Sicilian Kan

I

I

I

SICIIan an

by John Emms EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com

First published in 2002 by Everyman Publishers plc, formerly Cadogan Books plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright© 2002 John Emms The right of John Emms to be identified as the author of this work has been as­ serted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue.record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 302 0 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man­ sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: dan@everyman. uk.com website:

www.everyman.uk.com

To Daniel

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services. Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

Everyman Chess Popular opening books: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

85744 2 1 8 0 85744 253 9 85744 256 4 85744 232 6 85744 281 4 85744 292 X 85744 290 3 85744 242 3 85744 262 8 85744 291 1 85744 252 0 85744 257 1 85744 276 8

Unusual QG Declined Alekhine's Defence Queen's Gambit Declined French Classical Modern Defence Symmetrical English c3 Sicilian Offbeat Spanish Classical Nimzo-Indian Sicilian Grand Prix Attack Dutch Stonewall Sicilian Kalashnikov French Winawer

Chris Ward Nigel Davies Matthew Sadler Byron Jacobs Speelman & McDonald David Cummings Joe Gallagher Glenn Flear Bogdan Lalic James Plaskett Jacob Aagaard Pinski & Aagaard Neil McDonald

Books for players serious about improving their game: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

85744 226 1 85744 231 8 85744 236 9 85744 241 5 85744 246 6 85744 223 7 85744 228 8 85744 233 4 85744 238 5

Starting Out in Chess Tips for Young Players Improve Your Opening Play Improve Your Middlegame Play Improve Your Endgame Play Mastering the Opening Mastering the Middlegame Mastering the Endgame Simple Chess

Byron Jacobs Matthew Sadler Chris Ward Andrew Kinsman Glenn Flear Byron Jacobs Angus Dunnington Glenn Flear John Emms

Books for the more advanced player: 1 1 1 1 1

85744 233 4 85744 233 4 85744 219 9 85744 224 5 85744 273 3

Attacking with 1 e4 Attacking with 1 d4 Meeting 1 e4 Meeting 1 d4 Excelling at Chess

John Emms Angus Dunnington Alexander Raetsky Aagaard and Lund Jacob Aagaard

I

I

I

SICIIan an

by John Emms EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Publishers pic www.everymanbooks.com

CONTENTS

I

Bibliography

6

Preface

7

Introduction

9

1 e4 c5 2 l2lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2lxd4 a6 5 �d3

1

5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 'f!ic7 7 'ii'e2 d6

2 5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 'flic7: Seventh move alternatives 3

5 �d3 l2lf6 6 0-0 d6

4 5 �d3 .tc5 5 5 .td3: Fifth move alternatives for Black

12 46 60 82 112

5li:lc3

6

5 l2lc3 -vJ1c7

129

7

5 ltJc3 b5 6 �d3 'i'b6!?

156

8 5 l2lc3 b5: Sixth move alternatives

173

5 c4

9

5 c4

182

Index of Complete Games

191

I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I

Books

Enryclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B, 3rd Edition (Sahovski Informator 1997) Enryclopaedia of Chess Openings Volume B, 4th Edition (Sahovski Informator 2002) Nunn's Chess Openings, John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms and Joe Gallagher (Every­

man/Gambit 1999) Siiflianisch im Geiste des !gels, Frank Zeller (Schachverlag Kania 2000) Winning with the Kan, Ali Mortazavi (Batsford 1996) Trends in the Paulsen VoL 2, John Emms (Trends 1997) Beating the Sicilian 3, John Nunn and Joe Gallagher (Batsford 1995) Periodicals

Chess Informants 1-84 The Week in Chess 1-405 Chesspublishing.com Databases

Mega Database 2002 Mega Corr 2

PREFACE

I

This book is a study of the Sicilian Kan (1 e4 cS 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4), an ideal opening for those playing Black who wish to learn the intricacies of the ever popular Sicilian Defence. I've been looking forward to writing this book for a long time. The Kan was the first Sicilian variation I learned to play and, because of this, I've always had a soft spot for it. I first became aware of its potential as a possible defence for Black in a typical fash­ ion: struggling to find an advantage against it with the white pieces! From the start I was very much struck by its flexibility and simplicity. A major selling point, which cannot be overstressed, is that the Kan is one of the easiest variations of the Sicilian to learn. Unlike some more high profile lines I could mention (the Dragon, the Na­ jdorf and the Sveshnikov), the onus is not on the player with the black pieces to memorise reams of opening theory simply to stay on the board. Of course Black still has to play good moves (!), but is much less likely to be at a disadvantage simply down to a memory loss. The Kan is more of a 'system' in that Black tends to react similarly regardless of how White plays it. This brings us to another positive fea­ ture; how does White play it? When I began

to use the Kan as my main weapon against 1 e4 I was struck by the number of strong and experienced white players who would become flummoxed and slump into deep thought early on. My basic theory is that the majority of those playing open Sicilians have budgeted just enough time to study the ins and outs of the 'trendy' Dragon, Najdorf and Sveshnikov, leaving them a little short against the 'less fashionable' lines. So who plays the Kan? Going back to the 1970s you would find games from the likes of Karpov, Petrosian, Portisch, Miles, Andersson, Hubner, Ljubojevic and Gheor­ ghiu. Of the new generation of top class players, there are games by Ivanchuk, Ru­ blevsky, Smirin and Judit Polgar, while Kas­ parov and Kramnik have also used it occasionally. Other players who have con­ tributed to its theory include Bologan, Vyz­ manavin, Milov, Epishin, Eingorn, Kengis, Landa, Ilya Gurevich, Miezis, Movsesian, Romanishin, Farago, etc. I could go on but there's enough quality on display there to dispel any doubts about the soundness of the defence. To what type of player does the Kan es­ pecially appeal? Anyone who believes that Black's sound Sicilian structure can over­ come White's early initiative. For a Sicilian, 7

Sicilian K a n

there is relatively little theory and still much uncharted territory. For example, a few years ago a new move was discovered for Black which has completely altered how a particularly important line was perceived. And when does this idea occur? As early as move six! The Kan is more likely to appeal to a player who is keen to think for himself from an early stage, rather than one who is reliant on the comfort zone twenty or so moves of solid theory. To this I would add to this that the Kan player generally plays on the counter-attack and that patie-nce, especially in certain variations, is a very use­ ful quality. Despite my fondness for the Kan, I've endeavoured to produce a balanced and objective study of the variation. This is not intended as an ail-in-one repertoire book and it's not filled with ninety-nine per cent of black wins! My idea was to include both the popular and the less fashionable lines, recommending variations for both colours where it's merited. In general the results of the games I've selected reflect the success rate of the lines at grandmaster level. This is not to say, however, that they produce simi­ lar results at lower levels. I've assumed that the reader doesn't have access to other material on the Kan in such publications as ChessBase Maga'.{jne, Infonnator and ChessPublishing.com and I've collected and checked relevant analysis and assess­ ments from these sources. I've also endeav­ oured to attribute such analysis and assess­ ments correctly, except perhaps when they have been blindingly obvious. Naturally I have been assisted in my task of checking and providing new analysis by various com­ puter engines - it would be reckless to con­ sider writing certain chess books these days without one. Computers do have some weaknesses but they are excellent at both checking analysis and prompting the author to consider unusual (or sometimes blatantly obvious) ideas. Virtually all the world's top 8

players study openings with the aid of com­ puters and many of the major opening nov­ elties over the last few years have been computer inspired. I decided on using illustrative games in­ stead of the traditional method of variation trees. In this particular instance, with both White and Black having such a free rein regarding move orders and with both sides employing 'systems' rather than just 'moves', it's easy to see that illustrative games have a major advantage. I will, how­ ever, be concentrating mainly on the open­ ing moves . and the early middlegame plans and tactics, and will only linger on the later parts of the games if they have characteristic 'Kan' qualities or if they are of particular interest. To provide as much useful infor­ mation as possible, I have forced myself to be quite ruthless about this. Once you be­ come involved in studying a particular game, it's all too easy to be seduced by all the tactics of the late middlegame and end­ game, even if they have nothing to do with the actual opening. Before you know it, a game covering one small sideline turns into a ten-page epic! I have deliberately fought against this; this is first and foremost a book on the K.an, not a games selection. Except for a brief explanation in the in­ troduction, I will be dealing with the various positional and tactical ideas for both players as they occur in the games, rather than sepa­ rately. I've found that some games have come out as a labyrinth of difficult tactical variations, while others much more posi­ tional and wordy; that's the way it is with the Sicilian. Many thanks go to Byron Jacobs and Dan Addelman for their patience and ex­ tended deadlines, and to Christine for her support and proof-reading. John Emms, Kent, September 2002

INTRODUCTION

I

Let's begin by taking a look at the initial moves of the Kan. 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 a6

Black's fourth move underlines the un­ doubted flexibiliry of the Kan. Black waits for White to commit himself before decid­ ing where to develop his pieces. The advan­ tage is that Black has more 'information' to go on before deciding what set-up to use. The disadvantage is that White also has more options at his disposal. More specifi­ cally, White can choose if he wishes to erect the 'Maroczy Bind' with an early c2-c4 (this is avoided by Black in many other Sicilian defences by the insertion of an early ...l2:\f6, inducing White to play l2:\c3) . Onto the actual attributes of the move

4 ... a6. In some ways it could be construed as a 'high-class' waiting move, but it does have positive features relevant to the position. Firstly, it protects the bS-square and thus rules out any early lbbS by White. This is particularly important because 2 ... e6 weak­ ens the d6-square, while Black also often plays his queen to c7 at an early stage. An­ other positive feature of ... a7 -a6 is that it can support the rypical Sicilian lunge ... b7b5, which Black may play as early as move five! This strike on the queenside is nor­ mally much more e ffective if White plays an early l2:\c3, as then a timely ...b5-b4 forces the knight to move again. This can be im­ portant as often Black bases his counterplay on attacking White's very slightly vulnerable e4-pawn and the knight on c3 is a natural defender of this pawn. Kan/Paulsen/Taimanov

There has often been some confusion when chess players talk about these openings. The subject of this book is the Kan Variation (1 e4 cS 2 l2:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6) . However, in the past this move order has also been referred to as the Paulsen Varia­ tion. Indeed, at my editor's insistence, my 1997 booklet on this line was entitled Trends in the Paulsen Volume 2. Looking at other 9

Sic ilia n Ka n

literature, The Oxford Companion to Chess, a good guide, calls it the Paulsen but does mention that it can be called the K.an too. More recently people have come to accept the Kan as the main name, but of course it's how well you play it that really matters! In most circles, the very similar variation 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tbc6 is known as the Sicilian Taimanov (although just to confuse things this line is also some­ times referred to as the Paulsen!). Naturally the Kan can transpose into the Taim.anov and vice versa. The concept that really sepa­ rates the two openings is that in the K.an Black either delays or forgoes the move ...tbc6 unless it is really beneficial. In this book, on the whole, we will be concentrat­ ing on pure 'Kan' positions and so we will see more of ...t2Jbd7 than of ...t2Jc6.

advantage, but i n the 1970s many top grandmasters, including the likes of Ulf Andersson and Ljubomir Ljubojevic, dis­ covered many new defensive resources for Black and these are seen throughout the book. It was shown that Black's 'Hedgehog' pawn structure (e6, d6, b6 and a6) is in fact very difficult to break down. Furthermore, Black's structure is very flexible and White sometimes has to use a lot of piece power ensuring that Black cannot break with either ...dS or ...bS. Finally, White has chances to attack on the kingside, in the centre and on the queenside but must be very careful not to overextend himself in doing so, other­ wise he runs the risk of being impaled on one of those Hedgehog's spikes! It's true to say that those playing White, as well as those with Black, need a lot of patience to play these positions.

Maroczy Bind versus the Hedgehog Scheveningen Structure

The diagram above shows White with employing the so-called 'Maroczy Bind', a structure which dominates the first few chapters of this book. The prongs on c4 and e4 promise a pleasant space advantage for the first player. Furthermore, Black's important Sicilian pawn break in the centre with ... d6-d5 is now very difficult to achieve, while ...b7-b5, another typical Sicilian lunge, is also prevented for a very long time. It was once thought that this type of pawn struc­ ture promised White a clear or even decisive 10

Later in the book we deal with a similar pawn structure but with a subtle difference. In the diagram above White's c-pawn is back on c2, normally blocked by a knight on c3. This is known as the Scheveningen structure (the Scheveningen Variation arises after 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 t2Jf6 5 tbc3 e6). Purely from a structural point of view, the Scheveningen structure is less advantageous for White than the Ma­ roczy Bind (some would say it's actually

Intro duction

advantageous to Black). The point is that there is now much less to prevent Black both advancing in the centre with ... d6-d5 and expanding on the queenside with ... b7b5. White can use some method of con­ tainment (with a2-a4, for example) but gen­ erally this is not his main aim. The advantage White has here over the Maroczy Bind is one of time. By missing out c2-c4 White gains an extra tempo and in open Sicilian positions a tempo is often the difference between success and failure. Generally White will try to use this extra time to generate a quick attack against the black kingside. Talking simply of pawn moves, this will normally involve the ad­ vance f2-f4, after which Black has to con­ stantly be on guard over f4-f5 and e4-e5 advances. Sometimes White also throws in g2-g4-g5 for good measure. Of course these plans are also possible in Maroczy Bind positions, but in Scheveningen positions they are really crucial to the success of the white player. Many games follow the same formula: either White wins in barnstorming fashion in under thirty moves, or Black sur­ vives the onslaught and later on feasts on the remains of White's overextended posi­ tion.

Chapter Order

Chapters 1 -5 deal with 5 .id3. This solid move continues to be by far the most popu­ lar choice against the Kan. The chief posi­ tive feature of 5 .id3 is its flexibility. White keeps the option open of erecting the Ma­ roczy Bind with c2-c4, as well as simply forgoing this in favour of lLlc3. Perhaps the only disadvantage of 5 .id3 is that Black has so many different responses at his dis­ posal, so the white players needs to be well booked up. Possible black responses include 5 ...lLlf6, 5 ... .ic5, 5 ...'ir'c7, 5 ...'ir'b6, 5 ...g6, 5 ...lbc6, 5 ...lbe7, 5 ... d5. The list goes on and on! Chapters 6-8 deal with the more tactical 5 lLlc3, immediately reaching the Scheveningen structure. Black has fewer choices here, the main 'Kan' responses be­ ing 5 ...'ir'c7 and 5 ... b5. Finally, in Chapter 9 we deal with 5 c4, whereby White immediately sets up the Maroczy Bind. You would think that this 'no-nonsense' move would be popular, but in fact the reverse is true and it's actually much less common than both 5 .id3 and 5 lbc3. The main reason for this is that Black has many more options than simply to ac­ cept a Hedgehog structure.

11

CHAPTER ONE

I

5 i.d3 '2Jf6 6 0-0 'Wic7 7 'Wie2 d6

1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6 5 .id3 lt:lt6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6

In this chapter we will be dealing with what is generally known as 'the main line' of the Kan. Let's begin by considering the opening few moves.

tively (perhaps a t c5 o r even d6), instead of boxing it in with the move 6... d6 (sec Chap­ ter 3).

1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6 5 .id3 lt:lf6

5.. /2Jf6 is by far the most popular move. Black develops his king's knight and pre­ pares to castle. Alternatives to 5...4Jf6 will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. 6 0-0

Moving the king into safety. It's ex­ tremely uncommon for White to castle queenside in the 5 .td3 variations of the Kan so there is no particular advantage in delaying castling. For alternatives, however, see Chapter 3. I will mention here that 6 eS? loses a pawn to 6...'it'a5+!. 6 . . . 'iic 7

This little queen move is the subject of the first two chapters. Black takes control over the long b8-h2 diagonal and protects the crucial e5-square - White was already threatening e4-e5. The queen also keeps an eye on events down the c-file and directly attacks White's c-pawn, which normally ends up on c4. For the moment Black keeps the option of developing his f8-bishop ac12

7 �e2!

This clever move is again the most popu­ lar choice for White. He renews the 'threat' of e4-e5 and keeps his options open regard­ ing pawn structure. There are, however, quite a few alternatives (including the im­ mediate 7 c4) and these are discussed in Chapter 2. 7 . . . d6

On first sight this looks a little inconsis­ tent with Black's previous move as the f8bishop is now blocked anyway. However, most Kan players are loath to allow White to play an early e4-e5, dislodging the impor-

5 ii d3 t:Dt6 6 0 - 0 'IWc 7 7 '1We2 d 6

tant defensive knight on f6. Alternatives, including 7...i.c5 and 7....td6 are studied in Chapter 2. 8 c4

With this move White sets up the Ma­ roczy Bind. 8 tLlc3 leads to positions discussed in Chapter 6, while also important is the ag­ gressive 8 f4 (see Game 13). 8

. . .

g6

The idea of fianchettoing the king's bishop in this line was discovered in the 1980s as a way of strengthening Black's kingside in anticipation of a white offensive in that area, and 8...g6 is now Black's most popular response to 8 c4. Classical development with 8...i.e7 is the traditional way of playing the Hedgehog and is discussed in Games 9-11, while 8...tt:Jbd7, leaving the option open as to where to de­ velop the dark-squared bishop, is the sub­ ject of Game 12.

bat Black's fianchetto. The bishop o n g7 provides an excellent shield for the black king but, as opposed to when the bishop is developed on e7, it doesn't protect the slighdy vulnerable d6-pawn. White immedi­ ately makes this his main target by posting a rook on the half-open d-fi.le. 10 tt:Jf3 can simply transpose into the main line after 10...0-0 but White docs have some tricky move order options: 11 i.f4 tbc6 (11...tLlbd7 12 l::tacl!? tLlg4 13 l::tfdl transposes to the note to Black's 12th move in Game 5 without allowing the possibility of what Kobalija played against Adams) 12 h3 (12 l::tfd1 transposes to Game 4) 12...tLld7 13 l::tacl tt:JccS 14 lLlxeS tLlxeS 15 l::tfd1 and we have reached a position from Game 3. White certainly has other plans, including a quick kingside attack involving the lunge f2-f4 (discussed in Game 7). Another, more positional, idea is to bolster the e4-pawn with f2-f3 and aim for a gradual attack on the qucenside (see Game 6). 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 t:Df3

9 t:Dc3

White continues to develop naturally. In most cases the knight's best square is c3, from where it keeps an eye on the critical bS- and ciS-squares. However, White can also contest the long diagonal by fianchetto­ ing his own dark-squared bishop with 9 b3 (see Game 8). 9 . iig7 1 0 l:!.d1 .

.

The plan beginning with this move was quickly installed as the critical way to com-

Continuing the basic plan. White clears wood from the d-fi.le and in some cases prepares to add pressure to d6 with i.f4 (note that the immediate 11 .tf4? would simply lose a piece after 11...e5!). The stage is set for a complex positional battle. Move sequences, ideas and tactics from this posi­ tion are covered in Games 1-5. 13

Sicilian Kan

Game l Z .Aimasi-Farago Linz 1995

1 3 .i.e3

13 �f4 tt::ld7 transposes to the note to Black's 13th move in Game 3. 1 3 . . . tiJd7

5 .i.d3 ttJt6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4

Black now has many options with his knights, including ...ltJcS, ...tt::lceS and ...tt::ldeS.

g6 9 lUc3 .i.g7 1 0 �d 1 0-0 1 1 ttJt3 ttJc6

1 4.li!.ac1 ttJc5

1t...tt::lbd7 is also possible (see Game 5) but I believe that 1t...tt::lc6 gives Black more options, especially against 12 �f4 (see Game 4).

14...tt::lce5?! is a typical move in this type of position but in this instance, with White's bishop on e3, it leaves Black struggling to cover all his weaknesses: 15 tt::lxeS and now: a) 15...dxe5?! has been played here and in similar positions but I don't like this move at all.

1 e4 c5 2 lUt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tUxd4 a6

1 2 h3

This refinement was introduced after black players found a good way of combat­ ing the previously popular 12 .tf4 (see Game 4). With 12 h3 White doesn't rush the bishop to f4. He reasons that with a black knight probably on its way to eS, the bishop will be blocked on f4 and may be more happy on e3, at least for the time being. Instead White cuts out both ...tt::l g4 and, if Black plays...e6-e5, the idea of ...�g4. 1 2 . . . b6

So that Black can develop his light­ squared bishop on b7. Black normally plays 12...tt::ld7 13 �e3 and only then 13...b6 (or 13...tt::lde5 - see Game 2), reaching the same position as in the text. The move order cho­ sen here can only make a difference if White decides to play 13 �f4 (see Game 3), in which case Black is already committed to playing ...b7-b6. 14

Black has voluntarily blocked his own dark-squared bishop and has presented White with a dangerous queenside pawn majority which can be galvanised immedi­ ately with 16 b4!, intending c4-c5. In gen­ eral, the only time Black can justify playing ... dxeS is if there is a knight on c6 ready to jump into the newly-acquired d4 outpost (see Game 2). b) 15... tt::lxe5 16 b3 �b7 17 �b1 l:tfd8 (17 ...�ab8 18 f4 tt::lc6 19 �d2 �fd8 20 �f2 reaches the same conclusion, while 17....l:ife8 18 �d2 �f8 19 tt::la4 tt::ld7 20 tt::lxb6! tt::lxb6 21 �aS tt::ldS 22 l:txdS! left White a clear pawn up in Luther-Von Gleich, Bonn 1993) 18 �d2! (Von Gleich) 18....Uab8 (18...�£8 19 tt::la4 tt::ld7 [Z.Alrnasi­ Vogt, Altensteig 1993] 20 tt::lxb6! wins a

5 i.. d3 li:Jf6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 �e2 d6

pawn in a similar fashion) 19 f4 lL'lc6 20 �f2 i.a8 21 ltJa4 and the b-pawn drops off the board. 14...ltJde5?! allows the tactic 15 ltJd5! (Black always has to be wary of this idea and a similar one with ltJb5) 15...exd5 16 cxd5 and the pin on the c-ftle allows White to regain his piece with interest, for example 16...lL'lxf3+ 17 �xf3 lL'le5 18 l:Ixc7 lL'lxf3+ 19 gxf3 i.xh3 20 �h2 i.c8 21 b4 b5 22 ..if4 and Black is struggling in this ending. 14...i.b7 15 ..ib1 lDc5 transposes to the main line. 1 5 i.. b 1

A typical move for this line. The bishop vacates the d-ftle (so that the d6-pawn feels the full effect of the rook on d1), while keeping an eye on the slightly vulnerable e4pawn. The move ..ib1 is favoured over i.c2 because on b1 the bishop is out of harm's way and blocks neither rook. 1 5 . . . i.. b 7

1 6 �d2!

A good all-purpose move. White both threatens d6 and sets up the possibility of exchanging dark-squared bishops with ..ih6. However, White does have alternatives: a) 16 a3!? prepares to chase the knight away with b2-b4 but allows the black knight to settle after 16...lL'lb3 17 l:lc2 and now it's a case of whether the knight on b3 proves to be a nuisance for White or a liability for Black (or perhaps both):

a1) 17...ltJe5 18 ..ia2 ltJc5!? (18...lL'lxf3+ 19 gxf3! lL'lc5 20 �d2 ..ie5 21 b4 lL'ld7 22 f4 ..ixc3 23 l:lxc3 lL'lf6 24 f3 ..ixe4 25 fxe4 lL'lxe4 26 �d3 lL'lxc3 27 �xc3 e5 was agreed drawn in Tsuboi-Urday Caceres, Sao Paulo 1998, but I like White's bishop pair in the final position) 19 lL'lxe5 ..ixe5 20 ..id4 ..ixd4 (20....:.fd8 21 b4 lL'ld7 22 ..ixe5 lDxe5 23 f4 ltJd7 24 l:Icd2 looks a bit better for White) 21 l:lxd4 e5! 22 l:td1 lL'le6 23 �e3 lL'ld4 24 .l:tcd2 .Uad8 25 lL'le2 lL'lxe2+ 26 �xe2 ..ic8! and Black will equalise with .....ie6. a2) 17...lL'lca5 18 ..ia2 l:tac8 19 ltJd4 ..ixd4 20 i.xd4 e5!? (20...ltJxd4 21 l:lxd4 is a touch better for White - d6 is more vul­ nerable than c4) 21 ..ie3 b5 and now in­ stead of 22 �f3 f5!, which was very unclear in Luther-Mattick, Seefeld 1996, White should play 22 cxb5! .i.xe4 23 b6 �c6 24 b7 �xb7 25 lL'lxe4 'it'xe4 26l:Ixc8l:Ixc8 27 'ii'xa6, when Black's in serious trouble. b) 16 b3 is a solid move, lending extra support to the c4-pawn before commencing further operations. In the game Kersten­ Chuchelov, Willingen 1999, Black suc­ ceeded in achieving a reasonable position after 16...�e7 17 �d2 nfd8 18 lL'ld4 lDe5! (as is so often the case in hedgehog posi­ tions, the weakness of d6 becomes more prominent as pieces are exchanged; hence Black's reluctance) 19 ..ig5 f6! 20 ..ie3 g5. Black still has weak pawns but his two knights have acquired excellent outposts and neither can be removed without White creating weaknesses in his own camp. 16

. . .

�ad8 1 7 b3

Again a useful move - White gives the c4-pawn some protection. However, this is hardly life threatening for Black and so it's unsurprising that White has also tried more direct methods. a) 17 i.h6 f5! is a suggestion of Istvan Almasi and I believe that this is the way that Black should treat this position. With both ...b6-b5 and ...d6-d5 looking extremely un15

Sic ilia n Kan

unlikely in the short term, the ... f7-f5 lunge is Black's only realistic pawn break. Of course there is always some risk advancing pawns in front of your king, but in this case this is counterbalanced by the activity it gives to the black position. Instead 17...lbe5 18 ..i.xg7 lbxf3+ 19 gxf3 �xg7 20 b4 lbd7 21 ifxd6 'ir'xc4 22 ..i.d3 'ir'c8 23 lba4 was better for White in Lane-Chuchelov, Ant­ werp 1999. b) 17 lDh2 (planning lDh2-g4) 17...'i!fe7 18 lbe2?! (18 ..i.h6 is stronger, when I still like 18...f5) 18...a5 19 b3 lbb4! 20 lbc3 dS! and Black, having achieved the desirable ...d6-d5 break, took over the initiative in Van den Doel-Shaked, Wijk aan Zee 1998. c) The more I look at 17 lDdS!, the more I like it. It's the sort of move which should always be considered, even with Black hav­ ing an extra knight blocking the c-ftle:

17...exdS 18 cxdS (White regains his piece as if the c6-knight moves White plays b2-b4) 18...lbe5 (18...l::tfe8 19 dxc6 ..i.xc6 20 i.d4 looks uncomfortable for Black) 19 lDxeS ..txeS 20 b4 1fe7 21 bxcS bxcS 22 ..igS ..tf6 23 ..txf6 ifxf6 24 f4 and White's pawn centre promises him an edge. If Black has no improvement here then there is cer­ tainly a case for 17 lbdS over 17 b3. 1 7 .'i'b8? . .

Black defuses lDdS ideas and prepares .....i.a8 and ...b6-b5. However, Alrnasi's sub­ sequent play casts doubt upon the wisdom 16

of removing the queen from the action and it's here that Black should be looking for improvements. a) Another more recent game involving Ivan Farago saw the Hungarian GM trying the slightly clumsy-looking manoeuvre 17.....ta8 18 lbh2 (18 lbdS is again possible although on this occasion Black is not forced to caprure) 18...1fb7!?, once again angling for ...b6-b5. However, at least in this instance the queen still covers the second rank and the advantage of this can be seen in the sequence 19 i.h6 fS, when Black is not forced to recaprure on g7 with the king. Instead the game Graetz-Farago, Latschach 2001 continued 19 1fe2 fS! 20 f3 (20 exfS? allows Black to demonstrate another point of ....i.a8 and ...1Vb7: 20.....txc3! 21 lhc3 lbd4 22 'ir'g4 lbe2+ and Black wins) 20...f4 and Black had gained some useful space on the kingside, while securing eS as an out­ post. b) The immediate 17...f5!? looks to me like the most consistent continuation (Zeller also mentions this move).

Black immediately strives for counterplay with this logical move, for example: b1) 18 lbd4?? loses material to 18...f4!. b2) 18 lDdS isn't so effective now. After 18...exd5 19 cxdS Black has the choice of two ways to play it: 19...lbe7 20 b4 fxe4 21 i.xe4 lbxe4 22 l::txc7 lbxd2 23 lbxd2 ltJxdS 24 l::txb7 l::tfl with an equal ending, or

5 i. d3 0, (6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6

19...lDe5 20 lDxeS dxeS 21 b4 f4 22 i-xcS bxcS 23 bxcS nf6 which is difficult to as­ sess. In this second line I think I would prefer to play the black side - at least he will probably have the option of returning the piece for White's two dangerous passed pawns. b3) 18 exfS lDeS!? (18...gxf5 19 i-gS �d7 [19...i-f6!?) 20 %:te1 lDeS also looks okay for Black) 19 lDd4 (or 19 lDxeS dxeS 20 'ir'e2 gxfS and Black has a strong-looking pawn centre) 19...gxf5 and Black can even con­ sider following up with the aggressive ...�f6-g6. Critical now is 20 b4 'ir'f7! 21 i.gS lid7 22 'ir'e2 lDe4 but Black looks to be okay in these complications. 1 8 .i.h6!

A very natural move, underlining Black's weaknesses on the dark squares. This idea has increased in strength now that the black queen finds herself further away from the action.

2 3 . . . 0,d7

The only way to hang on to the d6-pawn was to play the extremely ugly 23...l2Jb7 but unsurprisingly Farago could not bring him­ self to play like this! 24 �xd6 0,e5 25 �xb8 l:!.xb8 26 0,e2 l:!.fd8 27 0,d4 �f7 28 f3 l:!.d7 29 0,b3 l:txd 1 + 30 l:!.xd1 0,xc4 31 l:!.d7 + �e8 32 l:!.xh7 l:!.d8 33 l:!.h8 + �d7 34 l:!.xd8 +

1 8 . . . i.a8

�xd8 35 i.d3 0,a3 36 e5?

Istvan Almasi suggests 18...-ic8 as an improvement, but I don't really see how this helps that much after 19 lDh2.

I don't understand this move at all. Why allow Black's terrible bishop on a8 back into the game? 36 �£2 (I. Almasi) keeps total control.

1 9 0,h2!

An excellent idea. The knight plans to hop into g4, where it highlights Black's dark-squared problems.

36 . . . fxe5 37 .i.xg6 e4!

1 9 . . . f6

38 fxe4 0,c2 39 b5 axb5 40 e5 0,e3 41

19...b5 amounts to nothing more than a demonstration on the queenside. After 20 i-xg7 �xg7 21 cxbS axbS 22 b4 Black's weaknesses (bS, d6, f6 and h6) will become very difficult to defend. I would still be tempted to play 19...f5!?, if nothing else to stop lDg4, although I do admit this is not consistent with Black's previous play.

g5 0,c4! 42 .i.d3 0,xe5 43 .i.xb5 �e7

20 .i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 0,g4 0,e5 22 b4

g6 9 0,c3 ..ig7 1 0 l:!.d1 0-0 1 1 0,t3 0,c6

0,xg4 23 hxg4

1 2 h3 0,d7 1 3 i.e3

White has triumphed in the middlegame batde and has acquired a virtually winning game. Black's position is full of weaknesses and he has no real counterplay.

Black seizes his chance and reaches a drawn ending.

Y,-Y,

Game 2 Z .Aimasi-Anand

FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997 1 e4 c5 2 0,t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6 5 i.d3 0,t6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4

13 i-f4 transposes to Game 3. 1 3 . . . 0,de5 14 l:!.ac1 i.d7!

This deployment goes well with playing ...ttJdeS. When compared to 14...b6?!, this 17

Sicilian Kan

set-up leaves Black much better placed to cope withlLldS ideas. 1 5 lt:\xe5

With this move White clarifies the posi­ tion in the centre, but there are some play­ able alternatives: a) 15 b3!? lLlxB+ (15... f5 16lLlxe5lLlxe5 17 f4lLlfl looks like a better bet) 16lixB liaS gives Black reasonable counterplay according to Almasi, but I suspect that after 17 .id2 White still has an edge, for example 17...f5?! 1S exfSlLleS (1S...gxf5 19lig3) 19 lig3lLlxd3 20lixd3lixfS 21 �xfS gxfS 22 .if4!. b) 15lLle1 tries to avoid an exchange of knights, but this looks too artificial to me: 15...f5! 16 f4 lLlfl! (a good square for the knight; here it protects the d6-pawn) 17 exfS gxfS 1Sli£2 �acS 19 lLlBlidS 20 b3 lLle7 21 .ib1lLlg6 and Black was fine in the game Andriulaitis-Brooks, correspondence 1999. c) 15 ltJdS? doesn't hit the mark here as Black has c6 well covered: 15...ltJxf3+ 16 lixf3 exdS 17 cxdS .ixb2 1S �c2 .ieS 19 dxc6 bxc6 and Black is a safe pawn up. 1 5 . . . dxe5!?

terbalanced by the fact that Black can utilise the outpost on d4. The alternative 15...lLlxe5!? is also not bad: 16 f4!? (16 b3 fS transposes into note 'a' to White's 15th move) 16...lLlxd3 17 lixd3 .ic6 1S ltJdS!? (1S lixd6 lixd6 19 �xd6 .ixc3 20 �xc3 .ixe4 is equal - Ribli) 1S...exd5 19 cxdS (with an edge, according to Ribli) 19...llfeS! (targeting e4; 19....ixb2 20 �c2 .ig7 21 dxc6 �fdS 22 lib3! looks strong for White) 20 .id4 .ixd4+ 21lixd4 �acS and Black looks okay. 1 6 f3!

So that the queen can nudge herself to £2 and the c3-knight can contest the d4-square from e2. The previously played 16 ltJdS caused Black no problems after 16...exd5 17 cxdS �fdS 1S �c2 �acS, Arnason­ Vyzmanavin, Manila Olympiad 1992. 1 6 . . . lt:\d4 1 7 'i't2 i.c6 1 8 lt:\e2 .l::.f dB 1 9 lt:\xd4!

Giving Black a protected passed pawn, but it will be well blocked and White will have chances to use his pawns on both sides of the board. 19 .ib 1 apparently adds more pressure on d4, but Black can reply calmly with 19...�d7!, answering 20 lLlxd4 exd4 21 .ixd4?? with �adS (Almasi), pinning and winning the bishop. 1 9 . . . exd4 20 i.d2

Recapturing with the pawn is much more playable when, as on this occasion, the knight is on c6 rather than d7 (compare with note 'a' to Black's 14th move in Game 1). It's true that White has an active pawn majority on the queenside but this is coun18

Almasi assesses this position as slightly better for White and I agree with him.

5 i. d3 0,t6 6 0 - 0 'Wif e 7 7 fie2 d6

White is threatening to expand with either f3-f4 or b3-b4 and it's impossible for Black to prevent both. Still, with careful defence Black shouldn't be in too much trouble. 20 . . . e 5

O r 2 0...a 5 2 1 f4! and now ...e6-e5 i s an­ swered by f4-f5. White can slowly arrange kingside play by re-racking his rooks on f1 and el. 21 b4!

Launching the queenside pawn majoriry before Black has time for ...a6-a5. 2 1 . . .i.d7?!

Missing a win. Almasi gives the following convincing analysis: 33 aS! .1d6 34 eS bxaS 35 exd6!! .l:.xb 1+ 36 'ith2 and now: a) 36...a4 37 cS a3 38 c6 a2 39 .l:.xa2!! (but not 39 c7? .l:.ht+! 40 'itxhl alii'+) 39 ....txa2 40 .tfS!! and White wins. b) 36....l:.b3 37 cS with a further split: bl) 37....tf5 38 c6! .l:.xd3 39 c7 ii'c8 (or 39 .'iVf8 40 ii'xd3 .1xd3 41 c8ii' .1xc2 42 d7) 40 d7+. b2) 37....l:.xd3 38 ii'xd3 .tfS 39 ii'd2 .1xc2 40 if'xc2 and the two connected passed pawns are decisive. . .

Almasi prefers 21...ii'd7, for example 22 ii'e2 (threatening to win a piece with b4-b5) 22...b5! 23 cS ii'b7 (dissuading White from playing a2-a4) and it is difficult to see how White makes any real progress.

Perhaps in time trouble, Almasi begins to drift quite badly and soon he is worse de­ spite the material advantage.

22 'ii'e 2 aS?!

.l:!.b7 .l:!.cB! 3B .l:!.f2 .l:!.c7 39 .l:!.b5 a4 40

And this is too panicky. Black succeeds in splitting White's queenside but a pawn is too high a price to pay for this.

'ife4 l:.bB 44 .!:!.aS 'Wife7 45 'ii'f3 'Wifc7 46

23 bxa5 i.e6 24 �h 1 .!:!.deB 25 l:.c2 i.fB 26 .l:!.b1 ..tcs 21 'iff2 .!:!.ebB? 2B f4!

This now works due to tactical reasons. If Black does nothing then White will push with f4-f5. Therefore Anand opted to sacri­ fice an exchange.

33 . . . l:!.aB 34 .l:!.a2?!

34 . . . 'Wifd7 ! 35 aS? bxa5 36 'iff3 'ifdB! 37 .l:!.a5 a3 4 1 l:!.f1 l:lcB 42 .l:!.a6 'ii'e B 43 l:tb5 'ifxe5 47 'iff6 'ii'c 7 4B l:!.a 1 .l:!.cB 49 'iff2 i.fB 50 l:lc 1 'Wifc6 0-1

Game3 Dix-Edwards

Comspondence 1993

2B . . . exf4 29 i.xf4 'ifxa5

1 e4 c5 2 {jjf 3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6

Or 29....td6 30 .txd6 ii'xd6 31 cS ii'eS 32 .l:.bS! and White targets the b7 -pawn.

5 i.d3 {jjf6 6 0-0 'Wifc7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 B c4 g6 9 0,c3 i.g7 1 0 l:ld 1 0-0 1 1 {jjf 3 0,c6

30 ..txbB .l:!.xbB 3 1 'ii'g 3! 'ii'd B 32 a4 b6

1 2 h3 0,d7 1 3 ..tf4

33 e5?

The main alternative to 13 .1e3. White 19

Sicilian Ka n

adds immediate pressure to the d6-pawn and induces Black to move a knight to e5.

the weaknesses in his position.

1 3 . . . lbce5

Again Black must make the decision over which knight, if any, should block on e5. a) 13...b6 14 .!:tact .ib7 15 lLlb5!? (15 ltJd5 'ii'b8!; 15 b3!?) 15...axb5 16 cxb5 .l:txa2 17 bxc6 .ixc6 (Ribli), and now 18 .ixd6! 'ii'xd6 19 .ic4 is better for White. b) 13...lL:lde5!? 14 .!:tact .id7, playing as in the previous game, is very possible, for example 15 b3 .l:tfc8!? (15... lL:lxf3+ 16 'ii'xf3 ltJd4 17 'ii'e3 e5 18 .ih6 .ie6 19 .ixg7 <;t>xg7 20 lLle2 lLlxe2+ 21 .ixe2 was a tiny bit better for White in Palac-Galego, Lisbon 2001 but Black should still hold comforta­ bly) 16 .ib1 .ie8 and now: b1) 17 lL\et 'ii'b8 (Black is aiming for ...b7-b5) 18 .ig3 lL:la7! 19 f4 lLlec6 20 lLlf3 (20 1i'd2!? .l:td8 21 .ih4 .l:td7) 20...b5 21 c5?! (21 fS!? looks more threatening) 21...b4 22 cxd6?! .ixc3 23 d7 .ixd7 24 .l:txd7 lL:ld4! 25 'ii'd 1 lLlxf3+ 26 gxf3 lLlb5 and Black was doing well in Moberg-Grabliauskas, Man­ hem 1999 - White's kingside strucrure is a little shaky. b2) 17 .ie3!? looks stronger as now 17...1i'b8 18 lLlxe5 dxe5?! 19 lL:la4! exploits the weakness of b6. c) 13....ixc3!? is a radical idea, giving up the dark-squared bishop in order to cripple White's queenside pawns. However, this concept has acquired some credibility re­ cently (it has been tried in similar positions) and here it gives Black a playable game ac­ cording to Ernst: 14 bxc3 e5 15 .ih6 (the dark squares around the black king are look­ ing vulnerable but it's quite difficult for White to exploit them) 15...l:td8 16 lLlh2 lLlc5 17 .ic2 f6 18 f4 exf4 19 .ixf4 lLle5 20 lLlfl .ie6 21 lL:le3 .l:tac8 22 .l:td4 b6 see

following diagra m

with an unclear position in Kotronias­ Johannessen, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. Black's well-placed knights compensate for 20

1 4 lbxe5

It makes sense for White to clear the ten­ sion in the centre before deciding what plan of action to take. That said, no harm can be done with the flexible move order 14 .!:tact b6 and now: a) As I mentioned before, 15 lLlxeS dxe5?! works less well when Black has a knight on d7 rather than c6 as White tends to get a free hand on the queenside (15...lL:lxe5 transposes to the main game): 16 .ie3 .ib7 17 b4! f5 18 f3 l:.f7 19 c5 bxc5 20 lL:la4 fxe4 21 fxe4 .if8 22lLlxc5

and White was clearly better in Xie Jun­ Movsesian, Hastings 1996/97. b) 15 b3 .ib7 16 .ib1 with a further split: b1) 16... f5 17 lLlxe5! lLlxe5 transposes to Palac-Farago below (17...dxe5 18 .ig5 looks

5 i. d3 liJ f6 6 0 - 0 W c 7 7 'if e 2 d6

slightly better for White - 1 8... h6 can be answered by 1 9 'il'd2!). b2) 16 ... ltfe8! (the importance of this move is explained in the note to Black's 17th move) 17 lt:Jh2 (17 lt:Jxe5! lt:Jxe5 trans­ poses into the main game) 1 7 ...l:tad8 1 8 'i!i'd2 ( 1 8 i..g 5!?) 1 8. . .lt:Jc5 19 ..ig3?! f5! 20 f4 lt:Jf7 and Black had reached a very comfort­ able position in Wahls-Lau, Munich 1 992. Note what a good job the knight does on f7, where it defends the d6-pawn. 1 4 . . . liJxe5

14 ... dxe5?! 15 ..ie3 b6 16 ltac1 trans­ poses to Xie Jun-Movsesian above. 1 5 l:!.ac1 b6 1 6 b3 i.b7 1 7 i.b1

Another possibiliry for White is 17 'il'd2!?, planning to retreat the light-squared bishop along the d3-f1 diagonal. This should be seriously considered as, although ..id3-b 1 is a very popular retreat in this line, the bishop can end up being rather passive on this square.

lt:Jf7 21 f4 f5 22 exf5 gxf5 23 'il'£2 ..ic6 24 i..d4 and the exchange of dark-squared bishops favours White. Golubev-M.Ivanov, Delzlsau 1 997 continued 24 ... ..ixd4 25 'il'xd4 lt:Jh8? 26 lt:Jd5! (again this move!) 26 ...'i!i'g7 27 'il'xg7+ �xg7 28 liJc7 and White won a crucial pawn. b) 1 7 ... f5 tends to work less well when a pair of minor pieces have been exchanged the weaknesses on d6 and b6 are more dif­ ficult to cover: 1 8 'il'd2 ltfd8 1 9 ..ig5! ltd? 20 ..ie3 (targeting b6 now that the black knight has lost access to d7) 20 ...ltb8 21 ..id4 ltdd8 22 f4 lt:Jf7 23 ..ixg7 �xg7 24 exf5 exf5 (24...gxf5 looks more consistent, but 25 lte1 lte8 26 'il'd4+ still looks prom­ ising for White: 26 ... e5 27 'il'£2 e4 28 lt:Jd5 i..xd5 29 cxd5 'i!i'd7 30 l1c6 and White can eventually open Black up by arranging g2g4) 25 lt:Jd5 i..x d5 26 cxd5 'il'd7 27 ltc6 and White held a clear advantage in Palac­ Farago, Oberwart 200 1 . 1 8 'ikd2 �fB 1 9 �e3

1 7 . . JUe8!

An important move. Black creates the possibiliry of a d6-defending ... ..if8, while he also takes steps against a possible 'il'd2/..ih6 plan for White. Other ideas in­ clude: a) 17 ...ltfd8 defends the d6-pawn but now Black must always be wary of an an­ noying ..ig5: 1 8 'ir'd2 l:tab8 19 ..ig5! f6 (19 ...ltd7? 20 lt:Jd5! exd5 21 cxd5 lt:Jc6 22 ltc2 and Black is in big trouble) 20 ..ie3

Preparing f2-f4 and hitting the b6-pawn. If White is looking for an alternative here, then I quite like the look of 1 9 ..ih6!?. In general I believe that the exchange of these bishops helps White as Black has problems defending his dark-squared weak­ nesses. With this in mind, Black's most logi­ cal move looks to be 1 9 ... ..ie7. White can continue in the same vein with 20 i..g5 and now: a) 20 ... l1ad8? 21 i..xe7 'ir'xe7 22 'ir'd4! 'il'c7 23 lt:Ja4 and White wins either the b­ or the d-pawn. b) 20 ... f6 21 i.e3 and White will follow up with f2-f4. c) 20 ...i.. f8 21 f4 (21 i.. h6 repeats the po­ sition; black players would have to take this into account) 21 ...lt:Jc6 (21 ...lt:Jd7 22 e5! looks good for White) 22 lt:Jd5!? (22 i.. f6 also look interesting) 22...exd5 23 cxd5 'ifd7 (23 ... ltac8 24 dxc6 i.xc6 25 i.. f6 'ifb7 26 i..b2 i..g7 27 i..xg7 �xg7 28 lie 1 gives Black problems with his d6-pawn) 24 dxc6 21

Sicilian Kan

�xc6 2S eS dS 26 l:tel and I like White's kingside pawn majority. Going back to Black's 1 9th move, 19 ...l:tad8 20 �xf8 l:txf8 21 f4 tt:'lc6 22 tt:'ldS!? is again promising for White. Per­ haps Black's best is 19 ... �xh6!? 20 'tixh6 and only then 20...l:tad8. 1 9 . . . .!:!.ad8

Edwards later suggested prophylactic defence of the improvement. Given the eventually reaches, it's hard the text move.

19 ... l:tab8, with b6-pawn, as an position Black to be critical of

20 f4! ?

Black wins - Edwards. 28 l:te t looks better, although I still prefer Black after 28 ... l:tce8 29 l:txeS dxeS 30 l:td 1 tt:'lcS 31 tt:'lxcS 'i!VxcS+ 32 lif2 e4 33 'tixcS bxcS. 28 . . ..1:!.ce8 29 lLlc3 lLlf6 30 .!:!.f1 lLlh5 3 1 fxg6 hxg6 3 2 .!:!.f2 'ilt'e7!

The balance of power has shifted very much in Black's favour; the dark squares around White's king are looking vulnerable and Black's last move shows real ambition to exploit this. 33 �g1 'i'h4 34 lLld5 b5 35 .l:!.cf1 ..txd5 36 cxd5 lLlg3 37 .l:!.d 1 lLle2 + 38 �f1 .l:!.e3!

Pushing the f-pawn down the board is double-edged as it creates weaknesses in White's camp. Even though it loses a tempo over the previous note, there is still some­ thing to be said about playing 20 �h6 here. 20 . . . lLld7 21 f5 .!:!.c8

21 ...�a8 (Edwards), so that ...l:tb8 will defend b6, is another sensible move which may be slightly stronger than the text. 22 'ilif2 i.g7 23 .i.f4

23 tt:'la4!? is more ambitious. After 23 ... tt:'lcS (23 ... exfS!? 24 exfS tt:'lcS) 24 f6 �f8 2S tt:'lc3 tt:'ld7 26 l:tfl it's not clear whether the pawn on f6 will turn out to be a strength or a weakness. 23 . . . ..te5 24 .i.xe5 lLlxe5 25 lLla4 lLld7 26 'ilid2?!

White again targets the d6-pawn but Black has some tactical resources. Probably White should prevent Black from opening the e-ftle with 26 fxg6 hxg6 and now 27 'tid4 tt:'lcS (27...�c6 28 tt:'lc3!) 28 lixd6 tt:'lxa4 29 bxa4 'ticS+ 30 'tixcS l:txcS 31 aS! is better for White (3 1 ...l:txaS 32 l:td6!). 26 . . . exf5! 27 exf5 .l:!.e5!

39 .l:!.xe2

This desperate measure is forced. 39 �d3 fails to 39 ...l:txh3! 40 gxh3 'i!Vxh3+ 41 'ite1 (or 41 l:tg2 'tif3+ 42 'itel tt:'lf4+) 41...'i'ht + 42 l:tft 'i'h4+ 43 l:t£2 tt:'ld4+ 44 �e2 tt:'lf3+ 4S 'itft 'i'h1 mate. 39 . . . .l:!.xe2

40

'i'xe2

.l:!.xe2

41

�xe2

'i'h5 + 42 �e 1 'ilt'e5 + 43 �f2 'i'b2 + 44 �f3 �g7 0-1

Game4 Shaposhnikov-Karttunen

Suddenly Black has some freedom and his pieces soon become very active.

Athens 200 1

28 �h 1 ?

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6

This just seems to accelerate Black's pro­ gress on the kingside. The d6-pawn cannot be captured: 28 'tixd6?? l:tel + 29 'it£2 'tixd6 30 l:txd6 l:txcl 31 l:txd7 �c6 and

5 .i.d3 lLlf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4

22

g6 9 lLlc3 .i.g7 1 0 lLlf3 0-0 1 1 .i.f4 lLlc6 1 2 .l:!.fd1

Or 11 l:tdt tt:'lc6 12 �f4. This line (for-

5 il.. d 3 ttJf6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d 6

going h2-h3) was initially White's most popular response, but Black's next move has been responsible for its decline. Note that Black can also answer 12 .l:tacl with 12 ... e5, for example 13 i.e3 i.g4 14 h3 4Jd4 1 5 i.xd4 .ixf3 1 6 'ifxf3 exd4 17 4Jd5 'ifd8 with equality.

12

. . .

e5!?

An amazing idea, which I believe was the invention of Ivan Farago. At first it looks as though Black, who is blocking in his g7bishop and gifting White the d5-square, is committing positional suicide. However, this is not the whole story. Black soon achieves control over the d4-square, which will be reinforced after ... i.g4. It seems that this compensates Black fully and he has excellent chances of equalising. 1 2...4Jd7 reaches positions similar to ones discussed in Game 3, except that White hasn't expended a tempo on the 'semi-useful' h2-h3. You would think that this should be enough to sway the balance of the position in White's favour, but it's not so clear, for example 1 3 lhc1 4Jde5 and now: a) 14 b3 'ife7 1 5 i.b1 see followin g dia gram

with a further split: a1) 1 5 ...l:tb8 1 6 Wh1 !? (or 1 6 i.e3 b6 1 7 4Jd4 4Ja7 1 8 f4 4Jd7 1 9 tLl f3 .ib7 with an edge in Mainka-Chuchelov, Senden 1 998)

1 6. . .b 6 1 7 i.g5! f6 1 8 i.e3 Wh8 1 9 4:'Jd4 4Jxd4 20 .ixd4 4Jc6 21 .ie3 f5 22 'ifd2 was better for White in Ernst-Hjartarson, Ostersund 1 992.

a2) 15 ... .id7 16 4Je1 l:tad8 17 i.e3 f5 1 8 f4 and now, instead o f 1 8 . . .4:'Jg4 1 9 i.b6 .l:tde8 20 exf5 gxf5 21 4Jf3 which was better for White in Hendriks-Chuchelov, Dieren 1 997, Black should play the thematic 1 8 ...4Jf7! lending support to the d6-pawn. b) 1 4 'ife3!? and now: b1) 14 ... 'ife7 1 5 .ie2! .id7 16 4Je1 (pre­ paring i.h6 and f2-f4; at the moment the knight on e5 has no retreat square) 1 6 ... .l:tad8 1 7 i.h6 i.xh6 1 8 'ifxh6 g5 (18 ... f5 1 9 'ifd2 i.c8 20 f4 tLlf7 21 exf5 gxfS 22 .if3 with some advantage to White [Milos]; note that White's light-squared bishop is more active on f3 than it would be on b 1) 1 9 4Jc2 f6 20 4Je3 4Jg6 21 g3 tLlce 5 22 .l:tfl and White, who prepares £2-f4, stood better in Milos-Motwani, Manila Olympiad 1 992. b2) 14 ... 4Jxf3+ (it makes sense to effec­ tively gain a tempo - White has played 'ii'e2-e3xf3) 1 5 'ii'x f3 tLle5 (1 5 ...4:'Jd4 1 6 'ifg3 e 5 1 7 .ie3 .ie6 1 8 4Je2 is better for White - Zeller) 1 6 'ifc3! (a suggestion from Zeller; the queen is better placed on e3 than e2 as it facilitates a possible .ih6 and allows the light-squared bishop to retreat along the d3-f1 diagonal) 1 6 ... .id7 (grabbing on c4 loses: 1 6 ... 4:'Jxc4? 1 7 .ixc4 'ii'xc4 1 8 .ixd6 23

Sicilian Kan

�d8 1 9 l2Jd5) 1 7 i.e2! (again it should be said that the bishop is more active here than on b 1) 17 ...�fc8 18 b3 i.e8 19 'il'd2 and White maintains an edge, Gandalf 4.32g­ Nimzo 8, Cadaques 200 1 . Smooth posi­ tional play from the machine with the white pieces!

f5 with good counterplay, Stefansson-Lutz, Manila Olympiad 1 992. 1 5 h3 i.xf3 1 6 'i'xf3 llld4 1 7 i.xd4 exd4

1 3 i.e3

13 ..ig5?! ..ig4! leaves White with some problems over the threat of ... l2Jd4. Luther­ Farago, Budapest 1991 continued 14 �acl l2Jd4 1 5 'il'e3 .i.x£3 1 6 gx£3 h6! 1 7 i.xh6 ..ixh6 18 'il'xh6 lLix£3+ 19 �g2 l2Jd4 20 lLid5 'il'd8 21 �g1 lLixd5 22 exd5 'il'f6 23 'it>fl 'il'g7 and with both a stronger minor piece and pawn structure, Black stands very well. 1 3 . . . i.g4!

1 8 llle 2

It's unusual for this bishop to be devel­ oped on g4, but on this occasion I believe it's mightily effective. Black begins to lay claim to the d4-square.

18 .I:.xd4 'iVb6! hits b2 and d4, regaining the pawn. However, this might be White's best continuation, as in the game I believe Black might even be slightly better when the players agreed a draw.

1 4 ..tc2

14 h3 leads to early simplification into a totally level position: 14 ...l2Jd4 1 5 i.xd4 exd4 1 6 l2Jd5 i.x£3 1 7 'il'x£3 1!2-1/2 Z.Almasi-Farago, Hungarian Championship 1 992.

1 8 . . . llld 7 1 9 lllx d4 llle 5 20 'i'e2 lllxc4 21 ..tb3 :tea 22 :ac 1 b5 23 'i'd3 Y:z-Y:z

Game 5 Adams-Kobalija

FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1999 1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lllx d4 a6 5 ..td3 lllf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4 g6 9 lllc3 ..tg7 1 0 lllf3 0-0 1 1 i.f4

1 4 . . . :ac8! ?

Also perfectly acceptable for Black is 14 ... l2Jd7 15 l2Jd5 'il'd8 1 6 h3 ..ix£3 17 'il'x£3 lLic5 1 8 'il'e2 lLie6 (taking complete control over d4) 19 'il'd2 tLicd4 20 i.d3 �b8 21 f3 24

If White chooses to play 1 1 �d1 first then Black has to be slightly careful if he wishes to play ...t2Jbd7 and ...l2Jg4 (although it has to be said that this line looks good for White in any case - see below) . a) The immediate 1 1 ...lLibd7 can be an­ swered by 1 2 h3!?, preventing Black from playing ...l2Jg4 and thus giving Black less options. 12 ... b6 13 ..if4 (1 3 ..ie3!?) and now: a 1) 13. .. i.b7?! 14 l:tacl l2Je5 1 5 lLixe5 dxe5 16 i.e3 and Black has no compensa­ tion for White's active queenside pawn rna-

5 � d3 ti:J f6 6 0 - 0 ike 7 7 ii e 2 d6

jority, Hamdouchi-L.Marin, Sitges 1 999. a2) 1 3...ltJh5 14 ..1d2!? (preventing the pawn-crippling ... ..ixc3; 14 ..1e3 ..1xc3 1 5 bxc3 is similar to the main game) 1 4.....1b7 1 5 l:.acl l:.ac8 1 6 b3 l:r.fe8 17 ..1e3 (17 ..ib 1 is safer) 17 ...ltJc5 1 8 ..ibt and now, instead of 1 8 ... ..1ffi 19 ltJh2! ltJf6 20 ltJg4 ltJxg4 21 hxg4 giving White a pleasant position in Kalod-Chuchelov, Cappelle Ia Grande 2002, I believe Black should grab the pawn with 1 8 ... ..1xc3 1 9 l:.xc3 ltJxe4. White certainly has compensation for the pawn, but whether this is enough to give him the ad­ vantage is another matter. b) t t ...ltJg4 12 ..1f4 (12 h3 ltJe5 13 ltJxe5 dxe5! and Black can follow up with ... ltJc6d4) 1 2...ltJd7 transposes to the note to Black's 1 2th move. 1 1 . . . ti:Jbd7

This move used to be Black's most popular choice but it has now been super­ seded by the more flexible 1 1...ltJc6. Again Black can continue with 1 1 ... ltJg4 if he is worried about White preventing this with h2-h3; 1 2 l:.fd t ltJd7 transposes into the note to Black's twelfth move. Also pos­ sible is 1 t ...ltJh5!?, hitting f4 and c3 before White has the chance to defend the c3knight with l:.ac l . 1 2 ltfd1

In his notes to this game in Informator, Adams suggests 1 2 l:.acl !?, giving the c3knight some added support and thus taking

some of the sting out of ...ltJh5. a) 12 ... ltJg4 13 l:r.fd 1 leads to the note to Black's 1 2th move. b) 12 ...ltJh5 may be the best move in any case; at least the pressure on d6 is relieved for the time being: 1 3 ..ie3 b6 14 l:.fdl ..ib7 15 'tid2 ltJhf6!? (15 ...l:.fe8 may be more accurate; Black can always defend with ... i.ffi) 1 6 ..1e2!? ltJxe4 (16 ... ltJe8? 1 7 b4 l:tc8 1 8 ..if4 ltJe5 1 9 ltJxe5 dxe5 20 ..1e3 again left Black with no compensation for White's queenside advantage in Gromotka­ Podzielny, correspondence 1 996) 17 ltJxe4 ..1xe4 18 'tixd6 l:.a7! and Black is just about okay. 1 2 . ti:Jh5!? . .

The older move is 1 2 ...ltJg4 but White has good chances to secure an advantage against this. The game continues with 1 3 l:tac 1 and now: a) 13. .. ltJde5 1 4 h3 ltJxf3+ 1 5 'tixf3 ltJe5 16 'tie3 transposes to note 'b2' to Black's twelfth move in Game 4, except that White has the extra move h2-h3. This was already quite pleasant for White and the extra move is a bonus. b) 13 ...ltJge5 14 ltJxe5 and now: bl) 14 ... dxe5?! has been suggested in at least one source, but I don't see the point. After 1 5 ..1e3! Black has no active plan and White will push on the queenside with the b2-b4 advance; this is obviously better for White. b2) 1 4...ltJxe5 1 5 'tid2 l:.e8 16 ..1e2 ..iffi (De Vreugt-Bosboom, Dieren 1 999) and now I like 1 7 'tid4! ltJc6 18 'tie3 and Black is under some pressure from threats of ltJa4 and c4-c5. c) 1 3. .. b6 14 'tid2! (planning to retreat the bishop to e2 or ft ; this plan of Lastin's looks stronger than the previous 1 4 b3 and 1 5 ..ibl) 14 ...ltJde5 (14.....1b7 1 5 .1ft gives Black serious problems with his d-pawn: 1 5 ... ..1xc3 16 .ttxc3 e5 1 7 'tixd6 'tixd6 1 8 l:.xd6 ltJc5 1 9 ltJxe5! ltJxe5 20 ..1xe5 ltJxe4 21 l:.xb6 ltJxc3 22 l:.xb7 is very strong) 1 5 25

Sicilian Ka n

�e2 l:td8 1 6 �g5 f6 (or 1 6 ...l:td7 1 7 lL'ld4 h6 1 8 .th4 g5 1 9 .tg3 .tb7 20 h4 gxh4 21 .txh4 Wh7 22 l2Jd5! exd5 23 cxd5 'tlib8 24 f4 'ii'g8 25 lL'lf5 1 -0 Lastin-Shaposhnikov, Moscow 1 999) 17 lL'lxe5 lL'lxe5 18 �e3 18 ... l:.b8 19 b3 lL'lf7 20 f4 f5 21 exf5 gxf5 22 .th5! and Black has trouble developing his c8-bishop, Lastin-Kobalija, Elista 200 1 . For example, 22...�b7 is met by 23 'ii f2 .tc6 24 lL'ld5! (Ribli). 1 3 ..te3

1 4 bxc3 e 5

Naturally Black attempts to regain some control over the dark squares. Adams also mentions the sensible-looking 1 4...b6, pre­ paring to develop the bishop on b7. 1 5 ..th6 .l:!.e8 1 6 �e3 lt:\c5 1 7 h3

Preventing ... .tg4. 1 7 . . . ..te6

17 ... .td7, preparing . . ..tc6 (Adams), may be stronger. 1 8 ..te2 lt:\f6 1 9 lt:\d2 'it>hB

13 .tg5 invites Black to do the same: 15 ... .txc3 14 bxc3 e5 15 'ii'd2 lL'lc5 1 6 .tc2 f6 17 .te3 l:td8 18 'iie 2 .te6 with an equal position, Kulaots-J.Bellin, Gausdal 2000. The safe 13 �d2 leads to positions simi­ lar to the those studied in note 'b' to White's twelfth move, but White's bishop is less active on d2 and Black has a reasonable chance to equalise: 13 ... b6 14 !tact .tb7 1 5 �e3 ltac8 1 6 .tb1 l:tfd8 1 7 h3 'iib 8 1 8 b3 b5!, Nijboer-Bosboom, Wijk aan Zee 1 991 is another example of a successful black strategy. 1 3 . . . ..txc3! ?

Black has completed his plan that began with 1 3 ....txc3 and has achieved a very solid position, despite the absence of the dark­ squared bishop. Nevertheless, White still holds a slight edge. The problem is that, although Black is extremely solid at the moment, at some point the position is likely to open up and then Black may feel the pinch on those dark squares. This is indeed what happens in the game. 20 ..tg5 lt:\gB 21

�g3 �c6 22 ..te3

.!:!.adS 23 .l:!.ab1 .l:!.d7 24 .U.b4 f6 25 f3 �cB 26 �f2 lt:\e7 27 lt:lb3!? lt:\xb3 28 axb3 b5 29 cxb5 a5 30 .l:!.c4! ..txc4 3 1

Again we meet this outwardly-shocking idea of giving up control of the dark squares. The compensation, as always, is the infliction of doubled isolated c-pawns on the white camp and the chance to find use­ ful outposts for the knights. 13 ... b6 14 !tact .tb7 transposes to note 'b' to White's twelfth move. 26

..txc4 d5 3 2 exd5 a 4 3 3 .i.c5 axb3 34 ..txb3 lt:lf5 35 b6 �a6 36 g4 �b5 37 .l:!.b1 lt:\d6 38 ..tc2 �a6 39 .U.b4 lt:lb7? 40 ..ta4 l:!.xd5 4 1 ..txeB .l:!.xc5 42 .l:!.a4! �d3 43

.l:!.aB

�b 1 +

44

'it>g2

�xb6

45

..txg6 + 'it>g7 46 ..txh7 .l:!.b5 47 �xb6 .l:!.xb6 48 .i.e4 .l:!.b2 + 49 'it>g3 lt:\d6 50 .l:!.a7 + 'it>fB 51 .i.d5 .U.c2 52 .l:!.d7 1 -0

5 i. d3 &iJ f6 6 0 - 0 ik c 7 7 ik e 2 d6

Game 6 Johnson-West

Comspondence 1997 1 e4 c5 2 &iJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 &iJxd4 a6 5 i.d3 &iJf6 6 0-0 ikc7 7 ike2 d6 8 c4 g6 9 &iJc3 i.g7 10 i.e3 0-0 1 1 .l:!.ac1 &iJbd7 1 2 l:tfd1 b6

Black has the opportunity here to change the character of the position by trading his d7-knight for White's light-squared bishop: 1 2...tt:'!eS!? 13 f3 i.d7 14 b3 :ac8 1 S 'ii'd2 (1S i.b1 !?) 1 S ... tt:'!xd3 1 6 'lixd3 1:tfd8 1 7 tt:'!de2 tt:'!e8 1 8 'it>h 1 'ii'aS 1 9 i.d2 'lieS 20 tt:'!f4 'Wa3 21 i.e3 'WaS 22 i.d2 'lia3 23 .U.c2 bS! and Black was fine in the game Vogt­ Bischoff, Baden-Baden 1 992. Considering the ease with which Black gains equality here, it's surprising that this idea hasn't been seen more often. 1 3 f3 i.b7

Here we see a totally different approach from White, who very much adopts an 'anti-Hedgehog' formation. The first thing to notice is White's particularly solid king­ side structure. The e4-f3-g2 pawn formation very much blunts the power of the b7bishop and it's unlikely that White will be provoked into changing this structure with­ out good reason. With his kingside well protected, White will aim to attack Black on the queenside. A typical and dangerous plan

involves b2-b4, tt:'!d4-b3 and a2-a4-aS. With the exchange of a-pawn for b-pawn, Black's queenside structure is more vulnerable and White also has a chance to create a powerful passed pawn with c4-cS. If Black finds no answer to this plan then his position can soon become critical. He has to sit tight and look for opportunities to break with either ... b6-bS or, more likely, ... d6-dS. If Black can arrange a successful advance then usu­ ally his problems are over, but White will not allow this to happen without a fight. Sometimes Black even has to consider play­ ing ... d6-dS as a pawn sacrifice. 1 4 'i'f2 l:tac8 1 5 i.f1

1 4 'lif2 and 1S i.ft is typical prophylaxis from White. The light-squared bishop moves out of range from attack via ...tt:'!cS or ...tt:'!eS and White removes some wood from the d-fJ.!e, uncovering the potential of the d 1 -rook. 1 5 . . JUe8! ?

A good square for the rook as after . . .d6dS the e-fJ.!e may well be opened. If Black wishes to avoid the next note, then he can play 1 S ...'Iib8 16 b4 and only then 1 6 ...:fe8. Given the precariousness of Black's posi­ tion in this game, it's certainly worth explor­ ing different ways of creating counterplay against White's super-solid structure. One idea is 1 S ... tt:'!hS!?, for example 1 6 b4 i.eS (with the idea of ... d6-dS) 1 7 g3 l:tfe8 18 f4 (18 tt:'!b3, keeping the pawn on f3, looks stronger) 1 8...i.g7 and Black can be very happy with his work. White has been lured forward on the kingside and is now sof­ tened up along the h1 -a8 diagonal. Black's b7 -bishop has come to life and suddenly Black has ready-made counterplay against c4 and e4 (Kalod-Movsesian, Zlin 1 997). 1 6 b4

Black's move order allows White the tac­ tical possibility of 1 6 tt:'!dbS!? axbS 1 7 tt:'!xbS 'Wb8 1 8 tt:'!xd6 when White will obtain a rook and two pawns for two knights. If 27

Sicilian Kan

White can create passed pawns on the queenside then Black may struggle, but this is all very double-edged as Black certainly benefits from having an extra piece in the middlegame. The game Browne-Petrosian, Milan 1 975 is rather unhelpful: after 1 8... .ic6 1 9 b3 .if8 20 tt'lxe8 .l:txe8 21 �d2 the players decided to call it a day. I t seems that most white players are reluctant to re­ linquish their positional edge to reach such an unclear position. 1 6 . . .'i'b8

Removing the queen from the c-ft!e and thus lining up the option of ... d6-d5. 1 7 lLlbJ

tt'lxc8 .l:txc8 was a speculative exchange sacrifice which worked in the game Kaeser­ Podzielny, Dortmund 1 992, but shouldn't give Black enough compensation. c) 17 ....ia8 18 cS! again looks strong. d) 1 7 ... .if8 has been played a few times but surprisingly I can't find any examples of the obvious 1 8 .ixb6. West believes accept­ ing the sacrifice is critical and calls Black's compensation 'nebulous'. I agree with him - I don't think Black's position is strong enough to be so bold with this sacrifice: after 18 ... tt'lxb6 19 ifxb6 both 19 ... d5 20 exdS tt'ld7 21 'i!fd4 exdS 22 tt'lxdS and 1 9 ... .ih6 20 .l:tc2 dS 21 exdS .if4 22 g3 .ic7 23 iff2 exdS 24 cS seem to fall short for Black. 1 8 a4

White continues with the logical plan of a4-a5. I also think that the direct 18 tt'la4 .ia8 1 9 cS!? is worth considering: 1 9 ... b5 (or 1 9 ...bxc5 20 bxcS dxcS 21 tt'laxcS tt'lxcS 22 tt'lxcS aS 23 ife1 and Black's a-pawn will be picked off) 20 tt'lb6 tt'lxb6 21 cxb6 .l:txct 22 .l:txcl and White's passed b-pawn looks dangerous. 1 8 . . . d5!?

White's queenside play is beginning to look threatening. Already the b6-pawn is attacked. 1 7 . . J:tc6 !?

'[fhis move] looks ugly (and downright bad!) but actually it gives nothing away and has some points that are not immediately obvious' - Guy West. I imagine the Austra­ lian IM finally got round to this move after discovering faults with Black's alternatives. a) A fter 17 ....ic6 West likes the direct 1 8 cS, highlighting a problem with Black's pre­ vious move: it leaves the a-pawn unde­ fended. 1 8 ...bxc5 (or 1 8... dxc5 19 .ixa6 and Black cannot avoid material loss) 19 bxcS tt'lxcS 20 tt'lxcS dxcS 21 .ixa6 .l:tcd8 22 .ixcS and White is just a clear pawn up. b) 17 ... tt'le5 1 8 tt'la4! dS 19 tt'lxb6 dxe4 20 28

Imaginative play. With Black's rook blocking the bishop on b7, this thematic move looks unplayable here, but Black does have some resources. The continuation 1 8 ...tt'le5 19 bS .l:tcc8 20 .ixb6 tt'lxc4 21 .ia7 ifa8 22 .id4 .l:ted8 23 .ixc4 .l:txc4 24 tt'laS .l:tcc8 25 b6 .l:td7 26 �b2 tt'le8 27 .ixg7 tt'lxg7 28 eS left Black in big trouble in Branding-Haufe, corre­ spondence 1 998. 1 9 b5!?

1 9 cxdS ('fantastically complicated' West) must be critical. West believes that Black can hold the balance but keeps his analysis to himself (and why not?): 1 9 ... exd5 20 exdS (20 tt'lxdS tt'lxdS 21 exdS .l:txcl 22 tt'lxcl 'i!fd6 and Black has typical compensa­ tion in the form of targets at dS and b4 plus a more solid structure on the kingside; 20

5 � d 3 tl:J f6 6 0 - 0 'ike 7 7 'ii e 2 d6

b5 axb5 21 .txb5 reaches the game posi­ tion) 20 .. Jhc3!? (20 .. J:td6 21 i.f4 lt'le5 22 lt'ld2! looks good for White) 21 �xc3 lt'lg4 22 fxg4 .ixc3 looks like the most important line. Does Black really have enough for the pawn? I don't believe so.

to many players this is an enticing strategy but Black, with his fianchettoed bishop providing extra cover, is ready for White to throw in the proverbial kitchen sink.

1 9 . . . axb5 20 cxd5

After 20 axb5 Black can choose between 20... �d6!? and 20 ...l::tcc8 21 cxd5 exd5 22 lt'lxd5 lt'lxd5 23 cxd5 1Wd6. In the latter case I certainly agree with West that Black has enough counterplay. He follows up this assessment with the line 24 i.c4? 1Wa3!, when it is difficult to deal with the threat of ...�xc4. 20 . . . exd5 21 �xb5 dxe4! 22 tl:Jxe4!

White can grab the exchange for a pawn with 22 .ixc6 i.xc6 but Black always has good practical chances in this type of posi­ tion. 22 . . . tl:Jxe4 23 fxe4 tl:Je5!

Another offer of the exchange. 24 h3

Again White declines. 24 i.xc6 .ixc6 again promises Black good compensation both a4 and e4 are attacked while ...lt'lg4 is also in the air. 24 . . Jbc1 25 llxc 1 :d8

Threatening to exchange knight for bishop with ...lt'ld3. The b6-pawn remains very weak but this is counterbalanced by the vulnerability of the e4-pawn - the position is more or less equal. 26 :t1 .be4 27 .txb6 :c8 28 :c 1 ! l:txc 1 + 29 tl:Jxc 1 'ikd6 % - %

Game l Borngaesser-Lau

Essen 1996 1 e4 c5 2 tl:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tl:Jxd4 a6 5 i.d3 tl:Jf6 6 0-0 'ikc7 7 fie2 d6 8 c4 g6 9 tl:Jc3 �g7 1 0 f4

Raw aggression! What happens if White goes for glory on the kingside against Black's solid structure? It must be said that

1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 tl:Jf3

White retreats the knight for kingside operations and prepares a possible e4-e5. But what happens if White lunges forward in 'caveman' fashion? Kan players should not be unduly worried by such shows of aggressiOn: a) 1 1 e5?! is premature: 1 1 ...dxe5 12 fxe5 lt'lfd7 shows a big advantage in developing the bishop on g7 rather than e7. Black's kingside is rock-solid (there are certainly no worries about threats on h7 as there would be without ...g7-g6) . Furthermore, White's e5-pawn is a major weakness which could fall at any moment: 13 .if4 lt'lxe5 14 �ae1 lt'lbd7 1 5 �h 1 1Wd6 and White has run out of good moves. b) 1 1 f5!?, however, deserves more re­ spect. White activates the rook on f1 and adds pressure to the e6-pawn. He docs, though, give away the important e5-square. White players should never give away this square lightly as a black knight will find it to be a wonderful outpost: 1 1 .. ..l::te 8 1 2 fxe6 fxe6 13 'iti>h 1 lt'lfd7! (heading for e5) 14 .ie3 lt'lc5 15 �acl b6 16 b3 .ib7 and the players rather unhelpfully agreed a draw in Luther­ Kochycv, Leningrad 1 989. Black is com­ fortable in the final position. White has no 29

Sicilian Kan

entry squares on the f-Ele, the knight on e5 is a powerful beast and Black can follow up with ...lt:Jb8-d7-c5. 1 1 . . . b6 1 2 �d2 �b7

to do anything constructive without allow­ ing Black to break in the centre or on the queen side. b) 14 .. .l:he8!? (Black counter-attacks where White believes he is strongest - on the kingside!) 1 5 b3 lt:Jh5! 16 l:tfe 1 (White can push the knight back with 1 6 g4 lt:Jhf6 but it's very possible that White will later feel the draught around his king, especially if the a8-h1 diagonal opens up) 1 6... ..i.h6 1 7 g3 f5! 1 8 ..i.b1 lt:Jdf6 and Black's bishop on b7 is a marvellous piece, Matulovic-Cvitan, Yugoslav Championship 1 988. 1 4 . . . l:tac8 1 5 1Vf2

A typicai manoeuvre. White's queen is heading for h4, where it hopes to participate in a kingside attack. 1 3 l:tac1

1 5 . . . 1Vb8 1 6 1Vh4

A prophylactic move. White wishes to play b2-b4 (to prevent ...lt:Jd7-c5) and thus takes his rook off the long a 1 -h8 diagonal to avoid tricks. More direct attempts are not dangerous for Black. a) 13 e5? is again too rushed and White may simply end up a pawn down: 1 3 ...dxe5 14 fxe5 lt:Jfd7 15 if4 ..i.xf3! 16 :xf3 lt:Jc6 and Black threatens both the e5-pawn and ...lt:Jd4. b) 13 l:he1 lt:Jbd7 14 e5?! isn't much bet­ ter: 14 ... dxe5 1 5 fxe5 lt:Jg4 16 if4 ..i.xf3 1 7 l:txf3 lt:Jgxe5 1 8 l:te3 11ad8 and White has litde to show for his pawn.

1 6 . . . b5!

1 3 . . . lt:lbd7 1 4 b4

14 �h 1 is a typical prophylactic move for White in the Kan: in one go White solves any problems with tactics involving a check along the g 1 -a7 diagonal. Whether this is worth expending a tempo over is a long-running debate in many positions. a) 14 ... l:tac8 (the traditional way) 1 5 b4 'iib 8 (vacating the c-flie and unleashing the power of the c8-rook; Black is eyeing up opportunities to break with either ... b6-b5 or ... d6-d5) 16 ..i.e3 'ifa8! 1 7 lt:Jd2 l:tfe8 with a finely balanced position, Zude-Hulak, Bundesliga 1 990. It's very difficult for White 30

Striving for the initiative on the queen­ side. Tactics against the e4-pawn and White's king on the long diagonal support this lunge. 1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8 ..txb5?

White cannot resist the pawn, but after this move his centre collapses. 1 8 i.e3 looks stronger. 1 8 . . . ..txe4!

1 9 �xd7 1Va7 +

20 Wh 1

1Vxd7

Black possesses the centre pawns and the control they give is far more important than any endgame potential of White's passed pawns on the queenside. It's safe to say that

5 JJ.. d3 0, (6 6 0 - 0 'i'c 7 7 'i' e 2 d 6

Black is already clearly better. White's next move blunders a pawn, after which he lost the will to continue.

21 b5? i.d3 0-1

Game 8 Short-Sax

Amsterdam 1983 1 e4 c5 2 0,t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0,xd4 a6 5 JJ.. d 3 0,t6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4

Note that the actual move order to this game was 8 b3 ll'lbd7 9 c4 g6 10 i.b2 ..tg7 1 1 lt:'lc3 0-0 1 2 �ad1 b6 1 3 ..tb1 i.b7 but I have tinkered with it to include other possi­ bilities. B . . g6 9 b3 .

When discussing move orders, it should be mentioned that 9 ll'lc3 ..tg7 10 b3 is slightly inaccurate as it gives Black the op­ tion to break with 10 ... b5!?, taking advan­ tage of the undefended c3-knight. 9 . . . JJ..g7 1 0 JJ.. b 2 0-0 1 1 0,c3

This is another popular set-up for White. In my opinion, the fianchetto of the c l ­ bishop gives a harmonious 'feel' t o the White position - his pieces look to be on nice squares. White will try to attack in the centre (pressure down the d-flie) and the kingside. Nevertheless, Black's solid king­ side structure, aided by the fianchetto, is well set up to oppose White's ideas. This queenside fianchetto is more successful

when employed against classical black de­ velopment (see Games 10 and 1 1 ).

Another option for White is to develop his knight on d2: 1 1 lL'ld2 lL'lbd7 1 2 �act b6 13 �h1 ..tb7 14 ..tb1 �feB 1 5 f4 and now 1 5 ... e5! shows a disadvantage in White's choice of square - there is no knight ready to jump into the ourpost on d5. Gyimesi­ Farago, Pula 2000 concluded 1 6 fxe5 dxe5 17 ll'l4f3 ll'lh5 18 'ii'f2 1/2-1h. One can say that Black is certainly not worse in the final position. 1 1 . . .b6 1 2 :ad1

White continues to improve his pieces the rook can add pressure to the slightly vulnerable d6-pawn. The 'caveman' approach is too crude to succeed: 12 f4 ll'lbd7 1 3 �act i.b7 and now: a) 1 4 e5? dxc5 1 5 fxe5 ll'lh5 and the e­ pawn just drops off the board. b) 14 f5?! �ae8! 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 and White has achieved nothing except to give away the e5-ourpost. 1 2 . . . JJ.. b 7 1 3 JJ.. b 1 0,bd7

The typical Kan move, but 13 ...ll'lc6 is also not bad: 14 ll'lxc6 ..txc6 1 5 �d2 l:lfd8 1 6 �fd1 (Hi.ibner-Lutz, Baden-Baden 1 992) and now Hi.ibner suggests 1 6 ...lt:'ld7!?, an­ swering 17 l:.xd6 with 17 ... ..te5. 14 �h 1

Note that the immediate advance 14 f4 should be answered by 1 4...e5!, as in the 31

Sicilia n Kan

game.

Game 9

1 4 . . JHe8 1 5 f4 e5!

Trapl-Tompa

Decin 1977 1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 5 ..id3 lt:'lf6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 d6 8 c4 i.e7

Finally we come to the classical devel­ opment of the f8-bishop. Advantages over the fianchetto include the saving of a tempo, no weakening of the dark squares and better protection of the d6-pawn. The main disadvantage is that Black's kingside is less well protected. An important defensive thrust in the Kan which highlights another positive feature of the kingside fianchetto: ... e6-e5 becomes much more playable as White's knight no longer has access to the fS-square, such an important point for White's attacking ambi­ tions. As for the qualities of ... eS, it's true that Black gives away the dS-square, but this is compensated for by the acquisition of the eS-square and pressure against White's iso­ lated e-pawn. Black is certainly not without counterplay. Strangely enough, 1 5 ... i.f8 would trans­ pose to the note to Black's 1 4th move in Game to (which was fine for Black), al­ though of course it looks ridiculous to play it here! 1 6 fxe5 lt:'lxe5 1 7 J:t.de1 b5!?

Now the game explodes into unclear complications. If Black wishes to play more quietly, then 1 7 ...l::te7 with a possible dou­ bling on the e-ftle makes sense. 1 8 cxb5 d5! 1 9 J:t.xf6! ? i.xf6 20 bxa6 i.xa6 21 lt:'lxd5 'i'd6 22 lt:'lb5 ..ixb5 23 lt:'lxf6 +

'i'xf6 24 'i'xb5 'i'f2 25 ..ic3

lt:'lg4 26 'i'g5 l:lac8 27 i.b4 'i'd4 28 'i'xg4 'i'xb4 29 J:t.f1 'i'd2 30 'i'f3 J:t.e7 31 h4 J:t.c3 32 'i'f6 l:td7 33 'it>h2 l:tc 1 34 ..id3 .l:!.xf1 35 i.xf1 'i'e 1 36 'i'f4 J:t.e7 37 ..id3 h5 38 'i'g5?? l:t.d7 ! 39 i.b5 J:t.d 1 40 'i'f4 'i'g1 + 41 'ith3 l:te1 0-1 32

9 lt:'lc3 0-0

1 0 'ith 1

Once again we see this prophylactic idea, clearing the king from possible tactics along the long gl -a7 diagonal. John Nunn has also described such moves as 'lazy' - White can't be bothered to work out the tactics on every move so he gets rid of the possibility. On this occasion there is a case for deleting it, or at least postponing it for the time being. The extra tempo could, after all, prove to be very useful in building up a strong attack. More aggressive is 10 f4!? and now: a) 10 ...lt::lc 6?! 1 1 lt::lx c6! bxc6 (or t t . . .'ilt'xc6 12 eS dxeS 1 3 fxeS lt::ld7 14 i.f4 and White can freely build up a kingside attack; note that Black has much less pressure on eS without the bishop on g7) 1 2 eS lt::ld7 (or

5 i. d3 lD f6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d6

1 2... dxe5 1 3 fxe5 lLld7 14 i.f4!) 1 3 exd6 i.xd6 1 4 lLle4 1l..e 7 1 5 b3! c5 1 6 1l..b 2 i.b7 17 f5! exf5 1 8 .l:txf5 and White's pieces point ominously towards the kingside, Ryt­ shagov-Hellsten, Asker 1 997. b) 10 ... b6 (I can find no games with this move, which is hardly surprising as it looks very risky at best) and now: b1) 1 1 i.d2 i.b7 1 2 .l:tae1 lLlc6! (if Black still has the option, ...lLlc6 is often very ef­ fective against i.d2, .l:tae1 plans as it leaves the d7-square available for the other knight; of course, Black is often already committed to playing ...ltJbd7) 13 lLlxc6 11..xc6 looks okay for Black. Note that 14 lLld5? doesn't work here: 14 ... exd5 15 exd5 i.d7 16 'tlr'xe7 .l:tae8 and the queen is trapped. b2) 1 1 e5! (why not?) 1 1 ... dxe5 1 2 fxe5 lLlfd7 13 i.f4! (13 'tlr'e4?! wins a rook but after 13 ... g6 14 'tlr'xa8? i.b7 15 'tlr'a7 i.c5 1 6 i.e3 i.xd4 1 7 i.xd4 lLlc6 White's queen is trapped; this resource is definitely worth remembering) 1 3 ... i.b7 1 4 lLle4 and White's pieces flood into the centre. Black already has to watch out for ideas such as lLlf6+, while 14 ...lLlxe5 15 'tlr'h5 f5 1 6 lLlxe6 looks very dangerous. c) 10 ...lLlbd7 is the most sensible move; Black prevents e4-e5 for the time being: 1 1 i.d2 b6 1 2 l:he1 (renewing the idea o f e4e5) with a further split: c1) 12 ... .l:td8!? provides an antidote against e4-e5; 13 e5? dxe5 1 4 fxe5 'tlr'xe5 1 5 'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 leaves the d4-knight e n prise; this is a common resource for Black. White can transpose into the main game with 1 3 'it>h1 i.b7, when Black has already commit­ ted his f8-rook to d8. c2) 1 2 ...i.b7 see following diagram

1 3 e5!? (fhis is absolutely critical, al­ though I can find no games from this posi­ tion! 13 'it>h 1 would transpose into the main game.) 13 ... dxe5 14 fxe5 and now we have the following:

c21) 1 4...'tlr'xe5 is less effective here than in the note 'e3' to Black's 1 3th move: 1 5 'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 1 6 .l:txe5 .l:tad8 1 7 lLlce2 i.c5 (17 ... lLlg4 18 .l:th5 g6 19 .l:th3 i.cS 20 .l:tf4! h5 21 b4 and White wins) 1 8 i.c3 lLld7 1 9 .l:txc5 lLlxc5 20 i.c2 and White's two pieces outweigh the rook and pawn. c22) 1 4... i.c5! 1 5 .l:tf4! (15 exf6 i.xd4+ 16 'it>h 1 lLlxf6 gives White nothing).

In this position both sides must tread ex­ tremely carefully: c221) 1 5 ...lLle8 is 'safe' but not the way to play; it does nothing to oppose White's attack. After 1 6 lLla4 White has a clear plus. c222) 15 ... 'tlr'xe5 16 'tlr'xe5 lLlxe5 17 .l:txe5 .l:tad8 1 8 lLlce2 lLld7 19 ne3 e5 20 .l:th4 g6 21 lLlb3 f5 22 g3! and White is better. c223) 1 5 ...l::. fd8 16 exf6 lLlxf6 17 i.e3 (17 'tli'f2 e5 18 nxf6 .l:txd4! is good for Black) 1 7 ...e5 1 8 l::.x f6 exd4 1 9 lLld5! 'tlr'e5! (other 33

Sicilian Ka n

moves lose: 1 9 ... j_xd5 20 j_f4 �d7 21 �h5 h6 22 cxd5 gxf6 23 �xh6, or 1 9 ...l:txd5 20 j_f4 'iid7 21 cxd5 gxf6 22 'iih5) 20 l:tf5 l:txd5! 21 cxd5 'iix e3+ 22 �ft g6 and Black has a pawn and reasonable compensation for the exchange. c224) 1 5 ...l:tad8 (there are some small differences if Black chooses this rook) 1 6 exf6 ttJxf6 1 7 j_e3 e 5 1 8 l:txf6 exd4 1 9 ttJd5! �e5! ( 1 9. . .j_xd5 2 0 j.h6! j_e6 2 1 j_xg7! �xg7 22 'iih 5 �xf6 23 'iih4+ �g7 24 'iix h7+ �f6 25 'iih 4+ �g7 26 'iig 5+ �h8 27 �h6+ �g8 28 �h7 is mate; 19 ... l:txd5 20 j_h6! l:te5! 21 'iixe5 'iix e5 22 l:txe5 gxf6 23 l:txc5 bxc5 24 j_xh7+ �xh7 25 j_xf8 d3 26 �£2 j_xg2 27 j_xc5 i.e4 28 j_e3 f5 29 b4 is probably a winning ending for White) 20 j_xh7+!? (20 l:tf5 l:txd5 21 cxd5 'iix e3+ is again unclear) 20 ... �xh7 21 �d3+ �g8 22 i.d2 l:txd5 23 l:txe5 l:txe5 and this is still difficult to assess - Black has quite good compensation for the queen. Crazy sruff, but it hammers home one point: Black must be very well prepared and resourceful against these quick-fire attacks from White. White's 'gain' of a tempo by avoiding �g1 -h1 very much raises the stakes - one small mistake from either side could prove to be devastating. Generally in the i.d3 lines White aims for an attack on the king, but it should be pointed out that White can also adopt the anti-Hedgehog set-up with, for example, 10 j_e3 tiJbd7 11 l:tacl b6 1 2 f3 j.b7 1 3 l:tfd1 l:tac8. This position is more often reached via 5 c4 and will be discussed in Chapter 9. 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 f4 lLlbd7

More sensible than 1 1 ...j.b7, which al­ lows 12 e5!. 1 2 i.d2

For 12 b3, see Game 10. The immediate 12 f5 is answered simply by 1 2 ...ttJe5!. I n general White should wait for Black to commit himself to ...j_b7 be­ fore playing f4-f5, so that the light-squared bishop no longer defends e6. 34

It's important for Black to know how to react to the hyper-aggressive 1 2 g4!?, despite the fact that I can find hardly any games with this move.

Black always has to be careful of the g2g4-g5 thrust. This is even more dangerous if Black is already committed to ...ttJbd7 so that the d7-square is not vacant for a ... t2Jf6d7 retreat. Deprived of this square, the knight may have to do with the inferior e8 square, from where it is far less influential. Black's choices are: a) 12 ... d5? 13 cxd5 exd5 1 4 e5! with a clear plus for White. b) 12 ... ttJc5 13 j.b1 j.b7 14 g5 tDe8 (14...ttJfd7 loses a piece to 15 b4; this is the problem with having both knights on the same circuit) 1 5 f5 exf5 (or 1 5 ...e5 16 ttJf3 b5 1 7 tiJd5 j_xd5 1 8 cxd5) 1 6 ttJxf5 j_d8 17 ttJd5 i.xd5 18 exd5 and White has strong pressure on the kingside, Pallova­ Palkova, Chrudim 1 994. c) 12 ... h6!? 13 h4 (13 g5 hxg5 14 fxg5 tDe8 1 5 g6 tDe5 1 6 gxf7 + t2Jxf7 is okay for Black) and now: cl) 13 ...ttJc5 1 4 i.c2 e5 (or 14 ... j.b7 1 5 g5 hxg5 1 6 hxg5 tiJh7 1 7 l:t£2, followed by l:th2) 1 5 tiJf5 i.xf5 1 6 gxf5 and again the strucrure favours White. c2) 13 ... h5! (it's worth sacrificing the h­ pawn to negate White's kingside charge) 1 4 gxh5 ttJc5 1 5 h 6 g6! looks okay for Black. d) 12 ... g6! (this looks best) 13 g5 ttJh5 1 4

5 .1L d 3 ti'J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6

fS lLleS 1 5 f6 .i.dS and Black can be happy. The bishop is misplaced on dS but both knights are on strong outposts. White's pawns on f6 and gS look awesome but it's very difficult for White to make progress and indeed Black could eventually try to dismantle them with a timely ... h7-h6. 12

. . .

�b7

I f Black is concerned about White's pos­ sibility in the next note and doesn't mind transposing into note 'e' to Black's 13th move, then he could employ the move or­ der 1 2 ... .:.cs, answering 1 3 fS with 13 ....i.f8! keeping the structure intact. 1 3 l:tae 1

This is White's most aggressive set-up. Note that the bishop is better placed on d2 rather than e3 as it doesn't obstruct White's major pieces on the c-fJ..!e. It seems that the threat is very much e4-e5, or is it? Sec note 'c' to Black's 1 3th move. As an alternative, attacking with 13 fS!? certainly springs to mind, especially as Black doesn't have time to defend e6 with ... :reS and ....i.f8 (or ...:aeS and ....i.dS). Black can continue with: a) 13 ...e5 14 lLlc2 lL:lcS (14...b5 1 5 cxbS axbS 1 6 lLlxbS doesn't give Black anything like what he needs for the pawn) 1 5 lLle3 bS 16 lLledS .i.xdS 17 lLlxdS lLlxdS l S cxdS gives White a nice space advantage, Milos­ Zapata, Bogota 1 992. b) 13 ... lL:lc5 14 fxc6 fxe6 15 .i.c2! (15 b4?

lLlxd3 1 6 'ifxd3 nfcS! 1 7 lLlxe6 'ifxc4 is good for Black) 15 ... a5 (giving away the bS­ squarc but b2-b4 had to be prevented) 1 6 b3 :res 1 7 a3 .i.f8 t S b 4 axb4 1 9 axb4 lLla6 20 .i.a4 :e7 21 .l:tabt and Black was some­ what uncomfortable in Kudrin-Bakhtadzc, Ycrcvan 1 996. If Black cannot improve in the above lines, then it may well be that 1 3 fS is stronger than the 'automatic' 1 3 :ac t . Food for thought! 1 3 . . . l:tfd8

Black's rook indirectly hits the knight on d4 and thus prevents e4-e5 for the moment. Also, the f8-square is vacated in case of ... .i.f8 or ... lLlf8. However, there arc cer­ tainly other options for Black: a) 13 .. JhcS (this move is too routine) 1 4 cS! lL:lcS (Vehi Bach-Raurell Bernada, Olot 1 992) and now Zeller's suggestion of 15 b3 keeps White ahead - the knight on eS is a poor p1ece. b) 13 ... 'ifc5?!, with the idea of 14 lL:lb3 'ifhS, looks very risky - the black queen is committed to hS and is lacking safe squares, assuming White avoids an exchange of queens. c) 13 ... g6 14 fS! (14 cS lLlhS looks okay for Black) 14 ... exf5 1 5 exfS lL:leS 1 6 .i.gS 'ii'd S 1 7 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 t S .i.e4 .i.xc4 1 9 'ifxc4 and White has an excellent outpost for the knight on dS, Luther-Perdomo, Cali 2000. d) 13 ...:adS (Black wants to follow up with ....:.feS and ....i.f8) 14 fS! eS (1 4...lL:lc5 15 fxe6 fxe6 1 6 .i.c2 aS 17 a3! is good for White) 1 5 lLlc2 lL:lcS (1 5 ... b5 is a sacrificial suggestion from Zeller; after 1 6 cxbS axbS 17 lLlxbS 'ifbS t S lL:lc3 lL:lcS 19 lL:lb4 I don't believe Black has enough for the pawn) 1 6 lLle3 b S 1 7 lL:ledS lLlxdS t S lLlxdS .i.xdS 1 9 cxdS is similar to note 'a' to White's 1 3th move - White has a pleasant space advan­ tage. e) 1 3 ...:fcS!? looks suicidal, but is it really so straightforward? White has the following possibilities: 35

Sicilian Kan

e1) 1 4 fS can be answered by 1 4... �£8!, keeping the structure intact. e2) White should consider the rook lift 1 4 no, for example 1 4... nadS (or 1 4...g6 1 S ng3 .:adS 1 6 fS �f8) 1 S nh3 .tf8 1 6 ltJO g6 17 lDgS lDcS (or 17. ..�g7!? 1S eS dxeS 19 fxeS 'il'xeS 20 'il'xeS lDxeS 21 :xeS h6!) 1 S i.c2 h6 19 eS!? led to great complica­ tions in Toth-Trincado, Mar del Plata 1 990. e3) 1 4 eS (Of course! Doesn't this just win a piece?) 14 ... dxeS 1 S fxeS 'il'xeS! 1 6 'il'xeS lDxeS 1 7 :xeS .:adS

this line. 1 4 ll'lf3

Preparing e4-eS or ltJO-gS. Alternatively: a) 1 4 b4 (expanding on the queenside and preventing ...lDcS) and now: a 1) 1 4...g6?! 1 S fS! exfS (1S ...ltJf8 16 fxe6 fxe6 1 7 lDxe6! lDxe6 1 S ltJdS i.xdS 1 9 exdS and Black can already resign) 16 exfS looks dangerous for Black, Adla-Paramos Dom­ inguez, Mondariz 1 994. a2) I believe Black should play 14 ... i. f8!. Now he is ready to play 1S ...g6, meeting 1 6 fS with 1 6. . .:es!. b) I can find no examples of 14 nO!? pre­ paring to swing the rook: 14 ... .tf8 1 S nh3 g6 16 fS and again Black should retract with 1 6 ... neS! to keep the structure intact. 1 4 . . . g6

So that Black can answer 1 S eS with 1 S ... lL:!hS 16 i.e4 (or 1 6 g4 lL:!g7 17 i.e4 i.xe4 1S 'il'xe4 ltJcS) 16 ... i.xe4 17 'il'xe4 lDcS 1 S 'il'e2 :acS and Black is fine. 1 5 lt'lg5 �fS

(White is a piece for a pawn up but is well and truly skewered on the d-file!) 1 S lDce2 lL:!g4 1 9 nhs g6 20 nh3 i.cS! and now, instead of 20 ... eS? 21 lDb3 which is winning for White (Zeller), Black should play 21 ...i.cS!: e31) 21 ng3 lL:!eS 22 i.b1 (22 �gS?! i.xd4 23 i.xdS nxdS 24 b3 �cS 2S lDf4 fS 26 h3 'li;f7 27 .tb 1 nd2 and White was in some trouble in the game H.Hunt-Ahrens, Bratislava 1 993) i.xd4 23 lL:!xd4 nxd4 24 i.c3 :edS 2S i.xd4 nxd4 and Black has excellent compensation for the slight mate­ rial disadvantage. e32) 21 nf4 hS (or 21 ...fS!?) 22 lDb3 eS 23 :n lDf2+ 24 nxf2 i.xf2 and I prefer Black's rook and pawn over the two knights. If the above analysis in note 'e' holds up, then both 1 2...:es and 13 ... nfeS are of substantial importance in the assessment of 36

1 S ... h6 also looks playable: 16 lDO (hav­ ing provoked a slight weakness, the knight returns; 1 6 lDxf7 'li;xf7 1 7 eS dxeS 1 S fxeS lL:!xeS looks unsound) 16 ... .tf8 17 nc1 .tg7 1 S i.b 1 :acS 1 9 b3 'il'bS (Kudrin-Dzindzi­ chashvili, Philadelphia 1 992) and here White should push on with 20 fS. In view of this, I prefer the prophylactic 1 9 ...:eS!. 1 6 'ii'f 2 �g7 1 7 'ii'g 3 lt'lc5 1 8 �c2

1 8 . . . d5?

5 � d3 f:D f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 7 � e 2 d 6

Right idea, wrong timing. Stronger is 1 8 ... h6 1 9 lL\f3 and only then 1 9 ... d5!. I f anything, I then prefer Black. 19 cxd5 exd5 20 e5 f?Jfe4 21 f?Jcxe4 f?Jxe4 22 .i.xe4 dxe4 23 .i.c3 l:td3

After this Black is a pawn down with no compensation, but following 23 ...'ir'c4 White can play 24 fS!, for example 24... h6 25 lLlxf7! 'ir'xf7 26 e6 'ir'e8 27 ..txg7 �xg7 28 f6+ �h8 29 'ir'c7. 24 �h4 h6 25 f?Jxe4 �c6 26 �f2 l:tad8 27 f?Jd6 .i.a8 28 f5 g5 29 f6 .i.f8 30 lLlf5 l:te8 31 e6 l:txe6 32 lLle7 + .i.xe7 33 fxe7 f5 34 l:txe6 �xe6 35 �xf5 1 -0

Game 10 Plachetka-Ravikumar

Pofitiken Cup, Copenhagen 1980 '-------•

1 e4 c5 2 f?Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 f?Jxd4 a6 5 �d3 f?Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 �e2 d6 8 c4 �e7 9 b3

This is the most accurate move order for White to reach the position after the 12th move. Instead 9 lL\c3 0-0 10 b3 allows Black to play 10 ...b5!, exploiting the undefended knight on c3: 1 1 ..tb2 b4 t 2 lLlbt lLlbd7 13 lLld2 ..tb7 1 4 l:tael lLlcS and White cannot shift the powerful knight on cS.

Again w e see the queenside fianchetto from White. I believe it's more dangerous here than against ...g6 and ... ..tg7; Black will find it more difficult to arrange a successful ... e6-e5 break against f2-f4. 1 2 l:tad1

Once more the most aggressive plan is 12 f4 ..tb7 13 .U.ael and now: a) 13. .. .l:tad8 14 fS!? (1 4 �hl l:tfe8! 1 5 ..tbt ..tf8 1 6 lLlf3 g6 1 7 e S lLlhS 1 8 lLlgS ..tg7 was okay for Black in Soylu-Cebalo, Budva 1 981) with a further split: a 1) 14 ...lLlc5 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 16 ..tc2 aS (1 6 ... ..tc8 17 b4 lLlb7 18 ..tb3) 17 a3!, in­ tending b3-b4, is uncomfortable for Black. a2) 1 4 ...e5 1 5 lLlc2 bS! (a suggestion from Zeller; this sacrifice works quite well here) 1 6 cxbS axbS 1 7 b4 (17 lLlxbS? 'ir'b6+ 1 8 �ht lLlcS is good for Black) 1 7 ... d5 1 8 exdS lLlxdS 19 lLlxdS ..txdS 20 ..txbS 'ir'a7+ 21 'ir'f2 'ir'xa2 22 ..txeS lLlxeS 23 l:txeS ..tf6 and Black's bishop pair provide good com­ pensation for the pawn. b) 1 3. .. g6 14 eS (14 fS exfS 1 5 exfS lL\eS 16 ..te4 lLlxe4 1 7 lLlxe4 l:tfe8 18 'ir'd2 ..txe4 19 l:txe4 ..tf8 was level in Zapata-Blanco Fernandez, Matanzas 1 995) 14 ...lLlh5! 1 5 fS?! dxeS (Erdogdu-Mastrovasilis, Antalya 2001) 1 6 fxe6 lLlc5!

9 . . .0-0 10 �b2 f?Jbd7 1 1 f?Jc3

The alternative knight development with 1 1 lLld2 can be seen in Game 1 1 . 1 1 . . . b6

and I believe the complications favour Black: 17 exf7+ l:txf7 1 8 l:txf7 �xf7 1 9 lLlf3 lLlf4 20 "i!VxeS (20 lLlxeS+ �g8 21 'ir'c2 ..td6!) 20... ..td6 21 'ir'd4 lLlcxd3 22 liJbS 37

Sicilian Kan

i.cS!.

20 .l:!.xf7! 'it>xf7 21 'i!fxg4 g6

1 2 . . . i.b7

2t ...lbxe5 22 �hS+ (Plachetka) 22 ... lbg6 23 lbe4 gives White a winning attack.

To include other possibilities I've again fiddled with the move order. The actual sequence was 6 ... d6 7 c4 i.e7 8 lbc3 0-0 9 b3 b6 10 i.b2 i.b7 1 1 �e2 lDbd7 1 2 :ad1 �c7.

22 liJe4 liJc5 23 liJf6 .l:!.ed8 24 .l:!.f 1 'it>g7 25 liJxh7 liJd3

Or 25 ...'it>xh7 26 i.xg6+ 'it>h8 27 �hS+ 'it>g8 28 i. f7 +.

1 3 i. b 1 .I::Ue 8 1 4 f4 .l:!.ac8?!

26 liJxf8 l:bf8 27 .l:!.xf8 l:!.xf8 28 i.xd3

Funnily enough, Black's best plan is to concede a tempo or two and fianchetto the dark-squared bishop in any case! This leads to positions similar to Game 8, although of course the lost tempi mean it's not such a good version: 14 ... i.f8! 1 5 'it>h 1 g6! 1 6 lbf3 :adS 17 lbgS i.g7 1 8 :d2 h6 1 9 lbh3 lbcs and Black had arranged a successful defen­ sive formation, Granda Zuniga-Milov, Vil­ larrobledo (rapid) 1 997.

'i!ff7 29 h4 .l:!.d8 30 i.e4 .l:f.d2 31 i.c1

1 5 liJf3 i.f8 1 6 'it>h 1 i.c6?

5 i.d3 liJf6 6 0-0 'i!fc7 7 'i!fe2 d6 8 c4

Now 16 ...g6 really was vital. 1 7 e5!

This advance is very strong here. Black can­ not resist White's forthcoming attack. 1 7 . . . i.xf3 1 8 .l:!.xf3 dxe5 1 9 fxe5

'i!ff1 + 32 'it>h2 'i!fxc1 33 'i!Vxg6 + 'it>f8 34 'i!ff6 + �g8 35 'i!fxe6 + 'it>g7 36 'ilff6 + 'it>g8 37 e6 1 -0

Game l ! Csoke-Lehoczki

Hungarian League 1998 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6 i.e 7 9 b3 0-0 1 0 i.b2 liJbd7 1 1 liJd2

1 1 f4 b6 1 2 lbd2 will transpose, but note that 1 1 ...:e8? 12 lbxe6! fxe6 13 eS l:tf8 1 4 exf6 lDxf6 1 5 lDd2 led t o a clear advantage for White in Moiseev-Cvitan, Sibenik 1 988. This is a trick worth remembering. 1 1 . . .b6 1 2 f4 i.b7

The actual move order of the game was 9 f4 lbbd7 10 b3 b6 1 1 i.b2 i.b7 1 2 lDd2 0-0. 1 3 l:!.ae 1

1 9 . . .liJg4

Or: a) 19 ... �xe5 20 lbe4 �aS (20 ... �c7 21 lDxf6+ lDxf6 22 l:.xf6! gxf6 23 �g4+ i.g7 24 i.xf6 wins - Plachetka) 21 i.c3 �a3 22 lbxf6+ lbxf6 23 �c2 i.e7 24 b4 llxc4 25 i.xf6 :xc2 26 :xa3 and White wins. b) 19 ... lbxe5 20 lDbS! axbS 21 i.xeS �e7 22 �c2 and White wins - Plachetka. 38

With the knight o n d 2 the presence o f the b2-bishop is felt more - there i s only one knight blocking it. On the other hand,

5 i. d 3 li:::. f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 7 'ii e 2 d 6

White has less conttol over the d5-square. I f Black can arrange a favourable ... e6-e5 he does not have to worry about tLld5 ideas. 1 3 . . J:!.fd8

Again aimed at the advance e4-e5. On this occasion the knight on d4 is protected, but Black can still use tactics to disarm White's thrust. Other possibilities include: a) 13 ... e5?! 14 tLlf5 l:tfe8 15 g4 tLlc5 (1 5 ...'ilfc5+? 1 6 'it>hl i.f8 17 g5 exf4 1 8 l:txf4 g6 [Moiseev-Vasiukov, Sibenik 1 988] 19 gxf6 gxf5 20 l:tg1 + 'it>h8 21 'ilfh5 and Black will be very quickly mated, for exam­ ple 21...tLle5 22 'ilfxh7+ 'it>xh7 23 l:th4+ i.h6 24 l:tg7+ 'it>h8 25 l:txh6 mate) 16 g5 tLlfd7 17 tLlxe 7+ l:txe7 1 8 f5 f6 19 h4 and White has a sttong bind on the position, Anka-Csoke, Hungarian League 1 994. b) 13 ... g6!? (making the h5-square avail­ able) 1 4 e5 tLlh5 1 5 i.e4 (15 f5 dxe5 1 6 fxe6 i.c5! 17 exd7? 'ilfxd7 1 8 'ifxe5 l:tae8! is winning for Black) 1 5 ... tLlc5 1 6 i.xb7 'ilfxb7 (Zeller) and Black can be reasonably happy with his position. c) 13 ...l:tad8 14 e5?! (White should play more quietly with 1 4 i.b 1 or 1 4 'it>h 1 , al­ though this then gives Black the chance to play ... g7 -g6) 14 ... dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ilfxe5! 1 6 'ilfxe5 tLlxe5 1 7 l:txe5 i.c5 1 8 l:tf4 tLld7 1 9 l:th5 g 6 20 l:th3 e 5 21 l:tfh4 tLlf6 was good for Black in Szieberth-Izsak, Budapest 1995.

i. b 1 , but this i s critical. 1 4 . . . dxe5 1 5 l'i:::. x e6!

15 fxe5 'ilfxe5! 16 'ilfxe5 tLlxe5 17 l:txe5 i.c5 18 l:tf4 tLld7! (Moiseev) and Black will regain the piece with ... e6-e5. 1 5 . . . fxe6 1 6 fxe5

1 6 . . . l'i:::. c 5?!

Black returns the piece and accepts a slight disadvantage. However, I can't find anything wrong with 1 6 ... tLle8! here. a) Moiseev gives 17 'ili'h5 but then Black has the clever defence 1 7 ...tLldf6! 1 8 exf6 'ilfc5+ 1 9 'ifxc5 (19 l:tf2 'ilfxh5 20 fxe7 tLlf6 21 exd8'if+ l:f.xd8 is good for Black) 1 9 ...i.xc5+ 20 'it>h 1 tLlxf6 21 i.e4 tLlxe4 22 tLlxe4 i.xe4 23 l:txe4 l:td2 with a better ending for Black. b) 17 i.xh7+ ! 'it>xh7 1 8 'ilfh5+ 'it>g8 1 9 'ilff7+ 'it>h7 looks best, but White has no more than a perpetual check. An earlier game saw 1 6 ... tLlxe5?! 1 7 i.xe5 'ilfd7 (Moiseev-Vyzmanavin, USSR 1 989) and now 1 8 i.e4! (Vyzmanavin) 1 8...tLlxe4 1 9 tLlxe4 i.xe4 20 'ilfxe4 leaves White with an advantage due to Black's weak e6-pawn. 1 7 exf6 l:ixd3 1 8 fxe 7

After 1 8 f7+ Black plays 1 8 ...'it>f8!, but not 1 8 ... 'it>h8? 19 'ili'g4 i.f8 20 'ilfxg7+!. 1 8 . . . 'iix e7 1 9 b 4 .:adS 2 0 i.c1

14 e5!?

Again White can play with 1 4 'it>h1 or 1 4

So far the players had been following analysis from Moiseev, who assessed this position as slightly better for White. This is correct - White reaches an ending with 39

Sicilian Kan

some chances to convert an extra pawn. In this game White actually loses his pawn advantage but ends up winning anyway after some inaccurate play from Black.

20 . . . ltJa4 21

'ii'x e6 +

'ii'x e6 22 �xe6

�c3 23 .l:!.e7 .l:!.f8 24 l:txb7 l:txf1 + 25 lt>xf1 .l:l.xc1 + 26 lt>e2 .l:!.c2 27 lt>e3 .l:!.xa2 28 .l:l.a7 .l:l.b2 29 .l:!.xa6 l:txb4 30 ltJe4 ltJc5 3 1 .l:l.a8 + �f7 32 .l:!.a7 + lt>g6 33 ltJd6 l:tb3 + 34 'it>f4 l:lb2 35 ltJe8 �f2 + 36 lt>e3 l:f7 37 l:xf7 'it>xf7 38 ltJc7 ltJd7 39 lt>d4 lLlf6 40 h3 h6 41 ltJa8 ltJd7 42 lt>d5 lt>e7 43 �c6 ltJe5 + 44 lt>b5 lt>f6 45 ltJxb6 lt>f5 46 c5 lt>f4 4 7 ltJc4 ltJg6 48 c6 ltJe7 49 c7 'iti>g3 50 ltJb6 lt>xg2 5 1 lt>c5 lt>xh3 52 lt>d6 g 5 5 3 lt>xe7 1 -0

Game 12 Sandor-Chernuschevich

Poznan 1995 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 c4 ltJbd7 ! ?

A flexible move. Black waits t o see how White plays it before deciding whether to fianchetto or not. In some cases Black can also play an early ... lbe5 or possibly ... tt:'lc5 instead. 9 f4!

By playing f2-f4 immediately, White cuts out any early ... tt:'le5 ideas for Black. I think this is White's strongest move order. Other 40

moves include:

a) 9 lL'lc3 lL'le5!? (9 ... g6 10 l:td1 i.g7 1 1 tt:'lf3 0-0 1 2 .i.f4 transposes to Game 5; for 9 ... b6 1 0 f4 .i.e7 see the note to Black's 9th move) 10 'ith1 .i.e7 1 1 f4 tt:'lxd3 12 �xd3 0-0 13 b3 b6 14 .i.b2 i.b7 1 5 l:tae1 l:tad8 16 'ir'g3 l:tfe8 occurred in Gavrilakis­ Velikov, Kavala 1 990. This defensive set-up looks quite satisfactory for Black. The ex­ change of the knight for White's light­ squared bishop seems to dull White's at­ tacking chances. The game continued 1 7 l:te3 �d7 1 8 �e1 g6 1 9 f5?! tt:'lg4 20 f6? .i.xf6 21 l:txf6 tt:'lxf6 22 �h4 �e7 23 l:th3 tt:'lh5 and Black went on to win. b) 9 b3 g6! (as we already know, the king­ side fianchetto works well against White's queenside fianchetto) 10 i.b2 .i.g7 1 1 tt:'lc3 0-0 transposes to Game 8. 9 . . . g6!?

Now White has committed himself to playing f2-f4, Black logically goes for a king­ side fianchetto. By now we know that this defensive set-up works well against a king­ side storm. However, on this particular oc­ casion Black has problems with the defence of e6 due to the early development of the d7-knight. If White proceeds energetically then Black cannot keep his pawn structure intact. 9 ... h5!? is a very ambitious move cham­ pioned by the German IM Karl Heinz Pod­ zielny.

5 i. d3 tiJ f6 6 0 - 0 �c 7 7 � e 2 d 6

10 'it>h 1 ! (10 b3 'ii'b6! 1 1 i.e3 lt:\g4 shows a point of Black's 9th move: 1 2 lt:\c3 g6 1 3 l:.adl lt:\xe3 1 4 'ii'xe3 i.g7 and Black was fine in Leko-Podzielny, Dortmund 1991) 10 ... b6 1 1 lt:\c3 i.b7 12 fS! lt:\cs (12... eS 13 ltJdS ltJxdS 14 exdS ltJf6 l S ltJf3 h4 16 ltJgS i.e7 17 i.e3 ltJd7 18 lt:\e4 left White with a massive knight on e4, Z.Szabo-Lehoczki, Solymar 1 996) 13 i.c2 exfS 14 ltJdS i.xdS l S exdS+ 'ii'e7 1 6 'ii'x e7+ 'it>xe7 1 7 i.gS and White has a terri­ fic ending, Quinteros-Debarnot, Sao Paulo 1 972. 9 ...i.e7 10 lt:\c3 b6 could transpose into lines considered earlier on in the chapter, but let's see what happens if Black delays castling: a) 1 1 'it>h 1 is important because it can be reached by transposition from lines where White plays a very early 'it>h 1 : l l .. . ..ib7 and now: al) 1 2 i.d2 g6!? (12... 0-0 transposes to Game 9) with a further split: al l) 13 l:tacl hS! (a Podzielny speciality; possible ideas include ... hS-h4, followed by ...ltJhS-g3+ or simply ... h4-h3) 1 4 b4 h4 l S a3 l:tc8 1 6 .U.cel 'ii'b 8 1 7 ..icl b S 1 8 ..ib2 bxc4 1 9 i.xc4 'ii'a8 20 ltJf3 h3 21 g3 0-0 22 ..id3 aS! 23 bS tLlcS and Black was doing well in Siemes-Podzielny, correspondence 1 998. a12) 13 l:tael (this looks more consistent than 13 l:.acl) 13. .. hS!? 14 eS (14 ltJdS?

exdS l S exdS 0-0 1 6 'ii'xe7 l:.ae8 wins for Black - Zeller; 1 4 fS allows Black to dem­ onstrate a point of ...g7 -g6: 14 ...gxfS! l S exfS e S 1 6 ltJb3 h4 and Black aims for counterplay against g2) 1 4 ... dxeS l S fxeS lt:\g4 16 tLlxe6!? (16 ..if4 is less ambitious) 16 ... fxe6 17 i.xg6+ 'it>d8 18 i.f4 (Zeller) with a very unclear position. White has two pawns and Black's king is not safe. On the other hand, Black is a piece ahead and is quite active himself. a2) I prefer the move 1 2 fS!, for example 1 2...eS (or 12 ...ltJcS 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 ..ic2 aS l S lt:\a4!) 13 lt:\c2 ltJcS 14 lt:\e3 looks better for White - compare to the note to White's 1 3th move in Game 9. b) 1 1 i.d2 (again White does without the 'safe but lazy' 'it>h 1) l l ...i.b7 1 2 l:.ae1 l:.d8?

(Black should play 12 ... 0-0, transposing to note 'c2' to White's 1 0th move in Game 9, or 1 2 ...g6; 1 2...l:.d8 prevents e4-eS but...) 13 ltJdS!! exdS 14 exdS 0-0 (14 ...ltJcS l S ..ic2 l:.d7 1 6 b4!) l S ltJfS! and the rook on d8 is a real liability - the e7-bishop cannot escape: 1 S ...l:.fe8 16 lt:\xe 7+ 'it>f8 17 l:.f3! lt:\g4 (17 ...lt:\cs 1 8 .U.e3 l:td7 19 lt:\g6+! Zeller) 1 8 h3 ltJdf6 1 9 hxg4 lt:\xg4 20 l:.h3 and White won in Fogarasi-Erdelyi, Switzer­ land 1 992. 1 0 f5!

It's critical that White plays this now be­ fore Black has a chance to play ...i.g7 to defend f6. After 10 lt:\c3?! i.g7 1 1 fS Black 41

Sicilian Kan

keeps the order with 1 1 ...lDeS!.

32 'i'b4 .i.c6 33 .l::.g4 i.g5 34 i.xc6 + .l::.x c6 35 'i'xb7 'i'c2 36 'i'b8 + 'it>e7 37 .l::.f 1 'i'c5 + 38 'it>g2 .l::.c 8 39 'i'b7 + .l::. c 7 40 'i'f3 h6 4 1 h4 1 -0

Game 13 Schlosser-Vyzmanavin

Sochi 1989 1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 'i'c7 6 0-0 tt'lf6 7 'i'e2 d6 8 f4!?

1 0 . . . gxf5?!

1 0...cS looks stronger: 11 lLJc2 il..e 7 12 lLle3 lLJcS 1 3 il..c 2!? (13 lLJc3 looks safe for an edge) 1 3. .. lLlcxe4!? (13 ...gxfS 1 4 exfS left White with a solid bind over the dS-square in Varavin-Tunik, USSR 1 991) 1 4 il..xe4 lLlxe4 1 S lLJdS 'ticS+ 1 6 .ie3 'ii'c6 1 7 f6! (17 fxg6 hxg6 1 8 il..b 6 il..e 6! as 1 9 lLJc7+ 'it>d7 20 lLlxa8 .l:!.xa8 21 'ir'e3 il..gS is winning for Black) 1 7 ...il..d 8 1 8 'ir'f3 lLJcS 1 9 b4 lLJe6 20 lLld2 and White has good compensation for the pawn (analysis by Varavin). l O ... lLJeS? is of course impossible because of 1 1 fxe6.

tt'lxd5 1 6 cxd5 'i'xd5 1 7 .i.c4 'i'c6 1 8

A dangerous move. White delays c2-c4 and waits for Black to commit himself with the f8-bishop. After 8 ...il..e7 White will probably transpose back to normal lines with 9 c4, but what happens if Black tries to fianchetto? 8 lLlc3 will be discussed under S lLJc3 'ii'c 7 6 .id3 lLJf6 7 'iVe2!? d6 in Chapter 6. One further idea is 8 lLJd2 g6 9 a4!? il..g7 10 aS 0-0 1 1 lLJc4 lLJbd7 1 2 c3 dS! 1 3 exdS exdS 1 4 lLle3 lLleS and Black was more than comfortable in Geller-Vyzmanavin, Mos­ cow 1 989 - White's pieces are not well placed to battle against the IQP.

exd7 + i.xd7 1 9 i.f7 + 'it>d8 20 i.e3

8 . . . g6! ?

As far as I can see, Black is a pawn up but in total disarray. He does well to last as long as he does.

1 1 exf5 e5 1 2 tt'le6!

This idea is worth remembering; Black is already in some trouble. 1 2 . . .'i!i'c6?

More resolute is 1 2... fxe6 13 fxe6 JJ..g7 1 4 exd7 + il..xd7 1 S lLJc3 il..c 6 (Escobar­ Filgueira, Buenos Aires 1 989) although I think White is still doing well after 1 6 .igS!. 1 3 tt'lc3 i.e7 1 4 tt'ld5! fxe6 1 5 fxe6

20 . . . .l::.c 8 21 'i'f2 .l::.c 7 22 .i.b6 'i'e4 23

This looks risky, but Black has hidden re­ sources. Note that 8 ...'iVb6?! 9 il..e3 'ii'xb2?? loses to 10 lLlb3, trapping the black queen.

.l::.fe 1 'i'h4 24 g3 'i'f6 25 'i'c2 .i.c6 26

9 f5!

i.xc7 + 'it>xc7 27 i.d5 'i'g6 28 l:.e4 'it>d7

Direct and dangerous. Black must be careful not to be blown off the board.

29 'i'b3 .l::. c8 30 .l::. d 1 'it>e8 31 'i'c4 i.d7 42

5 i.. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 'fie 7 7 'fl e 2 d 6

1 2...lt:lg4!?. I can only find one example o f this move, which leads t o immense compli­ cations: 13 'i1Vxg4 lt:lxd4

9 . . . i.g7

It's imperative for Black to seek devel­ opment. After 9 ...gxf5 10 exfS eS 1 1 c4! (getting a grip over dS) 1 1 ....ie7 12 lLlc2 lt:lbd7 1 3 lt:lc3 tLlcS 14 lt:le3 lLlxd3 1 5 'ii'xd3 'ii'c S 1 6 b4! 'ii'xb4 17 lLledS lLlxdS 1 8 lLlxdS 'ii'c S+ 19 .ie3 Black was already on the verge of losing, Adorjan-Honfi, Hungarian Ch. 1 973. 1 0 fxe6 fxe6 1 1 .i.c4

With the e6-pawn under pressure, Black already looks to be in some trouble. How­ ever, he has a tactical trick to ease his diffi­ culties. 1 1 .ie3 is less dangerous: 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2 lLld2 .id7! 1 3 .ic4 d S 1 4 .ib3 lLlc6 was level in Fleck-Chuchelov, Germany 2000. 1 1 . . . Ci:Jc6! 1 2 i.e3

1 2 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 3 lLlc3 0-0 14 .ib3 aS 1 5 'it>h1 .ia6! 1 6 .ixe6+ 'it>h8 1 7 .ic4 .ixc4 18 'ii'xc4 lLlxe4 was an early draw in De­ graeve-Chuchelov, Bethune 1 999. Let's continue a few moves: 19 lLlxe4 dS 20 'i1Ve2 l:txf1 + 21 'iiVx fl l:tf8 22 'i1Ve2 l:te8 and, if anything, Black is better. The point of Black's previous move is seen in the line 1 2 lLlxe6? .ixe6 13 .ixe6 ltJd4! 1 4 11Yc4 11Yxc4 1 5 .ixc4 lLlxc2 and Black wins material.

and now: a) 1 4 .id3 lLlxc2 1 5 .ixc2 (15 .l::tc l? lLlxe3 1 6 l:txc7 lLlxg4 1 7 l:txg7 ltJeS! 1 8 .ie2 lLlf7 and the rook is nicely trapped on g7) 1 5 ...11Vxc2 16 lLld2 (16 l:tc1 11Vxb2 17 l:txc8+ 'it>d7!! wins for Black) 16 ...'ii'd3 1 7 'i1Vg3 and White certainly has some compensation for the pawn. b) 14 lt:la3 lLlxc2 1 5 lLlbS!? with a further split: b1) 1 5 ...'i*'d7? loses to 16 .ixe6!. b2) 15 ... axb5 16 .ixbS+ .id7 1 7 11Yxe6+ '1t>d8 1 8 .igS+ '1t>c8 19 .ixd7+ 11Yxd7 20 'i*'xd7+ 'it>xd7 21 l:tf7+ 'it>e8 (21 ...'1t>c8? 22 l:tcl was good for White in Lind-Astrom, Helsingborg 1 991) 22 l:te 7+ 'it>f8 23 l:tfl + 'it>g8 24 .if6! .ixf6 25 l:txf6.

1 2 . Ci:Jxd4 .

.

Of major interest in this line is the fact that Black can even go onto an immediate counter-attack here with the enterprising 43

Sicilia n Ka n

Despite the minus piece, White has at least a draw, but maybe more, for example 25 .. .lha2 (25 ....1:tf8 26 .l:txf8+ �xf8 27 .l:txb7 can only be good for White) 26 .l:f.xd6 �a8 27 .l:txb7 lLle3 28 .l:f.dd7 lLlg4 29 g3 lLle5 30 .l:f.dc7 and White can push the b­ pawn. b3) 1 5...'ii'c 6! 16 i.xe6 (16 'ii' f4 .l:tf8 1 7 lLlxd6+ �d7!) 1 6. . .lLlxe3 1 7 i.f7+ �e7 1 8 'ii'h 4+ �d7 1 9 'ii'h 3+ �e7 is a draw by perpetual, as 1 9 ...lLlf5 looks like a very du­ bious winning attempt. 1 3 ..bd4 0-0 1 4 tt:ld2 �d7 1 5 c3

On 1 5 e5 Black should play 1 5 ...ltJh5!. 1 5 . . ..tt:lh5

15 ...d5?! is not to be recommended: 16 i.xf6 dxc4 1 7 i.xg7 �xg7 1 8 l:lxf8 .l:f.xf8 19 'ii'xc4 'ii'xc4 20 lLlxc4 i.c6 21 e5 .l:f.f5 22 .!:tel l::tg5 23 g3 left Black with no compen­ sation for the pawn in D.Belov-Hermans, correspondence 1 998.

Vyzmanavin criticised this move and suggested 1 6 ...�h8 as an improvement, assessing the position as unclear. 1 7 i.. b 3 .t>h8 1 8 l:!.ad 1 ? !

1 8 i.xg7+ 'itxg7 1 9 e5! dxe5 20 lLlf3 (Vyzmanavin) gives White a clear edge. 1 8 .. . . tt:lf6 1 9 h3

Now 1 9 e5? can be met by 1 9 ...lLlg4!. 1 9 . . . e5 20 �b6 'ilfb7!

Black has equalised due to the possibility of pressurising e4 with ... i.c6. 2 1 lLlf3?

21 i.a5!, intending i.b4, is stronger. 21 . . . i.. c6 22 .:!.xd6 tt:lxe4 23 l:!.xc6

The only move. 23 l::tdd 1 ltJg3 24 .l:tf2 lLlf5 25 'ii'c5 l::tac8! is winning for Black. 23 . . .. 'ilfxc6 24 l:!.d1

16 'ilfe3

1 6 'ii'g4!? i.xd4+ 17 cxd4 lLlg7! defends the vulnerable e6-pawn and guarantees Black equality, Nabours-Edwards, corre­ spondence 1 9 9 1 .

24 .. . . i.. h 6!

It would have been very easy to miss this resource. Now Black is clearly better and goes on to win quite comfortably. 25 'ilfxh6 'ilfxb6 + 26 .t>h2 'ilff6! 27 i.. c 2 'ilff4 + 28 'ilfxf4 l:!.xf4 29 tt:lxe5 l:!.e8 30 tt:lf3 tt:lc5 31 l:td5 tt:la4 32 .t>g3 l:!.f6 33 �xa4 bxa4 34 tt:ld4 a3! 35 bxa3 l:!.e3 + 1 6 . . . b5?!

44

36 .t>g4 .t>g7 37 l:!.d7 + l:!.f7 38 l:!.xf7 + 'it>xf7 39 tt:lb3 l:!.xc3 40 a4 l:!.c2 0-1

5 j_ d3 lD f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 7 'ii e 2 d6 Summary

As far as I can see, Games 1 - 5 prove that Black is still very much alive and kicking in 'the main line'. It's true that White has some dangerous plans, but with expert treatment Black can hold his own. Of White's alternative plans, I would say that 1 0 i..e 3 (Game 6) has more chance of keeping an opening edge than either 10 f4 (Game 7) or 9 b3 (Game 8). Classical development with 8 ..i..e 7 (Games 9- 1 1) has perhaps been unfairly neglected in recent times (perhaps due to some high-proftle losses) and I believe these systems are also fully playable for Black. It must be added, though, that Black has to be especially careful not to be mowed down on the kingside in some lines. Special attention to correct move order is required here. .

1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 lDf6 6 0-0 'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 c4

(D)

8 f4 - Game 13 8 . g6 . .

8 ...i..e 7 9 ciJc3 - Game 9 9 b3 0-0 10 i..b2 lt::lb d7 1 1 ciJc3 - Game 1 0; 1 1 ciJd2 - Game 1 1 8 ...ciJbd7 - Game 12. 9 lDc3

9 b3 - Game 8. 9 . . . ..tg7 1 0 l:l.d1

1 0 f4 - Game 7; 10 i..e3 - Game 6 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 lDf3

(D) lDc6

1 1 ... ciJbd7 - Game 5 1 2 h3

12 i.. f4 - Game 4 1 2 . . . lDd7 1 3 ..te3

13 i.. f4 - Game 3 1 3 . . . b6

13 ... ciJde5 - Game 2 1 4 l:l.ac 1

(D) - Game 1

8 c4

1 1 ttJf3

14 'nac 1

45

CHAPTER TWO

I

5 i.d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 'JJIJc 7 : Seventh Move Alternatives

1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6

5 ..td3 �c7 6 0-0 tt:lt6 7 �e2 ..tc5!?

5 ..td3 tt:lt6 6 0-0 �c7

In this chapter we deal with alternatives for White to 7 'ir'e2 and alternatives for Black after 7 'ir'e2. Black's choices are restricted after 7 'ii'e 2 as he generally feels obliged to do some­ thing about the 'threat' of e4-e5. The two options we shall look at here are 7 ...�c5!? (Game 1 4) and 7...�d6!? (Game 1 5). White's options at move 7 are much less restricted. The most important of these is the immediate setting up of the Maroczy Bind with 7 c4 (Games 1 6- 1 7). Of course Black can simply comply with 7 ... d6, most probably transposing at some point to lines considered in Chapter 1 . However, 131ack also has the important independent idea of 7 .. .'�Jc6! and it's this move we shall study here. Also in this chapter we shall take a look at 7 'it>h 1 (Game 1 8) and 7 f4 (Game 1 9), while less important options for White are discussed in the notes to Game 1 9.

Game 14 Vujanovic-Verdier

Comspondence 2000 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6 46

This move crops up an awful lot in the Kan (its most popular form is the 5 i.d3 .tc5 - see Chapter 4). The idea is to drive White's knight away from d4 to an 'inferior' square (usually b3) before deciding on where to put the bishop. We will also see many examples of a very similar idea involv­ ing ... ifd8-b6 and, after lbb3, simply drop­ ping the queen back to c7. The only reason this particular move or­ der is not more popular is that it allows White to play an early e4-e5, hitting the f6knight. 8 tt:lb3

In general this is the most popular re­ sponse to an early ... i.c5. White regains the

5 1J.. d3 li:J f6 6 0 - 0 1Wc 7 : S e v e n th M o v e A lt e r n a tives

tempo lost on moving the knight again by attacking the cS-bishop. The downside to this move is that the knight is slightly less influential on b3 than it is on d4; the advan­ tage is that it is also much less vulnerable on b3. 8 �e3 gives Black fewer problems. At some point White usually cannot make any progress without offering the exchange of dark-squared bishops and this eases Black's defensive task. After 8 ...d6 9 ltJc3 we have transposed to a line srudied in Chapter 6. B . . . i.a7

8... �e7?! 9 eS! ltJdS 1 0 c4! ltJb4 11 �f4 ltJxd3 1 2 'iWxd3 ltJc6 1 3 ltJc3 left Black pas­ sively placed in Tong Yuanming-I.Gurevich, Singapore 1 990. The game continued 13 ...gS!? 14 �g3 hS 1 S h3 h4 16 �h2 ltJxeS 17 'iWe2 f6 18 cS! b6 19 cxb6 'iWxb6 20 �xeS fxcS 21 'iWxeS �f8 22 �ad1 �b7 23 ltJe4 and Black was left with many weak­ nesses. 9 e5!?

The only way to 'punish' Black for his move order. Black has allowed c4-cS and so White goes ahead. 9 �e3 �xe3 10 'iWxe3 d6 leads to similar lines to those discussed in Chapter 4, as does 9 c4 and 9 ltJc3. 9 . . li:Jd5 1 0 c4 .

White continues to harass the knight. I f White i s looking for a n alternative way to play, I quite like the look of 10 ltJa3!? with

the intention of ltJc4 and preparing to an­ swer lO ... bS with 1 1 c4!. 10 . . . li:Jb4 1 1 i.f4 li:Jxd3

1 1 ...ltJ8c6?! 12 ltJ1d2 ltJxd3 13 'tixd3 fS 1 4 'iWg3 0-0 1 S cS! left Black in an uncom­ fortable position in Kudrin-I.Gurevich, Philadelphia 1 990 - Black's bishops arc finding it hard to breathe. In the game the American GM Ilya Gurevich tried to rem­ edy the siruation with l S ... bS but after 1 6 cxb6 �xb6 1 7 :act 'tib8 1 8 ltJc4 �c7 1 9 h 4 White maintained a strong positional bind. In a later game, Gurevich tried to im­ prove on Black's play with 1 1 ...fS!? although after 12 ltJ 1 d2 (12 ltJc3 may be even stronger; after 12 ... ltJxd3 13 'tixd3 0-0 14 �acl ltJc6 1S �fc 1 White is ready to play c4-cS without giving up control of the ciS­ square) 1 2...ltJxd3 13 'ii'xd3 0-0 14 cS ltJc6 1 S ltJc4 ltJe7 1 6 ltJd6 ltJg6 1 7 'iVg3 b6 1 8 cxb6 �xb6 1 9 �acl White was better, Favaro-I.Gurevich, Maringa 1 991 . 1 2 11i'xd3 f6

Black must react quickly or else the eS­ pawn will promise White a continual bind on the position. 1 3 11i'f3

After 1 3 'ii'g3 Black can hit out with 1 3 ...gS! (Gurevich), for example: a) 14 �d2 'ii'x eS 1 S 'ii'x cS fxcS 1 6 �xgS ltJc6 and Black's centre pawns control some important squares. b) 14 ltJc3!? d6! (14...gxf4 isn't men­ tioned by Gurevich, but 1 S 'ii'g7 �f8 16 exf6 ltJc6 1 7 ltJdS! 'ii'd6 1 8 �fc 1 , intending �ad 1, looks very dangerous for Black) 1 S ltJe4 gxf4 and Gurevich assesses this as unclear. Let's take things a bit further: 1 6 ltJxf6+ Wf7!? 1 7 'ii'xf4 dxeS 1 8 ltJdS+ (18 'ii'h6!?) 18 ...exf4 1 9 ltJxc7 b6 20 ltJxa8 �b7 21 ltJc7 l:tc8 22 ltJxe6 Wxc6 23 �fcl + Wf7 24 �acl ltJd7 and I prefer Black's two bish­ ops to the rook and two pawns. Black's dark-squared bishop can emerge via b8. 1 3 . . . fxe5 1 4 11i'h5 + g6 1 5 11i'xe5 47

Sicilian K a n

1 5 i.xe5?? d6 wins material for Black. 1 5 . . . 'i'xe5 1 6 .txe5 0-0 1 7 lt:\c3

An improvement over 17 tLl 1 d2 bS 1 8 c5 i.b7 19 i.d6 (Ulibin-I.Gurevich, Santiago 1 990), and now Gurevich gives 1 9 ...l:tc8! 20 a4 b4 as being equal. Black can play ... i.dS and can follow up with the manoeuvre ...tLlc6-d8-f7.

Gurevich assesses this position as slightly better for White and I agree with this. Po­ tentially Black's bishop pair could prove useful, but in the short term he has prob­ lems developing on the queensidc. 1 9 . . . b5

Black must try to develop the c8-bishop . 20 �ac1

After this move Black manages to equal­ ise. I prefer 20 c5!?, blocking in Black's dark-squared bishop. 20 . . . lt:\d4 21 lt:\xd4 .txd4 22 i.a3 �f4 23 lt:\d6 b4! 24 �xb4 �xb2 25 �c2 i.g7 26 g3 l:td4 27 i.c5 l:td3 28 l:tb 1 i.e5 29 l:tb6 a5 30 f4 l:txd6! 31 l:txd6 .txd6 32 .txd6 i.a6 Vz - Vz

Game 15 Magomedov-Khouseinov

Dushanbe 1999 1 7 . . . lt:\c6

1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6

Gurevich considers the pawn sacrifice 17 ... b5!? but rejects it on account of 18 cxb5 axb5 19 tLlxb5 i.a6 20 a4 (Nunn and Galla­ gher stop here, saying that Black doesn't have enough for the pawn) 20 ... l::t f5 (20...tLlc6 21 i.d6 followed by lLlxa7 [Gure­ vich] simply leaves White a pawn up) 21 i.d4. However, I believe that 21 ...i.xb5 22 axb5 l::txb5 is at least okay for Black as White cannot really exploit the pin on the a­ file: 23 tLld2 tLlc6 24 i.c3 d5 and Black will follow up by moving the aS-rook. Going back a bit, 20 tLlc7 is also impor­ tant: 20 ... i.xf1 (20...tLlc6 21 i.d6 i.xfl 22 l::txfl leads to the same thing) 21 l:txfl tLlc6 22 i.d6 (22 lLlxaB?! lLlxe5 23 tLlc7 tLld3 and Black regains the pawn) 22...l:tab8 (22 ... l:txf2? 23 l:tx£2 i.x£2+ 24 ..ti>x£2 l:txa2 25 i.a3! traps the rook on a2: 25 ...tLle5 26 tLlb5 lLld3+ 27 ..ti>e2 lLlxb2 28 tLlc t !) 23 i.xf8 ..ti>xf8 and Black has good compensa­ tion for the pawn - White's p1eces arc somewhat uncoordinated.

5 �d3 lt:\f6 6 0-0 'i'c7 7 'i'e2 i.d6! ?

1 8 �d6 �f5 1 9 lt:\e4 48

A n idealistic move. Black activates his dark-squared bishop along the h2-b8 diago­ nal but on this occasion it walks into a not­ too-subtle reply by White. 7 ... d5 is the typical Sicilian freeing break. However, Black is behind in development so opening the position like this is asking for trouble. Play continues 8 tLlc3 (8 e5 tLlfd7 9 f4 may also be good for White but it makes sense to keep the tension) 8 ... tLlc6

5 i.. d3 li'J f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7: S e v e n th Mo v e A lt e rn a tives

and now: a) 9 l2Jxc6 bxc6 transposes to a position which is normally reached via the Taimanov Variation: 1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jc6 5 l2Jc3 a6 6 l2Jxc6 bxc6 7 .id3 'ilic7 8 0-0 l2Jf6 9 'ii'e 2 d5 and can also be reached by the Kan in another way (1 e4 c5 2 l2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 a6 5 l2Jc3 'ii'c7 6 .id3 l2Jc6 7 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 0-0 d5 9 'ii'e 2 l2Jf6) . This will be studied in Game 57. b) 9 .ie3!? with a further split: b1) 9 ... .ie7 10 exd5 exd5 1 1 l2Jxc6 bxc6 12 .ic5 .ig4 1 3 'ii'e3 .ie6 1 4 f4 .ixc5 1 5 'ii'xc5 'ifa7 1 6 l2Ja4 ..t>d8 1 7 :fe1 l::.e 8 1 8 b4 left White with a pleasant grip on the dark squares in G.Hernandez-Fernandes, Bu­ caramanga 1 992. The immediate 12 ....ie6 may be stronger. b2) 9 ... dxe4 10 l2Jxe4 .ie7 1 1 l2Jxc6 'ifxc6 1 2 .id4! and White's development advantage IS quite apparent, Fercec­ Haldemann, Areo 1 999. 7 ...l2Jc6?! allows White to play e4-e5: 8 l2Jxc6 dxc6 9 eS! l2Jd7 10 .if4 .ie7 1 1 l2Jd2 g5?! 12 .ig3 h5 13 h3 l2Jb6 1 4 l2Je4! and, with l2Jf6+ to follow, White was well on top in the game Kalesis-Karatzas, Aegina 1 993. 8 f4!?

Of course! Now the threat of e4-e5 forces Black to move the bishop again. If White is looking for a quieter way to an advantage then 8 ..t>h1 isn't bad: 8 ...l2Jc6 9 l2Jxc6 dxc6 10 f4 e5 1 1 f5

and White has an edge, Arnason­ Dizdarevic, Manila Olympiad 1 992. I'll talk more about this set-up later, but I will say something here. Note that when compared to Game 1 6, here White is not hampered by his own pawn being on c4. There is no out­ post for Black on d4 and the White's light­ squared bishop is more active. 8

. . .

i.c5 9 i.e3 'iib 6

All games I found continued with this pawn-grabbing idea but as far as I can see it's not at all clear that this is Black's best option. I can't find any examples of 9 ... d6!? but it's certainly not a bad move. a) 10 l2Jb3 .ixe3+ 1 1 'ii'xe3 would trans­ pose into an reasonable version of the 5 .id3 .ic5 line (Black has lost a move with ... .ie7-d6 but gained it back by playing ... .ic5xe3 rather than ....ic5-a7xe3) b) 10 l2Jc3 0-0 and we reach a variation similar to the one seen in Game 54, except that White is a tempo up. It's not clear whether this is enough to sway the balance in White's favour. One point to note is that 1 1 ..t>h 1 b5 12 f5? is answered by the sur­ prisingly strong 1 2 ...'ifa7!. c) White can also consider ideas such as 10 l2Jd2!? and 10 c4!?, but these are hardly a refutation of 9 ... d6. 1 0 c3 li'Jc6 1 1 'it>h 1 ! li'Jxd4 1 2 cxd4 i.xd4 1 3 i.xd4 'iix d4 1 4 li'Jc3

Black has won a pawn but that is where 49

Sicilia n Kan

the good news ends. He is heavily behind in development and has trouble defending all the weak dark squares in his position. I would go as far as saying that this line is only to be recommended for White. 1 4 . . . 0-0

1 9 .. J:tb8 20 'ifd3 g6 21 ltJc5 White is in complete control. 20 exd6 �d7 21

lLlc5 �b5 22 �d3

'ifxd6 23 �xh7 + �hB 24 'i!Ve3 'ife7 25 'ifh3 lLlf6 26 lLle4! �fdB 27 �fe1 �c6 2B lLlg5 �eB

How much trouble Black is in can be gauged from the following two sidelines. a) 14 ... d6 15 �ad1 'ifc5 16 e5 dxe5 1 7 fxe5 ltJd7 1 8 ltJe4 'ifxe5 1 9 i.b5!! axb5 20 ltJd6+ 'it>f8 21 l:1xf7+ 'it>g8 22 �xd7! 'iff6 23 'ifxe6 +! 1 -0 Steinbacher-Auchenberg, Copenhagen 1 994 b) 14 ... h5!? (you cannot be serious!) 1 5 e5 ltJg4 1 6 ltJe4 f6 17 �ad1 'it>e7 1 8 ltJd6 'ii'e3 19 'ii'c 2 fxe5

There are two very surpnsmg things about this position. The first is that it had all been seen before in a previous game. The second is White's next move ... 29 .:ta1 ! !

(Chiburdanidze-Palos, Baden-Baden 1990) and now I like 20 i.f5! exf4 (or 20 ... ltJh6 21 i.xe6! dxe6 22 'ifg6) 21 i-xg4 hxg4 22 'ifg6 and Black suffers horribly due to his lack of development.

This 'novelty' decides the game. The idea behind moving the rook back to its home square is that White requires both rooks to participate in the attack against the black king. Thus 29 �a 1 rules out any exchanges! 29 �d3?! �xd3 30 i.xd3+ 'it>g8 31 i.h7+ 'it>f8 32 i.f5 'it>g8 33 i.h7+ 'it>f8 34 i-f5 'it>g8 35 �xe6 'ifc7! allowed Black to survive in Luther-Barges Mateos, Elista Olympiad 1 998.

1 5 �ad 1 'i!Vb4 1 6 e5 lLleB

29 . . .�d6 30 �e5! .:.adS 31 �ae 1 'ifc7

1 6 ... ltJd5 ruins Black's strucrure and leaves him devoid of any defenders on the kingside: 17 a3 'ifc5 1 8 ltJxd5 exd5 1 9 'ii'h 5 g6 20 'ifh6 and the threat of f4-f5 is hard to deal with.

32 lLle4! �d 1 33 lLlxf6 �xe 1 +

1 7 a3 'i!Ve7 1 8 lLla4!

Continuing to attack the dark squares. 1 8 . . . 'i!Vd8

Narurally 1 8 ... b5? is met by 1 9 'ife4!. 1 9 �b1 d5!?

A desperate bid for freedom. After 50

Other moves also lose: a) 33 ...'ifxe5 34 i.f5 mate. b) 33 ...gxf6 34 i.g6+ 'it>g7 35 'ii'h 7+ 'it>f8 36 �xe6! fxe6 37 'ifh8+ 'it>e7 38 'ifg7+ 'it>d6 39 �xd 1 + 'it>c6 40 �cl + and White Wins. 34 lbe 1 gxf6 35 i.f5 + �gB 36 'ifh7 + 'it>fB 37 �xe6 'ifxf4 38 'ifhB + �e7 39 �xf7 + ! �xf7 40 'i!Vh7 + �fB 4 1 'i!Ve7 + 1 -0

5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7: S e v e n th Mo ve A l tern a tives

Game 16 Smirin-Goldin

could put his c-pawn back on c2, then these problems would disappear. Alas, pawns cannot move backwards!

Philadelphia 1998 1 e4 c5 2 Ci:JfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Ci:Jxd4 a6 5 i.dJ Ci:Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 c4! ?

The main alternative to 7 'ii'e2. White immediately sets up the Maroczy Bind and keeps options open regarding the placement of his queen. If Black now plays 7 ... d6 then we reach positions very similar to those in Chapter 1 , except that White has the slight advantage of being able to choose whether to play 'ii'e2 or not. This may be particularly useful for White if Black fianchettoes as White's queen may then be better placed at home, where it can bear down on the d6pawn. 7 . . . Ci:Jc6!

The negative side of White's previous move is seen in Black's clever reply. The move ... l2Jc6 rarely blends in well in a Kan system but this is an important exception. Normally in these lines White meets ...l2Jc6 with an exchange of knights, but the fact that Black has yet to move his d-pawn is a very positive feature for him. 7 ... �c5!? 8 l2Jb3 �e7 (8....ia7!?) 9 l2Jc3 d6 reaches positions similar to those in Chapter 4. 8 Ci:Jxc6

For other white possibilities, see Game 1 7. 8 . dxc6! . .

The point! Black breaks with tradition by capturing 'away from the centre' but the ensuing pawn structure holds little fear for the second player. Black will inevitably fol­ low up with ...e6-e5, leaving a symmetrical pawn structure with some attractive points for Black. The first is that he has a ready­ made outpost on the d4-square while White has no similar one himself. The second fac­ tor is that White's bishop on d3 is 'bad' and hemmed in by its own pawns. If only White

White does, however, have compensating features: he has a slight lead in development and (after the 1 0th move) a space advantage on the kingside. 9 f4!

The critical move. White threatens the space-gaining e4-e5 and forces Black's hand in the centre. 9 l2Jc3 e5! solves all of Black's problems, for example: a) 10 h3 .ic5 1 1 l2Ja4 �d4! 12 c5 .ie6 1 3 .id2 0-0 1 4 'ii'c2 h 6 1 5 l:tad1 l:tad8 1 6 l:tfe1 'ii'e 7 was equal in Maskova-Emms, Menchik Memorial, Maidstone 1 994. b) 10 .ie3 l2Jg4! 1 1 .id2 .ic5 12 l2Ja4 �d4! 1 3 c5 .ie6 1 4 'ii'c 2 'ii'e7 1 5 h3 l2Jf6 and Black was happy enough in Carlsson­ Salm, correspondence 1 984. The continua­ tion to this game is worth seeing: 1 6 'iti>h2?! h5! 17 g3? h4! 18 g4 .ixg4! 19 hxg4 l2Jxg4+ 20 'iti>g2 (20 'iti>g1 'ii f6!) 20 ... h3+ 21 'iti>h1 l2Jxf2+ 22 l:txf2 .ixf2 and Black went on to wtn. c) 10 'ii'e2 .ie6 (10 ... .ic5 1 1 �e3 .ixe3 12 'iixe3 0-0 is safe and equal) 11 f4 j_c5+ 12 'iti>h 1 .ig4! 1 3 'ii'c 2 (Griinfeld-Hulak, Za­ greb 1 987) and now the general opinion is that Black should play 13 .. l:td8! (instead of Hulak's 13 ... 0-0-0), for example: cl) 14 fxe5 l2Jd7! and ... l2Jxe5. 51

Sicilian Ka n

c2) 14 f5 'ii'd 6 1 5 i.e2 (or 1 5 ll'la4 i.a7 1 6 i.e2 i.xe2 17 'ii'xe2 'ii'd3!) 1 5 .. i.xe2 1 6 lixe2 lid3 and Black can b e happy. c3) 14 h3 ll'lh5!! 1 5 hxg4 lie7! (Zeller) and Black has a strong attack, for example 16 g5 ll'lg3+ 17 'it>h2 ll'lxfl + 18 i.xfl exf4 1 9 i.xf4? h6!. 9

. . .

e 5 10 f5

The most obvious and only testing move at White's disposal. White obtains a space advantage on the kingside and, for the mo­ ment at least, Black's light-squared bishop is sealed out of the game. 1 0 . . . ..tc5 + 1 1 �h 1

1 1 . . h5!? .

This is certainly Black's most ambitious move. For the moment Black does nothing to address the problem of his bishop on c8. Instead he plans an attack on the dark squares on the kingside with c5-bishop, knight and queen. A more restrained strategy can be seen with 1 1 ...i.d4 1 2 ll'lc3 h6 and now: a) 13 i.d2 b6 14 l:tb1 i.b7 1 5 b4 l:td8 1 6 lie2 0-0 was level i n Anagnostopoulos­ Bischoff, Bad Worishofen 1 993. b) 13 ll'le2 c5 1 4 l:tb1 i.d7 (14...b6!?) 1 5 ll'lxd4 cxd4 1 6 b4 and White was slighdy better in Pyhala-Bischoff, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 988. Depending on where Black puts his king, White has chances to attack on either side of the board. It should be noted, though, that Bischoff was happy to 52

repeat this line as in note 'a' five years later. Maybe he has something up his sleeve. 1 2 lbd2

White's knight comes to help out on the kingside, where White is devoid of pieces. The main alternative is 12 ll'lc3 tt'lg4 1 3 li e ( 1 3 lie2 'ii'd8 1 4 .ic2? ll'lxh2!, Taylor­ Mortazavi, British League 1 998 is an obvi­ ous example of the tricks Black has in this line) 13. .. lid8! (a neat switchback; Black threatens ...lih4 and ... ll'lf2+) and now: a) 14 lig3!? .if2 1 5 'ii' e (or 1 5 lih3 .td4) 1 5 ... i.d4 16 lig3 i.f2 17 lie i.d4 18 'ii'g3 was a draw by repetition, Surak­ Edwards, correspondence 1 986. b) 1 4 ll'ld1 lih4 15 h3 b6 16 i.d2 .ib7 17 b4 i.d4 with a further split: b 1) 18 .ic3 0-0-0? 19 c5! was good for White in Agnos-Emms, St Albans 1 993, so Black should instead activate his b7-bishop with 1 8 ... c5!. b2) 18 l:tb1 c5! 19 bxc5 i.xc5 20 i.b4 i.d4 and here it's best for White to accept a draw by repetition after 21 i.c3 .ic5 22 .ib4 as 21 c5? bxc5 22 i.xc5 .ixc5 23 l:txb7 0-0 was good for Black in McDonald­ Emms, British Championship 1 993. Also possible is 12 i.g5 ll'lg4 13 lie2 lid6 14 .ih4 i.d7 1 5 h3 ll'lf6 1 6 ll'lc3 0-0-0 17 ll'la4 .id4, which was unclear in Casares Ripoli-Matt, correspondence 1 991 . Fe­ dorowicz suggests 12 ... h4, intending ... ll'lh5. 1 2 . . . lbg4 1 3 'i'e2

5 i. d3 l"i'J f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 : S e v e n th Mo v e A lterna tives 13 . . . �d8

comfortably.

A major alternative for Black here is 13 ...'ii'b 6 and now: a) 14 g3?! lLlf2+ 1 5 Wg2 lLlxd3! 1 6 'ii'xd3 ..id4 1 7 l:lb 1 c5 1 8 a3 ..id7 1 9 b4 ..ia4! and Black was doing very well in the game Wolff-Gheorghiu, New York 1 987. b) 14 h3 lLlf2+ 15 Wh2 'ii'd B 1 6 lLlb3 (16 l2Jf3!?) 16 ...'ii'xd3 1 7 l:hf2 'ii'xe2 18 .l:txe2 ..ie7 was equal in Riemersma-Jukic, Graz 1 987 c) 14 lLlf3!? is a suggestion from Byrne and Mednis. After 1 4... f6?! 1 5 h3 lLlf2+ 1 6 Wh2 lLlg4+ 1 7 Wg3! Black i s forced back, while 14 ... l2Jf2+ 1 5 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 16 lLlxe5 gives White serious attacking chances for the small material investment.

1 5 .ic2 �b6 1 6 l"i'Jh4

Now after 16 h3 lLlf2+ (but not 16 ...l2Je3 1 7 ..ixe3 ..ixe3 1 8 b4!) 1 7 Wh2 l2Jg4+ 1 8 Wg3 lLle3! the difference i s that the knight forks rooks and bishop - Black has success­ fully lost a move to induce White's bishop to the unfavourable c2-square. Maybe White should consider 1 5 ..ib1!? . 1 6 . . . l"i'Jf2 + 1 7 l:.xf2 i.xf2 1 8 l"i'Jg6 l:.h7

1 4 l"i'Jf3! f6

Not a move Black really wants to play but the e5-pawn needs some protection. The alternative is 14 ...l2Jf2+ 1 5 l:lxf2 ..ixf2 16 lLlxe5, which again gives White tremen­ dous compensation for the exchange. Play continues with 16 ... ..ic5 17 ..if4 and now: a) 17 ... ..id6 1 8 c5! ..ixe5 (or 1 8 ... ..ixc5 1 9 ..ic4) 1 9 ..ixe5 0-0 20 ..id6 l:le8 21 'ii'xh5 is virrually winning for White. b) 17 ... 'ii'e7 1 8 l2Jf3 g6 with a further split: b 1) Estrada Nieto gives the line 1 9 b4 ..ixb4 20 'ii'b 2. Now it's true that 20... 0-0? 21 ..ih6 f6 22 ..ixf8 Wxf8 23 lLlh4 is win­ ning for White but, although I would be reluctant to take the black pieces, I can't quite find a killer blow for White after 20...l:lg8. b2) 1 9 fxg6 fxg6 20 e5 'ii' f7 21 ..ig5 ..ig4 22 ..if6 l:lg8 23 l:lft ..ie7 24 h3 ..ixf3 25 l:lxf3 0-0-0 26 c5 'ii'e 8 27 ..ixa6 ..ixf6 28 exf6 bxa6 29 'ii'x a6+ <3;c7 and, instead of the game continuation of 30 'ii'b 6+ WeB 31 'ii'a 6+ Wc7 32 'ii'a 7+ WeB 33 'ii'a 8+ Wc7 34 'ii'a 7+ 1/z-1/z Estrada Nieto-Strikovic, Merida 2000, I can't find a defence to 30 f7!, for example 30...l:ld1 + 31 l:lft l:lxfl + 32 'ii'xfl 'ii' f8 33 'ii' f4+ seems to win quite

Black has won the exchange but the rook on h7 is a terrible piece which will do well to give itself up for a minor piece. 1 9 c5!? �xc5 20 .ib3 i.d7 21 i.g8 l:.h6 22 i.xh6 % - %

And just as the game was getting excit­ ing! The final position is extremely messy .

Game 1 7 Aseev-Kochyev

Leningrad 1984 1 e4 c5 2 l"i'Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l"i'Jxd4 a6 5 i.d3 l"i'Jf6 6 0-0 �c7 7 c4 l"i'Jc6 8 i.e3

If White doesn't want to exchange on c6 then this is the most narural way to con­ tinue. After 8 l2Jf3 Black can continue in ag­ gressive fashion with 8 ... l2Jg4! 9 l2Jc3 (or 9 h3 h5!) and now: a) 9 ... l2Jd4!? 10 e5!? (10 g3 lLlxf3+ 1 1 'ii'x f3 lLle5 1 2 'ii'e 2 d6 is equal - Ivanchuk) 10 ...l2Jxf3+ 1 1 'ii'xf3 lLlxe5 1 2 'ii'g3 with 53

Sicilian Kan

some compensation for the pawn - lvan­ chuk. b) 9 ... i..e 7 10 i..e 2 b6 1 1 h3 h5 12 g3 liJge5 13 h4 g6 14 i.. f4 d6 was equal in lv­ anchuk-Portisch, European Team Ch., De­ brecen 1 992. c) 9 ... b6!? and now: cl) 10 h3?! h5! 1 1 g3 lbge5 1 2 i..e 3 h4! 13 g4 i.d6 14 l:tct liJxf3+ 1 5 'ilt'xf3 liJe5 1 6 'i�Vd1 liJg6

0-0 13 l:te1 i..d 6!? 1 4 i..g5 l:tac8 1 5 i.ft lbg6 1 6 liJf3 i..e7 1 7 i..d3 d6 with equality, Kaidanov-Kharitonov, Lvov 1 985. 1 0 . tt:\xd3 1 1 1fxd3 i.b 7 .

.

1 2 tt:\d2

is an excellent example of a successful Black strategy in Kamsky-I.Gurcvich, New York 1991 - the dark squares on the king­ side arc dominated by Black. b) 10 g3! i..b7 1 1 i.. f4 liJge5 is level. 8 . tt:\e5 . .

The most logical move; Black puts pres­ sure on c4, hits the bishop on d3 and gains time by threatening ...liJg4. 9 h3 b6

In my opinion, this is the most exact move order - Black prepares to attack the e4-pawn. 9 ... d6 10 f4 liJxd3 (10 ... liJxc4? 1 1 'ilt'c2! b5 12 b3) 1 1 'ilt'xd3 i..e7 12 liJc3 0-0 13 a4 b6 14 f5 was slightly better for White in Yemelin-Shaposhnikov, St. Petersburg 1 996; Black always has to be careful regarding the pressure on the e6-pawn. 9 ...lbxc4? walks into a pin after 10 'ilt'c2! b5 1 1 b3. 10 f4

Or 1 0 lbc3 i.. b7 1 1 l:tct i..b4 1 2 i.f4 54

I prefer the more ambitious 12 lbc3!?, for example: a) 1 2...l:tc8 13 e5 liJgB 14 b3 lbe7!? (14 ...b5!?) 1 5 liJcb5!? axbS 1 6 liJxb5 'ii'c 6 1 7 liJd6+ 'it>dB 1 8 liJxf7+ 'it>e8 1 9 liJd6+ 'it>d8 20 l:t£2 liJf5 21 liJxf5 (21 liJf?+? 'it>c7 22 lbxh8 lbxe3 23 'ilt'xe3 i.c5 24 'ilt'g3 l:txh8 is good for Black) 21 ... exf5 22 'ilt'xf5 with a very complex position - Black is very disor­ ganised but has the long-term advantage of that extra bishop. b) 12 ... i.b4 13 e5 i..xc3 14 'ilt'xc3 liJe4 1 5 'ilt'a3 (or 1 5 'ilt'b4 aS! 1 6 'ilt'a3 'ilt'xc4 1 7 l:!.act 'ilt'b4) 15 .. . f5 and Black can continue with . ..'it> f7. 1 2 . . ...tb4 13 tt:\4b3 i.xd2 14 tt:\xd2 1t'c6 1 5 .l:!.fe1 tt:\xe4 1 6 tt:\xe4 1fxe4 1 7 1fxe4 ..txe4 Y:z-Y:z

After 1 8 i..xb6 the position is completely equal.

Game 18 Haii-Hellsten

Umhamn 1998 1 e4 c5 2 tt:\t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:\xd4 a6 5 i.d3 tt:\t6 6 0-0 1fc7 7 'it>h 1

A very flexible move. White eliminates

5 .1t.. d3 lD f 6 6 0 - 0 'fi c 7 : S e v e n th Mo ve A lterna tives

annoying tactics by removing his king from the a7-gl diagonal and prepares £2-f4, while keeping his options open regarding other pieces and pawns. If there is a negative side, then it's that 'iit h 1 is hardly a developing move and Black, if he wishes, can strike immediately in the centre.

7 . ..d5!?

This takes play away from a 'typical' Kan and into independent lines. Normally Black would find it difficult to justify this idealistic freeing advance quite so early in the Kan, but his argument runs that White has effec­ tively 'lost' a tempo with 'iitg t-hl , so why not? Psychologically, though, many Kan players would be reluctant to change the flavour of the position, regardless of whether Black can achieve equality or not. If Black wishes to keep a hedgehog struc­ ture then he can play 7 ... d6 8 f4 4Jbd7 and now: a) 9 4Jc3 transposes to lines considered in Chapter 6. b) 9 c4 with a further branch: bl) 9 ...�e7 10 tDc3 0-0 1 1 'ir'e2 leads back to positions considered in Chapter 1 , where White has already committed his king to h l . b2) 9. . .g6?! is hit once again with 1 0 f5! e5 (or 10 ... gxf5 1 1 exfS e5 12 tt:Je6!) 1 1 tDc2 and White was better in Hi.ibner-Lutz, Bundesliga 1 993. If Black wishes to fi­ anchetto he should play 8 ... g6!, leaving his

e6-pawn defended by the c8-bishop. 8 lDc3

Another major line is 8 exd5 tt:Jxd5

and now: a) 9 �e4 4Jf6 10 �f3 �e7 is equal Hubner. b) 9 c4 4Jf6 10 tt:Jc3 �e7 1 1 'ii'e 2 0-0 1 2 i.g5 lld8 1 3 4Jb3 4Jbd7 1 4 llacl 4Jf8 1 5 llfel �d7 1 6 h 3 �c6 and Black was fine, Andersen-Hellsten, Gistrup 1 997. c) 9 f4 g6! (ECO gives 9 ...�c5 1 0 4Jb3 �d6 1 1 'ii' f3 4Jd7, Pietzsch-Gipslis, Riga 1 959, as equal) 1 0 �e4 4Jf6 1 1 �f3 i.g7 1 2 c 3 0-0 1 3 'Wet 4Jbd7 1 4 �e3 4Jb6 1 5 4Jd2 4Jbd5 and I prefer Black in Herbrechts­ meier-Raupp, Eppingen 1 988 - the kingside is rock-solid. d) 9 lle t �e7 10 c4 4Jf6 1 1 4Jc3 �d7 1 2 �g5 tDc6 1 3 4Jf5!? ( 1 3 �xf6 gxf6! and Black will castle queenside) 13 ...exf5 1 4 4Jd5 tDxd5 1 5 cxd5 0-0 1 6 �xe7 tDxe7 1 7 llxe7 'ir'd6 1 8 llel 'ii'xd5 1 9 .1xa6 .1c6 20 'ii'xd5 was agreed drawn in Zapata-Urday Caceres, Americana 1 997. Another idea for White is 8 tDd2 4Jbd7 (8... dxe4 9 tt:Jxe4 transposes to the text) 9 exd5 tt:Jxd5 10 c4 tD5f6 1 1 tt:Je4!? tDxe4 1 2 �xe4 4Jf6 13 �c2!? 'ir'xc4 ( 1 3. . .�c5 is the safe option) 14 �g5 �c5 1 5 4Jf3 and White has some compensation for the pawn, Sul­ skis-C.Horvath, Budapest 1 994. 8 . dxe4 9 liJxe4 liJbd7 1 0 b3 . .

10 c4!? transposes to Sulskis-C.Horvath 55

Sicilia n Kan

above. 10 ltJxf6+!? ltJxf6 reaches a similar posi­ tion to one from the French Defence (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ltJd2 c5 4 exd5 11i'xd5 5 ltJgf3 cxd4 6 �c4 'Wd6 7 0-0 ltJf6 8 ltJb3 ltJc6 9 ltJbxd4 ltJxd4 10 ltJxd4 a6 1 1 �d3 11i'c7), except that White's king is on h1 rather than gl . This adds both positive and negative features to a line which is considered not to be critical. 1 1 l:te 1 and now: a) 1 1 ...�d6? is playable in the French line with the king on g1 but here 1 2 ltJf5! is much stronger than usual. b) 1 1 ...�d7 12 'Wf3!, intending �f4, is uncomfortable for Black. c) 1 1 ...i.c5! 12 ltJf5?! 0-0 13 ltJxg7 �xg7 1 4 'iWd2 is refuted by 1 4...ltJg8! 1 5 'i/Vg5+ �h8 1 6 �f4 �d6, while 1 2 ltJf3 simply leaves f2 hanging - a negative feature of �hl . Instead White should play 1 2 c3 and now 1 2...�d7 1 3 'iWf3 ( 1 3 �g5 0-0-0!?; 1 3 'ife2!?) 1 3...�xd4 1 4 cxd4 �c6 looks equal.

More ambitious is 15 h3!? and now: a) After 15 ... ltJg4? White can safely take the knight: 1 6 hxg4 hxg4+ 17 �g1 'iWh2+ 1 8 �fl 'ifh 1 + 1 9 �e2 'iWxg2 20 l:tg1 and Black doesn't have enough for the piece. b) 1 5 . . . 0-0-0 16 ltJf5!? exf5!? 17 l:txe7 ltJg4! 1 8 'iWg1 ! (18 hxg4 hxg4+ 19 �g1 ir'h2+ 20 �fl ir'd6! wins for Black - 21 l:txd7 l:thl + 22 �e2 ir'e6+) 18 ...ir'c5 1 9 l:te2 f4 20 l:tae 1 !, preparing 21 f3 ltJe3 22 �c l , and Black seems to be running out of tricks. Instead of 16 ... exf5, the line 1 6 ... i.f8! 17 �e5 ir'c5 1 8 ltJd4 �d6 is safe for Black. 1 5 . . . tt'lg4 1 6 g3

16 ltJf3?! is answered by 16 ... �c6!, for example 1 7 ltJe5? f6! 1 8 �g6+ �f8 and Black wins. 1 6 . . . 0-0-0

1 0 . . . �e7 ! ?

1 0. . .ltJxe4! 1 1 i.xe4 ltJf6 1 2 �f3 �d6 looks perfectly acceptable for Black. 1 1 �b2 tt'lxe4 1 2 �xe4 tt'lf6 1 3 i.d3 ..td7 1 4 l:!.e1

A very sharp pos!Uon has arisen, but counterplay on the kingside gives Black a full share of the chances. In the game a tac­ tical sequence soon forces an equal ending. 1 7 h3 �c5! 1 8 c3 e5 1 9 hxg4 hxg4 + 20 'it>g 1 exd4 21

cxd4 l:!.de8 22 'ifc2

l:!.xe 1 + 23 l:!.xe 1 ..td6 24 'ifxc7 + 'tixc7 25 d5 l:!.h5 26 .l:lc1 +

'tid8 27 .txg7

l:!.xd5 28 ..te4 l:!.d2 29 ..txb7 Y2 - Y2 1 4 . . .h 5 ! ?

An idea borrowed from the same French Defence variation quoted above. Black plans ...ltJg4, which is even stronger than usual due to the threat to the f2-pawn. 1 5 'ife2 56

Game 19 C .Koch-Fanghui Feng

Comspondence 2000 1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6

5 JJ.. d3 t:D f6 6 0 - 0 � c 7 : S e v e n th Mo v e A lterna tives 5 JJ.. d 3 t:Df6 6 0-0 'iic 7 7 f4

A very aggressive move - White immedi­ ately goes for a kingside launch, but allows Black to pin the knight on d4 to his king. Here's a summary of other seventh move alternatives for White: a) 7 lLlc3 transposes to Chapter 6. b) 7 b3 d6 is likely to transpose to lines considered in Chapter 1, for example 8 i.b2 t:Llbd7 9 c4 g6 10 lLlc3 i.g7 1 1 'ii'e 2 0-0 and we have reached Short-Sax (Game 8). c) 7 lLld2 with the plan of f2-f4 and lLl2f3 is interesting, but shouldn't be threat­ ening: 7 ... d6 8 a4!? (It's too late to change your mind and fianchetto: 8 b3?? 'ii'c 3! is embarrassing. Also 8 f4 g6! 9 lD2f3 i.g7 1 0 'ii'e 1 lLlbd7 1 1 i.d2 0-0 1 2 'ifh4 eS 1 3 fxeS dxeS 1 4 lLlb3 lLlhS! was fine for Black in Fusthy-Hulak, Berlin 1 988) and now: cl) 8 ...g6 9 b3! i.g7 (9 ...'iWc3 doesn't work now: 10 .l:tb1 'ii'xd4 1 1 i.b2 regains the piece with a large advantage) 10 i.a3 0-0 1 1 lLlc4 l%.d8 1 2 i.b4 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 14 i.aS l1e8 1 5 lLlb6 l1b8 was agreed drawn in Kuzmin-Vyzmanavin, Leningrad 1990 but without pointing to anything ob­ vious, I'm suspicious of Black's play here. c2) 8 ... b6 9 f4 i.b7 10 'ii'e 2 lLlbd7 1 1 lLl2f3 lLlcS! 1 2 eS dxeS 1 3 fxeS lLlxd3 1 4 cxd3 t:Lld5 1 5 Wh1 i.cS 1 6 lLlb3 i..e 7 1 7 aS 0-0 and Black was fine in Pablo Marin-Vehi Bach, Tarrassa 1 989. d) i.e3 dS!? (as with 7 Wh1 , Black can if he wishes aim for the French structure; the bishop is rather clumsily placed on e3 in this instance) 8 lLlc3 see following diagram

and now: d1) 8... e5?! (this wins a piece but the price is high) 9 lLlxdS lLlxdS 10 exdS exd4 11 i.xd4 i.e7! (1 1 ...f6 12 'iWhS+ Wd8 1 3 .l:tfe1 i..d 6 1 4 .l:te3 gave White a very strong attack, Hawelko-Mokry, Polanica Zdroj 1986) 12 'iWhS 'ii'f4 1 3 i.xg7 i.g4 14 'ii'e S 'i'xeS 15 i..x eS f6 16 i.. f4 when White's

three pawns are worth slightly more than Black's knight, Kasimdzhanov-Kagirov, Uzbekistan Championship 1 993.

d2) 8 ... dxe4! 9 lLlxe4 lLlbd7 1 0 lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 and again we transpose into a position normally reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 t:Lld2 cS 4 exdS 'ii'x dS 5 t:Llgf3 cxd4 6 i.c4 'ii'd6 7 0-0 lLlf6 8 t:Llb3 lLlc6 9 lLlbxd4 lLlxd4 10 lLlxd4 a6 11 i.d3 'ii'c 7, except White has the extra move i.c1 -e3. It's debatable whether the bishop is much better here than on c l : 1 1 'ii' f3 i.d6 1 2 h3 0-0 13 .l:tad1 i.d7 14 .l:tfel .l:tae8 1 5 i.gS i.eS 1 6 i.. f1 lLldS 1 7 c 3 bS 1 8 'iWe4 i..h 2+ 1 9 W h 1 i.. f4! and Black had equalised in Ernst-Lau, Dort­ mund 1 992. 7 . . . JJ.. c 5

It seems only natural to pin the knight. 7 ... d6 is also possible when White can choose between 8 c4, with possible transpo­ sitions to Chapter 1 (although White has yet to commit his queen to e2), or 8 lLlc3 with a transposition to Chapter 6. 8 c3 t:Dc6

Inviting White to sacrifice a pawn. 8... d6! is the safest response: 9 �h1 eS (or 9 ...lLlc6 10 lLlb3 i..a7 1 1 c4 [Galliamova Ivanchuk-Ioseliani, Groningen 1 997] and now 1 1 ...0-0 is equal) 1 0 lLlb3 (or 10 fxeS dxeS 1 1 lLlf5 i..x fS 1 2 l:txf5 lLlbd7) 1 0...i..a7 1 1 'ii'f3 lLlbd7 1 2 c4 0-0 1 3 lLlc3 exf4 (Sax­ Dizdarevic, Sarajevo 1 985) and now Diz­ darevic gives 14 i..x f4 lLleS 1 5 i..x eS dxeS 57

Sicilia n Ka n

as being equal. 9 'it>h 1

9 eS!? is more forcing: a) 9 ...tt'lxd4 10 cxd4 i.xd4+ 1 1 Wh 1 tt'ldS 1 2 i.e4 - see the note to White's 1 1 th. b) 9 ... tt'ldS 10 Wh 1 ! (ECO gives 10 i.e4?! d6 1 1 i.xdS exdS 12 exd6 i.xd6 13 �el + tt'le7 1 4 1f f3 0-0 as good for Black, Sax­ Bellon Lopez, Graz 1 984, but I believe 1 0 Wh 1 i s stronger) 1 0...d6 ( 1 0... tt'lxd4 1 1 cxd4 i.xd4 transposes to the note to White's 1 1 th move) 1 1 tt'lxc6 bxc6 12 1We2 0-0 1 3 tt'ld2 fS 1 4 exf6 tt'lxf6 1 S tt'lf3 a S 1 6 i.d2 i.d7 1 7 �ae 1 was a bit better for White in Mokry-Vyzmanavin, Tilburg 1 994. The game continued 1 7 ...�ae8 1 8 i.c2 �e7 1 9 tt'lgS d S 20 tt'lf3! and the knight was ready to jump into the eS-outpost.

�xd1 + 24 l:txd1 was a level ending in Cam­ pora-Costa, Swiss League 1 99S, but I prefer the more ambitious 14 tt'lc3! d4 1 S tt'le4. 1 1 . . .0-0?

Stronger is 1 1 ... i.cS, although following 12 eS tt'ldS 1 3 tt'le4 i.e7 1 4 i.d2 bS 1 S a4 b4 1 6 aS i.b7 1 7 1fhS i.c6 1 8 �fc l , White has more than enough compensation, Lupu-Ionescu, Romanian Ch., 1 992. 1 2 e5 tLld5 1 3 lLlf3 tLle3

13 ... i.a7 allows a 'Greek Gift' sacrifice with 14 i.xh7+! Wxh7 1 S tt'lgS+ Wg6 (or 1 S ...Wg8 1 6 1WhS 1Wc2 1 7 fS!) 1 6 1Wg4 fS 1 7 1ih4 and White has a clear advantage. 1 4 .ixe3 .ixe3 1 5 i.xh7 + ! 'it>xh7 1 6 tLlg5 + 'it>gB 1 7 'ii'd 3 g6 1 8 'ii'x e3

9 . . . tLlxd4

Black still has a chance to play it safe with 9 ... d6, transposing to the note to Black's 8th move. 1 0 cxd4 .i.xd4

White has a strategically winning position due to the weakness of Black's king and the dark squares all over the board. 1 8 . . . 'it>g7 1 9 l:l.ac1 'ii'd B 20 l:l.fd1 b5 2 1 'ii'd 4 l:thB 2 2 'it> g 1 l:tbB 2 3 l:l.c5 l:l. h 5 24 'ii'd 3 'ii'h B 25 l:l.c7 'ii'd B 26 l:l.dc1 aS 27 h3 l:th4 28 'ii'g 3 l:th5 29 'ii'e 3 .l:!.aB 30 1 1 tLld2!

'ii'c 5 .:.hs 31 'ii'x b5 .:.h4 32 g3 l:l.h5 33

I believe this is the strongest move here, but 1 1 eS is also important due to transposi­ tional reasons: 1 1 ...tt'ldS 1 2 i.e4 i.cS (1 2 ... 1VcS!? is possible, but not 12 ...tt'le3? 1 3 1fxd4! tt'lxfl 1 4 1fd1 and the knight is trapped) 1 3 i.xdS exdS 14 1ixdS 0-0 1 S �d1 b S 1 6 tt'lc3 i.b7 1 7 1fxd7 1ib6 1 8 tt'ldS i.xdS 1 9 1ixdS �ad8 20 1f f3 �xd 1 + 2 1 1fxd1 l:td8 22 i.d2 i.b4 23 i.xb4

'ii'a4 .l:!.xg5 34 fxg5 'ii'x g5 35 'ii'f4 'ii'xf4

58

36 gxf4 .ta6 37 l:l.xd7 i.b5 38 l:l.b7 .teB 39 �f2 �h6 40 b3 a4 41 b4 l:l.dB 42 li;e3 a3 43 l:l.a7 li;hS 44 l:l.xa3 g5 45 fxg5 li;xg5 46 'it>e4 f5 + 4 7 exf6 li;xf6 48 l:l.f 1 + li;e7 49 .:.a7 + l:l.d7 50 l:l.xd7 + li;xd7 51 a4 li;c7 52 b5 li;b6 53 l:l.f6 li;a5 54 .l:be6 .i.d7 55 li;d5 li;xa4 56 b6 .tcB 57 l:l.e7 1 -0

5 i. d3 l'i:J f6 6 0 - 0 'ii c 7 : S e v e n th Mo ve A lterna tives Summary

Both 7 ...i.c5 and 7 ... i.d6 (Games 1 4- 1 5) are probably worth the occasional outing but I wouldn't advise employing them as 'stock' defences. 7 c4 has received some stick in the popular press and Black's results have been encouraging, but I believe that Games 1 6- 1 7 show that Black must still play accurately t o achieve a reasonable position. These lines arc less explored than those in Chapter 1 and independent srudy will pay dividends for both Black and White. 1 e4 c5 2 l'i:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'i:Jxd4 a6 5 i.d3 l'i:Jf6 6 0-0 'iic 7 7 'iie 2

7 c4 ltJc6 8 i.e3 - Game 1 7 8 ltJxc6 dxc6 (D) - Game 1 6 7 'it>h l - Game 18 7 f4 (D) - Game 19 7 . . . i.c5 - Game 14

7 ... i.d6 (D) - Game 15

8

. . .

dxc6

7 f4

7

. . .

i.d6

CHAPTER THREE

I

5 ..td3 tiJf6 6 0-0 d6

1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6 5 ..td3 ltlf6 6 0-0 d6

In this chapter we shall be studying Black's main sixth move alternative, which is 6 ... d6. As well as this, we will take a brief look at other sixth moves for both White and Black. Let's go through the opening moves agam. 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6 5 ..td3 ltlf6 6 0-0

It's quite easy to skip past other sixth move options for White, concentrating solely on 6 0-0 (even the usually compre­ hensive ECO is guilty of this). There are, however, some tricky alternatives which, by using clever move orders, attempt to steer the game into lines Black may be wishing to avoid. a) For 6 c4, sec 5 c4 tDf6 6 ..td3 in Chap­ ter 9. b) 6 tDc3 is an important transpositional move. 6 .. .'ific7 would then transpose into lines discussed in Chapter 6. If Black wishes instead to steer the game into variations discussed in Chapter 7, he should try 6 .. .'ilib6 although I have to say that there has been very little practical experience with this move order (those playing 5 ..td3 nor­ mally wish to leave the option open of mov60

ing the c-pawn) . The other line to consider is 6 tbc3 d6, which is closely linked to the Sicilian Scheveningen and indeed can be reached by this move order (1 e4 c5 2 tbf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tbxd4 tiJf6 5 tbc3 e6 6 ..td3!? a6). After 7 0-0 the move 7 . . .b5!? keeps a Kan flavour and is studied in Chap­ ter 8 under the move order 5 tDc3 b5 6 ..td3 d6 7 0-0 lDf6. c) 6 f4!? is another tricky move (I can only find eleven examples of this in my database of over 22,000 Kan games): 6 ... ..tc5!? (6 ... d6 is normal; after 7 0-0 we transpose to the note to White's 7th move) 7 tDb3 ..ta7 8 tDc3 d6 9 'ilif3 tbc6 1 0 g4 tbd7 1 1 g5 b5 1 2 h4 ..tb7 led to something unusual in the game E.Berg-Hellsten, Ron­ neby 1 998. In this type of position Black's bishop is normally on e7 (or perhaps, with ... g7-g6, g7) but not on a7. Nevertheless, with Black probably castling quccnside, this also looks perfectly satisfactory for him. d) 6 'ilie2!? virtually forces 6 ... d6 due to the threat of e4-e5. A fter 7 0-0 we reach normal lines except that the price of forcing Black into an early ... d7-d6 is that White has committed his queen to c2. Independent lines can be reached if White castles on the queenside (this is very rare in the Kan) : 7 f4 g6 8 tbf3 ..tg7 9 tbc3 'i!ic7 10 ..td2!? 0-0 1 1

5 i. d3 CiJ f6 6 0 - 0 d6

0-0-0 lL'lc6 1 2 l:the1 b5 1 3 e5 dxe5 14 fxe5 lL'ld7 15 �f4 �b7 16 '1t>b1 lL'lc5 and Black looks to be in perfectly good shape here, Rowson-Spraggett, Edmonton 2000. 6 . . . d6

Apart from 6 ... 1Vc7 (see Chapters 1 and 2) and 6 ... d6 (the main subject of this chap­ ter) Black doesn't really have too much choice: a) 6 ... d5?! is dubious. After 7 e5 the most narural retreat loses: 7 ... lL'lfd7? 8 lL'lxe6 fxc6 9 1Vh5+ g6 10 i.xg6+!. b) 6...�c5 7 lL'lb3 �a7, trying to trans­ pose into ...�c5 lines where White is com­ mitted to castling kingside, suffers from the fact that it allows White to hit the f6-knight: 8 e5 lL'ld5 and now 9 1Vg4 emphasises Black's bare-looking kingside. It's very rare that Black can get away with allowing White an early knight-hitting e4-e5. c) 6 ... e5?! is a very cheeky move; Black decides to play a Najdorf-srylc position a whole tempo down! However, it has been played a few times, notably by Romanishin. 7 lL'lb3 d6 8 c4 �c7 9 lL'lc3 0-0 (Computer P ConNers-Romanishin, Lippstadt 1 999) and now, instead of the machine's choice of 1 0 lL'ld5, I prefer one of 1 0 f3, 1 0 �e3 o r 1 0 i.e2, all of which give White some edge.

7 . . . i.d7

This move, with the idea of following up with ... lL'lc6, has become quite popular in recent years, having been taken up by Kan specialists Rublcvsky and Milov. Thus four games in this chapter arc devoted to 7...�d7. The fianchetto with 7 ...g6 is srudicd in Game 24, while the classical 7 ... �e7 is stud­ ied in Games 25 and 26. Other seventh move alternatives for Black are studied in the notes to Game 25. 8 CiJc3 CiJc6 9 CiJxc6

By far the most popular move. White's only real alternative, 9 �e3, is discussed in Game 23. 9

. . .

.ixc6

7 c4

For 7 f4 sec Game 27. After 7 lL'lc3, 7 ...b5 transposes to a position reached in Chapter 8 while 7 ... 1Vc7 leads to Chapter 6.

This is the starting position for Games 20-22.

Game 20 Ulibin-Milov

Frankfurt (rapid) 1999 1 e4 c5 2 CiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 CiJxd4 a6 5 .id3 CiJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 .id7 8 CiJc3 CiJc6 9 CiJxc6 i.xc6 1 0 b3

Another move order employed to reach the same position at move 12 is 10 1Ve2 �e7 1 1 b3 0-0 1 2 �b2. 1 0 . . . .ie7 1 1 .ib2 0-0 1 2 'iie 2

1 2 f4?! is a bit too early here and allows Black a rypical break: 1 2. . . b5! (exploiting a 61

Sicilia n Ka n

gain in time associated with ... .id7 / . ..Ci'Jc6 variations; Black has managed to play ... b7b5 in one go, having not spent a tempo playing ... b6 earlier): a) 1 3 cxbS?! axbS 1 4 'iff3 (or 14 eS dxeS 15 fxeS 'ifd4+!) 14 ...'ifb6+ 15 �ht 'il'b7 and Black has strong pressure against e4, Konguvel-Kostenko, Calcutta 200 1 . b) 1 3 'ife2 bxc4 1 4 .ixc4 d S 1 5 .id3 dxe4 16 tt::lxe4 tt::lxe4 17 .ixe4 .ixe4 1 8 'il'xe4 'il'd2 was agreed drawn i n Sanchez Romero-Sospedra Sebastian, Aragon 1 996.

1 2 . . . ii'a5!

Revealing another pos10ve feature of forgoing ...b7-b6: the queen has access to the aS-square. I believe it was the Bosnian GM Emir Dizdarevic who first played this move and more recently it has found favour with both Rublevsky and Milov. One of Black's main plans here is to swing the queen across to hS to offer a trade. In gen­ eral, Black's position becomes easier after an exchange of queens as he doesn't have to worry about a direct kingside assault by White. Alternatives include: a) 12 ... l:.e8 13 f4 dS!? (13. ..tt::ld7 is safer) 1 4 cxdS exdS 1 5 eS tt::le4 1 6 tt::lxe4! dxe4 1 7 .ixe4 .ibS 1 8 'ifg4?! 'ifd2! 1 9 .ixh7+ when Black can take a draw with 1 9 ... �xh7 20 e6 'ifxb2 21 'ifhS+ �g8 22 'ifxf7+ �h7 23 'ifhS+ or play on with 19 ...�f8!? as in Ar­ nason-Toshkov, Jurmala 1 987. As irn62

provements over 1 8 'ifg4?! , Nunn gives 1 8 'if f3 while I prefer to flick i n 1 8 'ifhS! g6 1 9 'iff3. Both seem to give White good com­ pensation for the small material deficit. b) 12 ... 'ifb8 13 a4 .:te8 14 .:tact tt::ld7 1 5 f4 .ih4 1 6 .:tdt .if6 was unclear in Nunn­ Bischoff, Dortmund 1 987. Nunn suggests that the more direct 13 f4 is stronger: 1 3 ...b5?! 14 cxbS axbS 1 5 eS is indeed good for White. 1 3 l:tad 1

O r 13 f4 'ifhS and now: a) 14 .:tf3!? with a further split: at) 14 ... d5?! 15 cxdS .icS+ 1 6 �ht exdS 17 tt::lx dS tt::lx dS 18 exdS .:tfe8? 19 'ifc2 .ixdS 20 .:tg3 i.f8? 21 .:tgS was a quick win for White in the game Tairi-Astrom, Swe­ den League 2000, but Black was far too adventurous too soon in the centre. a2) One idea I like here is 14 ... i.d8!, planning to redeploy the bishop more ac­ tively on b6 (yet another hidden advantage of forgoing ...b7-b6 in this line!). However, Black must be careful to avoid tactics against his king: 1 5 �hl ! and now the im­ mediate 1 5 ... .ib6? lands Black in big trou­ ble:

a21) 16 tt::la4? tt::lg4! 1 7 .:th3 tt::l f2 + 1 8 'ifxf2 'ifxh3 1 9 tt::lxb6 'ifxd3 20 tt::lxa8 .:txa8 is fine for Black. a22) 16 tt::ld S! exdS 17 .ixf6 dxe4 18 l:.g3 and the best Black can do is 1 8...'il'g6 1 9 lhg6 hxg6 20 .ixe4 gxf6, which is pretty

5 i.. d3 l?J f6 6 0 - 0 d6

gnm. Going back to Black's 1 5th move, much stronger is the prophylactic 1 5 ...l:te8!, plan­ ning to answer 1 6 l:taft with 16 ...d5!. I be­ lieve Black has excellent counterplay in this line. b) 1 4 'iWxhS ltJxhS 1 5 i.e2 1 5 ...tt"Jf6 1 6 i.f3 l:tfd8 1 7 l:tadl ltJd7 1 8 i.a3 ltJcS 1 9 l:.d2 b 6 20 'iti> £2 'iti>f8 2 1 l:tfdt 'iti>e8 and Black has equalised comfortably. In the game Egger-Milov, Istanbul Olympiad 2000, White now blundered a pawn with 22 eS?! i.xf3 23 gxf3? dxeS 24 fxeS l:txd2+ 25 l:txd2 ltJxb3!. Black always has to watch out for ltJdS ideas but here it doesn't work: 13 ltJdS? exdS 14 exdS ltJxdS 1 5 cxdS 'iWxdS 16 f4 l:tfe8 and Black was just a pawn up in Pe­ runovic-Cabrilo, Herceg Novi 200 1 . 13

. . .

'ii'h 5

17 'iW£2 ltJd7 1 8 g4 'ifh3 19 'ifg3 'i!Vxg3+ 20 hxg3 t2Jb6 21 i.e2 i.e7 22 l:td4 l:ted8 23 l:tfd1 i.e8 24 f4 i.f6 25 l:txd6 l:txd6 26 l:txd6 ltJxc4 27 i.xc4 l:txc4 28 eS i.e7 and Black slowly converted his two bishops advantage in Zakic-Dizdarevic, Pula 1 990. b) 16 'iWd2 and now: b1) 16 ... b5!? 17 cxbS axbS 18 f4?! i.d8 19 l:tf3 i.b6+ 20 'iti>h1 dS 21 exdS exdS 22 i.xbS i.xbS 23 ltJxbS tt"Je4 24 'i!Vd3 ltJ£2+ 25 l:tx£2 i.x£2 worked out well for Black in Dobrovolsky-Toshkov, Primorsko 1 987, but I prefer 18 f3!, blunting Black's light­ squared bishop. Black must be careful not to be simply left with a weakness on bS. b2) 16 ...l:ted8 17 l:tfet i.e8 18 l:te3 'iWgS 1 9 ltJe2 and the players opted for an 'early bath' in the game Psakhis-Rublevsky, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1 997. It's true that not much is going on in the final position.

Breaking on the queenside with 1 3 ... b5?! now runs into 14 ltJdS!. It is possible, how­ ever, to delay the offer of the queen exchange: 13 ...l:tfe8!? 1 4 a3 l:tac8 1 5 b4 and only now t S ...'iWhS!.

1 4 f3

It does seem worthwhile for Black to wait if White is simply going to force the issue with a2-a3 and b3-b4, so maybe White should contemplate something different on move 14 and 1 5. Anyway, after 1 S ...'iWhS White has played: a) 1 6 f3 (White gains nothing by avoiding a queen exchange in this manner) 1 6 ...i.d8!

As I stated before, I don't believe that White gains much from avoiding the queen exchange, although Black has nothing to fear there either: 14 'iWxhS ltJxhS 1 5 i.a3 l:tfd8 and now: a) 1 6 i.bl tt"Jf4! 1 7 g3 ('/z-1/z Almasi­ Milov, Groningen 1 998) 17 ...ltJg6 1 8 f4 bS 19 l:td2 l:.ab8 20 cxbS axbS 21 i.b4 dS and Black has equalised. b) 1 6 eS!? 'iti>f8 (16 ...ltJf4? 17 i.e4! is good for White) 17 f4 (1 7 i.e2?! is met by 17 ...ltJf4!, intending 1 8 exd6 i.f6!) 17 ... dxe5 63

Sicilian Kan

1 8 .ixe7 + <3i;xe7 19 fxe5 f5 with equality Milov. 1 4 . . J:Ue8 1 5 Wh 1 tt:ld7

Game 21 Lastin-Rublevsky

Moscow (blit0 200 1 Normally one shouldn't take too much notice of blitz (5 minute) games, but this particular one is of remarkably good quality and is also theoretically important. 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6 5 �d3 tt:lf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 tt:lc3 tt:lc6 9 tt:lxc6 ..txc6 1 0 'i!f'e2 i.e7 1 1 .l:td 1

1 6 i.b 1 ? !

This allows a thematic break, but it's al­ ready difficult to suggest a suitable plan for White. The natural one is f3-f4, but this allows an exchange of queens, while 16 ife1 can be met effectively by 1 6 ... b5!. 16 . . . b5! 1 7 cxb5 axb5 18 f4?!

This is like an admission that White's previous play has been a failure. The result­ ing endgame is good for Black, one of the reasons being that White always has weak­ nesses on the queenside. These make easy targets and it means that, unlike Black, White cannot easily exploit his pawn major­ ity. I prefer the more ambitious 1 8 b4, which at least fixes Black's b-pawn. 1 8 . . .'i!f'xe2 1 9 tt:lxe2 tt:lc5 20 e5 dxe5 2 1 �xe5 �e4 2 2 J:ld2 �xb 1 2 3 .l:txb1 f6 24 �d4 l:!.ed8 25 tt:lg3 Wf7 26 l:tbd 1 f5 27 �e5 .l:txd2 28 l:!.xd2 �f6 29 �xf6 Wxf6 30 Wg1 g5 3 1 fxg5 + Wxg5 32 tt:le2 e5 33 .l:td5 J:lxa2 34 J:lxc5 l:txe2 35 Wf 1 .U.b2 36 l1xe5 l1xb3 37 l:!.e7 h5 38 Wf2 b4 39 .l:tg7 + 'it>f4 40 g3 + We5 41 .l:tb7 We4 42 l:!.e7 + Wd5 43 l:!.f7 .l:tb2 + 44 Wf3 J:lxh2 45 .l:txf5 + 'iti>c4 46 l:!.f8 b3 47 .l:tb8 Wc3 48 l1c8 + 'it>d3 49 .l:td8 + Wc2 50 .l:tc8 + 'iti>d 1 5 1 l:ld8 + 'it>c1 52 .l:tc8 + l1c2 53 l:lh8 l:lc5 0-1 64

A different approach. White immediately makes his mark on the half-open d-file. 1 1 . . .tt:ld7

Blocking the d-ftle and thus ruling out e4-e5 ideas. Alternatively: a) 1 1 ...0-0?! 1 2 e5! is problematic for Black, as 1 2... dxe5 allows 1 3 .ixh7+ . b) 1 1 ...'ilf'a5 1 2 .if4 0-0 1 3 a 3 and now: b 1) 13 ... .l:.fe8?! 14 h3! (preventing a later ...lt::lg4) 14 ...ifh5 1 5 ife3 ltJd7? (Dolmatov gives 1 5 ...'ilf'c5 as an improvement but White is still clearly better after 1 6 'ilf'd2) 1 6 .ie2 ifc 5 1 7 ifg3 'lib6 1 8 b4 lt::lf6 1 9 .ixd6 .ixe4 20 .ie5 20 ... .ig6 21 c5 'lia7 22 'lie3 and White's pieces dominate the board, Dolmatov-S.Kovacevic, Ubeda 2000. b2) 1 3 ...'ilf'h5 14 'lixh5 lt::lx h5 1 5 .ie3 lt::l f6 16 f3 lt::ld7 17 .ifl .l:.fd8 1 8 b4 b6 1 9 .l:h2 <31;[8 20 .l:.ad2 (White has a n edge in this ending; his bishop is much better placed on e3, where it annoys the b6-pawn,

5 i.. d3 f:D f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

than it would be on b2 - compare with Game 20) 20 ...gS?! 21 .if2 f6 22 lt:le2 �fl 23 lt:ld4 .ib7

1 4 cS?! releases the tension too soon: 14 ... 'ifb8 1 S cxd6 .ixd6 16 .ig3 l:td8 and Black is equal, Klovans-Milov, Biel 1 999. 14 . . . 'ii'b8 1 5 a4

1 S .ig3 l:.c8 1 6 cS?! is again premature: 16 ... .ie8 1 7 f4 lt:lg6 18 cxd6 .ixd6 19 eS i.e? 20 h1 i.c6 21 h4 lt:le7, when Black has no weaknesses and a nice bishop on c6, Korneev-Rublevsky, St. Petersburg 1 996. Instead of 16 cS, ECO gives 16 a4 and as­ sesses this as slightly better for White. 1 5 . . . �c8

24 cS!! bxcS 2S lt:lxe6! Wxe6 26 i.c4+ dS 27 l:txdS .ixdS 28 .ixdS+ d6 29 .ixa8+ tic? 30 .idS cxb4 31 l:tcl + b8 32 axb4 i.xb4 33 l:tc6 aS 34 l:ta6 l:tc8 3S .ig3+ lLleS 36 l:txf6 and White went on to win in Korneev-S.Kovacevic, N avalmoral 1 999. c) 1 1 ...'ifb8!? (Fedorowicz prefers this move to 1 1 ...lt:ld7) 1 2 .i f4 b6 (12... 0-0 1 3 lL'ldS! .ixdS 1 4 cxdS exdS 1 S exdS is a bit better for White, Emunds-S.Bohm, corre­ spondence 1 993) 1 3 liJdS!? (13 cS!? is also interesting) 1 3. ..exdS 14 cxdS! .ib7 (14 ... .id7 1 S eS!) 1 S eS 0-0! ( 1 S ... dxeS? 1 6 i.xeS 'ifd8 1 7 .ixf6 gxf6 1 8 d6 is very strong) 1 6 exf6 .ixf6 1 7 'ife4 g6 1 8 'ifb4 l:td8 1 9 .ie4 aS! 20 'ifxb6 .ia6 21 .ie3 l:te8 22 i.£3 .ixb2 23 l:tab1 'ifxb6 24 .ixb6 i.c3 and Black had equalised in Vokarev­ Ionescu, Bucharest 1 998. 1 2 i-f4 0-0 1 3 l:t.ac1 t:De5

In many ways this is the most natural move here, but it's not totally obvious that Black has to block the diagonal: 1 3 ...l:.e8 1 4 .ib1 .igS 1 S .ixgS 'ifxgS 1 6 'ii'd2 (or 1 6 :c2!? 'ii'c S 1 7 l:tcd2 lLleS 1 8 b 3 bS!) 16 ... 'ii'xd2 17 l:txd2 lL'lb6 1 8 b3 lt:lc8 1 9 lt:le2 b6 20 lt:ld4 .ib7 21 a4 Wf8 22 aS bxaS 23 l:ta2 lt:lb6 24 l:txaS and White was just a tiny bit better in Turov-Kozlov, Decin 1 998. 14 i.. b 1

1 S ... b6 1 6 i.e3 l:tc8 1 7 b3 .ie8 1 8 h3 lt:lc6 1 9 .if4 lt:leS 1/2-1/2 Lascin-Rublevsky, Herceg Novi 2000 was the previous 'battle' between these two players in this line. In­ stead of 16 i.e3, White can continue with the plan in the main game with 1 6 i.g3. 1 6 i.. g 3 i..eS 1 7 ..ta2 'ii'a 7 1 8 'iti>h 1 'ii'b 6

The earlier game Lastin-Landa, Tomsk 2001 continued 1 8... 'ifcS!?, trying to induce White into playing b2-b3 and thus killing the a2-bishop. Instead White initiated tre­ mendous complications with 19 f4!? lt:lxc4!? 20 b3 lt:le3 (20 ... lt:lb6 21 liJdS 'ifxcl 22 lt:lxe7+ f8 23 lt:lxc8 'ifxc8 24 l:.xd6 looks better for White) 21 l:td3 dS 22 b4 'ifxb4 23 'ifxe3 dxe4 24 l:tdd1 'ifa3 with a posicion which is very difficult to assess. White has an extra knight but some coordination problems. Black has three extra pawns but no dangerous pawn majority. One thing that can be said is that Lastin was prepared to face 1 8 ... 'ii'c S again, albeit in a blitz game! 1 9 f4! t:Dc6 20 f5!?

This is a very dangerous plan. White in­ tends to give the bishop on a2 his life back! 20 . . . t:Db4 21 fxe6 fxe6

Given what happens in the game, Black should seriously consider 21 ... lt:lxa2!? here. After 22 exfl + i.xfl 23 lt:lxa2 'ii'b3 Black regains his pawn and is only a little worse. 22 c5!

This pawn sacrifice releases the a2bishop and now both White's bishops angle beautifully across the board. 65

Sicilian K a n ltJc6 9 ltJxc6 �xc6 1 0 b4!?

2 2 . . . dxc5 2 3 a5 'ii'c 6 2 4 ..tc4 �dB 25 �f1 �f7?

2S ... i.d7 (Fedorowicz) is a stronger de­ fence but I would still very much prefer to be White: 26 1i'g4 l:t£8 27 i.eS g6 28 h4!, planning h4-hS, looks good. 26 'ii'g 4 l:UB 27 �e5 g6 28 'ii'f4 g5 29 'ii'g4 h5 30 'ii'h 3 �adS

There are three points to this ambitious move. Firstly, Black now has to be on a constant lookout for b4-bS from White, especially as the knight on f6 often ends up on d7. Secondly, Black is denied access to the aS-square which, as we have seen in previous games, is a handy place for the queen. Thirdly, White prepares to fianchetto with i.b2. So far so good for White, but there is a downside. By moving the b-pawn two squares instead of one, the c4-pawn is denied protection from its partner and can prove to be a liability on the half-open c­ f!.le. Whether Black can become active enough to exploit this is another question. 1 0 . . . b6

31 �xf7! �xf7 32 �xe6 ltJd3 33 �xf7 + �xf7 34 .l:l.f 1 + �eB 35 'ii'x h5 + �d7 36 'ii'h 3 + 'ii'e 6 37 'ii'x d3 + �cB 38 'ii'g 3 'ii'c4 39 'ii'g 4 + .U.d7 40 �d 1 ..td6 4 1 �xd6 1 -0

Game 22 Khalifman-Rublevsky

Kazan 200 1

._______________.

1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6 5 �d3 ltJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 ltJc3 66

The safest reply; Black gives his bishop a secure retreat to b 7. However, Black can also simply develop with 10 ... i.e7 and now: a) 1 1 bS!? (critical, but White has yet to come up with an advantage after this move) 1 1 ...i.d7 1 2 a4 (12 i.e3 axbS 13 cxbS "iVaS 14 i.d2 1i'a3 1 S l:tb 1 0-0 1 6 l:tb3 "iVa7 1 7 b6 1i'b8 18 i.bS l:tc8 19 a4 i.d8 20 i.f4 i.xb6 21 i.xd6 i.c7 22 i.xd7 l:td8! 23 tiJbS was agreed drawn in Savanovic-Ionescu, Bijeljina Dvorovi 2002; 23 ... i.xd6 24 1i'xd6 l:txd7 is very drawish) 1 2...0-0 1 3 i.e3 1i'c7 14 aS axbS 1 S i.b6 "iVc8 1 6 tDxbS i.c6 1 7 tt:Ja7 1i'd7 1 8 tDxc6 1i'xc6 1 9 1i'a4 1i'c8 20 "iVbS tiJd7 21 l:tfb1 i.f6 22 l:ta3 tt:Jxb6 23 1i'xb6 i.d8 24 1i'xb7 was another draw in

5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

Lobzhanidze-Lastin, Kstovo 1 997. b) I can't find any examples of 1 1 i.b2, but after 1 1 ...0-0 12 1i'e2 it's not clear whether Black can achieve anything by de­ laying ... b7-b6 any further. 1 1 i.b2 i.e7

This is not forced. Black could try to take the sting out of a possible kingside attack from White by fianchettoing, although of course there are then potential problems with the defence of d6. Nevertheless, 1 1 ...g6!? 12 1i'e2 i.g7 13 l:.ad1 1i'e7 (13...0-0 14 eS! dxeS 1 5 i.xg6 is promising for White, as is 13 ...1i'c7? 1 4 lLJdS!) 1 4 bS axbS 1 5 cxbS i.b7 16 1i'e3 1i'd8 17 i.e2 0-0 18 i.f3 .U.e8 19 eS lLJdS 20 lLJxdS exdS 21 i.xdS i.xdS 22 .U.xdS i.xeS saw Black equalising in Cheparinov-S.Kovacevic, Dos Hermanas 2002.

1 3 . . . Ci:Jd7

In later games Black instead played 1 3 ...'iic 7 14 f4 and now: a) 14 ... l:.ad8?! (I believe the rook should instead be on c8, hitting c4) 1 5 �hl i.b7 16 l:tf3! g6 17 l:th3 lLJd7? 18 lLJbS!! and Black resigned in Kindermann-Thesing, Bundesliga 2001 because of 1 8 ... axb5 1 9 'iVhS!. This i s a great illustration of the dan­ gers that await Black in this line. b) 14 ...l:tac8 1 5 .U.f3 .U.fd8 16 l:th3 h6 1 7 .U.g3 i.b7 1 8 a3 a S 1 9 eS dxeS 20 fxe5 lLJe8 21 lLJbS 1i'b8 (Luther-Rublevsky, World Team Ch., Yerevan 2001) and here Rublev­ sky gives 22 i.cl axb4 23 axb4 i.xb4 24 i.xh6 with a clear advantage for White. Rublevsky mentions no improvements for Black in this line so we should assume that White is better after 13 ...'iic 7.

1 2 'i!fe2 0-0 1 3 l:lad 1

14 f4 i.b7

It should be pointed out that this line is very similar to the one studied in Vogt­ Gheorghiu (Game 25), but with two differ­ ences: White has not committed himself to playing �hl , and White's b-pawn is on b4 rather than b3. The first difference is obvi­ ously favourable for White as he may well be able to do without 'it>h1 , using the extra tempo in his kingside attacking ambitions. The second difference, though, favours Black; the c4-pawn can become quite vul­ nerable down the half-open c-ftle, especially if White plays the 'normal' retreat i.b 1 .

Preparing to pressurise the c-pawn. The line 1 4... l:.c8 1 5 .U.f3 i.b7 1 6 l:th3 would transpose to the note to Black's 1 6 th move, while 14 ... i.f6? gives Black problems with d6: 1 5 i.c2 1i'c7 1 6 'iVd3 (Stohl) and Black is faced with threats of 'iix d6 and e4-e5. 1 5 l:lf3

Here comes a typical rook swinger! White is going straight for the throat on the kingside. 15

. . .

g6

A prophylactic measure against l:th3 fol­ lowed by c4-e5. At some point Black will 67

Sicilian Kan

also want to bolster his kingside with ... i.f6g7 or ... l:.eB and ... i.f8. 16 :h3

b) 21 ...i.xe5? 22 i.xe5 l2Jxe5 23 lLlf6+. 22 ll'lf6 + i.xf6 2 3 exf6

Now White has mating threats with 'ii'c 3h6. Black does extremely well to last as long as he does. 23 . . . e5 24 l:r.f3 l::.fd8 25 .l:f.d5!

But not 25 'ii'e 3? on 25 ...'ii'xc4 26 'ii'h6 lLlxf6!.

account

of

25 . . . h5 26 l:.fd3 ll'lf8

26 ... lLlxf6? 27 'ifxe5! 'ifxeS 2B l:.xdB+ 'ii'e B 29 i.xf6 and 26 ... 'ii'xc4? 27 'ii'd2 both win for White. 27 'ikxe5 'ikxe5 28 i.xe5 :xd5 29 .l:f.xd5

1 6 . . . i.f6?

This move allows a tactical breakthrough, after which White converts his initiative into a concrete advantage. The only consistent way to play is with 1 6 ... l:.cB! and now, as Slovakian GM Igor Stohl has shown, no combinations work for White: a) 17 liJdS? (this works against 17 .. .'ific7 but not when the queen is on dB) 17 ... exd5 1 B 'WhS gxhS 19 l:.g3+ i.gS!. b) 1 7 eS?! dxeS 1 B i.e4 'Wc7 and White has no good way to continue. c) Rublevsky gives 1 7 i.b1 with a 'clear advantage to White' but it's not totally ob­ vious how White strengthens his position, while Black can improve his defences with ... l:teB and possibly ...i.f8. 1 7 e5!

Okay, Black has survived into an end­ game, but the extra pawn is always going to be a winner. 29 . . . ll'le6 30 c5 bxc5 3 1 bxc5 l:.c8 32 �d6 g5 33 'it>f2 'ith7 34 �e7 'it>g6 35 'it>e3 l::. b8 36 l:!.d2 'itf5 37 'it>d3 l:!.b4 38 'it>c3 :b1 39 'it>c4 .l:f.c1 + 40 'itd5 h4 41 c6 g4 42 'it>d6 g3 43 hxg3 hxg3 44 'it>d7 l::.c 3 45 �d6 'it>xf6 46 c7 1 -0

Both players should always be looking out for this move. 1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 i.e4 'ikc7

Game 23 Shirov-Rublevsky

Or 1B ... i.xe4 19 lLlxe4 i.g7 20 l:.hd3 l:.a7 21 i.xeS 'WeB 22 i.xg7 �xg7 23 l:.d6 and White's pressure is becoming unbear­ able.

5 i.d3 ll'lf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �d7 8 ll'lc3

1 9 i.xb7 'ikxb7 20 ll'le4 �g7 21 fxe5

ll'lc6 9 �e3

'ikc7

The only real alternative to 9 lLlxc6. White defends the knight on d4 and devel­ ops another piece.

Or: a) 21 ...lLlxe5? 22 liJd6!. 68

Montecatini Terme 2000 1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll'lxd4 a6

5 i. d3 0. t 6 6 0 - 0 d6 1 0 f4

10 nct is less threatening: 10 ...0-0 1 1 "ii'e 2 lDe5 1 2 i..b 1 "ifc7 1 3 b3 lDeg4 1 4 i..g5 "ii'c 5 1 5 l2Jf3 h6 and Black was fine in the game Balashov-Liberzon, Palma de Mal­ lorca 1 989. 1 0 . . . 0-0

9

. . .

i.e7

An important alternative here is 9 ... l2Je5!? 10 i..e 2 and now: a) 10 ... i..e7 is sensible: 1 1 f4 lDg6 1 2 'it>h1 0-0 1 3 "ifd2 e5! 1 4 fxe5 (or 1 4 lDf5 exf4! 1 5 i..x f4 i..xf5 1 6 exf5 l2Jxf4 1 7 1:hf4 d5! 1 8 cxd5 i..d 6 1 9 .I:tffl .te5! followed by ..."ifd6, ...nfe8 and ... nac8 [Fogarasi] when Black has good dark-squared compensation for the pawn) 1 4...dxe5 1 5 ltJfS i..b4! and Black's counterplay against e4 compensates for White's powerful knight on f5, Acs­ Fogarasi, Budapest 1 998. b) 1 0.. J:tc8!? and now: b1) 1 1 f4!? lDxc4 1 2 i..xc4 nxc4 1 3 e5 is an interesting pawn sacrifice. In the game Renet-Adamski, Katowice 1 992, White got a strong attack after 1 3 ...l2Jg8 1 4 "ii'e 2 d5 1 5

Black can also go for an immediate counter-attack with 10 ...l2Jxd4 1 1 i..xd4 e5!? 12 fxe5 dxe5 13 i..xe5 and now: a) 13 ...l2Jg4 (Hawelko-Adamski, Polish Ch. 1 987) and now 14 i..d 4! looks good: 14 ..."ii'c 7? 1 5 e5! i..c 5 16 i.. f5!. b) 13. ..i..c 5+ 1 4 'it>h 1 l2Jg4 15 i..g3 lDe3 1 6 "ii'h 5 lDxfl 1 7 nxfl i..e 6 1 8 l2Jd5 i..d6 19 i..h 4!? (Hawelko) and now after 1 9 ..."ii'b 8 I like the move 20 e5!. White cer­ tainly has a strong attack. 1 1 �h 1 0.xd4 1 2 i.xd4 i.c6 1 3 'ife2 0.d7

fS.

b2) 1 1 b3 with a further split: b21) 1 1 ...b5 1 2 f4 l2Jg6 1 3 lDc2 i..e7 14 a4 with an edge to White, Shorr-Hjartarson, Amsterdam 1 99 1 . b22) 1 1 ..."ii'a5 1 2 nct ( 1 2 i..d2 "ifc5 1 3 i..e3 "ii'a 5 1 4 i..d2 "ii'c 5 1 5 lD£3 i.. e7 1 6 nc1 0-0 17 i..e3 "ii'a5 was equal in Koch­ Cramling, Haifa 1 989) 1 2... -te7 13 f4 lDc6 14 i.. f3 0-0 1 5 "ii'd2 lDxd4 1 6 i..xd4 i..c 6 1 7 nfd1 'it>h8 1 8 "ii' £2 b 5 1 9 e 5 dxe5 20 fxe5 l2Jd7 21 cxb5 axb5 and Black had equalised in Tondivar-Adamski, Giessen 1 994, even though it seems a little strange to carry out the manoeuvre ...lDc6-e5-c6!

Black has reached his typical defensive set-up. Compared to previous games in this chapter, White has gained a bit of time be­ cause the exchange of knights occurred on d4 instead of c6. On the other hand, the bishop on d4 is not ideally placed; it can be hit by a timely ... e6-e5. 1 4 l:!.ad 1 e5!

Black gives up the d5-square but secures e5. This is a reasonable trade, especially since the bishop on c6 is ready to chop on d5 as soon as the white knight arrives. 1 5 .ie3 exf4 1 6 .ixf4 0.e5 69

Sicilia n Kan

1 6 ...'ifa5 1 7 lDd5 .i.xd5 1 8 exd5 l:Iae8 19 'ifc2 h6 20 ..tf5 lDf6 21 a3?! lDh5 22 b4 'ifd8! 23 .tel i.g5 24 .i.b2 .i.f6 equalised for Black in Hernandez-Christiansen, Phila­ delphia 1 998, but I like White after the more ambitious 21 c5!. 1 7 .tc2

Lining up an enticing sacrificial idea. Also worth attention is Ribli's suggestion of 17 l2Jd5!? .i.xd5 1 8 .i.xe5! (18 exd5 .i.f6 is very solid for Black) and now: a) 1 8 ... .i.e6 19 .i.c3 is favourable for White, who can attack with e4-e5. b) 18 ... dxe5 19 exd5 looks pleasant for White, although after 1 9 ...'ifd6 (19... ..td6 20 'ir'c2 g6 21 c5 l:tc8 22 b4 is tremendous for White) 20 l:tdel f6 21 ..tf5 g6 22 i.e6+ �g7 it's also difficult for White to improve his position.

lDxa8 lha8 24 l:Id 1 t2Jd3! 25 .i.xd3 .i.xf4 26 .i.xb5 - Shirov. 20 . . . .tb5 2 1 'ifh5 f6 22 l:tf4

22 lDxf6+?! l:txf6 23 .i.xe5 llxfl + 24 l:txfl 'ir'e6 25 i.b3 .i.c4 is a bit better for Black; White's attack has run out of steam and he is left with more pawn islands. 22 . . . g6 23 'ifh6

1 7 . . . 'ifc7 1 8 c5!? 23 . . . l:tad8!

Imaginative play by Rublevsky, who cal­ culates that he will obtain enough compen­ sation for the queen. 24 lLlxf6 + l:txf6 25 l:txd6 l:tfxd6 26 l:tf1 ! i.f8?

Sacrificing a pawn in order to undermine the support for the e5-knight and open lines for the light-squared bishop. 1 8 .i.xe5 dxe5 19 t2Jd5 .i.xd5 20 exd5 g6 gives White an inferior version of note 'b' to White's 1 7th move.

Undoing the previous good work. Shirov suggests 26 ...g5! and now: a) 27 'ir'h5? .i.xfl 28 .i.xe5 l:tg6 29 i.c3 b5 30 e5 .i.d3 31 i.xd3 llxd3 and the ex­ change of bishops leaves the position in Black's favour. b) 27 'ir'h3 .i.xfl 28 .i.xe5, which Shirov assesses as unclear. 27 'ifc1 .ixf1 28 .ixe5 l:te6?

28 ... ..tc4 limits the damage. 29 'ifxf1 J:txe5 30 .ib3 + c4 3 1 'ifxc4 + 'it>g7 32 'iic 7 + 1 -0

1 8 . . . dxc5 1 9 lLld5 'iid 6

19 ... .i.xd5? loses after 20 exd5 .i.d6 (or 20... f6 21 'ir'e4 g6 22 d6 .i.xd6 23 'ir'd5+) 21 i.xe5 .i.xe5 22 d6! .i.xd6 23 'ir'd3. 20 .ig3

20 t2Jb6 leads to a drawing ending after 20... ..tb5 21 'ir'xb5 axb5 22 l:hd6 ..txd6 23 70

Game 24 Timman-Kengis

Yerevan O(ympiad 1996 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 .id3 lLlf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 g6

5 Ji.. d3 rt:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

After this move we reach positions simi­ lar to those in Games 1 -8 with two subtle differences: White's queen is on d1 instead of e2, and Black's queen is also at home (instead of c7). I believe that this difference works in White's favour. White's most ob­ vious plan of action is pressure down the half-open d-ftle against Black's vulnerable d6-pawn so the white queen is clearly well placed on either d1 or d2, allowing a dou­ bling on the ftle with _:.dl . Casting our minds back to Chapter 1 , White would of­ ten eventually play the move 'ife2-d2 any­ way, thus effectively losing a move. In the line here, White generally manages to put earlier pressure on d6 and it's more difficult for Black to reach an ideal defensive set-up. 8 rt:Jc3 Ji.. g 7

9 JigS

Not the only move by any means. White has two dangerous alternatives: a) 9 tt:J£3 aims for a similar set-up to the one considered in Games 1 -5: a1) 9 ...tt:Jc6 1 0 h3! (10 �f4 tLlg4 1 1 'ifd2 0-0 1 2 �e2 tt:Jge5 1 3 l:tfd1 tLlx£3+ 1 4 �x£3 tLld4 1 5 �e2 'ifc7 1 6 l:r.acl �d7 1 7 �fl i.c6 and Black had managed to equalise in Tsuboi-Hernandez, Havana 1 998) 10 ...tt:Jd7 (or 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 � f4) 1 1 �g5 'ifc7 1 2 :c1 0-0 13 'ifd2 tLlce5 1 4 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 1 5 :fd1 (1 5 b3!?) 1 5...b6 ( 1 5 ...tt:Jxc4 1 6 �xc4 'ifxc4 1 7 'ifxd6 is awkward for Black) 1 6 �fl (16 b3 avoids any complications; I like White

after 1 6...�b7 1 7 �fl) 1 6 ... f6 (16...tt:Jxc4!?) 1 7 �e3 tLlf7 1 8 tLla4 :b8 1 9 'ifb4 and Black was in some trouble in Nyysti­ Cabrilo, Belgrade 2002. a2) 9 ... 0-0 10 i. f4 and now: a21) 10 ...tLlc6 1 1 h3!, followed by 'ii'd 2. a22) 10 ... tt:Jg4 1 1 i.e2 tLle5 12 tLlxe5! dxe5 13 'ifxd8 :xd8 14 �g5 f6 (14 ...:e8?! 15 tLla4 tLlc6 16 tLlb6 l:r.b8 17 c5 left Black struggling to complete development in Yu­ dasin-Movsesian, Pula 1 997) 15 :fd 1 �d7 16 �e3 l:tc8 17 :acl is a bit better for White; Black will find it hard to utilise the d4-outpost. a23) 10 ... tLlh5 1 1 �g5 'ifc7 12 'ifd2 tLld7 1 3 :acl with a typical edge for White, Aseev-Kochyev, St. Petersburg 1 995. Hav­ ing played 'ifd1 -d2 in one go, White is ef­ fectively a tempo up on similar lines consid­ ered in Chapter 1 . b) 9 tLlb3!? is recommended i n the popu­ lar Beating the Sicilian series by John Nunn and Joe Gallagher. 9 ... 0-0 10 i.e2 and: b1) 10 ...'ife7 1 1 � f4 l:.d8 12 'ifd2 tLlc6 13 l:.fd1 tLle8 14 i.e3 l:tb8 (or 14 ...tLlf6 1 5 �b6 l:td7 1 6 'ife3 and Black is in a tangle, Gallagher-Gokhale, Sangli 2000) 1 5 i.b6 tLlc7 1 6 .l:tacl and White has a pleasant ad­ vantage, Lutz-Cvitan, Passau 1 997. b2) 1 O ...tLlc6 1 1 �f4 tLle8 (1 1 ...tLle5 12 c5 tLle8 transposes to note 'b23') 12 c5! (12 'ifd2 b6 13 .l:tfd1 tLle5 14 :acl 'ifc7 was equal in Nunn-Gheorghiu, Vienna 1 986)

71

Sicilian Ka n

and now: b21) 1 2 ... e5 13 i..e 3 i.. e6 1 4 ll'ld5 i..xd5 15 exd5 ll'le7 (FeBland-Micklethwaite, cor­ respondence 1 994) and here I like the sim­ ple 16 .l:tc t , which looks pleasant for White. b22) 12 ... dxc5 13 'iix dB ll'lxdB 14 ll'la4! e5 (Nevanlinna-Seeman, Jyvaskyla 2001) and now I like the look of 15 i..e 3! ll'le6 (or 15 ... c4 1 6 ll'lb6 l:tbB 17 ll'lc5) 1 6 ll'lb6 .l:tbB 1 7 ll'lxc5. b23) 12 ... ll'le5 13 i..e 3 f5 14 f4 ll'lf7 and here I think White should play 1 5 exf5! (15 i.. O fxe4 1 6 i..xe4 d5 was a quick draw in Gallagher-Cvitan, Cannes 1 996; signifi­ cantly, though, Cvitan moved onto 10 ...'ii'e7 for his next encounter) 1 5 ... exf5 16 i.. O and Black has problems moving his pieces from the back rank.

White's position is much the easier to play. He could try to attack the weak dark squares on the kingside, but much the safer bet is to concentrate on the queenside, spe­ cifically the weaknesses on d6 and b6. 1 6 . . . 'ii'c 5 1 7 f3 J:.fe8 1 8 .l:tfd1 lt'le5 1 9 lt'la4 'ii'a 5?!

Obviously, this is not really what Black wants to do. 1 9 ... 1Wc7 20 iVb4 looks trou­ blesome for Black, but after 20... .l:tb8! I can't find anything too devastating for White. 20 'ii'x a5 bxa5 21

c5 dxc5 22 lt:\xc5

i.c8 23 �g 1 !

Bringing the king into the game. 23 . . . g5 24 �f2 �g8 25 �e3

9 . . . lt'lbd7 1 0 J:.c1

1 0 iVd2 0-0 11 .l:tad1 1Wc7 1 2 b3 b6 13 i..b 1 .U.e8 14 ll'lde2 i.. f8 15 'it>h1 i..b7 1 6 f4 was perhaps a little better for White in Tompa-Bellon Lopez, Metz 1 985, but I prefer Tirnman's handling of the position. 1 0 . . . 'ii'c 7 1 1 b3 0-0 1 2 'ii'd 2

White is in control. Only by a mixture of heroic defence by Black and inaccurate play by White does the game end in a draw. 25 . . . .l:td6 26 lt:\e2 llxd 1 27 l.txd 1 lt'lfd7 28 llc 1 lLlb6 29 ..td3 l:!.d8 30 l.tc3 f5 3 1 g3 fxe4 3 2 .be4 �f7 3 3 lt'ld4 �f6 34 a4 h5 35 l.tc2 h4 36 gxh4 gxh4 37 J:.g2 lLld5 + 38 ..txd5 exd5 39 f4 lt:\g4 + 40 �f3 lt'lh6 41 lt:\c6 l:!.e8 42 lt:\e5 ..tt5 43 1 2 . . . b6?!

J:.d2 .l:td8 44 �e3 h3 45 �f3 ..te4 + 46

I would be tempted to play 12 .. J�e8 here, planning to meet 13 .ih6 with 13 ... i..h 8!. It seems that with the exchange of the dark­ squared bishops, Black loses much of the potential counterplay in his position.

�f2 �f5 4 7 lt'lxe4 �xf4 48 lt'lc6 Y2 - Y2

1 3 ..th6! ..tb7 1 4 ..txg7 �xg7 1 5 i.b1 J:.ad8 16 �h 1 72

Game 25 Vogt-Gheorghiu

Hambur;g 1984 1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6

5 � d 3 l1J f6 6 0 - 0 d6 5 .td3 l1Jt6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 �e7

Again we eventually arrive at this classical development from Black. Variations here should be compared closely to those in Games 9- 1 1 , and of course there are many transpositional possibilities. Other possibilities for Black include: a) 7...lbbd7 8 lbc3 b6 is possible, but then White can exploit the fact that Black has committed his knight to d7 so early: 9 a4! ..tb7 10 aS and White breaks up Black's structure: 1 0... ..te7 (lO... bxaS 1 1 lbb3!) 1 1 ..te3! (1 1 axb6?! allows 1 1 ...'ifxb6 1 2 lbb3 .l:tb8!, planning to meet lbaS with ... ..taB, Dolmatov-Loginov, USSR 1 983) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 axb6 lbxb6 1 3 lbb3 and White is better. b) An important alternative is for Black to choose first to fianchetto on the queen­ side. Although this sometimes simply trans­ poses, there are some independent points to remember: 7 ... b6 8 lbc3 ..tb7

though: 11 fS eS 1 2 lbc2 lbcS isn't so bad for Black on this occasion as the bishop is not particularly well placed on e3) 1 1 lbxc6 (the more restrained 1 1 'iff3 looks stronger) 1 1 .....txc6 1 2 eS!? dxeS 1 3 fxeS lbd7 14 'ii'g4 (14 .l:txf?? loses to 1 4...'it>xf7 1S 'ifhS+ 'it>g8 16 .l:tf1 'ife8!) 14 ... g6 1 S 'ii'g3 (or 1 S .l:txf7 �xf7 1 6 .l:tfl + 'it>g7 1 7 'ifxe6 .l:tf8! ­ Gheorghiu) 1 S ...'ifc7 1 6 i.d4 lbcS 1 7 ..tc2 .l:td8 1 8 l:tad 1 0-0 1 9 'ife3 .l:txd4! 20 'ifxd4 lbd7! 21 'iff4 lbxeS and Black has excellent compensation for the exchange, Kinder­ mann-Gheorghiu, Zurich 1 984. c) 9 f4 and now: cl) 9 ...lbc6 10 lbxc6 i.xc6 1 1 'ife2 ..te7 1 2 b3 0-0 13 i.b2 leads to note 'b' to White's 1 1 th move. A plus for White is that he has not committed his king to h 1 . c2) 9 ...l2Jbd7 allows White to force the issue with 10 fS! . As we have seen before, the type of position reached after 10 ... eS 1 1 lbc2 is generally better for White. c3) 9 ... ..te7 1 0 fS!' (10 'it>h 1 0-0 1 1 'ife2, reaching the main game, is of course possi­ ble) 10 ... lbc6 1 1 ..te3 lbxd4 12 ..txd4 0-0 13 fxe6 fxe6 14 'ife2 �h8 1 5 l:tad1 l2Jd7 1 6 .l:txf8+ 'ifxf8 1 7 lba4 ..tf6 1 8 ..txf6 'ifxf6 19 'ife3 .l:td8! and White was just a tiny bit bet­ ter in Adams-Ivanchuk, Linares 2002. c4) 9 ... g6!? is obviously risky but totally thematic; Black answers the £2-f4 lunge with a fianchetto. This is a favourite of the Ro­ manian GM Constantin Ionescu.

and now: a) 9 a4!? lbc6! (9 ... lbbd7?! 10 aS! trans­ poses to note 'a' above, but 9 ... ..te7, keep­ ing the option of ...lbc6, also looks okay) 1 0 lbxc6 ..txc6 1 1 ..te3 ..te7 1 2 f3 0-0 1 3 'ifd2 'ii'b 8 14 .l:tfd1 l:c8 1 S ..tfl lbd7 and Black was okay in Ivanchuk-Rublevsky, Monte­ catini Terme 2000. b) 9 ..te3 (trying to reach the set-up stud­ ied in Game 26) 9 ... ..te7 10 f4 lbc6!? (10 ... 0-0?! transposes into note 'a' to Black's 9th move in Game 26; 10 ...lbbd7 is possible 73

Sicilia n Kan

White can play: c41) 10 f5 gxfS! 1 1 exfS .l:tg8 12 tLl£3 eS 13 .igS tLlbd7 14 .ie4 bS! 1 5 .ixb7 'ii'b 6+ 16 'it>h1 'ifxb7 17 b3 .ie7 18 'ii'e 2 l::tc 8 and Black had reasonable counterplay in Magem Badals-Ionescu, Manresa 1 996. c42) 1 0 'it>h1 and now: c421) 10 ... .ig7 1 1 fS 'ii'e 7 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 'ii'a 4+! (Zeller) is problematic for Black: both 1 3. .. tLlbd7 14 tLlc6 and 13. ..tiJfd7 1 4 .ie3 leave Black struggling t o complete his development. c422) 10 ...tLlbd7! 1 1 fS 'ii'e7 (an advan­ tage of not playing an early .. .'ifc7) 1 2 fxe6 fxe6 13 'ii'B .ig7 14 'ifh3 tLlcS 15 i.gS 0-0 (Zeller) and Black has an ideal set-up. Zeller goes on to give 1 6 .ic2 'ifd7 with the idea of 1 7 .l:tae 1 ? lLlfxe4!. If this analysis holds up then 9 ... g6 looks like an excellent answer to 9 f4.

able. Conversely, a queenside fianchetto for White works well when Black plays ...tLlc6. So with moves like 'ife2, f4 and 'it>h1 White is playing logically while waiting to see how Black reacts. That said, there are also advantages with ploughing right ahead with a queenside fi­ anchetto, for example 9 b3 b6 10 i.b2 i.b7 1 1 'ife2 and now: a) Given what I have said before, 1 1 ...tLlbd7 looks most logical. After 1 2 f4 'ii'c 7 we transpose to note 'a' to White's 1 1 th move. b) 1 1 ...tLlc6 12 tLlxc6 .ixc6 13 .U.ae t !? (13 f4 transposes to note 'b' to White's 1 1 th move) 1 3 ...ttJd7?! (I believe Black should play 13. .. .l:te8! 14 f4 tLld7!)

8 lt:\c3 0-0

9 'i!fe2

At some point White will have to decide what to do with the dark-squared bishop (b3 and .ib2, or .id2). As John Nunn points out in Beating the Sicilian, White would quite like to know how Black develops his b8-knight before committing himself. Plans involving .id2, 'ife2 and .l:tae1 are most effective when Black has played ... tLlbd7. The point is that if White manages to achieve the advance e4-e5, then the f6knight does not have the d7-square avail74

14 tiJdS! .ih4 1 5 g3 .if6 16 tLlxf6+ lLlxf6 17 .l:td1 and the absence of Black's dark-squared bishop promises White a pleasant edge, Jansa-Polugacvsky, Sochi 1 976 For 9 i.e3 and other alternatives, sec Game 26. 9 . . . b6

9 ... tLlc6!? is not really a typical Kan idea but it is playable nevertheless. 10 tLlxc6 bxc6 1 1 f4 (1 1 b3 and .ib2 is also sensible) 1 1 ...e5 1 2 'it>h1 tLld7 (Bonsch recommends 12 ... exf4!? 13 .ixf4 tLld7) 13 f5! aS 14 .ic3 was a bit better for White, Adams­ Christiansen, Reykjavik 1 990. 1 0 f4 ..tb7 1 1 �h 1

5 i. d3 Ci:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

Again White may try to do without 'it>h 1 . After 1 1 b 3 we have: a) 1 t ...lLlbd7 (the most logical, given the reasoning above) 1 2 i..b 2 'Wc7 (12 .. J:te8!?) 13 l::ta d1 l::t fe8 14 i..b 1 transposes to Game 10. b) 1 t ...lLlc6 1 2 lLlxc6 i..x c6 1 3 i..b 2 lLld7 14 l::ta d1 and now probably best for Black is 14 ...g6!, asking the question whether White has anything better than to transpose into the main game with 1 5 'it>h 1 . At some point White has to do something about tricks on the a7-g1 diagonal but note that the imme­ diate 1 4... b5? doesn't work for Black: 1 5 cxb5 axb5 1 6 i.xb5 'Wb6+ 1 7 l::t f2! i..x b5 18 'ir'xb5 'iVxb5 1 9 lLlxb5 l::txa2 20 i..xg7 .l:!.fa8 21 l::txa2 l::txa2 22 i..d4 1eft White with a clear extra pawn in Hellers-Adamski, Eeklo 1 985. Black should answer 1 1 i..d 2 with 1 t ...lLlc6! 1 2 lLlxc6 i..xc6 and now White's bishop is misplaced on d2.

lLlxe8+ l::txe8 2 5 'ii £3 and White was better in Hellers-Servat, Gausdal 1 986.

1 6 . . .i.f8?

1 t ...lLlbd7! 1 2 i.d2 'Wc7 13 l::ta e1 trans­ poses to Game 9. Given the problems Black experiences in the text, I believe this is Black's best way to continue.

Black has two better defences: . a) 1 6 ... 'iVc7 1 7 'iVd3 i.. f8 1 8 lLlb5!? i..x b5 19 cxb5 axb5 20 'ir'xb5 'iVb7 (Nunn­ Gheorghiu, Hamburg 1 984) and now Nunn recommends 21 a4, relieving the b 1 -bishop of its defensive duty on a2 and pinning down the b6-pawn. This is enough to keep an edge. Against 1 6 ...'iib 8 Nunn likes 17 'iid3 b5 18 cxb5 axb5 19 lLle2 b4 20 lLld4 i..b7 21 'ir'h3 'with a dangerous kingside attack'.

1 2 Ci:Jxc6 .i.xc6 1 3 b3 Ci:Jd7

1 7 e5!

In earlier games Gheorghiu played 13. .. 'Wc7 here: 14 i..b 2 l:t.ad8 1 5 l::ta e1 i..b7 16 i..b 1 lLld7? (16 ...g6! 1 7 'ir'd3 is only a slight plus for White according to Nunn) 1 7 'ir'h5 l::t fe8 1 8 l::te 3 lLlf6 1 9 'ir'h3 g6 20 f5 gave White a winning attack in Nunn­ Gheorghiu, Biel 1 983: 20 ... i..c 8 21 l::tg3 'it>g7 22 'iVh4 l::t f8 23 i..c t l::td e8 24 e5 dxe5 25 'ir'h6+ 'it>h8 26 l::th3 l::tg8 27 i..g5 l::tg7 28 i..xf6 i..x f6 29 lLle4 'Wd8 30 fxg6 i..e 7 31 'ir'xh7+ l::txh7 32 l::tx h7+ 'it>g8 33 gxf7+ 'it>xh7 34 fxe8'iV 1 -0.

Now this is even stronger than in the previous note. White obtains a storming attack on the kingside.

1 1 . . . Ci:Jc6

1 4 .i.b2 g6 1 5 �ad 1 �eB 1 6 .i.b1

The direct 1 6 e5!? is also enticing: 1 6 ... dxe5 1 7 fxe5 'iic 7 1 8 i..e4 lLlxe5 (or 1 8 ... i.xe4 1 9 lLlxe4 lLlxe5? 20 'iif2 f5 21 'iVf4) 1 9 i..xc6 lLlxc6 20 l::tx f7! 'it>xf7 21 l::t fl + i.. f6 22 lLle4 e5 23 lLlxf6 'it>g7 24

1 7 . . . dxe5 1 8 .i.e4 'ikc7

1 8 ...i..x e4 1 9 lLlxe4 i..g7 20 i..xe5 i..x e5 21 fxe5 'it>g7 22 'iVf2 leaves Black with no good defence: 22...'iie 7 23 'ii f6+ ! 'it>g8 24 'ir'xe7 l::txe7 25 l::txd7 or 22 ... l::te 7 23 lLlg5 'ir'g8 24 lLlxf7 l::t f8 25 l::tx d7. 1 9 'ikf3 .i.xe4 20 Ci:Jxe4 f5

Or 20...i.g7 which is met by 21 fxe5 lLlxe5 22 lLlf6+ 'it>h8 23 'iVg3! and the knight is lost. 21 �xd7! fxe4 22 'ikd 1 'ikc6 23 .i.xe5 �acB 24 'ikd4 i.e7

24...i..c 5 runs into the attractive conclu­ sion 25 l::tg 7+ 'it>f8 26 i..d 6+! i..x d6 27 'iVf6 mate. 75

Sicilia n Kan

25 f5!

Excellent attacking play. The immediate 25 i.h8 ..i£8 26 .:.g7+?? 'it>xh8 27 :xg6+ fails to 27 ... e5! so White attempts to deflect the e6-pawn. 25 . . .llcd8

Now 25 ...exf5 26 ..ih8 wins after 26 ... -i£8 27 l:tg7+ Wxh8 28 .l:f.xg6+ . Black's best chance is 25 ...gxf5! 26 ..ih8 eS! (26 ... -i£8 27 .l:f.xfS! exfS 28 .l:f.g7+ Wxh8 29 .l:f.g6+ mates) 27 'il'xeS 'ii'g6 28 l:txe7 .l:f.xe7 29 'ii'xe7 Wxh8 30 'ii'e S+ 'ii'g7 31 .l:%.xf5 l:td8 32 h3 'ii'x eS 33 l:txeS l:td2 34 l:txe4 l:txa2 35 .l:.e6 bS 36 cxbS axbS 37 .l:f.b6 and White wins the ending. 26 �xe7 exf5

Or 26 ...l:txd4 27 l:.g7+ 'it>£8 28 fxg6 mate.

12 ..ie3 tLlg4 1 3 'ir'xg4 ..ixd4 14 'ir'e2 with an edge to White. c) 9 ...tLlbd7 and now: c1) 10 �e3 transposes into the main text. c2) 10 'ife2 'ifc7 transposes into note 'c' to White's l Oth move in Game 9, while Black can also consider 10 ... g6!?. c3) 10 'it>h 1 with a further split: c31) 10 ... 'ii'c 7?! 1 1 g4! is similar to the main game, but I think that Black has played ... 'ifc7 too early. He is not well pre­ pared to meet a kingside storm. c32) I believe that 10 ....:.e8! is best; a good, non-committal move, preparing ... ..i£8. Black should generally wait for White to 'waste' a move with 'ii'e2 before reacting with ...'ii'c 7. Play can continue 1 1 'ii'e2 'ii'c 7 and now: c321) 1 2 lLlf3 lLlcS 1 3 ..ic2 eS 1 4 fS bS! 15 ..igS b4 16 tLld 1 ..ib7 17 tLl£2 aS 1 8 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 1 9 tLlg4 a4 20 lLlxf6+ gxf6 2 1 lLld2 W £8 22 'ir'e3 We7 gave a n unclear po­ sition in Morovic Fernandez-Zapata, Cien­ fuegos 1 996. c322) 12 ..id2 b6 is a position discussed in Game 9, while also playable is 12 ... g6 1 3 tLl f3 ( 1 3 .:.ae 1 eS! as now there is n o tLlfS) 1 3 ... b6 1 4 eS tLlhS 1 5 .:.ae1 (Gallagher­ Erdelyi, Ticino 1 994) and now the sensible 1 5 ... -ib7 looks fine for Black. 9 . . . llJbd7

9 ... b6?! is very risky. White plays 10 f4! and now: Game 26 a) 1 0.....ib7?! 1 1 eS! dxeS 1 2 fxeS lLlfd7 Beliavsky-Gheorghiu 1 3 .:.xf7!! l:.xf7 1 4 lLlxe6 'il'c8 1 5 'il'hS tLl£8 1 6 tLlx£8 g6 1 7 .ixg6 hxg6 1 8 tLlxg6 .:.h7 1 9 Moscow 198 1 '-------• tLlxe7+ l:txe7 20 lLldS! ..ixdS 21 cxdS 'il'e8 22 'il'g4+ .l:.g7 23 'ii'e4 tLld7 24 e6 lLlcS 25 1 e4 c5 2 llJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 a6 i.xcS bxcS 26 d6 :d8 27 'ir'dS Wh8 28 :e1 5 .i.d3 liJf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4 .i.e7 8 llJc3 :g6 29 :c3 :d7 30 :h3+ :h7 31 d7 1 -0 0-0 9 .i.e3 was very convincing from White's point of 9 f4!? is a very tricky transpositional view in Smagin-S.Salov, correspondence move: 1984. a) 9 ... b6 10 ..ie3 transposes to note 'a' to b) 10 ... 'ii'c 7 1 1 :c1 tLlbd7 (or 1 1 .....ib7 Black's 9th move. 12 fS 'il'd7 13 g4! h6 14 h4! tLlh7 15 gS! b) 9 ... d5!? is an untried suggestion from hxgS 16 hxgS ..ixgS 17 ..ixgS tLlxgS 18 'il'hS Zeiler. He gives 1 0 eS dxc4 1 1 ..ixc4 ..icS 27 �xeS + 'i'xeB 28 'i'xb6 1 -0

�------�

76

5 i.. d3 liJ f6 6 0 - 0 d6

ike7 1 9 f6 gxf6 20 l:.c2 with a winning at­ tack, Psakhis-Sideif Sade, Moscow 1 983) 1 2 g4! l2Jc5 ( 1 2. . .g6 1 3 g5 l2Je8 1 4 i.e2 i.d8 1 5 ike1 e 5 1 6 l2Jd5 ikb7 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 1 8 l2Jf3 ikc6 19 ikg3 was very good for White in Geller-Panno, Lone Pine 1 980) 13 i.b1 (but not 13 g5?! l2Jg4! 14 ikxg4 l2Jxd3 1 5 l:.c2 l2Jb4 16 l:.ccl l2Jd3, as in Marjanovic­ Rajkovic, Yugoslavia 1980) 1 3 . .. i.b7 1 4 ii f3

12 e5!? d4 13 exf6 ..txf6 1 4 i.xh7+ 'ifi>xh7 15 ikh5+ 'iti>g8 1 6 l:.ad1 was played in Murey-Zapata, La Valetta 1 980. Now 16 ... g6? 17 ikc5 d3 1 8 l:.£2 l:.b8 19 l:.fd2 ikc7 20 l2Je4 rurned out very well for White, but I prefer 1 6 ...l:.a7! 17 l2Je4 l:.d7, which looks less clear. 1 0 f4

The most active. One possible plan in­ volves a kingside pawn storm with g2-g4-g5. For the 'anti-Hedgehog' plan 10 f3 ikc7 1 1 l:.c l b6 1 2 ikd2 i.b7 13 l:.fd1 l:.ac8 14 i.fl see note 'a' to Black's 7th move in Game 75. 1o

and now: b1) 14 ... .l:.fd8 1 5 g5 l2Je8 16 f5 e5 1 7 l2Je6 l2Jxe6 1 8 fxe6 f6 1 9 l2Jd5 i.xd5 20 exd5 gives White positional domination, Stypka­ Przewoznik, Gdynia 1 982. b2) 14 ... l2Jfxe4? 1 5 i.xe4 l2Jxe4 16 l2Jxe4 f5 Qassim-Wians, Sharjah 1 985) 1 7 gxf5 exf5 1 8 ikg3 and the threat of l2Je6 nets White a piece. b3) 14 ...e5 1 5 l2Jf5 exf4 1 6 i.xf4 l:tfe8 1 7 b4 l2Je6 1 8 l2Jd5! and White wins material, Stypka-Grycel, Krynica 1 998. b4) 14 ...g6 (the best of a bad bunch) 1 5 g5 l2Je8 1 6 b4 l2Jd7 1 7 ikh3 and White has a strong attack, Lopez Rodriguez-S.Kova­ cevic, Mislata 1 995. 9 ... l2Jc6!? is not played very much, probably through habit (many Kan players are reluctant to play like this) . However, it has certain positive fearures: 10 l2Jxc6 (for 1 0 l:.cl i.d7 see the note to White's l Oth move in Game 23) 1 0 ... bxc6 and the bishop on e3 isn't necessarily well placed. 1 1 f4 d5!?

. . .

.:.es

Preparing to bolster the kingside de­ fences with ... i.f8 and ... g7-g6. 10 ...ikc7?! looks narural but the queen may well be better off at home if White is insisting on a g2-g4-g5 lunge. White contin­ ues with 1 1 g4! and now: a) 1 1 ...l2Jc5 12 i.c2 (but not 1 2 g5? l2Jg4!) 12 ... d5?! (12...g6 13 g5 l2Jh5 1 4 f5 and 12 ...e5 13 l2Jf5 i.xf5 14 exfS exf4 1 5 l:.xf4 are both good for White, but still preferable to what happens next) 1 3 exd5 exd5 14 g5 l2Jg4 1 5 l2Jxd5 l2Jxe3? (15 ...ikd8 is the only move) 1 6 i.xh7+! and White wins, Macieja­ Gratka, Koszalin 1 997. b) 1 1 ...g6 12 g5 l2Jh5 13 i.e2 l2Jxf4? (13 ...l2Jg7 1 4 f5 i.d8 is more resilient, al­ though still clearly better for White) 14 l:.xf4 e5 1 5 l2Jd5 ikd8

77

Sicilia n Ka n

(Marulovic-Pikula, Arandjelovac 1 997) 1 6 .l:tx£7!! and Black is lost i n all lines: b1) 16 ... l:Ix£7 17 lDe6 'tWaS 1 8 i..d2 traps the queen. b2) 1 6...'iitx f7 17 lDe6!! 'ifi>xe6 1 8 lDc7+! '3;£7 (18 ...'ii'x c7 19 'iWdS mate) 19 'iWdS+ 'iitg7 20 lDe6+. b3) 1 6...exd4 1 7 l:txe7 dxe3 1 8 'ii'd4 l:I£7 19 l:tx£7 'iitx £7 (or 1 9 ...\WxgS+ 20 'iith 1 'iitx f7 21 'iWhB!) 20 l:tft + 'iti>g8 21 'ii'xe3 and White is winning (analysis by Matulovic).

(planning to break up Black's queenside with a2-a4-aS) 1 S ... l:tac8 16 a4 'iWbB 17 aS and now in Pritchett-Gheorghiu, London 1 980, the Romanian GM played the the­ matic break 17 ... dS but after 1 8 cxdS i.. xb4 1 9 lDa2! l:txc1 20 i..x cl bxaS 21 lDxb4 axb4 22 dxe6?! fxe6 23 eS lDdS 24 'iWhS lDf8 2S fS White's attack was too strong.

1 1 �h 1

Naturally White can still attack like a caveman with 1 1 g4 but, with his rook on e8 and queen on dB, I believe Black is far better placed to combat it: 1 1 ...g6 1 2 gS lDhS, with the idea of undermining the sup­ port of gS with ... e6-eS, for example 1 3 i..e2? eS! 1 4 lDfS lDxf4 1 S lDh6+ 'iitg7 1 6 ..txf4 exf4 1 7 h 4 i..xgS! 1 8 hxgS 'ii'xgS+ 1 9 lDg4 lDeS and White's position falls apart. Instead White should take prophylactic measures against ...e6-eS, for example with 1 2 lDb3, but obviously the attack will then be a lot slower. White has a more methodical attacking plan at his disposal: 1 1 'ii'f3 !? i.. f8 1 2 l:tad1 'ii'c 7 13 'ii'h3 g6 (I prefer to leave well alone on the kingside and play 13 ... b6, for exam­ ple 1 4 lDf3 i..b 7 and now 1 S eS can be met with 1 S ...dxeS 16 fxeS ..tcS!) 14 lDf3 b6 1 S 'ii'h4 i..b7 1 6 lDgS! h6?! 1 7 lDxf7! 'iitx f7 1 8 e S dxeS 1 9 fxeS 'ii'x eS 20 i..e4! 'iitg8 21 i..d 4 i..c S 22 i..xb7 gS! 23 'ii' f2 lDg4 24 ..txeS i..x f2+ 2S l:txf2 lDdxeS 26 l:te2 and White had a better endgame, Ljubojevic­ Bellon Lopez, Linares 1 98 1 . However, 16 ...i..g7! doesn't look bad for Black.

1 2 . . . g6! 1 3 g5 lDh5

Now Black plans to undermine the sup­ port of the gS-pawn with ... e6-eS so White is forced into complications which are not unfavourable for Black. 1 4 f5 exf5 1 5 lDxf5 ltJc5! 1 6 ltJd5 lDxe4 1 7 i.d4 i.xf5!?

Also playable is 17 ...'iWxgS 1 8 i..e3 (18 i..xe4? l:txe4 1 9 'ii'x hS gxhS 20 l:tg1 J:tg4 21 lDf6+ 'ii'xf6 and Black wins) 18 ...'ii'd8 19 i..b 6, when Black can either repeat with 19 ... \WgS 20 i..e3 or try for more with 1 9 ...'ii'd 7!?. 1 8 �xf5 i.g7

18 ... gxfS? 19 'ii'x hS gives White a win­ ning attack: 1 9 ...i..g7 20 i..xg7 'iit xg7 21 i..xe4 fxe4 22 'ii'h 6+ 'iith 8 23 lDf6.

1 1 . . . i.f8 1 2 g4?!

19

Repeating what I said in the previous note, Black is now in a good position to defuse this idea. In this instance a more positional plan proves to be stronger: 1 2 'ii'e 2 'ii'c 7 (I think 1 2... g6!?, planning a possible ...e6-eS, is stronger) 1 3 l:tac1 b6 14 b4! ..tb7 1 S lDb3!

�xf7 + �xf7 22 'i'f3 + �gB!

78

i.xg7

�xg7

20

.i.xe4 l:!.xe4

21

The right square. 22...'iitg7?! 23 'ii'xe4 is good for White as 23 ... \WxgS? loses to 24 lDc7!. 23 'i'xe4 'i'xg5 24 'i'e6 + �hB 25 �f1

White has just enough compensation to keep the balance, but no more.

5 .1J.. d3 li:J f6 6 0 - 0 d 6

25 . . Jtd8 26 b3 b5 27 'ife4 bxc4 28 bxc4 'ife5 29 'ifxe5 + dxe5 30 l:!f7 li:Jf4 31 li:Jxf4 Y2 -Y,

Game 27 Hellers-Gheorghiu

Haifa 1989 1

e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6

5 .1J.. d 3 li:Jf6 6 0-0 d6 7 f4! ?

move i s another question. Other possibilities for Black include: a) I don't like 7 ... 'ii'b 6?!, which can be met simply by 8 �h 1 ! . b) 7. . .1t...e 7 8 �h1 lLlbd7 (8. . .'ii'c 7 9 lt:Jc3 transposes to a line considered in Chapter 6, but there is no point committing the queen so soon) 9 'it' £3!? lLlc5 1 0 lt:Jc3 0-0 1 1 1t...e 3 'ii'c 7 12 a4 (12 g4!? b5 13 g5 lt:Jfd7 14 a3 1t...b7 is unclear) 12 ... b6 13 f5 e5 14 lt:Jb3 lt:Jxd3 (14... 1t...b7 1 5 lLlxc5 dxc5 1 6 b3! 1t...c6 17 g4 gave White a strong kingside attack in Tukmakov-Shamkovich, USSR 1 972) 1 5 cxd3 1t...b7 1 6 l:Iacl 'ii'd8 1 7 d 4 exd4 1 8 lt:Jxd4 l:te8! gave Black good counterplay in Romito-Carrettoni, correspondence 1 999. c) 7 ...lt:Jbd7!? keeps options open regard­ ing the fianchetto: c1) 8 lt:Jc3 transposes to a very complex line of the Scheveningen: 8 ...'ii'b 6! 9 1t...e3 'ii'xb2 10 lLldbS! axbS 1 1 lLlxbS l:taS 12 l:Ib 1 l:Ixb5 13 l:.xb2 l:.xb2 14 'it'a 1 l:Ib6 1 5 i.xb6 lt:Jxb6 1 6 'ii'c 3 i.e7 1 7 l:Ib1 lt:Jfd7 1 8 'ii'xg7 1t... f6 1 9 'ii'h6 (Anand-Kasparov, Tilburg 1 991) and now 1 9 ... l:.g8! 20 1t...b5 �e7 21 l:Id1 l:Ig4 is unclear according to Kasparov. c2) 8 �h1 g6 9 fS lLleS! reveals another advantage of having the queen on d8 over c7; the f6-knight is protected. Black can follow up with ... 1t...g7 and ... 0-0. 8 li:Jc3

A s with the line 6. . .'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e2 d6 8 f4!? (see Game 1 3), White doesn't need to commit himself to playing c2-c4 and can instead take immediate action on the king­ side. 7 . . . g6!?

As we have seen many times before, the kingside fianchetto is always the idealistic choice against an £2-f4 plan. Whether in this particular instance it's actually the best

Another idea is 8 lt:J£3 1t...g7 9 'it'c l . In a way this plan makes more sense than in the line 6 ...'ii'c 7 7 'ii'e 2 d6 8 f4 as White has obviously not wasted a tempo with the queen. However, Black has also not 'wasted' a move with ... 'ii'c7 and the queen is just as well placed on d8 in this line. The variation 9 ...0-0 10 �h 1 lt:Jc6 1 1 lLlc3 lt:Jb4! 1 2 eS lLlxd3 1 3 cxd3 lt:Je8 1 4 1t...e3 1t...d7 1 5 'ii' £2 1t...c6 1 6 1t...b 6 'ii'd7 led to an equal position in Kosten-Cvitan, Haifa 1 989. 8 . . . .1J.. g 7 9

cJi>h 1

0-0 1 0 f5!

I believe that this is the most critical line. White can also try the lt:JO/'ii'e 1 plan but, as we saw in the note to White's 8th move, 79

Sic ilia n Kan

this is not particularly dangerous for Black.

lent defensive moves. 1 8 h3 lbf1 +

1 9 .bf1 'ilff2 20 'ilfxf2

lLlxf2 + 21 �g1 ..txc3! 22 bxc3 lLle4 23 ..th6 ..ta6 24 ..txa6 �xa6 25 c4 �aS 26 cxd5 cxd5 27 llg7 + �hB 28 �d7 �gB

1 O . lLlc6 1 1 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 2 ..tg5! exf5 . .

Following 12 ...l::tb8? White has the the­ matic sacrifice 13 fxc6 fxe6 1 4 eS! dxeS 1 5 lDe4. 1 3 exf5 d5 1 4 'ili'd2 a 5

29 �xd5?

In order t o exchange one of White's at­ tacking weapons with ... i.a6.

29 a3! preserves some small wmmng chances.

1 5 .l:!.ae 1 'ili'b6

29 . . . lLlc3! 30 �d7 lLlxa2 31 c4 lLlb4 32

1 5 ...i.a6? 1 6 fxg6 fxg6 17 l::te 6! (Gheor­ ghiu) is very strong for White.

�g7 + �hB 33 llb7 lLld3 34 ..te3 �cB

1 6 fxg6 fxg6 1 7 .l:!.e 7 lLlg4!

�fB 38 .l:!.xh7 .l:!.c6 39 .l:!.a7 lLlb3 40

This just about keeps the balance, al­ though Black has to play a series of excel-

..tg7 +

80

35 .l:!.d7 lLlc5 36 ..td4 + �gB 37 .l:!.g7 +

Y, - Y,

�eB 4 1

..tc3 l::tx c4 42 ..txa5

5 i. d3 lb f6 6 0 - 0 d 6 Summary

Development with 7 ... ..id7 (Games 20-23) is certainly a viable alternative to main lines and there is the added advantage that white players are less likely to have studied these less fash­ ionable variations. As far as I can see, White's best chance of keeping some sort of advan­ tage lies with 1 1 l:td1 (Game 21) and 9 ..ie3 (Game 23). If Black is going to play ... g6 variations, then I believe that it's best to play those dis­ cussed in Chapter 1 as 7 ... g6 only seems to give White extra options. Lines with classical development shown in Games 25-26 are very similar to those in Chapter 1 (Games 9- 1 1 ), with the different queen placements proving to be a minor point. Despite the bad press, these lines are playable for Black as long as he knows exactly what he's doing regarding king safety. 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 /bxd4 a6 5 i.d3 /bf6 6 0-0 d6 7 c4

7 f4 - Game 27 7 . . . i.d7

(D)

7 ...g6 - Game 24 7 ... ..ie 7 8 lLlc3 0-0 9 'ife2 - Game 25; 9 .ie3 - Game 26 8 /bc3 /bc6 9 /bxc6

9 ..ie3 (D) 9

. . .

-

Game 23

..txc6 1 0 �e2

10 b4 - Game 22 10

. . .

..te7 1 1 b3

1 1 l:1d1 - Game 21 1 1 . . 0-0 .

(D) - Game 20

9 i.e3

1 1 . 0-0 . .

81

CHAPTER FOUR

I

5 i.d3 i.c5

1 e 4 c5 2 lUf3 e 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 .td3 .tc5

In this chapter we srudy the variation 5 .td3 .tc5. Black takes advantage of White's slightly cluttered d-file and attacks the knight on d4. The idea is to force the knight to an inferior square before deciding the furure of the bishop. Generally the dark­ squared bishop ends up outside the pawn chain along the a7-g1 diagonal, but Black does also have the option of a more defen­ sive retreat with ... .te7. Let's take a look at the opening moves: 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 i.d3 .tc5 6 lDb3

tempo by attacking the bishop. 6 c3 and other sixth move alternatives are discussed in Game 4 1 . 6 . . . .ta7

Black's other main retreat here is 6 ... .te7, heading for a Hedgehog set-up where White's knight has been pushed from d4 to b3. For the standard white treatment with 7 0-0 d6 8 c4, see Games 37-38, while 8 f4 'ii'c 7 9 lLlc3 lLlf6 will be discussed under the move order 5 lLlc3 'ii'c 7 6 .td3 lLlf6 7 0-0 .ic5 8 lLlb3 .ic7 9 f4 d6 in Chapter Six. 7 'ii'g4 is perhaps the most critical variation. Black can then allow White to caprure on g7 with 7 ...lLlf6 (see Game 39) or prevent it with 7 ...g6 (see Game 40). 6 ... .ib6 is also possible and often trans­ poses to 6 ... -ta7 lines, although this is seen as a slightly inferior version as it prevents the possibility of ... b7-b5. White may con­ sider exploiting this by forgoing 'ii'e 2 and .te3, playing lines with an early 0-0 and either 'ii'g4 or c4 and �hl (as he does against ... .ia7 in Game 36). 7 'iife 2

By far the most popular response. White moves the knight again but regains the 82

White prepares to trade off Black's active bishop with .ie3. Traditionally this plan has been extremely popular. The main alternative is 7 0-0 and now: a) 7 ... lbe7!? is an interesting option,

5 i.. d3 i.. c 5

avoiding 'Wg4 lines. Of course, the flipside is that Black is then committed to playing ...ltJge7 lines. b) 7 ...l2Jc6 and now: b1) 8 'Wg4 is an extremely important idea which highlights a minus side to Black's plan - the g-pawn is lacking cover. Black can either sacrifice it with 8...l2Jf6 (see Game 34) or protect with 8 ...'Wf6 (see Game 35). b2) The plan starting with 8 c4, erecting the Maroczy Bind, is considered in Game 36. I will also mention 8 �h 1 , planning £2f4, as another possible plan. Other moves tend to transpose: 7 c4 l2Jc6 8 0-0 reaches note 'b2' above, while 7 l2Jc3 l2Jc6 8 'We2 d6 9 ..i.e3 transposes to the main line. 7 'Wg4 can be found in the notes to Game 34. 7 . . tt'lc6 8 i..e 3 .

8 l2Jc3 d6 9 ..i.e3 transposes. 8 . . . d6

For many years the main line consisted of Black simply capturing on e3 with 8 .....i.xe3 9 'Wxe3 and now: a) 9 ...l2Jf6!? allows White an extra oppor­ tunity to instigate complications: a 1) 10 l2Jc3 0-0?! (1 o. . d6! transposes to Game 33) 1 1 e5! l2Jg4 1 2 ..i.xh7+! �xh7 1 3 'ii'e 4+ �g8 1 4 'Wxg4 l2Jxe5 1 5 'ii'e 2! gave White a clear advantage in Klinger­ Meinsohn, Bad Lauterberg 1 984. b) 10 e5!? and now: b1) 1 0...l2Jg4 1 1 'Wg3 l2Jcxe5 (or 1 1 ...h5 12 h3 l2Jgxe5 13 'Wxg7 with a clear plus Klinger) 1 2 ..i.e2 f5! (12... h5 1 3 h3 h4 1 4 'Wc3 win s a piece) 13 h 3 f4! 1 4 'Wc3 'Wh4 1 5 0-0 h 5 1 6 ltJ1 d2! and, despite the extra pawn, Black's position is a bit of a mess. b2) 10 ... l2Jd5! 1 1 'Wg3 0-0 looks okay for Black, who will attack e5 with ... f7-f6. c) 9 ...d6! is the most exact move. A fter 10 l2Jc3 we reach Game 33. .

9 tt'lc3

With this move White keeps the option open of castling on either wing. White can

also play more positionally with 9 0-0, in­ tending c2-c4 (see Games 31 -32) .

9 . . . tt'lf6

By no means the only choice: a) I t's also possible to develop the knight with 9 ... l2Jge7!? (see Game 30). b) The move 9 ... b5!? is interesting; Black waits to see what White does before com­ mitting his g8-knight. 1 0 0-0-0 l2Jge7! trans­ poses to Game 30, while 10 0-0 l2Jf6! reaches Game 29. White can, however, also keep his options open with 10 f4. A fter 10 ...l2Jf6 1 1 0-0-0 we reach the main line. 1 0 0-0-0

Or: a) 10 f4!? b5 (10 ... e5!?) 1 1 i.xa7 .l:txa7 1 2 0-0-0 reaches the main line. b) 10 ..i.xa7 .l:txa7 1 1 f4 b5 (1 1 ...e5 12 f5 b5 1 3 0-0-0 b4 gives White the added pos­ sibility of 14 l2Jd5!?) 12 0-0-0 and again we reach the main line. c) White can opt for a quieter life with 1 0 0-0 (see Game 29), although it's less flexible here than on the 9th move as White no longer has the option of c2-c4. d) 10 g4!? is an interesting sideline: 10 ...b5 1 1 g5 l2Jd7 (Wolff-Christiansen, San Francisco 1 991) and now Christiansen rec­ ommends 1 2 f4, assessing the position as slightly better for White. Black can also play 10 .....i.xe3 1 1 'ii'x e3, transposing to the note to White's 1 1 th move in Game 33. 1 0 . b5 . .

83

Sicilia n Ka n

I believe this to be the most accurate move order. For 10 ...0-0 1 1 f4 eS 1 2 i.xa7 �xa7 1 3 fS bS 14 g4 b4 1 S tt:'la4, sec the note to Black's 1 4th move in Game 28.

... i.d7 and the c6-knight moving. I can't find any examples of 1 3 tt:'lb1, which does little to stem Black's counter­ play on the quccnside: 13 ...'iVc7 14 tt:'l1d2 aS! and Black will continue with ... aS-a4. 1 3 . . . e5

Preventing White from playing e4-eS himself, although 1 3. .. i.d7 14 cS dxcS 1 S fxeS tt:'ldS and 1 3. . .0-0 1 4 c S tt:'ldS arc plau­ sible alternatives. 14 f5

1 1 ..txa7

It makes sense to exchange bishops now as it forces Black to recapture with the rook. 1 1 f4?! is answered strongly by 1 1 ...b4! and now: a) 12 tt:'lb 1 does nothing to hold up Black's quccnside counterplay: 12 ... eS 13 ttJ 1 d2 0-0 1 4 �hfl i.xc3 1 S 'iVxc3 tt:'lg4 1 6 'iVg3 a S 1 7 �b1 a4 1 8 tt:'lc1 'iVc7 19 tt:'lc4 cxf4 20 'iVxf4 tt:'lceS and Black was clearly better in D.Gross-Bezold, Wi.irzburg 1 99S. b) 12 tt:'la4 i.d7! and now White has some problems with his knight on a4, as 1 3 i.xa7? loses to 1 3 . . .tt:'lxa7!.

Clamping down on the kingsidc. White has a simple plan of a kingside attack with g2-g4-gS. The ideas and tactics from this position are discussed in Game 28.

Game 28 Niggemann-Pfrommer

1 1 .. Jba7

Correspondence 1998

1 1 ...tt:'lxa7? not only looks silly, but 12 cS! is a very strong reply.

1 e4 c5 2 tt:lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6

1 2 f4

5 ..td3 ..tc5 6 tt:lb3 ..ta7 7 'ife2 tt:lc6 8

As we have already seen, move orders are very important throughout this variation. Here White could delay f2-f4 in favour of the immediate 12 g4!? b4 13 tt:'la4. Now 13 ...0-0 1 4 f4 eS 1S fS transposes to the note to Black's 1 4th move in Game 28, while 1 3. ..i.d7 14 gS forces 14 ... tt:'lg8.

..te3 d6 9 tt:lc3 b5 1 0 0-0-0 tt:lt6 1 1

1 2 . . . b4 1 3 tt:la4

This blocks Black's pawn advance on the queenside, but White must be careful as in some lines the knight can be snared by 84

..txa7 :xa7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 tt:la4 e5 1 4 f5 ..td7!

Some exciting correspondence games have breathed new life into this variation as far as Black is concerned. Earlier Black had been playing 14 ... 0-0, but this move seems to run into a strong attack on the kingsidc. Nevertheless, there remain some unanswered questions (sec variation 'bS2' below). As far as I can sec,

5 i.. d3 i.. c 5

the critical line runs 14 ...0-0 1 5 g4 i.d7 (1 5...ltJd4? 1 6 ltJxd4 exd4 1 7 'ii'£2 and the d4-pawn drops) 1 6 g5 ltJe8 17 'ii'e3 (so that the problem knight can escape via b6) 17 ...l:tb7! (it's worth a pawn to keep the knight imprisoned) 18 i.xa6

and now: a) Nunn points out the natural 1 8 ...l:ta7, which had been previously neglected by players and annotators: 1 9 i.b5 ltJd4 and here Nunn gives 20 i.xd7 'ii'xd7 21 ltJb6 'ii'c 6 22 l:txd4! exd4 23 'ii'xd4 l:tc7 24 ltJa1 , which is slightly better for White, while I also like 20 ltJxd4 exd4 21 'ii'xd4 l:txa4 22 .ixa4 i.xa4 23 f6! . b) 1 8. . .l:tb8 i s answered strongly b y 1 9 .ic4!. I was o n the receiving end o f this over-the-board novelty in a game against the Russian GM Yuri Yakovich. In some lines Black does indeed win the a4-knight, but by that stage White is usually crashing through on the kingside. Earlier 1 9 'it>b 1 had been tried, but 1 9 ...'ii'c7 20 l:td5 (Speelman-Lobron, Munich 1 992) 20...ltJd4 (Speelman) 21 ltJxd4 exd4 22 l:txd4 i.xa4 sees White struggling to justify himself. After 1 9 i.c4 we have the following pos­ sibilities: b1) 19 ... g6? 20 fxg6 hxg6 21 h4 ltJd4 22 h5 i.xa4 23 hxg6 (Yakovich) and the threats of l:th8+ and 'ii'h3 are too much for Black to handle. b2) 19 ... ltJd4!? 20 g6 ltJf6 21 gxf7+ 'it>h8

2 2 ltJxd4 exd4 23 'ii'g5 (Yakovich gives 23 l:txd4 i.xa4 24 e5 as winning, but I'm not sure how White should continue after 24...'ii'e7!) 23 ... d5 (or 23 ... ltJxe4 24 'ii'xd8 l:tbxd8 25 l:the1 ltJ£2 26 l:td2 i.xa4 27 l:tx£2 d5 28 i.d3 l:txf7 29 l:tf4 and the pawn on d4 drops, while 23 ...i.xa4 loses to 24 l:thg1) 24 i.xd5 h6 (24... ltJxd5 25 'ii'x d8 l:tbxd8 26 ltJc5 ltJe3 27 l:txd4 l:txf7 28 l:te 1 ltJg4 29 l:ted 1 ltJe5 30 l:td5 l:te7 3 1 ltJe6 wins for White) 25 'ii'g6 ltJxd5 26 l:thg1 'ii' f6 27 ltJc5 ltJb6 28 'ii'x f6 gxf6 29 l:tg6 l:txf7 30 l:txh6+ 'it>g7 31 l:tg6+ 'it>f8 32 l:txd4 and White, who is picking up a fifth pawn for the knight, should be winning. b3) 19 ...'ii'c7 20 'ii'd3 (threatening to solve the knight problem with ltJac5!) 20...ltJa5 21 ltJxa5 'ii'xa5 22 b3 'it>h8 23 f6 l:td8 24 fxg7 + ltJxg7 25 l:thfl i.e6 26 'it>b 1 and White has a clear extra pawn with a good position, Chopin-Chorf, correspon­ dence 1 993. b4) 19 ...ltJa5 20 ltJxa5 'ii'xa5 and now: b41) 21 ltJc5 'ii'a7 22 g6 hxg6? 23 fxg6 dxc5 24 gxf7 + l:txf7 25 l:thfl ltJf6 26 l:txf6 gxf6 27 'ii'h6 1 -0 was the game Wojnar­ Stepanov, correspondence 1 994, but I'm not so convinced after the stronger defence 22 ... dxc5! 23 gxf7+ l:txf7. b42) 21 b3! i.xa4 22 bxa4 'ii'xa4 23 l:thg1 (threatening g5-g6) 23 ...'it>h8 24 l:tg3 l:tc8 25 .ib3 'ii'a 3+ 26 'it>b1 ltJc7 27 11h3 ltJb5

85

Sicilia n Ka n

28 .:.xh7+ ! (but not 28 g6?? lLlc3+ 29 �a1 'ii'b 2+ !!) 28...�xh7 29 'ii'h 3+ �g8 30 g6 .:.fd8 31 f6! and White soon mates. bS) 1 9 .. .'ith8 (my choice in the game) 20 'ii'd2 20...l2JaS 21 lLlxaS 'ii'xaS 22 b3 .ixa4 (22 ... .:.c8 23 'ii'd S! 'ii'a7 24 �b1 'ii'e 3 2S .:.he1 'ii'xgS 26 lLlb6 .ic6 27 'ii'aS 'ii'd 8 28 .idS .ixdS 29 .:.xdS .:.c6 30 l2Jc4 and White eventually converted his advantage, Yakovich-Emms, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 993) 23 bxa4 'ii'xa4 24 :hg1 lLlc7 (24 ....:.b6 2S .:tg3 lLlc7 26 l:th3 [Yakovich] seems very strong for White, for example 26 ...'ii'c 6 27 g6 'ii'xc4 28 .:.xh7+ �g8 29 f6! lLle6 30 .:.xg7+ lLlxg7 31 'ii'h 6 and White mates) 2S .:.g3 liJbS 26 .ixbS and now Black has two possibilities: bS1) Nunn gives 26 ... .:.xbS 27 'ii'xd6 .:tg8 28 .:,h3 'ii'xa2 29 g6 which wins for White on account of 29 ... fxg6 30 .:txh7+ ! or 29 ... h6 30 l:txh6+ gxh6 31 'ii' f6+ .:tg7 32 .l:td8. bS2) I prefer 26 ... 'ii'x bS! and believe that Black is still well in the game, for example 27 .:th3 'ii'c4 28 g6 'ii'xa2 29 lhh7+ �g8 30 'ii'gS 'ifa 1 + 31 'itd2 'ii'd 4+ is a draw by perpetual check as 32 �e2 'ii'x e4+ 33 �f2 'iix c2+ 34 .:.d2 loses to the surprising re­ source 34 ...'ii'x fS+!! 3S 'ii'x fS fxg6. Plenty of mind-boggling variations and in most of them White is winning, but line 'bS2' seems to make a good case for Black's defence.

1 6 . . . a5

If Black is unsure about the game con­ tinuation, then 1 6....ie8 also looks reason­ able: 17 liJdS aS 18 l2Jd2 l:tb7 1 9 lLlxf6+ 'ii'xf6 20 g4 l2Jd4 was unclear in Ruch­ Chorfi, correspondence 1998. 1 7 i.b5 �g4 1 8 ..g 1

1 8 . . . �d4!

This leads to an amazing sequence after which Black is a rook down but has a very strong attack against the white king. 1 9 �xd7?!

1 9 lLlxd4! leads to an unclear endgame after 1 9 ... 'ii'xb6 20 l2Jc6 'ili'xg1 21 .:thxg1 .ixc6 22 .ixc6 .l:td8. 1 9 . . . �xb5 20 �xf8 a4! 21 �d2

Perhaps 21 lLla1 , although Black's attack is still dangerous after 21 . . .a3 22 b3 'ifc7 23 'iie l l2Jc3. 21 . . . �d4 22 b1 -.c7 23 .l:!.c1 a3 24 b3

1 5 -.e3

-.c3 25 �c4 l:l.c7! 26 -.e 1 .l:.xc4 27

White must take measures to rescue the knight on a4. 1 S 'ii f2 0-0 leads to similar positions, while 1 S g4? l2Jb8! is good for Black.

-.xc3 .l:.xc3 28 �d7 �e3 29 �b6 �e2

1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6 �b6

16 h3 is too slow: 16 ... .:.b7 (threatening ...ltJaS or ...l2Jd4) 17 .ixa6 .:ta7 1 8 .:.xd6 .:txa6 19 lLlacS .:.xa2 20 lLlxd7 lLlxd7 21 .:.xc6 'ii'a8 22 .:.c7 .:.a 1+ 23 lLlxa 1 'ii'xa 1 + 24 Wd2 'ii'x h1 2S .:.xd7 'ili'xg2+ 26 'iie 2 'ii'x h3 and Black's extra pawn told in Marques-Chorfi, correspondence 1 997. 86

30 �a4 l:l.c6 31 l:l.he 1 �xc 1 32 .l:!.xe3 �xa2! 33 g4

Or 33 'it>xa2 l:txc2+ 34 �b1 .:.xg2 3S .:td3 .:txh2 36 l:hd6 hS! and Black's kingside pawns will win . 33 . . . �c3 + ! 34 �xc3 .l:!.xc3 35 .l:!.xc3 bxc3 36 �a2 d5 37 �xa3 dxe4 38 lt>b4 e3 39 �xc3 e4! ! 0-1

An incredible finish. White is in zugzwang, for example 40 gS �f8 41 h4 �e7 42 hS g6 43 fxg6 fxg6 44 hxg6 hxg6 4S

5 .1L d3 .1L c 5

b4 'it>d6 46 b S 'it>cS and White finally runs out of pawn moves.

Bezold, Bad Homburg 1 996. This idea of exchanging dark-squared bishops and then playing ... e6-eS is a typical equalising plan for Black. b) 1 1 a4!? b4 12 ltJd1 0-0 13 i.xa7 lha7 14 ltJe3 ltJaS 1 S ltJxaS 'ii'x aS 1 6 ltJc4 'i'cS 17 ltJxd6!? 'ii'xd6 1 8 eS 'ii'd4 19 exf6 'ii'x f6 20 'ii'e4 g6 21 'ii'xb4 :i.b7 22 'ii'c 3 'ii'xc3 23 bxc3 gave White an endgame edge in Acs­ Sax, Lillafured 1 999. However, Ribli's sug­ gested improvement of 1 4... dS looks okay for Black, for example 1 S exdS exdS 1 6 aS :.es 1 7 'ii' f3 (or 1 7 'ii'd2 �ae7) 1 7...�ae7, when the pawn on aS is just as vulnerable as the one on a6. 1 1 . Jba7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 lLld1 .

Game 29 Hjartarson-Bezold

Bermuda 1997 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 .1Ld3 .1Lc5 6 lLlb3 .1La7 7 lLlc3 lLlc6 8 'i'e2 d6 9 .1Le3 lbt6 1 0 0-0 b5

1 3 . . . e5!

Despite the fact that White has opted for a quieter life by castling kingside, it's natural for Black to continue with queenside operations. 1 1 .1Lxa7

Or: a) 1 1 a3 0-0 12 �ad1 eS 13 i.xa7 (13 i.gS?! h6 1 4 i.h4? gS 1S i.g3 i.g4 wins material) 1 3. .. �xa7 1 4 'ii'e 3 i.e6 with a comfortable position for Black, Unzicker-

Model strategy from Black. After the bishop exchange, Black puts his central pawns on dark squares, thus complement­ ing his light-squared bishop and preventing White from playing e4-eS. It's true that White has a potential outpost on dS but he is in no real position to exploit this. 1 4 lLle3 'iib6 1 5 Wh 1 exf4!

Correctly relieving the tension in the cen­ tre and obtaining a very useful outpost on eS. 1 S ... O-O? would have allowed 16 fS! fol­ lowed by a very straightforward plan of g2g4-gS. 1 6 .l:!.xf4 i.e6 1 7 .l:!.af 1

17 ltJdS!? looks more threatening, al­ though after 1 7 ... i.xdS 1 8 exdS+ ltJeS 1 9 87

Sicilia n Kan

'ii'd2 aS 20 a3 bxa3 21 l:txa3 0-0 everything seems to hang together for Black. 1 7 . . . tt'le5!

With this dominating knight on eS, Black is guaranteed a comfortable equality. 1 8 tt'lt5 .bf5 1 9 exf5 0-0 20 'i'd2 �b8 21 .te2 .l:tc7 22 �d4 d5 23 'i't4 a5! 24 l:.d2 l:.e8 25 'i'd4 'i'xd4

Yz -Yz

Game 30 Z .Aimasi-Stangl

Altensteig 1994 1 e4 c5 2 tt'lt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6 5 i.d3 .tc5 6 tt'lb3 .ta7 7 tt'lc3 tt'lc6 8 'i'e2 d6 9 .te3 tt'lge7

When black players were experiencing difficulties in the ... ltJf6 lines, many turned their attention to developing the knight on e7 instead. One advantage this development has over the classical ...4Jf6 is that White's pawn storm on the kingside is generally less effective as g2-g4-gS does not gain a possi­ bly crucial tempo on the knight.

Votava, Reykjavik 2002 - Black has some problems defending aS and d6. b) I can find only two examples of 10 ... 0-0!?, but I can see nothing wrong with it. Black is going to castle kingside after all, so why delay the inevitable? Play continues with 1 1 l:tad 1 bS! and now: b 1) 12 a4 (this works better when the rook is on at) 12 ...b4 13 ltJb1 ltJg6 14 ltJ1d2 'ii'f6 1S .ixa7 l:txa7 1 6 ltJc4 dS 17 ltJb6 ltJf4 1 8 'ii'e3 d4 1 9 'ii'g3 (Bashkov­ Tunik, Minsk 1 993) and now 19 ...eS! (Tunik) leaves Black standing well. b2) 12 a3 eS! 13 .ixa7 l:txa7 1 4 1i'e3 .ie6 1S ltJdS l:tb7 16 4::lx e7+ 'ii'xe7 17 4Jd2 aS was slightly better for Black in G.Ginsburg­ Tunik, Minsk 1 994. b3) 12 f4!?, leading to play similar to that in the note to 10 f4 below, is probably best. c) 10 ... .ixe3!? 1 1 'ii'xe3 eS comes into consideration given that the rook is not so effective on a7 when White castles kingside. Black has to be careful not to play the ... b7bS lunge too early (White may hit back with a2-a4) so the rook often shuffles back to a8 to re-enter the game. d) l O ... eS is the most common move. Black takes prophylactic measures against f2-f4, which will now be met by a pawn exchange.

1 0 0-0-0

Given the reasoning above, castling queenside is not such an attractive option for White as it is against ...ltJf6 lines, so many choose to castle short instead. After 1 0 0-0 Black has the following possibilities: a) 10 ... bS 1 1 a4! b4 12 4::lb 1 0-0 13 4::\ 1 d2 eS 14 4::\c4 4::lg6 1 S l:tfd1 .ie6 1 6 g3 aS 1 7 :td2 was a bit better for White, E.Berg88

Now 1 1 f4 exf4 1 2 :txf4 4::lg6 1 3 :tf2 4::\geS 14 h3 0-0 lS l:taft .ie6 was equal in Otero-Vilela, Havana 1999, as was 1 1 :tad 1

5 �d3 �c5

0-0 1 2 tiJdS i.e6 1 3 i.xa7 lha7 14 'ii'e3 bS 15 c3 l:r.b7 16 f4 exf4 17 tLlxf4 i..xb3 1 8 axb3 tLleS, Kotronias-Milov, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1 997. White's main response is 1 1 i.xa7 l:txa7: d1) 12 f4 exf4 (Black should caprure: 12 ... 0-0?! 1 3 fS! is strong) 1 3 l:txf4 tLlg6 1 4 l:tffl 0-0 1 5 tLldS i..e 6 1 6 'iV £2 l:ta8 was equal in Kaminski-Milov, Moscow Olym­ piad 1 994. d2) 1 2 a4 i.e6 13 i.c4 0-0 14 l:tfd1 tLlg6 1 5 g3 l:a8 1 6 tiJdS l:c8 1 7 c3 tLlce7 and again Black had no problems, Naumann­ Computer P ConNers, Lippstadt 1 999. 1 0 f4!? makes Black think a bit more, as now 1 0 ... e5?! can be met effectively by 1 1 fS, when suddenly the knight is not so well placed on e7. Play can continue with 1 0 ... b5 1 1 0-0 tLlg6 12 l:tad1 (12 i.xa7 l:txa7 13 'ii'e3 0-0 1 4 l:tad1 l:td7 1 5 'i¥g3 eS!? 1 6 fS tLlf4 1 7 tiJdS tiJhS 1 8 'i¥e3 tLle7! 1 9 c4 bxc4 20 i.xc4 tLlxdS 21 i.xdS tLlf6 was at least equal for Black, Acs-Oral, Varadero 2000 White's knight on b3 is very poor) 1 2...'ii'e 7 13 l:td2 0-0 14 h1 i.xe3 1 5 'i¥xe3 i.b7 1 6 tLle2 l:r.fe8 1 7 c 3 l:r.ad8 with equality in Holrnsten-Oral, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. 1 0 . . . b5

l:tb8 and Black's attack is the stronger, Ernst-Sunye Neto, Manila Olympiad 1 992. b) 1 2 tLla4 i.d7! leaves White's knight on a4 in some trouble: 13 eS (13 'ii'd2? i.xe3 14 'ii'xe3 tLlc8! 1 5 eS tLlaS 1 6 i.e4 l:tb8 0-1 Saldana-Zapf, correspondence 2000; and 1 3 i.xa7? tLlxa7 Adams-Hjartarson, Paris [rapid] 1 994 show the precariousness of White's position) 13 ...tLld5! 1 4 i.xa7 (or 1 4 .id2 dxeS! 1 5 fxeS 'i¥c7! 1 6 l:the1 tLlce7 0-1 Coenen-Chuchelov, Fourmies 1 998) 14 ...tLlxa7 1 5 exd6 i.xa4 1 6 tLlcS 1 6 ...i.c6 17 tLlxe6 fxe6 18 'ii'x e6+ f8 19 i.c4 'i¥f6 20 i.xdS 'i¥xe6 21 i.xe6 i.xg2 22 l:thg1 i.c6 23 l:td4 l:td8 leaves White with insuffi­ cient compensation for the piece, Collins­ Sulava, Istanbul 2000. 1 1 . . . l:!.xa 7 1 2 f4

Or 12 'i¥e3 and now: a) 12 ... 0-0 13 eS!? dS (De Vreugt-Moo, Zug 2001) and now instead of 13 ... d5, I prefer 1 3 ... l:td7 as in the main game. b) 1 2 ... l:td7!? (preventing any tricks with e4-e5) 1 3 f4 "iic 7 14 g4 i.b7 1 5 h4 0-0 1 6 gS tLlaS 1 7 �bl tLlxb3 1 8 cxb3 (Sanchez Martin-Goczo, Oropesa del Mar 2000) and here I like the look of 1 8 ... d5!. 12 . . .0-0 13 e5!?

Perhaps deciding that Black will be at least equal in any pawn-storming race, White opens the d3-h7 diagonal and rums his attentions to the centre. 1 3 . . . l:!.d7 !?

1 1 �xa7

1 1 f4?! b4! looks promising for Black: a) 1 2 tLlb1 aS 13 tiJ3d2 'i¥c7 14 4Jf3 a4 1 5 tLlbd2 dS 1 6 i.xa7 l:xa7 17 eS i.d7 1 8 'iV £2 b3! 1 9 a3 bxc2 20 i.xc2 0-0 2 1 b 1 89

Sicilian Kan

Again we see how the rook can be useful along the second rank. Black can also block the centre and then organise counterplay on the queenside: 13 ...d5 14 'ii'h 5 lLlg6 1 5 g3 b4 t 6 lLle2 aS 1 7 lLlbd4 lLlxd4 1 8 lLlxd4 'ii'b 6 1 9 i..xg6 fxg6 20 'ii'e 2 i..d7 21 'iitb t l:tc7 22 l:td2 was agreed drawn in !.Rogers-Johansen, Mel­ bourne 1 998. White's positional advantages include a nice knight on d4, but Black's queenside counterplay mustn't be underes­ timated.

cxd3 lt:\xd3 24 'ii'd 2 lt:\xe 1 25 'ii'x e1 "ilfc4 26 �f3 i.b7 27 tt:lf6 + �g7 28 lt:\a5 'ii'c 7 29 �c3 'ii'xf4!

30 g3 'ii'd4 3 1

lt:\h5 + gxh5 3 2 lt:\xb 7 l:.bS 3 3 lt:\a5 �dB 34 Wc1

h6 35 tt:lb3 'ii'e4 +

36 'ii'c 2

'ii'e 1 + 37 lt:\c 1 .:td2 0-1

Game 3 1 Parma-Capelan

Solingen 1968 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6

1 4 'ii'e4

5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.a7 7 0-0 lt:\c6 8

Or 14 exd6 l:txd6 and now: a) 1 5 lLle4 l:td5 16 lLlc3 l:td6 1 7 lLle4 l:td5 is a repetition of moves; if Black wants to play on he could try 1 6 ...l:td7!?. b) 15 'ii'h S!? g6 1 6 'ii'c S 'ii'c 7 17 lLle4 looked a bit better for White in Jens­ Haldemann, Arco 2000, but I prefer 15 ... f5!, killing the bishop on d3 and preventing lLle4. Black then has time to pursue queen­ side operations.

'ii'e 2 d6 9 ..i.. e 3 i.xe3

14 . . . g6 1 5 exd6 l:bd6 1 6 'ii'e 3 'ii'c 7 1 7 lt:\e4 lt:\d 5!

Black can resist exchanging on e3 for the time being, but normally he will have to acquiesce in the long run. After 9 ...lLlf6 1 0 c 4 Black can play: a) 1 O... eS 1 1 lLlc3 i..g4 12 f3 i..e6 1 3 l:tfd 1 0-0 1 4 i.xa7 l:txa7 1 5 iVe 3 l:ta8 1 6 l:td2 and White's pressure down the d-ftle ensures an edge, Malakhov-Landa, Elista 1997. b) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 lLlc3 'ii'c7 12 l:tact i..xe3 (Black needs to do this if he wishes to play ... b7-b6) 13 iVxe3 lLle5 1 4 l:tfd l b6 1 5 i..e2 i.b7 16 f4 lLlg6 and we have transposed to the note to Black's 1 4th move. For 9 ...lLlge7 see Game 32. 1 0 'ii'x e3 tt:lf6

If anything I prefer Black's position. His pieces coordinate well and his king is slightly safer than White's. White's next move compounds his problems by allowing Black to gain a tempo later on. 1 8 'ii'f2 !? (Ribli) looks best. 1 8 'ii'g 3? l:.ddS 1 9 �hf1 lt:\ce7! 20 'ii'f2 lt:\f5 21 �de 1 tt:lb4 22 'iPb1 �xd3! 23 90

1 1 c4

Setting up the Maroczy Bind is the main point to White's decision to castle short. In

5 i. d3 i. c 5

contrast, 1 1 tbc3 promises nothing: 1 1 ... 0-0 12 .l:.ad1 'ii'c 7 13 'ito>h1 b5 14 f4 i.b7 1 5 'ii'h3 b4 1 6 tDe2 .l:.fdB 1 7 .l:.del h6! (taking the sting out of a possible e4-e5) and if any­ thing Black was a bit better in Padevsky­ Smyslov, Monte Carlo 1 968.

I believe Black should probably play more quietly with 1 4... b6, for example 1 5 f4 lbg6 16 g3 i.b7 1 7 .l:.acl l:tfdB 1 8 a3 .l:.acB 19 tbd4 i.aB and White was only a little bit better in Karpov-Hiibner, Graz 1 972. 1 5 i.xc4 'iixc4 1 6 l:!.xd6

1 1 . . 0 0 1 2 ltJc3 ltJe5 .

-

The alternative way to play for Black is to accept the 'Kalashnikov' pawn strucrure (reached after 1 e4 c5 2 tt:Jf3 tbc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 e5 5 lbb5 d6 6 c4) with 12 ... e5!? 1 3 .l:.fd1 i.e6 1 4 i.e2 and now 1 4. . .'ii'b 8!.

1 6 . . . e5?

With this move Black keeps defending d6, prepares to play ... .l:.fdB, and presents an option of opposing queens with ...'ii'a7. Play can then continue 1 5 :d2 l:td8 16 .l:.ad1 (16 .l:.cl !? prevents Black's next move) 1 6 ... b5!? 17 cxb5 axb5. Now 18 lbxb5?! .l:.xa2 1 9 .l:.xd6 l1xd6 20 .l:.xd6 tbd4! 21 lD3xd4 .l:.a1 + 22 i.fl exd4 was good for Black in the game Nicevski-Gheorghiu, Athens 1 969, but I prefer 18 i.xb5! lbb4 19 tbc1 tbxa2 20 tD1 xa2 ..txa2 when White's passed b­ pawn coupled with the pressure on the d­ ftle promise an edge. 1 3 i.e2 'iic 7 1 4 l:!.fd 1

After 14 l:tacl Black can grab on c4 as 14 ...tbxc4 1 5 ..txc4 'ii'xc4 16 lDd5? can be answered by 1 6 ... tbxd5!. Instead 1 6 .l:.fd1 'ii'b4 17 .l:.d4 'ii'h 6 1 8 ltcd 1 d5 leads to a level ending after 1 9 exd5 exd5 20 tbxd5 tbxd5 21 .l:.xd5 'ii'xe3 22 fxe3 i.e6. 1 4 . . . ltJxc4?!

After this move Black is lost, but his po­ sition is already difficult in any case: a) 16 ... b5 17 e5?! lbg4 18 'ii'f3 .l:.bB 1 9 .l:.d4 lDxe5 20 'ii'g3 'ii'c 7 21 .l:.cl f6 2 2 lDxb5 'ii'b6 was unclear in Klovans-Tunik, Par­ dubice 1 994. The move 17 l:tcl ! , however, looks a lot more threatening to me: 1 7 .....tb7 (or 1 7 ...lbg4 1 8 'ii'g3) 1 8 lba5 'ii'c 7 19 e5! lbg4 20 'ii'b 6 'ii'xb6 21 .l:.xb6 i.cB 22 .l:.e1 and this ending looks very suspicious for Black. b) 1 6 ...'ii'c 7! 1 7 .l:.ad1 is also better for White, although after 1 7 ... b5 1 8 e5 lDeB 1 9 .l:.dB i.b7 Black is hanging i n there. 1 7 l:lxf6!

This exchange sacrifice is simply devas­ tating here. 1 7 . . . gxf6 1 8 ltJd5 .l:td8 1 9 ltJxf6 + �f8 20 .l:l.c1 i.e6 21 h4 'iid 3 22 'iih 6 + �e7 23 'iig 5 �d6 24 ltJc5 'iib 5 25 ltJxe6 fxe6

Or 25 .. .'iti>xe6 26 lbg4 l:t£8 27 'iff6+ 'ito>d7 28 tbxe5+ 'it>eB 29 .l:.c7. 26 'iid 2 + 1 -0

White mates after 26 ...'ito>e7 27 .l:.c7+ 'ito>xf6 28 'ii'g5. 91

Sicilian K a n

Game 32 Herschei-Fiensch

Comspondence 1979 1 e4 c5 2 ltJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 .i.c5 6 ltJb3 .i.a7 7 'ir'e2 ltJc6 8 ..te3 d6

Another possibility for Black is to delay the advance of the d-pawn: 8 .. .'!2Jge7 9 0-0 0-0 10 c4 eS 1 1 tt:\c3 tt:ld4!? (1 1 ...d6 trans­ poses to the note to Black's 1 1 th move) 1 2 �xd4 exd4 1 3 tt:ldS d 6 1 4 l:tadl tt:lc6?! (14 ... tt:\xd5 15 cxdS looks only a little better for White) 15 'it>h 1 i.e6 16 f4 .l:.e8 17 'ifhS g6 1 8 'ifh6 .i.xdS (Leko-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2000) and now Leko's suggestion of 1 9 cxdS! looks very good for White, for exam­ ple 19 ...tt:lb4 20 f5 'iff6 21 i.bl d3 22 a3 tt:\c2 23 .l:.xd3. 9 0-0 ltJge7

Uncovering the d-ftle. White has a straightforward plan of ganging up on d6pawn. 1 4 . . . l:!.c8

14 ...tt:\c8 is very passive: 1 5 tt:ldS aS 1 6 .l:.acl b 6 1 7 tt:la 1 ! (this knight is heading somewhere nice!) 1 7 ... f6 1 8 tt:lc2 .l:.f7 1 9 tt:la3 l:td7 20 tt:lbS .l:.b8 (Unzicker-Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca 1 969) and now either 21 f4 or 21 g3 (preparing f2-f4) would have kept a significant advantage. 1 5 .l:.d2 ltJa5

Originally this position was assessed as equal by ECO, and this seems to have caught out quite a few players who were religiously following the 'bible'! 1 6 ltJxa5 'ir'xa5 1 7 .l:.xd6 ..txc4 1 8 l:!.d7!

Naturally! The double attack nets White a pawn. 1 8 . . . ..txf 1 1 9 .l:.xf1

19 .U.xe7 also looks good.

Experience has shown that this devel­ opment is not very effective when White can play c2-c4. 1 0 c4!

10 tt:\c3 transposes to the note to White's 1 Oth move in Game 30, but 10 c4 looks stronger. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 ltJc3 .i.xe3

1 1 ...e5 12 .ixa7 .l:.xa7 13 .l:.fd l i.e6 1 4 'ife3 .Ua8 reaches the same position, albeit with an extra move played by both sides. 1 2 'ir'xe3 e5 1 3 .l:.fd1 .i.e6 1 4 .i.f 1 1 9 . . . 'ir'b4??

Given that this was a postal game, there's really no excuse for this incredible blunder. I suspect, however, that Black was simply following what had gone on before. 19 ...tt:\c6! is best: 20 .l:txb7 .U.b8 21 l:txb8 .l:.xb8 22 b3 tt:ld4 23 'it>h 1 .l:.c8 24 .l:tcl h6 and it won't be easy for White to convert his extra pawn, Leroy-Davies, correspon­ dence 1 982. 20 a3!

The 'stem game' had continued 20 'ifgS?? 92

5 i. d 3 i. c 5

and was eventually drawn in Lewandowitz­ Herschel (!), correspondence 1 973. A dou­ ble piece of luck for Herschel! 20 .. .'ii' x b2 21 lL:Jd1

And White wins a piece ... 21 . . .'ii'a 1 22 l:be7 b5 23 'ii'b 3 llc 1 24 lL:Je3 �xf1 + 25 lL:Jxf1 'ii'd 4 26 'ii'd 5 'ii'c3 27 'ii'd 6 a5 28 �xeS b4 29 �xa5 b3 30 llb5 1 -0

Game 33 Kengis-B.Nevednichy

USSR 1979 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL:Jxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lL:Jb3 i.a7 7 'ii'e 2 lL:Jc6 8 lL:Jc3 d6 9 i.e3 i.xe3

For many years this was the main line be­ fore black players began allowing White to exchange on a7 (see Game 28).

available as in Game 30, but 1 3 ...d 5 fol­ lowed by pushing the 9ueenside pawns looks okay (compare with the note to Black's 13th move in Game 30). 1 1 0-0-0

White can also go for it on the kingside immediately with 1 1 g4!? and now: a) 1 1 ...b5 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 gS lLle8 (13 ...lLld7 14 i..e2 leaves the d6-pawn vul­ nerable) 14 f4 b4 1 5 lLle2 aS 16 ltJbd4 lLlxd4 17 ltJxd4 and White was a bit better in Anand-Ninov, Baguio City 1 987. b) 1 1 ...lLlxg4! 12 'ii'g3 lLlf6 13 'ir'xg7 l:.g8 1 4 'ii'h6 i..d7 1 5 0-0-0 'ii'e 7 1 6 lLla4 0-0-0 17 ltJb6+ ..ti>c7 1 8 lLlxd7 l:.xd7 19 l:.hg1 l:.dd8 was e9ual in Ebeling-Haapasalo, Tampere 1991 . 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 f4

1 0 'ii'x e3 lL:Jf6

Also possible is 10 ...lLlge7!?, developing in a similar fashion as in Game 30. Now 1 1 0-0 0-0 leads to similar play to that in the note about 10 0-0 in Game 30, the only difference being that the bishops have al­ ready been exchanged. White can also play 1 1 0-0-0 and now: a) 1 1 ...e5 12 f4! exf4 13 'ii'x f4 0-0 1 4 i.e2! was good for White i n Renet-Farago, Budapest 1 987. The game continued 14 ...ltJg6 1 5 'ii'g3 ltJgeS 16 l:.d2 f5? 17 exfS i.xfS 1 8 l:thd 1 l%f6 1 9 ltJd4 lLlxd4 20 .l:txd4 'ii'c 7 21 i.c4+!! lLlxc4 22 ltJdS 'ii'c S 23 lLlxf6+ ..ti>h8 24 lLle4 'ii'c 6 25 'ii'c 3 lLleS 26 lLlxd6 and Black resigned. b) 1 1 ...0-0 12 f4 'ii'c 7?! 13 'ii'h 3! lLlb4 14 .l:thf1 eS 1 5 fS dS 16 exdS lLlexdS 1 7 lLlxdS lLlxdS 1 8 'ii'h 4! lLlf6 19 g4 e4 20 g5! exd3 21 l:.xd3 gave White a strong attack in Ko­ rolev-Batakovs, correspondence 1 984, for example 21 ...lLlh5 22 'ii'x hS i.xfS 23 l:.xfS g6 24 'ii'h4 gxfS 25 l:.h3 f6 26 g6!. Instead of 1 2 ... 'ii'c 7?!, I believe Black should start immediate 9ueenside operations with 12 ... b5. After 13 eS Black has no ...l:.d7

1 2 . . . 'ii'c 7

The line 12 ... b5? 13 eS! is good for White, as 13 ... b4 fails to 14 exf6 bxc3 1 5 'ii'e4. The other way to prevent e4-e5 is with 1 2 ... e5 1 3 fS bS and now: a) 14 g4!? lLlxg4 1 5 'ii'g3 and now instead of 1 5 ...ltJf6 16 l:thg1 lLle8 17 lLldS which gave White a strong attack in S.Hansen­ Fries Nielsen, Aarhus 1 999, Black should play 1 5 ...'ii'g 5+ 16 l:.d2 'ii' f4 17 lLldS 'ii'xg3 1 8 hxg3 when White certainly has compen­ sation, but there's no obvious way to con­ tinue. b) 14 i..e2! b4 15 lLla4 'ii'c 7 1 6 g4 i.d7 93

Sicilian Kan

1 7 gS liJd4 1 8 liJxd4 exd4 1 9 l:hd4 ltJxe4 20 lhe4 .txa4 21 .td3 l:.ae8 (or 2 1 ....tc6 22 l:tc4 .U.fe8 23 'ifh3 'ifas 24 .l:td 1 .tbs 2S l::th4!) 22 l:.e1 and White's advanced pawns on the kingside promise a clear edge, Chris­ toph-Hollis, Hastings 1 96S.

ltJa4 is certainly worthy of attention) 16 ... aS with a further split: b1) 17 'ifh3 eS? 1 8 f5 a4 19 liJd2 liJcS 20 i.c4 b3 21 g6 hxg6 22 .l:txg6 ltJe7 (or 22 ... bxa2 23 .l:txg7+! 'ifi>xg7 24 .l:tg1 + 'ifi>f6 2S 'ifh4 mate) 23 .l:tg4 bxa2

1 3 g4!?

This is the most ambitious way to play. If Black declines the pawn offer then White's attack is quicker than normal as he hasn't been forced to play a preparatory l:.hgl . The main alternative is 1 3 .l:thg1 bS Qogi­ cally Black gets on with his queenside op­ era tions) when the assessment of the posi­ tion depends upon the relative speeds and stn:ngths of the two attacks. Play continues 1 4 t;4 b4 1 S gS

and now: a) 1 S...liJe8 1 6 liJe2 aS 17 liJbd4 liJxd4 18 'ifxd4 .ta6 19 i.xa6! (19 'ifi>b 1 eS 20 'ife3 a4 21 .l:tg3 was unclear in Arnason­ Suetin, Sochi 1 980) 19 ... l:txa6 20 f5 .l:tc6 21 'ifd3 exfS 22 exfS dS 23 f6! gxf6 24 liJd4 'iff4+ 2S �b1 l::tc4 26 liJfS 'ifi>h8 27 'ifxdS 'ife4 28 liJh6 'ifxc2+ 29 �a1 .l:tc7 30 gxf6 a4 31 'ii'gS 'ir'g6 32 'ii'e3 and Black resigned in Spitz-Larrouy, correspondence 1 993 on account of 32 ... 'ifxf6 33 .l:tdfl 'ifc6 34 'ir'gS 'ii'g6 3S 'ii'e S+ f6 36 lhg6 fxeS 37 .l:txf8 mate. b) 1 S ...liJd7! (many annotators have not mentioned this despite the fact that it looks more narural than 1 S ...liJe8) 1 6 liJe2 (16 94

24 .l:tdg1!! (go on - have another queen!) 24...al'ii' + 2S liJb1 and White has a winning attack, for example 2S ... liJxfS 26 exfS liJe6 27 .l:th4 g6 28 f6 and White mates. I couldn't resist putting in this line, but I should point out that Black has a strong improvement with 1 7 ... .ta6! 1 8 eS .txd3 1 9 exd6 'ii'a7 20 l:txd3 a4 2 1 liJbd4 liJxd4 22 liJxd4 'ireS, which is very unclear. b2) 17 liJbd4 liJxd4 1 8 liJxd4 liJcS 1 9 liJbS 'ii'b 6 20 i.c4 and now: b21) 20... .l:td8? 21 fS .ta6 22 g6 fxg6 23 .:txg6! hxg6 24 fxg6 was winning for White in Virtual Chess X-P ConNerS, Paderborn (computer tournament) 1 999, as there is no good defence to 'ifh3. b22) I wouldn't want to question a com­ puter, but 20 ... dS! looks like an improve­ ment: 21 exdS .ta6 22 g6! .txbS (22... hxg6? 23 dxe6 .txbS 24 exf7+ .l:txf7 2S .txf7+ 'ifi>xf7 26 l:.dS wins) 23 gxh7+ (23 gxf7+ .l:txf7 24 dxe6 .txc4 2S exf7+ .txf7 26 'ii'e S g6 looks good for Black) 23 ... 'ifi>h8 24 .txbS 'ii'x bS 2S 'it'eS f6 26 'it'c7 gS 27 fxgS 'it'c4 28 'ifi>b1 .l:tac8 29 'it'a7 with massive compli­ cations. b3) 17 fS a4 1 8 g6!? fxg6 (1 8 ... axb3? 1 9

5 i.. d3 i.. c 5

gxh7+ �h8 20 �gS g6 21 fxg6 fxg6 22 �xg6 tt'lf6 23 eS! [threatening �xf6+] 23 ... tt'lxh7 24 exd6 �f7 25 �h6 and White wins) 19 tt'lbd4 tt'lxd4 20 �xd4 (20 tt'lxd4 tt'leS) 20 ... b3!? 21 fxg6 tt'leS 22 gxh7+ �h8 and if I had to choose, I would take Black, Atanasov-Rodin, correspondence 1 984. Finally, the line 13 �h3 bS 1 4 g4 tt'lb4 1 5 gS tt'ld7! leads t o the note t o White's 1 5th move.

Halle 1978, I like 1 8 ...l:tb8! intending ... b5b4 with good counterplay. 1 5 . . . b4 1 6 lLle2 a5 1 7 Wh3

1 7 . . . exf5?

1 3 . . . b5

13. ..tt'lxg4!? 14 'iWg3 tt'lf6 15 l:thgl tt'le8 obviously promises a strong initiative to White, who has scored well in practice. One recent example is 1 6 �h4!? �e7 17 l:tgS f6 1 8 l:tg3 g6?! (18 .. .f5 1 9 l::.g S tt'lb4 20 tt'ld4 tt'lf6 was unclear in Ivanovic-Velikov, Saint John 1 988) 19 f5 tt'leS 20 tt'ld4 i.d7 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 i.c4! and now: a) 22 ... tt'lxc4 23 l:txg6+ tt'lg7 24 l:tdgl tt'leS (24...l:tf7 25 l:th6 wins) 25 l:t6g3! and there is no good answer to l:r.h3. b) 22...tt'lg7 23 l:r.dgl �f7 24 tt'lfS! tt'lxfS 25 exfS l:th8 26 �e4 bS 27 l:txg6 1 -0 Freiknecht-Scheidt, correspondence 1 998.

The rather obvious-looking 17 ... tt'lde5! is suggested as an improvement on MegaCorr2 (a database of over 350,000 correspondence games) without any further analysis. Now the same plan doesn't work for White: 1 8 tt'lf4 a4! and there is no tt'ldS so White is forced to retreat with the b3knight. Therefore the most logical way for­ ward for White looks to be 1 8 f6, which led me to some incredible complications: 1 8... a4 19 fxg7 l:td8! (19 ...�xg7? 20 tt'lg3! tt'lxd3+ 21 lhd3 tt'leS 22 tt'lhS+! �g6 23 tt'lf6 tt'lxd3+ 24 'ifi>d2! and mate follows) 20 tt'lg3 (after 20 tt'lbd4 tt'lxd4 21 tt'lxd4 a3! it's Black's attack which is stronger) 20... axb3 21 tt'lhS (threatening mate with tt'lf6+)

1 4 g 5 lZ:ld7 1 5 f5!?

Another way to continue the attack is 1 5 �h3 tt'lb4 1 6 a3?! ( 1 6 �bl ! looks stronger) 1 6 ...tt'lxd3+ 1 7 �xd3 dS! 1 8 eS and here, instead of 1 8 ... i.b7?! 19 l:r.hgl .U.ac8 20 h4 tt'lcS?! 21 tt'lxcS �xeS 22 �d4 aS? 23 �xeS l:txcS 24 tt'le2 which gave White a big posi­ tional advantage in T.Giorgadze-Bohlig, 95

Sicilia n Kan

Black has two possibilities: a) 21 ...lbxd3+? 22 l:txd3 'ike7 23 'ikh4!! (23 lDf6+ 'ilf'xf6 24 gxf6 bxa2 25 Wd2 a1'ilf' 26 l:ha1 l:ha1 27 'ikh4 e5! wins for Black) 23 ... bxa2 24 Wd2 a1'ik 25 l:ha1 l:.xa1 26 l:lh3! h6 27 lDf6+ 'ilf'xf6 28 gxf6 and White wms. b) 21 ...lbg4! 22 'il'xg4 (or 22 e5 lbcxe5 23 �xh7+ Wxh7 24 g6+ Wxg6 and Black wins) 22 ...lbe5 23 'ilf'h3 lbxd3+ 24 'ii'xd3 bxa2 25 Wd2 'il'c5 looks winning for Black. It may be that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are several other pos­ sibilities for both sides, but it does show you how a whole line can be (sometimes incorrectly) written off just as a result of one high-profile game. 1 8 exf5 �de5 1 9 �f4 a4 20 �d5 'jj'd 8 21 .:l.hg 1 !

2 1 o o o�xd3 + ?

Another mistake, although by now Black is in a difficult position. Gipslis gives the line 21...axb3 22 lDf6+ gxf6 23 'ilf'h6! lbg6! (23 ... Wh8 24 gxf6 l::tg8 25 l::tg7 lbxd3+ 26 :xd3 �xfS 27 l::th 3! and White wins) 24 fxg6 fxg6 25 �xg6! l::ta7 26 gxf6 hxg6! and then Nunn continues the analysis with 27 .l:l.xg6+ Wf7 28 l::te 1 ! lbe5 29 l::tg 7+ We6 30 1:.xa7 bxa2 31 'ii'h 3+ Wd5 32 'ii'b 3+ Wc6 33 'il'xa2 'with a slight material plus for White together with a raging attack'. Indeed, it's very doubtful that Black can survive in this final position. 96

22 .:.xd3 �e5 23 �f6 + ! gxf6 24 Wh6! ! �xd3 + 25 �b 1 ! fxg5

Or 25 .. oWh8 26 g6! fxg6 27 fxg6. 26 f6 Wxf6 27 Wxf6

The smoke has cleared, leaving White with a winning material advantage. 27 og4 28 Wg5 + �h8 29 Wt6 + �g8 0 0

30 �d4 �e5 31 h3 h5 32 Wg5 + �g6 33 Wxh5 gxh3 34 Wd5 i.e6 35 �xe6 h2 36 l:.xg6 + 1 -0

Game34 J . Horvath-Farago

Budapest 1987 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 �b3 i.a7 7 0-0

The immediate 7 'iig4 is not so effective: 7 ...lbf6 8 'iig3 (the point is that 8 'ilf'xg7? runs into 8 ...l1g8 9 'ilf'h6 �x£2+!) 8 .. od6 9 lbc3 lbc6 10 0-0 h5!? (10... b5, 10 ...lbe5 and 10 ... 0-0 are also playable, but I like this move) and now: a) 1 1 Wh 1 lbe5 12 f4 h4 1 3 'ilf'e1 (13 'ikxg7?? lbg6!) 13. ..lbxd3 1 4 cxd3 h3 15 g3 b5 and Black's two bishops will point im­ pressively towards the white king, Mainka­ Kengis, Germany 1 997. b) 1 1 'ii'xg7 (1 can't find any examples of this move) 1 1 ...l::tg8 12 'ikh6 lbg4 13 'ilf'xh5 (13 'ii'h7 lDf6 repeats moves) 1 3. ..'ilf'f6 1 4 lbd 1 'ikg7! 1 5 'il'h3 l:lh8 1 6 'ii'g3 l::tx h2 and ...'ii'h 8! is corning. c) 1 1 i.e3 h4 12 'ifxg7 l::th7 13 'ikg5 l::th 5 1 4 'il'g7 l::th7 is a draw by repetition. d) 1 1 i.g5 lDe5 12 i.h4 Wf8 13 l::ta d1 lbg6 14 �e2 lbxh4 1 5 'ilf'xh4 'ilf'e7 16 'ii'g3 e5 1 7 'iid3 i.e6 1 8 'ii'xd6 ('/2-1!2 Boey­ Arnlind, correspondence 1 975) 18 ...'il'xd6 19 l:txd6 �xb3 20 axb3 �d4 21 lDd5 i.c5 22 l1xf6 gxf6 23 lDxf6 is unclear. 7 o o�c6 8 Wg4 �f6 o

For the safer 8 ...'ikf6, see Game 35. 9 Wxg7

For 9 'ikg3?! d6 10 lbc3, see the note to White's 7th move.

5 1J.. d3 1J.. c 5 9

. . .

J:tg8 1 0 'ifh6

White is a pawn up but Black certainly has some compensation in the form of open lines and active pieces. 10

. . .

l:tg6!?

The main alternative is 1 0 ...ltJe5 and now: a) 1 1 'ir'h3 ltJfg4! 12 ltJc3? (better is 1 2 'ir'xh7 ltJf6 1 3 'ir'h3 ltJfg4 and probably White should now repeat with 1 4 'ir'h7 as after 14 i.e2 I like 14 ... 'ir'f6 1 5 'ii'g3 'ii'h8!) 12 ...'ir'f6 13 'ir'g3. Now 13 ... ltJ£3+ 14 gx£3 itJh6 1 5 i.xh6 l:hg3+ 16 hxg3 'ii'x h6 17 �g2 was better for White in Korneev­ Gonzalez Gil, La Coruna 1 999, but 13 ...l:tg6! looks very strong to me: 14 'ir'f4 ltJ£3+ 1 5 Wh1 'ii'h4 and Black is winning. b) 1 1 i.f4? ltJeg4! 1 2 'ir'h4 (or 12 'ii'h3 e5! followed by ... d7-d5!) 12 ...ltJx£2 13 .l:tx£2 l:.g4 14 'ii'h6 lOgS 15 'ii'x h7 i.x£2+ 1 6 �x£2 l:txf4+ 1 7 'it>g1 'ii'g5 was winning for Black in Erdelyi-Szeberenyi, Budapest 2001 . c) 1 1 i.e2!, covering the £3- and g4squares, looks to be White's strongest re­ sponse: c1) After 1 1 ...b5, Ljubojevic's recom­ mendation of 1 2 i.e3! l:tg6 (or 12 ...ltJeg4 1 3 i.xg4 l0xg4 1 4 'ir'xh7) 1 3 'ir'h3 leaves Black with insufficient compensation for the pawn. c2) 1 1 ...d5 and now: c21) 12 i.g5 ltJeg4! 13 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 4 exd5 'ir'xd5 1 5 g3 'ir'f5 1 6 ltJ1d2 ltJg4 1 7

i.xg4 l:txg4 was unclear in Van der Wiel­ Ehlvest, Groningen 1 997. c22) 12 ltJc3!

with a further split: c221) 12 ... dxe4 13 i.g5 l:tg6 (13 ... ltJfg4 1 4 i.xd8 ltJxh6 1 5 i.c7! ltJf3+ 1 6 �h1 ltJh4 17 g3 ltJ4f5 18 ltJxe4 [Ribli] leaves White just a pawn up for nothing) 14 'ir'h4 i.d7 (or 1 4...ltJf3+ 1 5 i.x£3 ex£3 1 6 ltJe4 l:txg5 1 7 ltJxg5 fxg2 1 8 l:tfd 1) 1 5 ltJxe4 i.c6 1 6 i.xf6 'ii'd 5 1 7 i.xe5 'ir'xe5 1 8 i.f3 1 -0 was a pretty convincing argument for White in the game Hellers-Sjoberg, Malmo 1 994. c222) Ribli gives the line 1 2 ... d4!? 13 l:td 1 ltJeg4 14 i.xg4 ltJxg4 1 5 'ii'x h7 ltJf6 1 6 'ii'h4 .:.g4 1 7 'ir'h6 l:tg6 1 8 'ir'f4 and con­ cludes that White has a clear advantage. I agree with this, but I would point out that Black keeps some practical chances after 1 8 ... 'ii'e 7! 1 9 ltJe2 e5 20 'ii' f3 i.g4 21 'ii'd3 0-0-0. 1 1 'ifh3

1 1 'ii'd2?! ltJe5 12 �h 1 ? ltJfg4! 13 'ir'e2 ltJxh2 was winning for Black in Davie­ Kaplan, Oerebro 1 966. Possible, however, is 1 1 'ir'h4!? and now: a) 1 1 ...l:tg4 12 'ir'h3 (a little nuance so that the rook blocks the c8-h3 diagonal) 1 2...ltJe5 13 ltJ1d2 d5 (13 ... b5!? may be stronger) 1 4 ltJ£3! ltJx£3+ 1 5 'ir'xf3 dxe4 1 6 i.xe4 i.b8 ( 1 6. . ..:.xe4 1 7 i.g5!) 1 7 h3 .:.gs 1 8 i.xb7 i.xb7 1 9 'ii'xb7 with a clear plus for White, Santo Roman-Koch, French Ch. 97

Sicilian K a n

1 996. b) 1 1 ...lLle5 12 .ie2 b5 is interesting as White can no longer play .ie3. Play can continue 13 .ig5 .ib7 14 lLl1d2 h6 1 5 .ixf6 nxf6 (Ljubojevic-Lobron, Plovdiv 1 983) and now 1 6 c3 (Ljubojevic) keeps a slight advantage. Instead, the game contin­ ued 16 :ad 1 ? tt:lg6 17 'ii'x h6 lLlf4 18 'ii'h 8+ We7 19 'ii'x d8+ nxd8 20 .if3 nh8?? 21 e5 and now Black could have won with the pleasing 21...nfh6 22 g3 lLle2+! 23 .ixe2 nxh2 24 .if3 nh 1 + 25 .ixh 1 nxh 1 mate.

pawn on h5 looks a litde silly. 1 0 i.g5 'ii'g 6 1 1 'ii'h 4

1 1 . . . e5

1 1 . . . f6

In Popovic-Schlosser, Brno 1 992, Black played the 'trappy' 1 1 ...lLle5?? (intending 1 2 .ixe7?? tt:lf3+) but had to resign after 12 .ie2! as there is no good way to deal with the twin threats of 13 .ixe7 and 13 .ih5!. 1 2 i.d2

12 .if4 lLlb4 13 .id6 lLlxd3 14 cxd3 lLlc6 1 5 l:.fe 1 tt:le5 1 6 'ii'h3 lLlf7 1 7 .ig3 0-0 was fine for Black in Remus-Figueiras, corres­ pondence 1 997. Planning ...d7-d5. 1 2 'ii'h 4

White offers a draw by repetition, which is accepted. Playing on involves some risk: 1 2 g3 (Alben-Varela, Buenos Aires 1 999) and now I like 1 2... h5! 1 3 tt:lc3 d6 14 'ii'g2 h4, with real counterplay against the white king. 1 2 . . . l:.g4 1 3 'ii'h 6 J:.g6 1 4 'ii'h 4 l:.g4 1 5 'ii'h 6 l:tg6 % - Yz

Game 35 Berthelot-Velikov

Trignac 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 tt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:lxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.a7 7 0-0 tt:lc6 8 'ii'g 4 'ti'f6 9 tt:lc3 tt:lge7

After 9 ... h5?! White simply retreats with 1 0 'ii'e 2 and will continue with .ie3. The 98

1 2 . . . tt:le5!

An improvement over the earlier 1 2...'ii' f7 1 3 Wh 1 g5 14 'ii'h6 'ii'g6 1 5 'ii'h3 lLle5 16 f4 gxf4 1 7 nxf4, which gave White an edge in Popovic-Martinovic, Novi Sad 2000. 1 3 ..te2 'ii'f7 1 4 Wh1 g5! 1 5 'ii'h 6 tt:\7g6 16 f4

Blasting open the f-ftle, but this does give away the e5-square forever. I know that the move 1 6 g3, intending to recapture on f4 with the g-pawn, is more thematic but there is an obvious risk to the white king along those long diagonals: 1 6 ... b5! 17 f4 gxf4 1 8 gxf4 tt:lc4! 1 9 f5 exf5 20 ltJdS! (20 exf5? tt:lge5 21 .ih5? loses to 21....ib7+) 20 ... d6! and I would have to favour Black in this very messy position. 1 6 . . . gxf4 1 7 i.xf4 tt:lxf4 1 8 1:1xf4 <j;e 7 1 9 llaf1

5 i.. d3 i.. c 5

1 9 i.h5?! 'iff8! 20 'ifxf8+ .:txf8 gives Black a better ending due to his dominating knight on e5.

Game 36 Shirov-Korneev

Spain 1998 1 e4 c5 2 tt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt'lxd4 a6 5 i.. d 3 i..c 5 6 tt'lb3 .1La7 7 0-0 tt'lc6 8 c4 d6

After 8 ...l"Llge7 9 l"Llc3 0-0 White should revert back to the 'ife2/ i.e3 plan (10 'ife2 d6 1 1 i.e3 transposes to Game 32). Instead play can continue 10 �h1 e5 1 1 f4 exf4 12 i.xf4 (Ulibin-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999) and now Bologan gives the equalising line 1 2... i.b8! (very aesthetic!) 13 i.xb8 .:txb8 14 'ifd2 d6 1 5 .:tad1 l"Lle5. 1 9 . . . i..e 3!

9 tt'lc3 tt'lf6 10 'iti>h1

White wins the f-pawn but Black's con­ trol of the dark squares and powerful knight situated on e5 provide sufficient compensacion. 20 'ilixf6 + 'ilixf6 21 .l:txf6 b5 22 h4?

White's plan to expand on the kingside is doomed to fail. 22 l"Lld1 i.g5 23 .:t6f2, with the plan of opposing Black's knight with l"Llc5-d3 (or l"Lld4-f3), is much stronger. 22 . . . .l:tg8 23 'it>h2 l:.g7 24 'iti>h3 .ib7 25 tt'la5 l:.ag8! 26 tt'lxb7

Or 26 g4 i.a8 and White's position col­ lapses. Black threatens both ... b5-b4 and ...l"Llxg4. 26 . . . l:f.g3 + 27 'iti>h2 lbg2 + 28 'iti>h 1

Signalling a different plan to the one in­ volving 'ife2 and i.e3. White intends to attack on the kingside with f2-f4 and/ or i.g5, hoping to exploit the absence of a dark-squared defender on the kingside. 10 'ife2 0-0 1 1 i.e3 would transpose to a line considered in Game 3 1 . 1 0 . . . h5!?

28 . . . .ig 1 ! 0-1

Dissuading White from playing an Im­ mediate f2-f4 on account of ...l"Llg4. Black has two other important alternatives: a) 1 0...e5 (again preparing ...l"Llg4) 1 1 i.e2! i.e6 (1 1 ...h6 1 2 f4 exf4 1 3 i.xf4 l"Lle5 14 c5 i.b8 1 5 cxd6 'ifxd6 1 6 'ifxd6 i.xd6 17 .:tad1 and 1 1 ...0-0 12 f4 exf4 13 i.xf4 l"Lle5 14 i.g5 both look good for White) 1 2 99

Sicilia n Kan

f4 h6 1 3 'it'd3 'tlfe7? 1 4 ltJdS �xdS 15 cxdS l2Jd4 16 fxeS dxeS 17 l2Jxd4 .ixd4 18 'it'g3! left Black struggling in Bellia-Haldemann, Arco 1 999. b) 10 ... 0-0 and now: b1) 1 1 'ife2?! eS 1 2 �gS h6 1 3 �h4 gS 1 4 .ig3 �e6 was fine for Black in Sandvik­ Kauko, Finnish Team Ch. 1 998. b2) 11 f4 'ifc7 12 .id2 l2Jd4 13 �cl l2Jxb3 (there is no need to rush this; 1 3. ..�d7 is preferable) 14 axb3 �d7 15 g4 �c6 16 gS l2Je8?! (Black should play the more natural 16 ... l2Jd7, not fearing 17 b4 �d4 1 8 bS? on account of 1 8 ... l2Jc5!) 1 7 b4 'i*'e7 1 8 bS axbS 19 cxbS �d7 20 eS! gave White a strong attack in Ramesh-Emms, British Ch. 2002. 1 1 .tg5 'ili'c7 1 2 'ili'd2?! A mistake. Shirov suggests 12 f4! h4 1 3 'iff3 with an edge t o White. 1 2 . . . ..td7 1 3 �ad 1 lt'le5 14 .te2 .tc6? Black misses a great chance for counter­ play: 14 ...l2Jfg4! 1 5 �h4 f6! 16 'ifxd6 'ifxd6 1 7 �xd6 gS 1 8 �g3 h4 1 9 �xeS ltJxeS (Shi­ rov) and Black's control of the dark squares and well-placed pieces provide enough compensation for the pawn deficit. 1 5 f3! Preventing any ...l2Jg4 tricks and securing a clear plus. 1 5 . . . 0-0-0

Given that White was threatening the d6pawn, this looks natural. However, now 1 00

White is able to unleash a strong attack on the queenside. Perhaps 1 5 ... �d8 is a try. 1 6 lt'lb5! axb5 1 7 cxb5 .tea 1 8 �c 1 ..tc5 1 9 lt'ld4 'it>b8 20 b4 b6 2 1 a4 h4 22 aS lt'lh5 23 .txh4 g5 24 'ili'xg5 f6 25 'i'e3 'ili'g7 26 g4 lt'lf4 27 bxc5 lt'lxe2 28 lL:lxe2 �xh4 29 c6 �c8 30 'i'xb6 + 'it>aS 31 c7 1 -0

Game37 Shirov-Agrest

European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 a6 5 .td3 .tc5 6 lt'lb3 i.. e7 The main alternative to 6 ...�a7. Black prefers to keep his bishop as a defensive piece on the kingside. 7 0-0 d6 8 c4 b6 9 lt'lc3 ..tb7 1 0 f4 lt'ld7 Although Kan players tend to prefer sys­ tems with ... l2Jd7, Black can also develop with ... l2Jc6, for example 10 ... l2Jc6 1 1 �e3 l2Jf6 12 'iff3 l2Jd7 1 3 �ad1 'ifc7 14 'ifh3 ltJcS 1 5 ltJxcS bxcS 1 6 fS with an edge to White, Rytshagov-Agrest, Stockholm 1 998. Significantly, perhaps, Agrest has since switched to 10 ... l2Jd7. 1 1 .te3 With this move White auns for 'third rank' set-up, which will be completed with 'iff3. For the main alternative 1 1 'ife2, see Game 38. 1 1 . . .lt'lgf6 1 2 'ili'f3

5 �d3 �c 5

From here the queen has options to go to both g3 and h3. On g3 it attacks the g7pawn while on h3, combined with f4-f5, it helps to pressurise the e6-pawn. White will also seriously consider the space-gaining g2g4-g5, especially since Black's f6-knight doesn't have its natural retreat square at d7. We have reached an important moment; Black now needs to make a difficult deciSIOn. 1 2 . . . g6! ? By no means the only choice. Black can also play: a) 12 ... h5!? (Agrest likes to play this move - see also Game 38) 1 3 .l:tad1 "fic7 14 h3 g6 (Agrest assesses the position after 1 4... h4 1 5 'i'f2 ltJcS 1 6 ltJxcS dxcS 1 7 e S ltJd7 1 8 fS as good for White, but I think it's quite play­ able for Black after 18 ...0-0-0) 1 5 "fi f2 ltJcS 16 ltJxcS dxcS 1 7 eS ltJd7 18 ..ie4 0-0-0 was agreed drawn in Rytshagov-Agrest, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. After the bishops are ex­ changed Black can aim for counterplay with ...ltJb8-c6. Nevertheless, I still prefer White and, given that he chose not to repeat this against Shirov, perhaps Agrest agrees. b) 1 2...ltJc5 1 3 ltJxcS bxcS 1 4 "fih3 ltJd7 15 eS! ( 1 5 f5 ltJeS 16 ..ic2 0-0 17 fxe6 ..ic8! [Ribli] is fine for Black as 18 ex£7+? .l::t x£7 19 "fig3 ..ih4! traps the white queen) 1 5 ... dxe5 1 6 f5 1 6 ...ltJf6 1 7 .l:tad 1 "fib6 1 8 fxe6 "fixe6 1 9 ..ifS gave White reasonable compensation for the pawn, Shirov­ Kveinys, Istanbul Olympiad 2000. c) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 .l:tad1 .l:te8 14 "fih3 "fic8!? (covering the e6-square although 14 ... "fic7 15 g4! g6 1 6 gS ltJhS 17 f5 exfS 1 8 exfS ltJeS doesn't look bad for Black) 1 5 g4 g6 1 6 gS ltJhS 1 7 flo ..i£8 1 8 "fif2 "fic7 1 9 ..ie2 ltJg7 20 ltJd4 ltJcS 21 ..if3 eS! 22 ltJde2 .l:tab8 (22 ... exf4?! 23 ltJxf4 ltJxe4? 24 ltJxe4 ..ixe4 loses to 25 ltJdS) 23 fS and now, instead of 23 ... a5 24 ..ig2 which was good for White in Vallejo Pons-Korneev, Elgoibar 1 997, I prefer 23 ... gxf5 24 exfS e4! followed by ...ltJd3.

1 3 l:!.ad 1 'i!i'c7 1 4 'ili'h3 h5!? Again we see this move. Black doesn't want to commit his king and plays actively on the kingside. 14 ... 0-0 1 5 fS! is pleasant for White. 1 5 f5 gxf5! A big point of 12 ... g6. 1 6 exf5 e5 Black has blocked the centre and now seeks counterplay down the g-file and along the long h 1 -a8 diagonal. 1 7 �e2! White prepares to oppose Black's power­ ful bishop. 1 7 . . .l:!.g8 18 �f3

1 8 . . . �xf3? Giving up the fight too easily. After this move White manages to obtain crucial light­ square domination in the centre. Instead Black should aim for the complications of 1 8 ... e4 1 9 ..ie2 ltJeS 20 ltJd2, which Shirov assesses as unclear. Now 20 ... 0-0-0?! 21 liJdS! is good for White, so I prefer 20 ... ltJeg4! with ideas of ... d6-d5 and ... ltJxe3. 1 9 'ili'xf3 .l:!.b8 20 tt'ld2! b5 21 cxb5 axb5 22 tt'lde4 b4 23 tt'ld5 tt'lxd5 24 l:!.xd5 tt'lf6 25 :lc 1 'ili'b7 26 tt'lxf6 + �xf6 27 l:!.cd1 h4 28 �f2 'it>f8 29 'ili'h3 :ld8 30 �c5 :lg5 31 �e3 l:!.g8 32 �c5 :lg5 33 'i!i'd3! :d7 34 �f2 l:!.g8 35 h3! 'i!i'c6? Dropping a pawn, although by now Black's position is extremely difficult. 101

Sicilian Kan

36 �e4 .:.c7 37 �xb4 i.e7 38 i.xh4 f6 39 .:.1 d2 �c1 + 40 h2 .:.c4 41 �b8 + f7 42 �b3 �f1 43 .:.t2 �c1 44 .:.d1 1 -0

Game 38 Moberg-Agrest

1 2 . . . h5!? The most ambitious of Black's options, though not necessarily the best. Black gives the knight a square on g4 and can also con­ sider ... h5-h4 and ... lLlh5. Black's alternatives include: a) 12 ... g6?! 13 e5! is strong, as 1 3 ... dxe5 14 fxe5 lLlxe5? fails to 1 5 'i'xe5 'i'xd3 1 6 .l:.xf6. b) 1 2... 0-0 1 3 .l:.ae1 and now: b1) 13 ....l:.e8!? 14 .l:.f3 .tfB 1 5 .l:.h3 e5 1 6 f5 b5!? (thematic but. . .) 1 7 cxb5 axb5 1 8 .txb5 d5 1 9 exd5 lLlxd5 20 a4 doesn't give Black enough for the pawn. b2) 1 3 ... .l:.c8 1 4 .l:.f3! (but not 14 e5? dxe5 1 5 fxe5 lLlxe5!) 1 4... .l:.e8 1 5 l:h3 lLlfB 1 6 e5 ltJ6d7 17 'i'h5 g6 18 'i'h6 was better for White in Kutuzovic-Gallagher, Pula 2000. c) 12 ...'i'c7 (this looks the safest way) 1 3 .l:.ae1

Swedish Team Championship 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 lt'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt'lxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lt'lb3 i.e7 7 0-0 d6 8 c4 b6 9 lt'lc3 i.b7 1 0 f4 lt'ld7 1 1 �e2 As we have seen before, the plan involv­ ing 'i'e2, .td2 and .l:.ae1 is one of the most dangerous available to White. These posi­ tions should be compared to the ones where the white knight is on d4. The knight is obviously less active on b3, but it is also less vulnerable to counter-attack. 1 1 . . .lt'lgf6 1 2 i.d2 with a further split: cl) 1 3 ...0-0 14 e5! looks better for White. c2) 1 3 ... h5!? 1 4 lLld4! (White needs to get this knight back into the action) 1 4 ... g6 ( 1 4... 'i'c5?! can be simply met by 1 5 lLla4!) 1 5 lLlf3 and now Black's kingside looks a bit shaky after 1 5 ... 0-0?! 1 6 f5. I believe that Black should play a waiting game with 1 5 ... .l:.d8, although the question remains about the final destination of Black's king. c3) 1 3 ...g6? 14 e5! dxe5 1 5 fxe5 lLlh5 1 6 ltJd5!! exd5 1 7 e6 fxe6 1 8 'i'xe6 ltJdf6 1 9 �b4 lLlg8 20 �xe7 lLlxe7 21 .l:.f? was win1 02

5 i. d3 .i. c 5

ning for White in Langheinrich-Glek, Bad Zwesten 1 999. This game ill u strates how careful Black has to be against White's 'ii'e2, .id2, .nae1 plan. c4) 1 3 ... e5 (this is certainly more playable here than if the white knight was on d4, but it still makes a rather strange impression) 1 4 ltJdS (14 fS should b e enough for a n edge) 14 ...'ii'd 8 1 5 i.c3 (or 1 5 fS 0-0 and Black can aim for ... b6-b5!) 1 5 ...0-0 1 6 lbd2 exf4 1 7 nxf4 lbes 1 8 ltJ£3 l2Jfd7 1 9 b3 g6 and Black was doing okay in Dunis-Kveinys, Bogny sur Meuse 2002. cS) 13 ... nd8 (this should certainly be compared to note 'b' to Black's 9th move in Game 1 2, where White's knight is on d4) 1 4 no!? ( 1 4 ltJdS? exdS 1 5 exdS 0-0! and there is no lbfS here; 1 4 i.c2!? is also playable) 14 ...g6 (14... 0-0 1 5 nh3 g6 1 6 eS dxeS 1 7 fxeS l2Je8 1 8 Wh 1 ltJg7 1 9 i.f4 ltJcS 20 lbxcS bxcS 21 i.e4, Dobrowolski­ Ostrowski, Krynica 1 997 and 1 4... l2Jc5 1 5 lbxcS dxcS 1 6 nh3 l2Jd7 1 7 eS, Westerinen­ Zagorskis, Yerevan 1 996 were both better for White) 1 5 lbdS!? (obviously this is not forced) 1 5 ... exd5 16 exdS 0-0! (16 ... lbc5 1 7 lbxcS 'ii'x cS+ 1 8 i.e3 'ii'c 7 1 9 i.d4 W £8 20 fS! gS 21 'ii'd2 .ng8 22 l:.xe7! 'ifxe7 23 .ne3 and White is winning) 17 ne3 ltJxdS 1 8 cxdS i.f6 and Black was doing more than okay in J urkovic-Sax, Bizovac 2002. 1 3lDd4 Bringing the knight back into play. 1 3 eS?! dxeS 1 4 fxeS lbxeS! exploits the unde­ fended bishop on d3. 1 3 . . .'ii'c7 1 4 'iti>h 1 I prefer 1 4 lb£3!, which looks a good manoeuvre against ... h7-h5 - sometimes the knight can utilise the gS-square. Palac­ Fercec, Zadar 1 999 continued 1 4... h4?! (14... g6!? looks stronger) 1 5 b4 h3 1 6 g3 lbg4 1 7 lbd4 lbdf6 1 8 lbb3 0-0 1 9 l:tacl l:.ac8 20 bS aS 21 lba4 and Black's slightly awkward knights on f6 and g4 gave White an edge. 1 4 . . . g6 1 5 :ae1 h4!

With some ideas of ...ltJhS, castling queenside and, in an ideal world, even a possible ...lbg3 + . White's king can actually be misplaced on h 1 ! 1 6lDd5? This sacrifice simply doesn't work. 16 fS? gxfS 1 7 exfS h3! and 1 6 eS? h3! show the potential in Black's set-up. Best is 1 6 b4!, preventing anything coming to cS and pre­ paring a pawn assault should Black dare to castle queenside. 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 exd5 lDc5 1 8 i.c2 h3! 1 9 b4 lDxd5 20 cxd5 ..ltxd5 2 1 lDf3 hxg2 + 22 'it>xg2lDe6

Black is a clear pawn up and it's White's king that is more exposed. This adds up to a decisive advantage for Black. 23 i.e4 'ii' b7 24 i.xd5 'ii' x d5 25 'ii' e4 'ii' xe4 26 lbe4 .l:l.c8 27 :c 1 :xc1 28 i.xc 1 'it>d7 29 .l:l.c4 b5 30 :c2 i.f6 3 1 1 03

Sicilian Kan

®g3 ll'lg7 32 lld2 .llc 8 33 i.b2 .ixb2 34 .llx b2 .llc4 35 .lld 2 ll'lh5 + 36 ®f2 .llxb4 37 f5 gxf5 38 ®e3 .lle4 + 39 ®f2 ll'lf6 40 ®g3 l:tg4 + 41 ®h3 ll'le4 42 .llc 2 f6 43 a4 ll'lg5 + 44 ll'lxg5 fxg5 45 axb5 .llh4 + 46 ®g3 axb5 0-1 ,...-----.

Game39 lutz-Milov

European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 ll'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll'lxd4 a6 5 .id3 .ic5 6 ll'lb3 .ie7 7 'ii' g4 Perhaps slightly more accurate for White is the move order 7 0-0 d6 8 'i*'g4 and now: a) 8...g6 9 'i*'e2, transposes to Game 40. b) 8... tLlf6 9 'i*'xg7 ngB 1 0 'ii'h 6 looks better for White here than the similar varia­ tion in the note to White's 1 0th move, as Black has expended a tempo on the not-souseful ... d7 -d6. c) 8 ... i. f6 9 'i*'g3! tLlc6 10 tLl1 d2! (targeting d6; tiJ1 d2-c4 looks like a good way of exploiting ... .if6) 10 ... tt:Jge7 (10 ... bS?! 1 1 a4 .U.b8 1 2 axbS axbS 1 3 f4 eS 1 4 tt:Jf3 lUge7 1 S fxeS dxeS 1 6 i.e3 gave White the advantage in Rytshagov-Vehi Bach, Groningen 1 997) 1 1 tLlc4 lUeS 1 2 lUxeS dxeS (12 ... i.xeS?? loses a piece to 13 f4 .if6 14 eS) 1 3 i.e3 (Rytshagov) with a comfortable structural edge for White.

7 . . . ll'lf6 For 7 ...g6, see Game 40. 1 04

7 ...i.f6!? looks slightly better against the immediate 7 'ii'g4 when compared to the note above. 8 0-0 tLlc6 9 f4 d6 and now: a) 1 0 tLlc3 hS 1 1 'i*'f3 tt:Jge7 12 i.e3 'ii'c7 1 3 nad1 nbB! (1 3. .. bS? and 1 3 . .. tLlb4?! are both answered by 1 4 eS!) 14 a4 b6 1 S nd2 (Am.Rodriguez-Vehi Bach, Manresa 1 997) and now Rodriguez's suggestion of 1 S ... i.xc3 1 6 bxc3 i.b7 doesn't look bad for Black. b) 10 tiJ 1 d2!? tt:Jge7 1 1 'i1i>h1 tt:Jg6 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 tLlc4 0-0 14 i.e3 nbB 1 S .U.ad1 bS (1S ... dS 1 6 eS i.e7 17 tLlcd2 tLlb4 18 nf3 was better for White in Van Hassterd­ Spassov, Badalona 1997) 1 6 axbS axbS 17 tLla3 (17 tt:Jxd6? 'ifxd6 1 8 eS tLlcxeS 1 9 fxeS 'ifxeS leaves White a pawn down) 1 7 ... i.xb2 1 8 tLlxbS tLlb4 1 9 'i*'e2 and I prefer White. 8 'ii' x g7 l:.g8 9 'ii' h 6 ll'lc6 9 ... .U.xg2? 10 eS! is strong, as 10 ... tt:Jg4? loses to 1 1 'i*'h3. 1 0 ll'lc3!? Recently white players have been es­ chewing the chance to keep the extra pawn with 1 0 0-0. One older example is 1 0...tLleS 1 1 tLlc3 bS 12 f3 b4 1 3 tLld1 dS 1 4 'i*'e3 i.b7 1 S tt:Jf2 and Black has reasonable compensation in Psakhis-Kurajica, Cap d'Agde 1 994. 1 0 . . Jbg2

1 1 'ii' h 3 An important alternative is 1 1 i.d2 and

5 i.. d 3 i.. c 5

now: a) 1 1 ....:lxf2 1 2 'iVh3 .:lxd2 1 3 lL\xd2 doesn't give Black enough compensation for the exchange. b) In my opinion, the sequence 1 1 ...d6 1 2 0-0-0 .:lx£2! (12....:lg6 1 3 'ii'e3 lL\g4 1 4 'iVe2 lL\ge5 1 5 f4 lL\xd3+ 1 6 'iVxd3 b5 1 7 f5 was very unpleasant for Black in Hernandez­ Kurajica, Las Palrnas 1 995) 1 3 l:thg1 lL\e5 14 �e2 �f8 1 5 'iVh4 has been unfairly con­ demned as Black has the vital resource 15 ... l:txe2! 16 lL\xe2 lL\f3 17 'iVf4 lL\xg1 1 8 l:txg1 ..id7 after which White i s struggling to show anything for the pawn. 1 1 . . ..l:!.g8 Kurajica's latest word on this line is 1 1 ....:lg4!? although 12 f4 e5 1 3 lL\d5 1l2-1l2 Milu-Kurajica, Pula 2001 was hardly a test! 1 2 i.d2 12 ..ie3!? looks more aggressive: a) 1 2 ... d5 13 exd5 with a further split: a 1) 1 3 ... lL\b4 14 0-0-0 lL\xd3+ 1 5 l:txd3 exd5 (15 ...e5 16 'iVfl ..if5 1 7 l:td1) 16 1Vf3 ..ig4 17 'iVf4 l:tc8 18 l:te 1 was obviously good for White in Van der Wiel-Kurajica, European Team Ch., Pula 1 997. a2) 13 ...exd5!? 14 ..tf5 (14 'iVfl ? d4!) 14 ... ..ib4 1 5 0-0-0 ..ixc3 1 6 bxc3 lL\e7 17 ..ixc8 'iVxc8 1 8 'ii'h4! and Black's dark squares look vulnerable. b) Van der Wiel suggests 12 ... d6 is just slightly better for White. I put forward 1 3 0-0-0 e 5 1 4 'ii'fl ..ie6 1 5 ..ic4 to back up this view. 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 exd5 13 0-0-0?! d4 14 lL\e2 e5, as in Ara.Minasian-Milov, Batumi 2002, is not a real test of Black's opening. This does prove, though, that Milov was prepared to give this line another go after his game with Lutz. 1 3 . . . exd5 After 13 ... lL\b4?! 14 0-0-0 lL\xd3+ 1 5 'iVxd3 exd5 1 6 l:thg1 Black's lack o f devel­ opment is starting to show. 1 4 �f 1

White avoids the trap 1 4 ..if5? d4! 1 5 ..ixc8 (1 5 lL\e2?? 'iVd5!) 1 5...'ii'xc8 1 6 'iVxc8+ .U.xc8 1 7 lL\e2 lL\b4, when Black is doing very well. 1 4 . . . i.e6 1 5 0-0-0 �c7 1 6 tt:le2 0-0-0 1 7 ttJed4 ttJxd4 1 8 ttJxd4

1 8 ... i.c5 ! Giving up the bishop pau In order to strengthen the pawn structure. I believe that Black has equalised here . 1 9 tt:lxe6 fxe6 20 f3 'it>b8 2 1 �h3 e5 22 .!:!.he 1 .l:!.de8 23 �h4 �b6 24 �h6 e4 25 fxe4 dxe4 26 i.f4 + 'it>a7 27 i.c4 .l:!.g2 28 l:te2 .l:.xe2 29 i.xe2 e3 30 c3 .l:.e6 3 1 �g5 h 6 3 2 �f5 tt:le4 3 3 .l:!.d3 lLld2 34 .l:.d7 .l:!.e4? Allowing a stunning combination. 35 .l:!.xb7 + ! 'it>xb7? 35 ...1Vxb7 36 'iVxc5+ is good for White but Black is obviously still in the game. 36 �d7 + 'it>a8 37 �c8 + 'it>a7 38 i.b8 + !! 1 -0

Game 40 Torres-Smirin

New York 1998 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 tt:lb3 i.e7 7 �g4 g6 The most common reaction. The ques­ tion is whether the 'extra' move ... g7 -g6 will be a strength or a weakness. 8 �e2 105

Sicilia n Kan

The queen has done its 'job' of provok­ ing ... g7-g6 and now returns to a more fa­ miliar square. White can also wait a bit be­ fore doing this, for example, 8 0-0 d6 9l"Llc3 and now: a) 9 ...l"Llf6?! is too rushed: 10 'ii'e 2l"Llbd7 1 1 ..i.h6! and it's White who has benefited from the ... g7-g6 advance. The rule of thumb is that Black should wait for White to play £2-f4 before he plays ...l"Llf6. b) 9 ...l"Lld7! and now White should trans­ pose to the text with 10 'ii'e 2 as after 10 f4 l"Llgf6 1 1 'ii'e2 White no longer has the op­ tion of ..i.h6. 8 . d6 9 0-0 White normally castles kingside quite early on. One exception was 9 l"Llc3 l"Lld7 1 0 f4 "ilic7 1 1 ..i.d2l"Llgf6 1 2 g4 b 5 1 3 a 3 ..i.b7 14 g5 l"Llh5 15 :n l"Llc5 16 l"Llxc5 dxc5 and Black had no problems in Gofshtein-Glek, Senden 1 997. 9 . . .lLld7 Black keeps developing in typical Kan fashion. Notice, though, that 9 ...l"Llf6?! is still answered by 10 ..i.h6!.

C. Hansen-Akesson, Reykjavik 1 998. b) 12 ... b6 with a further split: b 1) 1 2 i.e3 ..i.b7 13 .:.acl l"Llgf6 (Black could delay this knight move with 1 3 . .. .:.c8!?) 14 ..i.h6 l"Lle5 1 5 h3 l"Llfd7 (15 ... .:.g8!?) 1 6 l"Lld2 g5 1 7 f4 gxf4 1 8 ..i.xf4 h5 1 9 l"Llf3 h4 20 'it>h 1 i.f6 21 ..i.b 1 'it>e7 with an unclear position in Agopov­ Kveinys, Jyvaskyla 2001 . b2) 1 2 f4 and now:

. .

b21) 1 2... i.b7 (this allows White a quick assault on the e6-pawn) 13 f5! l"Llgf6 (or 1 3. ..l"Lle5 1 4 fxe6 fxe6 1 5l"Lld4!) 1 4 fxe6 fxe6 15 l"Lld4 'ii'c 5 16 ..i.e3 "ilie5 17 l"Llf3 'ii'h 5 1 8 h 3 with some advantage to White, Holzke­ Kveinys, Wattenschied 2000 b22) 12 ...l"Llgf6! (I think this is more ac­ curate): b221) 1 3 i.d2 ..i.b7 14 f5 (or 1 4 .:.ael h5! and now the extra tempo for ...g7-g6 looks useful) 14 ...l"Llc5 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 1 6l"Lld4 'ii'd7 and the strong knight on e5 once again holds together Black's position. b222) 1 3 f5!? looks critical: 1 3 ...l"Lle5 1 4 i.h6l"Llfg4 ( 1 4...l"Llcg4 1 5 i.g7 .:.g8 1 6 ..i.xf6 l"Llxf6 1 7 fxe6 fxe6 1 8 e5! dxe5 1 9 l"Lle4 and 14 ... .:.g8 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 1 6 ..i.g5 are both good for White) 1 5 ..i.g7 ng8 and now: b2221) 16 ..i.xe5l"Llxe5 17 f6 ..i.f8 with a bizarre position which I think is fine for Black. He has a monster of a knight on e5, useful dark-squared control, can possibly castle quecnside and can push the g-pawn ·

An important juncture. White has to de­ cide whether to play c2-c4 or not. 1 0 lLlc3 The main alternative is 10 c4 'ii'c7 1 1 l"Llc3 and now: a) 1 1 ...l"Ll e5 12 f4l"Llxd3 1 3 'ii'x d3l"Llf6 1 4 l"Lld4 ..i.d7 1 5 b 3 l:%.c8 1 6 ..i.b2 0-0 1 7 'it>h 1 .:.fd8 1 8 .I:.ael gave White an edge in

106

5 i. d3 i. c 5 up the board! b2222) 1 6 f6 and now Black can choose between the incredible 1 6 ...lt:lxh2!? 17 �xh2 dS 18 �h1 (18 cxdS lt:lf3+ 1 9 �h3 'ii'h2+ 20 �g4 eS+ 21 �xf3 'ii'f4 is a nice mate) 1 8 ... dxc4 1 9 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 20 it'e3 i.b4 or the simple 1 6 ... i.b7, with both positions looking very murky. 1 o.. 'ii'c7 1 1 i.d2 White can also play 1 1 a4 but in view of the next note this seems an unnecessary precaution. 1 1 ...b6 11 ... bS?! is premarure as it allows White to strike on the queenside with 1 2 a4 b4 1 3 lt:la2 aS 1 4 c 3 bxc3 1 S lt:lxc3 followed by lL\bS. But when ... b7-bS is too risky, Black can often rely on a more 'restrained' fi­ anchetto with ...b7-b6. 1 2 l:tae1 i.b7 .

1 3 f4 Finally White succumbs to this narural move. He could wait one further move with 1 3 �h1 !? and now 1 3 ...lL\eS 1 4 f4lt:lxd3 1 5 cxd3 lLlf6 1 6 fS looks promising for White; as does 1 3 ... bS!? 14 a4 bxa4 1 S lLlxa4lt:lgf6 16 lLlaS. After 1 3 ...lt:lf6 1 4 i.h6 play may continue 14 ... lL\eS 1 S f4 (1 S h3!?) 1 5 ...lt:leg4 16 i.g7 .U.g8 1 7 i.xf6lt:lxf6 1 8 eS ltJhS and I would probably just about side with White here. 1 3 . . . lLlgf6 1 4 e5 lLld5! 1 4...lLlhS 1S exd6 i.xd6 1 6 lt:le4 0-0 17

'ii'f2 i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 .U.ad8 was equal in Bo­ risek-Korneev, Nova Gorica 2002. I prefer 17 lt:lxd6! 'ii'x d6 18 .U.d 1 , which looks a bit better for White. 1 5 lLlxd5 i.xd5 1 6 exd6 1 6 i.xa6 0-0 gives Black good counter­ play, while 16 ... 'ii'xc2 is also not bad. 16 i.c3 dxeS 17 i.xa6? 0-0 1 8 fxeS .U.xa6! 19 'ii'xa6 i.c4 20 'ii'a4 bS 21 'tWaS 'ii'c 6 22 i.d2 b4 left White struggling to find squares for his queen in Wahls-Smirin, Dresden 1 998. 1 6 . . .i.xd6 1 7 c4 i.b7 18 i.c3 0-0

Black has no problems at all in this posi­ tion. He is fully developed and has no weaknesses. In fact, one could already speak of a slight edge due to White's typically 'weak' king (a constant problem for White after f2-f4 in the Sicilian!). 1 9 'ii'g4 lLlc5 20 lLlxc5 i.xc5 + 21 '1t>h 1 l:tadB 22 l:.d 1 l:.d7 23 'ii'h 3 l:tfdB 24 i.xg6 This tactic fails to some ingenious de­ fence. 24 i.f6 i.e7 25 i.xe7 .U.xe7 leaves Black with a slight edge. 24 . . . i.xg2 + ! 24... fxg6? fails to 2S 'ii'x e6+ .U.f7 26 'ii'e 5!. 25 'ii'x g2 Black is also better after 25 �xg2 'ii'c 6+ 26 l:.f3 fxg6!. 25 ... hxg6 26 .ie5 Or 26 'ii'h 3!? 'ii'c 6+ 27 .U.d5 eS!! (a bril-

10 7

Sicilian Ka n

liant defence) 28 .ixe5 f6 and Black will wind up with the better pawn structure. 26 . . . �d6 27 .l:[xd6 .l:[xd6 28 �h3

fB 29 'i'hB + f2 'i'xc4 0-1

Game 4 1 Golubev-Moroz

Donetsk 1998

._____________....,.

1 e4 c 5 2 4Jf3 e 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 4Jxd4 a6 5 �d3 �c5 6 c3 As well as this move, White can play 6 �e3!? and now: a) 6 ...'ifb6!? (Black goes 'pawn happy'!) 7 c3 'ifxb2 (7 ... lbc6 transposes to 6 c3 lbc6 7 i.e3 'ifb6) with a further split: a1) 8 0-0 is promising as 8 ... 'ifxa1 9 'ifc2! nets the queen, while 8 ... 'ifb6 9 lbd2 'ifc7 1 0 'ifg4 �f8 1 1 e5 gave White a strong ini­ tiative in Buenafe Moya-Munoz Agullo, Mislata 1 994. a2) 8 lbd2 'ifxc3? (8 ... lbc6, transposing to the text, looks best) 9 .U.c l ! 'ifxd3 1 0 .U.xc5 lbc6 (C.Balogh-Szeberenyi, Budapest 1 997) and now 1 1 'ifc1 !! is winning. White threatens to trap the queen with .U.c3, while 1 1 ...lbxd4 12 .U.xc8+ .U.xc8 1 3 'ifxc8+ 'ite7 14 'ifc5+ picks up the knight. b) 6 ... d6! looks much more sensible: 7 0-0 (7 'iWg4?! lbf6 8 'ifxg7 .U.g8 9 'ifh6 e5! looks good for Black) 7 ... lbe7 8 'ife2 lbd7 9 lbc3 b5 10 lbb3 i.b6!? 1 1 .U.ad 1 0-0 1 2 'ith1 e 5 1 3 f4 i.xe3 1 4 'ifxe3 �b7 and Black has equalised, Noskov-Tunik, Cheli­ abinsk 1 9 9 1 . 6 lbf3 doesn't carry any punch: 6 ...d 6 7 0-0 lbf6 8 c4 0-0 9 lbc3 lbbd7 1 0 lba4 �a7 was equal in Cao-Votava, Budapest 1995. 108

6 . . . 4Jc6 The most ambitious, but perhaps not the best move. 6 ... d6 looks perfectly safe for Black: 7 'ife2 lbd7 8 0-0 lbgf6 9 a4 �a7 1 0 �c2 lbf8!? 1 1 lbd2 'ifc7 1 2 lbc4 lbg6 1 3 �g5 0-0 1 4 �xf6 gxf6 1 5 lbe3 'ifc5 was unclear in Wedberg-Agrest, Skelleftea 1 999. 7 �e3 7 lbxc6 is also possible, but less critical: 7 ... dxc6 8 e5 (8 0-0 e5, as in Klovans­ Chuchelov, Germany 1 997, is dead equal) 8 ...lbe7 9 'ife2 lbg6 10 f4 0-0 1 1 �e3 i.xe3 12 'ifxe3 lbxf4 1 3 �xh7+ 'itxh7 14 'ifxf4 f6 was agreed drawn in Mainka-Bischoff, Bad Worishofen 1 997, although there is obviously still much to play for. Also of interest is 8 ... 'iWd5!?, hitting e5 and g2. I think best play is 9 'ife2! 'ifxg2 10 �e4 'ifh3 1 1 'ifc4 f5!, which is very unclear. 7 . . .'ii' b 6?!

5 i.. d3 i.. c 5 Black goes 'all in'. There is no turning back after this move. The last chance to bail out is with 7 ... i..a 7 (taking measures against the threat of lL'lxc6) 8 lL'ld2 lL'lf6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 lL'l2f3 10 ...lL'lg4 (10 ... d6 1 1 lL'lxc6 bxc6 12 i..xa7 .U.xa7 1 3 eS [Kurajica] 1 3 ... dxe5 14 lL'lxeS gives White a comfortable edge due to the weakness of Black's queenside pawns) 1 1 i.gS (Kurajica-Gerusel, Wijk aan Zee 1 973) and now Kurajica's suggestion of 1 1 .. .'fic7 looks okay for Black. 8 lLld2! White can only hope for an advantage by offering the sacrifice. 8 'ili'b3 'ili'xb3 9 axb3 i.xd4 1 0 cxd4lL'lb4! equalises comfortably. 8 . . .'ii'xb2 8 ...lL'lxd4? 9 lLlc4! 'ili'a7 10 cxd4 i..xd4 1 1 eS! is horrible for Black, for example 1 t ...i..xe3 1 2 fxe3 d5 (or 12 ...lL'lh6 1 3lL'ld6+
more punishment with 1 0...'ili'xd3? 1 1 lL'le5 'ili'd6 12 lL'lec4 'ili'c7 13 i..x cS 'ili'xc5 14 e5! cj;f8 15 l:.ct 'W'd4 16 lL'ld6 lL'le7 17 'ili'h5 g6 1 8 'ili'h6+
1 1 . . . dxc6 1 1 ...'ili'xc6? loses simply to 12 l;lct 'ili'd6 13 lL'lc4 'ili'c5 14 e5 and the knight corning to d6 will be terminal for Black. 1 t ...'ili'xd3 led to another miniature in the game Orso-Valenti, Budapest 2000: 1 2lL'le5 'ili'xe3+ 13
Sicilian Kan

paring e4-e5 and l2Jd6+. In my opinion White already has a winning attack. 1 2 . . .'iVb4 1 3 e5 f5 1 4 tt:'ld6 + 'it>f8 1 5 'iVh5 g6 1 6 'iVg5 'iVa5 1 7 g4!

1 10

1 7 . . . 'it>g7 Or: a) 17 ...'i1Vc7 18 gxf5 exf5 1 9 �xf5! gxf5 20 l:txf5+ i.xf5 21 'i1Vxf5+ �g7 22 'i\Vg5+ �f8 23 .::1 ft + and White mates. b) 17 ... 'i\Vxe5 18 'i1Vd8+ �g7 19 �c7+ �h6 20 l2Jf7 +. 18 gxf5 exf5 19 .l:txf5! �xf5 20 tt:'lxf5 + 'it>f8 21 tt:'ld6 'it>g7 22 .l:tf 1 'iVc7 22 ... l:tf8 loses after 23 l:txf8 �xf8 24 �f4+ �e7 (or 24... �g7 25 l2Je8 mate) 25 'i1Vf7+ �d8 26 l2Jxb7+. 23 tt'lt5 + 'it>f8 24 tt:'ld4 + 1 -0 After 24... �e8 White finishes off with 25 i.xg6+! hxg6 26 �xg6+ �d7 27 �e6+ �d8 28 l:tf8 mate.

5 i. d3 i. c 5

Summary S...�cS is still an underrated system, but gradually strong players are beginning to appreciate its qualities. One of its advantages is that Black has quite a few different options after S ... �cS when compared to other lines. I expect there to be more developments in the 'main line', with Black's improvements outlined in Game 28 to some extent putting the ball back in White's court. 10 0-0 (Game 29) is harmless, but 9 0-0, with the idea of c2-c4, commands more respect. White isn't aim­ ing for too much here and has reasonable chances of attaining more modest targets. The line with 8 ... i.xe3 has gone out of fashion but, given some of the analysis in Game 33, per­ haps unfairly so. I predict that we will see more of White's earlier alternatives. In particular, Shirov's 8 0-0 lt::l c6 9 c4, bypassing the idea of i.e3 (as in Game 36), deserves further study. 6 ...�e7 is also building up a reputation as a viable way for Black. Games 37-38 lead to rich Hedgehog positions, which offer Black fair chances. Often White's knight being on b3 (rather than d4) works to Black's advantage. In my opinion, 7 'ii'g4 is the real test of 6 ... Ji.e7. Game 40 works out well for Black, but I don't think we've seen the last of this line. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 i.d3 i.c5 6 lLlb3 6 c3 - Game 4 1 6 . . .i.a7 (D) 6...�e7 7 'ii'g4: 7 ... g6 - Game 40; 7 ... ltJf6 - Game 39 7 0-0 d6 8 c4 b6 9lt::lc3 i.b7 10 f4li::l d7: 1 1 �e3 - Game 37; 1 1 'ii'e2 - Game 38 7 'ife2 7 0-0 lt::lc6 8 'ii'g4: 8 .. .'i'f6 - Game 35; 8 ... liJf6 -Game 34 8 c4 - Game 36 7 . . . lLlc6 8 i.e3 d6 (D) 8 ... �xe3 - Game 33 9 lLlc3 9 0-0: 9 ... lt::lge7 - Game 32; 9 ... Ji.xe3 Game 3 1 9 . . lLlf6 9 ...ltJge7!? - Game 30 10 0-0-0 1 0 0-0 - Game 29 1 O . . . b5 1 1 �xa7 J:!.xa7 1 2 f4 b4 1 3 lLla4 e5 1 4 f5 (D)- Game 28 .

6

. . .

�a7

B. . . d6

14 f5 111

CHAPTER FIVE

I

5 ..td3: Fifth Move Alternatives for Black

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 In this chapter we will take a look at some of Black's more unusual 5th move alternatives after 5 .id3. There's quite a wide choice of playable moves for Black; as well as 5.)ijf6 and 5 ....ic5, I mention as many as nine (!) more here. If nothing else, this is an illustration of the flexibility of the Kan. 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 i.d3 g6 This is perhaps Black's most important fifth move alternative. Black immediately fianchettoes his king's bishop before devel­ oping anything else. In this line Black's king's knight is likely to go to e7 so as not to block the bishop. Also important is the fact that Black has not touched his d-pawn. Sometimes Black can strike out in the cen­ tre with ... d7-d5. Black reasons that he can get away with temporarily leaving the d6square so vulnerable because White has cluttered up the d-ftle with 5 .id3. 5 ...lt:Jc6 is a very solid move championed by the Latvian GM Normund Miezis, and is discussed in Games 46-47. After the normal moves 6 lbxc6 dxc6 the strucrure is sym­ metrical and Black's position is very reso­ lute. The minus side (from Black's point of view) is that it can be is very difficult to 1 12

generate genuine winning chances. 5 ... 'i1Vb6, aiming to shift the knight away from the centre in a similar fashion to 5 ... .ic5, will be discussed in Game 48. 5 ... lbe7 intends either ... lbbc6 or ...lbec6 and, after an exchange on c6, to recaprure with the other knight. This is the subject of Game 49. 5 ...d5!? is a relatively new move that no one took seriously to start with, but in fact it's not as bad as it looks and probably de­ serves to be allocated more than just a note (see Game 50). Before moving on, here's a round up of other possible 5th moves for Black: a) 5 ... 'i1Vc7 can simply transpose back into main lines after 6 0-0 lbf6. Black can also play 6....ic5 7 lbb3 i.e7. This then leads to lines discussed in Games 37-40 with the difference that Black has committed his queen to c7 rather early. White can continue with 7 c4, 7 lbc3 or 7 'i\Vg4. b) 5... d6 is likely to transpose to Chapter 3 after 6 0-0 lbf6. c) 5 ... b5?! looks a bit premarure when White has yet to commit himself to lbc3. White can break with an early a2-a4 safe in the knowledge that the response ...b5-b4 does not gain time. 6 0-0 .ib7 7 a4 b4 8 lbd2 lbe7 9 f4 lbec6 10 lb4f3 d6 1 1 'i1Ve1

5 � d3 : Fifth Mo ve A l terna tives for Bla ck

l2Jd7 12 'ti'g3 h5 13 b3 h4 14 'iih 3 lDc5 1 5 .ib2 proved to be a good attacking set-up in Wedberg-Dzindzichashvili, New York 1991, although I'm sure there are other rea­ sonable ways to play this for White. d) Black can also accelerate the queenside fianchetto with 5 ... b6!? (a favourite of the Hungarian GM Portisch) 6 0-0 .ib7 and now: d1) 7 c4 .tc5 (for 7 ... d6 8 lDc3 lDf6 9 f4, sec the note to Black's 7th move in Game 25) 8 lDb3 i.e7 9 lDc3 d6 would transpose to Game 37, while Black could also consider 9... lbc6. d2) 7 lDc3 d6 8 f4 with a further split: d21) 8 ... lDd7? 9 f5 e5 10 lDe6! fxe6 1 1 'i'h5+ g6 (1 1 ...�e7 1 2 fxe6 g6 1 3 .ig5+ lbdf6 14 'iif3 .tg7 1 5 lDd5+ .txd5 16 exd5 leaves Black a piece up but his chances of surviving are slim) 12 fxg6 lDgf6 1 3 g7+ lDxh5 14 gxh8'ti' and White went on to win in Fogarasi-Portisch, Hungary 1 994. d22) 8 ... tt:Jf6 and now Fogarasi assesses the line 9 g4 d5 10 e5 lDe4 1 1 'ti'f3 lbxc3 1 2 bxc3 ltJd7 1 3 .td2 i. e7 1 4 l:.ael a s clearly better for White. One could also consider moves such as 9 'i'e2 or 9 �h 1 . 6 c4 6 lbc3 and 6 0-0 will be discussed in Game 45.

(see Game 44) . 7 . . . t"Lle7 7 ... d6 is possible but I think that Black should be looking to keep his options open regarding the d-pawn. As well as this, White can now put the d-pawn under early pres­ sure: 8 lDc3 lDf6 9 .tf4! (9 0-0 transposes to note 'b' to White's 9th move in Game 24) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 .ic2 c5 1 1 .ig5 h6 12 .tc3 �h7 1 3 0-0 lDc6 14 l:tcl .ic6 1 5 .l:!.c2 'iie7 16 .l:!.d2 and White had a pleasant position in Rowson-Bakhtadzc, Tallinn 1 997. B lLlcJ 0-0 8 ... d5 is probably prcmarure: 9 cxd5 exd5 10 .tg5! h6 1 1 .txe7 .txc3+ 12 bxc3 'i'xe7 13 0-0 dxe4 14 .txe4 0-0 1 5 .l:!.e 1 left White with the big development advantage in Donchcv-Prie, Toulon 1 988. 9 0-0 t"Llbc6

This constirutcs the main line of 5 ... g6 and has been the battlefield of some super­ GM clashes. White's main two moves arc 1 0 .tg5 (sec Game 42) and 1 0 .tc2 (see Game 43).

Game 42 Anka-Nijboer

Dieren 1 998 6 . . . �g7 7 t"Llb3 White can also choose to protect the knight with 7 .tc3 or retreat with 7 lDe2

1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 t"Llxd4 a6 5 �d3 g6 6 c4 .ig7 7 lLlbJ t"Lle7 8 lLlcJ 0-0 9 0-0 t"Llbc6 1 0 .ig5 Along with 1 0 .ic2 (sec Game 43), this is 1 13

Sicilian Kan

White's most popular choice. By pinning the knight on e7, White prevents Black from playing the freeing ... d7-d5 advance.

1 0 . . . h6 1 1 ..th4 Keeping the pin. Of course Black can break it with ... g6-g5 but only at a cost of slightly weakening the kingside. The alternative is 1 1 ..ie3!?, allowing Black to play ... d7-d5 but hoping that the insertion of ... h7-h6 will be to White's ad­ vantage (the h-pawn could hang in certain variations) . After 1 1 ...d5 White can play: a) 1 2 cxdS exdS 13 ..icS l:te8 14 l:te1 i.e6 1 5 i.xe7 l:txe 7 16 tt'lcS dxe4 1 7 ..ixe4 ..id4! 1 8 tt'lxe6 (18 tt'lxb 7 'ir'b6! is good for Black) 1 8 ... l:txe6 1 9 'ir'd2 'ir'gS 20 'ir'xgS hxgS with a very comfortable position for Black in Dolmatov-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999. b) 12 exdS!? exdS 13 ..icS and now: b1) 1 3 ... d4?! 1 4tt'ld5 (Vl.Gurevich) looks good for White. b2) 1 3 ... dxc4 14 ..ixc4 bS 1 5 .idS!? (this is critical; 1 5 ..ie2 ..ib7 16 ..if3 l:te8 looks equal) 1 5 ...tt'lxd5 16 tt'lxdS (16 ..ix£8? loses material after 16 ... ..ixc3!) 16 ... l:te8 17 ..ib6 (17 'ir'f3?! ..ib7 1 8 l:tad1 tt'ld4! gave Black the advantage in Vl.Gurevich-Kuzmin, Ukraine [rapid] 1 999) 1 7 ...'ir'h4 1 8tt'lc7 ..ig4 19 'ir'c2 ..ieS (Gurevich mentions 1 9 ... ..if3 but 20tt'ld2! seems like a good reply) 20 g3 (20 h3? ..ixh3! 21 tt'lxe8 i.h2+! 22 �xh2 ..ifS+ wins for Black) 20.. .'ii'f6 21 tt'lxa8 l:txa8 and I believe that Black has reason1 14

able compensation for the exchange. b3) 13 ... l:.e8 (the safest) 14 l:tet (1 4 'ir'c2?! allows Black to develops with a gain of time with 1 4... dxc4! 1 5 ..ixc4 ..ifS) 1 4... ..ie6 with equality. 1 1 . . . g5 1 2 ..tg3 lLle5 Now that Black has weakened his king­ side, 12 ... d5?! is no longer playable: 1 3 cxdS exdS 14 exdS tt'lxdS?? 1 5 tt'lxdS 'ir'xdS 16 ..ih7 +!. The move 1 2 ...tt'lg6?! is also not good as it allows 1 3 i.d6! l:te8 14 cS which looks quite unpleasant for Black. Instead Black makes use of his newly found control over the f4-square and occupies the eS­ outpost.

1 3 f4! Although this give Black the eS-outpost for good, I believe White's attacking chances against Black's weakened kingside more than make up for this. In the game R.Jackson-Oratovsky, North Bay 1 998, White dithered with 1 3 l:te1 ?! and after 1 3 ...tt'l7g6! 14 i.ft b6 Black achieved a solid bind on the kingside. 1 3 ... gxf4 1 4 ..txf4 lLl7g6 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 ..te2 ..tb7 1 7 jfd2 'iii>h 7 1 8 lLld4! Getting this knight back into the game and allowing the b-pawn to move to b3 in order to protect c4. White's position is the easier to play and although Black has the eS­ outpost one cannot underestimate his weaknesses (b6, d6 and h6). 1 8 . . ..l:!.c8 1 9 b3 d6 20 .l:!.ac 1 jfe7 2 1 l:!.f2

5 i.. d3: Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck lt:ld7?! This allows the white rook to hit the third rank and increases Black's problems. Other moves would leave Black only slightly worse. 22 l:!.f3 Now Black has to deal with ideas of .l::. h 3. 22 . . .l:!.h8 23 l:!.cf1 lt:lf6 24 i.. d 1 !? l:!.c7 25 i.. c 2 b5

26 lt:ld5!? This is a wonderfully deep combination. Unfortunately, there is a flaw at the end. 26 . . . exd5 27 lt:lf5 lt:lxe4 28 lt:lxe7 lt:lxd2 29 l:!.xf7 lt:le4! After the obvious defence 29 ... .U.xe7 30 .l::.xe 7 tt:Jxfl 31 .td4 .l::.g8 32 .l::.xb7 lLJd2 33 cxdS Black has an extra piece, but is in zugzwang and is totally lost! 30 lt:lxg6 l:!.hc8? 30 ... .U.xf7! 31 .U.xf7 'it>xg6 32 .U.xb7 bxc4 33 bxc4 .l::. c8 offers Black good drawing chances. 31 lt:le7 l:!.e8 32l:!.xg7 + �xg7 33 i..d4 + lt:lf6 34 i.. x f6 + �f8 35 i.. h4 + 1 -0

Game 43 Stisis-Oratovsky

Tel Aviv (rapid) 1 996 1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:lxd4 a6 5 i.. d 3 g6 6 c4 i.. g 7 7 lt:lb3 lt:lc6 8 lt:lc3 lt:lge7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 i.. e 2 With the same idea as 10 .tgS: to prevent

the freeing advance ... d7-d5. A good example of what can happen if White fails to do so is provided in the game Dolmatov-Kotsur, FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1 999: 10 .tf4?! dS! 1 1 cxdS exdS 1 2 'ir'e 2 d 4 1 3 tt:J b 1 lLJb4 1 4 lLJ 1 d 2 lDxd3 1 5 'ir'xd3 lDc6 1 6 lLJ f3 .l::.e8 1 7 .U. fd 1 .tg4 and Black, with the two bishops and passed d­ pawn, had a very comfortable position. 1 0 . . . f5!

Black is obliged to seek activity. Passive play will result in White obtaining central domination with moves such as .tgS (or .tf4), 'ir'd2 and .l::. fd l . 1 1 f3?! This move looks very passive and pretty much gives Black what he wants (a kingside bind at no cost). White has much better ways to try to achieve an advantage. a) 1 1 a4 f4?! 12 aS .teS 13 .td2 'ir'c7 1 4 lLJa4 .l::. b8 1 5 c S ! left Black very cramped on the queenside in Nijboer-Bologan, Wijk aan Zee 1 996. Instead Black should prevent a4a5 with 1 1 ...b6!. b) 11 exfS lDxfS 12 lLJe4 'ir'c7 1 3 .l::. b 1 (13 cS!?) 1 3 . .. b6 1 4 .td2 .ib7 15 .ic3 lDeS 1 6 lLJbd2 d S 17 cxdS exdS 18 lLJgS 1We7 1 9 tt:Jdf3 d 4 was fine for Black, Solleveld­ Nijboer, Breda 1 998. c) 1 1 cS!, clamping down on the b6- and d6-squares, is a serious test of Black's posi­ tion: cl) 1 1 ...fxe4 1 2 lDxe4 b6 13 lLJd6! bxcS

1 15

Sicilian Ka n

1 4 lDxc5 ltJd4 1 5 .td3 'ikc7 16 lDce4 .teS 17 .te3! ltJdfS (17 ... .txd6 is met by 18 ltJxd6 'fkxd6 19 .te4 regaining the piece with some advantage) 18 .l:tct ltJc6 19 ltJxfS exf5 20 f4 i.g7 21 ltJd6! gave White a clear advantage, Ermenkov-Kotsur, Dubai 2000. c2) 1 1 ...b6 12 cxb6 with a further split: c21) 1 2... fxe4 1 3 ltJcS ltJd4 14 .tgS (14 b7 .txb7 15 ltJxb7 'ikb6 regains the piece) 1 4..._:b8 1 5 ltJ5xe4 l:txb6 16 ltJa4 l:%.c6 was okay for Black in Isupov-Kotsur, Novo­ kuznetsk 1 999, but I like 1 5 ltJ3a4! after which the passed b-pawn causes Black some problems. c22) 1 2...'fkxb6! 1 3 .te3 'ikd8 14 'ikd2 (14 f3!? may be stronger and is certainly better here than on move eleven; after 14 .. .f4 1 5 .tcS the big difference is the activity of White's dark-squared bishop) 1 4... fxe4 1 5 lDxe4 d 5 1 6 lDecS lDfS 1 7 .tgS 'ikd6 1 8 l:!.act h6 and Black's central pawn pair grants him control over some important squares, Serner-Klee, correspondence 1 998. 1 1 . . . f4!

.i.f2 "ilc7? 1 7 �c 1 lLlce5 1 8 lLld4 18 ltJdS exd5 19 'ikxd5+ �h8 20 'ikxa8 ltJc6! 21 c5 .tb7 22 cxd6 'ikd7 23 .:xc6 .txa8 24 l:%.xb6 leaves White with insuffi­ cient material for the queen. 1 8 . . .�b8 1 9 lLla4 h5 20 h3 hxg4 2 1 hxg4 �f6! Black's dominance on the kingside be­ gins to show. There is a very straightfor­ ward plan of doubling and then tripling on the h-ftle. 22 b4 .i.f8 23 lLlb3 "ilh7 24 "ile 1 "ilh3 25 .i.d4 lLlh4 26 "ilt2 l:lh6 27 .i.xe5 dxe5 28 c5 �b7 ! 0-1

White is getting mated. The nicest finish is 28 ... .:b7 29 ltJxb6 .:bh7 30 ltJxc8 'fih t +!! 31 ..t>xh1 lDxf3+ 32 ..t>g2 l:%.h2+ 33 ..t>xf3 _:7h3+ 34 'ikg3 l:%.xg3 mate.

Game 44 Motylev-Ye Jiangchuan 5hanghai 200 1

Simple and strong. Black obtains a space advantage on the kingside and blocks White's dark-squared bishop out of the game. 1 2 g3 g5! Keeping the bind and offering the g6square for the e7-knight. I already prefer Black's position. 1 3 g4 b6 1 4 .i.d2 d6 1 5 .i.e 1 lLlg6 1 6

1 16

1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 .i.d3 g6 6 c4 .i.g7 7 tt:\e2 White's other main option is to protect the knight with the developing 7 .te3!? and now: a) 7 ... ltJc6 8 ltJxc6 bxc6?! (8 ... dxc6 looks safer) 9 c5! .txb2 10 ltJd2 .txa 1 1 1 'fkxa 1 f6 1 2 ltJc4 aS 1 3 ltJd6+ �f8 1 4 0-0 gave White tremendous play for the exchange, Topalov­ Eflffiov, Elista Olympiad 1998.

5 � d3: Fifth Mo v e A l t e rn a tives for Bla ck

b) 7 . ..l'i'Je7 8 ltJc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 0-0 0-0 with a further split: b1) 1 1 .l:te1 .l:te8! (1 1 ...h6?! 1 2 .:lc1 ltJd7 13 ltJf3 dxc4 14 ..i.xc4 was pleasant for White, Ermenkov-Olafsson, Malta Olym­ piad 1 980) 1 2 .l:tc1 ltJbc6 1 3 ltJxc6 bxc6 1 4 i..g5 ..i.e6 1 5 cxd5 cxd5 1 6 ltJa4 'ilfd6 and the players agreed a draw in this level posi­ tion, ]ansa-Miles, Hastings 1 976. b2) 1 1 c5! ltJbc6 1 2 ltJce2 ..tg4 13 f3 i..e6 1 4 'ilfd2 'ilfd7 1 5 .:lad1 .:lfe8 1 6 ..i.£2 .l:tad8 1 7 b4 with an edge for White in Apicella-Abramovic, Val Maubuee 1 989. c) 7 ... d5!? 8 exd5 exd5 9 ltJc3 (9 cxd5 ltJf6! 10 'ilfa4+ ltJbd7 1 1 ltJe6 fxe6 12 dxe6 0-0 13 exd7 ..i.xd7 14 'i!fb3+ 'it>h8 1 5 ltJc3 ltJg4! gave Black a strong attack, Metaxas­ Oratovsky, Heraklio 1 993) 9 ... ltJf6 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 h3 ltJbd7 1 2 cxd5 (1 2 ltJf3 dxc4 1 3 i..xc4 b 5 1 4 ..i.b3 ..i.b7 was equal in Sakha­ tova-Gipslis, Biel 1 995).

After 12 cxd5 we have the following pos­ sibilities: c1) 1 2...ltJb6 1 3 'ilfb3! (13 ltJf3?! ltJbxd5 1 4 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 5 ..i.g5 'ilfa5 1 6 'ilfb3 i..e6 gave Black the better minor pieces in Milu­ lordachescu, Bucharest 1 999) 1 3 ... ltJbxd5 14 ltJxd5 ltJxd5 1 5 ..i.c4 ltJxe3 16 fxe3 ..i.xd4 (16 ... 'ilfe7 17 .:lad 1 ! b5?! 18 ..i.xf7+ ! llxf7 1 9 ltJc6 'i!fc7 2 0 ltJd8 ..i.f5 21 ltJxf7 'ilfxf7 22 'ilfxf7+ 'ifr>xf7 23 e4 wins for White) 1 7 ..i.xf7+ 'it>g7 (after 1 7 ...'it>h8?!, instead of lordachescu's 18 exd4, White can

obtain a clear advantage with 18 .l:tad1 !) 1 8 exd4 'ilfxd4+ 1 9 'it> h 1 and White has an edge due to Black's weaker king. c2) I like 1 2... ltJe5!, for example 1 3 ..tg5 h6 1 4 ..i.xf6 'ilfxf6 and Black has definite com­ pensation for the pawn. 7 . . .liJt6 7 ... ltJc6 8 0-0 ltJge7 9 ltJbc3 0-0 1 0 ..i.g5 h6 1 1 i..h4 d6 1 2 f4! was slightly better for White in Amonatov-Nijboer, Elista Olym­ piad 1 998 . 8 0-0 0-0 9 lDbcJ lDc6 1 0 �g5 h6 1 1 �h4

1 1 . . .'ifc7 Keeping the h2-b8 diagonal open and re­ taining options over the d-pawn. The con­ servative 1 1 ...d6 is also playable, though. 1 2 l:!.c1 lDh5 1 3 f4 f5 Grabbing the b-pawn is virrually suicidal: 1 3 ... 'ilfb6+ ?! 1 4 i..£ 2 'ilfxb2 1 5 i..c 5! d6 (1 5 ....l:te8 16 .:lc2 traps the queen) 1 6 ..i.xd6 ..i.xc3 1 7 ltJxc3 .l:td8 18 e5 (Ftacnik) and, besides having problems with his queen, Black has also managed to give up all of the dark squares. 14 'iii>h 1 lDd8? This knight manoeuvre to the kingside is just far too ambitious and allows White a free rein on the queenside and in the centre. 14 ... fxe4 1 5 ..i.xe4 ltJxf4 16 ..i.g3 g5 1 7 c5! also leaves Black in a bind so Black should prepare to fianchetto his light-squared bishop with 14 ... b6!. 117

Sicilian Kan

1 5 c5! liJf7 Black is already in some trouble. A prob­ lem with the knight being on the back rank can be seen in the variation 1 5 ... 'ir'xc5? 1 6 l'Lld5 'ir'a5 1 7 l'Lle7+ and the bishop i s lost. 1 6 exf5 gxf5 16 ... exf5 17 l'Lld5 is simply horrible for Black.

1 9 . . . liJh8 Or 1 9 ... exf5 20 'ir'g6+ Wh8 21 l'Lld5 'ir'c6 22 l'Llf6. 20 i.d3 i.g7 2 1 i.e7 l:!.f7 22 'i'h4 d5 23 cxd6 'i'b6 24 f5 'i'xb2 25 f6 1 -0

Game 45 Jamieson-Adamski

Nice O(ympiad 1 974

1 7 i.xf5! i.f6 By not accepting the bishop, Black ad­ mits he is already losing, but 1 7 ... exf5 18 l'Lld5 'ir'a5 1 9 l'Llec3! leaves the h5-knight with nowhere to go. 1 8 liJd4 i.xd4 The lines 18 ...exf5 1 9 'ir'xh5 �xd4 20 'ir'g6+ Wh8 21 l'Lld5 'ir'c6 22 l'Llf6 and 18.. .�xh4 1 9 'ir'xh5 exf5 20 'ir'g6+ Wh8 21 l'Lld5 'ir'd8 22 l'Llxf5 l:tg8 23 'ir'xf7 are both easily winning for White. 1 9 'i'xh5

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6 5 i.d3 g6 6 0-0 Another possibility is 6 l'Llc3 .ig7 7 .ie3 l'Lle7 8 'ir'd2 d5 9 exd5 l'Llxd5 and now: a) 1 0 .ig5!? 'ir'd6 1 1 l'Llde2 h6 12 .ih4 l'Llc6 (12... l'Llxc3 13 l'Llxc3 'ir'b4 14 l'Lle4 'ir'xd2+ 1 5 Wxd2 looks better for White) 1 3 .ig3 'ir'd8 14 l'Llxd5!? 'ir'xd5 1 5 l'Llc3 'ir'd4 (1 5 ... 'ir'xg2 1 6 0-0-0 looks dangerous for Black) 16 0-0 0-0 1 7 .if4 Wh7 1 8 .ie3 (Kavalek-F.Olafsson, Buenos Aires 1 980) and now I don't think Black is worse after 1 8 ... 'ir'b4. b) 1 0 l'Llxd5 'ir'xd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 .ie2 'ir'd6 1 3 .:.ad1 'ir'c7 14 .ih6 l'Lld7 1 5 .ixg7 Wxg7 16 c4 is perhaps a shade better for White, Leko-Vyzmanavin, Leon 1 993. 6 . . . i.g7

7 i.e3 7 c3 is rather tepid: 7 ... l'Llc6 8 l'Llxc6 bxc6 9 l'Lla3 l'Lle7 1 0 .if4 d5 1 1 'ir'd2 0-0 1 2 .:.ad1 e5 was equal in Tomczak-Sax, Germany 1 992. 1 18

5 i.. d3: Fifth Mo v e A lt e rn a tives for Bla ck 7

lLlc6 Or: a) 7 . ..lDe7 8 c4 l2Jbc6 9 l2Jxc6! is good for White: 9 ... lDxc6 1 0 lDc3 0-0 1 1 'W'd2 'W'c7 12 �e2! 12 ... l2JeS 13 cS! and Black has problems developing his queenside, Zon­ takh-Peev, Lazarevac 1 999, while 9 ... bxc6?! 10 cS! �xb2 1 1 lDd2! gives White tremen­ dous play, Topalov-J .Polgar, Las Palmas 1 994. b) Also important is 7 ... d6!? and now: b 1) 8 c4 l2Jf6 9 l2Jc3 0-0 would reach lines similar to the one studied in Game 6. Indeed, after 10 .:.c1 l2Jbd7 1 1 f3 'W'c7 1 2 'iVd2 b 6 1 3 .:.fd1 �b7 1 4 �fl .:.ac8 1 S 'ii'£2 we have a direct transposition. b2) 8 'W'd2!? l2Jc6 9 �e2 lDf6 1 0 l2Jc3 0-0 1 1 .:.ad 1 lDe8 12 f4 looks better for White, Schebler-Den Boer, Antwerp 2000. 8 c3 A more ambitious move order is 8 l2Jxc6 bxc6 9 l2Jd2!? . . .

16 cxb4 'iti>g7 and Black had equalised in Liberzon-Torre, Amsterdam 1 977. c2) 10 �cS!? i.xb2!? (1 0 ... l2Je7 1 1 c3! reaches the main game) 1 1 c4 l2Je7 (or 1 1 ...�xa1 1 2 'W'xa1 f6 1 3 exdS cxdS 14 cxdS exdS 1 S .:.e1 + 'iti>f7 1 6 l2Jf3 [Sokolov] and I would prefer to be White, despite the mate­ rial deficit) 12 exdS cxdS 1 3 .:.b1 �f6 1 4 lDe4! �eS ( 1 4. . .dxe4 loses to 1 S �xe4 .id7 16 iff3) 1 S cxdS ltJxdS 16 �c4 and Black's king will never be safe. The game A.Sokolov-Bologan, Germany 1 998 con­ cluded 16...�xh2+ 17 'iii>xh2 'W'h4+ 18 'iti>g1 'ii'xe4 19 �d3 'it' f4 20 'W'b3 �d7 21 'ii'b7 .:.c8 22 .:.fcl 'iVd2 23 .ixa6 'ii'xa2 24 �bS .:.xeS 2S 'ii'x d7+ and Black resigned. 8 lLlge7 9 lL'ld2 d5?! This is too early and allows White to reach a favourable set-up. 9 ... 0-0 is stronger: 10 lDxc6 (10 f4 looks logical) 1 0...l2Jxc6 1 1 l2Jc4!? dS 12 exdS exdS and now: a) 13 l2Jd2?! Oame) d4 14 cxd4 l2Jxd4 1 S l2Jb3 l2Jxb3 1 6 'W'xb3 i.e6 with an edge to Black, Pedzich-Bologan, Mamaia 1 9 9 1 . b) 1 3 l2Jb6! i s critical, when Black must play either 13 ... l:r.b8 or head for the complications of 13 ... d4!? 14 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 S lDxa8 �a7 16 �e4 'W'e7. 1 0 lLlxc6 bxc6 White also keeps the advantage after 1 O... l2Jxc6 1 1 exdS 'ii'x dS 1 2 l2Jc4!. 1 1 i..c 5! . . .

and now: a) 9 ... �xb2? 10 l2Jc4! �xa1 1 1 'ii'x a1 f6 1 2 lDd6+ is horrible for Black. b) 9 ... l2Je7 10 c3 .:.b8! (10... dS?! 1 1 �cS reaches the main game) 1 1 'ii'c 2 0-0 1 2 .:.ad1 d6 1 3 f4 'W'c7 1 4 'iti>h1 c S ! 1 S l2J f3 �b7 looked okay for Black i n Malakhov­ Landa, Elista 1 997. c) 9 ... dS with a further split: cl) 10 c3 l2Jf6! 1 1 i.cS lDd7 12 i.a3 i.f8! 1 3 �xf8 �xf8 14 b4 aS 1 S l2Jb3 axb4

1 19

Sic ilian Ka n

As we have seen already, this bishop is very well placed on this square and it's ex­ tremely difficult for Black to oppose it. This in itself is enough to give White a substan­ tial advantage. 1 1 . . 0-0 1 2 f4 f6 1 3 'iie2 .l:!.f7 1 4lt::lf3 aS 1 5 c4 'iic 7 16 lt::ld4 .i.f8 1 7 cxd5 exd5 18 .l:!.ac 1 dxe4? A mistake, although Black was already in big trouble. 1 9 .i.c4 f5 20 .i.xf7 + 'it>xf7 21 'ifc4 + 'it>g7 22 lt::l b 5! 'iid 7 23 .i.d4 + �h6 24 .l:!.c3 g5 25 'iff7 lt::lg6 26 l:.h3 + lt::l h4 27 'iif6 + 1 -0 .

Game 46 J. Polgar-Miezis

Ta/linn 200 1 1 e4 c5 2lt::lf 3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt::lxd4 a6 5 .i.d3lt::lc6 6 lt::lxc6 dxc6 6... bxc6 has never been very popular, having suffered a high-proft.le loss at the hands of Bobby Fischer. That said, it's probably not quite as bad as its reputation. 7 0-0 dS 8 c4! lDf6

and now: a) 9 cxdS cxdS 1 0 exdS lDxdS (10 ... exdS 1 1 lbc3 .ie7 transposes to note 'b 1 ') 1 1 .ie4 l:.a7 with another split: a1) 12 1LxdS ifxdS 1 3 ifxdS exdS 1 4 .ie3 l:.b7 1 S b 3 .ib4 1 6 l:.d1 .ie6 was a level ending, Ott-Melcher, Germany 1 994. 1 20

a2) 1 2 ifd4 l:!.d7?! 1 3 l2Jc3 lbxc3 1 4 ifxc3 left Black i n some trouble i n Be­ liavsky-Kurajica, Sarajevo 1 982, but Be­ liavsky's suggested improvement of 12 ... l:!.c7 13 l:!.d 1 l:!.d7! is a tough nut to crack. b) 9 lbc3 and now: b1) 9 ... .ie7 10 cxdS cxdS 1 1 exdS exdS 12 ifa4+ .id7 (1 2 ... ifd7 13 Ite1 ! ifxa4 14 lbxa4 1J..e6 1 S 1J..e 3 0-0 1 6 .icS was a very unpleasant endgame for Black in Fischer­ Petrosian, Buenos Aires [7th match game] 1971) 1 3 ifd4 .ic6 14 .if4 0-0 1 S l:!.ad1 ifaS 16 .ieS with an edge to White, Suta­ Nevednichaya, correspondence 1 983. b2) 9 ... d4!? isn't so bad: 10 lba4 cS 1 1 eS lDd7 12 1J..e4 Ita7 13 f4 fS!? 14 exf6 lDxf6 1 S .ic6+ 1J.. d7 16 "ii' e 2 Wf7 1 7 .ixd7 ifxd7 18 b3 1J..d6 1 9 lbb2 l:!.e8 20 lDd3 'iic7 21 .id2 aS 22 l:.ae1 was only a bit better for White, Anka-Zvara, Pardubice 1 999. 7 lt::ld 2 A good route for the knight, which plans to make c4 its home. From there it eyes the vulnerable spots of b6, d6 and eS. 7 0-0 is likely to transpose into the main lines, for example: 7 ... eS 8 lbd2 'iic7 (or 8 ... lDf6 9 lbc4 'iic 7 and we have transposed to the main game) 9 a4 (the immediate 9 lbc4 can be met by 9 ... bS) 9 ... lDf6 and now: a) 1 0 lbc4 transposes to the main game. b) 10 aS!?, clamping down on the queen­ side, looks interesting: b1) 1 0 ... 1J.. b4 1 1 lbc4 i.e6 (1 1 ....ig4!?) 1 2 iff3 .ixc4 13 .ixc4 0-0 14 .igS lDe8 1 S .:!.fd 1 lbd6 ( 1 S. . ..ixaS? 1 6 ifa3! .ib6 1 7 .ie7) 16 .ib3 .icS 1 7 l:!.d3 and White had an edge, Stefansson-Ahmed, Tanta 2001 . b2) 1 0 ... 1J..e6 1 1 iie2 .icS 1 2 .ic4 'iie7 13 lbb3 .ia7 14 l:!.a4 0-0 and Black has equalised, Castro Rojas-Jimenez Zerquera, Cienfuegos 1 976. 7 . . . e5 8lt::lc4 8 "ii' h S is the subject of our next game. 8 . . . lt::lf6 The most popular response. Other tries include:

5 i.. d 3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck

a) 8 ... i.e6 9 i.d2!? i.xc4 10 ..i.xc4 'ii'd4 1 1 'ii'e2 b5 12 ..i.b3 tLlf6 1 3 0-0-0 'ii'xe4 1 4 .l:the1 'ii'xe2 1 5 .l:txe2 e 4 16 g4! and White is better, Vallejo Pons-Miezis, European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 . b) 8. . .tLle7 9 ..i.e3 and now: b 1) 9 .....i.e6 1 0 'ii'h 5 tbg6 1 1 0-0-0 (1 1 tbxe5?? 'ii'a 5+ is a trick to beware ol) 1 1 ...'ii'c 7 1 2 ..i.b6 'ii'b 8 1 3 g3 and White's pieces occupy active posts, Plaskett-Miles, Bergsjo 1981 . b2) 9 ...tbg6 1 0 tLlb6 .l:tb8 1 1 tbxc8 .l:txc8 12 'ii'g4 ..i.d6 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 ..i.c4 and the bishop pair give White a small advantage typical for this variation, Tirnman-Miles, Bugojno 1 978. 9 0-0 9 tbxe5?? loses to 9 ...'ii'a5+. 9 .'i'c7 9 .....i.g4 10 'ii'e 1 ! tLld7 1 1 f4 is promising for White, for example 1 1 .. ...i.e6 1 2 'it>h1 f6 1 3 i.e3 'ii'c 7 1 4 a4 0-0-0 1 5 f5 ..i.xc4 1 6 ..i.xc4 i.c5 1 7 i.d2 ..tb8 1 8 b 4 ..i.d4 1 9 .l:t b 1 tLlb6 20 ..tb3 tbc8 21 ..te6 .l:td6 22 c3 ..i.a7 23 c4 and White is launching forward on the queenside, Ye Jiangchuan-Miles, Gron­ ingen 1 997. . .

10 a4!? An important moment. White has a few ways to try for an advantage: a) 10 ..i.e3 ..te6! 1 1 ..i.b6 'ii'b 8 12 a4 tLld7! 13 ..i.e3 b5 14 axb5 cxb5 1 5 tLla5 ..i.c5 16 'ii'e2 0-0 equalised comfortably for Black in

Cioara-Miezis, Castellaneta 1 999. b) 10 f4 is an ambitious attempt to open the position before Black is able to organise his development. Play continues 1 0 ... tLlg4! 1 1 'it>h 1 and here Black has two alternatives: b1) 1 1 ...b5 12 tbxe5 tbxe5 1 3 fxe5 'ii'x e5 14 a4 .i.e7 1 5 ..i.f4 'ii'xb2! (1 5 ... 'ii'c 5?! 16 'ii'e 2 b4 17 e5 left White with an advantage on both sides, Rowson-Solak, Halle 1 995) 16 axb5 cxb5 17 e5 0-0 1 8 ..i.e4 i.e6! 1 9 ..i.xa8 l:txa8 2 0 'ii' f3 .l:tc8 2 1 .l:txa6 'ii'xc2 22 i.g5 ..i.b4 23 .l:ta8 ..i.f8 and White's small material plus will be very difficult to realise, Forster-Solak, Halon 1 995. b2) 1 1 ...i.c5 1 2 'ii' f3 ..i.e6 13 'ii'g3 h5 14 f5 ..i.xc4 1 5 i.xc4 0-0-0 16 i.e2 tLlf6 17 ..i.f3 'ii'e 7 18 ..i.g5 h4 1 9 'ii'h 3 ..i.b6 was unclear in Delchev-Cappon, Bethune 1 998. c) 10 ..i.d2!? (this looks quite promising) and now: cl) 10 .....i.g4 1 1 'ii'e 1 b5 1 2 tbe3 i.c5 1 3 tLlxg4 tbxg4 1 4 'ii'e2 tLlf6 1 5 b 4 i.b6 1 6 c4 was pleasant for White in Leko-Khalifman, Budapest (2nd match game) 2000. c2) 1 0 ... b5!? 1 1 ..i.a5 (1 1 tLle3?! i.c5 is nothing for White) 1 1 ...'ii'b 8 12 lDb6 .l:ta7 (12...i.g4 1 3 'ii'e 1 l:ta7 14 'ii'e 3 :b7 15 c4! looks promising for White) 1 3 ltJxc8 (13 c4? ..i.g4 14 'ii'c 2 ..i.c5 1 5 cxb5 ..i.xb6 16 'ii'xc6+ liJd7 lost a piece for insufficient compensa­ tion in Santo Roman-Miezis, French League 1 999) 1 3. .. 'ii'x c8 14 a4

with a further split: 12 1

Sic ilian Kan

c21) 1 4...l:td7 1 S li'e2 li'b8 (or 1S ... i.d6 16 c4 b4 17 cS!) 16 c4 (16 b4, intending c2c4 without allowing ... bS-bS, is also interest­ ing) 16 ... b4 17 cS �xeS 18 .l:.acl �b6 1 9 �xb4 ..ix£2+ 20 .l:.x£2 li'xb4 21 .l:.xc6 1;e7 (Reefat-Miezis, Dhaka 2001) and now 22 li'f3! l:.hd8 23 l:.xf6 gxf6 24 li'xf6+ looks very good for White. c22) 1 4 ... li'b8 1 S axbS (again I like 1 S b4!?) 1 S . . .axbS 16 �c3 �cS 1 7 b4 .l:.xa 1 1 8 li'xa1 �d6 and White i s a tiny bit better, Handke-Miezis, Andorra 2001 . 1 0 . . . ..ic5 1 0... �e6!, planning to answer 1 1 �gS with 1 1 ...tt'ld7, looks stronger to me. White protects e4 with 1 1 'ti'f3 and now: a) 1 1 ...�xc4 1 2 �xc4 �cS 1 3 aS 0-0 1 4 c 3 .l:.fd8 1 S �gS 'ii'e 7 16 b 4 �a7 1 7 .l:.ad1 gives White that traditional two bishops edge, Wahls-Miezis, Bern 1 99S. b) 1 1 ...�cS! 1 2 li'g3 tt'ld7 13 aS (13 li'xg7 is critical but is also hardly likely to appeal to many players) 1 3 ... f6 14 1;h1 gS 1 S i.e3 hS 16 ..ixcS tt'lxcS and Black was not worse in Short-Capelan, Solingen 1 986. 10 ...�g4 1 1 li'ct �cS 12 1;h1 bS 1 3 tt'le3 �d7 1 4 f4! exf4 1 S tt'lfS gS? 16 li'c3 �e7 17 tt'lxe7 1;xe7 18 li'cS+ li'd6 1 9 li'xgS was winning for White i n Pietrusiak­ Filipowicz, Piotrkow Trybunalski 1 970. 1 1 ..ig5!

bishop. In the game Miezis allows his pawns to be doubled but his king never finds a safe haven afterwards. 1 1 . . . i.e6 1 1 ...i.g4 1 2 li'e1 tt'ld7 allows the bishop out, but after 1 3 1;h 1 f6 14 �d2 0-0 1 S b4! �d4 16 c3 �a7 17 aS .l:.ae8 18 f4! White built up a strong initiative in Salrn-Sande, correspondence 1 976. 1 2 ..ixf6 gxf6 1 3 'ii'f 3
24 tiJd5 + ! cxd5 25 exd5 'ii'c S Or 2S ... i.c8 26 d6+ 1;d7 27 li'xf6 li'd8 28 li'xf7+ 1;c6 29 d7 �xd7 30 li'c4+ 1;b6 31 aS mate. 26 dxe6 fxe6 27 'ii'e4 f5 28 'ii'x h4 'ii'gS 29 b5 axb5 30 ..ixb5
Game 47 Nunn-Khurtsidze

World Team Ch., Lucerne 1997

This move is now annoying for Black as if the knight retreats to d7, it blocks the c81 22

1 e4 c5 2 ttJt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6 5 ..id3 ttJc6 6 ttJxc6 dxc6 7 ttJd2 e5 8 'ii'h 5 ..id6 9 ttJc4 ttJt6 Once again Black decides that giving up the bishop pair is the safest course. The

5 i.. d3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck

main alternative runs 9 ...JI..c 7 10 il..g 5 li:'lf6 1 1 'ii'e2 h6 12 il..h4 'ii'e7 1 3 0-0-0 i.e6 14 f4 i.xc4 1 5 il..xc4 b5 16 il.. b 3.

This position has scored well for White, for example: a) 16 ... l:.d8 17 f5 0-0 18 g4 l:.d6 19 l:.xd6 il..xd6 20 g5 hxg5 21 il..xg5 and White will get a very strong attack, Hoexter-Kruchem, correspondence 1 995. b) 1 6 ...0-0 17 il..x f6! 'ii'x f6 18 l:.d7 il..d8 (or 18 ...'ii'xf4+ 1 9 �b1 il..b6 20 l:. fl 'ii'xh2 21 'ii'g4 �h8 22 l:td3! f5 23 exf5 e4 24 l:td7 'ii'e 5 25 f6! and White won, Perunovic­ Solak, Lazarevac 1 999) 1 9 l:tfl exf4 20 g3 'ii'g6 21 e5 and Black is in some trouble, Rawley-Lifson, correspondence 1 985. 1 0 lt:lxd6 + ffxd6 1 1 ffe2 i..e6 1 2 0-0 0-0

which may come out to either b2 or, after a2-a4, the a3-square. 1 3 . . . b5 14 a4 .l:!.fd8 1 5 i.. g 5?! Now that a rook has appeared on d8, White feels it's worthwhile pinning the knight. However, this allows Black a cute equalising trick. 1 5 l:td 1 ! ? (Ribli) keeps an edge. Notice that 1 5 ...il..g4?! 16 f3 'ii'd4+? doesn't work on account of 1 7 il..e 3!. 1 5 . . . i..x b3! 1 6 axb5 cxb5 1 7 i.. xf6 gxf6 1 8 .l:!.ad 1 i..e6 1 9 i..x b5 ffxd 1 ! 20 lbd 1 .l:!.xd 1 + 21 fr'xd 1 axb5

Nominally White is material ahead, but it's very easy for Black to erect an impreg­ nable fortress. 22 g4 h6 23 'it>g2 'it>g7 24 �g3 lla4 25 f3 .l:!.a8 26 'ilr'd2 l:!.e8 27 h4 i..c4 28 'ilr'd7 .l:!.e6 29 'it>f2 lla6 30 ffe7 .l:[e6 31 'ilr'd8 i..a2 32 'iti>e3 i..c4 33 'it>d2 i.. a 2 34 'it>c3 i..c4 35 'ilr'd2 i..a 2 36 'iti>b4 i..c4 37 fr'f2 I:!.a6 38 fr'g3 l:!.e6 39 'it>c5 �g6 40 'ilr'g2 'it>g7 41 'ilr'd2 'iti>g6 42 'ilr'g2 'iti>g7 43 g5 fxg5 44 hxg5 hxg5 45 ffxg5 + �f8 46 'ilr'g2 .l:!.g6 47 fr'h2 .l:!.e6 48 fr'h8 + 'iti>e7 49 'ilr'g8 .l:!.g6 50 fr'b8 .l:!.e6 51 fr'h8 i..f 1 52 fr'h1 % - %

Game 48 Sulskis-Eingorn 1 3 b3! White makes good use of the bishop,

Koszalin 1 999 1 e4 c5 2 lt:lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::lxd4 a6 1 23

Sicilian Kan

5 ..td3 'i'b6 Hoping to kick White's knight from the centre, but White doesn't have to play ball. 6 c3!

I believe this simple move is the strong­ est reply. Black must now either add extra pressure to d4 or huddle back into a Hedgehog strucrure. 6 li:Jb3 'fic7 7 0-0 li:Jf6 8 c4 (for 8 lt:Jc3 b5, see Chapter 7 under the move order 5 lt:Jc3 b5 6 i.d3 'fib6 7 lt:Jb3 'fic7 8 0-0 li:Jf6) 8 ... d6 9 lt:Jc3 leads to similar play to that in Games 37-38 and can often transpose. The two differences are that Black's queen is already committed to c7 but his bishop has not yet moved to e7. Black may use the latter difference in some variations, for ex­ ample, 9 ... lt:Jbd7 10 f4 (10 a4!?) 1 0 ... g6!? 1 1 'fie2 i.g7 1 2 i.d2 0-0 1 3 l:.ael b6 1 4 �h1 i.b7 and Black had reached a perfect de­ fensive set-up in Gullaksen-Zagorskis, Co­ penhagen 1 998. 6. . . 'i'c7 Alternatively: a) 6 ... i.c5?! 7 li:Jd2! (this could also arise from 5 ... i.c5 6 c3 'fib6?!) 7 ... i.xd4 8 cxd4 'fixd4 9 lt:Jc4 and, with i.e3 corning, Black is already in serious trouble. b) 6 ...lt:Jc6 and now: b1) 7 i.e3!? i.c5 (7 ... 'fixb2?? 8 li:Jb3 traps the queen) 8 li:Jd2 transposes to Game 41. b2) 7 0-0 d6 (7... lt:Jxd4 8 cxd4 'fixd4 9 1 24

lt:Jc3, followed by i.e3, gives White a huge lead in development) 8 i.e3 'fic7 9 c4 li:Jf6 1 0 lt:Jc3 i.e7 1 1 l:.cl lt:Je5 1 2 i.e2 0-0 1 3 b3 l:te8 14 f4 lt:Jg6 1 5 �h1 b6 1 6 f5 lt:Je5 1 7 'fie1 �h8 1 8 'fig3 was better for White in Adams-Bistric, Neum 2002. c) 7 lt:Jxc6 'fixc6 8 0-0 d6 9 c4 li:Jf6 10 'fie2 i.e7 11 lt:Jc3 lt:Jd7 1 2 f4 0-0 1 3 i.e3 b6 14 l:.f3 i.b7 1 5 l:.h3 with a strong kingside attack, Anand-J .Polgar, Leon 2000.

7 0-0 tt'lf6 8 'i'e2 d6 We have reached a main line position ex­ cept that White has the extra move c2-c3. Narurally White can now transpose into positions dealt with in Chapter 1 by playing 9 c4, but why not try to make use of the extra tempo? 9 f4! ? tt'lbd7 1 0 tt'ld2

With the knight protected on d4, White does not have to worry about a pin with

5 i. d 3 : Fifth Mo v e A lterna tives for Bla ck

... 'ii'b 6. Consequently, White need not hurry to play c;ith 1 . 1 o . . . e5!? Or: a) 1 0...g6 1 1 f5 e5 12 tLle6! gave White the advantage in Sulypa-Brustkern, Berlin 1 998. b) 10 ... �e7 1 1 tiJ2f3 (preparing e4-e5) 1 1 ...tLlc5 1 2 i.c2 e5 1 3 tLlf5 0-0 14 fxe5 dxe5 15 tLl3h4 �d8 1 6 'ii' f3 c;ith8 1 7 i.e3 g6 18 tLlh6 �e6 19 :ad 1 �e7 20 b4 tLlcd7 21 �g5 l:tae8 22 i.b3 'ii'b 6+ 23 c;ith1 �xb3 24 axb3 and White has strong pressure on the kingside, Grabarczyk-J aracz, Polanica Zdroj 1 999.

36. . . i.f6?? 37 l:.d6! l:.xd6 38 i.xd6 1 -0

Game 49 Wydrowski-Panter

Comspondence 1 996

1 1 fxe5 dxe5 1 2 lDf5 lbc5 1 3 i.c2 i.e6 1 4 lbb3 lbcd7 1 5 ..tg5 h6 16 i.h4 g6 1 7 lbe3 ..tg7 1 8 lbd2! 0-0 1 9 i.b3 White's control over the d5-square, cou­ pled with the eventual control on the d-ftle, promises him a useful advantage to work with. 1 9 . . .'ii'c6 20 .l:l.ad 1 l:.ae8 2 1 'ii'f 3 b5 22 h3 'ii'b 7 23 i.xe6 l:.xe6 24 lbb3 'ii'a 7 25 'iitth 1 a5 26 lbd5 a4 27 i.f2 �b7 28 lbc5 lbxc5 29 i.xc5 l:.c8 30 'ii'e 3 lDh5 31 'iitth 2 lbf4 32 g3 lbxd5 33 l:.xd5 h5 34 'ii'd 3 'ii'c6 35 i.b4 .l:!.b8 36 'iittg 2 see following diagram

White is in total control over the posi­ tion, but Black's next move does make things very easy for him.

1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 a6 5 i.d3 lbe7 6 0-0 lbbc6 The main alternative is 6 ... ttJec6 and here I like the simple 7 c3, for example: a) 7 ... d5 8 exd5 'ii'x d5 9 i.e3 �e7 1 0 tLld2 tLlxd4 1 1 �xd4 0-0 1 2 'ii'c 2 with a pleasant position for White, Adams­ Portisch, Yerevan Olympiad 1 996. b) 7...�e7 8 �e3 b5 9 tLld2 i.b7 10 f4 0-0 1 1 'ii'h 5! (highlighting a flaw of 5 ...tLle7 - the white queen can often rest unmolested on this square) 1 1 ...tLlxd4 12 cxd4 g6 1 3 'ii'h 3 and White has the advantage, Lutz­ Nijboer, Venlo 2000. Notice that 6 ... g6 7 c4 �g7 8 �e3 trans­ poses to the note to Black's 7th move in Game 45. 7 lbb3 It makes sense for White to avoid an ex­ change of knights as now Black will have to expend another tempo on his e7-knight in order to prepare kingside castling. 7 c3 tLle5?! 8 f4 tLlxd3 9 'ii'xd3 'ii'c7 1 0 �e3 tLlc6 1 1 c 4 led to a typical white edge in the game ] .Polgar-Bischoff, Ohrid 2001 , but I prefer Ribli's suggestion of 7 ...d5!. 7 . . . lbg6 1 25

Sicilian Kan

7 ...g6 8 c4 .1Lg7 9 tLlc3 transposes to Games 42 and 43. This may well be Black's best choice here.

good advertisement for 5 ...tLlc7. 20 . . .i.fB 21 a3 lL\c6 22 .rf.d 1 -.as 23 lt'ld5 lt:'lxd5 24 exd5 lt'lbB

8 c4 Erecting the Maroczy Bind, although there is also nothing wrong with abstaining from this to gain an extra tempo for attack: 8 f4 i.e7 9 tLlc3 bS 10 ..i.e3 iJ.. b7 1 1 'ilfhS! gave White the advantage in Arakharnia Grant-Portisch, London 1 996. B . . . d6 9 i.e3 i.e7 10 lL\c3 b6 1 1 .rf.c 1 0-0 1 2 f4 lteB

25 lt'le6! ! 1 -0 After 25 .. .fxe6 26 f6! Black is getting mated, for example 26 ...tLld7 27 ..i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 28 'ilfhS+ 'it>g8 29 f7, or 26 ... 'il'c7 27 fxg7 ..i.xg7 28 'ilfhS 'ilff7 29 ..i.xh7+ 'it>f8 30 iJ..c S+ .l:tc7 31 .!::. fl .

Game 50 Sax-Fogarasi

Hungarian League 1 997 1 e4 c5 2 lLif3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lL\xd4 a6 5 ..td3 d5!?

1 3 llf3! With Black's knight on g6 rather than f6, this plan of attack docs suggest itself. 1 3 . . . i.d7 1 4 .l:.h3 lLib4 1 5 i.b1 e5 16 f5 lLif4 1 7 .rf.g3 b5 1 8 c5! dxc 5 1 9 lL\xc5 .tea 20 -.g4 Already there arc very serious threats! I must admit that this game is certainly not a 126

Somehow this doesn't look right. After all, Black has not yet developed a piece and here he is, offering to open up the position. However, appearances are a bit deceptive;

5 i. d 3 : Fifth Mo ve A lt e rn a tives for Bla ck

it's not quite as bad as it looks! 6 exd5 'i'xd5 Play somewhat resembles a major line in the French Tarrasch (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 �d2 c5 4 exd5 'il'xd5 5 �g£3 cxd4 6 .tc4 'il'd6 7 0-0 �f6 8 �b3 lLlc6 9 �bxd4 �xd4 1 0 lLlxd4). In that line Black is behind i n de­ velopment but his solid kingside pawn structure gives him a reasonable theoretical standing. 7 0-0 lt'lf6 8 lt'lc3 'i'd8 9 lt'le4! Cleverly transposing into another line of the French Tarrasch (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 lLld2 c5 4 �g£3 cxd4 5 lLlxd4 a6 6 .id3 dxe4 7 lLlxe4 �f6 8 0-0), which is known to be good for White. White has many other alternatives that would give a small plus, for example 9 .tf4 .te7 1 0 �£3! �c6 1 1 'il'e2 0-0 1 2 �e5!, as in Pupo-Armas, Cuba 1 998. 9 . . . i.e7 9 ... �bd7 10 c3 (or 10 b3!?) 10 ....te7 is another way of reaching the text. 1 0 c3 More dynamic is 10 b3!? �bd7?! (10...�xe4 1 1 .ixe4 �d7 is stronger) 1 1 .tb2 �xe4 1 2 �xe6! fxe6 1 3 .ixg7 .tf6 1 4 .txh8 .txh8 1 5 'il'h5+ �f8 1 6 .txe4 .txa1 1 7 l:ha1 lLlf6 (Yakovich-Tolnai, Kecskemet 1 991) and now 1 8 'il'e5 'il'e7 1 9 �d1 �g8

20 .t£3 (Yakovich) would have given White a clear advantage. Note that this game came from the French move order. 1 0 . . . lt'lbd7 1 1 lt'lg3! ? lt'le5 1 2 i.c2 i.d7

1 3 ii'e2 More aggressive is 13 .tg5! 0-0 (13. .. h6!?) 14 1t'e2 �c6 1 5 �ad1 'it'c7 1 6 �fe 1 ! (Sax) when White has a good attacking set-up. 1 3 . . .lt'lc6 14 .:.d 1 'i'c7 1 5 i.g5 0-0 1 6 lt'lh5 lt'lxh5 1 7 ifxh5 g6 1 8 ifh6 .i.xg5 1 9 Wxg5 .l:.ad8 20 h4 This allows Black to consolidate. Fogarasi suggests 20 �£3! 'it>g7 and only then 21 h4. 20 . . .'i'e5! 21 lt'lf3 'i'xg5 22 lt'lxg5 lt'le7 23 .l:.d2 i.c6 24 �ad 1 �xd2 25 .:.xd2 .i.d5 26 lt'le4 'it>g7 27 lt'ld6 b5 28 a4 Y:z - Y:z

127

Sicilian Kan

Summary S ... g6 is tricky and may catch the unsuspecting white player off his guard. There's a subtle difference here to the ... g6 lines in Chapter 1 and White must be careful not to allow Black to play a liberating ... d7-d5 advance under favourable circumstances. That said, 10 ..tgS in the main line (Game 42) seems to promise White some advantage, while 7 lLle2 (Game 44) also looks promising for the first player. If you are the type of player quite happy to be very slightly worse in a quiet position and to draw many games as Black, then S ... ltJc6 (Games 46-47) is an ideal weapon. Luckily there are not too many of these players around, as these lines aren't the most exciting! 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 i.d3 g6 S ... lLlc6 6 lLlxc6 dxc6 7 lLld2 eS 8 'iih S - Game 47; 8 ltJc4 (D)- Game 46 S ... 'iib6 - Game 48 S ... lLle7 (D) - Game 49 S ... dS - Game 50 6 c4 6 0-0 - Game 45 6 . . . i.g7 7 lLlb3 7 ltJe2 Game 44 7 . . .lbe 7 8 lLlc3 0-0 9 0-0 lLlbc6 (D) 1 0 .ie2 - Game 43 1 0 ..tgS - Game 42 -

8 lbc4

1 28

5. . . lbe 7

9. . . lbbc6

CHAPTER SIX

I

5 ttJc3 'fiic 7

1 e 4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a 6 5 lt:'lc3 1kc7 Now we finally move on to 5 lt:Jc3, White's second most popular choice after 5 i.d3. In this chapter we will study the re­ sponse 5 ...'il'c7. This is still Black's main reply to 5 lt:Jc3, even though in the past couple of years it's had some stiff competi­ tion from S ... bS (mainly because of the sud­ den discovery of 5 ... bS 6 i.d3 'il'b6 - see Chapter 7). The move 5 ... 'il'c7 immediately puts the black queen on her normal 'Kan' square, from where she controls the key eS-square and eyes events down the c-ftle. The move is also very flexible; Black commits himself neither on the queenside nor with his d­ pawn. Given Black's reluctance to move the d-pawn so early, 5 ... 'ii'c7 is also virtually a necessity so that Black can develop with ...lt:Jf6 (the immediate 5 ...lt:Jf6? would run into 6 eS!). In this chapter we will consider all of White's main replies to 5 ... 'il'c7. 1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 5 lt:'lc3 1kc7 see

following diagram

6 �d3 6 i.d3 is the most popular and logical

move. White bolsters the e-pawn and pre­ pares to castle. The bishop on d3 is actively placed for an eventual kingside attack and may be liberated by an eventual e4-e5.

Classical development with 6 i.e2 is also an accepted choice amongst white players, especially those who play i.e2 systems against the Najdorf, Scheveningen and Tai­ manov. Acrually Black can transpose into the Taimanov (with 6 ... lt:Jc6) and the Scheveningen (with 6 ... lt:Jf6 7 0-0 d6) but here we will concentrate on pure Kan posi­ tions that are reached after 6 ... b5 (see Game 59). I should say a few words about mixing ... b7-b5 with an early ... 'il'c7. Sometimes this can be an extremely risky strategy as Black can fall dangerously behind on develop1 29

Sicilian Ka n

ment. On the other hand, the ... b7-b5 lunge can also be the best way forward as it forces White to deal with early pressure against e4. On this occasion (against 6 .ie2) it is fully justified and is the main Line. However, when White takes measures to support e4 (with 6 g3 and 6 i.d3 - see below) it is more risky to play ...b7-b5. White players who play g2-g3 systems against other Sicilians can also play it against the Kan. Now 6 ... .ib4 (or 6...tt'lf6 7 .ig2 .ib4) is probably the strongest move to play if one wishes to keep a Kan flavour (see Game 61). On the other hand, here 6 ... b5?! is an extremely hazardous response (see Game 60). One further point I should add is that 6 ... tt'lc6, transposing to the g3 Tai­ manov, is a perfectly viable option. Erecting a pawn front with 6 f4 is an­ other white strategy. As this is hardly a de­ veloping move, Black is justified in playing 6 ... b5 (see Game 62). Before moving on I should just mention a couple of less important moves for White, but ones that are still commonly seen in practice. With 6 a3?! White's idea is to pre­ vent an early ... .ib4 or ... b7-b5-b4. How­ ever, this is not really a move that will strike fear into the Kan player, who will no doubt be happy to use the extra tempo for devel­ opment. Either 6 ... tt'lf6 or 6 ... b5 should be fine for Black, for example 6 ... b5 7 .id3 .ib7 8 0-0 tt'lf6 and the loss of a tempo with a2-a3 means that White is in much less of a position to exploit Black's set-up (com­ pare this with 6 .id3 b5). Also not dangerous is 6 .ie3, trying to play an 'English Attack' (.ie3, 'iid2, 0-0-0 etc.). This is not particularly effective against the Kan: 6 ... .ib4! 7 'iid2 tt'lf6 and now: a) 8 f3 d5! (when compared with the English attack against the Scheveningen, the fact that Black can play ... d7-d5 in one go is a big bonus) 9 exd5 tt'lxd5 1 0 tt'lde2 tt'lxe3 1 1 'iixe3 0-0 12 0-0-0 tt'lc6 and Black was 1 30

already looking in good shape, Bolzoni­ Chuchelov, Brussels 1 995. b) 8 .id3 d5! (again this move) 9 exd5 tt'lxd5 10 tt'lde2 tt'lc6 1 1 0-0 tt'lxe3 12 'iixe3 i.e7 1 3 1:.ad1 0-0 14 'iih 3 h6 and White has no real compensation for giving Black the bishop pair, De Silva-Kotsur, Aden 2002. 6 . . . lDf6 Developing the king's knight is Black's most reliable way forward. Given that White has not 'wasted' a move on c2-c4, it pays for Black not to fall too far behind in development. 6 ... tt'lc6 is not your typical Kan move but it's very playable and quite solid. Now 7 .ie3 would transpose directly into the Tai­ manov, but many white players prefer the direct 7 tt'lxc6. Now either pawn capture is playable: Game 58 focuses on 7 ... dxc6 while in Game 57 we look at 7 ... bxc6 (7 ... l\hc6 8 0-0 b5 9 e5! looks good for White). 6 ... b5 is extremely risky. Game 56 is a graphic illustration of what can happen if Black is not careful.

7 0-0 The automatic move, but there are a couple of interesting sidelines. a) The move 7 'iie 2!? threatens e4-e5 and Black normally avoids this with 7 ... d6. However, this rules out the idea of a knight­ disturbing ... i.c5 for Black; the price White pays for this is that the queen is committed to e2. After 8 f4 I Like the idea of 8 ... g6!? 9

5 fi:J c 3 'il c l

0-0 i.g7 for Black. The point is that a nor­ mal plan for White is 'ii'd 1 -e 1 -h4 but now White would have to lose a vital tempo to do this. Play may continue 1 0 'it>ht 0-0 and now: at) 1 1 lDB lDc6 (t t ...lDbd7!? also looks reasonable) 12 'ii'f2 b5 1 3 'ir'h4 i.b7 14 f5 14... exf5 (King-Psakhis, Moscow 1 990) and now King's variation of 1 5 exf5 lDe5!? 16 lDxe5 dxe5 1 7 i.g5 'ir'c6 1 8 'ir'h3 looks okay for Black, who has useful pressure against g2. a2) 1 1 i.d2!? b6 (or 1 1 ...lDc6!?) 1 2 �ael i.b7 13 lDf3 lDbd7 was reasonably com­ fortable for Black in T.Bauer-Farago, Hun­ gary 1 993. After 14 e5?! dxe5 15 fxe5 lDd5 16 lDxd5 i.xd5 17 i.f4 b5 it's difficult for White to do anything without losing his e­ pawn. b) 7 f4!? is another way to induce ... d7-d6, with this method having the advantage of not committing the queen. Now the obvi­ ous 7 ... d6 8 0-0 transposes to Game 55. I f Black wants to avoid this h e can try the line 7 ... b5, answering the critical 8 e5 with 8 ... b4, for example 9 lDe4 lDxe4 10 i.xe4 i.b7 1 1 'if'B lDc6 1 2 lDxc6 i.xc6 1 3 i.xc6 and now: b 1) 1 3. .. 'ir'xc6 1 4 'ir'xc6 dxc6 1 5 'it>e2 0-0-0 16 i.e3 gave White a slight structural advantage in Shirov-Rublevsky, Polanica Zdroj 1 998. b2) 1 3. ..dxc6! 14 i.e3 i.e7 1 5 0-0-0 0-0 1 6 h4 c5 1 7 'it>bl c4 was equal in Lanka­ Volzhin, Koszalin 1 999. 7 i.c5 Here we once more see the typical theme of knocking the d4-knight from its central perch. Other black moves include: a) 7 ... lDc6 8 lDxc6 dxc6 9 f4 e5, which transposes to Game 58. b) 7 ... d6 8 f4 can also arise via the Scheveningen (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDf6 5 lDc3 e6 6 f4 a6 7 i.d3 'ii'c7 8 0-0) and is studied in Game 55. c) 7 ... i.d6!? . . .

and now: c1) 8 'it>h 1 !? lDc6 9 lDxc6 bxc6 (9 ... dxc6 10 f4 e5 transposes to Game 58) 10 f4 e5 1 1 f5 is probably a bit better for White. c2) 8 f4!? i.c5 9 i.e3 lDc6 1 0 lDf5! transposes to a precarious line (as far as Black is concerned) of the Taimanov, for example 1 0 ... lDe7 (or 1 0...'ir'b6 1 1 lDd6+ 'it>f8 12 i.f2!) 1 1 lDxg7+ 'it>f8 12 i.xc5 'if'xc5+ 13 'it>h 1 'it>xg7 14 e5 lDe8 1 5 lDe4 'ir'c7 1 6 'ii'h 5 lDg6 1 7 lDf6 'ii'd 8 1 8 f5 exf5 1 9 'ii'x f5 d5 20 'ir'g5 and White's attack is worth more than a piece, Topalov-Hiibner, Wijk aan Zee 1 996. 8 fi:Jb3 White can also protect this knight with 8 i.e3 (see Game 54). 8 i.e7 This retreat is played the majority of the time but there is also something to be said for 8 ... i.a7. Now we reach positions similar to those studied in Chapter 4. White is committed to both lDc3 and 0-0, while Black has committed his queen to c7. ECO gives 9 'ii'e2 d6 10 i.e3 i.xe3 1 1 'ii'xe3 but now 1 1 ...lDc6 12 �adl 0-0 transposes to the note to White's 1 1 th move in Game 3 1 , which is fine for Black. White can attempt to exploit the absence of a black queen on d8 with 9 i.g5, for example 9 ...lDc6 10 'it>ht d6 1 1 f4 i.d7 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 'ir'h5 0-0-0!? 14 'ir'xf7 :df8 15 'ir'h5 lDe7 1 6 f5 exf5 1 7 exf5 i.c6 1 8 i.e4 d 5 1 9 i. f3 �hg8 and . . .

131

Sicilian Kan

Black has some compensation for the pawn in Tischbierek-Eingorn, Ostend 1 992. 9 f4 d6

7 'W£3 'Wb6 8 lLlb3 'Wc7 9 i.d3 Ji.e7 10 0-0). Alternatives to 10 'ti'£3 will be discussed in Games 52-53. 1 o . . lLlbd7 Immediate queenside action with 10 ... b5!? is possible but risky: 1 1 e5! Ji.b7 1 2 'Wg3 lLlh5 1 3 'Wh3 g6 1 4 exd6 'ti'xd6 1 5 f5! exf5 1 6 Ji.h6 was precarious for Black in Hindle-Emms, Cromer (rapid) 1 993. Most Kan players tend to prefer to play systems with ... lLlbd7, so I will concentrate my efforts on that. However, the alternative way with 1 0 ... lLlc6 is certainly also possible. Play continues 1 1 Ji.d2 b5!? and now: a) 12 e5!? (a direct attempt at refutation) 1 2... dxe5 1 3 fxe5 'Wa7+! 1 4 i.e3 lLlxe5 1 5 'Wg3 ifb8 1 6 Ji.f4 'Wa7+ ( 1 6...lLlh5 17 i.xe5 lLlxg3 1 8 Jixb8 lLlxfl 1 9 i.f4 traps the knight) 1 7 Ji.e3 'ti'b8 1 8 Ji.f4 was agreed drawn in Werle-Brodsky, Hoogeveen 1 999. b) Naturally White can also build up the attack more slowly, for example 1 2 l1ae 1 . 1 1 ..td2 The bishop is better placed on d2 than it is on e3 as now the e-ftle will not be blocked after l:tae 1 . Alternatives are: a) 1 1 g4!? (trying to take advantage of the fact that the d7 -square is not available for the f6-knight) and now: al) 1 1 ...g5? 12 fxg5? lLle5 1 3 'Wf4 lLlfd7 is unclear but 1 2 e5! dxe5 13 fxg5 is winning for White. a2) 1 1 ...lLlc5 1 2 lLlxc5 'ti'xc5+ 1 3 Ji.e3 ifc7 14 g5 lLld7 1 5 Ji.d4 0-0 16 'Wh5 and 11£3-h3 is corning very quickly. 1 6 ... 11e8 1 7 11 £3 g6? 1 8 'Wxh7+! is a trick worth remem­ bering. a3) 1 1 ...h6! 1 2 h4 (12 e5? dxe5 1 3 g5 hxg5 1 4 fxg5 e4! hits h2) 12 ...g6 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 lLlh5 1 5 i.e3 b6 16 e5!? i.b7 1 7 exd6 .tx£3!? ( 1 7. . .i.xd6 also looks okay) 1 8 dxc7 i. b7 1 9 i.e4 i.xe4 20 lLlxe4 llc8 2 1 l:tadl llxc7 was equal in Hjartarson-Agrest, Stockholm 1 996. b) 1 1 a4 (preventing ... b7-b5 for a long .

We've reached another typical Scheve­ ningen-style Kan position. Move orders, ideas and tactics will be discussed in Games 5 1 -53. r------.

Game 5 1 Goloshchapov-Kobalija

Ekaterinburg 1 999 1 e4 c5 2 lLlfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 lLlcJ '*kc7 6 ..tdJ lLlf6 7 0-0 ..tc5 8 lLlbJ ..te7 9 f4 d6 1 0 '*ifJ

White activates the queen, which can now take up useful posts on g3 and h3. Note that this position can also be reached via a Scheveningen Sicilian (1 e4 c5 2 lLl£3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 lLlf6 5 lLlc3 e6 6 f4 a6 1 32

5 4:J c 3 1i c 7

time, but expending a tempo to do so) 1 1 ... b6 (this is an almost automatic response to a2-a4; otherwise White will cramp the queenside with a4-a5!) 1 2 i.d2 i.b7 1 3 l:!.ae1 0-0

11

and now: b1) 14 'iig 3?! dS 1 5 exdS (or 1 5 eS tt::'le4!) 1 5 ... tt::'lx d5 1 6 tt::'lx dS i.xdS 1 7 'iih3 fS! 1 8 Wh1 i.f6 and Black was slightly better, Howell-Emms, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 994. b2) 14 'iih 3! .l:tad8! 1 5 g4! (1 5 eS?! dxeS 16 fxeS tt::'lx eS 1 7 .l:txeS 'iixeS 1 8 lhf6 .:txd3! wins for Black; this is the point be­ hind 14 ... .l:tad8) with a further split: b21) 1 5 ... d5!? 1 6 exdS ..icS+ 1 7 tt::'lx cS! (17 i.e3 exdS 1 8 gS tt::'le4 1 9 tt::'lxcS lt:JdxcS 20 ..id4 was unclear in Tischbierek­ Bischoff, Hanover 1 991) 1 7 ... tt::'lxc5 1 8 dxe6 'iic 6!? (Zeller; 1 8 .. .fxe6 1 9 gS tt::'lxd3 20 cxd3, as in Saravanan-Emms, British Ch. 2002, looks better for White) 19 .l:te2! (19 e7 tt::'lxd3 20 exf8'ii + WxfB 21 cxd3 l:hd3! 22 i.e3 tt::'lxg4 23 'ii £3 'iix £3 24 .l:r.x£3 i.x£3 25 i.xb6 miraculously leads to a level ending) 1 9 ... fxe6 20 gS tt::'lx d3 21 cxd3 lt:JdS 22 'iix e6+ 'iix e6 23 .l:txe6 and White has the better ending. But 1 9 ... 1:fe8 (instead of 1 9 ... fxe6) looks interesting, for example 20 gS tt::'lxd3 21 cxd3 l:!.xe6!. b22) 1 5 ... tt::'lc 5!? may be playable: 16 eS dxeS 17 fxeS tt::'lxd3 1 8 exf6 tt::'lxe 1 1 9 fxe 7 'iixe7 20 .:txe1 eS is unclear, as is 1 6 tt::'lxcS 'iix cS+ 17 ..ie3 'iib 4!.

b5 When I ftrst began playing these lines as Black I was under the impression that this move was risky here due to 1 2 a4, but now I've looked at it again I think Black has enough resources. 1 1 ...b6!?, avoiding a clash with a2-a4, is the more restrained way to ftanchetto. White can reply with: a) 1 2 l:tae1 i.b7 1 3 'iih 3 eS!? (13 ... 0-0? 1 4 eS dxeS 1 5 fxeS tt::'lx eS 1 6 i.f4 i.d6 1 7 i.xeS i.xeS 1 8 lhf6 wins for White, but Black could prepare castling with 1 3 ....l:tad8!? - remember ....l:txd3! ideas) 1 4 W h1 0-0 1 5 lt:JdS ..ixdS 1 6 exdS .:tfeB 1 7 fxeS dxeS 1 8 c4 a S was roughly level in Tiviakov-Kudrin, Beijing 1 998. b) 12 'iig3 (putting immediate pressure on g7) with a further split: b1) 1 2 ... 0-0!? 13 .l:tae1 i.b7 14 eS looks dangerous for Black, for example 14 ... tt::'ld 5 15 fS!? exfS 16 i.h6 g6 17 i.xf8 i.xf8 1 8 tt::'lx dS i.xdS 1 9 i.xfS tt::'lx eS 2 0 c 3 and Black has insufficient compensation for the exchange. b2) 1 2 ... g6 1 3 l:!.ae1 (13 eS tt::'lh S 4 'it'f3 i.b7 15 exd6 i.xd6 16 i.e4 0-0-0! 1 7 i.xb7+ 'iixb7 1 8 tt::'le4 i.e7 was unclear in Akopian-Kamsky, Palma de Mallorca 1 989) 1 3 ... i.b7 and now: b21) 1 4 'iih 3 bS 1 5 fS?! (White should wait for Black to castle before doing this) 1 5 ...gxf5! 1 6 exfS eS 1 7 .l:tf2 .l:tgB and Black . . .

1 33

Sicilian Ka n

has good counterplay, Tilak-Emms, London 1 994. b22) 14 a4 h6?! (this only weakens the kingside; 14 ... 0-0! 1 S fS tt:leS is similar to the main game)

1 S eS! tt:\hS 1 6 'W£2 dxeS 1 7 fxeS tt:lxeS 18 tt:lbS! axbS 19 i.xbS+ tt:ld7 20 'Wxf7 + �d8 21 'Wxe6 was very good for White, Stojanovski-Chuchelov, European Champi­ onship, Ohrid 200 1 . 1 2 .l:!.ae 1 So what happens if White plays 1 2 a4 here? Black plays 1 2 ... b4 and now: a) 1 3 tt:la2?! aS and White must remem­ ber that 14 c3? fails to 14 ... bxc3 1 S tt:lxc3 'Wb6 +!. So we have 14 �h1 0-0 1 S c3 and now I believe Black is fine after 14 ... tt:lcS!? ( 1 S ... bxc3 16 tt:lxc3 i.b7 17 tt:lbS 'Wd8 also looks playable), for example 1 6 tt:lxcS dxcS 17 eS i.b7 18 'Wh3? tt:le4! 1 9 %:tae1 %:tad8! 20 :xe4 l:txd3 21 'Wxd3 l:td8! and Black is better. b) 13 tt:ld1 (this looks stronger) 1 3 ...aS 1 4 � h 1 i.b7 1 S tt:\£2 0-0 1 6 c3 bxc3 1 7 i.xc3 dS 1 8 eS d4 19 i.xaS l:haS 20 'Wh3 l:tdS! was unclear in Van Haastert-Emms, Gent 2002. 1 2 'Wg3 g6 13 l:tae1 (1 3 eS!?, as in Akopian-Kamsky above, is also possible) 1 3 ... i.b7 transposes to the main game. 1 2 i.b7 1 3 'i'g3 Now White has ideas of both 'Wxg7 and e4-eS. . . .

1 34

1 3 . . . g6 Killing the threat to the g-pawn and pre­ paring a possible ... tt:\hS in answer to e4-eS. Black's alternatives are: a) 1 3 ... b4!? 14 tt:ld1 g6 1 S 'Wh3 lDcS 1 6 tt:lxcS 'WxcS+ 1 7 �h1 d S 1 8 .ie3 'WaS 1 9 eS tt:\e4 20 i.d4 was perhaps a bit better for White in Hendriks-Kveinys, Mi.inster 1 993, but I don't see what's wrong with 1 4 ... 0-0. b) 13 ... 0-0 14 eS! tt:ldS 1 S tt:laS! (Ribli) looks quite strong, for example 1 S ...dxeS (or 1 S ... 'WxaS? 1 6 tt:lxdS 'Wd8 1 7 tt:lxe7+ 'Wxe7 1 8 i.b4 tt:lcS 1 9 fS!) 1 6 tt:lxb7 'Wxb7 1 7 fxeS, while 1 S fS also looks promising. 1 4 a3

Of course, 14 fS? is just a blunder: 14 ...gxfS 1 S exfS l:tg8! and White loses down the g-flle . So White makes a useful move and waits for Black to castle. 14 eS is also possible though: 14 ... tt:lhS 1 S 'W£2 0-0

5 l'i:J c 3 'ii c 7

1 6 exd6 .ixd6 1 7 tDe4 i.e? leads to a roughly level position. 1 4 . . . 0-0

1 5 f5 Now 15 e5 is well met by either 15 ... tDd5 or 1 5 ... tDh5!?. White changes the direction of the attack slightly, aiming to put pressure on the e6-pawn. 1 5 . . .l'i:Je5 Grabbing the e5-square is the safest re­ sponse. The alternative for Black is to open the long diagonal with 1 5 ... exf5!? 16 exf5 and only then 1 6... tbe5. Of course, this also opens lines for White as well as for Black. 1 6 fxe6 16 .ih6 �feB and only then 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 tbd4 is another possibility, but then 18 ...tDfg4 seems to hold the balance, for example 1 9 tDxe6? 1i'd7 and White has two pieces en prise. 1 6 . . .fxe6 1 7 l'i:Jd4 Bringing the knight back into the game by attacking e6. 1 7 1i'h3?! lDfg4! would sud­ denly give White some problems down the a7-g1 diagonal. 1 7 . . . i.c8 A strange-looking retreat, but this posi­ tion seems okay for Black. He has a nice knight on e5 and would stand well after ... .id7. So White needs to do something quickly. 1 8 l'i:Jf3 l'i:Jh5 1 9 'ifh3 l'i:Jf4 20 i.xf4 :xt4 2 1 l'i:Jxe5 :xt1 + 22 :xt1 dxe5 23 'iff3

i.c5 + 24 'iii>h 1 i.d7

Now if Black is able to consolidate with ... �£8 then the bishop pair would prove an advantage, so White takes the perperual check on offer. 25 'iff7 + 'iii>h 8 26 'iff6 + % - %

Game 52 Nagatz-Dautov

Bad Lauterberg 199 1 1 e4 c5 2 l'i:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l'i:Jxd4 a6 5 l'i:Jc3 'ifc7 6 i.d3 l'i:Jf6 7 0-0 i.c5 8 l'i:Jb3 i.e7 9 f4 d6 1 0 'ife2 Going for the 1i'e2, .id2, �ael and e4e5 plan. 1 o . .l'i:Jbd7 Of course, 10 ... tDc6 is once again possi­ ble. This move does block the bishop on b7 but it also has its positive points. One ad­ vantage it has over 10 ... tDbd7 is that it makes the d7 -square available for the f6knight and this might be especially useful against both e4-e5 and g2-g4-g5 plans. Play continues 1 1 .id2 b5 1 2 �act .ib7 and now: a) 1 3 e5!? dxe5 14 fxe5 lDd7 1 5 .if4 i.h4!? 1 6 g3 i.e? 1 7 lDd5 1i'd8 1 8 tbxe7 tbxe7 was unclear in S.Petrosian-Schar­ gorodskij, Gelsenkirchen 200 1 . b) 1 3 a 3 0-0 with a further split: bt) 1 4 e5 dxe5 1 5 fxe5 tbd7 16 i.f4 b4 17 axb4 (17 lDd5? exd5 1 8 e6 1i'd8 1 9 exd7 .

1 35

Sicilian Kan

'ifxd7 20 axb4 .ixb4 leaves Black a pawn ahead) 1 7...lLlxb4 1 8 .ie4 .ixe4 1 9 'ifxe4 lLlb6 20 lLld2 'ifc6! and White has problems with his c2-pawn, Dueball-Chuchelov, Netherlands 1 998. b2) 1 4 fS .U.ae8! (preparing to support the e6-pawn) lS fxe6 fxe6 16 .ie3 lLleS 1 7 lbd4 .idS 18 h3 'ifd7 1 9 lLlf3 lLlg6 with equality, Khalifman-C.Hansen, Aarhus 1 998. 1 1 .td2

1 1 . . . b5 Barua-Goloshchapov, Calcutta 2002 con­ tinued instead with 1 1 ...b6 1 2 l:tael .ib7 and now, instead of Barna's 13 a4, critical must be 1 3 eS!?: a) 13 ...dxeS 1 4 fxeS lLldS 1S lLlxdS .ixdS 1 6 'ifhS (Ribli) 1 6 ... g6 1 7 'ifh6 looks prom­ ising for White. b) 1 3 ... lLldS 1 4 exd6 i.xd6 1 S fS .ixh2+ (maybe 1 S ... lLlxc3 1 6 i.xc3 eS!?) 16 cJ;h1 i.eS 17 fxe6 fxe6 1 8 lbd4 (Ribli) and again Black is under a lot of pressure. These varia­ tions should be compared to those in Game 40, where Black has the extra ...g7 -g6 thrown in. 1 2 a3 Eliminating all lines with ...bS-b4, but both White's alternatives are apparently more critical. a) 1 2 l:tael b4 (12 ... .ib7 1 3 eS lLldS leads to very similar lines to the previous note; 12 ... eS!? is another way of preventing e4-eS) 13 lLld 1 and now: 136

a1) 13 ...lLlcS 1 4 lLlxcS 'ifxcS+ 1 S lD£2 eS 1 6 cJ;h 1 i.d7 17 c3 bxc3 1 8 .ixc3 exf4 19 .ixa6 0-0 was perhaps a bit better for White, Kodric-Illijin, Bled 2000. a2) 1 3 ... i.b7 14 eS dxeS 1 S fxeS tLldS 1 6 � h1 lLlcS 1 7 lLlxcS .ixcS 1 8 lD£2 .id4 was unclear in Garcia Martinez-Korneev, Mala­ ga 2002. b) 12 a4!? (again striking early on the queenside) 1 2... b4 1 3 lLld1 (13 lLla2 aS 1 4 'iti>h 1 0-0 1 S c 3 lLlcS! looks okay for Black) 1 3 ... aS 14 lD£2 (but not 14 c3?! bxc3 1 S lLlxc3?? 'it'b6+!) 1 4... 0-0 1 S c 3 bxc3 1 6 i.xc3

This looks a bit better for White - the aS-pawn is a weakness and the bS-square could also prove to be a useful outpost for White. 1 2 . . . .tb7 1 3 l:tae1 0-0 13 ... eS!? suggests itself as a possible way to prevent e4-eS. Notice that this move is usually stronger here than in Maroczy Bind positions as White has less control over dS. Following 1 4 fS 0-0 Black can arrange to play ... d6-dS himself. Instead 1 4 'iti>h1 0-0 1 S fxeS lLlxeS 1 6 lLld4 g6 1 7 i.gS lLlfg4 1 8 i.f4 l:.fe8 was okay for Black in Jovanovic­ Pavasovic, Pula 2000. 1 4 g4!? One of the most aggressive plans avail­ able to White - g4-gS is a real positional threat. However, it seems that in this case Black is well placed to meet this idea.

5 l0 c 3 'ii c 7

1 8 . . . !Oxd3 1 9 cxd3 d5!

Alternative ways to attack include: a) 14 fS tt::le S! 1 S fxe6 fxe6 1 6 tt::ld 4 lid7 and Black, who has a nice knight on eS, is doing well. b) 1 4 eS!? (this move always has to be considered) and now: b1) 1 4... dxeS 1 S fxeS tt::ld S 1 6 tt::lx dS i.xdS 17 i.f4 and White has a potentially lethal attack with lihS and lle3. b2) 14 ... tt::ld S!, keeping the f-ft!e and the c 1 -h6 diagonal closed, is a more solid way to play. 1 4 . . .!0c5! It's crucial that Black frees the natural re­ treat for the f6-knight - that d7-square. 1 5 g5 !Ofd7 1 6 .U.f3 Logical play; White intends .l:lh3 and lihS. The immediate 1 6 lihS?! is less effec­ tive: 16 . . .g6! 17 lih6 llfe8 1 8 l:.f3 i.f8 19 lih4 i.g7 20 llh3 tt::l f8! and with the knight on f8 and bishop on g7, Black has what's acknowledged by Sicilian players as the per­ fect defensive set-up. 1 6 . . J:tfe8 So that the knight can defend h7 from f8. 1 7 l:!.h3 !Of8?! 17 ... tt::lx d3! 1 8 cxd3 tt::lf8 is a more accu­ rate move order. 1 8 'ii'g4? 1 8 tt::lx cS! dxcS (18 ... lixcS+ 19 i.e3 lic7 20 lihS gives a dangerous attack) 19 eS (threatening i.xh7 +) 19 ... g6 20 i.e4 looks like a better way for \Vhite to play.

Black counter-attacks in the centre and it's suddenly clear who's in control. That knight on f8 does a sterling defensive job. 20 f5 exf5 21 exf5 �d6 22 l:!.f1 d4! 23 l0e4 i.xe4 24 dxe4 'ilfc2 25 l:!.e 1 d3! 26 �c3 'ii'x b3 27 �xg7 �xg7 28 f6 + �g8 29 'ii'h 5 d2 30 l:.d 1 �c5 + 31 �h 1 'ilfc4 0-1

Game 53 Acs-Fancsy

Zalakaros 1 997 1 e4 c5 2 !Of3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !Oxd4 a6 5 !Oc3 'ii'c7 6 i.d3 !Of6 7 0-0 i.c5 8 tt:lb3 i.e7 9 f4 d6 1 0 a4!? A very tricky move. At ftrst it seems as though White is simply taking prophylactic measures on the queenside, but this is not the case. 1 0 . . . b6 Black responds in the normal manner but here it is more perilous than normal. Both 10 ... tt::lc6 and 10 ... tt::lbd7 avoid an early con­ flict in the centre but do nothing to prevent 1 1 aS, when White has a bind on the queen­ side and Black will find it difficult to reach a desired set-up. Interesting, though, is the sequence 1 1 aS tt::ld 7!? 1 2 i.e3 tt::lc S, trying to put pressure on the aS-pawn. 1 1 e5! The insertion of a2-a4 and ...b7-b6 makes 137

Sicilian Kan

this a very dangerous move. In particular; Black has to watch out for tactics along the h 1 -a8 diagonal.

1 1 . . .l2'lfd7 1 1 ...dxeS 12 fxeS increases the danger for Black: a) 12 .. .'ii'xe S? 13 �f4 'if'hS 14 �e2 'if'h4 1 S �g3 'figS 16 �f3 and White wins. b) 1 2...lLlfd7 1 3 �f4! (13 'if'f3 lLlxeS! 1 4 'if'xa8 � b7 1 S �bS+ axbS 1 6 'if'a7 is un­ clear) 13 ... lt::lc 6 14 'iig4 looks like a very promising position for White. 1 2 exd6 .i.xd6 1 3 l2'le4 �e7 Black enters the complications. 13 ... �b7 14 lLlxd6+ 'if'xd6 1 S �e3 is a comfortable two bishops edge for White.

1 4 f5! It seems only natural to open up the po­ sition even more while Black is struggling to coordinate his forces. 1 38

1 4 . . . exf5! The only move. Take it from someone who's been through the experience; 14 ... e5? 1 S 'if'g4!, as in Sulskis-Emms, Gausdal 1 995, is truly awful for Black! 1 5 �f4 l2'le5 1 6 l2'lc3 1 6 lLlg3! looks strong, for example 16 ... g6 1 7 �xfS! gxfS 1 8 'if'dS f6 1 9 �xeS! (but not 19 'if'xa8? �b7!) 1 9 .. .fxeS 20 lLlxfS �xfS 21 .l:.xfS and White's attack is worth more than the extra piece. 1 6 . . . 0-0! The best, as is seen by the alternatives: a) 1 6...�d6?! 17 �bS+! axbS 18 lLlxbS �cS+ 19 ..ti>h 1 'if'c6 20 �xeS 0-0 21 lLlxcS bxcS and White has a clear advantage. b) 16...�e6? 1 7 �xfS! (1 7 �bS+? axbS 1 8 lLlxbS 'if'c4 19 �xeS 0-0 was unclear in Emms-Lund, England 1 997) 1 7...�xfS 1 8 �xeS! 'fixeS 1 9 :et and lLldS will be devas­ tating. 1 7 l2'ld5 �c5 + 1 8 'it>h 1 'i!fb7 1 9 .i.e2 l2'lbc6 20 1fe1 �e6 21 c4 llad8 22 l:l.d 1 'it>h8 23 1fc3 f6 24 l2'lxc5 bxc5 25 .i.e3

Black has survived the opening and still has that extra pawn. However, the position is still very unclear due to Black's weak pawns on cS and fS. 25 . . . 1fa7 26 l:td2 l:tfe8 27 l:tfd1 l:td7 28 h3 f4?! 29 .i.xf4 l2'ld4 30 �h5 l:tb8? 3 1 b4! �xd5 3 2 cxd5 lbd5 3 3 bxc5 l2'lec6 34 �xb8 'ilfxb8 35 �f3 l2'lxf3 36 'ilfxf3 1 -0

5 ttJ c 3 ik c 7

Game 54 Hanoman-Hellsten

.ixe3 1 2 �xe3 0-0 1 3 .:.ae1 .ib7 1 4 'iVg3 nfeS 1 5 f4 e5!

Stockholm 1996 1 e4 c5 2 ttJt3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 a6 5 ..td3 ttJt6 6 0-0 ikc7 7 ttJc3 ..tcs 8 .tel At first sight this looks like the most natural way to continue. By protecting the knight with a developing move, White man­ ages to keep it in the middle of the board where the action is. The problem, however, is that White will find it very difficult to make any progress without at some point offering the exchange of dark-squared bish­ ops (probably with lbb3) and that consid­ erably eases Black's task. In fact, after an exchange on e3 Black is effectively a tempo up on 5 .id3 i.c5 variations as he hasn't wasted a move with ... .ic5-a7.

8

d6 Sensibly defending the bishop on c5. The line S ... b5?! 9 lbdxb5! axb5 10 lLlxb5 'it'e5 1 1 i.xc5 'iVxc5 1 2 b4! �b6 13 e5 lbd5 1 4 lbd6+ 'ite7 1 5 'iVh5 g6 1 6 .ixg6! gave White a winning attack in lvanchuk­ J.Polgar, Monaco (rapid) 1 994, while S ... lbc6? is met very strongly by 9 lbdb5!. 9 ike2 !tJbd7 1 0 f4 Another example of perfect black strat­ egy can be seen in the game MotwaniBischoff, Groningen 1 990: 10 a4 b6 1 1 lLlb3

The e4-e5 break is prevented forever. Again the ... e6-e5 push is perfectly justified as Black remains in control of the crucial d5-squarc. Note that the elimination of dark-squared bishops helps Black. I f we inserted a white bishop on d2 and a Black one on e7 Black would be slightly more cramped. The game continued 1 6 f5 lLlcS 1 7 ne3 :adS 1 S �h4 h6 1 9 .l::.g3 'it f8! 20 nm �e7 21 nh3 d5! (the thematic central break; White now finds his major pieces arc offside) 22 exd5 e4 23 .:.e3 lbxb3 24 cxb3 'ir'c5 25 i.c4 lLlxd5 26 lLlxdS .ixd5 27 .ixd5 nxd5 2S f6 nd1 + 29 'it£2 �f5 + 30 'itg3 �e5+ 3 1 �f4 �xf4+ 32 'itxf4 nn + 33 'it>g4 l:!.xf6 and Black eventually won the ending.

. . .

1O

. . .

b5 1 1 !tJb3 1 39

Sicilian Kan

It's difficult to suggest anything else. White can hardly hope to achieve the e4-e5 break with his bishop blocking the e-ftle. 1 1 . . . i.xe3 + 1 2 tt'xe3 0-0 Black has a perfectly comfortable posi­ tion and in fact it's White who should be thinking about equalising. 1 3 h3?! e5! 1 4 .U.ae1 i.b7 1 5 a3 .l:f.fe8 1 6 f5 l:taca 1 7 l:tf2 d5! Model strategy. Black achieves his aim with this central push and now takes over the initiative. The end is now surprisingly swift.

1 8 lDxd5 i.xd5 1 9 exd5 e4! 20 .if 1 lDxd5 21 tt'd4 lD7f6 22 .l:f.fe2 e3 23 c3 .l:te4 24 tt'd 1 tt'g3 25 tt'c 1 .l:f.ce8 26 lDd4 lbt4 0-1

Game 55 Pikula-Cvitan

Bie/ 1 996 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 lDc3 tt'c7 6 i.d3 lDf6 7 0-0 d6 a f4 This position very often occurs via the Scheveningen move order 1 e4 c5 2 ltJ£3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 ltJf6 5 lLlc3 e6 6 f4 a6 7 ..td3 'ilic7 8 0-0. a . . . b5 Black develops his queenside to reach the ideal defensive set-up before castling. White also has to be on alert for ... b5-b4 ideas. Black's main alternative is to prepare to 140

castle first: 8 .....te7 9 �h1 (with the knight on d4 it's worth playing this to avoid ... 'i!ib6 ideas) 9 ... 0-0 10 'ilie2 (this isn't the only plan) 1 0 ... ltJbd7 1 1 i.d2 and now: a) 1 1 ...�e8 12 �aet ltJf8 1 3 e5 ltJ6d7

14 ltJd5! 'ilid8 (14 ... exd5 1 5 exd6 'ilixd6 1 6 ltJf5 'ilie6 17 'ili£3 'ilif6 18 i.c3 wins) 1 5 ltJxe7+ 'ilixe7 1 6 exd6 'ilixd6 1 7 ltJf5 'ilic7 1 8 ..tc3 f6 1 9 'ilih5 'illd8 20 ltJxg7! �xg7 21 �e3 ltJg6 22 .U.h3 ltJdf8 23 i.xg6 hxg6 24 'ilih8+ �f7 25 �h7+! ltJxh7 26 'ilixh7+ �f8 27 ..tb4+ 'ilie7 28 i.xe7+ �xe7 29 'ilihB+ �f7 30 �d1 1 -0 Manduch-Perman, correspondence 1 987. b) 1 1 . . .b5 12 �ae1 i.b7 1 3 e5!? (13 �f3 with the idea of �h3 also looks encouraging for White - the knight on d4 dissuades Black from playing ...e6-e5) 1 3. .. ltJd5 and now: b1) 14 'ilih5 g6 1 5 'ilih6 dxe5 1 6 ..txg6 (or 1 6 fxe5 ltJxe5 1 7 ltJxd5 ..txd5 1 8 i.c3 f6 and White couldn't find a good way to continue, Siklosi-Hubig, St Ingbert 1 987) 1 6 ...hxg6 1 7 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 8 'ilixg6+ �h8 looks like nothing more than a perpetual check. b2) 14 f5!? ltJxc3 1 5 ..txc3 ltJxe5 (15 ... dxe5? 16 fxe6 exd4 17 ..txh7+! wins) 1 6 fxe6 looked better for White in Malevin­ sky-Dragomarezkij, Kuibyshev 1 98 1 . The variation 8 ... ltJbd7 9 � h 1 b 5 1 0 'ilie2 i.b7 is an often-used move order to reach the text.

5 tiJ c 3 'i!t' c 7 9 'it>h 1 �b7 It's important to achieve some control over the long diagonal as soon as possible. The careless 9 ... i..e 7? runs into 10 e5! and now: a) 1 0 .. .'�Jd5 1 1 lLJxd5 exd5 1 2 e6 was aw­ ful for Black in Lau-Lutz, Graz 1 993. b) 10 ... lLJfd7 and now Ftacnik's 1 1 i..e4 d5 (1 1 ...i..b 7? 1 2 exd6 i..xd6 1 3 lLidxb5!) 1 2 i..x d5!? exd5 1 3 lLixd5 'iic 5 1 4 lLib3 'iic4 1 5 lLia5 looks very favourable for White. c) 1 0 ... dxe5 1 1 fxe5 and now: cl) 1 1 ...lLifd7 1 2 1Wf3 0-0 1 3 'iih 3 (1 3 'ifxa8?? i.. b7 1 4 'ifa7 i.xg2+) 1 3 ... h6 14 lLixe6 and White wins. c2 1 1 ...'iix e5 12 i.. f4 with a further split: c21) 1 2 ... 1Wh5 13 i..e2 'iic 5 (or 13 ... 1Wg6 1 4 i.. f3) 1 4 i.. f3 lLJd5 1 5 lLJxd5 exd5 1 6 lLJb3 'ifb6 1 7 i..x d5 i..b7 1 8 i..x f7+! 'ifi>xf7 19 i..c 7+ and White wins. c22) 1 2...1Wc5 1 3 \Wf3 1Wa7 (or 1 3 ... lLid5 1 4 lLJb3 'ifc6 1 5 i..xb8 llxb8 1 6 'ifxf7+) 1 4 i..e 3! 'ifb7 ( 1 4. . .i..b7 1 5 i..e4!) 1 5 i..e4 lLixe4 1 6 'ifxf7+ 'it>d8 1 7 llad1 and Black cannot hope to survive. 1 0 'i!t'e2 tiJbd7 1 1 �d2 �e7 1 2 b4! ?

This i s perhaps not the ftrst move that comes to mind but, despite weakening the queenside (in particular the c-ftle), it does have its merits. For a start ... b5-b4 is ruled out of the equation, while White prepares to attack on the queenside himself with a2-a4. Other ways to continue include:

a) 1 2 l:tael b4! (12...0-0 transposes to the note 'b' to Black's 8th move) 1 3 lLia4 (I prefer 1 3 lLid 1) 1 3 ... lLic5 14 lLixc5 dxc5 1 5 lLJb3 c4! 1 6 i..xc4 lLixe4 1 7 f5 exf5 1 8 .l:.xf5 0-0 and Black had no problems in Dvoirys­ Ribli, Bundesliga 1 992. b) 12 a3 (this looks sensible) 12 ... 0-0 1 3 llacl and now I think Black's strongest move is 1 3 ... l:.ad8!, preventing 14 e5 on account of 14 e5? dxe5 1 5 fxe5 'ifxe5! 1 6 'ifxe5 lLixe5 and the knight o n d 4 hangs. Instead, I believe that White should gradu­ ally build up a kingside attack with 1 4 l:tf3. 1 2 . . . 0-0 12 ... lLib6 13 a4 bxa4 14 b5!? axb5 1 5 i.xb5+ lLibd7 1 6 e 5 dxe5 1 7 fxe5 lLJd5 1 8 lLixd5 i..x d5 1 9 c4 i..b7 20 'iig4 'ifxe5 was very unclear in Kupreichik-Akesson, Berlin 1 987, but the simple 14 lLixa4 looks like an edge for White. 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 .l::txa4 tiJb6 1 5 .l:.aa 1 Also possible is 1 5 l:ta5 llfc8 1 6 e5 (Rohl-Bologan, New York 1 998) and now Rohl gives 1 6 ... lLJfd5! 1 7 lLJxd5 i..x d5 1 8 llxa6 llxa6 1 9 i..xa6 i.c4! and Black has some compensation for the pawn. 1 5 . . . d5!? 15 ...g6 1 6 i..xa6 llxa6 1 7 llxa6 e5 18 lLib3 i..xa6 1 9 'ifxa6 exf4 20 llxf4 llc8 21 'iffl ! left White a pawn ahead in the game Short-Seirawan, Arnhem 1 983. 1 6 e5

1 6 . . . tiJe4! 14 1

Sicilian Ka n

A necessary pawn sacrifice changes the complexion of the game. 1 6 ...lLlfd7? allows White to unleash a mating attack with 1 7 i.xh7+! (Cebalo) 1 7...'it>xh7 1 8 'iVh5+ 'it>g8 1 9 l:!.f3, for example 1 9 ... f6 20 l:!.g3! (Black's problem is that he cannot defend e6) 20 ... l:!.f7 21 l:th3 l:tff8 22 lLlxe6 'iVc6 23 lLld4 'iVc7 24 e6 and White wins. 1 7 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 8 ..txe4 ..txe4 1 9 'ii'xe4 'iifc4 20 c3 lLld5 21 l:.f3 l:.ac8 White is a pawn ahead but it will be very difficult to exploit this due to the bind that Black has on the queenside. I would say that Black has just enough play for the pawn to keep the balance. 22 h4 l:lfd8 23 l:ld3 g6 24 h5 ..tf8 25 l:.e1 lLle7 26 g4 lLlc6 27 ..te3 l:.d5 28 l:.ed1 a 5 29 bxa5 l:.xa5 30 'ii'f3 l:ld5 31 g5 lLle7 32 ..tf2 l:lcd8 33 lt>g2 lLlf5 34 hxg6 hxg6 35 'ii'h 3 lLlg7 36 J:!.h 1 lLlh5 37 l:!.f3 l:la5 38 'ii'g4 l:.da8? This allows White a very strong counter­ sacrifice. 38 ... l:td7 is best. 39 l:lxh5! gxh5 40 'it'xh5 .tta 1 41 g6 'ii'f 1 + 42 lt>g3 fxg6 43 'ii'x g6 + ..tg7 44 'ii'xe6 + lt>h7 45 'ii'f 5 + lt>g8 46 lLle6 l:.8a6 47 l:.d3 l:.d 1 48 l:.xd1 'ii'xd 1 49 lLlg5 1 -0

Game 56 Widenmann-Andersen

Com.rpondence 1985 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 lLlc3 'Wc7 6 ..td3 b5 Black has to be wary of playing both ... 'iVc7 and ... b 7-b5 very early on, especially when White develops very quickly, as in this game. 7 0-0 ..tb7 7 ... lLlf6!? may well be Black's best move here: a) 8 l:te 1 d6 9 a4 b4 1 0 lLla2 looks good for White, for example 1 0... d5? 1 1 exd5 lLlxd5 12 �e4 �b7 13 lLlxe6! and White Wins, Brustkern-Buech, Germany 1 997. 1 42

However, 8 ... �c5! looks stronger. After 9 lLlb3 �d6 we transpose to note 'a' to White's 9th move in Game 67. b) 8 'iVe2 will probably lead into a trans­ position to Game 55 after B .. �b 7 9 'it>h 1 (9 e5!?) �e7 10 f4 d6 or 8... d6 9 f4 �b7 1 0 �h l . c) 8 e5!? .

(a brutal attempt at a refutation, but...) 8...'iVxe5 9 'iVf3 d5 (9 ... �d6? 1 0 g3 l:!.a7 1 1 lLlf5 exf5 1 2 �f4 'iVc5 1 3 �xd6 'iVxd6 1 4 'iVe3+ was winning for White in Navarro­ Urday Caceres, Merida 1 997) 10 lLlfS!? and now: c1) 10 ... 'iVc7 (Mikhalevski-Finkel, I srael 1 997) and now Mikhalevski suggests 1 1 l:!.e 1 and 1 1 i.f4, both of which look very dan­ gerous. c2) 10 ... exf5 1 1 �f4. Now Mikhalevski gives the winning line 1 1 ...'ii'e 6? 1 2 l:!.ae1 lLle4 13 lLlxe4 fxe4 14 .ixe4 dxe4 1 5 l:txe4 but I can't find anything obvious for White after 1 1 ...'iVe7!, planning ... �e6. 8 .tte 1 ! I believe that in this variation White should forget about playing f2-f4 and con­ centrate instead on piece play, hoping to cash in on his obvious development advan­ tage. 8 . . . d6 Black has a multitude of alternatives but nothing totally convincing: a) 8 ... lLlf6 9 e5 lLld5 and now both 1 0

5 li:J c 3 'ii c 7

�d2 lDxc3 1 1 �xc3 lDc6 1 2 lDxc6 �xc6 1 3 1i'g4 (Tairnanov) and 1 0 lDxdS �xd5 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 1i'g4 look better for White. b) 8...�c5 9 �e3 lDf6? (9 ... lDe7 10 1i'h5 is also very good for White; 9 ...1i'b6 looks relatively best) 10 lDdxbS! axb5 1 1 lDxbS 'it'c6 12 �xc5 1i'xc5 1 3 e5 and now: b1) 1 3. .. .ic6 14 b4 1i'xb4 1 5 exf6 lDa6 16 fxg7 l:.g8 17 l:.b 1 gave White a clear advantage in Keres-Benko, Curacao 1 962. b2) 13 ... .ia6 (Idler-Feuerstein, corres­ pondence 1 990) and now I like 14 b4! 'it'b6 1 5 lDd6+ c;t>m 16 b5 �b7 17 lDxb7 1i'xb7 1 8 exf6 gxf6 1 9 a4. c) 8 ... lDc6 9 lDxc6 and now: cl) 9 ... �xc6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lDd5!. c2) 9 ... dxc6 10 e5 lDe7 reaches a position we will consider in Game 59 (1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 lDc3 1i'c7 6 �e2 b5 7 0-0 �b7 8 l:.e1 lDc6 9 lDxc6 dxc6 1 0 e5 lDe7 1 1 .id3) but with White to move instead of Black. Obviously this should be enough to give White some advantage. c3) 9 ...1i'xc6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lLJdS lDf6 12 �d2 lDxd5 (12...�c5 1 3 c4 bxc3 1 4 lDxf6+ gxf6 15 �xc3 was clearly better for White, Fernando-Strikovic, Odivelas 2000) 1 3 exd5 1i'c5 14 �e4 with a big plus for White, Tal­ Gipslis, Riga 1 958. d) 8 ...b4?! (as if White needed an invita­ tion!) 9 lDd5! exd5 1 0 exd5+ c;t>d8 (10... �e7 1 1 lDf5 c;t>f8 loses to 12 l:.xe7 lDxe7 13 d6)

now Kindermann gives 1 1 1i'h5! with the following lines: d1) 1 1 ...d6 12 �g5+ lDf6 13 �xf6+ gxf6 14 l:.e3 and l:.ae1 will be murderous, for example 1 4...l:tg8 1 5 l:tae1 1i'd7 1 6 1i'xh7 l:.g7 1 7 1i'h8. d2) 1 1 ...g6 1 2 1i'e2 �e7 1 3 �h6! lDxh6 14 1i'xe7+ c;t>c8 1 5 'ii'g S 1i'c5 16 lDf3 lDfS 1 7 �xf5 gxf5 1 8 l::ta d1 and it's unlikely that Black will survive. e) 8 ... �d6 9 1i'h5!? (9 lDf3, threatening �xb5, also looks good) 9 ... lDf6 10 1i'h4 lbc6 (or 1 0... �e7 1 1 e5 lDe4 1 2 1i'g4 lDxc3 13 1i'xg7!) 1 1 lDdxbS! axb5 12 lDxbS 1i'b8 1 3 lDxd6+ 'it'xd6 14 e5 lDxe5 1 5 1i'g3 �xg2 (15 ... 1:-aS 1 6 �f4 lDfg4 17 1i'xg4 was win­ ning for White in Nikitin-Shofman, Mos­ cow 1 966) 1 6 1i'xe5 'it'c6 1 7 1i'b5 and the queenside pawns will be very dangerous in the ending.

9 .i.g5 I also like the immediate 9 a4!?. 9 . .li:Jd7 Again Black has to tread very carefully: a) 9 ... h6 10 �h4 g5 (10... lDd7? loses to 1 1 lDxe6!) 1 1 �g3 .ig7 1 2 �xb5+! axb5 1 3 lDdxbS 'it'd7 1 4 1i'xd6! lDa6 1 5 'it'b6 �xc3 1 6 bxc3 c;t>e7 17 lDc7! and White is winning, Duenhaupt-Keller, correspondence 1 966. b) 9 ... �e7 10 �xe7 lDxe7 (10 ...1i'xe7 1 1 lDfS!) 1 1 �xb5+! axb5 1 2 lDdxbS 1i'b6 1 3 lDxd6+ c;t-[8 1 4 lDxb7 and White is winning, Bozic-Molerovic, Yugoslavia 1 966. .

(Kindermann-J .Polgar, Aruba 1 992) and

143

Sicilian Ka n

c) 9 ... lDf6 1 0 J..x f6 gxf6 t t lDdS! exdS 1 2 exdS+ '1fild8 1 3 'ii' £3 ! and now: cl) 1 3 ...lDd7 t 4 lDc6+! wins. c2) 13 ...J..e7 t 4 lDfS l:r.e8 t 5 lDxe7 l:r.xe7 t 6 'ii'xf6 J..x dS 1 7 J.. fS! (threatening 'ii'h 8+) t7 ... J..e6 t8 J..xe6 fxe6 t9 %:txe6 and White wins (Ciocaltea). c3) 1 3 ... f5 t 4 'ii'x fS i.g7 t S 'figS+ f6 t 6 lDe6+ and White won in Ghizdavu-Covaci, Romania t 970. 10 a4 10 lDdS!?, with similar variations to the next note, is also possible.

1 0 . . . bxa4 The main alternative is t O ... b4 and now: a) t t ltJdS!? exdS t2 exdS+ J..e7 (t2 ... lDe7 t3 J..xe7 J..xe7 t 4 lDfS lDeS t S lDxe7 transposes) t 3 lDfS lDeS t 4 lDxe7 lDxe7 15 i.xe7 'ii'x e7! (1 5 ... '1txe7 t6 f4 'ifcS+ t 7 'itht 'it'xdS t 8 'it'g4!? hS!? t 9 'ii'h 3! gave White an edge in Ghinda-Kirov, Timisoara t 987) t 6 f4 0-0! t 7 fxeS dxeS and now Ghinda assesses both t 8 d6 'ii'e 6 19 'ifd2 .:.adS 20 l:.ad t and t8 'ii'h S fS t 9 i.xfS g6 20 J..xg6 hxg6 2 t 'ii'xg6+ 'it'g7 22 'ii'e 6+ as unclear. b) Given that Black seems to be okay in the complications above, I prefer the sim­ pler t t lDa2!, giving Black headaches over his b-pawn. t l ...dS loses to t 2 exdS J..x dS 13 lDxe6! J..xe6 t4 l:r.xe6+ fxe6 t S 'ii'h S+, tt ... aS t 2 lDbS looks good for White, while t l ...lDgf6 t 2 lDxb4 'ii'c S (t2... d5 1 3 lDxdS 1 44

exdS t 4 exdS+ 'itd8 t S lDc6+!) 1 3 J..xf6 lDxf6 t 4 c3 J..e 7 t S 'ii'e 2 gave Black no real compensation for the pawn, Marciano­ Renet, Strasbourg t 992. 1 1 �xa4 lLlgf6 t l ...J..e 7 t2 i.xe7 lDxe7 t3 lDb3 0-0 14 'fiat gave Black problems with his isolated a-pawn in Zarnicki-Giardelli, Martinez Valle t 993. 1 2 �c4!? Really entering into the spirit of the game. I f White wants to be more mundane, then t2 J..x f6 lDxf6 1 3 'fiat looks good, for example t 3...a5? t4 J..b S+ lDd7 t S lDdS! exdS t6 exdS+ '1fild8 t7 l:r.c4 'ii'b6 t8 i.xd7 '1filxd7 t9 'ii'a4+ and White wins. 1 2 . . .'i!fb8 1 3 lLld5!?

1 3 . . .lLlxd5?? Black has to try 13 ... exd5! t 4 exdS+ lDeS! (t4 ... '1fild8 loses to t S lDc6+ J..xc6 t6 dxc6 lDcS 17 J..x f6+ gxf6 t 8 'it'£3 ri;;c7 t 9 'ii'x f6) t S f4 J..x dS and although I would still much rather be White, I can't find anything too devastating. 1 4 exd5 i.xd5 1 5 lLlxe6! i.xe6 1 6 .l:xe6 + fxe6 1 7 'i!fh5 + g6 1 8 'i!fxg6 + hxg6 1 9 i.xg6 mate I 1 -01

Game 57 Barash-Batakovs

Correspondence 1 983 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6

5 li:J c 3 'W c 7

5 li:Jc3 'Wc7 6 .i.d3 li:Jc6 7 li:Jxc6 bxc6 The alternative recapture 7 ... dxc6 will be studied in the next game. 8 0-0 li:Jf6

This position often arises from the Tai­ manov Sicilian via the move order 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 lDc6 5 ltJc3 a6 6 ltJxc6 bxc6 7 i.d3 "fic7 (7 ... d5 is more usual) 8 0-0 lDf6. 9 iie2 d5 1 0 .i.g5 .i.b7 1 1 f4 .i.e7 1 2 e5 li:Jd7 1 3 .i.xe7 �xe7

pawn with 1 5... d4 although I still prefer White after 16 lDf2!, planning Jie4 and t2Jd3. 1 6 .i.xc4 g6 1 7 .U.c1 h5 1 8 li:Je3 .U.hd8 1 9 llce1 !

1 9 . . .li:Jf8? ! Barash suggests 1 9 ... t2Jb6 as an un­ provement. 20 f5! After this White gets a very strong attack. 20 . . . .i.e4 20 ... exf5 21 e6! fxe6 22 i.xe6 'rtxe6 23 lDxfS+ 'itd7 24 ltJe7! is very strong. 21 fxe6 fxe6 22 iif2 .i.f5 23 li:Jxf5 + exf5 24 .U.d 1 ! �e8 25 ..td5 .U.ab8 26 iih4 lld7 27 e6 .U.d6 28 .i.b3 .U.xb3 29 axb3 llxe6 30 iic4 iie7 3 1 .U.a 1 'Wd6 32 .U.a5 li:Jd7 33 .U.fa1 We5 34 .U.xa6 .U.xa6 35 Wxa6 Wd4 + 36 �h 1 li:Jf6 37 Wa4 + 1 -0

Game 58 Tiviakov-Milov 1 4 li:Jd1 ! ? A different move but with the same idea is 14 lDa4 cS 1 5 c4 d4 1 6 i.e4 Jixe4 17 "fixe4 g6 1 8 b3 aS 1 9 lDb2 hS 20 t2Jd3 and White's well-placed knight gives him the edge, Spassky-Petrosian, Palma de Mallorca 1 969. 14 . . . c5 1 5 c4 dxc4?! Black should create a protected passed

Groningen 1998 1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6 5 li:Jc3 Wc7 6 .i.d3 li:Jc6 7 li:Jxc6 dxc6 8 0-0 e5 This type of position can be compared to the one reached after 1 e4 cS 2 t2Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 Jid3 ltJc6 6 ltJxc6 dxc6 7 0-0 eS. On one hand, White's knight would normally prefer to go to d2 (as in Games 145

Sicilia n Ka n

46-47). On the other hand, Black's ...'ir'c7 is only semi-useful. Black would probably have preferred to use the tempo elsewhere. 9 f4 lbf6 Talking of comparisons, this position re­ sembles the one which arises after 1 e4 c5 2 lZJB e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lZJxd4 a6 5 .id3 lZJf6 6 0-0 'ir'c7 7 c4 lZJc6 8 lZJxc6 dxc6 9 f4 e5 (see Game 1 6). Here it is obvious that the devel­ oping lZJc3 is a better move than the weak­ ening c2-c4. 1 0 'it>h1

A good waiting move to see what Black is going to do with his dark-squared bishop. 10 fxe5?! lZJg4! is fine for Black. 1 o . . ..tds After the logical-looking 1 O ... .ic5 I like the idea of maintaining the tension with 1 1 'ir'e1 !?, for example 1 1 ...b5 1 2 a4 l:tb8 1 3 axb5 axb5 1 4 'it'g 3 lZJg4 1 5 f5 h5 1 6 h 3 .i b7 1 7 lZJd 1 ! f6 1 8 lZJe3 lZJxe3 1 9 .ixe3 i.xe3 20 'ii'xe3 and White was doing very well in Christiansen-Kekelidze, New York 2000. 1 1 f5 b5 1 2 a4 .i.b7! 12 ...b4?! gives away the c4-square White can re-route his knight via b 1 and d2. The move 1 2... l:tb8, however, looks play­ able and is the way forward if Black doesn't fancy entering the labyrinth of complica­ tions in this game. 1 3 axb5 ! ? I f White wishes t o play more positionally, he can try 1 3 'ii'e 2 followed by moving the

c3-knight and playing c2-c4. 1 3 . . . axb5 14 llxa8 + .i.xa8

1 5 .i.xb5! ? Now the game becomes extremely com­ plicated. 1 5 . . . cxb5 1 6 lbxb5 'iic 6 1 7 'iix d6 1 7 lZJxd6+? <j;;e7 traps the knight on d6. 1 7 . . .'iix b5 1 8 lld 1 ! From this point on, Black has to play a series of only moves to stay in the game. 1 8 . . . lbd7 1 9 .i.g5 f6 20 'iie6 + 'it>d8 20 .. .'itf8? 21 c4! 'ir'a4 22 b3 'ii'c 6 23 l:txd7 'ii'xe6 24 fxe6 is winning for White.

.

146

21 c4 The main alternative 21 i.xf6+!? gxf6 22 'ii'x f6 + �c7 23 'ii'x h8 i.xe4 is unclear as Black has serious counterplay against g2 (he already threatens ... i.xg2+). 21 . . .'iic 6 22 lld6 'iia 4 Black has to keep queens on. 22 ... l:te8 23

5 l"O c3 �c 7 �xc6 �xe6 24 �xe6 fxg5 25 b4! .ixe4 26 c5 is probably a winning ending for White. 23 �e3! So that the bishop can protect the white king. Now b2-b3 is a major threat. 23 . . .�c7 24 b3 �a 1 + 25 �g1 :d8

while 8 lt:\b3 is met by 8 ... .ie7, followed by the usual Kan development. 7 0-0 An alternative for White is 7 f4 .ib7 8 .if3 lt:\c6 and now: a) 9 lt:\xc6 .ixc6 1 0 0-0 (10 .ie3 .ie7 is equal - Eingorn) 10 0-0 .ic5+ 1 1 �hl b4 1 2 lt:\e2 ltJf6 1 3 lt:\g3 h5! and Black has a dangerous counter-attack on the kingside, Aagaard-Mortensen, Copenhagen 1 997. b) 9 i.e3 l:tc8 10 lt:\b3 lt:\a5! 1 1 lt:\xa5 'iixa5 12 1i'd3 ltJf6 13 0-0 b4 1 4 lt:\d t 'iic7 15 �cl 'iic4! with equality, Hort-Eingorn, Dortmund 1 988. 7 . . �b7 .

26 l:txd7 + After this move the game ends in White giving perpetual check. Tiviakov gives an alternative line in which it is Black who ends up giving the perpetual: 26 l:ta6 1i'dt 27 c5 .ixe4 28 �a7+ �b8 29 c6 i.xg2+ 30 �xg2 1i'g4+ 3 1 �f1 1Wdt + 32 �g2 1i'g4+. 26 .. J:txd7 27 �b6 + 'it>c8 28 �c5 + �b8 29 �b5 + % - % The black king cannot escape the checks after 29 ... l:tb7 30 1i'e8+ �c7 31 1i'e7+ �c8 32 1i'e8+.

Game 59 Midoux-Eingorn

Metz 2000 1 e4 c5 2 l"Of3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l"Oxd4 a6 5 l"Oc3 �c7 6 �e2 b5 I will just mention that Black can also play more conservatively with 6 ... lt:\f6 7 0-0 and now: a) 6 ....ib4 8 1i'd3 lt:\c6 9 �h 1 ! transposes to a well known line of the Sicilian Taimanov. b) 7 ....ic5!?, playing as in Games 5 1 -54, keeps a Kan flavour. 8 .ie3 is met by 8 ... d6

8 1:1e 1 Preparing to liberate White's pieces with the e4-e5 advance. The alternative is 8 .if3 lt:\c6 and now: a) 9 �el .id6! 1 0 g3 lt:\xd4 1 1 'iixd4 .ie5 1 2 1i'd3 lt:\e7 and Black has equalised, Panchenko-Miles, Las Palmas 1 978. b) 9 lt:\xc6 dxc6 with a further split: bl) The pawn sacrifice 10 e5?! was intro­ duced by a very young Garry Kasparov against Lev Polugaevsky back in 1 978. Kas­ parov won a great game but time has found the antidote to this idea: 1 0 ...1i'xe5 1 1 �e 1 1i'd6! 1 2 .igS 1i'xdl 13 �axdl .ie7 1 4 .ixe 7 �xe7 1 5 lt:\e4 lt:\f6 1 6 lt:\cS �ab8 1 7 �e3 lt:\d5 1 8 �a3 .ic8 1 9 lt:\xa6 �aS 20 ltJcS lha3 21 bxa3 f5 with a clear black advantage, Arzumanian-Moroz, Marganets 147

Sicilian Kan

1 999. b2) 10 a4 tt::l f6 1 1 l:te 1 eS gives a rather dull equality, G.Garcia-Zapata, Yopal 1 997. 8 lLlc6 9 lLlxc6 Or 9 i. fl ! ? and now: a) 9 ...b4?! 10 ltJdS! �dB (10 ... exdS 1 1 tt::lx c6! dxe4 1 2 .l:he4+ tt::le 7 1 3 .lhe7+! i.xe7 14 tt::lxe7 �eS 1 S �g4! [Oil] leaves Black in trouble) 1 1 i. f4 l:tcB (or 1 1 ...eS 1 2 tt::lxc6 dxc6 1 3 i.xeS cxdS 1 4 exdS) 1 2 tt::lxc6 l:txc6 1 3 �d2 tt::l f6 1 4 l:tad 1 i.cS 1 S tt::lxb4 l:tcB 1 6 i.gS and White was clearly better in 011-Movsesian, Polanica Zdroj 1 996. b) 9 ...tt::l f6! 10 tt::lxc6 �xc6 1 1 eS b4 1 2 tt::le 2 tt::ld S 1 3 a 3 �b6 1 4 axb4 i.xb4 1 S c3 i.cS 16 tt::ld4 0-0 was equal in Sareen­ Vyzmanavin, Calcutta 1 992. 9 dxc6 . . .

White, Kamsky-Lutz, Dortmund 1 993. b) 1 1 ...0-0-0 (this is risky but maybe okay) 12 a4 cS 1 3 axbS c4 14 bxa6 i.c6! with massive complications in Marciano­ Korneev, Ubeda 1 996. 1 1 i.d3 c5

. . .

10 e5! This is the point behind B .l:.et . White gains space on the kingside and gives him­ self the opportunity to use the e4-square. Now B ... �xeS?! 9 ..txbS is favourable for White as Black is left with split pawns on the queenside. 1 0 J1d8 The main alternative for Black here is 10 ... tt::\e7 1 1 i.d3 and now: a) 1 t ...l:tdB 1 2 i.gS (12 �e2?! cS 13 i.gS h6 1 4 �hS l:td4 was nice for Black in Dirni­ trov-Vyzmanavin, Elenite 1 993) 1 2... h6 1 3 �hS l:td7 1 4 a4 b 4 1 S tt::le4 and I prefer . .

148

12 'i'h5 White must move the queen to avoid bishop-winning ... cS-c4. 1 2 �e2?! tt::le7 transposes to Dirnitrov-Vyzmanavin above, but 12 �g4!? is an enticing alternative: a) 12 ... tt::\e 7 13 i.gS l:td4 14 �g3 tt::lc 6 (or 14 ... c4 1 S i.xe7 cxd3 1 6 i.xf8 'iti>xf8 1 7 cxd3 �dB 1 B l:ted1 fS 1 9 exf6 gxf6 20 tt::le2 l:td6 21 �h4 .l:.gB 22 tt::lg3 and Black doesn't have enough play for the pawn, Nataf­ Zapata, Havana 2002) 1 S a4 b4 1 6 tt::le4 c4 17 i.ft tt::lx eS 1B tt::l f6+ gxf6 1 9 ..txf6 l:tg4 20 �xeS �xeS 21 l:txeS and Black has more weaknesses in this endgame, A.Kovacevic-Pavlovic, Herceg Novi 200 1 . b) 1 2. . .l:td4 1 3 i.e4!? i.xe4! (13...�xeS?? loses to 14 i.f4 �f6 1 S i.gS, while 1 3 . .. b4? 1 4 �£3! ..txe4 1 S tt::lxe4 �xeS 16 c3! l:tdS 17 tt::l f6+! 1 -0 was the finish to the game Bezgodov-Pugachov, Petropavlovsk 1 999) 14 l:txe4 (14 tt::lxe4!? �xeS 1 S c3 l:tdS 1 6 i.f4 gives White some play for the pawn) 1 4... �xeS! 1 S i.e3! l:txe4 1 6 �xe4 �xe4 1 7 tt::lxe4 tt::l f6 1 B tt::\xcS i.xcS 1 9 i.xcS (Bez­ godov) when White has probably got a minute endgame advantage. 1 2 g6!? . . .

5 li:J c 3 'ik c 7

This relatively new move may well be Black's best choice. 12 ... lLle7 13 .i.g5 l1d7 14 11adl lLlc6 1 5 .i.e4 lLld4 1 6 �xb7 'ii'xb7 17 l:.d2 was a little bit better for White, Kuczynski-Lau, Polanica Zdroj 1 99 1 . 1 3 'ikh3 13 'ii'e 2 .i.g7 14 a4 b4 1 5 lLlbt lLle7 (1 5 ... c4!? 16 .i.xc4 'ii'x e5 is another option) 1 6 lLld2 lLlf5 1 7 lLlc4 lLld4 1 8 'iVg4 0-0 1 9 .i.gS 11d5 was equal i n Garma-Miezis, Cal­ cutta 200 1 . 1 3 . . . ..tg7 1 4 ..tg5 li:Je7 1 5 ..tf6 0-0

1 6 'ikh4? After this move White gets into a tangle. I prefer the more direct t 6 lZJe4 and now: a) 16 ... c4 17 lLlg5! h6 18 lLlxe6! fxe6 1 9 'ii'x e6+ 11 f7 20 .i.xg6 lLlxg6 21 i.xd8 lZJf8 22 .i.xc7 lLlxe6 23 .i.d6 is difficult to assess but I think I prefer White's rook and pawns to the two minor pieces. b) Eliminating the knight is the best solu­ tion: 1 6 ... �xe4! 17 .i.xe4 l:.d4 and I think this position is level. 1 6 . . J:td4! 1 7 f4 li:Jf5 1 8 ..txf5 exf5 Now White will have problems along the long h l -aB diagonal. His next move only compounds his worries. 1 9 ..te7? l:te8 20 ..td6 'ikc6 21 'ikg3 Now was not the time to realise that 21 11e2 loses to 2t ...l:txd6!. 21 . . J:txf4! Simply winning a pawn. White's position falls apart.

22 h3 l:td4 23 l:tad 1 l:txd 1 24 li:Jxd 1 l:te6 25 li:Jf2 c4 0-1

Game 60 Docx-Van der Linden

Belgian League 1 996 1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6 5 li:Jc3 'ikc7 6 g3 b5 Zeller makes a good case for the re­ strained fianchetto with 6 ... b6!? and if White adopts the same strategy as against 6 ... b5, then certainly Black is better off, for exam­ ple 7 .i.g2 .i.b7 8 0-0 d6 9 l::te 1 lZJd7 1 0 .i.g5 (there i s n o a2-a4 strike here) 10 ...lLlgf6 1 1 lLldS!? exdS 1 2 exd5+ and now: a) 1 2... lZJeS 13 f4 0-0-0!? 14 fxe5 dxe5 1 5 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 6 'ii'g4+ 'iti>b8 1 7 lZJc6+ ..txc6 1 8 dxc6 hS and White is just a little bit bet­ ter, An.Fernandes-Hodgson, Almada 1 988. b) 12 ... 'iti>d8 1 3 lLlc6+ i.xc6 14 dxc6 lLlc5 and with the black b-pawn safe on b6 rather than b4, this position is genuinely unclear, although I still believe most players would prefer to play White (compare with the note to Black's 1 5th move) . 7 ..tg2 ..tb7 8 0-0 d6 After this move I suspect that Black is really struggling to find a playable line, so it's here that alternatives should be consid­ ered: a) 8 ... lLlc6 9 net and now: at) 9 ... ..te7 t o lLlxc6 'ii'xc6 1 1 lZJd5! d6 (l l ...exdS 12 exd5 'ii'd6 13 ..tf4 and d5-d6 wins) 12 'ii'g4 �f8 13 lLlxe7 lZJxe7 14 i.d2 with an advantage to White, Gipslis­ Vooremaa, Tallinn 1 98 1 . a2) 9 . . .d 6 1 0 a4 lLlxd4 (1 0. . .b4 1 1 lZJdS!) 1 1 'ii'xd4 e5 1 2 lZJd5! 'ii'd7 (or 12 ... 'ii'xc2 1 3 ir'b6!) 1 3 'ii'b 6 ..txdS 1 4 cxd5 bxa4 1 5 l1c4 and Black will lose both his a-pawns, Vogt­ Gerusel, Leipzig 1 975. b) 8...b4!? and now: bl) 9 lLla4 lLlf6 1 0 l:.et d6 1 1 ..td2 lLlc6 12 c3 bxc3 1 3 ..txc3 was just a little better 149

Sicilian Kan

for White, Joppen-Eising, Bad Pyrmont 1 96 1 . b2) 9 tt::ld 5!? i s obviously critical, al­ though I can find no examples of this move: 9 ... exd5 10 exd5 i.c5 1 1 l:tet + Wf8 and clearly White has a lot going for him. However, it would be premarure to say Black is lost and he still has that extra piece! c) 8 ... tt::l f6 9 :et b4 10 tt::ld 5!? (10 tt::la4 transposes to note 'b 1 ') 1 O ... exd5 1 1 exd5+ Wd8 (t t ...i.e7 loses to 1 2 l:txe7+! Wxe7 1 3 d6+) 12 ..ig5 'ii'b 6! 1 3 tt::l f5!? h6 and again White has masses of compensation but nothing deadly, Kallai-Bako, Hungary 1 980. It's obvious, though, that it takes a very brave player to take this on with the black pieces. d) One final idea for Black is 8 ... i.c5, in­ tending 9 tt::lb3 i.e7. Instead I prefer 9 i.e3 tt::le 7 10 a4!, intending to answer 10 ... b4? with 1 1 tt::ld b5! axb5 12 tt::lxb5 'ii'c6 13 i.xc5 'ii'x c5 14 tt::ld 6+ and White wins. 9 .l:!.e 1

9 lt:lf6 Black has rwo main alternatives, but nothing that promises a comfortable game: a) 9 ... i.e7 and now: at) 10 a4 (the easy option) 10 ... b4 1 1 tt::la2 tt::l f6 1 2 ..id2! (12 tt::lxb4 d5! is unclear) 1 2... a5 1 3 tt::lb 5 'ii'c 6 14 c3 bxc3 1 5 .ixc3 and White is better. a2) 10 'ii'g4!? is more ambitious: a21) 10 ... i.f6 1 1 e5!? (Yakovich) . . .

1 50

1 1 ...dxe5 (or t t ...i.xe5 1 2 l:txe5!) 1 2 tt::ld xb5! axb5 1 3 tt::lxb5 'ii'b 6! (13. ..'ii'a 5 loses to 14 tt::ld 6+ Wf8 1 5 b4) 14 i.xb7 l:ta5! 1 5 a4 l:txb5 1 6 axb5 'ii'xb7 1 7 c4 and White's queenside pawns give him the advantage. a22) 1 O .. h5? 1 1 'ii'xg7! (but not Yakovich's 1 1 tt::lxe6? as Black has the un­ likely 'desperado' resource 1 1 ...'ii'x c3!) t t ...i.f6 12 tt::lx e6! 'ii'e 7 13 i.g5!! and White wins after 1 3 .. .fxe6 14 i.xf6 or 1 3 ...'ii'xe6 1 4 i.xf6 'ii'x f6 1 5 'ii'xf6 tt::lxf6 1 6 e5!. a23) 1 0 ...g6 11 i.g5!? (angling for com­ plications) 1 1 ... h5 12 'ii'h4 and now: a23 1) 12 ...e5 1 3 tt::ld 5! i.xd5 14 exd5 Wf8 (14 ... exd4 1 5 l:te2!) 1 5 tt::lc 6 tt::lxc6 1 6 dxc6 i.xg5 17 'ii'xg5 and White's strong c6-pawn guarantees an advantage, Yakovich-Roeder, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 995. a232) 12 ... f6!? 13 i.e3! (13 i.d2 'ii'c4!) 1 3. .. g5 14 'ii'h 3 (14 tt::lxe6 is again met by the hard-to-see 1 4... 'ii'xc3!) 14 ...g4 1 5 'ii'h4 'ii'd7 1 6 h3 b4 1 7 tt::lce2 f5 1 8 i.g5 and Black's position is on the verge of collapse. b) 9 ... tt::ld7 and now: b 1) 1 0 i.g5 with a further split: b 1 1) 1 o ... tt::lgf6 transposes to the text. b 1 2) 10 ... h6? 1 1 tt::lx e6!. b 1 3) 10 ...i.e7 1 1 i.xe7 tt::lxe7 1 2 tt::ld xb5!. b 1 4) I can't find any examples of 10 ...tt::le 5!?. It all looks incredibly risky, but I can't find a devastating response. b2) 10 a4! b4 1 1 tt::la2! (1 1 tt::ld 5 is possi­ ble, of course, but 1 1 tt::la2 leads to a clear advantage) 1 1 ...a5 (t t ...tt::lgf6 12 tt::lxb4 d5 1 3 tt::lx d5! looks good) 12 c3 bxc3 13 tt::lxc3 tt::lgf6 14 tt::lcb5 'ii'b 8 1 5 i.g5 and White was better in Kupreichik-A.Petrosian, Lvov 1 988. Plenry of different variations but the out­ come always seems to be the same. Black either gets hit by some tt::ld 5 tactic or ends up worse in a positional way. 1 0 .i.g5 10 a4! is probably even stronger as it cuts down Black's options: 10 ... b4 1 1 tt::ld 5 exd5 .

5 liJ c 3 �c 7

1 2 exdS+ 'ito>d8 1 3 i.gS and now: a) 1 3 ... liJbd7 transposes to the text. b) 1 3 ... i.c8 14 i.xf6+ gxf6 1 5 'ii'h S .l:ta7 16 .l:te4 i.g7 17 .l:tae1 'ii'c S 18 'ii'e 2 i.d7 1 9 liJb3 'ii'b 6 20 a S 'ii'b S 21 'ii'e3 .l:tc7 22 'ii'f4 .l:te8 23 'ii'xd6 l:he4 24 nxe4 'ito>c8 25 i.ft and White won, Quinones-Higashishiba, Siegen 1 970. c) 13 ... 'ii'c4 14 c3! (opening yet another front) 14 ... b3 (falla-Votava, Lazne Boh­ danec 1 999) and now 1 5 'ii'h S! is crushing: 1 5 ... 'ii'c 7 16 'ii'h4 liJbd7 17 ltJc6+ 'ito>c8 1 8 i.xf6 ltJxf6 1 9 i.h3+ and White wins. 1 0 . . . liJbd7 Or 10 ... i.e7 1 1 i.xf6! gxf6 (1 1 ...i.xf6 1 2 ltJdxbS!) 1 2 'ii'h S and now 1 2. . .'ii'c 5 i s an­ swered by 1 3 ltJxe6!. 1 1 a4 b4 1 1 ...bxa4 12 liJdS! reaches very similar variations. 1 2 liJdS! exd5 1 3 exd5 +

This loses easily. Black's last chance was 1 5 ... ltJcS although after 1 6 i.xf6+ gxf6 17 'ii'd4 i.e7 1 8 'iixb4 .l:te8 1 9 'ii'd 4 ltJe6 20 'ii'e4 aS 21 c3 .l:tb8 22 b4 (R.Byrne, Mednis) White's queenside pawns should eventually be decisive. 1 6 �d4 ..te7 1 7 l::!.xe7 !
20 �xf6! h6 2 1 �dB + �xd8 22 ..txdB f5 23 ..td5 h5 24 c7 l::!.a 7 25 �e6 .:taB 26 ..txf5 <j;f7 27 ..te6 + h6 40 <j;f2 1 -0

Game 6 1 Waitzkin-I. Gurevich 1 3 . . .'li'd8 More resilient is 13 ... ltJeS! 14 f4 and now: a) 1 4 ... ltJxd5? 1 5 liJfS! 'it'cS+ 1 6 'ito>h1 f6 1 7 fxeS fxgS 1 8 exd6+ �d7 1 9 liJd4! 'iixd6 20 .l:te6 'ii'c S 21 .l:teS! (21 liJb3 also wins) 21 ...liJe3 22 l:!.xe3 i.xg2+ 23 'ito>xg2 'ii'd S+ 24 liJf3! 'iix d1 25 :xd1 + �c7 26 ltJxg5 and White has a winning endgame, Shabalov­ Benjamin, Las Vegas 1 993. b) 1 4 ... liJfd7! (Benjamin) limits the dam­ age to just a clear plus for White! 1 4 liJc6 + ..txc6 1 5 dxc6 liJb6?

New York 1 994 1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6 5 liJc3 �c7 6 g3 �b4 A much safer move than 6 ... b5. Black can also play 6 ... liJf6 7 i.g2 i.b4 8 ltJde2, reaching the same position. 7 liJde2 Or 7 i.d2 liJf6 8 i.g2 ltJc6 and now: a) 9 ltJxc6 is not a particularly inspiring move. Play continues 9 ...dxc6 1 0 0-0 0-0 and now: a1) 1 1 f4 .l:td8 1 2 'ii'e2 bS 1 3 l:tad1 i.b7 151

Sicilian Ka n

1 4 a3 i.f8 1 5 e5 tLld5 1 6 tLle4 c5 1 7 c4 tLle7 1 8 tLld6 i.xg2 1 9 'ifxg2 tLlf5 20 tLlxf5 exf5 was a shade better for Black, Popovic­ Cvitan, Vrsac 1 987. a2) 1 1 'ife2 e5 12 tLld5!? tLlxd5 13 exd5 i.xd2 14 'ifxd2 cxd5 1 5 'ifxd5 l:td8 16 'ifb3 l:tb8 was dull and level in Plaskett-Cvitan, Geneva 1 988. b) 9 tLlb3 i.e7 (now that the knight has been driven back, the bishop heads back to a more familiar square) 1 0 f4 d6 1 1 0-0 b5 12 a3 i.b7 13 Wh 1 0-0 14 g4 d5 and now: b 1) 1 5 e5?! tLld7 1 6 g5 l:tfd8 1 7 tLle2 d4! was good for Black in Peng Xiaornin­ Z.Almasi, FIDE World Ch., Las Vegas 1 999. b2) Almasi gives 15 exd5 tLlxd5 16 tLlxd5 exd5 as unclear. Note that 1 7 i.xd5 would be very greedy given the vulnerable white king. 1 7 ...tLld4! looks like a good reply. 7 . . .tLlf6 8 .i.g2 i.e7 Once again, having displaced a knight from the centre, the bishop returns to e7. 9 0-0 0-0

1 0 h3 The first step in an eventual pawn storm. White does, however, have other ways of treating the position: a) 1 0 tLlf4 d6 1 1 g4 tLlc6 1 2 g5 tLld7 1 3 tLld3 b5 14 f4 b 4 1 5 tLle2 (Timman-Piket, Amsterdam [4th match game] 1 995) and Timman suggests 1 5 ... a5!?, intending ... i.a6. b) 10 b3 d6 1 1 i.b2 tLlc6 12 h3 b5 1 3 a3 1 52

l:tb8 14 'ifd2 l:td8 1 5 tLlf4 i.d7 1 6 tLld 1 tLle5 1 7 tLld3 i.c6 was level in Kalegin­ Razuvaev, Elista 1 995. 10 . . .tLlc6 1 1 g4 d6 1 2 g5 White can also restrain Black's play on the queenside with 1 2 a4, for example 12 ... l:tb8 13 g5 tLld7 14 f4 l:te8 1 5 f5 i.f8 and now: a) 1 6 tLlf4 tLlde5 1 7 'ifh5 i.d7 1 8 i.e3 b5 19 axb5 axb5 20 Wh 1 b4 21 tLld1 l:ta8 was unclear in Peng Xiaornin-Dizdarevic, Mos­ cow 1 994. b) 16 b3? (this is too slow) 16 ... b5 1 7 axb5 axb5 1 8 i.b2 b 4 1 9 tLlb1 tLlce5 20 tLld4 tLlc5 and Black has taken over the operation, Brinck Claussen-Emms, Copen­ hagen 1 995. c) During the game I was concerned about the variation 16 h4 b5 17 axb5 axb5 18 h5 b4 19 g6 as 19 ... bxc3 20 gxf7+ Wxf7 21 fxe6+ Wxe6 loses to 22 lLlf4+, but 19 ... tLlf6 seems to hold everything together. 1 2 . . . tLld7 1 3 tLlg3? ! I think it's too early to decide where this knight should go. It may, after f2-f4-f5, find the f4-square more accommodating. For this reason, I believe White should first push on with the f-pawn: 13 f4 b5 14 a3 .:tb8 1 5 f5 .:te8! (preparing ... i.f8) 16 Wh1 tLlce5 17 tLlf4 i.f8 18 tLlce2 tLlc5 19 tLlg3 b4 and Black has sufficient counterplay, Browne-Enklaar, Amsterdam 1 972. 1 3 . . . b5 14 h4 1:1e8 1 5 h5

5 ltl c 3 'ii c l

1 5 . . . g6! Now the knight on g3 has litde future. 1 6 f4 b4 1 7 ltlce2 i.b7 1 8 b3?! The beginning of a faulty plan. 1 8 ..te3 is stronger. 1 8 . . ..l:l.ac8 1 9 ..ib2? e5! Suddenly the gS-pawn is a major weak­ ness. If this goes then White's whole posi­ tion can easily collapse. 20 ..ih3 exf4 21 ltlxf4 ltlce5! 22 hxg6 hxg6

23 ltlxg6! ? White heads for complications, which in the long run are good for Black. However, normal play leads to a comfortable black advantage, e.g. 23 ..txeS tt'lxeS 24 ..txc8 .l:txc8 25 tt'ldS .ixdS 26 exdS ..txgS 27 tt'le4 ..te3+ (Gurevich) and Black is in control. 23 . . . fxg6 24 ..ie6 + h7 25 'iig4 ..ixg5! 25 ... tt'lxg4? 26 .l:t£7+ gives perpetual. 26 'ifh3 + ..ih6 27 lOtS gxf5 28 ..ixf5 + 'it>g7 29 'ifg4 + �h8 30 'ifh4 'ifc5 + 3 1 �h 1 'ife3 32 ..i c 1 ltlg6! 3 3 ..ib2 + �g8 34 ..ixg6 i.xe4 + 35 �h2 l:l.xc2 + 0- 1

on the e4-pawn and, as 6 f4 doesn't develop a piece, Black doesn't have to be worried about his development lagging. 7 ..id3 i.b7

8 'iff3 Supporting e4 and giving White the op­ tion of casding queenside. Alternatively: a) 8 a3 tt'lf6 (8 ... tt'lc6 9 tt'lxc6 'ii'xc6 is a reasonable line of the Taimanov, where White's a2-a3 is not particularly critical) 9 'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 1 0 tt'lf3 b4 1 1 axb4 tt'lxb4 1 2 0-0 ..te7 1 3 Wh1 0-0 was equal in Hector­ Agrest, Skelleftea 1 999. b) 8 'ii'e 2 b4 (keeping a Kan flavour; 8 ... tt'lc6 9 tt'lxc6 'ii'xc6 would transpose into a line of the Taimanov) 9 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 1 0 eS tt'ldS 11 tt'l£2 tt'lc6 1 2 tt'lf3 ..te7 13 ..td2 d6 and Black was comfortable in Masserey­ Gavrikov, Biel 1 994. c) 8 0-0?! walks into a pin with 8 ...-tcS!

Game 62 Tolnai-Sjoberg

Zalakaros 1992 1 e4 c5 2 ltlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6 5 ltlc3 'ifc7 6 f4 b5! In my opinion this is a good move against 6 f4. Black can apply early pressure 1 53

Sicilian Kan

and now: c1) 9 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!f6 1 0 eS 'ii'c 6! 1 1 l:tf2 tt:'!g4! 12 tt:'!xc6 tt:'!xf2 13 'ii' f1 tt:'!xc6 and Black will come out with a material advantage. c2) 9 i.e3 'ii'b6 1 0 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!f6 1 1 eS tt:'!g4 1 2 'ii'd2 tt:'!c6 1 3 c3 d6! 1 4 b4? (1 4 exd6 l:td8 is more resolute although Black is still bet­ ter) 1 4... i.xd4 1 S i.xd4 tt:'!xd4 16 cxd4 dxeS 17 fxeS tt:'!xeS and Black has won a pawn, Gardner-Stoutenborough, Ventura 1 971 . 8 . .lbf6 9 .tel lL!c6! Black can reach a Scheveningen structure with 9 ... d6 but in this instance I think it's worth keeping this option open. Black may have a use for that bishop on f8 (see move 1 3!). 1 0 0-0-0 Again White has an important choice: a) 10 0-0 tt:'!aS! 1 1 �h 1 ?! (1 1 tt:'!b3 is stronger) 1 1 ...tt:'!c4 12 i.cl i.cS 13 tt:'!de2 tt:'!d6! 14 a3 aS! and White's d-pawn came under severe pressure in Martin Gonzalez­ Jansa, Biel 1 98S. b) 10 tt:'!b3 dS! (10 ... d6 would transpose into a line of the Scheveningen, but this is a case of two squares are better than one) 1 1 exdS (1 1 eS d4 1 2 exf6 dxc3 1 3 0-0-0 cxb2+ 14 �xb2 tt:'!b4 1 S 'ii' f2 gxf6 gave Black a clear plus in Popov-Miladinovic, Korinthos 1 999) 1 1 ...tt:'!b4! 1 2 i.d4 tt:'!xd3+ 1 3 'ii'xd3 tt:'!xdS 14 tt:'!xdS i.xdS 1 S 0-0 l:td8 and Black was slightly better in Duric-Cebalo, Bjelovar 1 979. c) 10 g4 (threatening g4-gS but ... ) 1 O ... hS! 1 1 gS tt:'!g4 12 i.gl tt:'!xd4 13 i.xd4 eS 1 4 fxeS i.cS 1 S e 6 dxe6 1 6 i.xg7 l:tg8 1 7 i.f6 tt:'!xf6 1 8 gxf6 'ii'e S 1 9 0-0-0 i.d4 and Black .

1 54

was 1n control, Tolnai-Eingorn, Vienna 1 99S. 1 o . . .lL!a5!? Unleashing the b7-bishop and setting up a devilish trap. 1 0 ... b4 1 1 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!aS 1 2 g4 dS 1 3 eS tt:'!d7 1 4 �b1 tt:'!c4 1 S i.c1 0-0-0 was unclear in Tolnai-J.Polgar, Hungarian Ch. 1 99 1 . 1 1 g4? White must play 1 1 �bl!, intending to meet 1 1 ...tt:'!c4 with 1 2 i.c l ! . 1 1 . . .lL!c4! 1 2 g5? Falling headlong into the trick but al­ ready White is clearly worse in any case: 1 2 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 1 3 g S b4! and 1 2 tt:'!ce2 tt:'!xg4! are just two possibilities here.

1 2 . . . lL!xb2 ! ! 1 l 'it>xb2 .tal + ! 1 4 Wb 1 Or 1 4 �xa3 'ii'x c3+ 1 S tt:'!b3 i.c6 (threatening mate) 16 i.cS aS and White must give up his queen with 1 7 i.xbS 'ii'x f3. 14 . . .'i'xcl 1 5 .i.c1 .i.xc1 16 l:txc 1 lL!xe4 0-1 17 i.xe4 'ii'b4+ 18 'ii'b3 'ii'x b3+ 19 axb3 i.xe4 simply leaves White two pawns down.

5 0. c 3 � c 7

Summary Out of all of White's six move alternatives, I can certainly recommend the main line with 6 ..td3 to the aggressive white player. At the very least White gets good practical attacking chances and in many lines White also maintains a theoretical edge. Adventurous black play­ ers would do well to digest Games 51 -53. These are rich in tactics and strategy and some players feel very comfortable playing both sides of the board. For the more solid-minded black player there is certainly nothing wrong with 6 ... 4Jc6 7 tt:'lxc6 dxc6 (Game 58), but 6 ... b5 against 6 ..td3 (and 6 g3) should carry with it some sort of health warning! Other sixth moves for White are less likely to acquire a theoretical edge, but both 6 g3 and 6 ..te2 are good alternatives which may fit in naturally to a general repertoire against various Sicilian defences. 1 e4 c5 2 0.f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 0.xd4 a6 5 0.c3 �c7 6 .i.dJ (D) 6 f4 - Game 62 6 ..te2 - Game 59 6 g3 6 ... ..tb4 - Game 6 1 ; 6 ... b5 - Game 60 6 . . .0.f6 6 ... b5 Game 56 6 ... tt:'lc6 7 tt:'lxc6 7 ... dxc6 (D) - Game 58; 7 ... bxc6 - Game 57 7 0-0 .i.c5 7 ... d6 - Game 55 8 0.b3 8 ..te3 - Game 54 B . .i.e7 9 f4 d6 (D) 1 0 �fJ - Game 5 1 1 0 'ii'e 2 - Game 52; 1 0 a4 - Game 53 -

. .

6 ..td3

7. dxc 6 . .

9 . . . d6

1 55

CHAPTER SEVEN

I

5 ltJc3 b5 6 �d3 \'ib6 ! ?

1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 5 lt:'lc3 b5 6 ..td3 'i'b6! ? I n this chapter we deal with the very modern line 5 lDc3 b5 6 i.d3 'ii'b 6!?. The move 6 ...'ii'b6 was not even mentioned in the third edition of ECO in 1 997, but by the time the fourth edition came out in 2002 it had been catapulted to one of the main lines. It has given Black a new lease of life in the early ... b5 lines and is played by hard­ ened Kan advocates such as Smirin and Epishin. 1 e4 c5 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:'lxd4 a6 5 lt:'lc3 b5 5 ...b5 is a more aggressive response to 5 lDc3 than the main alternative 5 ... 'ii'c 7 (see Chapter 6). Black immediately gains space on the queenside and indirectly pressurises the e4-pawn (... b5-b4 will remove the main defender). On the minus side, Black fails (yet again!) to develop a piece and so he must be very careful to avoid becoming too far behind and getting blown away by an early attack. 6 ..td3 The main response. White bolsters the e4-pawn and prepares to castle. Other moves will be discussed in Chap­ ter 8. 6 . . .'i'b6 1 56

The idea is familiar but until a few years ago it had not been seen in this form. Black attacks the knight on d4 and hopes to force it to an inferior square before deciding where to put the queen (usually she eventu­ ally retreats to c7) . Other sixth moves for Black will be dis­ cussed in Chapter 8. 7 ..te3

A natural move. White develops another piece and defends the knight. However, there are some important alternatives: l2Jd4-b3 has been the automatic reply to ... 'ii'b6 and indeed 7 l2Jb3 has traditionally been White's most popular response (see Game 67), although in recent years it has faced stiffer competition from other ideas.

5 liJ c 3 b 5 6 il.. d 3 1i b 6 ! ?

On first sight 7 l'Ll£3 (Game 68) makes a strange impression. White often plays f2-f4 in the Kan and now the knight blocks this pawn. However, White does have alterna­ tive plans and the knight controls some important squares from £3. In particular, the knight supports the advance e4-e5. This advance liberates White's pieces and, if timed correctly, can cause Black problems. 7 l'Llde2 is rarely played but it's certainly not a bad move. There's no particular rea­ son why the knight is any worse off here than, say, b3. The game Perez-Vilela, Ha­ vana 1 998 is one of only a handful of ex­ amples of this move: 7 ... l'Llc6 8 0-0 l'Llf6 9 �g5 b4!? 1 0 l'Llb1 �b7 1 1 l'Lld2 l'Lle5 12 l'Llg3 .:.c8 1 3 l'Ll£3 l'Llfg4 1 4 l'Llxe5 l'Llxe5 and Black was certainly holding his own. 7 l'Llce2!? has even less practical experi­ ence, but again there is nothing obviously wrong with this move. One point is that 7 ... i.c5 8 c3 e5?! can be rebuffed by 9 b4!, when 9 ...�xd4 10 cxd4 exd4 1 1 0-0 gives White good play for the pawn. Instead 7...�b7 8 0-0 l'Llf6 is logical. Then the con­ tinuation 9 e5 l'Llg4 10 �f4 d6 1 1 exd6 �xd6 looks okay for Black. 7 fl..c 5 The only really logical move. Black puts further pressure on d4. 8 fl..e 2 The main response. A piece must retreat if White wants to defend the d4-knight. There are, however, more possibilities for White on this move than you would at ftrSt 1magme. 8 'ii'g4!? (Game 66) is an incredible move that was first tested by the American GM Larry Christiansen in a few blitz games on the net. He decided that it was no good and wrote a very small article for the German chess magazine Schach saying what a shame it was that this beautiful line didn't work. However, Joe Gallagher did some more analysis and found that it was playable after all. He unleashed it in a serious game and it

was subsequently voted a s the best novelty from Chess Informant 79. It seems ridiculous that White can allow the knight on d4 to be captured, especially as the bishop defends g7 from the d4-square, but a deep tactical sequence produces a very unclear position. Also interesting is 8 e5!? �xd4 9 'ii'g4, which transposes to 8 'ii'g4 �xd4 9 e5 but without allowing 8 'ii'g4 l'Lle7. There has been little practical experience of 8 l'Llce2 and there remains some unan­ swered questions here. Logical for Black is 8 ...l'Llf6 and now White can play: a) 9 h3?! (this is just too slow) 9 ...�b7 1 0 0-0 'ii'c 7 1 1 l'Llc3 d 6 1 2 a 3 l'Llbd7 was very comfortable for Black in R.Anderson­ Goldin, Las Vegas 2001 . b) 9 c3! l'Llg4 (9 ... 'ii'c7 looks reasonable) 10 �c l !? e5

. . .

and now: b1) 1 1 0-0?! exd4 (1 1 . . .'ii' f6? 1 2 h3 h5 1 3 hxg4 hxg4 1 4 l'Llf5 g6 1 5 l'Llfg3 'ii'h4 1 6 .l:le1 was winning for White in Graf-Bellia, Korinthos 2001) 1 2 cxd4 �e7 1 3 l'Llf4 d6 1 4 l'Lld5 'ii'd 8 doesn't give White enough for the piece. b2) 1 1 b4 �e7 (1 1 ...�£8 12 h3 l'Llf6 1 3 l'Ll £3 'ii'c 7 1 4 0-0 i.b7 1 5 .l:le1 d6 was un­ clear in Hagarova-Mrva, Slovakian Team Ch. 2000) and here both 1 2 f3 exd4 1 3 fxg4 dxc3 and 1 2 h3 l'Llx£2 1 3 �x£2 exd4 1 4 l'Llxd4 �xb4 1 5 i.e3 could certainly d o with some further investigation. 157

Sicilian Kan 8 . . tt:'lc6 .

Continuing to add pressure to d4 is the most popular continuation, but there are two important alternatives: a) 8... .i.b7 9 a4! and now: at) 9 ... b4?! 1 0 aS! and tt:'la4 is good for White. a2) 9 ... tt:'lc6?! 10 aS 'ilia? (lO ... tt:'lxaS 1 1 .l:IxaS! 'ilixaS 1 2 tt:'lb3) 1 1 tt:'ldxbS! axbS 1 2 tt:'lxbS .i.xe3 1 3 tt:'lxa7 .i.xa7 1 4 c 3 when White's queen and queenside pawns are worth more than the three minor pieces, Asrian-Belotti, European Ch. 200 1 . a3) 9 ... tt:'lf6 with a further split: a3 1) 10 axbS axbS 1 1 .l:Ixa8 .i.xa8 1 2 tt:'lJxbS .i.xe3 1 3 fxe3 0-0 1 4 'ilid3 tt:'lc6 l S 0-0 'ilicS 1 6 'ilid2 gave White a n edge in Van den Doei-Chuchelov, Bad Zwesten 2000. a32) 1 0 eS!? tt:'ldS 1 1 tt:'lxdS .i.xdS 1 2 tt:'lfS .i.xe3 (12 ... .i.xg2 1 3 .i.xcS 'ilixcS 1 4 'ilid6! 'ilixd6 l S tt:'lxd6+ 'iii> fB 1 6 .l:Igl was better for White in Magomedov-Dzhakaev, Russia 2000) 1 3 tt:'lxe3 .i.b7 14 axbS axbS l S .l:Ixa8 .i.xa8 16 'ilid3 tt:'lc6 1 7 'ilid6 'ilid4 (� 7 ... 'iliaS+ 1 8 c3 b4 19 tt:'lc4 'iliat + 20 .i.dt bxc3 21 0-0 cxb2 22 .i.c2 [Magomedov] leaves Black's kings stranded in the centre) 1 8 'ilia3 'ilia7 1 9 'ilixa7 tt:'lxa7 20 'iii>d2 <3;e7 21 f4 with an edge, Antal-Kustar, Budapest 2002. b) 8 ... tt:'le7!? 9 a4 (critical; 9 0-0 tt:'lbc6 1 0 tt:'lxc6 tt:'lxc6 1 1 .i.xcS 'ilixcS gave Black a comfortable position in Paramos Domin­ guez-Epishin, Linares 2001) and in this posmon: bl) 9 ... b4 10 aS! 'ilic7 1 1 tt:'la4 looks good for White, for example 1 1 ...d6 1 2 tt:'lxcS dxcS 1 3 tt:'lb3 tt:'ld7 14 tt:'ld2 .i.b7 l S tt:'lc4 0-0 16 f3 .l:Ifd8 1 7 'ilid6 'ilixd6 1 8 tt:'lxd6 .i.c6 19 'ifi>f2 with a pleasant ending, Stoja­ novski-Kocovski, Panormo 200 1 . b2) 9. . .tt:'lbc6!? looks more testing: b21) 1 0 aS tt:'lxaS 1 1 .l:IxaS (1 1 b4 .i.xb4 12 tt:'ldxbS 'ilic6 1 3 'i!id4 tt:'lc4!) 1 1 ...�xd4 1 2 .l:.xbS axbS 1 3 .i.xd4 gives White definite compensation for the exchange. 1 58

b22) 1 0 tt:'lxc6 �xe3 1 1 fxe3 dxc6 1 2 axbS ( 1 2 'i!id4 'ilixd4 1 3 exd4 e S 1 4 dxeS transposes to Game 64) 12 ... 0-0, when White's dodgy kingside pawn strucrure gives Black compensation for the pawn. 9 tt:'lxc6 dxc6 The main alternative runs 9 ... .i.xe3 1 0 fxe3 dxc6 1 1 'ilid4! 'ilixd4 1 2 exd4 eS! and now White has a choice: 1 3 dxeS (Game 64) and 1 3 dS (Game 6S). 9 .. .'i'xc6!? is a brand new idea from Ep­ ishin: 10 eS (10 .i.d4!?) 10 ... .i.xe3 1 1 fxe3 'ilic7 12 'i!id4 (1 2 'ilid6!?) 12 ... fS 13 exf6 tt:'lxf6 14 0-0 0-0 l S tt:'le4 'ilia7 worked out okay for Black in Mortensen-Epishin, Co­ penhagen 2002 and I don't think we've seen the last of this move. 1 0 .ltxc5 10 eS?! is too ambitious: 10 ... .i.xe3 1 1 fxe3 'ilixe3 1 2 'ilid6 tt:'le7 1 3 .l:IJt 'ilib6 1 4 �f3 .l:Ia7 (Svidler) and Black successfully unravels. 10 . .'ifxc5 .

This position has already been reached on quite a few occasions and is the subject of Game 63 .

Game 63 Antoniewski-Berzinsh

Prerov 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6 5 tt:'lc3 b5 6 ..td3 'i'b6 7 ..te3 ..tcs 8

5 l:D c 3 b 5 6 i.. d3 � b 6 ! ?

i..e2 'Dc6 9 'Dxc6 dxc6 1 0 i.. x c5 'ii'x c5 1 1 'ii'd 3 Preparing to casde queenside and also to swing the queen to g3 in some lines. Rou­ tine play gives White nothing: a) 1 1 f4 e5 1 2 'i'd3?! (12 f5 is equal) 1 2... exf4 1 3 g3 'i'e5! 1 4 0-0-0 i..e 6 and Black's well-placed queen ensures an advan­ tage, Yermolinsky-Smirin, Philadelphia 1 998. b) 11 0-0 lLif6 12 i..d 3 e5 13 a4 i..g4 14 'i'd2 0-0 15 l2Jd1 l:tfd8 16 'i'e3 lLid7 gave Black absolutely no problems in Naby­ Kengis, Tanta City 2002. 1 1 . . .'Df6 The most accurate move order. The line 1 1 ...e5 1 2 0-0-0 i..e 6 1 3 'i'g3! is annoying for Black. 1 3 ... g6 is answered by 14 lLid5!, while White is also better after 1 3 ... 'it>f8 1 4 f4 exf4 1 5 'i'xf4 lLie7 1 6 l:thfl, Khalifman­ Gunawan, Bali 2000.

1 2 0-0-0 White can also play the immediate 12 f4 e5 and now: a) 1 3 f5 i..b 7 1 4 0-0-0 'it>e7 1 5 g4 l:thd8 1 6 'i'f3 (Svidler-Kasimdzhanov, Wijk aan Zee 1 999) and here Svidler gtves 16 ... l:txd 1 + 17 l:txd 1 l:td8 as equal. b) 1 3 0-0-0 i..e 6! 14 'i'g3 and here Black has a choice of rwo reasonable moves: b1) 1 4...0-0 1 5 f5 i..c4 1 6 i..x c4 bxc4 1 7 l:the1 .l:tab8 and Black i s certainly not worse, Fercec-Rotstein, Seefeld 200 1 .

b2) 1 4. . .exf4 1 5 'ii'xg7 'it>e7 1 6 i.. f3 h 6 1 7 e 5 'ii'x e5 1 8 l:the 1 'iVf5 1 9 lLie4 l:tag8 20 lLid6 'ti'g6 21 'ii'xg6 fxg6 22 lLib7 'it>f7 with an unclear endgame, Mulyar-Stripunsky, Seatde 2002. 1 2 . . 0-0 1 3 f4 e5 14 f5 The stage is set for a race as both sides will push their pawns on the side of the opposing kings. Svidler originally assessed this position as clearly better for White, but recent games have cast doubt upon this judgement. 1 4 . . . a5 14 ...l:ta7, preparing to swing the rook over to d7, is another idea: 1 5 g4 l:td7 1 6 'ii' f3 l:tfd8 1 7 g 5 l:txd l + 1 8 lLixd1 ! (White plans to use the other rook for attacking) 1 8 ... lLie8 1 9 lLif2 'ii'e7 20 l:tg1 c5 21 'ii'e3 c4 22 c3 and White's attack is more potent, Balinov-M.Hoffmann, Budapest 1 999. 1 5 g4 15 i.. f3 i..a6 (15 ... a4 16 'ii'd6!) 16 l:the1 l:ta7 17 'ii'd6 'ii'x d6 18 l:txd6 l:tc8 19 g4 l:td7 20 l:ted1 l:txd6 21 l:txd6 'it>f8 was an equal ending in Lauk-Kveinys, Puhajarve 200 1 . 1 5 . . . a 4 1 6 g5 'Dd7 .

1 7 a3 White can also play 17 l:td2, giving the knight a retreat square on d l . Play continues 17 ... b4 1 8 lLid 1 i..a6 and now: a) 19 'ii'x d7 i..xe2 20 l:txe2 (20 'it>b 1 ? i.. f3 2 1 l:te1 a3 left White i n trouble in Peng Xiaornin-Xu Jun, Udaipur 2000) 20...l:tfd8 1 59

Sicilia n Kan

21 'ilc7 (21 'ilb7? l:!.a7 22 l:td2 l:te8 wins for Black) 2 1 . . .l:!.dc8 22 'ilb7 l:!.cb8 23 'ilc7 l:!.c8 with a draw by repetition. b) 19 'ile3 b3 20 a3 'ilxe3 21 ttJxe3 ttJcS 22 i.d3 was equal in Blehm-Grycel, Glogow 200 1 . 1 7 . . . b4! 1 8 axb4 'ii'xb4 It's become apparent that, as the position opens up on the queenside, Black can create threats more quickly than White. However, if the position simplifies then Black's iso­ lated pawns on the quecnside could become weak. It's logical, then, that White tries to exchange queens.

22 . . . ..ia6 23 'ifa2

23 . . . �b3 + ! 24 cxb3? 24 �b1 ! limits the damage: 24 ... i.xe2 25 ttJxe2 ttJcS 26 tDc3 although Blark still has a dangerous attack after 26 ... a3!. 24 . . . axb3 25 'ii'b 1 'ife3 + 26 l::td 2 l::ta dB 27 l::ted 1 ..ixe2 28 �xe2 h6! Despite the missing piece, Black is win­ ning. White can hardly move and is close to being in zugzwang. 29 'ifa 1 l::ta B 30 'ifb 1 l:txf7 31 �c3 l:td7 32 h3 .:tadB 33 �d5 cxd5 34 'ifd3 :taB 35 'iii>b 1 l:tda7! 0-1 1 9 'ifc4 Berzinsh gives the line 1 9 'ild6!? tlJcS 20 'fixeS a3 21 b3 ttJxb3+ 22 cxb3 'ilxb3 23 l:td2? a2 24 l:!.xa2 l:!.xa2 25 ttJxa2 'ilxa2 as giving Black a clear advantage, but 23 �d2! looks more critical to me: 23 ... a2 24 l:!.a 1 i.xfS! 25 l:!.hc t ! i.e6 26 'Ot>et is very un­ clear. With this in mind, Black should also consider maintaining the initiative with 20 ... l:tb8!? 21 ttJa2 'ilb6. 1 9 . . .'ii'b 6 20 g6 20 ttJxa4? 'ile3+ 21 �b1 (21 .l:.d2 ttJcS!) 21 ... i.a6 22 'ii'c3 'ii'xe2 0-1 was the end of Berzinsh-Gonzalez de Ia Torre, Villalba 2001 - 23 l:txd7 loses to 23 ...'ii'xe4. 20 . . . �c5! 21 gxf7 + 'it>hS 22 l::th e1 ?! 22 f6? loses to 22... i.e6!. However, 22 'ila2 ttJxe4 23 ttJxe4 'ile3+ 24 tiJd2 'ii'xe2 (Ribli) restricts Black to a small advantage. 1 60

Game 64 Haba-Polujahov

Swidnica 2000 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 a6 5 �c3 b5 6 ..id3 'ii'b 6 7 ..ie3 ..ic5 8 ..ie2 �c6 9 �xc6 ..ixe3 1 0 fxe3 dxc6 10 ...'ilxc6 1 1 'ild4! is strong for White, for example 1 1 ...f6 12 eS! 'ii'xg2 13 0-0-0 and White has a dangerous initiative. 1 1 'ifd4 Forcing Black to straighten out White's pawn weaknesses. 1 1 . . .'ifxd4 1 2 exd4 e5! Or else White will take control of the dark squares with e4-e5. 1 3 dxe5 �e7 Simply preparing to recapture the pawn with ... ttJg6xe5. White must play actively as

5 li:J c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 'ii b 6! ?

if Black is allowed to capture on eS without a struggle then White, with an isolated pawn on e4, could well stand worse. 1 4 a4 White can also play the immediate 1 4 i..h S with the idea of simply eliminating the knight when it lands on g6. Play continues 1 4...lDg6 1 5 i..xg6 hxg6 16 0-0-0 and now: a) 16 ... i..g4 17 .l:ld6 l:tc8 18 ltJd1 l:thS 19 lD£2 i..e 6 20 ltJd3 (Haba-Ruzele, Boe­ blingen 1 999) 20 ... a5 21 lDf4 l:txeS 22 lDxe6 l:txe6 23 l:txe6+ fxe6 is equal - Haba. b) 16 ...l:th5 17 l:td6 l:txeS 18 l:thd 1 (18 .l:lxc6? allows Black to trap the rook with 1 8... 'itd7!, Galego-Hauchard, Mondariz 2000) 1 8 ... .ig4 again with equality, G.ShahadeWaitzkin, New York 1 999. 1 4 . . .l:l.b8 14 ... b4 1 5 lDa2 aS 16 ltJc l ltJg6 17 ltJd3 looks a bit better for White. 1 5 axb5 axb5 1 6 �h5

1 6 . . .li:Jg6 16 ... b4?! loosens Black's queenside. White was better after 17 lDe2 l::tb S 1 8 .if3 l::tx eS 19 l:ta4 l:.bS 20 ltJd4 .l:lb6 21 'iti>£2 in Timman-Sokolov, Amsterdam 1 999. 1 7 i.xg6 hxg6 1 8 l:l.a7 Or 1 8 0-0-0 b4 1 9 lDa4 l:thS 20 l:td6 l::txeS 21 l::th d1 i.g4 22 l::t 1 d4 cS 23 l:.c4 i..e 6 24 l:.xcS l:.xe4 25 b3 '12- 1/2 De Firmian­ Kengis, Bundesliga 1 999. 1 8 . . .l:th5 1 9 0-0 i.d7 19 ... ..ie6 has been criticised but I believe

that this also leads t o equality. Play contin­ ues 20 l::tc 7 and now: a) 20... b4?! 21 lDe2 i..c4 (21 ...l:.xe5 22 ltJd4 i..d7 23 l::tx f7! 23 ... 'iti>xf7 24 lDxc6 l:te7 25 lDxb8 i.bS 26 l::tc S gave White a decisive advantage in Mitkov-Bruzon, Lisbon 1 999) 22 l::te 1 l:txeS 23 ltJd4 and White went on to win in Volokitin-Kveinys, Lausanne 2000. b) 20 .. Jhe5! (why not?) 21 b4! (21 l::txc6 b4 is equal) 21 ...i..d7 22 l:ta1 l:tc8 23 l:tb7 cS! 24 lDxbS .ixbS 25 l::tx bS l::txe4 26 bxcS l::tc7 and Black will continue with ...l::tc4. 20 .l:!.d1 .l:!.d8 21 b4 l:txe5 22 l:l.c7

22 . . .l:te6? 22 ... l::te 7 23 l:.a1 llc8 24 l::tb 7 i..e6 25 l:txe7+ 'iti>xe7 26 'iti>£2 cS is an equal position according to Haba. After the text move White is allowed to obtain a grip on the position. 23 lti>f2 rt:ie7 24 rt:ie3 .l:!.d6 25 .l:!.a7 l:l.xd 1 26 li:Jxd 1 rt;d6 27 li:Jf2 i.e6 28 li:Jd3 .ic4 29 li:Jb2? 29 h4 l::th8 30 g3 (Haba) preserves some advantage, for example 30 ... l::td 8 31 'iti>f4 i..xd3 32 cxd3 'iti>e6 33 'iti>e3. 29 . . . i.e6 30 rt;d4? Again, White should play 30 lDd3 i..c4 31 h4!. 30 . . . c5 + ! 31 bxc5 + rt;c6 + 32 rt;e3 'iPxc5 33 l:ta6 b4 34 li:Jd3 + rt;b5 35 l:ta7 .l:td7 36 l:txd7 i.xd7 37 rt;d4 i.g4 38 li:Je5 i.e6 39 h4 i.a2 40 c3 bxc3 41 rt;xc3 rt;c5 % - % 161

Sicilian Kan

Game 65 Blehm-Gajewski

Polish Championship 200 1 1 e4 c5 2 lLltJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltlxd4 a6 5 lLlcJ b5 6 i.dJ 'ilfb6 7 .tel i.c5 8 i.e2 lLlc6 9 lLlxc6 i.xeJ 1 0 fxe3 dxc6 1 1 'ii'd4 'ilfxd4 1 2 exd4 e5 1 3 d5 lLle7 Or: a) 1 3 . .. c5!? 14 a4 b4 1 5 lt:\d 1 lt:\f6 16 i.f3 aS 1 7 lt:\e3 i.a6 18 0-0-0 is given as slighdy better for White by Cvetkovic. If Black could blockade the dS-pawn with his knight on d6 then it would be he who had the ad­ vantage, but this proves to be difficult to achieve, for example 1 8 ... 'it>e7?! 1 9 g4! g6 20 d6+ �dB 21 gS ltJd7 22 i.g4 and Black is in some trouble. b) 1 3. .. i.b7 14 a4 b4 1 5 dxc6 i.xc6 1 6 ltJdS i.xdS 1 7 exdS 'it>e7 1 8 d6+! 'it>xd6 19 0-0-0+ 'it>c7 20 l:ldS lt:\e7 2 1 l:heS gave White an edge in Svidler-Milov, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000. 1 4 0-0-0 14 dxc6?! lt:\xc6 1 5 ltJdS 0-0 promises White nothing.

1 4o o oi.d7 Alternatively: a) 14 ... l:.a7?! 1 5 a4! (15 b4, as in the main game, also looks strong) 1 5 ...b4 1 6 lt:\a2 aS 1 7 dxc6 lt:\xc6 1 8 i.bS l:lc7 1 9 l:.d5 i.e6 20 i.xc6+ l:lxc6 21 lhaS 0-0 22 lt:\xb4 and 1 62

White went on to Wln m Yu Shaoteng­ Ribshtein, Budapest 2000. b) 14 ... cxd5 1 5 ltJxdS ltJxdS 1 6 l:.xd5 f6 1 7 l:.hd1 i.e6 1 8 l:.d6 'it>e7 1 9 a4 bxa4 20 i.xa6 l:thb8 was equal in Moosavian­ Khaghani, Tehran 2002, but 1 5 exdS! is more consistent. 1 5 b4! .:a7?! Given as dubious by Nataf, who offers 1 5 ... cxd5! as an improvement with the fol­ lowing line: 1 6 exdS ltJfS 1 7 d6! and now: a) 1 7 ... l:.cB 1 8 lt:\e4 l:lc6 1 9 i.hS 0-0 20 lt:\cS with a clear plus for White, although in this line 1 9 ... lt:\e3! 20 l:.d2 lt:\c4 looks like an improvement for Black. b) 17 ... lt:\e3 1 8 l:.d3 lt:\c4 1 9 l:.d5!. c) 17 ... i.c6 1 8 l:the 1 ! . d) 1 7. . .lt:\d4 1 8 l:the1 i s given a s only slighdy better for White by Nataf. After 1 8 .. .'�d8 19 i.d3 f6 the position is still very unclear. Is the pawn on d6 a strength or a weakness? 1 6 .:d2 The earlier game Nataf-Koch, French Ch. 2000 continued 16 'it>b2 cxdS?! (this gives White's knight the e4-square) 17 exdS fS? 18 a4! bxa4 19 lt:\a2 'it>f7 20 c4 and White's queenside pawns promise a decisive advantage. 1 6 0 0 00-0 1 7 'it>b2!

This position is difficult for Black as the pawn on dS is causing some problems. 1 7 0 0 ocxd5 1 8 exd5 lLlc8 1 9 d6! ..tc6 20

5 li:J c 3 b5 6 i. d3 il b 6 ! ?

lanica Zdroj 2000. 9 e5 .i.xe3! ? If Black wishes to avoid the following complications then he can bail out into an ending with 9...lt:Jc6 10 'ii'xg7 ..ixe5 1 1 'ii'x e5 lt:Jxe5 1 2 ..ixb6 ..ib7 and now: a) 13 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 4 ..ixe4 d5 1 5 ..id3 (1 5 ..id4 f6 transposes to note 'b') 1 5 ... lt:Je7 with a level position, Lanzani-Epishin, r------...., Bratto 2000. Game 66 b) 1 3 ..id4 f6! (13 ... lt:Jxd3+ 14 cxd3 f6 1 5 Antal-Szilagyi lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 6 dxe4 l:.c8 1 7 'ittd2 looks a touch better for White, Zufic-Titz, SzemBudapest 200 1 ._______________. gotthard 2001) 1 4 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 1 5 ..ixe4 d5 1 6 ..ixe5 fxe5 17 ..id3 e4 1 8 ..ie2 lt:Jf6 with 1 e4 c5 2 li:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:Jxd4 a6 an equal ending, Kotter-Kengis, Bundesliga 5 li:Jc3 b5 6 i.d3 fib6 7 i.e3 i.c5 8 2000. ikg4!? 1 0 ikxg7 i.xf2 + 1 1 'it
.l:[hd1 .l:!.d8 21 a4 bxa4 22 li:Jd5 f6 23 c4 23 . . . .1:!.xd6 24 i.g4 i.d7? This loses immediately. Black has more chances of survival with 24... ..ixd5 although Ribli's 25 c5! ..ie6 26 cxd6 ..ixg4 27 d7 l:.xd7 28 l:.xd7 ..ixd1 29 l:.xd1 gives White good winning chances. 25 .i.xd7 .l:!.axd7 26 c5 .l:!.xd5 27 .l:!.xd5 .l:!.c7 28 .l:!.d7 1 -0

8 . . . i.xd4 Black can also decline the offer with 8 ... lt:Je7 and now: a) 9 'ii'xg7 l:.g8 1 0 'ii' f6 l:.g6 1 1 'ii'h 8+ l:.g8 12 'ii' f6 is a draw by repetition. b) 9 e5! ..ib7 (9 ... h5 10 'ii'h4 g5? [Heb­ den-Lalic, Lausanne 2001] 1 1 ..ixg5! ..ixd4 12 ..ixe7 ..ixe5 1 3 lt:Je4 and White is clearly better) 1 0 0-0-0 (Milov gives the line 10 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 11 ..ixe4 ..ixd4, assessing the position as unclear; 12 ..ixa8 ..ixe3 1 3 fxe3 'ii'x e3+ 14 'iVe2 'ii'x e2+ 1 5 'ittxe2 lt:Jg6 is one possible continuation) 10 ... h5 1 1 'ii'f4 lt:Jbc6 1 2 lt:Jxc6 ..txc6 1 3 ..ixc5 'ii'x c5 14 lt:Je4 ..ixe4 15 ..txe4 l:.a7 1 6 l:.d3 and White was better in V.Belov-Anuszkiewicz, Po-

1 2 . . .fie3! In the stem game White obtained a clear plus after 12 ... ..ib7 1 3 'ii'x h8 ..ixh1 14 'ii'xg8+ rl;e7 15 'ii'g4!, Gallagher-Milov, Bicl 2000. 1 3 i.e4 Or 1 3 'ii'xh8 'ii' f3 + 14 'ittg1 and now: a) 14 ... ..ib7 1 5 'ii'xg8+ 'itte 7 1 6 ..ie4 1 63

Sicilian Ka n

'iif'e 3+ 1 7 'it>g2 .ixe4+ 1 8 ll:lxe4 'iif'x e4+ 1 9 'it>h3 'iif'x e5 i s unclear - Milov. b) 14 ... .id8 1 5 'iif'xg8+ 1;e7 1 6 h4 .ib7 1 7 'ilr'g5+ 'it>e8 1 8 'ilr'g8+ and White must take the draw by perpetual check. 1 3 . . . d5 14 'ifxh8 Naturally 14 exd6?? loses to 14 ... .if6. 1 4 . . . dxe4! Milov only gives 1 4 ... 'i�i'f8 1 5 .ixh7 'iif' f3 + 16 'it>gl .idS 17 'iif'xg8+ rlie7 18 h4, which is winning for White. 1 5 'iix g8 +
1 6 'Wtg2? This move hands the advantage to Black. I prefer 1 6 'ilr'g4! and now: a) 1 6 ... .ig5? 1 7 ll:lxe4 h6 (or 17 ... .ib7 1 8 .l:!.e1 !) 1 8 h4 ll:ld7 (or 1 8 .. .f5 1 9 exf6+ .ixf6 20 ll:lxf6 'it>xf6 21 .l:!.h2! 'it>e7 22 .l:!.d 1 .id7 23 .l:!.£2 and with his king sandwiched be­ tween the white rooks, Black is unlikely to survive) 1 9 hxg5 .ib7 20 l:te1 ll:lxe5 21 'iif'xe6+ ! fxe6 22 l%xe3 ll:lc4 23 'it>e2! ll:lxe3 24 rlixe3 .ixe4 25 'it>xe4 hxg5 26 'lt?e5 and this ending looks very good for White. b) 1 6...'iif'f3 + ! 17 'iif'x f3 exf3 1 8 gxh4 ll:ld7 and White's weak pawns give Black com­ pensation for the material deficit, for exam­ ple 19 .l:!.el .ib7 20 .l:!.g1 .l:!.c8 21 a3 .l:!.c4. 16 'iif'xc8 leads to a draw by perpetual af­ ter 1 6 ... .ixg3 1 7 hxg3 'if' f3 + 1 8 'it>g 1 'iif'xg3+ 1 9 'iii> fl 'iif' f3 +. 16 ... lLld7 17 Wg7 Or: 1 64

a) 1 7 gxh4 .ib7 1 8 'ilr'g5+ (18 'ilr'g3 .l:!.g8! 1 9 'ilr'xg8 'iif' f3 + 20 'it>g1 e3 wins for Black) 18 ... 'iif'xg5+ 1 9 hxg5 e3+ 20 rlig3 .ixh l 21 %:txh 1 l:tc8 gives Black the better ending, for example 22 %:tel ll:lxe5 23 lhe3 ll:lc4!. b) 17 %:thfl ll:lxe5 1 8 l%ae1 'iif'h6 19 gxh4 'iif'xh4 and Black will continue with ... .ib7. 1 7 . . .'iif 3 + ?! 17 ... b4! looks strong: 18 ll:la4 (18 .l:!.hfl bxc3 19 'iif'x f7 + 'it>d8 20 gxh4 is very com­ plex but I prefer Black) 18 ... 'iif'g5 1 9 'iif'xh7 .ib7 20 llhfl ll:lxe5 21 l%f4 (21 'iif'xh4 e3+ 22 'it>h3 l:th8!) 21 ....l:!.d8 22 'iif'xh4 .l:!.d2+ 23 'it>fl 'iif'xh4 24 gxh4 ll:lf3 and this should be winning for Black. 1 8
The smoke has cleared and Black has three minor pieces fighting against a queen and pawn. The position is still genuinely unclear but Black's extra pieces prevail in the end. 25 .l:l.d1 ..te7 26 'iic4 f5 27 g4 �f7 28 'iic 7 fxg4 + 29 g6 38 cxd5 llf3 + 39 'ifxf3 gxf3 40 dxe6 �f5 41 llc1
5 !iJ c 3 b 5 6 i.. d3 • b 6 ! ?

48 l:l.b2 �d5 49 l:l.b7 f2 50 �g2 !iJg3 0-1

Game 67 Shmuter-Maryasin

Israeli Team Championship 1999 1 e4 c5 2 !iJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !iJxd4 a6 5 !iJc3 b5 6 i.d3 •b6 7 !iJb3 •c7

It makes sense not to delay this queen move as otherwise White can exploit her position on b6 with an early a2-a4(-aS), for example 7 ... .ib7?! 8 a4! b4 9 aS! and White will follow up with tt'la4, targeting the weak b6-square. 8 0-0 Or: a) 8 f4 (this often simply transposes to the main line, but what happens if White delays castling?) 8 ... -ib7 9 'ii'e2 and now: a1) 9 ...tt'lf6 1 0 i.d2 i.e7 (1 0 ... d6!?) 1 1 eS! tt'ldS 12 tt'le4 tt'lc6 13 c3 0-0 1 4 0-0 d6 1 S exd6 .ixd6 1 6 tt'lxd6 'ii'xd6 1 7 l:lad1 l:lac8 18 'ii' f2 and \X'hite has an edge, Tiviakov­ Akesson, European Team Ch. 1 999. a2) 9 ... d6 10 a4!? b4 11 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 12 tt'lf2 tt'lbd7 1 3 .id2 (1 3 aS!?, cementing a6 as a weakness, should be considered) 1 3 ... aS 1 4 c 3 bxc3 1 S i.xc3 .ie7 with a n unclear posi­ tion, De Firmian-Akesson, Malmo 1 999. b) 8 .igS i.b7 9 'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 10 .ih4 tt'lf6 1 1 .ig3 d6 1 2 0-0 .ie7 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 tt'lb1 0-0 was equal in Salov-Nijboer, Wijk aan

Zee 1 998. c) 8 a4!? b4 9 tt'le2 i.b7 10 tt'led4 tt'lf6 1 1 'ii'e 2 tt'lc6 1 2 tt'lxc6 .ixc6 1 3 eS tt'lg8 1 4 0-0 tt'le7 1 S i.gS (1S i.xa6?! is answered by 1 S ... .ixg2!) 1 S ... tt'lg6 1 6 l:.fe1 .ib7 with a level position, Svidler-Ehlvest, European Team Ch. 1 997. 8 . . .!iJf6 8 ... .ib7 is probably more accurate than 8 ... tt'lf6 if Black is looking to play an early ... d7-d6 as it's more difficult for White to arrange a dangerous e4-eS push - Black can follow up with ... d7-d6 and ... tt'ld7 before playing ... tt'lgf6. On the other hand, White can still consider ideas with a2-a4. a) 9 f4 d6 (or 9 ... tt'lf6 transposing to note 'b' to Black's 9th move; 9 ... b4 10 tt'le2 tt'lf6 transposes to the main game) 10 'ii'e 2 tt'ld7 1 1 .id2 tt'lgf6 transpose into note 'e 1' to Black's 9th move, but without allowing the possibility of 1 1 eS. b) 9 l:le1 .id6!? (9... d6 should be an­ swered by 10 a4) 10 'ii'h S tt'lf6 11 'ii'h4 tt'lc6 12 f4 .ie7 13 'ii'g3 tt'lb4 14 .ie3 0-0 1 S a3 tt'lxd3 16 cxd3 l:lac8 17 l:lacl 'ii'b 8 was roughly level in Fressinet-Rotstein, France 2000. c) 9 'ii'e 2!? d6?! (in general I think Black should wait for f2-f4 before playing this move; 9 ... b4 10 tt'ld1 tt'lf6 1 1 f4 transposes to note 'e2' to Black's 9th move while 9 ...tt'lf6 transposes to note 'b2' to White's 9th move) 10 a4!? (this looks quite effective here) 1 0... b4 1 1 tt'la2 tt'lf6 (1 t . ..tt'lc6 1 2 .id2 aS 1 3 c3 bxc3 14 tt'lxc3 tt'lf6 1 S tt'lbS looks unpleasant for Black) 12 tt'lxb4!? (12 i.f4 tt'lc6 1 3 aS i.e7 14 c3 bxc3 1 S tt'lxc3 0-0 was unclear in Nijboer-Glek, Groningen 1997) 1 2... dS 13 eS tt'lfd7 (or 13 ... .ixb4 1 4 exf6 gxf6 1 S .ie3 and Black's king has no safe place to hide) 14 .id2 tt'lxeS (14... 'ii'x eS 1S tt'laS!) 1S i.f4 .id6 16 l:lfe1 tt'lxd3 (16 ... tt'lf3+ 17 'ii'x f3 .ixf4 18 tt'lxdS i.xh2+ 19 '1ti>h 1 leaves Black struggling to find a good move) 1 7 .ixd6 'ii'x d6 1 8 tt'lxd3 tt'ld7 19 tt'laS and White has an edge according to 1 65

Sicilian Ka n

Bangiev. An unprovoked 8 ... b4 looks a little pre­ mature: 9 lZ:\e2 l2Jf6 1 0 i.f4 i.d6 1 1 ..ixd6 'ii'xd6 12 l2Jg3 'ii'f4 1 3 a3! bxa3 14 l:txa3 l2Jc6 1 S 'ii'd 2 'ii'xd2 1 6 l2Jxd2 and Black will have problems with his isolated a-pawn, Stefansson-Atalik, Reykjavik 1 994. 9 f4 The most natural way forward, but White does have other possibilities: a) 9 l:te 1 ! ?

(trying to induce a n early ... d7-d6, which will be met by a2-a4) 9 ...i.d6!? (9 ... d6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lZ:\a2 lZ:\c6 1 2 i.d2 'ii'b 8 1 3 aS i.e7 1 4 'ii'e 2 0-0 1 S ..if4 lZ:\eS 1 6 'ii'd2 l2Jxd3 1 7 'ii'xd3 i.d7 looks okay for Black, Mrugala­ Scho, correspondence 2000) 1 0 g3 b4 (lO... hS? 1 1 eS i.xeS 1 2 l:txeS 'ii'x eS 13 i.f4 traps the queen while 1 0... ..ib7? loses to 1 1 i.xbS; 1 O... i.eS is possible though) 1 1 lZ:\e2 l2Jc6 12 l2Jed4 l2Jxd4 1 3 l2Jxd4 hS!? (Smirin assesses the position as equal after 1 3. .. i.b7) 1 4 i.fl h4 1 S i.g2 hxg3 1 6 hxg3 i.b7 and Black has good counterplay, Kas­ parov-Smirin, Tel Aviv 1 998. b) 9 'ii'e 2 and now: b1) 9 ...d6 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 lZ:\a2 lZ:\c6 1 2 i.d2 'ii'b 8 1 3 c3!? (1 3 aS!?) 1 3. .. bxc3 14 bxc3 lZ:\eS (14 ...'ii'x b3? 1 S l:tfb 1 'ii'xa4 16 l2Jb4!) 1 S i.c2 'iVc 7 1 6 f4 lZ:\c4 17 i.el i.e7 was fine for Black, Siklosi-Pavasovic, Austrian League 200 1 . b2) 9. . .i.b7 1 0 i.gS!? (10 f4 transposes 1 66

to note 'e' to Black's 9th move) 1 0... b4 1 1 l2Jd1 ..id6 1 2 �h1 ..if4 1 3 i.xf4 'ii'x f4 1 4 f3 a S 1 S lZ:\e3 0-0 1 6 lZ:\c4 a4 1 7 lZ:\cS i.c6 1 8 eS lZ:\dS was equal in Jaracz-Kveinys, Rowy 1 999. c) 9 a3 i.b7 10 f4 transposes to note 'c' to Black's 9th move. 9 b4 Displacing the white knight on c3 with­ out being provoked by a2-a4 is a common theme in this line. With the d-pawn still on d7, the b4-pawn has the support of the f8bishop. Black can put very early pressure on e4 and the advance ... d7-dS is always in the air. Other moves include: a) 9 ... d6 (this looks risky but the resulting positions are playable if Black reacts cor­ rectly) 10 eS!? (obviously White can con­ tinue more slowly with moves such as 10 'ii'e2, 10 'ii' f3 and 1 0 i.d2) 1 0 ... l2Jfd7! (1 0...dxeS?! 11 fxeS 'ii'x eS? 12 'ii' f3 ! i.d6 1 3 g3 l:ta7 1 4 i.f4 i.cS+ 1 S 'it>g2 wins material for White, while 1 0 ... b4 1 1 exf6 bxc3 1 2 fS! eS 1 3 fxg7 i.xg7 1 4 i.e4 l2Jc6 1 S f6 i.f8 1 6 'ii' f3 ..ib7 1 7 'ii'xc3 was virtually winning for White in Fiacan-Priehoda, Slovakian Team Ch. 2000) 1 1 exd6 i.xd6 1 2 lZ:\e4 i.e7 . . .

and it's more difficult than it looks for White to exploit his initiative. 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 ..id2 lZ:\c6 1 5 'it> h 1 0-0 1 6 'ii'hS g 6 1 7 'ii'h6 l2Jf6 gave Black no problems in Sanz Alonso-Magem Badals, Salamanca 1 998. 1 3 fS is more direct, but 1 3. . .exfS 1 4 l:txfS lZ:\e5

5 tD c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 'il b 6 ! ?

1 5 l:.fl tDbc6 also looks okay for Black. b) 9 ... ..tb7 and now: b 1) 1 0 eS b4 1 1 tDe2 transposes to 1 1 eS in the main game. b2) 10 'ii'f3 d6 1 1 i.d2 tiJbd7 12 �ael g6! (1 2 ... i.e7 transposes to Game 5 1 , but here Black can exploit the fact that the bishop still remains on f8 to guarantee a rock-solid kingside) 1 3 'ii'h 3 i.g7 14 t2Jd4 0-0 1 5 tiJf3 b4 1 6 tiJd 1 tDcS and I prefer Black, Berzinsh-Movsesian, Czech League 1 999. c) 10 a3 d6 1 1 'ii'e2 tiJbd7 12 i.d2 i.e? transposes to Nagatz-Dautov (Game 52). d) 10 i.e3 d6 1 1 eS!? dxeS 12 fxeS and here Black must be careful: d l ) 12 ... 'ii'x e5 13 i.f4 'ii'h S 14 tiJaS (Chuchelov) gives White good compensa­ tion for the pawn. d2) 1 2...tiJfd7? 13 �xf7!! 'ifr>xf7 14 'ii'h S+ 'iir>g8 15 l:.fl g6 (l S ...tiJxeS 16 l:.xf8+! 'ifr>xf8 1 7 i.cS+ 'iir>g8 1 8 'ii'e 8 mate) 1 6 i.xg6 tDxeS 1 7 tDe4! i.xe4 1 8 i.xe4 tDbc6

(Polzin-Chuchelov, Dresden 1 999) 19 tlJd4! tlJxd4 20 i.xd4 i.cS 21 'ii'g S+ 'ii'g7 22 'ii'xg7+ 'ifr>xg7 23 i.xcS �ad8 24 i.e?! t2Jg4 25 i.xd8 �xd8 26 �el l:td2 27 i.d3 and White wins - Chuchelov. d3) 12 ... tiJdS (the safest) 1 3 tDxdS i.xdS 1 4 i.f4 t2Jc6 1 5 'ii'h S tDb4 (Chuchelov) gives Black good counterplay. e) 1 0 'ii'e 2 and now: e 1) 1 O... d6 with a further split:

e 1 1) 1 1 i.d2 tDbd7 1 2 l:tae 1 b4 1 3 tiJ d1 eS (13 ...i.e7 transposes to note 'a2' ro White's 1 2th move in Game 52) 14 'iir>h t aS 1 5 tiJ£2 i.e7 1 6 t2Jg4 0-0 was equal in Boudre-J .Ivanov, Toulon 1 999. e12) 1 1 eS! dxeS (l l ...b4, l l ...tiJdS and 1 1 ...tiJfd7 all come into consideration) 1 2 fxeS tiJfd7 1 3 i.f4 b4 1 4 tDe4 tDxeS 1 5 'ifr>hl tiJbd7 1 6 tiJgS i.d6 1 7 tDxf7! with a clear advantage to White, Kreiman-Dunn­ ington, Hampstead 1998. e2) 10 ...b4 11 tiJd t aS (l l ...dS 12 exdS tDxdS 13 fS eS 1 4 tDe3 tiJd7 1 5 tDxdS i.xdS 16 i.e3 i.e? was unclear in Fressi­ net-Kengis, Germany 2001) 12 tiJf2 tDc6 1 3 i.e3 a 4 1 4 tiJd2 i.e? 1 5 t2Jg4 d 6 1 6 tDc4 0-0 17 tiJb6 �aS 18 tDc4 l:.aa8 19 tiJb6 �aS 20 tDc4 �aa8 21 tiJb6 'l2- 1l2 Fressinet­ Smirin, Saint Vincent 2000.

1 0 tDe2 10 tiJbt doesn't look particularly threat­ ening: for example 1 0... i.b7 1 1 'ii'e 2 i.e? 1 2 a3 aS 1 3 axb4 axb4 14 �xa8 i.xa8 1 5 tiJ1d2 tDc6 1 6 e S tiJdS and Black was very solidly placed in Sorensen-Goldin, New York 2000. I can find no examples of 10 tDa4!? pre­ sumably because the knight is in grave dan­ ger of being trapped - but in fact the varia­ tions are not clear cut at all, for example: a) 10 ... i.b7 1 1 eS tiJdS 12 a3 bxa3 13 c4. b) 10 ... 'ii'c 6 1 1 eS ..tb7 1 2 �£2 'ii'xa4 (12...tiJdS 1 3 tDaS 'ii'xa4 14 t2Jxb7) 1 3 exf6 167

Sicilian Kan

gxf6 1 4 �e3. In both cases the positions are unclear. 1 o . .i.. b 7 1 1 lt:lg3 The major alternative here is 1 1 eS!? lLJdS (t t ...it'c6 12 :f3 doesn't help Black) 1 2 lLig3 (12 lLibd4 �cS 1 3 Wh 1 lZ:Ic6 1 4 lZ:Ixc6 it'xc6 1 5 �e4 it'c7 was fine for Black in Braylovsky-Smirin, Internet [blitz] 2000) . .

and now: a) 1 2... it'b6+?! 1 3 Whl lLie3 14 �xe3 it'xe3 1 5 lLih5 with a clear plus (Svidler, Lukin). b) 1 2... d6!? 1 3 fS!? exfS 14 lLixfS dxeS 1 5 it'g4 with compensation for the pawn. c) 1 2...�e7 1 3 it'e2 1 3 ...g6 1 4 lZ:Ie4 lLic6 1 5 Wh1 aS 1 6 c4 bxc3 17 bxc3 fS (1 7 ... a4! is stronger) 1 8 exf6 lLixf6 (Lukin-Khalifman, Moscow 1 997) and here Svidler gives 1 9 lLixf6+ �xf6 20 fS with a n edge to White. 1 1 . . . h5!

A move very pleasing on the eye. Black 1 68

logically continues to gang up on e4 by threatening to dislodge the knight with ... h5h4. 1 2 1i'e2 12 eS? gets White into trouble: 1 2...it'b6+ 1 3 Wht h4 t 4 lLif5 (14 :f3 hxg3 15 �e3 nxh2 + 16 Wg 1 :xg2 + 17 Wxg2 it'xe3 0-1 was the end of Koskela-Seeman, Myyrmanni 1 999) 14 ... h3! (threatening mate!) 1 5 lLie3 lLidS and White's position is on the verge of collapse. 1 2 . . . h4 1 3 lLlh 1 a5!? Preparing to harass the other knight with ... a5-a4. Black's 'pincer' movement in this game IS unpress1ve. 1 4 lt:lf2 lt::Ja 6 1 5 .i.. e3 15 eS!? lLidS 16 :dt a4 17 lZ:Id4 lZ:Ic5 is unclear according to Maryasin. 1 5 . . . a4 1 6 lt::Jd 4?! Maryasin criticises this move, suggesting instead 1 6 lZ:Id2!? lLJcS 17 :act aiming to play c2-c3. 1 6 . . .lt::J c 5 1 7 e5 lt::Jd 5 1 8 lt::Je4 lt::Jxe4 1 9 .i.. xe4 lt::Jc 3! 20 bxc3 .i.. xe4 2 1 cxb4 h3 22 lt::Jb 5 1fc6 23 .i.. c 5?! This allows White's kingside structure to crumble. Better is 23 g3 although Black keeps the advantage after 23 ... �xb4. 23 . . . .i..x c5 + 24 bxc5 'iix c5 + 25 .l:!.f2 .i..x g2 26 lt::Jd 6 +

f8

Black is a pawn ahead and has a safer king. This adds up to a decisive advantage. 27 .l:.b1 .i..c 6 28 c4 .l:.h6 29 'itf1 'itg8 30

5 CiJ c 3 b 5 6 i. d3 il b 6 ! ?

ikd3 lU8 3 1 �e2 f 6 3 2 ike3 ikxe3 + 3 3 'it>xe3 fxe5 34 fxe5 l:.xf2 35 'it>xf2 l:.h5 36 l:.e 1 l:.g5 37 l:e2 'it>h7 38 'it>e1 'it>g6 3 9 'it>d2 l:.g2 40 ltte3 �g5 0-1 r-------,.

Game 68 Grischuk-Smirin

FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000 1 e4 c5 2 CiJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 CiJxd4 a6 5 CiJc3 b5 6 i.d3 ilb6 7 CiJf3

7 . . . CiJc6 Or: a) Against 7 ... ..tb7?! I again like 8 a4! (for 8 0-0 see 6 ... ..tb7 7 0-0 'it'b6 8 lt::l f3 in Chap­ ter 8) 8 ... b4 9 aS, exploiting the queen's position on b6. White keeps an advantage after 9 ... 'it'c7 1 0 lt::la4 as 1 O ... 'it'xaS? 1 1 ..te3, intending lt::lb 6, is very strong. b) 7 ... 'it'c7 8 0-0 (8 eS?! lt::le 7! 9 0-0 lt::lg6 1 0 l:!.e1 ..tb7 1 1 ..txg6 hxg6 1 2 lt::le4 ..txe4 1 3 l:!.xe4 dS 1 4 llg4 lt::ld7 was slightly better for Black in Hector-Movsesian, Malmo 1 999) and now: b1) For 8 ... ..tb7 see 6 ... ..tb7 7 0-0 'i*'b6 8 lt::l f3 'it'c7 in Chapter 8. b2) 8 ... d6 allows White to strike favoura­ bly on the queenside: 9 a4! b4 1 0 lt::la2 lt::lc6 1 1 ..td2 l:!.b8 1 2 c3 bxc3 1 3 ..txc3 lt::l f6 1 4 b4! ..te7 1 S 'i*'e2 'i*'b7 1 6 b S axbS 1 7 axbS lt::ld8 18 lt::lb4 with a clear advantage, Po­ nomariov-Garcia Paolicchi, Istanbul Olym­ piad 2000.

b3) 8. . .lt::lc 6 9 lle1 d 6 (9. . .lt::lge7? loses a pawn to 10 ..txbS!) 10 a4 b4 1 1 lt::la2 lt::l f6 12 ..td2 aS 13 c3 bxc3 14 lt::l xc3 ..te7 1 S tUbS 'i*'b8 16 ..tf4 eS 17 l:!.ct ..td7 18 ..tgs 0-0 19 ..tc4 lt::lb4 20 b3 and White is more active, Ponomariov-Milov, Biel 2000. 8 o-o Or 8 eS 'it'b8 9 ..tf4?! (9 0-0 transposes to the note to White's 9th move) 9 ... fS! (preventing lt::le4 and preparing ... lt::le7-g6; now the e-pawn is in danger of eventually being rounded up) 10 'i*'e2 lt::lge7 1 1 h3 lt::lb4 12 0-0 ..tb7 13 llfd1 lt::l xd3 14 'i*'xd3 'i*'c7 1 S a3 h6 16 lt::ld4 'i*'c4 1 7 'it'g3 gS 1 8 b 3 'i*'cS 1 9 ..tel ..tg7 20 f4 l:!.g8 and Black had a big advantage in Ashley-Smirin, Los Angeles 2000.

8 . . .ilb8 !? The idea of this move is twofold. Firstly, Black takes the sting out of a possible a2-a4, ... bS-b4, a4-aS sequence by vacating the b6square. Secondly, Black's queen once again controls the important b8-h2 diagonal. The queen chooses b8 as opposed to c7 as Black wants to develop with ... lt::lge7 without al­ lowing a ..txbS tactic. Other tries include: a) 8 ... 'i*'c7 transposes to note 'b' to Black's 7th move. b) 8 ... lt::lge7 9 l:.c1 (9 a4!? b4 1 0 aS lt::lxaS 1 1 lt::la4 'i*'c7 12 ..tc3 [Adams] looks dan­ gerous: 12 ... l:!.b8 13 lUeS regains the pawn with an advantage - 13 ... dS 14 lt::lxa6 ..txa6 1 69

Sicilian Ka n

l S i.xa6 dxe4 1 6 tt:Jd4 looks very dodgy for Black) 9 ... tt:Jg6?! (9 ...'ii'b8 reaches the main line) 1 0 lDdS! (1 0 a4? i.cS! t t i.e3 1f.xe3 1 2 .i:.xe3 b4 1 3 lZJdS 'ii'd 8 1 4 a S 0-0 l S tt:Jb6 .l:tb8 was unclear in Adams-Kengis, Euro­ pean Team Ch. 2001) 1 0 ... 'ii'b 7 (10 ... 'ii'b 8? 1 1 i.e3 and l O ... exdS? 1 1 exdS+ tt:Jce7 1 2 i.xg6 hxg6 1 3 d 6 [Adams] are both good for White) 1 1 a4 and White's position must be favourable. c) 8 ... d6 9 a4 b4 10 aS! (again this idea looks promising) t O...tt:JxaS 1 1 lDa4 'ii'c7 1 2 i.e3 .l:tb8 1 3 lDb6 .l:txb6 1 4 lhaS .l:tb8 t S 'iVa 1 tt:Jf6 1 6 i.xa6 i.xa6 ( 1 6. . .tt:Jxe4 1 7 i.a7!) 1 7 .l:txa6 i.e7 1 8 .l:ta7 .l:tb7 1 9 .l:ta8+ was better for White in Kuzmin-Rogovski, Ordzhonikidze 2000. 9 .l:!.e 1 Also possible is the immediate 9 eS!?

gaining space in the centre and the e4square. Of course, the pawn on eS can be­ come vulnerable: a) Grabbing the pawn with 9 ...tt:JxeS is too risky: 1 0 lDxeS 'ifxeS 1 1 'ii' f3 dS (t t ....l:ta7 12 i.f4 'ii' f6 13 'ii'e 3 and Black has no defence against the twin threats of 'ii'xa7 and i.gS) 12 i.f4 'ii'f6 (12...'ii'd4 1 3 a4! b4 1 4 i.bS+! i.d7 t S i.xd7+ �xd7 1 6 l:tad 1 'ifa7 1 7 tt:JxdS and White crashes through) 13 tt:JxdS exdS 14 l:tfe t + i.e6 (14 ... tt:Je7? t S 'ii'x dS 'ii'x f4 1 6 i.xbS+ axbS 17 'ii'c 6+ �d8 18 .l:tad t + mates) t S 'ii'x dS .l:td8 1 6 'ii'c 6+ .l:td7 17 .l:tad 1 (threatening 1 70

i.xbS) 1 7 ... 'ii'd 8 1 8 'ii'xa6 and, with bS dropping, it's unlikely that Black will sur­ vive . b) 9 ... tt:Jge7 1 0 i.e4 (10 i.f4?! fS! 1 1 h4 tt:Jb4 12 i.h2 1i.b7 1 3 i.e2 lDbdS 14 lDd4?! 14 ... tt:Jxc3 t S bxc3 tt:JdS was much better for Black in Shabalov-Smirin, Los Angeles 2000; for 1 0 .l:te1 see the note to White's 1 0th move) 10 ... Ji.b7 1 1 .l:tet 'ii'c 7! (t t ...tt:Jg6?! 12 h4! i.cS 13 hS tt:Jge7 14 i.d3 tt:Jb4 l S tt:Je4 tt:Jxd3 1 6 'ii'xd3 i.xe4 1 7 'ii'xe4 h 6 1 8 b 4 i.b6 1 9 'ii'g4 was pleasant for White, Ashley-Goldin, Connecticut 2001) 12 a3 fS!? 1 3 exf6 gxf6 14 tt:Jd4 tt:Jxd4 l S 'ii'xd4 i.g7 16 a4 and in this unclear position the players agreed a draw, Baklan­ Smirin, Panormo 200 1 . 9 . . ltlge7 .

1 0 i.e3 10 eS is again possible: 1 0 ...lDg6 t t i.xg6 hxg6 1 2 i.f4 fS 1 3 a4 b4 1 4 tDe2 i.b7 l S 'ifd 2 it'c7 1 6 .l:tad 1 lDaS 1 7 b 3 .l:tc8 (17 ... 1i.xf3!?) 18 tt:Jed4 i.dS 1 9 .l:te3 'ii'b7 with a complex position in Simacek­ Antoniewski, Prerove 200 1 . 1 0 . . . d6 tO ...lDg6 is met by 1 1 tt:JdS!. 1 1 ii'd2 ltlg6 1 2 ltld4 ltlxd4 1 3 i.xd4 ltle5 1 4 f4 ltlc6 1 5 i.f2 1J..e7 1 6 ltld5! This energetic move secures an advan­ tage for White. 1 6 . . . exd5 1 7 exd5 ltle5 Black correctly returns the piece. At-

5 l:iJc3 b5 6 i.. d3 � b 6 ! ?

tempts to hold on to the extra material fail: a) 17 ... 4Jd8 1 8 l:.xe7+! 'i;xe7 1 9 :e1 + 1; [8 (or 1 9 ...'i;d7 20 .i.f5+ 'i;c7 2 1 'ili'a5+ 'i;b7 22 'ili'b6 mate) 20 'ii'e3 tLle6 21 f5 and Black is unlikely to survive. b) 1 7 ... tLla7 1 8 l:.e3 .i.d7 1 9 :ae1 tLlc8 20 .i.h4! f6 21 'ili'e2 'ii'b 6 22 'i;h 1 'ii'd8 23 .i.xf6! gxf6 24 'ii'h 5+

and White has a winning attack, for ex­ ample 24 ... 1;f8 25 'ii'h 6+ 1;[7 26 .i.xh7 (threatening :g3) 26 ... i.g4 27 'Wg6+ 1;[8

2 8 'ii'xg4 :xh7 29 :g3 'i;e8 3 0 'ii'g 8+ 'i;d7 31 'ii'x h7. 1 8 fxe5 dxe5 1 9 �e2 0-0 20 i..d 4! exd4 21 �xe7 g6 22 �f6 i.. b 7 23 d6 i..d 5

24 �xd4? 24 i.e4! 'ii'b 7 25 .i.xd5 'ii'x d5 26 :ed1 looks very good for White. Now Black is allowed back into the game. 24 . . .i..e6 25 .l:!.xe6!? fxe6 26 c4 bxc4 27 ..txc4 h5 28 .l:!.c 1 .l:!.a7 29 ..txe6 + Wh7 30 h4 l:.b7 31 d7 l:.xb2 32 .i.h3 Yz- Yz

1 71

Sicilian Kan

Summary Is the modern 6 .. .'ii'b6 here to stay? Early results have been very favourable for Black, who scores a very impressive 56% on my Kan database. However, this figure can in some part be explained by the tendency of strong players to play this sharp line in order to beat relatively weak players. In the early days of 6 .. .'ii'b6, white players almost exclusively played the 'robotic' 7 lt:lb3, but more recently the values of 7 i.e3 and 7 lt:\f3 are being appreciated. I expect there to be many more developments in these two lines, especially in the underrated 7 lt:\f3. At the moment I would say that this move is White's best chance finding some advantage in this line. 1 e4 c5 2 itJfJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ltJxd4 a6 5 lLlcJ b5 6 i.dJ 'i'b6 7 i.eJ 7 lt:\b3 (D) - Game 67 7 ltJf3 - Game 68 7 i.c5 8 i.e2 8 'ii'g4!? (D) - Game 66 8 . lLlc6 9 ltJxc6 dxc6 9 ... i.xe3 10 fxe3 dxc6 1 1 'ii'd 4 'ii'xd4 12 exd4 eS (D) 1 3 dxeS - Game 64 1 3 dS - Game 65 1 0 i.xc5 'i'xc5 - Game 63 . . .

.

.

7 lt:\b3

1 72

8 'ii'g4

1 2. . . e5

CHAPTER EIGHT

I

5 tt:Jc3 b 5 : Sixth M ove Alternatives

1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6 5 tt:'lc3 b5 Here we look at alternatives for White to 6 .id3 after 5 lDc3 bS, plus alternatives for Black to 6 ...it'b6 after 6 .id3. We will also look at earlier choices for Black. 1 e4 c5 2 tt:'lf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:'lxd4 a6 5 tt:'lc3 b5 Black's other options at move five: a) S ... d6 moves out of Kan territory as Black signals his intentions of transposing to the Scheveningen with 6 ...lDf6. b) S ... .icS 6 .ie3 tt'b6 transposes to S ...tt'b6 below. c) 5 ... g6?! makes less sense against 5 lDc3 than it does against 5 .id3 as the knight on d4 is still protected by the queen.

The amusmg miniature Hector-Vidar­ sson, Reykjavik 1 996 is not a good advert for this system: 6 .ie3 .ig7 7 lDb3! lDe7? (7 ... b5 should be played, although White is still doing well after 8 .id4) 8 lDa4! lDbc6? 9 .tb6! 1 -0. d) 5 ... tt'b6 has some similarities to 5 ... b5 6 .id3 tt'b6. After 6 lDb3 Black drops back with 6 ... tt'c7 and follows up with typical Kan developing moves. However, with the knight on d4 not attacked, White has more options. I like the move 6 a3!? with the fol­ lowing lines: d 1) 6 ... lDc6 7 .ic3 .ic5 (7 ... tt'xb2?? loses the queen to 8 lDa4!; this is one of the points of a2-a3) 8 lDa4 it'a5+ 9 c3 .ixd4 1 0 .ixd4 lDxd4 1 1 tt'xd4 e 5 1 2 tt'b4 tt'xb4 1 3 axb4 and White has a pleasant ending due to Black's vulnerable dark squares. d2) 6 ... .ic5 7 .ie3 lDc6 transposes into note 'd1'. d3) 6 ... lDe7 7 .ie3 lDg6 8 h4 (Fritz likes 8 lDxe6! here: 8 ... tt'xe6 9 lDd5 .id6 10 lDb6 and White regains the material with interest) 8 ...tt'c7 9 h5 lDe5 1 0 f4 lDec6 1 1 lDb3 d6 1 2 tt'd2 lDd7 1 3 0-0-0 and White was better in Short-] .Polgar, Novgorod 1 996. 6 i.d3 Alternatively: a) 6 g3 is equally playable against 5 ...b5 as 1 73

Sicilian Kan

it is against S ...'ii'c 7. Play tends to be sharper, though, as Black can achieve very quick counterplay against the e4-pawn (sec Game 71). b) 6 i..e2 i..b7 7 i.. f3 'ii'c 7 8 0-0 l2Jc6 transposes to the note to White's 8th move in Game 59. c) 6 i..e3 i..b7 7 f3 signals White's inten­ tions of playing an 'English Attack'.

As we have seen before, this set-up is generally not very effective against the Kan, although with this particular move order it's certainly playable. Here are two possible responses for Black. cl) 7..."ikc7 8 "ikd2 l2Jf6 9 g4 b4!? (9 ... h6 10 0-0-0 l2Jc6 transposes to a line of the Tairnanov) 10 l2Jce2 dS! 1 1 gS l2Jfd7 1 2 exdS i..x dS 1 3 l2Jf4 l2Jb6 1 4 i..d 3 l2J8d7 1 5 lLJxdS lLJxdS 1 6 i..e4 l2J7b6 1 7 'ii'e 2 i..c S 1 8 i.. f2 0-0 and Black was fine i n Kharlov­ Totsky, St. Petersburg 1 998. As is common in these lines, Black's ability to play ... d7-d5 in one go gives him an easy game. c2) 7 ... l2Jc6 8 l2Jxc6 (8 'ii'd2 l2Jge7!? 9 g4 l2Jxd4 10 i..xd4 l2Jc6 1 1 i..e 3 lLJeS looked okay for Black in Grabarska-Radziewicz, Polish Girls Ch. 1 994) 8 ... i..x c6 9 'ii'd2 l2Jf6 1 0 0-0-0 'ii'c 7 1 1 b 1 i..e 7 1 2 g4 b4 1 3 l2Je2 d S 14 g5 l2Jd7 1 5 l2Jd4 dxe4 1 6 f4 i..b7 17 fS eS 1 8 l2Jb3 0-0-0 with an unclear posi­ tion in Lie-Yakovich, Bergen 2000. d) 6 a3 is a surprisingly common move (it's seen more often than 6 i..e 2 and 6 i..e 3 1 74

put together), but is quite harmless. Black can use the 'extra' tempo to reach a com­ fortable position. One possible line runs 6 ... i..b7 7 i..d 3 'ii'b 6!? (or simply 7...'ii'c 7 8 0-0 l2Jf6) 8 i..e3 i..c S 9 l2Jce2 'ii'c 7 and Black will attack e4 with ... l2Jf6. c) 6 g4!? is extremely rare but is still worth a mention. White plays as with 6 g3, but with more space and a larger 'spike' on the kingside. The line 6 ... i.b7 7 i..g2 b4 8 l2Jce2 sees another point of the 6 g4 - the knight can come to g3 to defend e4. After 8 ... l2Jf6 9 l2Jg3 dS 1 0 eS we have the follow­ ing possibilities: e1) 10 ...l2Jfd7 1 1 f4 i..c S 12 i..e3 'ii'b6 1 3 0-0 l2Jc6 1 4 c 3 bxc3 1 5 bxc3 lLJaS was un­ clear in Boudre-Gofshtein, St. Affrique 1 999. e2) 10 ... l2Je4!? 11 'ii'e2 l2Jxg3 12 hxg3 l2Jc6 1 3 l2Jxc6 i..xc6 1 4 i..e3 i..b S 1 5 'ii'd2 .l:t.c8 16 i..d4 'ii'c7 and Black has reasonable counterplay down the c-ftle, Coil-Dumont, Sao Paulo 1 999. 6 i.b7 Originally this was Black's most popular response to 6 i..d 3, but in the last few years it has been taken over by 6 ..."ikb6. Other moves include: a) 6 ...d6 often transposes into lines dis­ cussed earlier, for example 7 0-0 l2Jf6 8 'ii'e 2 i..e 7 9 h 1 'ii'c7 10 f4 l2Jbd7 1 1 i..d2 i..b 7 and we have transposed to Pikula-Cvitan (Game 55). An independent try for White is 8 .l:t.e 1 i..e 7 9 a4!? b4 1 0 l2Ja2 'ii'b 6 1 1 c3 bxc3 1 2 l2Jxc3 0-0 1 3 i..c 2 i..d7 1 4 a S 'ii'b4 1 5 'ii'd2 l:tc8 which led to an equal position in Tatai­ Bologan, Reggio Emilia 1 996. b) 6 ... i..c 5!? is very similar to 6 ... 'ii'b 6 and often transposes, for example 7 i..e3 'ii'b 6 (sec Chapter 7). After 7 l2Jb3 Black must decide whether to drop the bishop back to a7 or e7, both leading to lines similar to ones we've already discussed. I can't find any examples of 7 l2Jf3 but this looks quite playable too. . . .

5 Ci:J c 3 b 5 : Six th M o v e A lt e rn a tives

c) 6 ... li:Je7 intends to offer an exchange of knights with either ... li:Jec6 or ... li:Jbc6.

White has the following choices: c1) 7 f4!? li:Jbc6 8 li:Jf3 (it makes sense to avoid the exchange since now Black's knight on e7 will be forced to move again) 8 ... d5 9 eS b4 1 0 li:Ja4 ..td7 1 1 li:JcS li:JfS 1 2 li:Jxd7 'ir'xd7 1 3 ..txfS and I prefer White, Reinderman-A.Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 1 993. c2) 7 0-0 and here Black has two options: c21) 7 ... li:Jec6 8 li:Jb3 d6 9 f4 ..te7 10 ..td2 li:Jd7 11 'if'B (1 1 ifhS!?) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 l:tael ifc7 1 3 ifh3 with good attacking chances on the kingside. c22) 7 ... li:Jbc6 8 li:Jb3!? li:Jg6 9 f4 ..te7 10 ifhS! (with no knight on f6, this is a threat­ ening place for the queen) 10 ... d6 1 1 ..te3 0-0 1 2 l:tf3 and White has an automatic attack, Glauser-Polugaevsky, Havana 1966. 7 0-0

Now once again Black has a choice of moves: a) 7 ... li:Je7 again intends to offer an ex­ change of knights with ... li:Jc6 (see Game 70). b) 7...li'b6 is a similar idea to 6 ... li'b6 and is discussed in Game 69. c) 7 ...'Wc7 transposes to Game 56. d) 7 ... d6 and now: d 1) 8 li'e2 li:Jf6 9 a4!? (9 f4 li:Jbd7 10 �h 1 'ir'c7 11 ..td2 ..te7 is your rypical set­ up - sec Game 55) 9 ... b4 10 li:Ja2 dS! 11 eS li:Je4 12 c3 li:Jd7 13 ..tf4 bxc3 14 li:Jxc3 li:JdcS looks okay for Black, Vogt-Bonsch, Cottbus 1983. d2) 8 l:tc 1 !? li:Jf6 9 a4 b4 10 li:JdS!? cxdS 1 1 exdS+ �d7 12 c4 with a very unclear position, but White obviously has a danger­ ous initiative for the piece, David-Lobron, Amsterdam 1 996. e) 7 ... li:Jc6 8 li:Jxc6 and now: el) 8... dxc6 9 eS li:Je7 1 0 ifhS! 'ifc7 1 1 l:tel li:Jg6 (1 1 ...c5 1 2 ..txbS+! axbS 1 3 li:Jxb5 it'c6 14 li:Jd6+ �d8 1 5 li:Jxb7+ ifxb7 1 6 ifxf7 it'd7 1 7 ..tgS �c8 1 8 l:tad1 li:JdS 1 9 ifxd7+ �xd7 20 c 4 i s winning for White) 1 2 ..txg6 fxg6 13 'iVg4 'iVf7 14 li:Je4 'tW fS 1 5 'Wh4 c S 1 6 li:Jd6+ ..txd6 1 7 exd6 0-0 1 8 ..tgS and the passed pawn o n d 6 gives White the edge, Emms-Crouch, British League 1 997. e2) 8 .....txc6 9 'ifc2 ifb8!? (9 ...ifc7?! 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 li:JdS!) 1 0 a4 b4 1 1 li:JdS ..td6 12 h3 aS 1 3 ..te3 ..txdS 1 4 exdS li:Jf6 1 5 dxc6 fxe6 16 l:tad 1 0-0 17 ..td4 again with an edge to White, A.Sokolov-Ionescu, Naujac 1 999.

Game 69 Svidler-Milov

Bie/ 2000 1 e4 c5 2 Ci:Jf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Ci:Jxd4 a6 5 Ci:Jc3 b5 6 .td3 .tb7 7 0-0 'i!fb6 With the same motive as 6 ... 'i'b6, but the insertion of 0-0 and ... i.b7 creates some 1 75

Sicilian Kan

important differences. 8 �e3 8 l2Jf3 'ii'c 7 9 .l:i.e1 i.c5 10 e5 f5! 1 1 exf6 lLlxf6 1 2 lLle4 i.xe4! 1 3 ..ixe4 lLlc6 was equal in Adams-Topalov, Tilburg 1 998. For 8 lLlb3 'ii'c 7 see the note to Black's 8th move in Game 67. B . . .�c5

1 3 �b2

1 3 . . .tt'lc6? Black can restrict White's advantage with the variation 1 3 ... bxc4 1 4 .l:i.ct d5 1 5 exd5 ..ixd5 16 ..ixc4 ..ixc4 17 'ir'c2 lLlbd7 1 8 'ii'xc4. 1 4 cxb5 axb5 ?! 1 5 tt'lc3 tt'ld4 1 6 ..txb5 0-0 9 tt'lce2! 9 ..ie2? doesn't work now: 9 ... lLlc6 1 0 lLlxc6 ..ixe3 1 1 lLle5 ..id4 1 2 lLlf3 ..ixc3 1 3 bxc3 ..ixe4 and Black was a clear pawn ahead in Teuschler-Pilaj, Graz 1 999. 9 . . .tt'lf6 A natural move but this might already be a mistake. After this White has a route to an advantage. Alternatives are: a) 9 ... lLlc6 10 c3 lLlf6 1 1 b4 i.xd4 1 2 lLlxd4 'ii'c7 (Rohde-Benjamin, Estes Park 1 987) 1 3 lLlxc6 ..ixc6 14 f3 0-0 (or 14 ... d5 1 5 exd5 lLlxd5 1 6 ..ic5!) 1 5 'ii'e 2 d5 1 6 ..ic5 dxe4 1 7 fxe4 l:tfd8 1 8 e5 (Svidler) and White's bishops promise an edge. b) 9 ... 'ii'c 7 (this may be best) 1 0 i.xb5!? (10 .l:i.ct is quieter) 10 ... ..ixe4 1 1 lLlc3 ..ib7 12 ..id3 lLlf6 unclear - Svidler. 1 0 b4! �xd4 10 ... ..ixb4 1 1 lLlf5! ..ic5 12 lLlxg7+ 'Otf8 13 ..ih6 'Otg8 1 4 lLlg3 is good for White. 1 1 ..txd4 '*kc7 1 2 c4! e5 1 2... bxc4 13 .l:i.ct d5 1 4 exd5 exd5 1 5 .l:i.e1 lLlbd7 1 6 lLlg3+ 'Otf8 1 7 'ir'f3 (Svidler) gives White a strong attack. 1 76

1 7 �d3 The smoke has cleared, leaving White with many pluses: an extra pawn, two passed pawns on the queenside and two bishops. This all adds up to a decisive lead. 1 7 . . .l:l.fd8 1 8 l:te 1 d5 1 9 exd5 �xd5 20 tt'lxd5 l:l.xd5 21 l:tc1 '*kb7 22 ..tc4 l:td7 23 a3 l:tadB 24 '*kd3 e4 25 '*ke3 h6 26 h3 l:td6 27 ..tf1 l:td5 28 l:tc4 tt'lf5 29 '*kc 1 l:I.Bd6 30 ..txf6 J:l.xf6 31 l:tcxe4 '*kb6 32 l:l.e5 tt'lg3 33 '*kcB + J:l.dB 34 '*kxdB + 1 -0

5 !U c 3 b 5 : Six th Mo ve A lterna tives

Game 70 W. Watson-Mortensen

Heming 1 99 1 1 e4 c 5 2 !Uf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 !Uxd4 a6 5 !Uc3 b5 6 i.d3 i.b7 7 0-0 !Ue7 8 i.g5!

A clever move to induce some sort of weakness on Black's kingside. 8 . . . f6 This looks ugly but Black is struggling for alternatives. a) 8 ... "i!fc7? loses to 9 J.xb5!. b) 8 ..."i!fb6?! 9 J.e3 is problematic for Black as 9 ..."i!fc7 is again hit by 1 0 J.xb5!. c) 8 ... h6 (this is better than the previous two alternatives but still leaves a weakness on the kingside) 9 J.e3 lt:Jec6 10 lLlxc6 lt:Jxc6 (1 O... dxc6 1 1 e5! looks good for White) 1 1 f4 "ir'c7 1 2 e5 lLlb4 1 3 J.e4 with a clear advantage according to Ciric. 9 i.e3 !Uec6 1 0 !Ub3!? 1 0 lt:Jxc6 also promises an edge: 1 0 ... lt:Jxc6 1 1 f4 i;_e7 1 2 ifh5+ ! g6 1 3 ifh6 'it>f7 1 4 l:tad 1 (Ciric) and Black's king will find it difficult to find a safe haven. 1 O . . . !Ue5 1 1 f4 !Uxd3 1 2 cxd3 i.e7 1 3 'i!fh5 + ! g6 1 4 ii'h6 White has a clear advantage. He has a lead in development and Black's king will soon be the subject of an attack. 14 . . .'>t>f7 1 5 lUeS!

1 5 . . . i.xc5! 15 ..."i!fb6 16 f5! is very strong, for example 1 6 ... i;_xc5 1 7 fxg6+ hxg6 (or 1 7 ... 'it>e8 1 8 g7! J.xe3+ 19 'it>h 1 l:tg8 20 ifxf6) 1 8 l:txf6+! 'it>xf6 1 9 ifxh8+ 'it>e7 20 d 4 i;_b4 21 J.g5+ 'it>d6 22 ife5+ 'it>c6 23 l:tcl and White wins. 1 6 i.xc5 d6 1 7 i.e3 ii'f8 1 8 ii'h3 !Ud7 1 9 l:tae1 l:tc8 20 f5! gxf5 21 i.h6 'i!fe8 22 !Ud5! l:tg8 Black is forced to give up material as 22... exd5 loses after 23 exd5! lt:Je5 (or 23 ... "ir'g8 24 ifxf5 l:tc7 25 l:te3) 24 ifxf5 "ir'e7 25 ifh5+ 'it>g8 26 l:txe5 dxe5 27 l:tf3. 23 ii'h5 + l:tg6 24 exf5 i.xd5 25 i.f4 e5 26 fxg6 + hxg6 27 ii'h7 + '>t>e6 28 i.e3 f5 29 l:tc1 l:txc 1 30 l:txc 1 !Uf6 3 1 'i!t'g7 f4 3 2 i.f2 i.xa2 3 3 l:tc7 !Ud5 34 l:ta7 i.b1 35 d4 e4 36 l:txa6 e3 37 ii'e5 + '>t>d7 38 'i!fxd6 + 1 -0

Game 7 1 Thiei-Chuchelov

Munster 1 995 1 e4 c5 2 !Uf3 e6 3 !Uc3 a6 4 d4 cxd4 5 !Uxd4 b5 6 g3 i.b7 7 i.g2 b4 see following diagram

Black can play this move now or later and usually the positions transpose, but there are a few subtle differences. The main alternative is 7 ... lt:Jf6 and now: 1 77

Sicilian Kan

(Sutovsky) gives White good compensation for the small material deficit. b) 1 2... lLif6 13 �e3 (Sutovsky-Har Zvi, Israel 1 998) and here Sutovsky suggests 13 ... i.xd4!? 14 i.xd4 0-0! 1 5 �cS :r.e8 1 6 i.xb4 dS. Black will follow up with . . .lLic6 and obtain a comfortable position. 8 . . . lt:'lf6

a) 8 �gS �e7 9 0-0 b4 10 lLia4 - see note 'b' to White's 9th move. b) 8 'il'e2 b4 9 lL\a4 'WaS - see note 'a' to White's 9th move. c) 8 a3 dissuades Black from playing ... b5-b4 but the extra tempo for develop­ ment gives Black a chance to consolidate: 8 ... 'il'c7 9 0-0 lLic6 looks comfortable for Black. d) 8 0-0 and now: d1) 8 ... d6 9 .:.e1 lLibd7 1 0 �gS 'ir'c7 transposes to Game 60. d2) 8 ... b4 9 ltJdS?! (9 lLia4 leads to the main game) 9 ... exd5 1 0 exdS �cS! 1 1 .:el + 'it> f8 1 2 lLif5 d 6 1 3 � f4 i.c8! 1 4 lLid4 'ir'b6 1 5 lLic6 (Shabalov-Smirin, New York 1 998) and here 1 5 ... �b7 1 6 'ir'f3 lLibd7 (Smirin) leaves White with insufficient compensation for the piece. 7 ... 'il'c7 transposes to Game 60. 8 lt:'la4 8 lLib1 is harmless: 8 ... lLif6 9 lLid2 'il'c7 10 0-0 lLic6 1 1 lLixc6 �xc6 12 a3 bxa3 1 3 b3 d S gave Black a comfortable equality in Nataf-Emms, Paris 1 994. 8 lLice2!? is interesting: 8 ... lLif6 9 0-0! (9 'il'd3 looks cumbersome: 9 ... d6 10 0-0 lLibd7 1 1 f3 :r.c8 12 c3 dS 1 3 exdS lLixdS and Black was already a bit better in Tok­ mina-Lastin, Rovno 2000) 9 ... �xe4 1 0 �xe4 lLixe4 1 1 lLif4 �cS 1 2 .:e1 and now: a) 1 2... d5 1 3 l:.xe4 dxe4 1 4 lLifxe6 fxe6 1 5 ifhS+ g6 16 ifxcS lLid7 17 ifxb4 (Su1 78

Directly hitting the e-pawn before White has a chance to prepare e4-e5. This is cer­ tainly Black's most logical move. However, 8 ... 'ii'a 5, attacking a4, is also interesting: a) 9 b3 lLif6 1 0 'ii'e2 transposes to note 'a' to White's 9th move. b) 9 c4 bxc3 1 0 lLixc3 lLif6 1 1 0-0 lLic6 12 lLib3 'il'c7 13 i.f4 d6 1 4 .:c1 was good for White in the game Plaskett-Berty, Scot­ land 1 998, but 9 ... lLif6 looks stronger. After 1 0 0-0 i.xe4 1 1 �xe4 lLixe4 White still has to justify being a pawn down. c) 9 c3 lLif6 10 0-0 and now Black has two ways to capture on e4: c1) 10 ... lLixe4?! 1 1 cxb4 i.xb4 12 �e3 0-0 1 3 .:c1 fS 1 4 lLie2 �c6 1 5 lLib6 lLid2 1 6 �xc6 lLixc6 1 7 lLixa8 .:xa8 1 8 �xd2 �xd2 19 .:c2 gave White a clear advantage in Hebden-Stepak, London 1 99 1 . c2) 1 0. . .�xe4 1 1 �xe4 lLixe4 1 2 cxb4 �xb4 (12...'ii'xb4?! 1 3 i.e3 i.e7 14 lLifS!! exfS 1 5 lLib6 was good for White in Sutov­ sky-Agrest, Harplinge 1 998) 13 a3 �e7 1 4 b 4 'ii'd 8 and I would prefer Black's extra pawn to White's pressure.

5 ltJ c 3 b 5 : Six th M o v e A l terna tives

9 0-0

The sharpest try. White offers the e4pawn and hopes to cash in on his develop­ ment advantage. If White wants to keep his pawn, there are two main ways of defending e4: a) 9 ii'e2 ii'a5! 10 b3 ttJc6 1 1 i.b2 (1 1 i.e3 ttJxd4 comes to the same thing) 1 1 ...ltJxd4 1 2 i.xd4 e5!? (12 ... ii'b5 1 3 ii'd3 i.e7 14 0-0 e5! 1 5 i.e3 d5 1 6 exd5 i.xd5 also looks fine for Black, Hellers-Kengis, Aarhus 1 997) 1 3 i.b6 'ir'bS 14 'ifd3 i.e7 1 5 0-0 .l:.c8 1 6 .l:.acl 0-0 and Black has no cause here to complain about his position, Balashov-Chuchelov, Germany 200 1 . b) 9 i.g5 i.e7 1 0 0-0 'it'a5! 1 1 i..x f6 i.xf6 1 2 c3! (1 2 tiJb3? ii'xa4! 13 ttJc5 ii'c6 14 ttJxb7 i.e5! 1 5 ttJd6+ 'ifxd6 1 6 'ifxd6 i.xd6 1 7 e5 i.xe5 1 8 i.xa8 i.xb2 1 9 .l:.ab 1 i.c3 gave Black a very pleasant ending in Bistric-Sax, Sarajevo 1 982) 1 2... ttJc6 1 3 cxb4 ii'xb4 14 ttJe2 .l:.d8 (Kobalija) and Black is certainly no worse here. 9 i.xe4 This looks the most logical way of grab­ bing the e-pawn. 9 ... ttJxe4 is less logical as Black has entered a self-pin along the long diagonal. Play continues 1 0 l:te1 d5 1 1 ttJxe6! fxe6 1 2 ii'h5+ and now: a) 1 2 .. .'iitd7 1 3 i.xe4 dxe4 1 4 .l:.d 1 + i.d5 1 5 c4! (Plaskett; 15 .l:.xd5+?! exd5 1 6 ii'xd5+ 'it>c8 1 7 ii'xa8 ii'dl + 1 8 'it>g2 'if£3+ is a perpetual check) 15 ...bxc3 16 ttJxc3 'it>c6 17 i.e3 and it's difficult to believe that the black king will survive the onslaught of the white pieces. b) 12 ... g6 13 'ife5 'ifd7! (the only move; 13 ... 'iff6? 14 .l:.xe4 'ifxe5 1 5 l:txe5 'it>f7 1 6 i..h 3 i s good for White a s 1 6. . .i.c8? loses to 1 7 tiJb6, while 1 3. .. tiJf6? runs into 1 4 'ifxe6+ ii'e7 1 5 Ji..g5) 1 4 ii'xh8 'ifxa4 1 5 £3 ttJc5 (Kupreichik-Gdanski, Leningrad 1 989) 1 6 ii'xh7 'ifd7 (or 1 6 ...'ifxc2 17 i.h3!) 1 7 ii'xg6 + ii' f7 1 8 'ir'g4 (Plaskett) and White is better. 1 0 i.xe4 ltJxe4 1 1 .ll e 1 d5

If Black doesn't want to settle for a drawish ending then he could try the more ambitious 1 1 ...tiJf6!? but this also carries far more risk. 1 2 'it'£3 d5 1 3 i.g5 and now we have: a) 1 3 . . . i..e7 14 ttJf5 exf5 1 5 i..x f6 gxf6 1 6 .l:.ad1 .l:.a7 1 7 'ir'xf5 'it>f8 1 8 .l:.xd5, Thiel­ Sax, Senden 1 998. b) 13 ... ttJbd7 1 4 c4 bxc3 15 ttJxc3 i..c 5 (15 ... i..b4 16 ttJxd5! i.xe1 17 l:he1 with ideas of ttJc6 and ttJf5) 1 6 .l:.xe6+! fxe6 1 7 ttJxe6, Thiel-Nijboer, Germany 1 999. In both cases it's difficult to come to any major conclusions but it's clear that Black faces a fierce attack before having a chance to utilise his extra material.

. . .

1 2 ltJxe6!

The only way forward. I don't believe White has enough compensation after either 12 c4 bxc3 1 3 bxc3 i.d6 or 12 ii'£3 ttJd7. 1 2 fxe6 1 3 'iVh5 + g6 13 ... 'it>d7 virtually loses by force: 1 4 .l:.xe4! dxe4 1 5 i.. f4 'it>c8 1 6 .l:.d1 ttJd7 1 7 ii'e2 'ifa5 1 8 ii'c4+ ( 1 8 ii'xe4 also wins) 1 8 ... 'it>d8 1 9 'ifc6 .l:.a7 20 ttJb6 1 -0 Plaskett­ Volzhin, England 1 998. After 20... 'ifb5 White wins with 21 i..g5+ . 1 4 'iVe5 'iVf6! The best move. 14 ... 'ir'd7 1 5 ttJb6 i.g7 1 6 ttJxd7 i.xe5 1 7 ttJxe5 is a superior ver­ sion of the game for White, while 1 4 ... .l:.g8?? loses to 1 5 'ifxe6+. 1 5 .llxe4 'iVxe5 16 l:txe5 �f7 . . .

1 79

Sicilia n Kan

17 l:eJ! I believe that it's White who has to play accurately here to equalise. The rook is well placed on the third rank, where it can some­ times harass the black king. 1 7 l:.e2?! ttJd7! 1 8 ..te3 ..tg7 1 9 .l:ld 1 l:.hc8 20 l:f.d3?! aS! is an example of what

1 80

can happen if White plays too casually. Black will double rooks on the c-ftle and White's c2-pawn will be a major weakness, Brynell-C.Hansen, Reykjavik 2000. 1 7 . . .a 5 Supporting the b4-pawn and preparing to defend the e6-pawn with ... l:.a6. Another continuation is 17 ... lbd7 18 l:tf3+ �g7 19 b3! l:.c8 20 ..tb2+ eS 21 l:td3 d4 22 f4 l:hc2 23 fxeS tt::lc S 24 tt::lx cS .ixcS 25 .ixd4 l:.d8 26 l:tad1 l:hd4 27 l:.xd4 l:.xa2 28 �h1 i.xd4 29 .l:lxd4 with a drawn endgame, Barczay-Korpics, Hungarian League 1 996. 1 8 l:fJ + �eB 1 9 .i.f4 ltJd7 20 .l:!.e 1 l:!.a6 21 .l:!.fel Setting up a draw by repetition. It's in White's interests to do this because, as we have seen, if Black consolidates then the c2pawn could prove to be weak. 21 . . .�f7 22 llfl �eB 23 .l:!.fel �f7 Yz - Yz

5 liJ c 3 b 5 : Six th Mo v e A l terna tives

Summary Currently 6 .. i.b7 remains out of fashion and I believe this will not change except maybe with the offshoot 6 ...i.b7 7 0-0 'ii'b 6. White's play in Game 70 casts a big shadow over black ideas involving .Jfje7. 6 g3 continues to be popular, if nothing else because the position can arise from other move orders (1 e4 cS 2 lt:'lf3 e6 3 lt:'lc3 a6 4 g3 bS 5 d4 cxd4 6 lt:'lxd4 is one example) . It will be interesting to see if White can come up with any improvements over Thiel-Chuchelov (Game 71), which looks theoretically fine for Black at the moment. .

1 e4 c5 2 liJf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJxd4 a6 5 liJc3 b5 (D) 6 ..td3 6 g3 (D) Game 71 6 . . . ..tb7 7 0-0 Wb6 - Game 69 7 lt:'le7 (D) - Game 70 -

...

5. . . b5

6 g3

7

. . .

ltJe 7

181

CHAPTER NINE

I

5 c4

1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 c4 In this chapter we will be dealing with 5 c4. With this move White shows that he is not concerned about keeping his options open and immediately sets up the Maroczy Bind. However, 5 c4 has never been any­ where near as popular as 5 i.d3, the main reason for this being that Black has some important alternatives to simply accepting the hedgehog structure with ... d7-d6. We will be dealing with these possibilities here. 1 e4 c5 2 lDf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lDxd4 a6 5 c4 Here's a summary of White's other fifth move possibilities: a) 5 i.e2!? l2Jf6 6 l2Jc3 .tb4!? (6 ... "fic7, transposing to the note to Black's 6th move in Game 59, is the safest course for Black) 7 0-0 .txc3 8 bxc3 l2Jxe4 9 "fid3 (9 .td3 l2Jf6 1 0 :e1 0-0 1 1 .tgS h6 1 2 .th4 l2Jc6 1 3 "fif3 dS was unclear in Ricardi-Smirin, Internet [blitz] 2000) 9 ... d5 10 .ta3 eS 1 1 l2Jb3 "fic7 was prematurely agreed drawn in Stean­ Gheorghiu, Teeside 1 975 with White having good compensation for the minus pawn. b) 5 f4 gives Black a number of ways to play. He can continue in hedgehog fashion with 5 ... d6, while both S ... .tcS and S ... dS!? 6 eS l2Jc6 seem reasonable. 1 82

c) 5 g3 dS! is a good equaliser: c1) The endgames that arise after 6 l2Jc3 dxe4 7 l2Jxe4 eS 8 l2Jb3 "fixd 1 + 9 'it'xd 1 l2Jc6, 6 exdS "fixdS! 7 l2Jf3 "fixd 1 + 8 'it'xd 1 l2Jc6 and 6 i.g2 dxe4 7 i.xe4 l2Jf6 8 .tg2 eS 9 l2Jb3 "fixd1 + 1 0 'it'xd1 l2Jc6 all look very comfortable for Black. c2) 6 l2Jf3 l2Jf6 7 exdS "fixdS (7 ... exdS is also playable) 8 "fixd5 l2Jxd5 9 .tg2 l2Jc6 1 0 0-0 i. e7 1 1 c 3 f6 1 2 l2Jbd2 'it' f7 1 3 l2Jc4 .td7 14 :d1 .l:.ad8 was equal in Mosquera­ Zapata, Cali 200 1 . c3) 6 e S l2Jc6 7 l2Jxc6 bxc6 8 i.g2 "fic7 looks fine for Black. In the game Dovliatov­ Macieja, Batumi 2002, White tried the speculative sacrifice 9 0-0?! but following 9 ... "fixe5 1 0 c4 lDf6 1 1 l2Jc3 "fic7 1 2 :e1 .te7 13 .tf4 "fid8 14 "fia4 .td7 15 :ad1 0-0 he had little to show for his pawn. d) 5 l2Jd2 "fic7 6 .td3 l2Jf6 7 0-0 trans­ poses to note 'c' to White's 7th move in Game 19. e) 5 .te3 will also usually transpose to lines discussed earlier. For example 5 ... l2Jf6 6 .td3 'ifc7 7 0-0 transposes to note 'd' to White's 7th move in Game 19. 5 lDf6 5 ... g6 is less effective against 5 c4 than against 5 i.d3 as White's light-squared bishop doesn't block the d-file. Conse. . .

5 c4

quently Black will be under more pressure down this ftle. 6 lLlc3 .ig7 7 .ie3 lbe7 8 i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 'ii'd2 'ii'c 7 1 1 l:tfd1 gave White a pleasant advantage in Estrin­ Siklos, correspondence 1 97 5. 6 lL'lc3 6 i.d3 is met in typical fashion by 6 ... lLlc6! and now: a) 7 lLlxc6 dxc6! is comfortable for Black. 8 i.f4!? lbd7 9 lLlc3 e5 10 .ie3 .ic5 was level in I.Polgar-Portisch, Hungary 1 97 1 . b) 7 .ie3 lLle5!? 8 0-0 lLlfg4!? (8 ... 'ii'c7 transposes to Game 1 7) 9 .ict i.c5 10 .ie2 'ii'f6 (10 ... lLlxf2!? 1 1 lhf2 'ii'b6 12 i.e3 lbc6 1 3 .ih5 g6 14 'i'f3! was better for White in Galow-Matt, correspondence 1 995) 1 1 i.xg4 i.xd4 looks reasonabl� for Black.

6

i.b4 This is the move Black tries if he doesn't wish to play a Hedgehog. The main alterna­ tive is 6 ... 'ii'c 7, after which White has three main choices: a) 7 .ie2, preparing to castle but allowing ... .ib4, is studied in Game 75. b) 7 a3, preventing the pin with ... i.b4, is dealt with in Game 74. c) 7 .id3 bolsters the e-pawn, but leaves the knight on d4 undefended. After the typical 7 ... lLlc6! White has the following possibilities: a) 8 l2Jf3 b6 9 0-0 l2Jg4 transposes to note 'c' to White's 8th move in Game 1 7. b) 8 lLlxc6 dxc6 9 0-0 e5 transposes to . . .

the note to White's 9th move i n Game 1 6. c) 8 .ie3 lLle5 9 h3 (9 'ii'e2?! lLlfg4!) 9 ... b6 10 l:tct i.b7 1 1 0-0 transposes to the note to White's l Oth move in Game 17. d) 8 lLlde2 .ic5 9 0-0 lLle5 1 0 h3 d6 1 1 .ig5 lLlfd7 1 2 l:tct (Chiburdanidze-Suetin, Moscow 1 981) 12 ... lLlxd3 1 3 'ii'xd3 lbe5 is equal according to Suetin. 7 .i.d3 Alternatively: a) 7 e5 promises little: 7 ... lLle4 8 'ii'g4 lLlxc3 9 a3 i.f8 1 0 bxc3 d6 1 1 exd6 e5! 1 2 lLlf5 g6 1 3 'ii'g3 lLlc6 1 4 lLle3 ( 1 4 lLlh6?! 'ii'xd6 15 .ie2 f5 16 .ig5 .ie7 17 0-0 .ixg5 18 'iixg5 'iWe7 19 h4 'ii'xg5 20 hxg5 .ie6 left White's knight doing very little on h6 in Van der Wiel-Cacho Reigadas, Linares 1 995) 14 ... 'ii'xd6 1 5 i.e2 f5 1 6 lbd5 .ie6 left Black comfortably placed in Campora­ Motwani, Manila Olympiad 1 992. b) 7 .id2 0-0 8 e5 .ixc3 9 .ixc3 lbe4 and now: b1) 10 'ii'c2 d5 1 1 exd6 lLlxc3 12 'ii'xc3 'ii'xd6 1 3 0-0-0 'ii'f4+ 1 4 'ii'e3 'ii'x e3+ 1 5 fxe3 e5 1 6 lLl f3 lLlc6 was level in Kavalek­ Portisch, Halle 1 963. b2) 10 .ib4 d6 1 1 'ii'e 2 'ii'b6 12 lLlc2 lbc6 13 a3 d5 14 f3 lbc5 1 5 'ii'e 3 d4! 1 6 lLlxd4 lLlxb4 1 7 axb4 'ii'x b4+ and Black had equalised in Korchnoi-Furman, Leningrad 1 957. 7 lbc6 . . .

Again a characteristic reaction to White's 1 83

Sicilian Kan

i.f6 �xe4 21 fxe4 l:f.g6 22 eS 'ii'c 6 and White didn't have enough compensation for the material disadvantage in VelimirovicRublevsky, Novi Sad 2000. b) 1 4 i.b2 'ii'e 7! (14 ... eS 1 S :e1 0-0 1 6 :xeS gave White good compensation in Velimirovic-Pikula, Yugoslav Ch. 1 996) 1 S i.xg7 l%g8 1 6 �c3 f6 1 7 f4 �d7 1 8 'ii'b 2 'iii> f7 19 'ii'xb7 l%ab8 20 'ii'a7 cS and Black was better, Janssen-Quinteros, BadenBaden 1 985. 1 2 . . .'ifxd3 1 3 fxg7 l:l.g8 14 ..th6 'ifc3 + Game 72 1 5 'iirf 1 'iff6 Drygalski-Filutowski 1 S ...'ii'xc4+ nets another pawn, but instead Black correcdy addresses more pressCo"espondence 1 995 .________________. ing issues, like the dark-squared weaknesses 1 e4 c5 2 lbf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lbxd4 a6 around his king. 1 6 'ifc1 e5 1 7 l:l.b 1 ! ? ..ie6! ? 5 c4 lbf6 6 lbc3 ..ib4 7 .i.d3 lbc6 8 Stirring up more complications by allowlbxc6 dxc6 9 e5 ing the b7-pawn to drop. Black can keep his The sharpest move, after which there is a pawn with 17 ...bS, for example 18 cxbS mass of complications. In contrast, 9 0-0 eS axbS 1 9 .l:tb2 �fS 20 h4 :a4 21 'iii>g 1 _:g4 leads to a dull equality. 22 l:td2 �e4 23 'ii'a3 'ii'xh6 24 'ii'a 8+ 'iii>e7 9 . . . 'ifd4 9 ... 'ii'a S leads to exactly the same thing. 2S 'ii'a 7+ 'iii> f6 26 .l:td6+ 'iii>xg7 27 :xh6 'iii>x h6 28 'ii'e 3+ 'iii>h S 29 f3 :xg2+ 30 'iii> fl 1 0 exf6 ..ixc3 + 1 1 bxc3 'ifxc3 + .idS 31 'ii'x eS+ 'iifh6 32 'ii' f4+ 'iifhS 33 'ii' fS + 'iii>h6 with a draw by perpetual check, Lonoff-S.Wolff, correspondence 1 987. i.d3. White now has various choices: a) 8 lt:Jxc6 is the subject of Game 72. b) 8 �c2 is studied in Game 73. c) 8 lt:Jc2!? i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 dS! 1 0 exdS exdS 1 1 �a3 �e6 1 2 'ii'e2 'ii'c7 1 3 0-0 0-0-0 1 4 cS l:the8 was unclear i n OppenriederO.Moiseev, correspondence 1 9S7. d) 8 lt:Jde2 'ii'c 7 9 0-0 lt:JeS 1 0 h3 (Ehlvest-Bologan, Calcutta 1 999) and now Bologan gives 10 ... 0-0 1 1 f4 lt:Jxd3 12 'ii'xd3 d6 1 3 a3 �cS+ 14 'iii> h 1 i.d7 as equal.

1 2 ..id2 The Yugoslav GM Velimirovic has tried 1 2 'ii'd 2!? on more than one occasion. After 1 2... 'ii'xa 1 1 3 0-0 (13 fxg7 'ii'xg7 1 4 0-0 eS 1S f4 �g4 16 �b2 0-0-0 is good for Black ­ Tal) 1 3 . .. 'ii'x f6 we have: a) 1 4 �a3 �d7 1 S l:tb1 cS! 1 6 �e4 'ii'e S 17 f3 �c6 1 8 �b2 'ii'c 7 1 9 �xg7 l:tg8 20 1 84

1 8 l:l.xb7 0-0-0 1 9 l:l.b6 1 9 lta7!? 'ii'h4 20 .l:ta8+ 'iitc 7 21 :xd8 l:t.xd8 was very messy in the game Oech­ slein-Bernardt, correspondence 1 986. White has the dangerous passed pawn on g7 but

5 c4

but the rook on h 1 has yet to enter the game. 1 9 . . J�d4 Van der Tak gives the intriguing line 1 9 ... .th3 20 gxh3 (20 .U.xa6? 'ii'f3!) 20 ... 'ii' f3 21 .l:tg1 .t'td l + 22 'ii'xd 1 'ii'x dl + 23 �g2 'ii'd 6 24 l:lgb1 'ii'g 6+ 25 �fl 'ii'd 3+ with a draw by perpetual check, but perhaps Black can play for the win with 24 ... �d7!?, aiming to cross over to the kingside. 20 .:.xc6 + 'iti>b7 21 :c5 'ii'd 8 22 'iti>e2 22 �e 1 ? 'ii'd6! 23 'ii'b 1 + �a8 24 l:ta5 l:td8 wins for Black - Van der Tak. 22 . . .'ii'b 6 Now 22 ... 'ii'd 6? is answered by 23 'ii'b 2+ �a8 24 .U.b 1 !. 23 'ii'a 3 ..txc4 + 24 :xc4 :xc4 25 'ii'f3 + 'iti>b8 26 'it'xf7 l:tc2 + 27 ..td2 'ii'b 5 + 28 �e3

28 . . .'ii'b 6 + Black settles for the draw, a wise move as 28 ... l:td8?! 29 �f3! 'ii'c 6+ 30 �g3 'ii'g6+ 3 1 'ii'xg6 hxg6 32 .t'tb 1 + �c8 3 3 ..1g5 (Van der Tak) only gives White winning chances. 29 �e2 'ii'b 5 + 30 'ite3 'ii'b6 + 3 1 'iti>e2 %-% ..-----

Game 73 Kruger-Silva Filho

Comspondence 1 998 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 ..tb4 7 ..td3 lLlc6 8 ..tc2

'ii'c 7 8 ...l2Je5 9 0-0! lLlxc4 10 'ii'e2 l2Je5 1 1 �h1 d6 1 2 f4 lLlg6 1 3 f5 gives White a strong attack for the pawn. Mestel­ Shamkovich, Hastings 1 977/78 continued 1 3 ... l2Je5 14 .ia4+! b5 1 5 .ixb5+! axb5 1 6 'ii'x b5+ 'iid7 1 7 'ii'xb4 and i t was White who had the extra pawn. 9 0-0

9 . . .lLlxd4 Also interesting is the line 9 ... 0-0 1 0 � h1 !? lLlxd4 1 1 'ii'xd4 l2Jg4 1 2 f4! and now: a) 12 ... b5 1 3 'ii'd 1 ! .txc3 (13. .. l2Jf6?! 1 4 e 5 lLle8 1 5 lLle4 was good for White in Mestel-Portisch, London 1 982) 14 bxc3 'ii'xc4 (Mestel) when I would prefer White's two bishops and attacking chances on the kingside to Black's extra pawn. b) 12 ... .tc5 13 'ii'd 3!? lLJ£2+ 1 4 l:tx£2 .tx f2 1 5 e5 g6 16 lLle4 .th4 17 .td2 b5! and now: b1) 1 8 l2Jf6+?! ..1xf6 1 9 exf6 (Mestel­ Miles, British Ch. 1 979) 19 ... 'ii'xc4 20 'ii'h 3 �h8 and Black defends. b2) 1 8 'ii'h 3! with a further split: b21) 18 ... 'ii'd 8 19 i.c3 .tb7 20 lLlf6+ .txf6 21 exf6 h5 (21 ...�h8 22 .txg6! - Cabrilo) 22 'ii'g3 �h7 23 .U.e1 d6 24 'ii'g5 .U.h8 25 .U.xe6 wins for White. b22) 1 8 ... .te7 1 9 ..1b4!. b23) 18 .. .f5! is the best defence: 19 .tb4 l:tf7 20 'ii'xh4 fxe4 21 ..1xe4 is unclear. 1 0 'ii'xd4 lLlg4 1 1 e5 lLlxe5 1 2 lLle4 1 85

Sicilian Kan

'ir'xh8+ 'itJe7 1 7 'ir'g7 'ir'e2 1 8 'ir'gS+ 'itJe8 1 9 'ir'g8+ 1/z- 1/z Mestel-Liberzon, Hastings 1 980/81 . 1 4 . . . .tb7? This allows a nasty trick. The position is still quite unclear after 1 4... 'ir'xd4! 15 ..ixd4 lLlg4. 1 5 fxe5 'i'xc2

1 2 . . . b6 The other way to defend the knight is with 1 2... d6. a) 13 f4 'ir'xc4 14 ..ie3 'ir'xd4 15 ..ixd4 dS? (Black should try 1 5 .. .'�Jg4!) 1 6 fxeS dxe4 17 J.xe4 0-0 1 8 l:tacl was clearly bet­ ter for White in Hector-Paramos Domin­ guez, La Coruna 1 995. b) 13 J.f4 f6 (or 13. ..b6? 1 4 a3 J.cS 1 5 'ir'c3 f5 1 6 J.a4+! 'itJf8 17 lLlxcS bxcS 1 8 l:tad1 lLlf7 1 9 J.xd6+! lLlxd6 20 'ir'eS 'itJ f7 21 .l:.xd6 'WaS 22 J.d7 1 -0 Chiburdanidze­ Fischdick, Belgrade 1 979) 14 a3 ..icS 1 5 lLlxcS 'ir'xcS 1 6 'ir'xcS dxcS 1 7 J.xeS fxeS 1 8 .l:.fe 1 J.d7 1 9 .l:.xeS with a slight plus for White due to Black's isolated e6-pawn, Ma­ ciejewski-Jaracz, Mikolajki 1 991 .

1 6 �xf7! ! i.d5 16 ... 'itJxf7 loses to 17 'ir'xd7+ J.e7 1 8 .l:.fl + and Black i s getting mated. 1 7 'i'xb4 �xf7 1 8 .l:!.f 1 + �g8 1 9 'i'e7 'i'xg2 + 1 9 ... h6 allows mate after 20 'ir'f7+ 'itJh7 21 lLlf6. It's really time to resign now! 20 �xg2 i.xe4 + 2 1 �g 1 i.g6 22 'i'xd7 h6 23 'i'xe6 + �h7 24 'i'xb6 1 -0

Game 74 Krnic-Taimanov

Vrnjacka Batya 1 974

1 3 f4 'i'xc4 1 4 i.e3! This is an attempted improvement over the older 14 'ir'xeS 'ir'xc2 1 5 'ir'xg7 'ir'xe4 1 6 1 86

1 e4 c5 2 lt:\f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6 5 c4 lt:\f6 6 lt:\c3 'i'c7 7 a3 By playing an early a2-a3 White rules out the possibility of ...J.b4 and thus restricts Black's opportunities to complicate early on. Black usually falls back on the hedgehog structure in the knowledge that White has 'wasted' a tempo. However, often the pawn on a3 actually serves a purpose as White later expands on the queenside (see Kas­ parov-Kramnik below).

5 c4

7 . . . b6! ? Refusing for the moment to close the bishop in with ... d7 -d6 and thus keeping some options open. Black's other choices include: a) 7 . ..lDc6 S .ie3 .ie7 9 l:tct 0-0 (9... lt:\e5 10 .ie2 lt:\g6 1 1 0-0 b6 12 f4 0-0 1 3 b4 was better for White in Torre-Karpov, Bad Lau­ terberg 1 977) 10 .ie2 lt:\xd4! 1 1 'ii'xd4 d6 1 2 0-0 l:tbS 1 3 'ii'b6 'ii'xb6 14 .ixb6 .id7 1 5 l:tfd 1 :res 16 b4 .ieS 17 .ia7 l:taS 1 S .ie3 lt:\d7 1 9 lt:\a4 l:tc6 20 f3 � f8 21 �£2 and White had a minuscule edge in Kas­ parov-Ivanchuk, Linares 2002. b) 7 ... d6 S .ie3 b6 9 l:tct liJbd7 10 .ie2 .ib7 1 1 f3 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 1 3 �h1 l:tacS reaches a typical Hedgehog position. Kas­ parov-Kramnik, Moscow 2001 continued 14 b4 'ii'b S 1 5 'ii'd2 .idS 16 l:tc2 l:teS (Stohl suggests 1 6 ... .ic7 1 7 .ig1 �hS with the ambitious idea of ... :gs and a possible ... g7g5; it was Fischer who introduced this plan) 1 7 lt:\a4 .ic7 (preparing ... d6-d5) 1 S .ig1 ! and White's space o n the queenside gives him slightly better chances. c) 7 ... lt:\xe4!? seems impossible at first but Black acrually does win back the piece. However, following S lt:\xe4 (S lt:\xe6 dxe6 9 lt:\xe4 .ie7 1 0 .id3 0-0 1 1 0-0 is probably slightly better for White) S... 'ii'e 5 9 .id3! (9 f3 d5!) 9 ...'ii'xd4 1 0 0-0 lt:\c6 1 1 .ie3 'ii'e 5 12 f4! 'ii'c 7 13 f5 (Watanabe-Braga, Brazil 1 991) White has a very strong initiative and

it would take a very brave player to play this as Black. 8 ..td3 S .ie3!? is the other main move. Follow­ ing S ... .ib7 9 f3 .ie7 1 0 .ie2 0-0 1 1 l:tct we transpose to the note to Black's 7th move in Game 75. 8 . . . ..tb7 9 0-0 lt'lc6! ? A s well a s this move, Black could try 9 ... .ic5, intending 10 liJb3 .ie7, or 9 ....ie7, for example 10 'ii'e2 d6 1 1 f4 0-0 leads to positions similar to ones already discussed except that White has played the not very useful a2-a3. 1 0 lt'lxc6 10 .ie3?! lt:\e5! gives Black good coun­ terplay. 1 0 . . . 1fxc6 In this particular instance Black recap­ rures with the queen rather than the d-pawn so as to keep the long diagonal open. 1 1 1fe2 ..te7 1 2 f4

1 2 . . . ..tc5 + ! 1 2... d6?! 1 3 e5 dxe5 1 4 fxe5 lt:\d7 1 5 .ie4 'ii'c 7 16 .ixb7 'ii'xb7 1 7 'ii'g4 (Taimanov) offers White dangerous attacking possibili­ ties on the kingside. 1 3 'it>h1 ..td4 Adding pressure on the vulnerable e4pawn. Now White should play 1 4 lt:\d5!. 1 4 e5?! ..txc3 1 5 bxc3 lt'le4 1 6 ..txe4 1fxe4 1 7 1fxe4 ..txe4 Black's excellent bishop and supenor 187

Sicilian Ka n

pawn structure guarantees an edge, although in the end this was not enough to win the game. 1 8 .te3 l:lc8 1 9 .txb6 l:lxc4 20 .ta5 g5 21 'iii>g 1 l:lg8 22 g3 gxf4 23 l:lxf4 l:.g5 24 l:.b1 .l:.xe5 25 l:.b8 + f2 i.d5 32 a4 I:!.c4 Y:z - Y2

Game 75 I .Aimasi-Portisch

Hungary 1 995 1 e4 c5 2 lLlf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lLlxd4 a6 5 c4 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 "ikc7 7 .te2 .tb4 Black accepts the invitation to pin the knight. Another interesting possibility here is 7 ... b6 S i.e3 .ib7 9 f3 .ie7 1 0 l:tc1 and now: a) 1 0 ... d6 accepts the hedgehog forma­ tion. Typical play would now be 1 1 0-0 lLlbd7 12 lid2 0-0 1 3 I:.fd1 I:.acS 14 i.fl libS 1 5 li£2 .idS! (on c7 the bishop pro­ tects both b6 and d6 and there's the possi­ bility of ... d6-d5, uncovering an attack on h2) 1 6 �h1 .ic7 1 7 lL:lde2 �hS! 1 S .id4 .ic6 19 .ie3?! (White should be doing something positive on the queenside) 19 ... lLleS 20 b3 (Bezgodov-Loskutov, Omsk 1 996) and now Black should proceed with 20 ... l:.gS!, intending ... g7-g5 and ...l:tg6. b) 1 0...0-0!?

1 88

with a further split: b1) 1 1 0-0?! .id6! and now White's best is to allow a perpetual with 12 g3 .ixg3 1 3 hxg3 lixg3+ a s both 1 2 h3? .ih2+ 1 3 �h1 lLlhS and 12 �h 1 .ixh2 13 f4 .ig3 14 l:tf3 lLlhS are unappetising. b2) 1 1 �£2?! (this looks a little too artifi­ cial) 1 1 ...l:%.dS! 1 2 g4?! (1 2 lib3 is stronger) 1 2... lL:lc6 1 3 lLlxc6 dxc6 1 4 ligl cS and Black was better in Van der Wiel-Bischoff, Baden-Baden 1 992. b3) I like the move 1 1 a3!, preventing any possible ... .ib4 checks and preparing lL:la4. Now 1 1 ... d6 would reach a typical Hedgehog, while 1 1 ...l:tdS 1 2 lL:la4! d6 1 3 lLlbS! axbS 14 cxbS lid7 1 5 lLlxb6 lieS 16 l::.c 7! l:ta7 17 lL:lc4 dS 1S .ixa7 dxc4 19 lia4 is better for White. 8 lLlc2 Immediately asking the question of the bishop. An alternative is S 0-0 i.xc3 9 bxc3 and now: a) 9 ... lLlxe4 10 i.d3! lL:lcS 1 1 l:te1 �f8 (1 1 ...d6 12 lLlfS! 0-0 1 3 lLlxd6!) 12 lL:lb3 gives White tremendous play for the pawn, Kapetanovic-Petronic, Yugoslavia 1 991 . b) 9 ... d6! 1 0 .ia3!? lLlxe4 1 1 .if3 lL:lcS 1 2 'i'd2 lLlbd7 1 3 ligS 0-0 1 4 lie7! l:ta7 1 5 l:.ad1 b6 1 6 lL:lc6 lL:leS 1 7 lixd6 lLlxf3+ 1 S gxf3 lixd6 1 9 l:.xd6 l:tc7 was unclear in Hector-Spassov, Chartres 1 990. 8 . . . .te7 Black decides to employ the Hedgehog after all! The main alternative is to capture on c3 with S ... .ixc3+ 9 bxc3 and here Black has a choice: a) 9 ... lLlxe4?! 10 lid4 lLlf6 1 1 .if4 'i'aS 1 2 .id6 gives White total domination of the dark squares. b) 9 ... lLlc6 10 lid3 0-0 1 1 .ia3 looks good for White, for example 1 t ...l:tdS 1 2 .id6 liaS 1 3 lLlb4 lLleS 1 4 0-0 lLlxd6 1 5 lixd6 lia3 1 6 e S lixc3 1 7 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 S l:tab 1 and Black has trouble developing his remaining pieces, Wollmann-Barten, corre­ spondence 1 994.

5 c4

c) 9 ... d6!? 10 .ia3 lt:\xe4 1 1 'ii'd 4 f5 1 2 .ih5+ �f8 1 3 .l:td 1 lt:\c6 1 4 'ii'e 3 lt:\a5 1 5 'ii'xe4 fxe4 1 6 .ixd6+ 'ii'xd6 1 7 .l:txd6 �e7 18 �d4 b6 19 �xe4 .ib7 20 �e2 lt:\xc4 21 lt:Jd4 e5 22 i.f3 .ixf3 23 lLlxf3 �f6 24 lt:\d2 lt:Jxd2 25 �xd2 l:tac8 26 �b 1 fizzled out into a draw in Bryson-Motwani, Aberdeen 200 1 , but Black must be very brave to take on these dark-squared weaknesses. 9 0-0 d6 1 0 i.e3 b6 1 1 f3 tt:lbd7 1 2 'i!i'e 1 .i.b7 1 3 'i!i'f2 13 �d 1 is more accurate. 1 3 . . . 0-0 Almasi gives 1 3 ... d5! as equalising imme­ diately, for example 1 4 exd5 exd5 1 5 cxd5 lt:\xd5 16 lt:\xd5 .ixd5 17 lt:Jd4 0-0 18 lt:Jf5 i.f6. 14 g4? ! White should play 14 �ad1 with the in­ tention of doubling on the d-ftle and thus making it impossible for Black to break with ... d6-d5. 1 4 . . . g6!? Now 1 4...d5? is answered by 15 g5!, the point of White's 1 4th move. 1 5 i.h6?

Enticing, but with White's king and queen on the same diagonal, White should have smelt the trouble brewing. 1 5 . . . d5!! A brilliant exchange sacrifice which re­ futes White's earlier play. Black will be able to feast on the self-inflicted weakness on White's kingside. 1 6 i.xts :xts 1 1 'i!i'g2 Almasi gives the following possibilities, all of which lead to a clear advantage for Black. a) 17 �h 1 dxe4 1 8 fxe4 lt:\e5!. b) 1 7 cxd5 .ic5 1 8 lt:\e3 'ii' f4 1 9 lt:Jcdl exd5. c) 17 exd5 .ic5 1 8 lt:\e3 'ii' f4 19 lt:Jcd 1 exd5. 1 7 . . . dxc4 1 8 f4 h6 1 9 h4?

19 g5 is more resilient. Now White's po­ sition begins to crumble. 1 9 . . . b5! 20 g5 hxg5 21 hxg5 .i.c5 + ! 22 �h 1 b4! 23 gxf6 bxc3 24 i.f3 'i!i'xf4 25 bxc3 tt:lxf6 26 e5 tt:le4 27 'ili'h2 lLlf2 + 0-1

1 89

Sicilian Ka n

Summary If Black really wishes to avoid playing the Hedgehog here then 6 i.b4 is the way forward, but Games 72-73 show that this leads to incredibly sharp positions. After 6 ..1r'c7 I prefer 7 a3 to 7 i.e2 and 7 i.d3. The note to Black's 8th move in Game 74 shows that it is then difficult for Black to avoid playing anything but a Hedgehog. Of course, this is certainly not a bad thing, otherwise the Kan would be unplayable! ...

.

1 e4 c5 2 lt:\fJ e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:\xd4 a6 5 c4 lt:\f6 6 lt:\cJ i.b4 6 1r'c7 7 i.e2 (D) - Game 75 7 a3 - Game 74 7 i.dJ lt:\c6 (D) 8 lt:\xc6 - Game 72 8 i.c2 (D) - Game 73 ...

7 i.e2

1 90

8 i.c2

INDEX OF COMPLETE GAMES

I

Acs-Fancsy, Zalakaros 1991 ............................. ...................................................................... 137 Adams-Kobalija, FIDE World Ch., Lu Vegas 1999 ............................................................. 24 Almasi.I-Portisch, Hungary 1995........ .................................................................................. 188 Almasi.Z-Anand, FIDE World Ch., Groningen 1997 ............................................................. 17 Almasi.Z-Farago, Linz 1995................................................................................................... 14 Almasi.Z-Stangl, Altensteig 1994 ............................................................................................. 88 Anka-Nijboer, Dieren 1998

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

1 13

Antal-Szilagyi, Budapest 200 1 ................................................................................................ 163 Antoniewski-Berzinsh, Prerov 200 1 ..................................................................................... 158 Aseev-Kochyev, Leningrad 1984 .............................................................................................. 53 Barash-Batakovs, Comspondence 1983 .................................................................................. 144 Beliavsky-Gheorghiu, Moscow 1981 ....................................................................................... 16 Berthelot-Velikov, Trignac 200 1 ....................................................................... ....................... 98 Blehm-Gajewski, Polish Championship 200 1 ......................................................................... 161 Borngaesser-Lau, Essen 1996 ................................................................................................. 29 Csoke-Lehoczki, Hungarian League 1998 ............................................................................... 38 Dix-Edwards, Comspondence 1993 .......................................................................................... 19 Docx-Van der Linden, Belgian League 1996 ........................................................................ 149 Drygalski-Filutowski, Comspondence 1995.......................................................................... 184 Goloshchapov-Kobalija, Ekaterinburg 1999........................................................................ 132 Golubev-Moroz, Donetsk 1998 .............................................................................................. 108 Grischuk-Smirin, FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000 .......................................................... 169 Haba-Poluj ahov, Swidnica 2000 ............................................................................................ 160 Hall-Hells ten, Limhamn 1998 ................................................ .......... ....................................... 54 Hanoman-Hellsten, Stockholm 1996 ........................ ...................................... ...................... 139 Hellers-Gheorghiu, Haifa 1989.............................................................................................. 19 Herschel-Fiensch, Comspondence 1979 .................................................................................. 92 Hjartarson-Bezold, Bermuda 1997.......................................................................................... 87 Horvath.J-Farago, Budapest 1987 ........................................................................................... 96 Jamieson-Adamski, Nice O!Jmpiad 1974 ............................................................................. 1 1 8

191

Sicilian Ka n Johnson-West, Comspondence 1997 ......................................................................................... 27 Kengis-Nevednichy.B, USSR 1979 ...................................................................................... 93 Khalifman-Rublevsky, Kazan 200 1 ....................................................................................... 66 Koch.C-Fanghui Feng, Comspondence 2000 ......................................................................... 56 Krnic-Taimanov, Vrnjacka Ba'!Ja 1974 ................................................................................ 186 Kruger-Silva Filho, Comspondence 1998 ............................................................................... 185 Lastin-Rublevsky, Moscow (bliti) 200 1 ................................................................................... 64 Lutz-Milov, European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 .......................................................................... 104 Magomedov-Khouseinov, Dushanbe 1999 ........................................................................... 48 Midoux-Eingom, Metz 2000 ................................................................................................ 147 Moberg-Agrest, Swedish Team Championship 200 1 ............................................................... 102 Motylev-Ye Jiangchuan, Shanghai 200 1 .............................................................................. 1 16 Nagatz-Dautov, Bad Lluterberg 199 1 ................................................................................... 135 Niggemann-Pfrommer, Comspondence 1998 ........................................................................ 84 Nunn-Khurtsidze, World Team Ch., l.JJcerne 1997............................................................... 122 Parma-Capelan, Solingen 1968................................................................................................. 90 Pikula-Cvitan, Bie/ 1996

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

140

Plachetka-Ravikumar, Politiken Cup, Copenhagen 1980 ........................................................ 37 Polgar.J-Miezis, Tallinn, 200 1 ............................................................................................... 120 Sandor-Chemuschevich, Poznan 1995.................................................................................. 40 Sax-Fogarasi, Hungarian League 1997 ................................................................................... 126 Schlosser-Vyzmanavin, Sochi 1989........................................................................................ 4 2 Shaposhnikov-Karttunen, Athens 200 1 ................................................................................ 22 Shirov-Agrest, European Team Ch., Leon 200 1 ...................................................................... 100 Shirov-Komeev, Spain 1998..................................................................................................... 99 Shirov-Rublevsky, Montecatini Terme 2000 ............................................................................. 68 Shmuter-Maryasin, Israeli Team Championship 1999 ........................................................... 165 Short-Sax, Amsterdam 1983 ...................................................................................................... 3 1 Smirin-Goldin, Philadelphia 1998............................................................................................. 5 1 Stisis-Oratovsky, Tel Aviv (rapid) 1996................................................................................. 1 15 Sulskis-Eingom, Koszalin 1999 ............................................................................................. 124 Svidler-Milov, Biel, 2000 ........................................................................................................ 1 75 Thiel-Chuchelov, Munster 1995 ............................................................................................ 1 77 Timman-Kengis, Yerevan Ofympiad 1996 ............................................................................... 70 Tiviakov-Milov, Groningen 1998 ............................................................................................ 145 Tolnai-Sjoberg, Zalakaros 1992 ............................................................................................ 153 Torres-Smirin, New York 1998 ............................................................................................. 105 Trapl-Tompa, Decin 1977 ........................................................................................................ 32 Ulibin-Milov, Frankfurt (rapid) 1999 ....................................................................................... 61 Vogt-Gheorghiu, Hamburg 1984 ............................................................................................. 72 Vujanovic-Verdier, Comspondence 2000 ................................................................................. 46 Waitzkin-Gurevich.I, New York 1 994 ................................................................................. 151 Watson.W-Mortensen, Heming 199 1 ................................................................................... 1 77 Widenmann-Andersen, Comspondence 1985 ....................................................................... 142 Wydrowski-Panter, Comspondence 1996............................................................................... 125

1 92