Opening for white according to Anand 1.e4: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Chelyabinsk variation, Book 10

�

CllessStilrs

',('jill/PI'

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Editorial Panel:

GM K.Landa, GM M.Makarov GM R.Ovetchkin 1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov

Technical Editor:

1M Semko Semkov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © Alexander Khalifman 2007

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13: 978954878264-7

Opening for White According to Anandl.e4

Book X 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 Chelyabinsk Variation

Alexander Khalifman

14th World Chess Champion

Bibliography

The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005 The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2 : Anti-Nirnzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3 : Maroczy, English (1 . . . c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 . . . a6 Volume 2 : Ruy Lopez with 3 . . . a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1 . . . c6, 2 . . . g6 Volume 4: 1. . . d6, 1.. .g6 . . . and others Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 . . .b6 and other rare lines Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 . . . Nf6, 2006 Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006 Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines Volume 9: Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Paulsen and others Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti

Current theory and practice series: The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3 ! by Bezgodov The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007

Games collections More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents

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

Part 1. Rare Lines l.e4 c5 VM3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 1 2 3 4

various without 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 various; 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 without 8 . . . ie6 and 8 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 various; 9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Part 2. Chelyabinsk Variation 1.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 ie7 1O.hf6 ixf6 11.c3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

various without 11...lLle7, 11 . . . ig5 and 11 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 11. . . lLle7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 11 . . . ig5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 various without 12 .. J�b8 and 12 . . . ig5 . . . . . . 1 0 6 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 �b8 ; 13 . . . bxa4 14.�xa4 without 14 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 various . . . 149 11 . . . 0-0 12. lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 id7 . . . . . . 158 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 �b8 . . . . . . . 175 .

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8

5

Preface Dear readers, You are holding in your hands book ten of the series "Opening for White According to Anand - l.e4". It is devoted mostly to the Sveshnikov system, which is also popularly named as the Chelyabinsk variation. Naturally, it is worth remembering that the move 5 . . . e7-e5 was played for the first time back in the year 1910 by great Lasker and this opening system changed its name numerous times throughout the years. The theory of that variation started developing rapidly during the 70ies of the last century, thanks to the efforts of Evgeny Svesh­ nikov, Gennadij Timoscenko and Alexander Panchenko (They all lived in the city of Chelyabinsk during those years.) and it seemed that the contemporary name should be most appropriate and logical. In fact, starting from the seventies of the 20th century, the Chelyab­ insk variation has never lost its popularity. The evaluation of that open­ ing system has fluctuated between "100% reliable" to "almost refuted"; nevertheless, its theory has been developing intensely. Recently, the "anti-Chelyabinsk" systems - 3.ib5 and 3.lt:lc3 are becoming top fash­ ion and that only proves that the Chelyabinsk variation should be taken quite seriously. Practically all the best chess players of the world have contributed to the theory of that variation and the majority of them for both sides at that. Well, if we follow strictly the classical principles, it would hardly be possible to classify Black's set-up as positionally correct. It looks like White's undisputed dominance over the d5-outpost should pro­ vide him with a stable advantage. Still, things are much more complex in practice. Amazingly enough, Black always finds resources for ac­ tive counterplay based on some already typical strategical maneuvers around White's basic outpost on d5. 6

My work with this book was a rather complicated task by itself. My colleagues asked me often (sometimes ironically, sometimes with gen­ uine interest) whether I had managed to refute the Chelyabinsk varia­ tion and when that refutation would be published? Here, I must admit: no, I have not refuted the Chelyabinsk variation. Frankly speaking, I have not even tried to do that. As far as my experience and my under­ standing of chess are concerned, Black's opening set-up has a sound strategical basis and it can never be refuted outright. Having that in mind, I decided to try something different and that was to systematize the amassed material and knowledge and to point out the most un­ pleasant lines for Black. In the first part of our book, we have analyzed some lines, which do not belong exactly to the Chelyabinsk variation (That is some rare tries for Black on move five after l.e4 c5 ViJf3 llJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4 llJf6 5.llJc3.), as well as some not so popular sidelines of the Sveshnikov variation. All these opening systems have long been outside of the fa­ vourable recommendations of theory and quite deservedly so. We did not need to add anything principally new, but still White should play very precisely. I hope that we have pointed out clear-cut and logical ways of obtaining the advantage for White in the opening. The second part of the book comprises in fact its focus in the aspect of common sense. It deals with positions, which are being tested prac­ tically every month at all possible levels of competition. I agree com­ pletely with the majority of the grandmasters, who consider that the greatest problems which Black must face nowadays in the Chelyabinsk variation are in the system 5 . . . e5 6.llJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.llJa3 b5 9.llJd5 ie7 1O.hf6 hf6 1l.c3. I have not tried to change radically any theo­ retical evaluations, but I have managed to discover some new ideas and I have to tell you that Black will need to solve difficult problems after them.

AKhalifman 14th World Chess Champion

7

Part! 1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3 rare 5th moves for Black

S . . . eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.igS rare o;th moves for Black

7. . . a6 8.tLla3 ie6; 8 . . . bS 9.tLldS rare 9th moves for Black

9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6

Black has not made up his mind yet what system of develop­ ment he will choose. He can still play the Dragon variation or the Scheveningen, but usually he opts for that move order if he plans to continue with the system S . . . d 6 (We will analyze i t i n our next volumes.), or with S . . . eS and that is the system this book is devot8

ed to. We deal with some rarely played original lines in chapter 1 and several of them are quite ac­ ceptable for Black, despite looking a bit extravagant, like for example S . . J�!b8 ! ? Following S . . .e S 6.llJdbS d6 7. .!gS, there arises the thematic position of the Chelyabinsk varia­ tion, which can also be reached via other move orders (for ex­ ample S . . . e6 6.llJdbS d6 7 . .!f4 eS 8 . .!gS). White obtains the dS-out­ post at a very early stage of the game, but one of his knights after 7 ... a6 8.llJa3, remains temporarily out of action. The awkward placement of White's pieces makes the Black

player reach almost automatically for his b-pawn in that position. He has some other possibilities too and we analyze them in Chap­ ters 2 and 3. They are playable too; nevertheless, White does not have too many problems counter­ ing them.

In fact, only the move B . . . 1e6 requires certain precision from White. After 9.tLlc4 l3cB 1O.1xf6 , following 1O . . .YlYxf6 1l.tLlb6, as

well as after lO . . .gxf6 1l.1d3 and tLle3, Black comes under a long­ term positional bind. In Chapter 4, we deal with Black's last attempts to avoid the main "tabia". The variation B . . . b5 9.tLld5 YNa5+ 1O.1d2 YlYdB, often leads to a draw by a repetition of moves (1l.1g5), but that does not correspond to the objective evaluation of the position. In case of 1l.c4 ! , White seizes the initia­ tive and Black must play very precisely in order to avoid the worst. As for the variation 9 . . . 1e7 1O.1xf6 gxf6, it has been practi­ cally closed. Black's bishop on e7 is deployed much worse than on the long diagonal, so that move order has disappeared from tour­ nament practice lately.

9

l.e4 c5 2.tl)f3 tl)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tl)xd4 tl)f6 5.tl)c3

Chapter l

In this chapter, we will discuss some rarely played lines like: a)

5

•••

tOxd4, b) 5

•••

�c7, c) 5 .l:�b8 ••

and d) 5 a6 . The other possibilities for Black usually transpose to po­ sitions we have already stud­ ied, for example: S . . . dS? ! 6.ibS id7 7.exdS tOxd4 B.,hd7+ �xd7 9.�xd4 - see 4 . . . dS, Book 9, Chapter 1; S . . .'IWaS 6.tOb3 �c7 7.f4 and S . . . 1&b6 6.ttJb3 lead to 4 . . . 1&b6 - Book 9, Chapter 2 . .••

a) 5

••.

tOxd4

This exchange is somewhat premature and White centralizes immediately his queen after it, forcing his opponent to consider the threat e4-eS.

6.�xd4�6 That move is not so aesthetic 10

and it has not been tested in prac­ tice. Still, it is quite consistent in a way with Black's idea to seek sim­ plifications. The other possibilities for Black are at least not worse: 6 . . . d6 7.ig5 leads t o the Rauzer sys­ tem, in a favourable situation for White, because his queen has come to the d4-square without losing a tempo for the move �d2 - see 2 . . . d6 ; It is not good for Black to play 6 . . . e6? 7.eS± Burke - Calton, Flint 1992; after 6 . . . g6? ! White can follow with 7.eS tOh5 B.e6 ig7 9.ext7+ mxt7 10 .ic4+ e6 1l.�d3;!; Drbohlav - Krupkova, Czech Republic 1999, but it is even stronger for him to continue with 7.ic4 ! and if 7 . . . ig7, then B.eS ttJgB, Kraft - Roesner, Germany 1994 (B . . . tOhS? 9.g4+-) 9. 0-0± White ends up with a great lead in development.

7.�xb6 9.f4±

axb6

8.e5

tOg4

(diagram) White has a great space ad­ vantage in the centre, while Black has long-term weaknesses on the queenside and that provides

l.e4 c5 2. CiJj3 CiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. CiJxd4 CiJf6 5. CiJc3

White with a clear edge in the endgame.

b) 5

Vfc7

•••

After 8 . . . lLle5, besides 9.ie2 a6 10.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6, White has the resource 9.d6 ! ? exd6 1 O .f4 lLlc6 11. ,ic4 ie7 12. 0-0t Lisitsyn - Troit­ sky, Leningrad 1938. There arises an analogous situation after 8 . . . lLld8 - White has the pleasant choice between 9.,ie3 a6 1O.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6 and the more aggres­ sive line: 9.d6 ! ? lLle6, Petrosian - Bakhtadze, Tbilisi 1945, 10.ie3 a6 1l.lLlc3 1];Yxd6 12.1];Yxd6 exd6 13.a4±

9.lLlc3 lLle5

Black might have planned to transpose to the Paulsen varia­ tion in that fashion, but it turns out that the absence of the move e7-e6 would not remain unpun­ ished.

Black can hardly be happy af­ ter the passive move 9 . . . CiJd8, Or­ venyi - Steiner, Budapest 193 2 , in view of 1O.ie3 e6 11.Wfd2±, while after 9 . . . CiJe5, there arises a posi­ tion played for the first time in the game Malmdin - Andersson, Stockholm 1970 . White did not act so convincingly later and the same thing happened in some other games subsequently. It is quite easy to find an improvement for White.

6. tOdb5 ! White seizes the initiative.

6 ,..Vfb8 In case of 6 . . . Vfd8 7.tOd5 lLlxd5 8.exd5 a6 9.CiJc3 lLle5, White can afford to continue with 10.f4 lLlg6 11.,ie3 d6 12.Vfd2 id7 13. O-O-O± Berger - Badilles, Ma­ nila 1968.

7.tOd5 tOxd5 8.exd5 a6 That move restricts White's possibilities a bit.

lO .ie2 ! This flexible move is definitely the best here. White continues the mobilization of his forces, paying 11

Chapter 1 attention to the actions of his op­ ponent.

10

•••

e6

The line 10 . . . g6? 1l.f4+- loses a piece for Black. In case of lO . . . d6 11.f4 lLld7 (11 . . . lLlg6 12 . .te3±) 12. .!e3 g6 (12 ... lLlf6 13.lLla4±) 13 . .td4 lLlf6 14.lLla4± the weakness of the b6-square is considerable, while after 10 . . . %l'c7, White has the pow­ erful response 11.%l'd4 ! ±, after which Black has problems with his development.

nent's knight on g6; meanwhile Black has not completed the de­ velopment of his pieces yet and he risks coming under attack.

c) 5 . . . gb8

11. Vd4! lLlg6 Black's defence is difficult too after 1l . . . b5 12.0-0 .!b7 13.l3dl±

12 .te3 e5 •

If 12 . . . %l'e5, then White should better avoid the exchange with 13.%l'd2±, because Black's queen is misplaced in the centre and it will soon come under attack by White with tempi.

13.Vd3 b5 Or 13 . . . .!e7 14.lLla4±

14. 0 - 0 - 0 d6 15.h4±

It is not easy to understand that move, but it cannot be refut­ ed either. White's task is to con­ tinue in a way Black's fifth move might become useless.

6 .!e3 •

Black would not mind the lines : 6 . .te2 e5 7.lLldb5 d6oo, or 6.lLlxc6 bxc6 7.e5 lLl d5 ! 8.lLlxd5 cxd5 9.%l'xd5 .tb'Too

6 . . . a6

White has excellent middle game prospects. The advance of his h-pawn will emphasize the unstable placement of his oppo-

12

If 6 . . . e5? ! , then 7.lLldb5± and White is threatening to capture on a7 as well as to penetrate with the knight to the d6-square. In the game Apicella - Murey, Paris 1992, Black played 6 . . . e6, but White should have countered that with 7.lLldb5 ! .tb4 (In case of 7 . . . %l'a5 8.f3 d5, White has the powerful maneuver 9 . .tf4 ! e5 10 . .td2±, with a great advantage.) 8.a3 hc3+ 9.lLlxc3± White has an excellent couple of bishops.

l.e4 c5 2. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Ci:Jxd4 Ci:Jf6 5. Ci:Jc3 After 6 . . . d6 7 . .te2 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9.f4t Raetsch - Fronczek, Bad Segeberg 2002, there arises a position similar to the Dragon variation, in which Black has lost a tempo for the not so useful move gb8.

7 .ie2 e5 •

Black lags in development, so he should better refrain from the line: 7 . . . d5 8.exd5 Ci:Jxd5 9.Ci:Jxd5 \Wxd5 1O.0-0±

S. Ci:Jb3 d6 White should be more than happy after 8 . . . .ib4 9.,if3t

9. 0 - 0 In the game Borocz - Meszaros, Szekszard 1995, White played 9.a4, but he did not need to be afraid of the move b7-b5 .

9

• . •

.te7 1 0 .\Wd2t

6. Ci:Jxc6! We will analyze both possible captures: dl) 6 dxc6 and d2) •••

6 bxc6. •••

dl) 6

•••

dxc6

In this line, the opponents enter an endgame right after the opening. White is better, because Black's king impedes the develop­ ment of his pieces, meanwhile his queenside pawn structure is not without defects.

7.\WxdS + c.txdS S .tf4 •

That is a typical Sicilian posi­ tion, but the purposefulness of the move gb8 is rather questionable. White's prospects are better.

d) 5

•••

a6

The drawback of that move is that Black does not control the central e5-square and White can exploit that immediately.

S . . . e6 It is only a transposition of moves after 8 . . . c.te8 9.0-0-0 and there might follow: 9 . . . e6 - see 8 . . . e6; 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jh5; 9 . . . b5 - see 8 . . . b5; 9 . . . !e6 - see 8 . . . ,ie6 ; 9 . . . Ci:Jd7 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jd7. It is too risky for Black to play: 13

Chapter 1 B . . . ll:\hS 9.0-0-0+ .td7, Seibold Neuquen 1992, 13 . .te3±. It is - Neukum, Nuernberg 19BB (If more precise for Black to opt for 9 . . . 'i!?eB, then 10 . .tc7 ie6 1l.ll:\a4 9 . . . 'i!?eB, but then again lO.eS and �cB 12 .iaS± German - Bertoni, if 10 . . . gS ! ? (or lO . . . e6 11 . .te2 .te7 Buenos Aires 1994), because of 12.ll:\e4 ll:\fB 13.h4 ll:\g6 14 . .tg3± lO .ll:\a4! bS (or lO . . . ll:\xf4 11.ll:\b6±; Molnar - Kovacev, Kecskemet 10 . . . 'i!?eB 1l.ll:\b6 ig4 12.f3 �dB 1990) 11.hgS ll:\xeS, Krebs 13.�xdB + 'i!?xdB 14.ie3 .te6 15. Kluss, Germany 19B7, then White can maintain his initiative with ic4±) 11.ll:\b6 �a7 12 . .te3± the help of 12.ll:\a4 ! ? if5 (or 12 . . . Black would not solve his ll:\d7 13.ie3 b S 14.ll:\c3;!;) 13.h3 problems if he fianchettoes his king's bishop: B . . . ie6 9. 0-0-0+ �gB 14.ie3;!; 'i!?eB lO ..te2 g6 11.a4 hS 12.aS ih6 9. 0 - 0 - 0 + 'i!?e8 It is not logical for Black to 13.hh6 �xh6 14.f3 �dB IS.ll:\a4± play: 9 . . . id7 lO.ll:\a4 bS l1.ll:\b6 �a7 Socko - Lazar, Bastia 2 0 05. White is clearly better af­ 12.f3 icS 13.ll:\xd7 �xd7 14.id3± ter B . . . bS 9.0-0-0+ ll:\d7 (If 9 . . . R.Fischer - Kuberczyk, Cleveland 'i!?eB, a s i t was played i n the game 1964 - World Champion obtained Kononen - Vuorimies, Finland the two-bishop advantage and he 2003, then White could have won the game subsequently. chosen lO.eS ! ? ll:\g4 1l.ll:\e4 .tfS In the game Kurenkov 12 .id3 �dB 13 . .tg3±) lO.eS e6 Jemelka, Olomouc 2 0 03, Black 11.ll:\e4 h6 12.ie2 'i!?c7 13.ll:\d6 tried 9 . . . ll:\d7 lO .ie2 .tcS 11 . .tg3 ixd6 14.�xd6± Navara - Dalecky, bS. Here White should have con­ Czech Republic 1997. tinued with 12.eS ! ? 'i!?c7 13.ll:\e4 ie7 The best alternative for Black 14.ll:\d6± with a clear advantage. to the main line B . . . e6 is the move 1 0 .ie2;!; B . . . ll:\d7, which is aimed at the preparation of the pawn-advance e7-eS. White can refute that plan with the move 9.0-0-0 with the idea to follow with e4-eS. Now after 9 .. .f6, White has lO.eS and it would be in his favour if Black plays lO . . . e6 1l . .tc4 'i!?e7 12.exf6+ gxf6, Semeniuk - Danielian, Vla­ divostok 1994, 13.�hel eS (or 13 . . . ll:\b6? 14.he6 ! he6 IS.�d6+-) The endgame is better for 14.ie3±, as well as 10 . . . 'i!?eB 11. White. After lO . . . bS (otherwise exf6 gxf6 (or 1l ... exf6 12 . .tc4±) Black must consider the possibil­ 12 . .te2 eS, Mavrich - Litovicius, ity ll:\a4) 11.�d3 (The third rank is 14

l.e4 cS 2. liJj3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 S. liJ c3 an additional field of activity for White's rook.) 1l . . .E!a7 (or 11.. .1c5 . 12 .E:hd1.1b7 13.e5 liJd5 14.1g5;t . and Black has great problems) in the game Janssen - van der Wiel, Netherlands 1978, White chose 12.1f3 . E:d7 13.E:hd1 .1e7 14.1d6, . but Black could have countered that with 14 . . . hd6 15.E:xd6 E:xd6 16.E:xd6 e5 ! = , taking into account the fact that the c6-pawn was pro­ tected indirectly (17.E:xc6 @d7). It is more precise for White to play 12.e5! liJd5 13.1d2 . ! and despite the fact that the position seems to be relatively simple, Black has difficult problems to solve, for example: 13 . . . liJxc3 (otherwise White deploys his knight to the e4-outpost and he prepares gradually c2-c4) 14.E:xc3 c5 (or 14 .. . .1b4 15.E:xc6 @d7 16 .1e3±; . 14 . . . E:d7 15.E:xc6.1b7 16.1f3 . !±) 15 .1e3 . E:c7 16.1f3 . b4 (Black has no other counterplay left - you should not forget that he has lost his castling right already.) 17.E:d3 c4 18.1b6 . ! cxd3 19.hc7 dxc2 20.@xc2± White has good winning chances in that endgame.

Black captures with his pawn towards the centre, but he un­ avoidably loses tempi and that leads him to a considerable lag in development.

7.e5 tLJg8 In the variation 7 . . . liJd5? ! 8.liJxd5 cxd5 9.'lMfxd5 E:b8 1O .1c4 . e6 11.'lMfd4± Black has no compen­ sation for the pawn whatsoever, Yahkind - Frawley, Plymouth 1984.

8 :i�'f3 ! ? White plays more often here 8.1c4, . but the move 8.�f3 ! ? is also very interesting. In essence, it is a prophylactic move. White is eyeing the c6-pawn in order to prevent the pawn-advance d7d5.

8 . . . e6 d2) 6 . . . bxc6

Black has nothing better. It is good for him to opt neither for 8 . . . d5? ! 9.exd6 'lMfxd6 10 .1f4 . e 5 (or 1O . . . 'lMfd7 1l.1c4± . A.Potapov - Ka­ zantzis, Korinthos 2 0 00) 1l.'lMfe4 f6 12 .1c4±, . nor for 8 . . . 'lMfc7? ! 9.1f4 . e6 1O.liJe4± Recklingloh - Hisker, Passau 1997.

9 .1d3 �c7 •

Following 9 . . . liJe7 1O.0-0 liJg6 15

Chapter 1 1l.VNhS;!; White maintains a stable advantage.

1 0 . VNg3 tOe7 White is clearly better after 10 . . . dS 1l.exd6 VNxd6 12 . .tf4± Martins - Andre, Internet 2001 and he can counter 1O . . .f6 with the simple move 1l.f4±

11. 0 - 0 tOg6 12.f4;t; (diagram) White's eS-pawn cramps Black and if he pushes d7-d6, he would only create new weaknesses in

his camp, therefore the position should be evaluated in favour of White.

Conclusion The possibilities for Black, which we analyze in this chapter, are played rather seldom in practice; therefore, White manages to obtain a lasting opening advantage almost effortlessly. Black plays a bit more often the move 5. . . a6, but after his oppo­ nent's concrete reaction 6.ltJxc6! dxc6 7.VNxd8+ �xd8 8. if4 or 6 . . . bxc6 7.e5, w e have convinced you that White seizes the initiative for long.

16

Chapter 2

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5

This move was discovered by the second World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, who tried it back in the year 1910 against Karl Schlechter in game nine of their match for the world crown. White did not react in the most princi­ pled fashion indeed - he played 6.lDb3, but it was a very interest­ ing game and after a lively fight, it ended in a draw. The new idea did not gain popularity outright and for a period of several decades, the variation was out of the tour­ nament practice. It came back triumphantly during the 70ies of the past century, when the system with 5 . . . e5, was often and what is even more important quite suc­ cessfully played by the grandmas­ ters from Chelyabinsk Evgenij

Sveshnikov and Gennady Timo­ scenko. Nowadays, this is one of the most reliable systems in the Sicilian Defence and its popular­ ity is surpassed only by the Naj­ dorf system. The move 5 . . . e5 has a solid positional basis - it wins a tempo for development and it does not let White obtain an advantage in the centre. Black weakens the d5square indeed and that becomes the key-point of the developing fight.

6 . tLl db5 d6 The other possibilities for Black - 6 . . . ib4+, 6 . . . ic5, 6 . h6 and 6 . . . a6 - are clearly worse. In that case, after transposition of moves, it all comes down to varia­ tions, which we have analyzed in Chapter 3 of the previous volume (the system with the early 4 . . . e5) - see the notes to Black's moves 5 and 7. .

.

7.ig5 We will analyze now a) 7 ie6 and b) 7 a6. The alternatives are evidently weaker: •••

•••

17

Chapter 2 It is bad for Black to play 7 . . . h6? 8.,bf6 gxf6 9.tLJd5+­ Helmreich - Leibold, Germany 1986; He loses a pawn without any compensation after 7. . . i.e7? 8. !xf6 gxf6 (8 ... i.xf6 9.tLJxd6+ @f8 1O.i.c4± Krumova - Villar, Buenos Aires 1978) 9.tLJd5 0-0 (9 ... VNa5+ 1O.c3± Frank - Gertz, Hessen 1990 ; 9 . . . @f8 1O.VNh5± Hartl - Resch, Niederbayern 1995; 9 . . . l:3b8 1O.tLJbc7+ @f8 11. VNh5± Gresser - Loeffler, Split 1963) 10.tLJxe7+ VNxe7 (1O . . . tLJxe7 11.\1;!fxd6 i.e6 12.\1;!fxd8 l:3fxd8 13. tLJc7± Rigolot - Delivre, France 1999) I1.VNxd6. After 11 . . . VNxd6 (or 11 . . . l:3d8 12.VNxe7 tLJxe7 13.i.d3± Schmidt - Baier, Strelasund 1997; 11 . . . .ie6 12 .\1;!fxe7 tLJxe7 13.0-0-0± Arakhamia-Grant - Paraskevai­ dis, Lansing 1995) 12.tLJxd6 Black fails to create any counterplay, for example: 12 . . . J.e6 13.0-0-0± Kosmac - Ristov, Kranj 2004; 12 ... l:3d8 13.0-0-0 tLJd4 14.tLJb5± Diaz Joaquin - Strube, Hessen 1988; 12 . . . tLJd4 13. 0-0-0 .ig4 (about 13 . . . l:3d8 - see 12 . . . l:3d8) 14.l:3d3± Zaksaite - Zebelys, Rad­ viliskis 1995; 12 . . . tLJb4 13. 0-0-0 ! (White regains his extra pawn quite favourably.) 13 . . . tLJxa2+ 14.@bl tLJb4 (14 ... .ie6 15.c3±) 15. J.c4 @g7, Papp - Nagy, Szeged 1998 (15 . . . tLJc6 16J3d3± Korniyuk - Brozhik, Kiev 2 0 05) 16.c3 tLJc6 17.l:3d3± - and White maintains a great advantage in all these varia­ tions. 18

a) 7 i.e6 •••

This move is a sensible alter­ native to the main line 7. . . a6. The Moldavian master O.Chebanenko practiced it about half a century ago.

S.tLJd5 gcS After the hasty 8 . . . ,bd5 9.exd5 tLJe7 (9 . . . tLJb8, Orozco - Cespedes, Barranquilla 1995, 1O.,bf6 gxf6 11.i.d3 a6 12.tLJc3±) White has the powerful resource 10 .c3 ! In view of the threats along the a4e8 diagonal, Black loses his cas­ tling rights. In case of 1O . . . tLJexd5, White follows with 11.\1;!fa4 @e7 (It is a disaster for Black to try 11 . . . \1;!fd7? 12.tLJxd6+ @e7 13.\1;!fxd7+ @xd7 14.tLJxf7+-, while if 11 . . . @d7, then 12. 0-0-0 tLJb6 13.\1;!fb3-+ and White has a dangerous initiative.) 12.0-0-0 a6 (12 ... tLJb6 13.VNb4±) 13.l:3xd5 axb5, Dutreeuw - Ovezov, Istanbul 2000, 14.VNb4 ! @e6 15. l:3xb5±, White is attacking in a position with equal material. If Black refrains from capturing his opponent's central pawn, he does not solve his problems either, for example: 1O . . . VNb8 11.!xf6 gxf6 12.\1;!fa4 @d8 13.VNa5+ ! (This is an

5. lLl c3 e5 6. lLl db5 d6 7. i.g5 important intermediate move.) 13 . . . Wd7 (13 ... b6 14.'1Wb4 lLlg6 15. g3 a6 16.lLla3 Ylfc7 17.lLlc4 l'!b8 18. lLle3±) 14.c4a6 15.lLlc3W1c716.Wla4+ Wd8 17.iLd3±; lO . . . lLlg6 1l.Wla4 We7 12. 0-0-0 a6 13.lLld4 ! (White has new tactical motives at his disposal with a black king on e7.) 13 . . . Wld7 (Black's position is not to be envied after 13 . . . exd4? 14. l'!e1+ lLle5 15.f4 Wld7 16.Ylfxd4+-) 14.iLb5 ! Ylfc8 15.id3± Jansa Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1981; lO . . . a 6 (This i s Black's relatively best chance.) 1l.hf6 gxf6 12 .Ylfa4 ! Wd7! (There is nothing else left.) 13.lLla3 + b5, Raszka - Mrozek, Katowice 1995 (After 13 . . . Wc7, it is interesting for White to try 14. O-O- O ! ?;!;) 14.Ylfg4+ f5 15.Ylfh5;!;

9.c3 ! White i s not in a hurry to ex­ change on f6 in order not to allow counterplay on the g-file.

with 13.lLlxe7!? Wxe7 14.lLle3;!; Si­ pos - Angyalosi, Hungary 2 0 0 0) 13 . . . l'!b8 and there arises by trans­ position a situation, which we will analyze later in the variation 7 . . . a 6 8.lLla3 ie6.

1l.ixf6! That is the right time for that exchange, because White needs to capture the enemy bishop on d5 with his queen.

1l . . . Wlxf6 It would not work for Black to try 1l . . . Wlb6? 12.exd5 Wlxb2 13.Wlc1+- (Jansa), and he loses a piece. In the game Jansa - Danek, Czechoslovakia 1982, Black chose 1l . . . gxf6 12 .Ylfxd5 Ylfa5 (or 12 . . . b5 13.l'!d1 i.e7 14.lLlc2± Kosanski Hibner, Velika Gorica 2005; 12 . . . Wld7 13.lLlc4 l'!d8 14.l'!dl± Ranieri - Guglielmi, Eporediese 2 0 01) 13.i.c4 l'!c7 14.Ylfxa5 lLlxa5 15.i.d5 l'!g8 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 l'!g5 18.f6 ! l'!f5 19.b4 ! lLlc6 (White would have countered 19 . . . l'!xc3? with 20.lLlb1+-) 2 0.b5±, and White started decisive actions in that fa­ vourable endgame.

12. Wlxd5 ie7 13.ie2 0 - 0 14. 0 - 0 ;1;

9 . . . a6 1 0 .lLla3 hd5 It deserves attention for Black to opt for lO . . . iLe7!?, but then af­ ter 1l.hf6 hi6 12.lLlc4 ie7 (or 12 . . . hd5 13.Ylfxd5± Krajcovic Kysel, Slovakia 1994) 13.lLlcb6 (It is also good for White to continue 19

Chapter 2 White has a clear positional advantage, thanks to his reli­ able control over the d5-outpost. It was tried later: 14 . . . g6 15.lLlc4 lMfe6 16.lLlb6 :gc7 17.lMfd2± Mote - Strenzwilk, USA 198 2 ; 14 . . . lMfg6 15.lLlc4 lLld8 16.lLle3 :gc5 17.�d3 lLle6 18.lLlf5 �f6 19.93± Suetin - Sobura, Warsaw 1989; 14 . . . lLld8 (The transfer of the knight from c6 to f4 is Black's main idea.) 15.lLlc4 lLle6, Bors - Heiligermann, Hun­ gary 2002, 16.lLle3 lLlf4 17.lMfd1 ! �g6 18.!f3;J; and White keeps the edge in all the variations.

b) 7 a6 8.lLla3 •••

9.c!LJxdS ha3 1 0 .bxa3IMfaS+ 1l.'flYd2 ! The exchange of queens is un­ avoidable, White remains with a bishop pair and an extra pawn, and he has a great advantage in that endgame.

1l 'flYxd2+ 12.hd2 c!LJxdS •••

Or 12 . . . 0-0 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6, Galdunts - Knoll, Vienna 2 0 06, 14.0-0-0 !e6 15.'it>b2 :gfd8 16. !d3±

13.exdS

c!LJd4

14. 0 - 0 - 0

.if5 lS.c3 :gc8

Black would not change much with 15 . . . lLlb5 16.:ge1 f6, as it was played in the game Ghinda - T.Horvath, Rimavska Sobota 1975. White should have played the simple line: 17.f4 0-0-0 (or 17 . . . e4 18.g4 ! .ixg4 19.:ggl±) 18 .fxe5 :gxd5 19.c4 :gc5 20.'it>b2±, and Black's position would re­ main too difficult.

16.@b2 18.f4±

c!LJbS

17.:ge1!

f6

Besides 8 . . . ie6 (Chapter 3) and the main line 8 ... b5, Black has also tried in practice bl) 8 dS?! , •••

b2) 8

•••

.ie7? ! , b3) 8

b1) 8

•••

•••

h6? !

dS? !

Black plays analogously to the so-called Pelican variation, which arises after the hasty exchange 8 . .ixf6?! gxf6 9.lLla3 d5 ! ?+t and presents Black with sufficient counter chances. Here however, White is not obliged to exchange on f6. 20

White's considerable advan­ tage is doubtless. That evaluation was confirmed in the game Sax Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979, which followed with 18 . . . 0-0?

5. ttJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. iLg5 19.c4 gfe8 (19 . . . exf4 2 0 . .tb4+-; 19 . . . ttJd6 20 . .tb4+-) 20.g4 ! +-, and White won a piece. It would have been more resilient for Black to defend with 18 . . . e4 19.c4 ttJd6 2 0.gc1 b6, Preuss - Koch, Moron 2004, 21..ie3±, but even then, he would have no reasons to be too optimistic.

b2) 8 . . . .te7? !

That is hardly the best decision for Black. He does not prevent the centralization of White's knight on a3 and that contradicts one of the main strategical ideas of the Chelyabinsk variation.

9.ttJc4! ttJd4 About 9 . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . .ie6. It would not work for Black to opt for 9 . . . ttJxe4? 1O.lLlxe4 hg5 11.ttJcxd6+ 'it>f8 12.%Vh5+The move 1O.hf6 is now a po­ sitional threat for Black, because after the capture on f6 with the pawn, his bishop is misplaced on the e7-square and that can be il­ lustrated in the following varia­ tions: 9 . . . b5 1O . .ixf6 gxf6 1l.ttJe3 0-0 (About 1l . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . iLe6 ; a s for 1l . . . ttJd4 - see 9 . . . ttJd4;

11 . . . %Va5 12 .iLd3 iLe6 13.0-0± Hir­ schhorn - van Rooy, Perth 1994.) 12.ttJcd5 'it>h8 13.iLe2 gg8 14.c3 .tf8 15 . .tg4!± Gabran - Ryzhkov, corr. 1974. In case of 9 . . . iLg4 (with the idea to provoke f2-f3), as it was played in the game Hofrichter - Dawid, Freiberg 1999, White's best line seems to be 1O.%Vd2 ! ttJd4 11.iLd3 h6 12.hf6 .ixf6 13.ttJd5 iLg5 14.ttJce3± with an advantage for him. It might be interesting for Black to try the gambit line 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1O.hf6 hf6 ! (about 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJd5 b5 12.ttJce3 - see 9 . . . b5), but that would not solve his problems either: after 11. %Vxd6 %Vxd6 (If 11 . . . ttJd4, then 12 . .td3 .id7 13.ttJd5± Korneev - Maze, Elgoibar 2 005. It is in favour of White if Black tries 11 . . . .ie6 12. 0-0-0 %Vxd6, Popovic - Todo­ rovic, Novi Sad 2000, 13.gxd6±, or 12 . . . %Ve8 13.ttJd5±; 11 . . .iLe7 12.%Vxd8 gxd8 13.ttJd5± Escott - Ellison, COIT. 1993.) 12.ttJxd6 .ie6 (or 12 . . . gd8 13.ttJxc8 gaxc8 14.iLd3± Tucci - Calgaro, COIT. 1998), as it was played in the game Dueball - Roeder, Germany 1981, White can continue with 13 . .td3 ttJb4 (or 13 . . . g6 14.ttJd5±; 13 . . . iLe7 14.ttJf5 .ic5 15.gf1 gfd8 16.0-0-0 g6 17. ttJ e3±) 14. 0-0-0 b5 (or 14 . . . .te7 15.ttJxb7 ttJxa2+ 16.ttJxa2 ha2 17.b3±) 15.'it>bl± - and Black has no compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn.

10 .bf6 ixf6 •

21

Chapter 2 It is not logical for Black to try 10 . . . gxf6, in view of 1Vt'JdS. Now, it is too dubious for him to opt for 11 .. .fS? ! 12.c3 tLlbS 13.tLlcb6 l3b8 14.�a4± Kopylov Kuzminykh, Leningrad 19S1, while White obtains a clear ad­ vantage after 11 . . . ie6 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 (or 12 . . .,bdS 13.tLlxdS l3c8 14.c3 tLle6 1S.ie2 0-0 16.ig4± Se­ gebarth - Szewczyk, DDR 1988) 13.c3 tLlc6 14. �hS± Zapata - Pa­ redes, Merida 1991, the move 11 . . . b S creates a target for attack on the queenside and the under­ mining move a2-a4 becomes quite effective: 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 13.tLlxc8 l3xc8 14.c3 tLlc6 (or 14 . . . tLle6 1S.a4± Kolendo - Weber, Poland 1992) lS.a4± Armas - Horvath, Buda­ pest 1973.

1l.tLld5 ie6 It is unsatisfactory for Black to follow with 11.. .ig4? 12.�xg4 tLlxc2 + 13.�d2 tLlxal 14.tLlcb6 �b8 lS.i.c4 i.gS+ 16.�c3 +- Coleman - Behrmann, corr. 1996 - be­ cause White captures two pieces for a rook and he has a winning position. Black loses a pawn after 11 . . . 0-0? ! 12.c3 tLlc6 (or 12 . . . tLle6 13.tLldb6 �b8 14.Wxd6± Korneev - Fabregas, Badalona 1995; 12 . . . i.g4 13.�xg4 tLl c 2 + 14.�d2 tLlxa1 lS.iLd3+- Bejaoui - Villanueva, Istanbul 2 0 00) 13.tLldb6 �b8 14. Wxd6± Zuidema - Calvo, The Hague 1961. If 11 ... bS? ! , then 12.tLlcb6 �b8 (or 12 . . . l3a7 13.tLlxc8 Wxc8 14.c3 22

tLl e 6 lS.a4± Ortega Magallanes Ottenweller, corr. 1999) 13.tLlxc8 �xc8 14.c3, and later 14 . . . tLlc6 lS.a4 �b8 (lS . . . 0-0 16.axbS axbS 17.,bbS± Durao - Hasan, Skopje 1972) 16.axbS axbS 17.tLlxf6+ gxf6 (17. . . �xf6 18.l3a6± Pierrot - Mi­ nervino, Argentina 1996) 18.WdS tLle7 19.,bbS+ �f8 2 0 .Wd3± Kun - Heiligermann, Hungary 1993, or 14 . . . tLle6 lS.a4 ! 0-0 (lS . . . �b8 16.axbS axbS 17.i.e2 tLlcS 18.�c2 0-0 19. 0-0± Klenk - Tudosa, Germany 1998) 16.axbS axbS 17. ,bbS l3b8 18.c4 tLld4 (18 . . . tLlf4 19. 0-0 tLlxdS 20.�xdS± Morovic - Sisniega, Santa Catalina 1987) 19. 0-0± Averbakh - Korchnoi, Tula 19S0. The undermining move a2-a4 is White's standard resource to break Black's defence on the queenside in similar situ­ ations.

12.tLlxf6 + ! This i s simple and strong. Black is in a lot of trouble after ev­ ery possible capture.

12

•••

�xf6

Or 12 . . . gxf6 13.c3 ,bc4 (13 . . . �c8 14.tLle3 tLlc6 lS.i.c4 tLl e 7 16. Wd3± Raivio - Jensen, corr. 1997)

S. tDc3 eS 6 . tD dbS d6 7. �gS 14.hc4± with a clear positional advantage for White, T.Horvath - Gladischev, Zalakaros 1995.

13.c3 It is also good for White to try 13.tDxd6+ �e7 14.c3 �xd6 15.cxd4 exd4 16.'lWa4± Santiago Ruiz Luis, Asturias 1993, because Black's too extravagant play can hardly be justified.

13 .hc4 14 .hc4 tDc6 15. O -O ± - White has a long-lasting •••

•

advantage, thanks to his reliable control over the d5-outpost and Black's backward d6-pawn, Zei - Scuderi, corr. 1999. Meanwhile, White can increase his pressure against the f7-square bringing his heavy pieces. Black's defence will be difficult and possibly fruitless.

b3) 8 . . . h6? !

1998 (After 1O . . . b5 11.c3, it is too risky for Black to continue with 11 . . .f5 12.exf5 hf5, in view of 13.Wff3± Farah - Serafim, Mar del Plata 1992, while if 11 . . . i.e6, then simply 12.tDc2± Chiburdanidze - Merlini, Buenos Aires 1978 - and the move h7-h6 turns out to be just a loss of time.), 11.exf5 �5 12.tDc4 i.e6 13.c3 ! (Black can counter 13.tDcb6 with 13 . . . tDb4 ! oo) 1 3 . . . i.g7 14.tDcb6 �b8 15. �e2± and 1O.tDc4 f5 (or 1O . . . ,te6 11.tDe3±) 1l.exf5 i.xf5 12.tDe3 �e6 13.i.c4 ! ?± Kozakov - Garcia Ro­ man, La Roda 2007 and White has a much superior game in both variations.

1 0 .tDd5 Wfd8 U.tDc4 i.e6 The game Alexopoulos - Ka­ tranas, Kallithea 1978 , followed with 1l . . . b5 12.tDcb6 �b8 13.tDxc8 �xc8 , and here White could have played 14.a4±

12.c3 i.e7 After 12 . . . b5 13.tDce3 �e7, White has again the powerful re­ source 14.a4±

13.ie2±

That is a rarely played line, af­ ter which there arise typical situ­ ations in which the move h7-h6 is not so useful for Black.

9 .hf6 'lWxf6 •

In case of 9 . . . gxf6, White can choose between 10.tDd5 f5, Her­ rmann - Gusseinow, Sebnitz

White has a stable edge. In case of 13 . . . 0-0 14. tDxe7+ Wfxe7 15.Wfxd6 'lWh4 16.'lWd3 �ad8 17. 'lWe3± Black has no compensa­ tion for the pawn. In the game Moiseev - Backwinkel, Germa­ ny 1995, Black tried 13 . . . b5, but White could have countered that with 14.tDxe7!? �xe7 15.tDe3±, and Black would have lost his cas­ tling rights.

23

Chapter 3

1.e4 c5 2.li)f3 li)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.li)xd4 e6 5.li)c3 e5 6.li)db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.li)a3 ie6

The English master H. Bird first played this ancient line in the 19th century and later, during the sixties of the past century, it was a regular opening weapon of GM B.Larsen. Sometimes the name of that line is connected with these two players.

9.tLlc4 ! White activates his knight, in­ creasing the pressure against the d6-pawn and he thus emphasizes the effect of the possible exchange on f6. Black has a choice here be­ tween the outdated move a) 9 . . . tLld4 and the contemporary line

b) 9 . . . gc8 ! At first, we will convince you that White's task is much easier after Black's other possibilities:

24

White has a clear advantage after the anti-positional move 9 . . . !xc4? ! 1O.!xc4 �e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.!xf6 ixf6 13.tLld5± Unzicker - Dunphy, Madrid 1957. The line 9 .. .'I&c7? ! can hardly be recommended (Black's queen is misplaced here.) 10.h:f6 gxf6 11.tLle3 tLle7 12 .�d3 h5 (or 12 . . . �h6 13.0-0 !xe3 14.fxe3± Kosmac - Varga, Bled 1996) 13.'lWf3± Byv­ shev - Reshko, Leningrad 1957. The move 9 . . . b5? ! looks seem­ ingly active, but it only creates weaknesses for Black, since White can undermine his opponent's queenside pawns with a2-a4 at an opportune moment. There might follow: 1O.!xf6 gxf6 (In case of 10 . . . 'lWxf6, White should not play 11.tLlxd6+ !xd6 12 .'i&xd6 tLld4 13.i.d3 'lWg5;;, since it is much stronger for him to follow with 11.tLle3 ! tLld4 12.tLlcd5 !xd5 13.tLlxd5 'lWg6, Podlesnik - Starc, Bled 1994, 14.f3± or 1l . . . 'lWd8 12.tDcd5± with an advantage for White, Bednarski - Kavalek, Kra­ kow 1984.) 11.tLle3.

S.liJc3 e5 6 . tiJdbS d6 7.�gS a6 B. ttJ a3 �e6 9. ttJ c4 After 9 . . . �e7? ! White plays 10. �6 gxf6 11.ttJe3. That position has been tested numerous times in practice, but the results were terrible for Black.

Black has tried numerous possibilities here, but he fails to equalize in any of them: About 11 . . . �e7 - see 9 . . . ie7; The line 11 . . . ttJd4 12.ttJcd5 f5, loses the exchange for Black after 13.exf5 ttJxf5 14.ttJxf5 M5 15.'1Wf3 ! hc2 16.ttJc7+ V!ixc7 17. 'lWxa8+ �e7 18.'lWxa6± Casella Simpson, Long Island 1995; It is too passive for Black to play 11 . . . �g7 12.id3 0-0 13.0-0 :E!c8 14.ttJcd5± Melnikov - Vik. Ivanov, St Petersburg 2006; If 11 . . . ttJe7, as it was played in the game Brondum - Andersen, Copenhagen 1979, then 12 .'lWf3 ig7 (12 ... ttJg6 13.ttJcd5±) 13.�d3±; Finally, in case of 11 . . . �h6 12.ttJcd5 he3 13.ttJxe3 ttJe7 (It is too risky for Black to opt for 13 . . . 'lWa5+ 14.c3 0 - 0 - 0 15.,te2 ttJe7, Opychaneyj - Jarmoluk, Ar­ gentina 1993, 16.a4 b4 17.:E!cl±) White counters with the the­ matic line 14.a4! b4 (Black would not solve his problems with 14 . . . bxa4 15.:E!xa4 d5, Ellison - Nichol­ son, Port Erin 2000, because of 16.V!if3±) 15.'lWf3± Honfi - Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1970 and he obtains a clear advantage.

Here are some of the possible developments: About 11 . . . 'lWd7 12.ttJcd5 �d8 13.'lWh5 hd5 14.ttJxd5 ttJd4 15.�d3 - see 11 . . . ttJd4; 11 . . . 'lWb6 ? ! (That is a loss of time.) 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 ... 'lWxb2 13.:E!bl V!ixa2 14.ttJc7+ �d7 15.ttJxa8 :gxa8 16.:E!xb7±) 13.c3± Esplana - Alosilla, Peru 1999; 11 . . . 0-0 12.ttJcd5 �h8 13.�e2 :E!g8 14.0-0± Leiros Vila - Lucas, corr. 1985; 11 .. .l�k8 12.ttJcd5 hd5, Suetin - Olbrich, Moscow 1991 (about 12 . . . b5 - see 11 . . . b5; 12 . . .f5 13.exf5 hd5, Nunn - Cox, Norway 1972, 14.ttJxd5±) 13.exd5 ttJb8 14. �d3±; 11 ... b5 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 . . . :E!c8 13.c3 ttJa5 14.a4± Wasnetsky - Nosal, Mannheim 1990 ; 12 . . . :E!b8 13.,te2 'lWd7 14.�g4± Maucci - Plazaola, Buenos Aires 2 0 02) 13.c3± Dolgener - Gierden, Dort­ mund 1988; 25

Chapter 3 1l . . . lDd4 12 .!d3 �d7 (or 12 . . . h S 13.lDcdS± Kotronias - Tak­ srud, Gausdal 1991; 12 . . . �aS 13. 0-0± Westermeier - Hacker, Germany 1979 ; 12 . . . l:kS 13.lDcdS 0-0 14.c3± Melnikov - Spanoche, Eforie Nord 1999) 13.lDcdS .hdS (or 13 . . . !dS 14.c3 lDc6 IS.�f3± Pitkanen - Rantanen, Naantali 1997) 14.lDxdS .idS (or 14 . . . �c6 IS.c3 lDe6 16.'iNf3 lDcS 17.!c2 lDd7 IS . .ib3± Muslic - Segovic, Pula 2002) IS.�hS EkS (or 15 . . . 0-0 16.c3 lDc6 17 ..ie2± Gazik - Mate­ jov, Slovakia 2001) 16.c3 lDe6 17. !e2± Blau - Plater, Hilversum 1947; ll . . . �aS 12 ..id3 lDb4 (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.0-0 hS I4.lDcdS± Wang - Mai, Wuxi 2 0 05) 13.a3 lDxd3+ 14.�xd3 (White's control over the dS and fS-outposts emphasizes the superiority of his couple of knights over Black's bishop pair.) 14 . . . EkS (14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.0-0± Ferreira - Romao, Portugal 1993) 15.0-0 �gS 16.lDcdS �cS 17.c3± Winterstein - Schwarz, Giessen 1991. All these variations confirm that after Black captures on f6 with a pawn, his bishop is mis­ placed on e7. The game Hove - Graham, Minnesota 1996, followed with the move 9 . . . �bS with the idea to remove the rook from an eventual threat on the b6-square. In that case, White's best line seems to be 10.lDdS! .hdS 1l ..hf6 'iNxf6 (or 1l . . . gxf6 12.�xdS±) 12.�xdS± and he occupies the central outpost. 26

Meanwhile, Black's rook is mis­ placed on bS. After the not so well analyzed variation 9 . . . h6 10 ..bf6 �xf6 (It is illogical for Black to play 10 . . . gxf6?! 1l.lDe3± Tarnowski - Fa­ bian, Glucholazy 1963 and White remains with a clear advantage.) l1.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS;t Ribli - Zinn, Zalaegerszeg 1969, there arises a situation quite similar to the one we will analyze later after 9 . . . �cS 1O . .hf6 'iNxf6 11.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS - see variation hI. The difference is only that Black's pawn is on h6 and that is much rather in favour of White, because Black's counter­ play is connected with the pawn­ advance f'7-fS and it would lead to an additional weakening of his light squares on the kingside.

a) 9

•••

�d4

This move used to be popu­ lar. Presently it has almost dis­ appeared from practice and the reason is that Black's centralized knight will be repelled later with the move c2-c3 and he can hardly prevent that.

1 0 .hf6 �xf6

5JiJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJ a3 ie6 9. ttJ c4 Black has problems after 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJe3 f5 (about 1l . . Jk8 12 .id3 - see 9 . . Jk8 ; 1l . . . !h6 12 .id3 .b:e3 13.fxe3 ttJc6 14.§'f3± Wolff - Shtern, USA 1986) 12.exfS ttJxfS 13.ttJxfS ixfS, because of 14.§'f3 §'c8, Trautz - Adamczyk, COIT. 2 0 03 (Black loses immedi­ ately after 14 . . . §'d7? lS.ttJdS+-, White is clearly better too follow­ ing 14 . . . .b:c2 15J3c1 ig6 16.§'xb7t) 15.ie2 ! ? ie7 (It is too dangerous for Black to try lS . . . hc2 16J!c1 ia4 17. 0-0 ic6 18.ttJdS±, or 16 . . . J.g6 17. 0-0±) 16.0-0-0;1; with initiative for White.

1l.ttJb6 �b8 It is insufficient for Black to try the active line: 1l . . . �d8 12.ttJcdS ixdS 13.ttJxdS §'g6 14.f3 ie7 (or 14 . . . ttJc6 lS.ttJc7+ �d7 16.ttJdS± Eiben - Kovari, Slovakia 1997) lS.c3 ih4+ (It is not advisable for Black to opt for lS . . . ttJe6 16.§'a4+ �d7 17.b4±) 16.g3 hg3+ 17.hxg3 §'xg3+ 18.�d2 ttJxf3+ 19.�c2± Husted - F.Hansen, Denmark 1991 and Black's threats have been neutralized.

12. ttJcd5 §'d8 Black would lose his castling rights after 12 . . . §'g6 13.ttJc7+ �d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.§'d3± Daurelle - Fanghui Feng, corr. 1998, or 12 . . . §'h4 13.ttJc7+ �d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.§'d3± Kraujunas - Lind­ berg, COIT. 1997.

13.c3 .txd5 White can counter 13 . . . ttJc6 with the powerful argument

14.§'a4 ! , while in case of 14 . . . i.e7? (about 14 . . . .b:d5 lS.l2JxdS - see 13 . . .ixdS) he has the strong re­ sponse 15.ixa6 ! ixdS 16.ttJxdS �a8 17.§'bS+- Mueller - Zunker, Oberursel 1972.

14.ttJxd5 �e6 The endgame is worse for Black after 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.§'a4 §'as (or IS . . . ie7 16.g3 ! ? 0 - 0 17.ih3± Cygon - Budt, Detmold 1976; lS . .E!:c 8 16.ie2 ie7 17.ig4 �b8 18.0-0± Cravero - Grosse Kloenne, corr. 2000) 16.§'xaS ttJxaS 17.ie2 ie7 18 . 0-0 �c8 19J!fdl± Telleria Braso, Uruguay 1988. .

15.g3 ie7 16.a4!? 0-0 17. i.h3 �e8 18.0-0;l;

This position was reached in the game Tal - Wade, Reykjavik 1964. The eighth World Cham­ pion obtained a great positional advantage and he won the game promptly, with some assistance from his opponent, indeed - 18 . . . M8 19.aS ttJgS 20.ifS g6? (Black blundered the exchange here.) 2 1.id7! �e6 2 2 ..b:e6 fxe6 23.ttJb6 hS 24.§'e2 ie7 2S.f4 ttJf7 26.fS 1-0.

27

Chapter 3 b) 9

•••

gc8 !

This is an idea of GM Larsen. Black completes the development of his queenside and he takes the c-file under control.

IO .txf6 •

We will analyze bl) IO and b2) IO gxf6.

•••

'i'xf6

••

bl) IO

•••

'i'xf6

Black does not allow doubling of his pawns, but he enables his opponent to deploy his knights on the important b6 and d5-outposts with tempo.

1l.tLlb6 White should better refrain from winning a pawn, because af­ ter 1V�xd6+ hd6 12.'i'xd6 :1'ld8�, followed by lLld4, Black obtains an excellent counterplay.

1l

•••

gb8

Black should better keep the d8-square for his queen, there­ fore it is dubious for him to try 1l . . . :1'ld8 ? ! 12.lLlcd5 %Yg6 13.lLlc7+ We7 14.lLlcd5+ We8 15.%Yd3 ie7 16.0- 0-0± Eitel - Ennenbach, Goch 1997.

12.tLlcd5 Y!Yd8 If 12 .. .'�g6? ! , then 13.Y«d3 ie7 28

(or 13 ... hd5 14.lLlxd5 !i.e7, Jabot - Felber, corr. 1995, 15.lLlc7+ wd7 16.lLld5±) 14.lLlc7+ ! wd8 15.lLlcd5 and Black loses his castling rights. White is better after 15 . . . We8 16.g3 h5 17. 0-0-0± Bindrich - Rovid, Budapest 2 0 04, as well as follow­ ing 15 . . . f5 16.0-0-0 fxe4 17.Y«c3 ! ixd5 (or 17 ...:1'lf8 18.ha6 ! :1'lxf2 19.ixb7 l:bcb7 20.%Yxc6 :1'la7 21.a4 ig4 2 2 .lLlc4±) 18.lLlxd5 :1'lc8 19. wb1 :1'lf8 20.Y«b3 ! b5 21 .%Ya3 lLlb8 (It is even worse for Black to play 21 ... :1'lxf2 22.%Yxa6 :1'lxc2 23 .%Yb6+ We8 24.Wxc2 lLlb4+ 25.Wb1 e3+ 26.!i.d3 lLlxd3 27.%Yxb5+-) 2 2 .%Ya5+ We8 23.Y«b6± - and Black had great problems in the game Herrera - Merino Garcia, Spain 1996.

13.c3 White takes control over the d4-square and he is threatening Y«a4 in some variations.

13 ie7 •••

After the careless line 13 ... g6? ! 14.Y«a4 ! , the temporary weaken­ ing of the f6-square does not allow Black to retreat with his bishop to d7, otherwise White has a tacti­ cal strike on the a6-square: 14 . . . ig7 15.ha6 ! hd5 16.lLlxd5 :1'la8 17.Y«b5 :1'lxa6 18.Y«xb7+- Cifuen­ tes Parada; 14 . . . !i.h6 15.ha6 ! 0-0 16.ib5 f5 17.0-0 wh8 18.:1'ladl± Joecks - Chekhov, Germany 1997. It is not so popular for Black to play 13 . . . lLle7, because White can choose between the calm line: 14.ic4 lLlxd5 15.Y«a4+ id7 16. lLlxd7 %Yxd7 17.Y«xd7+ Wxd7 18.

S.ciJc3 e5 6JiJdbS d6 7. !gS a6 8.tiJa3 ie6 9. &iJc4 ixd5;!; and the more ambitious 14. \Wa4+ .!d7, Zesch - Priebe, Berlin 2002, 15.\Wb4! ? &iJxd5 16.&iJxd5;!; with superior prospects.

14 . .tc40-0 About 14 . . . !g5 15.0-0 - see 14 . . . 0-0.

15.0-0.!g5 About 15 . . .hB 16.\We2 .tg5 (or 16 . . . g6, Salm - Henri, corr. 19B5, 17.a4 f5 1B.exf5 gxf5 19.f4;!;) 17.a4 - see 15 . . . .!g5. White is clearly better after 15 . . . ixd5 16.&iJxd5 b5 17. .tb3 !g5 1B.\Wd3 @hB 19J3ad1 &iJa5 2 0.&iJb4 �b6 2 1..!d5± Palevich - Schlos­ ser, corr. 19B6.

It is insufficient for Black to try 16 . . . .txd5 17.&iJxd5 &iJe7 1B.\Wb3 &iJxd5 19.ixd5 b6 2 0 .�fd1 g6 21. l3d3± Schmidt Schaeffer - Bra­ meyer, Germany 2 0 0 2 . After 16 . . . &iJe7, Ciolac - San Marco, Bethune 1992, White can play simply 17.a5;!; It deserves attention for Black to opt for 16 . . . YlYeB ! ? White's most principled reaction seems to be 17.&iJc7 YlYe7 1B.&iJxe6 fxe6 19.YlYg4, threatening Black's e6-pawn. The move 19 . . . l3beB can be countered by White with the line 20 . .!xe6+ YlYxe6 2 1.\Wxg5±, while in case of 19 ... &iJdB, White maintains his initiative with 2 0.g3 !h6 21.l3ad1 �f6 22.l3d3;!; Tong - Lim, Singa­ pore 1990.

17.ti'e2 g6

16.a4! White has completed his de­ velopment and he consolidates his achievements on the queen­ side.

16

•••

@h8

Black has no other counter­ play except the pawn-advance t7-f5, but he has tried some other lines too. It is only a transposition of moves after 16 . . . a5 17.YlYe2 g6 lB. �ad1 @hB - see 16 ... @hB, or 16 . . . g6 17.\We2 @hB - see 16 . . . @hB.

Black has numerous possibili­ ties here, but neither of them is sufficient for equality. He can try to redeploy his knight to the kingside with 17 . . . &iJe7 1B.a5 &iJg6, but that enables White to attack successfully his opponent's backward d6-pawn 19.13fd1 ih6 2 0.&iJe3 &iJf4 2 1.\Wf3 g6 22 ..txe6 fxe6 23.&iJec4± Wise - Leveille, corr. 1992. The prophylactic move 17. . . as has its drawbacks a s well. In case of 1B.l3ad1, White is better after 1B . . . g6 19 . .ta2 ! f5 (or 19 . . . &iJe7 2 0 .\Wb5±; 1 9. . . .th6 20.&iJc4 f5 21.exfS gxf5 2 2 .&iJdb6±) 20.exf5 gxf5, Friedman - Hausrath, Gro­ ningen 1996, 21.&iJc4 f4 22 .f3;!;, as well as following 1B . . . .th6 19.@h1 29

Chapter 3 g6 (if 19 . . . lLle7? ! , then 20.lLlxe7 'Wxe7 21.he6 fxe6 2 2 .lLlc4± or 20 . . .Wxb6 21.lLlfS± Nunn - Ma­ nor, London 19B7) 2 0.ia2;:!; and White's queenside initiative in­ creases. The move 17 'WeB ! ? is inter­ esting here, just like on the pre­ vious move, and it was played in the game Janovsky - Sveshnikov, Moscow 19B7. White can increase the pressure against the d6square with 1B.ia2 ! ? idB 19.1Llc4 'Wd7 20.�adl;!; If Black plays 17 .. .fS without preparation, then after 1B.exfS i.xfS 19.aS e4, White has the pow­ erful maneuver 2 0 .ib3 ! �eB (It is not any better for Black to try 20 . . . lLleS 21.ic2 lLld3 22 .f4 exf3 23. fuf3±, or 2 0 ... lLle7 21.lLle3 ig6 2 2 .ie6 ! �f6 23.Wg4;:!;, while in case of 2 0 . . . WeB 21.ic2 idB, it is good for White to continue with 22.�ae1 lLlxaS 23.ixe4 he4 24. Wxe4 hb6 2S.lLlxb6 'WbS 26. 'Wb4 ! ;:!; Perz - Necula, corr. 2001, or 2 2J'!a4 ! ?;:!;) 21.ia4 ! - It be­ comes clear that Black is incapa­ ble of protecting his queenside. There might follow 21.. .ih6 22. ixc6 bxc6 23. lLlb4±, or 21...�eS 2 2 .hc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4 'WeB 24.lLlc4 �e6 2S. lLlxa6 �b7 26.lLlb4;:!; and Black has no compensation for his material losses. .•.

18.l3adl i.h6 About 1B . . . aS - see 17. . . aS. In case of the immediate move 1B . . .fS, Travi - Henri, corr. 1979, 19.exfS gxfS (After 19 . . . ixfS ! ? 30

2 0.id3 ie6 21.ie4 lLle7 22.aS;:!; White has a slight, but long-last­ ing pressure.) White has the re­ source 20 .lLle3 ! he3 (or 20 . . . 'We7 2 1.he6 Wxe6 2 2 .lLlec4 �bdB 23.f4 ! .tf6 24.'Wd2 ! ?;:!;) 21.fxe3 hc4 (This exchange is in favour of White: 21.. .'Wxb6 2 2 .ixe6 lLle7 23.aS ! WcS 24.'Wd3 f4 2S.Wxd6±, or 22 .. .f4 23.�xd6 fxe3 24.�d7! �xf1+ 2S. Wxfl �fB + 26.We1! lLlbB 27.�f7 �xf7 2B.ixf7 lLld7 29.Wg4 lLlf6 30.WgS e4 31.h3±) 2 2 .lLlxc4 �f6 23.'Wd3 'Wg8 24.'WdS;:!; - and White is better, because of his dominance over the dS-outpost and Black's pawn-weaknesses on d6 and fS.

19.Whl f5 20.exfS gxf5 In case of 2 0 . . . ixfS, Reinaldo - M.Garcia, Nigran 1997, White can follow with 21.id3 ie6 2 2 . ie4;:!;

21.f4 ig7 In the game Isupov - Che­ khov, Orel 1996, Black chose the less precise response 21... �gB. White could have put that move under doubt with the line: 22 .fxeS ! dxeS (after 2 2 . . . lLlxeS, it is very good for White to follow with 23.id3 !±) 23.lLlb4 ! Wxb6 (23 . . .ixc4 24.lLlxc4±) 24.he6 lLld4 2S.cxd4 Wxe6 26.dxeS± with a great advantage for White.

2 2 .b4!;!; (diagram) That position was reached in the game Herrera - Cifuentes Parada, Cienfuegos 1996. After 22 . . . lLle7 23. lLlxe7 'Wxe7 24.he6

5.tiJc3 e5 6.l1:J db5 d6 7.fig5 a6 B. ttJa3 fie6 9. ttJ c4 knight on e3, because Black can counter that with 11. ..fih6. After 1l . .td3, we will analyze b2a) 11 gg8 and b2b) 11 ttJe7. About 1l . . .fig7 12.0-0 0-0 13.ttJe3 ttJe7 - see 1l ... ttJe7. It is premature for Black to play 1l . . . .th6? ! in view of 12 .YMh5. The game Stevanovic - Schinis, Yerevan 1996, followed with 12 . . . .tg7 13.0-0 ttJe7 14.ttJe3 'lNb6 15. ttJcd5 hd5 16.exd5±. It would be interesting for Black, but still not quite correct if he tries 12 . . . fif4 ! ? 13.g3 ttJd4 14.gxf4 fixc4 15. 0-0-0 YMa5 (or 15 ... b5 16.�b1 b4 17.hc4 :B:xc4 18.ttJd5±) 16.hc4 :B:xc4 17. :B:d3± with an advantage for White. The move 1l . . . ttJd4? ! is not justifiable for Black, just like on move 9. The position after White's natural move 12.ttJe3 has been tested numerous times. His plan is simple - he must complete his development and then occupy the d5-outpost and push c2-c3. Black has nothing real to counter that plan with, for example : 12 . . . 1ih6 13.0-0 0-0 (about 13 . . J:1g8, see 12 . . . :B:g8) 14.ttJcd5± Dely - Flesch, Hungary 1965; 12 ... h5 13.0-0 h4 (or 13 . . . fie7 14.ttJcd5± Guerrero - Regue, Catalunia 1997) 14.ttJcd5 fig7 15.c3 ttJc6 16.'lNf3 ! :B:h6 17.ttJf5 hf5 18.exf5 ttJe7 19.ie4± Bron­ stein - Pilnik, Moscow 1956 ; 12 . . . YMb6 13.ttJcd5 'lNxb2 14. ttJxf6+ �d8 15. 0-0± Hjartarson - Friojonsson, Iceland 198 0 ; ...

•••

'lNxe6 25.a5 :B:be8 26.ttJd5t White obtained a stable positional edge. Black would not have solved his problems with 22 . . .hd5 23.ttJxd5 e4. White has the undermining move 24.g4! and after 24 . . . fxg4 25.'lNxg4 YMc8 (or 25 . . . :B:g8 26.:B:gl±; 25 . . . b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.fib3±; 25 . . . ttJe7 26.:B:g1 ttJf5 27J!de1 b5 28.axb5 axb5 29.fib3±) 26.'lNe2 YMf5 27.:B:g1 fih6 28.:B:g4t - Black has problems in all the varia­ tions.

b2) lO

gxf6

...

This move is much more pop­ ular. Black opens the g-file and he plans to deploy his king's bishop to h6.

11 .td3 ! .

That is the precise move order. White is not in a hurry to place his

31

Chapter 3 12 . . . i.g7 13.0-0 0-0 (or 13 . . . bS - see 12 . . . �b6; 13 . . . he3 14.fxe3 14.tLlcdS fS lS.exfS hdS 16.tLlxdS :B:g8 lS.:B:f2 �b6 16.�d2± Blosze �gS, Hessmer - Eiselt, DDR - Oechslein, corr. 1996; 13 . . . tLlxd3 1974, 17.f4±) 14.tLlcdS @h8 (or 14.�xd3 i.xe3 lS.'<Mfxe3±) 14.tLlcdS 14 . . .fS lS.exfS i.xdS 16.tLlxdS :B:cS i.xe3 lS.tLlxe3± Nielsen - Hald, 17.i.e4± Kasimdzhanov - Ben­ Farum 1993, Black fails to equal­ tout, Metz 1997) lS.�hS± Herb ize despite the simplifications. - Bouton, France 1999; 12 . . . �aS 13. 0-0 :B:xc3 (or 13 . . . b2a) 1l :B:g8 h S 14.lZlcdS± Vehi - Riera, Man­ That is the most popular alter­ resa 1997) 14.bxc3 '<Mfxc3 lS.�hS native for Black to the frequently i.g7 16.a4 0-0 17.:B:ab1 '<Mfc7, Royd played line 1l . . . tLle7. - LIvanov, North Bay 1994, 18. 12.0-0 tLldS �d7 19.c3 lZlc6 20.:B:fel±; 12 . . . :B:g8 13. 0-0 ih6 (13 . . . :B:g6 14.tLlcdS :B:h6 lS.c3 tLlc6 16.�f3 i.g7 17.:B:adl± Korchnoi - Secchi, Cordoba 1960) 14.lZlcdS :B:g6 (or 14 . . .fS lS.exfS ixdS 16.tLlxdS �gS 17.g3 tLlxfS 18.c3 :B:cS 19.�b3 bS 2 0.a4± Ochoa - Pacheco, Linares 1978) lS.c3 tLlc6 16.tLlfS± Poko­ jowczyk - Quinteros, Polanica Zdroj 1977. White's advantage is 12 ih6 indisputable in all the variations. About 12 . . . lZle7 13.tLle3 - see Black tries sometimes to con­ 1l . . . lZle7. trol the dS-square with the move It would be in favour of White 1l . . . tLlb4, but after 12.lZle3 ih6 if Black tries 12 . . . bS 13.tLle3 lZlb4, (The line 12 . . . dS 13.exdS lZlxdS, Fossan - Qvortrup, Namsos 1995, leads to a transposition of moves 14.lZlcdS± - see 1l . . . tLle7; after 12 . . . tLlxd3+ 13. Black would not solve his �xd3 �b6, Szalai - Klausen, corr. problems with the aggressive 1991, it is promising for White line: 12 . . . ig4 13.ie2 ih3 (if 13 . . . to try 14. 0-0-0± and if 12 . . . '<Mfb6 fS, then 14.i.xg4 fxg4 lS.tLle3 13.0-0 ih6 14.tLledS hdS, as �gS 16.tLlcdS± Servat - Sakurai, it was played in the game Alava Neuquen 1986; White maintains - Tahkavuori, Jyvaskyla 1993, a stable edge after 13 . . . i.xe2 14. then lS.tLlxdS tLlxdS 16.exdS± and �xe2 tLld4 1S.�d3± Luecke - Bon­ White has the initiative in a posi­ nmann, Cologne 1989) 14.tLle3 tion with opposite-coloured bish­ lZld4 (It is dubious for Black to try ops.) 13.0-0 :B:g8 (about 13 . . . �b6 14 .. .fS?! lS.exfS ih6 16.if3± Ped...

•••

32

5. 0,c3 e5 6 . 0, db5 d6 7. il.g5 a6 8. 0, a3 il.e6 9. 0, c4 ersen - Nilssen, Aarhus 200S.) in view of the accurate response by White 1S.l!?h1 il.e6 16.il.d3 il.h6 17.0,cdS;l; Kindermann - Ahmels, Germany 1982, with a better game for him.

13.tDd5 ,tg4! ? Th e other possibility for Black is also in favour of his opponent 13 . . . 0,b4 14.0,xb4 hc4 1S.hc4 Elxc4, Andersen - Heim, corr. 1994, 16. 0,dS ! fS (16 . . Jixe4? 17. 'Wf3+-) 17.exfS 'WgS 18.0,e3± After 13 .. .fS, White has the re­ source 14.'WhS ! il.f8 1S.0,cb6 f4 ! (Black has no choice - 1S . . . Elb8? 16. exfS+-) 16. 0,xc8 il.g4 17.'Wxh7 Elg7 18.'Wxg7! (but not 18.'Wh8 hc8oo) 18 . . . hg7 19.0,cb6± Matu­ lovic - Arnason, Zemun 1983 and White has a clear advantage with two rooks for a queen. In case of 13 . . . hdS 14.exdS 0,e7, it is also good for White to try 1S.'WhS il.f4 (or 1S . . . il.gS, Her­ brechtsmeier - Steiger, Germany 1992, 16.h4 il.f4 17.'Wxh7±) 16. 'Wxh7 I!?f8, Owczarzak - Stryjecki, Poraj 1997 and here 17.0,e3 ! 'Wb6 (It is too risky for Black to open the f-file: 17 . . . he3 18 .fxe3 0,xdS 19.il.e4±) 18.0,fS 0,xdS 19J!adl± and he ends up in a very difficult position.

but White could have countered that by transferring into a fa­ vourable endgame with the line : 16.l!?h1! he3 17.liJxe3 f4 18.gxh3 fxe3 19.fxe3 'WgS 20.Elg1 'Wxg1+ 21.'Wxg1 Elxg1+ 2 2 . Elxg1 l!?e7 23. c3±

16 .tf3 ! •

The principled line: 16.0,xb4 he3 17.fxe3 il.xg2 18.Elf2 he4+ 19.1!?f1 'Wd7 2 0.il.d3 'Wh3+ 21.I!?e2 il.g6 ! oo leads to a rather unclear position.

16 . . . tDxd5 17. tDxd5;!; Black's temporary activity has been neutralized and White's prospects are superior.

b2b) 1l . . . tDe7

14.ie2 ih3 15.tDce3 tDb4!? Black has an original possibil­ ity to deflect his opponent from protecting the g2-square, but it has not been tested in practice yet. In the game Klundt - Oechslein, Germany 1982, he chose 1S .. .fS,

Black forces his opponent's knight to retreat to the e3-square 33

Chapter 3 (the resource .th6 becomes even more effective then) and he in­ creases his control over the vital squares dS and fS.

12.liJe3 White fails with the straight­ forward line: 12.liJxd6+? �xd6 13 . .tbS+ , because of 13 . . . tbc6.

12 . . . .th6 Opening of the centre with 12 . . . dS? ! 13.exdS tbxdS 14.tbcxdS .txdS is too risky for Black. There might follow lS.0-0 .te6 (Black has also tried here lS . . . hS, Pribor­ sky - Birklbauer, Aschach 200S, 16 . .tfS .te6 17.�f3±, as well as lS . . . .tc6 16.�hS .tcS 17. .tc4 �e7, Parkanyi - Rovid, Hungary 1998, 18.tbfS �f8 19.E!ad1 E!g8 20 . .tdS±) 16.�f3 �e7 17.E!ad1 .tg7 18 . .te4 E!c7 19.E!d3± Konguvel - George, Chennai 2 0 0 0 and Black has rather weak light squares. Black has tested in practice some other dubious lines like: 12 . . . �d7? ! 13.Wf3 .tg7 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.exdS �a4 16.0-0± Ciric - Eisinger, Oberhausen 1961, or 12 . . . hS? ! 13.0-0 �b6 14.tbcdS± Kudrin - Fitzpatrick, Colum­ bus 1987, or 12 . . . E!cS? ! 13.0-0 hS 14.tbcdS ! .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS 16.exdS± Gligoric - Littlewood, Hastings 1964. In case of 12 . . . E!g8 13. 0-0, it would be more prudent for Black to choose the move 13 . . . .th6, which we will analyze later - see 12 . . . .th6, since after his other at­ tempts White obtains the advan­ tage much easier, for example: 34

13 . . . E!gS? ! 14.�f3 tbg6 lS. wh1 hS (or lS . . . tbh4 16.�e2±) 16.tbcdS± Dely - Szilagyi, Budapest 1974. White maintains a clear edge after the rather modest line for Black: 12 . . . .tg7 13. 0 - 0 0-0 (about 13 ... �b6 - see 12 . . . Wb6; 13 . . . tbg6 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.tbxdS hS, Kroe­ ner - Eiselt, DDR 1974, 16.�f3±) 14.�f3 E!e8 lS.tbcdS tbg6 16.g3± Almasi - Rovid, Budapest 1993 . It is more principled for Black to try 12 . . . �b6 and White must sacrifice a pawn in answer to that 13. 0-0! �xb2 (about 13 . . . .th6 14.tbcdS - see 12 . . . .th6; it is in­ consistent for Black to play 13 . . . .tg7 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.exdS 0 - 0 16.�hS tbg6 17.tbfS± Borngaess­ er - Gelzenleichter, Dortmund 1987, or 13 . . . E!g8 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS 16.exdS h6 17.a4± Fishbein - Agdestein, Stavanger 1989 and he ends up in a dif­ ficult position.) 14.tbcdS. After 14 . . ..txdS, both captures seem to be reasonable for White, but still it looks better for him to opt for lS.tbxdS ! ? tbxdS 16.exdS. White's bishop is much stronger than its counterpart is, while Black's doubled extra pawn is completely immaterial. There might follow 16 . . . �d4 (about 16 . . . E!c7 17.�f3 We7 18.a4 ! Wd4 - see 16 . . . �d4) 17.�f3 We7 (It is not better for Black to try 17 . . . .tg7 18.a4 E!c7 19.E!fd1 �cS 20.E!abl± Coleman - R.Thomas, Internet 1997; in case of 17 . . . Wh4 18.E!ab1 bS, White has the resource 19.a4 ! ± Wit-

5.tiJc3 e5 6JiJdb5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJa3 ie6 9. ttJ c4 tmann - Krustkalns, corr. 1976; it is only slightly better for Black to continue with 17. . . h5 ! ? 1B.l:!ab1 b5, but even then the endgame is better for White after 19.a4 ! �xa4 2 0.l:!a1 �g4 2 1.'�xg4 hxg4 22.!'bca6±, or 19 . . . %Yg4 20.%Yxg4 hxg4 21.axb5 axb5 22.l:!xb5± La­ kos - S.Horvath, Hungary 1997) 1B.a4 ! (That is an important in­ termediate move.) 1B . . . l:!c7 (or 1B ... ih6 19.1:!fb1 l:!c7 20.l:!a3 id2 21.l:!ab3 %Ya7 22.l:!b6± Paulucci - Perez, corr. 19B O) 19.1:!fd1 %Yc3 (19 . . . �h4 20.l:!db1 l:!gB 21.l:!a3 ! �g4 2 2 .ixh7±) 20.l:!ab1 �a5 21. �e4± Mednis - Lombardy, Pasa­ dena 197B. It is quite evident that White's initiative is powerful. His pressure along the b-file and his control over the light squares pro­ vide him with a more than suffi­ cient compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn.

13.0-0! White would not mind the ex­ change on e3, since he would ex­ ert powerful pressure along the opened f-file.

13 . . . .ixe3 White maintains his advan-

tage effortlessly in case of 13 . . . l:!c5 14.%Yf3 ig5 15.ttJcd5± Lau - Enzmann, Dresden 1997, or 13 . . . ttJg6 14.g3 ,be3 15.fxe3 h5 (or 15 . . . %Yb6 16.%Yf3±) 16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 h4 1B.%Yg4± Kozamernik - Mlacnik, Bled 2000, or 13 . . . �b6 14.ttJed5 ixd5 15.exd5 ig7 (but not 15 . . . %Yxb2? 16.ttJe4+-) 16.%Yg4 0-0 17.ttJe4 c;t>hB 1B.ttJg3± Alves - Li­ mayo, corr. 1997. It looks more logical for Black to play 13 . . . l:!gB. After 14.�f3, the following line is clearly in his fa­ vour: 14 . . . l:!g6? ! 15.ttJcd5 ttJc6 16.c3 c;t>fB 17.%Yh5 c;t>gB 1B.ttJf5± Bresciani - Agnelli, Bratto 1997. Therefore Black must choose between 14 . . . ttJg6 15.g3 ttJf4 ! ? , Kosten - Ammann, London 19BB and here White could have maintained his positional pres­ sure with the line : 16.ttJcd5 c;t>fB (or 16 . . . ixd5? ! 17.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1B.exd5±) 17.l:!fd1 ttJxd3 1B.l:!xd3 ixe3 19.ttJxe3t; or 14 . . .ixe3 15.fxe3 �b6 (If 15 . . . l:!g6, then 16.ttJd5 and Black has serious problems in all the variations : 16 . . . ttJxd5 17. exd5 ig4 1B.%Yf2±; 16 . . . ixd5 17.exd5 l:!h6 1B.c4 �b6 19.1:!f2± Becker - Krege, Ditzingen 2003; 16 . . . ttJgB 17.h3 c;t>fB 1B.a4± Hamil­ ton - Goldsmith, Adelaide 19BO) 16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 f5 (Black fails to protect his pawn any­ more: 17 . . . l:!c7 1B .l:!ael±; 17 . . . ttJg6 1B.c;t>hl± Suresh - Mahesh, Co­ chin 2 000.) 1B.ixf5 ttJxf5 19.�xf5 �xe3 + 20.c;t>h1 l:!c7 2 1.�xh7 �g5 35

Chapter 3 2 2 . !U2 gg7 (The king and rook endgame after 2 2 . . . �g6 23.�xg6 gxg6 24.gafl± Oliveira - Vitor, Lisbon 1994, seems to be hope­ less for Black, since he is a pawn down.) 23.�h8+ gg8 24.�h3± Konguvel - Bhattacharyya, Cal­ cutta 1994 and White remains with a material advantage.

14.fxe3 'iHb6 Here after 14 . . . gg8 ? ! lS.gxf6 �b6 16.�c1 gg6 17.gf2± Barns­ ley - Surroca, corr. 2000, Black is simply left with a pawn down. It is hardly advisable for him to try 14 . . . ltJg8 ? ! lS.ltJdS hS 16.c3 fS 17.�b3± Pujols - Elissalt, Cuba 1999.

15.�f3 h5 ! Black wishes to acquire the h6-square for his rook. About lS . . . gg8 - see 13 . . . gg8. It is hardly advisable for Black to continue with lS . . . �xb2? ! 16.ltJdS hdS 17.exdS fS (or 17 . . . e 4 18.�xe4 �eS 19.�xf6± Tsesh­ kovsky; 17. . . �b6 18.gab1 �c7 19. �xf6 gf8 20.c4 bS 21.cxbS ltJxdS 2 2 . �f3± Fantin - Terrieux, France 2006) 18.hfS ltJxfS 19.�xfS± Holmes - Shutler, Swansea 1987 - White is threatening to capture on f7 as well as the double attack - 2 0 .�f6 . I f l S . . . gc7, then 16.ltJd1 gg8 17.�xf6 gg6, Mittermeier - Jan­ zen, corr. 2001, 18.�h4± and White remains with an extra pawn.

16.ltJd5 .b:d5 17.exd5 gh6 IS.gabl �a5 36

In the game Tseshkovsky - Chandler, Minsk 1982, there followed 18 . . . gc7 19.c4 fS and White countered that with 2 0 .b3 (It was also good for him to play 20.�hl ! ?±, preventing fS-f4.) 20 . . .f4 (it is even worse for Black to play 20 . . . e4? ! 2 1.�f4 gg6 2 2 .,te2±) 21.gbe1 ltJg8 (or 21.. .fS 22.�hl±) 22.�h1 fxe3 23 .�g3 ! (White is not in a hurry to cap­ ture the e3-pawn and he is trying to provoke at first the weakening move f7-f6.) 23 . . . �f8 24.�gS! f6 2S.�h4 gg7 26.,tfS ggS (The exchange of queens would not change the evaluation of the po­ sition 26 . . . �d4 27.�xd4 exd4 28.gf4 ggS 29.�h3 d3 30.gd4±) 27.,te6± White obtained a great advantage.

19.e4;!;

Black has too many weakness­ es and his pieces lack coordina­ tion. White's advantage is indis­ putable because of that. It is too dangerous for Black to opt for 19 . . . �xa2? 20.�e3 gh8 21.�b6 !± (de Firmian). His best chance is 19 . . .fS and after 2 0.a3 f4 (after 20 . . . �f8, de

5. tD c3 e5 6 . tiJdb5 d6 7. i.g5 a6 B . tiJ a3 i.e6 9 . tiJ c4 Firmian - Matulovic, Vrnjachka Banja 1983, White's simplest re­ action would be 21.c4±) 21.b4! '\1;l(b6+ (21. . . '\1;l(xa3? 22 .i.b5+-) 2 2 . �h1, White preserves his edge af­ ter 22 . . . llJg6 23.c4 lLlh4 (23 . . . YNe3 24.YNxe3 fxe3 25.g3±) 24.YNh3 YNd8 25.c5 ! dxc5 26.bxc5 :E!xc5, Hess - Zdziubany, DDR 1987, 27.g3 !

lLlg6 (but not 27 . . . :gxd5? 28.exd5 '\1;l(xd5+ 29.�g1 YNd4+ 30.:E!f2 '\1;l(xd3 31.'\1;l(c8+-) 28.:gxb7±, while in case of 22 . . . h4, White follows with 23.c4 YNa7 24.:E!fc1 b6 (24 . . . h3 25.g3;!;) 25.:E!b3;!;. White prepares gradually the pawn-advance c4c5 and Black would be forced to defend passively.

Conclusion about Chapters 2 and 3 The lines we analyze in these chapters are characterized by the fact that Black postpones the move b7-b5 and that enables White to improve quickly the placement of his knight on a3. Among the numerous possibilities for Black to avoid entering the main line of the Chelyabinsk variation (B. . . b5), only the move B . . . i.e6 can be considered as a serious alternative for him with chances of obtaining counterplay. In case of 9. lLlc4! :E!cB! l O . il.xj6 YNxf6, there arises a situation in which White has the possibility of deploying his knight on b6 and then offortifying it there with the pawn-march a2a4-a5, preserving a considerable space advantage on the queenside. In case Black plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, White places his knight on e3 and he impedes the pawn advances d6-d5 andf6-f5 for Black. Therefore, his active counterplay is reduced only to ih6 and '\1;l(b6. White maintains superior prospects too, but he must play precisely. It is also important that if Black captures on e3, White recaptures there with hisf2-pawn and his pressure along the open f-file becomes rather unpleasantfor Black. White's unprotected b2-pawn proves to be poisoned in numer­ ous lines.

37

Chapter 4

1.e4 c5 2.lLIf3 lLIc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.lLIxd4 e6 5.lLIc3 e5 6. lLI db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.lLIa3 b5 9.lLId5

We can see on the diagram the basic position of the Chelyabinsk variation. In this chapter we will analyze all Black's sensible moves as well as after the most logical and popular move for him 9 J.e7 and White's obligatory move 1 0 .txf6 - the dubious line for Black 1 0 gxf6? ! - variation c). He has also tried among the rare­ ly played moves a) 9 J.e6?! and b) 9 . . :�a5 + . The other possibilities for Black seem to be even weaker: 9 . . . J.d7? ! , Popovic - Erkan, Tallinn 1997, lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3 !g7 IVt�c2 f5 13.exf5 ixf5 14. tLJce3 - see 9 . . . ie6; 9 . . . tLJd4?! - Black helps his opponent to centralize his knight with tempi. lO.c3 tLJe6 1l.ixf6 gxf6, Trefny - Inneman, Czech •••

•

•••

•••

38

Republic 1992 , 12 .tLJc2 tLJc5 13. YHf3± Black's central pawns are immobile and they restrict the scope of action of his dark-squared bishop; 9 . . . ib7? ! - The absence of Black's bishop from the c8-h3 di­ agonal helps White to control the fS-square. lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3 ig7 (It is terrible for Black to play 11 . . . ic8?, Balz - Sickert, Verden 1999, since he loses two crucial tempi and after White's most energetic reaction 12 .ixb5 ! axb5 13.tLJxb5�, Black comes under a crushing at­ tack.) 12 .tLJc2 0-0 (It is hardly any better for Black to try 12 . . . tLJe7 13.YHg4 �g8 14.tLJxe7 'ifixe7 15. tLJe3±) 13.id3 tLJe7, Brandstetter - Eberhard, Austria 1995 and here after 14.tLJxe7+ 'ifixe7 15. tLJe3± White controls the d5 and f5-squares and he has good at­ tacking prospects against Black's compromised kingside; 9 . . . h6? ! - That is an obvious loss of time. 10.hf6 gxf6 11.c3 f5 (About 11.. .ie6 12 .tLJc2 - see 9 . . . ie6; i n answer t o 11.. .ig7, Dhar Barua - Aguedo, Santiago 1990, White is totally dominant in the

5.tlJc3 e5 6. llJdb5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. llJa3 b5 9. llJ d5 centre after 12.'i;Yf3 0 - 0 13.llJc2 ie6 14.llJce3±; 11...l3gB - That is an attempt to organize some counterplay along the g-file. 12. Wf3 !!g6 13.h3 l3bB 14.llJc2 as, Kroeger - AMueller, Germany 1991 and here after IS.llJce3± it becomes obvious that the rook on g6 has no good scope of action, while Black's positional defects are evident.) 12.exfS ixf5 13.Wf3 id7 (It is a disaster for Black to opt for 13 . . . ie6 14.llJxbS axbS IS.ixbS l3cB I6.llJb4+- Farah - Se­ rafim, Mar del Plata 1992 and now even after his most tenacious de­ fence 16 . . . e4 17.Wxe4 dS IB.Wd4 ixb4 19.WxhB+ ifB 20.0-0+­ White's rook with pawns is much stronger than Black's passive cou­ ple of light pieces.) 14.llJf6+ We7, Firnhaber - Kirmse, Rostock 2 0 0 2 and here after IS.id3 ie6 (It is even worse for Black to play IS . . . l3cB 16.llJxd7+-, or IS . . . ig7 16.llJxd7 Wxd7 17.ie4+-) 16.llJdS+ wd7 17.llJc2 WbB IB. O-O± Black's king remains stranded in the cen­ ter an he is in for a big trouble; 9 .. JThB ? ! - Black determines the placement of his rook a bit too early. 1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 fS 12.exfS ixfS, Mohr - Peterwag­ ner, Austria 1995, 13.Wf3 WcB (It is not preferable for Black to try 13 . . . ie6 14.llJf6+ We7 IS.llJc2 ih6 16.l3dl± and White domi­ nates in the centre.) 14.llJf6+ WdB 1S.g4 ie6 (1S . . . ie7 16.gxfS ixf6 17.0-0-0 Wd7 1B.llJc2±) 16.llJc2 ie7 17.ig2± Black has no active

prospects due to the vulnerable position of his king.

a) 9 . . . ie6?! Black allows his pawns to be doubled on the f-file in the hope of advancing f6-fS at some mo­ ment, but in that case his light­ squared bishop comes to fS in two moves - icB-e6xfS, there­ fore White wins a tempo in com­ parison to the line 9.ixf6 gxf6 1O. llJdS.

10.ixf6 gxf6 lt.c3

We will see now the moves al)

It . . .f5 and a2) It . . . ig7. Black has also tried in prac­ tice: 1l . . . ie7? ! 12.llJc2 - see 9 . . . ie7 1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 ie6 12.llJc2, variation c; 1l ... hS? - That move does not contribute to the development of Black's pieces. 12.llJc2 ixdS, Zor­ ko - Serdt, Ptuj 2005 and here White's most aggressive reaction seems to be 13.exdS llJ e7 (or 13 . . . llJaS I4.b4 llJb7 1S.a4±) 14.a4 bxa4 1S.llJb4 Wd7 16.ixa6± and White remains with an extra pawn and a superior development; 39

Chapter 4 1l . . . h6? - Black loses time without any reason. 1VtJc2 fS (or 12 . . . ig7, Nekula - Kocab, Mora­ via 2 0 03, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ttJce3 0-0 1S.'i;1fxa4 ttJe7 16.id3±) 13.exfS ixfS 14.ttJce3 ig6 (In answer to 14 . . . ie6, Chiburdanidze - Mer­ lini, Buenos Aires 1978, it looks strong for White to follow with 1S.a4 ! l3b8 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6 id7 18.id3 and Black has no sat­ isfactory defence against 19.ifS with the unavoidable exchange of the light-squared bishops.) 1S.a4 l3b8 (or 1S . . . b4 16.aS ttJb8, Toth - Sebe Vodislav, Paks 1998 and after 17.'i;1fa4+ ttJd7 18.%Yxb4 ttJcS 19.ixa6+- Black loses plenty of material.) 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6 %Yc8 18.'i;1fb3± Akhigbe - Liwat, Saint Paul 2 000; 1l . . . ih6 - Black's bishop is not useful on that square. 12.ttJc2 ixdS 13.'i;1fxdS ttJe7 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7, Jimenez Alvarez - Llaneza Vega, Gijon 2 0 0 0 and here after 15.l3d1 fS (or 15 . . . l3d8 16.lLlb4 %Yb7 17.'i;1ff3 0-0 18.id3± White is in total control of the light squares in the centre.) 16.exfS %YxfS (Black should better refrain from 16 . . . lLlxfS 17.lLlb4 �f8 18.g3±, because he fails to discoordinate White's pieces after 18 . . . %Yb7? 19.%YxfS ! 'i;1fxh1 20.l3xd6+-) 17.%YxfS ttJxf5 18.g3 �e7 19.ttJb4± Black's central pawns are weak and his pieces are too passive; 1l . . J�b8? ! - This development of the rook is premature. 12.lLlc2 ixd5, Stertenbrink - Dornieden, 40

Germany 1984 and here after 13.exdS ttJe7 14.a4 ih6 1S.lLlb4± Black has problems with the pro­ tection of his queenside pawns; 1l . . . l3g8 - Black's rook has no good scope of action on the g-file, because White can play g2-g3 at any moment. 12 .ttJc2 ixdS (12 . . . fS - That pawn-advance i s pre­ mature too. 13.exfS ixfS, Ciampi - Antonischki, Italy 1998, 14.'i;1ff3 ! l3g5 1S.lLlf6+ �e7 16.h4+- and White wins material; 12 . . . l3c8 ? ! - This move compromises Black's queenside, Blimke - Korp, Rima­ vska Sobota 1992 , 13.a4±; 12 . . . ig4 - Black simply loses time, since the trade of the light-squared bishops is of course favourable for White. 13.ie2 ic8?! 14.lLlce3 ih6 1S. 0-0 �f8, Petters - Sanchez Carol, corr. 2004, 16.ig4 ixe3 17.ixc8 'i;1fxc8 18 .fxe3± Black is incapable of defending his weaknesses on the f-file. After 12 . . . ih6 13.lLlce3 ixe3 14.lLlxe3 lLlaS 1S.'i;1fhS± he has no compensation for his numerous weak pawns, Bentel - Hildenbrandt, Email 1997.) 13.%Yxd5 lLle7 (The move 13 . . . l3c8 - compromises Black's queenside and after 14.a4 'i;1fb6 1S.axb5 ttJe7 16.'i;1fb3 l3a8 17.g3± he remained a pawn down without any counter­ play, Butze - Matjusjinskij, corr. 1984.) 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7, Huber - Re­ uschl, Nuremberg 2005 and here after 15.l3d1 �7 (The endgame is difficult for Black in case of 15 .. .fS 16.exfS 'i;1fxfS 17.%YxfS lLlxf5 18.id3±) 16.g3 fS 17.ig2± and

S.tijc3 eS 6 . tiJ dbS d6 7. igS a6 B.ltJa3 bS 9.ltJdS White is much better prepared for opening of the centre; 1l .. Jk8 12.ltJc2 fS (About 12 . . . ig7 13.ltJce3 - see 11 . . . ig7 12.ltJc2 l'k8 13.ltJce3; 12 . . . hdS? ! - Black has problems protecting his queenside pawns after that exchange. 13.exdS ltJe7 14.a4 :1!c5 lS.axbS axbS, Baumegger - Her­ zog, Austria 1996, 16.ltJa3 ih6 17.hbS+ �f8 18. 0-0± White's pieces are much more active and he has an extra pawn. It would be very dangerous for Black to re­ capture it: 18 . . . :1!xdS 19.WlhS �g7 2 0.ic4+-, or 18 . . . ltJxdS 19.b4 ltJxc3 2 0.Wlh5+-; The move 12 . . . :1!b8 - enables White t o play ac­ tively on the queenside, Botter­ ill - Littlewood, Coventry 1970, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ltJce3±, or 13 . . . f5 14. axbS axbS 15.exfS !xfS 16. ltJce3±) 13.exf5 !xf5 14.ltJce3 ig6 (after 14 . . . ie6 lS.a4 hd5? ! 16. ltJxdS Wlh4 17.axbS+-, Black falls behind in development con­ siderably and he loses at least a pawn, Marduhajev - Wendland, Germany 1998) 15.a4 ig7 (It is not better for Black to opt for 15 . . . :1!b8 16.axbS axbS, Reppen - Steinskog, Copenhagen 2006, after 17.l'�a6 Wlc8 18.Wlf3+- he has hardly any appropriate defence against 19.:1!xc6, for example 18 . . . e4 19.Wlf6 :1!g8 2 0 .ie2 hS 21. 0-0+- and Black is practically s1.'lli emated completely.) 16.axbS axbS 17.h4 !± It is quite useful for White to include that move and Black failed to find successful de-

fence. 17 . . . h5 18.!xbS �f8 19.:1!a6 ltJb8 2 0 .:1!a7 ltJc6 21.!xc6 :1!xc6 22 .Wla4 :1!c8 23.ltJe7 1-0 Gallagher - Hannaske, Eupen 1993 ; 11 . . .!xd5 12.exdS ltJe7 (After 12 . . . ltJb8 13.id3 ltJd7 14.0-0± White has a total control over the light squares. Black cannot acti­ vate his pieces with the line : 14 . . . fS lS.hfS WIgS, Jones - Schmug­ gerow, Chicago 1989, because af­ ter the simple reaction 16.!xd7 + �xd7 17.c4 :1!g8 18.g3+- he has no compensation for the pawn. Black would not fare any bet­ ter if he fights for the f5-square with 12 . . . ltJa7 13.id3 h5 14.ltJc2 ih6 15.0-0± Tsyvarev - Koro­ Yin, St Petersburg 1997. Black is in trouble too following 12 . . . ltJa5 13.id3 :1!cB 14.0-0 h5 15.ifS±, his main problems is his bad dark-squared bishop and the lag in development. After 15 . . . :1!cS? 16.b4 :1!xc3 17.ltJbl :1!c4 18.bxaS Wlxa5 19.1tJd2+- Black has lost a piece and he has not solved any problems at all, Sharma - Islam, Chennai 2004.) 13.ltJxb5 :1!b8 (It is too risky for Black to try to regain his pawn with 13 . . . Wlb6 14.ltJa3 Wlxb2 15.Wla4+ �dB 16.WlaS+ �d7 17.:1!bl Wlxa2 18.:1!b7+ 1-0 Perez Diaz - Mateo Lopez, Mala­ ga 2000. His compensation for the pawn is rather dubious after 13 . . . ig7 14.ltJa3 0-0 15.ie2 f5 16. 0-0± Castelfranchi - Corvi, Rome 1991.) 14.ltJa3 Wla5 (Black loses following 14 . . . :1!xb2 15.Wla4+ Wld7 16.Wlxa6 �d8 17.ib5 Wlc7, 41

Chapter 4 Kosc - Formage, Debrecen 1992, and here White's simplest solu­ tion is 1S.tZlc4+-) 1S.tZlc4± Fressi­ net - Bienvenu, Montlucon 1997.

al) 1l . . . f5

Black accomplishes that the­ matic advance, but White is well prepared for it.

12.exfS hf5 After 12 . . ..bdS 13.WxdS tZle7 (It is evidently worse for Black to opt for 13 . . . :1kS 14.tZlc2 and here it is bad for him to try 14 . . . ElgS 1S.a4 tZlaS 16.axbS+- Abejon - Rivas, Madrid 2004, as well as 14 . . . WgS 1S.tZle3 1le7 16.a4 0-0 17.axbS axbS 1S.1lxbS tZldS 19.h4+- Ham­ mond - De Roo, Germany 19S9. It is more resilient for Black to de­ fend with 14 . . . tZle7 1S.Wf3 Wd7 16. tZle3 Wc6 17.Wxc6 + Elxc6, Kammer - Leiser, Regensburg 1997, 1S.a4 bxa4 19.Elxa4±, but even then he can hardly prove any sufficient compensation for the pawn, or 14 . . . Wb6 1S.tZle3 hS, Manninen Rauramaa, Finland 1995, and here after 16.f6 Elh6 17.Wf3± Black has problems with his develop­ ment and his king stranded in the 42

centre, while he remains a pawn down anyway.) 14.Wf3 dS (The other possibilities for Black do not seem natural: 14 . . . ElbS? 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.Wc6+ 1-0 Coelho - Jacob, Brazil 2004; 14 . . . 1lh6, Wallace Tulevski, Penrith 2 0 03, 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.Wc6+ @fS 17.Eld1+-; 14 . . . WcS 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.1ld3 Ela7 17.tZlc2 Elc7 1S.tZlb4+- Schutt - Dini, Brazil 2003; 14 . . . ElcS, James - Taylor, Telford 2004, 1S.f6 tZlc6 16.tZlc2 dS 17. 0-0-0± and Black has no compensation for the pawn, be­ cause his centre is vulnerable.) 1S.tZlc2 1lh6 (1S . . . Wb6, Chovanec - Hamarat, Internet 2 0 04, 16.tZle3 e4 17.Wf4 EldS 1S.f6 tZlgS 19.a4± Black's compensation for the pawn is evidently insufficient) 16.Eld1 e4 17.WhS Wd6 1S. 1le2 ElgS 19.Wh3 EldS 2 0 . 0- 0± Del Rio An­ gelis - Castaldo, Bratto 2 0 03.

13.Wf3

. §�. ,� . �; • .I � III � • .i.i i .l.A). • • � iif$a p":\ jijj % 1. . iif$a • i ."l-HL.� • • • • • j B .'i¥. fJ �f� • B fJ B � f . 1f4l% �i.. 1i . ,. .

'UN'

III

" .

�

13

•••

1le6

It is a disaster for Black to play 13 . . . WgS? 14.tZlc7+ @d7 1S. tZlxa8+- Buttner - Coronel, Bue­ nos Aires 2003. He would not save the game either with the line: 13 . . . 1ld7? 14.tZlf6+ @e7 1S.1ld3 1lg7 (or

S. !iJc3 eS 6.!iJdbS d6 7. j.gS a6 B. !iJa3 bS 9. !iJ dS 1S . . .l:!a7 16.�e4+-) 16.!iJxd7 VNxd7 17.�e4 gac8 18.i.fS+- Sadykov - De Silva, Doha 2003. After 13 ... j.g6 14.!iJf6+ @e7 1S. !iJdS+ @e8 16.id3 j.g7 17. 0-0 @f8 18.!iJc2 VNgS, Schemmann Karppa, Internet 2004, White ob­ tains a total control over the light squares in the centre with 19.!iJc7 VNe7! 20.hg6 V!!xc7 21.�e4±

14.�f6+ q;e7 15.�c2 J.h6 The move 1S . . . dS? ! - is too optimistic. Here, Black has problems protecting his central pawns. 16.gd1 e4 17.VNf4 VNb8? ! (This move loses, but even af­ ter the more tenacious line: 17 . . . J.g7 18.!iJxdS+ ixdS 19.!iJe3 !iJd4 2 0 .V!!g S+ @f8 21.VNxdS± White preserves his extra pawn and superior development.) 18.VNh4 !iJeS 19.!iJxdS+ @d6 20.VNxe4 fS 2 1.!iJc7+ 1-0 Johannsen - Papen­ kordt, Bad Sooden 2 003. It is hardly better for Black to try 1S . . . gc8 16.!iJe3 J.g7, Ptlich­ thofer - Trefzer, Wuerttemberg 1998, and here after 17.!iJfdS+ @f8 18.j.d3 !iJe7 19.!iJxe7 VNxe7 2 0 . 0-0±, Black's defence is dif­ ficult, because of the vulnerable placement of his king.

16.gdl VNfS (16 . . . gc8? 17.ltJe4 fS 18.ltJxd6+- Olives - Serra­ no, Palma de Mallorca 2002) 17.�d5+ .ixdS 18.ti'xd5 @d7 19.J.d3± - The light squares in Black's camp are catastrophi­ cally weak and his king is unsafe, moreover that the coordination of his pieces is not to be envied. The game ended very quickly: 19 . . . !iJe7 2 0.hbS+ axbS 21.VNxd6 + @c8 2 2 .VNd7+ @b8 23.ti'xbS+ @c8 24.VNcS+ @b8 2S.gd7 1-0 Isonzo - Bonaccorsi, Letojanni 2001.

a2) 1l ig7 ••.

This move looks the most natu­ ral - Black is preparing to castle.

12.!iJc2

12

•••

f5

About 12 . . . gb8 13.!iJce3 !iJe7 14.J.d3 - see 12 ... !iJe7 13.!iJce3 gb8 14.J.d3. 12 . . . gCS? ! - This rook is not useful on that square. 13.!iJce3 !iJe7 14.J.d3 ixdS 1S.exdS VNd7 16.ti'f3± Z.Almasi - Bigonnet, Bastia 200S. 12 ... !iJe7 - Black fights for the dS-square with that logical move. 13.!iJce3 1"lb8 (About 13 . . . 0-0 43

Chapter 4 14.i.d3 - see 12 . . . 0-0; in answer to 13 .. .fS, Gasik - Gramcow, Lac­ zna 2 002 , it seems logical for White to continue with 14.ttJxe7 Wixe7 lS.exfS i.d7 16.ttJdS WidS 17.i.d3± and he remains with a solid extra pawn. It is not better for Black to try 13 . . . ttJxdS 14.exdS i.d7 lS.i.d3 hS 16.Wif3 h4 17.i.fS± and his dark-squared bishop has no active scope whatsoever, Hardarson - S. Farago, Budapest 2 0 0S.) 14.i.d3 hS lS.0-0 WicS 16.Wif3 Elh6 17.h3± White has pre­ vailed in the fight for the central dS and fS-squares and after 17 . . . wfS lS. Elfc1 Elg6 19.c4 b 4 20.ttJxe7 Wxe7 21.ttJfS+ hfS 22.exfS Elh6 23.cS-+ the presence of opposite­ coloured bishops on the board enhances White's attack, Mus - Gaida, Poland 1991. 12 ... 0-0 - This is a natural move. 13.ttJce3 ttJe7 (About 13 . . . ElbS 14.i.d3 ttJe7 1S. 0-0 - see 13 . . . ttJe7 14.i.d3 ElbS ; in answer to 13 . . . WhS, Alaverdyan - Ruzicka, Volyne 2 0 03, it is logical for White to deploy at first his pieces according to the correct scheme and to start then active actions on the queenside with 14.i.d3 ElgS 1S.0-0 i.h6 16.a4±; 13 . . . WiaS? ! Roberts - Sanchez Carol, corr. 2 0 04, Black's queen is mis­ placed here, the only idea of the move is to push bS-b4, but White can parry that simply with 14.a3 !? ElfeS 1S.i.d3 ttJe7 16.0-0±) 14.i.d3 i.xdS (After 14 . . . ttJxdS 1S.exdS i.d7 16.WihS h6, Luchko - Dikinov, 44

Krasnodar 2001, White's consid­ erable advantage can be best em­ phasized with the accurate move 17.i.fS±; it is not preferable for Black to try 14 . . . ElbS lS.0-0 WhS, Zacik - Kovarik, Slovakia 2002, after 16.Wif3 i.xdS 17.exdS ttJg6 lS.g3± Black's pieces are deprived of any active prospects; 14 . . . WhS lS.Wif3 ttJg6 16.h4 i.xdS 17.exdS± Black's central pawns have been blocked and his knight has no reliable squares, his bishop is a sorry sight and it resembles a pawn. His attempt to free his po­ sition led him to a swift demise after 17 .. .fS lS.ttJxfS Wif6 19.hS ttJf4 20.h6+- Suarez Real - Bar­ rio Garcia, Spain 1996. Black has problems too following lS . . . ttJgS, Beltre - Saez, Balaguer 2 0 01, af­ ter 16.0-0 ElbS 17.Elfdl± his pieces are tied up with the protection of the f6-pawn and they have no ac­ tive prospects.) lS.exdS Wid7 (It is possibly best for Black to try lS .. .fS 16.i.xfS ttJxfS 17.ttJxfS WigS lS.Wif3 e4 19.Wih3±, although even then he can hardly claim any compensation for the pawn, Fe­ her - Domotor, Zalakaros 1995,) 16.0-0 fS? - This move blunders a pawn, but after 16 . . . ttJg6 17.WihS± Black's defence is problematic anyway - 17.i.xfS ttJxfS 1S.Wig4 whS 19.WixfS+- Garcia Martinez - Rodriguez Bachiller, Alcala de Henares 2006. 12 . . . hdS 13.WixdS (After 13. exdS ttJe7, Black has more chanc­ es to advance his f6-pawn, in

5.tDC3 e5 6.tDdbS d6 7. :1I.g5 a6 B.tDa3 b5 9.li:Jd5 comparison to the case when he postpones the exchange on d5.) 13 . . . ttJe7 14.'lWd3 d5 (The move 14 . . . 'lWb6? ! - looks strange, because his queen does not par­ ticipate in the preparation of the pawn-advances d6-d5 and f6-f5, C.Mamedov - Davidov, Baku 2 0 01, 15.:1I.e2 0-0 16.0-0 Ei:fdB 17.ttJe3±; after 14 . . .f5 15.exf5 d5, van den Doel - Darnstaedt, Berlin 1993 , White's most reliable line seems to be 16.:1I.e2 0-0 17. 0-0 'lWd7 1B.:1I.g4± and Black will have problems proving that his centre compensates fully the pawn defi­ cit. After 14 . . . 'lWd7 15.ttJe3 :1I.h6, Duda - Kucera, Liberec 2005, White must calmly complete his development, without being afraid of the trade of the passive bishop of his opponent. 16.:1I.e2 :1I.xe3 17.fxe3 ! 'lWe6 1B.O-O±. He must act in an analogous fashion in the variation: 14 . . . Ei:a7 15.ttJe3 :1I.h6, Baze - Manohar, Kalama­ zoo 2003, 16.:1I.e2 'lWb6 17. 0-0± and White's doubled e-pawns will impede Black to protect his weak­ nesses successfully.) 15.0-0-0 dxe4 16. 'lWxe4 'lWbB, Dluzniewski Grabek, Augustow 1997, and here after 17.ttJe3 :1I.h6 1B.g4± White prevents the advance of Black's f6-pawn and he maintains a clear advantage thanks to his superior development and his better pawn­ structure.

13.exf5 :1l.xf5 14.ttJce3 .!e6 14 . . . :1I.d7? ! - Black's bishop does not control the d5-square

from here, Mader - Kranabet­ ter, Austria 1992 , 15.:1I.d3 ttJe7 16.:1I.e4± It is possible for Black to try 14 . . . :1I.g6 15.h4 ! h5 (It is not pref­ erable for him to opt for 15 . . . h6 16.h5 :1I.h7 17.:1I.d3 :1l.xd3 1B.'lWxd3 Ei:bB 19.Ei:h3±. The central squares are in White's hands and Black has no counterplay in sight, Ghy­ sels - Yurtseven, Innsbruck 1977; while after 17 . . . e4 1B.:1I.xe4 :1l.xe4 19.'lWg4± White regains his piece, remaining either with a huge lead in development, or with an extra pawn, Todorovic - Rodic, Obrenovac 2 0 04) 16.a4 bxa4? (It is better for Black to follow with 16 . . . Ei:bB 17.axb5 axb5 1B.Ei:a6±, or even 16 . . . b4 ! ? 17.cxb4 ttJd4 1B.:1I.e2±, although it would be too hard for him to prove that his compensation for the pawn is suf­ ficint.) 17.'lWxa4 1-0 Firt - Adam­ cik, Moravia 1996.

15.:1I.d3

15 . . . ttJe7 15...:1l.xd5 16.ttJxd5 O-O?! (Black's king comes now right under the gun, but even after 16 . . . ttJe7 17. :1I.e4 Ei:cB 1B.ttJxe7 'lWxe7 19.:1I.d3± 45

Chapter 4 White maintains a stable edge thanks to his superior bishop.) 17.'lWhS fS? (After 17 ... h6 1B.WfS �eB 19.J.e4± White cannot check­ mate outright, but his pressure on the light squares is tremendously unpleasant for Black.) 1B.hfS h6 19.'lWg6+- J.Kozel - Vyboch, Ban­ ska Stiavnica 2006. 15 . . . 0-0 16.'lWhS h6 (The move 17 . . .fS looks attractive, but it is not the best. 17.lLlxfS �xfS 1B.ixfS hdS, Bonafede - Pechy, Venice 2003, and here after 19.�dl ! J.f7 2 0.hh7+ @fB 21.'lWf3 dS 2 2 .J.g6 'lWf6 23.'lWxf6 ixf6 24.ixf7 @xf7 2SJ�xdS± White has excellent winning chances thanks to his kingside pawns.) 17.J.e4 �cB (It is worse for Black to play 17. . . �a7 18.�d1 CiJe7 19. 0-0 CiJxdS 2 0.ixdS �eB, Wilhelm - Rudolph, Hessen 1996, because White's advantage is obvious after 21.he6 �xe6 22. �dS±. Black's d6-pawn is weak and White's knight is considerably stronger than Black's bishop. It is a disaster for Black to opt for 21... fxe6? 2 2 . �xd6+- and he remains a pawn down with a destroyed pawn-structure.) 1B.lLlfS hdS 19. ixdS 'lWf6, Diviak - Macko, Slova­ kia 2 0 03, after the natural reac­ tion 2 0 . 0- 0 CiJe7 21.lLlxe7+ Wxe7 22 .WfS �cS 23.�adl± White's prospects are clearly superior, be­ cause of his domination over the light squares and Black's compro­ mised king's position.

16.ie4 �c8 16 . . . �bB? ! - Black's king is 46

bound to remain in the centre after that move. 17.CiJxe7 'lWxe7 1B.!c6+ @fB 19. 0-0 fS 2 0 .idS f4 21.he6 Wxe6 2 2 .CiJdS �cB 23.Wf3 hS 24.a4± and despite the fact that Black has managed to advance f7fS, his position remains difficult, due to his passive bishop and the unsafe king, Zaragatski - Schalk, Cologne 2 0 04. Following 16 ... CiJxdS 17.hdS ixdS 1B.WxdS 0-0, Hitzgerova - Werner, Crailsheim 2000, it seems attractive for White to continue with 19.�dl± winning Black's d6-pawn.

17.0-0 lLlxd5 Or 17 . . . �cS 1B.a4 lLlxdS 19. ixdS ixdS 20.lLlxdS 0-0 21.axbS axbS 22 .'lWb3 'lWgS 23.�a6± and Black has problems protecting his vulnerable pawns. 23 . . . e4 24.�xd6 !eS 2S.�d7 @hB 26. 'lWb4+- Struik - van Kerkhof, Dieren 2003.

18.hd5 hd5 19.'lWxd5 �c5 20.�M3±

White maintains a stable edge due to his better development and the domination over the light squares in the centre, Yegiazarian - AI Ghasra, Yerevan 1996.

5. 0.c3 e5 6.0.db5 d6 7. �g5 a6 8. 0.a3 b5 9. 0. d5

b) 9

• • •

VfaS+

The grandmaster from Che­ lyabinsk G.Timoscenko, who is living presently in Slovakia, made a great contribution to the theory of this variation. Sometimes Kas­ parov and Radjabov tried that line . . .

1 0 .i.d2 Vfd8 Numerous games have ended here with a repetition of moves 1l.igS �aS+ 12 .id2 �d8 13.igS. This result however does not seem logical, because White has occu­ pied the central dS-square and he has a slight lead in development.

1l.c4 This is the most principled line, but it is also a bit risky. White is trying to exploit his temporary lead in development and he starts active actions on the queenside. Unfortunately, he has no advan­ tage after the calm line: 1l.0.xf6+ �xf6 12 .�d3 �g6 13.0-0 ie7 14. c4, in view of 14 . . . �g4 ! 1S.ie2 he2 ! 16.�xe2 O-O ! ? Black en­ joys an excellent game thanks to the unfavourable placement of his opponent's knight and White's at­ tempt to centralize it turns out to

be just a loss of time: 17.0.c2 �fc8 18.cxbS axbS 19.f3 dS+ Black has no weaknesses at all and his piec­ es are much more active, Chek­ masov - Krohalev, corr. 2000.

Black has two main possibili­ ties here - the most popular bl) 1l 0.xe4, and the most reliable •••

b2) 1l b4. •••

His alternatives do not look convincing: About 1l . . . 0.d4 12.cxbS 0.xdS 13.exdS - see 11. . . 0.xdS? ! 12.exdS 0.d4 13.cxbS; 1l . . . ig4?? Radchenko - Rza­ kuliev, Russia 2004, this grave blunder is punished after 12. 0.xf6+ �xf6 13.�xg4+-; 1l . . . bxc4?! - That exchange is favourable for White, because it enables him to bring into action his knight on a3. 12.0.xc4 0.xe4 (After 12 . . . 0.xdS 13.exdS 0.q4 14. id3 �b8 1S.0-0 fS 16.f4± Black falls behind considerably in devel­ opment and his centre is unstable, Reschun - Erlbeck, Finkenstein 1994. It is not any better for Black to opt for 12 . . . �b8 13.�gS 0.d4 14.hf6 gxf6 1S.id3 id7 16.0-0 ig7? - the least of evils for Black 47

Chapter 4 would have been the line: 16 . . . i.c6 17.f4 i.g7 1B.�g4± with a dif­ ficult position for him, but with equal material - 17.ttJxd6+ �fB 1B.ttJc4± Black has remained a pawn down without any compen­ sation in sight, Rahal - Cebada Benitez, Sanlucar 2 001.) 13.ttJcb6 :gbB (The move 13 . . . ttJxd2? - loses quickly after 14.ttJxaB ttJxf1 15. ttJac7+ �d7 16.�g4+ 1-0 Peraza Zalingen - Exposito Alfonso, Te­ nerife 2006. The move 13 . . . �h4? - only looks active, but in fact it leads to material losses. 14.i.e3 :gbB 15.�a4 i.d7, Krayushkin - Whitfield, Belfort 2005, and here after 16.ttJxd7 �xd7 17.:gc1 +­ Black is incapable of protecting his pinned knight.) 14.i.e3 ! i.b7 (It is also bad for Black to follow with 14 .. .f5? 15.:gc1 i.b7 16.,ixa6 ,ixa6 17.:gxc6� and White's at­ tack is decisive. It is not to be rec­ ommended to Black to play 14 . . . ttJc5 15.ttJxcB :gxcB? 16.b4+- and he loses the important a6-pawn, or 15 . . . �xcB 16.:gb1 ttJb4 17.ttJxb4 :gxb4 1B.a3 :gbB 19.i.c4 i.e7 20.b4 ttJe6 21.:gc1�, Black's a6-pawn is weak and White's pieces are much more active. In case of 16 . . . ttJe6 17.i.c4 i.e7 1B.0-0 0-0-0 19.�a4± White restores the mate­ rial balance and he obtains supe­ rior prospects thanks to his cou­ ple of powerful bishops and his dangerous passed pawns on the queenside.) 15.�a4 ttJc5 (Black would not change much with 15 . . .f5 16.:gc1 ttJc5 17.,ixc5 dxc5 4B

1B.,ixa6±) 16.,ixc5 dxc5, Ramirez - Glimmerveen, Dos Herma­ nas 2 0 04, and here after White's natural reaction 17.,ixa6 �d6 lB. i.b5± Black has problems com­ pleting his development, because he loses after the natural line: lB . . . i.e7? 19.:gd1 0-0 2 0.,ixc6 ,ixc6 21.ttJxe7+ �xe7 2 2 .�xc6 +-; 11. . . ttJxd5? ! - White obtains dangerous queenside passed pawns after that move. 12.exd5 ttJd4 (The other possibilities for Black are hardly any better: 12 . . . ttJa7? ! - This knight i s too passive here. 13.cxb5 :gbB 14.bxa6 :gxb2 15.ttJc4 :gbB 16.i.e3 �e7, Limon­ nikov - Mirthouk, corr. 1995, and here after 17.:gb1! �c7 1B.:gxbB �xbB 19.�b3 +- Black's passive knight is lost unavoidably; 12 . . . ttJe7? ! - Black maintains the ma­ terial balance after that move, but he falls behind in development. 13.cxb5 ttJxd5 14.iWf3 ! i.e6 15.bxa6 ttJf6 16.i.b5+ i.d7 17.,ixd7+ ttJxd7 1B.ttJb5 :gcB ? ! 19.a7+- Riabtsev - Ekdyshman, Nizhnij Novgorod 1999. It would be more tena­ cious for him to opt for 1B . . . :gxa6 ! 19.�e2 ! ttJc5 2 0 . 0- 0 i.e7 21.b4 ttJe6 22.a4± although here White's queenside pawns seem to be much more dangerous than Black's cen­ tral pawns.) 13.cxb5 i.e7 (The move 13 . . . �h4 - looks very ag­ gressive, but Black's other pieces are not well prepared to support any premature active actions. 14.i.d3 i.e7 15. 0-0 0-0 16.bxa6 f5, Plotek - Michel, Nachod

5. liJc3 e5 6. liJdb5 d6 7.1g5 a6 8. liJ a3 b5 9. liJ d5 1999, and here after 17.1e3, Black seems to be beyond salvation, for example: 17 . . . 1J.xa6 1B.1J.xa6 l3xa6 19.1J.xd4 exd4 2 0.'lWe2 +-, or 17 .. .f4 1B.1J.xd4 exd4 19.l3e1+- and Black has no compensation for the pawn in both these variations.) 14.ic3 0-0 15.bxa6 f5 (It deserves at­ tention for Black to try 15 . . . 'lWb6 ! ? 16.liJc4 'lWc5 17.b4 'lWxd5 1B.liJe3 'lWc6 19.13c1 d5, Oeller - Bletz, corr. 1993, White must exploit his extra pawn on the queenside with a maximal effect and after 2 0 .a4! Black can hardly prove that he has any compensation for it, for example: 20 . . . 'lWd6 21.b5 ie6 2 2 .id3± White's pawns are ready to advance at any moment, while Black's powerful knight on d4 can be captured at ease. Or 20 . . . 'lWh6 21.b5 ia3 22.l3b1 ic5 23.'lWd2 l3dB 24.ia5± and the ac­ tivity of Black's pieces is insuffi­ cient to equalize, while after 21 . . . ic5 2 2 .1J.xd4 ! 1J.xd4 23.'lWd2 ie6 24.ie2± White's pawns are ready to continue with the offensive.) 16.id3 f4 17.1J.xd4 exd4 1B.0-0 f3 19.93±. Black has problems proving that the vulnerable posi­ tion of White's king is a sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawns. 19 . . . ig4 (The move 19 . . . 1J.xa6? ! - i s too greedy and it only leads to favourable simplifica­ tions for White. 2 0.1J.xa6 l3xa6 21.liJb5± Black loses unavoidably his d4-pawn and later he would have problems with the protec­ tion of his f3-pawn, for example:

21.. .'lWeB 2 2 .liJxd4 'lWh5 23.l3e1 idB 24.l3e3 ib6 25.l3xf3+-; 19 . . . 'lWd7 - This move i s a n attempt by Black to checkmate immediately. 20.l3e1 1J.xa6 21.1J.xa6 l3xa6 2 2 .l3e6 l3a5 23.'lWe1 idB 24.'lWe4± Black has no chances of equalizing, be­ cause of his weak pawns on d4, d6 and f3.) 20 .l3e1 if6 (It is essential that Black's checkmating attempt does not work after 20 . . . l3f6 21.liJc2 l3h6 22.liJxd4 'lWeB 23.liJc6 'lWh5 24.liJxe7+ @hB 25.h4+-) 21.'lWc2 h5 22.liJb5 l3cB (It seems more resilient for Black to defend with 22 . . . h4 23.'lWc7 l3xa6 24.'lWxdB l3xdB 25.a4+-, although even then it is far from clear how he can fight against White's passed pawns.) 23.'lWa4 h4 24.liJxd4+-, Black is already three pawns down and he has no attacking chances in sight, Schneider - Varela, Buenos Aires 2003.

bl) 1l . . . liJxe4 This response by Black seems to be the most natural - he cap­ tures White's central pawn.

12.cxb5

12

ie6

•••

49

Chapter 4 Some other moves have been rarely tried here too: 12 . . . tLle7? ! 13.i.e3 ! EibB 14.i.c4 \WaS+ (about 14 . . . i.e6 - see 12 . . . i.e6 13.i.c4 tLle7 14.i.e3 EibB? ! ) 15.b4 ! \Wxa3 16.i.c1 tLlc3 17.\Wd2 \Wa4 1B.i.b3 tLlexd5 19.ha4 tLlxa4 20.\WxdS+- Black's two light piec­ es cannot compensate sufficiently the absence of the queen, because of Black's lag in development, Mikhalchishin - Timoscenko, Tbilisi 1974; The move 12 ... tLlxd2? Pereira - Midugno, Caxias do SuI 1975, enables White to obtain a far-ad­ vanced passed pawn - 13.bxc6 ! tLlxfl (It is not any better for Black to play "the active line": 13 . . . tLle4 14.c7 \wh4 15.g3 tLlxg3 16.fxg3 1Mfe4+ 17.�f2 \Wxh1 1B.i.bS+-) 14.c7 \Wd7 (After 14 ... \Wh4 15.�xf1 Eia7 16.\Wc2 \Wg4 17.tLlc4 i.e7 lB. tLlcb6 +- White wins easily, be­ cause of his passed c7-pawn and his powerful knight on d5.) lS.tLlc4 1Mfc6 16.tLlcb6+- and Black loses unavoidably plenty of material; 12 . . . tLld4 - This aggressive move has brought to Black until now only disappointing results, despite the fact that it is not worse than the main line: 13.b6 ! i.e7! This strong move has not been tried in practice yet, but it is the only one, which enables Black to hold the position. (In all other cases, Black's situation is tre­ mendously difficult: 13 . . . tLle6?? 14.1Mfa4+ \Wd7 15.\Wxe4+- and he loses a piece, Grabics - Schroter, 50

Hungary 2002; 13 ... EibB? 14.i.e3 i.b7 lS.tLlc7+ �e7 16.hd4 exd4 17.\Wxd4+- Black is without a pawn and his king is stranded in the centre, Halas - Kasioura, Pi­ raeus 1999; 13 . . . i.b7? ! 14.tLlc7+ �d7 lS.i.e3 tLlfS 16.1Mfg4 g6 17. tLlxaB hS 1B.\Wh3 \WxaB 19.i.d3± Black's compensation for the ex­ change is evidently insufficient, Dervishi - Avdic, Halle 1995; 13 . . . \Wh4? ! - This move only looks ag­ gressive. After the forced move 14.i.e3, Black loses quickly by playing 14 . . . i.e7 lS.hd4 i.g5 16. g3 tLlxg3 17.fxg3 \We4+ 1B. �f2 \WxdS 19.i.g2 e4 2 0 .he4 1-0 Pacher - Balko, Tatranske Zruby 2006. It was somewhat better for him to try 14 . . . i.b7 lS.tLlc7+ �dB 16.hd4 exd4 17.1Mfxd4±, but even then his compensation for the pawn would be rather dubious, due to his centralized king, Kjar­ tansson - Skrondal, Espoo 2006; 13 . . . tLlxd2 ? ! 14.tLlc7+ �e7 15.\Wxd2 EibB 16.Eic1 i.e6 17.\WaS± White has a clear advantage thanks to his powerful passed pawn and Black's unsafe king, Ilievski - Og­ njanovic, Yugoslavia 1994.) 14. i.e3 ! (It is too risky for White to capture the rook as you can see in the following variation: 14.tLlc7+ �fB lS.tLlxaB i.h4 16.i.e3 \wf6 17.g3 tLlf3+ lB. �e2 tLld4+ and if White wishes to play for a win, he must begin a march with his king: 19.�d3 \wfS 20.�c4 dS+ 21.�b4 i.e7+ 22.�aS tLlc6+ 23.�a4 d4--t, or he must try to prove he has

S. tiJ c3 e5 6. tiJ dbS d6 7. j,gS a6 B. tiJ a3 bS 9. tiJ dS some compensation for the queen in the line: 19.hd4 ig4+ 20.�e1 hd1 21.b7 �e7+) 14 . . . 0-0 lS.j,c4 tiJf6 16.0-0 �bS 17.hd4 exd4 lS.tiJxe7+ VNxe7 19.VNxd4:t Black will capture White's passed b6pawn indeed, but his queenside pawns are weak and the endgame is better for White.

13 .ic4 .

13

• .•

tiJe7

13 . . . tiJd4? ! - This aggressive move is in the spirit of the varia­ tion, but that is insufficient for it to be considered as strong. 14.b6 ! �cS lS.tiJc7+ �xc7 (Black should better give up the exchange im­ mediately; otherwise his king would remain in the centre and he would be forced to give up the exchange after lS . . . �e7 16.�cl±) 16.bxc7 VNxc7 17.he6 fxe6 1S.0-0 tiJxd2 19.VNxd2 dS, Maas - Schulz, Internet 2 0 03, and here White obtains a considerable advantage following 2 0 . �ac1 VNb6 21.tiJc2 VNxb2 2 2 .VNe3 ! tiJxc2 (It looks too passive for Black to play 22 . . . tiJc6 23.tiJe1 tiJdS 24.tiJd3±) 23.VNe2 id6 24.�xc2 VNbS 2S.�b2± and he is faced with an unpleasant

choice - to give up his a6-pawn, or to leave his king in the centre, where after VNhS+ it will come un­ der the attack of opponent's heavy pieces. 13 . . . tiJaS - Black captures White's light-squared bishop and he wins a pawn, but his king remains in the centre for long. 14.j,e3 tiJxc4 (The move 14 . . . �bS? - is a loss of time and it would lead to Black's swift demise, Rup­ precht - Hertel, Bayern 2 0 0 0 , lS.bxa6 ! tiJxc4 16.VNa4+ Here, no matter how Black interposes against that check, he loses mate­ rial : 16 . . . VNd7 17.a7 �aS lS.tiJc7+ �dS 19.VNxd7+ hd7 20.tiJxaS +­ White has already an extra ex­ change and he has goos chances of collecting another piece for his a7-pawn, or 16 . . . id7 17.VNxc4 VNaS+ lS.b4 VNxa3 19.VNxe4 fS 2 0 . a7+- White i s threatening not only axbSVN, but also VNc4 with an attack, or aSVN, followed by a fork on the c7-square.) lS.tiJxc4 axbS (It is worse for Black to play lS . . . tiJcS? ! 16.b6 hdS 17.VNxdS �cS lS.0-0± and White ends up with a huge lead in development and a powerful passed pawn, while after lS . . . VNd7?, Suran - Buchar, Nym­ burk 1997, White wins immedi­ ately with the line: 19.hcS �xcS 20.VNaS + �e7 21.b7+- with deci­ sive material gains, or 19 . . . dxcS 2 0 .b7+-) 16.j,b6 ! VNgS, Marjano­ vic - Nathanail, Korinthos 1999 (In answer to 16 ... VNbS, Calzetta Monica - Hernando Inmaculada, Sl

Chapter 4 Spain 1998, it is also very strong for White to follow with 17.ttJc7+ !
Wiel, Moscow 1982 , the sequence of forced move has ended and the accurate move 23.
14.!e3

14 . . . �a5+ 14 . . . ttJxd5? - This is a blunder. 15.hd5 Wfa5+ (It looks more te­ nacious for Black to continue with 15 . . . hd5 16.�xd5 ttJf6 17.�c6+ ttJd7 18.Eic1+-, although even then he is catastrophically behind in development.) 16.
S. I1Jc3 e5 6 . l1J dbS d6 7. j.gS a6 B. l1Ja3 bS 9. l1J dS Dgebuadze - Darnstaedt, Berlin 1995. 14 . . J:!bB? ! - That is not the most active position for Black's rook. IS.0-0 axbS 16.l1JxbS !xdS (It is not to be recommended to Black to try 16 . . . l1JxdS 17.hdS �xbS 18.Wla4 Ad7 19.Wlxe4 f5 20.Wlc4 f4 21.id2 ! �xb2 2 2 .it7+ We7 23.ixf4 !±, because not only White's pawn-structure is superi­ or, but he has better development and good attacking prospects.) 17.hdS l1JxdS lB.WlxdS l1Jf6 19.Wlc4 Ae7 2 0.l1Jc7+ wfB 21.�fdl hS, Pe­ trushin - Timoscenko, Tbilisi 1974 (After the "greedy" line: 21...�xb2 2 2 .a4 WlcB 23.aS l1JeB 24.�dc1 +- Black seems helpless to cope with White's passed as­ pawn.), but here Black will need to stop his oppionent's connected passed pawns, which is tremen­ dously difficult: 2 2 .b4 ! Wld7 23.a4 �cB 24.�ac1 WgB 2S.bS+14 . . . �cB ? ! - G.Kasparov played like that, as early as 19B7 and he had fantastic results then, so that move was even more popular than 14 . . . WlaS+, but it created less problems for White. IS.Ab6 ! ? Wld7 16.bxa6 ! ! - This capturing obvi­ ously refutes the entire variation, but White still needs to play very precisely. 16 . . . �xc4 (The move 16 . . . l1JxdS - is without any sting - 17.!XdS hdS IB.WlxdS I1Jf6 19.V;VaS ! ± White follows all that by castling and later he occupies the c-file and realizes his extra passed a6-pawn.) 17.a7! ixdS (After 17. . .

I1JxdS lB.aBWl+ �cB I9.Wlaa4 I1Jxb6 20.V;Vxe4± Black's two light pieces are not sufficient to compensate the missing queen.) IB.l1Jxc4 ! (But not IB.WlxdS? I1JxdS I9.aBWl+ �eB 2 0.V;VxdS I1Jf6 ! + and Black's centre advances ominously.) IB . . . iaB ! (The move I B . . . Wlc6? - los­ es in view of 19.�cl ! + - ; IB . . . WlbS 19.V;Vb3 ! ± White's a7-pawn is very dangerous, so his rook is stronger than his opponent's two light piec­ es; moreover that Black lags in de­ velopment. IB . . .j.b7 - This square is not so suitable for the retreat of the bishop. 19.f3 ! lDcB 2 0 .fxe4 he4 21.0-0 lDxb6 2 2 .lDxb6 Wlxa7 23.V;Vb3 fS 24.�ael± and because of the threat 2S.�xe4 ! with a checkmating attack, Black fails to complete his development, while in the line: 19 . . . dS 20.l1JxeS WlbS 21. V;Vb3± White not only re­ mains with a material advantage and a passed pawn, but he leads considerably in development as well.) 19.f3 dS (It is not better for Black to play 19 . . . lDcB 2 0 .fxe4 he4 21.0-0 ie7 2 2 .ie3± - since he has no compensation for the exchange.) 20.lDxeS V;Ve6 (In an­ swer to 20 . . . WlbS, Bergsson - As­ geirsson, Reykjavik 2 00S, White should better transfer into an endgame with the line: 21.Wlb3 ! lDd6 2 2 .V;VxbS+ I1JxbS 23.a4 lDd6 24.b4± and Black will have great problems to fight against his opponent's queenside passed pawns.) 21.ic7! lDcS (The move 21.. .l1Jc6? ! - enables White to orS3

Chapter 4 ganize a dangerous attack 2 2.fxe4 lLlxe5 23 . .b:e5 'i;Vxe5 24.'i;Va4+ - and here, depending on which side Black's king goes, White castles on the same side: 24 . . . �e7 25.0-0-+, 24 . . . �d8 25.0-0-0-+ with a very dangerous attack for White in both cases. After 2 2 . . . i.b4+ 2 3 . �e2± White parries all the threats, preserving the ex­ tra exchange and his a7-pawn.) 2 2 JWe2 ! ? White's main threat here is 23.'i;Vb5+, and Black has great problems, because of his undeveloped kingside and the unsafe placement of his king. 22 . . . lLlc6 23.'i;Vb5 f6 24.�b8+ �e7 25. �xa8 £XeS 26J�cl ! - Af­ ter that strong move, Black has problems with his king and with the development of his kingside. In addition, White has a danger­ ous passed a7-pawn and the fol­ lowing variations confirm Black's difficulties: 26 . . . �t7 27.0-0 �d7 28.i.b6 lLlb7 29.�hl �g8 30.b4+­ and Black loses plenty of mate­ rial; 26 . . . �f6 27. 0-0 �g8 28.�b8 !J.e7 29.�b6+- Black will capture the a7-pawn indeed, but only at the price of a piece; 26 . . . lLld3+ 27.�d2 lLlxcl 28.�xcl lLlxa7 (In answer to 28 ... �d7, it is good for White to follow with 29.�dl ! 'i;Vg6 30 .�xc6+ �xc6 3Ul:xc6+- and his pawn promotes.) 29.�xa7 �f6 30.'i;Vb7+- White has an ex­ tra pawn and a crushing attack against his opponent's king.

15.�f1 15. �e2 - That move used to be 54

considered as the best for a long time, but after 15 . . . �c8 16 .�d3 lLlc5 ! ? Black's prospects would be at least equal, Kozirev - Somkin, Che1yabinsk 2000.

15 . . gc8 .

After 15 . . . �b8 16. �cl, Black can choose between two equally srtrong possibilities : 16 . . . lLlxd5 - This is the first. (It is obviously worse for Black to play 16 . . . .b:d5 17.!J.xd5 lLlf6 18 .ib3 d5, Kacheishvi1i - Stajkov, Stockerau 1993, and he can hardly protect the vulnerable light squares in his camp and his unsafe king in the centre. After 19.b6!±, Black loses, for example in the line: 19 . . . d4 20 .!J.a4+ lLld7 21.�c7 �d8 22.lLlc4+-) 17.!J.xd5 lLlf6 18 .i.c6+ lLld7, Nevednichy - Croenne, La Fere 2003, and here White's most aggressive continuation seems to be 19.1Llc4 �c7 (Following 19 . . . ixc4+ 20.l'l:xc4 axb5 2 1.'i;Vd5 i.e7 22 .�c3 !� Black's king remains in the centre, he has a weakness on b5 and his pieces are disc­ cordinated. White has an excel­ lent compensation for the pawn.) 20.�a4 axb5 (In case of 2 0 . . .

S,CiJc3 eS 6 . l:iJ dbS d6 7. igS a6 B. l:iJa3 bS 9. l:iJ dS ixc4+ 21.B:xc4 axb5 2 2 .ixb5 'i«dB 23.id2 ! + - White's huge lead in development should be decisive.) 21.ixb5 �dB (The move 21 . . . d5 - is less resilient. 22.l:iJa5 �d6 23.B:c6 �4 24.B:xe6+ fxe6 25.ixd7+ @t7 26.'i«xb4 B:xb4 27.b3+- White's two light pieces together with his queenside passed pawns are doubtlessly stronger that Black's rook. It is even worse for Black to opt for 23 . . . �e7 24.B:a6 'i«f6 25.l:iJc6+- and he would need to give up the exchange.) 22.l:iJa5 B:aB 23.l:iJc6 B:xa4 (or 23 . . . 'i«cB 24.'i«d1 �7 25.a4±) 24.l:iJxdB B:xa2 25.l:iJxe6 fxe6 26.B:c7 B:a1+ 27.icl± Black's central pawns are potentiallt strong indeed, but they would not be sufficient to com­ pensate the exchange, which he would unavoidably lose. The move 16 . . . 1:iJf5 - is the sec­ ond possibility for Black. 17.'i«d3 I:iJc5 1B.ixc5 dxc5, Peschlow - Guthrie, Biel 2005, and here White obtains a huge advantage after 19.b6 B:dB 20.l:iJc7+ ! (It is essential for White to deprive his opponent of castling; therefore he should refrain from 20.g4? ! ixd5 21.ixd5 I:iJd4 2 2 .b7 ie7 23.l:iJc4 �c7 24.�e4 O-Of±, or 2 2 .l:iJc4 �5 23.�e4 ie7 24. @g2 O-Of± and in both cases, Black is at least not worse.) 20 . . . @e7 21.l:iJd5+ @eB (After 21.. .ixd5 22.�xf5 'i«xb6 23.�xe5+ �e6 24.'i«c3± Black's king is weak and he lags in de­ velopment.) 2 2 .g4 I:iJd4 (It is not better for Black to try 22 . . . ixd5

23.ixd5 1:iJd4 24.l:iJc4 �5 25.'i«e4 ie7 26.@g2±, because his power­ ful knight on d4 does not com­ pensate his lag in development and White's dangerous passed pawn.) 23.l:iJc7+ @e7 24.ixe6 fxe6 (After 24 . . . l:iJxe6 25.�xa6 'i«d2 26.B:e1+- Black can hardly counter his opponent's powerful passed pawn.) 25.l:iJc4 'i«xa2 26. @g2 g6 27.l:iJxe5± White's huge lead in development will soon turn into a decisive attack. It is hardly any better for Black to opt for 17. . . l:iJxe3 + (instead of 17 . . . l:iJc5) 1B.'i«xe3 I:iJf6 19.b4 I:iJxd5 (After 19 . . . �dB 20.l:iJxf6+ gxf6 21.bxa6± Black has a hard task coping with White's a6-pawn.) 20 .ixd5 'i«b6 (Now, the line : 2 0 . . . 'i«dB 21.ic6+ id7 22 .bxa6± looks even worse for Black, than in the previous comment.) 21. �xb6 B:xb6 2 2 .B:c6 B:xc6 23.ixc6+ id7 24. ixd7+ @xd7 25.bxa6 d5 26.l:iJc2 id6 27.@e2± White has consoli­ dated his position and his pawns would gradually advance. After 1B . . . l:iJd2+ 19.@g1 B:cB (Or 19 . . . I:iJxc4 20.l:iJxc4 �xa2? 2 1.'i«a7+-, alternatively 2 0 . . .'i«dB 21.l:iJcb6 ixd5 22.l:iJxd5 axb5 23.l:iJc7+ @e7 24.f4� and White has a danger­ ous attack on the weakened light squares.) 2 0 .b4 I:iJxc4 21. B:xc4 ! 'i«a4 22.B:xcB + ixcB 23.'i«c1 ib7 24.l:iJc7+ @dB 25.bxa6 ixa6 26. I:iJxa6 'i«xa6 27.h4 !± White's rook enters the actions first and it should decide the outcome of the game. 55

Chapter 4 16 .!Ob6 hc4+ •

Black would not fare any bet­ ter after 16 . . J:!b8 17.VNc2 .!Of6 18. he6 fxe6 19 . .!Obc4 VNc7 (In case of 19 . . . V9b4 2 0.Ad2 'lWc5 21.b4 VNc7 22 .bxa6± White preserves a solid extra pawn and good attack­ ing prospects.) 2 0.bxa6 lLled5 21. 'lWa4+ 'lWd7 (The move 21 ... 'it>t7 loses by force after 22.lLlb5 lLlxe3+ 23.fxe3 VNc5 24.a7 ga8 25.gc1 'it>g8 26.b4 VNc6 27.'lWa5+-) 22 .a7 ga8 23.VNxd7+ 'it>xd7 24.lLlb5 'it>c6 25. a4 lLlxe3 + 26.fxe3+- White is to­ tally dominant on the queenside.

b2) 1l . . .b4

S.Andersson - Novoa, Inter­ net 2 003.

This line was considered un­ satisfactory for Black for a long time, but things were far from clear; moreover, it looked like White had greatest difficulties to obtain a considerable advantage just there.

Here, the most energetic line for White seems to be: 18.bxa6!

Naturally, White should not fall into the trap - 12.'lWa4? Ad7 13.lLlb5 lLlxd5-+ It is not good for White to play 12.lLlxb4? lLlxb4 13.hb4 lLlxe4+ and Black dominates in the cen­ tre and White's attempt to make a double attack leads to a quick pun­ ishment for him after: 14.'lWd5? 'lWb6 ! 15.'lWxa8 'lWxb4+ 16.'it>e2 'lWd2 + 17.'it>f3 lLlg5+ 18.'it>g3 VNf4#

17.lLlbxc4 Yfl>4

12 .!Oc2 •

gxc4 19.1Llxc4 'lWxc4+ 2 0 .ti'e2 �a4 21.a7 .!Od5 22.gc1± and his passed a7-pawn should be suffi­ cient to win the game. In our work with this varia­ tion, we have used analyses by the grandmasters from Chelyabinsk E.Sveshnikov and R.Sherbakov as well as by the famous theoretician from Brazil - Luis Roberto Da Costa Junior. 56

12 . . . .!Oxe4 This sharp move is the most principled for Black, but he has tried in practice some calmer moves: 12 . . . gb8 ? ! - This move is a loss of time. 13.Ad3 as 14. 0-0 Ae7 15.f4 ! ? lLld7 (It is too danger­ ous for Black to opt for the line: 15 . . . 0-0 16.f5±) 16.lLlce3 lLlc5 17. Ab1 exf4 (after 17 . . . 0-0 18.f5t

5. 0, c3 e5 6 . 0, db5 d6 7. ig5 a6 8. 0,a3 b5 9. 0, d5 White's kingside initiative may turn into a powerful attack) 18.0,fS hfS (In the line: 18 . . . if6 19 . .txf4 hfS 2 0 .0,xf6+ 'lWxf6 21.exfS 0,eS 2 2 .ic2± White's bishop should be much more powerful than Black's knight.) 19.exfS O-O? (It is better for Black to play 19 . . . if6 20.0,xf6+ - see 18 . . .if6 19.hf4 hfS 2 0 . 0, xf6 + ) 2 0 .hf4 0,eS 21.heS ! Now, White has a crushing attack and at the end, he wins material, which is more than sufficient to win the game. 21 . . . dxeS 22.f6 hf6 23.Eixf6 ! gxf6 24 . .tfS ! h6 2S.'lWg4+ @h8 2 6.'lWh4 @g7 27.'lWg3 + @h8 2 8.'lWe3+- White has two pieces for a rook and Black's king posi­ tion remains quite unsafe, Kunte - Rahman, Sri Lanka 2001; 12 ... aS - This is a solid move. 13.!gS .te7 14.0,xe7 0,xe7 (In answer to 14 . . . 'lWxe7 lS.0,e3 !e6, Andres Gonzalez - Lopez del Alamo, Aviles 1999, it seems logi­ cal for White to play 16.0,dS hdS 17.cxdS 0, d4 18.id3 0-0 19. 0-0 h6 - it is too risky for Black to continue with 19 . . . a4 2 0.f4t, since the pawn-shelter of his king will soon be compromised - 2 0.ie3 1!fc8 21.f3;1; Black's position seems solid, but White's bishops look quite capable of destroying it in the future.) lS.'lWd3 ib7 16.f3 'lWc7, Gavrikov - Ziegler, Gothenburg 2000, 17.0,e3 0-0 18.'lWd2 @h8 19 . .!e2;1; - Black has no coun­ terplay, despite the fact that his situation looks stable enough. Meanwhile, White has an evident

dominance in space and the two­ bishop advantage.

13. 0, cxb4

13

•••

ib7

About 13 . . . id7 14. 0,xc6 ixc6 lS.!e3 - see 13 . . . ib7 14.0,xc6 hc6 15.ie3. 13 . . . 0,xb4 14.ixb4 0,f6 (It is worse for Black to play 14 . . . a5? ! lS.h3 0,c5 16.'lWe2 0,e6 17.Eid1 Eib8 18.g3±, since his d6-pawn is weak and the coordination of his pieces has been disrupted. 18 . . . 0,c7 19.cS ! ? 0,bS? - The least of evils for Black would have been the line: 19 . . . 0,xdS 20.EixdS ie6 2 1.Eid2 f6 22.cxd6±, although even then he would have no com­ pensation for the sacrificed pawn - 2 0 .'lWxbS+ Eixb5 2 1.hbS+ !d7 2 2 .c6 1-0 O.Rubtsova - M.Mi­ lovanovic, corr. 1979. The entire variation was considered dubious for Black, based on that game.) lS.0,xf6+ gxf6 ! ? , Muharemagic - Cardelli, Internet 2003 (Af­ ter the natural move 15 . . . 'lWxf6 16.id3 ie7 17. 0-0, Black's pawns are weak; nevertheless, his posi­ tion looks rather solid.), and here White obtain an obvious edge 57

Chapter 4 after 16.1Mfd2 ! ? gg8 (or 16 . . . .tb7 17.0-0-0 gg8 18.f3 f5 19.hd6±) 17. 0-0-0 .tg4 18.f3 ie6 19.b3 as 2 0 .hd6± and White remains with a solid extra pawn in both variations.

e) 9 ie7 .•.

14.tDxe6 ixe6 lS.J.e3 gb8 16.b4 J.e7

10.ixf6 ! This i s a standard method of the fight for the d5-outpost.

10 gxf6?! •..

This position was reached in the game Bardason - Tritschler, Email 1999. White's most logi­ cal reaction seems to be the move helping the quickest possible de­ velopment of his pieces. 17 .td3 tDf6 (After 17 . . . hd5 18.cxd5 f5 19.a3±, or 17 . . .f5 18.a3 0-0 19. 0-0 hd5 20.cxd5 YGd7 21.gcl± Black has serious problems with the protection of his a6-pawn.) 18.1Mfb3 e4 (It is hardly any bet­ ter for Black to enter an endgame, because after 18 . . . ltlxd5 19.cxd5 ib5 20.a4 hd3 21.ygxd3 gxb4 2 2 .1Mfxa6 0-0 23.0-0 1Mfb8 24.a5;!; White's powerful passed as-pawn provides him with superior pros­ pects.) 19.tDxe7 ygxe7 20.J.e2;!;. White enjoys a couple of strong bishops in a calm position and he has excellent chances of creating a powerful queenside pressure. •

58

That is an unfavourable line for Black, because in the variation 9.hf6 gxf6 1O.ltld5, he usually develops his bishop to the long diagonal. It is too passively placed on the e7-square.

ll.e3 This is a calm and reliable move. In anwer to 1l.c4, Black can at least try the untested move 1l . . . J.e6 !?, with the following eventual developments : 12.cxb5 ltld4 13.gel 0-0 14.bxa6 f5� Black is clearly ahead in development and he is dominant in the centre. This might turn out to be a good compensation for the couple of pawns, because White fails to simplify the posi­ tion with the line: 15.ltlxe7+ ygxe7 16.ltlb5 ltlxb5 17.hb5 fxe4+ and Black is already only a pawn down.

ll . . . f5 That move is necessary now; otherwise, he might not be able to

S.tiJc3 eS 6 . tiJ dbS d6 7. 1gS a6 B. tDa3 bS 9. tD dS accomplish that thematic move at all. About ll . . . hS? ! 12.tDc2 1e6 13.tDce3 - see 1l . . . 1e6 12 .tDc2 hS 13. tDce3. After 11. . . 0-0?! 12 .1d3 1e6 13JWf3 �h8 14.tDc2 l'!g8 1S.tDce3 tDb8 16.a4± Black's pawn-mass in the centre is static and weak, he has no counterplay and he has problems on the queenside, Sigu­ rjonsson - Lombardy, Jerusalem 1967. 1l . . . 1e6? ! 12.tDc2 fS (It is ter­ rible for Black to play 12 . . . 1xdS? 13.'1WxdS l'!c8, Hidegh - Rakac­ zki, Hungary 1997, because after 14.a4+- Black is incapable of pro­ tecting his queenside. It looks also bad for him to opt for 12 . . . l'!b8? ! 13.tDce3 'IWd7 14.�d3 hS, J.Lukacs - Borbely, Kobanya 1996, after 1S.�f3± Black can hardly protect his kingside pawns. It is not to be recommended to Black to try 12 . . . hS? ! 13.tDce3 l'!b8, M.Dizdarevic - Djelaj, Adelaide 2 003, 14.a4±; 12 . . . 0-0 13.a4 bxa4, Karbovnik - Rost, France 1997, and here af­ ter 14.tDce3 l'!b8 1S.�xa4± Black will hardly save his a6-pawn and he has no counterplay at all.) 13.exfS �S 14.tDce3 196 (It is not better for Black to continue with 14 . . . 1e6 1s.1d3 19S, Foglar - Vrnata, Nachod 1999, and now after 16.�e4 0-0 17.tDfS± Black is likely to lose material fighting against White's knights, while af­ ter 16 . . . ixe3 17.tDxe3 l'!c8 18.0-0 'IWh4 19.f4± Black misses badly his

dark-squared bishop.) 1S.1d3 e4 (In answer to 1S . . . 1gS, Breslavs­ kaya - Pastushenko, Kramatorsk 2001, White can immediately occupy the fS-outpost. 16.tDfS �S 17.1xfS tDe7 18.h4 ! and here following 18 . . . tDxdS 19.�xdS 1e7 2 0 . 0-0-0± White dominates over the light squares and in case Black accepts the pawn-sacrifice 18 . . .1xh4 19.1'!xh4 tDxfS 20.l'!h3� he has problems fighting against White's active pieces, for exam­ ple: 20 . . . tDe7 21.tDf6+ �f8 2 2 . 'IWd2 h S 23.l'!d3 d S 24.0-0-0± and White regains unavoidably his pawn, maintainiong obviously more activity.) 16.1c2 1gS 17. 0-0 0-0 18.f4 exf3 19.'IWxf3± Korneev - Molina Morena, Berga 1995.

12.�d3

12 . .1e6 ..

12 . . . 1b7? ! - Black loses a pawn and he has no compensation for it in sight. 13.exfS± �d7? 14.tDb6+­ Laqua - Bastian, Willingen 2004. 12 ... l'!g8 - Black's rook is thus activated, but he loses the fS-pawn, Stepanovic - Sazhina, Trencin 1995, 13.exfS 19S (Black fails to regain his pawn after 13 . . . S9

Chapter 4 E!xg2? 14.'�·f3 E!gS IS.llJxe7+-) 14.�e4± 12 .. .f4 - This move is prema­ ture, although it seems quite logi­ cal, since it deprives White's knight of a good square. 13.'WhS 0-0 (Or 13 . . . h6, Cukier - Lucena, Brazil 1994, this is a strange move and after the simple reaction 14.g3 ! Black is faced with the unpleasant choice between 14 . . . .!e6 IS.gxf4 exf4 16.llJxf4±, remaining a pawn down, without any compensation for it, or 14 . . . fxg3 IS.hxg3± and the pawns are equal indeed, but Black has plenty of weaknesses to worry about.) 14.g3 �h8, van Dommelen - Beekhuis, Leiden 1997, it is sensible for White to capture the pawn, because Black would have no compensation for it: IS.gxf4 E!g8 (It is a diasaster for Black to opt for IS . . . exf4? 16.llJf6 ! ixf6 17.eS+- and the checkmate is unavoidable.) 16.fS±

13.'Wh5 f4 13 . . . �gS? ! - Black contin­ ues to lose stempi and he fails to complete his development. 14.h4 .!f6 IS.'Wh6 ixdS 16.exdS e4 17.dxc6+- Diozu - Andreescu, Bucharest 1993. After 13 . . . E!c8 14.llJc2 f4 1S.g3 M6, Galego - Berend, Groningen 1982, White can win a pawn, without being afraid of his oppo­ nent's temporary activity - 16'gxf4 exf4 17.llJxf4± and Black cannot centralize his knight with 17 . . . llJeS, due t o 18.ixbS+ ! axbS 19. llJxe6 'We7 2 0 .llJf4+- with quite 60

favourable simplifications for White. After the move 13 . . . b4 - the b-file is opened, but Black's task does not become any easier. 14.ll:lc4 bxc3 IS.bxc3 E!b8 (It is even worse for Black to play 15 . . . ixdS 16.exdS llJaS 17.llJe3 'Wc7 18.0-0 f4 19.1lJfS h6 20 . .!c2 +-, because the light squares in his camp are catastrophically weak and White will explot the b-file, Firt - Karlik, Karvina 1987.) 16.0-0 fxe4 17.ixe4 llJaS 18.llJce3 E!bS 19.E!adl± White has reliably occupied the important outposts on dS and fS, Sakic - Smith, corr. 2 004. 13 . . . .!f8 - Black transfers his bishop to a more active position with that move, but he loses valu­ able time in doing that and his opponent occupies the dS and fS squares in the meantime. 14.llJc2 .!g7 IS.llJce3 f4 16.llJfS± Luzikov - Zuttis, Vladivostok 1995.

14.0-0 0-0

The diagrammed position was reached in the game Sandi­ pan - Lalic, Ubeda 2 0 0 1. White must immediately organize ac-

5.&i:Jc3 e5 6 . &i:Jdb5 d6 7. i.g5 a6 B. ttJa3 b5 9. ttJdS tive actions on the queenside, taking advantage of the fact that Black's light pieces are presently misplaced. 15.�c2 f5 (The other moves are not any better for Black: 15 . . . l!?h8 ? ! 16.ttJxf4 exf4? 17.e5+-; 15 . . J'!b8 16.a4 bxa4 17J!xa4 �xb2 18J'!xa6 ttJb8 19.�a7±; 15 . . . �a7

16.a4 bxa4 17.�xa4±) 16.a4 bxa4 Black has managed to advance his f-pawn indeed, but his position is considerably worse. His pieces are passive, he has no counterplay and his queenside is endangered, while his king is un­ safe as well.

17.gxa4±

-

Conclusion We have analyzed in this chapter all weak optionfor Black against 9. ttJ d5, as well as the line 9 . . . i.e7 1 O . hf6 gxf6. The main drawback of the last variation is that after 1 0 . i.xj6, Black does not respond with the necessary move 1 0 . . . i.xj6, and he plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, analogously to the variation a). Accordingly, similarly to variation a, he has prob­ lems, connected with his inferior pawn-structure and the unfavour­ able placement of his dark-squared bishop, which requires plenty of valuable time to be activated. In all these variations, White often manages to establish his knights on the dS and f5-squares and that deprives completely Black of any counterplay. White's plan also in­ cludes the undermining move o2-a4, with the idea to create objects for attack on the queenside. Black has great problems to undouble his pawns withf6-f5, but even ifhe manages to do that, White maintains his advantage, since he succeeds in organizing active actions during that time on the queenside. Variation b) is often played with the idea to make a quick draw. White however, can try to obtain the advantage, quite deservedly so, with the help of the sharp line - 11.c4. In variation bl), Black captures the e4-pawn indeed, but he falls behind in development and he is completely unpreparedfor opening of the game on the queenside. Still, White needs to play very accu­ rately, Jor example the move 15. l!?e2, which used to be considered as the best, would not provide any advantage for him. Meanwhile, he is clearly better after 15. 1!?fJ.. In variation b2), Black plays 11. ..b4 and he does not allow his op­ ponent to open the c-file, therefore his position looks more solid, al­ though he has certain problems to organize counterplay. White main­ tains a slight, but stable advantage practically in all the variations.

61

Part 2 1.e4 c5 2 . � f3 � c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5. � c3 e5 6. � db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9 . � d5 .ie7 l O .J.xf6 J.xf6 11.c3

The development of the theory of the Chelyabinsk variation fol­ lows in fact two main schemes for White. He tries from time to time to break Black's defence in the system 9.ixf6 gxf6 lO.lDdS. For a while, it looked like that the entire variation might become history, but it proved to be quite solid, coming back from oblivion, so then White returned to the more solid set-up, which this book was devoted to. We will try to summarize for you what is essential in this sys­ tem at the level of common sense. Black's main trump cards are his bishop pair and some lead in de­ velopment. White relies on his space advantage and the key fac62

tor is his construction - pawn e4+tLldS, which has a vital block­ ading function. It is of paramount importance for Black to break that blockade in order to activate his pieces. He attacks the dS and e4-squares, while White tries to hold on to them at least until he completes the mobilization of his forces. Generally speaking, in that variation Black as a rule makes almost always the same moves - 0-0, igS, tLle7, l3b8, Wh8, fS etc. The order of moves might be different and there are important nuances in practically each differ­ ent case. Sometimes however, it may all come to a transposition of moves. In Chapter 5, we analyze some rarely played lines for Black on move 11. Original positions may arise only after 1l . . . 1b7, followed by tLlb8-d7, so that Black's set-up resembles a bit the Najdorf varia­ tion. This is all connected howev­ er with a certain loss of time and he fails to accomplish that plan

successfully, because White can in particular the position with reach a superior endgame with bishops of opposite colours (white precise play. bishop on d5) is rather unpleasant Chapter 6 deals with the move for Black to defend (variation b). 11 0-0 12.llJc2 11...llJe7. That is a quite purpose­ ful line for Black. White cannot keep the light pieces blockade of the d5-outpost, since his knight on a3 has not entered the actions yet. There are some drawbacks of that line for Black too. After 1 2 .llJxf6+, he loses his two-bishop advantage and his pawn-structure is compromised. White obtains a lead in development, his king is safer and he seizes the initiative This is the main line of the with accurate play. entire system. In Chapter 8, we The variation 1l . . . ig5 12.llJc2 analyze some of the not so popu­ llJe7, which we analyze in Chapter lar lines for Black and just like 7, used to be quite popular once in Chapter 5, White should pay - it was like an improved version attention to the idea for Black of the idea 1l . . . llJe7. Still, after the to transfer his knight along the correct reaction for White 13.h4! route c6-b8-d7, followed by llJc5 ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.llJcb4, Black or llJb6. fails to obtain an effective coun­ The move 12 .. J'!b8, has been terplay. White's strategy is based dealt with in Chapter 9 and it is a on two main ideas. The first is tough nut to crack. It was played that he can sacrifice the exchange numerous times by E.Sveshnikov for Black's light-squared bishop. and M.Dvoretzkij at the dawn of In that case, his knight on d5 be­ the development of the system. comes practically the master ofthe White's queenside actions, con­ board and that in connection with nected with the break a2-a4 are the possibility to create a passed impeded, because his b2-pawn is pawn on the queenside provides hanging. Black used to solve all White with more than sufficient his problems for a while. Only compensation for the exchange later White managed to find the (variations a and c). The second right path. If Black does not ac­ important point is that tourna­ tivate his bishop - then White ment practice has shown that the should prevent that radically total exchanges do not guarantee - 13.h4 ! According to the data­ for Black any easy draw, because base, that move was played for ••.

63

the first time in the game Nunn - Wirthensohn, Cleveland 1979, and it was considered until today to be the most unpleasant coun­ ter measure against Black's move order.

12 .tg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�4 ••.

In Chapters 11-12, we have seen Black's attempts to avoid entering the main line. We must pay atten­ tion to the move 1S . . . id7 (Chapter 12) - because recently Teimour Radjabov played it several times. The theory of that line continues to develop, but in general, it be­ comes clear, in the variations we analyze, that White's chances of obtaining the advantage are quite real.

16.b3 �h8

14

••.

a5

That is the most popular line for Black, but it is not the only one. His other possibilities are analyzed in Chapter 10 and I rec­ ommend to you to pay a close at­ tention to the alternative 14 . . . ib7. Black succeeded in obtaining sat­ isfactory game until recently, but in the game �otronias - Timosh­ enko, Thessaloniki 2 0 07, that variation was dealt a mortal blow. After a series of precise moves, among which we must men­ tion 18.h4 ! , and that of course combined with the "know-how" of Vasilios �otronias - 21.hS ! , White seized the initiative and pressed his advantage home con­ vincingly.

15.ic4 gb8

64

That is the main "tabia" of the variation and our final Chapter 13 is devoted to it. The lines af­ ter 17. 0-0 fS, have been analyzed quite thoroughly before and they do not promise White any real ad­ vantage. Still, he has a good alter­ native to castling in the move 17. ltJce3!? In that case, White manages to preserve his blocking construction in the centre and that is essential for him to prevent Black's piece counterplay. Later White can take care of Black's weak as-pawn.

Chapter 5

1.e4 c5 2 . ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ti)xd4 e6 5.ti)c3 e5 6. ti) db5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8.ti)a3 b5 9.ti)d5 .ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 •

•

n.e3 This is the most natural move. White prepares to centralize his knight via the c2-square and to follow that with the undermining move a2-a4. In this chapter, we will deal with all responses for Black, be­ sides the main lines 11 . . . 0-0 and 11 . . . llJe7 - Chapter 6, as well as 11 . . . ig5 - Chapter 7.

n . . . ih7 11 . . . g6? ! - That move is played with the idea to redeploy the bishop from one passive square to another. IVtJc2 ig7 13.a4 bxa4 14. llJcb4 ib7? (It is better for Black to play 14 . . . id7 15.Wlxa4 llJe7 16.\!Na5±, although even then he loses unavoidably his a6pawn. White can capture it under most favourable circumstanc-

es.) 15.Wlxa4 E1cB 16 .ha6 ha6 17.llJxc6 Wld7 IB.llJa7+- Black loses plenty of material, Robson - Navarro Guerrero, Brazil 2005. 11 . . . ih4 - It would be too dif­ ficult for Black to organize real pressure against the f2-pawn. 12 .llJc2 E1bB, S.Fernandez - New­ ton, corr. 2002, and here after 13.g3 ig5 14.ig2 0-0 15. 0-0 llJe7 16.llJxe7+ Wlxe7 17. llJb4t White has a clear-cut plan for actions on the queenside, while Black has no active prospects. 11 . . . i.e7? ! - That is a typical loss of time, since Black's bishop is passively placed here and its transfer to a more active posi­ tion would need tempi. 12 .llJc2 0-0 (Black's options are not any better: in answer to 12 . . . ig5, Tormo - Linares Quero, Oropesa del Mar 1999, White's most ac­ tive move seems to be 13.a4 and if 13 . . . E1bB, then 14.axb5 axb5 15. id3 0-0 16.Wle2± and Black will have problems protecting his b5pawn, while if 13 . . . bxa4 - then af­ ter 14.llJcb4 id7 15.Wlxa4 llJe7 16. %Va5±, or 15 ... llJd4 16.%Vdl± he will lose for sure his a6-pawn; 12 . . . 65

Chapter 5 fS - This seemingly active move dark-squared bishop is on gS and enables White to have excellent not on e7. It is much more pas­ game on the light squares in the sive there and if Black places it centre, Klundt - Ostermeier, Bad on the most active position - gS, Homburg 2 0 04, 13.a4! - This then White would have an extra move is again the most energetic tempo in comparison to the simi­ for White and Black is in great lar lines. 1l . . . lLlb8 - Black loses his con­ trouble. It is terrible for him to try 13 . . . fxe4? 14.axbS lLlb8 1S.bxa6+-, trol over the d4-square and that and White's advantage is evident, enables White to play aggres­ thanks to his domination over the sively: 12.c4 ! ? �aS + ? ! (It is not dS and e4-outposts, in the line: any better for Black to opt for 13 . . . bxa4 14.lLlce3 a3 1SJ:1 xa3 fxe4 12 . . . 0-0 13.cxbS lLld7 14.,tc4 lLlb6 16.�a4±, or 14 . . .f4 1S.lLlc4± and 1S.0-0 ! ?± and he either remains Black has no counterplay and he without a pawn, or he must enter has great problems protecting his the variation: 1S . . . lLlxc4 16.lLlxc4 queenside. After 13 .. J �b8 14.axbS axbS 17.lLlcb6 l=1b8 18.lLlxc8 l=1xc8 axbS 1S.exfS hfS 16.lLlce3 ,te6 19 .�e2±. White's advantage of a 17.,td3± White occupies the light centralized knight against Black's squares in the centre and Black passive dark-squared bishop is is incapable of protecting his evident. It looks like Black's best bS-pawn. 12 . . . ,te6, A.Tikhonov line is to centralize his knight too, - Rogov, Kazan 2 0 04, 13.a4 l=1b8 although it has not been tried 14.axbS axbS lS.,td3;f;; Black's in practice yet 12 . . . lLlc6 13.cxbS queenside is vulnerable and his lLld4 14.b6 0-0 1S.lLlc4;f;; and he bS-pawn is weak, while White will still have problems to prove dominates on the a-file and his that his compensation for the centralized knights are very pow­ pawn is sufficient.) 13.�d2 b4, erful.) 13.a4 bxa4 (After 13 . . . l=1b8 Grazinys - Scholbach, Email 14.axbS, M .Andersen - Agusts­ 2000, after 13 . . . �xd2+? 14.<;i{xd2 son, Gausdal 2 0 06, following 14 . . . ,tgS+ 1S.<;i{dl± Black's queenside axbS 1S.,td3 ,tgS 16.�e2± Black is in ruins. White's most aggres­ not only loses his bS-pawn, but sive line seems to be : 14.cS ! ? ,te6 White can even choose the ap­ (But not 14 . . . dxcS 1S.lLlc4 �d8 propriate moment to capture 16.lLldb6± and Black loses at least it.) 14.l=1xa4 as, Gara - Moshina, the exchange.) lS.lLlxf6+ gxf6 Balatonlelle 2000, and here af­ 16.cxd6 lLlc6 17.lLlc4 �cS 18.l=1c1 ter lS.,tc4 l=1b8 16.b3;f;; there arise �d4 19.�e3 !± White has an extra positions different from the main pawn and he forces unavoidably line, which is dealt with in Chap­ the trade of queens on the e3ter 8, with the fact that Black's square. Later he captures there 66

9.ti:Jd5 �e7 1 O . ix.f6 ixf6 11.c3 with his pawn and Black would be deprived of the counterplay connected with the weakened d4square. 11 . . . �e6 IV'ilc2

12 . . . hdS (Black's other lines are less purposeful, or they do not lead to any original positions. About 12 . . . t'iJe7 13.t'iJxf6+ gxf6 14.a4 see 11 . . . t'iJe7 12 .t'iJxf6 gxf6 13.t'iJc2 ie6 14.a4, Chapter 6; about 12 . . . igS - see 11 . . . �gS, Chapter 7 ; as for 12 . . . 0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0; The move 12 . . . l3b8? Zandeisakhani Majul, Santa CruzdeTenerife2001, leads to the disruption of Black's pawn-structure after 13.t'iJxf6+ gxf6 - in case of 13 .. .'\!;l/xf6? 14.�xd6+- Black has no compen­ sation for the lost pawn - 14.t'iJe3 0-0 IS.id3±; 12 . . . l3a7 - That method of activating the rook seems a bit awkward. 13.a4 l3b7? ! 14.axbS axbS IS.l3a6± Krajcovic - Kouba, Trencianske Teplice 2005; it is slightly better for Black to play 13 . . . bxa4 14.t'iJce3 0-0 15. �xa4 t'iJb8 16.ic4;1;, or even 15 . . . t'iJe7 16.t'iJxf6+ gxf6 17.ic4;1; al­ though in these lines Black's a6 and d6-pawns are obviously weak

and he has no real counterplay; 12 . . . �4 - This looks like the strongest move, leading to original lines. 13.a4 0-0 14.g3 �gS IS.h4 �6 16.axbS hdS 17.exdS t'iJe7 18.bxa6±. Black has insuffi­ cient compensation for the pawn indeed, but White must play very precisely, because of his somewhat compromised kingside, Schaetz - Adaszewski, Leutersdorf 2006. After the best line for Black: 13 ... 13b8 14.axbS axbS IS.�d3 0-0 16. 0-0;1; his bS-pawn is weak and his counterplay is nowhere in sight.) 13.�xdS t'iJe7 (But not 13 ... 13c8 ? ! , Cipolli - Zdanowski, Sao Caetano do SuI 1999, in view of the ag­ gressive line: 14.a4! t'iJe7 IS.�3 0-0 16.axbS axbS 17.hbS± and Black has no compensation what­ soever.) 14.�b3 0-0 IS.ie2 �6 (After IS . . . g6 16.0-0 �g7 17.a4 bxa4 18.13xa4 as 19.t'iJe3± Black's queenside pawns are weak and his light pieces are more passive than their counterparts, Gonczi - Kiss, Hungary 1996. Black does not achieve much after the break in the centre IS . . . dS 16J!dl d4, Nogga - Steinhart, Mainz 1989, since after 17.cxd4 exd4 18.f4 t'iJc6 19. 0-0;1; the d4-pawn not only needs protection, but it impedes the activization of Black's pieces, while White has active prospects in the centre and on both sides of the board.) 16.0-0 l3ab8 17.l3fdl l3fd8 18 .t'iJb4;1; White occupies the dS-square and he has a slight, but stable edge thanks to his more 67

Chapter 5 active bishop. The development of the game illustrates how that advantage can be increased. lB . . . 1Wb7 19.ttJdS ttJxdS 20.EixdS EibcB 21.Eiad1 1WaB 2 2 .a4!± White opens unavoidably files on the queenside for his rooks and his light-squared bishop will soon dominate on the a2-gB-diagonal, its most aggres­ sive possible placement. 22 . . . bxa4 23.1Wxa4 Eic6 24.EiaS Eib6 2S.b3 EicB 26 .ha6 Eixc3 27 ..ic4 1WfB 2B.Eia7+- Black loses unavoidably his f7-pawn and White's position is winning after that, although he must still play accurately, Bures - Radusinovic, Budva 2003. 11 ... EibB 12.ttJc2 as, Savon Lutikov, Odessa 1976 (Or 12 . . . .ib7 13.ttJce3 - 11 . . . .ib7 12.ttJc2 EibB 13.ttJce3 ; about 12 . . . ttJe7 13.ttJxf6+ gxf6 14 . .id3 - see 11 . . . ttJe7 12. ttJxf6+ gxf6 13.ttJc2 EibB 14 . .id3, Chapter 6; 12 . . ..igS - 11 . . . .igS, Chapter 7; 12 . . . 0-0 - 11 . . . 0-0; The move 12 ... g6, Antoniewski Stankova, Pardubice 1996, looks too passive and White's most en­ ergetic reaction seems to be the standard 13.a4 ! 0-0 14.axbS axbS lS . .id3t and Black has consider­ able difficulties with the protec­ tion of his bS-pawn. It is hardly any better for Black to play 13 . . . bxa4 14.ttJce3 Eixb2? lS.1Wxa4 .id7 16.1Wa3 EibB 17.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 1B.ttJdS 1Wh4 19.1Wxd6+- and White wins. It is too passive for Black to try 14 . . . .id7? ! lS.1Wxa4 0-0 16.b4± and he has problems with his vul­ nerable a6-pawn. Black would not 6B

equalize with 14 ... .igS lS.1Wxa4 .id7 16.1Wxa6 0-0 17.b4 he3 1B.ttJxe3 Eib6 19.1Wd3±, or 16 . . . Eixb2 17.ttJc4 EibB 1B.ttJxd6 + I!ifB 19 . .ic4± and in both cases White has a solid extra pawn and more active pieces.), here the weaken­ ing of Black's queenside can be best exploited with the sudden retreat - 13.ttJa3 ! ? ttJa7 (It is not preferable for Black to try 13 . . . b 4 14.ttJc4 .igS - after 1 4 . . . 0-0 lS.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 16.1Wxd6± he can hardly prove sufficient compen­ sation for the pawn - lS.h4! and here after lS . . . .ixh4? 16.Eixh4 1Wxh4 17.ttJc7+ I!idB 1B .1Wxd6+ .id7 19.Eid1+- White wins, while in the variation lS . . . .ih6 16.1Wa4 .ib7 17.Eid1 0-0 1B.ttJdb6± Black loses his d6-pawn. It looks like the most accurate defence for him is lS . . . .ie7 16.ttJxe7 I!ixe7 17.ttJe3t, but it leads to a position in which Black's queenside pawns are ob­ viously weak and he will need to spend some tempi to evacuate his king away from the centre.) and now White should consider the aggressive line 14.c4 ! ? bxc4 (Af­ ter 14 . . . b4 lS.1Wa4+ .id7 16.ttJbS 0-0 17. .id3 ttJxbS 1B.cxbS .ie6 19.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 2 0 . 0-0t White has a passed pawn on bS, while Black's as and d6-pawns are weak.) lS.hc4 ! ? Eixb2 ! (It is worse for Black to play lS . . . 0-0 16.b3 .igS 17. 0-0 .ie6 1B.1Wd3t and White's prospects are bet­ ter, because of Black's vulnerable queenside pawns.) 16 . .ib3 .ia6

9. lLl dS ie7 1 O . ixf6 ,ixf6 11.c3 17.lLlc4 hc4 1B.hc4 0-0 19. 0-0 ig5 2 0.Wfa4� Black's extra pawn seems immaterial. Meanwhile, it would not be so easy for White to prove that his compensation is good enough not only for equality, but also for more. He must attack the V-pawn in order to engage his opponent's forces with its protec­ tion and he may eye the weak a5pawn as well.

12.lLlc2

far ahead, while the opponent would strive to complete his de­ velopment.) 14.�xa4 as 15.lLlce3 .ig5 16 . .ic4;!; White's pieces are perfectly deployed on the queen­ side and in the centre. 12 . . . �bB 13.lLlce3 lLla5? ! - This move enables White to begin a queenside offensive with tempi, Skorobogaty - Turecki, Augus­ tow 1996, 14.b4 ! hd5 (After 14 . . . lLlc6 15.a4 lLla7 1 6 . .id3± Black can hardly coordinate his pieces with­ out losing some queenside pawn.) 15.lLlxd5 lLlc6 16.a4± and White has a stable advantage, thanks to his powerful centralized knight and his queenside initiative.

13.lLlce3

12

•••

lLlb8

About 12 . . . lLle7 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6 14.id3 - see 1l . . . lLle7 12.lLlxf6+ gxf6 13.lLlc2 ib7 14 . .id3, Chapter 6; 12 . . . .ig5 - see 1l . . . ig5, Chapter 7; as for 12 . . . 0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0. 12 ... g6, Mittermayr - Bittner, Aschach 1995, Black is planning to deploy his bishop passively on the g7-square with that move, 13.a4 bxa4 14J:�xa4 0-0 15 . .ic4;!; 12 .. JkB, Just - Grunau, Du­ isburg 2 0 04, and here White's standard pawn-break on the queenside is even more effective 13.a4 bxa4 (After 13 . . . b4 14.lLlcxb4 etJxb4 15.lLlxb4 he4 16.ha6 �c5 17. .ib5 + <JifB 1B. 0-0± White's passed pawn might be advanced

That is a quiet move. White im­ proves the placement of his knight and he postpones the pawn-break a2-a4.

13

•••

lLld7

The move 13 . . . g6? ! - presents White with tempi for the assault. 14.a4 bxa4 15.'I&xa4+ .ic6 16.'1Wa5 0-0 17 . .id3± and White has pow­ erful pressure on the queenside and in the centre, Murariu - Go­ gin, Budva 2003. 69

Chapter S 13 . . . �gS ? ! - That activization of the bishop is already too late, because White can develop pow­ erful initiative after 14.lZlfS g6 (It is hardly any better for Black to opt for 14 . . . 0-0 lS.h4 �f6, J. Smith - Ver Nooy, Email 199B, since White has a clear advantage after the logical move 16.g4 ! , for example after 16 . . . lZlc6 17.�f3 �e7 1B.0-0-0 �cB 19.@bl± White dominates in the centre and he has excellent attacking chances, while in the variation: 16 . . . lZld7 17.gS �xdS 1B.gxf6 he4 19.�g4 �xf6 20.�xe4± Black's two pawns cannot compensate fully his miss­ ing bishop.) lS.h4 �f4 (it cannot be recommended for Black to try lS . . . gxfS 16.hxgS fxe4 17.lZlf6+ @e7, V.Kalinina - Zatonskih, Bu­ charest 199B, since after 1B.Elh6 ! , h e has great problems, for ex­ ample in the line : 1B . . . dS 19.a4 d4 2 0 .�b3 �aS 2 1.�c4±. White ends up with a huge lead in devel­ opment and excellent chances to finish the game off with a check­ mating attack, while after lB . . . lZld7 19.1ZldS+ hdS 2 0.�xdS± he regains unavoidably his sacrificed pawn and he has good attacking prospects against his opponent's king stranded in the centre.) 16.lZlf6+ �xf6 17.lZlxd6+ @e7 lB. lZlxb7 Ela7 (After 1B ... lZld7 19.93 �b6 - it seems terrible for Black to try 19 . . . �h6 2 0.�h3± - 2 0.�dS lZlf6 2 1.�cS+ �xcS 2 2 . lZlxcS �h6 23.�d3± Black has failed to trap the knight on b7 and he has no 70

compensation for the pawn in that endgame. It is hardly any bet­ ter for him to continue with lB . . . �b6 19.�dS Ela7 20.�cS+ �xcS 21.lZlxcS EldB 22.Eldl±) 19.�dS �c6 2 0 .�cS+ �xcS 21.lZlxcS lZld7 22.lZld3 �h6 23.lZlb4 ElcB 24.a4± and he remains a pawn down with a vulnerable queenside, Vasquez Dominguez Garcia, Seville 1994. The move 13 . . . 0-0 - enables White to organize an offensive on the kingside. 14.�f3 ! ? �gS lS.Eld1 g6 (After lS . . . lZld7 16.lZlfS lZlcS 17.h4±, Black's bishop has no good square to retreat to.) 16 .h4 he3 17.�xe3 lZld7 (In case of 17. . . hdS 1B.ElxdS �c7 19.hS lZld7 2 0 .�e2t White's bishop is stronger than Black's knight, since there will be fight on both sides of the board.) 1B.hS lZlf6 (Or 1B . . . �xdS 19.ElxdS lZlf6 20.Eld3 and here after 20 . . . lZlxhS 21.�h6 lZlf6 2 2 .g4 �e7 2 3 . �e2-+ White has a crushing king­ side attack, while in the line 23 . . . �c7 2 1.�e2 EladB 2 2 .�dl± White's king is much safer than its coun­ terpart.) 19.1Zlxf6+ �xf6, Stano­ joski - Todorovic, Pancevo 2003 and now after 2 0 .hxg6 fxg6 (Or 20 . . .hxg6? 2 1.Elxd6 ! ± and White remains with a solid extra pawn, because Black cannot capture the rook 21.. .�xd6? 2 2 .�h6+-) 2l.f3 EladB 22.a4t and White has pow­ erful queenside initiative. Black can hardly exploit the placement of White's king in the centre, be­ cause the central files are closed.

14.a4!?

9. tO d5 ie7 1 O . hf6 ixf6 11.c3 This is the most aggressive line for White. He emphasizes the vulnerability of Black's queenside pawns.

14 . . . bxa4 1S.tLlxf6+

lS . . . tLlxf6 It is not preferable for Black to try 15 . . . �xf6 �xf6 16.�xa4 �dB (He has no compensation for the pawn at all after 16 . . . E1dB 17.ha6 E1aB 1B.�c4 ! ? 0-0 19. 0-0±, or 1B . . . �e6 19.tOd5 0-0 20. 0-0± and here Black loses quickly after 2 0 . . . E1fcB? 2 1.hb7! E1xc4 22.E1xaB + tOfB 23.E1fa1 ! + - and he is left without plenty of material un­ avoidably.) 17.tOf5 0-0 (Black fails to protect his numerous weaknesses after 17. . . �c7 1B.�a5 ! , for example: 1 B . . . �xa5 19.E1xa5 ic6 2 0 . tOxd6+ @e7 21.tOf5+ @f6 2 2 .f3+-, 1B . . . 0-0-0 19.ha6 �xa5 2 0 . E1xa5 tOf6 2 1.f3+-, lB . . . �c5 19.�xc5 lLlxc5 2 0.f3+- and White should not have problems with the realization of his extra pawn after the transfer into the endgame and in the variation: 1B . . . tOb6 19.0-0-0 E1dB 20.lLlxg7+ @fB 21.tOh5 he4 22.f4-4 Black can hardly protect his king with-

out losing material.) 1B.tOxd6 E1bB, Iordachescu - Timoshenko, Romania 2004 (The other possibilities are not any better for Black: 1B . . . tLlc5 19.tOxb7 tOxb7 2 0.ic4±, or 1B . . . �c7 19.�a3 tOc5 20.tOxb7 tOxb7 2 1.ie2 E1fdB 2 2 . 0 - 0 E1d2 23.if3± and h e has no compensation for his sacrificed pawn in both variations.) and here White's advantage is considerable after 19.E1d1 tOc5 (19 .. .'�c7 20.�c4 �b6 2 1.b4±) 2 0 .�c4 �b6 2 1.b4 lLle6 (After 2l...tOa4 2 2 .�b3 tOc5 23.�b1 tOe6 24.ic4± White has not only an extra pawn, but more active pieces too.) 2 2.ie2 E1fdB 23.tOxb7 E1xd1+ 24.hd1 �xb7 25. O-O± White has completed his development and despite the con­ siderably reduced material he has excellent chances to press his ad­ vantage home.

16.�xa4+ @f8 After 16 . . . �d7 17.�xd7+ @xd7 1B.f3;!; the endgame is clearly in favour of White, because of his active pieces and Black's weak a6pawn.

17.�d3 g6 18. 0 - 0

18 . . .�c7, Protaziuk - Swol, 71

Chapter S Poland 1994. It is favourable for White to enter an endgame here, for example: 19.'fHc4 'fHxc4 (After 19 . . . �b6 20Jla4;!; White has pow­ erful queenside initiative, while Black must still complete his de­ velopment.) 2 0 .�xc4 he4 (In case of 20 . . . �xe4 2 1.ixe4 ixe4 2VtJxd6 .tc6 23.f4 ! e4 24Jla5± White has a great lead in develop­ ment; meanwhile Black's bishop is restricted by his own pawns.)

21.he4 tLlxe4 22.f3 �g5 (Black loses after 22 . . . d5? 23.tt:'lb6+-; it is also bad for him to play 22 . . . Elc8 ? ! 23.tt:'lb6 Elc6 24.Elxa6 tLlc5 25.tt:'ld7± and White wins the exchange. His pieces are considerable more ac­ tive in the variation: 22 . . . tt:'lc5 23.Elfdl <J;; e7 24J�xd6t) 23. tLlxd6 <J;; e7 24.tLlc4 f6 25.ga5;!; White's prospects are superior thanks to his better piece-coordination and Black's weak a6-pawn.

Conclusion In this chapter, we analyze Black's moves 11, which have not be­ come popular, because they are not in the spirit of the Chelyabinsk variation. White reacts practically always with the standard maneu­ ver 12. tt:'l c2,followed by a2-a4 and a transfer of the knight to e3, or to b4. In answer to11 . . . li:) bB, it is essentialfor White to exploit his lead in development and to attack immediately Black's queenside with c3-c4. The most popular move for Black here 11. .. .tb7, reduces his control over the .f5-square and he must play very accurately afterwards. The maximum that he can dream about in this line is to reach a worse endgame without any chances of seizing the initiative.

72

Chapter 6

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6. � db5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 ie7 10 . .txf6 .ixf6 11.c3 �e7

This is a standard maneuver for Black with the idea to repel White's knight from its perfect deployment on the d5-outpost. Black is not afraid of his doubled f-pawns, because he plans to ob­ tain good game thanks to his pow­ erful centre.

12.�xf6+ gxf6 There arises a similar position in the variation: 1O.�xe7 tLJxe7 11. ixf6 gxf6, but White's pawn is on c2 and not on c3, so he has here some additional possibilities.

13.�c2 J.b7 That is the most logical move. Black strives to advance either d6-d5, or f6-f5, and in both cases, the perfect place for his bishop is on the ling diagonal. 13 . . . 0-0? ! - Black's king would be quite uncomfortable

on the kingside, due to his com­ promised pawn-structure there. 14.id3 f5 (The other thematic pawn-advance would be detrimental to Black's prospects - 14 .. . d5 15.exd5, and here after 15 . . . f5 16.tLJe3 e4 17.J.c2 tLJg6 18.d6± he has no compensation for the pawn, Wieczorek - Gromczak, Wroclaw 2004. In the variation: 15 ... Wfxd5 16.�e3 �e6, Jurasek Svab, Plzen 1996, White has the aggressive possibility 17.�h5 e4 18.J.c2 J.b7 19.0-0±, after which Black's defence would be very dif­ ficult, because of his bad pawn­ structure on the kingside and his passive pieces. White is threaten­ ing to open files on the kingside with f2-f3 at the moment and he has even active prospects on the queenside with the help of the pawn-break a2-a4.) 15.Wfh5 d5, Massoni - Battesti, Bastia 2 0 04 (It is not preferable for Black to try 15 . . . wh8 16.exf5 tLJd5, Svidin­ sky - Kosov, st. Petersburg 2 007, since after White's active move 17.Wfh6 ! ? tLJf6 18.0-0-0 �g8 19. tLJe3± he remains with an extra pawn and he can begin a mas73

Chapter 6 sive pawn-offensive on the king­ side.), here after the natural line: 16.exf5 e4 17.ie2 lDxf5 18.0-0-0 ie6 19.94 lDg7 20 .iMfh6± Black's pawn centre has been blocked, his knight on g7 will hardly join the actions anytime soon and his kingside is vulnerable. 13 . . . ie6 - That square is less active for Black's bishop than b7 and after 14.a4 �b8 15.axb5 axb5 16. lDb4± he has difficulties to un­ dermine White's e4-pawn. 16 . . . 0-0 17.id3 iMfd7 18.0-0 �h8, Sandu - Macedo Rasgadinho, Sautron 2 0 05, and here after 19.f4 lDc6 20.lDd5± Black should better forget about his intentions to exchange his weak pawns, be­ cause his main task would be not to get checkmated. The move 13 . . . �b8 does not contribute to Black's possible counterplay in the centre. 14.id3 f5 15.exf5 lDxf5, K.Szabo - Hi­ degh, Hungary 2005, and here following 16.iMfd2 �g8 (The draw­ backs of Black's position are much more evident in the line: 16 . . . 0-0 17.0-0-0 lDh4 18.ie4±) 17.ie4 ie6 18.0-0-0t Black has a ma­ jority of pawns in the centre, but they are immobile and they can be attacked. The shelter of his king can hardly be safe either. The move 13 . . . d5 is not popu­ lar at all, because it "freezes" Black's central pawns. 14.iMff3 f5, van Amerongen - Mihevc, Sas van Gent 1990 , and here after 15.0-0-0 fxe4 (In case of 15 . . . ie6 74

16.exd5 ixd5 17.iMfe3 iMfd6 18.lDb4± Black falls behind in development and he has problems in the centre and with the safety of his king.) 16.iMff6 0-0 17.iMfxe5 ie6 18.h4± Black's central pawns are static, therefore White can attack them later in the endgame. Meanwhile, Black's king is endangered with queens present on the board. 13 .. .f5 - Black improves his pawn-structure with that move indeed, but his pawns in the cen­ tre and on the queenside need protection and the shelter of his king is not reliable. Black's bishop will hardly get access to the long diagonal. After 14.exf5,

Black has tried in practice both captures : 14 . . . lDxf5 - He wishes to de­ ploy his bishop on b7, Breitenbach - Lee, corr. 1990, but White can prevent that with natural moves : 15.id3 iMfg5 (15 . . . d5? ! - Black oc­ cupies the centre, but he would have problems on the queenside, because of his lag in development, 16.a4±; 15 . . . ie6 - Black's bishop is not so active here as on the long diagonal and after 16.0-0 �g8

1l.c3 lLle7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLlc2 17.a4 lLlh4 18.g3, he has difficul­ ties obtaining counterplay, for ex­ ample: 18 . . . @f8 19.1Llb4 i.g4 20. i.e2 i.xe2 2 UWxe2 bxa4 2 2.lLldS± and almost all his pawns are weak and his king is rather unsafe. Black does not have anything real on the kingside either, or 18 . . . bxa4 19.1Lle3 .ib3 2 0.WThS 'MfgS 21.WTe2 lLlg6 2 2 .'Mff3 l'!d8 23.c4± and despite the fact that Black has an extra pawn, his position is very difficult - his bishop is a sorry sight, his knight can hardly be ac­ tivated, his king is vulnerable and his queenside pawns are weak. The advance of his f-pawn might lead to its loss 21.. .fS? 22.@hl lLlg6 23.lLlxfS+- and Black's king has become even more endangered.) 16.i.e4 l'!a7 17. 0-0 l'!g8 (It is pos­ sible for Black to try 17 . . . 0-0 18.lLlb4 .ib7 19.hb7 l'!xb7 2 0 .'MfdS l'!b6 2 1.f4 exf4 2 2 .'Mfe4± and he has completed his development, but at the price of having numer­ ous weaknesses.) 18.g3 hS 19.a4 ! bxa4 2 0.hfS ! - White emphasiz­ es the advantages of his position with that not so obvious exchange. 20 . . . 'MfxfS (The other capture is much worse for Black after 20 . . . hfS 2 1.'Mfxd6 l'!b7 22.l'!fel f6 23.'Mfc6+ l'!d7 24.lLle3+-, not only he loses all his queenside pawns, but his king comes under a dan­ gerous attack.) 2 1.lLle3 'Mfg6 22. WTxa4+ @f8 23.l'!fdl± Black can hardly exploit the weakness of the light squares on White's queen­ side, but he must worry about the

protection of his own d6 and a6pawns. 14 . . . i.xfS - This move is much more natural. His bishop would not go to b7 anyway, so Black de­ velops it to another active posi­ tion and he leaves his knight in control of the dS-square. IS.a4 0-0 (Or IS . . . l'!b8 16.axbS axbS 17.i.d3 e4 18.i.e2 l'!g8 19.1Lle3 i.g6 2 0.l'!a6± lLlfS 21. 0-0 lLlxe3 22 .fxe3 +- Mahia - Bulacio, Ar­ gentina 1988; IS . . . bxa4, Bachar - Bousios, Greece 1984, 16.lLle3 'Mfd7 17.'Mfxa4 WTxa4 18.l'!xa4 as 19.b4±; 16 . . . i.e4 17.WTxa4+ i.c6 18. WTa3 0-0 19.1'!dl dS 2 0 .i.e2 fS - 2 0 . . . lLlg6 21.WTcS± - 21.0-0 f4 22.lLlc4 'Mfc7 23.lLlaS l'!f6 24.l'!fel e4 2S.i.g4 l'!b8 26.c4t. Black has also tried in practice the less logi­ cal line: IS . . . i.xc2 16.WTxc2 0-0 17.i.d3 @h8 18.0-0 l'!b8 19.axbS axbS 20.l'!a7 fS, Tsuboi - Cruz, Sao Paulo 2 004, and here after 21.l'!fal± White's pieces are much more active, his king is safer and his bishop is doubtlessly stronger than Black's knight.) 16.lLle3 i.e6 17.axbS axbS 18.i.xbS l'!b8 (Black has also tested 18 . . . l'!xaI 19.WTxal fS - it is hardly any better for him to advance his central pawns, after 19 . . . dS 2 0 . 0-0 d4 21.cxd4 exd4 2 2 .lLlc2 'MfdS 23.i.d3± Black's passed d4-pawn has been blocked reliably, therefore his compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn is insufficient - 2 0.WTa6 f4 21.lLlc4 lLlfS, Olazarri - Espinosa Flores, Guarapuava 1991, Black's king75

Chapter 6 side threats seem dangerous, but White can parry them with pre­ cise moves, remaining with a sol­ id extra pawn. 2 2 . 0- 0 e4 23.�c6 ! �a8 24.lLlb6 �xc6 2S . .b:c6 E:b8 26.lLldS± and Black's centre is so vulnerable that he would lose un­ avoidably another pawn.) 19.c4 dS 20. 0-0 d4, Olazarri - Gamar­ ra Caceres, Guarapuava 1991, and now White's best line seems to be: 21.lLlc2 lLlg6 (After 21.. .d3 22 .lLlb4 e4 23 .Wfd2 E:c8 24.b3± Black's pawns will be blocked and they will become a target for attack.) 2 2 .g3 �gS 23.lLle1 �g4 24.f3 �h3 2S.E:f2t Black has some compen­ sation for the pawn, because of his extra space, but it can hardly be sufficient. White needs to strive for exchanges and his ad­ vantage would increase consider­ ably then.

14.i.d3

In this position, Black has played most of all a) 14 . . . f5 and b) 14 d5, but he has tested some other moves too : 1 4 . . . hS? ! - This moves impedes the activization of Black's pieces, Blankenberg - Reiter, Internet ••.

76

2001, 1S.lLle3 fS (It is possibly better for Black to opt for 1S . . . dS 16.Wff3 d4 17.cxd4 exd4 18.�xf6 E:g8 19.1LlfS lLlxfS 2 0 .WfxfSt and he regains the pawn, but after 20 . . . E:xg2 21.We2 ! E:gS 2 2 .Wff4 Wfe7 23.E:g1 f6 24.h4± White is clearly better, because his king's shelter is safer and in case of a transfer to an endgame, Black's pawns would be quite vulnera­ ble.) 16.exfS dS 17. 0-0 d4 18.cxd4 exd4 19.f6 dxe3 2 0 .fxe7 WfdS 21.f3 �cS 2 2 .Wfe2± White's e7-pawn and Black's e3-pawn would be an­ nihilated unavoidably and White would remain with material ad­ vantage and a safer king. 14 . . . lLlg6?! - This move en­ ables White to block his oppo­ nent's pawn-mass in the centre. 1S.lLle3 hS (After 1S . . . lLlf4 16.g3 lLlxd3+ 17.�xd3 Wfc7 18.0-0 Wfc6 19.f3± Black has no counterplay at all and he must worry about the protection of his weak d6 and f6-pawns.) 16.Wfb3 lLlf4 17.�c2 �c7 18.0-0-0 0-0-0 19.E:d2 E:d7 20J!hd1 E:hd8 21.a4± Black's piec­ es are forced to protect passively his numerous weaknesses, Eberth - Szekeres, Sarospatak 1994. 14 . . . �6 - Black prepares cas­ tling long, but his queen is not so active on that square. 1S.lLle3 dS 16.�f3 0-0-0 17. 0-0 d4 18.cxd4 exd4 19.lLlfS lLlxfS 2 0.WfxfS+ Wfe6 (It is almost the same after 20 . . . wb8 21.a4 �e6 22.Wff4+ Wfd6 23.Wfd2±) 21.�f4 �eS 2 2 .Wfd2 E:hg8 23.a4 fS, Y.Gruenfeld - Kouatly, Brussels

11.c3 lDe7 12. lDxj6 gxj6 13. lDc2 1985, and here White's most en­ ergetic way to increase his advan­ tage is 24.axb5 ! fxe4 (After 24 . . . he4 25.he4 fxe4 26.bxa6 �d5 27.'!&b4+- Black's king is so bare that it seems to be beyond salva­ tion.) 25.bxa6 �c6 26.gfcl �d7 (The other possibilities are not any better for Black: 26 . . . gg6 27.\&b4 - and here he loses after 27. . . �d7 28.�c6 �xc6 29.�b5+-, as well as following 27 . . . �dg8 28.�xc6+ �xc6 29.'I&b7+ �d8 30.\&xc6 exd3 31.a7+ - ; 26 . . . �d6 27.a7 �d7 28. �xc6 �xc6 29.\&e2+-. Black must not only parry the threats against his "centralized" king, but he must fight against White's far­ advanced passed pawn.) 27.�xc6 �xc6 28.\&c2 + �d6 29.he4� and White has a dangerous attack in a position with material equal­ ity. The move 14 . . . �g8 - looks more natural, because Black can use the g-file, besides his possible active actions in the centre. 15. lDe3 d5 (About 15 .. .fS 16.exf5 - see 14 . . . f5 15.exf5 �g8 16.lDe3.) 16.\&f3 f5 (The alternatives for Black are worse: 16 . . . d4? ! 17.cxd4 '1&xd4 18. O-O-O± White has a great lead in development and he can exert powerful pressure against his op­ ponent's vulnerable kingside pawns. 16 . . . \&d7? ! - That pawn­ sacrifice is rather dubious and Black can hardly prove any com­ pensation for it, Paehtz - Bun­ zmann, Binz 1995, 17.exd5 f5 after 17 . . . lDxd5? 18.M5 'l&d6 19.

0-0-0+- Black loses at least a piece. 18.lDxf5 hd5 19.!e4 he4 20.\&xe4 �d8 21.lDxe7 'l&d2 + 2 2 . � f1 �xe7 23.\&xe5+ �f8 24.gel±. After White's rook on hI enters the actions, Black's position would become completely lost.) 17.lDxf5 lDxf5 18.'I&xf5 'l&g5 (Black loses here after 18 .. J �g5 19.\&f3 �c8, Pritchett - Littlewood, England 1985, 20.0-0! f5 21.exf5 e4 2 2 .\&e3+- and not only he has lost material, but his king is en­ dangered. It is not better for Black to try 18 . . . �xg2 19.h4 dxe4, Den Heyer - De Vriese, corr. 1989, because after 2 0 .!xe4 !xe4 2 1.\&xe4 �g7 22.�dl± White has much superior piece-coordina­ tion and excellent attacking chances against Black's vulnera­ ble king.) 19.exd5 hd5 2 0 .\&xg5 �xg5 21.�gl �xg2 22.�xg2 hg2 23.a4 0-0-0, Dibley - Anders­ son, corr. 2001, and now White creates great problems for his op­ ponent with the modest retreat of the bishop 24.!e2 ! �d6 ! (It is worse for Black to play 24 . . .�c6 25.axb5 axb5 26.�a7! id7 27.b4 ! and he loses his b5-pawn.) 25.axb5 axb5 26.�aS ! ? �h6 27. hb5 �xh2 (But not 27 . . . �b7 28.�e2 ! f6 29.�a6 ic6 30 .b4± and White ends up with an extra pawn and he can advance easily his passed pawns.) 28 .!a6 + �d7 29.�xe5± White's prospects are clearly su­ perior thanks to his extra pawn. He must watch carefully however Black's passed h-pawn. 77

Chapter 6 a) 14 f5 ••.

Black eliminates his oppo­ nent's e4-pawn from the centre with that move and he creates nu­ merous weaknesses for White on the kingside.

15.exfS

15

...

hg2

This is the most natural move for Black; otherwise, he remains without a pawn and he will hardly prove sufficient compensation for it. 15 . . . lLld5? ! Lukov - Pelletier, Lyon 1995, Black relies quite naively that his actively placed knight would be sufficient to compensate the missing pawn, but here after White's most ac­ curate move 16.f3 YNg5 (After 16 . . . �g8 17.g3± Black's knight has no access to the f4-square and he is a pawn down. It is not better for Black to try 16 . . . lLlf4 17.g3 lLlxd3+ 18.YNxd3 �f6 19.0-0-0 0-0-0 20.�hel±, because he has been forced to trade his active knight, while White remains a pawn up with a much safer king.) 17.g3 lLle3 (The simplifications are fa­ vourable for White after 17 . . . 78

h5 18.!e4 lLle3 19.1Llxe3 YNxe3+ 2 0.YNe2 YNxe2+ 21.@xe2±, because Black's pawn centre looks im­ pressive, but it does not compen­ sate the sacrificed pawn.) 18.YNe2 lLlxf5 19.hb5+ ! axb5 20.YNxb5+ @f8 21.YNxb7 �xa2 (After 21...�a4 22 .YNd5 @g7 23.�d2 +- White should win easily with his extra queenside pawns.) 22.@e2 �xa1 23.�xal± and White's pieces are much more active, besides his ex­ tra pawn. 15 . . . e4? ! - This move just clos­ es the operational diagonal for the bishop. 16.!e2 lLlxf5 17.a4 e3 (After 17 . . . �g8 18.axb5 e3 19.i.f3 exf2 + 20. @xf2± Black's compen­ sation for the pawn is evidently insufficient. He maintains the material balance with the line 17 . . . bxa4 18.0-0 YNg5 19.�xa4±, b e he cannot create any serious threats on the kingside in that variation and his king is rather unsafe and the majority of his pawns are weak.) 18.0-0 �g8 19.!f3 �e7 20.lLlxe3 lLlxe3 2 1.fxe3 0-0-0 2 2 . axb5+- Black i s not only several pawns down, but his king is very weak, Yeo Min Yang - Iwasaki, Vietnam 2 003. 15 ... d5 - Black's central pawns look beautiful, but he closes the long diagonal for his bishop with his last move. 16.YNh5 �b6 17. 0-0 �g8 18.�fe1 YNf6 19.1Lle3 e4 20.tf1 �g5 2 1.YNd1 �d8, Sindik - Zeleni­ ka, Tucepi 1996, and here White should better start active actions on the queenside, repelling at first

11.c3 lbe7 12. lbxf6 gxf6 13. lb c2 Black's well placed rook. 22 .h4 �gB 23.a4 b4 (It looks much worse for Black to continue with 23 . . . i.c6 24.axb5 ,hb5 25.'Wh5± and White remains with more ac­ tive pieces and an extra pawn.) 24.�b3 ! a5 25.cxb4 d4 (Black's pieces are so discoordinated that his compensation for the missing pawns is insufficient after 25 . . . axb4 26.�xb4 iaB 27.i.b5+ wfB 2 B.a5 d4 29.�edl± and White's threat - 30.�a4 ! looks extremely unpleasant for Black.) 26.�ad1 ! dxe3 27.i.b5+ lbc6 (After 27 . . . i.c6 2B.�xdB+ WxdB 29.'Wxe3� White has three pawns for the piece and excellent attacking chances.) 2B.'Wxe3 �xd1 29.�xd1 'Wxf5 30 .'Wd4 ! ± and in connection with the threat of a checkmate in one, Black can hardly find an ap­ propriate defence. He loses, for example after 30 . . . wfB 31.'Wd6+ Wg7 32 .,hc6+-, the pieces are equal, but Black's king is bare and he has lost too many pawns. 15 . . . �gB - After that logical move Black again remains a pawn down and his centre is much rather a weakness than strength. 16.lbe3 d5 17.�e2 d4 (In answer to 17 . . . 'Wd6, G.Sax - Tatar Kis, Balatonlelle 2 0 04. White's most natural reaction seems to be lB. 0-0-0 and Black has several possibilities, but they all seem to be insufficient. After 1B . . . �h6 19.wb1 f6 20.h3 0-0-0 21.a4± White not only has an extra pawn, but a clear-cut plan for actions on

the queenside. In the variation: 1B . . . 0-0-0 19.�he1 d4 2 0.cxd4 exd4 2 1.lbc2 �d7 2 2 .g3± White has an extra pawn and a safer king and he can attack Black's vulner­ able d4-pawn. The move 1B . . . d4 - seems to be the most aggres­ sive, but after 19.1bg4 e4 2 0.,he4 �f4+ 2 U�d2 dxc3 22.lbf6+ wfB 23.bxc3± White has two extra pawns and a considerable lead in development.) 1B.lbg4 'Wd6, Schilling - Bensiek, corr. 1995, and here it looks most natural for White to complete his devel­ opment with the line : 19.0-0-0 i.d5 (The alternatives are not any better for Black: about 19 . . . e4 2 0.,he4 - see 17 . . . 'Wd6 1B.0-0-0 d4 19.1bg4 e4 2 0 .,he4; 19 ... ,hg2 20.�hg1 i.d5 2l.f6 ! ? Black loses his central pawns irrelevant of where his knight would retreat: 21...lbg6 2 2 .lbxe5±, or 21.. .lbc6 22.lbxe5±) 20.i.e4 0-0-0 (It is not to be recommended to Black to try 20 . . . i.c4 2 1.�f3 0-0-0 22.f6 lbg6 23.�hel± and he re­ mains a pawn down with a weak centre and a vulnerable king.) 21.f6 lbg6 22.�hel± Black's pieces are active indeed, but he has no compensation for the pawn, be­ cause his central pawns need pro­ tection.

16.�gl ib7 17.a4 (diagram)

17. . . bxa4 17 . . . �b6 - After that move, Black's defence is without any bright prospects. 1B.axb5 axb5 19. 79

Chapter 6 llJxg8 22..ha4 .ha4 23.§'xa4+ �f8 24.0-0-0 llJxf6 2S.Wfh4� White's attack is quite dangerous, possibly winning.

!lxa8+ .has 20.llJe3 WfcS 21.!lg7 !lf8 (The move 21...llJdS - seems to be the most resilient, but after 22.§'f3 �e7 23.f6+! llJxf6 24.llJf5+ �e6 2S.§'h3 idS! 26.llJh6+ �e7 27.Wfh4� White's pieces are quite

20 .f6 �g6, Hadraba - Brand­

active against his opponent's king

ing, corr. 1996 and now after

and he has an excellent compen­

the natural line: 21..ixa4 ha4

sation for the pawn. Black should

22.gxa4±

worry how to parry the threat

both his a6 and d6-pawns, while

- 28.llJg4, winning a piece.) 22.f6

White's pieces have an excellent

Black

must protect

llJg6 23.llJfS �d7 24..hbS+ �e6

outpost in the centre - the dS­

2S.§'g4 �xf6 26.,td7+- and Black

square. Meanwhile, Black's king

is defenseless against the numer­

is rather unsafe and its counter­

ous threats 26...!lh8 27.h4 h6

part is excellently placed in the

28.hS 1-0 Brodsky - V.Osipov,

centre.

Chelyabinsk 1991.

18.llJe3 ic6

b) 14

•••

d5

After 18...dS?! 19.§'xa4+ ic6 20.§'b4 §'b8 21.§'cS §'a7 22.§'a3 §'c7 23.f6 llJc8 24.!lgS± White is clearly better not so much due to his doubled extra pawn, but because of his active pieces and pressure against his opponent's centre, Szczepankiewicz - Krebs, Email 2000.

19.ic2 'i'd7 It is hardly better for Black to

This is the most popular move.

opt for 19...§'b8 20.f6 !lg8, Ber­

Now, all Black's pieces can be­

zinsh - Kretek, Mlada Boleslav

come active. The main drawback

1992 and here after 21.!lxg8+

of that move though is that his

80

11.c3 lLle7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLl c2 kingside pawn-structure will re­ main compromised for long.

15.exd5 'ti'xd5 Black activates his queen and he prepares to castle long. It is bad for him to play lS . . . hdS? ! , because after 16.lLle3 !c6 17.�c2±, the defects of his king­ side pawn-structure cannot be compensated at all. lS .. .fS?! - After that move Black remains a pawn down with­ out any compensation whatso­ ever. 16.d6 lLldS (But not 16 . . . lLlc8 17.\We2 and here Black loses after 17 . . . e4? 18.,hbS+ axbS 19.\WxbS+ �d7 2 0 .\WeS+-, while following 17 . . . 0-0 18.hfS lLlxd6 19.0-0-0 �gS+ 2 0.YHe3±, Black remains a pawn down and the unfavourable placement of his king deprives him of any possibility to regain it.) 17.,hfS YHxd6, Fossan - Svensk, Gausdal 1992. White's main task here is to complete his devel­ opment and to exploit the light squares in the centre as outposts for his pieces. His best line to do that is: 18.YHf3 �d8 19.0-0±, fol­ lowed by a2-a4 and active actions on the queenside, or centralizing the rooks. lS . . . lLlxdS - Black comes un­ der an unpleasant pin after that move and he can get rid of it only tactically, but at a price. 16 . .te4 fS (It is bad for him to opt for 16 . . . �c8? Specht - Hirneise, Willin­ gen 2 0 04 and Black fails to get rid of the pin after 17.\Wf3 ! Now, no matter how Black continues

- he loses: 17 . . . �c7 18.0-0-0 �d7 19.1Lle3 lLlxe3 20.�xd7 \Wxd7 2 1.,hb7+-; 17 . . .fS 18.\WxfS \Wc7 19.'ti'f3+-; 17 . . . �c4 18.0-0-0 �e4 19.\Wxe4 \Wd7 2 0 .f3+- and White has a decisive material ad­ vantage in all the variations. The move 16 . . . lLle3? ! - has not been tried, since White obtains easily an overwhelming advantage after 17.lLlxe3 ,he4 18.\Wg4±. Black lags in development and he risks com­ ing under attack, while in the line : 17. . . YHxdl+18.�xdl ,he4 19.f3± he loses unavoidably his f6-pawn.) 17.hfS lLlf4 (After 17 . . . \WgS? 18. YHf3±, Black can get rid of the pin only by trading queens, or by los­ ing too many tempi for develop­ ment.) 18. lLle3

18 . . . ,hg2 (The other capture is not any better, after 18 . . . lLlxg2+ 19.1Llxg2 ,hg2 20.�gl, Black has tried several options, but neither of them is satisfactory for equal­ ity: 20 . . . \WdS? 2 1.�xg2 ! \Wxg2 22. \Wd6+- Black can avoid being checkmated only at the price of substantial material losses, J.Diaz - Morella, Isla 1999; 20 . . . YHxdl+ 21.�xdl .tf3 22.�d3 !c6 23.�d6 81

Chapter 6 1b7 24.13g7± and White's piece­ activity should be enough to settle the issue, Marani - Kholemainen, corr. 1991. The move 20 . . . 1c6, Vitomskis - Rotariu, corr. 1989, may look very solid, but as a re­ sult of 21.Wlg4 Wlf6 2 2 . 0-0-0 13d8 23.13de1 !± Black is doomed to a long and laborious defence, be­ cause of his king stranded in the centre.) 19.13g1 ! (After 19.1Llxg2 lLlxg2+ 2 0 . <.tfl YlYxd1+ 21.13xd1 lLlf4 2 2 .13e1! f6 23.13d1 !;!; White's pros­ pects are slightly better, because his bishop must be stronger than Black's wonderfully placed knight, because there will be actions on both sides of the board. Natu­ rally, White should expect more from that position.) 19 . . . 1c6 (The move 19 . . . Wlxd1 + - leads to a very difficult endgame. 20.13xd1 1c6?! 21.13d6±, in answer to 2 0 . . . 1f3, it is bad for White to follow the "pre­ computer time" recommendation of GM Sveshnikov 2 1.1d7+?, be­ cause of 21.. .<.te7 22.lLlfS+ <.td8= and White can achieve nothing, despite having a discovered check at his disposal. The evaluation of the position as very difficult for Black is correct though and af­ ter 2 1.13d7! 13d8 22.13xd8+ <.txd8 23.13g7± Black remains a pawn down in the endgame, although White must show good technique, because his opponent's pieces are quite active.) 2 0.Wlc2 <.tf8 (M­ ter 2 0 . . . Wld6 2 1.13d1 Wlc7 2 2.1e4 Wib7 23.,txc6+ Wlxc6 24.WlfS f6 2S.13g7± Black's pieces lack coor82

dination and his king is vulner­ able, while all White's pieces are well deployed.) 2 1.ie4 13c8 (The move 21.. .Wld7 - leads to favour­ able simplifications for White. 22 .13d1 Wlb7 23.f3 Wib6 24.YlYd2 he4 2S.fxe4 13g8 26.Wld6+ YlYxd6 27.13xg8+ <.txg8 28.13xd6± and White enjoys a stable advantage in the endgame, due to his active pieces, Dietrich - Fritsche, In­ ternet 2 003.) 2 2 .13d1 Wlf6 23.lLlfS 1a8? (Naturally, after 23 . . . 13g8 24.13g3± Black's defence would be difficult too, but that would have been the least of evils for him.) 24.Wib3 13c4 2S.Wla3+ and in the game Knebel - Satici, Email 2 003, Black resigned in view of the variation: 2S . . . b4 26.WlaS ! 13xe4+ 27.<.tfl lLle6 28 .Wlxa6+- and he must give up plenty of material in order to avoid the checkmate.

16.lLle3

16 YlYe6 •••

That is evidently the best square for Black's queen in the centre, but he has tried in practice some other retreats too : 16 . . . YlYc5 17.WlhS b4? ! Garro Beraza - Llaneza Vega, San Se-

11.c3 tLle7 12. tLlxf6 gxf6 13. tLl c2 bastian 2 007, Black opens volun­ tarily files on the queenside, but that leads to great problems for him, because of his lag in devel­ opment. (It is more reliable for Black to follow with 17. . . 0-0-0 1B.0-0-0 b4 19.c4;;!;;) , and here af­ ter 1B.0-0 ! ? bxc3 19.bxc3 'i;Yxc3? ! 2 0.1c4--+ White's pieces are tre­ mendously active; 16 . . . 'i;Yc6 17.'i;YhS 0-0-0 (It looks strange for Black to try 17 . . . e4 1B.ic2 fS, Stopa - Kuzi­ ola, Bartkowa 2002, because af­ ter 19.tLlxfS tLlxfS 20.1WxfS± he has just nothing for the sacrificed pawn.) 1B.0-0-0 'i;Ye6, K.Szabo - LAlmasi, Budapest 2005, and White obtains an obvious edge after active queenside ac­ tions: 19.a4 1c6 (After 19 . . . bxa4 2 0 .ic4 'i;Yb6 21.1Wxf7± Black's pawn-structure is evidently com­ promised.) 20.axbS axbS 21.1We2 'i;Yb3 22.'i;Yg4+ @b7 23.ic2 1We6 24.'i;Yb4± and Black has no satis­ factory defence against White's main threats - 2S.c4 and 2S.1b3.

his king comes under a checkmat­ ing attack, or 23 .. .f3 24.ibS+ WfB 2S.1Wc4+-) 23.tLlxeS fxeS 24.'i;YxeS White has four pawns and more than sufficient compensation for the piece, in addition to Black's unsafe king. 24 . . . 'i;Ye4+ (After 24 . . . :Sh7 25.0-0-0+- i t seems im­ probable that Black would manage to protect his king against White's mounting threats.) 2S.'i;Yxe4 ixe4 26. 0-0± It would be too difficult for Black to fight against White's queenside pawns. Black can hard­ ly organize any counterplay ei­ ther. 26 . . . :Sh7 27.:Sfe1 1c6 2B.b4 :Sg7 29.g3 :SgS 30.:Sab1+- Black's pieces are discoordinated and he is helpless against White's passed pawns, Bauer - Nataf, Marseille 2 001.

18.'i;Yc2

17.a4 :Bd8 About 17. . . e4 1B.1e2 :SdB 19.'i;Yc2 - see 17. . . :SdB 1B.'i;Yc2 e4 19.ie2. 17. . .fS? ! - This move is prema­ turely active and Black's position becomes very difficult, because of his lag in development. 1B.axbS f4 19.bxa6 ic6 2 0.ic4 'i;Yg6 21.tLlg4 ! Now, the central files are opened unavoidably. 21.. .f6 22 .'i;Ye2 hS (It is too bad for Black to play 22 . . . ixg2 23.:Sg1 ic6 24. 0-0-0+- and

18 . . . e4 IB . . . b4? ! - White obtains the important c4-square after that move. 19.1c4 1Wb6 (In case of 19 . . . 1WcB 2 0.'i;Yb3 0 - 0 2 1.'i;Yxb4 tLlg6 2 2 .1Wb6±, Black's active pieces are insufficient to equalize, Baklan - Malakhatko, Ordzhonikidze 2000.) 20.aS 1Wc6 2 1.'i;Yb3 0-0 B3

Chapter 6 22.'lWxb4 tLlg6 23.0-0 tLlf4 24.f3 l"!d2 , Shabalov - Gamboa, New York 2000, Black's pieces are maximally active, but that is not enough and after 25.l"!adl l"!fd8 26.l"!xd2 l"!xd2 27.Vffe7� White's attack is decisive. 18 . . . tLld5? ! - That pawn-sac­ rifice is rather dubious. 19.axb5 tLlxe3 (It is hardly better for Black to try 19 . . . axb5 2 0.hb5+ <;t>f8 21.'lWd3 ! White wins important tempi to complete his develop­ ment thanks to that pin and Black has difficulties obtaining coun­ terplay, for example: 21.. .l"!b8 2 2 .tLlxd5 Vffxd5 23.f3 'lWc5 24.b4 '!Wb6 25.0-0-0 <;t>g7 26.<;t>b2±. White will prepare a pawn-offen­ sive on the queenside, but he must play accurately, because his king is there. 21...tLlxe3 - That is an at­ tempt by Black to attack White's king at the price <;>f an exchange­ sacrifice. 2 2 .'lWxd8 + <;t>g7 23.Vffd3 tLlxg2 + 24.<;t>d2 l"!b8 ! 25.l"!hgl 'lWb6 26. <;t>cl± Black's temporary activ­ ity has not achieved much and White's advantage is clear - see the following eventual develop­ ments : 26 . . . Vffxf2 27.'lWg3+ 'lWxg3 28.hxg3± and White can easily ad­ vance his pawns in the endgame, thanks to his extra exchange, 26 . . . <;t>h8 27.l"!a4 ! tLlf4 - it i s obviously worse for Black to opt for 27 . . . Vffxf2 28.l"!fl Vffb 6 29.'lWf5 i.c8 30.Vffxf6+ 'lWxf6 31.l"!xf6 l"!xb5 32.l"!xf7± and White's rook and pawns are much stronger than Black's discoordi­ nated light pieces. 28.Vffd7 tLle2+ 84

29.ixe2 i.c6 3 0.'lWd2 ha4 31.i.d3 i.d7 32 .b4± and despite the ma­ terial equality White can easily create threats against the enemy king. In case of a transition into an endgame, White's passed pawns look much more dangerous than Black's pawns.) 20.fxe3 l"!g8 (It is worse for Black to play 20 . . . axb5 21.hb5+ <;t>f8 2 2 . 0 - 0 l"!g8 23.l"!f2 Vffb 6, because of 24.i.fl ! and White practically forces a transfer into an endgame. 24 . . . 'lWxe3 25.'lWcl 'lWxc1 26.l"!xcl <;t>e7 27.b4;t - and White is slightly better, because he can advance easily his queen­ side pawns. In the game Eiben - Swan, Email 2 0 04, Black failed to counter that altogether: 27 . . . i.e4 28.c4 f5 29.c5 f4 30.c6 l"!d4 31.l"!b2 ! - After that strong move, White's rooks support the pawns and Black can hardly counter that in any way. 31.. .l"!c8 32 .b5 <;t>d6 33.g3 ! fxg3 34.hxg3 l"!g8 - Black loses too after 34 . . .f5 35.i.g2 l"!d3 36.ixe4 fxe4 37.b6+- and White's pawns promote - 35.i.g2 and Black resigned, since after the trade of the bishops White's pawns are unstoppable.) 21.i.e4 ! - That is the most reliable move for White. He exchanges his op­ ponent's active bishop and he obtains the advantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure. 21... he4 22.'lWxe4 l"!g4 (or 2 2 . . . axb5 23.0-0 l"!g6 24.l"!a8±) 23.'lWf3 e4 24.Vffe 2 axb5 25.'lWxb5+ <;t>f8 26. 0-0 l"!d2 27.l"!f2 l"!xf2 28.<;t>xf2 l"!g5, H.Stefansson - Holmsten,

1l.c3 iLle7 12. iLl;if6 gxf6 13. iLl c2 Reykjavik 2 0 0 2 and here after 29.'ige2 1'!d5 30.1'!aB+ �g7 31.1'!a4 f5 32.1'!d4± White remains with a solid extra pawn.

19 .te2 .

19

...

f5

Black's best chance is to ad­ vance quickly his central pawns; otherwise, White's queenside ac­ tivity would force him to defend. His prospects of obtaining coun­ terplay then would be minimal, due to his inferior pawn-struc­ ture. 19 .. .'�e5 ? ! - This move en­ ables White to obtain power­ ful queenside initiative. 20.axb5 axb5 21.1'!a5 ic6, D.Doroshenko - A Glazkov, Krasnodar 2 006, and here it deserves attention for White to continue his of­ fensive with 2 2 .c4 ! ? 'i9c7 23.b4 bxc4 24.0-0 0-0 25.'i9b2 %Vd6 26.ixc4±. White has a stable ad­ vantage, because of his dangerous passed pawn on the queenside and Black's compromised king's position. 19 . . . ic6 20.axb5 axb5 21.c4! - White acts very aggressively and Black has no time to advance

his f-pawn. 21...bxc4 22.0-0 0-0 (It is much worse for Black to try 22 . . . id5 23.iLlxd5 iLlxd5 24. ixc4 0-0 25.%Vb3 1'!d6 26.1'!fdl± and he cannot get rid of the pin without material losses.) 23.ixc4 %Ve5 24.b4 f5 25.1'!a5 %Vf6 26.1'!d1 1'!aB 27.1'!xaB ixaB 2 B.%Va2 f4 29. iLlg4 'i9g7 30.ixf7+ ! �hB 31.%Val± White has a solid extra pawn in­ deed, but it would not be so easy for him to realize it, because of the considerably reduced material, Krueger - Knebel, Email 2 0 04. 19 ... 0-0 ! ? - That pawn-sac­ rifice is interesting, but obvi­ ously insufficient. 20.axb5 axb5 21.ixb5 f5 22 .ic4 (It looks very attractive for White to try to ex­ change queens, but after 2 2 .'�e2 f4 23.%Vg4+ iLlg6 24.'�xe6 fxe6f± Black's position seems formida­ ble.) 22 . . . 'ige5 23.%Vb3 ic6 24.'i9b4 f4 (It is not advisable for Black to opt for 24 . . . 1'!bB 25.1'!a5 'i9c7 26.%Vc5 1'!xb2 27.0-0±, since White wins the f5-pawn and Black's king shelter is unreliable.) 25.1'!a5 %Vc7 26.iLlg4 iLlg6 (Black should refrain from capturing the b2-pawn, be­ cause of the variation: 26 . . . 1'!bB 27.'�c5 1'!xb2 2B.0-0 iLlg6 29.1'!a6 1'!cB 30.iLlh6+ �g7 31.iLlf5+ �f6 32.iLld4+- and he loses a piece.) 27.%Vc5 f3 2B.g3 �hB 29. 0-0± Black is a pawn down and he can hardly exploit the vulnerability of White's king position; therefore after 29 . . . 'i9cB 30.iLle3, Black re­ signed 1-0 Zundel - Inglander, Email 2001. B5

Chapter 6 2 0 .axb5 f4 21. bxa6 J.c6 The move 21 . . . fxe3? - loses. 22.axb7 exf2 +, Wang - McKenzie, Email 2003 and White's most ac­ curate move seems to be 23.�f1! 0-0 24.ga4 e3 (But not 24 . . .fS 25.i.c4 lLld5 26.'iNd2 ! e3 27.'iNd3 gfe8 28.ga8 e2+ 29.'iNxe2+-) 25.ge4 'iNf5 26.J.d3 'iNcS 27.'iNe2 lLlf5 28.g4+- and Black's far-ad­ vanced pawns will soon be lost, because they are not supported by his pieces.

22 .tc4 'iNg6 23. 0 - 0 •

2 3. . .'iNgS, Pakenas - Necula, Email 2002, 24.'iNe2 fxe3 (Black would not achieve much if he declines accepting the sacrifice - 24 .. .f3? 25.'iNc2 lLlf5 26.gfdl lLlxe3 27.fxe3±) 25.fxe3 0-0 26.b4 .td5 (Black loses after 26 . . . lLlf5? 27.gf4+-, while in case of 26 . . . lLldS 27.hd5 gxdS, o r 27. . . ixd5 28.gaS± - 28.c4 gd3 29.ga5 ! fS 30.bS± he fails to capture his oppo­ nent's e3-pawn, because White's passed pawns are already too far advanced.) 27.gaS 'iNg6 (The al­ ternatives are not any better for Black: 27 . . . �h8 28.hd5 gxd5 29.gfal±; or 27 . . . 'iNh6 28.ixd5 28 . . . gxd5 29.'iNg4+ 'iNg6 30 .'iNxg6+ hxg6 31.gxdS lLlxd5 32 .b5± and Black seems completely helpless against White's pawns; 28 . . . lLlxd5 29.'iNg4+ 'iNg6 30.'iNxg6+ hxg6 31. gdl ! lLlxe3 32.gxd8 gxd8 33.a7 ga8 34.b5 lLlc4 3S.ga6 �g7 36. �f2 f5 37.gc6± - Black will need to give up his knight and then he can hardly stop White's connected 86

passed pawns. The other possibil­ ity is not better for Black either: 31...lLlxc3 32.gxd8 gxd8 33.a7 ga8 34.�f2 �f8 35.�el r!de7 36.�d2± and White wins the knight and he reaches a rook ending with an extra pawn and excellent winning chances.) 28.ixd5 gxdS (White has good chances to press his advantage home after 28 . . . lLlxd5 29.a7 lLlxc3 30 .'iNc2 lLldS 31.a8'iN lLlxe3 32.'iNcxe4±) 29.gxd5 lLlxd5 30 .b5± White advances his passed pawns easier with less pieces on the board. Now, Black loses after 30 . . . lLlxc3 31.'iNc4 'iNg7 32 .gcl+-, but he can hardly offer any seri­ ous resistance in the other lines either.

23

•••

fxe3 24.fxe3

White has excellent compensa­ tion for the piece. 24 0 - 0 , Kos­ tal - Kuta, Czech Republic 2003, (Black's position is very dangerous too in case of 24 . . . lLldS 25.a7 0-0 26.'iNf2 lLlb6 27.i.b3 i.b5 28.gfdl i.d3 29.gaS±, while the move 2S ... lLlxe3 loses outright: 26.a8'iN has 27.'iNa4+ i.c6 28.ixf7+ 'iNxf7 29.'iNxc6� and White remains with three extra pawns by force: •••

1l.c3 lLl e7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLl c2 2 9 . . . \Wd7 30.\Wxe4+ \We7 31.\Wc6+ \Wd7 3 2.\Wc5 ! lLlxfl 33.\We5+), and here it looks very interesting for White to try 2S.\We2 ! �f5 (About 25 . . . �g5 2 6.b4 - see 23 . . . �g5 24.�e2 fxe3 25.fxe3 0-0 26.b4. White's advantage is obvious after

Black's other possibilities : 25 . . . gd7 26.b4±; 25 . . . lLlc8 26.ga5±)

26.gaS �d6 27.idS ! hdS 28. gxdS± and after the trade of the bishops, Black will have great problems coping with his oppo­ nent's passed pawns.

Conclusion We analyze the move 1l . . . lLl e7 in this chapter. Its drawbacks are evident - after the natural reaction 12. lLlxf6+ gxf6, Black loses his couple of bishops and his kingside pawn-structure is considerably weakened. Things are not so simple though, Black obtains some dy­ namic pluses, since he gains access to the semi-open g-file and his pawn-mass in the centre is compact and mobile. In connection with that, White must organize quickly queenside pressure and he must bring his knight on a3 closer to the centre. The line 13. lLl c2 seems to be the best for him under the circumstances. After the natural response 13 . . . ib7 14. id3, there are only two principled linesfor Black - 14 .. .f5 - variation a, and 14 . . . d5 - variation b. Black's other possibilities, as you can see in the variations of out analysis, do not pose any serious problemsfor White in hisfightfor the opening advantage. In variation a, Black disrupts his opponent's pawn-structure on the kingside and he corrects slightly his own, but he loses plenty of valuable time in doing that. White obtains a healthy lead in develop­ ment, he occupies the g-Jile and seizes the initiative on the queenside with the undermining move a2-a4, after which Black's monarch has no safe shelter. In variation b, Black ignores the defects of his pawn-structure and he acts aggressively in the centre, advancing his e andf-pawns. White is practically forced to sacrifice a piece in hisfightfor the advantage. He obtains three dangerous passed pawns on the queenside and he neutralizes Black's initiative on the kingside and in the centre. As we can see in our analysis, Black can hardly contain White's passed pawns.

87

Chapter 7

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .ie7 1 0 .J.xf6 J.xf6 11.c3 .ig5

natural and of course the most popular - 12 . . . 0-0. He plays most often in prac­ tice a) 12" .ie6, b) 12."tLle7, c)

12".gb8.

Black plays that move about twice less frequently than 11 . . . 0 - 0 . Meanwhile, i t often comes to a transposition of moves. Some­ times he tries to create counter­ play on the queenside, saving a tempo for castling, or he attempts to remove his opponent's central­ ized knight with liJe7, having in mind that White cannot capture the bishop on f6, because it is not there.

12.tLlc2 This move not only prepares the fastest possible advance a2a4, which is thematic for White in his fight for the advantage, but also it is important that he acti­ vates his most displaced piece. In this chapter, we will analyze all Black's moves, except the most 88

The other moves do not lead immediately to great difficulties for Black, but they are less popu­ lar, because he has problems ob­ taining counterplay: 12 .. .fS? ! - It looks like Black has some counter chances after that move, since he opens the f­ file. The main drawback of that try however, is that Black weak­ ens the light squares in the centre and he falls behind in develop­ ment. 13.h4 ! ie7 (The other tries are hardly any better for Black: 13 . . . ih6? ! - this move loses a pawn. 14.Y;VhS+ wf8 IS.exfS ga7 16.id3± Black not only remains a pawn down, but his king is stranded in the centre, Pribila - Boran, Piestany 2004; 13 . . . if6 - After that move, White can deprive his opponent of the two­ bishop advantage at any moment. 14.exfS ixfS IS.liJce3 ie6 , Barbet - Tache, Clichy 2 0 03, this is the

11.c3 ig5 12. lLl c2 right time for capturing the bish­ op. After 16.lLlxf6+ §'xf6 17.§'xd6 lLle7 1B.ie2± White ends up with a solid extra pawn and Black is forced to compromise his pawn­ structure: 16 . . .gxf6 17.Y;![f3 lLlaS 1B.id3 lLlc4 19.ifS± - After the exchange of the light-squared bishops, Black has the almost impossible task to protect his nu­ merous pawn-weaknesses and his attempt to trade all light pieces leads to a catastrophe after: 19 . . . lLlxe3 2 0 .he6 ! lLlc2 + 21.<j;ld2 <j;le7 2 2 .ig4 lLlxa1 23.§'b7+ <j;lfB 24 . .thS+- White regains his sac­ ri:ticed rook and he traps Black's knight.) 14.a4 gbB 1S.axbS axbS 16.exfS hfS 17.lLlce3 ie6, Schir­ rmacher - Freyberg, Berlin 2006, now White can keep his oppo­ nent's monarch in the centre for long with aggressive actions. 1B .ga6 Y;![cB 19.Y;![f3 id7 2 0.id3 g6 21.hS±; 12 . . . g6? ! - This is a solid move, but it is absolutely useless for Black in his aim to organize some counterplay. Besides, it creates a target for White on the kingside if he advances his h-pawn. 13.a4

13 . . . gbB (In answer to 13 . . . bxa4, Middelburg - Rijnaarts, Leiden 1999, it looks very energetic for White to play 14.h4, for example: 14 ... .tf6 1S.lLlce3 0-0 16.Y;![xa4 ib7 17.hS± and he has occupied all the key-squares in the centre and he has excellent attacking chances, or 14 . . . ih6 1S.gxa4 lLle7 16.lLlf6+ <j;lfB 17.ic4 <j;lg7 1B.y;![f3± and Black's position seems quite dangerous, while after 15 . . . 0-0 16.hS igS 17.lLlce3 lLle7 1B.ic4t White's kingside initiative is very powerful. Even if Black manages to parry it somehow, he has no compensation for his weak queen­ side pawns.) 14.axbS axbS 15.id3 0-0 16.Y;![e2 lLle7 (Black can hardly prove any compensation for the pawn after 16 .. .f5 17.hb5 lLle7 1B.lLlcb4 lLlxd5 19.exd5± and White's queenside passed pawns are very dangerous, while Black has no real threats on the king­ side, crafty - Warcraft, Internet 199B. The other retreat is clearly worse: 16 . . . lLla5? ! - Black's knight is hanging here and that enables White to start decisive actions with 17.h4 ixh4? ! 1B.gxa5 Y;![xa5 19.9xh4 §'dB, Mijovic - Anicic, Bar 2005. Here, White can em­ phasize his advantage with the simple line: 2 0 .g3 f5 21.exf5 hf5 22.hf5 gxf5 23.lLlce3±, or 2 2 . . . gxf5 23.§,h5 gb7 24.lLlce3± and in both cases, White's central­ ized knights are much stronger than a rook and a pawn. It looks more reliable for Black to opt for B9

Chapter 7 17 . . . �6 1B.lLlcb4, but here not 1B . . . .!d7?, because of 19.�aS+-, but 1B ... .!e6 19 . .txbS± and Black is without a pawn and he has no counterplay.) 17.lLlcb4 lLlxdS 1B.lLlxdS �d7 (That move looks strange, but Black has great dif­ ficulties after his other lines too: 1B . . .fS 19.exfS .!xfS 2 0 . .hbS ie6 2 1..ic4± White has an extra pawn and an easy game on the light squares. 1B . . . .!d7 19.0-0 .!c6 20. lLlb4 id7 21.h3± The vulnerabil­ ity of Black's bS-pawn ties up his forces completely.) 19.h4 .!dB 20. hS �7, Crouan - Piat, Montlucon 1997. Now, White's most aggres­ sive line seems to be: 21.�f3 ! ? Ei:aB 22 .Ei:d1 ! ? Ei:a2 (It i s not bet­ ter for Black to try 22 . . . gS 23.0-0 ie6 24.lLlf6+ WhB 2S.h6;j; and his position is very unpleasant, due to the weakness of his light squares in the centre and on the kingside.) 23. lLlf6+ whB 24.ib1 Ei:a6 ! (That is the only move - after 24 . . . Ei:xb2? 2S.lLlxh7!� White's attack is very powerful, for example : 2S . . . Wxh7 26.hxg6+ WgB 27.g7! Wxg7 28.�hS+- Black's d6-pawn is de­ fenseless now, therefore White checkmates - 2B ... Wf6 29.�h6+ We7 3 0.�xd6+ WeB 3VMfxdB# ; or 24 . . . Ei:a1 2S.lLlxh7! �) 2S . .!c2 gS ! (In answer to 2S . . . .!e6?, White follows with the already familiar motive 26.lLlxh7! Wxh7 27.hxg6+ and Black is helpless: 27 ... Wg7 2B.Ei:h7+ WgB 29.�h5+-, 27 . . . WgB 28.�hS fxg6 29.�hB+ wf1 3 0 .�h7+ wf6 31.�xb7+-) 26.0-0 90

Ei:a6 ! 27.Ei:a1;j; White exchanges his opponent's only active piece and he maintains somewhat better prospects, due to the vulnerability of Black's kingside; 12 . . ..!d7, Magem Badals F.Fernandez, Monzon 19B7, Black is trying to prevent the standard pawn-advance a2-a4 with that move, but still White's most ener­ getic line is 13.a4 !

13 . . . bxa4 (After 13 . . . Ei:bB 14.axbS axbS 1S . .!d3 0-0 16.0-0;J; - see 13 . . . Ei:bB 14.ab ab 1S . .!d3 .!d7 16. 0-0.) 14.Ei:xa4 Ei:bB 1S.lLla3 ! as (Black must protect the pawn, after 1S . . . 0-0? ! 16.Ei:xa6 Ei:xb2 17.lLlc4, in the variation 17. . . Ei:bS 1B.lLlxd6 Ei:b2 19.1Llc4 Ei:bB 2 0.ie2±, as well as in case of 17 . . . Ei:bB 1B . .!e2 Ei:aB 19.Ei:xaB �xaB 20.lLldb6 �b7 21.lLlxd7 �xd7 22. �xd6 �xd6 23.lLlxd6± Black re­ mains a pawn down and he has no compensation for it in sight.) 16.ibS;J; Black has weak pawns on as and d6, his light squares on the queenside are vulnerable and his pieces are too passive in order to compensate these weak­ nesses;

ll.c3 .ig5 12. lLl c2 12 . . . lLlbB - Black transfers his knight to a more active position. 13.a4 bxa4, McTavish - Peckford, Toronto 1992, and here it seems most aggressive for White to con­ tinue with the intermediate move 14.h4 ! ?

1 4. . . ,hh4 (It i s less logical for Black to refrain from capturing that pawn, after 14 . . . ie7 IS.lLlce3 0-0 16.Eixa4 .ie6 17.b4± he can hardly complete his development without material losses. It is hard­ ly any better for him to try 14 . . . ih6, i n view o f IS.g4 t ; now Black can save his bishop in three ways : after IS . . .if4 16.lLlxf4 exf4 17.WI'dS Eia7 IB.WI'd4 Eie7 19.WI'xg7 Eixe4+ 20.lt>dl EifB 21.ig2± - his pieces are placed quite disharmoniously and all his pawns are a sorry sight. In the variation IS .. .f6 16.lLlce3 0-0 17.WI'xa4± the light squares in Black's camp are very weak, while in the line IS . . . g6 16.hS id7 17.hxg6 hxg6 IB.WI'f3� White's compensation for the pawn is more than obvious, since Black has problems completing his de­ velopment.) IS.lLlce3 igS (15 . . . ie7 - This move looks too passive

and after 16.WI'xa4+ id7 17.WI'a3 0-0 IB.lLlxe7+ Wl'xe7 19.1LldS Wl'e6 20 ..ic4± Black has great worries protecting his d6-pawn, because his queenside is not well-devel­ oped and the open h-file might be dangerous for his king.) 16.WI'xa4+ id7 (After 16 . . . lt>fB 17.lLlc4� White's lead in development is obvious.) 17.WI'a3 0-0 (In the line: 17 ... lLlc6 IB.WI'xd6 ie7 19.1Llxe7 Wl'xe7 20.WI'xe7+ It>xe7 21.b4± Black's main trump - his bishop pair has been liquidated. The endgame is very unpleasant for him, because White has powerful queenside pressure and he domi­ nates in the centre. After 17 . . . ic6 IB.lLlfS 0-0 19.WI'xd6± the pawns are equal indeed, but White's pieces are tremendously active.) IB.WI'xd6 lLlc6 19.ic4;!; Black can hardly neutralize his opponent's piece activity without positional concessions or material losses ; 12 . . . ib7 - This move is mostly connected with the further trans­ fer of the knight to cS, via the d7-square. 13.a4 bxa4 14.Eixa4 lLlbB. That is the most logical line for Black. (About the moves 14 . . . 0 - 0 - see 1 1 . . . 0 - 0 ; a s for 1 4 . . . aS IS.ic4 0-0 16.0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0, Chapter 11; about 14 ... lLle7 IS.ic4 0-0 16.0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0, Chapter 11) IS . .ic4 lLld7 16.b4 ! ? This alternative to the more popular move 16.WI'e2, deserves serious at­ tention, since White does not let his opponent's knight to its most advantageous placement. 91

Chapter 7

Black has tried here: 16 . . .'�cB ? ! - That is a step to the wrong side. 17.'Wd3 'Wc6? (This is a continuation of the maneuver, which was started on the previous move.) 1B.bS 'WcB, Barglowski Markos, Oropesa del Mar 1999, here, after the natural try 19.bxa6 .ic6 2 0 J3al± White is left with a far-advanced passed pawn as a result of the rather strange roam­ ing of Black's queen; 16 . . . lLlb6 17.lLlxb6 'Wxb6 lB. .idS 0-0 19.0-0 hdS (After 19 . . . EiacB 20.Eia3 hdS 21.'WxdS 'WbS 2 2 .EidU White's prospects are better, because of his pressure against Black's vulnerable a6 and d6-pawns.) 20.'WxdS 'WbS 21.Eifa1 ! - Black has great problems after that precise move. 21...EiacB (It is hardly better for Black to try here 21...'WxdS 2 2 .exdS EiacB 23.Eixa6 Eixc3 24.Eic6 ! ±) 22.Eixa6 'We2 23. Ei6a2 Eixc3 (In the variation: 23 . . . 'Wc4 24.'Wxc4 Eixc4 2S.bS Eixc3 26.Eibl± White's passed bS-pawn is very dangerous and his knight has an access to the dS-square, via b4.) 24.lLle3 'Wd3, Berndt Babula, Germany 1999, and here

92

after 2S.Eid1 'WxdS 26.lLlxdS Eib3 27.g3± White has the classical advantage of an excellent central­ ized knight against a passive bishop; 16 . . . 0-0 - This is a logical completion of Black's develop­ ment and he postpones the fight for the dS-outpost for several moves. 17. 0-0 as - Black wishes to get rid of his weak pawn, but his defence is still too difficult (About 17 . . . lLlb6 1B. lLlxb6 'Wxb6 19 . .idS - see 16 . . . lLlb6 17.lLlxb6 'Wxb6 1B.idS 0-0 19.0-0. After the other possibilities for Black, White's prospects remain superi­ or too: 17. . . WhB - Black prepares to organize some counterplay by advancing his f-pawn, but that is too slow. 1B .'Wd3 as 19. Eifa1 axb4 20.EixaB haB 21.cxb4± Botsvin - Frolyanov, Cherepovets 2001; 17 . . . g6 - Black has no time to create threats on the kingside - White's queenside offensive is faster and he controls the centre. 1B.lLlce3 whB 19.'Wd3 as 2 0.Eifa1 axb4 2 1.EixaB haB 2 2 . cxb4± Ste­ fansson - Crocodile, Internet 1995.) 1B.'Wd3 lLlb6 ? ! 19.1Llxb6 'Wxb6, Dolzhikova - Kernazhitsky, Kiev 200S, now, Black has great problems with the protection of his as-pawn and after the natural line: 20 .idS ! hdS (or 20 . . . EifbB 21.bxaS±) 21.'WxdS EiacB (It is not advisable for Black to try 21 . . . 'Wc7 22.c4± and he loses his as-pawn.) 22 .bxaS 'Wb2 23.lLlb4±

11.c3 ,ig5 12 . tLl c2 a) 12

•••

.te6? !

The development of that piece seems slightly premature.

13.a4 bxa4 The alternatives for Black are not any better: About 13 . . . 0-0 - see 11. . . 0-0 1VtJc2 ,igS 13.a4 !e6 ; 13 . . . tLlaS? - That is a typical bluff. Black loses a pawn without any compensation. 14.axbS tLlb3, Haugen - Harestad, Randaberg 1990, and here after White's pre­ cise reaction 1SJ!a3 ! Black loses material after the attractive line: 1s ... id2 + 16. 'tt> e 2 �h4 17.tLlc7+ 'tt> e 7 18.tLlxe6 �xe4+ 19.tLle3+-, therefore, he is forced to continue with 1S . . . tLlcS 16.f3± - but White remains with a solid extra pawn; 13 . . J�b8 14.tLlcb4 tLlxb4 (In case of 14 . . . ixdS 1S.tLlxdS 0-0 16.axbS axbS, it looks very good for White to play 17.h4, repel­ ling Black's bishop from its ac­ tive position - after 17 . . . .tf6 18.,id3 13e8 19.Wie2 b4 2 0.ibS± Black has great problems on the light squares, Lyew - Vetter, Email 2 0 0 2 . It is not preferable for Black to try 17 . . . ,th6 18 J3a6

tLle7, Schenning - Schenning, Veldhoven 1991, after White's natural reaction 19.,ie2 tLlxdS 2 0.WixdS± Black loses one of his weak pawns.) 1S.tLlxb4 bxa4?, Korneev - Puigdemont, Badalona 1995 (Black should better play 1S . . . �b6 16.axbS axbS 17.13a6 �b7 18 .,td3t preserving some chances for successful defence), and now after 16.tLlc6 Wfb6 17.tLlxb8+ ­ White's material advantage i s de­ cisive.

14.gxa4 a5 After Black's other moves, he loses his a6-pawn without any compensation: 14 . . . ixdS? ! 1S.exdS tLle7 16. ixa6 0-0 17. 0-0 fS 18.tLlb4 f4, Trabert - Opacic, Lido Estensi 2003, and here after 19.�f3 ih4 20.13fa1 Wib6 2 1.,id3± White par­ ries easily his opponent's kingside activity and he remains with a solid extra pawn; 14 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.ixa6 tLle7 16. tLlcb4 ixdS, Pioch - Weider, Tar­ now 1979, 17.exdS tLlg6 18.0-0 f5 19.,ic4 �d7 20.tLlc6±

15 .tb5 Ad7 •

About 1S . . . 13c8 16J3C4 ,td7 17.h4 - see 1S . . . !d7 16.13c4 13c8 17.h4.

16.gc4 gcS l7.h4 .te7 After 17 . . .!h6 18.tLla3 0-0 19. Wia4 tLlb8 2 0.ixd7 13xc4 21.tLlxc4 tLlxd7 22 .�c6+- White occupies all the key-squares in the centre and he obtains a material advan­ tage too.

IS.tLlce3 g6 19.ti'a4 tLlbS 93

Chapter 7

Diaz - Lares, Mexico 1991. The most energetic line for White in the diagrammed position is:

2 0 . c!Llb6! llxc4 21.c!Llexc4 ixb5 22.Vxb5+ �f8 23.h5+- Black's queenside has been crushed and he has not completed his devel­ opment yet. His knight is under arrest; therefore, he has no coun­ terplay at all.

This move is thematic. Black wishes to remove White's knight from its excellent placement in the centre.

13.h4 White, in his stead, repels Black's bishop to a less active po­ sition.

13 . . . .th6

94

other

14.a4 bxa4 Black has not tried in prac­ tice yet the move 14 . . . E!b8, since after 15.lLlxe7 Wlxe7 16.axb5 axb5 17.lLlb4;!; he would have great problems with the protection of his b5 and d6-pawns, without any counterplay whatsoever.

15.c!Llcb4! White would not achieve much with 15.E!xa4? ! lLlxd5 16.Wlxd5 i.e6 17.Wld1, and here after 17. . . as 18 .i.b5+ @e7 19.0-0 Wfb6 20.c4 E!hf8 21.b4t he had a very powerful initiative in the game T.Airapetian - V.Tarasova, St. Petersburg 2 0 07, but in the line: 17 ... Wfb6 ! 18.lLlb4 a5 19.lLld5 Wlxb2 20.i.b5+ �d8+ Black not only ends up with an extra pawn, but his pieces are much more active.

b) 12 . . . c!Lle7

The

Black are doubtlessly worse: 13 . . . i.xh4? - this move loses b y force. 14.E!xh4 lLlxd5, Suarez Pousa - Soto, Los Barrios 1995, and here after 15.Wfxd5 i.e6 16.Wl'b7 E!b8 17.Wlc6+ �f8 18.0-0-0 E!b6 19.WlcS+- White ends up with an extra knight; 13 . . . lLlxd5? 14.Wfxd5 i.e6 15.Wlc6+ i.d7 16.Wfxd6± White has a solid extra pawn.

possibilities

for

11.c3 ,tgS 12. lLl c2 Black has tried to solve his problems in the diagrammed po­ sition with bl) 15 .td7, or with the help of b2) 15 0 - 0 . •••

•••

bl) 15 .td7 This logical move forces White to take extreme measures. •••

16-'�xa4 ! ? That positional sacrifice is quite typical. It is absolutely cor­ rect, because Black's bishop on h6 is out of play. In answer to the other principled line for White - 16.g4 - Black has at his disposal the interesting exchange sacrifice - 16 . . . a5 ! ? 17.lLla6 lLlxd5 1B.Wfxd5 .tf4 19.WfxaB �xaB 20.lLlc7+ We7 21.lLlxaB E!:xaB�, and he not only obtains a pawn for it, but his queenside pressure is quite un­ pleasant for White.

16

•••

kin. (After 20 . . . .tc6 21 . .tc4 .txd5 22 . .txd5 �a6 23J�h3 !± White has an extra passed pawn and his king is much safer in the cen­ tre than Black's castled king is. It is not preferable for Black to try the seemingly active move 2 0 . . .f5 21..ic4 WhB 22.exf5 hiS 23. 0-0±, since White has occupied reliably the light squares in the centre and Black has no compensation for the pawn.) 21.lLle7+ WhB 22.lLlxcB Wfxe4+ 23 . .ie2 Wfxb4+ 24.Wf1 .txcB 25.Wfd5 !;!; It is not easy for White to win with his extra ex­ change; nevertheless, Black is doomed to a long and very unre­ warding defence.

17.ti)xd5 .ixa4 In case Black declines accept­ ing the sacrifice, there arise stan­ dard positions with a slight initia­ tive for White: 17 . . . a5 1B.E!:a1 ! 0-0 19 . .ic4!i; in answer to 1B ... E!:bB, White can follow with the natural line: 19.b3 0-0 20 . .tc4i, as well as with the much sharper variation: 19.94 ! ? .if4 20.lLlxf4 exf4 21.�xd6 E!:xb2 2 2.Wfe5+ .ie6 23 . .tb5+ WfB 24.0-0i

18.ti'xa4+ WfS 19.b4�

lLlxd5

Black can reach much calmer positions with the line: 16 . . . a5 17.lLlxe7 axb4 (About 17 . . . Wfxe7 1B.lLld5 WfdB 19.E!:a1 ! - see 16 . . . lLlxd5 17.lLlxd5 a5 1B.E!:al.) 1B.E!:xaB WfxaB 19.1Lld5 0-0 20.cxb4 E!:cB ! This line is the best for Black, according to GM Sergey Karja95

Chapter 7 White has a powerful knight in the centre and he has good chanc­ es to win Black's a6-pawn, so all that more than compensates his exchange sacrifice. The run-up of the game and the variations of the analysis confirm that evaluation:

19

•••

27.ti'c7 ti'f7 Black loses now after 27 . . . l:!c8 ? ! 28.Wixd6 l:!xc4 29.exfS WixbS 30.l:!a7+-, but even after 27 . . . l:!t7 28.Wixd6 .if8 2 9.Wic6 Wixc6 30.bxc6± a satisfactory outcome of his defence is highly unlikely.

a5

It is logical for Black to try to save his a-pawn, otherwise White's compensation for the ex­ change is more than obvious: 19 . . . g 6 2 0.,ba6 fS 2 1.bS�, o r 1 9 . . .'l1;lfc8 2 0 .ie2 g6 21.0-0 �g7 22J!al�

2 0 .b5 gb8 It is not better for Black to de­ fend with 20 . . . g6 21.b6 �g7 2 2 . g 3 fS 23.ttJc7! Wie7 24.ttJxa8 l:!xa8 2S.Wic6 l:!b8 26.ia6± and he would have problems fighting against his opponent's b6-pawn in a position with material equality.

21.g3 ! g6 22 .th3 �g7 23. 0 - 0 gf8 24.l:!al �h8?! •

Black's only chance of sav­ ing the game is to try to activate his pieces - 24 . . .fS 2S.exfS gxf5 26.WixaSt

28.exf5! Wixc7 29.ttJxc7 gxf5 3 0 .ga6 l:!f7 31.tlJd5 + - Black's d6 and fS-pawns are very weak, while White enjoys a practically complete control over the light squares. This makes us evaluate Black's position as lost, Karjakin - Radjabov, Warsaw 2 0 0S.

b2) 15

•••

0-0

25.Wixa5 Wie8 26.c4 f5 The alternatives are not any better for Black: 26 . . J�a8?! 27.Wixa8 Wixa8 28.l:!xa8 l:!xa8 29. b6+- and he would have to give up a rook for the b6-pawn; 26 . . . l:!b7 27.Wib4± Black must stop somehow White's passed pawn; meanwhile he must protect his weakness on d6 and his bishop is incapable of coming to the queen­ side, which makes his defence tre­ mendously difficult. 96

That is the calmest line for Black. He completes his develop­ ment and although he would have problems obtaining counterplay,

1l.c3 ig5 12. I1J c2 he relies on the solidity of his po­ sition. It is far from easy for White to win against such an approach.

16.1ltxa4 a5 About 16 . . . lDxd5 17.lDxd5 a5 18.ib5 - see 17.ib5 lDxd5 18.lDxd5 - see 16 . . . a5 17. ib5 lDxd5 18. lDxd5. The move 16 . . . ib7 - leads to a quiet game with a slight edge for Whjite. 17.1lta5 1ltd7, Tairova - Kovalevskaja, Bad Homburg 2007 (After 17 . . . lDxd5 18.lDxd5 <;t>h8 19.1ltxd8 l:!fxd8 2 0.ic4t White's prospects are superior thanks to his domination over the d5-outpost and the possible pressure against Black's a and d­ pawns.), and now White obtains a slight, but stable advantage af­ ter 18.ic4 l:!fc8 19.1Dxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.id5t. The main drawback of Black's position is his bishop on h6, which can hardly enter the ac­ tions anytime soon.

17.ib5 tOxd5 The move 17 . . . ib7? ! - enables White to force advantageous simplifications. 18.tOc6 hc6 19. lDxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.ixc6 l:!ab8 21. l:!a2± - Black's dark-squared bishop is very passive and it will not be activated in the nearest fu­ ture, while his d6 and a5-pawns are weak. Instead, White's light­ squared bishop is very powerful. 21...l:!fc8 2 2 .id5 l:!c5 23.g3 <;t>h8 24.0-0 f5? ! That attempt by Black to organize some counterplay leads to his swift demise, but he is reluctant to stay completely pas-

sive. 25.b4 ! l:!xc3 26.bxa5 f4 27. a6 V!1a7, Pushkarev - Gladyszev, Sochi 2 006, and here White ex­ ploits the vulnerability of Black's last rank, winning by force with the line: 28.l:!b2 ! l:!f8 29.l:!b7 V!1c5 30.a7+-

18.tOxd5 ie6 18 .. .f5? ! - This move only compromises the light squares in the centre and on the king­ side, while Black's counterplay is non-existent after it. 19.exf5 hf5, Aliavdin - Holmsgaard, Pardu­ bice 2 007, and here White can develop his initiative in the most energetic fashion with the aggres­ sive line: 20.g4 ! ie6 21.ic4 g6 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 21.. .g5 2 2 .l1Je3 V!1f6 23.he6+ V!1xe6 24.11Jf5±, since his bishop is bound to remain passive on h6.) 2 2 .g5 ig7 23.tOf6+ l:!xf6 24.gxf6 wrxf6 25.V!1c6± White's king is not so safe indeed, but Black's com­ pensation for the pawn is insuf­ ficient anyway, because there is only too little material left on the board. 18 . . . <;t>h8? ! - This move is con­ nected with the idea to obtain counterplay on the f-file, but it would weaken the light squares in the centre. 19.b4 f5 2 0 .ic6 l:!a7 21.exf5 hf5 22 .bxa5 id3 23.ib5 ixb5 (It is not better for Black to try 23 . . . if5 24.0-0 ie6 25.ic6±) 24.V!1xb5± White has an extra out­ side passed pawn and a magnifi­ cently deployed knight in the cen­ tre, so his position is quite close to 97

Chapter 7 winning, Karjakin - Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07.

19.J.c6 E:bS

tion with material equality, Gan­ guly - Khader, Abu Dhabi 2007)

22 .txd5 Wfb6 23. 0 - 0 Wfxb4, •

Dominguez Perez - Jakoven­ ko, Foros 2007, and here after 24.%Yd7 'it>hS 25.E:a6t White has a powerful initiative. Black's bish­ op is out of action and he either loses his f-pawn, or he must push it forward, which compromises ir­ revocably the light squares on his kingside. White has a forcing line in the diagrammed position: 2 0 .b4 (He can also continue in a calmer fash­ ion: 2 0 .b3 'it>h8, An.Volokitin Ar.Timofeev, Spain 2 006, because after 2U�a2;t Black has no active prospects and that is confirmed by the following exemplary varia­ tion : 21.. .fS 22.exfS gnS 23.0-0 gf4 24.lLlxf4 hb3 2S.YMxaS ha2 26.Wfxa2 hf4 27.g3± The light­ squared complex is very weak in Black's camp. His bishop is out of action and his d6-pawn is vulner­ able.) 2 0 axb4 21.cxb4 .txd5 (Black must capture the b4-pawn; therefore it is worse for him to follow with 21. . . 'it>h8 2 2 .bS hdS 23.hdS Wfd7 24.ic6 YMg4 25.0-0 Wfxh4 26.Wfb3± - and despite the extra pawn, Black's position is al­ most beyond salvation. His rooks are very passive and his bishop can hardly come back to the g1a7 diagonal. 26 .. .fS 2 7.g3 Wfd8 28. exfS id2 29.YMa3 ! igs 30 .YMd3 Wfc7 31.ga6+- White's pieces are tremendously active in a posi•••

98

c) 12

•••

gbS !?

Black understands perfectly that White's plan is connected with the pawn-advance a2-a4, so he tries to organize some counter­ play along the b-file.

13.a4 Black is well-prepared for this operation indeed, but it is neces­ sary for White in his fight for the advantage.

13 bxa4 •••

The other possibilities for Black lead to a transposition of moves: about 13 . . . ie6 14.lLlcb4 - see 12 . . . ie6 13.a4 gb8 14.lLlcb4, variation a; as for 13 . . . 0-0 - see 11 ... 0-0.

1l.c3 i gS 12 . lLl c2 14.tLlcb4

14 . . .td7 .

It is essential for Black to pre­ serve his a4-pawn in order to create some counterplay. There­ fore, it is worse for him to play 14 . . . tLlxb4 15.cxb4 ! - this move is much stronger than capturing with the knight, since now the rook on b8 does not attack the vulnerable b2-pawn, but instead it is restricted by the well-pro­ tected b4-pawn. 15 . . . 0-0 (about 15 . . . id7 16.ha6 - see 14 . . . id7 15.ha6 lLlxb4 16.cxb4! ) 16.l3xa4 and here: 16 . . . Wfd7? ! - This is a strange move. Black loses a pawn as well as his main trump - the two­ bishop advantage. 17.ha6 ha6 18.l3xa6 l3fc8 19. 0-0± White has an extra pawn and his omnipo­ tent knight on d5 makes his posi­ tion almost winning, Damjanovic - Svicevic, Kladovo 1994; 16 . . . ie6 ? ! - This move looks more natural, but after 17.ic4 Wfd7 18.b3 �h8 19.0-0;1; Black loses unavoidably his a6-pawn and his active prospects are no­ where to be seen. 19 .. .f5 (Black's

only possible counterplay can be connected with opening of the f-file.) 20.exf5 l3xf5 21.l3xa6 e4 2 2.lLle3 ! he3 23.fxe3 hc4? (It is much better for Black to play here 23 . . . l3xf1+ 24.lMfxf1 d5 25.lMff4 l3d8 26.if1±, and although he has no compensation for the pawn in that variation either, he maintains some chances of successful de­ fence.) 24.bxc4 l3xf1+ 25.lMfxf1+­ Jakovenko - Wang Yue, Ergun 2006; After 16 . . . ib7 17.ixa6 ixd5 (It is evidently worse for Black to try 17 . . . ic6 18.b5 hb5 19.ixb5 l3xb5 20.b4 lMfc8 21. 0-0± and the dom­ inance of the centralized knight over the bishop makes White's advantage obvious, Edelstein Rinaldi, corr. 1992.) 18.lMfxd5 lMfd7 19.b3 id8 20.0-0 ib6 21.�h1 �h8 22.f3;1; White has an extra passed pawn, despite its being doubled, and he has neutralized Black's possible kingside coun­ terplay with his last move. Black failed to cope with the problems of his defence 22 . . . id4 23.id3 lMfe6 24.lMfxe6 fxe6 25.ic4 l3fe8 26.l3a6± and despite the oppo­ site-coloured bishops, Black was doomed to a long and very diffi­ cult defence, Palac - Gagarin, Za­ dar 2005; 16 . . .f5 - This is an interesting pawn-sacrifice with the idea to ob­ tain counterplay on the kingside. 17.exf5 hf5 18.ha6 id7 19.13a3 �h8 20. 0-0;1; The vulnerability of the light squares in the centre 99

Chapter 7 makes Black's compensation for the pawn insufficient and after 20 . . . i.h6? ! , Getz - B.Christensen, Copenhagen 2 007, it deserves at­ tention for White to continue with the prophylactic move 2 U�c3, preventing the sortie ofthe Black's queen to the kingside - 21 . . . '!Wh4 2 2 . �c4±; 16 . . . aS 17.bS i.b7 (After 17. . . i.d7 1B.iWb3 '!WcB 19.1Dc3 i.dB 2 0.i.c4 i.b6 21. 0-0t Black has something to brag about indeed: his dark­ squared bishop is on the perfect diagonal, but White has already a passed pawn on the queenside and he can start a kingside of­ fensive pushing f2-f4 after some preparation, Duijn - Lemmers, Leeuwarden 1995. 17 .. .fS - This move looks more aggressive, but it weakens considerably the light squares in the centre and on the kingside. 1B .h4 i.f6 19.i.c4 whB 2 0 .'!We2 i.d7 21.exfS �cB 2 2 . 0-0 h:h4 23.i.d3± White dominates in the centre and his dangerous passed bS-pawn provides him with superior prospects, RYBKA - THE BARON, Leiden 2006.) 1B.i.c4 whB 19.0-0 fS 20.exfS �xfS, P.Cramling - Tisdall, Glad­ saxe 19B3, and here after 2 1.'!We2 �cB 2 2 .i.d3 �fB 23.i.e4 �c5 24. �dU Black is helpless against White's dominance over the light squares in the centre and there­ fore his position is without any good prospects.

15.ha6 lLlxb4 1S . . . lDaS? ! - This move leads 100

to material losses. 16.�xa4 ha4 17.'!Wxa4+ wfB 1B.0-0 �aB, Sanz Barrionuevo - Sanchez Cuchillo, Burriana 1990, White wins easily here with the line: 19.�a1 ! lDb7 (It is not better for Black to defend with 19 . . . lDc4 2 0.iWbS lDd2 21.lLlc6 '!Wd7 2 2 .lDb6 +- and after White captures his opponent's rook on aB, he will remain with an extra piece.) 20.h:b7! �xa4 21.�xa4+­ Black has no satisfactory defence against 22.�aB, therefore White will end up with two light pieces and a pawn against a rook. 1S . . . 0-0? ! - This move los­ es a pawn. 16.�xa4 lLlxb4 (The pawn-advance 16 . . .fS? ! - com­ promises the light squares in the centre. 17.exfS e4 1B.h4 ! ih6 19.1Dxc6 hc6 20.�c4 i.aB 2UlcB '!WaS 22.�xbB �xbB 23.i.c4 �xb2 24. 0-0± White not only has an extra pawn, but he has excellent attacking prospects thanks to his centralized pieces and Black's vulnerable kingside, M.Sorokin - Gutman, USSR 197B.) 17.�xb4 'l&aS 1B.i.c4 '!WcS 19.�xbB �xbB 20.b3t White has won a pawn, but he lags a bit in development, so in answer to 20 . . . i.bS, it is very good for him to opt for 2 1 . 0 - 0 ! hc4 22.bxc4 'l&xc4 23.'I&g4 h6 24.h4 i.dB 2S.g3 i.b6 26.wg2t White has powerful positional pressure, thanks to his centralized knight and Black should play very care­ fully. The imprecise move 26 . . . i.cS?, enabled White t o activate his rook with 27.�b1 �fB 2B.�b7±

1l.c3 !g5 12. tiJ c2 Golubev - Gubajdullin, Moscow 2006. Following 15 . . . tiJe7, Droess­ ler - Hauschild, Germany 2004, it is sensible for White to at­ tack his opponent's weak pawn with 16.tiJe3 ! ? he3 17.fxe3 'ilVb6 18JWd3 f5 19.0-0 0-0 (It is hardly better for Black to try here 19 . . .f4 20.@h1 0-0 21.exf4 exf4 22 .!c4+ @h8 23.eS±) 2 0 .exf5 ixfS 21.%Vd2;!; - and White has somewhat better chances, due to the vulnerability of Black's d6 and a4-pawns.

can continue without sacrifices, though: 18.b3 ! ? axb3 (or 18 . . . ic6 19J1xa4 ha4 2 0.bxa4 'ilVd7 2 1.id3±) 19.%Vxb3 ie6 2 0.ic4;!; - White has somewhat better chances, because of his active pieces and the dominance over the central d5-outpost. 17. . . 'ilVe8 - This move prevents the exchange sacrifice indeed, but it dooms Black to a long defence without any bright prospects. 18 .b3 axb3 (After 18 . . . ic6 ? ! White's exchange sacrifice is very effective. 19J%xa4 ha4 2 0 .bxa4±) 19.%Vxb3 ie6, Corrales - Gon­ gora, Santa Clara 2 0 07, and now after 20.E1fdU White controls the centre and his queenside passed pawn is ready to advance at any moment. Black's only possible counterplay is connected with t7f5, but that compromises the light squares on the kingside.

16.cxb4! This i s a n important moment. Now, the placement of Black's rook on b8 is pointless, because his attack against the b4-pawn is not as effective as that against the b2-pawn. Meanwhile, the b4pawn is passed and it is ready to advance at an opportune mo­ ment.

16 . . . 0 - 0 17. 0 - 0 !c6 17. . . g6, Bilen - Chasovnikova, Moscow 2006, This is a useful move, because if White decides to sacrifice the exchange analo­ gously to the main line, his initia­ tive would not be so effective. He

18.gxa4! This is no doubt the best line for White. He obtains an excellent compensation for the exchange thanks to his powerful knight in the centre and his queenside passed pawn. 101

Chapter 7 lS . . . J.xa4 Black is forced to accept the sacrifice, because after 1B . . . �d7 19.b5 .b:b5 2 0 . .txb5 �xb5 2U!b4± the superiority of the knight over the bishop is obvious and Black's attempt to change the course of actions with a queen-sacrifice led to a lost position for him after 21 . . . �xb4 22.iLlxb4 gxb4 23.�xd6 gb5 24.g3+- Perunovic - Milanovic, Belgrade 2006.

19.tba4

19 ... VHeS Black's defence is not any eas­ ier if he enters an endgame. His position is difficult too after the alternatives: 19 ... ih6? ! - This move is con­ nected with the idea to transfer the queen to the kingside, but Black does not obtain any coun­ terplay with it. Instead, White's passed pawn advances to the pen­ ultimate rank. 20.b5 �h4 21.b6 gfdB 2 2 .b7± Mr335 - crafty, In­ ternet 1999; 19 ... whB ? ! - That is a loss of time. 2 0 .�c6 .td2 21.b5 i.a5 2 2 .i.b7 �h4 (In case of 22 . . . �eB - the exchange o f queens 102

is in favour of White. 23.ga1 .tdB 24.VHxeB gxeB 25.i.c6 gfB 26.ga6± Black's extra exchange is absolutely immaterial and his pieces are so cramped that he has no active prospects. 26 . . . g6 27.b6 f5 2B.exf5 e4 29.b7+- Abn - Bewersdorff, Germany 2001.) 23.b4 .tdB 24.�xd6 i.g5, Zapata - C.Lopez, Cali 2 0 01, Black's position is nearly hopeless after White's active move 25.ttJb6 ! , for example: 25 . . . gbdB (Black would not fare any better after his oth­ er possibilities 25 . . . gfdB 26.�c7 �g4 27.ttJc4 �d7 28.�xd7 gxd7 29.i.c6 gd4 30.ttJxe5±; or 25 . . . gfeB 26.g3 �g4 27.i.d5± and in both cases his pieces remain to­ tally passive.) 26.ttJd7 gfeB (Or 26 .. .f5 27.VHcS gfl - after 27 . . . .te7? 28.�c7+- Black loses plenty of material. - 2B . .tc6 fxe4 29.g3 �h5 30.ttJxe5± White obtains unavoidably a third pawn for the exchange.) 27.i.c6 i.e7 2B.�xe5 .b:b4 29.�d4± Black's defence will be very difficult, because his rooks are stuck to the last rank and White has two pawns for the exchange, one of them being a dangerous passed pawn; 19 . . .f5 - This move weakens the light squares on the kingside. 20.exf5 gxf5 2 1.i.d3 gfB (Follow­ ing 21.. .gfl 2 2 .b5i - Black has problems fighting against his opponent's active pieces. 22 . . . �fB 23.h4 i.f4 24.h5± White dominates in the centre and he can create threats on both sides

11.c3 !g5 12. ltJ c2 of the board, Toth - Pechy, Tri­ este 2 0 04.) 2 2 .bS VNd7 23.Wle4 g6, L'Arni - Moser, Augsburg 2002, White controls the centre and he can prepare the development of his initiative at leisure, after 24J:1a1 VNfS 2S.Wle2 VNfl 26.!e4;!; Black must consider the possible advance of his opponent's passed pawn as well as his eventual king­ side offensive with g2-g3, followed by the advance of his h-pawn; 19 . . . g6 - It was considered for a long time that Black could equal­ ize after that move. 20.Wlc6 id2 21.bS iaS 2 2.ib7 f6 ! - This is the only move, because Black brings his rook on f8 to the defence of his queenside. 23Jk1! (In the game Barua - B.Lalic, Ubeda 1998, White continued with 23.b4? ! ib6 ! 24.ltJxb6 l::!fl 2S.l::! d1 l::!fxb7 26.l::!xd6 Wlxd6 27.VNxd6 l::!xb6= and the position was already look­ ing rather drawish.) 23 . . . l::!fl (It is worse for Black to play 23 . . . id2? ! 24.l::! c 2 WlaS 2S.g3 ib4 26.VNa6 ! <;t>h8 27.l::! c4 id2 28.b4 VNd8 29. b6+-, since his pieces are help­ less against White's queenside onslaught.) 24.ic8 l::! a7 2S.h4;!; Black has prevented the advance of White's b-pawn indeed, but he has no active prospects. Mean­ while, White has excellent attack­ ing chances on the kingside.

2 0 .Wlxe8 gfxe8 2l.b5 f5

The diagrammed position was reached in the game Anand - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2006. In his comments, Anand recommended how White should develop his initiative in the most energetic fashion: 22.h4! - White must obtain the control over the c-file.

22 ixh4 23.gc1 fxe4 24.b6 gfS 25.g3 ig5 26.gc6 id2 27.b7 iel 28.gc2 ! ? chf7 (It is •••

not better for Black to opt for 28 . . . e 3 29.fxe3 <;t> fl 30Jk8 <;t>e6 31.e4 if2 + 32 .<;t>h1 ia7 33.ltJb4 <;t>d7 34.!bS+ che6 3S.l::! c7±, since he cannot maintain the material bal­ ance anymore and in addition he cannot capture White's danger­ ous b7-pawn.) 29.chfl ia5 3 0 . b4 che6 (Black loses too after 30 . . . id8 31.l::! c8 igS 32.ltJb6+-) 3l.bxa5 chxd5 32 .ib5! + - Black is completely helpless against White's two connected far-ad­ vanced passed pawns.

103

Conclusion In this chapter, we analyze on of the modern lines of the Chely­ abinsk variation 11. . . �g5 - Black ensures the two-bishop advantage, with the idea that it would compensate the defects of his pawn-struc­ ture. In answer to the strongest move for White 12.ti:J c2, (White central­ izes his knight and prepares the crucial pawn-advance a2-a4, which is aimed at exploiting the weakness of the light squares on the queen­ side.) Black has tried in practice different moves and in this chapter we analyze thoroughly: a) 12 . . . �e6?!, b) 12 . . .tiJe7, c) 12 . . . '8bB. It is worth mentioning that Black does not lose after some other rarely played lines, but they all lead to positions without any good prospects for him, while White's game is very easy on the weak squares on both sides of the board. The development of Black's bishop to the e6-square in variation a, is no doubt premature, because at first, that square is not always the best for that bishop - it must be deployed sometimes to b7, or d7 and secondly, Black thus weakens his a6-pawn and White develops his initiative effortlessly with quite natural moves. The logical move 12 .. . tiJe7 (Black fights immediately against White's powerful centralized knight.) is analyzed in variation b. The basic drawback of that move however is that White can play 13.h4! repelling Black's bishop to the edge of the board and it cannot join in the actions easily from there. After the practicallyforced line 13 . . . �h6 14.a4 bxa4 15. lD cb4! Black has to make up his mind between several possibilities: In variation bl, he forces his opponent to sacrifice the exchange on a4. White obtains numerous advantages as compensation - he has complete control over the light squares in the centre and on the queen­ side. His knight on as is all-powerful and he can create a passed pawn on the queenside after he captures Black's weak a6-pawn. Then, it would be practically material equality on the board. Accordingly, Black's extra exchange cannot compensate completely all the defects of his position. In variation b2, Black obtains a more solid, but rather passive position, practically without counterplay, but in a position with ma­ terial equality. He tries to complete his development and he tries to make a draw by simplifications. The disadvantageous placement of 104

his bishop on h6 is especially emphasized in that variation. In the critical position, arising after Black's move 19, White has the pleasant choice between the move, whichforces the issue immediately - 20 .b2b4 and the calmer line - 2 0 .b2-b3. Thefirst line leads to considerable simplifications - there are only kingside pawns left on the board, but the presence of heavy piece emphasizes the different power of the op­ posite-coloured bishops and that dooms Black to a fight for a draw without any active prospects. In the second case, White is not in a hur­ ry to create a passed pawn on the queenside and because of that, there remain many more pawns on the board. In that case, Black must con­ sider the possible advance of his opponent's b-pawn at any moment and he must take care about the protection of his weak as-pawn too. In variation c) 12. . . '!i.bB, Black tries to save a tempo by postponing his castling, with the idea to create some counterplay on the b-file. He plans to counter White's thematic break a2-a4, by exchanging bSxa4 and exerting pressure against the b2-pawn. Despite that, White, in his fightfor the opening advantage, is forced to sacrifice temporar­ ily a pawn with 13.a4,followed by 13 . . . bxa4 14. &iJcb4! - he covers the b-file in that fashion and he gobbles unavoidably Black's a6-pawn. The key moment in that variation is the possibility for White to cap­ ture c3xb4! in answer to c3xb4!. After that, Black's rook is restricted in its movements by his opponent's b4-pawn and it is much easier for White to protect that pawn than the b2-pawn. Later, after White captures Black's a6-pawn, he creates a passed pawn along the b-file. It is essential for White to control the dS-outpost, since he needs to have a piece there. Just like in variation bl, it is a classical resource, in his fightfor the advantage, to exchange at an opportune moment his rookfor Black's light-squared bishop.

105

Chapter 8

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9. �d5 J.e7 1 0 .ixf6 J.xf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 •

You can see on the diagram one of the critical positions of the Chelyabinsk variation. White cen­ tralizes his knight; he increases the pressure in the centre, plan­ ning to advance the undermining move a2-a4. He will thus create weaknesses on Black's queen­ side, freeing the c4-square for his pieces (it would be used most probably by White's light-squared bishop). How can Black counter that plan? In this chapter, we will ana­ lyze some rarely played lines like a) 12 .ie6, b) 12 .ib7 and c) 12 �b8, while the next chap­ ter will be devoted to the popular move 12 . . .l'(bB . •.•

••.

106

•.•

We have to mention that there will arise numerous transposi­ tions of moves, leading to the variation 12 . . . .igS, which is in fact the main line. We will study it at the end. At first, we will pay some at­ tention to several quite unusual possibilities for Black: About 12 . . J!a7 13.a4 bxa4 14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . i.gS; About 12 ... �hB 13.a4 bxa4 14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . .igS; It is too passive for Black to play 12 . . . .ie7? ! 13.a4 bxa4 (If 13 . . . E:bB 14.axbS axbS, a s i t was played in the game Rossato - Belotti, Pellestrina 1979, then 1S.i.d3, and it would be too risky for Black to opt for 1S .. .fS 16.exfS hfS 17.i.xfS E:xfS in view of 1B.E:a6±) 14.E:xa4 i.b7 (or 14 . . . aS 1s.ibS ! ? ib7 16. O-O± Gara - Moshina, Balaton­ lelle 2000) 1S.i.c4± Neiksans Gvatua, Rimavska Sobota 1996 and White has accomplished his plan and he is clearly better; It is not so good for Black to continue with 12 . . . .id7, A Panov

11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2 - Kuznetsov, Krasnodar 2004, 13.a4 bxa4 14J'ixa4;!;; While after 12 . . . lDe7, White should better provoke the appear­ ance of weaknesses with the help of the line: 13.lDxf6+ gxf6 14.id3 (We will mention here that we will analyze later a line, which looks rather similar: 12 . . J'ibB 13.h4 lDe7 14.lDxf6+ gxf6 lS.id3 - our read­ ers will be easily convinced that the absence of the pawn on h4 can be advantageous for White as well.). After the rather indifferent move 14 . . . ie6 lS.lDe3± White's advantage is doubtless and Black's active attempts prove to be insuf­ ficient for equality: 14 . . . dS 1S.exdS �xdS (It is not correct for Black to try lS . . . lDxdS? ! 16.�hS fS 17.hfS ixfS 18.�xfS lDf4 19.0-0±) 16. lDe3 �e6, Jurasek - Svab, Plzen 1996, 17.�hS ! fS (White is evi­ dently better after 17 . . . e4 1B.ic2 fS 19.ib3 �g6 20.�h4 �eB 21. O-O-O±) 1B.g4! That is a very strong move now, since Black has problems irrelevant of his choice on the next move. 1B . . . �g6 19.�h4±, or 14 . . . fS lS.exfS !xiS, Janz - Lampe, Hamburg 1997 (but not lS . . . lDxfS? 16.�f3+-) 16.ixfS lDxfS 17.�g4+ lDg7 lB. 0-0-0 �f6 (in case of 1B . . .fS, it is good for White to play 19.�b4;!;) 19.�hf1 as (19 . . .�fdB 20.lDb4;!;) 2 0.lDe3 b4 21.c4;!; and White has some positional edge; Finally, in case of 12 . . . g6 13.a4 bxa4 (or 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS lS.id3 ig7 16.�e2 �gS 17. 0-0

i.h3 1B .f3± Chase - Mason, Las Vegas 1996) 14.�xa4 !J.g7 (or 14 . . . �bB?! lS.ha6±; about 1 4. . . aS lS.!J.c4 !J.gS - see 12 . . . !J.gS; as for 14 . . . igS - see 12 . . . igS) lS.ic4 as (In the game Sluka - Vaculik, Litomysl 1996, Black chose 15 . . . !J.b7, and White's simplest reac­ tion would have been 16.0-0 lDe7 17.lDce3;!;) 16.0-0 �bB 17.b3;!; Sol­ leveld - Rijnaarts, Hengelo 1999. There arises a standard situa­ tion, quite favourable for White, because Black's bishop on g7 is bound to remain very passive.

a) 12

•••

ie6

Black determines the place­ ment of his bishop a bit prema­ turely and he does not prevent the move a2-a4. Considering the immediate exchange on dS, it has certain drawbacks too and we will prove that.

13.a4 bxa4 About 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS lS.!J.d3 igS - see 12 . . . !J.gS. In the line : 13 . . . lDaS 14.axbS igS, Black relies mainly on 15. bxa6? lDb3, but after lS.lDcb4 axbS 16.hbS �bB 17.!J.d3± Roth 107

Chapter 8 - Konik, Chemnitz 1995, White simply remains with an extra pawn. We must deal thoroughly with the principled move 13 . . . !xdS. White should play 14.exdS ! , and later there might follow: 14 . . . ttJa7 (planning to capture on bS with the knight) lS.ie2 \1;Yb6 16.axbS ttJxbS 17. 0-0 ttJc7 lS.l3a2 as (The endgame is very difficult for Black after lS . . . \1;Yb3? ! 19.ttJb4 \1;Yxd1 20.l3xdl±) 19.ttJe3 �cS, Lafond - Simon, Bischwiller 1999 (In case of 19 . . . igS 2 0 .ttJc4 \1;YcS, White has the tactical re­ source 21.l3xaS ! l3xaS 2 2 .b4 �xdS 23.bxaS l3dS 24.�a4;:1;) 2 0.l3a4! l3tbS (or 2 0 ... igS? ! 21.l3c4 �a7 2 2 .ttJfS±) 2 1.l3c4 \1;Ya7 2 2.�c2;:1; White has a very promising game on the light squares; After 14 . . . ttJe7 lS.axbS, Black has tried in practice lS . . . axbS 16.l3xaS �xaS 17.ttJb4 (That is an ideal square for the knight.) 17. . . m 7 (The line : 1 7. . . \1;Ya4 lS.id3 �xd1+ 19.�xd1 l3aS 20.�c2 l3aS 21.ttJc6 ttJxc6 22.dxc6 idS 23. b4+-, led to a lost endgame for Black in the game Gligoric Riego, Asuncion 1960.) lS .ie2 g6 19.0-0 igS 2 0 .\1;Yd3 l3bS 2 1.l3al± Chiburdanidze - Grigic, Vinkovci 19S2 and White has a clear ad­ vantage, as well as lS . . . �b6, Yt­ teborg - Polenske, Hamburg 1999, 16.id3 axbS 17.l3xaS l3xaS lS.0-0;:1;, followed by ttJb4 with pressure against the weak pawn on bS. lOS

14.gxa4 a5 15.ic4 �e7 Here, objectively Black's best move is lS . . . igS, and we will study it later - see 12 . . . igS. White's task is much easier after lS . . . !xdS? ! 16.!XdS m6 17.ttJe3 l3abS (In case of 17 . . . .ie7?, as it was played in the game Kre­ jcova - Kopecky, Klatovy 2003, White could have punished Black with lS.l3c4! l3acS 19.!xc6 l3xc6 20.ttJdS+- winning a piece. It can hardly be recommended to Black to opt for 17. . . �xb2? ! lS.l3c4±) lS.0-0± In case of IS ... l3bS, Klundt Benko, Germany 1992, White can follow with 16.l3a2;:1;, and after 16 . . . igS, there arises a position from the variation 12 . . . igS.

16.�xf6+ gxf6

17.ixe6! ? White does not need to exchange there right now, but he must try to provoke an immediate crisis. 17 fxe6 18.�g4+ �f7 19. 0 - 0 ;j; Simacek - Choleva, Czech Republic 1997. The defects of Black's pawn­ structure are quite evident and his king is rather unsafe. White's advantage is doubtless. •••

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJ c2 b) 12

•••

J.b7

Germany 19S6, 16.0-0;!;) 16.0-0 tiJd7 17.YNe2 - see 14 ... tiJbS.

IS.J.c4 tOd7 16.YNe2 White has deployed his forces harmoniously and he has forti­ fied his central pawn with his last move. Now, if Black places his knight on c5, White's rook would retreat to a2 and then he would advance b2-b4 with tempo.

16 The development of this bish­ op to b7 is usually connected with the maneuver of Black's knight along the route c6-bS-d7-cS(b6). That interesting plan was suggest­ ed and introduced into practice, at the beginning of the 70ies of the past century, by GM Bukhuti Gurgenidze.

•••

aS

About 16 . . . .tgS - see 12 . . . .tgS. White obtains a very good position after 16 . . . tiJb6 17.tiJxb6 YNxb6 1S.tiJb4 as 19.tiJdS ixdS 2 0.ixdS;!;

17. 0 - 0

13.a4 bxa4 It seems too artificial for Black to play 13 . . . tiJa7? ! 14.axbS tiJxbS 1S . .tc4 tiJc7 16.tiJce3± Tau­ fratshofer - Ludwig, BRD 19S9, while in case of 13 ... tiJe7, White follows with the typical reaction 14.tiJxf6+ gxf6 1s.id3 dS (It is not logical for Black to opt for 15 . . .
14.gxa4 tiJb8 !? Th e other possibilities are not of any separate value: about 14 . . . .tgS - see 12 . . . igS; a s for 1 4. . . tiJe7 1S . .tc4 .tgS - see 12 . . . igS; 14 . . . aS 1S.ic4 tiJbS (or 1S . . .igS - see 12 . . . igS; 1S . . . tiJe7, Henk - Schmitz,

17 J.xdS •••

Black fails to solve his prob­ lems by simplifying the position. About 17 . . . igS - see 12 . . . igS. In case of 17. . . tiJb6, White fol­ lows with 1S.tiJxb6 YNxb6 19.tiJe3 ! Here it is too risky for Black to grab his opponent's central pawn: 19 . . . ixe4 2 0 .idS ! ? ixdS 21.tiJxdS YNc6 (or 21 . . . YNdS 2 2 . l3fal± fol­ lowed by b2-b4) 2 2 .tiJxf6+ gxf6 23.l3h4 �fbS 24.f4� - and Black's monarch is seriously endangered. In the game Ahn - Vandevoort, 109

Chapter S Charleroi 1994, Black played 19 . . . :gabS, but White should have countered that with 2 0.\Wd3 ! 1c6 (or 2 0 . . . \!;lIxb2? 21.:gb1 be4 22.:gxb2 bd3 23.:gxbS :gxbS 24. bd3+-) 2 1.:ga2 \!;lIc5 22.:gdU, preserving better prospects. White is better after 17. . . lt:lc5 1S.:ga3 a4 19.1t:lcb4;!; Juhnke - Va­ leinis, corr. 2005. If 17 ... :ga7, then White in­ creases his queenside pressure by rather simple means : 1S.:gfa1 lt:lb6 (Black has also tried in practice 1S . . . bd5 19.bd5 \WbS 2 0.lt:lb4 !± Vrenegoor - van Oosterom, Am­ sterdam 2005 - but he has failed to maintain the material bal­ ance. Instead of 19 . . . \WbS , Black would not improve anything with 19 . . . lt:lc5 20.:g4a2 a4, because of 21.b4±) 19.1t:lxb6 \!;lIxb6 2 0 .lt:lb4 ! :gbS (20 . . . :gfaS 21.lt:ld5 bd5 22. bd5±, and after the retreat of the rook from as, White follows with 23.b4.) 2 1.:g1a2 .tg5 22 . .td5± with an overwhelming advantage for White. In case of 17. . . g6 1S.:gfa1 ig7, it is very good for White to contin­ ue with 19.b4 axb4 20.:gxaS haS 21.cxb4 1b7 (or 21...lt:lf6 22.\Wd3;!;) 22.lt:lce3;!; - and White's position is better thanks to his powerful control over the d5-outpost and his passed b-pawn, Vrenegoor - Nijboer, Amsterdam 1994.

18.h:d5 �b6 19.h:a8 lt:lxa4 2 0 .1c6 ! It:lc5 It is a mistake for Black to play 2 0 . . . lt:lxb2? 21.:gb1 \Wc7 (or 21... 110

\Wb6 22.\Wb5+-) 2 2 .ib5 ! \!;lIxc3 23.lt:le3+-, and his knight is trapped.

21. lt:le3 \Wb6 22.1d5;!;

In the game van Delft - Jelen, Groningen 1996, White obtained better chances. After he places his knight on the c4-outpost, Black will have problems with the pro­ tection of his d6-pawn, There fol­ lowed 22 . . . a4 23 .g3 :gbS 24.lt:lc4 \Wc7 25.:gdU. White will soon try to create another weakness in his opponent's camp. He can use his h-pawn in order to accomplish that task.

c) 12

•••

�b8

This is a variation of the same idea as in the previous line. The difference is that Black does not

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. lLl c2 lose time for the move !b7, and he will attack faster White's e4pawn.

13.h4! White plays more often here the standard line : 13.a4 bxa4 14J':!xa4 lLld7+t, but that just helps Black to achieve what he wanted in the first place. Therefore, I recommend an­ other method and GM Viswana­ than Anand used it quite success­ fully in one of his games. White is not in a hurry with the undermin­ ing operation on the queenside and he restricts his opponent's possibilities.

13 Ab7

•••

- it is essential that White main­ tains reliable control over the d5outpost. After 16 . . . a5 (with the idea to follow with b5-b4), White should continue with the accurate line : 17.a3 !c6 18 .!c2 g6 19.�e2 !g7 20.h5;!; Cioara - Moraru, Bucha­ rest 1999.

17.il.c2 a5 In case of 17 . . . !g7 18.hS, Black would not achieve much with the aggressive queen-sortie 18 . . . �gS - since after 19.�f3;!; White had a superior position in the game Al­ dea - Moraru, Bucharest 2001.

18.a3 Ag7 19.h5;!;

lLld7 14.lOce3 lOc5 15.g3

Black loses after 15 . . . lLlxe4? 16.!g2+-

16.J.d3 ! That is the ideal square for White's light-squared bishop in this situation.

16

•••

g6

Black only loses addition­ al tempi with 16 . . . lLla4, Muel­ ler - Raijmaekers, Email 1998, 17.�d2 ! ? lLlb6 18 .!c2 Eic8 (or 18 . . . lLlc4 19.lLlxc4 bxc4 2 0.b4;!;) 19.Eidli

That position arose in the game Anand - Kramnik, Monaco 1994. The Indian grandmaster did some wonderful prophylac­ tics and it bore fruit after 19 . . . !c8 (19 . . . �g5, Schuetze - Sandner, corr. 2005, 20.�f3;!;) 2 0.hxg6 fxg6 21.�e2 Eia7 22.Eih2 Eiaf7 23.�xb5 ia6 24.�b6 lLld3+ 25.ixd3 ixd3 26.�xd8 Eixd8 27.Eih4 h5 28. Eidl±. Anand ended up with an extra pawn in the endgame and gradually he pressed his advan­ tage home. 111

Conclusion Therefore, we have analyzed all Black's possibilities besides the most principled and strong 12 . . . '8b8 and 12 . . . �g5. White obtains the advantage in all the lines without too much of an effort and that ex­ plains why all these lines are not so popular at all. White's opening advantage is not so great indeed, but it is important that he can usu­ ally transferfrom a better middle game into a superior endgame. If we ignore the numerous possible transpositions of moves lead­ ing to the variation with 12 . . . ig5, then it is very interesting for Black to try the idea ofGM Gurgenidze, connected with the maneuver of the knight along the route c6-b8-d7-c5(b6}. It is essential then, whether Black with play at first 12 . . . !b7, or he would choose immediately 12 . ..ti:J b8. In the first case, White should not refrain from his the­ matic break 13.a4, because then he manages to accomplish his ideal deployment offorces thanks to the additional tempo. After 12 . . . ltJb8 however, it is not so easy for White, therefore I consider as more pre­ cise the prophylactic move 13.h4!, which was tried successfully by Viswanathan Anand.

112

Chapter 9

1.e4 c5 2 . lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 e6 5.lLlc3 e5 6 . lLl db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 S.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 J.e7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 H.c3 0 - 0 12.lLlc2 gbS •

Black has the following possi­ bilities now: a) 13 a5, b) 13 •••

1e6, c) 13 13 ie7.

•••

•••

�e7, d) 13 g6, e) •••

•••

This prophylactic idea ap­ peared in the middle of the 70ies of the last century. That mysteri­ ous rook-move prevents the the­ matic advance a2-a4, since after 13.a4 bxa4, White's b2-pawn is hanging. Meanwhile, Black for­ tifies the bS square and he can think about the possibility a6-aS. The move 12 .. J�b8 - is the most interesting alternative to the main line 12 . . . igS.

13.h4 ! This i s the most principled re­ sponse by White. Practice has shown that after the traditional line: 13.ie2 igS 14. 0-0 as, Black has nothing to be afraid of. In case of 13.h4, his dark-squared bishop is restricted and of course, it would be a disaster for him to capture the pawn - 13 ...ixh4? 14.'mlS+-

About 13 . . . l3e8 14.lDce3 1e7 - see 13 . . . 1e7. The following line contradicts the main ideas of that opening: 13 . . . h6? ! 14.g3 as, Dani - Pal, Zalakaros 1996 C14 . . . g6 1S.1h3± Pierrot - Tovillas, Mar del Pla­ ta 2 007), in view of 1S.lDce3 b4 16.ic4± and White maintains a clear advantage.

a) 13

•••

a5

It seems quite logical for Black to advance his couple of pawns on the queenside, but that has some drawbacks too. He loses his con­ trol over the bS and c4-squares and that enables White to deploy his forces comfortably and to in­ crease his pressure in the centre.

14.�ce3 b4 This move is consequential, but as we have already mentioned, it involves some strategical risk. There arise some other varia­ tions after 14 . . . 1e6 - see 13 . . . 1e6 and 14 . . . g6 1S.g3 ig7 16.hS ie6 113

Chapter 9 17.!h3 - see 13 . . . g6 14.g3 ig7 15.h5 .!e6 16 . .!h3 as 17.tDce3. It is too passive for Black to play 14 . . . �h8 15.�f3 ie7 16.id3 ie6 17.tDf5± Reeve - Zubac, Rich­ mond 2002, as well as 14 .. J;!e8 15.a4 b4 16.!b5 id7 17.�f3 ie7 18.tDf5± Gaponenko - Manakova, Tivat 1995. In the game Schaefer - Guen­ ther, Budapest 1995, Black chose 14 . . . ie7, and White should have countered that with 15.a4 ! ? There might follow 15 . . . b4 16 . .!b5 tDa7 (If 16 . . ..!d7, then 17.hc6 ixc6 18.cxb4 axb4 19.tDf5±, and White's knights are obviously stronger than Black's bishops.) 17.cxb4, and here Black solves his prob­ lems neither with 17. . . tDxb5 18. axb5 l3xb5 (18 ... axb4 19.13a7 if6 20 .�e2±) 19.�e2 .!a6 20.tDc3 l3b6 21.b5± and White occupies the d5-square, nor with 17. . . axb4 18 . .!c4 tDc6 19.a5;!; - White's passed a-pawn is tremendously dangerous. The other possibility is - 15 . . . bxa4 16.�xa4 ib7 (16 . . . !d7 1 7. .!b5±) 17.!b5 tDa7 18. tDxe7+ Vlixe7 19 . .td3;!;. White has a considerable positional advantage in both lines.

114

15.!c4! That is the ideal place for White's light-squared bishop.

15 . . .bxc3 16.bxc3 Formally, the c3-pawn should be a liability, but it controls the all-important d4-square and Black cannot attack it in the nearest fu­ ture.

16 . . . .te7 Black loses a pawn without sufficient compensation after 16 . . . .te6 17.tDxf6 + ! ? �xf6 18.�xd6 l3bc8 19 . .!d5;!; He has also tried in practice 16 . . . h6 17.g3 l3e8 18.Vlif3 !e6 19. l3dU Zhou - Li, Suzhou 2006, as well as 16 . . . tDe7 17.tDxf6+ gxf6 18.�f3;!; Driamin - Polyakov, St. Petersburg 1998, with a better game for White in both cases.

17.g3 !e6 18 .�a4! White's queen occupies a very comfortable square with tempo, although it is good for him to follow with 18. Vlif3 - see variation

b. 18 . . . tDa7 If 18 . . ..td7, then 19 ..tb5 l3c8 20.tDc4± Russo - Mohandesi, Charleroi 2006.

19. 0 - 0 ;1;

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ltJc2 �b8 13.h4 White has managed to restrict his opponent's light pieces and prevent his real counterplay. Black's as and d6-pawns are weak and he must be prepared for a dif­ ficult passive defence. In case of 19 . . . ltJc8, White follows with 20.�abl±, occupying the b-file (Black cannot play 20 . . . 1d7?, be­ cause of 21.�xb8 ! ha4 22.�xc8 ! Wld7 23.�c7 +-). It is relatively best for Black to try 19 . . . hdS 20. ltJxdS ltJc8 21.�ab1 ltJb6 2 2.'�c6;!;, but White is still better.

kov - Skatchkov, Perm 1997; 14 . . . ltJe7? ! 1S.ltJxf6+ gxf6 16.1&f3± Vo­ uldis - Sutovsky, Holon 1995; 14 ... 1&d7? ! 1S.ltJxf6+ gxf6 16.Wlf3± Berelovich - Samoilov, Alushta 1999. After 14 ... hdS 1S.ltJxdS b4, as it was played in the game Oliver Serrano - Alvares, Calvia 2006, White should have continued with 16.ha6 bxc3 17.bxc3 1&aS 18.1c4;!; - and Black's partial piece-activ­ ity would not compensate his sac­ rificed pawn.

15.1&f3 b) 13

•••

.ie6

White's alternative here is - 1S.ltJxf6 + ! ? (This move has not been tried in practice.) 15 . . . Wlxf6 16.1&xd6 �fc8 17.1e2;!;. I think that Black's temporary threats do not compensate his missing pawn.

15 b4 •••

This development of the bish­ op is typical for the Chelyabinsk variation in general, therefore this line does not lead to any original positions and it often transposes to other variations.

14.lLlce3 a5 Black follows the same plan as in variation a, but with a bishop on the e6-square. About 14 . . . 1e7!? - see 13 . . . 1e7. The other possibilities are quite dubious for Black: 14 . . . g6? ! 1S.ltJxf6 + Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6± Beshu-

In case of 1S . . . i.e7, White fol­ lows with 16.g3 b4 17.i.c4 bxc3 18.bxc3 1&d7 19.0-0 �fc8 20.�fdl;!; Baumann - Gueroff, corr. 1996. He has a stable positional advan­ tage. There arise similar positions in variation a.

16 .ic4 bxc3 •

It is in favour of White if Black plays 16 . . . a4 17.g3 a3 18.b3 bxc3 19.1tJxc3 ltJd4 2 0 .1&d1 WlaS 21.�c1 �bc8 2 2 . 0-0 1&a8 23.ltJcdS± Kor­ neev - Ramos, El Sauzal 2 0 03.

17.bxc3 a4 About 17 . . . i.e7 18.g3 - see 15 . . . 1e7. In the game Yurtaev - Holm­ sten, Helsinki 1992, Black chose 17. . . �b2 18.g3 a4 19.0-0 i.e7 115

Chapter 9 20Jiab1 �bS 2 1.Elxb2 �xb2, but White countered that with the precise reaction 2 2 .�d1 ! , and that provoked a swift outcome of the fight after 22 . . . a3 23.�a4 ElcS 24 . .ia6 1-0.

18.g3 @h8 19. 0 - 0 ;t

nent's pawn-structure on the kingside and that naturally en­ dangers his king. He plans to fol­ low with castling long. In general, that is rather untypical for the Chelyabinsk variation, but it is quite promising in this position. Tournament practice shows that Black's defence is difficult.

14 . . . gxf6 15.ii.d3 d5

In the game Betko - Lasanda, Slovakia 1995, Black had great problems. After the move he played - 19 . . . .ie7, White's best would be 20. ElabU

c) 13 . . "!be7

That is a standard method of neutralizing White's knight on dS, but in this case Black fails to solve his problems in the opening.

14.tbxf6 + ! This i s the right decision. White compromises his oppo116

Black is forced to advance his d-pawn, or his f-pawn; otherwise, White deploys his knight on e3 with an overwhelming advantage. Black's alternative to the main line is - lS .. .fS. After 16.exfS hfS (16 . . . dS 17.f6 ttJg6 lS.ttJb4± Pletanek - Prachar, corr. 1996) 17.hfS ttJxfS lS.�d3 �d7 (It is hardly any better for Black to try lS ... �cS, Traut - Scholz, corr. 1996, 19.94 ttJe7 2 0.�xd6 �xg4 21.ttJe3±, or lS . . . �f6 19.0-0-0 ElfdS, T.Olafsson - Sanchez Ser­ rano, corr. 199S, 2 0 . ttJb4±. White is clearly better after lS . . . ttJe7 19.0-0-0 Elb6 2 0 .ttJe3± Sorri - Nokso Koivisto, Finland 1997.) 19. 0-0-0;1; (Kasparov) and White is threatening g2-g4 with initia­ tive. Instead of 16 . . . hfS, Black plays more often 16 . . . ttJxfS, but then 17.�hS e4 (only move) IS . .ie2, and White obtains a com­ fortable blocking position. There might follow IS . . . dS, Salzmann - Strebel, Email 2 0 0 0 , 19.0-0-0 Elb6 20.ttJe3 ! ? ttJxe3 (20 ... Elh6 2 1. ElxdS ! ElxhS 22.ElxdS Elxh4 23. Elxh4 ttJxh4 24.Eld6;t) 2 1.fxe3;1;;

11.c3 0 - 0 12. 1L1 c2 l3b8 13.h4 1B . . . lLlg7 19.VNh6 l3b6, Hjartarson - Schandorff, Reykjavik 1997, 20. 0-0-0 dS 2 1.Wld2;1;; 1B . . . Wle7, Belotti - Leoncini, Montecatini Terme 1995, 19. 0-0-0;1;; 1B . . . aS, Borge - Schandorff, Denmark 1995, 19.'1Wg4+ lLlg7 (Black pro­ tects indirectly his e4-pawn. It is not good for him to play 19 . . . lt>hB 2 0 .Wlxe4 !XeB 21.Wld3±) 20.Wlf4;1;

16.exd5

16

•••

'ifxdS

The move 16 . . . 1L1xdS, seems to be a mistake after 17. WlhS, but in the game Jedryczka - Debowiak, Czestochowa 199B, Black played like that and the fight continued with 17 . . . f5 1B.ixfs ixfS 19.VNxfS lLlf4. This original idea is insuf­ ficient, however. White obtains an advantage by force in the end­ game after 20.l3dl ! ? lLlxg2+ 21. It>e2 lLlf4+ 22.1t>f3 Wle7 23.l3d7 VNe6 24.VNxe6 lLlxe6 (24 . . . fxe6 25. lLlb4±) 2S.l3g1+ It>hB 26.l3dS f6 27. lLlb4;1; - Black's king is stranded on the hB-square, while White has occupied the open files and he has a superior pawn-structure. In the game Vuckovic - Kerek, Guarapuava 1995, Black opted

for 16 .. .fS. White should have played here 17.'ifhS VNxdS (about 17 . . . 1L1xdS - see 16 . . . 1L1xdS; 17 . . . e4 1B.WlgS+ lLlg6 19 . .te2 VNxdS 2 0 . lLlb4 'ifcS 2 1.l3dU) 1B.VNgS+ lLlg6 19.1L1b4 ! , and that would lead to a situation similar to the main line (16 . . . VNxdS), except that White's knight had chosen another route and it was much better at that. Black cannot be happy with the line: 19 . . . VNcS 2 0.ixfS±, or 19 . . . VNe6 20.hS f6 (It i s a disaster for Black to try 2 0 . . . VNe7? 21.'ifh6+-, while if 2 0 ... e4 2 1..tc2 f6, then 2 2.VNe3, and it would not work for Black to play 2 2 . . . 1L1eS? in view of 23 . .tb3 lLlc4 24.VNg3+-) 21.VNxfS ! WlxfS 2 2 .ixfs ixfS 23.hxg6 hxg6 24.1L1xa6±. Black's relatively best defence is 19 . . . VNb7 2 0.hfS f6 21.Wlg4 hfS 22.VNxfS l3bdB (It is too risky for Black to follow with 22 . . . VNxg2 23.0-0-0±, since White's attack is crushing.), but after 23.1L1d3;1; White preserves his extra pawn without any seri­ ous compensation for Black.

17. 1L1e3 'llYe 6 Some other lines have been tried: 17 . . . VNd7 1B.VNe2 fS 19. 0-0-0 Wle6 2 0 .g4! f4 21.1L1fS± Grube - Heide, COIT. 1996; 17. . . Wlc6, Rigo - Zojer, Banska Stia­ vnica 2006, 1B.'ifc2 ! ± - it is es­ sential for White to prevent f6-fS.

18.VNh5 f5 In the famous game Kasparov - Lautier, Moscow 1994, in which that position was reached for the first time, Black advanced his cen117

Chapter 9 tral pawn prematurely and he lost while against 19.94, Black has the his control over the f4-square. M­ resource 19 . . . Wfg6 ! ter IS . . . e4? ! 19.ic2 b4 (In case of 19 Wfg6 About 19 . . . whS 2 0.ic2 b4 19 . . .fS 2 0.%YgS+ ! whS 21.%Yf4 �b6 22. 0-0-0, Black loses imme­ 21.c4 e4 - see lS . . . e4. In case of 19 . . . %Yxa2? 2 0 .WfgS+ diately after 22 . . . lDg6?, because of 23.Wfh6 - threatening 24.hS, lDg6 2 1.ibl! Black is defense­ while the move 23 . . . �gS loses to less : 21.. .%YaS 2 2 . lDdS+-; 2 1 . . .Wfe6 24.,ib3+-, and Black's queen has 22.,txfS %Ya2 (22 . . . Wfe7 23.lDdS! no square to retreat to.) 20.c4 WhS %YxgS+ 24.hxgS+-) 23.hS hfS (20 .. .fS 21.WfgS+ whS 2 2 .%Yf4±) (23 . . .f6 24.%Yg4+-) 24.%YxfS+21.0-0-0 fS 22.%YgS± White Black's position is very diffi­ seized the initiative and he gave cult after 19 . . . b4? ! 2 0.WfgS+ whS no respite to his opponent to the 21.ic4± end of the game. The thirteenth 2 0 .%Yf3 ! ? World Champion finished off his This move has not been tested attack instructively and spectacu­ sufficiently, but it is very interest­ larly: 22 . . . �b6 23.hS �c6? ! (Black ing and ambitious. Kasparov men­ had better try 23 . . . �gS 24.Wff4 tioned it in his comments about Wfh6, Kasparov, at least exchang­ his game against Lautier. White's ing queens.) 24.wbl �cS 2S.h6 queen eyes Black's fS-pawn and %YeS (2S . . . �gS 26.�dS +-) 26.�hS ! that provokes him to play either �gS (26 . . . lDg6 27.�dS+-; 26 . . . lDc6 eS-e4, weakening the f4-square, 27.lDg4 ! fxg4 2S.%Yg7+-) 27.lDg4 ! or ib7. In the latter case, Black 1 - 0 . Black resigned, since his po­ loses his control over the impor­ sition was hopeless following 27. . . tant cS-h3 diagonal and that is es­ �xgS 2S.lDxeS �xhS 29.�dS+ lDgS sential in numerous variations. 30.lDxt7# , as well as after 27 . . . White has a calmer and reliable Wfe6 2S.�dS+alternative, leading to a favour­ able endgame for him - 2 0 .%YgS. There might follow 20 .. .f6 (if 20 . . . %YxgS 21.hxgS ie6, then 2 2 .g4 fxg4 23.�xh7 �bdS 24.�h6;!;) 21.Wfxg6+ hxg6 2 2 .ic2 . White's advantage is based on his extra queenside pawn, his domination over the d-file, as well as on Black's com­ promised pawn-structure on the kingside. 19. 0 - 0 - 0 ! If 22 .. .f4, then 23.lDdS lDxdS The a2-pawn is untouchable, 24.�xdS Wg7 (24 . . . ,ib7 2S.�d6 •••

11S

11.c3 0 - 0 12 . � c2 �b8 13.h4 hg2 26J3g1 f3 27.ixg6±) 25.h5 gxh5 26J!xh5 �b6 (26 . . . �h8? 27.�xh8 �xh8 2 8.�d8+ �g7 29. if5+-) 27.�h7+ �g8 28.�d1 ie6 29.�dh1 f5 30.�1h6± Chorfi - T.Olafsson, corr. 1999. In the game Solozhenkin - Sit­ nikov, Russia 1999, Black chose 22 . . . �g7 and after 23.h5! g5 (23 . . . f4 24.hxg6 !±; 23 . . . gxh5 24.�xh5 �h8 25.�xh8 �xh8 26.�d8± Solo­ zhenkin) 24.h6+ �h8 25.f3± he had problems. It would be in fa­ vour of White if he had played 23 . . . �h8 24.hxg6 ie6 (24 . . . �xh1 25.�xh1 �xg6 26.g4±) 25.�h7 + �xh7 26.gxh7 �h8 27.�d6;.t Sal­ vador Marques - Rousselot, corr. 1994. It is more precise for Black to defend with 22 . . . �b6, but then White is not obliged to play the hasty line 23.h5 g5� (White's h5pawn becomes a potential weak­ ness.). It is preferable for him to follow with the accurate 23.g3 ! ? ie6 24.ib3 �g7 (24 . . . ixb3 25. axb3;.t), and only now 25.h5 f4 (25 . . . g5 2 6.ixe6 �xe6 27.�d7±) 26.gxf4 exf4 27 . .!L'lc2;!; with a trans­ fer of the knight to the d4-square to follow. In the game Pletanek Tomecek, corr. 1996, Black played 24 . . . �f7, and after 25.h5 gxh5 26.�xh5 ixb3 27.axb3 �e6=, the centralization of his king equal­ ized the game. White's play could be improved with the line: 26.�d7! hb3 (26 . . . �e8 27.�a7;!;) 27.axb3 �e6 28.�xe7+ ! �xe7 29.�d5+ �e6 (29 . . . �d6 30.�xb6 �c6 31.

�xh5 f4 32.gxf4 �xb6 33.�f5±) 30.�xb6 �b8 31 . .!L'la4 bxa4 32. bxa4 �h8 33.�h4 !;.t with consider­ able winning chances in the rook ending. These variations show that Black must fight long and hard for a draw.

2 0 . . . b4 After 20 . . . e4? ! 21.Wff4± - the defenselessness of the rook on b8 is the tactical motive behind the move 20.Wff3. Black can play 20 . . . ib7, with­ out the inclusion of the moves 2 0 . . . b4 21.c4, but then 2 1.Wfe2 e4 2 2 .ic2 f4 23.h5 Wf6 (23 . . . Wfg5 24.Wg4;!;) 24 . .!L'lg4 Wfg5 (if24 . . . We6, then 25.ib3±) 25.�b1;l; White's prospects are better.

21.c4 .tb7

22.Wfe2 ! White's queen is better placed here than on h3. There will soon appear a black pawn on the e4square and it must be kept under control.

22 . . . e4 In case of 22 . . . Wff6 ! ? 23.ic2 �fd8, it looks attractive for White to advance his rook-pawn, en­ larging the scope of action of his 119

Chapter 9 rook: 24.hS gd4 (This is a seem­ ingly attractive idea.) 2S.h6 gbdB 26.gxd4 �d4 (If 26 . . . exd4, White has the resource 27.1L1xfS ! lLlxfS 2B.�g4±) 27.ghS ! e4 2B.f3;!;, and White is better.

23.ic2 f4 24.hS! That i s a n important interme­ diate move. It is now essential where Black's queen will go.

and White ends up in a slightly better endgame. The fight might continue like that: 2B . . . fxg2 29. 13hgU; 2 B . . . gfeB 29.13d4;!;; 29 . . . gbcB 29.'it>b1 gfeB 30.gh4;!; - and in all the variations Black's pawn­ weaknesses are quite obvious; nevertheless, White's victory is not guaranteed at all.

24 •gS •••

If 24 . . . Wff6 ? ! , then 2S.1L1dS ! lLlxdS ( 2 S . . . .ixdS 26.cxdS±) 26. Wfxe4! ± - and in connection with the checkmating threat on h7, White regains his material with interest and Black's position re­ mains very difficult. In this varia­ tion, you can see the tactical re­ sources behind White's move 2 2 . His task becomes much more difficult after 24 . . . �h6. It turns out that the discovered check is not so dangerous for White, so he can play 2S.1L1dS lLlxdS (It is weaker for Black to opt for 2S . . . f3+ 26.�e3 �xe3+ 27.1L1xe3 fxg2 2B.ghg1 gfdB 29.gxg2+ , and later 29 . . . 'it>fB 3 0J'3dgl±, or 29 . . . 'it>hB 30.gxdB+ 13xdB 31.13gS±. It is hardly any better for Black to try 2S . . . .ixdS 26.cxdS fS 27.d6 f3+ 28.�e3 �xe3+ 29.fxe3 lLlc6 30. gxf3 exf3 31.13hg1+ 'it>hB 32.d7± - and White's passed pawn is very powerful, while Black's king is endangered.) 26.cxdS f3+ (It is rather unsafe for Black to avoid the trade of queens: 26 .. .fS 27.d6 or 26 . . . 13feB 27.ghe1 fS 2B.f3 �xhS 29.d6;;) 27.�e3 �xe3+ 2 B.fxe3, 120

2S.'irJg4! That move is necessary and it had to be anticipated in advance.

2S

•••

h6

It is too dubious for Black to play 2S . . .f6?! 26.�e6+ gO (26 . . . 'it>hB 27.Wfxe7 fxe3 2 B .fxe3 �xe3+ 29.'it>bl±) 27.1L1g4 'it>fB (If 27 . . .f3+ 2B.lLle3 WfeS, then 29.�xeS fxeS 30.gxf3 gxf3 31.13d7±, while in case of 27. . . gbfB, White has the tactical strike 2B.lLlxf6 + ! �xf6 29.Wfxf6 gxf6 30.gd7±. It is insuf­ ficient for Black to play 27 . . J'3eB 2B.ia4 gefB 29.ghg1 ! ?±) 2B.ghe1 f3+ 29.1L1e3 �eS (29 . . . fxg2 30J'3g1 WfxhS 31.gxg2±) 30 .�xeS fxeS 31. gxf3 gxf3 32.1L1g4± - and the end­ game is difficult for Black. It is also in favour of White, if Black plays 2S . . . �xg4 26.1L1xg4 fS 27. 1Ll eS;!;

11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2 �b8 13.h4 26.'ibgS+ bxgS 27.c!Llg4 f5 28.c!LleS;l;;

White has the possibility to open the h-file.

14.g3 �g7

White has the initiative, al­ though Black has defensive re­ sources. Here, it seems too risky for him to play 28 . . . e3 29.lDd7 hg2 3 0 . �hgl±. It is more reli­ able for Black to continue with 28 . . . �fd8, but White maintains his advantage even then after 29.h6 wh7 (29 . . . e3 30 .fxe3 fxe3 31.�h5±) 30.�xd8 �xd8 31.lDt7 �g8 32.�dU threatening to pen­ etrate along the open d-file.

d) 13 . . . g6 ! ?

It is only a transposition of moves after 14 . . . !e6 15.i.h3 (15. lDxf6 + ? ! Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6? Wlf3 !+) 15 . . . i.g7 (If 15 . . . hd5 16. �xd5 lDe7, then it is good for White to play 17.Wld3 d5 18.exd5 Wlxd5 19.�xd5 lDxd5 2 0 . 0-0-0;l;; with a slightly better endgame, as well 17.�b3 ! ?±, which prevents 17 . . . d5? ! , i n view o f 18.0-0-0 d4 19.cxd4 exd4 2 0.f4±) About 16.h5 - see 14 ... i.g7. Black has not tested yet the move 14 . . . h5, but it would not solve his problems either. After 15.!h3 !e6 (Black complies with that exchange only in that particu­ lar case.) 16.lDcb4 lDxb4 17.lDxb4± White has the edge.

lS.hS J.e6 The fight develops in an analogous fashion after 15 . . . lDe7 16.lDce3 lDxd5 17.lDxd5 �e6 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.!h3 Wld7 2 0 .he6 fxe6 21.lDb4 - see the comments to the final position of the main line (18.lDcb4).

16.!h3 The exchange of the light­ squared bishops is in favour of White, as a rule.

16 Wld7 .••

This move i s quite popular. Black plans at first to retreat with his bishop to g7 and to follow that eventually with lDc6-e7. The ob­ vious defect of the move is that

Black plans to recapture on e6 with his pawn, in order to repel White's knight away from the d5outpost. We must study some other possibilities too: 121

Chapter 9 If 16 . . . b4, then 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.lDcxb4 bd5 (1B . . . lDxb4 19. be6 lDxd5 2 0.bd5 llxb2 21.llb1 llxb1 22:�xbl;!;) 19.1Dxd5 llxb2 20. Wfcl;!; - White preserves his con­ trol over the d5-square; The exchange of the bishop for White's knight does not solve any problems either: 16 . . . bd5 17.Wfxd5 lDe7 1B.Wfd3 Wfb6 19.hxg6 hxg6 2 0.lld1 llbdB 21.lDe3;!; Leh­ tioksa - Nokso Koivisto, Finland 199B ; In the variation 16 . . . a5 17. lDce3 lDe7 (In case of 17. . . Wfg5, White forces his opponent to cap­ ture on h3 with the help of the line: 1B.lDc7! bh3 19.1lxh3 llfdB 2 0 .'J;'f1 b4 21.lDcd5 lldcB 22 .Wfa4 bxc3 23.bxc3 WfdB 24.@g2 lDe7 25.hxg6 hxg6 26.llhh1!± J.Polgar - Illescas, Leon 1996 and he ob­ tains a great positional advantage, thanks to his dominance over the d5-outpost and the superiority of his knight over the bishop. If 17 . . . Wfd7, then White should re­ frain from the straightforward line: 1B .hxg6 hxg6 19.1Df5? gxf5 2 0 .Wfh5 f6 !+ and he should pre­ fer the calmer variation: 1B.h6 ! �hB 19.�g2, with a better game for White. It would be too risky for Black to try 19 . . .f5? ! , because of 2 0 .exf5 gxf5 2 1.llh5 !±) 1B.hxg6 hxg6 19.1Dxe7+ Wfxe7 2 0 .Wfd3;!; and White has again a stable ad­ vantage.

17.bxg6 bxg6 After 17 . . . bh3 1B.Wfh5 fxg6 19.Wfxh3 Wfxh3 20J�xh3;!;, or 17 . . . 122

fxg6 1B.be6+ Wfxe6 19.Wfe2;!; (van Kempen) White's position is quite comfortable.

lS.lDcb4!?;!; In the game Barlow - van Kempen, corr. 1997, White chose 1B.ig2, and after Black's precise reaction 1B . . . b4 ! 19.1Ddxb4 lDxb4 20.lDxb4 a5, he even managed to seize the initiative. I believe that the new move 1B.lDcb4 leaves Black with fewer active possibilities. See an exem­ plary line, which shows that White maintains a slight, but stable edge, while Black must fight patiently to equalize: 1B . . . lDxb4 19 .be6 fxe6 (Black's attempt to deflect his op­ ponent's queen from the kingside does not facilitate his defensive task either: 19 . . . lDc2+ 2 0 .Wfxc2 fxe6 21.lDe3;!;) 20.lDxb4 a5 21.lDd3 Wffl (It is also possible to try 21... llbcB 22 .Wfg4 llf6 23.0-0-0 Wfb7 24.@bl;!;, or 21.. .b4 22.cxb4 axb4 23.0-0;!;) 22 .Wfg4;!;

e) 13 .te7 •.•

That is Black's most reliable line. He avoids weakening of his kingside and retreats his bishop

11.c3 0 - 0 12. !iJ c2 �b8 13.h4 to e7 with the idea to follow that with the development of his other bishop to e6, the queen to d7 and the maneuver i.d8-b6 and to play at some moment !iJe7. I have to mention that it is not easy at all for White to obtain a serious ad­ vantage in that line.

problems. White had however, the excellent possibility 15.Y;Yh5 ! ? (instead of the schematic 15.g3). After 15 . . . i.e6 (15 . . .b4 16.J.c4±) 16.ie2 b4 17.i.g4 bxc3 18.bxc3± White plans to organize a danger­ ous attack with if5, !iJg4, �h3. In case of 18 . . . 'it>h7 19.if5+, Black loses after 19 . . . g6?, because of 2 0.!iJg4 ! +If 14 . . . �e8, Horcman - De Saint Germain, corr. 1998, then 15.Y;Yf3 its 16.h5 h6 17.id3 !iJe7 18 .ic2± with slightly better pros­ pects for White.

15.YHf3 YHd7

14.!iJce3 J.e6 About 14 . . . a5 - see 13 . . . a5. When Black's bishop is on e7, it is rather untypical for him to play 14 . . . g6? ! , Zinchenko Kruglyakov, Alushta 2006, 15.g3 J.e6 (15 .. .f5 16.h5 fxe4 17.hxg6 hxg6 18 .J.g2±) 16.Y;Yf3 b4 (16 .. .f5 17.h5±) 17.ic4± The move 14 . . . b4 enables White to deploy his pieces quite comfortably: 15.ic4 bxc3 16.bxc3 Y;Ya5 17.Y;Yd3 �d8, Mijnheer Schenkeveld, Hoogeveen 2006, 18.g3± It might be interesting for Black to try 14 . . . h6 ! ? Black thus creates a real threat to capture White's h4-pawn and he prevents the advance h4-h5-h6. That move was tested in the game Sevecek Joseph, corr. 1994, in which Black solved successfully his opening

About 15 . . . a5 16.g3 - see 13 . . . ie6 14.!iJce3 a 5 15.Y;Yf3 ie7 16.g3. In case of 15 ... b4, White is not obliged to accept the challenge and enter the line: 16.ixa6 bxc3 17.bxc3 YHa5 18.ic4, Lunde - Man­ sfield, corr. 1996, 18 . . . i.d8+t. It would be much simpler for him to play 16.ic4 bxc3 17.bxc3±, reach­ ing the standard position.

16.gdl White has also tried the radi­ cal solution 16.g4 id8 17.id3, but after 17 . . . a5 ! oo, followed by b5-b4, Black's counterplay is sufficient 123

Chapter 9 and tournament practice has con­ firmed that. The move 16J�dl seems to me as a calmer solution and I advise my readers to follow it. White de­ ploys his forces optimally and he refrains from drastic changes of his pawn-structure.

16

•••

.ld8 17 .le2 c!lJe7 •

There might arise a large scale exchange of light pieces on the dS-square rather soon. There will remain opposite-coloured bish­ ops on the board, but that would not guarantee any easy equality for Black at all, since there will be queens and rooks left on the board. It is essential to understand that White must strive to capture on dS with a piece and not with a pawn, in order to sustain the pressure against the d6-square. The exceptional case is when he can create threats against his op­ ponent's king by opening the bl­ h7 diagonal.

18.h5 h6 That move is just obligatory; otherwise White's rook-pawn will advance even further. After 18 . . . ixdS 19.itJxdS itJxdS 20J'1xdS, it would be a mistake for Black to play 2 0 . . .fS?, because of 21.exfS E1xfS 22.E1xd6 !± Morawi­ etz - Hoffmann, Norway 2 00S.

19. 0 - 0 (diagram)

19

••.

.lb6

That is the most popular move for Black, but I am not convinced that it is the best. 124

There is another idea, which deserves a great attention - to remove the queen from the d7square, with the aim to free squares for the light-squared bishop and to create the positional threat of capturing White's knight on dS. Let us see what might hap­ pen in that case: The move 19 .. .'\Wb7! ? has been tested in the game Kurmann - Zinchenko, Istanbul 2 00S. In­ stead of the rather modest move 2 0.a3, White could have played 20.itJfS, after which Black is faced with a choice. He can reach simi­ lar positions to the main line with the variation: 2 0 . . . ixfS 21.exfS itJxdS 22.E1xdS;!;, or 2 0 . . . itJxfS 21.exfS hdS (21.. .�d7 2 2 .f6±) 22.E1xdS;!;. In case of 20 . . .ixdS 21.itJxe7+ ixe7 2 2 . E1xdS;!; White maintains his edge again. It looks like Black can solve his problems with the help of 2 0 . . . itJxdS, but after 21.itJxd6 (The exchange­ sacrifice looks too optimistic - 21.E1xdS? ! ixdS 22.exdS g6!+) 21. . . 'lWc6 22.exdS 'lWxd6 23.dxe6 'lWxe6 and White turns out to be better prepared for the opening of the central file. There might fol-

1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . llJ c2 l3bB 13.h4 low 24.�dS ! ? �fS (The endgame is rather unpleasant for Black af­ ter 24 . . . �xdS 2SJ3xdS .tf6 26J3d6 as 27J3dS !;!;; in case of 24 . . . V«f6, it is good for White to react with 2S.V«d6 ! .tb6 26.�xf6 gxf6 27J3d6 l3fd8 ! ? 28.l3fd1 @g7 29.ig4;!;; if 24 . . . l3e8, then 2S.V«e4! if6 26.l3dS l3bd8 27.l3fdlt, and White in­ creases his pressure with queens 2 2.id3?! igS 23.ic2 b4 ! 24.llJxd6 present on the board.) 2S.V«d7! l3fd8c;o and Black had no problems (The trade of queens would enable at all. White to penetrate on the open Instead of 22 .id3, it is stron­ file.) 2S . . . �xd7 (2S . . . �f4 26.�g4 ger for White to play 22.�g3 !?, so ib6 27.�xf4 exf4 28.l3d6;!;) 26. that after 22 . . . ixfS 23.exfS igS l3xd7 ib6 27.l3fd1 l3fd8 28.@f1 24.l3dS;!; he can obtain the typi­ @f8 29.ig4 l3xd7 30.l3xd7 l3d8 cal pawn-structure for that varia­ 31.l3b7t. White can play for a win tion. Black has at his disposal in that endgame without any risk an interesting possibility - 22 . . . whatsoever. Black's queenside igS ! ? (temporary pawn-sacrifice) pawns are vulnerable and the f7- 23.llJxd6if4 (23 . . . ha2 24.�xeS±) square is potentially very weak. 24. V«f3 ixa2 . The first impression Quite recently, in the game is that Black has no problems, but Karjakin - Yakovich, Sochi 2007, White's resources have not been Black tried a new move 19 . . . V«c8 ! ? exhausted yet. After 2S.l3a1 ! �xd6 and after 2 0 .llJxe7+ he7 21.llJfS (2S . . . ie6 26.l3xa6 b4 27.c4;!;) 26. (White has no advantage after l3xa2 and there arises the usual 21.b3 igS ! ? 22.l3xd6 �xc3 23.l3xa6 material ratio (opposite-coloured he3 and in the game Jakovenko bishops with heavy pieces on the - Ivanchuk, Foros 2 007, the op­ board) and White maintains the ponents agreed to a draw in that initiative. There might follow position, since White's attempts 26 . . . �e6 27.l3fa1 l3b6 28.g3 igS to play for a win would have been 29.�f5 ! �c6 (if 29 . . . �xfS 30.exfS fruitless, for example: 24.�xe3 l3a8, then 31.l3aS b4 32 .c4±, and �xe3 2S.fxe3 l3a8 26.hbS l3xa6 Black's queenside pawns will be 27. l3xa6 l3a8 28.ic4 hc4 29.bxc4 an easy prey for White. In case l3xa2 30.l3c1 @f8 = , or 28.ib7 l3xa2 of 29 . . . l3e8, White follows with 29.idS l3b2 30.l3a1 hdS 31.exdS 30.�xe6 l3exe6 31.c4, and Black is l3xb3= and the rook endgames are faced with a difficult choice: 31. . . quite drawish in both cases.) 21 . . . l3ec6?! 32.cxbS axbS 33.l3a8+ @h7 34.l31a7+-; 31.. .bxc4 32 .hc4±; �c7 12S

Chapter 9 31.. .b4 32J3aS±) 30J!dU and White occupies the d-file, or 26 . . . �fd8 27.�d1 '.We6 (After 27. . . �b6 28.�dS !;!; White has the threat - 29.g3.) 2 8.�dS ! igS (It is quite risky for Black to open the b1-h7diagonal, for example 28 . . . �xdS? ! 29.exdS �d6 30 .id3 �d8 31.ie4 wf8 32 .g3 igS 33.�fS±) 29.�aU (It also deserves attention for White to try 29.id1 !?, followed by 30.ib3.) - and White has a slight, but stable advantage and he can increase his pressure without any risk.

21.�xdS ! AxfS (It is obviously bad for Black to play 2 1 . . . .txdS? 2 2.'.Wg4 '.WxfS 23.exfS ! ± threatening 24.f6 and 24.�d1.) 2 2 .exfS - see 20 . . . !xfS, o r 2 0 . . . !xdS 21.�xdS ! �xdS (about 21...�xfS 2 2 .exfS - see 20 . . . .txfS) 22.'.Wg4 �xfS 23.�xfS tLlf6 24.�d1 �fd8 2S.g3;!; Korneev - Khairullin, Sochi 2 0 06. Black's queen-sacrifice for a rook and a piece can enable him only to fight for a draw at best.

21.exfS tLlxdS Naturally, it is bad for Black to play 21...tLlxfS? 2 2 .�xfS �xfS 23.tLle7+-

22.l3xdS;!;

2 0 .�f5 ! White exploits some spe­ cific features of the position in the process of solving strategical tasks. It is amazing, but Black has four possible captures now, but they might all lead to the same situation by a transposition of moves.

20

...

ixf5

About 2 0 . . . �xfS 21.exfS AxdS 22.�xdS - see 2 0 . . . ixfS. After the trade on dS, White will capture with his rook, taking advantage of the defenselessness of Black's queen on d7: 20 . . . �xdS 126

There has arisen a standard position again. There are op­ posite-coloured bishops on the board and White has occupied the dS-outpost and he has excel­ lent possibilities for active ac­ tions on both sides of the board. The fact that Black's bishop is on the queenside, creates prerequi­ sites for the effective pawn-ad­ vance fS-f6. In the game Zontakh - Nakhapetiane, Moscow 2007, Black chose 22 . . . e4 23.'.Wxe4 �fe8 24.'.Wf3 �e7 2S.id3±, but his

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 gbB 13.h4 pawn-sacrifice was not justified. Black has also tried 22 . . . �e7 23.f6 �xf6 (23 . . . gxf6?! 24.i.d3 gfe8 2 5.i.e4±) 24.Wlxf6 gxf6 25.gxd6

gfd8 26.gfdU Kurmann - Wid­ mer, Zug 2005 - and White has considerable winning chances in that endgame.

Conclusion The prophylactic move 12 . . . gbB is still quite popular and it is prob­ ably as strong as the main line 12 ... i.g5. The drawback of that varia­ tion is that it is a bit slow and that enables White to restrict the mobil­ ity of Black's bishop on f6 with the move 13.h4! The character of the subsequentfight largely depends on Black's decision on move 13. White counters 13 . . . tiJ e7 with 14. tiJxf6+! - and later he chooses an aggressive plan, including castling long and a kingside attack. After 13 ... g6, the fight is not so sharp - White exploits Black's g6-pawn as a target for attack in order to open the h-file and he strives to trade advantageously the light-squared bishops. Black's most precise defensive line is - 13 . . . i.e7. The adherents to that variation did not come to that move so easy, but presently al­ most everybody plays like that and the theory of that line has devel­ oped tremendously. White must play with great resourcefulness in order to create real problemsfor Black. In general, it can be seen that there usually appear opposite-coloured bishops on the board, but as our readers have already seen, that circumstance does not guarantee Black any easy equality at all. Generally speaking, the variation with 12 . . . gbB seems to be reli­ able for Black, but White obtains an edge after an accurate play. In some cases, that advantage becomes quite obvious after a transition into an endgame. That implies that the White player should enjoy playing endgames and possess good technique.

127

Chapter 1 0

1.e4 c5 2 Jl�f3 ltlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ltlxd4 e6 5.ltlc3 e5 6.ltldb5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8.ltla3 b5 9.ltld5 J.e7 1 0 ..ixf6 .ixf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.ltlc2 .ig5 13.a4

The diagrammed position is often encountered in contempo­ rary tournaments. Black is happy that he has the two-bishop advan­ tage, some lead in development and seemingly a very solid posi­ tion. White, in his stead, is try­ ing to prove that his control over the central squares, the domi­ nation over the d5-outpost and his queenside initiative is worth much more than Black's above­ mentioned achievements. Black has tried in this posi­ tion to preserve his b5-pawn with a) 13 . . . gb8, but he has played in practice most of all b) 13 . . . bxa4. He has experimented with some other moves as well, but they can hardly be called logical: 13 . . . i.e6?! - It is not easy to understand why Black gives up a 128

pawn here. 14.axb5 axb5 15.b:b5 gxal 16.�xal hd5 17.exd5 liJe7 IB.liJb4 \Wb6 19.�a6± and White remained with a solid extra pawn in the game A.Zaitsev - Podchu­ farov, Tula 2 0 0 0 ; 1 3 . . . b4? ! 14.liJcxb4 liJxb4 15. cxb4 f5 16.i.c4 wh8 17.exf5 hf5 18 . 0-0± White controls reliably the light squares in the centre and he will soon have two connected passed pawns on the queenside, Voelker - Hager, Bayern 2 0 0 2 .

a) 13 ... gb8 Black attempts to maintain his pawn on b5, so that White's bishop cannot occupy its most fa­ vourable placement on the c4square. The main drawback of that move however is that Black's b5-pawn becomes a liability and its defence overburdens his forces.

14.axb5 axb5 15.i.d3 White's plan is rather simple. He wishes to attack Black's b5pawn with all his pieces and to occupy the a-file, while later his actions will depend on circum­ stances.

1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . lD c2 ig5 13.a4

Black has played here mainly .ie6, but it looks like his most resilient defensive move is

a1) 15

•••

a2) 15

•••

lLle7.

He has tried too: lS . . .fS? ! - This move weakens the light squares in the centre and on the kingside and it enables White to exchange advantageously the light-squared bishops. 16.exfS .hiS (After 16 . . . e4?, the opening of the e-file does not compen­ sate Black's loss of two pawns. 17.he4 l:!eB, Urbina - Caminos, San Salvador 2 0 03, and here after 18.lDde3 ! +- White not only pre­ serves his couple of extra pawns, but he creates some dangerous threats.) 17.hfS l:!xfS 1B.0-0 e4 (In answer to 1B VNcB, Krantz W.Schmidt, Esbjerg 1976, White can play 19.YHg4 idB 2 0 .VNe4± and he establishes total control over the light squares in the centre of the board.) 19.1Llce3 l:!eS 20.lLlg4 l:!eB, Holzschuh - Brener, Oster­ burg 2 0 06, after 20 . . . l:!fS 21.l:!e1± Black has great problems with the protection of his e4-pawn, but here after 21.l:!a6 ! VNcB 22.lDc7 YHxc7 2 3.YHdS+ �hB 24.l:!xc6 YHd7 2S.h3± White simplifies the posi•..

tion quite favourably and Black loses unavoidably one of his weak pawns on e4, d6, or bS; 15 ... �hB - That move seems to be just a loss of time. 16.VNe2 lLle7 17.lLlxe7 YHxe7 1B.lLlb4 ib7 19.0-0 VNe6, Ganguly - Buscar, Guelph 2 0 05, and here after 2 0 . l:!aS± Black loses his bS-pawn and he obtains no positional pluses for it; lS . . .id7 - This bishop is much more passive here than on e6, but still the bS-pawn is safer. 16.0-0 g6 17.l:!a6 l:!b7 1B .VNe2 YHbB 19 .l:!fa1 t Black has no active coun­ terplay at all and White can easily improve his position, for example with g2-g3, followed by h2-h4, AGoldberg - Schlachetka, COIT. 19B2; lS ... lDaS, Bacic - Milinkovic, Nova Gorica 2005 that is not the best square for Black's knight. His defence is not any easier after 16.lDcb4 ie6 (16 . . . id7 - It looks like Black admits his mistake. 17. 0-0 lDc6 1B.lDxc6 hc6 19.YHb3 VNd7 20.l:!aSt White has a long­ lasting initiative thanks to his domination over the dS-outpost, the a-file and his pressure against the weak bS-pawn.) 17. 0-0 l:!b7 1B .YHc2 g6 19.1:!a2± White has occupied the a-file and he is evi­ dently ahead of his opponent in the creation of concrete threats.

a1) 15

•••

.ie6

That is the most popular move for Black, but it is hardly the best. 129

Chapter 1 0 the endgame, but still he has the advantage, because his pieces are evidently much more active.

17.exd5 tOe7 18.tOb4 f5

16JNe2 ! In case of 16.ttJcb4 ttJxb4 17. ttJxb4, White can transpose to variation a2), but the move in the text is better, because he wins a pawn and Black has prob­ lems proving any compensation for it.

16

.txd5

.•.

Black has considerable diffi­ culties after his other moves too: Following 16 . . .fS 17. 0-0 ixdS 18.exdS ttJe7 19.ixbS §'b6 2 0.ttJa3 §'b7 21.c4± Black loses a pawn without any compensation at all, Wajnberg - B.Johnson, Email 1999; After 16 ... ttJe7 17.ttJcb4 ttJxdS 18.exdS .id7, Diesen - Gvein, Oslo 2006, it deserves attention for White to continue with 19.ttJc6 ! ? ixc6 (After 1 9 . . J'!a8 2 0 . 0-0± Black obtains no compensation for the eventual loss of his bS­ pawn.) 20.dxc6 %!ib6 (In the vari­ ation 2 0 . . . dS 21.0-0 e4 2 2 .ixbS %!ib6 23 . .ia4 §'xb2 24.§'xb2 13xb2 2S.13ablt White's passed c6-pawn looks quite threatening.) 21.Wfe4 g6 2 2 . 0-0 13fc8 23.§'g4 id8 24. ie4;!; White's c6-pawn might be­ come a considerable asset only in 130

This is the most popular move for Black. He does not wish to de­ fend passively and he tries to seize the initiative on the kingside. 18 . . . Wfe8 - Black fails to pre­ serve his bS-pawn in that fashion and he does not achieve anything with the transfer of his queen to the kingside, 19.0-0 fS 20.13aS e4 21.ixbS Wfg6 2 2 .f4± Black's kingside counterplay has reached its dead end and White has re­ mained with a solid extra pawn in the game Skrochocka - Baran, Krynica 2 001. 18 ... §,d7 19.0-0 ttJg6 2 0 . ,hg6 ! ? hxg6, Ba1cerak - Eikeland, Porsgrunn 1996, and here after 21. ttJc6 13b7 22.13aS± Black loses his bS-pawn and his kingside coun­ terplay is nowhere to be seen. 18 . . . Wfb6 19.§'hS h6 2 0 .h4 g6?, Muhren - Shiraliyeva, Oropesa del Mar 2001, Black had bet­ ter try here 20 . . . if6 21.§'g4 13a8 2 2 . 0-0±, but White still would maintain a stable advantage thanks to the vulnerability of the light squares on Black's kingside. Now, after 21.§'f3 ! 13a8 2 2 . 13xa8 13xa8 23.We2 .ti4 24.g3 e4 2S. §'xe4 ieS 26.hS+- Black manag­ es to save his bishop indeed, but he pays a dear price for that. He has remained without a pawn and under a dangerous attack.

19.1xb5

J1.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 ig5 13.a4 16.�cb4

19 Vlb6, Vilaltella - Porta, Spain 1999 (In answer to 19 . . . e4, White obtains a considerable edge with the line: 2 0 . 0-0 Vlb6 21.id7 @hB 2 2 J �a6±. It is even worse for Black to play 21 . . J�f6 2VlJc6! �xc6 23.dxc6 d5 24.Vla6 Vlc7 25. �a7+-, since the presence of op­ posite-coloured bishops on the board does not facilitate his de­ fence, because White's c6-pawn is too difficult to be stopped. 25 . . . if4 26.�xc7 hc7 27J�a7 ie5 2B.b4 1-0 O'Donovan - Gilbert, Saint Vincent 2 005.), and here White can improve his position considerably by transferring his bishop to the centre with: 2 0 .id7 �g6 (or 20 . . J �aB 21. 0-0±) 21. .• •

ie6+ @h8 22. 0 - 0 �f4 23.'iNa6 'iNc7 24.g3±. If Black plays 24 . . . �xe6, then after 25.dxe6, White's knight obtains an excellent out­ post in the centre of the board, otherwise the knight-maneuvers would turn out to be a loss of time.

a2) 15 . . . �e7 This is a logical decision, Black fights for the important d5square.

16 . . . �xd5 Black defensive task is much more difficult after his other pos­ sibilities : 16 . . . id7, Gauche - Bielefeldt, Florianopolis 199B, This looks like a loss of time in connection with the fight for the d5-square and White's most natural reac­ tion seems to be 17. 0-0 �xd5 IB.�xd5 ic6 19.�b3 �d7 2 0J��a5 �b7 2 1.�a3 �d7 2 2 . �b4t, Black is doomed to a difficult defence, because of his weaknesses on b5 and d6; 16 ... ib7 - Black's bishop will be very active here in case he manages to push f7-f5, but it would be rather easy for White to exchange it on that diagonal. 17.�xe7+ 'iNxe7 1B .0-0 f5 (It is obvious worse fqr Black to play the passive line: 1B . . . iaB 19.�e2 g6 20J�a5 f5, Pavlik - Skaric, Su­ botica 2 0 04, and here after 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .ixb5±, or 2 1. . . e4 2 2 .hb5 l3xf5 23.l3fa1 ib7 24.ic4+ @hB 25.l3xf5 gxf5 26.id5± White re­ mains with a solid extra pawn. The move 1B . . . 'iNdB does not re131

Chapter 1 0 duce Black's difficulties, connect­ ed with the protection of his b5pawn. 19.�e2 m6 20J�fd1 !e7, Reschun - Biedekoepper, St. Veit 1995, and now after 21.hb5 he4 2 2 .�xe4 �xb5 23.tLlc6 13b7 24.c4 �b6 25.b4± White dominates in the centre and on the queenside.) 19.exf5 e4 2 0.hb5 e3 21.!c4+ @h8 22.fxe3± Black's piece-ac­ tivity does not compensate fully his opponent's extra pawn and after 2 2 . . . he3+ 23.@h1 �e4 24. 1d5± White simplifies the posi­ tion advantageously, Bindrich - Arnhold, Leutersdorf 2000. Things are hardly any better for Black after the more active line: 22 ... �xe3+ 23.@h1 hg2 + (In the variation: 23 ... �e4 24.�e2 13xf5 25. �xe4 he4 26.13xf5 hiS 27.tLlc6± Black has nothing to counter his opponent's passed pawns with.) 24.@xg2 �e4+ 25. �f3 �xc4 26. 13ael± White's king shelter does not look so safe in­ deed, but Black can hardly exploit that in any way, while he remains a pawn down.

17.tLlxd5 .te6 17 .. .f5? ! - This move seems active only at first sight. In fact, it weakens a complex of squares in the centre. After 18.exf5 e4 19.!c2 ! his 2 0 . 0- 0 �d7 21.�d4± Black has problems with the protection of his second rank, as well with his vulnerable pawns on e4, d6 and b5, Stepanovic - Zacik, Slo­ vakia 2 0 03.

18.tLlb4 132

Black's position looks reliable enough, but he has weak pawns on b5 and d6 and his defence is not easy at all.

18

�d7

•.•

That is the most popular move for Black, but it is much rather not the best. 18 . . . 13b7 - This is not the best square for Black's rook. 19.0-0 g6 (About 19 . . . �d7 2 0 .13a6 - see 18 . . . �d7 19.0-0 g 6 20.13a6.) 2 0 . 13a6 f5, Sermier - Crouan, Sautron 2001, and here after 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .�e2 �d7 23.tLlc6 f4 24.f3± Black loses his b5-pawn and his chances of organizing anything real on the kingside are just negligent. 18 . . . 13b6 - Black's rook pro­ tects both weak pawns from here, but it remains rather passive. 19.0-0 g6 (After 19 . . . 1f4?! Black's dubious idea of organizing a piece attack against the enemy king leads to considerable mate­ rial losses for him. 2 0.g3 �g5? 21. @h1 .tg4 22.gxf4 �h5 23.f3+- Ro­ zkov - Istrebin, Orsk 2 0 0 2 . After 19 . . . m8, Black's position remains passive. 19.13a5 g6 2 0 .�e2 13c8, Wege - Marth, Wiesbaden 1992, and here White should not be in a

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ljj c2 ig5 13.a4 hurry to win a pawn and he should better exploit the fact that its pro­ tection ties up Black's forces. He should improve the position of his pieces with the line: 2 1.�fal, for example after 2 1 . . . ic4 22.ixc4 bxc4 23.g3±, or 21.. .id7 2 2 .ibl! ie6 2 3.ia2± Black maintains the material balance, but he cannot activate his pieces.) 2 0.'i;lfe2 'i;lfd7 2 1.�a5 EifbS 22.EifaU - Black's position looks solid, but he has no active counterplay in sight, Trygs­ tad - Gvein, Oslo 2006. IS ... EiaS ! - This is the most natural move, because Black sim­ plifies the position and he im­ pedes White's attack against his weaknesses, Ehlert - Kuehl, Kap­ peln 1990, and now after 19.EixaS �xaS 2 0 . 0-0 EibS 21.'i;lfe2 'i;lfb7 2 2 .g3 g6 23.h4 idS 24.Eialt

The position has been simplified and White should not have great problems to realize his extra pawn; 24 . . . ib6 ! ? - That is the most active placement of Black's dark­ squared bishop. 25.ixb5 ic5 (The rook and pawn ending is very difficult for Black after 25 . . . ixf2 + 26. c.t>xf2 'i;lfb6 + 27.c.t>el ! �xb5 28.�xb5 Eixb5 29.Eia6 d5 30.exd5 ixd5 31.ljj xd5 Eixd5 32. b4± White's pawns are far ad­ vanced and Black must fight hard for the draw, for example: 32 .. . Eid3 33.c4 Eixg3 34.b5+-, or 32 .. . f5 33.c4 Eid4 34.Eic6 �d3 35.b5 Eixg3 36.b6+- and White's pawns are unstoppable in both cases.) 26.ia6 'i;lfd7 27.�d2;j; White will not realize his extra pawn easily, but Black still does not have a full compensation for it; 24 . . . c.t>g7 25.ljj a6 EicS (or 25 . . . EiaS 26.ixb5 ig4 27.�d3 ib6 28.�f1 ! ?;j;) 26.ixb5 f5 27.ljj b 4 ! Eic5 2S.id3;j; and White has an extra pawn, but Black's pieces are active and its realization will be rather difficult.

19. 0 - 0 White has the initiative, since he can easily attack his opponent's weak d6 and b5-pawns, while Black has problems creating counterplay. The following varia­ tions prove how difficult Black's position is: 24 . . .f5 25.exf5 gxfS 26.ixb5 �xb5? 2 7.�xb5 Eixb5 2 S.EiaS+133

Chapter 1 0 19

•••

g6

Black's only possible coun­ terplay is connected with the ad­ vance f7-f5. That is not so easy to prepare, though. The immediate move 19 .. .f5? is obviously premature and leads to White's complete control over the light squares in the centre. 20.exfS ixf5 21.ixfS �xfS 22.�a6 Ae7? (Black could have main­ tained some illusion of a resis­ tance only with the line: 22 . . . �f6 23.WidS+ @h8 24.�a8±) 23.lLlc6 �bf8 24.Wid5+ @h8 25.�a7 1-0 Ortiz Fernandez - Blanco Fer­ nandez, Oviedo 2004. 19 ... @h8 ? ! 2 0.Wie2 fS, van Al­ fen - Plukkel, Haarlem 2001, and here after 21.exf5 ixf5 22.ixfS �xf5 23.�fdl± White has a great advantage, because of his control over the centre after the trade of the light-squared bishops. 19 . . . �b7 2 0 . �a6 �fb8 21.Wie2 l3b6 22.l3xb6 �xb6 23.�al± Black has succeeded in exchanging a pair of rooks indeed, but he still fails to protect his b5-pawn. 23 . . . Wib7? (After 23 . . . g 6 24.�a5± White wins a pawn.) 24.ixbS !e7 2S.Ac4 ixc4 26.'!Wxc4+- White's pieces are much more active and he has an extra pawn too, Jadoul - Fournell, Luxembourg 1987. In answer to 19 . . . id8, Ahn - Sprenger, Germany 1999, it de­ serves attention for White to con­ tinue with 2 0.Wie2 ! ? , and if Black continues with the transfer of his bishop, then after 20 . . . !b6 21.�a6 134

ic5 22.lLlc6 ! �a8 23.�xa8 l3xa8 24.ixb5 '!Wc7 25.b4 !b6 26.c4± he will remain a pawn down. 19 . . . �fc8, Kriens - J. Larsen, Soro 1982, and here after 2 0 .'!We2 !d8 21.l3a6 �cS 2 2 .�faU Black's position is solid, but quite pas­ sive.

2 0 .ti'e2 �Uc8 Otherwise, Black can hardly protect his b5-pawn : 20 . . . h5? ! 21.�aS if4 2 2 .ixbS± Antognini - Lehmann, Winter­ thur 2003; 2 0 . . .f5 - That move only cre­ ates additional weaknesses. 21. �a6 ! @h8, Fabrega - Rodriguez, Buenos Aires 1995, and here after 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 2 2 . lLlc6 �b7 23.ixb5± White not only wins a pawn, but he creates powerful pressure against his opponent's central pawns.

2U!a5 ic4 22.l3fal �b7 23. ixc4 bxc4 24.�dU

Black's weak c4 and d6-pawns need protection and he has prob­ lems activating his pieces. In the diagrammed position, in the game Zapata - Hazim, Santo Domingo 2001, Black tried to obtain some

1l.c3 0 - 0 12 0. c2 ig5 13.a4 .

kingside counterplay with the line: 24 f5? ! , but White could have increased his advantage con­ siderably with 25.exfS gxf5 (It is just terrible for Black to try 25 . . . 'lWxf5 26.13xd6+-) 26.13xe5 dxe5 27.l1bcd7 gxd7 28.g3 gd2 (Af­ ter 28 . . . e4 29.'lWh5 13g7 30.h4 .tc1 31.%Yxf5 13e8 32 .%Yb5+- Black's pawns are so weak and his king is unsafe, so the position can be evaluated as winning for White.) •••

29.'lWxe5 13f8 3 0 .tL'lc6 gxb2 31. 'lWe6+ Wh8 32.otIe5± - White has a material advantage and an excellent piece-coordination.

b) 13

•••

bxa4

This is the most popular move for Black. He complies with the appearance of a weak pawn on his queenside, but opens the b-file in order to organize some counter­ play.

14.gxa4

We will analyze thoroughly here: bl) 14 otIe7, b2) 14 wh8 and b3) 14 J.b7. The main line here for Black - 14 . . . a5, will be dealt with in the following chapters. The oth•••

•••

•••

er moves like 14 . . . 13a7; 14 . . . g6 ; 14 . . . ie6 - have been analyzed in Chapter 8 (see 12 . . . ga7; 12 . . . g6 and 12 . . . ,te6 accordingly). Black has tried other possibili­ ties too : In answer to 14 . . . 13b8, White is not obliged to transpose to the main lines with 15.b3 as 16.,ic4, but he can instead repel Black's bishop to a unsatisfactory posi­ tion with the line : 15.h4 ! .ih6 (Naturally, after 15 . . . ,ixh4? ! 16. %Yh5 ixf2 + 17.Wxf2 h6 18.b4 f5 19.,tc4± Black's compensa­ tion for the piece is insufficient, Solleveld - Prange, Vlissingen 2003.) 16.,ixa6 13xb2 (Following 16 . . . ,td7 17.ga2±, Black remains a pawn down in comparison to the line with gxb2 and he has obtained nothing for it, Volzhin - Chevallier, Metz 1994.) 17.,ixc8 %Yxc8 18J�c4 '!Wb7 (It is not any better for Black to try 18 . . . %Yb8 19.0-0 0.a5 20.13b4 gxb4 21.cxb4 0.c6 22.%Yd3±, because White has a great advantage thanks to his powerful knight in the cen­ tre and his outside passed pawn, Iordachescu - Sawatzki, Berlin 1995.) 19.0-0 0.d8 (After 19 . . . wh8 20.0.db4 0.xb4 2 1.'lWxd6 ge8 2 2 .0.xb4± White has a solid extra pawn, Scheuermann - Cartagena, Email 1999. It is hardly better for Black to continue with 19 . . . ge8 20.0.cb4 0.xb4 21.cxb4 'lWd7 2 2.%Yf3± - and White has an al­ mighty knight on the d5-outpost and a dangerous passed pawn 135

Chapter 1 0 on the queenside, moreover that 1S . . .ie7 16.l::i c4 ib7 17.exfS l::ixfS Black's bishop on h6 can be hardly 1B.id3 l::ifl 19.1Llce3± - White's transferred to a better placement pieces control the centre and anytime soon, Ramus - Blanken­ they are tremendously active.), berg, Internet 2001.) 20J'k7 'iNb3 and here White would control (After 20 . . . 'iNbB 21.lLle7+ whB 2 2 . completely the light squares in �kB 'iNb6, Pott - Novoa, Internet the centre after the natural line: 2 0 04, White can play 23.lLlfS±, 16.exfS .txis (It is not better for winning a pawn and preserving Black to try 16 . . . l::ib B 17.b4 .txis all his positional pluses.) 21.lLlcb4 1B.l::ixa6 l::i cB 19.lLlce3±, or 17. . . lLle7 lLle6 2 2 J�!:c 6 'iNxd1 23.l::ixd1 lLlcS 1B.g4 ib7 19.ig2± and White re­ 24.f3 l::i d B 2S.lLle7+ wfB 26.lLlfS mains with a solid extra pawn id2 27.lLldS lLlb7 2B.l::i c7±. The in both variations.) 17.g4 hc2 sequence of almost forced moves (The active move 17 . . . ie6 loses a has led to a position in which the piece after 1B.gS lLld4 19.ig2 id7 difference in the activity of pieces 20.l::i a 2+-) 1B.'iNxc2 J.f4 19.id3 is obvious even to the naked eye. h6 2 0.ie4± - Black's pawns on White's knight on dS controls the a6 and d6 are weak and his pieces entire board and Black's attempt are passive and lack coordination. to repel it from the centre would Meanwhile, he must take into ac­ lead to considerable material count the possibility of the pawn­ losses for him: 2B . . . g6 29.l::ixd2 break g4-gS, after which White l::ib 1+ (After 29 . . . l::ixd2 30.lLlh6, will obtain excellent attacking Black is forced to give back the chances. exchange, because of the check­ 14 . . . lLlbB - Black plans to mating threat: 30 . . . l::ixdS 31.exdS organize some counterplay by lLlc5 32.l::ixf7+ WeB 33.l::ixh7+­ transferring his knight to the cS­ and White remains with a couple square. 1s.ic4 lLld7 16.'iNe2 lLlcS of extra pawns in the endgame.) 17.l::i a3 ib7 1B.0-0 as 19.1::ifa1 a4 30.wh2 gxfS 31.lLlb4+- and Black - All that seems quite reason­ loses at least a pawn and he will able, because Black fixes his op­ be forced to defend passively, ponent's weak pawn on b2, but he because of the unsafe placement gives up the control over the im­ of his king, Read - Saarenpaeae, portant b4-square. (In answer to corr. 1999. 19 . . . g6, Simonovic - Ning Chun­ 14 . . .fS? ! - This premature ac­ hong, Beijing 1997, it is possible tivity leads to the occupation of for White to continue with 2 0 .b4 the central light squares by White axb4 21.l::ixaB haB 2 2 . cxb4 lLle6 and excellent attacking chances 23.g3;!; and the position is very for him. 1S.h4 ! ih6, Huisman - unpleasant for Black, because Delisle, Aix les Bains 2006 (After his pieces are very passive and 136

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tLJ c2 ig5 13.a4 White's passed b4-pawn is poten­ tially quite dangerous. 19 . . . @h8 2 0 .b4 axb4 21.l3xa8 .has 22.cxb4 tLJe6 23 .g3 �b7 24.1l;Yd3 g6 2S.h4;!; Traut - Polakovic, corr. 1996 ; 23 . . . ll;Yb8 24.bS �d8 2S.tLJce3 tLJd4 2 6.'i;!Ta2 .tgS 27.b6± White's far advanced passed b6-pawn pro­ vides him with clearly better pros­ pects, Goldberg - Goetz, Germany 1995.). After 2 0 .tLJcb4, Black has tried 2 0 . . . �6 21.f3 1l;YgS, Techen - Dores, corr. 1993, and here after 2 2.l3d1 g6 23 .tLJb6 'i;!Te3+ 24.@fl± it turns out that Black loses a pawn, without any compensation. It is hardly any better for him to opt for 20 . . . g6 21.tLJd3 tLJb3 22 . .hb3 axb3 23.l3xa8 .has 24.tLJ3b4 fS 2S.'i;!Tc4± and the weak pawn on b3 will soon be lost, while Black's at­ tempt to obtain some counterplay with the line: 2S . . JU7 26.exfS gxfS 2 7.tLJc6 hc6 28.'i;!Txc6 1l;Yd7, Vrblja­ nac - S.Yudin, Heraklio 2 004, leads after 29.ll;Yb6 e4 30.'i;!Txb3 f4 31.'i;!Tc4+ - to a lost position for him. He is helpless against the on­ coming march forward of White's b2-pawn.

bt) t4

•••

tLJe7 t5.�c4

t5

•••

tLJxd5

White occupies the light squares in the centre after that move. About 1S . . . aS - see 14 . . . aS; as for 1S . . . @h8 16.0-0 - see 14 . . . @h8 1 S. .tc4 tLJe7 16. 0-0; 1 S . . . �b7 16.0-0 - see 14 . . . ib7 1S.ic4 tLJe7 16.0-0. 1S ... id7 16.l3a2 @h8 (Black has no compensation for the pawn in the line: 16 . . . l3c8 17.tLJxe7+ .he7 18.ha6 l3a8 19.ic4 l3xa2 2 0 . .ha2 ibS, Morris - Hoxie, New York 1991, and here after 21.tLJa3, it is just terrible for Black to try 2 1 . . . 1l;Yb6 22.1l;Yb3+-. White has a clear advantage after 21.. .'i;!Tb8 22 . .tdS ia6 23.b4±, but even after 2 1 . . . ia6 2 2 .ic4 ib7 23.idS .ta6 24. tLJc4±, or 2 2 ... ixc4 23. tLJxc4 1l;Ya8 24.0-0 1l;Yxe4 2S.tLJxd6± White ends up with a solid extra pawn.) 17. 0-0 tLJc8, Zapata - Gamboa, Neiva 200S, and here it is not clear what Black has to do in or­ der to counter White's extra pawn after 18.l3xa6 l3xa6 19.ha6 tLJb6 20.tLJcb4± 1S . . . ie6 - Black can hardly prove any worthwhile compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn after 16.l3xa6 l3xa6 17 . .ha6 hdS 18.exdS fS (or 18 . . . 1l;YaS 19. tLJb4±) 19.0-0 tLJg6, Schlitter - Gropp, Herborn 1994, and now, follow­ ing 2 0.'i;!Te2 e4 21.tLJd4 'i;!Te7 2 2 .g3 tLJeS 23.lLlc6 1l;Yf6 24.lLlxeS 'i;!TxeS 2S.f4 exf3 26 .'i;!TxeS dxeS 27.l3xf3± White's pawns look much more dangerous, moreover that one 137

Chapter 1 0 of them is extra, but even in the variation: 20 . . . tLlf4 2 UNb5 e4 22.tLld4±, or 21.. .VNf6 2 2 .g3 tLlg6 23.VNd7± Black has no compen­ sation for the pawn at all. White must play very precisely, though.

the light squares, while Black's defence will be rather difficult, because of his weak a5-pawn.

16.,hd5 Ad7 That seems to be the most te­ nacious defence for Black. White's advantage is quite evident in the variation: 16 .. J !a7 17.0-0 �h8 18.VNe2 f5 19.tLlb4±, because he can capture the a6pawn at any moment and Black has no counterplay in sight, Pereira - Cadillon, Evora 2006. 16 . . J3b8 - It looks at first sight that Black might obtain some counterplay along the b-file after that move, but following 17.tLlb4 VNb6 18.0-0 a5 19.tLlc6 Ad7 2 0 . tLlxb8 ha4 21.'iNxa4 gxb8, Chatte - Huisman, Romans 1999, White can seize the initiative on the light squares with the line: 22 .b4 axb4 23.gb1t. Here, the move 23 . . . g6? ! leads to a loss of a pawn for Black: 24.gxb4 'iNc7 25.ht7+ ! �g7 26. gxb8 'iNxb8 27.Ab3±, while in case of 23 . . . gd8 24.gxb4 VNc7 25.gb7 VNxc3 26.g3 �h8 27.gxt7±, despite the considerable simplifications, Black's defence will be long and difficult.

17.�a2 ga7 In answer to 17 . . . gb8, Back­ lund - Zitin, Zagan 1995, White can continue with the rather un­ pleasant line for Black: 18.h4 if4 19.tLlb4 a5 20.tLlc6 ixc6 2 1.ixc6 'iNb6 2 2.id5;!; - and White controls 138

18. 0 - 0 'iNb6, Szuecs - Ho­ gye, Hungary 1994, and here White has a very powerful ma­ neuver 19.tLla3 ! ? 'iNe5 2 0 .tLle4;!;. Black has great problems neutral­ izing his opponent's pressure, for example: 2 0 ib5 21.b3 a5 22. VNg4 if6 23.gfal, and in the variation: 23 ,he4 24.,he4 •••

•••

gfa8

25.ga4

id8

26.gdl±

White has a powerful initiative on the light squares, while Black has no counterplay whatsoever. Also, in the line : 23 a4 24.ga3 gb8 25.b4 VNe7 26. tLlb2± it is obvious that Black would lose his a4-pawn sooner or later. •••

b2) 14

•••

�h8

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ltlc2 ig5 13.a4 It would be difficult for Black to prepare f7-f5 without that move.

1S .ic4 •

The complications are rather unclear after 15.h4 ih6 16.g4 if400

1S

•••

tOe7

About 15 . . . a5 - see 14 . . . a5. In answer to 15 . . . ltla5, Smeets - van der Wiel, Hilversum 2007, White obtains a slight but stable edge after 16.h4 ih6 17.ltlce3 i!b8 18 .id3;!;, and here in case of 18 . . . .b:e3 19.1tlxe3 .ie6 20.i!a3 ltlb7 2 1.b4;!; Black has problems bring­ ing his knight on b7 into the ac­ tions, while in the variation: 18 . . . gxb2 19.%!fa1 gd2 20 . .ic4 ltlxc4 21.gxc4 gxd5 2 2 .ltlxd5;!; his two bishops are not enough to com­ pensate the exchange, because of the wonderful position of his opponent's knight, for example after 22 .. .f5 23.\!:Va3 fxe4 24.gxe4 ifS 2S.gb4 %Ye8 26.c4± White has consolidated his position and Black has no active prospects. The move 15 . . . g6 creates a target for White on the kingside. 16.%!fe2 ltla5 17.h4 ih6 18.h5;!; (White controls the centre and he can organize active actions on both sides of the board much eas­ ier than his opponent.) 18 . . . .ig5, Toth - Laszlo, Hungary 1996, and here after 19.1tlce3 id7 20.ga1 .b:e3 21. ltlxe3 ltlxc4 22.%Yxc4 ie6 23.%!fd3 %!fb6 24.0-0t Black has compromised the dark squares on his kingside and the light squares

in the centre. Meanwhile his pawns on a6 and d6 are very weak too. 15 . . . gb8 - This move leads to the exchange of the weak pawn on a6, which is favourable for Black indeed, but White manages instead to create powerful pres­ sure against Black's vulnerable d6-pawn. 16.b4 a5 17. 0-0 axb4 18.ltlcxb4 .id7 19 .ga6;!; and despite some simplifications, Black's de­ fence is difficult, because White's pieces on the queenside are quite active. 19 . . . ltla5 2 0 .ie2 ic8 21. ga7 ib7? ! (It would be more te­ nacious for Black to defend with 21.. .id7 22 .%!fc2;!;, but he will have problems then as well.) 2 2 .%!fa4 ga8 23.gxa8 %Yxa8 24. ltlb6 %Ya7 25.ltlc4 ga8 26. ltlxd6± and the position is almost winning for White, because of his extra pawn and active pieces, Zapata - Re­ mon, Cienfuegos 1983.

16. 0 - 0 f5 About 16 . . . ib7 17.ltlxe7 - see 14 . . .ib7 15.ic4 ltle7 16.0-0 �h8 17.ltlxe7. In answer to 16 . . . ltlg6, Betko - Chmelik, Ruzomberok 1996, it looks very aggressive for White to continue with 17.ltlce3 a5 18.ltlf5±

17.tOxe7 %Yxe7 The other capture is not better for Black after 17 . . . .b:e7 18.ltle3 fxe4 19.id5 gb8 2 0 . .b:e4± White has a total control over the light squares in the centre and if Black captures the pawn, he would come 139

Chapter 1 0 under a dangerous attack: 2 0 . . . l:!xb2? 2 1.'i;¥h5 h 6 2 2 .'i;¥g6� The light squares in Black's camp are so weak that he can hardly sur­ vive the attack. 22 . . . 'it>g8 23.V«h7+ 'it>f7 24.id5+ 'it>e8 25.'i;¥g6+ 'it>d7 26.�e6+ 'it>c7 27.l:!c4+-

he keeps the a5-square free, so that he can activate his knight.

15 .lc4 •

This is a standard move. White exploits the fact that his opponent does not have a pawn on b5 and he places his bishop on the most active position. His main task is to keep the control over the impor­ tant d5-outpost.

15 . . . �a5

IS.id5 �b7, Hartikainen Saastamoinen, Finland 1998, and now after 19.exf5 l:!xf5 2 0 .l:!b4 hd5 21. ti'xd5 l:!afS 22.l:!b7± White dominates in the centre and his opponent's pawns on a6 and d6 are very weak.

b3) 14 . . . ib7

Black leaves his pawn on a6 and it is even more vulnerable there, but he considers it more important to preserve his control over the b5-square. Meanwhile, 140

Black is trying to activate his knight, taking advantage of the somewhat unstable placement of White's pieces on the queenside. It is only a transposition to the main line, analyzed in Chapter 11, if Black plays 15 . . . a5 16.0-0 - see 14 . . . a5 15 . .lc4 ib7 16.0-0. 15 . . . g6 - That is a reliable, but a bit passive move, Susnik - Breznik, Bled 2000, and here after 16. 0-0 !£Je7 17.lLlce3 a5 18. lLlxe7+ 'i;¥xe7 19.lLld5;!; there arises a standard position with a slight but stable advantage for White, because of his queenside pressure and his reliable hold on the cen­ tre. 15 . . . !£Jb8 - This move is con­ nected with the idea to deploy the knight on c5. 16.0-0 !£Jd7 (about 16 . . . a5 - see 14 . . . a5 15 . .lc4 .lb7 16.0-0 !£Jb8, Chapter 11) 17.V«e2 a5 (about 17 . . . !£Jc5 18.l:!a3 a5 19.1:!fa1 - see 17 . . . a5) 18.l:!fa1 'it>h8 (about 18 . . . lLlc5 19.1:!a3 - see 14 . . . !£Jb8 15.�c4 lLld7 16.V«e2 lLlc5 17.l:!a3 ib7 18.0-0 a5 19JUal) 19.b4 axb4 20.E1xa8 has 21.cxb4 hd5 (It is too bad for Black to play 21...

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJ c2 .tg5 13.a4 liJb6? 2 2 .liJxb6 V:Yxb6 23 . .txf7±, because White remains with an extra pawn. It is not preferable for Black to try 21 . . . liJf6 22.liJxf6 \wxf6 23.bS±, since White's passed pawn is supported by his pieces and it is very dangerous. In an­ swer to 21 . . . .tb7, Svatos - Babula, Czech Republic 199B, it is possible for White to follow with 22.liJce3 liJf6 23.liJxf6 \wxf6 24.liJdS;!; with a considerable advantage, be­ cause of the dominance over the dS-square and the possibility of advancing the b-pawn.) 2 2 .ixdS liJb6 23 . .tc6 fS 24.exfS dS, Mat­ suura - Pacheco, Sao Paulo 1995, after 24 . . . \WcB 2S.b5 \WxfS 26.liJe3± Black's pawns remain immobile and it looks quite energetic for White to opt for 2SJ:'!a6 ! d4 (Black is lost after 2S . . J:'!xfS 26.\WbS liJcB 27J:!aB l3fB 2B.ixdS+-) 26.V:Yd3 \Wc7 2 7.bS± and White has excel­ lent chances of materializing his extra pawn. lS . . . liJe7 - White is much bet­ ter prepared for the fight for the important dS-outpost. 16.0-0

and now: 16 . . . @hB (about 16 . . . aS - see

Chapter 11) 17.liJxe7 \Wxe7 (Black should avoid the line 17 . . .ixe7 1B . .tdS V:Yd7 19.1iJe3 l3fbB 2 0 .b4±, because after the unavoidable exchange of the light-squared bishops, White's knight on dS would control too many impor­ tant squares. In addition, Black's a6-pawn remains too weak, Bezo - Krajcovic, Trencianske Teplice 2 0 0S.) 1B.idS as 19.1iJa3 l3abB 20.l3xaS± and White remains with a solid extra pawn, Manik - Chmelik, Slovakia 1995; 16 ... l3bB - Black has great problems with the protection of his a6-pawn after that move. 17.liJxe7+ V:Yxe7 1B.\We2 V:Yd7 19. l3fa1 ic6 20. l3b4± Dorer L.Webb, Internet 2 004; 16 ... l3a7 - The idea to place the heavy pieces into the corner will hardly find too many follow­ ers. 17.V:Yd3 \WaB 1B.l3fal± Purgar - Racki, Delnice 200S; 16 ... liJxdS 17.ixdS ixdS? (It is more accurate for Black to defend with 17. . . \Wd7 1B.l3aS \Wc7 19.13a2 l3fbB 2 0.V:Yd3±, although White still maintains his edge, because of his control over the dS-outpost and the possible pressure against Black's weak a6 and d6-pawns.) 1B.V:YxdS± - White has man­ aged to trade advantageously the light-squared bishops and Black's defence is very problematic. He failed to survive after 18 . . . .te7 19.1iJb4 \Wb6 20.l3fa1 l3fcB 21.\Wd3 as 22.liJdS+-, since White had de­ cisive material gains in the game 141

Chapter 1 0 K.Simonian - P.Lovkov, Rybinsk opponent's pawn structure on the 1997, as well as in the variation: kingside, for example 23 . . . �xh6 1B . . . a5 19.tLJa3 ie7 20.tLJc4 fic7 (After 23 . . . gxh6 24.l3h4 l3gB 25.g3 2 U3fa1 +- Black's position was l3g7 26 .f3± Black loses a pawn.) totally compromised and he was 24.fixh6 gxh6 25.l3b4 l3abB (It is a pawn down, Nokso Koivisto hardly better for Black to try 25 . . . l3f7 26.l3b6 l3gB 27.g3±) 26.l3a1 - Eriksson, Turku 1996. 15 ... �hB - That move is neces­ �g7 27.f3± - Black has problems sary if Black wishes to prepare f7- protecting his queenside weaknes­ f5 and to try to seize the initiative ses and his doubled h-pawns are an on the kingside. 16.0-0 f5 (The evident liability in his position. move 16 . . . g6, Bartholomew 16.ia2 ic6 That is the most logical line for Rhee, Las Vegas 2004, seems less aggressive, but more solid than Black. 16 .. .f5, nevertheless Black might In answer to 16 . . . l3cB, it is have problems with the protection simplest for White to transpose of his a6-pawn, for example after to the main line with 17.h4 ih6 17.b4 tLJe7 1B.�d3 tLJxd5 19.hd5 1B.tLJce3 ic6 19.l3a3 he3 2 0 .tLJxe3 .hd5 20.�xd5;l; White manages ib5 (Naturally, it is very bad for to simplify the position and he Black to try 20 . . . ixe4? 2 1.fia4+-) can easily activate his knight, 21.tLJf5. while Black's bishop is not so use­ 16 ... �hB - After that solid ful, because he must take care of move, the idea to maneuver the the protection of his weak a6 and knight to the edge of the board d6-pawns. 16 . . . tLJa5 - after that looks senseless. 17.b4 tLJc6 1B.0-0 try, Black's previous move looks tLJe7, Brandl - Gindl, Poland 1991, like a loss of a tempo. 17.ia2 ic6 and here after 19.tLJce3 ic6 20.l3a5 1B.l3a3 tLJb7 19.ic4 as 2 0 .b4± The ib5 21.c4 ic6 2 2 .�d3 g6 23.l3dU main drawback of Black's position White consolidates his position is his knight on b7, which has no in the centre and he prepares to moves whatsoever, Kukk - Tsvet­ break through on the queenside kov, corr. 2 003.) 17.exfS l3xf5 (In with b4-b5, or c4-c5. answer to 17 . . . tLJe7 1B.tLJxe7 fixe7, Lipcak - Munk, Slovakia 2002, White can preserve his extra pawn with the line: 19.ie6 ic6 20.l3g4 as 21.lDe3±) 1B.id3 l3fB 19.fih5 ih6 2 0 .tLJce3 tLJe7 21.lDxe7 fixe7, Boeykens - Fletcher, Chalkidiki 2002, and here after 22.tLJf5 �f6 23.tLJxh6 White compromises his 142

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 17.ga3 ! White must play accurately, since after 17.gb4? ! lLlb7 18.lLla3 as 19.9c4 lLlcS+ his pieces are awkwardly placed and discoordi­ nated.

17 . . . ib5

the b7-square.) 21.�f3 id3 (After 21.. .ixe3 22.lLlxe3 lLld3 23.ge2 lLlf4 24.gd2 �f6 2S.Wh1 ,tc6 26.gaS �g6 27.,tb1 gfd8 28.ic2± Black's counterplay is over, while his weaknesses remain on the board.) 22 .,tb1 ixb1 23.gxb1 ixe3 24.�xe3;!; and the position has been simplified indeed, but Black still has problems. He must either withstand a powerful pres­ sure against his a6-pawn, or al­ low White to create a dangerous passed pawn. 17 . . . lLlb7 - Black's knight will be long out of action after that move. 18 .b4 as 19.0-0 axb4 20.cxb4 ibS 2 1.geU Fontaine - Palmblad, Stockholm 2 0 03.

That is the most natural move for Black, since he thus prevents his opponent's king from finding a safe haven on the kingside. 17. . . wh8?! - This is just a half measure. 18.0-0 ibS (Black can­ not be happy with his position af­ ter 18 . . .fS 19.exfS gxfS 2 0.lLlde3 ! gf8 2 1.,tdS gc8 2 2 .b4± - he loses his a6-pawn and he can hardly prove sufficient compensation for it.) 19.ge1 lLlb7 (After 19 . . . fS 18.h4 ih6 20.exfS gxfS 21. lLlde3 gf8 22 .b4 About 18 . . .if4 19.1Llce3 ixe3 lLlb7 23 . .tdS± White sends his opponent's knight to its most pas­ 20.lLlxe3 - see 18 . . . ih6 19.1Llce3 sive position and he can easily at­ ixe3 20.lLlxe3. tack Black's queenside weakness­ 19.1Llce3 es, Houtman - Gallet, Internet 2 004, it looks like Black's most reliable line is 19 . . . lLlc4 2 0 .ixc4 ixc4 21.lLlce3 ibS 2 2 .g3 as 23. h4;!;, although even then White maintains a stable advantage thanks to his active pieces and the dominance over the dS-outpost.) 20.lLlce3 (White has the edge too after 2 0 .b4 as 2 1.ib3;!;) 20 . . . lLlc5 - Black tries to bring his knight 19 . . . i.xe3 The other moves are worse for into action and that is his most logical line. (It is bad for him to Black, because he has problems opt for 2 0 . . . ixe3 21.lLlxe3± Melao protecting his d6-pawn. 19 . . . whB 20.lLlf5 lLlc4 2 1.ixc4 - Paessler, corr. 2000, as well as 20 . . . a5 2 1.ic4 id7 2 2 .b4;!; - and ixc4 22.b3 ib5 23.c4 id7 24. Black's knight is stuck for long on lLlxd6 g6 2S.c5 f5, Kaminski 143

Chapter 1 0 Todorovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1990, and here after 2 6.h5 'lWg5 27.hxg6 1Wxg6 28.b4+- White has a de­ cisive advantage, because of his extra pawn and his powerful knight. 19 . . . tLlb7 2 0.tLlf5 ge8 (In an­ swer to 20 . . . tLlc5, Zontakh - Pisk, Sala 1995, White can pose great problems for Black with the move 21.c4, for example after 21.. . .td7 22.tLlxh6 + gxh6 23.'lWh5 tLlxe4 24.J.bl+- Black is under the threat of a terrible attack and he loses unavoidably several pawns.) 21.tLlxh6+ gxh6 2 2 .b4 .!d7 23. 'lWd2 +- - Black's pieces are pas­ sive and his king is vulnerable, Edwards - Blumetti, USA 1989.

2 0 .tLlxe3 gc8 White obtains a great advan­ tage much quicklier after Black's other moves. In answer to 20 . . . ga7, Rechel - Beshukov, Anapa 1991, it looks very good for White to continue with 2 1.b4 tLlb7 22.id5± 20 . . . 'lWc7 - Black thus loses a couple of tempi, but he deflects his opponent's knight away from the fS-square. 21.tLld5 'lWd8, Quadri - Gallet, Email 2 0 01, and here after 2 2 .h5 tLlc4 23.ixc4 ixc4 24.tLle3 ie6 25.h6 g6 26. 0-0 'lWgS 27.b4 'lWxh6 28.'lWxd6 'lWf4 29.'lWd3± White's queenside pawns are tremendously danger­ ous. After 20 . . . tLlb7 21.id5± no matter what Black's does, his po­ sition remains terrible: 144

21.. .1Wc7 2 2 .'lWg4 .!d7 23.tLlf5 ixf5 24.exf5 �h8 25.f6 gg8 26.h5± Lopez Paz - Sueiro Coro­ nado, Cuba 1998 ; 21 . . . 1Wb6 2 2 .1Wg4 tLlcS, Joao - Moskov, corr. 1995, the threat to check from the d3-square seems dangerous, but in fact it is harmless for White. 23.ixa8 �a8 24.h5 tLld3+ 25.�f1 tLlxb2+ 26.�g1± White has an extra ex­ change and excellent attacking chances; In answer to 2 1 . . .gb8, Saxe - McCollum, USA 1998, it is very strong for White to continue with 22.b4 as 23.h5 axb4 24.cxb4 1Wb6 25.tLlfS id7 26. 0-0± and he pre­ serves excellent attacking pros­ pects, while Black's knight is a sorry sight; 21.. .ga7 2 2 .b4 - Black can hardly defend against the simul­ taneous attack on the kingside and his a6-pawn, 22 . . . aS (It is not any better for Black to try 22 . . . 'lWb6 23.tLlf5 tLld8 24.'lWd2 tLle6 25.c4 .!d7 26.0-0 tLlf4 27.tLlxd6 ! tLlxd5 28.'lWxdS J.e6 29.'lWxe5 'lWxb4 30.gg3+-) 23.ixb7 gxb7 24. �aS± White a has a solid extra pawn and after he brings his rook

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJ c2 .!g5 13.a4 on h1 into the actions, his position will be winning, De Holanda - Ri­ vas Romero, Email 1999.

21.h5 ! The move 2 1.liJf5 has been played much more often, but it leads practically by force to a very sharp endgame in which Black manages to build an impenetra­ ble fortress after precise play. 21... liJc4 (21. . . liJb7 - This move leads to a difficult endgame for Black. 22.'�g4 �f6 23.�g5 l::! c7 24.�xf6 gxf6 25.b4± Black's defence is very difficult, because of his bad knight and disrupted pawn-struc­ ture. 25 . . . a5 26.bxa5 l::! a8 27.l::!h3 .!c4, Lanka - Krasenkow, Moscow 1989, and here the fastest road for White to victory is 28.hc4 l::! xc4 29.a6 l::!xe4+ 30.l::! e 3 l::!xe3+ 3 1.fxe3 liJd8 32.liJxd6+-) 2 2 .hc4 l::!xc4 23.liJxd6 (White maintains a slight positional advantage after 23.f3 l::! c 6 24.�d2;j; - despite all, Black should succeed in equal­ izing with accurate defence) 23 . . . l::! d4 24.cxd4 �xd6 25.f3 exd4 26. <M2 d3 27.'�·d2 Y;Yd4+ 28. i>g3

Analyzing that position, it looks like the seemingly attractive

move 28 ... f5, would not bring Black anything promising: 29.l::! e 1 f4+ 30.i>h2 Y;Yf6 (The move 3 0 . . . g5? i s a fruitless attempt t o play for a checkmate. 31.hxg5 h6 32 .g6 l::!f6 33.l::!c3+- Zagrebelny - Ko­ chetkov, Moscow 1995.) 31.Y;Yf2 l::! c8 (Black would not fare any better after 31. . .l::! d 8 32 .e5 �e7, Timoshenko - Dubinka, Alushta 2000, and White's advantage can be emphasized with the transfer of his rook to the a3-square. The quickest way to accomplish that is 33.l::! c3 h6 34.i>g1 i>h7 35.�d2 �xh4 36.l::! c7± - White has lost his h4-pawn indeed, but he has coordinated his pieces and his passed pawn is no less danger­ ous than its black counterpart is.) 32 .e5 l::! c 2 (After 32 ... �e6 33.l::! c 3± White's pieces are much more ac­ tive and that means Black has no compensation for the exchange.) 33.exf6 l::!xf2 34.l::!c3 ! i>t7 (The alternatives for Black lose quick­ ly: 34 . . . gxf6? 35.l::! e7 :Bc2 36.:gxc2 dxc2 37.l::! c7+-, or 34 . . . d2? 35. :Be7+-) 35.fxg7 i>xg7 36.:ge6± Black's passed d3-pawn is seem­ ingly dangerous, but in fact it is a liability, which need permanent protection. Meanwhile, his king is unsafe too. White must play very accurately, though. Still, GM Y.Yakovich has found an amazing defensive re­ source here: 29 . . . fxe4 ! ? 30.:gxe4 �d6 31.i>f2 �c5 32 .:ge3 �d4 ! 33.g3 l::! e 8 and White cannot get rid of the pin, for example: 34.:Bc3 145

Chapter 1 0 a5 ! 35J'k1 a4! 36.Ei:e1 Ei:cB ! 37.Ei:c1 Ei:eB = . This variation is based on the motive that Black's pawn ad­ vances effortlessly from a6 to a4, but White's play can be improved. 34.Ei:b3 ! - White does not allow his opponent's pawn to come to the a5-square and he is threaten­ ing to give back the exchange gob­ bling Black's passed pawn in the process. 34 . . . Ei:cB - In case Black ignores his opponent's threats, for example after 34 . . . h6, then after 35.Ei:b4 WfcS 36.Ei:xb5 !?, or 'Wxb5 37.Ei:xeB+ 'WxeB 3B.'Wxd3± White ends up with an extra pawn in a queen and pawn ending and he has excellent chances of ma­ terializing it. Following 36 ... axb5 37.'Wxd3 b4 3B.f4±, there are still rooks left on the board, but Black must fight long and hard for the draw. After 35.Ei:c3 Ei:eB 36.Ei:c1 a5 ! 37.b3 h5! Black has failed to place his pawn on a4 indeed, but White has no real chances of breaking that "fortress".

rial is equal indeed, but Black's weaknesses on a6 and d6, com­ bined with the unsafe situation of his king would not promise him any real chances of equalizing.) 26.0-0 'Wc6 27.Ei:fa1 'Wxe4 (After 27 . . . Ei:a8 28 .f3 'Wb6+ 29.r;t>h2 Ei:c6 30.'Wd5±, or 29 . . . Wfc6 30.Ei:a5 r;t>f8 31.Ei:d5± Black's pieces remain quite passive and his queenside pawns are weak, so he is doomed to a laborious defence without any counterplay.) 2B.'Wxd6 'Wh4 29.Ei:xa6 Wfxh6 30.Ei:aB e4 31.'Wd5 Ei:cc8 32.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 33.'Wxe4 'Wd2 34.Ei:bl± White ends up with a sol­ id extra pawn, but he must show good technique on order to realize it, since Black's pieces are active.

22.�g4!

21 h6 ...

This move seems necessary. The other attractive line for Black is not any better for him at all: 21.. .tLlc4 2 2 .ixc4 ixc4 23.h6 g6 24.tLlxc4 Ei:xc4 25.'Wd3 'WcB (In case of 25 . . . Ei:c6 26.Ei:xa6 Ei:xa6 27.'Wxa6 'Wg5 2B.0-0 Ei:dB 29.'Wb6± Black has no compensa­ tion for the sacrificed pawn. His defence will be very difficult too in the line 25 . . . Wfb6 26.0-0 Ei:c6 27.'Wd2 Ei:bB 2 B.b4±. The mate146

22 ... �d7 The move 22 . . . tLlc4 leads to a difficult endgame for Black, because of the vulnerability of his pawns on a6, d6 and g7. 23.ixc4 ixc4 24.tLlf5 Vfff6 25.�h4 �xh4 26.Ei:xh4 Ei:bB (It is a di­ saster for Black to try 26 . . . r;t>h7? 27.tLlxd6+-) 27.b4 Ei:b6 2B.Ei:g4 r;t>h8 29.Ei:xg7 �e6 30.Ei:g3± White has an extra pawn and he has

11.c3 0 - 0 12 . lD c2 .ig5 13.a4 good chances of pressing his ad­ vantage home.

23.n4 Yfl>6 Black's defence is harder in the endgame after 23 . . . V;Yxh4 24J3xh4 lDc6 2S.,idS lDb8 (It is even worse for Black to opt for 2S . . J�b8 26J3xa6 l3fc8 27.h4+-) 26.l3h1 l3c7 27.@d2 !c8 28.!c4 l3d8 2 9.b4±, because he cannot create any counterplay, since his pieces are tied up with the protec­ tion of the pawns on a6 and d6.

24.b4 lDc6 25. 0 - 0 !e6

The game Kotronias - Timosh­ enko, Thessaloniki 2 007 followed with 26 .id5 �b8 (Black would not fare any better after 26 . . . aS 27.lDc4 V!!c7 28 .bxaS±) 27.gfa1± - White's advantage is more than obvious: Black has no counterplay and he must defend passively his •

queenside weaknesses, mean­ while his king is rather unsafe too. White will be threatening soon lDfS. He coped with the realiza­ tion of his advantage skillfully: 27,..V!!c7 28.c4 @b8 (Black fails to activate his pieces with 28 . . . lDc6 29 . .ixc6 V;Yxc6 30.l3xa6 V!!b 7 31.bS .ixc4 32.lDfS+-) 29.�f5 hf5 (Black loses too after 29 . . . V;Yd7 3 0 . .ixe6 fxe6 31.lDe7 gxc4 32 .lDg6+ @g8 33.lDxf8 @xf8 34. V!!g4 l3xb4 3S. l3f3+ @g8 36.l3f6+­ and the pawns he has for the ex­ change start falling one after an­ other.) 3 0 .exf5 �d7 (Black could have sustained some "illusion" of resistance with the line: 30 . . . v!!d 8 31.V!!g4 V;YgS 32.V!!xgS hxgS 33.l3d1 lDc6 34.l3bl±, although the su­ premacy of White's bishop over Black's knight is more than obvi­ ous. Meanwhile, Black's queen­ side pawns are vulnerable and he must consider the possibility of White advancing his b-pawn after he improves his position. 31. �a6+- and the game was soon over after. 31,..�f6 32.ga7 Yfl>6

33.gb7 V!!d4 34. V!!xd4 exd4 35. ixf7 ga8 36.gxa8 �a8 37.f3 1-0

147

Conclusion In this chapter we have started analyzing the main lines of the Chelyabinsk variation - 11 . . . 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 !gS 13.a4. Here, Black has two possibilities, if he is reluctant to remain a pawn down - a) 13 . . . 'g b 8 and b) 1 3. . . bxa4. In variation a, after 13 . . . 'gb8 14.axbS axbS 1S. !d3, there arises a position, in which Black's weakness on bS is hurting. He has played most of a1l 1S. . . ie6, but after 16. Yff e2!, White wins that pawn immedi­ ately. Black can hardly prove any compensation for it. It is stronger for him to play 1S .. . tiJe7, with the idea to facilitate his defence with exchanges. Still, it is diffi.cultfor Black to activate his forces then, be­ cause they are burdened with the protection of the bS-pawn and that is well illustrated by the variations in the chapter. Naturally, it is stronger for Black to capture 13 . . . bxa4. After 14. 'gxa4, he has numerous possibilities and the most popular line for him is 14 . . . aS, which will be dealt with in the next chapters. Here, we analyze Black's all other alternatives. In answer to 14 . . . 'fl.b8 and 14 .. .j5, it is very good for White to play 1S.h4! in order to repel Black's bishop to a unfavourable position. White obtains a great advantage in both cases by simple means. Black tries sometimes the move 14 . . . liJ b8 too, but the maneuver of the knight to the c5-square is too slow. In variation b1, Black tries to facilitate his defence by simplifying, but White then controls the light squares in the centre and he has pow­ erful pressure against the a and d-pawns. In variation b2, Black plays 14 . . . mh8, planning to open thef-file in order to organize counterplay on the kingside. That leads to the occu­ pation by White of the important central squares e4 and dS. In variation b3, Black manages after 14 . . . ib7 1S. ic4 liJaS 16. ia2 !c6 17. 'ga3 ibS, to activate his light pieces and thatforces White to act with maximum precision. In the main line, it is essentialfor him to avoid the popular variation, in which he wins the exchange, because there Black's chances of making a draw are considerable. Therefore, the novelty of the Greek grandmaster V.Kotronias looks very attrac­ tive - 21.h5!, and that move enables White to avoid the sharp varia­ tions, creating pressure against Black's weak pawns in a rather calm situation. 148

1.e4 eS 2JiJf3 ttJe6 3.d4 exd4 4. ttJxd4 e6 S.ttJe3 eS 6.ttJdbS d6 7.i.gS a6 S.ttJa3 bS 9.ttJdS i.e7 1 0 .i.xf6 .bf6 11.e3 0 - 0 12.ttJe2 i.gS 13.a4 bxa4 14.gxa4 as lS.J.e4

Chapter 11

White placed his bishop on a promising diagonal after having exchanged his opponent's bS­ pawn and now Black must make a choice. In this chapter we will ana­ lyze Black's attempts to avoid the popular lines IS . . . id7 and 15 . . . E:bB, and these are: a) 1 5 ib7, •••

b) 15

•••

.te6, c) 15

•••

'itJh8.

IS . . . lLle7 - This move usually leads to a transposition of moves. 16.lLlce3 he3 (The alternatives for Black transpose to other lines : 16 . . . ie6 17. 0-0 - see variation b; 16 ... 'itJhB 17.0-0 - see variation c; 16 . . . id7 17.E:a2, or 16 . . . lLlxdS 17.lLlxdS id7 IB.E:a2 - see varia­ tion d from Chapter 12) 17.lLlxe3 .tb7 (About 17. . . 'itJhB IB.0-0 - see variation c; as for 17 . . . id7 IB.E:a2

- see variation a from Chapter 12.) IB.'Wd3 Wfb6 (About IB . . . ic6 19.E:a2 - see variation a from Chapter 12; IB . . . 'itJhB I9.0-0 - see IS . . . \f{hB 16.lLlce3 he3 17.lLlxe3 lLle7 IB.O-O ib7 19.'Wd3 ; the move IB . . . lLlcB - leads to simpli­ fications, which are favourable for White. 19.1LldS lLlb6 2 0 .lLlxb6 Wfxb6 21.0-0 ic6 2 2 .E:a2 'Wb7 23.Wfxd6 he4 24.f3 Wfc6 2S.Wfxc6 hc6 26.b3:t - Black's as-pawn is vulnerable, so he is forced to con­ tinue simplifying. 26 . . . a4 27.bxa4 E:xa4 2B.E:xa4 ha4 29.E:al ic2 , Viktorsson - Albano, Email 2002, and here after 30.E:aS E:eB 31.idS 'itJfB 32.c4± White's passed pawn becomes very dangerous.) 19.b3 E:fcB 2 0 . 0-0 ia6 2 1.E:a3 hc4 22.lLlxc4 'WcS 23.E:fal± and Black loses unavoidably his as-pawn, Vega Gutierrez - Linares Quero, Oropesa del Mar 2001. It is again only a transposition of moves after IS . . . g6 16.0-0 'itJhB (or 16 . . . E:bB 17.b3 - see IS . . . E:bB) 17.lLlce3 - see IS . . . \f{hB . The trade o f the light-squared bishops is clearly in favour of 149

Chapter 11 White : lS . . . ia6 16.ixa6 �xa6 17. O-o± Patrascu - Voin, Bucharest 2000. In the game Yudkovsky - Al­ cazar, Tallinn 1997, Black tried to bring his knight to d7 and he played lS . . . ltJbB, but that was hardly the best way to accomplish that plan. White could have em­ phasized that with the line: 16.h4! ? ih6 (The pawn is of course un­ touchable: 16 . . . ixh4? 17.YNhS+-) 17.ltJce3. White is clearly better after 17 . . . ltJd7 1B.ltJfS±, or 17 . . . ltJa6 1B.ixa6 ! �xa6 19.1tJg4, and Black is in trouble even after the extrav­ agant line: 19 . . . ic1 ! ? 20.ltJgf6+ gxf6 21.V;Yxc1 ie6 2 2 .V;Yh6 hdS 23.exdS fS 24.0-0±. His relatively best defence is 17. . . ixe3, but after 1B.ltJxe3 ltJa6 19.b4 axb4 20.cxb4;!; White maintains a stable edge.

a) 15

•••

J.b7

In general, the development of that bishop on the long diagonal is not so typical for the Chelyabinsk variation. In this particular case, that maneuver should be connect­ ed with the transfer of the knight via the route c6-bB-d7. 150

16. 0 - 0 tOb8 16 . . . �cB?! - That is a dubious move, because the weakness of the as-pawn becomes critical. 17.V;Yd3 YNeB 18.�fal± Ferret - Hossa, In­ ternet 199B. In case of 16 ... 'it>hB 17.YNd3 (about 17.ltJce3 - see lS . . . 'it>hB) 17. . . g6 1B. ltJce3± White maintains the advantage, Holm - Andersen, Gladsaxe 1993. Black has tried sometimes 16 . . . ltJe7, but h e should hardly strive to exchange light pieces in the cen­ tre, because at the end he might end up with a weak dark-squared bishop against White's dominant knight on dS. After 17.V;Yd3, there might follow: 17. . . 'it>hB 1B.ltJce3 - see 15 . . . 'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7 1B.YNd3 ; 17. . . ltJxdS 1B.ixdS YNb6 19.b4 ixdS (The move 19 . . . ic6 loses a pawn for Black: 2 0 .�xaS± Paehtz - Drobka, Germany 2 0 0 2 .) 2 0 . YNxdS �acB (It i s not better for Black to try 2 0 . . . �fcB 21.c4 �a7 22.�fal± Martincevic - Friedrich, Wuerzburg 19B7.) 2 1.bxaS V;Yb2 (If 21.. .V;Yc6, then 2 2 .YNxc6 �xc6 23.ltJb4 �xc3 24.ltJdS± Voicu Aydin, Marina d'Or 199B.) 2 2 .�a2 YNxc3 23.a6± Shahade - Krapivin, Budapest 2003. Or 17 ... ic6 1BJ�a2 ltJxdS (About 1B . . . 'it>hB 19.1tJce3 - see lS . . . 'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7 1B.V;Yd3 ic6 19.�a2 ; after lB . . . YNbB 19.1tJxe7+ he7 2 0 .ltJe3, i t is bad for Black to opt for 20 . . . �dB?

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.gS 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 aS lS. i.c4 in view of 21.hf7! +- Mueller Apostu, Aschach 2 004, but even after 2 0 . . . g6 21.i.dS± Black's posi­ tion remains very difficult. In case of 18 . . . 'Sb8, it is good for White to play 19.1Llxe7+ followed by 19 . . . V!1xe7 2 0.b3±, o r 1 9 . . . he7 2 0.b3± Svoboda - Tamaskovic, Slovakia 2000.) 19.hdS vgb6 (or 19 . . :�c7 2 0 .'Sfa1 'Sab8 21.V!1c4± Braghetta - Panizzi, Piacenza 2005) - and in that situation, which happened in the game Schussler - Kouatly, Groningen 1977, White had to emphasize his advantage with 20.lLla3± with the idea 21.lLlc4.

axb4 20.'Sxa8 has 21.cxb4 g6 22.'Sa6± Vehi - Jose Abril, Bar­ celona 2000.

19.9xa8 ha8 Or 19 . . . vgxa8 20.cxb4 'Sc8 21.'Sa1 V!1b8 2 2 .bS �cS 23.vge2 �e6 24.�cb4± Korsunsky - Ar­ bakov, USSR 1978.

2 0 .cxb4 g6 In case of 2 0 . . . �b6 21.�xb6 vgxb6 22.'Sa1, White's advantage becomes even greater, for ex­ ample: 22 . . . vgc7 23.g3 g6 24.h4 i.d2 2S.bS iaS 26.�e3± Dervishi - Cacco, Padova 1999; 22 . . . ,ib7 23.g3 g6 24.h4 ,ih6 2S.,idS± Der­ vishi - Cacco, Padova 2000.

21.'Sdl �g7 In the game Penna - Sender, Internet 1998, Black tried 21 . . . vgb8 2 2 .V!1g3 ,id8 23.lLlce3;!;, but White was again better.

17.b4! White creates a passed pawn and he restricts the mobility of his opponent's knight, depriving it of the cS-square.

17

•••

�d7 18.ti'd3 axb4

Black cannot be happy with his position after 18 . . . g6 19J�fa1 axb4 20J!xa8 has 21.cxb4± Cutillas Ripon - Pfretzschner, COIT. 1994, or 18 . . . �b6 19.�xb6 V!1xb6 20.l3fa1 axb4 21.'Sxa8 'Sxa8 22.'Sxa8+ has 23.cxb4 g6 24.,idS± Kalod - Pisk, Brno 1994, or 18 .. . '�h8 19.'Sfa1

22.�c3;!; - White controls reliably the dS-outpost and he exerts pressure against his oppo­ nent's backward d6-pawn, Seme­ niuk - Gurgenidze, Saratov 1981. Black has failed to organize any counterplay, but his position is still relatively solid.

lSI

Chapter 11 b) 15

•••

.ie6

This decision is too schematic. Black did not need to determine the placement of his bishop so early.

16. 0 - 0

We will analyze now bl) 16 . . . . �h8 and b 2 ) 16 ... �e7. About 16 .. .l:'ib8 17.b3 - see 15 . . . �b8. Black plays only very seldom 16 . . . m8 17.b3 &iJe7, Bobras Lukasiewicz, Poland 1996, 18. &iJxe7+ he7 19.&iJe3;!;, as well as 16 .. J�ia7 17.�e2 g6 18.l:'ifal �b7 19.b4;!; Potrykus - Kuhl, Germany 1992.

After 17 ... l3a7 18.�e2 �d7 19. �fa1 l3b8 20.b3;!; White keeps his pressure, Teuschler - Schweiger, Gleisdorf 1996. In case of 17. . . g6, it is interest­ ing for White to play 18. �f3 !?, and after 18 . . . �b8 (The move 18 .. .f5, Yukhno - Vl.Kovalev, Illichevsk 2006, looks more logical, but it only leads to exchanges, which are favourable for White. Here after 19.exf5 gxf5 20.&iJc7! .hc4 21.l3xc4 e4 22 .�h5 �xc7 23.�xg5 �e7 24.�xe7 &iJxe7 25.l3c7± Black has many pawns in the centre in­ deed, but he has problems pro­ tecting them. Or 21. Wlxc7 �xc6 22 .�d5± and Black has too many weaknesses to worry about and his king is endangered too.) 19.b3, there arises a position, which we will analyze in Chapter 13.

bl) 16 �h8 17.�ce3 &iJe7 •••

About 17 ... �b8 18.b3 - see 15 . . . l3b8. 17 . . .f5? ! - That move is too dubious and White increases his advantage with quite natural moves. 18.exfS hfS 19.&iJxf5 l3xf5 2 0.,id3± and Black has lost his two-bishop advantage and he has presented White with complete dominance over the centre and the light squares, Auvray - Gol­ ubeva, Sibenik 2007. 152

18.&iJxe7! he7 If 18 . . . �xe7, then 19 . .he6 fxe6 (It would not work for Black to play 19 . . . he3?, because of the inter­ mediate move 20 ..id5+- and White wins the exchange.) 20.&iJc4± The move 18 . . . he3, can be neutralized by the precise reply 19.!d5 ! hd5 (otherwise White's

11.c3 0 - 0 12. 0,c2 !g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. "i!.xa4 a5 15. ic4 knight will go to c6 with tempo) 20.0,xd5± and White has a clear advantage.

19.ti'e2;!;

That is even more precise than 19.ti'd3, as it was played in the game Fruebing - Becker, Will­ ingen 2 0 06, since White does not have any problems with the protection of his b2-pawn. The situation has clarified and White is better, because Black's weak­ nesses are too obvious. Still, it would be far from easy for White to break Black's resistance in that position.

b2) 16

. • .

�e7 17.�ce3

Black's alternatives are insuf­ ficient to equalize: 17 . . . "i!.c8, Nadvesnik - Berke, Busevec 2 0 05, 18.0,xe7+ Vffxe7 (or 18 . . . ixe7 19.ixe6 fxe6 20.Vffb3±) 19.he6 fxe6 20.0,c4±; 17 . . . !d7 18."i!.a2 a4 (In case of 18 . . . !c6, Beltz - Sickert, Sebnitz 2002, White should capture 19.0,xe7+ and Black has problems after 19 . . . he7 20.!d5±, as well as following 19 . . . Vffx e7 2 0 .0,f5±) 19.0,xe7+ Vffxe7 2 0 .id5 "i!.a6 (After 20 . . . "i!.ab8 21.0,f5 !xEs 2 2 .exf5;!; Black's a4-pawn is very weak.) 21.b4t; 17. . . !xe3 18.0,xe3 0,c8 (After 18 . . . id7, Nicholas - Hansell, Wit­ ley 2000, White can play 19."i!.a2 ic6 20.Vffd 3± transposing to vari­ ation a from Chapter 12 - and the fact that Black's pawn is on as in this case and not on a4 is even better for White.) 19.he6 fxe6 20.b4 "i!.f7 21.Vffb 3± and Black los­ es at least one of his weak pawns, Schneider - Martens, Hamburg 1999.

lS.b3 .be3

17 . . . "i!.bS About 17 . . . @h8 18.0,xe7! - see 16 . . . @h8.

18 . . . 0,c6? ! - This move looks very strange, because the knight was there several moves ago, Behling - Sandek, corr. 1989, and here White's most ener­ getic line seems to be attacking the d6-pawn with 19.0,f5 0,e7 (It is hardly better for Black to try 19 . . . @h8 20.0,de3 ixe3 21.fxe3 Vffb 6 2 2 .Vffd 2 hc4 23."i!.xc4 0,d8 24.b4±, because the weakness on d6 is much more important, while 153

Chapter 11 Black's pieces are discoordinated, than White's ugly doubled central pawns.) 2 0 .ttJfxe7+ he7 2 1.VUd3t - White has a long-lasting initia­ tive thanks to his active pieces and the vulnerability of Black's pawns on a5 and d6. In answer to 1B . . . ttJcB, it de­ serves attention for White to con­ tinue with the aggressive move 19.VUa1 ! ? It is then bad for Black to try 19 . . . ttJb6 20.l3xa5 ttJxc4 2 1.bxc4 l3aB 22.l3a3 �bB 23.ttJf5± and White remains with an extra pawn exerting strong pressure against the d6-pawn, or 22 . . . he3 23.ttJxe3 l3cB 24.l3a4 VUc7 25.�a3± and White's extra pawn is weak, but Black's d6-pawn looks no less vulnerable. 19 . . . he3 (That exchange would not save the a5pawn for Black.) 20.ttJxe3 ttJb6 (After 20 . . .hc4 21.bxc4 ttJb6 - or 21.. .l3aB 2 2 .VUa3± Klundt - Ben­ ko, Germany 1992 - 22.l3xa5 l3cB 23.c5 l3xc5 24.l3xc5 dxc5 25.�a7± Black could have restored the ma­ terial balance indeed, but White's pieces would be much more ac­ tive and that would provide him with a clear advantage.) 21.l3xa5 ttJxc4 2 2 .bxc4 VUc7 23.l3a4 l3fcB 24.VUd1 ! ;!; (White transfers his queen to the d3-square and from there it will not only attack the weakness on d6, but it will protect his own pawns as well.) 24 . . . l3aB 25.l3b4 l3a2 (It would be a loss of time for Black to play 25 . . . l3a3 26.VUd3 g6 27.l3fb1 l3a2 2B.h4± - he does not have any active plan 154

in sight, while White's extra pawn is reliably protected.) 26.�d3 g6 27.l3d1 Wg7 2B .h4 VUe7 29.g3 �f6 30.l3d2t - and now White repels his opponent's active rook from the second rank and he seizes the initiative, or he forces his oppo­ nent to exchange his most active piece after which Black has prob­ lems proving compensation for his sacrificed pawn. His attempt to activate his queen with 30 . . . l3xd2 31.�xd2 VUf3 3 2 .�xd6 �xe4 33.c5 VUf3 34.VUxe5+ VUf6 35.�d4± only leads to a position in which White has two extra pawns and excellent chances of turning them into a full point.

19.ttJxe3

19 .. :ifb6 Black has also tried here 19 . . . id7 20.l3a2 ic6 2 1.VUd3 VUc7 22.l3fa1 l3aB 23.b4 axb4 24 ..bf7+ . Now, he loses if he captures the bishop 24 . . . wxf7 25.�c4+ wg6 (Black should better defend with 25 . . . d5 26.exd5 l3xa2 27.dxc6+ wf6 2B.l3xa2 bxc3 29.ttJg4+ wf5 30.l3e2+-, but he would hardly save the game in that line any­ way.) 26.l3xaB ttJcB 27.�e6+ 1-0

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 Szarvas - Csorbai, Hungary 2001, therefore Black must follow with 24 . . .'�h8 25.cxb4 'Sab8 26.VNc4 Y;Vb6 2 7.i.e6 Y;Vxb4 28.Y;Vxb4 'Sxb4 29.f3 'Stb8, Muneret - Maia, Email 2000, but after 30.'Sa7± he has problems defending against the threats along the seventh rank as well as holding on to the d5pawn.

2 0 .b4 axb4 21.'Sxb4 ti'c6 Black's position remains dif­ ficult even after the more resil­ ient line: 21.. .Y;Vd8 2 2 .VNb3 'Sxb4 23.cxb4 ixc4 24.liJxc4± and White's outside passed pawn looks very dangerous.

22 .i.xe6 �b4 23 .bf7+ gxf7 24.cxb4 ti'xe4 25. Y;Vxd6± •

White's passed pawn was decisive for his quick victory in the game Passerotti - Rivera Kuzawka, Lu­ zern 198 2 .

c) 15".mh8 Black retreats his king away from the a2-g8 diagonal in ad­ vance and he plans to continue with the move f7-f5 at some mo­ ment.

16.ljJce3

16" .i.xe3 Here, there are numerous pos­ sibilities to transpose to other variations : 16 . . . 'Sb8 17.b3 - see 15 . . . 'Sb8 ; 16 . . . id7 17. 0-0 - see 15 . . .i.d7; 16 . . . ie6 17. 0-0 - see 15 . . . i.e6. After 16 ... liJe7 17. 0-0, we reach again positions, which are analyzed elsewhere: 17. . . ib7 18.Y;Vd3 - see 16 . . . ib7; 17 . . . ie6 18.liJxe7 - see variation bl; 17 . . . id7 18.'Sa2 - see variation b from Chapter 12. 16 . . . ib7 17. 0-0 liJe7 18.VNd3 i.c6 (It is clearly worse for Black to opt for 18 . . . liJg6 19.93 'Sb8, Gleichmann - V.Kaufmann, corr. 1990, because here after 2 0 .liJf5 ic6 21J!a2± White's pieces are tremendously active in the centre, while Black has his weaknesses on as and d6 to worry about.) 19.'Sa2 ixe3 20.liJxe3 - see 16 ... ixe3. It is just terrible for Black to play 16 .. .f5? ! 17.liJxf5 hfS 18.exf5 'Sxf5, because of the counter measure 19.h4 ! ixh4 (In case of 19 . . . ih6 20.g4 'Sf8 21.g5+­ Black loses a piece and if 19 . . . ie7, then White plays 2 0 .id3 'Sf7 21.VNh5 VNg8 2 2 .ig6 iUf8 155

Chapter 11 23Jk4+-, and Black is helpless. It is not any better for him to try 20 . . . e4 2 1.ixe4 l3e5 22.f4 l3e6 23. Wfg4+-, because White ends up with a solid extra pawn and he soon won in the game Duigou - Flores, Email 1998.) 2 0.g3 !g5 (Black has no compensation for the piece after the desperate line 20 . . . !xg3 21.fxg3 e4 2 2 .Wfg4+-, Abdelmoumen - Karsdorp, Email 2 0 0 2 .) 21.l3xh7+ ! �xh7 2 V�h5+ !h6 (or 2 2 . . . �g8 23.lLlf6+ �f8 24.Wff7#) 23.Wfxf5+ g6 (or 23 . . . �h8 24.id3 +-) 24.Wff7+ !g7 25. !b5+-, and White wins. In the game Bednarich Blagojevic, Nova Gorica 1997, Black prepared and pushed f7-f5 with the help of the line 16 . . . g6 17. 0-0 f5 (about 17 . . . id7 18.g3 - see variation b from Chapter 12). We can recommend here for White the move 18.�d3 ! ?;\;, fortifying the central pawn. It is quite probable that the game may transpose after that to some other familiar variation (for example af­ ter 18 . . . l3b8 19.b3 - see variation b2a from Chapter 13).

21.lLlc2± Black fails to organize any real counterplay, while his pawns on d6 and as are vulner­ able. If 18 . . . ib7, then 19.Wfd3 f5, Vicioso - Davidoff, corr. 1999 (About 19 . . .ic6 2 0 .�a2 - see 15 . . . id7 16.lLlce3 �h8 17. 0-0 ixe3 18.lLlxe3 lLle7 19.13a2 ic6 2 0 . �d3 .), and here i t looks very good for White to continue with 20.exf5 d5 21.ib3;\;, and Black will hardly manage to regain his pawn.

19.exfS �xfS

17.lLlxe3 �e7 About 17 . . . l3b8 18.b3 - see 15 . . . �b8 .

IS. 0 - 0

2 0 .b4! (diagram)

IS

f5

•••

About 18 . . . !d7 19.13a2 - see variation b from Chapter 12. The move 18 ... g6, Omtvedt - Tjolsen, Oslo 2006, is too slow, since after 19.Wfd3 f5 2 0 .�d1 f4 156

This is an improvement in comparison to the game Tivi­ akov - van Der Wiel, Netherlands 2000.

20

•••

�xe3

Black's position is difficult following 20 . . . �b6 2 1.bxa5 �a5

11.c3 0 - 0 12JiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 as 15. !c4 22.'8xaS '!WxaS 23.ltJxfS .hiS 24. '!Wxd6 '8c8, because after the pre­ cise reaction by White 2S.'8dl! h6 26.!a6± - he can exploit the defenselessness of Black's last rank.

21.fxe3 '8xf1 + 22.hf1 ti'b6 23.�d2;!; (diagram) White maintains his positional advantage despite the simplifications. Black's pieces are forced to protect the weaknesses on as

and d6, while his counterattack against the e3-pawn is almost im­ material.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have analyzed some lines, which are not so of­ ten played by Black: a) 15. . . !b7, b) 15. . . !e6 and c) 15. . . �h8. The more recent andfashionable move 15... !d7 is dealt with in the next chapter, while the move, which has long acquired the reputation to be the main line - 15. . . '8 b8 is analyzed in Chapter 13. Either the alternatives for Black transpose to other variations, or they enable White to obtain a considerable advantage almost effort­ lessly. In variation a, White manages to create a passed pawn on the queenside and he controls the centre too. Black has practically no real counterplay and that provides White with long-term positional pres­ sure in the centre and on the queenside. Black's position is much more solid in variation b, but there the vulnerability ofhis pawns on as and d6 is hurting him, while organiz­ ing any effective counterplay is nearly impossible. In variation c, Black is trying to accomplish the thematic pawn­ advance j7-fS, and he plays 15. . . �h8 in order to prepare it. Still, that move does not help him obtain sufficient counter chances, because the position is simplified considerably and his weaknesses on as and d6 become even greater liability.

157

Chapter 12

1.e4 c5 2 . �£J �c6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 fie7 1 0 ..ixf6 .ixf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 fig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.J.c4 J.d7

can react against White's most of­ ten played lines : 1) 16.ga2 and

2) 16. 0 - 0 .

1) 16.ga2

This move was played as early as in the 70ies of the past century, but it became popular only lately, since GM Teimour Radjabov test­ ed it successfully at the highest level. Presently, it can still be con­ sidered as not so thoroughly ana­ lyzed. Black eyes White's rook on a4 and in some lines he plans to advance his rook-pawn a5-a4, in order to provide it with adequate protection and to fix White's pawn on the b2-square. Similar developments may turn out to be rather unfavourable for White.

16.tLlce3! ? I believe this move provides White with maximal chances of obtaining an edge in the opening. In order for you to understand better the advantages of that move, we will show you how Black 158

The idea of that move is evi­ dent. White takes care of the safety of his rook and he retreats it in advance against the possible attack from the bishop on d7.

16

•••

a4!

That is the best reaction for Black. He plans the maneuver tLlc6-a5-b3, after which he can even seize the initiative in some lines.

17. 0 - 0 Black's task to obtain coun­ ter chances becomes easier after White's other possibilities.

1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. lixa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 After the indifferent reaction: 17.VNd3 lLlaS 18.ibS? ! Black becomes even better after 18 . . . lLlb3 ! (with the terrible threats 19 . . . lLlc1 and 19 . . . id2 +) 19.0-0 (If White defends against the fork with 19.1ia3, then he loses his b2-pawn - 19 . . . lLlcS 2 0.VNc4 ixbS 21.'iNxbS lib8+) 19 . . . lLlc1 ! + and Black wins the exchange. After 17.ibS, Black can im­ mediately exploit the defenseless­ ness of White's bishop and his rook on a2 with the line: 17. . . lLlb4 ! 18.lLldxb4 (The other possibili­ ties are not any better for White: 18.cxb4 ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.lLlce3 ixe3 21.lLlxe3 lic8+, or 18.lLlcxb4 ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.g4 if4 21.lLlxf4 exf4 2 2 .VNf3 lie8 23.'iNxf4? dS+ and after the opening of the game in the centre White risks end­ ing in a disastrous position very quickly.) 18 . . . ixbS 19.lLla3, Djukic - Calistri, Cannes 20 07, and here it is essential for Black to preserve his light-squared bishop on the board - 19 . . . id7! (In the game after 19 . . . VNb6? 20.lLlxbS 'iNxbS 21.VNdS ! VNxdS 22.lLlxdS± there arose a standard endgame, quite favourable for White, because of his almighty knight on dS against Black's "bad" dark-squared bish­ op.) 2 0.VNxd6 (If White does not accept the pawn-sacrifice, then after 2 0 . 0-0 ie6 2 1.lia1 'iNb6 2 2.'iNd3 WfcS+ Black remains with a bishop-pair in a superior posi­ tion.) 20 . . . ie6 21.'iNxd8 liaxd8 2 2 .lia1 lid2 23.h4 if4 24.lLldS

lixb2 2S.lLlc4 lic2 = , and the best that White can dream about is a draw in that position.

17 lLla5 •••

18 . .id3 After 18.ie2, White's e4-pawn remains defenseless and Black can exploit that outright with the line: 18 . . . lLlb3 19.1Llce3 lLlcS 2 0.'iNc2 ic6 ! 21.ic4 ixe3 ! 2 2 .fxe3 (White is forced to comply with that ugly capture; otherwise he loses his central pawn.) 22 . . . �h8+ - White has held on to the dS­ square indeed, but his pawn­ structure has been compromised considerably, so that provides Black with the advantage. In case of 18 .lLlce3, Black fol­ lows with 18 . . . ixe3 19.lLlxe3 lLlxc4 20.lLlxc4 W!b8 ! Now, White loses after 21.lLlxeS? ie6-+, as well as after 21.lLlxd6? lid8 2 2 .b4 ie6 23.lid2 ib3 ! -+ , or 21.Wfxd6? ie6-+ . Therefore, he is forced to simplify the game with the varia­ tion: 21.lt:\e3 ie6 22.lixa4 Wfxb2 23.lixa8 lixa8 24.Wfxd6 Wfxc3= with a complete equality.

18 . . . �b3 19.�cb4 If 19.1Llce3, then 19 . . . lLlc5 2 0 . 1S9

Chapter 12 Ac2 , Samuelson - Shabalov, Wa­ shington 2006, and here Black's simplest line is 2 0 . . . Ac6 ! ? (He is threatening to capture 2 1 . ..he3 and White cannot take with his knight, because of the vulnerabil­ ity of his e4-pawn). After 21.VNf3 he3 2 2,ll) xe3 g6 23J'�d1 f5? Black begins active actions first.

2) 16. 0 - 0 That line creates more prob­ lems for Black, but at the same time, it presents him with numer­ ous possibilities. It is amazing, but even Teimour Radjabov has tried different lines for Black here.

19 . . . �c5 The arising position resem­ bles very much the game Anand - Radjabov, Monaco 2007, which we will analyze a bit later (see the variation 16.0-0 lLId4). The only difference is that Black's knight has come to the c5-square via a5, winning an important tempo at­ tacking his opponent's bishop on c4. Now, it must retreat and Black obtains an excellent game because of that.

2 0 .Ac2 a3 ! 2U:�xa3 gxa3 22.bxa3 VNa5=

White has not achieved any­ thing in the opening. There might follow 23.a4 ga8 24.�e3 ha4 25.�c4 hc2 2 6.VNxc2 VNc7 27.�d5 VNc6 28.l3b1 Ad8 = . We must as­ sume that in the variation 16.l3a2, Black equalizes easily. 160

16 ... �e7 That is the most logical reac­ tion for Black, but it is by far not his only one. We must analyze at first his possible knight-moves : 16 . . . lLIb4 ! ? (Black takes the a2-square from White's rook and he opts for tactical play.) 17.ga3 (That is a quite natural move in­ deed, but it deserves attention for White to try here the typical po­ sitional sacrifice for that scheme: 17.lLIcxb4 ! ? ha4 18.VNxa4 axb4 19.VNxb4� - and White has a pawn for the exchange and an almighty knight on the d5-outpost, as well as a potentially dangerous passed pawn along the b-file.) 17. . . lLIxd5 (In case Black refrains from the immediate capturing on d5 in favour of the intermediate move 17. . . l3c8? ! , he risks a lot, because of the line: 18.cxb4 ! Here, in case of 18 . . . l3xc4? ! White coun-

1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . ttJ c2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. Ac4 Ad? ters with 19.bxa5 '8xe4 2 0 .a6 '8a4 21.'8xa4 ha4 2 2 .Wfe2± - and it would be very difficult for Black to fight against the powerful passed a-pawn, while in case of 18. . . axb4, then 19.'8a6 '8xc4 20.'8xd6 and White has the unpleasant threats 21.'8xd7 and 21.ttJb6. In the game Volokitin - Radjabov, Biel 2 0 06, there followed 20 . . . b3 21.ttJce3 '8d4, and here instead of 2 2 .�xb3 Wfc8 ! 23.�c2 Ae6 24. '8c6 Wfb8 25.'8b1 ixe3 ! 26.ttJxe3 '8fd8? with sufficient counterplay for Black, it is much more interesting for White to continue with 22.Wff3 ! ? - he protects his e4-pawn with that move and he threatens 23.ttJf5, forcing his opponent to clarify his intentions concerning his rook on d4. In case of 22 . . . g6, White can activate his passive rook with 23.'8al±, while following 22 . . . Ae7, White has at his disposal the beautiful tactical line: 23.'8xd7! Wfxd7 24.�g3 ! The appearance of the knight on f5 spells great trouble for Black. After 24 . . . '8xe4, White follows with 25.ttJf5 ! +- anyway and Black can capture neither knight. It is bad for him to play 24 . . . g6 25.Wfxe5± - because his rook and bishop are hanging, while after 24 .. .f6 25.ttJf5 i.c5 26.ttJxd4 ixd4 27.Wfxb3± White remains with a solid extra pawn and good winning chances. Therefore, Black has nothing better than to enter an endgame with heavy pieces, being a pawn down: 24 . . . Wfe6 25.ttJf5 if6 26.ttJxf6+

Wfxf6 27.ttJxd4 exd4 28.Wfxb3;!;) 18.hd5 (It is also possible for White to play 18. Wfxd5 Ae6 19. �d3 �c7 20 .Ad5 '8ab8 21.b4 axb4 22.ttJxb4, but after 22 . . . �c5 23.he6 fxe6 24.'8a6 '8fc8 ! 25.�xd6 Wfxd6 26.'8xd6 '8xc3;!; White has only minimal chances of winning, mostly thanks to his superior pawn-structure. Therefore, it is better for him to capture on d5 with the bishop.) 18 . . . '8b8 19.'8a2 ! ? (It deserves attention for White to slow down with the ad­ vance of the b-pawn for a while. He should better double his rooks along the rook-file first. That is much trickier than the immedi­ ate straightforward line: 19.b4 axb4 20.ttJxb4 ! Ab5 21.'8e1 Wfe7 22 .�f3 '8fc8 23.'8eaU, although even then White maintains some minimal edge, thanks to his pres­ sure against the V-square and the threat of penetrating to the seventh rank.) 19 . . . a4 (If Black refrains from that move and he plays instead 19 . . . g6, then af­ ter 2 0.Wff3 ! ? Wfc7 21.'8faU White would go back to the plan with b2-b4.) 20.ttJb4 g6 21.'8xa4 ! ha4 22.Wfxa4;!;. White has accom­ plished the thematic exchange sacrifice for that variation and he maintains superior prospects. He dominates on the a-file and his bishop on d5 restricts the mobil­ ity of Black's rooks considerably. White will follow with advancing his queenside pawns after retreating his knight from b4. 161

Chapter 12 16 . . . ltJd4 (You can see Black's than 1B.ltJce3 g6 19.'lWd3 f5 20.b3 great problems in that variation i.h6 21.l3d1 'lWh4 2 2 .f3, Anand in the game of the Indian grand­ Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07, master against the greatest spe­ 22 . . . fxe4 23.fxe4 @g7oo) 1B . . . 'lWc7 cialist of that variation.) 17.l3a2 (White is slightly better too in ltJe6 (The trade on c2 does not case of 1B . . . ie6 19.'lWd3;!;, followed look so attractive to Black. His by 20 .l3d1.) 19JWh5 ! (White em­ idea is to transfer his knight to phasizes the drawbacks of Black's the c5-square, but it is not effec­ last move with that decision. He tive either.) 1B.'lWe2 a4, Anand would not achieve anything much - Radjabov, Monaco 2007 (Black after 19.'lWd3 ltJe7 2 0.l3d1 i.c6 21. is faced with a dilemma. He can ltJd5 ltJxd5 22 .,hd5 ib5 23.'lWf3 fix White's pawn on b2, or he can i.d7= , as it was played in the let it advance two squares for­ game Karjakin - Radjabov, Cap ward in the line: 1B . . . ltJc5 19JUa1 d'Agde 2006.) 19 .. .f6 (Black is ic6 2 0.b4 axb4 21.cxb4 l3xa2 forced to weaken his light 22.l3xa2;!;), and here the best so­ squares.) 2 0.ltJd5 (White goes lution for White is to exchange back to the idea of placing his immediately the light-squared knights on d5 and e3 under much bishops after which Black's weak­ more favourable circumstances.) nesses (the d5-square and the a4- 20 ... 'lWdB (or 2 0 ... 'lWa7 21.b4 i.e6 pawn) become even more vulner­ 22.ltJce3;!; with positional pressure able: 19.ib5 ! (White played in the for White) 21.ltJce3;!;. The specifics game 19.1tJcb4, and Black could of that position is that Black's have countered that with the pawn is on f6 and not on f7 and prophylactic move 19 . . . l3bB ! , im­ that is obviously in favour of peding the realization of White's White. idea.) 19 . . . ,hb5 20.'lWxb5;!;. White 17.l3a2 plans to attack Black's a4-pawn with his heavy pieces and to ex­ change Black's knight on c5 from the d3-square. Naturally, Black is not obliged to play so aggressively and he can opt for much calmer lines : 16 . . . @hB 17.ltJce3, that varia­ tion will be analyzed after a differ­ ent move-order - see 16.ltJce3. In case of 16 . . . l3bB 17.l3a2 @hB, 17. . . l3c8 ! it is very good for White to play The line: 17 . . . @hB 1B.ltJce3, will 1B.ltJde3 ! (This is more precise be analyzed later - see 16.ltJce3. 162

1l.c3 0 - 0 12.&iJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'i1.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 If 17. . . ic6, then IB.Y«d3 lLlxdS 19.ixdS Y«b6 2 0 .'i1.fal 'i1.abB 21. lLla3 !;!; Schussler - Kouatly, Gro­ ningen 1977 and White has the powerful threat 2 2 .lLlc4. It is a bit premature for Black to try 17 . . . lLlxdS IB.,hdS 'i1.cB 19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight is head­ ed for the c4-square in order to attack Black's two weaknesses.) 19 ... a4 ! (It is weaker for Black to play 19 . . . ie6? ! , Vescovi - Meck­ ing, Sao Paulo 2000, because of 2 0.,he6 fxe6 21.Y«g4, followed by 2 1 . . . Y«f6 2 2 . lLlbS dS 23.'i1.xaS±, or 2 1 . . .Y«e7 2 2 . lLlbS 'i1.f4 23.Y«e2±; in case of 19 . . . whB ! ? 2 0 .lLlc4 .tbS, besides the reliable line 21.Y«b3;!;, White can try the principled vari­ ation 21.lLlxaS ! ? ixfl 22.Y«xf1 Y«d7 23.lLlc4 'gc7 24.b4;!; with more than sufficient compensation for the exchange.) 2 0 .lLlc4 ! ibS 21.lLlxd6 (The exchange-sacrifice is again possible here - 21.'i1.xa4! ? ixa4 22.Y«xa4 WhB 23.Y«a6 .te7 24.'i1.aU) 2 1 . . .ixfl 22.Wxfl (But not 2 2 . lLlxcB?, because of 22 . . . ic4! +) 2 2 . . . 'gc7 23.lLlbS 'i1.cS 24. Y«xa4;!; with an edge for White. 17. . . 'gcB ! - That is the best de­ fence for Black and White must play very precisely in order to ob­ tain the advantage. (diagram)

18.Y«d3 ! White would not achieve much with IB.lLlxe7+ Y«xe7 19.idS, rely­ ing on the line: 19 . . . a4 (about 19 . . . Y«dB - see 1 7. . . lLlxdS) 20.lLlb4 ! WhB 21.'i1.xa4 ! (That is once again

the already familiar exchange­ sacrifice.) 21 . . . ixa4 2 2 .Y«xa4, with good prospects for White, for ex­ ample: 22 . . . g6 23.lLlc6 Y«d7 24.b4 fS 2S.bS fxe4 26.Y«xe4 Y«c7 27.g3;!; Aliavdin - Voitsekhovsky, Sochi 2 0 07, or 22 . . .fS ! ? (That is an at­ tempt by Black to organize active counterplay on the kingside.) 23. exfS 'i1.xfS 24.lLlc6 Y«c7 2S.g3 (It is useless for White to play 2S.ie6? ! , because of 2S . . . 'i1.f4.) 2 S . . . 'gcfB 26.l!>g2 Y«b7 27.Y«c2 ie3 2B.f3;!; It is much stronger for Black to play 19 . . . 'i1.cS ! (He leaves his pawn on as, controlling the b4square and he prevents the ex­ change-sacrifice.) 2 0 .b4 (After 2 0.b3 'i1.xc3 21.'i1.xaS ie6 2 2 . lLlb4 'i1.fcB+, as it was played in the game Anand - Radjabov, Mainz 2006, Black's position was even slightly preferable. White has no advan­ tage after 20.Y«d3 ibS 21.c4 id7 22.'i1.fal a4=) 20 . . . 'i1.xc3 2 1.bxaS ibS 22.'i1.el (or 22.a6 Y«a7oo) 22 . . . 'i1.fcB 23.lLle3 Y«a7 24.Y«f3 'i1.Bc7 2S.'i1.aaloo. This position is with mutual chances, since White's dominance over the dS-outpost and his passed a-pawn is balanced by Black's active pieces. 163

Chapter 12 18

•••

ttJxd5 19.hd5 a4

In case of 19 . . . �b6, as it was played in the game Magyar Ponnath, Germany 1999, White had the powerful counter mea­ sure 2 0 .ttJa3 ! (threatening 21. lDc4, and both Black's as and d6-pawns would be hanging) 20 . . . �c5 (In case of 20 . . . �c7, it is very strong for White to play 21.lDb5 ! hb5 22.�xb5±, and his bishop is much stronger than Black's dark-squared bishop in the arising position.) 2U:ifa1 �h8 22.lDc4 a4 23.�xa4 ! ha4 24.�xa4;!; - White's queenside pawns are ready to advance with tempo.

So, we are convinced now that the move 16.�a2 should not worry Black too much because of 16 . . . a4 ! , while after 16.0-0, White has a slight po­ sitional pressure, but in order to maintain it he must be ready to sacrifice the exchange. That sacri­ fice is promising indeed, but it is still not so well analyzed. After 16.lDce3, Black has tried:

a) 16 ... h:e3, b) 16 . . . �h8, c) 16 ... �b8, d) 16 . . . ttJe7 and e) 16 . . . g6. a) 16 . . . h:e3

2 0 .�a6! ? Now, capturing o n a4 i s again on the agenda.

2 0 ... �c7 21.ttJb4 �h8 22. �xa4! ha4 23.�xa4;!;

That is a principled move, but it is a too straightforward attempt at solving the problems in the opening.

17.ttJxe3 ttJe7 18.�a2 ic6 19.�d3 ! There might follow 23 . . . �b6 24.�a1 f5 25.�a6 ! �xa6 26.�xa6 fxe4 27.he4;!; - and after the ex­ change of queens, White can cen­ tralize his king and advance his queenside passed pawn. It looks like Black has great difficulties to cope with his problems. 164

In the game Hamid - Mu­ ralidharan, Chennai 2 0 04, White played 19.1Dd5 hd5 2 0.hd5, and Black could have solved his problems with the line: 20 . . . �c8 21.0-0 �c5 ! = ' White should not have provoked exchanges on d5.

19 ... a4

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 �g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. �c4 �d7 It is much worse for Black to play 19 . . . liJg6 2 0 .g3 a4, Kasperek - Nikel, Internet 2005. It is es­ sential that Black has lost his control over the d5-square and he has failed to activate his knight. After 21.id5 ixd5 22.�xd5 liJe7 23.�d3 �b6 24.0-0 'SfdB 25.'Sfa1 �3 26.�c4± Black's pawns on a4 and d6 remain very weak, while White can easily protect his back­ ward b2-pawn.

2 0 . 0 - 0 �c7 21.'Sdl :afdS

be noted that White should not be in a hurry to play 17.h4? ! , because of 17 . . . he3 1B.liJxe3 liJe7 19.'Sa2 �c6 2 0.�g4 d5 ! oo Volokitin - Ra­ djabov, Cap d'Agde 2006.

17 liJe7 •••

22.ib5! , and here it is in fa­ vour of White if Black plays 22 . . . �b6 23.hc6 �xc6 24.�c4;1;, as well as 22 . . . d5 23.ixc6 dxe4 24. 1Wxe4 'Sxd1+ 25.liJxd1 1Wxc6 26. �xe5;1;. This last variation leads to a position in which White has an extra pawn indeed, but his pieces are placed a bit awkwardly. Black can hardly exploit that, though. b) 16

•••

�bS (diagram)

17. 0 - 0 I will have to remind you that position might be reached after a different move-order too - 16. 0-0 �hB 17.liJce3, and it should

In case of 17 . . . ixe3 1B.liJxe3 liJe7 19.'Sa2 �c6 2 0.�d3, Black still has problems. It is bad for him to try 20 . . . 'Sa7? ! , Garcia Martinez - Almeida, Mexico 1991, 2 1.b4 ! f5 22.exf5 d5 23.�b5 e4 24.�e2±, it is too passive for him to opt for 20 . . . �c7 21.'Sd1 'SadB (Black's oth­ er rook must take care about the V-pawn.), March - Saez, Oropesa 199B, 22.'Sda1 ! ? �7 23.liJd5 ixd5 24.exd5 'SaB 25.b3± - Black has great problems protecting his a5pawn. If 20 .. .f5 21.exf5 d5, then White can counter Black's active strategy with the line : 2 2 .ib5 ! d4 23.hc6 liJxc6 24.liJc4 �d5, and here 25.'Sa4 e4 26.�d1 �c5 27.cxd4 liJxd4 2B. liJe3;1; Kravt­ siv - Kolesov, Alushta 2 0 07, or 25.f3 ! ?;1; - and White has an extra pawn in both variations with ex­ cellent winning chances. Black cannot solve his prob­ lems with the move 17 . . . g6, Stano­ joski - Dinev, Stip 2002, 1B.g3 f5 165

Chapter 12 19.exfS gxfS 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4 i.h4 22.g"hU and White has a slight advantage. The move 17 .. J3bS has not been tested in practice yet. It is interesting here to try for White the original idea 18.Y«a1 ! ? After 1S . . . llJe7 19.13xaS, it is not good for Black to enter the variation 19 . . . llJxdS 2 0.hdS l3xb2 21.llJc4± with a clear advantage for White. It is stronger for Black to play 19 . . . l3xb2 ! ? , but then White main­ tains his initiative with the line: 20.llJxe7 he7 21.l3a7 l3bS 22.l3b1 i!xb1+ 23.Y«xb1 .!gS 24.llJdS;!;. In case of 1S . . . g6 (instead of 1S . . . llJe7), White would follow with 19.Y«a3 ! fS 2 0 . .!d3 !;!;, planning 21.llJc4 with powerful pressure against the d6-pawn.

In the game Zawadzka - Zhi­ galko, Warsaw 2 0 0S, there fol­ lowed 1S . . . g6 19.b3 he3 (It is insufficient for Black to try here 19 . . . a4 2 0 .bxa4 Y«aS 21.llJxe7 he7 2 2.Y«d2;!;) 20.llJxe3 i.c6 21.l3d2 (It would be interesting to test 21.VUd3 ! ?, so that after 21.. .fS 22.l3d1 f4 23.llJc2 f3, White can exploit the tactical nuances of the position by playing 24.llJd4 ! t) 21.. .llJcS (After 21.. .he4 2 2 . l3xd6 Y«c7 23.l3d7 Y«cS 24.Y«d2;!;, fol­ lowed by l3d1, White occupies re­ liably the central d-file.) 2 2 .'!dS VUc7. In this position, White can increase his pressure in the centre with 23.VUf3 f6 24.l3fdU; After 1S . . . llJg6, Fragakis - Pa­ padopoulos, Greece 2 00S, White should better play 19.1lJfS hfS 20.exfS llJe7 21.Y«d3;!;

19.tilxe7 Y«xe7 2 0 . tilfS

18.l3a2 ! That is usually the best square for White's rook in that system.

18

•••

a4! ?

This i s a purposeful line for Black. He has several alternatives, though: The line 1S . . . he3 19.1lJxe3, leads to a transposition of moves - see 17 . . . he3 ; 166

This move leads to a position with opposite-coloured bishops and Black's attempt to seize the initiative backfires, as we are go­ ing to see.

20

•••

.ixf5 21.exfS e4

It is even weaker for Black to play 21...Y«d7? ! 22 .VUg4 h6 23.Y«e4±

11.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 22 .id5 e3! ? •

That i s the best chance for Black, because after 2 2 . . . 'Sa5, then White plays 23.'Se1 e3 24.b4 'Sa7 25.fxe3 a3 26.Wd3±, and Black's position is very difficult.

23.fxe3 Wxe3+ 24.hl gab8 25.Wxa4 Wd2 26.gdl gfe8 27.Wd4 gel+ 28.gxel Wxel+ 29.Wgl;t

White has parried the threats along the first rank and he has a material advantage. Naturally, it would be far from easy for him to win with his extra pawn in that position.

c) 16

•••

gb8 17.b3 h8

18.ga2 ! ? After that move, Black must consider the possibility of White

advancing his h-pawn. Mean­ while, White maintains his edge even after castling short, for example: 18.0-0 g6 19.Wd3 f5 20J�a2 ih6 21.'Sd1 Wh4 2 2 .f3. In the first game, in which that variation was played Topalov - Kasparov, Leon 1998, there followed 22 . . . ie6 23.liJf1 fxe4 24.Wfxe4 (It is also possible for White to play 24.fxe4, Wiersma ­ Goeldi, Triesen 2006, but it seems to me that in this case keeping the queens on the board should rather be in favour of Black.) 24 . . . Wxe4 25.fxe4 'S t7 26J�f2 (White can preserve an additional couple of rooks with 26.h4 ! ? Wg7 27.'Sd3, with the idea to follow with liJh2f3, or liJd2-f3, but the move in the game is simpler.) 26 . . . Wg7 27J�xt7+ ixt7 28.wf2 liJd8 29.'Sa1 liJe6 30.gxa5 liJc5, and here White maintains a clear advantage after 31.'Sa7! (Instead, he played in the game 31.liJg3 liJxb3, and Black avoided the worst.) 31...liJxe4+ 32.Wf3 liJg5+ 33.We2± After 22 ... Wfg5, Black is not out of the woods : 23.liJf1 Wfd8 24.wh1 f4 25.liJd2 ig5 26.ib5 liJb4 27.liJxb4 hb5 28.c4 hc4 29.liJxc4 'Sxb4 3 0.Wd5;t;. He man­ aged later to save the game in­ deed, but the character of the fight would hardly satisfy Black: 30 . . . Wfc7 31.liJxd6 if6 32.'Sxa5 'Sxb3 33.gc5 Wfb8 34J'kc1 'Sb2 35.We6 Wfb3, and here it deserves atten­ tion for White to continue with 36.liJc4 ! ? (or 36.Wd7 'Sc2 37.liJe8 167

Chapter 12 �xc1 38.�xc1 'lWa3 39.�b1 'lWa2 40.�d1 'lWfl 41.tilxf6 'lWxf6 42.'lWc7 �fl 1/2 Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007) 36 . . . �a2 37.�b1 'lWc2 38.�gl - White has the ini­ tiative thanks to the threat to pen­ etrate with his rook to the penul­ timate rank and the vulnerability of Black's eS-pawn.

IS

•••

tile7

This is the most logical solu­ tion. It is too dangerous for Black to play 18 . . . g6? ! , because White can counter that with 19.h4 ! hh4 2 0 .g3. That resource of seiz­ ing the initiative is often used in similar positions. Here, the cir­ cumstances are especially favour­ able for White. The second rank is free and it can be exploited to bring the rook on a2 into the at­ tack. Black's problems can be il­ lustrated by the following exem­ plary variations: 20 . . .�f6 2 1.f4 exf4 2 2 .gxf4 .ih4+?! 23.@f1 fS 24.�ah2 + - ; 2 0 . . . �e7 21.f4 �g8 2 2 .�ah2 �g7 23.fS �gS 24.'lWf3+-; 2 0 ... �gS 2 1.f4 exf4 22.�ah2 h6 23.gxf4+- and White's threats are decisive in all the variations. 168

It is premature for Black to play 18 . . . fS 19.tilxfS �S 20.exfS �xfS 21.h4 ! ? �e7 (In case of 21... .ih6? 2 2 .g4 ! +-, followed by 23.gS, Black loses a piece.) 2 2 .�d3 e4 (The light squares are already very weak and Black is reluctant to en­ ter the variation 22 . . . �fl 23.�e4±) 23.he4 �eS 24.�e2± Skok - Bol­ sunovsky, Evpatoria 2006. White is clearly better after 18 . . . �h6 19.tilg4 'lWh4 2 0 .h3 fS 21.exfS hfS 2 2 .tilde3 .ie4 23.0-0 if4 24 . .idS;!; Nisipeanu - Apel, Germany 1995. In the game Krokay - Ba­ ran, Krynica 2 0 0 1, after 18 ... �a8 (In fact, Black admits his mis­ take on move 16 with that deci­ sion.) 19.0-0 tile7, the opponents agreed to a draw, but White's po­ sition was obviously better. He could have tried the line: 2 0 . tilxe7 he7 21.tilfS;!; The move 18 . . . ie6 - seems rather strange, because then Black did not need to develop his bishop to d7, since he could have put it on e6 in one move. 19.0-0 'lWd7 (It is not better for Black to opt for 19 . . . g6 20 .g3 'lWd7 2 1.'lWd3 fS 22.exfS gxfS 23 .f4 e4 24.'lWe2 .id8 , Grazinys - Halwick, corr. 2000, because after 2S.@g2 tile7 26.�b1 tilxdS 27.ixdS �c8 28.'lWd2 �cS 29.c4;!; the exchange of the light­ squared bishops is unavoidable and White will fortify his knight in the centre of the board.) 20.'lWe2 g6, Schreber - Halwick, corr. 2001, and no doubt, White must

1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 iLg5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. iLc4 iLd7 be well prepared to counter the advance f7-f5, for example with 21.g3 f5 (That is the most prin­ cipled decision for Black.) 22.exf5 gxf5 23.f4 idB (After 23 . . . exf4 24.gxf4 ie7 25.Wh1 'SgB 26.%Vh5;!; - Black cannot obtain any effec­ tive counterplay, because of his new weakness on f5.) 24.'Sd1 'SgB 25.§'h5;!; and Black's position looks solid indeed, but he has no counterplay. Therefore, White's prospects are superior.

outpost. These factors guarantee his advantage.

d) 16 ... �e7 17.'Sa2

19.�xe7 he7 If 19 . . . §'xe7, then not 2 0 . 'Sxa5? ! iLxe3 2 1.fxe3 %Vh4+, but 20.�f5 iLxf5 21.exf5 e4 22. 0-0;!; and White maintains his posi­ tional advantage.

2 0 . 0 - 0 g6 In the game Pavlov - Kole­ sov, Alushta 2 0 06, there followed 2 0 . . .f5 ? ! 21.exf5 iLxf5 22.%Vd5 ig6 23.§'xa5 §'xa5 24.'Sxa5±, and White reached an endgame with an extra pawn.

21.§'d3 a4 22.b4;!;

Black's pawns on a4 and d6 are weak. White has deployed his forces quite harmoniously and he controls reliably the central d5-

17. . . �xd5 About 17 . . . iLxe3 18.�xe3 - see 16 . . . iLxe3 ; as for 17 . . . WhB 1B.0-0 - see 16 . . . WhB. In a game played between computers some time ago, the move 17 . . . a4 was tested, but after 1B.0-0 �xd5 19.iLxd5 'SbB , Voy­ ager 2.29 - The Crazy Bishop 37, 1999, White had the typical re­ source 20.�c4 iLb5 21.'Sxa4 iLxa4 22.%Vxa4;;, with an excellent com­ pensation for the exchange due to his dominance in the centre, his control over the light squares and his potentially dangerous passed b-pawn. About 17. . . 'SbB, Schwierzy Neumann, Germany 1991, 1B.b3 �xd5 19.�xd5 - see 17 . . . �xd5. In case of 17 . . . 'ScB ! ? , with the idea to increase the pressure along the c-file, White should re­ frain from 1B.b3 ? ! a4 ! +t Ortiz Fer­ nandez - Wendt, Calvia 2 0 04, but he should play instead 1B.§'d3 ! �xd5 19.�xd5, and later 19 . . . a4 169

Chapter 12 20 . .tb5 !;!;; , or 19 . . . �b8 20.b3 ! a4 21.b4;!;;

18.�xd5 g6 Black is preparing the pawn­ advance f7-f5. He has tested in practice some other moves too, besides 18 . . . g6: The original move 18 ... Wlc8? ! , was tried i n the game Prathamesh - Ganguly, Mumbai 2003, but it proved to be incorrect, because of 19.ttJb6 Wlc6 20.ttJxd7 �xc4 (Black loses a piece in the line 20 . . . �xe4+ 21..te2 �fd8 2 2 .ttJb6 �ab8 23.f3+-) 21.�a4±, and White wins the exchange. It is more solid for Black to opt for 18 . . . �8 19.0-0 �h8 (It is too risky to lose the control over the f7-square: 19 . . . �c8 20.b3 a4, Than­ nhausser - Cvetnic, corr. 2000, 2 1.�h5 ! - Black loses after 21... axb3? 2 2 . �xa8 Wlxa8 23.ttJb6+-, while in case of 2 1. . .h6, White fol­ lows with 22.ttJf6+ ! hi6 23.Wlxf7+ �h7 24.�xd7 axb3 25.�a8 Wlxa8 26.ixb3 �xc3 27 . .te6 Wld8 28. Wlf7 �c7 29 . .tf5+ �h8 30.�g6 �g8 31..te6+ �h8 32.�bl± and he has a powerful attack in a posi­ tion with opposite-coloured bish­ ops.) 2 0.�e2 f5 21.exf5 �xf5, as it was played in the game Loskutov - Iskusnyh, Arkhangelsk 1996. At that moment, White had better continue with 22 . .td3 �f8 23.h4 .th6 24.!e4;!;; with a slight but sta­ ble advantage. In case of 18 . . . �b8, White can play 19.b3 g6 2 0 . 0- 0 �h8 21.Wle2;!;; , and later 2 2 . �fa1. 170

Following 18 . . . �h8, as it was played in the game Miciak - Skar­ ba, Slovakia 1996, it would be good for White to try 19.b3 ! , af­ ter which 19 . . . g6 would lead to a transposition of moves - see 18 . . . g6, while i n case o f the immedi­ ate 19 .. .f5 20.exf5 hi5 21.0-0;!;; - White would preserve a slight but stable advantage, despite the fact that Black had managed to push f7-f5, without preparing it first with g7-g6. White's plan in­ cludes the transfer of his bishop to the e4-square and Black has problems countering that. The ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops will make the presence of the knight on d5 even more effective and if Black counters the move !d3 with the advance e5-e4, then his light-squared bishop will be forced to protect later that new weakness.

19.b3 �h8 If 19 . . . a4, then 2 0 .b4;!;;

20.0-0 This is a reliable move indeed, but it is worth having a look at the aggressive line 2 0 .h4 ! ? This the­ matic pawn-sacrifice is attractive

11.c3 0 - 0 12Ji'Jc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Bxa4 a5 15. i.c4 i.d7 in this situation (without a black knight on the c6-square), because after White pushes f2-f4 in some variations, Black cannot capture exf4, since he loses his control over the d4-square. The drawback of the situation for White is that the exchange of the knights has diminished his attacking poten­ tial. After 2 0 . . . hh4 21.g3, it is too risky for Black to play 21.. .i.e7 2 2 .f4 'Bg8 23.'Bah2 'Bg7, in view of 24.f5 ! Here, Black is helpless after 24 . . . gxf5 25.exf5 .!c6 (25 . . . .!xf5 26.'Wf3+-) 26.'Wf3 ! f6 27.tLlxf6 ! +-, or 24 . . . .!g5 25.'Wf3 ! gxf5 26.exfS e4 (if 26 . . .f6, then 27.tLlxf6 ! i.xf6 28.'Bxh7+ ! 'Bxh7 29.'Bxh7+ Wxh7 3 0.'Wh5+ Wg7 3 1.'Wg6+-) 27.'Wf1 ! (This surprising maneuver settles the issue.) 27 . . .i.f6 28.'Bh6 ! .!g5 29.'B6h5 a4 30 .b4 a3 31.i.a2 +-. Black's relatively best defence is 24 . . . i.c6 25.'Wg4 .!g5 (or 25 . . . a4 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.'Wxg6 ! +-), but then 26.tLlc7! 'Wf6 (or 26 . . . 'Wxc7 27.'Wxg5 gxf5 28.'Wf6 Wg8 29.'Wxf5+-) 27.tLlxa8 gxf5 28.'Wxf5 'Wxf5 29.exf5 has 30.f6 ! i.xf6 31.'B£1 i.g5 32.'Bxt7 'Bxt7 33.i.xt7±, and White wins the exchange. In the game Arnaudov - Yor­ danov, Pleven 2 006, Black de­ fended more precisely - 21.. . .!f6 ! 2 2 .f4 'Bg8 ! (Black loses after 22 . . . exf4? 23.'Bah2 fxg3 24.'Bxh7+ Wg8 25.'Wd2 +-, as well as follow­ ing 2 2 . . . i.g7? 23J�ah2 h6 24.f5 ! 'Wg5 25.f6 'Wxg3+ 26.wd2 'Wg5+ 27.Wc2 .!xf6 28.'8xh6+ Wg7 29.

'Bh7+ Wg8 30 .'Wd2 +-; White is clearly better too after 22 . . . h5 23.f5 Wg7 24.'Bf2 ! �) 23.'Bah2 'Bg7co. White has compensation for the sacrificed pawn for sure, but it would be far from easy for him to break Black's defence. In this particular game, he failed to do that, though.

20

•••

f5 21.exf5 i.xf5

In case of 21. . .gxf5, White follows with the thematic move 2 2.f4;1;;

22. 'We2;1;; - and White ends up with a slight positional ad­ vantage. Black has pushed t7-f5 indeed, but he has not equalized completely yet. e) 16

•••

g6

Black begins the immediate 171

Chapter 12 preparation of the advance of his f-pawn.

17.b3 !? This i s the most ambitious de­ cision for White. The idea should be well familiar to our readers. White postpones his castling short, planning to push h2-h4 at some moment. Meanwhile, White has a calm­ er alternative. It is good for him to opt for 17. 0-0 E1b8 (about 17 . . . 'it>h8 18.g3 - see 16 . . . 'it>h8) 18.E1a2 ! In the game Wallace - Kalini­ tschew, Budapest 1995, Black chose 18 . . . 'it>h8, but White could have obtained the advantage with the line: 19.93 f5 20.exfS gxfS (or 20 . . . .hfS 21.tLlxfS E1xf5 2 2.id3 E1t7 23.lMfg4;l;) 2l.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 ih6 23.'it>h1 tLle7 24.b3 tLlxd5 25.tLlxd5 ic6 26.lMfd3;!;; . It would be insuf­ ficient for Black to equalize with 18 . . . tLle7 19.tLlxe7+ lMfxe7 2 0 .tLld5 lMfd8 21.g3;!;;

17 ... 'it>hS

lS.h4 ! This move i s played just at the right moment, since the advance of the h-pawn is even more effec­ tive with a black king on h8. 172

lS . . . hh4 In case Black declines the gift and he plays 18 . . . ih6? ! , then af­ ter 19.E1a2 (It is also possible for White to play 19.hS if4 2 0 .lMfd3;!;;) 19 ... tLle7 20.tLlf6 ! it becomes obvi­ ous that he in a big trouble. M­ ter 2 0 . . . .he3, White's simplest reaction is 21.fxe3 ! ie6 (or 21... tLlg8 22.tLlxg8 'it>xg8 23.lMfxd6±) 22.hS ! g5 (In case of 22 . . . tLlg8, White wins with 23.tLlxh7! 'it>xh7 24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.hxg6+ 'it>xg6 26. lMfh5+ 'it>f6 27.lMfh7+- with an un­ avoidable checkmate.) 23 . .he6 fxe6 24. 0-0 tLlg8 (or 24 . . . tLlc6 25.E1af2±) 2S.tLlg4 E1xfl + 26.lMfxf1 lMfc7 27.c4 lMfb7 28 .lMfd1 lMfb4 (or 28 .. :�xe4 29.lMfxd6+-) 29.h6± - and Black is left with numerous weaknesses all over the board. He lost quickly after 20 . . . ie6, which was played in the game Timofeev - Smirnov, Tomsk 2 0 06. There followed 2 1.h5 .hc4 22. tLlxc4 ig5? (That move loses outright, but Black's chances of saving the game are not much greater after 22 ... 'it>g7 23.tLlg4±, or 2 2 . . . tLlc6 23.tLldS±) 23.hxg6 ! .hf6 24.lMfh5 1-0. U is more logical for Black to play 18 . . . .he3 ! ? 19.tLlxe3 tLl e7, but then White obtains an advantage with the help of an exchange sacri­ fice: 2 0.lMfxd6 ! .ha4 2 1.lMff6+ 'it>g8 22 .bxa4 E1c8 ! (The alternatives for Black are even worse: 2 2 . . . tLlc8? 23 . .hf7! +-; 22 . . . hS 23.lMfxe5±; 22 ... E1b8 23.0-0±) 23. tLlg4 (This move forces Black to give back

11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '!l.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 some material. It is also good for White to play 23. WlxeS lLIc6 24.'lWf4 Wlc7 2S.Wlxc7 '!l.xc7 26.ibS;i;;) 23 . . . lLIfS (that i s a n only move) 24.exfS Wlxf6 2S.lLIxf6+ 'it>g7 26.lLId7 '!l.xc4 27.f6+ 'it>g8 28.lLIxf8 'it>xf8 29.'it>e2 ! '!l.e4+ (or 29 . . . '!l.xa4 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8 31.'!l.bS !±; 29 . . . '!l.xc3 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8 31.'!l.bS !±) 30.'it>d3 '!l.f4 31.'!l.eU and White has good chances of win­ ning that rook and pawn ending.

19.93 ig5 White maintains a long lasting initiative in a position with mate­ rial equality if Black retreats his bishop to other squares : 19 . . . if6 20.lLIf5 ig7 (About 2 0 . . . ig5 - see 19 . . . ie7 20.lLIfS ig5; after 2 0 . . . ie6 21.lLIxd6 igS 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcS;i;; Black has no active prospects whatsoever.) 21.lLIxd6 1L1d4 2 2 . '!l.a2 ic6 (It is not any better for Black to play 22 . . . ie6 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4 2S.Wld3;i;;) 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4 2S.f4t White's position is su­ perior, because of his dominance in the centre and Black's passive bishop on g7. 19 . . . ie7 2 0 .lLIf5 igS (It seems too dangerous for Black to try 2 0 . . . hfS 21.exfS igS 22.'lWg4� and he has great problems to fight against White's centralized and well-coordinated forces.) 21. lLIxd6 ie6 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcSt The material is equal and White's pieces are more active and much more harmoniously placed.

2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4 ih4+ 22.i>f1�

We have already seen similar pawn-sacrifices. This position has not been tested in practice yet. The analysis shows that White's prospects are excellent. Black's d6-pawn is hanging in some lines and his queen's rook cannot assist in the defence of his king (his own bishop stands in the way). There may arise the following developments: 22 . . . if6? ! 23.'!l.a2 i>g7 (After 23 . . . ig7 24.'!l.ah2 h6 2S.'lWe2± White is threatening 26.'!l.xh6 + ! followed by 27.'lWh2.) 24.eS ! lLIxeS (It is hopeless for Black to opt for 24 . . . dxeS 2S.lLIxf6 Wlxf6 26.Wlxd7+-, or 2S . . . i>xf6 26.'!l.xh7 +-) 2S.fxeSixeS 26.'!l.g2±; 2 2 . . .fS 23.exfS ixfs 24.lLIxfS '!l.xfS 2S.ie2 ! (White's bishop is re­ deployed to another diagonal in order to free the fourth rank for maneuvers of the rook.) 2 S . . . gS (or 2S . . . '!l.a7 26.ig4 '!l.f8 27.'!l.c4±) 26.if3;i;; - Here, it is too bad for Black to play 26 . . . gxf4? because of 27.ie4 '!l.eS 28.Wlg4+-; 2 2 ... '!l.g8 (That is the most te­ nacious defence for Black.) 23.'!l.a2 '!l.g7 24.'!l.ah2 ie7 (In case of 24 . . . if6?! White plays again 2S.e5 !±) 173

Chapter 12 25.Wfc2 ! ?;; - and White has more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. He can increase the pressure by trebling his

heavy pieces along the h-file, or by advancing his f4-pawn, plac­ ing his queen on the f2-square in advance.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have dealt with one of the mostfashionable and not so well analyzed lines of the Chelyabinsk variation, which was introduced into the high-level tournament practice by GM Teimour Radjabov. Presently, after 15. . . j,d7!? White often encounters problems in his attempts to obtain an advantage in the opening. Therefore, we have analyzed in this chapter three possibilities for White and the most in­ teresting are 16. 0 - 0 and 16.ti:Jce3!? In the first case, White must be ready to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, positional compensation and long-lasting initiative. The second possibility looks quite promis­ ing too. White can continue with an aggressive gambit plan advanc­ ing his h-pawn. That idea is particularly effective when Black's bishop is on d7.

174

Chapter 13

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9 . � d5 J.e7 1 0 . .bf6 J.xf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 ig5 13. a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 �b8

In this chapter, we will analyze the main and the most popular line of the Chelyabinsk variation. Black's last move looks the most natural, since he has improved the placement of his rook and he has avoided the pin along the a­ file with tempo. The next idea on his agenda is to prepare and ac­ complish the thematic pawn-ad­ vance fl-f5.

16.b3 This move fortifies the light­ squared bishop and it defends the hanging pawn. Now, Black has a choice. Sometimes he chooses a) 16 .te6, but still he plays much more often b) 16 lt>h8. Before beginning our analysis of these lines, we will pay some attention to Black's alternatives. •••

•••

The position arising after 16 . . . .td7 17.t2)ce3 ! ? was analyzed thor­ oughly in our previous chapter - see 15 . . . .td7. In case of 16 . . . .tb7 17.ltJce3 It>h8 18.0-0 ltJe7 19.'lWd3 he3 20.ltJxe3, there arises again a transposition to other lines - see 16 . . . lt>h8 17.ltJce3 he3. After 16 . . . g6 17. 0-0, original positions can be reached only af­ ter 17 . . . lt>g7 (The move 17 . . . lt>h8 leads to the main line - see 16 . . . It>h8 .), but it i s not easy t o rec­ ommend such a move, because Black's king is not comfortable on the g7 -square after standard developments in the game. There might follow 18.'lWe2 .te6 19.1t>h1 'lWd7, and here in the game Jan­ turin - Kamenets, Decin 1998, White had to play 2 0 .ltJce3, and then to counter 20 .. .f5 with the standard reaction 21.exfS gxf5 2 2.f4 exf4 23.ltJxf4 hf4 24.lM'4 hc4 25.'lWxc4;!;, creating a maxi­ mal number of pawn-islands for the opponent. Black cannot equalize with the move 16 . . . ltJe7, which was 175

Chapter 13 played in the game Brener - Kos­ tic, Internet 2 0 05, in view of 17.lLlxe7+ ! ? and Black is forced to capture on e7 with his bishop and after 17. . . he7 IB.O-O id7 19J:!a2 a4 (That is an attempt by Black to get rid of his weakness.) 2 0.bxa4 Vfic7 21.lLle3 ig5 22 .Vfid3 EifcB 23.id5 Vfixc3 24. 'l;![xc3 Eixc3 25.a5;!; and the endgame is better for White, because of his passed a-pawn. Black cannot play 25 . . . he3? 26.fxe3 ie6 27.a6 hd5 2B.exd5 EiaB 29.Eibl+-, since the rook and pawn ending is winning for White.

a) 16 . . . ie6

This move is not flexible, be­ cause the e6-square is not always optimal for Black's bishop.

17. 0 - 0 cj;>h8 In case of17. . . lLle7, White's most principled reaction is IB.lLlxe7+ ! , a s it was played i n the game Nij­ boer - van Kooten, Dieren 19B4, and after IB . . . he7 19.lLle3;!; White obtained a stable advantage. Black would not change the evaluation of the position with IB . . . Vfixe7, in view of 19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight 176

is headed for the c4-square in or­ der to attack both Black's weak pawns.) 19 . . . Vfic7 2 0.he6 fxe6 21.lLlc4 ie7 22.Eixa5 Vfib7 23.Vfid3 Vfixb3 24.Eia7t. Black has man­ aged to regain his pawn indeed, but White maintains the initiative as before. Inthevariation 17. . . Vfid7 1B.Vfie2 (It is also interesting for White to try IB.'l;![h5 h6 19.Vfie2;!; Carvajal Mieles Palau, Cali 2001, provok­ ing weakening of the light squares in Black's camp in case he goes for the standard pawn-advance fl­ f5.) IB . . . cj;>hB 19.1Llce3 g6 2 0 .cj;>hl f5 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .f4 ih6 23 .Vfih5 .txf4 24.lLlxf4 exf4 25.lLld5 lLle5, it looks like Black has come very close to equality, but following 26.Eixa5 lLlxc4 27.bxc4;!; Acher Lazar, Mureck 199B, White main­ tains a slight advantage, because Black's king is rather unsafe. After 17. . . g6 IB.lLlce3, it is more reasonable for Black to opt for IB . . . cj;>hB - see 17 . . . cj;>hB, while the premature activity lB . . . f5? ! when Black's king i s under X-ray is not so good for him. White follows with 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4 exf4 21.lLlxf4 hc4 2 2 .lLlxc4 .hf4 23.'l;![d5 + ! cj;>g7 24.Eixf4 Eif6 25.Eif3;!;, and he obtains good at­ tacking chances. White is better too after IB . . . .ih6, Zaslavsky Dragicevic, Budva 2 003, 19.'l;![f3 ! ? cj;>hB (but not 1 9 . . .f5? 20.exf5 gxf5, because of 21.lLlb4! +-) 2 0 .EidU - and the game develops in the spirit of the main line 17. . . cj;>hB.

11.c3 0 - 0 12. &Dc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '1l.xa4 a5 15. i.c4 '1l. b8 16.b3 18.&Dce3 That is a natural move, pre­ venting the advance f7-f5.

18" .g6 About 18 . . . �d7 19.�e2 - see 17 . . . �d7. Naturally, White is clearly better after 18 . . .f5? 19.exf5 hf5 20. &Dxf5 E1xf5 2 1.i.d3 E1f8, Incedi - Strelicka, Svetla nad Sazavou 1998, 2 2 .h4! i.f4 (or 22 . . . hh4? 23.�h5+-) 23.g3 i.h6 24.�c2 g6 2 5.h5± and Black's kingside ends up in ruins. If 18 . . . he3 19.&Dxe3 &De7, then 20.he6 fxe6 21.&Dc4t Comp ZChess - Jaulin, Aubervilliers 1999.

after correct play from both sides, there arise simplifications after which White has a symbolic extra pawn, but the position is evident­ ly quite drawish : 21.. .e4 2 2 . &Dxc6 exf3 23.&Dxd8 hc4 24. &Dxc4 fxg2 25.E1dl hd8 26.b4 axb4 27J�xb4 E1c8 28.&Dxd6 E1xc3 29.E1b8 Wg7 30.'1l.xd8 E1xd8 31.&Dxf5+ wf6 3 2 . E1xd8 Wxf5=

2 0 " .'iNd7 2 1.h3 It is necessary for White to take the g4-square under con­ trol. He should not be in a hurry and he should test his opponent how he is going to solve the prob­ lem with the juxtaposition of the pawns on f5 and e4. The line: 21.'iNg3 id8 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 23.f400 leads to an unclear position with mutual chances.

21" .ih4 White would have a comfort­ able blocking game after the ex­ change on e4.

22.E1d2 f4 19.�f3 ! ? This interesting idea was successfully tried in the game Radulski - Nataf, Vrnjacka Banja 2005. It is very difficult for Black to prove that the advance of his f-pawn is good for him when White's queen is on the f3-square. On the contrary, Black only cre­ ates new weaknesses after that.

Black closes the kingside with the idea to organize a direct attack there.

23.&Dg4 'iNn

19" .f5 2 0 .l':tdl No doubt, it deserves atten­ tion to analyze the tactical possi­ bility: 2 0 . exfS gxf5 21.&Db4!?, but

24.&Dh2 ! 177

Chapter 13 This is a very powerful maneu­ ver. White transfers his knight along the route g4-h2-f3; mean­ while the queen goes back to the queenside in order to exert pres­ sure against Black's weaknesses there.

.txg5 31.hxg5 '&xg5 32.l2lc7 '&e7 33.f'!aa2 ! .teB 34.tLlb5 f'!f6 35.'&dl f'!dB 36.f'!d3;!;. Black's attack is not so dangerous anymore; mean­ while White has prepared to triple his heavy pieces along the d-file in a classical fashion.

24 ....td8 25.�dl h5 26.tLlf3;!; b) 16

White has created a concealed tactical threat, which was realized in the abovementioned game. After Black's mistake 26 .. J�gB? 27.tLlxf4 ! (This is beautiful and strong.) 27. . . exf4 (The position is hopeless for Black after 27. .. .txc4 2B.f'!xc4 '&xf4 29.f'!xc6+-) 2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29.f'!xc4 tLle7 30. tLlg5 '&fB 31.'&d4+ '&g7 32.tLlf7+ �h7 33.tLlxdB+- and Black should better resign. After 26 . . . �h7, it works again for White to continue with 27.l2lxf4 ! exf4 2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29. f'!xc4+It is better for Black to play 26 . . :lWeB, but White can coun­ ter that with 27:�'a1 (with the idea '&a3) and later for example: 27. . . g5 2B.l2lxg5 ! .td7 (or 2B . . . .txg5 29.tLlc7±; 2B . . . .txd5 29.exd5 .txg5 30.dxc6±) 29.h4 '&g6 30.f3 17B

..•

�h8

This is the most popular and logical move for Black. He re­ moves his king away from the a2-gB diagonal and that is neces­ sary for the preparation of f7-f5. Meanwhile he has not made up his mind yet whether he would push immediately his bishop pawn, or he would precede that with the move g7-g6.

17.tLlce3! ? The move 17. 0 - 0 has been played in numerous games, but lately White encounters real problems to obtain any opening advantage. After Black's most energetic reaction 17 .. .f5 ! 1B.exf5 .txf5 19.tLlce3 .tg6oo he has excel­ lent prospects and that evaluation was confirmed by a lot of games played at the highest possible level.

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3 I advise my readers to avoid the main lines just at that mo­ ment and to try to reach not so well analyzed positions, which are quite interesting and with good prospects for White. The move 17.lOce3 ! ? restricts Black's pos­ sibilities, since it does not allow the immediate move O-fS. The drawback of that move is that Black can get rid of his potentially bad dark-squared bishop, but as we are going to see, things are far from easy for him after similar de­ velopments. We will analyze here bl) 17 .txe3 and b2) 17 g6. About 17. . .ie6 18.0-0 g6 19.Y;Yf3 - see 16 . . . ie6. If17 ... lOe7, then 18.lOxe7. Here, it will not work for Black to play 18 . . .he3? 19.1Oxc8 ic5 20.lOxd6 hd6 21. 0-0± Mijovic - Gavric, Sutomore 2 0 04, since White ends up with a solid extra pawn. Black's position remains difficult even if he captures on e7: 18 . . . Y;Yxe7 19.lOd5 Y;Yd8 2 0 . 0-0 id7 (or 20 . . .f5 21.exfS ixf5 2 2.Y;Ye2 id7 23.'8a2 ic6 24.'8d1 '8a8 25.Y;Yd3 Y;Yd7, Arzumanian - V.Kuznetsov, Pardubice 2006, 26.lOb6 Y;Yg4 27. idS e4 2 8.Y;Ye2 and White main­ tains his advantage, because of the numerous pawn-weakness­ es in Black's camp.) 21.'8a2 f5 2 2 .exf5 ixf5 23.Y;Ye2 '8c8 24.'8fa1 �k5 2 5.b4;!; Bakr - Mamedov, Ad­ ana 2006, and White has a pow­ erful passed b-pawn, or 18 . . .he7 19.0-0 ig5 2 0 .lOfS! (The position with bishops of opposite colours •••

is clearly in favour of White.) 20 . . . id7 2 1.'8a2 (It deserves attention for White to play 21.'8a1 ! ? , in or­ der to place later his rook on d1.) 2 1 ... hf5 22.exf5 '8c8 23.Y;Yf3 '8c5 24.'8d1 Y;Yc7 25.g3;l; Wang Hao - Iv.Popov, Yerevan 2 0 07 - and Black must be prepared for a long and laborious defence.

bl) 17 .txe3 •••

•••

This is a straightforward at­ tempt by Black to solve his open­ ing problems. He forces White's knight to abandon the central d5outpost and then Black advances 0-f5 without the preparatory move of his knight-pawn.

18.lOxe3 lOe7 19. 0 - 0 f5 The other possibility for Black here is 19 . . . ib7 2 0.Y;Yd3 f5 (but not 20 . . . Wd7? 21.'8d1 '8bd8 22.'8xa5 Y;Yc6 23.lOd5+- Schoene - Helm­ bold, Willingen 2 0 0 1), but White has at his disposal the powerful argument 21.'8d1 ! It becomes clear now that after 21.. .1xe4 2 2 .Y;Yxd6 Y;Yxd6 23.'8xd6, Black has great problems in the endgame, for ex­ ample 23 .. .f4 24.lOfl lOc8 25.'8d2 lOb6 26.'8xa5 lOxc4 27.bxc4 '8bc8 179

Chapter 13 28.c5 ! ? (The alternative for White is - 28J3xe5 l'!xc4 29.l'!d4 l'!xd4 30.cxd4 i.d3 31.g4 fxg3 32 .hxg3;!; and he has considerable chances of materializing his extra pawn.) 28 ... i.c6 29.l'!d6 e4 30.g3 g5 31.l'!a7;!; - White's rooks are very active and Black's defence is difficult. In the game Obukhovski - Ka­ legin, Kaluga 1981, Black refrained from capturing on e4 and he pre­ ferred the aggressive move 2 1 . . . f4. There followed 2 2 .ttJf1 l'!f6 2 3 . ttJ d 2 g 5 24.l'!da1 g4 25.l'!xa5 l'!h6 26.l'!b5 l'!a8 27.l'!xa8 �xa8 28.l'!b6 ttJc8 29.l'!b4;!;. White won a pawn, while Black's pieces were incapa­ ble of supporting effectively the pawn-offensive on the kingside.

2 0 .exfS i.xf5 The move 2 0 . . . ttJxf5 may seem attractive for Black, but White can counter it with 2 1.ttJxf5 i.xf5 (2 1 . . . l'!xf5 2 2 .�d5 i.b7 23.�xa5 Wlg5 24.i.d5± Bindrich - Jefic, Obre­ novac 2 0 04) 22.�d5± Maidla - Puittinen, Helsinki 1993, and Black fails to keep the material equality.

White must attack both his oppo­ nent's pawn, one after another, in order to break his defence. In the game Santo-Roman - Blaskowsk, Sudlohn 1981, White did not play in the best possible fashion and he could have become even worse if after 21.�a1 d5 2 2 .l'!d1 i.d7 23.l'!xa5 dxc4 24.l'!a7, Black had played 24 . . . cxb3 ! 25.�b2 (25. l'!dxd7 b2 26.�b1 Wlb6 27.l'!xe7? �g6-+) 25 . . . ttJc6 26. l'!axd7 �e8 27.l'!7d6 e4+

21

22J!d2 l'!b6 The move 2 2 . . . l'!f6?, Vombek - Pavlidou, Sibenik 2 007, can be countered by White with 23.ttJg4 ! l'!g6 24.i.f7±

23.�al White exploits his heavy pieces with maximal effectiveness. It is also interesting for him to try 23.l'!e1 ! ? �c7 24.i.f1 ! , freeing the c4-square for his knight.

23

21.l'!a2 ! This is an important moment. 180

i.e4

•••

In case of 21.. .Wlb6 2 2 . ttJd5 ttJxd5 23 .�xd5 i.d7? ! (The passive defence is also hopeless for Black.) 24.Wlxa5± Pokazanjev - Malina, Kemerovo 2 0 07, Black remains a pawn down.

�c7 24.l'!fdU

•••

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3 White exerts powerful long­ term positional pressure. That position was reached in the game Buczinski - Surin, Email 2000, and it followed with 24 ... '8c6 2S.'�h1(It is also good for White to play immediately 2S.¥;Va3 ! ?) 2S . . . ¥;Vb6 (It is more resilient for Black to defend with 2S . . . lLlfS 26.lLlxfS ixfS 27.¥;Va3 '8dB 28.h3;l; and White has only a slight advan­ tage.) 26.¥;Va3 lLlfS 27.lLlxfS '8xfS 2 B .'8e2 '8f4 29.f3 i.g6 30.'8ed2 '8f6 31.'8dS±, and Black's situation was absolutely critical.

b2) 17 g6 •••

¥;VgS 24.g3 ¥;Vg7 2S.'8eU) 21.lLlf1 ¥;Vd7 2 2 . @d1 ¥;Va7oo It has become very fashion­ able lately for White to play ag­ gressive lines with h2-h4. He can try 1B.h4 ! ? right now, but the consequences of that move are absolutely unpredictable. We will have to remind our readers that we recommend that method of seizing the initiative only con­ sidering some concrete features of the position. For example, in the Radjabov variation, which we analyzed in out previous chapter, Black's bishop was on the d7square and it was covering the seventh rank for Black's queen rook. That circumstance was quite advantageous for White's attacking chances; therefore, we recommended h2-h4 in numer­ ous lines. After 1B.0-0, Black usually chooses between b2a) 18 . . . f5 and b2b) 18 i.h6. About 1B ... ie6 19.¥;Vf3 - see 16 . . . ie6. ...

Black usually plays like that, preparing the pawn-advance fl­ fS, being reluctant to part with his bishop pair.

18. 0 - 0

b2a) 18

f5

•••

Black is playing quite system­ atically according to his plan.

White can try to fortify his po­ sition in the centre without cas­ tling with 1B .¥;Vd3 fS 19.f3, but that is far from being safe, for exam­ ple: 19 . . . ih4+ 2 0 . '�e2 ! ? (Black is better after 2 0.g3 f4 21.lLlf1 igS+) 2 0 . . .f4 (It is not so effective for Black to continue with 2 0 . . . fxe4 2 1.¥;Vxe4 i.fS 2 2 .lLlxfS gxfS 23.¥;Vc2 181

Chapter 13 19.Y6d3 ! ? This i s a n original decision. White should not be in a hurry to clarify the situation in the centre. It is much more popular for him to play the move 19.exfS. Let us see what might happen later. It is not good for Black to play here 19 . . . MS 20.lZlxfS gxfS (or 2 0 . . J!xfS 21.g3 i.h6 22 .i.d3 �f7 23.!e4± Sott - Novotny, Klatovy 1998) 2 1.Y6hS e4 2 2 . �fa1 !f6 23.g3 !g7 24.f4;!; It is stronger for Black to opt for 19 . . . gxfS, after which White has two possibilities. He obtains no advantage with 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.lZlc2 (but not 21.lZlxf4? '!Wb6 2 2 .Wfd3 �e8-+ Ma­ karova - Sterliagova, Serpukhov 2 0 03), because of 21 . . . id7! (That is an important inclusion for Black, since the usual move 21 . . . lZleS i s not s o convincing.) 2 2 . �a3 lZleS 23.lZlxf4 lZlxc4 24.bxc4 �b2, and White has nothing better than to maintain the balance with the line: 2S.lZld3 �b8 26.�f4= It is more promising for White to play 2 0 .WfhS ! i.d7 21.�fal ! (In the first game, i n which that variation was played, White tried 2V�h1? ! , but after 21.. .ie8 22.'!Wh3 f4 23.i.d3 '!Wd7FF Ham­ douchi - Cherniaev, Cannes 1997, he had nothing to brag about. It is not advantageous for White to continue with 21.�a3 e4! 22 .f4? ! exf3 23.�xf3 lZleS 24.�g3 h6 2S.h4 ie8 26.'!Wd1 f4 27.�h3 id7!+, as well as 21.�a2 ie8 22. '!Wh3 f4 182

23.i.d3 Wfd7 24.!fS Wff7 2S.i.e6 WfhS 26.WfxhS ixhS 27.lZlc4 lZld8 28.i.d7 i.f7 29.�d1 ixdS 30.�xdS �xb3 31.g3 lZlb7=) He attacks Black's as-pawn and the fl-square is free for White's knight. What should Black do? He loses after 2 1 . . .f4? because of 22 .i.d3 ! +-. In case of 21 . . . i.e8, White regroups his forces com­ fortably with 2 2 .'!Wd1 ! f4 23.lZlfl e4 (This move weakens the a1-h8 diagonal, but White is clearly better after 23 . . .f3 24.gxf3 ! !hS 2S.!e2 �g8 26.wh1 if7 27.lZlg3;!;) 24.lZld2 ig6 2S.i.fl e3 (In case of 2S . . . �e8, it is completely safe for White to play 26.lZlc4 e3 27. lZlxaS lZlxaS 28.�xaS exf2 + 29.wxf2 i.e4 30 .Wfd4+ �eS 31.b4±) 26.lZlf3;!;, and he neutralizes his opponent's activity and he obtains the advan­ tage. We must also analyze the move 21...e4 ! , since it poses the greatest problems for White. If 22 .Wfd1, then 22 . . .f4, and later it is possible to play 23.�c2 '!We8 ! (This is more precise than 23 . . . f3 24.g3 '!We8 , since then White has the resource 2S.�de3 ! ? with the idea after 2S . . . '!WeS, to re­ group his forces with the help of 26.i.dS ! , combining his threats with the indirect protection of the c3-pawn: 26 . . . '!Wxc3? 27.�c4+-; 26 ... �bc8 27.ixc6 ixc6 28.�xaS '!Wg7 29.c4±) 24.�xaS (White is practically forced to sacrifice the exchange, because after 24.�d4 lZleS 2S.�xaS f3 2 6.g3 e3 27.�Sa2

11.c3 0 - 0 12.ti:Jc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 'Sb8 16.b3 e2 28.lLlxe2 lLlxc4 29.bxc4 fxe2 30.'Sxe2 �g6+ Black is even bet­ ter.) 24 . . . lLlxa5 25.'Sxa5 f3 26.g3;; - and White has a sufficient compensation for the exchange, but not more than that. Besides 2 2 .�d1, White can play passively 2 2.lLlfl 'Sg8 ! 23.�e2 'Sg6 24.h 1 �f8 25.'S4a3 'Sh6 26. g l �g7 2 7.lLlg3 �e5oo and although the position remains unclear, Black has the initiative. So, all these lines show that after 19.exf5, Black manages somehow to solve his problems, although not effortlessly, there­ fore I consider the move 19.�d3 ! ? more precise.

19

...

f4

About 19 . . . ih6 - see 18 . . . ih6. In case of 19 . . . fxe4 2 0 .�xe4, White achieves what he is after. The computer game The King - The Baron, Leiden 2006, con­ tinued with: 20 . . . ie6 21.�d3 �d7 2 2 .ibS! he3 23.lLlxe3 hb3 24.'Sxa5 �b7 2 S.hc6 �xc6 26.'Sa6 �b6 27.�xb6 �xb6 28.�b1 - and Black came under a deadly pin and following 28 . . . �a8 29.c4 �a3 3 0.c5 ! dxc5 31.�c3 g8 32 .�xe5

�e6 33.�xc5± White gradually realized his extra pawn. If 20 . . . ifS, then 21.lLlxf5 gxf5 2 2 .�e2 �d7 23 .�h5 �g7 24.�d1;!; with su­ perior prospects for White. Black's attempt to advance the f-pawn as quickly as possible should not worry White too much - 19 . . . he3 20.�xe3 f4 2 1.�d3 f3, because after 2 2 .g3, he maintains the advantage after the straight­ forward line 22 . . . h5 23.�d1 h4 24. lLle3 ! with the following eventual developments 24 . . . hxg3 25.hxg3 �f6 26.lLld5 �f8 27.b4 ! g 7 28.b5 lLla7 (It would not work for Black to play 28 . . . �g5 29.bxc6 �h8, be­ cause of 30.lLlf6 ! �xf6 31.�xa5+-) 29.�da1 ib7 30.�xa5 lLlc8 31..lb3 �d7 3 2.id1 hd5 33.exd5 �g4 34.�la4±, or 22 . . . .le6 23.�e1 �d7 24.�e3 .lg4 25.�d1 ! ? g7 26.�d3 h5 27.lLle3 �f6 28.�a2:t It would be interesting for Black to try 19 . . . .le6 ! ? Here, in comparison to the variations we have analyzed before with a black bishop on e6, White's queen is on d3 and not on the f3-square. Now, White can fight for the advantage with the help of the move 2 0.�d1 ! ? (not weakening the shelter o f his king) 20 . . . �d7 21.f3 �a7 22.h 1 he3 23. lLlxe3 hc4 24.�xc4 f4 25.�xc6 fxe3 26.c4:t, or with the help of the already well tested line 20.f3 ! ? ih6 21.�d1 fxe4 22.�xe4 if5 23.lLlxf5 gxf5 24.�e2 �b7 25. h 1 lLle7, Aginian - Kucypera, Mureck 1998, and later 26.�d3 ! lLlg6 27.�da1± 183

Chapter 13 2 0 .tZlc2 f3 After 20 . . . �h4, White can be­ gin to concentrate cold-bloodedly his forces against Black's a6-pawn, since it is evident that Black's at­ tacking resources are insufficient, for example: 2U'!fa1 illfg5 22 .�b5 Elxb5 23.illfxb5 �h3 24.tZle1 hg2 25. ttJxg2 f3 26.illffl±

It also deserves attention for White to test here 2 2.Eld1 ! ? �d8 (or 22 . . . illfh 3 23.tZlde3 �e7 24.b4 axb4 25.cxb4±) 23. ttJe1 illfg7 24. Eld2 (threatening 25.ttJxf3) 24 . . . �g5 (It i s bad for Black t o play im­ mediately 24 . . . �g4, because of 25. ttJe3.) 25.Elda2 �g4 26.h4 �h6 27. ttJe3, and here after 27 ... he3 28. illfxe3 illfd7 29.El2a3 (freeing the bishop from the protection of the b3-pawn), as well as following 27... �h3 28.ttJf1 and then ttJh2, Black's defence would be very difficult.

22 ... illfh3 23.tZlde3±

21.g3 Black's f3-pawn is a potential weakness.

21. illfd7 ••

White is better after 21.. .h5, Szilagyi - Balogh, Hungary 2 001, 22.Elfa1 h4 23.ttJe1 hxg3 24.hxg3 �g4 25.�b5± In the game Brundisch - Il­ inca, ICCF 2 0 03, Black played 21.. .�h3 22.Elfa1 illfc8 23.ttJe1 �g4 (White can counter 23 . . . illfg4, with the line: 24.ttJc7! illfd7 25.ttJxf3 Elxf3 26.illfxf3, and he wins the ex­ change: 26 . . . illfxc7 27.g4±, or 26 . . . �g4 27.illft7±), and here White could have combined his threats against the pawns on d6 and f3 with the variation: 24.ttJe3 ! ? �h3 (or 24 . . . he3 25.illfx e3±) 25.ttJ3c2 �g4 26.illfxd6 Elf6 27.illfd 3±

22.�fal 184

It is not so hard to understand here that Black will fail to check­ mate White's king, so that means that his aggressive play will back­ fire and the key-role in the evalu­ ation of the position will be de­ cided by other factors. After 23 . . . Elf4? ! White plays 24.illfd5 ! �a6 (It is bad for Black to opt for 24 . . . �d7 25. �f1 illfh 6 26.illfx d6+-) 25.1lNd1 (Black was hoping for 25.ha6? Elh4! 26.gxh4 �f4-+) 25 . . . Elh4 (or 25 . . . Elbf8 26.illffl±) 26.illfxf3 �b7 27.illfh 1 Elh6 28.illfg 2± and White ends up with a clear advantage. It is more reliable for Black to play

11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'gxa4 a5 15. ic4 'gb8 16.b3 23 . . . 'gf6, but then 24.lLlel !xe3 (24 . . . 'iffh S 2 S.b4! axb4 26.'ga8±) 2S.'iffx e3 ig4 26.'iffgS i>g7 27.idS id7 2 8 .'iffe 3;!;, and once again Black is faced with a difficult and laborious defence.

b2b) 18

•••

ih6

That is a logical preparatory move. Black is not in a hurry to advance his f-pawn and he re­ treats his bishop to a safer square. At least, there it would not come under attack with tempo after f2f4. The drawback of that move is that it is a bit too slow.

19.'iffd3 If White plans to exchange on fS, then he should better choose the prophylactic move 19. i>hl and that is a good alternative for him. After 19 . . .fS 20.exfS gxf5 21.f4, Black must make up his mind. There might follow: 21 . . . 'iffh 4? ! (This is a dubi­ ous decision.) 2 2 .ie2 e4, Ding - Rybenko, man Bator 2002, 23.'gc4! id7 24.'ggl and amaz­ ingly enough, Black is in a zugz­ wang in a board full of pieces! His position is very bad too after 24 . . .

'gg8?! 2S.'f3.xc6 ixc6 26.lLlxfS+- , as well as following 24 . . . 'gbc8 2S.g3 'iffd8 26.g4 fxg4 27.ixg4±, or 24 . . .ixf4 2S.g3 !xg3 26.'gxg3 lLleS (or 26 .. .f4 27.'gxe4+-) 27.'gc7 'gg8 28.'gxd7 'gxg3 29.lLlxfS %Vh3 30.lLlxg3 'iffxd7 31.lLlxe4± - and White has a winning position in all the variations. After 21.. .id7, Fomichenko Mamjan, Krasnodar 2 0 0 2 , 22.'gal ig7 23.'iffd 2;!; White has a slight edge. 21.. .lLle7 22.'iffh S lLlxdS 23.lLlxdS ixf4 (It is even more dangerous for Black to play 23 . . . ig7 24.'gfal ! - since 24 . . . 'ga8 will b e countered by White with 2S.b4, while if 24 . . . exf4, then 2S.'gxaS ieS 26.'ga7 l3b7 27.'ga8± Ibragimov - An­ dreev, Tomsk 1997, and again Black is faced with big problems.) 24.lLlxf4 exf4 2S.'ifff3 ib7 26.%Vxf4 ie4 27.'gdU - Black has so many pawn-islands that he must com­ ply with passive defence. Finally, in case of 21...'iffe 8, as it was played in the game Saunina - Savushkina, Orsk 2000, White has at his disposal a tactical re­ source - 2 2 .ibS! and following 22 . . . id7 (The exchange-sacrifice 22 . . . 'gxbS? 23.lLlc7 'iffg 6 24.lLlxbS ixf4 is not convincing in view of 2S.'gaxf4 ! exf4 26.lLld5 with a variation like 26 . . . ia6 27.lLlxf4 'ifff6 28.c4 ixb5 29.cxb5 lLld4 30.b6 'gb8 31.lLlh5 'iffe5 3 2.'gel 'iffc5 33.'ge7+-, which illustrates Black's difficulties. If 22 . . . exf4, then 23.lLlc4 ig7 24.'geU) 23.lLlc4 ! 185

Chapter 13 (The bishop on bS is untouchable as before. ) 23 . . . %!Ig6 24.llJcb6 gg8 2S.ga2 (The g2-square has been fortified just in time.) 2S . . . .te8 26 . .!a4 gg7 27.llJc4 'lWe6 28.gaf2;l; with a positional advantage for White.

19 f5 •••

Black can play 19 . . . .td7, forc­ ing White's rook to abandon the fourth rank. In that case after 2 0 .ga2 fS, the game transposes to the Radjabov variation - see 1S . . . .td7 16.llJce3 gb8 17.b3 �h8 18.0-0 g6 19.%!Id3 fS 20J�a2 .th6.

2 0 .gdl ! ? A similar position (only with the inclusion of the moves .td7 and ga2) was played in the game Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 007, and we analyzed it in out previous chapter. White should better follow the plan, which was realized successfully by the Indi­ an grandmaster, in this position as well.

20

•••

21.llJc2 fJ 22.g3 M7 23.�2;l;

f4

It is not so good for Black to play 2 0 . . . 'lWh4, when his rook is on a4 (analogously to the above­ mentioned game), because of 21.exfS e4 (or 21.. .hfS 2 2 .llJxfS gxfS 23.%!Ie2, and Black cannot play 23 . . . gbf8? due to 24 . .!b5+-) 2 2.'lWfl gxfS 23 . .tbS. If 23 ... llJa7, then 24 . .ta6 ! .!d7 25.gxaS f4 26. llJc4 f3 27.g3 %!Ig4 28.llJde3±, and White ends up with extra materi­ al. It is also insufficient for Black to opt for 23 . . . llJeS? ! 24.f4 gxbS 2S.'lWxbS .!d7 (In case of 2S . . . hf4 186

26.llJxf4 'lWxf4 27.'lWe2 gg8 28.�h1 %!Ih6 29.llJdS llJg4 30.h3 e3 31.gfl± Black's attack reaches its dead end.) 26.'lWfl ha4 27.bxa4 llJd3 28.g3 %!Id8 29.gb1 'lWd7 3 0 .gbS;l; - White has managed to occupy important key-squares. Whenever Black is not in a hurry to clarify the situation in the centre, then as I have already mentioned, the White players should follow the example of the games Topalov - Kasparov, Leon 1998 and Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 007. At first, White must take care of some prophylactic - ga4-a2 and f2-f3 with the idea to stabilize the centre and to pro­ tect his second rank in case Black plays actively on the kingside. Af­ ter that, he should start attacking Black's weaknesses and mostly his pawns on as and d6.

A similar situation arose in variation b2a. Black has no real attacking prospects, White will soon exert pressure against Black's weaknesses, and his f3pawn has just become one more of them.

Conclusion In our final chapter, we have dealt with practically the main line of the Chelyabinsk variation, which is frequently played more than a quarter of a century. Tournament practice has shown that White's natural way of developing his initiative - 16 . . . rJJ h 8 17. 0 - 0 , does not promise him much after 17.. .j5, because Black thus manages to activate his forces. White's attempts to neutralize his opponent's counterplay by exchanges often lead to an almost complete exhaustion ofavailable resources. Therefore, I believe that at the contemporary stage of de­ velopment of that variation, White's hope of obtaining an advantage should befocused on a relatively new plan, based on keeping the posi­ tion relatively closed. That is the idea behind the move 17. &iJce3! - it not only prevents the immediate advance 17.. .j5, but what is tremen­ dously important is that Blackfails to accomplish the typicalfreeing maneuver with the line: 17. . . ,he3 18. &iJxe3 &iJe7 19. 0 - 0 j5 2 0 .exj5 &iJxj5 21. &iJxj5 ixf5 22. V!JdS, since he thus loses his as-pawn. Later, White must hold on to his blocking construction on the cen­ tral outposts e4 and dS. That plan might seem a bit slow; neverthe­ less, it is very unpleasantfor Black, because he cannot coordinate his pieces in that situation. The connection between his two flanks has been disrupted. The variations we have analyzed show that Black's counterplay on the kingside is not so dangerous for White if he plays carefully, while Black will have problem with his compromised pawn­ structure to the end of the game. He will need to find improvements in this variation!

187

Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3

.

•

.

.

.

.

. . . .

. . . .

.

8

Chapter 1 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a) b) c) d)

5 . . . llJxd4 . . . . . . . . 5 .. :Wc7 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . E:b8 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 11 12 13

Chapter 2 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 . .tg5 a) b)

various . . . . . . 7 . . . .te6 . . . . . . . 7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . b1) 8.llJa3 d5 . b2) 8.llJa3 .te7 b3) 8 .llJa3 h6 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 .te6 9.�c4 a) b)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ... llJd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . E:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 1O.ixf6 �xf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 10 . .txf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7..tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 a)

b)

188

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . .te6 1O .,hf6 gxf6 1l.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a1) 1l.c3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a2) 1l.c3 .tg7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . �a5 1O . .ld2 �d8 1l.c4 various. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 1l.c4 llJxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 1l.c4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

38 39 42 43 47 49 56

Index o/ Variations Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 ..txf6 .txf6 11.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 •

Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 . .txf6 .txf6 11.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 11 . . . ib7 12.ttJc2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.ttJdb5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 ttJe7 12.�xf6 gxf6 13.�c2

a) b)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 13 . . . .tb7 14 . .td3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 14 ..td3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 14 . .td3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0

Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 J.g5 12.�c2 •

a) b)

c)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . ttJe7 13.h4 ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.ttJcb4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bl) 15.ttJcb4 J.d7 . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 15.ttJcb4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

88 93 94 95 96 98

Chapter 8 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7 12 ... ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9 12 . . . ttJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0

Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 l::tb8 13.h4 •

a) b)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 13 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 13 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5 189

Index o/ Variations c) d) e)

13 . . . c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6 13 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 13 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2

Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7 .igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS .ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 .igS 13.a4 •

a) b)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . .bxa4 14.l3xa4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 14.l3xa4 c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 14.l3xa4 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.l3xa4 ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b3)

. . . . . .

128 128 135 137 138 140

Chapter 1 1 1.e4 cS 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.i.gS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.i.c4 •

a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

149 150 152 155

Chapter 1 2 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.gxa4 as lS.i.c4 id7 •

a) b) c) d) e)

16.l3a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8 16.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0 16.c!tJce3 .txe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4 16.c!tJce3 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5 16.c!tJce3 l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7 16.c!tJce3 c!tJe7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 9 16.c!tJce3 g 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1

Chapter 13 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.ic4 gbS 16.b3 a) b)

190

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . 'lth8 17.c!tJce3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 17. c!tJce3 i.xe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 17.c!tJce3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 176 1 79 1 79 181

Games collections

My One Hundred Best Games by Alexey Dreev 300 pages, biography, colour photos

Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov, 280 pages Detailed biography and 200 commented wins

Capablanca. Games 19 0 1 - 1224 Second Revised Edition, 368 pages

Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939 Second Revised Edition, 360 pages

A Chess Library for Practical Players.

The Endgame by GM Marat Makarov 2007 180 pages

The Sharpest Sicilian A Black Repertoire with l.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 by Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev, 2007,

272 pages

Opening for White According to Kramnik, Vol.1a by Alexander Khalifman 2006, 308 pages

For contacts : E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Published by Chess Stars Printed in Bulgaria