Valery Bronznik
The Chigorin Defence
Schachverlag Kania
ISBN 3-931192-28-8 1st Edition
:�; 200 5 by:
Schachverlag Kania Originally published in German as "Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung", I S B N 3-93 1 1 92- 2 1 -0 ��; 2004/2001 by: Schachve rl ag Kania Address: Schachverlag Kania Richard-Wagner-Str. 43 0-71 701 Schwieberdingen Germany Tel./Fax +49 (0) 71 50 /3 70 98 eMail:
[email protected]. Keilhack@aol .com I nternet: www.kaniaverlag.de Typeset: Harald Keilhack Editorial office: Dieter Mohrlok, Harald Kei lhack Translation: Hans W i echert (Chapter 1 -2), Rossen Aoussev Proofreadi ng: Joh n Adam s Print & Binding: Druck Viener, V i m perk/Cz Cover design: Frank Stiefel
All rights reserved
Contents
3
Contents Contents
.. .. . . . . . . . .
Symools
...................................................................................•.•.•...................
...
Introduction .. Ad<.nowledgef1lents
. ,.,., .................... 3
. . ......... . .. .... .. .. . ......... . . . ... . . . .... .. ....... . ........ . . .
.. .. .. .. .. . . .. ..
..
4
. . . .,.,.. ., ......... , .......................................................... 5
....
.
.
..
.... ................ . . . . . . . . . ... .. .....
. .
.
......
.
.. .
. ., .......,.,.,.,.,........................ 8
Chapter 1
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 lZJc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.e3
Chapter 2
1.d4 d5 2.c4
Chapter 3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3 tZJc3 dxc4 4/iJf3
Chapter 4
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tZJc3 0:Jf6
Chapter 5
1 d4 d5 2.c4llJc6 3.tZJf3 Ag4 4.cxd5 i.xf3 S.gxf3 . . . . 119 1.d4 d5 2.04 tZJcS 3.tZJf3 .tg4 4.cxdS bf3 5,dxc6 ixc6 6.0 0lC3. 142 1.d4 d5 2. c4 tiJc6 3.ttJf3 �g4 4f2d . . . .... ....... . . .. .. .. .. ... ..... 157
C hapter 6
Chapter 7
tZJc6 3 tZJc3 dxc4 4.d5 .
•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•...................
.. . ... . .
.
...... ..... .
" ,
.
.... .
.
.
...
.. ...
.
.
. .. .
.
. ... . . . . . . . . . ... ...
..
..
.. ..... . .
.. .......
.
.
..
...................................... 50
.. .
.
9
. 20
.... ..... . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
104
. . . ..
.
.
.
Chapter 8 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tZJf3 .tg4 4.e3 .................................... , ....... 169 Chapter 9 1 d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 ..tg4 4. �a4 . . . . . . . . 174 Chapter 10 1.d4 d5 2.04 ttJc6 3.tZJf3 a5 . " .. ""...................................... 181 Chapter 1 1 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3 cxdS �xd5 4.t[jf3 e5 . .. . . 195 Chapter 12 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6. 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 a5 5.0c3 i.b4 .
. ..
.
. .. ..
.
. ....
.... .
.
. ..... ......
. .........
. . . . . ..
.
S .td2 �xc3 7 .bxc3. . ... ... ... . .
.
.
.
. ... ..
. ...... .
.
.
.
.
.
...... .. ... . .
............. .
... . .
. ..
.
...
...
...... . . . . . . .
. 206
Chapter 13 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxdS "*,xd5 4.e3 e5 5. c£cl .tb4 6. .td2 bc3 7. .txc3 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. 260 Chapter 14 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.e3 e5 4.dxe5 .. . 297 . Chapter 15 1.d4 d5 2.tZJf3 tZJc6 3,,tf4 (3.i..g5. 3.e3) 3 ..�g4 .. . . .... ... . 303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... .
.
.
.
..
..
.
.. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. .
.
Chapter 16 1.d4 d5 2.tZJf3 tlJc6 3.g3 Index of Players . . . . .
Bibiiogr8J)l1y
..
...
.
.
.
.
. .
..
.... . . . .. ........
.
.
.
. . . .....
. . . . . .. ..
.
..
.
..
.. ........ . ..
.
..
.
.
. . .... ..... . . . . . . . .... .. . . ..... . . . .......
317
, ........................................................................................ 330
..
.. .. .. .. .
.
. ....,.,.,.,.•.,.,... , ............................ " ...... " .........................
Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.. ... . ..... . . . . ...... .
..
332
. . . . . . 333
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ..........
..
.
. . . .
4
Symbols
Symbols +-
White has a decisive advantage
±
White stands clearly better
�
W hite stands slightly better
00
unclear position
=+=
Black stands slightly better
balanced position
+ -+
Black stands clearly better Black has a decisive advantage with compensation for the material with the idea
x
weak point
#
mate
!!
brilliant move good move
!? ?! ? ??
interesting move dubious move bad move blunder
(oJ)
olympiad
carr.
correspondence game
I CC 3/0
Internet Chess Club, game with 3 minutes and 0 seconds increment
see resp. leads to diagram: White is to move diagram: Black is to move
Introduction
5
Introduction Dear chess friend ! As every chess pl aye r, of course you have worried about which kind of openings to apply in order to be as successful as possible. With Black it is particularly difficult to make the right choice - right from the start we are in a situation in which the opponent tries to force his will upon us. What can we do to get rid of this pres sure? There are different ways of dealing with this problem. Many players strive for a maybe some what passive, but solid position with Black, intending to equalize the chan ces sooner or later by accurate play and precise defence. And if the oppo nent over-extends his position, in this way they even may achieve a whole point.
This restricted method is, by all means, possible, but there are a lot of draw backs, e.g.: • There are relatively few possibilities for the opponent to blunder in the opening or in the early middlegame because when we play like this, he does not have any threats to which he must respond. For him it is (at least in these stages of the game) only a matter of making his initiative tell or not. • On the other hand, the probability of making a mistake is much greater for us - it is much more difficult to defend preCisely than to play actively.
• Against a weaker opponent we nor mally want to win. But if our opponent has got the initiative from the very beginning, it often happens that our at tempts to neutralize only lead to equali
ty. Nor is it recommendable to get into a passive position against a stronger opponent. He will certainly be pleased with this and try to initiate some plan of attack. Because of the different playing strengths, it can often happen that we recognise his ideas too late. And in a passive position a single inaccuracy can cost us the whole point. •
• The probability of the opponent getting into time trouble when we play in such a way is relatively small. But we ourselves are in much greater danger of suffering time trouble, be cause defending a passive position normally needs more time than the attack.
If our opponent has an active po sition he will feel good psychologically as well.
•
For that reasons many players dispense with quiet openings when playing Black, but go to the other extreme - they play risky systems, which are over-active and demand exact play of the opponent from the very beginning, too, but ob jectively speaking they are anti-positional and therefore bad. Now and then this can lead to success, but if the opponent prepares for the game or by some chance knows the variation we play, we are virtually lost.
I ntroduction
6
But there is a third approach - to play openings, which are active and positionally sound at the same time. The best examples are the King's Indian or the Sicilian Defence. But here we face the other problem: they are mostly very popular, and we can hardly expect that our opponent doesn't know them. It would be ideal if our opening were not only active and sound. but also not too popular and therefore not that well-known to our potential opponents. Then we have m uch more chances of embarrass ing our opponent from the very begin ning. Of course in doing so we have to know ourselves the most important vari ations and the typical positions and have to understand the strategic features. This is then the right time to acquaint ourselves with the Chigorln Defence. It is about the positions, which arise after 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6!? and 1 .d4 d5 2.(J3 l�::�c6 ! ?
a) Giving up the centre immediately with 2 dxc4, moment, getting an extra pawn - the Queen's Gambit Accepted. This opening is considered as relatively safe, but somewhat passive. As a rule, White soon regains the pawn , gets a space advantage and has several possibilities to fight for the i nitiative. There are also many variations in which he can avoid virtually any risks and yet have a slightly more active position . ...
b)
Strengthening the d5-pawn, e.g.:
b 1 ) 2 _ e 6 - Queen's Gambit Declined Black doesn't give up the centre, but protects his central pawn. This classical treatment of the Queen's Gambit is also safe, but passive. The drawback of . .. e7-e6, however, is obvious - the c8bishop is locked up. Normally a positional game with a slight advantage for White lies ahead, whereas for a long time Black can only fight for equality . .
.
b2) 2 c6 - Slav Defence The c8-bishop stays free, but now the c6-square is denied to the knight. Po sitionally speaking , the Slav Defence ;s very healthy. and many top players pre fer it. But W hite has a very wide range of both quiet and sharp variations, and, as a rule. he dictates the play. •••
1 .d4 d5 2.c4
c) I nstead of giving up the centrJ or passively strengthening it, Black launches a counter attack against W h ite's central pawns. c1 ) 2 _eS?! Albin's Counter-Gambit He sacrifices a pawn, hoping to get a space advantage in the centre after 3.dxe5 d4 . According to theory, this is considered to be not quite correct, although White needs good opening knowledge. •.
let's have a closer look at this position. W ith his last move W hite began to take action against Black's centre, specifically against the d5-pawn. The second player has basically three possibilities:
-
Introduction c2) 2 ... tiJeSI?
7
8.f3 fS 9.eS 0J:J7 1 0.83 etaS 1 1 . .tc4 .tdS 1 2.'iYa4+ cS 13 . .td3 'ii' bS 1 4 . .tc2 'ilaS 1 S .td1 .tc4 1 6.f4 0-0-0 1 7..te3 •
tiJds
Black develops his knight and attacks the d4-pawn at the same time. More over, the cS-knight supports the action in the centre with ... e7-eS. The queen's bishop stays free, and in the case of tlJgl-f3, it is ready to go to g4 in order to increase the pressure on d4. And now, after only two opening moves, Black has an advantage in development! In terms of the second possibility 1 .d4 dS 2/: ":f3 I�'� '.cS !? Black can begin an active fight for the centre with 3 . . . l:.g4 at the next move. The black system is so aggressive that, to tell the truth, I don't understand why th: s opening is called 'Defence', and therefore I would suggest it be regarded as a counter attack. The Russian chess player Mihail Chigorin who was a world-class player in the Steinitz era and discovered 2 tlJcS!?, was considered as a particularly dangerous opponent because of his agg ressive style and his original ideas. Let me now take the liberty of demonstrat ing one of his games, which I like best:
...
Pillsbury Chigorin 51. Petersburg 1 895 -
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJe6 3.tiJf3 .tg4 4.cxdS iLxf3 S.dxe6 AxeS S.tiJc3 eS 7.e4 Ab4
Harry Nelson Pillsbury - one of the strongest players of his time - is totally outplayed after 1 7 moves. And this happened without tactical tricks, purely pOSitionally! There followed 1 8.i.d2 tZJb6 19. �c2 �d4 20.l:[c1 Ad3 21 . �b3 tiJc4, and he cou ld already have resigned with a clear conscience. Nowadays the opening has a curious and hardly comprehensible status. On the one hand it still occurs relatively seldom , o n the other hand it is fre q uently employed by some strong players, and that with good results. Alexander Morozevich, for a couple of years one of the world's top players, employs the Chigorin Defence even against players like Kramnik, Anand or Ivanchuk. The strong grandmaster Igor Miladinovic is an absolute Chigorin fan and confirms with his numerous wins the high quality of the great Russian player's discovery. GM Robert Rabiega, who convincingly won the strong German championship in 2000, certainly appreciates M.Chigorin - he twice played against the Queen's Gambit in this tournament, and he twice scored the full point with 2 �"��c6. Christoph ...
8
Introduction
Wisnewski, the tournament's surprise who started with the worst Elo rating of all the participants, scored 2% out of 3 with our silver bullet - that means 4% out of 5 for the Chigorin Defence at the most important national event of the year. Especially remarkable was Rabiega's fight against super grandmaster Alexan der Nenashev (now he's called Graf) who had 1 50 Elo points more than he did. This encounter, in which the favourite gets into a horrible position already after 1 4 moves, you can find as Game 109 in our book. As a rule, the positions arising from the Chigorin Defence are rich in ideas, whether the play is quiet or s harp. Regularly there crop u p positional problems such as doubled pawns, development advantage, knight (pair) against bishop (pair), material sacrifices for the initiative etc. Therefore I hope that this book will not only assist you with this specific open ing, but also that it will be useful for your general understanding of the game. The author wishes you m uch success ! Valery Bronznik Stuttgart, August 200 1
Acknowledgements Sincerely I would like to thank especially 1M John Watson, CC-IM Jonathan Tait and CC- I M Bernd Radeker who un selfishly made available to me their private game and analysis material. However, most of all I would like to thank 1M and CC-GM Dieter Mohrlok who invested an incredible amount of time in looking through and correcting the whole manuscript. Without him this book - my first one - would probably never have appeared.
About this revised English language edition In the beginning of 2002 this book was released only in German, nevertheless it soon became internationally acclaimed. Shortly after the idea for an English language version developed, but before that the contents of the book had to be updated first. This revision has been done for the current edition and in the process of ex amining the new games, I was pleased to see that many of my analyses and suggestions from the original edition have been tested successfully in many amateur and master games. A further contribution to the discussion was brought by the independently released CD by the aforementioned C. Wisnew ski, who constantly puts the Chigorin Defence to the test on the Internet, as well as in his tournament games, against many well-prepared opponents. The additional 24 pages by no means reflect the amount of work that was put into this edition - many variation s and analyses were revised, corrected or made more precise; some of them were entirely rewritten. Six new main galJles were added, one game from the �rst edition was omitted. I would like to express my gratitude for the many enthusiastic reactions to the first edition, and at the same time hope that the ideas from the current edition will be likewise appreciated and tested in tournament games.
Valery Bronznik Stuttgart, May 2005
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 (ICS 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.e3
9
Chapter 1 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.0Jc3 dxc4 4.e3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ·:�c6 3.11,;'IC
Game l Gleizerov - Morozevich St. Petersburg 1 993
This develops the knight and increases the pressure on dS.
3 . dxC4 ..
With this move the second player gives up the centre, but at the same time he temporarily wins a pawn and attacks d4. The continuation 3 ..:�f6 is the topic of Chapter 4. 3 ..e5 will be mentioned in the annotations to Game 1. .•
.
4 e3 .
This simple, but from a theoretical point of view not very ambitious continuation is the topic of this chapter; 4.d5 and 4.'lJf3 will follow in Chapters 2 and 3. We contemplate: 4 e5 5.tzJf3 � Game 1 4 . . e5 5.d5 t2JaS!? � Game 2 4 . e5 5.d5 tzJce7 � Game 3 ... . .
.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tilc6 3. i� 'le3 dxc4 The central counterblast 3 e5 seems not to be sufficient for equality. In the game Lautier-Meulders, Lyons 1 990, White gained a clear advantage with simple moves: 4.cxd5 ti:Jxd4 5.e3 i2Jf5 6.tDf3 �d6 7.e4 fiJfe7 8 . .ie2 a6 9.a4 �g4? ! (better was 9 ... tLJfS followed by . . . 0-0, ...tLJgS - Breutigam) 1 0.tZJd2! (without his light-squared bishop Black has noticeably less chances for counter play on the kingside) 10 ... ..2.xe2 1 1 .'tfYxe2 tZJfS 1 2.tLlc4 with the initiative. Nowadays more often 7.i.b5+ is played (instead of 7.e4), and this is good, too, e.g.: 7 ... Jt..d7 (or 7 ... �8 8.0-0, an d Black is too passive) 8.�xd7+ �xd7 9.e4 tLJfe7 1 0.0-0 tLJfS 1 1 .Ag5 t2Jg6 12. tiJh4 tiJxh4 1 3. .txh4 hS?! (1 3... tLJg8? 1 4.'t§'b3 l:b8 1 5.tDbS as 1 S.CLJxdS+ �xd6 1 7.�g3 �8 18.f4+-, Panchenko Muse, Germany 1 993; better is 1 3. . . i.e7;!;) 1 4. i.xfS gxfS 1 5:�f3±, Gyimesi Maahs, Bad Worishofen 2000. Also 6 . 16 (instead of S ... i.dS) doesn't promise Black an easy l ife, e.g . 7:�IC2 lZJdS 8. i.d3 g6 9 . h4 ! ? Ji.g7 1 0.h5 fS 1 1 .e4 f4 1 2.liJb5! with active play, Orlov-Yoos, Vancouver 200 1 . ..•
.
.
4.e3 White protects d4 and attacks the c4pawn.
10
Chapter 1 Prevents the pin �cl-g5. Furthermore Black plans to develop his bishop to f5, and if it is attacked there later on, it can comfortably be parked on h7.
4 . e5! .
.
Black plays consistently - the opponent's centre has to be attacked!
5."Sf3 Also possible is 5.d5 Q see Games 2 and 3.
5 ... exd4 6.exd4 Ji:..d 6 7.j.xc4 ;':. 'lf6 8.0-0 0 ..0 There has arisen a position with an isolated queen's pawn, which has advantages and disadvantages for both sides. This structure guarantees White a space advantage, but in the endgame the isolated d4-pawn can become weak. Incidentally, this position can also arise in the Queen's Gambit Accepted: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4. .lixc4 exd4 5.exd4 tiJf6 6.t2Jf3 Ad6 7.0 0 0-0 8.CDc3 ClJc6. -
9.h3 White wants to prevent the bishop development to g4. Black had no problems in the game Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, after 9.�g5 h6 1 0 . .th4 �g4 11.d5 Axf3 (11...tlJeS!? 12.�e2 tlJg6 13.i.g3 C2:Jf4 would also be interesting) 12.�xf3 C2:Je5 13.'&e2 tUg6 14.$.g3 a6 lS.11fe1 lle8 16.�d2 .axg3 17.hxg3 't\Yd6, and the position is roughly equa\.
9 h6 ...
1 0.a3 White deprives the black knight of the b4-square, prepares queenside action with b2-b4, besides freeing the a2square for his bishop. Other possibilities: a) 10.:te1 .tIS 11.d5 11.�e3 a6 12.a3 �d7 13.d5 (13.C2Jh4? .txh3!) 13 ...ctJe5 14 . .2.f1 11fe8 15.iL.d4 lLJxf3+ 16.�xf3 1lxe1 (16...tlJh7!?) 17. nxe1 1:1e8 Timman-Morozevich, Mos cow 1 994. 11.C2:Je5 �xe5 12.dxe5 'iYxd1 13.Cl:Jxd1 tL!d7 14.t4 tlJc5 lS.C2:Je3 .td3 16 .1Ld2 Axc4 17.tlJxc4 !iad8, and Black stcipds more actively, Dlugy-Morozevich, fCC 3/0 1 999. 11 0,e7, and now: =,
.
...
a1) 12.�e3 .th7 13.�d2 0,f5 (remem ber this motif - knight shift to f5) 14.Af4 Axf4 15.'&xf4 '&d6 16.'&d2 a6 17.�b3 :ad8 18.l:ad1 11fe8=, Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. a2) 12.83 a6 13..1Le3 �h7 14 ..ad4 CDfS 15.�d3 C2:Jxd4 16.bh7+ �xh7 17.�xd4 ne8=, Magerramov-Iuldachev, Abu Dhabi 2002.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tZJc6 3.ttJc3 dxc4 4.e3
a3) 1 2.tl:Jd4 .ii.g6 13 .tl:Jdb5 a6 1 4. CZJxd6 �xd6 1 5.� f3 CD f5 1 6 . .af4?! (more cautious is 16.'&f4 l::iad8 =), and now in Vaganjan-Souleidis, Bundesliga 2003, Black could obtain good counter play by 16 .. .'�b41?, e.g. 1 7 .�b3 (17. b3? b5 18 ..tf1 tZJd4-+) 1 7. ..tiJd4 1 8.'t!Ve3 (18.�d1?? tZJxb3 followed by 19... '!!fxf4, 18. �g3?? tl:Jh5 -+) 1 8 : fe 8 19.'1!t'd2 'iJxb3 20.axb3 :Xel+ 21.�el 'DeB, and the b3-pawn drops. But after the game continuation 16...�cS 17.i.b3 1:fe8 lB.tl:Ja4 �b4 Black's position should have been OK as well. ••.
b) 1 O.�e3 .t f5 Also playable is 10 ...a6, e.g. 11.a4 AfS 12.tlJh4 .th7 13..i.d3 �xd3 14.�xd3 tL:b4 1S.�d1 Ue8, Balashov-Morozevich, Samara 1998, or 11.'ilfd2 bS 12.�d3 tzjb4 13.:i.b1 1:1e8 14.a3 tzJbd5 lS.tZJxdS tDxdS 16.�c2 tVfS, Thesing-Glek, Netherlands 1999, in both cases with a comfortable game for Black. 1 1 .tlJh4 (11 JIe1 � 10JIe1 .1i.fS 11. .te3), and now: b1) 1 1 �d71 2.'iY f3 After 12.tDgS :te8 13. �b3 .i.eS 14. .txe6 (14.d5 tl:Ja5 15.dxe6 tVxb3 16.ext7+ wh 7 1 7..i.d3! tlJc5 18.tLlf8+ �h8 19.'lJg6+ with a perpetual, Dautov) 14...1:>:e6 15.d5 tZJaS 16.'¥Ya4 �e8 17.'8xaS fxg6 the position is equal. 1 2 .te6 12 ...tlJg4 13.tiJg6 tiJh2 14.�h5 tiJxf1 lS.CZJxt8 �xf8 lS.:xt1 CDe7 17.ClJe4�, Dautov. 1 3 . .txe6 fxe6 14.11ad1 1:I1el, Barsov-Rahman, Dhaka 2001, and now Black could obtain considerable counterplay by Dautov's suggestion 1 � t;Jb4! 16.tiJg6 (16.'iYxb7?? c6 -+) 16... tlJfd5 17.iVg4 �f6. •••
11
out to be rather unpleasant, Arencibia Estrada, Merida 2001. But very interesting is 12... i..b4!? with the idea of exchanging the c3-knight and achieving superiority on the light central squares, e.g. 13.l':adl tZJa5 14 . .i.d3 (14..2.e2?? .i.xc3 15.bxc3 ll:Je4-+) 14... .axc3 lS.bxc3 �d5 16.�g3 .i.xd3 17.lIxd3 CDe4! 18.�xc7 Uac8 19.'§'e5 Ufd8�, Degraeve-C.Bauer, Toulouse 1995. 13 .t2Jf5 '& f6 1 4. tlJxd6 �x f3 1 5.gx f3 cxd6, and in spite of White's bishop pair Black is at least not worse, thanks to his superior pawn structure, Mencinger-Golubovic, Bled 2001. c) Recently 1 0.�c2 has been played quite often. The queen prevents 10...�f5 and points towards the g6-square, which was weakened by Black's last move. But here also Black has sufficient counter chances, e.g.: c1) 1 0 ...tiJb41 1 .'i'ib1 11.�g6 is harmless due to 11 .. J��bd5! 12.�b1 c6, Ulibin.
•..
...
b2) 11 ... .th71 2.'fi' f3 tiJd7 (� ... 'tIid8-f6). On the natural move 12...�d7 follows 13.:ad1, and the threat 14. .i.xhS turned
Black must either allow the dangerous looking bishop sacrifice on h6 or agree to a weakening of his pawn structure. But in both cases he seems to hold his own: 1 1 ... .ie6 The alternative is 11...c6 � ... ��,bd5. In
12
Chapter 1
the game Korobov-Buhmann. Patras 2001, there followed 12.i.xhS!? gxhS 13.�gS+ WhB 14.�xhS+ tiJh7 (14... WgB 1S.C2JgS �fS 1S.tlJxf7 l:xf7 17.'t!¥gS+ �B 1B.Axf7 �d3 19.Ab3! �xf1 20Jlxf1 with an advantage for White Ramirez Alvarez) 1S.8e4?! Ae7 1SJ�ae1 ttJdS 17.C2:JeS .teS 1B.�d3 j:,fS 19.'tlfhS (19.g4 �gS 20. tlJxgS+ fxgS 21.8c5 tlfG:t) 19 ....JtgG 20.�h6 tzJb4! (20... .tfS 21.'&hS �gS 22.'t':VhS kfS=) 21.St..b1 �xd4 22.eiJg3 .li.g5 (22 ... jLxb1?! 23.t2JhS idS 24.t2Jxf6 �d6 2S.tz:Jed7 tz:JdS 2G.ttxb1 C2:JdxfS 27.ti:JxfB �xfB 00) 23.tiJxgS+ fxgS 24:iWxgS �g7 25.�hS C2:Jd5 2S.tlJfS '¥Yf7=i=. However, a stronger move is Ramirez Alvarez' suggestion 15.a3. He also gives 1S...8d5 (1S... bS? 1S . .tb3 is unfavourable after 1S...ClJd3 17. .Ji..c2 .tfS 1B.�h4 or 1S...ClJa6 17.tz:Je4) 1S.tlJxd5 cxdS 1 7. �xd5 and assesses the position as unclear. 1 2.i.. xe6 fxe6 1 3Jle1 '\We8 1 4.ciJe4 14 . .td2 C2:Jbd5 15:�d3 �f7 Tkachiev Golubovic, Pula 2000. 1 4 tDbd5 1 5.tDc5 �xc5 1 6.dxc5 tlJd7 17.�c2 (according to Ramirez Alvarez this is a mistake) 1 7 ... c6 (17... ttxf3!? 1B. gxf3 �hSiiliLl19.cS 8e5 20.:XeS �xeS 21.cxb7 ttb8) lS.�e3 tIxf3 19.9xf3 �hS, and Black got more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed exchange, Ramirez Alvarez Morozevich. Bled 2002. But as it was pOinted out by Ramirez Alvarez in his analysis, White could play better: 17.c6! bxcS 18.tZJd4. He wins back the pawn and remains with a better pawn structure. In spite of his active pieces and the semi-open f-file it is not easy at all for Black to achieve effective counterplay. Therefore Sakaev/Semkov in their book "Queen's Gambit Accepted" suggest 1 6 ... c6 - now cS-cS is finally prevented, =,
••.
and Black is ready to play ...t2JfS-d7. Now 1 7.8d4 is harmless because of 1 7...'t\ff7 (+ Sakaev/Semkov). Now it would not be advisable for White to take the eS-pawn, e.g. 18.tzjxe6?! :ae8 or 18.l:xe6?! ti:Jd7 - in both cases Black obtains a dangerous initiative. c2) 1 O tZJa5 1 1 .�d3 �e6 After 11... :te8 12.JLd2 CDcS 13.a3 .teG 14.ttfe1 �d7, Leitao-C.Bauer, Wijk aan Zee 1999, an interesting exchange sacrifice followed: 1SJ�xeS!? fxeS (1S...'t'!YxeS?! 16.dS tiJxd5 17...'i.f5 CDcb4 1B.axb4 cz:Jxb4 19.'&bl �e7 20.czJe4i) 1S.:le1 fiJe7 17.j"c4 tz:JedS 18 ..ta2 a:ad8 19..tb1�. 1 2.t1e1 tDc6 1 3.a3 '&cS 1 4.tz:Jb5 The sacrifice on eS now doesn't work: 14.:Xe6? �xeSLl15.d5? C2:Jxd5 lS.i.fS C2:Jd4!-+ . 14 .. .l1dS 1S.�fl tlJcI5 16.tiJxd6 rlxdS 17 . .lid2 as!? (17... 'iWd8!? 18.l::tad1 �f6) 18.ttad1 a4 with a comfortable game for Black, EI Gindy-Gleizerov, Dubai 2003. •••
d) Also in the case of 1 0.'*'d3 there is no white advantage in prospect, e.g. 1 0 tz:Ja5 (or 10 ... tiJb4, and after 11.�b1 or 11.�gS a position from the line 10.'t!¥c2 tiJb4 arises) 1 1 . ..tb5 a6 1 2.�a4 c5 (12...�e6!? 13Jle1 . .tc4 14.'oj:!t'd1 bS lS.�c2 �e8°o. Abranlovic Matulovic. Vrnjacka Banja 1999) 1 3 . .tc2 Ue8 14.dxcS j,xcS 1S. �xd8 llxd8 16.�f4 tlJc4 17.k%ad1 .teG 18.b3 tlJa3 19.t2Je4 tiJxc2 20.tiJxc5 i..d5=, Abramovic-Stojanovlc, Belgrade 2002. ..•
Now back to the main game:
1 0 . . �f5 1 1 .b4 .
White becomes active on the queen side. Also some other continuations had been tested: a)
1 1 . I:e1 a6
1.d4 dS 2.c4 tZJcs 3J�:c3 dxc4 4.e3 Prophylaxis against Ac4-bS, which becomes real if Black moves his queen to d7. Besides, this move prevents r�!c3bS and makes ...b7-bS possible, which can be useful under some circumstan ces. 1 2.d5 (12.i.e3 Q 10.Del .tfS 11..te3 a6 12.a3) 1 2 Ci:Je7 13.b4 IleB 14..tb2 tlJg6 lS.�d4 :lxel+ lS.llxe1 �f8 17.i.cl :teB lB.:txeB '&xe8 19. �e3 tiJeS 20.i.e2 lZjxf3+ 21..ixf.3 �eS 22.'BxeS i.xeS, and the players soon agreed a draw, van der Sterren-Piket, Linares 1995. •••
b) After 1 1 .ti)h4, Damljanovic-M. Stojanovic, Valjevo 2000, I like 11 ... CDxd41? 12. .te3 ClJe8 13.�xd4 cS 14.'i:!t'dS �xh4 best, e.g. 1S..tbS i.eS 16.'1!fxb7 ti)c7 with a good game for Black.
1 1 ... ttJe4 Also playable would be 11 86 (direc ted against b4-bS and ti)c3-bS) 12.i4b2 't!¥d7, e.g. 13.dS ClJeS (13 ...ti)e7!? � ...tiJg6) 14.tZJxeS i.xeS lS.f4 j.:,dS 16. 'ft'f3 aSl? with a complicated struggle. ...
13
By the way, the text move isn't bad either, but after it the second player has to play precisely.
1 3.8b5 ! White intends to take on dS and then to accomplish d4-dS.
1 3 ... .te4? It was necessary to avoid the exchange on dS by 13 ... i.f4!, after which the posi tion would have stayed roughly equal, e.g. 14.dS ii.e4! lS.ti)xgS (lS.dxcS CDxf3+ 16.gxf3 �gS+ 17.'�h1 �fS lB.�g2 '*'gS+ with a draw) lS...�xgS 1S.Wg4 �xg4 17.hxg4 ClJe7 1B.l:Iad1 .tc2 19.:tde1 tlJcB, and Black's position is OK.
1 4.liJxg5 �xg5 1 5.�g4! :afeS 1 6.];1fe1 �xg4 17.hxg4 This position is rather uncomfortable for Black. The opponent wants to exchange on dS and then activate the b2-bishop by d4-dS.
1 2 . .tb2 ...
1 7 ... .ig6?
1 2 ... ttJg5 Safer would be 12 . �c3 13.ii.xc3 tbYf6 14.bS 'lJe7 lS.Uel (lS.tlJeS �eS) lS... �6 (lS...Uad8!? lS.tlJeS ..teS) 1S.tlJeS �e6, and Black is OK. .
.
This loses by force. 17...l:Iad8?, in order to recapture on dS with the rook, doesn't work either because of 1B.dS! tlJb8 19.tlJxdS llxdS (19...cxdS 20..i.bS+-) 20.f3 +-. Perhaps 17...aS would have been the best, but also then White keeps a clear advantage after lB.ti)xd6 cxd6 19.d5 'lJa7 20.a4.
14
Chapter 1
18.dS tiJe5 18 ... tlJe7 was bad because 19.t2Jxd6 cxd6 20.i.b5+-.
19.tiJxd6 I!ed8
cxd6
20.�bS
20.. J%e7 21.f4 +-.
21.�xeS! dxeS 22.l:Ixe5 White is a pawn up, which is a passed pawn furthermore. The game is decided.
Dunnington regards this suggestion by Watson as the best move. White gains nothing after 6 . .txc4 ti)xc4 7 : (oder 7 ...iL.d7 8.�xc4 tlJf6 9.ti:Jf3 .td6 10.0-0 0-0 ) 8:t'Yxc4 cxd5 9:�xd5 (9.tDxd5 �d6) 9... �xd5 10.tlJxd5 Ad6. =
However, an important alternative is 6:�a4+ c6 with the following variations:
22... a6 23.i.e2 Wf8 24.htc1 nac8 24 ... f6 25..1:(e3 �d5 26..a.c7 +-. 25 Jlxc8 1 :0 A.
Game 2 Chasin Boey carr. 1984 -
1.d4 d5 2.c4 t�'C6 3J�'!c3 dxc4 4.e3 e5 S.dS White conquers space and drives the knight away from the centre.
a) 7.dxc6 tDxc6 8 ..txc4 i.d6 9.tLlf3 tlJf6 =. b) 7.b4 cxb3! (Watson) 7 ...b5 ? fails to 8:�xa5 �xa5 9.bxa5 b4 10.tZJd1 cxd5 11.e4!± (Minev). 8.axb3 8.�d2 q 7..td2 �d7 9.b4 cxb3 . 8... '!'VbS 8 ... b5?! 9.ti)xb5 tDxb3 1O:�xb3 cxb5 11.it.xb5+ �d7 12.CiJf3 with the inif�tive. 9.i.d2 9.'&xa5? �xa5 10.Uxa5 �b4+ (Watson); 9.d6! ? i..xd6 (9 ... ti)xb3? 10.tZJd5 +-) 10.'&xa5 't'*'xb3 11.IIb1 '&c2 12..td2 tiJf6 13 .tlJf3 0-0 14J:lc1 (14.tiJxe5? b6 -+) 14 .. :�'f5 °o. 9 .. tlJxb3 Harding's recommendation 9.....tb4 is bad because of 10.CiJe4 ! ti)xb3 11.dxc6 it..xd2 + 12.ti)xd2 +-. 10.dxcS 10J:%b1? tlJc5+ (Watson). 1 0 ... bxcS 1 1.tlJd5 �b7 1 2.];Ib1 , .
S...tZJa5!? A sharp continuation. The knight goes to the rim in order to protect c4. Another possibility is 5... :�Jce7 � Game 3.
6/�-Jf3
1.d4 dS 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.llJc3 dxc4 4.e3
lS
'WxbS lS. �b7 �c6! White has no suf ficient compensation. 1 0 . cxdS 10...i.dS? 11 .t2Je4! AbB 12.Axa5 cxd5 13...tbS bxaS 14.liJcS tZJf6 lS.tDxd7 tDxd7 1S..tcS +-. 10...cS?! 11.i.bS f6 12.i.xd7+ 'f!¥xd7 13.tlJbS nc8 14.Axa5 bxaS 1S.tlJxa7 ±. 10 ...16!? 11.dxc6 CZJxc6 12.i.b5ijj5. 11.Ab5 ..td6 1 2.tDXdS �7 After 12...nc8 13.0-0 Black's awkward development becomes critical, e.g. 13 ... Dc5 14.t2Jc3 l::lc7 lS.t2Je4 ..txb5 16.�xbS+ tlJc6 17...tc3 tZJge7 18. t2Jxd6+ 'tj'xd6 19 . .txe5 +-. 1 3.tlJxe7 �xe7 14.i.xaS bxaS lS.0-0 :tdS 16.11fd1 0-0 17. ..txd7 '&xd7 18.�xa5 �b7 with equality, Feroul Boey, corr. 1984. ..
and now: b1) On 12 . .'6'd7?! White doesn't play 13:\i'xb3?! �xdS 14.i.c4 �d7 1S.t2Jf3 i.d6 16.0-0 because of 16... l:lbS! (16. . . tzjf6 17.�b4! iLxb4 1B.'+!i'xb455) 17.�c3 l:lxb1 1S.lhb1 �c7+, but 1 3.l:xb3! 'Bxd5 14.tZJf3 with more than sufficient compensation, e.g. 14 ...i.d7 1S.i.c4 1!i'c5 16.l:Ib7. .
Back to the main game:
b2) 12 ... tlJcSI 13.�a1 �d7 (interesting is also 13...�xb1!?+ 14.'ft'xb1 cxdS 15.�b5+ .i.d7 16.i.xd7+ tiJxd7 17. �b7 m>8 18.'ti'xd5 t2Jgf6 19.�a2 .tc5) 14. �6 axb6 1S.'fVxaS, and here besides 1 5 ... b5 16.tlJf3 i.d6 17.i.b4 f6 with unclear play, Mraz-Andersen, corr. 1990, and R.Stone-Johnstone, Canada 1995, also 1S ... tlJe4!? deserves serious attention, e.g. 16. llJf3 tiJxd2 17.t2Jxd2 b5 lB..ae2 tZJe700. c) 7 .i.d2 .td7! 8.b4 cxb3 9.axb3 b6 Up to this point this line was analysed by Watson in his book "Queen's Gam bit: Chigorin Defence". His judgement Black keeps the position - was proven right in practice. 1 0.tiJf3 After 10.dxc6?! llJxc6 11.i.b5 (Gill-Tait, corr. 1990) Black can remain with a sound extra pawn by 11.. Jlc8 12 .ClJf3 'Df6 13.0-0 .td6. Also in the case of 1 O.M cxd5 11 . .J1I.bS tiJc4 1 2 tLJ x dS �d6 13.:bd7+ �xd7 14.b5 ncB! 15.�xa7 •
.
6... a6 ! This move I didn't find in any book, although it looks logical and strong, and Black had no problems in this game. Among the authors I know it is only mentioned by Watson in his article series Chigorin Defense: Theory and Practice (1998). If Black plays different, he can quickly run into difficulties, e.g.: a) After 6 .. .16 the simplest continuation is 7.'�·a4+ c6 8.dxc6!? ,�"xc6 9.1...xc4
Chapter 1
16
with advantage due to the weakness of the a2-g8 diagonal. b) On 6 .. .�d6 7.'@a4+! (Watson) 7 c6 8.CZJe41 is very strong, e.g. S AbS (8... �c7 9.d6 Ab6 10.tlJxeS± Watson) g.b4 cxb3 1 O.axb3 �xd5 11 .tlJc3 �xb3 12. �xa5 b6 13. Wa3 'i!¥xa3 14.Axa3 •..
.••
,..
9.f4 tZJfS 10:tWf3 iLb7 11.e4 c6 with strong counterplay. Also S.i.e2 .td6 seems not to be dangerous for Black. On S.84!1 tZJb3 9.:b1 Watson proposes 9 .. :t!r'fS. The position which arises is complicated and very interesting.
8...,td6 9.14 liJf6 10.St.g2 0-0 11.0-0 'ViIe7 White's central pawns are potentially dangerous, but how to activate them? E.g. on 12.tZJf3 follows 12...b4 13.tlJe2 .td7 (directed against 14:�'a4), and the intended e3-e4 only remains an unful filled dream. 12.�e1 !? b4!
Watson assesses this position as un clear. However, Dunnington thinks that White has an advantage because his pieces stand more actively and it won't be easy for the second player to set his pawns in motion. I feel that Dunnington is more likely to be right, e.g. 14 a5 (14 .. ::-Gf6 lS..ic4; 14 .. /�7 lS. iLc4; 14...b5 1S.t2Je4, in all cases with initiative for White) 15.Ad3 C2:Jf6 (lS...�a6 16.�e4 Ab7 17.11b1 !;;..c7 18.iLcS!+-) 16.0-0 iLa6 17..txa6 nxa6 18.e4 bS (18 ... �d7 19. l:%fd1+ <Jtc8 20.tzJgS :a7 21.tzJa4l:tb7 22.l:acl cS 23.Cl:Jxb6+ llxb6 24. .it..xcSl:tcS 2S. JdS!+-) 19.:fd1, and Black's forces remain uncoordinated. •..
Black sees through his opponent's idea. On 12...AxeS?! there does not follow 13.d6? because of 13 ...i.xd6 14.i.xa8 c6-+, but 13.fxe5! �xe5 14.e4 (threatening ls.Af4 and 16.e5) 14... ti:Jh5 1S.i.t4 ti:Jxf4 16.gxf4 �d4+ 17.�h1 i.d7 18Jld1 �cS 19.eS with good compensation for the pawn.
13.tDd1 i.b7 13... iLxeS? 14.fxe5 �xe5 1S.�xb4+-.
14.e4 •
7.CDxe5 On 7:�a4+ ? follows 7 .....lid7!, and 8.�xaS?? loses because of 8 ...b6. 7.. .b5 8.g3 Nothing is gained by 8.�h5, e.g. 8 ...'@e7 (maybe the exchange sacrifice 8...g6!? 9.C2:Jxg6 fxg6 1O:�e5+ �7 l1.'ti'xhS tlJfS should be checked; playable is also 8...'�f6 9.tlJe4 �fSoo)
White has finally succeeded in pushing forward his e-pawn and obtaining a nice pawn centre. But the counter attack is not too long in coming:
14...c6!
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tzJcS 3.Cljc3 dxc4 4.e3 Aftar all, the main idea of our opening is to play against White's d-pawn, isn't it?
1S.dxc6 tlJxc6 .i.cS+ 17.tlJf2
16.tiJxc4
The two alternatives are weaker: 17.�h1 �d4 18.'2Jde3 .txe4 � or 17.Ae3 tlJd4 18.a5 i.xg2 19.�xg2 '&'b7+ 20siig1 �4 21.l:lc1 Dac8 22.t2JdS 'i!Vf3!! 23J:xf3 tiJxf3+ 24.Wt1 ClJxel 25.ClJxc8 tlJd3 26.:Xc5lLlxe3+ 27.'l:Jxe3 ClJxc5+.
17...tDd4 18.l:tb1 llJc2 19. �e2 be4 20.�xe4 �xe4 21..te3 .txe3 Y2:%
because of 22.tiJxe3 �xe3 23.�xc2=. Game 3 Christiansen - Morozevich New York (rapid) 1995
1.d4 dS 2.c4 llJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.e3 eS S.dS Cjjce7 This move looks more solid than 5...tZJa5. The knight heads for g6, from where it will protect e5. In the case of e3-e4 it might occupy the f4-square on the next opportunity or (what happens more often) support the manoeuvre ...tZ:Jf6-h5-f4.
6..i.xc4 tiJg6
mally recommendable with such a pawn formation in the centre. Other moves: a) 7.'&b3 i.dS (7...a6? 8.dS!±; 7... tLlf6?! 8.dS!) 8.jL,b5+ Wf8 9.e4 t2:Jf6 10A:Jge2 lLJh5 11.g3 �h3oo, Gerstner8aumhus, Germany 1991. b) 7.tiJge2 Ad6 (7...a6!? 8.0-0 .2od6) 8.e4 tiJf6 9 . .sib5+ fijd7 10.tLlg3 a6 11.i.a4 bS 12..tc2 tLlf6oo, S. Guliev Barskij. Moscow 1995. c) On 7.e4 Black can play 7... a6 (e.g. as in Potts-Watson, Philadelphia 1975) in order to prevent i.bS or tzJbS and then accomplish the standard plan .td6, tLlf6hS-f4. Also the manoeuvre ...h7-h6 follo wed by ...tZJf6-h7-g5 is to be considered. Furthermore the ideas ... b7-b5 (pOSSibly followed by ...b5-b4) and ... c7-c5 (resp. ...c7-c6) are not to be dismissed. d) 7.tLlf3 tLlf6 leads to a position of the variation 4.tLlf3 tLlf6 5.e3 e5 6.d5 (6... tLle7 7..iLxc4 tLlf6) � Game 30.
7... l1..d7 8.'+Wb3 Ub8 9.iZJge2 9.e4 a6 10.it.xd7+ 'ifYxd7 11.tLlf3 Ac5 didn't yield White anything in Jussu pow-Henley, Lone Pine 1981. There followed 12.0-0 tLlf6 13:�¥c4 (13.i.g5 lLJh5!?) 13....td6 14.tlJe2 tiJhS 15. tiJg:a liJxg3 16.fxg3 0-0 17 .Ae3 �bc8 18. tlad1 h6 19.h3 'fIIe 7 20.tiJh2 c6 21. 'iYe2 cxd5 22.l:txdS .tc5 with equality.
9...tiJf6 10.0-0 ..tc5 11.Axd7+ 'iWxd7 12.i.d2 0-0 13.11ad1
7.�b5+ With this move he wants the white-squared bishops,
to exchange which is nor-
17
18
Chapter 1
13... b5! This wing action actually belongs to the fight for the centre. Black wants to chase away White's knight from c3 by ...bS-b4, whereafter the d-pawn gets weak. Moreover, ...e5-e4 with a space advantage on the kingside will be pos sible.
14.'iYc2 14.a3 doesn't look particularly good after 14...b4 15.axb4 :Xb4 Black's rook gets very active and the b-pawn be comes weak. But the move 14.t2:Jg3 deserved attention, and on 14... b4 l S.'iJce4 in order to prevent ... eS-e4.
14 ... b4 1S.tlJa4?! This could have cost a pawn. Better would be l S.t2:Je4 iDxe4 l S.�xe4 IUd8 (16...fS 17.'�c4 i.dS 18.f300) 17.i.c1 with a passive, but solid position.
1S...Ad6 Now dS is hanging, that's why White has no time to play llJe2-g3.
16. .tc1 16.e4? tZJxe4.
16... e4 This is positionally OK and belongs to Black's plan, but why not l S.. :@'bS!? winning a pawn? (17.e4 iDxe4)
17.tlJg3 J:[fe8
Morozevich has gained a nice position. On the kingside he has a space ad vantage thanks to the e4-outpost and is able to prepare an attack there. With eS he h�s a! his disposal a fantastic square for his pieces. Nominally speaking, the c7-pawn is backward, but it is difficult for White to exploit it. Furthermore the c1-bishop is very passive, and it costs time to bring it back into play.
1S.tlJc5 'WIe7 19.tiJb3 After 19.t2:JfS 'tWeS 20.iDxd6 cxd6 21.t2:Jb3 tlJg4 Black's initiative would become too dangerous (also the simple 21... tZJxdS would be good enough).
19... iLlh4 Nothing was wrong with 19.. J:tbd8 in order to increase the pressure on dS. But Black prefers to play for an attack.
20.�d4 White vacates the dl-square for the other rook in order to protect dS, and at the same time attacks e4 once again.
20 ...l:tb5 21.�fd1 The dS-pawn is attacked twice and protected twice, and now Black has to take care of e4, too. Morozevich makes an interesting decision:
21...i..xg3!? 22.hxg3 t',f5 One attacker of the e4-pawn I is an nihilated, and it looks as if the rook had to leave the fourth rank.
23.tlc4!? The position after 23.1;4d2 seemed too passive to Christiansen. He sacrifices a pawn in order to activate his pieces.
23 ...ttxd5 24.I1xdS tlJxd5 25.l:rc5 �e6 26.�d2 It seems as if White had attained his goal. He has activated his major pieces, bro�ght his bishop back into play, and besides this 27.'i:!¥c4 is threatened.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tDcs 3.CZJc3 dxc4 4.e3
19
32.tlJf3 h3 After 32...'3'xb2 follows 33.'iVxh4 threa tening 34.:Xd5 and 34.e4.
33.gxh3?! White pays back with a counter-mistake. Correct was 33.Dc2! 'ffd 1 (33...'�VaS 34. gxh3oo) 34J�d2 (34. gxh3!?) 34 .. :�a1 (34... 'i!Va4? 35.tiJg5 gS 36.'ii'h4 +-) 35.�c4 fld6 3S.gxh3. After this the material balance is restored, and the position would be unclear.
26 ...hS! Attack is the best defence (Alekhine). Because of Black's threats on the king side the first player has no time to 'work' on the opponent's weaknesses.
27.'We4 ndB 2B. .te1 On 28.�xb4 there follows 28 ... h4!. After that 29.tZJd4 would be virtually the only move since both 29.g4 CZJdxe3!! 30. n xeS (30.fxe3 l:id 1 + 31.'�h2 'ti'dS+ -+) 30...l:ld1+ 31. �h2 tlJxg4+ 32.�h3 tDxf2+ 33.�h2 :th1# and 29.gxh4 tiJxh4 30.�d4 �g4 31. g3 tLlxb4 32.'+!Yxb4 rtd1 + 33.�h2 tL!f3+ 34.'�h3 tzJxd4 35. exd4 l:[dS -+ quickly lead to a loss. But even after 29.tlJd4 tDxd4 30.'tiYxd4 hxg3 31.fxg3 l:ld7 White's position would be extremely unpleasant because of the weaknesses on the kingside.
2B...h4 29.g4 tlJfe7 30.tlJd2 �xg4 31. �xe4 White's king is in extreme jeopardy. That's why White would like to exchange queens although one pawn down.
31...�e2? This proves to be a mistake. Correct was 31... '8d1! 32.ti:Jf3 h3! +, whereafter 33.gxh3 is bad because of 33.. .f5, e.g. 34.'&eS+ �8 35.llJe5 (35.�g2 l:ld6 -+) 35...'&'xe1+ 3S.�2 �e3+ 37.'�f3 '@'h1+ 38.we2 �f1+ 39.�xe3 �xh3+ 40.'�e2 �ih5+ 41 .We3 l:ldS 42. �c4 95 -+.
33...l:d6?! This isn't the best move either. Much stronger was 33.. .f5! 34.'iVe6+ · .tf8 35.llxd5 (35.C2:Je5 �xe1 + leads to the variation which could arise after 31 .. :�d1 !) 35 ...l:xd5 3S.�xb4 c5 -+ .
34.�h2? In the final stage of this rapid game the mistakes follow hard on each other. Ab solutely necessary was 34.:tc2.
34...kte6? 34...f5 would have won on the spot.
3S.tlJd4 'iYxe1 36.llJxe6 '&xf2+ 37.�g21 �xg2 38. �xg2 fxe6 39.e4 llJf4+ 40.�3 t2Jd3 41 J:txe7 Now there has arisen an endgame, in which White has to fight for the draw. But for the understanding of the opening and the middlegame this is no longer of interest to us. That's why the rest of the game is given without comment:
41...tZJg6 42.b3 as 43.1la7 tlJdeS+ 44.�e3 llJe6 4S.ttc7 tlJge5 46:�f4 �h7 47.Ilea �g6 4B.h4 Wf6 49.h5 g5+ 50.hxg6 tZJxg6+ 51.We3 tZJgeS 52.�c7 �g6 53.�4 �6 S4.�e3 �g5 55.IIg7+ �6 S6.�e7 V2:V2
Chapter 2
20
Chapter 2 1.d4 d5 2.c4 t1:Jc6 3.tLJc3 dxc4 4.d5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 CLJc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.d5
The main continuation is 5.f4 liJg4. discuss: 6.e4 e57/i�f3 Q Game 9 6.e4 e5 7.fS h5(7. /�8h6) Q Games 10-11 6.e4 e57.1.e2 Q Game 12 .
In these variations Black mostly rna· nages to maintain his knight on g4, and together with the other topical move ...:atc5 he directs a dangerous minor piece duo against f2. That's why there arose the idea of driving away the knight immediately: 6.h3 Q Game 13
The knight attacked by 4.d5 can move in different directions, and that is what characterises the different variations in this chapter - the possible locations go from a5 and b6 to g4. The classical continuation 4... tLla5 leads to some notorious variations, es pecially if the a5-knight throws itself on the sacrificial altar after b2-b4. From today's theoretical point of view Black has a hard time. 5e . 4 4, and the more principled S:�a4+ c6 6.b4 in Game 5; also possible is a tran sition to Chapter 3 (5.tLlf3 tLlf6). Nowadays more popular is 4.. .c2::;e5, which promises Black good counterplay in a very complicated struggle. White can attack the pert knight in dif ferent ways. Harmless is 5.kf4 tLlg6 6.ii:.g3 e5 Q Game 6. On 5:�d4 Black can react solidly with 5...tlJg6 (Game 7) or in ultra modern fashion with 5...f6!? (Game 8).
Finally, at the end of the chapter we have a look at the alternative 5.f4 ·��-Jd7, knight shall defend the c4-pawn on b6: 6.�a4 q Game 14 6.e4 Q Games 15-16
Game 4 Dlugy - Morozevlch Internet Chess Club 3/0 1999
t This is a blitz game played via the inter· net. Nevertheless the opening phase is highly interesting for us - especially if we remember that A. Morozevich is the world's leading Chigorin specialist. His opponent M.Dlugy is a very strong grandmaster and one of the 'star blitzers' on the Internet Chess Club ICC.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ..:: !c6 3/>,c3 dxc4 4.d5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.'lJc3 dxc4 4.d5
21
then ...0-0) 9 tZ:Jc6 (so far according to an analysis by Watson) 10.tlJf3 (1 0 f4 .tb4 1 1 . f5 .s&.cB! x e4) 10...l:lc8 1 1 .i g 3 h6! with complicated play. a3) 5 .1Ld7 6.e4 a31) In Marshall-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1902, followed 6 ...e6?! 7.dxe6, and after 7 ...fxe6?? 8.'-&h5+ Black lost a piece. Correct was 7... AxeS 8.�xdB+ l:xdB! (8...�xd8 9.0-0-0+ .s&.d7 10.tLlb5 eS 11.tLldS �xdS 12.�xd6 tLlf6 13. .1ib4 b6 14.f3±) 9.Axe7 1:1cB 10.Axa5 bS 11. �xb6 axbS, and it wouldn't be that easy for White to realise his extra pawn against Black's strong bishop pair. a32) However, stronger is 6 b5! (Watson) 7.b4 tlJb7!? (7...exb3 8.axb3 e6 9.dxe6 tZJxc6 1 0 . .axb5 e6 1 1 'lJge2�) 8.a4 e6! with eounterplay. ...
.
•
...
The pawn evades the attack with tempo, and White conquers space in the centre. This continuation leads to a complicated struggle right from the start. 4 'lJa5 ...
This looks very risky - the knight goes to the rim, and there it is positioned rather unsafely -, but now and then this is played. The more popular 4...t2Je5 we will see in later games. S.e4 This continuation is probably not the strongest. The most principled 5.'gta4+ we'll analyse on the basis of Game 5. The position after 5.tZ:Jf3 tZ:Jf6 we examine under 4.�f3 'iJf6 5.d5 tlJa5. Worth mentioning are also the following possibilities: a 5.�f4, and now: a1 5 c6?! 6.e4 'iJf6 (6 ... �b6?! 7.tLJa4! r"bS 8.�e2± � t2.Jc3, 'iJd4 - Panov) 7. dxc6 CDxc6 (7 .. .'Bxd1+ 8.l:xd1 bxc6 9. c7 �b7 10.:i.xc4± Watson) 8.fi'xd8+ �d8 9. .bc4 with initiative, Soltis. a2) 5...e6 6.e4 tiJf6!? (also not bad is 6... exd5 7.'Llxd5 �d6 8.i.xd6 �xdS 9. �a4+ �6, e.g. 10.l:d1 tiJfS!A l1.tlJbS? axb6 12.�xa8 "1!¥b4+ 13.l:d2 0-0+, Po kazanjev,' resp. 10.i.xc4 tZJf6=, Minev) 7.dxe6 (7.'6a4+ c6 8.dxc6 tDxcS=) 7.. :�xd1+ (7... �xe61? 8:�xd8+ �xdB) 8.:.xd1 �xe6 9.Axc7 (9.tZJb5?! .ab4+ ...
...
.
b) 5.i.g5 Now Black has a choice: b1) 5. .c6 S.dxcS C1:JxcS 7.'&xdB+ tiJxd8!? (Watson - this is probably stronger than 7 ...'�xd8 8.e4 f6 9 . .te3 ke6 10.r.rd1+ �c8 11.f4 $.f7 12. tlJf3 e5 13.tlJdS exf4 14. .txf4 with initiative, Allen-Lazzarato, Groningen 1977) B.e4 .ad7 (8... �e6!? 9. tlJbS 1:eB) 9 . ..axc4 IleB 10.�b3 e6 with a somewhat passive, but solid position: b2) The following idea by Watson looks very good: 5...16!? S.�f4 (6.'�'a4+ c6, 6.,i.,h4 e5) S...e5 7.dxe6 '&xd1 + 8.IIxd1 .txeS 9 ..txe7 tLJe6, and Black has no difficu Ities. .
•
Chapter 2
22
5 ... c6 This move is relatively new. The alternative 5. .e6 seems to be quite good, too, e.g. : .
a) 6.'1*9a4? !+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 8.axb3 'it'b6!? (8... exdS?! 9.Ad2) 9.Ad2 �b3 1 0J1b1 tLJcS+ - Watson. b) 6.i.xc4 CZJxc4 7.'i1fa4+ c6 S:!§'xc4 cxd5 8...Ad7 leads to complete equality after 9.tZJf3 cxdS (9 ... tZJf6 1 0.d6 I?) 10.exdS exdS 11.�dS i.c6 12:�e2+ i.e7 13.�e7 �xe7 14.,te3 'i!fb4+ 1S.�d2 'iYxd2+ 16.�d2. 9.exdS
Now Black sacrificed a pawn in the game Golombek-W.Lange, Hamburg 19S5: 9 ... tZJ f 6!? (the 'normal' 9 ....td7 would have been good, too) 1 0.� bS+ Ad7 1 1 :�x b7 CZJxdS 1 2 .CZJxdS exdS.
There followed 13.�xdS?! .ib4+ 14. i.d2 0-01 l S.tZJe2 (or l S.Axb4 l:reS+ 16.'Jff1 - 1S.�d2? '!'ifS! 1 7.,tc3 iYf4+ l S.�d1 .ta4+ 1 9.b3 l:tadS -+ - 1 6... :bS 17..aaS :bS 1 8.Axd8 llxdS 19.tZJf3 AbS+ 20.Wg 1 lIdxdS�) l S...11eS 16.0-0 (1 6.i.xb4 :Xe2+ 17.�1 :Xb2+, 1S.0-0-0 llxe2 17.i.xb4 l:tc8+ 18.�b1 �fS 1 9 . .ta3 .teS with an attack) 1S ... Axd2 1 7. �xd2 i.bS 18.tlJd4 i.xf1 19.1:txf1 l:tcS+. More careful would be 1 3.tZJe2, but then too Black would have good compen sation, even after the simple 13...,te7 1 4:i!r'xdS 0-0 l S.0-0 AeS 16:i!fxdS llfxdS 17.i.f4 l:iacS l S.tLJc3 .ifS.
6.t2Jf3 tiJf6 After 6...eS 7.dxcS �xd1+ 8.�d1 �cS 9..txc4 White would stand somewhat more actively.
7.i.g5 In another blitz game of Morozevich there followed 7.i.e2 as 8.0-0 cxdS 9.exdS bS 10..tgS h6 11.Ah4 gS 12 . .tg3 i.b7 1 3..ieS i.g7, and Black
remained with a sound extra pawn, Annakov-Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1999.
7 ..h6 8 .th4 .
.
After S.i.xfS exfS 9.dxcS �xd1+ 1 0. llxd1 bxcS! 11..te2 lIb8 1 2.lId2 i.b4 13.0-0 i.eS Black keeps his material advantage and additionally has the bishop pair.
8 ... g5 S.. :iYbS!? looked good, e.g. 9:�d2 g5 1 0 . .tg3 cxdS 11.exdS .tfS 12.i.e2 i.g7 13.0-0 0-0, and White has no sufficient compensation. 9 ..tg3 cxd5 9...'i!'bS!? again was interesting. 1 0.e5? ! Stronger would be 10.AeS! with complicated struggle.
a
Now Black could get a clear advantage with 10... tZJhS 11.�xdS .te6 12.'iVc5 ( 1 2.�bS+ .td7 13.�cS eS 1 4.'We3 �c7+) 1 2...bS 13:�b4 �g3 14.hxg3 .i.g7 thanks to his extra pawn. Morozevich played 1 0 tZJe4 instead, and after 1 1 . �xd5 tZJxc3 1 2. �xd8+ �xd8 1 3. bxc3 e 6 (13....i.e6!?) 1 4.tDd2 ,td7 (14 ... bS 1S.h4 g4 16.a4) 1 S.h4 g4 ••.
1 6.CZJxc4 tZJxc4 1 7.,txc4 :cS 1 S .�e2 txxc3 1 9.i.xg4 White regained the
pawn (but lost the game anyway). ... 0: 1
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLJc6 3.tLJc3 dxc4 4.d5 Game 5 Vera
-
Formanek
Andorra 1 996 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ClJc6 3.tzJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJa5 5.�a4+! This immediately wants to take advan tage of the position of the opponent's knight.
23
blockading d4-square for his pieces . After 1 0 .ttJf3 ? ! tZJf6 the advance e2-e4
is no longer possible, and Black has enough positional compensation for the minimal material loss. 1 0 ... e 6 1 1 .�e3! tZJ fS 1 2.exd5 exd5 1 3.�d4 �e 6 1 4.g3! il.e7 15. .ig2 0-0 1 6.liJe3 :t fdS ( 1 6 . . . tiJe4? 1 7.ClJxc4 +-, Hausrath-Faria, Mamaia 1 99 1 ) 1 7.�2
S . . c6 6.b4 .
To take on cS doesn't bring the first player anything, as was already shown in the old game Alapin-Chigorin, Monte Carlo 1 90 1 : 6.dxc6 tlJxc6 7 .e4 (or 7. f'lIxc4 eS) 7 . . . i.d7 B .txc4 e6 9.ttJf3 ':c8 1 0. nod1 i.b4 with a comfortable game for Black. .
6 cxb3 ...
Frequently we also find 6 ...b57.'i¥xa5'irxa5S.bxa5 b4.
White has three possibilities:
Black's pawn chain is as pretty as a picture, but immobile at the same time, and one always has to take care of d5. Although as is also weak, it seems to me that the compensation for the piece is not sufficient. It is very important that White's bishop threatens the a7-pawn, in consequence of which the secona player has problems with the develop ment of the a 8 rook and he always has to reckon with tiJxc4 . And if Black plays . . . a7-a6, the bishop can occupy bS. c) 9.tZJa4 cxd5 1 0 .e4 ! e6 1 1 . e xd5 exd5 1 2 . .i.e3 ClJf6 1 3.�e2 �e7 1 4.tLlf3 0-0 1 5 ..t c5 lle 8 1 6.CZJd4, and again White's chances are somewhat better, Komljenovic-Mellado, Linares 1 994. -
a) 9.dxc6 bxc3 1 0.e4 �a6, and the about equal, e.g. 1 1 .ttJe2 e6 1 2.tZJxc3 (1 2.l:b1 c2 ! 1 3.l:lb2 ttJe7) 12 . Ab4 13 . .td2 tlJe7 1 4.:c1 tiJxc6 1 5. � 1 .ba5 1 S.:txc4 hc4 1 7 Juc4 ClJe5 18.l:tc2 Ab6 with a drawish endgame.
chances are .
b)
.
9.�d1 cxd51 0.e4!
It is very important for White to exchange on dS. After that Black's d-pawn can become weak, furthermore he gets the
,
7.axb3 e6 Very bad is is 7... bS? because of 8.b4 tZJb7 9.'*!Yxc6+ 'tIid7 1 O.lLlbs �d8 1 1 .
tZJxa7! +-, H. Rost-Rehfeld, carr. 1 990. 8 .td2! It would be a blunder to take on a5: 8.�xa5?? �xa5 9.llxa5 �b4. .
Chapter 2
24
Also not to be recommended is 8.b4? Thanks to the reply 8 ....e· f 6! (Watson) Black brings his opponent into a critical situation, e.g. 9.Ad2 tiJc4 1 0.dxc6 b 6 (Watson's analysis ends here) 1 1 . '; !b5 Cl:lxd2 1 2.ti:Jc7+ �e7 13.b5 ( 1 3.tz:Jxa8 '&c3 1 4.�d 1 tiJe4 -+, 1 3. �xd2 �f4+ 1 4.e3 �xc7 -+) 13 '§'c3 (the computer thinks that 1 3 ... tiJe4 wins more easily) 1 4:�a3+ �xa3 1 5. l:txa3 �d8 ( 1 5 . . . tiJc4 -+) 1 6.iLJxa8 .lixa3 1 7. �xd2 8f6 1 8.f3 e5 1 9.e4 .lie6 2Q.Ad3 �c8 21 . tlJe2 �b8 -+, Berczes-D.Werner, Buda pest 2003. In Lebedev-Chigorin, corr. 1 900, 8.�b2 was played. Chigorin discovered the best response: 8... 'l!¥ b 6! 9.'tWxa5�x b3. Then came 1 OJlb1 ? ! (better would be 1 O .'i!fa2 �xa2 1 1 .tLlxa2 exd5 oo) 1 0 . . . .1i.b4 1 1 .�a1 CZJf6 ! ( 1 1 . . . exd5 1 2.8f3 ;1;) 1 2. dxc6 liJe4 1 3J1c1 a5 ! ! 1 4.tLlf3 (1 4.13 a4 ! 1 5.fxe4 a3 -+) 1 4 . . . a4 1 5.liJd4 �d5 1 6.e3 a3 1 7 . .axa3 ( 1 7. .ab5 0-0 -+) 1 7 ... tz:Jxc3 1 8 .�xb4 :Xa 1 1 9.1Ixal 8a2 +. •••
8 Cl:Jxb3 On 8 . . . b6 there again follows 9.b4. •••
9.�xb3 exd5
about equal. But what do the positional factors look like? At the moment White has a development advantage , but if he isn't able to take advantage of it, Black's pawn chain on the queenside can be come dangerous. That's why the first player has to try to open up the game as quickly as possible so as to set the stage for a kingside attack. 10.e4! Played according to the fundamental plan. Harmless would be 1 0.e3 ��':f6 1 1 . tiJf3 �d6, and Black castles without problems. 1 0... d4 In a later game Formanek now pl ayed 1 0 dxe4, Wheeler-Formanek, Chicago 1 997. There followed 1 1 .�c4! Vf!Je7 1 2.liJge2 b5? , and now with 1 3.tlJxb51 ••.
cxb5 1 4.�xb5+ �d7 1 5:�b7 .ac8 ( 1 5 .. . .ad8 1 6.0-0 8f6 17 . .axa7 �c5 1 8.l:tcl �e5 1 9.t:ta8 Ae7 2Q . .il.a5 ±) 1 6 . .i.b5 .ad8 1 7.lIxa7 White could have got the opponent into big trouble . Better was 1 2 8 f 6 but also then after 1 3.'i!Ya2! (in order to vacate the b3-square for the bishop) 1 3 . . . �e6 ( 1 3 ... b5 1 4.Ab3 b4 1 5 .8d1 .il.g4 1 6.tiJd4 c5 1 7.�a6! with an attack) 1 4.0-0 .txc4 1 5.'1!Vxc4 �c5 1 6. �b3 'ii' b4 1 7.'iVa2 Whit, would have a strong initiative. •.•
,
11.�c4! �d7
White won the opponent's knight. But i n doing so he h ad t o give three pawns, so the position is, materially speaking ,
The knight was untouchable: 1 1 ... dxc3? 1 2.Axf7+ �e7 1 3.i.xc3, winning. Also not much fun was 1 1 .. .'�e7 1 2. C2Jce2, e.g. 1 2 . . . tz:Jf6 1 3.13 c5 1 4.tLlf4 ( 1 4 .tiJh3! ?) 1 4 . . . g6 1 5.8ge2 Ag7 1 6. �b5+ tiJd7 1 7.t2Jd5, and Black cannot resist White's attack. 12.Cl:Jd51 Now 1 3.tiJb6 is threatening.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 r;; 'ICS 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.dS
2S
White develops his bishop und si multaneously drives away the eS knight which protects c4. But as we'll see, this variation is absolutely not dangerous for Black. The continuations 5.�d4 and S.f4 are shown in the following main games.
12 ... b5 1 3.i.d3 .tb7 1 4. liJf3! .sidS 1 4 ... cxdS? l s.hbS i.cS l S.tlJeS +-. 1 5.0-0! On l S.tiJxd4 follows l S ...i.eS!, where af1er the play becomes unclear. Now Black has to take the knight finally, but due to his awkward development he is not able to resist the opponent's attack anymore.
1 5 ... cxd5 l S . .txb5 .teS 1 7. .axe6 '6'xe6 1 B.rnc1 �d7 19. >H"xd5 l:[dB 20. 'Y:¥xd4 White has regained all his sacrificed material. Moreover, Black is still under developed, and two of his pawns are attacked. 20 ... .axh2+ Unfortunately this tactical possibility doesn't help him anymore either. 21 .Wxh2 �xd4 lbd4 23.�c3
22.tZJxd4
Nothing is likely to come from 5. ':; - f3 tZJxf3+ S.exf3 eS 7.i.xc4 SLdS, and the second player has no difficulties. After 5.e4 e 6 6..t f4 (S.f4 tlJgS � S.f4 t2:JgS, S...€ld3+ !? 7 . .txd3 cxd3oo) Black can play 6...�g 6 7 .i.g3 €lfS S . .txc4 exdS 9.exdS �dS =, Pisulinski-Fries Nielsen, Goteborg 1997, but also 6... i.d 6!?, e.g. 7.i.xe5 i.xeS S.i.xc4 exd5 9.exd5 �fS 10.�f3 .tg4 (1 0 . . . ..txc3+ !?) 11.h3 i.xf3 12.�xf3 0-0 with equality, Gruk-Morozevich , ICC 5/0 1999.
5 ... tiJg6 Also with tempo! 6 . .tg3 e5 This is common in such positions - Black will either lock up the g3-bishop or force White's d-pawn to be exchanged. The game Sharadorj-J . Gonzales, Mani la 2001, proceeded in another way: 6... i.d7!?
With the idea 7 ... bS. 7.a4
White prevents this, but weakens the b4-square. Moreover - and this is even more important - the insertion of ....tcS d7 and a2-a4 prevents a queen check on a4. 7 e 6 8.e4 tiJ f 6 9_.txc4 ..'ii.. b4 •••
1 :0 Game S Gligoric - Smyslov Amsterdam 1 971
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tZJc3 dxe4 4.d5 c.�e5 5.id4
Without S .. i.d717.a4 this would be impossible because of '\Wd1-a4+. 1 0.dxe 6
1 0.�b3 i.xc3+ followed by 11...t2:Jxe4. 1 0 ... Axe 6 1 1 . i.xeS 't'Ixd1+ 1 2. :txd1 fxeS 13.13, and in this roughly equal pOSition the opponents agreed a draw.
Chapter 2
26
7.dxe6 Gligoric doesn't want his bishop on g3 to stand passively, so he eliminates the eS-pawn . However. Black can now develop comfortably and even hope for a small advantage - White has to tax his brain to win back his pawn. An alternative is 7.r:� f3 �dS 8.e4, and now: ...
Axes 1 8J::tae1 tlJd7 1 9.t2JdS �g5 20. h4! +-) 1 4. a4 tlJhS 1 S.�e2 tlJxg3 1 6. hxg3 .tca 1 7.�d 1 fS 1 8.exfS .txfS 1 9 . .tg4 e4 with initiative for Black. But it isn't clear why White didn't want to take on b7 on the 1 4th or 1 Sth move. 1 0.t2Jxc4 a6 1 1 .£d3 tlJf4 ! 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2 . .txf4 exf4 1 3.0-0 bS 1 4.t2Jxd6 '&xd6 1 S.'t!7'd2 tlJg4 1 6.h3 tlJeS doesn't really look good for the first player - Black has conquered the important blockading eS square and is ready to attack the oppo nent's king; even worse would be 1 3.eS? Ile8 1 4 .�e2 �xeS 1 S.tlJxeS �d6+) 1 2 ... tlJ6hS 1 3.:c1 �gS. and in the game Vokac-Kaminski, Lazne Bohdanec 1 996, Black yielded the initiative on the kingside. b)
Also possible is 8 aS 9.,txc4 tiJ f 6 1 0.0-0 0-0 with the idea of ... tlJhS-f4. The ...
internet blitz game Lautier-Morozevich. ICC 3/0 1 999, went on as follows: 1 1 . Ile 1 �e7 (1 1 ... tzJhS? 1 2.tlJxeS tzJxg3 1 3.tlJxg6 ±) 1 2.l::lc 1 t2Jh5 1 3.tiJd2 ( 1 3 . tLlxeS?? t2JxeS -+) 1 3 ... tlJhf4 1 4 . .tf1 hS!? with an attack. These examples show us that in the 7.tlJf3-variation Black can get play on the kingside rather quickly, while the first player has no clear plan . 7... .txe6 8.�f3 tDf6 9.�d4 .td7 1 0.e3 ..lib4 1 1 .�xc4 ()..() , 1 1 . . . flJe4? 1 2.�b3 il..x c3+ 1 3.bxc3 0-0 1 4.�xb7 ±. '
a) 8 .t"2JfS 9.tlJd2 In order to take on c4 with the knight. 9 . .'iLxc4 a6 leads to variation b). ..
9 0-0 ...
In an internet blitz game against Kam sky (ICC 3/0 1 999) Morozevich played 9 . . . �e7 1 0.t2Jxc4 �b4 instead. Further followed 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2.0-0 �g4 1 3. �b3 .tcS ( 1 3 ... tlJf4 1 4.�xf4 exf4 1 S. h3 ! ? � 1 S . . . .thS? 1 6.d6! �xd6 1 7.eS!
12.�C2 c6 1 3.h3 After 1 3.0-0 tzJhS 1 4Jlfd 1 tlJxg3 1 S.hxg3 C2:JeS 1 6 ..te2 �f6 Black's position would be somewhat better because of the bishop pair, that's why Gligoric vacates the h2-square for his bishop. But this decision also has its disadvantages, as we will see soon. 1 3 'We7 1 4.0-0 ...
1 .d4 d5 2.c4
t�
!O6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.d5
27
...
1 4 ... �xc31 This was played for two reasons: W hite cannot recapture the bishop with the queen because of 1 5 . . ..:. "le4 followed by 1 6 .. J�ixg3. And after the forced 1 5. bxc3 White's pawn structure on the queenside is com promised.
Black exchanges a piece, which controls the important central e4square over which Black would like even more control. 1 5.bxc3 tlJe4 1 6.�h2 c5 ! 1 7.tlJf3 As given by Smyslov, Black has some advantage after 1 7.tLJb5 .tc6 1 8.f3 �xb5 1 9 . .txb5 tLJd6 20. .txd6 �xd6. 1 7 .tc6 ! ...
According to Nimzowitsch pieces obtain additional power from any important central square they are in contact with . Of course the magic square in this po sition is e4 . 1 8.�d3 f5 ! On the obvious 1 8 . . . 1:11e8 there follows 1 9.Clje5 CZJxe5 20 . .txe4 'iYh4 21 . ..tf4 .i.xe4 22:�xe4, and Black's pressure decreases.
1 9J1ad1 blad8 20.St.e2 �f6!
Now the weakness on c3 makes itself felt. White cannot simultaneously keep the c-pawn protected and stay on the d file with the rook. 21 .l:txd8 lIxd8 22J�rcl h6 23.�d3 He would like to drive away the knight from h is ideal position with l2lf3-e1 and f2-f3. The immediate 23.tZJe1 would be bad because of 23 .. JId2. 23 ...�h8 The king prophylactically avoids possible checks. 24.tlJe1 Now White is ready to play f2-f3. 24... c4! Smyslov doesn't g ive his opponent the
opportunity to realize his plan. The c4pawn cannot be taken: 2S . .txc4 I1d2 26.�b1 'tWh4 27.f3 tLJg5 28.i.b5 tlJxf3+ ! -+. The same move - . . . tld8-d2 - also follows in the case of the bishop moving to e2 or f1 . That's why White has only one move at his disposal. 25.�xe4 fxe4 Smyslov rejected 25 ... Axe4 because of 26:�a4. 26.�e2 b5
Chapter 2
28
Black's advantage increases more and more. Now he plans to get his knight to dS and then advance the queenside pawns. White has no counterplay - the manoeuvre tiJe 1 -c2 is impossible be cause then the c3-pawn would be lost.
With this move he hopes to hold the po sition: Everything is protected, and if the opponent attacks the c3-pawn once more by 41 . . . �f6, 42 . .ae 1 is possible. However . . .
27.i.g3 CLle71 2S:i¥b2 tZJd5 29.�a3 a5 ! 30.Wh2 This pawn could not be taken : 30.�xa5? 1:[a8, and White loses his queen. 30 h5! ...
Threatening 3 1 ... h4. To prevent that, White's h-pawn has to move one square forward, but then the g4-square becomes weak. 31 .h4 �f8! The queen is White's only active piece. That's why Smyslov wants to exchange her or chase her away from her position. 32.�b2 t2Jf6 ! 33,<�g1 Again he had no possibility to get his knight to d4: 33.tiJc2 tlJg4+ 34.Wg 1 IId2 3S.:f1 �f6 36.a3 �g8! , and with so many pieces being still on the board White is in zugzwang ! 33 ...C2Jg4 34:�e2 '&f6! White's c-pawn is attacked again. Now Black plans the manoeuvre .. JId7 fol lowed by ... �d8 and .. J:ld2. With his next move Gligoric tries to free his position : 35.f3 exf3 36.gxf3 tlJe5 37.e4 CZJd3 ! 3S.J::(c 2 C2Jxe1 39.�xe1 �d3 ! For White it's not getting easier. He exchanged his passive knight against Black's active one and got rid of the e4pawn, but now his kingside is extremely weak. 40.�g2 �g6+ 41 .�g3
4 1 .. .'�h7! Zugzwang ! Any continuation loses, e.g. 42.Wf2 'iWf6, 42:�Ye1 �f6, 42.wh2 llxf3 43:�xf3 i.. x e4. 42.ttc1 This doesn't help either. 42 ... �f6 43.Ae1 �f4 I n view of 44J:lc2 �xf3 Gligoric re signed. A classical positional game that shows, which problems White can be confron ted with in this opening. , 0:1 Game 7 Goldin - Morozevich
S1. Petersburg 1 993 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.tz:Jc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.'lWd4 White centralizes his queen with tempo and can immediately win back the pawn on c4 after any retreat of the knight.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.t2:Jc3 dxc4 4.d5
29
7 . . . e5 8. h4! ? i.d6 9.h5 llJf8 1 0.h6! g6 1 1 .tiJe4 tiJd7 1 2.Si..d 2 f6 1 3.11c1 CiJe7 1 4.CDxd6+ cxd6 l S.e4±, Kamsky-Moro zevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. 8.e4
B.h4 e61 with counterplay. 8...e5 9.h4!?
5 . ./:. lg6 This is the common continuation. Black
now plans, depending on the demands of the position, the blockading setup with . . .e7-eS and . .. ;;.. f 8-d6 or counter play in the centre with e7-e6. The 'avant-garde' continuation 5...16!? w e will see in Game 8. 6.e4 The immediate 6:iWxc4 seems to be somewhat more precise because Black has to play . . . a6 first before the planned ... e7-e5 (6 . . . eS? 7.dxe6 i.xe6 8. �"b5+ :+-) . After 6.e4 he has the chance to do without this move. Further alternatives are 6 /�j3 and 6.h4. Now we want to examine these three poss i bil ities: a) 6.'i¥xc4 a6
9.dxe6 .ixe6 =, Agrest-Morozevich, Ore I 1 992, 9 . .te2 b5 ! ? 1 0.�d3 .!i..d 6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 L\ . . .tiJhS-f4. 9.a4 .id6 1 0.�e2 0-0 1 1 .a5 �e7 (.& 1 2 ... CiJf4) 1 2.g3 bS 1 3.axb6 cxb6 1 4.0-0 ( 1 4. �c6? ! .:tb8 1 5.kxa6 �xa6 1 6.l:txa6 :alc8 1 7.�a4 b5 1 8 .'&d 1 b4 1 9.CiJa4 lDxe4 +, 1 7.�b5 LlJxe4=F) 1 4 ... b5 1 S.'tl¥d3 .td7 1 6.t2:Jd 1 b4 1 7.�gS as with initiati ve for Black, Kosyrev-Charbonneau, Montreal 2001 . 9 ... .td6 (9 . . . �g4 ! ?) 1 0.hS CiJf8 1 1 . h6 g6 1 2.�g5 tiJ8d7 1 3.0-0-0 0-0 ( 1 3 . . . bS! ?) 1 4.�b1 �e7 ( 1 4 ... bSI ?) with a complicated struggle, Kamsky-Moro zevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. a2) 7.�b3 This continuation was discussed in in ternet blitz games between Morozevich and the strong grandmaster Annakov (handle "gahan" on ICC). White wants to hamper the development of the c8-bishop, and simultaneously the c4-square be comes free for his bishop. The critical position arises after the further moves 7 ... Db8 8.e4 b5: a21 ) 9.llJf3 e5 1 0.g3 1 0.a4 b4 1 1 .tLJd 1 tLJf6 1 2.�c2 b3 1 3. �d3 .tb4+ 1 4 . .td2 0-0 1 5.t2:Jc3 �e7 1 6 .1:c1 !Id8 with initiative, Annakov Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1 999, 1 0 . .te2 t2:Jf6 1 1 .0-0 .!i..d 6 1 2.a3 0-0 1 3.�c2 .td7 1 4.b4 h6 l S.8e1 c6 1 6.dxc6 i.xc6 1 7.g3 1:1c8 with initiative, Annakov Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. 10 ... CiJf6 1 1 .h4 i..d 6 (1 1 . . . i.g4 ! ? 1 2.tLJh2 .td7) 1 2. h5 IiJf8 (1 2 . . . .!i..g 4!?) 1 3.h6 g6 1 4 . .:i..g 5 C2:J8d7 °o, Annakov Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999.
Chapter 2
30 a22) 9.84 b4 1 0.t2:Jce2
Black also has good play after 1 0.tLJd1 e6 1 1 .�e3 t2:Jf6, Annakov-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. But 1 0 ..tc4 '2:Jf6 has to be tested. 1 0...e5
1 0 . . . e6 1 1 .tZJd4 CiJ8e7 1 2.dxe6 'iH'xd4 1 3.exf7+ �d8 1 4.i.e3 �xe4 1 5.tld 1 + Ad7 1 6.liJf3 i5i5, Annakov-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, 1 0 . . . '2:Jf6 1 1 .tlJd4 St.b7 oo, Annakov-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. 1 1 .liJg3 tZJf6 1 2.h4 Ad6 1 3.hS liJf8 1 4.hS g6 1 S . .tgS tlJad7 1 6 .'0f3 0-0 1 7.i.c4 iJ..e 7 1 a.Ae3 liJe8 co (� ... tiJd6), Annakov-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. a3) 7.e4 eS 8.tlJf3 t2:JfS transposes zu a1 ). b) 6.tLJ13 b 1 ) 6 ... t2:Jf6 7.'tWxc4 After 7.e4 eS, 8.C2:JxeS?? loses because of 8 . . . c5! , while 8 ..txc4 i.dS leads to the main game; but worth considering is 7.e3 ! ? 7. . .86 (7 . . . eS? ! 8.dxe6 � a . . . j,.xeS 9.�bS+) ¢ 6.�xc4 as 7.'2:Jf3 tZJf6. b2) 6 ... e6 7.e4 exd5 8.exd5 (the posi tion after 8:�xdS �xd5 9.tijxdS �dS 1 0 . .txc4 cS 1 1 .CZJc3 is about equal)
8.'iWxc4, and we have landed in the variation S:iYxc4 a6 7.e4 eS 8.tZJf3. c) Interesting is the immediate 6.h4!?, with the idea of h4·hS and possibly h5h6. In an internet blitz game Kamsky Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1 999, followed 6 ... e6 7.e4 llJf6 8.hS tiJe7 9.Axc4
(9.,tg5! ? exdS 1 0 . .1i.xf6 gxf6 1 1 .exdS €:lf5 °o resp. 1 1 .�xf6 �ga with counter play) 9 ... exdS 1 0.exdS tZJfS 1 1 . .tbS+ Ad7 1 2.�e5+, and now Black should play (instead of the game continuation 1 2 . . . Ae7?? 1 3. �xf5 c6 1 4:�eS +-) 12 . . :�e7 1 3.i.xd7+ �xd7 1 4.�xe7+ .txe7 after which his position would be OK. The following continuations also came into consideration : 7 ...t2Jxh4!? 8.'&xc4 CiJg6 (8 . . . a6? ! 9.i.f4 Ad6 1 0.eS Si..e 7 1 1 .0-0-0±) 9 .dxe6 AxeS (9 . . . fxe6 1 0. tzJf3 i5i5) 1 0.'�b5+ St.d7 1 1 .�xb7 €:lfS co and 7 ... exdS!? a.hS tzJ6e7 9.exdS tlJfSoo. 6 . e5 7:�xc4 �d6 8.tlJf3 tlJf6 9.h4? ! ..
...
8 ...liJ16 9.�xc4 �d6 1 0.iJ..g S 0-0 1 1 .0 0 ..
.tf5 (1 1 ... h6 1 2 . .axf6 't'1'xfS 1 3. �xf6 gxf6 1 4.€:le4 �g 7 1 S .liJxd6 cxdS 1 S .tlJd4t Gorjatchkin-Masternak, Katowice 1 995) 1 2.:1e1 iJ.. e7 1 3.tlJh4 liJxh4 1 4 . .txh4 kg6 1 S.3:e2 a6 1 SJ::ra e1 �dS, Volkov· Bigaliev, Moscow 1 995, 1 7.liJe4 ! ? iJ..xe4 1 8.l:xe4 with initiative for White. b3) 6... a6 7.e4 7:�xc4 Ieads to the variation 6.'&xc4 as 7.t2:Jf3, but worth considering is 7.h4 ! ? 7 ...eS
After 7 . . . bS 8.a4 .ad7 9.i.e2 c6 1 0.dxc6 ..txc6 1 1 .axbS axbS 1 2J:txa8 'tIVxa8 1 3. �b6 White has good compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
This idea is really not bad - White wants to drive away the opponent's kight from g6 by h4-hS, simultaneously winning space on the kingside. If allowed by the opponent, he can also play hS-h6 or .tc1 -g5 . But there is, however, one, serious problem: if White castles king side, the hyperactive pawn can become weak without the rook's support.
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 :'�iC6 3/ijc3 dxc4 4.dS After the 'normal' moves 9 .te2 0-0 1 0.0-0 Dunnington's suggestion 1 0 hS looks pretty good. Therewith Black prophylactically prevents iLc1 -gS and vacates the h7-square for the knight. Then he can play . . . tlJfS·h7 with the ideas . . . tDf7-gS and .. .f7-fS, or he might prepare the central advance ... c7 -cS. The thesis that it's important to prevent $.c1 -gS is supported by the following variation : 10 ... j"d7 (planning . . .c7-c6 or . . . c7-cS) 1 1 .'it'b3 bS ( 1 1 . . . Ub8 1 2.i.e3, 1 1 .. :fVc8 1 2 . .1l.gS! ) 1 2.trd1 cS (or 1 2 . . . c5) 1 3.dxc6 ,txcS 1 4 . .1l.g S! hS l S.i.b5 ! .tb7 1 S.tiJh4 ! tUxh4 ( l S . . hxg5? 1 7. tiJxgS +-) 1 7.�xh4, and the pin on the h4-d8 diagonal is very uncomfortable. •
...
31
1 3 ... c6 ! Simple and logical - the opponent's king is located in the centre, that's why the game has to be opened. And if W hite castles kingside, the hS-pawn will become weak. Castling queenside also looks dangerous due to the open c-file.
1 4.dxc6 tlJxc6
.
9 h6 ...
Of course not 9 . . . hS 1 0 . .tg5 ! .
1 0.h5 CiJe7 1 1 .te3 0-0 1 2. i.e2 a6!? .
Black prepares ... b7-b5 and prophylacti cally prevents �c3-b5; besides, the a pawn isn't attacked anymore. Also into consideration came the immediate counterplay in the centre by 1 2 . . . cS ! ?
1 3.CiJd2 Dunnington criticises this move and proposes 1 3.l:d1 . But after that there would follow 13 ... b5! 1 4.'ti'd3 (other wise Black wins the e4-pawn by 1 4 . . . b4) 1 4 . b4 1 1 5.'lJa4 (on 1 5.tDb 1 there also follows l S . . . �exd5 ! 1 6.exd5 e4 1 7.�d4 exf3 1 8 ..txf3 1:e8 with an advantage, whereas 1 9.0-0 would be bad because of 1 9 . . Ag4! , e.g. 20 . .1xg4 :e4 21 .�d3 :Xg4 22.f3 l:h4 23.g4 �e8 ! 24JIf2 l:1h3 2S.'Ii?g2 tlJxg4! 2S.�xh3 't!YeS !, winning) 15 ...tiJexd5 l S.exdS e4 1 7.'ill'd4 exf3 1 B . .txf3 �e8 1 9.tDcS ( 1 9.0-0 ? iLg4 20.i.xg4 lle4 21 .�d3 llxg4 22.f3 l:th4 23.g4 �e8 -+) 1 9 . . . 11b8 20.0-0 j"eS 2 1 . �d2 as, and thanks to the weakness of the h5-pawn Black is somewhat better. ..
.
1 5J ld 1 ? This proves wrong , since, as we will see, this rook has to go back again two moves later. But the position was al ready noticeably worse for White. This is verified by the following variations: a) 1 5.0-0 j,eS 1 S.�d3 (l S.'iWa4 bS l 70.. �d 1 tiJd4+) 1 6 . . . .ab4! 1 7.'tWxd8 IlfxdB 1 8.l:tfc1 CLJg4! with a strong initiative. b) Even worse is 1 5.0-0-0 'Wd3 �b4 1 7.�b1 l:cB - + .
.teS l S.
c) 1 5.tDd5 .il.eS l S.a3 llc8 1 7.'&d3 ( 1 7. Cl:Jxf6+ �xfS 1 8:�d3 ttfd8 +) 1 7 . . . C2Jd4 1 8.�xd4 exd4 1 9.0-0 ( 1 9.�xd4 tDxd5 20.exd5 .i.c5 2 1 .�f4 .1i.xd5 +) 1 9" 'tUxd5 20.exdS i.xd5 2 1 .'*¥xd4 ];te8 isn't a great joy either. d) Dunnington suggests 1 5.'t�Ya4, whereafter Black in his opinion is only slightly better. But it seems so that the position after 1 S ... i&.eS is more than only slightly better for Black, e.g. l S.�d1 (in order to overprotect h5 and preven t
32
Chapter 2
... tljg4 or . . . �g4) 1 S . . .CLlCI4 1 7.l2:Jf3 �e2 1 8.�xe2 �aS! 1 9 . .td2 'iWbS 20 . .te3 �c6, and White has serious problems with the e4- and hS-pawns. 6.
l S .. .liJb4! 1 6 ... .iL.e6.
Game 8 Chuchelov - van Houtte
Belgium 1 997 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.dS l2Je5 5.'iYd4 f6
1 6.'iYb3 bS Again threatening 1 7 . . . .teS. 1 7.�al Not better wou Id be 1 7.tlJds �eS 1 8 . .tf3 as 1 9.0-0 tLlfxd5 20.exdS a4 21 :�a3 l2:Jxd5. 1 7 ... tlJg4 l S.l2Jf1 Also after 1 8.Axg4 .txg4 1 9.1ZJdS as Black has a big advantage . 1 S . . . tlJxe3 20.0-0
1 9 .tiJxe3
�cS
It
...
An interesting idea by J. Watson. Dunnington also approves of this move, which at first sight looks curious. The knight stil l stays on e5, and thus the c4pawn currently remains protected . Furthermore the second player plans the counterplay ... e7-e6 in the centre. If White drives away the eS-knight, it will go to f7 and probably further to dS. Then also ... e7-e5 comes into consideration . 6.t41
Finally White has managed to castle, but with the weakness on hS and be cause of the opponent's active pieces (additionally the bishop pair!) his po sition stays critical. 20... ..te6 21 .tlJed5 CZJc6 ! 22.%Yd1 tZJd4 23Jlcl �gS ! Black's attack develops by itself. 24.tZJe3 nacS 2S.�d3 t:IfdS 26.tZJcdS fS ! 27.b4 fxe4 2S. �d2 ttxd5! 0:1
The only move, with which White oan fight for the initiative. All other continua tions are quite harmless: a) 6.ti:Jf3 tiJxf3+ 7.exf3 eS ! 8.�·xc4 .tdS with a comfortable game. b) 6.e4 eS ! ? 7.f4 lZJd3+ 8.Axd3 cxd3 9.�xd3 exd5 (9 .. /�e7 ! ? Watson) 1 0. exdS .'id6, and Black has no problems. c ) 6 . .tf4 tLlgS 7.,tg3 (7.'t!¥xc4 e5 !) 7 . . . e S 8.�xc4 a s (directed against l2:Jc3-bS or �c4-bS. furthermore this move allows . . . b7-bS. Watson in his book estimates this position as but maybe the second player al ready has a bit more =,
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CDc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.d5 than equality) 9.CDf3 �dS 1 0 .e4 tz:JBe7 1 1 .�e2 0-0 1 2.0-0 b5 1 3. 't!Vb3 f5 with initiative for Black. d) 6:�e4 (directed against 6 . . . e6) S . . . a6 (7 ... 'iYd7 ! ? 7.f4 fijf7 S:i¥xc4 tlJd6 9:iWb3 eS 1 0.dxeS 'iYxe6 1 1 .'tJd5 �f7 Watson) 7.a4, Tarjan-Watson, Los An geles 1 981 , and now Watson suggests ( instead of 7 ... gS) 7 . . . �d7 ! . Further he gives B.iLlf3 tlJxf3+ 9.exf3 e5 1 0 . .txc4 .1dS=.
=
6 . . ti:Jf7 7.�xc4 .
Here Hiarcs 5.0 played 7.e3 in a test game ( 1 997) against another inhuman being , King 2. 0. There followed 7 e5? B .dxe6 C2:JdS (8 . . . .txeS 9.�e4! �e7 1 0.'iWxb7±) 9.�xc4 fije7 1 0.,tb3 tlJcs 1 1 .'1!¥a4 with an awful position for Black. However, correct was 7 ClJd6 8.i..xc4 f5 9.fijf3 CDfS 1 0.0-0 g6, and after . . . Jig7 and . . . 0-0 the second player has to free himself with . . . e7-eS. ...
...
7 tZJd6 8. �b3 ...
This development of the white q ueen is also directed against . . . e7-e6. In his book Watson gives 8.�d4 fS 9.tlJf3 fijfS oo•
8...f5 With this move Black disrupts plans for e2e4 and frees the fS-square for his knight.
W ith the idea of developing the bishop to g2 and transferring the knig ht to f2 via h3 so as to prepare the advance e2e4. Black has to orientate his counter play on . . . e7-eS. In the game Vilkov-Filin, Lipetsk 1 993, White chose a setup with tlJf3: 9.C2:Jf3 tLlfS 1 0.g3 gS 1 1 .�g2 it..g 7 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3. JL.e3 1:e8 . After 1 4.:ad 1 tlJg4 ! ? 1 S.�c1 e S 1 S.h3 e4 ! 1 7.tDct4 tLlf6 a complicated position arose, in which the chances are about even - W hite tries to put pressure on c7, while Black plays against the dS-pawn.
9 ... tZJf6 1 0.il..g 2 g6 1 1 .tiJh3 .tg7 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.tZJf2 �e8 1 4 . .ie3 On 1 4.e4 fxe4 there follows 1 S.tlJcxe4 C2:Jfxe4 l S.tZJxe4 �f5 with a complicated fight, whereas 1 7.tl:JxdS exdS 1 8:�xb7? loses because of 1 8 . . . J;..d4+ 1 9.'�h 1 �d3 20JId 1 �e7 2 1 .J;..d 2 11abS 22.�c6 �xb2. 1 4 .e6 The second player follows his plan. ..
1 5.)lad1 �h8? ! Too cautious. After l S . . . exdS 1 S.C2:JxdS. J;..e6 Black's position would have been OK. 1 6.Ji.d41 The ideal square for the bishop. 1 6 ... exd5 1 7.�xd5!
9.g3
33
Chapter 2
34
Thanks to the opponent's hesitation White's pieces have taken up active positions in the centre.
1 7... tlJxd5 1 7 ... cS !?
fxe6 9 .i.xc4 White stands somewhat better due to his advantageous pawn structure. The game Gual Pascual Skembris, Paretana 2000, continued as follows: 9 �d6 1 0.tljb5 e5 1 1 .f5 fiJ6e7 1 2.0:Jf3 CLJf6 1 3.11e1 a6 1 4.tlJxdS+ cxdS 1 5 .b3 b5 l S . i.d3 .i:.b7 1 7 . .aa3 �S! 1 B.'�e2 (1 B . .i:.xdS?? 0-0-0 -+) , and instead of 1B . . . 0-0-0 (which, by the way, also after 1 9J�ac1 h6 20.�f 1 �he8 was not bad for Black) Breutigam sug gests 1 8 .. .l:td8 ! ? 1 9J�ad 1 gS! ? 20.fxgS hxg6, whereafter both . . . 0-0 followed by . . . CLJf6-h5 and . . . g5-g4 come into consideration. However, the continuation 1 0.eS!? seems stronger to me. After this Breuti gam gives the variation 1 0 . . . .i:.c5 1 1 ,CLJf3 0:JhS 1 2.tLlg5 We7 1 3.ti:Jce4 i.b6 1 4.b3 i.d4 1 5.nb1 CLJf5 and assesses the position as equa\. But I think that W hite's chances are preferable after 1 6.�e2 followed by g2-g4 because of his more active pieces and his better pawn structure. 8.�xd1
.
•..
1 S.Axg7+ wxg7 1 9.clJxd5 .te6? The decisive mistake. Necessary was 1 9 . . . cS, although W hite even then would have retained the initiative after 20.tZJc3 �fS 2 1 .�b4 lIeS 22.e4 tDxe4 (or 22 . . . fxe4 23.11fe 1 ) 23.tZJcxe4 fxe4 24.:fe 1 . 20:tiVc3+ �f7 �gS 22. 'ti'xdS
2 1 .�xC7+
1 :0 Game 9 Gavin
-
Faster
Zaragoza 1 993
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.CZJc3 dxc4 4.d5 CZJe5 5. f4 tlJg4
I
b)
5 .. .tiJd7 will be considered within
Games 14 - 16.
After the text move W hite has a choice: He can either continue his development by 6.e4 or first drive away the opponent's knight by 6.h3. In the present game White decided in favour of the first possibil;ty:
6.e4 S . h3
� Game 1 3.
6 . e5 7.lDf3 ..
The idea is obvious - Black plans to attack the f2-square with . . . e7-e5 and . . . .tfB-c5. Besides this, the following possibilities come into consideration : a) Sometimes S...�6 has been played, but after Watson's suggestion 6.e4 e6 (S . . . e5 7.15 ;':; J4 B/d3+) 7.dxe6 'tt'xd1 +
The alternatives 7.f5 and 7.�e2 are treated later. 7.�xc4?! is not recom mendable because of 7 . . . i.c5.
7 . �c5 ..
Unfavourable would be 7 .exf4 because this surrenders the centre and supports the opponent's development: 8.i..xf4 �c5 9:�a4+ .i:.d7 1 0.'iJ#xc4 Af2+ 1 1 ,�e2 AbS 1 2. h3 tzJ4hS ( 1 2 . . . t2Jf2 1 3 .11h2 ±) ..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJcS 3.tDC3 dxc4 4.d5
1 3.�d1 fije7 1 4.e5 �S 15.�g5 �c8 1S.i.xhS gxhS 17.llJe4 ±, P.C.Garsia Colas, Zaragoza 1993.
a:iYa4+ Also deserving consideration is S.llJxeS!? tZJf2 (8 . . . �h4+? 9.g3 i.f2+ 1 0.�d2 �xg3 1 1 .hxg3 �xh1 12.tz:Jxg4±) 9:�a4+ (9.�h5? ClJhS 10J�gl tDxe4 :;::) 9...i.d7 1O.tZJxd7 �xd7 11. �xc4 ( 1 1 . �xc4 �bS 12.:g1 tiJe7!? 13.e5 0-0 00) 1 1 . .'t!¥xa4 12.tDxa4 Ad4 1 3. i.b5+ �8 14.llf1 tZJxe4 with complicated play. Interesting was also 8.fxe5 !? i.d7!? 9.Ag5 (9.'�Ye2 i.f2+ 1 0.�d2 AbS 1 1 . 'Wxc4 t2:Jf2 12 J:;[gl lZ:Jg4 13.11h1 llJf2 =, 11...f6 !?) 9 f6 10.exf6 tDaxfSoo. .
...
8 ... �d7 9.'iVxc4 flie7 Another possibility is 9 ... .tf2+!? 10.�e2 exf4 11..txf4 ( 1 1 .h3 llJe3 1 2.'�b3 .tg3 13.'�'xb7 llJf6 14..i.xe3 fxe3 l S.�xe3 :b8 16.�xa7 lIxb2oo) 11 . . .'fi'f6 (11 ... �b6 1 2.h3 !) 12.'iWxc7 (12. .txc7 :c8oo) 12 .. J;tc8 13.�dS i.b6 or 1 3 Acs with an unclear position. ...
35
13.tl:JdS �xe4+ 1 4.�xe4 �e4 l S.AbS+ �d8 l S..i.e3 ClJe7 Black is OK) 12 .tiJxe4 (12.. .'��Y xe4?!+ 13:�xe4 tz:Jxe4 14.tDxc5+ tZJxc5 1 5 . .ie3 with initiative) 13.ti:Jxc5+ t2:JxcS+ 14.Ae2 ne8 15.0-0 �xe2 16.'iYxc5 "fYaS (16 . . . a6!?, 1S . . .tZJfS!? 17.�xa7 '&bS) 1 7.�c3 �b6+ 1 8 . �h 1 llJfS 19.b4 1:1e2 20.i.b2 <;t>c8, and the second player stands rather well. ..
1 0 ... �f2+ After 1 0 ... t2:Jf2 !? White can repeat the position by 11.:g1 t2:Jg4 12 J:thl or play 1 1 .tLlb5 !? with a complicated game.
1 1 .�e2 i.b6 1 2.j.f4 t2Jf2 Unsatisfying is 1 2 ..aS? 13.h3 t2:Jf2 14. llg 1 . .
1 3.d6? Correct was 13.1:g1 �4, and now White can force a draw by 1 4.:h l llJf2 1 5J%g l tLlg4 16J:th1 or continue the complicated fight by 1 4.t2:Jb5 !? .iLxbS l S.'i¥xb5+ Wf8. By the way, Dunnington assesses the position after 13.d6? as better for White - the influence of the outcome of the game?! 1 3 ... cxd6 1 4.tiJd5 'i!Yd8 1 5. exd6 On 1 5..lk.g5 follows 1 5 .. .f6! 16.exf6 gxfS, and White's attack comes to an end. 1 S . tlJxh1 1 6.llJe5 �e6 1 7. d7+ .
1 0.fxe5 Very sharp and unclear lines arise after 1 0.ti:JxeS, e.g. 1 0 .tz:Jf2 1 1 .ti:Jxd7 (on 1 1 . :191 Black can either offer a repetition by 1 1 ...tzjg4 12.l:hl ('.f2 or play 1 1 . . . tz:Jxe4!?) 1 1 ... �xd7 (Watson assesses this pOSition as unclear and now finishes his analysis) 1 2.t2:Ja4 (after 12.d6 cxd6 ..
.
Chapter 2
3S
White's play looks impressive. The only drawback is that with exact defence the opponent gets good winning chances.
1 7 ... ..txd7? Black can't stand the tension. After the correct 1 7 .. .'�f8 ! 1 8 .�b4+ fiJe7 1 9.tLlxe7 �xe7 20.fijgS+ hxgS 21 ..adS �xdS 22.�xdS+ �g8 it would be very difficult for the first player to save his position. But now White's attack strikes through ! 1 8 .tlJxb6 .ag4+ 1 8 ... jL,eS wouldn't have helped either: 1 9.'�b5+ �8 20.�c5+ CiJe7 21 .fijxa8 'iWxa8 22.'{Wg 1 +-. 1 9.�e1 \Wd1 + The final joke. On 1 9 . . . jL,eS follows 20. �b5+ �8 21 .tZJxa8 �xa8 22.'t'r'c5+ fi:Je7 23.�g 1 +-. 20.nxd1 1 :0
Game 1 0 Gunnas - Radeker
carr. 1 983
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.f4 tlJg4 6.e4 eS 7.f5 h5 !?
Black wants to maintain his knight on g4. Also he hinders White spreading with h2-h3 und g2-g4. Very dubious would be 7 fij8f6? ! 8.h3 fi:JhS 9.tLlf3 with a clear advantage for W hite. ..•
Fo r some time I thought that 7 ... fij8h6 is an interesting alternative, e.g. 8.�a4+ .td7 9.�xc4 cS! , and thanks to the idea . . . b7-b5-b4 Black obtains good counter play, Short-Ferrand, Manchester 1 976. Unfortunately, th e first player can play m uch stronger: 8.�xc4 ! . Earlier I be lieved that Black now gets sufficient cou nterplay with 8 ... �c5, but 9.tDf3! (also possible is another move order: 8.tlJf3 ! �c5 9 . �xc4! ) shows that this assessment was too optim istic, e.g. 9. . .tDf2? ! 1 0.�b3 a 6 ( 1 0 . . . tLJxh 1 ? 1 1 . �b5+ .Ji.d7 1 2:t'Uxc5 + - , 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .t1f1 tDfg4 1 2.tDa4 ir..d 6 1 3.h3 CDf6 1 4.tDc3±) 1 1 .1::111 b5? ( 1 1 . . . fiJfg4 1 2 .�e2 ! ±..1 h3, g4) 12 ..2.e2 b4 ( 1 2 .. . CDfg4 1 3. ir..x b5+ +-) 1 3.tDa4 tLJxe4 1 4:�c4 �d4 15 . .Ji.xhS tlJd6 1 6.�xb4 gxhS 1 7.tDxd4 exd4 1 8. �xd4 +-, Priehoda-Bae, Batumi 2002. I have spent much time analysing 9 ... 0-0 ( i nst ead of 9 . . . tDf2? ! ) . Probably this [s better, but after 1 O.�b3 (of course the fork 1 0 ... tlJf2 was threatening) I didn't like the black position either - the possi bility h2-h3 followed by g2-g4 turns o ut to be very unpleasant. And now we continue with 7 . . . h5 :
8.�e2 ? ! The first player attacks g4 o n e more time. But as this game shows, this move enables Black to launch a dangerous attack. Other possibilities will be analysed in the next game. 'fr
8 ... .5tcS ! After 8 . . /--�8fS 9 . h3 1;�h6 1 0. �g5 or 8 . . .
37
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJS h6 9.'t!Va4+ �d7 1 0:�xc4 White's idea would be justified.
i.b6 ! ?) 1 7.i.. xf7+ �xf7 1 8.exf5 't!Vb6 1 9.�e2 �xb3 20.axb3 �d4+.
9.'Wia4+ On 9 . .i.xg4 follows 9 .. :�¥h4+ 1 0.g3 �xg4 1 1 .�a4+ �d7 1 2.'f!¥xc4 .tb6 with a clear advantage due to the bishop pair and the dangerous situation of the white king.
1 6 ... 0-0 1 7.a4 Directed against . . . b7-b5.
9 ... i.d7 1 0.'iWxc4 .tf2+ Not so good would be 1 0 . . :�h4+?! 1 1 . g3 ..tf2+ 1 2.$;1 i.. xg3 1 3.�xg4 hxg4 1 4.tlJb5 with counterplay. 1 1 .�d1 1 1 .$;1 �b6 with initiative for Black. 1 1 ... i.b6 1 2.CiJh3 1 2.j.xg4 hxg4 1 3.tlJge2 c6+.
1 7...CiJg4 1 8.�e2 �d4 1 9.g3 This prophylactically prevents the move .. :�'h4. 1 9 ... ttJe3 20.1i.d3 After 20.tlJd l Black ruins the opponent's position by 20 . . . tlJxc4 2 1 .'t'ixc4 cxd5 22.'�xd5 i.xf5! 23.�xd8 �g4+ 24.We1 ttfxd8 -+. 20 ... cxd5 21 .ez:Jxd5 22.exd5 22:�xd5 i.xf5! -+.
tlJxd5
1 2 ... ttJ8h6 !? The natural 12 ... tlJSf6 would have been quite good as well ( 1 3.i.g5 tlJe3+ 1 4. �xe3 .txe3 +) , but now White has to reckon with a piece sacrifice on f5 as well. 1 3.�d2
22... e4! Spectacular and strong ! Finally the position is opened, and this means the quick death of White's king.
l 3 ... c6! Black wants to open the game so as to gain access to the opponent's king. 1 4.�b3 tlJe3+ 1 5.l.xe3 �xe3 1 6 . .ac4 On 1 6.i.xh5 follows 1 6 . . ,.:'-' ,xf5 ( 1 6 . . .
23 . ..txe4 :ete8 24.�3 llxe4! 25.�xe4 .txf51+ 26.�xf5 Or 26.�xd4 'iWf6+ 27.�c5 1:c8+ 28.Wb4 �d6+ 29.Wa5 W'c7+ 30.Wb4 �c5#. 26 ...�f6+ White resigned due to the variation 27. �e4 IIe8+ 28.�d3 �f3+ 29.Wc4 :c8+ 30.Wb4 i.c5+ 3 1 .Wc4 �e7+. 0:1
Chapter 2
38 Game 1 1 J. Nielsen corr. 1 998
Compagnie
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 iDe6 3.CDe3 dxc4 4.d5 tDe5 5.f4 tDg4 6.e4 e5 7.f5 h5 8.tDf3 White can develop this knight in another way, too 8.tiJh3 -, on which 8 �c5 fol lows. Thereafter the following variations can arise: -
..•
1 4.i.xg4? ! .txe l lS . .txh3 .txc3 1 6. bxc3 tiJf6+, 1 4.gxh3? ! .txe l 1 5.hxg4 Axc3 l S. bxc3 C2:Jf6 +) 1 4...�h4 1 5.gxh3 i.d4 ( 1 5 . . . .std7 1 6.1'WgS �xg5 1 7 . .txg5 Ab6=) 1 6.�b5+ iL.d7 1 7.i.xd7+ �xd7 1 8.�g2 �f6°o.
c) 9.�a4+ .td7 1 0:�xc4 i.b6 ( 1 0". �e7 ! ? , 1 0 ... �h4+ ! ? 1 1 .g3 �e7) 1 1 . :i.g5 t2j8f6 1 2.'iWd3 '¥Ye7 ( 1 2 . . . ..tf2+!? 1 3.tZJxf2 'Dxf2 1 4.'iitxf2 tlJg4+ 1 5.<;t>gl '¥Yxg5) 1 3.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 4.'i!fb1 �c5°o, G. Man n-Ruck, Hungary 1 995. d) 9.�f31? fije7 (9 ... a6! ? 1 0 ...txc4 b5 1 1 . ..tb3 !1L.b7 1 2. !1L.g5 fij8f6oo) 1 0.,txc4 a6 1 1 .tZJg5 'Wd6 1 2. h3 tiJf6 1 3.i.e3 .i.d7 1 4.!1L.b3 C2:Jc8 1 5.0-0-0 .,i,xe3+ 1 6:�xe3 Wle7 ( 1 S . . . fijh7 ? 1 7.tZJe6 ! ±, Markus-Antal, Budapest 2000) 1 7.�b1 tiJd6°o.
a) 9 .tg5 liJ8f6 1 0 . .txc4 0-o (1 0 ... tiJe3 1 1 .'tWe2 CZJxc4 1 2 .'iVxc4 �b6 1 3.0-0-0 Ad7 1 4.�bl , and thanks to his space advantage and the u npleasant pin on the h4-d8 diagonal White is better) 1 1 .'t'¥d3 ..tf2+!? 1 2.tlJxf2 (after 1 2.�e2 ..i.c5 1 3.11acl �d6 Black has good counterplay) 1 2 ...tZJxf2 1 3 ..�xf2 ti:Jg4+ 1 4.�e2 �xg5 1 5.'+lY'd2 ( 1 5.tZJb5 tiJf6 l S . �f3 tlJxe4! 1 7. 'fYxe4 .txf5 -+) 1 5... '&xd2+ ( 1 5 . . . �e7! ?) 1 6.'�7xd2 tlJf6 =. •
b) 9.,txc4 � h4+ (also interesting is 9."aS ! ? with the idea of acquiring counterplay by ... b7-b5-b4 later on, or 9 .. AJ8f6! ?) 1 0.'�e2 ( 1 0.g3 �xh3 1 1 . .tfl llJf2 1 2.'�b3 'iWg4 1 3.,te2 'iYh3 1 4 . ..tf1 '!Wg4 =) 1 0 tiJf2 ( 1 0 . . . tiJ4f6 1 1 . .stg5 �g4+ 1 2.�1 �xd l + 1 3.:Xd 1 :t) •••
1 1 . �e1 ifg4+ 1 2. �1 ti.Jxh3 1 3.JLe2 .tf2 1 4.'tWd2 ( 1 4.�d l ? �h4 1 5.i.b5+ .td7 1 6.Axd7 + <;t>xd7 1 7.gxh3 .td4 -+,
Also after 8.'t!¥a4+ .td7 9.'�xc4 cS (9 " .aS ! ?) 1 0 .tlJf3 'fibS Black obtains sufficient counterplay. The continuation 8 . ..txc4 .stc5 9.tlJf3 leads to the main game by transposition.
8 �c5 9.i.xc4 i1Jf2 •••
9 ... �f2+? is a mistake because of
1 0.'�e2 .tb6 1 1 .'�b3 tZJ8fS 1 2 . ..tgS 0-0 1 3.h3 tLlh6 1 4.g4 'tlfdS ( 1 4".hxg4 1 5. hxg4 tiJhxg4 l S J:th4 +-) 1 S . .txf6 gxf6 1 6.:h2 ±, Granberg-V.Jensen , c9rr . 1 985.
1 0.'i¥b3
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 llJcS 3.tDC3 dxc4 4.d5
1 0 ...ClJfS Of course the rook could not be captured because of the queen check on bS. In the game Vera-Arencibia, Cuba 1 995, the careless 10 a6?! was played, and after 1 1 .Ilf 1 ti:Jg4 1 2.d6! cxdS 1 3 . .txf7+ �d7 1 4 . .tgS tLl8fS l S.0-0-0 Black got a difficult position. ...
1 1 .'iYb5+ The attempt to win material by 1 1 .tlfl tlJ2xe4 1 2.�bS+ Wf8 1 3.tiJxe4 CZJxe4 1 4.'fYc4 fails due to 1 4 ... a6 ! 1 5.i.xaS (l S.'iVxe4 axb5 1 6.�xeS AdS +) l S . . . Af2+ 1 S.�d l tlJd6 1 7.'�b4 IIxaS 1 8.l:W2 l:tb6 1 9:�e 1 :b5 +.
39
1 S.�a4 as!? 1 7.�e2 Black plans . . . b7-bS, that's why White retreats his bishop prophylactically. 1 7 1JbB 1 B.tlJd2 This prevents castling because of 1 9. Axh5. ...
1 B ... b5 1 9:�e2 i.e7! This neutralizes the unpleasant pin. 20.h3
1 1 ...ClJd7 1 2.�f1 ClJg4 1 3 ... t2Jxh2 1 4.tlJxh2 �h4+ threatens. 1 3.i.g5 Also after 1 3. h3 tlJe3 1 4.Axe3 .txe3 the game would have stayed u nclear, e.g . 1 S.t2JxeS a6 ( 1 5 . . . �gS! ?) 1 S.�a4 0-0 ( 1 6 .. :�gS! ?) 1 7.tlJxd7 i.xd7 1 8. 'Wdl 't!!' h4+ 1 9.We2 .tf4 20:�d3 bS 2 1 .�f3 i.eS 22 . .td3 cS, and Black has good compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 1 3 ... .ii.e7 Weaker would be 1 3 . . . f6?1 1 4.i..d2 as 1 S.�b3 bS 1 S.�e2 ( 1 6.Ad3 ! ?) l S. . i.b7 1 7.h3 ti:Jh6 1 8.tlJh4 tLlf7 1 9.�d 1 ! ±. .
1 4 . ..td2 .adS Also interesting is 1 4 ... aS! ? 1 S:�b3 bS 1 6 . .te2 ( 1 6.i.d3 cS l 6 1 7.dxc6? liJcS -+ ) 1 6 . . . tZ:Jgf6 ( 1 6 . . . liJcS 1 7.'i¥c2) 1 7.a3 .i.b7 1 8.0-0-0 c5 1 9.dxcS i4xc6 with counter chances. 1 5.i.g5 1 5.h3 ! ? has to be examined, e.g. 1 S . . . a6 1 6:�a4 ClJg f6 1 7.0-0-0! ? 1 5 .. tlJgfS 1 S ... .te7 ! ? .
20 . . i.b7! The second player prepares the freeing action . . . c7-cS. With 20 . . . b4 he could win a pawn, but after 2 1 .'lJa4 liJxdS 22 . .txe7 fi:sxe7 23.ClJb38i5 the opponent would obtain promising compensation. .
21 .i.e3 e6! 22.dxeS AxeS Black has eliminated the dS-pawn and got pressure on e4. Now he intends to develop some initiative on the queen side by ... l:b8-c8. Moreover, White's king does not stand safe enough. On the other hand White has good prospects on the kingside. 23.a3 Prophylaxis against ... bS-b4. 23 . .r�eB 24J�e1 i.b7 25. b4!? This takes cS u nder control. .
Chapter 2
40
25 0-0 Attention deserved 2S . . . h4 ! ? so as to fix the g2-pawn and to play .. .i>'fS-hS at the next opportunity. ...
26.�2 The attempt to attack by 26.94 would be answered with 2S . . . hxg4 27.hxg4 .�� lh7!, whereafter the second player conquers the dark squares on the kingside, But 2S.g3 had to be considered so as to prevent the blocking move . . . hS-h4.
compensation for it. But this is only an illusion . . .
29.axb5 axb5 3O.tlJxb5 :,cc1 31 .�xc1 .ta6 32.'iYa3! Now White simply remains with a sound extra pawn. 32 ... .txe3+ 33.�xe3 .txb5 34.�xb5 �e7 35.l:tc4, and after some more moves Black re signed. . . . 1 :0 Game 1 2 Dlugy
-
Morozevich
Internet Chess Club 3/0 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �c6 3.oLe3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.f4 I� ',94 6.e4 e5 7 . .te2
26 ... ..td6? ! Black wants to exchange the bishop by ... Ac7-bS. But just at that moment, when the bishop appears on c7, W hite can play a3-a4 and take over the initiative on the q ueenside himself - probably this is what the second player over looked. The move 2S ... h4! ? looked fairly good, e.g. 27.l:fd 1 l::tc7 2S.Wg 1 �aS 29.�b2 l:fcS 30, �f3 (30 . .i.d3 t2:Jh5!) 30 . . . ClJe8 3 1 ,liJb3 li:Jd6 with pressure in the centre and on the queenside.
27.'lWd3 �c7? 1 Sticking to the wrong plan . Better was 27 . . . tL\b6 28.I::lfd1 i.c7.
28.a4! Ab6? ! Black seem ingly disliked the position after 28 . . . bxa4 29.tlJxa4, so he now sacrifices a pawn, hoping to get some
W hite develops his bishop and at the same time attacks the opponent's knight. The idea 7 . . . hS would now be less recommendable because of 8.tlJf3 exf4 9.�xf4 i.cS 1 0.tLlbS �bS 1 1 .l{fYa4 i.d7 1 2.�xc4±.
7...tlJ8h6 Very interesting was the thematic move 7 ,ac5!? as well, e.g. S.i.xg4 'ifh4+ 9.g3 �xg4 1 0.�a4+ ( 1 0.�xg4 i.xg4 1 1 .fxeS tlje700) 1 0 . . . i.d7 1 1 :�Yxc4 iobS ( 1 1 .. i.dS ! ? 1 2.tDb5 tZJfS! 1 3.ti)xc7+ ...
.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLJc6 3.CLlc3 dxc4 4.d5
41
i..xc7 1 4.�xc7 O-O &;) 1 2.fxe5 CLle7 1 3. �f4 �S (1 3 ... 0-0 ! ?) 1 4.h3 'iWh5 1 5.e6 fxe6 1 6.dxe6 AcS&;.
8.fS After S.'ifa4+ Ad7 9.�xc4 Black can choose between 9 ... Ad6 and 9 . . . exf4 ! ? 1 0.i..xf4 Ad6 1 1 .�xdS cxd6.
8... �c5 9:�a4+? In blitz games even super grandmasters commit blunders. Correct was 9.Axg4 'tth 4+ 1 0.g3 'ti'xg4 1 1 .�xhS 't!Vxd1 + 1 2.Dxd1 gxhS 1 3.'l)f3 fS 1 4.tZJd2 (1 4.ti.Jb5 �d7 1 5.CDd2 as l S.t2Jc3 b5) 1 4 . . . i..d7 1 5.tlJxc4 a5!oo. Watson asses ses this position as unclear. Practically every chess program suggests l S.dS ! ? now, but after l S . . .b 5 the assessment decreases quickly after some more moves, e.g. 1 7Jld5 ( 1 7.tlJd5 �7 ! , and Black wins material) 1 7 . . . Ab4 l S.ti.Ja3 cS 1 9.r;td 1 i..xa3 (1 9 . . . .i.xc3+ ! ? 20.bxc3 :gS) 20.bxa3 0-0-0 (20 .. .'�f7 ! ?) 21 .Dc1 wb7 22.wf2 AeS 23.11hd 1 i.h5 24. ti::le 2 lld7, and the dS-pawn is the big gest headache.
9 ... .td7 1 O:�xc4 i.xg1 1 1 .l:rxg1 '&h4+ 1 2.g3 �xh2 1 3.�f1 '+!fxg3+ 1 4.�d1 c6 White is two pawns down , but 'in ex change' he has a bad position. After some more moves White resigned . ... 0:1 Game 1 3 Dlugy
-
Morozevich
I nternet Chess Club 3/0 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.t2lc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJes S.f4 t2lg4 6.h3
As we have seen in the previous examples, the g4-knight can become quite dangerous in cooperation with the bishop on c5. So White would like to chase it away as quickly as possible and only afterwards continue his de velopment. But this has the drawback that the dark squares on the kingside are weakened.
6 ...tlJ4f6 Worse would be S . . . tiJ4hS? ! 7.e4 eS S . i..xc4 exd5 9. �xd5 with a clear edge. 7.e4 e6 An important motif in this opening Black attacks the d-pawn at the first oportunity. Here there existed an i nteresting al ternative 7 b5!? after which White has two main continuations: -
...
-,
Chapter 2
42
a) 8.tDxb5 CLlxe4 9:�a4 9.'i!'d4 c6 1 0:�xc4 Q 9 :�a4 c6 1 0 . '§'xc4. 9 ..c6 1 0.dxc6 1 O.'ilYxc4 cxbS 1 1 .'ti'xe4 a6 1 2.d6 IIbB 1 3.dxe7 �xe7 1 4.�xe7+ Axe7 l S.tljf3 �b7 +. .
1 0 ...e6
1 0 ... eS?! 11.ti:Jf3 �c5 1 2 . .txc4 ±. After 1 0 .. e6, 1 1 ... 'iI¥h4 or 1 1 . . . i.c5 is threatened. The position is very compli cated and contains many possibilities for both sides. The main variation is 1 1 .�f3 (1 1 .'iVxc4 '{Wh4+ 1 2.�d 1 'iYd8+ 1 3.'it'e1 �a5+ - 1 3 ... �h4+ = 1 4.tDc3 tDg3 l SJ:th2 tlJxf1 1 6:fitxf1 �b6 with initiative) 1 1 �c5 1 2.�xc4 ( 1 2. i.. xc4 'iWb6 �) 1 2 tLlgf6 (1 2 . . . .tf2+?! 1 3.�e2 tZJg3+ 1 4.�xf2 �h l + 1 5.Wg l ti:Jg3 1 6:�c5 �e7 1 7 .�xe7+ �xe7 1 B . .te3 with initiative) 1 3 .td3 � b6 ( 1 3 . . . �aS! ?) 1 4 . .txe4 tZ:Jxe4 1 5.'fi'xe4 .••
.••
•
�xb5 i5i5.
b) 8.e5 b4! 9:�Ya4+ 9.exfS bxc3 1 0.bxc3 CLJxf6 1 1 .�xc4 eS 1 2.dxe6 �xd 1 + 1 3.�xd1 beS 1 4 . .be6 fxeS = or 1 0 . . . exf6 1 1 . .txc4 Ac5 °o.
�xc4 ct:Jxe4 1 3.tiJxe4 .t%eB +) 1 1 ... Ad7 1 2 . .txc4 (1 2 . .tg5 b5 +) 1 2 ... C2:Jxe4 ! 1 3.tlJxe4 i.xf5 1 4 . .id3 lhd3 ! 1 5.�xd3 tz:JfS l S.tz:Jf3 ClJxe4 +, J. Norri-Puranen, Helsinki 1 995. b) 8 . .axc4 exd5 9 .txd5 9.exd5?! .ii..c5 with initiative, 9.tz:Jxd5 CZJxe4 1 0. 'iYe2 1 1 .ti:Jf3 .teS 1 2.tDxc7+ �xc7 1 3 . .txe6 .ab4+ 1 4 . .td2 ( 1 4.lLld2 lLle7! 1 5.'iWb5+ tDcS+) 1 4 . . . �xd2+ 1 5. tLJxd2 t;:Jg3 1 6:�b5+ WfB 1 7.1:%g l .tIeS 1 8.�b4+ 11e 7 oo. 9 ... l2Jxd5 1 O:�xd5 �h4+ 1 O . . . �dS! ? 1 1 .e5 'ti'h4+ 1 2.�1 it..e 7 00; 1 0 . . . �xd5 ! ? 1 1 .tLJxd5 i.d6 °o. 1 1 .Wf1 c6 oo, Robinson-Beninsky, corr. 2001 . •
S . .. exd5 Also interesting is 8 ...aSI? , e.g. 9 . .txc4 exd5 1 0.tlJxd5 tlJxd5 1 1 .i.xd5 "�f6 1 2. Ji..xf7+ �xf7 1 3.'t'ixdB Ji..b4+ 1 4.�d2 l:txdS 1 5.hb4 lDxe4 Grachev-Savosto, St. Petersburg 2001 . =,
9.eS "
9...i.d7 1 0:ti'xb4 tlJxd5 1 1 .l2Jxd5 eS 1 2.�xc4
1 2.l2:Jxc7 + �xc7 1 3:�xc4 'i!YbS 1 4.ClJf3 .tc5 �. 1 2 ..exd5 1 3 . 't\Yxd5 'Wh4+ 1 4. �e2 llbB (+ Watson) 1 5.ClJf3 �g3 l S. a4 ( l S.tDd4 �b4 �) 1 S ... tLJe7 ( 1 S . . . 'iWgS !?) 1 7 :�c5 ti:Jcs �. .
These variations show that 7 ... b5 is a very interesting idea . Moreover, it forces the opponent into sharp and exact play right from the opening. But the text move is logical and cannot be bad either.
S.tZJf3 Other possibilities : a) 8.dxeS? ! �xd 1 + 9.�xd l .axe6 1 0.f5 O-O-O+ ! 1 1 .�c2 ( l 1 .�e l i.d7 1 2.
9 ... c6 !? A magnificent idea. Black sacrifices the knight, but in return he obtains three pawns and an active position , as his pawn chain on the queenside becomes very dangerous. Previously only 9 . ..ti:Jd7 was played, e.g. 1 0:�xd5 fiJe7 1 1 .'ol§'xc4 ( 1 1 :if'e4
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.dS tlJc5 1 2. �xc4 tLlfS 00) 1 1 . .. tlJb6 1 2. �d4 .te6 1 3.i.d3 �xd4 1 4.tDxd4 0-0-0 1 S.ctJxe6 lbd3 1 6.tlJcS lldB =, Mackova Jackova, Czech Republic 1 996. Another interesting possibility would be 9 tLlh5!? 1 0.'iWxdS tiJg3 1 1 .lIg 1 C2:Jxf1 1 2.�xf1 c6 1 3. �xdB+ �xdB. This po sition is also very complicated and requires practical examination.
1 6 . . . tlJe4 ! ?
1 7.txeS ClJe4 1 8.'*Ye1 1 8.�d4? i.ts ( l B . . . c5 1 9.�xdS .t.f5 -+) 1 9 .'�a1 c5 -+.
1 8...c3 1 9.b3?
...
1 0.exfS Cl:Jxf6 1 1 .�e3 Ad6 1 2.'&d2 0-0 Black has nearly finished his development and plans a pawn storm on the queen side, while his opponent still h as to solve the problem concerning his king.
This loses practically on the spot. Also 1 9.tlJd4 would not have saved the game because of 1 9 . . . cS 20.llJb3 �a4 21 . llxd5 (21 . i.d3 c4 22.i.c2 cxb3 23. �xb3 �a6 24.�xd5 i.fS-+) 21 ...i.fS 22. �d3 c4! -+. However, the last chance was 1 9.94 so as to prevent . . . Ac8-f5, although even in this case White's posi tion would have remained jeopardized.
1 9 ... c2+ 20. Wxc2 �xa2+ 21 .�c1 '&a3+ 22.'�c2 .tfS 23.Cl:Jd4 ,*,a2+ 24.'�c1 �a3+ 25. �c2 Cl:Jc5+ 26.t2:JxfS �a2+
1 3.0-0-0? ! This looks very risky - the king volun tarily goes into the opponent's attack. Better is 1 3 .�e2 b5 1 4 . a3 as l S. 0-0, although even in this case Black's po sition would have been promising (e.g. after 1 5 . . .l:1e8).
1 3 ... bS 1 4.tiJe5 b4 1 S.tiJe2 'i¥a5 Worth considering was also 1 5 .. Jrl- e4.
43
0:1 Game 1 4 Parkov - Minasian Omsk 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t;Jc6 3.Cl:Jc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJeS 5.f4 tiJd7
1 6.�b1 On 1 6. ctJxc4 there follows 1 6 . . . dxc4 1 7. �xd6 �xa2 1 B:�xb4 tZJdS 1 9 :�cS tlJxe3 20:�xe3 JiLt5 ! ? with a strong attack.
1 6 ... �xe5
The knight wants to go to b6 in order to cover the c4-pawn.
6"�' a4
Chapter 2
44
With this move, White attacks c4 and thwarts ... lZJd7-b6 for the time being. The main line here is 6.e4 � Games 15- 1 6.
6 ... a6!? This prepares . . . b7-b5. 7.e4 l:lb8 Now White has to take the pawn, otherwise it will be covered by 8 . . . b5. 8.�xc4 bS In Farago-Knechtel, Aschach 1 994 , fol lowed 8 0:Jb6!?, and after 9.�d4 e6 1 0.a4 c5! 1 1 .1We5 tiJd7 1 2.�g5 �xgS 1 3.fxgS ClJe5 1 4 . ..iL.f4 i.dS Black got a nice position. But interesting was 9.'i'Vb3 e6 1 0 . .te3 exdS 1 1 .0-0-0 ! ? ...
9.�d4 eSl
pieces and open the position as quickly as possible .
1 0...tlJgf6 1 1 .,ad3 i.c5 12.�f3 The attempt to close the game in the centre by 1 2 .f5 would not have been so good because of 1 2 . . . b4 ! 1 3.tLlce2 (1 3. tiJb1 t2Jxe4! 14 . .b:e4 �h4+ -+) 13 ...�4!. 1 2 exf4! Otherwise White really could play f4-1S. ...
1 3.Axf4 0-0 1 4.g4? I Looks risky in view of White's uncastled king . But what could he do? Castling kingside is impossible, and 1 4 .0-0-0 also gives his opponent good chances after 1 4 ... �d6 ! l S.t2:Jge2 b4 1 6.t2:Ja4.
1 4... C2:Jb6 1 5.h3 Also in the case of 1 5.g5 tiJg4 1 6.tlJh3 %:e8 1 7.0-0-0 b4 1 8.tZJe2 tlJe5 1 9.�g2 (1 9.�g3 tLlxd3+ 20Jlxd3 i.xh3 2 1 . �xh3 llxe4+) 1 9 . . . 0:Jbc4 Black has a dangerous initiative. 1 S ... tlJa4! Very strongly played. The c3-knight, which controls e4 and d5, will be exchanged or driven way. 1 6.tZJd1
1 0.'1!Yd1 ? Now necessarily 1 0.dxe6 had to be played, although Black would have got strong counterplay after 1 0 . . . fxe6 1 1 . .te2 tiJgfS, e.g. 1 2.e5 tiJg4 1 3.'ffd 1 ( 1 3. i.xg4 �h4+ 1 4. �f2 �xg4 1 5.3&.e3 Ab4 l S.tiJf3 0-0, and the active piece play compensates for the somewhat worse pawn structure, or 1 3. 'iVd3 tiJh6 1 4. �h3 tLlcS l S . .te3 tlJd3+ 1 6.Axd3 'tWxd3 with a com pi icated struggle) 1 3 . . . tZJh6 (1 3 . . . Ab7 !?) 1 4 . .te3 �b7 1 5 . .1d3 t2:JfS. After the text move Black obtains a no ticeable development advantage. Now his task is to mobilise the remaining
... .
The lesser evil was l S .tlJxa4 bxa4 1 7 . 0-0-0, although even then after 1 7 . . . .td4 1 8.t:lh2 �e7 1 9:�b1 'iWb4 White's position would not have to be envied .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2:jc6 3.tLJc3 dxc4 4.d5
1 6 ... :cte8! White's central pawns are in danger.
1 7.t2:Je2 ..i;.b7 Now 1 8. "t2:jxdS 1 9.exdS .txd5 -+ threa tens.
1 8 .ag5 .
1 8.b3 loses because of 1 8 . . . �b4+ 1 9. �1 ( 1 9 . �d2 .ixd2+ 20.�xd2 tDcS - + , 1 9.�2 tZJc5 -+) 1 9 . . . tLJcS.
1 8 . . . c6! Now White's centre collapses.
1 9.dxc6 ti:Jxe4!
Axc6
20.tiJg3
Because of 21 . ..txd8 C2:Jxg3+ -+ White resigned.
45
themselves i n their starting positions. But i n reality things are not so clear.
6.. .tijb6 Black covers the pawn and is now ready for . e7-e6. If the first player wants to restore the material equilibri u m , he has to part with his bishop for this. . .
7.�xc4 The alternatives are 7 �e3 (followed by Axb6 and Axc4) and 7.a4 (� a5) 7 . . . aS 8.�e3. They will be analysed in detail in the next game. .
7 tLJxc4 8.'iJNa4+ c6 ...
Also 8 ... Ad7 9.'/!Nxc4 c6 (but not 9 ... e6? ! 1 0.dxe6 .txe6? 1 1 .�bS+) leads t o the game continuation.
9.,*,xc4
0:1
Game 1 S Dlugy Morozevlch Internet Chess Club 3/0 1 999 -
An unclear pOSition would arise after 9 .dxc6 tDds or 9 .tzJbS. . .
9... .td7
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLJc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.f4 tlJd7 6.e4
This creates a nice pawn centre and simultaneously attacks c4 . At first glance it looks as if Morozevich is ignoring all fu ndamental opening principles - nearly all of his pieces find
This is the critical position in this varia tion. W hite has a space and develop ment advantage, but in exchange the opponent possesses the bishop pair. White's centre looks strong, but it can be attacked.
1 0.tlJf3 On 1 0.$.e3 the strongest answer is probably not 1 0 . . . cxd5 because of 1 1 .�xdS .tc6 1 2.'ifxd8+ �d8 1 3.C2:Jf3
Chapter 2
46
e6 1 4.tiJe5 ;!; (initiative), Dlugy-Moroze vich, ICC 3/0 1 999, but 1 0 ... e61 1 1 .0-0-0 ( 1 1 .dxc6 .il.xc6 1 2/ · '13 Q 1 0.tZJf3 e6 1 1 .dxc6 �xc6 1 2.i..e 3) 1 1 ... cxd5 ( 1 1 . .. �a5?! 1 2.d6 CDf6 1 3.tiJf3 tlJg4 1 4.�c5 ±, 1 1 ... b5 1 2.�e2 �a5 1 3.f5 ! ?) 1 2.exd5 exd5 ( 1 2 .. .'�Wa5 ! ? oo) 1 3.'t!fxd5 "fJ/c7 with mutual chances.
�xb7 0-0iR5. That's why he chose the aggressive pawn sacrifice 1 5.15 exd5 1 6 . .tg5, but after 1 6 ... .il.cS 1 7J:lae1 + Wf8 l B.tLJe5 �b6 1 9:�c2 �c7 20:�d2 h5! 2 1 .�xf6 gxf6 22.tZJf3 �dS 23.tzJe2 .tdS 24.tDed4 �g7 Black repelled the attack and remained with a material advantage.
1 0 ...e6! This increases the pressure on d5. After 1 0 . . . cxd5? ! 1 1 .�xd5 .tc6 1 2.�xd8+ Uxd8 1 3 .tiJe5 White wou ld have ob tained the initiative.
c)
A remarkable possibility is 1 1 .dxe6!? i.xe6 1 2.�e2
with the following variations: cl ) 12 ...tiJf6? 1 3.15 i.d7 1 4 . .tg5 with a big advantage , e.g. 1 4 ... .tb4 1 5 .e5 0-0 1 6.0-0-0 Axc3 1 7.bxc3 't'i'e8 lS . .txf6 gxf6 1 9 .'t!Yd3 +-. Interesting is also 1 4. e5. c2} 1 2 Ab4? ! 1 3 .f5 .td7 1 4.Ad2 '&e7 1 5.0-0-0 0-0-0 l S.'�12 with initiative. c3) 1 2 ... .tc5?1 1 3 .15 i.d7 1 4 . .te3 �b6 1 5.i.xc5 '&xc5 l S.0-0-0 0-0-0 1 7.g4 with a noticeable space advantage, T. Koch-Haubt, 2nd Bundesliga 1 996. c4) 1 2 b5! 13 . .te3 tZJf6 ( 1 3 . . . .tb4 ! ? 1 4 . .td4 li)16 °o, Ramon Paves-Garza Marco, Aragon 200 1 , 1 3 . . . b4 !?) 1 4 .tzJd4 .tc4 1 5.'�f3 ( 1 5.tDxcS? �c7) 1 5 .. ,llcS or 1 5 .. .'�'c7 with complications. ...
.•.
1 1 .dxc6 Other possibilities : a) 1 1 . ..i>..e3 li)f6 (everyth i ng agai nst d5!) 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2 .0-0-0? cxd5 1 3.exd5 l:1c8 1 4.�b3 li)xd5 +, Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, 1 2.dxc6 .txc6 � main game, 1 2.dxe6 .txe6 1 3.�e2! ? oo) 12 �a5 1 3.l:lad1 ( 1 3.dxc6 .txc6 1 4.tZJe5 :ac8 1 5.�d4 .tb4 with counterplay) 1 3 ... cxd5 1 4.exd5 .ac8 1 5.'�·e2 .tb4 1 6 . .td4 0-0 1 7 . .txf6 gxf6 1 8. tiJe4 Jt..e7 1 9.dxe6 .tb5 20.exf7+ lixf7 2 1 .'iVe1 �xa2°o, Stem-Low, Bad Wiessee 2003. b) In Siebrecht-Wisnewski , German Championship 2000, there followed 1 1 .0-0 cxd5 1 2.exd5 l:[c8 1 3.�b3 .tc5 1 4,,�h1 tZJf6. Now W hite disliked both 1 5.'+!1'xb7?! lThB 1 6.'&a6 ti:Jxd5 � 1 7. llJxd5?? iLb5 -+ and 1 5.dxe6 �xe6 1 6. •••
1 1 ... .txc6 12 ..te3 tiJf6 After 1 2 . . .'�a5? ! 1 3.C2:Je5 �b4 1 4.�xb4 i.xb4 1 5.t[Jxc6 .txc3+ l S.bxc3 bxc6 1 7. �e2 White would get a clearly better . endgame. 1 3.0-0 1 3.tZJe5 nc8 1 4.0-0 ( 1 4 ..il.xa7 t[Jxe4! 1 5. Cljxe4 �a5+ 1 6.li)c3 'i!¥xa7) 1 4 . . . .te7 leads to transposition. 13 ...i.e7 1 4.tLJe5 �c8 1 5. ttJxc6 Also after 1 5 .i.xa 7 �xe4 1 6.'�·b5+ (or l S.�a4+ .tc6 1 7.tDxcS l:xc6=) 1 6 ... Ac6 1 7 .tDxc6 bxc6 1 8 .'�c4 0-0 followed by . . . tZJd5 Black would stand quite well. 1 5 ... h(xc6 1 6.�a4? ! 1 6.�b5 �b8 1 7 Jlad 1 0-0 led to equality.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4 .d5
16 ... a6 1 7.nad1 '.J!!i c7 1 8.h3 0-0
47
The rest we need not to give here. The game ended i n a draw. . . . 1f2:1f2
Game 1 6 Bacrot VCHESS2 'Men vs. Machine', Cap D'Agde 1 998 -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 liJc6 3.tLJc3 d xc4 4.d5 tlJe5 5.f4 llJd7 6.e4 c(�'.b6 7.a4
Now Dlugy had to realise that he has serious problems with his e-pawn be cause of the threat 1 9 ... t.c4. However, he unearths a tactical idea.
1 9.e5 �c4 20.exf6? Now it seems that W hite will get more than enough material for his queen after 20 . . . l:xa4 2 1 .fxe7 �xe7 22.tlJxa4, but Morozevich finds a beautiful refuta tion. The lesser evi ls would be 20.'i!¥b3 l:b4 21 .'&c2 tlJd5 22 . .td4 :c8 or 20.'ti'c2 tDe4, although in both cases White's position would remain rather u ncom fortable.
20 ... .tcS ! This unexpected response leads to a material advantage.
21 .�d7 After 21 .fxg7? ! .i'.xe3+ 22s!th1 l'lxa4 23. gxf8't'!'+ �xf8 24.�a4 �c2 Dlugy would not have had many chances to save the game.
21 ... �xe3+ 22. �h1 And now White would not have any compensation for the pawn in the case of 22 ... Axf4 23.fxg7 �xg7 24.�d3 .teS. Morozevich played 22 . gxf6?!, and after 23.f5 things were not so clear anymore . ..
W ith the threat of a4-a5 W hite wants to force ... a7-a5, and after that he would like to play .sie3xb6, on which Black could only recapture with the c-pawn. The im mediate 7 ..te3 was played now and the n , e .g . 7 . . . e6 8.tLlf3 exd5 9. exd5? ! (better would be 9 . .axb6 axb6 1 0.'i:i'xd5 oo) 9 ...tLlf6 1 0 . .txb6 axb6 1 1 . .txc4 .tc5 1 2 .'/!'e2+ �e7 1 3 .'i'fxe7 + �xe7 1 4.�d2 Ud8 with i nitiative for Black, Krush-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. .
7. aS 8 . .te3 e6 ! 9 . .txb6 cxb6 1 0.Axc4 ..tb4! ..
This increases the pressure on the opponent's centre. After 1 0 . . . �c5 ? ! 1 1 . tLJf3 exd5 1 2.@xd5 �xd5 1 3 .lDxd5 �8 1 4.tLJe5 tLJh6 1 5.0-0-0± W h ite obtained a big advantage in the game Banikas-Dorfanis, Salonika 1 996.
Chapter 2
48
CDe7 00 would be possible) 1 6 .. :tIf'd2+ 1 7.c;t11 , Dlugy-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999, and now Black could win immediately by means of 17 ... .tcSl l S.tlJh3 ( l S .tiJd1 �c2 ! -+) 1 8 . . . 'iYd3+ 1 9.We1 ..td4 -+.
1 1 .. :�f8! After 1 1 ... .td7?! 1 2 .dxeS fxe6 1 3 .i¥hS+ �8 (13 ... g6 1 4.'fi'e5±) 1 4.0-0-0 �e8 1 5. 'fi'xe8+ Axe8 l S . .txe8 :XeS 1 7.tlJge2 White would stand clearly more actively.
1 1 .i.bS+ The most principled continuation - White prevents the opponent from castling. In Ivanchuk-Morozevich, New York (peA rapid) 1 995 , W hite played 1 1 .C2:Jf3. There followed 1 1 ...'lJf6 1 2.0·0 0-0 ( 1 2 ... �xc3? ! 1 3. bxc3 iDxe4 1 4. �d4 tlJf6 1 5.d6!? 0-0 1 6.tLleS±) 1 3.dxe6 i.xe6 1 4.�xe6 fxe6 (possible was also 1 4 .. :iYxdl !?, e.g. 1 5.l:axdl fxeS 1 S.tzJgS ttaeS 1 7.lIde l - 1 7.1:1fel ? .si..c5+ l S.'�h l tzJg4 1 9 .'lJh3 l:txf4 ! -+ 1 7 . . . i.cS+ l S. �h1 CZJg4 with initiative or 1 S.�xf7 + Uxf7 1 6.l:laxdl Axc3 1 7. bxc3 tzJxe4=) 1 5.'!Wb3 �h8! ( 1 5 .. :�e7 l S.tLJgS with initiative) 1 6.tLJg5 (1 6.'�xeS %%eSoo) 1 6 tlJg4 ( 1 6 . . . Ac5+? 1 7 .�h l tiJg4 1 8.'i'!¥xe6 ! ±) 1 7.tZJxe6 ( 1 7.�xe6? '8'd4+ l S.�h 1 tlJf2+ 1 9.1:W2 'tl¥xf2 +), and in stead of 1 7 . . . �h4? 1 8. h3 :laeS 1 9.ti:Je2 ! nxeS 20:�xe6 .tcS+ 21 .Whl + - , 1 7 .,tc5+ ! l S.llJxc5 ( l 8.�h l ?? �h4 1 9. h3 'iWg3 -+ ) 1 S . . . �d4+ 1 9 .�h l bxcSoo would have been correct. Dlugy tried 1 1 .dxe6 against Morozevich, but he did not get any advantage : 1 1 ... -
..•
...
..txe6 1 2.i.xe6 fxe6 1 3. �h5+ g6 1 4. '6'bS+ 'iWd7 1 S:�e5 ( 1 5:�xd7 + Wxd7
1 6.tZJge2 tlJfS 1 7.0-0-0+ �e7 = O lugy Morozevich , ICC 3/0 1 999) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6:�xh8? (White had to choose l S. tlJf3, after which 1 6 ... C2:JhSoo or 1 6 ...
1 2.dxe6 On 1 2.tiJge2 follows 1 2 ... exdS 1 3.exd5 (after 1 3.'�xdS i.eS 1 4:iYxd8+ Uxd8 Black's bishop pair compensates for the disadvantageous pawn structure) 1 3 . . . 1Wh4+ 1 4.g3 'i¥h3 oo.
1 2 ... i.xe6 1 3.'tWf3 Unclear play results after 1 3/; lge2 :iJf6 (interesting is also 1 3 . . . �h4+ ! ? 1 4 .g3 '§'e7 1 5.fS IId8) 1 4.fS �xd 1 + 1 5Jlxd l .tb3 1 6.lId4 lIcS. After the exchange on dS only White can get into difficu lties: 1 3.'iYxd8+?! lIxdS 1 4J�d l ? ! ( 1 4.'lJf3 CDfS 1 S .lDd2 gS 1 6.0-0-0 �g7 +) 14 ... nxd 1 + l S.'�xdl tlJfS ( l S . . . i.xc3 ! 1 6. bxc3 'lJfS 1 7.eS 'lJe4 ::t) l S.tlJge2 �e7 1 7.�cl ncs with i nitiative, F . Stephenson-W ismayer , Torquay 1 998.
1 3 ... tiJf6 1 4.f5 In the case of 1 4.Ci:Jge2 .i.g4 Black has sufficient counterplay, e.g . 1 5.'�·e3 ( 1 S.'�d3 �xd3 l S .Axd3 lldS 1 7.l:d 1 �e7=) 1 S . . . .tcS 1 6.'tI¥g3 h5!? 1 7.h3 ( 1 7.l:d l h4 ! l S:�d3 �xd3 1 9.rIxd3 h3 20.g3 i.b4 2 1 .e5 tlJe4 or l S.Iixd8+ l:[xd8 1 9 .'iWd3 lhd3 20 . .il..xd3 h3, with Black's initiative respectively) 1 7 . . . h4 l S:�d3 �xd3 1 9.�xd3 .teS 20.0-0-0 g6 oo•
1 4 ... i.d7
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t� "ICS 3.ti)c3 dxc4 4.dS
It's not easy to assess this position . Black has doubled pawns on the queenside, he cannot castle anymore, and the hS-rook is out of play for the time being. On the other hand White has not yet finished his development either, his king stands in the centre and the e4-pawn can be attacked.
1 S.tlJge2 Here 1 S.l'Id 1 was interesting, too, on which Black probably has to react with 1S . . . 1!Ve7, e.g. l S . ..txd7 tiJxd7 1 7.llJge2 tDeS l S.'i!f'g3 tiJc4 with a complicated struggle.
1 S �xbS 1 7.0-0 •••
1 6.axbS
�e7!
An alternative is 1 7.0-0-0! ? 1:e8 1 8.l:td3 ( 1 8.�d4 ..tcS 1 9 .1:c4 tZJd7 ! =F) 1 8 . . .tiJd7 (1 S . . . tiJxe4? 1 9.:e3 + - , 1 8 ... h5!?) 1 9. :ld4 with an unclear game.
1 7.. Jle8 1 8.tiJg3? ! From here the knight can easily be driven away by . . . hS-h4. So 1 8JIae1 was to be preferred, after which 1 8 . . . tlJxe4? fails d u e t o 1 9.tlJd4! (1 9.0:Jg3? tLld2 -+) 1 9 ... ..txc3 20.bxc3 hS 2 1 .'iYf4! (21 J%e2 l2JgS) 21 ... Wg8 22.f6! gxfS 23. �g4+ �8 24.l:tf4 l:1g8 25.�h4 + - .
49
1 9... hS ! After 1 9 . . . i.xc3 20.'t!¥xc3 'i!Vxb5 2 1 .11fe1 W hite would have obtained a dangerous initiative since 21 . . . 0:Jg4 22.h3 tlJe5 loses because of 23.l:dS. But now Black com bines the threats against b 5 and e 4 and puts his opponent into difficulties.
20.tiJdS 20.11fe1 would be bad because of 20 . . . iLxc3 2 1 .bxc3 (21 .�xc3 �xc3 22.bxc3 h4 +) 21 .. .'�xb5.
20 ... h4 21 .tlJxf6 gxf6 Much stronger than 21 . . . .ic5+ 22siih 1 hxg3 23 . ClJd7+ �g8 24 .h3 �xb2 2S . �xg3.
22.tlJhS j),.d6 23.nxd6? Probably caused by a miscalculation and losing immediately. Correct was 23.tLJf4, although Black would have remained with an extra pawn after 23 .. :�xb5.
23 .. :�cS+ 24.�h1 'iWxd6 2S.�g4 �d4 26:�g7+ �e7 27.eS No better would be 27.0:Jf4 �eg8 ! (may� be Bacrot overlooked this move when he played 23.l:xd6) 28.ClJgS+ We8 -+ .
27.. JlxhS 28.exf6+ 29.'*'xf7 I;Ixf5
1 8 .. :i¥eS !? 1 9.Irad1 0:1
Wd8
Chapter 3
so
Chapter 3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 C2Jc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.ClJf3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.8c3 dxc4 4.tDf3
4.t·',f3 is the most topical continuation nowadays. White develops the knight, protects the d4-pawn and leaves himself a variety of options. After 4 .. .tijf6 (4 . . . ;;"g4?! will be briefly analysed within Game 1 7) he has the following options: 5.d5 forces Black's knight (in contrast to 4.dS from Chapter 2!) to the rim (S . . . l2:JaS), o n the other hand the lines involv ing a piece sacrifice after b2-b4 are not as threatening as they are in Chapter 2, since the insertion of lDf3/t2Jf6 in this case favours Black. We will examine: 5.d5 tLJa5 6.e4 c:> Game 1 7 5.d5 tLJa5 6 .�a4+ c:> Game 1 8
You can find some additional variations such as S . .tgS in the annotations. 5.e4 is the most important continuation here - White establishes the central pawn pair d4/e4. In the main line Black exerts pressure on the centre by pinning both White's knights 5 il.g4 6.�e3 -
...
e6 7.Axc4 Ab4 8.'iVc2 0-0 9.� 1 . We will examine thoroughly this principal position along with its typical ideas in Game 22. In contrast to the hectic variations of Chapter 2 (4.d5 ,�.� !e5F��5) , here strategic schemes have priority over concrete calculations, the game develops relatively calmly. However, 'calmly' does not mean 'boring' at all, the asymmetric structure gives both sides good chances to play for a win: 5.e4 Ag4 6.d5 c:> Game 19 5.e4 Ag4 6.Ae3 i.xf3 c:> Game 20-2 1 5.e4 .tg4 6 . .te3 e6 7.�xc4 �b4 S:!!Vc2 o.() 9J:td1, and now: 9 We7 c:> Game 22-23 9 .tiJe7 c:> Game 24 9 i.xf3 � Game 25 ...
..
...
There are some more deviations for both sides in this line: 9.0-0-0 � Games 26-27 S ... 'fiIe7 � Game 28 S.iVd3 � Game 29
The alternative 5.e3 seems to be quite modest, but the idea is to give the second player fewer chances to develop counterplay. In the thematic sequence 5 . . . eS 6.dS CiJe7 7.Axc4 tZ:Jg6 B.h4, we see the typical 'Ieftwards trend' of the c6-knight, as well as the equally typical 'flirting' of White's h-pawn with the knight c:> Game 30 After 5. �'a4 we enter the area of the Queen 's Gambit Accepted, the position occurs more often from that opening. Black plays 5 ...e6 � Game 31 or 5...ClJd5
�
Game 32
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.'lJc3 dxc4 4.tz:Jf3 In conclusion, there is another ex perimental idea from correspondence chess circles 4 ... a6!? Q Game 33 Game 1 7 Adianto - Arencibia
Cap d'Agde 1 998 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.0.Jc3 dxc4 4.ttJf3 ttJf6 4 .i..g 4?! makes an unfavourable •••
impression :
51
'iYxd 1 +? - 1 0 . . . bxc6 1 1 .�a4±, Henrichs Schinke, German Championship 2005 1 1 .lIxd1 bxc6 1 2.tLlbS!) 10.0-0 tlJd7 (1 0 . . . bS 1 1 .tiJxbS! axb5 1 2.i..xbS+ tlJd7 1 3.l:[c 1 :a7 1 4:�d4 'toWb8 1 S.'fYxa7! 'tIUxa7 1 6.:Xc7 �xc7 1 7.i.xc7 t2Jh4 1 8. l:[c1 t2Jf5 1 9.JL.b6 1 :0, Tukmakov-S.Vin cent, Lugano 1 986) 1 1 .11e 1 tz:Jb6 1 2. �b3 �d7 1 3.tiJa4 ( 1 3Jlc 1 ±, Hebden Notkin, Capelle la Grande 1 995) 1 3 ... tz:Jxa4 1 4.i..xa4 b5 1 5.�b3 +-, Taddei Pisk, France 2002. Back to the main game:
S.dS Axf3
5 . . t2Ja5 6:�a4+ c6 7.b4 b5 8:�xa5 'i!fxa5 9.bxa5 b4 1 0.tZJa4 cxd5 1 1 .e4! ±, Epishin-Gibney, Vancouver 2000. .
6.exf3 tz:JeS
6 . . . t2Ja5?! 7 : e6 1 0.i.d2+-, Pliasunov-Elfert, Petersburg 2000.
St.
7 . .i..f4,
•
S.d5
White gains some space and forces the knight to the rim, since now the eS square is not available, in contrast to the variation with 4.d5. There are quite a few alternatives: S.e4 (Q Games 19-29), S.e3 (Q Game 30), 5.'ti'a4 (Q Games 3 1 -32). Sometimes and now: a} 7 ... t2Jd7 8 . .i..xc4 a6 9.0-0 �f6 1 0. J:te1 ±, Donner-Keene, London 1 97 1. b) 7 ...tZJd3+ 8 . .i..xd3 cxd3 9.tLlbS ! lIc8 10.tz:Jxa7 'ifYxd5 (1 0 . . . :a8 1 1 .tLlbS 1:tc8 1 2.'ii'xd3+-) 1 1 .tlJxc8 �e6+ 1 2.�e3 'e'xc8 1 3.�xd3+-, Su.Polgar-J.H. Rudolf, North Bay 1 995. c) 7 ... tlJg6 8.JL.xc4 tLlf6 (8 ... tLlxf4? 9.i.bS+ +-) 9.i.g3 as (9 ... c6 1 0.dxc6!
S.i..g S
is played as well : a) S hS a 1) S .iixfS exf6 7.e3 a 1 1 )7 tlJa5 8.iVa4+1? (8.e4? �d7! 9. tlJd2 bS�, Cherniak-Finegold, New York 1 992, 8.t2Jd2 c6 9.tz:Jxc4 tz:Jxc4 1 0.�xc4 i..d 6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.iVhS IS 1 3.l:rad 1 '&g5=, Gausel-P.-H.Nielsen, Reykjavik 2000) 8 c6 9.b4 cxb3 1 0.axb3 �b6 1 1 . �xa5 �xa5 1 2.Dxa5 i.b4 1 3.I:1cS •••
•
.••
...
52
Chapter 3
AeS 14.eLJd2 �xc5 15.dxc5 � Gyimesi Korpics, Hu ng ary 1999, and Vareille Loiret, France 2002), 14 .. J:ld8!? a12) 7 ... Ad6 S.lLJd2 (or 8 . �xc4 0-0 9. 0-0 f5 10.:cl as 11.a3 �d7, and Black has no problems, Ostenstad-Gausel, Oslo 1985) 8...0-0 9.lLJxc4 f5 10.g3 1:1e8 11. �g2lLJe7! 12.0-0 c6!=, M. Schulze Peek, corr. 2002. a2) 6.iLh4 a21) 6 ... e6 7.e3 tLlaS 8.lLJe5 a6 9:�a4+ (9..txfS �xf6 1 0.�a4+ lLlc6 1 1.CZJxc6 �d7 12.d5 exdS 13.lLJxdS �d6 14.0-0-0 hc6 15.'�xc4 b5 16:�e4+ il..e7 17.Ae2 IId8 18.il..f3 'lWcS+ 19.'it>b1 �d5 20.IIxd5 �xdS 21.�xd5 lbd5 22..txd5 �d6=) 9 ...cS 10.lLlxc4 (10.b4?! b5 11. �xaS �xa5 12.bxa5 ..'i.b4 +) 10... CZJxc4 11:�xc4 �bS 12.0-0-0 i.d7 13.e4 '@a5 14.'H¥b3 b5°o, Dreev-Morozevich, Alushta 1994. In terestin g is, however, Breutigam's suggestion 8.�xf6!? gxfS (8.. :�xf6? 9.�a4+) 9.�a4+ c6 1 0.b4 cxb3 11.axb3 bS (11...bS 12.llJxbS! cxb5 13.�xb5+ �e7 14.�b4+ �d6 1 5.�xd6+ �xd6 lS. �a5±) 12.b4 CZJb7 13.�xcS+ 'iJNd7 14.�b5 and White has the upper hand (14...il..xb4? 15.Ilxa7!+-). a22)6 ...a61? 7.d5 On 7.'&'a4 (7.e4 i.g4) could follow the unpleasant 7...b5!? 8.CLJxb5 Ad7 9.'l:Ja3 e5!, e.g. 10:'lWxc4 il..b4+ 11.Wd1 exd4 12.lLJc2 nbS 13.tlJfxd4 0-0 with initiative. 7 .. ,tDa5 7 .. .tlJa7?! 8.e4 seems too risky for Black, e.g. 8 ...b5 9.e5 with initiative (9 ...liJd7? 10.e6 fxe6 11 :�c2!+-) or 8... C2:Jb5 9. ..'i.xc4 C2Jxc3 10.bxc3 'l:Jxe4 11 .0-0 w i th a dangerous development advantage in return for the sacrificed pawn, Bukal Peek, Lido Estensi 2002. 8.e4 c6! But not S.. . b5?! 9.e5 b4, and now White could have achieved a significan t advantage with 10.'H"a4+ cS 11.dxcS in the game V. Milov-Morozevich, Tilburg
1994, e.g. 11...bxc3 12.c7+ �d7 13. tId 1! cxb2 14.Uxd7 i.xd7 15:Wo'c2 tiJd5 lS.'�xb2 ± or 11 . . .'�b6 12.l'ld 1 bxc3 13.exf6 Cl:JxcS 14.il..xc4 gxfS 1S.bxc3 ±. 9.dxc6 't?fxd1+ 1 0.l'lxdl b5 11.e5 (11.0:Jd5 Ita7 12.C2:Jb6 nc700) 11 ...g5 12.exf6 gxh4 13.C2:Jd5 tla7 with a comp licated struggle.
b) S .tiJdS!? 6.e4 ti:Jxc3 (S...C2:JbS 7.dS C2:Jb4 8 ..axc4 tUxc4 9:�'a4+ c6 10:*"'xb4 tZJb6 10Jld1 with i n it i ative, Notkin-M. Ivanov, Moscow 1996) 7.bxc3 fS (7... tZJaS!? 8.tLJd2 b5, di C aro - M i ladinovic , Rome 200S) B.Ae3 tlJa5 9.llJd2 c6 10.ez:Jxc4 g6 (10 ... i.eS?? 11.'&h5++-, Iskusnyh-Tishin, St.Petersburg 2001) 11 :�c2 il..e6 12.tZJd2 kg7 13.il..e2 0-0 14.0-0 f5! 15.exf5 i.xf5 lS. �a4 wh8 17.nad1 b5 18.'\&'a3 �e6DO, Gelfand Miladinovic, Belgrade 1995. ••
c) 5 ... a61? 6.d5 After 6.e4 hS 7.i.xfS exf6 8.i£.xc4 .td6 9.h3 0-0 Black's pair of bishops fully com pensates for White's space advantage, C.Ha nse n - S. Hans en , Esbjerg 2002; Watson's suggestion 6 . ...tg4!? is also very interesting, after which Dautov gives the following line: 7.dS tZJe5 8. .te2 iLxf3 9.gxf3 h6 1 0..Jte3 e6 with counterplay.
cl) 6 ... ti:JaS Probably not the best con tinu ation . 7.e4 A good alternative 's 7.'tia4+ cS S.b4
1.d4 dS 2.c4 C2:Jc6 3.ilJc3 dxc4 4.C2:Jf3 bS? 9.�xaS �xaS 10.bxaS ilJxd5 11.i.d2±, Lukey-Spain, New Zealand 1992, or 8... cxb3 9.axb3 e6 10 . .ltd2! b6 11.b4 .Jixb4 12.'\Wxb4 exdS 13.e3 cS, and now, in the game P.Horvath-Antal, Budapest 2003, White could have caused some serious troubles for his opponent with 14.�b2!..114...0-0 15. €Ja4 with initiative on the queenside. 7 ... h6 7...c6 8.dxc6 �xd1+ 9J�xdl bxc6 10 ..tf4t..111.�c7, Hawksworth-Yeo, England 1986, 7 ...bS!? 8.�f4 8. ..th4 gS 9. .Jig3 c2:JhS 10.�a4+ c6 11.dxc6 C2:Jxc6 12.�eS b5? 13.ilJxb5 axbS 14.�xa8 CZJxeS lS.t2JxeS �g7 16.'iYc6 +-, Eslon-Ferron Garcia, Zara goza 1995, stronger is 12...f6 8 ... b5 (8...c6? 9.dxc6 �xd1 + 10. Uxdl bS 11.e5 tiJh5 12.tZJdS �a7 13. �e3+-) 9.e5 tzJh5 1 0.�e3 g6 11 .e611 (11.C2:Jd4!?, 11.b4!?) 11 �g7 (11 ...fxe6 12.t2Je5�) 1 2.g4 C2:Jf6 13.exf7+ �xf7 14.C2:Je5+ �g8 lS.�g2 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn, Khen kin-Ferron Garcia, Alcobendas 1994. 00.
...
c2) 6 .. 8a7!1 Strange as this move may seem, it is not a bad one. 7.e4 C2JbS Watson also mentions 7 ... bS!? 8.e5 tiJd7, as it was played in a computer game, after which the position was totally unclear. 8.'{Jj'c2 White does not achieve anything after 8..txf6 exfS 9.ii:.xc4 tzJxc3 10.bxc3 �d6, Watson. 8 . .txc4 ClJxc3 9.bxc3 tlJxe4°o, van der Werf-Peek, Leeuwarden 2004 - in contrast to the similar variation S hS 6.$.h4 as 7.dS C2:Ja7 here the white queen's bishop is threatened. 8...tiJxc3 9.bxc3 b5 1 0.a4 .tb7 After 10... llb8 11.axbS axbS 12.8d4 .
...
S3
.td7 13. .Jr..e2 White has very good compensation for the sacrificed pawn due to his space advantage and better development, Berkvens-Bromann, Esbjerg 2003. 11.tiJd4 tzJxd5!? (after Watson's recommendation 1 1 ...'tlfd7, 12.�bl! is very unpleasant, attacking both bS and c4) 12.exdS �xdS 13.€Jf3 e5 14JIdl �e4+ lS:�xe4 j£,xe4 with a complicated endgame, Pieterse-Boersma, Amster dam 1986. Back to the main game:
S... tLlaS S . 8b8 6.e4 e6 7.�xc4 exd5 8.exd5 Ae7 9.0-0 0-0 10 ..tf4 as leads to a somewhat passive, but nevertheless solid position, SChone-Menzel, Ger many 1991. ..
6.e4 6.b41! cxb3 7.axb3 can hardly be re commended: 7...e6 8:�d4 c6 (8...b6!?) 9.dxc6 �xd4 10.tlJxd4 ii.b4 11..ad2 tDxc6 12.C2Jxc6 bxc6+, Blees-Boersma, Amsterdam 1985. 6 . .tg5 was played in some games, but with no success - 6 hS 7. .JixfS exf6 8.e3 (White intends to place his knights on the central d4 and e4 squares and therefore 8.e4 would be wrong, since that pawn would deprive the knight of that square and d4 would not be sufficiently protected. Probably 8.�a4+ is better, but after 8...c6 9.0-0-0 �d7 10.dxcS C2:Jxc6 11.�xc4 Ae7 or 11... Ab4 Black has a comfortable game) 8 . ii.d7! 9.�e2 bS 10.0-0 ii:.b4 (10...15 11.'&d4! c5 12.�eS+ �e7 13.'t!:Vc7 �d8 14.�e5+ leads to a draw) 11.C2:Jd4 a6, and White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn, Zuger-Ye Rongguang, Lucerne 1989. We will examine the alternative 6.'�a4+ cS in the next game. ...
. .
6. c6!? ..
Chapter 3
S4
The attack on the d-pawn is the main idea in this opening. Also possible is 6 e6 with the same idea, e.g.: •.•
a) 7.'iYa4+ cS 8.dxc6 tDxc6 9. .txc4 SLd7 10.'iYc2 %:tc8 with counterplay. b) 7 .ag5 b1) Dunnington assesses the position after 7 ...exd5 8.CZJxdS (8.eS h6 9..txfS gxf6 1 O:�xdS c6 1 1 :iYxd8+ <;itxd8 12. exfS <;itc7 ) B... .te7 9.'8'a4+ tZJc6 10. 0-0-0 Ad7 11.Axf6 .i.xf6 12.iYxc4 0-0 13.C2Jxf6+ gxf6, Esteban-Giulian, Salo nika (ol) 1984 as unclear. However, I think that this position must be favourable for White due to Black's weakened kingside; the only question is in which manner White could use his advantage to achieve the victory. b2) 7 ... Ae7 seems better to me, e.g. B.Axf6 gxf6 9:�a4+ c6 10.dxc6 CZJxc6 11.SLxc4 i.d7, and the bishop pair, together with the possibility to develop counterplay on the semi-open g-file, compensates for the somewhat weak pawn structure on the kingside. It is also possible for Black to castle queenside. •
co
7.iiJe5 There is nothing good for White after 7.dxcS 'i\Vxd1+ 8.�xd1 tDxcs 9..14xc4 �g4 with a strong initiative for Black, Adlo-Wisnewski, ICC 2001.
7 ...e6 Proceeding with the main idea!
B.dxc6 '+Wxd1 + 9. �d1 tZJxc6 1 0.tL1xc6 bxc6 1 1 .�xc4
How should we evaluate this position? On one hand, the c6-pawn could be a weakness and the AcB is blocked by the pawns at the moment. On the other hand, White's king does not feel particularly safe in the centre, the f2-pawn is not protected and the second player can use that to develop his initiative. Moreover, atter ...e6-eS the c8-bishop would be free. The further development of the game shows that Black's chances are pre ferable, but White can hold the position.
1 1 . .. tiJg4 1 2.�e1 On 12.'�e2 follows 12...tZJeS!, and Black exchanges his opponent's light squared bishop, because 13..tb3 does not work in view of 13... .aa6+. After the exchange ....tc8-a6 becomes. never theless, possible and the position is very unpleasant for White. 1 2 ... .i:.c5 1 3 .li.e2! •
After 13.f3 t2:JeS (13... t2:Je3!?) 14.�e2 t2:Jg6 Black is ready to free his bishop with ... e6-eS. Then White's king would feel even less comfortable since the a7g1 diagonal would be significantly softened by 12-13.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.(·,f3
1 3 ... e5 Of course, not 13 ... i.xf2+?? 14.'411 + or 13... t2:Jxf2? 14.:f1, and the knight cannot retreat.
1 4 . .txg41 Black's pieces have become dangerously active and White decides to exchange two of them, even at the cost of getting doubled pawns. An alternative is 14.h3. Then 14...tDxf2 15.:1f1 :, lXh3 16.gxh3 �xh3 would be possible, where Black would get three pawns for the knight and keep the initiative due to the poor coordination between White's pieces. The simple 14...tlJf6 is also playable.
1 4 ... �xg4 1 S.�e3 ! .txe3 1 6.fxe3 0-0..0
55
The only way for the white king to go to e2.
1 8 ... .tg6 1 9.�e2 h5! Black wants to open the position on the kingside and use the h-file. In addition, after the exchange on 94 White's g-pawn would be weak. This plan is correct, but unfortunately, it is simply not enough for winning.
20Jdac1 20.I:tad1 would be a mistake: 20 ...�d 1 2 1.t1xd1 hxg4 22.hxg4 l:.h2-+ - hence, White aims at the c6-pawn.
20 hxg4 21 .hxg4 l:xh1 22.l:Ixh1 �c7 23.�h2 l:tb8 24.Wf3 Ild8 2S.1::1c2 l:ih8 26.�g3 rlh1 27.0:Jb5+ �b6 28.liJd6 ..•
Black's rook has penetrated White's position but all the white pieces and pawns are protected. Black's king does not have any entry squares and there fore cannot help.
28 ...f6 29JXd2 Ilg1 + 30.� IIf1 + 31 .�g2 �e1 32.�2 nh1 33.wg2 IIe1 V2:V2
Black's position remains more active, the bishop is stronger than the knight, White's rooks are not connected yet. The first player needs to exchange one of the rooks, or even better both of them, in order to neutralise Black's ini tiative. The second player could hardly win a minor piece endgame because White's e-pawns would keep his king away.
1 7.h3 ! �h5 17 .2.e6 18. .:td1. ...
1 8.g4!
Game 18 Meins - Rablega German Championship 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.tDf3 tlJ16 S.dS tlJaS 6.'iWa4+ This continuation leads to very sharp and complicated positions, but the Chigorin Defence player should not fear them!
6 ... c6 7.b4!? The strongest and most consistent continuation.
Chapter 3
56
Black has no problems after 7.dxc6 tlJxc6 8.tiJe5 (8.e4 e6 9.Axc4 .i:.d7 with counterplay) 8...�d7 9'tlJxd7 tDxd7 (9... 'iWxd7!? 10.�xc4 e5 is also worth con sidering) 10.'�xc4 tlJb6 11.�e4 'ilVd4 12:�c2 e6 13.Ae3 'ti'e5 14.Axb6 axb6=, Goodman-Schiller, London 1982.
7 b5 ...
This is a forced piece sacrifice because 7...cxb3 8.axb3 b6 9.dxc6+ is too grue some for words!
8.�xa5 'i!Yxa5 9.bxa5 b4
1 0.dxc6 White decides to give back the knight. Of course, there are games in which the first player was not so 'benevolent': a) After 1 0.t2:Jd1 cxdS the position is similar to the one from the variation 3.tzJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJa5 5.�a4+ c6 6.b4 b5 7.'!!VxaS �xa5 8.bxa5 b4 9.tlJd1 exd5 (Game 5, annotations b to Black's 6th move, p.23), the only difference is that now the knights are already on f3 and f6. This difference, as both Watson and Dunnington properly indicate, favours Black because it is not so easy for White to accomplish e2-e4, and in addition, the knight is usually better positioned on e2 in this variation. In the game SchallenmOller-Dutschak, Germany 1989, after 11 . .if4 �!e4 12. ('d2 Black could have achieved com..
fortable play with 12 ...tlJxd2 13.�xd2 (13 ..txd2 e5) 13...f6 followed by ...e5. Watson analyses the line 1 1 .ClJe5 e6 12.f3 Ad6 13.,tf4 Ab7! (13 ...CZJhS?! 14.tlJxf7!), and after 14.ClJxf7 �xf4 lS.ClJxh8 �e7 the second player has decent compensation. In the case of 11.g3, Breutigam's sug gestion 11 ....tfS!? looks very strong. b) 1 0.tlja4 cxd5 This position once again reminds us of the variation 3.tiJc3 dxc4 4.d5 tlJa5 5. 'iYa4+ c6 6.b4 b5 7.'t!¥xaS 'iYxa5 8.bxaS b4 (9.tLJa4). and the difference now tzJf3 and ClJf6 have been already played - favours Black again since the first player has difficulties with the thematic move e2-e4. b1) In the game Kane-Silman, San Francisco 1977, followed 11.Ae3 e6 1 2.�d4 (12/,;',cS? ClJg4 13.i..d4 e5!+), and here 12 ... tlJe4!? seemed very strong, after which ...f7-16 followed by ...e6-eS would be a threat and the a4knight would be passive. Watson's re commendation 1 2 ... ClJd7!? 13.l:c1 �- ',b8! 14. e3 tlJc6 is also very interesting. Silman played 12 ... .td7 instead, and after 13.tiJcS i.b5 14.e4 a6? 15.e5 li:Jd7 16.tlJxd7 �xd7 17.tiJg5 �e8 18.f4 i.e7 19.i.e2 .td8 20.0-0 .txaS 21.1S White developed a dangerous attabk. 1 4 ... dxe4!? 1S.tiJd2 e5 16.Ae3 tlJdsoo was much stronger. Watson's idea 1 4 ... :c81? 15.e5 tlJg4 16.tlJb7 f6 is also interesting. b2) After 1 1 .tlJe5 e6 12. .tf4, as it was played in the correspondence game Pohl-Plath, 1989, according to Watson Black must reply 12 ...tzJhS 13 ..te3 .td6 14.�d4 16 15.tlJ13 i.c7!, with a sharp poSition with mutual chances. b3) 11 .a3 b3 12..tb2 must be mentioned too - White takes control over the c3square, but after 12 ... .tfS Black has a
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ClJcS 3.ClJc3 dxc4 4.ClJf3 strong initiative for the sacrificed ma terial due to his wonderful pawn chain and the possibility for a harmonious development, e.g. 13.e3 eS 14.tlJd4 i.gS 15.f3 j.e7 1S.ClJc6 i..d6 17.ClJc3 �d7 1S.tiJd4 .i.c7 19.a6 .i.b6 20.ClJa4 l:theS with more than sufficient compen sation, "DJusto"-Wisnewski, ICC 2002.
1 0 ... bxc3 1 1 .l::r b 1 ? ! White neglects the normal development and that is the source of ali his further problems. Better was 11.e3 i.a6 12.ClJe5 tlJci5 13.i.a3 (13.tDxc4 ClJb4! 14.:h1 e6! with a good position) 13...e6 14..i.xfS lbf8 15.tDxc4 ClJb4 with a complicated position.
57
16...�xc7 17.ClJe6+ �d6 18.tLJxfs l1xfS was an alternative, but Black wanted to keep his bishop pair even at the cost of a pawn.
1 7.�d2 .tb4+ Also possible was 17...ClJe4+ tLJxf2 19.:g1 rJ;xc7 20.ClJf7 tDxe5 j.d6 22. i.b2 tlJe4 with compensation, but the text even stronger.
1S.�xc2 :gS 21. sufficient move is
1 8. �xc2 �xc7 1 9.t2Je6+ �d6 20.fiJxg7 �b5 White is two pawns up at the moment, but his pieces are not developed and his king is in great danger.
21 .e4
1 1 ... �a6 1 2.tlJe5 ...
The first player is willing to give back the material, but to activate his forces. Too late .. .
21 ... 11b8! Rabiega plays consistently for attack on the king. 21 ...tDxe4 also seemed very strong.
22.fiJf5+ ... White probably hoped that he would impede his opponent's development, but. ..
1 2... 0-0-01 1 3.fiJxf7 On 13.i.e3? follows 13...c2 14.rz.c1 e6! 15.Uxc2 (15.i.d2 ClJe4-+) 15 ....i.b4+ 16.j.d2 �d2 17.:lxd2 ClJe4-+.
1 3 ... c2 1 4.l::t b8+ �xb8 1 5. fiJxd8 e5 1 6.c7+ Again the only move. 16.j.d2? j.b4-+, 16.a3? j.b4+ 17.axb4 Uxd8-+.
1 6 ... �c8!
22 ... �e6? Correct was 22...�c7!, and the game would not have lasted long, e.g. 23.f3 iLa4+ 24.�b2 Ad2+-+.
23.f3 i.xa5
Chapter 3
58
Now 23 ...i.a4+ is not so convincing after 24.�b2 J4xa5+ (24...Ad2+? 25. �a3 Ji.xc1 + 26.�xa4±) 25.�a3 AbS 26.i.e3 White holds the position and is still a pawn up.
24.�b2? ! 24.Ad2!? seems much better to me, e.g. 24... �a4+ 2S.�c1 c3 26.�c4+ �d7 27.J4g5, and White's pieces become more active. Another possibility was 24.:&.e3!?
24.. .tljd7! After 24...Aa4+ 25.�cl c3 26.:&.c4+ �d7 27.�a1 Black's attack comes to a halt.
25.tlJe3 ..ta4+ 26. �c1
5 ... kg4 This move is likewise logical - Black immediately attacks White's centre and very interesting and concrete play starts from the very beginning of the game.
6.d5
26.wb1? c3-+ .
2 6... tlJb6 27.g3 c 3 2S.�a3 :adS �
29 ...:td2.
29.i.c4+?? This is a gross mistake, after which the game immediately ends. After the cor rect 29J:tg1! kId2 30.1::1g2 the outcome would still be unclear.
29 ... 0Jxc4 30/2JXc4 c2 0:1 Game 19 Baburin - Miladinovic Saint Vincent 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tiJc3 tlJf6 4.tlJf3 dxc4 Transposing to the variation 3 ... dxc4 4.tDf3.
5.e4 A natural move. White sets up the pawn centre d4/e4 and attacks c4.
White protects his pawn and at the same time gains some space in the centre. On the other hand, he surrenders the control over eS and Black could get rid of the dS-pawn with either ...e7 -eS or ... c7-cS. We will analyse the most popular continuation 6 .te3 in Games 20-29. .
6 ... t8e5 Of course, not S...t2:JaS? in view of 7.�a4+ c6 8.b4 cxb3 9.axb3 and White is winning.
7 .Af4 This move is played most often, but there are other possibilities: a) 7.�e2 as in the game Jelling-Fries Nielsen, Denmark 1988. Further followed 7 .txf3 8.gxf3 e6 9J�¥d4 CLlfd7 1 0.f4 .tc5 1 1 . �d1, and now Black sacrificed a piece: 1 1 ... �h4?1 12.fxeS '&xf2+ 13.'it'd2l2Jxe5 (13 ...exdS 14.tzJxdS 0-0-0 1S.�c2 cS 16.tlJc3 l2Jxe5 17.�f1±). After which White repelled the attack with 14.'t!Yf1 �d4+ 1S.wc2 exdS 16. exdS. Better was 11 . CLld3+ 12. .Jtxd3 ...
..
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tl:Jc3 dxc4 4.tLlf3 cxd3 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.'¥Yxd3 0-0 or 8 c6 9.'ti'd4 (9.f4 tiJd3+ 10.i.xd3 cxd3 11.'ifxd3 �d7!? - 11...e6 12.d6! , 11... g6!? . 12.Ae3 e6 with counterplay) 9 tlJd3+ 10.i.xd3 cxd3 11 .�g5 (11.�xd3 cxd5 12.exdS g6) l1...cxdS (11..:ij'aS!?) 12. Axf6 exf6 13.tlJxd5 i.d6 14:iYxd3 0-0, with good counter chances in both cases. .••
•••
b) 7.34xc4 tDxc4 8.�a4+ does not promise White an advantage, e.g. 8.. /:; 'td7 (8...c6!? 9.�xc4 Axf3 10.gxf3 cxdS 11 .exdS g6) 9.'�xc4 eS 10.$..gS f6 11. .te3 .i..xf3 12.gxf3 i.d6 13.tlJbS tLlb6 14.i.xb6 axb6, with at least equality for Black, Wade-Korchnoi, Buenos Aires 1960.
7 tt:Jg6 •••
Interesting is also Morozevich's move 7.. �xf3!? from one of his many ICC blitz games against Dlugy, 1999. Now Black can meet the natural 8.gxf3 with 8. tDg6 9.i.g3 eS 1 0.dxe6 �xd1+ 11 JIxd 1 fxe6 12. .txc4 (12.Axc7?! nc8 13.�g3 95) 12...eS. In that case, the c4-bishop is rather strong, while his colleague on g3 is very passive and the pOSition seems quite playable for Black. 8.. ,'�'d6 and 8 ...��fd7 are also interesting possibilities. .
..
59
The situation looks very dangerous for Black. Two pieces are under attack and in addition, White threatens to take on c7. 9...Axg2 loses in view of 10..l.xeS 10...�xe4 11.�h3! e6 12.dxe6 fxe6 13...'iixe6! +-. However, the position is not as bad as it seems. Morozevich unearthed goo.c6, after which White immediately made a mistake: 1 0.t2:Jd4? ..txe4 11 . .txe5 cxdS 12.tlJb5 :;rcB -+ Correct was 1 0.dxc6 tlJxc6 1 1 .gxf3 (or 11. tlJc7+ �d8 12.tlJxa8 e5! 13.a3 ClJd4! 14.�xd7+ t:jjxd7 1S.gxf3 tlJc2+ 16.�d2 tZJxa1 17 . ..tgS+ i.e7 18.�xe7+ �xe7 19.i..xc4 nxa8 20.I1xa1 IIcB�) 11 e5 12.Ird1 .iL.b4+ 13..td2 IIdS 14.Axb4 'i!*'xd1 + 15. �xd1 l:xd1 + 16.�xd1 tlJxb4 17.tlJd6+ (17. .txc4 �e7+) 17.. .'i!fe7 18.C2:Jf5+ �d7 19..txc4 l:c8 20.i.b3 t2:JhS 2 1.�e2 f6 with a slightly better endgame for Black. .
...
That is, of course, OK for Black. But there is a better continuation for White: instead of 9.ooc6, Hiarcs 7.32 recom mends a fantastic move, which probably no man could have thought of 9 ...�g4!! -
That is why Dlugy chose a different, seemingly very promising, continuation: 8.W'a4+ �d7 9.tZjb5:
The second player completely ignores his opponent's threats and even opens the a4·e8 diagonal for a discovered check. Nevertheless, his queen be comes very active and the variations show that this move leads to victory: 10. .i.xeS (on 10. .1.e3 follows 10...
Chapter 3
60
�d8! -+) 1 0. .'t�¥xe4+ 11.'it7d2 cS 12.ttJc7 + �d8, and due to the threats 13...c3+ and 1 3 . 'iWxe5 Black wins. .
..
Now let us go back to the main game.
8 i.e3 .
8.i.g3 does not promise anything in view of 8 eS 9.�xc4 (or 9.dxeS �xe6 10.tDgS �xd1+ 11.:Xd1 �b4! with counterplay) 9 �d6 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .h3 Ji..d7. In the game Sakalauskas Novikov, Vilnius 1 994, followed 1 2.llJe1 (on 12.llc1 could follow 12... t2JhS, and after 13.tz:JxeS tiJxg3 14.tiJxd7 �xd7 lS.fxg3 kxg3 Black has the upper hand due to White's weak dark squares) 1 2 ... a6! 1 3.a4, and now the second player started play in the centre with 13...c6!? Probably 1 3... bS! 14.axb5 axbS 15.llxa8 �xa8 1 6.�d3 (16.tiJxbS $.xb5 17.i.xb5 ttJxe4 with initiative) 16...b4 17.tiJe2 c6 with initiative would have been even better. As we see, the g3-bishop is very passive in all these variations. ..•
..•
8 . e59 ..txc4 .
.
.
...
pressure there. Black, in his turn, has sufficient chances for counterplay, e.g. ...a7-a6 followed by ...b7-bS-b4 (under mining the e4-pawn) or ...c7-cS (the dS pawn). Counterplay on the kingside with ...tDgS-f4 or ...t2JfS-hS-f4 is also possible. Another note: Black's light-squared bishop is more active than his counter part and vice versa. This means that an exchange of the light-squared bishops would favour White, and that of the dark-squared ones - Black.
9...a 6 This move prepares ... b7-bS and in the meantime prevents AbS+.
10.0-0 i.d6 11.�e2 White plans the manoeuvre ttJd2-c4.
1 1 . .Ji.d71? ..
About 11 ... 0-0 12.llJd2 �d7 13.ttJc4 see the next annotation.
12.clJd2 b5 Probably it was better to postpone this move a little, since now White has a clear plan for developing his initiative on the queenside. In the game Lugovoi M.lvanov, Moscow 1 998, 1 2 0-0 13. t2Jc4 �b4! was played instead. Further followed 14.�d3 bS 1S.t2Jd2 -"-d6 lS.'�c2, and now Black could have equalized the game with 16...c6!? 17.dxc6 .txcS. Ivanov, however, chose lS ...tiJg4, and after 17 ..txg4 $..xg4 18.tiJb3 tZJf4 19.13 .tcB 20 JXfe 1 f5? (correct was 20.. :ti'g5 with counterplay) 21 . .txf4 exf4 22.e5 .i.b4 23Jlad1 his position became worse. ...
1 3.a4! The critical position of this variation. White has a space advantage on the queenside and can exert some
White attacks the bS-pawn and wants to enforce ...bS-b4, after which the "�c3 can go to c5 via a4.
1.d4 dS 2.c4 \'.!c6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.tDf3
...
61
Threatening 21 ....:ue2+.
21 .�xI4 exf4 22. 'tWxb4 0-0
1 3 .. lb8 J
Avoiding the exchange on bS with 13...b4!? also seemed interesting, e.g. 14.8a2 0-0 lS.tZJc1 (the knight heads for b3) lS ...tDf4 16..tf3 g5 with counterplay on the kingside.
1 4.axb5 axb5 1 5.�b3 b4 1 6.tiJa4 Baburin has now achieved something on the queenside - the a-file is open and the a4-knight is ready to go to c5, while the b4-pawn is weak. Black must organise his counterplay as soon as possible.
1 6 .tzJg4! ••
After the 'normal' 16 0-0 follows 17.tlJc5 8f4 (17... Jl.bS 18..txb5 nxb5 19.fic4±) 1S..tf3 .tcS (avoiding the exchange of the bishops which would further weaken the light squares on the queenside and reduce Black's chances for counterplay on the kingside) 19.:l:a4, and Black is in trouble. .. .
1 7 . .:txg4 ii.xg4 1 8.f3 kd7 1 9.tiJc5 i.. b 5! A decision of a grandmaster. He relinquishes the b4-pawn, and activates his pieces.
20.:;fc1 <�J4 !
Let us now evaluate the position. White has an extra pawn and a much better pawn structure. On the other hand, his dark squares in the centre are weak and the position is open which is favourable for Black's bishop pair. It is extremely difficult to make use of the extra pawn in such positions.
23.t2Jdb3 ,te5! 24.tiJd4 .ie8 25.�d2 c6 ! Further opening the position.
26.tiJdb3 cxd5 27.exd5 27.'t!Vxd5?? �xd5 2S.exd5 i.xb2-+.
27 16 28.�hl JL.f7 29.l:td1 'tWb6 ••.
Black's pieces become more and more active.
30Jla6 W'b5 In this position Miladinovic offered a draw, which his opponent accepted. White has hardly anything better than repeating the position with 31.%%a5 �b6 32.r.ta6 �b5.
Chapter 3
62 Game 20 Kask - Radeker corr. 1984
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3/'!c3 dxc4 4.tDf3 tDf6 5.e4 �g4 6 . .ae3 This is the most frequent continuation at this point. White develops the bishop and protects the central d4-pawn.
6 ... .txf3 The main line 6 e6 is analysed in Games 22-29.
�xb7 .txg2 11.:1g1 tlJbd7 12.:Xg2 :Ib8oo) 1 0._.�c8. White has a space advantage, the bishop pair and could eventually use the semi-open g-fiIe, but on the other hand, his pawn structure on the kingside is weakened. In the game IIjushin-Lindfeldt, Bulgaria 2000, White played 11.tlJb5, but after 11...0-0! 12 . .txa7 tlJa6 13. C.�::.< d6 cxd6 14. .;le3 t>1C5 15.�bS �h3 Black developed a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
7.gxf3 e5 S.d5
•••
"
Another interesting possibility is 6 e51? 7.d5, and now: ••.
a) After 7 . ..t;Z��7 (7... Axf3 8.gxf3 trans· poses to the 6... �xf3 variation) 8. .i.xc4 tLJg6 could follow 9.�b5+ .td7 10.'3'b3! - White is active, while no counterplay can be seen for Black, Bezold-Bromann, Stockholm 1998. Also strong is 9:�a4+ (instead of 9.i.bS+) 9 ... i.d7 10. .i.bS, e.g. 10... i.d6 11. i.g5!? JL.e7 12.11c1 with initiative, Flear-Libiszewski, France 2001. However, 1M Tishin's idea looks interest· ing: 8 ... aS!?, in order to prevent i.c4bS+, e.g. 9.h3 i.xf3 (but not 9... JL.hS? 10.g4 Ag6 11.till:e5, and Black loses after 11... t2:Jxe4 12.tDxe4 .txe4 13.d6, as well as after 11 ... i.xe4 12. tZ:Jxe4 fiJxe4 13.tlJxf7! �xf7 14. 'fff3+ tDf6 lS.d6+) 1 0:i!Yxf3 tDg6 11.0-0 i.d6 12. l:Uc1 0-0 13.JL.f1 tlJeB 14.g3 tlJe7 lS.h4 f5 with counterplay, Yagupov-Tishin, Tula 2001. b) 7 ... t2Jb8!? 8.�xc4 jt,dS 9.'iYb3 (on 9.JL.b5+ Black would not play 9 ... t2Jbd7 10.h3 .thS in view of 11..ligS!, but 9...c6, e.g. 10.dxc6 l2Jxc6 - 1O ...bxc6!? 11.'&a4 O-O!? 12.JL.xc6 bxc6 13.�xc6 r%c8 - 13 ... �bB!? - 14.�a4 IIb8 with compensation) 9 ... �xf3 1 0.gxf3 (10.
8 tZJe7 .••
Black wants to develop counterplay on the dark squares. The knight heads for g6, and then .. .tzJf6-hS-f4 or ... tLJg6-f4 will be possible. Another possibility is ' ...tDc8-d6. There are also some other continuations: a) 8 ... tVa5? does not make a good impression: 9.�a4+ c6 10.b4 cxb3 11. axb3 tlJd7 12.b4 (good is also 12.�d2!? tzJc5 13.�xa5 �xa5 14.nxa5 tDxb3 15. lla2, and Black has no compensation, M.Stojanovic-Tadic, Kladovo 1996) 12...cxd5 13.bxa5 d4 14 . .ah3 nc8 15. �bS a6 (15... dxe3 16Jld1 +-) 16.tLixd4 exd4 17.i.xd4 (17. lId 1 !? ii.c5 18. we2 lIc7 19.�xd4 i..xd4 20J�:xd4+-) 17... IIc6 1B.Ud1 with a big advantage, Nikolaev-C.Mann, Budapest 1990.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:Jc6 3.tZ:Jc3 dxc4 4. tiJf3
63
b) 8 ... tiJb8 (seems playable, but slightly passive) 9.�xc4 (9.t4!?), with the following variations:
Soltis' suggestion 9.h4!? with the idea h4-h5 is also interesting. Then the following variations are possible:
bl) On 9 ... tiJbd7?! very unpleasant is 1 0.'f1'b3! ( 1 O.11gl !?), threatening both 1 1 :if:Vxb7 and 1 1 .d6: bll) In the game Schlager-Radeker, 2nd Bundesliga 1992, Black sacrificed the b7-pawn - 1 0 .. .td6 1 1 .�xb7 0-0 but after 1 2:�c6 :b8 1 3.tZ:Jb5 i.b4+ 1 4. �e2 he did not get sufficient compen sation. b1 2) In Wijk aan Zee 2001 , Moro zevich played 1 0 . Ac5 against Anand and after 1 1 .0-0-0?! :i.xe3 1 2.fxe3 :bS achieved a relatively normal position (which nevertheless in his opinion is better for White - after the text move 1 3.d6, as well as after 1 3.�a3 a6 1 4. .tfl �e7 lS.'t'!¥xe7 �xe7 1 6s!ibl). In his analysis in Chess Informant 801387 he evaluates 1 1 .0-0-0 as a mistake and suggests the following improvement: 1 1 .�xb7 :bS 1 2. '�a6 Axe3 1 3.fxe3 l:txb2 1 4:�a3 �bS 1 5.0-0 't'f'b4 1 6. 'iYxb4 lixb4 1 7.i.e2±. Whether White has such a great advantage in the final position is probably not so clear. However, I have another suggestion: 1 4.'i¥xa7 (instead of 1 4.'ti'a3) 1 4... 0-0 1 5. '&a3, and it is doubtful whether Black would get sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, e.g. lS ... Ilg2 1 6.'�fl nc2 1 7 .i.e2 �b8 1 8.i.d 1 't!t'b2 1 9.�xb2 IIxb2 20.a4 with advantage.
a) 9 tZ:Jh5?! 1 0:�a4+ �d7 (10 ... c6 l1 JIdl b5 12:�'a6 \'VcS 1 3.'lWxc8+ tl:1xcS 1 4.dxc6 a6 1 5.ti:Jd5±), and now in the game Gawehns-Knippel, Germany 1990, White could have achieved a clear advantage with the simple 1 1 . �xc4 followed by i.h3.
.
.
-
.
b2) 9 Ad6 seems better to me, and even though White has the initiative after 1 0.W'b3 or 1 O.:gl, a difficult battle lies ahead. ••.
9.�xc4 Stronger is 9:iYa4+I , which we will analyse in the next game.
•..
b) 9 tZ:Jg6!? 10.h5 tDf4 1 1 .�xf4 exf4 1 2.'iYa4+ Ci:Jd7 ( 1 2 .. .'tIt'd7 1 3:�fxc4±). Watson now gives the variation 1 3.e5 'fi'e7 1 4.0-0-0 '¥Yxe5 1 5.:i.h3+-, but much stronger is 1 4 . . . �b4!, e.g. 1 5. �xb4 Axb4 1 6. tiJb5 i.aS with unclear play. ...
c) Watson himself prefers 9 tiJd7!? and supports it with the variations 1 O �xc4 tiJg6 1 1 .h5 tDf4 1 2 .1l..xf4 exf4 1 3JWd4 f6! 1 4. h6 g5 1 5.�b5 .ad6 1 6. i.xd7 + �xd7 0r 1 0. h5 tZ:Jc8 1 1 . i.xc4 �e7 1 2.f4 tLJd6 1 3 . .tb3 exf4 14 . .axf4 ..tt6. Black is really OK in both cases. .••
.
.
9 a6! ...
9 tiJg6 1 0:�'b3 ! (Watson). ...
1 0.a4 tlJg6 An alternative is 1 0 ... tiJc8!? � . 'lJd6. .
1 1 .'+!¥b3 i.d6 !
.
Chapter 3
64
Now in the case of 1 2.'i!Vxb7 0-0 Black has sufficient compensation, e.g.: a) 1 3.'@b3 tiJh4 14.�d1 (14.'1t'e2 tzjhS !l. ...'�f6) 14 ...tlJh5 lSJ:�gl 'fi'f6 16.�e2 tiJf4 with active play for the sacrificed pawn. b) 1 3 .ta7 ti:Jd7 14.0-0-0 \'ff6 lS. .ixa6? (on lS . .ie2 would follow lS... tZJe7! with the strong threat 16... tlJcS 17. .ixcS nfb8, but the text move loses immediately) lS... i.cS! 16.i.xcS tZJxcS 17.filxc7 tzJxa6-+, Paredes Prats-Gibbons, carr. 1985. c) 1 3.0-0-0 I:lb8 14. '@'xa6 na8 15. 't'ib7 (lS.'fi'c6 tDe7) 15 .. J�b8 16 .'Wa6 1:a8 17. .ia7 (White plays for the win - a dubious decision) 17... tZJd7! {17 ....ic5?! 18. �xc5 :txa6 19. .txa6±} 18.'i!¥b7 tLJc5 19.�xcS Axc5 20.:td2 'iWg5 21.l:tf1 tIab8 22.'fi'xc7 1:fc8 23.'Wa5 Ab4 (23... lhb2!?) 24.'�'a6 1:a8 25.iYbS llab8 26.'ii' a6 V2:V2, Mertins-Horn, corr. 1986. .
1 2.h4? ! The first player wants to play h4-h5, castle queenside and launch an attack on the kingside. However, Black con vincingly shows that this plan cannot be realized and it simply leads to a waste of time and new weaknesses .
14 ...exf4 15.0-0-0 15 .'�Wxb7 initiative.
I1b8
16.'fi'xaS
l:xb2
with
lS tlJd7 ! •••
The second player carries out his dark squares strategy - here the knight is ready to go to e5 or cS and the fS square is vacated for the queen.
16.tlJe2?1 White intends to bring his knight to d4. In the case of lS.'t§'xb7 Black can force a draw with 16... l:b8 17 :ifxa6 ·��i.Jc5 18.'i!Va5 %1a8 19.'i¥bS l1b8 or, if he wants to continue his efforts for the win . play lS...tlJe5!? 17. 'i¥b3 �f6 18.Si..e2 l:fb8 19.'Wc2 AcSi58. However, Radeker now finds an ex cellent opportunity to make use of the weakness of White's dark squares:
16... .teS! 17.tz:Jd4 'tWf61 Now 18.'iJf5 loses in view of 18...bS! 19.axbS axb5 20. .te2 (20.Axb5 I:tfb8 -+) 20... 'iJc5 21 :�b4 (21.'tr'xb5 i.d6! 22J:ldg1 rifb8-+) 21....:ta2! 22. �xc5 i.xb2+ 23.�b1 :fa8-+.
18.'HYc3
12 0-0
...
...
Showing no fear of ghosts!
13 .h5::�·lf4 The hS-pawn is threatened!
1 4 .i.xf4 .
White gets rid of the active knight, but for the price of his bishop, which could protect his dark squares. In addition, the second player gains control over the beautiful central eS-square. But what should be recommended? 14:�Wxb7 was risky in view of 14..J�b8 lS:�xaS l:1xb2, and after 14.h6 gS the kingside would be closed, after which White would have no play at all.
18...cS! 19.dxc6 bxc6 20.b4 c5! Beautifully played! White's position now collapses.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.t2Jf3
21.bxc5 tlJxc5 22J:Id2 )lfc8 23.�d1 tZJeS 0:1
65
the position. Inferior is 1 0.0-0-0 i�JgS (10... a6!?) or 10.i.xc4 ,!iJc8! with counter chances.
10 ...tZJc6 Game 21 Delabie - Leeuwen corr. 1991
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tZJcS 3 .tZJc3 dxc4 4.tZJf3 tZJf6 5.e4 �g4 S.Ae3 �xf3 7.gxf3 e5 8.d5 tZJe7 9.ti'a4+!? This move impedes Black's develop ment and is considered to be the best. 9...tZJd7
After 1 0 ... cxd6 11..ixc4 (threatening 12.'6'b3!) 11...d5 (the only move) 12.tZJxdS ilJcs 13.lIg1 Black has nothing to be happy about, Ligterink Bartels, Netherlands 1986.
11.dxc7 'iYxc7 12.tZJd5! In the game Flear-Bell, Blackpool 1989, 1 2.i..h3 Ab4 13.0-0-0 t2Jf6 14.C2JdS was played, and after 1 4 'iYa5? 1S.t2JxtS+ gxfS 1S.Ad7+ �e7 17.i..xc6 bxcS 18. 'i!ixcs White achieved a sig n ificant advantage. However, correct was 1 4 t2Jxd5! 1S.exdS (or 15J�xd5 0-0 16.a3 .i.a5 17.�xc4 llad8 18JIhd1 C2Jd4! 19:�xc7 Axc7=) 15..:�a5 1S.'t't'c2 (1S.Ad7+? �xd7 17.dxcS+ WeS 18. �xa5 haS 19.cxb7 �b8+) 16...C2Jd4!? 17.i..xd4 exd4 18:�'e2+ �8 19:iVxc4 i.cS, and the position is approximately equal. ...
...
After 9,..c6?! 10..ixc4 as (10... bS? 11. .i.xb5! cxb5 12.tzJxb5+- Watson) 11. dxcS tiJxcs 12JId1 'iic7 13J�g1 White is clearly better, Wegner-Baumhus, Konigslutter 1988. In the game Collaro-Bertocci, e-mail 1997, Black played 9 .. :�d7 1 0:iWxd7+ tiJxd7? and after 11.tZJbS! his position became worse. Correct was 1 0 ... �xd7! 11..ixc4 t2JgS (6 . .idS, ...tiJf4) 12. .i.bS+ <;t>d8, and White's advantage is not that great. ..
12...�d8 13.0-0-0 Delabie's suggestion 13.%1g1!? seems to be even stronger, e.g. 13... l:lc8 14. Ah3! and it is not clear how Black can develop his pieces. I
13 ... .td6 14.tZJc3!?
10.dS! White has a space advantage and the bishop pair; hence, he wants to open
14 .. /i�b6?
Chapter 3
66
Now Black can no longer save his position. Correct was 14...�e7 15.tZJd5 (15.tLJb5!?) 15...�h4 16.�xc4 0-0, although the first player would still keep the initiative.
15J�xd6! 'iWxd6 16.�xb6 0-0 1 7 .2.e3 a6 18.�xc4 White has two bishops for the rook and a practically won position. The rest was just a matter of technique. ... 1:0 •
We have seen that after B...t2:je7 9.�a4 'lJd7 the move 1 O.dS! is very unpleasant for Black. But as we said, the improve ment 9...'Wd7 10.�xd7 �xd7! is worth considering and in addition, B...tLJb8 (see Game 20) is also possible. Game 22 Ki. Georgiev - Morozevich Tilburg 1994
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.tzJf3 liJf6 5.e4 i.g4 6 ..te3 e6 6...e6 is the most popular continuation the second player controls d5 and pre pares the development of the f8-bishop. 7 .txc4 .tb4 .
Black starts exerting pressure on the opponent's central pawns from the very beginning. Now things become more concrete.
13...-txf3 14.gxf3 tlJc4 (not bad is also 14...hS or even 14...fS!?). b) 9.1101 tUxe3 10.fxe3 �xf3 11.�xf3 (11.gxf3? tUxe5! 12.dxe5 �h4+) 11. . tUxe5! 12.�xb7 (after 12.dxe5? 'H¥h4+ 13.�g3 �xc4 14.li'xg7 0-0-0 White's king will not survive for long) 12...l::t b8 13.iLb5+ c6 14.'fYxa7 (14. i.xc6+? �8 -+) 14...lbb5 15.dxe5 �xc3+ lS.:Xc3 tixb2 17.0-0 0-0 18.l:xc6 ttxg2+ 19.'�xg2 'ilfd5+ 20.
8 .0-0 ..
In this position,
8 �xf3 is already dubious: 9.gxf3 �e7 (9...e5?! 10.dxe5 tDxe5 1 1.�a4+ llJcS 12. .ta6! 'ifc8 13.�b5!±, 9...ciJxd4? 10.�xd4 �xd4 11.�a4++-) 1 0.a3 Aa5 1 1 .�b5! (a very strong move, which must always be considered in such positions - White wants to fracture Black's pawn structure on the queenside by exchanging on c6) 1 1 ..0-0 12.0-0-0 .tb6 13. .txc6! bxc6 14.tlJe2 �e8 15:�b1! (.1.t::Ic1), and due to the pressure on the weak c-pawns White has a clear edge, Baburin Grabher, Liechtenstein 1995. •••
.
9.::d1 ...
a:&'c2 8.e51! can hardly be good, since then the crucial d5-square would be weak. After 8 ... tlJd5 the following lines are possible: a) 9.'i?!'d3 €la5 10.�g5 'l!'d7 11..txd5 'e'xd5 12.0-0 i.xc3 13.bxc3, Gulko Miladinovic, Elenite 1995, and now the second player can achieve a significant positional advantage with the simple
This position deserves our special attention. White has a beautiful pawn
1.d4 d5 2.c4llJcG 3.tLlc3 dxc4 4J��f3 centre �d4/�e4, which is supported by many pieces (tLlf3 and tLlc3, �e3, :ad1, �c2). Black, however, exerts some pressure on that same centre: the queen and the knights attack the central pawns, the bishops pin White's knights and are ready to exchange them. Moreover, the exchange on f3 would weaken White's pawn structure on the kingside, but on the other hand, White could use the semi-open g-file for an attack on the kingside. The fact that Black has a certain lead in the de velopment is also significant. As we can see, the position is rather complex and promises a double-edged battle. Black has three main plans at his dis posal and they determine the further development of the game: •
•
•
The preparation of ... e6-a5 with 9...�e7, which also connects the rooks. The preparation of ...c7-c5 with 9...tLle7. The immediate exchange on f3 fol lowed by 10 .. .tzJh5, in order to try to exploit the weaknesses on the kingside immediately (e.g. .. .'o&d8h4).
In the current game Black went for the first plan. We will examine the other options in the following games.
9...'t!Ye7 10.i.e2 ! This move neutralizes the unpleasant pinning of the ti.Jf3. 10.0-0?! was very dubious in view of 10....axf3 11.gxf3 tiJh5!. 10. .tb5 q Game 23.
10.. .e511.d5 The exchange on e5 did not promise anything substantial, e.g. 1 1 .dxe5 tiJxe5 12.C2Jxe5 �xe2!? (or 12 .. :�xe5!? 13.f3 .teG 14.0-0 Ac5=, Georgiev) 13.'\!7xe2 �xe5 14.13 l:Iad8, and the chances are approximately equal.
67
11 ...:':d4!? An interesting idea! The opponent has delayed castling and with this pawn sacrifice, Black wants to keep White's king in the centre. Of course, 11...tDb8 is also possible, e.g. 12.0-0 tDbd7 (12...c6?! 13.dxcG C2:Jxc6 14.llJd5 C2:Jxd5 15.exd5±) 13.a3 �c5, but then after 14.�xc5 'ti'xc5 15. b4 White has a slightly better position due to his space advantage and the semi-open c-file. 12.ttJxd4 After 1 2 .txd4 exd4 13 J:�xd4 �ae8 (of course 13.. ']::I fe8 14.0-0 jLxc3 15.bxc3 tlJxe4 is also possible) 14.0-0 .txc3 15.bxc3 tDxe4 16 ..td1 (or 16.�b5 .txf3 17.gxf3 �g5+ 18.Wh1 �h5 19.fxe4 �f3+ 20.�g1 't§'g4+ 21.�h1 �f3+ ) 16... Axf3 17.Axf3 tZJc5 the position is approximately equal, Lukacs-Bigaliev, Budapest 1995. •
=
12...exd4 13 .l:[xd4 13 .txd4 .txe2 14.�xe2 t2Jxe4 (Meessen-Lindfeldt, Izmir 2004) would not have brought anything for White. •
13 ....txe2 14.�xe2 �c5 In his commentary, Kiril Georgiev ana lyses 1 4 .. .t2�g4, and annotates it with an exclamation mark. He thinks that after 15.0:Jd1 f5 (15...�c5 16.Ilc4! tDxe3 17. C2:Jxe3 Axe3 18.�xe3!) 16.exf5 tDxe3
Chapter 3
68
1 7.tlJxe3 ( 1 7.fxe3! ?) 17 .. .1::1 ae8 Black would have some chances for attack. Honestly, this evaluation seems rather dubious to me because of 18J1c4! (in order to prevent 18 ... �c5) , and Black would be already two pawns down ! Interesting is, however, a quiet approach: 1 S l::tfe8!?, and after 16.h3 (White can hardly strengthen his position) 16...�e3 17.t2:Jxe3 f5 Black had good compensation, Issakainen-Zaragatski, Budapest 2004. ••.
l SJld2! The best decision. In the case of 15.IId3 Axe3 16.IIxe3 tlJg4 17.1:g3 f5! B/ ack would have had an even greater initiative.
l S . . ..txe3 1 6. �xe3 ! .
After 1 6.fxe3?! the doubled e-pawns are too weak. The idea to bring the king to the centre seems bold, but it is not so easy for Black to use that situation to his advantage!
Junior 6) 19 . . . -;·�c4 20. :::e 2 it is not clear how the second player could develop his attack. In Fedorko-Tait, co rr. 1996, 1 7 .fS was played, but after 18 .f3 fxe4 19.tzJxe4 (19.fxg4? e3 +) 19...t2Jf6 20.�d1 Black did not achieve sufficient compensation. .•
1 8.�d1 The endgame after 1 8.h3 tzJe3!? 19. �d3! (19.fxe3? �xg2+ -+) 19 ... tDxg2 20. '&g3 �hS+ 21.�g4 1:Iae8 22.'t!¥xhS 0:Jf4+ 23.'�)e3 tDxh5 is sharp and un clear.
1 8 ... fS ! If Black wants to use the current unsafe position of White's king, he must open the position as fast as possible.
1 9.exf5 After 1 9.:1e1 it is, of course, a bad idea to try to restore the material parity with 19 . . .tzJxh2? 20.f3, and the knight would be trapped. Georgiev writes that he gave up that move on the account of 1 9 ....:%ae8, after which "it is difficult for White to obtain some play". However, I think that in this case White would keep his advantage with 20.�b3!? , e.g. 20 . ..Wh8 (20 . . . 't\Vf4 21.d6+ �;h8 22.d7 lld8 23.wc2 fxe4 24.tLJxe4 'i'+'f5 25.f3±) 21.h3 tlJe5 22.13, and Black's comRen sation does not seem to be sufficient.
1 9 t1a e8 Now all Black's pieces are involved in the game. It would be a mistake to take on f5 instead, e.g. 1 9 :XfS 20.tiJe4 �f4 (20 . . . �h5 21.�c1 ! ± 6 21 ... llxdS? 22.�b3+-) 21.h3 tzJf6 22.Ue1, and the second player would have lost his ini tiative, or 1 9 :�Yxf5 20.'i?¥xf5 lbf5 21.f3 tiJe3+ 22.wc1 where, being a pawn down, Black would have to struggle hard for a draw. ..•
1 6 ..tDg4+ .
On 16 ... .tlfe8 would follow 17.f3. Then White would bring his king to the queenside and achieve a solid position.
1 7.�e2 'lli'g S Dunnington thinks that 17 :t�·h4 !? deserves attention, but after 18 .f3 C2:Je5 (18 ... 1Wf2+ 19.wd1 tlJe3+ 20.wc 1 ±) 19.�d1 (interesting is also 19.tlJbS! ? c6 20.tlJd6 6 tlJb7, L\ CZJf5, suggested by ••
•••
..
20.h3
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.�c3 dxc4 4.tLJf3 On 20.tLJe4 follows 20 . . .'�xfS 21 .:e1 �e4! 22Jbe4 lDxf2+ 23.:Xf2 �xf2, and Black has restored the material equilibrium.
20. ..tl:le5
69
(24 . . . cxd6 2S:�e4 �xe4 26.tLJxe4 iLlf3 27.11e2 11eS 28.l:te3 DdS+ 29.wc1 ±) 25. �e4 '6'f3+ 26.�xf3 tLJxf3 27.11d3 tLJeS 2S.:dS l:xd6 29Jbd6 cxd6 30.tLJdS, and in view of his extra pawn White has every chance of success. All these variations are very complicated, and it is possible that there are im provements in them for both sides. It is easy to understand why it all seemed too risky for White over the board.
21 . .lj'xg2 22.];tde2 �f3 23. ,*,e4! �h5! The strongest move. Now the e2-rook is pinned and the fS- and h3-pawns remain under fire. As the analysis reveals, all the other options are weaker: 21.Ite1 In his commentary, Georgiev gives this move an exclamation mark, but I do not concur with this point of view. I think that 21 .g4!1 is stronger, after which the following variations are pos sible: a) 21 .. :-H¥f4 22.l:te21 (22.'�e4 't!Yxe4 23.tLJxe4 tDxg4 24.hxg4 :Xe4 2S.f3 :e3, and White can hardly win this end game) 22 ... g6 (22... hS 23. �e4! �xe4 24.:xe4 ±) 23:mre4 �xe4 24.tLJxe4 gxfS 2S.tiJcS! fxg4 26.hxg4 ± A 26...tDxg4? 27 .:g 1 hS 28.f3 +-. b) 21 ... hSI1 b1 ) 22.d6 cxd6! 23.�b3+ �h7 24.'t!Yxb7 tLlc4 2S.l:td4 l:tb8 26.'�'xa7 tLJxb2+ 27. wc2 IlfcS 2S.�f7 'a'd8 ! 29.�xhS+ �gS (threatening 30 ...�aS, 30 . . . '!!¥c7 and even 30 ... I1xc3) 30.16 (the only move) 30.. :�xf6 (30... I1xc3+? 31 .�xc3 �cS+ 32.�d2 �c4+ 33.I1xc4 �xc4 34.f7++-) 31 . �dS+ �hS 32.�hS+ with a perpe tual check. b2) 22:�'b3! �f4 (22 ...�hS 23.�e2!) 23.d6+ wh7 24.�d5! (24.�xb7? �c4 2S.:c2 IU6! 26.�bS tLJxd6 -+) 24 .. J:td8
a) Dunnington recommends 23 ... �xh3 and analyses only 24.14 tLJg6 (24 ...tLJd3? loses in view of 2S.'�xeS IlxeS 26.11xeS+ �7 27.l:t1 e7+ �6 28.�e4+ �xfS 29.11f7+ �g6 30.11e6+! whS 31 .11xg7 A 32.11gS - 31 . . . tLJxb2+ 32.�e1 !, e.g. 32 .. :�'e3+ 33.'�f1 �xf4+ 34.Wg2 +- or 32 .. :t!¥h1 + 33.we2 '{i'd1 + 34.Wl2 �d4+ 3Sst'f3! 'iYxg7 36.tDg3+ followed by 37.tLJfS + -) 2S.�xe8 l:txeS 26.:1xe8+ tLJfS;!;. In my opinion, Black could play better in this line: 24 ... tLJf3 2S.�xeS :xeS 26.I1xeS+ Wl7 27.:11 e7+ �6°o. However, much stronger is 24.d61 cxd6 2S.f4 dS (25... tLJg6 26.'�'d5+ +-) 26.'iWxdS+ whS 27. wc2 �xf5+ 2S.l:te4 +-. -
b) 23 ... Wf7 fails to 24.�b5 ! , and after 24.. :�xe4 (24 .. .'¥¥d3+ 25:�xd3 CZJxd3 26.tLJxc7±) 25.I1xe4 tLJd3 26.:xe8 l:txe8 27.l:txe8 �xeS 2S.tDxc7+ wd7 29.ttJe6 tLJxf2+ 30.we2 tLJxh3 31 .Wf3 h6 32. tLJxg7 ttJgS+ 33.Wg4 White is winning again.
24.f3!7 24.wc2? was bad in view of 24 . . . iLlf3 2S:�'xe8 tLJxe1 + -+, and on 24.wc1 follows the simple 24 . . .l:1xfS A 2S.f4?!
Chapter 3
70
:xf4! 26.�xf4? (26.�c2+) 26 . . .tlJd3+ 27.�b1 lbe2! -+. The safest move is 24.tiJbS, but after 24 1:e7 (24 ... c6?! 25.tiJc7 l:e7 26.d6 lldS 27.f4 ttxdS+ 2S.<;itc2 :Xc7 29. fxe5±) 2S.tlJxc7 (25.tiJxa7? tlJcs 26. 'tlVa4 tDxa7 27.�xa7 l:lfe8 -+) 2S :Xc7 26:oHVxeS lhf5 (26 . . . f:cf7!?) 27.'iYe8+ (27:�xc7 :Xd5+ 28 .'�c 1 .t:rc5+ 29.�xc5 'iVxc5+ ==, 27.'�e6+ �f7 28.:e5 :xt2=) 27 '8'xe8 2S.ttxeS+ �7 29.1:1 e5 lIxe5 30.lIxe5 WfS an endgame arises in which Black could relatively easy make a draw due to his active king and the weakness of White's pawns. After the text move, all three results are possible. ••.
•••
•••
24 .. h6 24 ... tlJxf3? loses in view of 25.�xe8 :Xe8 26.lbe8+ �7 27.l:1 e7+ �6 28.��Je4+ �xf5 29.1:fS+ +-, hence Black vacates the h7-square for his king. However, 24 :e71 1 seems interesting, e.g. 25.t4 �6 26.�c4 l1xe2 27Jb:e2 'i!Vxf5 28.dS+ 'ti'f7 29.'tWxc7 (29.'iYxf7+ :xt7 30.t5 ti:)t8 31 .dxc7 Ibc7 ) 29 . . . 't!Vxf4 with a sharp position. ••.
=
2S . . .ttxf6 would have lost immediately in view of 26.t4. Dunnington recommends taking on f3: 2S t2Jxf3 26:�xeS IlxeS 27. llxe8+ �7 (27 . . . �h7? 28.:11 e7 llJd4+ 29. tlJe2 +-) 2S.:l:1 e7+ �xf6 with unclear play. But after the stronger 28.11Se7+ ! �xf6 29.1:t1 e6+ �5 30.t2Je2 Black's king is in great danger, e.g. 30 .. :oHVxh3 31 .:f7+ �g4 32.:e4+ �g5 33.tLlg3! ± or 30 . . .tlJg5 3 1 .l:e3 ±. .••
26 .�c1 �g7! Once again, Morozevich finds the best move . He could take neither of the pawns: 26 tlJxf31 27.'l!¥xe8 :Xe8 2S. 11xeS+ �7 29.%:11 e7+ �g6 30.:l:g8+ �5 3 1 .tDe2! + - or 26 . . . 'iYxh3? 27. cJfb1 �hS 2S.rLg 1 + Wh8 29.�f4, and the second player would hardly survive White's attack. White wins very beautifully after 26 f5: 27.'§'d4! CDxf3 2S.:g 1 + ! ! (but not 28. :1g2+? 'lfg5+! ! 29.t1xgS+ hxg5 30.�xa7 :Xe 1 + 3 1 . �c2 :lh 1 , and it is already Black playing for the win) 28 . . . tlJxg 1 (28 . . . tLlgS 29.J:xe8 :Xe8 30.h4 +-) 29. 1:g2+ '§'g5+ 30.:Xg5+ hxg5 31 .'t!¥xg1 + - . •••
•••
27 .�c2 Georgiev writes that 27.dS is worth considering. Probably he has simply missed the refutation 27 . . . ,:'-�.xt3 ! 28 .�xeS lIxe8 29.lbeS tlJxe 1 30.d7 �f5 -+.
27 . :tWxf3 After 27 ... tiJxf3? 2S.:e7+ :Xe7 29. :lxe7+ :1f7 30.:xt7+ �xf7 3 1 .�h7+ �S 32.�xc7 it is very difficult for Black to hold the position.
25.f6! This pawn is doomed anyway, so Georgiev decides to try to weaken the position of Black's king. 25 gxf6 .•.
28:�b1 �h8 Ftacnik recommends 28 ...11e7 29.1::1 e3 't!¥h5, but after 30.tzJe2 (30.ti:Jb5 �g6 oo) 30 . . .'�hS 3 1 .tDf4 'iWf7 32.ng3 l::t.g8 33.1:[eg1 White has a certain initiative.
29 .tlJb5
1.d4 d5 2.c4 iDe6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4. L·�J3
29 . . .�c8? A serious mistake that costs the game. The simple 29 . ..c6 should have been played. Georgiev gives the variation 30J�JC7 Ile7 31 .:e3 'lWh5 32.d6 l:d7 33.l;d1 in the New in Chess Magazine and be lieves that White is winning. However, after 33 ...l:fd8! it is not clear how he would hold the d6-pawn (and with it the game). Of course, White can (and must!) play differently, but then the game would have been far from being settled.
rifice, which is prepared with 9 .. .''''e 7, is substantiated and interesting. Black did not lose the game because of the opening, but due to a serious mistake in the middlegame. Nevertheless, White can try to improve his play, e.g. 19.�e1 IIae8 20.�b3!? (instead of taking on 15) or 21.g4!? And if that works, it would mean that White has managed to achieve an opening advan tage. Playing with Black, we can deal with such problems in different ways: •
Play the variation nevertheless, hoping that our less experienced opponent will not find the best moves. Despite the fact that the probability for that to happen is very high (especially in rapid chess), I cannot recommend this way of thinking as a normal approach to such problems. Of course, now and then it is possible, but if we do it as a rule, it would lead to superficiality in our play. Besides, if the opponent happens to be well prepared or finds the best moves over the board, we will get into trouble.
•
In variations that seem to be un favourable, we can try to find one (or more) improvement(s). This should be the standard approach of a good chess player. If we succeed - wonderful, if we do not, we would have still increased our knowledge and understanding of the opening, which will be very useful when we come across similar pOSitions. If we do not find anything, we would know that for the moment we cannot trust this variation very much and probably need to find a different one. How ever, if something new suddenly occurs, we can resort to it again.
30.ttJxc7 is hard to explain why Morozevich allowed this move. White is up a pawn again and this time it is a passed pawn. It
30.. JUd8 31.�e3 �h5 32.Iic3 �g6 33.�xg6 After the exchange of the queens, the d-pawn decides the games. 33 tlJxg6 34.Ue6! +- r;td7 35.d6 )'dfS 36.t2Jd5 37.tiJxf6 tiJf8 38.:b!g3 1:1g7 39.1le8 rldf7 40.d7 ...
1
:0
Let us summarize. The plan with e6eS followed by the further pawn sac...
71
Chapter 3
72
If we do not want to invest time and effort in the search for an improve ment (or we have found none at a/l) we can analyse other plans and options. That is also useful when we think that the original variation is OK. Probably we like something else as well, and then we can try many lines in our games. In that case, our understanding and know ledge will significantly increase. In addition, even if our opponents know what opening we play, it will be more difficult for them to pre pare.
The best reaction. White's king is still in the centre and therefore Black wants to open the position. If White decides to castle, his king would not feel very safe after the exchange on f3. In a previous rapid game against Korchnoi, London 1994, Morozevich played the passive move 1 O tlJb8? White achieved a significant advantage with some simple moves: 1 1 .0-0 :ld8 12.e5 tlJd5 13.tlJxd5 l:xd5? 1 (stronger is 13 ... exd5, but in that case after 14.i.d3 .txt3 15.gxt3 White is clearly better) 14 . .td3 h6 15 . .i.e4 with a quick victory.
However, before we analyse the other lines, let us examine another option for White after 9...�e7 :
After 11 .d5 tUd4 12.Axd4 exd4 13. l:xd4 i.c5 14.:d1 i.b4 (e4 is under attack!) 15.Dd4 the game would finish with a repetition, but Black could also try another possibility, e.g. 11 ... (i>8!?, 11 ...i.xc3+!? 12.bxc3 tDa,5 13. i.e2 b6 .1 �7-c5 or ...tUb7-d6, 11 ...i.xt3!? 12.gxf3 tDb8.
•
Game 23 Piket - Morozevich London 1995
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.t2Jc3 dxc4 4.ClJf3 llJf6 5.e4 iog4 6.Ae3 e6 7 . .txc4 .tb4 8. �c2 0-0 9Jld1 �e7 10 ..tb5
•••
1 1 .ioxc6
1 1 . .. bxc6 1 2.dxe5 In the case of 1 2.0-0 Black has enough counterplay, e.g. 1 2 exd4 13.Axd4 (13.:Xd4?! .ad6 with initiative for Black, Lirindzakis-Miladinovic, Agios Nikolaos 1995) 1 3...i.xt3 ( 1 3... Axc3!? 14.�xc3 tDxe4) 14.gxt3 i2:Jh5 15.tDe2 '&e6 oo. Interesting is also 1 2 i.xc3!?, e.g. 1 3.bxc3 ( 13.'ti'xc3 tiJxe4 14.�xc6 .ixt3 15.gxf3 tDg500) 13 ....txt3 14.gxt3 �e6 or 14 ·� 'ld7!? with unclear play, as the weakness of Black's c-pawn is com pensated by White's compromised kingside. •••
...
...
1 2 8d7 1 3.a3 ...
With the idea of exchanging on c6 and thus decreasing Black's pressure on the centre and also weaking his pawn structure on the queenside.
10... e5!
This prevents Black's bishop from going to d6 later. In the game Vera-Sariego, Las Tunas 1996, White played carelessly 1 3.i.f4, and after 13 ... .txt3 14.gxt3 tiJxe5 15. iLxe5 '!'fxe5 16.a3 i.d6! 17J:[d3 15! he had some serious troubles.
1.d4 d5 2 c4 C2:Jc6 3.8c3 dxc4 4 8f3 .
1 3 ... �a5 1 4.i.f4 1 4.e6?! can hardly be recommended: 14 ...'iVxe6 1 5. h3 J.xf3 lS.gxf3 ,ii.:ie5 1 7.f4 CZJc4 with initiative for Black, Marjanovic-Miladinovic, Korinthos 1 999. 14 ... i.xf3 1 5 .gxf3 tlJxe5 1 6. i.xe5 'iYxeS 1 7.0-0
73
.
21 . . . �h6 21...'f:Vh4 22.�g4! . 22.1:1d3 �f6 Also possible is 22 . . . I1dS !? 23.::txdS (23.:b3 IId2 with attack, 23.I1fd1 ? Axf2+ -+) 23 . cxdS 24.'iWd7 d5 25. exd5 cxd5 2S."i!VxdS �fS with good compen sation. . .
23.�d7 g6 Depriving White's pieces of the f5square.
24.b4 1:1f4 25. '¥Iie7 White intends to play 1:d3-dS. 25.�g2 was also worth considering, in order to meet 2S J:th4 with 2S.flh 1. ..
2S ... l:th4 26.I!d8 llxdS 27.�xd8+ �g7 28.e5 The doubled pawn on the c-file is in dubitably weak, but on the other hand, the position of White's king is also dubious. Which one is more important?
1 7 .. J1ae8 !? Morozevich gathers all his forces for the attack.
1 S.tlJe2 l:[e6 18.. f5! ? .
1 9.tiJg3 'fjf4 1 9 . . J.b6 ! ? li :�f4 seems also interest ing, and then White's queen cannot go to c5 or f5. .
. .
20.�cS i.b6 On 20 ... :e5? follows 21.�e3 ! 'i¥xe3 (21 .:tWf6 22.f4 :lee8 23.e5±) 22.fxe3 with an edge. .
21 .�f5 White offers to exchange the queens, since then Black would have no compensation for his weak c-pawns.
28 . . .l:tf4? ! Morozevich is playing for the win, but that only puts him in danger. Instead, he could have forced a draw by 2S ... ::txh2 29:�f6+ �g8 30.'iWdS+ wg7 3 1 .�f6+ with a perpetual check. li
...
29.�g2 g5 g4. 30.h3 �g6 31 .l:d1 h5
This campaign seems rather bold, and indeed, with his next two moves White achieves an irresistible attack.
Chapter 3
74
32. �e71 g4 33.l:d8! gxf3+ 34.�h2 White threatens 3S.�f8, against which there is no reasonable defence. 34 .. :�Vc2 35.�g5+ �h7 36.�xh5+ �g7 37.�h8+ Black resigned. The desire for a win at any price cost him half a point. 1 :0 Game 24 van Wely - Morozevlch Amsterdam 1995
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.ttJc3 dxc4 4.tiJf3 tiJf6 5.e4 �g4 6.�e3 e6 7.�xc4 ..tb4 8.�c2 0-0 9.:d1 CDe7 Black prepares the plan with ...c7-cS.
'iYxc5 1 7.tDe4 't§'bS 1 8.tlJeg5 g6 1 9. �a3!±. The immediate 10 ...c5? ! cannot be re commended either: 1 1 .dxc5 '1!!Jc7 1 2.0-0 �xc3 13. �xc3! tZ:1xe4 1 4. 'iWc4 with an obvious advantage.
1 1 .bxc3 c5 1 2.0-0 Here 1 2.dxcS !? is also worth con sidering. I used to think that after 1 2 . '8'c7 the weakness of White's doubled c-pawn compensated for Black's minimal material shortage. However, today I am not so optimistic, for instance, after 1 3.0 0 .1.h5 14.�a4! it is not so easy for Black to restore the material parity or develop any activity to compensate his missing pawn , while White has also the bishop pair and a space advantage, RohrmOller-Bromann, Copenhagen 2002, and P. Horvath Antal, Budapest 2002. ..
1 0 .te2
1 2 Vl!ic7
•
•••
/).
1 3... cxd4.
1 3.�bl 1 3.dxc5!?
�
12.dxc5.
1 3 ... b6 The second player intends to exert some pressure on the d- and c-files with ...nfd8 and . . . :ac8. White must take some active measures or his cehtre would become weak in just a few moves.
1 0 ... .txc3+ In the more recent game Soberano Vodep, ICCF e-mail 1 998, Black played 1 0 :�c8?!, in order to prepare ...c7-c5 without exchanging on c3. This idea, however, did not work very well: 1 1 .0-0 c5 1 2.dxcS i.xc5 13.e5 .tfS (or 13... i2:Jd7 1 4Jlxd7 .iLxe3 15.11fd 1 1 S.rIxe7? .ic5 - 15 .. . i.cS 1S.\!!¥a4 �f5 17.�b5±) 1 4. kd3 i.xd3 1 5. �xd3 tLle8 l S..iLxc5 ..
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 €lc6 3.tiJc3 dxc4 4.t2Jf3
75
1 4.h3 Ah5 1 5.g4!? �g6 1 6.Ad3 lIfdBI 1 7.l2Je5 ! Now the threat is 18.f4, which Black, of course, cannot allow.
1 7 .. :�b7! l B.f3 White has gained some space on the kingside and is now prepared to start his pawn attack there. In addition, the g6-bishop is significantly limited for the moment.
1 B cxd4? ! .•.
Maybe Black opens the c-file a little early and thus gives White additional opportunities to seize the initiative. However, probably White's position is preferable anyway, e.g . : a ) According t o van Wely after 18 tLlc6 19.1lJxc6 '@xc6 20.l'fb5! 'iYc7 21.�g2 White also has the upper hand. .••
b) Also 18 ... ::'ac8 does not promise complete equality, e.g. 1 9. �b2 (19. dxcS �c7 20.14 bxc5 21.g5 �d7 ! 22.t2}xd7 .t:(xd7 23.�b5 l:1cd8°o, 19. �b5 !? cxd4 20.cxd4 iLld7 21.�xg6 hxg6 22.:c1 ! or 21 .. .tDXg6 22.f4!? with initiative) 19 cxd4 20.cxd4 �d7 21. tDxg6 hxg6 22.Wf2!? iLlb8 23.h4 with initiative, Monacel-Fester, carr. 2001. ...
1 9.cxd4 �cB 20.:c1 ! 20.�b2 or 20.'{Ji'b5 leads to positions from the above notes. The move in the game is more precise - White begins immediately the battle for the c-file. 20.. J:txc1 Interesting was also the immediate 20... ClJd7, without surrendering the c-file.
21 Jlxcl tLJd7 The eS-knight is very active, and under standably, Black wants to exchange it.
22A :xd7? ! This seems a natural move - who cares about the passive g6-bishop!? The subtlety, however, lies in the fact that the latter supports the counterplay .. . f7f5, and White did not take that into consideration. Correct was 22.<1Jxg6 ! hxg6 (22... 0)xg6? ! 23.�c2±) 23.�b5. Van Wely evaluates this position as ±, but I think that after 23 .. J:Ic8 White is only slightly better, and if Black plays accurately the game should end with a draw.
22 :�xd7 23.�b5 't+Yd6 ! .•
Black avoids the queen exchange with the intention of attacking White's king.
24.'JJg 2 h6 The last preparatory move - the h7square is vacated for the king.
25.h4? 1 Was that really necessary? White only further weakens his kingside.
Chapter 3
76
33.�e2 tzJf5 ! 34.�d2 :��d6 35.�c6 tzJxe4+ 36.�xe4 ttxe4 0:1 As we have seen, the 9 ... C2:Je7 variation is more or less the opposite of the one with 9. �e7. It looks rather solid, but with significantly fewer chances to achieve active counterplay. Now we will examine the third, and in my opinion the strongest possibility: . .
25 ...f5! The counterplay against White's centre and king begins! At the same time, the bishop is also freed. 26.gxf5 exf5 27.�c4+ Interesting is 27.�c4+!? �h7 28.e5 with a sharp position.
27...�h7 28.d5 There was an opportunity for White to make a draw now: 28.�c7!? fxe4 29.fxe4 ,*,*,xc7 30J1xc7 tlJd5 31 .exd5 �xd3 =. 28 ... 1:(e8 29.:ae1 29..td2!? oo.
Game 25 Magerramov AI Modiahkl Dubai 2000 -
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �c6 3.clJc3 dxc4 4.ilJf3 tDf6 5.e4 �g4 6.Ae3 e6 7.ii.xc4 .ab4 8.'tWc2 0-0 9 J:ld 1 �xf3!? 1 0.gxf3 ilJh5!1 A very interesting idea. First Black weakens his opponent's kingside and then transfers his queen to h4 in an attempt to exploit that fact.
29 ...fxe4 30.fxe4 �d7! 31 . Wg3? ! Better is 31.�f2 �g4+ 32..tg3 °o (� 32. . J1f8 33.:e3). 31 ... h5? 1 Morozevich also makes an inaccurate move. Stronger was 31 ... JLh5!? with a dangerous attack. 32.
1 1 .e5 In the game Archangelsky-Kaminski, Paris 1 996, White played 1 1 .0-0. Then followed 1 1 :tWh4 1 2.'�h1 e5 (on 1 2 . ...td6 follows 13.e5 �xe5 1 3...CDxe5? 14.dxe5 .txe5 15.f4 CZJxt4 ..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �cS 3.tLlc3 dxc4 4.�f3 1 S.�e4± - 14.dxe5 'ill' xc4 15.1:;[g 1 with some compensation for the pawn, while 15 . . .elJXe5 ? is bad in view of 1S.1:.g5) 13.l:Ig 1 ( 13.d5 ? ! tZJd4 1 4.i.xd4 exd4 1 5.�b5 as 1S.�d4 AdS 1 7.14 �f4+) 13 exd4 1 4.�g5 (too risky is 1 4.�xd4? ! �d4 15Jlxd4 .i'.dS 16.IIg2 tlJf4 17.:g4 �h3) 1 4 :�¥h3 1 5.�f1 't't'xf3+ 1S.�g2 �g4 17 . .tf1 �f3+ (1 7 .. .'�eS 18.tlJd5�) 1 B .tg2 �g4 with a draw by repetitio n . But why not 1 2.. :�h3!? 13.1;[g1 (the only move, 13.Ae2? �d6 14.e5 �e5 ! -+) 13 . . .'i\t'xf3+ 1 4.11g2 'i:Jf4 1 5 . .txf4 �xf4 with an extra pawn? ! Instead o f 12.$>h 1 , B. Latzke tried 1 2.t[Je2 against me, but after 12 e5! 13.d5 4:Jd4! (13 . . . tlJe7 with a good po sition was not enough for me) 1 4.i.xd4 (after 14.tLlxd4 exd4 - 1 S . .txd4 loses in view 01 15 . . .tiJf4 1 S.$>h 1 �h3, and on 1 5.t%xd4 does not follow 15 . . . AdS?? 1 6.e5 +-, but the in-between-move 1 5 . . . �cS ! , and W hite must sacrifice the exchange, without getting sufficient compensation .) 14 ... exd4 1 5.'i:Jg3 AdS! 1 6.:1xd4 �c5! +, Latzke-Bronznik, Ger many 200 1 . .••
.•
.
77
Championship Hockendorf 2004, Black achieved an active position after 1 3.i.d2 cS 14.1:;[g1 .axc3 15.bxc3 fS 16.exfS �xf6, but maybe the i mmediate 1 4 .. .f51? would have been even stron ger) 1 3 . . . g6 14.�g5 ffd7 15.0-0 j(xc3 ! (15 . . . ClJxc3 1S.bxc3 i.xc3? 17.dS! ; 16 . . . �e7 OQ) 1 6.bxc3 151 ( l S . . . �c3 17. l:[c1 ttJd5 18.i.xd5 'lWxd5 19.1Ixc7 11acB is possible, but not so convincing) 1 7.exf6 (17.�h4 �c3 18.IIc1 tlJdS f) 17 . . . tlJhxfS 18.�xfS ( 18 .�h3 �c6) 18 . . . 1%xf6 19.�xd5 �xd5 20.nd3 Itaf8 with a clear advantage for Black.
..•
1 1 ... �e7 With the idea of playing later . . . tlJe7-d5 or . 'lJe7-f5. Another interesting idea was tried o ut in the game Levin-Breutigam , German Championship Altenkirchen 200 1 : 1 1 . . .�h8!? Black i ntends to play . . .f715, hence the king leaves the g8-square. Further followed 1 2.'�te4 fS, and in this unclear position the players agreed to a draw. ..
1 2.0-0
1 2 ... c6! Black secures the important central d5square for his knight. This is an im provement compared to the game van der Sterren-Lobron, Munich 1 994. I n that game 1 2. . .0.J1S? ! was played, and after 13. �h 1 �h4 14.:9 1 l:[ad8 15. 0.Je4 ! White developed a strong initiative. The game did not last much longer: 15 . . . j£,e7? (better was 15 . . . h6) l SJIg4 �h3 17.ttJd2! (after which there is no defence against 18.�f1) 17 . . . cS 1 B . .1Lf1 iLlhg3+ 1 9Jbg3 8xg3+ 20. fxg3 +-.
1 3.i.g5
Eslon played 1 2:�e4 against Gallego, Zaragoza 1995, but with no particular success: 12 �d5 1 3. �g4 (in the game Latzke-Breutigam, German ..•
White wants to provoke . . . h7-h6, so that he could then eventually launch an attack on the b 1-h7 diagonal which has been softened up.
78
Chapter 3
After 1 3 .tzJe4 tUd5 1 4.tiJg3 :�lhf4 15. wh 1 , Kopylov-Wisnewski, Kiel 2003, Black's chances would have been bet ter after 1 5 ... �h8 L\ . f7-f5 (Wisnewski) . ..
1 3 ...h6 I t would b e a mistake t o try t o escape from the pin: the queen m ust remain on the d8-h4 diagonal, to be able to go to the kingside later on .
1 4 . ..tc1 tiJd5 1 S.tlje2 The f4-square must be protected.
1 S ... 't!Yh4!
1 8.exf6 After 1 8.'�Vxh4 Axh4 Black has a clear edge. The d4-pawn and all W hite's pawns on the kingside are weak, the knight on d5 is mag nificent, while White's bishops cannot reveal their strength since the position is closed.
1 8 . . :t!¥xf6 1 9:ti'g4
The standard move in such positions . The queen is aiming at White's king and his weak pawns.
1 6.'iVe4 Magerramov also plays consistently: he wants to set up the �+.i formation.
1 6... .ie7! Of course, not
Strongly played! After the practically forced exchange on f6, the e6-pawn is weakened, but White is left only with his shattered pawn structure and no attack at all.
1 6 . 'iVxe4? 1 7 .fxe4, and W hite's weaknesses would transform into a wonderful pawn centre. ..
1 7.Sid3
1 9 .'fi'h7+ �7 brought absolutely no
thing.
1 9...�xf3 Black exchanges the e6-pawn for f3, while the weaknesses on d4, f2, h2 remain .
20.'ii'xe6+ �f7 21 .'tWe4 White avoids exchanging the queens to keep the position more dynamic. His weaknesses would be even more tangible in the endgame.
21 ... tZJhf6 22. 'ifg2 �h8 23.Sig6 �e6 24.tiJg3 tiJh7! The knight is being transferred to g5, i n order t o attack t h e weak f3 and h3 squares.
2S.Ab1 llJgS 26.:tde1 �h3
,
Equally good is also 26 . . . 'iWg4! ? 27. �xg5 (practically forced) 27 . . . i.xg5 2B.tDe4 �xg2+ 29.Wxg2 i.h4+ (29 . . . .idS !?), and W hite must struggle for a draw.
W hat now? W hite threatens mate on h7, 1 7 . . . g6 would cost the h6-pawn , and the queen exchange on e4 is not favourable either.
1 7 . .f5! .
27.f4 'iYxg2+ 28.�xg2 ·�: !h7 29.a3 .tf6 Black has a clear advantage, since three of W h ite's five pawns are weak. However, he did not manage to win the game. We will give the rest of it with no commentary.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJcS 3.tLlc3 dxc4 4.;�-J3
79
A very interesting idea. White wants to attack on the kingside and to this end, he mobilises all his pieces as fast as possible. Now the centre is as suppor ted as it is after 9.l:d 1 . On the other hand, Black also gets some good counter chances on the queenside. The position is very sharp and even one mistake can cost the game. g .. Axe3! .
30.tlJfS lIad8 31 . �g3 l:!:d7 32.1:[e2 ):tfd8 33.l:tfe1 tiJf8 34.�d2 �g8 35.�3 tiJc7 36.�b4 tlJdS 37.i..eS b6 38.�xf8 <st>xf8 39.1:1e6 CiJe7 40.tlJxh6 .txd4 41 .tlJfS .tf6 42.b3 eS 43.a4 cstf7 44.h4 tlJxf5 4S . .txfS g6 46. .tb1 Jdd1 47JI6e2 i..x h4 48.lhd1 lhd1 49.�c2 1:td6 SO.1:[e3 g5 Y2:%
Game 26 Shirov - Morozevich
Amsterdam 1 995 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tiJc3 dxe4 4.tlJf3 tlJf6 S.e4 i.g4 6.i.e3 e6 7 . .11. xc4 ..tb4 8:�C2 0-0 9.0-0..0!?
With a perfect timing, since now White can take back only with the pawn and thus weakens the position of his king. One move later and it would have been too late: 9 .. :ti'e7? ! 1 0.h3 i.xf3 1 1 .gxf3 -txc3 1 2.�xc3! ' 1 O.bxe3 �e7 1 1 .h3
After 1 1 . .td3 e5 1 2.d5 tLla5 1 3.Wb2 cS Black's attack develops faster, Bakic Zakic, Yugoslavia 1 994. 1 1 ... -txf3
In the correspondence game Carbonnel Boey, 1 973, Black avoided the exchange in order to keep the g-file closed. After 11... .ihS 12..id3 �a3+?1 1 3.'+!t'b2 �xb2+ 1 4.\t'xb2 i..g 6 1 5.lL!d2 e5 1 6.f3 the first player had an advantage as the g6-bishop is inefficient. However, better is 1 2 ... i.g6 with the idea ...1:1fb8 and ... b 7-b5, with a sharp position of mutual chances. Dunnington suggests to meet 1 1 ... .ih5 with 1 2.g4 i.g6 1 3.i.d3, which is the same as 1 2 . .td3 �g6 1 3.g4, and believes that White is better. I think that after 1 3 .. J%tb8 this statement must yet be proved, e.g. 1 4J2�5 llJxe5 1 5.dxe5 'lJd7 1 6.14 hS, and the first player has not achieved anything particular on the kingside, while Black is ready to start his counterplay on the queenside. In Landa-Pirrot, Bad Wiessee 2004, Black first swapped queens by 1 1 �a3+ 1 2. �b2 �xb2+ 1 3.'�xb2, but in this way he deprived himself of any counterplay ( 1 3 ... i.h5 14 . .td3 llJa.5 1 5 . .ig5 tLJd7 1 6.g4 ±). ...
so
Chapter 3
1 2.gxf3 ld:fb8! 1 3 . .i.d3 W ith the threat e4-e5. ...
followed 1 9.1:dg 1 't!:¥a3+ 20.�dl �e3+ 2 1 .fxe3 lh:b3 22.i.xaS l:b2 23 . ..i..e4 :Xc2 24.'�xc2 'i!¥b3+ 25 .�c l 'Wa2 26 . .tc2 CDxc4 27.11h2 'fi'a3+ 28.�d1 �xe3, and White resig ned.
1 7 ... exd5 1 8:�d2 tiJa5 1 9. �e2 tLJc4 Interesting is also 1 9 . . . bxc3 !? 20:�xc3 tijc4 2 1 .i.c1 (21 .:tb1 �e6 ! .6 ...'t!Va6) 21 ... �e6 with compensation for the missing pawn.
20.i.d2
1 3 ... b5 ! The i mmediate counter attack is more important than the h7-pawn !
1 4.eS 1 4.11dg1 � Game 27. 1 4 ... tDdS 1 5.Axh7+ �h8f In his commentary, Morozevich writes that 1 5 .�8 should also be considered. Let us analyse this variation a little bit, e.g. 1 6.�e4 b4, and now: 1 7.c4? b3 1 8.axb3 tija5 1 9 .1:1dg1 (1 9 . cxd5 tZJxb3+ -+ , 1 9 . .txd5 ti:Jxb3+ 20:iYxb3 tIxb3 21 .�xaS 'it'b4 -+) 1 9 . . . �a3+ 20.'�d1 tDxe3+ 21 .fxe3 l:xb3 22 . ..txaS l:b2 23.�xb2 �xb2 -+. 1 7.i.xdS ! exd5 1 8.�d2 tlJa5 1 9si7e2, and after 1 9 . . . tL1c4?! White has 20 . �h7 ! at his disposal, which would be i mpossible with the king on h8. There· fore, we could draw the conclusion that probably Morozevich chose the best conti n uation. ..
1 6.i.e4 b4 ! 1 7. .i.xdS ! The o n l y move. 1 7.c4? b3! 1 S.axb3 llJa5! leads to a position from the previous annotation, only with the black king on h8, which makes no difference in this case. In the game Duncan Fester, !ECG e-mail 1 997, there
20 ... cS?! This move leads to troubles for Black. Morozevich thinks that 20 l:lb6 21 .cxb4 a5 is stronger. Then 22.a31 tZJxa3 (worse is 22 . . . tlJxd2 23.:Xd2 axb4 24.axb4, e.g. 24 .. :i¥xb4 2S.'fi'xc7 'ii'bS+ 26 .�e3 1:a3+ 27.�4 'ti'b3 2S:ti'c8+ �h7 29 . '!Wc2+± or 24 . . . llxb4 25.'i'c6, and Black does not have suffiCient compensation for the pawn) 23.'iWc5 �xc5 24.dxcS oo is possible. Along with that, 21 .:&g1 or 21 .:tdg1 is also worth considering. The correspondence game Heasman Dunwoody, 1 997 had an interesting progress: 20 ...f611 2 1 .f4 fxe5 22. fxeS tU8 23.cxb4 'iWh4 24.l:thfl '\Wxd4 2S.f4 :aeS 26.i.cl :Xe5+ 27.fxe5 'iWxeS+ 28.�d3 �g3+ 29.'�d4 with a draw by repetition. ..•
21 .l:rhg1
81
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ·'i..Jc6 3."�c3 dxc4 4/i jf3 Shirov tries t o start his counterplay as fast as possible and to this end he wants to use im mediately the semi open g-file.
21 ... 11b6 21 .. .16 22.14 bxc3 23 . .txc3 cxd4 24. �d4! ±.
22.:g5 g6 23.dxc5 CDxd2 24.�xd2 bxc3?! Morozevich thinks that this move is dubious and suggests 24 .. :iWxc5 with the evaluation "unclear". However, after 25.cxb4 IIxb4 26.c;ttf 1 ! White's position would be preferable in view of the threats 27.'1!¥d5 and 27.g6.
25.�xc3 1:86 26.f4 r:tc8 26 .. .l:xa2+ 27.�1 ±.
27.l:xd5 Because of Black's inaccurate play W hite achieved a large material ad vantage and good chances for success. Afterwards, however, he also made a few mistakes. The next part of the game is not important fo r the opening and we will show it only with the brief annotations by Shirov.
27 .. :i¥e6 28.11d2 lha2 29. fLxa2 §'xa2+ 30.�1 �g8 31 .f5 lld8 32.Wg2 �d5+ 33.�h2 �e4 34.e6! '+Wf4+ 35.'tlfg3 'tiVxg3+ 36.l:txg3? 1
44.�g5 �b5 45Jla1 llg8+ 46.� �f8+ 47.'�!te5 lle8+ 48.�d5 ldd8+ 49.�e5 11e8+ 50.�d5 1:rd8+ 51 .�e4 lle8+ 52.�3 nh8 53.t'th 1 Wc5 54.f5 Wd6 55.�4 a4 5S.�g5 <;j;e7 57.f6+ <;t'f7 58.l:1b1 llxh3 59.11b7 + �8 V2: V2
Although the game was not without mistakes, we saw that Black developed dangerous counterplay after the ope ning. In the following correspondence game, the first player tried to improve on this. Game 27 Culp Fester IEee e-mail 1 997 -
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 lDc6 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.lzJf3 ClJf6 5.e4 �g4 6.�e3 e6 7 . .txc4 �b4 8.�c2 0-0 9.0-0-0 �xc3 1 0.bxc3 �e7 1 1 .h3 i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 nfb8 1 3 . .ad3 b5 1 4.t:dg1 !? ...
36.fxg3 +-.
as 3S ... fxeS 37. fxeS 38.:xgS+ �8 39Jlg4? ! 39.e7+ wxe7 40.1:1a6 .J:[d2 41 .wg3 l:la2 42.h4 +-.
39 . . .�e7 40.1:a4? 40.l:g7 + wxe6 41 .l:la7 lId2 42 .wg3 :ta2 43.h4 +-.
40 . . . :a8 41 .f4 �xe6 42.�g3 �d5 43.�g4 Wxc5
W hite does not hurry with e4-e5, but instead activates his rook first. This way Black's king's knight does not have the beautiful d5-square yet.
Chapter 3
82
1 4. e5
1 9.axb3 tZJxd3 20. �xd3 a5
..
Interesting was also 1 4 ... b4!?, after which some very sharp variations could occur, e.g. 1 5.e5 ttJd5 1 6.c4 b3 ! 1 7. axb3 �cb4 1B ..txh7+ ( 1 8.�d2? o�: �d3+ 1 9. �xd3 �a3+ -+) 1 B. WhS 1 9:�e4 ( 1 9. 'ti'b1 ? �3 -+) 1 9 ... tZJa2+ ( 1 9 . . .llJc3 20.'i:'ig4 ti)e2+ 2 1 .�bl tiJxg 1 22. �h5 ! +-) 20.�c2 (20.�b2 lIxb3+ 2 1 .�xb3 �b4+ 22.�c2 '!!+'xc4+ 23.'�d2 �b4+ =) 20... l:lxb3! (20 . . .'Wb4 2 1 .�h4! 'Dxe3+ 22.fxe3 'tixb3+ 23.�d2 �b2+ 24.SLc2++-, 20 .. :�a3 21 :&h4! 'fi'xb3+ 22.<;!fd2 �b4+ 23.We2 +-) 21 .cxd5 (21 .'�xb3 �b4+=) 21 ...'8a3! (21 .. :i¥b4 22.�h4 ! +-) 22.ttb1 (the only move, 22. ..Ii.c1 �b4! -+ 23.'t'fh4 �c3+ 24.�d 1 �xc1 +) 2 2 l:xb1 (22. . .:ab8? 23:�h4 Itb2+ 24.�d 1 +-) 23.lIxb1 �a4+ 24.�d2 �a5+ 25.'itfd3 �a3+ 26.'itfc2 �a4+=, and the complications end up with a perpetual check. •
..
Probably Black had this position in mind when he exchanged the queens. At first glimpse, the pawn majority on the queenside seems rather promising. However, the first player is dominant in the centre and therefore we must as sess his chances as better. White shows his advantage with his next moves.
21 .htc51 lZJeB 22.11a1 1:1a6 22.. . a4 23.I1a3 ! '
23.J:.d2 a 4 24.tta3! The black pawns have been stopped, and White's centre is now set in motion.
•••
1 5Jtg5 Also possible was 1 5.d5 �a3+ ( 1 5... CiJa5 ! ? 1 6.f4 CZJc4) 1 6.'lttd 2 ( 1 6.'&b2 �d6 ! oo) 1 6 ... tiJe7 ( 1 6 . . . tiJa5! ?) 1 7.14 CZJg 6 with a sharp position.
24 . l:If6
1 5 ...exd4
.
Interesting is also 1 5 ... b4! ? 1 6.lIh g l g6!?, and o n 1 7.d5 follows 1 7 ... bxc3! 1 8.�xc3 ( 1 8.dxc6?! �a3+ 1 9.�d1 l:[b2 20.,tc1 kIxc2 2 1 .i.xa3 l:td2+ 22.�cl l:xd3 =F) 1 8 ... t2Jd4! with strong counter play. Apart from 1 6 . . . g6, 1 6 . . . tDe8! ? is also worth considering.
1 6.cxd4 �a3+ 1 7.�d2 t2.Jb4 Interesting was tDb4.
1 7 .. :�a5+!?
1 8.�d1
1 8.'l!Yb3 �xb3? After that, Black falls into an unfavourable endgame. After the correct 1 8 .. :�a5 the position would remain sharp and unclear.
.
The continuation 24 . . . lIbb6, with the idea of activating the rook while his colleague supports the passed p awn from behind, does not help: 25.bxa4 lIxa4 (25 . . . bxa4 2S.:c4 :Ib3+ 27J�xb3 axb3 28.11b4 ±) 26.:txa4 bxa4 27.tra5 lIb3+ 28.�e2, and White is winning .
25.�e2 axb3 26.ttxb3 c6 After 26 . . . l:fbS 27.d5 f6 28.f4 it is very difficult for Black to hold the position. Now the c-pawn is very weak and that decides the game.
27.na3! h6 29.�c1 �g6 29 . . . b3 30 . .tb2.
2B.tIa6
b4
83
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLlc6 3.tLlc3 dxc4 4.';'; 'lf3
30.Itaxc6 l:Ixc6 31 .l::t xc6 b3 32.�b2 �8 33.d5, and White won .
exchange on cS in that case promises the first player an obvious advantage, e.g. 1 1 . .txc6 bxcS 1 2.a3 ! ? �aS 1 3 .b4!? �bS 1 4.�a4 .
. . . 1 :0
9 . ..txc3 1 0.bxc3 ..
Game 2B Darmogray-Krantz corr. 1 989
In
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLlc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4.tZJf3 tZJf6 5.e4 �g4 6.�e3 e6 7 .�xc4 �b4 8.W'c2 '¥jfje7 contrast to the variation 8 . . 0-0 9.lId 1 .
't!ie7, now Black develops his queen first. The idea is to make possible the exchange on c3 followed by . . . �e7-a3+ with attack, should White play 9.0-0-0.
g.O-O-O? ! White fulfils his opponent's wish. 9.IId 1 0-0 would transpose t o 8 . 0-0 9.ltd 1 tie7. .
.
Another good possibility is Watson's suggestion 9.i..bS !? with the idea to exchange on cS, e.g . 9 .. 0-0 (9 Axf3 1 0.gxf3 'Dd7) 1 0.�xc6 bxc6 1 1 .CZJeS c5, and now: .
...
a) 1 2.f3 AhS 1 3 tlJcS �d7 1 4.ttJxb4 cxb4 1 S.t2:Je2, Finegold-Denefle, Paris 1989. The c7-pawn is weak, the bishop on hS is very passive, which promises the first player an advantage. .
b) 12.dxcS �xcS 1 3.�g5 ! iLhS 1 4.CZJd3 with a very unpleasant pinning on the h4-d8 diagonal , Kharitonov-Rychagov, St.Petersburg 1 995, and again White's chances are preferable. Dunnington suggests to meet 9 .il.. bS with 9 .tx13 1 0.gxf3 ti:Jd7, and be lieves that the position would remain dynamically equal. In my opinion, the ...
1 0 ... tiJxe4l? An interesting alternative is 10 ... �a3+ 1 1 .'it'd2 ( 1 1 .'it'b 1 tiJxe4! -+) 1 1 ... eSI. I n the game Bouwmeester-Boey, carr. 1 976, followed 1 2.dS t2JaS 13 . .te2 0·0 1 4.CDxeS? (correct was 1 4.lIb 1 , but then after 1 4 ... cS Black would also keep the i nitiative) 14 tDxe4+ !, and in view of the variation 1 5.'t!Vxe4 (or 1 5.�e 1 .txe2 1 S.I1c1 .i'..aS 1 7.�xe4 IlaeB 1 8. "+!Yd4 fS-+) 1 5 . . . 'l&'xa2+ 1 S.�c2 tZJb3+ 1 7.Wd3 .tfS+ White resigned. ...
1 1 .�xe4 �f5 1 2.'*'h4? Dunnington writes that this move is better than 1 2.'&14, and provides as an illustration Watson's variation 1 2.�f4 �a3+ 1 3.$>d2 �b2+ 1 4.�e1 �xc3+ 1 S.t2:Jd2 0-0-0. But is the situation really so critical for White? Let us examine this position further: 1 6.g4 ! ? Ac2 (on 1 S . . . i.g6 follows 1 7.$>11 tDxd4 1 B. �g2) 1 7.IIc1 Cl:1xd4 1B ..tb3 (equally unclear is 1 B.'iYxf7 �b2 1 9.tDb3 .txb3 ! ? 20.axb3 t2:Jc2+ 21 .l'.lxc2 �xc2 22.�xe6+ 'l!fbB 23.Wf 1 ) 1 8 . . �d3 ( 1 8 . . 't?*'b2 1 9.C2:Jc4 .
.
Chapter 3
84
'HVc3+ 20.lZJd2 �b2 =) 1 9.i.xd4 llxd4 2o.Axc2 'Wxc2 2 1 .l:xc2 :txf4 22.f3 , and the endgame is approximately equal . This means that the continuation 1 2. �f4 is not that bad at all , while the move in the game, as we shall soon see, leads to a difficult position .
1 2 ... �a3+ 1 3.Wd2 'tlVb2+ 1 4.�e1 'iYxc3+ 1 S.llJd2 0-0 1 6.�e2 1 S.'t':¥g3 would not have helped either: 1 6 . . . lZJxd4 1 7 . .txd4 �xd4 1 8.'t':Yxc7 Ac2 1 9.Dc1 :tac8 20:�a5 (or 20.'�xb7 :i.d3 -+ ) 20 . . . .td3 21 . 't!Yc3 :rfd8, and Black is win ning.
Game 29 - Dobos Budapest 1 994
Z. Szabo
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 C2:Jc6 3.ti:lc3 dxc4 4.tl:Jf3 tiJf6 S.e4 �g4 6.�e3 e6 7 . .axc4 i.b4 8.�d3 This continuation seems logical - the queen protects the two central pawns. On the other hand, in contrast to the variations with 8 .'fYc2 , i.c4-d3 and .tc4-e2 are no longer possible.
1 6 ... nad8 1 7."iYg3 1 7.f3 , with the idea of vacating the f2square for the king, is bad in view of 1 7 . . . lZJxd4+ 1 8 .'�f2 (1 8 . .txd4 X%xd4 1 9:�g5 �c2 20J1c1 IIfd8 -+) 1 8 . . . .tc2 1 9JIc1 tiJf5.
1 7 .. . llJxd4+ 1 8 . .txd4 �xd4 1 9.1:the1 ? Losing immed iately. D u nn ingto n 's suggestion 1 9 .�b3 seems to be much more resilient, but then also after 1 9 . . . b5! 20.�xb5 (20 . .txb5 nb8 2 1 .lZJt3 't'¥c5 -+) 20 .. :i!¥g4+ 21 .�e1 �xg2 22. nt1 l:d4 (or si mply 22 ... �xh2) 23. �e2 l:fd8 Black has a great advantage.
1 9 ... .tc2 Apparently Darmogray had missed this simple move. The game is over.
20.�e3 �g4+
J>..x d1 +
21 .l::!xd 1
And in view of 22 f3 lhd2! White re signed. 0:1
8 .. .0-0 I used to think that 8.. . :i.hS,
in order to increase the pressure on White's pawn centre, was equally good, e.g. 9.a3 .txc3+ 1 0 .bxc3 i.g6 1 1 . .ig5 (1 1 .tiJd2? tiJxe4! 1 2.lZJxe4 �h4+) 1 1 . . . Axe4 1 2 . .txfS �xd3 1 3.�xd8 i.xc4 1 4 . .txc7 ::'c8, and Black is better due to the weakness of White's queenside pawns, Madler-Boey, carr. 1 975. However, in the game W.Koch Bronznik, 2nd Bundesliga 2000, my op ponent found the strong reply 9.Ab5! (this idea is already familiar to us from the variations 8.'�c2 0-0 9.l:r:d 1 'i!le7 1 0. :i.b5 and 8.'�c2 0-0 9 . :i.bS! ? - White wants to fracture Black's pawn structure on the queenside by exchanging on c6).
8S
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ':�' ,c6 3/ ',c3 dxc4 4.') :-�f3 Now the following lines are possible: a) On 9 ... .tg6 now follows 1 0.tlJd2 ! ( 1 0 . .txc6+ bxcS 1 1 / 'd 2 c5 1 2 . 'a' bS+ �d7 1 3.�xd7+ tlJxd7 1 4.a3 .txc3 1 S. bxc3 f5! =) 1 0 ... 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . .txc3 1 1 .'&xc31 ) 1 1 .0-0 (but not 1 1 . .txcS?! bxc6 1 2.0-0 c5 ! , and Black develops good counter play) 1 1 ... �d7 (or 1 1 .'Wd6 1 2.CZJc4 'fYd7 1 3.13) 1 2.f3 as 1 3.i.xc6 �xc6 1 4. J:[ac1 , and Black's position is slightly worse in view of h is passive gS-bishop. ..
b) The continuation 9 ... i.xf3 does not look so good either - 1 0.i.xcS+ bxc6 1 1 .gxf3 tlJhS 1 2.'Wc4 Ji,xc3+ 1 3.�xc3 with advantage for White. c) In the game followed 9 ... 0-0 10.,txc6! bxc6 1 1 .ClJeSI cS 1 2.f3 cxd4 1 3.'1!Vxd4, and due to the weakness of the c-pawn and the passive position of the hS-bishop, White's chances are berter. The second player must now try hard to hold the position . There then came 13 cS ( 1 3 ...�xd4 1 4.i.xd4 cS 15 . .te3 f) 1 4.'ii'c4 (not bad was also 14.�xd8 l:fxd8 1 S:�f2f) 1 4 tlJd7! (this pawn sacrifice seems to be the best chance) 1 S.tlJxd7 �xd7 l S.i.xcS Ji,xc3+ 1 7. �xc3 ]:lfd8 1 B. 0-0 f6 ! 1 9. 'i'c2 as 20.:tfd1 �cS 21 .�f2 .iLe8 ! ;!;. I n the end, Black managed t o achieve a draw, but I have no desire to play 8 . . . i.gS again. ...
•••
9.a3 An interesting alternative is 9.i.bS. I had suggested this move in the first German edition, but there were no games with it then. Since Black has already castled, now he can avoid the exchange on c6: 9 .. .axc3+!? (forcing the opponent to take back with the pawn, after which 0-0-0 becomes problematic) 1 0.bxc3 .txf3 ! (after this 0-0 also becomes question able) 1 1 .gxf3 tZ:2e7. .
W hite possesses a strong pawn centre and the bishop pair; he can also hope to use the sem i-open g-file for his attack. On the other hand, Black does not have any weaknesses and can prepare counterplay in the centre with . . . c7-cS . Besides , it is difficult fo r the white king to find a safe place. In the game P.Neumann-Brunell , Pardubice 2003, followed 1 2.h4 as 1 3 . .ta4 cS 1 4 . .tc2 cxd4 1 S .cxd4 tlJh S 1 S .:g 1 DcB ( 1 S . . . tlJgS ! ?) 1 7.IIg5 g6 ( 1 7 .. :t�¥c7 ! ?) 1 B . .tb3 �d6 1 9.'�d2 IIfdB with a very sharp position with m utual chances. 9.CLld2 has also been played in some games. The idea is to drive the bishop back to hS with f2-13, where it would be passive. The correct reaction seems to be 9 . . . eS ! , e.g. 1 0.dS tlJa5 (interesting is also 1 O ... tlJe 7 ! ? 1 1 .f3 .td7 1 2.0-0 ti:JgS followed by ... tlJh5-f4 with counterplay on the kingside) 1 1 .f3 Ad7 1 2.a3 tlJxc4 1 3.axb4 ( 1 3 .liJxc4 .td6 1 4.0-0 tZJhS oo) 1 3 . . . tlJxe3 1 4.'�xe3 a6, and the position is approximately equal, Sashikiran Rahman, Calcutta 1 99B. Let us also examine in conclusion 9.0-0. In the game W . Koch-Neidhardt, 2nd Bundesliga 200 1 , after 9 .thS 1 0.a3 Axc3 1 1 .bxc3 .tg6 1 2.tlJd2 W hite achieved a slightly better positio n . However, 9 .txf3!? 1 0.gxf3 tLJh5 ! ? with counterplay on the kingside seems better to me. ...
...
Chapter 3
86 Back to the main game with 9.a3: 9 .txc3+ ! •..
After 9 ... Aa5 1 0.b4!? Axf3 1 1 .gxf3 Ab6 1 2.e5 liJd5 1 3.tlJxdS exd5 1 4 ..tb3 the b6-bishop is too passive. A fundamental note: if you play the Chigorin-counter attack, you must not be hesitant about exchanging your bishop for one of the opponent's knights. 1 0. bxc3 tilh5 !
.axf3 !?
1 1 .gxf3
The knight clears the way for the Queen and prepares to go to f4 at a given time.
A multi-purpose move. The f3-pawn is attacked, d4 remains under pressure. and the d8-square is vacated for the rook. In addition , . . .'iYf6-g6 could be also very unpleasant for White.
1 S.f4 l:1fdS 1 6.):gl
There was an interesting and tempting opportunity here - 1 6.f511. In that case Black m ust probably reply with 1 6 . . . exf5! ? 1 7 . .si.g5 'ti'g6 1 8.Axd8 l'lxd8 with a strong initiative for his minimal material shortage. 1 6 ... 'ti¥h4 1 7.ldgS b6
1 2.iYd2? !
There was n o particular necessity for this move. Of course, castling kingside seemed dangerous, but why not activate the rook - 1 2J%b1 ? 1 2 ... tiJa5!
1 S.We2
Such knig ht moves to the rim are typical for this opening. Black intends to attack White's centre with " .c7-c5. 1 3 . .ta2 cS ! 1 4J:tb1
On 1 4.dxc5 follows 1 4 . . . 'Bf6! with the idea . . .%lfd8 with more than sufficient compensation, since almost all of White's pawns are weak and his king can hardly find a safe place. 1 4 ...�f6!
With the idea of bringing the other rook over to the kingside. Interesting is also 1 8.�d1 1 8 ... g6 ( 1 8... tDxf4? 1 9J:tg4) 1 9.'8'f3 c4! (the bishop must be restricted) 20.11g2 f5 ! , and Black wins the battle for the central light squares. 1 S .. .!%acS
1 8 .. .'�xh2 would be too optimistic: 1 9. IIbg1 h6 20 . IISg2 'iYh3 21 . f5 ! exfS (21 ... cxd4 22.cxd4 exfS 23.�xh6 txe4) 22 . .txh6, and suddenly White's bishops become active. 1 9.d5 On 1 9. 11 bg 1 there could follow 1 9 ...
cxd4 20.cxd4 tiJc4 21 .�xc4 l:xc4. and
87 Black's cou nterplay is very dangerous. However. the game continuation , as we shall soon see, leads to even greater problems.
does; moreover, the c1 -bishop is tem porarily blocked. On the other hand, d4 is now securely protected.
1 9. c4 ! ..
This move performs two functions: • It neutralizes the light-squared bishop. It prevents c3-c4, which could reinforce White's centre. Now the d5-pawn is extremely weak. 20.l:Ibg1 g6? !
20 ... exdS 2 1 .exdS g6 is more precise. 21 .1;:[l g4?
The last chance to put up a struggle lay in 21 .d6, and on 21 .. :�xh2 would follow 22.eS, after which the passed pawn on d6 would be very strong . This would not have been possible had Black ex changed the pawns on d5 on the previous move. The continuation in the game is also weak because it blocks the gS-rook. 21 ... 'iYh3
Threatening 22 ... hS. 22.f51
Losing immediately. However, probably the game could not be saved anymore, e.g. 22.:lg 1 h6 23.:Sg2 exd5 24.exd5 fiJf6 with a won position. 22 ...exf5 23.exf5 h6 24.fxg6 hxgS 25.:tixgS
0:1
5 ...eS!
As it is typical for this opening, Black strives for immediate play against the d4-pawn. The position after 5 . i.g4 6.�xc4 e6 can also arise from the Queen 's Gam bit Accepted (1 .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.tZJf3 lilfS 4.e3 �g4 5 . .txc4 e6 6.tZJc3 lilc6). Now the first player has the promising possibility 7. .tbSI at his disposal. Then Watson recommends 7 ... .tb4 8.'iYa4 �xf3 9.gxf3 't't'd6, but with 1 0.�e2! White can keep the initiative, e.g. 1 0 . . . Axc3 (1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tiJe4! ?) 1 1 .bxc3 CZJdS 1 2:t!Vb3 (� i.a3) - White possesses the active bishop pair and a strong pawn centre, while the second player has no counterplay, C.Hansen-Brynell, Torshavn 1 997. Also in the case of 5 a6 6.Axc4 White is better, e.g. 6 . . . i.g4 7.h3 i.h5 8 .g4 i.g6 9.d5 fiJa7 (9 . . .tZJa5 1 0.i.e2 with advantage) 1 0.fiJe5 CZJd7 1 1 .tzJxg6 hxg6 1 2.e4 c6 1 3.,tf4 with initiative, Leitao Paschall, San Felipe 1 998. And definitely S ...tZJaS? cannot be re commended - 6.'ti'a4+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 8.axb3 b6 (8 . . . e6 9.b4 +-) 9.b4 tiJb7 1 O.�xcS+ �d7 1 1 .i.b5 +-, Komarov Sarakauskas, Tanta 200 1 . .
.
•••
Game 30 Beliavsky - Morozevich
Bundesliga 1 999/2000 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 �.�c6 3/�c3 dxc4 4.tDf3 tDf6 S.e3
This move does not give White as much control over the centre as S.e4
88
Chapter 3 6.d5
6..txc4 exd4 7.exd4 Ad6 transposes to the variation 4.e3 eS 5.liJf3 exd4 6.exd4 i.d6 7 . .txc4 liJf6. After 6.dxe5 '§'xd l + 7.tlJxd l tlJg4 8. .1i.xc4 �gxe5 only White can have any problems. Interesting is, however, 6.llJxe5!? tZJxe5 7.dxeS �xd 1 + 8.tiJxd l , e.g. 8 . . . .tb4+ 9.3Ld2 i.xd2+ 1 0.<;&7xd2 'De4+ 1 1 .<;&7e 1 .te6 with a complicated endgame, P.Meister-Cavendish, London 1 990.
6 tiJe7 ...
After 6. e4?! 7.dxcS 't'i'xd1 + 8. Wxd1 exf3 9.gxf3 bxc6 1 0 ..txc4 Black falls into a worse endgame due to the weakness of the doubled c-pawn , M. Ivanov-Riff, Mulhouse 2002. ..
7.�xc4 lljg6
1 2.Ae3 tzjg5 ! with initiative on the king side, Kosyrev-Morozevich, ICC 1 999. b) In the game Dusterwald-Baumhus, Eupen 1 995, followed 8. 'ti'a4+. After 8 . .td7 9.'ti'b3 (with the threats 1 0. �xb7 and 1 0.d6) Black sacrificed two pawns : 9 ... ,td6 1 0:�xb7 l:tbS 1 1 .�xa7 0-0. Now the first player made a terrible blunder - 1 2.Ab3?? and after 1 2 . . . 1:a8 1 3.'iVb7 �e7 he had to resign since the queen could not be saved. Correct was 1 2.e4, and Black would have hardly had sufficient compensation for the sacri ficed material, e.g. 1 2 . . . 'iVe7 1 3.�e3 tlJf4 1 4.0-0 or 1 2 ... tiJg4 1 3.J.e2 l:a8 1 4.�b7 'i'e7 1 5.,*",b3. 9 .. :�cS is also worth considering, but after 1 0.d6 ! .txd6 1 1 .,txf7+ �e7 1 2.e4 tif8 1 3.Axg6 hxg6 1 4.AgS Ae6 (1 4 ... c6 l S.0-0-0) 1 5.�c2 Black's position would bring little joy in view of his king remaining in the centre and the weak doubled g-pawns. A good alternative is, however, S tzJd7! (Watson) followed by ... i.dS and . . . 0-0 with approximately equal chances. c) After S.O-O iLdS 9.e4 0-0 (9 ... hS! ? 6 ... tlJh7-g5, 9 ... aS!? 1 0.a4 hS!?) 1 0.tlJel hS 1 1 .liJd3 ttJh7 1 2.i.e3 f5 Black de velops some initiative on the kingside, Vollmer-Jellinghaus, Bochu m 1 99 1 . d) The plan with the queenside Gast ling leads to sharp positions : S.'fYc2!? i.d6 9.i.d2 0-0 1 0.0-0-0 a6 1 1 .h4 .tg4! 1 2Jldgl (L\. tZ.Jg5) 1 2 . . . b5 1 3.i.b3 t1:Je7 1 4.tzJgS (1 4.e4 cS l S.dxcS tic8 with initiative) 1 4 ... h6 1 5.�e4 (l S.f3 Ad7 1 6.t1:Jge4 tDxe4 1 7.tiJxe4 fS oo) 1 5 . . . ll:Jxe4 l S.tlJxe4 cS! 1 7.dxc6 l:lc8 with good counter chances, Sitarek-Gibbons, corr. 1 985. e) S.J.b5+ i.d7 9.�b3 9.Axd7+ 'tlixd7 1 0.e4 .tb4 1 1 .'t!r'd3 c6 with comfortable play for Black. ..
..•
8.h4!?
White wants to dislodge the g6-knight and gain some space on the kingside. The pawn then could even advance to h6 if Black allows it. There are also many other possibilities: a) On the natural 8.e4, Morozevich replied with 8 . . . aS 9.a4 hS! ? (the normal continuation is 9 . . . Ad6) in one of his internet blitz games. His idea becomes obvious after 1 0.0-0 AdS 1 1 . h3 li:Jh7!
9 ... J.d6!?
89
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLlcS 3 ,tiJc3 dxc4 4/: t3 ",
e1 ) After 1 0.e4 0-0 1 1 .�xd7 'i2Yxd7 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2.'i¥xb7 �g4 1 3.0-0 tZJxe4) 12 . . . :tab8 or 1 2 . . . bS Black can further prepare the counterplay .. .f7-tS. e2) 1 0.�xd7+ �xd7 1 1 .'!Wxb7 ( 1 1 .e4 0-0 Q 1 0 e4) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2:t'¥aS 'itg48ij) 12 ... e4 1 3.'lJd2 �xh2+!? ( 1 3 . . �fS ! ?) 1 4.�xh2 'lJg4+ 1 5.cJfg1 (1 5.cJfg3 'l'dS+ ! 1 6. �xg4 'ti'h2 ! + ) 1 5 ...'i'Vd6 1 6.g3? ( 1 6.l:Ie l ? 'i¥h2+ 1 7.�1 'lJh4 l B.tiXtxe4 f5 1 9.'l:Jg5 �xg2+ 20.cJfe2 'lJxf2 21 .cz:JeS �g4+ 22.�1 'lJe4 + correct was 1 6.14! exf3 1 7.ti:Jxf3 tiJh4 l B.t2Je2 ti:Jxf3+ 1 9.:xt3 �h2+ 20.�1 '!:r'h1 + 21 .'lJg l 'l:Jh2+ 22.�2 'lJg4+ 23.¢'fl tiJh2+ with a perpetual check) 16 ...tZJ6e5 1 7.:1e1 �h6 1 8.<;!(f1 ( 1 8. 'iJcxe4 �h2+ 1 9.�1 f5 -+) 1 8.. :t;Vh2 1 9.tiJdxe4 ( 1 9Ji..Jd 1 " " �--1d3 -+ ) 1 9 . . .f5 -+, W.Schulze-Bronznik, Hannover (rapid) 1 998. .
.
-
-
,
1 3.'�c2 0-0 1 4 �g5 ':� " ,e8 1 5.0-0-0 a6 1 6.CZJd2 (White i ntends to prepare f2-14, and in addition t h e knight can later go to b3, it need be) 1 6 . . . b5 1 7.i.e2 IS 1 8.Ae3 '*'b8 1 9.'lJb3! , and due to his space advantage, as well as the weak ness 01 the c5- and as-squares, W hite's position was better. .
1 0.h6 g6 1 1 .e4 tlJad7 1 2. .tg5 a6 W hite has gained som e space on the kingside and intends to play 12-14, probably followed by 0-0-0. Black's chances are on the queenside, and his last move prepares . . . b7-b5.
a . . . .td6 would weaken the pOS i ti o n of the g6-knight and therefore seems risky. However, in the game And r uet G.Flear Toulon 1 986, White could not reveal the drawbacks of th i s move: 9 . ..ad3 .idS 1 0 . .i4xgS fxg6 1 1 .'iVd3 �t5 1? 1 2.�bS+ 'S'd7 1 3.�xb7 0-0 1 4:�a6 e4, and Black achieved significant counter play for the sacrificed pawn. However, one has the feeling that W hite can improve his play. For instance, 9.�a4+ ti:Jd7 (9 . . . i.d7 1 0.�b3 with the threats 1 1 .'fr'xb7 and 1 1 .dS) 1 0.Ad3, and Black has diffi cu lt i e s with castl i ng because the h5-pawn would be weak, while the first player can even castle queenside. Moreover, Black m ust al ways bear in mind .1i.xgS. B . . .hS
-
,
9.hS tlJf8 J. Rogers played 9 ... tZJe7 against Smys l ov in London 1 988. Further followed 1 0.h6 g6 1 1 .e4 �g4 1 2.'t\Ya4+ Ad7
1 3.tlJd2 In the rapid game Khalifman-Morozevich, Yalta 1 995, White played 1 3.a4, in order to prevent b7-bS. There then followed 13 ... 0-0 1 4.�e2 i.e7! ( wit h the idea . tlJe8dS) 1 5Jid1 tDe8! 16 .tc1 (after l S.Axe7 �xe7 the h6-pawn wou ld be rather a weakness because it would be pro tected only by the rook) 1 6 ... tzJd6 1 7 . .td3 i.f6 1 8.'lJd2 ( 1 8 . .te3 Ah8 ! ? with the idea .. .f7-f5) 1 8. . .tlJc5 1 9.'lJc4 (on 1 9 . ..tc2 follows 1 9 . bS ! with counter play on the queenside, while 20.axbS ? ! axb5 2 1 . tiJxb5? is bad in view of 21 . . . ,ta6 22.�e3 tZJxbS 23.�xc5 'lJd4 24. 'tlVc3 i.e2) 19 ... tlJb3 20.�e3 'lJd4 21 . .axd4? ! (better is 21 .�d2, although ..
•
.
.
Chapter 3
90
Black can then force a draw: 21 ... .ig4 22J1b1 i2:Jb3 23.�c2 l2Jd4 24.'!!¥d2 - 24. Axd4? ! exd4 with initiative - 24 .. ':: b3) 21 . .exd4 22.liJb 1 .td7 23.b3 b5 24. axb5 axb5 25.lL)cd2 11a2 with a strong initiative for Black. .
1 3 0-0 .•.
Since a2-a4 is not particularly good for White, it is not necessary to hurry with ...b7-b5 - such is the logic of Morozevich, who, in the meantime, plays a few other useful moves. 1 4.g3
Beliavsky plays very consistently: now he is already prepared for f2-f4.
The decision to castle queenside, straight against the opponent's attack, is very risky, but Beliavsky has pinned his hopes upon a tactical idea. 1 8 ... c4 1 9.d6?
The position after 1 9.Ac2 tiJes (1 9 ... b4 20.liJxc4 ! ?) 20.i..x e7 �xe7 21 .�b1 liJd6 probably did not appeal to the first player. His last move seems rather good, but . . . 1 9 ... ..txd6 20.�c4 21 .l:Ixd6 'ifc7!
Probably Beliavsky had missed this continuation. Now White loses material without any compensation.
1 4... �e7
This move frees the knight and prepares the manoeuvre ...tlJe8-d6.
22J:txf6 cxb3 23.8Xb3 �c8
The fS-rook cannot escape anyway. 24.I:te1 iLlxf6 2S . .txf6 'i¥b6 26.fxe5 ';'±Vxb3
l S.f4 b5 1 S . . . tlJeS!?
l 6.Ab3 .tb7 1 7.'it'f3 c5 !
bxc4
Black is up an exchange and threatens to start the dead/y . . . a5-a4-a3 attack. 27.�e7 :fe8 28 . .td6 ne6 29.r�[d1 g5
Winning the hS-pawn as well. The rest is just a formality. 30.1id4 a s 31 . �e3 Itxh6 32.'iYxg5+ Itg6 33.'iWe3 h6 34.�b1 �h7 35.a:d2 lixe4+ 36. '*Yxe4 �xc3 37.e6 1:[e3
0:1 Black's counterplay becomes rather dangerous. Probably White must now castle kingside, but then also the se cond player would have good chances, e.g. 1 8.0-0 c4 1 9.i.c2 CZJeS 20.i.xe7 �xe7 2 1 .'�'g2 .:�� jd6, and now .. .f7-f5 may be possible. 1 8.0-0-0
Game 3 1 Sosonko - Plket
Netherlands 1 995 This is a very interesting game, and rich in ideas, but I have not found a good analysis of it anywhere. Piket played very inventively and won. All the commentators, whose annotations I
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 ;�: _oC6 3.0jc3 dxc4 4.·�d3 have read, were so impressed by Piket's extraordinary play that almost all his ideas received only praise, while White's moves were criticised from the beginning. We shall soon see whether this is fully appropriate. 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.tDf3 tlJf6 5:�Wa4
White pins the black knight and attacks c4 at the same time. This position more often arises via the Queen 's Gambit Accepted after 1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 dxc4 3 ..;:. 'f3 �f6 4.\'Ia4+ �c6 S.tlJc3, which is, by the way, the case in this game.
91
'&e2 �d7 1 0.14 e 6 1 1 . .ig2 with a com plicated positional struggle. Skembris played more aggressively against Abatino, Cutro 1 999: 700.a6 8:i'ixc4 e5 9.dxe5 �e5 1 0.'6'e2 .i4b4 1 1 . .id2 0-0 1 2.f4 �g6 1 3.0-0-0 (1 3 . .ig2 !?) 1 3 ... lIe8, but still after 1 4:�'f3 White's chances were slightly better. Interesting is also godS!? tlJb4 1 0.�b3 tlJbxd5 (1 0 ... CiJfxd5? 1 1 .i.c4 c6 1 2.a3 b5 1 3.i.e2±) 1 1 .i.c4 i.b4 1 2.e4 tlJxc3 1 3 . .txf7+ ( 1 3.bxc3 .tc5 1 4 . .txf7+ �8 1 5.0-0 'i!¥e7oo) 1 3... �8 1 4.'iNxb4+ (1 4.bxc3 .tc5 1 5.0-0 'iYe7oo) 1 4 . . . �xf7 1 5.�xc3, and White has a certain ini tiative. Probably the best continuation 5.. 08d5 will be analysed in Game 32. 6.a3!?
S .e6 ..
The disadvantage of this move is obvious - the c8-bishop is blocked. On the other hand, the second player can develop his kingside bishop fast and castle, and then prepare the freeing move . . . e6-e5. 5 .tg4 is equally playable. After 6.�5 .td7 7.'ti'xc4 .te6 ! 8:�b5 a6 9.�xc6 axb5 1 0.tlJxd8 �xd8 1 1 .tZJxb5 �xa2 1 2.l::lx a2 ..axa2 the position is equal, Ferrara-F.Dos Santos, Torre Blanca 1997. If that is not enough for White, he must probably go for 6.e3 .i4xf3 7.gxf3. I n the game Petrosian-Golz, Copenhagen 1 960, followed 7...:-· d7 8.'�xc4 �b6 9 .
White wants to prevent the black knight or bishop from going to b4. 6.e3 does not promise anything , after S ... .tdS 7. i.xc4 0-0 8.0-0 e5 the position is approxim ately equal , Glotov-Flohr, Moscow 1 952. Of course, 6:�xc4 has also been played here. Then after 6 .. .i2jb4 7.�b3 c5 White has quite a few options:
...
a) 8.e3 cxd4 9.exd4 (9.tDxd4 i.e7=) 9 ... i.e? 1 0.i.g5 tLJcs ( 1 0 ... tlJbd5? 1 1 . .tbS+ i.d? 1 2.CiJe5±) 1 1. .1:[d 1 0-0 1 2.
Chapter 3
92
Ad3 b6 1 3.a3 .tb7 1 4.lWc2 g6, and in this typical position with an isolated queen's pawn the chances are approximately equal, l\Iescas-Woltf, Bie1 1 993. b) 8.Ag5 cxd4 9.Ild 1 �b6 ! ? (9 . . . d3 1 0.exd3 i.e7 1 1 .�xf6 gxf6 1 2.d4 ;f, Trifunovic-Szabo, Hamburg 1 965) 1 0. tlJxd4 e5 1 1 . lL\f3 (1 1 . Axf6 gxf6 1 2.lL\f3 .ie6 1 3.�a4+ tLicS) 1 1 . . Ae6 1 2.�a4+ lUes ( 1 2 ... �d7 1 3.�b3 .te6 1 4.�a4+ i.d7 =) 1 3.tLixe5 (1 3.tl:d2 �b4 ! with initiative) 1 3 . . . �xb2 1 4.i.d2 �b4 1 5. CUxc6 'ir'xa4 1 6.tLixa4 bxc6, and Black is at l e ast not worse. .
c) 8.dxc5!? I think that this is the best continuation. 8 ... Axe5 Dunnington believes that in this position the chances are equal, but after 9.a3 tLic6 1 0.g3 tLia5 (1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 . .tg2 with
initiative) 1 1 .'iWc2 ( 1 1 .�b5+? Ad7 1 2:�xc5 tiJb3 -+) l 1 . .. 'iWbS 1 2.e3 i.e7 1 3.b4 tiJcS 1 4.ti)a4 �d8 1 5.i.g2 Ad7 l S.0-0 :lc8 1 7.�b3 0-0 1 8 . .ib2 White achieved a s l i gh tly more active position , Stohl-Y.Mejster, Slovakia 1 994. Also interesting is 9 . .tg5!? Instead of S ... ·'.· b4, Black can also play 6 .. ;"b4. Accord i ng to Dunnington after .
7.a3 .ta5 8.i..g5 White is better, and here probably he is rig ht .
6 ...a6
Black prepares . . .b7-b5 and prevents ·:��3-b5. 7.�xc4 �d6 From h e re the bishop can support the thematic . . eS-e5 advance. .
8.i.gS h6 9.�h4 The variation 9.i..xf6 'tlt'xf6 1 0..:�e4 �g6 1 1 .tLixd6+ cxd6 1 2.g3 0-0 does not bring White anyth i ng 1 0.e4 �gS! ? (1 0 . . .e 5 1 1 .tlJd5 �e6 1 2.dxe5 i.xe5 1 3.tlJxe5 �xeS 1 4.0-0-0 Ae6 l S.f4 .
�dS 1 6.eS �d7 1 7.g3 with i nitiati ve) 1 1 .e5 Ae7 1 2.dS exd5 1 3.tZJxdS AdS does not achieve anything s u bstantial ei t he r .
After the text move White must be prepared to surrender the d4-pawn .
9 . 0-0? ! .
.
Why not 9 ... g5 1 0 . .tg3 i.xg3 1 1 .hxg3 g4 1 2.tiJeS 'iVxd4 1 3:�xd4 liJxd4 ? I have th o rou g hl y analysed this position with the computer and I did not find any real danger for Black, e.g. 1 4.0-0-0 CUbS l S.tlJxb5 axb5 l S.e3 b4 1 7.axb4 l:ta1 + 1 8.�c2 l:1xd1 1 9.<sltxd1 rJ:Je7 or 1 4Jld1 ti)c2+ 1 5.�d2 tDd4 1 6.e3 tLif5 1 7.�e2 IIg8 1 8.e4 tLJd6 1 9.:Xh6 �e7. Even the line 1 2 tLixd4 (instead of 1 2 . . .1!Vxd4) 1 3. 0-0-0 c5 1 4.e3 b5 is considered playable by the computer. W hy Piket did not play so and what would have been Sosonko's reaction will remain a mystery to us. And now, after castl i ng . . . g7-g5 would be even more dangerous for Black. ...
,
1 0Jid1 !
White wants to preve nt . . . e6-e5. On 1 0 .. :�e7? follows 1 1 .e4, and 1 1 . . . e5 is bad in view of 1 2 . .'.- dS. Interesting is also 1 0.e4 eS 1 1 .dS tLJa7 or 1 0.e3, and if 1 O . . . eS, then 1 1 .d5 tLJa7 1 2.Ad3. In both cases, White has a space advantage and is slig htly better.
93
1 0 g5? ! ...
I have seen this extremely risky move annotated only with ' J ? ' or even ' I ' . This indicates the 'influence of the result'. The disadvantage is clear - the situation of the king becomes very risky. The play is very sharp and concrete now and if White does not find the best continua tions, his situation can become critical. The idea 1 O .. b5 1 1 .�xc6 Ad7 1 2.'�b7 libB 1 3.'�xa6 :taB 1 4.�b7 .:tbB now does not work in view of l s.AxfS. On 10 .l:b8 follows 1 1 .e4 b5 1 2.'i?t'd3 ( 1 2.�e2 Ae7 !?) , and after 1 2 . . . g5 1 3.�g3 b4 1 4. axb4 '2:Jxb4 1 5.W'b l ��h5 l S . .tc4 Black does not have compen sation for the weakened position of his kingside. Objectively, the best continuation here is probably 1 O i.d7 in order to prepare 1 1 ...e5, but then after 1 1 .e4 e5 1 2.d5 White's chances would also be better due to his space advantage and the un pleasant pin on the f6-knight. .
..
•••
,
1 1 .Ag3 %1b8? ! 1 1 . . . b5 seems better, although then after 1 2.'iVd3 (1 2.�xc6? i.d7 1 3.�b7 :bB 1 4 :�xa6 lIaB=) 1 2 . . . i.b7 ( 1 2 . . . b4 1 3 .axb4 ,'�xb4 1 4.�b l ±) 1 3.e4 b4 1 4.axb4 .txb4 1 5.i.e2 White wou ld also have a clear advantage in view of Black's weak kingside.
1 2.e4 b5 1 3:�e2 Of course, not 1 3.�xc6? i.b7 1 4:�xb7 l:xb7 l S.e5 b4 ! 1 6. axb4 llxb4 1 7.exd6 cxd6 with a great advantage for Black. However, the retreat to d3 was possible: 1 3.�d3 b4 1 4.axb4 liJxb4 1 5.'�bl ±.
1 3 .. . b4 Now there is no stopping for Black - it is everything or nothing for him !
1 4.axb4 jLxb4
White's king is in the centre, the fl bishop is blocked by the queen, the e4and b2-pawns will cause troubles. But all that is of no significance in view of Black's weak kingside, and Sosonko could have proved that with 1 S.h4!. The following variations reveal that after the forced 1 5 ... g4 1 6.tiJeS liJxd4 1 7.�d2 Black's position would have been extremely difficult: a) 17 c5 1B . .td3! �h7 1 9.tDxf7 l:xf7 20.i.xb8 +-. b) 17 Aa5 l S .Ad3 i.d7 ( l B . . . �g7 1 9.i.f4 :thB 20 . .txh6+ l:xh6 21 .'1!i'g5+ llg6 22.'2:Jxg6 fxg6 23.'t1i'xa5 +-, 1 B . . . �h7 1 9.1lJc4 i.xc3 20.bxc3 +-) 1 9.0-0! �g7 ( 1 9 . . . �a4 20.11a l +-) 20 . .tf4 �8 (20 . . .:thB 2 1 .i.xh6+ llxh6 22.�g5+ %%g6 23 .'2:Jxg6 fxg6 24.�xaS +-) 2 1 . i.xa6 i.b5 22.i.xbS Axc3 23.�xc3 �bS 24.'iYg3+-. c) 1 7 . Ac5 l B.i.f4 (1 8.�xh6? liJc2+ 1 9.�e2 liJd4+ =) 1 8 . . . i.b7 1 9 .i.e3 tlJb3 20.�c2 +-. d) 17 liJxe4 1 B:�xd4 'iWxd4 1 9 .1:xd4 f5 (1 9 . . .llJxc3 20.l:Ixg4+ �h8 21 .llJxf7+ nxf7 22 . .te5+) 20.:txe4 fxe4 21 .�g4±. ...
...
.
.
...
However, the continuation 1 5. h4 has not been mentioned in any of the commentaries that I have seen !
Chapter 3
94
1 S.�d3? This move gives Black the chance for counterplay.
1S ... j.a5 1 7.V!'b1 ?
1 6.:d2
t�b4
On 1 7 :-H¥e2?! follows 1 7 . . . �2 ! 1 8.'tWd3 ilJxc3 1 9.bxc3 �b7 +. Correct was 1 7. 'i!fc4! Jl.b7 (but not 1 7 ... CZJxe4? 1 8.tZJxe4 f5 1 9.tLlc3 f4 20.'i!:Yc5 c6 21 .tLle5±) 1 8 .'i¥e2 with sharp play .
1 7 ... tlJbdS! 1 8:�c2 6.e4
1 8.exd5 .iLxc3 -+ .
1 8 .. .r�b2! 1 9.'i¥xb2 tlJxc3 20.tlJeS The last chance to continue the battle lay in 20:�a1 c5 21 .e5 tlJfe4 22.l:Ic2, although then after 22 . . . tLld5+ 23.�d 1 g4 24 . .th4 'fjc7 25.CDe 1 tlJec3+ 26. �c1 cxd4 White would have been much worse.
2 0.. .tzJcxe4 21 .C2:Jc6 �xd2+ 22. �xd2 tDxd2 23.tDxd8 1!ixd8 24.�xd2 Ilxd4+ 0:1 Game 32 Engqvist Sadler Isle of Man 1 995 -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 dxc4 3.tlJf3 tlJf6 4.�a4+ tlJc6 S.tlJc3 Our beloved Chigorin Defence arises after a transposition of moves.
S .t2JdS!? ..
This continuation is very interesting . Black wants to protect c4 with either . . .ctJd5-b6 or . . .ti:)d5xc3 followed by .. :iYdS-dS. And if White takes the pawn immediately, the second player, as we shall soon see, develops good counter play.
Of course 6.tlJeS? tlJb6 7 . liJxc 6 �d7+ is bad. But what happens after the immediate 6.�xc4 ? Then Black has two options : a) 6 ... tz:Jdb4 7.�b3 a1 ) 7 ... e5?! S.dS tlJd4 9.tDxd4 exd4 1 0.a3 (in the game Telljohann-Beck mann, Germany 1 99 1 , after 1 0.tLlb5?! Black could have seized the initiative by 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 .ilJxd4 lZJxd5 1 2.Jl.d2 Jl.c5) 1 0 . dxc3 ( 1 0 . . . tZJc2+ 1 1 .'iWxc2 dxc3 1 2.e4) 1 1 .axb4 cxb2 ( 1 1 . . . c2 1 2. e4 f5 1 3.e5 'ffe7 1 4.f4 'tWxb4+ 1 5.'iVxb4 Axb4+ 1 6.Ad2 i.xd2+ 1 7 .'�xd2±, Palatnik·Caposciutti , Rome 1 990) 1 2. ..txb2, and the e2-e4 idea coupled with pressure on the long a i -h8 diagonal promise White a positional advantage. a2) 7 tLlxd4 8.liJxd4 �xd4 9.i-e3 i.e6 1 O.�a4+ i.d7 1 1 .�b3 (according to Watson after 1 1 . Axd4 Axa4 1 2.i.c5 tZJc2 + 1 3. �d2 0-0-0+ 1 4. Wc 1 tlJxa 1 1 5.liJxa4 e6 Black is also OK) Ae6 1 2.�a4+ with a draw by repetition, Andersson-Korchnoi, Johannesburg 1 98 1 . ..
•••
b) 6 ... t2Jb6 7.�d3 (7.'i¥b3 i-g4 S.dS Axf3 9.gxf3 tlJd4 1 0.�d1 e5 1 1 .e3 tlJfS 1 2.f4 i-b4 1 3.e4 ·:\jd6 with a complicated struggle, Bukal-l.Hansen, Sitges 1 999)
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLlc6 3.lLlc3 dxc4 4.lLlf3 7 eS! 8.llJxeS (B.dxeS �g4�, Drasko Marjanovic, Sarajevo 1 985) 8 ... lLlb4 !? (also possible is 8 .. .'�xd4 9.tDxc6 �xd3 1 0.exd3 bxc6 with an approximately equal positio n , in which the d3- and c6-weaknesses counter each other, Reshevsky-Portisch, Tel Aviv (01) 1 964) 9.'i!ib1 (on 9.'�·d 1 follows 9 .. .'t{¥xd4 1 0.'1!fxd4 tlJc2+ 1 1 .Wd1 liJxd4 1 2.e3 tiJe6 1 3.Wc2 AdS 1 4.tDc4 iDxc4 1 S. Axc4 i.d7, with comfortable play for Black) 9_.:1i'xd4 1 0.tLlf3 �d6 1 1 .e4 Ag4 1 2.a3 Axf3 1 3.gxf3 tZJcS 1 4.tlJbS �e7 1 5.�e3 ( 1 5.Af4 tlJeSoo) 1 S ... 0-0-000, Conquest-Dlugy, New York 1 984. .•.
6 ...tlJb6 7 �d1 i..g 4 S.dS _
a.Ae3 ? ! Axf3 9. gxf3 e6 +.
S...tlJeS 9_.tf4 9:�d4?1 is not recommendable: 9 .. _llJxf3+ 1 0.gxf3 Axf3 1 1 .1%g1 ti'd6 This is better than 1 1 . . . e6? ! 1 2:�e3! .i.hS 1 3 . 'iYh3 gS 1 4 .dxe6 fxe6 1 5. �xe6+ j,e7 1 6. �e5 IIf8 1 7 . .th6 txt7 1 8:�'h8+ 1:f8 ( 1 8 ... i.fB 1 9.IIg5! �d6 20.,th3 tZ:Jc8 2 1 .1:eS+ li)e7 22 . .teS +-) 1 9 . .txfB i.xf8 20.'ti'xh7 +-, Crouch-Sadler, Hastings 1 992. 1 2:�'e3 After 1 2 .e5 �d7 Wh ite loses the d5pawn. 1 2 ... �hS. and the first player does not have sufficient compensation for the two pawns, e.g. 1 3.14 e6 1 4.1:lg5 g6 1 5.�d4 :tg8 1 6.Axc4 h6 1 7.lIe5 (1 7 .:tg2 0-0-0 +) 1 7 ... 0-0-0 1 8.i.e3 .tg7 1 9.i.b3 exdS 20.exdS lIge8 -+. Crouch Duncan , Hampstead 1 998.
After 9.,te2 Black achieves a good position with 9. . . i.xf3 1 0.gxf3 e6 !, e.g. 1 1 .f4 tLJd3+!? 1 2.Axd3 cxd3 1 3. dxe6 1 3.'Bxd3 exd5 1 4.exd5 .id6 =F.
9S
13 ...fxe6 1 4.�hS+ g6 1 5:�eS d2+ 1 6.�e2 1 6 . ..txd2 �xd2+ 1 7.�xd2 t2Jc4+ 1 8. �e2 tLlxeS 1 9. fxe5 0-0-0 +. 1 6 ... �d7!? 1 6 . . . dxc 1 � 1 7.:taxc1 �d2+ 1 8.�3 ( 1 8.�xd2! ? li)c4+ 1 9.�e2 tiJxes 20.li)b5! ) 1 8 ... gS 1 9.'&xh8 �xf4+ 20.�e2 �g4+ 2 1 .� 1 (21 .�e 1 0-0-0 22.�xh7 tLJc4 with attack) 21 .. :�h3+ 22.'�e2 �g4+ 23 .'�f1 �h3+ 24/�e2 V2:Y2, G . Rey-J . Berry. San Francisco 1 999. 1 7 ..txd2 1 7.'ti'xh8? ! 1 7 ... 0-0-0 1 B.�3 .tb4 1 9. 'WeS li)c4 20.�f6 Jlf8 21 .'t5'h4 .txc3 -+. 1 7.. _"if¥xd2+ 1 7 . . . 0-0-0 ! ? 1 8.�d2 tZJc4+ 1 9.�e2 tZJxe5 20.fxe5 0-0-0+. 00
•
Back to the position after 9 . .tf4:
9 ... �xf3!? Black strives for sharp positions. There are a few games with 9._.tlJg6, e.g. 1 0.,tg3 (after 1 0.�e3 e6 the oppo nents in Botvinnik-Petrosian, Moscow 1 963, agreed a draw. probably because of the variation 1 1 . .txb6 axb6 1 2.Axc4 exd5 1 3 .'Wxd5 'i¥xd5 1 4.liJxdS �d6 with d approximate equality - that was the 22n and last game of the match. with which a reSigned Botvinnik surrendered the
96
Chapter 3
crown of the world champion to his successor) 10 e5 1 1 .dxe6 AxeS 1 2.'ifxd8+ lixd8 1 3 . �xc7 I%d7 1 4.�xbS axb6 1 5.�5 tiJe5 1 S.f4 CZJd3+ 1 7. �xd3 I%xd3 1 8.tL1xe6 fxeS 1 9.:d1 lhd1 + 20. �xd 1 �d7 ( not bad is also 20 . . . i.c5 =. Grosch-Forgo, Budapest 1 985) 2 1 .IU1 (or 2 1 .�c2 �cS 22.l:d1 .tc5 =) 2 1 . . . <;t>c6 22.a4 .tc5=, Krasenkov-Kaminski , Lubniewice 1 995.
1 6 . . .tiJd4
...
1 0.gxf3 �d6 An alternative is 1 0 . . . tlJg6 1 1 . �g3 e5 1 2.dxe6 fxe6 1 3.�xdB+ :1xd8 1 4 . .txc7 I%cB with a complicated endgame.
1 1 ..tg3 White could have won back the pawn with 1 1 .i.xe5 ,&xe5 1 2 . .txc4, but then after 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 followed by . . . e7-e6 the second player would have seized the initiative.
1 1 ... g5!7 Black prepares the development of the bishop and prevents the dislodging of his knight with f3-f4. 1 1 . .. e6 1 2.14 tiJd3+ ( 1 2 .. J��ed7 ! ?) 1 3. .txd3 cxd3 is also worth considering.
1 2.h4!? The first player intends to achieve a strong pawn centre with f3-f4. To this end, he must get rid of the black g pawn.
1 2 ... .tg7!7 Black offers the g5-pawn. As compen sation, he wants to get a development advantage and use the unsafe position of White's king by opening the centre with ... e7-eS . Another possibility is 1 2 . . . gxh4 1 3 .Iixh4 .tg7 1 4.14, also with an u nclear position .
1 3.hxg5 'tWb4! 1 4.:b1 0-0-0 1 5.f4 t2Jc6 1 6.�c1 ! After 1 6. 't!¥d2 follows 1 6 . . . e6 ! . and White's beautiful centre col/apses.
White has the pair of bishops and a formidable pawn chain in the centre, but is also significantly behind with his development. The plans of both sides are clear: the first player wants to bring his king to safety as fast as possible and support his central pawns ; Black wants to destroy his opponent's centre and use his better development.
1 7 . .th3+ On 1 7.�g2, both 1 7 . . .tlJa4 and 1 7 ... hS are possible, with good counter chances in either case.
1 7.. �b8 1 8.�1 .
An interesting variation with a thematic struggle about the central squares arises after 1 8 .0-0?! - 1 8 . . . h6 ! 1 9 . �g2 � ( 1 9.gxh6? l:xhS 20 .�g2 f5! 2 1 .f3 �dh8 22.:h 1 tlJxf3 ! -+) 1 9 . . . e6! 20.dxeS fxe6 2 1 .,*,*,e3 �e7! 22.:lbd 1 hxg5 23.fxg5 e5 24.f4 exf4 25 . .ixf4 l:Ihe8, and White's pawn centre has become a weakness.
1 8 ...f5? ! In my opinion, it is better to choose, by analogy with the last annotation. the plan with ... e7-eS - 1 8 . . . e6 1 9 .dxeS fxe6 20.<;t>g2 hS with good counter chances.
1 9.9xf6 exf6 Now the second pawn is ready to go to f5.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tiJcS 3.tZ:Jc3 dxc4 4/�-j3
20.�e6? ! 20.'iVe3 seems stronger. Then 20 . . . cS (20 . . .15 2 1 .eS cS 22 . .tg2) 2 1 .1S+ �a8 22.i.g4 would be possible. In this case, White's pawn centre may be not so mo bile, but is rather solid and the position seems slightly better for him.
20 ...f5! 21 .exf5 �f8 Interesting was also 21 . . . Iidf8, e.g. 22.l:hS tiJc8 23.tiJe4 tiJdS (23 ... �bS? ! 24.a4 ! Ll 2 4. . . �xa4? 2S.tz:JcS �e8 2S. ':g5 Jk.fS 27.ClJd7+ �a8 28 .tlJxfS Ib:f6 29.�xc4±) 24.tlJxdS cxd6 25.�g2 '8b5 with good compensation.
22.llh5 c6 !? 23.f6 24.f5+ �a8 25 . .ltc7
�xf6
On 25.dxcS follows 25 . . . bxcS (25 . . . liJxcS? ! 2S.�c7 lld4 27.tiJb5 :1g4 28.f3 :lg7 29 . .txbS axb6 30.�xc4) 26.tLJe4 �g7 with a very complicated position.
25 ... 1:[e8 26.dxc6 bxc6 27. �xb6 Safer is 27.tLJe4 Cl:Jxe6 28 ..txbS axbS 29.fxeS llxeS (29 . . . b5? 30.'iVd2 ! :XeS 31 .�a5+ �b8 32:8'bS+
97
A mistake. There was no longer danger of losing for White after 31 .a3 �b3 32.�xb3 cxb3 33. " ::J4.
31 ... �xd4? Black returns the favour. Very strong was 31 ... c3 !, and 32.tLJxc6 would be impossible because of 32 . . . 't!ic4+.
32. iYxd4 :thea 33.a3 �b3 34.'iVc3 ]he6 35:tWxb3 cxb3 36.nxh7 1:[e2 37J�,[h3 l:tc2 38.1;[xb3 Uee2 39.:f3 Ilxb2 40J:'lxb2 Uxb2 The chances are finally equal. However, the battle continued for more than 20 moves.
41 .Ilc3 �b7 42.�g2 c5 43.�3 wc6 44.'�e3 �d5 45.f4 l:[h2 46.l:td3+ �c4 47. 1:ld6 b5 48.l:ta6 bIa2 49.!Ia5 :&1 50.t5 1:[f1 51 .�e4 b4 52.axb4 cxb4 53.l:taS b3 54.l:tc8+ �b4 55.�e5 b2 56J1bS+ �c3 57.f6 b1 � 5S.t(xb1 nxb1 59.f7 1:1t1 60.�e6 �d4 61 _We7 �e5 62_fS'iY :axf8 63.Wxf8
27 ... axb6 28.q'Je2 It was not too late for 28.tiJe4 yet, after which Black must choose between 28 ... tlJxe6 29.fxeS :XeS 30.'Wxc4= and 28 . . b5 29.'*,d2 °o.
Game 33 Welln-Radeker carr. 1 988
.
28 �e6 29.fxe6 'ii' b4? ! ..•
After 2 9 . . . :Xe6 30:�xc4 �f7 Black's position would be slightly better, since his bishop is more active than White's knight.
30.'tWe3 lle7 Of course not 30 . . . �xb2?? 31 .a3 +-.
31 .8d4?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4/� !f3 a61? An experimental idea of Gibbons, which has been developed by two very strong correspondence chess players B. Rade ker and J .Tait. Surprisingly, Dunnington does not mention this move at all. Black wants to protect the c4-pawn by . . . b7-bS. Of course, he must be aware
Chapter 3
98
that this will cost him a tempo for the development.
a3 1 ) 6.e4 bS 7.a4 b4 a3 1 1 ) 8.tiJa2 iDf6 9.'t'Yd4 Interesting is 9.Axc4 tDxe4 1 0.0-0!? ( 1 0:Wd4 iDd6 1 1 .tDxb4 as 1 2.tZjc2 tlJxc4 1 3 .�xc4 AaS , 1 0 .tiJxb4 eS, with counterplay in both cases) 1 0 . . .tL1d6 ( 1 0 . . . aS? 1 1 .AbS+ Ad7 1 2.llJeS! bb5 1 3.axbS± 'ti'dS?? 1 4 .'i¥g4 +-, van der Stricht-Meessen, Eupen 2003) 1 1 .td3 as 1 2.ii..f 4 88. 9 c5 9 ... e6! ? 1 0.Axc4 exdS 1 1 .exdS i.b7 1 2. 0-0 Ae7 oo, Bekker Jensen-Wisnewski, Kie1 200 1 . 1 0.'ti'xc4 1 0.'6'xcS e6 1 1 .'ii'xc4 exdS 1 2.exd5 tDxdS oo. 1 0 e6 1 1 .i..g 5 exd5 1 2.�xd5 tiJxd5 1 3.i..xdS llJf4 ( 1 3 . . . $'xdB!? 1 4. exd5 Ad6) 1 4.i.g5 iDe6, and Black has no problems , while White has yet to activate the a2-knight, Tikkanen Radeker, carr. 1 990. .
•••
S.e4 Other possibilities: a) S.d5 al ) S ... Ci)aS?! 6:�a4+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 (7 . . . b5 8:�'xa5 �xa5 9.bxa5 b4 1 0.tlja4 cxdS 1 1 /:�bS +-) 8 . axb3 e6 (B . . . bS 9.b4±, 8 . . . e5 9.i..d 2 +-) 9 . �d2 b6 (9 ... exdS 1 0:ti'xa5 �xa5 1 1 .:xaS + -) 1 0.b4±. a2) S ... tDa7?! 6.e4 bS 7.a4 b4 (7 ... i.g4 B.axbS axbS 9.Ae3 ±, Nekora-Braunli n , Switzerland 1 986) B.tDa2 e S 9.i.. xc4 ':�·'fS 1 0 .dxeS ( 1 0 .i..g S h6 1 1 .�xf6 �xf6 1 2.eS �f4 1 3.�c2±) 1 0 .. :�'xd l + 1 1 s1fxd1 ii.. xe6 1 2.i..xe6 fxe6 1 3.tlJg5 0-0-0+ 1 4.$'e2 l:1eS 1S . .te3 �b7 1 6. i.xa7 �xa7 1 7.l:ac1 cS l B.tthd 1 ±, Miles-W ise, Portsmouth 1 976. a3) S ...iDb8!
.•.
a31 2) 8.llJbl tz:Jf6 9.'�c2 c6! After 9 ... c3? ! 1 0 .bxc3 eS 1 1 .c4 exd5 1 2.cxd5 'iYe 7 1 3 . .td3 tDxd5 1 4.0-0 White has a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn. 1 0.dxc6 tDxc6 1 1 .i..xc4 e6 1 2.i.t4 1 2 . .txeS? ! Axe6 1 3 .�xc6+ i.d7 1 4. 'ti'b7 ( 1 4.�c2 ? ! nc8 1 5 :�d l tiJxe4) 1 4 . . :fi'cB 1 5. 'iVxcS+ lIxc8 1 6.tlJbd2 .txa4 +, 1 2 . .tgS i.. b7 1 3 .0-0 ( 1 3.e5 h6 1 4 .Ah4 llJd4! ) 1 3 ... tlJd4 1 4.tZJxd4 'iWxd4 °o, 1 2.0-0 .tb7 1 3 J::td 1 '@c7 1 4 . .tg5 .te7 l S .tlJbd2 0-0==, Stull Radeker, carr. 1 9B9. 12 ...Ab7 1 3.tZJbd2 Ci)aS Interesting was also 1 3 . . .tlJd4 !? 1 4. tlJxd4 ,*"xd4 1 5.13 l:cB. 1 4 .0-0 llcB 1 5JIad1 'fi'bS 1 6 .b3 �e7 with a good position for Black, Kahn-Radeker, carr. 1 987. a32) 6.a4 Preventing . . . b7-bS. 6 e6 7.e4 ·:iJ6 .••
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:Jcs 3.tZ:Jc3 dxc4 4.c��f3
7 . . exd5 8.'tiVxd S ! ? 8 . .txc4 8 . .tgS h6 9.Ah4 .tb4 1 0.e5 gSoo. 8 exd5 B . .tb4 ? ! 9.i.g5 h6? 1 0.dxe6 !¥xdl + 1 1 .:Xd 1 hxgS 1 2.exf7+ We7 1 3.tLleS +-. 9.exdS 9.ti)xdS �d5 (9 ... tLlxe4? 1 0.�e2 +-) 1 O . .txdS i.b4+ 1 1 ..td2 .txd2+ 1 2.'i!¥xd2 c6=. 9... i.d6 Very good is also 9 . . . i.e7 1 0 .0-0 0-0 1 1 .tiJd4 i.g4 1 2 .'fYd3 f2Jbd7 with an easy game, W . Haag-Radeker. 2nd Bundesliga 1 990. 1 0.0-0 0-0 1 1 .%%e1 1 1 . .tgS hS 1 2.i.h4 1:e8=. 1 1 . . . h6 = 1 2.'Wd4 ? ! .i.g4 1 3.tlJeS?? .axe5 0 : 1 , Johansson-Albrecht. I Eee e mail 1 996. .
•••
99
By the way, this is a position from the Queen 's Gambit Accepted, which is deemed harmless for Black. After 6.e4 i. g4 ,
..
b) 5.�a4 bl ) 5 i.e6 does not equalize in view of 6.CZJe5, e.g. S . . . Ad7 7.f2Jxc6 i.xcS 8.'Wxc4 tZJf6 (8 . . . eS 9 . e4 '6'h4 1 0.g3) 9.13 ;1;, Pavey-S. Bernstein, New York 1954. b2) Also after S ... b5 6.tDxb5 i.d7 7. liJc3 tDxd4 8.'�rd 1 (8.�xc4?? �c2+ -+) 8 ... tlJxf3+ 9.exf3 i.eS 1 0.�a4+ 'iWd7 1 1 ..tf4! f2JfS ( 1 1 .. :�xa4? ! 1 2.tLlxa4 :lc8 1 3.tLlcS ±) 1 2.i.xc7 White's position seems slightly better in view of the as and c4 weaknesses, Onoda-Aichards, corr. 1 990. b3) S . tlJf61? S.'�·xc4 (6.e4!?) 6 . . . i.e6 7.�d3 i.g4 with a good position for Black, Finegold-Boey, cerr. 1 99 1 . •.•
..
c) 5.a4 tiJf6 In contrast to the main variation with 4 . . . tiJf6, here . . . a7-a6 and a2-a4 have been played. This difference seems to favour Black because the a4-square is no longer available for White's queen, which could be significant in some lines. Moreover, . . . a7-a6 is usually con sidered to be an useful move.
the following variations are possible: cl ) 7 .te3 cl 1 ) 7 .. i.xf3 8.gxf3 e5 9.dxe5 9 .dS? ! f2Ja5 is too risky for White, e.g. 1 O.l;;[ b 1 ? i.b4=t, Kendall-Tait, corr. 1 996, or 1 0.f4 i.d6 1 1 .1xe5 AxeS 1 2 . .tg2 �d6 with a good position for Black, Garkov-Donchev, Bulgaria 1 982, and Gostisa-Espinoza, Manila 1 992. 9 . .tZJxeS 1 0. f4 tlJd3+ 1 1 .Axd3 �xd3 ( 1 1 . . . cxd3 ! ?) 1 2.e5 �xd l 1 3. :xd 1 tiJg4 1 4.Ud4, and White wins back the pawn with equality, Konopka Fomi nyh , Salonika 1 996. . .
.
c 1 2) 7 e5 8.dxe5 8.dS? f2Ja5 9.h3 i.xf3 1 0.'�xf3 i.d6 +. 8 tlJd7 8 .. .i.xf3? 9.'�t¥xd8+ llxd8 1 0.exfS tiJb4 1 1 .11cl AhS 1 2.i.xc4 gxfS 1 3.0-0 ±, Barczak-Jablonski, Terun 1 991 , 8 . . . !¥xd 1 + 9 .lbd 1 i.xf3 1 0.gxf3 tlJxeS 1 1 . 14 tlJd3+ 1 2.�xd3 cxd3 1 3.:Xd3 i.b4 9.i.xc4 tiJdxe5 1 0.tZJxe5 1 0.i.e2 i.xf3! ? 1 1 .i.xf3 ( 1 1 .gxf3 tiJb4 1 2.0-0 �h4 1 3.14 l:[d8 with initiative for Black, Neikirkh/Zvetkov) 1 1 . . . tlJd3+ 1 2. �1 .i.c5 1 3.�xcS tLlxc5 with an easy game for Black. 1 0 tlJxe5 ...
...
.
00 .
•••
Chapter 3
1 00
1 0 . . . �xd 1 ?? 1 1 . .txf7+ �e7 1 2. �g5+ +-. 1 1 .�b3 1 1 .Ae2 �xd1 + 1 2 .:xd 1 Ae6 =, K. Meier-M. Peters, corr. 1 996. 11 . .. tLntc4 1 2.'iJi'xc4 .te6 1 3.�e2 i.b4 with a comfortable equality, Thor finsson-P.Thorhalisson , Reykjavik 1 999. c 1 3) 7 e6 8.i.xc4 .tb4 9.�d3 (9.�c2? tz:Jxd4) , and now, in the game Knol-Boey, Bad Liebenzell 1 996, Black could have simply played 9 . ..0-0. In this case the position would be almost identical to the one from the variation 4 ... tlJf6 5.e4 i.g4 6.i.e3 e6 7 . .txc4 i.b4 8.iYd3 0-0 (p.84), only with the difference of a2-a4 and ... a7-a6, which deprives White of some options, e.g. a2-a3 or .:tc4-b5. c 1 4) Interesting is also 7...tiJa5!?, e.g. 8.h3 .txf3 9 .�xf3 e6 1 0.g4 �b4 with a complicated position, Basman Damjanovic, Birmingham 1 977, and Rapp-Kauppala, Germany 1 990. •••
c2) 7.d5 CZJe5 (7 ... tlJa5 ! ?) : c21 ) 8.�f4 tlJg6 9.14g3 On 9.Ae3, 9 . . . tlJh4 ! ? is unpleasant. g e5 1 0.a5!? 1 0 .dxe6 14xe6 1 1 .tzJg5 �b4 or 1 0.Axc4 AdS followed by . . . 0-0, . . . ':'= ,hS-f4, with counterplay for Black in both cases. 10 i.d6 1 1 .'iYa4+ i.d7 1 2.�c2 Or 1 2.'�xc4 0-0 1 3 . .te2 i2Jh5. 1 2 ... b5!? Rather good is also 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3.Axc4 /,��h5. 1 3.axb6 cxb6 1 4 . .t.xc4 b5 1 5 . .td3 0-0 1 6.0-0 tiJh5 °o, Dabulavicus-Tait, corr. 1 998. ••.
••.
c22) 8.i.e2 Axf3 9.gxf3 e6 Interesting is also 9 ... tZJd3+ 10 . .txd3 cxd3 1 1 .'�xd3 (after 1 1 .�b3 'ircS 1 2 . J.,g5 tZJd7 the d3-pawn cannot be won back so easily, G . Kuzmin-Shutrov, Baku 1 964) 1 1 . . . eS oo.
1 0.f4 1 0.'iYd4 tzjfd7 1 1 .Ae3 Ac5 1 2 .�d2 exd5 1 3 .f4 tiJd3+ 1 4 .i.xd3 cxd3 l S .tz:JxdS c6 l S .ClJc3 i.xe3 1 7.'�'xe3 'ilYe7 l S.'ti'xd3 tzJc5 1 9.iYe3 0-0-0 with initiative for Black, Ho Van Huynh Adianto, Manila (01) 1 992. 1 0 . ..tiJd3+ 1 0 . . . Cl:JgS!? 1 1 . .txc4 exd5 1 2.tZJxd5 t2jxd5 1 3.'Wxd5 14b4+ 1 4.�e2 'iVe7!? l S.'4lfxb7 0-0 i5i5, Verschuuren-Spek, carr. 1 993. 1 1 .�xd3 cxd3 1 2.dxe6 After 1 2.�xd3 i.b4 ! Black exerts strong pressure on the centre. 12 ...fxe6 1 3.�b3 �d7 ! ? 1 4.'Wxb7 :ld8 1 S. Ad2, Nadera-Ye, Jakarta 1 993, 1 5 . . . .tcS ! l S.�xa6 0-0 with sufficient compensation for the pawn . c3) 7.JLxc4 i.xf3 Also good is 7 . . . eS !? 8 . .te3 i.b4, equi valent to the variation 4 . . .CLlfS 5.e4 i..xg4 6 . .te3 e6 7.i.xc4 i-b4 . 8.gxf3 �xd4 9.�b3 0-0-0 1 0,.axf7 1 0.Ae3 CLla5 1 1 . .txd4 tiJxb3 1 2 . 14xb3 l'hd4 1 3.i.xf7 e5+, Starke�Grottke, corr. 1 981 . 1 0 .. .e5 Also possible is 1 0 . . . tiJe5, e.g . 1 1 .0-0 liJxf7 1 2.�xf7 e5 1 3.I1d1 ttd7 1 4.�e6 �bS oo, Lutikov�lvkov, Sukhumi 1 966, or 1 1 1 . .ae6+ �b8 1 2.i.e3 tzJxf3+ 1 3 .�e2 i2Jd2 1 4 . .axd4 tlJxb3 1 5 .�xf6 tz:Jxa1 1 6. .ae5 liJc2 1 7.liJd5 ttd6 ! 1 S . .txd6 exd6 1 9.�d3 c6 = V2:V2, Marovic-Golz, Zinno witz 1 966. 1 1 .0-0 � b4 1 2.f4 1 2. Ae3 �xb3 1 3.i.xb3 tiJd4 1 4 ..txd4 exd4 +, Kalantarian-Mchedlishvili, Yere� van 1 996. 1 2...'fi'xb3 1 3 . .txb3 .tc5 1 4.fxe5 tZJxe5 l S.'ltig2 l:hfS, and despite White's bishop pair, the second player has the initiative, Relange-Legky, France 1 997.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLlcS 3.tiJc3 dxc4 4.tLlf3
d) S.e3 Now after 5 ... 3I.g4 S.j("xc4 eS Black can transpose to a position from the Queen 's Gambit Accepted (1 .d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.tlJf3 as 4.e3 3I.g4 S . .txc4 e6 S.tDc3 'ZJcS), which is quite playable for him. However, another plan is recom mendable : S bS!? 6.a4 6.d5 tlJaS 7.b4 CiJb7 8.a4 eS! with counterplay. 6... b4 7.tlJe4!? 7.tLJb1 tlJaS 8.tlJbd2 '1!¥d5 9.�c2 (9.e4 �b7 oo) 9 ... j("fS 1 0.e4 .i.g6 °o. 7.t1Ja2 'fi'dS 8.tDd2 e5! 9.dxeS ti:Jxe5 1 0. ClJxc4 �xd 1 + 1 1 .�xd 1 tLlxc4 1 2 .�xc4 Ab7 1 3.f3 tLlf6=. 7 ...'Wd5!? S.tlJed2 c3 8 ... tiJaS?! 9 .tlJeS c3 1 0.bxc3 bxc3 1 1 .tlJb1 e6 1 2.�c3 �b4 1 3.�d2 with initiative for White. 9.bxc3 bxc3 1 0.tLlb1 eS ! ? ( 1 0 . . . 1i'a5 ! ?oo) 1 1 .�c3 ..tb4 1 2 . ..td2 �aSoo.
1 01
White immediately attacks pawn chain on the queenside. In the case of 6.dS,
Black's
...
...
Back to the main l i ne:
5 bS ...
The most consistent continuation. Now and then S .:k.g4 has been also played. Then the fol lowi ng variations a re possible: •••
a) 6.dS tLleS 7.Af4 tlJgS S.i.g3 eS 9 . h3 Axf3 1 0.�xf3 AdS (1 0 . . . b5 !?) 1 1 . .txc4, and now, in the game Geisler Reimer Germany 1 991 , Black cou ld have a� hieved a comfortable equality with 1 1 . . . tlJh4 ! ? 1 2.�g4 ( 1 2 . .:k.xh4 �xh4=) 1 2 . . . hS 1 3.Axh4 (1 3 .�xg7? itJgs -+, 1 3:�xh4? g 5 -+) 1 3 . . . hxg4 1 4 . .txd8 lbdS. b)
6 . .te3 b5 7.d5 tlJeS oo. 6 . .Axc4 (this simple continuation is probably the strongest) 6 ... .i.xf3 7.�xf3 e6 8.dS tiJeS 9:�e2 tlJxc4 1 0.'iYxc4 exd5 1 1 .tlJxd 5 !, van der Sterren Formanek, Antwerpen 1 995.
c)
6.a4
Black can transpose to the variation 5.d5 tlJbS 6.e4 bS with 6 ... tlJb8 see three pages back. Watson's idea 6 ... tlJa5 was put to the test in the topical game Ovsejevitsch-T. Ruck, Szombathely 2003: 7.b4 (on 7.j("f4 both Watson's move 7 . . . e6 and Radeker's suggestion 7 . gS ! ? are inte resti ng) 7 .. tlJb7 ! (after 7 . . . cxb3? 8.axb3 e6 9Jlxa5 Ab4 1 0 . .txb5+ .Ad7 1 1 . .txd7 + �xd7 in the game Roux Jove Grau, corr. 1 988, White could have achieved a great advantage with 1 2. �d4 ! i.xaS 1 3.b4 .ixb4 1 4.�xb4) 8.a4 Ad 7 9 .tlJeS DbS 1 0.axb5 axbS 1 1 :�f3 CLld6 1 2 . .te2 g6 1 3.0-0 �g7 14 . .i.f4 tLlf6 1 5 .CiJcS .i.xc6 1 6.dxc6 , and despite his extra pawn Black is in serious troubles . -
.
.
6 ... b4
.
Chapter 3
1 02 7.tlJd5
White chooses the aggressive reply. Other possibilities are: a) 7.tZJa2 b3! ? (7 ... .ig4, 7 ... tZJf6 and 7 e6 are also worth considering) S.d5 (B.tLlc3? tLlb4) 8 bxa2 (B ... tLlaS?! 9. tZ:Jc3 e6 1 0.tLleS with initiative for White) 9.dxc6 �xd1 + 1 0.
...
.
7 e6 ...
7 . . . Ag4? ! is too risky: B.Af4 :a7 9 . �xc4 e 6 1 0.tDxc7+! :Xc7 1 1 . .ixc7 '§'xc7 1 2.�xa6±. 8.tlJe3 tDf6
Interesting was also S... c3! ? , e.g. 9.bxc3 bxc3 (L\ . . . Ab4) 1 0.i.a3 i.xa3 1 1 .l:Xxa3 tLlf6 1 2.llxc3 Ab7 1 3.�d3 tlJb4 with counterplay against White's centre. 9.e5 tlJdS 1 0.CZJxc4
An alternative was 1 0.bc4, after which could follow 1 0 ... tlJa5 ! ? 1 1 . .td3 i..b 7 1 2.0-0 c5 ! with counterplay. 1 0 ... .ae7 1 1 .i.d3 ,ib7 1 2. 0-0 �d7 1 3.1:[e1
Let us examine the position more thoroughly. White has a space advan tage in the centre and on the kingside due to the eS-pawn. The queen's rook will soon be ready to go to c1 and exert some pressure on the c-file. If White manages to exchange the dark squared bishops, the weakness of the cS square would be rather tangible. On the other hand, the second player controls the beautiful dS-square on which his knight feels very comfortable. The b7-bishop is on the h 1 -aS diagonal and has little to complain about. Moreover, White must always take care of the d4-pawn. Now Black must choose his further plan. There are the following options: • To castle kingside and prepare the counterplay ... c7-cS in the centre. This plan, however, seems rather risky because then White's pieces would be ready for an attack on the kingside. • To leave the king in the centre and prepare . . .c7-cS. • To castle queenside and launch a pawn attack against White's king side. I like the last plan best. In the game, however, Black made a different choice. 1 3 . h6 ..
Prophylaxis against �gS or tlJg5. As was said, 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 ! ? was worth con sidering. 1 4.i.e3 l:d8?!
Black has made his decision, after which he would have some troubles with his king. I would once again re com mend 1 4 . . . 0-0-0! ? with a sharp position. 1 S.:c1 tDxe3
Of course, it is a pity to exchange this knight, but how else can one get in ... c7-cS ?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4FJ3
1 6.fxe3 ttJb8 1 7 . .tb1 c5 Interesting was 1 7 . . . 0-0, as without the dark squared bishop White's attack would not be so dangerous, e.g. 1 8. tiJa5 c5! (1 8 . . . .td5 1 9.�c2±) 1 9.tZJxb7 (19.dxcS 't!¥xdl 20.Ilcxd1 lbd 1 21 .nxd 1 .adS) 1 9 .. .'tl*'xb7. Of course, White would be more active in this case, but it would not be easy for him to achieve anything significant.
1 8.'iYc2 !? In order to prevent Black from castling.
18 ... i.xf3 1 9.9xf3 cxd4 20. l:ed1 'f!ia7 After 20 . . . .tc5? ! 2 1 .tlJdS+ i.xd6 22. �d4 't!¥e7 23.exdS l:rxdS 24.l:txb4 Black's king remains in the centre, while White's position is very active.
21 .�h1 g6
1 03
White has an obvious advantage in view of the u nsafe position of Black's king and the passivity of the h8-rook and b8knight. The only question is whether it would be enough for the victory.
22 ...�8 After 22 . . . 0-0 23.'iYe4 ! Black's position would be equally unpleasant (23 . :�; "ld7 24.tlJa5!). . .
.
23.'tWe4 �d7? The decisive mistake. Correct was 23 . . .'�g7 24.a5, and now not 24 . . . l:tdS 25.�S! .td8 (2S . . . l:txa5 2S.tlJxf7 ! +-. 25 . . . �xdS 2S.exdS +-) 2S.l:ic8±. but 24 . . . tDd7 25.1:g 1 tiJf8 in the hope of holding the position with a stubborn defence.
24.ttJb6 'iVa7 24 .. .'�e8 25.11c7 + - .
On 21 . . . dxe3 follows 22.lhd8+ i.xd8 23.tlJdS+ �8 24.�c8 �e7 25.'ofi'c4 with a strong attack.
25.a5 tiJd7 Or 2S ... 'it'g7 2SJic4 ! followed by I:dc 1 .
26.tlJc8 �b8 �xe7 28.'iYc6 g5
22.exd4 ...
27.ttJxe7
The a-pawn could not be saved: 28 . . . �b5 29.'ffd 6+ �e8 30 . .txg6! fxgS 3 1 .'t!¥xe6+ �8 32.�d6+ +-.
29.�xa6 llhe8 30 .te4 f5 31 .j,xf5! .
31 . . . exf5 32.�xhS +-. 1
:0
Chapter 4
1 04
Chapter 4 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.ClJc3 ClJf6 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 (iJc6 3.t2jc3 ,; ',f6
Further 4 . .tg5 tlJe4 5 . ..th4 g5!? 6.�xg5!?, along with ( numerous) deviations, is the theme of Game 39.
Game 34 Radeker - W. Wittmann corr. 1 983
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.tlJc3 t2Jf6 4.t2Jf3
The natural continuation 3 .. .lijf6 is played often, but relatively less than 3 . . . dxc4. Black continues the mobilization of his forces and at the moment he even has an advantage in the development. White can play 4/��f3, after which modern theory considers 4 . . . dxc4 to be the best reply, leading to Chapter 3. The old main line with 4 i.g4 q Game 34 must be evaluated as dubious since 1 1 . .te2 ! ! has been unearthed. .••
White can also exchange on d5 and then play e2-e4, achieving a beautiful centre, which , however, can be attacked by Black immediately: 4.cxd5 tiJxd5 5.e4 tiJxc3 6.bxc3 e5, and now 7.d5 q Games 35-36 7.lLlf3 exd4! q Game 3 7; or also 4.cxd5 ttJxd5 5.lLlf3 e5 !? q Game 38 The positions resemble slightly those from the Griinfe/d Defence, and Black's chances are not bad at all.
After 4.e3 dxc4 5.Axc4 e5 6.d5 Black can choose between the three possibi· lities 6 ... tZ:Jb8, 6 . . . tlJaS and 6 ...tLle7, all of them leading to unclear positions. Un· fortunately, there are not enough games to allow us to draw any conclusions. 5J�f3 exd4 6.exd4 Ad6 transposes to a position from the variation 3 . . . dxc4 4.e3. Apart from 4 ... dxc4, Watson's recom· mendation 4 ... a6 is also interesting, e.g. : a) 5.cxd5 tLlxd5 6.tLlf3 ( 6 . ,ic4 e6 7.tZ:Jf3 tiJxc3 8.bxc3 .id6 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.e4 e5oo, Leube-Hohlbein, Hamburg 1 997) 6... .ig41 7.,ic4 (7. ..wb3 i.xf3 8.gxf3 e6! , Watson) 7 ... e6 8.0-0 Ae7 (8 . . . i.d6! ?) 9.h3 (9.,ixd5 exd5 1 0.'i¥b3 .te6 11 1 1 .'iWxb7?? tLla5 -+) 9 ... AhS 1 0 . .ixd5 exdS 1 1 .'iWb3 i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 �d7 1 3.�g2 ( 1 3.fYxb7? 0-0 1 4.�b3 �xh3 1 S.�xd5 .aad8! -+), and now in Aamseier-Manievich , Zurich 1 999, Black should have simply played 1 3 ... 0-0-000, b) 5.tZ:Jf3 i.g4 6.'iYb3!? (after 6.Ae2 dxc4 7 . .ixc4 e6 8.0-0 ,id6 Black has comfortable equality, Funke-Weimer,
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tDc3 tDf6 Germany 1 995; 6.cxd5 tlJxd5 leads to variation a) 6 ... ..txf3 (6 . . . e6 7.C2:Je5 ! with initiative). Now W atson gives only 7.gxf3 eS, which is really OK for Black. As a second player I wou ld be more worried about 7.'tiVxb7 !? after the practically forced 7 ... tZ:Ja5 8. 't!¥b4 C2:Jxc4 B.gxf3 W h ite's position seems pre ferable. -
4 i..g 4? ! ...
This continuation is dubious, as we shall see later, 4 .tfS also is not sufficient for equality. Then White has the following options: ...
a) To transpose with S . ..tg5 tDe4 6.cxd5 (but not S.C2:Jxd5?? tlJxg5 7.tlJxg5 e6 -+) 6 . . .C2:Jxc3 7.bxc3 �xd5 to a slightly better position from the variation 4 . ..tg5 (4 . . . tlJe4 5 .cxd5 C2:Jxc3 6.bxc3 Wxd5 7.tZJf3 �J5 Q Game 39, anno tation b1 to White's 5th move, p. 1 1 6.). b) 5.cxdS ti:Jxd5 Q 3 ... tlJfS 4.cxd5 lOxd5 5.'2lf3 ..tf5 ( Game 38, annotation b to Black's 5th move, p . 1 1 4.). c} 5 .if4, and after S ... eS 6.e3 a position from the Keres Defence ( 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ..tf5 3.tlJf3 e6 4.tlJc3 tiJc6 5 . ..tf4 tOf6 6.e3) arises, which is evaluated as slightly better for White. d} 5.'�Va4!? is also possible.
1 05
a2) 7.tLJa4 tZJg8 8.tZJc5 c6 9.tZJb3 cS 1 0.�d3 �c7 1 1 .i.f4 e6 =, Corinthios Boey, corr. 1 984. a3) 7.tlJb1 tlJg8 Q 3.tZJf3 ..tg4 4.llJe5 tLJxeS 5.dxe5 d4, which leads to the same position . a4) 7.tlJbS c6 B.h3 (B.tiJxd4 '{fYa5+ followed by 9 . . . 'i!Vxe5) 8 ... cxb5 9.hxg4 tZJxg4 1 O.eS fS 1 1 .'i!Vb3 a6 1 2.cxb5 �b6 1 3.e3 dxe3 1 4. fxe3 as 1 5.�d5 tzJf6 1 6.�xfS g6 1 7:�h3 i.g7 �. Furman Men , Saturni 1 972. b) S.i-f4 e6 Q 3.tlJf3 i-g4 4.tzJc3 eS 5 . ..tf4 tZJf6. c)
S.e3 Q 3.tZJf3 ..tg4 4.e3 tlJfS 5.tlJc3.
5 .. .t2Jxd5 6.e4
•
Better is 4 dxc4, leading to the varia tion 3 . . . dxc4 4.tDf3 tLJf6, which we have already analysed. ..•
5.cxd5 ! The strongest and most consistent continuation. Of course, there are some other possibilities: a) On 5.tZ:Je5 follows 5...tiJxe5 (S ... e6? ! 6 . ..tg5 .Af5 7.�a4±, Kralj· Raichle, Germany 1 989) 6.dxe5 d4!, and now: a1 ) 7.exfS dxc3 8:tWxd8+ I1xd8 9.fxe7 he7 1 0.bxc3 ..tf6 1 1 . ..td2 O-O �.
6 tlJxc3 ...
Also after 6 ... Axf3 7.gxf3 Black has problems, e.g . : a ) 7 ...tlJb6 S.dS tzJb8 9 . ..tf4 c6 1 0. �b3! tZJ8d7 ( 1 0 . . . cxd5 1 1 . .1b5+ tlJ8d7 1 2.tiJxd5±) 1 1 .11dl ±, Keres-Terpugov, Moscow 1 951 . Also unsatisfactory is 8 . . . tlJe5 (instead of B . . . tZJb8) 9.f4 tlJed7 1 0. a4 a5 1 1 . �b5 ±, Roder-Skembris, Cutro 2002. b) 7 ... tZJf6 B.dS tlJe5 9.�f4 (9.f4 ! ?) 9 ... tlJg6 1 0.�b5+ tiJd7 1 1 .i.e3±, Griffin-K.Karlsson. ICCF e-Mail 1 998. c) 7 ... CZJxc3 8.bxc3 e5 8 ... e6 is bad in view of 9.�b1 llb8
Chapter 4
1 06
1 0.'5'a4, e . g . 1 0 . . : �d 7 1 1 . .tb5 ±, Hobaica-Vasta, Mar del Plata 1 993 or 1 0 .. .'ti'cB? 1 1 .d5 exd5 1 2 . exd5 '3'15 1 3.I1xb7 ! 'fIeS+ 1 4.J:.e2 �c3+ 1 5 . .ad2 't'fa1 + 1 6 . .ad1 +-, Ruck-Wiater, Oberwart 2003. 9.d5 tlJb8 9 . . . tiJe7 1 0 .11b 1 nb8 1 1 . .ae3 ±, J . Richard-Dunsmore , corr. 1 995. 1 0.11b1 �d6 1 O . �c5 1 1 :�a4+ llJd7 1 2 . J:.h3 b6 1 3 . l::Ig 1 g6 1 4.'8c6 .:tcS 1 5.J:.xd7+ �xd7 1 6:�'f6 .:t1S 1 7 :�xe5+ 1'*'e7 1 8.�xe7+ Wxe7 1 9.We2. H ei n ig - H .Schm idt, StrauBberg 1 971 . 1 1 .:g1 g6 1 2.l:xb 7 tiJd7 1 3 . .tg5 f6 1 4.J4h6 ±, Ribli-W .Wittmann, Dubai (01) 1 986. .
.
Other knight moves seem less favourable: 6 ... tlJb6 7.d5±. 6 tZJf6 7 . .ae3 (7 . .tb5 ! ?) 7 . Axf3 S.gxf3 e6 9 . .i.b5 a6 1 0.J:.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 . �c2 ±. Kuhn-Speier, Eisenberg 1 993. 6 ... CZJdb4 7.a3 tLlxd4 8.axb4 tlJxf3+ 9.gxf3 �xd 1 + 1 0.tlJxd1 Axf3 1 1 J1g 1 J4xe4 1 2.tZJc3 Ag6 1 3 . .ig2 +-. Verdier Naumovic, carr. 1 995. ..•
. .
7.bxc3 e5 S d5 t�bS .
Also after S J:.xf3 9:ti'xf3 tDa5 1 0.'fIg3 �f6 (or 1 0 .. :ifd6 1 1 . .te3 ±, McDonald Ross-Cafferty, England 1 976) 1 1 .J:.g5 �d6 1 2 ..tb5+ c6 1 3. dxc6 bxc6 14 . .:td1 �c7 1 5 . Ae2 , Deltchev-Skembris, Torino 2000, White's position is clearly better, but that was still the lesser evil. ...
9:�a4+ ! ��d7 9 . . . ..td7 1 0.�b3 b6 1 1 .tlJxe5 �e7 1 2 . .af4 f6 loses in view 1 3.d6 ! cxd6 1 4 .�d5! '
1 0.tiJxe5 '*'f6
The position seems unclear. but . . .
1 1 ..te2 ! ! .
Probably this 'quiet' move decides the game. Dunnington writes that it was played for the first time in the game Cramling-Landenbergue, Biel 1 987, but that is not the truth ! The first one to play it was the chess player from Stuttgart Bernd Aadeker, who in this game had to play against his own pet opening. Some other continuations that have been played as wel l : a ) 1 1 .tlJxg4 '!!¥xc3+ 1 2.Wd1 �xa1 1 3.Ab5 ( 1 3.�c2 0-0-0 1 4 .tb2 �e 1 1 5 . .ac3 tlJc5 1 6.i.xe 1 tlJxa4 1 7.CDe5 1:1eB 1 8.tlJxf7 :g8 1 9.f3 .1I..e 7 20 . .tb5 1:etS 21 .d6 cxd6 22. Axa4 llxf7 23.i.b3 l:Uf8 24 . ..txgS 1:xg8=, Gligoric-Mariotti, Milan 1 975) 1 3...0-0-0 ( 1 3 . . . l:d8 !?) 1 4 . .txd7+ (1 4 .'t&'xa7? ! tlJb6) 1 4 . . . tIxd7 1 5.'!!¥xa7 c6 1 6.�e2 �b1 1 7.'Wa8+ �c7 1 8.Af4+ i.d6 1 9:�a5+ �b6 2o.Axd6+ Itxd6 2 1 .'i¥xb6+ �xb6 22.:�\95 lIa8 23.tlJc4+ Y2:Y2, Pein Geenen, Bruxelles 1 986. .
b) 1 1 .f4 i.d6 1 2.Ae2 ( 1 2 . .tb5 c6 1 3. dxc6 bxc6 1 4.:i.xc6 0-0 1 5.i.xd7 Axe5 1 6. fxe5 �h4+ 1 7 .g3 i.xd7 1 S.gxh4 i..xa4 = Gulko-Andruet, New York 1 987) 1 2 0-0 1 3.i.xg4 ( 1 3 .tiJxg4 ? �xc3+ 1 4 .�f2 f5 ! 1 5 .'�Y xd 7 fxg4 1 6 .g3 1 6.i.e3 llxf4 !+ 1 7.i.xf4 i.c5+ -+ 1 6 .. :�Y7'xa 1 -+, Gutman-Kozul, Frankfurt .•.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ��cS 3.liJc3 liJf6 1 990) 1 3 Axe5 1 4.fxe5 'iWh4+ 1 S.93 't!¥xg4 1 6.0-0 liJxeS 1 7.Af4 dfe8, and Black has no problems at all, Chauhan Lhouvum, corr. 1 995.
Game 35 Powell - Grlmsey corr. 1 980
...
1 1 ... b5 imaginative answer, but it is not enough to save the game. Some other options: a) 11 . �d6 1 2.i.xg4 �xe5 1 3.i.xd7 + �8 1 4.�d2 1 :0, Cramling-Landenbergue, Bie1 1 987. b) 11 06 1 2.dxcS 'it'xe5 1 3.cxd7 + i.xd7 1 4.'ti'd4 ±, Rey-Leski, San Fran cisco 1 987. c) 1 1 .'�&xe5 1 2.�xg4 lld8 ( 1 2 ... 0-0-0 1 3 .0-0 �c5 1 4J%b 1 :the8 1 S.l:1xb7 ! +-, Gyimesi-Patuzzo, Guarapuava 1 995, 1 2 .. .'fi'xc3+ 1 3 . ..td2 �xa 1 + 1 4.�e2 +-) 1 3.0-0 .ac5 1 4 . ..txd7 + l:xd7 1 S . .aa3 ba3 1 S:iYxa3 ±, Wostmann-Rehfeldt, Germany 1 989.
1 07
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.t2Jc3 tlJf6 4.cxd5 tlJxd5 5.e4
An
..
...
..
12 . .
1 2.�xb5 :b8 .'i'xe5 could prolong the game, but
not save it - 1 3.�xg4 'iWxe4+ 1 4.'�e2 'fr'xe2+ 1 5.i.xe2 with a technically won position, Garcia Palermo-Libeau, 2nd Bundesliga 1 988.
1 3.�a4 .tb4 Black's moves seem spectacular, but they can be easily refuted.
1 4.cxb4 �xe5 1 5 . .txg4 0-0 1 S . . :ti'xe4+ 1 6 . .te2 +-.
16 ...txd7 'iVc3+ 1 7.i.d2 �xa1 + 1 8.'i¥d1 �xa2 1 9.0-0 �c4 20.�f3 And Black, being in a worse position with less material, lost his desire to continue the game. 1 :0
W hite wants to set up a strong pawn centre as fast as possible. An alternative is S.liJf3 Q Game 39.
5 ...tZJxc3 6.bxc3 e5 7.dS 7.liJf3 � Game 38. 7.. tZJb8 .
7 liJe7? ! is dubious in view of 8.lDf3 tLJg6 9.�b5+ .lid7 1 0.'Wb3 ! with initia tive for White, e.g. 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .h4 !? Jid6 1 2.hS tiJe7 1 3. h6 ! gS 1 4 . .tgS ±, Justo Giffard, Evry 2001 . ...
8.tzJf3 The sharp continuation 8.14 will be analysed in the next game.
B . tlJd7 .
.
8 Ad6 is often played, which often trans poses after 9 . .te2 0-0 1 0.0-0 [::Jd7. I n the game Botsari-Wohlers, Dortmund 1 988, further followed 1 1 .i.e3 �e7 1 2. tiJd2 �c5 1 3.ClJc4 Axe3 1 4.liJxe3 tiJcS, and the position is approximately equal. However, W isnewski's idea 10 f5!? (instead of 1 0 ... ti:Jd7) is very interesting - Black immediately starts his counter...
...
Chapter 4
1 0S
play on the kingside. In the game Kern Wisnewski , ICC 2002 , W h ite replied with 1 1 .tlJgS?!, but after 1 1 . .. f4 1 2.tlJe6 i.xe6 1 3.dxe6 �e7 the e6-pawn turned out to be a weakness and was lost in a few moves. According to W isnewski, White must go instead for 1 1 .exfS i.xfS with an unclear position. With his last move, Black retains the possibility to develop the bishop to cS.
9.Ab5 Th is is not the best square for the bishop, but probably White wanted to prevent . . . .tfS-cS. 9.Ae2 �d6 (9 ... i.cS!?) 1 0.0-0 0-0 leads to a position from the previous annotation.
1 0.i.e3 In the game Rashas-Winn, corr. 1 990, White played 10 .tg5 and only after 1 0 f6 followed 1 1 ..te3. Perhaps, the idea was to restrain Black's queen. There then followed 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.0-0 t� �S 1 3. tlJd2 fS! 1 4.f3 (better is 1 4.exfS, although after 1 4 . . . .txfS Black also has a comfortable position) 1 4 .. :�e7 ( 1 4 ... f41?) l S.fYc2 ( 1 S.exfS! ?) l S ... a6 1 6. i.. e 2, and now Black started a typical attack which decided the game quickly: 1 6 .. .f4! 17 . .tf2 �gS! 1 S .'�h 1 kIf6 1 9. :g 1 I:lh6 20.g4 .td7 2 1 .tDb3 tDxb3 22.axb3 nh3 23.�g2 �h6 24.I:lh1 l:US 2S.c4 i.xg4! 26.cS Ibf3! -+. This game shows h ow quickly W h ite can lose without making any obvious mistakes. •
•
1 0...0..0 1 1 .'i¥b3 On 1 1 .0-0 could follow 1 1 . . .'/i'e7� . . .�CS, . . .fS, as well as 1 1 ... �f6� ... tDcS, ... iYg6. With 1 1 .�b3 the queen aims at the Ab7. 11
...
\!JhS
Black intends to play .. .f7-fS; hence, the king leaves the a2-g8 diagonal. 1 1 . . tDc5 also seemed good. .
1 2 ... .txd7! Nevertheless ! 1 3.�xb7 l:tbS 1 4.'{Wa6 After 1 4.�xa7 �f6 ! (threatening 1 5 . l:ba8 1 6 :�b 7 I:lfb8 - +) l S . .tgS '&g6 1 6 :iYe3 f6 1 7.�h4 .tcS ! 1 8.'tWxc5 'lixg2 1 9.:g 1 'iVxf3 20.'We3 'i'h5 21 . .tg3 I:tb2 White has nothing to be happy about. ..
1 4 ... i.bSI
9 ....td6 9 ... AcS? 1 0.tlJxeS.
•..
1 2 . .txd7 Apparently, White does not want to allow . . . tiJd7-cS. Moreover, if Black decides to take back with the bishop the b7-pawn would fall and after 1 2 .. :i¥xd7 the bishop would be blocked.
The bishop attacks the queen and thwarts White's castling at the same time. On l S:i'*'xa7 follows 1 S . . . 11a8 1 6. �b7 �d7 ! ( 1 6 . l:tb8 with a repetition is not enough) 1 7.i.a7 i.d3 (�18.tCd2 'iWg4), and White's position looks terrible. .
.
1 5.'iWa5 �d7!
A brief glimpse over the position is enough to see that Black's initiative far outweighs White's extra pawn. White's king is in the centre, his queen is out of play, the bS-bishop is very active and without a counterpart. Probably the first player now regrets having claimed the innocent life of the b7-pawn.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3 'c2:Jc3 �f6
1 6.h3 Preventing 1 6 . . . �g4. 1 6.0-0-0 loses in view of 1 6 . . . .ta4 1 7.l:dg 1 I:.b5 ! 1 8. ',",'a6 (1 8.�xa4 l:b 1 + -+) 1 8 . . . IUb8 .
Game 36 Lputian - Sibilio Nereto 1 999
1 6 a6 Now the misled queen h as no squares at all .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.tZJc3 -�: 'f6 4.cxd5 tDxd5 S.e4 t2Jxc3 6.bxc3 e5 7.dS tlJbS S.f4 !?
.••
17.llJd2 White plans to dislodge the b5 - bishop with c3-c4 and thus allow the retreat of his queen. 1 7 ....td3 1S.c4 j"b4 ! Losing one more pawn is of no sig n ifi - the important thing is to keep White's queen out of play.
1 09
The most aggressive conti n u atio n W hite wants to conquer the central squares. However, that is a double edged contin u ation because it softens up the a7-g1 diagonal .
cance
1 9.'iYxa6 f5 ! Black b r i ngs new forces to the battle.
20.exf5 'iYxf5
S ... Ac5! Under the circumstances, this is the best square for the bishop.
Threatening 21 . . . .ic3. 21 J:Xc 1 is bad in view of 21 . . . .txd2+ 22.�xd2 1:a8. Black wins spectacularly after 21 .f3: 21 . . . e4 ! 22.t4 (22.iVe6 exf3l 23. 'i¥xf5 fxg2 ! ! -+) 22 .. . 'iYh5 23.g4 \'!¥h4+ 24.�d 1 'ifg3 25. 1:e1 l:M4 ! 26.�a7 (26 . .txf4 �xf4 -+) 26 ... �xe1 +! 27.�xe 1 :1 1 #.
21 .'iYe6 'iYe4 Now g2 is threatened. 22.�g4 1:[f4! 23.Vi'g3 .txd2+ After 24.�xd2 �xc4 a mate is inevitable. 0:1
9.llJf3 exf4 1 0.Axf4 c6 1 1 . ..tc4 0-0 After 1 1 . . . cxd5? l 1 2.�xd5 �xd5 1 3.exd5 0-0 1 4.0-0-0 White is clearly better due to the strong passed d-pawn . 1 2.d6!? White avoids the exchange o n activates the c4-bishop and lays hopes upon the d-pawn. However, king is not safe and that promises second player counter chances.
d5, his his the
1 10
Chapter 4
...
1 2 .. :�e8 I nteresting was 1 2 . . . 'i¥f6! ? 1 3.�d2 �g6 1 4 . ..td3 :e8! ( 1 4 . . . 1Lxd6?? l S.eS +-) l S.1Lc2 ( l S.0-0-0? .txd6 1 6.eS .ta3+ 1 75�bl .ifS+) l S . . . ClJd7 1 6.0-0·0 tlJb6 with a very complicated position. The text move is not bad either - Black wants to exchange the active c4-bishop. 1 3.'iYd3 Interesting was 1 3:�e2 .te6 1 4.0-0-0 ,'.:jd7 l S .eS b5 with a sharp position, where both sides have their achieve ments - White possesses a dangerous passed pawn, Black has good counter chances on the queenside. 1 3 . .td3 !? was also possible. 1 3 ... .ae6 1 4.�xe6 1 4.0-0-0 �xc4 l S. �xc4 tzJd7oo. 1 4 ...1'Wxe6 1 5.tlJd4 Otherwise it is not clear how W hite could castle - on l S.eS would follow l S .. .f6 !, and the situation of the king would be critical. 1 5 ... i.xd4 1 5 . . . �g6 1 6.0-0 Axd6 is too dangerous in view of 1 7.ti:JfS .icS+ 1 8.Ae3 ..txe3+ 1 9.�xe3 :e8 20.:f3. 1 6.cxd4 On 1 6.'tWxd4 follows 1 6 . . . cS! 1 7.'�d3 taJ7 1 8.0-0 f6 1 9.nfe1 :tfe8, and White's pawns are paralysed, after which Black has at least equality.
1 6 ...CZJd7? ! W hy not 1 6 . . .1':1e8, winning a pawn? After 1 7.0-0 (1 7.eS? �xd6) 1 7 .. .'�xe4 1 8.'6'xe4 l:xe4 1 9.:fe1 Dxe1 + 20.lbe1 1:i::J:J7 21 .:e7 lld8 White would have an active posi tion, but it would hardly be enough to win. 1 7.0..0 At last! Now the question is whether Black will be able to keep the blockade on the white pawns. 1 7... nae8 1 8J�Ue1 W h ite does not hurry with e4-e5, since it would surrender the dS-square. 1 8 h6 1 9.a4!? He cannot break through in the centre yet, hence becomes active on the queenside. •.•
1 9 CZJf6 20 . .ae5 After 20.eS ti:Jds the knight would have the beautiful central dS-square. •••
20 ... CZJd7 21 .i.g3 tL\f6
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tL\c6 3. "� 1C3 " �36
111
29.:ac1
22.Itab1 ! ? White wants to enforce . . . b7-b6, after which the c6-pawn would be weak and the b6-square would not be available to the knight anymore. However, he gives Black the chance to get rid of the e4pawn. Of course, the immediate 22.l:ad1 was also possible, after which Black could not take on e4 : 22 . . t2:Jxe4? 23.d7! :e7 24.'6'xe4 �xe4 2S.:xe4 l:lxe4 26 . i.e? + - . In that case, the second player would have probably had to reply with 22 . tDd7.
Black's position is deplorable. Practi cally a/l his pieces are passive, the kingside squares and the c6-pawn are weak. In his despair Sibilia sacrifices the exchange, but that does not save him either.
29...nxd6 30. .txd6 'iYxd6 31 .l1ed1 tiJe6 32.e5 �b4 33:�xc6 IXd8 34:�!¥c4 �b2 35.I!c2
.
1 :0
..
22 ... bS Taking on e4 seemed rather risky, but maybe it was still possible: 22 . . . �e4 23.d7 (23.:xb7? ! �d5oo) 23 . . . :e7 24. :Xb7 (24.'6'xe4? 'Wxe4 25.�e4 l:xe4 26.i.c7 �d4 -+) 24 . . . f5 25.l:xa7 llxd ? (2S . . l:tdB! ?) 26.Dxd7 �xd7, and although the a-pawn is dangerous, Black has his chances to save the game. .
23J:tbd1 �d7 23 . . . �e4? loses in view 24.d7 ne? 25. 't!Vxe4 �xe4 26.lbe4 l:h:e4 27.Ac7 +-. On 23 . . . tiJd7 follows 24.e5! 'iYd5 (the ... llJd7 -b6 manoeuvre is unfortunately not possible anymore) 25.�a6 naB 26. 'ii' b7 .afdS 27.Ah4 gS 2S . ..tf2±. There fore, Black keeps the knight on f6, so that in case of e4-e5 the latter could go to dS.
Game 37 P. Eljanov - Sepman St. Petersburg 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.t�jc3 tZJf6 4.cxd5 tiJxd5 5.e4 t2Jxc3 S.bxc3 e5 7/:�.J3 Dunnington estimates this move highly. His opi nion is based on the game Apollonov-Masternak, Visla 1 992, in which followed ? . i.d6 B . ..te2 0-0 9 .0-0 ..tg4 1 0 ..ae3 DeB 1 1 .d5 i�bS 1 2.f:Jd2 �xe2 1 3 .'8xe2 tiJd7 1 4 .ClJb3 bS 1 5.a4 as 1 SJ�fc1 (.1 c3-c4-cS) with initiative for White . ..
24 . .th4 g5? ! This move un necessarily weakens the kingside. Correct was 24 .. Jle6, and it is not clear whether White can win after 25.Axf6 lixfS 2S.e5 IIgS.
25.�g3 �e6 The immediate 2S . tZJh5 100ked better. . .
2S.h3 tiJhS 27 .�h2 l1fe8 28.�f3 tiJg7 On 2S . . . tljf6 follows 29.AeS cz:Jh? 30. �fS with a dominant position.
7 ... exd4! The best continuation which has been analysed by P .Motwani in 1 99B ( "5. T.A. R.
Chapter 4
1 12
Chess " . Now Black can build up the pressure on the centre with some simple moves.
8.cxd4 i.g4 In his article Chigorin Defence: Theory and Practice ( 1 998) Watson suggests 8 i.b4+!? 9.�d2 �e7!? Then he gives the following line: 1 0.i.xb4 tDxb4 ( 1 0 . . . 'fYxe4+? 1 1 .wd2 tiJxb4 1 2.�a4+ tzJc6 1 3 .lle 1 + -) 1 1 .'tWb1 0-0 and 1 0. i.d3 i.g4 1 1 .dS i.xd2+ 1 2. �xd2 .txf3 1 3.gxf3 'fi'f6 1 4.0-0-0 liJd4, and thinks that White must struggle to equalize in both cases. The second variation, however, does not seem so clear-cut to me: after l S .f4 the position is unclear. Interesting is also l S.'ifVe3 ! ? llJxf3 1 6. eS ! �h6 ( 1 6 . . . '6'xeS? 1 7 .:de 1 +-, 1 6 ...l\J'gS 1 7.�xgS ezJxgS 1 8.l:hg 1 tiJh3 1 9 .1:xg7 tiJxf2 20.i.bS+ �8 2 1 .:dg 1 �) 1 7. �xh6 gxh6 1 B . .tf5! 55. .•.
S.dS After 9.Ac4 i.b4+ 1 0.Wf1 0-0 Black ob tains a development advantage, while his pressure on the centre remains and White cannot castle anymore. In the case of 9.i.b5 i.b4+ 1 0 . .td2 i.xf3 1 1 .i..xc6+ bxc6 1 2.gxf3 �xd4 1 3 .llb1 i.xd2+ 1 4.�xd2 �xd2+ 1 S.�xd2 White h as good chances for a draw, but that, of course, can hardly be considered a success for his opening conception.
9 . . .tb4+ 1 0 . .ad2 On 1 0.�e2? Motwani gives the following beautiful variation : 1 0 . . . �e7 ! ! ( 1 0 . . . :�-,eS?? 1 1 .�a4+ + -) 1 1 .dxc6 'iYxe4+ 1 2 . .te3 I1dB 1 3. 'tWb3 l:d2+! -+ . .
1 0 ... Axf3 1 1 .gxf3 Hardly anyone would like the position after 1 1 .'tWxf3 i..x d2+ 1 2.'iifx d2 0-0. 1 1 . .txd2+ 1 2:�xd2 �f6! Suddenly White has problems with the f3-pawn. .
.
1 3J;tc1 tiJe5! After 13 .. :�Vxt3 1 4J%g1 �xe4+ 1 S:�e2 �xe2+ 1 6.i.xe2 CZJd4 1 7 Jlxg7 li.Jxe2 1 B .�xe2 or 14.dxc6 �xh 1 l S.cxb7 �xe4+ 1 6.'iY'e2 't'r'xe2+ 1 7.�xe2 l:lb8 1 8.:Xc7 White's activity compensates for his small material shortage. 1 4.'iYe3 tiJxf3+ 1 5.�e2 tZJe5
1 6.f4 Too risky is 1 6.lbc7 0-0 1 7.�c3 1:fe8 with attack for Black. But now White is left not only with his king in the centre, but also with a pawn down. His only hope lies in the strong pawn centre.
1 6 ... tZJg4 1 7:iYg3 1 8.�3 h5
�b2+
An interesting line is 1 8 f5 1 9,.lb:c7 ( 1 9.exfS 0-0-0 +) 1 9 ... '8'a3+ 20.'i!tg2 'iYxa2+ 21 .�h3 'tWb2 (bad ;s 21 ... tlJf2+? 22.wh4 � i.bS+, as well as 21 . . . �d8? 22 . .t%xg7, however, 2 1 ... 0-0 ! ? 22 . .tc4 �d2 is worth considering) 22.:g1 tLlf2+ (22 ... 0-0 ! ? 23.exf5 hS) 23.�h4 tDxe4 24.�xg7 '6'f2+ 25.�h3 (25.3:93? 't'ixh2+ 26J:lh3 't'Vxf4+ 27.�h5 �g4+ 28.�h6 'ilig6+ 29.�xg6+ hxg6+ 30.�xg6 l:[xh3 31 . .txh3 tZ:kI6 +) 25 't!Vf3+ 26.�h4 'ii'xf4+ 27.Wh3 �f3+ with a perpetual check. ..•
...
1 9.�e2 l:h6?
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 I�:'-�S 3.tlJc3 ttJfS Black makes a mistake in a very promi sing position - perhaps the choice was too wide. After 1 9 :t!¥d2 20.i.bS+ �8 21 .:Xc7 as 22.i.f 1 (22 . .ad7? �d3+) 22 .. .fSI or 1 9 . .15 20.exfS (20.e5 'iYd2 21 . .tb5+ cS 22.i.c4 - 22.dxc6 "iVd5+ -+ . 22 . . . h4 23.�e1 - 23. 'iVg 1 g 5 ! -+ 23 . . . tiJxh2+ 24.kIxh2 �xh2 -+ , 20.:he1 0-0-0+) 20 . . . �xa2 (20 . . . 0-0-0!?) the first player would be in serious troubles. ••
.
27. .txh5 In the end, White has won back the pawn and kept his strong pawn centre. Black could not save the game. The rest needs no further commentary: 27... tlJg2+ 28.�3 tZJh4+ 29.�g3 1;[h6 30.�xf7 llJg6 31 .e5 fiJ.e7 32.f5 fiJ.xd5 33. :tfd 1 fiJ.e3 34 . .te6+ llxe6 35J:txd8+ �xd8 36.fxe6 CZJd5 37.�g4 �e7 38.�5 c6 39J�g1 �f8 40.e7+ tZJxe7+ 41 .�e6 tlJd5 42. �d7 c5 43.:f1 +
20:�e1 ? White returns the favour. Correct was 20.:Xc7!? f5 2 1 .exf5 (2 1 .e5? 'iVd2 22. i.b5+ �8 23 ..t:ld7 h4 24 .�g 1 l:lc8 -+) 21 . . :1!¥d4 22.�g2 ttJe3+ 23.�h3 with a wild position.
1 13
1 :0 Game 38 Antoshin - Volculescu Helsinki 1 9S6
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.C"IC3 tZJf6 4.cxdS 'lJxd5 5.�; "',f3 !? A rather poisonous move - the first player prevents the variation S.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 eS. 20 ... :1f6? Another mistake. After 20 . . . 1S ! 2 1 .exf5 (21 Jbc7 fxe4+ 22:�xe4 �bS 23.l:ixg7 �8 -+) 21 . . . 0-0-0 22.'i!faS :lbS W hite could hardly hold the position. 21 .�c3! White wants to exchange the queens, after which he would not have to fear Black's attack any longer.
21 ...'iYb6 22:�Wc5 ! 0-0-0 23. h3 tlJe5+ 24.we3 tiJg6 25. 'ti'xb6 axb6 26JIhf1 t2Jh4 After 2S . . h4 27.e5 :le8 28.i.d3 ];Id6 29.�d4 White would have a tremen dous position for the pawn. .
5 ... e5 !1 I n the spirit of the opening - in order to seize the initiative Black sacrifices a pawn. He had the following alternatives:
Chapter 4
1 14
a) 5 i.g4 6.e4 transposing to the variation 4.lDf3 �g4 5.cxd5 tZJxd5 6.e4 (Q Game 34) , which , according to modern theory, is clearly better for White. ••.
b) 5 ... i.f5 leads to a rare variation from the Queen 's Gambit (1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ti:Jf6 3.cxdS tZJxdS 4.tlJf3 i.f5 S.CZJc3 tZJc6). The main line here is 6.iVb3, after which Black has certain problems with the b7-pawn, but the simple 6.e3 e6 7.i.b5 seems better to me - the pin on the a4-e8 diagonal is very unpleasant for Black, Bericat-Fernandez Russo , carr. 1 992. c) 5 . . . g61 1 6.e4 tiJxc3 7.bxc3 1;.g7 , and the position is similar to one of the most popular variations of the Griinfeld Defence ( 1 .d4 tZJf6 2 .c4 96 3.tl:Jc3 d5 4.cxdS tiJxd5 5.e4 tiJxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.tDf3 c5) , but with the significant difference that the c6-knight prevents the thematic ... c7-cS.
This move seems too optimistic - White wants to keep his extra pawn, but he underestimates Black's initiative. More careful is 7.tlJxc6 tZJxd1 8.llJxd8 tiJxb2 9.�xb2 (9.lDxf7? i.b4+ 1 0.Ad2 i.xd2 + 1 1 .�xd2 ..atxf7 -+) 9 . . ..tb4+ 1 0. �d1 �xdB with an approximately equal endgame.
7. .. tZJxe5 S.dxe5 iYxd1 + 9.Wxd1 .afS 1 0.e3 In the case of 1 0.f3 0-0-0+ 1 1 .�e 1 i.c5 1 2.e4 Ae6 1 3.i.g5 :d7 White cannot finish his development due to the unfavourable position of his king. 1 0 ... 0-0-0+ 1 1 .�e1
6.C2Jxe5 After 6.dxe5 both Watson and Dunni ng ton suggest 6 ... tDxc3 7 .'S'xd8+ �d8 B.bxc3 i.g4 . Honestly, after 9.i.f4 I do not see sufficient compensation for the pawn . Another idea of Watson is 6 .. ..te6, but here also after 7.�gS tUxc3 (7 . . . �d7 8.e4 tZJxc3 9.'�xd7+ �xd7 1 0.bxc3) 8.�xd8+ tDxdB 9.bxc3 Black has yet to prove that his position is worth the sacrificed material. An interesting alternative can still be 6... i.b4!?, e.g. 7.Ad2 tiJxc3 B.i.xc3 (or 8 .bxc3 .tc5, and the paralysed pOSition of White's kingside coupled with the bad pawn structure compensates for the pawn) 8 . . . i.xc3+ 9.bxc3 �e7 1 0.e3 (1 0. 'tlfd5?! i.e6 with a great development advantage) 1 0 ...�c5 ! ? ( 1 0 ... liJxe5 1 1 . tlJxe5 �xe5 1 2.'Wd4=) 1 1 .'l!Yd2 i.g4 �. .
6 .. . tlJxc3 7.bxc3? !
The first player has an extra pawn, but all his pieces are on their original squares, the king cannot castle anymore and the e5-pawn is a source of problems. It is obvious that Black can be satisfied with the outcome of the opening.
1 1 ... �c5 From here the bishop is not particularly active. Watson's suggestion 1 1 . . . g6! ? !::. 1 2.�c4 Ag7 looks better.
1 2 . .ac4 nheS 1 2 . . Jld7 !? 1 3.�e2 l:1hd8 worth considering.
was also
1 3 . .txf7 :Xe5 1 4.i.b3 i.e4 On 1 5.f3 .tc6 1 6. �2 follows 1 6 . . . lId3
115
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 l�c6 3.'lJc3 tiJf6 1 7.11e 1 l:txc3! 1 8.Ab2 l:Iexe3 1 9 . .txc3 :xt3+ 20.�e2 :Xc3 with advantage.
1 5.�1 Here the opponents agreed a draw, probably in view of the variation 1 5 . . . .i.d3+ 1 6.�g 1 (or 1 6.�e 1 .te4 1 7.� 1 ) 1 6 . . . i.e4 1 7. �1 . Black can also play 1 5 . . . .tc6 or 1 5 . . . Ad5 1 6.Axd5 l:texd5 with good compensation in both cases. Y2:%
Game 39 Lukacs - Bartels Copenhagen 1 987
(8.0-0-0+ Ad6 9.llJd5 h6 1 0.Axf6+ gxf6 1 1 .f4 tlJg4 ! (0) 8. . ..id7 (or 8 ... .td6 9.tlJd5) 9.'�'lf3 tLlxf3+ 1 0.gxf3 .id6 1 1 ..txc4 with initiative for White 7.lhd1 'lJxe5 a.Axf6 gxf6 9.f4 llJd3+ 1 0 . .txd3 cxd3 1 1 .tlJd5 1 1 .l:xd3 Ab4°o. 1 1 ...td6!? 1 2.liJxf6+ �8 1 3 .rixd3 �g7 1 4.tLJh5+ ( 1 4.tLJdS j.f5�) 1 4 .. .'�h6 1 5 .tiJg3 �e6 , and Black has the bishop pair and an active position to compensate for his missing pawn . .
5 . .th4 Two other moves have been also played: a) S.'lJxe4 dxe4
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tiJc3 tiJf6 4.i.g5 This continuation seems also logical - the bishop joins in the battle for the centre.
4 tlJe4 .••
Watson recommends also 4 ... dxc4. 5.tZJf3 transposes to the variation 3 . . . dxc4 4.tLlf3 tiJf6 5 . .tg5, which is quite playable for Black. In the case of 5.d5 both 5 iDe5 6. �d4 iDg 6 7.'i¥xc4 a6 II ... eS (but not 7 ... eS? ! 8.dxe6 Axe6? 9.�b5+±) and 5 .tiJaSI? 6.'�a4+ c6 7.b4 b5 8:�xa5 'tiVxa5 9.bxa5 b4 followed by 1 0 . . . cxd5 are possible, with unclear positions in both cases. Another possibility is 5.e3, after which Black must probably reply with 5...e5!? 5 . . e6 6.Axc4 i.e7 7.tDf3 0-0 8 .0-0 with a solid advantage, van Heste-Reissman, Dieren 1 988, 5 ... tiJaS? ! 6:�a4+ c6 7.b4 cxb3 8.axb3 b6 (8 . . . e6 9.i.xf6 gxf6 1 0.b4 tiJc4 1 1 .i.xc4 b5 1 2.tLlxbS±) 9.b4 liJb7 1 0.'Bxc6+ '&d7 1 1 .i.b5 ±. Atter 5 . . . e5 can follow, for example: 6.dxe5!? �xd1 + 6 . . tlJxe5?! 7.'fYxd8+ �xd8 8 .nd 1 +! •••
..
.
.
a1 ) 6.e31 ! f6! 7 . .th4 (7 . .tf4 eS! 8.dxe5 Ab4+ 9. �e2 i.e6 +, "Odessian"-Wis newski, ICC 2003) 7 e5 a.d5 (8.dxe5? .tb4+ 9.�e2 .te6+ Wisnewski) 8 CZJe7 (interesting is also 8 ... Ab4 ! ?+ 9.�e2 tiJe7 1 0.�a4+ 'iYd7 1 1 .�xb4 'iWg4+ 1 2 . f3 �xh4, and due to the exposed posi tion of the white king Black's chances are preferable, Schreiber-Radeker, carr. 1 983) 9.tZJe2 (9.a3 tLJf5 1 0.Ag3 h5 1 1 . h3 �g3 1 2.fxg3 f5 ll . . . h4 with initiative; 9.�c2 c6! , Chau Kar Keung-Ferster, Is tanbul (01) 2004, 1 0.�xe4? .tf5 1 1 .'�f3 'iYa5+) 9 .tiJf5 1 0 . .tg3 h5 1 1 .h3 .i.b4+ 1 2.tlJc3 �g3 1 3.fxg3 iLxc3+ 1 4.bxc3 f5, and Black has the upper hand in view of his strong pawn centre, Huss-RUfenacht, Switzerland 1 987. ...
...
.•
Chapter 4
116
a2) 6.dS e6! 7.i..x d8 Dunnington writes that 7 .dxc6? �xg5 8:�a4 is bad in view of 8 ... llb8 ! . This is completely true, e.g. 9.e3 (9.�xa7?? .:i.b4+ -+ , 9.cxb7+? Ad7 1 0.�c2 'iVa5+ 1 1 .Wd 1 Aa4 1 2. b3 IIdS+ 1 3 .Wc 1 i.a3+ -+ , 9.tLlh3 'fYc5 1 0.e3 bxc6+) 9 . . . bxc6 1 0:�xc6+ Ad7 1 1 .�xe4 ( 1 1 .�xc7 i.b4+ 1 2.wd 1 i.a4+ 1 3.Wc 1 l:dS -+) 1 1 . . :�a5+ 1 2.we2 lhb2+ 1 3.�3 'ti'h5+ 1 4.Wg3 ( 1 4 .g4 't!¥c5 -+) 14 ... f5 1 5:�h4 �g6+ 1 6.�h3 i.e7 -+ . Breutigam suggests the simple 8 ... b6, which is also good. 7 ... i.. b4+ S.�d2 .txd2+ 9.�xd2 tlJxdS 1 0.e3 Or 1 0.f3 exd5 1 1 .cxd5 Af5 1 2.�e3 exf3 (interesting is also the suggestion in the tournament bulletin 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 .�f4 Ag6 1 4.fxe4 f6 1 5.C h3 tzJf7 iii5) 1 3.exf3 c6 with complete equality, H.Strobel Joachim, Germany (ch U-20) 1 988 . 1 0 exdS Possible is also 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .tLle2 exd5 1 2.cxd5 c6 1 3 .dxc6 tlJxc6, and White's king is not safe in the centre, Fraas Buckel , Germany 1 988 , or 1 0 . . . c6 1 1 . dxc6 tlJxc6 1 2.tzJe2 �e7 1 3.tlJc3 l:d8+ 1 4.�c1 f5 with a complicated endgame, Bangiev-M.Hermann , BundesJiga 1 993. 1 1 .cxdS �e7 (1 1 . .. 0-0 ! ?) 1 2.tlJe2 f5 1 3.:c1 �d6 1 4.�3 a6 1 5.13 exf3 1 6.gxf3 tLlf7 Komarov-Arencibia, Andorra 1 995. ••.
=,
b)
S.cxdS tlJxc3 6.bxc3 �xd5 7.tLlf3
And now: b1 ) 7 .tfS S.�b3 On 8 .c4(?) Watson suggests 8 . . . 'iVa5+ 9.i.d2 'Wa3 and analyses some va riations, which in the end are OK for Black. But Junior 6. 0 has a different idea, which is probably even more convincing: 8 .. :�Yxc4!? 9.e4 �e6 1 0.e5 0-0-0 1 1 .'tWa4 (or 1 1 .:c1 i..e4!) 1 1 . . . i.e4+. 8 . . . i..e4 8 . . . 0-0-0 9.e3 �a5 1 0.i.b5 iLe6 1 1 .Ac4 .2.xc4 1 2:�xc4 ;!;, Kluger Voicelescu, Bucurest 1 954. .••
b1 1 ) 9.�xb7 tlJxd4 1 0:t1fxdS tlJxf3+ 1 1 .exf3 i.xd5 1 2.AbS+ c6 1 3.0-0-0 cxbS ( 1 3 . . . 0-0-0 1 4.i.a6+ rJilc7 1 5.c4 <;t>b6 1 6.cxd5 �xa6 1 7 .dxc6 :c8 1 8. �b1 ;!; Watson, 1 3 . . . ..txf3? 1 4.i.. a4! .2.xg2 1 5 J:lhg 1 .2.f3 1 6. ttg3 +-) 1 4.llxd5 a6 l S .tthd1 . Watson evaluates this position as ±, but after 1 S . . . :cS! Black has sufficient counterplay, e.g. 1 6.�b2 g6! 1 7 .:d7 h6 1 8 . i.h4 ( 1 S.i.e3 .iLg? xc3) 1 8 . . . g5 1 9.i.g3 .2.g7 20.i.c7 e6 21 .i..a 5 0-0 22 .1:1 d6 (22.:a7 1:c4! with counterplay, .1 23.1:xa6 :lc8 xc3) 22 ... 1:c4 23 .l:xa6 lifc8 24.1:aa7 .txc3+ 25 . .txc3 :xc3 26.Uxf7 l:tc2+ 27.'�b3 :8c3+ 28 .'�b4 :c4+ 29 .�xbS l:tcS+ 30.�b6 11c6+ =. i
b1 2)9.'t':Vxd5 i.xd5 1 0.liJd2 f6 1 1 . e4 1 ( 1 1 . ..tf4 e5 1 2.dxe5 tzJxe5 1 3.e4 iLf? 1 4 . �xe5 fxe5 1 S .tzJc4 i.xc4 V2 : 1h . Wikman-V. Pavlov, carr. 1 990) 11 ... �f7 1 2.i.e3;!;.
b2) 7 .:&.g4! S.�b3 e6!? In the case of 8 . . . �xf3 9 .gxf3 Black cannot take the bishop (9 .. :�j'xg5? 1 O:�xb7 + - ) , and due to the bishop pair and the strong pawn centre White's chances are preferable, Mkrvicka Taylor, carr. 1 987. However, not bad is 8 . . . 0-0-0, e.g. 9.�xd5 llxd5 1 0.e4 :as 1 1 ..2.e3 e6 •••
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLlcS 3.tLlc3 CLlf6 1 2.ti:Jd2 �a3 1 3 .tZ:Jb1 :laS 1 4 .c2:Jd2 :a3 Y2:V2, Toran-Spassky, Palma de Majorca 1969. 9.e3 Nothing is achieved by 9.li'xd5 exdS=, Andruet-Leski , Montpellier 1 9S7. And in the case of 9.�xb7 Db8 1 0.'i'¥aS ( 1 0. 'fixc7 AdS 1 1 .c4 �xc4 -+) 1 0 ... i.d6 the second player has a significant de velopment advantage for the sacrificed pawn. 9 .. .td6! 9 . i.xf3? 1 O.gxf3 �xf3 (1 0 .. .'t!¥xgS? 1 1 .'fixb7 +-) 1 1 .:g 1 �d5 1 2.'�xb7±, 9 ... hS 1 0 . .th4 Axf3 1 1 .gxf3 gS 1 2.�g3 '&'xf3 1 3 .1:%g 1 �. 10 .te2 0-0 1 1 .i.h4 (after 1 1 .iVxb7 nabS 1 2:ii'a6 IIbS 1 3 .'i¥a4 lIb2 ! 1 4. i.c4 '!!¥f5 ! White has serious troubles with his king) , and now in the game Ornstein-Brynell , Malmo 1 985, Black could have achieved a comfortable game by 1 1 tZJa5 !? 1 2.�c2 �f5 ! 1 3.�a4 bS 1 4.c4 �e4 l S.0-0 cS.
117
.
..
.
...
Back to the main game:
a) 6.cxd5 tlJxc3 7 . bxc3 '3'xdS S . .ig3 e5oo.
5 ...g5 Both Watson and Dunnington recom mend this move. An interesting alternative is 5 ... '2:Jxc3!? 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e4 and now not 7 . . . bS? ! 8.a4 .taS 9.axb5 i.xb5 1 0.tlJf3 g6 1 1 .txc4 i.xc4! 1 2.'�a4 �d7 1 3.'Wxc4 ±, Lukacs-Maksimovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 987, but 7 .Cl:Ja5!? S . Cl:Jf3 b5 9 .a4 c6 oo. Another idea is Breutigam's suggestion 5 . g6!? He further gives 6.tDxd5 (S.tZJxe4 dxe4 7.dS e6 8 . .ixd8 i.b4+ 9.'!!fd2 .ii.xd2 1 O.'�xd2 tDxdS =) 6 ... ..te6 7.e3 (7.'i¥b3? Cl:Jxd4 8 .�d3 ..txdS 9.'fr'xd4 c5 ! -+ , 7.f3?! �xd5 II 8.cxdS? e6-+) 7... i.xd5 8.cxd5 �xd5 9.�a4. In the final position of his analysis 9 ... eS and 9 . . . e5! ? are particularly notable. .
..
.
.
.
6.�xg5 !? Watson does not mention this unexpec ted move in his monograph, but he does that in his later series of articles "Chigorin Defense: Theory and Practice" (Inside Chess 1 998), published a couple of years after his book. This is easy to understand - when he wrote the book this move was still unknown. However, why Dunnington does not analyse this continuation remains a mystery to me. Other possibilities :
b) 6.,tg3 b 1 ) 6 . . i..g7 b1 1 ) 7.cxd5 '2:Jxc3 7 . . . Cl:Jxg3 ! ? 8.hxg3 tlJxd4 9.e3 tiJfS 1 0. �a4+ �d7 l 1 .,tbS tlJd6 1 2. ii.xd7+ �xd7 00 or 1 0 .Sib5+ .td7 1 1 .i..x d7+ 't!¥xd7 1 2.Cl:Jf3 g4 1 3.tlJg5 tiJd6 00. 8.bxc3 �xd5 9 . .i..xc7 i.fS! 1 0.e3 1 0:�b3 seems risky in view of 1 0 .. :iYxb3 1 1 .axb3 lIcS 1 2. Sig3 tlJxd4! 1 3.cxd4 .i..xd4 1 4. :a4 ..ic3+ 1 5.�d1 �eS ! or l S . . . 0-0 !? 1 O...l:cS 11 .ig3 0-0 with a develop ment advantage for the sacrificed pawn. .
•
b1 2)7.e3 e5!? S.dxe5 8.tiJxdS tlJxg3 9 .hxg3 exd4 with initiative for Black, 8.cxd5 tlJxg3 ! ? (S . . .tlJxc3 9 . bxc3 �xdSoo) 9 . hxg3 exd4 00.
Chapter 4
1 18
B tiJxc3 9.bxc3 dxc4 1 0.�xd8+ ¢'xd8 1 1 .0-0-0+ �e7 1 2.f4 b5 °o ( 1 2 ... Ae6oo) .
Now the h-file is open, which particularly suits the :th 1 .
b2) Breutigam's suggestion 6 h5!? is very interesting. According to his analy sis, after 7.cxd5 (8.tDxd5? e6 9.tlJxc7+ '8'xc7 1 0.Axc7 i.b4+-+ or 9.tlJc3 tDxc3 1 0.bxc3 h4 -+) 7 tlJxc3 8.bxc3 '@'xd5 9.h4 (but not 9.Axc7? '!!Vd T-F) the posi tion is unclear.
White helps his opponent to develop his pieces with tempo. Quieter is 1 1 .e3 6 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2.'iWh5!.
•••
...
1 0 .. :iYxg5 1 1 .�a4+? !
1 1 ... i..d7
...
6 .. .iDXg5 7.cxd5 White's idea lies in the fact that apart from 8.dxc6 he also threatens 8 . h4. 7 ... e5 S.dxe5 After 8.dxc6 exd4 9.cxb7 Axb7 1 0 . 'iWa4+ �d7 1 1 .'ii'xd7+ �xd7 1 2.0-0-0 c5 5ii in the game Romero Holmes Gallego, Torrevieja 1 997, Black obtained sufficient compensation for the pawn in view of his bishop pair and develop ment advantage.
S...tLlxe5 9.h4 9.14 ! ? is also possible.
9 �c5? ! ...
Correct was 9 .. /i..Je6 1 0.dxe6 Axe6, and Black would have had the bishop pair and a better development for the pawn.
1 0.hxg5
1 2.l2Jh3?? A tactical blunder. The queen had to retreat. Probably the best was 1 2 . 'ifh4 and Black would have had yet to prove that his initiative was worth a pawn . 1 2 ... ,axf2+ ! 1 3. �xf2 !;' ,g4+ 0:1 O n any retreat of the king follows a q ueen check, further followed by i.xa4. ...
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.l2::lf3 ..tg4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.gxf3
119
Chapter 5 1.d4 d5 2.c4 ClJc6 3.ttJf3 �g4 4.cxd5 JLxf3 5.gxf3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tzJc6 3/�J3 One of the most popular continuations in this opening . White develops the knight, protects the d4-pawn and takes the e5-square under additional control.
3 ... �g4 Consistently played - Black immediately attacks the knight and starts the battle for the d4- and e5-squares. The alternative 3 e5 will be analysed in Chapter 1 0. •••
6. . . e5 or 6. . . e6?
4.cxd5 The most important continuation. The first player exchanges Black's central pawn and thus wants to dominate in the centre. If Black takes back the pawn im mediately (4 . . . 't!Yxd5?), White would play 5.tlJc3± winning a tempo. 4':�:c3 is analysed in Chapter 7, 4 e3 q Chapter 8, and Alekhine's idea 4.'t!¥a4 � Chapter 9. 4.tlJe5 is mentioned in the annotations to Game 40 (p . 1 20) . .
4... �xf3 5.gxf3 This move leads to a complicated and interesting battle. 5.exf3 is harmless, see Game 40. However, also possible is 5.dxc6 R.xc6 c:> Chapter 6.
5 ... 'tlVxd5 6.e3 White protects d4, clears the way for the f1 -bishop and plans to develop his knight to c3 with tempo.
In his revolutionary book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy (p. 1 78ff.) John Watson takes this position as a starting point for some general con siderations on the principles of playing with two bishops against two knights: According to the traditional view, the side with the bishop pair should strive to open the position, while his opponent should try to keep it closed. However, the acquisition of the bishop pair is usually accompanied by a loss of time resulting in a delay in development. And in general, the knights can be brought into action faster than the bishops, for the latter have to be located on effective diagonals first. And therefore the player with the knights should try to speed up the tempo of the game (often with a radical opening of the position), while his opponent can first act conservatively - a seem ingly closed position with an unsettled (not blocked) pawn structure,
Chapter 5
1 20
supported by the pair of bishops, can often be opened up successfully in the middlegame or in the endgame. This comes as a philosophical approach to the question whether 6 . . . e5 or 6 . . . e6 should be preferred here. Of course, there are concrete counter arguments, and in my opinion, 6 . e6 should be con sidered, as ever, the main continuation : the important d5-square remains u nder firm control, and the queen is ready to go to h5. The latter usually leads to the exchange of the q ueens after f3-f4 �h5xd 1 + � Game 43, second diagram (p . 1 33) . Amazingly, the second player manages to get ahead of White with his slow gathering of forces in the centre, by means of the crucial lever - namely, . . . hS and . . . g5. Game 46 shows the (partial) success of Black's blockade strategy. The final po sition clearly shows that the bishop pair cannot effectively open all endgame positions - as the doubled f-pawns are a noticeable disadvantage. .
.
And I would like to close the circle of arguments with that same doubled f pawns: perhaps Black can also handle the position conservatively in view of that weakness. In particular: 6 e5 7.liJc3 .i.b4 8.i.d2 .i.xc3 9.bxc3 't!Vd6 1 0.:etb1 , and now: 10 ... 0-0-0 � Game 40 (also with many previous deviations) 1 0 ... b6 ( 1 0 . . nbS) � Games 4 1 -42 •••
.
The position is characterized by an uncompromising battle for the initiative, in which neither side is reluctant to sacrifice some pawns. 6 ... e6 7.tZJc3 'it'h5 8.14 (S . .i.d2 0-0-0 9.f4 � Game 46) 8 ...�xd1 + 9.�xd1 0-0-0 1 0.i.g2 � Games 43-45
Here the manoeuvring battle is to obtain the slightest advantage in the endgame.
Game 40 Masternak - Zajaczkowski carr. 1 989
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.t�f3 .tg4 4.cxd5 Sometimes 4.tZJe5 is also played . After 4 tDxe5 5_dxe5 Black has two interest ing options: •..
a) 5 dxc4 6.'e'a4+ c6 7.'�xc4 .te6 (7 ... i.f5 8.tDc3 e6 9.e4 i.g6°o, Mammen Meuer, Mannheim 1 990) 8.'@'c3 (8 .�c2? 'ii' a 5+ 9 .i.d2 �xe5 +, Aoiz Linares Colas Longares , Zaragoza 1 992) 8 ..:iYd5!? 9.lLld2 f6 1 0.exf6 exf6=. .••
b) 5 ...d4 6.�b3 :etba 7.'iWa4+ 7.i.f4 �d7, followed by ... e7-eS, . . . tijg8e7-c6 with a good position for Black, Christodoulou-Geenen, Haifa 1 989. 7 ... i..d 7 8.�xa7 i..c 6 9.e6 9.e3 bS 1 0 .�a3 e6 1 1 .'Wd3 i..c5 1 2.exd4 'ii'x d4 1 3.'iWxd4 i.xd4 1 4.f4 f6 1 5 .exf6 tl}xfS l S.t;,Jd2 0-0 55. 9 ... g6!? 9 . . . fxe6 1 0 . .li..f4 � .li..e 5 with a positional advantage for White . 1 0. Af4 1 0.exf7+ �xf7 iii;, e.g. 1 1 .Af4 ia.g7 1 2. 'fic5 tiJfS 1 3.tZJd2 CUd7 1 4.'W'b4 e5 1 5 . .i.g3 :ete8 . 1 0... �g7 1 1 .�c5 1 1 .exf7+ �xf7 Q 1 0.exf7+. 1 1 tZJf6 1 1 . . . fxeS? ! 1 2.Ae5! 1 2.tiJd2 1 2.exf7+ �xf7, see 1 0.exf7+. 1 2 ...fxe6 1 3:�e5 :etc8 1 4.e3, and in this complicated position the opponents agreed a draw, Kouatly Geenen, Bruxelles 1 986. Further could follow e.g. 1 4 ... liJh5 ! ? 1 5.1Wxe6 'fYd7 !? 1 6. �xd7+ Wxd7 with good compensa tion for the sacrificed pawn. ...
4 ... .txf3 5.gxf3
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.tZJf3 .ag4 4.cxdS .axt3 S.gxf3 White achieves nothing with 5.exf3 'it'xd5 6.i.e3 e6 ( Black's quick victory after 6 0-0-0?! 7.tDc3 �aS 8 . .i.bS? ...
tZJxd4! 9 . .ii. xd4? eS 1 0. '!!¥c2 exd4 1 1 .
"'S �b8 1 2.0-0-0 tzJh6 1 3. '!!¥f4 �a3! -+
in the game Svendsen-Reefschlager, Gausdal 1 995, should not mislead us much stronger was 8.a3!, and 8 . . . tDxd4? 9 . .txd4 eS fails to 1 0.b4 +-) 7.tDc3 ib4, e.g . 8.'iWa4 �aS 9 :�xaS �xaS 1 0 .ib5 tDge7, and Black's better pawn structure completely compensates for White's pair of bishops. Also good is 6 ...e5!? (instead of 6 . . . e6) 7.tiJc3 i.b4 8 .dxeS �xe5 L\ . . tZJge7, . 0-0 - this has also been played in some games, and the comfortable development of the pieces and the better pawn structure should at least equal White's bishop pair. .
.
..
5. .:�xd5 6.e3 e5
The most active continuation. The battle for d4 is in its peak.
1 21
The move 8.a3 (the bishop remains on c1 , in order to go to b2 or a3 later) 8 . �xc3+ 9.bxc3 does not seem particu larly dangerous for Black, e.g. 9 . .tljge7 1 OJ�b1 (1 0.c4 �d6 1 1 .dS CLb8 1 2.i.b2 tiJd7 1 3.h4 0-0 1 4 . .td3 c6 ! 1 S.dxc6 �xc6 1 6 . .ae4 'iVe6 with comfortable play for Black, Moskalenko-Morozevich, Moscow 1 994) 1 0 . . . bS 1 1 .:tbS '!!¥d 6 1 2. f4 ! ? exf4 1 3.e4 a6 (1 3 . . . tDd8 ! ? L\ . cS, � .. J:-��6) 1 4.%1gS g6 with a double-edged struggle, Grabarczuk-Kaminski, Poland 1 995. ..
.
..
8... Axe3
Now any retreat of the queen is bad as well, e.g. 8 ... '!i'd6? 9 .dS! Sce7 1 0.tZJbS ! .i.xd2+ 1 1 .1Wxd2 �d7 1 2.dS! cxdS 1 3. 'iYxd6 '8xdS 1 4.tDxdS+ �8 1 S.tDxb7 Db8 1 S.tZJcS tiJfS ( 1 S ... tt>Cb2 1 7.0-0-0 +-) 1 7. b3 +- , V. Kostic-Sucher, Seefeld 1 999. 9.bxe3 ..
7.tiJc3 ..i.b4
This is the only way! Any retreat of the
queen would cost an important tempo
and bring Black into trouble, e.g. 7
•••
!'a5? 8.dS 0-0-0 9 . .ii.d 2 CD.ce7 1 0.e4
tiJg6 1 1 .a3 �b6 1 2 . .ae3 'ti'f6 1 3J�g 1 'tlf4 1 4.l:c1 ± , Babev-Fabry, Banicky Kahanec 1 978. 8 .td2 .
The first critical pOSition. The pawn structure of the first player is somewhat weak (he has the doubled f-pawns, his rook-pawns are isolated and prone to attack), but at the same time he has firm control over the centre. Moreover, the rooks can be brought to the b- and g-liles. The situation with the bishop pair - as it was briefly mentioned in the introduction to the chapter - is not so clear either.
Chapter S
1 22
On one hand, when one possesses such a treasure one should strive for open positions, since in a closed position the knights rather would have an advantage. On the other hand, Black is ahead in the development at the moment, and if the position is opened he would be better prepared to use that to his advantage.
9 'iVd6 White intends to gain some space in the centre either by c3-c4 followed by d4-dS or by e3-e4 followed by d4-dS, besides, �d1 -b3 could be quite unpleasant. Hence, the queen retreats in advance of this. Some other possibilities: ...
a) 9 exd4 1 0.cxd4 tlJge7 1 0 ... tlJf6 1 1 .Ae2 (or 1 1 .Ag2 0-0 1 2 .0-0 1:[ad8 1 3.'§'b3 ! f, Nikolaidis-Papadatos, Ikaria 1 998) 1 1 . 0-0 1 2.�b3! �d6 1 3.1:c1 1:[ab8 1 4.0-0 tt'e8 l S . .tc4 liJd8 1 6 . '6'b4 with initiative, Pogorelov-P . Roberts, Catalan Bay 2004. •..
.
.
�xd4 1 4 . .lie2 );[he88i5, Savchenko· Furhotf, Berlin 1 99 1 . a3) 1 1 .1:rc1 a31 ) 1 1 . 0-0 1 2.fIc5 ( 1 2.JLc4 �gS 1 3. �1 ttad8°o, Nadli-Bousfiha, Ronde 1 995) 1 2 .. :�xa2 1 3 . .tc4 �a3 1 4. 1:g 1 �, Mic-Timmons, Compuserve e· mail 1 996. ..
a32) 1 1 0-0-0 1 2.rIc5 'i§'xa2!? (1 2 ... �d6 1 3 ..te2 f5 1 4.f4 h6 1 5.i.f3 g5 1 6.'iWc2 !? gxf4 1 7.0-0 nhg8+ 1 8.�h1 :g7 1 9J1b 1 �, Normantas-Kahn, corr. 1 984) 1 3 .tc4 (on Dunnington's recommendation 1 3.d5 follows not 1 3 . . .lZJxdS? 1 4 . .tc4 +-, but 1 3 . lbd51 1 4.i.c4 'iVxd2 1 5.iYxd2, and now after 1 5 . . . llxc5 1 6 . .txf7 Dd8, as well as after l S ... llxd2 1 6.�xd2 f6 the position is unclear; apart from 1 4 .. :�'xd2 also 1 4 . . ,llxd2 l S . .txa2 llxd l + 1 6.�xd1 1600 is possible) 1 3 ... 'ifa3 1 4 .Axf7 :hf8 l S.j.e6+ �b8 with complicated play. •••
.
..
a33) 1 1 . . • �xa2!?
1 2 . .tc4 �a3 1 3.l:b1 ! �d6 ( 1 3 .. J�b8? 1 4.dS �c5 l S:ii'c 2 +-) 1 4.l:1xb7 0-0 1 5 .'t1Yc2 a5 ( 1 5 . . . :ab8!?) 1 6.0-0 a4 1 7.Ad3 fS oo, P.J. Clark Sowray, corr. 1 986.
a4) 1 1 .'iYb3 'fi'xf3 1 2.:1g1 0-0, and now:
a 1 ) 1 1 .Ad3 0-0-0 1 2.Ae4 �e6 1 3.'iYb3 tlJds 1 4.ttb1 b6 l S:�a4 lId6 °o, Smirin Kosten, Tilburg (rapid) 1 992. a2) 1 1 .1:g1 O-O-O!? (interesting is also 1 1 . .. 0-0 ! ?, e.g. 1 2.f4 :fe8 1 3. Ag2 'iV'S with counterplay, V. Loginov-Tishin, Tula 2002) 1 2.f4 ( 1 2.l:txg7 Dhe8 ! 1 3.:Xh7 better 1 3.�b3 tzJxd4 1 4.�xdS l:xdS = 1 3 . . . tzJxd4! 1 4 .exd4 Cl:JfS+ l S. iLe3 Cl:Jxd4ei5 Watson) 1 2 Cl:Jxd4! 1 3. exd4 •..
a41 ) 1 3.'iYxb7? �d4 1 4.'i¥b2 llJe'S! +. a42) 1 3.iLg2?! �h5 1 4.Dc1 (1 4.�1 llabB 1 5.l:1c1 llJg6 1 6.:cS '1!¥xh2 1 7.Dh 1 'tlVd6 1 8 .:tchS h6 1 9 . iLc3 0:£e7 20.dSSij, Ricardi-Sanchez Almeyra,
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.CiJf3 .tg4 4.cxdS j.xf3 S.gxf3 Salta 1 987, 1 4 . . . 'fYxh2! ?) 1 4 .. .'�xh2 1 5 �1 �d6 1 6.:Zc5 ( 1 S.i.xc6?! bxc6 1 7 . .tb4 1Wd8 1 8.i.xe7 �xe7 1 9.1Ixc6 'i'e41= � 20.:Xc7? l:%ab8 2 1 .�d 1 lIb 1 22.�c1 llfb8 -+ , but 1 6.�xb7 ! ? was also interesting - l S . . J%ab8 1 7.'1!¥a6 �6 1 8.'Wd3 with some compensation) 16 . l:adS 1 7 . .te4 'iYe6 1 8.�b1 f5 1 9. i.c2 bS 20.i.b3 CiJdS 21 .1:c2 rld7 22. 'i'c1 0£e7, and in the game Skalkotas Kourkounkakis, Greece 1 994, Black remained with a solid extra pawn. .
..
a43) 1 3.llg3 (thus White wins back the pawn) 1 3 ...�d5 14.�xb7. Now it all boils down to whether Black can use his development advantage before White has coordi nated his pieces. In the game Rawlings-Lenno, e mail 2001 , Black could not accomplish that: 14 ..�d6 15 . .tg2 llabS 1 6.'iWa6 :b6 1 7.�a4 IS 1 8.�c4+ <;!7h8 1 9.I1c1 f4 20.l:th3 �g6 21 .�c2! - White con solidated his position and thanks to his bishop pair, he has the better chances. However, the immediate 15 .,f5!? is worth considering, e.g . 16 . .txc6 ( 1 S. 1!fb3+ �h8 1 7.�c2 tZJb4 1 8.�c4 tZJbdS 1 9.ti'd3 f4 20.11h3 tLltSoo) 1 6 ... l:%ab8! (1 6 .. .tDxc6?? 1 7.:Zc1 +-, 1 6 . . . �xcS? 1 7.'I'xc6 &Llxc6 1 8.nc 1 ±) 1 7.�xa7 t4 with a sharp struggle. as) 1 1 . .te2 a51 ) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.�b3!? 'fYg5 (after 1 2 . . . '8'd6 1 3.�xb7 :ab8 1 4.'iWa6 i t i s difficult for Black to prove any compensation, Solin-Brynell , Stockholm 1 996; the best choice here is probably 1 2 . . :�xb3 1 3. axb3!, Vistaneckis-Pogrebyssky, U RS 1 950) 1 3.0-0-0 with i nitiative for White, Arbakov-A. lvanov, Katowice 1 99 1 . .
•
a52) 1 1 0-0-0 1 2.�b3 ! ? llhe8 ( 1 2 . . . 'i'xb3 1 3.axb3!) 1 3 .l:[b 1 �xb3 1 4.Ilxb3 liXf5 1 5.�d1 ! .:teS l S .:gl with initiative for White, Veingold-Keskisarja, Vantaa 1 997. ...
1 23
a6) 1 1 ..tg2 0-0-0 After 1 1 . . . tlJg6 � . . . tiJh4, as in the game D.Soares-C.Soares, Paulista 2001 , I like best Ogaard's idea 1 2.h4!? � h4-hS, � �d 1 -b3 - I cannot see any particular counterplay for Black that could com pensate for White's bishop pair and strong pawn centre. 1 2Ji'b3!? 1 2.0-0 �d6 1 3.�b3 �h5 1 4.1:hl , and now not 1 4 ... b6? ! 1 S.'6'b5! with advan tage, Lavrov-Shteinberg, Balatonbereny 1 993, but 14 ... lIg6!? Dupius-Kleinplatz, Montreal 1 986. 12 ..:�g5 1 3.1:tg 1 !Yh5 1 4.IIb 1 b6 1 5.f4 with initiative, Ivanchuk-Brynell, Goteborg 2004. 00 ,
b) 9 ... tZJge7 1 0.c4 �d6 1 1 .d5 llJb8 1 2. 'iWa4+ �d7 ( 1 2 . . . llJd7 ! ? is worth consi dering) 1 3.�b3 b6 1 4.�c3 f6 l S. h4 ! � �h3 with initiative for White, Veingold Maki, Finland 1 998. c) 9 . .. tLlfS c1 ) 1 0.Ae2 0-0 1 1 .�b3!? Wxb3 (after 1 1 .. :�d7? ! 1 2.�xb7 .:tab8 1 3.'ti'a6 l::tb S 1 4:6'c4! Black has no counterplay for the sacrificed pawn, Legky-Dubios, Paris 1 999) 1 2.axb3 cxd4 1 3.cxd4, and the bishop pair along with the control over the central squares promises White a certain advantage, despite h is somewhat compromised pawn structure. c2) 1 0.c4 '6'd6 ( 1 0 . . . 'ti'd7 l 1 .dS llJe7 1 2 . .tc3 c6 - 1 2 . . .tLig6 1 3. h4 ! - 1 3.dS tLig6 1 4.h4! hS l S ..th3 ±, Salov-Sideif Sade, Borzhomi 1 984) 1 1 d5 CiJe7 1 2. IIb1 b6 1 3 . .th3 c6 1 4.�b4 c5 1 5 . .ic3, Shalimov-Sepman, St. Petersburg 1 999, or 1 3.�b4 �d7 1 4.h4 0-0 1 5.Ah3 �d8 1 6 . d6 cxd6 1 7.�xd6 , Saidy-AI Modiahki, Las Vegas 200 1 , and White keeps the initiative in both cases due to his active bishops. .
Chapter 5
1 24
c3) 1 0.i.g2 0-0 1 1 .0-0, and the threat f3-f4 turns out to be very unpleasant, e.g. 1 1 .�d6 1 2Jlb1 b6 1 3.f4! e4 (1 3 . . . exf4 1 4.e4 ± .1 e5 - the disadvantage of the knight position on fS compared to CiJe7 can be easily noticed) 1 4.c4 :lfe8 1 5.�h 1 ! CiJe 7 l S.1:g 1 with initiative, Lesiege-Charbonneau , Montreal 200 1 . ..
Back to the main game:
a 1 ) 1 1 ... b6 1 2.0-0 0..0 1 3.14 exf4 1 4.e4 a1 1 ) 1 4 tiad8 1 S.eS �g6 (1 5 .. .'ti'a3?! 1 6.�c2 g5 1 7 ..tc1 iVa5?! 1 8. a4 h6 1 9. h4! ±, Zaja-Bukal , Split 200 1 Slightly better is 1 7 . . . �a6, but then also after 1 8. h4 ! ? Black's position looks very suspicious) 1 6.�xf4 tlJd5 1 7.1!fd2 tDxf4 1 8. 'iAixf4. In contrast to the game Moskalenko-Morozevich (see above, 1 1 .f4) the first player now has the Iight squared bishop and it helps him control the light squares. Because of that and his strong pawn centre he has the better chances, Ftacnik-Kaminski , Polanica Zdroj 1 995, and Staniszewski-Wyss, Cappelle la Grande 200 1 . However, 1 5 ... 'iJi'h6!? or 1 5 ...�e6!? deserves at tention. ...
.
1 0.ld:b1 ! White brings the rook into play with tempo. There are some other options: a) 1 0.i..g 2!? tDge7 1 1 .lIb1 I nferior is 1 1 .f4 exf4 1 2.e4 0-0, e.g. 1 3.e5 �gS 1 4.0-0 tiJf5 1 5 . .txf4 tiJh4 l S . .tg3 .txg2 1 7 .�xg2 llad8, and the second player is slightly better due to his control over the light squares, Mos kalenko-Morozevich, Moscow 1 994, or 1 3 0 0 CiJg6 1 4 .nb 1 Ilab8 1 5.l:tb5 i-" lCe7 ! , and in the game Kravtsov Yegorov, Novokuznetsk 1 999, White did not obtain sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. .
-
After 1 1 .f1b l the following lines are possible:
a1 2) 1 4 ... l2:jg6 1 S.eS 'ifd7 1 6.�a4 tLJcxe5 1 7.�xd7 tDxd7 18 ..txa8 lh:aS 1 9.:fe1
M . Breutigam evaluates this position as ±. In my opinion, however, after 1 9 .. liJh4 ! ? 20.:e7 (20.'�f1 l2Jf3 21 .:led1 g5 00) 21 . . . l2Jf3+ 22.�g2 tDxd2 23.:d1 f3+ 24.Wg3 l2Jf6 25Jlxd2 �5 26.:e5 CiJxc3 27.�xf3 l:d8 White's advantage is not so great and I would estimate the chances as ;to .
a1 3) 1 4 ... f6 Breutigam's idea - preventing e4-e5. He provides the variation 1 5.'ii'g4 tUg6 1 6. �fd1 ( 1 6 .h4 ttJce5!) 1 6 . . . l:radS. H i s ana-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tLlt3 �g4 4.cxd5 Axf3 5.gxf3 lysis is up to here, but we will extend it little further: 1 7. h4 'i'd7 1 8. 'tWxd7 :,cd? 1 9.h5 tZJh4 20.�xf4 (20.�h3 ! ?) 20 ...tiJxg2 21 .�xg2, and White obtains a slightly better endgame. 1 5.'!'f31? is also interesting, e.g . 1 5 . �e5 1 6.�xf4 tZJc4 1 7.Ac1 , and once again I cannot see full equality for Black. a
..
a2) 1 1 . J�bS In contrast to 1 1 . . . b6, Black neither .
weakens the h 1 -a8 diagonal nor the position of the cS-knight. Now in some lines . . .tLle7-g6 will be possible, without having to fear the reply e4-e5. 1 2.f4
12.0-0 0-0 1 3.f4 exf4 1 4.e4 tljg6 transposes to 1 0.i..g2 tljge7 1 1 .f4 exf4 1 2.e4 0-0 1 3.0-0 tiJgS 1 4.1:b1 llab8, which is OK for Black. 1 2 exf4 1 3.e4 0-0 1 4.'lWf3 .••
1 4.0-0 leads us once again to the line 1 0.i.g2 tiJge7 1 1 .f4 exf4 1 2.e4 etc. 14 ...li:Jg6 1 S.h4 l:UdS 1 6.hS
After 1 6.:d1 ?!, as it was played in the game Czerwonski-Prihotko, Swidnica 1 999, Black could have obtained a dangerous i nitiative with l S . . . f5 ! , e.g. 1 7.e5 ClJgxe5! 1 8.dxe5 tDxe5 1 9.11fe2 �d3+ 20. cit;f 1 �b2 -+ or 1 7. h5 fxe4 1 8.'I'g4 tZJce5 ! 1 9.dxe5 tLlxe5 20.�f5
93! -+. 1 6...tLlgeS 1 7:�e2 13 1 7 .. .tlJxd4?! 1 8.cxd4 �xd4 1 9.:th3 f3 20.i.xf3 tZJd3+ 2 1 .�1 'Wxf2+ 22.'i¥xf2 tDxf2 23.Ilh2! :Xd2 24.lhf2 l:xf2+
2S.""xf2 �8 26.�e3 �e7 27.e5 ±, Welling-Menzel, Lyngby 1 989. 1S .txf3 tl:Jxf3+ 1 9.�xf3 �a3°o. •
b) 10.f4 exf4 1 1 .e4 tiJge7 1 2.'t�Yf3
1 2 . .tg2 leads to the game Moskalenko Morozevich, see line a), 1 1 .f4. 1 2 ... ClJg6
12 ... 0�0?! 1 3 . ..txf4 �e6? 1 4.d5! ti)xd5 1 5 .i.c4 1:fe8 1 6.0-0-0 +-, Urday Sariego, Merida 1 998. .
13.h4
1 25
1 3.e5 �eS 1 3 . . . tZJh4 !? 1 4. �e4 'f!¥gS oo, 1 3 ... tLlxd4! ? 1 3 ... hS with a complicated position, in which Black is currently up a pawn, D.Bischoff-Schlager, Germany 2002. c) 1 0.�b3 b6!? 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 .l1b1 Q 1 0.I1b1 0-0-0 1 1 . �b3. 1 1 .i.c4 tiJh6!?oo, e.g. 1 2.e4 exd4 1 3 . .txhS 'iYxh6 1 4 . .txf7+ �e7 1 5. i.d5 l1ad8 with good counter chances for Black, "Clickhop"-Wisnewski , and "Vaske"-Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003. Back to the main game: 00 ,
1 0 ... 0-0-0
This continuation has its pros and cons. On one hand, Black makes a developing move and protects b7, on the other hand, he probably determines the posi tion of his king too early and thus gives White a definite signal for attack. The alternatives are 1 0 ... b6 and 1 0...l1b8 see the next game. -
1 1 .�b3
In the game D.Petrovic-Miladinovic, Novi Sad 1 989, followed 1 1 . .td3, and after 1 1 . . . tlJge 7 1 2:�a4 f5 1 3.0-0 'ifgS+ 1 4.�h 1 �h5 1 5.Ae2 Dd6 Black deve loped good counterplay on the king side. However, 1 1 .tg21? is very interesting, e.g. 1 1 ...tiJge7 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2.�b3 b6 � 1 1 . '&b3 bS 1 2.�g2 tiJge7) 1 2 ... b6 ( 1 2 . . .f5 ! ?) 1 3. Whl �b8 1 4.'iVa4 f5 1 5. f4 ! exf4 1 S.c4 !, and for the sacrificed pawn White has a dangerous initiative on the queenside, Vezzosi-Botsari, Montecatini Terme 1 998. •
1 1 .. b6 1 2:�xf7 .
a) 1 2 . ..th3+ �b8 1 3.0-0 does not look particularly convincing, e.g. 1 3 ... ·:.; lh6
Breutigam recommends 1 3 ... �h6 !? instead, and on 1 4.'&'g2 - 14 .. .f5!? with
Chapter 5
1 26
the idea . . . fS-14, . . . �8-f6 or 1 4 . . . exd4 ! ? 1 5.cxd4 CiJxd4 1 S.�xf7 tZJfS oo. Hiarcs ' suggestion 1 3 . . . 'i¥g6! ?+ 1 4s!7h l CiJge7 seems also rather good. 1 4,'�h1 g5 1 5 l:tg 1 J:hg8 1 6.'8'c2 f5 l S ... r.:tdf8! ? .1 1 7.�xh7? 15 -+ . 1 7.AxfS tlJxfS 1 8:�xf5 �dS! 1 8 .. .ltdf8? 1 9.'�e4 'iVfS 20J%g3 ±, Sher bakov-Masternak, Cheliabinsk 1 99 1 . 1 9.1Ixg5 ( 1 9.'@'e4 �xa2 20.11a1 'iYxd2 21 .�xc6 :1g600) 19 . ..tzJe7 20.'l!¥fS l:txgS 2 1 .'t!Vxg5 �xf3+ 22.�g2 �f7 00. .
In the case of 1 3:�Wxg7 exd4 1 4 . .ia6+ 'i1ibB 1 5.cxd4 l:thg8 ( l S ... tZ:Jxd4? 1 6.exd4 �xd4 1 7.i..e3 'ifc3+ 1 8.�1 :lhg8 1 9. 'i!Vf7+-) 1 6. '&h6 '!!Ve6 1 7.i.e2 it is not clear whether Black has sufficient com· pensation. Probably 1 3 'ife6!? is stron ger, e.g. 1 4.Ah3 't!¥xh3 1 5.�xf6 'itb7Si. ...
1 3 ...exd4 1 4.cxd4 ..
b) In the game Naumkin-Miladinovic, San Giorgo 2003 , followed 1 2 ..tg2 tlJge7!? ( 1 2 .. .f5 1 3 .0-0 ctJge7 00 V2:Y2, J . Ivanov-Mrdja, Montecatini Terme 2003) 1 3:�'xf7 �b8 1 4.f4 (1 4.0-0 is worth considering) 1 4 . . . :hfB 1 5. �h5 exf4 with a double-edged position. c) On 1 2.Ae2 Black can reply with 1 2 . . . f5, as well as with 1 2 .. .'l:Yg6, with com plicated play in both cases. d) 1 2.%:1g 1 !? is an interesting idea . White forfeits castling and activates his rook instead in an attempt to force ...g7g6, which would soften u p the long dia gonal . In the game Euler-O.Majer, 2nd Bundesliga 1 996, there followed: 1 2 ... g6 ( 1 2 .. :�f6! ? ) 1 3 . .ic4 f5 1 4 . .si.e6+ �bB 1 5.d5 tZJa5 ( 1 5 ... e4 1 6.f4 tlJa5 1 7.'�'b5 tL)b7 l B.c4 .1 i..c 3) 1 6:iYb5 tlJb7 1 7.c4 tDc5 lB . .ab4 tlJd3+ 1 9.�e2 tDxb4 20. rlxb4 , and W hite's initiative on the queenside was not to be underestimated.
1 2 ...tlJfS 1 3 . ..tb5 Interesting is also 1 3.:i.h3!?+ �b8, and now not 1 4.�xg7? exd4 l S.cxd4 in view of 1 6 ... tzJxd4 ! 1 6.exd4 �xd4 1 7.Ae3 �c3+ 1 B.�1 J:lhgB 1 9.'f!¥h6 �d3+ -+ or 1 4.�e6?! 'tlt'xe6 1 5.i..xe6 :theB 1 6.d5 tDxd5 1 7.i..xd5 lIxd5+, Mukherjee-Grebenschikov, corr. 1 99 1 , but the natural 1 4.0·0 , and Black has yet to prove his compensation, Jankovic-Fercec, Zagreb 2004.
White has a strong pawn centre, two bishops and an extra pawn , but his king is stil l in the centre, and his opponent uses that immediately.
1 4...tlJe5 ! 1 5.dxe5 The only reply. 1 5.'i:Yxg7? loses in view of 1 5 .. J�hgB 1 6.\{fh6 tZ:Jxf3+ 1 7.'�e2 tLixd2 1 B. 'It'h3+ ( 1 8 .'�txd2 ctJe4+ -+) 1 B . . . �bB 1 9.�xd2 tlJe4+ 20.We2 (20. We 1 �a3 ! -+) 20 .. :�'d5 ! 21 .l:lb3 t;:jxt2! j
.
l S .. :iYxd2+ 1 6.�fl tlJd5 1 7:�e6+ 1 7. a4 l:%hf8 1 8.'i:Yh5 ( 1 8 .'&'xg7? tzJxe3+! -+) 1 B ... wb7 �. 1 7... �b8 1 8.�c6 Threatening 1 9 . :i.a6. 1 8 .. :�c3!? On 18 . . . tlJb4? ! an exchange sacrifice was possible: 1 9 .:xb4! '6'xb4 20.�g2! (20 . .ta6?! 'ti'b1 + 2 1 .�g2 'i'g6t 22.�xg6 hxg6) 20 . . . 'iWc5 (20 ... '8'a3? 2 1 .:c1 l:lcB 22.lIc3 ! '1Wxa2 23.,td3 ! +6 Ae4) 21 :¥YxcS bxc5 22.Ac6! , and
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tlJc6 3.tDf3 .Jig4 4.cxd5 �xf3 S.gxf3
1 27
despite his material advantage, Black must struggle for a draw.
Black complicates matters. 2 7. . . :td6 is much simpler.
19.�g2 After 1 9.'tWxc3 tlJxc3 20.:tb3 tlJxb5 21 . :Xb5 Dd 1 + (21 . . .l::l d 2 t ?) 22.�g2 :Xh1
28.�h3 :ad6 29,,*,e4 �h6 30.:c3?
23.�xh 1 cS 24.�g2 �c7 2S.14 �c6 the endgame which arises is one of mutual chances and, perhaps that is White's best chance. 1 9 ...11Jxe3+!
This knight sacrifice gives Black a strong attack.
30 . .tb5! was worth a try, e.g. 30 . . . g5 3 1 .Aa6 g4+ 32.�h4 �f6+ 33.�g3 c6 34.:e1 , and the position would have been unclear. 30...g5! 31 . j"a8
31 .l:rhc1 g4+ 32.�g3 gxf3 33.�h3 �gS! -+. 31 . . .g4+ 32.'�h4 'tWf6+ 33. Wg3 c6 !
20.fxe3 1Id2+ 21 .�h3
21 .
Bad was 22 . .ta6 �hS+ 23.�g3 �g5+ 24.�h3 �g2+ 25.�h4 g5+ 26.�h5 'fIh3+ 27.'l!fxg5 1:g8+-+ . However, a n interesting move was 22.l:%b4!? l:td6 (22 . . . �h5+ 23.:th4 �fS+ 24.�g3 '&e5+ 25.�h3=) 23.�e4 ! �g5 24.�g4 Wh6+ 25.�h4 �xe3 26.�f4 'i!¥f2 27.1:f1 ! (27.'iVg3 ,*c5) 27 ...iYxa2 2B.1!Ve5 ! , and White could hope to hold the position. 22 . . . 1i'hS+ 23. �g3 �gS+ 24.�g4
24.�h3 '6'g2+ 25.�h4 Dd6 -+. 24". �xe3 25,�c6?
The decisive mistake. Correct was 25. l:thf1 ! , after which it would not have been clear whether Black had anything more than a draw with 25 ... h5 26.'iYxg7 h4+ 27.�h3 '!!¥e6+ 28.'t!'g4 �xa2 29. '8'f4 'ti'e6+ 30.�g4 'tIfa2. 2S."hS! 26.�g6
26.tixg7 h4+ 27.Wh3 �e6+ -+ . 26 ...�f8!
Threatening 27 . . . �f2 28.�h3 Ihf3!+ -+ . 27 .:b3 �f4+ 1 !
Probably White overlooked this move. Now it's over. 34.brxc6 �xf3+ 35.'iYxf3 I:txf3+ 36.�h4 rlh3+ 37. �gS r;tdS+ 38.�g6 �xa8
0:1 Game 4 1 Urday
-
Hertneck
Berlin 1 998 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tiJf3 �g4 4.cxd5 ..txf3 S.gxf3 �xdS 6.e3 eSI? 7/�lC3 �b4 8.�d2 i.xc3 9.bxc3 '&d6 1 0J:tb1 b6
We have seen the continuation 1 0 ... 0-0-0 in the previous game. Another possibility is 10 . :tb8. However, it does seem a little illogical - Black re linquishes the right to queenside castling for good and demotes his rook to a pawn defender. For example, after 1 1 .lIg1 the pawn sacrifice 1 1 . . . tiJge7? seems dubious to me, because after 1 2.l:xg7 the second player cannot castle and, in my opinion, it is not easy for him to prove he has any compensation, Gligoric Gibney, Vancouver 2000. ..
Chapter 5
1 28
1 1 g6 seems better to me, but in that case White seizes the initiative with 1 2:�a4, e.g. 1 2 .. A ,ge7 (if Black had played 1 0 . . . b6 instead of 1 0 . . . 1:b8, now he would have been able to castle queenside) 1 3.Aa6!? b6 1 4.dxe5 �xe5 1 5 . .ibS �d6 1 6.�d4! �, Goldshtein Neter, I EGG e-mail 1 998. •..
1 1 .f4!?
An interesting move by G.Kasparov - its idea soon becomes clear. Other less aggressive continuations do not promise m uch, e.g.: a) 1 1 .1i.d3 tiJge7 1 2.�c2 0-0-0 1 3.a4 llhe8 1 4 . ..aa6+ �b8 1 5.0-0 tiJg 6 1 6.a5 tiJh4, and Black's attack develops faster, Jorgensen-Brautsch, Denmark 1 985. b) 1 1 .�e2 iZJge7 1 2.0-0 0-0-0 (1 2 . . . g 5 ! ? 1 4.�h1 hS!?oo, Jelen-W.Wittmann , Ljubljana 1 98 1 ) 1 3.'�th 1 g5 1 4. : g 1 :hg8 1 5:�a4 :g6 with counterplay, M. Gomez-Arnal, Portugal 1 990. 1 1 .1:g1 will be examined in the next game. •
1 1 ... exf4 1 2.e4 ! liJge7 1 3. �f3 1 3 .1i.g2!? 0-0 1 4.0-0 transposes to 1 0. •
i.g2 i2Jge7 1 1 .1:b1 b6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.f4 exf4 1 4.e4 � Game 40. annotation to White's 1 0th move, line a1 (p. 1 24) .
...
White has sacrificed a pawn and has obtained the strong central e4+d4 pair in return. In addition, he threatens to win back the pawn with the simple �xf4. The position is quite open which favours his bishop pair. On the other hand, the first player is slightly behind with his development, his king does not feel very comfortable in the centre and the beautiful centre can be attacked by Black with 17-f5. All that promises the second player good chances for counterplay. . . .
1 3 .. 0-0! .
Simple and strong. I n the case of
1 3...
'Llg6 after 1 4.e5 'i\Ve6 1 5.�b5! tiJge7
1 6.�xf4 0-0 1 7.0-0 White has a clear advantage. Another alternative is 1 3 .'�a3!?, as it was played in the game Jose Abri/ NarCiso, Tordera 1 995. Further followed 1 4JWd3 'tWxa2 1 S.i.xf4 0-0 1 6 . .te2 f5 1 7.exf5 i2Jxf5 1 8.0-0 i2Jfxd4 1 9.cxd4 l:xf4 20.�c4+ �xc4 21 .�xc4+ �8 22. .idS 1:f6 23.:fc1 i2Jxd4 24.�xa8 tlJe2+ 25. �1 C2Jxc1 26.:Xc1 c5 27.,ae4. and here the opponents agreed a draw. Interesting was 1 4.�xf4!? 'tiYxa2 1 5. .td3 with compensation for the pawn. ..
1 4.i..xf4 't!fa3
Also playable is 1 4 ...'fie6!? with the following variations:
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 'Dc6 3.tZJf3 �g4 4.cxdS �xf3 S.gxf3 a)
1 5.d5?
tiJxd5
1 6.�c4
(1 6.i.h3
b)
1S . .txc7 �xa2 1 6.:d 1
(1 6.,i,d3
�5 ! 1 7.�g3 tZJd3+! -+) 1 6 . . . :fe8 +.
'laS I 1 7.0-0 'iVxc3 1 S.dS l2JeS 1 9.,i,xe5
'i'xe5+) 1 6 . . .:ac8 1 7.Ag3 15 ! 00. c) 1 5 .tb5 tLJa5 ( 1 S .. .fS ! ? 00) 1 6.0-0 c6 1 7.Ad3 1Yxa2 (1 7 ... tLJg6 !? 1 S.e5 'ilVxa2) 18.�h 1 'ife6 ( 1 S . . . tlJg6 1 9.Ad6 .:tteS 20 .eS) 1 9 .:g 1 i!ii:i, Bang- Boey, corr. 1 986. .
1 29
White's position is preferable in view of his bishop pair. In the game Kasparov-Smyslov, Vilnius (m) 1 994, there followed 1 5 ... f5 1 6.0-0. Instead of what happened in the game 16 .. .fxe4? 1 7.�xe4 '8xc3 1 8 . .te3 ! �a3 1 9.i.d3 ! with an extremely dan gerous attack, Kasparov recommends 1 6 ...CZJg6! 1 7 . .txc7 iVe7 1 8.exf5 'ifxc7 1 9.�d5+ �hS 20.fxg6 fiJe7 and be lieves that the situation is unclear. Of course, it is difficult to doubt the opinion of such an authority, but I think that White's material advantage gives him slightly better chances, e.g. 2 1 . 'iVc4 'iYxc4 22 . .,txc4 tDxg6 23.i.a6!?, although it is very difficult to realize the extra pawn in such an endgame. -
1 6.i.g3
1 5.�e2 Now 1 5.i.g2 was also possible, e.g. 1S tlJg6 1 6.i.c1 ( 1 6.Ag3 f5 1 7.exfS ...
l:ae8+ 1 S.Wf1 �e7 1 9.'1i'd3 tDxfS+ Gershon) 1 6...1Yxa2 1 7 .:tb2 'iWaS 1 S.0-0 l2Xe7?! 1 9.'ilid3 .:tad8 20.14, and in the game Freitag-Bukal, Austria 200 1 , White achieved a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn. According to GM Gershon, however, 1 8 . . . tZJh4 (instead of 1 8 . . . t2Jce7?!) is stronger. He further gives 1 9.�g3 CZJxg2 20.�xg2 with the evaluation i!ii:i , but after 20 .. .f5! I do not see sufficient compensation for White. 1 5 . . . tiJg6! ?
After 1 5 .. .'*'xa2 1 6.0-0 f5 (1 6 ... :tac8? 1 7.dS tlJa5 1 8.1:1a 1 'ifc2 1 9 .Dfc 1 �b2 20 . .:tcb1 'tlt'c2 21 .i.dl ±) 1 7.�xc7 .:tac8 l B.Ad6 ( 1 8.�g3 f4 ! 00) 1 8 .. .fxe4 1 9. i'xe4 l:lf6 20.i.g3 (20.,txe7?1 l:le6oo) 20 . :e6 (or 20 ... �d5 21 .Ad3 with some initiative) 21 . .:tb2 ! Iixe4 22.lIxa2 ..
Too risky is 1 6.Axc7?! l:[acS 1 7.i.g3 f1:Jce7 (interesting is also 1 7 ... tZJaS !?) 1 8.c4 ( 1 S.0-0 .axc3 1 9.�hS f5! , 1 8.lIb3 �xa2 1 9 . .td1 fS! 20.r1b4 �h8) 1 S . . . �aS+ ! 1 9.Wf1 fS ! 2 0. .td6 �xa2 with a dangerous initiative for Black. 1 6 ...�xa2
Other possibilities: a) 16 ...tZJce7 1 7.h4 'Wxa2 1 8.'Wd3 lIteS 1 9.0-0 c6 20.i.g4 f6 21 . .tdl �hS 22.i.b3 't§'a5 23.f4 f5 24.eS, and in the game Lukacs-Pinal, Habana 1 986, White achieved good compensation for the pawn. b) After 1 6 . .f5 1 7.exf5 i�:ge7 1 8.0-0 l:[xfS 1 9 .�c4+ wh8 20.'!!:Yd 3 "� �5 2 1 . 'tWe4 :af8 22.i.d3 White is better, Honsch-Dittmar, Germany 1 987, how ever, interesting was 1 8 . . . �xa2 !? .
1 7.0-0 f1jce7
I nteresting was also 1 7 .. .fS! ? l S.exf5 l2:Jge7 ( l S . . . 'i:Jce7?! 1 9.�d3 '6'f7 20.'i!Ve2 fiJh8 21 . .tc4 �d5 22.i.xc7±) 1 9.,td3 (1 9:�e4 'iYdS!?oo) 1 9 . . . r1acS.
Chapter 5
1 30 1 S . .txc7 �e6 1 9.1:tfel
1 9.d5 1.\Yd7 20.'tS'g3 (20. Ag3 15 ! 00) 20 ... 15 21 . .tb5 �c8 22.d6 14 23.'fi'g5 tzJe5! 24.�h5 (24.�xe5 'iVg4+ 25s!ih 1 �f3+ =) 2 4. . . tzJ7g6 would lead t o a sharp and double-edged fight.
Black avoids the complications after 30 .. Jhc3 31 .l:xb6. 31 J:ta3 tiJd5 32.klbb3 a4 33.1b:a4 lbc3 34J:tb2 �6 35.'�g2 CiJe7 V2: V2
1 9 ...ItacS 20 . ..tg3
Game 42 Douven - Osterman
Bad Worishofen 1 993 1 .d4 CiJc6 2.ClJf3 d5 3.c4 .tg4 4.cxd5 ..txf3 5.gxf3 'tiVxd5 6.e3 e5 7.'lJc3 ..tb4 8.i.d2 ..txc3 9.bxc3 �d6 1 0.l:Ib1 b6 1 1 .Itg1
The rook is activated and g7 is attacked. 1 1 ...l2Jge7 20 ... f51
This is a thematic move in positions with such pawn structures - Black attacks White's centre. 21 .exf5 'ti'xf5
21 . . .l1xf5? 22.'ag2 Ilxc3 would have cost the exchange after 23.i.g4.
Black sacrifices a pawn for quick deve lopment. The 'normal' 1 1 g6 is also possible, e.g. 1 2.�a4 0-0-0 1 3.�b5 tiJge7 with a complicated position, in which White's king in the centre does not feel any more at home than his counterpart on the queenside, Ipek-Geenen, Haifa 1 989. ...
22. �xf5 tiJxf5 23.r�ib3 0.Jxg3 24.hxg3 �f6 25.i.g4 l:tc7
White's d-pawn seems dangerous, but it is not clear how he can advance it beyond d5. On the other hand, Black's c-pawn is troublesome and also his passed pawn on the a-file should not be forgotten either. 26J:1a 3
26 . ..te6+ �8 27 .d5 �e7 does not pro mise White anything. 26 .. .',,17 27Jlea1 as 28. ktb1 tiJe7 29Jlb5 lIfc6 30Jla2 :td6 !
1 2.f4
Returning to Kasparov's idea. In the game Cvitan-Maksimovic, Yugoslavia
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 i.g4 4.cxdS Axf3 S.gxf3
1 988, the first player accepted the offer 1 2.:Xg7 0-0-0 1 3.'ti¥a4 (after 1 3.I1xf7?! '1g6! 1 4 .i.c4 tlJd 5 ! White is in trouble) 13... nhe8! (everything against the 'centralised' king !) 1 4.i.b5 ( 1 4.'8'aS+ wb8 1 S.l:Ixh7 exd4 1 S.cxd4 �xd4 1 7.exd4 'a'xd4 with attack) 14 .. .'�b7 1S.l:tb3 exd4 1 S.cxd4 '6'xh2 with a double·edged position. But, as we shall
1 31
1 6 ... f5 1 7.�g2
Probably White was satisfied with his position at the moment. He threatens 1 8.h5, and on 1 7 . . .1:t7 follows 1 8. i.bS liJge7 1 9.i..xf4 with advantage ( 1 9 . . . �xa2? 20.:td1 ! + - ) .
soon see, this would have been the bet ter continuation for White. 12 ...exf4 1 3.e4 0-0
Also 1 3 0-0-0 is possible, e.g. 1 4. .•.
I'g4+ (1 4.I1xg7? ilJxd4 ! 1 5 .cxd4 �xd4 1 6 . .i.aS+ �b8 1 7.Uxf7 '6'xe4+ 1 8.Ae2 Axd2 ! 1 9.�xd2 �dS+ - + ) 1 4 f5! 1 S.1!Yxf4 (1 5 .exf5 :th e B 1 S.�d1 tiJxd4 1 7.cxd4 'i!¥xd4 -+ or 1 7.i.xf4 '&a3 ! -+ ) 15 .. :6'a3 1 6.,ac4 (1 6.d5 tiJgS ! ? 1 7. 'fxfS+ - 1 7.Uxg6 hxg6 1 8.dxcS ,*"xa2 19.:d1 fxe4°o - 1 7 . . . �b8 1 8.dxc6 �d2! 1 9.�xd2 �xa2+ 20.�c1 1:d8 ! 21 .'i:VgS 'Ia3+ with a perpetual check - Breutig am) 16 ...g6°o, Konopka-Muse, Clichy 1 995. •••
14.eS The attempted attack by 1 4.�g4 can be met with 1 4 . . . �6, e.g. 1 5Jlb5 (on 1 S.h4? there follows l S .. :t§'e7 with a doubl e threat on e4 and h4) 1 5 .. J:IfeS 16.13 :adS 1 7.i..e2 tiJxd4!? 1 8.cxd4 'ixd4 1 9 . .tc 1 cS 20.'�f 1 'ti'a 1 2 1 . �2 '6'xa2 oo, Hergott-Sariego, Linares 1 992. Probably 1 7... tlJce5!? 1 8. lIxeS lbeS 1 9 .i.xf4 llxe4 20.fxe4 'ti'xf4 2 1 . 'i!fxf4 tLlxf4 wi t h an extra pawn in the
endgame was even stronger. 1 4 ...iYe6 1 5.'tWg4 1 S . .bf4 1Wxa2. lS .. .tiJg6
Interior is l S .. :�Vxg4 l S.:.xg4, an d White wins back the pawn . 16.h4
t:. 1 7.hS.
1 7 f3! •..
An unexpected blow which is possible
due to the unfortunate position of White's king. 1 8.¥Wg5
On 1 8.�xf3 comes 1 8 . . . tlJcxeS ! 1 9. dxe5 l2JxeS 20.'8'g3 tLlf3+ 2 1 .�d 1 ilJxg1 22.'ti'xg1 �xa2+.
1 8 ... nf7 1 9.�d1 1 9.a4 '8a2 +.
1 9 . . . �xa2 20 . .td3 fDe6 21 .hS tiJge7 22. 'iWf4 )ld8 23.!Yxf3 0.aS!
White's king has no peace - now the threat is 23 . . . cS!, and there is nothing White can do against it. Il.
24.�e2 c5! 25.dxc5 bxc5 26 ... c4 .
2S.c4 tlJecS Black has an extra pawn and a strong
attack, while his opponent is suffering from his numerous weaknesses. 27.f4 Ilfd7 28.r1g3 29,rlb2
:.-� '!b3 1
Chapter S
1 32 29.l:ixb3 tlJd4-+ .
8.f4
29... tlJxd2 30Jlxd2 C2:Jd4 31 .�f1 �a6 32.�e1 �a5
0:1 Game 43 Panc he nko - Khudiakov
Kiev 1 987 1 .tiJf3 tDc6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 i.g4 4.cxd5 i.xf3 5 .gxf3 �xd5 6.e3 e6
This continuation is a little more passive than 6 ... e5. Black does not attack the centre yet, but takes the dS-square un der his control and keeps the option to transfer his queen to hS. 7.tDc3 �h5
Besides this move, offering the ex change of queens, there are also some other possibilities: a) 8.i.g2 a1 ) 8...tlJfS 9:�b3 (9.i.d2 � 8.i.d2 tlJf6 9.i.g2) 9 ... 0-0-0 1 0:�b5 (1 0.f4 tlJds 1 1 .�d2 h6 Il . . . g5 with counter play, Odeev-Maljutin, URS 1 990) 1 0 ...'iYxb5 1 1 .tiJxbS �b8 1 2.f4 CiJe7 leads to a position which is practically identical with the main line (8.14 �xd 1 9.�d 1 and so on until 1 4.'lJbS) - Black prepares the counterplay . . . g7-gS. a2) 8 ... 0-0-0 9.0-0 (9.f4 �xd 1 + 1 0. wxd1 transposes to the main line 8.f4 �xd 1 + 9.�xd 1 0-0-0, 9.'�a4 Ad6 1 0.f4 tlJge7°o, Lipinsky-Marxen, Berlin 1 996) 9 tiJge7 1 0 .a3 g5 ! with counterplay on the kingside, Praszak-Boog, Prague 1 990. b) 8.�e2!? b 1 ) 8...0-0-0 9.f4 'tf¥h4 (9 . . . �h3 1 0 . .i.g4 'iYh4 1 1 .�f3 ! does not change anything) 1 0.,tf3! tZJge7 (1 0 . . .tiJce7 1 1 .'!!¥a4 �b8 1 2.�aS with initiative, Cech-Landenber gue, Prague 1 989) 1 1 .i.d2 (after 1 1 .b4, as was played in the game Strugatsky· Leski, Palo Alto 1 990, Black could have replied with 1 1 . . . CZJxb4 1 2 . .txb7 + �xb7 1 3.'tI¥b3 tlJec6 1 4.a3 l:xd4!) 1 1 .�.�b8 1 2.:1c1 with initiative for White, Piza-1. Novak, Bratislava 1 991 . b2) 8 ... tlJge7 9.f4 'ti'h4 1 0.i.f3 96 (1 0 . . . 0-0-0 leads to b1 , which is not particularly good for Black) 1 1 .'t'Vb3 l:b8 1 2.tiJb5, and Black is in trouble. b3) 8...tlJfS 9 .Ad2 0-0-0 (9 ... Ab4 1 0. tlJe4!?) 1 0.'8'a4! '&as 1 1 .'iVxaS tiJxa5 1 2. tlJe4 CZJc6 1 3.:g1 with initiative for White, Godena-Gleizerov, Padova 1 999. b4) In the case of 8 :�g6 after 9.f4 �-_,:�b4 1 0.Wf1 !? 0-0-0 1 1 .a3 tLld5 1 2.�a4 ...
The continuation 7 Ab4 is now - in contrast to the variation 6 . . . eS - not recommendable: After 8.�d2 �xc3 9.bxc3 Black does not exert any pres sure on the centre and the first player relatively easyly achieves an active position, e.g. 9 ... tlJge7 1 0.l::tb 1 b6 1 1 .c4 �d6 1 2.f4 0-0 1 3.�g2 :ad8 1 4.0-0 tiJfS 1 5.i.c3 as 1 6.�g4, Wells-Duchovny, London 1 994, or 9...'iVhS 1 0.11b1 llb8 1 1 .l:b5 �g6 1 2.h4, Surjadnji-Sufiev, Pardubice 1 997, with initiative for White in both cases. .••
..
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 :'� Jc6 3J��f3 .1g4 4.cxdS �xf3 S.gxf3 (Watson), as well as after 9.Ad3!? �g2 1 0.'i!te2, Bares-Strnad, carr. 1 999, White has better chances. b5) 8 :!i'h3!? (this seems the best reply to me) 9.f4 (9.Ad2 �g2!?) 9 ... tijf6 1 0.�d2 (or 1 0.Af3 Ab4 1 1 . .id2) 1 O . . i.b4 1 1 .�f3 0-0 1 2.:g 1 DfdB 1 3.'i!fe2 a5 1 4.0-0-0 a4 1 5.1:1g3 'i!Vh6 1 6.l:ldg 1 g6 with a double-edged posi tion, K.Gustavsson-Malinin, carr. 1 993. ••
.
c)
B.i.d2 � Game 47. 8 . . �xdl + .
In the rather old game Beresin-V.Shurav lev, URS 1 95B, Black played 8... 'i!Vh4, and after 9.i.g2 tlJge7 1 0 . .id2 0..0..0 1 1 .l:lc1 (1 1 .'fkf31? tl 1 2.0-0-0 - Watson, Clarke) 11 ...g51 the position was rather sharp. Bangiev's suggestion 1 0.b4!? (instead of 1 0 . .id2) seems better, e.g. 10 . tLixb4 1 1 J:tb1 liJed5 ( 1 1 ..J:-_�dS 1 2.'iJxd5 exdS 1 3.�a4 c6 1 4.l:xb7±, 1 2 ... tlJxd5 Q 1 1 . . . tiJedS 1 2.tL!xdS tlJxd5) 1 2.�d5 exd5 ( 1 2 ... liJxdS 1 3.�a4+ followed by 1 4.:txb7±) 1 3:!i'a4+ c6 1 4.rb:b4 Axb4+ 1 S.'6'xb4±. Stronger is 10 . . a6, but then also after 1 1 :�a4 (tl b5) White achieves a dangerous ini tiative. .
.
.
9.�xdl 0..0-0
1 33
strong centre, but his pawn structure is somewhat weak and the c1 -bishop is not particularly active. The plans of both sides generally look like this: White tries to build up some pressure on the queenside (Dac1 , Ag2, liJc3-a4[e4]-c5, the manoeuvre liJbS a3-c4-eS is also possible) and open the position for his bishops (f4-fS or d4-d5) as soon as possible. The plan with e3e4 followed by d4-dS is not out of the question either. Black's counterplay is usually on the kingside -... tlJf6, . . . tiJc6e7-f5, . . . h6, ... gS. Also possible is play against d4 with . . . c7-cS. 1 0 ..tg2 tlJce7!
On 1 0 . . .tiJf6 there could follow 1 1 . �xc6 !? bxc6 1 2.�e2, and due to the weakness of the black c-pawns White's chances are preferable, e.g. 1 2 . . . cS 1 3.dxc5 Axcs 1 4.:lg 1 I:[gB 1 S.i.d2 followed by Dac1 ;t. 1 1 .�e2 tlJf6 1 2 . .td2 tlJf5
This is a good square for the knight. Here it keeps an eye on the d4-pawn (which thwarts the opponent's idea of e3-e4), no longer blocks the way for the bishop and is ready to go to h4 and attack the g2-bishop. Interesting is also 12 ... h6, as was played in the game Bareev-Kamsky, Tilburg 1 991 . The further course of the game is an instructive example for this type of position : 1 3.liJb5 (1 3.l:[hc1 �bB 1 4.liJa4 tiJfS 1 S.tiJcS tlJd5 1 6.�1 tZ:Jh4 1 7.Ah1 gSI Dunnington) 13 ...�b8 1 4. tlJa3 g5! 1 5.fxg5 hxg5 (x h2!) 1 6.I1ag1 tiJf5 1 7.liJc4 .ie7 18 ..if3 (1 B.tlJeS Dh7) 18 ... tL1d5 1 9.tiJe5 l"Jh7 20.�e4 f6 2 1 .tlJf3 DhS 22.i.c2 tlJh4 23.a3 Ad6 ! 24.tiJe 1 c 6 25.i.b3 tlJgS 2S.tlJd3 l::td hB 27.e4 tlJdf4+ 2B.Axf4 'lJxf4+ 29.tiJxf4 'I2:V2. 1 3.l:thc1
The basic position of the variation . The first player has the bishop pair and a
White concentrates his forces on the queenside.
Chapter S
1 34
An alternative could be 1 3.:ac1 , and after 1 3 .. .'�bS there arises a position from the variation S . .td2 (see Game 46, annotation to White's 1 2th move, p. 1 40). The idea 1 3.lihg1 will be analysed in Game 45.
1 3 ..�b8 .
Preventing 1 4.tLbS.
1 4.�4 The knight strives to go to cS. The game Rustemov-Sheinberg, corr. 1 99 1 , in which the knight c hose a different route , h ad an interesting development: 1 4.tlJb5 c6 1 S.tlJa3 h6 1 6.tlJc4 Ad6! ? 1 7.tiJeS (on 1 7.tiJxd6 Black could take back with the rook or knight. either way followed by ... g7-g5) 1 7 . . . .txe5! ? ( 1 7 .. J:ldf8 is also possible) 1 8.fxeS tZJds 1 9.�d3 i�Jh4 20 . .ie4 gS ! 2 1 .a4 f5! 22.Ah 1 Y2:Y2. In the final posi tion White's bishops are not efficient. Verat played very actively, but without success against Atalik, Capelle la Grande 1 995: 1 4.a4 h6 1 S.tlJbS tId7 1 6.aS a6 1 7 .tz:Ja3 g5 1 8.tDc4? 1 (better is 1 8.fxgS hxg5 1 9.h3, though also after 1 9 ... �5 20 .tDc4 f6 Black is OK) 1 8 . . . gxf4 1 9,(>:eS :e7 20.:a3 (20 . .tb4 :eS) 20 . . . 1:I:g8 2 1 .i.h 1 'Dd6 22.:b3 'lJbS 23 . .tb4 lleB 24.tlJxf7 tLxi7!, and in view of the awkward position of the f7knight White has serious problems. The move 1 4.b4!? will be analysed in the next game.
1 4 ... h6 ! But not 1 4 . . . b6? ! 1 S.b4 ltgS 1 6.ClJb2 g5 1 7.fxg5 l:>CgS 1 8 . .tf3 tiJh4 1 9.i.c6±, Mraz-Feistenauer, carr. 1 99 1 .
1 S.tiJcS
1 S... i.xc5? ! This move has the disadvantage of opening the a1 -h8 diagonal for the d2bishop. Atalik's recommendation 1 5 tiJd5! seems better to me, after which Black would have good chances on the kingside with . . . g7-gS. ••.
1 6.dxc5!
On 1 6.lIxc5, 16 ... g5! is strong. e.g.
1 7.fxgS hxg5 1 8.h3, Fahnenschmidt Wockenfu B, Bundesliga 1 988, 1 S .. tlJd5 1 9 .J:ac1 c6 20.b4 tiJh4 21 ..th 1 (2 1 .�f1 fS ! 22.f3 ClJg6) 21 . .. 'DfS 22 . .tg2 with repetition. .
1 6 ... nhg8 1 7.c6 Gligoric achieved nothing against Sahovic, Bled 1 979, after 1 7.a4 g5 1 8.fxg5 ltxg5 1 9 .i.f3 tiJh4 20 . .th1 llhS 21 .a5 (21 .c6 b6 22.a5 b5) 21 . :tLlf5 22 . .tc3 tDd5 23 . .txd5 exd5 24.�f6 :e8 2S.h4 ne6 26. :g l �c8 27.:g8+ $'d7, and White already had to struggle for a draw. .
1 7... b6 1 8.a4 Threatening to open the a-file with a4as, which Black prevents with his next move. 1 8 ... a6 1 9.�c4! Here the rook controls the fourth rank and is more active. On 1 9.aS follows 1 9 . . . bS of course.
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tlJc6 3.tLlf3 .tg4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.gxf3 1 9 gS ..•
Methodical counterplay. 20.fxgS hxgS
After 20 ... 1:>
The position after the exchange sacrifice 2S.:txe5?! lZJc4 27.i.c3 tZJxe5 2S.,txe5 seems approximately equal to me. 26 ... t2Jde4 27 . l:[xd S+ �xdB 2B . .te1 ):thB 29 . .tg2 11gB 30.�1 t2Jcs
1 35
31 ... bS 32Jdd1 tiJg4 33 . .tdS !1dB 34.�e2 fS 3S.b4 tZJf6 36.�b3 l':ixd1 37. .txd1 tlJce4 3B.i.b3 CZJeS 39.f3 tiJ4d6 40.�c3 e4 41 . .te6? I
After 41 .fxe4 lZJxe4 (or 41 .. .fxe4 42.Ad5) 42.,te5 Black must struggle for a draw. 41 ... exf3+ 42.�d3
On 42.<;!{xf3 follows 42 . . .tiJe4 (threatening on c3, as well as 43 . . . tiJg5+) 43.,td7 lZJxc3 44 . .txeS lZJd5, and White loses the b4-pawn. 42 ... llJe4 43.i.xfS iZJSd6! 44 . .txe4 llJxe4 4S . ..teS �cS 46 . .td4 �dS 47. ..teS t2Jf2+ 48.�d2 llJg4 49 . .tf4 llJf2 SO . .teS CZJe4+ S1 .<;t>d3 �cB S2 . .td4 �bB S3 ..teS t2Jf2+ S4.<;t>d2 llJg4
In this position neither of the protagonists should play for the win. White must always stay close to f1 and Black's king cannot leave the queenside since the c7-pawn needs protection. Let us draw some general conclusions now. White has managed to open the centre and thus increase the value of his dark-squared bishop (and with it the value of the bishop pair), while Black's counterplay on the kingside has resulted only in the exchange of pawns. However, Black does not have any obvious weaknesses and all his pieces (with the exception of his king) are rather active and therefore he is still able to hold the position. 31 .aS!
Strongly played - now the c5-knight loses its support.
SS.i.d4?
This move unexpectedly leads to a loss. Correct was 55.,tf4 =. SS... �cB
Chapter S
1 36
Now it turns out that the bishop cannot go back to the h2-b8 diagonal while Black threatens ... Wd8-e7-d6. 56.e4 �d8 S7. .tc5 �e8 58.�d3 tlJeS+ 59. �e3
The first impression is that similar to the variation 59 ... �7 60.Ab6 ! tlJxc6 61 .Axc7 tlJxb4 62.�xf3 White can hold the position, but . . . 59 ...f2! 60.'�e2
The pawn cannot be taken - 60.�xf2 tiJd3+ 6 1 .�e3 ct:Jxc5 -+. 60...f1�+! 61 .�xf1 tlJd3 62.�f2 tZJxb4 63 . .tg3 Wd8 64.�h4+ �e8
64 ... Wc8 -+ . 65.�e2
65.Ag3 Wd8 6S . .,th4+ �c8 -+ . 65 tZJxc6, ...
and Black won. ... 0:1 Game 44 Fllippov - Miles
Merida 2000 1 .tiJf3 d5 2.d4 0.Jc6 3.c4 j.g4 4.cxd5 .axf3 5.gxf3 'ii'xd5 6.e3 e6 7.tDc3 '6'h5 8. .tg2 0-0-0 9.14 �xd1 + 1 0.�xd1
We come to the main line after a minor transposition of moves. 1 0 ...tZJce7 1 1 �e2 tDf6 1 2 . .ad2 tDfS 1 3J:thc1 �b8 1 4.b4 !? .
This is a new and very aggressive idea. W hite wants to force . . . c7-cS and then open the files on the queenside with b4bS. Of course, the pawn cannot be taken - 1 4 . . . .,txb4? 1 5.tlabl as 1 6.a3 + - .
1 4.. h6! .
Simple and strong - Black prepares the usual counterplay on the kingside. 1 S.tZJb5 c6 1 7.ttJc4f
1 6.0.Ja3
g51
Now White sacrifices a pawn, in order to develop his attack on the queenside as fast as possible. This idea seems to be the best option - in the case of the 'cautious' 1 7.fxg5?! hxg5 1 8.h3, the end game after 1 8 ... eS! (1 8 ... tLdS!?) 1 9.dxeS llxd2+ 20.�xd2 i.xb4+ 2 1 .�e2 i.xa3 22.exf6 Axcl 23.:Xcl tlh6 is unplea sant for him. 1 7...gxf4 1 8.b5!
White sacrifices yet another pawn! Wea ker is 1 8.CiJe5? ! :h7 1 9 . .,txc6 bxc6 20. tlJxcS+ rJi;c7 21 .llJxd8+ �xd8 22.b5 i.d6, and White's position is very dubious. 18...fxe3 1 9.fxe3 t1g8 20.j.f3
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 CLlcS 3 .tDf3 �g4 4.cxdS �xf3 S.gxf3
20 ... cxb5?! Miles accepts the offer. However, he could have started a counter attack in the centre with 20 . . . cS ! instead. The position in that case would have been very complicated and interesting. The main line could have looked like this: 21 .tiJa5 liJd51? (21 .cxd4 22.:.ixb7 ! d3+ 23.�1 i.a3 24.Af3 Axc1 2S.tZJcS+ rtic7 2S.:hc 1 �) 22.dxc5 i.g7 (22 . . . tlJt4+1 ? 23.exf4 liJd4+ 24.�2 tlJxf3 2S. .te3 !? tlJxh2 2S.c6oo) 23.1lab1 liJf4+! 24.exf4 tZJd4+ 25.� liJxf3 26.Ae3!? (26. �xf3 :Xd2 27.c6 llxh2oo) 26 ...liJxh2 27.c6 nd3 28.�e2 (2B.tZJc4! ? 00) 28... 1:Ia3 29.liJxb7 lha2+ 30.�d3 Da3+ 3V�e2 (3 1 . .. Af6? 32.b6 :g2+ 33.Af2 1:Ia2+ 34.�d 1 1 +-) 31 ...lla2+ 32.�d3 1:Ia3+ 33.'tt>e2 :1a2+ with a draw by repetition. ..
21 .trab1 ! This way W hite wins back the pawn immediately. 21 ... tlJdS Black wants to limit the effective range of the At3 immediately. 21 . . . l:lgS seems rather risky, after which could follow 22. tlJeS liJd6 23. i..a5 lIc8 24.lixc8+ �xc8 2S.:c 1 + with a strong attack. However, interesting was 21 . . . a6! ? 22.a4 b4 ! ? 22.!1xbS tlJd6 23.tlJxd6 Axd6 24.e4 tlJc7 25J%hS Threatening to claim another pawn. 25 ... eS? ! After this move Black begins to ex perience some serious problems. Correct was 25 . . . :1g6 26.�xh6 (26. :Xh6? lixhS 27.AxhS lIhB) 26 . . . lixh6 27.:XhS i.f4 28.:hc7 i.xhS (28 ...lIxd4 !?) 29.:xf7 lIxd4 with good chances for a draw. 26.dxeS �a3 27.Ilc2 /�e6 28.�e3 tlc8
1 37
The endgame with a pawn down after 28 ... tZJd4+ 29.�xd4 lIxd4 30.l:xhS pro mised Black little joy, but probably was still the lesser evil.
29.�xc8+ r;txc8 30J�xh6 .tb2 The position after 30 .. JIc2+ 3 1 .�d3 llxa2 32 . ..tg4 is equally hard to save the active bishop pair along with the passed h-pawn secures White a great advantage. But now Black loses material, which makes his situation even worse. 31 . .th5 nc2+ 31 ... i.xe5 32.i.. xf7 +-. 32.�d3 1:lxh2 33 . .txf7 �xh6 34.�xh6 tlJd8 3S.e6 �a3 36.�c4 The battle is now over. White needed only 1 3 moves more to force his oppo nent to surrender. 36 .. .tzJc6 37. ..tf4+ �c8 38.�e8 tlJe7 39.i..d 7+ �d8 40 . .te3 tlJg6 41 . .i.a4 a6 42 . .tb6+ �c8 43.�d5 �b8 44 . .te8 fiJe7+ 4S.�eS .tb2+ 46.�4 i..f6 47.i..d7 .th4 48.�g4 i.f6 49.i.d8 1 :0 Game 45 Levin Kaminski Bad Endbach 1 995 -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3/, �f3 .tg4 4.cxd5 �xf3 S.gxf3 't!VxdS 6.e3 e6 7.tlJc3 �hS 8.f4 �xd1 + 9.�xd1 0-0-0 1 0.�g2 tjjce7 1 1 .�e2 tZJf6 1 2.i.d2 tlJf5 1 3.:hg 1 !? A remarkable idea - White plans to im pede . . .g7-g5 and exert some pressure on g7.
Chapter 5
1 3S
well enough yet - 1 5 ... g5? ! 1 6. i�e4 CLJxe4 1 7 .fxe4 ±. 1 6.tZJe4 tlJdS
After 1 6 . . . tDxe4?! 1 7.fxe4 tlJd6 1 8 .tg2 l2:Jc4 1 9 . .tc3 the white centre is too strong. Now Black i ntends to develop the bishop to e7, after which . . . g7-gS would be possible. The possible ... c7-c5 should not be neglected either. But with his next few moves Levin changes the usual course of the battle. .
1 3 ... h6
Nevertheless, Black prepares his usual counterplay. 1 3 . . . c5?! is not recommen dable, after 1 4.dxc 5 i.xc5 1 5.�c1 �bS 1 S.tZJe4! i.e7 (1 6 . . . tiJxe4 1 7 . .txe4 i.ts 1 S.Ac3 ± Bangiev) 1 7 . .tc3 Dd7 1 S . .te5+ �aS 1 9.12:JcS i.xc5 20. l:txc5 the first player has a clear advantage.
17 . .txfS exfS 1 8.tLlg3 tLle7 1 9.�c3 g6 20.e4
1 4 . .th3 !?
In the case of 1 4.l:ac1 �bS 1 5.C2Ja4 gS! 1 6.lDc5 c61 Black has sufficient counter chances, e.g. 1 7 . .tc3 i.e7 1 S . .'-� ·�3 gxf4 1 9.1iJxf4 Dhg8 20.tLld3 fIg5 21 .Af3 tZJds 22.i.a5 J:1dgS with coun terplay or 1 7.tLld3 gxf4!? ( 1 7 . . . i.d6!? 1 S.tiJe5 ndf8oo) 1 8.tLleS ( 1 8.tiJxf4? ! Ad6) 1 8 . . J1g8! ( 1 8 . . . :h7? ! 1 9 . .ixc6! i.d6 20.i.aS b6 2 1 .i.d2±) 1 9.Axc6 ( 1 9.tiJxf7? l:[d7 20.tiJe5 lldg7 -+) 19 ... l::lxg 1 20J:txg1 fxe3 21 .fxe3 bxc6 22.tlJxc6+ �c7 23.tiJxd8 <;i?xd8 °o. In Browne-Miles, Philadelphia 1 987, there followed 1 4.tDe4 , but after 1 4 . . . tiJxe4 1 S . .txe4 g6 1 6 . .tc3 .tg7 1 7.l:tac1 .tfS 1 8.h3 g5 the second player obtained a dangerous initiative on the kingside. 1 4 ... b1g8 1 5.f3
Preparing CDc3-e4. 1 5 . �b8 .
.
A prophylactic move - the king retreats
trom the semi-open c-fiIe. The counter play on the kings ide was not prepared
White has parted with his bishop pair, but increased his influence in the centre. Now he plans to gain more space and activate the c3-bishop with d4-dS. 20... �g7 21 .�d1
After the immediate 21 .d5?! i.xc3 22.bxc3 c6!? (22 .. .fxe4!? 23.fxe4 f5!) 23.c4 fxe4 24.fxe4 fS! White's centre would have collapsed . 21 ... �f6
Slightly passive. Instead of that Kaminski had quite a few good alternatives at his disposal: a) 21 fxe4 22.fxe4 fS! 23.eS tZJdS 24. �3 c6 with a successful blockade. b) 21 l:ge8 22.<;!?f1 (22.�d3 .txd4 23.Axd4 cS 24/�j1c3 cxd4+ 25.l:txd4 ...
•••
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJcS 3 .tDf3 Ag4 4.cxdS �xf3 S.gxf3 l:tc8+ 2S.'it>b3 l2:Jc6 with counterplay) 22 .. .fxe4 23.fxe4 tZJc6 (23 .. .f5 ! ? 24.eS tiJdS) 24.dS (24.e5 Cjje7 L\ . . . tlJd5) 24 . . . .i.xc3 25.bxc3 gS ! oo. c) 21 c6!? 22.$.b4 .tfS 23.Axe7 be7 24.exfS .Ji.d6 !? 25.fxgS (25.�e3 Uge8+ +) 2S .. .fxgS 26.fS (2S.<;t-e3 llgf8 27.tLle2 llde8+ 28.'it>d3 1:f6+) 26 . . . gxf5 27.tlJxf5 .Ji.xh2, and here only White can get into trouble.
3S.tDd2 tDd4 39.tlJf3 !Ie4+ 40. wxg5 llJxf3+ 41 Jb:f3 :crxe4 42.h4 l:1c2 43.hS 1:(xa2 44. h6 l:h2 45J'lf7 as 4S.h7 a4 47.l::tf8+ �d7 48.h8'1!¥ ];lxh8 49.nxhS �d6 50J::tdS+ �eS S1 .�g4 �e4 52.�g3 bS 53.�2 a3 S4.�e2 b4 SS.llbS �d4 5S.IXxb4+ �c3 57 Jlb7 a2 58Jdxe7+ �b2 59Jcia7
•••
22.dS Of course, the first player uses the op portunity to advance his pawn. Never theless, Black is still in no danger. 22 ... �xe3 23.bxc3 fxe4 24.fxe4 fS! Or else the white centre would be too strong. 2S.c4 fxe4 2S.CtJxe4 bS 26 . . . :ldf8 ! ? . 27 .�3 l:lgf8 2S. �g4 tDf5 29.l:lde1 llde8 30.tlJd2t? 6. :eS. 30 ...tDd4 31 JleS g51 This impulsive move leads to serious troubles for Black, while the 'normal' 31 . . .�c8 ! ? would have entirely sufficed. Bangiev now suggests 32Jlge1 �7 33 tlJe4 which, however, would cost a pawn after 33 . . l:1xeS 34.txe5 tiJf3 3S. e6+ �e7 36.:e2 3S . . . tlJeS+ 37.Wg3 tlJxc4 38.lIc2 bS. Therefore 32.Dxe8, leading to an equal knight endgame, is better. .
,
.
32.1:xeS+ :xeS 33.fxgS hxg5 34.�g2 The gS-pawn is now extremely weak, and that promises W hite good win ning chances. We give the rest of the game without further commentary. 34 ... :cre5 35.tDb3 tDe2 36.1:f2 �b7 37.1�[f7 WeS
1 39
1 :0 Game 46 Komljenovic - Miles Lisbon 2000
1 .d4 tDc6 2. :�� 'f3 d5 3.c4 �g4 4.cxdS �xf3 5 .gxf3 �xdS 6.e3 eS 7 .llJc3 �hS S.�d2 White delays the advance of the f-pawn and makes a developing move which is necessary anyway. Besides, now after f3-f4 �hSxd1 he has the option of taking back not only with the king, but also with the rook. S. . O-O-O Other possibilities : .
a) 8 tlJ1S a 1 ) 9 . .ag2 .tdS 1 0.14 �xd 1 + ( 1 0 ...'6'h4 1 1 :�a4 0-0 1 2.Jl.xcS bxc6 1 3 :iYxc6 rIb8 1 4 .b3, and Black has yet to prove his compensation, Sjoberg-Fries Nielsen, Stockholm 1 998) 1 1 .Wxd1 /.2.Je7 (1 1 . . 0-0-0 1 2. ,ixc6 !? bxc6 1 3.1Ig 1 9 6 1 4. �e2 cS 1 5.dxcS �xcS 1 6.l:ac1 !) 1 2.e4 ! ? (1 2.Jl.xb7 l:b8 1 3.�f3 Uxb2 1 4. tlJa4 :b5 1 5.rIc1 ;!;, l S.e4 ! ?) 1 2 ... CZJg4 1 3 �e2 with advantage. However , i nteresting i s also 9 .. 0..0-0, and after 1 0.14 �xd 1 + 1 1 .wxd 1 f1:Je7 1 2.We2 ...
.
.
.
Chapter S
1 40
there occurs the familiar position from the variation 8.f4 . An alternative for W h ite is 1 0.'iVa4! ? , after which an interesting reply is 1 0 ... eS!? a2) 9.i.e2 Q 8.�e2 tlJf6 9 . .td2 (Game 43, annotation b3 to White's Sth move, p. 1 32.). b) 8 �d6 9.i.e2 tlJf6 1 0.f4 �fS ( 1 0 . . . �h4 1 1 ..i.f3 0-0 1 2:ti'a4 with initiative for White) 1 1 .Af3 tiJb4 1 2.e4! tlJd3+ 1 3.�1 ! ( 1 3 .�e2 CZJxf4+ 1 4 . .iLxf4 �xf4 l S.eS i.xeS 1 6 .dxeS �xeS+ 1 7.�1 c6 00) 1 3 . . .�h3+ 1 4.i.g2 'iYh4 l S.'it'f3 :.�g4 1 6.tiJd1 CZJxh2+ 1 7 .l:xh2 'i¥xh2 1 8.e5 i.b4? (stronger is 1 8 . . . i.e7, but then also after 1 9.'i!Vxd3 c6 20 .f5 White is better) 1 9 .�xd3 i.xd2 20. i.xb7 �xf4 21 .i.xaS +-, Urday-Plesec, Cordoba 1 991 . •••
c) 8 . tlJge7 9.Ae2 '&h4 1 0 :t§tb3 0-0-0 1 1 Jk1 t2Jf5 1 2.t2Je4, and W h ite's ini tiative becomes dangerous, Gofshtein Griffa, Genoa 1 995. ..
9.f4 This move leads to the typical endgame for this variation , which we analysed in the previous game. In my opinion, there are other continuations which are more dangerous for Black: a) 9.:tc1 !1, and in the game EI Gindy Eid, Damascus 2003, W hite achieved a dangerous attack on the queens ide after 9 ...tlJf6 1 O .te2 tiJd5 1 1 .f4 'ifh4 (or 1 1 . . . '6'g6 1 2.�1 ! �bS 1 3.11g 1 't!Vh6 1 4.ng2 i.e 7 1 S. i.b5 tlJcb4 1 6. a3 a6 1 7.i.e2 tDc6 1 8.�b3 i:: b6 1 9.tZJa4 with a queenside attack, Sturua-Chatalbashev, Oh rid 2001 ) 1 2.tzJxd5 exdS 1 3. 'iWa4 'fi'f6 1 4 . b4 . Possible improvements for Black could be 1 0 �h4 1 1 .f4 g51?, 10...'fih3 1 0.f4 �b8 or 9...g5!1. •
..•
b) On 9.ioe2 Black can reply with 9 ... '6'h3 ! ? or 9 . . .tlJf6 1 0.f4 ( 1 O.11c l ! ? Q 9. l:1c1 I ? tlJf6) 1 0 ... '8h3 ( 1 0 . . . 'iYh4 ! ?) , with
unclear positions in both cases. Unfor tunately, I have not found any games in which White has played this move. c) Beliavsky played dangerously against Rabiega, Bundesliga 2001 9.h4!1. Now 1 0.i.e2 is a very unplea sant threat. The German champion from the year 2000 replied with the natural 9 . .fzJfS. There then followed 1 0 .i.e2 �g6 1 1 .'�f1 ! eS (on 1 1 . . .iod6 follows 1 2.f4 with better chances) 1 2. hS! liJxhS 1 3.f4 tlJxf4 1 4.exf4 exd4 1 5.f5 �d6 1 6. CZJe4 'iYd5 1 7.�d3 tZJe5 l S.Af4 (� nc 1 ) with initiative for White. Maybe instead of 9 ...lZjf6 the possibility 9 ...g511 should be considered, e.g. 1 0. i.g2 tZJf6 ( 1 0 . . . gxh4! ? 1 1 .f4 �xd1 + 1 2.�xd1 i.e7) 1 1 . hxgS �xg5 1 2.Wf1 tIgS 1 3.1:I:g1 �bS 1 4.14 �g6 or 1 0 . .iLe2 gxh4 ! ? 1 1 .14 �g6. It would have been interesting to see an analysis by at least one of the protagonists. In any case, the idea 9.h4 ! ? needs further testing. -
.
.
9 .'�!Vxdl + 1 0.1:Ixd1 ..
I do not think that the position is better with the rook on d1 instead of the king on d 1 , as in the previous game. Usually one of the rooks goes to c1 anyway, and the king - to e2. There is even one disadvantage - in contrast to the variation with \t'xd 1 now White cannot choose which rook to bring to c 1 . 1 0 t2Jf6 1 1 .�g2 CiJe7 1 2. CiJe4 •••
After 1 2.tIc1 �b8 1 3.'�e2 liJf5 1 4J�hd1 h6! l S.Wf1 i.e7 1 6.tlJe2 g5 Black de veloped a strong initiative, Dumitrache Atalik, Bucurest 1 995.
1 2 ... tZJxe4 1 2 . . . liJfd5?? 1 3.tlJgS + - .
1 3.�xe4 g6 1 4.�e2 Or 1 4.:c1 tDd5 1 5.�e2 JL.e7 1 6.:lc4 �bS 1 7. b3 c6 l S.a4 h6 1 9.h3 a6 20. l:[a1 fS ! 2 1 .�g2 g5! 22.fxg5 hxgS, and
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2:Jc6 3.t2:Jf3 .JiL.g4 4.cxd5 i.xf3 S.gxf3 thanks to the strong dS-knight and White's weakness h3, Black is at least not worse, Christiansen-Short, Monaco 1 993. There then followed 23.b4 �d7 (interesting is also 23 . . . .td6 ! ? or 23 ... �tS! ? with the idea . . .eS-e5) , and now White sacrificed a pawn - 24.b5? ! cxbS 25.axb5 axb5 2S.Dc2, but atter 26 . . . b4 27.Uca2 l:lhd8 he had to struggle for equality.
1 4 ... t2Jd5
1 41
If W hite had a knight, he could have successfully occupied the c5-square. However, now he cannot make m uch use of it.
1 9.�3 f5! 20.�d3 h6 ! Black, in his turn, is prepared for active play on the kingside. The first player must now defend very accurately, lest he should fall into trouble. 21 .h4! Or else the h-pawn would be a weak ness atter 21 ... g5 22.txg5 hxg5. 21 g5 22.hxg5 hxg5 23. l:txh8 g4+ 24.�g2 :txh8 25J:!c1 We7 26.t'!:h1 l:txh1 27.�xh1 ...
The position is c losed , hence the bishops cannot reveal their potential strength . W ith his next few moves White strives for the initiative on the queens ide, but with no particu lar success.
1 5.a3 1 5.rlc 1
c)
1 4 JIc 1 .
1 5 �d6 1 6.b4 �d71 17.l:[c1 ...
At last!
1 7 c6 1 8.l:tc2 a6 ...
Draw. Black is strategically better (com pare C2Jd5 and i.d2), but it seems im possible for him to turn that into some thing tangible. V2:V2
Chapter 6
1 42
Chapter 6 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.C2:Jf3 ..tg4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.dxc6 �xc6 6.tDc3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJcS 3.(jf3 i.g4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.dxc6
Game 47 Arencibia Badalona 1 995
Ibanez
In contrast to S.gxf3 W hite wants to avoid the doubled f-pawns.
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 C2:Jc6 3J�f3 i.g4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.dxe6 .axeS S.C2:Jc3 ttJfS
5 �xc6 6.C2:Jc3 ...
With this natural continuation Black prevents both e2·e4 and d4-dS. How ever, as we shall soon see, he must be prepared for a pawn sacrifice later.
The first player intends to conquer the centre with e2-e4 and thus achieve an advantage. Moreover, he threatens d4dS. Now Black has the following options: To cut across White's plan with 6 ... ��J6. To allow e2-e4 with 6 . . . e6, so that he can attack W h ite's centre immediately after that.
•
•
In particular: 6 .. ':; '16 7.f3 e5!? Q Game 4 7 6 . e6 7.e4 .tb4 8.f3 'ii' h 4+ � Games 48-49 6 e6 7.e4 .tb4 8.f3 f5 q Game 50 .
.
.
•..
In any case, Black seeks (and finds ! ) counterplay, sometimes with more , sometimes with less radical measures.
7.f3 The first player insists on e2-e4. On 7 .tg5 the natural 7 e6 followed by B . ..te7 is possible, but Cuartas' move 7 . �d6!? with the ideas . . . eS and/or . . . 0-0-0 seems even better, e.g. 8:�d3 (8.e3 eS, 8.f3 0-0-0) 8 0-0-0 9JId 1 h6 1 0 . .th4 �b4 1 1 .IId2 e6 1 2.e3 9S 1 3 . .tg3 tiJhS 1 4.a3 'iWaS 1 S.f3 ( 1 S.e4? ! i..g 7 1 6. '*':Ye3 fS! +) 1 5 . . . CLJxg3 1 6.hxg3 f5! ? with a sharp position, Toth-Cuartas, Biel 1 98 1 . .
. . .
..
.
.
.•.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 i2JcS 3.tljf3 �g4 4.cxd5 Axt3 5.dxcS �xcS S.liJc3
1 43
7. eS !? The best and most aggressive move. Black sacrifices a pawn, but achieves good development in return. Interior is 7 . eS? ! 8.e4, after which White's strong pawn centre is u ntouchable. ..
. .
S.dxe5 tiJd7 An alternative is 8 . :t!¥xd1 + 9.�xd1 (or 9 .t;:Jxd l ! ? i2Jd7 1 0 . .if4) 9 0-0-0+ (9 ... tlJd7 1 0.eS fxe6 1 1 .e4 has also been played) 1 0.�c2 tDcI7. It is still questionable whether Black will be able to win back the eS-pawn without making many concessions. It is significant that the queens have been exchanged, since now Black has fewer chances for active play. The commentators share diHerent opinions about this position . Some of them believe the chances to be approximately equal, others - that White has a slight advantage - not least because of the possibility e5-e6, and after . . .fxe6 W hite has a slightly better pawn structure. Anyway, it is clear that Black can only struggle for equality. .
...
9. .tf4 Another principled continuation is 9.e6, in order to deteriorate Black's pawn structure. But then after 9 ... neS 1 0.e4 .i.c5 (1 0 . . . i.d6! ? 1 1 .i.e3 �h4+ 1 2 . .tf2 1!t'h6 1 3 . .tc4 0-0-0 00, Brigden-Miles, Bristol 1 982) 1 1 .Af4 es r 1 2.�g3 '8gS followed by . . . 0-0-0 Black achieves good cou nterplay, Scheffer-Curdo, Maine 1 975. On the greedy 9.f4 Watson suggests 9 . .fS 1 0.exf6 (1 0.e6 t2Jc5) 1 0 . . .llJxf6 1 1 . '8'xdS+ l:txd8, with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn. I like also 9 ...�b4!?, e.g. 1 0.'iWd3 f6 1 1 .exfS ( 1 1 .e6 tlJcs 1 2 . �c4 �d6 ! 1 3.fS 't+YeS! 1 4.i.f4 i.xc3+ 1 5.'6'xc3 'ii'xtS 1 6.Axc7 lLlxe6+) 1 1 . . . tL006 with promising compensation. .
9 g5!? ...
This way Black vacates the g7-square for his bishop with tempo. The disad vantage of this move is rather obvious it weakens the ki ngside. The question is whether W h ite will be able to m ake good use of that. There are also other possibilities: a) 9 ... Ab4? ! This move was played in the game Ba bula-Kaminski , Lazne Bohdanec 1 996, but it appeals less to me - in my opinion the bishop should go to either g7 or c5. 1 O. 'iVb3 'i!Vh4+ The place for the queen is on e7, but Black wants first to enforce g2-g3, after which the f4-bishop would have no re treat square on the h2-bS diagonal. On 1 0 .. :�e7 follows 1 1 .0-0-0 and it is not clear how Black can conquer the e5-pawn. 1 1 .g3 �e7 1 2.i.h3! Thus White proves that 1 1 .g3 also has its advantages. Inferior is 1 2.0-0-0? ! g5 ! , and the b ishop cannot protect the pawn. 1 2 ... llJc5 1 3.'tiYc2 gS 1 4. Ji:.d2 �xe5?r Ftacnik reco mmends 1 4 . . .:ldS 1 5 .0-0-0 \!fxeS and believes that after 1 6 .'t!Yf5 �xf5 1 7 . .txfS W hite is only slightly better. This evaluation seems rather
Chapter S
1 44
moderate to me - after the practically forced 1 7 . . . hS the first player can achieve a very dangerous initiative with 1 S.h4! :gS 1 9.hxgS hxgS 20.%%hS. How ever. that still would have been better for Black, compared to the progress of the game. 1 5.a3 ! .ta5 ( 1 S . . . j.xf3 1 6.0-0 ! +-) 1 6.b4 .txf3 1 7.0-0! , and White soon won. b) 9 . i.c5 This seems more logical than 9 . . . .ab4. 1 0.'ii'b3 't!Ve7 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0-0 1 1 .. .tDxeS? 1 2.0dS! ±. 1 2.e4. This position occurred in the game Dizdar-Porth, Hamburg 1 993. Now 1 2. �e5 seemed fine, e.g. 1 3.i.xeS 'ti'xes 1 4.�xf7 l:lxd 1 + 1 S .tZJxd 1 1:11S ( 1 S . . . l:td8!? �) 1 6.'i!¥b3 :dS ;s o r 1 3.tZJdS i.xdS 1 4.l:xdS tlxdS ( 1 4 . . . ..td4 ! ? 1 S.:aS fS) 1 S:�WxdS fS. and the slightly better development and the strong knight on e5 compensate for the opponent's pair of bishops. In the game followed 12 ... g5 1 3 . .ig3 i.e3+? (here 1 3 ... 'lJxeS had to be played) 1 4.�b1 tDxeS 1 S.iobS fS ( 1 S . . . .txb5 1 S:iWxbS ±) 1 S.lLJd5! j.xdS 1 7.'�Vxe3 t1JcS ( 1 7 . . . .icS 1 8.'li'xa7 +-) 1 S .'i!Vf2 , and Black re signed. Back to the m ain game: .
.
..
1 0.i.g3 �g7 1 1 .e6!? The eS-pawn cannot be protected (on 1 1 .'iWd4 nevertheless follows 1 1 ... tDxeS). therefore W h ite wants at least to weaken his opponent's pawn structure. 1 1 . . .fxe6 1 2.e4 lDe5 1 3.�b3 'V¥ie7 Black's pawn structure has slightly deteriorated, but he has firm control over the centre. Particularly the e5knight and the g7 -bishop seem rather good. The e6-pawn is weak. but it controls the important d5-square.
1 4.0..0-0!1 This continuation leads to a very sharp position . Now Black can only castle kingside, after which White wants to start an attack on the weakened king· side with h2-h4. On the other hand, White's king is not particularly safe either. In the game Weh meier-de Putter, Vlissingen 2000. W hite played more cautiously: 1 4.%1d1 0-0 1 S . .si.e2 as (1 5 . . . a51 ? !l. . . a4-a3) 1 S.0-0 tzJg6 1 7.11fe1 , and now after 1 7 . . . ..teS or 1 7 . . . 1:Iae8 followed by ... i.eS the chances would be approximately equal - Black's unfa vourable pawn structure is compensated for by his strong centralization. .
1 4 ... 0-0 1 5.i.c4 1 S.h4 can be met with 1 5 . . . g4! ? 1 6.f4 AhS. 1 5 ... :1ae8 The second player does not wish to exchange his beautiful knight tor the c4· bishop. And if White plays i.g3xe5, his dark squares would be rather weak.
1 6.Wb1 Necessary prophylaxis. On 1 6 . h4 Black can reply with 1 6 . . . g4 ! ? 1 7 .f4 ..th6 1 S.l:hf1 tLlgS . Probably there are also other possibilities, since White cannot take the gS-pawn in view of the position of his king on c 1 .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 8cS 3.Ll:Jf3 ii..g 4 4.cxdS Jt.xf3 S.dxcS Axcs S.tDc3
1 4S
The centre must be considered at all times!
1 6 ... b51 The counterplay begins.
24.�xe5
1 7 . .ae2 On 1 7.i.xb5? follows 1 7 . . .l:IbS l S.AxeS beS 1 9.'iic4 (1 9 .a4 as 20.�c4 axbS 21 .'iYxcS l:b6 22.'iVd7 �b4 23.�d2 bxa4 -+) 1 9 . . . Axc3 20:ii'xc6 .txb2 21 .Wxb2 DbSl 22.�d7 'Wb4+ 23.�al 1!t'c3+ 24.�b1 cS (24 . . . aS 2S.:lc1 1) 2S. a4 (2S.'i!Vxe6+ �hS -+) 2S ... cxbS, and White can hardly survive. After 1 7.tlJxb5 the situation is even simpler: 1 7 . . .llJxc4 1 8.'8xc4 i.xbS 1 9.'iVxbS :bS 20.l:d7 ltxbS 21 .:lxe7 :txb2+ 22.�c1 l:xg2 23. :XeS :lxa2 -+ .
1 7 .. I1bS 1 7 ... b4?1 1 S.tDbS � tlJd4. .
1 S.:c1 �eS The bishop clears the way for the c pawn and at the same time challenges the white rook for the hS-square. 1 9.h4 At last White accomplishes the long planned advance, but Black is ready with his counterplay. ...
White exchanges the active knight in the hope of facilitating his attack on the kingside. But now the second player gets the bishop pair, and the eS-bishop becomes particularly strong in the ab sence of its counterpart. 24.tDh3 can be met by 24 ...tDc6, e.g. 2S.'t!ixgS �xgS 2S.tlJxgS nd2 27. Dc2 lhc2 2S.�xc2 tlJd4+ 29.�d l tZJxe2 30. �xe2 .txb2 31 .tlJxe6 1:f6 with a compli cated endgame. In addition, 24 . . .cz:Jf7 or 24 ... cz:Jd3 2S.i.xd3 '3'b4 2S.l:c2 cxd3 27.11d2 g4 are also possible.
24 . . . .txe5 25.t2Jg4 .td4 26.�d2 .ag6 27:�a5 �c5 28.a4 IibS 29.b4 Black's activity gradually becomes unpleasant and White now wants to exchange the queens. 29.'i¥a6? loses in view of 29 ... .txb2! , e.g. 30.'tfYxe6+ (30.�xb2 'ifb4+ 3 1 .�c2 Jt.xe4+! 32.fxe4 �b3+ 33.�d2 llbdS+ 34.We 1 �b4+ -+) 30 . . . �g7 3 1 .11cdl (31 .�xb2 �b4+ 32.�c2 �b3+ -+) 3 1 ... bxa4 32.l1d7+ 11.7 33.Axc4 Dxd7 34.'�xd7+ �S 3S.'ifeS i.d4+ 3S.�c2 l:lb2+ 37.'�c1 (37.�d3 li'a3+ 3S.�xd4 I1d2+ 39.�eS �c3#) 37 . . . %%a2 3S.'\¥¥gS+ �e7 39.'!!¥e S+ �dS 40.'t!i'gS+ i..eS -+ . However, interesting was 29.:02, in order to protect b2 immediately. Black could reply with 29 .. .'�g7 00 .
1 9 c5! 20.tZJd1 1 !::. 'ife3, tlJf2. .•.
20 ... c4 21 .�e3 h6 22.hxg5 hxg5 23.tZJf2 ];[dS!
29 . . . bxa4 30.�xc5 i.xc5 31 .1:txc4 i.xb4 32.�a2 Black has the bishop pair and an extra pawn, but the gS-bishop is passive and h i s pawn structure is ruined . The chances seem to be approximately equal. 32 ... �b7
Chapter 6
1 46 Against 33.:c7.
33.l:Ic6 ttd8 34.l:thc1 .tf8 This bishop should operate on the long diagonal. 34 . . .lId2+ 35.:1 c2 lbc2+ 36. nxc2 would not have brought anything.
35.�1 c2 i.g7 36.Ac4 rld1 37 . .txe6+ �h7?! Not the best square for the king. Stronger was 37 ....�1fB 3B.l:c8+ �e7 (3B . . . i.eB ! ? 39.e5 fie 7 40.:2c6oo) 39.11Bc7+ �B 40.e5 (40.11cB+ �e7 4 1 .:tBc7+=) 40 ... l:bb 1 41 .:cB+ �e7 42.l:lBc7+ �8 . and the battle would have ended with a perpetual check.
38.ttc1 nb2+ 39. �a3 l:bd2 40.l:rxd1 ldxd1 41 .�c8 White could have tried to play for a win with 41 .:tc7!?
41 ... �a1 + 42.�b4 Ad4 In this complicated position decided to force a draw.
White
43.l:tc7+ �h8 44.11c8+ �h7 45.lIc7+ �h8 %:1/2
7.e4 The most natural and frequent con· tinuation. Some other alternatives: a) 7.83 White deprives Black's bishop of the b4square . Here 7 f5 !? seems the best reply to me, e.g . 8.e4 tiJf6 (8 . . . fxe4?1 9.�h5 + g6 1 0:�e5 �f6 1 1 .i.b5 ! with i nitiative for W hite) 9.i.g5 h6 (9 . . . fxe4 1 0 . A c4 �) 1 0.i.xf6 'Wxf6 °o, Vazquez Tey-Formanek, Foment 1 995. ..•
b) 7.f3 (White wants first to prepare e2-e4 fully) 7 ... Ad6!?
Game 48
Tyrtania - Breutigam
Berlin 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 '2Jc6 3/� \f3 ..tg4 4.cxdS i.xf3 S.dxc6 i.xc6 6.'2Jc3 e6 In contrast to the 6 . . . ��f6 variation here Black allows 7.e4. and prepares to attack White's centre immediately after.
Threatening 8 . . .�h4 +. Good is also 7 .. .'�h4+ , e.g. 8.g3 'i!'f6 (8 . . .'er'h5!? 9.i.g2 O-O-OL\ 1 0 . . . i.c5, as was played in the game Ivkov-Skembris, Yugoslavia 1 982, seemed equally good) 9 . .te3 (9.e4? 0-0-0 1 0.�e3 Ac5 6. 1 1 . t2Jb5 i.xb5 1 2 .e5 �e7 1 3 .,i,xb5 .txd4 1 4. i.xd4 'e'b4+ winning, 9.�g2 0-0-0 1 0.e3 h5 with counterplay, Sukharisingh Marlo, Germany 1 991 ) 9 . . . :�� th6 1 0 .�g2 tiJf5 1 1 .Af2 0-0-0 1 2.e3 h5 with initiative, W isniacki-Soppe, Mar del Plata 1 999. 8.g3 (Black achieves a comfortable position in the case of 8.Ae3 f5 followed by . . . '2:Jg8-f6) 8 . . h5!? with active play on the kingside, Kopcke-Lapshun, Par sippany 2001 . .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJcS 3.tLlf3 i..g4 4.cxdS i..xf3 S.dxcS i..xcS S.tlJc3 c) 7.Af4 c1 ) 7 /iJe7 8.e3 tzJg6 9.�g3 a6 9 ... .tdS ! ? Watson. 1 0.'a'b3 i.e7? 1 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 1 2.dS exd5 1 3.CZJxdS with initiative, Teichmann Chigorin, Berlin 1 897. However, much stronger was Watson's recommendation 1 0 hSI (.1 1 1 . h4 1.dS 1 2 . .txdS '§'xdS) , after which Black would have had good counter chances. c2) 7. .. tZJf6 8.e3 B.a3 AdS 9 . .tg3 'fie 7 .1 . . . 0-0-0 Watson . 8. i.b4 9.'3'b3 �S 1 0 .ig3 't'fd7 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .�d3?! 'iVgS ! 1 2.'iVc2 ( 1 2. O-O? i..xc3 1 3.bxc3 tZJxe3+) 1 2 . . . fS! 1 3. .aeS llf7 1 4.0-0-0?1 Axc3 ! l S.bxc3 bS ! 1 6.�hg 1 �e7 with initiative for Black, Teichmann-Chigorin, Cambridge Springs 1 904; better was, however, 1 1 .�e2 (Soltis). 1 1 .i.e2 ( 1 1 .a4?! as 1 2.Ae2? tZJxc3! 1 3.bxc3 'adS ! 1 4 . .ic4 '8xg2+, Siegele P.Horn. Germany 1 993, 1 2.'ff'c 2 tzJbS 13 . .tbS 1.xbS 1 4.axbS '8xbS l S . .,txc7 �cB l S . .ixbS �xbS 1 7.0-0 0-0+, 1 2. .ac4 tlJbS with initiative for Black) , and here Black can force a draw: 1 1 . . . .ia4 1 2.�c4 as 1 3.e4 .ibS 1 4.'!!¥b 3 Aa4 l S. 'Ic4 .tbS =. Now back to 7 .e4: 7 . i.b4 8.f3 8.'&'d3? is not recommendable in view of 8. .. '6'h4! 9.eS (9.dS exdS 1 0.exd5 0-0-0 +, "rsg S4"-Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003) 9 ... 0-0-0 1 0 . .te3 r' ,e7 with a strong initiative for Black, Joppien Wisnewski, Kiel 2003. ..
...
..
•
..
Black's plan is to play against d4. An alternative is 9 .'iVh5 1? Q Game 49. ..
1 0 . ..te3
1 0.Ag2 0-0-0 1 1 . .,te3 transposes to 1 0.�e3 0-0-0 1 1 .Ag2. I nteresting is also 1 O.i.f417 0-0-0 1 1 . 1.eS �h6 1 2.1.c4:
a) 12 .. .fS7 1 1 3.i..f4 �gS ( 1 3 . . .�fS 1 4.�b3±) 1 4.�b3 i.xc3+ 1 5.bxc3 ( l S. �xc3 ! ? .1 l S . . . fxe4 l S:�aS) l S . . . xte8 l S.exfS 'WxfS ( l S ... exfS+ 1 7.�2 ±) 1 7.0-0±, Ellers-Baumhus. Bundesliga 2001 . b) 1 2 .. :iYe3+7 1 1 3.'it11 .1 1 3 ... Axc3 1 4. bxc3 fS 1 5 . .,txeS+ Wb8 l S.Af4 'ff'xc3 1 7.dS±. c) 12 ..tZJe7!? 1 3.'i!¥c1 ( 1 3.0-0? ! tDQS. 1 3.'6'b3 AdS 1 4 . .ixdS cxdS!?oo .1 ...dS) 13 .'�h3 1 1 4.a3 ( 1 4.Axg7 :hg8 l S.i.e5 'ifg2 1 6.1:fl �xh2oo) 14 .. :�g2 l S.:f1 Ad6 1 6.:f2 �h l + 1 7.We2 �xc1 1 8. ::Xc 1 AxeS 1 9.dxeS gS!? (after 1 9 . . . ClJgS?! 20.f4. the eS-pawn is securely protected and due to his space advan tage White has the better prospects, Kovacevic-Orenda, Pula 1 996) 20.�e3 CZJg6 2 1 .14 h 5 ! ? with a complicated and double-edged position . .
..
1 0 ... 0-0-0
Now White must bear in mind ... Ab4-cS.
8 . 'iYh4+ very important move with which Black .
A
.
forces the distortion of White's kingside pawns. Another interesting continuation is 8.. f5!?, in order to attack the e4pawn immediately Q Game 50. ..
9.g3 �f6
1 47
1 1 .�e2!?
Chapter 6
1 48
White sidesteps the vis-a-vis with the d8-rook and prepares to castle queen side. The queen can go later to f2 to support the d4-pawn. He could try instead to develop the light squared bishop, the latter having plenty of options. However, practice shows that Black has good counter chances in all lines, e.g.: a) 1 1 .th3 �c5 ! 1 2.e5 �g6 with com fortable play. .
b) 1 1 .�g2 ..tc5! with the following variations: b 1 ) After 1 2.tlJe2, 1 2 e5? is not recom mendable - 1 3.'f¥c1 ! (� �g5) 1 3 . . . i.b4+ 1 4.'�f2 exd4 1 5.�g5 ±, Dietze-Reyer, Petermannchen 1 997. Better is 12 ,i,b4+, and White must either retreat the bishop, 13 .id2, after which Black develops counterplay with 1 3 ... Axd2+ 1 4.'iYxd2 i.b5, or repeat the position with 1 3 tLJc3 . 1 3.�2? is, of course, a mistake in view of 1 3 . . . Axe4. .••
...
.
.
b2) 1 2.'i¥c1 Ab6, and now: b21 ) 1 3 i.g 5 ? '@'xd4 1 4.�xd8 �f2+ 1 5. �d1 �xg2 -+ . .
b22) 1 3.d5?! exd5 1 4.Ah3+ �b8 1 5. �g5 '+i'xf3 1 6.:f1 'ti'h5 1 7 .txd8 �x h 3 1 8.'ifg5 ( 1 8.exd5 (d6 ! 1 9.j,xc7+ i.xc7 •
20.dxc6 %1e8+ 21 .�d2 �xh2+ 22.wd3 �xg3+ 23.�c2 Wg2+ 24.�d2 'i!¥xc6+) 1 8... tZ::lh 6 1 9.0..0-0 (1 9.ClJxd5 fS ! +) 1 9 d4 20.�d5 .i.xd5 21 .'i¥xd5 f6 22.14e7 tlJg4 23.�e6 �h6+ 24.l:d2 tlJe5 25. At8 as! (25 ... l:xf8? 26.'ffxe5!) 26 . .txg7 'iYxg7 - + , Gould-Grayland, carr. 1 995. b23) 1 3.tDe2 i.a5+ 1 4.tz:Jc3 ( 1 4.�d2 i.xd2+ l S:*'¥xd2 �b5 oo) 14 . . . i.b6 ( 1 4 . . . h6! ?) 1 5.tDe2 with repetition . b3) 1 2 e5 '5'g6 (or 1 2 ... 'iVe7 ! ? 1 3.0-0 f6 1 4.f4 i.xg2 1 5.�xg2 .tb6 1 6.:f2 tz:JhS with active play, Moiseenko-Kobalia, St. Petersburg 1 995) 1 3.tlJa4 ( 1 3 .. �.e4 Ab4+ 1 4.�f2 f5! with i nitiative for
Black), and now, in the game Harrison Tait, N otts 1 998 , Black could have seized the initiative with 1 3 i.b4+ 1 4.'�'f2 tlJhS. c) 1 1 �d 3 �a5 Watson's idea - the bishop heads for b6 in order to increase the pressure on the d4-pawn. The entire variation was evaluated as clearly better for White prior to the discovery of this move. 1 2.0-0 i.b 6 1 3.e5 Interesting is 1 3.:�- �e2 ! ? e5 1 4.'�'c1 ! ? ( 1 4.'i!¥d2 tlJe7 1 5.d5 'iYh6 l S.f4 .i.d7 1 7.C2:Jc3 exf4 1 8.gxf4 iLh3 1 9.:f3 f5!, and Black had the upper hand, Babula Miladinovic, Calicut 1 993) 1 4 . . . tLJe7 1 5. d5, but here after 1 5 . . . �d7 the second player also has enough counter chan ces, e.g. 1 6.�g2 �b8 1 7.a4 i.xe3 1 8 . �xe3 c6 oo, J.Gustafsson-Aeefschlager, Wichern 1 995 or 1 6.14 exf4, and now both 1 7.�xf4 �e5 and 1 7.llxf4 �g6 A 1 8 . . .f5 ! lead to a sharp struggle. Watson also analyses 1 3 . . . '+WgS!? (with the idea 1 4 . . . e5) and provides the follo wing variations: 1 4.tz:Jf4 �h6 1 5:�c1 ( 1 5.tz:Jd5 i.xd4) 1 5 . . . e5!? 1 6.dxe5 95 1 7.ClJxd5 .i.xd5 1 8.exd5 :Xd5 or 1 4.e5 'Wh5 1 5.tDf4 �h6 1 6.Ae4 g5 1 7.tlJe2 i.xe4 1 8.fxe4 �g6 1 9:�c2 f6, with counterp!ay for Black in either case. ...
.
1 3 .. �e7 1 4.Ae4 .
...
.
1 4 . i.xe4 ..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 .tg4 4.cxdS Axf3 S.dxc6 .txc6 6.tlJc3 Another idea is 1 4 . . . �b4!, e.g. l S.Axc6 bxcS l S.�b3 �xb3 1 7.axb3 tlJe7 l B. l2Je2 tDdS 1 9.'iitf2 tlJxe3 20.'iit xe3 lldS!, and due to the threats 21 . . . IIxeS and 21 . . .c5 Black achieved a clear advan tage, Alonso-Lopez Perez, carr. 1 989. Or 14 .. :tWd7! ? l S . .txcS �xcS l S.a4 l2Je7 1 7.aS tZJfS 1 B.axbS llJxe3 1 9 .1l!'d3 � 1 20.bxa7 �d7 21 .'it'xf1 rtJe7, and it is difficult for White to prove that he has sufficient compensation for the exchange, Roos-V.Steinberg, Budapest 1 993. l S.fxe4
Or l S.tDxe4 fS (l S .. .fS ! ? 1 S.exfS?! tDxfS, and Black's chances are preferable,
Chetverik-Pinkas, Gyongyos 1 995) 1 6.f4 (l S.exfS ¢ 1 5 .. .f5 1 S.exfS) l S.f4 tDh6 1 7.':c1 �bB 1 B .l:lc4 tDfS with strong pressure on d4 , Chetverik Veltkamp, Budapest 1 996. 1 5 ...f6
l S ... .txd4? l S . .i.xd4 cS 1 7.tLJbS cxd4 18.tz:JdS+ +-, Groot-Leeuwen, corr. 1 983.
1 6.�e2
After 1 6.exfS tDxfS 1 7. e S tlJd5 1 8 . .tf2 h5! 1 9:�d2 gS! 20.tLJa4 h4 ! Black achieved a strong initiative, Besemer de Jong, corr. 1 99 1 . 1 6 ... 1xeS !?
In the case of l S . . . Axd4 1 7 ..txd4 lIxd4 1 8.tlJbS l:d7 1 9.IIacl ! as 20.tlJdS+ WbB 21 ,tDxb7! �xb7 22.DcS ! White has good attacking chances for the sacrificed piece, Bass-Chow, Chicago 1983. 1 7 .dxeS �g5 1 8.i.xb6 axb6 1 9.�b5 li:Je7, and White has problems
with the eS-pawn. d)
1 1 .i.e2 .i.a5 1
Watson's idea . . . i.b4-aS-bS here also works well. After 1 1 ... .i.cS 1 2.eS?! �e7 1 3.�d2 fS 1 4,exfS tz:JxfS l S.0-0-0 eS Black had a clear advantage, Riedel-Baumhus, Bundesliga 1 996. However, much stronger was 1 2:�c1 ! .tb6 ( 1 2 ... Dxd4
1 49
1 3.0-0! ±) 1 3.Ag5 �xd4 1 4.i.xd8 �xd8 l S:i!t'd2, after which the second player has yet to prove that he has sufficient compensation. 1 2.�d2
1 2.0-0 .i.b6 1 3.e5 �e7 1 4.'§'d2 f6 with initiative fo r Black. 1 2 ... h6
1 2 .. :�·gS !? 1 3.0-0 fSoo. 1 3.0-0 'fJie7 1 4.a3 i.b6 1 5.l:tfd1
1 5.b4 as 1 6.b5 axb5 1 7.tDxb5 f5 oo. 1 5 ...1500, Frieser-U.Bohm, Bavaria 1 994. e) 1 1 .Ac4 AcS 1 2.eS �e7 I nteresting is also 1 2 . . :t!YfS ! ? 1 3.0-0 .i.b6, P. Ferreira-Parcerias, Portugal 1 998, or 1 2 ... 'lWg6!? 1 3.0-0 '!!¥h 5 1 4. tLJe4 .i.bS, with u nclear positions in both cases. 1 3.�d2 16!1
13 . . . i.xf3 1 4.0-0 .i.hS l S:�f2 .ab6 1 6. tDa4 2iii . 1 4. '1j'f2 .ab6 l S.0-0-0, and i nstead of l S . fxeS l S.dxe5 :f8 1 7 . .axbS axb6 1 BJld3 tLJhS 1 9.Dhdl with a positional advantage for White, Graf-Skembris, Aegina 1 997, 1 5 ... 'i¥f71? 1 S.l::th e1 fiJ.e7 !l . . . fiJ.d5 with good counter chances, would have been much stronger. Now let us go back to the main game. ..
11
...
�g6!?
A recommendation by Watson. Black focuses his attention on e4 - he is now ready to play .. .17 -f5. 11
•••
AaS
was also played in some games (with th e already familiar idea ... .taS-bS) 1 2.0-0-0 f1:Je7 13 . .tg2 'iYg6,
but in this case it seems that White is able to support his central pawns in time and thus achieve an advantage. For instance, 1 4:t'ic4 15, and now after 1 5:�c5 ! .ixc3 1 6.bxc3 l:Ihe8 1 7.i..f4! (1 7.�xa7 fxe400) 1 7 . . . Wb8 1 B.:1he 1 White could have achieved a promising
Chapter S
150
position due to his strong centre and space advantage, Southam-Day, Toronto 1995. Another move which is not bad;s 14.l:ld2 fS lS.i..f4 lld7 lSJ;thdl llhdS 17.g4!? txg4 lS.fxg4 hS (lS... j.bS? 19.dS+-) 19.i..g3 �bS 20.a3 .i.xc3 21.bxc3, again with better chances for White, Heinig Skembris, Arco 1999. We see that in this game Black did not manage to play ... i.aS-bS, meaning that the idea of 11...i.aS failed. In the game Sinkovics-Ruck, Hungary 1995' followed
1 1 h5!? 1 2.0-0-0 f13J7 ..•
13.h4 'ilgS 14.i.h3 Wb8 1S.'!!Vc4 i.xc3 16.'t!Vxc3 with a clear advantage for White. Instead of 12 ...tlJe7 J.Watson recom mends 1 2 ... h4! and gives the line 13.g4 gS!? 14.h3 tlJe7 lS.�d2 l:hgS=. White can also try 13.Ah3!? (�d5), but then also after 13... �bS the position remains unclear.
19.'iWxbS '!!Vxe4 20.:g1 tlJfS 21 . .ig2 llxdS 22.�xdS!±) 13.bxc3 fS!. b) 1 2.i..h 3 �b8 (12 ...�hS 13.dS!) 13. 'i¥c4 (on 13.0-0 interesting is 13...hS!?, e.g. 14.'t'ic4 i.xc3 15.bxc3 h4 lS.l:tab1 ttJe7 17.g4 fS ) 13 ... .i.xc3+ 1 4.bxc3 CiJe7 (14 .. .fS?! lS.l:tbl ttJe7 lS.�c5 l:[heS 17.dS! with attack) 1 5.�c5 l:he8 1 6.�g5 (16.dS? bS 17.'t'ib4 exdS=F, 16. l:bl bSoo, 16.0-0 fS 17.l:ab1 b6oo) 1 6... 'ti'xg5 1 7.j.xg5, E.Bayer-Baumhus, Germany 1989, 17... h6!? lS.i..d2 f5 19.i..g2 ClJc8, and in view of the idea . . .tiJc8-dS Black has sufficient counter chances, e.g. 20.0-0 tlJds 21J;lfel t;Jc4 22.i.cl fxe4 23.fxe4 e5 24.dS .id7 (24....i.b5!?) 2S..tfl tlJds 2S.c4 cS!. 00
c) 1 2.a3 (White wants to clarify the intentions of the b4-bishop, but that costs time) 12 ... j.xc3+! 13.bxc3 f51 14.exfS exfS 15..ig2 1:e8 16.0-0 f4! 17.gxf4 ttJe7 with more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
1 2 ... fS 1 3.eS White cannot endure the pressure on e4 any longer. But probably 13.0-0 is preferable, e.g. 13... fxe4 14.t2:Jxe4I:iJe7 or 14 ...L�fS!? with a complicated and approximately equal position. 1 3 ...tlJe7
1 2.�g2 Black has also sufficient counterplay in other lines, e.g.: a) 1 2.0-0-0 Axc3! (12...tS?! 13.tiJbS �b8 14.t2:Jxa7 i..a4 1S.'&c4 �xa7 16.l:[d3 fxe4 17.dS+ �b8 18.fxe4 .i.bS
Interesting is 13...hS!?, e.g. 14. 0-0-0 (14.0-0 h4 with initiative) 14. . .l:iJe7 lS.a3 (15.ttJbS .ixbS 16.'iixb5 l2Jd5 17.f4 cS lS.'!!Vd3 h4) 15 ...i.xc3 lS.bxc3 ':>d5 17. Ji..d2 17 . . . h4 or 17... f4!? with an unclear position.
1 4.0-0 �b8 Interesting was also 14...hS!? 15.tlJb5 Axb5 (15 ... �b8?! 16.t2:Jxa7!) lS.'6'xb5 tiJd5 17. .tf2 h4.
1 5.a3 .ixc3 1 6.bxc3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tL)c6 3.tLlf3 �g4 4.cxd5 i.xf3 5.dxc6 i.xc6 6.tlJc3
151
The situation has changed - suddenly White has obtained the initiative on the queenside, while the second player has nothing on the kingside yet.
22 ...a6 23.�f3?1 Probably Tyrtania overlooked his oppo nent's reply. After 23.1:a4! �b5 24.:a2 !l l:ab2, �f1, c4 White's initiative would have been very dangerous. 23 h4! 24.gxh4? Why does White ruin his own position? 24.1:a4 �b5 2S.1:a2 or 24.�g2 is defini tely much better. •..
1 6... h5? ! Now this move is not a s good a s i t was before, as soon becomes clear. Better was 16 ...tiJd5!?, e.g. 17.�d2 (17.c4 tZJxe3 18.'6'xe3 h5 with initiative for Black) 17... f4 18.c4 (18.g4 h5 19.c4 C".b6) 18 ...tiJb6 19.i.xf4 :Xd4 with an active position.
1 7.�d2! Suddenly it turns out that 17...h4?! is dubious in view of 18.�g5, with the double threat on e7 and h4.
1 7.. .t2Jd5 17...h4 18..tgS h3 19.Axe7 tIde8 20. 1!Vg5 again does not seem very convin cing for Black.
18 . .i.g5 l:td7 1 9.f4 19.c4!?
19... Ab5 20.l:tfb1 ..tc4 21 .a4 c6 22.a5
24 ... Ilxh4 25.�h1 1:h3 26. 'iYg2 'iYh7 27Jlc1 Losing immediately, but the position was bad anyway. 27 ...l2Je3 0:1 Game 49
Verdier-Gather IEee e-mail 1998
1.d4 dS 2.c4 CDc6 3.l2Jf3 �g4 4.cxd5 .axf3 S.dxc6 .axc6 6.l2Jc3 e6 7.e4 i.b4 8.f3 �h4+!? 9.g3 'tWh5 !? We have already seen 9...1i'f6, which is definitely not bad, but . . . 'iYh5 is likewise interesting. Black wants to accomplish ...f7-f5 as fast as possible.
Chapter 6
152
1 0.i.e2 Other possibilities: a) 1 0 �c4 0-0-0 1 1 .�e3 �:�je7 (quite playable is also 11...�c5 12.0-0 fije7 with the ideas . .. e6-e5 or ... �xd4 followed by ...e6-e5, Schlenga-Bartel, Germany 1991), e.g. 1 2.�e2 'ilVg6 13.a3 i.a5 14.b4 .tb6 15.b5 �d7 16. tlJa4 �a5+ 17.'�f2 fSoo, J.Adamski Zhurov, Warsaw 1993. b) 10 .td3 0-0-0 11.i.e3 Aa5 (interesting is also 11 ...fS!? 12.0-0 C.�f6) 12.0-0 Ab6 with strong pressure on d4, Z6bisch-W. Wittman, Austria 1991. c) 10 Ag2 0-0-0 11.Ae3 (11.�b3? Ilxd4 12.i.e3 Aa4!-+, Rolle-Stek, carr. 1990) c1) 1 1 ... Ac5 1 2.f4 (after 12.�d2 Axd4! 13.Axd4 e5 14.CDd5 exd4! - 14 ...i.xdS?! 15.g4! \'Ig6 16.AxeS f6 17.Af4± - 15. 'iYxd4 li-xd5 16.'lWxg7 fije7 17.exd5 tIhg8 Black seizes the initiative) 12 . . �xd1 + (interesting is also 1 2... �h6!? 13.0-0 f5 or 12...'i:Vg6!? 13.0-0 f5) 1 3.llxd1 Ab6 14.�2 f5 15.dS Axe3+ 16.�xe3 exdS 17.exdS i.e8, and the position is approximately equal, Kekki-Manninen, Helsinki 1997. c2) 1 1 f5 1 2.0-0 12.'+lYc2?! fxe4 13.fxe4 tiJf6 with initiative for Black, Waffenschmidt-Gospodinow, Neumunster 2000. 12.�b3 fxe4 13.fxe4 (13.'ti'xb4? exf3 14.Af1 f2+-+, 13:iVxe6+ �b8 14.fxe4 c:zJf6�) 13...Axc3+ 14. bxc3 (14. 'ii'xc3 tZJf6oo, Degtiarev-Wisnewski, German Championship H6ckendorf 2004) 14.. . c:zJf6 15.'t':Yxe6+ �b8�, J. Campos Mendez, Buenos Aires 1996. .
•
.
.
with an active position for Black, Akopian-Reprintsev, Podolsk 1990. d) 1 0 . .te3 0-0-0, and any move of the .ttl transposes to a), b) c) or the main game.
1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 .i.e3 11.'iYb3? :lxd4 12.i.e3 fails to 12... Aa4!! -+ (Wisnewski) . Let us continue the variation a little further: 13 .bd4 .txb3 14.i.xg7 Aa4 1S.i.xh8 f6, and White's dark-squared bishop is in great peril. .
1 1 ... f5! The main idea is, practically always the same in the Chigorin Defence, to play against the white centre. In this case against the e4-pawn. 1 2.'iYb3 With the double threat on b4 and e6.
1 2 ... i..xc3+ 1 3.bxc3 fxe4! Black sacrifices a pawn, but in return achieves a development advantage in a n open position.
1 4.�xe6+ i.d7 1 5.�xe4 ...
...
1 2 tlJf6 1 3.e5 •..
After 13.exf5 exfS due to the active pieces and the weakness of the d4pawn Black is clearly better, Kaabi Repkova, Cairo 1997. 1 3 ... Axc3 14.bxc3 tlJd5 lS.Ad2 f4 16.'!!Ye2 '6'g6 17.�f2 fxg3 18.hxg3 h5!?
White's king is stuck in the centre and four white pieces are lined up on the e file which brings some tactical possibilities.
1 5 .. .tiJf61? In Granda Zuniga-Morozevich, Amster-
1.d4 dS 2.c4 tLlc6 3.t2Jf3 �g4 4.cxdS i.xf3 S.dxc6 i.xc6 6.tZJc3 dam 1995, there followed 1 5 :1e8 16. i'd3 tiJe7 17.c4 tiJfS 1B. .tf4! i.a4 (pre venting the queenside castling) 19.'�f2 l:lhf8 (threatening 20 ... g5) 20.h4 'tIfg6 21.l::tab1 'i!Vf6 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn. Gather's move is even more active. ...
1 6.�eS Also after 16.'Wd3 IIheB Black has a dangerous initiative, e.g. 17.0-0 .i.b5!? 18.'&'xbS 'iYxb5 19..ixb5 Dxe3 20.nac1 lOd5.
1S3
23.�xhS .i.xh5 24 ..ixe3 :1xe3 with advantage in the endgame.
1 9 ... tLbS This move is very unpleasant for White. The threat is 20....i.a4+, and White must also bear in mind 20 ...tZJc4 or 20.....tcS. 20.i.f4 �cS! After 20 . . :�d5 21.�xd5 tiJxdS 22...td3 (22..i.d2? .ia4+ 23.We1 .i.b5-+) 22... tDxf4 23.gxf411e3 24.�d2 l:xf3 25.:1af1 the endgame is approximately equa\.
21 .h4
1 S .. :iff7 Threatening 17...l:Ihe8. 1 7:�aS The queen retreats from the e-file and at the same time attacks a7. 17.0-0? is bad in view of 1 7... l:Ihe8 1B.�f4 'l'e6 -+. Now it seems as though Black must take care of his a-pawn. Then White would have time to consolidate his position. But ...
1 7 ... tZJdS! Suddenly it turns out that it would be very dangerous to take on a7, e.g. 18.1!¥xa7?! i.c6! 19..td2 :1he8 20.�2 lhe2+ 21. �xe2l:1eB+ 22.�2 t2Je3! -+.
21.'iYxa7 was bad in view 21...Dxe2! 22.�xe2 gS, hence White wanted to prevent ...g7-gS for good. 21.1:e1 seemed natural, but then Black would have also had a promising position after 21...'i\YgS.
21 .. JlhfS 22J%h2 22.'iYxa7 was bad again in view of 21... liJd5 23.'f:YaS tiJxf4 24.gxf4 �xf4 with the threats 25....ixf3 and 25...Dxe2. Therefore White protects the e2-bishop, but now there follows the unexpected ...
1 8.i.d2 l:tde8 Black wants to place his rooks on the "e" and 'f' files. On 18 . . . l1heB can follow 195�f2.
1 9.<st>d 1 ? ! 19.� was better, although then Black's initiative would have been also very dangerous, e.g. 19....i.g4 20.i.d1 �hf8 21.l:If1 (21.f4 .ixd1 22. :1axd1 22.l:thxd1 �h5 23.�g1 :1e2 -+ 22... 'fih5 23.l::tde1 llxe1 24..ixe1 :1e8-+, 21.'tiixa7 tZ:Jxc3! 22.i.f4 - 22.Axc3 Axf3 23:§'a8+ �d7 -+ - 22... tlJxd1+ 23JIaxd1 .txf3 24.�xf3 �hS+ 2S.�g2 l::te2+ 2S. �g1 '6'f3-+) 21...'Wh5 22.�g1 liJe3 -
22 ...Itxe2 ! 23. Wxe2 The position after 23.%:xe2 .ixf3 cannot be saved.
23 ... tZJdS 24JIf2 24.�xa7 liJxf4+ 2S.gxf4 't!¥xf4 did not promise White anything good either.
Chapter 6
154
24...tZJxf4+ 2S.gxf4 �xf4 26.1:[ af1 IlfS 27.'iYxa7 i, bS+ 28.�d1 Wi e3! Much stronger than winning back the exchange at once. 29.�a3 �b8 The immediate 29 ...�xf1 30.:xf1 �d3+ 31.�e1 l:[f6 was also good enough. 30.'*'b4 �xf1 31J�xf1 'ii d3+ 32: �e1 !l f6! 33.dS The endgame after 33.hS :e6+ 34.�2 1We3+ 35.�g2 �g5+ 36.�2 �h4+ 37.�g1 't!¥xh5 38.'iYf8+ �a7 39. 'tWc5+ �xc5 40.dxc5 lIe5 is absolutely hope less for White. 33 .. :ii' e3+ 34.W d1 1:[ f4! 3S. �b2 'i§' d3+ 36.�e1 l:1xh4 The material parity is restored and Black's attack continues. 37.'iY d2 Vi'b1+ 38.�2 � b6+ 39.�g3 lIh6 40 .:1f2 �d6+ 41.W g2l:I h2+ 42. 43.1:t g2 J:xg2+ 44. �xg 2 �xg2+ 45 . 0:1 Game SO D. Gurevich
-
Khmelnltsky
Modesto 1995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.tDf3 i.g4 4.cxd5 �xf3 5.dxc6 ..txc6 6. tlJc3 e6 7.e4 i.b4 8.f3 f5 !? In my opinion this move is much better than it is believed to be. Black imme diately attacks the white centre. but on the other hand softens up the a2-g8 diagonal and especially the e6-pawn. According to theory White has the better chances. We shall soon see whether it is so indeed.
9.exf5 A practical decision. Gurevich does not wish to play any sharp variations (against a possibly better prepared opponent that can be very dangerous) and he reduces the tension in the centre at once. The most aggressive continuation is
9.�c4. 9.e5 surrenders the d5-square to the opponent, and after 9...'l.Je7 Black has nothing to be afraid of - see the game Pillsbury-Chigorin in the introduction (p.7).
9 'i!¥h4+! •••
Black enforces g2-g3, which weakens the light squares. The variation 9.. .fxe4?! 10.0-0 exf3 11. .ixe6 is too risky for Black, e.g. 11... �h4 (11 ...'iVf6 12.d5 f2+ 13.�h1 $,xc3 14.dxc6 '6'xe6 15.cxb7±. Razuvaev Koski. Puerto Rico 1971. 11...IiJe7 12. dS .txc3 13.'iYxf3 �f6 14.dxc6 tiJxc6 1S.�hS+ g6 16.�h3 ±. David-Duck stein, Brocco 1988) 12.g3 'iff6 13.d5 (13.tLJdS!?) 13 ... f2+ 14.I1xf2 �c5 15. /;-�e4 Axf2+ 16.'';,"xf2 A.d7 (16 . .t�,h6? 17. 'a'hS+ g6 18. 'iWxh6 +- Zelinsky Karner, Riga 1976) 17. .txd7+ (17. tlJe4!?) 17 . .. �xd7 18.�g4+ �e8 19 . .tg5 with a strong attack. 9 ... 'i¥e7?! is not better, after 10.0-0 0-0-0 11.�b3 in Itkis-Rositsan, Yerevan 1981, White had a clear advantage. .
t
1 0.g3 'fi'h3
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ( \C6 3J�3 iLg4 4.cxd5 j,xf3 5.dxc6 Axc6 6.tLlc3
10 ..:�e7 is not recommendable, e.g. 11.0-0 0-0-0 12. �b3, Plachetka-Szilagyi, Stary Smokovec 1973, or 11.�b3 .I21f6 12.i.xe6 fxe4, Kurmashev-Tsabuslaev, URS 1987, 13.1xe4 iDxe4 14.0-0, and Black's position is very unpleasant in both cases. 10,,:�h5 is also bad. After 11. 0-0 iLxc3 12.bxc3 fxe4 13.fxe4 'i¥xd1 14.l:xdl be4 15.i.xeS White has a positional advan tage due to his bishop pair, Gustafsson Wisnewski, Bad Bevensen 1994.
155
Minev evaluates this position as '±', and none of the authors that I know questions that opinion. But after 16.. . e3! 17.j,xe3 Axf3 18..1f2 (or 18.'i¥c4 :f8) 18. ..DfS the position is very sharp and unclear.
9,..exf5 1 0.i.e2 On the more active 10 . .tc4 can follow 10...'!'fh4+ (10.. :�e7+!? 11.�2 0-0-0+ Minev) 11.g3 (or 11.�1 0-0-0) 11 . .. 'ti'e7+ 12. �2 0-0-0 with initiative for Black, Gershman-Alonso Diaz, Buenos Aires 1937. Also after 10 . .tf4 �e7+ 11.�e2 0-0-0 Black has no problems. 1 0.. :iYh4+! We have often seen this idea - Black en forces g2-g3, weakening White's position. 1 1.g3 �e7 12.�d3 f�f6!? An aggressive and interesting move Black sacrifices the f5-pawn for an advan tage in development. Also possible was 12...g613.0-0 0-0-0 with a sharp game.
Now, after 10...'!!Vh3 the following varia tions are possible:
a) 1 1 .�e2 txe4 12.fxe4 0-0-0 13.a3 .i.aS (13... ..txc3+!? 14.bxc3 tLIf6) 14. %:xd4 15.:f8+ :IdS 1S.llxdS+ �xdS 17. AgS+ �cS 1 S.0-0-0 tLlfS, and in Chasin-Balashov, Moscow 1972, White did not achieve sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
l:tf1
b) 1 1 .exf5
�g2 12.:f1 'tlixh2 13...txeS 'ti'xg3+ 14J:lf2 &iJe700, Spasov Inkiov, Bulgaria 1974.
c) 1 1 .�b3 j,xc3+ 1 2.bxc3 '/Wg2 (12 . . . fxe4? 13. AxeS �g2 14.i.f7+ �d8 1S . .tgS+ tl)fS 16.0·0-0 exf3 17..txfS+ gxfS 1S.d5 i.d7 19.�xb7±) 1 3.Df1 fxe4 14.Axe6 &iJf6! (14...exf3? 15...tf7+ �dB 16.i.gS+ �cB 17.0·0-0 Cl:Jf6 1B..txf6 gxfS 19.Ae6+ �b8 20.dS j,e8 21.d6 .i.cS 22.�b4! +-, Lengyel-Flesch, Budapest 19S2) 1 5 . .tf7 + �d8 1 6 . .tg5.
1 3.a3 Before taking on f5, White dislodges the bishop to a5, where it would be attacked immediately. 1 3 ... �a5 After 13...j,xc3+ 14.bxc3 0-0 15.0-0 Black would not achieve an active position and White's chances would be better due to his bishop pair. 1 4.'lWxf5 .txc3+ 1 5.bxc3 0-0 Black is down a pawn, but he has nearly completed his development. The first player has yet to mobilise many of his pieces and solve the problem with his king. 1 6.�d3 On 16. �e5 follows lS... 'fi'f7 followed by 17...naeS with a strong attack on the uncastled white king. 16 .. J:tae8 17 .r�a2 White protects his bishop so that he can finally castle.
Chapter 6
1 56
24 ...I1xe2! 2SJ:txe2 2S.�xe2 loses in view of 2S . . . :xt41 26.gxf4 �g6+.
2S ... .txf3 2S.l:tbS bS 27. 'iYe1 j,xe2 2S:+»'xe2 :tea 29. 'fYf1 tiJd6 30 . .txdS �xd6
17... llJg4? ! This is a playable continuation, though not the best one. Now White is allowed to castle, which will make his life much easier. 17 .. b5 1 8.0-0 .i.d5 seemed attractive, but after 1 9.'tWc2 ! (1 9J%b2? i..c4 20.�b1 .i.xe2 21 .:le 1 'iYxa3 22.l1bxe2 �xc3+) 1 9 . . . i..xa2 20.'iWxa2+ 'i'Ve6 (or 20 . . .'�)h8 21 .i..x b5) 2 1 .�xe6+ :Xe6 22 . .i.xb5 White would have had a good position. However, 17 . :i�Ye6! was very strong, e.g. 1 8.c4 ( 1 8J1b2 't!th3 ! 1 9 . .i.f4 CZJg4 20.:1f1 tiJxh2 21 .llf2 llxf4 22.gxf4 tDxf3+-+ ) 1 8 . . . .txf3 ! 1 9.:lf1 (1 9.'ti'xf3 �xc4 20.:a1 :Xe2+ 21 . 'iYxe2 'iWc3+ -+) 1 9 . . . .ig2 20 .1:f4 b5! 21 .d5 'ii'b6, and White can hardly repel Black's attack. .
.
1 S.0..0 llJe3 1 9J�f2 After 1 9.:e 1 tZJg4 20 .l:%d 1 �e3 21 .�xe3 �xe3+ 22 .�xe3 llxe3 23 .d5 i.a4 24.l:b 1 b6 Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn. 19....adS 20.�a1 Gurevich has consolidated his position to some extent and kept his extra pawn. Despite Black's active pieces, it seems that the hard times for White are behind him now. 20 ... tlJc4 21 .a4 as 22.�d1 'iYd7 23.i.f4 'i¥c6 24.t:tb1 ? Missing a tactical trick. Correct was 24.'i:Yb1 with the ideas i..d 3 or �b5.
Black has restored the material parity and the endgame is slightly better for him due to his better pawn structure along with the somewhat unsafe position of White's king.
31 .)�f5? Now the second player achieves a clear advantage. Correct was 3 1 .'ii'c4+ �e6 (3 1 . . . �h8 32.l:.f5!oo) 32.'Wxe6+ :Xe6 33 .�2 (33.c4!?) 33 ... :c6 34.:b3 l:c4 35.11a3 �7 36.�e3 �e6 37.�e4 h6 38.g4 g6 39.h3 g5 40.Wd3 Wd5 41 .�1 cS 42Jfu1 l:txa4 43.lbb6 cxd4 44.'cb5+ wc6 45.c4, with a draw.
31..:+WcS 32:�'f3? ! 32:�a1 'Wc4 33.:1f1 does not look good for White, but it is still playable. Now he simply loses his pawn.
32 .. .1:(e1+ 33.�2 �xf3+ 34.�xf3 :a1 35.�e3l:Ixa4 Gurevich did not m anage to save this endgame. 36JnS 1:Xa2 37 .:ad5 �xh2 38.�d8+ <sti17 39.l:td7+ �6 40.11xc7 �b2 41.�e4 h5 42. llc6+ �g5 43.d5 a4 44.l%c7 g6 45.1:1a7 )1g2 4S.d6 �6 47.�d5 llxg3 48.l:txa4 g5 49J:1c4 b5 SO.nc5 lld3+ 51.�e4 1!txd6 52.I:IfS+ �g6 53.l:rxb5 1:[eS+ 54.�d5 :e1 55J:tbS h4 5S.llhS �5 57. c4 rld1+ 58.�c6 �4 59. c5 �g3 60.:aS h3 0:1
1 57
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ��6 3.(. "113 i.g4 4.tlJc3
Chapter 7 1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 ..tg4 4.tlJc3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3. (�f3 .tg4 4.tlJc3 ThIS natural move is often played. White simply develops a piece and avoids many complicated variations. However, Black has the chance to support the d5pawn with . . . e6.
Game 51
Matveeva - Miladlnovic Cappelle la Grande 1 995
1.d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.iDf3 �g4 4.ttJc3 e6 Other moves: a) 4 ... dxc4? ! .ig4?!. b) 4...tLif6?1 .ig4?!.
3.tLic3 dxc4 4.t2Jf3
c)
3.tLic3 t2Jf6 4 .tZJf3
c>
c) 4.. 3:.xf3 Black hurries to compromise White's pawn structure.
5.exf3 5.gxf3 e6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.�f4 leads to 4 . . . e6 S.cxd5 exdS 6 . .t:.f4 .ixf3 7.gxf3.
5 ...e6 In particular: 4... e6
5.cxd5 e xd5
Game 51 White has vague chances on the c-file, but they are neutralized by Black. c)
4...e6
5.e3 .ib4 c> Game 52 4. e6 5.e3 tLif6 c> Game 53 S .if4 also must be mentioned , which ..
•
us ually transposes to (details in Game 51).
Chapter 15
On the whole, the games usually de velop rather quietly and if Black plays appropriate he does not have any parti cular problems. On the other hand, his chances of seizing the initiative in the opening are also Significantly reduced.
After S . . . dxc4? 6.d5 t;:�5 7 ..if4 ��g6 8 .ixc4 !, as it was played in the game Hebden - Notkin , Capelle la Grande 1 995, Black fell i nto some serious troubles because 8 . . tLixf4 failed to 9 : \AYa4+ 'i!¥d7 1 0 .ibS +-. 6.cxd5 exd5 7 .ib5!, and now: .
.
.
•
c1 ) 7 .tb4 8.0-0 tLige7 9.i.gS! (in order to weaken the eS-square) 9 . . .f6 1 0 .ie3 0-0 1 1 .�b3 .ta5 1 2.l:ac1 .tb6 1 3 . .ixcS bxcS 1 4.ti:Ja4 'iWdS 1 S:'ii' c3 Ilfb8 1 S: iYd2 as 1 7 . b3 �b4 1 8:iI¥d3 i..a7 1 9.1:lfd1 �b5 20:�c2 with unpleasant pressure on the queenside , Voiska-Miles, Zaragoza 1 993. ...
.
c2) 7 ... a61?
Chapter 7
1 S8
Back to the position after 4 ...e6 :
An interesting idea by Raetsky. At first sight it seems a little strange - Black is willing to play with the backward doubled c-pawns and even 'pay' for that with a tempo! In reality, however, the situation is not so unfavourable at all. After 8.Axc6+ bxcS the dS-pawn is protec ted, which allows Black to develop his bishop to d6, followed by .. t8g8-e7. The knight here protects the c6-pawn and can also go to f5 to attack on d4. In the two games that I have - both of them by Raetsky - with this idea, White did not manage to find anything particularly convincing: 9.'!!Y e2+ �d7! ? 10.0-0 :k.d6 1 1 ..te3 �h4 12.g3 'iYh3 13.CZJa4 tiJe7 1 4.IIfe 1 .:'�fS 1S:&f1 �xf1 + 16.�xf 1 :Iab8 17Jled1 llhe8 1 8.:Id3 :t>4 19.b3 hS with counterplay, Rashkovsky-Raetsky, Siel 2002, or 9.0-0 Ad6 10.1:1e1+ t8e7 11. .tgS f6 12. �h4 �7 1 3. �d3 't'Yd7 14.x:tac1 lihb8 with counterplay, Coleman-Raetsky, Abu Dhabi 2003. .
More critical seems to be a:t!'e2+ Wd7 9 Aa 4 from the game Dautov-NOsken, German Team cup 200S. After 9 .. bS! 10.i..b3 iDxd4 11 .�d3 iDxb3 1 2:-8'xd5+ .td6 1 3.�xf7+? ! 'We7+ 14.�xe7+ CZJxe7 15.axb3 a roughly equal endgame oc curred. Black should also hold his own after 13:�'xb3 �e7+ 14.ioe3 �e6, but 13.axb3 - keeping the queen in the centre - should retain some initiative. .
.
5.cxd5 This exchange prepares further play on the c-file. There are also other alternatives:
a) 5.Ag5 a1} 5 ti:Jge7 blocks the fS-bishop and that is why it does not seem trustworthy to me, e.g. 6.e3 �d7 7.h3 �f5 S.lIc1, and White is significantly more active, Azmaiparashvili-Miladinovic, Chalkidiki 2003. •••
a2) 5 f6 After that Black's plan is usually ...g7g5, ... h7-h5, ...0-0-0, and the kingside castling seems rather dubious for White (unless Black still plays .. . 0-0). How ever, in the topical game Seres-Antal, Budapest 2004, this idea was really put to the test: •••
S.cxd5 6.Ah4 i..b4 7.e3 liJge7 S.cxdS exd5 9.h3 .te6 10.34g3 tiJfS 1 1 .Ah2 i.d6 1 2 . .tbS ! 0-0 13.i..xc6 bxc6 14.0-0 c5 1 S.dxc5 Axc5 1 6.CZJa4 ,i,d6 17..txd6 �xd6 18.ttJd4�, Kumaran-Miladinovic, Matinhos 1 984, but 9 ... At5!? was inter esting, e.g. 10.Ae2 0-0 11.0-0 Axc3 !? 12.bxc3 ClJaSoo.
6 exd5 7 .tf4 .:i.b4 8.e3 {",ge7 9.h3 ...
.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �c6 3.tZJf3 .tg4 4.tlJc3
1 59
9.Ad3 �d7 1 0.0-0? g51 1 1 .i.g3 hS ! , and Black developed a dangerous initia tive on the kingside, Ascic-Kovacevic, Bizovac 2001.
9 ... .,te6 1 0.:c1 g5 11 . .th2 h5 Or 1 1 . . . �d7 1 2.a3 i.dS 1 3 ..,txd6, and after 1 3 . . . cxd6 1 4.b4, as well as after 13 . . . �xd6 1 4. tZJd2 ! ? 0-0-0 1 S.�b5 'iVd7 1S.ti:Jb3 White's initiative on the queen side is very dangerous.
1 2.a3 iod6 13 .txd6 cxd6 •
13 . .'6'xd6 1 4 .�d2 ! ? 0-0-0 1 S.tZJb5 't!Vd7 1S.tZ:Jb3 with attack. 14.h4! g4 1 5.tlJg1, and due to the numerous weaknesses in the o ppo nent's camp White had a clear edge. In the cl assic game Milev-Spasski, Habana 1962, Black replied differently on 9.h3: 9 ... iJ5 1 0.11c1 0-0 (not agg ressive, but a safe decision) 1 1 .ioe 2 'Wd7 1 2. a3 ..td6 1 3.ioxdS cxd6! 1 3.0-0 l:UeS with an approximately equal posi tion - the firm control over the centre compensates for Black's slightly worse pawn structure. .
a3) S . .te7 (the 'normal' move) 6. .txe7 fi:Jxe7 a31 )7.cxd5 �dSI? (7. . . exdS q 5.cxd5 exdS 6 . .tgS i.e7) 8.e3 (8.tlJxdS? ! �xdS! . .
9.e3 .txf3 1 0.gxf3 eS! with initiative for Black) 8 ...0-0 9.ioe2 tlJxc3!? 1 0.bxc3 tlJaS (Black intends to bring his rooks to the c- and d-files and accomplish . . . c7eS) 1 1 �a4 b6 1 2 . .J:td 1 �d6 1 3 .0-0 .afdS! 1 4 .:fe 1 11acS! 1S.11d2 Axf3 ( 1 5 . . . cS?? 1 6.dxc5, and the g4-bishop is attacked) 1 S . .txf3 cS ! with initiative on the queenside, Hulak-Muse, Vinkovci 1 993. .
7.e3 0-0 8 ..td3 a32) t:\ 9.,txh7 + Wxh7 1 0.tlJgS+. 8.cxdS ¢ a31 . 8...f5!?
9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.1:;[c1 1 0.h3 ioxf3 1 1 .'t!Yxf3 t4! 1 2.'iYg4 fxe3 1 3.fxe3 ti.Jb4 1 4.i..b 1 �d6 with good counter chances for Black, Bukic-8arle, Vrhnika 1 995. 1 0.0-0 t4? 1 1 . ..txh7+; 10 .. .'�d7!? D.1 1 . . . f4, 1 0 . . .�h8 ! ? D.1 1 . . .f4. 1 0 �h8 (1 0 .. .f4? 1 1 . .txh7+, 10 ... �d7! ?.11 1 . . .f4) 1 1 .0-0 �d6 (1 1 . . . 141?) 1 2.Ae2 f4 °o, Lomineishvili-Botsari, Athens 2003. ..•
A more venomous alternative for White here is 9.h31? (instead of 9.cxd5). If now the second player, by analogy with the variation 9.cxdS exd5 1 0.h3, goes for 9 ... .txf3 1 O.�xf3 f4 the e6pawn would be a weakness after 1 1 .0-0 fxe3 12.'�¥xe3. In the correspondence game D .G arcia-van der Meer, 2002, followed 1 2 . . . dxc4 1 3. �xeS+ Wh8 1 4.ioxc4 IU6 ( 1 4 ...'�xd4 15J;[ad 1 with initiative) 1 S. �e4 �xd4 16.'lWxd4 ez:Jxd4 1 7.:ad1, and White was slightly more active. As an improvement for Black I could suggest 10 ... /�,b4!?, e.g. 11 . .ab1 dxc4 ! ? 1 2. �xb7 %;[b8 ! ? 1 3. �xa7 f4i5ij or 1 1 :�e2 liJxd3+ ( 1 1 . . . cS ! ? � 1 2.dxc5 l::lc 8) 1 2.'�'xd3 f4 oo• Another possibility is also 9 ... �h5!? (in stead of 9 . i.xf3) D. . . . fS-f4. ..
Chapter 7
1 60
b) 5.i.f4 After that Black has a great variety of options:
9.a3 0-0-0 1 0.�b3 f6 with a complicated game, Rothman-Vecek, corr. 1 99B. b4) In the rapid game Kramnik-Moroze vich, Frankfurt 2000, there first followed 5....bf3!? 6.gxf3 and only then 6.. i.dS. After 7.i.g3 iDge7 8.e3 '§'d7 9.'i'c2 f5 1 0.i.xd6 1Vxd6 1 1 .0-0-0 0-0 1 2.14 a6 1 3.�bl tik!S 1 4.1:g 1 c6 l S.tLle2 l£Jf7 1 6.t2Jc l iDcB 1 7.:g3 'ti'e7 l S.cS �c7 1 9 . .te2 �hB 20.:ldgl :gS 2 1 .tLJd3 the comi ng world champion had the ini tiative, but he could not turn it into a full pOint. I nstead of S . . . �d7 Breutigam suggests 8...f5!? (� . . 14), possibly a good idea. .
.
bl ) S....Jib4 The obvious 6.e3 now leads to the variation 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3 . .tf4 .i.g4 4.e3 e6 S.c4 ..tb4+ 6.CZJc3 ( Games 107- 1 09), which is entirely OK for Black. Notable is, however, 6.t2JeS!? tlJxe5 7 .txeS i.xc3+ 8.bxc3 t2Jf6 (interesting is B .. .f6 9.i.g3 t2Je7 with a solid , but slightly passive position , Pein-Boey, Bruxelles 1 987, and Doric-Fercec, Porec 2004) 9.t1b1 b6 (9. ..0-0?! 1 0.f3 i.h5 1 1 . Ilxb7 dxc4 1 2.'iVd2! ±, Aseev-Morozevich, Elista 1 995) 10. �a4+ ( 1 0.i.xf6 'i!Vxf6 1 1 :oWa4+ �e700) 1 0 .�d7 1 1 .'iVxd7+ �xd7 1 2.cxd5 exdS 1 3.cxdS 1 4 .exdS l S.f3 with a slightly better endgame. •
..
b2) 5...t2Jf6 Again Black does not mind against the transposition to the aforementioned variation 6.e3 .tb4. In this case the first player can also try 6.t2Je5!? A possible development of the game could be: 6 . . . tDxe5 7.dxe5 d4!? B.exf6 dxc3 9.'iVb3 cxb2 1 0.:d l �xf6 1 1 .�xb7 .tb4+ 1 2.'i!Vxb4 'iYxf4 1 3.'t!VbS+ �B 1 4.�xb2 c5 1 5.e3 'fic7 1 6.f3 ..tfS 1 7.e4 ..tg6 l S . .Jie2 f6 oo. b3) 5 i.d6!? 6.t2Je5 (after 6.i.g3 t2Jge7 or 6 . . . iDf6 the position is approximately equal) 6 . . . i.xe5 7.dxe5 d4 B.t2Je4 �e7 •..
bS) Another alternative is the imme diate 5 dxc41? I n Graf-Miladinovic, Poros 1 998, White did not manage to reveal any drawbacks of this move after 6.e3 .td6 7.i.g3 ":;"'f6 8.i.xc4 0-0 9.�e2 tlJe7 10.�b3 (in the more recent game Kohlweyer-Miladinov;c, Lido Estensi 2003, here followed 1 0.0-0 l£Jf5 1 1 .�b3 l:tb8 1 2 .l:tfd l 'iWe7 and the pOSition was approximately equal) 1 O...ClJed5!? 11.�h4 (1 1 :iYxb7 :lbB 1 2 .�xa7 :Xb2�) 1 2.l:tc1 ( 1 2.'i¥xb7 :b8 1 3.1Wxa7 :Xb2 1 4.liJxd5 'iYxd5;;) 1 2 . . .tDxc3 1 3 .:Xc3liJe4 1 4.j.xe7 "'xe7 1S.:lc2 c6 1 6.0-0 a5 (� . . �b4)1 7 .a3 a4 1 8 .�c4 :ad8 Black achieved a solid position and eventually won the ga rhe. ..•
.
Concerning 5.e3 see Games 52-53. Now back to the main game:
5 ...exd5 6.�g5 The most natural, but not the only conti nuation: a) 6:�b3 �xf3 7.exf3 tiJxd4 8.'8xb7 l:tb8 9.�a6 with the following possibili ties: a 1 ) 9 ...tDc2+?! 1 0.�d l tDxa 1 1 1 .i.bS+ UxbS 1 2.'i!fxbS+ 'iYd7, Levitt-Tait, East bourne (rapid) 1 991 , and now White can force a draw with 1 3 .'ffb 8+ 'ifdB
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 lLlc6 3.tlJf3 Jl.g4 4.tLJc3
1 61
1 4.'I'bS+ or continue the battle with 13.tiJxdS!? (± Tait) . a2) 9. �c5?1 1 0 . ..te3 'Z:Jc2+ 1 1 .�d2 tiJxe3 1 2.�c6+ '6'd7 1 3.'iYxc5 llxb2+ ( 1 3 . . . tlJxf1 + 1 4.11axf1 l%xb2+ l S.�c1 .ribS 1 6.nel + l:te6 1 7.tDxd5±) 1 4.'�cl ':c2+ 1 5. �b 1 :Xc3 16. 'i:Vxc3 tZ:Jxf 1 1 7.l:xf1 ±, Levitt-Yeo, Swansea 1 995. a3) 9 c6! (Tait's recommendation) 10 . .i.d3 'Bc7 1 1 .0-0 i.d6 1 2.l1e1 + (12.h3 �e?) 1 2 .. .t?Je7 1 3.i.g5 O-O! 1 4.i.xe7 be? l S . ..txh7+ wxh7 1 6.'t!Yd3+ �g8 1 7.'i¥xd4 i.f6 1 8.'iYd2 'iVaS with strong compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Levitt-Gormally, Oakham 2001. ..
.••
b) 6.�f4 i.xf3! 7.gxf3 �d6 b1) 8.tl:Jxd5.bf4 9.tlJxf4 '§'xd4 1 0.'i¥xd4
tiJxd4 1 1 .0-0-0 l:td8 1 2.e3 lLle6 with an equal endgame, which first happened in Kindl-Barthel, Dortmund 1 991 , and Epishin-Peek, Amsterdam 2000 . b2) 8.i.g3 tZJge7 9.e3 h51? (9 . . . a6 1 0 . a3 h5 ! ? 1 1 . �c2 h4 1 2 . ..txd6 �xd6oo, Karpov-Piket, Monaco (rapid) 2000) with good counterplay for Black, e.g. 10.Ad3 (after 1 0.Ah3, as it was played in the game Safin-Toomanian, Abu Dhabi 2001 , I like best 1 0 ... i.b4!? � 1 1 . . . h4 1 2.i.f4 ilJg6. Therefore, in teresting is 1 0.a3 ! ? h4 1 1 .Jl.xd6 'ii'xd6 1 2 . .th3 a6 1 3.f4 CZJd8 1 4. �b3 I1h6 1 5.Ilg1 �8 1 6.0-0-0 with some initiative, Atalik-Jurkovic, Zenica 2004) 10 . .h4 1 1 .Jl.xd6 'iYxdS 1 2.f4 0-0-0 00 1 3.�g4+ �b8 1 4.1¥xg7?? rldgB 1 5.�xf7 lLld8 -+ , Svetushkin-Rabiega, ICC Blitz 2003. .
6 i.e7 7.j.,xe7 'iJ gxe7 8.e3 0-0 9.i.e2 White would like to castle kingside and start playing on the queenside, besides he has the semi-open c-file there. 9 .td3 f5 ( not 9 . . .'iVd6? 1 0 . ..txh7 +, 9 ... tLlgS !?) c:} note to White's Sth move, line a32 (p. 1 59). ...
.
9 /�'l The knight heads for b6, from where it could go to c4. Duckstein played differently against Eis terer, Austria 1 989: 9 .lleS (or 9 ... �dS!? 1 0.0-0 tZ:Jd8 1 1 .tlJb5 �b6 1 2.tlJeS Jl.xe2 1 3.'iWxe2 as 1 4.tlJc3 �dS 1 5.tZJa4 tZJe6 l S.:ac1 cS=, Seres-Rupprecht, Buda pest 2004) 1 0.0-0 \§'dS 1 1 .a3 t2JdB ! (the knight goes to e6, where it protects additi onally c7 and could possibly be transferred to the kingside) 1 2 .tDb5?! ( 1 2.nc1 tlJeS oo) 1 2 . . . �b6 1 3.a4?! i.xf3 1 4 .i.xf3 c6 1 s.lLld6 tUB l S. 'i¥c2 as! 1 7.rlfb1 f5 ! , and White is in trouble, since the dS-knight is in danger. ..
..
1 0.0-0 lZJb6 1 1 J:tb1 Preparing b2-b4. 1 1...a5! Preventing W hite's plan. 1 2.tlJe1 If White persists with his plan 12.a3 � b4 -, he must reckon with 12 . . . a4!?, after which the b3- and c4-squares would be weak. The attempt to win the daring pawn with 1 3 ..i&.b5 seems too risky: After 1 3 .. .f5 ! 1 4.ClJxa4 lDxa4 1S . .txa4 .txf3 1 S.gxf3 1:f61 the second player gets a dangerous attack on the king. -
12 ... ..txe2 13.�xe2 .t:1e8 1 4.�h5 This campaign is absolutely harmless,
Chapter 7
1 62
but it was very difficult to find any other reasonable plan ( 1 4.tZJd3? tiJxd4).
14.. . g6 15.�h6 tZJe7 1 6.CZJf3 Or l S.tlJd3 tlJf5 (lS .. tlJc4 1 7.l:.bc1 cS) 1 7.'fi'f4 \l:!¥d6 1 8:�xd6 tL1xdS=. .
16 . ..tlJf5 17.t+'f4 'iV d6 18:�Wxd6 CZJxd6 19.tlJ e5 c6 20.l:tfc1 f6 21 .tlJ d3 �e7 The position still remains equal. 22.tlJc5 CZJbc4 23. b3 l2Ja3 V2:1i2 Game 52
Tichonov - Kobalia Menorca 1 996
1.d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJ f3 ..t g4 4.tiJc3 e6 5.e3 W hite protects c4 and prepares the development of the f1 -bishop followed by castling. The drawback of this move is obvious: the c1 -bishop is locked-in. S . . ..tb4 Here I prefer another move order: S .. tlJf6 6.Ae2 i.b4 which lessens the dangers connected with the possibilities 6 ..td2, S.'il:Yb3 and 6.'i¥a4 (see the an notation to White's move 6), e.g. 6.:i.d2 tzJe4!? (Wuttke-Shauste n , Baunatal 1 998) , 6.'i!Vb3 Axf3 7.gxf3 as! L\ 8. �xb7?? ilJa5 -+ or 6:tWa4 tzJd7!? (L\... tZJbS, 6 . . . .txf3 7.gxf3 Ab4 q 4.'�a4 �xf3 5.gxf3 e6 6.e3 �b4+ 7.tzJc3 ilJf6, Chapter 9) 7.cxd5 (7.c5!? Axf3 8.gxf3 e5ooL\9.tZJxd5? ! tZJxc5 1 0.tiJxc7+ 'iYxc7 1 1 .dxc5 .txc5 with initiative for Black) 7 ...tlJb6 8.Wc2 exd5 9.i.e2 �dS 10.0-0 0-0 1 1 .a3 as 1 2.tlJe1 .txe2 1 3.tL1xe2 fle8 1 4.CDd3 �h4 1 5.g3 '6'e4 with ini tiative for Black, Beudaert-Libiszewski, Cap d'Agde 2003 . The variation 5 ... tlJf6 6.h3 will be ana lysed in the next game. .
.
.
-
6. .t e2 Other options: a) 6.�d3?! is met with the strong reply 6 ... e5! with initiative (Grekov). b) White has also played 6 . .td2!? in some games, so that after ... .tb4xc3 he can take back with the bishop and then try to seize the initiative on the queenside with a2-a3 and b2-b4, e.g.: b1 ) 6. tlJge7 7.h3 i.h5 8. a3 .axc3 9.i.xc3 0-0 10.b4 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 tZJd5 1 2.�b2 �e7 1 3.0-0 as 1 4 .l:c1 :tfd8 1 5. �e2 ;t Lputian-Harrington, Houston 1 994. ..
Black should prefer the more active development of the knight to fS with the idea .. /i.JfS-e4: b2) 6 /; '116 7.h3 After 7.a3 Axc3 a.Axc3 �4! ? g.l:c1 0-0 1 0.i.e2 the protagonists in the game Alvarez Ibarra-Armas, Cuba 1 995, agreed a draw, while in the final position it was probably worth trying for Black to continue the game with 1 0 ... dxc4! ? L\ 1 1 .i.xc4 tZJxc3 followed by 1 2 ... e5. 7.'�a4 is harmless in view of the simple 7 . 0-0. ..
.
.
7 �h5 8.a3 j,xc3 9.�xc3 tiJe41? 1 0.Dc1 0-0 1 1 .�e2 dxc4 1 2 .bc4 tlJxc3 1 3.:Xc3 ...
.
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tljcs 3.CZJf3 .tg4 4.tljc3
...
In the game Eingorn-Rabiega, Graz 2002, Black went for 1 3 CZJe7, and after 1 4.0-0 CZJdS l S.:cl cS 1 6.i.e2 .txf3 1 7 . .txf3 'iWe7 1 8.lIcS llfd8 1 9. tt'c2 lld7 20.lIcl l:[ad8 2 1 .b4 W h ite had slightly better chances due to his initiative on the q u eenside. I n the diagram position Black can play more actively: 1 3 ...e5!1 1 4.dS CZJe7 � l S.g4 .ag6 l S.tZJxeS .te4°o or 1 3 ... a6!1 (he wants his knight to support ... e6-eS from cS, hence he prevents .tc4-bS) 1 4.0-0 'i:'t'd6 6 ... eS-eS. c) Pillsbury's idea ••.
6:�b311, with the threat 7.CZJeS seems interesting. The usual reply is
6... .txf3 (after 6 ... lDge7 7 . .te2 0-0 8 .0-0 Black is probably too passive, Ye Rongguang Manor, Salonika (01) 1 988) 7.gxf3 tl:Jge7 S . .td2 0-0, and now:
l S3
c l ) 9.f4l:lbS 10.h4 1 0.0-0-0 dxc4 1 1 . .txc4 bS!1 2 . .td3 .bc3 1 3.'6'xc3 l:lbS 1 4.�bl as 00, Pillsbury Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1 89S, 1 2 . .. l:[b6!? 6 . . . as-a4 Watson, 1 2 . . . as! ? Gibbons. 10 ... CZJf5 1 1 .0-0-0 dxc4 1 2.i.xc4 i.e7 1 3.CZJe4 b5 1 4 . .td3 ribS!? (� 1 5 . . . CZJcxd4! 1 6.exd4 CZJxd4 -+) l S.CZJg5 ( 1 5. �b1 !?) l S ... hS 1 6.i..xfS exf5 1 7.lDf3 b4oo, Showalter-Chigorin, Nuremberg 1 89S. c2) 9.0-0-0 Db8 1 0.h4!? After 1 0 .cxdS!? exd5 1 1 . .i.d3 b5 1 2J:tdg 1 i.xc3 1 3.'tWxc3 I1b6 14.�c2 1S 1 5.lIg5 h6 1 6.:g2 b4 1 7 .l:lhg 1 1:17 1 8.�bl a5 19.'iWc5! wh8 20 . .i.c2 �a8 21 .i.b3 White was clearly better, Leon hardt-Chigorin, Ostend 1 905. Probably better was 1 0 ...tiJxdS ! ? and 1 1 . .td3 would lead to line c3). Also possible is 1 0.Ad3 dxc4! ? 1 1 . i.xc4 b5 1 2.i.d3 rlb600, Bator-Brynell, Copenhagen 1 985, or 1 0.l!Vc2 dxc4 1 1 .i.xc4 tlJdS 1 2.h4 tiJbS 13 . .td3 h6 1 4.f4 �e7 l S.r.:tdg l , and in this lively position the opponents agreed a draw, Kostic-Feistenauer, Germany 1 990. 10... .txe3 1 1 .Axc3 dxc4 12.i.xc4 b5 1 3 . .td3 Db6 1 4.�1 tiJd5 oo, Dive Spain, Otago 1 99 1 . c3) 9 .td3 Db8! 1 0.exd5 (1 0.0-0-0 � 9.0-0-0 l1b8 1 0 . .td3) 1 0 ... CZJxd5! 11. 0-0-0 Axe3 1 2.bxe3 (1 2 . .txc3 b5 oo, Pillsbury-Chigorin, London 1 899) 12 ... b5 1 3.e4 tiJde7oo, Rubinstein-Chigorin, Lodz 1 906. •
c4) 9.a3 .txe31? (after 9 . . ..taS 1 0.0-0-0 l:b8 1 1.'iYc2 dxc4 12 . .ixc4 .i.xc3 - the bishop is still exchanged! - 1 3 . .ixc3 bS 1 4.d5! exd5 1 5 . .ixdS tiJxd5 16.i.xg7! �xg7 17. �xc6 '8fS 1 8. 'e'xd5 and Black had to struggle for a draw, being down a pawn, Maherramzade-Kaminski, Halle 1995) 10 .ixe311bS! 11.l1g1 tZJg6 (GM Vasiukov here also gives 1 1 ..:6'dS!? 1 2. •
Chapter 7
1 64
f4 dxc4 1 3 .Axc4 t2jd5!.6 . . . f5) 1 2.0-0-0 �d6 1 3.�g3 dxc4 1 4 .'+Wxc4 b5 1 5 .'iVc5 b400, Burn-Chigorin, Berlin 1 897. d) Another interesting idea is 6.�a4!? In a/l the games I know, there followed 6 i..xf3 7.gxf3, leading to a line from the variation 4.�a4 ( 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJc6 3. tlJf3 i..g 4 4. 'fi'a4 i..xf3 5.gxf3 e6 6.e3 i..b4+ 7.tlJc3 Q Chapter 9, Game 56), which, in my opinion is not harmless for Black. •••
6 /� ·f6 7.a3 White immediately clarifies the situation with the black bishop and after the ex change on c3 achieves the advantage of the two bishops, but on the other hand his pawn structure on the q ueen side is compromised. And since Black himself is interested in . . . i.b4xc31b2xc3 in many variations (in order to try to use W hite's weaknesses on the queenside with . . .tDc6-a5 later) , it is questionable whether the first player should force him to do that with a2-a3. ••
Of course, 7.0-0 0-0 also had been played:
b) 8.h3 �h5 After 8 ... i.xf3 9 . .txf3 dxc4 1 0.1fa4 -1Jd5 1 1 .ti.Jxd5 exd5 1 2. 'W'b5 White wins back the pawn and due to his bishop pair has better chances.
9.t:Vb3 After 9.tlJe5, as it was played in the game Buckley-Keeling, Guernsey 2001 , I like 9 . . . tlJxe5 1 0.dxe5 Axc3 11 .bxe3 .txe2 1 2.'iVxe2 0,e400 best. 9 ... :t b8 1 0.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .a3 .i.d6 1 2.�h 1 (.6 1 3.tl:Jxd5) 1 2 ... tlJe7 1 3.:=-:b5 i2!e4 1 4.'�tg 1 c6 1 5.tlJxd6 '§'xd6, and despite the White's bishop pair Black has a comfortable position because the d2-bishop is too passive, Gallo-Baumhus, Karlsruhe 1 988. c)
After 8.a3 ..txc3 9.bxc3 both 9 ... tlJa5, H.Karl-Grabner, Liechtenstein
1 988, Devereaux-Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003, and 9 ... tlJe4 10.�c2 &Da5, Rios Torondell-Del Prado, Los Barrios 1 995, seem equally good - in both cases with comfortable play for Black due to White's paralysed queenside. Wisnewski even goes as far as to suggest voluntarily taking on e3 after 7.0-0: 7 ... .ixc3!? 8.bxc3 tlJe4 fol lowed by . . . 0-0, . . . C·e6-a5, whieh seems attractive, but without any games cannot be evaluated reliably. In his turn White has the alternative
7.i..d 2, in order to meet . . . ..tb4xe3 with .id2xc3. This continuation seems the most logical one to me, but then also after 7 ... 0-0 Black is OK, e.g. 8.0-0 Axe3 ! ? 9.Axc3 tDe4 1 0. l:[c1 a5 1 1 .h3 .ixf3 ( 1 1 . . . Ah5!?) 1 2. i.xf3 f5 with counterplay, Taus-Novak, Plzen 1 996. a) 8.'8'c2 dxc4 9 ..txc4 i.xf3 1 0 .gxf3 e5 1 1 .a3 �d6 1 2.d5 0,e7 1 3.e4 a6 1 4. �h 1 tDh5 1 5.1:g 1 tDg6 1 6.Ag5 'iVd7 1 7.i..f 1 0,hf4 with initiative for Black, Kodela-B. Kovacevic, Ljubljana 1 998.
Back to the main game with 7.a3:
7 bc3+ 8.bxc3 0 -0 9.cxd5 9.0-0 ¢ 7.0-0 0-0 8.a3 Axc3 9.bxc3. ...
9 ... exd5
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �c6 3.�f3 i.g4 4.�c3
1 65
1 3.i.xf3 tlJe4 1 4.0-0 t�!c4 Threatening 1 5 . . . tlJed2. 1S . .te2 1 5.11fd1 �h4. l S ... tZJcd2 lS.1:tfd1 �h4 ! 1 7.g3 1 7.Dxd2? loses in view of 1 7 . . . 't1Vxf2+ 1 8.
h 1 &Dxd2 1 9.'�'xd2 llxe3 .
The first player has the bishop pair, but the c1 -bishop is passive. Moreover, the c3-pawn and the c4-square are some what weak.
1 0.'iYc2? ! As soon becomes clear, this move leads to an unpleasant pos ition for White, in which the c4-weakness is very tangible. Also after 1 0 .0-0 Black can choose the plan with . . . tLlf6-e4 and ... tZJc6-a5: 1 0 . . . tDe4 ( 1 0 . . . flJa5 ! ? ) 1 1 . 'iic2 tlJa5 ! ? Perhaps the first player must g o for the immediate 10.04!?, after which can follow 1 0 ... i.xf3!? 1 1 . i.xf3 dxc4, e.g. 12.�a4 tiJxd4 ! ? 1 3.exd4 'ii'xd4 1 4.:a2 (1 4.l:r: b1 ? tUe8+ 1 5 . .ie2 :Xe2+! 1 6. �e2 �e4 -+) 1 4 .. .'�c3+ 1 5 . .id2 l:1feS+ 1 6 .�d 1 :ladS 1 7 .'iVc2 ( 1 7 . i.xb7? :Xd2+ ! 1 S.:Xd2 '&a1 +-+) 1 7 . . .'�d4 with a complicated struggle. 1 0 ...tiJaS! Black prevents the freeing c3-c4 and prepares ... tLlc4. 1 1 .a4 ne8 1 2.Jt..a3 .txf3! Now 1 2 . . . flJe4 1 3.0-0 �4 seems rather obvious, but then follows 1 4 . .ixc4 ! dxc4 1 5.�e5. Instead of 1 3 . . . tLlc4 better is 13 ... tiJg5 or 1 3. . . '¥Yf6. The strongest continuation would probably be 1 3 . . . .ixf3 ! 1 4.i.xf3 tzJc4, which leads back to the game.
1 7..:�Vf6! 1 8.f4 1 9 . .txc4 Unfortunately forced.
[.�tC4
19 ... dxc4
White's pawn structure looks like a sieve. Besides, he no longer has the light-squared bishop to protect the numerous weak squares, while the presence of the other bishop is barely noticeable.
20.l:tab1 bS 21 J:tbS 'iYg6 22.]:1f1 f6 23.:e1 a6 24.x:tbbl h5 2S.'ii'g 2 �fS White has no counterplay and must humbly await the end. 26.i.b4 Idad8 27.11bcl c6 28.'iYe2 V!YdS 29.�a3 as! 30.l:tc2 b5! 31 .axbS cxbS Black controls the entire board!
Chapter 7
1 66
32.l:tb1 h[bS 33. 'tWe1 34.�a2 �f5
l:tb7
There was an interesting tactical possi bility here: 34 ... b4!? 35.cxb4 c3 36.t1c2 (36.�e2 l:eb8) 36 ... axb4 37.ioxb4 (37.%txb4 tixb4 38.ioxb4 �b3 +) 37 ... 'i!Vc4 38.i.a5 tiJd2 39.l:xd2 lbe3 ! ! -+. -
35.l::tb a1 g5 36 . .ac1 a4 37 . .ta3 Wf7 3SJ;tg2 �g6 39.1:td1 �d7 40.iLb4 nhS 41 .'it'e2 g4 42.�h1 rM7 43.�g1 r:Id5 44.�b2 h4 45.gxh4 lbh4 46.'i¥e2 'iYh5 47.f5 :axf5 4S.d5 lhd5 49.:ad4 lbd4 50.exd4 �f5 51.�e1 :ah3 52.�e2 g3 53.hxg3lbg3+ 0:1 Game 53
I. Sokolov - Ye Rongguang Antwerpen 1 997
1 .d4 d5 2.tlJf3 tlJc6 3.c4 iLg4 4.tDc3 e6 5.e3 tiJf6 6.h3
Sokolov immediately clarifies the po sition of the g4-bishop. Now Black must either exchange it (thus the first player gets rid of the pin and acquires the bishop pair) or retreat to h5, after which White can later free his knight with g2g4.
6 ... .txf3 !? Black does not wish to waste any time by retreating the bishop. However, 6 ... AhS has been played in some games. Probably the best reply is then 7.cxd5 exd5 8.i.b5, e.g. 8 i.d6 9.g4 Ag6 1 0.ti:Je51? 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . AxeS? 1 1 .dxe5 i2Jd7 1 2. �xd5 ±) 1 1 .llJxc6 bxc6 1 2 .txc6 m,a 1 3.0-0 l:b6 1 4 .bd5 liJxd S 1S.tl:Jxd5 ioe4 ( 1 5 . . . '6'h4? 1 6. �f3±, Kolev-Gross, St. lngbert 1989), and now in the game Timoshenko Gross, Metz 1 995, White managed to put his opponent's attack to a hard test with the calm 1 6.llJxb6!? \Wh4 1 7 ....e2 - after 17 . . . cxb6 18.f3 Ad3 1 9.�g2 i.xfl 20.�xfl Ab4 2 1 .i.d2 Axd2 22. 'ft'xd2 '{i¥xh3+ 23.'fYg2 'ifh6 24.11e1 Black has yet to prove his compensa tion for the pawn. The Ukrainian grandmaster, however, played differently - 1 6.tlJc3 -, and after 1 6 . . . f5! 1 7 .�e4 fxe4 1 8.14 exf3 1 9. llxf3 'iVh4 20. e4 IIxf3 2 1 .'*Yxf3 't'fe 1 + 22.�g2 :1c6 23 . 'i¥b3+ �f8 24.'6'b 8+ �7 25. �b3+ the game ended with a perpetual check. ••.
•
•
7.�xf3 .tb4 Simple and logical - Black develops his bishop and threatens 8 . . .tlje4.
8. .td3 An interesting alternative is
8.cxd5 exd5 9 .td3 0-0 1 0 .td2 •
•
167
1.d4 dS 2.c4 ��'£:6 3/ "'f3 i.g4 4.tlJc3
After 9...tDxdS 1 0.Ad2 everything is OK tor White.
1 O. �xdS 0-0-0
tZJxd5
1 1 . .td2
White plans to develop his counterplay on the queenside, relying on the semi open c-file, while the second player must pursuit his counter chances on the kingside, e.g.:
a) 1 0 l:ea 1 1 .0-0 a1) 1 1 :6'e7 12.l:acl (12.11fcl!? Uad8 13.a3 Axc3 14.i.xc3 tDe4 lS.Ae1) 12 :ad8 13.a3 Axc3 14.i.xc3 tDe4 (14...a6 lS.l:fd1 'lJe4 16.�e1 /). b4) 1S...tbS lId6 16.i.b4 tiJxb4 17.�xe8 'i'xe8 18.axb4 �2 19.'iWf4 ti:Jxf1 20. :Xc7!±, Kallai-Neuberger, Wiesbaden 1988. a2) 1 1 . a611 12.l:fc1 't!¥d6 13.a3 i.xc3 14. ..txc3 tlJe4 15.Ae1 lleS 16.b4 l:fS!? (16...tZJe7 17.a4 tlJg6 18.�h511ae8 19. b5 axb5 20.axb5 tlJf8 21.:1a7 with initia tive for White, Ree-Sahovic, Lone Pine 1979) 17.Uab1 f5 with counterplay. ...
..
...
..
b) 1 0 . a6 !1 11.0-0 �d6 12.l::U c1 llaeS! ? 13. a3 �xc3 14 . .txc3 :'�e4 1S . .tel f5 with counterplay on the kingside. .
.
8,..eS!? This is a very interesting and typical idea for the Chigorin Defence. Despite White's bishop pair, Black wants to open the position and make good use of his advantage in development.
9.cxdS �xd5!
The d4-pawn is under attack, hence White does not have time to castle.
1 2.,te4! The best move. After 12.tLJxd5 i.xd2+ 13siiXd2 rtxdS 14 ..tfS+ �b8 1S.i.e4 Ud6 16...txc6 l:1xc6 (16...bxc6!?) White must struggle for a draw, because 17.dxe5 is bad in view of 17 .. JId8+ 18.�e2 l:c2+. Or 12.a3 i.aS, and all the threats remain. .
1 2 ... tZJfS 1 3.AfS+ Atter 13.i.xc6 exd4 14.tlJe4 i.xd2+ 1S.�xd2 bxc6 1S.tZJxf6 gxf6 Black has an extra pawn to compensate for his compromised pawn structure. 14..lte4?! (instead of 14.tZJe4) is not recommen dable at all in view of 14 ...dxc3 lS..tfS+ '..i·'bS lS.bxc3 AaS 17.We2 IlheS - the d2-bishop is bad and the c3-pawn is weak, while all Black's pieces are active.
1 3 ... �b8 1 4.a3 .ta5 1 5. dxeS tlJxe5 1 S.b4 White could have equalized with 16. 0-0-0, e.g. 16... tlJd3+ 17.i.xd3 llxd3 lS.tlJb1 Axd2+ 19.1:xd2. However, Sokolov hopes to consolidate the
Chapter 7
1 68
position without surrendering the bishop pair.
1 6 11Jc4 1 7 . .ac1 i..b 6 1 8. kIa2 ..•
White protects the d2-square before castling. 1 8. �e2? is bad in view of 1 8 ... l:the8 ! 1 9J�d1 �d4 20J%d3 g6 21.ig4 tiJxg4 22.hxg4 .tf6 +.
l S ... :theS! 1 9.0-0
length ! However, the c 1 -bishop remains passive, Black's pieces are well centralized and in these circum stances W hite's bishop pair does not promise him an advantage. At
19 ... c6 20 . ..tb1 In order to bring the bishop to a2.
20 :d7 21.�c2 l:ed8 22. i.a2 llJe5 23.tlJa4 tZJd3 24. liJxb6 axb6 25.f3 .1 e4. 25 ... tlJxc1 26J:tfxcl tjd5 27.c�f2 b5! The endgame is approximately equal. White plans to push his kingside pawns, but a3 is weak and Black retains good counter chances. However, the game contin ued for m ore than 30 moves. ..•
28.t%dl f6 29.:d4 tiJb6 30.l1xd7 J:[xd7 31.�e2 rj;c7 32.f4 ttdS 33.g4 �a8! 34J;tc3 tlJa4 35J:ld3 tZJb2 36.l::rd 4 liJc4 37. .axc4 bxc4 38J1xc4 l:I:xa3 39.h4 b6 40. �3 l:id3 41 .f5 :d5 42.�4 h6 43.g5 hxg5+ 44.hxg5 l:dl 45.b5 c5 46.:1a4 �b7 47.:a2 l:tfl+ 48/�e4 c4 49. l:tc2 l:tbl 50.l:Ixc4 tlxb5 51 . \!?f4 IIbl 52J1c2 b5 53J:1h2 b4 54Jlh7 rj;c6 55.�e4 b3 56.gxf6 gxf6 57.J:[h8 rj;c7 58J:th7+ �c6 59.l::rh 8 V2:V2
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ':Uc6 3!:Jf3 �g4 4.e3
1 69
Chapter 8 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.C2:Jf3 �g4 4.e3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 .ag4 4.e3 This continuation is played now and then but it is not particularly popular. W hite protects both c4- and d4-pawns, but locks up his queen's bishop and does not exert any pressure on Black's centre.
The alternative 4. .i2:Jf6?! does not appeal to me - after S.cxdS White achieves a good position , e.g. S.. :�VxdS 6.tZJc3 �d7 7.i..b5 e6 8.h3 i.xf3 9.'iWxf3, Arregui Altopiedi, Saba 1 994, S...tlJxdS 6.Ab5 Axf3 7.Axc6+ bxc6 8:fYxf3 e6 9 . 0-0, Rieger-Portisch , Debrecen 1 956, or S... �xf3 6.gxf3 �xd5 7.i2:Jc3 'iVd7 8 . �b5 0-0-0 9.�a4, Vasiliev-A.Markov, Tula 2000, always with advantage for White. .
Quieter is 4 e6, and then S.i2:Jc3 trans poses to 3 .i2:Jf3 �g4 4.tlJc3 e6 5.e3. Instead of 5.llJc3 White can play SJ{bd2 - probably I underestimated this continu ation when writing the first German edition. It may seem too 'modest', never theless this setup - which , by the way, can occur after 1 .d4 d5 2.i2:Jf3 tlJc6 3.e3 (q Chapter 15) - is not without its venom : ...
Black can start active play immediately with 4...eS!? q Game 54, the sequence 5.�b3 Axf3 6.gxf3 leads to a sharp position. See the notes to Game 54 for alterna tives, perhaps here the possible trans position to Chapter 1 1 after 5.cxd5 'Wxd5 is also worth mentioning . Game 54
Djurkovlc - Tratar Portoroz 1 994
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJf3 �g4 4.e3 e5 !? This continuation leads to a sharp and double-edged battle from the very be ginning.
White plans �f1 -e2, 0-0 followed by b2-b3, .tc1 -b2. The play is far less dy namic than it usually is in this opening after the following natural moves 5 . i2:Jf6 6.�e2 �d6 (the usual idea with the knight on c3 - ... .tb4, here, of course, makes no sense) 7.0-0 0-0 S.b3 the .
.
Chapter S
1 70
question how the second player shall become active arises. In the case of 8 e5 9.dxeS tiJxeS 1 0. j,b2 W hite's pieces are well positioned for the battle in the centre, and Black has still some work to do in order to equalize, Starc-Duckstein, Velden 1 995. On the other hand, Black m ust always bear in mind c4-cS, and if Black exchanges on c4 (in order to avoid c4-cS), White can take back with the knight and prevent the standard . . . e6-eS advance. Of course, it is very unlikely that the Chigorin Defence can be refuted with such simple measures - if that was the case more strong players would choose this setup. But how should Black react? I suppose that the answer lies in the option 8 ... liJe4!?, in order to start counterplay on the kingside with .. .f7-fS, e.g. 9.�b2 (9.tiJxe4 ! ? dxe4 1 0.tiJd2 �xe2 1 1 .'iVxe2 fS oo, in Tishin-Shtyren kov, Alushta 2004, there followed 1 2.f4 liJb4 1 3.,iLa3 tiJd3 1 4 .ioxd6 cxd6 1 S.tlJf3 exf3 1 6. 't'ixd3 fxg2 1 7.1:12 with with approximate equality; 1 0 . . . ,iLfS! ?) 9...fS 1 0/iJe5? ! ( 1 0.cS ! ?) 1 0 AxeS 1 1 .dxeS ..txe2 1 2. �xe2 tiJxd2 1 3.�xd2 dxc4 1 4:�xd8 l:fxd8 l S.bxc4 %1d2 + ( 1 S... l:d3 ! ?) , W . Schm idt-Radeker, Rheda-Wiedenbruck 2001 . Besides, this knight jump one move earlier is also worth considering 7 . .liJe4 ! ? ...
.•.
-
And now back t o 4 . . . eS! ? :
.
5.'t!fb3!? Probably this is the most dangerous continuation - the queen escapes the pinning and attacks b7 and dS simul taneously. Other possibilities: a) 5.h3 Axf3 S . . . .'i.hS? ! 6.g4 ! i.g6 7.tDxe5 tlJxe5 8.dxeS with advantage for White. 6.'8xf3 C2:Jf6 Tait's recommendation 6 .. Jj- \ge7 7.ClJc3 exd4 S.exd4 (S.cxdS tlJeS 9:�g3 dxc3 1 O:�xeS '§'xd5=) 8 . . . tiJxd4 9.�d 1 dxc4 1 0.i.xc4 'iVd7 is interesting. However, White can choose to transpose to 6...ClJfS etc. with 7.cxd5 �xdS 8.�xdS tlJxdS.
7.cxdS fixdS 8.'8xd5 tlJxdS a1 ) 9.dxeS tlJdb4 ! ? 1 0.tlJa3 liJxe5 with initiative for Black. a2) 9JiJc3 CZJdb4 1 0.d5 O..O-O! 1 1 i.bS ( 1 1 .dxc6 liJc2+ 1 2.We2 llJxa1 1 3.cxb7+ �xb7 1 4.g3 'lJc2 l S.i.g2+ c6 1 6.a3 'Da1 ! 1 7.b4 tlJb3+) 1 1 .. tZ:Je7 ( 1 1 . .. tDc2+? ! 1 2.�e2 tiJxa1 1 3 .dxc6 /::,. 1 3 . . . tlJc2 1 4.a3 tlJa 1 l S.cxb7+ �xb7 1 6.i.a4! ±) 1 2.�e2 'lJexdS+, Ahner Pirrot, Germany 1 998 . a3) 9.i.c4 tDdb4 1 0.liJa3 exd4 1 1 .0-0 d3 1 2.i.d2 tDe5 1 3.l:ac1 0-0-0 1 4. l:tfd 1 ? ! (better is 1 4.i..b 3, but then also after 1 4 .. .f6 1 S.f4 liJec6 White does not have sufficient compensation for the 1 4 . . . tDc2! 1 5.�xd3 tLJxd3 pawn) 1 6.lIxc2 ti:Jxb2 1 7.lIxb2 Axa3+, Colpe Sepman, Hamburg 1 999. b) S.Ae2 Here Black has quite a few good possi bilities, e.g. S ... dxc4 or 5 . . . exd4 seem fine. However, I like S . e4 best, with the following variations: b1 ) 6.cxdS exf3 (6 .. .'�xdS 7.tlJc3 i..b4 8. tDcJ2 .txc3 9.bxc3 .txe2 1 0:�Yxe2 tZJf6oo, 9 .i.xg4 !?) 7.gxf3 'i!r'xdS 8.'lJc3 (8.e4 .tb4 9.liJc3 leads to repetition) 8 i.b4 9.e4 't\Yxd4 1 0.1xg4 Axc3+ .
.
..
...
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t� 1C6 3/jf3 .ag4 4.e3 (1 0 . . . �xe4 1 1 .0-0tiS) 1 1 .bxc3 �xc3+ 1 2 . .td2 �d4 1 3.l:tb1 �xe4 1 4.f3 �e5 1 S.:Xb7 tLlge7 1 6.0-0 0-0, and Black's extra pawn seems more important than Wh ite's bishop pair. b2) 6.tiJe5 .txe2 7:�xe2 (7.llJxc6? i.xd1 8.tDxdS llxdS 9.�xd 1 dxc4 1 0.tiJd2 �f6 1 1 .�c4 cS+) 7 tDxe5 8.dxe5 �gS 9.0-0 �xeS 1 0.cxd5 �d6 1 1 .g3 �xd5 1 2.tZJc3 'ilt'f5 1 3.f3 exf3 1 4. :xt3 �h5 1 S.i.d2 ( 1 S.e4 i2Jf6 � 1 6.e5 'i!VxeS 1 7.1:e3 i.c5 1 8. �b5+ �S 1 9. �g2 �f5 with advantage) l S . . . tDf6 1 6. :af1 0-0 +, Paulino-Silva, Portugal 1 997. •••
b3) 6.tLlfd2 .txe2 7.'�xe2 (7.�xe2 tiJb4! Tait) 7 ... fS!? (7 ... �g5 8.tLlc3 0-0-0 9.cxd5 tiJb4 °o, Bobrowska-Micic, Ger many 1 996) B.tLlc3 dxc4 9.tlJxc4 �g5 1 0.g3 0-0-0 with initiative for Black.
1 71
initiative) 7 .. .'�xd4 8.i.e2 .tb4+ (S ... �xe5 9 .tZJc3 i.d6 1 0 ..te3 <�f6 1 1 .0-0-0 with initiative) 9.tlJc3 with better chances, e.g. 9 .....�ge7 1 0. 0-0 0-0 1 1 .ttd1 'iYxeS 1 2 . .tf4 �f6 1 3 .i.xc7±, Kappler-Dubois, Epinal 1 986, 9 .. .'6'xeS 1 0.otf4 or 9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0.0-0 �xeS 1 1 . i.f4, in any case with initiative for White. 6.�a4
6.�xd8+ IIxd8 7.Axc4 tlJxe5 ! 8.i.e2 tLld3+ 9.i.xd3 lIxd3 1 1 si7e2 l:dS, and due to the bishop pair Black's position is preferable, Conover- Finegold, New York 1 992. 6....txf3 7.gxf3 �d5!, and now:
c) 5.tiJc3 i.b4 5 . . . exd4 6.exd4 .axf3 7.'&xf3 tiJxd4 8.�d 1 dxc4 9 . .txc4 tLlf6 1 0.0-0 i.e7 1 1 . .te3 i5i5, Kraidman-Peretz, Nethnya 1 971 ; interesting is also 6.tiJxd5 ! ?, e.g. 6 ... tLlf6 7.�b3 .axf3 8 .gxf3 °o. 6.dxe5
6 . .te2 e4 ! ? 7.�g 1 .te6!? with a good position for Black, 6.a3 i.xc3+ 7.bxc3 e4 (7 . . . ,:2,f6! ? ; 7 ... tZJge7! ?) S.h3 i.hS 9.g4 .tg6 1 O.cxdS �xd5 1 1 .c4 iVd8 1 2. tiJd2 hSoo, Teske-Pitl, Augsburg 2001 , 6.cxd5 �xdS � 3.cxdS �xdS 4.tLlf3 eS 5.�3 i.b4 6.e3 ,tg4. 6... dxc4 7 .td2 tDge7 S .txc4 0 ..0 B ... .txf3? 9 .'!!¥xf3 tlJxeS 1 0.'i¥xb7 tlJxc4 1 1 .�bS+ ±, S ...tiJxeS?! 9.'�a4+ tlJ5c6 1 0.tZJe5 with initiative. 9.83 (9.'t!¥b3 .txf3 1 0.gxf3 tlJxeSoo) 9...tDxe5 1 0.i.e2 �xf3 1 1 .gxf3 i.a5 °o, Walther-D. Schatz, Friedrichroda 1 997. •
•
d) S.dxeS dxc4 5 ... d4 has been also played. But it seems that if White plays accurately he can achieve an advantage - 6.exd4 i.xf3 7.�xf3 (7.gxf3?! 'i!¥xd4! with
d 1 ) a:ti'xc4? �xf3 9.%%g l 0-0-0 1 0.i.e2 tlJxe5+. d2) 8 .tg2 ? ! .tb4+ 9.tDc3 'Wxe5 1 0.0-0 tDge7 1 1 .f4 �a5 1 2.'iYxaS .txa5, and White does not have sufficient compen sation for the pawn. •
d3) 8.e4 '*I¥xeS 9 .tx c4 .tb4+ 1 0.'�f1 ( 1 0. Ad2 �xb2 1 1 .Axb4 'tlfc1 + 1 2.'i:Vd1 �xc4 1 3 . .tc3 f6 1 4.3:g 1 kldS 1 5.�b3 �xb3 1 6.axb3 �7+, Halfdanarson Mozes, Ybbs 1 968) 10 ...�e7 1 1 .a3 �c5 1 2.tiJc3 0-0 with a good game for Black, V. Ramon-Amura, San Felipe 1 999. d4) 8. i.e2!? .tb4+ 9.tlJc3 (9 . .td2?! bS +, Savchuk-Skachkov, Ekaterinburg 1 996) 9 .. :�xe5 (9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0.0-0 'iYxeSoo) 10 .td2 tLlge7 11.a3 ( 1 1 . .txc4 0-000) 1 1 ... b5 1 2.'�a6 AaS 1 3.14 �f6 1 4. •
•
Chapter S
1 72
'li'xb5 tIbS 1 5.�g5 (15. 'i!fxc4 lbb2oo) 15...'iVxg5 1S.fxg5 l:xb2oo, Paramos Dominguez-Mellado, Spain 1995. d5) 8.tLJc3 �xf3!? (8 ...i.b4 9.Ad2 �xc3 1 0.�xc3 b5 11.�d1 tZJge7oo, M. Balatonbereny Horvath-Shteinberg, 1 993, 8 ... �xe5 9.f4 �a5) 9.:g1 �h5, Demina-Hoiberg, Kuala Lumpur 1990. 10.e611 fxe6 11 .�xc4 O-O-O!? 12.�xe6+ �b8 with a complicated struggle. e) S.cxd5 �xd5 S.tY lc3 �b4 leads to a position from the line 3.cxd5 'aYxdS 4/l.�f3 eS (S.tlJc3 i.b4 S.e3 Ag4) Q Chapter 1 1 , Game 63. Back to the main text:
S ... .txf3 6.gxf3
6 .. .f.iige7 This seems to be the best move - Black develops the knight and protects the c6knight (which is very important because b7 is under attack) as well as the d5-pawn. According to modern theory and prac tice the other possibilities are worse: a) After 6 . .. exd4 7.cxd5 tlJe5 (7 ...tz�b4 8.e4±, Traudes-Haubt, Germany 1 998) 8.exd4 li3J7 9.0.c3 (9.'i!Vxb7 AdS !?) 9 ... �e7+ 10.i.e3 'it'b4 1 1 .�c2 tiJgfS 12. it.b5 it is difficult for Black to prove that he has compensation for the pawn, Steinitz-Chigorin, World Championship Havana 1 889.
b) 6 0'Jf6 7J±ixb7!1 (7.cxd5 '¥Yxd5°o, Romanovsky-Lebedev, St. Petersburg 1909) 7 ... �b4 S.�b5+ 'ilVd7 (8 ... c6 9.�a4±, S... tlJd7 9.�a4±) 9.'ii'xd7+ fiJxd7 10.tiJa3 exd4 11.exd4, and once again it is not clear whether Black has anything for the sacrificed pawn. •••
c) 6 Ab4+ 7. .td2 c1) 7... i.xd2+ 8.llJxd2 exd4 9.cxd5 (9.'iYxb7 tLJge7oo) 9...dxe3 10.fxe3! (10. �xe3+ liJce7 ) 10 . :�h4+ (inferior is 10 ... C2\ce7 1 1.Ac4 c2jf6 12.dS cxd6 1 3.�xf7+ �8 14.i.eS ±. J . Davidson Samisch, Amsterdam 1925 or 11. �xb7 '1Y'xd5 12.i.b5+ �S 13. �xd5 tiJxd5 1 4.:i..cS tIdS 15.i.xd5 llxd5 16.:c1 :td7 17.'�7e2 CZJfS 1S.l:c5 �e7 19.11e5+ �d8 20.tra5±, a.Gonzalez-Bermudez, San Jose 2001) 1 1.wd1 Q'd8 12.l:c1 with a good position for White, Macskasy Rossetto, Santa Clara 19S8. c2) 7...dxc4 8.Axc4 �e7 9.dxe5 0-0-0 10.i.xb4 CZJxb4 11.tz:Jc3 tDh6 12.l:tc1 'it7b8 13.a3 tiJd3+ 1 4.Axd3 thd3 15.�e2 l:tdd8 1 6.liJe4 :heS (16.. :i'ixe5 17.CLJc5 bS 18.tDa6+ ±) 1 7.0.c5 c6 18. �b4 �aS 19.11hd1 bS 20.lLld3±, Soppe-Garbarino, San Martin 1995. ..•
00
.
d) 6 ...dxc4 d1) 7.�xb7 t2Jge7 (6 . . . l:bS) 8.dxe5 trb8 9.'�aS tlJxe5 10.i.xc4 (10.'�xfJ.7? tiJ7cS) 10 ...tlJxf3+ 11.�e2 tlJe5 12.%ld1 (12. 'iYxa7? tzj7cS) 1 2 . . . '&c8. J .Tait evaluates this position as equal, but I think that after 13.'�'xc8+ C2JxcS 14.,ib3 White is slightly better. d2) 7. .txc4 �d7, and now: d21) 8.,iLxf7+1 ! �xf7 9:�xb7 �d7 10. �xa8 't'f'xf3� 6 . . . tDf6, ... .tb4+ + (Tait) . d22) 8.dS lLla5 9.'tI:Yb5 ClJxc4 10.'li'xc4 0-0-0 (10 ...tDe7) 11 .e4 'iVh3+, M.John son-Tait, Sheffield 1999. d23) 8 .dxe5! J. Tait believes (probably correctly) that this move gives White an advantage. His entire analysis is too long, therefore
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.CZJf3 !A.g4 4.e3 I will give only the main line with just a few deviations: B CZJa5 (the only move, B O-O-O? 9.eS +-, B . llJxe5?! 9 .�xb7 �d8 1 0.�b5±) 9.�b5 (9.eS fxe6 1 0 . .beS 'i'cs 1 1 .'f:Yc3 Ab4 1 2.'3'xb4 'iWxc1 + 1 3. 'itle2 �xh 1 1 4. iVxaSoo, 9.�xt7+ �xf7 1 0.'ti'bS+ cS 1 1 .'a'xa5 �xf3 1 2.IU1 bS 1 3.'itaS CZJe7;t) 9 CZJxc4 1 0:�¥xc4 tiJe7! 1 1 .tiJc3 tZJg6 ( 1 1 . .. CZJc6 1 2.f4 0-0-0 1 3.a3 ! ;!;) 1 2.f4 tiJh4 ( 1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3.e4 ttJh4 1 4 . h3 !) 1 3:�d5! 'i'xd5 1 4 .tDxd5 0-0-0 1 5.tiJc3;t. •.•
...
.
.
•..
7 . liJc3 White i ncreases the pressure on d5. Inferior is 7.cxdS? ! �xd5 8.�xdS liJxdS 9.dxe5 tDxe5 with initiative for Black, Primel-Algaba, carr. 1 991 . 7 exd4 8.t2�jxdS 1Jb8 ...
1 73
Ad2 tZJcS 1 2.�d1 cS 1 3.�xe7 Axe7 1 4.b4 llJe6 1 5.a3 'iVc7! Il l S.e5 g5 ! , Il 1 6.�f3 d3 ! ?, Il l S.f5 tZJf4, with good play for Black in all cases) 1 0.Ad2 ( 1 0.f4 llJce7 ! followed by . . . c7-c6, Tait) 10 Ad6 1 1 .f4, and now not 1 1 ... 0-0?! 1 2. 0-0-0 tZJce7 1 3.f5 ! with a strong initiative, Steinitz-Chigorin, World Championship Habana 1 889, but 1 1 .. :�h4!oo (Soltis) . ••.
9 liJe5 9 . . . tiJxdS ! ? 1 0 .cxd5 �b4 ( 1 0 ... !A.b4+? 1 1 .�e2 +-) 1 1 .�e4 c6 1 2.dxcS lLlxcS. 1 0. .te4 f5? ! This move leads to a worse position. Better is 1 0 ... dxe3 1 1 .Axe3 f5 1 2. 'iVc3 ( 1 2.f4 'iJg4oo) 1 2 . . . 'Wd6 with a compli cated struggle. ...
1 1.exd4 CZJSc6 1 2 .tf4! Probably Black did not expect this move. 12 liJxd4 1 3.'tWa4+ ! bS 1 4. �xa7 fxe4 1 5.'i¥xd4 liJxd5 1 6.cxdS exf3 1 7.0-0-0! All these farced moves lead to a po sition in which White had a great advantage in development and therefore good winning chances. By the way, 1 7.'iYe4+ 't&'e7 1 8.'&'xe7+ Axe7 1 9. Axc7 :c8 20.�e5 (20.d6! ?) 20 . . . lIc2 21 .0-0 was not bad either, but perhaps was not enough for hi m . •
•••
The position is very complicated. Both kings are in the centre, White has the bishop pair, but his pawn structure is worse. The position promises a very intense battle.
9 . .td3!? This move is not even mentioned in Dunnington's book - probably because of the u nfavourable outcome of the main game. Another possibility is 9.e4 llJg6 (Watson mentions also Leski's suggestion 9 . . . tiJe5 !? with t h e idea . . . c7-cS and gives the following variatio n : 1 0.f4 CZJd7 1 1 .
1 7 :+Wd7 18:iYe4+ Good is also 1 8.I;the1 + �7 ( 1 B ... �d8 1 9.'i¥a7 +-) 1 9.�e4±. ..
18 . �d8 Now Djurkovic could cause his opponent some serious troubles with 1 9.1:he1 AdS 20.�xd6 �xd6 2 1 .'i¥xf3. However, he played something else, made a couple more mistakes and in the end lost the game, but that is not important for us anymore. . . . 0:1 .
.
Chapter 9
1 74
Chapter 9 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.Cl:Jf3 �g4 4.iVa4 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tDf3 i.g4 4.�a4 This move was discovered by the g reat Alekhine. White activates his queen, protects c4, pins the cS-knight and threatens tzJf3-e5. His strategy lies in a quick and simple development, accept ing the weakening or even the sacrifice of the d4-pawn (after .txf3 and ... dxc4). In many cases White castles queenside.
Game 55 J. Watson New York 1 984
I. Ivanov
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.ttJf3 i.g4 4. �a4 Axf3 The most natural continuation - the second player exchanges the knight which protects the d4-pawn, controls the e5-square and could go to e5 at any time. Sometimes other continuations are also played : a) 4 llJf6 a 1 ) 5.llJe5 i.d7 6.iLlxd7 iLlxd7 (interest ing is also S ... �xd7, e.g. 7.e3 e5!? 8. cxd5 tLlxd5 9.Ab5 exd4 1 0 . .txc6 'i¥xc6 1 1 .'fYxcS+ bxcS 1 2.exd4 0-0-0, and Black is at least not worse, Gligoric Minic, Zagreb 1 949) 7.cxd5 (7.c5 e5! with counterplay, F riedstein-Terpugov, Moscow 1 949) 7 J:-"Jb6 s:iWd 1 '&xd5 9.e3 e5 1 0J�c3 i.b4 1 1 .a3 Axc3 1 2. bxc3 0-0, and Black's huge advantage in development promises him better chances, Vanderwaeren-Furhoff, Stock holm 1 995. a2) 5.liJc3J? a21 ) 5 .. ;i.xf3 6.gxf3 transposes to 4 ... Axf3 S.gxf3 :�-if6 S.llJc3. a22) 5...dxc4 6.e3!? (S.tzJe5 Ad7 7:�xc4 .teS 8.�b5 as 9.llJxcS axb5 1 0.tLlxd8 �xd8 1 1 .llJxb5 :Xa2 1 2.:Xa2 i.xa2=, Vausort-van Leeuwen, carr. 1 988) 6oo.Axf3 7.gxf3 as 8 .'f¥xc4 e5 9.dxe5 tl:Jxe5 1 0 .'&e2 i.b4 1 1 .Ad2 0-0 1 2.f4 ( 1 2.0-0-0! ?) 1 2 ... tzJgS 1 3 .0-0-0, .••
..
Usually Black replies with the immediate 4 Axf3 (the deviations 4 . . .l2:JfS and 4 . . . dxc4 are covered within Game 55) . Alekhine always played 5.exf3, more topical is the continuation 5.gxf3: •••
4 ... Axf3 (and other 4th moves) 5.exf3 �
Game 55
4 .axf3 5.gxf3 � Game 56 •••
The 4.�a4 line has some points the second player is not cautious be very dangerous. However, plays accurately there is nothing afraid of.
and if it can if he to be
.
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tlJc6 3.tiJf3 Ag4 4.�a4
1 7S
and in this double-edged position White's chances are preferable due to the semi-open g-file, Abatino-Skembris, Cutro 1 999. a23) Dunnington recommends 5 . ..�d7!? and evaluates the position as equal.
a ) 7. .:i?fxd4 8.0-0 Ad6 9.lId 1 �e5 1 0. .ta6 ! �xh2+ 1 1 .�1 tlJge7 ( 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2.�xc6 bxa6 1 3 . .te3 ±) 1 2.i.xb7 0-0 1 3.i.xc6 l:ab8 1 4.i.bS �h 1 + 1 S.�e2 �xg2 1 6 .i.e3 +-, Portisch-Mariotti , Budapest 1 975.
b) 4 ...dxc4 S. 'lJc3 (S.tLieS ";!ixd4 6. 'lJxc6 'iWd7 is OK for Black) b1 ) 5.. .�d7 6.dS!? (6.e3 .txf3 7.gxf3 e5! S.dS tiJb4 9.'i!Vxd7+ �xd7 1 0. �d2 tZJd3 1 1 . .txd3 cxd3 1 2. �xd3 fS with a comfortable game for Black, Petit Brochet, Cannes 2000) S...Axf3 7.exf3 tlJeS S.�xd7+ �xd7 9 . .tf4 'lJd3+ 1 0.i.xd3 cxd3 1 1 .0-0-0 with initiative for White. b2) 5. . . i.xf3 6.exf3 �xd4? ! 7.i.e3 �xeS 8.i.xc4 with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn, Trestjew W rinn, corr. 1 984. Interesting is, how ever, 6 ... e6 ! ?
b) 7...i.dS 8.d5! exdS 9 . .ta6 �c8 1 0 . tDxdS tiJge7 ( 1 0 .. :�e6+ 1 1 .i.e3 ! �xdS 1 2.Axb7 +-) 1 1 .0.xe7 .txe7 1 2.�xc6+ bxc6 1 3.Axc8 l:bc8 1 4.i.e3 ± (Euwe).
5.exf3 Now the d4-pawn is rather weak and Black can win it immediately, but White puts his hopes upon a quick development. Alekhine always played so, but S.gxf3 ( Game 56) is also very interesti ng.
5 . . . e6 There are some games with 5... dxc4 6. Axc4 e6 (6 ... 'iVxd4 7.tiJc3 e6 q 6 . . . e 6 7.tiJc3 �xd4) 7.tiJc3, but t h e results are not particularly good for Black, e.g . :
c) 7... :�f6 8.0-0 (interesting is also 8.AbS ! ?), and now: c1 ) 8 .. ..te7 9.Ild1 (AdS) 9 ... tiJd5 (9 ... 0-0 1 0.d5 exdS 1 1 .0.xdS with initiative) 1 0.tiJxd5 exd5 1 1 .i.b5 ( 1 1 .i.a6 ! ? �c8 1 2 . .tbS 'it'd7 1 3.i.f4±) 1 1 ...�dS 1 2. i.f4 �xf4 1 3 . .txc6+ �S 1 4.i.xb7 ±, L. Hansen-Porth , Bad Worishofen 1 992. c2) 8 .. . a6 9 .dS ! ? exd5 1 0.Axd5 ( 1 0. :td1 ! ? bS 1 1 . .txdS bxa4 1 2 . .txc6+ '',.-�d7 1 3.De1 + i.e7 1 4.'lJdS;;) 1 0 ... tiJxd5 1 1 . Ild 1 .lid6 1 2.0.xdS 0-0 1 3 . .tf4 .tx14 1 4. �x14 with initiative for White.
6.tlJc3 tiJge7!? The idea cxdS followed by .tf1 -b5 is not very dangerous for Slack with his knight on e7, in contrast to the line 6. t� ",16?! 7. cxd5 ! tZJxdS (7 ... exd5 8.i.bS) S . .i.bS with initiative for White, Chehlov-Sepman , St. Petersburg 1 998. On 6... i.b4 follows 7.a3 i.xc3+ 8.bxc3, after which the bishop pair and the easy development promise White better chances, e.g. 8 ... tiJge7 9.Ilb1 Ilb8 1 0.cxd5 ( 1 0.i.d3! ? dxc4 1 1 . i.xc4 0-0 1 2.0-0 tzJdS 1 3. �c2 Ci:Jce7 1 4 . .td3 h6 1 S .c4 tlJb6 1 6 .11d 1 tiJbcs 1 7 .f4 b6 1 S . .tb2 c6 1 9.'6'e2 tlJd6 20.'8eS tlJeS 21 .a4 with initiative for White, Alekhine Colle, Baden-Baden 1 925) 1 0 ... '6'xd5 ( 1 0 ... exdS 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2.0-0 t;,jc8 1 3. �c2 h6 1 4 .a4 iDb6 1 S .�a2 tiJa5 1 6. i.a3 tleB 1 7.,tc5 Ci:Jc8 1 S.1:1fe1 J:1xe 1 + 1 9.1Ixel c6 20.�e2 tlJd6 2 1 .�xa7 1:aS 22 . .tc5 i2Jac4 23.i.c2 ±, Sorocz- Ruck, ..
Chapter 9
1 7S
Zalakaros 1 995) 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2.0-0 'iVdS 1 3 .'@c2 &lJgS 1 4 .f4 CiJce7 1 S .g3 :fd8 1 6.11d 1 b6 1 7. a4 ttJds 1 8 . .td2 c5 1 9.1S exfS 20.iLxfS cxd4 21 .cxd4 CiJde7 22.i.b4 �f6 23 . .axe7 �xe7 24. lIbc1 l:.dS 2S . .ae4 l:d7 26.dS±, Alekhine Colle, Paris 1 925.
9 . . g5! 1 0 . ..te3 .
Or 1 0.i.g3 .ig7 1 1 .cxdS exd5 1 2.i.b5 f5 1 3 .i.e5 .ixe5 1 4.dxe5 0-0-0 00.
1 0 ... .tg7 1 1 .cxd5 exd5
6 ...dxc4 7 ..txc4 transposes to the variation S . . . dxc4 S . oiLxc4 eS 7.t�c3.
7.�g5 On 7 ..te3 follows 7 ... g6 with comfortable play for Black. There could then follow 8.cxdS exd5 9.i.b5 (9.0-0-0 a6 ! ? with counterplay) 9 ... Ag7 1 0.0-0 ( 1 0.0-0-0 �d7 1 1 .h4 0-0 1 2.hS a6 1 3 . .txc6 tDxc6 1 4.'i!¥c2 bS with counterplay, Meyer Langrock, Hamburg 1 999) 1 0 ...0-0 1 1 . .txc6 ti:Jxc6 1 2.'1!Vb5 (on 1 2. :ad1 Dunnington's suggestion 1 2 .. :�!Vd6 followed by . . . tlJd8-eS, ... c7-c6 seems quite good) 1 2 .. ti:Jxd4 1 3.'iVxb7 ( 1 3. i.xd4 .txd4 1 4.l:.ad 1 cS 1 S:t1+'xb7 �bS 1 6.'i!Vxb6 .ixb6 =t, FOster-D. Bronstein, Budapest 1 949) 13 ... tZJxf3+! 1 4.gxf3 .
d4 1 S.:fd1 �h4 1 6.'iVb4 c5t 1 7.'fi'xc5 ( 1 7. 'iVa4 .ieS -+ ) 1 7 ... dxc3 1 8.bxc3 J:ac8 1 9.'8'd5 ( 1 9.�xa7 AeS) 1 9....ixc3 with initiative for Black.
7.cxd5 exd5 S.Ab5 a6 9 . ..txc6+ tZJxc6 does not promise much either, e.g. 1 0.0-0 �d7 ( 1 0 ... .ie7 ? ! 1 1 :�'b3 0-0 1 2.Ae3 'D'd7 1 3 .lDxdS± roth-Figueras, carr. 1 972, 1 O. . bS! ? 1 1 .�d l i.e7 =) 1 1 '];le1 + J/..e 7 1 2.i.f4 ( 1 2.�b3 0-0-0 = Minev, 1 2. i.e3 0-0::) 1 2 . . . 0-0 =, Con stantinou-Leeners, corr. 1 98S. .
7 :J{fjd7 8.�d 1 h6 9.�f4 ••
In Fochtler-Radeker, Germany 1 997, was played 9.Ae3 gS (9 . . . &lJfS! ?) 1 0.cS Jig7 1 1 . .ae2 0-0 1 2.0-0 . Then came 1 2 . . . :tfd8 1 3.14 a6 1 4.l:d2 hS l S.b4 tlJfS 1 6.l:fd1 �h7 1 7.g3 'fi'e8! 1 8.i.f3 .tf6 1 9.h3 bS! ? 20.'iVb3 �h8! 21 .tlJe2 as! with initiative for Black.
In my opinion White did not achieve an advantage from the opening. The pas· sive e3-bishop decreases the value of the bishop pair and his central pawn is a cause of concern.
1 2.h4!? Probably the first player thought that his activity on the kingside would give him a good position, but . . .
1 2 ... 0-0-0 ! Black completes his development, while the white king remains in the centre and sacrificing a pawn for that is not too I high a price .
1 3.b4 ! This aggressive move i s the best deCi sion. Very risky is 1 3.hxg5 hxgS 1 4.l:xhB l'lxh8 1 5 . .txg5?! ( 1 5.b4) 1 5 . . .lLlf5, and Black's initiative is too dangerous.
1 3 .. :�e6! As it is well known, counterpJay in the centre is very often the best reply to a flank attack.
1 4.b5 �xd41 1 5.nxd4 .axd4 1 6.'§'xd4 'iJf5 1 7.'iWxa7 't'fe5
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tiJcG 3.tlJf3 .i.g4 4.'iVa4 This continuation gives White a chance to force a draw. Another possibility is 1 7 ... d4!?, after which 1 8.tlJe4 dxe3 1 9.'i!fa8+ �d7 20. 'iJcS+ �e7 2 1 .'i!fxd8+ lhd8 22.tDxe6 �eG 23.i.c4+ Wf6 24. hxg5+ hxgS 2S.Dh7 exf2+ 26. �xf2 would lead to an approximately equal endgame.
1 S.t2Ja4? Too optimistic. Correct was the quiet 1 8.tlJe2, and after 1 8 ... d4 1 9 . .i.d2 d3 20.'iVa8+ �d7 21 .�xb7 dxe2 22. 'i!Yc6+ �c8 (22 . . . �e7 ? 23 . i.b4+ tlJd6 24. ixe2±) 23.'!!¥a8+ (or 23 . .txe2 l:heS 24.'&'a8+ �d7 25.'iVcG+ �c8=) 23 . . . �d7 24.'iVc6+ the game finishes with a perpetual check. 1 8 'iYa1 + 1 9.�e2 ...
1 77
hxgS? 2 3. .i.d3 ! �b4+ 24.�c2 ttdS 25J:tb l 'YWf8 26.i.e4 d3+ 27.�d2 +-) 23.Wc1 (23.�c2? d3+ 24.i.xd3 tZJd4+ 2Ssi"d 1 'iYb3+ 26.�e1 lIhe8+ -+ or 2G.Wc1 '6'a3+ 27.<;&td2 tDxf3+ -+) 23 . . . hxgS 24.tiJcS 't':Ve 1 + 25.�c2 'i1ic3+ =.
22.�c1 'iYa1 + 23.'�c2 �a2+ V2: V2
Game 56
Novikov - Finegold New York 1 993
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 l2Jc6 3.l2Jf3 �g4 4. 'iVa4 .axf3 5.gxf3 Nowadays this continuation is played more often than 5.exf3. White wants to achieve a strong and compact pawn centre. Now Black must reckon with the possible e2-e4.
1 9... �xa2+? ! After 1 9 . . . d4 ! Junior 6 does not see any hope for White, e.g. 20.'1i'a8+ 20 . . . �d7 21 .'i¥xb7 (21 .tlJc5+ �e8 -+) 21 .. .'fi'xa2+ 22.'�e1 dxe3 23.'iVc6+ �e7 24.'@'xc7+ �6 +- 0 r 20.tlJc5 '!!Vb2 + 21 .i.d2 d3+ ! 22.tDxd3 l:xd3! 23.Wxd3 DdS+ 24.�c4 �6+ 2S.�d3 tDxbS+ -+ .
20.�d 1 'if'b1 + 21 .�d2 21 . .tc 1 'iib 3+ 22.�d2 '!!¥b 4+ =.
21 ... �a2+
21 d4 now is also possible, but it is no ...
longer winning: 22.i.xg5 '!!¥b4+ (22 . . .
5 ... dxc4!? This move gives the first player the su periority in the centre , but on the other hand Black attacks on d4 and enforces e2-e3, confining the c1 -bishop. Other continuations : a) After S tlJf6 6.tDc3 e6 7 . .tg5 dxc4 8.0-0-0 i.e7 9.'t\Yxc4 CZJdS 1 0.i.xe7 tiJcxe7 1 1 .�b1 (interesting is 1 1 .'�'bS+, followed by 1 2.'�·xb7) 1 1 . . . tDxc3+ 1 2. �xc3 tZ:Jd5 the position is complicated and approximately equal , Portisch...
Chapter 9
1 78
Smyslov, Portoroz 1 971 . But according to Watson White can achieve a sig nificant advantage with 6.e4(!) eS 7.cxd5 exdS 8.AbS 'ii'd 7 9.i.gS.
b1 1 ) 9.'iYc2 tlJg6 1 0.f4 (1 0.h4 ! ? ti:Jxh4 1 1 .0-0-0&5) 1 0 'lJh4 (1 0 . . . tiJce7 1 1 .h4!) 1 1 .0-0-0 �7 1 2.�b1 ( 1 2.i..d 3! ? ; 1 2. a3 ! ?) 1 2 . c6 1 3 .i.d3 �hB 1 4.'�fb3 a5
b) 5 e6 Now White has two main options : b 1 ) 6.e3 .si.b4+ As we will further see , after this move it is not so easy for Black to equalize. Other moves transpose to other lines : 6 . . . tljge7 7/i1::.3 � b22, S ... 'ti'd7! ? 7.Ci::£3 � b23 , S . . . dxc4 ! ? Q S . . . dxc4 S .e3 eS.
with a sharp struggle, KLGeorgiev Morozevich, Tilburg 1 993.
•••
7.ilJc3 Interesting is also 7.tlJd2 ! ? ti)f6 B . a3 i.xd2+ 9 . .txd2 0-0 1 0.0-0-0 with a sharp fight, Kotronias-Vou ldis, Greece 1 993. In my opinion White's chances are preferable due to the semi-open g-file.
7 ..li::Jge7 -
Also possible is 7 . . . €lfS, e.g. 8.i.d2 (8.a3 i.xc3+ 9.bxc3 0-0 1 0.:1b1 l:b8 1 1 .cxdS tiJxd5 1 2.Ad2 eS with counter play, Bellizzi-Agrest, Manhattan 1 991 ) 8 . . . 0-0 9.a3 Axc3 1 0 .Axc3 a6 1 1 .'t§'c2 dxc4 1 2.bc4 liJd5! 1 3. h4 �d6 1 4.hS e5 with counterplay, St. Hansen-Gibbons, Copenhagen 1 985. I think that 9.0-0·0 ! ? (instead of 9.a3) is more dangerous. After 9 . . . as 1 0.'�!¥c2 in the ancient game Yudovich-Terpugov, Moscow 1 949, W hite's c hances for attack seem more dangerous than Black's counterplay on the queenside.
8.i.d2 0-0
...
..
b1 2) 9.0-o-0!1 We saw a similar position in the variation 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJcS 3 .€lf3 i.g4 4.tZJc3 eS S.e3 Ab4 S.'iWb3 i.xf3 7.gxf3 tDge7 8. i.d2 0-0 9.0-0-0 (Q Game 52. notes to White's Sth move, p . 1 S2). The only d ifference is that n ow the white queen is not on b3, but on a4. How ever, this difference seems to be favourable for White - the move 9 . :bB, which , in the afo rementioned position with the queen on b3 prepares the counterplay ... b7-bS ( ... i.b4xc3, . . . dSxc4, . . . b7-b5) (the :tbB then is also active) , is less efficient here - . . . a7-a6 is a necessary preparation of . . . b7-bS anyway. .
.
9 . .a6 .
9 . . . €lg6 1 0.cxd5 ! ? exd5 1 1 .i.aS ! , 9 ... aS 1 0.h4! . 1 0J!t'c2 Aa5 1 0 . . . tDg6 1 1 .cxd5 exd5 1 2 . .si.d3 with good chances for attack. But 1 0 . . . dxc4 1 1 . .si.xc4 b5 1 2.Ad3 f5! ? could be an improvement.
1 1 .'�b1 1 1 . .ad3 ? ! 'lJb4, 1 1 .f4 1 ?
1 1 ...�h8 A prophylactic move - now i.fl -d3 would not threaten to take on h7 with a check. On 1 1 . . . ttJgS can follow 1 2.cxd5 exd5 1 3 .';i'b3 ! .ixc3 1 4. i.xc3 with advantage. 1 2.f4 nbB 1 3.llg 1 b5 1 4.cxd5 exd5 1 5.tDe2! Axd2 1 S.�xd2 €lcB 1 7.tzJc1 �dS 1 8.tlJd3 tDc4 1 9 .'6'e2 €le7 20.'!'g4 gS 21 .h4 with an attack on the kingside, Novikov-Skembris . Aosta 2000. b2)
6.:� :c3
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tZJc6 3.C2:Jf3 �g4 4.'Wa4
1 79
b21 ) 6... .tb4 7 .cxd5!? (7.e3 leads to b 1 ) 7 ... exd5 8.a3 �xc3+ 9.bxc3 C2:Jge7 (9 . . .
1!t'f6 1 0. h4 ! h6 1 1 .iVb5 ! � 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2 . .tg5! tljxd4 1 3.Axf6 tlJxb5 1 4. �h3+ ! Dci7 1 5.i.xg7 l1h7 1 6.llg1 +- Morozevich) 10.r1b1 Iib8 1 1 .h4 (I like 1 1 .�f4! better, in order to activate the bishop) 1 1 ...0-0 (1 1 . . .'3'd6 ! ?oo Morozevich) 1 2.hS ( 1 2..tf4 ! 6. e3! Morozevich) 1 2 �d6! 1 3.h6 g6 1 4.e4 �e6 °o, Malaniuk-Morozevich, Alushta 1 994. •••
b22) 6 tiJge7 (� . . . g6, ... �g7) 7.�gS!? (7.e3 a6 8.�d2 g6 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.J.d3 .tg7 1 1 .tiJe2 0-0 1 2.h4 'e'd7 1 3. h5 with initiative on the kingside, Abdulla-Eid, Istan bul (oj) 2004) 7 ...'Vi§d7 8.0-0-0 h6 (8 ... 0-0-0 9 . cxd5 exd5 1 0.h4!? � Ah3) 9 ..th4 g5 (9 ... 0-0-0 1 0.e4 ! ?) 10 . .i.g3 f5 1 1 .e3 (1 1 .h4 ! ?) 1 1 .tg7 1 2.cxdS exd5 13. h4! tiJd8 (1 3 ... 0-0-0 1 4/' b5!±) 1 4. tiJb5!±, Bukic-Cander, Slovenia 1 991 . •••
•••
b23) 6 .. :!�·d7 (also with the idea . . . tzJge7.
. . . g6, . . . .tg7, as in b22, but Black first unpins his knight and thus attacks on d4) 7.e3 (on 7.Ag5 follows not 7 . . . tiJxd4? ! 8.�xd7+ �xd7 9 .0-0-0 with a good game for W hite. but 7 . . . h 6 ! � 8 . .th4?! tiJxd4 9.0-0-0 i�f5) 7 .. />,ge7 S .td2 g6 9.b4!? (9.�h3 .tg7 1 0.cxd5 liJxd5 1 1 .C2:Jxd5 �xd5 1 2.i.g2 e5 1 3 .dxe5 0-0-0 1 4.�c3 �xe5, and the second player has nothing to complain about, Novikov-Danailov, Alicante 1 992) 9 �g7 1 0.b5 C2:Jb8 1 1 .lIcl 0-0 1 2.'�b3. and White's initiative on the queenside is unpleasant, WI.Schmidt D. Bischoff, Dortmund 1 992. •
•••
b24) 6 .. .tDf61? Q 5 ... C2:Jf6 6.tiJc3 e6. c)
S e5!? 6.dxeS �h4! .••
A rather interesting idea. Black has obtained an advantage in development for the sacrificed pawn and is ready to castle queenside. Besides, c4 is under attack. Now there can follow:
C1 ) 7.e3 d4! 8.'ti'b3 0-0-0 9.14 f;� !h6 with a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed pawn. c2) 7.i.g2!? 0-0-0 (Watson recom mends 7 . . . i.b4+ 8 . .1d2 �xc4 and evaluates the position as equal) 8.0-0 .1c5 9.f4 ':�-Jh6 1 0.e3? (this move leads to serious troubles for White, interesting is 1 0. h 3 ! ?, in order to protect g4) 1 0 ...d4! 1 1 .�b3 (1 1 . i.xc6? tiJg4 -+) 1 1 ...C2:Ja5 1 2.�b5 dxe3 1 3 . .txe3 Axe3 1 4.fxe3 C2:Jg4 - + , Etchegaray-Bukal , Cannes 1 997. c3) 7.%1g 1 !? �xh2 8 .cxd5 �xg l (8 . . . i.b4+ ! ? 9.tiJd2 �xg1 1 0.dxc6 i.xd2+ 1 1 .�xd2 b6) 9.dxc6 b6 1 0.�e3 iSi5. Dubinka-Segal. Rotterdam 1 998.
c4} 7.tlJc3 j"b4!?
7 . . . �c5 8.cxd5 �xf2+ ? ! 9.�d 1 0-0-0 1 0. �e4 C2:Jge7 1 1 .i.d2 ±, Kohler-Muse, Berlin 1 995, stronger was 8 . . . .1xf2+ 9.
8.a3 8.i.d2 d4 9 .tiJd5 (9.C2:Je4 .txd2+ 1 0. tiJxd2 O-O-O �) 9 . . . .axd2+ 1 0.Wxd2 O-O-O �, interesting is also 8 . . . dxc4 ! ? 9.tZJe4 Axd2+ 1 0 .C2:Jxd2 0-0-0 1 1 .�xc4 'fih5 1 2. 14 Ud4 1 3.�c5 tlJge7 1 4.e3 :ad5 1 5.�c3 Ilhd8 1 6 . .te2 "iYh4 1 7.lId 1 g5! �.
8... �xc3+
Chapter 9
1 80
The position after B ... .ac5 9.cxd5 is virtu ally identical to the one after 7. . . .ac5 8.cxd5.
9.bxc3 ·�i. ,ge7 9 ... dxc4? 1 0.�1 ±. 9 ... '8'xc4 1 0.'iVxc4 dxc4 1 1 J1b1 b6 1 2. f4 !. 9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0J%b1 'tWxc4 ( 1 0 . . . �e7 1 1 . �b5 b6 1 2 .f4±) 1 1 .'iVxc4 dxc4 1 2.Ah3+ �b8 1 3.e6 �.
�gS 9. Ad2 .tb4 1 0.0-0-0 lLIge7 1 1 . 1i.xc4 �g2 1 2.:thg 1 ( 1 2 .'tWb5 0-0-000) 1 2 . . .'ilVxf2 1 3.:df1 'Wxh2 1 4.:h l �g2 1 S.:fg 1 '@'f2 1 6.�d1 !?� (x �f2), W. Schmidt-Sariego, Polanica Zdroj 1 9B9.
7.dxe5 iYd5 S.tZJc3 After 8 . ,i,xc4 �xf3 9.0-0 Black can force a perpetual check with 9 .. :�Yg4+ or continue the battle with 9 . . . 0-0-0.
8 . �xf3
1 0Jlb1 l:b8 1 0 ... 0-0 ! ? 1 1 .Uxb7 CDxeS 1 2.:Xc7 lDxc4 1 3. Uxa7 l:abB tij. 1 1 .14 0-0, and now:
.
.
After B . . .'�Yxe5 9.f4 'iVh5 1 0.'iWxc4 White's chances are preferable due to his bishop pair.
c41 ) 1 2.h3 tUxe5 1 3.cxd5 ( 1 3 .fxeS?? iYe4 -+) 13 11fe8 1 4.�e4 ( 1 4.'ti'c2 �g4 l S.e3 tDxdS) 1 4...lLI7g6 1 5 . ,i,g2 lDxf4 16 . .axf4 �xf4 1 7.�xf4 tlJd3+ 1 8:�f1 lDxf4 1 9.e3 llJd3 20 .�e2 tDc5=. c42) 1 2 Ag2 dxc4 ( 1 2 . . . l:fd8! ? 1 3.0-0 \'Ig4 1 4.r1b2 a500) 1 3.0-0 tDg6 1 4.e3 ( 1 4.Axc6 bxc6 1 5.l:xb8 Uxb8 1 6:�Wxa7 �g4+ 1 7.�h 1 iVxe2 1 B.�xbB+ tlJfB 1 9. �g 1 �g4+ with a perpetual check) 1 4 a6 ( 1 4 . . . 'Wg4! ? l S.h3 't'fe6oo) 1 5.eS!? fxe6 1 6.\1¥xc4 :f6oo.
9J1g1
..•
.
.••
Back to the main continuation 5 . . . dxc4:
6.e3 On 6.l!VbS? follows 6 ... e6, and 7.'tWxb7?? loses in view of 7 . . . tZJxd4 -+ .
6 eS !? ...
The quieter 6
e6 has been also played:
...
a) 7.Axc4 a6 8 . ,i,e2 'tWg5 ! ? (8 . . . �ge7 9.f4 �d5 1 0.1:1g 1 tlJfS 1 1 . .ad2 bS 1 2. �d 1 tDh4 1 3.tDc3 �d7 1 4.llc1 with ad vantage for White, Korotylev-G.Gross, Budapest 1 994, 8 . . . i.. d S ! ?) 9.�f1 'iVh4 ! ? 00. Interesting is also 9 ... AdS ! ? b ) 7.tDc3 iVIS (7 . . . aS 8.�xc4 'it'd7 9.f4 �b4 1 0.'@'b3 c5 1 1 .dxcS Axc5 1 2. Ad2 followed by 0-0-0 with initiative for White, Novikov-Muse, Berlin 1 995) 8.f4
9 . . 0-0-0?? .
A serious blunder, even more surprising considering the fact that it was com mitted by a player with almost 2500 Elo. Correct was 9 . :@'h5 with a complicated position , e.g. 1 0 . .tg2 �e7 1 1 .f4oo or 1 0.e6 fxeS ( 1 0 ... 0-0-0! ? 1 1 .exf7 tzJhS 1 2. i..xc4 tZJxf7 00) 1 1 . �xc4 0-0-0 1 2. 'i!fxeS+ WbB oo. .
1 0 .te2 .
Black resigned the queen cannot be saved . The g ame W . Schmidt Grabarczyk. Poland 1 99 1 developed identically. -
1 :0
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 '·�.:.c6 3/:'-�f3 e5
l S1
Chapter 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.tDf3 e5( !??) 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tilc6 3.lLlf3 e5 This is an aggressive and i nteresting idea, which reminds us of the Albin Counter-Gambit ( 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5). Some authors and commentators estimate it highly, but in my opinion White's chan ces are preferable in this system .
Game 57
Klinger - Polzin Oberwart 1 992
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tilcS 3/�-J3 e5( !??) 4.dxe5 The usual continuation. The following alternatives are possible: a)
4,[' lc3
a1 ) 4 ... e41 5.cxd5 exf3 6.dxc6±, Ander sson-Esnaola, San Sebastian 1 994. a2) 4 ... dxc41! 5.d5 C .b4 6 .a3 ±, Bertrem-Schuermans, Belgium 2001 . a3) 4 �b4 S.tlJxe5 (5.cxd5 �xd5 transposes to 3 . cxd5 'i!'xd5 4.tlJf3 e5 S . tlJc3 i.b4) S ... tlJxe5 6.dxeS i.xc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8:�xd8+ (S.'!!V a4+ c6 9 :�xc4 �aS e;; ) 8 �xd8 9.e4 bS 1 0.:tb1 ( 1 0 .a4! ? c6 1 1 . .i.e3) 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 .�e3 �d7 1 2.g3 i.c6 1 3.i.g2 WcB 1 4.0-0 Wb7 1 5.f4 1IdS 1 6.i.d4 li:Je7 1 7. fS tlJcS 1 B.a4 lIheB 1 9.axbS axb5 20.g4 •••
•••
The main continuation now is
4.dxeS.
Some other moves are analysed in Game 57. Particularly interesting is 4.tiJxe5! ? , but there are only a few games with it. After (4.dxe5) 4 ...i.b4+ White has a choice between 5.i.d2 and 5.tzJbd2. In either case an original situation occurs and both sides try to make good use of the 'borrowed' pawns (respectively �c4 and lje5). But in any case, White has g reater chances of the initiative.
4.dxeS i.b4+ S.i..d 2 dxc4 � Games 57-58
4.dxeS i..b4+ S.tlJbd2 dxc4 � Games 59- 6 1
with initiative for W hite, Oms Pallise Ferron Garcia, Barcelona 2000. 9 .....te6!1 1 0.f4 g6 needs to be examined.
a4) 4 ... exd4 S.tlJxd4 (5.ClJxdS tZ:Jge7 ! ? 6 .8f4 tlJf5 °o , Szymczak-Boog, Prague 1 990, quite playable is also 5 . . . i.e6 6. e4 dxe3 7 . �xe3 li:Jf6 =) S ... dxc4 S.tlJxc6
�xd1 + 7.tlJxd1 bxcS 8.e4 i.eS 9.i.d2 (9.li:Je3 tlJf6 1 0.f3 i.b4+ 1 1 .i.d2 I1bB 1 2.�xb4 lbb4 1 3.0-0-0 We7, and Black's extra pawn fully compensates his worse pawn structure, Kohlweyer Reefschlager, Bundesliga 1 99 1 ) 9 ...
{iJS 1 0.f3 liJd7 ( 1 O . . . I1bB? ! 1 1 .:tc1 li:Jd7 1 2.i.xc4 i.xc4 1 3.lhc4 tlJe5 1 4J;[c2
Chapter 1 0
1 82
with advantage for W hite, Baumgartner Fuchs, Taufkirchen 1 998) 1 1 .f4 ( 1 1 .:tc1 tiJeSoo) 1 1 . tDc5 1 2.f5 .tca 1 3.tDf2 AaS 1 4JIe 1 l:tbBoo. ..
b) 4.e3 j.g4 A safer alternative is 4 ... exd4, and 5.exd4 leads to a l in e of th e French Ex change 1 .e4 eS 2.d4 dS 3.exd5 exdS 4.CDf3 t?Jc6 S.c4 -, which is considered harmless for Black. Also in the case of S.tiJxd4 tiJf6 S.llJc3 Ab4 Black is OK, Bukie-Barle, Ljubljana 1 997. -
5.tiJc3 S.cxdS 'it'xdS 6 . .te2 exd4 7.exd4 �b4+ 8.tlJc3 Q 3.cxdS 'itxd5 4. CDf3 e5 S.tiJc3 .tb4 6.e3 exd4 7.exd4 ..tg4 B.�e2. Black has also a comfortable game after S.Ae2 e4. 5 ... exd4 S.tlJxd5 tzJf6 7.�b3 .i..xf3 a.gxf3 tlb8 9 . ..td2 �dS 1 0 .0-0-0 0-0 with a sharp fight, Anand- Rebel 1 0, Ischia (ml7) 1 998. c) 4.cxdS 'i!¥xd5 Q 4.tiJf3 eS, Chapter 1 1.
3.cxdS 'tWxdS
d) 4.tlJxeS!? I must honestly admit - this move is more dangerous than I thought when I wrote the first German edition.
4 . tzJxeS 5.dxe5 ..
1 2.0-0-0 i�J6=, Shainswit-W.Adams, Ventnor City 1 943, or 1 0.e4 .teS 1 1 . 't!VxcS AxeS =, Romsdal-Heim, Lange sund 2001 ; quite playable is also 9 .. fi'a5 1 0.0-0-0 .te6 1 1 .'iWd4 tlJf6 1 2.'i!fe5 bS oo, Dub-Doigener, Budapest 2001 . 6.e4 '§'xd 1 + 75itxd1 ..te6oo, Winkler Roques, eorr. 1 99B. .
6 .'�xd8 7.e4 •.
7' li?c3 c6 B . .tg5+ �e7 9.0-0-0 .te6 oo, Relnfeld-W . Adams, New York 1 941 . 7 . .tgS+ .te7 8 . ..txe7 + tiJxe7 9.lZja3 tzJg 6 (9 ... .te6 1 0.0-0-0+ �c8 1 1 .e4 c3 °o, Thallinger-Eibersberger, Austria 1 997) 1 0.l:d 1 + �e7 1 1 .tlJxc4 �e6 1 2.e3 Axc4 1 3.Axc4 tDxe5=, Gyimesi Berenyi, Hungary 1 993.
7. i..e6 ..
7 . . . b5? ! 8.a4 c6 9 . .te3 a6 1 0.axb5 cxb5 1 1 .tDc3 Ab 7 1 2 . .te2 hS 1 3.0-0 l:c8 1 4. l:fd1 + �ea 1 5.tDdS with initiative for White, Kramer-Boey, corr. 1 984.
8.f4 g6 As it is recommended by Dunnington in his book.
9.Ae3 f6 1 0. tLJc3! fxe5 1 1 .0-0-0+ �c8 ( 1 1 . . ::�e7 1 2.'Dd5+ i.xdS 1 3.llxd5 with the attack, 1 1 . . . �e8 1 2.llJdS with an attack) 1 2.f5! Jd7 ( 1 2 . . . gxf5 1 3.exf5 AxfS 1 4.Axc4± - Black is totally undeveloped) 1 3.txg6 hxg6 1 4.Ae2 due to Black's uncoordinated forces White has more than suffi c ient compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Vorobiev-Turov, Tula 2001 . d2) 5 d4 ...
d21 )6.e4 c6!?
d 1 ) 5 ... dxc4 6.�xd8+ S:tfYa4+ cS 7:�xc4 �aS+ 8.tlJc3 'ti'xeS 9 . .tf4 'i!¥eS 1 0.e3 AeS 1 1 . 't!VxcS Axc5
6 . . . tzJe7 7.f4 'Dc6 B.i.d3 �h4+ 9.93 llfh3 1 0.�f1 'aVg4 1 1 .i.e2 �h3 1 2.�f1 �g4 1 3.'Dd2 'Wxd 1 + 1 4.�xd 1 , and Black has yet to prove his compensa tion, Maksimenko-6arle, Geneva 1 996. 7.t4 gS ! 8 .fxg5 'i!r'a5+ 9.i..d 2 �xe5 1 0.i..d 3 i.d6 1 1 .tDa3 hS 1 2.gxh6 t2JxhS 1 3.�f3 .ig4 1 4:�'g3 �e7 l S . .tf4 0-0-055, Fritz3- Tait, Farnsfield 1 995.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tzJc6 3/2.1f3 e5
1 83
(22) 6.e3 iLc5 7.�b3 �e7 8.exd4 iLxd4 9 . .tf4 tLJf6 (9 . . . .<:t.xeS?? 1 0.�bS+ +-) 1 0 . .te2 �xe5 1 1 .Axe5 'iYxe5 Meduna Noire, Cappelle la Grande 1 995. =,
d23) 6.g311 .te6 After 6 . . . t2:Je7 7.iLg5 c6 8.jLg2 �a5+ 9.tDd2 ti:Jg6 1 0.0-0 h6 1 1 .�f4 tLJxf4 1 2. gxf4 Black did not achieve sufficient compensation for the missing pawn, Rogozenko-Maahs, Hamburg 2001 . Probably the obvious 9 .. .'t1Vxe5 would have been stronger. Nevertheless, after the simple 1 0.tlJf3 �a5+ 1 1 . iLd2 'ab6 (1 1 . .�c5 1 2.b4 with initiative) 1 2.IIc1 Black's position does not make a har monious i mpression . .
7.i.g2 c6 8.tlJd2 'iYd7 8 . . . �aS 9.0-0 Dd8 1 0.�b3! ? � 1 0 . . . ,tb4 1 1 .tlJe4 l:d7 1 2.f4 b5 1 3.a3 Ji.e7 1 4. ti:Xl2 ±, II 1 0 ... l:ld7 1 1 . f4 ±.
9.0-0 !a.e7 9 . . 0-0-0 1 0 .�a4 �b8 1 1 .�f3 �c8 1 2 . l:td1 c5 1 3.e3 ±, Schebler-Dorman n , Germany 1 993. After 9 . . . hS, 1 0 .tiJf3 is strong, Rees Hernandez Basante, Istanbul (01) 2004. 1 0.tlJe4!? �xc4 1 1 .Af4 .ae6 1 2.tiJd6+ i.xd6 1 3.exd6 c5 1 4. b4 ! ±, Crouch-Povah, London 1 996. .
All that boils down to saying that 4.tlJxe5 ! ? is a serious alternative. Now back to the main game. 4 d4 leads to the basic position of the Albin Counter-Gambit, which is evaluated by the modern theory as good for White. But the second player has other plans: ...
4 ... ..tb4+ S .td2 .
5F,bd2 � Games 59- 6 1 . 5 dxc4 ...
This is one of the two m ain positions of this variation (the other one occurs after 5.tiJbd2 dxc4). The position is unusual and complicated. White has a space advantage on the kingside and five pawns versus three,
on the queenside the situation is just the opposite. The e5-pawn restricts Black's pieces, but it can also be easily attacked. The same applies also to the c4-pawn.
6.e3 A natural continuation, but definitely not the only one. The alternatives : a) 6.e4 .te6 7.'ti'c1 (7.'�a4 jLxd2+ 8. tiJbxd2 a6 9 .�a3 b5 1 0. �cS ti:Jge7 1 1 .tlJg5 0-000, Fritz3-Tait, Farnsfield 1 996) 7..:&e7 8.i.xb4 �xb4+ 9.tlJbd2 0-0-0 1 0.Axc4 i..xc4 1 1 .'iVxc4 tlJxeS 1 2.�xb4 �3+ 1 3.We2 tLJxb4 1 4.l:thc1 (or 1 4.Dhd 1 tlJe7=, Vasiukov-Welling , Eindhoven 1 986) 1 4 . . . �7=, Stuart Sarapu, New Zealand 1 987. b) 6.�a4 'We7 b 1 ) 7.e3 b1 1 ) 7 ... !a.e6? ! 8.a3
iLxd2+ 9.f� .bxd2
a6 1 0.tDxc4!? 1 0.Axc4 i.xc4 1 1 .'ti'xc4 tlJxe5 1 2.tlJxe5 '6'xe5 1 3.liJf3 "fie7 1 4.l:lc1 c6 1 5.tlJd4 Dd8 1 6.0-0 tiJf6 1 7. b4 0-0=, W. Schmidt Sarapu , Dubai (01) 1 986, 1 0.tlJd4 iLd7 1 1 .'iYxc4 'i!¥xe5 1 2 .lZJ2f3, and n ow i nstead of 1 2 . . .'iYe7 1 3 .lZJxc6 Axc6 1 4.CZJd4 .te4 1 5.f3 i.g6 1 6.e4! (Notkin Volkov, Moscow 1 992), Dunnington recommends 1 2 . . . �f6 ! , e.g. 1 3.lZJxc6 iLxc6 1 4.tlJd4 iDe7! =.
1 0 . b5 ..
1 0 . . . Ad7 1 1 .tZJa5 tlJxe5 1 2:�e4±.
Chapter 1 0
1 84
1 1 .tZJd6+ cxd6 1 2 . .ixb5 axb5 1 3. "*,xa8 tiJd8 1 4 .�b8 with a rather dubious position for Black. b1 2) 7 ... �d7!? 8.i.xc4 .ixd2+ 9. tlJbxd2 tlJxe5 1 0 .'ifb3 tL003 + ( 1 0 . . . tDxc4 ! ?) 1 1 .tDxf3 l:Ib8 1 2.0-0 tlJfS=, Lavrov-Bigaliev, Briansk 1 995. b2) 7.a3 i.xd2+ 8.tlJbxd2 i.d7!? (8 ... .ieS 9.e3 � 7.e3 AeS?1 8.a3 Axd2+ 9.�bxd2) 9.'iYxc4 tlJxe5 1 0.�c3 ( 1 0. �xc7?? tZJd3+ -+) 1 0 lZJxf3+ 1 1 . tZJxf3 tlJfS 1 2.e3 (too risky is 1 1 . �xc7 0-0 with a h uge advantage in development) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 3.i.e2 c5 with easy play for Black, Cramling-C .Bauer, Cap d' Agde 1 995. .••
c) 6.g3 c1 ) 6 ... tlJge7 7.i.g2 (7.iVa4 tZJdS! ? oo, Stei nert-Eibersberger, Austria 1 998) 7 . . .0-0 8.0-0 nbS!? (8 ...tlJgS 9. i.xb4 tDxb4 1 0.tlJa3 'ife7 1 1 .tDxc4 tlJcS 1 2 . l:Ic1 tiJgxe5 1 3.tlJfxeS �e5 1 4 .tlJxe5 'tlYxeS 1 S.:c3 cS=, Lys-Omelka, Moravia 1 998) 9.�c1 Ae6 1 0.i.xb4 tlJxb4 1 1 . %%d1 'ff'c8 1 2.tlJbd2 lldSoo, Korotylev Volkov, Moscow 1 993. c2} 6...i-g41? 7.\!¥a4 i-xf3 ! ? 8.exf3 Axd2+ 9.tZJxd2 �dS 1 0.0-0-0?! (more cautious is 1 O. 'it'xc4 'tWxeS+ 1 1 . 'tWe4 =) 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 .Axc4?? ( 1 1 .'�' aS tljge7oo) 1 1 .. .'ij¥xc4+ ! -+ , M. Roeder-Othman, Abu Dhabi 1 999. d) 6.a3 Axd2+ 6 ... Ae7 ! ? 7.tlJc3 Ag4 8.Af4 as 9.e3 1fYxd1 + 1 0.lbd 1 bS oo, Annakov-Volkov, Moscow 1 992.
7.!.�bxd2 c3!? 7 ... ,te6 8.e3 transposes to 6.e3 .ieS 7.a3 .ixd2+?! 8.tiJbxd2, see below in the main game. 8.bxc3 tlJge7 9.tLJb3 'iixd1 + 1 0. l:bd1 tlJgS 1 1 .tiJbd4 Ad7 ! ( 1 1 . . . t;,jgxeS? 1 2.tDxeS tZJxeS 1 3.tiJb5 ±) 1 2.eS txeS=, Tishin-Korobkov, Mariupol 2003. e)
6.'f¥c2 'i!¥e71?
S ...,i,eS 7.e3 transposes to the main game.
7.1!Vxc4 After 7.g3, L6tscher-Grafl , Germany 2002, I like 7 . . . ,ieS ! ? 8.i.g2 0-0-0 9.0-0 fS!?oo best. 7...tlJxe5 S.tlJxe5 (8.�xb4?? tiJd3+ , 8 .'iVbS+ tlJcS =) 8 :iYxe5 with an approximately equal position. .•
6 ... i.e6 6 . . . b5?! is quite dubious in view of 7.a4, e.g. 7 ... .ig4 8.,ixb4 tZJxb4 9.axb5 'iYxd 1 + 1 0.�xd 1 , and I cannot see any compensation for the missing pawn.
7.�C2 This is the main continuation . There are, however, other possibilities as well : a) 7.tiJc3? ! a s (7 . . . tiJge7 ! ?) 8.i.e2 liJge7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0 .:c 1 tiJg6 1 1 .tLle4 pSt and Black has the edge since eS is very weak, Mahooti-Robertson, USA 1 997. b) 7.a3 i.a5! (7 ... i.xd2+? ! 8.tLJbxd2 b5 9.a4 a6 1 0Jk1 � 1 1 .b3 with initiative for White, Apshenieks-Lazard, Paris 1 924, 9.b3 ! ?) 8:"c2 'i'Yd5 9.tiJc3 (9. �xa5 'i!fxaS+ 1 0.·1 bd2 0-0-0 with a good posi tion for Black, Orgovan-Kapeller, Buda pest 1 99 1 ) 9... i.xc3 (or 9 .. J!¥cS !?, � 7. �c2 �dS 8.tzJc3 �c5 9.a3 ,ta5) 1 0.i.xc3 0-0-000, Aldag-Schweiger, Passau 1 999. c) 7.'iic 1 'iYd5 (7 ... b5? ! S.b3!) S.tiJc3 .i xe3 (S .. .'�VcS! ?) 9.�xc3 (or 9 . .ixc3 0-0-0 � . . . ·� ·,e7-gS, also not bad is the
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLJc6 3.r�f3 eS immediate 9 . . .tije7) 9 ... �e7, and in view of the threat . . .tiJe7-g6 the eS-pawn is in danger, D.Milanovic-Petronijevic, Yugoslavia 1 995.
d) 7.'6'a4 i.xd2+ (7 .. :�e7 ? ! ¢ 6."f:Ya4 'ilie7 7.e3 i.e6?!) 8.tiJbxd2 a6 9.tLld4 (9 .txc4? b5, 9 .tiJxc4? b5) 9 ... b5! 1 0. tLlxc6 �d7 1 1 .tiJb8!? ( 1 1 .�c2 �xc6co, Willsch-Maahs, Germany 1 995) 1 1 ... 'itc8 1 2:�c2 'iYxb8 1 3.b3 c5 ! 1 4.bxc4 W'xeS 1 5.lId 1 b4co, Matamoros-Arenci bia, Santa Clara 1 996. .
e) 7 .i.xb4 'ii'xdl + 8.�xdl tiJxb4 9.tljd4 0-0-0 1 0.Wcl tiJd3+ ( 1 0 . . . .tdS !? 1 1 . tzJc3 tZ:Jd3+ 1 2.i.xd3 cxd3 1 3.tiJxdS �dS 1 4.lId 1 l:xe5 l S.rIxd3 tLlf&=) 1 1 .i.xd3 cxd3 1 2.tiJxe6 fxe6 1 3.�3 liJe7 1 4.l:d 1 ? ! ( 1 4.�d2 co) 1 4 . . . tZJg6 1 5.14 tlJh4 1 6.g3 tLlf3 1 7.l:h1 g51 +, Khalifman-Kapr, Berlin (simul) 2001 . .
f) 7. .te2 tZJge7 (7 . . . b5!?; 7.. �dS !?) 8.0"() 0-0 9 . .txb4 tDxb4 1 0.ttkt4 't'YdS .
1 1 .CLla3 'iWxeS 1 2.tiJxe6 'tWxe6 1 3.tZ:Jxc4 :tfd8 ( 1 3 ... bS? ! 1 4:�b3 c5 l S.tZ:Jd2 a6 1 6. 'i!fxe6 fxe6;t, Epishin-Zaragatski, Deizisau 2002, l S . . .�xb3 1 6.tDxb3 c4 1 7.tlJd4 a6 1 8.a4 with initiative for White) 1 4:�b3 c5 1 5.a3 i:.bd5 1 6.t:fd 1 (1 6. 'ti'xb7?? :db8-+) 1 6 ... b6=.
7 .. :iYd5 Dunninngton suggests Volkov's idea But it fails to 8.b31, e .g . :
7 ... b5.
a)
8.. 'ife7 9.'We4!±. .
b) 8 �d5 9.bxc4 �cS (9 . . . bxc4 1 0 . .txb4 tiJxb4 1 1 .�a4+ tlJc6 1 2.tiJa3 ±) 1 0. 'i'e4 tzJge7 1 1 .a3 .txd2+ 1 2.tzJbxd2±. ..•
c) S Axd2+ 9.�xd2 tiJb4 (9 tljge7 1 0.bxc4 b4 1 1 .Ad3 tlJg6 1 2 . .te4 �d7 1 3. �a4 +-) 1 0. 'iVc3 tZJd3+ ( 1 0 ... tZ:Jds 1 1 :i¥cl ±) 1 1 . .txd3 �xd3 ( 1 1 ... cxd3 1 2. O-O±) 1 2.�xd3 cxd3 1 3.tZJcj4 with advan tage for White because the passed d3pawn is weak rather than strong, P. Pe tersen - a. Simonsen, Torshavn 2000. ...
. . .
1 85
8 �xb4 .
After 8.tZ:Jc3 'ifcS White can get some problems with e5, e .g . 9 .a3 i.a5 1 0. 't!t'e4 0-0-0 1 1 .i.e2 tLJge7 1 2.0-0 tiJg6 1 3.:fd l tlJgxe5 without sufficient com pensation for the lost pawn, Siekys-V. Novikov, Vilnius 1 994.
S tlJxb4 9.�a4+ � 1 0.tZ:Jc3 ...
1 0.tiJa3!? will be treated in the next game. 1 0 ... �c5 1 1 .tlJd4 To equality leads 1 1 .tZJg5 .td7 1 2. �xc4 (or 1 2.'i:Vb5 'iWxbS 1 3.tlJxb5 nc8 1 4.e6 .txe6 1 5.tDxe6 fxe6 1 6 . .txc4 �e7=) 1 2 . . :�xc4 1 3.Axc4 tZJxe5 1 4 . .te2 tLlf6 1 5.0-0 h6=, Piarnpuu Ranniku, Tallinn 1 999.
1 1 ... �d7 The position after 1 1 ... tlJge7 1 2.tiJxe6 fxe6 1 3 .i.xc4 �xeS 1 4. 0-0-0 is ap parently favourable for White.
1 2.�b5 This move leads to a complicated endgame. 1 2.'8'xc4 �xc4 1 3.i.xc4 tZJxe5 or 1 2.e6 fxe6 1 3.tZJxc6 �xc6 1 4 .�xc4 �xc4 l S . .txc4 �e7 does not promise anything substantial.
12 ... �xb5 1 3.lDcxb5 tiJxd4 1 4.tlJxd4 1 4.tDxc7+ ? ! �d8 1 5.tiJxa8 �jc2+ 1 6.�d2 tDxal 1 7 . ..txc4 .tc6 1 8.Ilxa1 b5 1 9.i.xf7 .txa8 +.
Chapter 1 0
1 86
1 4... c5? ! This move gives White the chance to destroy Black's pawn structure on the queenside. Correct was 1 4 b5 1 S.a4 c6 1 6.i.e2 a5 ( 1 6 . . . a6? ! 1 7.axb5 cxbS 1 8 . .tf3 11a7 1 9.tlJc6 lIaS 20.tlJb4) 1 7.0-0 li:Je7 1 8. Af3 :a7 ( 1 S . . . :a6? 1 9. Axc6! :Xc6 20 . tlJxc6 i.xc6 21 .axb5 Axb5 22.llxa5±) 1 9.t1fc1 0-0 00 l1 ... Db8. However, Polzin followed the game Cvi tan-Godena, Siel 1 988, in which Black developed dangerous counterplay after 1 5.tiJf3 b5 1 6.a4 bxa4 1 7.j.xc4 �e7 1 S. tiJg5 tiJh6 1 9.0-0-0 :ab8 20.:1d6 :lb4 2 1 .,ia2 :hbS. .••
1 5.lZJc2! Preventing the black rook from getting to b4 in the case of a similar course of the game to Cvitan-Godena (previous paragraph) . In addition, the idea e3-e4, li:Jc2-e3 is also possible in some va riations.
1 5 ... b5 1 6.a4! bxa4 This is practically forced. 1 6 ... a6? loses in view of 1 7.axb5 i.fS 1 8.i.xc4 ! i.xc2 1 9 . .tdS :1a7 20J1xa6 +-, and on 1 6 ...j.f5 follows 1 7.tiJa3 a6 1 8.i.e2 J:b8 1 9.0-0-0 li:Je7 20.:d6 with a great advantage.
1 7 . .txc4 �bS 1 8.0-0-0
The first player has a significant ad vantage in development and all Black's queenside pawns are weak. Now the threat is 1 9 . .txf7+.
1 8 ... �c6 1 9J!td6 CiJe7 1 9 . . . .txg2 20.1:g 1 Ae4 21 .lIxg7 (21 . l:[a6±) 21 ... ,ig6 fails to 22.e6! tlJh6 23.exf7 + �8 (23 . . . tlJxf7 24.11e6+ �d8 25.f4 +-) 24.:g8+ tiJxg8 2S.fxg8'W+ lIxg8 26.i.xg8 'iitx g8 27.:a6±.
20J:thd1 0-0 21 .e6 .txg2 21 . . . .te8 22.exf7+ .txf? 23.i..xf 7+ :xt7 24.:ld8+ lIxd8 25.:Xd8+ .tU8 26.11d7 tZ:Jc6 27.f3 ±.
22.tiJe1 22.exf7+ �h8 23.lId 7 ±.
22 ... .ah3 23.exf7 + �h8 24. ttJd3 t2Jc8 25.11a6 White is clearly better, but he did not manage to win the game. The rest follows with no further commentary.
25 ... ttJb6 26 . .ta2 �b7 27. tiJeS c4 2S.l:d4 g6 29.tiJxc4 Af1 30.tDxb6 i..xa6 31 .t:iJd7 llcS+ 32.�b1 �g7 33.f8'+!¥+ l:xfS 34.t2JxfS �xf8 35.l:txa4 i.b5 36.Itd4 htc7 37 . .td5 �g7 38.h4 h6 39.i.b3 i.d7 40 . .tc2 g5 41 .hxgS hxg5 42J�d5 g4 43.b3 .te6 44. 1:[d6 �6 45.�b2 �e5 46. l:td4 1:1t7 47Jle4+ �d5 4S. 1:[f4 tlc7 49 . .tfS i.xt5 50. nxfS+ �e4 51 . 1:(f4+ �d3 52.l:txg4 llc2+ 53. �a3 tlxf2 54.:a4 1:f1 55. �b4 Iit7 56. �aS �xe3 57.1:1h4 �d3 58.b4 �c3 59.b5 llg7 60.I:thS �c4 61 .t'tc8+ �b3 %:V2
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 .'�c6 3 /�J3 eS Game S8
Leitao - Vescovi Brazil 1 997
1 .d4 d5 2.tlJf3 cz:Jc6 3.c4 e5 4.dxeS .tb4+ S.-td2 dxc4 6.e3 .te6 7. �c2 iYdS 8. i.xb4 tiJxb4 9. �a4+ (, 'e6 1 0.tlJa3!? In my opinion this is the most dangerous continuation - Wh ite wants to capture the pawn on c4 and thus protect his eS pawn. Black must play very accurately.
An interesting alternative is with the following variations:
1 87
1 2.QJc4!?
a) 12 0-0-01 1 is risky in view of 1 3. �e2 tlJge7 1 4 .11b 1 or immediately 1 3.l;;[ b 1 with a dangerous initiative for W hite on the queenside. ...
b) After 12 ... b5?! 1 3.'�a3 �xa3 ( 1 3 ... b4? 1 4 .cxb4 tZJxb4 l S.I1c 1 +-) 1 4.tiJxa3 a6 l S.tlJc2 tZJge7 1 6.tlJcd4 Black does not achieve sufficient compensation for the missing pawn.
1 2 0_'lge7 1 3.Qld4 0-0 1 4.ti:Jxe6 fxe6 � or 1 4.tlJb3 �dS l S.:td1 bS l S.'e'a3 �e4 �
c) c1)
...
- in both cases the development advan tage and the eS-weakness compensate for the missing pawn . c2) 1 3 .te2 as! ( 1 3 ... tlJds 1 4.::tc 1 , 1 3 . . . bS 1 4:�a3) 1 4.0-0 bS ( 1 4 ... tlJdS!?) l S.�a3 'iWxa3 1 6 .tlJxa3 tlJgS 1 7.tzJd4 tljgxeS 1 8.tlJxe6 fxe6, and the position is approximately equal. c3) 1 3.::tb1 tlJd5, and now: c31 ) 1 4.lhb7?! t2Jxc3 l S.�b3 ( 1 5.'i'ic2?! 0-0-0 +) l S ... tZJaS ( 1 S . . . tZJci8! ? 1 6.lIxc7 'ifxc7 1 7.'�xc3 DcS 1 8.iDfd2 0-0+) l S.Db8+ We7 1 7.�b4 �xb4 1 8J�xb4 c5 1 9.11b2 j&,xc4 20 ..txc4 tlJxc4 2 1 .11c2 :tab8 22.0-0 tZJxe3 23.fxe3 tiJe4=i=. c32) 1 4.�c2 tlJb6 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0-0 ! ?) l S.UbS �e7 ( l S .. .'iJifS ! ? � l S.tZJaS a6) l S.tlJaS ( 1 6/l:Jfd2 0-0 with an advantage in de velopment) 1 6 . . . tlJxa5 1 7.llxaS c6, and as compensation for the pawn Black has a better pawn structure and the rook on as looks somewhat comical. •
1 0... c3! After 1 0 ...'i:Vc5? ! White aChieves a great advantage with either 1 1 .i.xc4 i.xc4 1 2.�xc4 'lJxe5 ( 1 2 . . .�aS+ 1 3. 'i'c3 'it'xc3+ 1 4.bxc3 0-0-0 1 5 .e6 txe6 1 6.llJgS±) 1 3.tZJxeS �xeS 1 4.'i!VbS+ 1!¥xbS l S.tzJxbS or 1 1 .11c1 !1 't!¥b4+ 1 2. 'iVxb4 tiJxb4 1 3.tlJbS! ±. Also 1 0 . �a5+ l 1 .�xaS tlJxaS 1 2 . 'lJgS ± is not particularly good ..
1 1 .bxc3 �c5
1 1 . 0-0-0? ! was not recom mendable in view of 1 2 . .tc4 'iYcS 1 3 . ..txe6+ txe6 1 4.0-0 ti:Jge7 ( 1 4 ...'iVxc3 1 S.l:lab1 with attack) l S.tZJbS �b8 1 6.tlJbd4±. Also after 1 1 11d81! 1 2 . ..tc4 �e4 1 3.:b1 White is clearly better. .
.
...
1 2.t.�b5
1 2 ... 0-0-0 Now White must reckon with . . . a7-a6.
1 3J:tc1 On 13 .te2 follows 1 3 ... a6 1 4.'6'a3 'i!:¥xa3 ( 1 4 . . . :dS ! ?) 1 S. tZJxa3 tZJge 7, and with . .. tDe7-gS Black wins back the pawn and remains with a better pawn structure. Another possibility is 1 3.liJfd4, e.g. 1 3 . . . tljge7 1 4.lIc1 �b8 with a sharp position •
1 88
Chapter 1 0
i n which Black has good compensation for the pawn due to his development advantage and White's eS-weakness.
1 3 ... tlJge7 1 4. .te2 ...
1 7.ClJxe5 tlJxeS 1 8.tlJd4 White has a worse pawn structure. but the semi-open b-file promises him good chances for attack on the queenside and that turns out to be of greater significance .
1 8 .. J:thf8? Stronger is 1 8 . . . gS ! ? , e.g. 1 9.1:tb1 .te6 20.tL.)xc6 (20.�h 1 g41) 20 .. .'i!Vxc6 21 .f4 gxf4 22 .exf4 CLld3 . and Black holds the position . 1 9.�b1 b6 This weakening is unfortunately forced. On 1 9 . . . $.c6? follows 20.f4 tzJg6 2 1 . tzJxc6 �xc6 22.i..f3 +-, and 1 9 . . 'i!fb6? loses immediately in view of 20.�dS. .
This is a critical position in this variation. For his minimal material shortage Black has a better pawn structure and the e5pawn probably will not last long. However, White's chances for attack on the queen side are also not to be u nderestimated.
1 4 ...ClJg6 In the game Scheeren-Boey, Willemstad 1 980, Black played 14 �b8. There then followed l S.0-0 tLlc8 ( l S . . .lzJg6! ?) 1 6. tLlfd4 tiJxeS 1 7. tiJxe6 fxe6 1 8 JIb 1 l:1d2 1 9 .tlJd4 �b6 20.�b3 �d5 21 .l:fd1 llxd 1 + 22.l:1xd 1 , and the position after 22 .. .'�xb3 23.axb3 tlJds 24.Uc1 (24.c4 tlJc3 2S.:e1 tzJxe2+ 26.l::txe2 l1e8=) 24 .. J1e8 2S . b4 (2S .f4 tiJg6) 2S . . . g S ! ? is approximately equal. Interesting was also the simple 14 . .a6 l S.tiJbd4 tiJxeS 1 6.0-0 tiJxf3+ 1 7.R.xf3 i.dS.
20.c4 W hite plans to further develop h is ini tiative with �c3 followed by
20 . ..tlJc6 21 .'ii'c3 tiJxd4 22 exd4 '{WgS 23Jifc1
...
.
1 S.0..0 it..d 7!? After l S . . . a6 1 6.tLlbd4 tzJgxeS 1 7.:b1 White seizes the initiative.
1 6.�b3 tlJgxe5? ! 1 6 ... .te6J? seems better to me. 1 7 . �a4 i.d7 leads to repetition, and in the case of 1 7.�2, 1 7 . . . tDQ xeS 1 8. tzJxeS tzJxeS 1 9.tlli 1 ( _'c4 seems really good.
White has a clear edge. His attack on the queenside is very dangerous, while Black has no counterplay.
23 ... .tc6 Otherwise there follows 24.c5. 24.dS .tb7 2S . .tf3 'tWf6 After this White's win is practically forced,
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJcS 3 Jd3 e5 but the game could not be saved any way, e.g. 25 ... �b8 2S.c5 J4xd5 27.cxb6 cxb6 28.�c7+ �a8 29.:bS ! +-.
26.,*,a3! �bS 27.cS! LfeS 27 . . J4xd5 2S.cxbS +-. .
1 89
6 . . . i.xd2+ 7 . .i.xd2 J4g4 8.Ac3 �e7 9.�a4 � (Ftacnik).
7:�c2 7.e3 c3 ! ?
7.b4 c:> Game 60.
2S.d6! c6 29.cxb6 axb6 30. l:xb6 'iYxd6 31 .'iYxd6+ J:txd6 32.1:cb1 J::te7 33 . .txc6 1 :0
Game S9
Fedorowlcz - Boissonet Buenos Aires 1 99 1
1 .d4 tlJc6 2.tlJf3 d S 3.c4 eS 4.dxeS .i.b4+ S.tlJbd2 dxc4 7... b5
7 ... Ae6 was not played in any of the games I know, but it seems an interest ing move, e .g. 8.e3 '&d5 (S . . . b5 9 .b3! Ftacnik) 9.e4 (9 . .te2 b5 °o 6 1 0.a4 a6) 9 ... �b5 (9 . . . �c5? 1 0.b4) 1 0 .te2 0-0-0 (1 0 . . . tDge7 1 1 .0-0 i.xd2 1 2.Axd2 tDxe5 1 3.tDxe5 't1VxeS 1 4. i.xc4t 1 0 . . . tDxe5 1 1 .tDxe5 �xeS 1 2.f4 �bS 1 3.b4 i.b6 1 4.i.b2 f6 1 5.tDxc4 �c6 1 6.l:tc1 with initiative for White) 1 1 .0-0 Axd2 ( 1 1 . . . tDxeS 1 2.tDxeS �xeS 1 3.tDxc4 i.xc4 1 4.'�xc4�) 1 2.i.xd2 tDxe5 1 3.tDxe5 �xe5 1 4.Ac3 �g5 1 5.l:tfd1 (1 S.f4 ! ? '6'cS+ 1 6.�h l 55) 15...tlJfS 16.Axc4 .
This is very similar to the line S.i.d2 dxc4. But there are two important dif ferences : As soon as the d2-knight is unpinned the c4-pawn will be u nder attack. The dark-squared bishops are not going to be exchanged.
6.a3 White immediately clarifies the inten tions of the b4-bishop. 6.e3?! is dubious in view of 6 . . . c3, and the continuation 6.'tli'c2 will be analysed in Game 6 1 . 6 ... .taS
Axc4 1 7.Ji.xf6 �xf6 1 8:!!Vxc4 lhd1 + ( 1 8 . . .'i'Kxb2 1 9.11¥xf7oo) 1 9.1:txd1 l:td8=. S.b3 White wants to get rid of the c4-pawn as fast as possible. Now 8 ... c3? fails to 9.b4! cxd2+ 1 0.i.xd2 tlJge7 ( 1 0 . . . tlJd4? 1 1 .tlJxd4 'iYxd4 1 2:iVc6+ �8 1 3.lld1 + - , 1 0 ... tlJxb4 1 1 .axb4 Ab6 1 2.e3 ±) 1 1 . bxaS Ag4 1 2.:td1 �c8 1 3:�·cS ±. On 8.a4 Black replies with the simple 8 ... a6.
Chapter 1 0
1 90
8 t2Jd4! •••
The best reaction!
9.tZJxd4 'iYxd4 1 0.I;Ibl CiJe7
After 1 3 . .td3 bxc4 1 4.'Yi'xc4 iJ..xd3 (14 ... 0-0 = Ftacnik) l S:�'xd3 Ild8 1 6.�b5+ 'ti'xbS 1 7.r1xbS AbS the endgame is approximately equal.
1 0 ... c31 was bad again: 1 1 .liJf3 �g4 1 2. b4 iLfS 1 3.'i!Yxc3 liJe7 ( 1 3 . . . .txb1 ? 1 4.�c6+ +-) 1 4. h3 �g6 ( 1 4 ...�c4 l S.r1b3±) 1 5 .tljh4 �hS 1 6.tiJxfS �xfS 1 7. 'tifd3 ±. In the game Csonkics-Jamrich, Buda pest 1 998, was played
1 0 �xeS 1 1 .bxc4 bxc4 .••
and after 1 2. 'H¥xc4 Ad? the position was u nclear. Probably stronger was 1 2.f411, e.g . :
1 2 �xf4?? 1 3 .'tlVa4+ +-. b) 12...'ti'f5 1 3.e4 't!t'hS 1 4.i.e2 �cS
a)
•.•
l S.'i!Yxc4 ( 1 5.i.xc4 ! ? '§'e3+ 1 6.�1 ) l S . :fYxc4 1 6 . .txc4 with advantage for White. .
c) 12 ... i..fS 1 3.fi'xc4 ( 1 3.'ifa4+ ! ? iJ..d 7 1 4.'t';'xd7+ �xd7 l S.fxe5 c3 l S.tlJc4 ! ? c2+ 1 ? ttb4 i..xb4+ 1 8 .axb4) 1 3 . . :Bc3 ( 1 3 . . . i.xd2+ 1 4.i.xd2 'iYe4 l SJlb4 �xc4 1 6.:Xc4±) 1 4.�xc3 .txc3 1 S.l:lb3 iJ..d4 1 6.e3 ( 1 6.e4 ! ?) 1 6 . . . .tbS 1 7 . .tb2 with the initiative for White.
1 1 .e3 Also possible was 1 1 .bxc4. Ftacnik thinks that after 1 1 ... .tfS ( 1 1 . . . 'iWxc4 1 2.'lfxc4 bxc4 1 3 .l:lb5 t'zJcS 1 4 .l:lc5) 1 2.'t§'b2 �xb2 1 3.lb:b2 bxc4 White's position is bad, but that is apparently not true - after 1 4.l::tb S! i.c3 ( 1 4 . . ....� lc6 l S.l::tcS i.d7 1 6.(400) l S.e3, the position is u nclear.
1 1 .. :�xe5 1 1 . . . .tfS? 1 2.�xf5±.
1 2.bxc4 And so, the eS and c4 pawns fall at the same time . A logical outcome . . .
1 2 ... i.f5 1 3.�b2
1 3 .. :�Ye4? Aggressive, but incorrect. Black should have played the obvious 1 3 .. :�Yxb2 1 4. %:xb2 bxc4 1 5 .Axc4. Dunnington be lieves that this position is slightly better for White, but I would evaluate it as unclear, e.g. l S ...:dS 1 6.l:lbS (1 6.0-0 .tc3 !? 1 7.1:1a2 0-0 00, 1 S.�e2 16 ... 0-0 1 7.f3 %:feS 1 8.e4 tljc6 with counterplay) 1 6 . . . i.b6 1 7.e4 .te6 ! ? ( 1 7 . . . i.d7) 1 8. Axe6 fxe6 oo.
1 4.�xb5+ :.; " lc6 Black probably thinks that the activity of his pieces will at least compensate _for the sacrificed pawn , but he underesti· mates White's defensive resources.
1 5 . ..td3? This move looks nice, but in fact, it is a mistake. a) Dunnington suggests 1 S.l:lb3 and then analyses only l S .. :�c2 1 6.'i!Vxc6+ �d8 1 7. '&dS+ r-Jile 7 1 8. 'ti'xa5 �xc1 + 1 9. �e2 +- und 1 5 ... i.xd2+ 1 6.i.xd2 0·0 ( 1 6 . . . :b8? 1 7.�xc6+ 'ti'xcS 1 8 .l:lxb8+ �e7 1 9.:XhS +-) 1 7.'iVd5±; much better is, however, the simple 1 5 . 0-0 with good chances for Black, e.g . : ..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJcS 3.·� ·,f3 e5
al ) 1 6.�d5?? �c2 -+ . a2) 1 6.l:[d3 'ileS 1 7.Dd5 i.e4 1 8.'Wb3 llabS 1 9.l::lb 5 i..xd2+ 20.�xd2 (20.i.. xd2 llxb5 21 .�xb5 I1b8 -+) 20 . . . l:xb5 2 1 .� xb5 l:dS+ 22.�el tiJd4!-+ . a3) 1 6.l::lb2 i..c3 with attack. a4) 1 6.Ad3 '!!r'xg2 1 7.'iYd5 'ili'xd5 1 8.cxd5 i.xd3 1 9.1lxd3 tlJe5 20.t1b3 l:Ifd8 21 .e4 cS with initiative for Black. b) Correct is 1 5 .tlb2 I, after which Black has real problems: bl ) 15 ...Ac3 l S.11b3 i..xd2+ ( l S . . .'t':¥c2 1 7.Dxc3, l S . . . .ta5 1 7.�d5) 1 7.i.xd2 ±, Q 1 5 .l:[b3 i..xd2+ . b2) 1 5 A xd2+ l S.Axd2 0-0 1 7.'�d5 ±. b3) 1S :i!¥e6 1 S.i..e 2 ( l S.'i¥d5? IId8 1 7.'i!'xeS+ AxeS 1 8 . .ie2 tiJe5iSi5) l S ... 0-0 1 7. i..f3 ±. Probably Fedorowicz made his move, expecting 1 5 . . . �xg2 l S.'t':¥xf5 �xhl + 1 7.�e2 .i.xd2 (1 7 . . :i!'xh2 1 S.�e4 '&dS 1 9.'1!¥b5 ±) 1 8 . .txd2 �xh2 1 9 . .te4 �d6 20.'�'b5 0-0 (20 .. .'J7d7 21 .l:b3 +-) 21 . 1!i'xc6 ±, but . . . .
•••
••
1 5 . . :iYxd3! ! A surprise. 1 S.'ti'xcS+ �d8! 1 6 . . . �e7? 1 7.'�c5+ +-. 1 7.'iYxa8+ On 1 7.:b5 or 1 7.lIb2 would follow 1 7 ... i.e4 ! 00 .
191
For the sacrificed rook Black has obtained a strong attack. White should already be looking for a way to draw the game, something that he can achieve with l S.fitf3 i.xd2+ 1 9.i.. xd2 '8xb1 + 20:�d l or 1 S:arxh8 i.xd2+ 1 9 . .ixd2 'iWxb 1 + 20.�e2 '&d3+ 21 .�e 1 �b1 + 22.�e2.
1 8.11b8? This move should cost the American grandmaster the game. 1 8 ... �g4? Soissonet overlooks a beautiful win: 1 8 'iYxc4! 1 9.Uxh8 (1 9.�d 1 i.c2+ 20.�e 1 .td3 2 1 .f3 �xc1 + 22.Wf2 Uxb8 -+) 1 9 ... �xc1 + 20.�e2 .tg4+ 2 1 . �d3 W'xd2+ 22.�c4 i.e2+ 23.�b3 (23. r:&c5 �d6#) 23 . . . �c3+ 24.\t'a4 (24.�a2 �c2+ -+) 24 .. .'tWc4+ 25.r:&xa5 �bS#. 1 9.f3 The only, but sufficient defence. • • •
1 9 .. .'tfYxe3+ 20.�d1 .td7 21 .tlb3 .,ta4 22.�b7 �d3? The final mistake. After 22 . . . i.xd2 23. '6xc7+ �eS ! (23 . . . r:&eS 24 . .txd2 �xb3+ 25.We2±) 24.,txd2 �xb3+ 25.we2 �b8! Black could exchange the queens and due to the opposite coloured bishops he would have retained good chances for a draw, despite White's extra pawn. 23.11e1 + WtS 24.'&eS+ ! 't§'d6 Or 24 ... .txcS 2S.:xd3 +-.
1 7 ...We7
25:�Wxa4 1 :0 Game 60
Izeta - Schweiger Cannes 1 999
'fr
1 .tDf3 iDe6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 e5 4.dxe5 ..tb4+ 5.ttJbd2 dxc4 6.a3 Aa5 7.b4
Chapter 1 0
1 92
1 3.i..x d2 �g4! 1 3 . . . tiJxeS? loses in view of 1 4.tlJxe5 'i¥xd2 1 5.tzJxt7! � 1 5.. :xt7 1 6.l:ad1 +-. .
1 4. .tc3 .txf3 1 5.gxf3 �g5+ 1 6.'�h1 'i¥h5 1 6 . . . tlJxe5? 1 7.'iYdS +-. 1 7.'ii'd 5 l:1feS 1 S.f4 l::[ad8 1 9.�e4
White wants to exchange the c4-pawn and thus achieve a comfortable develop ment. On the other hand, Black gets rid of his troublesome pawn .
7 cxb3 S.'iWxb3 ti.Jge7 9.e3 0-0 Breutigam believes that this n atur�1 . move is dubious ( I do not agree with his opinion) and suggests 9 �g6. He pro vides the following variation : 1 0 . .ib2!? ( 1 0 . .ib5?! 0-0 1 1 ..ixc6 bxc6 1 2.0-0 .ta6oo) 1 0 ... �xe5 1 1 .0-0-0 .txd2+ 1 2.1:xd2 �e7 1 3.�e5 liJxeS 1 4.f4iii . I would definitely not strive for the final position of the analysis if I were Black. Perhaps 1 4.'§'b5+ �c6 ( 1 4 . ..tlJd7 1 5 . .txg7 1:g8 1 6 . .ib2±) 1 5 . .ixg7 ng8 1 6. '§'b2 is even stronger - White has a clear advantage due to h is bishop pair. ...
...
1 0.i.d3 ti.Jg6 1 1 .i.xg6 Breutigam provides this move with an exclamation mark. I would not evaluate so highly the obvious and practically only possibility to save e5.
1 1 ... hxg6 1 2.0-0 Axd2!? Also playable was 12 .. :�e7, e.g. 1 3.�4 .te6 1 4 . .tb2 .tb6 1 5.'l:Va4 nte8 1 6. l:tfd1 l:ad8°o, but the game continuation (along with its idea) seems ev�� be�er to me - Black strives tor a positIon with the motif of a 'good knight versus a bad bishop'.
Black has a good position - he controls the only open file, his knight is stronger than the white bishop and White's light squares are weak. What more could one wish for?
1 9 .. .'�h7? ! This move along with the incorrect plan it pursuits - to bring the rook to h8 - is the main reason for Black's misfortu � e in this game. He could have forced a draw or tried to use his advantages, e.g.: a) 19 I:d3 20.l:ac1 (20:tWxd3 'ii'f3+=) 20 . . . l:ed8 2 1 .e6 15 22.'i¥c4 (22.'&'g2 tld 1 23.ncxd 1 nxd 1 22 . . . ne8 !?) 22 ... 'iVf3+ 23.Wg 1 'ii'g 4+ =. b) 1 9 tDe7 20.e6 16 21 .�xb7 �d5+ (21 . . . l2JdS ! ?) 22:�'xdS tlJxd5 23.i.a5 :lxe6 24.lIfd 1 :ee8 =. ...
=,
••.
c) 19 ne6!? L\ . ti.:Je7 . now e5-e6 is prevented and Black achieves good play on the light squares. ...
. .
20.�g1 �hS?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 i::"': CS 3/-;':J3 e5 The continuation of the erroneous strate gy, which disregards the centre. It was not too late yet for 20 . . . 1:eS, and the white e-pawn would have been blocked, limiting the c3-bishop to a great extent.
21 .1:1g5 The immediate 21 .eS ! ? seems stronger to me. 21 ...�h4 22.�g2 �g8? Another and probably decisive mistake. On 22 ... 1'IheS?! follows 23.15 ! with an attack, but after 22 . . . 1:d3 ! ? the situation is still not clear. 23.e6 t:l:Je7 24.j,b4 c5? Losing immediately. More resilient was 24 . . .l2JcS or 24 ... tZJf5, but then also Black's chances for survival would have been negligible. 25 ..ixc5 27.ng4 1
l':1d2
26.nf1
f6
:0
1 93
6 �e6 •• •
On S ... b5? ! now 7.a4! is very u nplea sant, while if a2-a3 and .ib4-a5 have been played it would be harmless in view of the reply ... a7-aS.
7.e3 7.a3 i.a5 transposes to the variation S.a3 .ia5 7 .�c2 .ieS � Game 59, notes to Black's 7th move (p. 1 S9). In the game Hebert-Ghannoum, Quebec 1 999, White played 7.g3. Further followed 7 b5 S.i.g2 tZJge7 9 .0-0 tlJgS (9 . . . 0-0 1 0.a4 as 1 1 J�d1 'ifbS 1 2.tlJe4 l:dS 1 3. lbdS+ 'tfYxdS 1 4 . .ig5 with ini tiative, if 1 4 . . . hS?, then 1 5 . .ixhS!) 1 0.a4 as 1 1 .l:Id 1 �c8 1 2.tlJg5! /; ,gxe5 1 3. .i.xcS+! tDxcs 1 4. �e4 tlJa5 1 5.axb5 axb5 1 S.&ZJdf3! with a strong attack for the pawn. However, 8 ...'3'd5!? 9.0-0 O-O-O ! ? was very interesting. Breutigam suggests 7 '3'd5 instead of 7 . . . b5, but still believes that after 8.i.g2 tiJxe5 9.0-0 t2Jxf3+ 1 0.tiJxf3 White keeps the initiative due to the threats 1 1 .�a4+ and 1 1 .l2Jg5. Therefore, he evaluates the entire 7.g3-variation as better for White. However, I think that 8 &ZJd4! is m uch stronger, e.g. 9.tiJxd4 (9.�a4+? ! b 5 1 0. 'ifd1 c3! + , 9.�d 1 ? ! 0-0-0+) 9 . . . '6'xg2 1 0.:f1 b5! ? ( 1 0 . . . .ih3?? 1 1 . '6'a4+ +-) 1 1 .tlJxeS (or 1 1 .tlJxb5 .i.h3 1 2.tZJc3 0-0-000) 1 1 . . .fxeS with an un clear position. •••
•••
Game S1
T. lvanov - Legky Russia 1 995
1 .�f3 �c6 2.d4 d5 3.c4 e5 4.dxe5 .tb4+ 5.tiJbd2 dxc4 6.�c2 White starts dealing with the c4-pawn with out playing a2-a3 - as we shall soon see this can be a significant difference. ...
••.
7 ... �d5 As it turns out, White gets good chances for active play after this move. Therefore, 7 . . . b5 should be examined.
8 .te2 0-0-0 .
8 ... tlJge7 is playable, but it does not promise complete equality either, e.g. 9.0-0 i.xd2 (9 . . . tlJxe5 1 0.tlJxe5 '3'xe5 1 1 .tiJxc4 i.xc4 1 2.'3'xc4, and due to his bishop pair and superiority in the centre White is better, Avshalumov-Golikov,
Chapter 1 0
1 94
Budapest 1 989) 1 0.Axd2 tzJxe5 1 1 . tUxeS 'Wxe5 1 2 . .txc4 .i.xc4 1 3.'iJ'xc4;!;, F. Neumann-Maahs, Germany 1 995. Also 8 tZJxe5 9.liJxe5 .txd2+ (9 . . . iYxe5?? 1 0.'Wa4+) 1 0.Axd2 'ti'xe5 1 1 . .txc4 is slightly better for White. Another idea is 8 b5, but then also af ter 9.a4 tlJxe5 1 0.tlJxe5 'i!Vxe5 1 1 .axb5 White's chances are preferable . .•.
••.
9.0-0 �xd2 Or 9 . . . ClJxe5 1 O.tlJxe5 �xe5 1 1 .ClJxc4 'iVd5 ( 1 1 . . . 'Wf6 1 2.�a4 Ac5 1 3 .�a5 with initiative) 1 2. l:d 1 '6'c6 1 3.l:xd8+ �xd8 1 4. R.d2 i.. e 7 ( 1 4 . . . Axd2? 1 5 . �xd2+ <;itc8 1 6.�d4 +-) 1 S .11c1 with initiative for White . 1 0.�xd2 tZJxeS 1 1 .�c3 f6? Better is 1 1 ...tDxf3+ 1 2.Axf3 'WgS, but then too White's active bishop pair gives him more than sufficient com pensation. After 1 3.h4 �xh4 1 4.i.xg7 t�jf6 ( 1M A. Martin) l S.iVc3! wins immediately. Therefore Black must play something else - 1 3.. .'&h6 or 13 . �g6 -, but then again after 1 4.-,wa4 W h ite's initiative is very dangerous. 00,
.
.
1 2 . .txeS! White achieves a great advantage with this somewhat unusual exchange.
13 . . .fxe5 1 3.l:tfd1 �c5 1 4. nxd8+ �d8 1 S.tiJg5 Black is close to losing, e.g. 1 5 . . .'ife7 1 6 .tlJxe6+ 'Wxe6 1 7.Axc4 +- or 1 5 . . . <;ite 7 1 6 . tlJxe6 �xe6 1 7 .i.xc4+ � e7 1 8 .b4! �c6 ( 1 8 . . . 'm'xb4 1 9.1:b1 +-) 1 9.1¥c3 'm'd6 20.f4 ! +-. However, his generous opponent offered him a draw . . . V2: V2
1 95
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxd5 1}Yxd5 4.liJf3 e5
Chapter 1 1 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJc6 3.cxd5 'i'xd5 4.tlJf3 e5 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 This continuatio n , preferred by many strong grandmasters, is the topic of the cu rrent chapter, as well as the two following ones. White immediately clarifies the situation in the centre and lures the black q ueen to d5, so that he can attack her later with tlJb 1 -c3. I n contrast t o 3 .tDf3 Ag4 4.cxd5, here the black bishop is still on c8.
3 ... �xd5 4.tZJf3 White protects d4, develops the knight and plans S.tlJc3. However, the seemingly quieter 4.e3 turns out to be more dangerous � Chapter 12 - 13.
4 eS! ...
Consistent - Black contin ues his agg res sio n in the centre. 4 . . . e6? is too passive and locks up the c8-bishop.
The usual continuation here is 5.tlJc3.
5.tlJc3 Ab4 S.e3 exd4 7.exd4 � Game 63 surprisingly transposes to the Goring Gambit.
In the main line with 6.i.d2 and so on the impeding sacrifice . . . e3! ? is a major motif:
S.tlJc3 .tb4 6 .td2 .txc3 7 .txc3 e4: S.tlJe5 e3 Q Game 64 S.tlJd2 ti:JfS Q Game 65 S.tlJd2 e3!? Q Game 65 .
•
As for the continu ation 5.e3, after 5 . . . cxd4 6.t2Jc3 i.b4 i t transposes t o the variation 5.tlJc3 i.b4 6.e3 exd4. Game 62
Drzemicki - Masternak Siupsk 1 992
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.tlJf3 e5 5.dxe5? ! One should not be so greedy! White wins a pawn, but significantly falls behind with his development and also has problems with his king. 5 ...�xd l + 6.�dl .tg4 Also strong is 6 .tc5!? 7.e3 (or 7.�e 1 tlJb4 8 .tlJa3 i.eG 9.b3 0-0-0 1 0.e4 01=7, and thanks to the endangered situation of White's king and the weakness of the e5-pawn Black has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. Breutigam's suggestion is also good : 7 Ag4 8.Af4 tDge7 9.e3 0-0-0 with initiative) 7 . .tg4 8.,te2 (8.�e1 0-0-0 with initiative) 8 . 0-0..0+ 9.�d2 tDge7 1 0. h3 hf3 1 1 . ...
Accord ing to the modern theory this pawn should not be taken. We will see what happens if White still takes it in
5.dxeS � Game 62
...
.
.
.
.
Chapter 1 1
1 96
i,xf3 tlJxeS with initiative for Black, Spanier-Head, corr. 1 996.
l:Iac1 ? ! :ld5, but after 1 7.e4 White cou ld have fought a little longer.
7.j,f4
1 7 . . . llxd2+ 1 8.'�·c3 Xlhd8 1 9.�b4
Watson and Dunnington also analyse 7.h3 0-0-0 8 .tzJbd2, and both of them believe that after a �h5 Black has a good position, e.g. 9.g4 .'i!.g6 or 9.g3 .'i!.xf3 1 0.exf3 liJxeS, while a.. Axf3 9. gxf3 tlJxeS 1 0.�c2 fiJe7 leads to an un clear position. I can only agree with them. ...
.
7...tlJge7! S.tzJbd2 C2:Jg6 9. i..g 3 0-0-0 1 0.�c1 .ab4
1 9 ...I:tb2+! The prosaic 19 . . . lZJc6+ should also be enough, but Masternak saw a beautiful win.
20.�xa5 l:td5 ! 21 .a4 �b8! Threatening 22 ... b6 23.�a6 �c8#.
22. i..x c7+ Now practically all Black's pieces are in play, while his opponent suffers from the poor coordination among his unde veloped pieces.
1 1 .a3 1 1 .e3 tDgxeS+. 1 1 . .. ..txd2+ 1 2.tiJxd2 tlJgxe5 1 3. f3 .te6 1 4.e3 White weakens the d3-square, but how else could he try to develop his pieces? 1 4 .. ,f�Jd3+ 1 5.�c2 1 5.i.xd3 l:xd3 1 6. e4 X1hd8 -+. 1 5 .. .tiJxb2 1 6 . .tbS At last the bishop is free, but for the price of a pawn .
1 6 ... tiJa5 1 7.Wxb2? Loses immediately. Bad was also 1 7.
There is nothing else.
22 ... �xc7 23.:thc1 + ·j,;b8 24.e4 l:td6 2S.iJ1 In the hope of 25 ... b6+ 26.'�a6 Ac8+ 27 .l:lxc8+ �xc8 28. �xa 7, and the game would have continued further. 2S ... l:t.a6+! White resigned. On the only move 26.Axa6 follows 26 . . . b7-b6 with a mate. 0:1 Game 63
Mastrovasilis - Skembris Agios Nikolaos 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4/{jf3 e5 Sfijc3 .ab4 6.e3
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxd5 �'xd5 4.(, ·f3 e5 The main continuation 6.�d2 will be analysed in Games 64 - 66. Now and then 6.dxe5 is also played. Now this exchange is a little better than it is on the previous move, but Black still has fully satisfactory play, e.g. :
1 97
a double-edged position , Soman-Sasi kiran, Mumbai 2003.
7.exd4 ...
a) 6 '4!¥xd 1 + 7.�xd1 tiJge7 8.Af4 (8.tlJb5 i.a5 9.�d2 Ab6) 8 . . . .te6 9.e4 0-0-0+ 1 O. �c2 h6 1 1 .h3 a5 1 2 .�e3 tt:Jg6 1 3.Ae2 tljgxe5 1 4.tlJxe5 tlJxe5 °o, R. Smith-Solomon, Melbourne 1 996, or 7 ... A g4 8 . h3 0-0-0+ (8 . . i. h 5 ! ? Dunnington) 9.i..d 2 i.xf3 1 0 .gxf3 tlJxe5 1 1 . �c2 tlje7 1 2.Af4 tlj7c6 1 3 . .txe5 'lJxe5=, Mohota·Krush, Yerevan 1 999. .••
.
b) 6 Axe3+ 7.bxc3 �a5 8.�b3 ••.
(8.Ab2 i..g4 9 .e3 tlJxe5 with i nitiative for Black, Grivanis-Taylor, corr. 1 991 ) 8 .tlJxe5 9.tDxe5 (9.�b4 tLro3+ 1 0. exf3 '1!i'xb4 1 1 .cxb4 .te6 =, Wallinger Meulner, Bavaria 1 988) 9 :t'ixe5 1 0 . e3 .te6 1 0.�b5+ 'fi'xb5 1 1 .i.. xb5+ c6 1 2 . .te2 tzJf6, and Black's better pawn structure compensates for the opponent's bishop pair, Gontcharov-Bouillot, Paris 1 993. ..
..
6 exd4 ...
6 .tg4 7 .te2 exd4 8.exd4 transposes to the main variation, but in this case Black must also reckon with 8.0-0!? Af ter 8 ... .txc3 9.bxc3 d3 1 0.iVxd3 'fi'xd3 1 1 .�xd3 .ixf3 1 2 .g xf3 in the game Quinteros-Kavalek, Lanzarote 1 974, occurred a complicated endgame with its pros and cons for both sides. White has the bishop pai r, but his pawn structure is clearly worse. In my opinion the chances should be approximately equal. In his tu r n after 6 ... .tg4 7.i..e2 the second player has the additional possi bility 7... .txe3+ !? 8.bxc3 e4. e.g. 9.�2 .i.xe2 1 O. 'ti'xe2 CZJf6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2.a4 1:fe8 1 3 .�b5 b6 1 4.c4 'Wd7 1 5 .tiJb3 a6 1 6.�g5 h6 1 7.�g3 iDe7 (6 . .l2:Jf5) with ••.
.
,
.
Suddenly a position from the Goring Gambit Declined has occurred ( 1 .e4 e5 2.tlJf3 CZJc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3 d5 5.exd5 'ilt'xd5 6.cxd4 i.. b4+ 7.tzJc3), which is considered to be harmless for Black.
7 i.g4 ...
This seems a logical continuation Black increases the pressure on d4. Also good is 7 . .tLJf6, e.g. 8.Ae2 tiJe4 9 .id2 .txe3! 1 0.bxc3 0-0 1 1 .0-0 tlJa5 ! 1 2.1:te1 b5! 1 3 . .id3 f5! with control over the light squares, Nyholm-Alekhine, Stockholm 1 9 1 2, and 'Vassilios'-Wis newski, ICC 3/0 200 1 . Instead of 1 1 .0-0 White can consider 1 1 .e4 �d6 1 2 .d5, but then also after 1 2 . . . Cl:Jb8 followed by ... tlJa6-c5 White's pawns are securely blockaded and the position is favourable for Black. If Black does not wish to give this option to his opponent, he can choose 10 ... Cl:Ja5 !? (Wisnewski) , and then 1 1 .0-0 0-0 leads again to the variation 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .0-0 tlJa5. .
•
8.i.e2 i.xf3 9 .txf3 �c4 1 0.'t't'b3 Black has an easy game after 10 .txe6+ bxc6 ! 1 1 .'t?Ye2+ �xe2+ 1 2 .�xe2 0-0-0, e.g. 1 3.�e3 Cjje 7 1 4Jlac1 l:lhe8 1 5. .
•
Chapter 1 1
1 98
%%hd 1 Aa5 (or 1 5 ... tiJf5, and the c6pawn is not weaker than d4, Pirrot Sturua, Biel 1 996) 1 6.'�(f3 i.b6 %:%, Zarnicki-Soppe, Buenos Aires 1 998.
1 0 ...'+i'xb3 1 1 .axb3
1 1 .�xc6+ bxc6 1 2.axb3 t2Je7=i=, Moreno Ruiz-Gallego, Madrid 1 992. After 1 1 .axb3 the first player lays his hopes upon his bishop pair and the activity on the queenside. However, Black's evidently better pawn structure promises him good counter chances.
1 2 . 0-0-0 .
.
Or 1 2 86 1 3.0-0 0-0-0 ( 1 3 .. Jld8 1 4. 1:a4 i.d6 1 5.b4 ! ? with initiative for W hite, Mastrovasilis-C.Gabriel, Corfu 1 999) 1 4.l::lfd 1 (Black is also OK after 1 4.:a4 AdS 1 5.l:[c1 llhe8 1 6.g3 lDb4, Mastrovasilis-Jirka, Oropesa del Mar 1 999) 14 �b8 1 5.%1a4 AdS 1 6. l:[da1 liJb4, and the first player cannot make progress on the queenside, while his u nfavourable pawn structure can cause him some troubles, Villafane Roca-Sanz Alonso, La Coruna 1 999. ...
...
1 3.0-0 as Interesting was also 1 3 ... a6 and only after 1 4.:a4 - 1 4 . . . a5 . 1 4.nfdl �b8 1 S.nac1 tiJf5 1 6.CZJb5
1 1 .tzJge7 1 1 . . .tDxd4 1 2.i.xb7;!:. ••
1 2 .1i.e3 •
1 2.0-0 a6 with a comfortable and harmonious position for Black has been also played, e.g. 1 3.1:a4 �d6 (good is also 1 3 . . . a51? 1 4.tzJb5 0-0-0 L\ tiJd5, Karapanos-Hatzimanolis, Athens 2000) 1 4.tZJe4 ( 1 4 . .tg5 f6 1 5. Ah5+ tlJg6 1 6. 1:e1 + tiJce7 1 7.Ad2 0-0-0 1 8 .g3 �b8 1 9.tlJe4 tz:Jd5 20.I1a5 i..b4 2 1 .jLxb4 112: 112, Ljubojevic-Ree, Amsterdam 1 972) 1 4 0-0-0 ( 1 4 ... 0-0 ! ? 1 5. CZJxd6 cxd6 1 6.�f4 d5 1 7.�d6 tUeS) 1 5Jld 1 �b8, and Black's better pawn structure fully compensates his opponent's bishop pair, Jedlicka-Stocek, Czech Republic 2000. ••.
...
Threatening 1 7.dS. White's activity on the queenside seems to be getting more and more dangerous, but Skembris finds a good opportunity to neutralize it with a positional pawn sacrifice and play his own trump cards.
1 6 .. .l:td7! Now 1 7.d5 is no longer dangerous - 1 7. . . CZJxe3 1 8.fxe3 tiJeS=F. White sees no way for further active play and accepts the sacrifice. 1 7.i.xc6 bxc6 1 8.rbc6 �b7 1 9.:icc1
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 iDe6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.tDf3 e5 It is also possible to return the pawn immediately - 1 9.1Idc1 tDxe3 20.fxe3 .td2 2 1 .111 c4 (21 .11xc7 +? Ilxc7 22. :Xc7 + �b6 23. :rc5 .txe3+ 24.�1 .txd4 =t) 2 1 . . . .txe3+ 22.�f1 with a drawish endgame.
1 9 ...I1eS 20J1d3 20. .tf4? c6 21 .tDc3 �d4+.
20 ...l:de7 Now it is clear that the first player must return the material. 21 .�1 (?!) The endgame after 21 .d5 tLJxe3 22. :Xe3 llxe3 23.fxe3 llxe3 (23 Ad2? 24.llxc7+ �b6 25.tzJd6) 24.tDxc7 (24. :Xc7+? Wb6 -+) 24 ... 11e5 25.¢12 .td6 26.tlJb5 l:xd5 27.�d6+ lIxd6 28.�e3 would be somewhat easier to defend. ...
21 ... e6 22.tiJe3 tiJxe3+ 23. fxe3 l:1xe3 24Jlxe3 l:lxe3 2S.Ile1 :xe1 + 26. �xe1 ...
1 99
31 .�c4 .i.b4 32.tiJdS Ad2 33.b4 axb4 34.tiJxb4
Game 64
Scheffner - Baumhus 2nd Bundesliga 1 988
This endgame is slightly better for Bl ack in view of his favourable pawn structu re , but he did not manage to convert his advantage i nto a win . The rest fol lows without any further commentary.
26...e5 27.dxcS �e6 28.�e2 AxeS 29.�d3 fS 30.h3 �d6
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxdS �xd5 4.tiJf3 eS S.tlJc3 .ab4 6.�d2 This conti nu ation is played most often. White unpins his knight and fo rces the exchange on c3, after which he acquires the bishop pair. 6 ... ..txe3 7. .txe3
Chapter 1 1
200
With this sacrifice Black wants to impede White's development and also achieve a favourable pawn structure. Another agreeable alternative is 8 ... tlJxe5 9.dxe5 .ve7, e.g. 1 0.e3 'i!r'xd 1 + 1 1 JIxd1 .ae6 1 2.b3 tDd5 1 3.i.d4 0-0-0 1 4.i.c4 tljb4! l S.:&.xe6+ fxe6 1 6.0-0 ? ! (1 6.�e2 lldS 1 7JXd2 c 5 1 B . .i.c3 :Xd2+ 1 9.i.xd2 ClJd3 20.:&.c3=) 1 6 ... 11d5 1 7.a4 cS 1 8.:tc1 b6 1 9.l:1c4 l:hd8 with initiative for Bl ack, S. Martin-Mel\ado, I bercaja 1 994.
7 . e4 Black gains space in the centre and neutralizes the c3-bishop. ..
Also 7. .exd4?! 8.liJxd4 has been played: .
a) The endgame after 8...liJxd4 9.�xd4 'iYxd4 1 0 . .txd4 promises White a lasting advantage due to his bishop pair. b) 8 . f 'lf6 b1 ) 9.f3 0-0 1 0.e4 ne8 1 1 .i.e2 '8'g5 1 2.tDxc6 (1 2.0-0 lld8 1 3.<;2th 1 tLixd4 1 4.i.xd4 ,'ZJh5! 1 5. i.e3 tL)g3+ 1 6.hxg3 'lVhS+ 1 7 . �g 1 :Xd 1 1 8 .I1fxd 1 i.e6 +) 1 2 .. :�Yxg2 1 3.lIf1 bxc6, Unzicker Barden, Hastings 1 950, and instead of 1 4.'iWd2, after which Black could reply with 1 4 . ClJdS ! and the position is un clear, 1 4.�d4 seems very dangerous, e.g. 14 . .:�xh2 l S.:g 1 'iVh4+ ( 1 S . . . �h8 1 6JXxg7! �h4+ 1 7 .�d2 '6'h6+ 1 8 .�c2 'i!Vxg7 1 9.1lg 1 ! +-) 1 6. wd2 '8h6+ 1 7. �c2 �B l B.:Xg7! +-. .
.
.
b2} 9.e3 llJe4 1 O.tiJbS! �xd 1 + l 1 .l:xdl 0-0 1 2 .llJxc7 .vxc3 1 3 . bxc3 iLg4 1 4 . tiJxaB i.xd 1 1 5.�xd l %ba8 1 6.i.b5, and in the game Martinez-Agree, New York 1 99 1 , Black did not obtain suf ficient compensation for the pawn.
8.tDe5 8 .tDd2 Q Games 65-66.
8 ...e3!?
9.�d3? This move gives Black a significant ad vantage. Let us examine some other possibilities : a) 9.f3 tZJge7 1 O. 'i:Vd 3 1 0.'iWb3?! 'ti'xb3 1 1 .axb3 tZJxeS 1 2.dxe5 iLe6 1 3.b4 liJdS 1 4.g3 a6 1 S . .tg2 ti.)xc3 1 6. bxc3 0-0-0 1 7 .0-0 :d2=t, Haselhorst Tolstikh, Decin 1 995. 1 0.g3 bS (1 0 . . . f6 ! ? 1 1 .tZJxc6 �xc6) 1 1 . a3 llJxeS 1 2.dxeS cS 1 3.:&.g2 i.b7 1 4 .0-0 0-0 00, Antonsen-Lindfeldt, Den mark 2000. 1 0.llJxc6! ? �xc6 1 1 .'fYd3? ti.JdS+, Pock steiner-Brandner, 2001 , 1 1 .dS! 00.
1 0 .. .lDxe5 1 1 .dxe5 'iYxd3 1 2.exd3 ClJd5 1 2 . . . :&.f5 1 3.d4 0-0-0 1 4 . .tc4 .te61 l S .b3 l:d7 1 6.'�e2 tiJf5 1 7.11adl :hd8 1 8.d5 .txdS 1 9.i.xd5 Uxd5 20'%Ixd5
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLlc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4J�f3 eS
20 1
lIxdS 21 .g4 1037 22.
1 3.g3 Or 1 3.d4 AeS 1 4.g3 cS ! with a good position for Black, Mont Reynaud-J. Watson . Cardoza 1 998
13 ...Af5 1 4.d4 0-0-0 1 5 .tc4 cS! 16.':c1 (l S . .txdS llxdS 1 7.dxcS Ad3!) 1 S...Wb8 1 7.dxcS Ae6 1 8.i.aS llc8 •
1 9 .We2 :XcS 20.i&.xdS :xaS 21 . .:txe6 fxeS=, Veingold-Kiltti . Helsinki 1 996. b) 9.fxe3 �� 'fS Also very good is Wisnewski's choice 9 ... ClJxeS! ? 1 0.dxeS Ae6 with comfor table play, e.g. 1 1 .'t'ixdS ClJxdS 1 2.Ad4 .tfS 1 3.g3 .i.e4 1 4.:g 1 b6 +, Bonin Wisnewski, ICC 2000, or 1 1 . �d4 cS 1 2.'f!i'xdS ClJxdS 1 3.�2 .i.fS +, 'Oddjob' Wisnewski . ICC 2003.
1 0.�b3 1 0.ClJxcS 'it'xcs 1 1 .dS tZJxdS 1 2 . .Ji.xg7 tlJxe3 1 3.l:lc 1 tZJxd l 1 4.:Xc6 1:g8 l S. lIxc7 llxg7 l S.Wd 1 .:te6 1 7.b3 .td5 �. Zemerov-Belotelov, Budapest 1 997. 10 ...'tWxb3 1 1 .axb3 tZJxeS 1 2.dxe5 ;�; le4 �, Erd ogan-Skembris. Antalya 2001 . c) 9.tlJxcS exf2+ 1 0.�xf2 bxcS!? The alternative is 1 0 ...'WxcS, e.g. 1 1 .d5 �g6 1 2.e4 tLlfS 1 3 . .td3 �4+ 1 4. �e2 °o. Helving-Birnboim. Petah Tiqwa 1 995.
1 1 .e41 1 1 . 'ir'd3 tzJfS 1 2. e3 0-0 1 3 . .te2 idS+, Malisauskiene-Bandziene, Vilkaviskis 1 994. 1 1 .e3 ClJfS 1 2 . .te2 tlJe4+ 1 3.Wg 1 0-0 1 4.i&.t3 1:eB 1 S . .txe4 l:xe4 with initiative for Black, Borges-Sosa, San Felipe 1 999. 1 1 .. :�xe4, and now:
c l ) 1 2 . .td3 �f4+ 1 3.1if3 'ir'xf3+ 1 4. wxf3 .te6 l S . .i.e4 i.d5 +, Bonin Wisnewski. ICC 2000. c2) 1 2.d5 tLlfS 1 3.i.xfS gxfS 1 4.dxcS 0-0 l S . .te2 DeB with initiative for Black, Kekki-Keskisarja. Finland 1 996. c3) 1 2.'ft'd2 �f5+ ( 1 2 .. .t2�fS ! ? !J. 1 3.:e1 O-O ! !l 1 3.Ad3 0-0) 1 3.� 1 ,J�JS 1 4. Ad3 �dS oo. c4) 1 2.i.c4 1? �f5+ ! (1 2 . . . i.e6 ? ! 1 3. lle l 'i}Yf5+ 1 4.�g l &De7 l S.:e5 �gS l S.Axe6 fxeS 1 7.�e2 Wd7 1 8.:e 1 ±, 1 2 . . . llJe7?! 1 3.11e1 '6'h4+ 1 4.Wg 1 0-0 l S . .i.b4± !J. lS . . De8? 1 6 .�b3 �xd4+ 1 7.<;t-h 1 �fS l 8.:xe7! lbe7 1 9J1f1 +-) .
1 3:�f3 �xf3+ 1 4.�xf3 �7 1 5.:&e1 .teS! (l S . . . �8 l S.:1eS f6 1 7.l:lcS with initiative for W hite) 1 6.i.xe6 fxe6 1 7. :XeS Wd7 1 8.11he1 llJds, and with such a knight Black is definitely not worse.
9 exf2+ 1 0.'�xf2 CZJf6 1 1 . 'iWf3? Another mistake. It was necessary to play l 1 .ClJxcS, though after 1 1 ... bxc6 ! Black would have had a great advan tage in view of his control over the light central squares and the unsafe position of White's king. The alternative 1 1 ... �xc6 1 2 .dS 'tlVd6 is also very good. ...
1 1 CZJxe5 1 2.dxe5 t/.Je4+ 1 3.�e1 tiJxc3 1 4.�xc3 0-01 ••.
Chapter 1 1
202
8 ... [:-L -1f6 A good alternative is S e3 1? 9.fxe3 tiJf6 � Game 66. •..
9.e3 0-0
White's position is terrible. His king is in the centre and cannot castle anymore, the rooks are not connected, the bishop cannot take part in the game. And all that cost Black nothing !
1 5.b3 Also after 1 5.'t§'xc7 lld8 1 6.'t\Yc3 Af5 the game would not have continued for long. 1 5 ... Af5 1 6J:td1 'iYe4 1 7.];;[g 1 White tries to free himself a little and to this end he gives a pawn away. However, that does not help him either. 17 . . .'tWh4+ 1 8.g3 �xh2 1 9.1::1g 2 'iWh1 20.ttd4 �ad8 21 .e3 �h3 22J�"[f2 �xf1 23.I!xf1 �g2 24.g4 �g3+ 0:1
Black has practically completed his development, while the first player has yet to solve the problem with h is king. The black knight has the beautiful d5square. The possible advantage of White's bishop pair is virtually non existent, at least for the moment. All that comes to say that Black can be satisfied with the outcome of the opening.
1 0.�b3 On 1 0.i.c4? would follow 1 0 .. :�Yig5 .t1. 1 1 .O-O? i.h3. Sometimes 1 0.'&c2 is also played, but then, as the practice has shown, Black achieves a dangerous initiative: 1 0 :e8 1 1 .Ac4 'iff5 (quite playable is also 1 1 . . . �h5 ! ? 1 2.a3 �e6 1 3 . .,txe6 :xe6 with a promising position , Karhanec-A.Maier, Pardubice 1 996) 1 2.�f1 'i+Yg6 1 3.tiJg3 Ae6 (1 3 ... h5! ? Watson) 14.JLxe6 :Xe6 1 5.�b3 :Cd6!?, and now: ...
Game 65
E. Kahn
-
Jeric
Budapest 1 993
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.�f3 e5 S.eiJc3 i.b4 6.i.d2 Axe3 7 . .txc3 e4 8.tiJd2 The move 8.�e5 was analysed in Game 64.
a) 1 6:�xb7 l'::tbS 1 7:�a6 ( 1 7.�xc7? liJd5 -+) 1 7 .. .tDxd4 1 S:t!Vxa 7 tLlc2+ 1 9. �1 llbd8 20.11c l ClJd5 ! � d 21 .:Xc2? tDxc3 22.bxc3 %Id l + 23.�e2 Ilxh 1 24. tDxh 1 �g4+ -+ .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4/�--1f3 eS
203
b) 1 6.0-0 tlJds 1 7.'i!¥xb7 IleB 1 B.l%ae1 h5 with good compensation for the mis sing pawn, Petrov-Aavinsky, U AS 1 940.
1 0 ... '*'f5 After the queen exchange Black would not have any active play.
1 1 .�b5 tlJdSI 1 2J1el tlJce7! 1 3 . .tb4 e6 Black entirely controls the dS-square. 1 4.iYc4 He8 1 S . ..txe7 This bishop was not particularly active and therefore White exchanged it for a piece which controls the d5-square.
1 5 ...I:lxe7 1 S:�e5 )leS 1 7. Ac4 White proceeds with his plan. He does not wish to see a black knight on dS. On 1 7.Ae2 follows 17 ... 1:[g6 ! . 1 7 ... ]:[16 1 8Jlfl It is very dangerous to castle, since Black's pieces are extremely well po sitioned for attack on the kingside.
1 8 ... .te6 1 9 . .txdS .txd5 20.:c3 After the exchange of Black's beautiful knight W hite wants to develop his initiative on the queenside, but his king is stuck in the centre and Black proves that this is of great significance in just a few moves. 20 ...�d7 21 .1:Ia3 In order to get to the white king the second player must open the position, but how to do that?
21 ... b6! This move looks like a mistake, but it is not. Now after any retreat of the queen Black achieves a strong attack by sacrificing a pawn with ... c6-cS, e.g. 22:�c2 cS! 23.tL!xe4 :te6 24.tDgS 1:Ig6. But seemingly White has a nice tactical refutation ? 22.�xb6 Did Black miss that? 22 ... c5! Now Black's idea becomes clear. He sacrifices material in order to open the position. The white king is now i n trouble! 23.�a5 Immediately loses 23.�xcS J:1c6 24.�b4 :tcl + 2S.c;!(e2 �g4+.
23 ... cxd4 24.exd4 AeS ! 25. �c5 i&.b5 ! Beautifully played ! The rook cannot move: 26.Ilg 1 l:k6 ! -+ . 2S.llJxe4 l:tcS! 27.�gS �xd4 28.f3 Axfl 29.�xf1 fUxb2 Here the first player could simply resign, but he played a couple more moves. 30.hte3 l:tg6 31 .�d5 �xg2+ 32.<;!te1 �g1 + 0:1
Chapter 1 1
204 Game 66 H. Philipp corr. 1 977
Packroff
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.tZJf3 e5 5.tZJc3 ..tb4 6 . ..td2 .axc3 7 ..txc3 e4 8.tlJd2 e3 !? .
We have already seen this idea in the variation 8.C2:JeS. Black sacrifices a pawn but hinders White's coordination.
9.fxe3 tZJf6 White h as an extra pawn and the bishop pair. However, both his bishops are passive at the moment, his king is in the centre and the kingside cannot be developed easily.
iDxdS 1 3 . .txg7 Dg8 1 4 . .th6 .tig6 1 5. .tf4!, Lokotar-J . E riksson, Hyvinkaa 1 994, or 1 5.Ah6�, Trojacek-P. Novak, Czech Republic 1 996. After 1 0 . . . .te6 the variation splits: a1 ) 1 1 .Wxd5 Axd5 Black is a pawn down, but his centra lized position, better development and favourable pawn structure fully compen sate for the small material deficit. a1 1 ) 1 2.1:1g1 h5! (1 2 . . . 0-0?! 1 3.g4 ! 11fe8 1 4.gS ':�e4 l S.CZJxe4 Axe4 1 6J�g4 AdS 1 7.�2�, Teske-Bandza, Mainz 1 995) 1 3.e4 ( 1 3.g3 0-0-0 1 4. h3 :the8 1 5.�2 tieS l S.g4 hxg4 1 7.hxg4 ::th8 1 8.g5 tlJe4+ 1 9.tlJxe4 i.,xe4 20.IIg3 llh2+ 21 . �e1 tlJe7�, Hager-Grabher, Austria 1 997) 1 3 . . tiJxe4 1 4.tlJxe4 i.xe4 1 5.d5 i.. x d5 1 6 .i..x g7 1:g8 1 7 .,tc3 0-0-0 with an easy game for Black , Loffler-Thiel, Berlin 1 993. a1 2) 1 2.e4 (White tries to free himself with this pawn sacrifice) 1 2 tlJxe4 1 3.e3 0-0-0 1 4.llJxe4 i.,xe4 1 5.Ac4 f6 l S.�2 Ithe8, and the absolute control over the central e4- and dS-squares gives Black, at least, sufficient com pensation for White's bishop pair, Bairachny-Panchenko, Yalta 1 996. In teresting was also 13 ... tiJxc3!? 1 4.bxc3 0-0-0 l S.Ad3 :1he8 1 6. �2 i.e6 A 1 7.e4? iDxd4! 1 8.cxd4 t1xd4 1 9.�e3 %%ed8 -+. .
•••
1 0.ClJf3 With the idea g2-g3 and .tf1 -g2. How ever, this plan has the drawback of being too slow. Other possibilities: a) 1 O.�b3 .te6 Bad is 1 O 'iVgS? in view of 1 1 e4 ± e.g . 1 1 ... tlJg4 1 2.dS tiJe7 1 3.,td4, Gozco Gara, Oropesa del Mar 1 998 or 1 1 'i¥e3 1 2 .dS fi)g4 1 3.0-0-0, Radziewicz Krynicka, Augustow 1 996, with a great advantage for White in both cases. 1 O . :�fS also is not sufficient for com plete equality 1 1 .d5 �xd5 1 2 :�'xd5 ...
.
,
. . .
.
-
a2) 1 1 .�xb7 tDxd4! 1 2.'ii'xdS tiJc2+ 1 3.�2 tDxdS ( 1 3 . . . .txd5! ? 1 4.e4 tlJxa1 1 5.exd5 CiJxdS 1 6 .txg7 :g800) 1 4.i.xg7 %%g8 1 5J:tc l tiJdxe3 1 6.i.hS tlJg4+ 1 7 .'�g 1 , Kiltti-Terasti , Tampere 1 998. 1 7 . . . tlJxhS 1 8.lbc2 0-0-0, and White's paralysed kingside compensates for the missing pawn. .
b) 10.e41? White returns the pawn immediately, in order to b ri n g his pieces into play as fast as possible.
1 0 tiJxe4 •••
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 liJcS 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.';: 'f3 e5 b1 ) 1 1 .tlJxe4 'i!Vxe4 1 2.d5 iZJe7!? 1 2 . . . �h4+?! 1 3.g3 'Be4 1 4.l:tg l 'DeS 1 5.1.g2 �f5 l S.'fIa4+ 1.d7 1 7.'i!Vb4 with initiative for White. 1 2 . . . 'De5 1 3.�d4 �xd4 1 4.R.xd4 fS=, Deze-Lanzendorfer, Delmenhorst 1 988.
And now back to the main game.
1 0 ...0-0 1 1 .g3? ! Stronger i s 1 1 .tiJe5, but then also after 1 1 ...tDxe5 1 2.dxe5 'i!¥xdl + 1 3.l:[xd l 'De4 his position is not particularly good.
1 1 ... tiJg4 ! 1 2.i.d2
1 3.'tIYd4 1 3.i.xg7 l:tg8 1 4.�d4 'iixd5 1 5.:d l �xd4 l S.i.xd4 .teS 1 7.a3 0-0-0 with comfortable play for Black, Arkell Hazelton, Southampton 1 985. l 3.dS cxdS 1 4.1.xg7 (1 4.'iYxdS 0-0 with comfortable play for Black, Cajzler-B. Kovacevic, Bizovac 200 1 ) 1 4 ... :g8 1 5. i.d4 tiJf5 l S.i.f2 tiJh4 oo, Kelecevic-Hei linger, Liechtenstein 1 988, 1 5 . . . �h3 ! ?
205
1 2:�cl :le8 1 3.i.d2 transposes to the game.
1 2 ne8 ...
1 3 ... .tfS!? Good is also 1 3 . . . �xd4 1 4 . .txd4 tDxd5 1 5 . .txg7 I1g8 l S . .td4 .tfS, Loureiro-da Silva, Paulisto 1 998, and Sargac-J .NiII, Krk 2004.
14.l:[d1 1 4.�xg7 :g8 1 5.�e5 0-0-0 l S:�xe4 .txe4 1 7 . .tfS nd7�.
1 4...lId8 l 4 . . .fS ! ?
1 S.'tixg7 llg8 l S.�e5 �xe5 1 7.i.xe5 tiJxd5�, Tsemekhman-Calton, Lansing 1 997. b2) 1 1 .e3!1 0..0 1 1 . . . tiJxd2?! 1 2.'iYxd2 0-0 1 3.b3 Il Ac4 with i nitiative, Moskalenko-Lazovic, Hollabrunn 1 998. 1 1 ... tDxc3! ? 1 2. bxc3 0-0 00. 1 2 .tc4 liJxc3 1 3 . .txdS tiJxdl 1 4. wxd l tiJe7 1 5 . .tf3 (or 1 S.i.b3 C'.f5) 1 5 . . . tiJf5 with a complicated endgame.
For the sacrificed pawn Black has a huge advantage in development and a dangerous attack. Now the only chance for White is 1 3.i.g2, but still after the simple 1 3 . . .tiJxe3 1 4.i.xe3 �e3 1 5.�d2 lIe7 l S.0-0 id5 his position is obviously worse. Packroff, however, did not wish to give back the material so easily . . .
1 3.�c1 ? . . . and regretted that at once:
•
1 3 tiJxd4! ...
0:1
Chapter 1 2
206
Chapter 1 2 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.t2Jc3 �b4 6.�d2 �xc3 7.bxc3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 This is the most topical continuation . White protects d4 with the pawn, clears the way for the f1 -bishop and keeps the op-tion of developing the knight to either f3 or e2.
The alternative 7.jt.xc3 is the topic of Chapter 1 3.
4 ... e5 ! Consistent and logical - Black immedia tely attacks the opponent's centre.
5.tlJc3 i.b4 It becomes clear that W hite has not won a tempo with his last move. But now he can force the exchange of the b4-bishop. 6.j.d2 The usual continuation. (6.a3 � Game 88, 6.llJf3 � 4.llJf3 e5 5. tLlc3 �b4 6.e3, Chapter 1 1 , Game 63) 6 . .. i.xc3 Black concedes the bishop pair, but achieves an advantage in development. The entire line is critical for the second player. It is true that there is hardly any danger for him of being swept away, the threat is more of a strategic nature namely, the first player will demonstrate the superiority of his bishops in the middlegame . Black must play very consistently and purposefully in order to guarantee him self sufficient counter chances. In any case, the forthcoming battle promises to be very interesting and rich in ideas. 7.bxc3
By taking back with 7.bxc3 White keeps the d2-bishop passive for the moment and its activation remains an important task at hand. On the other hand, another pawn approaches the ce � t �e and Whi !e gets more options for gaining space In the centre, e.g. c3-c4 followed by d4-d5 or f2-f3 with the idea e3-e4. From a static point of view, Black must try to fix White's pawns and strive �or a closed position , in which his knights would be more active than White's bishops. But we should not forget that the second player has a certain de velopment advantage at the moment. Therefore. it is possible that he, con trary to the static concept of strategy, will open the position and develop a dangerous attack. The variations are:
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 -'tJc6 3.cxd5 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 5.�c3 .tb4 6.�d2 �xc3 7.bxc3
7 exd4?! Q Game 67
Game 67
••.
has different disadvantages, as will soon be clarified. 7 . .:ti'd6 The queen evades the threats after c3c4 or (after f2-f3) e3-e4. However, Games 68 - 73 demonstrate the lasting superiority of the pair of bishops: B .td3 15 Q Game 68 B .td3 �16 Q Games 69- 70 B.Ad3 tZJge7 Q Games 71 - 73 •
•
The alternative 8.�e2 (� tZJg3) is some times a transposition, Game 74 shows an interesting counter-measure - . . . h7h5-h4 ! .
B.tZJe2 Q Games 74 - 75
B.tLlf3?! Q Game 76 gives Black the . . . e5-e4 motif. The main lines begin with B.c4 and 8.f3:
B.c4 'ti'd6 9.d5 �7 1 0.'fYb1 Q Games 77- 79
B.c4 '8d6 9.d5 li3J7 1 0.'ti'a4+ Q Game 80 B.c4 �d6 9.dS �b8 Q Game 8 1 8.13 0-0 9.e4 1Wd6 Q Games 82- 84 B.f3 e4!? (a new interesting idea) 9.14 Q Game 85 9.c4 't§'d8 Q Game 86 9.c4 �d6 Q Games 87- 88 In the end we will see some more ideas with 7 . .tLlge7 Q Game 89 and 6.a3 .txc3+ 7.bxc3 Q Game 90 Here White wants to bring the c 1 -bishop (after a3-a4) directly to a3 - a small va riation of the topic. .
Kiselev G. Walter -
Berlin 1 996
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 :i.Jc6 3.cxdS !YxdS 4.e3 eS S.tlJc3 i,b4 6 . .td2 .txc3 7.bxc3 exd4? ! As the current game along with some others show, it is too early for this exchange (if it is any good at all) here. It has the following drawbacks: •
•
•
Black has more chances for counter play with 7 ... tLlI6 (Games 76-88). The main idea lies in a quick opening of the position, based on the development advantage, as Game 79 very beautifully illustrates. In particular:
207
•
Black deprives himself of the . . . e6e5 possibility, which can be useful in many positions. the f4-square becomes available to White's knight. The a 1 -rook can now be activated on the c-file. The d2-bishop obtains more freedom.
All that suffices to say that Black should not have hurried with that exchange. We will examine some better options in the next games. Let us first see how White manages to exploit this inaccuracy.
8.cxd4 tiJf6 Or 8 ..t2:'1ge7 9.tZ:'lf3 (9.tZ:'le2 ! ?) 9 . . . .ig4 1 0 . .te2 0-0 1 1 .0-0 ltadB 1 2.m>1 b6 1 3.'&a4 .te6 1 4.I1b2 ! ? lId6 1 S . .tlc1 with strong pressure on the queenside, V. Neverov-Feldman , Groningen 1 993. •
Chapter 1 2
208
9.tLJe2! The knight now heads for f4. There are also other good continuations: a) 9.tZJf3 0-0 1 0 . .te2 .tfS 1 1 .'iWa4 �e4 1 2.0-0 1:fe8 1 3.I1fd l a6 1 4.'t':Vc4 �d6 l S.Ae 1 llad8 1 6.'i'7'b3 AcB 1 7.:tac l ;!;, Banikas-Miladinovic, Aegina 1 995. b) 9.13!1 0-0 1 0.'ilVb3 ! 1 0.Ad3 c:> 7 . . . �f6 8.t3 0-0 9 . .td3 exd4 1 0.cxd4 , Game 82, notes to White's 9th move (p.240) . 1 0 ... �d6 1 1 . .tc4 Note that without the exchange on d4 (that is with the pawns on c3 and eS) Black would have played tDcS-aS now and achieved a good position.
1 1 ... a6 Also after 1 1 . . ..teS 1 2.tZJe2 %1fe8 1 3.0-0 %lad8 1 4.i.xe6 llxeS l S.:ac1 (but not l S:�xb7? Db8 l S:�'a6 tZJxd4!) White has the initiative, Sakaev-Bigaliev, St. Petersburg 1 995. 1 2.tDe2 bS 1 3. i.d3 .te6 1 4. '{Wc2 tiJb4 l S.Axb4 �xb4+ 1 6. �2 :ac8 1 7. l:thcl 1;, Khenkin-Korholz, Netherlands 1 998. Now back to the position after 9.lL\e2:
9 ... 0-0 1 O.tlJf4! '{id6 1 1 .�d3 This is the most active place for the bi shop. By the way, 1 1 .i.e2 is also good, e.g. 1 1 . . .tlJe4 1 2.0-0 tlJxd2 ( 1 2 ... Ats 1 3 . .tel ! tUe7 1 4.f3 �f6 l S.i.g3 'ti'd7 1 6.e4 Ag6 1 7.dS ±, Malaniuk-Petroni jevic, Nis 1 996) 1 3:6'xd2 AfS 1 4.l;Ucl :fe8 l S.Ab5�, Burmakin-Marinsek, Ljubljana 1 994.
1 1 1:[ e8 Or 1 1 ..1:d8 1 2.0-0 with advantage for White , e.g. 1 2 . . . llJdS 1 3.1i'h5! ? g6 1 4. �xd5 'iWxd5 l S.tlJxd5 llxdS l S.l:1ab1 tUd8 1 7.];;[fc1 c6 1 B.Ae4 l:td6 1 9 . .tb4 ne6 20.i.f3±, Rajkovic-Knezevic, Tito grad 1 9S5. ...
.
1 2.0-0
The g ame has only just begun, but White is already clearly better. His minor pieces are well positioned, the centre is securely u nder his control. The a i -rook can be activated with the manoeuvre l:ta1 -b1 -bS or :a1 -cl -c5, and if the central pawns are also set in motion .. .
1 2 Ag4 ...
1 2 . tlJe4 has been also played. Let us .
.
look at an exemplary game with it: 1 3. :b1 ! :bB 1 4.tlb5! a6 l S.l:dS 'i¥f6 1 6. .txe4 llxe4 1 7.'fYc2 1:e8 1 B.1:c5 'e'd6 1 9.1:c1 i.d7 20.dS tUe7 21 .e4 c6 22.e5 �h6 23.e6 fxe6 24.dxe6 Axe6 2S.:hS +-, Vasiljevic-Susterman, Rijeka 1 997 .
1 3.f3 ..th5? ! After this White achieves a decisive advantage, but Black's position was already difficult, e.g. 1 3 .td7 1 4.Dbl ::lab8 l S:�c2 hS 1 6.Ac4! a5 1 7.'6'b3 1:f8 1 8.a4 AfS 1 9.1:bdl bS 20 . .tc1 g5 2 1 .tUe2 �b4 22.e4 �xb3 23 . .txb3 .td7 24.dS tUb4 2S.i.b2±, Movsziszian Maahs, Hamburg 1 992. •••
1 4.tDxhS tDxh5 1 5.'iVc2 ];le6 1 6Jlab1 ! :IdS Or 1 6 ... b6 1 7.d5! 'iVxdS 1 8 .rIb5 +-. 1 7 Jlxb7 tlJxd4 The last desperate attem pt, instead of resigning immediately.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxdS ifxdS 4.e3 eS S.tiJc3 ..tb4 6 . .td2 .i.xc3 7.bxc3
1 8.exd4 �xd4+ �xd3 20.�xd3
1 9. :f2
The other possibilities are B .tLJfS (Games 69- 70) and B . CZJe7 ( Games 71 - 73). ..
..
1 :0 Game 68
Cvitan - Levin
9.tDe2 Other continuations do not promise White much, e.g . : 9 .tc4 ..te6 1 0 . .txe6 �xe6 1 1 .'ti'b3 �xb3 ( 1 1 . 'iYgS ! ? 1 2.liJe2 0-0-0 Watson) 1 2.axb3 ti:Jf6 1 3.tiJf3 exd4 1 4.cxd4 0-0-0 l S.0-0 %:Y2, Razuvaev Kaminski, Bie1 1 99S . 9:�'b3 tiJf6 1 0.tiJe2 IIb8 1 1 ..i.c1 ..te6 1 2 . .ta3 ( 1 2.'i¥a4 ! ?) 1 2 . . .'�d7 1 3.'t!¥c2 e4 1 4 . ..tbS a6 l S . .ia4 ..tc4 1 S . .tb3 tiJas 1 7 .ib4 ..td3 1 8. �d 1 tlJxb3 1 9 .axb3 tZJdS 20.tiJf4 tiJxf4 21 .exf4 b6 22.'\&hS+ g6 23.�h4 �d8 '12:%, Savchenko Kaminski, Vienna 1 995. 9.( .h3 'LIf6 1 0:t�'b1 gS 1 1 .f3 0-0 1 2.tiJf2 b6 1 3.0-0 .le6 1 4.Dd1 IIad8 1 5.�bS Ad7 1 6.'Wb3+ .leB 1 7.�b5 .td7 1 8. '!'¥b3+ ..te6 %:Y2, M. Roder-Zaragatski , Belgium 2003. .
Biel 1 997
..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 .tb4 6 . .td2 �xc3 7.bxc3 �d6 The queen evades the threats after c3c4 or (after f2-f3) e3-e4. The moves 7 'LIf6 and 7 tlJge7 will be analysed later. The continuation 7 f5, in order to gain additional control in the centre and control on the kingside, is neutralized by Watson's recommendation B.'+!t'b31? 'i¥xb3 9.axb3 ..te6 1 0.11a3 - after which White remains with the bishop pair and a compact pawn structure , which guarantees him probably not so great an advantage, but at least a long lasting one. I nstead of the queen exchange Watson suggests B :i¥d6 9 . .tc4 tiJf6. Frankly speaking, Black's position does not appeal to me very much, because White's control over the a2-g8 diagonal is very u npleasant. ••.
209
••.
...
.
9 ... tlJf6
..
8 . .td3 8.CDf3 is dubious in view of 8 . . . e4 ! 9.tzJgS (9.tDg 1 tlJfS) 9 . . .'6'e7 with a good position for Black. The move 8.tDe2 will be analysed in Games 74 - 75. 8 ...f5 This move seems tempting. Black takes the important e4-square under his con trol and plans to close the position and gain some space with . . . eS-e4 at the right moment. But, as we shall soon see, in this game Cvitan managed to find an Achilles heel in Black's plan.
1 0 . .tc1 1 A magnificent idea. The bishop heads for a3 , where it will be most active. W h ite can hardly hope for an advan tage without this possibility. In Izeta-Kaminski, Paris 1 996, happened 1 O.'6'b 1 . There then fa \lowed 1 0 e4 1 1 . .lc4 ..td7 ( 1 1 ... a6! ? 1 2.a4 tiJaS 1 3.i.a2 ..teB, Breutigam) 1 2 a4 (1 2.�xb7? IIb8 ...
.
Chapter 1 2
210
1 3:�aS 1:bS 1 4.iVa4 t}Jxd4=F) 1 2 llJa5 1 3 . .ia2, and instead of 1 3 . . . iYcS 1 4. "b4 bS l S .0-0 t, 1 3 ... cS!? would have •••
...
been better.
1 0 ... .ae6?! As the further progress of the game shows, this is not the best decision . There were also other possibilities, but at first sight it seemed that they were al\ favourable for White , e.g . : a)
10 ... ,i,d7 1 1 .'4Wb3 d 1 2.,ta3.
b) 1 0 :t'YdS 1 1 .0-0 e4 1 2.oic2 d Ab3, .ta3. c) 1 0 ... e4 1 1 .oic4 AeS 1 2.i..a3 'iYd7 (1 2 ... !¥xa3 1 3.,i,xeS with initiative for W hite) 1 3 . .:tb5, and the bishop pair exerts strong pressure on the black position. M.Breutigam makes a serious attempt to save the idea 8 .. .f5. In line c) he sug gests 11 aS ! instead of 1 1 ... .i.eS. He gives the following analysis: 1 2:iYa4 (1 2 .a4 tlJa5 1 3 . .i.a3 �cS 1 4.i.. a 2 .ie6=) 1 2 :1>8 1 3. i..a 3 'ti'd7 1 4.�c2 bS 1 5 .Ab3 a5oo. Probably Breutigam is right and 1 1 ... aS! is really the correct continuation. White can choose 1 4.�d1 instead of 1 4.�c2, but then also after 1 4 . . . b5 1 S.i.. b3 t.L,a5 (but not 1 5 . . . a5? ! 1 S.tiJf4 ! d l S ... g5? 1 7.tiJh5 +-, d l S ... a4 1 7.AeS ! �d8 1 8. c4! ±) the position is quite playable for the second player. ••
••.
•••
1 1 :i¥a4! e4 Some very interesting variations arise after 1 1 ...,i,d7!? 1 2.i.a3!:
a) 1 2 ... tlJxd4 1 3:@'aS llJc6 ( 1 3 . . . tlJf3+? loses in view o f 1 4.gxf3 'i!Vxd3 l S .'@'xe5++-) 1 4.i..xd6 tlJxaS 1 5.i..xe5 0-0-0 l S.AxfS gxfS 1 7.0-0-0±. b) 12 .. :�¥dS 1 3:&bS Inferior is 1 3 .'iYb3 W'xg2 1 4.:1g 1 'i'Yxh2 l S.i..xf5 0-0-0 l S.llb1 llJa5 1 7.1ffc2 g6.
1 3 �xg2? •••
Better is 1 3 . . :�xb5 1 4 . .ixb5 �.
1 4J:1g1 b1 ) 1 4...�xh2 1 5 . .ixf5! l:b8 (1 5 . . . .txf5 l S .'ifxb7 �7 1 7 .'ifxcS exd4 l S.:931 lIac8 1 9.1iJxd4±) 1 6.i.. xd7+ tlJxd7 1 7. l:xg7 ( 1 7.d5 ! ?) 1 7 . . . �hS l S.1:g 1 ±. b2) 14 .. :�f3 1 S:�xb7 b21 ) 1 5 ...tlJxd4 1 6.'i!¥xc7 tiJg4 1 7.exd4 'ti'xf2+ 1 8.�d l llc8 ( 1 8 . . . .ia4+ 1 9.i.c2 Axc2+ 20.�c1 +-) 1 9.�a5 exd4 ,20. Xixg4 ! '6'f1 + (20 .. .fxg4 21 . 'iYeS+ +-) 21 .�c2 '6'xa1 22.'BeS +-. b22) 1S...Db8 l S. 'lWxc 7 ClJg4 (or l S ... IIcS 1 7:\i'dS tlJg4 l S .0-0-0 'irxf2 1 9 .dS �xe3+ 20.l:d2 + -) 1 7.0-0-0 l:c8 ( 1 7. . . 'i!'xf2 l S.d5 �xe3+ 1 9.1:d2 :c8 20. 'tiYd6 + -) 1 8.'t'fdS exd4 (1 8 . . . e4 1 9.i.c4 �xf2 20.d5 'i¥xe3+ 21 .l:d2 +-) 1 9.tlJxd4 '6'xf2 20.tZJxfS i.xfS 21 .�xf5 'i'Vxf5 22. :gf1 , and White wins. b23) 1 5 .. J�c8 1 S.l:xg7 ClJxd4 1 7.:tb1 �xb7 1 8.l:xb7 tZJf3+ 1 9:�d l ±.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 /i-lc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 All these variations are very sharp and complicated. Therefore. hope remains that somewhere a possible improvement fo r Black may be hidden. In our main game everything was m uch simpler:
1 2.Ab5 tlJd5 13 . .ta3 W'd7 1 4.Ac5 Possessing such bishops is a dream come true!
21 1
8 .. .15 in the previous game, and 8 ... tZJge7 will be analysed in Games 71 - 73. 9.t�e2 Another good continuation is 9.f3 Q Game 70.
9 ...0-0 1 0.tlJg3 The place for the knight is on g3 in any case, and it is better to bring it there at once. The continuation 1 0.0-0 (with the idea of playing �e2-g3 later) gives the opponent the additional possibility 1 0 ... e4, e.g. 1 1 . i.c2 tZJa5 ! ? 1 2.tZJg3 lIe8 and the position is unclear, Yu Mingyuan Jamrich, Budapest 2001 .
1 0... tlJe7 There are two reasons for this move : Black wants to develop the bishop to b7, but then �g3-f5 would be u npleasant. Now the f5-square is controlled by the e7-knight. The second player intends to play . . . c7-c5 . One drawback of this continuation is , however, that the knight surrenders the control over the e5-square, which will be used by W hite later. •
•
14 .. :�ti7 On 1 4 ... tiJb6 there follows 1 5.j"xb6 cxb6 1 6.c4 +-. 1 S.c4 tZJb6 1 6 . .txb6 axb6 1 7.�d1 Now there is no defence against d4-d5, winning material. 1 7...'&d6 1 8.d5 Ad7 1 9.dxc6 bxc6 20.c5! 1 :0 Game 69
Tukmakov
-
B. Kovacevic
Pula 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 eS 5.tZJc3 �b4 6.i..d 2 .txc3 7.bxc3 �d6 8.i..d 3 tlJf6 Black simply continues with his deve lopment. We have examined the move
10 ... I1e8 1 1 .0-o has been also played : a) 1 1 ...e4 1 2.,te2 Ae6 1 3.c4 .J:1ad8 1 4. .i.c�, Ezsol-Antal, Budapest 1 999. b) 1 1 . a6 1 2.�c2 tZJe7 1 3 .dxe5 ! (we will see the same idea in the main game) 1 3 ... '8xe5 1 4.c4 ! tLlg6 1 5.Ac3 �e7 1 6.'iYb2 �e5 1 7.i.e2 !, Kozul Loncar, Pula 1 995. c) 1 1 b6 1 2 .�c2 h6 1 3 .f3 ti Ja5, Zimmerman-Jamrich , Budapest 1 999, and White can use the decentralization of the knight with 1 4.:ae1 ! c5 1 5.dxe5! �xe5 1 6.c4 with initiative. Instead of 1 3 . . . �5 Black could play something else, e.g. 1 3 . . . Ad7. How ever, the problem is that in this position his counterplay is based entirely on . . . c7-c5. And if Black tries to do without ..
...
Chapter 1 2
21 2
it. W hite can easily dominate in the centre or on the kingside , e.g. tl}g3-e4 , tLJg3-fS or f3-f4.
1 1 .0-0 b6 1 2.�c2 ..tb7
23.11fe1
1 3.dxe5 ! As in the game Kozul-Loncar (see 1 0 . . . %1e8) W hite exploits the fact that the knight cannot take back on eS anymore.
1 3 ...'iVxe5 1 4.c4! Now the dark-squared bishop acquires a wonderful place on the long diagonal.
1 4 �hS 1 5 . .tc3 �e6 1 6. 'tiYb2 ! The pressure increases. ...
1 6 .. .1::[ g 8 Black plans to transfer the f6-knight to cS, but first g7 must be protected. 1 7J:tad1 tDd7 1 8 �b1 I? tLlcS 1 9.�c2 iYg6 .
Interesting was 1 9 . . . tZJg6 !?, and 20.e4 would be bad in view of 20 . . . l:tae8.
20.e41 The first player sets his pawn centre in motion and Black's situation immedia tely becomes critical.
20 ... f6 21 .f4! �f7 22.e5 ! f5
Instead of that Tukmakov could have won immediately with a beautiful com bination: 23.tlJxfS! 1..e 4 24.tLJh6 ! 'i'e6 (24 ... gxh6 2S .e6+ +-) 2S .�e2 �xg2 (2S ... gxhS 26 . .txe4 +-) 2S.tiJxg8 i.xf1 27.l1xf1 nxg8 28.fS �hS (28 .. :�c6 29. e6 tLJa4 30.i.eS. and White dominates the entire board) 29 .16! gxf6+ 30 .'�h 1 tlJa4 3 1 . .id2 �h4 32.exfS +-.
23 ... 11gf8 24 ..tb4 ttJe6 Also after 24 . . . �e6 2S . .txcS bxcS 26.�f2 tLJgS 27.'DhS 'iWe7 28.e6! the second player has nothing to be happy about. 2S.:%d7 1%aeS 26.cS bxcS 2S . . . tDxf4 would not have helped: 27.cxb6 tiJxg2 28.Ded1 I? ClJe3 29:6'xc7 CDxd1 30.�xb7 + - . However, slightly better was 26 . . . aS 27. i.a3 (but not 27.c6?! in view of 27 . . . j.c8 ! 28.l:lxe7 l:lxe7 29.�xe7 �xe7 30.'DxfS 'tlfb4! with counterplay) 27 . . . bxcS 2B . .bc5, and in contrast to the game Black's a pawn now is not attacked. Nevertheless, White has a great advantage. .
27 . ..txc5 g6 Or 27 . . . CDxf4 28.1:1f1 i.e4 29.�c1 ! (29. 'Dxe4 fxe4 30.�h 1 !±) 29 . . . .txb1 30. 'i!¥xf4 +-. 2S.ClJe2 ..teS 29J�dd1 l:dS
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 '· - 'c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJc3 i.b4 6.Jt..d 2 �xc3 7.bxc3 Kovacevic sacrifices a pawn in the hope of counterplay. After 29 ... a6 cou ld follow 30.�a3 ±.
30.�xa7 ClJd5 31 .�c4 Ab7 32.i.c21 J:1d7 33 . ..tb3! White h as a positional, as well as ma teri al advantage. The rest needs no fu rther comm entary. 33 ... 1:aS 34 ..i.f2 e6 35.tDd4 tDxd4 36.ltxd4 'l!je6 37. 'iYe5 h5 3S.h3 ::dd8 39 . ..th4 Ud7 40J:1b1 Wh7 41 .�xdS cxd5 42.l::tb 6 'iYeS 43.e6 �g7 44. Af6 l::te8 45.�b4 nc1 + 46. �h2 .te6 47. .txg7 wxg7 48.'iYb2 1 :0
21 3
also plays �d1 -c1 , in order to protect e3 and deprive the opponent of the possibility ... '6'd 6-a3 (which is a means of developing counterplay on the queen side for Black in some variations). Black can consider the following ideas: to carry through . . . c7-c5, to occupy the c4-square, • to blockade White's pawn centre with . . . e5-e4. But as we will later see, it is indeed very difficult for Black to achieve counter chances here.
9 ... 0-0 1 0.tlJe2 I:te8 After 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 .0-0 �b 7, 1 2.�g3 ..1 �f5 is very unpleasant. After 10 ... �e6 1 1 .0-0 the following pos sibilities arise: a) 1 1 . b6 1 2.Jt..e 1 1 exd4 (according to Meulders both 1 2 . . .:fd8 1 3.�h4! and 12 ...tlJa5 1 3.i.g3 tlJd7 1 4.f4! give White an edge. The first player is also better after 1 2 . . . lIfe8 1 3 .i.h4 tDd7 1 4.�f2 ..1 e4) 1 3.cxd4 tDd5 (1 3 . . . tDb4 1 4.e4 with initiative for White) 1 4.�f2 f5 1 5.e4±, Polaszek-Boey, Antwerpen 1 996. b) 11 .. _tlJa5 1 2_'8a4 (1 2.�e1 tlJc4, 1 2. e4 i.c4) 1 2 ___ b6 1 3.e4!? ( 1 3.i.e1 tDd5 1 4.i.12 exd4 1 5.cxd4 15 1 6.e4 fxe4 1 7. fxe4 �b4 1 8.�g3 �e7;t Szeberenyi Petronijevic, Budapest 1 998) 13 �d7 ..
Game 70
van der Sterren - Plket Amsterdam 1 999
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDe6 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJe3 .tb4 6 ..td2 �xe3 7.bxe3 'iYd6 S.Ad3 tlJf6 9.13
•••
1 4.�c2 6 f4. c) 1 1 ...l':I:ad8 1 2:�c1 1 2 . .te1 �d5 1 3.�f2 15 1 4.c4 tiJdb4 1 5.d5 tDxd5! ? 1 6.cxd5 'iYxd5 1 7.i.c2 �c4 1 8.tDd4 exd4 1 9 . .tb3 dxe3 20 . .ixc4 exf2+ 21 .�xf2 i.xc4 22.'S'c2 .txf1 23.l1xf1 1:f7 24 . .:td 1 llxd 1 25 .'Wxd 1 Campos Moreno-Mellado Trivino, Banyoles 2002, also i nteresting is Bangiev's recommendation 12 ... exd4 1 3.cxd4 �a3 ! with counterplay. =,
White plans to continue his develop ment with Ad3, �g 1 -e2, 0-0. Then he wants to calmly prepare e3-e4. The plan with f3-f4 followed by attack on the kingside is also possible. Often White
1 2 ... �d7 1 3.i.e1 !? 1 3.�b1 f5 1 4.'ifxb7 Dba 1 5.�a6 :tb6 1 6:�a4 1Ib2 �, Breutigam .
Chapter 1 2
214
1 3 'i!Ve71 1 4 . �b 1 ± , Kasparov Ivanchuk, New York 1 995, 1 3...f5!1. . . •
1 1 .0-0 b6 Let us examine a few alternatives: a) 1 1 �e6 1 2.'ii'c 1 ! 1 2 . .te 1 exd4 !? 1 3.cxd4 'iVa3. 1 2 . :ad8 After 1 2 ... l:abB 1 3 . ..te1 bS 1 4 . ..th4 �7 l SJId 1 !? tZJaS 1 6.R.g3 ..tc4 1 7.dxeS '(We7 1 B.f4 Black does not get sufficient compensation for the pawn, D. Garcia Arencibia, Terres Catalanes 1 996. 1 3.Ae1 , and now: al ) 13 ... ..tc8 1 4.R.f2 (� e4) 14 e4 ( 1 4 . . . exd4 1 5.cxd4!, Cifuentes Parada Sariego, Cienfuegos 1 996, l S.exd4 ! ? is also interesting) 1 5.fxe4 CDxe4 1 6 . .th4 f6 1 7.'iVc2 with initiative for White, Beliavsky-Miladinovic, Belgrade 1 995. a2) 1 3 .. .tlJd7 1 4.\lVb l ( 1 4 . .tf2! ?) 1 4 . . . h6 1 5.'iYxb7 ribS 1 6.'iYa6 llb2 1 7.liJg3 t2Jb6 l B.t2Je4 '¥!Ie7 1 9.%lf2 .tcB 20.'�xcB l:lxcS 2 1 .:xb2 �, Estremera Panos Arencibia, Mondariz 1 996. •••
..
•..
b) 11 ...e4 1 2.fxe4 tzJxe4 1 3 . .txe4 llxe4 1 4.i2Jg3 l:1eS l S.e4 with initiative for W hite. c) 1 1 ... .i.d7 e l ) 1 2.l:1b1 l:abS 1 3.'�Yc2 h6 1 4.e4 b6 ( 1 4 . . . exd4 l S . ..tf4 'i!¥e7 1 6.cxd4 cz:Jb4 1 7. 'ti'b3 tzJxd3 1 8 .'i¥xd3 with initiative) 1 5.�h 1 6 f4 with initiative for White, Arencibia-Romeu. Valencia 1 998. 1 2 . . . b6! ? c2) 1 2.'iVc1 !1 llad8 1 3 . ..te l exd4 1 4. cxd4 t2JdS 1 5 . .tg3 �e7 l S . .te4;. C. Horvath-Muse, Ljubljana 1 995.
Tunik-Shestakov,
1 996)
view of 14 ... e4 ! l S.fxe4 CDxe4, e.g. 1 6 .i.xe4 tXxe4 1 7.tZJg3 llg4! ? 1 8.e4 fiJe7 1 9.�e3 f5! , and in the game Yu Mingyuan-Jamrich, Budapest 2001 , Black achieved a good position) 14 .. .'*",e6 1 5.iVc2 exd4 1 6 . exd4 �e3+ 1 7.'it'h 1 with advantage for White, Gior gadze-Narciso, Vendrell 1 996.
1 2 ... i.e6 1 3.l:tad 1 White now prepares e3-e4. In the case of 1 3 . ..te1 hS ( 1 3 . . . rIadS 1 4 . .th4!) 1 4. .tf2 exd4 after 1 5.exd4 tiJa.S, as well as after 1 5 .cxd4 �b4 1 6 .iVbl tzJxd3 1 7. �xd3 cS Black develops counterplay.
1 3 ... �ad8 1 4. �h1 h6 1 5.a4 It was too early for 1 5.e4 yet - 1 5 . . . exd4 1 6 . ..tf4 �c5 ( 1 6 . . .'i§'a3 ! ?) 1 7.cxd4 '4Wxc2 l S.i.xc2 i.xa2 1 9.i.xc7 :rcS 20.i.g3 (20 . ..tf4 .tc4 21 .1:lel ..txe2 22.llxe2 tlJdS ! +) 20 . . . i.c4 21 .1:1e1 cz:Jb4 22 . .tbl �xe2 23.11xe2 t2Jfd5 24 .:l:ee 1 tlJc3 25. :d2 a5 oo. 1 5 ... j,d7 The bishop aims at White's a-pawn . On l S ...tlJa5? ! would follow 1 6.c4±. Also after 1 5 ... exd4 1 6.cxd4 tlJb4 1 7. .1Lxb4 �xb4 1 8.Dbl �e7 1 9.e4 c5 20. d5 ..td7 2 1 .tZJc3 White's pawn centre is too dangerous.
1 2.'iYc2 Worth considering is also 1 2.'i+'c1 !? e.g. 12 ....tb7 (on 1 2 ... Ae6 also follows 1 3 . .tel with initiative for White) 1 3.Ae1 ( 1 3.iiJ.g3!? tZJe7 1 4.�h 1 :ad8 1 5.a4 cS l S.a5 cxd4 1 7.cxd4 exd4 l S .e4 ! 55 llJgS? 1 9.axbS axbS 20.tlJf5 'ifb8 21 . .th6! +-,
Moscow
1 3 ...l:tad8 1 4 . ..th4 (inferior is 1 4 . ..tf2 in
1 6.e4!
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tZJcs 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tL1c3 i.b4 S.i.d2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 2 1 5 Van der Sterren has correctly calculated that this move gives him the edge.
1 6 ... exd4 1 7 . .tf4 �c5 1 S. cxd4 tiJxd4 1 9.�xcS After 1 9.tzJxd4?! 'tfYxd4 20 . ..tb5 �cS 21 .'i¥xcS bxc5 22. i.xd7 IIxd7 23.l:rc1 ttd4 24JbcS Dxa4 2S.Dxc7 as White does not achieve anything . 1 9. . .bxcS 20.tlJxd4 cxd4 21 .i..xc7 ncs 22.Ilc1 i..xa4 23.i..a6 d3 Inferior is 23 ... DaS 24.Dc4 (24.i.b7 ! ? d 3 25.i..xaB lbaS 2S.AaS) 24 . . . DacS 2S.11a1 i.b3 26.:cS :ta8 27 . ..tb7±. 24 ..txcS :XcS 2S.i..f4
As a result of the practically forced tactical complications White has won the exchange for a pawn. However, the strong passed d·pawn gives Black cer tain counter chances.
2s ... Ac2 26.�a1 a6 27.:1a3 On 27.l:xa6 would follow 27 . . . d2 2S. i.xd2 i.d3. 27 ... tjd7 2S.;Ua1 In the endgame after 2S.l:lxaS d2 29. l:[d6 (or 29 . ..txd2 Ad3 30.IIaa1 i.xf1 31 .%1xf1 ) 29 ... d 1 � 30.IIfxd 1 i.xd1 31 . l:xd 1 Black has good chances for a draw, despite being down a pawn.
2S ... fS 29.exfS The positions after 29.ttxaS fxe4 30.l:aS lba8 3 1 .DxaS+ �7 32.fxe4 tzJc5 33.eS gS or 30.fxe4 l:c4 31 .l:IaS+ �h7 32. lISa7 tZ:Jf6 can hardly be won.
29 .. J�cS 30.g4 Also possible is 30.l'ixa6 lhfS 3 1 .i.d2, but the game continuation is probably stronger.
30 ... ClJeS 31 J:laS? This turned out to be a serious mistake. Correct was 31 JXxa6 with the following lines: a) 31 ... tZJxf3 32.lIaS+ �h7 33.f6 ! + �gS (33 . . . gxfS 34.l:r1 a7+ +-) 34.fxg7 �xg7 3S.l:1 a7+ �S 3S.l:1aS+ �g7 37. i.xh6+ +-. b) 31 ...i.b3 32.IIa8+ �h7 (32 ... �7 33.:11 a7+ �6 34.:1fS+ Af7 3S.l:d8 +-) 33J18a7 tZJxf3 34.fS i.d5 3S.rtxg7+ �h8 3S. �g2, and Black can hardly hold this position. 31 ...:XaS 32.nxaS tlJxf3 33. ndS hS 34.h3 A last chance could be 34.g51?, but then also after 34 . . . d2 35 . .ixd2 i.e4 36.:td8+ �7 37.g6+ �e7 3S.Aa5 AxfS (3S...tZ:JeS+!? 39.� 1 tZ:Jc6 40J1d2 i.xfS) 39.11a8 i.e4 (39 . . . i.xg S ! ?) 40. lla7+ �f6 4 1 .:txa6+ �gS White's winning chances are negligible. 34 ... hxg4 3S.hxg4 d2 ! 36. i.xd2 i..e4 37J;tdS+ �h7 3S.i..c1 tlJe5+ 39.�g1 tlJxg4 40.1:1IS tlJf6 41 .�b2 The black bishop will take the last white pawn on the next move and therefore: 1/2: V2
Chapter 1 2
21 6 Game 7 1
Schandorff - S. B. Hansen Taastrup 1 998
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxdS 'ti'xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tZJc3 -tb4 6.�d2 Axe3 7.bxc3 '@1d6 S.i.d3 iDge7!? This continuation has some advantages to 8 . . . ttJf6. For instance, .. .f7-fS is still possible, the e7-knight can go to g6 and contro l the eS-square - which can be very i mportant if the c6-knight leaves its place. There are, however, some disadvanta ges as well : on e7 the knight does not see the e4-square and also blocks the e-file for the rook. When it goes to g6, it no longer controls the dS-square. Never theless, the statistics for Black in this variation are better than after 8 . . /d6. 9.tiJe2 0-0 1 0.0-0
1 0 ... b6 Black solves the problem with the b pawn , which can be attacked in some variations after the development of the c8-bishop. He also intends to develop the bishop and achieve counterplay in the centre with . . . c7-cS. The idea . . . 17IS, in order to gain more space on the kingside and take control over the e4square is also possible. And then even-
tually (after . . .tZJe7-g6) Black can even follow up with . . . IS-f4. In his turn White will pursue active play on the kingside or in the centre - that can be c3-c4, e3-e4 or f2-14. In addition the first player can try to ac tivate his bishop with f2-f3, .td2-e1 -f2(93, -h4) or .i.d2-c1 -a3. Sometimes he can also play (usually after ... ttJc6-aS !l . . c5) d4xeS followed by c3-c4, i..d 2-c3. Apart from 1 0 . . . b6 there are also some other possibilities : .
a) 1 0... .ie6 a l ) 1 1 .'iVb1 f5!? 1 2.'il¥xb7 e4 1 3 .ab5 ttJa51? (the continuations 1 3 . . . a6 or 1 3 ... a5 are not bad either) 1 4.'iWa6 •
'i!Vxa6 1 5.i.xa6 Ac4 1 6 . .ixc4+ tDxc4 1 7. .i.c1 :ab8 (1 7 . . . CDdS I ? 1 8.:tb1 :tabS 1 9J1b3 gS �) 1S.liJf4 (1 8 .f3 liJd5 1 9. fxe4 fxe4 20.llxf8+ �xf8�) 1 S . c6 1 9.f3 llJd5 20.tZJxd5 (20.fxe4 ? ! tlJdxe3 ..
21 . .txe3 t2Jxe3 22.tiJe6 llfe8 23.exf5 tDxfl 24.:xt1 l:lb2+) 20 ... cxd5 with a positional compensation for the minimal material shortage. a2) 1 1 /�h1 f5!? 1 2.f3 b6 ( 1 2 . . . a6? ! 1 3.'iWc2 t[ad8 1 4.:1b1 b S 1 5.a4 ! b4 1 6.cxb4 exd4 1 7.exd4 tiJxd4 1 8.tlJxd4 �xd4 1 9.1:a3±, and the bishop pair, coupled with the weakness of Black's queenside pawns give White a clear ad vantage, Garcia lIundian-Garcia Cano, Montcada 1 997) 1 3.i..e 1 , and we come to a position from the main game, only White has played the less useful move �g 1 -h l instead of Ael -g3 b) 1 0 ...f5 bl ) 1 1 .'i¥b3+ Ae6 (1 1 . . . �h8 1 2.i.c 1 ! ? with the idea Aa3) 1 2.�xb7 leads t o a position which is analysed in 1 0 . . . i.e6. b2) 1 1 .f3 �e6 1 2.,tel b6 1 2.,tg3 leads back to the main line.
1 1 .f3 On 1 1 .f4? 1 Black replies with 1 1 . . . exd4 1 2.exd4 �IS ! with comfortable play,
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 r::Jc6 3 .cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tLlc3 �b4 6.�d2 Axc3 7.bxc3 Tjomsland-Heim, Bergen 2001 . 1 1 .'ifc2 will be analysed in the next game.
1 1 ... .te6
1 2 .te1 .
The bishop heads for f2 (to support the d4-pawn and prepare c3-c4 or e3-e4) or g3 (with pressure on eS). In Brenninkmeijer-Skembris, Wijk aan Zee 1 995, was played first 1 2.'Bc1 Dad8 and only then 1 3.Ae1 . There then followed 13 tZJg6 1 4.Af2 (on 1 4.Ag3 comes 1 4 . . . fS and the position is un clear, e.g. l SJ::td 1 'iVe7 1 6.e4 f4 1 7 . .tf2 tZJaS 1 8.dS Ad7 1 9.c4 'iVgS with coun terplay) 14 ...l2:JaS 1 S.:e1 (after l S.c4 ? ! exd4 both 1 6 . .1 g 3 'ti:Vb4 , Ferrei ra Parcerias, Faro 1 998, and 1 6.exd4 tZJeS ! are g ood for Black) 1 5 . .ic4 16 . .tc2 cS 1 7.tZJg3 '!!¥c7 oo. •••
.
.
1 2 f5 ...
This way Black strengthens h is control in the centre. An alternative is 1 2 ... :ad8, which , how ever, should not be enough to equalize if White plays accurately, e .g . :
1 3.�c2 �h8 (1 3 . . .fS � Game 72) 1 4.a3 fS 1 S.Af2 llJaS (� . .ic4, � a)
..
.. CiX4, � . . . cS). This position is already unclear - on 16_c4 follows 1 6 . . . e4 ! ? 1 7.fxe4 fxe4 1 8.i..xe4 .ixc4, on 1 6_e4 interesting is 1 6 . . . i..c4 , Black has counter chances in .
21 7
both cases. In the game Gladishev Bromann, Budapest 1 999, neither of the protagonists wished to take any risks and they agreed a draw. However, instead of 1 4.a3 I like 14 . .1f2 better - White immediately protects d4 and thus prepares e3-e4 or c3-c4. After 1 4 . . . fS l S.:fd1 it is not clear what Black should do - on l S . . . tZJg6 follows 1 6.e4, and 1 S ...�aS is met with 1 6.c4. On any waiting move White can react with l S. a3, in order to play c3-c4 or e3-e4 later, without fearing . . .tZJcS-b4 (immediately or after the exchange on d4). b) 1 3.Af2 llJaS ( 1 3 . . .fS 1 4.'iWc2 leads again to Game 72) 1 4:�c2 tZJg6 (the position after 1 4 .. .fS could also arise in Game 72, if Black had played 1 4 . . . tZJaS) 1 S.c4 exd4 (also after l S ... cS 1 6.dS Ad7 1 7.e4 White is better, e.g . ·� b7 1 8.a4 'iVe7 1 9.i..e 1 llJd6 20.a4 with a dangerous initiative on the queenside) 1 6_exd4�, Izeta-Eslon, Benasque 1 996.
1 3.Ag3 On 1 3 . .if2 there would probably follow 1 3 . . . tiJaS � 1 4.e4 tLlc4 ! ? , after which the position would be unclear. However, 1 3.'iVc21? is well worth our attention, leading to a position from the following game Tukmakov-Skembris, in which Black had problems. In this case 1 3 ... tZJaS is not so good in view of 1 4.c4, and as for the e 1 -bishop, its position can be chosen later.
1 3 ... I�": ·lg6 Here the knight protects additionally the eS-pawn and in many variations makes possible . . . fS-f4. Breutigam's idea 1 3___ tiJdSI? is also interesting. He follows up with 1 4.'iVd2 f4 l S.exf4 (l S.dxe5 �cS !) l S . . . exf4 1 6. Af2 :ae8 °o. However, in this case 1 4_.1121? is worth considering, as it was played in the game Timar-Freire, corr. 2000 : Should e3-e4 be played now, it
Chapter 1 2
21 8
would be with tempo. Nevertheless, I believe that after 1 4 :lad8 (instead of 1 4 . . . exd4 l S.exd4!, that was played in the game) Black has good counter chances, e.g. 1 5.e4 fxe4 l S.fxe4 tlJfS 1 7 �d2 �aS (with the intention of ... tZJa5-c4 or . . . .te6-c4) 1 8.i.g3 tlJd7 °o. ...
.
1 4.�c2 l:[ad8 1 5.l:[ad1 �e7 1 6:tWa4 tlJa5 Black prepares the counterplay ... c7-c5. Moreover, the knight keeps an eye on the c4 square. 1 7.1:[fel After 1 7.dxeS i.d7 1 8 . .tbS (1 8.�d4? c5 1 9.�dS i.a4 20.'ti'xe7 �e7+, 1 8. �b4 cS+) 1 8 ... i.xbS 1 9. 'fi'xb5 c6 20. �b4 l:lxd l 2 1 .Ilxd 1 c5 or 1 7.i..x e5 Ad7 Black wins back the pawn and remains with a good position. ...
22.�cl �f6 23.�c2 �c8 24 . .ta4 tlJa5 The position is in a state of dynamic equilibrium - neither side can become more active without taking any risks. That is why with his next moves White eases the tension in the centre and exchanges a few pieces, after which it is pointless to continue the battle. 25.dxe5 tiJxe5 26.nxd8 nxd8 27 .j.xe5 �xe5 28.tlJd4 �b7 %:%
Game 72
Tukmakov - Skembris Lausanne 200 1
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 [i:;c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 .tb4 6.j.d2 �xc3 7.bxc3 'i§'d6 8.j.d3 0Jge7 9.tiJe2 0-0 1 0.0-0 b6 1 1 .'iYc2 In contrast to the previous game, here Tukmakov chooses a different move order. First he develops the queen with tempo and vacates the d 1 -square for the rook. Besides, the c2-queen sup ports e3-e4 or c3-c4.
1 7 ... c5! 1 8 ..tf2 c4! Correct! He closes the position, so that White's bishops do not become too active. 1 9 . .li.b1 �h8 20.�c2 .ad7 21 .i.g3 2 1 .e4?! f4. 21 ...tlJc6 W ith the following manoeuvres each side wants to increase the pressure on the centre.
1 1 ... f5 After 1 1 ... tlJgS Black must reckon with 1 2. f4! ? and 1 2.f3 .te6 1 3.14!?
1 2.f3 �e6 1 3.Ael This position could have occurred in the previous game Schandorff-Hansen , if White had played 1 3.'6'c2 instead of 1 3 . ..tg3. 1 3 ... �ad8 On 1 3 . . . tZJa5 there follows 1 4.c4, and on 1 3 . . . tDgS 1 4.e4 is a good possibility. ,
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 lDc6 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 eS S.ll:Jc3 .tb4 6 . .td2 .txc3 7.bxc3 21 9
bxcS 23Jlab1
1 4.34f2 1 In contrast to the game Schandorff Hansen White immediately protects the d4-pawn , which makes possible e3-e4 or c3-c4. 1 4...tlJg6 After 1 4 ... tZJa5 White can choose between 1 S.c4 and 1 S.e4, with initiative in either case. l S.l:[fd1 Tukmakov pursues his main idea - the preparation of e3-e4 - very consistently. Black has no counterplay yet. l S .. :iYe7 The queen escapes the opposition with the d 1 -rook. On 1 S ...tZJa5 White would still have the choice between 1 6 .e4 and 1 6.c4. 1 6.e4! White opens the position , which is very unpleasant for his opponent - White's bishops become stronger. 1 6 .. .txe4 1 7. .txe4 Inferior is 1 7.fxe4 exd4 1 8.cxd4 (1 8. tiJxd4?! tZJceS +) 1 8 . . . tZJb4 1 9.�c3 tlJxd3 20.llxd3 cS ! with counterplay. 1 7 ... CZJaS 1 8.dS 1 8.dxeS!? 1 8 ... i.f7 1 9.c4 tlJb7 20.tlJg3 tZJcS 21 .0.JfS �16 22.Jii.xcS
White has a clear positional advantage now. However, due to White's inaccura te play Black managed to achieve counter chances on the kingside and in the end to save the game.
23 ... ..te8 24. 't!Yf2 According to Skembris now 24.r:tb7 was even stronger. 24 ... tZJf4 2S.tlJg3 2S.'fYxcS!? 'lJe2+ 26.�h1 tZJc3 27:i!lxc7 .:tf7 28 .�a5 lDxd1 29J�xd1 ±. 2S ... hS 26 . ..tc2 .tg6 27. ..txg6? ! 27.l:tb7 h4 2B.t2Je4 ±. 27 ... �xg6 28.�h1 h4 28 . . . c6! ? 29.tZJe4 h3! With counterplay. 30.gxh3 tlJxh3 31 . 'iYg3 �hS 32.l:b3 lU5 33.rIll !Idf8 34.tZJxc5 �g5 35.�el tZJf4 36.l::tg 1 �f6 37.ttxg5 '+WxgS 38.'iVf1 �h6 39.l:[b2 '¥!ie7 40.tlJe4 �a3 41 Jld2 nb6 42.1:[f2 �b4 43.d6 cxd6 44.tZJxd6 �c3 45.tlJe4 'i¥xc4 46.'iYd1
Chapter 1 2
220 Game 73 Peek Amsterdam 2000
V. Mllov
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxdS 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 5.tljc3 i.b4 6 . .td2 .axc3 7.bxc3 �d6 S. .td3 tljge7 9.tlJe2 0-0 1 0.0-0 b6 1 1 .a4!? This is an unpleasant continuation for Black - the d2-bishop heads for a3 through c1 . We have already seen this manoeuvre, e.g. in Game 68.
1 1 ... �dS Black wants to place the rooks on cS and dS. Another idea is 1 1 i.b7 1 2. 't!Yc2 h6 ( 1 2 ... fS 1 3.�b3+ �hS 1 4. as!?) 1 3.i.cl :adS. Also 1 1 f5 !? 1 2.i.c 1 ! ? tlJa5 1 3.i.a3 c5 needs examining. ..•
•..
1 2.�c2 h6 On 12 ...f5 could follow 1 3.e4 ! ? Ll 13 . . . exd4?1 1 4.i.f4 ( 1 4 .. :i!¥d7 1 5. j:.c4+ ·.t hS 1 6.IIad1 fxe4 1 7.tlJxd4 tlJxd4 1 S.X1xd4 �eS 1 9 .1IxdS �xdS 20 .�xe4 ±) . 1 3 . .tc1 ! Ab7 1 4.ioa3 'l!Ve6 1 5.1:1ae1 1 As we have already mentioned (e.g. Game 70), one of the main plans for White in this position is f2-f4 followed
by attack on the kingside. To this end, White concentrates his forces in the centre and on the kingside.
1S ...llJa5 1 6.tljg3 :teS Black protects the knight, i n order to meet f2-f4 with . . . exd4. 1 7.14 exd4 1 S.exd4 't!Vd7 1 9.�f2 Now Black must reckon with c3-c4. I nteresting was also 1 9.f5 ! ? .1 f6. 1 9 .. ��d5 Now 20 .c4 is dubious in view of 20 . . . �xa4. However, with h i s move Black surrenders the fs-square to the oppo nent. .
20.:e5 Milov plays this game very ingeniously now he activates his rook on the 5th rank and is ready to bring it to hS at any time. However, that would have the drawback of forsaking the control over the centre, which would give Black the chance to protect the kingside by centralizing his forces. We shall see further how that could be achieved. 20.iijf5!? seems very promising. Then Black would lose after 20 ... g67 2 1 .ilJxh6+ �g7 22.tZJfS+ gxfS 23.'8'g3+ �hS 24 .�h3+ �g7 2S.i.xfS +-, as well as after 20 ...tiJxc3? 21 .'tWg3 g6 22.tDxh6+ �h7 (22 ... �g7 23.�fS+ �g8
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJcS 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 Ab4 6 . .td2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 221 24.tZJe7+ �g7 25.Axg6 +-) 23.CZJfS gxfS 24.'lWh4+ �g7 2S.�gS+ �h8 2S.'1!Vf6+ �g8 27.AxfS +-. But 20 1:e6! would keep his head above water, e.g. 21 .c4 tiJxc4 22.i.xc4 :Xe1 23.tDxhS+ gxh6 24.lbe1 �xa4 °o. ...
20 ...f6 Black does not dare to play 20 �c3. This is understandable - after 21 .tlJf5 �h8 22.�g3 llg8 (22 .. .fS? 23.,te7 llgB 24.CZJxh6 gxhS 2S . .Ji.xf6+ Irg7 26. :fe1 1 +-) White would have a variety of options to develop his attack. 23.dS l ? tiJxd5 24.i.b2 seems particularly dan gerous to me. Also very risky is 20 1Wxa4 in view of 21 .llJtS , e.g . 21 �h8 22.:Xe8+ �xeS (22 . . J�xeS? 23.'ii'g 3 g6 24.tiJxh6 +-) 23.�g3 gS 24.1:e1 'iWd7 2S.tiJxhS± or 21 .'�xa3 22.'fi'g3 g6 (22 . . .'*'¥fS 23. tZJxh6+ '1t'hB 24.tZJxf7+1 �xf7 2S . .tg6 1 ±) 23.�h6+ �B 24.f5 with a strong attack for the sacrificed piece. ..•
Finally Black accepts the pawn sacrifice, though it seems very risky to take away the queen from the kingside. An alterna tive is 22 . . . llJac4 ! ? with unclear play.
23.i.b4 cS? This is the deciSive mistake, but the re futation was not easy to spot. White wins spectacularly after 23 tiJac4 24.tlJfS i.e4 (24 . . . �d7 2S.�h6+ gxhS 2S.l:xh6 +-) 25.CZJxh6+ gxh6 26.�g3+ �h7 (26 . . . �7 27.fS ! +-) 27 . .tfB ! %1>
•••
...
•.•
..
21 .I1h5 After 2 1 .Uxe8+ :Xe8 22 . .tg6 1:e3 Black would obtain counterplay. Now the grandmaster pins all his hopes on the kings ide attack, but surrenders the e file to his opponent.
21 ... tlJe3 Probably now it was the right moment to finally take on c3 ! I have thoroughly analysed the position after 21 . llJxc3!? with the computer and still have not found how White could successfully finish his attack. For instance, on 22.·� lf5 Black can reply with 22 ... .te4 1? (defence by means of centralization !), and it is not clear how White should continue with his attack. Also 22 . . . c51 ? (preferred b y Junior 6) i s very interest ing in this case. ..
22.t:rb1 �xa4
24.Axa5! 1WxaS 25.�b2 ! W ith the deadly threats: 26.1:a 1 and 26.�b3+. 2S ... tlJxg2 25 ... .ta6 loses in view of 26 . .te4 C2:Jc4 (26 . . . lIadS 27.11a1 �bS 2S.�a2+ +-) 27.�c2 I:Iad8 28.i.dS+ �hB 29.�g6 +-. 26.'i¥b3+ 26.:a1 ?? Ue1 +. 26... �8 27 . .th7! �e7 28. tlJfS+ �d8 29.tlJd6 i.f3 30. tlJxe8 tlJxf4 31 .tlJxg7 tDxhS 32.�g8+ �c7 33.�f7 + �b8 34. ·>'� · le6 1 :0
Chapter 1 2
222 Game 74
ShtyrenkoY - Myc Pardubice 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJc3 �b4 6.i..d 2 -txc3 7.bxc3 �dS S.tlJe2 The knight heads for g3, after which can follow .tf1 -d3 or i.f1 -e2.
The continuation in the game - 13 ... �xb1 + - was not so aggressive, but it secured Black a comfortable game without sacrificing material . After 1 4. lbb1 0-0-0 1 5.l:Ib2 f6 ! 1 6.i.d3 tiJa5 his position is slightly better d ue to the weakness of the c4-square. According to Miladinovic 9.f4 (instead of 9.ti:Jg3) is worth considering . It can be met with 9 . . . exd4, and after 1 0.cxd4 ( 1 0 .exd4 lLlf6, 1 0 .tDxd4 tDf6) 1 0 . . .tZJf6 1 1 .tiJc3 0-0 the position is unclear.
9.tlJg3 h5!? In contrast to the game Skembris Miladinovic, here Black carries out the same idea one move later, when the knight is already on g3 and f2-f4 is no longer possible. Ot course Black can also play 9 ... 0-0. However, after 1 0.Ad3 that would transpose to the variation S.i.d3 tiJf6 9 .tiJe2 0-0 1 0 .tiJg3 ( Game 69) , which is probably slightly better for White.
8.. .tlJfS
8 . .. tiJge7 is analysed in Game 75. I. Miladinovic, the great specialist of this line, brought out against Skembris, Greece 1 995, the following i nteresting idea: 8 ... h5!? There then followed 9.tzJg3 h4! 1 0.tlJe4 �g6 1 1 .f31! (better is 1 1 . tZJc5, and after 1 1 ... b6! ? 1 2.tZJd3 h3 1 3 .g3 f6 ! ? 1 4 . .te2 .tf5 1 5.'f:Ya4 tiJge 7 1 6 . tiJb4 Ad7 , as well as after 1 1 . . . h3 ! ? 1 2.g3 tiJf6 the position are unclear) 1 1 tiJge7 ( 1 1 . . . h3? ! 1 2.g3) ••.
1 2/��f2 i.e6 1 3J!Vb1 . I n h is an notations to the game Miladinovic now recommends 13 ...f5 1? with initiative. Let us analyse this a little: 1 4.�xb7 0-0 1 5.tiJd3 (too risky is 1 5. 'ffIxc7 exd4 1 6 .cxd4 f4 or 1 6.exd4 :LteS with a strong attack for the sacrificed material) 1 5 . . . h3 1 6.11g 1 ( 1 6.g3 i.d5! �) 1 6 . . . Ad5, and for the sacrificed pawn Black has indeed a strong initiative.
1 0 .'t+Yc2 On 1 0.iod3 follows 1 0 . . . h4 ! 1 1 .CZJe4 tDxe4 1 2.Axe4 f5 1 3.Ac2 h3 ( 1 3 . . . �g6!?) 1 4. g3 Ae6 with comfortable play for Black. 1 0 ... h4! 1 1 .tlJe4 tiJxe4 1 2. �xe4 f5 1 3. �c2 Here the queen supports c3-c4. An alternative is 1 3.l§'b1 b6 1 4.i.b5 ( 1 4.Ad3 e4 ! ?) 1 4 ... i.d7 ( 1 4 . . . h3!? 1 5.gxh3 i.d7 � 1 6.I1g 1 l:Ixh3 1 7.l:hg7 O-O-O�) 1 5.0-0 h3 1 6.g3 a6 1 7 .i.c4 ( 1 7. Ad3 e4 1 S . .te2 tzJe5) 1 7. . . llJa5 1 8.$..e 2 'iVc6 1 9.f3 tiJc4 °o. 1 3 ... i.e6 1 4.-td3 g6 After 1 4 . . . e4 1 5.Ae2 Black could hardly prevent c3-c4, hence he prefers to keep the tension in the centre. 1 5.0-0
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 (" lc6 3.cxd5 �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tDc3 .tb4 6.i.d2 Axc3 7.bxc3
223
As a result of the tactical complications Black has a clearly better endgame his knight is stronger than White's bishop. A very common motif in our opening !
24.Ag5 l:td6 2S.�e3! After 25.dxe5 tlJxeS 26.Af4 L:�,f3+ 27. wh 1 l::td3 White can hardly save the position . Therefore he sacrifices a pawn in order to exchange his ugly bishop for Black's beautiful knight.
1 5 . h3!? This move weakens the light squares on White's kingside. 1 6.g3 0-0 0 1 7.l:fd1 Preparing the central breakthrough e3-e4. 1 7 .. :�d5 After 1 7 ... exd4 1 8 .cxd4 �dS 1 9 .e4 fxe4 20.�xe4 .tfS 21 .�xc6 (2 1 . .txdS Axc2 22 . .te6+ �8 +) 21 ... .txe4 22.�xdS .txd5 23.1:1e 1 B lack would have achieved a favourable endgame, which, however, he would hardly have won. .
.
..
1 8.e4 The only chance. The l ine 1 8 . .tf1 ? exd4 1 9.exd4 �f3 20.�d3 loses immediately in view of 20 . . . tiJeS ! 21 .�xf3 tiJxf3+ 22.'�h 1 .tdS. 18 ...fxe4 1 9.i.xe4 ,af5 ! 20. Axd5 �xc2 21 .i.e6+ �b8 22JIdc1 �f5 23.i.xf5 gxfS
2S . . . exd4 26.cxd4 {�xd4 27.-txd4 llxd4 20J!lcS :'hdS 29.�1 nOdS 30J:txd5 llxdS 31 .�e2 U nexpectedly this endgame turns out to be far more difficult to win than it seems. White intends to create a passed pawn with f2-f3 and g3-g4, and thus achieve some cou nterplay. 31 ... bS 32.f3 ! cS 33.g41 f4 34.l:tg1 lIeS + ? With 34 ... c4! 3S.gS c3 ! 36.g6 l:[d2+ 37. We1 1:g2 ! Black could have still won . 3S.�d2 lddS+ 36.�c21 lIeS The variation 36 . . . wc7 37 .g5 I1d7 38.g6 1:%g7 39.�d3 �d6 40.�e4 was too hot for the second player. Therefore, he forced a draw by a repetition.
37.�d2 1;ldS+ 30.�c2 l1e5 39.
Game 75
Kurajica - Bukal Porec 1 998
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 .tb4 6.i.d2 �xc3 7.bxc3 �d6 S.tlJe2 tlJge7 This move keeps the option for .. .f7-fS.
Chapter 1 2
224
9.tiJg3 0-0 Probably it is still too early for 9 f5 after 1 0.�e2 �e6 1 1 .0-0 0-0 1 2. iVa4 ! (with the idea �c1 -a3) White is slightly better. In the game Goldin·Lein, Oberlin 1 999, there followed 1 2 . . . t2.JdS? ( 1 2 . . . a6 1 3Jifb1 bS 1 4.'{§'c2 � 8 a4, 1 2 ... b6 1 3. �c1 f4 1 4.Aa3 'f:Yd7 l S.exf4 exf4 1 6. flje4�) 1 3.c4 tlJb6 1 4.'iVc2± exd4 l S.cS 'iVd5 1 6.cxb6 d3 1 7.�xd3 l:tad8 1 8.bxc7 �d7 1 9 .Axf5, and Black resigned. .•.
.
1 0.ioe2 On 1 0 . .ad3 Black can play 1 0 . . . f5 ! ?, after which ... e5-e4 with tempo would be possible.
1 0 ... b6 1 1 .0-0 h6 A prophylactic move which takes con trol over the g5-square. On the imme diate 1 1 . . . .te6 would follow 1 2.l2Je4 't'Yd7 1 3.tlJgS;t. In the game Brumen-Bromann, Buda pest 1 999, Black played 1 1 f5. Then came 1 2.�c2 �e6 1 3.nfd 1 l:ad8 1 4 . .tc 1 ! ¢'h8 ( 1 4 . . . tlJa5 1 5.c4 � 8 1 5 ... exd4?! 1 6.exd4 'iWc6 1 7.i.g5 ! . once again the g5-square ! - 1 7 ... :fe8 1 8. nacl ±) 1 5.i.b2, and due to the threat c3-c4 White has the initiative. ••.
1 2.'i¥c2 1 2.dxe5 tlJxe5 1 3:�c2 i.e6 1 4.c4 tlJxc4 l S.i.xc4 �xc4 1 6.'ir'xc4 'iVxd2 1 7.'ifxc7 tlJdS with equality.
1 2 ...�e6 1 3.lIad1 �ad8 1 4. j,c1 The bishop heads for b2, in order to make c3-c4 possible.
1 4 ... exd41 The immediate 1 4 ... 'lJa5?! is inferior in view of the familiar idea 1 5.dxe5 ! 'iVxe5 1 6.c4! followed by AC1 -b2.
1 5.exd4 Also possible was 1 5.cxd4, and 1 5 ... tDb4? ! 1 6:�a4 tDxa2? is bad in view of 1 7.i.a3 '&'d7 1 8:�c2 a5 1 9.dS! .ixd5 20.llxd5 (or 20.e4 tlJb4 21 . .ii.xb4 axb4 22.exdS tlJxd5 23.i.f3 +-) 20 . . . llJxd5 21 .i.xf8 :Xf8 22.�xa2 +-. However, stronger is l S . . . f5 ! , after which White's pawn centre would be fixed and Black would control the important d5-square.
1 S . .. tlJaS 1 6.c4 Of course, this move cannot be delayed, or else the black bishop will go to c4.
1 6 ...�c6! Showing that White's central pawn pair can be also weak.
1 7.�a3 I1fe8 18 . .i.xe7 In the case of 1 8':1fel fljg6 1 9.cS (what else?) 1 9 ... tlJf4 ( 1 9 ...�d5!?) 20."-f1 (20 ..i.f3 i.d5) 20 . . . �c4! W hite's pawn centre is now merely a memory and the second player takes over the i nitiative.
1 8 ... nxe7
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJc6 3.cxd5 �xdS 4.e3 eS S.CZJc3 ..tb4 6.i.d2 .ixc3 7.bxc3 225 Game 76
Machelett - 8rynell Bundesliga 2000
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tiJc3 .tb4 6 . .td2 Axc3 7.bxc3 tZJf6
1 9.cS? A mistake - the wrong pawn goes forward! White had to play 1 9 .d5 ! , and after 1 9 . . .:Xd5 (1 9 . . . Axd5? 20 . .id3 ! tlJxc4 2 1 .J.xc4 l:ted7 22.Ab3 .txg2 23.llxd7 :Xd7 24.:1e1 ! ±) 20 . .tf3 llxd1 21 . i.xc6 nxt1 + 22.tiJxf1 tUxc6 the posi tion would h ave been approximately equal .
This is the most natural continuation, wh ich is preferred by the best Ch igorin expert, A.Morozevich, virtually all the time. Black develops another piece, prepares to castle and here the knight h as more impact on the centre, com pared to 7 ... liYJe7.
1 9 ... :ed7 Also 1 9 ... �d5 !? seemed good.
20 . .tf3 'iYb5 Black has now a clear advantage due to the d4-weakness. Kurajica sacrifices the 'source of his troubles', in order to activate his pieces. 21 .d5!? �xd5 22.cxb6 cxb6 23..tg4 .te6 24 . ..txe6 fxe6 White's compensation is not sufficient, but he can still struggle on. 2S.l::tc 1 �d3 26.�b2 �b7 27.:tc3 'iYdS 28.:le3 'L)cS 29.h3 'iYd2 30.�a3 'tWc2 31 .:fe1 tDd3 In this position, despite his significant advantage, Bukal offered a draw, wh ich was, of course, immediately accepted by Kurajica. %:Y2
8.tDf3 This move is n ot considered to be particularly strong - the knight can be attacked with . . . e5-e4. And we will shortly see what that would give the second player. The main continuations B.c4 and S.f3 wi ll be analysed in Games 77- 8 1 and 82-88 respectively. Another possibility is S:t!fb3. After B 'ii'd6 there arises a position, which is similar to the variation 7 ...1!¥dS. The plans of both sides have been al ready explained in the annotations to Game 71, let us now examine some variations: .••
Chapter 1 2
226 a) 9.:tb5 9.�d3 0-0 1 0.tZJe2 b6 1 1 .0-0 :e8 oo.
9 0-0 1 0.ti:Jf3, ..•
and now: al ) 10 �g4 1 1 :�Wa4?! e4 1 2 ..txc6 �xf3 1 3.gxf3 bxc6 with a good position for Black, Berebora-Bigaliev, Budapest 1 996, i nteresting was, however, 1 1 .tc1 I? with the idea .ta3. a2) 1 0 e4!1 This interesting continuation was played by Morozevich in a blitz game in 1 999 on the Internet Chess Club against GM V.Shulman. Further followed 1 1 .i.xc6 ( 1 1 .'lJg 1 a6 1 2 . .te2 b5! 1 3.a4 �e6 1 4.'iWb2 l:tab8 with initiative for Black) 1 1 bxcS 1 2.tlJe5 �a6 1 3.c4 (in the case of 1 3.Ac1 cS! 1 4.�a3 lDd7 1 5. ilJxd7 'S'xd7, after 1 6.�xc5 '8'g 4 ! , as well as after 1 6.�dl l:1fb8! l!. 1 7 . .txc5 ];Ib2 Black would develop a dangerous initiative) 13 c5 1 4 .tc3 :ab8 1 5:��Va4 cxd4 1 6.exd4 e3! 1 7. fxe3? ! (better is 1 7.13 00) 1 7 . .. tiJe4 1 8.iVc2, and now, instead of 1 8 . . . ..i.b7?! 1 9.0-0 f6 20.liJf3 :fe8 21 .:ab 1 �, Black should have played 1 8 'i!ia3! with a strong attack, e.g. 1 9.'iWxe4 (1 9.Ji.d2 ti:Jxd2 20.�xd2 llb2 with attack) 1 9 . . .'6'xc3+ 20.'�f2 l:b2+ 2 1 .'�)g3 ..tb7 22.d5 l:Ie8 -+. a3) In another ICC blitz game against Shulman, 1 999, Morozevich played 10 .....te6!? 1 1 .�c2 e4 1 2...txc6 �xc6 1 3. tzJe5 �a6 1 4.c4 with an unclear position. b) 9 . ..\i.d3 0-0 1 0.liJe2 b6 1 1 .0-0 b 1 ) 1 1 ... 1:e8 1 2.CiJg3 .tb7 ( 1 2 . . . ClJaS 1 3.'i!fbl t!l 1 3 ... cS? 1 4.l2Je4 ! ±, 1 3.'i!fc2 ! ? l!. �xe5, c4, .ac3) 1 3Jlad1 1:ad8 1 4.f3 ( 1 4J� ,f5 'itf8 1 5 .f3 e4 00) 1 4 ... exd4 1 5.ti:Jf5 ( 1 5.cxd4? ilJxd4 !+, M. Roeder Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999) 1 5 .. :�d5 1 6.exd4 ( 1 6.cxd4 'ti'xb3 1 7.axb3 g6 1 8 . 'lJg3 tiJds 1 9.1:fe1 tiJdb400) 1 6 ... liJe7 ( 1 6 ... tiJa5 1 7:�Vc2 t!l 1 7 . . . tlJc4 1 8.i.g5 ! ) 1 7.t2Jxe7+ lbe7 1 8.lIfe1 !. Instead o f 1 4 ... exd4 I like 14...tlJa51? t!l . . . c5oo better. ••.
•
•••
•..
.••
••.
•
b2) 1 1 ... i&.eS!? 1 2.�c2 llad8 ( 1 2 ... l2Ja5 1 3.dxe5! 'i'xe5 1 4 .c4! with i nitiative) with an u nclear position, e.g. 1 3.f4 ( 1 3 . tiJg3? exd4 1 4.cxd4 liJxd4 ! +) 1 3 . . . e4! 1 4 ..txe4 ilJxe4 1 5.'fi'xe4 :i.c4! 1 6.'i!ff3 f5 ! 5ii or 1 3. '1tih 1 tlJa5 t!l . . . c5 00. c) 9.tiJe2 0-0 1 0.ti:)g3 ];;le 8 ( 1 0 . . . b6! ? 1 1 ..td3 .teS 1 2.'iYc2 llad8 1 3.0-0 tlJa5 l!. . . . c5°o, but not 1 2 . . . liJa5? 1 3.'lJe4 ! ±) 1 1 . .ie2, Lerner-Maahs, Munster 1 996, 1 1 . . . b6 °o. I nteresting is also 1 1 . . . .teS ! ? l!. 1 2.'!'fxb7 AdS with a sharp fight. d) 9 . .ic1 Ae61? d 1 ) 1 0.'Wxb7 0-0 1 1 :�Va6 :fb8 1 2 .dxe5 tlJxe5 1 3.'ifxd6 cxd6, and in this interest ing position , in which Black has a great lead in the development, a draw was agreed , Bairachny-Tishin, Tula 2000. d2) 1 0.'t'Ya3 exd4 1 1 .�xdS cxdS 1 2. exd4 �d7 1 3.�d3 V2:V2, V. Voloshin Klima, Czech Republic 2005. d3) 1 0 .ta3 .txb3 1 1 .�xd6 cxd6 •
1 2.axb3 exd4 Good is also 1 2 . . . 0-0 , Hoang Thanh Trang-Botsari, Istanbul (ol) 2000, or 1 2. . . �e7, Hoang Thanh Trang-Kallio, Buda pest 2002, with equality in both cases. 1 3.exd4 tzJe4 ! ( 1 3 . . .tiJd5 1 4.�d2;t, Babula-Klima, Karlovy Vary 2005) 1 4. bcl d5 1 5.�d3 �dS 1 6.tiJe2 0-0 1 7.0-0 b5 1 8 .tDf4 b4 1 9 .tDxd5 bxc3 20.:Xc3 /� !Xd4 =, Selin-Tishin , Tula 2002 . Let us now go back to the main game :
8 ... Ag4!? Now . . . e5-e4 is a serious threat. Black wants to force 9.Ae2 and after 9 ... e4 1 0.ti:Jgl exchange the light-squared bishops , which would be favourable for him, as we will soon see. Also good is the simple 8 ... 0-0. I found two games with it, and in both of them followed 9:�c2. Then the two games diverge: a) 9 .. .l:1e8 1 0.c4 'iWd6 1 1 .dxe5 (1 1 . d5 e4 !) 1 1 . . . tz:Jxe5 1 2.tlJxe5 �xe5 1 3.Ac3
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.lLlc3 Ab4 6.i..d 2 i..xc3 7.bxc3 227 'i!Vg5 14 . .td3 Ag4! 1 5.i.xf6 ( 1 5.0-0? .if3) 1 5 . . . 1ixfS 1 6 .0-0 g6=, Razuvaev Morozevich, Rome 1 995. In his annotations to this game - Chess Informant 64/(339) - Morozevich sug gests 1 4.h4 and be lieves that then White's position is preferable. But it seems that in this case the sacrifice 14 . . . �xe3+ 1 5.fxe3 ( 1 5.�d2 �d3+ ! ) , 1 5 . . . �xe3+ gives Black sufficient compensation , e.g. 1 6.i.e2 tDe4 1 7.i.eS (1 7.'�d3 'ffxd3 1 s.Axd3 tDxc3 1 9.Wd2 tDa4=) 1 7... .tg4 1 S.:11 :e8 1 9 . .tf4 't\Yc3+ 20.�xc3 tZJxc3 21 .�d2 tlJe4+ (21 . . . tlJxe2 ! ? 22.Axc7 :cS oo) 22.'�d 1 (22.<;tie 1 '2:Jc5! +) 22 . . . tDc3+ 23. �d2 with a draw by repetition. b) 9 ...Ag4 1 0.c4 �d6 1 1 .dxe5 (after 1 1 .d5 i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 t:iJe7 White's pawn structure is compromised and the second player has a development advantage) 1 1 . . .tZJxe5 1 2 .tz:JxeS 'f*'xe5 1 3 .i.c3 'iYg5 1 4.i.d3 :adS 1 5 . .txf6 (1 S.0-0 i.f3 with attack) 1 5 ...'6'xf6 1 6.0-0 ( 1 6.i..x h7 +?? �h8 1 7.0-0 g6-+) 1 6 ... g6 1 7 ..te4 c6 with a comfortable game for Black, Agnos-Miladinovic, Karditsa 1 996. The immediate 8 ... e4 is likewise pos sible, but its drawback is that after 9 .c4 'M'd6 1 0/:�g 1 White keeps the bishop pair and the d2-bishop is active. I did not find any games with this continuation .
9.i.e2?! White goes along with his opponent's wishes. Better was 9.h3!, e.g. 9 . . . AhS 1 0 . .te2 e4 (1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .�b3 oo) 1 1 .g4 �gS 1 2.c4 'i!¥d6 1 3. ( ,h4 0-0 with an unclear position. 9 e4 1 O.tZJg1 7 ! Better i s t o play first 1 0.c4, i n order to gain some space in the centre and activate the d2-bishop. ..•
1 0 .iJ..xe2 1 2.0-0 •••
1 1 .tZJxe2
0-0
"
After the exchange of the e2-bishop the light squares in the white camp are ex tremely weak. All the central pawns are located on dark squares, hence the d2bishop is very passive. But if White could accomplish c3-c4, everything would be still OK for him.
1 2...tiJa5! The knight goes to c4, where it will prevent c3-c4 for good . 1 3.tiJf4 �c6 1 4.'@c2 CDc4 1 5.l:Ifd1 lUeS! According to Nimzowitsch a strategical ly important point (the e4-square in our case) should be overprotected. More over, as soon as the f4-knight dis appears, the rook could be transferred to the kingside via e6. 1 6 . .te1 tiJd5! Logical and strong. The f4-knight controls important light squares and therefore must be exchanged. 1 7.tiJxd5 'iYxd5 1 8.a4 W ith the idea IIb1 -bS, which, however, Black can easily prevent. 1 8 .. .11e6! 1 9J:tdb1 a6 20J::tb4 b6 21 .'ife2 Diverting Black's rook from the king side. 21 ... nc6 22.i:tc1 lle8!
Chapter 1 2
228
The rook, however, cannot be held off.
23.l:tc2 �ee6 24 . .td2 %Ig6 25 . .tc1 h5! Black plays brilliantly on the light squares. 26.'iVe1 W hite finds nothing better than to wait. He could just throw away his bishop that would hardly make any difference.
26 .. :�f5 27. �e2 And now the following beautiful combi nation crowns Black's strategy.
With this move , followed by d4-d5, White wins space in the centre and activates his dark-squared bishop . But Black has also his achievements: • He has an advantage in develop ment. • In many variations his knight acquires the c5-square (e.g. after . c'i ,f6-d7 -c5) . • Often he can attack White's centre with . . . c7-c6 (eventually even fol lowed by . . . b7-bS) . Another idea is . . . f7-fS, especially when White has played e3-e4. ..
8 ... �d6 9.dS fiJe7
27 ..l:xg2+ ! 28.�xg2 Jlg6+ 29.�h1 �h3 30.f4 exf3 31 . 'i¥f2 'Dd6 And there is no cure against 32 . . .tiJe4 or 32 ... tlJfS. .
0:1
1 0.�b1 A mUlti-purpose move: •
•
This game is a good example of the light-squares strategy, which is so typical for the Chi gorin Defence. Game 77
•
The development of the cB-bishop is hindered. The continuation �b4 is prepared. The advance e3-e4 is now possible.
moves 1 0.11b1 , 1 0.'3'b3 and 1 0:tia4+ will be analysed on the basis of Game 80. Here 10.i.d3, which has The
Copenhagen 1 996
been played a few times, should be also mentioned . Black then has to choose between quite a few good possibilities:
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJc6 3.cxdS 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 5.'Dc3 .tb4 6. i.d2 i.xc3 7 .bxc3 C:�f6 8.c4
a) 10 0-0 1 1 .�c2 (1 1 .'6'b1 a5 00) . In the game Polishchuk-Gavrilenko, Swidnica 1 999, followed 11 c6 1 2.e4 tiJd7 1 3. .-: ·f3 t-�c5 °o. Also possible is
Makslmenko - Lejlie
•••
...
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 {" ICS 3 .cxdS '6'xdS 4.e3 eS S.tZJc3 �b4 S.�d2 i.xc3 7.bxc3
1 1 ...e4!1 1 2.�e2 (1 2.i.xe4?? 'WeS -+ ) 1 2 . . . cS with a complicated struggle. b) 10 e41? 1 1 . .iic2 cS!?, Christenson S. Heim, Oslo 1 99B, 1 2.dxcS tZJxcS 1 3. .ic3 �eS oo. •..
c) 1 0 . . . c6 !1 1 1 . e4 bS ! ? (1 1 . . . tZJd7 1 2. 't!Vc2 tZJcS 1 3.tZJe2 fS Enoeckl· Schweiger, Linz 1 997) 1 2.cxbS cxdS 1 3.'6'a4 i.b7 1 4.i.b4 '6'd7 with active play for Black, Zivanic-Lupulescu, Oropesa del Mar 1 998. 00 ,
1 0... 0-0 Interesting is also 1 0 ... tZJd7. Then 1 1 . e4 0-0 would transpose to the variation 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .e4 tZJd7. Consistent is 1 1 . i.b4, after which would follow 1 1 . . . tZJcS. Unfortunately, I have not found any games with these positions. Another continuation is 10 ...a5!1, in order to prevent �b4 � Game 79.
229
c6 l B.i.d3 ;t) l S.i.. c4 i..e 6 1 7.0-0 ( 1 7 . .id2 ! ?) 1 7 . . .tZJxb4 1 8.i.. xe6+ (or l B. �xb4!) l B .. Jlxe6 1 9.'!\Vxb4 White is slightly better. b2) 1 2 ... c5! 1 3.dxcS �c7 1 4.i..x e7 ( 1 4 . cxb7 .ixb7 5ii) 1 4 . . . :xe7 l S.cxb7 'WaS+ l S.tZJd2 :Xb7, and Black has more than sufficient compensation for the minimal material shortage. c) 1 1 .tZJe2 .if5 1 1 . . . cS! ? ; 1 1 . . . tZ:Jd7! ? 1 2.'6'b2 tlJe4 1 3.Jl.b4 �b6 1 4.tZJg3 1 4.�a3 cS 1 S.dxcS :feB 5ii � 1 6 . .ixe7 lbe7 1 7:!!¥xe7?? �aS+ -+. 14 . . .c5 l S.i..c3 tZJxc3 l S.'iYxc3 i.gS 1 7.i.e2 ( 1 7. �xeS? '!!¥b4+ 1 8. �d 1 I1feB -+) 1 7 ... :fe8 l B.O-O ( l B.'�xeS? 'iVb4+ 1 9.�1 .ib1 ! 20.a3 �b3 21 .tZJe4 �c2 22.tZJc3 tZJxdS 23.'i1xdS l1adB 24. �hS �c1 + 2S.tZ:Jd 1 :xdl + 26.i.xdl .id3+ 27.�gl 1Wxa1 -+) 1 B . . . tZJcB oo, Jovanic-Fercec, Bosnjaci 2004.
1 1 ... cS!? Thanks to his advantage in develop ment, Black is ready to sacrifice a pawn in order to open the position . After 1 1 ... '1!r'dB?! 1 2.i.d3 White has a clear ad vantage.
1 1 .i.b4!? Some other continuations : a)
1 1 .e4 Q Game 78.
b) In the case of 1 1 .tZJf3 Morozevich recommends 1 1 ... :e8!? and evaluates the position as unclear. Let us continue this variation : 1 2.i.b4 ( 1 2.i.d3 tZJexdS !), and now: b 1 ) After 12 ...�d8 1 3.tZJxeS ( 1 3 . .ie2 ! ?) 1 3 ... tZJexdS 1 4.tZJxf7 �xf7 l S.cxdS tZJxdS (l S .. :�xdS 1 6:�c2 'WeS 1 7.Ilc 1
1 2.dxc6 I nteresting is 1 2.i.c3!?, as Jussupow played against Rabiega in the Frankfurt Chess Classic (rapid) 2000. Now the manoeuvre . . . tZJfS-d7 -cS does not work, and the dS-pawn is promoted to a passed pawn. Rabiega replied with the aggres sive sacrifice - 12 ... b51 ! 1 3. \\VxbS r:tb8 -, but after 1 4.'WaS tZJe4 l S.tZJf3 he had no compensation. Therefore Black must look for some other possibilities, e.g. 12 ... l1eB, so that later (once the ;'� �e7 has been moved) the e-pawn would be additionally protected by the rook, or 1 2 . . . e4. In any case, Jussupow's idea needs further testing in practice. 1 2 . . :�c7 1 3f, ',f3
Chapter 1 2
230
White wants to complete the mobilisa tion of his forces quickly and to this end, he gives back the pawn. In the case of 1 3.cxb7 i.xb7 Black's development ad vantage would be even more obvious. Possible was 1 3.'§'b2, but after 13 tid8 (1 3 ... bxc6? 1 4.'iWa3 1:e8 1 S.i.d6±) 1 4.jLxe7 '1!Vxe7 the second player has a good position, e.g. 1 S.tlJf3 ( 1 5.cxb7 Axb7i5i5) 1 S ... bxc6 1 6.llJxeS �d6 ! 1 7 . Ae2 ( 1 7.Ad3 tlJg4 1 8.ttJxg4 Axg4 with attack) 1 7 ... 1:b8 1 8.�c3 1:e8 1 9.f4 ( 1 9. tlJf3 tzJe4 20 .�a5 l:b2 21 .1:d 1 'iYf6 i5i5 L1 22.i¥xa7? �c3+ 23.'�f1 lbe2 24.�xe2 '8'c2+ -+) 1 9 . . . �4 20.'iYd4 (20.'lfaS l:b2 2 1 .:d 1 �e7 with attack) 20 . . . 't'ixd4! (20. . .�b4 + ! ? 2 1 .�1 tZJd2+ 22. wg 1 cS 23.�d3 itb7 24.n:d 1 tlJe4 i5i5) 21 .exd4 f6 ! 22.'Dxc6 l:b2 with an attack for Black. ..•
1 3 ... bxc6 An interesting alternative is 1 3 . . . 11d8! ? 1 4.cxb7 ( 1 4 . i.xe7 'i!¥xe7 1 S.cxb7 Axb7i5i5) 1 4 . . . Axb7 1 5.'6'b2 (1 5.Ae2? Axf3 t:. 1 6 .. JIab8 -+) 1 S . . . Axf3 1 6.gxf3 Uab8 ( 1 6 ... Wb7 1 ? 1 7.i.e2 :ab8 1 8.l:b 1 liJc6 1 9.i.c3 'it'd7 20.'fia1 �h3 1 ?) 1 7. iVa3 tDc6 1 8.Ac3 iVd7 1 9.i.e2 �h3 tRio 1 4. 't!¥b2 c5 On 1 4 ... e4? comes 1 S.'iVe5! 'ii'xe5 1 6. 'Dxe5 1:e8 1 7.Axe7 ( 1 7.Ae2!?) 1 7 . . . l:xe7 1 8.tlJxc6 ±. 1 S.,tc3
1 S ... tZJe4?! Unfortunately, Black does not choose the best continuation now. Stronger was 1 S ... e4 1 6.i.xf6 gxf6 1 7.tzJd2 fS 1 8.tlJb3 ( 1 8.'Wf6 :b8 1 9.Ae2 1:b6 with counterplay) 1 8 . . . nbSoo � 1 9.'t'!Va3 :b4. There was one more good alternative: 1 5 ... tlJg6!?, e.g. 1 6.i.xe5 ( 1 6.tlJxeS llbS -+, 1 6.Ad3 e4 1 7.Axf6 exf3 1 8. i.xg7 fxg2 1 9.:g 1 :b8 20.iVc3 't'Yxh2) 1 6 . . . tlJxe5 1 7.'t'!Vxe5 ( 1 7.tlJxeS llbS 1 8 . 'iVc3 tlJe4 -+) 1 7 . . . 'i¥a5+ 1 8.tZJd2 l:d8 with a dangerous attack. 1 6.tzJxeS W hite gets a material advantage once again. 1 6 ...f6 1 7.tDf3 i.g4 1 8 . ..te2 tDg6 1 9.0-0 The first player has finally completed his development. Black has still an active position and certain compensation for the pawn , the game is far from being decided yet. 1 9 . l:tae8 1 9 . . . 11feS! ? ..
20.h3 Axf3 21 .,txf3 f�h4 22 . .ad1 After 22 ...be4 l:xe4 White has pro blems with the c4-pawn, e.g. 23.'iVbS l:lliS 24.'iWa4 �f7. 22 ...fS! This move prevents the opponent's activity in the centre (f2-13, e3-e4) and prepares the activation of the rook on the 6th rank. In addition , . . . IS-f4 is pos sible at a given moment.
23.i.e1 In order to play 12-f3, which was bad at the moment in view of 23 .f3 tlJxc3 24.�xc3 �g3 2S.'i+Yd2 :Xe3. 23 .. ":{e6 24.f3 This move weakens the g3-square and
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 "{�c6 3 .cxdS '6'xdS 4.e3 eS S.ClJc3 .tb4 6.i.d2 Axc3 7.bxc3 23 1 results in Black win n ing back the pawn. White could have kept his material ad vantage with 24.g3 dg6 2s.'�a7h2.
c4 �d6 9.dS tiJe7 1 0.�bl 0-0 1 1 .e4
24 ... tiJg3 2S.i.xg3 �xg3 26.�f2 �eS Now both a1 and e3 are under attack Black wi ns back the pawn ! But in return White achieves a positional advantage.
...
27.];1b1 "*,xe3 28.g3 ! ;� g6 29.f4! Black cannot prevent the activation of the bishop on f3. 29 ... t1dS 30.i.f3 l:td2?! 30 ...ClJe7 was more resilient. 31 .�xe3 t1xe3 32.l:%f2 The situation is finally clear. The activity of the black rooks is u nder control, White's bishop is now much stronger than Black's knight, the a7- and c5pawns are weak, and in addition White controls the b-file. Al l that should be enough for the wi n, and the continuation of the game proves that. 32 ...l:tdd3 33.�g2 34.h4! ,: '.fS 35.l:tb8 36JXc8 �g7 37.l:txc5 The rest is a formality:
h5 g6
37 .. .!la3 3S.nc7+ �h6 39. l:tc8 tiJd7 40.cS tiJf6 41 .c6 tiJe4 42.nh8+ �g7 43.c7 �xh8 44.c8�+ �h7 45.1:Ic2 1 :0 Game 78
Ljubojevic - Morozevich Monte Carlo (rapid) 2003
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3_cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tiJc3 �b4 6.�d2 .txc3 7.bxc3 tiJf6 8.
In this game White does not hurry with Ad2-b4. W ith his last move he sec ures the d5-pawn and prevents the possibility ... e5-e4.
1 1 ... tlJd7 1 2 . .tb4 Also possible was now
1 2.i.d3 tiJc5 1 3.CiJe2 f5 1 4.().O, and now: a) 14 ... fxe4 l 5 .i..xe4 tZJxe4 1 6 .'iWxe4 c6 ( 1 6 . . . i..f5 1 7.'tA.Ve3 c6) 1 7.i..g 5 ( 1 7. Ac3 cxdS 1 8.cxd5 �xd5 1 9.'t?t'xe5 �xe5 20. Axe5=) 1 7 ... cxd5 1 8.i..xe7 �xe7 1 9.cxd5 i..f5 20.'i!Ye3 with approximate equality. b) 14 .f4!1 1 5.f3 g5 ! , and Black's init iative on the kingside is very dangerous, Khalifman-Morozevich, Amsterdam 1 995. ••
1 2 ... tiJcS 1 3.tiJf3 b6 Before starting any active operations, Black protects additionally his pinned knight and by doing so frees his queen. In the game Bousios-Botsari, Salon ika 1 996, after 1 3...CiJg6 1 4.g3 f5 Black achieved a good position , but probably Lj ubojevic was expecting that con tinuation and had prepared an improve ment. Interesting is also the possibility 13 ...f5!? 1 4.ClJxe5 fxe4 1 5:�b2 b6 °o.
1 4.�b2? !
Chapter 1 2
232
The queen attacks the eS-pawn - but W hite ignores his development, and he is already behind. 1 4.i.e2 was appropriate here, though Black would have achieved comfortable play with 1 4 ... tDg 6 or 1 4 . . . f5.
1 4 f5! •..
22.¢>xd3 c6 ! -+ , 1 7_�e2 fxe4 1 8.'fixe4 (1 8.i.xe4 .tf5 ! with an attack) 1 8 . . . �f5 1 9.'fi'd4 tZJc6! 20.dxc6 �xd3+ 21 .i¥xd3 (21 .�xd3 �ad8 -+) 21 . . . �b2+ 22.tZJd2 :ae8+ -+ or 1 7.�1 fxe4 1 8.�xe4 i,f5 1 9.'iVe2 �ae8 with an attack for Black.
1 7 . . . iLJg6 1 8.'iYd4 Now White needs just one more move to close the centre with e4-e5 or repel Black's q ueen with .l:al -bl and then finally castle. However, Morozevich denies his opponent that highly desired tempo.
Of course, Morozevich wants to open the position as fast as possible so that his advantage in development does not evaporate.
1 5.�xe5? ! Apparently Ljubojevic was not fasci nated by the variation 1 5.tDxe5 fxe4, e.g. 1 6 . 0-0 - 0 ( 1 6 . ioe 2 tiJg6 1 7 .tiJxg6 �xg 6 + l\ 1 8.0-0? ,th3 -+) 1 6 .. . a5 1 7. ,ta3 l:U5 1 8.tlJg4 i.d7 , and the second player is very active, while the white pieces lack coordination . But that would have been the lesser evil.
1 5 ...llJd3+1 I could hardly imagine that the Yugoslav grandmaster had missed this continuation. More likely he must have considered the resulting position , more or less, playable. 1 6.i.xd3 'i¥xb4+ 1 7.iLJd2 All the king moves seem rather dubious, e.g. 1 7.�d1 fxe4 1 8.'i!Vxe4 (1 8 . .txe4 i.f5 with an attack) 1 8 . . . Af5 1 9. �e 1 'iia4+ 20 :�d2 11ae8 2 1 .�cl Axd3
1 8 ... c5! In order to open the centre, Black sacrifices another pawn on the altar of attack.
1 9.dxc6 After 1 9.�e3 the following beautiful line decides: 19 .14 20.'6'e2 (20.�f3 ��e5 21 .�e2 i.g4 22.13 'l!Vc3 23.0-0 Ad7 ! -+) 20 ... f3 ! 21 .'We3 (21 .1{Wdl tDe5 22.i.fl fxg2 23 . .txg2 tZJd3 + -+) 21 . . . tiJf4 ! 22. �xf3 Wc3 -+. __
1 9 . .t�f4 20.e5 .
This natural move, u nexpectedly, loses material and virtually costs the game, but W hite's position was already very difficult - also after 20.Afl fxe4 White's 'centralized' king would have practically no chances of survival .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 "�c6 3 .cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tlJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3
233
20 ...�b2 ! With this spectacular reply Black wins the exchange and in the end, also the eS-pawn. 21 .'iYxf4· 21 .�xb2 tZJxd3+ 22.�e2 tiJxb2 -+ . 21 ...�xa1 + 22.�b1 lte8 23. 0-0 �xe5 24.�xe5 :txe5 White still fought on for a long lost cause - on move 44 he resigned. 0:1 Game 79
S. Farago - Bigaliev Budapest 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 liJc6 3.e3 e5 4.cxd5 'iYxd5 S.liJc3 �b4 6. ..td2 ..txc3 7.bxc3 liJf6 8.c4 'iVd6 9.dS CiJe7 1 0.�b1 as !? Black prevents i.b4. 1 1 .e4 I n the more recent game Yakovich Sulava, Bastia 1 998, after 1 1 .Ad3 0-0 1 2.t}je2 c6! ? 1 3.e4 bS! ? 1 4.cxbS cxdS there occurred a complicated and sharp position . 1 1 ...0-0 1 2.liJf3 In Seres-Bigaliev, Budapest 1 996, after 1 2.Ad3 c6 1 3.Ae3 (� cS) 1 3 . . . cxdS 1 4.cxdS tiJg4 1 S.'fUb6 'fUa3 1 6 .'iYb3 'iYxb3 (1 6 . . :�d6 1 7.Ac1 !? l1 Aa3) 1 7 .axb3 CZJxe3 1 8 .fxe3 .i.g4 1 9.h3 i,h5 20.g4 i.g6 2 1 .�e2 �c8 22.�f3 f6 23.IIa4 tiJd6 the players reached an approximately equal e ndgame and soon agreed a draw.
This position is very interesting and significant for the understanding of the Chigorin Defence. White has a space advantage and the bishop pair. If he completes his development undisturbed, then he can prepare c4-cS and in the end achieve the better chances . How ever, Black has a lead in development at the moment and that means he must open the position, despite White's bishop pair. Then White could get into trouble in view of his 'centralized' king and his still uncoordinated pieces. There are two main possibilities for opening the position - . . . c7-c6 (in most cases followed by . . . b7-bS) or .. .f7-fS. In the actual game Bigaliev decided on the first option.
1 2 ... c6!? 1 3 . .tc3?! Better i s 1 3 . .i.e3!? with the threat 1 4.cS. Then perhaps, Bigaliev would play Similarly to his game against Seres (see the notes to White's 1 2th move) 1 3 . . . cxd5 1 4.exd5 tiJg4 with a complic ated position.
13 ...liJg6 1 4.�d3 bS ! 1 5. liJd2 After 1 5.cxb5 cxd5 1 6.exdS both 1 6 . . . �xd5 and 1 6 . . .tiJf4 !? look promising for Black. But the continuation in the game can not n eutral ize Black's in itiative either. l S ... liJf4 1 6 . .tf1
Chapter 1 2
234
l S .0-0 seems very risky - Black can play l S . . . tLJhS with the threat 1 7 . . . Ah3 ! ' But White's king i s also not any better in the centre. In addition, the f1 -bishop is not particularly happy with its role.
1 6 ... cxd5! Now all possible files and diagonals are opened .
Game 80
Mayo Martinez
�
Gallego
Benasque 1 997
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 c�c6 3.e3 e5 4.cxd5 'iiYx d5 5.'� " le3 .tb4 6 . .td2 ii.xc3 7.bxc3 tlJf6 8.c4 't':Yd6 9.dS Ci:Je7
1 7.cxd5 tiJg4!
1 8.'iYc2 The position after 1 8. �xb5 was, of course, more than dangerous, e.g. 1 8 ... Ad7 (interesting is also 1 8 . . . ,i,aS !? 1 9. 'tWc6 'it'xc6 20.dxcS Axfl 2 1 .�xf1 llfc8) 1 9.tiJc4 �g6 20.�b 1 .J:ab8 2 1 .�c2 �b5 with a strong attack. However, with his last move, White allowed a beautiful combination .
1 8 ... tlJxf2 ! 1 9.�xf2 �c5+ 20.Wf3 i-g4+ ! ! 21 .�xg4 �f2! Now the threat 22 ... hS+ is deadly. 22.g3 h5+ 23:�h4 f6 1 0:1
1 0.�a4+ This idea is not by any means unusual White wants to lure the c8-bishop to d7, and then �a4-b3 would threaten not only ..tb4, but also �xb7. The immediate 1 0.�b3 is also played. In contrast to 1 0.'6'b1 , it does not sup port e3-e4, but in some variations the queen is more active here. a) 10 ... 0-01 ! 1 1 .�b4 c51 ! (after 1 1 . . . '8d8 1 2.tiJf3 e 4 1 3.tLJd4 :te8 1 4.Ae2 W h ite has a positional advantage, Zaremba-Mrkvicka, 1 998, but probably this is the lesser evil) 1 2.dxc6 �c7 13. 'fia3 ! (this option is not possible in the variation 1 0.�b1 ) 1 3 ... 11e8 1 4 . .tdS �d8 l S.c7 �d7 l S.:td1 (l S.beS!?) 1 6 :�!ie6 1 7.tZJf3 llJc6 1 8.�e2 bS 1 9.0-0 i.b7 20. cS t, Bonsch-Brynell, Bundesliga 2001 . Surprisingly, Miladinovic too ran into difficulties with this l ine: 1 6 . . . tZJg6 (in stead of 16 . . .'�Ve6) 1 7 . ..te2 �c6 1 8.tZ.Jf3 b6, Lacrosse-Miladinovic, Cutro 200S, and now for instance 1 9.c5 ± was strong. ..
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 CZJcS 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.ttJc3 .tb4 S . .id2 Axc3 7.bxc3 23S b) 10 a5 1 1 .il.d3 (1 1 . .ac3? tlJe4 1 2. .ib2 CZJcS 1 3.'iYc2 �fS +, 'narFS'-Wis newski , ICC 2003) 1 1 ...e4 (1 1 . . . tDcI7!?) 1 2.Ac2 cS 1 3.dxcS tDxc6 1 4.l:td 1 il.g4 1 S.f3 exf3 1 S.gxf3 AeS Luft-Mohrlok, 2nd Bundesliga 1 996. •••
00,
c) 10 ...tDe4!? 1 1 .tb4 c1 ) 1 1 ... tDcS 1 2:iYa3 b6 1 3.tDf3 as (1 3 . . . 0-0 !?) 1 4 . .txcS bxcS 1 S.'�c3 f6 1 6. i.d3 0-0 1 7.0-0 .tg4 1 8.tDd2 fS 1 9.f4 e4 20.i.c2 cS 2 1 .h3 il.hS oo, Ornstein-Ingbrandt, Sweden 1 995. c2) 1 1 ... cS!? 1 2.dxc6 �fS ! ? ( 1 2 ... 1!VxcS 1 3.tDf3 tZJg6 1 4.�b2 f6 1 s.Ad3 .te6 1 6. 0-0 0-0-000) 1 3.tDf3 tDxcs 1 4 . .ta3 Ag4 1 S.'i!¥xb7 ( 1 S . .te2 0-0-0 1 6.lIb1 IId7 00) 1 S . . . I1bS 1 6.�c7 ( 1 S.�a6?? l:tb6 -+) 1 6 . . . l:tcS 1 7. 'iYb7 llbS with repetition. .
Along with 1 0.�b 1 , 1 0.'4fVa4+ and 1 0. �b3, sometimes 1 0.lIb1 is also played - again with the idea .td2-b4 and at the same time impeding the development of the AcS. Black has a great variety of interesting options at his disposal, e .g . 10. . .tDd7 1 1 .�a4 0-0 1 2 . .ab4 ttJcs 1 3. 'tWa3 b6 1 4.tDf3, Relange-Wisnewski, ICC 3/0 2000, 1 4 . . . cS! ? with initiative; 10 ...1De4 1 1 . .tb4 cS 1 2 . .id2, ErdoganMiladinovic, Istanbul 2002, 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3. .id3 lDxd2 1 4. �xd2 fS 00 ; 1 0... a5 1 1 .f3 (1 1 . il.d3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . e4! ? (of course, the plan . . .tDfS-d7-cS can be also used , but the game continuation is even more aggressive) 1 2.�c2 ( 1 2.1!Va4! ? .id7 1 3:�c2) 1 2 ... 0-0, and Black's deve lopment advantage gradually becomes tangible, Tibensky-Kuba, Pula 2003.
1 0 . . .td7 After 10 ...'fi'd7 1 1 .'f¥a3 ( 1 1 .�xd7+ tDxd7 1 2.Ab4 cS! 00) 1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.tDf3 tlJgS 1 3.il.e2 (6. 1 3 . . . c6 1 4.dS ! ? tlJe4 1 S.cS !) White is slightly better. After 10 ...tDd7 1 1 . .ib4 'i!Yf6 1 2.lId 1 0-0 1 3.tlJf3� in the game P. Maier-Grabher, Hohenems 1 995, White achieved a
slightly better position. However, Yermolinsky's idea 11 ...cS!? is very interesting, e.g. 1 2.dxc6!? (on 1 2.i.c3 0-0 1 3.tiJf3 Yermolinsky suggests 1 3 . . . a6 6 . . . bS) 1 2..:§'xc6 1 3.�a3 ( 1 3:�xcS lDxc6 1 4 . .tdS l2Jb6 1 S.l2Jf3 f6 1 6.cS tDcIS 1 7.Ac4 Ae6 1 S.0-0-0 l2Jc7 with a good position) 13 ... 'i!Ye6 (vacating c6 for the knight, inferior is 1 3 ... tZJg6 1 4. h4 hS 1 S.I%.d 1 , Khegal-Botsari, Istanbul (01) 2004) 1 4.tDf3 CZJc6 1 S.AdS tlJfS 1 6.:d1 t' ,e4 1 7.cS tDxd6 1 S.ItxdS 'iVe7 1 9.AbS i.d7 20.0-0 0-0, and the position is approximately equal.
1 1 .�b3 as ! Black deprives the white bishop of the b4-square. On 1 1 ... tLJe4? ! follows not 1 2.'fi'xb7 0-0 with good compensation, but 1 2.i.b4! cS ( 1 2 ... �fS 1 3.l2Jf3 �, 12 . . . 'i!Yb6 1 3 . .td3 �) 1 3.dxc6 �xc6 1 4.l2Jf3 tlJg6 1 S . .te2 with advantage for White, Efimov-Mellado, Casablanca 1 994. 1 2 .tc3 .
1 2.�xb7? is not recommendable, after 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3.11b1 c6! White is in a difficult situation, Toporov-Tish in, St. Petersbu rg 200 1 . In Rogozenko-Fries Nielsen, Hamburg 1 997, White chose the natural 1 2.Ad3 . The opponent's reaction was remarkable: 1 2 ...e4! ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3.e4 �) 13 .tc2 •
.
1 3 ... bS!?
Chapter 1 2
236
Rogozenko believes that 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4. tZJe2 c6 is a/so playable, and evaluates the position as equal . I would like to ex tend that analysis a little: 1 5.dxc6 tlJxcS (1 5... bxcS!? 1 6.i.c3 11fb8 1 7.l:ld1 ?! ClJed5! 1 8. �a4 tlJxc3 1 9.tlJxc3 �e5 with initiative, 1 7.�a4oo) 1 6 . .i.c3 �e5 1 7. l::ld 1 �c7 1 8.&ZJg3 i.c6 1 9.0-0 llfe8oo.
1 4.cxb5 �exd5 1 4 . . . a4 !?, 1 4 ... 0-0 ! ? 1 5.tZJe2 a4.
1 5.tlJe2 tlJb4 1 6.tZJd4 Now Black - instead of the game con tinuation 1 6 . . . 0-0?! 1 7 .a3 ! tZJxc2+ 1 8.'ifxc2 rlfe8 1 9.a4 tZJg4 20.rlc1 t according to Rogozenko, could have equalized with 1 6 ... c5 !? 1 7.bxc6 �xc6. My analysis confirms his opinion - 1 S. i.xb4 axb4 1 9.rlb1 0-0 20.'i¥xb4 (20.0-0 ttJg 4 ! with initiative) 20 . . . �xb4+ 21 .l:Ixb4 lIxa2 22.iobl :a4 23.iiJxcS l:Ixb4 24. tZJxb4 11b8 25.0-0 nxb4=. -
b) 1 7.tlJe5 b51 1 S.tlJxd7 tlJxd7 1 9. 'f¥xb5 (1 9 . .i.xg7 fS 20.�hS bxc4 2 1 .0-0 liJeS+) 19 ...11ebS 20.�c6 (20 .'iVa4? tZJc5 21 . �c2 t2Jd3+ 22.We2 �aS+) 20 ...'i¥xc6 21 .dxc6 t2Jc5 22 .�e2 l:bS=.
1 3.t¥xb7 White wants to test the opponent's idea and accepts the pawn sacrifice. After 1 3.tiJf3 tZJxc3 (or 1 3 . . . tDc5 1 4.�b2 fS) 1 4.'iVxc3 fS the second player achieves a comfortable game. 1 3 0-0 1 4. �b2 nfbS Why this rook, and not the other one, becomes clear in a couple moves. ...
1 5.V2Yc1 tLlxc3 1 6.�xc3
Now let us continue further with the main game.
Black is down a pawn, but all his pieces are developed, while for the moment White has only his queen participating in the play. But how to make good use of that?
1 6 ... 'iWb4 ! The second player does not mind ex changing White's most active piece.
1 2 .. .tZJe4!? Good was also 12 . . 0-0, e.g. 1 3. 'fi'b2 (1 3.�xb7?? l:fb8 -+; 1 3.ti.Jf3 tZJgS 1 4. �b2 11fe800) 1 3 ... i2Jg6 1 4 . .td3 ( 1 4.tiJf3 1':Ife8 00) 1 4 .. .%%1e8 1 5.i.xg6!? hxg6 1 6. tlJf3 e4, and now: .
a) 1 7.tlJd4 �c5 ! ? ( 1 7 ... cS ! ?) 1 8.�b3 a4 1 9.�b4 '8xb4 20 . .ii.xb4 b5 ! with ini tiative for Black.
1 7.'iYxb4? A serious mistake - now Black's ini tiative on the queenside is decisive. Correct was 1 7.tiJe2, though then also after 1 7 . . .f5 ! ? (1 7 . . . c6 1 8.e4) 1 8.a3 'iYb2 ! ( 1 8 . . . iYxc3 + 1 9. ti.Jxc3 llb2 20. t2Jd 1 ) 1 9.�xb2 nxb2 � Black has good compensation.
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 CLlc6 3 .cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tZJc3 �b4 6.i.d2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 237
1 7...axb4 1 8.-td3 Or 1 8.liJf3 tlJg6 1 9.�d3 b3+. 1 8 ... b3 Now it is clear why Black left a rook on as. 1 9.a3 b2 20J�b1 l:[xa3 With tZJg1 and Dh1 W hite has no chance of resisting Black's raging pieces. 21 .'�d2 cS! 22.e4 cxd5 23. exd5 23.cxdS tZ:JxdS! 24.exdS Dxd3+ 2S.�xd3 .if5+ -+ . 23... Itxd3+ 24. �xd3 .tf5+ 25.�c3 .axb1 2SJ£J3 -tf5 0:1 Game S1
Jussupow - Beliavsky Bundesliga 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2JcS 3.e3 e5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.t2Jc3 .ab4 S.Ad2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 t2JfS 8.c4 �dS 9.d5 t2Jb8!?
By the way, in the aforementioned game there followed 1 0.f3 0-0 1 1 .liJe2 liJa6 1 2.liJc3 e4 ! ? with a comfortable game for Black.
1 0.�b1 Here 1 0.1§ta4+?! is not recommendable - after 1 O ... �d7 1 1 .�b4 tiJa6! 1 2.'6'xd6 ( 1 2.'!!Vxb7 0-0 was too risky for White because he would be far behind with his development) 1 2 ... cxd6 1 3.Db1 C'e4 ! 1 4.f3 (after 1 4.Dxb7 liJacS 1 S.l::t b2 '�.xd2 1 6. �xd2 �e7 followed by . . J:tabS the first player's situation would be critical in view of his undeveloped kingside) 1 4 .. .tLJxd2 1 S.wxd2 CLlcS in the game H . Beck-Gustafsson, Frohn leiten 2002, Black achieved a clearly better endgame due to his favourable pawn structure and more active bishop. Also 1 0.�d3?! is not a good idea, be cause after . . . liJbS-a6-cS this bishop would be attacked with tempo, e.g. 10 ... tlJa6 1 1 .e4 tlJc5 1 2:�e2?! (better is 1 2.�c2, in order to keep the possibil ity � 1 -e2) 1 2 ... c6 1 3.h3? (apparently White wanted to prevent 1 3 . . . �g4, which is very probable after 1 3.liJf3. but now the situation is even worse) 1 3... b5! 1 4.czJf3 t2Jxd3+ 1 S. �xd3 bxc4 1 6. �xc4 cxdS 1 7.exdS tZ:JxdS with an extra pawn, Gebhardt-Gustafsson , Deizisau 2003. The idea of White's last move is already familiar to us - the queen supports e3e4 and impedes the development of the cS-bishop. However, the main threat is 1 1 .�b4, which in the variation 9 . . ::�-Je7 1 0.�b1 Black can prevent with 1 0 . . . a5. There is one more possibility here :
An interesting idea, which according to my database was played for the first time in the game Alexandrova-Prihotko, Alushta 1 999. The second player wishes to bring to cS not the king's knight, but the queen's one.
1 0 ...t2JaS !? 1 1 .�d3 1 1 .liJf3 0-0 1 2 . .si.c3 DeS oo leads to a complicated position. White should be also ready for 1 2 ... e4.
1 1 .. /�c5 1 2.'�' 'e2
Chapter 1 2
238
Very interesting was 1 4 . 0-0 1 5 .0-0 bxc4 1 6.Axc4 fIb8 1 7:ti'c2 llb4! ? 1 8 . .te2 l2:Jcxe4! ? 1 9 .0Jxe4 llxe4 20 . .if3 cxd5 21 .i.xe4 tDxe4°o. ..
�
1 S.l2Jd1 cxd5 Also playable was 1 5 . . . 0-0 1 6.0-0 a5oo.
1 6.exdS a5 1 7.tLJe3 llb8 1 8 . .tc2 0-0 1 9.0-0
At first sight a quiet positional battle lies ahead, but Beliavsky has something else in mind . . .
1 2. . .c6 ! 1 3.e4 b5! I think that there are not many players that would feel comfortable as White in this position - after 13 moves the first player must think of a way to neutralize Black's initiative. We should also not forget that the first player is a super grandmaster with a profound under standing of chess - therefore, serious mistakes are out of the question. That is a good argument for the Chigorin Defence, is it not? 1 4.tLJc3 Jussupow tries to keep the crucial d5and e4-squares under control. After 1 4.cxb5? ! cxd5 Black's pressure in the centre is very unpleasant. 1 4... b4 Junior 6 now makes another suggest ion : 1 4 ... bxc4 1 S .txc4 lIb8 1 6.�c2 cxd5 ( 1 6 ... J:tb4 1 7. i.e2 L\ 1 7 .. .iz_Jfxe4? 1 8. tDxe4 �xe4 1 9. Ae3 ! or 1 7 . . .':� ,cxe4 ? 1 8.C'b5!). Now 1 7.exd5 seems rather dangerous for White in view of 1 7 ... i.a6! with initiative. But probably Beliavsky believed that after 1 7.tlJxd5!1 tiJcxe4 1 8.tlJxf6+ tz:Jxt6 1 9.0-0 or 1 7 . . .tiJfxe4 1 8 . .ta5 �g6 1 9.0-0 his opponent would have some compensation for the pawn in view of his bishop pair. •
Both sides have completed the deve lopment and now m ust conceive their further plans.
1 9 ... g6! Black covers the f5-square and prepares his play on the kingside ( . . . f7-f5 ! ) .
20.�b2 The first player, in his turn, prepares C\2a3 with counterplay on the q ueenside.
20 ... tlJfe4 21 .�xe4 This bishop was not particularly active anyway.
21 ... tlJxe4 22J:Ifd1 ..ta6 In my opinion, Beliavsky decides on the position of the bishop too early - it is possible that the latter will be needed on the kingside. Therefore, I like the immediate 22 . . . . f5 better. 22 . . .tDxd2? ! 23Jlxd2 f5? ! is not recom mendable in view of 24.nc 1 ±.
23 . ..te1 fS 24.a3 z:tb6
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tzJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS 5.tzJc3 .Ab4 6 . .Ad2 ;.i.xc3 7.bxc3 239 On 24 . . . f4 would follow 25.CtJg4. This would have been impossible if Black's bishop had not left the c8-h3 diagonal see the notes to Black's 22th move.
25.axb4 axb4 26.:!aS Now 2S . . . l:fb8 27.f3 tlJcs would lead to a complicated position, but Beliavsky starts a different operation, which seems rather dubious to me.
The most natural move - Black simply continues with his development. 8 :!!Yd6 9 . .td3 transposes to the variation 7 ... 'fWd6 8.�d3 tZJfS 9.13, and 8 cxd4 9.exd4 leads to the line 7 ... exd4 8.cxd4 tiJf6 9.f3, which we have already ana lysed. ..
...
26...f4?! 27.tiJg 4 f3 28Jba6?! If only somebody could explain to me why Jussupow did not play the obvious 28.'t!¥xeS 'ffxe5 29.tlJxeS! As a best con tinuation the computer suggests then 29 . . . tlJc3, which after 30 .;.i.xc3 bxc3 31 .11c 1 c2 32.11aa 1 seems anything, but good for Black (probably lost).
28 .. .1:txa6 29 . .txb4 iDe5 30.'iWxe5 '1Wxe5 31 .tiJxe5 ::reS 32. .txe5?! 32.tlJxf3!? tlJd3 33 . ..tc3±.
32 .. J:txe5 33.gxf3 �7 Black can easily hold this endgame.
34J:tb1 �4 35J:Ib7+ WeS 36 . ..te3 1:Xxe4 37.lhh7 V2: V2
Game 82
Dautov - Mlladinovic Yerevan (01) 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.e4 iDe6 3.exd5 �xdS 4.e3 e5 5.tlJe3 kb4 6 . ..td2 .axe3 7.bxe3 iZJf6 S.f3 This is a very common variation. White achieves more control over the centre, makes e3-e4 possible and is ready to develop the bishop to d3. S O-O ...
9.e4 With his last and following moves ( 1 0. d5) W hite gains some space in the centre and activates his dark-squared bishop. On the other hand, he weakens the cS-square, which is now available to Black's knight. Moreover, the second player achieves a lead in development. That is why the latter usually tries to open the position - most often with . . . f7fS or/and . . . c7-c6. If White plays c3-c4, even (after . . . c7-c6) . . . b7-bS mig ht be possible. Let us now examine some other possi bilities. We should never forget the main idea - Black has the better develop ment and wants to open the position! a) 9.tlJe2 II tlJg3, i.d3, 0-0.
9 ... �d6
I have not fou nd a game in which Black has played 9 ... exd4 ! ? 1 0.cxd4 lle8. Now 1 1 .e4? ! is dubious - after 1 1 . . . tlJxe4 1 2.fxe4 'iYxe4 the second player would achieve a strong attack for the sacrif-
Chapter 1 2
240
iced piece. Probably White must choose 1 1 .�2!? instead and this position needs practical testing.
1 0.tlJg3 exd4
b1 2) 1 3.l:[c1 13 ...l:ad8 14.:xc7 ( 1 4.l1c4 't}fe5 1 5.f4 "iVe7 1 6.tlJf3 1:[fe8 Si5 � 1 7 . . . -'iJe4, 1 4 . .tc3?? �h4+ 0 : 1 , Piket Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999) 14 t2JdS l S.1:[xb7 tDc3 1 6.�cl tlJxe2 1 7 .tiJxe2 1:fe8 1 B.'ii b2 ( l B.1:[b2? DcB -+) 1 8 . . . �c4 ( 1 8 . . .'�dS!?) 1 9.i.aS i.c2 20.0-0 l:Ixe2 = 6. 2 1 .i.xd8? �c5+ 22.�h 1 'iYf2 ! -+ . •..
1 0 ... De8 1 1 .:&.e2 hS!? 1 2.0-0 h4 1 3.tlJh 1 h3°o, Andonovski- lIic, Skopje 2002.
1 1 .cxd4 :e8 1 2.i.e2 Now, in the game Ehlvest-J . Watson, New York 1 996, followed 12 ... tlJdS, and after 1 3.'iVc1 f5 ( 1 3 .. .'ii e7 1 4.0-0 tlJxe3 l S.:e1 ± Ehlvest) 1 4.0-0 f4 l S.tlJe4 'iYd8 1 6.i.c4 fxe3 1 7 .i.xe3 �e6 1 8.�f2 h6 1 9J:lb1 White had an active position. Instead of that Watson recommends 12 ...tlJe7! 1 3.0-0 ( 1 3.�c2 tlJedS) 13 •••
tDfS 1 4.tDxfS �xfS. I have spent some time analysing this position and believe that it is playable for Black, e.g. l S. lIcl (against l S . . . cS, 1 S.'it'b3 cS ! 00) 1 5 . . . b6 1 6.i.bS �d7 1 7.i.c4 (or 1 7.a4 c6 1 8 .i.c4 i.e6) 1 7 . . . i.e6, and it is not clear, how White can achieve an advantage here . b) 9 .id3 bl ) 9 ... exd4!? 1 0.cxd4 tiJxd41? After 10 ... i.f5 1 1 .i.xf5 '!!ixfS 1 2.tlJe2 White's chances seem slightly better due to his potentially dangerous pawn centre, e.g. 1 2 . . . l:lad8 1 3 .iVbl ! ? �c8 1 4.0-0�, Gual-Formanek, Catalunia 1 996 , or 1 2 ... :fe8 1 3 .0-0 '§'d3 (too passive is 1 3 .. .'�'d7 1 4.l:b1 tDdS 1 5.e4 tlJb6 1 6 .�c3 , Hille-Muse, Bundesliga 1 996) 1 4.tDf4 '!\Ya3, de Jong-Fercec, Pula 2004 , 1 5. 'tIIb3 � .
b2) Interesting is 9 ..e4!? 1 0.fxe4 tZJxe4 006. 1 1 .c4 �g5 1 2.i.xe4 'ii' h4+ 1 3.r�f1 'tWxe4. b3) Yermolinsky's recommendation leads to an u nclear position 9 ...:e81? 1 0.tlJe2 (1 0.c4 'iWd6 1 1 .dS �i.Jb4 with counterplay) 1 0 ... e4 1 1 .txe4 tiJxe4, Albrecht-Zaragatski, Dortmund 1 999. .
-
c)
9.c4 'iYd6 1 0.dS &iJe7
•
1 1 .exd4 �xd4 1 2.i.e2 .tfS Also very interesting is 1 2 . . . tLJd5 ! ? tii , and after 1 3.:Ic1 the opponents in the game Dautov-S. Hansen , German team cup 2003, agreed a draw. b1 1 ) 1 3.i.g5 �eS 1 4.,i,xfS?1 (better was 1 4.l:Ic1 tlJdSSi5) 14 ... �xfS 1 S.:c1 ? ( 1 5.�1 l:tad8 1 6.'�'c1 nfe8 �) 1 5 ... l:lad8 1 6.�b3 'iWgS 1 7.l:tcS 'iVxg2 1 8. :XfS �xh 1 1 9.:gS 'ii'x h2 20. 'it'c3 't!¥h4+ 0:1 , Krush-Morozevich , ICC 3/1 1 999.
Cl ) 1 1 .e4 � 9.e4 ""'d6 1 0.d5 fiJe7 1 1 .C4. c2) 1 1 . 'i!Vb3 (with the idea i.d2-b4) 1 1 . . . a5 1 2.e4 fiJd7 1 3 .tlJe2 tLlc5 ( 1 3 . . . f5 ! ? 6. 1 4. �e3 fxe4 1 5.fxe4 tDc5, development advantage) 1 4 .�e3 f5 oo, Kekelidze-Maahs, Deizisau 1 999. c3) 1 1 . .i.d3 tiJd7 1 2 .tlJe2 tiJc5 1 3 . i.c2 00, Szeberenyi-Gara, Budapest 2000. I like 1 1 ... bS!? or 1 1 ... cS!? 1 2.e4 b5 ! ? even better. c4) 1 1 .'i!fb1 (� i.b4) 1 1 ..85 1 1 . . .liJd7 ! ? 1 2.i.d3 h6 ( 1 2 ... fS !?) 1 3.tZJe2 tlJc5 1 4.0-0 b5 1 5.�b4 ? ! a5 1 6.i.a3 b4 6. Aa6 with initiative for Black, Postl.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ( 'CS 3 .cxdS 'i!¥xdS 4.e3 eS S.tlJc3 Ab4 S.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 24 1 Rabiega, Graz 2002, better was l S. cxbS tlJxd3 l S.'3'xd3 a6 oo •
"
1 2.e4 c6!?
� ...bS; 1 2 ...tZJd7! ? .1 ... tiJcS, . . . fS .
1 3.a4 ti:)d7 1 4.iiJh3 tZJc5 1 S.tZJf2 .td7 ( 1 5 ... f5! ?) 1 6.ti:)d3 cxdS 17.tZJxcS (1 7.cxdS? tLlxa4) 17 .. ." !r'xcS 1 8.cxd5 f5 (1 8 . . . 'iWd4 !?) 1 9.'i!fc1 �d6 20.'!!t'a3
'i'xa3 2 1 .:Xa3 fxe4 22.fxe4 tlJc8 (L\ . . . tiJdS, .1 ... tiJbS) 23.i..e 3 tZJds 24 . .i.cS 3:[fS 2S.i..xdS l:bdS =, Giorgadze-Sulava, San Marino 1 998.
9. . :iVd6 1 0.d5 The possibilities 1 0.i..e3 and 1 0.tiJe2 will be analysed in Game 84. 1 0 .. .tlJe7 1 1 .c4
1 1 .tlJe2?! can be met with 1 1 ... c6!?, e.g . 1 2.c4 bS 1 3J�bl as ( 1 3 ... bxc4? ! 1 4 . .tb4) 1 4.cxbS cxdS with initiative. However, Dautov's recommendation 1 1 ... bS!? is also interesting .
1 1 ... t2:Jd7 W ijk aan Zee 2001 , Morozevich tried against Piket to use this knight on the kingside - 1 1 ... tiJhS -, but after 1 2.'iVb3 cS ( 1 2 . . . c6 1 3.cS I?) 1 3.tlJe2 f5 1 4.tlJc3 bS l S . .td3 liJg6 ( l S . . . tiJf6! ? Piket, l S ... tZJf4 1?) 1 6. g3 ( l S.exfS !?) 1 6 .. :�¥e7 1 7.exfS AxfS 1 8 ..txfS :XfS 1 9.tlJe4 tZJfS 20 . .i.gS 'ilff8 21 . .txfS gxf6 22.0-0-0 ! his position was worse. In
1 2.tlJe2 After 1 2.tiJh3 Bareev did not achieve anything against Conquest, Budapest 1 995. There then followed 1 2 ... tLlcS 1 3.
tZJf2 fS 1 4 .tb4 b6 1S ..td3 fxe4 1 6. .txe4 •
(l S. fxe4? lIxf2! 1 7.�2 tiJxd3+ 1 8.'§'xd3 �xb4+, 1 S. &lJxe4?? tZJxd3+ 1 7.'3'xd3 'i¥xb4+ -+) 1 6 ...tLlfS 17 .txfS i..xlS 1 8. 0-0 c6 1 9.:e1 ( 1 9.dxc6 �xc6 20.�dS+ �xdS 2 1 . cxd5 tIfe8=) 1 9 .. . :.e8 (1 9 . . . :ad8 ! ? 20.'tIie2 cxdS 21 .cxdS oo) 20.'iVd2 Uac8 21 J�ac1 h6 with equality. •
This is a very i mportant position in this variation. White has a space advantage in the centre and on the queenside, but he is behind with his development. Therefore he should try to mobilise his forces and develop his initiative on the queenside. Black lays his hopes on the counterplay with . . .f7-fS and/or . . . c7-cS, . . . b7-bS. It would be perfect for him if he could open up the pos ition before Wh ite castles. Usually he brings his knight to cS, in order to prevent c4-c5 and exert more pressure on e4. In particular, Black has at least three plausible continuations to choose from: 1 2 ... tZJcS, 1 2 .. .fS and 1 2 ... b6. The first two are more active, the third one is more of a prophylactiC nature: a) 1 2...tlJcS!? 1 3.tzJc3 fS (1 3 ... a6 1 4.i..e 2 fS l S.0-0 f4? ! 1 6.tlJa4 with initiative for White, C.Gabriel-Bronznik, Stuttgart ( blitz) 1 999, l s . . . Ad7 1 6.i..e3 leads to the main game), and now: a 1 ) 1 4.tiJbS, Mackie-Lennox, corr. 2001 , 14 ...'iWb6 °o. a2) 14 ..te2 fxe4 ( 1 4 ...f4 ! ?) 1 5.tLlxe4 ( l S.txe4? ! �gS 1 S . .tf3 ClJd 3+ with initiative for Black) 1S ... tZJxe4 1 6.fxe4 �c5 1 7.�f3 .tg4! with counterplay. a3) 1 4 . .ie3!? a31 ) 14 ... f4 1 S.tiJbS 'ii'b6 1 6.i.f2 a6 1 7. ( 1(:3 with better chances for White,
Chapter 1 2
242
e.g. 1 7 :&d6 1 8.tz:Ja.4! tiJxe4 1 9.cS! ( 1 9. fxe4 'iVb4+) 19 . . .�gS 20.fxe4 'iVxe4+ 2 1 .i..e 2 '&xg2 22 . .tf3 ± or 1 7 'iYaS 1 8 .l:lc 1 lld8 ( 1 8 ... Ad7 1 9 .dS ! ±) 1 9.Ae2 Ad7 20.0-0 llJc8 2 1 .�h 1 tiJdS 22J:lg 1 bS 23.g3 fxg3 24 .i..xg3 l%e8 2S.�d2 with an initiative for White. ••
•..
a32) 1 4 .Ji.d71? a32 1 ) 1 S.exfS tiJxfS l S .i.f2 e4! 1 7 . i.. x cS ( 1 7.fxe4 '@'eS ! , 1 7.tlJxe4 tiJxe4 1 8.fxe4 '§'eS) 1 7 . . .iVxc5 1 8.tZ.Jxe4 nae8 1 9 . .te2 l:lxe4 ( 1 9 . . . 'We7 20.'fi'd2) 20. fxe4, and now 20 ... �3 2 1 .hxg3 �f2 = or 20 . . . tlJdS!? with an attack. a322) 1 SJlb1 b6 ( l S . . . fxe4!?) l S.tiJb5 i.xb5 1 7.l:IxbS fxe4 1 8.i..xcS bxcS 1 9 . fxe4 '8'h6 or 1 9 . . . 1:f4!? with counterplay. a323) 1 S.Ae2 fxe4 1 6 . .txc5 'i!Vxc5 1 7. tiJxe4!, 1 S f4!1 1 6 . .tf2 a6 1 7.0-0 I%f6 oo. •..
..•
a33) 14 a6 1 5.i.e2 f4! ? ( l S ... fxe4 1 6. AxcS! 'e'xcS 1 7.tlJxe4 'ti'e3 1 8.�b3�) 1 S . .tf2 Ad7 1 7J:�b1 bS 1 8.0-0 1:f6 oo. ..•
a34) 1 4 fxe4 1 5.tUxe4 tilxe4 1 6.fxe4 a34 1 ) 1 6 ...'iWg6 1 7.!¥c2! Dautov. a342) 1 6 ... cS!1 1 7.,te2 Ad7 1 8 .Af3 b5 oo. a343) 1 6 CiJg6f? 1 7.g3 ( 1 7.c5 �fS 1 8.g3 i..d 7 00) 1 7... b6 ( 1 7 . . . Ad7!? 1 8.cS l\Yf6oo) 1 8.c5 ( 1 8 . .tg2 'fib4+ 1 9 .'+!fd2 '&'xc4 20.:lc 1 '6'a4 2 1 .:Xc7 i..aS oo, 1 8. ,te2? ! i.h3 , l 8.Ad3? ! .th3) 1 8 ... bxc5 ( 1 8 . . . 't!¥fS ! ? ) 1 9.1%c1 c4 20Jlxc4 (20 ."txc4 i.h3) 20... .ta6 2 1 .%%a4 .txf1 22.llxf1 c6 with counterplay. .••
•..
00
b) b1 ) b1 1 )
1 2 f5!1 1 3.tlJc3 1 3 a6 1 4.ioe2!1 tiJc5 ( 1 4 . . . f4? ! l S.tzJa4) ..•
.••
1 S.0-o Ad7 1 6.l:b1 f4 00.
b 1 2)1 4.i.d3 ClJc5 l S.Ac2 c61? ( l S . . . f4! ? 1 6.0-0 gS) l S.0-0 bS ! oo, van Wely Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. b2) 13 ... 'iYg6 1 4:fYe2 (1 4.�c2 tLlfSoo) 1 4. . tlJf6 l S .�e3 fxe4 l S.tlJxe4 tlJxe4 1 7 :�xe4, Hoang Thanh Trang-Antal, Budapest 2002, and here, according to Oautov, 1 7 . . . iVfS 1 8 . .tc3 ·:SgS 1 9:fYe3 AfS leads to an approximately equal position. .
These variations show that after 1 2 ... tlJcS, as well as after 1 2 . . . fS Black has good counter chances. And as we already know, in the game Black chose the third possibility, which seems to me a little cautious.
1 2 ... b6 Now the cS-square is protected.
1 3.llJc3 a6 Remarkable is also 13 ... tDc5!? This suggestion from the first edition of the book was tested by Miladinovic in another blitz game on the Internet. Further followed 14 ..te2 ( 1 4A�bS �d8 l S.i.. e3 fS with counterplay) 1 4.. .fS 1 5. exf5 tilxf5 ( l S . . . AxfS! ? l S.0-0 tZJgS A . . .tiJf4) 1 6.0-0 tiJd4 1 7 . .te3 tiJxe2+ 1 8. �xe2 .tfS and the position is roughly equal, Radjabov-Miladinovic, ICC 3/0 2002.
1 4 .si.e2 •
1 4.Ad3 tDcS l S.Ac2 does not promise anything, after 1 5 . . . 1S 1 S.exfS ( l S.0-0 f4 with initiative on the kingside) l S . . . i.xf5 1 7 . .txf5 tiJxfS 1 8.0-0 \'!¥g6 in the game D.James-Miladinovic , Yerevan (01) 1 995, Black obta i n ed a comfortable position . 1 4 . . .tlJc5 1 5.0-0 f5 1 6.i.e3
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 eS S.tlJc3 .tb4 6.oid2 .ixc3 7.bxc3 243 a) 22.g311 tUh3+ 23 . i.xh3 ,axh3 with initiative for Black. b) 22.'t'i'c2 ,ag4 ! ? (A 23 ... ,af3) 23.�h1 .tU6 24.aS l:Iaf8 with counterplay. c) 22.cS!? �xe4 23.cxb6 cxb6 24 . .ixb6 'ti'g6 00•
1 6 ... �d7 Miladinovic prefers to deprive his oppo nent of the possibility tLlc3-a4 immedia tely. However, he could proceed with his counterplay on the kingside. Let us examine the following possibilities : a) 1 6 ... fxe4?! 1 7.CZJxe4 tZJxe4 1 8.fxe4 llxf1 + 1 9.i.xf1 �g6 20:�c2± Dautov. b) 1 6 ... f4 1 7 . .tf2 .id7 (1 7 . . . hS 1 8. .iLh4 ! ? ti)g6 1 9 . .ig5) 1 8.g4 ! ? ( 1 8.a4 ! ?) 1 8 . . . fxg3 (otherwise th ere follows 1 9 . h4) 1 9.hxg3, and Black's initiative on the kingside is neutralized. c) 16 . ..iiJg6 !? Q Game 83. 1 7.a4 tug6 1 7 . . . a5? ! was not recom m endable after 1 8.1Wc2 (.::\ llJbS) White would have had a clear edge, e .g . 1 8 . . . f4 1 9 .�f2 'i!¥g6 20 .�h1 ± or 1 8 . . . tUg6 1 9 .tUb5 �xbS 20.cxbS fxe4 2 1 .fxe4±.
1 8.a5 White wants to create a weak pawn for his opponent by exchanging on b6, and then attack it on the semi-open b-file. Dautov also gives 18Jle1 !1 (in order to vacate the f 1 -sq uare for the bishop) 18 ...
[�if4 1 9.i.f1 fxe4 20.tDxe4 tiJxe4 21 . fxe4, and believes that White is slightly
better. However, the second player has the good resource 21 ...�g61, after which the position becomes double-edged:
18 .. .lijf4 1 9.axb6 cxb6 20. nb1 l:iae8 Black additionally covers the e5-square. The following variation reveals the benefit from that: 20 ... 'Wg6? ! 2 1 .it.xf4 exf4 22.eS ±. 21 .�h 1 Dautov also analyses 21 .Ilf211 (the rook protects g2 and heads for b2) 21 ..:�g6 22 . .ixc5 bxc5 23.'�h 1 fxe4 24.fxe4!. In the case of 21 l:tfS there follows 22. Af1 and l:[fb2. However, an interesting try is 21 ... lDxe2+!1. On 22.l:xe2 follows 22 . . . fxe4 23.lIeb2 (23.liJxe4 llJxe4 24.fxe4 .tg4) 23 . . . exf3 24.l:xb6 'iVe7 25.gxf3 e4 ! ? 00. And after 22 .'&xe2 f4 the e3-bishop must retreat or be ex changed for the c5-knight. In any case, it surrenders the beautiful diagonal . ...
21 . . .l'rf6? Dautov severely criticises this move. He suggests 21 .. .'�'g6 instead. His main line is 22 .:g 1 ! fxe4 23 . .txcS bxcS 24.tZJxe4 .tfS 25.�d3 liJxd3 26.'8xd3 .txe4 27.fxe4 :f4 28Jfue1 !, and here one must agree with him - although , ob jectively, the position is probably a draw, White can still make a few attempts to win .
22.l:tf2 ! Now Black's position becomes really u np leasant - a strong threat is the manoeuvre .te2-f1 , l:Ie2-b2. The idea 22 . . .tZJxe2+ 23.l:xe2 fxe4 does not work anymore - after 24.oixc5 White wins the exchange.
Chapter 1 2
244
22 ...iYfS Or 22 . . . tlJxe2 23.l:txe2, and the rook goes to b2.
23.�f1 tlJhS 24.l:tfb2 f4 25.i.f2 l:[bB 26.,te2 l::th 6 27.�g1 l'Ig6 2S.'tWd2 �hS? The decisive m istake. After 28 .. :iVd6 Black's position is passive, but play able.
29.dS! �xd6 30 . .txcS lhd2 31 .�xfS l:[xb2 32.nxb2 �xfB 33.:Ixb6 This endgame is absolutely hopeless for the second player. 33 ... a5 33 ... :1a8 34.c5 +-. 34.c5 llJf6 3S.c6 ..tcB 36.ldbS! Here Black lost his desire to continue the battle. 1 :0 Game 83
Korotylev
-
Tishin
St. Petersburg 2001
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tL\c6 3.cxd5 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 S.llJc3 .tb4 S . .td2 Axc3 7.bxc3 tiJf6 8.f3 0-0 9.e4 'iVdS 1 0.d5 f1:Je7 1 1 .c4 tiJd7 1 2.tZJe2 b6 1 3.tDC3 a6 1 4.Ae2 t2Jc5 1 5.0-0 fS 1 6 . .te3 liJg6!? I like this move best. The knight heads for f4 immediately.
1 7.ne1 The rook vacates for the bishop the f1 square, from where it can protect g2. Instead of that, White can immediately start active play on the queenside, e.g. : a) 1 7.tlJa4 tlJxa4 1 8.�xa4 fxe4 ( 1 8 . . . tlJf4! ? 1 9 .�xf4 exf4 oo) 1 9 .fxe4 tZJf4 20.�xf4 i.d7 (20 ... exf4!?) 21 .�d 1 :xt4 22.l:1xf4 exf4 23.�d4 ne8, and Black is OK. b) 1 7.a4 tZJf4 ( 1 7 . . . a5 1 8.tlJb5 �e7 1 9.exf5 AxfS 20.1:e1 ;!;) 1 8.aS I:U6 ( 1 8 . . . tZJxe2+ 1 9.'�'xe2 f 4 20.�f2 � 2 0 . . . tLJb3 21 .:a2 tlJxa5 22.cS ! ) 1 9 .axb6 cxb6 20.:1b1 tlJxe2+ (20 . . . 1:g6 2 1 .i..xf4 exf4 22.�d4 !) 21 .�xe2 14 22 . .if2 95 with counterplay on the kingside. 1 7 ... tlJf4 1 B . .af1 The alternative 1 8 . .ixf4 exf4 1 9.�d4 did not promise any advantage: 1 9 . . . 'De6 ! ? ( 1 9 . . . 1:e8!?) 20.'i!r'd2 tZJcS 21 . Ad3 (21 . �d4 tlJe6 22:�d2 tlJc5 with repetition) 21 . . . fxe4 22.tlJxe4 (22.Axe4 Ad7 d :tae8) 22 . . . cz:Jxe4 23.i.xe4 (23. fxe4 ire5! ) 23 . . . i..d 7, and the position is approximately equal. 1 B ...fxe4 1 9.llJxe4 Naturally, White wishes to exchange the active cS-knight. After 1 9.fxe4 i.d7 the second player has a comfortable position.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ":-Jc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tiJc3 .ib4 6 . .td2 .ixc3 7.bxc3
1 9 ... ClJxe4 20.fxe4 'iYg6 21 . �c2 Here the queen protects both e4 and 92.
21 ... .td7 22.a4 After 22.cS bS 23 .a4 Black can transpose to the game with 23 ... :f6. However, also possible is 23 ... 0.xdS ! ? 24.'§'a2 (24.'iVb3 llxf1 + 25.':&?xf1 'ii'xe4 26 . .tf2 bxa4 ! 27.'1i'a2 '6'd3+ 2B.�g1 .tc6 29.:Xe5 11fS oo) 24.. :�lVxe4 (24 . . . l:xf1 + ? 2S.�xf1 �xe4 26.Af2±) 2S.Af2 :xt2 ! 2S.�xf2 't!i'b4006 27.l:xeS? 1:[fS -+ .
22 .. .l�U6 With the obvious idea of doubling the rooks on the f-file. 23.cS l:af8
24S
27.wh 1 j,g4 2S . .tt1 fxg2+ 29 . .txg2 l:lf2 30:�c6 1:St6 31 :ti'a8+ (3 1 .�c7? lbg2! 32.�xg2 i.e2+ 33.�g3 �xe4+ 34.�g 1 :gS -+) 31 . . . ttfS 32.'�cS llSf6 or with 24 . . . tLlh3+ 25:�h 1 tLlf2+ 2S.j,xf2 l:[xf2 27.'t':Yb3 cxbS 2S.d6+ �h8 29.'lWxb6 .th3 30.gxh3 llxf1 + 3 1 .llxf1 �xe4+ 32.<;17g 1 �g6+. In both cases the battle ends with a draw. After 24 .txf4 exf4 2S .cxb6 Black can transpose to the aforementioned varia tions with 25 . . . cxbS or play 2S . . . f3 ! ? 26.Wh 1 f 2 27.11ec1 cxbS 28.e5 �xc2 29.l:xc2 1:f4 00. .
24... �h8! Now the knight threatens t o take on d5, without tearing a possible pin on the a2gS diagonal.
2S.cxb6 cxb6 26.�c7 After 2S:iYb2?! �xe4 27 . .tc5 'lWxe1 ! 28J1xe1 bxcS 29.'ifxeS tzJxd5 only White can have any problems. Not recom mendable is also 26 . .txf4? ! l:lxf4 with initiative for Black. The game continuation seems threatening - both d7 and eS are under attack. But on the other hand, the queen surrenders the control over e4 and g2, which is immediately used by the second player.
The position sharpens. White has achieved a lot on the queenside, but on the other wing dark clouds are gathering over his king.
24.Wh1 The king prudently avoids the check . . . ti:Jh3+. The following variation clearly shows the benefit of that: 24.Axa6? tLlh3+ 2S.�h 1 tLlf2+ 26.':&?g 1 "iVxg2+ ! ! 27.Wxg2 .th3+ 2S.�g3 :g6+ 29.Wh4 :g4+ 30.WhS g6+ 31 .Wh6 l:[h4+ 32. �gS l1hS#. On 24.cxb6 Black can reply with 24 ... cxb6 2S.:i..xf4 exf4 2S.j,xaS f3
26... �h3! 27.�xf4 The only possibility to keep the equilibri um. 27.gxh3 loses in view of 27 .. :�xe4+. 27. . .l:txf4 28.gxh3 lb:fl + After 29J1xf1 'i!Vxe4 30/�(g 1 'WgS+ Black delivers a perpetual check. %:%
Game S4
Gagunashvlli - Souleldis Rethymnon 2003 This game very convincingly shows what a dangerous weapon the Chigorin Defence can be against a much higher
Chapter 1 2
246
rated opponent. By the way, that should not surprise us so much : in what other opening does Black achieve an ad vantage in development and start making some serious threats from the very beginning? I n this d uel White is a very strong grand master with Elo 2577, Black had 'only' 2382. In such a case, the weaker side is usually more than happy with a draw, is he not?
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 l2Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 eS 5.tlJc3 �b4 6.�d2 iLxc3 7.bxc3 'ljf6 8.f3 0-0 9.e4 'ifd6 1 0.�e3 In contrast to 1 0.d5 here White does not close the centre, but keeps the tension. If he manages to complete the mobilization of his forces, his bishop pair and strong pawn centre will become very effective . Now it all depends on whether the second player will be able to use his huge advantage in development. But before we continue examining the game, let us also pay some attention to the conti nuation 10.tlJe2, which was played in the game Beliavsky-Yermolinsky, Madrid 1 998. Further followed 10 exd4, and after 1 1 .�f4 �a3! 1 2.cxd4 liJb4 1 3 . .tc 1 (1 3 . tlJg3 ? ! lId8 1 4.d5 c6 1 5 .d6 'iWc3+ 1 6. 'i!7f2 Ae6 with comfortable play for Black) 1 3 . . . �3+ 1 4.�d2 �c1 1 5.'fi'xc1 �e7 the position was unclear. Inferior is 12.i.xc7? r �e6 1 3.cxd4 ]:Iac8 1 4.i.f4 ( 1 4.d5 lIxc7 1 S.dxe6 liJb4 -+) 1 4 . . . tLb4 1 5.i.d6 tLkt3+ 1 6.�d2 'iYxd6 1 7.�d3 'iYa3+ 1 8.�d2 'iVb2+ 1 9.�e1 i.xa2 +. White could have played 1 1 .cxd4, which after 1 1 . ..liJxd4 1 2.i.f4 iYb4+ 1 3.Ad2 'iYd6 1 4.i..f 4 would have lead to a draw by repetition. .•.
Now let us return to 1 0.i.e3.
1 0... exd4! Whoever is better developed must open the position ! The second player reacted worse in the game V. Popov Dubinsky, Smolensk 1 997: 1 0 tL1a5 1 1 .i.d3 c5 1 2.tije2 �6 1 3.d5 tLla.5 1 4. c4 b6 1 5.0-0 �e7 1 6.i.d2 liJb7 1 7.:'iJc3 (_(i6 1 8.g3 tLkt7 1 9.'iVe2 Aa6 20.a4 'iit h B 2 1 .f4 � with initiative for White . •••
1 1 .cxd4 neSI The best square for the rook now White must always reckon with various sacrifices on e4. The following variations are instructive: a) 1 2.i.c4 11 �b4+ -+ . b) 1 2.�2? lbe4! 1 3.fxe4 tlJxe4+ 1 4. �3 ( 1 4.�e1 'i¥b4+ -+) 1 4 . . :fi'd5! -+. c) 1 2.tiJe2? tlJxe4! 1 3.fxe4 llxe4 1 4. 'm'd2 ( 1 4.Af2 i.g4 -+) 1 4 ... i..g 4 1 5.l:c1 l:[ae8 1 6.l:c3 llJb4 -+. d) 1 2.i.e2 AfS 1 3 JWd2 Q main game, along with that interesting is also 1 2 ... tlJxe4 ! ? 1 3.fxe4 llxe4 with promising compensation . -
1 2.'iYd2 This is a multi-purpose move - it protects the e3-bishop, prevents the very un pleasant . . . �b4+ and prepares the queenside castling.
1 2 AfS! .••
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 e5 5.llJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 247 Increases the pressure on e4.
1 3.exf5?? is not possible in view of 1 3 . . . tLJd5 -+ , while 1 3.0-0-0? fails to
1 3 . . . �a3+ 1 4.�b1 Axe4+ ! l S .fxe4 tlJxe4 1 6.'6'd3 tlJc3+ -+ . 1 3 . .i..c4? is also not recommendable in view of 1 3 ... i.xe4! 1 4 . fxe4 llxe4 15 . .':"le2 1:ae8 1 S.i.f2 tlJxd4 1 7.Axd4 Ilxd4 1 8.�c3 l:ee4! 1 9 .AbS (1 9.i.b3 llxe2+ 20.�xe2 'ifeS+ -+) 1 9 ...tiJg4 -+ . As for 1 3.tiJe2, then after 1 3 . . . Axe4 ! 1 4.fxe4 tlJxe4 (or 1 4 . . . :Xe4) Black has more than sufficient com pensation.
1 3 . .te2
It may seem that W hite's king is now safe, but Black finds a way to maintain his initiative.
1 7... tLb4! With the threat 1 8 ... l:c3+. 1 B . .tc4 This is the best place for the bishop - it protects the a2-pawn, the d3-square and closes the c·file. Therefore . . . 1 8 ... b5 ! 1 9 . .txf7+? The decisive mistake. W hite had to play 1 9.i..b 3, though then also Black would have sufficient compensation for the material, for instance after 1 9 ... 11ae8. Probably W h ite thoug ht that Black should not take the f7-bishop due to the queen check on f2. But . . . 1 9 ... xf7! 20. �f2+ �f6 An unpleasant surprise! 2 1 .'iYxe3 loses in view of 21 .. :fYc6+ 22.�b2 (22 .�d2 �c2+ 23.�e1 1:e8 -+) 22 . . . �c2+ 23. �a3 'iVa4+ 24.�b2 �xa2+ 2S.�c3 'ti'c2+ 26.�xb4 a5+ 27.�xbS .J:1b8+ 28. �a6 �cS+ with a mate.
1 3 ... .txe4! The position must be further opened ! 1 4.fxe4 tDxe4 1 5.�b2 tDg3 Frankly speaking, this move does not seem particularly convincing to me because it gives W hite the chance to castle. 15 ...tLJb4!? seems better to me, e.g. 16.li:Jf3 ( l S.0-0-0? ? 1YcS+ -+) 16 ... tz:Jd5 1 7.Ad2 tDxd2 1 8.�xd2 (1 8.'S'xd2 tiJf4 1 9 .ClJg 1 'WcS, and it is hard to bel ieve that the first player can survive here) 18 .. :ti'h6+ 1 9.�d1 ( 1 9.�e 1 tDf4 20. llJe5 ClJxe2 2 1 .�xe2 f6 -+ ) 1 9 tZJe3+ 20.�e 1 t2Jxg2+ 21 . �2 tiJf4 - in this variation Black restores the material parity and keeps the initiative. •••
1 6.hxg3 J:txe3 1 7.0-0-0
21 .�xf6+ �xf6 22J'.1f1 + �g6 23.tDf3 h6 In this endgame, being two pawns down, White has no chances of survival . 24.ttJh4+ �h7 25J�f7 llxg3 26Jlxc7 l:f8 27.lha7 1:[f2 28.�b1 ttJd5 29.Wa1 b4 30.h(a5 1:1a3 0:1 Probably this game signifies a deep crisis for 1 0.i.e3 ( ? ! or even ?). Game 8S
Hoang Thanh Trang - Botsari Elista (01) 1 998
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.cxd5 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 5.ttJc3 Ab4
Chapter 1 2
24B
6.i.d2 .txc3 7.bxc3 llJf6 8.f3 e4!? This is a relatively new and very interest ing continuation - Black prevents e3-e4 and hampers J.f1 -d3.
This continuation, recommended by Dautov, is probably better than the one in the game - 1 2 .'e'b3 0-0 00 • After 1 2 . 'i!Vxb7 l:tb8 1 3.�a6 0-0 1 4.tDf4 (Dautov), despite Black's development advantage it is not so easy for him to prove that he has any compensation for the pawn. Probably 1 0 ... i.fS was too optimistic. Dautov suggests 1 0 .. .'ife7 1 ? instead Black protects e4 without sacrificing a pawn . This idea awaits practical testing. b) 9 ... �hS Now White must reckon with the queen check on h4.
1 0.h41? exf3 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .g4 �g6 1 2.hS 'i\¥g5 1 3 . I�h3 'ifh4+ 1 4.tiJf2 'iVg3 1 5.l:h3 'ti'gl 00, 1 1 . O-O-O! ? with initiative.
1 1 .gxf3 0-0 1 2.0-0-0 liJaS 1 3.'t'ib5
9.f4 Here 9.iVb3 is worth considering : a) 9 .. :�d6 1 0:�'b1 !1 This continuation was tested in the game Smirin-Va\Jejo Pons, Leon 200 1 , Black's queen does not protect the e4pawn anymore and White immediately attacks it. The alternative 1 0.c4 0-0 1 1 . f4 transposes to the main game .
1 0 i.fS(11) 1 1 .l2Je2 ...
The greedy 1 1 .�xb7? ! rIbB 1 2.'ii'a 6 0-0 seems too risky for White, e.g. 1 3. JLbS nb6 1 4 :�a4 Ad7! � (� l S ... a6) , and l S .c4? fails to 1 S . . . ll:Jxd4! 1 6 .exd4 ( 1 6.i.xd7 iDxd7 1 7.exd4 'fi'xd4 1 8J:td1 CZJcS -+) 1 6 .. .'t!t'xd4 1 7.�d1 i-xbS 1 8. cxbS exf3 1 9.tiJxf3 l:te6+ 20 .'i9f1 '8'c4+ 2 1 .�g l �cS+ 22.'��i 1 ll:Jg4 -+.
1 1 ... i.g6 Dautov also gives 1 1 . . . 0-0-0 1 2.tiJg3 �e6 1 3.tDxf5 'fixfS 1 4.,ie2 'iVg6 1 5.0-0 and evaluates the position as ;1;; . I would evaluate it as ± the semi-open b-file and the bishop pair give White excellent chances. -
1 2.�xb7!?
1 3 .'i!Vc2 c5°o.
13 .. :�!¥xbS 14 ..ixb5, and here, in the game Santis-Bigaliev, Budapest 1 996, the opponents agreed a draw. A possible continuation is now 1 4 . . . .te6 l S.�b l tDc4 with a double-edged struggle. c) 9 . :�fS 1 0.�bS 1 0.f4 ! ? .
1 0... 0-0 After 1 0 .. :i!Ve6 1 1 .tiJh3 0-0 1 2.tiJf2 JLd7 1 3.�b3 1ie7 1 4 . .ie2 exf3 1 5.gxf3 b6, in the game Avrukh-S. B. Hansen, Bled (01) 2002, occurred a complicated position, in which, however, White's centre seems rather stable.
1 1 .'fYxfS Axf5 1 2.g4 i.g6 1 4.g5 tDe81? 1 S.f4 tZJd6 1 S.tlJe2 1 S.c4?1 iDxd4 ! 1 6.exd4 e3 1 7 . .txe3 .ie4 1 B.tDf3 .ixf3 1 9.:1g 1 :1eB 20.�2 .ie4�, 1 9 . . . tDe4! ? 1S...fS 1 6.gxfS lbf6 1 7.tZJg3 'DaS the second player takes control over the important light squares and therefore already has a slight edge, Janssen Peek, Amsterdam 2002 .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDcs 3.cxdS 'ti'xdS 4.e3 eS 5.tDc3 .ib4 6 . .id2 .ixc3 7.bxc3 249 Another possibility is 9.'it'b1 (the queen aims at the e4- and b7-pawns). Then could follow 9 . . exf3!? (9 . . .ifS 1 0.c4 �dS q 9.c4 �dS 1 0.'tWb 1 .ifS, however 1 0.�xb7 needs examining) 1 0.tiJxf3 ( 1 0.gxf3 0-0 1 1 .e4 Ile8 1 2 .i..d 3 �h5 03) 1 0 1.f5 1 1 .c4 �e4 1 2.�xe4 ( 1 2.�xb7 0-0 iRS � 1 3.'iVxc7 tiJb4 ! with a n attack) 12 ... i.xe4 03, Krallmann-Schippan, Dort mund 200 1 , 1 2 ... 'lJxe4 ! ? .
.
...
9.c4 will b e examined in Games 86- 88. 9 0-0 ...
1 1 .\Wb3
The game Jose Abril-Ferron Garcia, Martinenc 2001 , took an interesting course: 9.. .i2ja5!? 1 0.ifa4+ i.d7 1 1 .'iVb4 bS ! ? 1 2.c4 �f5 1 3.ti:Je2 liJb7 ( 1 3 . . . c5! ? � 1 4.dxcS tZ:Jc6) 1 4.tlJg3 �g6 l S. 'iVa3 ( 1 5 . .ie2 h5! ? oo) 1 5 ... h5! ? l S.Ilbl �4 1 7 .tlJe2 llJd6 1 8.1:[c1 0-0 1 9 .h3 ,:'.Jh6 20.g3 tlJhfS 2 1 .Wf2 bS I?oo. In the I n te r n et blitz game Poluljahov Miladinovic, ICC 3/0 2002, Black we nt for 9 h51? (prophylaxis against CZJg1 e2-g3, as well as against h2-h3, g2-g4). There then followed 1 1 />e2 a5! ? 1 2.dS :';" Ib4 1 3.tZJd4 i..d 7 1 4. '&b3 cS l S.dxc6 bxc6 with a complicated position. ...
1 0.c4 �d6 In Tukmakov-Horn, Zurich 1 995, after 10 �f5 1 1 .tlJe2 1:[e8 1 2.1:[b1 (� :bS) 1 2 . . . as 1 3.tiJg3 �g6 1 4.1.e2 b6 l S.0-0 liJe7 l S.a4 liJfS 1 7. t2Jxfs AxfS 1 8.aS � White achieved initiative on the queen side. ...
The conti nuation 10 :t+Yd8 transposes to Game 86. ..
Threatening 1 2.dS followed by 1 3.i.b4. Other moves: a) The immediate 1 1 .d5 does not seem to be particularly good, after 1 1 .. .tLie7 1 2. tLle2 tLlf5 1 3 .ti.Jg3 in the game Sismanis-Davidenko , Athens 2000 , Black could have started active play with 1 3 . . . liJxg3 1 4 .hxg3 cS t?� Also very interesting is 1 2 . . . c6 1 ? or even 1 2 ... b5 ! ? b ) 1 1 .liJe2 bl ) GM Giorgadze believes that this move is unfavourable for White in view of 1 1 . . liJb4 1 2.liJc1 c5 1 3.d5 b5 ! 1 4. cxb5 a4 1 S:iVc4 liJbxdS with initiative for Black. Stronger is, however, 1 2. ':ic'Q3, in order to play a2-a3 later. In my opinion, in this case 1 1 . . . tZJb4 tu rns out to be a waste of time. b2) That is why 11 ... l:te8 is worth con sidering - then 1 2.tiJg3 transposes to a position from Game 87, while on 1 2. :1)1 the active 1 2 . . . a51 ? (� .. J:.c6-b4) seems really good, Strating-Peek, W ij k aan Zee 2003. .
b3) 1 1 ... i.g41? The point behind this idea of W isnewski - to provoke h2-h3 - is very obvious after 1 2.h3 i..d7 1 3.liJg3 Ilfe8 1 4.i..e 2? 'lJxd4 ! 1 5.exd4 e3 : the reply lS . .tc3? is impossible because of l S ...'�xf4 -+ ,
Chapter 12
2S0
therefore Black wins back the sacrificed piece and after 16.0-0 exd2 remains with a comfortable position, which Wisnewski evaluates as + (the pawns on the fourth rank along with the e3and e4-squares in the white camp are looking rather vulnerable). In the game H.-U.Grunberg-Wisnewski, Germany 2002, White did not fall for that trap - he played 1 3J:tb1, and after 13...a5! 14.�2 (14.Ibb7?! ti:Jb4) 14... b6 15..:ilc3 (:�b4 there occurred a comp licated and approximately equal position.
1 1 ... a5 Black prevents .id2-b4 and prepares two active plans - ...tZJcS-b4, ... c7-cS or . . .a5-a4 followed by ... tZJc6-a5, ...c7-cS.
1 2.a3 12.tZJe2 tlJb4 13.tZJc1 c5°o, 13.tlJg3 c5°o.
1 2 l:eS 1 3.tlJe2 �d7 •..
In the case of 14.ilJg3 White must reckon not only with 14...a4 or 14..b6, but also with 14... tlJxd4!? 15.exd4 e3 16. .tc3 '1Wxf4�.
1 4 ... a4 1 5.�c2 tiJa5 Black has achieved an active position, but with her next moves the Vietnamese player proves that White's position is defensible.
1 6.tlJcl b6 1 7.i.e2 tiJg4 1 S. .txg4! .txg4 1 9 . .txa5 ! �xa5 20.0-0 c5 21 .d5 b5 22.tlJe2 i.xe2 22...bxc4?! 23.tDc3. 23.�xe2 b4 25.�c3 :cIa7
24.�c2
b3
Y2:Y2
Game 86 Schlusnik - Bigallev
Budapest 1996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJc3 i.b4 S . ..td2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 tiJfS S.f3 e4 9.c4
1 4.�c3 Now the first player wants to activate her bishop on the long diagonal with d4-dS. On the immediate 14.d5 would follow 14...a4 with a strong initiative for Black, e.g. 15.�b2 (15:�c2 tZJa5 16. tlJd4 c6!) 15 ... tz:Ja5 16.tlJd4 (1S . .txa5 1S...l:xaS � 17 :�xb7? tlJg4 18.�d2 �cS 19.tlJd4 tlJxe3!! 20.�xe3 Db5!! 21.cxb5 �c3+ 22. �e2 'i!Yxd4 23.%%a2 '@c4+ -+) 16...cS!.
White does not close the centre with f3f4 at once . First he wants to see where Black's queen would go and then decide for or against 10.f4.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 CUc6 3.cxdS 'Wxd5 4.e3 e5 5.ClJc3..i.b4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 251 Now 9 :f:VfS ( I have not found any games with this continuation) 10.14 0-0 transposes to the variation 9.14 0-0 10. c4 �f5, while 9 :�'d6 10.f4 0-0 leads to 9.f4 0-0 10.c4 'iYd6. ••
••
9 '+Wd8 •••
This move makes more sense than it seems. In contrast to 9... 'it'd6 (see Games 87 and 88) White cannot attack Black's queen with �b3 (or 'tIYb1) followed by d5, ..tb4, besides it can go to h4 with a check in some variations. Nevertheless, this retreat of the queen to its home square seems a little awkward.
1 0.f4 After 10.llJe2 (as we will later see, some times White plays this after 9 .. :iWd6) Black has the possibility 10...exf3!? 11.gxf3 {;hS with the threat 12... 'ii'h4+ at his disposal. And on 1 0:�'b1 (which is likewise played after 9 ...'iYd6) Black can reply with 10 ...exf3 followed by 11...0-0, without having to fear 12.dS followed by 13 . .tb4.
1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .tlJe2 tlJe7 The knight heads for f5 and clears the way for the c-pawn (...c7-cS).
1 2.tlJg3 ,tg4(?!) After that the b7 pawn is left unpro tected. OK, in many variations of the Chigorin Defence Black appears ready to sacrifice that pawn without giving it many second thoughts; but occasionally (thank God, not too often) White can actually accept that sacrifice. One alternative to the text move is 1 2 Ji�f5!? The immediate 1 2 cS!? is also worth considering. ..
...
1 3.�c2 Here White has the only chance of questioning Black's handling of the open ing with 1 3.'iVb1 I?, as was played in the more recent game Gershon-Langrock, Wichern 2001. Black replied with 1 3 ... :b8, and after 14.h3 Ad7 lS.Ae2 cS 16.dxc5 tiJfS 17. tlJxfs Axf5 lS.g4 ..tcS 19.Ac3 the first player achieved a significant advantage. Unfortunately, I could not find a convin cing way for Black to equalize after 13. �b1 !? For example, on 1 3 c5 14.dxcS tllf5 follows 15.tlJxf5 .1xf5 16.'m'xb7, and I do not see sufficient compensa tion for the two sacrificed pawns. However, after the continuation in the game, Black achieves counterplay without it having cost him anything. ...
1 3 c5!? ...
Breutigam gives also 13 ... ClJf5 14.tlJxf5 Axf5 1S.,te2 1:[eB and evaluates the position as equal.
1 4.d5 Unsatisfactory is 14.lZJxe4? tlJxe4 15. 'lWxe4 tiJfS t:. 16...:eS. And on 14.dxc5 would probably follow 14... ClJf5, e.g. 15.tlJxf5 (15.tlJxe4?? tZJxe4 16.�xe4 'tfYh4+ -+) 15... .1xf5 l6.Db1 (16. .te2 tlJd7 17.0-0 tZJxc500) 16... tlJd7!? (16... �c7t:.17.,te2llJd7?? 1B.g4+-) l7.lIxb7 tlJxc5 1B.:b5 tlJd3+ 19. .1xd3 exd3 20.
Chapter 12
252
iYb2 �h4+ 21.g3 �h3 with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.
1 4 ...liJf5 1 5.liJxf5 1S.tDxe4?? tlJxe4 16. �xe4 'iVh4+ -+.
1 5 ... i.xf5
After 20 . .ig2?! j.h3 21 . .txh3 (21.0-0?! .txg2 22.�xg2 't}Ve2++) 21... 't!fxh3 22. �2 ];tabS Black has very good compen sation.
20 ... i.g4 An alternative is 20.. .'�h3 21.�2 .tg4 22 . .tf1 (22 . .txg4 'iWxg4 23.:he1 hS!?�) 22... �hS, and on 23. .tg2?! there follows 23 ... 1&.e2! 24. .txe4 tiJxe4+ 2S:�xe4 %%feS 26.�c2 (26.'i'Vg2 .txc4+) 26... 'iYf3+ 27.�g1 :Xe3 28.Axe3 �xe3+, after which Black has at least a draw. But after 23.h3! it is not clear whether he has sufficient compensation.
Black has completed his development, while his opponent needs two more moves. On the natural 16 . .te2 would follow 16...bS!, after which the second player would seize the initiative.
1 6.�b1 ! Attacking b7 and impeding ...b7-bS.
1 6 ... t2:Je8? ! A surprise. Black sacrifices the b7-pawn, in order to bring his knight to d6 and also force g2-g3 with .. :t�¥h4+, which would weaken the white kingside. However, in the light of the analysis this idea does not seem to be entirely correct. An interesting alternative was 16... l1bS!? 17.1&.e2 bS!? 00.
1 7J:txb7 17.1&.e2?! �h4+ 18.g3 'iYh3 19 . .1if1 �hS 20.:Xb7 tiJd6 21.:b1 would be a loss of a tempo compared to the game. 1 7 ... t2:Jd6 1 8.IIb1 18 .:b3!? is also worth considering, and in the case of 1S...�h4+ 19.93 �hS White can try 20 . .1iaS!? � .it..c7.
18 ..'+Wh4+ 1 9.93 �h5 2O.i.e2 .
21 .�d1 ? Much stronger is 21. .txg4 �xg4 22.0-0, and Black has yet to prove that his ini tiative is worth a pawn. On Breutigam's recommendation 22 ... �e2 is followed by 23. Ilbc1 with the idea 24.:f2.
21 ... i..f3 22.
22 ...liJxc4 23.l:1c1 ? Losing immediately. It was necessary to play 23. .txf3 exf3, although then White has nothing to be happy about either, e.g. 24.e4 .1:ae8 2S.e5 16+.
23 .. /;",b2 0:1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 1':�c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tiJc3 .tb4 6.�d2 .i.xc3 7.bxc3 253 Game 87 Tyomkin - Miladinovic
Verona 2000
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 lLlc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tlJe3 .tb4 6 . .td2 Axe3 7.bxe3 tlJf6 8.f3 e4 9.c4 �d6 Black does not mind 10.14 0-0 with a transposition to the variation 9.f4 0-0 10.c4 '�'d6. 1 0.tlJe2 Tyomkin continues with his development, without easing the tension in the centre. The exchange on e4 is not recommen dable: After 10.fxe4?! t2:Jxe4 11.Ad3 .i.f5 Black achieved a comfortable position in the game Szeberenyi-Antal, Budapest 1999. 1 0J!¥b1 � Game 88.
move) 1 2.t2:Jg3 (but not 12.tZJc3?! in view of 12... t2:Jxd4!) transposes to the main game.
1 1 ...1:[e8 1 1 ... exf3! 1 2.gxf3 l:[e8 is more aggres sive, but probably Miladinovic thought that White could repel the attack due to his strong centre. Also according to Tyomkin White's chances would be preferable in that case. I did not want to believe that and took the liberty of examining Tyomkin's va riations with Junior 6. Let us now see the results of that analysis:
1 0 ... 0-0
1 1 .tlJg3? ! This continuation seems rather risky to me - Black can now open the position, which will favour him in view of his better development. Safer is 1 1 .f4 (we are already familiar with this position from the move order 9.14 0-0 10.c4 'ti'd6 11.t2:Je2 � Game 85, notes to White's 11th move, p.249), and 1 1 ... lIe8 (11. .. �g4!? Q again Game 85, variation b3 to White's 11th
a) 1 3.d5 tZJe5 1 4.e4 Here Tyomkin analyses only 14 ... �a3 15. ..te2 Ah3 16.:1b1! (16.11g 1? 'iYc5), and on 16...Ag2 there comes 17.:1b3 followed by 18.%1g1. At first I tried to improve on Black's play with the obvious 16...'fYxa2. Then there could well follow 17.�c1!? with the threat 18.14. White's king is still in the centre and he is down a pawn, but his centre could become really strong after f3-f4 and e4-e5. Moreover, Black's queen is out of play at the moment. The position is very complicated and may need further analysis, but from the second player's point of view I was not particularly taken by it. Then I found another idea:
Chapter 12
2S4
1 4 . hS!? with the strong threat lS ...h4. Now White loses after 15.h4? tlJd3+ 16. Jl.xd3 �xg3+ 17 .�e2 tiJxe4!, as well as after 1S:�f2? h4 16.tZJf5 (16.tZJe2 'i'YbS+ 17.i.e3 tZJeg4+ -+) lS...i.xf5 17.exfS tiJxc4!. The best move is probably 1 5.f4, but then after lS... tDeg4 16.e5 (16.i.g2 h4 -+) 16...h4 17.tZJe2 �cS+ the first player also has nothing to be happy about. ..
b) 1 3.Ae2 i.h3 b l) 1 4.d5 Tyomkin evaluates this position as � and that is the extent of his analysis. However, I think that after 1 4 tlJe5 Black has a promising position. The idea is to open the centre with ...c7-c6, in order to use the unsafe position of White's king, e.g. lS.:bl ( lS.�2 c6 with initiative) 15...cS!? (15... b6oo) 16. .1b4 'tWd7 17.e4 (17 .d6?! 'ifYeS 18.c5? Ag2 19.:g1 'Dxf3+-+) 17 ...bS 18.dxc6 '&xc6 19.cxb5 �b6 with a strong attack for the pawn.
1 2.f4 No more risks! On 12. .i.e2 Black would probably reply with 12...exf3!, which would lead to the last line of the previous analysis.
...
b2) Another recommendation by Tyomkin is 1 4.:b1 , again with the belief that White is slightly better. Once again I have to disagree with his opinion even after the simple 1 4 ... b6 I would prefer Black's position. White must always reckon with the sacrifice on d4 or with ...h7 -hS-h4, after which his king would feel very uncomfortable in the centre, e.g.: b21 )1 5.d5 tlJeS 16.�2 c61? (16...hS!?) 17. .ib4 �d7 18.e4 b5! with initiative. b22)1 5.�2 t;jxd4! ( lS...h5!?) 16.exd4 'fi'xd4+ 17.�e l l:xe2+! 1B.,Lxe2 (18.�xe2 1:1eB 19.'ifYxeB+ CZJxe8-+) 18 ... 'iYh4+ 19.ilJg3 :eB+ 20.i.e3 (20.
Now White offered a draw, which was accepted by his opponent after a long deliberation. According to Tyomkin's analysis, after 1 2 ...tLJxd4! the game would have been bound to end with a draw. To prove his statement he gives the following variation: 1 3.i.c3! tiJfS 14.�xd6 cxd6 (14... 8xd6 lS.i.xfS gxfS 16.tZJhS 1:e6 17.g4&;) 15.liJxf5 i.xf5 16.i..xfS gxfS 17.g4 i.d? 1B.l:d1 1:1adB 19.:Xd6 i.xg4 20.:txd8 llxdB 21.:g1 1:1d1+= (22.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.ttJc3 .ib4 6.,ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3 2SS Game 88 Radjabov - Antal
Budapest 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 0.Jc6 3.cxd5 'tixd5 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 .tb4 6 . .td2 .i.xc3 7.bxc3 tiJf6 8.f3 e4 9.c4 �d6 1 0.�b1 11
White closes the centre and the arising position is similar to the one from Game 85. However, in that game the bishop was on c8 (b7 was protected), White's queen was on b3 - therefore the coun terplay ... a7-as-a4 I'l tlJaS happened with tempo. It is not so good to take on b7: 11.'ti'xb7 l:.b8 1 2.';!ia6 exf3 1 3.cS (1 3.tDxf3 tUxd4! 14.'ii'a4+ ..td7 1 S.1Wxa7 tZJc6 1 6.�a4 0-05ii, 1 3.gxf3 tDxd4 1 4. 'i'Va4+ ..td7 15. �xa7 tLic2+ 1 6.�dl 1:b2 1 7.lIcl CLla3 1 8.�aS 0-0+) 1 3 .. .12+ 1 4.�xf2 CLle4+ l S.�e l l':Yf6, and Black's initiative is very dangerous.
1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.tDe2 Of course not 1 2.'iYxb7? tlJxd4 ! exd4 J:lfb8.
An interesting idea and an unpleasant one for Black. This move has many ad vantages: White attacks e4 and practically forces 1 0 . . . .tfS, after which b7 is without protection. Although White probably cannot take that pawn immediately, Black must always keep an eye on it. • The bishop on fS deprives Black of the option . . . ClJe7-fS. • With the bishop on fS the manoeuvre C2Jg 1 -e2-g3 (or possibly e2-d4) will happen with tempo . Black must reckon with d4-d5 followed by i.d2-b4. • If White plays d4-d5 with such a pawn structure, Black can attack the centre with . . . b7-bS. But now �b1 thwarts that idea.
I'l
13.
•
1 0 ... .tf5 After 1 0 . . . exf3 1 1.lZJxf3 0-0 1 2.i.d3 White achieves a clear advantage, Minib6ck-Kuba, Graz 2003. 1 1 .14
This is the critical position of this varia tion. Black has approximately three (I) tempi lead in the development, but how to make good use of that? After 1 2 b6 1 3.tlJg3 C2Je7 1 4 ...te2 it is very difficult to achieve counterplay, �hile W hite can comfortably focus on '�.:je2-g3xf5 followed by g2-g4 and/or d4-dS, .td2-c3. •••
In Avrukh-Miladinovic , Istanbul (01) 2000, Black tried 12 h5, in order to play . . . hS-h4 later. There then followed 1 3.d5 ClJe 7 1 4 . .tb4 �d7 l S.C2Jd4 .tg6 1 6 . .te2. Now White wants to castle and achieve a better position in view of his ...
Chapter 1 2
256
space advantage and bishop pair. In order to prevent that Miladinovic sac� rificed a pawn - 1 6 . . . c6 1 7 .dxc6 bxc6 1 S.i.. xe7 �xe7 1 9. lLlxc6 �c5 -, but after 20.0:Jd4 lIabS (20 . . . 'ti'aS+ 21 . Wf2) 21 .�c 1 did not achieve sufficient com� pensation . A s i t was already mentioned, we saw a very similar position in Game 85, Hoang Thanh Trang-Botsari . In that game Black's plan was . . . a7-aS with ideas like . . . tlJc6-b4 followed by .. . c7-c5 or . . . as a4, or - if White plays a2-a3 - ... tzJc6-aS and . . . c7-c5. However, now the queen is not on b3, but on b 1 , the bishop is not on cS or d7, but on fS, the rook is still on fS and all that makes a great difference. Nevertheless, I think that the second p layer can sti ll play like that, e.g. 1 2 a5!1 1 3.c2::Jg 3 (with tempo ! - 1 3.dS CiJe7 1 4.tLJd4 c6) 13 ..i;.d7 ( 1 3 ... CiJe7 1 4. i..e 2 cS 1 5.dS, and Black remains with out counterplay, while the first player can build up some pressure on the long diagonal with Ac3, 'tWb2 or prepare a pawn attack on the kingside with g2-g4) 1 4.d5 CiJb4 1 5.a3 CiJa6 (with the rook on eS, 1 S . . . ttJd3+ 1 6.i.xd3 exd3 1 7.'fi'xd3 'ti'xf4 would be possible), and after 1 6. CiJxe4 lLlxe4 1 7. 'tWxe4 lifeS 1 S.'i!Vf3 (1 S.�d4? CiJc5 1 9.1:Ib1 :e4+) 1 S ... tzJcS, as well as after 1 6.i.xa5 �cS 1 7 .i.d2 lifeS 1 S.i.e2 ( 1 S.h3 c6! �) 18 . i.g4 Black obtains compensation for the missing pawn. ..•
•••
..
1 2 ...1:[fe8
After 1 4 . . . b6 1 S.dS tiJe7 1 6.i.b4 c5 1 7. .ic3 tiJfS 1S.tlJxfS AxfS 1 9.'iVb2 White would exert pressure on the long diagonal , which in connection with g2g4 would be very unpleasant for Black. But it was not yet too late for the plan . . . a7-a5/ . . . tZJb4: 1 4 ...a5 !1 a) 1 5.a3 a4 ( 1 S . .. b6 1 6.dS � i.c3) 1 6.d5 tlJa5 1 7 . .txa5lha5 1 8.�xb7. Almost the same position could have occurred in Game 85 (see the notes to White's 1 4th move) , but with W hite's bishop on f1! Then ... tZJf6-g4 would have given Black a strong attack. But here also Black achieves compensation with 18 ...1&a8!, e.g. 1 9.'iYb4 (or 1 9.�2 '6'cS 20.'ti'd4 �xd4 2 1 .exd4 l1abS) 1 9 ... rtabS 20.'6'xd6 cxd6 2 1 .�2 :b2. b) 1 5.d5 tiJb4 1 6.a3 (1 6.0-0 c6!) 1 6 ... ,J��d3." 1 7.i.xd3 exd3 1 S.0-0 ( 1 S.1:!Vxd3 't!Vxf4) 1 S . . . c6 ! ? oo or 1 S...
1 5. i.e3 After 1 S:�txb7?! lLlxd4 ! ? 1 6 .exd4 �xd4 1 7.l:Ib1 CiJg4 � Black has a strong attack. 1 5 ...t2Je7? Has Black forgotten that b7 is under attack?! The position after 1 S . . . b6 1 6.dS tzJaS 17. i.b4 cS 1 S.i.c3 is obviously worse for him, but still playable. 1 6:iVxb7 'De6 1 7.�b2 l:1b8 1 8.VWd2 �g4 19.';'xg4 tiJxg4 20.0-0 The rest needs no further com mentary. 20 ... 'iYg6 21 .h3 tiJh6 22. 'iYf2 �2b4 23.15 �e6 24.tLlh5 f6 25.�g3 l1e7 26.:'ab1 'Da6 27,rbb8+ �b8 28.d5 '§'d6 29.tiJxf6+ Wf7 30.'iYg5 gxf6 31 .'iVxh6 tiJd7 32.'+Wxh7+ �e8 33. �h8+ �7 34J�f4 'iYe5 35.i.d4
This continuation is not bad either - now e4 is protected.
1 3.tiJg3 1 3.�xb7? l:IabS 1 4.'ti'a6 tiJb4! 1 S .'i!Vxd6 CiJd3+ 1 6.�d1 cxd6+. 1 3 ... .td7 1 4 . .te2 � 1 S.exd4? l:tebS -+ .
1 4:�xb7? lLlxd4!
1 4 .. .llad8? !
1 :0
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t:'.:.cS 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tz:Jc3 i-b4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.bxc3
257
Game 89 Glienke Rabiega German Championship 1 998
White plans .si.d2-b4, in the meantime the development of the c8-bishop is hindered (b7). Others:
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 'De6 3.e3 eS 4.cxdS �xdS S.'De3 i.b4 6.�d2 i.xc3 7.bxe3 'Dge7
a) Nothing is prom ised by 1 0.'&a4+ .id7 1 1 .'iVb4 iZJa6, e.g. 1 2.'!l¥xb7?! Db8 (1 2 ... 0-0! ?) 13.1!t'xa7 tDc8 1 4.cS figS 1 5.'3'xaSl:Ib1 + lS.lIxb1 '6'xb1 + 17.Ac1 (1 75£ie2 .i.bS+ -+) 1 7 .. .'�xc1 + 1 8.'�e2 '&xc5+ or 1 2.�xd6 cxd6 1 3.CZJf3 0-0.
-
A rare continuation. I found three games of higher rated players with it and White scored 21/2 points in them. Nevertheless, I think that it is not a bad move and Black's misfortune was not due to the opening. We have already discussed the pros and cons of this continuation compared to . . .tiJg8-fS in Game 71, Schandorff Hansen (Q p.21 S) .
8.e4 Watson gives the variation 8.tl:Je2 0-0 9. tzJg 3 f5 ! 1 0.c4 'fYf7 1 1 .d5 tLlb8 1 2. .i.c3 tLlgS � . . f4, � . . . CZJd7-cS, which does not seem bad for Black at all. 8. f3 'iVdS 9.i-d3 0-0 1 0.CZJe2 bS 1 1 .0-0 �eS transposes to Game 71. .
8 ...�d6 9.dS tlJb8 With h is last two moves W hite has gained space in the centre and dislodged Black's knight from its good position. On the other hand, he has weakened the cS-square, which can be used by Black in many variations.
1 0.J::t b 1
b) Also in the case of 10.'3'b3 tlJaS (� . . . CZJaS-c5, A . . . c7-cS) Black has good cou nterplay. c) 1 0.tiJf3 0-0 (10 . . . e4 !? 1 1 .tZ:Jc.t4 cS) 1 1 .Ac3 tZ:Jc.t7 (1 1 . . . tlJgS! ?) 1 2 . .ae2 cS 1 3.dxcS 'iVxcS 1 4.�b4 lIe8 l S.0-0 fS 1S.'6'b3, Blagojevic-Kulak, Nis 1 994, l S ... tZJc5 1 7.�a3 bS, and the chances are approximately equal.
1 0 ... 'Dd7 The knight heads for cS as fast as possible. However, 10 ...tZJa6!? seemed more logical , denying White's bishop access to b4. Then there could follow 1 1 .tlJf3 (1 1 .�a4+ c6) 1 1 ...c6 (11 ... e4! ?) 1 2.�c3 (after 1 2.dxc6 tlJxc6 1 3.i.c3 �xd 1 + 1 4.llxd 1 fS White would have a worse pawn structure and the effective range of his bishops would be limited) 12 ... f6 with counterplay.
1 1 ...tb4 'DcS 12.tZJf3 b6 1 3. �e2 0-0 An alternative is 1 3 ... i.fS 1 4. lIc1 ( 1 4. lIb2 CZJgS l S.0-0 0-0 in order to play . . . c7-cS later) 1 4 ... CZJd3+ l S.'i!fxd3 (l S . .ixd3 'iVxb4+ l S.�l e4) l S .. .'!!¥ xb4+ l S.�d2'iVxd2+ 1 7.�xd2 fS=. 1 4.0-0 f5? ! Better i s 1 4 ... ,tfS 1 5.:cl (l S.Db2 Q 1 3 ... i-fS 1 4.Db2) l S ... cS 1 S. .ixc5 bxcS 1 7.dxcS �c7! 1 8.1Wa4 �xcS 19.'�xcS CZJxcS with equality. Now White achieves a positional advantage by means of a tactical trick:
Chapter 1 2
258
technique. The last moves are given without commentary.
23 .. J�fS 24.g3 t'tf6 25.1:1e1 h6 26.i.c2 ! �h7 27.llbe3! nb8 2S.Ile6 '+}ff8 29.i..d 3 nb6 30. 1:eS 'iYd6 31 .h4! tDfS 32.hS! c6 33.'+!'c2! cxdS 34.�xfS+ �hS 35. i.g6 dxc4 36.l:Id1 1 :0
1 S.tDd4! a6 After 1 5 . . . exd4 1 6.exd4 White wins back the piece with a good position . 1 6.f4! In order to open the long diagonal for the bishop.
1 6 ... .td7 1 7.�-Jb3 exf4
Game 90 Urban - Kaminski
Poland 1 996
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxdS 1i'xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tDc3 Ab4 6.a3
This is a positional capitulation, but Black has hardly anything better. After 1 7 . . . tDg6 follows 1 8.�h5 ! , and on 1 7 . . . e 4 the very strong reply i s 1 8. 'iYd4 - with a great advantage in both cases.
1 S.exf4 �a4 1 9.�e1 i.. xb3 Black gets rid of the unpleasant pressure on c5, but activates the white rook.
20.l:1xb3 tDg6 21 .�f2 Ilfe8 22.i..xcS! bxc5 23.i..d3 As we have already seen, sometimes in the variation 6.�d2 .i.xc3 7.bxc3 the queen's bishop goes back to c1 and then to a3. That is why in this game White does not hurry with the development of the c1 -bishop, but wants to bring it later straight to a3.
6 ... Axc3+ 7.bxc3 tDf6 After 7 exd4 8.cxd4 tlJf6 9.tlJe2 0-0 1 0.tlJf4 'i?id6 11 . .i.d3 White is clearly better, Grooten-Grabher, Liechtenstein 1992. ...
Black has a worse pawn structure and a passive knight. The rest is a matter of
S.c4
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 c!'c6 3 .cxdS '9xdS 4.e3 eS S.tlJc3 .i.b4 6.Ad2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 2S9 Black obtains a comfortable game after 8.f3 0-0 9.c4 �d6 1 0.dS l2Jb8 (1 0 ... tlJe7 !? 1 1 .e4 tlJd7 � . . . c6, � . . fS, Arlandi-Mase, Zemplinska Sirava 2004) 1 1 .e4 �a6 1 2.Ad3 l2JcS 13.tZJe2 tZJfd7, Arlandi-Renet, Albufeira 1 999. M. Breutigam suggests also 8 ... exd4!? 9.cxd4 0-0, because in contrast to the 6 . .i.d2-variation the option 1 0.'3'b3 is not possible. Further he gives 1 0.i.d3 '3'g5 (1 O . . . �fS ! ? ) 1 1 .�c2 DeB, and on 1 1 .e4? ! should follow 1 1 ... �a5+ 12.i.d2 '6'b6 (x d4) . Unfortunately, after 1 0 . . :�g5 White can 1 1 .�2 ! -, and I wou ld play better prefer his chances in view of the strong pawn centre (after 11 .'6'c2 De8, by the way, it would be too late for 1 2.�2 in view of 1 2 . . . t2:Jxd4! 1 3.cxd4 �h4+). Also after 1 0 ... .i.fS 1 1 .tZJe2 W hite's position seems a little better to me. .
-
S.. :+Wd6 9.dS 0s7 Breutigam's recommendation 9 ... tZJbSI? 1 0.a4 &lJa6 1 1 .Aa3 tlJcS is also interest ing. It has the advantage that the cS knight can be supported with ... �iJf6-d7.
1 0.84 ..
1 0 ...�b4+ Breutigam suggests also 1 0 ... tlJd7 1 1 . .i.a3 tZJcS. In that case, however, Black must reckon with 1 2/:-�f3 � �2-b3 (-e4).
1 1 .i.d2 Nothing was
promised by 1 1 .�d2 't!¥xd2+ 1 2. i.xd2 tiJe4 (interesting is 1 2 . . . c6!?, e.g. 1 3.d6 �fS 1 4.cS tZJe4 l S.11c l b6 or 1 3.i.c3 cxdS 1 4 . .i.xeS dxc4 lS . .i.xf6 gxf6 1 6.i.xc4 i.eB, Breu tigam) 1 3.i.b4 c51 1 4.dxc6 (1 4 . .i.a3 bB l S.aS i.a6 l B.tlJf3 fB 17.axb6 axb6 l B. .i.e2 0-0 1 9.�2 tZJd6 xc4, Breutigam) 14 ...t2Jxc6 l S . .i.a3 .i.e6, and the bishop pair is harmless, while the weakness of White's a-pawn and especially the c pawn is rather tangible.
1 1 ...�d6 1 2 ..ac1 White does not mind a draw. It would be interesting to try 1 2.�b1 - it would lead to a position from the varia tion B . .i.d2 .i.xc3 7.bxc3 tZJf6 B.c4 �dB 9.dS tlJe7 1 0:�b1, but with the white pawn not on a2, but on a4. Breutigam believes that this difference can hardly be favourable for White, but I am not so sure here. The a4-pawn impedes the counterplay . . . b7-bS, which can be very important in some lines (for example, see Game 79, variation 1 1 .i.d3, p. 233). Besides, now the a3-square is not available to the black queen (compared to 6 . .i.d2 i.xc3 7.bxc3 tlJfB B.c4 �d6 9 .dS f1:Je7 1 0.'iYbl as 11.e4 0-0 1 2.i.d3 cB 1 3.i.e3 cxdS 1 4.cxdS f1:Jg4 1S.'�bB �a3, which was also examined in the notes to Game 79). In brief - it is possible that this little difference between the positions with the white pawn on a2 and on a4 can be favourable for White. And if that is the case, the second player probably m ust resort to 9 ...tZJbB (instead of 9 . .. f1:Je7) or 1 0 . . . f1:Jd7 (instead of 1 0...�b4+) . The main game, however, d i d not con tinue for long:
1 2 ...�b4+ 1 3.i.d2 'i'¥d6 1/2:1/2
Chapter 1 3
260
Chapter 13 1.d4 d5 2.c4 �c6 3.cxd5 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 S.C2Jc3 kb4 6.kd2 ..txc3 7...txc3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tZJc3 i.b4 6.i.d2 ..txc3 7.i.xc3!? This is an interesting and dangerous idea. Now White's centre is maybe not as stable as it is after 7.bxc3, but the dark-squared bishop is on the long diagonal. Now the threat is 8.dxe5, there fore the next move is almost forced. 7 .. exd4 About 7 . . . i..e6 ? ! briefly in Game 91. .
8.tZJe2 ! course not 8.cxd4?! .te6 . after which d4 would be weak and the �c3 passive. Of
...
8 . �g4 9.f3. and now 9 ... .te6 1 0.t2Jxd4 Q Game 91 !, as it was mentioned. 9 .i.xf3 1 0.gxf3 �xf3 Q Games 92 - 94 In the complicated variations after the bishop sacrifice it seems that after 1 1 . tiJxd4 Black gets his way, but after 1 1 . .txd4! (Game 94) he faces problems. ..
..
8 . .tlJf6 9.tlJxd4 0-0 Black has now a significant lead in the development, but he must be ready to sacrifice material if he wants to avoid that dry '�'. 1 0.tlJbS 'iYgS. and now: 11.CiJxc7 Ag4 � Games 95 - 98 1 1 .h4!? 'iYg6 1 2.hS �g5 1 3.h6 .
Q Games 99-100 In these lines Black is OK. However, 1 1 .h4 �g6 1 2. tLlxc7! i..g 4 1 3.i..d3 ! � Game 101 was a heavy blow on Black, but he retaliated quickly with 1 1 . h4 'iYh6 ! � Games 102-105.
Game 9 1 Atalik - Miladinovic
Greece 1 996 Black has only seemingly easy play. The obvious exchanges on d4 usually lead to a ';t-endgame' in view of White's bishop pair, as is illustrated by Game 91. Therefore, Black must try to do something more than merely completing his development - which most often involves uncompromising material sacrifices. In particular:
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.t2Jc3 i.b4 6.�d2 ;i.xc3 7 ..txc3 exd4 Once I tried 7 .te6?!. After S.dxe5 'tWxd1 + 9.l:lxd1 ?! .txa2 1 0.i..b5 ( 1 0 . e6?! f6 1 1 . tld7? tLJge7 � 1 2.:Xc7 :tb8 1 3.tZ:)f3 .txe6 1 4.tLld4 i..d7 -+) 1 0. . .lL:ge7 Black achieved comfortable play, von Alvensleben-Bronznik, Hannover (rapid) .
...
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tZ:JcS 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.�c3 Ab4 S.Ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 2S1 1 998. But in case of the correct 9.�xd1 1 0-0-0+ 1 0.�e2! (here the king protects the e3-pawn timeously and prepares the following f2-f4) 1 0 . . .�ge7 (1 0 . . . �c4+ 1 1 .�e 1 ! ±) 1 1 .f4! �dS 1 2.�f3 tZJxc3+ 13.bxc3 Black would not have sufficient compensation for the pawn.
S.tZJe2 i..g4 In a blitz game on the Internet Chess Club Morozevich tried against P.-H. Nielsen the spectacular 8 �h3(?). There then followed 9.f31! �g5 (9 . . . Axg2? 1 O . �xg2 �gS 1 1 .�xd4 �xg2 1 2.:g1 '3'xh2 1 3.�xg7+-) 1 0.tzjxd4 (1 0. i.xd4 ? ! AeS+=) 1 O ... �xg2 1 1 .IIg1 ...
�h4+ 1 2.�e2 i.xf1 + 1 3:�xf1 �ge7 1 4.11¥f2 �h5? lS.liJxcS tZJxcS l S.l:lad1 fldS 1 7.:txd8+ �xd8 1 8.:Xg7±, P.-H. Nielsen-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. After the stronger 14 ... ft'h6 l S.tZJxcS �xcS l SJ�xg 7 0-0-0 (1 s . . . tDdS! ?) the position would be u nclear. However, I think that White could have refuted White's idea at the beginning - 9.tzjxd4! i.xg2 (9 . . . liJxd4 1 0 .'!!Vxd4 �xg2 1 1 .IIg 1 'fIxd4 1 2.Axd4 Axf1 1 3.�xg7+- , 9 . . . �fS 1 0.�bS+-) 1 0.llJb5! �xd1 + 1 1 .lbd1 Axh1 1 2.i.xg7±. The continuations 8 llJfS and 8.. llJge7 will be analysed later in the book. ...
b) 1 0.exd4!? �eS (1 0 ... �d7 1 1 .dS '-:0£e7 1 2. h4 �gS 1 3. hS '\WgS 14.'erc1 !±, S. Pedersen-J .Andersen , Denmark 1 999) 1 1 .d5! 0-0-0 (1 1 .i.xdS 1 2. h4+-) 1 2.�c1 ! IbdS 1 3.'i!¥xgS :XgS 1 4. h4 :gS lS.llJf4±. 9... �d7 1 0.C£Jxd4 fS (10 .. .'�gS Q 9 . . . �gS 1 0.tZJxd4 Ad7) 1 1 .�b3 ! �xb3 1 2. C£Jxb3 does not equalize either - White's bishop pair promises him a lasting advantage, Tunik-Sepman, st. Peters burg 1 995.
The position after 9 ...0-0-0 1 0.tZJxd4 AeS will be examined in 9 . . . .teS 1 0. tZJxd4 0-0-0. Another interesting, though probably in correct idea, should be also mentioned: 9 ... 0-0-0 1 0.tzjxd4 tZJf6?1
.
9.f3 i.e6 The sharp 9 ... �xf3 is analysed in Games 92-94. 9 :e'g5? ! is not recommendable, W hite then has two possibilities to achieve a clear advantage: ..
a) 1 0.tzjxd4 i.d7 (1 O . . .'iixe3+? 1 1 .'iYe2 �xe2+ 1 2.tZJxe2+-) 11.e4 (1 1 .tiJxcS! ? i.xcS 1 2.'t'id4 CiJe7 1 3.�eS �xeS 1 4. AxeS fS lS.i.c3!, Karr-Taddei, Mul house 2001) 1 1 ... 0-0-0 1 2. 'iJi'c1 ! �xc1 + (or 1 2 . . . �h4+ 1 3.g3 '6'hS 1 4.�e3 with a good position) 1 3J Axcs l S.Ac4 with better chances.
Black offers his bishop in order to bring his last undeveloped piece into the centre and attack White's king. Here two entirely different possibilities have been tried: A) 1 1 .'iVa4 W hite believes his opponent and does not take the bishop, but activates his queen and prepares to castle queenside. 1 1 ... �g5 On 1 1 .. J�he8 follows 1 2.tZJxcS lIxe3+ 1 3.�2! (Breutigam suggests 13.i.e21J. 13 ... �xcS 14.'ifxcS bxc6 l S.�2 +- or 1 3 ... bxcS 1 4.0-0! lbe2 1S.�xaS+ +-,
262
Chapter 1 3
but th is variation fails to 1 3 . . . .i.xf3 ! + ) 1 3 ... :xt3 1 4.�g 1 ! �c5+ 1 5 . .i.d4 'tiVxc6 1 S.'ifxcS :xt 1 + 1 7.:xt1 bxcS 1 8.i.xfS gxf6 1 9.h3±. 1 2.tlJxc6 Let us mention three more possibilities which have been tried in blitz games on the internet by Morozevich :
c3) 1 6.�2! (probably the only move to hold the d raw) 1 S . . . tlJe4+ 1 7 .�g 1 (1 7.�1 tlJd2+ 1 8 .�2 tiJe4+ 1 9.Wf1 [0d2+=, 1 7 . . . �h4 ! ?) 17 . . . tlJc3 1 8.bxc3 'fi'e3+ 1 9.Wf1 '!!¥f4+ 20.'�g 1 (20.�e1 ?? lle8 !+-+) 20 .. :�e3+ =. 1 2 . . . �xe3+ 1 3.Ae2 lIhe8 1 4.tlJe5 There are also other continuations:
a ) 1 2.�2 l:[he8 1 3.:e1 tzjxd4 1 4. .txd4 .txf3 ! 1 5.gxf3? 'fVh4+ 1 S.We2 l:[xd4 -+, Schlosser-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. Better is 1 S.JLxfS, but then also after 1 5 .. J:td2+ 1 6.Wxf3 'iYxfS+ 1 7. 1Wf4 'iYxb2 Black has good compensa tion for the sacrificed piece.
a) 1 4.�a7+? wb8 1 5.t.z:Jc6+ bxc6+, Royer-leski, Paris 1 998.
-
b) 1 2.0-0-0 �xe3+ 1 3.�b1 , Krush Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999. After 1 3 ... .td7 1 4.,ab5 the Russian super grand master played carelessly 1 4.. . liJd5? !, and now, instead of 1 5.tlJxcS? ! tZJxc3+ 1 S.bxc3 iLxc6 1 7 . .txcS �bS+ 1 8.Wa1 '!!¥xcS� the first player could have achieved a favourable position with 1 S.i.xc6! AxcS 1 S.'Ylixa7, because 1 S. . . tlJxc3+ 1 7.bxc3 .td5 loses in view of 1 8.iVa8+ Wd7 1 9. �a4+ �c8 20.c4!. But after 1 4 ... tZJxd4 1 5 . .txd7+ �d7 1 S.Axd4 tlJbS or 1 S.:xd4 tlJb6 Black is OK. I nteresting was also 13 ... tlJe4 ! ? 1 4. Ad3 tZJxc3+ 1 5. bxc3 tZJxd4 1 6.'it'xa7 iLe6 1 7.cxd4 c6oo. c} 1 2.14 'fYc5 1 3.i.b5 tlJxd4 1 4.3Lxd4 llxd4! 1 5.exd4 �e7+ c 1 ) 1 6.�d2?1 'i!¥e4 with an attack (d 1 7. �xa7? 't+Yxg2+ 1 8 .�c3 tlJd5+ 1 9 .wb3 �f3+ 20.�a4 tiJb6+ 21 .�a5 'fi'xf4 -+). c2) 1 6.c;t11 ?! 'iVe3 ! ( 1 6 . . . �b8? ! 1 7.:e1 't\Yd6 1 8.l%eS;!;, Krush-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999) 1 7.'ffxa7 (1 7.1:e1 'iWf4+ 1 8. �g1 a6S8, 1 8 . . .tZJe4 !?) 1 7 ... �xf4+ 1 8.�g 1 (1 8.�e1 ? lle8!+-+) 1 8 . . :'8'e3+ 1 9 .�1 c6! ? 20J1e1 (20..i.a6?! tiJe4 !) 20 .. :�'f4+ 21 .�g1 cxb5 with advantage for Black.
b) 1 4:�c2! ? M . Breutigam believes that this move is a mistake and provides the following variation as proof: 1 4 . . . bxc6 1 S.fxg4 .aeS 1 S .Axf6 :xtS 1 7.l1f1 l%d2! 1 8:�'c4 l:le6 1 9.11f2 lhe2+! and Black has the edge . But the first player has at least two pos sibilities to improve his play. Instead of 1 6.Axf6, the move 1 6si7f1 ! ? seems to be better, and after 1 6 . . . �f4+ 1 7.'�g1 't!¥e3+ 1 8.'�f1 I have not found anything more than a draw. The other idea is 1 5.Axf6! ?, and only on 1 5 ... gxfS follows 1 6.fxg4. In this case it is not easy for Black to achieve sufficient compensation at all. In his turn the second player can try to improve his play with 1 4. . . &lJe4! ?, e.g. 1 5.fxe4 bxc6 1 6.e5 .:td5 1 7.lId 1 llxd1 + 1 S:*,,'xd 1 l1d8 1 9.iLd2 �xe5 20.h3 i.xe2 (20 ... i.h5?! 21 .g4 Ag6 22.'ft'c1 1:e8 23.'iVc4 '@'xb2 24.:f1 ±, Kerr-Peek, e-mail 200 1 ) 21 .�xe2 �xb2 22.�a6+ �d7 23.Df1 �b1 + 24.�2 �b6+ 25. �xbS cxbS - maybe White's chances are slightly better, but I feel that the most probable result is the draw. Now to the position after 1 4.&lJe5:
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 C2:Jc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.C2:Jc3 .i.b4 6 . .i.d2 .i.xc3 7 . .ixc3 263
...
1 4 .i.d7!! I find this idea of Breutigam to be quite fantastic. In Topalov-Morozevich , Frank furt (rapid) 1 999, Black played 1 4 . . . i.fS, and after 1 SJ:td1 :Xd1 1 6.'§'xd1 :XeS 1 7 . .i.d4? ! (this u nnecessary in-between move gives the opponent an unexpected chance, which , however, he did not notice; correct was 1 7.AxeS) 1 7 .. .'�f4?! (virtually every chess programme in a few seconds shows the variation 1 7 . . . �c2! 1 8.'t't'd2 't't'xd2+ 1 9.�d2 r1dS 20. �c3 Ag6, and the white bishop pair barely compensates for the missing pawn) 1 8.i.xeS 'fi'xeS (this position should have occurred after 1 7 . .i.xeS �xeS) 1 9.0-0 �xb2 20 . .ic4 White achieved a slightly better position.
a game with a normal time control. Nevertheless, after some time this con tinuation was adopted in tournaments, it was also analysed on Breutigam's CD and evaluated as quite playable for Black. However, up to now I stick to my opinion that the bishop sacrifice is incorrect and will try to prove it with the following variations: 1 1 ... flheS
•••
The main variation in Breutigam's analysis after 1 4 . . . �d7 !! runs as follows : 1 5.'iYd4 (1 5 .'i¥a5 .ic6 ! , 1 S.'§'c2 ..ibS ! - both are good for Black) 1 5...'iYxd4 16 .i.xd4 1.a4 1 7.Ae3 C2:Jd5 1 S.C2:Jxf7 ClJxe3 1 9.bxe3 l:td51 1 20/�f1 (20.f4? nfS, 20.�2? ! fld2 21.�he1 AbS) 20 ...l:e7 21 .Ac4 :cS 22.Ab3 .i.xb3 23.axb3 :Xf7 24.c4 with equality. •
B) 11.fxg41? I started analysing this natural move right after the publication of the game Topalov-Morozevich. After many days of work I came to the conclusion that Black's sacrifice is incorrect and Morozevich would not have played so in
All Black's pieces are active and ready to massacre White's king. Let us look at the following variations: b1 ) 1 2.tiJxe6? ':xe3 + 13/�f2 (1 3.i.e2 'fi'xc6 1 4.�c2 �xg2 1 5.:f1 l:de8-+, J . Gustafsson-Morozevich, ICC 3/0 1 999) 1 3 ... �xd1 1 4.11xd 1 tDxg4+ 1 5.�g 1 ':xd 1 1 6. h3 lIxc3 1 7. bxc3 tlJe3 1 8. C2:Jxa7+ �b8+, Banikas-Mo rozevich , ICC 3/01999. b2) 12.�f3 tiJxd4 13.'�xdS :XdS 14. 0-0-0 liJc6 1 5 ..ixf6 lIxd 1 + 1 6.�xd 1 gxf6 1 7.i.d3 h6=, Bunzmann-Wisnewski, German Championship 2000. b3) 1 2.'i!¥e2 !? 1�I.e5 (after 1 2 ... tiJxd4? ! 1 3.i.xd4 �aS+ 1 4.i.c3 � 6 1 s.Axf6 �xf6 1 6.:d1 in Hobuss-Eschmann, Basel 2001 , did not achieve any com pensation) 1 3.h3 tiJe4 (according to the CD Black is OK, but let us continue the analysis a little further) 14.'fi'e2 tlJg3 1 S.:g 1 cS 1 6.tDfS tzJxf1 1 7.�xf1 g6 1 8. C2:Jg3 C2:Jc4 1 9.�2 tzJxe3 20.�a4, and
Chapter 1 3
264
White has kept his material advantage and consolidated his position. b4) 1 2.tlJfS! This is probably the best possibility. 1 2 ... 'i!fc5 1 3.iVe2!
( 1 3.i.d3?! tlJdS!SS, Lipinsky-Buhmann, Bundesliga 2000). Now Black has many continuations, but none of them seems to be sufficient:
�xc6 1 2.'iWxdS+ �xd8 1 3. Axg7 'iWc2 1 4 . .txhS fS 1 S . .td3! ? �xb2 1 6.0-0 the position is unclear. However, the most dangerous continua tion is 1 1 .'iYa4!
b4 1 ) 1 3 . .tZJe4? 1 4.'iVbS! +-. b42)13 CZJd5? 1 4.�bS ! +-. b43) 13...�b4 1 4.i.xtS tZJd3+ ( 1 4 ... gxtS l S.�2+-) l S.'iVxd3 :Xd3 1 6.i.xd3 gxtS 1 7.'�f2±. b44 ) 1 3 11dS 14.Axt6 gxt6 ( 1 4 . . . :xt5 l S.gxtS :Xe3 1 6.i.xg7 +-) 1 5. �2 :tedS 1 6.�g l �d2 1 7.'fi'c4 'i!fe5 l S.:tbl ± � 1 9.'6'f4. .
..•
•..
b45) 13 g6 1 4 .txf6 gxfS lhe3 1 6.i.fS fxg4 17.�d1 •..
•
1S.i..xd8
I have evaluated this position as '±' in my analysis from 1 999. Martin Breutigam also comes to the same position (which is hardly surprising - we have both worked with a computer), and he believes that after 17 bS (in order to provide his king with an escape square and possibly play . . . b5-b4, which would deprive the f6-bishop of the c3-square) lS.g3 lLlb4 the second player has compensation for the material shortage. This evaluation seems very dubious to me in view of the variation 1 9J1d8+ �b7 20. Ag2+ c6 21 .:fl ! llxe2+ 22.'�xe2 - the second player has no perpetual check and a\l the white pieces protect each other. •..
Now finally back to the main game:
1 0.tlJxd4 tlJxd4 An alternative is 10 0-0-0. In that case 1 1 .tLuce6 �xeS 1 2.'iVc1 lLlf6 ( 1 2 .. .'�YgS ! ?) 1 3.AbS tiJd5 ( 1 3 .. J:lheS ! ?) 1 4.e4 ( 1 4.�xg7? :hg8 1 5.i.xc6 tiJxe3 1 6.�2 I1xg7 -+) 1 4 . . . t2:Jxc3 l S.'it'xc3 tiJd4 1 6 . .tc4 �g6 1 7.0-0 �bS 1 8.'�h l fS leads to equality, and after 1 1 .tDxc6 .••
Black replies with 1 1 ... tlJge7, and now: a) 12.e41! 'ifgS 1 3.�d1 (after 13 . fi)xe6 fxe6 White has difficulties with his development) 1 3 ... tDxd4 al) 1 4.i.xd4 ti.Jc6 15.Ac3 (l S . .txa7? :%xd1+ l S.'�xdl trdS+-+) l S .. :�e3+ l S . .ae2 l'bd 1 + 1 7.�xd 1 ( 1 7.�xd l ? nd8+ 1 8.�e1 tlJd4-+) 1 7 . . . i.xa2+. a2) 1 4.l:ixd4 tlJc6 1 5.x:ld2 l:b:d2 1 6.bd2 'i'ih4+ 1 7.�d 1 ( 1 7.g3 �f6 1 8:6'a3 :td8+) 1 7 ... �f2+, Schmid-Bronznik, Hannover (rapid)1 99S. b) 1 2.�c6 �c6 1 3.�bS b 1 ) 13 ...a61 1 4.Axc6 'iYxc6 1 5. 'tIf'xc6 bxcS 1 6 . .axg7 trhg8 1 7 . .tf6 �d3 18. lIg 1 ±.61 S .. Jbe3+?? 1 9.�d2 + -. b2) According to J .Watson, 13 ...t2:Je5 1 4 .0-0 a6 1 5 . .ae2 Ad7 is worth con sidering. But it seems that after l S.'�f4 or l S.'ifd l White is slightly better due to his bishop pair. b3) 13 .. :�Wc5 !? (Watson) b31 )14.0-o 'i!Vxe3+ 1 S .�h 1 �e7! ? ( l S . . . .adS 1 6.:ael 'Bb6=) 1 S .�xg7 ( 1 6.:ae1 'ifbS 1 7.�xg7 :hg8 1 8.Ac3 a6 19.�c4 tDd5=) 1 6 . . . :hg8 1 7.i.c3 ( 1 7.�fS?!
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tzJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 .ib4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 265 t:d2 with an attack) 1 7 . . . 'iWgS 1 8.llf2 a6 1 9.i.c4liJdS = (analysis by Watson). b32) 1 4:�f2 as 1 S.i.xc6 'i'ixc6 1 6.�xc6 bxc6 1 7.a3 (1 7. l:thd88i5, 1 7.b3 f6 1 8.l:tad 1 lb:d 1 1 9.1:txd 1 lld8) 1 7 .. .l::l h e8 1 8.llac 1 ( 1 8 .Axg7? txd2+) 1 8 . . .f6, and White can hardly use his better pawn structure. An interesting alternative is 14 �d7!?, e.g . 1 S .:hc1 (1S.i.xg7 :hg8 1 6.i.c3 tlJeS 1 7 . .ixd7+ :Xd78i5) 1 5 . . . liJe5 1 6 . .txd7+ l:txd7 1 7 . .id4 tlJd3+ 1 8.� 1 l:txd4! 1 9.exd4 'i\Vd6 20.l:te1 (20.l:tcb1 ? 'ifxh2 with an attack; 20.'ii'xa7 'ifxh2oo) 20 . . . tZJxe1 21 Jlxe1 a6 22.:e8+ :Xe8 23.Wxe8+ �d8 24.�xf7 �xd4=, Shtyrenkov-Tishin, Alushta 200 1 . ...
c) 1 2.�2! (probably the best con tinuation) 12 i.d7 (after 12 ...tZJxd4 1 3. 1i'xd4 'iYxd4 1 4 . .ixd4;!; the position is similar to the one from the main game) 1 3.liJxc6 tlJxc6 1 4 t:d 1 ( 1 4 . .ixg7 llhe8Si;) 1 4 ...'iVc5 1 5 .ib5 l:the8 1 S.11he1 a6 ( 1 6 ... f6? 1 7 . .ixc6 Axc6 1 8 .'iVg4+) 1 7 .ixc6 i.xc6 1 8 .l:txdS+ llxdS 1 9 .'t!r'g4+
.
•
•
1 1.'t!Vxd4 In the game Botsari-Baloutsou, Volos 1 996, the move played was 11.i.xd4!? After 1 1 ...fS 1 2.'i1t'a4+! .id7 13.'fi'c2 'irc6 1 4. 'iYd2 'tWd6 15. tlJe7 1 7 . .id3 i.f5 1S.e4! lld8 1 9 .lld 1 ! W hite achieved a clear advantage. Better is 1 1 ..JWa5+ 1 2.i..c3 �g5 1 3.f4 �g6 1 4.�d3 '4!Yxd3 1 5.,ixd3 f6 with good chances for a draw. 11 ... 'iWxd4 12. .txd4 f6
This position has occurred quite often. Due to his bishop pair White has a small, but lasting advantage. The current game shows that regardless of the fact that Black has no weaknesses, it would not be so easy for him to achieve a draw.
13'<�ff2 CiJe7 1 4.�e2 �f7 15J:thc1 White plans a march of the pawns on the queenside and to this end he wants to have his rooks on a1 and c1 .
1 S ... c6 1 6.b4 ! The great Lasker previously said that whoever has the advantage of the bishop pair should move his pawns forward.
1 6 ... tlJfS 1 7...tc3 tlJd6 Black wants to make ... i.e6-c4 possible. On 1 7 ... 11hdS, in order to have the reply . . . tlJe6-d4 in the case of e3-e4, there follows 1 8.g4! fiJe7 1 9.e41 �.
1 8.a4! White's plan is to press Black's pieces by advancing his pawns and later open the position by exchanging the pawns after that his bishops would be active.
Chapter 1 3
266
...
Black cannot allow the further advance of the a-pawn, e.g. 2S...JLc6 29.a6! b6 30.Ac4+ �d5 (30... !�d5 31...td3!±) 31 . .i.b5 ndd8 32.l:lc 7 with a large po sitional advantage.
29 . .tc5 tlc8 It seems as though Black will be able to hold the position, but ...
30.i.xe7!
1 S... :hcS The attempt to exchange the bishop, unfortunately, does not work: 1 S... .i.c4? 1 9.�xc4+ tDxc4 20.i.xf6. and White wins a pawn. 18 J:lhd8!? seemed more natural, in order to play 19....tc4, e.g. 19.e4?! i.c4 20.JLx16 gxf6 21 . .txc4+ �xc4 22.tIxc4 l:d2+ 23.\!tg1 (23.'�f1 :gS) 23 ... :gS 24.g3 ngdS 25.b5 l:lb2 26. bxc6 bxc6 (26 ...l:dd2=) 27.:Xc6 I:I:dd2, and Black has at least a draw. But after Atalik's recommendation 1 9 .te1 ! (�e4. � b5) White would have the initiative. •.
•
1 9.e4 l:tc7 20.�d4 Not bad was also 20.e5 fxeS 21..txe5 %1d7 22.b5 with initiative.
20 .. J:Id7 With the threat 21...tDxe4.
21 .JLe3 fS Black wants to conquer the d5-square. However, interesting is 21 ... a5!? 22.b5 (22.bxa5 llxa5 23.i.b6 traS 24.a5 �b5;!;) 22 ...cxb5 23.axb5 a4, and the passed a-pawn promises Black certain counter chances.
22.eS tlJc8 23.bS! f:ije7 24.f4 �d5 2S.a5! cxbS 26. .txbS Ac6 27 . .tc4+ .tdS 28.i.f1 ! With the idea as-a6.
28 ... a6 !
"One of the advantages of the bishop pair is that you can always exchange one of them" - unfortunately, I cannot re call what authority said this. Do you think it was supposed to be a joke?!
30 .. Jlxc1 3 1 .�xc1 �xe7 32.�e3 g6 33.g3 Ac6 � 34...11d5.
34 . .tC4! nd8 The pawn endgame after 34 ....td5 35. .:i.xd5 nxd5 36.:c7+ rId7 37.ttxd7+ �xd7 38.'1&id4 �c6 39.�c4 is, unfor tunately, lost.
35.Ab3 l:d7 36.l:[c5! Here the rook controls the crucial d5square.
36 ... �dS Also in the case of 36...I1d8 37.h3 (� g4) White is winning.
37.i.g8! �c7 38.e6 l:le7 39.�d4 �d6 39 ... b6 40.l:c1 bxa5 41.We5 would not have saved him either.
40 . .tf7! l:1c7 41 .h3! b6! The last attempt to achieve some coun terplay. On 41 ... :e7 would follow 42.g4 .te4 (42.. .fxg4 43.hxg4+-) 43JIcS win· ning.
42.axb6 l':lb7 43.1:[e5 a5 In the hope of 44.:aS :tb6 4S.lla7 rIb7!.
44.e7!
1.d4 dS 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tiJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 i.xc3 7.�xc3 267 Atter this strong move Black has no chances anymore.
44 ... btxe7 45.:xe7 �xe7 46.$>c5 .tb7 Or 46...Ag2 47.�b3 wd7 4B.h4 .if1
49..igB hS SO..if7 +-.
47. .tb3 Black resigned. Atalik gives the following variation: 47...<�d7 4B.�bS <;t>d6 49. Ag8! a4 SO.'�xa4 WcS S1.Axh7 +-. 1 :0 This game clearly shows the problems Black could face if he surrenders his active counterplay. Game 92 Kachlanl-Gersinska - Susterman Linares 1997
11 .tlJxd4 1 1 .Axd4!? is analysed in Game 94.
11 ...�xh1 1 2.tlJxc6 ':;"'if6 Bad is 1 2... bxc6? 13. .ixg7 '§'xh2 14.�g4 (or 14.'1Wf3 tiJe7 1S.i.xh8 DdS 1S.i.c3 DdS 17.e4 'iYh4+ 18.<;t>e2+-, Krallmann-Heisel, Germany 1997) 14... :idS 1S . .J:ld1 :Xd1+ 1S.Wxd1 �d6+ 17. �d4+-. Baburin-Cobb, Scarborough 1999. 1 2...i¥xh21? seems interesting, but it still does not equalize completely 1 3. 'iVg41 (13.i.xg7?? '&g3+-+) 1 3 ... tlJf6 14.'f¥xg7 �h4+ 1S .�d1 :g8 16.'fYxf6 'i'xfS 17 . AxfS bxcS (17... rIgS 18.i.d4 bxc6 19.�d2 with initiative for White) 18.�d2 (18.l:c1! Cifuentes, 18.�c2!) 18.. J:tg6 19.Ad4!. -
13.tlJa5 Concerning 13f:::JeS and 13.i.xf6 see
Game 93.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 �jC6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tijc3 .tb4 6.j"d2 .txc3 7..txc3 exd4 8.;;"Le2 j"g4 9.f3 As we have seen in the previous game, after 9 ... Ae6 10.tlJxd4 Black's position is passive and slightly worse, therefore the following idea emerged:
9 ... j"xf3(? I) 1O.gxf3 'iYxf3 Suddenly the position becomes very sharp.
13...'i¥e41? The strength lies in the centralization! 1 3..:�Yxh2 is often tried, but practice shows that Black has serious difficulties in that case: 1 4.�a4+ c6 1 5.0-0-0! (much weaker is 1S. tiJxb7?! 'iYg3+ 16.�d2 0-0 17.'iYxc6 l:Ue8! 18.�g2 �xe3+ 19.�c2l1¥e4+ 20.�xe4 tLixe4+. R. Hernandez-Armas, Bayamo 1996, or 15.ti:Jxc6?! �g3+ 16.�e2 �h2+ 17.We1 0-0 1B. tlJe7+ �h8, and White's king is in great danger), and now:
Chapter 1 3
268
a) 1 5 :i!¥f2 ?! 16.'iYb4 tiJd5 ( 1 6 . . . '*IYxe3+ 1 7 . .td2 tDd5 1 8 .�d6 :ld8 1 9.'�'xd8+ �xdS 20.�xe3 +-, Biriukov lachtylov, St. Petersburg 1 997) 1 7.Dxd5 �xf1 + ( 1 7 . . . cxd5 lS .tb5+ Wd8 1 9. 'iWd6+ +-) 1 8.l:d1 'ti' b5 1 9.'i!Vd6 ( 1 9. ffg4 ! ':g8 20.0.xb7 ! �xb7 21 .'t+Ye4+ �f8 22.':d7 ! �xd7 23 . .tb4+ +-) 19 ...�g5 20.tiJxb7 �e7 21 .\'Wxc6+ Wf8 22.tiJd6 1 :0, Kraai-T. Bromann, Roskilde 1 995. . •
.
b) 1 5 �h6?! 16 .�b4! b6 (1 6 . . . �xe3+ � 1 5 . . . 'iVf2 1 6.'�b4 �xe3+) 1 7.tiJb7 c5 ( 1 7 . . :i!7'xe3+ 1 8 . .td2!+-) 1 8.tZJd6+ Wf8 1 9.'6'b3 'iYxe3+ 20.c;t.b1 �e7 2 1 ..tc4 lldS 22.lDxf7 .t:[xd 1 + 23. �xdl :g8 24.tiJg5 +-. .•.
c) 1 5 .. :@'c7 16.�b4 (1 6.,*,a3 !?) 1 6 . . . tiJds ( 1 6. . . ttb8 1 7.tDc4 'ti'e7 1 8.tDd6+ �S 1 9 .tiJf5 ! +-) 1 7.llxd5! cxd5 1 8. .:t b5+ c;t.d8 1 9.tDxb7+ c;t.c8 ( 1 9 . . . 'Wxb7 20.�d6+ +-) 20.tDd6+ �b8 (20 . . . c;t.d8 21 .tZJxf7+ Wc8 22.tlJd6+ �dS 23. �h4+ +-) 21 .Aa6+ 1!'b6 22.tlJc4! 1 :0, Averkin-Batikiants, Krasnodar 1998. d) 15. .0-0 1 6 . .:txf6 nabS 1S. .ta6 'ifeS ( 1 9 . . :�g5 20.tiJd6±) 21 .�S :e7 22 . .tc4±, Gallego, Linares 1 997. .
gxf6 1 7.tDxb7 1 9 .�a3 ! lIteS 20J�g l + �h8 San Segundo
Also 13...0-o1! 1 4.AxfS gxfS 1 5.'i!Vg4+ �h8 1 6.0-0·0 ':fd8 1 7 . .td3 'i!kd5? ( 1 7 .. .'i!¥xh2 lS.'fYfS±) 1 8 .�h4 �cS+ 1 9.tDc4 +- is not recom mendable, Galinsky-Prihotko, Bydgoszcz 1 999.
1 4.�d4 Nothing is promised by 1 4 . .txfS gxfS 1 5:�d4 �xd4 l S.exd4 0-0-0 1 7 . .tg2 c6 1 8.-'i..J b3 �c7 Oabulavicus-McLaughin, corr. 1 997. =,
1 4 ...0�0 1 S.0�0-0 Or 1 5.�xe4 tDxe4 16.CZJxb7 lIab8 1 7.i...g 2 (1 7.tlJaS?! lDxc3 1 8. bxc3 ':b2)
1 7...tD xc3 ( 1 7 . . . 1:[fe8 ! ? 1 8..txe4! ? ':xe4 1 9.0-0-0 lbe3 20 . .a.d7 :h3 21 .lb:c7 l:txh2 22.�S :t2100) 1 8.bxc3 lIfe8 1 9 . 'iti2 ];le5 with an approximately equal endgame, Wise-Yeo, England 2000.
1 S .. JUe8 1 6 . .td3 'ti'xd4 In the case of 1 6 ... �xe3+ 1 7 .�xe3 llxe3 lS.tLJxb7 White is better.
1 7. .txd4 b6 1 8.klgl And in this unclear position, in which Black must probably play 1 8. . .1::[e6, the opponents agreed a draw. Y2:V2
Game 93 Mertanen Finland 1998
Ehlvest
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 (;\c6 3.cxdS 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 S.llJc3 .tb4 6.i.d2 i.xc3 7 .axc3 exd4 8.t2Je2 i.g4 9.f3 .txf3 1 0. gxf3 'ii'xf3 1 1 .tiJxd4 'iYxh l 1 2.t2Jxc6 t2Jf6 1 3.t2JeS Since 1 3 .tlJa.5 does not promise much if Black plays accurately, the first player tries something else here. Also 13 . .txf6 gxf6 1 4.tlJd4 has been tried, after which the following variations are possible: .
...
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ::��c6 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 eS S.tzJc3 Ab4 6.�d2 .:aixc3 7 ..:aixc3 269 a) 14 0-0-0 l S.�f3 (l S.'t'!Vg4+ �S 1 6. 0-0-0 �xh2 00, Blokhuis-Sucher, Sants 2003) l S . . :�xh2 (l S.. :�xf3!?) 1 6.0-0-0 lld6 (16 .. .'tWeS !?) 17. Ag2 :lb6 +, Fedorovsky-Prihotko, Bydgoszcz 1999. ••.
b) 1 4 .. :�xh2 1 5:�a4+ cS 1 S.tzJxcS Here 1 6.0-0-0!? also was played, e.g. l S.. .'�eS 1 7 ...id3 (17.�bl J:[dSoo, E. Mensch-Kovarcik, France 1 999) 1 7...'ii' xe3+ 1 8. Wb 1 :d8 1 9.tiJfS 'iYf3 (after 19 ... '6'eS? 20:�b4 l:txd3 in the game Fingerov-Miliutin, Odessa 2003, White could have achieved a winning position with 21 .%bd3 �xfS 22.'+Wd6) , and in this sharp position the first player can force a draw: 20.:e1+ (20.tiJd4 �f2 6 21 . ..iaS?! O-O!, 20.tzJh4 'it'dS 21.1!Vxa7 'Wd4 22.�aS lIdS 23.'!!YaS+ lIdS 24. �aS :ldS=) 20...�d7 21 . ..ie4 �f2 22. AxcS+ '1itc8 23.Axb7+ �xb7 24.%:e7+ �b8 2S.ifb3+ �bS 2S:�g3+ �aS 27.'!i'f3+ �b8 2S.'i¥g3+ with a per petual check. 1 S �xb2 1 6 .. :!!¥g3+?! 1 7.We2 bxc6 1 8.'�'xcS+ �e7 1 9:�b7+ �eS 20.�e4+ �eS 21 . ..ih3+ fS 22..:aixfS+ �6 23:-WcS+ �e7 24:�b7+ <;iff6 2S.1:1f1 with initiative for White, l S...bxc6?! 1 7.'�Vxc6+ �e7 18.�b7+ �e6 1 9 . ..ic4+ �S 20.0-0-0 with an attack.
..ic4? :XeS ! =+=, l S.'6'xe4? tzJxe4 =+= 6 17. Ac4? tZJxc3-+) l S . . .'�xd4 1 7 . ..ixd4 cS! 1 8.i.c3 l:tadB 1 9 . .ic4 l:txdl + 20.Wxd1 lIe7 oo. b) 1 4...l:d8!? l S . .ibS+ (l S.�xe4 tzJxe4 l S.Ac4 0-0 1 7. .ib4 cS 18.i.a3 b6) l S . . . cS l S.'6'xe4 tzJxe4 1 7.tLlxc6 tiJxc3 l S.tLlxdB+ tzJxbS 1 9.tLlxb7 �d7 (1 9 ... We7!?) and the endgame is unclear.
1 4.�f3 'it'xf3 Too risky is 1 4 . . :�xh2 l S.0-0-0 with a strong initiative.
1 5.t2Jxf3 tZJd5 1 6 . .td4 Probably the chances are approximate ly equal in this complicated position. But the greater experience of the super grandmaster Ehlvest soon makes the difference.
...
1 7.tzJe5+ 1 7 .tLlb8+ �f8 1 B.tiJd7 + leads to the same position. Atalik suggests 1 7. 'i!Ve4+ !? �S 1 S.'i!Vd4 't1fxd4 19.tZJxd4 �, but here also White can hardly hope for anything more than a draw. 17 ...�8 1 B.tzJd7+ �g7 1 9.�g4+ �h6 20:�h4+ �g7 21 :�g4+ with a perpetual check.
13 0 0 ...
..
Also playable is 1 3 .. :�e4!? 1 4JWd4 with the following possibilities: a) 1 4 ... 0-0 l S.0-0-0 :fe8 ! (l S...'�Vxd4?! l s.Axd4 cS 1 7.i.c3 6 Ac4 t Lugovoi Terasti, Finland 1 998) l S.i.d3 (l S.
16 ttfe8 ...
Also worth considering was 1 6 . . . b6 !? 6 ...cS. The main variation runs as follows: 1 7.Ac4 lIad8 1 B.O-O-O lIteS (1 8... cS? 1 9.i.xg7± 6 tzJxe3 20.:g 1 ! +-) 1 9.tLleS �8 (1 9 ...cS? 20.tzJxf7 ! �xf7 21 . .ic3±) 20 . .ibS (20.tiJcS?! tZJxe3 21 .tzJxd8 tzJxdl 22.tzJxf7 tLle3 23 . ..ixe3 :lxe3 with advantage for Black) 20.. .16 (20... :%eS!?) 21 ...ixe8 (21 .tDcs :ldS 22.tzJxa7 :a8 23.�6 lIxa200) 21 ...fxeS 22.i.cS tLle7! (22 . . . exd4? 23.lbd4 +-) 23.:t1 + �g8 24. .ixeS tzJxcS 2S.i.xc7 :f8 with equality.
Chapter 1 3
270
1 7.Wf2 b6?! Now this move is not the best choice any more. After 1 7 . c6 it is more difficult for White to seize the initiative. ..
6 . .td2 .txc3 7..txc3 exd4 8.tZJe2 i.g4 9.f3 �xf3 10. gxf3 Vi¥xf3 11 . .txd4!?
1 8.i.b5 ! l:re6
...
1 8 ...%1e7 1 9.:1g 1 g6 20.11d1 with initiative.
1 9.Iigl ! 1:[g6 On 1 9 f6 20.�c4 c6 follows 2 1 .tZJd2! .. .
with the threat e3-e4.
20.fhg6 hxg6 21 . .ac4 lId8 22.tDe5 As a result of Black's inaccuracy on move 1 7 White has achieved active play. But after 22 . .'�f8 it would not be clear yet whether he could win . But Black made another mistake and lost immediately. .
...
The continuation 1 1 .JLxd4 was the first strong blow against this system and the first victim was the author of this book .
1 1 ... CZJxd4 Everything else is inferior: 1 1 .:@'xh1 ? 1 2.i.xg7 �xh2 ( 1 2 . l1d8 1 3.'iYa4 +-) 1 3. �a4! +-, Cifuentes-Moreda, Malaga 2001 , 1 1 . 0-0-0?! 1 2 .:g 1 lZJf6, Freitag-Ruck, Oberwart 2001 , 1 3.i..g 2 ilJxd4 1 4:�xd4!± or 1 1 .. lZJf6? ! 1 2. tljg3! ilJxd4 1 3.exd4±. .
.
.
..
.
22 .. J�d6? 23.e4 nf6+ 24/iJf3 nxf3+ 25.�xf3 llJe7 26.i.e5 1 :0 The outcome of the game should not mislead us - White did not achieve m uch out of the opening. The game was decided by the difference in the strength of the players. Game 94 Shipov - Tassopoulos Ano Liosia 200 1
1.d4 d5 2.c4 '� 'lc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5/� !c3 �b4
12.'iYxd4 'iYxh 1 13.'tWxg7 0-0-0 1 4.'iYxh8 'i¥xh2 1 5.'*'g7 �h4+ 16.�g3 �b4+ 17. �2 tiJf6 1 7 . . . 'tfYxb2?! 1 8.11c1 'iYb6 1 9.�h3+ �b8 20:�xh7 tLJf6 2 1 .'iYh4±.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ';:- '.c6 3.cxd5 'fgxdS 4.e3 eS S.iiJc3 i.b4 6.i.d2 i.xc3 7 . .txc3 271 The critical position. Black has only two pawns for the bishop, but now b2 is un der attack and also 1 8 ... tlJe4+ is a threat.
1 8.i.. h 3+ Or 1 8.'t§'f4 (1 8.otg2! ?) 18 ...�xb2 1 9.11c1 tDds ( 1 9 ... DdS 2o.Ah3+ �b8 � 1 8. Ah3+ �b8 1 9.'Wf4) 20.�d4 �xd4 (20 .. .'�a3? 2 1 .i.g2 c6 22 . .txd5 �e7 23.�e4 �d6 24 . .txc6 1 :0, Gofshtein Bernard, Paris 1 998) 21 . .th3+ �b8 22.tz:Jxd4 with a favourable endgame. However, after 18...Cl:Je4+ 1 9.�3 tlJd2 20.�2 llJe4+, Barrero Garcia-Garza Marco, Spain 2004, both parties should agree with the repetition.
1 8...�b8 1 9. 'tWf4 In the game von Alvens/eben-8ronznik, Hannover 1 998, in which this position probably occu rred for the first time, White tried 1 9. Af5. After 19 Itd5 (1 9 . . . �xb2 20.':cl 'iYbS 2 1 . 'lJd4 'Wa5 22 :6'h4 '3'e5 23.'t\Yg3 '¥Ia5 24.'t1ih4 'i!¥eS with repetition, Galyas-Jamrich, Budapest 200 1 , 2 1 .14'g7!?, 1 9 .. :�'b5! ?) 20.�f3 'ii'xb2 (very interesting was 20 .. :+!fh4+ ! ? 21 .�g2 l:Id2 with counterplay) 21 .r:tb1 I should have taken the fou rth pawn with 21 . . . '6'xa2. I played 21 .. :�'eS? ! instead and lost after 22. ClJd4 �h2+ 23.'itil 'iVxa2? (23 ...'6'd6! ) 24 . .td3! 'fYa3 2S . ..ac4. •••
29.�c3 ±. 25 . . .tiJd3+ 26.�d2 lOe5 27.1:e4 1:e6 28.tiJf4 :e8 29 .tlJd3 :g8 30 . ..th 1 ±) 26.tDf4 XXa6 (2S . . . llJxa2 27JbcS tDb4 28.l::e 5 ±, 26 . . . b6 27 .':e4! �c8 28.:e7 a5 29.a4 ±) 27.:Xc5 .t:txa2 28.,te4 ! he achieved a technically won endgame due to the weakness of the h and f-pawns. But Black could have played better - he should have tried to avoid the queen exchange which would have preserved more counter chances: 22 . :iYf6+!1 23/� J4 (23 . .tf3 ! ?) 23 . . . 'ff h 4+ 24.'Jie2 �f4+ 2S.�xf4 �hS+ 26.�2 lId2+ (26 . . . a6 !?) 27.�g l :d 1 + 28.ltxd1 '8xdl + 29 . ..tf1 �c1 , and it would have been very difficult for White to win this position. .
21
•••
a6
The king needs a flight square.
22 ..tfS .
This is a m uch better place for the bishop - here it controls more squares, protects the important e4-square, facilitates l:Icl -c2 and attacks h7.
22...€Id5
1 9 ...�xb2 Or 1 9 liJe4+ 20.�3 '@'xb2 21 .r:tc 1 t2Jd6 22 .'ti'd4 'iVb5 23.'�TCS. and W hite's chances are preferable in view of Black's weak pawns on the kingside, Atalik-Czebe, Budapest 1 998. •••
20.I:tc1 �d6 21 .a4!? In Liechtenstein 1 998, Khenkin played 21 �c4 against Czebe in this position, and after 21 ...llJd5 22 . .tg 2 llf6+ 1! 23.�el 't\Yb4+ 24.'f:¥xb4 �b4 2SJ%c4 cS (2S . . . tDxa2 2S.na4 IIa6 27.I1xa6 bxa6 28.�d5 tLlb4 29.i.xf7±, 25 . . . a5 26.a3 tlJcI3+ 27.�d2 llJeS 28.r:tcS :US :
23.�d41 Without the queens Black will have no counterplay and then White can com fortably deal with the f- and h-pawns.
23...�xd4 Inferior is 23 ... �a3 24.Da.l �b3 25.llJc 1 ,
Chapter 1 3
272
and the queen exchange i s inevitable, only now White also wins the h7-pawn.
24.tiJxd4 h6 25.�e4 tlJe7 26.a5 26.lIcS !? also looked very good, in order to gain control over the entire fifth rank.
26... f5? Despair. 26 . . . b6 would have kept some chances for a draw.
27.tZJxf5 tZJxf5 28.�xf5 l:Id5 29.e4 t;txa5 Black obtained three connected pawns, but unfortunately they were too far from the promotion squ are . However, White's e-pawn cannot be accused of that!
30.�e3! lle5 31 .�d4! ne7 32.e5 c6 33.e6 �c7 34.�e5 b5 35.�e4 as 36.ttxc6+ �d8 37.tta6
8. . .(�J6! The soundest move - the knight imme diately comes into play and at the same times the kingside castling is prepared. A similar idea is 8 . iDge7, but the knight there is more passive. After the natural 9.tiJxd4 the following variations are possible: .
.
Game 9S van Wely - Mlladinovic Groningen 1 997
After 9 ... tiJxd4 1 0J.'!¥xd4 'iWxd4 a) 1 1 .�xd4 we have the typical endgame, in which the first player's chances are preferable due to his pair of bishops, e.g. 1 1 ... 0� 1 2.i..c4 ( 1 2 . .te2 i.e6 1 3. 0-0 l:fd8 1 4.b4 tlJc6 1 S.i..c3 I:td7 1 6. l:.fc1 eue7 1 7.bS c6 1 8. a4 ;/;, Matamoros Franco-Castro Valero. Dos Hermanas 1 998) 1 2 ... :1e8 ( 1 2 . . .:adS 1 3.0-0-0 CDc6 1 4.i.c3 SLe6 1 S . .txeS fxe6 1 S.�c2;!;. Dizdar-Rukavina, Pula 1 999) 1 3.0-0-0 tlJc6 1 4.i.c3 .tfS 1 S.11he1 tiJeS 1 S . .tf1 f6 1 7.e4 �eS 1 8.f4 tiJcS 1 9.b3 llad8 20.h3 a6 2 1 .g4 ;!;, Biriukov-Sepman, St. Petersburg 1 998, or 1 1 . .16 1 2 . .te2 .te6 1 3.0-0 �7 1 4.AhS+ gS 1 S .tf3 c6 1 6. I:tfc1 :t, Lautier-Yermolinsky, Tallinn 1 998.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 C2:JcS 3.cxdS 'iYxd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJc3 .tb4 S . .td2 �xc3 7...txc3 exd4 8.tlJe2
b) 9... 0-0 b1 ) 1 0.tiJb5!? � g5, and now: b 1 1 ) 1 1 .tzJxc7 i.g4 1 2.h4 b1 1 1 ) 1 2 � g6 1 3 .i..d3 SLfS 1 4 . .txfS tZJxfS 1 S.'i¥f3 ( 1 S.tiJxa8 'tI¥xg2 1 S.:f1
1 :0 As we have seen the variation 9 . . . .txf3 1 0.gxf3 �xf3 1 1 . .txd4! etc. currently seems to be dubious for Black. And if we are not particularly satisfied with the previously analysed continuation 9 . . . .te6 ( Game 9 1) in view o f its relative passivity, we must look for something else. Fortunately, there is another very interesting possibility:
.
.
...
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.cxdS 'tIVxdS 4.e3 eS S.tZJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 .txc3 7.Axc3 273 l:xa88ii) 1 S . . . liad8 1 6.lijd5 'tWe6 1 7.lld 1 tDcd4 1 8 . .txd4 llxdS 1 9.�xa7 nxd1 + 20.iVxd 1 llt'xa2 2 1 ..tcS :c8 22.0-0 tlJxh4 (22 .. :iWc4? 23.b4 �e6 24.'�!Vg4 ±, Kilpi-Maki Torkko, Oulu 1 998) 22 . . .liJxh4 23. 'tWd7 'iYa8 24 . .td4 !. b1 1 2 ) 1 2 � h5!? 1 3.'iYb3 1:ad8 1 4.i.c4 ( 1 4.'�'xb7 1:d7!) 1 4 . . . lId7 ! 1 S.�bS €Df5 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn. •••
b1 2) 1 1 .h4 ! b1 21 ) 1 1 .. :� h6 1 2.lDxc7 nb8 1 3.lijd5 .teS 1 4.lijf4 :1fd8 1 5:i¥hS �xh5 1 S . liJxh5 �S 1 7. lDxg7 i.g4 1 8.13 lDxc3 1 9.bxc3 Wxg7 20.fxg4, and W hite's material advantage is of greater im portance than his bad pawn structure, Hertneck-M.Hermann, Bad Wiessee 1 998. b1 22) 1 1 ...�g6 1 2.hS! 'ii'gS 1 3 .hS .tg4 , and now the drawback of the knight position on e7 is obvious - it is not so active and blocks the e-file for one of the rooks. That is why after 1 4.�b3 Black can hardly hope for sufficient compensation, e .g. 1 4 ... g6 1 S.tiJxc7 :ac8 1 S.�xb7 1:b8 1 7.'Wa6 tiJb4 1 8 . .txb4 l:ixb4 1 9.�a3±. Not bad is also 1 4. 'iVa4 or 1 4. �c2. b2)
White can also calmly play: 1 0.tlJxc6 '{?j'xc6 1 1 .�d4 'iWg6 b21 ) The position after 12 ..td3 .tf5 ( 1 2 ...�xg2? 1 3.0-0-0 with an attack) 13 . .ixfS Cl:JxfS 1 4. 'iWf4 lijdS 1 5.0-0 :fe8 seems to be approximately equal , Nikolaidis·Miladinovic, Aegina 1 995.
And now back to the position after 8 . . . lijf6 ! ?
9.lZJxd4 O-O! The most consistent and logical con tinuation . Black now has a significant lead in the development, but he m ust be ready to sacrifice material. The exchange on d4 with the resulting endgame gives White a slight, but lasting advantage in view of his bishop pair, e.g. 9 . ..tlJxd4 1 0.'i¥xd4 0-0 ( 1 0 . . :�xd4 1 1 . .txd4!, 1 0 ... ..te6 1 1 , 'iixd5 .txd5 1 2.f3 !) 1 1 . .te2 (o r 1 1 . .tc4 ! ? 'iWxd4 1 2 . ..txd4 .te6 1 3 . .txe6 fxeS 1 4.%1c1 lIf7 1 5.�e2!, Krivoshey Bezgodov, Minsk 1 998) 1 1 ..J!¥xd4 (it would be too risky to accept the sacrifice: 1 1 .. .'i!¥Xg2? ! 1 2.0-0-0! 1j'xf2 1 3.l:thg 1
b22) J. Bosch's recommendation 1 2.h4 should be probably met with 1 2 . . . hS. b23) 1 2.0-0.Q!? tZJc6 1 3.i¥f4 .tfS 1 4. 'iVg3 �h6 1 5 . .tb5 :1fe8 1 6 . .txc6 bxc6 1 7.lid4 with a slight edge for W h ite, Haritakis-Miladinovic, Aegina 1 996, although the opponents agreed a draw in this position.
10.tlJb5
Chapter 1 3
274 Other possibilities:
a) 1 0.tiJxc6 'iWxc6 , and now: al ) 1 1 . .:tc1 IleS 1 2 . .td4 'iYd6 1 3.Ae2 (nothing is achieved by 1 3 .�c4 �b4+ 1 4.iVd2 'iYxd2+ 1 S.�xd2 �e4+ 1 6.c;!te2 cS 1 7 . .tc3 tlJxc3+ 1 S.lbc3 b6=. How ever, 1 3.Ad3 ! ? was worth considering) 13 ... b6 1 4.0-0 ( 1 4 . .tf3 tiJe4 l S.'3'c2 �b7 d 1 6.'§'xc7? :tac8) 1 4 ... c5 l S.�c3 'i!Ve6 1 6.�f3 tlJe4 1 7 . .txe4 �xe4, and in M. Richte r-Miladinovic , St.Vincent 2000, Black ach ieved comfortable equal ity. a2) 1 1 .�f3 '§'Jd3 1 2.gJd3 llJds 1 3 . .td4 .te6 1 4.11g1 f6 l S.a3 as 1 6.l:c1 llacS 1 7.c;!td2 :fd8 l S.e4 c5 1 9.:Xc5 :XcS 20 . .txc5 b6 2 1 .exdS (21 .i.e3 ? ! tDxe3+ 22.�xe3 Ild 1 ) , and here the opponents in Gulko-Brynell, Copenhagen 2000, agreed a draw. a3) GM Atalik recommends 1 1 .'i4'd4 d 1 1 ... i.g4 1 2.�c4 �. Better is, however, 1 1 .te6 , e .g . 1 2.�h4 :t'd8!? 1 3.'iYg3 ( 1 3 . .tJd6 gJd6 1 4 .iYxfS 'ti'c2 l S .�c3 'i!!¥xc3 1 6.bxc3 1:[d6�) 1 3 ... .tfS 1 4.'!!Vg S .tg6 l S . .tb5 'ti'e4 oo, Verat-Dubois, Clichy 2000. Also good is 12 ... ttJe4, e.g. 1 3 .i.d3 (1 3 . .td4? 'ti'c2 ! +) 1 3 . . . .tfS ( 1 3 . . . 1S !?) 1 4 . .td4 (j ldS, and Black has no problems. ...
a4) 1 1 .�e2 tlJe4 Q 1 0.i.e2 �e4 11, tlJxcs �xc6 under c2 . b) After 1 0.'iYb3 Morozevich easily equalized against Dautov, Bundesliga 2000: 1 0 ... 'l:Jxd4 1 1 .i.xd4 ( 1 1 ,'6'xd5? ! tlJc2+ !) 1 1 . . . 'it'd6 (also playable i s 1 1 . . . �xb3 1 2.axb3 .te6 1 3.i.c4 llJdS, Tiho nov-Kuba, Izmir 2004) 1 2.l.id1 c5 1 3.i.c3 'eYe7 1 4. �c4 t1le4 1 5. 0-0 bS l S . .tdS :be 1 7.f3 tzJxc3 1 8.'��¥xc3 .tb7 1 9.e4 V2:V2. c) In Kishnev-Rabiega, Bundesliga 2001 , White sacrificed a pawn - 10 .te2. c 1 ) Now the variation 1 0 . . .....:�xd4? ! 1 1 . �xd4 �xg2? ! 1 2.0-0-0 is very dan gerous for the second player. That is why Black immediately took the pawn •
1 0 .. .'6'xg2 - and quickly lost: 1 1 . .tf3 'i!¥g6 1 2.tlJxc6 bxc6 1 3.�d41? �f5? ( 1 3 . . . .td7 or 1 3 . . . i.b7 would probably be followed by 1 4 .0-0-0 with a strong initiative, with his move, however, Black chose the greater evil) 1 4 . .ixc6 nb8 1 S.:g 1 �hS 1 6. 0-0-0 l:b6 1 7.'1Wd8 ! �c5 1 8 . 1:gS! 1 :0 . However, in this seemingly hopeless variation for Black the French 1M Cyril Marzolo soon found an interesting improvement: 1 3 . .tg4! 1 4 . 1:[gl i.xf3 l S . lbg6 fxg6! 1 6 .:c1 %1f7 1 7.�b4 tlJe4 with significant compensation for the sacrificed queen. ..
c2) Much safer is still Poldauf's recom mendation 10 tZ:Je4! 1 1 .tlJxc6 'iYxc6 1 2 . .td4 'i!Vg6 d . . c5, after which Black achieves a good position. In the game Se. lvanov-Madebri nk, Sweden 2001 , White tried to improve on this variation with 1 1 .0-0. There then followed 1 1 . . 'l:Jxc3 ( 1 1 . . . ll:Jxd4 1 2.�xd4 tDxc3 1 3. 'iVxc3 'it'd6 1 4 .:fd 1 'iVe7 1 5.b4 c6 1 6.a4 with a slight initiative, Zhao Xue-S . Vajda, Istanbul (01) 2004) 1 2.bxc3 !¥cS 1 3.'6'b3 llbS! (in order to develop his bishop) 1 4 . .tr:ad 1 , and instead of 1 4 . . . tz:jxd4 1 S.cxd4 �d6 1 S.e4� Se. lvanov recommends 1 4 . . . .td7 (d 1 5. i�JbS .te6). after which, in my opinion Black has no problems. •••
.
.
d) 1 0.�a4 .td7!? (after 1 0 . . . tlJeS?! 1 1 .tiJb5 tlJe4 1 2.liJxc7 tZJxc3 1 3.�c2 �a5 1 4.'iYxc3 'fYxc3+ l S .bxc3 llb8 1 S . 0-0-0 in the game Barkhagen-Svenn, Malmo 2003 , Black did not achieve sufficient compensation for the pawn, however, i nteresting is 1 0 . . . 'ti'e4 ! ?) 1 1.tiJb5 'ti'f5 1 2.11d1 ( 1 2 .tDxc7 l1ac8 1 3.tDbS tlJe4 �) 1 2 ... tZJe4 1 3.'t'7'c2 tDxc3 1 4.�xc3 l:[ac8 1 S.�d3 'ti'e5 =. e) 1 0.llc1 tUxd4 After the greedy 1 0 .. .'�xa2 1 1 .tlJxc6 bxc6 my computer did not find anything decisive for White, but nevertheless it
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t�Jc6 3.cxdS 't!¥xdS 4.e3 eS S.tDc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.�xc3 27S seems too risky to me; 1 0 ... :eS 1 1 .tlJxc6 (1 L'�� bS ! ?) 1 1 . . . 'iYxc6 Q 1 0.tLixc6. 1 1 .�xd4 c5 1 2.'8xd5 1 2 .'iYf4 liJe4 with counterplay, N . Gerard-Peric, Rohde 2002. 1 2 ... l2:Jxd5 1 3.�e5 b6 1 4.i.c4 �e6 !? 1 5.a3 1 S.0-0 liJb4 ! ? 1 6 . Axe6 fxe6 ec• 15 ... :fe8 1 6.Ag3 ( 1 6.0-0? tZJxe3 +) 1 S . . . l:IadS 1 7.0-0 liJf6=. Back to the game after 1 0.tiJbS:
1 0 . .1l:VgS! .
With the exchange of the queens, 1 0 ... �xd1 + 1 1 .l:xd1 tiJeS 1 2.Ac4;t, Black maintains the material parity, but White seizes the initiative, Lindinger-Maahs, Hamburg 1 999.
1 1 .fiJxc7 The alternative 1 1 .h4 will be examined in Game 99. The other possibilities are significantly wo rse: 1 1 .Wf3 Ag4 1 2 .�g3 tiJe4 1 3.�xc7 as 1 4.tzJd4 ( 1 4.�xb7 Dae8 ! 1 S.�xcS tlJxf2! -+) 1 4 . . . tlJxc3 1 5. bxe3 tiJxd4 1 6. cxd4 nacS ! ( 1 S . . . 11fe8? ! 1 7.Ac4 tIe7 1 8:�!¥cS l:xe3+ 1 9.fxe3 '6'xe3+ 20.c�11 '6'f4+ 2 1 .�g 1 'ife3+ 22.c;t11 �f4+ %:V2, von Alvensleben Bronznik, Bad Bevensen (blitz) 1 998) 1 7.�e5 '&xeS 1 S.dxeS DfdS+ or 1 1 . Axf6?! �xfS 1 2.tZ:Jxc7 .i.g4 Q 1 1 .tlJxc7 .i.g4 1 2.i.xfS? ! fYxf6.
11
.••
.tg4 1 2. '+!Vb3
1 2.i.xf6? 'i!¥xf6 1 3.'8xg4 �xb2 1 4.11d 1 '!'r'c3+ 1 S.�e2 tlJeS 1 6 .�e4 �xc7 1 7 .f4 t2Jg4 1 8.'!'f3 'i'c4+ 1 9 .�e 1 �c3+ 20.�e2 tlJxe3 21 J;:[d3 'ilic2+ 22.
12 �ad8! •••
Black sacrifices another pawn, but brings his rook to an ideal position. The battle becomes more intense.
1 3.iYxb7 1 3.h3 and 1 3.'!i'b5 will be analysed in Game 98. On 1 3.i.c4 there follows 1 3 .. .tiJe4! with a dangerous initiative, e.g.: a) 1 4. 'iYxb7 tlJxc3 1 S.'fixcs ( 1 5.bxc3 '6'eS! 1 S.0-0 tiJa5 -+) 1 5 . . . Ad7 1 S. 'fi'b 7 (1 S.'fi'f3 �aS -+, 1 S .iVaS 'iVxg2 1 7J1f1 �xh2 .1 1 S .'ti'xa7 i.h3 -+) 1 S . . J�bS ( 1 S . . . Ac8 ! ?) 1 7.�xa7 �xg2 1 8 .1':.f 1 tbb2 1 9 .�d4 l::If b8 20 .'8xd7 'it'e4 2 1 .Ild1 (21 .�xf7+ �hS -+) 21 . . .tlJxd1 22.�xf7+ �hS 23.tlJeS 'iVe5 24.
13 ...'i¥c5 The interesting alternative 1 3 ... I:td6!? is to be seen in Game 97.
1 4.i..b 5 Other possibilities: a) 1 4.h3 a1 ) 14 ...&lJe4?! 1 S.�b5! 'itd6 1 S.fiJd5 �xdS 1 7. �xd5 lIxdS 1 8.hxg4 tlJxc3 1 9.bxc3 lieS 20.:tc 1 ±, Rebe/- Tiger 1 2. 0, Cadaques 2000. a2) 1 4 . 11b8? ! 1 5.tlJa6! ? (Watson's ..
Chapter 1 3
276
recommendation 1 5.'i!¥a6 Ibb2 1 6.'i!r'c4 ! also seems to be good) 1 5 . . . 'iWxc3+ l S. bxc3 11xb7 1 7.hxg4 liJxg4 1 8 . .te2 ±. a3) 14 i.c8!? 1 5 .�b3 tDe4 �. a4) 1 4 i.h5!? i5i5. ...
••.
b)
1 4.�b3
Q
Game 96.
1 4 ... l:td6 Bad is 1 4 ...tDb4? 1 5.0-0 l:tbB 1 6.i..d 4+-. 1 5.tDa6 1i'd5 1 6.0-0 �cS 1 7. �c7 'iWxb5 1 8.'iYxd6 llJe4 1 9.'iVf4 llJxc3 20.bxc3 i.xa6 20 .. .'iVxa6 21 .Ilfd1 .teS is also playable . 21 .lIfd1 The storm has faded away and the position is approximately equal. The rest follows with brief comments:
21 .. .'�c4 2 1 . . . hS!? 22.'ti'xc4 22.'�'d6 hS. 22 ...j.xc4 23.a3 llc8 24. �ab1 �S 25.f3 25.l:d7 �eB 2S.Ilbb7 Ae6 27.:1dc7 �dB 2B.:XcB+ <;itxcB =, 25 .:b7 �e8 2S.f3 lldB =. 2S ... l:tc7 26.�2 �e7 27.g4 h6 2S.h4 llJeS 29.:bS CiJd7 30.na8 30.:1g8 iDfS ! � 3 1 .l:bg7? �8 -+.
39.l:ta4 ttJfS+ 40.�4 �6 41.h6 CiJh4 41 ... .tdS! ? 42.:aS+ Acs 43.<;itg4 �g6. 42.:gS lbf3+ 43.�e4 �h3 44.ttxa7 tlJfS 4SJ;rh8 CiJxh6 46.a4 �gS 4S ... :h4+ ! ? 47.�d3 �eS. 47.a5 fS+ 4S.Wd4 f4 49. 1:g7+ �6 SO.l:tgh7 tiJf5+ 51.�e4 CLlg3+ 52:itfd4 tlJe2+ 53. �c5 �c3+ 54. �d6 Itd3+ S5.�c7 CiJd4 S6.a6 11c3+ S7.�b6 �e5 %:%
Game 9S Knlest - Liebau carr. 2000
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 CZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.lLlc3 Ab4 6.�d2 �xc3 7 . .txc3 exd4 S.tlJe2 tlJf6 9.llJxd4 0-0 10.tlJb5 'iYg5 1 1 .CiJxc7 �g4 1 2.'t'Ub3 !ladS 13.'iYxb7 '8VcS 1 4.�b3 !?
30 ... j,e6 31.Ud4 CiJb6 32. ngS g6 32 ... llxc3? ! 33.l:xg7 llxa3 34.11h7 /; idS 3S.ItxhS :a2+ 3S.�g3 tUxe3 37.hS as 38Jlh8 a4 39.:a8, 32 . . . �6! ? 33.hS �c3 34.:f4+ �e7 3S .IIxg7 llxa3 36 .gS hxgS 37.lIxg5 tiJdS. 33.�hS l:[xc3 34.Uxh6 l:tc2+ 3S:�g3 llJc4 36J:thS �c3 37.hS gxh5 38.gxh5 tDxe3
An interesting novelty. The queen im· mediately leaves the rather dangerous b7-square. The drawback of this can·
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 i�c6 3 .cxdS �xd5 4 .e3 eS S.llJc3 Ab4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.i.xc3 277 tinuation is also obvious - development is further ignored.
22.Wg 1 'iVg3+ (22 ... l:dS? 23.tlJf4) 23. wh 1 'i'fh3+ with a perpetual check.
1 4 .. f· '!e4 1 5 . .tb5 ttd7! Inferior is 1 S . . . 'i!¥d6? 1 6. 't}YdS! ±.
1 7 ... t2Jxc3 1 8. 'iYxc3 llxc7 1 9 . .txc6 'iVc8 20.hxg4 �xc6 21 .'iYd3 21 :i¥d2? l:d8! .
1 6.h3 ! On the 'natural' 16 .tlJa61! "iVfS 1 7.0-0 Black has prepared the amazing 1 7 ...
Af3!!:
Now Black wins in all lines : a) 1 8.i.xc6 �g4 -+. b) 1 8JIfc1 .ixg2! 1 9 .f4 ( 1 9.wxg2 �xf2+ 20st;h 1 �f3+ 21 .'it'g 1 lld6 -+) 19 . . . .ih3 20.�c2 l:d2 ! -+. c) 1 8.gxf3 l'1d6! ! (only a draw is achieved after 1 8 . . :�xf3 1 9.,teS! tZJgS 20.h3 tZJxh3+ 21 .�h2 tZJxe5 22.i.xd7 'iJxf2 23.'ifc2 �h5+ 24.wg2 'ttf3+) 1 9.11fd 1 (1 9.l:fc1 't\Yh3 20.,tf6 tiXi2! -+) 1 9 ...llg6+ 20.�1 '8xf3 21 .�c2 �g2 22.'it'e1 (22. l:d2 llxh2 -+) 22 . . . :xt2 23:�xe4 '{i'xe4 24.<;t-xf2 '8f5+ 25.�g 1 'ti'xbS -+ .
1 6 .. :t�·f5 1 7:Y!'c2 This move leads to mass exchanges. Also 1 7.0-0 !1 is worth considering. Then Black could force a d raw, but probably nothing more : 1 7 . . . �f3 ! ( 1 7 . . . ,txh3? 1 8 .i.xc6) 1 8 .gxf3 �xh3 ( 1 8 ... �xf3 ? 1 9 . .ixc6) 1 9.t2:JdS ( 1 9.fxe4 l:dS 20.tiJeS :XeS 21 .�xe6 �xe6 22.f3 IS with initiative) 1 9 . . . llJg3 ( 1 9 . . . l:td6? 20.tiJf4) 20.fxg3 'ti'xg3+ 21 .�h 1 �h3+ (21 ... l:d6 22.llJfS+ lhfS 23.i.xfS �h3+=)
2 1 ... Jlcl + 22.l:1xc1 'iYxcl + 23.'t'i'dl �xb2 24.a4
White has given back one of the two extra pawns and brought about great simplifications. However, the second player has kept the initiative - Wh ite has not castled yet and the h 1 -rook is very passive.
24 ... �c3+ 25. �1 �c7 26. �bl g6 27.$>gl :td8 28. l:th4 In order to activate the rook at last after 29.g5. 28...�c4! Thwarting the aforementioned idea and at the same time attacking on a4. It is obvious that Black's activity is of greater significance than White's extra pawn and the first player must struggle for a draw. 29.'fe¥a1 �c2 After 29 . . . �e2 30.'3'fS r:td2 comes 31 . llxh7 ! 'it'xh7 32.�xf7+ with a perpetual. 30.'iYf6 1:td1 + 31 .$>h2 'tWc7+ 32.�f4 iYxf4+ 33.exf4 Ila1
Chapter 1 3
27S
34.<st>g 3 a5 35. f5 lba4 36. fxg 6 hxg 6 Black has achieved a lot - he has restored the material parity and has a 'healthy' passed pawn on the queen side. However, "all rook endgames are drawn" - and unfortunately this bon mot is also true in this case. 37 .�h1 g 5 38.l:th6 J::1a3+ 39. f3 :a2 40.];Ia6 <st>g 7 41 .<st>h3 :c!:a1 42.�h2 a4 43.�g 3 a3 44.�h2 �8 4S.:a7 a2
Game 97 Wiebe - Wisnewski Kiel (rapid) 2002
The continuation 1 3 . . . :dS ! ? was sug gested by M.Breutigam CD (which I can recommend to you), as well as by myself in the first edition of the current book. At that time it was a new idea, today it is no longer a revelation. However. the last word has not been spoken yet.
1 4:'l!+'bS !? This continuation was considered neither by me, nor by Breutigam . Probably the occurring position was new to C. Wisnewski as well . But before w e continue with the analysis of the main game, let us examine some possible alternatives: a) 1 4.�b5? neS The threat to sacrifice the rook on e3 hangs in the air. 1 5 tDc:t4 This continuation leads to a disaster, but the position was bad anyway, e.g. 1 5 ..td4? tDxd4 l S.tDxd4 �a5+ 1 7.b4 'tWa3 1 B .tZJb3 llb6 -+ or 1 5 .i.c4 llxe3+ 1 6.fxe3 '6'xe3+ 1 7. 'it11 1!i'f4+ 1 8. �g 1 '{Wxc4 (threatening 1 9 ... 't!Vc5+ 20. �1 i.cB -+) 1 9 . h3 .tc8 20.'iVc7 'Wxb5 21 . .txfS gxf6, and Black is clearly winning. 1 S ... r1xe3+! 1 S.fxe3 'i!Vxe3+ 1 7.tzJe2 t2Je4 1 8.�xcS l:td8 1 9.'fVxe4 What else? 1 9 �xe4 Threatening 20 . . . l:Ie8 20.:d1 rIxd1 + 2 1 .�xd1 .txe2+, and in view of 22 . .i.xe2 'ifb 1 + -+ White resigned. And. Martin-Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003 . b) 1 4.h4? ! l:Ifd8! 1 S .te2 'ilVgS, and due to his uncastled king White has serious difficulties, e.g. 1 S . .txg4 �xg4 1 7.0·0 'ilVd7 ! 18 . .txfS gxfS-+ (the c7-knight will not survive this pin) or 1 6 . .txf6 .txe2 1 7 . .txd8 'iYc2 -+. c) 1 4.i.c4? ! .tc8 ! 1 5 .'iYb5 �xg2 1 6.:f1 X1fd8 with a strong attack for the sacrificed pawn. .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 Cl:Jc6 3.cxdS 'i¥xd5 4.e3 eS 5.'iJc3 .tb4 6.�d2 .txc3 7 ..txc3 exd4 S. tLJe2 tiJf6 9.tDxd4 0-0 1 0.tlJbS 'iWg 5 1 1 /iJXC7 ,tg4 1 2.'i+'b3 l:adS 1 3:i¥xb7 l:Cd6 !?
.
.••
•
Not only to protect the c6-knight. but also to double the rooks with ... :U8-dS. Moreover, in many lines the possibilities ... :f8-bS and (if the knight abandons the c7-square) .. .I:td6-e6 are possible.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 �b4 6.�d2 .txc3 7 . .txc3 279 d) 1 4.h3 �h4 Here the alternative 1 4 . . . llb8 ! ? is very interesting. e.g. 1 5.'iVa6 Ah5 1 6:�a4 l:bd8, and for the two pawns Black achieves a very dangerous attack against White's 'centralized' king. The im mediate 1 4 . . . Ah5 ! ? is also worth co n side ring. After 14 . . :�h4 the following variations are possible: d1 ) 1 5.tZJb5 ? ! Ile6 1 6.g3 Ilx e3+ ! 1 7.�d2 ( 1 7.fxe3? �xg3+ 1 8.�d2 '§'f2+ 1 9.�c1 .tf3 -+) 1 7 Uxg3! 1 8.fxg3 ( 1 8:ti'xc6? .tf3 1 9.�c7 llg5 20.11h2 tZJe4+ 21 .'it>c2 :c5 22:�d7 ti3xc3 23. ti3xc3 �f4-+) 18 .. J�Yg5+ 1 9.�c2 �f3 20:�c7 :i.xh 1 with initiative, 20 . . . tZJd5 ! ? .•.
d2) 1 5.g3 :fd8 1 6 . .i.e2 'iYh6 1 7.�xf6 1 7:iYb5 .txe2 1 8.'�Yxe2 tZJe4�. 1 7...:Cb8 1 8.'fi'xb8+ In the case of 1 8:�a6 :i.xe2, after 1 9 . .i.xg7 �xg7 20 . �xe2 l:lxb2 2 1 .'tiVg4 'tIixg4 22.hxg4 tZJe5 23 0 0 tDxg4 i5i5, as well as after 1 9.'iVxe2 'i¥xf6 Black has a significant initiative to compensate him for the material shortage. 1 B...tlJxb8 1 9.Axg4 (1 9.hg7?! �xg7 20 . .i.xg4 't!¥e5 2 1 .0-0 hS with an attack) 1 9 ... 'i!¥xf6 20.0-0 :d2 2 1 .llad 1 llxb2 22.tLld5 'ifd6 23 .':-�'.f4 'il'b6 24.ClJd3 :bS (24 . . . :Xa2? 2S.:b1 'i¥d6 26.:fc1 ±) 25.a4 l:tb3 26.:i.13 tZJc6 27.tiJc1 llc3 28. tDe2 llc2 29.tDd4 iDxd4 30.nxd4 g6 31 . lid7 hc7 32.Ilfd 1 l:txd7 33.l:txd7 1Wa6 34 .i.d 1 Peek Zumsande, e-mail 200 1 . .
first player repels all his threats.
1 9.f3 'ii' h 5 20.�ad1 l:[h6 21 .g4 tlJxc3 22.bxc3 fia5 23.tlJd5 Everything is clear now - White has successfully defended and should wi n. However, in the end he blundered away his queen and lost the game ... 0:1 .
And now let us return t o the position after 1 4. 'ti'bS:
-
.
=,
1 4 .. :iYh6? A mistake - the queen should have kept an eye on the g2-square at any cost! The alternatives will be analysed right at the end of the game. 1 S ..te2 l:rb8 1 6.'ii'c4 �xe2 1 7 .�xe2 �4 1 8.0.. 0 !1g6 Black tries to start an attack on the kingside, but with his next moves the
Wisnewski suggests 1 4 ...'i¥g6!? and evaluates the position as unclear. I have tried to analyse it a little further and the following variations have occurred: a) 1 5.i.e2? now fails to 1 5 ...l:1b8 (this is stronger than the immediate 1 5 ... Axe2 1 6.�xe2 �xg2 1 7.'t!¥f1 , M.Socko-C. Foisor. Athens 2004) 1 6.'iWc4 :i.xe2 1 7. '1!¥xe2 'iYxg2. b) On 1 5.:i.c4 there follows 1 5 . . .rl.b8 1 6. '6'a4 tlJe4 with a very strong initiative for the sacrificed material, where 1 7. O-O?? loses in view of 1 7 . . . �h3 1 8 .g3 tiJc5! 1 9.'iWa3 'i'e4. c) I think that the strongest continuation now is 1 5.f3! White vacates the 12square for his king with tempo. Never theless, after 1 5 ...I1c8! the position is still extremely complicated. -
Chapter 1 3
280
After 1 4.�b5! ? Black has another in teresting possibility at his disposal, namely 14 i.f5!? After that the deve lopment of the fl -bishop is still impeded, and White also cannot play f2-f3 which gives Black significant compensation for the two sacrificed pawns. I hope that future tournament practice and further analyses will help us evaluate the pOSition after 1 4. 'iib 5 ! ? more accurately. •.•
Game 98 Miladlnovlc Athens 1 999
Flear
-
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.cxd5 '@txd5 4.e3 eS S'tDc3 .i.b4 6 . .ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 exd4 8.ti)e2 tlJf6 9.tiJxd4 0 ..0 1 0. tlJb5 �g5 1 1 .C£Jxc7 �g4 1 2.�b3 11ad8 1 3.h3 Another attempt in this explosive varia tion. The most recent try was 1 3.'§'b5: 1 3 :ifYg6 Or 1 3 ...'i!VhS, e.g. 1 4.�xb7 ttJe4 1 5 . .tb5 Ad7 1 6 . .te2 �g5 with compensation for the pawns according to Ivanov in Chess Informant 92. He further gives 1 7.0-0 ttJxc3 1 8.bxc3 rIb8 1 9.'tJ'aS :fc8 20. nad1 l%xc7 21 .l:b:d7 I1xd7 22.�xc6 'ire7, and White has to struggle for the draw. 1 4.f3 .tfS 1 S.�xb7 Obviously risky. However, there are hardly sensible alternatives for White: 1 5 .e4? j,xe4, 1 5.g4? ..txg4 1 S.fxg4 (1 6.ng1 'iYh6) 1 6 ...�e4, also after 1 5.l:c1 rld7 1 6.i.xf6 �xf6 1 7.tZJd5 'i!Ve5 1 8.:d l .te6 White is in difficulties (Ivanov) . 1 5 'iVh6 16.� Or 1 6 . .ad2 ttxd2! 1 7 .�xd2 l:d8+ 1 8. �e2 tlJg4 ! winning. 16 ...l:bS 1 7.'l.4'a6 :lfcS ••
1 8 ..txf6 ? ! After l B.tZJb5 tiJb4 1 9.1lJd6 (or 1 9.�xa7 :taB, e.g. 20.1lt'e7 tiJbd5 2 1 .�e5 tlJe4+ !) 1 9 ... tZJxa6 20.tDxf5 'iVg5 2 1 .tZJe7+ �8 22.tlJxcB White has sufficient material for the queen. However, 22 . . .tlJb4 keeps a strong i nitiative. 1 8.. 'iVxf6 1 9.1lJdS �d8 20.tiJf4 tiJb4 21 :&xa7 ttJc2 22 ..te2 (or 22.:tc l .aaB 23.'iVb7 �d2+ 24.tZJe2 'i¥xe3+) 22 ... ttJxa1 23.lha1 :Xb2 24.$11 (only 24. 'iWd4 offered limited chances for resistance) 24 . . Ab1 !, and soon Black won, Bunzmann-M. M. lvanov, 2nd Bun desliga 2005. In this impressive game, White never came close to solving the problems with his development. •
.
•
.
Back to the position after 1 3.h3:
.••
1 3 . .,tc8 ..
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 liJc6 3.cxdS iYxdS 4.e3 eS S.Cl:Jc3 :.i.b4 6.:.i.d2 Axc3 7.Axc3 2B1 The bishop may have been dislodged from its active position , but on the other hand Black's queen now tangibly in hibits White's development (g2 ! ) . In the relatively 'fresh' game Banni nk Fercec, Oberwart 2003, Black went in for another retreat of the bishop - 1 3 ... :.i.h5. White replied with the careless 1 4.g4? and after 1 4 ... i.g6 fell into a critical si tuation, since his kingside squares were very weak. There then followed l S.'iYbS ( l S.�xb7 i.e4 1 S. h4 'iYxg4 1 7. Ae2 �g2 -+) l S . . . 'i!¥h4 l S.Ag2 Ad3 1 7. �xb7 Cl:Je4 1 B.flf1 fldS 1 9.Axe4 Axe4 20.Cl:JbS IId3 21 .i..d 2 Af3 22.'§'c7 flfdB 23.'tWf4 �xh3, and soon it was all over. Of course 1 4.g4? is an obvious mistake. Instead of that White could have played 14:�Vxb7, after which (by analogy with the variation 1 3 .�xb7) Black should probably choose between 1 3 . . . �cS i5ij and 1 3 . . . IldS �.
1 4.'iVb5 �g6 1 5 . .txf6 On the immediate l S.:1c 1 there would probably follow l S ... Cl:Je4! ? � 1 S.'Wb3 �fS 1 7:�c2 Ild2 ! .
1 5 ... gxf6 Also i nteresti ng is 1 S .. :§'xfS! ? l S. tlJdS (1 6.i..c4 'iYgS) 1 S . . . 'iYeS 1 7/�.f4 ( 1 7..'�lC3 �dS 1 B.l:ld 1 'iY'gS 1 9.:1xdB lbdBM) 1 7 . . . '6'dS l B.Ad3 tiJb4 with initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
1 6.l:lc1 Bad is l S.g3? �e4 1 7.l:lg 1 tiJd4 -+ and also l S .t2JdS? l:lxdS 1 7.'ii'xd5 tiJb4 1 8 . iYd1 liJc2+ 1 9.�e2 tDxa1 20.�xa1 'ttYc 2+ 21 .�3 (21 .�e1 lIdB 22. i..e2 i..fS -+ ) 21 ... Ild8 22 . .ie2 l:d2 23.'!'r'e1 AfS with a strong attack. However, l S. �a4 1 ? is worth considering , although in that case Black would also have good compensation - l S . . . l:ld7! ? ( l S . . . Af5 !?) 1 7. Cl:Jb5 l:fdB M.
1 6 ... 'iYe4!
Black has a small material shortage and a fractured pawn structure on the kingside, but his opponent is not developed yet.
1 7. .tc4 W hite is willing to return the pawn, but bring his pieces into play. 1 7...�xg2 1 8 . .td5 �g6 1 9.�e2 I nferior is 1 9 . .ixc6 bxcS 20:�xcS AfS 21 .l:lc4 in view of 2 1 . . . Axh3 ! 1l 22. l:[xh3 �g l + -+. 19 ...�h8 20Jihg1 'iYh6 An alternative was 20 .. :�h5+ 21 .Af3 'iYxh3 22.i.xcS (22.flh 1 �fSoo) 22 ... bxc6 23.�xcS �fS oo. 21 . .txc6 No better is 21 .i..g2 tlJeS with a strong initiative. 21 ... bxc6 22:i¥xc6 �h5+ 23.�e1 23 .13 ! ? �e5 24.f4 (24.l:cS 'iVh2+ -+) 24 ... �h5+ (24 ... �xb2+ 25Jlc2 i..b7 2S.'iVc5 'ii'bS 27.'t!.fxbS axbS oo) 25.�e 1 �h4+ 2S.�e2 i..x h3 (2S .. .'�hS+ 27. �e 1 ) 27.�f3 °o was worth considering. =
23 ... �e5 24.1:1g3 This is already dubious, as the further development of the game shows. White had to choose between 24.llc2 :1gB (24 . . . :.i.xh3 ! ? oo) 25.llxg8+ l::lxg8 2S.tlJd5 AeS 27.tDf4 i..xa2 °o and 24.lIc3 Ilg8
Chapter 1 3
282
(24 ... i.xh3 ! ? oo) 25.l:xg8+ llxg8 26.f4 �f5 27.�d2 l:td8+ 28.'Jtc1 �g6 29.b3 .txh3 (29 ... i.fS! ?) 30.tZJb5°o.
24 .. JIg8! 25.l:xg8+ Itxg8 White still has a material advantage, but his king is in great danger. Besides, two of his pawns are under attack.
Game 99 Kachiani-Gerslnska - Botsari
Pula 1 997
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2Je6 3.cxd5 'iWxdS 4.e3 eS S.�e3 �b4 6.�d2 Axe3 7 . .txe3 exd4 8.tlJe2 t2Jf6 9.�xd4 0-0 1 O.tlJbS �gS 1 1 .h4!? A very interesting idea. If this pawn gets to h6 and is exchanged for the g7-pawn, the c3-bishop would be very dangerous. On the other hand , kingside castling is often no longer possible for White.
26.tlJd5 .it..e6 27.tlJe3 27.'lJf4 �xb2 28.�c2 �a3 would not have brought any relief. 27 ... ..txh3 The material parity has been restored, while the situation of the white king has not improved much . In order to mitigate the opponent's attack Flear offers to exchange the queens. 28.�d5 .ig2 !? Aggressively played. Another possibility was 28 Ae6. ...
29.'iYxeS? Although 29. �xf7 seemed very dan gerous in view of 29 . . . ..tf3 or 29 . h5, White had to play so. Now he has absolutely no chances anymore. .
29...fxe5 30.�e2 hS 31 .f3 h4 32.tlJe4 h3 33.� h2 34.tljg3 Ilxg3 35.�g3 h1� 36.ttxh1 + �xh1 37.b4 �g7 38.a4 �6 39.bS �e6 40.85 �d6 0:1
.
1 1 ...�g6 1 2.hS Seemingly logical . But probably 1 2.tlJxc7!? causes more troubles for the second player (q Game 101).
1 2 ... �gS 1 3.h6!? ,tg4 In the meantime, Black has completed her development and prepares to lau nch an attack on the uncastled white king . An alternative is 1 3 l:d8!? , as was played in the Babu ri n- Rebel exhibition game on the Internet Chess Club 1 999. There then followed 1 4.'i!Va4 (interest ing is also 1 4 .'&'c1 ! ? i.g4 1 5 .f3 .ie6 1 6.'.ti2) 1 4 .. tZJg4 1 S .te2! ( 1 5. CiJx.c7 'lJxe3 !, 1 5 . hxg 7 'lJxe3 ! !:J. 1 6 .fxe3 �g3+, 1 5 .Axg7 CiJx.e3 ! , 1 5:�r'f4 'i¥xf4 ...
.
•
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 CZJc6 3.cxdS �xdS 4.e3 eS S.tDc3 .tb4 6.Ad2 Axc3 7.Axc3 2S3 1 6. exf4 AfS 1 7.,txg7 tiJb4, in each case with an attack for Black) 15 ...ClJxh6 1 6.tiJxc7 t¥xg2 1 7Jhh6 ( 1 7.'iWh4 l:lbS 1 B . .txg7 �xg7 1 9. �xh6 'lWxh6 20.l:xh6 tlJb4 2 1 .11c l .tfS with initiative for Black) 17 gxh6 1 S.tZJxaS ( 1 8 . .af1 �g l 1 9 .tlJxa8 Ah3 20 .�e2 ..i.fS ! with an attack) 1 S .th3 1 9.'i¥c4 llxa8 20.0-0-0! �xf2 21 . .tg4 ! �xe3+ 225ii' b l i.xg4 23. �xg4+ �gS 24.�d7. White is three ( I ) pawns down, but his initiative is very dangerous . •••
.••
1 4.�c2 Let us examine the other possibilities : a) 1 4.'lWa4 :fe8! 1 5.i.c4 l:lxe3+ ( 1 5 . . . llad8! ? �) 1 6.fxe3 'lWxe3+ 1 7.'i!ff1 tlJe4 (or 1 7 . . . �f4+ 1 8:�g l 'ti'e3+ =) 1 S . .tel �f4+ ( 1 8 . . . llJe5 ! ? �) 1 9.Wg 1 �e3+ with a perpetual check. b) 1 4.'lWb3 ::tfe8 l S.,tc4 Ilxe3+ 1 6.fxe3 �xe3+ 1 7.�1 �f4+ 1 S.�g 1 'iYe3+ 1 9 . �h2 't?fxh6+ 20.�g l �e3+, again with a draw. And it is possible that Black could im prove his play in these variations. 1 4 ... g6 14 ... .i.f5 !1 � Game 100.
1 5.Ae2 It is very dangerous to accept the sacrifice: 1 5.tlJxc7 l1acS 1 6J�5 !lfdS ( 1 6 . . . :fe8 ! ?) with a strong attack for the pawn. Woman grandmaster Zhukova tried against the same opponent 1S .tc4!? Further followed l S ... i.fS 1 6.f4 �g3+ 1 7.'lWf2 ttJe4 ( 1 7 .. .'tWxf2+ 1 B.�xf2 tlJe4+ 1 9.'i!ff3 tlJxc3 20.tlJxc3;!;) 1 8''lWxg3 tlJxg3 1 9.rih2? ! (better is 1 9.11g 1 00) 1 9 ... :acS. White has the pair of bishops, but due to the bad position of the h2-rook and the weakness of the e4-square the second player has good counterplay, Zhukova-Botsari, Batumi 1 999. •
15 .tfS 1 6.�a4 Too optimistic is 1 6.i.d3? '6'xg2 1 7. 0-0-0 i.xd3 1 8.'lWxd3 DadS 1 9:�'c2 llxd l + 20Jlxd 1 ttJg4+. ...
1 6 (' !84 ...
Also interesting was 1 6 ...'fi'xg2!?, e.g. 1 7:tI1'h4 tL,e4 !? (17 .. .liJdS!? 1 8.0-0-0 't!Ye4 1 9. �xe4 i.xe4 20. f3 llJxc3 21 . bxc3 a6 22.llJxc7 :tacS 23.llJxa6 i.xf3 24.Axf3 bxa6=) 1 S.i.fl �g4 1 9. 'iixg4 i.xg4 20. CiJxc7 l:lacS 2 1 .�5 tlJxc3 22.tlJxc3 tDb4 23.:c1 IUdS with initiative for Black.
1 7.g4 17 ..tf3 will be met with 17
The position is very sharp and rich in ideas. W hite is significantly behind with her development, but she has the bishop pai r and also the c7-pawn is attacked. Which is more important?
:feS!. As happens quite often in this line Black sacrifices the c7-pawn, but obtains a dangerous attack, e.g. 1 S.llJxc7 llJxc3 (inferior is 1 8 . . . tlJcS? 1 9.ti1xe8! +- or 1 S . . . �f2?! 1 9.0-0! CZJd3 20 . .i.g7 'i!r'xe3+ 21 .�h2±) 1 9.bxc3 rbce3+! 20.fxe3 �xe3+ 21 .Ae2 (21 .�1 ?? i.d3+ -+ , 2 1 .�d 1 ? �xc3 22 . .:tcl 'ti'd3+ 23.Wel 'tWe3+ 24.�dl ::td8+ 2S.tlJdS .ie6 26. 'lWc4 AxdS 27.Axd5 'iVe5=t=) 21 ... Ad3 (21 . . . �g3+ ! ? 22.�1 �xc7 23.r1dl .te6 tii) 22.�g4 (22 .'�Yd 1 'iYg3+ 23.'�f1 �f4+ 24.Wg l �e3+ =) 22 ... .txe2 (22 . . . ttJeS 23.tlJdS! +-) 23.tixe2 1Wxc3+ 24. ..•
Chapter 13
284
�2 lDd4 25 :�e4 (25.'�e5 't!Vb2+ 26 . �e3 �c3+ =) 25 ... �b2+ 26.�g3 �c3+ 27.�2 (27.�h2 �xc7+ 28.�g 1 t2:Jf5 with initiative tor Black) 27..:�b2+ =.
1 7...tlJc5 1 8.�f4 18:�c4 �e6 19.�f4 '&xf4 20.exf400 is likewise possible.
1 8 ... �xf4 1 9.exf4 Ad3 20. Axd3 20.�1 :ac8 oo.
20 ...tlJxd3+ 21 .�1 tDxf4 Also playable was 21 .. Jlac8 !? 22.15 a6 23.ez.Jd4 �e5 and the position is unclear.
Game 100 Zakharevich - Sepman St. Petersburg 1 999
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.exd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.CZJc3 Ab4 6.i.d2 .axe3 7.�xc3 exd4 8.t2:Je2 tiJf6 9.tiJxd4 0-0 1 0. tiJbS �g5 1 1 .h4 �g6 1 2.hS 'i§'gS l 3.h6 i.g4 1 4. �c2 �t5 !? Black vacates the g4-square tor his knight with tempo.
22.tiJxc7 .ttac8 23.tlJbS �fd8 24.i.f6 lld2? 24...lId7 was better. After the text move Black loses a pawn. 00
2S.i.g5 l:1d5 26.t2:Jxa7 t2:Jxa7 27.i.. xf4 After Black's mistake on the 24th move White has achieved a material ad vantage. However, he did not continue to play accurately and the game ended with a draw. The rest follows with only brief comments :
27.. .l:tc4 28.I:le1 28. .te3!? tiJc6 29.g5 ':c2 30.b3.
28 ... 15 29.i.e3 lLlc6 30.gx15 l:txf5 31 .b3 tlc2 32J:te2 tiJb4 33J�h4 33 .tlxc2 !? 35.�xe3.
�c2
34:i!te2
tDxe3
33 ... tiJdS 33. . . Uxe2 34.Wxe2 tDxa2 35.:1c4±.
34.�d2? 34.�d4!? �c1 + 35.11e1 :c2 36.l1e8+ :f8 37.lIxf8+ �xf8 38.a4±.
34... :txa2 35Jlhe4 � 36. b4 b5 37.11d4 J:[c2 38J�te1 g5 V2: 1/2
1 5:�a4 In the case of 1 5.�b3 1:fe8 (also 1 5... tiJg4!? is interesting) 1 6.tlJxc7 %1xe3+ ! 1 7.fxe3 �xe3+ 1 8.Ae2 Ad3 1 9.�d1 �g3+ 20.�d2 (20.�1 liJg4 ! -+) 20...tiJe4+ 21.'it'c1 'i!Ve3+ 22.Ad2 �c5+ 23.�c3, Black can choose between a repetition with 23.. :�e3+ 24. .td2 �c5+ and 23 ...tlJxc3 24:�xd3 tlJxe2+ 25.�b1 t2:Jb4 26.�xe2 �f5+ 27.�c1 1:c8&5.
1 5 ...lLlg4! Now White must reckon with a knight sacrifice on e3.
1 6Jlh3 Zakharevich preferred to protect the aforementioned important square at once. Taking on g7 suggested itself,
1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 tZ:Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tLJc3 Ab4 6 . .td2 �xc3 7.�xc3 285 but the following variations show that it would be too dangerous: a) 1 6.�xg7 :tfe8 1 7 . .td4 ( 1 7 .:h3 C2:Jxe3 1 8.11xe3 lhe3+ 1 9.fxe3 �xe3+ 20.Ae2 �g 1 + -+) 1 7 ...tlJxd4 1 8.�xd4 ( 1 8.tZ:Jxd4 ClJxf2 ! -+) 1 8 . . ..�jxe3 1 9.fxe3 'lWg3+ 20.'�e2 i-g4+ 2 1 .�d3 llad8 -+. b) 1 6.hxg7 llfe8 1 7 . .td2 ( 1 7 . .tc4 tiJxe3 1 8.fxe3 'i:Vxe3+ 1 9.�1 :e4! -+ , 1 7.I1h3 tiJxe3 1 8.fxe3 llxe3+ 1 9.�e3 ';{t'xe3+ 20 . .te2 lle8 21 .�d1 .td3 -+) 1 7 .. Jiad8 with a very strong attack.
1 6 ... l:tfe8! With the idea of sacrificing the knight on e3 or f2. 1 7.1:1g3 1 7.hxg7 tiJxe3 ! or 1 7 . .txg7 tDxe3 ! trans pose to the variation in the previous annotation. On 1 7.t2:Jxc7 follows again 1 7 . . . Cl:Jxe3 ! .
1 7... nadS Now all the pieces are developed and Black ;s ready for the decisive break through . But White, as we wil l see, achieves counter chances. An agreeable alternative was 17 ... :e4!1 1 8.�b3 llxe3+! 1 9.fxe3 �h4 20.0-0-0 �xg3 21 . .txg7 �xe3+ 22. �xe3 (22. l:d2 �xb3 23.axb3 tZ:Je3+) 22 ... tZ:Jxe3 23.I1e 1 ilJxf1 24Jbf1 Ad3 25.CDxc7 i.xf1 26.tlJxa8 .txg2 27/iJc7 15 , and the first player must struggle for a draw.
1 S ..te2 Once again White could not take on g7, e.g. 1 8. hxg7 t2Jxe3 ! 1 9.i.e2 t2Jc2+ 20.�xc2 (20.�1 �h6 -+) 20 .. .'�xg3 21 .�x15 �xg2 -+ or 1 8 . .txg7 CDxe3! 1 9.Ae2 tLlg4 -+.
On 1 9.'iVb3 Black simply plays 1 9 . . . �h6 20Jlh3 �g5 +. The line 1 9.11xg4 :Xg4 20.i.xg4 (6 20 . . . i.g4 21 . hxg7 ±) seems attractive, but then there follows 20 . . . �h4 ! 21 . hxg7 (21 . .1l.xg7 .txg4 22. �c4 l2lb4! 23.tLJd4 c5! 24.tZJf3 tlJc2+ 25.'�·xc2 '+!Vh 1 + 26.�e2 �xa 1 -+) 21 . . . �h 1 + 22.We2 iLxg4+ 23.'i!Vxg4 �xa 1 24.'iVa4 'iWb 1 +. However, White finds an interesting possibility to achieve counterplay.
1 9.�xe4! .txe4 '¥!ie7 21 .:xg7+ 21 . hxg7!?oo.
20J:txg4
21 ...�8 22 . .tc4? A serious mistake, which loses the game. The rook had to retreat from g7 at all costs. 22 ... i.g6 Now the rook is out of play and White is in serious troubles. The following desperate attempt also does not help. 23.�xf7?t .txf7 24.:xh7 �h4! The game is over. The following moves are only a formality. 2S.llJd4 �xd4 26Jlh8+ We7 27.exd4 �h1 + 2S.�d2 �xa1 29.d5 �xa2 30.dxc6 '&d5+ 31 .�c1 '&g5+
1 8 ...l:te4
0:1
Chapter 1 3
28S
All that seems good for Black, does it not? Then, unfortunately, the following game was played: Game 1 01 Cifuentes M iladinovic Dos Hermanas 2000 -
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 �b4 6.�d2 Axc3 7 . .txc3 exd4 8.tDe2 t2Jf6 9.CZJxd4 0-0 1 0.tDbS 'iWg5 1 1 .h4 'tWg6 1 2.tlJxc7!
:tac8 1 5.�fS :Xc7 1 6.:xdl +-, 1 3 . . . liJe4? 1 4.�c2 + - .
1 4.�a4 l:[ad8 After 1 4 11acS 1 S/�bS Black does not have sufficient compensation, e.g. 1S .l:tfe8 1 6.�xf6 l:xe3+ 1 7 . fxe3 '§'xe3+ 1 8.�1 �xd3+ 1 9.�2 tDe5 20. i.xeS :c2+ 21 .1Wxc2 �xc2+ 22 .�g3 �e4 23. :'�· !c3 �xeS+ 24 .�xg4 +- or 1 S t:lcdS 1 S.tlJd4! ? ±. ...
..
...
1 S.i.c2 �c8 The second player hopes to take over the initiative with 1 6 . . . llJg4, but Cifuen tes accurately proves his advantage:
1 6.l1d1 ! Simple and strong. Now both 1 6 . . . l:xd1 + 1 7 . .txd 1 and 1 6 . . . tlJg4 1 7.lIxd8 I:txd8 l S.'!!¥e 4! are u nsatisfactory for Black.
1 6 ... �d7 1 7JIxd7 ,ixd7 1 8. �c41 1 8.'iYf4? 'fi'xf4 1 9.exf4 1:c8 20 . .txf6 ClJb4! ! 2 1 .j,eS (the only move, 21 .kbl gxfS -+) 21 . . . tiJxc2+ 22.Wd2 fS 23 . .td6 tlJd4 24.��Jd5 lIc2+ 2S.�d3 l:Ixb2 ! , van Wely/Cifuentes. At first sight this continuation does not seem to be particularly dangerous. Of course, now apparently neither 1 2 . . . lId8 1 3. 'iYxdS+ tLlxd8 1 4.t"Llxa8 nor 1 2 . . . 1IbS 1 3.hS �gS 1 4.hS Ag4 ( 1 4 .. Jld8 1 S.'i¥a4 g6 1 S.�h4) l S.'t't'a4 1Ifc8 ( 1 5 . . . ttbcS 1 6. hxg7) l s.AxfS gxfS 1 7.tlJbS are recom mendable, but Black can develop his bishop with tempo and after the retreat of the queen play 1 3 . . . lIac8 or 1 3 ... l:tad8 with good compensation, right?
1 2 ... ,ig4 1 3.�d3! That is the skeleton in the cupboard! With this in-between move White gains time to mobilise h is forces. 1 3 ...�h6 Everything else loses immediately, e.g. 1 3 . . .�h5? 1 4.13 +-, 1 3 . . . ,txd1 ? 1 4.SV:gS
1 8 .. /� !Q4 With the idea 1 9 . . . tiJxe3, but this threat can be easily repelled.
1 9.veve4! b5 1:l. 20 ... b4.
20.a3 20.tz:JxbS? would have given the oppo nent a dangerous attack: 20 ... lIe8 21 . �c4 tiJxe3! 22.fxe3 �xe3+ 23.�d l l:dS! .
2 0. ..a 5 21 .tiJd5 b 4 22.axb4 axb4 23.�d2!? 23.Axb4 ::leS 24.'i!¥c4 is perhaps also possible, but White plays as safe as possible. Now 23 . . . lIeS is harmless in view of 24.�f4.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 "��:c6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.ll:Jc3 i.b4 6.i.d2 .ixc3 7 . .ixc3 287
23 ... ';iJhS Unfortunately I cannot explain Mila dinovic's intentions with this move.
. . . CZJf6-e4 ( -g4)xf2. . .. ·�' ,f6-d5(-g4) xe3, . . . :te8xe3) and on the h4-pawn (im peding the kingside castling) pawns.
24.�f4 '+!+'e6 25.tZJb6 Threatening 26.tlJxd7 �xd7 27 . .tf5. By the way, there seems to be nothing wrong with the simple 25.tlJxb4. 25 ...f5 26.0-0 The situation is now absolutely clear. White completed his development and remains with an extra pawn along with the bishop pair. The rest of the game follows with no further commentary. 2S ... .teS 27.];[a1 b3 2S.i.d1 tZJce5 29 . .txg4 tZJxg4 30. �b4 :gS 31 .i.c3 .tc6 32.btd1 'tWgS 33.l:!:dS l'i'eS 34.�c5 �e4 35."txg7+ �g7 36.l:txc6 tZJfS 37.:acS+ tlJgS 3S.g3 hS 39.�d4 'iYb1 + 40.�g2 �h7 41 .tlJd5 1 :0 After this game the defenders of Black's case were 'on the move'. The answer came out soon : Game 1 02 Rogozenko - Morozevich
Istanbul (01) 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.e4 tlJeS 3.exd5 '+1Yxd5 4.e3 e5 5.tlJe3 i.b4 6 . .ad2 .axe3 7..txe3 exd4 S.tZJe2 tZJfS 9.tZJxd4 0-0 1 0.tZJb5 �g5 1 1 . h4 'tWhS! An idea by GM Skembris. The queen does not go to g6, where it could be attacked with h4-h5 or Af1 -d3, but to another good place. Here it keeps an eye on the e3-pawn (very important in view of the tactical motif after .. J:1f8-e8. e.g.
1 2 ..te2 White spares the c7-pawn and continues with his development, preventing ....ic8-g4. The alternatives 1 2.tlJxc7 and 1 2.'!!¥f3 will be analysed in the following games.
1 2 .. J�td8 1 3.�e2 In the game Peng Zhaoqin-Botsari, Istanbul (01) 2000, 1 3.'Wa4 was played. Further followed 1 3 ... tZJd5 1 4J1d 1 .te6 1 5.h5 a6. Now White sacrificed the exchange for a pawn - 1 6.lIxd5 .ixd5 1 7.CZJxc7 trac8 1 8.CZJxd5 l:txd5 1 9.iof3 lldd8 20.0-0 - and even achieved cer tain compensation (but nothing more) . The game ended in just a few moves with a draw.
1 3 .. f· d5 Black protects c7 and plans the ex change on c3. 1 4.cid 1 The attempt t o prevent t h e exchange of the bishop would not have been efficient: 1 4.i.d2 a6 1 5.tlJa3 (1 5.CZJc3 CZJdb4 1 6. 'iVe4 f5! 1 7.�b1 'lJe5+) 1 5 . . :�f6 !?, and White has difficulties with the castling. while Black also threatens ... Ac8-f5. Probably 1 4.0-0-0 was better, e.g. 14 i.e6 ( 1 4 ... a6? ! 1 5.Uxd5 !) 1 5.g4 (1 5.a3 ! ? ••.
Chapter 1 3
288
a s 1 S.tlJd4 tlJxc3 1 7.'�xc3 tUxd4 1 8. lbd4 c500) 1 5 . . . liJdb4 1 S.i.xb4 tiJxb4 1 7 Jlxd8+ llxd8 18.g5 '8'gS 1 9. �xgS tlJxa2+ 20.
1 S.tZJd4 After 16.i.d2 ttad8 1 7.g3 ( 1 7.e4?! (iif4) the second player has the following op tions: a)
1 4 �eS ..•
/).
I1g1 as 2 1 .tLlc3 'iYxh4 22.tlJxd5 llxd5 23 . .tf3 lld6 24 .Ae1 - and in this sharp pOSition gives a slight edge for White.
17 ... a6 1 8.e4 (1S .tLJc3 liJfS 1 9.0-0
Q 17 . . . liJfS) 1 8 . . .'8'g6 1 9.h5 �f6 20.
. . .a6, ...tlJdb4.
�c1 (20.exd5 Axd5 with initiative for Black) 20 ...tlJde7 21 .liJc3 tlJd4 22.1l.f4 c5 with comfortable play.
1 5.a3
b) 1 7 ... CZJf6 18.0-0 a6 1 9.tiJc3 (19.tz:Jd4 tiJxd4 20.exd4 'iWg6) 1 9... ,tg4, and Black is slightly better.
l S tZJxc3 1 7.�xc3 tDxd4 1 8.l:1xd4 :ad8 1 9.ttxd7 •••
Bad is 19.'§'xc7? in view of 19...llxd4 20.exd4 1:cS 2 1 .'t!t'xb7 (21.'8'e5 'i'c1 + +) 21 . ..'+!¥c1 + 22 .,td 1 i.g4 23.0-0 (23.f3? 'tWe3+ 24.�1 l:lc1 -+) 23... .i.xd1 24. 'tWxa7 �d2 with a great advantage.
1 9 ... l::tx d7 20.i.f3
1 5 l::td 7!? ••.
Black does not hurry with the exchange on c3 , but prefers to improve his posi tion first. Very interesting variations occur after the thematic sacrifice 1 5 liJxe3!? In Chess Informant 80/388 Morozevich analyses only 16.fxe3. His main varia tion runs as follows: 16 .. .'i¥xe3 17.l:l.d3 l:xd3 18.1Wxd3 �c1+ 19.�2! (19."i\Yd1 '{§'f4�) 1 9...'iYxh1 20.�g3 9S 21.�f4 �b1 22.g4 l:d8 (22 . . .'i!¥h1 !?) 23. tiJxa7 ! with initiative for White. Frankly speaking, I do not see how the first player could avoid the perpetual check after 23 .. :+!¥h1 24.�fS 'iYh2+. Also on 23.liJxc7 ( Morozevich) there follows 23 ... '3'h1 24.'iYf6 'iVh2+. Junior 6, however, suggests another possibility - 16.Ilxd8+!? �d8 1 7.fxe3 �xe3 18.i.d2 '8'g3+ 1 9.�1 Ad5 20.
In the case of the immediate 20.g3, after 20... i.d5 Black's bishop would have been too dangerous.
20 . . bS 21 .g3 .
.••
00
Finally the h-pawn is securely protec ted, and now White plans to castle and play l:d1 which would probably lead to
1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xdS 4.e3 eS S.C2:Jc3 .tb4 6.Ad2 .txc3 7.Axc3 289 a draw. The only problem is that Moro zevich does n ot feel like sharing the point yet.
21 ... iVf6 ! Impress ive and strong . Clearly , after the practically forced queen exchange on f6 Black gets isolated doubled pawns on the kingside. However, in this position that is not of great significance - at first White cannot attack those weak pawns. The following factors are much more important: •
•
e
Again not the best continuation. Stron ger is 34.:f4, though in this case also after 34 . . .eS 3S.i.c2 (3S.Af3 f5 !) 3S ... bS 36 .:e4+ �d6 37.:f4 t;J;e7 (37 ... �eS 38.1:e4+) 38 . .te4 b4 Black would have a certain initiative.
34 ...f5 ! This way Black limits the possibilities of the opponent's rook. 35.gxf5 �xf5 36.:1f4 �e5 37.:f3 b5!
The white queen is more active than the black one at the moment. Therefore, exchanging them will be to Black's advantage. After the exchange of queens Black can temporarily prevent l:td 1 ( . . . ..tb3) and thus keep his more active rook . In the arising pawn structure it is much easier for Black to create a passed pawn.
All that does not mean that now White is bound to fall into a worse position , but in order to prevent that he must play accurately.
22.§xf6 gxfS Castling now would be rather illogical the king would be farther from the centre, which is not recommendable in endgames. That is why Rogozenko finds another way to activate his rook.
23.h5 ! h6 24.:th4! c5 25. i.e2 i.b3 26.:f4 Wg7 27. g4 ndS 2S.1:1e4 �S 29.:1f4 a5 30.11e4 l:tdS 31 .:f4 �e7 32.:e4+ �d6 33.�d1 11 After a series o f good moves White commits an inaccuracy. Safer would be 33.%1f4 '1t'eS 34.�fS+ �e6 3S.l:tf4 = (Morozevich) .
33 ... ..i.e6 34. .te21!
Morozevich's position is now significant ly more active. Now there should follow 38. :g3 or 38.l:tf4, after which Black would play 38 ... b4 with advantage. How ever, it is not clear whether this position would have been won . But, in his des pair, Rogozenko makes a fatal mistake.
38.e41 In the hope of 38 . . . .txe4 39J:W7 or 38 ... �xe4 39.:e3+ �4 40 . ii.xb5. But in vain . . . 38 ... i.e6! Simple and strong. The weakness of the f4- and d4-squares adds to all the other problems of the first player. Now the game cannot be saved. 39.:tc3 c4 40.f3 �4 41 .Uc2 l7d4 42.Ad1 b4 43.3Xb4 3xb4 44 ..ae2 ¢'e3 45.l:t.c1
Chapter 1 3
290
Black also wins beautifully after 45.'�i1 - 45 ... c3 ! 46.bxc3 b3 47.:tc 1 (47.:b2 :d2 -+) 47... l:[d2, and on 45 . .td1 follows Morozevich's suggestion 45 .. .::td 7 46. .te2 l:[a7 -+ . However, the text move does not save the game either.
45 ...l:'td2 ! Elegantly!
46.i.xc4 tth2 4 7. .tf1 tlh 1 48.:c2 .th3 0:1
20.�e2 f5) 1 7.Ac4 :Xd 1 + l B.'i!¥xd 1 a6 1 9.0-0 axb5 20 . .txb5 tzJxa2=t. After 1 4.�c7 Black has the fol/owing reply at his disposal: 14 tlJe4 1 5.'iVxg4 tDxc3 1 6.bxc3 (or 1 6.'fi'c4 lDxa2 1 7.Xba2 �d6 1 8:�c1 �xc7 1 9.:xa7 �e5Bij) 1 6 . 't!¥d6 1 7 . .te2 tlJe5 1 B.�b4 't!¥xc7 with good compensation for the pawn, e.g. 1 9.0-0 �d2 20J::Ue 1 ltfd8 i5ij il 21 .l1ad 1 ?? l:txe2 -+. Therefore, White prefers to continue with his development. ...
..
1 4.i.c4 Game 1 03 Cifuentes Parada - Vallejo Pons Mondariz 2002
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxdS �xd5 4.e3 e5 S.tlJc3 i.b4 6 . .td2 i.xe3 7. .axe3 exd4 8. tlJe2 tDfS 9.tDxd4 0-0 1 O.tZ:Jb5 �g5 1 1 .h4 'iYh6! 1 2.'iYf3 In this game too , White does not dare take on c7. W ith his last move he threatens to weaken Black's pawn structure on the kingside with 1 3 . .txf6. Besides, the queen now protects the Achilles heel on e3 - otherwise in many variations after . . . :f8-e8 the first player must reckon with a possible rook sacrifice on that spot. The continuation 1 2.tDxc7 will be ana lysed in the following two games.
1 2 ... ..tg4 1 3.'fYg3 And now the threat is 1 4. ,txf6 followed by 1 5J�¥xg4 .
1 3 .. .l::!:a d8! It turns out that the g4-bishop cannot be taken at the moment: 1 4 . .i.xf6? �xf6 1 5.'fi'xg4 't!¥xb2 1 6.l:d 1 tLb4 ( 1 6 ... IIfe8!? 1 7.:h3 a6 1 8.l1xd8 lbd8 1 9/; !d4 �c3+
Now Black must again reckon with the threat .txf6 followed by �xg4.
1 4... ..teS! This move was recommended in the first German edition of the Chigorin Defence. At that time this idea was brand new, nowadays this is the most common continuation here. The game Tlmoscenko-Rossato, Padova 2000, should be also mentioned, here Black played 14 ... 86. There then followed 1 5.tDxc7 liJe4 1 6:�xg4 tzJxc3 1 7.bxc3 llJe5 ( 1 7 ... 'i!¥d6 ! ? 1 8.llJd5 tDe5 1 9.�e4 �c4 20:�Yxc4 '{i'xd5 2 1 .'ti'xd5 I.txd5 22.�e2 :c5) 1 B.'i!Ve4 �d6 1 9.0-0 ll¥xc7 20.i.b3, and Black has yet to prove his compensation for the missing pawn . However, 1 5 ... �f5 1 6.�g5 �xg5 1 7. hxg5 tZJe4 with a complicated position seems better to me.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CZJc6 3.cxdS '3'xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 Ab4 6.i.d2 Axc3 7.i.xc3 291
1 S.�xe6 After 1 S.i.e2, 1 S .. Jld7! ? � 1 6 . . .tlJe4 with initiative looks really good. 1 S ...fxe6 Now the first player has no longer the bishop pair. Black had to allow a slight weakening of his pawn structure, but his somewhat better development and the harmonious position of his pieces fully compensate for that.
1 6 .iYgS Other possibilities: a) 1 6.tlJxc7? was bad in view of 1 6 ... tlJe4 1 7.'iVxg7+ 'i!¥xg7 1 8.Axg7 �f2! +. b) 1 6.'§'xc7? ! tiJe4 1 7 .0-0 e5 ! with an attack, � 1 8.i.xe5? nf7 -+. c) 1 6.0-0 l:lf7 ( 1 6 . . . tZJe4 ! ? 1 7.�g4 tZJxc3 1 8.bxc3 1:If7°o) 1 7.AxfS �xf6 1 8. ��-Jc3 :Ifd7 1 9 .1:lad 1 '6'fS =, Neven Schmitzer, corr. 200 1 . 1 6 .. :�xgS 1 7.hxg5 tlJd5 White has opened the h -file for his rook and gained some space on the kingside by exchanging the queens on gS, but on the other hand the gS-pawn could become vulnerable in some variations, e.g. the natural 1 8.11d1 fails to Cifuentes Parada's suggestion 1 8 . . . .l:tfS ! 1 9. e4 tlJxc3 20.l:txd8+ tlJxd8+, and the gS pawn is lost.
1 S.tlJd4 tZJf4!
tZJxd4
20 ...e5! The pawn winning 20... ti:Jxg2+?! was du bious in view of Cifuentes Parada's varia tion 2 1 .�e2 (2 1 .'l!?f1 ? ? tZJxe3+ -+) 21 . . . l:lf5 22 . .ixa7 l:a8 23.i.d4 l:lxgS 24. .tc3 bS 2S.a3, and the tlJg2 is in serious trouble.
21 .exf4 White makes the right decision again. 21 .i.xe5?? would have been a serious blunder: 21 ...lh:d1 + (21 tZJd3+? 22 . .l:txd3 nxd3 23_Axc7 l:lc8 24 . .teS lldS 2S.i.c3 :XgS+, Uhoda-Taddei, Metz 2003) 22.�xd1 tlJd3 23.i.g3 tlJxf2+ 24. Axf2 llxf2 -+ . ___
21 ... exd4 22.g3 c5 23.�d2 c4 23 ... bS! ? 24.:the1 l:rdeS 24 . . . bS ! ? 25.a4 �7
1 9 . .txd4
Here, also possible is 1 9.. . '� "lb4 , e.g. 20.'�e2 CZJc2 21 .l:lac1 tZJxd4+ 22.exd4 l:lxd4 23.l:ixc7 l:lg4 24.g3 l:lxgS 2S.Dxb7 :eS+ 26.�1 :efS 27.l:lh2 as soon with a draw, P. Varga-Rabiega, Austria 2001 . However, the game continuation is even stronger - now White m ust play ac curately lest he should fall into a worse position.
20.::d1 !
The best continuation. Inferior is 2O.exf4 .l:txd4 2 1 .g3 eS 22.fxe5 1:1e4+ 23. �1 lIxeS 24.l:lc1 Def5 25.l:th2 cS or 20.�1 tlJd3 2 1 .f3 cS 22 .Ac3 bS, with initiative for Black in both cases.
The black pawns on the fou rth rank look formidable, but how could Black make good use of them? Vallejo Pons found nothing convinCing here and offered a draw, which was accepted_ %: 1/2
Chapter 1 3
292 Game 1 04 Dunham - Albano corr. 2001
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDc6 3.cxd5 'iVxd5 4.e3 e5 5.tDc3 �b4 S .td2 .txc3 7 . .txc3 exd4 S.tDe2 tlJfS 9.tlJxd4 0-0 1 0.tlJb5 'iYg5 1 1 .h4 'iWh6 1 2.tlJxc7 .
b)
However, 1 3 ... 11ac811 (instead of 1 3 . . . l:tad8) seems much better to me, e.g. 1 4.liJbS
1 4.�xf6? �xf6 l S.�xg4 �xb2 1 6.l:Id1 lIxc7 =t. 1 4... 1:fe8 1 5.Ac4 1 S . .te2? l:Ixe3 ! 1 6 .fxe3 �xe3 1 7:�c2 1:e8 -+. ...
The first player plucks up all his courage (or is it greed?) and claims the innocent pawn. Will Black be able to punish his opponent for this crime?
1 2 ... .tg4
1 5 ... lbe3+!1 Also interesting is 1 5 . . . tlJe4 �. 16 .fxe3 �xe3+ 1 7.�1 tlJe4!? 1 7 . . . �f4+ 1 8.�g 1 'iJ:¥e3+ 1 9/�f1 �f4+ =. 1 8 .te1 llJe5 1 9.'iVxa7 1 9:�a3 1!Vf4+ 20 .�g 1 tlJxc4 +. 1 9 ...�f4+ Also interesting is 1 9 . . . b6 ! ? 20:�'a3 'i!t'f4+ fallowed by 21 . . .llJxc4 � or 21 ... llxc48i5 . 20.�g1 ilJxc4 (20 ... llxc4 ! ?) 21 . 'iYd4 tlJe3 22.Ag3 �xg3 23.�xe4 .td1 24.liJc3 '6'e1 + 2S.�h2 liJg4+ 26.�xg4 �xh 1 + 27.�xh 1 Axg4, and this end game is at least not worse for Black. Back to the main game with 1 3.'iVb3: •
1 3.'ii' b3 Here 1 3.'iYa4 should also be mentioned . The queen does not attack (in contrast to 1 3.�b3) the b7-pawn, but on the other hand Black must now reckon with 1 4 .�xf6 followed by 1 5 .'iVxg4, as well as with 1 4.Aa6 ! ? a ) I n the game Lund-Dubois, Budapest 2003 , followed 1 3 ... nad8 1 4 . .ta6 !? ( 1 4. Axf6? 'Wxf6 1 S.�xg4? �xb2 1 6.11d 1 'tlVc3+ 1 7.'�e2 l:txd1 1 8.'�xd1 :td8+ -+) 1 4...Ac8 ( 1 4 . . . bxa6 ! ? 1 S.l!r'xc6 1:d7 does make a better impression on me) 1 5.i.e2 a6 ?1 ( 1 S . . . i.fS !? 1l 1 6.llJbS tlJe4) 16.i.f3 bS 1 7.�c2 .'�- !e7? ( 1 7 . . . l:ld6 ! ?) 1 8 . .tb4 .tfS 1 9.e4, and White won .
1 3 ...l:[ad8 1 4. 'tWxb7 White 'eats up' another pawn - the battle gets even bloodier. Here 14 .tc4 tLJe4 1 5.tlJd5 should also be mentioned (but not 1 5.'�xb7? tlJxc3 1 6.bxc3 lld7 1 7 . .td5 i��e7 1 8.c4 �d6 -+) •
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 i:�c6 3.cxd5 �xdS 4.e3 e5 5.tDc3 .tb4 6 . .td2 i.xc3 7 . .txc3 293
..
a) In the game Nezar-Taddei , Nancy 2003 , followed 1 5 ... rUeS, and now, instead of 1 6.�1 tzJe5 GS, White could have played 1 6:�xb7!? e.g. 1 6 11d7 1 7.'&b5 li:lxc3 1 8 . bxc3 ( 1 8. 'Dxc3 ? ! �d4) 1 8 . . . liJe5 1 9 . .tb3 - of course, Black has certain compensation for the two pawns, but ;s it enough ? ••.
b)
However, in the analysis I found Ae6 !? , after which the b3-queen , the c4-bishop and the dS-knight gradu ally start feeling unsafe. I guess Black has good chances here, e.g. 1 6JId1 �h5!? ( 1 6 .. :ti'g6 1 7.0-0 tDxc3 1 8.�xc3 'i:!Ve4 1 9.f3 'iYxh4 20. e4 =) 1 7.13 tZJxc3 1 S.tDxc3 ( l S.bxc3 �eS 1 9.e4 tZJaS eii5 ) 1 8 .. Jbd1 + 1 9. tDxd1 ( 1 9.�xd l '3'g6 20.i.xe6 �xg2 2 1 .:el 'ti'xf3+ 22.Wcl txe6 23.�xe6+ �f7+) 19 llJa5 20.�bS �xbS 21 ..txbS Axa2 +. 15
•••
•••
c)
Another
� . . . Dfd8 �.
idea
is
1S
..•
l:ld7 !?
Now let us return to the main game after 1 4.�xb7.
14" " ·� �e4 Black activates his knight and protects the c6-knight. Also possible is 14 nd6!? Q Game 1 05. •..
The first player already has two extra pawns, but is well behind with his deve lopment. He needs at least two moves to castle, but even if he manages to do so his king would be by no means in safety - Black's pieces seem too dan gerous. Moreover, W hite's queen and knight, in search of easy prey, have gone too far astray on the queenside, which cou ld cause additional troubles.
1 5.�b5 The only square for the bishop. 1 5 ..te2? is bad in view of 1 5 . . . Axe2 1 6.�xe2 tDxc3+ 1 7.bxc3 l:[b8 1 8.'iYa6 llb2+ 1 9. �1 �f6 20.f3 '1l¥xc3 2 1 .:e1 �b4 -+ , while 1 5 ..tc4? fails to l S . . . tDxc3 1 6. bxc3 lId? 1 7 . .tdS llJe7 l S.c4 trcB -+.
1 5 i.d7! ...
W ith the deadly (for the white queen) threat 1 6 ... CZjcS.
1 6.�e2 Other possibilities: a) 1 6.1:Ic1 ? 'iVd6 ! -+ l\ . lIbS, � �S. b) 16 . ..tc4? �xc3 1 7.bxc3 �d6 ! (with the threats l B . . . .tc8 or l B . . . tlJa5) l S.tiJb5 ( l S .0-0 i.c8 -+ , l S.tiJdS llJaS 1 9:�a6 �c5 20.CDe7 + �h8 ! 21 .i.dS Ilfe8! -+) 1 8 'fi'c5 1 9 . ..te2 a6 20.'ilxa6 l:1a8 21 :�b7 %%a?! 22.lZJxa? �xc3+ 23. �dl AfS ! -+ . . .
...
...
Chapter 1 3
294
c) 1 6.�d5?! ClJd6 1 7.'iVa6 �b8 1 8. tiJfS+ gxf6 1 9.'iVxd6 i.xb5 20.iVxf6 �xfS 2 1 . ,txfS l:d7 22.:h3 llc8 with initiative for Black, Marcelin-Conquest, Noyon 2001 .
24.lDaS i.b5 25.tlJb4 .ixf1 26.tlxf1 :Xc3 -+, 2 1 .'fi'g3? �xg3 22.fxg3 nc8 23.tUaS Ab5 -+) 21 i..xe4 22.'iYg3 '8cs 23.:tfd1 i..xg2 24.\txg2 �xc7 25 .�g3+.
1 6 iYg6 1 7.0..0? U nfortunately, White was not familiar with the first German edition of the Chigorin Defence, otherwise he would have known better than to castle here ! Correct is 1 7.i..f3, e.g. 1 7 . . . tlJc5 1 8.�b5 tDb4! ? 1 9.'iVc4 tZ:Jc2+ 20.�e2 CZJxa1 21 . lIxa1 oo •
21 .. JlcS 22.�a6 �b5 23. ilJb4 ..txf1
•••
•..
1 7 ... ClJxc3 1 8.bxc3 ..
0:1 Game 1 05 J. lvanov - Moreno Carnero
Dos Hermanas 2004
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.lzJc3 i.b4 6 . .td2 Axc3 7 .�xc3 exd4 8.tiJe2 tiJf6 9.tlJxd4 0-0 1 0.tiJb5 't!¥g5 1 1 .h4 'iVh6 1 2.tDxc7 j,g4 1 3.'1Wb3 llad8 1 4.�xb7 lld6!?
1 S tlJd4! Probably the first player had overlooked or underestimated this beautiful move which is slightly surprising, since this was a correspondence game. The knight is untouchable in view of 1 9 . . . .i.cS -+. ..•
1 9 . .tf3 tiJxf3+ 20. 'iYxf3 .tc6 21 . 'tWh3? Only here does White deviate from the analysis of the first German edition of this book. His position was already bad enough, but he could have put up a greater resistance with 21 .e4! (21 .h5? iVdS 22.�g3 �xg3 23.fxg3 l:c8
A new alternative to the continuation 1 4 ...tZJe4 Black prepares the doubling of the rooks on the d-file. -
Note that this variation is very similar to the line 1 1 .0:t..c7 Ag4 1 2 .�b3 1Iad8 1 3 . \txb7 DdS the only difference is that here h2-h4 and . . .'tWg5-hS have been included. -
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ,r.. !c6 3 .cxdS �xdS 4.e3 e5 S.tZJc3 .tb4 6.�d2 .txc3 7.Axc3 29S
1 5.Ac4 In contrast to the aforementioned line without h2-h4 and . . .�g5-h6, in which Black could meet 1 4.i.c4 with 14 ... .tcB followed by .. :�xg2, here White can allow himself this bishop move. On 1 S.tlJbS would, of course, follow 1 5 JIe6 with the th reat . . . nxe3+, e.g . 1 6. .tc4 ( 1 6.tlJd4? l:lxe3+ 1 7.fxe3 �xe3+ 1 8.tZJe2 tiJe4 1 9.!Vxc6 nd8 20.'ti'xe4 �xe4 21 JIh2 'i!¥e3 22.g3 �d3 23.Df2 .txe2 24 . .txe2 IIxc3 -+ ) 1 6 :Xe3+ 1 7.fxe3 (1 7.'�11 ? 'io!¥f4 1 8.�xc6 tiJe4 -+) •.
•.•
17 . . :�xe3+ 1 8.�f1 �f4+ 1 9.�g1 �xc4 ( 1 9 . . .1!Ve3+ 20.�1 �f4+ 2 1 .�g l 'tWe3+ ) 20 . .txf6 gxf6 21 .a4 �c5+ 22. <;tJh2 �eS+ 23.�g l 'iYe3+ with a per =
petual check. Perhaps one could find an improvement for Black - in any case it is the first player who must 'tremble' here.
1 5 .l::tb B! ..
Before doubling the rooks Black repels White's queen to a6, so that she will be under attack when he moves the c6knight. Probably somewhat weaker is 1 5 ... �fd8 from the recent game van Wely-Brynell, Bundesliga 200S. There followed : 1 6.0-0 .tf3!?
Possibly White could take the impudent bishop, resulting in some baffling lines : 1 7.gxf3 a) 1 7 . . . tiJdS 1 B.l1fd 1 ! tiJxc7 1 9.i.xf7+ !. b} 17 . . :t\Vg6+ 1 8.'�h2 'iWh5 1 9.1:.g 1 ! '1!¥:h4+ 20.�g2 tiJe4! (20 . . . 'iIV:c4 2 1 .'iVb5 with an edge) 2 1 .i.:f7+! �:f7 22.t2Jb5+ Ir6d7 23.tiJd6+! We6! (23 . . . tiJ:d6 24. 'iV:c6) 24.�b3+ W:d6 25.f:e4 �c7!. c) 1 7 . . :�xh4! (threatening 1 8 . . . tiJg4) 1 8.i.xf7+ �xf7 1 9:iYb3+ �S ( 1 9 . . . tlJdS 20.l:fd l DbS 21 .�xdS+ is about equal) 20.tlJe6+ �e7 2 1 .tiJxdS 'tfYg5+ with a perpetual. However, van Wely's solution is more elegant - and much stronger: 1 7.tlJe8!! (attacking f7) 17 116d7 1 8. �f6+ gxf6 (now the rook lift to g6 is prevented, which reduces Black's attacking chances) 1 9J!Vb5 �g6 20.g3 a6 21 .'tWxa6 'iVfS (21 . . . :td2 1 , threatening 22 . . :�xg3+! =, would have given some chances of a swindle, White should react with 22.�h2!) 22 .te2 1 i.e4 23.f3 �h3 24.nf2, and Black resigned. It would be interesting to know what van Wely had prepared against 1 5 .. J:tb8: ...
•
1 6.�a6 l:(bdB 1 7 . .tb3 On 1 7.0-0, after a long analysis Hiarcs prefers not the natural 1 7 ...'iVxh4 5i5, but 17 . . . tlJd4!?, and in the case of 1 8:�a5 liJf3+!? 1 9.9xf3 '3'xh4, as wel l as atter 1 8.�a4 tlJf3+!? 1 9.9xf3 .txf3 Black obtains a strong attack on the king. 1 7 . t2Jd4 1 B. 'tWxd6 ! .
.
He makes the right decision. Everything else was significantly worse, e.g. 1 8. �c4? tiJxb3 1 9.'iVxb3 t2je4 (� 20 ... :td1 +) 20.0-0 (20 .Ad4 .:txd4 ! 2 1 . exd4 �d2+ -+) 20 .. :!,*'xh4 -+ or 1 S . .txf7 + ? ! �xf7 1 9. '1!¥c4+ tZJe6 20.0-0 'iVg6 2 1 . tZJxe6 .txe6 22.'�f4 �gS +.
1 B ... 1:xd6 1 9.j.xd4
Chapter 1 3
296
...
23 'iWd3!? Firmly keeping the white king i n the centre. The second player could have won back the pawn with 23 :�Ve5+ 24. �1 'iVxb2, but after 25.:e1 g6 26.�g 1 I d o not see any more danger for White. ..•
•.
24 . .td1 '1§'e4+ 25.�1 'iYd3+ 26.�e1 h5 Now Black could have forced a perpe tual check with 26 :iWe4+. But since the white rooks were not connected and he could not castle anymore , the second player tried to keep playing for the win . Unfortunately, there are not enough attacking forces left on the board for Black, and after a long battle the game ended with a draw. ••
By sacrificing the queen the first player managed to stop the first wave of Black's attack. The material distribution is approximately balanced, the first pl �yer has the bishop pair, but his king stIli does not feel particularly safe.
1 9 ... lbd4 !? This �s a nice idea, which is preferred by Hlarcs 9 as well - by sacrificing the e�change, Black gets rid of the strong biShop, and White's position does not make a harmonious impression without it. On the other hand, it leaves on the board even fewer black pieces, which could create problems for White's king. Here an alternative is 19 �h5 20.0-0 't!¥xh4 2 1 .���-jb5 with an u nclear position. ...
20.exd4 �f4 21 .tZJd5 tiJxdS 22.i.xd5 'fixd4 23.i.b3 White has more than enough material for the queen, but his king is still in the centre, wh � re it is not only in danger, but also disconnects the white rooks. Will White manage to coordinate his forces?
27.f3 Also possible was 27.Axg4 hxg4 28. l:rd 1 a 28 ... 'iYe4+ 29.�1 'ilVc2 30.l;ld8+ 'itth 7 31 .g3 'ilixb2 32.�g2 'ifxa2 33.:e 1 a 5 34.1%e3 a4 35.lIdd3 =.
27 .. :�e3+ 28.i.e2 .tfS 29. J:td1 g6 30.rid2 �g7 3 1 . �d 1 '§'e6 32.a3 'i¥b3+ 33.�e1 'fIe3 34.�d1 a5 35 . .ac4 �c5 36.�a2 fib5 37.�c1 �c6+ 38.�d1 'ii'b 5 39.�c1 �e5 40.i.b1 'iYc5+ 41 .i.c2 �c4 42J:lhd1 a4 43.�b1 .txc2+ 44.�xc2 'iVxh4 45J:td7 ife1 + 46.:tcl �e2 47.ltcc7 �g8 48.l:[xf7 �d1 + 49. �a2 �d5+ V2:V2
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.e3 e5 4.dxeS
297
Chapter 14 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.e3 e5 4.dxe5 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.e3 This continuation has its pros and cons. White protects both d4 and c4, but on the other hand he does not develop any piece and locks up the c1 -bishop. From a theoretical point of view, 3.e3 has a slight significance of its own, be cause of its numerous transpositions to other chapters.
3 ...e5 This continuation is played most often. As it is so often the case i n the Chigorin Defence, Black strives for active play from the very beginning. About 3 ... tiJf6 see within Game 106. 4.dxe5 W hite can also transpose to other lines: 4.cxd5 �xd5 Q 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 0:JcS 3.cxd5 'iVxd5 4.e3 eS, Chapter 12- 13 4.tiJf3 Q 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 8cS 3 .tlJf3 e5 4.e3 , Chapter 10 ( Game 57) 4.tiJc3 dxc4 Q 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tDcs 3.tDc3 dxc4 4.e3 eS, Chapter 1
"
After 4.dxe5 Black most often replies with 4 d4, after which the positions are very similar to the ones from the Albin Counter-Gambit. In view of his better development and the weakness of the e5-pawn , Black can hope for good com pensation for the sacrificed pawn. In particular - as well as about the alter natives 4 . . . dxc4 and 4 . . . i.b4+ - in the following Game 106: •.•
Game 1 0S Newton - Tait
Warrington (rapid) 1 990
1 .d4 tlJc6 2.c4 d5 3.e3 e5 !? 3 ... tDf6
does not seem particularly good to me in view of 4.cxd5
4.tlJc3 transposes to l .d4 d5 2.c4 tLJcS 3.tiJc3 iLlfS 4.tlJf3 Q Game 34. 4... tz:Jxd5 5.8f3 11
On 5.e4 Black can reply either with 5 . . . tiJbS S.dS tLJe5 7 . .tf4 tLJg6, G.Stone -East, Compuserve e-mail 1 995, or with 5 ... tiJf6 ! ? S.dS tlJe5 II ... e7-e6, in both cases with counter chances. 5 ... �g4 6.i.b5!? (after 6.�e2 eS the position is approxi mately equal, F. Liebert-R. Becker, Kassel 1 998) , and we have transposed to the variation 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJcS 3. tiJf3 �g4 4.e3 tiJf6 5.cxdS tDxd5 6 . ..tb5 (Q Game 54, annotation to Black's 4th move, p. 1 69), where I believe White's chances are preferable.
Chapter 1 4
298
4.dxe5 d4 4 dxc4 has been also played in some games , but in that case after 5. 'i!VxdS+ WxdS 6.l2Jf3 �g4 7.Axc4 Axf3 S .gxf3 l2Jxe5 9 . .te2 due to his bishop pair White has the edge. .••
However, a very interesting move is 4 . .tb4+ , e.g. S.llJc3 Notable is 5.i.d2, and then 5 . . . dxc4 6.tlJf3 transposes to the variation 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3 .,i;-A3 eS 4.dxe5 i,b4+ 5.Ad2 dxc4 (Chapter 1 0) . S . . tlJge7!? Nothing substantial is achieved by White after S . . . dxc4 6.�xdS+ �xdS 7.Axc4 'Z:Jxe5 8 . .te2 .te6 (S . . i.g4! ? ) 9.tlJf3 tzJxf3+ 1 0.Axf3 c 6 , Kinnunen Maki, Finland 1 990.
However, an interesting move is 5.a3!?, and the bishop can no longer go to b4:
..
_
.
.
6.tlJf3 i.g4 7.cxdS tlJxd5 8.i.d2 .txc3!
Inferior is 8 ...tZJxe5 in view of 9.�a4+ .td7 1 0.�b3 tiJxf3+ 1 1 .gxf3 i.xc3 1 2. �xc3 ti}xc3 1 3.�xc3 L\ 1 3 ... 0-0 1 4.11g 1 g6 1 5 .0-0-0. On S ... O-O could follow 9.lZJxd5 'ifxd5 1 0. i.xb4, after which Black could achieve sufficient compensation for the pawn with 1 O . . .lZJxb4 1 1 . �xd5 lZJxdS 1 2.0-0-0 or 1 0 ... �xd1 + 1 1 .Dxd1 liJxb4 1 2.JLc4. 9.bxc3 0..0!
9 ... tlJxeS? 1 0 .'iWa4+ 't!Yd7 1 1 .'ife4 ! ±, Odeev-Reprintsev, St. Petersburg 1 990. 1 0.c4
Or 1 0.e4 lLlb6 Si5. 1 0 ... lLlb6 1 1 .i.c3 'i!ie7 with a strong
initiative for the small material shortage. 5.exd4 5.tZJf3?! (compare 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3. dxe5 d4 4.tLlf3 t2.Jc6. Albin's Counter Gambit. and now S.e3?!) is not recom mendable - after 5 . . . J&.b4+ 6 . .td2 dxe3 ! 7.fxe3 JLg4 Black has a dangerous initiative, e.g. S.i..e 2 Axf3 9.Axf3 �h4+ 1 0.g3 'iYxc4 1 1 ..txc6+ iYxc6 with advan tage, Kratzer-T.Meyer. Leipzig 1 997.
Now Black has the fol/owing options : (the position is also known from the theory of the Albin Counter-Gambit, 1 . d4 d5 2. c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.a3 fJc6 5.e3, see RaetzkilTschetwerik, Albins Gegengambit, Schachverlag Kania 1998, p. 18. ; editor's note) a) S .. dxe3 It seems to me that this will not be sufficient for complete equality .
6.'iWxd8+ �xd8 7. .txe3 tlJxe5
The material parity has been restored, but Black's king is in a somewhat u nfavourable situation and disconnects the rooks. 8.tLlf3!? (8/�c3 .te6 9.0-0-0+ �cS 1 0.cS tLlf6 1 1 .h3 a5 1 2.g4 h5 °o, P. Nikolic-Je. Piket, Monaco (rapid) 1 996, 1 1 . . . Ab3! ? x c5) 8 ... tZJxf3+ (or S . . �d6 9.tLJc3 i.g4 1 O .O-O-O ! ? liJxf3 1 1 .h3 .i;.d7 1 2.gxf3 tzJf6 1 3 .:1g 1 .:1g8 1 4. i.g5 with initiative for White, Hsu li Yang Handoko , Singapore 1 997) 9.gxf3 .:te6 1 0.tLlc3 a6 (against tLlc3-b5) 1 1 .0-0-0+ �e8 (perhaps 1 1 . . . �cS is preferable, although in that case the as-rook would remain out of play) 1 2.tLld5 :tc8 ( 1 2 . . . �xdS 1 3.IixdS with initiative) 1 3 .cS with initiative for White. .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJcs 3.e3 e5 4.dxeS b) 5 ...aS Black wants to develop his bishop to c5 and to this end he prevents b2-b4. 6J�f3
Here 6.exd4 'fi'xd4 has been also played, e.g. 7:�e2 (7.�xd4? ! l2Jxd4+ x b3, also after 7J� ,t3?! �xd 1 + 8.�xd1 .ig4 Black achieves a dangerous ini tiative, e .g. 9.i..e2 0-0-0+ 1 0.�c2 i-c5 1 1 .,tg5 f6! 1 2.exf6 l2Jxt6 1 3 . ..txf6 gxf6 1 4.tZJbd2 .i.fS+ 1 5 .�b3 :Xd2 l S.tiJxd2 tZ:Jd4+ 1 7.�a2 tDxe2+, Duong Thanh Nha-Grondin, Montreal 1 995) 7 . . . i.g4 8.lZJf3 i..xf3 9.�xf3 0-0-0 1 0.i-e2 �xe5 1 1 .�e3 .sic5 1 2.'iVxeS tlJxe5 1 3.lZJc3 h6 ( 1 3 ...llJd3+ 1 4 . .sixd3 :Xd3 l S.�e2 Dd8 l S.i..g 5 f6 1 7 ..af4 tlJe7=) 1 4 . .tf4 tZ:Jd3+ 1 S . ..txd3 lbd3 1 6.�e2 :d7 1 7.Dhd 1 tlJf6=, Kadimova-Peek, Belgium 2003. 6 ....tc5 7.exd4 , and now: b1 ) 7 ...tZ:Jxd4 b1 1 ) 8.tlJc3 .ig4 9 . ..te2 l2Jxf3+ 1 0 . ..txf3 'iYxd1 + 1 1 . .sixd 1 .ixd 1 1 2.tZ:Jxd1 .id4 1 3.f4 f6 1 4.Ae3 0-0-0 ( 1 4 .. .fxe5 1 5. i-xd4 exd4 1 6.tzJf2 0-0-0 1 7 .l2Jd3 ) 1 5 .e6 fS 1 6 .0-0 tlJf6 1 7 .Axd4 l:xd4 1 8.ll:Je3 96 1 9.1lad 1 l:xd 1 20Jb:d 1 lle8 21 .llJd5 :Xe6=, Franco-Miladinovic, Saint Vincent 1 998. ==
b1 2) 8.Ae2 .ifS 9.tlJxd4 �xd4 (9 ... i.xd4 1 0.0-0 Axe5 1 1 .i.f3 ll:Je7 1 2 . ..txb7 'iVxd 1 1 3 .llxd 1 lXb8 1 4 .:e 1 f6 1 5 . .tf3 .txb2 1 6 . .ixb2 llxb2 1 7.tZ:Jc3 �7 =, Nilsson-Bodin, Stockholm 1 996) 1 0. 't\¥xd4 i.xd4 1 1 .f4 f6 1 2.tZ:Jd2 ( 1 2.exf6 l2Jxf6 1 3.ll:Jd2 0-0-0 55) 1 2 ... fxeS (1 2 . . . 0O-O?! 1 3.tlJf3 i.b6 1 4.i.d2 ±) 1 3.tlJf3 tZ:Je7 14.ti:Jxd4 ( 1 4 .fxe5!? tlJc6 1 5. tiJxd4 tiJxd4 1 6 . .sid l is probably a little stron ger, but still after 1 6 . . .lZJc2+ 1 7.i.xc2 .ixc2 in view of the opposite-coloured bishops, White would not have any win ning chances, despite his extra pawn) 1 4 ... exd4 1 S . ..tf3 0-0-0 00, Sacrot Mellado, Enghien les Bains 1 995.
299
b1 3) 8. .ie3!? I am not familiar with any game in which White has played this. However, I be lieve that this is the best continuation here, e.g. 8 . . . i.g4 9.i.e2 (9.tlJc3, see 8.tlJc3) 9 ... l2Jxf3+ 1 0.gxf3 ! ? .ixe3 1 1 . �xd8+ l:xd8 1 2.fxe3, and White keeps his extra pawn , while the opponent does not have sufficient compensation. b2) 7 ... .ixd4 ! We owe this idea to J . Watson. 8. i.e2 After 8.tZ:Jxd4 �xd4 Black has no problems, e.g . : 9 .f4 �xd 1 + 1 0.�xd 1 .tg4+ 1 1 .�c2 i.f5+ 1 2 .Ad3 ( 1 2 .�c3 f6 1 3.exf6 tlJxf6 M) 1 2 . . . lZJd4+ 1 3. �c3 i.. x d3 1 4.�xd3 0-0-0 5i5, 9.'i'Vxd4 tiJxd4 1 0.1:[a2 .it5 1 1 .lZJc3 O-O-O �, or 9.[. !c3 �xe5+ 1 0.Ae2 (or 1 0.'fIe2 .te6 with comfortable play tor Black, 'Caduceo'-Wisnewski, ICC 3/3 2000) 1 0 . . . lZJge7 ( 1 0 . . . i.g4 =) 1 1 .0-0 0-0 - due to the good control over the central squares and coordination between his pieces, the second player has an easy game, despite the opponent's bishop pair, Weschke-Kahn , Baden-Baden 1 993, and 'Winnitouch'-W isnewski , ICC 3/0 2001 . 8 ...lZJge7 8 . . . i.f5 9.0-0 Axe5 1 0.tiJxe5 tiJxe5 1 1 .i.f4 �, Schulien-Gather, corr. 1 995 . 9.0-0
Here also after 9.l2Jxd4 �xd4 1 0.f4 Ae6 or 1 0 . . . .tf5 Black has good compensa tion. 9 ...0-0 b21 ) 1 0.lZJxd4 �xd4 1 1 .�xd4 ti:Jxd4 b21 1 ) 1 2.,td3 tlJb3 1 3.I1a2 lZJg6 (1 3 . . . tlJc6 1 4 . .tf4 l:[d8 5i5 Watson) 1 4.i.xg6 hxg6 �. b2 1 2) 1 2.Ad1 i.e6!? (also possible is 1 2 ... i.f5 1 3.%%e1 tZ:Jc2 1 4.Axc2 ..txc2, and here a draw is the most probable
Chapter 1 4
300
resu It) 1 3 .i.g5 (afte r 1 3. ttJd2 c5 the second player has good compensation for the pawn, because White's forces are uncoordinated, Ant-Chess Tiger, Leiden 2004) 1 3 tDec6 1 4.lIel h6 1 5. Af4 .txc4, and despite the opponent's bishop pair Black is more active, B. Jorgensen-O. Hassan, Copenh agen 2001 . •
••.
b22) 1 0.CZJc3 Axe3 1 1 .bxc3 >1Jg6 1 2.i.g5 'tlVe8 1 3.:e1 tZJcxe5 ( 1 3 . . . a4 1 4.Ae3 'i!Ye 7 1 5. 'il¥c2 lIe8 1 6 . .tfl '�;-',cxe5 1 7.tZJxe5 �xe5 1 8.'fib2 �e4 1 9 .�b5 :e5 20.c5 .te6 2 1 Jlad l !, Bareev-Morozevich , Russia 1 997) 14 .td3 tDxf3+ 1 5.�xf3 'iWd7 1 6.lIad 1 �g4 = (Watson) . Another possibility is the sim ple 1 2 'ti'xd1 1 3.:Uxd1 CZjgxe5 1 4.tlJxe5 tlJxe5 1 5 ..tf4 f6 oo. •
•..
c) 5 tZJge7!? 6.tz:Jf3 6 . .te2 .if5 7.4Jf3 d3 8 . .tfl 'fi'd7 9.ttJc3 O-O-O iiii5, Karayannis-Karadeniz, Panormo 1 998 . 6 ... .tg4 c 1 ) 7 .te2 dxe3 S:�xd8+ l:[xdS 9.s.. xe3 Axf3 1 0.i.xf3 tlJxe5 1 1 .Axb7 ( 1 1 . .te2 tDfS with initiative for Black, Jehnichen Barnstedt, Germany 1 992) 1 1 ... tDxc4 1 2.Axa7 tDaS 1 3 . .tf3 tiJb3 1 4.:a2 ,Lcl 1 5.1:1al tLJb3=. ••.
•
c2) 7.exd4 Axf3 S .�xf3 �xd4 9.,*,f4 'i'xe5+ 1 0.'t!¥xe5 tDxe5 1 1 .tlJc3 0-0-0 1 2 .i.e3 li:J7c6, and Black's active pieces compensate for White's bishop pair. c3) 7.e6 fxe6 S . .te2 dxe3 9:�xdS+ llxdS 1 0.Axe3 li:Jf5 1 1 .Ag5 .te7 1 2.ioxe 7 �xe 7 Mastrovasilis-Rycha gov, Poros 1 998. == ,
Now finally back to the main game:
5 �xd4 6. �xd4 7.�d3 �g4 ••.
tZJxd4
Black proceeds smoothly with his de velopment, while the white pieces are not easy to coordinate. Now Black intends to castle queenside, after which White's king can be in great danger. The text move is probably stronger than 7 ... .te6 - Black wants first to force f2-f3, which would reduce the possibilities for the g l -knight and weaken the e3- square.
8.f3 Of course not SA \e2?? in view of S . . . .txe2 -+ . But there are also other continuations: a) After 8.tZJc3 0-0-0 Black's activity fully compensates for the miSSing pawn , e.g. : a1 ) 9.tlJge2 �; \c6 1 O.�c2 tlJxe5 1 1 .13 Ae6+. Mertens-Pfeffer, Hofheim 1 995. a2) 9.i.g5 .ie7 1 0 .Axe7 tlJxe7 1 1 .f3 j&,fSiiii5, Shkuta-Ch ichkin , Kiev 1 998. a3) 9.14 .tb4 1 0.Ae3 tlJb3 1 1 . axb3 �d3 1 2 . .td2 fije7 1 3 .eLlf3? ! ( 1 3.:Xa7 <;!tbS 1 4.:ta4 rLhd8 1 S.:txb4 lIxd2 1 6.h3 Ae6iiii5) 13 ... �xf3 1 4.gxf3 lIhdS 1 S.nd 1 lixf3 with initiative for Black, Bernasek Petek, Plzen 1 999. a4) 9 ..te3 tlJc6 1 0.i.e2 tDxe5 with a comfortable game for Black, Donchenko Maliutin , Smo/ensk 1 99 1 .
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 CZJcS 3.e3 eS 4.dxeS b)
Another idea is S.h3!1 ..thS:
b1 ) 9.tiJc3 0·0·0 1 0.Ae3 tlJcS ( 1 0 . . . ..tb4 1 1 .:tc1 CiJe7 1 2.tlJge2 ':-; !f3+ 1 3.gxf3 IIxd3 &5, R. Gabriel- Dutschak, Ge rmany 1 9S5, 1 2.14 ! ?) 1 1 .AfS+ �bS 1 2.g4 i.gS 1 3.AxgS hxgS 1 4.tiJf3 .ib4 iii , Fau re Mohrlok, corr. 1 9S5. b2) 9 .te3 0-0-0 (9 . . . :ldS ! ? .1 1 0.ti:Jd2 CZJcS) 1 0.CiJd2 tlJc6 ( 1 0 ... .ib4 ? ! 1 1 .g4 Ag6 12 . .ixgS hxg6 1 3.0-0-0 �� 'e7 1 4. tlJdf3, and Black has yet to prove his Yuferov-Bau mhus, com pen sation , Moscow 1 990. The same goes for 1 0 . . . tlJe7?! 1 1 ..ie4 tlJecS 1 2.14 f5 i 3 .exfS �b4 1 4.fxg7 I1heS 1 5.gS� ! , Flear-Yeo, Nottingham 200S) 1 1 . ..tfS+ �bS 1 2.t2jgf3 �b4 1 3.g4 (1 3.0-0 tlJge7 1 4 . .ic2 tlJxe5 =) 1 3 . . .ti:Jge7 1 4 . .tc2 AgS 1 5.0-0-0 i.xc2 1 S.�xc2 tLlgS 1 7 .:he 1 :theS, and Black wins back the pawn with comfortable equality. •
c)
8 . .ie3 0-0 9 .f3 �eS, see 8.f3 etc.
8 �e6 ...
8 .. .th5?1 9.tlje2 0-0-0 1 0.tiJxd4 l:1xd4 .
1 1 .�e2 tlJe7 ( 1 1 . . . .ig6 1 2 . .txgS hxgS i 3.b3±, Kapistyn-Szyszko Bohusz, Krakow 1 992) 12 . .ie3 l:IdS 13 . .ie4±, Rouchouse-Kosten , Cannes 1 992.
301
There are many other possibilities, but the second player always has sufficient compensation for the pawn , e .g . : a ) 9.tlJd2?! 0-0-0 (.1 1 O .. tlJxf3+) 1 0. .ie4 .ib4 (.1 1 1 ... i.xc4) 1 1 .tlJe2 ( 1 1 .b3? tiJe7 1 2.tlJe2 tlJxe2 1 3.Wxe2 ..tc3 1 4.Db1 i.xe5 1 5 . .ia3 tlJf5 1 S.g3 :the8=F, Gohle-Plug, carr. 1 994) 1 1 f5 1 2.tZJxd4 ( 1 2.exfS tiJxfS+, attack) 1 2 Dxd4 1 3..tc2 (or 13 . ..td5 .txd5 1 4.cxd5 rtxd5 1 5.f4 tlJe7) 1 3 ... ':xc4 1 4.Ab3 :lcS 1 5. .txe6+ �eS 1 S .f4 fije7, and Black has a good position with material parity. .
...
•••
b) 9.b3 0 0-0 1 0.tlJd2 ( 1 0 . .ie4 f5 ! 1 1 . .id3 llJxb3 1 2.axb3 l:[xd3 with initiative, on 1 3Jb:a7 follows 1 3 .. s�b8 1 4J�a 1 :txb3+, 1 0 . .tg5 tiJxf3+ 1 1 .l2Jxf3 ':xd3+) 1 0 ...tiJxf3+ ( 1 0 . . . tLle7 1 1 .i.e4 ti.lgS 1 2. .ib2 tlJxe5 1 3.fije2 llJecS 1 4.tDf4 ..tf5:, Afgin-Korber, Germany 1 995) 1 1 .tlJgxf3 Dxd3 �. ..
c) 9 i.g 5 ..te7 (after 9 . . . hS 1 0 . .te3 the weakening of the g6-square, compared to the main variation 9 . .ie3, could be significant) 10 .txe7 tlJxe7 1 1 .tlJa3 CZJgS 1 2 . .txg6 hxgS 1 3.:td1 0-0-0 1 4.tlJe2 tlJcS 1 S.f4 ( 1 S.tLlf4 .id7 1 S .e6 ..txe6 1 7.tlJxe6 lIheS 1 8.Wf2 l:xd 1 1 9. lIxd 1 :XeS=, 1 6.CiJd3 �fS=) 1 5 . . . :Xd 1 + 1 6.Wxd 1 ..tg4 ( 1 S . . J:ldS+ 1 7.�e1 llJb4 � , 1 S . . . g 5 1 ? ) 1 7.�e 1 tiJb4 iii , Lehtela-J . Eriksson, Tammisaari 1 995. .
•
d) 9.tlJe2 d 1 ) 9 .ixc4 1 0 . .ixc4 tlJc2+ 1 1 sJid 1 ti:Jxa1 seems too risky in view of 1 2 . ..te3 :tdS+ 1 3sil'c1 . •••
d2) 9 tDc6 also does not promise complete equality after 1 0/ -14, e.g. 10 ... tzJxeS 1 1 .tzJxeS fxeS (1 1 . . J��xd3+ 1 2.'it>d2 fxeS 1 3.�xd3 0-0-0+ 1 4.�c2�) 1 2 . .te2 �, Verholt-Tsoukkerman, Dieren 1 997. In addition, 10 . .ie4 !? is also in teresting. •..
9.�e3
Chapter 1 4
302
d3) 9 0-0-0!1 1 0.iDxd4 ( 1 0.tlJf4 �b4+ 1 1 .�d2 €lcS 1 2.tlJxeS :Xd3 1 3.tlJxg7 l2Jge7 � 1 4.tlJhS? l:thdB l S.i..xb4 %1d l + l S.'iite2 Ilxh1 -+ , Dyballa-Fette, 2nd Bundesliga 1 998) 1 0 lbd4 1 1 .Ae2 ( 1 1 . We2 i..xc4 Salavasilis-Davidenko, Kavala 2000) 1 1 tlJe7 1 2.i..e 3 :d7 1 3 . 0-0 ( 1 3.ClJc3 tlJfS 14 . .tf2 tlJd4 �, 1 3.CZJd2 l2JfS 1 4 . i..f 2 l2Jd4�) 1 3 tlJfS 1 4.�f2 l2Jd4 l S.Axd4 llxd4 �, B.Schneider Stockmann, Germany 1 997. d4) Notable is also 9 Ac5!?, e.g. 1 0.CDxd4 ( 1 0.tzJd2 0-0-055) 1 0 ... .txd4 ·1 1 .f4 0-0-0 1 2 . .ie2 fS! 1 3.exfS CDxfS with a strong initiative for the missing pawn. •..
•••
=,
the pawn with a good position.
1 1 ... tDe7! The last idling pieces are brought into the attack. 1 1 ... tzJc6 ! ? or 1 1 . . . t2Jxf3 !?+ would have been also strong.
••.
..•
...
9 . 0-0-0 .
.
9 . . . i..xc4 1 0.i..xc4 tlJc2+ 1 1 .Wf2 tiJxa l seemed dubious in view of 1 2.i..d 3.
1 0/iJd2 The classic game Reti-Bogoljubow, Kiel 1 92 1 , went differently: 1 0 .tx d4 %1xd4 1 1 .We2 tlJe7 (probably Wisnewski's recommendation 1 1 . . . .txc4 1 2. Axc4 :Xc4.1. 1 3.tlJc3 .ta3 ! winning a pawn, is even stronger) 1 2.CZJd2 tlJg6 1 3 . .txgS hxgS 1 4. b3 AfS l S.a3 �e7 l S.11a2 gS 1 7.�e1 l:thd8 with good compensation. •
1 0 ... �b4 Black brings reinforcements into play now White must reckon even with . . . AeSxc4. Also good was 1 0 . .I-ix6 (x �e5) or 1 0 . . . t2Jxf3+ followed by 1 1 . . . lIxd3. .
1 1 .l::tc 1 After 1 1 .0-0-0 tlJcS ! Black wins back
You do not have to be a world champion to see that White is in great danger. His pieces are uncoordinated, and his king has nothing to be happy about. There are at least three threats: 1 2 . . . tzJfS, 1 2 . . .tlJdc6 and 1 2 . . . tzJxf3+ , which are not easy to repel.
1 2.f4? This blunder immediately leads to a lost position. The best continuation is pro bably 1 2 . .te4, but then also after 1 2 ... tDg 6 ( 1 2 ... tlJdfS !?) 1 3.Axg6 hxg6 or 1 3. f4 :i.fS ! Black would have a dangerous attack for the pawn. 1 2" 'tDdfS ! 1 3 .i.xfS tZJxf5 1 4.a3 1 5.8Xb4 lDxe3 llJxg2+ 1 6.�e2 tlJxf4+, and Black won . ... 0:1
1 .d4 d5 2.tDf3 tDc6 3.�f4 (3 . .Jig5, 3.e3) 3 . . . i.g4
303
Chapter 15 1.d4 d5 2.tZJf3 tZJc6!? 3.iJ4 (3.�g5, 3.e3) 3 . . ...tg4 1 .d4 d5 2.tlJf3 After 1 .d4 d5 White often does not play 2.c4, but 2/:J3. He develops first the knight, avoids the Albin Coun ter Gambit ( 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 e5) and does not reveal his futures intentions yet: possible are 3.c4, a Queen's Pawn Opening (for instance, 3. Ji..f4) , the Torre Attack (3. �g5), the Colle setup (3.e3 followed by c2-c3) etc. Nevertheless, the Chigorin-idea can be applied here as well:
2 ... tlJc6!? Black plans to continue the battle for the central d4- and e5-squares with 3 . . . �g4. This position is the topic of the two last chapters. White can now still play 3.c4 ( 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3."� 'f3). Or 3.i.f4, which is examined in the current chapter, or the more venomous 3.g3 Q Chapter 16. The analysis is also interesting in con nection with 1 .tLlf3 tLlc6 !1 ; provided that Black is not afraid of 2 .e4. 2.d4 d5 transposes right to the topic, but also after 2.g3 d5 many players, on account of respect for 3.i.g2 e5( !), prefer 3.d4 Q Chapter 16. =
3 . .tf4 White postpones c2-c4 for later. He calmly continues with his development and focuses on the e5-square. Further he plans to play e2-e3, so that he could then consider c2-c4 again.
Sometimes here 3.e3 is also played, which usually after 3 ....,tg4 transposes to already familiar variations, e.g. 4.i.e2 (4. h3 �xf3 5.�xf3 e5!) 4...tLlfS (or 4 ... e6 5.0-0 .ad 6 , which practically leads to the same position) 5.0·0 e6 6.CZJbd2 AdS 7.c4 (compare the second diagram from Chapter 8, p. 1 69) or 4.c4 e6 (4 . . . e5 Q Chapter 8) S.CZJc3 Q 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.CZJf3 Ag4 4.tZ:Jc3 e6 5.e3 (Chapter 7). 3.g3 will be analysed in the next chap ter. 3. .tgS should be also mentioned. I have never been confronted with this continuation, but I can assume that players who prefer the continuation 3.i.g5 after 1 .d4 d5 2.·�� ,f3 tZ:Jf6, here could also resort to it. But in this case, after 1 .d4 d5 2. �L'f3 �6 3.�g5, Black has the nice reply 3. . .f61
304
Chapter 1 5
Suddenly the first player must be care ful lest he should fall into an unpleasant position - the numerous Internet games of C. Wisnewski with 3 .. .fS clearly show that: a) 4 Ah 4 tiJh6!, and now: a 1 ) 5.c4 e6 6.ti:Jc3 tZ:Jf5 7. ..i.g3 h5 8. tZ:Jb5 (8.Af4 g5 9.cxd5 exd5 1 0.i.c1 94 1 1 .tZ:Jg 1 .teS with i nitiative for Black, Playchess ' !babyszon' -Wisnewski, (internet) 2002) 8 i.b4+ 9.tZ:Jd2 tZ:Jxg3 1 0.hxg3 as 1 1 .tlJc3 tZ:Jxd4 1 2.e3 oo, 'GUINEO' ·W isnewski, ICC 2002 ; ' however, I like 9 . . . Aa5!? better. .
...
a2) 5.tiJbd2 tiJfS 6.i.g3, 'Ikk'-Wisnewski, ICC 2001 , 6 . . . hS with initiative for Black. a3) 5.c3 tiJfS 6.�g3 hS 7.h3 iDxg3 8. fxg3 eS 9.liJbd2 Ad6 =t=, 'greenwave' Wisnewski , ICC 200 1 . a4) 5.e3 t�jf5 6.i.d3 6.c4 eS ! 7.dxeS d4 8.exd4 tZ:Jxh4 9.t2Jxh4 'ti'xd4 1 0:t'ixd4 tzJxd4 1 1 .�d3 9S 1 2.tiJf3 lLJxf3+ 1 3.gxf3 txeS+, Pearce Yeo, England 1 997 . S.Ag3 hS 7.i.d3 liJb4 8.AxfS AxfS 9.tiJa3 cS 1 0.0-0 e6 1 1 .h3 AdS with initiative for Black, Jung-Wisnewski, Playchess (internet) 2003. 6.ootlJxh4 7.llJxh4 gS 8.c4 eS 9.cxdS 'ir'xdS 1 0.lLJc3 i.b4 1 1 .dxeS? ! ( 1 1 .0-0 ..i.xc3 1 2.bxc3 �d6 oo Wisnewski) 1 1 . . . i.e6 ! 1 2.�d2 t2JxeS 1 3.tzJxdS ..i.xd2+ 1 4. �xd2 i.xdS with initiative for Black, Ter-Minasjan-Jurkovic , Schwarzach 1 999. b) 4.,tf4 ..i.g4 b1 ) 5.e31? eS -+ , P. Martynov-Wisnew ski, ICC 3/0 200 1 . b2) 5.c4 dxc4!? 5 ... e5 6.dxe5 Ab4+ 7 ..td2 �xd2+ 8. tZ:Jbxd2 fxeS Henriksen-G. Gross, Kiekrz 1 995 . 00 ,
6.tlJc3
6.dS eS ! 7.dxc6 'iYxd 1 + 8 .�xd1 exf4 9.cxb7 l:rb8 +.
6oo.e5 !? 7.dxeS Ab4 with a com fortable game for Black.
b3) 5.,tg3 0 ,h6!t1. .. /;: '.fS, P.Martynov Terasti , Kajaani 1 999. b4) 5.tljbd2 tlJxd41 6.tlJxd4 6.�xc7? ! �xc7 7.tDxd4 eS +, Springer D.Konig , Passau 1 999. 6 e5 7.h3 i.h5!? 7 ... Ac8 8.e4 exf4 9.�hS+ g6 1 0 .'t'lxdS 'iYxdS 1 1 . exd5°o, Lerner-Lejlic, Berlin 1 997. 8.tlJe6 'i!fdS 9.lZJxf8 exf4 1 0.ll:Jxh7 rIxh7 with initiative for Black. ...
Now back to our main variation 3 . ..tf4:
3 i. g4 In the spirit of this opening. The bishop keeps an eye on the f3-knight, which controls the important central d4- and eS-squares. ...
4.e3 e6
Now White can go for c2-c4 or still postpone it further. In particular: 5.c4 ..i.b4+ 6/>'c3 !.:Jge7 � Games 1 07- 108 5.c4 i.b4+ 6.tLJc3 tljf6 Q Game 109 5 tiJbd2 �d6 Q Game 1 10 .
Note the similarity between the varia tion with S.c4 and Chapter 7 ( 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tLlcs 3.tZ:Jf3 i.g4 4.tLlc3 e6 5.�f4 i.b4 6.e3) . The chances are approxi· mately equal. After 5" � ·lbd2 Black must
1 .d4 dS 2.tiJf3 t2Jc6 3 . .tf4 (3.i.gS, 3.e3) 3 ... J..g4 worry even less about equalizing, his concern should rather be how to avoid a dead drawn position . Here 5 . .te2 i s also played now and then , which after S....td6 almost all the times transposes to the variation S.tZ:Jbd2 .td6. The line 6.tZJe5 .txe2 7.'it'xe2 is an exception, but Black need not fear it, e.g. 7 ... .ixe5 8.dxe5 tLlge7 9.tlJd2 tiJg6 1 O.�f3 0-0 1 1 . .ig3 f6 1 2.exf6 'ti'xf6°o, Kustar-Wisnewski, ICC SID 2003.
30S
Malmo 1 986
White's plan is to exchange on dS at the right moment, in order to achieve pressure on the semi-open c-file and then carry out the minority attack, which is typical for the Queen 's Gambit De clined (exchange variation ) . Moreover, he can practically force . . . .txc3 with a2a3 and acquire the bishop pair. As it was already mentioned, Black can choose the counterplay in the centre with . . . e6-eS, and to this end the e7-knight often goes to g6. In connection with that, the second player can take on c4, to avoid at least the minority attack. An other idea is (after .. .tiJg6 and a retreat of the f4-bishop) to play . . . f7-fS-f4, in order to become active on the kingside.
1 .d4 d5 2.tLJf3 tDc6 3.i..f4 i..g 4 4.e3 e6 5.c4 .ab4+ 6.tLJc3 The first critical position of the variation 3 . .tf4. By the way, in the current game it occurred after a different move order: 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 'lJc6 3.tiJf3 i.g4 4.tiJc3 e6 S . .if4 .tb4 6.e3.
7J:tc1 The first player delays the development of the f1 -bishop, because otherwise (af ter 7 . .te2 or 7 . .si.d3) the opponent could take on c4 winning a tempo. However, one drawback of this strategy is that the king remains in the centre at first. Apart from the game continuation, there are also 7.a3 and 7.h3:
Game 1 07 Schussler - Hector
6 .. .tiJge7 From here the knight can go to g6, where it would attack the f4-bishop and support ... e6-eS . Besides, then the push .. .f7-fS would be possible. The main continuation 6 . . tlJf6 will be analysed in Games 1 08 - 1 09. .
a) 7.a3 i.xc3+ 8.bxc3 0-0 9.h3, Tai manov-Hepting, Furth 1 999, 9 . . .i.xf3 1 O. �xf3 dxc4 ! ? 1 1 .i.xc4 tiJd5 1 2 . .txd5 exd5 1 3 .0-0 tiJaS, and White's weak nesses on the queenside are tangible. b) 7.h3!? White immediately clarities the inten tions of the g4-bishop and at the same time vacates the h2-square for the bishop, where it would not hinder the advance of the g-pawn. The second player can reply in various ways: b1 ) 7... .si.hS 8J:t:c1 0-0 9.a3 .si.xc3+ 1 0. lbc3 dxc4 ( 1 0 ... t2Jg6 1 1 .i.h2 ! � 1 2.g4) 1 1 .i.xc4 (after 1 1 .llxc4 llJg6 1 2 . .th2 i.xf3 1 3.'ifxf3 eS ! in the game Akesson Morozevich , london 1 994 , Black achieved good counter chances due to his development advantage) 1 1 ... 'lJdS
Chapter 1 5
306
1 2.i.xd5 exdS, and we have come to the position of Game 108, in which White's chances are slightly better. b2) 7 .. i.xf3!? S.�xf3 Axc3+ ! ? (S . . . O-O 9.l:c 1 tzJg6 1 0 .cxdS - 1 0.Ag3!? - 1 0 . . . exd5 1 1 �d3 ;!; 9 . . eS!? � 7.l:c 1 0-0 S. h3 i.xf3 9.�xf3 eS! ?) 9.bxc3 0-0 1 0. Ad3 dxc4!? 1 1 .Axe4 tiJds 1 2.Axd5 exdS 1 3.0-0 fiJa.5 with counterplay on the queenside - by analogy with line a). .
.
,
.
b3) Also 7...Axc3+!? 8.bxe3 Ah5!? is worth considering.
7 0-0 8.Ad3 ...
8.a3 �xc3+ 9.:xc3 dxc4 1 0 . .txc4
tlJd5 again leads to the position of Game 108, which after 1 1 . .t.xd5 is slightly better for White. However, 9 . h "lg6!? is worth examining. After 1 0.Ag3 the following variations are possible: .
...
a2) 1 1 .dxe5!? dxc4 1 2. 'tlVxdS l:[fxdB 1 3. i.xc4 tiJgxe5 1 4.i.e2 Axf3 l S.gxf3, and White's chances are slightly better in view of his bishop pair. b) 10 . . . dxc41? 1 1 Jlxc4 ( 1 1 . �xc4 e5 1 2.d5 e4 1 3 .Ae2 tZ:Jce7 1 4.i.xc7 iVxd5oo) 1 1 ... e5 1 2 .dS Axf3 1 3 .'8'xf3 tZ:Jce7 1 4.e4 fS! ? ( 1 4 . . . c6! ?) with a com plicated position , in which Black has a development advantage as compensa tion for the white pair of bishops. c)
1 0.. .15!? with the idea ... f5-f4, e.g. 1 1 .cxd5 ( 1 1 .h3? Axf3 1 2.'!Ii'xf3 f4! =+, Malakhatko-Kapnisis, Athens 2003) 1 1 ... exd5 1 2.�b5 ( 1 2.Ae2 f4) 1 2 f4! 1 3. exf4 ( 1 3.Axc6? fxg3 1 4.Axb7 l:lb8 1 5. i.e6 tDh4 -+) 1 3 ... 'iVe7+ 1 4.1:1e3 �f6 °o. •••
After B.a3 Axc3 9. l:lxc3 also interesting is 9 ...tDa5!?, e.g. 1 0.h3 Ah5 1 1 .c5 �xf3! ? 1 2 .�xf3 tiJg6 (the central break through . . . e6-e5 is on the agenda) 1 3. Ah2 tiJc6 1 4. Ad3 e5 1 5.dxe5 rIe8 1 6 . i.xg6 hxg6 1 7.0-0 tZ:JxeS=, Wojtkiewicz Miton, Geneva 2001 . 8.h3 Ah5 transposes to the variation
7.h3 �h5 8.l:c 1 0-0. However, Black has another interesting possibility at his disposal : 8 i.xf3!? 9.�xf3 eS! ? 1 0. dxeS d4 1 1 .exd4 �xd4 1 2.Ae2 ( 1 2.:td l i.xc3+ 1 3.bxc3 't§'c5 im) 1 2 . . . tLJg6 1 3.Ae3 �xe5 1 4.0-0 AdS l S.g3 AxeS l S.Axc5 �xc5 with equality, Vezzosi Skembris, Montecatini Terme 2000. ...
a)
1 0 ... e5
al ) 1 1 .cxd5 exd41? (1 1 . . . �xdS 1 2 .11c5 Axf3 1 3.gxf3 �d7 1 4.dxe5 'iWe7 1 5JldS tZ:Jcxe5 oo) 1 2.11c5 Axf3 ( 1 2 . . . tiJce5? ! 1 3 .�d4 tiJxf3+ 1 4.gxf3 b6 1 5Jlxc7 Axf3 1 6.11g 1 i.xdS 1 7. i.bS with ini tiative for W hite) 1 3.gxf3 tlJce5 1 4.Ae2 ( 1 4 .exd4 �e7! oo) 1 4. . . b6 1 5 .:b5 d3 ! 1 6 . .txd3 c6 1 7.11b4 'i!¥xd5°o.
8 CZJg6 In Topalov-Rabiega, Frankfurt (rapid) 2000, there followed 8...dxc4. After 9.i.xh7!?+ �h8 1 0.i.b1 ;"�" dS 1 1 .Ag3 tZ:Jce7 1 2.0-0 c6? 1 3 .�c2 .tf5 1 4.e4 Ag6 1 5.tZ:Je5 White achieved a great advantage, however, better was 1 2 . . . tZ:Jxc3 1 3.bxc3 .ta3 with a n u nclear pOSition . The exchange on c3 is also possible one move earlier - 1 1 . . . tZ:Jxc3 !? 1 2.bxc3 i.a3 °o . ...
1 .d4 dS 2.t1.Jf3 tZJc6 3.i.f4 (3 . .igS, 3.e3) 3 . . . i.g4
307
�xc4 White's situation would be piti able, e.g. 1 4. '!i'xb7 lIac8 1 5.i..g 3 :fd8! 1 6 .'iYxa7 �d3 with a decisive attack. Note that it is of great significance that White 's king has not castled yet (otherwise 1 3.t1.Je2 would be possible, for example)!
1 2.�xb7 Luckily, White has this continuation 1 2 ... tZJxf4 1 3.exf4 In my opinion, there can be no question of any advantage for White here. In fact, he should be careful since his king has not castled yet and Black's pieces are active.
9.h3 In the case of the natural 9.,tg3 the second player can choose between 9 f5! � .. .f4 with initiative, Bannink Pirrot, Bad Wiessee 2003, and 9 e5 1 0.dxeS ( 1 0.cxdS ifxdS 1 1 .0-0 �xc3 1 2.bxc3 e4 1 3.c4 �fS 1 4.,tc2 tzJb4 ! ? with initiative for Black) 1 0 ... dxc4 1 1 .i..xc4 �xd1 1 2. lIxd1 i.xf3 1 3.gxf3 1�.:j:ceS 1 4.i.e2 Dad8 with a comfortable game for Black. ...
...
9 ... 3t.xf3!? This move is connected with a beautiful tactical idea. The continuation 9 i.. h5 is also not bad, e.g. 1 0.Ah2 tZJh4 (1 0 . . . fS ! ? Morozevich) 1 1 .g4 tlJxf3+ 1 2.�xf3 Ag6 °o, van Wely-Morozevich, Tilburg 1 993 . ...
00
1 0:�xf3 dxc4 1 1 . .txc4 Now Black could have achieved an approximately equal endgame with 1 1 e5 1 2.dxeS tlJcxeS 1 3.AxeS �eS 1 4. 'ife4 �c4 l S.�xc4 14xc3+ 1 6.:Xc3 c6, but he had something else in mind . . .
...
1 1 ...t2Jxd4!? A little surprise! This knight cannot be taken - after 1 2.exd4? �xd4 1 3.i.xc7
After 1 3.�xb4 tZJxg2+ 1 4.�1 �gS l S. exd4 'fi'xc1 + 1 6. �xg2 �gS+ 1 7. �h2 �f4+ 1 B.�g2 Black has the choice: either force a draw with 1 8 ... 'i!VgS+, or try playing for the win with 1 8 ... Dab8 ( 1 8 . . . .J:tfb8), which is probably stronger.
1 3 ... ttb8 1 4. �e4 This is better than 1 4.�xa7?! �d6 l S.0-0 �cS 1 6. �a6 �xf4 with a strong initiative. 1 4 ... .ta5 1 5.b3 f:¥f6 Also possible was l S . . . cS 1 6.0-0=. But Black plays aggressively - with each move he threatens something . . . 1 6:�Ye5? . . . and the opponent could not hold the pressure anymore! Correct was 1 6.'§'e3 (� 1 7.0-0) 1 6 . . . Ab6 1 7:�e4. Then it would be up to Black whether to allow the repetition with 1 7 . . . 14aS. Objecti vely, the position would be equal in any case. 1 6 ...'iYxe5 1 7.fxe5 tLlb5! Wi nning a pawn. 1 8.t2Jxb5 l'ilxb5 1 9.0-0 1 9.f4?? l:c5 -+. 1 9... l:[xe5 + We will skip the rest of the game. In the end, Black did not manage to use his material advantage and the opponents agreed a draw on move 74. . . . V2: V2
Chapter 1 5
308
line 7Jlc1 tDe4 ! ? B.h3 .ixf3 9.�xf3 �e7 ! ? , which is mentioned further in the main game.
Game 1 08 Cebalo - Kutuzovic
Pula 1 996
9.cxd5
1 .d4 tZJc6 2.tZJf3 d5 3 . .tf4 i.g4 4.e3 e6 S.c4 i.b4+ 6.tZJc3 tZJfS This seems to be the most logical continuation in connection with ... .ib4 White must now constantly reckon with . . . (�.f6-e4.
7.l:t.c1 White protects his c3-knight. Other continuations: a) Not recom mendable is 7 .te2?! dxc4 (or 7 ... 0-0 8 . 0-0 dxc4 9 . .txc4 i.. x c3 1 0.bxc3 tiJd5 1 1 . .ixd5 exd5 � 1l . . . tZJa5-c4 - Wisnewski) 8 . .txc4 tlJd5 9.i.xd5 exd5 1 0.h3 .th5 1 1 .0-0 i.. xc3! ? 1 2 .bxc3 0-0 1 3 .1:c l tZJa5+, Schebler-Ve Rongguang, Zwolle 1 996.
9.Ad3 eS! ? , 9 . .te2 eS! ? 9.. . .txc3+ !? 1 0.bxc3 �a3 ! ? 1 1 .e4 exdS 1 2 .exd5 tlJxdS 1 3. Ad2 0-0-0 1 4 . Ae2 'iVb2 °o Y2:Y2, P. Cramling-Vera, Malaga 2000. d) 7. �b3 iLxf3 8.gxf3 d l ) 8 . . . 0-0 dl 1 )9.l:tg1 �h8 1 0.0-0-0 dxc4 1 1 .�xc4 ( 1 1 .Axc4 �e7 oo) 1 1 . . . .txc3 1 2 . bxc3 tlJdS 1 3 . .tg3 Wie7 1 4.'6'b3 aSco, C. Werner-DOckstein, Uenz 1 983. d1 2) 9.c5 tiJhS 1 0.i..g 3 fS 1 1 .f4 =, Vousef-Wisnewski, ICC 3/0 2001 , 9 . . . 't§'e7! ? 1l . . . e6-eS. d1 3)9.a3 dxc4 1 0:�'xc4 ( 1 0.i..xc4 i..xc3+ 1 1 .'\4¥xc3 tLJd5 1 2 . .txdS 'tlt'xd5 oo) , and i n this position from the game Ristovic-Yoos, Richmond 2002, I like best 1 0 ... i.. xc3+!? 1 1 .bxc3 ( 1 1 :ii'xc3? tlJd5) 1 1 ... tLJd5 1 2 . .tg3 tlJas followed by . . . c7-cS with significant counter chances for Black. d2) S_.:1!¥e7!?
•
b) Also after 7.a3 1 ! .ix c 3 + 8.bxc3 0-0 9. i..e 2 tiJa5! (also good is 9 . . . dxc4 ! ? 1 0 . .txc4 tZJd5 b y analogy with line a ) the weakness of White's pawn structure on the queenside would be tangible. c) 7.h3 Axl3 S:ti'xf3 �e7!? An important motif - here the queen not only supports a possible ... e6-e5, but also keeps an eye on a3. An interesting alternative is 8 .. J�e4 ! ? 9 J 1c1 iVe7 ! ?, which transposes to the
A very interesting idea by Wisnewski. The queen protects the b4-bishop (which makes possible the option . . /�c6-aS, for instance) and supports a possible ... e6-e5. Besides, Black's king can also castle queenside in many
1 .d4 d5 2.CZJf3 CZJcS 3.i.f4 (3.Ag5, 3.e3) 3 . . . Ag4 variations. In my opinion , the second player has good chances here, e.g.: d21 ) 9.Ae2 dxc4 1 0.'iYxc4 After 1 0.Axc4?! tiJa5 1 1 .'iYa4+ cS 1 2. .id3 tiJd5 Black obtains a good position. 10 ... tiJd5 1 1 . .ig3 h5! ? 1 2 . h4 O-O-Ol ? oo. d22) 9.Ag5 0-0 1 0 . .id3 1 0.cxd5 exd5 1 1 .AxfS 'WxfS Il 1 2.�xd5? :ladS 1 3.'fi'h5? tiJxd4 ! 1 4.exd4 �xd4-+. 1 0.f4 tiJa5! ? 1 1 . .ixfS gxfS 1 2.�a4 ti:Jxc4 1 3 . .txc4 dxc4 1 4.a3 .ixc3+ 1 5.bxc3 �hS l S.'iYxc4 :gS 1 7.�e2 cS =. 1 0 ... .ixc3+
1 0 . . . e5 ! ? 1 1 .cxd5 tiJxd4 1 2.exd4 exd4+ 1 3.�1 dxc3 1 4.bxc3 .ia5 oo. 1 1 .bxc3
1 1 . �xc3 e5 1 2.cxd5 tiJxd4 oo. 1 1 .. . tl:Ja5 1 2.'�Yb 1 hS 1 3.AxfS 'fi'xfS 1 4.cxd5 exd5 oo. Back to the main game with 7.:1c 1 :
7 ... 0-0
309
c) 8.h3 .ixf3!? Also possible is S ... .th5 9 . .td3 0-0 1 0.'1'Uc2 f5 1 1 .cxd5 exd5 1 2.tLle5 tiJxe5 1 3. i..xe5, and now in the game Szmetan-Fiorito, Buenos Aires 1 992, Black cou ld have achieved active play on the kingside with 1 3 . . . �g5. 9:fVxf3 �e7, and in this position, which has occurred in some games (e.g. Pogorelov-Izeta, Mondariz 1 997) , Black achieves significant counterplay in view of the idea 1 0 ... Ab4xc3 followed by . . . �e7-a3. d) 8.i..e2 0-0 9.h3 Or 9.0-0 i.. xc3 1 0. bxc3 dxc4 1 1 . .txc4 Axf3 1 2.gxf3 tDdS 1 3 . .td3 'iVfS 1 4. i..g 3 e5°o, D. Strauss-Wisnewski , ICC 5/0 2003. 9 .. ..th5 1 0.0-0 .ixc3 1 1 .bxc3 dxc4 1 2.i.xc4 .txf3 1 3.gxf3 tLlds 1 4 . .td3 'ti'fS 1 5 . .ig3 e5 oo, Vandrey-Wisnewski, Germany 2003. Back to the position after 7 . . . 0-0:
7 . . .tLle4!? has been also tried in some
games, and the outcome is anything but bad, e.g. : a) After 8.cxd5 'iYxd5 ! ? 9.�d3 e5! 1 0.dxe5 0-0-0 1 1 .i.. xe4 'Wxe4 1 2.�e2 .ixc3+ 1 3.bxc3 :hea 1 4.h3 tiJxe5 1 5 . .ixe5 .ixf3 l S.�xf3 'ti'xf3 1 7.gxf3 :Xe5 in the game Giarde lli-Boissonet, Buenos Aires 1 991 , Black achieved a better endgame. b) Also 8.�b3 does not promise m uch , e .g . 8 ...0-0 9.tLle5 dxc4 1 0.'6xc4 Axc3+ 1 1 .bxc3 tiJxe5 1 2 . .ixe5 cS 1 3. h3 ( 1 3 . .td3 .if5 1 4.f3 tLldS 1 5 . .ixdS '6xdS 1 3.13 Axf3 1 4.gxf3 'iYh4+ 1 5.�e2 'fYf2+ l S.�d3 �d2+ 1 7.�xe4 �xc1 ) 1 3 .. .'�h4 1 4.g3 'fkh5 with good cou nter chances , Gostisa-Panzer, Lippstadt 1 994. Another idea is 8...a5!? 9.cxd5 (9.ti:Je5? a4 1 0.'�c2 tiJxe5 1 1 . .ixe5 a3 -+) 9 . . . a4 1 0.'�Vc2 exd5°o (Il ... a3) . =,
00
We have already seen a similar po sition in the previous game. The only difference is that Black's knight is not on e7, but on fS, and that brings new ideas in the position. This knight can no longer go to g6, but in many variations . . .tLlf6-e4 is very unpleasant for the opponent. And now the e7-square is free for Black's queen - here it would support the central counterplay ... e6-e5,
Chapter 1 5
31 0
and at the same time keep an eye on some squares on the queenside.
8.a3 A natural move - White wants to unpin the c3-knight. The continuation S.h3 will be analysed in the next game, now we should also mention two more possibilities:
10 .ig5. There then followed 10 l:adS ( 1 0 . . . h6!? !:l 1 1 ..ih4 gS!? 1 2.i.g3 tlJe4 1 3 .l1c1 h5 00) 1 1 . h3 .ih5 1 2.i.e2 ( 1 2 . cxd5! ? :Xd5 ! ? 00) 1 2 ... dxc4 1 3J§'a4 (after either capture on c4 there follows 1 3 . .. e5 ! ) , and here the opponents agreed a draw. Let us try to analyse this position a little further: •
•••
a) S.cxd5 �xd5!? 8 ... tlJxd5 9 . .ig3 fSI ? 1 0 . ..i!.e2 f4 1 1 .exf4 tlJxf4 1 2.i.xf4 nxt4 oo, J.Johansson Furhoff, Goteborg 1 990. 9.a3
9.Axc7?1 nacB 1 0.Af4 initiative for Black.
'§'xa2 with
9 i.xc3+ 1 0.bxc3 ..•
1 0.:Xc3? 0.e4 1 1 .:c2 iVa5+ +. 10 'i¥a5 1 1 .'t!Yb3 tlJd5 1 2.i.g3 Axf3 ! ? 1 3.gxf3 f5 ! ? 00 (l\ . .f4). . ••
.
b) S.Ad3 ne8 Also interesting is B . . . tlJhS!? 9.Ag3 f5! ? 1 0.0-0 f4 00 o r 8 . . . dxc4!? 9.Axc4 tZ:Ja5 1 0.oi.d3 tlJd5 , e .g . 1 1 .Ag3 c5 1 2 . dxc5 tlJxc3 1 3.bxc3 Axc5 =. 9.0-0
9.cxd5? ! tZ:Jxd5 1 0 .Ag3 e5 1 1 .dxeS tlJxes 1 2 .i.xe5 lIxe5 =i= , Mansour Azahari, Teheran 1 998. 9 ... i.xc3
9 . . . dxc4!? 1 0 . .ixc4 Axc3 1 1 .bxc3 e5 1 2.dxe5 'fi'xd1 1 3 .l:fxd 1 .ixf3 1 4.gxf3 tlJxe5 oo. 1 0.llxc3 e5 1 1 .dxeS tlJxeS 1 2.Axe5 IheS 1 3.i.e2 1Ie7 =.
8 .txc3+ 9.lhc3 dxc4 ...
This continuation probably clarifies the situation in the centre a bit too early, and it also allows White to recapture on c4 without losing a tempo {as it is the case after Af 1 -e2}. An interesting continuation is 9 'iWe7!? with the following variations: a) I n the game Gawehns·Baumhus, 2nd Bundesliga 1 995, was played •..
After 1 3 e5 1 4.tlJxe5 t2Jxe5 1 5.dxeS 'iVxeS l S.AxfS gxf6 1 7.�xc4 (1 7.bh5?! bS! 1 B.Axf7 + llxf7 1 9.1Wxa7 l:1fd7 20.0·0 lId2 with initiative for Black) 1 7 ... Axe2 1 8. '{i'xe2 White is slightly better. How ever, 13 ... h61? seems very promising, e.g. : a1 } 1 4.i.h4 g511 1 5.i.g3 tDd5 ( 1 5 . . . tLJe4 ! ?) 1 6.l:c1 ( 1 6.nxc4? ? C'.bS) 1 6 .. . 151? ( 1 6 . tlJb6 1 7.'tI7'c200) 1 7:�xc4 f4 1 B.exf4 tzJxf4 1 9.i.xf4 l:xf4 20.�c5 '6'f6 with initiative for Black. a2) 1 4.Axf6 'iYxf6 1 5.'1!Vxc4 (or 1 S.'t!Vb5 e5 1 6.dxe5 't'¥f5! 1 7 .0-0 tlJxeS 1 8.�xe5 'l!ixe5 1 9.1ZJxe5 .txe2 20 .l::le 1 t:[d2 2 1 . tlJxc4 .txc4 22.l:xc4 nxb2 23Jlxc7 l:d8 with initiative for Black) 1 5 ... e5 1 6.0-0 ( 1 S.dS i; :e7 1 7.e4 c6 with initiative for Black) 1 6 ...i.xf3 ( 1 S . . . exd4 1 7.tlJxd4 Axe2 1 S.tlJxe2 l:td2 1 9.:c2 :tfd8=) 1 7.i.xf3 exd4 1 8.exd4 tl}xd4 1 9.i.xb7 �bS 20.�aS :fe8 21 .�xb6 cxb6, and Black is slightly better, although a draw is probable. ...
..
b)
10 ..te2 dxc4
1 .d4 dS 2.tijf3 tZJcS 3.ii.f4 (3.i..g S, 3.e3) 3 . . . i.g4 b1 ) On 1 1 .�xc4 there fo l lows 1 1 . . . j"xf3! ( 1 1 . . . :ad8 ! ?) 1 2.'ii'xf3 eS! 1 3. dxe5 �e5 1 4.�xeS '6'xeS 1 5.'6'xb7 ( 1 S.0-0 c6 leads to equality) l S... :ab8,
and now: b1 1 ) 1 6 .txf7+ �h 8 1 7:t!¥xc7 �e4 ! 1 8.Aa2 ( 1 8.0-0 l:tb7 1 9.'t!¥c4 l:tbxf7�) 1 8 .. :t+Yxg2 1 9.:f1 llxb2 20.:c2 llxc2 21 .iVxc2 tlJg4 with an attack. b1 2) 1 6.�xa7 l:txb2 1 7.:c 1 ti:Jg4 1 8. Ae2 l:txe2+ 1 9.�xe2 't\YbS+ 20.Wf3 �fS+ 21 . �e2 'ti'xf2+ (21 ... �bS+=) 22.�d3 ti'xg2 8ii5 with a strong attack. .
b2) 1 1 .llxc4 nfd8 1 2.0-0 ( 1 2. h3 i.xf3 1 3 . .txf3 e5 1 4 . .txcS exf4 1 5 . �xb7 l:tab8 l S . .tf3 l:txb2 with i n i t i at i ve for Black) 1 2 ... .axf3! 1 3 . .axf3 eS ! 1 4. :Xc6! ? ( 1 4.Axcs exf4 1 S.:i..xb7 llab8oo) 1 4 ... exf4 ( 1 4 . . . bxcS 1 S . .txeS 8ii5) 1 S.11c3 cSoo. Another good and safe alternative is 9 ... CDe4!? 1 0.Dcl fiJe7 1 1 .�e2 cS 1 2.
0-0 dxc4 ! ? (not bad is also 1 2 ... tlJgS) 1 3.Axc4 'lJdS 1 4.Ag3 ttJxg3 1 S.hxg3 '@tf6 with approximate equality.
1 0 .i.xc4 tiJdS Black had laid his hopes on this move when he took on c4. .
1 1 .�xd5 exd5
31 1
situation is not that simple. W h ite's
pressure on the queenside is very unpleasant, while the second player has no counterplay yet. With his next moves Cebalo u npins his knig ht.
1 2.h3! �hS On 1 2....tf5 follows 1 3.�b3! Db8 1 4.0-0 with the strong threat l S .ti:JeS, where 1 4 . . .1S? would lose in view of 1 5. Axc7 ! +-. Also in the case of 12...�xf3 1 3. �xf3 'i§td7 1 4.0-0 I:J. Dfc 1 , b4 White has prob ably not such a great, but a lasti ng ad vantage.
1 3.0-0 In later games, White also played 1 3.11c5!? lleB 1 4.0-0 'iYd7 1 S.g4! Ag6 1 S.tZJh4 !, Cvitan-Bukal , Porec 1 998, and 1 3.g4 ! ? �gS 1 4.tlJd2 l:c8 1 5.0-0!, Cebalo-Peek, Wijk aan Zee 2003. The problem for Black remains the same : it is very difficult for him to find any real counterplay. 1 3 ...nc8 The c7-pawn is protected additionally, so that the queen and knig ht do not remain bound to it.
1 4.g41 Played without prejud ices ! The queen gets freedom of action, while the weakened position of the king cannot be used easily. 1 4 ... i.g6 1 5.'i+'a4 a6 Instead of that Black could have tried to achieve counterplay on the kingside 1 5 ... hS (on 1 S . . . f5 follows 1 6.g5 i.. h 5 1 7.'lJd2, and the second player has not achieved anything) 1 6.l:fc1 ! hxg4 1 7. hxg4 �d7 (1 7 . . . �e4 1 B.tlJgS) 1 8.tZJh2 ! , and White defends h i s king economically, while his initiative on the queenside gets stronger. The attempt to protect the c7-pawn -
At first sight the position seems to be approximately equal. But if we take a closer look at it, we wi l l see that the
Chapter 1 S
312
immediately with the manoeuvre . . .tlt8e8-e7, is likewise not good : 1 5 . . . :e8 1 6.l:fc1 ( 1 6.'t'Yb5!? i.. e4 1 7.tlJeS I?) 1S ...rIe7 ( 1 6 . . . as leads to the game position) 1 7.�b5 ' :b8 1 8.tlJeS' , and Black has serious problems.
On 24 . . . c6 there would follow 25.b5 ±. Now Black plans to meet 25.b5 with 25 ... axb5 26.axb5 tlJa5, after which he could stil l struggle on, but . . .
1 6.1:Ifc1 h5 1 7.�d1 White has doubled the rooks and the queen goes back close to the king. By the way, 1 7.b4 also seemed good. 1 7... hxg4 1 8.hxg4 ne8
25.1:txc6! This exchange sacrifice entirely ruins Black's queenside.
1 9.b4 The pressure rises ! 1 9 .. .1:[e7 Black protects c7, so that he could retreat the knight and then play . . . c7-cS .
20.i.g3 Cebalo prepares the manoeuvre tiJf3h4-f5. 20 .. .tiJb8 21 .a4! On 2 1 . . . cS there follows 22.bS, and Black has problems with the c-pawn. 21 ... f6 22.tlJh4 Ah7 23.tlJfS .txf5 23 . .. :l17? loses in view of 24.tlJd6, and on 23 . . .l:ld7 White plays 24.bS axbS (24 . . . a5 2S.�c2 c6 26.i.xb8 :,cb8 27. bxc6) 2S.axb5 with a great advantage. 24.gxf5 �c6
25 ... bxc6 26.11xc6 'iYd7 27. �c2 l:1e4 28.�g2! W hite i ndirectly protects the f5-pawn , as 28 ... 'fi'xf5? loses in view of 29.f3. 28 ...�h7 29.a5 In the case of 29.rIxa6 Black could take on f5, since then 30.13 would be met with 30 .. JIe5 ! . That is why W hite is slowly improving his position - the opponent does not have any counterplay!
29 ... 11ee8 Now White could have achieved a great, probably decisive, advantage with 30. l:xa6 1i'b5 3 1 . l:lc6 'fi'xb4 32.'i'fa2 . He played something else, but nevertheless won on move 56. . . . 1 :0 Black should try to avoid such a scenario, in which he cannot oppose anything against White's activity on the queenside. The possibilities for that were shown in the analysis: 9 .. .'�·e7! ?, 9 . . . tDe4! ? or even earlier 7 . . /� ·,e4 ! ?
1 .d4 d5 2.tDf3 tDc6 3 . .tf4 (3.�g5, 3 .e3) 3 . . . �g4 Game 1 09 Graf (Nenashev) - Rabiega
German Championship 2000
313
dxc4 1 4.Axc4 liJg6, where White now has 1 5 . .th2 at his disposal.
9:�xf3
Already mentioned in the introduction, this is the crucial game from the cham pionship in the seaside resort Heringsdori.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2Jc6 3.t2Jf3 �g4 4.t2Jc3 e6 S.�f4 �b4 6.e3 0.Jf6 7J;[c1 0-0 The players have transposed to the variation 2 .tDf3 tlJc6 3.�f4 etc. Before us is the same position seen in the previous game Cebalo-Kutuzovic. S.h3 With this move White wants to clarify the intentions of the g4-bishop as early as possible. Black will either retreat the bishop to h5 and then g2-g4 could follow at a given moment, or exchange it on f3, after which the pin on the d 1 -h5 diagonal would no longer bother the first player. But, as we will soon see, in the last case Black achieves a development advantage and he can make very good use of it. Therefore I am inclined to evaluate 8 .h3 as a dubious idea. The continuations 8.a3, 8.cxd5 and 8. i.d3 have been analysed in Game 1 08. 8 Axf3 ...
Black does not wish to waste any tempi for the retreat of the bishop. 8 .thS 9.a3 Axc3+ 1 0.:Xc3 leads to an already familiar position from Game 1 08, but with the additional moves h2h3 Ag4-h5, which is favourable for White in some variations. For instance, in the case of 10 'iYe7 1 1 .i.e2 dxc4 1 2 . .txc4 .txf3 1 3.'!!Vxf3 e5 1 4 .dxe5 tDxe5 1 5 . .txe5 'it'xe5 1 S .�xb7 l:::tab8 1 7.'1j'xa7 Dxb2 1 8.l:c1 , and now 1 8 . . . tZJg4 is not pOSSible, or after 10 liJe4 1 1 .:tc1 tlJe7 1 2.i.e2 c6 1 3.0-0 .••
•••
•••
White has the bishop pair, but he is sig nificantly behind with his development he still needs two more moves to bring his king into safety. And before that happens Black must open the position.
9... Axc3+ ! I n Linares 1 998 Ivanchuk played against Kramnik 9 ..1We7?!, and after 1 0 . .tg5 ! .txc3+ 1 1 .l:xc3 �b4 1 2 .AxfS �xb2 1 3 . �b3 ! 't!Vc1 + 1 4.�d 1 �xd1 + 1 5. �xd 1 dxc4 l S.Dxb7 gxfS 1 7.�d2 he achieved a slightly worse endgame (which, however, he managed to draw). GM Dolmatov believes that 1 7.�c2 is slightly stronger. Anyway, in this varia tion Black can only hope for a draw at most. .
1 0.lixc3? As we will soon see, after this move Black develops a very dangerous initia tive. More careful is 1 0.bxc3, e.g. 10 ...'iWe7 (L\ ... e5) 1 1 .cxd5 ( 1 1 .td3? ! e5 ! 1 2 .cxd5 liJxd4 1 3.cxd4 exf4 1 4.�xf4 'iVa3 ! 1 5. l::rd 1 �a5+ 1 S.l:d2 tDxd5 with initiative) 1 1 ...tlJxd5 1 2 . .tc4 ti:Jxf4 1 3.�xf4 e5°o. .
1 0 . tiJe4! ..
1 O . . . �e7? ! 1 1 .i.gS!
Q
9 ... �e7? ! .
Chapter 1 5
314
1 1 J;tc1 e5 1 1 2.dxe5 No better was 1 2. �xe5 �e5 1 3.dxe5 cS ! ? (threatening 1 4 . . . �a5+. Also in teresting is 13 ...c5 ! ? with the same idea) 1 4. b4 �e7 1 5.a3 'tl¥xe5+. 1 2 .. :iYe7 Suddenly Graf gets into some serious troubles. The position is partly open, Black's pieces become more and more active and White's king is still in the centre. Now Black threatens the deadly 1 3 . . . 'i!Vb4+. 1 3.'it'd1 ? ! More chances for survival were promised by 1 3.a3 CZJxe5 1 4.'tWh5! ( 1 4.Axe5?! 'Wxe5 1 5Jlc2 d4 1 6.i.e2 l:tad8 1 7.exd4 ffxd4 1 8:�f4 :1fe8 1 9.0-0 C2:Jd2 20.'&xd4 l:xd4 2 1 .:1e1 liJxc4+) 1 4 . . . tiJg6 1 5.'iif 5. 1 3 ... �xe5 1 3 . . . '6'b4+ 1 4.�e2 dxc4 ( 1 4 .. .'�Vxb2+ 1 5.�c2 �xc2+ 1 6 . lIxc2) 1 5 .�c2 %1ad8 seemed very attractive, but where is the win after 1 6. c;tf3! C2:Jd2+ 1 7.wg3 ? 1 4.a3 No better is 1 4. 'tWb3 tDgs 1 5 .th2 d4 ! with a strong attack. .
1 4 ... �g6 1 5. 'iYf3 1 5 . �h2 d4! with an attack ( 1 6.'8xd4? :fd8 -+) . 1 5 .. :ii'f6 1 6.IIc2 tiJxf4 1 7. cxd5? The position after 1 7.'t!Vxf4 �xf4 1 8 . exf4 :fe8 was anything but good. However, the text move immediately throws away the game.
1 7 ... :tfe8 1 8.'i¥xf4 'iYxf4 1 9. exf4 iDg3+ 20.i.e2 CZJxh1 21 . 'it11 c6 ! 22.dxc6 l:[ac8 23 . .tf3 bxc6 24.b4 I!cd8 25.g4 l:[d3 26.c�g2 bte1 , and in a few moves White resigned . ... 0:1
Game 1 1 0 Schoof
-
Bronznik
Germany (rapid) 2000
1 .d4 d5 2.CZJf3 tiJc6 3 . .tf4 .tg4 4.e3 e6 S.tZJbd2 The idea of this continuation is to be able after c2-c4 d5xc4 to take back with the knight. and also after . . . �xf3 White can recapture with the knight. However, this quiet continuation does not cause any problems for the opponent. S .. i.d6 6 . .tg3 .
6.�xd6 has been played in n umerous
games :
a) After 6 ... �xd6 7 .te2 (7.c4 usually after 7 . . . tiJf6 8 . .te2 0-0 9.0-0 or 7 . . . iDge7 8 . .te2 0-0 9.0-0 i s only a trans position) 7 .. /� '!'6 (or 7 ... ,'; 'ge7 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4) 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4 White can hope for a certain initiative in view of the ideas c4-c5, gaining space on the queenside, or :ac 1 , c4xd5 (in order to build up some pressure on the semi-open c-file) . However, meeting 7 . .i.e2 with 7 . f5 !1 is worth considering, in order to develop counterplay on the kingside later. In the game Gritsak-F.Levin, Lvov 1 992, further followed 8.0-0 iDf6 9.c4 0-0 1 0 .11e 1 iDe4 with an unclear position . Unfortunately , , did not find any other games in which 7.c4 had been met with 7 . . .f5. .
..
b) 6 cxd6! Probably after this continuation White m ust give up any hopes for an opening advantage, e.g . : .••
1 .d4 dS 2.tZJf3 llJc6 3 . .tf4 (3 . .tgS, 3.e3) 3 . . . .tg4
31 S
As for the continuation 6.c3, then I like 6 . . . l2:Jge7 best. The knight heads for g6, in order to support the central advance ... e6-eS.
b 1 ) 7.c4 dxc4 8.i.xc4 liJf6 Also good is 8 . . . dS 9.Ae2 tlJf6 or 9 ... tlJge7. Also interesting is the idea of leaving the d6-pawn on its place, in order to keep control over the eS- and cS-squares, e.g. 8 . . .liJge7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.h3 �hS, and Bl ack has absolutely no problem s, Guddah l-Wisnewski , Norway 2002. 9.0-0 0-0 1 0. h3 i.hS 1 1 .�a4 as 1 2.i.e2 bS 1 3.1!Vb3 tlJaS 1 4.'3'a3 �bS l S.e4 l:ac8 l S.ttac1 dS 1 7.eS tlJe4 l S.g4 Ag6 1 9.'iYe3 tlJc4 with initiative for Black, Martig-Raetsky, Graechen 1 999. b2) 7.h3 Jl.. h 5 8.c4 tlJge7 8 . . . dxc4! ? 9 . .txc4 tZJf6, by analogy with b1 ) . 9.i.e2 0-0 1 0.0-0 'iVd7 1 0 ... dxc4 ! ? 1 1 .tlJxc4 dS. 1 1 .:c1 rUc8 1 2.a3 (� b4) 1 2 ... dxc4 1 3.11c4 klc7 1 4.b4 l:ac8 l S.�a 1 'lJd5 (l S . . . dS=) 1 6.11e1 h6 1 7 . .td3 ct:Jb6 1 8 . l:.c2 ct:Je7 =, Karpov- Ivanchuk, Monaco (rapid) 1 998.
b3) 7.i.e2 tlJge7 7 . . . tlJf6=. 8.0-0 0-0 9.h3 i.xf3 9 . . . i.hS 1 0.c4 � b2}. 1 0.i.xf3 (1 0.ClJxf3 ) 1 0 . . . bS 1 1 .c3 llbS 1 2.a4 bxa4 1 3.'�c2 eS 1 4.lba4 a5 1 5.e4 dxe4 1 6.Jl.. xe4 fS 1 7 . .txc6 tlJxc6 1 8.dxe5 dxe5°o, Adorjan-Morozevich, Alushta 1 994. =
6. . .tiJf6 Also possible is 6 . . . f5 ! ? t::. 7 . . /�-_·.f6 or 6 ... tZJge7 with the intentions ... liJe7-f5 or . . .f7-1S. Another very interesting alternative is 6 .. J7 ,h6!? � . . . f7 -fS, after which the manoeuvre .. J:�h6-f7 is also possible, in order to take additional control over the e5-square, e .g . 7.Jl..e2 f5 8.tiJe5? tlJxe5 9.i.xe5 i.xeS 1 0.dxeS c6 1 1 .tZJf3 '6'c7 1 2. 'ti'd4 ct:Jf7=F (x e5) , Marcolin-de Souz, Sao Caetano 1 999. Instead of S.tlJe5?, 8.04 seems better, after which Wisnewski suggests 8 . . . ct:Je7 t::. c7-c6 and evaluates the occurring position as approximately eq ual. •••
7.�d3? ! The first inaccu racy. The bishop belongs on e2, where it neutralizes the pin - 7 . .te2 0-0 8.0-0 i.xg3 9. hxg3 with approximate equality, e.g . : a ) 9,..'iYe7 1 0.c4 I1fdS 1 1 .'i!Vb3 tlJaS 1 2. �a4 tLixc4 1 3.tLixc4 dxc4 1 4.Axc4 i.xf3 (1 4 . . . c5! ?) 1 S.gxf3 a6 ( l S . . . cS! ?) 1 6.i.b3 cS 1 7.'�a3 Dd7 ( 1 7 . . . tZJd7! ? .1 1 S.:ac1 �f6) 1 8.''i!YxcS ( 1 8.dxc5 Dc8 1 9.1:tac1 :dc7=) 1i'xcS 1 9.dxcS ttc7 20.l:tac1 :lacS 21 .l:tfd1 'It18=, Jose Abril-Me"ado, Catalunia 1 995.
Chapter l S
31 6
b) 9 tDe4 1 0 .c4 ( 1 0.tzJxe4 dxe4 1 1 . ClJd2 �xe2 1 2 .'6'xe2 fS oo) 1 0 . . . t2Jxd2 1 1 . �xd2 ( 1 1 .tilxd2 i.xe2 1 2. �xe2 eS ::: 112: 112, Hjelm-Furhoff, Budapest 1 994) 1 1 ... dxc4 1 2.lIac1 ( 1 2.�xc4 �xf3 1 3. gXf300) 1 2 . . . eS oo, Sjoberg-Furhoff, 1 994.
1 4.ffxe2 nc8 ( 1 4 . . . �dS ! ? , 1 4 . . . eS I ? l S.tZJ4f3 e4 1 6 .tiJd4 'iVdS) 1 5.l:1ac1 ( l S. l:I:fc1 '§'d5) 1 5 ... �d5 1 6 .b3 l':tfd8 1 7J�fd 1 llxc1 1 8 . Iixc1 eS 1 9 .tlJ4f3 tLlc6 with a slightly better position.
7 0-0 The immediate 7 . . . eS 8.dxeS tilxeS also seems good, although the position after 9 . .te2, despite White's tempo loss, seems rather drawish to me.
And this is already the decisive mistake. Correct was 1 0.We2, in spite of how bad it may have seemed.
•..
...
8.c4 Disregarding the fact that he is slightly behind with his development, the first player starts active play in the centre that can be dangerous for him ! The alternatives are 8.0-0 .txg3 9.hxg3 e5 1 0 . .te2 or B .txd6 'D'xd6 9.0-0 (9.c4 e 5 ! ) 9 . . . eS 1 0 .dxe5 tLlxe5 1 1 . .te2, al ways with a passive, but solid position.
9 ... i.b4+ 1 0.tiJcd2?
1 0 ... e5 1 My opponent probably had missed this continuation. It opens the position and the situation of White's king becomes critical.
•
8... dxc4 The idea of opening the position , with the opponent's king in the centre, cannot be wrong. Based on the same idea, S . e5 !? also seemed very attractive, e.g. 9.dxe5 i.xeS! (9. . . tiJxe5 1 0.i.xe5 i.xeS 1 1 , '§'b3 !) 1 0 . .txeS tiJxeS or 9.cxd5 �Sb4! , with initiative for Black i n either case. However, stronger is 9.c51 .te7 (9 . . . AxcS 1 0.dxc5 e 4 1 1 .�b3oo) 1 0 . .txeS (or 1 O.dxeS ! ? tiJd7 00) 1 0 ... tiJxeS 1 1 .dxe5 tiJd7, and the position is unclear. ..
9.tiJxc4? ! This is a rather dubious decision . Safer was 9.ioxc4. Then after 9 . .e5 1 0.dxeS tzJxeS Black had to reckon with 1 1 .ioxeS!? Axe5 1 2. �b3, and on 9 . �b4 there would follow 1 0.0-0 ioxd2 1 1 :�xd2 Axf3 1 2.gxf3oo• Probably the best continuation would have been 9 tLla5!? 1 0 . .te2 c5 ! 1 1 .0-0 .txg3 1 2. hxg3 cxd4 1 3.tLlxd4 i.xe2 .
..
1 1 .�C2 Even worse was 1 1 .dxe5 �xd3 1 2. exf6 tlad8 ( 1 2 ... l:lfd8 -+) 1 3.fxg7 Axf3 ( 1 3 . . . tlfe8 -+) 1 4.gxf8'tlt'+ �xf8, and despite the exchange advantage White can simply resign.
1 1 . ..exd4 1 2.0-0-0 dxe3 1 3.e4 The position with a pawn down after 1 3. fxe3 is, of course, bad for White, but this is the only way he could have put up a little resistance . The first player now hopes to complicate the position, but he overlooks a beautiful tactical possibility. 13 ... ..td2+ ! 1 4.tDexd2 tJ .b4!
..•
0:1
1 .d4 dS 2. "�-J3 ,�,�c6 3.g3
31 7
Chapter 1 6 1.d4 d5 2.tDf3 CZJc6 3.g3 1 .d4 dS 2.tiJf3 tlJc6 3.g3 White plans to develop the fl -bishop on the long diagonal , most often after that he castles and then plays c2-c4. Some times c2-c4 is played before the cast ling , sometimes - never.
Game 1 1 1 Stohl - Hertneck Bundesliga 1 999
1 .tZJf3 d5 2.d4 t�jc6 3.g3 Sl.fS 4.i.g2 e6 There is also the idea of playing 4 ... �b4 with tempo, so that then the g2-bishop wou ld be hitting on a rock after ... c7 -c6. This is quite playable, but it could lead to a slightly passive position, e.g. S.tlJa3 e6 6.0-0, and now: a) 6 /' ',f6, and instead of 7.c3 4Jas s.fib3 'iVcS 9 .c4 c6 1 0.i..f4 Jl..e 7, which transposes to b) , Vaganian played against Donev ( Bundesliga 1 997) 7.tLlh 4 ! ? and after 7 . . . i.g4 S.c4 Jl.. e7 9 . h3 �hS 1 0. g4 Jl..g 6 1 1 .cxdS exdS 1 2 . .td2 c6 1 3 .f3 ! 0-0 1 4.�xg6 hxgS l S . .ac3 ! tDa6 1 6 . e4 achieved a dan gerous initiative. b) 6 ... Jl..e7 7.c3 tiJaS 8.�b3 't!¥c8 9.c4 cS 1 0.Af4 tLlfS 1 1 .l:acl 0-0 1 2.tiJeS l:dS 1 3.�c2 (1 3.l:fd l ! ? .6 tZJbl -c3 Mora zevich) 1 3 . . . h6 1 4.l:fdl Cjjc 7 1 5.a3 as, Morozevich-P. Nikolic, Moscow 1 994, and now Morozevich suggests 1 6.g4! i.h7 ( l S ... tZJxg4? 1 7.tlJxg4 Jl..xg4 l S. �g3 ±, x g4, c7) 1 7.'ill'g 3 with chances for attack on the kingside. ••
Now Black must decide where to go with the cS-bishop. There are two possibilities: It goes to fS, in order to increase the control over the e4-square : 3 ... i..fS 4.iLg2 e6 (4 . . . �b4 ! ?)
� Game 1 1 1 Or it is developed to g4, the battle then is for the f4- and eS-squares. Black can then prepare the queenside castling with . . . �d7!?, which after S. O-O seems OK, but after S.c4 (activating the g2bishop) turns out to be dangerous. Be sides, S.h3!? poses some unpleasant questions. In particular:
3 ... ,ag4 4.iLg2 �d7 5.0-0 (S.h3 ! ?) � Game 1 12 3... .tg4 4.Ag2 �d7 5.c4
c:> Game 1 13 Less ambitious, but safer is 4 . . . e6: 4...e6 5.0-0 tiJf6 6.c4 � Games 1 14 - 11 5
Sometimes 4 ... �d7? ! (.6 0-0-0) is also p layed. But this plan is better after 3 . . . -ig4, because then t h e pressure on d4 (the f3-knight can be exchanged at any time ! ) gives Black additional important possibilities. With the bishop on fS, however, it should be avoided in view of 5.c4!, e.g. 5... dxc4 6/i�c3 0-0-0 7.d5 ...
Chapter 1 6
31 8
tiJb4 8.tiJe5 'i!¥e8 9.e4 e6 1 0.a3 exd5 1 1 ,axb4 �xe5 ( 1 1 . . . dxe4 1 2.'tWa4 '6'xe5 1 3.�xa7 with an attack) 1 2.%ha7 �7 ( 1 2 ...tiJf6 1 3.'3'a4 c6 1 4 .'ftfa5 �d7 1 5 . �g5 �e8 1 6.0-0 with an attack) 1 3 . .tf4 '{fYeS 1 4 .0-0 i..g 4 1 5 . exd5 1 :0, Pigusov-Berenyi , Budapest 1 989 , or 5 ... e6 6.0-0 dxc4 (6 ... 0-0-0 7.cxd5 exd5 8.CZJc3 i.h3 9 . .tf4 i.xg2 1 0.�xg2 ti.Jf6 1 1 .�a4 with the initiative) 7.ClJbd2 O..Q-O 8.ti.Jxc4 fS (8 . . . tDxd4 9.�d4 'iVxd4 1 0. 't':Yb3 bS 1 1 .Ae3 with an attack) 9.'t!Vb3 ti.Jge7 1 0.:e1 (� e4) 1 0 �d5 1 1 .'t'fa4 i.e4 ( 1 1 . . . ti.Jxd4? 1 2. tiJxd4 'i+¥xd4 1 3 . .te3 'Wg4 1 4. h3 '8'gS 1 5.'a'xa7 +-) 1 2.ClJcd2 Ag6 1 3.ti.Jb3 ( 1 3.e4 ! ?) 1 3 ... �d6 1 4.tzJc5 ti.Jd5 1 5. il'b5 -1 lbS 1 6.i(.e3 with initiative on the queenside, Smejkal-Murey, New York 1 986. 5.0-0 IS · 'lfS .••
If now the second player goes for 5 . . . tiJb4, White can reply not only with 6.tiJa3, which leads to the variation 4 ... tOb4, but also with 6.c4!1, because S . . . tiJc2 7.cxd5! ti.Jxa1 8 .dxeS! i(.xb 1 (8. . . .txe6 9.tiJc3 , 8 . . .fxeS 9.tiJc3) 9.exf7+ �xf7 1 0 .tiJe5+ or 1 0 . .tg5 is rather dangerous for Black according to Morozevich .
'6'a4 ±, better is 7 ... .te7) 8,l2:Jxc4 ClJc2 9.llJh4! tiJxa1 1 0.tiJxf5 exfS 1 1 . .txb7 %tb8 1 2 . .ic6+ �e 7 1 3 . b3 tlJxb3 1 4 .axb3 with a strong attack for the sacrificed ex change , Kramnik- Fritz4, Oohren 1 996.
7.tZJc3 In some games there followed 7.cxd5 exd5 8.tiJc3, but after 8 . . . tiJe4! 9.�b3 tiJxc3 1 0 .bxc3 1 0 . . . tiJaS 1 1 .'iYa4+ c6 or 1 0. 'i!Vxc3 0-0 1 1 .a3 as! Black was al ways OK. Hart's idea 7 . .tiJxd51? is also interesting , e.g. 8.1�;-. :c3 0-0 9 . .::1e 1 l:�b6 1 0 . h3 i.g6 1 1 .e4 .if6 with strong pres sure on the opponent's centre, Hartoch Hort, Amsterdam 1 994. Another possibility is to protect the c pawn with 7.b3. However, we are already familiar with the drawback of this move - the queen cannot go to b3 any more and White m ust come up with a different plan , other than exerting pressure on d5. Unfortunately, , have found no games in which this con tinuation was played. .
6.c4 S.b3 is also played now and then. However, it has the disadvantage that the b3-square is no longer available for the queen and White cannot play against dS. In the resulting manoeuvring battle Black usually has no difficulties, e.g. S . . . .te7 7 . .tb2 ti.Jb4 8.tiJa3 as 9.ClJe5 0-0 1 0.c3 tlJa6 1 1 .llJc2 h6 1 2.a3 c6 1 3.c4 fiJ.d7 with approximately equa lity, M.Vukic-Barle, Ljubljana 1 997.
S . ..te7 .
.
It was still too early for 6 ... dxc4 yet 7.tiJbd2! tiJb4 1! (7 . . . tiJxd4? 8.tiJxd4 'fixd4 9.:i.xb7 :tb8 1 0.i.c6+ �e7 1 1 .
-
7 dxc4!? ...
An interesting continuation. The usual one here is 7,..tiJe4, and then 8.cxd5 cxd5 leads to the position from the last annotation. However, worth mentioning is 8.�b3!? tiJaS 9.�a4+ c6 1 0.tlJxe4 i.xe4 1 1 .b3 (� 1 2 .Ad2) 1 1 . . . �c2 ! (threatening 1 2 . . . t1.Jxc4) 1 2.ti.Je1 ..ad 1
1 .d4 d5 2.tiJf3 tlJc6 3.g3 1 3.i.d2 llJxc4 1 4.:Xd1 tiJb2 1 5.'6'a5 'iYxa5 1 6 . .txa5 tiJxd1 1 7 .tiJd3 C2:Jxf2 1 8.�xf2 �d6 with a complicated end game, Minasian-Kacheishvili, Yerevan 2000.
8.ttJe5 Now White begins to play aggressively. The position after 8 �a4 0-0 9 .�xc4 tlJe4 (9 ... tlJb4 1 0.Ag5) 1 0.�f4 (1 0.tL1xe4 .axe4 1 1 .i.f4=) 1 0 . . . tiJxc3 1 1 . �xc3 i,e4 seems to be approximately equal . In that case 8 tiJd7 !? 9.�xc4 i�b6 1 0:tWb3 .tf6 is also worth examining. .
...
S ... itJxeS 9.dxe5 �xd1 1 O.l�[xd1 itJg4 ! 1 1 .�xb7 tIb8 1 2.�c6+ �8 Suddenly the position has become extremely sharp. 1 3.f4 After 1 3.e4 lLlxeS 1 4.exf5 tiJxc6 l S.fxe6 fxe6 1 6Jlb 1 �7 White has certain compensation for the pawn, but nothing more . 13 . ..j.cS+ 1 4.�g2 itJf2 1 5. Ild7 .th3+ 1 6.<M3 Now Black could have forced a draw with 16 .. Ag4+ 1 7.�g2 .ah3+ 1 8.�3. He played something else, but after many moves the protagonists came to the same result. .
1 6 ... itJg4 1 7.e3 itJxh2+ 1 8. �2 i.fS 1 9.tlJa4 �e7 20.e4 �g6 21 . .td2 itJg4+ 22.'�13 15 23.exf5 �xf5 24 . ..ta5 h5 25.�xc7 l:cS 26.�b7 tIeS 27. .td6 .txd6 2S.exd6 tlJf6 29.�c7 l:IdS 30.Ihc4 ttJe8 31 .l:td4 itJxd6 32 . .ta6 t:JJe 7 33 . ..td3 i.g4+ 34.�e3 h4 35.gxh4 l:txh4 36.Itg 1 e5 37.fxe5 tlJfS+ 3S . .txf5 t[xd4 39. �xd4 i..x fS+ 40. t:JJd 5
31 9
.te6+ 41 .�c5 llxa4 42. l:txg7 + .1t..f7 43.a3 na5+ 44.�d4 ndS+ 45.�e4 �d2 46.b4 �e6 47J:[g3 �dS 48JIg5 .teS 49.t:JJe3 Ild8 50.�g7 i.f7 51 .11h7 �d1 52.b5 Iid7 53.b6 axb6 54. J!th6+ �xe5 55.:axb6 Iia7 56.:ctb4 !1xa3+ 57.�d2 .i.d5 58.�e2 Ae4 59.�2 �4 60.htb2 nh3 61 .Itd2 j&,d3 62.�e1 t:JJe3 63JIe2+ .txe2 V2: V2
Game 1 1 2 Radulov Lorenz Bad Mergentheim 1 989 -
1 /,jf3 l:�c6 2.d4 d5 3.g3 i..g 4 This continuation seems to be more in the spirit of the Chigorin Defence than 3 ... i.fS - Black starts the battle for the central d4- and e5-squares from the very beginning. 4 . .tg2 'tWd7 Preparing queenside castling. Quieter (and probably safer) is 4 . . . e6 Q Games 114 - 115. 5.0-0 The continuation 5.c4, in order to exert pressure on Black's centre and activate the g2-bishop seems stronger to me c:> Game 113. Unclear positions follow S.c3 0-0-0 (5 ... .th3! ?) 6.b4 (6.0-0 Q S.O-O 0-0-0 6. c3) 6 f6 7.lDbd2 Ah3 (7 . . . lDh6! ? S.O-O tZJf7 9.tlJb3 e5oo, Gutman-Shereshevski, URS 1 979) S .txh3 �xh3 9.b5 lDbS 1 0. �a4 e5 !? 1 1 .dxe5 �c5 1 2.liJb3 i.b6, and due to the unsafe position of the white king Black has compensation for the pawn , Oswald-Pirrot, Bundesliga 1 997. •••
.
Chapter 1 6
320
5.h31? is also played now and then, after which Black must decide on the position of the bishop:
a) 5... i4h5 al ) 6.0-0 0-0-0 7.a4 (7.c3 f6 ! ) 7 ... 16 8.a5 a6 9.i4f4 g51 (g . . . eS? ! 1 0.dxeS Axf3 1 1 . .txf3 't'fxh3 1 2.e4! ±) 1 0.Ae3 e6 1 1 .c3 tlJge7 1 2.b4 tlJfS 1 3 . .tcl .tgS 1 4. ,:' Od2 lZJd6 l S.�b3 �e4 1 6 .�d2 h5 with a good game for Black, Lopushnoy Raetsky, Smolensk 2000. a2) 6.c3 0-0-0 7.b4 f6 8.a4 (S.bS tlJbS 9.'!'ia4 a6 oo, S ...tzJaS!?) 8 �e8 9 . .ta3 eS 1 0.dxeS fxeS 1 1 .bS Axf3 1 2 . .txf3 tzJaSoo, Burmakin-Raetsky, Seefeld 2000. a3) 6.c4!? This continuation practically leads to the variation 5.c4, only with the difference that h2-h3 and i.g4-h5 have been in cluded. Unfortunately, there are not enough games with it - I have found only two: ..•
a31 ) 6 . . e6 7.0-0 dxc4 8.'iYa4 !? (a/so interesting is 8.�c3, by analogy with the variation 5.c4 e6 S.O-O dxc4 7.'?1C3) S ... .txf3 (S . . . e5, which is very good with the bishop on g4, now fails to 9.1!Vb5 !. After B . . O-O-O very unpleasant is 9.�5!? tl}xe5 1 0:1!¥xa7 with a strong attack) 9.J4xf3 l:1dB 1 O. �xc4 tiJxd4 1 1 . i.xb7 c6 1 2. .ta6 e5 1 3.Wh2, and due to the bishop pair and his better pawn .
.
structure, White's position is preferable, A. Ivanov-Raetsky, St. Petersburg 1 999. a32) 6 ...i.xf3 7.i4xf3 dxc4 S.d5 �:�'e5 9.i.g2 e6, Drasko-Flear, Montpellier 2000. Instead of what happened in the game - 1 0.i.f4 tLJg6 1 1 . .te3 (1 1 .dxe6 'i1r'xd 1 + 1 2.'i!?xd 1 0-0-0+ 1 3.wc2 tDxf4 1 4.gxf4 fxe6) 1 1 . . . 0-0·0 (1 1 ... .tb4+ ! ? 1 2.tl.Jc3 e5) 1 2.tLJc3 tlJf6 1 3.dxe6 'iixd 1 + (1 3 . . . �xe6 !? 1 4.�a4 a6 l S.0-0 i.d6) 1 4.l:xd l nxd l + l S.wxd1 fxe6 1 6.�c2 Ji..e 7, after which White had yet to prove his compensation for the pawn (which he did not manage to do in the game) , there was the interesting 1 0. 'ifd4!? , by analogy with the variation S.c4 dxc4 S.dS i..xf3 7 ..txf3 �eS 8.i.g2 e6 9.'*'d4! ? ¢ Game 1 13, line d) to Black's Sth move. b} 5 Af5 6.c4 6.tzJe5 tZJxeS 7.dxe5 0-0-0 B .tzJc3 eS 9. e4 dxe4 1 0.'i¥xd7 + l:xd7 1 1 .tlJxe4 fSoo, Villamayor-J . Gonzales, Quezon 200 1 , 6.c3 0-0-0 7.b4 f6 8 .ti�bd2 e5oo, O. Jakobsen-Kleinschroth , Copenhagen 200 1 . ••.
b l ) After 6 ... dxc4 7.tDc3 e6 (7 . . /�f6 8.d5 �b4 9 .�e5 ! �2+ 1 0.�xc2 .txc2 1 1 .ti:Jxd7 tiJxd7 1 2 . .tf4 0-0-0 1 3 .:tc1 .tf5 1 4.�bS±, Chuchelov-Gasparian , Furth 1 999) 8.e4 �g6 9.0-0 White's strong centre and better development compensate for the missing pawn , Kaidanov-Khmelnitsky, USA 1 996. b2) 6. e6 7.0-0 (7.tlJc3 i.b4! ? 8 .0-0 .txc3! 9.bxc3 �e4! 1 0.cxd5 exd5 1 1 . Wib3 0-0-0 00, Drasko-Kosic, Herceg Novi 1 999, or 8.'ifb3 tzjge7 9.0-0 0-0 1 0.a3 i.xc3 1 1 . �xc3 dxc4 1 2.'it'xc4 eS! 1 3.tlJxeS ti:JxeS 1 4.dxeS i.xh3 1 S.i.f4 .txg2 l S. �xg2 �5 with a good posi tion for Black, Moisan-Sulava, Cannes 1 999) 7. t2Jf6 8.t2Jc3 dxc4?! 9.tL1eS! t2Jxe5 1 0.dxeS tLldS (1 0. . . 'ilVxd 1 1 1 .:Xd l tlJdS 1 2.g4 .tc2 1 3.t1d2±) 1 1 .g4 AgS ..
..
1 .d4 d5 2.tlJf3 tlJc6 3.g3 1 2.tlJxd5 exd5 1 3.iVxd5±, Chuchelov Capon, Fourmies 1 998. Instead of 8 . . . dxc4? ! , B . . . .tb4 ! ? i s worth examining.
5 .. 0-0-0 Also interesting is 5 .th3!? (after 5.c4 Black does not have this possibility), e .g . 6.:e1 .txg2 7.Wxg2 0-0-0 8 . .tf4 f6 9.c3 g5 1 0 . .i.e3 h5 1 1 . h4 g4 1 2. ( jd2 e5 with active play tor Black, Lazaro-Mellado, Andorra 200 1 .
1 4 . .ta3 ·:i,',fS "'", Moscow 1 996.
321 Tregubov-Svistunov,
7.b4
.
•••
6.c3 Here also it was not too late for 6.c4: a) 6... e6 transposes to the variation 5.c4 e6 6.0-0 0-0-0. b) Another possibility is 6 dxc4 7.�a4 (but not 7.d5? e6 !), and now Black has the choice: •..
b1 ) 7 ... a6 8.tlJc3 e6 (8 ..txf3 9.exf3 tlJxd4 1 0.'iVxc4 � f4 �) 9.e3 (9 . ..tf4 .i.xf3 1 0.Axf3 tlJxd4 1 1 .'8xc4 tiJxf3+ 1 2.exf3 .td6) 9 .tb4 oo, Thorvaldsson-Johann essen, Skopje 1 972. However, probably 8.�xc41? i.e6 9:�c2 tlJxd4 1 0. tlJxd4 �xd4 1 1 . .tf4� should be preferred. ...
•••
b2) 7 �b8 8 .'tixc4 i.e6 9.'ii'c2 i.h3 (9 . . . tlJxd4 1 O. tlJxd 4 'iVxd4 1 1 .tlJc3 ijij) 1 0. tlJc3 i.. xg2 1 1 . �xg2 e6 1 2 .l:d 1 , and in view of the space advantage and the semi-open c-file White is slightly better. •••
6 . t6 ..
A multi-purpose move - Black prevents tlJf3-eS for good and prepares . . . e7-eS or ... g7-gS. In some more recent games there followed 6 ... i.h31? 7.b4 i.xg2 8.�xg2 f6, and with good results also, e.g . :
7 h5 Lorenz pins his hopes on a quick attack on the kingside. Also very interesting is 7 e5!?, e.g. 8. b5 (8.dxeS tlJxe5oo, Li Zunian-Rizzitano, Chicago 1 983) 8. . .tlJb8 (B . .tlJce7 9.dxe5 �xb5 1 0.f1:jbd2 tlJc6 1 1 .llb1 'ila6 °o, S. Kusnetsov-Makarov, corr. 1 988) 9.dxe5 �xb5 1 0.exf6 tlJxf6 1 1 .a4 'W'a6 1 2.,i,e3 fi::Jc6 1 3 .tZJa3 .txa3 1 4.llxa3 Ilhe8 °o, Vukic- Pajkovic, Vrnjacka 8anja 1 999. .•.
•.•
.
8.tlJbd2 The knight heads for c5. White could also choose the following: a) S.�a4 h4! with cou nterplay, Fancsy-Ruck, Paks 1 994. b) S.b5 tZJb8 9.'ti'a4 a6 (9 ... .th3 ! ? 1 0. .i.xh3 �xh3 1 1 :�'xa7 h4! ? � 1 2.tlJxh4 g5 1 3.f1:jf3 CZJh6 �) 1 0.tlJa3 e5 1 1 .dxe5 .txa3 1 2.i.xa3 axb5 °o.
a ) 9.b5 tlJa5 ( 9 . . . tlJb8 ! ? 1 0.a4 'iffS) 1 0 .a4 'iff5 ( 1 0 . . . e6 !? 1 1 ..i.a3 g5, 1 0 . . . g 5 ! ? ) 1 1 . .ta3 tlJc4 oo, Quinteros-Torre, Malta (01) 1 980.
8 . g5 The second player proceeds with h is main idea · attack on the white king ! Also possible is 8 . . . eS ! ? and even 8 . . . h4 ! ? 9.tlJxh4 g5 1 0.CZJhf3 .i.h3.
b) 9.tlJbd2 e5 1 0.b5 e4 1 1 . bxc6 exf3+ 1 2.tlJxf3 (1 2.exf3 1i'xc6=, Weindl-Raets ky, Biel 1 995) 1 2 .. :�xc6 1 3:ti'b3 f1:je7
The c5-square must be taken under control. Nevertheless, W h ite should
..
9.tlJb3 e6
Chapter 1 6
322
probably still play 1 0j,:jc5, and after 1D .. AxcS 1 1 .bxcS h4 1 2.�b3 hxg3 1 3.fxg3 �h7 1 4.:f2 i.fS ( 1 4 . . . eS! ?) 1 S.e3 tlJaS 1 6. �a4 b6 the position would be sharp. Unfortunately for GM Radulov, he chose another continua tion. .
1 0.l:Ib1 ? With the idea, atter 'lJb3-c5 and the following exchange ( ... j"xc5 b4xcS) to have control over the b-file. But. . .
1 0 ... �h7 ! Th e queen goes t o a wonderful attacking position, and also with tempo (the b l rook is under attack!). 1 1 . .ie3 h4 Threatening 1 2 . . . hxg3 followed by 1 3 . . . Axf3 -+ .
1 2.gxh4 1 2.:1e1 would not have helped - 1 2 . . . hxg3 1 3 . hxg3 ..th3 1 4 .Ah l ..tfS! -+ . Also after 1 2. tiJbd2 hxg3 (1 2 . . . Ad6! ?) 1 3. fxg3 (1 3 . hxg3? �h3 -+) 1 3 . . . i.d6 ( 1 3 ... Ah3! ?) White would not have had anything to be happy about.
1 2 ... .tfS ! 1 3.hxg5 1 3J�b2 or 1 3.:c1 loses immediately in view of 1 3 ... g4.
1 3 ... ..td6 ! 1 3 . . .Axb1 ? 1 4.'iVxb1 �xb1 l S.:xb1 would have been a nice present for the first player. 1 4.h4 fxgS 1 S . .txg5 tlJge7! 1 6.b5 tlJbS 1 7.l:rc1 �dgS Here only a lifeless computer could believe that White could survive the forthcoming black attack.
1 S.�d2 �xgS! 1 9:�xgS Black wins very beautifully after 1 9. tlJxg5 - 1 9 ... �xh4 20.tlJf3 Ah2+ 21 .�h 1 'iVg4! ! 22.tlJxh2 (22.'(fYd 1 Af4+ 23.�g 1 :g8 -+) 22 . . . 'iVh4 23.j"h3 '*Yxh3 24.'f¥f4 .te4+ ! 25.f3 t"lJg6 -+ .
1 9 .. .1:1gS 20.�e3 tDg6 White's position is absolutely hopeless.
21 .c4 .te4 22.�c3 22.'lJg5 tZJxh4 ! - + .
22 ...tDxh4 23Jlfd1 tlJxg2 White resigned. It is worth mentioning that the Elo difference in this game was 200 points in his favour! 0:1 Game 1 1 3 Loginov Wells Harkany 1 994 -
1 'tlJf3 d5 2.g3 tDc6 3.d4 .tg4 4 . .tg2 �d7 S.c4 !? White immediately attacks the d5pawn, which obstructs his bishop. S ... e6 Otten S dxc4 6.d5 .txf3 7. ..txf3 tlJe5 8 . .tg2 e6 is played, with the following variations: ••.
1 .d4 dS 2.liJf3 ':::"''C 6 3 .g3
323
Only a transposition is 6 ... dxc4 7.liJc3 (7:�a4? ! eS! 8.dxeS liJxeS) 7 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 .
a) 9.f4 tLJg4 1 0. h3 liJ4f6 1 1 .dxe6 'i¥xd 1 + 1 2.Wxd 1 0-0-0+ 1 3.'lt>c2 txe6°o, P. Knudsen-Rewitz, Aarhus 1 988. b) 9.liJc3 exdS (9 . . . 0-0-0 1 0.0-0 liJf6 1 1 .Af4 tDg6 1 2.�gS .i4cS oo, Tukmakov Raetsky, Biel 1 997, 1 O. 'ti'd4 ! ? liJc6 1 1 .'iVxc4 Q 9.'t!Yd4 ! ? liJc6 1 0:t'!'xc4 0-0o 1 1 .liJc3) 1 0.�xdS �xdS 1 1 . liJxdS 00-0 1 2.i.f4 iiiii V2:V2, Lopushnoy-Kharlov, St. Petersburg 1 999. c) 9 .i4f4 tlJg6 1 O.dxeS �xd 1 + 1 1 . �xd 1 0-0-0+ 1 2. �c2 tZJxf4 1 3.gxf4 fxe6 1 4.tZJd2 AdS l S.Ah3 i.xf4 ( l S . . . :le8 l S.e3 �b5 1 7.a4!) l S.e3 AeS 1 7.tZJxc4 .tt6 1 8 . .ixeS+ �b8 1 9.1Iad 1 tlJe7 K. Edvardsson-Raetsky Iceland 1 999. •
=,
I
d) 9.�d4!? liJc6 1 O:�xc4 d l ) 1 0 ... 0-0-0 1 1 . liJc3 (1 1 .e4 exd5 1 2.exd5 tlJfS 1 3.tZJc3 llJeS 1 4.�e2 i.c5 1 S.0-0 IIhe8 °o, Ledger-Pein , Hove 1 997) 1 1 . . . liJb4 1 2.0-0 exdS 1 3:�'b3 llJt6 1 4.l:tdl c6 l S.Ae3 �b8 (l S . . . c5 l S.llJxdS! liJbxd5 1 7.AgS±) 1 6.'§'a4 liJaS 1 7.b4! .ixb4 1 8.l:labl with a strong attack, Darcyl-Garbarino, Argentina 1 983. d2) 10 ...exd5 l 1 .�xdS .tb4+ 1 2.tlJc3 �xdS 1 3.Axd5 tZJge 7 1 4 . .tg2 0-0-0 l S. Ad2 tZJd4 l S.0-0-0 %:the8 ( l S ... �xc3 1 7. bxc3 llJxe2+? 1 8.�b2 +-) 1 7.l:lhel t V. Zaitsev-Raetsky, St. Petersburg 1 999.
6.0-0 0-0-0
In Larsen-Garbarino, San Martin 1 995, Black tried 6...iLlge7 7.tlJc3 h5. The Danish grandmaster played the rest of the game at one go : 8.b4! dxc4 (8 ... liJxb4 9.liJeS �d6 1 0.'�a4+ liJbc6 1 1 . .ta3 �d8 1 2 . .ixe7 Axe7 1 3 . liJxcS bxc6 1 4.�xcS+ �8 1 S . cxdS ±) 9.b5 Axf3 1 0.i.xf3 tZJxd4 1 1 . .txb7 l:bB 1 2.Ag2 g6 ( 1 2 . . . liJxbS? 1 3.tr.bl +-) 1 3.lIb1 i..g7 1 4 . .ta3 ! h4 ( 1 4 . . .0-0? l S.e3 +-) 1 5.e3 tiJdf5 16 . .ic6! liJxc6 1 7.bxc6 �xd1 1 B.lbb8+ ! '@'dB 1 9. lIfb1 ! .tf6 ( 1 9 . . . Axc3?? 20.llxd8+ �xd8 2 1 .l:lb8#, 1 9 . . .tZJe7 20.lb:d8+ �xd8 2 1 .Db8+ tlJc8 22.liJbS AtS 23. liJxa7 .ixa3 24.l:xc8+ �e7 2S . .c.xh8 c3 26.l:Ixh4 c2 27.tr.c4 cl 'tW+ 28.1lxc1 .axcl 29 .liJbs +-) 20.tZJe4 i.e7 21 .l:txd8+ .i.xd8 22.g4 !.i.Jh6 (22 . . .tlJe7 23 . .tb2 f6 24.liJxfS+ �7 2S.liJd7 l::te8 26.tZJe5+ �g8 27.l:lc1 +-) 23.tr.b8 tlJxg4 24.h3! f5 25.tZJd6+! �e7 (25 ... cxd6 26. c7 �e7 27.cS'8 +-) 26.hxg4 1 :0.
7.�-�c3 dxc4 8.'iWa4 c;t>b8 This prophylactic move is necessary. However, it can be played after ex changing on f3 first - B... Axf3 9 ..i.xf3 �b8, and now: a) 1 0.tr.d1 leads to the main game (S . . . �b8 9.l::td l Axf3 1 0 . .txf3). b) 1 0.i.e3!? liJb4 ( 1 0 . . . liJxd4 ! ? 1 1 . 'i¥xc4 liJxf3 1 2.exf3 liJfS 1 3.lIfd1 liJdS 1 4.l:lac1 c6) l 1 .�d l liJf6 l 2.b3 cxb3 1 3 .�xb3 liJbdS 1 4 . .td2 c6 1 5 .liJa4 iiiii , Loginov-Dubois, Bad Worishofen 2000 . Disaster follows B i.b4? 9.C2JeSJ liJxeS 1 0.'8'xa7! c6 1 1 ..tf4 .td6 (1 1 .. .fS 1 2.dxe5 i.xc3 1 3.bxc3 gS 1 4.Ae3 +-) 1 2.'1!¥a8+ �c7 1 3.tlJb5+ �b6 1 4.�a7+ �xbS 1 5. a4+ 1 :0, Kumaran-Miles, Dublin 1 993. •••
9.l:Id1
Chapter 1 6
324
..
Also after 1 3 . . .tiJxc3 1 4.bxc3 White keeps the initiative, e.g. 1 4 . . . .ie7 1 5. i.g5 hS ( 1 5 . . . '+lfc6 1 6.i.g2 bS 1 7.�aS) 1 6.i.xf6 i.xfS 1 7.e5 J4.e7 l B.:ab1 c6 1 9.'i¥aS.
1 4.�a6 C2Jxc3 1 5.bxc3 'iYc6
White has a dangerous initiative on the queenside for the sacrificed pawn. W ith his last move he over-protects d4 and threatens to play 1 0.t2Je5. Also interesting is 9 .te3 1? Then 9 . . . i.xf3 1 O . �xf3 transposes t o B . . . .txf3 9.i.xf3 �b8 1 0.i.e3. .
9 ... Axf3 This way Black surrenders his bishop pair, but gets rid of the threat tlJe5 and keeps h is extra pawn . Half-way measures like 9 . . . f6 or 9 . . . i.d6 are not recommendable - after 1 0 .'iYxc4 the first player achieves an active position with material parity. 9 ... tiJb4 ?? would be a blunder in view of 1 O:�xd7 l:bd7 1 1 .tlJe5 +-.
1 0 . .axf3 tDb4 1 1 :�a5! After 1 1 .'i!Vxd7?! l:bd7 1 2.e3 tlJf6 1 3. i.e2 tlJd3 1 4.�xd3 cxd3 1 5 .:xd3 c5 ! only W hite could have any problems, Sosonko-Fressinet. Cannes 1 996.
1 1 ... C2Jf6 1 2.a3 After 1 2.i.f4 ,J� 'fd5 the position is un clear, Balinov-Raetsky, Seefeld 2000. Interesting was also 1 2 . . . bS!?
1 2 .C2Jbd5 ..
1 2 . . . t2Jc2? 1 3.nb1 tlJxd4 1 4.llxd4 'tIYxd4 1 5.i.e3 +-, 1 2 ... b6? 1 3.�xa7+ ! +-.
1 3.e4 b6
1 6.a4! White wants to open the a-file as fast as possible and to this end sacrifices another pawn. 1 6 . .ig5 ! ? is not bad either, e.g. 1 S ... i.e7 1 7.d5 exd5 l B . exd5 �d7 1 9.�xc4. 1 6 .. .tiJxe4 1 7.a5 f5 1 8.axb6 axb6 1 9.i.f4 The attack becomes stronger and stronger. Now the threat is 20.Ilfb 1 . 1 9 .. :iWb7 Wells is willing to return the material, in the hope of consolidating his position . A n alternative i s 1 9 . . .i.dS, but sti ll after 20 . .ixdS cxd6 21 .'iYa7+ (21 .Ildbl �c7) 21 ... Wc8 22 . .ixe4 (22.11db1 I ?) 22 .. .fxe4 (22 .. .'ii xe4 23.d5! +-) 23:t!Vxg7 the si tuation looks dangerous for Black. 20 :�xc4 Ad6 21 .'!Wxe6 %:tde8 22.�d7? ! White succumbs to the tension o f the battle. Much better was 22. �xf5 ! Ilhf8 (22 ... i.xf4 23.:1e1 ! + - , 22 . . . g6 23 . 'iYg4±) 23.�xh7 Axf4 24.:e1 ! i.xg3 25J1xe4 nxe4 2S.'iYxe4 �xe4 27.i.xe4
325
1 .d4 d5 2.tLlf3 ttJcS 3.g3 .txf2+ 28.�g2 cS 29.�xc6 with good winning chances.
22 ... .i.xf4 23.gxf4 �hf8 Now Black can be satisfied - the po sition h as become u nclear. The rest follows without commentary:
24.�a3 �d8 25.'i¥a4 1:1f6 26.h3 bS 27.'tWaS l:tdd6 28.l;tda1 �c8 29. 'ifb4 I%h6 30.c4 �c6 31 .cxbS �c2 32 . .txe4 �xe4 33.1:[g3 l:thg6 34.:&a3 'iYxf4 3S.b6 Itxg3+ 36. fxg3 �xd4+ 37. 'iYxd4 nxd4 38.1:1a8+ �b7 39.bxc7 ttc4 40.l:tf8 J:txc7 V2: V2
As we have seen the plan with . . . 'iYd7 followed by ... 0-0-0 is rather risky for Black - due to the strong �g2 White's attack very often develops too fast. Be sides, the variation 5.h3 ! ? is qu ite un pleasant. However, the second player has another possibility at his disposal: Game 1 1 4 Razuvaev - Skembris Porto San Giorgio 1 99B
1 .tZJf3 d5 2.d4 tlJc6 3.g3 .tg4 4 . .tg2 e6 This continuation is more solid than 4 ... 'i'Vd7. S.O-O tiJf6 6.c4 An alternative is 6.b3 .td6 7.i.b2 0-0 8.c4 (S.tLle5 �xe5 9.dxe5 CZJd7 1 0 . h3 .tf5 1 1 .14 tLlb4 1 2.tLla3 c5 °o, Vaca Kram-Almeida Saenz, Mexico 2002) 8 llJe4: a) In Perez Nivar-Cuartas, Lucerne (01) 1 982, White played 9.ti:)c3, and after 9, .iLb4?! 1 0.tLlxe4 dxe4 1 1 .tiJe1 .tfS 1 2 .tLlc2 iL.e7 1 3.dS exdS 1 4.cxd5
ttJbB 1 5.:c1 i.gS l S.tiJe3 achieved a slightly better position. However, in stead of 9 ... i.b4 very interesting is 9 ...f511, e.g. 1 0 .cxdS exdS (10 .. f:::.xc3 1 1 .i.xc3 exdS 1 2.tLleS) l 1 .tiJxdS .txg3 1 2.hxg3 'i'!¥xdS Also 9 ... tZJxc31? 1 0. i.xc3 '8f6 is worth consideri ng. 00.
b) 9.CZJe1 (preparing the manoeuvre tLle1 -d3, tLlb1 -d2-f3, and also making f2-f3 possible in some variations) 9... Ah5 (9 .. .fS? 1 0.f3) 1 0/:; d2 fS!1 1 1 .tlJd3 as! 1 2.lZJf3 a41 1 3.cS (Black has good counterplay after 1 3.cxdS exdS 1 4.bxa4 tiJe7 l S.'ifb3 b6, as well as after 1 3. 'fi'c2 a3 1 4 . .tc3 �f6 l S.e3 .axf3 1 6.i.xf3 gS) 13 ... a31 1 4.Ac1 iT..e7 1 S . .te3 (l S.e3 eS ! ? 1 6.dxe5 iT..xcS) 1 S... b6 (l S ... i.fS !?) 1 6.b4 bxcS 1 7.bxc5 .tf6 1 8.�c2, Jovanic-B. Kovacevic, Zadar 2000, and now very interesting was 18 ... i.xf3!1 1 9.exf3 t2Jxd411 (1 9 . . . i.xd4! ? is also possible) 20.i.xd4 .txd4 21 .:ae1 (21 .fxe4 fxe4 22 .tLlf4 Axa1 :Xa1 23 . .:txal 'tWf6 24.lId l g5 25. tLlh3 c6+) 21 tLlc3 22.tLlf4 (22.llxe6 �d7 23J1fe1 IIae8+) 22 ... eS!1 (an alternative is 22 ... �f6, e.g. 23.tiJxe6 nf7 or 23.Dxe6 '6'17, in both cases with unclear positions) 23.tzJe6 �f6 24.tiJxf8 'ti'xfB with promising compensation for the minimal material deficit. •••
6 ....td6 It is important to control the e5-square. On 6 ... .te7 rather unpleasant would be 7.tLleS !.
7. tlJc 3 7.b3 0-0 8 . .tb2 transposes to the line 6.b3 i.d6 7.i.b2 0-0 8.c4 (see above) . 7.cxd5 Q Game 1 15.
7... 0-0
•.•
•••
7 .tLle4? ! instead is not recommendable in view of Wisnewski's suggestion 8 .cxd5 exdS 9.�b3 ! (but not 9 .tLlxdS? ! .txg3 1 0.hxg3 'i!¥xdS oo , 'Chessl P01 '..
326
Chapter 1 6
Wisnewski, ICC 5/0 2003) . On 7 . . . dxc4 follows 8 .�a4, and White wins back the pawn. But now . . . dxc4 is a serious threat and that is why the first player must do something at once.
the d5-square) 1 2.e5 tDds the second player has achieved a good position . There then followed 1 3.'�d3 .te7 1 4.a3 'ti'd7 1 5. %1a2 Ilad8 1 6.h3 i.h5 1 7.i.d2 a6 1 8. b4 h6 1 9J:tb2 liJa7 20.�b3 g5 with initiative for Black.
9 .. .th5 1 0.e4 tZJb6 1 1 .g4 Aazuvaev does not wish to tolerate the pin on the d l -hS diagonal any longer. In Todorcevic-G. Mohr, Ljubljana 1 989, 1 1 .b3 was played. We already know how Black should reply here, and in this game we see it one more time 1 1 . f5! 1 2.e5 Ae7 ( 1 2 ... i.b4 1 3.liJe2) 1 3.tDe2 tzJd5 1 4 .tb2 ( 1 4.tDf4 tlJxf4 1 5 . .txf4 liJb4 1 6.'if1'd2 tlJd5) 1 4 ... a5 ( 1 4 . . . 'i¥d7! ? 1 5.�d2 l'Iad8) 1 5.a3 liJa7 1 6.�d2 c6 1 7 .tzJe l 'i!fb6 1 8. tDc 1 :ladS with ini tiative for Black. Also interesting was 1 1 ... i.b4!? 1 2.tDe2 f5, by analogy with the game Marin-Antonio from the pre vious annotation. .
-
..
.
8.cxd5 8.b3 tlJe4 9.�b2 transposes to the va riation 6 .b3 (see above) . 9.tiJxe4 dxe4 looks too risky, e.g. 1 0.tDe1 Ac5! 1 1 . Axe4 'iVxd4, 1 0.tDd2 tiJxd4 or 1 0.tDh4 g5. 8 ... t2JxdS! Very strong ! After 8 . . . exd5 9 . .tg5 White's pressure on d5 would be un pleasant. At first sight the first player can now achieve a perfect pawn centre with e2e4, but that is a false impression - the e4+d4 pair is not as strong as it seems. Why? The rest of the game will show. 9.h3 In Marin-Antonio, Yerevan (01) 1 996, White played immediately g.e4, but after 9 ... ·�·,b6 1 0.b3 ( 1 0.Ae3 tiJc4 with comfortable play for Black, Bender Kovacevic Velika Gorica 2002) 10 ... .tb4 ( 1 0 . . .f5 ! ?) 1 1 .tDe2 f5 ! (pay atten tion to this idea - Black neutralises the opponent's pawn centre, makes the d4pawn backward and secures himself
1 1 . .si.g6 1 2.'iYe2 White's position seems to be very good - pawn centre, space advantage ... On 12 . . eS probably was planned 1 3. dxe5 tiJxe5 1 4.tZJxe5 .txe5 1 5.f4 .td4+ 1 6.i.e3 with better chances. ..
.
1 2 ...f5 ! With this appropriate and strong move the Greek grandmaster shows that, in fact, the position is by no means clear.
1 3 . .tg5? This turns out to be a serious mistake. Correct was 1 3.gxf5. The resulting va riations are too long and complicated, hence I will give only the main line with just a few side-lines : 13 ... .th5!? ( 1 3 ... exfS followed by 1 4.e5 i.e7 or 14 . . . .tb4 is also possible) 1 4.l:td1 ( 1 4.i.e3 exfS l S .e5 f4 1 6.exd6 fxe3 1 7.dxc7 exf2+ 1 8. 'iWxf2 'i¥xc7 with initiative for Black) 14 . exf5 1 5.e5, and now: ..
1 .d4 d5 2J�f3 tZJc6 3.g3
327
a) 1 5 .. ,ab4 1 6.a3 ( 1 6.dS !£'.Je7 1 7.d6 cxd6 1 8.exdG tZJcG 1 9.Af4 'iWd7 oo) 16 ... Ae7 ( 1 6 ... ,axc3 ! ? 1 7.bxc3 'fi'dS) 1 7.d5 tLJa5 °o.
1 6.tDxe6 loses immediately in view of 1 6 .. :�We5 -+.
b) 15 ... .te7 1 S.d5 ( 1 6 .a3 tZJa5 1 7.�b5 tLJac4oo� 1 S.b3?? cG -+) 1S tLJb4 1 7. d6 cxd6 1 8.exd6 .tfS 1 9.�b5 ( 1 9 . ,*,e6+ �h8 20.�xfS i.g6 2 1 .'ti'b5 tLJd3 00 � 22.lbd3? a6+) 19 ...tlJc6 20. 'it'xf5 (20 .,ae3! ? 00) 20 i.xf3 21 .i.xf3 tlJd4 22.�d5+ (22.�d3? ClJxf3+ 23. \§'xf3 i.d4 24.�xb7 �h4 2S.tlJe4 i.xf2+ 26.�g2 liaeS 27 . .tgS 't!f'hS with a decisive attack) 22 .. .'�h8 23.�d3 �xd6 24 . .txb7 lIadS, and the active position of the black pieces, along with the exposed position of White's king compensates for the missing pawn.
Black has an extra pawn, the bishop pair and 'for that' . a won position .
.
...
•••
The game continuation allows a beauti ful combination : ...
1 6 .. :iYxe5 1 7:�'xe5 �xe5 1 8.llJxe6 l:lf6
1 9.1lJc5 i.d4 More convincing was 1 9 ... 11f4 ! ? 20.95 1:g4 2 1 .tDxb7 lIxg5 -+ . Eventually White managed - of course, not without the help of his opponent - to save the game.
20.tlJb3 i.xc3 21 .bxc3 1:[f4 22.�xb7 lbg4+ 23. �h2 �f8 24.f3 hrc4 25.tlJd4 Jlxc3 26.Ilac1 l:!d3 27.tlJc6 l::rd 2+ 28.�g3 tlJd5 29.:f2 l:lxf2 30.
Game 1 1 S Zakharevich - Bigallev Krasnodar 1 997
1 .d4 dS 2.tiJf3 llJc6 3.g3 �g4 4.�g2 e6 S.O-O iDf6 6.c4 �d6 7.cxdS 1 3 ...fxg4! A surprise. 1 4.hxg4 The capturing of the queen would have been too expensive - 1 4.�xdS gxf3 1 S. �e3 fxg2 1 6.�xg2 .tf4 1 7 .'iWd3 IlaxdS 1 S.tlJe2 .teS, and White is practically lost. But the text move is hardly any better. 1 4...llJxd4 ! 1 5.llJxd4 �xg5 1 6.e5
In contrast to the previous game, here White takes on d5 a little earlier - the moves 7.tlJc3 0-0 have not been played yet.
7 ...exd5 Very interesting was 7 tlJxd5 !?, by analogy with the previous game. In this case the game could have the following development: 8.e4 tiJb6 9.h3 (unfavourable for Black is 9 .dS exdS 1 0.exd5 tlJe5 1 1 .1:e 1 0-0, 9.tlJc3 0-0 Q Game 1 1 4) 9 . �h5 ...
..
Chapter l S
328
(9 . . . .txf3?! 1 0.i.xf3 eS 1 1 .dxeS tiJxeS 1 2 . .tg2 0-0 1 3.tlJc3 :t or 1 1 .dS ! ? tlJd4 1 2. ,tg2 0-0 1 3 .i..e3 :t) 1 O.dS (1 O. liJc3 � Game 1 14) 10 ... exd5 1 1 .exd5 tzje5 11 (also good is the safe 1 1 ... tiJe7 1 2.tZJc3 0-0, and the position is approximately equal) 1 2.g4 tZJxf3+ ( 1 2 ... i.gS?? 1 3. t2Jxe5 Axe5 1 4.1:e1 +-) 1 3. 'ti'xf3 i.gS 1 4.:e 1 + '1tJt8 ( 1 4 . . . .te7? l S:iYe2±) 1 5.tiJc3 h5 oo.
8.tDc3
tiJxd5 llJxd5 1 4 .'iVxdS:t) 1 0.lLlxd5 i.xf3 1 1 .lLlxfS (1 1 .exf3 tiJxd4 1 2:�c4 .te5 1 3.llJxfS i.xfS oo, 1 1 .i.xf3 liJxd4 1 2.�e3 0.Jxf3+ 1 3 .�xf3 tzJxd5 1 4.'�¥xd5=) 1 1 .. tiJxd4 1 2.tlJxd7 fiJxb3 1 3.axb3 .txg2 1 4.�xg2 as ! 1 5.tiJfS gxfS would have led to an approximately equal end game. .
9 tlJe4 1 O.�e3 •••
Tyomkin suggests 1 0.liJxe4 dxe4 1 1 .dS tiJb4 1 2.lZJd2 and further gives 12 hS 1 3 ..te3 tiJxd5 1 4 .Ad4! � 1 4 . . . f5 1 5.f3 �. In my opinion 12 . fS!1 is better, e.g. 1 3.i.e3 tlJxdS 1 4.tZJxe4 ( 1 4 . .td4? c5) 1 4... lLJxe3 1 S .tZJ.xdS+ �xdS ( l S . . . cxd6!?) 1 6.�xdS cxdS 1 7.fxe3 0-0-0, and Black has no problems. •••
In
Dortmund 1 993 Mainka played 8.i.g5 1? against Breutigam. Black's reply was not the best 8 ... �d7?!, and after 9 ..txfS gxfS 1 0.liJc3 fiJe7 1 1 .�b3 cS 1 2.e4 ! ? i.eS 1 3. exd5 tiJxd5 1 4. tZJxd5 i.xd5 l S.'�We3+ .teS l S.tlJh4 he fell into an unfavourable situation . Grandmaster Tyomkin recommends 8 hS and then 9.i.xf6 "xfS 1 0.liJc3 Axf3 1 1 . .txf3 tiJxd4 1 2 . .txd5 0-0-0, but after 1 3.e3 liJeS 1 4.'fYa4 White's initia tive on the queenside is not to be under estimated. Instead of the exchange on f3, I like 10 ... f2Je71? better, e.g. 1 1 .e4 dxe4 1 2.tzJxe4 �gS 1 3.tlJxd6+ ( 1 3. �a4+ .td7 1 4.tlJxdS+ 'tlf'xdS 1 5.'i!i'b3 'tWbS) 1 3 ...�xdS 1 4.'�'b3 !ibS or 1 1 . 'iWb3 c6! ? ( 1 1 . O-O-O? 1 2.tDxd5 tlJxdS 1 3.'fixd5 i.xg3 1 4:iYa5) 1 2.�xb7 0-0 with ideas l ike 1 3 . . . :fb8 or 1 3 . . . .txf3 followed by 1 4 . . .'6'xd4. -
..•
..
8 ¥§td7 ••.
The queen avoids the threat i.cl -g5 and prepares queenside castling. On 8 ... 0-0?! of course follows 9.i.g5. However, 8 ... hS is worth considering.
9 ..sig5 The complications after 9.'6'b3 0-O-O!1 (9 . . .tlJa5 1 0.'tWbS ! ?�, 9 ....txf3 1 0.Axf3 ti:Jxd4 1 1 .'i!i'xb7 tlJxf3+ 1 2.exf3 0-0 1 3.
.
.
1 0 ...tDxc3 1 1 .bxc3 tiJa5! The knight heads for the weak c4square. 1 2.t1Jd2 0-0 !? Black is willing to exchange his central pawn for W h ite's g-pawn. Another possibility was 1 2 . . . cS, e.g. 1 3 .'8'a4 'fIc7 ( 1 3 . . . bS 1 4. c4! ? i.xe2 1 5 . cxdS i.xf l 1 6.dxcS �c7 1 7.1:xfl �) 1 4.f3 .teS l S.Af2 0-0 l S.e4 f6 oo. 1 3.AxdS Accepting the offer. 1 3 ... .txg3 1 4.i..g2 1 4.Axf7+? ! l:lxf7 1 S.hxg3 ( l S.fxg3? :e7 1 6.AgS lhe2 1 7.tlJf3 1:[ae8+) 1 5 . . . �cS l S.tlJb3 tZJxb3 ( l S ... tiJc4!? 1 7 .d5 'tIJ'e8 1 8.'iYd3 tZJxe3 1 9.fxe3 lle7) 1 7 .axb3 i.h3 1 8.d5 tJle8 1 9.�d3 (1 9.:e l ? 'iWe4 -+) 1 9 . . . i.xfl 20.Wxfl as was not recommendable - White would not have had sufficient compensation for the material deficit. 1 4 ... �d6 1 5.f3 ..teS 1 S . .tf2
1 .d4 d5 2 />f3 tlJcS 3.g3
329
After 22 . . . tlJc4 23.�e2 White would have kept not only a strong pawn centre, but also the bishop pair.
23.�d3 'iWe6 ? 1
The position on the board is rather unusual. The first player is striving to obtain a strong centre with e2-e4. On the other hand, Black has only two pawn islands against three for White, besides the c4-square is weak. More over, after e2-e4 the f4-square would also be weak.
1 6 ...f5 I nteresting is 1 S . . . ClJc4 ! ? , in order to meet 1 7.e4?! with 1 7 . . . .tf4. 1 7.e4 fxe4 1 7 . . . .tf4 !?
W h y does Black allow his opponent to play d4-dS with tempo? After 24 . . . bS 2S.dS cxdS 26JlxfS+ IlxfB 27. �xdS+ (27.exd5 1:If5 2B.:td 1 ClJc4 OQ) 27 . . . �xd5 28.exdS tlJc4 29 . .tf2 l:dS he would have had very good chances to hold the endgame.
25.d5! cxdS 26.exdS 'ifd7 27.l:IxfS+ l:[xfS 28.1:[e1 b5 29.d6 ,*,c6+ 30. 'iYe4 'iYxe4+ 30 .. :�Wxc3 loses in view of 31 .�d5+ Wh8 32.d7 '*'ff6 33.�xbS �f3+ 34 ..�h3 ..�cS 3S.:eS tljdS 3S.'�'d3! �f7 37 . .th4 ! +-. 31 .lbe4 tId8 32.a4! a6 33. axbS axb5 34.:e7 Probably this pOSition cannot be saved anymore. 35 . . . h6 36.J4e5 ±.
36.ilh4 �xd6 37.i.e7+ �g8 3S.i.xd6 l2Jxd6 39.ltc6 l2Je4 40:�13 tlJd2+ 41 . �e2 llJe4 42. �e3 llJf6 43.h3 �7 44.ltc5
20.�h1 c6? ! Again Black does not play 20 . . . tlJc4 ! ?, and probably to his own disadvantage. i..x d2
24.�xg2
34 . . .�S 3S.IIc7 l2Jc4?
1 S.fxe4 i..f4 1 9. ..tg3 i..e 3+?1 1 9 ... bg3 20.hxg3 tZJc40Q looked obvious.
21 . �e2 i.h3
.txg2+
22. '§'xd2 1 :0
Index of Players
330
I ndex of Players Indicated is the game number Standard White, Italics Black =
Adianto AI Modiahki Albano Antal Antoshin Arencibia Atalik Baburin Bacrot Bartels Baumhus Beliavsky Bigaliev Boey Boissonet Botsari Breutigam Bronznik Brynell Bukal Cebalo Chasin, A. Christiansen Chuchelov Cifuentes Compagnie Culp Cvitan Darmogray Dautov Delabie Djurkovic Dlugy Dobos Douven Drzemicki Dunham Ehlvest
17 25 104 88 38 1 7, 4 7 91 19 16 39 64 30, 8 1 79, 86, 1 1 5 2 59 85, 98 48
1 10 76 75 1 08 2 3 8 1 0 1 , 1 03 11 27 68 28 82 21 54 4, 1 2, 1 3, 15 29 42 62 1 04 93
Eljanov, P. 37 Engqvist 32 79 Farago, S. Fedorowicz 59 Fester 27 Filippov 44 Finegold 56 Flear 98 5 Formanek 9 FOster Gagunashvili 84 Gallego 80 Gather 49 9 Gavin Georgiev, Ki. 22 1 Gleizerov 89 Glienke Gligoric 6 7 Goldin Graf 1 09 Grimsey 35 Gunnas 10 Gurevich, D. 50 Hansen, S.B. 71 Hector 107 4 1, 1 1 1 Hertneck Hoang Thanh Tr. 85 Ibanez 47 Ivanov, I . 55 1 05 Ivanov, J . 61 Ivanov, T. 60 Izeta Jeric 65 81 Jussupow Kachiani-Gersinska 92, 99 65 Kahn, E. Kaminski 45, 90 20 Kask
=
Khmelnitsky 50 43 Khudiakov 67 Kiselev 57 Klinger 96 Kniest Kobalia 52 Komljenovic 46 Korotylev 83 Kovacevic, B. 69 28 Krantz Ku raj ica 75 Kutuzovic 108 21 Leeuwen Legky 61 58 Leitao Lejlic 77 Levin 45, 68 Liebau 96 78 Ljubojevic 1 13 Loginov Lorenz 1 12 Lputian 36 Lukacs 39 76 Machelett Magerramov 25 Maksimenko 77 40, 62 Masternak Mastrovasilis 63 51 Matveeva Mayo Martinez80 Meins 18 Mertanen 93 1 9, 51, 82, Miladinovic 87, 9 1, 95, 97, 1 0 1 44, 46 Miles 73 MiJov, V. 14 Minasian Moreno Carnero 1 05
33 1
Index of Players
Morozevich
Myc Newton Nielsen, J. Novikov Osterman Packroff Panchenko Parkov Peek Philipp, H. Piket Polzin Powell Rabiega Radeker Radjabov Radulov Razuvaev Rogozenko
1, 3, 4, 12, 1 3, 22, 23, 26, 30, 1 02 74 1 06 11 56 42 66 43 14 73 66 23, 31, 57 35 18, 89, 1 0, 20, 34 88 1 12 114 1 02
7, 1 5, 24, 78,
70 1 09 33,
Sadler Schandorff Scheffner Schlusnik Schoof Schussler Schweiger Sepman Shipov Shirov Shtyrenkov Sibilio Skembris Smyslov Sokolov, I . Sosonko Souleidis Stohl Susterman Szabo, Z. Tait Tassopoulos Tichonov Tishin Tratar
32 71 64 86 110 1 07 60 37, 1 00 94 26 74 36 63, 72, 1 14 6 53 31 84 111 92 29 1 06 94 52 83 54
Tukmakov 69, 72 Tyomkin 87 Tyrtania 48 Urban 90 Urday 41 Vallejo Pons 1 03 van der Sterren 70 van Houtte 8 van Wely 24, 95 16 VCHESS2 Vera 5 Verdier 49 Vescovi 58 Voiculescu 38 Walter, G. 67 Watson, J. 55 Welin 33 Wells 1 13 W iebe 97 97 W isnewski W ittmann , W. 34 Ye Rongguang53 Zajaczkowski 40 Zakharevich 1 00 Zakharevich 1 1 5
Bibliography
332
Bibl iography Books and a rticles M. Breutigam: Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung (CD), ChessBase, Hamburg 2000 V. Bronznik: Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung, Schachverlag Kania, Schwieberdingen 2001
A. Dunnington : The Chigorin Queen's Gambit, Batsford, London 1 996 V.Gagarin (Hrsg.): Secrets from Russia, Olbrich , Warzburg 1 993 Keilhack/Schlenker, gen 1 995
1 . . . 1Dc6!
aus allen Lagen, Schachverlag Kania, Schwieberdin
A. Marti n : 1M Andrew Martin's Ideas Page, article in Chess Monthly S/1 996 P.Motwani : S.T.A.A. Chess, Gambit Ltd. , London 1 998 K.Sakaev/S.Semkov: The Queen's Gambit Accepted, Chess Stars, Sofia 2003 E.Schiller: How to play the Chigorin Defence in the Queen's Gambit Declined, Chess Enterprises, CoraopOlis 1 99 1 J.Watson : Queen's Gambit: Chigorin Defence, Batstord, London 1 98 1 J .Watson : Secrets o f Modern Chess Strategy, Gambit Ltd., London 1 998 J.Watson : Chigorin Defense: Theory and Practice - article series in Inside Chess, Seattle 1 998 C.Wisnewski: Die Tschigorin-Verteidigung, self-published CD 2003
Periodicals New in Chess Magazine New in Chess Yearbook 1 -74 Chess Informant 1 -92
Databases Chess Base : Megadatabase 2005 ChessBase: Corr Database 2003 T. Harding: Megacorr 3 Millenium : Millenium 2000 lW lC up to # 548 (May 9nd 2005) Online database from the Internet Chess Club (ICC) Further private game collections of B.Aadeker and J.Tait
Index of Variations
333
Index of Variations Bold print irdicates a key Move, deviatklg Irom Pf8Vious iioes
Chapter 1 1 .d4 d5 2.04 1 .d4 d5 2 0 4 l .d4 d 5 2.04 1 .d4 d5 2.04 .
Chapter 2
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 f2d 3.t.2c3 dxc4 4.83
�� '106 3/>'1C3 e5
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ......•.•.....•.. . . . . . . . . . . .
9
9 10 . 14 .. 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t� c6 3.t�)C3 dxc4 4.e3 e5 S.t.; ',13 e xd4 6.exd4 t� 106 3.C;:'·c3 dxc4 4.e3 e5 S.dS �Ja5 . t� ae6 3" � 'lC3 dxc4 4.e3 e5 S.d5 t�'tCe1 . .
.............
.
....
.
...
.
.. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .
. . . . . .. .. .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �; IC6 3.'� ""c3 dxc4 4.d5 . .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 1 ,d4 d5 2.c4 i .d4 d5 2.c4
. .. .
.
..
...
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..........
. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .
. ... . .. . ..
.
.. .
...
.
.
.
. .. .. . ..
.
.
..
. .
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 .
.
. . .
.
.
.
:�:�&C6 3f:jc3 dxc4 4.d5 i� 5.84 (5 . ..tf4. S . .tg5) . . . " " " ",, ........ ,., ... , . 21 :'.� 3/:Jc3 dxC4 4 .dS i�5 !5.1ffa4+ c6 6.b4 . ... . . . """"""",, ......... 23 f2c6 3JL.c3 dxC4 4 .dS �� 5.,af4 (5.tL13. 5.e4) S.j�6 6,..tg3 .. 25 tlJc6 3.t2:Jc3 dxc4 4 .dS i2:,a5 5.lfd4 t�6 . . . . . . . . . . " ."""."""""" ........ 29 tlJc6 3.tZJc3 dxC4 4 .dS !.2e5 5.lfd4 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " ."""""",, ......... 32 i .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3,tlJc3 dxc4 4 .dS �2,eS 5.14 �i.Jg4 (S . /296) 6.M e5 7.�� . . " . . . . . 34 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.tlJc3 dxc4 4 .d5 tieS 5 .f4 � 6.94 a5 7.15 h5 8.Jc..e2 " " " " .... 36 i .d4 d5 2.c4 I� 3/iJc3 dxc4 4 .d5 tlJeS 5.f4 LL'94 6.e4 a5 7.fS hS 8)�f3 (8/�) 38 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 I� 3J�3 dxc4 4 .d5 :�S 5.f4 tDg4 6.e4 a5 7.�e2 . . . . . . . . . . 40 ' .d4 d 5 2.c4 i� 3/�3 dxc4 4 .d5 <�� 5 5.f4 C.ug4 6.h3 IJ�f6 7.94 . . . . . . .. 4 1 1 .d4 d S 2.C4 i.;:,.cs 3 JiJc3 dxC4 4 .d5 tLJe S 5.14 1�L:41 6:�¥a4 . . . . . 43 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 � 3 JL:c3 dxc4 4.d5 tOe5 5.14 tlJd7 6.e4 tlJb6 7 .txc4 , . . . . " . . 4S 1 .d4 d5 2,c4 ii:c6 3 . i'LJc3 dxc4 4 d 5 Cl:Je5 5.�4 tlJd7 6.e4 Cl:Jb6 7.a4 (7, i.e3) . . . . 47 .
.
.
.
...
.
".,,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
. . . .
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
. .
.
". . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . " " " , ,
•
..
. .
..
.
Chapter 3
.
...
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.CZJc3 dxc4 4.CZJf3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . ...
..
.
.
.
.
.
. ....... 50 .
1 .d4 d5 2.04 f:Jc6 3.tZJc3 dxc4 4.tZJt3 .tg4 _ ._._ . 5 1 1 .d4 d5 2.04 0 '106 3 . 0c3 dxc4 4.tlJt3 Cl:Jf6 5.d5 ( S .tg5) 5.�Ca5 6.841 ........ 53 1 .d4 cIS 2.04 CLlC6 3P'C3 dxc4 4 tlJt3 Cl:J!6 5-d5 tlJa5 6:t'7'a4+ 06 7.b4 .......... ___ . 55 1 .d4 d5 2.04 0" 106 3.t.:.,''JC3, dxc4 4_tZ::lf3 Cl:Jf6 5.84 .tg4 6.d5 ____ 58 1 .d4 d5 2.04 0 '10 6 3.{ ''C3 dxc4 4_0:Jf3 Cl:Jf6 5.e4 i.g4 6."te3 .bf3 (6 . e5) 7-QXf3 e5 62 1 .d 4 dS 2.c4 0"106 3.� dxc4 4.tZ::lt3 tZ::lt 6 S.e4 -".g4 6 .te3 e6 7. bc4 �b4 8.'ffc2 . . .. . ... .... . 67 8 0-0 (8 ... Jtxf3) 9J:td1 'iWe7 10.Ae2 . 8.-.0-0 9.l:.ci1 'f!:Ve7 1 0.Ab5 . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . .. . . . 72 8 0-0 9.l:.d1 {:" "/il7 1 0.�e2 :i.xc3+ . . . .. . . . . . . . . 74 8 . 0-0 9.l:.d1 .Jixf3 1 0.gxf3 0:Jh.5 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . 76 8 . 0·0 9.0.Q.0 .it.xc3 1 0.bxc3 �e7 . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 79 8 . . �e 7 9.0"'()·0 (9J:rd1 , 9.�b5) 83 1 d4 d5 2.04 t! rC6 3.C'C3 dxc4 4 ltJf3 0:Jf6 5.e4 ig4 6 .i.e3 e6 7 . .:txc4 .i.b4 8.'tYd3 84 1 _d4 d5 2.04 $; ae6 3.0 ''C3 dxc4 4.tlJf3 0:Jf6 5.e3 e5 . . . . . . . . . . 87 1 .d4 05 2 4 t� IC6 3.ciX:3 dxc4 4.tlJf3 0:Jt6 5.'3'a4 e6 (5 .i.g4) . . . . . . 91 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 t� te6 3.[. 'c3 dxc4 4.tlJf3 0:Jf6 5.'i:Va4 tlJdS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tt.iC6 3.tZ:Jc3 dxc4 4 . tlJf3 as!? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 •.•. ..•.•.•_._._. ..... . . . . .
.. ..
. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
..
•.• _
- - - -..
.
. . . ..
..
.
•.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_._.
._._.
. .
.
•..
. .. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.. . .
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
. . .. . . .. . .
.
..
...... ....
.
. ..
...
..
. .. . . . .
.. . . . .
..
.....
.
..
..
..
...
.
.. ..
.
.
. . . . ..
.. ..
. . . .. .
...
.
...
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
. .
.. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.. ..
...
. . . . . .
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ....
.
.
.
.
.. .
.
.
.
...
.
.. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
•.. .. - . - . _ . _ . _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ . - . . . . . . . ................... _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _
.
_
.
.
.. .
.. .. .. ..
.0
.
.
.
. .
.
...
.
..
....
.. ..
..
..
..
...
..
.. ..
..
.
.
. . .. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....... .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.. ....
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . .. .
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
. .
Index of Variations
334 Chapter 4
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tiJc6 3.tiJc3 ti)f6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 04 .
.
..
. .
..
.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.tZJc3 tiJf6 4.tiJf3 (4.e3) 4 Ag4 (4 ...dxc4 Q Chapter 3) S.cxdS . 1 OS 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tZJcS 3.tlJc3 li:Jf6 4.cxdS �dS S.e4 lLlxc3 6.bxc3 eS 7.dS ·�Ub8 8/·; '1f3 1 07 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 li:JcS 3.llJc3 tiJf6 4.cxdS lLlxdS S.e4 t2:Jxc3 6.bxc3 eS 7.dS t2Jb8 8.f4 .. 1 09 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t2:Jc6 3.tZJc3 tZ:JfS 4.cxdS tiJxdS S.e4 t2:Jxc3 S.bxc3 eS 7.tZ:Jf3 exd4 . . . . 1 1 1 1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tZJcS 3.tZJc3 tiJfS 4.cxd5 tZJxd5 S.tiJf3 eS (S ... .tg4 Q p . l OS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJcs 3.tlJc3 tZ:JfS 4 .tgS li:Je4 (4 . . . dxc4) . . . ........................ . ................. 1 1 S •••
.
.
•
Chapter 5
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ti)c6 3.0)f3 �g4 4.cxd5 .txf3 5.gxf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 .
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:JcS 3.tiJf3 Ag4 4.cxdS (4.tiJeS) 4 . .. ,txf3 S.gxf3 (S.exf3) S .. :iVxdS 6.e3 6 eS 7/iJc3 .tb4 8 .td2 �xc3 9.bxc3 't'fd6 (9 .. exd4) 1 0.:b1 (1 0.�g2) 0-0-0 1 24 S ... e5 7.tlJc3 .tb4 8.Ad2 Ji.xc3 9 .bxc3 �dS 1 0 .:tbl b6 ( 1 0 ... :tb8) 1 1 .f4 . . . . . . 1 28 S ... eS 7.tZ:Jc3 .tb4 8 .i.d2 Ji.xc3 9.bxc3 'i'!¥d6 1 0.:tbl bS 1 1 JIg 1 . . . .... 1 30 6 ... e6 7.�3 � hS 8.f4 (8 . .tg2, 8.i.e2) �xd l + 9.�xd1 0-0-0 1 0.Ji.g2 lLlce71 33 6 ... e6 7.tlJc3 �hS B .td2 0-0-0 9.f4 't!;'xd l + 1 0.:xd l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 40 .••
•
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
. .
....
•
Chapter 6
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJc6 3.CtJf3 i..g4 4.cxdS .bt3 S.dxc6 bc6 6.� 1 42
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tlJcS 3.tZ:Jf3 i..g 4 4.cxdS .txf3 S.dxc6 .txcS S.llJc3 tlJf6 7.f3 e5 . . . . . . . . 1 43 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 � 3.tZJf3 .tg4 4.cxd5 .txf3 5.dxc6 i.xc6 6.� e6 7.e4 .tb4 8.f3 't'fll4+ 1 47 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tlJcs 3.tZJf3 i.g4 4.cxd5 .txf3 5.dxcS i.xc6 6.tlJc3 eS 7.e4 .tb4 8.f3 f5 1 54
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ti)c6 3.0)f3 Ag4 4.ti)c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l S7 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:Jc6 3.ClJf3 ,tg4 4.tlJc3 e6 (4 . . . dxc4 Q p. Sl , 4 . . . ClJfS q p.l OS) S.cxdS (S.,tgS, S . .tf4 Q see also Chapter 15) S ... exdS .... .... .. . . . l S0 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tDc6 3.li:Jf3 Ag4 4.t2:Jc3 a6 S.e3 .......... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l S2 Chapter 7
.
. .
..
Chapter 8
.
. .
.......
.
.
....
.
..
.
.
.......
.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CtJc6 3.ti)f3 i.g4 4.e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 69 � p . 1 97) . . . .............. 1 70 .
.
.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJcS 3 .tiJf3 Ag4 4.e3 eS S:iVb3 (5.cxd5 �xdS Chapter 9
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 ti)c6 3.tlJf3 .tg4 4.V!'a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 74 . . .. 1 75 . . . . . . . 1 77 .
.
.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 li:JcS 3.tDf3 Ag4 4.'iYa4 Axf3 (4 . . J��fS. 4 . . . dxc4) 5.exf3 ... 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 llJcS 3.tZ:Jf3 iLg4 4. 'iVa4 Axf3 S.gxf3 ... . .. . . . . . . ........ ..
.
......
.
.....
.
....
.......
.
.
.
...
Chapter 1 0 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CtJc6 3.ti)f3 eS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 1 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJcS 3 .liJf3 e5 4.tZJxe5 1 82 1 .d4 d5 2 .c4 liJc6 3.lLlf3 e5 4.dxe5 .tb4+ 5 .td2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 83 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 lLlcS 3.tDf3 e5 4.dxe5 Ab4+ 5.tZJbd2 dxc4 6.a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 89 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZ:Jc6 3 .tiJf3 eS 4.dxe5 Ab4+ 5.t;Jbd2 dxc4 6.'!'!Yc2 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 93 .
.
.
.
...................................................................... •
.
Chapter 1 1
.
.......
....
..
..
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 ttJc6 3.cxdS 'tiYxd5 4.tlJf3 e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 95 .
.
. .
.
.
1 .d4 dS 2.c4 llJc6 3 .cxd5 �xdS 4.ti:Jf3 eS S.dxeS . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . 1 95 1 .d4 dS 2 .c4 tZ:Jc6 3.cxdS 't!VxdS 4.tiJf3 e5 S.tLlc3 .ab4 6.e3 exd4 7.exd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 97 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 tLcs 3.cxdS 'ii'xd5 4.tiJf3 eS S.� .ib4 6.Ad2 .bc3 7 .bc3 e4 8.ti�S200 1 .d4 dS 2.c4 t;Jcs 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.tlJf3 e5 S.llJc3 .tb4 6.1i-d2 Axc3 7.Axc3 e4 8.tiJd2 202 .
.
.
....
.
.
....
.
.
.
..
..
..
.......
.
Chapter 1 2 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 tZJc6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.C2:Jc3 i.b4 6 . .td2 .iLxc3 7.bxc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 1Dcs 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5.tZJc3 J.:.b4 S.i.d2 ..txc3 7.bxc3 .
.
.
Index of Variations
335
7 exd4 7 �d6 8 .i.d3 15 7 . "�'ct6 8-j.d3 !�t6 7 . . �ct6 8-�d3 t�7 7 . .t'*'d6 8.tije2 7+ 016 8)2:.lf3 (8- �b3) 8.- .tg4 7 . 0.f6 8.04 '8'd6 9.dS �7 10.�b1 7 /:':16 8.c4 �d6 9-dS tiJe7 10.'i'a4+ (1 0 �b3) 7 i:.16 8.c4 �d6 9-dS �L!b8 7 .ii.:-.f6 8 f3 0-0 9.e4 'iYd6 1 0 d5 7 /':: �f6 8.13 ORO 9.94 '�d6 10.i.e3 ( 1 0J·�t,e2) 7 . /Z:�f6 8.13 e4 9.f4 (9,�) 7 /.£:.16 8.13 e4 9.c4 '6'd8 7 /iJf6 8.13 e4 9.c4 '!'7d6, . 7 . /,2Qe7 . . +.+
- . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . -. - . - . -. - . - . - • . , .• •
....
_. _• . • _. _•
.- . - . - , - . . . - . - . - . - . - , - , - , - , - , - . - , . , _ , _ , _.
.
_ . _ . _ . _._. _ . _._. _ + _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .
._. _ . _ . _._. _ +_,
.
.. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .
. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ + _ + _ . _ + _ . _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ , _.
.
..
-, -+-,
.
_,
_.
_,
_.
+ -,
. , ._+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+ . + . + _ +_ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ . _ . _
_. _, _. _.
_. _.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ + _ . _ + _ + _ . _ + _ + _ + _ , _ •
. . . . . . . . _ . . , .. _ .
.. .. .. ._ . _
_, _, _, _, _, _, _,
_. _. _. _. _. _ • • _
- + - , - , _, _ , _ . . . _,
. .
. • • • •• •. •. • . •. •. •.+.+-+-+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_,
_,
_+_, . . . . _ , _ .
-,
_.
_.
• . • _ • . • _ . _ ._+_+_ ._ ._+_+_,
•
_ , _ , _
. _ . _ . _ . _ ._+_+_+_+_+_+_._, _
- . -. - - . - -- - - . - . - . - . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ + _ + _ + _ + _ + _ , _. _
., . . . . _. _. __ ____ ._ ._._
• . •_ . _
._ ._._+_+_._._+_ . _
'
..
_
. . .
_ . _ , .. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ + _ . _ + _ + _ . _ + _
_ + _ + _ . _ + _ + _ . _ + _ . _ + _ + _ . _ . _ + _ + . + . , . . . . _ , _, _, _ , _ . _. _ . _ _ _ _ _
..
.
.
-.-.-.-.-._._._._._._. _, _, _._, .. _ , _ , _ , _ , . . _ . _ , _ ,
..
. . . . . . . . . . •_._._._._
_._._._. ., _, _, _ , _ , _ , _ , _ , _ . . . _ . _
.
. • . • . • . • . •_._._._._
. . . . . . . . . . .•_._._._
. - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ , _ . _ , _ . _ . _ . _ , _ , _ . _ , .. _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _
..
. . . . . . .- . -
..
. . ..
. ..
..
. ..
. .. . .
. . . . . . .- . _ . _ . _ . _ ._ ._ ._._ ._ ._....._._._._•.. -
. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ._ ._ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . • _ . _ . _ .. .
1 .d4 dS 2 c4 1��LC6 3.cxdS lfxdS 4.e3 a5 S.ti:c3 .tb4 6.a3.-.-.-.-._
•. ,
209 21 1 21 6 222 225 228
234 237 239 246 248
. 251 ... -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .... 253 257
. . .- .- . - . - ._ ._._._._._..._._._....._..._._._... . . . . . , _ . .
. . . . . . .-
207
.
..
. .. ......
.
. . . . . . . . . .
..
.
-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ ._
258
Chapter 1 3 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 �6 3.cxd5 �xd5 4.e3 e5 5/i�3 Ab4 6. St.d2 jt,x� 7 .il:.xc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
.
..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
.
.
.. ..
, . , . , . , . . . . . . . . ................ 260
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 C;-"c6 3 cxd5 'ffxd5 4.e3 a5 5.lDc3 j:,b4 6.i..d 2 Axc3 7 . .txc3 exd4 8/2182 B ..tg4 (8 �h3) 9 3 .ae6 (9 0-0·0 1 0,i'�- '.xd4 �jf6) 1 0/�:.xd4 . . . . . . . . 264 8 .Jtg4 9.13 �xf3 1 0.gxf3 'ffxf3 1 1 .ti'J{d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 8 . ..tg4 9.f3 �xf3 1 0 .g xf3 �xt3 1 1 .bd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 8 /1316 (8 . J1 ·ge7) 9.1� \Xd4 0..0 1 0.t� ·b5 'tl¥g5 1 1 .,1···'.x c7 �g4 1 2. 't'ib3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 8 .J; "J6 9.0'..xd4 0-0 1 0." 'b5 1ffg 5 1 1 .h4 �·g6 1 2.h5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 8 0 J6 9.0 ....xd4 {}() t o.C·bS �g5 1 1 .h4 �·g6 1 2.t1Jxc7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 8 ..t� !t6 9.C'.xd4 0-0 1 0.t2'b5 1ffg5 1 1 .h4 �h6 1 2.Jt.e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 8 J� :!6 9J; '.xd4 0-0 1 0-,� 'b5 1ffg5 1 1 .h4 �h 6 1 2. 'm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 . . 292 8 tt'lf6 9.0 ···.xd4 0-0 1 0_t;; 'b5 �g5 1 1 .h4 �h6 1 2.f;; · .xc:=7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.•.
. . .
..
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .. .
. .
.
.•
. . .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
. .. . . .. . . ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Chapter 1 4 1 .d4 d5 2.c4 CtCS 3.e3 e5 4.dxe5
_...
.. ..
.
.
.
. .
. ..
..
.
.
. . .
.
.
. . ...
.
.
.
. . . .
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . .
.
. .
.
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 297 .
.
.
. .
.
. .
.
.
.
1 .d4 d5 2.c4 0 c6 3.e3 eS 4.dxe5 (4.cxd5 �xd5 � Chapter 1 211 3) 4 d4 (4 . i.b4+) 298 .. .
..
Chapter 1 5 1 .d4 d5 2.�f3 "'; \06 3 .af4 (3. �g5 t 3.e3) 3� .i.g4 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 •
•
.
1 .d4 dS 2.�f3 �c6 3.i.f4 .ig4 4+e3 e6 5.04 it..b4+ 6.11JC3 (� 1 .d4 cIS 2.c4 tLJ.c6 3.ti"Jf3 .ig4 4/� 86 5.id4 Ab4 6.93) 6 . cz')ge1 1 .d4 r.ijC6 2.t�3 d5 3 . .tf4 .ig4 4.e3 as 5-c4 .tb4+ 6A:cl tiJf6 1 .d4 d5 2.tt1.f3 CL.'C6 3.$.f4 i.g4 4 e3 e6 5AJbd2
.-+-+-+-+-+_+_+_. _ , _ •
...
+-+-._._._._._ ,
.
.
_
_
_
d5 2.d4 {� 3 g 3 Cz::d) 2.d4 d5 3 g 3 d5 2.g3 � 3.d4 d5 2.d4 � 3-93 .
.
. , .•.
_ . _ . _ . _ . . ._ ._ . . ._ ._ ._ ._ ._+_._._._._._._, .,
Chapter 1 6 1 .d4 d5 2.ciJf3 ti.Jc6 3.g3 . 1 _o1Jf3 1 '!Jf3 1 8f3 1 '!Jf3
.•.•.•._
.
..
. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
..
._ . _ .
_ . _ ._ ._ .
305 308
......... 3 1 4
.. .. .. .- .- . _ ._._._._._, ., . , . , . , . , .
31 7
Af5 4 .tg2 e6 (4 .c:. ·,b4) . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . 3 1 7 .tg4 4 .11.g2 tl'd7 5.0-0 (5.h3) . . . . . .... ....... . 3 1 9 j.g4 4 . .tg2 '�'d7 5.c4 . . . . . _ . _. .. . . . . . . . . . 322 li.. g 4 4.Ag2 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 •
••
.
. .. . . ..
•
. .. . .
.
.. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .. .
.
.
..
.. ..
. .
.
. ..
.
.
.
.
. ..
..
.
. ..
.
. ..
.
.
.
. .
.
. . .
. .. .. .. ..
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
.
.
. .
. . . . . .
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.. .
. ..
.. .
