xd4 0-0-0 21 ..1ii. b2
21 i.e3 is marginally superior, as 21...l::tx d1 22 'i¥xd1 ifxc4 is 'only' clearly better for Black. 21...l::tx d1 22 �xd1 'i¥b6 0-1 Oops! White plays 2 l2Jf3 The idea behind 2 ctJf3 is identical to that of 2 g3 most of the time: leaving the queen' s knight at home for the 220
a) 5 .ig2 should be answered bY S ... dS!?. L.Cherner-W.Simpson, corre spondence 1997, continued 6 cxd�
1 c4 tLl c 6 : R a re S e c o n d M o ves fo r White
'i!fxdS 7 lbc3 'i¥e5 8 'ii'a4 (better is 8 d3 �b4 9 0-0 �xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 when the position is roughly equal; or if 1 0 ... g5 11 d4 �aS 12 d5!) 8 .. .'t�'d4! and the threat of 9 ... g5 proved troublesome. b) 5 lbc3 ..ib4 6 .il..g2 il.xc3 7 dxc3 (7 bxc3 is problematic as the c-pawns are now weak; for example 7 ... 0-0 8 d3 exd3 9 exd3 l:te8+ 10 ke3 d5! with a good game for Black, or 8 0-0 d6 and it is difficult for White to get his knight back into action) 7... h6 8 lDfS 0-0 9 lbd4, and while White has managed to relo cate his knight, in the meantime Black has pressed ahead with development. After 9 ... lDe5 10 b3 l::re8 1 1 0-0 d6 12 'i'c2 a6! 13 �d1 (13 i.xe4?! lbxe4 14 'ifxe4 lbxc4 is good for Black) 13 ... il.. d 7 14 h3 b5 Black had a nice initiative on the queenside in P.Walczak-K.Turecki, Polish Junior Championship 200 1 . 3 exd4 4 lDxd4 il.cs ...
from the Scotch Opening. After 6 e3 'fixc6 Black has no worries. b) 5 'Llf5 is a waste of time that is not justified by the slight weakening of the dark squares. After 5 ... g6 6 'Llg3 tZ:lf6 7 e4 (7 �g5? is met by 7 ... kxf2+ 8 Wx£2 tZ:lg4+ 9 �e1 'i!YxgS; while 7 e3, in order to close the g1 -a7 diagonal, shuts in the bishop and leaves Black with an easy game after 7 ... d5), it is White who has to be very careful. For example, 7 ... d6 8 i.e2 (8 �d3 tZ:lg4 9 0-0?? 'ii'h4 is an illustration of typical carelessness) 8 . . .tZ:ld4 9 Jtd3 lt:Jg4 and it is Black who is playing on the dark squares. c) 5 tZ:lb3 is also harmless: 5 . . .i.b4+ 6 .id2 i.xd2+ 7 'i*'xd2 lt:J£6 8 lt:Jc3 0-0 9 e3 (9 e4 grabs more space but limits the scope of the remaining bishop; after 9 ... d6 Black doesn't have any problems) 9 ... d6 10 .il..e2 �e8 1 1 0-0 tZ:le4 12 tZ:lxe4 l:i.xe4 with equality in V.Arbakov V .Rodchenkov, Tula 2002. d) Finally, 5 e3 'Llge7 6 Jte2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 'Llc3 a6 9 b3 �d7 10 i.b2 'Llf5 was comfortable for Black in F .Van der Klashorst-C.Kruijf, Haarlem 1997. s 'ii'h 4! 6 e3 tZ:lf6 7 lDc3 d6 ...
5 CLlc2?!
This retreat is common in some other lines, but here White doesn't have the time to reach a favourable set up. Other options are: a) 5 lbxc6 'i'f6 is a well-known motif 221
Play 1 . . . lt.J c 6 !
A closer look a t the position reveals that it is White who has to fight for equality here. 8 g3 1i'g4
10...ii.f5! 1 1 tLlcd4 ..ixd4 1 2 tLlxd4
12 tLlxc7+? <;t>d7 13 lLlxa8 .!:i.xa8 is no good, as White cannot afford to take the bishop: 14 exd4 Jl,c2! and Black wins. 12 ... ..ie4 13 :tg1 0-0 14 tLlxc6 bxc6 15 b3 d5 16 c5 d4!
9 h3
9 j_e2!? is probably better. After 9 ...'iVg6 1 0 tLldS lLlxdS 1 1 cxd5 tLle5 12 b4 �b6 13 i.b2 White is still a bit worse, but at least he has managed to developed to a certain degree.
This move can hardly be called a sacrifice, as White is not really allowed to accept it.
9 ..Jig6
17 f3
9 ... "Yi'xd1+ 10 �xd1 (on 10 lLlxd1 �f5 is quite annoying) 10 ... �e6 is also a good choice if you like to play without queens.
After 17 exd4 1He8 18 i..e3 lLld5 19 �d2 i..f3 20 ..ie2 .ixe2 21 't!fxe2 I:!.e4, followed by ... I'tae8, Black regains the pawn with a clearly better position, while 1 7 'i¥xd4 l:tad8 1 8 'iVc4 i.f3 underlines the chronic weaknesses in the white camp.
10 tLlb5?!
White had to try and complete his development at any cost. Therefore 10 ii.g2 was necessary, although the posi tion remains difficult. For example 10 ... 0-0 1 1 tLld5 (or 1 1 0-0 .i.f5 12 tLle1 .l:!.fe8; while 12 lll d4 just loses a pawn to 12 ... i.xd4 13 exd4 .fi..d 3) 1 I . ..tLlxd5 12 cxd5 tLle5 13 0-0 il.f5 14 lLld4 Jl,e4 and Black is better.
17 ... .tc2 18 'ikxd4 I::!.a d8 19 'i.Vc4 .l:Ue8
All the black pieces are well central ized - merely for the price of a pawn. 20 �f2 tLle4+1 21 �e1
21 fxe4 'i!ff6+ picks up the rook on al. 21 ...1ld1+ 22 �e2 i.. d 3+ 2 3 �xd1 ii.xc4 24 .fi..xc4 l:!.d8+ 25 '>t>e1 'ilff6 0-1
222
1 c4 lt'J c 6 : R a re S e c o n d M o ves for White Summary
If White decides not to play 2 lL'lc3, then l . . .lbc6 proves to be quite effective. White will quickly be facing unfamiliar positions (as in Games 61 and 62); and even if he plays sensibly, care is still required at all times - Game 63 is a good example of that. 1 c4 lL'lc6 (D) 2 g3
2 lL'lf3 eS 3 d4 exd4 4 lbxd4 jl,cS (D)
-
Game 63
2 g3 ds WJ 3 .tg2
3 cxdS �xdS - Game 61 3 d4 - Game 62 ...
l . . . lt'Jc6
4 .1i.c5 ...
2 . . . d5
223
Chapter Thirteen
I
C4 ctJc6 2 ctJC3 e S ( 3 e 3 ; 3 g3 ) 1
After 1 c4 tt:Jc6 2 lLlc3 e5 we are at the beginning of the l . .. e5 English. It is fair to say that l . ..luc6 is mostly employed by offbeat players, but those of you who fit this description will find out that playing main lines is not so bad after all - not as long as there isn't too much theory involved and the plans are easy to understand. Normally, the best way to get to grips with a new opening system is to look at the lines one by one, sorted by popularity, starting with the most and ending with the least popular. How ever, in this case I will make an excep tion, as I find the English Four Knights to be the most suitable way for White to get an advantage, and we'll come to that later. First of all, it is important to know what to do against White's other third moves. White plays 3 e3 As we have already discovered, adjust ing move orders can play an important
224
role in the English Opening. After 3 e3, usually a later tt:J£3 will take the game into the Four Knights, which is covered in the next chapter. Hence 3 ...tt:Jf6 is the simplest way for Black to react, in viting the transposition to Games 71-73 with 4 tt:Jf3. However, White has two other sensible moves to be considered, the first one being 4 d4. The position after 4 ... exd4 5 exd4 d5 bears a close resemblance to that in Game 56 (Ny holm-Alekhine) from Chapter 1 1, but Black can even do better, as we will see in our next game. Game 64 M.Roskam -W.Vermeu len
Utrecht 2005 1 c4 tt:Jc6 2 lLlc3 e5 3 e3 tt:Jf6 4 d4
Instead, 4 tt:J£3 transposes to Chap ter 14 (Games 71 -73), while 4 a3 is the subject of the next game. 4 ... exd4 5 exd4 d5
1 c4 tD c 6 2 tD c3 e 5 (3 e 3 ; 3 g 3)
CDde7 13 CDe4 i.xd2 14 �xd2 CD£5 and Black had a clear positional advantage due to the isolated d-pawn in P.Stoma A.Zontakh, Kazimierz Dolny 2001. But this is just for die-hard fans, as the text move is surely good enough. 7 i.. e 2?!
6 CiJf3
Instead: a) The game N.ScheiderupJ.Pedersen, Harstad 1998, showed one possible way to deal with 6 i.gS: 6 ... .i.e7 7 liJ£3 i.g4 8 ..lte2?! dxc4 9 i.xc4 (or 9 dS .ix£3 10 .ixf3 liJeS and White is a pawn down for nothing) 9 ....ixf3 10 �x£3 liJxd4 and Black altered the situa tion to his (material) advantage. b) 6 cxdS only makes sense if fol lowed up aggressively. C.Von Bardele ben-H .Si.ichting, Barmen 1905, contin ued 6 ... CDxd5 7 il.bS i.b4 8 ltJge2 0-0 9 0-0 'Llce7 10 i.gS c6 1 1 .id3, and now the simple 1 1 ... .ie6, followed by ...�d7, would have given Black a clear posi tional advantage as White has nothing to counterbalance his isolated pawn on d4.
After this move White temporarily loses th� c-pawn, and getting it back wastes time which Black can use to build up the final assault. Instead, 7 cxdS bears a close resemblance to 6 cxd5 and was treated similarly in S.Hiemstra-M.Nieuwenbrook, Hengelo 1999, after 7 ... 'Llxd5 8 .ibS i..b4. The game continued 9 'i¥e2+ 'Llde7 10 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 a3 il.d6 12 b4 0-0 13 0-0 liJfS, and with the isolated d-pawn and the doubled c-pawns cancelling each other out, the two bishops are the deciding factor to declare this position better for Black. 7 dxc4 8 o-o .id6 9 'iia4 0-0 10 �xc4 ...
.ixf3 11 i.xf3 'Llxd4 12 ..txb7 Zlb8 13 .ia6 .Ue8 14 .Ub1 'Llg4!
6 .ig4 ...
Black can also try to transpose to Nyholm-Alekhine (Game 56 in Chapter 1 1 ) with 6 ... 3i.b4 7 cxd5 'ii'x dS 8 i.e2. The only fashionable way to avoid this is 7 ..tgS, when Black should respond 7 ... 0-0, with the idea 8 cxdS 'ii'e8+ 9 i.e2 liJxdS 10 ..td2 i.e6 1 1 0-0 l::td8 12 i.bS
15 h3 ltJes 16 'ii'a 4 'iVh4 11 1li'd1
17 i.e3 seems better at first sight, but Black has 1 7 ... 'Llef3+! 18 'it>h1 (if 18 225
Play 1 .lb c 6 ! . .
gxf3 'i'xh3 mates) 1 8 . . .l::txe3! and wins. 17 ...�bd8 18 �e3 lLlef3+ 19 �h1 .Uxe3 0-1
The move order employed in the fol lowing game, 4 a3 (instead of 4 d4), only enjoys independent value if the king's knight is developed to e2, from where it can be redeployed to the queenside as in the Sicilian Taimanov. But Black doesn't need to fear this ap proach, as the great Carry Kasparov himself demonstrated in the following game.
After 6 ... i.g7 (6 ... d5 is similar to Game 64, but with the moves a2-a3 and ... g7g6 inserted, a condition that certainly favours White) 7 d5 lL'le7 8 i.e2 d6 9 il.f4 0-0 10 h3 lLlf5 11 lL'lf3 .l:!.e8 12 0-0 ltJe4 13 lLlxe4 �xe4 14 ..ltg5 i.f6 15 il.d3 .l::i.e8 16 i.xf6 'i¥xf6 17 b4 i.d7 18 .Ucl lL'ld4 19 ltJxd4 �xd4, Black came up from behind in S.Conquest-J.Howell, Oakham 1994. The alternative 7 lL'lf3 pays deference to this, but ultimately fails to impress. Black has to make a choice:
Game 65 L.Va n Wely-G . Kasparov
Ti l b u rg
1997
1 c4 lL'lc6 2 lL'lc3 es 3 e3 lL'lf6 4 a 3 g6
5 b4
Instead: a) 5 d4 seizes the centre, to which Black should react with 5 ... exd4 6 exd4. For the moment, Black can safely ig nore the opponent's supremacy in the centre as White cannot capitalize on it. 226
a1) 7 ... d5!? 8 i.g5 0-0 gambits the pawn for a dangerous initiative (8 ...h6 is a fail-safe device; after 9 'i!Ve2+ �f8 10 i.e3 �g8 11 cxd5 lLlxd5 12 lL'lxd5 'i!Vxd5 13 'i!Vb5 a draw was agreed in F .Vallejo Pons-V.Kramnik, Linares 2003). A prominent example is F.Bistric E.Bareev, Bosnian Team Championship 1999, which continued 9 lLlxd5 i.g4 10 i.e2 i.xf3 1 1 .i.xf3 .tle8+ 12 �fl h6 13 i.e3 lL'lxd5 14 i.xd5 'i'f6 15 i.xc6 'i!Vxc6 16 .l:!.cl .l:!.ad8 1 7 d5 'ii'£6 18 .l::i.c3 c6 19 .Ud3 'ii'xb2 and Black regained the pawn with the advantage. a2) 7 ... d6 is also possible. For exam-
1 c4 lU c 6 2 lU c 3 es (3 e3; 3 g3)
pie, 8 .ie2 (8 d5 gains space, but again weakens the dark squares in the centre; after 8 ... lt:Je7 9 i.d3 0-0 10 0-0 l:te8 1 1 h3 l.f5 12 lt:Jd4 i..xd3 13 �xd3 lt:Jd7 14 j_e3 :':Jc5 15 'ii'c 2 .ixd4!? 16 ..1xd4 lt:Jf5 1 7 :ad1 �4 18 ii.xc5 dxc5 19 lt:Jb5 .l:i.e7 Black obtained an active position in R.Behling-H.Schwing, German League 1 997) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 d5! 10 cxd5 lt:Je7 1 1 �g5 lt:Jexd5 1 2 ..¥l.c4 c6 1 3 'YWb3 ..te6! and Black was OK in V.Beim-M.Boehm, Bad Wiessee 1997. a3) Finally, 7 ... 0-0 8 d5 lt:Je5! 9 lt:Jxe5 .:e8 10 i.e2 !!.xe5 1 1 0-0 lt:Je4 12 lt:Jxe4 .:::txe4 13 .lii. d3 .l:i.e8 14 .l:i.b1 d6 15 ..tf4 was completely equal in G.Lebredo-J.Diaz, Havana 1975. b) 5 lt:Jf3 ii.g7 6 d3 is a completely different set-up, and one of the few where Black should accept the invita tion to play a reversed Sicilian. After 6... 0-0 7 i.e2 d5 8 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 9 �c2 .l:i.e8 10 0-0 lt:Jxc3 1 1 bxc3 b6!? 12 e4 ..¥i.b7 13 i.g5 �d6 14 .l:i.fd1 lt:Ja5 15 lt:Jd2 h6 16 i.h4 ..tf6 1 7 ii.g3 �e7 1 8 lt:Jb3 lt:Jxb3 19 �xb3 h5 20 f3 c5 Black enjoyed better prospects in I.Papaioannou-S.Skembris, Greek Championship 1999.
s k g 7 6 .Jt b 2 o-o 1 d 3 ...
7 lt:Jf3?! e 4 8 lt:Jg5 h6! 9 lt:Jh3 d5 shows one downside of the white set up. In N.Syrigos-S.Logothetis, Greek Team Championship 1999, White tried another formation: 7 �c2 .l:i.e8 8 lt:Jge2 d6 9 lt:Jg3 i.e6 10 i.d3, but after 10 ...'iVe7 1 1 0-0 d5 12 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 13 lt:Jxd5 i.xd5 14 lt:Je4 lt:Jd8 15 .i:!acl nc8 16 'iVc5 'iVd7 1 7 ..1b5 (17 'ii'xa7? is bad due to 17 ... lt:Je6 18 lt:Jc5 lt:Jxc5 19 �xc5 i.xg2 20 c;.t>xg2 'it'xd3) 17 ... c6 18 �d6 l:!.c7 19 �xd7 .l:i.xd7 20 lt:Jc5 .l:i.de7 21 ..ltc4 .ltxc4 22 .i:!xc4 tt:le6, Black had nothing to worry about. 7 .lite8 8 �c2 d s ! •••
The time is ripe to strike in the centre! 9 cxds tt:lxds 10 lt:Jxds
On 10 lt:J£3 Black can play 10 ...a5 (the immediate 10 ...tt:ld4!? leads only to a forced draw: 11 exd4 tt:lxc3 12 dxe5 ..¥i.xe5 13 tt:lxe5! J:he5+ 14 'it>d2 lt:Je4+ 15 We1 tt:lc3+ 16 Wd2 etc; but not 13 i.e2? lt:Jxe2 14 ..1xe5 lt:Jd4! or 14 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jd4! and wins) 11 b5 tt:ld4! 12 exd4 tt:lxc3 13 dxe5 i.xe5 1 4 tt:lxe5 �xe5+ 1 5 'it>d2 when the idea of 10 ... a5 comes to light 227
Play 1 ..tll c6 ! .
after 15 ...'iVg5+ 16 �xc3 ftc5+ and mates.
1 8. . .j.,h6+, is deadly.
10 .. .'�xd s 11 t2Je2
11 liJf3 should again be met by 1 l ...a5.
With loose pieces everywhere, the black queen does well to join the ac tion.
11 fs !
20 Ite1
..•
A fine move, allowing the queen to retreat to f7 and build a battery with the bishop on e6, which is especially important as this keeps an eye on b3. 12 liJc3 'i!Vf7 13 ltJa4?!
Heading directly to c5, but now the white king is stuck in the centre. In stead, 13 .lte2 would have enabled White to castle, but then after 13 ... .i.e6 the knight cannot get to c5 anymore. 13 ...�e6 14 lLlcs j.,ds
Now the white bishop is tied to g2. 15 bS
11 ...i.xg2 18 o-o-o i.xh1 19 .l::tx h1 'ii'd s!
Of course not 20 !Ig1 ? .I;!xe2! . 2 o...Ites! 2 1 'ifb3
21 CDb3 is answered by 2l. ..k:te7 22 'ii'c5 (if 22 a4 .:!.ae8 and White cannot break the pin on the bishop) 22 ...'ii'xc5+ 23 ltJxc5 1Ie5 24 tiJb3 (or 24 j.,xd4 k:txe2) 24 ....Mae8 25 �d1 llxb5 transposing to the game. 21 ...'ii'x b3 22 ttJxb3 l:ae8! 23 \tld1
If 23 liJxd4 .l:t5e7 24 Wd2 k:td7 wins. 23 ... k:txbs 24 i.f3 .l:txe1+ 25 �xe1 c6
Of course not 25 .. Jhb3?? 26 j.,d5+. 26 i.d1 a s !
15 e4 and 15 lLlxb7 are also effec tively met by 15 ... ctJd4! . 1S ...ctJd4!!
This effective manoeuvre decides the game. 27 j.,xd4 a4 28 �xg7 Wxg7 29 CDd2
A typical sacrifice, but admirable nevertheless. Black will get a strong attack.
I:tes+ 30 i.e2 bs 31 d1 l:tds 32 �c2 gs 3 3 j.,f3 .l:td6 34 h3 �g6 3 5 lLlb1 hS 36 ctJc3 g4 3 7 .ltg2 Wf6 38 hxg4 hxg4 39 d4
16 exd4 exd4+ 17 j.,e2
Wgs 40 �d3 �h6 41 �e2 f4 42 i.e4
17 �d1 is refuted simply by 17 ...b6; while if 17 \tld2 'ii'e7, threatening
kth3! 43 �d2 l:th2 44 �e1 g3 45 fxg3
228
fxg3 46 �1
1 c4 tt:J c 6 2 ttJ c 3 e s (3 e 3 ; 3 g 3)
Or 46 i.xc6 llc2 47 l2Je4+ �f4, threatening 48 ...1Ixc6 and 48 . . .l:!.cl + fol lowed by 49 ... g2. 46 ... �f2+ 47 �g1 b4! 48 axb4 a 3 49 d S �4! so i.g6 cxds 51 li'lxd5+ �gs o-1
In view of 52 .ltb1 �b2 53 lbc3 l:l.xb1+! 54 lbxb1 a2 etc. White plays 3 g3 Amongst all the third move alterna tives, 3 g3 is by far the most popular as it usually provides clear-cut plans de pending on Black's reaction. However, I think Black has a suitable antidote up his sleeve with 3 ...l2Jf6 4 i.g2 i.cs. This is dismissed by M.Marin on his Chess Base CD on the 1 . . .e5 English; in his opinion White can play e2-e3 followed by li'lg1-e2, reaching a favourable for mation as the dark-squared bishop is supposedly biting on granite. But things are not that easy. First of all, there is the question of the right move order. The immediate 5 e3 can be answered by s ...ds!,
manian Championship 1999, in which White implemented a new idea: 6 cxds lbb4 7 d4 exd4 8 exe4 Ji..e 7 9 l2Jge2 and after 9 ... i.f5 10 0-0 lbc2 1 1 g4 .tg6 12 f4!? White indeed soon gained the up per hand. But there is no need for Black to enter this dangerous line. Instead, he can safely castle, 9 ... 0-0, intending to capture on d5 afterwards and then build up against the isolated d-pawn. A nice illustration of how to do this was given by the British GM Julian Hodgson. Came 66 D.Bunzma n n -J u.Hodgson
Germa n League 1999 1 c4 l2Jc6 2 li'l c 3 es 3 g3 li'lf6 4 i.g2 i.cs
5 e3?!
which offers a pawn for decent play on the light squares. Marin refers to the game D.Rogozenko-M.Parligras, Ru-
5 a3 is considered in the next game. 5 d3 is a different, albeit harmless set-up. If Black finds the correct move order, he has nothing to worry about: 5 ... a6 6 l2Jf3 (White would like to play 6 i.g5 but this currently runs into 6 ... ..txf2+) 6... d6 7 0-0 (again 7 ..tg5 does 229
Play 1 . . . lD c 6 !
not achieve anything a s 7. . .h6 8 �x£6 'i¥xf6 9 tt::le4 .i.b4+ saves the bishop) 7 ...h6 8 a3 0-0 9 b4 .ta7 10 i.b2 .te6 1 1 tt::ld 2 d 5 1 2 cxd5 tt::lx d5 13 l:lcl tt::lxc3 1 4 i.xc3 ii.d5 15 i.xd5 'i'Vxd5 16 'ifb3 .Uad8 17 a4 'Yi'xb3 18 tt::lxb3 .l:.d5 and Black stopped all possible queenside activi ties in M.Vujadinovic-J.Van Esbroeck, correspondence 1999. Instead, 1 1 l:Icl 'i¥d7 allows Black to reach the set-up we will take a closer look at in the next game. Here 12 e3 .th3 13 d4 .txg2 14 Wxg2 exd4 15 exd4 d5! 16 c5 1;lfe8 (16 ....:g,ae8, intending ... iLb8 and a sub sequent ... c6, is even more precise) 17 'ii'd 3 was played in D.Mirzagaliamova Russian Junior K.Ambarcumova, Championships 1999, and now with 17 ....:g,e7, followed by ...l::i.ae8, Black could have reached a comfortable posi tion.
for 1 1 �xe3?! i¥d4+ 1 2 '5t>f3 ..ig4+! 13 �xg4 "i!Yxe4+ 14 Wh3 'i¥xh1 with a better position for Black, as after 1 1 'it>g2 .tb6 12 d3 f5 13 .tf3 0-0 14 tt::lh3 Black had no adequate compensation in V.Makhianov-A.Fomin, Tula 2001) 9 . . .'ii'xd3 10 'ife2 'iVg6 1 1 d4 iLb4+ (Tomescu suggests 1 l . . .Ji.e7 as an im provement) 12 .td2 i.xd2+ 13 iVxd2 'i!Vc6! 14 f3 exd4 15 'it'xd4 0-0 16 �f2 il.e6 17 tt::le2 and a draw was agreed in I.Almasi-V.Tomescu, Budapest 1997. b) 7 cxd5 tt::lb4
s ... ds! 6 cxds
The other sensible capture is 6 tt::lxd5 tt::lxd5 and then:
a) 7 .i.xd5 7 i.xd3 (or 9 We2 i.g2 0-0 12 £4 e4 not 9 ... tt::lxf2? 10 230
tt::lb4 8 i.e4 tt::l d3+ 9 tt::lx cl + 10 1hcl f5 1 1 with a great position; Wxf2 .txe3+, hoping
8 'ifb3 (8 d3 c6!? 9 a3 tt::lxd5 10 tt::l f3 'iVe7 1 1 0-0 iLb6 1 2 b4 0-0 1 3 ..ib2 f6 1 4 tt::ld 2 was equal i n Z.Izoria-A.Kogan, Bastia rapid 2005; while 8 a3?! lbd3+ 9 �e2 .tg4+! 10 f3 i¥xd5 1 1 i¥c2 0-0-0 12 tt::lh3 !!he8 13 b4 .tb6 14 l::i.b 1 .:g,e6 15 l:i.g1 �fS 16 g4 lbxcl+ 0-1 J.Graf F.Braga, German League 1989, was close to an execution) 8 ... c6! and White can hardly accept the pawn as 9 dxc6 bxc6 gives Black excellent attacking chances, the game T.Reschke-P.Kopp, Bruchkoebel 1993, being a powerful illustration: 10 a3 lbd3+ 1 1 '5t>e2 .ta6! 12 il.xc6+ �e7 13 ..ib5 l:i.b8 14 a4 'ti'a5! 15
1 c4 li:J c 6 2 li:J c3 es (3 e 3 ; 3 g3)
'iWc3 .ib4 16 'iHc6 'Dxcl+ 1 7 'iixcl .l:!.xb5! 18 axb5 'i'xb5+ 19 'it>f3 ii..b7+ 20 e4 .l:!.c8 21 iVfl .Jtxe4+! 22 �xe4 J:tc4+ 23 �e3 .lxd2+! 24 �xd2 'i'xb2+ 25 We3 'i*'d4+ 26 �e2 'Yi'e4+ 27 Wd2 �d4+ 28 �cl 'i'c6+ when White might consider him self fortunate to be beaten in such a glamorous fashion. 6 'Db4 ...
proved on this for White in D .Rogozenko-M.Parligras, Rumanian Championship 1999. The game contin ued 12 ... 'Dxa1 (12 ... 'Dxg4 is no better: 13 f5 i.. d6 14 'ifxc2! i.. xh2+ 15 'it>h1 �4 16 ilg5 'ii'xg5 1 7 .ih3 ii.h5 18 ii.xg4 .ixg4 19 'it>xh2 and White has a winning ad vantage) 13 £5 'Dxg4 (Rogozenko sug gested 13 ... ii.d6!? 14 .Jt£4 'Dxg4 15 fxg6 hxg6) 14 'Dg3 lDxh2 15 �xh2 ..id6 16 'Dce4 'iih4+ (16 ... 0-0 1 7 .ig5 .Jtxg3+ 1 8 'iitxg3 £6 19 fxg6 fxg5 2 0 ifxa 1 i s also good for White) 1 7 .ih3 ifxe4 18 .l:!.e1 'iYxe1 19 'i¥xe1+ Wf8 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 'it>g2 and White won a few moves later.
7 d4
Alternatively: a) 7 'De4?! was tried in J.Cortes Mambiona-C.Vargas Drechsler, Barcelona 1997, but after 7 ...'Dxe4 8 .ixe4 £5 9 .1i..g2 'Dd3+ 10 �fl, 10 ...e4 is just terrible for White. b) 7 d3 lDbxd5 8 a3 c6 9 'ii' c2 .Jtd6 was equal in K.Lippmann-C.Wisnew ski, Kiel 2001 . c) 7 a3 'Dd3+ 8 <;ite2 .Jtg4+ 9 f3 .Jtf5 and Black has excellent compensation. 7 ... exd4 8 exd4 i.. e 7 9 'Dge2 o-o
This is the best way to continue not only to achieve equality, but also to play for a win! Instead, 9 ... .if5 was long thought to be a safe route to a draw after 10 0-0 'Dc2 1 1 l:tb1 ltJb4 12 .l:!.a1 'Dc2, but 1 1 g4 i.g6 12 £4! ? im-
10 o-o ltJbxds 11 'iYb3
11 'Df4 is another attempt to solve the problems of the isolated d-pawn. Black should respond l l . .. ltJxf4 12 .ixf4 .id6 (12 ...c6 is fruitless as it allows 13 d5 cxd5 14 'Dxd5 'Dxd5 15 ·�xd5 �xd5 16 i.. xd5 and White is better due to his more active bishops) 13 .1i..e5 (13 ii.. g5 h6 14 .ixf6 'ii'x£6 15 .Ucl .l:!.b8 16 Wt'a4 a6 1 7 'Dd5 'ii'd8 18 .l:!.c3 .i.d7 19 iic2 .ic6 led to a good game for Black in H.Quelle M.Loehr, German League 1996) 13 ... c6 14 'i!Vb3, as in M.Balduan-M.Loehr, 231
Play 1 . .lu c 6 ! .
German League 1996, and now 14 ....1ixe5 15 dxe5 tt:Jg4 16 �fe1 'i/e7 would have been good for Black. 11 c6 12 ..tg5 h6 13 .il.xf6 tt:Jxf6 14 d5 ..•
c5!
2 6 'ii'c 1 tt:Je4 2 7 �f1 tt:Jd2 2 8 'ti'xc5 tt:Jxf1 29 i.xf1 'iVe1
It doesn't matter but 29 ... 'ii'x fl+! 30 Wxfl il.h3+ mates at once. 30 'ti'xb4 il.h3 31 'i'c4 �aS 32 tt:Jc1 'ifxf1+ 3 3 'Yi'xf1 i.xf1 34 �xf1 �a1 0-1
A true masterpiece! With the preliminary 5 a3 White ac counts for the developments in the pre vious game.
This move shows a fine understand ing of the position - the d5-pawn is not as strong as it looks. Black now contin ues with excellent technique, improv ing his position step by step. 15 �ad1 ..td6 16 tt:Jb5 a6 17 tt:Jxd6 'i'xd6 18 a4 b5! 19 tt:Jc3
Not 19 axb5 axb5 20 'i!Vxb5? .lia6. 19 ... i.d7 20 'ii'c2 I:tfe8 21 axb5 axb5 22 .l::ta 1 �xa1 2 3 l:txa1 'ii'e 5 24 lad1 b4 2 5 tt:J a 2 'ti'e2
232
Not only are sallies to b4 prevented once and for all, the possibility of har assing the bishop with b2-b4 is also an attractive option. Now the black bishop needs a safe haven on the g1-a7 diago nal, so moving the a-pawn is necessary. I prefer 5 ... a6 to 5 ... a5 since the latter weakens the b5-square, and I don't think that b2-b4 needs to be prevented anyway. Following 6 e3 d6 7 tt:Jge2 Black should take the time to play 7 ... h6 as well, to prevent the possibility of 8 d4 exd4 9 exd4 .ta7 10 i.gS. Then after 8 0-0 0-0, White can choose be tween different set-ups, but Black's plan usually remains the same: playing ... d6-d5 to fix the white pawns on the
1 c4 lb c 6 2 lD C 3 es (3 e3; 3 g 3)
dark squares in order to attack them at a later date. One example of how the black idea can be implemented is the following game. Game 6 7 J.Stan ke-C.Wisnewski
H a m b u rg 2003
lLle5 and Black is better) 14 ... lZ:le7 15 lZ:le3 �h7 16 lZ:lf4 c6! 1 7 h2 d5 1 8 c5 jlb8 with a clear advantage in A.Jochens-C.Wisnewski, Kiel (rapid) 2004. 12 ....ii.fs 13 b4 'iid 7 14 g4 ith7 15 lZ:lg3 '.th8!
A multifunctional move, freeing the g8-square for the knight, the bishop or the rook.
1 c4 lZ:lc6 2 lZ:lc3 es 3 g3 lZ:lf6 4 ..\tg2 J.cs
16 "ii'd 2 �ab8 17 .!:i.fe1 lZ:le7 18 lle2 dS!
5 a 3 a6 6 e3 d6 7 lZ:lge2 h6
19 c5 c6
It is important to play the correct move order. The immediate 7 ...0-0?! allows 8 d4 exd4 9 exd4 ..lta7 10 j_g5, showing the point of a timely ...h7-h6; while after 8 ... i.a7 9 d5 lZ:le7, Black al though not worse, does not get his de sired positions. 8 d4 exd4 9 exd4 ..lta7 10 h3 0-0 11 0-0 .Ue8
The current pawn structure is what Black is looking for in this line. As we will see, the white pawns will become weak in the endgame. But before that, Black's dark-squared bishop, once re deployed to b8, is a monster in many cases, so White does best to eliminate it as soon as possible. 20 l1ae1 .Ubd8 21 .tf4 lZ:lg6 22 j{_es lZ:lg8 12 �e3
12 b4 is the alternative set-up. Black does best to build his play around the e4-square: 1 2 . . . i.f5 1 3 iLb2 lZ:le4!? and now 14 lZ:ld5 (14 lZ:lxe4 .ii.xe4 15 ..ltxe4 J:txe4 reveals the true weakness of the white pawns, or if 15 d5 jlxg2 16 �xg2
Black's position looks passive, but it is rock solid. In the actual game, White is driven back step by step. 23 .ii.d 6 lZ:lh4 24 l:txe8 �xe8 25 .Uxe8 'iVxe8 26 'i'e3 'i'd8 27 ii.f1 �b8 28 j_xb8 fixb8 29 f4 f5!
Note how the white pawns, which 233
Play 1 .JlJ c 6 ! .
secured an advantage in space for a long time, are now picked upon.
ii.g4 h 5 3 7 Ji.xh s tt:Jxf5 3 8 'ike8+ ii.g8 3 9 tt:Je2 tt:Jxd4 40 tt:Jxd4 'ib'xd4+ 4 1 �g2 'ib'xf4
30 Ji.e2 tt:Jf6 31 'ike5 'ib'c8 32 lbh5 tt:Jg6 33 'ib'e3
42 ii.g4 �g5 43 'ikd7 �d2+ 44 �g3
White should have tried to make the best of a bad job with 33 'ib'xf5 'ib'xf5 34 gxf5 lbh4 35 lbxf6 gxf6 36 ii.g4 lLlxf5 37 ii.xf5 ii.xf5 and a drawish endgame.
�e3+ 45 �h4??
It was not necessary to let the game end so abruptly, but after 45 ii.f3 d4 the extra pawn should decide in any case.
3 3 ...'iVf8 34 lbxf6 'ikxf6 3 5 gxfs tt:Je7! 36
4S .. .'ii'f2+ 0-1
234
1 c4 t:D c 6 2 tt'J c3 es (3 e 3 ; 3 g3)
Summary Set-ups with 3 e3 are rarely played - and with good reason, as Games 64 and 65 show. The best White can do is transpose to the Four Knights in the next chapter. 3 g3 from Games 66 and 67 is by far the more popular choice; you will encounter this line quite often. But many White players are in danger of underestimating Black's possibilities in my recommended set-up, and that's where the writing is on the wall. 1
C4 ltJc6 2 liJc3 e5 (D) 3 g3
3 e3 lDf6 4 d4 exd4 5 exd4 dS - Game 64 4 a3 g6 (D) - Game 65 3 . .Cbf6 4 i.g2 i.cs (D) 5 a 3 .
5 g3 - Game 66 s. . .a6 - Game 67
4 g6 ...
4 ii.c5 ...
235
Chapter Fourteen C4 ctJC6 2 ctJC 3 3 ctJf 3 '2Jf6
1
eS
While not being the most popular of all systems, the English Four Knights, which we reach via 1 c4 l2'lc6 2 l2'lc3 es 3 l2'lf3 l2'lf6, is certainly one of the most uncompromising. The usual intention is to transpose into various positions similar to those in the Sicilian Defence where the extra move will certainly not hurt. At some occasions picking up that gauntlet might be justified, but there is no need to do your opponent that kind of favour. I will therefore rec ommend a more conservative ap proach which has served me well over the past few years. But enough of the talking, let's look now at the numerous formations the White player has at his disposal. White plays 4 e4 The position after 4 e4 bears a certain resemblance to Chapter 1, but there are a few noteworthy differences. First of all, Black has already committed his king's knight to f6, effectively depriv-
236
I
ing himself of ... f7-f5 which has proven to be quite successful. But what may be even more important is that Black can not exploit the weakness of the d4square so easily, since 4 ... .ic5 now runs into 5 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 6 d4 which is favour able to White, as I will show below. Therefore a more subtle approach is needed, and the move that offers the best chances is 4 ....i b4 .
This move puts more pressure on the white centre by challenging the white knight, but the main intention i s
1 C4 lLJ c 6 2 lLJ c 3 e5 3 lLJj3 lLJj6
simply to develop the bishop before playing the consolidating ... d7-d6, only then seeking to exploit the weakness of the dark squares (in particular d4). Af ter 5 d3 d6 there are two distinct possi bilities between which White may choose. With 6 i.e2 White opts for quick development, intending to play f2-f4 as soon as possible. 6 g3 has the same idea but is a bit slower. The proper reaction to both moves is the subject of our next game. Game 68 M. Rohde-P. Wolff
Boston 1994
sider it a serious alternative. After 6 li:Jf3 l::te8 7 d3 d5 8 cxd5 tt'lxd5 9 ite2 White had a safe position besides his extra pawn in A.Nimzowitsch-F.Yates, Dresden 1926. c) 5 ... li:Jxe5 6 d4 itb4 (6 ... itxd4 7 'iixd4 only centralizes the queen, while 6 ... itd6 is met by 7 c5! with a good game for White) 7 dxe5 tt'lxe4 8 'iid4 li:Jxc3 (8 ... li:Jc5 does not work well; White can easily obtain an advantage after 9 itd2 0-0 10 0-0-0 b6 1 1 li:Je4!, when 1 l . ..a5? 12 itg5 'tieS 13 tt'lf6+! gxf6 14 itxf6 'tie6 15 'iif4 was com pletely hopeless for Black in R.Cifuentes Parada-J.Gatica, Santiago 1991) 9 bxc3 and now all moves prove deficient:
1 c4 tt'lc6 2 tt'lc3 es 3 li:Jf3 tt'lf6 4 e4 itb4
This time 4 ... itc5?! is unfortunately dubious after 5 li:lxe5! and then:
a) 5 ...itxf2+ 6 �xf2 li:Jxe5 7 d4 with a clear advantage, as Black cannot ex ploit the exposed position of the white king. b) 5 ... 0-0!? is an interesting pawn sacrifice, but in my opinion Black does not have enough compensation to con-
cl) 9 ... ita5?! 10 ita3 d6 1 1 exd6 0-0 12 0-0-0 cxd6 13 'iix d6 'tixd6 14 itxd6 l::te8 15 �b2 itd7 16 i.d3 was played in V.Korchnoi-R.Hi.ibner, Solingen 1973; but begging for a draw is hardly some thing I would like to do in my spare time. c2) 9 ... c5?! 10 'iie3 i.a5 1 1 .ia3 (Black was OK after 11 itd2 'tie7 12 i.d3 0-0 13 0-0 d6 14 exd6 'tixd6 in 23 7
Play 1 . . . !U c 6 !
K.Budt-R.Soelter, Enningerloh 1965) 1 1 .. .'iVe7 ( 1 1 ... b6 shuts in the bishop, allowing White to rule the board after 12 ..ie2 0-0 13 ..if3 Il.b8 14 0-0 .l:!e8 15 .!1ad1 'in14 16 ..id5 1i.b7 1 7 f4 in correspon A.Meymuhin-A.Zvidra, dence 2000) 12 ..ixc5 1i.xc3+ 13 lixc3 il'xc5 14 :i.d1 0-0 (or 14 ...b6 15 ..ie2 ..ib7 16 0-0 .Ud8 17 e6!) 15 lidS 'i¥c6 16 ..id3 and Black has serious problems. c3) 9 ... 1i.e7 10 'i:Vg4
just sad for Black), and now after 1 8 g4! i.e6 (or 18 ...fxg4 19 ..ie4 .ib7 20 :l.ad1) 19 gxf5 gxf5 20 .ixf5 ..ixc4 21 .Uf3 White's advantage presents itself in the form of the e5-pawn. 5 d3 0-0
6 i.e2
10 ... g6 (if 10 ...�f8 11 'ike4! is the best way to continue, and then 1 1 ... -icS 12 1i.e2 .l::!,b8 13 0-0 b6 14 1i.f4 i.b7 15 'tid3, followed by :l.ad1 and/or �g3, is better for White according to Carsten Hansen; while after 1 l ...d6 12 .ie3 dxe5 13 B:d1 �e8 14 '\Wxe5 ..id6 15 �5 i.e5, the game V.Karavaev-S.Emilianov, Kras nodar 2003, continued 16 �e2! 1i.xc3+ 17 'it>fl 1i.e6 18 £4 'i!Vc6 19 Wf2 g6 20 i¥114 'it>g7? 21 f5! with a decisive advantage for White) 1 1 Si.h6 d6 12 'i:Ve4 '\Wd7 (12. . .-ifS can be met by 13 �xb7 .l:!.b8 14 �xa7) 13 .td3 dxe5 14 0-0! f6 15 f4 'li'c6 16 'i:Vxc6+ bxc6 17 fxe5 £5 was played in Hastings S.Conquest-A.Khalifman, 1995 ( 1 7... fxe5?! 18 i.g7 I:tg8 19 i.xe5 is 238
6 g3 is the other popular choice. Summarizing briefly, I can say that attempts to nag at the white centre with ... a7-a6 and ...b7-b5 have proved insufficient. But an effective plan can be devised by employing familiar ideas from Chapter 1 - the occupation of d4 and the implementation of ... f7-f5. R.Cifuentes Parada-V.Epishin, Gronin gen 1997, continued 6 ... d6 7 ..ig2 h6 8 0-0 i.c5 9 h3 lt:ld4 10 lt:lxd4 Si.xd4 1 1 Wh2 lt:lh7!? 12 'i¥e2 c6 13 .ie3 'i:Vb6 1 4 .U.ae1 .i d 7 1 5 'i¥d2 .Uae8 16 f4 i.xe3 17 l:.xe3 exf4 18 gxf4 f5! after which Black had a good game. 6 ... d6 7 o-o i..xc3 !
Trading a bishop for a knight is once more the key to a successful strat egy. 8 bxc3 lt:ld7 9 lt:le1 'Llcs 10 f4 exf4 11 ..ixf4 fs 12 exfs i.xfs
1 C4 tiJ c 6 2 tiJ c 3 e5 3 tiJj3 tiJj6 41 :i,b4 bs 42 tt:le3 tt:ld6 43 �g3 �d7 44 �f4 �c6 45 h4 tt'lc4 46 tt:lfs tt:les 47 �e4 tt:ld7 48 tt'lxg7 :l,c2 49 tt:lfs :l,xa2 so tt:ld4+ �cs 51 :l,xbs+ �c4 52 :!,b1 tt:lcs+ 53 �es tt:ld3+ 54 �e4 :l,xg2 55 tt'lfs .M.g4+ 56 �e3 �c3 57 tt:ld6 tt'lb2 58 tt'lbs+ �c2 59 :l,h1 tt'lc4+ 60 �f3 hs 61 :l,h2+ �b3 62 :l,h1 �c2 63 :l,h2+ �d3 64 �f2 :l,f4+ 65 �e1 :l,e4+ 66 �d1 tt'le3+ 67 �c1 :l,c4+ 68 �b1 :l,b4+ 69 :l,b2 :l,xh4 70 tt'lc7 tt'ld1 71 :i,g2 tt:lc3+ 72 �b2 :l,b4+ 0-1
The opening phase is complete, and Black is better due to his favourable pawn structure. 13 tt:lc2 "W/e7 14 "W/d2 :l,ae8 15 .M.ae1 tt'les
White plays 4 a3 Here 4 a3 is more than just a waiting move.
16 tt'lb4 "Wid7 17 i.xes dxes!?
This devalues the pawn formation, but also grants a more direct access to the backward pawn on d3. For those who are unwil ling to play with an i so lated pawn, 17 ... :l,xe5 is a solid alterna tive. 18 "W/e3 "Wid6 19 i.f3 c6 20 d4 tt'ld7
This shows another point of the plan begun with 7 ... .ixc3 - the white centre is immobile, so trading pawns on e5 is hardly an option. 21 cs "W/g6 22 i.e2 exd4 23 "W/xd4 �h8 24 i.d3 :l,xe1 2 5 :l,xe1 as 26 i.xfs "W/xfs 27 tt'ld3 h6 28 h3 :l,f7 29 �h2 rJth7 30 :i,e3 tt'lf6 3 1 :i,f3 "W/d s!
For the second time Black is unafraid of creating an isolated pawn. The white pawns are just too weak. 32 "W/xds cxds 3 3 :i,fs :l,c7 34 lles rJtg6 35 :l,e6 rJtf7 36 :l,b6 tt:le4 3 7 :i,bs a4 3 8 c 4 dxc4 39 tt'les+ �e8 4 0 tt'lxc4 :l,xcs
Black finally picks up a pawn and converts it with excellent technique.
Not only does it prevent 4 ... .ib4, it also discourages Black from playing 4 ... i.c5, as after 5 b4 the bishop would have to retreat again, since 5 ... .id4 6 tt'lxd4 tt'lxd4 7 e3 is hardly an option. Avoiding a reversed Open Sicilian (after 4 ... d5) is a matter of principle, but how else should this position be treated? An aggressive method would be 4 ...e4, but after the rather forced 5 tt:lg5 "W/e7 6 d3 exd3 the move 7 e4! poses problems for Black, which I at 239
Play 1 . . . 4J c 6 !
least have been unable to solve satisfac torily. But fortunately this is not neces sary: Black has the interesting option of 4 ... d6, protecting the e-pawn and there fore enabling ...ttJd4 - an important positional resource we will encounter again in the course of this chapter. To see the potential behind this manoeu vre, the next game should act as an ap petizer.
fxe3 .id7 (not 1 4. . .1ifxe3+ 15 Wh1 and Black is in danger) 1 5 e4 �c5+ 16 �h1 0-0-0 17 "iVb3 and Black had nothing to be glad about.
Game 69 D.Biair-G.Armani
Corresponde nce 2000 1 c4 ttJc6 2 ttJc3 es 3 ttJf3 tL'lf6 4 a3 d6
5 d3
4 ... e4 is a move with an aggressive character and would be my first choice, if there had not been setbacks lately.
White has various other ways to proceed: a) 5 e3 reaches a position similar to that in Van Wely-Kasparov which we examined in the previous chapter (Game 65). Black should continue likewise with 5 ... g6, when White has to choose between two set-ups: a1) 6 d4 exd4 7 exd4 i.g7 is exam ined in the notes to Van Wely Kasparov (via 3 e3 tL'lf6 4 a3 g6 5 d4 exd4 6 exd4 j_g7 7 ttJf3 d6). a2) 6 d3 �g7 resembles a Closed Si cilian in which the white pieces are inexpertly placed. After 7 �e2 0-0 8 0-0 �e8 Black should seek to enforce ... e5e4 to broaden the scope of his bishop on g7. By this he can get a comfortable game, for example 9 1ifc2 i.f5 10 tL'ld2 (10 e4 only weakens d4, which Black can immediately spring at with 10 ... ..\lg4) 10 ... a6 1 1 l:tb1 (the hasty 11 b4?! allows 1 1 . ..e4! 12 d4 tL'lxd4! 13 exd.f
After 5 ttJg5 1ife7 6 d3 exd3 7 e4! causes problems for Black. A.Beliav sky-M.Turov, Copenhagen 2002, con tinued 7 ...h6 8 tL'lf3 d5 (if 8 ... ttJxe4 9 tL'ld5 1ifd8 10 .ixd3 and White has more than adequate compensation for the pawn) 9 cxd5 ltJxe4 10 j_e3 ltJxc3 1 1 bxc3 ttJe5 12 ..txd3 ttJg4 13 0-0 tL'lxe3 1 4 240
e3 14 .id3 .ixd3 15 'i!Vxd3 exd2 16 j_xd2 d5!, when the d4-pawn is a wor thy target) 1 1 ...h5 12 b4 l2Jh7, as in Hilversum M.Gurevich-A.Karpov, 1993, with attacking chances on the kingside. b) 5 d4
6 d3 'i¥d7 7 ii.g2 h6 8 e4 .th3 9 .ixh3 �xh3 10 tt:::ld5 tt:::lxdS 11 cxd5 tt:::le 7 12 .1i.e3 c6 1 3 dxc6 tt:::lxc6 14 'iVb3 'iVd7 and Black had no problems in S.Atalik I.Miladinovic, Kastoria 1996. s tt:::ld 4! .•.
6 tt:::ld 2 .ig4 1 b4 iJ..e 7 8 h3 i. h s
5 ... i.g4!? (5 ...exd4 is a bit too pas sive for my taste; after 6 l2Jxd4 g6 7 i.g5 i.g7 8 e3 0-0 9 .ll.e2 h6 10 .th4 lLlxd4 1 1 exd4 .ifS 12 0-0 c6 13 g4 .ie6 14 f4 White had a decent advantage in V.Korchnoi-E.Bacrot, Cannes 1996) 6 d5 l2Je7 7 e4 (if 7 g3 g6 8 .ig2 .ig7 9 ctJd2 �c8 10 h3 ..id7 1 1 b4 aS 12 ii.b2 axb4 13 axb4 l:lxa1 14 'i¥xa1 0-0 and Black was not worse in L.Marini L.Schmid, correspondence 19S4), when it looks like Black has a cramped posi tion, but this can be proven wrong. After 7 ... l2Jg6 8 h3 .id7 9 .1i.d3 .ie7 10 ctJe2 (or 10 ..ie3 tt:::lh5 1 1 tt:::le2 0-0 with good prospects on the kingside) 10 ...h6 11 g4?! tt:::lh 7 12 tt:::lg3 tt:::lh4 13 tt:::lxh4 .txh4 14 .ie3 ii.gS, Black reigned over the dark squares in J.Campeert I.Schrancz, correspondence 1983. c) Finally, S g3 is best met by S ... .ie6
9 g4
Necessary for White to complete development, but it is also a further weakening. Instead, 9 �a4+?! c6 10 e3? and then 10 . . .tt:::le 6 helped to ease the position in A.Chernin-A.Morozevich, Podolsk 1993. But following the spectacular 10 ...tt:::l d 5!! White is already lost. 241
Play 1 . liJ c 6 ! . .
White plays 4 d 3 4 d 3 i s another way to lure Black into
playing a reversed Sicilian. But instead of thinking about ... d5, Black turns his attention to the other central light square with 4 ... ..tb4, eventually trading his dark-squared bishop for the c3knight in order to play ...e5-e4, and hoping to disrupt the white pawn structure in the process.
Here White has no time to play 1 1 ..tb2 due to 1 1 .. .4Jb6 trapping the queen; or if 1 1 4Jxd5, 1 l . ..b5 wins the queen again; while after 1 1 exd4 l2Jxc3 12 'ifc2 exd4 Black went on to win in G. Chrestani-K. Krotofil, correspon dence 1998.
Game 70 A.Kha lifman-A.Shirov
Moscow (ra pid) 2002 1 C4 4Jc6 2 4Jc3 e5 3 4Jf3 4Jf6 4 d 3 ..tb4
9 ... ..tg6 10 ..tg2 c6 11 ..tb2 4Je6 12 b5 l:tc8 13 l:tb1 0-0 14 bxc6 bxc6 15 iDf3 l:tb8 16 l2Jh4 d5
5 ..td2
Black already has a significant ad vantage. 17 'ifa4 l2Jf4 18 ..tf3 ..txd3! 19 exd3 4Jxd3+ 20 We2 l:txb2+ 21 l:txb2 4Jxb2 22 'ifxa7 l2Je4 23 4Jxe4 dxe4 24 ..txe4 ..txh4 0-1
242
The only sensible way to react to Black's intentions. 5 e4 returns to the 4 e4 ..tb4 5 d3 of Rohde-Wolff (Game 68), while 5 e3?! simply invites Black to play 5 . . ...txc3+ 6 bxc3 e4. 5 a3?! is treated similarly, but de serves a more detailed look: 5 ... ..txc3+ 6 bxc3 e4 7 4Jd2 (or 7 l2Jd4 exd3 8 exd3 0-0 9 lDxc6 dxc6 10 ..te2 ..t£5 1 1 0-0 'ifd;-
1 c4 lbc6 2 lb c3 es 3 lbf3 lbf6
and Black looks towards a bright fu ture) 7 ... d5 8 d4 e3! 9 fxe3 0-0 1 0 cxdS tLlxd5 1 1 tLl£3 J::re8 12 'iVd3 'iUe7 and Black had definite compensation for the pawn in T.Mahon-E.Jackson, New York 1924. The game continued 13 �f2 tLlf6 14 h3 li:Je4+ 15 �e1 'i!Vd6 16 li:Je5 l:txe5! 1 7 dxeS 'iUxe5 18 'iVc2 �fS 1 9 'iib3 Wt'g3+ 20 �d1 li:Jf2+ and White resigned.
possible too. Marin claims an advan tage for White after 8 dxe4 tLlxe4, but neither 9 'ifc2 'iUe7 10 i.g2 tLlb4! 1 1 Ji..xb4 'iUxb4+ nor 9 l!c1 'it'e7 1 0 i.. g2 Ite8 1 1 e3 d6 impresses me. 7 .ig2 d6 8 o-o h6 9 a3 ..txc3 10 ..txc3
5 .. o-o 6 g3 .
Instead: a) 6 a3 is met by 6 ....\l.xc3 7 .ll.xc3 e4, and after 8 dxe4 (8 tLld4?! exd3 9 ll¥xd3 tLle5 10 �c2 d5 1 1 cxd5 tLlxd5 12 0-0-0 tLlxc3 13 �xc3 'iVf6 was better for Black in S.Dyachkov-A.Berelovich, Russian Team Championship 1996) 8 ...tLlxe4 9 lid d6 10 e3 'Llxc3 1 1 .l:!.xc3 'i!Vf6 12 .ll.e2 i..g4 13 0-0 :!fe8 Black had equalized in P.Ver nersson-Se.lvanov, Stockholm 2001. b) 6 e3 ge8 7 ..te2 d6 8 0-0 aS! 9 b3 (9 a3?! allows Black to fix the queenside with 9 ... i..xc3 1 0 i..xc3 a4) 9 ... i.. g4 1 0 a3 �c5 1 1 ll¥c2 h6! 12 .l:i.fd1 i..h5 13 i.. e 1 �g6 was level in L.Psakhis V.Korchnoi, Dresden 1998.
10 ...e4
This thematic thrust equalizes, but now the game dries out rather quickly. 10 ... i.. e6 is the more enterprising choice; for example, 1 1 .l:lcl 'ii'd 7 12 l:te1 i.. h3 13 JLh1 tLlg4 14 d4 e4 15 d5 'Lle7 16 tLlh4 ttJ£5 17 tLlxf5 'ifx£5 and Black had good attacking chances in D.Strauss P.Littlewood, London 1979. 11 'Lld4 'Llxd4 12 i.. xd4 i..f5 13 �d2 c51 14 .ic3 'iUe7 15 'i¥f4 .tg6 16 ..txf6 'iVxf6 17 'iixf6 gxf6 18 dxe4 i.. xe4 19 e3 a6 20 l':i.fd1 .ll.x g2 21 �xg2 �e6 22 a4 J::!.c8 23 J::!.a 3 l:!.c6 24 .:tb3 b6 25 l::!. d 5 .I;le4 26 .l::!.c 3 b5 21 b3 �8 28 f4 l':te8 29 I:i.h5 �g7 30 axb5 Yz-Yz White plays 4 e3
6.. Jle8
The immediate 6 ... .\l.xc3 7 i.. xc3 e4 is
Among all the sensible fourth move options, 4 e3 is the second most popular, right after 4 g3. Compared to Game 64 in the previous chapter, White aims 243
Play 1 . ..liJ c 6 !
to play d2-d4 in favourable circum stances. Apposite to my recommenda tions from the previous games, 4 ... .i.b4 is the move to be played here. In a way White has weakened his light squares by playing 4 e3, making a possible ...e5e4 even more attractive. Now 5 d4 leads to a position already discussed, while the two main alternatives are 5 tt:ld5 and 5 'iVc2. Regarding the former, the best reply to 5 tt:ld5 is 5 .e4, gaining space and effectively forcing the white knight to retreat to gl. In addition to that, for the moment Black enjoys a certain lead in development, but he has to take care of his advanced e-pawn, as well as find ing a place for his bishop to relocate. The position should be balanced, as you can see in the following game. ..
Game 71 J.Su nye Neto R.Ma rtin del Ca m po
Li n a res, Mexico 1993 1 C4 tt:lc6 2 CDC3 e5 3 tt:lf3 tt:lf6 4 e3 i.b4
244
5 tt:ld5
Besides this move, White has a few others at his disposal: a) 5 'iVc2 (or 5 'iVb3) 5 ... i.xc3 6 'ii'xc3 will be covered in the next two games. b) 5 d4 exd4 6 exd4 d5 has already been dealt with elsewhere (see Game 64, note to Black's 6th move; while 7 cxd5 'iVxd5 transposes to Game 56). c) 5 a3?!
again leads to a worse position after 5 ... i.xc3 6 bxc3 e4. For example, 7 CDd.f tt:le5 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 c5 10 tt:lb3, and now after 10 ... d6 (rather than 10 ...b6 1 1 f4 exf3 12 gxf3 d 6 13 d 4 as in K.Vordank-A. Dessler, correspondence
1 c4 lLl c 6 2 lLl c3 e5 3 lLlj3 lLlf6
1954) 1 1 f3 exf3 12 gxf3 i.h3 13 l:tf2 .l:tc8 White cannot play d2-d4 as he would :ose the pawn on c4. s e4 6 'bg1 Here 6 'bxb4 looks natural and has :o be investigated. After 6 ...'bxb4 White has two alternatives: ...
after 12 ..l¥..e2 (or 12 dxe4 tt:Jxe4 13 i.e2 dxc4 14 �xc4 tt:Jd6 15 ii.d3 .tf5, as in G.Carvalho-J. Sunye Neto, Cascavel 1996) 12 ...exd3 13 �xd3 dxc4 14 �xc4 i..g4 as in L.Ehrlich-J.Barta, Brno 1937. 6 0-0 7 tt:Je2 lle8 8 a3 ..l¥..d 6 ...
9 tt:Jec3
a) 7 CDd4 c5! 8 'bb3 (other moves are hardly better: 8 a3 'bd3+ 9 �xd3 exd3 10 �f3 and now 10...d5! is good for Black; similarly 8 CDc2 'bd3+ 9 �xd3 exd3 10 :Ua3 d5, or 8 'bb5 d5 9 cxd5 'bfxd5, and once again ...'bd3+ is in the air) 8 ...d6 9 d4 i..g4 10 'i*'d2 (10 £3 is brutally coun tered by 10 ...exf3 1 1 gxf3 'be4!) 1 0... a5 1 1 a3 'bc6 1 2 dxc5 dxc5 13 h3 (13 tt:Jxc5 �e7 14 t2lb3 0-0 gives Black good chances) 13. .. 'ifb6! 14 hxg4 'ii'xb3 15 i..e2 nd8 16 "iWc3 'ti'xc3+ 17 bxc3 0-0 and White's po sition was plucked in G.Garcia Gonza les-R.Knaak, Leipzig 1973. b) 7 a3 t2lc6 8 t2ld4?! (8 t2lg1 d5 9 d4 was played in L.Weglarz-A.Rotstein, Warsaw 1989, and now the simple 9... exd3 10 'iVxd3 tt:Je5 11 'ii'd4 t2lxc4 12 ii.xc4 dxc4 13 'ii'xc4 0-0 gives Black a good game) 8 ...tt:Jxd4 9 exd4 0-0 1 0 d3 .l:le8 11 �e3 d5! is also good for Black
Instead: a) 9 t2lg3 is the other way to attack the e-pawn. Black should continue 9 ...b6 10 �c2 i..b 7 1 1 t2lxf6+ (if 1 1 i.e2 b5!? 12 t2lxf6+ 'it'xf6 13 cxb5 t2le5 is in teresting) 1 1 . . .'ikxf6 12 t2lxe4 'i!Vg6 13 d3 t2le5 14 f3 (after 14 tt:Jxd6 cxd6! White is in a difficult position) 14 . . .f5 15 t2lxd6 cxd6 16 �f2 d5 17 �e2 f4 18 e4 t2lxd3+! 19 i.. xd3 dxe4 20 �xe4 i.. xe4 21 fxe4 'i*'xe4+ 22 �d1 'i*'xc4 and Black had a devastating attack in M.Woerdemann P.Rechmann, German League 1994. b) 9 �c2 is also met by 9 ... b5! 10 tt:Jxf6+ �xf6 11 cxb5 t2le5 and then 12 t2lg3 (or 12 'i'xe4 Si.b7! 13 'ifd4 a6 14 f4 'ti'h4+ 15 'bg3 t2lg4 1 6 bxa6 i.. c6 and Black had enough compensation for three (!) sacrificed pawns in M.Hochgraefe-P. Velicka, Hamburg 2000) 12 ... i.. b7 13 'bxe4 'i'g6 14 £3 (not 245
Play 1 . . lb c 6 ! .
14 d3?! lt:Jxd3+ 15 i.xd3 'i'xg2 16 .Ufl i.xe4 with a clear advantage in A.Gunnarsson-H.Stefansson, Icelandic Championship 1998; and 16 lt:Jf6+ gxf6 1 7 i.xh7+ Wh8 18 .l:lfl 'ii'xh2 is no bet ter) 14 ... tt:Jxf3+! 15 gxf3 .Uxe4 16 d3 (16 Si.d3 "iig2 1 7 l:Ifl .l:th4 and 16 fxe4 i.xe4 17 .l:lg1 Si.xc2 18 �xg6 hxg6 are two more lines promising better chances for Black) 16 ... i:te5 1 7 e4 was played in K.Gasser-H.Grabher, Hohenems 1998; and now 17 ... '1'£6, pointing the finger at the weak dark squares, would have given Black a nice game. 9 ...i.e5 10 d4 exd3 u ..txd3 d6
Rather than 5 lt:Jd5, White more of ten prefers 5 �c2, preventing Black from damaging the white pawn struc ture with 5 ... �xc3. Nevertheless, 5 �xc3 is still the right move! After 6 �xc3 'ille 7 the main idea of playing for ... e5-e4 is not new, but this line is actu ally one of the few examples where Black will play . . . d7-d5 if he is put off implementing his first idea by a white d2-d3. One step at a time, though. . . what happens if White plays a n imme diate 7 d4? •••
Came 72 T.Stei nmetzer-W.Hobusch
Corres ponde nce 1979 1 c 4 lt:Jc6 2 tLlc3 e5 3 lLlf3 tt:Jf6 4 e3 i.b4 5 �C2 �XC3 6 �XC3
Having reorganized his forces effec tively, Black has no problems.
6 bxc3?! cries out loud for the reply 6 ... e4. After 7 tt:Jg5 (if 7 lt:Jd4 lt:Je5 8 f4 exf3 9 tt:Jxf3 lt:Jxf3+ 10 gxf3 0-0 followed by . . . d7-d5 provides Black with an ad vantage due to his better pawn struc ture, while 8 i.e2 d6 9 0-0 cS! 1 0 ttJbS Si.fS saw White totally surrounded in M.Schramm-G.Bagaturov, Bad Wild bad 2001) 7 ..."iie 7 8 f3 exf3 9 lt:Jxf3 0-0 10 i.e2 (10 d4 d5 is just bad, since White is left with a backward pawn on e3 and a bad bishop on cl) 10 ... d6 11 .l:i,b1 b6 12 0-0 tt:Je5 13 d3 �g4 14 e4 lt:Jxf3+ 15 �xf3 i.xf3 16 !:txf3 ctJd7, Black had a good game in M.Suba O.Korneev, La Coruna 1999.
18 �ae1 i.d7 19 e4 i.d4+ 20 Wh1 "ii'f6
6 ...�e7 7 d4?!
21 b4 �h8 22 .Ue2 �e7 23 llfe1 �ae8 24
7 i.e2 and 7 d3 are examined in the next game.
12 0-0
12 tt:Jx£6+ i.xf6 13 tLld5 lt:Je5 14 .1i.e2, from A.Greenfeld-A.Schenk, Lippstadt 2004, should have been answered by 14 . . . c6 15 tt:Jxf6+ �xf6, intending . . . i.e6 followed by ... d5 with equality. 12 ... tLlxd5 13 lt.Jxd5 g6 14 f4 i.g7 15 'ikc2 tt:Je7 16 tt:Jxe7+ 'ifxe7 17 Si.d2 f5
'iVd1 Yz-Yz
246
1 c4 l'Uc6 2 l'U e3 es 3 l'Uf3 l'Uf6
correct, you have to give Black credit for his bold behaviour. Objectively though, 19 ... a5, securing the knight on c5, was preferable. 20 exf4
Not 20 gxf4? i.h3 21 "iWg1 !!.f6 and the g-file is Black's road to success. 20 i.h3 21 "iWg1 1!ae8 22 g4 "ti"h6 23 fs ..•
23 'it>g3! would have put Black to a serious test, but who would have the heart to play such a move during a se rious game? 7 ...'De4 8 'ii'd 3 exd4 9 'Dxd4 o-o!?
23 ... gs 24 il.d2?
Black can force massive simplifica tions with 9 . . .'Dxd4 10 'ii'xd4 �4+ 1 1 .ltd2 'iVxd2+ 1 2 1Wxd2 'Dxd2 1 3 �xd2, but who wants that if you can success fully play aggressively instead?
And here 24 'i!Vg3 was necessary to forestall .. ."¥i'h4+. Granted, that didn't seem like much of a threat, but. .. 24....l:i.xfs!
10 .lte2 'ii'b4+ 11 �1
Now 1 1 i.d2? simply loses a pawn after 1 1 ...'iVxb2. 11.. :t!Ve7 12 f3 f51 13 'iVd1 'Des
Now Black is on top again, since if 25 gxf5? �4+ 26 'i*'g3 'ii'd4+ mates. 25 i.f1 'ii'h4+ 26 'ii'g 3 .l:.xe1 27 .l:!.xe1 il.xg4 28 "ii'x h4 gxh4 29 �e3 ..ixf3 30 ..ih3
White's inability to castle is only one thing that makes the black position much more likeable.
30 .l:!.xf3? 'De4+ 31 'it>e3 .l:txf3+ 32 �xf3 'Dxd2+ 33 Wf2 'Dxfl 34 �xfl is obviously winning for Black.
14 wt2 'ii'h4+ 1s g3 'ii'h 3 16 "iWt1 'ii'h s
30 ... .ltg4+ 31 Wg2 hS 32 !:te7 'Dd3 3 3
1 7 "ii"g 2 d6 18 'Dxc6 bxc6 1 9 Z1e1 f4!?
i.xg4 .l:!.f2+! 3 4 'iitg 1 .l:!.xd2 3 5 il.e6+ �8
Although this move is not entirely
36 .Uxc7 .U.d1+ 3 7 'it>g2 ctJf4+ 0-1
247
Play 1
. . .
tb c 6 !
OK, s o the immediate 7 d 4 doesn't pose too great a threat. A more cun ning move is the innocuous-looking 7 .ie2. White ends the potential vis-a-vis of his king and the black queen down the e-file and now threatens to play 8 d4; for example 7 ... 0-0?! 8 d4 exd4 9 lbd4 and if now 9 ...lbe4, the white queen no longer has to remain in touch with the knight on d4. Instead, Black should essay the more energetic 7 ...d s . Normally I wouldn't recommend switching into a Open Sicilian-type position, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Here, Black can try to exploit the exposed position of the white queen, effectively gaining time to develop and organize play against White's backward cl pawn. A nice illustration can be seen in the following game by the British GM Nicholas Pert. Game 73 C. MeN a b-N.Pert
Oa kham 2000 1 c4 lbc6 2 lbc3 es 3 4Jf3 lbf6 4 e3 Jib4 5 'iVc2 �xc3 6 'iVxc3 'iVe7 7 ..te2
Instead: a) 7 d3 is another of the cases where Black should accept the invitation to play a reversed Sicilian. After 7 ... dS 8 cxdS lLlxdS 9 'i!Vc2 0-0 10 a3 aS! 1 1 b3 i.g4 12 i.e2 �ad8 13 0-0 fS Black had a good game in A.Chernin-Zsu.Polgar, Budapest 1993. b) 7 a3 dS 8 cxdS lLlxdS 9 'iVb3 lLlb6 10 d3 0-0 1 1 .ie2 aS is similar to the text, 248
while after 8 d4 exd4 9 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 10 V&'xd4 Black can play lO ...cS! 11 �4 dxc4 12 .ixc4 0-0 13 0-0 .ie6 and White has problems finding something useful for his dark-squared bishop to do. 7 .ds ..
As noted above, 7. . . 0-0?! is now in accurate since the bishop on e2 pre vents any of the actions from the pre vious game; after 8 d4 exd4 9 lbxd4 lLlxd4 10 �xd4 White is just better. 8 cxd s
Now if 8 d4 exd4 9 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 10 'iVxd4 cS! 1 1 'iVh4 (or 1 1 'iVd1 dxc4 12 .ixc4 'iVe4! 13 .ibS+ i.d7 14 .ixd7+ lLlxd7 1S 0-0 l:td8 16 b3 0-0 17 .ib2 'Lle5 18 'iVe2 'Lld3 with a clearly better posi tion for Black in H.Teske-A.Baburin, German League 2000) 1 l . . .dxc4 1 2 i.xc4 0-0 13 0-0 i.e6 and we have the same position as after 7 a3 above, just with the pawn on a2 instead of a3. Instead, 8 d3 0-0 9 0-0 e4 10 lLld-± lbeS 1 1 cxdS exd3 12 i.xd3 lLlxdS 1 3 �3 'Llxd3 14 'ifxd3 cS (14. . .l:td8 is more ambitious) 1S 'LlfS 'iY'eS 16 'iVxdS led directly to a draw in A.Istratescu I.Ivanisevic, Chania 2000.
1 c4 !D c 6 2 tD C3 es 3 !Dj3 !Df6 8 lbxds 9 'i¥b3 lbb6 10 o-o o-o 11 d 3 ...
�xd4 't/Vxd4 28 'i¥xd4 .l:!.xd4
as 12 .W..d 2 a4 13 �c2 l:td8 14 l::tfcl .ifs 15 e4
29 �ac1 fs 30 exfs gxfs 31 'it>e2 '.t>f6 32 Z!c4 .l:i.ad8 3 3 a 3 �e6 34 M.xd4 .Uxd4 3 5
This is rather forced if White wants to keep hold of his d-pawn, but now d4 is incredibly weak.
J:tc1 '.t>ds 36 hs l:tg4 3 7 h 6 f4 3 8 �c4 bs
1S .ig4 16 i.e3 tLld7 17 h3 �xf3 18
'flc7 'it>d6 46 �f7 l:th1 47 Wd2 hS 48 l:th7
•••
Jl.xf3 lLlf8 19 'i¥c4 lbe6 20 i.dl lbcd4
39 �e4 l:tg6 40 gxf4 exf4 41 �xf4 l:txh6 42 :S.f7 �e6 43 l:tc7 �d6 44 �f7 'ii>e6 45 h4 49 �c2 h 3 50 �h6+ �d S 51 .l:ihS+ 'ii>e6 52 1;Ih6+ �d S 53 l:thS+ 'it>d6 54 .Mh6+ �d 7 55 �h7+ '.t>e8 56 <j;>c3 cs 57 <j;>d2 b4 58 '\t>e2 h2 59 <j;>f3 l:tb1 60 .Uxh2 l=!.xb2 61 l::!. h 8+ �d7 62 l:i.a8 b3 63 J:txa4 !;l.xf2+ 64 <j;>xf2 b2 65 �c4 b1� 66 �e2 'i!i'b2+ 67 '.t>d1 'ii'x a3 68 �d2 'it>d6 69 <j;>c2 11Va1 10 <j;>d2 <j;>d s 11 .l:!.e4 "ii'b 2+ 12 �d1 �c3 73 e2 11Vc2+ 74 <j;>e3 �dl 75 l:t.c4 'iYel+ 76 'ii>f3 'ii'd 2 0-1 White plays 4 g3
Black has managed to get a tight grip on d4 with his knights. In a higher sense, the position is already strategi cally won. The way the British grand master converts his advantage is very instructive. 21 'i;>g7 25 �xe6 lbxe6 26 �d1 lLld4 27
It is now time to deal with the absolute main line of the English Opening, 4 g3 in the Four Knights. As I pointed out in my introduction, White's main inten tion in the English is to get a grip on the central light squares, and by fi anchettoing his king's bishop White is acting accordingly. One could be ternpted to continue 249
Play 1 . t:iJ c 6 ! .
.
with 4 . . . jLb4 again, but I feel that with a white bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal Black should not try to contest the light squares this time. I tried 4 ... �c5 for a while, for positions similar to those in the previous chapter, but ultimately felt that things were not going my way. I needed something
1 c4 lb c 6 2 lb c3 es 3 lbf3 lbf6
c) 5 tt::lxd4 exd4 is no challenge ei ther. After 6 tt::lbS (6 tt::ldS tt::lxdS 7 cxdS .tcs 8 'ii'c2 '1i'e7 9 i.g2 0-0 10 0-0 d6 1 1 !e1 �f6 1 2 d3 �g4 1 3 a3 aS 1 4 b3 .l:!.ae8 was better for Black in J .Padreny Gutierrez-M.Illescas Cordoba, La Lira 1 981) 6 ... il.c5 7 b4! ? il.xb4 8 tt::lxd4 0-0 9 .1g2 dS 10 cxdS tt::lxdS 1 1 i.b2 tt::lb 6 12 d-el c6 13 0-0 '1i'g5 14 d3, now 14 . . .f!.e8 would have led to a comfortable game in A.Strikovic-M.Granados Gomez, Zaragoza 1997. s tt:Jxf3+ 6 .ixf3 i.. b4 ...
1 l .. .b6 12 0-0 and a draw was agreed in FIDE B.Gulko-A.Chemin, World Championship, New Delhi 2000. If in stead 12 fxe4?! �b7 13 dS then 13 .. .'iVc5! 14 'iid3 (or 14 eS lt::l g4) 14 ... il.a6 15 1Le3 "iixc4 16 'ii'xc4 1Lxc4 is clearly better for Black. c) The quiet 7 'ir'c2 c6 8 0-0 0-0 was played in J.Timman-M.Tal, Tilburg 1980. After 9 d3 (unmindful play on the queenside, initiated by 9 a3 il.e7 10 b4 d6 1 1 1Lb2, is best answered by a king side attack; for example, 1 1 . ..�e6 12 d3 l'!c8 13 l:!fe1 'i'd7 14 e3 .ih3 15 .ih1 'i'g4! 16 iVe2 'iVg6 1 7 lt:Je4 tt::lxe4 1 8 .ixe4 £5 when Black had good attack ing chances in U.Schumacher-H.Vitz, Troisdorf 1998) 9 ... .Ue8 (or 9 ...h6 10 a3 i.e7 1 1 e4 d6 12 b4 t'Llh7 13 j_g2 £5 as in R.Kasimdzhanov-J.Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1999) 10 Ag5 h6 1 1 .ix£6 "Y!\Yx£6 12 lbe4 lWg6 13 a3 il.f8 14 cS f5! 15 t'Lld2 dS 1 6 cxd6 �xd6 1 7 tt::l c4 i.c7 Black was clearly better. 7
...
il.cs 8 d3 o-o
7 'iib 3
This i s the right move i f White wishes to fight for an advantage. In stead: a) 7 0-0 0-0 8 d3 h6 9 Ji..d 2 c6 10 "Y!Ii"a4 i.e7 was simply equal in M.Gurevich B.Avrukh, Antwerp 1999. b) 7 d4 .ixc3+ 8 bxc3 e4 9 .ig2 h6! 10 'iVc2 (or 10 .l:!.b1 0-0 11 0-0 b6 12 �c2 il.b7 13 dS 'iVe7 14 I:ld1 d6 15 .l::td 4 .Uae8 16 h3 il.c8 when the e-pawn was the key to a good position for Black in R.Kerndl-A.Dunne, correspondence 1999) 10 . . .'�e7 1 1 f3 (after 1 1 a4 d6 12 i.. a3 the bishop is thwarted by 12 ... c5)
9 0-0
9 .igS is not dangerous: 9 ...h6 10 �x£6 �xf6 1 1 tt::le4 "Yi"e7 12 tt::lxcS '1i'xc5 251
Play 1 . .lu c 6 ! .
1 3 0-0 d 6 1 4 'i¥c3 aS and Black equal ized in J.Tirnman-L.Portisch, Nice Olympiad 1974. Instead after 9 tba4 Black can play 9 ... jLe7 10 0-0 l::te8 1 1 �d1 d6 1 2 tbc3 .lt£8 1 3 'ilc2 c6, intend ing a later ... d6-dS, as in V.Tukrnakov M.Hebden, Hastings 1982/83.
1 2 'ii'a 4 h6 1 3 l:tac1 a 6 14 tbe4
9 c6
14 ... tbxe4 15 .ixe4
•.•
Or 14 'i!Yb3 d6 15 ..ie3 'i:Ve7 16 tba4 i.g4 1 7 .l:tfe1 .l:!.ad8 18 h3 i.e6 19 Wh2 b5 20 lbb6 and a draw was agreed in Z.lzoria-N.Pert, Hoogeveen 2003, al though 20 ... d5 would have given Black a nice position. White has a slight advantage in space and the more active pieces, but Black's position is solid and without weaknesses. 1s ... d6 16 i.a s �gs 17 'ii'b 3 hs 17. . .£5!? 1 8 j_g2 £4 is another way to proceed. 18 h4 'i:Ve7 19 'ii'b 6 gs!? 20 hxgs i:Vxgs 21 ile3
White had to take care of the threat ened ...h5-h4. 21 ... i:Vxe3 22 fxe3 .i.h6 23 Wf2 .ltg4 24
Diminishing the scope of the light squared bishop, after which White has nothing.
i.f3 fs 25 .l';!h1 'it>g7 26 .l:tcf1
10 ..td2
10 ..tg5 h6 11 .ltxf6 �xf6 1 2 tbe4 'ii'e 7 13 tbxc5 'i¥xc5 14 i¥c3 aS is similar to Timman-Portisch above. 10 ... .l:!.e8 11 .ig2 i.f8!
A prophylactic move. Black wants to play ... d6 without having to worry about his bishop being harassed by b2b4. 1 l . ..�b6 is another escape route for the bishop. L.Portisch-R.Htibner, Can didates match, Abano Therme 1980, continued 12 'i¥c2 h6 13 tba4 i.c7 14 :tacl d6 15 b4 i.d7 16 tbc3 �c8 1 7 IHe1 �h3 18 i.h1, and now Black could have played 18 ...ilf5 with chances on the kingside. 252
26 ...e4
There was nothing wrong with 26 ... Wg6, safely consolidating the posi tion before making a move. 27 dxe4 fxe4 28 ..txg4 hxg4 29 l:rh4 i.gs?!
Here 29 ... klf8+! 30 �g2 .!::i.x£1 31 Wxfl
1 c4 'Li c 6 2 'Li C3
e
5 3 'Lij3 'Lif6
:.f8+ 32 <Jig2 'it>g6 33 �xg4+ 'it>f5 34 �h4 l.xe3 would have led to a slightly bet ter endgame for Black. Whereas now it is Black who has to play very carefully, though his skilful play is rewarded with a draw in the end.
to be considered the most dangerous line Black faces in the whole English Opening - not so much because of its theoretical value, but rather due to its practical problems. Agreed, after the continuation 4 ...exd4 5 tt:Jxd4 i.. b4 6
30 1Ixg4 <Jig6 31 �g2 �ac8 32 .ic3 l:!.e6
i.gs h6 1 ..th4,
33 34 l:!.ce8 34 as .I!g8 35 l:!.ff4 llge8 36 �h3 l:!.8e7 3 7 J:.f8 lle8 3 8 .llff4 .ll8 e7 39 l:rf8 .Me8 40 l:!.f1 1!8e7 41 �gf4!?
i.d4 l:txe2 55 i..x e3 'Ot>g7 56 'M3 Itc2 57
Black has many different options, but most of them require a high degree of knowledge, patience, discipline and positional understanding; things that few chess players can successfully combine. Therefore I would like to introduce a more dynamic response. After 1 0-0
i.d4+ �h6 58 i.e3+ �g7 59 i.d4+ <Jih6
8 l:!.c1 l:!.e8 9 e3 tt'lxd4 10 'ii"xd4 cs!?,
60 i.c3 l:!.h2 61 �g3 �e2 62 'it>f3 l:!.e8 63
followed by ... g7-g5 and ... d7-d5, Black may have scattered his pawn structure, but he gets adequate compensation in the form of active piece play.
41...i.xf4 42 exf4 l:!.h7+ 43 �g4 'M7 44 fS .tieS 45 'M4 e31 46 g4 l:th2 47 'M3 �g8 48 i.e1 �gh8 49 gs .l:!.h1 so l1xh1 �xh1 51 i.c3 l:!.f1+ 52 'Ot>e4 �f2 53 g6+ 'MS 54
i.d2+ <Jihs 64 i.e3 ds 65 cxds cxds 66 b4 .lld 8 6 7 i.. c s l:!.e8 68 g7 Il.g8 69 f6 <Jig6 70 i.e7 �7 71 'M4 l:i.c8 72 wes d4 73
..•
'Ot>xd4 <Jie6 74 i.f8 rM7 75 'it>ds l:tc6 76 �e7 <Jigs 1 1 <>t>es M7 78 .id6 l:i.c8 79 Ms .l:!d8 so 'it>es .llc8 81 i.cs l:tc6 82 i.e7 l:te6+ 83 �d4 l:!.c6 Yz-Yz White plays 4 d4 Although 4 d4 trails far behind 4 g3 in popularity, from my experience it has
Came 75 B.Gelfa nd-V. Korchnoi
G ro n i ngen 1996 1 c4 tt'lc6 2 l2:lc3 es 3 tt'lf3 tt'lf6 4 d4 exd4 5 tt:Jxd4 i.b4
253
Play 1 . . .Ci:J c 6 !
14 "Vi'xc2 .ixh3 would have given Black a big advantage. 6 ... h6 7 .ih4 0-0 8 MC1
6 -igs
Alternatively: a) 6 CL:lxc6 is poor; after 6 ... .ixc3+ 7 bxc3 bxc6 8 .ia3 d6 9 g3 0-0 10 i.g2 "Vi'e8 1 1 0-0 .l::r.b8 12 "Vi'd3 .id7 13 M.ab1 "Vi'e5 Black had the better prospects in the computer game Desp-Vchess, Aus tria (rapid) 2001. b) 6 g3 is a popular alternative. Black should react aggressively with 6 ... CL:le4!. Now 7 "Vi'd3 (7 CL:lxc6 "Vi'f6? does not work this time because of 8 "Vi'd4, but 7 ...bxc6 8 "Vi'd4 CL:lxc3 9 bxc3 .ie7 10 .ig2 0-0 is good for Black, who can at tack the c-pawns with ... .i£6 and ... .ia6) 7 ... CL:lc5 8 "Vi'e3+ CL:le6 9 CL:lxc6 (9 CL:lxe6 dxe6 10 .ig2 CLJd4! 11 "Vi'e4 f5 12 "Vi'd3 e5 led to a good game for Black in L.Karlsson-G.Bucciardini, correspon dence 1997; while after 9 CL:lc2 d5! 10 .ig2 d4 1 1 "Vi'd2 .ic5 12 CLJd5 CL:le5 13 b3, as in V.Chekhov-A.Kosikov, Dau gavpils 1978, and now 13 ... c6, chasing the knight away, the position holds no worries for Black) 9 ... dxc6 10 a3 .ic5 1 1 "Vi'f3 CLJd4 1 2 "Vi'e4+ .ie6 1 3 .ih3 was played in R.Brzezinski-K.Wojtczak, correspondence 1992, when 13 ...CLJc2+! 254
8 e3 should be met by 8 ... .ixc3+!? 9 bxc3 CL:le5. M.Hanauer-S.Reshevsky, US Championship, New York 1936, con tinued 10 .ie2 CL:lg6 1 1 .ig3 ( 1 1 .ixf6 "Vi'xf6 12 0-0 d6 13 M.b1 "Vi'e7 14 .id3 c5! 15 CLJe2 b6 also led to a good game for Black in F.Sanz Alonso-M.Tal, Nice Olympiad 1974) 1 1 . ..CL:le4 12 "Vi'c2 .l::r.e8 13 0-0 d6 14 .Mab1 c5! 15 CLJf3 b6 and Black was clearly better. 8 ... M.e8 9 e3 CL:lxd4! 10 "Vi'xd4 cs!?
11 "Vi'd1
Instead: a) 1 1 "Vi'd3 makes little difference, as 1 1 . ..g5 12 .ig3 d5 13 cxd5 "Vi'xd5 14 "Vi'xd5 would transpose to the text, or if 14 a3 .ixc3+ 15 "Vi'xc3 CL:le4 16 "Vi'c2 .if5 17 .ic4 "Vi'c6 and Black was not worse in B.Jobava-F.Vallejo Pons, European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003. b) 11 .ix£6?? is refuted by 1 l . . .cxd4 12 i.xd8 dxc3 13 bxc3 .ia3. c) 1 1 "Vi'd6!? seeks to disturb Black's development. I.Smirin-A.Onischuk. New York Open 1998, continued
1 c4 ltJ c 6 2 ltJc3 e5 3 ltJj3 ltJf6
l l . ..l:!.e6 ( 1 1 . . .g5 12 .l¥..g3 and then 1 2 ... l:te6 13 '1i'd1 tLle4 is a possible im provement) 12 'iid 1 Wia5 13 i..xf6 �xf6 14 a3 .l¥..xc3+ 15 Ilxc3 d6 1 6 i.e2 il.d7 1 7 l.f3 l1b8 1 8 0-0 b 5 19 cxb5 and a draw was agreed.
shape after 17 . . .tbxc3 1 8 bxc3 i.. xc3+ 19 �fl ..ib2. 17 ... .id7 18 i.. xd7 l!.xd7 19 hxg5 i.. x c3+ 20 bxc3 ttJxe3
u... g5 12 i.. g 3 d5 13 cxd5 "iVxd5
21 i..f2
Black's scattered pawn structure is compensated by his piece activity. Black is OK 14 'tWxd5
14 �a4?! l:!d8! 15 �d1 'ii'x d1+ 16 "ifxd1 �xd1+ 1 7 �xd1 �e6 is not rec ommendable for White. 14 ... tbxd5 15 i.b5 l:td8 16 h4
Instead, 16 �e2 .txc3 1 7 bxc3 .l¥..e6 18 l1hd1 iLlf6 19 l:!xd8+ �xd8 20 a3 lLle4 was better for Black in C.Sega I.Morovic Fernandez, Sao Paulo 2002 especially as 21 i.d3? ran into 2l.. .lLlxf2! 22 i.xf2 i.g4+ 23 Wd2 c4 24 e4 �xd3+ 25 �c2 i.. d 7! 26 i.. xa7 i.c6 27 �e1 .1i.a4+ 28 �b2 l:!.d2+ 29 �b1 �xg2 and Black won quickly. 16 ... i.g4! 17 f3
17 hxg5?! leaves Black in better
21 gxh6 l::te8! 22 h7+ �h8 23 .tf2 tbxg2+ 24 \t>£1 tLle3+ 25 .1xe3 �xe3 26 �f2 l:!.ee7 is nothing for Black to worry about either. 21... ttJxg2+ 22 �1 ll'lf4 23 �xh6
If 23 gxh6 �h7 and the knight is of more use than the bishop. 23 ... l:!.d3 24 .i.xc5 .l:Ixf3+ 25 �g1 l:i.e8
25 ...�g3+ was also possible. After 26 �f2 lhg5 27 i..d4 tLlg6 28 :!::tch1 <;i;>f8 White will have a hard time proving enough compensation for the pawn. 26 i.. xa 7 'Lih3+ 27 <;i;>hl tL'lxg5 28 �b1 �g7 29 f.th2 �g6 30 i.. d 4
30 �xb7? is no good because of 30 .. Jie1 + 31 i.g1 l::!.g3 32 .Ug2 It.h3+ 33 It.h2 .l:.xh2+ 34 �xh2 tt::lf3+ 35 <;i;>g2 tLlxgl. 30. . .f6 31 a4 Yz-Yz
Black still has the slightly better po sition.
255
Play 1 . JiJ c 6 ! .
Summary The Four Knights is full of possibilities and provides White with a large variety of playable systems. Usually Black can employ similar plans against them; for exam ple, playing for the control of the central light squares e4 and d5 with ...�b4, and swapping the bishop for the white queen's knight (as in Games 68, 70-73 and 75). But there is also the dynamic resource ... tl'ld4, which allows Black either to create dangerous attacks (Game 69) or to make exonerating simplifications (Game 74). All in all, Black should not fear the English Four Knights. 1 C4 tlJc6 2 tlJc3 e5 3 4Jf3 tlJf6 (D) 4 e3
4 e4 �b4 Game 68 4 a3 d6 - Game 69 4 d3 ..ltb4 - Game 70 4 g3 tl'ld4 (D) - Game 74 4 d4 exd4 5 tl'lxd4 ..ltb4 - Game 75 -
4 ... i.b4 5 �cl
5 tl'ld5 e4 - Game 71 s .ixc3 6 iVxc3 "ife7 (D) 7 ..lte2 ...
7 d4 tl'le4 - Game 72 7 ... ds
-
Game 73
3 .JiJj6
256
4.JiJd4
6.. .'iWe7
Part Four Black v s . 1 . . . l2Jc6
1
I
l2Jf3 :
The variations arising from 1 CLlf3 CL\c6 shows how the different systems with l . . .lbc6 are interlinked. As we have al ready treated 2 e4, 2 d4 and 2 c4 in the previous parts of this book, the only thing left to be examined is the so called King's Indian Attack, 2 g3. However, the 'Attack' doesn't quite live up to its name here, as in my rec ommended set-up with 2 es 3 d3 ds 4 i.g2 f6, it is Black who attacks most of the time. ...
The formation Black adopts is often confused with the Samisch Variation of the King's Indian Defence, but there is a key difference in that the black c pawn still is on c7. As a result, the black centre is more stable and possible White attacks on the gueenside are less efficient. This makes attacking on the kingside while castling queenside much more attractive. If you want to make a comparison, the closest you could draw is a certain resemblance to a variation from the Pirc Defence (specifically that with ke3, f2-f3, iVd2 etc). Therefore our cur rent formation can be dangerous for White, as not everyone who plays the King's Indian Attack as White also has the Pirc Defence in his black repertoire. But even if that should be the case, Black still doesn't have much to worry about, as I would like to show you in our final chapter.
257
Chapter F ifteen 1
I
'2Jf3 l2Jc6
We are almost at the end o f our journey through the realms of ... lZJc6. As al ready mentioned in the introduction to the final part of this book on 1 liJf3 lZJc6, the remaining opening system to be examined is the King's Indian At tack. But as a little leaving present, I would like to look first at a game in which White plays 2 b3. White plays 2 b3 If anything, 2 b3 is a kind of improved Nimzo-Larsen Attack - although I find it hard to see what the exact improve ment might be. Granted, Black cannot play ... c7-c5 anymore, but on the other hand, the white knight can now be harassed by the black e-pawn.
Game 76 C.Bonn ke-C.Wisnewski
Kiel (ra pid) 2004 1 liJf3 lZJc6 2 b 3
258
2 d3 e5 usually transposes to sys tems already covered or to the KIA. After 2 e3 Black should play 2 ... d5. Then 3 d4 transposes to Game 28, while 3 b3 is perhaps a better version of the text. Nevertheless, after 3 ... e5 4 .i.b2 (if 4 .i.b5 e4 5 lZJe5 'iig 5! 6 ltJxc6 'ii'xg2 7 :l.fl a6, the b3-pawn proves a hindrance after 8 �a4 ..1h3 9 'ili'e2 b5 10 i.xb5 axb5 11 "ifxb5 'ili'xfl + 1 2 'iixfl i.xfl 13 �xfl and Black has a winning material advantage; 5 liJd4 'ii'gS 6 ltJxc6 "ifxg2 is the same) 4 ... i.d6 (4 ... e4 was
1 ltJj3 ltJ c 6
played in M.Basman-J.Nunn, London 1975, and while I wouldn't want to doubt such an authority as Nunn, I don't much like Black's position after 5 tbd4 Cbxd4 6 .ltxd4 Cbf6 7 c4 dxc4 8 .ltxc4 .i.e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 f3 c5 1 1 �b2) 5 �b5 'iVe7 6 d4 e4 7 tbe5 j,xe5 8 dxe5 �e6 9 'iVd4 'i!t'g5 10 g3 Cbge7 Black ob tained a very good position in J.Fend E.Arjmand, California 1993.
draw after 10 ... tbxa2 1 1 'i!t'xc5 tbxc3 1 2 '+lff8+ �xc7 13 iVc5+ 'it>d8 in G.Timoscenko-Z.Topalovic, Opatija 2003, though Black might try 1 0 ...b6!?), when 6 ... tbxd4 7 Cbb5 (but not 7 tbxe4? �g6 8 tbxc5 tbxc2+ and Black wins; while 7 Cbd5 'i!Vc6 8 exd4 "iVxd5 9 dxc5 Cb£6 is also good for Black) 7 . . ..Mb8 8 tbxd4 tbe7 is roughly equal, with an interesting struggle lying ahead.
2 ...es 3 �b2 e4 4 tbd4
6 ... tbes 7 Ji.. e2 ds 8 tt:lbs .ltb6 9 iVc2 c6
4 tbe5?! was tried in I.Kaczmarek U.Von Herman, German League 1995, but after 4 .. .'�f6 5 Cbc4 (5 d4 would have been more to the point, although 5 ... i.b4+! 6 tbd2 e3! 7 fxe3 Cbxe5 8 dxe5 �4+ 9 g3 �e4 or 6 c3 Cbxe5 7 cxb4 Cbg4 is also better for Black) 5 ...'iVe6 (funnily, after 5 ... iVd8 moves other than 6 tbe5 seem to lead to a worse po sition as well) 6 e3 d5 the result of the opening is terrible for White.
10 tbd4 iVg6 11 .l::tg 1 .ltg4 12 Ji..f1 .ltd7 1 3 f4
4 ...'/i'f6 5 e3 �c5
Dropping a pawn, but the position was beyond repair anyway. 13 ... �xd4 14 fxes �xes 15 g3 Cbf6 16 c4 Cbg4 17 h3 tbh2 18 .i.xes tbf3+ 19 �2 tbxes 20 '>t>g2 tbf3 21 .Mh1 tbe1+ o-1 White plays 2 g3
6 C3?
Now Black takes command. In stead, White should have played 6 tbc3! (6 tt:lb5!? 'i'xb2 7 Cb1 c3 tbb4 8 .Mb1 'i!Vxc2 9 Cbxc7+ �d8 10 i¥h5 led to a
The King's Indian Attack is especially popular among players who dislike having to learn a load of theory - the first five to six moves at least are al ways the same, completely regardless of the black set-up, and even after that the plans and ideas are usually the same. 259
Play 1 . . .lo c 6 !
The set-up I a m recommending is, in my opinion, the most reliable one to present White with a challenge, al though the inferred black attack on the kingside is not often treated accord ingly. Furthermore, White is not only threatened by danger on the kingside, as I would like to show you with our final game in this book. Game 7 7 S.Ma rtinsen-C. Wisnewski
Kiel 2004 1 4Jf3 tt:Jc6 2 g3 es
ii.. g2 (evidently not 5 tbxe5?? tbxe5 6 d4 .txd4 7 'i!Vxd4 tt:Jf3+ and Black wins) 5 ... d6 6 d3 (6 0-0 a6 7 d3 is merely a transposition) 6 ... a6 (compare the black set-up with the one I recommended in Chapter 13 - it is just universal!) 7 0-0 ii..e6 8 J.. e3 ..ixe3 9 fxe3 tt:Je7 10 h3 (or 1 0 tbh4 'iVd7 1 1 'ir'f3 0-0-0 12 d4 iLh3 1 3 tbf5 iLxg2 14 ..t>xg2 tt:Jxf5 1 5 'iNxf5 exd4 16 exd4 .:he8 with equality in J.Smeets L.Van Kooten, Dutch League 2000) 10 ... 4Jg6 1 1 Yi'e1 c6 12 �h2 h6 13 a4 0-0 14 a5 d5 and Black equalized com fortably in R.Slobodjan-I.Sokolov, Nus sloch 1996. 3 ...ds 4 .tg2 f6!? The calm 4 ... 4Jf6 is fine as well. Af ter 5 0-0 .te7 White has to choose be tween the following moves:
3 d3
3 e 4 4Jf6 4 tt:Jc3 (4 d3 was dealt with in Chapter 1 - see the notes to Game 2) actually transposes to the Glek Varia tion of the Four Knights. As a matter of principle Black should not switch to this area of the Open Games, but a cer tain amount of flexibility is nothing a chess player should be ashamed of, especially as this opening system is rather harmless. In my opinion, the most feasible plan for Black is 4 ... .ic5 5 260
a) 6 c3 seeks to advance on the queenside, but Black can easily prevent this with 6 ... a5, when D.Langerak M .Geenen, correspondence 1992, con tinued 7 tt:Jbd2 0-0 8 Yi'c2 (or 8 e4 dxe4 9 dxe4 b6 10 �e1 .ia6 1 1 .ifl ii.. xfl 12 Wxfl a4 and Black successfully stopped any queenside ambitions White might have had in J.Maiwald-D.Werner,
1 CDj3 CDc6 German League 1997) 8 ...b6 9 b3 .i..b 7 10 a3 .l::te 8 1 1 ..ib2 e4! 12 dxe4 dxe4 13 CL\gS e3 14 fxe3 h6 15 CL\ge4 CL\g4 and Black was better. b) 6 a3 serves the same purpose, while leaving the door open to play c2c4 at a later date. But this has to be con sidered carefully, as the game A.Miles E.Michaelides, Lone Pine 1980, showed: 6 ... a5 7 b3 0-0 8 ..ib2?! e4 9 dxe4 CL\xe4 10 c4 dxc4 1 1 'ikc2 �f6! 1 2 bxc4 .ifS and White was in trouble. c) 6 CL\bd2 is the typical set-up for the King's Indian Attack, but it failed to impress after 6 ... 0-0 7 e4 dxe4 8 dxe4 J.e6 9 b3 CL\d7 10 gb2 i.f6 1 1 'i'e2 CL\b6 12 .ti.fd1 1Wc8 13 CL\£1 !Id8 in G.Emodi J.Laszlo, Hajduboszormeny 1996. d) Finally, we have 6 i.gS!? which, with Black having already played ... �e7, does not seem to make much sense.
But actually it does serve White's plan of fighting for control of dS. After 6 . . . .ie6 7 CL\c3 0-0 8 e4 dxe4 (8 ... d4 9 CL\e2 h6 10 ..id2 'ikd6 1 1 CL\e1 CL\d7 12 f4 fS 13 h3 fxe4 14 dxe4 aS 15 CL\d3 �c4 was unclear in J.Hickl-V.Hort, Dort-
mund 1989) 9 dxe4 h6 10 i.. xf6 i.xf6 1 1 CL\dS a draw was agreed in both R.Keene-A.Diickstein, Vienna 1972 and Reggio K.Hulak-J.Nunn, Emilia 1983/84. This position is one reason why I favour the text move.
5 C3
The methodical 5 CL\bd2 .ie6 6 e4 is best met by 6 ... dxe4 7 dxe4 'ikd7, fol lowed by .. 0-0-0, ....lth3 and ...h7-h5 with an attack. Surprisingly, I have been unable to find any practical ex amples of this, besides a few non essential blitz games I've played on the Internet. Nevertheless, I strongly urge you to try it! 5 0-0, on the other hand, is a move you will encounter more frequently. After S ... i..e6 the most probable line will be 6 e4 (6 CL\bd2 'i'd7 usually transposes above after e2-e4), when 6 ... dxe4 is playable, but the position after 7 dxe4 'i¥xd1 8 .lhd1 .ltcS 9 c3 CL\ge7 is a bit dull. Instead, 6 ... d4 leads to a good game for Black. The usual attacking scheme with ... 0-0-0 followed by ... gh3 and ...h7-h5-h4 is the idea, while if White challenges the centre 261
Play 1 . lLl c 6 ! .
.
with 7 c3 Black can simply play 7 . . . 'it'd7 8 cxd4 ctJxd4 9 ctJxd4 'ii'xd4 1 0 '*ic2 0-0-0 and White will have problems with his backward d-pawn. s ... ..lk.e6 6 b4 'iYd7 7 ctJbd2 ..lth3 8 ..ltxh3
8 0-0?! castles right into the rising storm. Black should go for it with 8 ... h5 9 e4 dxe4 1 0 dxe4 0-0-0 when White has to be very careful. For example, 1 1 b5 ctJb8 12 'ii'a4 h4 13 ctJxh4? (but grabbing the pawn with 13 ii.xh3 'iYxh3 14 'ifxa7 leaves Black with a dangerous attack after 14 ...hxg3 15 fxg3 ctJh6) 13 ... :txh4! 14 gxh4 'tWg4 and mate next move. A motif worth remembering!
9 b 5 ltJd8 10 'tWb3 'ti'd7 11 a4 lDe6 12 .ta3
White refuses to castle for the rest of the game, but even if he had castled short, Black would still have the better prospects. After Black castles queen side, the ensuing pawn race is not at all close, as Black can withstand the storm, while White cannot. 12 ...i.xa 3 13 l:i.xa3 CDe7 14 'ii'b4 cs 15 bxc6 ltJxc6 16 'ii'b s o-o-o 17 c4 a6 18 'i!Vb2 d4
8 .'it'xh3 ••
19 h4
As I found out in my post-mortem analysis, we have now reached a varia tion of the Pirc Defence with revered colours (White wasted his extra move on 4 .Jtg2). The fact that most White players are not Pirc experts should re assure you to play this system. And the fact that my opponent in this game ac tually was a Pirc expert and still did not get any advantage should reassure you even more.
262
Despite my last remark, it was now time for White to castle and at least try to generate some counterplay on the b file. With the text move, White at tempts to withstand the storm on the kingside, but then the attack comes from a different direction: in the centre. 19 ... 'tWe7 20 a s fs 21 'it>f1 J:thf8 22 'it>g2 ltJcs 23 .l::i.a a1 e4
Black is breaking through and White is getting crushed. 24 lDe1 tt:Jes 25 lDb3 ltJe6 26 'ii'd 2 ltJg4 27 ctJc2 f4 28 dxe4 fxg3 29 fxg3 l"lf2+ 30 'it>g1 d3 31 CDb4 ltJf4! o-1
1 0.f3 0.c6 Summary The 'improved' Nimzo-Larsen Attack from Game 76 can be hardly called an im provement, as with natural moves Black can hope for an advantage. More impor tant are the discoveries in Game 77. By using the set-up advocated there, Black shouldn't be at all afraid to face the King's Indian Attack. 1 'Llf3 'Llc6 (D) 2 g3
2 b3 e5 (D) - Game 76 2 es 3 d3 ds 4 ..ig2 f6 (D) - Game 77 ...
1...0.c6
2 ...e5
4 . .f6 .
2 63
Index of Complete G a m es
I
Alphabetical by Black Player Nyholm.G-Aiekhine.A, Stockholm 1912
1 93 61 Magerramov.E-AI Modiahki.M, Dubai 2000 . 154 Lopez Gracia.F-Ansola Marquinez.A, Zaragoza 1998 68 Adianto.U-Arencibia.W, Cap d' Agde (rapid) 1998 149 Blair.D-Armani.G, Correspondence 2000 .......... ................................................... 240 Serebro.A-Bairachny.R, Ukrainian Championship, Donetsk 1993 218 Bengsch.B-Becker.R, Kassel 1998 54 Dupre Guegan.M-Bergez.D, French League 1998 . 56 Farago.S-Bigaliev.R, Budapest 1996 1 96 Giardelli.S-Boissonet.C, Buenos Aires 1991.. 124 Reti.R-Bogolju bow.E, German Championship, Kiel 1921 186 Grund.W-Broemmei.R, German League 2003 24 . 130 Ornstein.A-Bryneii.S, Swedish Championship, Malmo 1986 Sulava.N-Bryneii.S, European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003 1 04 Schlindwein.R-Bukal Jr. V, Austrian League 2000 . 96 Etchegaray.P-Bukal Sr.V, Cannes 1997 159 Dos Santos.F.J-Dolezai.C, Carilo 2005 . 21 Dorn.M-Fiassig.D, Germany 2001 128 Socko.M-Foisor.C, Athens 2004 205 Wiedner.R-Grabher.H, Austrian League 1996 220 Steinmetzer.T-Hobusch.W, Correspondence 1979 246 Bunzmann.D-Hodgson.Ju, German League 1999 229 Nocci.R-Johnsen.K.H, Correspondence 2000 58 Ter Minasjan.D-Jurkovic.H, Schwarzach 1999 1 02 ...............................................................
Stern.M-Aiexopoulos.G, Somerset, USA 1985
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................................................
............................................
......... ...................................
...................
............................ ................................................
.........
.............. . . . . . . . . . ................
.................................................. ...................
............................... ........................
.................................
....... ................................................
...........
...............
................
. . . . ...........................
.................
.............................. ......... . . . . . . . . .. ................
...........................................................
........
.........................................................................
.............................................................................
....................................................
. . . . .........................................
...............................................
.........................................................
. . . . . . ...............................................
264
I n dex of Com p lete G a m e s Autenrieth.M-Ka bisch.T, West German Junior Ch'ships, Dortmund 1982 Rotstein.J-Kalka.A, Essen 2000
Van Wely.L-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1997
............................. ....................................
Sprenger.J-Keilhack.H, Correspondence 1996 Springer.O-Koenig.D, Passau 1999
......................................................
.........................................................................
Gelfa nd.B-Korchnoi.V, Groningen 1996 Klyuner.V-Koscielski.J, Duisburg 2000 Jovanic.O-Kovacevic.B, Zadar 2000
............................................ ...................
. . . .................................................... .... ........
................................................... ...................
Koller.J-lam mers.M, German Junior Championships, Willingen 2004 Meyer.M-langrock.H, German League 1999 Drzemicki.D-Masternak.G, Slupsk 1992
............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Sunye Neto.J-Martin del Campo.R, Linares, Mexico 1993
.................................
..............................................................
Noakes.G-Menzei.T, Correspondence 1998
..........................................................
Schramm.B-Muehlig Versen.P, Schloss Schney 2002 Konopka.M-Muse.M, European Cup, Clichy 1995 Canal Oliveras.J-Narciso Dubla n.M, Terrassa 1994 Rodriguez-Narciso Dublan.M, St Cugat 1993
............. ..... . . ...... ....... ..........
.............................................
............... ................ ................
............................ ........ ....................
Tarrasch.S-Nimzowitsch.A, Bad Kissingen 1928 McNab.C-Pert.N, Oakham 2000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Laurent.J-Popescu.D.D, Creon 1999
........................... ...... .....................................
Tonning.E-Reefschlager.H, Gausdal 1995 Vujmilovic.N-Rumiancev.G, Pula 1990
..............................................................
....... ....... . . . . . . . ...................... ... .....................
Nemecek.P-Rybak.R, Correspondence 1999 Engqvist.T-Sadler.M, Isle of Man 1995
. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .......... . . ..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Eljanov.P-Sepman.Y, St Petersburg 1999
............. ................................................
Khalifman.A-Shirov.A, Moscow (rapid) 2002
......................................................
Razuvaev.Y-Skembris.S, Porta San Giorgio 1 998 Spassov.l-Thiei.T, Badalona 1993
14 180 226 87 99 253 39 111 16 1 62 244 189 35 42 182 29 84 32 248 135 65 45 122 141 132 242 1 15 1 07 52 250 224 1 70 258 1 75 199 117 82 119 151 146
.......
.................................... ..........................................
...............................................
.........................................................................
Myagmarsuren.l-Va n Geet.D, World Student Team Ch'ship, Varna 1958 Georgiev.Kir-Van Wely.L, European Cup, Chalkidiki 2002 Roskam.M-Vermeulen.W, Utrecht 2005 Schoebei.W-Vidonyak.R, Passau 1997
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .
.................................... .............................
Bonnke.C-Wisnewski.C, Kiel (rapid) 2004
...........................................................
Degtiarev.E-Wisnewski.C, German Championship, Hockendorf 2004 Grunberg.H-Wisnewski.C, German League 2002 Guddahi.V-Wisnewski.C, Oslo 2002
.......
..............................
...........
...............................................
............. ................... .................. ...................
Homuth.M-Wisnewski.C, Luetjenburg 2003
.........................................................
Hort.V-Wisnewski.C, German Championship, Altenkirchen 2005 Justo.D-Wisnewski.C, Internet Chess Club (rapid) 2002 Korsus.B-Wisnewski.C, German League 2000
..................
. . . . . . . . . . . . .......................
....... .............. ................................
265
Play 1 .lb c 6 ! . .
Kraemer.M-Wisnewski.C, Kiel 2003
Lamprecht.F-Wisnewski.C, German League 2005 Laqua.C-Wisnewski.C, German League 2006
........ ......................................
......................................................
Loffler.M-Wisnewski.C, Internet Chess Club (blitz) 2000 Martinsen.S-Wisnewski.C, Kiel 2004
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....................................................................
Plueg.A-Wisnewski.C, Hamburg 2003
.................................................................
Stanke.J-Wisnewski.C, Hamburg 2003
................................................................
Redlicki.T-Wodzislawski.M, Malbork 2000 Rohde.M-Wolff.P, Boston 1994
78 202 215 1 90 260 167 233 11 237 74 1 64 19
.......................................................................
............................................................
................................................... ........... ........ .......
Jiganchine.R-Wright.S, Richmond, Canada 1999 Sokolov.I-Ye Rongguang, Antwerp 1997 Gafner.E-Zolotukhin.V, Alushta 2005
................. ................................
.............................................................
....................................................................
Alphabetical by White Player Adianto.U-Arencibia.W, Cap d' Agde (rapid) 1998
............................. .... ...........
Autenrieth.M-Kabisch.T, West German Junior Ch'ships, Dortmund 1982 Bengsch.B-Becker.R, Kassel 1998
......... ............ ............... ........................................
Blair.D-Armani.G, Correspondence 2000
. ............................................................
Bonnke.C-Wisnewski.C, Kiel (rapid) 2004
...........................................................
Bunzmann.D-Hodgson.Ju, German League 1999
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Canal Oliveras.J-Narciso Dublan.M, Terrassa 1994
...............................................
Degtiarev.E-Wisnewski.C, German Championship, Hockendorf 2004 Dorn.M-Fiassig.D, Germany 2001
...........
.................. ................. . . . . . . ................................
Dos Santos.F.J-Dolezai.C, Carilo 2005
....................................................................
Drzemicki.D-Masternak.G, Slupsk 1992
..............................................................
Dupre Guegan.M-Bergez.D, French League 1998 Eljanov.P-Sepman.Y, St Petersburg 1999 Engqvist.T-Sadler.M, Isle of Man 1995 Etchegaray.P-Bukal Sr.V, Cannes 1997 Farago.S-Bigaliev.R, Budapest 1996
.................................................
.............................................................
......................... ........................................
.................................................................
...... ............ ........ ...........................................
Gafner.E-Zolotu khin.V, Alushta 2005
....................................................................
Gelfa nd.B-Korchnoi.V, Groningen 1996
............... ........................ ........................
Georgiev.Kir-Van Wely.L, European Cup, Chalkidiki 2002 Gia rdelli.S-Boissonet.C, Buenos Aires 1991..
Grund.W-Broemmei.R, German League 2003 Guddahi.V-Wisnewski.C, Oslo 2002
..............................
................................... ....................
Griinberg.H-Wisnewski.C, German League 2002
...............................................
.......................................................
.....................................................................
Homuth.M-Wisnewski.C, Lue�enburg 2003
.............. ...........................................
Hort.V-Wisnewski.C, German Championship, Altenkirchen 2005
266
1 49 14 54 240 258 229 29 1 75 128 21 1 89 56 132 141 159 196 19 253 250 124 1 99 24 117 82 119
.......
..................
I n d ex of Com p lete G a m e s Jiganchine.R-Wright.S, Richmond, Canada 1999 ooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooOOooooo 74 Jovanic.O-Kovacevic.B, Zadar 2000 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO 1 1 1 Justo.D-Wisnewski.C, Internet Chess Club (rapid) 2002 o O o oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOO 151 Khalifman.A-Shirov.A, Moscow (rapid) 200200000000000000oOOooooooOOOOOoOoOooooooooo·ooooooOoOooo 242 Klyuner.V-Koscielski.J, Duisburg 2000o oooooo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000000000000000oooooo000000000 39 Koller.J-La m mers.M, German Junior Championships, Willingen 2004 000000000000 16 Konopka.M-Muse.M, European Cup, Clichy 1995ooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 182 Korsus.B-Wisnewski.C, German League 2000oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo•oooooooooooo 146 Kraemer.M-Wisnewski.C, Kiel 2003 oooooooo.o .... o oo oo oooooooooooooo.o .. ooooooooooooooooooo••oooooOOOOoOoo 78 Lamprecht.F-Wisnewski.C, German League 2005 OOOOOoOooooo•oooooOOoOOOoOoooooooooooooooooooo 202 Laqua.C-Wisnewski.C, German League 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 215 Laurent.J-Popescu.D.D, Creon 1999oooooooooooooooooOOooooOoOooooooooooooooooOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 135 Loffler.M-Wisnewski.C, Internet Chess Club (blitz) 2000oooooooooo·o•ooooooooooooooooooooo 190 Lopez Gracia.F-Ansola Marquinez.A, Zaragoza 1998ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.ooo ooooooo 68 Magerramov.E-AI Modiahki.M, Dubai 2000 oooooooooooooooooooo.oooOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo•o · oooooo 154
Martinsen.S-Wisnewski.C, Kiel 2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoOOoooooooOOOOOOO 260 McNab.C-Pert.N, Oakham 2000 ooooo oooooooooooo oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o ooooooooooooooooooOooOOOOOOO 248 Meyer.M-Langrock.H, German League 1999oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . . . . . o . o o ooooo ooooo .. o .. o.o•oooooooo 162 Myagmarsuren.L-Van Geet.D, World Student Team Ch'ship, Varna 19580000000 52 Nemecek.P-Rybak.R, Correspondence 1999o. oooooooooooooooooooooo.oooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o 122 Noakes.G-Menzei.T, Correspondence 1998 oooooooo oooooooooooOooooooooooooooooooo o o oooooooooOOOOoOOO 35 Nocci.R-Johnsen.K.H, Correspondence 2000 000000000 o ..... · o · o•o · .. o o o o o o o o o ooooooooo.ooooooOOOOOOOo 58 Nyholm.G-Aiekhine.A, Stockholm 1912o.ooooo oooooooooooooooooooo .... oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1 93
Ornstein.A-Bryneii.S, Swedish Championship, Malmo 1986 000000o ooooooooooooooo0oooo 130 Plueg.A-Wisnewski.C, Hamburg 2003 ooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 167 Razuvaev.Y-Skembris.S, Porto San Giorgio 1998 Oo00o0ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 1 15 Redlicki.T-Wodzislawski.M, Malbork 2000.o.ooooo oooooooooooooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooo.oooooo o o o oooo 1 1 Reti.R-Bogoljubow.E, German Championship, Kiel 1921 o o o o o oo o o oooooooooooooooooooooooo 186 Rodriguez-Narciso Dublan.M, St Cugat 1993 OOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo.OOOOoOOOoooooooooooo o o o o o o o o o oooo 84 Rohde.M-Wolff.P, Boston 1994 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooOoooooooooOOoOOOOoooooo ooooo ooooooooooo 237 Roskam.M-Vermeulen.W, Utrecht 2005 oooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo o o o o o oooooo ooooooooOOOo ooooooooooo 224 Rotstein.J-Kalka.A, Essen 2000oooooooooooo o o o o o o o o . . ooooooooooooooooooo .. o . o o o o . o ooooooooooo •o•oo•o · oooo0ooo 180 Schlindwein.R-Bukal Jr.V, Austrian League 2000 OOOOOOOOOOOoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo 96 Schoebei.W-Vidonya k.R, Passau 1997 oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000000000000000o0ooooo000000 1 70 Schra mm.B-Muehlig Versen.P, Schloss Schney 2002 OOOOOOoo oOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOOOoo 42 Serebro.A-Bairachny.R, Ukrainian Championship, Donetsk 1 9930000000000000000000 218 Socko.M-Foisor.C, Athens 2004oooooooooooooooooooooooo0oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo .. o o o oooo 205 Sokolov.I-Ye Rongguang, Antwerp 1997oooo.ooooooooooooooooooooo.ooo0000000000000ooooooooooo0000000 164 Spassov.L-Thiei.T, Badalona 1993 o o o o o o oooooooooooooo00ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 107 Sprenger.J-Keil hack.H, Correspondence 1996 oooooo.oooooooooooooooOoOOoOoOoooooooooooooooooooooooo 87
267
P lay 1 .li:l c 6 ! . .
Springer.O-Koenig.D, Passau 1999
99 233 Steinmetzer.T-Hobusch.W, Correspondence 1979 . . . . 246 Stern.M-Aiexopoulos.G, Somerset, USA 1985 61 Sulava.N-Bryneii.S, European Team Championship, Plovdiv 2003 1 04 Sunye Neto.J-Martin del Campo.R, Linares, Mexico 1993 244 Tarrasch.S-Nimzowitsch.A, Bad Kissingen 1928 . 32 Ter Minasjan.D-Jurkovic.H, Schwarzach 1999 . . . 1 02 Tonning.E-Reefschlager.H, Gausdal 1995 . . . 65 Van Wely.L-Kasparov.G, Tilburg 1997 . . 226 Vujmilovic.N-Rumiancev.G, Pula 1990 .......................................................... : ........ 45 Wiedner.R-Grabher.H, Austrian League 1996 .................................................... 220 .........................................................................
Stanke.J-Wisnewski.C, Hamburg 2003
.........................
.
......................................
........
........................
.
...
.....
.......... . . ..........................................
................
.................................
.....................................
....................
.
..
...
..................................
......
......................
..............................................
268
.............
.....................
......
...........
f
