A Practical White Repertoire With 1.d4 And 2.c4 V.2

� ·s

Clles

eva

n

Technical Editor:

IM Sergei Soloviov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Cover design by:

Kalojan Nachev

Copyright ©Alexei Kornev 2013

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 95-1

Alexei Kornev

A Practical White Repertoire with l.d4 and 2.c4 Volume 2: The King's Fianchetto Defences

Chess Stars

Bibliography Books

The Safest Grunfeld A Complete Repertoire for black by Delchev and Agrest, Chess Stars 2011 The Modern Philidor Defence by Barsky, Chess Stars 2010 The King's Indian A Complete Black Repertoire by Bologan, Chess Stars 2009 Opening for White According to Anand l.e4, val. 4 by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2005 Playing l.d4. The Indian Defences by Schandorff, Quality Chess 2012 A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Watson, Gambit 2012 The Grunfeld Defense volume two by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011 l.d4 volume 2 by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011 Revolution in the 70's by Kasparov, Everyman Chess 2007 King's Indian Defense: Averbakh variation by Petursson, Cadogan 1996 King's Indian Defence by Geller, Moscow 1980

Electronic/Periodicals 64-Chess Review (Moscow) Chess Informant New in chess Yearbook Correspondence Database 2013 Mega Database 2013

4

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 1. The Gruenfeld Defence

l.d4 tt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 dS 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 tt:Jxc3 6.bc .ig7 7.tt:lf3 1 2 3 4

7 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7... c5 8 ..ie3 tt:lc6; 8 ... 0-0; 8 ...�g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7 . . . c5 8 . .ie3 �a5 9.�d2 w/o 9 . . . 0-0 . 35 7 . . . c5 8.�e3 �aS 9.�d2 0-0 . 53 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 2. The King's Indian Defence l.d4 tt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 .ig7 4.e4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

4 . . . 0-0 . . 76 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 tt:Jc6; 5 . . . c5; 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:lc6; 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:la6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 cS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 3. The Modern Defence l.d4 g6 2 .c4 12 13

2 ... d6; 2 ....ig7 3.e4 w/o 3 ... d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 2 ... .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tt:lc3 eS; 4 ... tt:Jc6; 4 ... tt:ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Part 4. The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2.e4 tt:Jf6 3.tt:lc3 g6 4 . .ie3 14 15 16

4 . . . a6 200 4 . . . .ig7 .. 206 4 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

5

Part 5. Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2 .e4 l2Jf6 3.l2Jc3

17 18 19

The Modem Philidor. 3 ... e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 The Lion Defence. 3 . . . l2Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 The Czech Defence. 3 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index of Variations

6

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

284

PREFACE The first volume has been published not so long ago and I would like to present to the readers the second volume of out three-volume work, devoted to the building of a practical repertoire for White after the move l.d2-d4. In the first volume, we have analysed the openings for White af­ ter Black's classical response - l.. .d7-d5. In the second volume, we deal with systems for Black connected with fianchettoing of his dark­ squared bishop. These openings are very complicated and as a rule, there arises after them a complex multi-pieces middle game in which White must know thoroughly numerous typical resources. In this book, we pay most attention to the Gruenfeld Defence (part 1) and to the King's Indian Defence (part 2). In the process of choosing systems against these opening, the author has emphasized on the prin­ ciple of reliability. Against the Gruenfeld Defence, we analyse the Mod­ ern Exchange variation with i.e3 and �d2 , in which there often arises a transfer into an endgame, slightly preferable for White. Against the King's Indian Defence, our main opening weapon is the Averbakh sys­ tem, which has been thoroughly analysed. Black can hardly begin there any active actions on the kingside. It is also worth mentioning that is reply to the move l . . .d6 (parts 3 and 4 of the book), we analyse 2 .e4, therefore this book will be use­ ful also to the readers who like beginning their games with the move l.e2-e4. In our third and last volume, which will be published at the begin­ ning of the year 2014, we will analyse thoroughly the Budapest Gambit, the Benko Gambit, the Benoni Defence, the Dutch Defence and some rarely played lines for Black on moves 1 and 2 as well as one of the most popular defences for him against White's move one with his queen's pawn - the Nimzowitsch Defence. The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Margarita Schepetkova and Ekaterina Smirnova for their invaluable help in the creation of this book.

Alexei Kornev 7

Part l The Gruenfeld Defence l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5

After this move there arises the Gruenfeld Defence. It was in­ troduced to the tournament prac­ tice by the Austrian grandmaster E.Gruenfeld back in the year 192 2 . I t was a revolutionary opening at the time. Instead of occupying the centre with his pawns, Black presents it completely to his op­ ponent. Still, after a while, it turned out that White's task was not simple at all. Yes, he can oc­ cupy the centre with his pawns without any problem, but then Black's pieces exert powerful pressure against it (ig7, cS, lt:Jc6 and eventually !g4). A single im­ precision by White may lead not only to the loss of the opening ad­ vantage, but Black may seize the 8

initiative altogether. The Gruenfeld Defence was in­ cluded in the repertoire of many world champions. M.M.Botvinnik contributed greatly to the devel­ opment of its theory and he not only played it in the most impor­ tant games, including the match­ es for the world championship, but in 1979 he, together with Y. Estrin, wrote a book devoted to this opening. We must also mention that the Gruenfeld Defence was played by R.Fischer and G.Kaspa­ rov. The contribution of Kasparov should be particularly empha­ sized, because he played it for many years and not only in tour­ nament games, but also in his nu­ merous match-games against A. Karpov. Presently, during the comput­ er era in chess, the Gruenfeld De­ fence has become a part of the opening repertoire of many play­ ers and this is not surprising at all. The centre is usually opened and the game is almost forced, so all this can be analysed extensive­ ly and very precisely by comput­ ers.

Among the contemporary grandmasters we should mention P.Svidler who was champion of Russia many times and used this opening during his entire chess career as well as M.Carlsen. It is also worth noting that in the last world championship match be­ tween V.Anand and B.Gelfand, the last one chose the Gruenfeld Defence as his main opening weapon against l.d4 and Anand was so unsuccessful in this opening with White that at the end of the match he began to play l.e4. As a main opening weapon for White, we will analyse a line in

which after the exchange on dS, White at first occupies the centre with e2-e4 and then fortifies his d4-pawn with the moves lt:\f3 and ie3 . In the first and second chap­ ters, we will analyse variations, which are not so popular in the contemporary tournament prac­ tice. The third chapter will be de­ voted to the variation with 8 . . 1M/aS, which is considered to be the best for Black by the modern the­ ory. In this chapter we will see all the responses for him with the ex­ ception of 9 . . . 0-0. This move will be analysed in Chapter 4. .

9

Chapter 1

l.d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lL!c3 d5 4.cxd5

This is the most logical move for White. He exchanges on dS and forces the enemy knight to occupy this square in order to at­ tack it with the move e2-e4, occu­ pying the centre with his pawns.

4

•••

c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3

Naturally, it is better for Black to exchange the knight; other­ wise, he will lose a tempo to re­ treat is away from the centre. . Still, sometimes h e plays 5 . . . tt:lb6? ! too. The best for White would be to play immediately 6.h3 ! This move prepares tt:lf3 and prevents .ig4. 6 . . . .ig7 7.tt:lf3 0-0 8 . .ie3 c6 (It is not preferable for Black to advance his flank pawns: 8 ... a5 9 ..ie2 a4 10.0-0 a3 ll.bxa3 10

E:xa3 12.'?t/c1 E:aS 13.E:d1 c6 14 . .ih6 .ixh6 15.\WxhM and in the game T.Petrosian - Smyslov, Gagra 1953, White maintained a slight edge due to his powerful pawn­ centre. After the trade of the dark­ squared bishops, he will have chances of attacking on the king­ side. The potential weakness of the a2-pawn cannot be sufficient compensation for Black.) 9 . .ie2 .ie6. Black is preparing the ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops. 10.0-0 .ic4 ll.E:cl tt:l8d7 12.a4 aS 13.b3 he2 14.\Wxe2 e6 15.E:fd1 E:c8 16.-igS 1We8 17.e5± and in the game A.Petrosian Taimanov, Tallinn 1980, White obtained a great advantage. Black is practically helpless against the manoeuvre tt:lc3-e4-d6. These two examples are quite sufficient to understand the main defect of the move 5 . . . tt:lb6, since after it Black is incapable of exerting pressure against his opponent's pawns on d4 and e4. White completes ef­ fortlessly his development and maintains an advantage in the middle game thanks to his power­ ful pawn-centre.

2.c4 g6 3. lD c3 d5 4.cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. ltJ.f3 0 - 0 B. i.e2 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.0,£3 This natural move (What can be more natural than developing the knight to f3 in the opening . . . ?) did not become so popular imme­ diately. It remained in the shadow of the plan with .ic4, ltJe2, be­ cause it was considered that it was not good for White to allow the pin of his knight after .ig4. Later however, it became clear that the pin was not so dangerous for White after all and the move 7. ltJf3 began to be played more and more often in tournaments and became popular.

7 ... 0-0?! This natural move is definitely imprecise, because it enables White to obtain an advantage ef­ fortlessly.

must exert pressure against White's pawn on d4 as quickly as possible. 8 . .ib5 + . This resource is well familiar from some other openings. White forces the move c7-c6, so that Black's bishop on b7 does not exert pressure against the e4-pawn. 8 . . . c6 9 . .ic4 0-0 10.0-0 .ia6 ll.ha6 ltJxa6 12 .'1Wa4 '1Wc8 13 . .ig5 ;1;. White has a slight edge thanks to his pawn-domi­ nance in the centre. In addition, Black's pieces are a bit cramped. He obviously lacks space. Later, in the game Kasparov - Pribyl, Skara 1980, White obtained a very promising position with a pawn-sacrifice. 13 . . . '1Wb7 14J''!:fe1 e6 15.E:ab1 cS 16.d5 ! hc3 17. l"i:e d1 exd5 18.exd5 ig7 19.d6 !� Despite the missing pawn, White had very powerful initiative. G.Kasparov demonstrated in this game one of the main ideas in this variation. White should ignore the possible material sacrifices and advance his d-pawn as quickly as possible in order to squeeze the enemy pieces.

8 . .ie 2 !

The strongest move for Black - 7... c5! will be analysed in Chap­ ters 2-4. It is also worth mentioning the possibility 7 . . . b6? ! White should not be afraid of it, because it is not in the spirit of the main idea of the Gruenfeld Defence. Black 11

Chapter 1 This is the point. White ex­ ploits Black's imprecision and completes immediately the devel­ opment of his kingside. Later, the readers will see that in response to 7 . . . c5, we will ana­ lyse 8.�e3. Now, after 7 . . . 0-0, White does not need this move at the moment.

As a rule, there do not arise original positions following 8 . . . b6 9.0-0 ib7 (9 . . . liJc6 10.ie3 - see 8 . . . liJc6; 9 . . . c5 lO .i.gS - see varia­ tion B) 10.Wfd3

8 . . . c5 Black's main idea is to create pressure against his opponent's centre. He plays only seldom 8 .. .lt:lc6 9.0-0 b6 (following 9 . . . e5 10.d5 liJe7 ll.ia3±, White has more space and his bishop exerts pow­ erful pressure on the a3-f8 diago­ nal, Leon Oquendo - Calzadilla de Ia Cruz, Camaguey 2010) 10. �e3 eS. Undermining the centre with the e-pawn is not so effective for Black as the same with the c­ pawn. ll.:Bc1 Wfe7 12.Wfa4 �b7 13.:Bfd1 h6 (He cannot win a pawn, because after 13 . . . exd4 14. cxd4 Wfxe4?, White has the re­ source 15. liJg5 Wfe7 16.:Bxc6± and in the middle game his two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawn.) 14.d5 liJd8 15. Wfb4 Wff6 16.a4 �c8, J. Graf - Marinkovic, Germany 1991, 17.c4t - There has arisen a position of the King's Indian type and it is more favourable for White, since he has a clear-cut plan for queenside actions: a4-a5 or c4-c5. 12

About 10 . . . c5 ll.i.gS - see var­ iation B. 10 . . .Wfd7 1l.�g5 liJc6 12.Wfe3 see 10 . . . liJc6. Following 10 ... liJd7 ll.i.gS :Be8, Bravo - Le Quang, Istanbul 2012, White can maintain a slight edge after the typical pawn-ad­ vance for similar positions - 12. eS! ?t. Now, Black's bishop on g7 and his knight on d7 are severely restricted in their movements. It is worth mentioning this resource works only when Black's knight has been developed to d7; other­ wise, with a knight on b8, Black will play liJc6-a5 and the weaken­ ing of the light squares may be unpleasant for White. 10 . . . liJc6 ll.igS Wfd7 12 .Wfe3 :Bfe8, Kreiman - Ehlvest, New York 2003. Here, White obtains a slight but stable advantage after 13.:Bad1 liJa5 14.h4t - he is domi­ nant in the centre and can devel­ op his initiative on the kingside with i.h6 and hS.

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:JxdS 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jj3 0 - 0 8. i.e2 \WaS 14.4Je5±, Black has won a pawn indeed, but his position is very difficult because his bishop is misplaced on b4 and he lags in development.) 12 .\Wc2 b6 13.gac1 4Jf6, Timman - Roos, Amsterdam 1978, 14.h3 ! ?;!; White has the ad­ vantage thanks to his dominance in the centre.

9.0-0

A) 9 Black has two main replies in this position: A) 9 cxd4 and B) •••

9 b6. .••

About 9 ... 4Jc6 10.i.e3, or 9 . . . .ig4 10 . .ie3 - see Chapter 2 , vari­ ation B. 9 . . . \WaS. This move seems much stronger before White has castled. Here, he can simply con­ tinue with lO.i.gS ! ? , for example: 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 i.g4, Sorm Nepomniachtchi, Biel 2007 and now, he can simply capture a pawn: 12 .he7!? ges 13.i.h4 gxe4 14.\Wb1 ges 15.\Wxb7 4Jd7 16.\Wbs;�; - The activity of Black's pieces does not compensate adequately his material deficit.

•••

cxd4

This move leads to a difficult position for Black. He continues with the standard plan for the Gruenfeld Defence - pressure against the d4-pawn. Here, it does not work well however. The point is that after White has castled kingside, he can sacrifice the ex­ change on a1 in many variations with the move d4-d5 and regains it easily, while Black's knight on c6 will be forced to occupy a very bad position at the edge of the board.

10.cxd4 lbc6 About 10 . . .ig4 ll.i.e3 4Jc6 12 .d5 - see 10 . . . 4Jc6 10 . . . b6 ll.igS .ib7 12 .\Wd3 see variation B.

ll.ie3 i.g4 12.d5 !

His position is solid but very passive after 9 . . . \Wc7 - Black has no weaknesses, but he does not exert pressure against his oppo­ nent's centre and cannot equalise. 10 .i.e3 gds ll.dS ! ? 4Jd7 (It would be extremely risky for him to opt for ll . . . .bc3 12.gc1 i.b4 13.\Wb3 13

Chapter 1 This is the main idea in this variation for White. Now, Black has a choice: Al) 12 hf3 or •••

A2) 12

•••

ltle5.

12 ... tt:la5. The retreat of the knight to the edge of the board leads to a difficult position for Black. 13.:1k1 b6. This move weak­ ens the c6-square and White's knight is immediately headed there. 14.tt:ld4 !xe2 15.\l;lfxe2 \l;lfd7 16.\l;l!bS l:!fd8 17.tt:lc6 tt:lxc6 18. dxc6± His prospects are clearly preferable thank to the powerful passed c6-pawn, Van Wely - Ari­ el, New York 1994. The move 12 ... ixa1, as a rule, transposes to variation Al, since later Black captures hf3 anyway. Otherwise, if White's knight re­ mains on the board, Black may have great difficulties, for exam­ ple: 13.\l;lfxa1 tt:laS 14 . .ih6 f6 15. M8 \l;lfxf8 16.tt:ld4 ! ? This is the point. White's knight will go to the weakened e6-square, very close to the enemy monarch. 16 . . . !xe2 17.tt:lxe2 l:!c8, D e Boer - Den Boer, Dieren 1989, 18.tt:ld4!±, fol­ lowed by tt:le6 and White's attack­ ing tandem {queen and knight) seems very threatening.

Al) 12

hf3

•••

This is a natural move, but is not the best for Black, because he will have problems with his knight on c6.

13.hf3 14

13

•••

ltla5

After this, Black will have great difficulties, because his knight is terribly misplaced on aS. It is not preferable for him to opt for 13 . . . tt:le5. The point is that Black will fail to preserve his knight in the centre. 14 . .ie2 l:!c8 (It would be too risky for him to choose 14 .. .f5 - White has the two-bishop advantage and open­ ing of the position would be in his favour. 15.f4 tt:lg4 16.!xg4 ixa1 17.exf5 ! Black's position begins to crumble. 17 . . . gxf5 18.MS l:!xfS 19.\l;lfg4+ .ig7 2 0 .\l;lfxfS± - He has no compensation for the pawn and his king is vulnerable. Xu Jun - Razmyslov, Seville 2003.) 15. \l;lfa4 b6 16.l:!acl± White maintains an overwhelming advantage, since he has an excellent centre and two bishops, while Black's knight will be ousted from the centre at any moment with the move f2-f4, Malaniuk - Bednar­ ska, Poznan 2012. It is evidently bad for Black to try 13 . . . ixa1 in view of 14.\l;lfxa1

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 d5 4.cd lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :llg7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 B.:ll e2 lt:JaS 1S . .ih6 f6 16.ig4 ! This is the best for White. He is not in a hur­ ry to regain the exchange and re­ lies on the power of his bishops. 16 . . . '?;l/d6 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 16 . . . lt:Jc4 17 . .ie6+ i>hS 18.l:!bl± White's pieces are tremendously active and Black's defence is very difficult. Later, in the game Khalifman - Roos, Vil­ nius 199S, Black failed to cope with the intricacies of the defence and made immediately a decisive blunder. 18 . . . '?;l/c7? 19 . .hf8 l:!xf8 20.'?;l/c3+- and the pin on the c­ file is decisive.) 17.:lle 6+ i>hS 18. f4 ! Once again White does not capture on f8, considering quite deservedly that his bishop on h6 is not weaker than Black's rook in this position. White's main task is to advance f4 and eS as quickly as possible, trying to checkmate the enemy king on the a1-h8 diago­ nal. 18 . . . l:!fc8 19.eS '?;lieS+ 20.i>h1 '?;l/c3 21.'?;l/xc3 l:!xc3 22 .d6. Black has traded the queens indeed, but this is small consolation for him, because White's central pawns, with the support of his bishops, will promote irrevocably. 22 . . . lt:Jc6 23.dxe7 l:!e3 24.-ifS fxeS 2S. fS ! gxfS 26 . .bfS+-, he has a win­ ning position, because Black will have to give up his knight for the enemy e7-pawn, Kolanek - Buj­ dak, Internet 2011.

14.l:!cl

This move deserves great at­ tention. White deprives the ene­ my knight of the c4-square.

14 b6 15.�a4 '?;lid6 16.g3± •••

It is also good for White to play 16 . .ig4 ! ?±, taking control over the c8-square and maintaining a great advantage, since he not only dominates in the centre and has two powerful bishops, but Black's knight on aS is terribly misplaced.

In this position, which is very difficult for Black, he made a mis­ take in the game Yermolinsky Kreiman, Philadelphia 1996 16 e6? and this enabled White to sacrifice exquisitely a pawn with 17.e5 ! and to obtain a decisive advantage following 17 '?;l/xe5 •••

•• • .

18.dxe6 l:!ad8 19.ext7+ l:!xt7 20.l:!fdl l:!xdl+ 21.'?;l/xdl l:!f8 22.i>g2 i>h8 23.'?;l/d7+- The 1S

Chapter 1 material is equal indeed, but Black's position is hopeless, be­ cause White's powerful bishops control the entire board, while Black's pawns on a7 and b6 are very weak and his king and the knight on aS do not take part in the fight at all (White's rook on c1 deprives Black's knight of the c4square).

A2) 12

.••

Meanwhile, it is also possible for him to play 1S.!'i:acl ! ?;!;, or even 1S.!'i:ab1 ! ?;!; and he preserves an edge in both cases.

li)e5

15 . . . ti'a5 This is an active move. Black's queen attacks the enemy pawn on a2 and eventually (after ti'a4) will exert pressure against the e4-pawn.

This move is no doubt more reliable, since Black succeeds in trading advantageously the knights. White still preserves a slight edge thanks to his domi­ nance in the centre, but must work very hard in order to obtain a real advantage, since there are just a few pieces left on the board as a result of the numerous ex­ changes.

13.li)xe5 .ixe2 .ixeS ts.gadl

14.ti'xe2

With this move White not only protects his dS-pawn in case of the pawn-advance e4-eS, but also prepares the inclusion of his rook into the attack (!'i:d1-d3-h3). 16

He has tried many other pos­ sibilities in this position, but they do not promise him equality. 1S . . . ig7 16.id4 hd4 17.E:xd4 ti'b6 18.!'i:d3 E:fd8 19.!'i:b3 ti'c7 20. ti'e3 e6 21.dxe6 fxe6 22 .h4--+ White has an edge in the arising endgame with major pieces, since Black's king is obviously weaker, R.Bagirov - Najer, Cappelle la Grande 2000. Following 1S . . . ti'd7, White ad­ vances with tempo f4 and eS and obtains an advantage. 16.f4 (It is also interesting for him to try 16.ih6 ! ? !g7 17.hg7 <;!{xg7 18. eSt and his advantage is doubt­ less thanks to his mobile pawn-

2.c4 g6 3.liJc3 d5 4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc �g7 7. liJ.f3 0 - 0 8. �e2 centre.) 16 . . . .ig7 17.e5t Yermolin­ sky - Nestorovic, San Benedetto 1989.

16 .ig5 �a3 17.g3 gac8 18. gel gfd8 19.�g2 f6 20 .ih6 �a4 21.h4 Y:Yd7 22.gfdl gxcl 23 .ixcl gcs 24.h5t White still •

•

•

maintains a slight edge, because it will be difficult for Black to neu­ tralise his opponent's pressure on the kingside, Bjuhr - Lohmann, Email 2008.

This development of the bish­ op is more active than on e3, be­ cause the bishop on gS will exert pressure against the e7-square and White's queen might need the e3-square.

10

•••

.ib7

About 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 i.b7 12.Y:Yd3 -see 10 . . . i.b7. 10 ...h6 11.�4 cxd4 12.cxd4 �b7 13.W/d3 �d7 14.:aad1 - see 10 ....ib7.

B) 9 b6 •••

ll.�d3

This move is very typical for numerous variations of the Gru­ enfeld Defence. Black's main idea is to attack the e4-pawn and to force White to protect it with W/d3. After this, Black will play .ia6 and exchange the light-squared bish­ ops. This trade is in his favour, because he has less space and must strive for exchanges. Still, this would not equalise for him, because his pieces do not exert sufficient pressure against White's centre.

lO .igS •

u . . . cxd4

Besides this move, Black has also tried in practice ll . . . h6. Still, this move has the defect that it weakens his king's shelter and that was proved in the game Ata­ kisi - Anilkumar, Email 2001: 12 . .ih4 W/d7 13.:aad1 e6 14.W/b1 W/a4 1S.:afe1 :ac8 16 ..ib5 W/a5 17.d5 W/xc3 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.e5± Black can hardly parry the attack of White's forces against the g6square, because his queenside 17

Chapter 1 pieces have not been developed yet. He cannot equalise with 11 . . . Wd7 either. Following 12.'?9e3 cxd4 13.cxd4 lt:Jc6 14J�ad1 E:fc8 15.ihM, White obtains a slight but stable advantage, S.lvanov Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2005. He has a powerful pawn-centre and despite the fact that Black has no pawn-weaknesses in his camp, he is faced with a long passive de­ fence without chances of creating counterplay. 11 . . . ia6. He wishes to facili­ tate his defence by trading the bishops. 12 .'?9e3 .be2 13.'?9xe2 Wc7 (13 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 - see 11 . . . cxd4 12.cxd4 ia6) 14.'?9e3 e 6 15. ihM and under the cover of his pawn-centre, White plans to be­ gin an attack against the enemy monarch, Gonzalez Garcia - Jerez Perez, Sabadell 2010.

12.cxd4 h6 Black fails to equalise with 12 . . . '?9d7 13.E:ad1 e6 14.'?9e3 lt:Jc6 (14 . . . '?9a4 15.E:d2;!;) 15.ih6 We7 16.h4;!; White has protected relia­ bly his centre and will begin ac­ tive actions on the kingside, V. Ivanov - Baikov, Moscow 1992. It is also possible for Black to choose here 12 . . . '?9d6 13.We3 lt:Jc6 14.E:fd1 lt:Jb4 15.E:ac1 E:ac8 16.if4 Wd7 17.ic4 e6 18 .ih6 f6 19 . .bg7 \!;>xg7 20 .h4;t. We see here the usual situation fEWhite has a 18

strong centre and possibilities for active actions on the kingside, Sakhabeev - Mik, Email 2006. Following 12 . . . ia6 13.We3 ixe2 14.'?9xe2 E:e8 (14 . . . lt:Jc6 15. E:ad1 W/d7 16.d5 lt:Ja5 17.e5 e6 18.d6±, White obtains a great ad­ vantage, since his powerful d6pawn, supported by the pawn on e5, cramps considerably Black's position, Komev - Vastrukhin, Vo­ ronezh 2012) 15.E:ac1 (It is also good for White to try here 15. E:ad1! ?;!; and Black cannot play 15 ... lt:Jc6? ! , since after 16.d5±, White's advantage would increase.) 15 . . . lt:Jd7, Browne - Van Riemsdijk, Santiago de Chile 1981. Here, the simplest decision for White would be 16.E:c4;!; and this move not only prepares the doubling of the rooks, but also protects the d4-pawn. After 12 . . . lt:Jc6 13.E:ad1 Wfd7 14.d5 lt:Je5 15.lt:Jxe5 .be5 16.f4;!;, White will advance e4-e5 without any problems, ending up with a slight edge, Gladyszev - Szabo, Gyongyos 1995.

13 . .ih4 Wfd7 14.:gadU

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:Jxd.S 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :fig7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 8. i.e2 In this variation, White's queen rook often goes to d1, not only to prepare d4-d5, but also running away from the strike of the enemy bishop on g7. In gen­ eral, one of the main ideas for White in this variation is to re­ move as quickly as possible his pieces and pawns away from the a1-h8 diagonal, so that Black's ac­ tive bishop on g7 "shoots" in vac­ uum.

14 ... e6 15.�e3

We are already familiar with this placement of White's queen.

15 ... �a4 This is an active move for Black. He is trying to organise counterplay against White's weak pawn on a2 . Black cannot equalise with 15 . . . lt:Jc6 16.ib5;!;, because he can get rid of the pin of his knight only by playing a6 and bS, but this would lead to the weakening of the cS-square, Vercammen Rivest, Email 2002.

This move is obviously strong­ er than 17.id1? ! , as it was played in the game Gelfand - Tseshko­ vsky, Ulcinj 1997. White does not need to attack the enemy queen on a4, since it is misplaced there.

17 . . . a6 18.i.e7 He transfers his knight to the b4-square and there it will be much more active than on h4.

18 . . . gfe8 19.i.b4i White has a slight advantage, because he has a powerful pawn­ centre and after the transfer of his bishop from h4 to b4, the place­ ment of Black's queen on a4 may become precarious.

Conclusion We have just analysed the variation with 7 . . . 0-0 in the Gruenfeld Defence. As a rule, White obtains an advantage effortlessly. It looks like the most dangerous plan for Black is to play b7-b6 and to develop his bishop on b7. White counters this with �d3, i.gS, gad1, combining active actions in the centre and on the queenside.

19

Chapter 2

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�f3 c5

We have already mentioned this is Black's most precise move.

8 .ie3 •

This is one of the most popular moves for White in this position. He fortifies the key d4-pawn for the Gruenfeld Defence and pre­ pares to evacuate his rook away from the al-h8 diagonal. This move became popular after Kar­ pov's game against Kasparov in their match for the world champi­ onship in the year 1990, as well as after Kramnik's win against Kasparov in their match for the world championship in London in the year 2000 ro.zzy . V.Kramnik plays this variation quite success­ fully until today. We have to mention that the 20

move 8.ie2? ! is not so good here, since after 8 . . . tLlc6 9.ie3 ig4?, Black obtains a very good game creating pressure against the d4square. White plays often 8.:Bbl ! ? , but this move has two essential draw­ backs : - in many variations he will have to sacrifice his a2-pawn, - the theory of numerous vari­ ations goes deep into the middle game. We will devote to the analysis of Black's main line 8 \!faS our next two chapters. Now, we will deal with some other not so popu­ lar moves for him: A) 8 �c6, B) 8 0-0 and C) 8 .ig4. •••

••.

•••

•••

About 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �aS+ 10.�d2 - see Chapter 3, variation

A.

A) 8

•••

�c6? !

This move is considered to be somewhat premature, because af­ ter

9.gcl!

Black is incapable of counter­ ing the move d4-d5.

2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 d5 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jf3 c5 B. i.e3 �e2:t White's pawn-centre is very powerful and Black will have to defend long and hard despite the fact that he has no weaknesses in his camp, Grischuk - Ganguly, Dresden 2008.

10.cxd4

9 ... cxd4 He cannot equalise with 9 . . . �aS, since following 10 .d5, Black is forced to continue with 10 . . . lt:JeS (It i s bad for him to opt for 10 . . . .bc3+? ll.l:!xc3 �xc3+ 12. id2 �f6 13.dxc6 �xc6 14.�c2± and in the arising position White's two minor pieces are obviously stronger than Black's rook and two pawns. The point is that in the middle game he can hardly promote his pawns, while the danger of being checkmated on the weakened dark squares is quite real.) ll.lt:JxeS heS 12 .�d2 0-0 13.f4 ig7 14.c4 �xd2 + . This is the best for Black - to transfer the game into a slightly inferior endgame. (It is worse for him to choose 14 . . . �a3, because Black's queen is misplaced there. 15.e5 �f5 16.l:!c3 �a5 17.l:!b3 �c7 18.i.d3 hd3 19.l:!xd3 l:!fd8 2 0 . 0-0± Ko­ tanjian - Tutisani, Tbilisi 2010. White has completed his develop­ ment and is ready to advance his pawn-mass in the centre at any moment. Black's defence will be very difficult.) 15.'i!?xd2 b6 16.

10 . . . 0-0 It would be too dangerous for Black to opt for 10 . . . �a5+? ! , be­ cause after ll.i.d2! �xa2 12 .d5, White has very powerful initiative for the sacrificed pawn. For exam­ ple: 12 . . . lt:Je5 13.lt:Jxe5 heS 14. .ibS+ .id7 15.�g4! e6. Black is forced to weaken his position in this way and comply with the fact that his king will remain stranded in the centre for long (He will be checkmated following 15 . . . hbS?? 16.l:!c8+ l:!xc8 17.�xc8#; 15 . . . l:!d8?? 16.�xd7! ) 16.hd7+ 'i!?xd7 17.�g5 f6 18.�h6 l:!he8 19.0-0 l:!ac8 20 .�xh7+ l:!e7 21.�xg6+­ Black's position is hopeles�. He is not only a pawn down, but his king is very weak. He cannot save the day with 21.. .�xd2, since after 21

Chapter 2 22.dxe6+ , Black either loses his rook on c8, or his queen due to the pin.

ll.d5 �e5 This is a logical move, because Black's knight is better placed in the centre than at the edge of the board. Following ll . . . tt:laS? ! 12 .i.e2 e6 13.d6 ! , White maintains a great advantage (It is also good for him to choose 13. 0-0 ! ? exdS 14.exdS i.fS 1S.�d2± and the powerful pawn on dS and the misplaced black knight on aS provide White with a considerable advantage, Hort - Safarli, Hoogeveen 2008.) 13 . . . eS. Later in the game Miles Rodriguez, Riga 1979, White ob­ tained a great advantage with an energetic play. 14J'k7 i.e6 1S. tt:lgS± Now, Black has nothing better than to allow the exchange on e6 after which his pawn-struc­ ture will be hopelessly compro­ mised. 1S . . . 1"k8 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17. Ei:xc8 �xeS 18.0-0 tt:lc6 19.d7 �c7 20.i.g4+- Black will fail to hold his e6-pawn, so his position is hopeless. White will have not only an extra pawn, but a powerful passed pawn on d7.

12.�xe5 he5

(diagram)

13 .ic4 •

With this move White pre­ vents his opponent's pawn-ad­ vance e7-e6. Still, this bishop­ move has the drawback that Black 22

gains time to organise counter­ play on the queenside by attack­ ing the enemy bishop with his pawns. It may be interesting for White to try 13.f4 ! ? , forcing his oppo­ nent to clarify the situation with his bishop. After every possible retreat of the bishop, White main­ tains a slight edge.

13 . . . .id6 ! ? 14.i.e2!;t; It is best for him to go immediately with the bishop to e2, because the in­ clusion of the moves i.c4 and bS is much rather in favour of Black, as it was demonstrated in the game Cerniauskas - Roberts, Email 2012: 14 . .ic4 bS? 1S.i.e2 �aS+ 16.'it>f2 i.d7 17.�d2 �xd2 18 ..ixd2 f6 19.i.e3 Ei:ac8 20 .'it>f3 a6 21.i.d3

2.c4 g6 3. ltJ c3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJ.f3 c5 B . .ie3 e6 - White's passed pawn has been reliably blocked by Black's bishop, so White does not have any advantage in this endgame. After 13 . . ..ic7, Black's bishop prevents the appearance of his queen on the aS-square. There­ fore, White can develop his bish­ op to c4, without being afraid of 14 . . . bS. 14 . .ic4 .ib6 (Black cannot equalise with 14 . . . bS 1S.i.xbS i.xf4 16.i.xf4 W/aS+ 17.�f2 W/xbS 18. W/d4t and in this position with bishops of opposite colours White has powerful initiative, because the dark squares in the vicinity of Black's king are vulnerable.) 1S. '!Mfb3 i.xe3 16.W/xe3t White has a slight advantage thanks to the dominance of his pawns in the centre. 13 . . . .ig7. This is the most natu­ ral retreat of Black's bishop, but even then White obtains an edge effortlessly. 14 . .ic4 (Here, it seems anti-positional for Black to advance bS, because this would lead to the weakening of the cS­ square.) 14 . . . bS (14 . . . b6 1S.O-Ot Sambuev - Zhang, Montreal 2010; 14 . . . .id7 1S.O-O a6 16.W/b3 bS 17 . .id3 �c8 18.W/a3 �xc1 19. �xcl aS 20 .W/cS± Khenkin - Fer­ nandez Fernandez, Tromsoe 2009) 1S . .ie2 a6 16.0-0 .ib7 17. if3;!; Black has problems creating counterplay, since his bishop on b7 is restricted by his own pawn on dS and its colleague will share the same destiny after White ad­ vances eS. The pawn on eS will restrict its mobility considerably.

13 b5 14 .ib3 a5 15.0-0 a4 16 .ic2 •••

•

•

Black has advanced his queen­ side pawns by attacking White's bishop, Presently, it is rather un­ clear whether this is good or bad for him. Now, Black must play very energetically.

16

• . •

e6 17.f4 ic7

It is evidently worse for Black to choose 17 . . . .ig7? ! , since follow­ ing 18.-icS �e8 19.d6 eS 20.fS .id7 21.'1MfdS �f8 22 .id3±, White's powerful passed d6-pawn and the vulnerability of Black's bS-pawn provide White with an edge, Miles - Gligoric, Bled 1979.

18 .ic5 .ib6 19.�9'd4 .ixc5! •

This is stronger than 19 . . . �a6? ! , because after 20 ..id3± Kor­ chnoi - Miles, Vienna 1979, Black's rook on a6 is misplaced.

20.'fbc5 exd5 21.ex�5 .ib7 22.d6 t The powerful passed

pawn on d6 provides White with a slight edge. Still, we have to admit 23

Chapter 2 this advantage is not so great and the move 8 . . . lDc6 is obviously stronger than its reputation.

B) 8

•••

0-0

This move, just like castling for Black on move seven, is con­ sidered by theory as not so pre­ cise, because his slowing down the pressure against the key d4square enables White to complete without any problems the devel­ opment of his kingside pieces.

9 .ie2 .

after 10.0-0 'ffc7 ll.'ffd 2 lDf6 12. .id3 �d8 13.h3;!;, Black can hardly create any pressure against his opponent's centre, Walker Grams, Detroit 1994. Following 9 ... ig4 10.0-0 'ffc7 (about 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 lDc6 12. dS - see Chapter 1. variation A), the simplest way for White to ob­ tain an advantage is the line: 11. h3 ixf3 12 . .ixf3 �d8 13.'1Wa4 lDc6 14.d5 lLJeS 15 ..ie2;!;. He has occu­ pied the centre and has two pow­ erful bishops and will oust the en­ emy knight from its active posi­ tion with the move f2-f4, Lautier - Van Wely, Dordrecht 2001. Besides this, Black has tried in practice 9 ... lDc6. This is not a good move however, because he fails to exert pressure against his oppo­ nent's centre and his knight will be attacked by White with d4-d5. 10.0-0

9 b6 •••

After this move there arise po­ sitions similar to the variation with 7 . . . 0-0, except that White's bishop has already been devel­ oped on e3. This is, no doubt, in favour of Black, since the bishop would have been more active on the gS-square. Despite this, Black cannot equalise, because he does not exert sufficient pressure against White's centre. It seems a bit passive for Black to continue with 9 . . . lDd7, because 24

About 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 .ig4 12 .d5 - see variation A, Chapter 1. 10 . . . 'ffc7 ll.�c1 �d8 12 .d5 b6 13.lDd2 lDa5 14.c4;!; White has bet­ ter prospects in the middle game,

2.c4 g6 3Jijc3 d5 4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc .ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 8 . .ie3 since he has more space, A.Graf - Braun, Deizisau 2001. 10 . . . .ig4 ll.dS hf3 (ll ... liJaS. This retreat of the knight to the edge of the board cannot be good for Black at all. 12 .hcS .ixc3 13.l':k1 .ig7 14.'1Wd2 b6 1S . .ia3± White is dominant in the centre and Black's knight is horribly misplaced. It is also bad for him to opt for ll . . . liJeS 12 .hcS 0.xf3+ 13 . .ixf3 .ixf3 14.�xf3 �c8 1S. .ixa7± and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, Do­ britsa - Chester, IECG 2002.) 12 . .ixf3 0.eS (but not 12 . . . 0.aS 13 . .ixcS .ixc3 14 .�cl± and again Black's knight is not placed well at the edge of the board and White has the two-bishop advantage, Nielsen - Jessen, Copenhagen 2002) 13 . .ie2 0.d7 14.�b1 b6 1S. �c2 �c7 16.f4 .ih6 17.�bdl± He has two powerful bishops and ex­ tra space, while Black's pieces are cramped, M.Carlsen - Hammer, Oslo 2009. It may be interesting for him but still insufficient for equality to try here: 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �aS+ (10 . . . 0.c6 11.0-0 .ig4 12 .dS - see Chapter 1, variation A)

Now, White has a pleasant choice. He can maintain an edge in two different ways. He can interpose against the check with his bishop. ll . .id2 ! ? �a3 (Naturally, Black cannot equalise by retreating his queen to its initial position. ll . . . �d8 12. �cl .ig4 13.dS e6 14 . .ib4 �e8 1S. 0-0 exdS 16.exdS aS 17 ..ia3 0.a6 18.h3;1; White has a slight edge. He has a powerful passed pawn on dS and more active pieces, while Black's knight on a6 is obviously misplaced, R.Sherbakov - Vakhi­ dov, Raipur 2002) 12.0-0 .ig4 (Following 12 . . .b6, Eljanov Zubov, Dnipropetrovsk 2000, the simplest reaction for White would be 13.�b1 .ia6 14 . .ibS .ixbS 1S. �xbS;!; and Black can hardly cre­ ate any pressure against White's centre, because his knight cannot go to the c6-square.) 13.�bl. White will have to play this move, since he wishes to advance d4-dS. Now, there will be an exchange of the a2-pawn for Black's b7-pawn. 13 . . . �xa2 14.dS 0.d7 1S.�xb7 �fc8 16 . .ie3;1; Cramling - Caruana, Vil­ lafranca 2010. White maintains a slight advantage, since Black's pawn on a7 is much rather a lia­ bility than strength, despite its being a passed pawn. Meanwhile, White's rook on b7 is very active and Black may have problems with the protection of his e7-pawn in numerous variations. White can interpose with his knight too - 11.0.d2 ! ? , but this move is played seldom in practice 2S

Chapter 2 in comparison to 11 . .id2 . He has an edge after it as well. White's main idea is to win a tempo, after castling, by attacking the enemy queen with his knight - lLlc4. 11 . . . Ei:d8 12.0-0 e 6 13.Ei:cU I n this po­ sition, White has a slight edge. 13 . . . lLlc6 14.lLlc4 Wfc7 15.e5. This move is forced. Now, you can see the drawback of lLld2 : the control over the d4-square is diminished. On the other hand, White's knight, with the support of the pawn on eS is headed for the d6outpost. 15 . . . Wfe7 16.lLld6 Ei:xd6. This is an interesting exchange­ sacrifice, but still insufficient for equality. 17.exd6 W!xd6 18.Wfa4 lLlxd4 19.Wfe8+ Wff8 2 0 .Wfxf8+ 'tt>xf8 2l..ig4 fS 22 . .id1 hS 23.f4 Ei:b8 24.Ei:f2 eS 2S.Ei:d2 .ie6 26.fxe5 lLlc6 27 . .if4 a6 28.Ei:bl± Galanov ­ Craciunescu, Email 2011. In this position Black has a pawn for the exchange and White's eS-pawn is weak. Still, the position should be evaluated in his favour, because his rooks will remain very active in this open position. It seems very risky for Black to try to win a pawn with 9 . . . Wfa5 10.0-0

26

10 ... W!xc3. If Black has to suf­ fer, then he wishes to be subjected to this at least for a pawn. 11.Ei:cl Wfa3 12.Ei:xc5 W!xa2 (It is obviously weaker for him to choose 12 . . . lLla6? ! , which after 13.Ei:c2 lLlb4 14 . .ic1 WfaS 1S . .id2 Wfb6 16.Ei:b2, led to the loss of a knight in the game Jussupow - Sax, Vrbas 1980.) 13 . .ic4. White has very powerful initiative for the sacri­ ficed pawn and Black must be very careful not to lose his queen, which is seriously endangered in­ side White's camp. 13 .. .'�a3. This is the only move. (It is obviously weaker for Black to play 13 . . . Wfb2?, i n view of 14.lLlg5 ! and on top of all the problems for him, he must worry about the protection of his t7-pawn. 14 . . . e6 15.lLlxt7 'tt>xt7 16.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 17 . .ixe6 'tt> xe6 18.Wfg4+ 'tt> t7 19.Wfxc8+-; 14 . . . lLla6 15.Ei:b5 Wfc3 16.Wfe2 Wfa3 17. .ic1 ! ? Wfd6 18.Wfa2 e6 19.d5 lLlc7 20 . .ia3 WfeS 21.lLlxt7! ; 17.Wff3 e6 18.e5 Wfe7 19.Wfh3 h6 20.lLle4± Black has succeeded in the evacu­ ation his queen from the enemy camp and has protected reliably his e7-pawn, having preserved his extra pawn, but his kingside is terribly weakened. It is quite un­ clear what he must do with his h6-pawn, because the move h6h5 will compromise hopelessly the dark squares and White's at­ tack will become decisive after .igS and lLlf6.) 14 . .icl. White be­ gins a chase after the enemy queen. 14 . . . Wfb4 1S . .id2 Wfa3 (It is obviously worse for Black to

2.c4 g6 3. 4Jc3 d5 4.cd 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. 4Jj3 c5 B. i.e3 choose here 15 . . . 1M/b6?, since fol­ lowing 16.i.a5, his queen will not go back to d8 and will need to go to the f6-square under the attack of White's pieces and pawns. 16 . . . �f6 17.e5 �f5 18.e6+-) 16.E1e1 i.g4

This position is in favour of White but he must play accurate­ ly. He is only slightly better following 17.E1e3 �b2 18.E1d3 (Or 18 . .ic3 1M/b6 19.E1b5 �d8 20.E1xb7 4Jc6;!; and although he has re­ gained the sacrificed pawn, Black has solved the problem with his queen on a2 and his pieces exert rather unpleasant pressure against the d4-pawn.) 18 . . . �b6 19.E1b3 1M/d6 20.E1xb7 4Jc6 21.E1d5 �e6 2 2 .e5 �f5;t White has re­ gained the sacrificed pawn, but Black's queen has surprisingly found a very good square on f5. White maintains a slight edge but the position remains very compli­ cated. 17.�b1! This not so obvious move is evidently stronger than E1e3. It enables White to obtain a great advantage. 17 . . . hd4 (It is bad for Black to try 17. . . 4Ja6?, be­ cause of 18.E1e3 �a4 19 . .ib5± and

he loses his queen.) 18.E1d5 hf3 (18 . . . i.g7 19. �xb7±) 19.E1xd4. The arising complications end up in favour of White, for example: 19 . . . �c5 20. �d3 i.g4 21.E1d5 �c7 22 . .ih6. This is the point. Now, Black must give up the exchange. 22 . . . 4Jc6 23.�c3 e5 24 . .ixf8 E1xf8 25 . .ib5 i.e6 26.E1c5± - He has for the moment two pawns for the ex­ change, but his position is very difficult. Black will lose one of his pawns and will have only miracu­ lous chances for a draw.

Meanwhile, Black's situation will not be any easier even if he refrains from capturing the c3pawn: 10 . . . 4Jc6 11.�b3 ! ? This is the simplest for White. Now, his pawn on c3 is reliably protected. ll . . . cxd4 12.cxd4 .ig4 13.E1ad1 �b4 14.h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 E1fc8 16. �xb4 4Jxb4 17.e5;!;. White is clear­ ly better in this endgame thanks to his two powerful bishops, Kar­ pov - Ljubojevic, Montreal 1979 ; 10 . . . E1d8 11.�b3 cxd4 12.cxd4± - He has protected . reliably his pawn on d4 and his advantage is doubtless due to his dominance in 27

Chapter 2 the centre, E.Atalik - Fritzsche, Ottawa 2007; It seems rather passive for Black to opt for 10 . . . ltld7 11.�b3 e6 12 .a4 �c7 13.a5±. White has a wonderful centre and initiative on the queenside, Shimanov - Rakh­ manov, Irkutsk 2010.

10.0-0

ltlc6 (Or 13 . . . �d6, Hort - Hueb­ ner, Hamburg 1979, 14.ltld2 ! ? ltlc6 15.e5 �e7 16.ltlc4;!;, followed by ltld6 and White's prospects are preferable thanks to the powerful placement of his knight.) 14 . .ig5. He has lost a tempo indeed, but White realises the best set-up of his pieces in this variation: i.g5, �e3, 1!ad1, followed either by d4d5, or by h2-h4-h5. 14 . . . �d6 15. �e3 1!fe8 16.h4 1!ac8 17.h5;!;. White won later quite convinc­ ingly this position in the game, Gligoric - Popovic, Yugoslavia 1979.

12.cxd4

10

•••

.tb7

10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 e6 (ll . . . i.b7 12 .�d3 - see 10 . . . ib7) 12 .!g5 �d6 13.�d2 .ib7 14.�e3 1!c8 15 . .ih6 .ih8 16.1!adU White has ac­ complished the standard set-up for similar positions and has seized completely the initiative, Fedorowicz - Henley, New York 1981.

ll.�d3 cxd4 Following ll . . . e6, White's best reaction would be 12 .1!ad1 ! (It is also possible for him to try 12. 1!fd1 ltld7 13.a4;!; San Segundo Carrillo - Ponomariov, San Sebastian 2009.) 12 . . . cxd4 13.cxd4 28

12

. • •

ltlc6

About 12 . . . e6 13.1!ad1 - see ll . . . e6. It is possible for Black to choose here 12 . . . �d7 13.1!ac1 e6 (after 13 . . . i.a6 14.�d2 he2 15. �xe2 e6, Arencibia Rodriguez Matamoros Franco, Bayamo 1989, White can maintain a slight but stable edge by simply dou-

2.c4 g6 3. 4J c3 d5 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJfJ cS 8. ie3 bling his rooks on the c-file: 16. l'!c4 4Jc6 17.l'!fcU) 14.l'!fd1 4Jc6 15. �bS l'!fd8 16.ig5 f6. He preserves his advantage after the energetic move 17.if4 ! (It is not so clear af­ ter 17.ie3, because following the variation 17 . . . 4Ja5 18.�d3 l'!ac8 19.h4 l'!xcl 2 0.l'!xcl l'!c8 21.l'!xc8, the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Babula - Ftacnik, Czech Republic 2011. It is true that White can hardly seize the initia­ tive after the exchange of the rooks. In addition, Black can cre­ ate a passed pawn on the queen­ side in the endgame.) 17 . . . tt'la5 18.�xd7 l'!xd7 19.d5 exdS 2 0.ib5 l'!f7 21.exd5;!; White maintains the initiative in this endgame, be­ cause his dS-pawn is very power­ ful being supported by his bish­ ops.

nent's temporary activity with precise play, maintaining a slight edge. For example : 15.�bl .!bc2

16 .tf4 �d7 17.gcl .!bd4 18. .!bxd4 .ixd4 19.�b4 gxcl 20. gxcl ic5 21.�b3;!; White has •

parried his opponent's activity and can look optimistically in the future. He has a stable advantage thanks to his more active minor pieces (Black's bishop on b7 is re­ stricted by White's pawn on dS.).

C) 8

•••

.tg4

13.gadl gcs 13 . . . e6 14.ig5 - see ll . . . e6.

14.d5 4Jb4

This is an active move. Black wishes to penetrate with his knight to the c2-square. Still, White can neutralise his oppo-

This is an active move. Black does not lose time for castling and exerts immediate pressure against White's centre. Now however, contrary to the variation with 8 . . . 4Jc6, Black i s not i n a hurry t o de­ velop his knight to c6 ; otherwise, it will come under attack after d4d5. We must also mention that we will analyse later other variations with the development of Black's bishop on g4, but with the inclu­ sion of the moves �aS and �d2 . Here, we will analyse only varia­ tions which lead to original posi­ tions. 29

Chapter 2 9J�cl

White cannot continue the game without this move. His plan includes the move d4-d5, so he must protect his c3-pawn.

Now, Black has a choice. He may capture on d4 - Cl) 9 cxd4, or include beforehand the trade on f3 - C2) 9 .bf3.

cated. White should be better, at least because of his material ad­ vantage.) 11.lLlxd4. Black has problems with the protection of his queenside pawns. He can pro­ tect the pawn on b7, but his a7pawn may become a cause for worries. 11 . . . �c7 (11 . . . .ic8 12. �bS+ �xbS 13.tt:lxb5 tt:la6 14. tt:lxa7± The vulnerability of the pawns on a2 and c3 is not suffi­ cient to compensate Black's lost pawn, Khalifman - A.Evdokimov, Taganrog 2011.) 12.tt:lb5 �d8 13. i.c4 0-0 14.tt:lxa7 �c7 15. 0-0± His compensation for the pawn is not good enough, Khairullin Svidler, Dagomys 2010.

.••

•••

About 9 . . . 0-0 10 .d5 �aS 11. �d2 - see variation C in Chapter 4. Following 9 . . . �a5, White has a very powerful argument at his disposal - 10.�b3 ! (this is strong­ er than the routine move 10.�d2). 10 . . . cxd4 (It may be interesting for Black to try, but still insuffi­ cient for equality 10 . . . .b:f3 11. �xb7 0-0 12 .�xa8, for example: 12 . . . cxd4 13.�d5 �xdS 14.exd5 hdS 15.hd4± and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the exchange in this endgame, or 12 .. J:!d8 13.�b7 cxd4 14.�b4 �xb4 15.cxb4 .ixe4 16 . .ig5t and despite the fact that it is an end­ game, the position is very compli30

Cl) 9

• • •

cxd4

The idea of this exchange is to open the game a bit more.

10.cxd4 0-0 About lO ... .ix£3 11.gxf3 - see variation C2.

ll . .ie2

Now, Black has a choice be­ tween three possibilities: Cla)

2.c4 g6 3. lbc3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 lbxc3 6.bc ig7 7. lbj3 cS B. i.e3 ll ... ltJc6, Clb) ll ... e6 and Clc) ll .. :tva5. Cla) ll . . . ltJ c6 We have already analysed a similar position (see variation A in Chapter 1), but with the differ­ ence that here, instead of 0-0 White has played �cl. This is in favour of Black indeed, but is not sufficient for equality.

12.d5 h:f3

This is the point. Now, White is practically forced to accept the knight-sacrifice if he wishes to fight for the opening advantage. 16.f4! Vxe4 (16 . . . ltJd7 17.�c4±) 17.fxe5 Vxg2 18J�gU In the ansmg complicated position, White maintains a slight advan­ tage, because his bishop is strong­ er than Black's pawns. Naturally, he must play very carefully, since with his king in the centre a single imprecision might have very grave consequences for him.

13.h:f3

After this move, he has an in­ teresting possibility to complicate the fight with a piece-sacrifice.

Clb) ll ... e6

If White wishes to avoid tacti­ cal complications, he can choose 13.gxf3 ! ? ltJeS 14.f4 ltJd7 1S.�b3 �c8 16.0-0;!; and despite the fact that his castling position has been weakened a bit, White has an edge, since he has two bishops and a powerful pawn-centre, Hra­ cek - Uaneza Vega, Warsaw 2009.

13 ltJe5 14.i.e2 �aS+ 15. �d2 ti'a4 •••

Before playing ltJc6, Black is preparing to exchange the pawns. 31

Chapter 2 12.0-0 lilc6 13.d5 exdS 14. exdS

15.d6 If White is afraid for the future of his d-pawn, he can play simply 15.h3 ! ? .bf3 16.hf3;t;, preserving a slight but stable edge thanks to his bishop-pair and his passed d-pawn.

15 lilc6 16.h3 .id7 17.'ti'b3 gbs 18.gfdU White's d6-pawn, •••

supported by his pieces, is very powerful. Black will have great problems neutralising his oppo­ nent's pressure, Knaak - Heinig, Plauen 1980.

14

.•.

lile7

C1c) ll ti'a5+ •••

He attacks immediately the enemy dS-pawn. 14 . . . .bf3. This move looks very dubious, because it presents White with the two-bishop advan­ tage. The game Petursson Shamkovich, Lone Pine 1980 is a very instructive example of the dangers that Black might face: 15 ..bf3 lLleS 16 . .ie2 b6 17.d6 '!Wh4 18.1Mfd5 :!! adS 19.:!!c7+-, White's position is already winning, be­ cause Black can hardly protect his queenside pawns. 14 ... lLle5. One of the doubtless pluses of this move is that Black succeeds in exchanging two cou­ ples of minor pieces and this fa­ cilitates his defence. Still, after 15.lLlxe5 .be2 16.'1Wxe2 .beS 17. '!Wb5;t;, White preserves a slight edge, because his pieces are more active and his passed dS-pawn is very powerful, despite the numer­ ous exchanges of pieces. 32

After this move there arises an endgame.

12.'ti'd2 'exd2 + .ixe2 14.
13.lilxd2

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 d5 4.cd lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:J xc3 6.bc ig7 7. lt:Jj3 c5 8. ie3 14 .lila6 ••

It is bad for Black to opt for 14 ... e6, since it lets the enemy rook to penetrate to the penultimate rank, 15.!!:c7;!; Plachetka Sax, Skara 1980. Black cannot equalise with 14 .. .f5, because after 15.f3 e6 16.E:c7 lt:Jc6, Andrianov - Gulko, Moscow 1981, White could have created great problems for his op­ ponent with the line: 17.E:b1! lt:Jxd4+ 18 . .hd4 .hd4 19.E:bxb7;!; and thanks to his absolute domi­ nance of the penultimate rank, the evaluation of the position in favour of White is doubtless. It is possible for Black to choose here 14 . . . lt:Jc6 15.d5 lt:Jb4. He pre­ vents the penetration of the ene­ my rook to the penultimate rank (15 ... lt:Ja5, Hebden - Dunworth, Bir­ mingham 2001, 16.E:c7± - The aris­ ing endgame is tremendously dif­ ficult for Black.). 16.a3 lt:Ja6 17.E:c4;J;

ts.gc4

game mostly due to the misplaced black knight on a6, Khenkin Macieja, Lubniewice 1998.

C2) 9

•••

.txf3

With this trade Black weakens a bit White's kingside pawn­ structure.

10.gxf3 cxd4 About 10 . . . 0-0 ll.ds �aS 12. �d2 - see Chapter 4, variation C.

ll.cxd4 0-0 12.d5 ! This i s a very strong move. White realises one of the main ideas of this variation - removes his last pawn from the a1-h8 di­ agonal. Now, Black's bishop is at­ tacking nothing.

12 .l!�d7 13 .ih3 �h8 • •

•

15.lt:Jb3 ! ? E:ac8 16.a3 e6 17.lt:Ja5 b6 18.ltJcM - White has a stable ad­ vantage in this endgame, because Black's knight on a6 is misplaced and White's knight has occupied the weakened c6-square, P.Niel­ sen - Karjakin, Panormo 2002.

15 gfc8 16.ga4;!; - Despite the numerous exchanges, White preserves a slight edge in the end•••

33

Chapter 2 14.0-0 ! ? This move i s more reliable than 14.f4 fS lS.eS gS� Later in the game Caruana - Areshchen­ ko, Olginka 2011, White managed to score a full point, but he had to sacrifice the exchange on g7, which might not be to everybody's liking.

Or 15 . . . lt:Jf6 16.11Nc2;!;, preserv­ ing a slight edge. With his last move, White has not only protect­ ed his e4-pawn, but has prepared the penetration of his queen to the c7-square as well.

16.:Sxc8 11Nxc8 17 .id4 :Sg8 18 .ig2 11Nc7 •

•

(diagram)

19.11Nc1! This is an important move. Black's counterplay is connected

with weakening the castling posi­ tion of White's king. Therefore, it is advantageous for him to trade the queens even if he loses two­ bishop advantage in the process of doing this.

19 11Nxcl 20.hg7+ Wxg7 21.:Sxcl;!; and in the arising end­ •••

game White maintains a slight edge, despite the fact that Black has some counterplay on the dark squares. The point is that the pen­ etration of White's rook to the c7square is unavoidable.

Conclusion We have just analysed some rarely played variations of the Gruen­ feld Defence. As a rule, White obtains an advantage effortlessly. His main task is to remove as quickly as possible his pieces away from the al-h8 diagonal, after which Black's bishop on g7 becomes harmless. In addition, he has problems with the development of his knight on b8, since after lt:Jc6, White can attack it advantageously with the move d4d5.

34

Chapter 3

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�£3 c5 8 . .ie3 VaS

a tempo, may not be to every­ body's liking. Following 9 .'1Wd2 , besides 9 . . . 0-0, a move which will be ana­ lysed in our next chapter, Black has a choice: to enter an endgame after A) 9 cxd4, or to conceal for the moment his further plans with the move B) 9 .lbc6. • • .

••

This is Black's main response in this position. As a rule, there arise endgames after it with a slight advantage for White mostly thanks to his pawn-centre. This move has been played by G.Kas­ parov and nowadays it is used al­ most by the entire chess elite: L.Aronian, A.Morozevich, A.Gri­ schuk, P.Svidler, P.Leko, F.Caru­ ana and many others.

9J9d2 This is White's most natural move. He is not afraid of the pos­ sible exchange of queens. Still, sometimes he plays 9 . .id2 ! ? After this White avoids the early trade of the queens, but it is understandable that playing 8 . .ie3 and then, retreating immedi­ ately with the bishop to d2, losing

He plays sometimes 9 . . .b6 lO .l'kl .ia6. Black wishes to trade the bishops and to facilitate with this his defence. This plan has a definite drawback however. White completes effortlessly his devel­ opment and after this Black can hardly exert pressure against White's centre. ll..ixa6 tt:lxa6 12. 0-0 0-0, Weissenbeck - Dvoirys, Oberwart 2003 and after the sim­ ple move 13.d5;!;, he would have maintained the advantage, be­ cause his pawns dominate in the centre, while Black's knight on a6 is misplaced. V.Korchnoi has tried a very original plan in this positi<;m. Af­ ter 9 . . . tt:ld7, Black transfers his knight on the route d7-b6-a4 with the idea to exert pressure against 35

Chapter 3 the vulnerable enemy pawn on c3. Still, following 10.id3 0-0 11. 0-0 tt:lb6 12.E:ab1 tt:la4 13.E:fcU, White would have preserved better prospects. He has protect­ ed reliably the weakness on c3 and now, the deployment of Black's knight on a4 is not advan­ tageous at all, because it is placed at the edge of the board after all, Rivas Pastor - Korchnoi, Linares 1985. It seems rather dubious for him to choose 9 . . . i.g4? ! , as it was showed in the famous game Kramnik - Kasparov, London (m/2) 2000. 10.E:b1 !

White emphasizes the defects of Black's early bishop-sortie White is threatening to capture on b7 and to follow this with E:b5 winning the enemy c5-pawn. 10 . . . a 6 (The endgame i s very difficult for Black after 10 . . . .ixf3 11.gxf3 cxd4 12.cxd4 '\Wxd2+ 13.'it>xd2 tt:lc6 14.d5± White's two bishops are very powerful force, Rivas Pastor - K.Georgiev, Plovdiv 1984.) 11. E:xb7 ixf3 (11 ... tt:lc6 12 .ic4 .ix£3 13.gxf3 - see 1l.. . .bf3) 12.gxf3 tt:lc6 13.ic4 cxd4. This is Black's 36

most resilient defence. (He ob­ tained a very bad position in the game Kramnik - Kasparov: 13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 cxd4 15.cxd4 ixd4 16.id5 ic3 17.'\Wcl tt:ld4 18. ixd4 ixd4 19.E:xe7± Black has no compensation for the pawn. His situation would not be any easier after an exchange of the queens : 16 . . . '\Wxd2 17.i.xd2 E:fc8, Yermo­ linsky - Azmaiparashvili, Hyder­ abad 2002, White could have ob­ tained an advantage with the line: 18.'it>g2 e6 19.ib3�) 14.cxd4 '\Wxd2+ 15.'it>xd2 tt:lxd4 16.i.xd4 ixd4 17.'it>e2� He has an obvious edge in this endgame, because Black is practically helpless against the penetration of White's rooks to the penultimate rank and the pressure of White's bishop against the f7-square. 17 . . . e6 18. E:d1 i.e5 19.E:dd7 0-0 2 0.f4 ! This is an important tactical resource. Now, White advances f5 and Black will fail to hold the f7square. 20 . . . ih8 (It is not prefer­ able for him to defend with 20 . . . i.xf4, i n view of 2l.i.xe6± and White's bishop is untouchable due to the checkmate.) 2l.f5 ! gxf5 2 2 .exf5 E:ac8 23.ib3± He main­ tains a great advantage, Slugin Danin, Lipetsk 2006. Black tried to rehabilitate this variation with the move 10 . . . tt:ld7 in the game Giri - Nijboer, Eind­ hoven 2010. Here, White has to capture the pawn - 11.E:xb7!?, for example: 11 . . . E:b8 12.E:xb8+ tt:lxb8 13.ic4 ix£3 14.gxf3 0-0 15. 0-0 cxd4 16.cxd4 '\Wxd2 17.i.xd2 i.xd4

4.cd l:iJxdS 5.e4 l:iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. l:iJ.f3 c5 B. ie3 'f!a5 9. 'f!d2 cd 1 0 .cd 18.ib5;!; and despite the fact that Black has succeeded in regaining his pawn, the game has entered an endgame which is in White's favour, because his bishops are evidently more powerful than Black's minor pieces. In order to understand this, it would be suf­ ficient to compare the bishop on bS with Black's knight on b8.

A) 9

•••

cxd4

Secondly, he can organise pres­ sure against White's pawn on d4 and his bishop on g7 will play an important role in this process.

10.cxd4 ti'xd2+ ll.�xd2 As a rule, White captures on

d2 with his king, since in the end­ game, contrary to the other stages of the chess game, the king feels quite comfortable in the centre of the board. Naturally, White must be very careful about the possibil­ ity of Black exploiting the juxta­ position of his rook and White's king on the d-file.

11

•••

0-0

About ll ... l:iJc6 12.gb1 - see variation 83.

12.gbl

After this move there arises immediately on the board a quite typical endgame for this opening variation. As in the majority of the endgames of the similar type, White has a slight edge, because thanks to his pawn-centre his pieces can occupy more active po­ sitions than Black's pieces. In ad­ dition, White's rooks can exert rather unpleasant pressure on the c-file. In this variation Black must be constantly on the alert about the possible penetration of White's rook to the c7-square. Black has his pluses as well. At first, he has no pawn-weaknesses.

This is an important move. White takes under control the b4square, so that after Black's knight comes to c6 and White's pawn on dS ousts it from there, Black's knight is deprived of the b4square.

t2

•••

gds

About 12 . . . 1:iJc6 13.id3 - see variation 83. 37

Chapter 3 Black has also tried in practice the move 12 . . . b6 with the idea to trade the light-squared bishops and thus to facilitate his defence. This cannot equalise for him how­ ever, since it takes too much time. For example: 13 . .id3 .ia6 (The move 13 . . ..tb7 has been tested in the game Rashkovsky - Certek, Pila 1992 . Following 14J!hc1 lLlc6 15.d5 lLlaS 16.l'!c7±, Black failed to defend against the penetration of the enemy rook to the penulti­ mate rank.) 14.l'!hc1 .b:d3 15. 'ihd3 lLla6 16.l'!c4;!; White has a slight edge in this endgame. This is not only due to his pawn-centre, but also thanks to the fact that his king is very active, while Black's knight on a6 is horribly mis­ placed. In addition, he can hardly neutralise the pressure of White's rooks on the c-file. Later, in the game Gruenberg - Trettin, Ger­ many 1991, there followed: 16 . . . l'!fd8 17.'it>e2 l'!d7 18.l'!bc1 ifS?? This is a terrible blunder. As it often happens, Black fails to cope with the difficulties of defending an in­ ferior position and makes a deci­ sive mistake. 19.l'!a4 lLlb8 20 .l'!c8. This penetration of the rook wins for White. 20 ... 'it>g7 21.l'!ac4 bS 22. !!4c5 and Black cannot get rid of this pin without material losses.

15.e5 With this move White solves radically the problem with the protection of his d4-pawn and prepares .te4. Naturally, he must consider the weakening of the dS­ square as well. He can fight for the advantage in another way too - 15.l'!c4 ! ? , protecting the d4-pawn and pre­ paring doubling of his rooks on the c-file. 15 . . . .id7 (or 15 . . . lLla5 16.l'!cn Epishin - Santos, Oviedo 1991) 16.We2;!; and Black will have to fight long and hard for a draw without any chances of organising counterplay.

13 . .id3 e6 About 13 . . . lLlc6 14.d5 - see variation B3.

15 . . h6! .

38

4.cd liJxd5 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8 . :i e3 Wfa5 9. Wfd2 cd J O .cd This is the best for Black since he must take the gS-square under control. After 15 .. .f6, White can obtain powerful initiative with a pawn­ sacrifice - 16.'it>e2 ! ? fxeS 17.dxe5 liJxeS 18.liJxe5 .b:eS 19.:ie4. Black has an extra pawn indeed, but he must fight laboriously for a draw, because his e6-pawn is weak and his queenside pieces are not de­ veloped. 19 . . . :Bb8 20.:Bc5 i.d6 21. :BaS a6 22 .i.b6 :Bd7 23 .h4 :ic7 24. 'it>e3 .b:b6+ 25.:Bxb6� Kozul - Po­ lajzer, Ptuj 1989. The activity of White's pieces compensate with an interest his minimal material deficit. Black's defence is very dif­ ficult. His only chance is to give back the extra pawn at some mo­ ment in order to develop his bish­ op on c8 and after that to defend in the endgame having an inferior pawn-structure. Black cannot equalise with 15 . . .fS, because after 16.h4 h6 17.'it>e2 i.f8 18.g3 liJb4 19.i.c4 b6, White's knight on d3 is restricted in its movements by his own pawns, but he can transfer it ad­ vantageously to the d3-square. 20.liJe1! liJdS 21.liJd3 i.b7 22.a4;!; - He has solved the problem with his knight and despite the fact that Black's knight is also perfect­ ly placed on dS, White's position is preferable due to the chronic weakness of Black's e6-pawn, Damljanovic - Kozul, Belgrade 1989.

16.a4 White failed to obtain an ad­ vantage in the game Gelfand - Ivan­ chuk, Astrakhan 2010: 16.'it>e1 i.f8 17.i.e4 liJb4 18 ..id2 liJd5 19.a4 b6 2 0.a5 .ib7 21.axb6 axb6 22 . .b:dS .b:dS 23.:Bxb6 .ixf3 24.gxf3 :Bxd4 25.f4 :Bdd8 26 . .ie3 :Bab8. The game ended in a draw after the almost complete annihilation of the material on the board.

16 .lbe7 17.:ie4 tbd5 18.a5 ••

White's only chance of obtain­ ing an advantage in this variation is to impede Black's pawn-ad­ vance b7-b6.

18 .if8 19.:ixd5 l!!xd5 20. l!! c7 b6 •••

This pawn-sacrifice is forced.

21.axb6

axb6

22.l!!xb6;!;

White has an extra pawn in the endgame and despite the fact that Black has two powerful bishops (His light-squared bishop is par­ ticularly strong, since it has no opponent.), White can torment his opponent for long .in this end­ game, Perikov - Nenciulescu, Email 2010. 39

Chapter 3 B) 9 .lbc6 ••

games played after this, but White failed to create problems for his opponent in the opening. In fact, in some games Black even tried to complicate the game trying for more than just a draw in the end­ game. After to.gbl Black has a choice between the following possibilities: Bl) 10 . . . b6, 82) 10 ... 0-0, 83) 10 . . . cxd4 and

84) 10 ... a6. to.gbt! This is the only move with which White preserves hopes of obtaining an edge. The point is that after the exchange on d4, it is essential for White to control the b4-square in the endgame. After 10.E1cl, Black equalises as it was showed in the game Kramnik - Kasparov, Astana 2001. 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 \Wxd2+ 12.<;!{xd2 0-0 13.d5 E1d8 14.'i!lel. This is the point! If White's rook had remained on bl, he could have played here id3, without be­ ing afraid of the move lt:lb4. Now, due to the threat e7-e6, he must waste a tempo to retreat his king and thus loses his opening advan­ tage. There followed later 14 . . . lt:laS 15.ig5 id7 16.id3 E1dc8 17.'i!le2 e6 18.E1xc8+ E1xc8 19.E1cl E1xcl 20 . .bcl exdS 2l.exd5 bS 2 2 . if4 lt:lc4 23 . .bc4 bxc4 24.ie5 if8 25.ltld2 ibS 26.ltle4 fS 27.lt:\c3 id7 28.'i!fe3 ic5+ 29.id4 ib4 30.ie5 and the opponents agreed to a draw. There were many other 40

Bl) 10 . . . b6 This move is seldom played but is very interesting. Black de­ fends his cS-pawn and prepares the development of his light­ squared bishop to b7, or to a6.

ll . .ib5 White exploits the defect of the move b6 - some weakening of the a4-e8 diagonal.

ll . . . .ib7! ? This i s a n active move. It is also possible for Black to choose here ll . . . id7. Now, his

4.cd ttJxd5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. ttJ.f3 c5 B. ie3 Vff a5 9. Vff d2 ttJ c6 1 0 . 'l!bl bishop will go neither to b7, nor to a6. On the other hand he covers reliably the a4-e8 diagonal. 12 .d5

out to be very powerful, while Black's king is vulnerable, Khen­ kin - Mikhalevski, lsrael 2009.

12.0-0 Naturally, White would lose the game after 12 .d5??, due to 12 . . . .bc3 13.dxc6 ia6 ! - +

12 . . . 0-0 This seems to be a bad move at first sight, because Black can cap­ ture on c3, but after a thorough analysis it becomes clear that White should not be afraid of this. 12 . . . ttJe5 (Following 12 . . . .bc3, there arises a position with a non­ standard material ratio. 13.dxc6 0-0 14.cxd7 .bd2 + 15 . .bd2 Vffx a2 16.0-0;!; White's three minor pieces are stronger than Black's queen and two pawns, because White's passed d7-pawn is very powerful, Schmitzer - Farmer, Email 2003.) 13 . .bd7+ ttJxd7 14. 'l!cl 0-0 15.0-0 'l!ad8 16.i.g5. This bishop-manoeuvre is typical for this variation. White attacks the e7-pawn and creates prob­ lems for his opponent. 16 . . . 'l!fe8 (The move 16 . . .f6 has the draw­ back that it weakens Black's cas­ tling position and restricts the bishop on g7. 17.i.f4 'l!fe8 18.'l!fdU White's position is preferable, Khenkin - Nijboer, Haarlem 2000.) 17.'l!fd1 ttJf6 18.'l!e1 ttJd7 19.e5 f6 2 0 .exf6 exf6 21.if4;t The passed pawn on dS may turn

After 12 . . . cxd4, White has the resource 13.tiJxd4 ! ? and Black has problems, since his queen on aS is misplaced. 13 . . . 'l!c8 14.'l!b4 ixd4 15.Vffxd4! ± It is very difficult for him to maintain the material bal­ ance, because after the straight­ forward move 15 . . . 0-0, White will follow with 16 . .bc6 and Black will be forced to give up the ex­ change, since it would be bad for him to play 16 . . . .bc6, due to 17. ih6 eS 18.Vffd 6+- with an una­ voidable checkmate.

13.Vffb 2!

· This is a very strong move. White avoids the trade of queens, since the placement of Black's 41

Chapter 3 queen on aS may turn out to be unfavourable.

13

•••

a6 14 .ie2 bS 15.lUcU •

White's position is preferable, since Black can hardly counter White's powerful pawn-centre.

82) 10

•••

0-0

After this move, Black is prac­ tically forced to give up his queen. In the pre-computer era, this sac­ rifice was considered to lead to a complicated double edged fight. Nowadays, White manages to cre­ ate great problems for his oppo­ nent, forcing him to fight labori­ ously for a draw.

would be: 14 . .if4 ! ? '?9c8 15 . .id3 eS 16.tt:lxe5 tt:lxeS 17.E:xe5 .ixeS 18. he5;!; and his bishop and two central pawns are stronger than Black's rook.

13. ti'xe3 12.lha5 dxe3 tDxaS 14.tDd4 .id7 15.e5 White has centralised his knight with his last move and has restricted the scope of action of Black's bishop on g7.

15

•••

gfc8

It is understandable that Black's hopes of creating counter­ play are mostly connected with an attack against White's weak pawn on c3.

11.l�� b5 cxd4 This move is forced; other­ wise, Black simply ends up a pawn down. For example: 11 . . . '?9c7 12. !!:xeS b6 13.E:g5. White has a solid extra pawn indeed, but must play very accurately, since he lags in development and his rook on gS may be endangered. After 13 . . . .tb7, Schaefer - Gnassisch, Glad­ bach 1992, the best line for him 42

Following 15 . . . tt:lc6 16.f4 tt:lxd4 17.cxd4, White has got rid of his liability on c3 and now must only complete his development in or­ der to begin the realisation of his material advantage. 17 . . .E:fc8 18 . .te2 E:c2 19 . .td1 E:c7 20.0-0 e6 21..if3 .if8 22 .E:bl± Black has no compensation for his material deficit and his only chance of sur­ vival is connected with building a fortress. This is not very likely,

4.cd 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 4Jj3 c5 B. ie3 '?!! aS 9. "fid2 4J c6 1 0 . '8 bl however . . . , A.Volkov - Gataullin, Email 2008.

ell, Wijk aan Zee 2010.

16.f4 White fortifies his key eS­ pawn and frees the f2-square for his king.

16

•••

e6

It is interesting but hardly cor­ rect for Black to try 16 . . . '8c5 17. 4Je6 '8xe5 18.fxe5 .ixe6 19.i.e2 4Jc6 2 0 .i.f3 4Jxe5 21..ixb7±. White lags a bit in development and his pawns on a2 and c3 are weak, but unfortunately for Black, his two minor pieces and a pawn are not sufficient to compensate the missing queen, J.Nielsen Borge, Denmark 1998. 16 . . .'8c7. This is a natural move. Black prepares the dou­ bling of his rooks on the c-file in order to attack the weak enemy pawn on c3. 17 . .ib5 ! With this move White succeeds in exchang­ ing advantageously the bishops. 17. . . 4Jc6 18 . .ixc6 .ixc6 19.4Jxc6 '8xc6 2 0.�e2 . The position has been simplified and it has become evident that Black's initiative has evaporated after the trade of two pairs of minor pieces. 20 . . . b6 (The evaluation of the position re­ mains the same after 20 .. .f6, due to 21.'8d1 fxeS 22.'8d7± Atalik Howell, Ottawa 2007.) 21.'8d1 '8ac8 22.'8d3± Now, White's pawn in c3 is reliably protected and Black is doomed to a long and la­ borious defence, Akobian - How-

17.h4! This resource, together with the already analysed trade of the bishops after i.bS, must be re­ membered very well by the play­ ers who use this variation with White. He begins an attack on the h-file. Naturally, this will hardly lead to a checkmate, but the ac­ tive play on the h-file will be very helpful for him in order to break Black's defence. In addition, White's rook may protect the c3pawn from the h3-square.

17 J:�c7 18.h5 '8ac8 19.'8h3 4Jc4 ••

Or 19 . . .if8 20.�f2±

20.hc4 '8xc4 21.ti'f3 '88c7 22.ti'g3

White is preparing to transfer his queen to the h4-square.

22 b5 23.Wh4 ie8 24.a3 '8c8 25.g4 • • .

His g-pawn joins into the at­ tack. Later in the game Matush­ kina - Bocheva, Email . 2010, White managed gradually to break Black's defence and scored a full point. 43

Chapter 3 2S .id7 26.ti'e7 g4c7 27. <.!?e2 aS 28.hxg6 hxg6 29.<.!?d2 .if8 30.ti'h4 .ig7 31.ti'h7+ <.!?f8 32.gd3 ges 33. �h2 gc4 34. c!bf3 .ic6 3S.c!bgS .idS 36.c!bh7+ <.!?e7 37.f5 <.!?d7 38.fxe6+ fxe6 39.c!bf6+ .ixf6 40.exf6 1-0 •••

B3) 10

•••

cxd4

After this move, there arises an endgame on the board. Here, it is essential for both opponents to know its theory, but it is even more important for them to be ex­ perts of playing endgames in gen­ eral.

ll.cxd4

the placement of White's bishop on a6, which deprives Black of the possibility l:!c8, so White is com­ pletely dominant on the c-file, Ibragimov - Isoev, Azov 1991.) 14.<.!?e2;t and he maintains a slight edge although Black's counter­ play, connected with exerting pressure against White's centre, should not be underestimated.

12.<.!?xd2 0-0 13 .id3 ! ? •

This i s White's most precise move. He does not need to present his opponent with the additional possibility, arising following 13. dS lt:\ aSoo Khenkin - Sutovsky, Kaskady 2002. In this complicat­ ed and double-edged position, White's advantage, if it really ex­ ists, is unlikely to be proved.

t3

• • •

gds

Black increases his pressure against White's centre.

ll �xd2 + •••

This is Black's most natural and often played move. It is very interesting for him to try 11 . . . 0-0 ! ? After this, White's simplest line would be : 12 .\1;lfxa5 lt:\xaS 13.i.d3, for example 13 . . . i.g4 ! ? This i s a n active move. (It is weaker for Black to opt for 13 . . . b6 14.<.!?e2 i.d7 15J:!hcl l�Uc8 16.i.a6 l:!xcl 17.l:!xc1 <.!?f8 18.d5± and in this position it is worth noticing 44

About 13 . . . e6 14.l:!hc1 l:!d8 15. eS - see variation A. 13 .. .fS. This way of undermin­ ing White's centre is encountered once in a while in this variation of the Gruenfeld Defence and we will see it many more times in the future. 14.exf5 gxfS 15.d5 .!DeS 16. lt:\xeS .beS 17.l:!heU White's posi­ tion is preferable thanks to his su­ perior pawn-structure and better developed pieces, Spoelman Goormachtigh, Netherlands 2010.

4.cd l:i:Jxd5 5.e4 1:i:Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 1:i:Jj3 c5 8. i.e3 vtia5 9. vtid2 1:i:J c6 1 0 . '£bl 14.d5 This move is forced but is not bad at all.

15.'k!?e2 His king avoids the unpleasant x-ray with the enemy rook on the d-file.

14 . . . �a5 It is a bit unusual to place vol­ untarily the knight at the edge of the board, but here, this is a good move for Black. Following 14 . . . 1:i:JeS, White ob­ tains an advantage effortlessly. lS.I:i:JxeS i.xeS 16.f4 i.g7 17.i.c5 (or 17.'£hcl ! ?t - preparing the pene­ tration of the rook to c7, Avrukh - Ben Artzi, Eilat 2012) 17 . . . 'k!?f8 18.'£hcl fS 19.'k!?e3. This is one of the typical features of this end­ game. White's king is much more active here than its counterpart and can take part in the actions at any moment. 19 . . . b6 20.ia3 fxe4 21.i.xe4 i.fS 22J:'k7 i.f6 23.d6. Af­ ter this energetic breakthrough his advantage increases. 23 . . . exd6 24 . .bf5 gxfS 2S.'£bS '£ac8 26. i.xd6+ 'k!?g8 27.'£xfS± and White has excellent prospects to realise his extra pawn in the endgame, Khenkin - Wuerdinger, Bad Wi­ essee 2002.

15 . . . b6 There arises an interesting tactical fight after lS .. .fS. White's prospects are preferable in all the variations, because his pieces are better mobilised. 16.'£hcl b6 (Or 16 . . . fxe4? ! 17 ..ixe4 i.fS 18.i.xfS gxfS 19.'£bS b6 2 0 .'£c7± and Black's pawns on e7 and fS are very weak, while White's rook has penetrated to the penultimate rank and Black's knight on aS is horribly misplaced, Nitsche Groth, corr. 2002.). 17.1:i:JgS fxe4 18 . .ixe4 i.a6+ 19.'k!?el '£ac8 20. l:i:Je6 '£d7 21.'£xc8+ .ixc8, Vidit Bernard, Paris 2010. Now, White can maintain a slight edge follow­ ing 22.'£cl .ib7 23 . .if3t and Black's knight is not placed well on aS and capturing for him on dS is impossible, because White will counter 23 . . . .ixdS? with 24.fi.g4±

16.�d4 4S

Chapter 3 His knight takes the weak c6square under control.

16

•••

It is also possible for him to continue with 17.tt:Jc6 tt:lxc6 18. dxc6. Now, there arise varia­ tions with the already familiar exchange-sacrifice on the d3square : 18 . . . �xd3 19.\t>xd3 ia6+ 20.\t>c2 �c8 21.�bc1 ibS 22.\t>b3 fxe4 23.c7 ieS 24.�hd1 id3 25.g3;!; and despite the activity of Black's bishops, White has excel­ lent chances of realising his mate­ rial advantage, Sutkalenko - Lah­ denmaeki, Lechenicher Schach­ Server 2010.

f5 17 fxe4 18.fxe4 .ig4+ 19. •••

After 16 . . . e6 17.tt:Jc6 tt:Jxc6 18. dxc6 �xd3 19.\t>xd3, Black's com­ pensation for the exchange is in­ sufficient. 19 . . . .!a6+ 20.\t>c2 �c8 and here, White's best line would be: 21.�bcl ! (It is weaker for him to opt for 21.�hc1 i.c4 2 2 . \t>d2 �xc6 23.\t>e1 bS 24 . .!xa7 f5 25.�c2 �a6? and thanks to his two pow­ erful bishops Black created coun­ terplay in the game Sakaev Hoffmann, Groningen 1991.) 21... i.c4 22.�hdl± White maintains a great advantage, because Black cannot capture the pawn on a2, since White's pieces will become tremendously active in that case. For example: 22 . . . .ba2 23.�d7 �xc6+ 24.\t>d3 �xc1 25.�d8+ i.f8 26 . .bc1 \t>g7 27.ib2+ f6 28. h£6+- and the endgame is com­ pletely hopeless for Black.

17.f3

This is a reliable move. White's first priority is to take care about the safety of his pawn-centre. 46

1!/£2 gf8+ 20.\t>g3 .id7 21.lLlf3

e6 22.d6 .ic6 23 .ig5 lLlb7 24.ghel lLlcS 25 .ic2 gf7 26. gbdU White has a powerful •

•

passed pawn on d6, moreover that Black's e6-pawn is very weak, so in the game Hudak - Reeky, Email 2010, White scored a con­ vincing victory.

B4) 10

•••

a6

Black parries radically the threat �bS, but weakens the b6square.

n.gcl After having provoked the weakening of the b6-square, White's rook protects the pawn on c3. Now, Black must be con­ stantly on the alert about the po­ sitional threat d4-d5. (diagram) In this position he has the choice between the following possibilities: B4a) ll . . . f5, B4b) ll ... .ig4 and B4c) ll . . . cxd4.

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. ie3 Y!! aS 9. 1lff d2 liJ c6 1 0 J�!.bl

11 . . . 0-0 12 .d5 E:d8 13.i.e2 e6 14.0-0 exdS 1S.exd5 liJe7 16.c4 1Jffxd2 17.liJxd2;!; Karpov - Galli, Bastia 1998. The majority of the endgames of this type, as a rule, are close to equality, but in this situation White has an edge. The point is that Black's pawn is not on a7, but on a6. The moment he plays b7-b6, White will man­ age to exert pressure against that pawn.

B4a) ll

•..

f5

Having undermined White's centre with the move c7-c5, Black inflicts a strike against it from the other side of the board.

12.e5 This move is seemingly illogi­ cal (White presents his opponent with the control over the dS­ square.), but is one of the typical resources for him in this varia­ tion. Its idea is to restrict maxi­ mally Black's bishop on g7. This "good" bishop will be restricted by White's pawn on eS and will have problems entering the ac­ tions.

12

•••

f4

Black sacrifices a pawn for ini­ tiative. It is possible for him to opt for 12 . . . b5, occupying space on the queenside, 13.ie2 ib7 (after 13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 E:d8 15.a4 i.e6 16.axb5 axb5 17.'1Wb2;!;, White suc­ ceeds in keeping the enemy bish­ op on g7 inside the cage of pawns on eS, d4 and c3, Fridman - Kra­ senkow, Jurmala 2012) 14.0-0 cxd4 1S.liJxd4 liJxd4 (following 15 . . . liJxe5 16.liJe6 if6 17.1i.d4�, thanks to the powerful position of the knight on e6, which prevents Black from castling, White has more than sufficient compensa­ tion for the sacrificed pawn) 16. ixd4 0-0 17.id1 idS 18.ib3 ixb3 19.axb3;!; White's bishop on d4, supported by the pawn on c3, is obviously more active than its counterpart on g7, so the position is clearly in favour of White, Ry­ chagov - Nikolenko, Moscow 2010.

13 .ixf4 ig4 14.ie2 gds 15.liJg5 •

47

Chapter 3 White does not insist on keep­ ing the extra material and tries to deploy his knight on the weak­ ened e6-square. 15 .ixe2 16. •••

1rxe2 �US 17 .td2 cxd4 18.tt:le6 d3 19.�e3;!; - Now, despite Black's •

powerful passed pawn on d3, White wins the exchange, since three of Black's pieces are under the attack of White's knight and cannot run away simultaneously, Salem - Daulyte, Dubai 2011.

13.gxf3 0-0-0 14.i.d3 (After the careless move 14.f4, Black can un­ dermine White's centre with the move 14 . . . e6? and organise coun­ terplay, Bosman - Ni Hua, Plov­ div 2010.) 14 . . . tt:le5 15.i.e2 f5 16.f4 tt:lg4 17.i.xg4 fxg4 18.c4 �c7 19.h3 gxh3 2 0J'!xh3;!; White's pawn­ mass in the centre looks very im­ pressive and Black is incapable of exploiting the placement of White's king in the centre, Mengual Bolo - Perez Marco, Email 2009.

B4b) u . . . .tg4 This seemingly active move (Black increases his pressure against White's centre.) has a def­ inite drawback. With his previous move White has protected his pawn on c3, so he can occupy ad­ ditional space in the centre.

12.d5

12 ... �M8

Black intends to undermine White's centre with the move e6. Black can also compromise his opponent's pawn-structure, but must part with his powerful bish­ op in order to do that. 12 . . . .ixf3 48

13 .te2 0-0 14.0-0 .txf3 •

Black can also try to under­ mine immediately his opponent's centre without the preliminary exchange. 14 . . . e6 15.!g5. White's is attacking the enemy rook on d8 and frees the way of his queen to the f4-square. 15 .. J'!d7 (following 15 . . .£6 16.i.f4;!;, White preserves an edge, because after Black has played f7-f6, his bishop on g7 has turned immediately from active into very passive, Standaer Nogga, Email 2009) 16.�f4 ! Now, there arise tactical complications, which turn out to be in favour of White. 16 . . . .txf3 17.dxc6 .ixe2 18. cxd7 f6 19.�d6 fxgS 20 .�xe6+ gf7 21.e5. This is the key idea of this variation. White's e-pawn is com­ ing to the assistance of his d7pawn. Black can hardly hold this position. 21.. .i.b5 (His situation is horrible after 21.. . .txf1 2 2 .�d5 �dB 23.e6 ge7 24.�xf1 i.f6 25.c4 �g7 26.gb1+-. He has kept his extra piece and has blocked tern-

4.cd !iJxd5 5.e4 !iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. 0,j3 c5 8. i.e3 VIi aS 9. Vfid2 !iJ c6 1 0 . 'gbJ porarily White's central passed pawns, but Black is incapable of countering the penetration of his opponent's rook inside his camp.) 22 .Vfid5 hd7 23.e6 .be6 24.Vfixe6 .bc3 25.f4 i.d4+ 26.'tt>h 1 Vfid8 27.fxg5± Black's position is diffi­ cult and White's rook is more powerful than Black's bishop and pawn in this open position. ter this strong move, Black is faced with a rather unpleasant choice. 19 :Se8 (but not 19 .. .f6 20.i.f4±; 19 . . . 'gxd5 2 0 . .bd8 'gxd2 21..b:a5 'gxe2 2 2 .i.b6± and in the endgame White has all the chanc­ es of realising his material advan­ tage) 20.:Selt White has seized completely the initiative and his bishops begin to be very active in this open position, while Black can hardly manage to block the enemy dS-pawn.

15.hf3 e6

•••

16 .ie2 ! •

This i s a very accurate move. White removes prudently his bishop away from the possible strike CiJeS. After the routine response 16. 'gfd1, Black obtains a very good position following 16 . . . exd5 17. exdS CiJeS? Ding - Li, Olongapo City 2010.

16

•••

B4c) ll . . . cxd4 This is Black's most popular move. He enters an endgame hop­ ing later to equalise a slightly in­ ferior position.

12.cxd4 ti'xd2+ 13.'tt>xd2

:Sd7 17.:SfdU

(diagram) White's position is preferable thanks to his two powerful bish­ ops and the passed d-pawn. 17 exd5 18.exd5 :Sfd8 1 9 .ig5! Af•••

•

49

Chapter 3 13

...

e6

This is a precise and reliable move. Black is trying to build a solid defensive line. It is also possible for Black to play 13 . . .f5 - a counter strike which we are already familiar with. 14.e5 !

With this move White begins a plan to restrict the enemy bishop on g7. 14 . . . i.e6 (A quite typical for this variation exchange-sacrifice was tried in the game Sakaev Smikovski, Novokuznetsk 2008: 14 . . . h6 15.i.c4 ttla5 16.id5 e6 17. 1'!xc8+ ! 1'!xc8 18.he6 1'!c6 19.i.d5± White's bishop and his two cen­ tral pawns are stronger than Black's rook and b7-pawn.) 15. i.c4 hc4 16.1'!xc4 0-0 (16 . . . 1'!d8 17.'it>e2 e6 18.1'!b1 1'!d7, Prasad Ganguly, Nagpur 2008. Here, White has a very powerful argu­ ment at his disposal - 19.ttlg5 ! ?, attacking immediately Black's Achilles heel - his weak e6-pawn. 19 . . . 'it>e7 20.i.cl ! White's bishop is transferred to the a3-square where it will be much more active. 20 . . . ttlxd4+ 21.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 2 2 . 1'!xb7+ 1'!d7 23.ia3+ lt>e8 24.1'!b8+ 50

1'!d8 25.1'!b6± - He has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. Black's a6 and e6pawns are very weak and what is even more important - his king is seriously endangered in the cen­ tre of the board despite the fact that it is an endgame.) 17.'it>e2

17. . . e6 18.1'!b1 1'!f7. Here, White's best chance of obtaining an advantage is the move 19. ttlg5 ! ? (following 19.g3 1'!d7 20. 1'!b6 h6 21.h4 1'!c8 2 2 .ttlel 1'!cd8 23.ttld3 tt:Jxd4+ 24.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 25. hd4 1'!xd4 26.1'!xe6;J;, he again maintains an edge, but there is still plenty of material left on the board and in actions on both flanks Black's bishop may turn out to be stronger than White's knight, Kuljasevic - Safarli, Par­ dubice 2010) 19 . . . 1'!e7 20.h4;J;, fol­ lowed by the subsequent transfer of the knight to f4 via the h3square. White maintains unpleas­ ant pressure. The evaluation of the position remains more or less the same after 17 . . . h6 18.1'!bU. Later, in the game Z.Schneider - Neubau­ er, Oberpullendorf 2002, Black played carelessly - 18 . . . e6? and

4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 B. fie3 Wia5 9. Wld2 0.c6 1 0 . 'i'J.bl this enabled White to continue with a simple winning combina­ tion: 19.'i'J.xb7 0.a5 20.'i'J.xg7+ 'it>xg7 2l.'Sc7+ 'it>h8 22 .id2 +17 . . . 'i'J.ad8 18.'i'J.bl 'iJ.dS (Follow­ ing 18 . . . 'i'J.d7 19.g3 e6 20.'iJ.bM, White has again a slight edge, Ol­ szewski - Kanarek, Warsaw 2011. His pieces are active and Black must be constantly on the alert about the possible exchange-sac­ rifice on c6 - which is one of the main resources for White in this position.) 19.a4 'Sfd8 20 .g3 h6 21.h4t He has the initiative in this endgame. 21.. .0.a5 22.'i'J.c7 'i'J.Sd7 23.'i'J.c5 'iJ.dS 24.'i'J.xd5 'iJ.xdS 2S.'i'J.b6 'it>t7 26.:id2 if8 27.ic3 e6 28. 0.el! ± White redeploys his knight to a more active position. 28 . . . i.e7 29.0.c2 idS 30.ha5. Having im­ proved maximally the placement of his pieces, White finally trades his bishop for the enemy knight on aS and wins the b7-pawn. Black's position crumbles. 30 . . . 'fJ.xaS 31.'i'J.xb7+ 'it>e8 32.'i'J.b4 'iJ.dS 33.'i'J.c4 'i'J.d7 34.'i'J.c6 'it>t7 35.'i'J.xa6 'i'J.b7 36.a5 'i'J.b2 37.'it>d3 'i'J.a2 38. 'i'J.a7+ 1-0 Giri - Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.

Besides this, he has also tested in practice 13 . . . 0-0 14.d5

Now, it is bad for him to opt for 14 . . . 'i'J.d8, due to lS.'it>el 0.b4 (15 . . . 0.a5?? 16.:ib6+-) 16.id2 ! , Brunner - Marzolo, Metz 2010, 16 . . . a5 17.a3 0.a6 18.ixa5± and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient. Still, even af­ ter 14 . . . 0.e5, White develops ef­ fortlessly his initiative in the end­ game. 15.0.xe5 !xeS 16.f4 ib8 17.e5 'i'J.d8 18.i.d3 if5 19.i.xf5 gxfS 20.'it>e2t - He has a better pawn­ structure, while Black's bishop on b8 is very passive restricted by White's pawn on eS, Akobian Khachiyan, Wheeling 2010.

14.i.d3 This is a reliable move. White is not in a hurry to force the issue. He has also tried in practice the riskier line: 14.d5 exdS 15. exdS. Still, after Black's solid re­ ply 15 . . . 0.e5 16.0.xe5 ixeS 17.g3 :ifS 18.ig2 'it>d7= , White can hardly fight for the advantage, be­ cause his passed pawn has been reliably blocked and the exchange of the rooks on the c-file will elim51

Chapter 3 inate the conflict in this position, Ftacnik - Jansa, Bratislava 1983.

14

•••

0-0

About 14 ... .id7 15.!k4 0-0 see 14 . . . 0-0.

15.gc4 .id7 Black cannot equalise if he tries to organise counterplay with 15 . . .f5 16.g3 .id7 17J1hc1 E:fc8 18. dS exdS 19.exd5;!;. White's pros­ pects are preferable thanks to his powerful passed dS-pawn, Khen­ kin - Seel, Bad Wiessee 2003. The character of the fight re­ mains the same following 15 . . . E:d8 16.h4 (16.E:b1 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . .id7 17.h5;!; Epishin - Polovodin, Podolsk 1992 . (diagram)

16.h4!? The endgame i s slightly better for White, but it would not be easy for him to break Black's defence. With his last move White plans to advance his pawn up to the h6-

square in order to fix the enemy h7-pawn.

16 gfc8 17.h5 .!lJa5 18. gxc8+ gxc8 19.h6 .ih8 20.gc1 gxc1 21. c.!?xcl .!lJc6 22. i>d2 .if6 23.i>c3;!; White's king is more ac­ •••

tive and he will play for a win lat­ er, combining his threat to break with his king towards Black's queenside pawns with the pawn­ advance in the centre d4-d5, as well as with an attack against Black's h7-pawn, Epishin - Fer­ nandez Aguado, Logrono 1991.

Conclusion We have just analysed variations of the Gruenfeld Defence in which Black develops his queen to aS. In these lines, as a rule, there arises a slightly better endgame for White, because his pieces occupy more ac­ tive positions thanks to his wonderful pawn-centre. Black will need to work hard to neutralise his opponent's pressure on the c-file and to prevent the penetration to the c7-square. If he tries to undermine his opponent's centre with the move f7-f5, then White has the unpleasant plan with the move e4-e5, after which Black's bishop on g7 becomes severely restricted in its movements and White seizes completely the initiative on the queenside. With a black bishop remaining on g7, White will have an extra piece in his queenside actions.

52

Chapter 4

l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttJc3 d5 4.cxd5 ttJxd5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttJf3 c5 8 .ie3 Vas 9.Vd2 0-0 •

cxd4 and finally the move which is considered to be the best in this variation - F) lO gds. •••

About 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.d5 lt:Je5 (11 . . . gds - see lO . . . gds) 12.lt:Jxe5 .ixeS 13.f4 - see Chapter 2, 8 . . . lt:Jc6, 9 . . . �as.

A) 10 This move was considered to be imprecise for many years and was not in the focus of the con­ temporary theory. In the 21st cen­ tury however, new ideas were found for Black and they led to a very complicated and double­ edged game. Therefore, this vari­ ation became a frequent guest in the tournament practice even at the super top level. It was tested in the games of L. Aronian, A. Grischuk, P. Leko, P. Svidler, V. Topalov and many other grand­ masters.

Black has a great choice of moves in this position:

A) 10 b6, B) 10 c!bd7, C) Ag4, D) 10 e6, E) 10 •••

• • •

b6

n.Ah6

to.gcl

10

•••

This move is only seldom played in the tournament prac­ tice. White obtains effortlessly an opening advantage.

•••

•••

•••

This is a typical reso�rce in this variation. White wishes to trade the enemy bishop in order to weaken the shelter of the ene53

Chapter 4 my king. By playing like this, he is not planning so much to attack, but is trying to force his opponent to exchange on d4, which would lead to the trade of queens and a transfer to an endgame advanta­ geous for White. It may be interesting for him to choose the move ll.h4 ! ? , which has not been analysed thoroughly yet. It has been tried by I.Sokolov. Later, Black did not defend in the best possible way and White scored a quick victory following ll . . . l'!e8?! 12 .h5 i.a6 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.i.h6 i.h8 1S.i.xa6 ltlxa6 16.d5 1Wa4 17.1Wf4 1Wc4 18.ltle5 1-0 I. So­ kolov - Berghagen, Sweden 2001. Ivan Sokolov's idea requires fur­ ther practical tests.

ll

. . •

cxd4

This exchange is forced. After 11.. .l'!d8, White can play 12 .h4! and will force his opponent to trade pawns in the centre any­ way. Still, contrary to the majority of similar positions, after the exchange, White is not obliged to enter an endgame but can play for an attack. 12 . . . cxd4 13.i.xg7 �xg7 14.h5± with a very powerful attack, Daly - Isaev, Moscow 1994. We have to mention the fact that Black's rook on d8 is not pro­ tected, so he cannot exchange on c3.

12.hg7 �xg7 13.cxd4 tfxd2+ 14.�xd2 i.b7 15.i.d3;!; 54

There has arisen a typical end­ game for the Gruenfeld Defence with a slight edge for White due to his dominance in the centre. Later, in the game Yermolinsky ­ Khachiyan, Las Vegas 2004, Black made a grave positional blunder 15 .. Jic8? and after 16.

gxc8 hc8 17.gcl i.a6 18.gc7± White's rook penetrated to the c7square. In addition, Black's knight on b8 has not been developed yet.

18 . . . �f8 19.e5 hd3 2o.gc8+ �g7 21.�xd3+-, White has a de­

cisive advantage in this endgame, because Black cannot get rid of the pin of his knight on b8 with­ out material losses.

B) 10

•••

�d7

4.cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8 . fi. e3 Wfa5 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '£cl Jan Nepomniachtchi liked to play this move.

ll . .id3 This is a natural developing move for White. He not only pre­ pares to castle kingside, but also protects prudently his central e4pawn, because Black can attack it later (11Jf6, or fi.b7 after b7-b5).

n ... e5 This is Black's best move. It seems premature for him to begin active actions on the queen­ side with ll . . . b5 12.0-0 c4. This move is strategically risky. Black occupies space on the queenside indeed, but reduces his pressure against White's centre. 13.ic2 fi.b7 14.'£b1 11Jb6 15.h4 ! This is the beginning of an attack against the enemy king. 15 . . . '£ad8 16.h5 '£fe8 17.'£fcl fi.c6 18.fi.h6± White has powerful initiative on the king­ side and a wonderful pawn-cen­ tre, which can hardly be attacked by Black, Santos Etxepare Sanchez Carol, Email 2010. 11 ... 11Jb6.

After

this

move

White preserves an edge. 12 .�6 i.d7 (or 12 . . . '£d8 13 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 14. d5;!;, followed by 0-0 and White's prospects are preferable thanks to his dominance in the centre, Ba­ nikas - Rowson, Tallinn 1997) 13.d5 .ib5 14 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 15.c4 (15. h4 ! ?;!;) 15 ... Wfxd2+ 16.\t>xd2 .ia6 17.h4;!; White has extra space (his pawns have occupied the centre), while Black's minor pieces are very passive, Bosiocic - Vorobiov, Trieste 2012. 11 . . . 11Jf6. With this move Black attacks the enemy e4-pawn and prepares c5-c4. We have already mentioned before that the pawn­ advance c5-c4 is not dangerous for White. 12.0-0 c4 (after 12 . . . e6 13.Wie2;!;, his beautiful pawn-cen­ tre provides him with an advan­ tage, Bronstein - Tukmakov, Wijk aan Zee 1992) 13.ib1 b5 14 . .ih6 .ib7 15.'£feU and again White's pawn-centre guarantees his edge, Rodrigues - Mundstock, Brazil 1993.

12.d5 This is the only way for him to fight for the opening advantage. Following 12 .h4 cxd4 13.cxd4 Wfxd2+ 14.\t>xd2, White maintains a slight edge in the endgame, but Black can rely on equalising grad­ ually with an accurate defence, as it was shown in the game Aronian - Nepomniachtchi, Khanty-Man­ siysk 2010: 14 . . . exd4 15 ..ixd4 '£d8 16.\t>e3 11Jf6 17 . .ixf6 .ix£6 18.i.c4 55

Chapter 4 h6 19 . .ib3 :!'!d7 2 0.g4 :!'!e7 2 1.g5 i.g7 2Vt:ld4 ixd4+ 23.r;!;>xd4 ie6 24 . .be6 :!'!xe6 25.gxh6 :!'!d8+ 26. r;!;>e3 :!! d eS 27.f3 r;!;>h7= and the op­ ponents agreed soon to a draw.

.idS :!'!b8 25.Wle7+-; 23 ... lt:Jf6? 24. Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.Wlf8+ r;t>gs 26.i.f7) 24.Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.:!'!fe1 lt:Jf6 26. WlfB+ r;!;>hS 27.:!'!e3 :!'!b7 28 ..if7 :!'!xf7 29.Wlxf7t In this complicated po­ sition White has a rook and a pawn for Black's two minor piec­ es. White's position is preferable, since he has a very strong pawn on d6, while Black's king is obvi­ ously endangered on the hS­ square.

13.0-0 c4 tSJ!bl gbs

14 . .ic2

�a3

12 . . .b5 Black is preparing active ac­ tions on the queenside. He can also try something on the kingside as well. 12 .. .f5 13.ig5 c4 (after 13 .. .tbf6 14 ..bf6 .bf6 15.0-0;!;, White's extra space and his passed dS-pawn are more im­ portant than Black's two-bishop advantage, Pavlovic - Sedlak, Valjevo 2011) 14.ixc4 fxe4 15.d6+ r;!;>h8 16.lt:Jh4. This move is forced. Now, the position becomes very complicated. White has a power­ ful and far-advanced pawn on d6, but his knight on h4 is misplaced. 16 ... i.f6 17.Wle3 ! (threatening 18. lt:Jxg6) 17 ... .bg5 18.Wlxg5 :!'!f6 19. 0-0 WlcS 20 . .ib3 b6 21.lt:Jxg6+ ! He solves radically the problem with his bad knight. White organ­ izes a powerful attack for the sac­ rificed knight. 21.. .:!'!xg6 22 .Wld8+ r;!;>g7 23.:!'!cd1 :!'!b8 (23 . . . :!'!f6? 24. 56

16.�cl Black's queen is perfectly placed on a3, so White should better exchange it immediately.

16 . . . �xc1 17.gfxcl aS The game has entered a com­ plicated endgame in which each side has its chances.

18.a4 White undermines immedi­ ately Black's queenside pawns. It is possible that White's most reliable move is 18.lt:Jd2 ! ? , for ex­ ample: 18 . . . .ia6 19 . .idU and he is

4. cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. ltJj3 c5 8. :ie3 Vff a5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O .'ikl p reparing to transfer his bishop to e2, followed by undermining Black's pawn on c4 with the move a2 -a4.

18

•••

b4

prospects are better, since his dominance in the centre is a more important factor than his slightly compromised pawn-structure (af­ ter the possibility - .ixf3).

ll.d5 White occupies space. This is the reason he has played :1kl, so that his pawn on c3 is protected.

19 .ldl! ? •

White will redeploy his bishop to e2.

ll It would be too risky for him to present Black with two connected passed pawns. 19.cxb4 axb4 20. idl c3 21.:ie2 fS+t Pashikian Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2010. Black has a very good position. His queenside pawns are very dangerous and his task is much easier than White's game.

19

. • •

b3 20.lbd2 .la6 21 .le2;!; •

Black has a protected passed pawn on b3, but his c4-pawn is very weak, so the position should be evaluated in favour of White.

C) 10

•••

.lg4

This active move leads to a complicated fight in which White's

. . .

.txf3

This is Black's basic and most logical move. He compromises his opponent's pawn-structure. About ll .. J:!d8 12.ltJg5 - see variation F. ll . . . ltJd7. This move leads to a clearly inferior position for Black. 12 .c4 W:fb6 (After 12 . . . W:fa3 13 . .le2 ltJf6 14.Vfic2 WiaS+ 15.:id2 W:fc7 16. 0-0;!;, White has completed his development and now Black will have a hard time fighting against his opponent's centre, Davidavi­ cius - Boreika, Email 2005. Fol­ lowing 12 . . . W:la4, White can. avoid the doubling of his pawns with 13.ltJg5 h6 14.h3 ihS 15.g4 hxgS, Kotanjian - Kviriashvili, Tbilisi 57

Chapter 4 2009, 16.i.xg5;!;, he regains his bishop and preserves his posi­ tional advantage.) 13.ie2 �b4 14. h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 a6 16.ie2 �xd2+ 17.'it>xd2t In this endgame, natu­ rally Black has some counterplay on the dark squares, but White's prospects are preferable thanks to his superior pawn-structure and the two-bishop advantage, Cebalo - Tseshkovsky, Banja Luka 1981. It would be too risky for Black to opt for ll . . . lLla6, since he not only loses a tempo, but removes his knight to the edge of the board. The best way for White to empha­ size the drawbacks of this move is 12.h4 ! ? , beginning an attack on the kingside. 12 . . . f5 13.exf5 ixfS 14.h5 :!':ladS, Kramnik - Svidler, Moscow 2009, 15.ih6 ! ?± and af­ ter the trade of the dark-squared bishops, White's kingside attack becomes very powerful.

12.gxf3 lLld7 Black cannot equalise with 12 . . . c4. Following 13.h4 h5 14.ih6 Elc8 15.ixg7 'it>xg7 16.f4 lLld7 17. Elg1 �b6 18.f5t, White obtained a better position in the game Khen­ kin - Schandorff, Helsingor 2011. It is worth paying attention to White's previous actions. At first, he provoked the move hS, weak­ ening the g6-square and then be­ gan an attack against it with the pawn-advance f3-f4-f5. After the exchange on g6, White's f2-pawn may join into the attack (f4-f5). 58

13.c4 �c7 There arises an inferior end­ game for Black in which he has no counterplay at all after 13 . . . �xd2+ 14.'it>xd2 fS 15.exf5 gxfS 16.f4 lLlf6 17.id3t, his pawns on fS and e7 are very weak, Kuljasevic - Ashi­ ku, Trieste 2012.

14.f4

White is fighting for the key square in this position - eS. The subsequent play of both adversar­ ies is focused on this square.

14

•••

e5

Black corrects his opponent's pawn-structure indeed, but cre­ ates some counterplay.

15.fxe5 lilxe5 16.i.e2 This is the key position of this variation. (diagram)

16

•••

lild7

16 . . . �e7. Black's position is difficult after this move. 17.f4 lLld7 18.if3 gS. This pawn-sacrifice is forced, since the control over the eS-square is vital for Black. 19.

4.cd 0.xd.S 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 0.j3 c5 8. ie3 V!faS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'i'!.cl Email 2010. White has two pow­ erful bishops and a passed dS­ pawn. Black's king shelter has been weakened and he must be on the alert about White's possible attack on the g-file, or against the h7-square.

D) 10 ... e6 fxgS 0.e5 20 . .ie2 fS 21.d6! After this strong move there arises an endgame which is better for White (Things are not so clear after 21. exfS 'SxfS+!. Black has counterplay due to the unsafe enemy monarch in the centre of the board, Khen­ kin - Romanishin, Ohrid 2001.). 21.. .V!fe6 2 2 .V!fd5. This is the es­ sence of White's previous move. After the trade of queens, Black is incapable of exploiting the pre­ carious placement of White's king in the centre of the board. 22 . . . V!fxdS 23.exd5 'Sae8 24.\t>d2 b6 25.'Scf1 'Sd8 26.h4 'Sxd6 27.h5± ­ He has a great advantage in this endgame with two powerful bish­ ops and a strong passed pawn on dS, while Black's pawns on fS and h7 are vulnerable.

17.f4 gae8 18.e5 g5. This is a timely undermining move. 19. 0-0 White must sacrifice a pawn if he wishes to fight for the open­ ing advantage. 19 gxf4 20.

This is a passive move. Black prevents d4-d5, but loses time in the process. As a rule, in this vari­ ation, there arises an endgame which is better for White in which Black can hardly organise any counterplay.

n . .th6 This is an already familiar re­ source. White wishes to advance h2-h4, threatening an attack against the enemy king, in order to force Black to exchange on d4.

ll ... tlJc6 This is his most natural move.

•••

ix£4 ttJxe5 21 .tg4 ti'b6 22. .tf5� - He has more than suffi­ •

cient compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn, Romanov - Shulman,

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same fol­ lowing ll . . . 'Sd8 12 .h4 cxd4 13. .ixg7 \t>xg7 14.cxd4 0.c6 1S,ti'xa5 59

Chapter 4 lt:lxaS 16.�d2 .id7 (after 16 . . . h5, Grischuk - Mamedyarov, Mos­ cow 2009, 17 . .id3, White main­ tains a slight but stable edge in the endgame) 17.id3 E:ac8 18.g4 h6 19.�e3 ia4 2 0.g5 hS 21.lt:le5 lt:lc6 22 .lt:lxc6 E:xc6 23.E:xc6 hc6 24.E:cl �f8 25.f4;!; and White pre­ serves a slight advantage in the endgame, because Black's king­ side pawns, placed on light squares, may turn into good tar­ gets for White's bishop, Najer Rakhmanov, Irkutsk 2010. It is not preferable for Black to opt for ll . . . cxd4 12 .hg7 �xg7 13.cxd4 lt:lc6 (13 .. .'�xd2 14.�xd2 lt:lc6 15.h4 E:d8 16.�e3 - see 11 . . . lt:lc6) 14.E:c5 �xd2+ 15.�xd2. There has arisen again on the board an already familiar end­ game. Later, in the game Jako­ venko - Rakhmanov, Dagomys 2010, there followed: 15 . . . a6 16. id3 .id7 17.E:hc1 (17.E:b1! ?;!;) 17 . . . E:fd8 18.�e3 ie8 19.E:b1 E:d7 2 0 . E:b6;!;. White's rooks have occu­ pied active positions, while Black has no counterplay and is forced to adhere to a passive de­ fence.

12.h4 cxd4 13 .ixg7 �xg7 14.cxd4 �xd2+

15 . . . h6 16 ..id3 E:d8 17.�e3 .id7 18.E:b1 lt:la5 19.lt:le5 E:ac8. Later, in the game Sherbakov - S.Ivanov, USSR 1991, White accomplished the standard plan for similar po­ sitions, by advancing his king­ side pawns with the idea to fix the enemy pawns on light squares: 20 .f4 ie8 2l.E:hc1 a6 2 2 . g4 ! b S 23.g5 ! hxgS 24.hxg5;!; - the endgame is very difficult for Black.

16.c.!le3 .id7 17.gbl It is also good for White to play immediately 17.h5;!;, preparing eventual actions on the h-file, Yermolinsky - Benjamin, Phila­ delphia 1992.

•

About 14 ... E:d8 15.'�xa5 - see ll . . . E:d8.

15.c.!lxd2 (diagram)

15 J!d8 • •

60

Following 17 . . . b6 18.iaM, Black will have problems fighting for the c-file, since the c8-square is controlled by White's bishop, Koepcke - Henao, Los Angeles 1991.

18.J.d3 lt:le7 19.h5;t;

4.cd tjj xd5 5.e4 tjj xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. tjjj3 c5 8. :ie3 Wia5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!cl rule, enters a typical "Gruenfeld Defence' endgame.

This position was reached in the World Championship match in the game Karpov - Kasparov, Lyon/New York 1990. Thanks to his pawn-centre, White can com­ bine threats both on the queen­ side and on the kingside, while Black must only defend passively.

19 f6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.gh2 b6 22.g4 e5 23.dxe5 .ixg4 24. exf6+ �xf6 25.lild4± White's •••

kingside activity has brought some results. There has appeared a weak pawn on g6 in Black's camp. His position is difficult. Kasparov exploited some impre­ cise moves by White and man­ aged to save the draw, but this variation became a very rare guest in the contemporary tournament practice and quite deservedly so. There will not be so many players willing to obtain right after the opening an endgame without any active prospects and to lead a pas­ sive defence to the end of the game.

ll.cxd4 Wixd2+ 12.lilxd2 Here, contrary to some other situations, White can capture on d2 not with his king but with his knight, since his d4-pawn is pro­ tected. The idea behind this cap­ turing is to transfer the knight to b3 in order to protect his d4pawn. The placement of the knight on b3 has the plus that af­ ter f7-f5, White will be able to de­ fend his central e4-pawn with the move f2-f3.

12

E) 10

•••

cxd4

After this move, the game, as a

•..

e6

This move is solid but somewhat passive. 61

Chapter 4 About 12 . . . tt:\c6 13.tt:\b3 gds (13 .. .fS 14.f3 - see 12 .. .fS; 13 . . . e6 14.ibS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS - see 12 . . . gd8. Following 12 ... b6 13.ie2 tt:\a6 14.0-0 i.b7 1S.gc4;!;, Black's knight is horribly misplaced at the edge ofthe board, Kovacs - Apro, Hun­ gary 2003. 12 ...f5. This undermining move is not dangerous for White's cen­ tre due to the possibility 13.f3, for example: 13 . . . fxe4 14.fxe4 tt:\c6 1S.tt:lb3 id7 (Black's situation is even worse after 1S . . .c.!<>h8 16.i.bS aS 17.a4 tt:\a7 18.i.e2± and in the endgame White has a stable ad­ vantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure and more harmo­ niously developed pieces, Khen­ kin - Hort, Bad Homburg 2007.) 16.i.c4+ cJ;>hs 17.gfa 12 . . . gds. The idea of this move is to exert pressure against White's d4-pawn. 13.tt:\b3 tt:\c6 (13 . . . e6 14.!gS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS

It may be interesting, but still insufficient for Black to equalise with 14 . . . tt:leS 1S.ie2 fS 16.£3 fxe4 17.fxe4 e6, Schmied - Fuhrmann, Wuerzburg 1994, 18.igS ! ? gfs 19.d6;!; - he has great problems fighting against White's passed pawn. 14 . . . tt:\b4. This move is seem­ ingly active, but after 1S.id2 ! , Black's knight i s suddenly endan­ gered. 1S . . . tt:\a6. He cannot equal­ ise with this move, because he has lost too much time for manoeu­ vres with his knight. (1S . . . aS 16.a3 a4 17.tt:laS ! tt:\a6 18.tt:\c4;!; Black has solved the problems with his knight indeed, but his pawn on a4 is misplaced and his pawn-major­ ity on the queenside has been de­ evaluated. He must fight for a draw in an inferior endgame. It is also good for White to choose here 18.gc2;!;, preventing Black's counterplay, connected with the move ib2 and maintaining a slight edge.) 16.i.gS i.f8 17.i.bS h6 18.i.h4 gS 19.ig3 e6 2 0.ixa6 bxa6 2 l.i.c7 gd7 22.dxe6 fxe6 23.f3 ib4+ 24.cJ;>f2;!; Black's two­ bishop advantage cannot com­ pensate the numerous weakness­ es of his pawn-structure, S.Atalik - Laciner, Marmaris 2006.

13.tt:lb3

This is the right move ! Now, Black's knight does not have a good square to retreat to. 62

White has accomplished the planned transfer of his knight to the b3-square. (diagram)

13

•••

l!!t d8

This is a reliable move for

4. cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc �g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8. �e3 Wia5 9. ffd2 0 - 0 J O . 'l!cl have remained bishops of oppo­ site colours on the board, but Black's position is difficult, since his c6-pawn is weak and the dark squares on his kingside are terri­ bly weakened, Olesen - Marti­ novsky, Chicago 1993.

Black. He increases the pressure against White's d4-pawn and con­ ceals for the moment his further plans.

The endgame is slightly pref­ erable for White following 13 . . . b6 14.f3 .ia6 15 . .ie2 (15.'it>f2 ! ?;!;) 15 . . . '8d8 16.'it>f2 'it>f8 17.h4 ixe2 18. 'it>xe2;!; Gajewski - Greenfeld, Za­ greb 2011.

14 .ig5 •

13 . . . a5. The advance of Black's rook-pawn cannot cause any trouble for White. 14.�b5 �d7 15. ixd7 11Jxd7 16.'8c7 11Jf6 17.f3 b5 18. 'it>e2;!; Anikaev - Tseshkovsky, Severodonetsk 1982. White's cen­ tral pawns restrict considerably Black's minor pieces. In addition, White dominates on the c-file. All this leads to the evaluation that Black is faced with a difficult fight for a draw in this endgame. The natural move 13 . . . 11Jc6 has the drawback that White can at­ tack immediately this knight with his bishop. 14.�b5 '8d8. Black ig­ nores the possible weakening of his pawn-structure and begins ac­ tive actions (it is just bad for him to opt for 14 . . . �d7, in view of 15.11Jc5 ie8 16.e5;!; Schachinger ­ Andersen, Triesen 2010). 15.ixc6 bxc6 16.0-0 �a6 17.:1l:fd1 �e2 18.'8d2 �b5 19.11Jc5 .if8 2 0.�g5 ixc5 21.'8xc5 '8d7 2 2 .if6;!; - There

With this move White pro­ vokes the pawn-advance f7-f6, af­ ter which the scope of action of the bishop on g7 is reduced. The loss of time for this bishop-ma­ noeuvre for White is not impor­ tant, since Black is incapable of exploiting this.

14 f6 15 .ie3 ...

•

15 .lbc6 • •

Black cannot equalise with 15 . . .f5. He contributes to the ac­ tivity of his bishop on g7 indeed, 63

Chapter 4 but weakens his pawn-structure. 16.exf5 gxfS 17.i.g5 l'l:£8 18.i.b5:t Kobalia - Najer, Sochi 2 0 05. Black obtains a solid, but a bit passive position, if he transfers his bishop to another diagonal. 15 . . . i.f8 16.i.c4 lt:lc6 17. 0-0 i.d7 18.f4:t - His pieces can hardly at­ tack White's powerful pawn-cen­ tre, Galanov - Schwenck, Email 2010.

16.i.b5 �b4 The position is inferior for Black following 16 . . . i.f8, because after 17.i.xc6 bxc6 18.f3, his c6pawn is weak and he will have to part sooner or later with his two­ bishop advantage, because he will have to give his bishop on f8 for the enemy knight on cS. 18 . . . i.b7 19.'i!lf2 aS 20.lt:lc5 i.xcS 21.l'!xc5 @f7 22 .l'!b1 l'!d7 23.a4± Black's pawns on aS and c6 are weak and his bishop on b7 is very passive, P. Nielsen - Ruck, Panormo 2002.

.id7

22.d5

exd5

23.hd5:t

White's pieces are much more ac­ tive than their counterparts, Grischuk - Kamsky, Mainz 2010.

F) 10 ... l3d8 This move is considered to be Black's main response at the mo­ ment. After it, there arise very complicated positions in which White must know very well the concrete variations and for exam­ ple, in the main line he will have to sacrifice his queen.

ll.d5 He occupies space.

Now, we will analyse thor­ oughly the moves: Fl) ll . . . �c6 and F2) ll . . . e6. It would be too dangerous for Black to try here ll . . .fS, Tunik Ovchinnikov, Kazan 2013, be­ cause after 12 .i.c4!±, the weaken­ ing of the a2-g8 diagonal will hurt him badly.

17.a3 a6 18 . .ic4 �c6 19. 0-0 .if8 20.a4 g;,g7 21.lUdl 64

Black should better refrain from ll . . . b6, since this move may

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8. !e3 WfaS 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '8cl j ust turn out to be a loss of a tem­ po. 12 .:!h6 :!h8 13.h4 liJd7 14.h5 liJf6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.id3;!; White's centre is solid enough, he has op ened the h-file and can begin an attack against Black's mon­ arch, Orsag - Korschner, Czech Republic 2011. The endgame is worse for Black and he has no active coun­ terplay after ll . . . liJd7 12 .c4 Wfxd2+ 13.mxd2 b6 14.!d3;!; Hillarp Pers­ son - Jensson, Reykjavik 1997. White should not be afraid of

ll. . . :!g4, because he can avoid the

exchange of this knight with the move 12 .liJg5, for example: 12 . . . h6 13.h3 id7 14.liJf3;!; Khenkin Lutz, Recklinghausen 2001. Black has lost time on moves with his bishop and now, he can hardly at­ tack effectively his opponent's centre.

Fl) ll

•••

liJc6

12.h4!? This i s White's most princi­ pled and energetic move. He does not lose time and prepares an im­ mediate attack against the enemy king. He cannot obtain an edge with 12 .:!e2 e6 13.:!g5 f6 14.ie3 exdS 15.exd5 liJe7 16.c4 Wfxd2+ 17.liJxd2 b6 18.g4 fSoo Bacrot - Timofeev, Moscow 2010. There has arisen a complicated endgame with mutu­ al chances. Black has good coun­ terplay on the dark squares and must only transfer his knight on e7 to d6, via the c8-square.

12

•••

e6

Following 12 . . . h5 13.:!e2 ig4 14.ig5;!;, White has a slight but stable advantage thanks to the weakening of the gS-square, Zaja - Cvitkovic, Hum na Sutli 2012.

13.h5 exd5 14.hxg6

This move is played by such great experts of the Gruenfeld De­ fence as P.Svidler and A.Timo­ feev.

14 fxg6 •••

This capture seems quite reli­ able. Now, Black is not threatened 65

Chapter 4 to be checkmated on the h-file, but he will lose his dS-pawn due to the weakening of the a2-g8 di­ agonal. 14 . . . hxg6. Capturing with the h7-pawn would lead to the open­ ing of the h-file and Black would have problems parrying White's attack. 15.�h6. The position is very complicated with mutual chances. White must play the strongest moves; otherwise, he may not only lose his advantage, but may even lose quickly. (For example in the game Zakhartsov - Kurnosov, Irkutsk 2010, it took only two moves for him to turn his slightly better position into a hopeless one : 15.exd5?! ig4 16. tt:JgS?? Now, with a series of ex­ quisite tactical strikes, Black ob­ tained a winning position. 16 . . . :!'!xdS ! 17.'�xd5 ixc3+ 18.:!'!xc3 �xc3+ 19.�d2 :!'!d8 !-+ and his queen is untouchable due to the checkmate.)

file and Black is helpless against the sacrifice on h8. His most re­ silient defence is to give up the exchange. In the game Kozul Brkic, Zagreb 2012, he played 16 . . . :!'!d6 and after 17.:!'!xh8+ �xh8 18. �f4+-, White's attack was vic­ torious. Following 15 . . . :!'!e8, White ob­ tains a great advantage with a rather non-obvious manoeuvre with his knight to the h7-square. 16.hg7 :!'!xe4+ 17.�e2 �xg7 18. tt:JgS ! His knight goes in the vicin­ ity of the enemy king. 18 . . . :!'!eS

19.tt:Jh7! ! Now, Black's position crumbles. 19 . . . �d8 20 .�h6+ �g8 2l.f4 :!'!e8 22.�f2 +- and White's attack on the h-file is impossible for Black to parry.

15.exd5 �e6 16.�c4! ? This move i s stronger than 16.c4 ifSoo Giri - Svidler, Gu­ ingamp 2010. 15 . . . ih8 16.ig5± After this move, Black's position becomes nearly hopeless. White's bishop is removed with tempo from the h-

66

16 ... ll:le7 17.�h6 .ixd5 It is not preferable for Black to choose 17 . . .if6 due to 18.�e2±

18 . .ixd5+ :!'!xd5 19."f!re3

4.cd CiJxdS 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc :Jlg7 7. CiJ.f3 c5 8. :fle3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'Bcl This is Black's basic reply. He undermines White's centre.

12 .ig5 •

This is the only move for White to fight for an advantage in the opening.

He has regained his d5-pawn indeed, but this is small consolation for Black since his king is very weak. Later, he will have great problems to parry the threats against his king and to maintain the material equality at the same time. 19 fM8 20.ti'e6+ �h8 21. •••

.bg7+ �xg7 22.c4 !td6 !txh7+ �xh7 24J«f7+ �h6 �e2 !te6+ 26.Wixe6 lL!c6 'f«e3+ �g7 28. W!xc5;t; White

Following 12.c4? ! , it is only Black who can play for a win, as it was shown in the game Tunik Timofeev, St Petersburg 2002: 12 ... W!xd2+ 13.CiJxd2 b6 14 . .ie2 CiJa6 15. 0-0 CiJb4 16.a3 CiJa2 17.'8c2 CiJc3+. His knight is perfectly placed on c3 (It is worth remembering the long purposeful manoeuvre CiJb6a6-b4-a2-c3 . . . ) and the arising position should be evaluated much rather in favour of Black.

23. 25. 27.

has an extra pawn. His queenside pawns on a2 and c4 are weak, but there is just a few material left on the board and he has all the chances of realising his slight ma­ terial advantage.

F2) u ... e6 12

•••

f6

This is his most popular move. Black ousts with tempo the enemy bishop. Still, this leads to some weakening of Black's king shelter and to the closing of the long di­ agonal for his dark-squared bish­ op on g7. It deserves attention for him to try 12 . . . '8d6 !?, as it was played 67

Chapter 4 in the game Khenkin - Grischuk, Istanbul 2012. 13.if4 E:d8. Now White, if he wishes to avoid the repetition of moves after 14.ig5, must continue with 14.ie2 exdS 15.exd5 bS 16.ig5 ! ? (It would not be so energetic for him to enter an endgame with 16.c4, because in the game Khenkin - Sevdimaliev, Baku 2012, White failed to prove the advantages of his position.). Now, no matter how Black reacts, White maintains a slight initia­ tive, for example: 16 . . . E:e8 17. 0-0 tt:\d7 18.d6 ib7 19J�fe1 E:e4 20. ien. He has seized completely the initiative. His passed d6-pawn squeezes the enemy pieces, while Black's rook is awkwardly placed on e4. If he tries to capture the pawn on a2 with 20 . . . E:a4, then he may pay dearly, since with the move 21.tt:\g5±, White will exert powerful pressure against the f7square. 12 . . . E:e8. This move has a seri­ ous drawback. Now, Black's rook is incapable of fighting against White's passed d-pawn. 13.d6. Of course - this is the right move !

Now, Black has a great choice 68

of possibilities, but neither of them promises him an easy game. Following 13 . . . b5, White can play the energetic move 14.h4 be­ ginning an attack on the kingside. 14 . . .ib7 15.id3 tt:\d7 16.h5;!; - His kingside activity is likely to create great problems for Black, Pashi­ kian - Vachier Lagrave, Moscow 2010. It seems too passive for Black to opt for 13 . . . tt:\d7. After 14.h4 hS 15.ih6 ih8 16.ie2;!;, his position is without good prospects. He is cramped by the enemy d6-pawn and White's game is much easier, Rombaldoni - Avrukh, Alghero 2011. 13 ... id7. Black blocks reliably the enemy d6-pawn. 14.ih6 if6. He is trying to preserve his dark­ squared bishop, since without it the dark-squares in his position would be defenceless. (Following 14 . . . '1Mld8 15.h4±, Black's position becomes very difficult as it hap­ pened in the game Anand - Leko, Miskolc 2009. He will not be checkmated, but his dark squares will be an easy prey for White. 15 .. .f6 16.e5 ic6 17.h5 gS 18.ixg7 c.!txg7 19.exf6+ 'IM!xf6 2 0 .h6+ c.!ih8 21.'1Mlxg5 E:f8 2 2 .'1Mlxf6+ E:xf6 23. tt:\e5+- and White has an extra pawn and a better position.) 15. h4. Once again, he is preparing the typical opening of the h-file for this variation. White is not afraid that his king will remain in the centre of the board, since Black can hardly exploit this with his undeveloped queenside piec-

4.cd CiJxd5 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc �g7 7. CiJj3 c5 8. �e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 J O . 'Scl es. 15 . . . ic6 16.h5 CiJd7 17.CiJgS c4. He is forced to sacrifice a pawn in order to neutralise White's king­ side initiative. Later, in the game Palo - Ivanchuk, Skanderborg 2003, there followed: 18 . .bc4 'Sad8 19.'Sh3 �eS 20.�e2 ixe4 21. CiJ xe4 �xe4 22.\t>fU and White had two powerful bishops, while Black had to parry the enemy threats in the centre (against the d6-pawn) and on the h-file.

13 .te3 •

13

...

ltlc6

As a rule, there arises transpo­ sition of moves following 13 . . . exdS 14.exd5. I n the game Kram­ nik - Howell, London 2010, Black chose the rather extravagant move 14 . . . CiJa6? ! , placing his knight at the edge of the board (It was still not too late for him to opt instead for 14 . . . CiJc6 1S.�d3 c4 16. hc4 �e6 and there would have arisen by transposition the varia­ tion with 13 . . . CiJc6.). 1S.�e2 ie6 16.c4. Now, an endgame advanta­ geous for White is reached. 16 . . .

�xd2+ 17.CiJxd2. H e captures with his knight in order to transfer it later to the e4-square, where it would be perfectly placed in the centre of the board. 17 . . . �d7 18. CiJe4 b6 19.h4 ifS 2 0 .CiJc3 CiJb4 21.\t>d2. Despite all Black's tricks, his position remains very diffi­ cult. He can improve somehow the placement of his knight on a6, but the deployment of his bishops is definitely unsatisfactory. 21... CiJc6 22 .h5 \t>f7 23.g4. White ousts the enemy bishop to its initial po­ sition. 23 . . . ic8 24.hxg6+ hxg6 2S.CiJe4± White's position is clear­ ly better thanks to his powerful dS-pawn and the superiorly placed minor pieces in this end­ game. He should not be afraid of the possibility 13 . . . �a4. White main­ tains a slight but stable advantage with quite simple moves. 14.c4 CiJa6 15.�e2 exdS 16.exd5 b6 17. id1 �a3 18.'Sc3 �aS 19. 0-0;!;. Black's minor pieces are mis­ placed. His knight remains at the edge of the board and the dark­ squared bishop is restricted by his own pawn on f6, Kosic - Gupta, Kavala 2 011.

14 .td3 •

White develops his bishop with tempo. Now, Black's knight is hang­ ing. It is understandable that he cannot capture twice on dS, since he will lose his rook because of the pin. 69

Chapter 4

14 . . . exd5 Black plays sometimes 14 . . . b6 with the idea to trade the light­ squared bishops. 15.0-0 ia6 16. ie2 :Bd7 17.:Bfd1 :Be8 18.'1Wc2 exdS 19 . .ixa6 �xa6 20.exd5 0,e7 2l.c4 0,f5 2 2 .if4;!; White has a powerful protected passed pawn in the cen­ tre, while Black's kingside is con­ siderably weakened by the pawn­ advance f7-f6, Dolgov - Tisch­ bierek, Email 2011.

If he refrains from the sacri­ fice, there arises an approximate­ ly equal position. 17. 0-0 hdS 18. hdS+ �xdS 19.�c2 if8 20.:Bfd1 �f7 2l.�a4 :Bac8 22 .h3 :Bxd1+ 23. :Bxd1 b6 24.c4= Kornev - Sakaev, Taganrog 2011. The chances are balanced. Black's king is a bit weakened by the move f7-f6 and his queenside pawns are placed on squares with the same colour as his bishop. This is all compen­ sated by the vulnerability of White's isolated c4-pawn.

15.exd5 c4 This is an important tactical nu­ ance. Black sacrifices temporarily a pawn with the idea to entice the enemy bishop to the c4-square, so that White cannot support his dS­ pawn with the move c3-c4.

16 ..ixc4 .ie6 Now, White must make a posi­ tional sacrifice of his queen in or­ der to fight for the opening ad­ vantage. (diagram) This is the last preparation for the sacrifice. 70

17... �e7 18.dxe6 White must sacrifice; otherwise, he would simply lose his dS-pawn.

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. fi.e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 l O . 'Bcl 19 Jbc3 ••

This is Black's most popular move. It may be also interesting for to try here 19 . . . liJfS ! ? , as it im h was played in the game Yazgeldi­ ev - Tleptsok, Email 2012. At first, Black wishes to exchange the powerful enemy bishop. 20 .'8d3 liJxe3 21.'8xe3 �c7 22 ..ib3 'i!ih8 23.0-0 .if8 24.'8d3 '8d8. Unfortu­ nately White cannot avoid the trade of a couple of rooks and this is, no doubt, in Black's favour. Still, even after this, White can continue to play for a win without any risk mostly thanks to his strong e6-pawn. 2S.'Bfd1 'Bxd3 26. E:xd3 .id6 27.g3 ! ? (This is strong­ er than what was played in the above mentioned game - 27.liJd2 .icS 28.E:dS .id6 and despite all his efforts, White has failed to prove any advantage.). He has an edge in the arising position. Black is doomed to a long and laborious defence, while White can gradu­ ally improve his position. His main task is to eliminate the enemy blockade of the e6-pawn. 27 . . . bS 28.liJd4. White's knight is trying to go to the c6-square. 28 . . . a6 29 . .idS 'i!ig7 30.liJc6 hS 3l.E:e3 .ie7 32. liJxe7 �xe7 33.c4 bxc4 34 . .ixc4 aS 3S.h4;!; The position has been sim­ plified, but remains difficult for Black. He must watch very care­ fully about the possibility of White's rook coming to the d7-square. Then, his e6-pawn will advance and Black will have to resign.

20.ib3 �cl+

He must play very carefully. The check from another square would be a mistake. 20 . . . �a1+ ? ! 2l..id1 liJfS 2 2 . 0-0 �c3 23.ib3 'i!ih8 24.'8d7 E:e8 2S . .id2± and due to Black's imprecise move 20, White has succeeded in bringing his king to safety and seizing com­ pletely the initiative, Lupulescu Bukavshin, Aix-les-Bains 2011. Black's position is tremendously difficult. All his pieces must be on the alert about his opponent's pawn on e6 and he is helpless against White's piece-activity.

21.'8dl �c3+ 22.'i!ie2 Unfortunately this move is forced. In order to play for a win, White has forfeited his castling rights and left his king in the cen­ tre of the board .

22

•••

a5

If he coordinates his pieces and ensures the safety of his king, White's advantage would be doubtless. Therefore, Black must organise queenside counterplay as quickly as possible. It is with the same purpose (to create counterplay) that he may ·

.

71

Chapter 4 try the interesting move 22 . . . �b4. Now, White's only chance of fight­ ing for the advantage is 23J!d4 ! This is the move which justifies White's queen-sacrifice. He must coordinate immediately his rooks (The game Pashikian - Cornette, Aix-les-Bains 2011 ended in a draw after a repetition of moves following: 23J'!d3 aS 24J�cl a4 2S. :1'k4 �bs 26.:1'kS �b4 27.:tk4 �bs 28J'!cS �b4= ). There might fol­ low 23 . . . �bS+ 24 . .ic4 �a4 2S. ghdl ges (After 2S . . .fs 26.gd8+ .if8 27..ib3 �bS+ 28.\t>el �aS+ 29. gsd2 �bs 3o .gcu, White man­ ages to stabilise the position and may hope to maintain an advan­ tage in the future fight. His main task would be to evacuate his king away from the centre after which his pieces may assist the pawn on e6. Black's position will become very difficult after that.) 26.gld3. White's king rook has entered the actions and Black is forced to de­ fend passively. This variation is very difficult to analyse even with a computer. At first it likes Black's situation, but the more it grabs the intricacies of the position, the more it likes White's prospects. See an exemplary variation 26 .. .fS 27.gds i>f8 28 . .ib3 �a6 29.g8d7 h6 30.h4 lt:Jc6 31.hS gS 32 . .icS+ lt:Je7 33.lt:Jd4 .ixd4 34 . .ixd4 f4 3S. .icS �c6 36.g3dS �xe6+ 37.'it>d3+­ Black has failed to save the game by a perpetual check and White's king is perfectly placed in the cen­ tre of the board. The pin of the knight on e7 is decisive. 72

23.gd7

In this variation, it is useful for White to force the opponent to protect the knight on e7 as quickly as possible.

23

•••

a4

Black is trying to organise counterplay. Unfortunately, his attempts are doomed to fail. White regains his queen and maintains a clear advantage in the endgame.

24 ti'b2 + •••

I t i s possible that Black's most resilient defence may be the move 24 . . . �b4, although even then, af­ ter the almost forced line : 2S . .ic4 gcs 26.lt:ld2 .if8 27 . .id4 fS 2s.gb1 �xbl 29.lt:Jxbl gxc4 30.lt:Jc3 gc6 31.gxb7 gxe6+ 32.\t>fl lt:Jc6 33. .ie3t, there arises on the board an endgame which is better for White, because Black's a-pawn is weak and his king is cut off on the penultimate rank.

2s.gc2 ti'bl 26.c!ild2 axb3 27.c!ilxbl bxc2 28.c!ilc3 c!ilf5 29. .id2

4.cd ti.JxdS 5.e4 ti.Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. ti.Jj3 c5 B. i e3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!.cl It is understandable that Black's c2-pawn is harmless. Af­ ter the exchange of the pawns on e6 and b7, White's outside passed pawn on a2 will turn into power­ ful force.

29

•••

ges

It is even worse for Black to opt for 29 . . . h5, because after 30. \!fd3 bS 3l.e7 'i!.e8 32.ti.Jd5 wt7 33.Wxc2±, White has a great ad­ vantage in this endgame having preserved his e-pawn. Black's at­ tempt to regain it in the game Leko - Topalov, Porto Carras 2011 only speeded up his demise - his pieces came under a deadly pin. 33 . . . 'i!.c8+ 34.ti.Jc7 ti.Jxe7 35. ib4 if8 36.Wb3 'i!.b8 37.ti.Jd5 we6 38.'i!.d6+ WeS. Black managed to get rid of the pin with a heroic march of his king to the centre of the board, but there was no mira­ cle destined to happen. After the move 39.f4+, his resistance lasted only a few more moves.

30.gxb7 This move is obviously strong­ er that what was played in the game Potkin - Svidler, Moscow 2010, 30.Wd3? ! and after 30 . . . b6, Black managed to save a draw.

30 .l!Jd4+ 32.Wxc2± ••

3U�d3

ti.Jxe6

The tactical complications, started with the queen-sacrifice, have ended up in an endgame with an extra pawn for White. De­ spite the possible technical diffi­ culties, he has all the chances of realising it.

Conclusion We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 9 . . . 0-0. As a rule, if Black refrains from 10 . . .'i!.d8, he is forced to defend pas­ sively the slightly worst endgame arising after cxd4 and the trade of the queens. The character of the fight is entirely different following 10 ... 'i!.d8. In this line there arise very sharp positions in which if White wishes to fight for the opening advantage - he must enter a position with a queen-sacrifice. He has only a rook and a bishop for the queen in this endgame, but his powerful pawn on e6 provides him with good chances of maintaining an advantage after a correct play. Naturally, he must have studied thoroughly the theoretical material, because to find the right way over the board in all the intricacies of the numerous possible variations is tremendously difficult.

73

Part 2 The King's Indian Defence l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7

After this move, there arises on the board the King's Indian Defence (Naturally, with the ex­ ception of the cases when White does not play e2-e4 and Black ad­ vances d7-d5. Then, there arise variations from the Gruenfeld De­ fence, which we have already ana­ lysed.). Now, contrary to the Gruen­ feld Defence, Black does not mind White building up his centre the way he pleases. He is trying to de­ velop quickly his kingside pieces and to attack his enemy castling position with his pawns (f7-f5-f4, g6-g5, h7-h5 and g5-g4). This plan has ended up with numerous crushing attacks for Black. We have to mention that at the dawn 74

of the development of this open­ ing, the chess world was very sceptical towards it, since it was rather unusual for these times. The critical moment, after which the King's Indian Defence began to be considered as a quite correct opening, was the Candidates tour­ nament in the year 1953, about which D.Bronstein wrote his re­ markable book. We must also mention that I.Boleslavsky and E. Geller contributed greatly to the development of the theory of this opening and it was because of them that the King's Indian Defence be­ came very fashionable. It was quite deservedly that M.Botvinnik said once "We did not understand, the way we needed, the King's Indian set-ups before E.Geller". Years later, the World Cham­ pions number eleven and thirteen - R.Fischer and G.Kasparov con­ tributed greatly to the develop­ ment of this opening. Nowadays, it is played sometimes by H .Na­ kamura, T.Radjabov and A.Gri­ schuk, but it has lost its populari­ ty at the top level. The point is that Black has no real chances of

equ alising in it and White can ob­ tain an advantage in several ways. It is however another story in the tournaments of one level below the Swiss system events. What is very specific in these tournaments is that the players who are striv­ ing to occupy a top place in the fi­ nal standings must play for a win irrelevant of the colour of the piec­ es. You can encounter the King's Indian Defence there quite often. We will analyse as our main weapon against this defence the Averbakh system - 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6.ig5, in which White's ad­ vantage may not be so great, as for example in the Classical sys­ tem, but he is relatively safe from being checkmated in the middle game. We will devote to this open­ ing seven of our chapters - from 5 to 11.

In the fifth and the sixth chap­ ter, we will deal with some seldom played lines for Black in which he avoids the natural move for this opening d7-d6 (Chapter 5) and later schemes in which he plays d7-d6 indeed, but postpones cas­ tling (Chapter 6). Our chapter seven will be de­ voted to some not so principled responses for Black among which the most dangerous for White is the move - 6 . . . c6. Black's plans, connected with 6 . . . tt:ibd7, will be dealt with in chapter eight. In chapter nine, we will ana­ lyse the most popular move in the contemporary tournament prac­ tice - 6 . . . tt:ia6, while the moves 6 . . . h6 and 6 . . . c5 will be analysed in chapters ten and eleven ac­ cordingly.

75

Chapter S

l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7

4.e4 This is a natural move. White should occupy the centre with his pawns if Black does not mind.

ingly threatening. In fact, after 5 . . . ll:\e8, White's achievements are only temporary. His impressive pawn-centre is much rather a lia­ bility and Black will undermine it with the moves d6 and c5, forcing his opponent to solve very diffi­ cult problems. The classical ex­ ample of a perfect play for Black can be the game Letelier - Fis­ cher, Leipzig 1960 : 6.f4 d6 7.i.e3 c5

4 ... 0-0 As a rule, this move transposes

to the main line, if Black plays 5 . . . d7-d6 later. Now, we will analyse variations in which he avoids playing this move. About 4 . . . d6 - see Chapters 6-11.

5 .ie2 •

With this move White allows his opponent to reconsider and after 5 . . . d6 6 . .ig5, to transpose to the Averbakh system, which we will analyse later. The move 5.e5 is only seem76

8.dxc5 ll:\c6 9.cxd6 exd6 10. ll:\e4 i.f5 ll.ll:\g3 i.e6 12.ll:\f3 Yfic7 13.\&b1 dxe5 14.f5 e4 15.fxe6 exf3 16.gxf3 f5 17.f4 ll:\f6 18.i.e2 E!:fe8 19.'>t>f2 E!:xe6 20 .E!:e1 E!:ae8 21.i.f3. There follows a spectacular com­ bination, which has been quoted in almost all textbooks on tactics. 21...E!:xe3 22.E!:xe3 E!:xe3 ! 23. 'it>xe3

l.d4 {jjj6 2.c4 g 6 3. {jj c3 :1;.g7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. ie2 1;Wxf4+ ! ! Black wins, since his queen is untouchable because of the checkmate.

s . . c6 .

We have already mentioned that here we will analyse varia­ tions in which Black does not play d7-d6. Following S ... cS 6.d5, he should better transpose to the main lines with the move 6 . . . d6 and we will analyse them in chap­ ter eight, since after 6 . . . e6? ! (about 6 . . . e5 7 . .ie3 d6 8.h4 - see Chapter 6, variation B), White can already occupy the centre with 7.e5 {jj e 8 S.{jj f3 d6 9.0-0 {jj a 6 lO . .igSt Uhlmann - Keene, Hastings 1976. He maintains a considerable advantage, his mi­ nor pieces are very active, while their black counterparts are terri­ bly passive. White's centre, con­ trary to the game of Bobby Fis­ cher, which we have analysed at the beginning of the chapter, is very powerful.

6.e5!

After Black has played c6, White can already occupy the cen­ tre, since Black's undermining move cS will have to be played with a loss of a tempo.

6

•••

lile8 7.f4! ?

This is an interesting move. White is fortifying his centre in anticipation of the move d7-d6 and wishes to protect his eS-pawn as reliably as possible.

7 d6 •••

Black accomplishes the main idea of the variation chosen by him. Following 7 . . . d5, he abandons the idea of undermining his oppo­ nent's centre and ends up in a passive position. 8.cxd5 cxdS 9. {jj f3 {jj c 6 10.0-0 {jj c7 ll. .ie3 id7 12Jk1 E:c8 13.1l;Vd2 a6 14.h3 bS 15.b3 E:e8 16.id3 eM There has arisen a position of a French type, except that Black's dark-squared bishop has been fianchettoed. This difference is in favour of White, because he can try to ex­ ploit the weakening of Black's 77

Chapter S kingside. 17.lild1 ! White's knight is transferred to the g4-square and the vulnerability of the f6 and h6-squares in Black's camp may hurt him later. 17 . . ..if8 18.lilf2 .ib4 19.1!;!lb2 ie7 2 0 .lilg4± Black's king is seriously endangered, Bars - Barr, Email 2011. There do not arise original po­ sitions after 7 .. .f6 8.lilf3:t, since Black will have to play d7-d6 sooner or later, Yakovich - Sav­ chenko, St Petersburg 2011.

8

...

dxe5

Black has some other possibil­ ities besides this move. It seems principled for him to try 8 . . . c5, despite the loss of a tempo. Now, White must react very precisely in order to preserve his pawn-centre. 9.dxc5 lilc6 10. 0-0 .ig4, Van Wely - Heberla, Warsaw 2005. Black has sacri­ ficed a pawn but seized the initia­ tive. Now, White's best move is 11.cxd6 ! , for example : 11 . . . exd6 78

12 . .ie3 dxe5 13.i.c5 exf4 14.i.xf8 i>xf8 15.1!;!lxd8 :Bxd8 16.:BadU In the arising endgame Black has a pawn for the exchange and initia­ tive on the dark squares. Still, White's prospects are preferable, because the position is quite open. The power of his rooks should be a telling factor. The endgame is better for White following 8 . . .f6 9.i.e3 dxe5 10.dxe5 1!;!lxd1 + 11.:Bxd1 fxe5 12.lilxe5:t Korotylev - Koeller, Passau 1995. Now, Black can ex­ change on e5, or refrain from that. He maintains an advantage in both cases. In the first line he will have the two-bishop advantage, while in the second variation, his pawn-structure will be preferable (Black's e7-pawn is very weak.). After 8 ... .ig4, White should better preserve the knight, since contrary to his light-squared bishop, it can protect the pawns on d4 and e5. 9.lilg5! i.xe2 10. 1!;!lxe2 lilc7 (Following 10 ... h6 11. lilf3:t, the pawns on e5 and d4 are safe, so White has an edge thanks to his dominance in the centre, Vaisser - Bernardino, New York 1998.) 11 . .ie3 lild7 12 .:Bd1 ! :t This is a very solid move, which leads to a slight but stable advantage for White. Black can hardly create any active counterplay and is forced to defend passively. It is also possible for White to choose the sharper line: 12.0-0- 0 ! ? lilb6 13.h4-+ - he begins an attack on

l.d4 tiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJ c3 ll..g 7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. 11..e2 th e kingside and Black will have great problems parrying it, Moskalenko - Gutman, play­ chess.com 2006.

9.fxe5 i.g4 He increases the against White's centre.

pressure

In the game Drozdovskij Gutman, Dresden 2007, Black tried 9 . . . c5 lO.dS ig4 ll.if4 .txf3 12. .bf3 tiJd7 13.�e2 f6 14.e6 tiJeS 15. 0-0;!;. White's pawn-wedge c4, dS, e6 looks very impressive and Black is faced with a difficult defence.

10.c5 ! ? This i s a prophylactic move. White wishes to prevent for good Black's possibility to advance c6c5. Following 10.0-0 c5 11.dxc5 tiJc6+!, there arises a very compli­ cated position in which Black has good compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn thanks to the vulnera­ bility of White's pawns on eS and cS, Bock - Gutman, Kleve 1999.

10 ... b6 ll.cxb6 axb6 12. 0-0;!; Chuchelov - Gutman,

Wiesbaden 1991. In order to de­ fend against the possible under­ mining move c6-c5, White has weakened the dS-square; never­ theless, he maintains a slight edge. He dominates in the centre and after Black exchanges his bishop on f3, White's two bishops will be obviously stronger than any two minor pieces left for Black.

Conclusion We have just analysed Black's seldom played moves in the King's Indian Defence, with which he avoids playing the natural move 4 . . . d6. White must obtain an advantage effortlessly, by advancing e4-e5 at the right moment, but he needs to play accurately. He should not forget the game Letelier - Fischer, Leipzig 1960 and must have in mind that after imprecise moves his beautiful centre may turn quickly into ruins.

79

Chapter 6

l.d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.ll:lc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6

5 .Ae2 ! ? •

One of the peculiarities of the Averbakh system is that White is not in a hurry to develop his king's knight. It is possible that from the point of view of absolute strength of the move, White should prefer 5.lLJf3, followed by 5 . . . 0-0 6.i.e2 eS 7.0-0 and there arises on the board the basic position of the Classical system. Still, from the point of view of the practical chess player, the Classical system is hardly the best choice, since the adherents to the King's Indian Defence for Black enjoy the pos­ sibility to be able to attack the en­ emy king. He has many possibili80

ties to do this in the Classical sys­ tem. I can provide you with nu­ merous examples in which the players with White have failed to parry Black's attacks and have lost their games. I will give you just one example, but the player, losing with White, was the pre­ sent World Champion himself ­ V.Anand. 7 . . . tZlc6 8.d5 tZle7 9.b4 lLJeB lO.cS fS ll.tZld2 lZJf6 12.a4 gS 13.lZlc4 h6 14.f3 f4 15.i.a3 lZJg6 16.b5 dxcS 17 . .bc5 E1f7 18.a5 hS 19.b6 g4. It is possible that the evaluation of the position is in fa­ vour of White, but Black attacks on the kingside and this is much more dangerous than White's at­ tack on the opposite side of the board. The moment he makes a mistake, this may set the game on the verge of disaster. Black played more precisely than his opponent in the subsequent struggle and reached a winning position. 20. lZlbS cxb6 2l.axb6 g3 2 2 .@hl i.f8 23.d6 a6 24.lZJc7 E1b8 25.lZJa5 @h8 26.ic4 E1g7 27.tZle6 he6 28 . .ixe6 gxh2 29.tZlc4 '?9e8 30 .id5 h4 31. E1f2 h3 32.gxh3 E1c8 33.E1a5 lZJh4-+ and Black's offensive became de-

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2 cisive, Anand - Nakamura, Lon­ don 2011.

Now, we will analyse A) 5

c!L!c6, B) 5 c 5 and C ) 5 •••

•••

•••

e5.

Black's most popular move 5 . . . 0-0 will be dealt with in Chap­ ters 7-11. About 5 ... a6 6.1J..g5 0-0 7.�d2 - see Chapter 7.

It is just bad for Black to choose 5 . . . !iJfd7, since he can ad­ vance c5 or e5 even without the retreat of his knight from the f6square. 6.!iJf3 c5 7.0-0 (7.d5 ! ? 0 - 0 8.0-0 !iJf6 9.h3 e 6 10.dxe6 fxe6 11.e5 dxe5 12.!iJxe5;!; White's position is preferable due to the vulnerability of Black's pawn on e6, Averbakh - Byrne, New York 1954) 7 . . . !iJc6 8.d5 !iJd4 9.!iJxd4 .bd4 10.fi.h6;t Yrjola - Westeri­ nen, Gjovik 1985. White main­ tains a considerable advantage. He has more space, while Black has problems castling. White has a very simple plan for his further actions : c;!;>h1, f2-f4, followed by the preparation of the pawn­ breaks e4-e5 or f4-f5.

A) 5 . . . c!Llc6 6.d5

5 . . . !iJa6 6.ig5 0-0 7.f4 - see Chapter 9. 5 . . . c6 6.ig5 !iJbd7 (6 . . . 0-0 7. �d2 or 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 0-0 8.�d1 see Chapter 7, variation B) 7.�d2 0-0 8.!iJf3 - see Chapter 8, varia­ tion B.

As a rule, there d o not arise original positions following 5 . . . !iJbd7 6./i.g5 (It may b e also inter..; esting for White to try 6.f4 ! ? 0-0 7 .!iJf3;t) 6 ... 0-0 7.�d2 and after transposition, there arise situa­ tions which will be analysed in Chapter 8.

When White's knight is still on g1, it would be very bad for . Black to play 6 . . . !iJe5, because White can oust it immediately from the

81

Chapter 6 centre with 7.f4 ttJed7 (7 . . . ttJeg4 8.e5 dxeS 9.h3±) 8.ltJf3 0-0 (8 . . . ltJcS 9.e5 ttJfe4 10.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 11. �d4 fS 12. 0-0;t - He dominates in the centre and Black's knight will be forced to retreat from there after the move id3, Dlugolecki Leroy, Email 2008.) 9.0-0 ttJcS 10.e5;t White's position is prefer­ able, because his pawns on dS and eS are very strong, Chernyshov Chuprov, Voronezh 2002. 10 . . . ttJe8? Black's pieces were cramped anyway, so he had to find a more active placement for his knight. Now, White's advantage increas­ es. 11.ie3 ttJd7 12 .e6 fxe6 13.dxe6 ttJdf6 14.ttJg5 c6 1S.id3± Black's position is very difficult. White's e6-pawn impedes the coordina­ tion of Black's pieces and if White manages to advance f4-f5, then Black's position will become hopeless, since he will be helpless to counter White's offensive against his king. 7.f4 0-0 8.ltJf3 c6 (8 . . . ttJbd7 9.0-0 - see 6 . . . ttJeS) 9.�e3 ttJa6

c5 13.h.xg4 cxd4 14.ttJxd4 �g7 15.�d2 �d7 16.l3adH Raetsky ­

Podzielny, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2001. It may seem that Black's counterplay on the dark squares is good compensation for his sac­ rificed pawn, but this is not true at all. White has an easy plan to improve his position. He must re­ move his king from the g1-a7 di­ agonal and after that he can begin an attack on the h-file. The game followed with 16 .. .!k8 17.g5 �b6 18.g3 ltJc5 19.'it>g2 a6 20.1!hl± and White not only had an extra pawn and a space advantage, but also excellent attacking prospects on the h-file.

B) 5

•••

c5 6.d5

10.0-0

6

10 82

•.•

�g4 ll.�d4 ih6 12.h3

• . •

e5

This is the only move which leads to original positions. About 6 . . . 0-0 7.ig5, or 6 . . . ttJbd7 7.ig5 0 - 0 8.�d2 - see Chapter 11. 6 ... ttJa6 7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see Chapter 9. 6 . . . e6 7.ig5 0-0 8.�d2 - see Chapter 11, variation D.

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 Following 6 . . . b5 7.cxb5 a6 (7 . . . 0-0 8.ig5 - see Chapter 11, variation B), there arises a ver­ sion of the Benko Gambit which is favourable for White and we will deal with it in our volume 3.

7.ie3

CiJhf2 CiJ h 7 21.CiJd3 fS 22 .b4± Ghe­ orghiu - Brood, Mar del Plata 1971. Black has finally managed to advance f7-f5, but has lost too much time preparing it. After White has advanced b2-b4, his queenside initiative has become very powerful.

It is also possible for White to play here 7.ig5 h6 8.id2 a6 9.h4.

7 We will encounter this move still numerous time while study­ ing the Averbakh system. Now, Black is faced with a rather un­ pleasant choice. He may allow h4h5, or play h6-h5 himself. In the first case, he will have no counter­ play on the kingside (As a rule, in order not to lose his h6-pawn, af­ ter h4-h5, Black will have to reply with g6-g5 and after White ad­ vances g2-g4, the move f7-f5 will become impossible.), while in the second case (as it happened in the above mentioned game), the gS­ square is seriously weakened and White's knight will head there im­ mediately. 9 . . . h5 lO.CiJf3 CiJbd7 11. g3 :B:b8 12.�c2 CiJf8 13.CiJg5 CiJg4 14.f3 CiJh6 15.a4 b6 16.a5 f6 17.CiJh3 bxaS 18.CiJdl id7 19 ..ba5 �c8 2 0 .

•••

0-0

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same fol­ lowing 7 . . . a6 8.:B:bl CiJbd7 9.h4 hS lO.CiJh3 CiJf8, Chiburdanidze H.Koneru, Krasnoturinsk 2005, 11.CiJg5± White's advantage is doubtless. He has much more space and a clear-cut plan, con­ nected with the pawn-advance b2-b4. Black's possible kingside counterplay is rather difficult to organise. Following 7 . . . CiJa6 8.g4 hS 9.g5 CiJh7 10.h4 CiJc7 11.a3 b6 12 .�d2 id7 13.CiJf3 0-0 14.:B:gU, Black's attempt to create counterplay on the kingside with f7-f5 leads to the weakening of the g6-pawn af­ ter capturing en passant, there83

Chapter 6 fore White's position is prefera­ ble, Gretarsson - Rashkovsky, Reykjavik 1994.

8.h4

We are already familiar with this plan of a pawn-offensive on the kingside. Here however, con­ trary to some other variations, this is not aggression but prophy­ lactic. Now, you can see the ad­ vantages of White's postpone­ ment of the development of the knight on gl. It does not cover the diagonal of the bishop on e2, which controls the important g4 and hS-squares.

8 . . . a6 After 8 . . . b5, there arises a fa­ vourable version for White of the Benko Gambit, since Black's bish­ op is restricted by his own eS­ pawn. There might follow: 9.cxb5 a6 10.a4 �a5 1l.�d2 axb5 12 ..ixb5 ia6 13.tt:lge2 .ixbS 14.tt:lxb5 �b6, Ruckschloss - Kaniansky, Slova­ kia 1999, 15.tt:lec3± His compen­ sation for the pawn is insufficient, 84

because White's knight on bS and his pawn on a4, supported by the knight on c3, parry reliably Black's counterplay on the a and b-files.

9.g4 tt:lbd7 10.h5 gb8 11.a4±

He has no counterplay at all and cannot advance f7-f5 and af­ ter White's last move, Black can­ not push b7-b5 either. Now, White can improve calmly his po­ sition, preparing gradually a deci­ sive pawn-break on one of the flanks. Later, in the game Sakaev - Bachin, Krasnoyarsk 2003, there followed: ll . . . �aS 12.f3 tt:le8 13.�d3 f6 14.h6 .ih8 15.tt:lge2 gf7 16.id2 tt:lf8 17.tt:lg3 �d8 18.a5 b6 19. axb6 �xb6 20 .ga2 gfb7 2 1.ic2 �d8 2 2 .b3 tt:lc7 23.tt:lce2 �e7 24. '>t>f2 tt:le8 25.tt:lcl. Black's position is difficult (He has no space, has a weakness on a6 and his bishop on h8 has no moves.). He had to ad­ here to passive tactics and could have resisted for long. Still, as it often happens in similar posi­ tions, Black failed to solve his de­ fensive problems and after 25 . . . fS? 26.exf5+-, his position be­ came hopeless.

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 ilg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 C) 5 . . . e5 After this move, there arises an endgame which is clearly bet­ ter for White.

6.dxe5 dxe5 7. 'ilrxd8+ mxd8 8.f4

Following 8 ...ie6, White main­ tains a slight edge, as it happened in the game Polugaevsky - Stein, Tbilisi 1966: 9.liJf3 liJc6 10.0-0 exf4 ll. .bf4 liJd7 12 .:1!ad1 mc8 13. liJd5 liJce5 14.liJd4 c6 15.liJe7+ mc7 16.liJef5 hf5 17.exf5:t He has the two-bishop advantage and af­ ter White's pawn on e4 went to the f5-square, Black's counterplay on the dark squares became harmless for White.

The main fight in similar end­ games is centred on the d4 and e5-squares. As a rule, Black's knight is trying to reach the d4square and with his last move White attacks its base in anticipa­ tion of this.

8

•••

c!Llbd7

About 8 . . . c6 9.liJf3 liJbd7 10. 0-0 - see 8 . . . liJbd7. It seems rather dubious for Black to try 8 . . . liJfd7. He lags in development anyway and with his last move he impedes the devel­ opment of his bishop on c8. 9.liJf3 c6 10.0-0 me8 11.f5 f6 12 .ie3± Black's position is cramped and he lags considerably in develop­ ment, Bertok - Udovcic, Novi Sad 1955.

9 ... c6 It seems too risky for Black to choose 9 . . . exf4, because after 10.hf4, White's minor pieces are very active. 10 . . . c6 11.0-0 We7, Cvetkovic - Mirkovic, Belgrade 1980. Here, he could have in­ creased his advantage with 12 .e5! liJg4 13.ig5+ We8 14.e6 ! fxe6 15. liJe4± and despite the extra pawn, Black's position is not to be en­ vied. The game is opened and the majority of his pieces are not de­ veloped and are absolutely unpre-

85

Chapter 6 pared for the fight.

10.0-0 me8 ll.g3 ! ?

it White i s not afraid o f the ex­ change on f4, since he will recap­ ture with the pawn and will not give access to the e5-square for Black's pieces. The weakening of the light squares is not a problem, because White's king will protect them. ll h6 12. mg2;!; In order to complete the development of his queenside pieces Black must play lt:\d7, but before that he will have to exchange on f4, which after gxf4 will lead to dominance of White in the centre, Sadler - Api­ cella, Cappelle la Grande 1992. ••.

This is a very solid move. After

-

Conclusion We have just analysed some seldom played moves for Black in the King's Indian Defence. As a rule, White obtains easily an advantage after them and this is not surprising, because even the beginners know how dangerous it is to ignore castling. In the majority of the variations, analysed in this chapter, Black can castle in a period of a few moves, after which there will arise transposition to situations analysed by us in Chapters from 7 to 11. If he does not do that he will be faced with a dif­ ficult defence.

86

Chapter 7

l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2 0-0

A.Alexandrov and Y.Yakovich. After 6 . .ig5, Black has a great choice of possibilities. We will de­ vote to its main lines our next four chapters, while in this chapter we will deal only with the moves A) 6 ... �c6 and B) 6 . . . c6.

This is Black's most natural and popular move. He completes the development of his kingside.

6.ig5 After this move, there arises the Averbakh system on the board. It was named after the So­ viet grandmaster Yury Averbakh, who made considerable contribu­ tion to the development of its the­ ory. It is also worth mentioning the endeavours of L.Polugajevsky, who played regularly this system during a certain period of his chess career. I believe that this variation has been shadowed by the Classical system rather non­ deservedly. Among the contem­ porary grandmasters its most ar­ dent and regular exponents are

It does not work for Black to play 6 . . . e5?, because of 7.dxe5 dxeS 8.'<Mfxd8 E:xd8 9.�d5 �bd7 lO.E:dl! E:f8 ll.lLlxc7 E:b8 12 .f3+­ and Black has no compensation for the pawn at all. It is also bad for him to opt for 6 . .'%lfe8, due to 7.e5 dxeS 8.dxe5 lLlfd7 9.lLldS .ixeS (Or 9 . . . lLlxe5, Saric - R.Schmidt, Budva 2009. Before winning the exchange, it would be useful for White to oust the enemy knight away from the centre with the move 10.f4!±, fol­ lowed by .ie7 or lLlc7.) 10 . .ixe7± Black has no compensation for the exchange, Shaidullina Schepetkova, Vladimir 200�. .

The centre has not been closed yet, so it seems rather dubious for 87

Chapter 7 Black to choose 6 . . . a5, since after 7.'tlld 2 tt'la6, White has at his dis­ posal the energetic line: 8.f4 Wfe8 9.e5 tt'ld7 10.tt'lf3± and his pawn­ centre is very powerful, while Black's minor pieces remain pas­ sive, Meins - Podzielny, Bad Zwischenahn 2002. 6 . . . a6 7.Wfd2 c5 (About 7 . . . tt'lbd7 8.tt'lf3 - see Chapter 8 ; 7 . . . c6 8.E!d1 - see variation B, 7 . . . tt'lc6 8.d5 tt'la7 9.a4± White has much more space, while Black's knight is terribly misplaced on the a7square, Esquivias Gomez - Rial Rodriguez, San Sebastian 2009.)

on f3. He can hardly exploit the weakening of his opponent's cas­ tling position, while White has a clear-cut plan for active actions on the queenside. He must pre­ pare b2-b4.) 9.tt'lxd4. There has arisen a position, which is more typical for the Maroczy system of the Sicilian Defence. Later, in the game Grigoryan - Zherebukh, Athens 2012, there followed: 9 . . . tt'lc6 10.tt'lc2 tt'ld7 ll.tt'le3 tt'lc5 12. tt'led5 tt'le6 13.ih4 tt'led4 14.0-0 f5 15.f4 fxe4 16.tt'lxe4 b5 17.E!aeU and in the arising complicated po­ sition, Black could hardly neutral­ ise White's piece pressure against the e7-square.

A) 6

8.tt'lf3 ! (The move 8.d5 enables Black to obtain good counterplay after 8 . . . b5 ! ??) 8 . . . cxd4 (Following 8 . . . i.g4 9.d5 b5, there arise positions in the spirit of the Ben­ ko Gambit. 10.cxb5 axb5 ll.hb5 Wfa5 12.0-0 i.xf3 13.gxf3 tt'la6, Olsen - Mortensen, Copenhagen 2004. Now, White had to contin­ ue with 14.a3 ! ? , depriving the en­ emy knight of the b4-square. 14 . . . Wfd8 15.ic6 E!b8 16.E!abl± Black is not only a pawn down, but his light squares have been weakened due to the exchange of his bishop 88

•••

tt'lc6 7.d5

Naturally, Black cannot equal­ ise by retreating his knight to its initial position - 7 . . . tt'lb8, since after 8.tt'lf3 c6 9.0-0 ig4 10.tt'ld2 he2 ll.Wfxe2 cxd5 12.cxd5 tt'lfd7 13.E!ac1 tt'la6, Kaidanov - Zlot­ nikov, New York 1992, White

l.d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. li:Jc3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 li:J c6 7.d5 maintains an edge with 14.:ie3;!;, attacking the enemy a7-pawn and impeding the move !k8 for Black. White's plans include later a2-a3 and b2-b4, emphasizing the mis­ placement of Black's knight on a6. The other possible retreat of his knight seems also rather dubi­ ous 7 . . . li:Jb4 8.li:Jf3, for example: 8 ... c5 9.h3 li:Jd7 10.a3 li:Ja6 11.1M/d2;!;

8

...

h6

8 . . . li:Jxf3+ 9.:ixf3

The game Moskalenko - Hui­ dobro, Andorra 1991 continued with 11 .. J!e8 12.0-0 1Mfb6 13J!ab1 li:JeS 14.li:Jxe5 :ixeS 1S.f4 :id4+ 16.�h1 fS? ! 17.:id3± H. White maintains a considerable advan­ tage. He has used the time, which Black has lost on manoeuvres with his queen's knight (li:Jc6-b4a6), in order to organise active actions in the centre and on the kingside. Now, White begins a direct attack against Black's mon­ arch (his purpose is to force his opponent to exchange on e4 and to advance f4-f5), while Black's pieces and particularly his knight on a6 are obviously mis­ placed.

9 . . . li:Jd7 10.0-0 c6 11.1Mfd2 !!e8 12.!'1ac1 aS 13.b3 cxdS (13 . . .1M/c7 14.!'1fd1 li:JcS 1S.:ie3;!; Alterman Nikolaidis, Karditsa 1996) 14. li:JxdS li:JcS 15.!'1feU Black is active on the dark squares, but this can­ not compensate White's space ad­ vantage, Kaidanov - Karklins, Chicago 1994. 9 ... h6 10.:ie3 e6 (10 ... e5 11. 0-0 �h7 12 .c5 li:Jg8 13.!'1cl± - His queenside initiative is evidently faster than Black's counterplay on the opposite side of the board, Milov - Reich, playchess.com 2004.) 11.0-0 !!e8 12 .!'1c1 exdS 13.cxd5;!; Korchnoi - Kasparov, Madrid 1988. He will have prob89

Chapter ? lems protecting his backward c7pawn. If he advances it ( c6 or cS), then after the trade on c6, Black will have not one, but two weak­ nesses on c6 and d6. The endgame would be worse for him following 9 . . . c6 10.dxc6 bxc6 11.e5 dxe5 12 .�xd8 E:xd8 13 . .bc6 E:b8 14.b3t White's pawn­ majority on the queenside seems quite threatening, while Black's pawns are almost harmless due to the doubled pawns on the e-file, Lputian - Ermenkov, East Berlin 1982.

9.if4 White can fight for the advan­ tage in another way as well - 9. .te3 ! ? . This move has been tested by one of the renowned experts in the Averbakh system - Y.Yako­ vich. Later, in the game Yakovich - Korotylev, Kazan 2005, there followed: 9 . . . lt:Jfg4 10 . .td2 c6 11. lt:JxeS lt:JxeS 12. 0-0 cxdS 13.exd5 ! ? This i s a n active move. White wishes to exert pressure on the e­ file (it is also good for him to try here 13.cxd5t). 13 . . . .tf5 14 . .te3 90

E:c8 15.id4 gS 16.b3 a6 17.�d2t Black has succeeded in keeping his knight on the eS-square, but has weakened considerably his kingside pawns.

9 ... .!Llxf3+ 10.ixf3 e5 11. �e3

ll ... h5 ! This is his only possibility to fight for equality in the opening. Black wishes to trade the dark­ squared bishops. It is worse for him to opt for the passive move ll . . . lt:Je8, in view of 12 .h4, for example: 12 .. .f5 13.h5 f4 14 . .td2 gxhS 1S ..txh5 �gS 16 . .tf3 lt:Jf6 17.�e2 �g6 18.0-0-0 hS 19.\t>blt Christiansen - Mestel, London 1982. There has arisen a position typical for the complicat­ ed King's Indian middle game. White's prospects are preferable. He can prepare an offensive on the queenside with the help of b4, cS and subsequent pressure on the c-file, while Black's counter­ play on the kingside will be abso­ lutely ineffective after White cas­ tles queenside.

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. :/ig5 c6 7. Wfd2 12 .ig5 •

This is the only move ! After the passive reaction 12 .h3 CiJh7 13.Wid2 i.f6 14.0-0-0 igS+t Savchenko - Sakaev, St Pe­ tersburg 1992, Black realised his plan and following the trade of the dark-squared bishops his prospects were not worse at all.

12 ti'e8 13.0-0 tLlh7 14 .ie3 f5 15.exf5 i.xf5 16 .ie4 ! ;!; . • •

•

•

with a6, bS.), but cannot guaran­ tee equality for him, because White completes effortlessly his development and preserves his powerful pawn-centre.

7.ti'd2 White plays this move almost always in the Averbakh system. Its main purpose is to prevent the move h7-h6, preserving the bish­ op on gS on its active position. He has failed t o exchange the dark-squared bishops. In addi­ tion, White has managed to estab­ lish complete control over the key e4-square. Now, Black's bishop on g7 will be restricted by his own pawn on eS. White's chances are preferable since his bishop on e3 is obviously more active than its black counterpart.

7 ... a6 B) 6 . . . c6

(diagram) This is not Black's main re­ sponse in this system. It is a flexi­ ble move (He preserves the pos­ sibility to play in the centre - e7e5, as well as on the queenside

7 . . . CiJa6 8.f4 - see Chapter 9. 7 ... CiJbd7 8.CiJf3 - see Chapter 8. 7 .. .'�a5 8.CiJf3 ig4 9.0-0 CiJbd7 10 .a3 hf3 ll.ix£3;!; White has 91

Chapter ? two powerful bishops and a space advantage, Forintos - Ljubicic, Split 2001.

As a rule, there do not arise original positions after 7 . . . e5, since following 8.lbf3 lba6 (8 . . . lbbd7 9.0-0 - see 6 . . . lbbd7) 9. 0-0, Black's best would be to con­ tinue with 9 . . . exd4, transposing to the variation 6 . . . lbbd7 (about 10.lbxd4 lbcS 1l.�f4 - see the next chapter) .

This is a solid prophylactic move. White not only protects ad­ ditionally his d4-pawn, but im­ pedes Black's pawn advance e7e5.

8 . . .b5 9.a3 Naturally, White should not allow b5-b4.

9 ...bxc4 It is bad for Black to play 9 . . . �e8, since after 10.d5 lbc5 11 . .ixf6 .ixf6 12 .b4 lba6 13.dxc6±, White opens advantageously the posi­ tion in the centre and Black will have great problems with the pro­ tection of his pawn on d6, Sisatto - Novik, Jyvaskyla 2006. He cannot equalise with the line: 9 . . . ig4 10J:!ad1 �c7 ll.d5;!; Bosboom - Nijboer, Wijk aan Zee 1989. White has extra space and excellent prospects for actions on the queenside. Black can hardly organise any meaningful counter­ play on the other side of the board.

92

After 9 . . . lbbd7? ! , White ob­ tains an advantage following the recommendation of GM Peturs­ son: 10.e5 lbe8 ll.exd6 lbxd6 12 . cS± Black cannot equalise with the rather extravagant move 9 . . . E:a7, at least because of 10.lbf3;!;, fol­ lowed by castling kingside. He obtained a very bad posi­ tion after the move 9 . . . �c7 in the game Petursson - Antonsen, Co­ penhagen 1996. 10.lbf3 eS ll.dS bxc4 12.dxc6± Black's queenside activity has only led to the ap­ pearance of new weaknesses in his camp (the pawns on c4 and d6).

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 c6 7. Wid2 10.hc4 0,xe4 Black wishes to simplify his defence by exchanging pieces, but ends up with a weak pawn on c6 in his camp. 10 . . . a5 11.0,f3 ig4 12.Wlf4 ixf3 13.Wixf3 0,bd7 14.Wie2 Wlc7 15. 0-0t White has managed to com­ plete his development, preserving his two-bishop advantage and his powerlul pawn-centre. Black is forced to only defend, Schandorff - Hoi, Denmark 1989.

11.0,xe4 d5 12 .i.d3 dxe4 13.he4 •

(diagram)

13

•••

.i.e6

It would be interesting for him to try 13 . . . E:a7 and after 14.0,e2 .ig4 15.f3 ie6, Luft - Voekler, Germany 2001, the only way for White to fight for the opening ad­ vantage would be the move 16. h4 ! , for example: 16 ...id5 17.h5 E:e8 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.<.!lf2t and his attack on the h-file may create great problems for Black.

14.c!lJf3 idS 15.hd5 cxd5 16J�cl He has got rid of the annoying weakness on c6, but White main­ tains a slight edge thanks to his dominance over the c-file. Later, in the game Jarmula - Fraczek, Poronin 2012, there followed

16 ge8 17.0-0 c!lJd7 18.gc6 ti'b8 19 .i.f4 ti'b3. Here, with the move 20.gfcU, White could have •••

•

established complete control over the c-file and would have main­ tained a slight but stable advan­ tage. The vulnerability of his d4pawn is immaterial, since Black's pieces are incapable of creating active counterplay.

Conclusion We have just finished our analysis of some seldom played lines for Black in the King's Indian Defence. As a rule, White obtains effortless­ ly an advantage in the opening after them and this is not surprising. The main problems for him in this chapter may arise after the move 6 . . . c6. I n this case, h e should not forget t o play the move E:d1, i n order to impede Black's possibility to try the pawn-break - e7-e5. After this, he should counter Black's queenside activity (a6, bS) with the move a3 and ends up with a stable advantage. Black's counterplay, connected with the exchange on c4 and the temporary piece-sacrifice on e4, fol­ lowed by d6-d5, cannot equalise for him, since it leads to the appear­ ance of a weak pawn on c6 in his camp. 93

Chapter S

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 �bd7

7.ti'd2

This move is not so popular as the main lines for Black: 6 . . . tt:la6, 6 ... h6 and 6 ... c5. The main reason is that after 6 . . . tt:lbd7, Black can hardly exert any pressure against his opponent's centre. After he advances e7-e5, White will simply reply with f3 and Black will have nothing better than to exchange at some moment on d4, after which the pawn-structure in the centre will be favourable for White (pawns c4 and e4 against a pawn on d6). Still, this move is played frequently in the contem­ porary tournament practice. Even G.Kasparov has played like this several times and at the end of the 90ies of the past century P .Svidler tried often that move. 94

We will deal in details now with A) 7 e5 and B) 7 c6. •••

•••

About 7 . . . c5 8.d5 - see Chap­ ter 11. It is not good for Black to play 7 .. J!e8. The point is that in the Averbakh system White has abso­ lutely no intention to trade the bishops (ih6 ), since his bishop on gS is more active than the bishop on g7. 8.f3 ! ? White pro­ tects reliably his e4-pawn. 8 . . . c5 9.d5 a6 10.a4 tt:lf8 ll.id3. He is freeing the e2-square for his knight. ll . . . e6 12.tt:lge2 Wffc7 13. 0-0 eS 14.a5 id7 15.tt:la4 ixa4

l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0.c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 0. bd7 7. �d2 1 6.ID:a4 l'!eb8 17.b3 0.e8 18.0.c3 0,d7 19.1'%a3 if8 20.0.a4 f6 21.i.e3 i,g7 2 2 .b4± Black has no counter­ play at all and is helpless to coun­ ter White's queenside operations, V. Milov - Wetscherek, Oberwart 19 93. It is interesting for Black to try 7 . . . a6 8.0.f3 l'!b8 - he is pre­ p aring b7-bS, but tries to do that without the move c7-c6 (Follow­ ing 8 . . . cS 9.0-0 cxd4 10.0.xd4 CiJcS ll.f3 0.e6 12 .ie3 0.xd4 13. .ixd4 ie6, there arises a position from the Maroczy system of the Sicilian Defence, but with an ex­ tra tempo for White, because Black has lost too much time on manoeuvres with his queen's knight. There might follow 14.1'%fc1 �as 1S.l'!ab1 l'!fc8 16.b3 0.d7 17. ie3 1'%ab8 18 .b4 �d8 19.0.dS ixdS 20.exdS:t White has two powerful bishops and good prospects on the queenside as well as on the e­ file, Yakovich - Rocha, Dresden 2007.) 9.0-0 bS 10.1'!fe1!? This is the simplest move. 10 . . . b4 ll.CiJdS e6 12.0.xf6+ ixf6 13.h4 ! ? ixgS 14.hxgS:t White has a powerful centre and extra space, while the dark squares are rather weak in Black's camp.

A) 7 e5 After this move, there often arises transposition to the varia­ tion with 7 . . . c6. There appear original positions only if Black re­ frains from c7-c6. . • •

8.0.f3 ! ? Naturally, White does not wish to advance d4-dS, but waits for his opponent to exchange on d4.

8

•••

tye8

It seems premature for Black to opt for 8 . . . exd4, since following 9.0.xd4 CiJcS 10.f3 h6 ll.ie3 l'!e8 12.0-0:t, White has protected re­ liably his e4-pawn and thanks to his pawn-centre and extra space, his play in the middle game will be much easier, Rajkovic - Vu­ ckovic, Nis 1996. He will counter 8 ... l'!e8 with 9.dS ! ? and this move emphasizes perfectly the drawbacks of 8 . . . l'!e8. Black's plan i s connected with f7-fS, so he will have to go back with his rook to f8 sooner or later, so this will lead to the loss of two tempi for him. 9 . . . 0.cS 10 .�c2 aS 11.0.d2 h6, Bilunov - Karasev, Leningrad 1971, 12 .ie3:t White's prospects seem preferable in the oncoming complicated King 's In­ dian middle game.

9.0-0! 9S

Chapter S This interesting move is con­ nected with a pawn-sacrifice for which White obtains good com­ pensation.

9

•••

exd4 lO.tiJxd4

born 1992.) 16.1'!ae1 .ieS 17.Wid5 a6 18 . .ih6 Wif6 19 . .ixf8 'it>xf8 20. tt:\a3;t, he has some compensation for the exchange indeed, but it is insufficient to maintain the equal­ ity.

lO .tiJxe4 ••

This is Black's most principled move. His position is worse following 10 . . . tt:\c5 ll.f3 tt:\e6 12 .ie3 tt:\xd4 13.hd4 c6 14J:!ad1 Wie7 15.ie3 l'!d8 16 . .ig5;t Kaidanov - Lamou­ reux, Torey 1991. There has arisen a situation in which Black can hardly create any counterplay. White has more space, moreover that later Black may have prob­ lems with the protection of his d6-pawn.

ll.tt:\xe4 Wixe4 12.liJb5 Wic6 13 .if3 'ffxc4 •

He can play here 13 . . . Wib6, re­ fraining from capturing on c4, but after 14 . .ie3 cS 15.Wixd6 .ixb2 (Black's position is horrible fol­ lowing 15 . . . Wixd6 16.tt:\xd6 l'!b8 17. l'!ad1± Kaidanov - Torman, Dear96

14.a4 Black can hardly defend against his opponent's numerous threats despite his two extra pawns.

14

•••

c6

After 14 . . . tt:\c5 15.1'!fc1 Wid3 16. Wixd3 tt:\xd3 17.1'!xcn, White re­ gains one of the pawns. His threats are very dangerous de­ spite the trade of queens. For ex­ ample, Black cannot capture on b2 : 17. . . .ixb2? ! , because of 18.1'!d1 tt:\eS 19 ..ie7 tt:\xf3+ 20.gxf3 i.eS 2 l..ixf8 'it>xf8 22.1'!dc1 ih3 23. l'!xb7± and he does not have suffi­ cient compensation for the ex­ change.

15.tt:\xd6! This move is stronger than 15 . .ie2 Wib3oo Tukmakov - Mes­ tel, Las Palmas 1982.

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 :!g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2 0 - 0 6. ig5 tiJ bd7 7. � d2 15 . . . �e6 16J�adl!

8

•••

e5

About 8 . . . �c7 9.0-0 eS 10. l'!ad1 - see 8 . . . eS. 8 . . . �aS 9.0-0 a6 10.a3 l'!e8 ll.b4 �c7 12.l'!acU White has gained time for his queenside pawn-offensive by attacking the enemy queen, Babula - Markin, Pardubice 2009.

White has more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. There might follow 16 l0e5 17.ie2 c 5 (17 . . .f6 18 .ih4 l'!d8 19.f4 tiJf7 2 0.i.c4 l'!xd6 21. ixe6 l'!xd2 2 2 .ixf7+ <j{xf7 23. l'!xd2 if8 24.if2;!; Black has a pawn and two bishops, but this is not enough to compensate the ex­ change.) 18J�fel J.d7 19.�c2 h6 •••

20 .Ah4 b6 21 .Ac4 �g4 22.ge4 J.f5 23.l0xf5 �xf5 24.gds� •

•

He has an extra pawn indeed, but his defence is very difficult, be­ cause White's pieces are tremen­ dously active.

B) 7 c6 8.l0f3 •••

Besides this move, Black can try to prepare b7-bS. 8 . . . a6 9.0-0 bS 10.a3 bxc4 (Or 10 ... i.b7 11. l'!ad1 �b8 12 .ih6 l'!e8 13.l'!feU and in the forthcoming middle game White's play is much sim­ pler, since he dominates in the centre, Milov - Irzhanov, Moscow 1994. Following lO . . . eS ll.l'!ad1 i.b7 12.l'!fe1 l'!e8 13.dxeS dxeS 14. b4;!;, he maintains a slight edge, because his pieces are better pre­ pared for the fight for the d-file, while Black cannot exploit the vulnerability of the d4-square, since his knight can hardly go there, Milov - M.Gurevich, Haifa 199S.) ll.ixc4 tiJb6 (After ll . . . dS, there arise positions which are similar to those we have analysed in the previous chapter in varia­ tion B. 12 .i.d3 dxe4 13.tiJxe4 �b6 14.l'!acl aS 1S.l'!feU Black's weak­ ness on c6 is more important than White's on d4, Volzhin - Matikoz­ ian, Yerevan 1996.) 12 .ie2 ie6 13.l'!fe1 �b8 14.l'!ac1 l'!c8 . 1S.h3 l'!a7 16.i.d3 aS 17.ih6;!; White dominates in the centre and can begin active operations on the 97

Chapter S kingside, Budnikov - Podzielny, Vienna 1991. It is interesting for Black, but still insufficient for equality to try 8 . . . d5. After 9.exd5 cxd5 10.0-0, there arises a position, which looks like the one in the Panov at­ tack in the Caro-Kann Defence.

White should not be afraid of 10 . . . lt:lb6, because of ll.c5 lt:le4 12. Wcl lt:lxc3 13.Wxc3;t Black has no counterplay, while White's plan is quite clear - to advance his queenside pawns. Following 10 ... a6 ll.lt:leS dxc4 12 .hc4 Wc7, White can opt for an interesting pawn-sacrifice - 13. ib3 ! ? (It is also good for him to try 13.'\Wf4 h6 14.hh6 hh6 15. Wxh6 lt:lxeS 16.dxe5 Wxc4 17.exf6 exf6 18J:HeU Black must watch constantly for the possibility of White transferring his rook to the h-file. Still, it would be difficult to say whether he can achieve any­ thing meaningful later, since there are just a few pieces left on the board.) 13 . . . lt:lxe5 14.dxe5 WxeS 15J'!fe1 Wd6. This position was reached in the game Gelfand - Svidler, Groningen 1996. Here, 98

White had simply to trade the queens and following 16.Wxd6 exd6 17.:gadU, he would have re­ gained the sacrificed pawn, pre­ serving a slight edge. For exam­ ple: 17 . . . h6 (17 . . . :gd8? 18.lt:ld5+-) 18 .i.e3 :ge8 19.:gxd6 .ie6 20.he6 :gxe6 21.:gxe6 fxe6 2 2 .:gdu and the vulnerability of the e6-pawn would be a telling factor in the endgame. After 10 . . . lt:le4 ll.lt:lxe4 dxe4 12.lt:le1, there arises a position in which White's pawn-majority on the queenside provides him with a slight advantage. 12 . . .f6 (12 . . . lt:lf6 13.lt:lc2 b 6 14.:gad1 ib7 15.d5 Wd6 16.lt:ld4;t - His advantage is doubtless due to the doubled black pawns on the e-file, Uhl­ mann - Gross, Leipzig 1982 .) 13. i.e3 eS 14.:gd1 exd4 15.hd4 We7 16.lt:lc2 fS 17.hg7 Wxg7 18.lt:ld4;t Portisch - Nunn, Linares 1988. There might follow 18 ... We5 19. lt:lbS lt:lf6 20.Wd4 Wxd4 2l.:gxd4 �g7 22 .c5;t and White's game is much easier in the arising end­ game. After 10 . . . dxc4 ll.hc4, we have on the board a typical posi­ tion with an isolated pawn. White's piece activity compen­ sates with an interest this mini­ mal positional defect. ll . . . a6 (11 . . . lt:lb6 12 .ib3 lt:lbdS 13.:gfe1 ie6 14. ih6 lt:lxc3 15.bxc3 idS 16.hg7 �xg7 17.lt:le5 b5 18.:ge3 :gc8 19. :gaelt White has powerful initia­ tive, Rashkovsky - Kupreichik, Vilnius 1980) 12.:gfe1 bS 13.i.b3 ib7 14.:gad1 :gc8 (14 . . . lt:lb6 15.d5 ! ;

J.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 :Ag7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 tiJ bd7 7. Wid2 he should not be afraid of 14 . . . ,ixf3 15.gxf3 ges 16.a4;!; White's two powerful bishops compensate fully the defects of his pawn­ structure) 1S.Wie2 b4 16.tiJa4 WiaS 1 7.tiJe5;!; and in the arising posi­ tion, White has an edge thanks to his more active pieces, moreover that Black's queenside pawn­ structure has been compromised, N.Gaprindashvili - Watson, Brus­ sels 1987.

9.0-0

away with his queen from the pin, Wright - Krstic, Brisbane 2006. After 9 . . . Wib6, White should not be in a hurry to push immedi­ ately d4-d5. It is better for him to wait until Black plays ges. 10. gad1 ges U.ds cxdS 12.cxd5. Now, if Black wishes his rook to support the pawn-advance f7-f5, it must go back to f8. All this is too slow and White's queenside initi­ ative (on the c-file) develops much faster. 12 . . . tiJcS 13.Wic2 id7 14.liJd2 geeS 1S.Wib1 h6 16.:Ae3 Wid8 17.gc1 tiJg4 18.ixg4 ixg4 19.liJc4 if8 20.b4 tiJa6 21.tiJaS Wie7 22 .a3 b6 23.tiJc6± White's achievements on the queenside are quite evident (the knight on c6), while Black's counterplay is too slow, Polugaevsky - Gufeld, Moscow 1969. After 9 ... ges, White's best re­ action again would be - lO.gadl.

9 . . . exd4 Black cannot continue the game without this move, so he should better exchange immedi­ ately. About 9 . . . Wic7 10.gad1 ges ll.dS - see 9 . . . ges. After 9 . . . Wie7, White's simplest reaction would be lO.dS;!; and Black can hardly organise coun­ terplay on the kingside, because in order for him to advance f7-f5, he should remove his knight from f6 and before that he should run

He can counter 10 . . . Wie7 with the move U.dS, for example 11 . . . cS. The centre has been closed and the fight is focused on the flanks. 12.tiJe1 (12.h3 ! ? a6 13.tiJh2 Wif8 14.a3 'it>h8 15.b4tWhite has 99

Chapter S begun a queenside offensive, while Black's kingside counter­ play is nowhere in sight yet, Stahl­ berg - Pilnik, Beverwijk 19S6.) 12 ... '?9f8 13.lt:Jd3 h6 14 ..ie3 lt:Jb6 1S.b3 lt:Jg4 16 ..b:g4 .b:g4 17J!:de1 a6 18.f4. White breaks through on the kingside. We have to pay at­ tention that he accomplished that only when Black did not have the possibility to exploit the weakness of the eS-square. 18 . . . exf4 19.!'!:xf4 �d7 20.!'\ffl± A.Petrosian - Zapa­ ta, Belgrade 1984. He has no counterplay, while White has more space and a clear-cut plan for actions connected with the pawn-break e4-eS. In the game Black did not withstand the pres­ sure of the fight and chose the move 20 . . . �d4? weakening irrev­ ocably his position. There fol­ lowed 21..b:d4 cxd4 22 .lt:Jd1 lt:Jc8 23.lt:J lf2 '?9g7 24.'?9f4 gS 2S.'?:l/g3 aS 26.eS+-. There are too many weaknesses in Black's camp and it will be in ruins after White breaks through with e4-eS. Following 10 . . .'?9c7, White can close advantageously the position in the centre. ll.dS cxdS 12.cxdS lt:JcS 13.!'!:c1 aS. After this seem­ ingly obvious move, the bS-square is seriously weakened in Black's position. 14.'?9c2 �d7 1S.lt:JbS hbS 16.hbS !'!:ec8 17.lt:Jd2t Polugaevs­ ky - Gligoric, Havana 1967. The vulnerability of the bS-square has led to Black being forced to give up his light-squared bishop. This is a very important piece for him in the King's Indian Defence, 100

since his central pawns are placed on dark squares. After its ex­ change, the vulnerability of the light squares becomes quite no­ ticeable. Later, Polugaevsky real­ ised his positional advantage.

10.tijxd4

10

•••

.!Llc5

This move is connected with a tactical trap. After 10 . . . !'!:e8, Black ends up in a passive position. ll.!'!:ad1 lt:JcS (ll . . . '<Mfb6 12.f3 lt:JcS 13.i>h1 lt:Jfd7. Here, in the game Uhlmann - Mar­ tinovic, Sarajevo 1981, White in­ flicted a very elegant tactical strike. 14.lt:JdbS !± cxbS?? 1S.lt:JdS+-) 12. f3 aS 13.lt:Jc2 '?9b6 14.�e3 a4 1S. !'!:b1 '?9c7 16.!'\fdlt White has par­ ried his opponent's initiative with an accurate play and now can be­ gin the siege of Black's weak d6pawn forcing him to defend, A. Onischuk - Theissen, Dortmund 1992 .

11.'?9f4 This is the only move.

l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3JiJ c3 �g7 4.e4 d6 s. �e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 0. bd7 7. V!id2 The careless reply ll.f3? can countered by Black with a tac­ e b tical strike: 11 . . . 0.fxe4 ! 12.0.xe4 0.xe4 13.fxe4 .bd4-+ and he wins a pawn without any compensa­ tion for White, Adamski - Geller, Lugano 1968.

11 1He7 •••

About ll .. J:!e8 12.�f3 Wie7 13. j:!ad1 - see ll ... Wie7.

12.j:!adl

tive and ends up in a better posi­ tion. 13 . . . a5 (13 . . . Wie5 14.V!icU) 14. j:!feU White maintains a slight but stable advantage. He must watch carefully however, for Black's possible tactical tricks. 14 . . . a4 15. h3 V!ieS 16.Vfic1 V!ie7 17.V!if4 0.cd7 18.Vfid2 V!if8 19.0.c2 h6 20.�e3;!; ­ His pawn on d6 is very weak, Pe­ tursson - Kasparov, Reykjavik 1988. After Kasparov's impreci­ sion 20 . . . 0.h7? ! , White could have increased his advantage with the move 21.�f4 ! ±

13.f3 Now, his pawn on e4 is safe.

12

•••

1He5

Capturing the central pawn leads to a very difficult position for Black 12 . . . 0.cxe4? ! 13.0.xe4 V!ixe4 14.V!ixd6. Naturally, it is ad­ vantageous for him to exchange his weak d6-pawn for his oppo­ nent's e4-pawn, but White's piec­ es become very active. 14 . . . 0.d7 15.�f3 V!ieS 16.�f4 V!ixd6 17.hd6 j:!e8 18.0.xc6± - He regains the pawn and preserves all the pluses of his position. White should not be afraid of 12 . . . j:!e8, because after 13.�f3, he parries gradually Black's initia-

13 .l!�e6 • •

Black wishes to facilitate the defence of his cramped position by trading the knights. White preserves an edge fol­ lowing 13 . . . 0.fd7 14.V!ih4 f6, S. Savchenko - Neverov, Zhitomir 1986, 15.�f4 ! Wie7 16.b4 0.a6 17. bS 0.ab8 18.�g3± Black's d6pawn is vulnerable and he has problems with his develop­ ment. 101

Chapter S After 13 . . .'\Wxf4, there arises an endgame advantageous for White. 14.hf4 lLle8 15.ie3 aS 16.lLlb3 (it is also good for him to opt for 16J�d2 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . lLlxb3 17.axb3 fS 18.c5 ! ;!; With his last move White has freed the c4-square for his bishop and has seized completely the initiative.

14.�xe6 he6 16Jfh4! This is White's most accurate move. It would be premature for him to choose 16.!!xd6 lLld7 17.W/xe5 he5 18.!!d2 lLlb6?, and the activ­ ity of Black's pieces enabled him to draw in the game Grischuk Svidler, Sochi 2005.

ts.wht This is a prophylactic move. Now, White is not afraid of the checks of Black's queen. It is also very good for White to continue with 15.'\We3 ! ? W/a5 (Maybe Black's best option here would be to enter an inferior end­ game with 15 . . . W/c5 ! ? 16.lLla4 W/xe3+ 17.he3;!;, although even then his d6-pawn remains very weak.) 16J'!xd6 lLld7 17.!!b1 ! ± Black i s a pawn down and h e can hardly create any meaningful counterplay on the queenside. For example, he loses after 17 . . . lLlb6, due to 18.c5 lLla4 19.b4+-

15 . . . !!fe8 102

Still, White can try here - 16. Wfcl ! ?;!;

16 ... �d7 17.f4 This is the idea of his previous move. White is not trying to win material and wishes to organise an attack against the enemy king.

17 . . . ti'c5 It is bad for Black to play 17 . . . WfaS, because of 18.f5 ! gxf5 19.ih6 ixh6 20.W/xh6 f4 21.!!xf4± White has a strong attack in a position with material equality.

18.ie7 (18.f5? ixc4) 18 . . . hc3 19.bxc3 hc4 20.hd6 ti'bS

J.d4 ilJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 ilg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 tiJ bd7 7. Wfd2 addition, White has weaknesses on a2 and c3. This is all an illusion however, because following 22. eSt White's initiative is very pow­ erful. Black can hardly cope with his opponent's numerous threats (f4-f5; :Bf3-h3 ; ie7-f6, Wfh6). 22 b5 (Black loses after 22 . . . Wfxa2? 23.f5 ! ttJxeS 24.f6+-, as well as in the variation 22 . . . Wfxc3? 23.f5 ttJxeS 24.Wff6 Wfe3 25.fxg6 ilJxg6 26.Wfxf7+ 'it>h8 27.ib4+­ and he has no defence against :Bd7.) 23.Wfg5 (with the idea f4f5) 23 Wfe2 24.ie7 h6 25. W/h4 •••

21 .ixc4 (It seems also good for him to include the move 21. a4 ! ? , since Black cannot capture the pawn 2l.. .Wfxa4?, in view of 22.:Bd4 bS 23.ixc4 bxc4 24.f5+-) 21 Wfxc4. It looks like Black is not threatened by anything. In •

•••

•••

tiJb6 26.if6 'it>h7 27.h3 �d5 28.f5 S:ac8 29.e6± - with a very

dangerous attack for White.

Conclusion We have just analysed the variation with 6 . . . ttJbd7. White obtains effortlessly an advantage in the opening exploiting the basic drawback of Black's sixth move. His knight on d7 does not exert any pressure against White's centre. This leads to the fact that Black will have to exchange on d4 sooner or later and there will arise a position with a long lasting positional advantage for White. He will dominate in the centre and will have the possibility to exert pressure against Black's weak d6-pawn. We will have to mention that a similar type of position arises in the variation of the King's Indian Defence in which White fi­ anchettoes his bishop on g2 and Black plays tiJbd7. There, as a rule, he is doomed to a passive defence after White parries all his opponent's tactical tricks.

103

Chapter 9

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.i.e2 0-0 6.i.g5 �a6

combinational play as G.Kaspa­ rov, V.Topalov, A.Grischuk, T. Radjabov, P.Svidler, B.Gelfand, J.Polgar and many others.

7.f4!?

This move is more flexible than the one we have analysed in our previous chapter - 6 . . . lt:lbd7. Black prepares the typical pawn­ advance e7-e5 for the King's Indi­ an Defence and also the knight on a6 will not stand in the way of the development of his bishop on c8. If White, in answer to e7-e5, re­ plies with d4-d5, then Black's knight on a6 will have the possi­ bility to go to the cS-outpost, ex­ erting pressure against the e4pawn. Following 6 . . . lt:la6, as a rule, there arise very complicated posi­ tions with plenty of tactical possi­ bilities, so it is not surprising that it was tested by such masters of 104

With this move White wishes to emphasize the drawbacks of Black's sixth move. Now, there arise positions similar to the Four Pawns Attack, except that Black's knight is on a6 and White's bish­ op is on gS. I believe this inclusion is in favour of White, since he had made a developing move, while the placement of Black's knight on a6 may turn out to be disad­ vantageous. The move 7.f4 be­ came popular after V.Potkin's win against A.Grischuk in the year 2011. After 7.V9d2, naturally Black advances 7 . . . e5 and as a rule, there arise positions, which are more typical for the Saemisch sys­ tem. For example: 8.d5 V9e8 9. idl id7 10.lt:lge2 lt:lcS ll.ic2 aS 12.f3 hSoo and both sides have their pluses, Grischuk - Rad­ jabov, Biel 2007.

l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0.c3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0.a6 7:f4 from there will support the pawn­ break e4-e5.) 13.e5± - The defects of the placement of Black's knight on a6 have become quite obvious. In fact, White has an extra piece in the fight for the centre, Ser­ gienko - Cherniaev, Tula 1998.

A) 7 ti'e8 •••

Now, Black has two main lines at his disposal: A) 7 ti'e8 and •••

B) 7 c6. .••

It seems rather dubious for him to opt for 7 . . . c5? ! . Following 8.d5, there arise positions in which Black's knight is better placed on d7 in order to prevent White's possible central pawn­ break e4-e5. It is understandable that from the a6-square it can go only to c7, from where it cannot control at all the eS-square. The pawn-advance b7-b5, which the knight on c7 can support, is abso­ lutely harmless for White, be­ cause he can parry it with the move a2-a4, or eventually with a4-a5. 8 . . . Wa5 (After 8 . . . We8 9. 0.f3 e6 10.e5 ! ?t ; 10 . .bf6 .ixf6 11. eS dxeS 12 .fxe5 :ig7 13.d6;t;, White's powerful d6-pawn is a more important factor in this po­ sition than Black's bishop-pair.) 9.ti'd2 e6 10.0.f3 exdS 11.cxd5 E:e8 12. 0-0 :ig4 (The move 12 . . . c4 weakens the d4-square. 13.�h1 bS 14.0.d4± Black's position is very difficult. White's knight on d4 will go to the c6-square and

With this move Black prepares the pawn-advance e7-e5, after which White will be forced to push dS and Black's knight, at the edge of the board on a6, will gain access to the cS-square. This plan is not so good if Black includes the preliminary move 7 . . . h6, because after 8.:ih4 WeB, White has a powerful addi­ tional possibility - 9.e5 ! Later, in the game R.Bagirov - Mareck, Batumi 2002, there followed 9 . . . 0.h7 10.0.f3 f6 11.0-0 c S 12.exd6 exd6 13.0.b5± The vulnerability of the d6-pawn will be a cause of permanent worries for Black.

8.e5 ! ? Now, this move i s not a s effec­ tive as after the inclusion of the 105

Chapter 9 moves h6 and i.h4, because White's bishop on g5 may come under at­ tack in some variations with the move f7-f6; nevertheless, it leads again to an advantage for White.

8 ... .!Dd7 9 . .!Df3 c5 Black must be in a hurry to at­ tack his opponent's centre as quickly as possible; otherwise, his position will be horribly cramped.

10.0-0 cxd4 11 . .!Dd5 dxe5 White maintains a stable ad­ vantage following ll .. .f6 12.exf6 tt:Jxf6 13 . .bf6 ixf6 14.lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 15.lt:Jxd4;t - he has a superior pawn-structure: two pawn-is­ lands against three, moreover that Black's king is vulnerable, Yakovich - Trygstad, Bergen 2000.

Sanchez, Madrid 2005, since White has the energetic resource 13. fxe5! , for example: 13 ...gf7 (Black's situation becomes even worse following 13 . . . fxe5 14.c5 ! White sacrifices a pawn and brings his bishop into the attack. 14 . . . tt:Jdxc5 15 ..bf8 \1;lfxf8 16.ic4 <;!;>hS 17.lt:Jg5 if5 18.lt:Jb6 axb6 19.lt:Jf7+ <;!;>gS 20.lt:Jxe5+ <;!;>hS 21.gxf5 gxf5 2 2 . lt:Jf7+ <;!;>gS 23 .\1;l/h5+- and i n order to save his king, Black must part with his queen.) 14.exf6 tt:Jxf6 15 . .b£6 .ixf6 16.tt:Jxf6+ gxf6 17. \1;l/xd4± - he has succeeded in sav­ ing the exchange, but this is a small consolation for him, since he has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

13 . .!Dxd4 .!Db6

12 . .he7

14 . .!Df6 + ! 12 ... exf4 This move has been played in the game Meins - Reh, Baunatal 2001 and it is the best for Black. His position is terrible after 12 .. .f6, Herraiz Hidalgo - Paredes 106

White should not go after ma­ terial, because after 14.ixf8 \1;lfxf8 15.gxf4 tt:Jxd5 16.cxd5oo, despite the extra exchange, his play will be much more difficult, since the dark squares in his camp are con­ siderably weakened.

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0,a6 7/4 14 hf6 15.hf6 'ti'e3+ 16. •.•

g{2 lDc5 17.lbc2 'ti'e8 18.gxf4;t

He has regained the sacrificed pawn and his advantage is doubt­ less, due to his two powerful bish­ ops. Black must be on a perma­ nent alert how not to be check­ mated on the compromised dark squares. -

B) 7 c6 •••

With this patient move Black prepares the evacuation of his knight from the a6-square. It is going to c7 from where it not only supports the pawn-breaks b7-b5 and d7-d5, but can also go to e6 at an opportune moment, exerting pressure against White's centre (the d4-square) and attacking rather unpleasantly the bishop in gS.

8 . . . b5. This is an interesting pawn-sacrifice, but insufficient for equality. 9.cxb5 (But not 9.e5, since after 9 ... b4�. there arise complications on the board and they are much rather in favour of Black, since his pieces are better mobilised, Moskalenko - Nadyr­ hanov, Alushta 1994.) 9 . . . cxb5 10.hb5 gbs 1l.ic4;t Black has some compensation for the pawn, but it is still insufficient to main­ tain the equality. White does not have pawn-weaknesses in his po­ sition and he needs just two more moves to complete his develop­ ment.

(diagram)

Black cannot equalise with 8 . . . gbs, with the idea to sacrifice a pawn in another fashion - 9.0,f3 bS 10.hf6 exf6 (Or 10 . . .hf6 11. cxbS cxb5 12.0,xb5;t and Black has two powerful bishops, but White is still better thanks to his extra pawn and domination in the cen­ tre.) ll.cxbS cxbS 12.0,xb5;t

This is the main response for Black.

It may be very interesting for Black to try 8 . . . d5 ! ? Now, White is

8.'ti'd2 8

•••

lbc7

107

Chapter 9 forced to capture the pawn and after 9.i.xf6 exf6 10.exd5 cxdS 11.lt:Jxd5, there arises a very com­ plicated position in which he must play very precisely.

He has an extra pawn indeed, but lags in development and Black has two very powerful bishops. His dark-squared bishop is par­ ticularly strong, since it has no opponent. ll . . . E:e8 (after ll . . . bS 12.lt:Je3 bxc4 13.if3 E:b8 14.lt:Je2;!;, White is close to the completion of his development and Black's c4-pawn is not dangerous at all) 12.lt:Jf3 ie6 13.lt:Je3 Vlie7 (He can also try here 13 . . . VJid6. There may arise the following developments: 14.g3 ih3 15.'i!lf2 E:ad8 16.E:he1 lt:JcS 17.id3;!;. Black's pieces are tremendously active, but White's prospects are preferable. Black has doubled pawns on the f-file, so White has in the centre and on the queenside not one but two ex­ tra pawns.) 14.0-0 id7 (The move 14 . . . .b:c4 leads to multiple exchanges and a transfer into a slightly better endgame for White. 15.hc4 VJixe3+ 16.VJixe3 E:xe3 17. E:fe1 E:xe1 + 18.!\xeU Black has re­ gained his pawn indeed, but the 108

endgame is better for White thanks to his superior pawn­ structure.) 15.'i!lf2 ic6 16.E:ae1

This is the key position for the variation with 8 . . . d5. Now, Black has a choice. He can push 16 . . .f5 and White's best reaction against this would be 17.g3;!;, preserving a slight edge. (Following 17.lt:Je5, Black has at his disposal a forced variation leading to a draw: 17 . . . E:ad8 18.'i!lg1 heS 19.fxe5 VJixeS 20.lt:lc2 VJif6 21.id3 E:xe1 22.E:xe1 E:xd4 ! 23.lt:Jxd4 VJixd4+ 24.'it>h1 lt:JcS 25.E:d1 lt:Jxd3 26.VJixd3 VJixb2 27.VJid8+ 'it>g7 28.Vlid4+ VJixd4 29. E:xd4 'it>f6=) Or 16 . . . E:ad8 and later in the game V.Potkin - Grischuk, Khan­ ty-Mansiysk 2011, there followed: 17.d5 lt:JcS 18.id3 VJic7 19.g3;!; There has arisen a very compli­ cated position in which the play is rather difficult for both sides. White must be very careful about his opponent's tactical possibili­ ties. If he succeeds in parrying them and simplifies the position by exchanging pieces, then his two extra pawns on the queen­ side should gradually settle the issue.

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 S. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 tiJa6 7.f4 9.�f3

Naturally, you cannot see of­ ten the bishop here at the begin­ ning of the game, since God has created the f3-square for the knight, but now, this move is necessary, because White must protect very carefully his e4square.

9

•••

c!iJe6

Besides this move, Black has an interesting pawn-sacrifice here - 9 . . . d5 10.cxd5 cxdS 11.e5 4Je4 12.4Jxe4 dxe4 13 . .be4. White has an extra pawn, but his play is not easy at all, since he lags in devel­ opment. 13 .. .£6 (following 13 . . . 4Je6, White should better give back the pawn immediately, be­ ing happy with a slight edge in the endgame thanks to his better pawn-structure after 14.:ih4 �xd4 15.�xd4 4Jxd4 16.�d1 4Je6 17.4Je2 g5 18.fxg5 .be5 19.b3 tiJcS 20.:if3 :ifS 21. 0-0;!;) 14 . .ih4 fxeS (In the game Hernandez Carmenates Libiszewski, Montcada 2011, Black tried some active actions on the

kingside, but they backfired fol­ lowing 14 . . . g5? ! , which after 15. fxgS fxeS 16.4Jf3 exd4 17. 0-0±, led to a position with a consider­ able advantage for White. Black's pawn-majority in the centre is im­ material, because his pawns are easily blocked, while the vulnera­ bility of his castling position provides White with excellent attacking prospects.) 1S.fxe5 .beS 16.4Jf3 :if4 17.�d3 �d6 18.0-0 .ie6 19.�aeU - His pieces are very harmoniously deployed and Black's e7-pawn is much weaker than White's d4-pawn. Black's plan to advance the undermining move f7-f5 is not dangerous for White, since it is too slow and also weakens Black's position. 9 . . . 4Jd7 10.4Jge2 fS 11. exfS gxfS 12.0-0. There may fol­ low 12 . . . 4Jf6 13.d5 eS 14.fxe5 dxeS 15.4Jg3 cxdS 16.4Jxd5 :ie6, Miton - B.Socko, Germany 2011. Here, White could have increased his advantage with the move 17.�ae1! Black will have problems with the protection of his e and f-pawns. For example: 17 . . .£4 18.4Jh5 :ixdS 19.cxd5 �d6 20.4Jxg7 c;!;>xg7 21. �xeS ! After this exchange-sacri­ fice Black's position crumbles. 2l.. .�xe5 22 .:ixf4 �fS 23 . .bc7± White has two pawns for the ex­ change, a couple of powerful bish­ ops and a dangerous passed d­ pawn, while Black's king has practically no pawn-shelter.

10.�h4 109

Chapter 9 Unfortunately for White, he must lose a tempo for the retreat of his bishop.

10

•••

c5

Black succeeds in creating counterplay in the centre.

thenburg 2011, there followed: 14.lt:Jge2 a6 15.0-0 \t>h8 16.lt:Jd4 !!ac8. White has completed his development and after the central pawn-break 17.e5± seized com­ pletely the initiative.

ll.dxc5 �xeS 12.!3:dl 14.�ge2

There has arisen a position similar in its pawn-structure to the Maroczy system in the Sicilian Defence. Now, it all depends on whether White will manage to complete his development. If he does, then he will have a great ad­ vantage in the forthcoming mid­ dle game; otherwise, Black may seize the initiative.

12

•••

�e6

White's c4-pawn is Black's main target for attack.

13.b3 aS Now, he switches to attacking the b3-pawn. Black only loses time with the move 13 .. .'�a5, because he cannot break his opponent's position with piece-sorties. Later, in the game Hammer - Bejtovic, Go110

14 a4 •••

The obviously bad move 14 . . . �c7? ! was played i n the game Ivanchuk - Radjabov, Medias 2011. Black not only loses a tem­ po, but his queen is misplaced on the c7-square, because in many variations, after the preliminary exchange .ixf6, it will come under attack with lt:Jd5. The game con­ tinued with 15.0-0 a4 16.f5 ! This is a positional pawn-sacrifice with the idea to deflect Black's bishop from the protection of the d5square. 16 . . . gxf5 17.exf5 hf5 18. �6 exf6 (It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 18 . . . .bf6?, since following 19.lt:Jd5 �c8 2 0 . lt:Jxf6+ exf6 21.b4 lt:J e 6 2 2 .lt:Jc3+-, he has temporarily an extra pawn indeed, but his position is al most

l.d4 l!:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. l!:Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 l!:Ja6 7.f4 hopeless, because he cannot de­ fend all the numerous pawn­ weaknesses in his camp.) 19.b4 lf:Je6 20.lf:Jb5 119b6+ 21.'it>hl± Al­ most all Black's pawns are terribly weak.

edge of the board 15 . . . lf:Ja6? ! is ob­ viously weaker due to 16.a3 ! and Black cannot play 16 . . . hc4 in view of 17.e5± and White's bishop on f3 becomes tremendously ac­ tive.

16.1rd3 ! ?

15.b4! ? This i s an interesting move. White weakens his c4-pawn, but deprives his opponent of the pos­ sible counterplay against the pawn on b3. Following 15.l!:Jd4, White can hardly hold on to his b3-pawn. For example: 15 . . . axb3 16.axb3 119a5 17. 0-0 119b6 18.119f2 tt:Jxb3 19. l!:Jxe6 119xf2 + 20Jl:xf2 fxe6 21.e5 dxeS 22 .fxe5 lf:Je8 23 . .ig3� and al­ though he has the initiative in this endgame, which compen­ sates fully his minimal material deficit, but White can hardly rely on anything more than a draw; because there remains just too lit­ tle material on the board, Levin Wiersma, Netherlands 2011.

15 . . . l0cd7

The retreat of the knight to the

This simple move, protecting the pawn, seems to me to be more promising to White in his fight for the opening advantage than the pawn-sacrifice after 16.c5, for ex­ ample: 16 . . . dxc5 17.bxc5 (It is also interesting for Black to try 17.b5 ! ? and after 1 7. . . 119c7 18.e5 l!:JxeS 19. fxeS E:fd8 20.119g5 E:xd1+ 21.'it>xd1 h6 22 .119e3 l!:Jg4 23.ixg4 hg4 24 . .ig3, there arises a very com­ plicated position. White has a knight for two pawns, but his king is vulnerable and Black's pieces are rather active.) 17 . . . tt:Jxc5 18.e5 lf:Jfd7 (It is weaker for him to con­ tinue with 18 . . . 119xd2 +, because of 19 J!:xd2 lf:Jfd7 20 . .ixe7 E:fe8 21. .id6i. White has regained his pawn and maintains a slight edge thanks to his more actively de­ ployed minor pieces.) 19.0-0� ­ No doubt, he has compensation for the sacrificed pawn, since his pieces are active, but it is unclear whether he can achieve anything meaningful.

16 . . . 119b6 16 . . . 119c7 17.lf:Jd5 .ixd5 18.cxd5i White has extra space, a bishop­ pair and only needs to castle in order to complete his develop111

Chapter 9 ment. There may arise the follow­ ing variation: 18 ... E1fc8 19.E1cl '1Wb6 2 0.E1bl '1Wc7 21.0-0 '1Wc4 22 .'1Wxc4 E1xc4 23.E1fcl E1ac8 24.iel lLlb6 25. E1xc4 lLlxc4 26.E1cl lLle8 27 . .ig4 E1c7 28.id7 ib2 29.E1xc4 E1xc4 30.ixe8 ia3 31.ixa4 ixb4 32. ixb4 E1xb4 33 . .ib3 E1xe4 34.'it>f2;!; - In this endgame, White's two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawns.

17.a3 lUeS 18.lbd5 hd5 19.cxd5 \Wa6 The inclusion of the moves 19 . . . h5 20 .h3;!; does not change the evaluation of the position.

20.\Wxa6 )3xa6 21 .if2 •

(diagram) White has an advantage in the arising endgame, because he can parry easily Black's temporary ac­ tivity.

21

•••

)3c4

He wishes to create counter­ play against White's e4-pawn.

Black's position is horrible af­ ter 2l.. .E1aa8?! 2 2 .'it>d2± Following 21.. .lLle8 2 2 .lLld4;!;, he has not achieved anything real and will have to begin to defend passively in a few moves.

22.)3cl

)3xcl +

23.tLlxcl;!;

White has traded a pair of rooks and succeeded in decreasing his opponent's initiative. Now, if Black fails to organise pressure against the pawns on a3 or e4, White will coordinate his pieces and Black's position will become very difficult, since he has less space and his queenside pawns are seriously weakened.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 6 . . . lLla6. It is quite deservedly one of the most popular responses for Black in the Averbakh system in the contemporary tournament practice. He is try­ ing to obtain a sharp and complicated position and is ready to sacrifice pawns in his fight for the initiative. Still, after a precise play, White has chances of obtaining an advantage after the opening. As a rule, in this variation he acquires some long term pluses - a space advantage and a powerful pawn-centre. His main task is to overcome the temporary lag in development. After he completes it successfully, Black will be forced to begin defending.

112

Chapter 10

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5 .ie2 0-0 6.J.g5 h6 •

main lines, we will analyse three moves : A) 7. . .ltlbd7, B) 7 . . . e5,

C) 7 . . c5. .

Before that however, we will deal with some not so popular lines.

This move is one of the most popular responses for Black against the Averbakh system, chosen by White. Black ousts im­ mediately his opponent's bishop from its active position. Still, this move has a serious drawback Black's pawn on h6 is not suffi­ ciently protected. In the majority of the variations White can win a tempo by attacking it with the move 1Wd2 .

7 . .ie3 This is the right decision. In the Averbakh system, contrary for example to the Petrosian system, White's bishop retreats as a rule to this square. Now, Black can choose be­ tween numerous possibilities. As

White should not be afraid of the rather slow move 7 . . . a6. After 8.\Wd2 'kt>h7 9.h3 lL:\c6 lO.lLlf3 eS ll.dS lL:\e7, he can follow with the standard resource 12 .g4 ! imped­ ing Black's kingside counterplay and developing effortlessly his initiative on the other side of the board. Later, in the game Kovacs - Mesaros, Trencianske Teplice 2005, there followed 12 . . . lL:\fg8 13.0-0-0 .id7 14.c5 lL:\c8 15.'kt>bl±. White's initiative is very power­ ful. Black is incapable of counter­ ing White's actions on the c-file and his kingside counterplay is obviously too slow. It seems rather dubious for Black to try here 7 . . . b6. In g�ner­ al, in the King's Indian Defence, Black fianchettoes his light­ squared bishop only very seldom, 113

Chapter 1 0 since it can hardly find a better place for actions than the c8-h3 diagonal. 8.h3 ll'lfd7 (8 . . ..tb7 9. �c2;!;) 9.�d2 'it>h7 10.g4 eS ll.ds aS 12 .h4. This is the beginning of a standard plan for similar posi­ tions. White advances his pawn to the hS-square, forcing his oppo­ nent to play g6-gS and after that Black will have no counterplay whatsoever and will remain in the role of a spectator to the rest of the game. White will prepare pa­ tiently a breakthrough on the queenside. You can see a very good example on this subject the game Panno - Camara, Sao Paulo 1972 . 12 . . . ll'lcS 13.hS gS 14. ll'lh3 ll'lbd7 1S.f3 .tf6 16.0-0 ie7 17.ll'lf2 ll'lb7 18J!fb1 ll'ldcS 19.b3 id7 20.id1 !!e8 21.a3 if8 22 .b4 ll'la6 23 ..ta4± After the trade of the light-squared bishops, Black's position became even worse due to the catastrophic vulnerability of his light squares. The game continued until move 69 and end­ ed in a victory for White, but there was never a real struggle. It looked like the fight between two wres­ tlers in which one of them is on top and is trying to break his op­ ponent's neck. The only problem is whether the neck will withstand the pressure or not. Black's position is obviously inferior after 7 . . . c6 8.�d2 'it>h7 9.h3, for example : 9 . . . a6, as it was played by V. Ragozin against the author of this system. He did not manage to reap any dividends at 114

all. 10.ll'lf3 dS ll.id3 dxe4 12. ll'lxe4 ll'lxe4 13.he4;!; White's po­ sition is clearly preferable and his pieces are much more active, Averbakh - Ragozin, Leningrad 19S6. Now, just like in the majority of similar variations, Black can­ not equalise with the move 7 . . . ll'lc6, because h e provokes some weakening of White's centre after the move 8.dS indeed, but Black loses too much time on moves with his knight. 8 . . . ll'leS (It is not preferable for him to retreat with his knight to its initial position 8 . . . ll'lb8, since after 9.�d2 'it>h7 10 .h3 aS ll.ll'lf3 eS, in the game Polovodin - Stotika, Leningrad 1983, White could have begun im­ mediately active actions on the queenside with the move: 12.cS ! ± and Black would have great prob­ lems to neutralise White's activity on the c-file.) 9.h3 c6 10.ll'lf3 ll'lxf3+ ll.hf3 cxdS 12.cxdS;!; Le­ rner - Gufeld, Ivano-Frankovsk 1982 . He has a slight edge thanks to having extra space. After Gufeld played 12 . . . bS? ! , there appeared a gaping weakness on the c6-square in his position and White's knight was headed there immediately along the route c3-e2-d4-c6. 13. 0-0 id7 14.�d2 'it>h7 1S.ll'le2 �b8 16.!'1ac1 �b7 17.ll'ld4± 7 . . . ll'la6. Now, contrary to the previous chapter, this move is not so good, because White wins a tempo by attacking the h6-pawn

l.d4 ll:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. ll:Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3 with the move 8.�d2 , for example 8 . . . �h7. Here, his simplest reac­ tion would be 9.f3 ! ?, after which there arises a favourable version for White of the Saemisch sys­ tem.

It is not so good for Black to play 9 . . . e5, since following lO.dS, his counterplay can only be con­ nected with the pawn-advance f7f5, but White is already very well prepared to counter it with his ninth move. Later, in the game Gurieli - Grabics, Komotini 1993, there followed 10 ... ll:Jg8 ll.h4 fS 12 .h5 f4 13.hxg6+ �xg6 14.if2±. Black's kingside activity has back­ fired, because his king is vulnera­ ble, as well as his h6-pawn. After castling queenside, White can combine active actions on the kingside (g2-g3) with queenside activity ( c4-c5). 9 ... c5 10 .d5 ll:Jc7 ll.g4 ll:Jg8 12. h4 eS 13.0-0-0;!; Sapi - Havasi, Hungary 1992 . He has much more space and in actions on both sides of the board, has excellent possi­ bilities to transfer his pieces to the different flanks. It was Napoleon who used to say "War - this is communications ! " .

A) 7

•••

ll:Jbd7

This move was popular at the beginning of the 90ies of the past century mostly thanks to the ef­ forts of grandmasters Z.Lanka. A.Shirov and V.Bologan. Black's main idea is to prepare the pawn­ advance c7-c5 and to sacrifice a pawn with the move b7-b5, after which there arise positions which resemble the Benko Gambit. Nowadays, this move is played only seldom, because White has found rather convincing ways of neutralising his opponent's initia­ tive. He can obtain in this varia­ tion a slight but stable advantage.

8.�d2 c5 It is better for Black to play this move immediately, without losing time for the protection of his h6-pawn. The rather slow re­ action - 8 . . . �h7 would enable White to play the actively-pro­ phylactic move 9.h4 ! , obtaining a clearly better position . . (diagram) Now, Black will have a very 115

Chapter 1 0

difficult position, without any chances of creating active coun­ terplay after 9 . . . eS? ! lO .hS gS 11. dS tt:lcS (11 . . . tt:le8 12 .g4 �f6 13.tt:lf3 fi..e 7 14.tt:lh2 cS 1S.O-O tt:lc7 16.E:fb1 tt:lb8 17.a3 b6 18 .b4 tt:lba6 19.f3 f6 2 0 .tt:lf1 E:t7 21.tt:lg3 �f8 22 .�d1 �d7 23.�a4 .ba4 24.tt:lxa4± Po­ lugaevsky - Noerby, Lugano 1968. Black has no counterplay at all and must only wait for his de­ mise. Later, White combined threats on the queenside with ex­ ploiting the vulnerability of the fS-square and scored a full point after SO moves.) 12.f3 g4 (It does not look better for Black to adhere only to a passive defence with the move 12 . . . aS, because after 13.�d1 tt:lg8 14.�c2 'it>h8 1S.g4 �f6 16. tt:lge2 �e7 17.tt:lg3 f6 18. 0-0±, White can deprive completely his opponent of chances of organis­ ing any counterplay on the king­ side. Later, after a difficult fight, he won the game by combining the threat of a breakthrough on the queenside with exploiting the weakness of the fS-square, Ra­ etsky - Pletanek, Pardubice 1992.) 13.b4 tt:la6 14.tt:lbS E:g8 1S.tt:lxa7± After Black has lost his a7-pawn, his queenside position crumbles 116

and his kingside counterplay is nowhere in sight, Aleksandrov Bastian, Germany 1998. It may be possible that Black's best decision here might be 9 . . . cS, but following 10.E:d1 ! ? '!WaS 11.hS gS 12.tt:lf3 cxd4 13.tt:lxd4t, there arises a position which is more typical for the Maroczy system of the Sicilian Defence, except that as a result of the pawn-advance g6-gS, Black has a weakness on the fS-square in his position. This is, no doubt, in favour of White.

9.d5

9

•••

'it>h7

Now, Black will have to play this move; otherwise, after 9 . . . '!WaS, White can make a surprising exchange of his central pawn for the enemy rook pawn and obtain good attacking prospects. The analysis shows that if both sides play correctly, White's achieve­ ments are not so great, but his play is much easier in a practical game. 10 . .bh6 hl6 11.'1Wxh6 tt:lxe4 12 .E:c1 tt:ldf6 (It is bad for

J.d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 h6 7. i.e3 Black to play here 12 . . . e6?, be­ cause he eliminates the risk to be checkmated indeed, but loses a pawn and has no compensation for it. 13.dxe6 lt:Jdf6 14.exf7+ E:xf7 15.lt:Jf3 i.fS 16.0-0± Oral - Rasik, Czech Republik 1995.) 13.h4 1Mfb4 (Black loses immediately follow­ ing 13 . . . lt:Jxc3? 14.bxc3 lt:Je4 15.h5 g5 16.f3 lt:Jxc3 17.1M/xg5+- and af­ ter White's queen comes back to d2, Black loses surprisingly his knight on c3, Petursson - De­ mire}, Katerini 1993. His position is not to envied too after 13 . . . i.f5 14.h5 g5 15.f3 lt:Jxc3 16.1Mfxg5+ <;!;>h8 17.E:xc3± White is much bet­ ter not only because he has an ex­ tra pawn, but also due to the ab­ sence of a pawn-shelter in front of Black's monarch.)

side (h6, g4-g5). His king has not castled yet, but will have an excel­ lent safe haven on the fl-square. White's advantage is doubtless in this variation, but it may be even stronger for him to play the energetic move 14.h5 ! , begin­ ning an immediate offensive against Black's king. 14 . . . g5 15. E:c2 if5 16. lt:Jh3 lt:Jh7 17.i.d3 lt:Jg3. White should not be afraid of this tactical strike. 18.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jf6 (18 . . . i.xd3? 19.E:h3 lt:Jxg5 20.E:xg3 f6 21.f4 ixc2 22 .fxg5 <;!{f7 23.gxf6 <;!;>e8 24.fxe7+-). Now, you can see a series of computer moves : 19.lt:Jge4 ! lt:Jgxe4 20.0-0 ! ! This is very beautiful. White has sacri­ ficed a piece with his previous move and now, he simply castles. 20 . . . lt:Jg3 21.1Mff4 <;!;>h8 (21...lt:Jxf1 22 .hf5+-) 2 2 .ixf5 lt:Jxf5 23.1Mfxf5 1Mfxc4 24.!'\el± Black has succeed­ ed in avoiding being checkmated indeed, but this is just small con­ solation for him, because not only his king is endangered, but he has no satisfactory defence against the threat E:xe7.

10.h3 14.if3 lt:Jxc3 (14 . . . i.f5, Horvath - Hassan, Cairo 1997, 15.lt:Jge2 1Mfxb2 16.h5 ! g5 17. 0-0 g4 18.he4 lt:Jxe4 19.lt:Jxe4 ixe4 2 0 .lt:Jc3±) 15.bxc3 1Mfxc4 16. h5 g5 ! 17.1Mfxg5+ <;!;>h7 18.E:h4 1Mfxa2 19.lt:Je2 E:g8 20.1Mff4;!; It is easier for White to play the arising position, since he has a clear-cut plan for further ac­ tions. He will attack the enemy king with his pawns on the king117

Chapter 1 0 White cannot continue the game without this move. He must prevent the manoeuvre of the en­ emy knight - llJg4-e5.

10 b5 •••

Besides this pawn-sacrifice Black has tried in practice the passive move 10 . . . a6, but after ll.a4 ! WfaS 12.�a2t, White neu­ tralises completely Black's queen­ side counterplay (The threats against the c4-pawn are parried easily: 12 . . . Wfb4 13.lDf3 lDb6 14. Wfd3±). It is also possible for Black to opt for 10 . . . Wfa5 ll.lDf3 a6 (It is understandable that following ll . . .bS? ! , White can simply cap­ ture the pawn with his knight 12. lDxbS± and Black will have no compensation for it whatsoever, Papadopoulou - Czaeczine, Chal­ kidiki 2003.) 12. 0-0 bS 13.a3 ! ? This prophylactic i s necessary against b5-b4. 13 . . . bxc4 14 ..bc4 iDeS 15.�ab1 �b8 16.�fclt Bareev - Wahls, Germany 1992. Black's queenside counterplay has been parried. In addition, White plans to seize the initiative there with the move b2-b4.

ll.cxb5 a6 The move ll . . . WfaS was tried in the game Jussupow - Shirov, Moscow 1992. Following 12.�c1 a6, Jussupow continued with a counter sacrifice of a pawn 13.b6 ! ? 118

(You can see this idea very often in this variation.). 13 . . . lDxb6 14. Wfc2 e6 15.id2 �b8 16.b3t Black's queenside counter attack has reached its dead end and he is in­ capable of exploiting White's lag in development, because the queen on aS is terribly misplaced. Later in the game A. Shirov made a blunder 16 . . . exd5?? and that led to the loss of his queen after 17. lDb1+-

12.ltlf3 �aS 13.b6 ! ?

We are already familiar with this pawn-sacrifice. Just like in the famous variation of the Benko Gambit (l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 cS 3.d5 bS 4.cxb5 a6 5.b6), its idea is to di­ minish Black's active possibilities on the queenside. He does not need the pawn on a6 in numerous variations, because it closes the a­ file for his rook as well as the f1-a6 diagonal for his bishop.

13 llJxb6 14.0-0 lDa4 15. J.d3 lL!xc3 •••

The developments are very in­ teresting after 15 . . . c4 16.lDxa4

l.d4 0.j6 2.c4 g6 3. 0. c3 fig7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1i.g5 h6 7. iJ.e3 \Wxa4 (In the endgame, arising af­ ter 16 . . . \Wxd2 17.0.xd2 cxd3 18. :§:acH, White's prospects are pref­ erable, because Black's pawn on d3 is much rather a liability than strength.) 17.b3 ! cxb3 18.axb3 \Wd7 19.:§:a4;l; White has much more space in the middle game and can play not only against the weak black pawn on a6, but can also try to exploit the weakness of the c6-square (0.f3-d4-c6) .

Following 19 ...e5 20J3bli, there arises an endgame of a King's In­ dian type which is in favour of White since he has more space.

20.e5;!;

After this pawn-break, White seizes the initiative in the centre. There may appear a weakness in Black's camp - the pawn on e7, after the exchange on eS, or the d6-pawn, after the removal of the knight from f6 and the move 21.if4.

16.bxc3 .id7 B) 7 ... e5

This move seems to me to be more precise than what was played in the game Alterman Shirov, Elista 1998 - 17.c4, after which the line: 17 . . . \Wxd2 18 . .b:d2 .ia4 19J'!ab1 :§:fb8 20.:§:xb8 :§:xb8 21.:§:b1 :§:xb1+ 22 .1i.xb1 0.d7= , led to complete exhaustion of the po­ sition and after numerous ex­ changes the opponents agreed to a draw.

17 ,gab8 18.c4 \Wxd2 19. hd2 .ia4 ••

This move is chosen by many adherents to the King's Indian Defence for whom it is inconceiv­ able without the pawn-advance e7-e5. After White's bishop has abandoned the h4-d8 diagonal, Black should not be afraid of los­ ing a pawn, due to the pin of his knight. The move was the favour­ ite of S.Gligoric and Y.Balashov. In the variations, which we will analyse, you will see games by such outstanding King's Indian experts like G.Kasparov, B.Gel119

Chapter 1 0 fand, I. Smirin and many others. Nowadays, this move can be en­ countered at grandmaster level too, but it has lost its popularity. The point is that it is very difficult for Black to organise active ac­ tions on the kingside (as a rule be­ cause of the White's already men­ tioned prophylactic move h4-h5 and eventually g2-g4), while his opponent's hands are free for ac­ tions on the opposite side of the board.

8.d5 White closes the centre and occupies space.

8

•••

c!bbd7

It seems bad for Black to choose 8 . . . @h7 9.h4 4:\g8 10 .h5 gxhS 1Ul:xh5± and his kingside has been seriously weakened, Ba­ reev - Chow, Kitchener 2006. He should better avoid 8 ... 4Jh7 as well. Following 9.'1&d2 hS 10.h4 4Jd7 11.0-0-0 4:\cS 12.4:\h3 .id7 13.f3 a6 14.g4� White does not even need to prepare his standard 120

offensive on the queenside, be­ cause his attack against Black's king shelter is very powerful, Sis­ niega - Zapata, Havana 1980. 8 ... 4:\e8 9.'1&d2 @h7 10.g4 fS 11.gxf5 gxfS 12.exf5 .ix£5 13.id3. The trade of the light-squared bishops is obviously in favour of White. 13 . . . \&d7 14.c!bge2 .ixd3 15.\&xd3+ 'l&fS 16.4:\e4± Smolen Nagy, Banska Stiavnica 2012. White has complete control over the e4-outpost. His knight occu­ pies a perfect position in the cen­ tre of the board, while Black's bishop is severely restricted by his own eS-pawn. The drawback of the move 8 . . . aS, preparing the manoeuvre 4:\a6-c5, is that it does not prevent at all White's plan, connected with h4-h5 and g2-g4. 9.h4 hS (9 . . . 4:\a6 10.h5 gS 11.g4 4:\cS 12.f3 4:\e8 13.4:\h3 .if6 14.4:\f2± Sunye Neto - Toth, Fortaleza 1989. There has arisen one of the stand­ ard positions in which Black is doomed to a passive defence. White's plan is quite simple. He will prepare active actions on the queenside (b3, a3, b4) and even­ tually the trade of the light­ squared bishops with .ie2-d1-a4.) 10.4:\h3 c6 11.4:\gS cxdS 12.cxd5;l; Kuzmin - Efimenko, Simferopol 2003. White's advantage is doubt­ less, because his knight on gS im­ pedes considerably Black's coun­ terplay, while on the queenside White has a clear-cut plan for the

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 h6 7. �e3 improvement of his position with E:cl and liJbS. You can see the con­ sequences of the weakening of the bS-square by Black's move 8 . . . a5. 8 . . . liJa6. This move is more precise than 8 . . . a5. Black's knight is headed for the cS-square and he will decide later whether to play a7-a5, or not. 9.h4 hS (about 9 . . . liJcS 10.\Wc2 - see 8 . . . liJbd7 9.h4 liJcS 10 .'1Wc2) 10.f3 c6 (lO . . . liJh7 11. g4 liJf6 12.liJh3 c6 13.liJf2 i.d7 14. '!Wd2;!; After this move, preparing castling queenside, White main­ tains an edge. The consequences are not so clear if he chooses 14.\Wb3 liJcS 15.\Wa3t, since White's queen is very passive on the a3square, Aleksandrov - Smirin, Batumi 1999.) 11.\Wd2 cxdS 12. cxdS �d7 13.liJh3 liJcS 14.liJf2 E:c8 15.E:c1 \WaS 16.0-0 liJh7 17.liJbS '!Wxd2 18.i.xd2 i.xbS 19.i.xb5 a6 20.i.e2;!; Bykhovsky - Dolmatov, Dortmund 1992. The arising end­ game (just like almost all the end­ games in the King's Indian De­ fence) is in favour of White. He has more space, the two-bishop advantage and what is most im­ portant, after the exchange of the queens, Black's possible kingside counterplay loses its momentum considerably.

As a rule, his position remains passive after 8 . . . c5 9.g4, for exam­ ple: 9 . . . b5. This attempt to create counterplay with the help of a pawn-sacrifice cannot provide Black with good prospects, be-

cause here, contrary to the Benko Gambit, his fianchettoed bishop is restricted by his own pawn on eS (following 9 . . . liJe8 10 .\Wd2 'it>h7 11.h4 liJa6 12.0-0-0;!;, Black's piec­ es evidently lack space, Alster Hofman, Bratislava 1959). 10. cxbS a6 ll.bxa6 \Wa5

12.f3 liJxa6 13.\Wd2 E:b8 14.h4 hS 15.g5 liJd7 16.liJh3 E:b4 17.liJf2 f6 18.gxf6 i.xf6 19.a3! (19.E:c1 \Wd8?, Black has succeeded in or­ ganising counterplay against the enemy f4-pawn, Vitiugov - In­ arkiev, Moscow 2007) 19 . . . E:b8 2 0.E:a2 '!Wd8 21.liJbS E:b6 22.liJa7± White's knight has reached the a7-square and quite purposefully at that. It can go to c6 from there, or capture Black's powerful light­ squared bishop. White's pawn on h4 is untouchable. After 22 . . . i.xh4? ! , h e obtains a decisive ad­ vantage with the line: 23.liJxc8 i.x£2 + 24.i.xf2 \Wxc8 25.\Wh6 E:f6 26.E:g1 liJf8 27.b4+- White's two powerful bishops control almost the entire board. Black is incapa­ ble of exploiting the placement of his opponent's king is the centre, while White is not only attacking on the kingside, but is threatening 121

Chapter 1 0 to advance his connected passed pawns with b4-bS, a3-a4-aS. It may be interesting for Black to try the move 8 . . . c6, although it is insufficient for equality. This is a standard position of this type (for example in some variations of the Saemisch system) and Black's attempts to organise active ac­ tions on the queenside are not so effective, because White can ex­ ploit the weaknesses on his oppo­ nent's kingside (h7-h6) with the move 9.h4 ! ?

The position i s rather passive for Black after 9 . . . cxdS 10.cxdS. His is faced with an unpleasant choice to either allow h4-hS, or to weaken the gS-square after h6hS. 10 . . . lt::J bd7 (It is possible that the least of evils for Black may be to continue with 10 . . . hS 11.f3 lt::J a 6 12.lt::J h3 �d7 13.lt::J f2 'it>h7 14.g4 �aS 1S.gS lt::J g 8 16.a3;!; A.Petrosian - Morozevich, Moscow 1992, but even then White is better, because he can play with the idea to re­ strict the enemy knight on a6 with (b2-b4), followed by exerting pressure on the c-file. Black's counterplay on the f-file is not 122

dangerous for White, because Black cannot attack effectively the f3-pawn.) ll.hS gS. Now, White can obtain an advantage, choos­ ing between lines suggested by some of the great masters of posi­ tional play. 12.f3. This move was the favourite of T.Petrosian. (It is as least as good for White to try 12 .g4, preferred by V.Hort. Later, White exploited the fact that his opponent had no counterplay and organized pressure on the c-file and transferred his knight to g3 in order to make use of the weaken­ ing of the fS-square. 12 . . . lt::J cS 13.f3 aS 14.a4 lt::J e 8 1S.ic4 �f6 16.lt::J h3 lt::J c7 17. 0-0 id7 18.�e2 l'l:fc8 19. lt::J f2 .if8 20.:Ei fc1 ie7 2l.'it>g2 lt::J 7a6 22 .b3 idS 23.lt::J h 1 ib6 24.lt::J g3± Black is doomed to a long and passive defence, Hort - Vogt, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1977.) 12 . . . a6 13.g4 bS 14.a4 b4 1S.lt::J b 1 aS 16.lt::J d 2 lt::J cS 17.hc5 ! This is a non-standard exchange and as a rule it is bad for White due to the weakening of the dark squares. Here however, Black cannot exploit this, because his minor pieces are very passive. 17 . . . dxcS 18.ibS ib7 19.lt::J e 2 lt::J e 8 20 . .he8 l'l:xe8 2l.lt::J c4± T.Petro­ sian - Schweber, Stockholm 1962. The position is closed and White's knights have excellent outposts on c4 and fS, so they are more powerful than Black's bishops. It is possible that his best chance is the active move 9 . . . bS. It does not equalise either, but promises Black active prospects. 10.cxbS cxdS (Following 10 . . .

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.li:J c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3 cxbS, the play becomes much calmer. White still maintains an edge thanks to the vulnerability of the c6-square in Black's camp. Af­ ter White completes his develop­ ment he can transfer his knight there along the route c3-a2-b4c6, as for example that happened in the game Meduna - Barczay, Trnava 198 2 : ll.a3 h5 12 .liJh3 :ig4 13.liJg5 .b:e2 14.�xe2 a6 15.f3 liJbd7 16.liJa2 ! E:c8 17.liJb4 liJb8 18.0-0;!;;) ll.liJxdS ! This is the only move with which White can fight for the advantage (after ll.exdS, in the game Zaichik - Zaitsev, Moscow 1988, Black obtained good compensation after the move ll . . . a6�, due to his oppo­ nent's lag in development.) 11 . . . :ib7 ( l l. . . liJxe4 12.h5 ! g S 13.:if3 fS 14.:ixe4 fxe4 15.E:cl± White's knight on dS is very powerful, while Black's bishop on g7 is se­ verely restricted by his own pawns on h6, gS, eS, d6.) 12.liJxf6+ �xf6 13.:if3 liJd7 (following 13 . . . d5 14. exdS e4 15 ..b:e4 �xb2 16.E:b1 �xa2 17.h5 gS 18.liJe2;!;; , there arises a very complicated position in which the activity of Black's pieces (E:e8, liJd7-f6) is not suffi­ cient to compensate the sacrificed pawn.) 14.E:cU His compensation is not good enough. Black's posi­ tion is inferior and if White man­ ages to play liJe2-c3, establishing complete control over the dS­ square, Black's position would be­ come nearly hopeless.

9.h4

The readers may have already noticed this is White's basic plan in similar positions.

9 .c!L!c5 10.ti'c2 • •

10 . . . c6 Black is trying to organise counterplay on the queenside. Following 10 . . . a5, as a rule it all comes to transposition of moves. ll.hS gS (It is bad for Black to play ll . . . liJxhS, since after 12. .b:hS gxhS 13.E:xh5 �f6 14.f3 b6 15.g4±, his position becomes very difficult in view of the vulnerabil­ ity of his h6-pawn, Alburt - Pla­ chetka, Decin 1977.) 12.f3 c6 13.g4 - see 10 . . . c6 ll.hS gS. Black cannot equalise with 10 . . . liJg4. He obtains the two­ bishop advantage indeed, but los­ es too much time and has no chances of creating active coun­ terplay. ll . .b:g4 .b:g4 12 .h5 gS (It is too risky for Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice 12 . . . .b:h5 13.f3 fS 14.0-0-0 f4 15.:ixc5 dxcS 16. liJge2 . His bishop on hS is horri123

Chapter 1 0 bly isolated and his attempt to free it with the move 16 . . . 1Mfe8, af­ ter 17.'it>b1 gS 18.lLlbS 1Mff7, pro­ vides White with the chance to follow with a very promising ex­ change-sacrifice : 19.E!:xhS ! '<MfxhS 2 0 .lLlxc7 E!:ac8 21.lLle6� - his knight on e6 is not weaker than any of Black's rooks and his bish­ op is restricted considerably by his own pawns.) 13.f3 id7 14. l2Jge2 ! ? This is a very interesting move. White is not afraid of the pawn-break f7-fS, because after it he will obtain the excellent e4square for his knight (It is also very good for him to choose the quite reliable move 14.g4 ! ?� Shishkin - Frolov, Kiev 1997.). 14 . . .fS 1S.ixcS dxcS 16.exfS ixfS 17.lLle4� Black's two-bishop ad­ vantage is absolutely immaterial, because his bishop on g7 is com­ pletely passive. White's knights are dominant on the e4-outpost and this provides him with supe­ rior prospects. It may be interesting for Black to try the move 10 . . . lLlhS, which is still insufficient for equality. After ll.ixhS gxhS 12.lLlge2 fS 13.ixcS dxcS 14.0-0-0! ?�, Black's bish­ ops are not so active to compen­ sate completely the defects of his pawn-structure. White maintains a stable ad­ vantage after 10 . . . hS. Later, in the game Polugaevsky - Donner, Am­ sterdam 1970, there followed: 11. f3 c6 12 .b4 lLla6 13.a3 cxdS 14. 124

cxdS id7 1S.lLlh3 1Mfb8 16.lLlf2�. This is a typical move of a great master. Lev Polugaevsky refrains from the routine transfer of his knight to the gS-square and wish­ es to deploy it on the aS-square along the route h3-f2-d3-cl-b3aS ! 16 . . . bS 17.lLld3 lLlc7 18.0-0 1Mfb7 19.lLlcl! E!:ac8 20.1Mfd2 lLla8 21. lLlb3 lLlb6 22.lLlaS 1Mfb8 23.E!:fcl± Black's position is strategically very difficult in view of the vul­ nerability of his pawn on bS and the c6-square.

ll.h5

ll . . . cxd5

He does not determine his plans yet, considering his pawn­ structure on the kingside. It seems very risky for Black to opt for ll . . . gS, since at first White will neutralise his opponent's possible kingside counterplay with the moves 12.f3 and 13.g4 and then will occupy the key­ squares on the queenside. 12.f3 aS 13 .g4 id7 14.lLlh3 a4 1S.lLlf2 '<MfaS (Black cannot facilitate his de-

l.d4 4:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. 4:J c3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. fi.e2 0 - 0 6. fi.g5 h6 7. fi.e3 fence by exchanging 1S . . . cxdS 16. cxdS. In addition, White has the possibility to accomplish the ad­ vantageous trade of the light­ squared bishops with the move fibS. 16 . . . !i:c8 17.'<M/d2 4:Je8 18.!i:c1 4:Jc7 19.0-0 4:J7a6 20.fi.bS± Ham­ pel - Lassen, corr. 1991) 16.'<M/d2 !i:fc8 17.!i:c1 a3 18 .b3 cxdS 19.4:JxdS 4:JxdS 20.1WxaS !i:xaS 21.exdS 4:Jxb3. Black has lost the strategi­ cal battle and is forced to enter tactical complications in order to make life difficult for his oppo­ nent. In the game Lugovoi - Van Wely, Antwerp 199S, White agreed to a draw, but he did not need to. Following 2 2 .!i:b1! (He should not capture the knight 22.axb3, because after 22 . . . a2?, Black has good counterplay thanks to his powerful pawn on a2.) 22 . . . 4:Jd4 (22 . . . 4:JcS 23.fi.xcS !':axeS 24.0Je4± White's edge is doubtless due to the dominating placement of his knight in the centre.) 23.!i:xb7 ia4 24.0Je4± The knight on e4 provides White with a clear advantage.

12.cxd5

12 ... ti'a5 There arise very passive posi­ tions for Black following 12 . . . gS 13.f3 aS. His last pawn-move leads to a serious weakening of the bS-square. (13 . . . g4 14.b4 0Ja6 15.a3 fi.d7 16.id3 !i:c8 17.0Jge2;!; Yakovich - Chigvintsev, Tomsk 1997. Black's knight on f6 is mis­ placed and his counterplay on the kingside is nowhere in sight. After the g-file is opened, White is much more likely to exploit it.) 14.fi.b5 ! This is the right move. 14 . . . fi.d7 15.fi.xc5 ! We have already seen a similar exchange in T.Pet­ rosian's games. 15 . . . dxc5 16.4:Jge2 '<Mfe8 17.'<M/a4 fi.xbS 18.4:Jxb5 '<M/d7 19.4:Jg3 !i:fd8 2 0 .4:Jf5 fi.f8 21.4:Jc3 '<M/xa4 2 2 .4:Jxa4± White's knight on fS is very powerful and almost all Black's pawns are placed on the same colour of squares as his bishop, Bellmann - Gwozdz, ICCF 2000. Besides this move, Black has also tried in practice 12 . . . id7 13.hxg6 fxg6 14.b4. It is essential for White to oust the enemy knight to the edge of the board as quickly as possible. (14.fi.xh6? ! Gobbling material cannot be good for him at all. After 14 . . . fi.xh6 15. !i:xh6 c;!?g7iii , Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn. He can obtain good play on the h-file, as well as on the c-file an.d the dark squares have been weakened considerably in White's camp af­ ter the trade of the dark-squared 125

Chapter 1 0 bishops.) 14 . . . ltla6 15.a3 h5 16.f3

ard plan, connected with g3 and f4. 22 ... Wff6 23J�df1 Wg7 24.g3 E:h8 25.f4± - His kingside initia­ tive is very powerful, S.Ivanov A.Kuzmin, Balaguer 1997.

13.J.d2 J.d7

16 . . . ltlc7 (The move 16 . . . ltlh7 enables White to play 17.ltlb5 ! and Black must part with his powerful light-squared bishop in order not to lose one of his pawns. 17 . . . hb5 18.hb5 .tf6 19.ltlh3 .th4+ 2 0 . W e 2 ltlc7 21..td3 ltl e 8 22J'!acU Bareev - Gelfand, Biel 1993. White's king has remained in the centre indeed, but Black cannot exploit this circumstance, while White has extra space, two pow­ erful bishops and the possibility to organise active actions on the c-file. All these are serious posi­ tional trumps.) 17.Wfd2 ltlh7 (17 . . . �e8 18.a4 Wfe7 19.ltlh3 ltlh7 2 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 hh3 2U!xh3± Levin Degraeve, Groningen 1996. White can exploit his space advantage preparing active operations on the queenside. Meanwhile, Black's prospects on the kingside are rather questionable.) 18.0-0-0 .if6 19.ltlh3 .ixh3 20J!xh3 .tgS 21. .ixgS ltlxgS 22.:t!hhl. He has man­ aged to exchange advantageously the dark-squared bishops, but this has not facilitated Black's sit­ uation. He is incapable of coun­ tering effectively White's stand126

It seems too slow for Black to opt for 13 . . . �b4 14.f3 Wfb6, Legky - David, Montpellier 1997. He has managed to weaken the g1-a7 diagonal indeed, but has lost too much time on moves with his queen. 15.b4 ! ? ltla6 16.ltla4 Wfd4 17.:t!c1 ltlxb4 18.�b1 ltld3+ 19. hd3 Wfxa4 20.hxg6 fxg6 2 1.ltle2 Wfd7 (21.. .h5?? 2 2 . .ib5+-) 22 . .ixh6 .ixh6 23.:t!xh6 �g7 24.:t!h2:;l; Black is practically incapable of countering the threat of the pen­ etration of White's major pieces on the c-file. If Black transfers his knight to the cS-square, then White will simply double his rooks on the h-file and Black's king will be seriously endangered.

t4.hxg6 fxg6 ts.gbt

Black's pieces have become ac-

l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:iJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 h6 7. i.e3 tive and White's imminent task is to neutralise this activity.

15

.•.

'i;Yb6 16.i.e3 aS

16 . . . 'i;Yc7, Buhmann - Watzka, Austria 2002, 17.f3 ! ? l:iJh5 18.i.b5 ! It is essential for White to trade the bishops. The seemingly dan­ gerous penetration of Black's knight to the g3-square is in fact harmless. 18 . . . 1:iJg3 (Follow­ ing 18 . . . 1:iJf4 19.hd7 l:iJxd7 20 .g3 l:iJh5 2l.@f2 l."&f7 22 .@g2±, White will gradually oust his opponent's active pieces and will maintain his positional advantage. I would like to emphasize the following detail. Here, contrary to the standard King's Indian positions, Black does not have an f-pawn (you can see the consequences of the move h4-h5 and the trade on g6). This fact is no doubt in favour of White. Black cannot attack in any way White's kingside.) 19.2'!h2 .ixb5 2 0 .1:iJxb5 '&a5+ 21.1:iJc3 '&b4 2 2 . l:iJge2;t White will oust (or ex­ change) Black's pieces from their active positions and will force him to begin defending.

not exploit the weakening of White's kingside. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of the light squares in Black's camp may become a telling factor in the future. 19. gxh3±

19.f3 .!bh5 20 . .!bf2 .!bg3 21. gfc1 tLlxe2+ 22J!!fx e2 b6 23. gc2:t

This position was reached in the game Mesquita - Benlloch Guirau, Email 2009. It is closed, so Black's two-bishop advantage is not important at all. It is essen­ tial whether White will manage to develop his initiative on the queenside. The game followed with: 23 h5 24.i.d2 'i;Ya5 25. •••

'&e3 '&a6 26 .!bcd1 'i;Yb7 27.b4 axb3 28.axb3 ga3 29.i.cl gaa8 30 .!bb2 b5. The game was •

17.1:iJh3 a4

•

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same after 17 . . . 2"&ac8 18.'&d2 l."&f7, Bellmann Yeremenko, Email 2001, 19.f3;t

18.0-0 'i;Yb4

The exchange 18 . . ..ixh3 is in favour of White, since Black can-

played on the Internet and natu­ rally, the players used computer programs. Still, White continues now with an exchange-sacrifice which is quite typical for T.Petro­ sian's treatment of similar ·p osi­ tions. 31.gxc5! dxc5 32.tLlbd3+± After White captures on c5, he 127

Chapter 1 0 will have only a pawn for the ex­ change, but his pieces are perfect­ ly coordinated and Black's rooks are not active, because the posi­ tion is closed. In addition, he will have problems protecting his weak pawns on b5 and e5. Later in the game, White combined his threats against his opponent's weak pawns and gradually im­ proved his position, so at the end Black failed to hold on to his e5pawn. 32 ti'c7 33.lbxc5 ti'd6 •••

34.ib2 lUeS 35.l1kl mh7 36. ti'el ic8 37J.Ve2 ti'b6 38J!c2 l:!a7 39.b4 mg8 40.ti'd3 mh7 41.icl if8 42.ti'c3 ti'f6 43. c!bcd3 ig7 44.ib2 ti'a6 45.ti'c6 %Yxc6 46.l:!xc6 g5 47.ixe5± Af­ ter the fall of Black's central pawn, the outcome of the game became crystal clear. He was completely incapable of preventing the pro­ motion of his opponent's e and d­ pawns. The game ended quickly in a victory for White.

C) 7 c5 •••

is very popular in the contempo­ rary tournament practice. It has been used by V.Ivanchuk, E.Inar­ kiev, A.Khalifman, V. Bologan and some other strong grandmasters. The last one, by the way, analysed it extensively in his book devoted to the King's Indian Defence. If we rely on the database, the move was played for the first time by young R.Fischer in his game against Y.Averbakh back in the year 1958. Now, contrary to the move 6 . . . c5, which will b e dealt with i n our next chapter, it is not so good for White to close the centre with the move 8.d5, because his bishop on e3 is not so active as on the f4square, where it usually retreats to in the variation 6 . . . c5 7.d5 h6. When Black undermines his op­ ponent's centre with e7-e6, White's bishop does not exert pressure against the d6-pawn. Therefore, we have chosen as the main line for White against Black's move seven -

8.dxc5

This interesting move is con­ nected with a pawn-sacrifice and 128

White can hardly obtain an edge following 8.d5 e6 9.ti'd2 exd5 10.exd5 mh7 11.h3 :ge8. Now, you can see another drawback of the placement of his bishop on e3 : it does not pin the enemy knight on f6. As a rule, in the majority of the positions with a space advan­ tage, the side which possesses it (White in this case . . . ) should avoid exchanging pieces. There-

l.d4 !iJf6 2.c4 g6 3JiJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. �e2 0 - 0 6. �g5 h6 7. �e3 fore, he should not allow the move 4Je4. Still, in order to do that, he must make a second move with one and the same piece, so he can hardly obtain any advantage. 12 .�d3 b5 13.4Jxb5 4Je4 14.he4 E:xe4 15.E:cl a6 16.4Jc3 E:xc4= Ponomariov - Grischuk, Beijing 2011. In the arising position, Black's prospects are not inferior at all, since he has two powerful bishops, while White can hardly exploit the vulnerability of Black's d6-pawn, or to attack his oppo­ nent's too active rook on c4. Black's game is much easier in this position. There arise interesting com­ plications after the move 8.e5. There is plenty of theory amassed in this variation and the game en­ ters practically by force an end­ game, in which White has an ex­ tra pawn. Unfortunately, he can­ not claim any advantage, because Black's pieces remain tremen­ dously active. For example: 8 . . . dxe5 9.dxe5 '!Nxdl+ 10.E:xd1 4Jg4 ll.hc5 4Jxe5 12.4Jd5 4Jbc6 13.f4 4Jg4 14.h3 4Jf6 15.�f3 �f5 16.g4 �c2 17.E:d2 4Je4 18.he7 4Jxd2 19.mxd2 �b1 2 0 .hf8 mxf8ii5 - his two powerful bishops are excel­ lent compensation for the mini­ mal material deficit, Maslak - In­ arkiev, Moscow 2008.

s . . :eras

This is Black's only move. It is obviously bad for him to

try the pawn-sacrifice 8 . . . dxc5, because after 9.'!Nxd8 E:xd8 10. ixc5 4Jc6 ll.!iJf3 b6 12 .�a3t, his compensation for it is insuffi­ cient, Y.Yakovich - Blees, Ostend 1993. You should not make a par­ allel between this variation and the similar one in the Saemisch system, because now White has a knight on f3 and not a pawn like there. This is evidently in his fa­ vour, because he has no problems with the development of his king­ side pieces.

9.J.d2 Now, White must retreat his bishop in order to parry the threat against his e4-pawn.

9 .. tbc5 .

After this move, there arises a pawn-structure analogous to the Maroczy system of the Sicilian Defence. The pawn-structure remains symmetrical after 9 . . . dxc5, but then White can occupy. additional space with the move 10 .e5.

129

Chapter 1 0 on g7 are very passive. Therefore, he can hardly neutralise White's queenside activity, since he has in fact two minor pieces less on this side of the board.) 13.0-0 E!:ad8, Sagalchik - Kovalev, USSR 1987. Now, it deserves attention for White to try 14.tt:lh4 ! ? Now, Black must choose where to retreat his knight. Following 10 . . . tt:le8 ll.f4 tt:lc6 12.tt:lf3 i.fS, Tarjan - Szabo, Mari­ bor 1978, White's best response would be 13.tt:lh4, for example: 13 ... i.e6 14.tt:la4 1!f!c7 1S.tt:lxc5;!; naturally, he is a bit back in devel­ opment and his knight on h4 does not beautify his position, but he still has an extra pawn and his prospects are preferable. One of the defects of the other retreat of Black's knight - 10 . . . tt:lfd7 i s the fact that it impedes there the development of his bish­ op on c8. Later, in the game Alter­ man - Reinderman, Leeuwarden 1994, there followed: ll.f4 tt:lc6 12.tt:lf3 f6 13.tt:lh4 �h7 14.e6 tt:ldb8 1S.f5± White's kingside initiative is quite real and this is very dan­ gerous for Black, because his queenside pieces have not been developed yet. 10 . . . tt:lh7 ll.f4 tt:lc6 12.tt:lf3 i.fS (12 . . . 1!f!d8 13.0-0 tt:ld4 14.i.e3 tt:lxe2+ 15.1!f!xe2 i.fS 16.E!:fd1 1!f!c8 17.a3 b6 18.b4;!; Rashkovsky Temirbaev, Kujbyshev 1986. Black's two-bishop advantage is absolutely immaterial, because his knight on h7 and the bishop 130

1 4 . . . i.c8 1S.tt:ld5 'IM/a6 16.i.c3 e6 17.1!f!c2;!;. Naturally, Black cannot win a piece here, because in the variation 17 . . . exd5 18.cxd5, both his queen and knight will be hang­ ing. Therefore, White's advantage is doubtless, since all his minor pieces are much more active. Black cannot equalise with 14 . . . E!:d7, because his initiative is only temporary. Neither his bish­ op on g7, nor his knight on h7 can support it. White can simply trade his opponent's active pieces main­ taining his advantage. 1S.tt:lxf5 gxfS 16.1!f!e1 tt:ld4 17.i.d1 1!f!d8 18. E!:f2 e6 19.i.a4 E!:e7 20.E!:d1 f6 21. tt:lbS fxeS 22 .fxe5 tt:lxbS 23.i.xb5 1!ffb 8 24.i.f4;!; - Now, Black's knight can take part in the actions (via the gS-square) indeed, but White's advantage is doubtless. He is completely dominant on the d-file and has an excellent outpost

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6 . .ig5 h6 7. .ie3 on d6 for his rook. It is also worth mentioning what is very typical for almost all positions in the var­ iation with 9 . . . dxc5. White's pawns are very well placed on eS and f4. They control almost all the squares for Black's bishop on g7 and the knight on h7.

lO.c!LJf3

11. ..liJd4 12.liJxd4 1!9xd4 13.1!9c2 �e6 14. 0-0 1Mic5 15 . .ie3 1Mia5 16. !!acl� Uhlmann - Gligoric, Am­ sterdam 1971. White has succeed­ ed in neutralising the temporary activity of his opponent's pieces and thanks to his advantageous position in the centre (pawns on c4 and e4 against a pawn on d6) maintains some edge. Black's po­ sition is solid enough but very passive.

11.0-0

10 . . . .ig4 This is an active move. Black is not reluctant to trade his bishop for the enemy knight, since this will increase his pressure on the dark squares. Black did not play well in the game Tukmakov - Visser, Gron­ ingen 199 0 : 10 . . . �e6 ll . .ie3 1Mla5 12.liJd2 c!LJc6 13.0-0 !!fc8 14.f4 liJh7 15.liJb3 1!9d8 16.f5 �d7 17.c5± White has seized the initiative on both sides of the board. White should better counter 10 . . . liJc6 with the prophylactic move ll.h3, preventing the devel­ opment of Black's bishop to the g4-square. There might follow

ll . . h£3 .

If Black plans to trade his bishop for the enemy knight, he should better do that immediate­ ly. Following ll . . . liJc6, White can offer his relatively passive bishop on e2 to be exchanged instead of the knight on f3 . 12 . .ie3 1!9a5 13. liJd2 .be2 14.1!9xe2 !!fc8 15.!!fc1 (diagram) There arises a similar position (with a pawn-structur� like in the Maroczy system, except that with­ out light squared bishops) in the 131

Chapter 1 0 12.hf3 c!bc6 13.ie2

following variation of the Sicilian Defence l.e4 cS V Zlf3 d6 3.ibS id7 4.ixd7 'Wxd7 S.c4. S. Rublev­ sky is considered to be a master of playing these positions and quite deservedly so. I recommend to the readers to study thoroughly his games in this variation. 1S . . . 'WhS 16.f3 lL\d7 17.E:ab1 aS 18.lL\a4 ieS 19.lLlf1 gS 20.E:d1 'Wg6 21.lLlg3 e6. Now, the best for White is to play 2 2 .tZlc3;!;, main­ taining a slight edge, since he has more space and good prospects to attack the weak enemy d6-pawn. Black has been very active on the kingside, but has created pawn­ weaknesses there and this may backfire. (It is obviously prema­ ture for White to opt for 22 .cS, be­ cause after 22 . . . dS, he is not well prepared for opening of the game in the centre and Black equalises, Horvath - Vishnu, Presolana 2011). 1S . . . lLld7 16.E:ab1 c;t>h7 17.f4 lLlcS 18.c;t>h1 lLla4 19.lLld1 lLlb6 20. a3 lL\d7 21.lLlc3 a6 22 .tZlb3 'Wd8 23.E:c2;!;. White has neutralised the activity of his opponent's piec­ es and due to his extra space his prospects in the middle game seem preferable, Milov - Shche­ kachev, Amsterdam 2000. 132

13 .. .'tire5 The move 13 . . . 'WaS has been tested in the game Petursson Markzon, Linares 1994. Here, White's best reaction would be 14.lL\dS, after which there arise advantageous complications for him. 14 . . . 'WcS (14 . . . 'Wd8 1S.lL\xf6+ ixf6 16.ixh6 ixb2 17.E:b1 ig7 18 . .hg7 c;t>xg7 19.E:xb7;!; - The vul­ nerability of White's pawns on a2 and c4 and Black counterplay on the dark squares are not sufficient to compensate White's extra pawn.) 1S.E:e1 lL\xe4 16.ie3 'WaS 17.if3 lLlcS (17 . . .fS 18.ixe4 fxe4 19.'Wg4;!; - He regains his pawn and pre­ served an edge thanks to his supe­ rior pawn-structure. In addition, Black's king shelter is somewhat weakened.) 18.b4 lL\xb4 19 . .id2 . He has temporarily two extra pawns, but getting rid of the pin of the knight for him is not easy at all. 19 . . . lLlcd3 20.E:xe7 'WcS (It is bad for Black to play 20 . . . .ha1, because after 21.'Wxa1 'Wxa2 2 2 . lL\f6+ c;t>hS 23.'Wxa2 c!bxa2 24.

J.d4 &iJf6 2.c4 g6 3 . liJ c3 il.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 0 - 0 6. il.g5 h6 7. il.e3 .bh6±, White regains the ex­ change and maintains a great ad­ vantage thanks to the powerful placement of his rook on the pe­ nultimate rank.) 21.il.e3 �xc4 2 2 . Eic7 �h4 23.Eib1 &iJxdS 24.hd5 &iJcS 25.g3 �f6 26.Eib4;!;. Black has two extra pawn indeed, but White's position is preferable, be­ cause his rooks and bishops are very active. He can exchange on cS at any moment and follow that with Eibb7, so Black will be inca­ pable of protecting his pawn on f7 and White will restore the mate­ rial balance.

14.£3 g5? ! I d o not like this move since it compromises completely the light squares in Black's camp. It is possible that his best line may be: 14 . . . �c5+ 1S.'it>h1 Eifc8 16. Eic1 &iJd7 17.f4 a6 18.a3 �d4 19. Eif3;!;, although even then Black's counterplay is not dangerous for White. He will gradually oust the enemy queen from its active posi­ tion in the centre and will force Black to defend passively.

15 . .ie3 lt!h5 16.ti'd2 lt!f4 17. .idl lt!e6 18.Eicl 'it>h8 19.'it>h1 ti'a5

This position was reached in the game Yakovich - Inarkiev, Novokuznetsk 2008. V.Bologan evaluated it in his book as quite acceptable for Black. This evaluations seems to me to be too optimistic. White has good chances of obtaining an ad­ vantage. The game followed with 20.g3

ggs 21.ti'g2 gaf8 22.ti'h3 f5 23. ext'S ti'xf5 24.ti'xf5 gxf5 25 .ic2 gas 26 .ie4 lt!c5 27 .ib1 gf8 28.b3 lt!d7. Here, the sim­ •

•

•

plest solution for White would be the move 29.lt!d5± and the hor­ rible misplacement of Black's rook on the aS-square makes his position very difficult. We have seen in this game that Black's counterplay, begun with the move 14 . . . g5, has not led to anything good for him.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 6 . . . h6 7. il.e3. Black has three main possibilities and after each one of them · there arise very original positions. Still, White maintains an advantage in all the variations. 133

Chapter 1 0 After the plan of Z.Lanka and A.Shirov - 7. . . lL!bd7, 8 . . . c5, followed by the pawn-sacrifice b7-b5, White should better not go after material gains, but following cxbS a6, he should give back the extra pawn with the move b5-b6. After this, Black can hardly create any dangerous ini­ tiative on the queenside and White will maintain a slight but stable edge thanks to his space advantage. Following 7 . . . e5 8.d5, White's main idea is to advance h2-h4. After that, if Black plays h6-h5, then White transfers his knight to gS and begins active actions on the queenside. If Black does not react to the move h2-h4, then White plays h4-h5 himself, forcing g6-g5 and then neutralises completely Black's counterplay on the kingside with the moves g2-g4 and f2-f3. There arises a very unpleasant situation for Black in which he has no counterplay at all. White can exploit his space advantage and regroup his forces, beginning an offensive on the queen­ side: a3, b4 and eventually id3-c2-a4, forcing the favourable exchange of the light-squared bishops. Black is faced with a long and passive de­ fence. After 7 . . . c5, there arise, as a rule, positions in the spirit of the Ma­ roczy system of the Sicilian Defence. White's game is quite free and he has all the chances of obtaining an advantage in the middle game. The only thing he needs is to watch carefully and to play accurately, during the transition from the opening into the middle game, in order to neu­ tralise the activity of Black's pieces.

134

Chapter 11

l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5.J.e2 0-0 6.ig5 c5

positions typical for the Benoni Defence, but with his e-pawn. There arise positions in which Black has no counterplay at all. Subsequently, he began to rely on the move 7 . . . h6, ousting in ad­ vance the enemy bishop from its active position. We will have a look at all this one by one.

7.d5 This is one of the oldest moves for Black and it was played even during the first half of the 20th century. What can be more logical than this move? If Black cannot play e7-e5, then it looks like he should inflict a strike against White's centre on the other side of the board. This line was played by G.Kasparov. Nowadays, V.Topa­ lov, A.Grischuk, T.Radjabov and many others try it in the tourna­ ment practice. At first, Black based his hopes on undermining his opponent's pawn-centre with the move e7-e6 (after d4-d5). Later however, it became clear that after the ex­ change on d5, White did not cap­ ture with his c-pawn, leading to

After this natural move, Black has a choice between numerous possibilities. At first, we will ana­ lyse the not so popular move A) 7. . . a6. Later, we will deal . with the pawn-sacrifice in the spirit of the Benko Gambit B) 7 ... b5 and at the end we will analyse Black's 135

Chapter 11 most popular responses : C) 7

•••

h 6 and D ) 7 e6. •••

About 7 ... 4Ja6 8.f4 - see 6 . . . 4Ja6, Chapter 1 0 . I t seems rather passive for Black to choose 7 . . . E!e8. In the game Uhlmann - Kolnsberg, Bad Wildbad 1997, there followed: 8. 4Jf3 ig4 9.0-0 4Jbd7 10 .1!Md2 a6 ll.a4 E!b8 12 .h3 .b£3 13.h:f3 ltJeS 14.ie2 1!Mc7 15.E!aeU White has two powerful bishops and a space advantage. In addition, his plan for further actions is quite clear. He will advance f2-f4, followed by a preparation of a breakthrough in the centre with e4-e5. After 7 . . . 1!Mb6 8.1!Md2 e6 9.4Jf3 exdS, White can simplify the posi­ tion advantageously with the line: 10 .h:f6 ! ? h:f6 ll.ltJxdS 1!Md8 12. 4Jxf6+ 1!Mxf6 13.0-0-0 E!d8, Ka­ lashian - Voitsekhovsky, Moscow 2008, 14.e5;!; and as a result of the pin on the d-file, Black is incapa­ ble of saving his d6-pawn. Everybody, who plays the Averbakh system, should remem­ ber that after 7 . . . 1!Ma5, White has an only good move - 8.id2 ! (fol­ lowing the natural move 8.1!Md2 , Black obtains good counterplay with 8 . . . a6 9.a4 bS?). (diagram) After 8 . . . e5, White can contin­ ue with the already familiar king­ side offensive, obtaining an excel­ lent position: g2-g4 and h2-h4136

hS. 9.g4 4Je8 10 .h4 fS ll.hS± Black's king is vulnerable, Zai­ chko - Chuprov, Ufa 1999. 8 ... e6 9.4Jf3 exdS 10.exd5 ig4 (10 . . . E!e8 11.0-0 - see 8 . . . E!e8) 11.0-0;!; - There arises a typical position with a space advantage for White. For example in the var­ iation 7 . . . a6, we analyse a similar situation, but with the inclusion of the moves a7-a6 and a2-a4. 8 . . . E!e8 9.4Jf3 e6 10.0-0 exdS ll.exdS

We will encounter similar po­ sitions with a space advantage for White numerous more times in this chapter. Retreating the queen to its ini­ tial position does not look good for Black at all - 11 . . . 1!Md8 after 12 .h3 4Ja6 13.id3 4Jc7, S.Atalik Velimirovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1992, 14.1!Mb3 b6 15.E!fe1 E!xe1+ 16.E!xe1

l.d4 l:iJf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:iJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. 1lg5 c5 7.d5 '<Wd7 17.i.f4;t, his pieces have no space for manoeuvring. It is possible for him to opt for 1l.. .'<Wb6 12 .h3 a6 (It is weaker for Black to try here 12 . . . '1Ja6 13.id3 id7, Sasikiran - Pavlovic, Cap­ pelle Ia Grande 2006, 14.a3± and his knight on a6 is misplaced.) 13 . .id3 '1Jbd7 14.'<Wc2 l:iJeS. Black lacks space and the exchange of pieces is in his favour (it would be too passive for him to choose 14 . . . '1Jf8?! 15.a4±, his knight o n f8 is obviously not so mobile as White's knight on f3, Forintos - Velimi­ rovic, Bath 1973). 15.'1Jxe5 E:xeS 16.i.f4 E:e8 17.E:ae1;!; The trade of the knights has facilitated a bit Black's defence indeed, but he is still too far from equality. He lacks space and the vulnerability of his d6-pawn may become a tell­ ing factor in the future. The move 11.. .i.g4 was tested in the game Petursson - Veli­ mirovic, Novi Sad 1990 and M. Petursson demonstrated an ex­ emplary play for White in similar positions. 12 .h3 hf3 13.hf3 '1Jbd7 14.'<Wc2 a6 15.E:ae1 E:xe1 (1S . . . b5? 16.'1Jxb5) 16.E:xe1 E:e8 17.E:xe8+ '1Jxe8. There will soon arise the classical endgame for the Averbakh system in which White will have extra space and the two-bishop advantage. Black is faced with a difficult defence without any good prospects. 18.b3 Wd8 19.id1 We7 2 0.'<We4 'kt>f8 21. '<Wxe7+ 'kt>xe7 2 2 .g4 '1Jef6 23.'kt>g2 '1Jg8 24.ic2 '1Jgf6 25.f4;t White is following the standard plan in

this position. He will occupy space by a pawn-offensive. Black's piec­ es will be even more cramped. 25 . . . '1Je8 26.id3 '1Jc7 27.'1Je4 id4 28.'1Jg3 '1Je8 29.a4 i.b2 30 .h4± White is preparing h4-h5, in or­ der to create a weak pawn for his opponent on h7. Later, he realised convincingly his positional ad­ vantage. After 7 . . . '1Jbd7 8.Wd2 , there arise positions similar to varia­ tion A in our previous chapter, except that Black has ousted the enemy bishop from the gS-square with the move h6.

This circumstance is in favour of White, because his bishop is more active on gS than on the e3square. Now, Black cannot transpose to the variations with h6, because after 8 . . . '<Wa5 9.'1Jf3 h6, White will follow with 10 .hh6 hh6 11. '<Wxh6 '1Jxe4, Gelfand - Schlosser, Adelaide 1988 and here, he can obtain a great advantage with the energetic line: 12.0-0! '1Jxc3 13. i.d3 ! '1Je2+ (Black should better part with his extra piece immedi­ ately, because his attempt to keep 137

Chapter 11 it would lead to him being check­ mated after 13 . . . tt:la4? 14.tt:lg5 tt:lf6 15.�g6 fxg6 16.\Wxg6+ �h8 17. E!:fe1 \Wd8 18.E!:e4+-) 14.�e2± As a rule, the exchange of Black's rook-pawn for the enemy central pawn should be advantageous for him, but here, we have an excep­ tional case. The castling position of Black's king has been seriously weakened due to the absence of his h7-pawn. Meanwhile, White's rooks are perfectly prepared to exert powerful pressure against the e7-pawn on the semi-open e­ file. It seems rather passive for Black to opt for 8 . . . a6 9.tt:lf3 E!:b8 10.a4, so now, he cannot push b7b5 and is forced to adhere to a waiting tactics, for example: 10 . . . b 6 ( 1 0 . . . E!:e8 11.0-0 e 6 12.E!:fe1 exdS 13.exd5 b6 14.id3;!; and Black's pieces evidently lack space, Dimitrov - Janev, Plovdiv 2009.) 11.0-0 ib7 12.E!:ad1 E!:e8 13.h3 Vflc7 14.E!:feU and once again his pieces are cramped, Golovanj - V. Onischuk, Alushta 2007. 8 . . . b5 9.cxb5 a6. There has arisen a favourable version for White of the Benko Gambit. 10. tt:lf3 axbS (Following lO . . . VflaS 11. 0-0 axbS 12 .�b5 ia6 13.�a6 E!:xa6 14.h3 E!:b8 15.E!:ab1 tt:lb6 16. E!:fcl tt:la4 17.e5 ! dxeS 18.tt:lxe5±, White has not only parried Black's pressure on the queenside, but has accomplished the thematic pawn-advance e4-e5, after which he can exert pressure against the enemy e7-pawn, Heinig - Pregl, 138

Seefeld 2007.) 11.�b5 ia6 12. �a6 E!:xa6 13.0-0 \Wb6, Kustar Nevednichy, Miercurea Ciuc 1999, 14.h3 ! ? This move is not only a leeway for the king, but also prophylactic against tt:lf6-g4e5. 14 . . . E!:b8 15.E!:ab1 E!:aa8 16. E!:feU, followed by e4-e5 and Black's compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn is insufficient.

A) 7 a6 •..

This move prepares counter­ play on the queenside with b7-b5 and as a rule transposes to varia­ tion D, since Black will have to play e7-e6 sooner or later and ex­ change on dS. Now, we will ana­ lyse only variations which lead to original positions.

8.a4

This move is played automati­ cally in the Averbakh system. It deprives Black of his standard queenside counterplay.

8 .'efa5 ••

It is interesting, but still insuf­ ficient for equality for Black to try

l.d4 li:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. li:Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 the line: 8 . . . h6 9.i.e3 e6 10.liJf3 exdS. Here, we have an exception. Contrary to the majority of the positions arising in the Averbakh system, now White must capture with his c-pawn, if he wishes to fight for the advantage. The point is that Black has already ousted his opponent's bishop from its ac­ tive position on gS and if White captures with his e-pawn, Black can simplify advantageously the position with the moves E:e8 and liJe4. ll.cxdS i.g4 12 .liJd2 .be2 13.�xe2 E:e8 14.0-0 liJbd7. There has arisen a favourable position for White of the Modern Benoni in which Black will have great problems to organise counter­ play. 1S.h3 liJhS 16.aS E:b8 17.E:a4 liJeS 18.�h2 �e7 19.g3 liJd7 20. �g2 �h7 21.�d1 �g8 22 .�c2 E:bc8 23.E:e1 �h7 24.f4 �d8 2S. liJf3± White has protected reliably his e4-pawn and has cramped his opponent's position on both sides of the board, Topalov - Radjabov, Bilbao 2008.

As a rule, the combination of the moves cS and eS is not so good for Black, because he ends up in a very passive position. Here again, after 8 . . . eS 9.g4!i, he can create counterplay neither on the queen­ side, nor on the kingside. 8 ... e6 9.�d2 �aS (Following 9 . . . exdS lO.exdS E:e8 11.liJf3 ig4 12.0-0 liJbd7 13.h3 hf3 14 . .bf3, there arise positions from varia-

tion D.). 10.E:a3. This is impor­ tant prophylactic. Now, White's rook is protected and Black can­ not advance b7-bS, since White will capture with his a-pawn. 10 . . . exdS ll.exdS E:e8 12.liJf3 i.g4 13. 0-0 liJbd7 14.E:b3 �c7 1S.h3 .bf3 16.i.xf3 E:e7 17.E:a3 �as 18.E:b3 �c7 19.aS E:ae8 20.E:a3i Movszi­ szian - Sieg, Germany 1992 . The doubling of Black's rooks on the e-file is not a cause of worries for White, because Black has no square for penetration. Mean­ while, White's space advantage is an important factor in this posi­ tion. Black's active moves will soon end and he will be forced to defend passively.

9.J.d2

9 . e6 ..

The drawbacks of the move 9 . . . eS? ! have been illustrated i n an exemplary fashion by the author of the system back in the fiftjes of the past century - 10.g4 liJe8 11.h4 fS 12 .hS f4 13.gS

139

Chapter 11

This is an important move. White is preparing the advanta­ geous exchange in the King's In­ dian Defence of the light-squared bishops after which the light squares in Black's camp will be like an open wound. From the point of view of the understanding of the similar posi­ tions, the game Averbakh Spassky, Leningrad 1956 is very instructive. In it Black played 13 . . . �dS . After the moves 1 4 . .ig4 !iJc7 15 . .ixcS �xeS 16.!iJf3±, White's positional pluses (a space advan­ tage, possibilities for actions on the h-file and the vulnerability of the light squares in Black's camp) are so great that the future World Champion B.Spassky sacrificed surprisingly a knight in order to change radically the character of the fight - 16 . . . !iJc6 ! . Naturally, this piece-sacrifice was absolutely incorrect, but its psychological ef­ fect was so great that later he even managed to draw the game. 13 . . J�f7 14 ..ig4 �dS 15 . .ixcS �xeS 16.!iJf3 .ifS 17/.t>e2 1!g7 1S. 1!h4± Averbakh - Panno, Buenos Aires 1954. Black's position is strategically hopeless. White only needs to treble his major pieces 140

on the h-file and accomplish the decisive break in Black's camp. Later, there followed: 1S . . . !iJd7 19.hxg6 hxg6 20.'�h1 .ie7 21. 1!hS+ 'tt>f7 2 2 .�h6 !iJfS 23.1!h1 1!bS. Here, White made a decisive bishop-sacrifice - 24 . .ixf4 ! Black cannot capture it in view of 24 . . . exf4 25.1!h4, s o the game soon ended in a victory for White.

lO.tlJf3 exd5 ll.exd5 This is the right move ! Natu­ rally, White does not capture with his c-pawn, because in that case Black would organise counterplay against the enemy e4-pawn.

ll

• . .

ig4

Following 11...�c7, White dem­ onstrated a perfect example of "suf­ focating" Black's position in the game Stewart - Caamano, Email 2007. 12.0-0 !iJbd7 13.h3 !iJeS 14. �cl !iJe5 15 . .ih6 .if5 16 . .ixg7 'tt>xg7 17.1!e1 f6 1S.b3 'tt>g S 19.!iJd2 !iJg7 20.f4 !iJd3 2l..ixd3 .ixd3 22.g4± After this important prophylactic move, Black's knight cannot go to d4 via the f5-square. His position is already beyond salvation, since

l.d4 lDf6 2.c4 g6 3. lDc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 c5 7.d5 his bishop cannot be saved and will perish on the d3-square. There followed 22 .. J�ae8 23.l"iJf3 fS 24J�xe8 !!xeS 25.�d2 ie4 26. lOgS hS 27.!!e1+- and White soon won the game, since Black loses a pawn after the exchange on e4.

12.0-0 'f!tlc7 About 12 . . . l"iJbd7 13.h3 ixf3 14. i.x£3 �c7 15.�c2 - see 12 . . . �c7.

13.h3 This move is also quite typical for the Averbakh system. White is not afraid of the exchange on f3, because Black facilitates his de­ fence a bit for a while (He has less space and the exchanges should be favourable for him.), but as a result White obtains a couple of bishops which will be obviously stronger than Black's knights which have no stable squares in the oncoming fight. Naturally, the eS-square cannot be a reliable outpost for Black's knight, since White can oust it at any moment with the move f2-f4.

13 ... hf3 15.'f!tlc2

14.hf3

l"iJbd7

1S

•••

l"iJe8

15 . . . !!fe8 16.!!ael. In general, White does not mind the trade of the rooks in this pawn-structure. He wishes to enter an endgame in which his two-bishop advantage would be a nearly decisive factor. 16 . . . !!xe1 (Following 16 . . . l"iJe5, GM L.Portisch demonstrated an ex­ cellent play for White. He simply exchanged all the rooks, in order to deprive his opponent of any counterplay, and began a pawn­ offensive on the kingside. 17 . .ie2 !!e7 18.f4 l"iJed7 19 ..if3 !!ae8 20. !!xe7 !!xe7 21.!!e1 !!xe1+ 22 .ixe1 �b6 23.id2 lOeB 24.g4 h6 2S.'j,Jg2 id4 26.b3 �d8 27.l"iJe2;!; Portisch - Skembris, Tilburg 1994.) 17. !!xe1 !!e8 18.!!xe8+ . White is again ready to trade the rooks. 18 . . . l"iJxe8 19.ie2 �d8 20 .g3 id4 2 1 . �g2 l"iJg7 2 2 .l"iJe4 �e7 23 .ic1 l"iJf6 24.l"iJxf6+. The knights can also be exchanged. Now, White can dem­ onstrate a "pure" case of a two­ bishop advantage. 24 . . .�xf6 25. id3 �e7 26.�e2 �d7 27. b3 lOeB 28.id2;!; Averbakh - Boleslavsky, Gagra 1953. Later, he managed to realise his positional pluses - ex­ tra space and the two-bishop advantage. We must also mention that not only Y.Averbakh was an excellent theoretician, but he was the author of a multi-vol­ ume work about the endgames. This should be an instructive example for the contemporary young players who devote most of their time only on studying open141

Chapter 11 ing theory, completely ignoring the other stages of the game of chess.

16.gael .ie5 The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same after 16 . . . ltJeS, because Black's knight fails to remain on this square any­ way. 17.ie2 fS 18.f4;!; Horvath Rohl Montes, Budapest 1996.

After this move, there arise po­ sitions which are more typical for the Benko Gambit. Its version is much more favourable for White, because he has already advanced e2-e4, having avoided the trade of his light-squared bishops, which usually happens in the Benko Gambit. The only minimal defect of his position is the placement of his bishop on gS. After the ap­ pearance of Black's queen on aS, White will have to lose a tempo to retreat his bishop to the d2square.

8.cxb5 a6 9.a4!

17.ie2 c!Dg7 18.g4 f5 19.f4 .id4+ 20.'i!?g2 c!Df6 21.if3 gae8 22.g5 c!Dtb5 23.ti'b3;!; Black's

pieces are horribly cramped and the only exception is his knight on hS ! , Kaidanov - Fang, Philadel­ phia 1998.

B) 7... b5

142

This i s White's best move in this position. Now, after the ex­ change on bS, White can capture axbS and Black will not have the typical possibility in the Benko Gambit for actions on the a and b­ fi.les .

9 ... ti'a5 This is Black's basic response. It would be premature for him to opt for 9 . . . axb5, since following 10.axb5 ! , there arises a position which is quite favourable for White. 10 . . J�xa1 11.�xa1 ltJbd7 12. ltJf3 ib7 (Or 12 ... ltJe8 13.0-0 ltJb6 14.�a5 ltJf6 1S.ltJd2± and he not only has an extra pawn, but his position is more active, Beliavsky - Petrovic, Nova Gorica 2000. It would be also good for White to choose 14.�a7! ?± and Black has no compensation for the pawn.) 13.0-0 �c7 14.c!Dd2 �a8 15.�dU Black has established control over

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. :Ji.g5 c5 7.d5 the a-file indeed, but this is small consolation for him, because he has no square for penetration on it. Still, despite the absence of a pawn, he could have still offered tough resistance. In the game Palatnik - Gast, Boston 2001, Black played too actively: 15 . . . e6? ! and after 16.dxe6 fxe6 17. i.f4!±, this led to a very difficult position for him, since besides the lack of a pawn, he had a weakness on d6. After 9 ... h6, the simplest reac­ tion for White would be 10 .i.f4 ! ?;!; (He does not need to study the numerous variations, arising after 10 .i.d2 e6, if he can avoid that.). Now, following 10 . . .'�a5 ll.i.d2 ! , as well a s after 1 0 . . . g5 ll.i.e3 WaS (It is bad for Black to choose 11 . . . e 6 12.dxe6 he6 13.e5±) 12 .i.d2;!;, there arise positions, which we will analyse later, with the excep­ tion that Black has already played either h6, or h6 and gS. This cir­ cumstance is much rather in fa­ vour of White, because later, the weakening of Black's king shelter might become a telling factor.

If Black continues simply to develop his pieces, then he risks to end quickly in a very bad posi­ tion, as it happened, for example, in the game Kasparov - Spassky, Tilburg 1981: 10 . . . tiJbd7 ll.E:a3 i.b7 12.tiJf3 axbS 13.hb5 Wc7 14. 0-0± White has completed his development and Black has no compensation for the pawn at all. There arises a much more in­ teresting position following 10 . . . axbS ll.hbS.

10 .td2 .

The loss of a tempo for the re­ treat of the bishop does not wors­ en White's position at all. (diagram)

10

. . •

Wb4

This is Black's main reply. He is trying to organise active actions (his queen exerts pressure against the enemy e4-pawn).

White should not be afraid of ll . . . Wb4, because of 12.f3 tiJfd7 13.W/cU and he has protected reli­ ably his pawns on e2 and b2 and after the completion of his devel­ opment (tiJge2, 0-0), he can be­ gin the realisation of his material 143

Chapter 11 advantage, Gonzales - E.Ragozin, Philadelphia 1993. The move ll ... .ta6 is more in­ teresting, since it is more typical for the positions in the Benko Gambit. 12.E!:a3 tt:lbd7 (12 . . . c4 13. tt:lf3 tt:lfd7 14.0-0 tt:lc5 15.�e2 tt:ld3 16.E:bl± Black has no compensa­ tion for the pawn. His active knight on d3 can be easily ex­ changed after tt:le1, Portisch - Bu­ kal, Reggio Emilia 1992.) 13.tt:lf3 hbS 14.tt:lxb5 �a6 15.�c2 E:fc8 16. 0-0;!; A.Petrosian - Vitolinsh, Podolsk 1990. White has entered an advantageous version for him of the Benko Gambit. His knight on bS, supported by the pawn on a4, prevents the development of Black's initiative on the queen­ side. Later, his plan is quite sim­ ple: i.c3, tt:ld2-c4 and eventually e4-e5. Still, it would be better for Black to adhere to a passive tac­ tics, because after the seemingly active move 16 . . . c4? ! , White's knight will be headed immediate­ ly for the weakened c6-square. 17.tt:lfd4± Besides 1l.. .i.a6, it may be also interesting for Black to try 11 . . . tt:la6. Even then however, White's prospects are preferable. 12.tt:lf3 tt:lb4 13.0-0 .ta6 14.i.g5 h6 15.i.h4 hbS 16.axb5 �c7 17.�d2 E:xa1 (It is possible that Black's best chance here is 17 . . . g5, but after 18.i.g3 E!:xa1 19.E!:xa1 tt:lhS 2 0 . tt:J e a , the temporary activity of his pieces does not compensate the missing pawn, McCraw Popovic, Email 1999.) 18.E!:xa1 144

E:b8. Here, White's simplest reac­ tion would be - 19.hf'6 ! , because Black cannot capture on f6 with his bishop due to the loss of the pawn on h6 (it is also possible for White to play here 19.h3;!; Jus­ supow - Vogt, Altensteig 1993). 19 ... exf6 2 0.h3;!;. He has an extra pawn, despite its being doubled. After Black was forced to capture to capture on f6 with his pawn, his dark-squared bishop has ceased to exert pressure against White's queenside.

ll.f3 This move is not aesthetic, but is reliable.

ll ... tt:lfd7 It would be too risky for Black to choose ll . . . c4? ! , because of 12.a5 ! and Black's queen has no squares to retreat to. 12 . . . �xb2 (It is not preferable for him to choose 12 . . . tt:lbd7 13.b6± and White's a­ pawn, has turned from a weak­ ness into a powerful protected passed pawn. Or 12 . . . axb5 13.tt:la4 �b3 14.�xb3 cxb3 15.ixb5± and

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0,c3 il..g 7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. il..g5 c5 7.d5 White ends up with a solid extra pawn in the endgame.) 13J!b1 \Wa3 14.b6± Black has regained his pawn indeed, but White maintains a great advantage thanks to his mighty passed b6-pawn and the vulnerability of Black's c4-pawn, Alatortsev - Savon, Yalta 1962 . I t deserves attention for Black to try the paradoxical move 11 . . . W/aS ! ? He has lost two tempi, but has provoked the move f2-f3. Af­ ter 12J�a3;!;, White's chances are preferable here as well, but still there is a lot of fight left in this po­ sition.

square against the penetration of White's knight there), but White still has an extra pawn and his chances in the endgame are pref­ erable.

13

•••

\Wc5 14.\Wxc4 ti'xc4

Following 14 . . . axb5, White lags in development, but he still has two extra pawns, so his posi­ tion is better. 15.W/xb5 W/a7 16.W/b3;!;

15.hc4 .!Db6 16.!e2 ax:b5

12.'l:Yc2 c4

17.a5!?

13 .!Ddl •

It seems very good for him to opt for 13.a5 ! ? axbS 14.0,a4 W/b3 15.W/xb3 cxb3 16.i.xb5;!; and there has arisen a position analysed in our notes to the move ll . . . c4, with the difference that Black's knight is on d7 and not on the f6-square. This is, no doubt, in favour of Black (his knight covers the b6-

This i s the simplest move for White. He does not go after mate­ rial gains, but wishes to simplify the position by exchanging pieces and enter a very favourable end­ game with only minor pieces on the board. The consequences of the line: 17.hb5 i.d'Too are not so clear, Spacek - Pilar, Czech Republic 2000. There may arise the following variation: 17 c!Dc4 18.!c3 hc3+ •••

145

Chapter 11 19.�xc3 gxa5 20.gxa5 �xa5 21.b4 �c4 22.hc4 bxc4 23. �ge2 �a6 24.b5 �c5 25.�d2 �b3+ 26.�e3 f5 27.g3 e5 28. dxe6 he6 29.�d4± White has

given his extra pawn back, but has simplified the position by ex­ changing and has neutralised in the process the pressure of Black's pieces. In the endgame, White maintains a great advantage, be­ cause his king is very active. If it comes to assist the advance of the passed pawn on bS, Black will be in a great trouble.

C) 7 h6 •••

8.J.f4

This is the right square !

8 ... e6 This is the basic move for Black in this variation. He is fight­ ing for the initiative ignoring the possible material sacrifices.

e6.

bS.

This is a very energetic move. Black ousts the enemy bishop from its active position on the gS­ square. He is not afraid of the fact that after the retreat of the bishop to f4, the undermining of White's centre with the move e7-e6 would involve the sacrifice on the pawn on d6. The move 7 . . . h6 has been played by such masters of dynam­ ic play like Gary Kasparov, Alex­ ander Khalifman and many other grandmasters. 146

About 8 ... e5 9.dxe6 - see 8 ...

8 ... b5 9.cxb5 a6 10.a4 - see 7 ...

8 . . . a6. Black is preparing b7b5. Still, after 9.'&d2 , White im­ proves the placement of his queen, making use of the circum­ stance that his opponent's pawn on h6 is not protected. (It conse­ quences are very unclear if White tries the standard prophylactic in this variation - 9.a4, since follow­ ing 9 . . . e6oo, there arise position from the main variation, which we will analyse in the main line, except that with the inclusion of the moves a6 and a4. This inclu­ sion is much rather in favour of Black, because later, the weaken-

l.d4 4:Jj6 2.c4 g6 3. 4:J c3 :!g7 4.e4 d6 S. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 ing of White's b4-square may tell.) 9 . . . <;!;>h7 (The pawn-sacrifice in the spirit of the Benko Gambit 9 . . . b5 would not equalise for Black. lO.cxbS axbS ll.i.xbS '!WaS 12 .i.d3 gS 13.i.g3 i.a6 14.4:Jge2 4:Jbd7 15.i.xa6 E:xa6 16.h4 '\Wb4 17.hxg5 hxgS 18.f3;!; White not only has an extra pawn on the queenside, but also good pros­ pects on the kingside. Black's pawn on gS, as well as the fS­ square are very weak and White's knight can go there later on the route c3-dl-e3-f5, Horvath - Pol­ zin, Austria 2006.) 10.4:Jf3 bS 11. cxbS axbS 12 .i.xb5 '?;l/b6 13.i.e2 '\Wb4 14.e5 4:Jh5 15.i.e3 (It is weak­ er for White to try 15.i.g3?! Uhl­ mann - E.Geller, Palma de Mal­ lorca 1970, because in that case Black can exchange his knight, placed at the edge of the board, for White's powerful dark­ squared bishop.) lS . . . dxeS. Black has regained his pawn indeed, but cannot equalise due to his numer­ ous pawn-weaknesses. 16.a3 '!Wb7 17. 0-0 E:d8 18.4:Jel 4:Ja6 19.4:Jd3 4:Jf6 20 .4:Jxe5 ie6 21.4:Jc6 E:xdS 22.4:Jxd5 4:Jxd5 23.4:Ja5 '\Wxb2 24. i.xh6 4:Jac7 25.4:Jc4 '\Wxd2 26.i.xd2 hal 27.E:xaU. White has the two­ bishop advantage and a powerful passed a-pawn. Following 8 . . . '\WaS, White should better retreat his bishop in the standard fashion - 9.i.d2, for example: 9 . . . e6 (9 . . . a6 10.a4 4:Jbd7 11.4:Jf3. Now, he should not be afraid of 11 . . . 4:Jg4, because the

dominance on the eS-square can­ not bring anything real to Black, because White can always oust the enemy knight from there with the move f2-f4. Later, in the game V.Milov - Stovring, Genova 2003, there followed 12.0-0 '!Wd8 13.'\Wcl hS 14.i.g5 4:Jde5 15.4:Jxe5 i.xeS 16.h3 4:Jf6 17.i.d3;!; and White not only has a space advantage, but a clear-cut plan for further actions: f2-f4 followed by the preparation of e4-e5, or f4-f5.) 10.4:Jf3 exdS ll.exdS i.g4 (After ll . . .i.fS, Black fails to accomplish the favourable trade of the knights (4:Je4), be­ cause of 12.4:Jh4 i.d7 13.0-0 '!Wd8 14.4:Jf3;t; There arises a standard position for this variation, with a slight edge for White, since he has more space.) 12 .h3 i.xf3 13.i.xf3 E:e8+ 14.i.e2 '!Wd8 15.0-0 4:Jbd7 16.'1Wc2 4:Jh7 17.E:fel fS 18.i.fU Black's pieces cannot hold the eS­ square due to White's resource f2f4, while the weakening of the e6square may tell (E:e6 !), Vilchen­ kov - Sumkin, USSR 1979. It seems a bit passive for Black to play 8 . . . 4:Jbd7. After 9.4:Jf3 a6 (It is again harmless for White if Black continues with 9 . . . 4:Jg4, be­ cause the possession of the eS­ outpost cannot bring anything to him. Later, in the game Volzhin ­ Velikhanli, Abu Dhabi 2001, there followed: 10.0-0 4:Jge5 11.4:Jel 4:Jb6 12 .b3 e6 13.E:cl exd5 14.4:Jxd5 4:Jxd5 15.'?;1/xdS '\We7 16.4:Jc2 i.e6 17.'1Wd2 <;!;>h7 18.i.g3 fS 19.exf5 i.xfS 20.4:Je3;!; and White's knight 147

Chapter 11 was headed for the d5-square. His prospects in the oncoming fight are preferable. His king is safer, because it is protected by three pawns, while its black counter­ part is protected by only two. In addition, White can begin an at­ tack on the kingside with f2-f4f5.) 10.0-0 :B:b8 ll.a4 tt:Je8 12 .:B:e1 tt:Je5 13.tt:Jxe5 dxe5 14.ie3 Vflc7 15.a5 tt:Jd6 16.Vfid2 Wh7 17.f3 f5 18.:B:ebl± Black can hardly coun­ ter his opponent's queenside of­ fensive (b2-b4 and after the ex­ change of the c5-pawn - c4-c5), because his kingside counterplay is obviously too slow, Alburt Meyer, Philadelphia 1989. White should not be afraid of 8 . . . :B:e8 9.Vfid2 Wh7 10.lLlf3 e6 11. dxe6 :B:xe6 (following ll ... ixe6 12 .i.xd6 tt:Jc6 13.0-0 ig4 14.Vflf4 tt:Jh5 15.Vflxg4 Vflxd6 16.:B:fdU, Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient) 12 .e5. After this pawn-sacrifice, White seizes completely the initiative. 12 . . . lLlh5 13.ie3 i.xe5 14.tt:Jxe5 :B:xe5 15.0-0 (it may be also interesting for him to try 15.0-0-0 ! i) 15 . . . tt:Jg7 16. i.xh6 tt:Jc6 17.if4± White has re­ gained the sacrificed pawn and his prospects in the oncoming fight are clearly preferable. He has two powerful bishops and an excellent outpost on d5 for his knight, while Black's d6-pawn is very weak, Farago - Rigo, Buda­ pest 1978.

9 .dxe6 .ixe6 148

10J�d2 White refrains from capturing on d6, because after that it would be very difficult for him to obtain an advantage in the opening. There is plenty of theory amassed in this variation and as a rule, it all ends in total simplification of the position and a draw.

10 .. :�b6 This is Black's most popular reply. He organises counterplay against the enemy pawn on b2 and protects indirectly his own pawn in h6. After 10 ... Wh7, White can al­ ready capture on d6 - ll.ixd6, because the inclusion of the moves Vfid2 and Wh7 is obviously in his favour. ll . . . :B:e8 12 .e5 tt:Jfd7 13.f4 f6 14.h4 fxe5 15.h5± and White's attack in the game De Giorgis - Jelen, Email 1997 led to a quick victory for him. Following 10 . . . Vfia5, White should better continue with the modest move ll.tt:Jf3i, because af­ ter ll.i.xh6 ixh6 12 .Vfixh6 tt:Jxe4

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. ig5 c5 7.d5 13.:Bc1 liJc6 14.h4 liJd4oo, there arises a very complicated position in which Black's prospects are not inferior at all. After 10 . . . liJc6 however, it is already very good for White to play ll . .bh6, since following 11 . . . ix:h6 12.1Wxh6 liJd4 13.:Bd1 liJxe2 14.liJgxe2 .bc4 15.h4 !± his king­ side initiative is very powerful.

ll.li)£3 White is trying to develop his pieces as quickly as possible. After ll.ix:h6, he can hardly obtain an edge. ll . . . hh6 12 .1Wxh6 1Wxb2 13.:Bc1 liJc6 14.h4 liJb4oo Black's counterplay is quite real. It is rather unclear whether White has anything better than the move 15.1Wd2 with a transfer to an ap­ proximately equal endgame.

ll

•••

liJc6

About 11 . . . \t>h7 12. 0-0 liJc6 13.liJd5 - see ll . . . liJc6.

12.0-0

There has arisen a very com-

plicated situation in which both sides have their positional pluses. Still, White's game is much sim­ pler, because the vulnerability of Black's pawn on d6 and the d5square is more important than his counterplay on the dark squares.

12 . . . \t>h7 This is a quiet move. It is possible that Black's best chance here may be the active move 12 . . . liJd4, but it still leads to a position in which White's pros­ pects are preferable. 13.liJxd4 cxd4 14.liJd5 hd5 15.exd5 liJe4 (following 15 . . . g5 16.�g3 liJe4 17. '!Wc2 liJxg3 18.hxg3;t;, Black's king is very weak and he must be very careful not to come under attack in the middle game, Fellner Walter, Germany 1994) 16.1Wc2. It may look like Black's initiative compensates the pawn-defects in his position. This is not true how­ ever. White can oust his oppo­ nent's knight from its active posi­ tion, while the vulnerability of the pawns on d4 and d6 will be a per­ manent negative factor for Black in the future. 16 . . . :Bfe8 17.�d3 liJcS 18.id2 aS 19.b3 \t>h7 (19 . . . :Be7 20.:Bfe1 :Bae8 2l.:Bxe7 :Bxe7 22 .:Be1 :Bxe1 + 23.ix:eU Houpt Rubio Dobias, chessfriend.com 2004. The position has been sim­ plified considerably. White is clearly better. After an exchange on d3, Black's position will be worse because his pawns on d4 and d6 are placed on colours of 149

Chapter 11 the same square as his bishop, while if he refrains from the ex­ change, White will preserve his two-bishop advantage after the retreat of Black's bishop from the d3-square.) 2 0 J'!:fe1 i.f6 2l.g3 i.g7 2 2 .g2 �c7 23J'!ad1 b6 24.ic1 a4 25.ifU Aleksandrov - Shulman, Ohrid 2001. It is worth noticing how skilfully A.Alexandrov avoid­ ed the exchange of his bishops, placing them on the c1 and f1squares. In the oncoming fight, White can break his opponent's position with h2-h4 and b3-b4, maintaining long lasting initiative both in the middle game and in the endgame.

13.lDd5 hd5 After 13 .. .'1Wd8, Muse - Hjar­ tarson, Germany 1989, White should better continue with 14. �c2t, maintaining an edge thanks to his better pawn-structure (fol­ lowing 14 . . . ixd5 - to his two­ bishop advantage).

to his two powerful bishops and extra space.

14 ... lDe5 After 14 . . . lDe7 15.h3 !!ae8 16.!!ab1 lLlc8 17.id3 l2Jd7 18.a3 lLleS 19.lLlxe5 dxeS 2 0.i.e3 �c7 2l.b4 cxb4 22.axb4 fS 23.f4±, Black has no counterplay on the kingside at all. White can simply advance his pawns - c4-c5, d5d6, Aleksandrov - Kotenko, Mos­ cow 2008. Black cannot equalise with 14 . . . l2Jd4 15.l2Jxd4 cxd4 16.id3 l2Jd7 17.b4 fS 18.h4 lLlf6 19.f3 !!ae8, Dolinski - Trusewicz, Po­ land 1991, 20 .!!ae1!t This is a pre­ cise move. Now, Black's counter­ play on the e-file has been parried and White's positional pluses should gradually tell.

15.tDxe5 dxe5 16 .ie3 •

14.exd5

After the exchange on dS, White has a stable advantage due 150

There has arisen a position, which resembles the Najdorf vari­ ation in the Sicilian Defence. White's positional pluses (two bishops and the possibility for ac-

l.d4 l:jjf6 2.c4 g6 3. 1:jj c3 1lg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 0 - 0 6. 1lg5 c5 7.d5 tive actions on the queenside with b2-b4, or in the centre with d5d6) are much more important than Black's kingside counter­ play.

16

•••

c!be4 17.%Yc2

It is also possible for White to choose here 17.%Yd3 ! ? l:jj d 6 18. �abU, preparing b2-b4.

17 f5 18.gabl a5 19.a3 %Yc7 20.b4!? axb4 21.axb4 b6 22. bxc5 c!bxc5 23.g3;!; His prospects •••

are much better. White can choose between exerting pressure against the enemy b6-pawn (�b5, �fb1), or organise a pawn-ad­ vance in the centre - d5-d6, after �dl. Naturally, Black's kingside counterplay should not be under­ estimated.

D) 7 e6 •••

leslavsky, M.Tal etc. Still White soon found very good arguments against the system chosen by Black. It is not so much that White obtains a great advantage, but the arising positions are very un­ pleasant for Black. This discour­ ages the fans of the King's Indian Defence, because they usually strive for complicated, double edged fight. Here, he will be forced to adhere to long and labo­ rious defence in the endgame without any counter chances. Therefore, this variation has gradually lost its popularity alto­ gether.

8.%Yd2 It is essential for White not to allow the move h7-h6, because the pin of the knight on f6 in this variation may be very unpleasant for Black.

8 . . . exd5

This move can be considered as Black's classical response against the Averbakh system. It was used often during the 50ies of the past century by such out­ standing King's Indian experts like M.Najdorf, S.Gligoric, I.Bo-

If he postpones this exchange with the move 8 .. .'�a5, Black can­ not expect anything positive for him, for example: 9.1:jjf3 a6 10. 0-0 b5, Moskalenko - Grigore, Sitges 2005 and here, White can simply capture the pawn : ll.dxe6 ! 1lxe6 12.%Yxd6± and Black does not have sufficient compensation for it.

9.exd5 Here, contrary to the Modern Benoni, in the Averbakh system White captures with his e-pawn. Now, Black has no counterplay 151

Chapter 11 against the pawn on e4 and he ends up in a solid but cramped position.

9

•••

11.0-0 ges 12.a4 lt:Jbd7 13.h3 .ix£3 14.!xf3 - see 9 . . . ges. After the move 10 . . . '1Wc7, a perfect example of how to play this position with White can be the game Polugaevs­ ky - Shaw, Siegen 1970 : 11.0-0 !g4 12 .h3 ix£3 13 . .ixf3 lt:Jbd7 14. a4 b6 15 ..id1 �h8 16.ic2 lt:Jg8 17. gael;!; He has more space and two bishops, while Black has no coun­ terplay. Later, Polugaevsky ex­ changed all the heavy pieces and the knights and realised easily his advantage proving the power of his two bishops.) 11.0-0

ges

This is his most popular re­ sponse. 9 . . . lt:Ja6. This is not the best idea for Black. His knight has nothing to do on a6, or on the c7square, because White can easily parry Black's queenside counter­ play. 10.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc7 (lO . . . ges 11.0-0 - see 9 ... ge8) 11.0-0 a6 (1l.. . .if5 12 .h3 '1Wc8 13.'1Wf4 lt:Jce8 14.gfe1 a6 15 . .ifl± - He can hardly find good squares for his minor pieces, be­ cause Black obviously lacks space, Gelfand - J.Polgar, Almaty 2008) 12 .a4 gbs 13.'1Wf4 lt:Jce8 14.a5;!; Va­ ganian - Velimirovic, Budapest 1973. His position is cramped. In order to neutralise White's pin on the h4-d8 diagonal, Black is forced to place his other knight on e8 and this does not beautify his position at all. Sometimes he begins with the line: 9 . . . a6 10.lt:Jf3 ges (10 . . .!g4 152

About 11 ... !g4 12 .h3 !xf3 13. .ixf3 lt:Jbd7 14.a4 - see 9 ... ges. After 11 . . . lt:Jbd7 12.gfe1 lt:Je5 13.lt:Jxe5 gxe5 14.!d3 gxe1+ 15. gxe1 '.Wf8 16.'1Wf4 lt:Jh5 17.'\Wh4;!;, White has more space, his pieces are very active and Black must worry about the vulnerability of his d6-pawn, I.Grischuk - Chir­ kov, Evpatoria 2006. It seems awkward for Black to transfer his queen to the f8square: 11 . . . '\We7 12 .h3 '1Wf8 13.i.d3 h6 14 . .if4 g5 15.ih2 g4 16.hxg4 lt:Jxg4, Raetsky - Demeter, Kato­ wice 1993, 17 ..if4± - His activity on the kingside has only led to the

l.d4 CiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 appearance of additional pawn­ weaknesses in his camp. ll . . .i.fS 12.0.h4 \WeB 13.0.xf5 (It is possibly even stronger for White to choose 13.E!ae1! 0.e4 14. 0.xe4 he4 1S.idl± and Black's bishop on e4 is obviously mis­ placed.) 13 ... \Wx:fS 14.E!ae1 0.bd7 15. id3 \Wg4 16.h3 \Wd4, Polugaevsky - Roos, Le Havre 1966, 17.b3 CiJeS 1B .ib1 E!abB 19.a4;!; Black's pieces are seemingly very active, but he cannot achieve anything real. Af­ ter White simplifies the position by exchanging pieces, he will obtain the typical endgame in this varia­ tion with a slight edge for him. There arise interesting tactical complications after the move 9 . . . \Wb6. During the BOies o f the past century L.Yurtaev found an interesting possibility for Black, connected with a piece-sacrifice for several pawns. It would be very difficult for White to find the right way over the board without concrete knowledge of the variations. 10.0.f3 ifS 11.0.h4 0.e4 12.0.xe4 he4 13.f3

13 . . . \Wxb2 14.E!cl \Wxd2+ (The endgame is worse for Black fol-

lowing 14 . . . i.f5 15.0.xf5 gxfS 16. \Wxb2 hb2 17.E!b1 ic3+ 1B.'i!ld1 E!eB 19.E!xb7 0.a6 20.a3 E!abB 21. E!xbB CiJxbB 2 2 .id3 0.d7 23.'i!lc2 i.d4 24.E!b1± White has two pow­ erful bishops, while Black's fS­ pawn is very weak, Carlsen - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2013, as well as after 14 . . . h6 15.hh6 \Wxd2+ 16.hd2 if6 17.g3 hh4 1B.gxh4 ifS 19.if4 E!dB 20.h5. Black's po­ sition is very unpleasant. His d6pawn is weak, while White's dark­ squared bishop has no opponent and is very powerful. In the game Bekker Jensen - Nordenbaek, Denmark 2000, Black decided to capture a pawn, just to suffer for something real: 20 . . . gxh5? ! , but had soon to regret his decision, because White's pieces became very active. The game did not last long: 21.E!g1 + 'i!lh7 22.E!g5 ig6 23. 'i!ld2 0.a6 24.E!cg1 E!d7 2S.i.d3 E!gB 26.h4 0.b4 27.ib1 0.a6 2B. E!xhS+ and Black resigned, since he would have to suffer huge material loss­ es.) 1S.'i!lxd2 hdS (15 . . . -tfS 16. CiJxfS gxf5 17.E!bl b6 1B.i.d3± White will regain the pawn on fS and will have a great advantage in the end­ game thanks to his two powerful bishops and a superior pawn­ structure, Kachiani-Gersinska Berezina, Istanbul 2000.) 16.cxd5 E!eB. This is the essence of L.Yur­ taev's idea. Black obtains two pawns for the piece and White's knight on h4 is misplaced. It looks like Black has compens�tion.' Still, it soon became clear that White could activate his rook 17.E!bl and 153

Chapter 11 Black's hopes to obtain compen­ sation were doomed to fail. 17 . . . ttld7 1 8 . .ib5 :B:e5 1 9 . .b:d7 :B:xg5 20.1'!xb7 :B:xd5+ 21.'it>c2 c4 2 2 .f4± White's knight enters the actions and Black has no compensation for the piece, Lputian - Yurtaev, Volgograd 1985. 13 ... h6. This is an interesting move, but is not so popular. 14. hh6 .ixh6 15.�xh6 �xb2 16.0-0 ic2 17.1'!acl :B:e8 (17. . . ia4 18.f4 �g7 19.�g5;!; Black's king shelter has been weakened due to the ab­ sence of his h-pawn, so White's attack may become very powerful, Boehm - Hartung, Email 2002) 18.�d2 �f6, Dolinski - Niewiad­ omski, ICCF 2007, 19.g3 ! ? This is the only way for White to fight for the advantage. 19 . . . ia4 20 .f4;!; His prospects in the middle game will be preferable, because his king is much safer (3 pawns against 2 for Black's king). After the exchange of the queens (for example after �f6-e7-e3), White can exploit the vulnerability of his enemy d6-pawn, after ttlh4-f3-g5, if3 and ttle4.

10.ltlf3

154

10

...

.ig4

About 10 . . . a6 ll.a4 ig4 12. 0-0 ttlbd7 13.h3 ixf3 14.hf3 see 10 . . . ig4. 10 . . .if5 11.0-0 �b6 12.1'!ae1 see 10 . . . �b6. 10 . . . �b6 11.0-0 if5 (1l.. .ig4 12 .h3 - see 10 . . . ig4) 12.1'!ae1 ttlbd7 (Unfortunately for Black, he cannot accomplish the favour­ able trade of the knights, because after 12 . . . ttle4? ! 13.ttlxe4 ixe4 14. id3, he must comply with an ir­ revocable weakening of his pawn­ structure in order to save his bish­ op: 14 .. .f5 15.ixe4 fxe4 16.if4 ttld7 17.ttlg5±) 13.ttlh4

13 . . . ttle4 14. ttlxe4 ixe4 15.f3. The knights have been exchanged but Black has difficulties, because of the unfavourable position of his bishop in the centre of the board. 15 . . . .id4+ (after 15 . . . h6 16.hh6 .ixh6 17.�xh6 .ic2 18. �cl±, Black has no compensation for the pawn, Spacek - Gross, Prague 1992.) 16.\t>h1 f6, Genta ­ Izquierdo, Montevideo 1992, 17 . .if4!± Black can choose between

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 sacrificing his bishop for the pawns on d5 and b2, or retreating it to the f5-square, which after liJxf5 would lead to a horrible weakening of his pawn-structure. In both cases White's great ad­ vantage is doubtless. It is possible for Black to choose the plan with the exchange of the knights although it would not equalise for him either. 10 . . . liJbd7 11.0-0 liJe5 (He lacks space, so he should not avoid the ex­ change of pieces. Following 11 . . . a 6 12.E!:fe1 b 6 13.'?;1/f4:t, White's pieces are obviously more active, Farago - Teufl, Austria 1999.) 12.liJxe5 E!:xe5 13.id3 E!:e8 14.E!:feU Black's position is solid but very passive and he can hardly organ­ ise any active actions, Nikolaidis - Shavtvaladze, Korinthos 2002. It seems rather dubious for him to transfer his queen to f8 with the idea to advance his king­ side pawns. 10 .. .'!We7 11.0-0 �f8 12. h3 liJa6 13.i.d3 id7 14.a3 h6 15. i.f4 liJh5 16.ih2 f5 17.liJb5 ixb5 18.cxb5 liJc7 19.E!:ae1 a6 20.b6 liJb5 21.E!:e6 E!:xe6 22 .dxe6 liJd4 23.liJxd4 ixd4 24.E!:e1 E!:e8, Bareev - Dy­ achkov, Azov 1996 and after 25. g4 ! +-, Black's position crumbles.

liJc7 12 .h3 �e7 13.E!:ae1 �f8 14. i.d3:t, his pieces are terribly cramped, Raetsky - Slizhevsky, So­ chi 2006) 12.id3 id7 13.h3 liJb4 14. i.b1 h5 15.a3 liJa6 16.id3± White's extra space guarantees a great ad­ vantage for him since Black has no squares to deploy his pieces.

11.0-0 liJbd7 11 . . . a6 12.a4 liJbd7 13.h3 hf3 14.ixf3 - see 14 . . . liJbd7. 11 . . . �b6 12 .h3 ix£3 13.ixf3 liJbd7 14.�c2 - see 11.. .liJbd7.

12.h3 hf3 13.hf3

There has arisen a typical po­ sition for this variation. White has extra space and two bishops and Black has no counterplay. It is be­ cause of these prospectless posi­ tions that Black ceased to be in­ terested in this variation.

13 . . . a6 In the game Bareev - I.Soko­ lov, Biel 1993, Black accomplished an unfavourable manoeuvre with his knight and it turned out to be just a loss of time for him. 10 . . . liJa6 11.0-0 �b6 (following 11 . . .

He cannot equalise with 13 . . . h 5 14.E!:ae1 �b6 1 5 . .id1 a6, . Tre­ velyan - Glek, Clichy 1995 and here, White's simplest reaction would be - 16.ib3:t and despite 155

Chapter 11 all the tricks, Black has failed to complicate the game and to or­ ganise counterplay. 13 . . . �b6 14.'�c2 a6 (After 14 . . . h6 15.i.d2 a 6 16.b3 :Be7 17.:Bae1 :Bae8 18.:Bxe7 :Bxe7 19.id1 W/d8 20.a4t, Black did not manage to hold the position in the game Langeweg - Najdorf, Wijk aan Zee 1971. The character of the game remains more or less the same following 14 . . . l!th8 15.id2 a6 16.:Baelt and later, White trad­ ed the major pieces and realised his advantage in an endgame with only minor pieces, S.Atalik - Pap, Vrnjacka Banja 2012.) 15.id2. In similar position, White often re­ treats his bishop to d2 and from there it supports the advance of his queenside pawns with a4-a5 and b4. 15 . . . :Be7 16.:Baelt Polu­ gaevsky - Gligoric, Skopje 1968. Later, Black was reluctant to ad­ here to a passive defence and sac­ rificed a pawn. His compensation for it was insufficient and he lost the game.

14 . . . �e7 Black is clearly worse after 14 . . . W/c7 15.�c2 h5 16 . .id2 tt:lh7 17.:Bae1 i.d4 18.id1 tt:Jdf8 19.�d3 tt:Jd7 2 0.'1Wg3 l!th8 2l.b3 tt:ldf6 22 .ic2 :Bxe1 23.:Bxe1 :Be8 24. :Bxe8+ tt:Jxe8 25.tt:le2t - he has no counterplay and White can play for a win without any risk, trying to exploit his two-bishop advan­ tage and extra space, Brandberg Soeder - Bennborn, ICCF 2007. Black's activity is only tempo­ rary after 14 . . . tt:le5, because later, White will oust the enemy knight away from the centre. 15.ie2 �aS 16.'1Wc2 h6 17.i.d2 W/c7 18.f4 tt:Jed7 19.:Baelt and once again he main­ tains the standard advantage for this variation, Gulko - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2001. Following 14 . . . W/a5, S.Atalik demonstrated a good example of how to play this position with White.

14.a4

At first, he deprived his oppo­ nent of any counterplay by trad­ ing the major pieces and then, in the endgame with minor pieces, 156

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 he began advancing his pawns on the flanks in order to acquire more space. 15.Wfc2 h6 16.i.d2 Wfc7 17.!1ae1 !1xe1 18.!1xe1 �e8 19. i.d1 �xe1+ 20 ..ixe1 Wfd8 21.WI'e2 \t>f8 22 .g3 Wfe7 23.Wfxe7+ \t>xe7 24.a5 liJe5 25.i.e2 liJe8 26.f4 liJd7 27.\t>g2 i.d4 28.\t>f3 f5 29.i.d3 liJg7 30.b3 h5 31.liJe2 i.f6 32 .ic2 \t>f7 33.i.d2i Atalik - Kilicaslan, Ankara 2008. This is the end­ game White should strive for in this variation. Black does not have any counterplay, while White can manoeuvre for long preparing breaks both on the queenside (b3b4 ), as well as on the kingside (g3g4). Even if Black can hold this position, then in a practical game this is a very difficult task indeed.

15.S:ael Wff8 16.il.dl

Wfxe8 19 . .ic2 liJb6 20 .b3 liJbd7 21. .if4 fffe 7 22 .WI'e2 \t>f8 23.Wfxe7+ \t>xe7 24.a5i,

There has arisen again a very favourable endgame for White, Polugaevsky - Uhlmann, Amster­ dam 1970. Later, L.Polugaevsky realised his advantage. This was one of the first games which showed the great difficulties Black had to suffer in similar endgames. Our book is devoted to the opening however, so we will not analyse thoroughly the endgame. The readers who would like to en­ large their knowledge and under­ stating of similar situations, I can recommend the wonderful book of M.Shereshevsky "Endgame Strategy" : in which he has ana­ lysed several examples on this subject.

17 .tf4 liJh7 18.ic2 .!DeS 19.b3 f5 20.ig3 Wff6 21.liJe2 .!bf8 22.f4i Black's knight on e5 •

16

h6

•••

It does not seem logical for Black to opt for 16 . . . !1xe1, because in this variation, White is trying to trade the heavy pieces himself. Following 17.!1xe1 !1e8 18.!1xe8

has been ousted from the centre and he will have to defend for long a cramped and passive . Posi­ tion, Jussupow - Zapata, Saint John 1988.

157

Chapter 11 Conclusion We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 6 . . . c5 in the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence. Black has many different possibilities in it, but only the ousting of the enemy bishop from its active position with the move 7 . . . h6 provides him with some chances of obtaining an acceptable game. Still, in this variation White maintains an edge due to the vulnerability of the ene­ my pawn on d6. After the move 7 . . . b5, there arise variations of the Ben­ ko Gambit which are unfavourable for Black. White has already ad­ vanced e2-e4 and contrary to the variations of the Benko Gambit, he will not lose his castling rights after i.a6-fl. Following 7 . . . e6, there arises a standard position with a space ad­ vantage for White, who has a clear-cut plan for further actions. He needs to exchange the major pieces and transfer the game into an end­ game with minor pieces in which he will have excellent winning chanc­ es thanks to his extra space and two powerful bishops. His plan to play for a win is connected with occupying space with his queenside pawns (a4-a5), followed by a preparation of breaks - either with b3-b4, or with g2-g4.

158

Part 3 The Modern Defence l.d4 g6

In the third part of volume 2, we will analyse the move l g6. It has been played even back in the h 19 t century, but in the contem­ porary theory it has been named the Modern Defence and quite de­ servedly so. The point is that at first it did not lead to original po­ sitions and usually transposed to the King's Indian Defence. It was during the 60ies of the past cen­ tury when the move l.. .g6 was played sometimes by M.Botvinnik and a bit later by L.Ljuboevic and they began to use plans connected with pressure against White's centre (the d4-square) with ig7, tLlc6, or if White protects his d4pawn with the move tLlf3, then ig4. Black wishes to exploit the delay of development of his knight on g8, since in that case the diago•••

nal for his dark-squared bishop is opened and if White closes the position in the centre, Black can play f7-f5 immediately and not af­ ter the preliminary retreat of his knight from the f6-square as it happens in the King's Indian De­ fence. In Chapter 13, we will analyse the basic position of this varia­ tion, which arises after l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tLlc3. There, we will pay most attention to Black's three main responses : 4 e5, 4 lLlc6 and 4 lLld7. In Chapter 12 we will deal with the different possibilities for Black to avoid the main lines on moves 2 and 3. I would like to mention that White should not be in a hurry to develop his knight to the f3square, because then Black can transpose to the King's Indian Defence, having avoided the Averbakh system. In the contemporary tourna­ ment practice this move is played by numerous strong grandmas­ ters (indeed, mostly in games with a shorter time-control) : Sh. Mamedyarov, H.Nakamura, P. Svidler, A.Morozevich . . . ••

•••

•••

159

Chapter 12

l.d4 g6 2.c4

A) 2

•••

d6

Black wishes to advance e7-e5 as quickly as possible. It seems bad for him to try to transpose to the Dutch Defence with 2 . . .f5? ! , because of 3.h4 ! --t We will analyse this variation in our volume 3 in the chapters de­ voted to the Dutch Defence. Now, contrary to the move 1 . . . d 6 , Black i s not threatening to ad­ vance e7-e5, so White can make this quite natural move for the closed openings. Now, Black has a choice. His main line 2 .ig7 will be analysed in variation B), but before that we will deal with A) 2 d6. •••

3.e4

White continues to occupy the centre with his pawn s .

3

•••

e5

This interesting move leads to a complicated positional fight. About 3 . . . ig7 4 . tLl c3 - see Chapter 13.

•••

About 2 . . . ltlf6 3.tLlc3 - see parts 1 and 2. 2 ... c6 3.e4 dS 4.e5 ig7 S.ltlc3 - see variation Bl. 2 ... c5 3.d5 .ig7 (3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3 .ig7 S.e4 d6 6.ie2 0-0 7 . .ig5 see Chapter 11) 4.e4 - see varia­ tion B2. 160

3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3 .ig7 S . .ie2 - see Chapters 6-11.

(diagram) Now, contrary to the positions which we will analyse in the next chapter (with the inclusion of the moves tLlc3 and .ig7), it is not so good for White to enter an end­ game after the exchange on eS,

l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lb c3

because Black's bishop on f8 can go to more active positions (than on g7) - to cS or b4. Here, he has a choice - to open the position with Al) 4 exd4, or to try a move, which is more typical for similar set-ups A2) •••

4

•••

c!Dd7.

About 4 . . .ig7 S.dxeS - see Chapter 13, variation A. 4 .. .tbc6 S.dS lbce7 (S . . . lbd4 6. ie3 ig7 7.lbge2 - see Chapter 13, variation 82) 6.g4 ig7 7.ie3 see Chapter 13, variation 81.

The routine move 6 . . . ig7? los­ es immediately after 7.e5 Ve7 (7 . . . dxeS 8.'�xd8+ 'it>xd8 9.lbd5 lbbd7 10.0-0-0+- and Black suffers huge material losses) 8.lbd5 dxeS 9.Vh4 lbxdS 10 .he7 lbxe7, Ste­ fansson - C.Hansen, Moscow 1989, ll.id3+- and Black's two minor pieces and a pawn are obvi­ ously insufficient to compensate the missing queen.

7.f4 White has created the threat e4-e5.

7 h6 •••

The inclusion of this move is useful.

8 .th4 •

Al) 4

•••

exd4 5.Vxd4

Black cannot exploit now his opponent's early queen-sortie due to the vulnerability of the a1-h8 diagonal.

s

•••

.!Df6 6 .tgs •

(diagram)

6

•••

c!Dbd7

This move is forced and Black cannot win a tempo attacking White's queen with the move lbc6.

8 . . . .tg7 161

Chapter 12 It is also possible for Black to try 8 . . . c5, in order to get rid of the unpleasant pin. At first, he weak­ ens his pawn-structure and after 9.,�M3, he sacrifices a pawn in the spirit of the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defence. 9 . . . g5. Black will soon regain the sacrificed pawn, but the weaknesses in his position will remain for long. 10 .fxg5 lt:Jg4 (following 10 . . . lt:Je5 11.Wid2 tt:Jh7 12.lt:Jf3 tt:Jxg5, White can simplify advantageously the position with 13.lt:Jxe5 dxe5 14. W!xd8+ 'tt>xd8 15.0-0-0+ 'tt> c7 16. ig3 ig7 17.EM5± and Black loses one of his pawns, Bente - Sulskis, Warsaw 2005) ll.lt:Jf3 tt:Jde5 12. Wld2 ie7 13.0-0-0 ie6 14.lt:Jb5 hxg5 15.�g3 f6 16.b3 tt:Jt7 17.�e2 Wlb6 18.h3 tt:Jge5 19.lt:Jxe5 dxe5, Hort - Hickl, Bad Neuenahr 1991. Now, White must exploit one of the main drawbacks of the move 8 . . . c5 and transfer his knight to the d5-outpost: 20 .lt:Jc3 ! W!a5 21. Wfe3 lt:Jd6 2 2 .�g4 !± - Here, no matter whether Black exchanges on g4, or retreats with his bishop to t7, the vulnerability of the light squares in his camp will be hurt­ ing him. The point is that White's knight can always go to d5, while Black's knight can hardly occupy the d4-square, because White's pawns on c4 and e4 are covering its way towards that key outpost. It would be too slow for Black to try 8 . . . c6? ! , because after 9.00-0 ie7 10.e5 dxe5 ll.fxe5 lt:Jh7, his forces are discoordinated and 162

White can begin decisive actions. 12 .e6 lt:Jdf6, Alburt - D.Gurevich, Newark 1995, 13.\We5 ! This is a good example of centralization ! 13 . . . \Wb6 14.lt:Jf3 0-0 15.ext7+ Ei:xt7 16.�d3 g5 17.�g3± Black's castling position is horribly weak­ ened and White's pieces have oc­ cupied much more active posi­ tions.

9.lilf3 0-0 10.0-0-0

10 Yfe8 ll.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 c!Llh7 13.i.g3 c!Llg5 14.c!Llxg5 hxg5 15.gel ti'e7 16.h4-+ followed by •••

h4-h5. White develops powerful initi­ ative on the h-fi.le and Black will fail to exploit the vulnerability of the e5-pawn.

A2) 4

•••

c!Lld7

This move, no doubt, leads to much more interesting positions than 4 . . . exd4.

5.d5 White is occupying space. (diagram) After the closing of the centre the fight is focused on the flanks.

5

•••

i.g7

l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lt:l c3

About S . . . lt:lgf6 - see volume 3 - l.d4 lt:lf6 2 .c4 d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7 4.e4 es s.ds g6. There arises an interesting fight, but still in favour of White, after S . . . aS 6.i.d3 hS, Speelman McNab, London 1992 (6 . . . .ig7 7 . .ie3 - see S . . . .ig7 6 . .ie3 aS) 7. .ic2 i.h6 8.lt:lf3 �cl 9.�xc1 lt:lc5 10.0-0t, followed by b3, a3, seiz­ ing the initiative on the queen­ side. About S . . . .ih6 6 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6 7.�d2 - see S . . .i.g7 6 . .ie3 i.h6 7.i.h6 lt:lh6 8.�d2 (Naturally, the number of the moves will be with one more, because White has lost a tempo for i.e3 and Black for .ig7.).

6 .ie3 •

He is planning to castle queen­ side, moreover that White's bish­ op will be very useful in the prep­ aration of c4-cS. (diagram)

6

•••

c!lJe7

After this move, Black pre­ serves the possibility to advance

f7-fS, but his knight will not be so active on e7 as on the f6-square. Following 6 . . . lt:lgf6 7.f3, there arises a position which will be an­ alysed in the next volume, with the move-order - l.d4 c!lJf6 2 .c4 d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7 4.e4 eS S.dS g6 6. i.e3 i.g7 7.f3 . In this position, the principled plans for Black include the trade of his "bad" dark-squared bishop. 6 . . . hS 7.�d2 .ih6 (7 . . . aS 8.i.d3 lt:lcS 9.i.c2 i.d7 10.lt:lge2 i.h6 11. 0-0 �e3 12 .�xe3 lt:lf6 13.f3 'it>f8 14.b3 'it>g7 1S.a3 lt:la6 16.!i:fb1 �b8 17.b4;!; Kraidman - Suttles, Sko­ pje 1972 . There has arisen a typi­ cal position for this variation in which White's space advantage and the possibilities for active ac­ tions on the queenside are much more important positional factors than the fact that he has a "bad" light-squared bishop, moreover that he can always get rid of it with i.a4.) 8 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6 9 . 0...,. 0 -0 aS 10 .i.d3 lt:lcS 11 . .ic2 .id7 12.f3 'it>f8 13.lt:lge2 'i!lg7 14.'it>bl;!; Olafs­ son - Haik, Thessaloniki 1988. 163

Chapter 12 White's extra space guarantees for him a slight edge. In the mid­ dle game, he can organise active actions on the kingside after h3 (depriving Black's knight of the g4-square) and f4, while follow­ ing the trade of the queens, on the queenside as well with b3, a3 and b4. 6 . . .�h6 7.ixh6 ltJxh6 8.W/d2 ltJg4 (The character of the posi­ tion would not change much after 8 . . . ltJg8 9.�d3 ltJgf6 10.ltJge2:l; and there arises the same position as after 8 . . . ttJg4, except that instead of h3, White had played the more useful move - ltJge2, Bachtiar Ciocaltea, Wijk aan Zee 1974.) 9.h3 ltJgf6 10 .�d3 hS 1l.�c2 h4 12.0-0-0 ltJhS 13.ltJge2:l;. White not only has more space, but leads in development too, so he must strive to open the position as quickly as possible, for example to play g2-g4 and after the exchange on g3 to double his rooks on the f-file, Bykhovsky - Neiman, Tel Aviv 2002. 6 . . . ltJh6. The plan with the transfer of the knight to f7 seems to be too slow for Black. 7.h3 f6 8.W/d2 ltJf7 9.�d3 ltJcS 10.�c2 aS ll.ltJge2 �d7 12.0-0-0 a4. It is possible that he had to refrain from this important pawn-ad­ vance, but even then, White's prospects would have been pref­ erable. 13.�b1 W/b8 14.ltJb5 0-0 15.ltJec3± - He only needs now to choose the right moment to ex164

change on c5 and to win the ene­ my a4-pawn, Sakaev - Chigvint­ sev, Smolensk 2000. Following 6 . . .a5, there arise positions which are more typical for the Saemisch system of the King's Indian Defence and in a very favourable version for White. 7.�d3 ltJcS 8.�c2 ltJf6 9.f3 0-0 10.ltJge2 �d7 11.W/d2 h5 12. 0-0-0 ltJh7 13.�b1 b6 14.g3 fS 15.exf5 gxfS. Now, he must prepare the pawn-break g3-g4 with 16.h3 ! , followed by E!dg1 and g4, after which the position is opened and almost all White's pieces join in the attack against the enemy king (He maintains an edge too follow­ ing 16.f4 ltJf6:l;, but Black has some counterplay due to the vul­ nerability of the e4 and g4squares Spraggett - Lacroix, Montreal 1978.).

7.g4

This is a standard strategical resource for White, which here is justified tactically as well.

7. . . 0-0

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 It does not seem logical for Black to choose 7 . . . lLlf6, because then, he will be able to advance f7-f5 only after the retreat of his knight. 8 . .te2 0-0 (Following 8 . . . h S 9.g5 lLlh7 lO.lLlf3 0 - 0 11.'1Wd2 .td7 12. 0-0-0±, White has obvi­ ously much more space and the pawn-advance f7-f5 and captur­ ing en passant will lead to the weakening of the g6-pawn for Black, Finegold - Calton, East­ pointe 1994.) 9.h4 lLle8, Gruen­ berg - Uhlmann, Leipzig 1973, lO.hS± White has seized com­ pletely the initiative on the king­ side. After the premature operation 7 .. .f5 8.gxf5 gxfS 9.'1Wh5+, Black will have to play 9 . . . mf8 (since af­ ter 9 . . . lLlg6 10.exf5 '!Wh4 ll.'!WgS .tf6 12.'1Wg3±, he will hardly man­ age to regain his sacrificed pawn, Huebner - Mohr, Germany 1990) 10.lLlh3 ! White's knight is headed immediately for the gS-square and from there it will control the super-important e4 and e6squares. 10 . . . lLlf6 ll.'!We2 lLlxe4 12. lLlxe4 fxe4 13.lLlg5;!; Black's extra pawn on e4 is absolutely immate­ rial, because White can regain it the moment he pleases. The placement of Black's monarch however, seems to be precarious, since there are still too many piec­ es left on the board.

9

•••

a5

After 9 . . . c6 10 .h4 cxdS ll.cxdS, in the game Velimirovic - Todor­ cevic, Bjelovar 1979, Black decid­ ed to sacrifice a pawn - 1l.. .b5. White refrained in vain from the move 12 . .txb5;!;, because in that case, Black's compensation would have been insufficient.

10.h4 .!Llc5 ll.'!Wd2 .td7 12 0-0-0 .!Llc8 13.h5-+ followed by •

'!Wh2 and actions on the h-file, La­ hner - Nehybka, Brno 2004. If Black decides at some moment to play f5-f4, then White will simply exchange on cS and follow that with .ih3, achieving the favoura­ ble trade of the light-squared bishops and preserving all the pluses of his position.

B) 2 .tg7 3.e4 •••

(diagram) Now, Black has a great choice of possibilities. His most popular move is 3 d6 and we will. ana­ lyse it in our next chapter. Here, we will deal with: Bl) 3 c6, B2) 3 c5 and B3) 3 .!Llc6. •••

8.£3 f5 9.g5

This move deprives Black's knight of the f6-square.

•••

.••

•••

165

Chapter 12 transfer his bishop to its initial c8-square. ll . . . e5, Petrosian Spassky, Moscow 1966. Here, White had to begin active actions on the queenside with 12.tt:ld2 f5 13.f3 f4 14.i.f2 g5 15.b4 a5 16.a3±, followed by c4-c5. His queenside initiative develops much faster than Black's counterplay on the opposite side of the board.

2.

About 3 . . . tt:Jf6 4.tt:lc3 - see part

I t i s just bad for Black t o play 3 . . . e5, because after 4.dxe5 .ixe5 5.tt:lf3, he must lose a tempo for the retreat of his bishop. 5 . . . .ig7 6.tt:lc3 tt:Je7 7.h4 ! ? h6 8.if4 d6 9.c5 ! t Yurtaev - Dzhumaev, Tashkent 2007. This is an ener­ getic and strong move. Black is faced with difficult problems, since following 9 . . . dxc5 10.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 11.0-0-0+ .id7 12.tt:lb5 tt:J a6 13.tt:le5 ixe5 14 ..ixe5 E!:e8 15 . .if4 h5 16 . .ic4±, White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. He has two powerful bishop and Black's pieces are dis­ coordinated. On top of this, his king is endangered, despite the fact that it is an endgame. Black would not equalise if he fianchettoes his second bishop: 3 . . . b6 4.tt:lc3 .ib7 5.tt:lf3 d6 6.i.e2 tt:ld7 7. 0-0 e6 8.i.e3 tt:Je7 9.�c2 h6 10.E!:ad1 0-0 ll.d5 ! This is the point! Now, Black's bishop on b7 will be restricted by White's pawn and the best that Black can do is 166

Bl) 3

•••

c6

Black plays this move only very seldom. He wishes to ad­ vance d7-d5.

4.c!Oc3 d5 About 4 . . . d6 5.i.e2 - see Chap­ ter 13, 4 . . . c6.

5.e5 ! ? I t i s worse for White to play e4-e5 after a preliminary ex­ change on d5, because then Black's knight will gain access to the c6-square. There arises transposition to the Panov attack of the Caro­ Kann Defence following 5.exd5

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 cxd5 6.cxd5 (It would be too risky for White to accept the pawn-sac­ rifice after 6.'Llxd5, since in the variation 6 . . . e6 7.Vf/e2 'Llc6�, he will have problems to protect his pawn on d4 and his queen on e2 would impede the development of his kingside pieces.) 6 . . . 'Llf6.

5

. • •

.!L!h6

Black prepares to castle and to create counterplay against White's centre with the move t7f6. The position is difficult for Black following 5 . . . dxc4 6 . .bc4 'Llh6 7.h3 'Llf5 8.'Llf3 b5 9 . .ib3 h5, Hart - Cardoso, Las Palmas 1975, 10. 0-0± - he can hardly exploit the weakness of White's d4-pawn. The pawn-advance has only led to the weakening of Black's c6-pawn and the c5-square and White's knight can go there along the route 'Llc3-e4-c5. Black cannot equalise with 5 . . . .ie6. After 6.cxd5 hd5 7.'Llge2 'Llh6, the best for White is 8.'Llf4 ! ? (although even after 8.'Llxd5 Vf/xd5 9.'Llc3 Vf/d7 10 . .ic4;t, his two bish­ ops and the more actively devel­ oped pieces compensate with an interest the vulnerability of White's d4-pawn, Olafsson - Car­ doso, Las Palmas 1975) 8 . . . 0-0 9 ..id3 e6 10. 0-0± Black's pieces are cramped and his knight on h6 is misplaced, moreover that the dark squares are very weak in his camp.

6.h3 With this move White pre­ pares the development of his knight on f3 preventing the pos­ sibility .ig4. Black's position is cramped and the exchanges of pieces are in his favour.

6

• . .

0-0 7 .!L!f3 f6 .

This move must be played im­ mediately. It would be too slow for Black to choose 7 . . . i>h8. After 8 . .ie2 dxc4 9.hc4 'Lld7 10.0-0 lt:Jb6 11. �b3 f6 12.�f4 'Lld5 13.lt:Jxd5 cxd5 14.exf6 exf6 15.Vf/d2 lt:Jf5 16J'Uel±, he will have problems with the development of his bishop on c8 and his other bishop is severely restricted by his own pawn on f6, Wojtaszek - Kuzmicz, Warsaw 2008.

8.exf6 exf6 9.�e2

9 .ie6 10.�b3 �d7 11.0-0 dxc4 • . •

This is the best for Black. The exchanges do not equal�se for him completely, but facilitate his de­ fence for sure. 167

Chapter 12 Following ll .. .lt:lf7 12 J�e1 tt:ld6 13.c5 tt:lfS 14.�f4 gS 15.�h2±, White has occupied space on the queenside and Black's kingside activity is much rather in favour of White, because the pawn-ad­ vances have only weakened Black's king shelter, Short Spassky, Zuerich 2001.

which will be analysed in our vol­ ume 3. In the majority of the cases White can transpose to favoura­ ble variations of the King's Indian Defence, for example: 5 . . . d6 6. tt:lc3 tt:lf6 7.�e2 0-0 S.igS.

5.c!lJc3

12 . .ixc4 .ixc4 13.ti'xc4+ 'fi!f7, Pinter - Okhotnik, Hungary 1999, 14.d5 ! ?;t White's pieces are much better prepared for the opening of the centre and the move f7-f6 has not only restricted the mobility of Black's bishop on g7, but has also weakened the shelter of his king.

B2) 3 ... c5

s ... es This is an attempt to keep the position closed. Besides this, Black has a great choice of possibilities. About 5 . . . tt:lf6 6.ie2 0-0 7. igS - see the Averbakh system (Chapter 11).

This move is in the spirit of the Indian Defence. Now, White's main task is to transpose, if pos­ sible, to the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence.

4.d5 d6 After 4 . . . b5 S.cxbS, there arise positions from the Benko Gambit (in a very good version for White), 168

Following 5 ... tt:la6, the best for White is to simply transpose to a favourable variation of the King's Indian Defence after 6.ie2 tt:lf6 7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see Chapter 9. 5 . . . e6 6.�e2 . Once again White is trying to transpose to the Aver­ bakh system. 6 . . . exd5 7.exd5 tt:le7. After this move, there arise origi­ nal positions (following 7 . . . tt:lf6, White achieves what he wants af-

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 ter 8.ig5 0-0 9.Wfd2 - see Chap­ ter 11, variation D) 8.tt:lf3 ig4 9.0-0 0-0 10.if4 tt:lfS ll.h3 .ixf3 12 . .ixf3 . He has the two-bishop advantage and extra space. Later, in the game Iljushin - Moroze­ vich, Krasnoyarsk 2003, there fol­ lowed: 12 . . . tt:Jd7 13.i.e4 tt:leS 14. i.xfS gxfS 15.b3 a6 16.!k1 tt:lg6 17.id2 f4 18.Wfh5;!; and White maintained a stable advantage thanks to his superior pawn­ structure. It seems a bit dubious for Black to try the move S . . . .ixc3+ . Naturally, the trade o f the bishop for the knight with the idea to compromise White's pawn-struc­ ture is well familiar. But here, contrary to the Nimzowitch De­ fence, the dark squares on Black's kingside have been weakened and this may become a telling factor in the future. 6.bxc3

About 6 . . . tt:lf6 7.id3 WfaS 8. Wfb3 - see 6 . . . Wfa5. 6 . . . e5 7.i.d3 WfaS 8.Wfb3. Now, Black should better refrain from active actions and try to complete his development as quickly as possible. He will preserve then a

slightly inferior, but still defensi­ ble position. His attempt to con­ tinue in an active fashion with 8 . . . fS? ! Duppel - V.Georgiev, Ger­ many 2001, could have led to a very difficult position for him fol­ lowing 9.exf5 ! White has two bishops, so he should strive to open the game. 9 . . .gxf5 10.tt:lh3 tt:Jf6 11.0-0 h6 12 .Wfc2 . Now, Black is forced to play 12 . . . e4, after which White's knight gains access to the wonderful f4-square. 13. .ie2 tt:lbd7 14.tt:lf4 tt:le5 15.tt:lh5! Af­ ter this move Black's monarch will not be able to castle and will remain for long in the centre of the board. 15 . . . tt:Jxh5 16 . .ixh5+ 'k!;>d8 17.i.f4± White's two bishops are powerful force. It is under­ standable that without having completed his development and with a king stranded in the centre, Black should not be greedy to win material. After 17 . . . tt:Jxc4? 18.Wfb3 tt:leS (18 . . . b5 19.a4+-) 19 ..ixe5 dxeS 20 .d6+-, despite the extra pawn, Black's position seems to be completely hopeless. He is in­ capable of parrying White's threats Wff7, or WfdS and WfeS. 6 . . . Wfa5 7.Wfb3 tt:lf6 (It seems too dangerous for Black to opt for 7 . . .f5? ! 8.exf5 .ixfS 9.tt:le2 tt:la6 10. tt:lg3 i.d7 ll.id3 0-0-0 12.0-0 tt:Jc7 13.E:e1 Wfa6 14.E:bl± and his e7-pawn is weak, while White's pieces are very active, Yermolin­ sky - Tate, Chicago 2008.) 8.id3 tt:Jbd7 9.tt:lf3 0-0 10.0-0;!; White has doubled pawns indeed, but his two bishops (particularly the 169

Chapter 12 dark-squared bishop, which has no opponent and is very power­ ful) make us evaluate the position in his favour, Zeller - Kekelidze, Germany 1997.

6.h4!?

This i s a n already familiar idea in the King's Indian Defence. Now, Black must either play hS, which would weaken the gS­ square, or allow h4-h5, but after g6-g5 and g2-g4, he would not be able to advance f7-f5.

7.J.e2 h6 Following 7 . . . h5, White ob­ tains an advantage after 8.�g5 'Llbd7 9.'1Wd2 a6 10.f3 'Llf8. His bishop on e2 and the pawn on f3 deprive his knight on g1 from its usual squares for development. Therefore, White transfers it to f2 , via the h3-square, and from there it can support the kingside pawn-break (g2-g4). ll.'Llh3 'Ll8h7 12 .�e3 �d7 13.'Llf2;!; Dorfman Spielmann, Gonfreville 2006. The threat g2-g4 is very unpleasant for Black. If he decides to advance b7-b5, White should better re­ frain from active actions on the kingside and begin the realisation of his extra pawn.

8.h5 g5 9.g4

6 ... tl:lf6 6 . . . h5 7.'Llf3. White's knight is headed for the gS-square. 7 . . . 'Llf6 8.tt:lg5 'Llh7 9.'Llxh7 Ei:xh7 10.�e2;!; Karpov - Kober, Germany (simul) 2004. Black has managed to get rid of the enemy knight on gS, but has lost plenty of time doing this. White has extra space and after castling queenside will have the possibility to attack on the queen­ side (a2-a3, b2-b4), as well as on the kingside (g2-g3, f2-f4). Black is doomed to a long and passive defence. 170

Now, f7-f5 has become impos­ sible for Black and he will have to defend passively to the end of the game.

9 . . . tl:la6 10.a3 tl:lc7 ll.b4 b6 12.f3 tl:lh7 13.gb1 0-0 14.J.e3 J.d7 15.tl:lh3 ti'c8 16.tl:lf2 ti'a6 17.gb3 gfbs 18.0-0 ti'cs 19.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 'led2 i.f6 20.gfbl i.d8 21.'leb2 ltla6 22.ltld3 ltlf8 23.ltlb5± and

in the game S.Atalik - Schorr, Boston 2001, White succeeded in realising his great advantage.

B3) 3

•••

ltlc6

This is an active move. Black is trying to create immediate coun­ terplay against the enemy d4pawn. Now, White must play very precisely.

4.ltlf3

This move seems more prom­ ising than the retreat of the knight to its initial position. S . . . lt:Jb8. The pawn-advance d4-d5 has forced Black to lose two tempi on moves with his knight. 6.ie2 lt:Jf6 (After 6 . . . e5, the sim­ plest reaction for White would be 7.dxe6 .ixe6 8.0-0 lt:Jc6 9.lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 10 ..if4 0-0 ll.'lec2 :Be8 12. :Bad1 id7 13.:Bfe1 h6 14.h3t and the extra space guarantees his ad­ vantage, Solozhenkin - Tusa, Helsinki 2002.) 7.lt:Jc3 0-0 8.0-0

This is the rare case when in this variation White must play lt:Jf3 so early in the game. The rea­ son is that Black has not played d7-d6 yet and cannot play .ig4. We will analyse now: B3a) 4 d6 and B3b) 4 e5. •••

•••

B3a) 4

•••

d6 5.d5

Otherwise, Black would have pinned the enemy knight on his next move with .ig4. (diagram)

5

•••

ltle5

Following 8 . . .e5, White main­ tains a stable edge with 9.dxe6 ! ? .ixe6 10.lt:Jd4, for example: . 1 0 . . . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 . . . .id7 1l . .ie3 . :Be8 12.f3 lt:Jc6 13.'\Wd2 lt:JhS, Rozum - Fedo­ seev, St Petersburg 2010, 14. 171

Chapter 12 ltlc2 ! ?;!;, he avoids the trade of pieces and preserves an opening advantage, because Black's posi­ tion is cramped) ll.i.e3 ltld7, Gleizerov - Rossi, Padova 1999. Here, after the simple move 12. f4 ! ?;!;, White would have seized the initiative. 8 . . . ltlbd7 9.i.e3 ltlcS 10 .�c2 aS ll.!!ad1 ltlg4 12 .i.d4 f6 13.h3 ltleS 14.ltlxe5 fxeS 15.i.e3 i.d7 16.i.g4± Black's bishop on g7 is severely restricted by his own pawn on eS. White has much more space and his minor pieces are more active than their black counterparts, Gritsak - G.Kuzmin, Swidnica 1999. 8 ... i.g4 9.i.e3 ltlbd7 10 .h3 i.x£3 ll.i.xf3 c6 12.�b3 Vfic7 13J%acU White has a slight but stable ad­ vantage thanks to his extra space and two powerful bishops, Jansa - Nikolic, Vrnjacka Banja 1978. Following 8 . . . ltla6 9.i.e3 i.d7 10.!!c1 !!e8 ll.a3 e6, Kiriakov Nisipeanu, Santo Domingo 2003, White can open advantageously the position in the centre with the line : 12.e5 ! ? dxeS 13.ltlxe5 exdS 14.ltlxd7 d4 15.�xd4 ltlxd7 16. �d2;!; - his two bishops are pow­ erful force in this open position. 8 . . . c6 9.h3 ! It is useful to re­ strict with this move the enemy bishop on c8. 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . ltlbd7 10. i.e3 ltle8 ll.!!c1 a6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.c5 dxcS 14.i.xc5 ltlc7, Yegiazar172

ian - Kalantarian, Yerevan 1995 . White maintains a stable advan­ tage thanks to his superior pawn­ structure. He only needs to play precisely, for example: 15.i.e3 ! ? ltlbS 16.ltla4± and the pawn o n c6 will remain a cause of permanent worries for Black.) 10.i.e3 bS 11. cxbS

Now, it seems rather dubious for him to opt for ll . . . axbS 12. dxc6 b4 (following 12 . . . ltlxc6 13. i.xbS±, Black has no compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn, Mokriy - Bezgodov, Minsk 2007.) 13.ltld5 ltlxc6 14.i.b6 Vfid7 15. i.bS !± He can hardly get rid of the pin of his knight without material losses. In the game Moranda Bartnicki, Gorzow Wielkopolski 2008, Black reacted rather care­ lessly 15 . . . i.b7? and this enabled White to inflict a tactical strike 16.ltle5 ! ltlxeS 17.ltlxf6+ i.xf6 18. i.xd7+-, Black's compensation for the queen is obviously insuffi­ cient. It is possible that instead of creating counterplay, Black had to continue with the solid move 1l. .. cxb5, but even then after 12. Vfib3;!;, White would have main-

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 tained his space advantage, the possibility to exploit the weakness on c6 ( ltlf3-d4-c6) and to play against the vulnerable enemy bS­ pawn - a2-a4.

6.�xe5 .txe5 Following 6 . . . dxe5, Black's pawn-structure will be compro­ mised. 7.ltlc3 ltlf6 8.ie2 0-0 9. ie3 e6 10.0-0 exdS ll.cxdS. He has got rid of his doubled pawn, but after the opening of the c-file, Black's weak c7-pawn will be at­ tacked by White. 1l.. .ltle8 12.!k1 ltld6 13.Wfd2 id7 14J��c 2 fS 15.f3;t, followed by the doubling of the rooks, Gause} - Kraidman, Gaus­ dal 1994. White has a clear-cut plan for his further actions - this is exerting pressure on the semi­ open c-file.

Or lO . . . eS ll . .igS h6 12 . .ie3 b6 13.1Mfd2 'it>h7 14.b4;!;, followed by c4-c5 and queenside initiative for White, S.lvanov - A.Eliseev, St Petersburg 2013.

ll . .ig5 exd5 12.cxd5 It is also good for White to choose here 12.exd5 ! ?;!; - the pin of the knight is very unpleasant for Black and he can get rid of it only by compromising his king's shelter with h6 and gS.

12 h6 13 .ie3 c6 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Wfd2 'it>h7 16.lUdl Wfe7 17J3acU White has an easy game •••

•

against Black's weak c6 and d6pawns, Gelfand - Svidler, Astana 2012.

B3b) 4 ... e5 7 .id3 .ig7 8.0-0 �f6 9.�c3 0-0 10.h3 •

It is useful for White to take the g4-square under control in or­ der to deprive Black of the possi­ bility to play ltlf6-g4-e5.

10

•••

e6

He does not lose time for the move d6 and advances e7-e5.

5 .ig5! ? •

(diagram) The purpose of this move is to provoke f7-f6, after which Black's pressure against the d4-pawn will be decreased considerably. 173

Chapter 12 13.0-0t Danner - Tabernig, Austria 2001. White has more space (pawns on c4 and e4 against a black pawn on d6) and has com­ pleted the development of his pieces. In addition, due to the placement of his pawn on h6, Black cannot castle kingside with­ out weakening it even further (hS or gS).

5 f6 ...

S . . . .if6. The bishop is mis­ placed here and the best that Black can do is to exchange it for White's bishop on the d4-square. 6.ie3 exd4 7.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 8 . .ixd4 d6 9.ltlc3t Kutzner - Lorenz, Ber­ lin 2012. White has occupied more space and in order to com­ plete his development Black will need to exchange on d4, after which his position will be prospectless. It is possible for him to opt for S . . . ltlge7 6.dxe5 ltlxeS 7.ltlxe5 .ixeS 8.ltlc3 h6. Unfortunately for Black, he cannot continue the game without this move. (It is bad for him to choose 8 . . . c6? ! , since this weakens the d6-square and White's queen is immediately headed there. 9.f4 ig7 10.'1Wd6 h6 ll.if6 h£6 12.\Wx£6 0-0, V.Ge­ orgiev - Appel, Germany 2001, 13.\Wd6± Black's position is cramped and he can hardly com­ plete the development of his queenside pieces.) 9.ie3 d6 10. '!Wd2 ig7 ll.!!d1 ie6 12 .ie2 a6 174

6 .Ae3 d6 •

Black is trying to obtain a com­ plicated position with his last move. It is also possible for him to opt for 6 . . . exd4 7.ltlxd4 d6 (Slow­ ing down the advance of the d­ pawn cannot be good for Black at all, for example: 7 . . . ltlge7 8.ltlc3 0-0 9.c5 ! ? b6 10.h4 ! This is an energetic and strong move White begins an attack. 10 . . . ltlxd4 ll.Wxd4 bxc5 12.\Wxc5 d6 13.\Wc4+ �h8 14.h5± - He has excellent at­ tacking prospects in a position with material equality, Lesiege Cazelais, Montreal 2003.) 8.ltlc3 ltlge7. Now, White can enter a slightly better endgame with a temporary pawn-sacrifice. 9.c5 dxcS 10.ltlxc6 ltlxc6 11.\Wxd8+ ltlxd8 12 .hc5t White has re­ gained his pawn and has the ini­ tiative in this endgame. He can complete quickly the develop­ ment of his pieces with 0-0-0 and .ic4. Black must still prepare castling queenside and solve the problem with his bishop on g7 which is restricted by his own pawn on f6.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .tg7 3.e4 7 .lL!h6 ••

Black's f6-pawn has deprived his knight of the natural square for development, so he wishes to transfer it to the f7-square. About 7 . . . exd4 8.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jge7 9.c5 - see 6 . . . exd4.

White should better not be in a hurry with his standard queen­ side play 7.d5 ti:Jce7 8.c5, because Black will trade advantageously the dark-squared bishops with 8 . . . .th6 ! 9.'1Wc1 he3 10.\Wxe3 fS 11.cxd6 cxd6 12 .-tbS+ , and can avoid the favourable for White ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops with the move 12 . . . c.!if8. The position is closed and the loss of Black's castling rights is not so important. 13.ti:Jc3 fxe4 14.\Wxe4 ti:Jf6 15.\We3 c.!ig7 16.!!d1 h6 17. 0-0 a6, Gligoric - Keene, Teeside 1972 . The opponents agreed to a draw in this double-edged posi­ tion.

It is bad for Black to opt for 7 . . . fS, since following 8.exf5 ixfS 9.d5 ti:Jce7, White maintains a considerable advantage by ex­ changing at first the light-squared bishops and then transferring his knight to the weakened e6-square. 10 . .td3 ti:Jf6 ll . .txfS ti:JxfS 12.ti:Jg5± Anreiter - Chouraqui, Email 2009. It is not good for Black to continue with 7 . . . .tg4, because af­ ter 8.d5 ti:Jce7 9.c5 .th6, White should not exchange on h6, be­ cause this will only help Black to develop his kingside pieces. It is much stronger for White to choose the energetic line: 10.\Wb3 ! he3 ll.fxe3± and Black will have problems with the protection of his queenside pawns. White is threatening to complete quickly his development: .tbS, 0-0 and depending on circumstances to begin active actions on the c and f-files. It seems purposeful for Black to try 7 . . . .th6. He exchanges fa­ vourably the bishops, . but lags considerably in development. 8.\Wd2 he3 175

Chapter 12

9.1Mlxe3 (It may be interesting for White to opt for 9.fxe3 ! ?;!; Do­ lenc - Malakhatko, Latschach 2012, he ends up voluntarily with doubled pawns, but has good prospects on the f-file and the pawn on e3 covers reliably the dark squares in his camp.) 9 . . . ig4 10.d5 lt:Jce7 (or 10 . . . lt:Jb4, Cram­ ling - Rustemov, Germany 2011 and after 1UkU, Black's knight on b4 will only help White to or­ ganise his queenside offensive: a3, b4, c5 and eventually �a6) 11.lt:Jd2. He is preparing f2-f4. This move is possible, since after the exchange on f4, Black's knight will hardly come to the e5-square.

on the f-file.) 13.ie2 he2 14. lt:Jxe2 �g7, Epishin - Zaichik, New York 1990. Now, White had simply to double his rooks : 15. 0-0 !k8 16.E!:f2 lt:Jh6 17.h3 E!:f8 18.E!:afl±. Black has no counter­ play. He cannot exchange on f4, because this will lead to the pene­ tration of White's knight to the e6-square. He can improve his position combining his kingside actions with the preparation of a breakthrough on the opposite side of the board: a3, b4. 11 . . . id7 12 .ie2 h5, Grigorov Azmaiparashvili, Kallithea 2009 (Black loses a pawn without suffi­ cient compensation following 12 . . .f5 13.f4 lt:lf6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15. exf5 lt:Jxf5 16.1Mlxe5± Banikas - Az­ maiparashvili, Beijing 2008.) 13. 0-0 lt:Jh6 14.f4 lt:Jf7 15.fxe5. This is the point. 15 . . . fxe5. Black cannot capture on e5 with his knight since he loses his f6-pawn. 16.c5±, followed by lt:Jc4 and the doubling of the rooks on the f-file. Black's defence will be very difficult.

8.dxe5! ? This i s a very practical deci­ sion. White is happy with a slight edge, depriving his opponent of any active counterplay on the kingside. (diagram)

8 . . . dxe5 11 . . . c5 12.f4 �f8 (The charac­ ter of the fight remains more or less the same after 12 . . . b6, Lerner - Zilberman, Azov 1991, 13.�d3±, followed by doubling of the rooks 176

8 . . . lt:Jxe5 9.lt:Jxe5 fxe5 10.�e2 �e6 11.c5 ! White is eyeing the weakness of Black's d6-pawn. 11 . . . lt:Jf7 12 .ig4. W e have already

l.d4 g6 2.c4 !g7 3.e4 side pawns with b2-b4 and c4-c5.

9.�xd8+ �xd8 The careless move 9 . . . tt'lxd8 leads to the loss of a pawn for Black after 10.tt'ld5 tt'le6 ll . .bh6± Friberg - Norberg, Sweden 2007.

10.0-0-0+ .id7 ll.h3 mentioned numerous times in this book that the trade of the light-squared bishops in positions of the King's Indian type is almost always in favour of White. 12 . . . .bg4 13.�xg4 0-0, Riegler Mehlhorn, Saarbruecken 2009, 14.0-0t He has remained with a "good" bishop and prospects to attack the vulnerable enemy d6pawn. In addition, after the ex­ change on d6, White's knight will gain permanent access to the wonderful dS-outpost. Following 8 . . . fxe5, Black will have problems creating counter­ play on the f-file. 9.h3 tt'lf7 10.�d2 (It is also possible for White to try here 10.c5, beginning an attack against the enemy d6-pawn.) 10 . . . �e6 1l.�e2 �d7 12.tt'ld5t Korch­ noi Avrukh, Beersheba 1997. Black's knight on f7 and his bish­ op on g7 are very passive. White has much more space and his knight on dS is very powerful in the centre of the board, moreover that he has a clear-cut plan for further actions: 0-0, l'!fd1, l'!ac1 followed by advancing his queen-

It is essential to deprive Black's knight of the g4-square.

ll

• . •

c!LJf7

In the variation ll . . . 'it>c8 12 .c5 �e6 13.tt'ld5 tt'lf7 14.�c4t, followed by the advance of White's queen­ side pawns, he exerts rather un­ pleasant pressure in this end­ game. His centralised knight on d5 is very powerful and Black can hardly connect his rooks, Dziuba - Berger, Deizisau 2009.

12.c5 White frees the c4-square for his bishop.

12 �c8 13 .ic4 c!LJcd8 14. b4 .ie6 15.c!lJd2 c6 16. �c2 .ixc4 •••

•

177

Chapter 12 17.loxc4;!; - his position is much easier to play, Roiz - Hauchard, Biel 2010. Later, White can ad-

vance his a and b-pawns, or pre­ pare the penetration of his rook to d7 and the knight to d6.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of Black's attempts to avoid entering the Modern Defence on his moves 2 and 3. White obtains an advantage in all the variations, but his play is not so simple at all. There are many intricacies in these positions and there may arise transposi­ tions to numerous other openings. In general, we have to mention that is is not advantageous for White to develop early his knight to the f3-square, because this will enable Black to exert pressure against the d4-square with the move ig4, or to transpose to the King's Indian Defence, avoiding the Averbakh system. The only exception is the move 3 . . . 'Llc6, because in this variation White plays 4.'Llf3, but after 4 . . . d6, he must advance immediately S.dS, with­ out waiting for Black to pin his knight with the move S . . . ig4.

178

Chapter 13

l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6

About 4 . . . c5 S.dS - see Chap­ ter 12, variation 82.

In this chapter we will analyse this elastic move with which Black preserves many possibilities. There arise various, some even rather unusual positions after it between complicated King's Indi­ an middle games up to various endgames.

4.�c3 After this natural move (White is again not in a hurry to develop his knight to f3.), we will analyse three basic moves for Black: A) 4 . . . e5, B) 4 . . . �c6 and C) 4 . . . �d7, but before that we will deal with some other possibilities for him. After 4 . . . tt'lf6 S.ie2 , there aris­ es the King's Indian Defence.

4 . . .f5. Without the move e7-e5, played beforehand, this pawn-ad­ vance does not seem good for Black. S.exfS i.x£5 6.tt'lf3 (This move is more reliable than the pawn-sacrifice 6 . .id3, although even then, White obtains a better game following 6 . . . .hd4 7.-hfS .hc3+ 8.bxc3 gxfS 9.'\WhS+ '>!
Chapter 13 immediately, Black's knight on fS would have exerted rather un­ pleasant pressure against White's d4-pawn. 8 . . . .hh6 9 . .hf5 E:xfS 10.0-0 'Lld7 1l.Ei:el± Now, you can see the results of the premature pawn-advance f7-f5 - Black's king is vulnerable, his e7-pawn is backward and if White's knight comes to the e6-square, Black's position would turn into strategi­ cally hopeless. 4 . . . c6. This is a flexible move and White's best reaction against it would be S.ie2

Now, after S . . . 'Llf6 6.ig5, there arises the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence and not under the best version for Black. After s . . . a6 6.ig5 ! ? 'Llf6 7.�d2 0-0 8.Ei:d1, we have again the King's Indian Defence on the board. S . . . eS 6.'Llf3 ig4 (6 . . . 'Lld7 7.d5 - see S . . . 'Lld7; the endgame is worse for Black following 6 . . . '2Je7 7.dxe5 dxeS 8.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 9.i.e3 'Lla6 10.0-0-0+ 'it>e8 11.c5 'Llc7 12.'Lld2 i.e6 13.'Llc4± - he is faced with a rather unpleasant choice. He must either present his oppo180

nent with the two-bishop advan­ tage, or allow the enemy knight to occupy the d6-outpost, Gulko Blatny, Hawaii 1998.) 7.d5 'Lle7 (7 ... c5 8.0-0 .hf3 9.ixf3 'Lle7 10.a3 0-0 1l.b4 'Lld7 12.Ei:bU. In the arising complicated King's In­ dian middle game White has good prospects of developing initiative on the queenside, while it would be very difficult for Black to create counterplay on the opposite side of the board, because he has al­ ready exchanged his light-squared bishop, Bojkov - Svetushkin, France 2005.) 8.0-0 i.xf3 9.i.xf3 0-0, Leniart - Sieciechowicz, Os­ troda 2011 lO.igS h6 11.ie3±. White has extra space and two powerful bishops. s . . . �b6. Black wishes to or­ ganise counterplay against the enemy pawn on d4 with this early queen-sortie. 6.'Llf3 i.g4 7.'Lla4 White must place his knight at the edge of the board in order to oust the enemy queen from its active position. 7 . . . �a5+ (7 . . . �c7 8.ie3 - see 7 . . . �a5) 8.id2 �c7 9.ie3 'Lld7 10.0-0 'Llgf6 (10 . . . 'Llb6 11. Ei:cl 'Llf6 12 .h3 .hf3 13.ixf3± and White has again extra space and a strong bishop-pair, Hernandez Onna - Martinez Duany, Havana 2008.) 11.'Llc3 0-0 12.'Lld2 eS (12 . . . .he2 13.�xe2 eS 14.d5± He has accomplished the favourable trade of the light-squared bishops and has occupied more space, Krizsany - Gueting, Lippstadt 1999) 13.d5 he2 14.�xe2. After the exchange of the light-squared

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4. tt:\ c3 bishops Black will have problems organising counterplay on the kingside. 14 . . . 'it>h8 15J'Ud1 c5 16. a3 a6 17.b4 �ac8 18.�abU Graf ­ Manolache, Germany 2008. White has more space and his bishop is much more active than its coun­ terpart. He has the initiative on the queenside and Black is forced to defend passively. After S . . . tt:ld7 6.tt:lf3 eS (Black can also transpose to the King's Indian Defence with 6 . . .tt:Jgf6 7. �gS 0-0 8.�d2 .) 7.d5 ! ?

vance f7-f5 (He will simply ex­ change twice on fS and will gain control over the excellent e4square for his knight.) and can patiently prepare an offensive on the queenside, Schlosser - Mov­ sesian, Baden-Baden 1996. 7 ... c5 8.g4 ! ? The idea of this move is to impede f7-f5 for Black. 8 . . . h5 9.g5 a6 10.a3 tt:le7 11.b4 b6 12.ie3 0-0 13.�g1;!; S.Atalik N.Gaprindashvili, Tallinn 1998. He has no counterplay and must wait to see what will happen with White's queenside initiative. Black's attempt to organise coun­ terplay - f7-f5, after exfS would lead only to the weakening of the g6-pawn and the e6-square. White can exploit this with his knight along the route tt:lf3-g5-e6.

A) 4 Following 7 . . . �c7 8.�e3 tt:Jgf6 9.tt:ld2 0-0 10.0-0;!;, there arises a favourable version for White of the King's Indian Defence. He has managed to play �e3 and tt:ld2 , while Black can reply neither with tt:Jg4, nor with tt:lhS. The position remains very in­ teresting and advantageous for White after 7 . . . �e7 8.�e3, for ex­ ample: 8 . . . tt:Jgf6 9.tt:ld2 c5 10.0-0 0-0 11.<±>h1 ! ? . This is an interest­ ing plan. White is preparing g2g4, in order to neutralise Black's possible kingside counterplay. ll . . . <±>h8 12 .g4 tt:lg8 13.�gU White is ready to counter the pawn-ad-

...

e5

This move has been often played by A.Morozevich and Sh.Mamedyarov. Now, White's simplest decision would be the exchange of the queens and the transfer to a slightly better end­ game. 181

Chapter 13 S.dxeS! ? �xd8

dxeS

6.fbd8+

In the arising endgame the main fight will be focused on the d4 and eS-squares. Black will de­ velop his knight along the route tt:lb8-c6-d4. White will try to un­ dermine its base with the moves f4 and tt:lf3.

7.f4 He must begin this process immediately, because after Black's knight comes to the d4square, White will be incapable of undermining it.

The position remains very pas­ sive for him after the super-relia­ ble move 8 .. .£6. Following 9.fxe5 tt:JxeS 10.tt:lxe5 fxeS ll.igS+ if6 12.0-0-0+ id7 13 .ie3 c6, Ro­ manishin - Dvoretzky, Leningrad 1974, White should better contin­ ue with 14 . .ie2 ! ? , for example : 14 . . . �c7 1S.E!hfU - his rooks have occupied active positions on the open d and f-files. Black lags in development and what is most important - his knight on g8 will hardly ever come to the d4square.

9 .te2 •

Now, Black has a choice be­ tween the passive tactics Al) 7 c!bd7, A2) 7 .te6, o r the more active treatment - A3) 7 c!bc6. •••

9

•••

f6

•••

•••

9 . . . �e8 10.0-0

About 7 ... c6 8.tt:lf3 tt:Jd7 9 ..ie2 - see 7 . . . tt:ld7.

Al) 7 c!bd7 This move has a definite draw­ back. Now, Black's bishop on c8 with have problems entering the actions. •••

8.c!bf3 c6 182

10 . . .f6 1l.g3. Now, White is not

l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6 4. l2J c3 afraid of the exchange on f4, be­ cause he will simply recapture with his g3-pawn. ll . . . l2Jh6 12. Wg2 l2Jf7 13.ie3 if8 (13 . . . i.h6, Rogers - Krasenkow, Birming­ ham 2006, 14J:!adU White has slightly more space and Black must still manage to develop his queenside pieces.) 14.E:ad1 icS 1S.i.c1 We7 16.a3 aS 17.l2Ja4 id6 18.ie3;!; White's position is much easier to play and Black's defence is not easy at all, for example after 18 . . . l2Jd8?, as it was played in the game Lund - Andreasen, Balle­ rup 2009, White could have ob­ tained a decisive advantage im­ mediately with the line: 19.fxe5 tDxeS 20.E:xd6 Wxd6 2l.E:d1+ We7 2 2 .l2Jb6 E:b8 23 .ic5+ We6 24. id6+10 ... l2Je7 ll.i.d2 exf4 12.i.xf4 lDcS, Tal - Klaric, Sochi 1977, 13. ie3 l2Je6 (It would be too risky for Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice - 13 . . . ixc3? ! 14.bxc3 l2Jxe4 15. i.d3 fS 16.1"!:ael±, since after i.d4, White regains the material and Black's king, deprived of its cas­ tling rights, will be an easy prey for White's rooks in the centre, despite the fact that it is already an endgame.) 14.E:aeU. If Black had the possibility to castle, his chances would not nave been worse at all due to the vulnerabil­ ity of White's e4-pawn. Now, as it is the case, Black can hardly con­ nect his rooks.

10.0-0 ttlh6 ll.fxe5 It is essential to exchange there before the appearance of

Black's knight o n the f7-square.

ll

•••

ttlxe5 12.ttlxe5 fxe5

13.ie3 �e8 14.gadl gf8 15.gfeU White has a superior de­

velopment, while Black's knight is still too far from the key-square in this position - d4, Tal - Kagan, Tel Aviv 1990.

A2) 7 ie6 •••

This is a rather vulnerable placement for Black's bishop.

8.ttlf3 ttld7 About 8 . . . l2Jc6 9.i.e3. - see 7 . . . l2Jc6.

9.ttlg5!? 183

Chapter 13 Naturally, after an exchange on e6, White will not only obtain the two-bishop advantage, but will attack Black's weak pawn.

activity of White's pieces. With his last move he has prepared c4c5, in order to develop his bishop to an active position - c4. 17 . . . .tf8 18.c5 ctle7 19.ic4 gds 20.g4 gxd1 21.gxdl± and Black's position is very difficult due to the unfavour­ able placement of his knight at the edge of the board, Piket Azmaiparashvili, Montecatini Terme 2000.

10.f5! ?

9

.••

h6

9 .. .lt:le7 10.g3 ! ? The bishop cannot run away from the e6square, so White does not need to be in a hurry to exchange it. 10 . . . h 6 11.tt'lxe6+ fxe6 12 .ih3± - He has two powerful bishops, while Black must worry about his weak e6-pawn, AI Khaja - Jasim, Abu Dhabi 2002. Besides the move in the text, he has tried in practice 9 . . . tt'lh6 10 .ie2 c6 11.0-0 ctle7 12 .h3 exf4 (after 12 . . .f6 13 .tt'lxe6 c!lxe6 14.f5;!;, White has extra space and the two-bishop advantage, while Black can hardly exploit the weak­ ening of the d4-square, Strating - Hartoch, Haarlem 2005.) 13. hf4 tt'leS 14J'!ad1 f6 1S.ixe5 fxeS 16.tt'lxe6 c!lxe6 17.tt'la4. There are bishops of opposite colours pre­ sent on the board, but it is very difficult for Black to neutralise the 184

This i s a tactical decision for White, but he could have played simpler - 10.tt'lxe6+ fxe6 ll.g3;!; C.Hansen - Seul, Germany 2001.

10 . . . hxg5 12.hg5+ .if6

11.fxe6

fxe6

13.ie3 Naturally, he should preserve his two-bishop advantage. Later, in the game Buss - Bell­ ini, Switzerland 2009 there fol­ lowed 13 . . . ih4+ 14.d2 .!Lle7

15 .ie2 .!Llc6 16.gaf1 e7 17.g3 if6 18.h4 .!Lld4 19 . .idl gbd8 20.cH Black's knight is power­ •

ful on d4, but White's positional pluses - two bishops and the pos-

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4. lt:\ c3 sibility to create a passed pawn on the h-file make us evaluate the position in his favour.

A3) 7

.••

�c6 8.�f3

8 . . . h6 9.�e3 exf4 10.0-0-0+ �d7 11.�4 g5 12 .�g3 tt:lge7 13. tt:ld5;!; - Despite the vulnerability of the e4-pawn, White's prospects are preferable due to the powerful placement of his knight in the centre of the board and the unsafe position of Black's monarch, Petursson - Ivkov, New York 1988. 8 . . .f6. This is a solid, but pas­ sive move and we are already fa­ miliar with it with a placement of Black's knight on the d7-square. 9.�e3 �e6 10.E:d1+ 'it>c8 ll.�e2 tt:lh6 12 .fxe5 tt:lxe5 13.tt:lxe5 fxe5 14. 0-0;!;. White has a superior de­ velopment and Black is incapable of exploiting the vulnerability of the d4-square, Vaganian - Mes­ tel, Skara 1980.

After 8 . . . ie6 9.�e3 tt:lf6, it is essential for White to play 10 .g3. Now, after an exchange on f4, he will be able to recapture with his pawn and will not have an isolat­ ed pawn on e4. 10 . . . h6 11.0-0-0+ 'it>c8 12 .h3;!; - He has covered reli­ ably the weak d4-square and his position is preferable thanks to his better developed pieces, An­ driuschenko - Banet, Email 2007. Black's attempt to increase the pressure against the d4-square with the move 8 . . . �g4 does not provide him with equality, be­ cause he lags in development. 9. fxe5 tt:lxe5 (9 . . . ixf3 10.gxf3 he5, Tarjan - Matulovic, Novi Sad 1975, 11.�e3;!; and White has the two-bishop advantage) 10 . .ie2 tt:lxf3+ ll.gxf3 ie6 12 .�g5+ i.f6 13.0-0-0+ 'it>c8 14.h4! ? (14.�e3 hc3 15.bxc3;!;. White's queenside pawns are a bit weak indeed, but he has two powerful bishops and maintains the advantage, moreo­ ver that Black lags in develop­ ment, S.Atalik - Skembris, Kar­ ditsa 1996.) 14 . . . h5 15.f4 �e7 16. tt:ld5 hd5 17.he7 tt:lxe7 18.cxd5;!; White's pawns have occupied the centre and his bishop is more pow­ erful than Black's knight, which is in a very passive position.

9.'it>f2 This move is very typical for this variation. Now White is not afraid of the possible double at­ tack by Black's knight and is wait­ ing for the exchange on f3. 185

Chapter 13 9 . . . c!Oxf3 9 . . . exf4 10.hf4. Black cannot exploit the vulnerability of his op­ ponent's e4-pawn, because he lags in development. 10 . . . tLle6 11. i.g3 i.d7 (following ll ... tLlh6 12. .id3 .ixc3 13.bxc3 f6 14J'!heH, White has two powerful bishops, while Black is behind in develop­ ment, so all this compensates with an interest the defects of White's pawn-structure, Peturs­ son - Nikolaidis, Athens 1993) 12. E:d1 'it>c8 13 . .id3 tLle7 14.tLld5 E:e8 15.e5t, White's pieces are obvi­ ously more active than their black counterparts. Later in the game Sadler - Ehlvest, Groningen 1997, Black failed to cope with the in­ tricacies of the defence and after 15 . . . tLlc5? ! , White could have in­ creased his advantage with a rather simple tactical strike - 16. tLlxc7! 'it>xc7 17.e6+ 'it>d8 18.exd7 tLlxd7 19 . .ie4± - The position has been opened and White's bishops have turned into power­ ful force. 10.gxf3

10 . . . c6 The endgame is slightly pref­ erable for White following 10 . . . .ie6 ll.i.e3, for example: ll . . . tLle7 (Black's defence would not be easier if he tries to compromise his opponent's pawn-structure with ll . . . exf4 12 .E:d1+ 'it>c8 13. .b:f4 .b:c3 14.bxc3 tLle7 15.i.g5 tLlc6 16 ..if6t - White's queenside pawns are weak indeed, but his position is still preferable, be­ cause he has two powerful bish­ ops, while the dark squares in Black's camp are very weak, Es­ tremera Panos - Sutovsky, Pula 1997.) 12.E:d1+ 'it>c8 13.tLld5 E:e8, Halkias - K.Georgiev, Athens 1998. Here, White could have ob­ tained a very promising position with a pawn-sacrifice: 14.tLlxe7+ E:xe7 15.f5. There might follow: 15 . . . gxf5 16.E:g1 .if8 17 . .ih3 fxe4 18.E:g8 E:e8 19 . .ixe6+ fxe6 20. fxe4t and he has more than suffi­ cient compensation for his mini­ mal material deficit. His rook is very active, while Black's pawns are weak and his rook on a8 has not entered the actions yet.

U.h4!? Black has not coordinated his pieces and White wishes to break his position on the kingside.

ll ... h5

After ll . . . exf4 12 . .ixf4 tLlf6 13.E:d1+ 'it>e8 14 . .id6t, Black will have problems to complete his development, while White has a 186

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 d6 4JiJc3 lb c6 S. i.e3 eS 6.d5 very simple plan to improve his position: f4, e5 and lbe4, Bercys - Wojtkiewicz, San Diego 2004.

12 .ie3 .ie6 13.gdl + rtlc7 14 .ic5 exf4 15 .id6+ rtlc8 •

•

•

This position was reached in the game Kiriakov - Tiller, West Bromwich 2005. White has a very promising pawn-sacrifice here: 16.lbe2 ! ? i.xb2 17.e5! He cuts of the possible retreats of Black's bishop. t7 c5 ts.gbl Ad4+ •••

19.lbxd4 cxd4 20 .id3 .id7 21. e6! i.xe6 22 .ie4± After the fall •

•

of his b7-pawn, Black's position will be nearly hopeless. This vari­ ation is a very instructive example of the power of the two bishops in the endgame.

B) 4

• • •

lbc6

Black increases the pressure against the enemy d4-pawn.

5 .ie3 •

5

•••

e5

(diagram)

This is a logical continuation of his opening strategy.

5 . . . lbh6. The transfer of this knight to the f7-square seems to be too slow. 6.f3 f6 7.i.d3 e5 8. lbge2 0-0 9.d5 lbe7 10.1Wd2 lbf7 ll.g4 c5 12.lbg3 a6 13.h4 .id7 14.h5± Shipov - Beglerovic, Dos Hermanas 2003. White's king­ side attack may turn out to be very powerful. If Black plays g6g5, then White will begin a queen­ side offensive and Black will have no counterplay at all. He cannot equalise with 5 . . . lbf6, because after 6.d5, Black los­ es too much time on moves with his knight. 6 . . . lbe5 (Naturally, he cannot equalise even if he retreats his knight to its initial position. Following 6 . . . lbb8 7.h3 0-0 8.lbf3 c6 9 . .id3 e6 10.0-0 !i:e8 ll.'!Wd2t, White has clearly better prospects in the oncoming middle game thanks to his superior develop­ ment and a space advantage, Bo­ nin - Fink, Philadelphia 2006.) 7.f4 lbed7 8.lbf3 0-0 9 ..ie2 e6 10.dxe6 fxe6 ll.lbg5 \We7 12.0-0 b6 13 . .if3 E:b8 14.\Wd2 i.b7 15. E:ae1 h6 16.lbh3t. White has extra space and Black's king shelter has 187

Chapter 13 been compromised, Tal - Chris­ tiansen, Wijk aan Zee 1982.

6.d5

Now, Black has a choice where to retreat his knight? We will analyse: Bl) 6 .c!L!d4 and • •

B2) 6

•••

i.g4 is not very sensible for Black, because after 8.f3, he will have to exchange the knights sooner or later. 8 . . . lLlxe2 (It is bad for Black to opt for 8 . . . ixf3?, due to 9.Vtla4+ i>f8 10.gxf3 lLlxf3+ ll.i>dl± and his pieces will not manage to at­ tack White's king, while in the middle game, his extra piece is obviously stronger than Black's two pawns, Agrest - Sulava, Biel 1997.) 9.ixe2 id7 10.c5;!;. White's queenside initiative develops much faster than Black's counter­ play on the opposite side of the board, Timoscenko - Rakhim­ berdiyev, Rijeka 2011.

8.i.xe2

c!Llce7.

Bl) 6

•••

c!Lld4

The retreat of the knight to the centre of the board cannot be good for Black, since White forces its exchange.

7.c!Llge2 c!Llxe2 Unfortunately for Black, he cannot hold his knight in the cen­ tre of the board, because after 7 . . . cS, White will follow with 8.dxc6 c!Llxc6 9.lLlb5 and Black will have great problems with the protec­ tion of his d6-pawn. For example: 9 ... i.f8 10 .Vtla4 i.e6 1U!d1 a6 12. lLlxd6+ ixd6 13.c5± and White will regain his bishop with his next move and Black will have to play the rest of the game being a pawn down. The inclusion of the move 7 . . . 188

8 .. f5 .

It seems rather slow for Black to opt for 8 . . . hS, because after 9.Vtfd2 ih6 10.0-0 ixe3 ll.Vtfxe3 gS 12.c5±, Black has accomplishes the favourable trade of the dark­ squared bishops, but lags consid­ erably in development, Miles Welling, Isle of Man 1995. It is just bad for him to choose

l.d4 g6 2.c4 �g7 3.e4 d6 4.tiJ c3 t:iJ c6 5. :ie3 e5 6.d.S 8 . . . CiJf6. He has waited for so long to develop his knight and now, he places it in front of his f7-pawn. 9.c5 0-0 10.cxd6 cxd6 11.0-0 CiJe8 12 .'1Wb3 fS

13.exf5 gxfS 14.f4. The ex­ change on fS, followed by f4, is one of the standard resources for White in positions of the King's Indian type and is aimed at the re­ striction of Black's kingside coun­ terplay. 14 . . . �h8 15.E:ad1 E:g8 16. �h1 CiJf6 17.fxe5 dxeS 18.d6± White's d6-pawn is very powerful and his pieces are perfectly coor­ dinated, which cannot be said about their black counterparts, Quinteros - Kotov, London 1977. 8 . . . CiJe7. This attempt by Black to advance f7-f5 under more fa­ vourable circumstances does not work. 9.g4 ! ?

This move i s the beginning of a standard plan of preventing Black's kingside counterplay. 9 . . . b 6 (After 9 . . .f5 10.f3 f4 11.:if2 hS 12 .g5 h4 13.c5±, White has an easy game on the c-file, while Black's kingside counterplay is nowhere in sight, Mellado Trivino - Garcia Castro, Burgos 2003; following 9 ... 0-0 10.h4 fS 11.f3 :id7, Kuthan - Todor, Austria 2011, 12 .h5 f4 13 ..if2 gS 14.c5±, White has again succeeded in de­ priving his opponent of his coun­ terplay on the kingside, so the rest of the game Black will have to ad­ here to a long and laborious de­ fence without any prospects of creating active counterplay.) 10.h4 h6 11.h5 gS 12 .b4 aS 13.a3 0-0 14.f3 �h7 1S . .id3 CiJg8 16. 0-0± Black must remain very passive and only wait for his op­ ponent to prepare c4-c5 and be­ gin active actions on the queen­ side, Bologan - Sanduleac, Ki­ shinev 2012. 8 . . . :ih6. Black gets rid of his "bad" bishop with this move, but falls behind in development even more. 9.'1Wd2 ixe3 10.'1Wxe3 CiJf6 11.0-0-0 '1We7 12 .g3 id7 13.f4t White has seized completely the initiative. He has more space and only needs to double his rooks on the f-file, Petursson - Barlov, Oviedo 1993.

9.exf5 Now, Black is faced with a rather unpleasant choice. No 189

Chapter 13 matter how he recaptures - his position will remain worse.

White begins a pawn-offensive and Black will have great prob­ lems finding a safe haven for his king.

10

•••

�d7 ll.h4 'We7

After ll . . . i.h6 12 .�d2 he3 13.�xe3 �f6, Nakamura - Shev­ elev, Reno 2002, 14.0-0-0±, Black falls behind considerably in development, while in the varia­ tion ll . . . tt:lh6 12 .h5± White seizes the initiative completely.

9

• . •

.ixf5

This move has a serious draw­ back. Black reduces his control over the key e4-square. 9 . . . gxf5 10.£4 e4 (It would be too risky for him to allow the opening of the position, being so far behind in development, for ex­ ample: 10 . . . tt:Je7 11.fxe5 dxeS 12. i.gS �d7 13.c5 0-0 14.�b3 �h8 15.0-0-0± White's pieces are much more active. Later, he ad­ vanced d5-d6 and won the game, Korchnoi - Bohm, Leeuwarden 1977.) ll.ihS+ . It would be useful for him to keep the enemy king in the centre of the board. 11 . . . �f8 12.0-0 tt:lf6 13.c5 i.d7 14. cxd6 cxd6 15.ie2;!; White has a very simple plan for further actions : 1Mib3, l:!c1 followed by operations on the c-file, while Black must worry seriously about the safety of his king, Chernin - Klinger, Austria 2008.

10.g4 190

12.c5! After this energetic move, Black's defence will be very diffi­ cult, for example:

12

•••

dxc5

He loses a pawn without any compensation after 12 . . . tt:lf6 13.g5 tt:lh5 14.ixh5 gxh5 15.�xh5±

13.c!Llb5! 'Wd8 14.d6! hb5 15.hb5+ c6 16.�c4 c!Llf6 17.g5 c!Lld5 18.hd5 cxd5 19.%\'xdS 'Wd7 20.0-0-0± White has regained the sacri­ ficed pawn and has a powerful passed pawn on d6. Black's king is

l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6 4. ttJc3 ttJc6 5. ie3 e5 6.d5 stranded in the centre of the board and is an excellent target for White's pieces.

B2) 6

•••

lt:Jce7 7.g4!?

8.ie2 0-0 9.h4 4Je8, Gruenberg - Uhlmann, Leipzig 1973 (9 . . . c6 10.h5 cxdS ll.cxdS \!;lfaS 12.f3 id7 13.\!;lfd2 !Uc8 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.4Jh3 a6 16.4Jg5± - his queenside coun­ terplay has reached its dead end and he is forced to defend pas­ sively, Konak - Chudy, Slovakia 2007) 10.h5 ! ± White has accom­ plished his standard plan of pre­ venting his opponent's kingside counterplay and Black is doomed to a long and laborious defence.

8.gxf5 gxf5 9.\!;lfhS+

White wishes to impede the thematic pawn-advance for Black - f7-f5.

7 f5 . • .

Unfortunately for him, there is no other way to organise counter­ play. After 7 . . . c5 8.id3 4Jf6 (Black lags in development and it would be too risky for him to sacrifice a pawn, because following 8 .. .f5 9. gxfS gxfS 10.\!;lfhS+ i>f8 ll.exfS 4Jf6 12.1.Wf3±, he can hardly regain it, Joseph - Earley, Email 1996.) 9.f3 0-0 10.4Jge2 4Je8 11.\!;lfd2 fS 12.gxf5 gxfS, Kormos - Tajti, Hungary 2008, 13.0-0-0 f4 14. if2 ih3 15J1hgU White has more space and excellent prospects on the queenside (a3, b4). It would be too passive for Black to play 7 . . . 4Jf6, since after

9

•••

lt:Jg6

He sacrifices a pawn and will have to lose plenty of time to re­ gain it in the future. 9 .. .'�f8. Black cannot equalise if he refrains from castling. 10. ih3. This is one of the positive moment concerning White's move seven. Now, Black can hardly avoid the trade of the light­ squared bishops. 10 . . . 4Jf6 11.'<Mlf3 f4 (It is also possible for hfm to continue with 11 . . . 4Jg6 and after 12.0-0-0 fxe4 13.\!;lfe2 a6 14 . .ixc8 191

Chapter 13 '?9xc8 15.'?9c2 b5 16.lt:Jge2 bxc4 17.lt:Jxe4 �b8 18.lt:Jxf6 .bf6 19. '?9xc4;!;, White's bishop is obvious­ ly more active than its black coun­ terpart, which is restricted by his own pawn on e5.) 12 .i.d2

This position was tested in two games of L.Portisch. In one of them Black played 12 . . . c6, which after 13.tt:lge2 hh3 14.'?9xh3 '?9d7 15.'?9xd7 tt:Jxd7 16.tt:lcU, led to an endgame in which White had a space advantage and a "good" bishop against a "bad" bishop for Black, Portisch - Minic, Ljublja­ na/Portoroz 1973 ; while in the other game Black continued with - 12 . . . h5, which did not change much the character of the posi­ tion. 13.hc8 '?9xc8 14.0-0-0 ih6 15.'?9d3 �g8 16.lt:Jf3;!; White again had a space advantage and a more active bishop, moreover that Black's king was seriously en­ dangered in the middle game, L.Portisch - Rey, Amsterdam 1967. 12 . . . a6 13.i.xc8 '?9xc8 14.'?9d3 �g8 15.tt:lf3 i.h6 16.0-0-0;!; Li­ berzon - Czerniak, Netanya 1975. There has arisen almost the same position as in the game Portisch 192

- Rey, Amsterdam 1967, except that instead of the move h5, Black had played a6. This circumstance cannot influence the evaluation of the position at all.

10.exf5 f:Yh4 ll.f:Yf3 tt:l6e7 Following ll . . . tt:lf4 12 .tt:lh3 hf5 13.lt:Jxf4 exf4 14.'?9xf4 '?9xf4 15.hf4 hc3+ (or 15 . . . tt:Je7, Psa­ khis - Ranola, Balaguer 1998, 16.0-0- 0 ! ?;!; and Black's com­ pensation for the pawn is insuffi­ cient) 16.bxc3 lt:Jf6 17.f3 0-0 18. �g1+ ig6 19.i.h6 �fe8+ 2 0 .'tt>f2± White has an extra pawn and two powerful bishops and the weak­ ening of his queenside pawn­ structure can only be small conso­ lation for Black, Canibal - Guen­ ther, Email 2005.

12Jbb5 ! ? I t i s always useful to deprive the opponent's king of its castling rights.

12 . . . �d8 13.ti'g2 ! White frees the square for his knight with tempo and from there it will go to g5 and eventually to the e6-square.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .tg7 3.e4 d6 4. 0. c3 13 .ih6 14.�£3 ti'f6 15. �g5! �xf5 16.h4 �ge7 17 .id3;t; •••

•

Acevedo Villalba - Bjazevic, Email 2007. White's pieces are more active and Black's king is stranded in the centre of the board. There followed: 17 .id7 •••

18.0-0-0 �c8 19. ti'£3 �b8 20.�b1 .ig7 21.�c3 ! h6 22. �ce4 �f8 23.�e6. Finally

White's knight has reached this key square. 23 �c8 24.c5 ! Af­ ter this move Black's position crumbles. 24 .ixe6 25.dxe6 •••

After this move Black will ad­ vance e7-e5 of course, but the weakening f7-f6 will tell in the fu­ ture. Besides this move, he has tried in practice some other possibilities: There arises transposition to the King's Indian Defence after 5 . . . 0.gf6 6.ie2, as well as follow­ ing s . . . c6 6.0.f3 0.gf6 7 . .te2 0-0 8.�d2 .

•••

�xe6 26.cxd6 cxd6 27.l!!hg1 .if6 28 .if1 1-0. Black is helpless •

against the threat .th3, after which he cannot avoid the mate­ rial losses.

C) 4

•••

�d7

Black prepares the pawn-ad­ vance e7-e5, avoiding the possi­ bility of entering an inferior end­ game.

5 .ig5! ? •

This move impedes e7-e5.

5

•••

f6

After S . . . cS 6.d5 h6, due to the weakness of the h6-pawn, Black will have problems castling (It seems preferable for him to trans­ pose to the King's Indian Defence with 6 . . . 0.gf6 7 . .te2.). 7.id2 0.gf6 S.�cl e6 9 . .te2 exdS 10.exd5 0.b6 11.0.f3 ig4 12 .b3 ix£3 13.ixf3 �e7+ 14.�£1. It is not dangerous for White to lose his castling rights, since he is better devel­ oped and the position is closed. 14 . . . 0.bd7 15.�c2 0-0 16.E!e1 0.e5 17.id1 �c7. This position was reached in the game Chernin Norwood, Marseille 1990. It re­ sembles a bit the Averbakh sys­ tem with 6 . . . c5 and 7 . . . e6, but here, White also has the two-bish­ op advantage and extra space. The plan for his further actions is also identical. He should advance his kingside pawn in order to cramp his opponent's position even more. 18.f4 ! 0.ed7 19.g4 ! E!ae8 2 0 . E!xe8 E!xe8 21.h4 0.f8 2 2 .g5 . hxgS 23.hxg5 0.6h7 24.�g2± Black's pieces are terribly cramped. 193

Chapter 13 S . . . h6 6.�e3 eS (He cannot equalise with the original attempt 6 . . . e6 7.g3 b6 8.�g2 �b7 9.ltlge2 ltle7 10.0-0 0-0 11.\!!l/d 2 mh7 12. f4;t. Black lacks space and after the careless response 12 . . . dS? ! 13.cxdS exdS 14.eS± White's ad­ vantage increases. He has good prospects for a pawn-offensive on the kingside and Black's bishop on b7 has lost its mobility with the appearance of his pawn on dS, Aleksandrov - Golovin, Voronezh 2011.) 7.dS ltle7 (Following 7 . . . ltlgf6 8.f3 o - o 9.\!!l/d 2 mh7 10. 0-0-0 ltlhS 11.�d3 ltlcS 12 .�c2 aS 13.ltlge2;!;, there arises a typical King's Indian middle game in which White has extra space and Black can hardly organise any ac­ tive actions. 13 .. .fS?! This move is just bad for Black. 14.exfS .ixfS 1S.ltlg3 hc2 16.\!!l/xc2 \!!l/h4 17.ltlxhS \!!l/xhS 18.hc5 dxcS 19.ltle4± White's knight is placed in the centre of the board and is obviously strong­ er than Black's bishop on g7, re­ stricted by his own pawn on eS, Petursson - Frois, Dubai 1986. This is a good example of "a good knight" against "a bad bishop".) 8.�d3 0-0 9.\!!l/d 2 hS 10.ltlge2 ltlcS 11.�c2 fS, Ionescu - Rakic, Berlin 1988. Here, White had to enter positions typical for the Saemisch system with the move - 12.f3 and there might follow 12 .. .f4 13.�f2 gS 14.0-0-0 ltlg6 1S.mb1 g4 16. ltlcl b6 17.ltld3 aS 18.ltlxcS bxcS 19.�a4;!;, then �c6, ltlbS, :Bc1-c3a3 and Black will have problems protecting his aS-pawn. 194

6 ..ie3 e5 7.c!Llf3 With a black pawn on the f6square, White does not need to be in a hurry to advance d4-dS.

7

•••

c!Llh6

Following 7 . . . ltle7, White ob­ tains an advantage with 8.dxeS fxeS (Black did not play well in the game Kirillov - Saigin, Riga 1961: 8 . . . dxeS 9.cS ! White intends to develop his bishop to c4. 9 . . . h6 10 .�c4 fS ll.exfS ltlxfS and here, he could have won immediately with the line : 12.\!!l/dS ! Vffe 7 13. c6+-) 9.ltlgS ltlf6 lO.cS. White's bishop is developed again to an active position. 10 . . . h6 ll.cxd6 cxd6 12.ltlf3 0-0 13.�c4+ mh8 14.0-0;!; and he has an easy play against Black's weak d6-pawn.

8.c5!? This i s a very promising pawn­ sacrifice. White is trying to exploit the disharmony in Black's posi­ tion and the vulnerability of the a2-g8 diagonal.

8 . . . exd4 This is the best defence for Black.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 :ig7 3.e4 d6 4. ttl c3 After 8 . . . dxc5 9.dxe5 c6 (Black loses immediately following 9 . . . fxeS? 10 . .ig5 ! ttlf6 11.�xd8+ �xd8 1 2 .l:!d1+ �e8 13.tt:lb5+- and he suffers material losses. The end­ game is very difficult for him after 9 . . . tt:lxe5 ? ! 10.ttlxe5 fxe5 11.�xd8+ �xd8 12.0-0-0+ id7 13 . .ic4 �c8 14J�d3 tt:lg4 15.hc5± - he has great problems with his de­ fence, despite the exchange of the queens, because White's pieces are tremendously active.) 10.exf6 �xf6 ll.!c4 tt:leS 12.ttlxe5 �xeS 13.�d2 tt:lf7 14.f4± White's pawns are advancing threateningly. After 8 . . . tt:lg4 9.cxd6 tt:lxe3 10 .fxe3 cxd6 11.ic4±, the material is equal, but Black can hardly manage to castle.

ll .ib5+ ! •

This is an important check af­ ter which Black loses his castling rights. u . . . mn

It is worse for him to choose ll . . . c6 12 .ttlxc6 bxc6 13 . .bc6+ .id7 14.�xd6 �e7 15.�xe7+ �xe7 16.ttld5+ �d6 17 . .ba8 �xa8 18.00-0± White's rook and two pawns are stronger than his opponent's two minor pieces, since Black's forces are discoordinated and his king is endangered. Following ll . . . �f8 12 .ic4 tt:lxd4 13.hd4 c6 14.0-0, White's compensation is more than suffi­ cient for his minimal material deficit.

9.c!Llxd4 c!Llxc5 10.b4 c!Lle6 The retreat to the edge of the board is worse for Black 10 . . . ttla6, because after ll . .ibS+ �f8 12. ha6 bxa6 13.ttld5 tt:lg4 14.:1kl±, White regains his pawn and the endangered position of Black's monarch will become the decisive factor.

12 .ic4 ges 13. �f3 f5 •

After 13 . . . �f8 14.tt:lxe6+ �xe6 (but not 14 . . . he6 15.he6 �xe6 16 . .ixh6 .ixh6 17.�h3+- and Black loses a piece) 15.!xe6 he6 16.0-0±, Black's compensation for the exchange is insufficient.

195

Chapter 13 14.0-0 i>g8 15 .!lJxe6 .txe6 16 .lxe6+ gxe6 17 .txh6 .txh6 18.exf5 g{6 19Jbb7 gxf5 20. .!lJd5;!; White has regained the sac•

•

•

rificed pawn and maintains better prospects. Black's king is vulner­ able and this might be an impor­ tant factor in the oncoming fight.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variations, beginning with the move 3 . . . d6 in the Modern Defence. In all the lines, White maintains a certain advantage. He only needs to know well the theory in order to find his way in the intricacies of the different variations. This chapter should help the readers to accomplish this task.

196

Parts 4 and 5 l.d4 d6

In the last two parts of this book, we will analyse openings which arise much more often af­ ter l.e4. The reason for this is that fol­ lowing l.d4 d6, White must play 2.e4 if he wishes to fight for the opening advantage and if Black transfers to the King's Indian De­ fence, to be able to continue with the variations which we have ana­ lysed in out previous volumes. Otherwise, for example after 2 .c4, Black would obtain a good game by playing 2 . . . e5, while after 2.lt:lf3 tt:Jf6 3.c4 g6, there arises the King's Indian Defence, but with a white knight on f3.

2 .c!bf6 3.tLlc3 ••

Here, Black has a great choice between different systems for development and after the most popular move for him in this posi­ tion 3 g6, there arises the Pirc Defence-Ufimtsev on the board. We devote to this possibility the fourth part of our book. -

•••

Black's attempts to avoid the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence will be dealt with in part 5. This book is intended mostly to suit the fans of the closed open­ ings ; nevertheless, the chapters 12 to 17 will be very helpful as well to the players w.ho like to begin their games with the move l.e4. 197

Part 4 The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 g6

This part of the book will be devoted to the Pirc-Ufimtsev De­ fence. This opening has been named after the Yugoslavian grandmas­ ter V.Pirc, although the Soviet master A.Ufimtsev has contribut­ ed greatly to its development as well. In fact, in some opening monographs you can see its name as "The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence". It has long gone from the section of the incorrect openings into one of the most fashionable opening systems. It has been tested even at the top level, including in the World Championship matches. Naturally, the initial moves of this opening have been tried in chess games even before V.Pirc and 198

A.Ufimtsev, but the attitude to­ wards this system was neglectful. When V.Harousek played this opening and lost the game quick­ ly, W.Steinitz commented "If you try such an awkward opening, small wonder that you lose the game.". Nowadays, it is a quite different situation. The Pirc­ Ufimtsev Defence is used by nu­ merous strong grandmasters : V.Kramnik, V.Ivanchuk, Sh.Ma­ medyarov, A.Grischuk, A. Moro­ zevich etc. As a rule, Black is not striving to equalise right after the opening, but to obtain a compli­ cated and not so well analysed po­ sition, even if it may be a little worse, but with chances of seizing the initiative.

4.i.e3

This move is considered to be one of the most dangerous for Black and quite deservedly so. White is preparing his standard attack: 1Mfd2 , 0-0-0, f3, .ih6, h4 etc. Meanwhile, he does not un­ cover his plans and depending on Black's replies, White can occupy the centre - f2-f4 (as a rule after the preliminary move h2-h3). The move 4 ..ie3 has been tried and still is( ! ) by numerous players and I would like to mention among them E.Sveshnikov and M.Adams, who have contributed greatly with their games to the de­ velopment of the theory of this variation for White. It seems less flexible for him to play 4.f3, since White reveals his plans a bit too early. 4.f4 ! ? This is also a very good move - he occupies the centre. To

the players who would like to study this move, I would like to recommend volume 4 of the se­ ries "Opening for White Accord­ ing to Anand" under the edition of A.Halifman. In Chapter 14 we will analyse the move 4 . . . a6, which is the fa­ vourite line of V.Kramnik. The basic arguments for Black - 4 . . . .ig7 and 4 . . .c 6 will b e dealt with in Chapters 15 and 16. It is worth mentioning that de­ spite the fact that as a rule White obtains effortlessly an advantage in the opening, but there arise very complicated and not so well analysed positions. Contrary to many other openings, Black has a great choice of possibilities. Therefore, White should study this opening very seriously.

199

Chapter 14

4

...

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 g6 4.Ae3

a6

V.Kramnik likes to play this move and this is in a way a mark of quality. Black is preparing b7b5, but contrary to the move 4 . . . c6, after the development to the b7-square, his bishop will not be restricted by his own pawn and will exert pressure against White's centre. Black's main replies 4 . . . .ig7 and 4 . . . c6 will be analysed in the following chapters. There do not arise original po­ sitions after 4 . . . l2Jg4, since follow­ ing S . .igS h6 6 . .ih4 .ig7 7.�d2, a variation is reached, which will be analysed in the next chapter after the move-order - 4 . . .i.g7 S.�d2 l2Jg4. 200

It seems rather dubious for Black to choose 4 . . . e5 S.dxeS l2Jg4 (It would be a disaster for him to continue with S . . . dxeS?! 6.�xd8+ <.!lxd8 7.l2Jf3 l2Jg4 8 . .ig5+ f6 9.h3 fxgS 10.hxg4 i.e6 1l.l2Jxg5± and Black did not have any compensa­ tion for the pawn, Bannik - Levin, Kiev 1964.) 6 . .if4 l2Jxe5 (The end­ game is worse for Black following 6 . . . dxe5 7.�xd8+ <.!lxd8 8 . .ig3 l2Jd7 9 . .ic4 f6 10.h3 l2Jh6 11.f4 .id6 12.l2Jge2 l2Jb6 13 . .ib3;!;, White has powerful initiative. He only needs to castle and deploy his rooks on the d and f-files and Black will hardly complete the development of his pieces. His king is in the centre of the board and is seri­ ously endangered despite the trade of the queens, A.Sokolov Milovanovic, Ulcinj 1998.) 7.�d2 .

l.d4 d6 2.e4 0.f6 3. !i:J c3 g6 4 . .ie3 a6 5.h3 White is preparing to castle queenside and to exchange the dark-squared bishops (i.e3-h6), after which he will begin an attack on the kingside. Black can hardly create any counterplay, since the advance of his queenside pawns will not lead to an attack, but to the appearance of new weaknesses in his camp. 7 . . . i.g7 (He cannot equalise with 7 . . . i.e6 8.0-0-0 0.bd7 9.h4 h5 10.!i:Jh3;!; - White will transfer hos knight to the g5square after which he will trade it for Black's bishop. The position is quite open and White's two-bish­ op advantage will become a tell­ ing factor, Kislik - Nagy, Buda­ pest 2011.) 8.i.h6 i.xh6 9.�xh6 0.g4 10.�d2 0-0 11.0-0-0 !i:Jc6 12.f3 !i:Jf6 13. g4--+ This is the be­ ginning of the attack. Black will have great problems to organise counterplay and his kingside will be seriously endangered. Later, in the game Tkachiev - Gagunash­ vili, Saint Vincent 2005, there fol­ lowed: 13 . . . i.e6 14.0.ge2 !i:Je5 15. 0.d4 �e7 16. g5 !i:Jh5 17.f4 0.c4 18.�f2 !i:Jb6 19.i.e2 !i:Jg7 20 .h4± Black's fianchettoed knight does not beautify his position and he will hardly parry White's threats - f4-f5 or h4-h5.

5 . . . c6 (The continuation of the roaming of Black's knight - 5 . . . !i:Jb6 leads to very bad conse­ quences for him after 6.0.f3 i.g7 7 . .id3 0.g4 8 . .ig1 d5 9 .e5 f6 10. �e2 0-0 11.h3 !i:Jh6 12 .g4± Hueb­ ner - Pfleger, Germany 1986. Black lacks space and his pieces have occupied passive positions. In addition, he has no counter­ play, since advancing c7-c5 seems to be practically impossible for him. In the meantime, White can prepare patiently an offensive against Black's monarch.) 6.e5 !i:Jd5 7.0.xd5 cxd5 8.0.f3 e6 9.i.d3;!; Mas - J.Garcia, Subic Bay 2009. White has more space, better de­ veloped pieces and can exploit the vulnerability of the dark squares in Black's camp (the consequence of the moves g6 and e6, which as a rule do not combine well togeth­ er).

5.h3 ! ? It would be too passive for Black to try 4 . . . 0.bd7 5.f4. It would be senseless for White to castle queenside, because the break­ through in the centre e4-e5, with a black knight on the d7-square, seems simpler and more effective.

This i s a "symmetrical" move. Indeed, if Black can afford a move with his rook pawn, White can do the same, can he not? He has tak­ en under control the important g4-square with his last move. Now, he can follow with a pawn201

Chapter 14 offensive on the kingside with the help of f2-f4, as well as with g2g4. In addition, Black cannot play now b7-b5 due to some tactical reasons.

5

. . .

1g7

This is the most reliable move for him. He wishes at first to com­ plete the development of his piec­ es and castle. There arises a passive but solid position for Black after S . . . lt:\bd7 6.lt:\f3 eS 7 . .ic4 .ig7 8.dxe5 dxeS 9.a4 0-0 10.0-0. White's posi­ tion is easier to play and his mi­ nor pieces are more active. 10 . . . W!e7 ( 1 0 . . .b 6 ll.Wid3 ! ? i.b7 12.E:fd1 W!e7 13.lt:\d5 lt:\xdS 14 . .b:d5 .b:dS 1S.W!xd5 lt:\f6 16.Wic6 W!b4 17. lt:\d2 ! ;!; - He has a "good" bishop against Black's "bad" bishop, which is severely restricted by his own eS-pawn and the pawns on b6 and c7, placed on dark squares, may turn into targets for attack in the endgame.) ll.Wid3 lt:\c5 12.lt:\d5 W!d6 (The evaluation of the posi­ tion remains the same after 12 . . . lt:\xdS 13.W!xd5 lt:\ e 6 14.E:fdU 202

White's position is preferable, be­ cause his pieces are more active, while Black must still think about the completion of the develop­ ment of his queenside pieces.) 13.lt:\xf6+ bf6 14.W!xd6 cxd6 15. bcS dxc5 16.E:fdU White's pieces have occupied the open d-file and the important a2-g8 diagonal. Black has difficulties with the de­ velopment of his bishop on c8 and his defence will be long and hard. After s . . . bs, White has the pos­ sibility to inflict a very unpleasant strike for his opponent in the cen­ tre with the move - 6.e5 ! Now, the h1-a8 diagonal is opened and Black fails to develop his bishop on b7. 6 . . . lt:\fd7 (The retreat of the knight at the edge of the board to the hS-square - 6 . . . lt:\h5, seems very dubious, since after 7.W!f3 E:a7 8.d5 E:b7, in the game Lech­ tynsky - Schou Moldt, Teplice 2012, White could have reached a winning position after 9.e6! fxe6 10.dxe6 lt:\f6 ll.g4+- and the threat g4-g5, would have forced Black to part with his knight. It is possible for him to try a line, which is however insufficient to equalise: 6 . . . b4 7.W!f3 E:a7 8.lt:\a4;!; and his queenside pawns are vul­ nerable and the a7-square is hardly the best for Black's rook.) 7.W!f3. The rook on a8 will be a cause of permanent worries for him. 7 . . . c6 (7 . . . lt:\b6 8.a4 b4 9. lt:\e4±; 8 ... bxa4 9 . .id3 .ig7 10. lt:\xa4;!; Markovic - Bogdanovski, Nis 1994) 8.exd6 exd6 9 . .id3 lt:\f6

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ti:Jj6 3. ti:J c3 g6 4. !e3 a6 5.h3 10.i.g5 1i.e7 11.�h6;!; White is ahead of his opponent in develop­ ment and Black's queenside pawn-structure is very brittle.

6.f4! This is the best move for White. He obtains a slight edge after the enlarged fianchetto of his bishop with 6.g4, for example: 6 . . . b S 7.e5 ti:Jfd7 8.!g2 c 6 9.exd6 exd6 10.ti:Jge2 ti:Jb6 ll.b3 0-0 12. a3 ! ? aS 13.0-0 a4 14.'1Wd2 �e8 15. i.gS Wic7 16.!f4;!;. In fact, Black should not complain, because he obtains what he wishes in the Pirc Defence. His position is slightly worse, but very complicated and he can try later to seize the initia­ tive.

6 . . . 0-0 Now, once again White can counter 6 . . . b5 with 7.e5 ti:Jfd7 8.Wif3 and Black must solve the problem with his rook on a8. (diagram) 8 . . . �a7 (8 . . . c6. This move is

too slow. 9.�d3 Wic7 10.ti:Jge2 i.b7 ll.h4 ! White exploits his lead in development and begins an of­ fensive. ll . . . ti:Jb6 12 .h5 ti:J8d7 13. hxg6 hxg6 14.�xh8+ hh8 15.e6 !± Black's position crumbles, Hra­ cek - Konopka, Pardubice 1998. The position is a bit worse but still defensible for him after 8 . . . ti:Jb6 9.�d3 b 4 10.ti:Ja4 ti:J 8d7 ll.a3 bxa3 12.�xa3 0-0 13.ti:Je2;!;) 9.�d3 b4 10.ti:Je4 �b7 ll.Wif2 �a8 12. ti:Jf3;t Goloshchapov - Murshed, Dhaka 2003. The centralisation of White's pieces is very impres­ sive, while Black lacks space. Still, White's achievement are far from being decisive. In the game, Black did not cope with his defensive problems and made a mistake 12 .. .f5? 13.exf6 exf6 14. fS±. It is understandable that he cannot play now 14 . . . gxf5? due to 15.ti:Jg3+- and White's posi­ tional advantage becomes deci­ sive, because after the capture with the knight on fS, Black's bishop on g7 becomes a "big pawn". (diagram) White develops his pieces and prepares e4-e5. 203

Chapter 14

He maintains an advantage even after the not so trivial move 7.'?9f3 ! ?, preparing castling queen­ side. 7 . . . e5 (Following 7 . . . c6, Black obtains a solid but some­ what cramped position, for exam­ ple: 8.id3 bS 9.tt:lge2 b4 10.tt:la4 tt:Jbd7 11.0-0 ib7 12.a3 aS 13.c3;!;. White is clearly better. He has ex­ tra space, a powerful pawn-cen­ tre, while Black's b4-pawn pro­ vides White with a target for an offensive on the queenside.) 8. 0-0-0 exd4 (8 . . . exf4 9 . .txf4 tt:lhS, Postny - Klenburg, Port Erin 2005. Here, he had to play 10. ih2 ! and after 10 . . . tt:lc6 ll.g4 tt:lf6 12.tt:lge2;!;, White would have good prospects on the f-file and a pow­ erful pawn-centre, which could not be attacked easily by Black.) 9.hd4 tt:lc6 10.i.f2 id7 11.ih4 '?9c8 12 .g4 bS 13.g5 tt:lhS 14.tt:ld5;t - It would be sufficient to evalu­ ate the position correctly if we compare the power of the knights on dS and hS.

7 b5 ...

Naturally, Black has played a7-a6 in order to advance b7-b5. 204

The most solid move 7 ... e6 leads to a very passive position for him. 8.id3 tt:Jc6 9.0-0 bS 10.e5 tt:ldS ll.tt:lxdS exdS 12.'?9d2;t In the game Djingarova - T.Vasilevich, Vrnjacka Banja 2005 Black de­ cided to get rid of the pawn on eS, which cramped his position con­ siderably, but following 12 . . . dxeS?! 13.fxe5 f6 14.exf6 hf6 15. c3 ie6, White had the possibility 16.a4 bxa4 17.l:!xa4± and sudden­ ly, Black's pawn-weaknesses on the other side of the board would become a telling factor. 7 . . . tt:lh5 This attempt by Black to exploit the weakness of his op­ ponent's g3-square cannot equal­ ise. 8.id3 (It is also possible for White to try the rather extrava­ gant move 8.'it>f2 ! ?;!;, using his king to defend the g3-square. This resource cannot be seen so often in practice at the beginning of the game, Zimmermann - Lubisch, Pinneberg 2006. I believe that Stenitz would have liked that move, since he considered the king to be "a very powerful piece".) 8 . . . tt:lg3 9.l:!g1 fS 10.exf5 tt:lxfS (Now, just like in the King's Indian Defence, Black should not trade the light-squared bishops, because after 10 . . . -txfS 1l..if2 hd3 12.'?9xd3 tt:lhS 13.'?9c4±, the vulnerability of the light squares in his camp can be noticed even by a naked eye.) ll ..if2 e6 12 .g4 tt:Je7 13.'?9d2;!; White has parried his opponent's knight-sorties and now, after castling queenside, can

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ttJf6 3. ttJ c3 g6 4. ie3 a6 5.h3 begin a pawn-offensive against Black's castling position, or attack the weak enemy e6-pawn with ttJgS and l:!el.

8.e5 ttJfd7 9.id3 ttJb6 10. �e2 ttJ8d7 11.0-0-0;!;

variation - Michael Adams in his game against Zhukova, Caleta 2012. White's pieces are perfectly mobilised and ready for the fight, while Black's pieces are a sorry sight. They are very passive and he obviously lacks space. There followed: ll ... e6 12.h4! White begins an attack on the kingside and Black will have great prob­ lems parrying it. 12 ib7 13.h5 b4 14.(jj e4± He has decided to trade his bishop for the enemy knight, in order to facilitate his defence, but this cannot help much. White's attack is develop­ ing effortlessly. 14 he4 15. •••

•••

This position arose in one of the games of a great expert in this

he4 d5 16.id3 c5 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.g4 l:!e8 19.�h2 cxd4 20.hd4 �c7 21.f5+-

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 4 . . . a6 in the Pirc Defence. It has been used once in a while even by Kramnik (but indeed, mainly in games with a shorter time-control, or in games where he had to win necessarily with Black). In general, White obtains rather easily a considerable advantage. Black's main problem is that having played a7-a6, he has great problems following this with b7-b5, because White has the powerful tactical resource - e4-e5 with the move �f3 coming next and Black fails to develop his bishop to the b7-square. If he is not in a hurry to play b7-b5, then White simply completes his de­ velopment and his advantage is doubtless thanks to his powerful pawn­ centre.

205

Chapter 15

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ll:)f6 3.li:)c3 g6 4.ie3 ig7

This move has been played nu­ merous times and by grandmas­ ters like V.lvanchuk, A.Beliavsky, V.Topalov, P.Nikolic, A.Khalif­ man and many others. It seems quite natural, does it not? It looks like if Black has played g7-g6, he should follow with �g7. Still, things are not so simple at all. The point is that after

5.�d2 White has a clear-cut plan for his further actions, connected with the exchange of the dark­ squared bishops after .ih6, fol­ lowed by castling queenside. After that, there often arise positions with opposite sides castling and pawn-offensives on the different flanks. White's prospects are pref206

erable, since he has more space and in many variations he can oust the enemy knight on f6 (pro­ tecting the h7-pawn) with the move e4-e5, organizing a crush­ ing attack against the enemy king This is the difference between this variation of the Pirc Defence and the similar types of positions, with opposite sides castling, aris­ ing in the Dragon variation of the Sicilian Defence. White does not have there a pawn on d4 (it has been exchanged there for Black's c-pawn). It is due to this reason that many players, who like this position for Black in the Pirc De­ fence, postpone the development of the bishop on g7 and prefer the move 4 . . . c6 - we will analyse this variation in our next chapter. we Now, Black has numerous possibilities. We will deal with:

A) 5 a6, B) 5 .loc6, C) 5 c!Og4, D) 5 0-0 and E) 5 c6. •••

••

•••

••.

•••

We will begin however, with the analysis of some less popular lines for him. I do not believe that the idea of P.Nikolic may find many follow-

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4. ie3 ig7 5. Wd2 ers - 5 . . . d5, Van der Wiel - Ni­ kolic, Tilburg 1988. White's sim­ plest reaction would be 6.e5 ! ? liJe4 7.liJxe4 dxe4 8.0-0-0;!; and the weakness on e4 will be the cause of permanent worries for Black in the future. The endgame is clearly worse for him after 5 . . . e5 6.dxe5 dxeS 7. Wxd8+ Wxd8 and now 8.0-0-0+ liJbd7 9.h3 c6 10.liJf3 We7 11.a4 liJe8 12 .ic4;t; Yevseev - Astashov, St Petersburg 2 005. White has a superior development, while Black has problems with the de­ velopment of his queenside piec­ es. If his knight retreats from the d7-square, White will have the rather unpleasant check - icS. 5 . . . liJbd7 6.ih6 ixh6 7.Wxh6

About 7 . . . c6 8.0-0-0 - see variation E, 7 . . . liJbd7. 7 . . . e5 8.liJf3 c6 9.dxe5 liJxeS (There arises transposition to variation E following 9 . . . dxe5 10.ic4 We7 11.liJg5 - see 5 . . . c6 6.ih6 ih6 7.Wh6 eS. Black preserves the pawn-symmetry in the centre and this is his most reliable defensive line.) 10.liJd4. His position is a bit

cramped and White avoids pru­ dently the trade of the knights. 10 . . . ie6 11.0-0-0 We7 12.\Wd2 0-0-0 13.f4 liJc4 14.Wf2 lt:Jg4 15. Wg3 liJge3 16.hc4 liJxc4 17.b3. White deprives the enemy pieces of the important c4-square. 17 . . . liJb6 18.Ei:heU - H e has much more space and his pieces are harmoniously deployed, which cannot be said for Black's pieces at all. In addition, the vulnerabil­ ity of his d6-pawn may become a telling factor in the future, Yevs­ eev - Sarakauskas, St Petersburg 2005. 7 ... c5 8.liJf3 cxd4 9.liJxd4 WaS (9 . . . a6. This move looks too slow. 10 .ic4 e6 11.0-0-0 liJeS 12 .ib3± Narancic, Solodovnichenko Banja Luka 2007. White has a clear advantage. He has a better development and is ready to be­ gin active actions after f2-f4, while Black's monarch is stranded in the centre. You can see the con­ sequences of the trade on h6 White's queen impedes Black's castling. We will encounter this motif numerous more times.) 10. 0-0-0 a6 11.WbU White has a superior development and his play in the middle game will be much easier, moreover that Black will have problems with his cas­ tling, Kharchenko - Andriasian, St Petersburg 2012.

A) 5

...

a6

He prepares the move b7-b5, but in anticipation of the attacks 207

Chapter 15 after the opposite sides castling, Black had better do that with the move c7-c6 (variation E), since now, he will not have the possibil­ ity to develop his queen to an ac­ tive position (after '!WaS).

6.i.h6

Black will have no compensation for the numerous pawn-weak­ nesses in his position.) 8.l!Jf3 cS 9.0-0-0 cxd4 10.E:xd4 '!WaS 11. i.c4 l!JeS 12.l!JxeS '!WxeS 13.E:hdU White's pieces are perfectly mobi­ lised, while Black's king still re­ mains in the centre of the board, Lupynin - Enescu, Email 2008.

7.0-0-0 b5 8.f3

6 ... 0-0 It is possible that Black should have postponed his castling king­ side. 6 . . . .bh6 7.'1Wxh6 l!Jbd7 (It is obviously premature for him to choose 7 . . . bS, because following 8.eS b4 9.l!Jce2 l!JdS 10.'1Wg7 E:f8 ll.l!Jf3±, Black's position is evi­ dently worse, due to his lag in de­ velopment and he has problems defending against the threat l!Jf3-gS-h7, Chandler - Jansa, Germany 1988. After 7 . . . eS 8.l!Jf3 exd4 9.l!Jxd4, it is not clear why Black has lost a tempo for the move a7-a6. 9 . . . l!Jc6 10.l!Jxc6 bxc6 ll.i.c4 '!We7 12. 0-0-0 i.e6 13. .be6 fxe6 14.eS ! dxeS, Yudasin Benegas, Ponferrada 1992, 1S. E:hel± White will regain effort­ lessly his pawn and after that 208

8 . . .b4 8 ... l!Jc6. Now, there arises a position, which resembles the Saemisch system of the King's In­ dian Defence, except that White's pawn is not on c4, but on c2 . This circumstance is in his favour, be­ cause he has an extra tempo for the organisation of his attack (In a position with attacks on the dif­ ferent sides of the board, this may turn out to be very important.). It is quite deservedly stated that "the chess game is a tragedy of a tempo . . . ". In addition, the pawn on c2 protects the king better than the pawn on c4, which is much rather a target for the organisa-

l.d4 d6 2.e4 CiJf6 3. CiJ c3 g6 4. i.e3 ig7 5. '?!! d2 tion of Black's counterplay. 9 .h4

In the game Badano - Kern, Arco 2011 Black played passively and was deservedly punished very quickly: 9 . . . e6? ! 10.hg7 'it>xg7 11. hS CiJxhS? He did not have to open the h-file. 12 .g4 CiJf6 13.'?!!h 6+ 'it>h8. Here, the fastest way for White to win the game was the move - 14.e5+-. Black loses valuable time with the move 9 . . . CiJh5? ! , because White can easily parry the threat of the penetration of the enemy knight to the g3-square. 10.CiJge2 eS 11.g4± - His attack is very powerful, Nijboer - Bjornsson, Reykjavik 1998. 9 . . . e5 lO.dS CiJd4 (following 10 . . . CiJe7 11.g4±, White's attack develops much faster) 11.CiJce2 . It is understandable that he must get rid of the centralised enemy knight as quickly as possible. 11 . . . c S ( 1 1 . . . CiJxe2+ 12.CiJxe2 E:b8 13. hs� and after the opening of the h-file, White's attack will become quite threatening, while Black's counterplay on the other side of the board is nowhere is sight, Tangatarov - Smagin, Dagomys 2009) 12 .h5 b4 13.hg7 'it>xg7 14.

g4. White's attack is very power­ ful. 14 . . . i.d7 15.CiJxd4 cxd4 16.CiJe2 E:c8 17.CiJg3 '?!laS 18.'it>b1 E:c7 19. CiJfS+ ixfS 2 0 .gxf5 W!a4 21..id3 E:g8 22.E:dg1 'it>f8 23.'?!!g5+-, his bishop has cemented quite suc­ cessfully the queenside, while Black's position on the kingside will be in ruins under the pressure of White's pieces and pawns, Preussner - Serov, Email 2007. It is rather dubious for Black to choose 8 . . . CiJbd7, because after 9 . .ixg7 'it>xg7, White has the re­ source lO.eS CiJg8, followed by 11. h4� Robak - Choroszej , Kolo­ brzeg 2007. His attack is very dangerous, for example : 11 . . . CiJb6 12 .h5 dxeS 13.'?!!e3 exd4 14.E:xd4 '?!feB 15.E:dh4 CiJf6 16.hxg6 fxg6 17. g4 'it>g8 18.i.d3 W!f7 19.E:h6 CiJbdS 20 .CiJxd5 CiJxdS 21.'?!!e 1 '?!!e 6 2 2 . W!h4+- and Black i s incapable of protecting his h7-pawn and his kingside position crumbles like a house built of cards.

9.CiJce2 c5 10 .ixg7 �xg7 ll.dxc5 'ti'a5 •

·

This interesting pawn-sacri­ fice enables Black to complkate 209

Chapter 15 the fight. Now, White must react very precisely.

12.cxd6 l:!d8 He should not be afraid of the move 12 . . . 'Wxa2, because follow­ ing 13.'Wxb4±, Black has no com­ pensation for the sacrificed mate­ rial.

against White's centre with the move e7-e5 and thus to deflect him from the oncoming flank at­ tack.

6.f3 This moves is forced. White must defend against the threat 6 . . .ti:lg4.

13.e5 White exchanges a central pawn for a flank pawn, but Black's queen is deflected from the a2square in the process.

13

•••

'Wxe5 14.Wxb4 tbc6

6 ... e5 This is Black's most logical re­ action.

This position was reached in the game Salzmann - Wyder, Email 2009. Here, White's sim­ plest decision would be to trade the queens: 15.Wc3! ? l:!xd6 16.

Wxe5 l:!xd1+ 17.c;t>xd1 ttJxeS 18. tbc3;!: and he remains with an ex­

tra pawn. He lags considerably in development indeed, but Black can hardly exploit this, because White does not have any pawn­ weaknesses in his position.

B) s ... tbc6

This is an interesting idea. Black wishes to inflict a strike 210

As a rule, there arises transpo­ sition following 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0-0 e5 8.tbge2 . Black can try to impede White's kingside pawn-offensive with the move 6 . . . h5 !?, but it has not been well analysed yet. Still, after 7.0-0-0 a6 8.'Jibl b5 9. l2Jge2 0-0 10.h3;!:, White's pros­ pects are preferable, because the move h7-h5 has led to a weaken­ ing of Black's castling position. Following 6 . . . a6, there arise positions similar to variation A, or often transposition of moves. 7.0-0-0

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 g6 4. i.. e3 i..g 7 5. 'ff d2

hS.

About 7 . . . h5 8.lt>b1 - see 6 . . .

7 . . . e6 8.g4 bS, Short - Kavalek, Dubai 1986. Here, White could have maintained a stable advan­ tage by forcing at first Black's knight to occupy the hS-square with 9.g5 ! ? ltJhS and then forcing its exchange: 10.ltJce2 ! i.b7 11. ltJg3 ttJxg3 12.hxg3;!; As a result, the h-file has been opened advan­ tageously for White and having in mind that he dominates in the centre, so it becomes evident that his prospects in the oncoming fight are clearly preferable. There arise interesting devel­ opments, but clearly in favour of White after 7 . . . 0-0 8.i.h6. There may follow: 8 . . . e5 (8 . . . b5 9.h4 see variation A) 9.i.xg7 lt>xg7 10. ltJge2 b5 11.lt>b1 b4 12.ltJdS aS, Ju­ rcik - Prikryl, Olomouc 2008, 13.h4 hS 14.dxe5 ltJxeS 1S.ltJef4 i.b7 16.ltJe3 Wie7 17.ib5 c6 18. i.a4;!; White has neutralised Black's queenside initiative with the help of the manoeuvre i.fl-b5a4 and is ready to begin active ac­ tions on the opposite side of the board with 'f!d2-f2-g3-g5. About 7 . . . b5 8.i.h6 0-0 9.h4 - see variation A; 8 . . . i.xh6. One

of the drawbacks of this move is that now, Black will have prob­ lems to castle kingside, while if he castles queenside, the conse­ quences of its weakening with the move b7-b5 may turn out to be very bad for him. 9.'f!xh6 e6, Jan­ sa - Tibensky, Sumperk 1984 (Af­ ter 9 . . . e5 10.ltJge2;!;, White's piec­ es are better prepared for the opening of the game in the centre and he should not be afraid of the move b5-b4, since he will have the resource ltJc3-d5, Johannsen Czech, Obertsdorf 2002.) 10.a3 ! ? This move deprives Black of the possibility b5-b4 just in case. 10 . . . Wie7 11.lt>b1 i.b7 12 .h4. White's plan includes the move 'ffe 3, but he does not wish to retreat his queen yet, since it prevents Black's castling. 12 . . . 0-0-0 13. 'ffe 3. White must protect at first his d4-pawn in order to develop his bishop on d3. 13 . . . 1t>b8 14.i.d3 E:he8 15.ltJge2;!; - He is dominant in the centre and has more space, while Black's king is not so safe on the weakened queenside.

7.ltJge2 211

Chapter 15 Naturally, it is not good for White to close the centre, since it would be better for him to have a pawn on c4 in order to be able to develop his initiative on the queenside with the move c4-cS.

7

•••

0-0

The pawn-sacrifice 7 ... dS is not quite correct, because follow­ ing 8.dxeS ltlxeS 9.ltlxdS ltlxdS (after 9 . . . ltlc4, White has the re­ source 10.1Mfc3 !±) 10.1MfxdS±, Black's compensation is insufficient.

1989. Here, White's simplest re­ action would be ll.h4± and Black's position is very passive. He does not have enough space for the manoeuvres of his pieces and castling kingside would be rather dubious, since White's at­ tack will be very powerful in this case.

8.0-0-0

After 7 . . . a6, White can block the centre advantageously with the move - 8.dS. There might fol­ low: 8 . . . ltle7 9.0-0-0. Black's po­ sition is very difficult, since he can hardly parry his opponent's threats on the kingside: g4, h4-hS etc. His attempt to organise coun­ terplay on the queenside with 9 . . . b S , Gazik - Irsai, Slovakia 2001, leads only to the appearance of additional pawn-weaknesses on this side of the board. 10.a3 ! ? 0-0 ll.g4 E!:b8 12.'it>b1 aS 13.ltla2± Black's pawns on aS and bS are excellent targets for White's piec­ es.

The breakthrough in the cen­ tre would not work for Black 8 . . . d S 9.dxeS ltlxeS 10.ltlf4 c 6 11. exdS± - his compensation for the pawn is evidently insufficient, Spasov - Benjamin, Moscow 1994.

7 ... exd4 8.ltlxd4. Black can hardly continue the game without castling and his attempt to play in an original fashion only increases as a rule White's opening advan­ tage. 8 . . . i.d7 (8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0-0, or 8 ... ltlxd4 9 ..bd4 0-0 10.0-0-0 - see 7 ... 0-0) 9.0-0-0 a6 10.g4 1Mfe7, Mueller - Neumann, ICCF

The move 8 . . .i.d7 was tested in one of the games of Anthony Miles. 9.'it>b1 1Mfb8. This is the be­ ginning of a too original plan. 10. g4 bS ll.i.h6 i.xh6 12 .1MfxhM White has obtained an advantage with quite simple moves and after Black's mistake 12 . . . ltlxd4? 13.gS ltle8 14.ltlxd4 exd4 1S.ltldS+-, his

212

8 ... exd4

l.d4 d6 2.e4 l!Jf6 3. l!J c3 g6 4. ie3 �g7 5. Wfd2 position became indefensible, since following 15 . . . ffd8, White will play 16.h4 and Black will be helpless against the opening of the h-file, Lane - Miles, Le Tou­ quet 1991. The race in the flank attacks after 8 . . . a6 is obviously in favour of White, because his pawns are much faster than their counter­ parts. 9.g4 bS lO.dS l!Je7 11.l!Jg3 l!Je8 12 .h4± Manik - Tratar, Pula 2003.

9 .lbxd4 ••

The idea of this exchange is that Black prepares the develop­ ment of his bishop on e6. About 9 ... �e6 10 .g4 t!Jxd4 11. .ixd4 - see 9 ... t!Jd4. Black has tried in practice some other moves as well. It is bad for him to opt for 9 . . . �d7 10.g4 a 6 11.h4 b S 12 .h5± and once again we can see that Black

is much slower while attacking on different sides on the board. This is quite typical for this variation, Batsanin - Evelev, Moscow 1996. He cannot equalise following 9 . . . l!Je5 10.h4 hS 1l.ig5;!; This pin of the knight is very unpleasant for Black, for example he loses immediately after 11 . . . ffe8? due to 12.l!Jdb5 ! ffd7 13 . .ixf6 .ixf6 14. t!JdS �g7 (He cannot save his pawn with: 14 . . . �d8 1S.t!Jbxc7 .ixc7?? 16.l!Jf6+-) 1S.t!Jdxc7+- Frander - Kormos, Hungary 2011. The rather slow move 9 ... a6 enables White to begin an imme­ diate attack with 10.h4 t!JeS 11. igS ! ? , threatening once again hS. Now, it is bad for Black to choose 11 . . . b5? ! and his queenside coun­ terplay is evidently immaterial, Coleman - Michaud, Cappelle Ia Grande 1995 (It is preferable for him to continue here with 11 . . . h5, complying with the weakening of the gS-square, but still preventing h4-h5, although even then White maintains better chances after 12 .�e2;!;) 12.h5 ! ± and his attack is very powerful. It is interesting for Black to try a pawn-sacrifice in the spirit of the Dragon variation of the Sicil­ ian Defence. It is still insufficient for equality, though . . . - 9 . . . d5 lO.exdS t!JxdS 1l.�g5 ffd7, M. Gurevich - Zaichik, Lvov l987. Now, White should simply cap­ ture the pawn with 12.l!Jxc6 bxc6 213

Chapter 15 13.tt:lxd5 cxd5 14.'119 xd5;t;; and Black does not have sufficient compen­ sation for the material loss. Here, contrary to the Dragon variation, his pawn is not on e7, but on c7. This is in favour of White, since Black's rooks cannot attack the enemy king on the c-file and the vulnerability of the c7-pawn might become a telling factor lat­ er. It would be too passive for Black to choose 9 . . J!e8, since the pressure of his pieces against the e4-pawn is harmless for White. 10.g4

- Kallio, Leon 2001, White could have obtained a great advantage with the move 14.:1!hgl±, since Black cannot capture the pawn 14 . . . W/xh4? in view of 15.f4 tt:lc6 16J�h1+- and White not only re­ gains his pawn but organises a de­ cisive attack against the enemy king on the g and h-files. Black cannot facilitate his de­ fence by exchanging the knights: 10 . . . tt:lxd4 ll ..bd4 cS (following ll . . . ie6, White manages to trade advantageously the dark-squared bishops: 12 .g5 tt:lhS 13 . .ixg7 tt:lxg7 14.h4 W/e7 15.f4± and then ie2 and h2-h4-h5, M.Rodin - Meis­ ter, Podolsk 1992) 12 . .if2 ! ? Here, the bishop is better placed than on the e3-square, since there it comes under a very unpleasant x­ ray with Black's rook. 12 . . .'<Mla5 13.W/xd6 tt:ld7 14.W/d3± - His com­ pensation for the pawn is insuffi­ cient.

10 .ixd4 .ie6 11.g4 •

10 . . . a6 ll.'>t>b1 tt:lxd4 12 ..bd4 ie6 13.g5 tt:lhS 14 ..bg7 tt:lxg7 15. f4± White's attack is developing effortlessly: ie2, h2-h4-h5 with the decisive opening of the h-file, Mainka - Stertenbrink, Germany 1990. 10 ... tt:le5 1l.g5 tt:lhS 12.f4 tt:lg4 13 . .igl± Black's knight is terribly misplaced on the g4-square and White's threat h2-h3 is very un­ pleasant, Iotov - Andersen, Email 2004. Following 10 ... .id7 ll.h4 tt:leS 12 ..ie2 h5 13.gxh5 tt:lxhS, Navara 214

ll ... c5 Black opens the way of his queen to the aS-square.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJf6 3. tiJ c3 g6 4. :!i.. e3 :!i..g 7 5. Wff d2 Now, once again after the pas­ sive move ll . . . a6, White exchang­ es the dark-squared bishops and begins an attack which would be very difficult for Black to par­ ry. 12 .g5 tiJ h5 13 . .ixg7 tiJxg7 (His situation would be even worse af­ ter 13 . . . 1!ixg7 - Black's knight at the edge of the board will be an excellent target for attack by White's pieces. 14.i.e2 f6 15.f4 fxg5 16 . .ixh5 gxh5, Boguslavsky ­ Vajda, France 2 007. Here, he had to follow with 17J'!hg1 ! +-, begin­ ning a decisive attack.) 14.h4 Wffe 7 15.f4± Fercec - Jurkovic, Zagreb 2010. Black's position would not be any better after ll . . . tiJd7 12 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 13.h4 h6 14.i.e2 f6 15.f4± White's four attacking pawns, supported by his pieces, seem very threatening for Black's king, Trujillo - Anic, Mesa 1992. He cannot equalise even after the more prudent approach 11 .. . c6 12.Wb1 ! ? , for example: 12 .. . Wff a5 (following 12 . . . b5 13.g5 tiJe8 14.h4 b4 15.tiJe2± White's pawn­ offensive develops much faster, Okrugin, - Korensky, Tula 2004) 13.g5 tiJh5 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15.f4;t The vulnerability of Black's d6pawn and his misplaced knight at the edge of the board guarantee an advantage for White, Turov Hoi, Copenhagen 2002.

12 . .ie3 ¥5a5 13 . .ih6

White

should better

trade

Black's fianchettoed bishop, since its pressure on the long diagonal may become very dangerous.

13 ... hh6 13 . . . b5? This move loses ma­ terial for Black. 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15. tiJxb5 ¥5xa2 (15 ... Wffxd2 + 16. �xd2+-) 16.Wffc3. This pin of the knight is decisive. 16 . . . h6 17.h4 �h8 18.�g1 d5 19.g5 1-0 Lu­ tzenberger - Epinoux, Email 2001. Black loses immediately fol­ lowing 13 . . . .ixa2?? 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15.tiJxa2 Wffxa2 16.Wffc3+- and he cannot avoid the loss of a piece, because of the pin, Yurtaev - Be­ liavsky, Frunze 1979. Black's position remains very difficult after 13 . . . �fd8 14 . .ixg7 l!ixg7 15.h4 h5 (Naturally, it would be senseless for him to capture the a2-pawn 15 . . . .ixa2, Najer Mamedyarov, Khanty-Man�iysk 2013, because after . 16.h5+-, White's attack is decisive.) 16. gxh5 tiJxh5 17.�gl±, followed by 215

Chapter 15 joining of White's f-pawn into the attack against the g6-square, Yur­ taev - Gulko, Frunze 1985.

14.ti'xh6 b5 Black must be in a hurry; oth­ erwise, White will simply open the h-file and will checkmate. Now, Black wishes to sacrifice a pawn and create counterplay on the b-file.

18 .ba2 •••

It would be too irresponsible for him to opt for 14 . . . .ixa2? ! 15.h4, for example: 1 5 . . . �e6 16.h5 Wic7 (He loses immediately fol­ lowing 16 . . J!:fe8 17.i.b5 :1'!:e7 18. WigS 1-0 Noseda - Koegler, ICCF 1996.) 17.lt:Jb5 Wie7 18.lt:Jxd6 lt:Jd7 19.f4 hg4 20 .i.c4 \t>h8 21.lt:Jxf7+ :1'!:xf7 22 . .bf'7 gxh5, Hennigan Westerinen, Gausdal 1995, 23. :1'!:xd7! hd7 24.Wixh5 Wixe4 25. Wih6 :1'!:g8 26.Wif6+ :1'!:g7 27.:1'!:d1+-

15 .bb5 gabS 16. ti'f4 •

White concentrates his forces on the d6-square.

16

•••

lt:Je8

The tactical complications af­ ter 16 . . . d5 do not promise any­ thing good for Black. 17.Wixf6 d4 18.a4 :1'!:b6, Schreiber - Toscano, ICCF 1996. Here, White's sim­ plest decision would be to enter an endgame with extra material 19.Wie5 ! dxc3 20.Wixc3 Wixc3 21. bxc3±.

17 .be8 gfxe8 ts.gxd6 •

216

Black cannot achieve much with the sacrifice - 18 . . . :1'!:xb2 19. \t>xb2 :1'!:b8+ 20.\t>cl Wixc3, Arse­ niev - Mishuchkov, Ivanovo 1982, because after 2 1.:1'!:d3 !±, White has excellent chances of re­ alising his extra exchange.

19.ti'f6 J.e6 20.ghdl Wial+ 2t.c�d2 ti'a5 21.. .Wixb2? 22 .:1'!:b1 Wia3 :1'!:xb8 :1'!:xb8 24.:1'!:xe6+-

23.

22.\t>e3± White's king has not only abandoned the queenside, which has been destroyed by Black's pieces, but is ready to take part in the attack - \t>e3-f4-g5-h6 !

22

.••

c4

Black loses immediately after 22 . . . :1'!:xb2? 23.:1'!:xe6+- Korneev Garcia Castro, Pontevedra 2003.

23.h4 �b2 24. \!Jf4 gb6, Tseshkovsky - Vorotnikov, Ak­ tjubinsk 1985, 25.h5 ! + -

l.d4 d6 2.e4 t'iJf6 3. t'iJc3 g6 4. :ie3 :ig7 5. 'f!d2 C) 5

•••

l0g4

This manoeuvre of the knight (followed by h7-h6 and g6-g5), with the idea to attack the bishop on e3, is not so well justified as in some variations of the King's In­ dian Defence. The point is that the position is more opened and it would be eas­ ier for White to exploit the mis­ placement of Black's knight on g4 and the vulnerability of his entire kingside.

6.:ig5

It is worse for him to play with the same idea 6 . . .f6, since with this move he covers the diagonal of his bishop. 7.:ih4 eS 8.t'iJf3 ih6 (after 8 . . . 0-0 9.dxe5 t'iJxeS 10. t'iJxeS dxeS ll.'f!xd8 E:xd8 12.t'iJd5 t'iJc6 13.t'iJxc7 E:b8 14.c3±, Black has no compensation for the pawn in this endgame) 9.'f!d1 exd4 10. t'iJxd4 t'iJeS ll.:ie2 t'iJbc6, Makka Sklavounos, Nikea 2002. Here, White maintains a great advan­ tage after the energetic line: 12. t'iJdS 0-0 13.t'iJb5± and his attack against Black's pawns on c7 and f6 is crowned with success. The endgame is worse for Black following 6 . . . c5 7.dxc5 dxcS 8.f3, for example: 8 . . . 'f!xd2+ 9. ixd2 t'iJf6 lO.lt:lbS t'iJa6 11.0-0-0 0-0 12 .ie3 ie6 13.a3 E:fc8 14. t'iJe2 t'iJc7 15.t'iJxc7 E:xc7 16.t'iJf4 :ih6, Timoscenko - Efimov, Pula 1997. Now, White has to get rid of the unpleasant pin with the move 17.\t>b1!? and he will be threaten­ ing t'iJxe6 and can play :ic1 at any moment. 17 . . . E:d7 18.:ie2 ix£4 19.ixf4t - His two-bishop advan­ tage is a quite meaningful factor in this endgame.

7.:ih4

(diagram)

7 c6 •••

6 ... h6

Black continue the chase after the enemy bishop.

Besides this move, preparing b7-b5, Black can try numerous other moves, but this does not mean that they are good. In· fact, in all the variations, he remains too far from equality. 217

Chapter 15 his prospects would be preferable thanks to his superior pawn­ structure.

7 . . . lLlf6 Naturally, this retreat of the knight cannot provide Black with an acceptable game. 8.f4 This is White's most energetic re­ source to exploit Black's rather slow play. The idea is to advance e4-e5 as quickly as possible. 8 . . . b 6 9.0-0-0 .ib7 10 .e5 dxeS 11. fxeS lLldS 12.lLlf3 0-0 13 . .ic4;!; White's pieces have occupied ac­ tive positions, while Black's bish­ op on g7 is severely restricted by his own pawn on eS, Short - Be­ liavsky, Groningen 1997. 7 . . . lLlc6. This is a logical idea. Black exploits the absence of the bishop on e3 and increases his pressure against the enemy d4pawn. 8.h3 lLlf6 9.lLlf3. This move is forced (The line: 9.f4 e5 10.dxe5 can be countered by Black with the elegant tactical strike 10 . . . lLlxe4 ! ? and his prospects would not be worse at all, Leventic Oreskovic, Osijek 2012.) 9 . . . 0-0 lO .dS lLleS ll.lLlxeS dxeS, Perez Garcia - Herman, Seville 2000. Here, White should have pre­ pared castling kingside and after 12 . .ie2 a6 13.0-0 '!Wd6 14J!adU, 218

7 . . . lLld7. Black is preparing c7c5. 8 . .ie2 lLlgf6 9.f4 cS 10 .d5 0-0 ll.lLlf3. White is perfectly ready to advance e4-e5 and Black tried a pawn-sacrifice in several games in order to deflect his opponent from his planned offensive in the centre. ll . . . bS 12 ..ixb5 E:b8 13. 0-0 a6 (13 ... '\WaS 14.e5± White not only has an extra pawn, but also dominates in the centre, Kharlov - Kaiszauri, Stockholm 1992) 14 . .ixd7 lLlxd7 15.E:abU Black's bishop-pair does not com­ pensate completely White's extra pawn, Yemelin - Lugovoi, Haf­ narfjordur 1998. Following 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0-0, Black's best response would be 8 . . . lLlc6 (The move 8 . . . lLla6, after 9.h3 lLlf6 10.f4 cS ll.lLlf3 cxd4 12. lLlxd4±, leads to a favourable posi­ tion for White, since Black's knight is misplaced on the a6-square and White is well prepared to push e4e5, T. Kosintseva - Annaberdiev, Moscow 2005.) 9.lLlf3, Adams Beliavsky, Tilburg 1992.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 l!Jf6 3. l!Jc3 g6 4. ie3 ig7 5. Wld2 Here, Beliavsky continued a bit too actively - 9 . . .f5 (He had better play more prudently, for example : 9 . . . a6 ! ?t and Black's po­ sition would have been worse, but still playable.) and after 10.exf5 h£5 ll.h3 l!Jf6 12 .d5 l!Jb4 13. l!Jd4±, White was clearly better, because the e6-square was horri­ bly weak in Black's camp. 7 . . . g5 8.�g3

It is obviously bad for Black to choose here 8 . . . h5? ! in view of 9.h4± and his kingside will be in ruins, Gazis - Utasi, Nikea 1985. His attempt to exert pressure against the d4-square backfires after 8 . . . l!Jc6 and 9.f3 l!Jf6 10. 0-0-0 l!Jh5 ll.�f2±. White has not only protected reliably his d4pawn, but has avoided the trade of the dark-squared bishops, Ar­ delean - Csala, Hungary 2010. Now, in order to exploit the weak­ ening of Black's kingside pawn­ structure, he only needs to ad­ vance h2-h4. Following 8 . . .f5, there is a good example of an excellent play by White and it is the game Na­ vara - Rahman, Mallorca 2004,

in which he exchanged at first the light-squared bishops and then transferred his knight to the e6outpost: 9.exf5 ! h£5 10.�d3 Wld7 ll.l!Jge2 l!Jc6 12.f3 l!Jf6 13.d5 l!Jb4 14.hf5 \&xf5 15.0-0-0 c6 16.l!Jd4 Wld7 17.l!Je6± White has realised completely his plan with the transfer of his knight and Black is in a serious trouble. 8 . . . e5 9.l!Jge2 exd4 (9 . . . h5. This move only leads to a further weakening of Black's kingside. 10.h4 ih6 ll.hxg5 .bg5 12.f4 exf4 13.hf4 hf4 14.l!Jxf4± White must castle queenside here and develop his bishop to c4 and Black will have great prob­ lems with his undeveloped piec­ es and his king, stranded in the centre, as well as with the protec­ tion of his pawns on h5 and f7, Cheparinov - Shirazi, Golden Sands 2012.) 10.l!Jxd4 l!Jc6 11. l!Jxc6 bxc6 12 .h4 E:b8 13.0-0-0 �e6 14.f3 l!Je5 15.hxg5 hxg5 16. E:xh8+ hh8, Kosov - Ni, Orsha 2008, 17.�f2t White has a supe­ rior pawn-structure and his king is much safer than its counter­ part. All this provides him with a slight edge, although Black's counterplay should not be under estimated.

8.f4 (diagram)

8 .. b5 .

8 . . . g5. This is an interesting pawn-sacrifice, but still insuffi­ cient for equality. 9.fxg5 hxg5 10. 2 19

Chapter 15 9.c!LlfJ b4

.ixgS '!Wb6 11.ltlf3 lt:ld7 12 .�c4;!; Sariego - Sisniega, Linares 1992 . Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn and cannot restore the material bal­ ance, because after 12 . . . '\Wxb2?! 13.E:b1 '!Wa3, White can inflict a tactical strike - 14 . .ixe7!±, ending up in a clearly better position, since his bishop is untouchable: 14 . . . 'it>xe7? 15.E:b3 '!WaS 16.lt:ld5+ cxdS 17.'\WxaS dxc4 18.E:c3+-, Black's three minor pieces are in­ sufficient to compensate the ene­ my queen, because his forces are not well coordinated. It would be useless for Black to try 8 . . . '1Wb6, in view of 9.0-0-0 lt:ld7 10.ltlf3± and his position re­ mains very difficult due to his lag in development and the mis­ placed knight on g4, Drenchev ­ Mishkovski, Sofia 2003. Following 8 ... lt:lf6 9.0-0-0 0-0 10 .i.d3 bS ll.e5;!;, White's prospects are preferable, since his play in the centre develops much faster than Black's queenside counterplay. 220

9 . . . 0-0 10.id3 lt:ld7 ll.h3 lt:lgf6 12.e5 b4 13.ltle2;!; White's position looks preferable thanks to his dominance in the centre. Later, in the game Vorobiov - Ko­ rotylev, Pardubice 2001, Black decided to sacrifice rather dubi­ ously a pawn and as a result of this his position worsened consid­ erably. 13 . . . lt:ld5 14.exd6 lt:l7f6 15. dxe7 Wlxe7 16.lt:le5± White has not only an extra pawn but his cen­ tralised knight is very powerful.

lO.c!Lldl Wlb6

This position was reached in the game E.Sveshnikov - Beliav­ sky, Minsk 1979. White could have begun advantageous actions in the centre even prior to the com­ pletion of his development with the move ll.e5! Black has prob­ lems with his knight on g4. 11 dxe5 12.fxe5 h5. White inflicts a strike now on the other side of the board. 13.a3 ! b3 14.cxb3 ti'xb3 •••

ts.gcl .Ae6 16 .Ad3 .Ah6 17. .Ag5± Black has a very difficult •

l.d4 d6 2.e4 li:Jf6 3. li:J c3 g6 4. 1i.e3 1g7 5. 'ff d2 position. His c6-pawn is weak and White's pieces are much better developed.

D) 5

•••

0-0

This is a very risky move. Black's king castles right under the attack. When I look at this move, I remember the words of M.Servantes : "Bravery on the verge of foolhardy is much closer to madness than to tenacity".

6.0-0-0

6

• . •

c6

White's plan is quite clear. He will attack on the kingside, so Black must organise counterplay on the queenside as quickly as possible. About 6 . . . li:Jc6 7.f3 eS 8.li:Jge2 - see variation B.

- Mandie, Porec 2010, 9 . .hg7 <.!txg7 10.h5-. Black's position is very difficult, because he loses im­ mediately following 10 ... li:Jxh5?, due to ll.g4 li:Jhf6 12.'ffh 6+ <.!lg8 13.g5 li:JhS 14.i.e2 +- and his king will be soon checkmated.) 8 . .hg7 <.!txg7 9.f4 Vffe 7 10.li:Jf3;!; White dominates in the centre and can deploy his pieces to very active positions, Tarasov - Afanasiev, Moscow 2012. Black ends up in a bad posi­ tion after 6 . . . li:Jg4 7.i.g5 cS 8.dxc5 'ff aS 9.li:Jh3 dxcS 10 . .he7 �e8 ll.'ffd 8! White simplifies the game with a temporary queen­ sacrifice and transfers into an endgame with an extra pawn, for which Black does not have suffi­ cient compensation. ll . . . �xd8 (He should better give up a pawn, since his attempt to organise counterplay with ll . . . i.h6+ 12. <.!tb1 �xd8 13.�xd8+ <.!lg7, leads af­ ter 14.�xc8 li:Jc6 15.�xa8 li:Jxe7 16. �e2±, to a position in which White's two rooks and a pawn are obviously stronger than Black's queen.) 12.�xd8+ '!Wxd8 13.hd8± Yudasin - Azmaiparashvili, Kuj­ byshev 1986.

7. .ih6 (diagram)

7 b5 •••

6 . . . li:Jbd7 7.i.h6 eS (It is bad for Black to opt for 7 . . . c6, because in a position with attacks on both sides of the board, White will be evidently faster. 8.h4 'ff a S, Novak

7 . . . hh6 8.'ffxh6 bS (or 8 . . . li:Jg4 9.'1Wh4 e S 10.'1Wg3 fS n. ic4+ <.!th8 12 .h3 WigS+ 13.<.!tb1 f4 14. 'fff3 li:Jf6, Spiridonov - Weggen, 221

Chapter 15

IECG 2000 and here White main­ tains an advantage following 15. �e2± and then lLlf3, because Black cannot capture the pawn, since he loses his queen: 15 . . . �xg2?? 16.lLlf3 exd4 17.1!h2+-) 9.e5. This pawn-break leads by force to a better endgame for White. 9 . . . dxe5 lO.dxeS l2:Jg4 11. 1!xd8 l2:Jxh6 12.1!xf8+ 'it>xf8 13.h3 lLJd7 14.lLlf3 lLlc5, Eckert - Sutton, ICCF 2005, 15.lLld4 ib7 16.g4 1!d8 17.lLlce2;!;, Black's pieces (the knight on h6 and the bishop on b7) are evidently misplaced.

has succeeded in avoiding th e trade of the queens and is ready to begin his standard pawn-offen­ sive on the kingside, Zapata Rosch, Panama 2011. The central pawn-break 8 ... e5 does not promise equality for Black. 9 . .bg7 'it>xg7 10 .g4 l2:Jbd7 11.h4 hS 12 .g5 lLJe8 13.f4 exf4 14. �xf4 bS 15.'it>b1 b4 16.lLlce2 lLlb6, Del Pozo - Martinez Vicente, San Javier 1995. Now, White's most precise move is 17.lLlc1 ! ?± and his knight protects reliably his king and he can develop effortlessly his kingside initiative. After 8 . . . l2:Jbd7 9.h4 bS, White's attack develops faster and he can even sacrifice his a2-pawn. 10 .h5 b4 11.lLlb1 �xa2 12.hxg6 fxg6 13. .bg7 'it>xg7 14.'11;lih6+ 'it>g8 15.lLlh3± - His knight is headed for the gS­ square and despite the extra pawn Black's position is very difficult, Lane - Reilly, Melbourne 1999.

8.f3 7 . . . �a5 8.f3

bS.

About 8 . . . b5 9.'it>b1 - see 7 . . .

Following 8 . . .hh6 9.�xh6 �hS 10.�d2 'it>g7 11.g4;!;, White 222

8 . . . ti'a5 About 8 . . . b4 9.lLJce2 �aS 10. 'it>b1 - see 8 . . . �a5.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 g6 4. ie3 iJ.g7 5. �d2 Following 8 . . . aS 9.h4, White's attack is faster, for example: 9 . . . a 4 (after 9 . . .b 4 10.liJa4±, Black's pawn-onslaught reaches its dead end; it would be too slow for him to opt for 9 . . . l:!e8 10.hg7 'it>xg7 11.hS± Reitinger - Spacek, Svetla nad Sazavou 199S) 10 .hS b4 11. liJb1 b3 12.axb3 axb3 13.hxg6 fxg6 (Black loses immediately after 13 . . . bxc2 14.gxh7+ 'it>h8 1S.iJ.xg7+ 'it>xg7 16.h8�+ l:!xh8 17.�gS+ 1-0 Spanton - Csoma, Email 2 009.) 14.1J.c4+ dS 1S . .bb3± and White not only has a powerful attack, but an extra pawn as well, Tal­ macsi - Amann, Email 2002. It seems too risky for Black to choose 8 . . . .bh6, since following 9.�xh6, White's queen is placed too close to Black's monarch. 9 .. . b4 10.liJce2 �as 11.'it>b1 cS (11 . . . iJ.e6 12.liJc1 l:!c8 13.h4 �d8 14. liJge2 �f8 1S.�d2 aS 16.liJf4± He has managed to oust White's queen, but this is just small con­ solation for Black, since after White advances h4-hS, the cas­ tling position of Black's king will come under the attack of White's pieces, Efimov - Sarno, Reggio Emilia 1998.) 12 .h4 liJc6 13.hS± and once again, in attacks on both sides of the board, White is much ahead of his opponent, Aldama Degurnay - Felecan, ICC 2010.

9.'it>bl b4 10.li:Jce2 (diagram)

10

•••

i.e6

Black has no time to prepare

the undermining of White's cen­ tre, because after 10 . . . liJbd7 11.h4 cS 12 .hS c4 13.hxg6 fxg6 14 ..bg7 'it>xg7, Matikozian - Minasian, Yerevan 1999, he can obtain a de­ cisive advantage with 1S.�h6+ 'it>g8 16.liJf4 iJ.a6 17.liJgh3 +-, fol­ lowed by liJgS and Black is incapa­ ble of holding his h7-pawn and the f7-square.

ll.liJcl. White's knight protects relia­ bly again the a2-pawn and Black's attack has been parried.

ll

•••

lL!bd7

11 . . . �b6. This is an attempt to bring the a7-pawn into the attack, but this takes too much time. 12. h4 aS 13.hS± and White's attack is evidently faster, Adams - Robin­ son, Ebbw Vale 1998.

12.h4 lL!b6

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same fol­ lowing 12 . . . l:!fb8 13 . .bg7 'it>xg7 14.hS± Black's position is very dif­ ficult, Gelis - Skripchenko, Le Port Marly 2009. 13 .ixg7
223

Chapter 15 parried by White's knight on c1, which not only protects the key a2-square, but can eventually (for example after lt:lb6-a4-c3) cover the b-file as well (lt:lb3).

E) s . . . c6

This is a very popular move for Black. He relies, quite deservedly, that his king may be better placed in the centre than on the kingside. With his last move he prepares a queen-sort · to the aS-square as well as the wn-advance b7-b5.

�

6 .ih6 .ixh6 •

This is the most logical move. In this variation Black's king is better placed in the centre of the board than on the kingside where it may come under the attack of White's pieces. 6 . . . 0-0 7.0-0-0 - see varia­ tion D.

7.ti'xh6 (diagram)

7 ti'a5 •••

Black is trying to exploit the defencelessness of White's e4pawn. 224

7 ... ti'b6. Although in this vari­ ation White castles more often on the kingside, but it seems useless for Black to lose a tempo in order to force the opponent to castle queenside. 8.0-0-0 ti'aS (Open­ ing of the game in the centre with 8 . . . c5 seems very risky for Black having in mind his lag in develop­ ment. 9 . .ib5+ .id7, Kralova Drljevic, Plovdiv 2010. Now, White can begin a decisive attack with 10.e5! cxd4 ll.exf6 dxc3 12. Vfig7 !US 13.fxe7 'it>xe7 14.ltle2 ! ! cxb2+ 15.'it>b1 .bb5 16.lt:lc3+- and despite his extra piece, Black is helpless against the threats lt:ldS and E:hel.) 9 . .ie2 .ie6 10.a3 lt:lbd7 ll.ltlf3 0-0-0 12.ltlg5;!;, followed by an exchange on e6 and White will have not only a space advan­ tage, but a superior pawn-struc­ ture as well. 7 . . . lt:lbd7. This move seems to be too slow. 8.0-0-0 VfiaS (It may be interesting for Black to try 8 . . . e S , but White's simplest reaction is 9.f3 ! ?, protecting reliably the pawn on e4. 9 . . . 'ffe 7 10.h4 lt:lb6, Shadrina - Podshibikhin, Kstovo

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJj6 3. tiJ c3 g6 4. i.e3 i.g7 5. Wff d2 2011. Here, he could have ob­ tained an advantage with the sur­ prising inclusion of the a-pawn into the actions : ll.a4 ! ? !e6 12.a5 exd4 - Black loses after 12 . . . t'iJbd7? 13.d5 ! - 13.E:xd4 t'iJbd7 14. t'iJge2 0-0-0 15.Wffe 3 t'iJe5 16.t'iJf4;!; and he has less space and his d6pawn is very weak.) 9.t'iJf3

9 . . . t'iJb6 lO.eS dxeS ll.dxeS t'iJfdS 12.t'iJxd5 t'iJxdS (It is bad for Black to opt for 12 . . . cxd5?, in view of 13.Wffg 7 E:f8, Sherzer - Kaka­ geldyev, Biel 1993 and White wins the exchange after 14.t'iJg5+-) 13. !c4 !e6 14 . .ib3 0-0-0 15.t'iJd4 Wffc7 16.E:heU He has more space and can compromise Black's pawn-structure at any moment after t'iJe6. Following 9 ... Wffh 5, White should better avoid the exchange of the queens 10.Wffd 2;!; - he has a powerful centre and a superior development, Madl - Lorcher, Budapest 1990. It would be a mistake for Black to choose 9 . . . e5? ! due to 10.!c4 ! ± and i t becomes inconceivable why Black has played Wff aS in the first place, since with a pawn on eS, his queen is better placed on e7.

It seems too precarious for him to opt for 9 . . . b5, since White can counter that with 10.e5. Opening of the centre is advanta­ geous for him, because he is bet­ ter developed and Black's king is stranded in the centre. lO . . . dxeS ll.dxeS t'iJg4, A.Muzychuk - Zhor­ zholiani, Tbilisi 2009, 12.Wffg7! ? E:f8 13.e6 ! This i s a very instruc­ tive example of an attack against "a non-castled king". 13 . . . t'iJdf6 14.t'iJd4 i.b7 15.t'iJdxb5 fxe6 (Black loses immediately after 15 . . . t'iJxf2? due to 16.!c4 ! fxe6 17.E:he1 t'iJxd1 18.t'iJd6 + ! 'i!id7 19.E:xd1+-) 16. t'iJd6+ exd6 17.Wffxb7, White's prospects are obviously prefera­ ble. It is possible that Black's best chance may be to trade the queens with 17 . . . Wffb 6, but this will lose the d6-pawn for him. After 7 . . . e5, the position re­ sembles the open games. 8.dxe5 dxeS 9.t'iJf3 Wffe 7 10 .!c4

10 . . . t'iJbd7 (10 . . . b5 ll.i.b3 .ie6 12.t'iJg5 .ixb3 13.axb3 t'iJbd7 14. 0-0 t'iJg8 15.Wffg7 Wfff6 16.Wffxf6 t'iJgxf6 17.E:a6;!; - In the endgame, Black has weak pawns on a7 and c6, Salgado Lopez - Pancevski, 225

Chapter 15 Plovdiv 2012.) 11.lLlg5 gf8 12.tLlxh7 lLlxh7 13.W/xh7. White has man­ aged to win a pawn and Black's at­ tempt to regain it is connected with a risky queen-sortie, while his other pieces are not developed. 13 . . .W/g5 14.h4 W/xg2 (following 14 . . .W/f4 15.W/g7 We7 16 . .ie2 W/f6 17.W/xf6+ lLlxf6 18.Wd2±, there arises an endgame with an extra pawn for White, Fedorchuk - Zo­ zulia, Tarragona 2006) 15.0-0-0 bS 16 . .ib3 aS 17.h5 gxhS (Black is lost after 17 ... a4? 18 . .ixf7+ ! gxf7 19.hxg6 ! +-, White's passed pawn will promote unavoidably.) 18. W/xhS± Black has succeeded in re­ storing the material balance in­ deed, but his position remains very difficult due to his lag in de­ velopment. His attempt to cap­ ture the enemy bishop with 18 . . . a4? loses by force: 1 9 . .ixf7+ ! gxf7 20.gxd7! hd7 21.W/xe5+-

18.W/d4:t White has evacuated his king away from the queenside to the centre of the board and Black's compensation for the sacrificed pawn is insufficient.) 13.gxd2 a6 14.gxd5:t - He does not have enough for the missing pawn. Naturally, White should play very carefully later, since he lags in de­ velopment as a result of going af­ ter material.

.

8 .td3

!r

! e move 7 ... b5 leads after 8.e5 to the opening of the position in the centre and White is much better prepared for that. 8 . . . dxe5 (It would be too risky for Black to continue with 8 . . . b4 9.lLlce2 tLldS 10.lLlf3 lLla6 ll.lLlg3 lLlac7 12 .W/g7 gf8 13.W/xh7± White has an extra pawn and a good position.) 9. dxeS tLldS 10.0-0-0 (diagram) 10 . . . W/a5. This is an interesting attempt to complicate the game by sacrificing a pawn. ll.lLlxdS cxdS 12 .W/d2 W/xd2+ (12 .. .'�xa2 13 . .ixb5+ Wf8 14.W/xd5 W/a1+ 15. Wd2 W/a5+ 16. We2 W/b6 17.c4 Wg7 226

Now, contrary to the majority of the variations, which we have analysed in this chapter, White plans to castle kingside and not queenside.

8

... c5

Black wishes to organise coun­ terplay on the dark squares.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 !i:Jf6 3. !i:J c3 g6 4 . .ie3 .ig7 5. Wid2 8 . . . Wib6. He lags in develop­ ment, so this attempt to win a pawn looks very dubious. 9.!i:Jge2 Wixb2? ! (It is possible that Black had better play here 9 . . . !i:Jbd7 10.0-0, although even then, White maintains an edge.) 10. 0-0 Wia3 (Black loses immedi­ ately following 10 ... b5? ll.a3+­ and his queen is doomed to re­ main on b2.) 11.f4± White has de­ veloped all his pieces, while only Black's queen, knight and king are in the centre. His extra pawn is absolutely immaterial and he is practically helpless against White's central pawn-break - e4e5. 8 ... !i:Ja6. Black wishes to ex­ change the enemy bishop on d3. 9.!i:Jge2 !i:Jb4 10.0-0

10 . . . Wih5 (It seems too original for him to try 10 . . . !i:Jxd3 ll.cxd3 .id7 12 .h3 E:g8, Santo Roman Granda Zuniga, Las Palmas 1991. White could have seized the initi­ ative on the queenside with the move 13.b4 ! , for example: 13 . . . Wic7 14.f4±, o r 1 3 . . . Wixb4 14.e5 dxeS 15.dxe5 !i:JhS 16.Wixh7 E:f8 17.E:ab1 WiaS 18.E:xb7 WixeS 19.

Wih6± - his pieces are very active, while Black's rooks are not con­ nected yet and his king, stranded in the centre, does not beautify his position either.) ll.Wid2 !i:Jxd3 12.cxd3. This is better for White than capturing with the queen, because he fortifies his e4-pawn (against the possibility d6-d5). 12 . . . 0-0 13.f4 Wih6 14.h3 dS (After 14 . . . .ie6, White obtains a slight edge by transferring his knight to the e3-square. 15.!i:Jdl ! ? aS 16. !i:Je3;J;, followed by E:f3, E:afl (or !i:Jg3 and Wif2) and the prepara­ tion of the pawn-advance f4-f5. He has a clear-cut plan for his fur­ ther actions, which cannot be said for Black at all. He cannot equal­ ise with 14 . . . e5, because after 15. E:ad1 exf4 16.!i:Jxf4 Wig7 17.E:f3, Adams - McNab, Blackpool 1990, White maintains an advantage thanks to his dominance in the centre and the possibility for ac­ tive operations on the semi-open f-file. After Black weakened care­ lessly his castling position with the line: 17 . . . g5? ! 18.E:g3 h6 19.E:f1 'it>h8 20.e5 dxeS 21.dxe5 !i:Jh7 22 .d4±, White's advantage be­ came almost decisive.) 15.Wie3 dxe4 16.dxe4 b6, Van der Wiel Ftacnik, Haninge 1989, 17.E:acU - He has a powerful centre, while Black's c6-pawn may turn out to be very weak, moreover that his queen is obviously misplaced on h6. 8 ... b5. This attempt to create counterplay with the help of the 227

Chapter 15 b-pawn leads only to the appear­ ance of additional pawn-weak­ nesses in Black's camp. 9.ltlf3 b4 10.ltle2

10 . . .b3+ 11.c3 ia6 12 . .ba6 lt:lxa6 13.e5 lt:ld5 14. 0-0 bxa2 15. lt:lcl± Mirzoev - Movsziszian, La Pobla de Lillet 2007. Naturally, White will capture easily the pawn on a2 and Black will remain with weaknesses on a7 and h7 (�g7!). 10 . . .i.a6 11.ixa6 lt:lxa6 12.e5± - After the retreat of the knight, Black may have problems with the {r ction of his kingside pawns (following �g7 or lt:lg5), Castro - Barata, Vila Real 2005. 10 ... lt:lbd7 11.0-0 e5 12.a3± The weaknesses on Black's queen­ side are becoming a telling factor, Kupreichik - Sznapik, Zenica 1985. 10 ... i.g4 11.lt:lg5 ixe2 12 .ixe2 lt:lbd7, Vesselovsky - Korotylev, Moscow 1994, 13.0-0± - He can hardly find a safe haven for his king.

�

8 . . . lt:lbd7. This is a very flexible move with which Black conceals his plans for the moment. 9.lt:lf3 228

About 9 . . .b5 10.0-0 b4 11.ltle2 - see 8 . . . b5. 9 . . . e5. Black solves radically the problem with White's central pawn-break e4-e5. 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.0-0 �c5 12.a4, Hodgson Fyfe, Aberdeen 1996, 12 . . . a5 The knight on c3 is restricted in its mobility by Black's pawn on c6, so White must find a more active po­ sition for it. He can achieve this with the move 13.ltlb1 ! ;t and the knight will be transferred to c4 via the d2-square. After 9 . . . c5, there arise posi­ tions, which are more typical for the Sicilian Defence. 10.0-0-0 cxd4 11.lt:lxd4;t White has already completed his development, while Black's king is still stranded in the centre of the board. 11 . . . lt:lg4 (It would be more reliable for him to choose 11 . . . a6 !?, although even then White preserves an edge.) 12.�h4 lt:ldf6 13.i.b5+ mf8 14.h3 and Black's position is very diffi­ cult, Ayas Fernandez - Cuijpers, Sitges 1999. For example, the re­ treat of the knight 14 . . . lt:le5, after 15.�h6+ 'it>g8 16.f4 lt:led7 17. :Bhe1+-, leads to a position in which despite the material equal­ ity, Black can simply resign.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tDf6 3. tDc3 g6 4. i.e3 1Lg7 5. Wff d2 Following 9 . . . Wffh 5, Black wish­ es to trade the queens, but White should better avoid this, since he will have good attacking chances against the enemy king in the middle game. 10.Wffd 2

forced to comply with the dou­ bling of his pawns (It would be just bad for him to opt for 13 . . . tDxf6? ! , because of 14.e5±, fol­ lowed by Wffh 6 with a powerful at­ tack.) 14.:1'i:ae1 Ei:e8 15.h3;!; White has a superior pawn-structure and is dominant in the centre, Alvarez - Henriquez Garcia, Mesa 1992.

9.d5 White is occupying space.

9 . . . tDbd7 10)ijf3 10 . . . c5 11.i.e2 cxd4 12.tDxd4 Wffc5 13.f4 tDb6 14.0-0-0;!; and in the game Arzumanian - Zakha­ revich, Tula 2002, White ad­ vanced after a while e4-e5 and scored a full point. 10 . . . 0-0 11.tDe2. He is trans­ ferring his knight to g3 is order to exploit the misplacement of the enemy queen. 11 . . . e5 12.tDg3 Wffg4 13.0-0 Ei:e8 14.:1'1fe1 'it>g7 15.h3 Wfff4, Lerner - Kantsler, Haifa 2008, 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Wffc3;!; The weakness on e5 will cause great problems for Black (White can out the enemy queen away from the protection of the e5pawn at any moment with the move tDe2.). 10 ... Wff a 5. Naturally, the retreat of the queen cannot equalise for Black. 11.0-0 0-0 (following 11 . . . Wffc7 12.Wffh 6±, h e cannot castle kingside, Nelson - McFarland, Newcastle on Tyne 1995) 12.tDd5 Wffd 8 13.tDxf6+ exf6. Black is

10 . . b5 .

It is understandable that Black wishes to create counterplay, but it is well known that "pawns can­ not go back". Later, his pawn­ weaknesses may tell. In the main variations, he has nothing to brag about, so maybe the least of evils for Black may be 10 . . . c4 ! ? , although even then after 11.i.xc4 Wffc5 12 .i.d3 Wffxf2 + 13.'it>xf2 tDg4+ 14.'it>g3 tDxh6 15. Ei:heU, White has better pr.ospects in the endgame mostly thanks to the misplacement of the enemy 229

Chapter 15 knight at the edge of the board, Van Kampen - Cuijpers, Nether­ lands 2012.

11.0-0 c4 12 .ie2 b4 13.�dl ti'cS •

13 . . . �xe4 14 . .ixc4± - Opening of the e-file is obviously in favour of White with Black's king in the centre of the board.

14.�g5 ! White not only defends his e4pawn, but eyes Black's main weakness in this position - the pawn on h7!

14

•••

�e5 15.�e3 aS 16.a3

White is opening a second front.

16 gbs 17.axb4 gxb4 18. ga2 ti'b6 19.gfal l:!xb2 20.gxa5 gbl + 21 .ifl gxal 22.gxal .ia6 23.h3 �d7 •••

•

(diagram) In the game Pert - McNab, England 20110White overlooked the possibilitY to obtain a great advantage. Black's pieces can

hardly hold the defence on the queenside. This enables White to win a pawn on the other side of the board and in order to do this, he only needs to trade the knights. 24.�f3 ! �xf3+ (After 24 . . . lt:Jxe4 25.lt:Jxe5+ dxeS 26.'Wg7±, the po­ sition is opened and the misplace­ ment of Black's king in the centre of the board becomes the decisive factor.) 25.gxf3 ggs 26.�g4± After the exchange of the knight Black loses his h7-pawn and if we have in mind that White's king is much safer, Black's situation be­ comes critical.

Conclusion We have just finished the analysis of variations of the Pirc Defence with the move 4 . . . i.g7. As a rule, White obtains effortlessly an advan­ tage exploiting the too early development of Black's dark-squared bish­ op. After 5.'Wd2, Black can castle kingside and after that there arise complicated positions with mutual attacks on the different sides of the board. White's prospects in that case are clearly preferable. He follows with 0-0-0, f3, h4, i.h6, hS and organises a powerful attack on the h­ file. Meanwhile, Black's attack on the queenside often reaches its dead end, since White can easily protect his main weakness on this side of the board - the pawn on a2 (�bl and lt:Jcl). If Black decides to leave his king in the centre, then after ih6 and the trade of the bishops, in many variations the vulnerability of his h7-pawn becomes a telling factor. 230

Chapter 16

l.d4 d6 2.e4 !L!f6 3.!L!c3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6

strength you can judge by the fact that it has been used by the World Champions G.Kasparov and V. Anand. The idea of this move is at first to prevent the pawn-advance b7-b5. White takes under control the g4-square and prepares e4-e5. Meanwhile, his last move will be useful if he advances f2-f4 and g2g4. With this move Black prepares b7-b5, which may be useful if White castles queenside. Mean­ while, he postpones the develop­ ment of his king's bishop, which deprives White of his standard plan, connected with '1Wd2 and ih6, since exchanging the still not developed bishop would seem a bit strange. The move 4 . . . c6 is rather pop­ ular among the fans of the Pirc Defence. It has been played by P. Svidler, Sh.Mamedyarov, V.Ivan­ chuk, Z.Azmaiparashvili, M.Gu­ revich, A.Beliavsky and some oth­ er grandmasters.

5.h3

This is a very flexible system of development and about its

Black has two main responses now: A) 5 . .�g7 and B) 5 .. �bd7, but before that we will an­ alyse some less popular moves. .

.

It is rather dubious for Black to play S . . . eS? ! , because after that he enters a very difficult end­ game. 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.'\Wxd8+ 'it>xd8 231

Chapter 16 8.lt:Jf3 i.d6 9.0-0-0
10 . . . b6. He should not allow the move a4-a5 (Following 10 . . . e5 11.a5:t, White occupies space on the queenside and his position is more pleasant, moreover that in numerous variations the vulnera­ bility of the d6-pawn will be hurt­ ing Black, Kindermann - Schloss­ er, Vienna 1996.) 11.Wid2 .tb7 (11 . . . e 5 12.dxe5 lt:Jxe5 13.ie2 ib7 14. �fd1 �adS 15.i.g5:t White has more space and can play against 232

the weakness on d6, as well as on the queenside after a4-a5.) 12. �fe1 e5 (after 12 . . . �ad8, White can begin immediate active actions on the queenside with the move 13. a5 !:t Kamsky - Tkachiev, Moscow 2008) 13.a5 ! ?:t He has the initia­ tive and it is bad for Black to cap­ ture the pawn 13 . . . bxa5? ! , since White will regain it easily and Black will end up with weak a and c-pawns, for example: 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.�a3 �fd8 16.�ea1 if8 17. �xa5± 5 . . . W!a5. This development of the queen cannot equalise for Black either. 6.id3 lt:Jbd7 7.lt:Jf3 e5 8.0-0 i.g7 9.W!d2 0-0 10 .a4

10 . . . �e8 (It is also possible for him to choose 10 . . . exd4 ll.lt:Jxd4 �e8 12. lt:Jb3 W!c7 13.�ad1 a6, Leko - Kamsky, Moscow 2007. Here, White should have continued with 14.a5 ! , without being afraid of 14 . . . c5 due to 15.i.c4:t and the vulnerability of the d6-pawn and the d5-square is much more im­ portant than the weakness of White's e4-pawn. Naturally, it would not work for Black to play 15 . . . lt:Jxe4?, because of 16.i.xf7+

l.d4 d6 2.e4 Ci:Jf6 3. Ci:J c3 g6 4. i.e3 c6 5.h3 'kt>xf7 17.�d5+ 'tt>f8 18.Ci:Jxe4+-) l U�fdl exd4. After this exchange the d-file is opened and the weak­ ness on d6 may become impor­ tant later (But even in the varia­ tion ll . . . �c7 12.dxe5 dxeS 13.a5 Ci:Jf8 14.Ci:Ja4 Ci:JhS lS.Ci:JcS Ci:Je6 16. �c3 Ci:Jhf4 17.i.fU, White's pros­ pects are preferable, since Black can hardly fight for the only open d-file due to his weakness on a7. He cannot play a7-a6, because this will lead to an irrevocable weakening of the b6-square.) 12 .hd4 Ci:JeS 13.ie2 ie6 14.Ci:Jg5;!; White has extra space (the e4pawn against the d6-pawn) and after the trade on e6 he will obtain the two-bishop advantage, Ortega - Van Rijn, Arco 2003. It would be premature for Black to choose S . . . bS? ! in view of 6.e5! and now, Black ends up in a very difficult position in all the variations.

6 . . . b4 7.exf6 bxc3 8.fxe7 �xe7 9.bxc3 i.h6 10.�e2 ia6, Goodger - Fegan, Sunningdale 2007, 11. �f3 he3 12 .�xe3 �xe3+ 13.fxe3 ixf1 14.'kt>xfl± White's pawn­ structure is a bit disrupted, but he

still has good chances of realising his extra pawn. 6 . . . Ci:Jfd7 7.exd6 exd6 (following 7 . . . b4 8.dxe7 �xe7 9.Ci:Ja4±, Black has no compensation for the pawn whatsoever) 8.d5 ! a6 (or 8 . . . b4 9.�d4 ! ± and he had the sad choice between playing with­ out a pawn, or without the ex­ change) 9.a4± - Now, Black can feel sorry for having made the move b7-b5, which has led to the irrevocable weakening of his queenside pawn-structure, Ankit - Mallick, India 2011. 6 ... dxe5. The transfer into an endgame cannot solve the prob­ lems for Black. 7.dxe5 �xd1+ 8. :gxd1 Ci:Jfd7 (It would not work for him to play 8 . . . b4 9.exf6 bxc3, be­ cause of 10.i.d4 ! ± and Black loses a pawn without any compensa­ tion, Sveshnikov - Smyslov, Til­ burg 1992.) 9.id4 e6 (He loses immediately following 9 . . . a6? 10. e6 Ci:Jf6 ll.i.b6 Ci:JdS 12.:gxd5 ! cxdS 13.Ci:Jxd5+- and Black cannot avoid the material losses, A.Iva­ nov - Weeramantry, Philadelphia 2003) 10.g3 aS ll.i.g2± White's pressure on the long diagonal is very unpleasant for his opponent, moreover that he is threatening the manoeuvre Ci:Jc3-e4-d6, Chai­ ka - Eremeev, Simferopol 1997.

A) 5 i.g7 6.f4 •••

The arising position on the board resembles very much the variation with 4.f4, in which Black has made the not so useful move 233

Chapter 16 c7-c6. Accordingly, his further plans are connected not with c5, but with advancing b5 and e5.

side pawns have been weakened (the consequences of the move b7-b5), but also his knight is mis­ placed at the edge of the board, Jansa - Pfleger, Germany 1989.) 8.tt:lf3 tt:lb6 (8 ... 0-0 9.i.d3 - see 6 ... 0-0) 9.i.d3 b4 10.tt:le4;!; White's pieces and pawns have occupied the centre of the board, David Delemarre, Vlissingen 2000. 6 . . . '?tlb6. This attempt to cause disharmony in White's camp by attacking the b2-pawn cannot equalise for Black either. 7.'?tfc1

6

...

0-0

Black makes a useful move, concealing his future plans for the moment. About 6 . . . tt:Jbd7 7.e5 - see 5 . . . tt:lbd7. 6 . . . tt:lh5. This move with the knight to the edge of the board looks dubious, since White can protect easily the weak g3-square. 7.tt:lge2 (7.'?tlf3 ! ?;t;) 7 . . . e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.'?tlxd8+ l!lxd8 10.0-0-0+ l!lc7 ll.g4± The queens have been exchanged and his lead in devel­ opment provides him with a con­ siderable advantage, A.Sokolov Chabanon, Torey 1991. After 6 ... b5, White should re­ act with an immediate strike in the centre. 7.e5 tt:Jfd7 (The end­ game is very difficult for Black in the variation 7 . . . dxe5 8.dxe5 '?tlxd1+ 9J�xd1 tt:Jh5 10.tt:lge2 g5 11. g3± and not only Black's queen234

7 . . . 0-0 (It seems anti-posi­ tional for him to opt for 7 . . . tt:lh5 8.tt:lge2 f5 9.e5 0-0 10J'!g1 g5 ll.g3 tt:la6 12 .i.g2 c5, Z.Hracek Marin, Krynica 1998 and here, the simplest way for White to em­ phasize his edge is 13.dxc5 tt:Jxc5 14.tt:ld5 '?tld8 15.i.xc5 dxc5 16. '?tle3±, after which Black's knight is a sorry sight at the edge of the board. Following 7 . . . '?tla5, there arises a position which will be an­ alysed later, except that White's queen is placed on cl. There may follow 8.i.d3 e5, Cornette - Sed­ lak, Subotica 2005 and here, White preserves a slight edge af-

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4. �e3 c6 5.h3 ter 9.fxeS dxeS 10.dxeS 'WxeS 11. ltJf3 'We7 12 .'Wd2 ltJbd7 13.0-0-0:t - the activity of his pieces com­ pensates with an interest the slight weakness of his isolated pawn on e4.) 8.i.d3 ltJa6 9.a3. Naturally, White should not let the enemy knight to the b4square. 9 . . . cS 10.ltJf3 cxd4 11 . .bd4 ltJcS 12 .eS ltJfd7 13.i.c4 'Wc6 (13 . . . 'Wd8 14.'We3 ltJb6 1S.i.a2 ltJ e 6 16. .bb6 'Wxb6 17.'Wxb6 axb6 18.ltJdS �e8 19.ltJxb6± Black's compensa­ tion for the pawn was insufficient in the game, Arakhamia-Grant I.Marin, Eforie Nord 2009.) 14 . .idS 'Wa6 1S.'We3 dxeS 16.fxeS ltJe6, Skrobek - Nyvlt, Email 2007, 17.0-0-0 ! ?:t White's pieces have occupied very active posi­ tions. 6 . . . 'WaS 7.�d3

It is just bad for Black to play here 7 . . . bS - the combination of the moves 'WaS and bS seems much more sensible if White had castled queenside. Now, after 8. ltJf3 i.b7, Gjuran - Klenburg, Par­ dubice 2008, 9.a3 ! ± Black's queen on aS only impedes the development of his queenside

initiative (aS and b4). If he ad­ vances bS-b4 (without a7-aS), then after the exchange of the pawns, he will have a weak isolat­ ed pawn on a7. 7 . . . ltJbd7 8.ltJf3 eS (Following 8 . . . cS 9.0-0 cxd4 10 . .bd4, there arises a position which is more typical for the Sicilian Defence. 10 ... 0-0 ll.i.c4!? ltJb6 12.i.b3 ltJhS 13 . .bg7 ltJxg7 14.'Wd4:t) 9.0-0 0-0 10.a3 ltJhS 1l.dxeS dxeS 12 .fS bS 13.'We1 ! ? White's queen may support eventually his attack from the h4-square. 13 . . . 'Wc7 14. �dU, followed by 'Wh4. If Black plays ltJf4, then White can easily exchange his opponent's active knight with the move ltJe2. 7 ... eS 8.ltJf3 exd4 (8 ... ltJbd7 9.0-0 - see 7 . . . ltJbd7. It is bad for Black to opt for 8 . . . exf4, since this would lead to the opening of the f-file, advantageous for White. Later, in the game Losev Gubanov, St Petersburg 1994, there followed: 9 . .bf4 dS lO.eS ltJhS ll . .id2 'Wb6 12 .g4 ltJg3 13.�g1 ltJe4 14 . .be4 dxe4 1S.ltJxe4 0-0 16.ic3± and Black had no com­ pensation for the sacrificed pawn.) 9 . .ixd4 0-0 10.'Wd2 ltJbd7 11.0-0 ltJcS. Here, White can seize the initiative on the kingside with 12.fS ! ? ltJxd3 13.cxd3:t - his pros­ pects are preferable, because Black cannot capture the fS-pawn in view of the loss of the piece in the variation 13 . . . gxfS?! 14.exfS .bfS?? 1S.ltJh4+-

7.ltJf3 23S

Chapter 16 After 7 ... tt:lbd7, White obtains an advantage with the move 8.e5.

7 b5 • . •

About 7 ... \Wb6 8J�b1 tt:lbd7 9. \Wd2 \Wc7 10.id3 eS 11.0-0 - see s ... tt:lbd7 6.f4 '1Wb6. 7 . . . \WaS 8.id3 tt:la6 (8 . . . tt:lbd7 - see 5 . . . tt:lbd7) 9.0-0 id7, Castro Rojas - Bermudez Barrera, Bogo­ ta 2006, 10.a3 !±, restricting the knight on a6. White has a power­ ful pawn-centre, while Black's mi­ nor pieces have occupied very passive positions. 7 ... c5? ! He ignores the loss of the tempo ... 8.dxc5 \WaS 9.i.d3 dS 10.e5 tt:le4 ll.ixe4 dxe4 12.ttld2± Black is not only a pawn down, but has problems with the protec­ tion of his e4-pawn, Jansa -Pein, Metz 1984. 7 . . . tt:la6 8.ixa6 bxa6 9.0-0 E:b8 10.b3;t - He has the two­ bishop advantage indeed, but his position is worse, since his pawn­ structure has been compromised, while White is dominant in the centre, Erenburg - Zubov, Nakh­ chivan 2003. 236

It seems rather dubious for Black to retreat his knight to the edge of the board, since after 8 . . . tt:le8, i n the game Shaked - Beim, Schwarzach 1997, White began a very promising attack against Black's monarch with 9.h4! ?±, as well as following 8 . . . tt:lh5 9.ttle2 ih8 (after 9 ... c5? ! 10.g4± Black's compensation for the piece was insufficient in the game Short M.Gurevich, Wijk aan Zee 1990) 10.g4 tt:lg7 ll.i.g2;t White domi­ nates in the centre, while Black's bishop on h8 and his knight on g7 are awkwardly placed, Jansa Hoi, Gausdal 1991. The retreat of the knight in the centre does not solve all Black's problems either. 8 . . . tt:ld5 9.tt:lxd5 cxdS 10 . .td3 \Wb6 11.\Wc1 dxeS 12. fxeS f6 13.exf6 tt:lxf6 14.0-0 i.fS 15.ixf5 gxfS 16.ttle5 \We6, Spivak - Czerwonski, Germany 2003, 17.i.f4;t White has a slight edge thanks to his possession of the important eS-outpost. It is possible that Black's best solution is the preliminary ex­ change - 8 . . . dxe5, although even

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6 5.h3 then after 9.dxe5 liJdS 10.liJxdS cxdS 11.�d2 (11.�xd5? liJxeS ! ) ll . . . liJb6, Donchenko - Gavrilov, Moscow 1995, White maintains a slight edge, restricting the enemy knight with the move 12 .b3:t

9.J.d3 �b6 10.0-0 b4 11. �e2 a5 12.a3;!; - He has much

more space and a powerful pawn­ centre, while Black's queenside activity has led only to the weak­ ening of his b4-pawn, Sveshnikov - Kraschl, Finkenstein 1994.

8.e5 B) 5

•••

�bd7

He postpones the develop­ ment of the bishop on f8, trying to advance as quickly as possible e7e5 or b7-b5.

6.f4

8 .tl]fd7 ••

He obtains an advantage even after the other retreats of Black's knight, for example: 8 . . . liJe8 9. id3 liJd7 10.0-0 ib7, Sveshnikov - Ciglic, Ljubljana 1994, 11.�el. White transfers his queen to the h4-square. ll . . . liJc7 12.�h4 and dangerous clouds are hanging over Black's king. 8 . . . liJdS 9.liJxd5 cxdS 10.c3 a6 ll . .id3 liJc6 12. 0-0:t White has extra space. Later, in the game Lukesova - Hansen, Email 2010, Black made a mistake by playing 12 . . . e6 and White increased his advantage by transferring his bishop to the f6-square. 13.if2 dxeS 14.fxe5 b4 1S . .ih4 �b6 16. if6±

6 b5 •••

Black relies on a counter at­ tack on the flank. 6 . . . �b6. This move is not dan­ gerous for White, since he is pre­ paring to castle kingside and can simply play 7.:gbl. There might follow: 7 . . . e5 8.�d2 �c7 9.liJf3 .ig7 10.id3 0-0 11.0-0 bS 12.a3 a6 13.dxe5 dxeS 14.f5:t and White begins his kingside attack. 14 . . . c5 15.fxg6 hxg6. After this exchange, not only the f-file is opened for White's rook, but what is even 237

Chapter 16 more unpleasant for Black White's knight will hardly be ousted from the gS-square (Black does not have the move h7-h6). 16.'!Wf2 c4 17 ..ie2 .ib7 18.tt:lg5 !!fe8 19.'!Wh4± White's attack is devel­ oping effortlessly, Erenburg Zlotnikov, Parsippany 2007. 6 .. .'!Wa5 7.id3 cS. This ex­ change of the c-pawn for the e­ pawn seems very dubious, since Black falls down considerably in development in the process (7 . . . e5 8.'1Wf3 .ig7 9.tt:lge2 - see 6 . . . e5). 8.tt:lge2 c4 9.hc4 tt:lxe4 10.0-0 tt:ldf6 (10 ... tt:lxc3 ll.tt:lxc3 tt:lf6 12. '!Wf3 a6, Solodovnichenko - Movs­ ziszian, Milan 2008, 13.!!ae1 .ig7 14.g4 0-0 15.f5± Black is helpless against his opponent's increasing initiative on the kingside.) 11. .ib5+ .id7 12 .hd7+ 'it>xd7 13. tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 14.c4 ! ? White wishes to exploit the fact that Black's king is stranded in the centre by opening the position (He obtains only a slight edge after the more prudent line: 14.'1Wd3 fS 15.c4 :li.g7 16.!!fc1 !!hc8 17.tt:lc3 tt:lxc3 18. !!xc3;!;, followed by White's pawn­ offensive on the queenside, Sveshnikov - Beliavsky, Bled 2001.) 14 . . . !!c8 15.c5t Black's king is endangered. The move 6 . . . :li.g7 does not combine well together with the previous move. If Black wished to develop his bishop on g7, then he had to do that immediately, with­ out losing time for the move 238

tt:lbd7. 7.e5 tt:ldS 8.tt:lxd5 cxdS 9. c3. The bishop on g7 is severely restricted in its movement by White's pawn on eS. 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . dxeS 10.dxe5 '!WaS ll.tt:lf3 0 - 0 12. .ie2 tt:lb6, Palekha - Kornev, Ser­ pukhov 2003 and here, White could have entered a better end­ game with 13.'1Wd4 .ie6 14.'!Wc5 '!WxcS 15.hc5;!;, he has more space and Black's bishop on g7 is very passive.) 10 .tt:lf3 dxeS 1Lfxe5 e6 12 .:li.d3 fS 13.'11;lid 2 tt:lb6 14.h4± Tu­ rov - Tripoteau, playchess.com 2005. White has a clear advan­ tage. He is threatening to organ­ ise a dangerous attack with .ih6 and h4-h5. If Black plays h7-h5 himself, then his pawn-majority on the kingside will be devalued and after b2-b3 and c3-c4, White will begin an offensive in the cen­ tre and on the queenside, where he will have in fact an extra pawn. It may be interesting for Black to try 6 . . . e5 and White should better counter it with 7.'11;lif3 ! ? , preparing castling queenside. In addition, his queen on f3 will sup­ port effectively his pawn-on­ slaught on the kingside with f4-f5 and g2-g4.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJc3 g6 4 . .ie3 c6 5.h3 After 7 . . . ig7, White accom­ plishes a plan which is standard in similar positions. He exchang­ es on eS and follows this with fS and g4. 8.dxeS dxeS 9.fS \l;lfaS 10. g4 bS ll . .id3 b4 12.liJd1 liJcS 13. liJe2 gxfS 14.gxfS liJxd3+ 1S.cxd3 .ia6. The activity of Black's pieces is only temporary, while his pawn-weaknesses are a perma­ nent factor. 16.liJc1 MB 17.liJf2 E:g8 18.liJb3 \l;lfbS 19.0-0-0 0-0-0 2 0 . 'it>bU White has a n easy game on the e-file and Black's king is rath­ er unsafe, E.Sveshnikov - Kom­ ljenovic, Torey 1991. After 7 ... \l;lfaS 8 ..id3 .ig7 9. liJge2 0-0 10.0-0 exd4 (Follow­ ing 10 . . . bS ll.a3, there may arise sharp complications on the board. ll . . . exd4 12.liJxd4 .ib7 13.eS dxeS 14.liJxc6 \l;lfc7 1S.liJe7+ 'it>h8 16. liJxbS \l;lfb8 17.liJc6 \l;lfc8 18.liJcxa7 \l;lrb8 19.liJc6 \l;lfc8oo White has won a couple of pawns indeed, but his cavalry on the queenside is iso­ lated from the actions and it is un­ clear whether he has anything more than a repetition of moves After lO . . . bS, White's best reac­ tion is 11.dxeS. One of the advan­ tages of this move is that Black is deprived of the possibility to ex­ change on d4. ll . . . dxeS 12.a3t, followed by f4-fS, White's king­ side attack seems more danger­ ous than Black's queenside coun­ terplay.) ll.liJxd4 dS 12 .eS liJe8 13. Wif2 (but not 13.e6? ! fxe6 14.liJxe6 liJeS ! + Sveshnikov - Rukavina, Pula 1990) 13 . . . \l;lrdS 14.liJf3 liJc7 1S.E:aeU White has good pros-

pects on the kingside and his piec­ es have occupied active positions, but naturally Black's counterplay, connected with b6 and cS, should not be underestimated.

7.a3 This prophylactic is necessary.

7

•••

liJb6

About 7 . . . a6 8.liJf3 liJb6 9 . .id3 - see 7 . . . liJb6. Black cannot equalise with the plan connected with advancing rapidly aS and b4. 7 . . . .ib7 8.liJf3 aS 9 . .id3 b4 10.liJe2 .ig7 ll.c4 bxc3 12.liJxc3 0-0 13 .0-0t White has a powerful pawn-centre and good attacking prospects on the kingside (\l;lrd1-e1-h4, fS, .ih6, liJgS), Cruzado Duenas - Bel­ legotti, Email 2006. The move 7 . . . eS was tested in the game Fressinet - M.Marin, Andorra 2004. After 8.liJf3 Wle7 9.fxeS dxeS 10.dS±, it t.urned out suddenly that White is attacking on the queenside. Black has great 239

Chapter 16 problems with the protection of his weak pawn on b5.

10 . . . .ib7

8 . . . .ig7 8 . . . a6 9 . .id3 ig7 (It seems an­ ti-positional for Black to follow the plan with advancing c6-c5, because he falls back considerably in development. 9 . . . e6 10.0-0 c5 11.dxc5 dxc5 12 .'!M/e1 i.e7 13.\M/f2 \M/c7 14.f5± - His premature activ­ ity on the queenside has led only to difficulties with the protection of the pawn on c5 and a lag in de­ velopment.) 10.0-0 \M/c7 11.'?Ne1 lt'lfd7 12.e5± White has a powerful pawn-centre, while Black lags greatly in development and has a problem with the safety of his king, because if he castles king­ side, he will come under the at­ tack of White's pieces, Bauer Uhoda, Metz 2005.

10.0-0 240

Following 10 . . . a5, White should continue with 11.1Mfc1, pro­ tecting prudently his b2-pawn and preparing f5 and i.h6. 11 . . . lt'lc4 ( 1 1 . . . i.d7 12 .f5 ! �) 12.i.f2 a4 13.b3 lt'lb6 14.'?Nd2� Black's knight has been ousted from the c4square and White has an advan­ tage thanks to his mighty pawn­ centre.

11.\Mlel a5 12.ti'h4

9 . .id3 0-0 About 9 ... lt'lc4 10.icl 11.0-0 - see 10 ... lt'lc4.

Following 10 . . . lt'lc4, White should better retreat with his bishop 11.ic1 and after 11 . . . a5, Maze - Movsziszian, Calvia 2005, begin active operations in the centre: 12.e5 ! ? dxe5 13.fxe5 lt'ld5 14.lt'lxd5 \M/xd5 15.a4. He under­ mines the base under the enemy knight. 15 . . . b4 16.'?Ne2 i.e6 17.c3 bxc3 18.bxc3 h6 19.ie4 \M/d7 20. lt'le1! After the transfer of the knight to c5, White's prospects will be obviously preferable.

0-0

It is also interesting for him to try 12.f5 ! ?�

l.d4 d6 2.e4 'D/6 3. 'D c3 g6 4. !e3 c6 5.h3 12 b4 13.axb4 axb4 14. �baS haS 15.'De2 !Oa4 16 .icl c5 •••

•

It would not be so accurate for him to opt for 17.e5, Karjakin Ehlvest, Panormos 2002, because after 17 . . . !xf3 ! 18J:!xf3 'DdS;!; and the exchange of the knight on f3, White's attack will not be so strong.

17 gxf5 1S.!Og3 ! •••

All his pieces participate i n the attack and there may follow:

1S .ixe4 19.!0xe4 !Oxe4 20.!0g5 !Oxg5 21 .ixg5 .ixd4+ 22.�hl f6 23 .ixf5 gf7 24 .ih6 .ie5 25 .ie6 ti'eS 26.gal !Ob6 27.ti'h5 f5 2s.ga6 Black will ei­ •••

•

•

17.f5! ?

•

•

After this move, White's rook and his dark-squared bishop join in the attack.

ther get checkmated, or lose plen­ ty of material.

Conclusion We have just analysed the variation with 4 . . . c6 in the Pirc Defence. After S.h3, White obtains an advantage in the opening, because Black cannot play S . . . bS due to 6.e5 ! and his pawn-offensive on the queenside leads only to the appearance of weaknesses in his camp. After Black's other possibilities, White completes effortlessly the development of his kingside and under the cover of his powerful pawn-centre begins an attack against the enemy king with \Wel-h4, fS, �h6 and 'DgS.

241

Part S Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3

with which Black avoids entering the Pirc Defence - (3 ... g6). In Chapter 17 we will deal with 3 e5, with 3 �bd7 in Chapter 18 and with 3 c6 in Chapter 19. After all these moves White should not have problems to ob­ tain an advantage in the opening, but he must play precisely, since there arises often a transfer into an endgame and a single inaccurate move may provide Black with the possibility to equalise. •••

•••

•••

In the final part of our second volume we will analyse the moves

242

Chapter 17

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt)f6 3.li} c3 e5

endgame in which he is fighting for the opening advantage thanks to his lead in development.

Surprisingly for many people, this move became very popular at the beginning of the 21st century. Numerous grandmasters have be­ gun to use it: A.Morozevich, T. Radjabov, P.Eljanov, S.Movsesian etc. Even M.Carlsen played sev­ eral times like this. Vladimir Bar­ sky wrote a book devoted to this variation. The main idea behind the move 3 . . . e5 for Black is to try to enter the Philidor Defence avoiding several variations which are advantageous for White.

4.dxe5! ? I have chosen a s the main weapon for White against 3 . . . eS this move which does not seem to be so ambitious. He trades imme­ diately the queens and enters an

Some readers may ask them­ selves: "Is it not simpler and bet­ ter just to play 4.lt:Jf3?" and there will arise a position resembling the closed openings. White's pawns have occupied the centre and his knights are placed on c3 and f3, just like in the majority of the variations of the King's Indian Defence. This similarity is mis­ leading, however. The difference is in the placement of White's c­ pawn. It is not on c4, like in the closed openings, but on its initial square and does not participate in the fight for the centre. His knight on c3 must protect the e4-pawn and cannot be removed easily from c3, so White's prospects to advance c2-c4 in the middle game are just minimal. There might fol­ low: 4 . . . lt:Jbd7 S . .ic4 .ie7 6.0-0 0-0 7.a4 a6 8.a5 h6 9.!!el exd4 10.lt:Jxd4 lt:JeS ll . .ifl cS 12.lt:Jb3 .ie6oo and in the game Caruana M.Carlsen, Biel 2011, there arose a complicated position with mu243

Chapter 17 tual chances in which each side had its pluses. Black's pieces are more active, while White has a better pawn-structure. Later, he might try to exploit the vulnera­ bility of his opponent's d6-pawn.

tion. At first, we will deal with some not so popular moves A) 6 .id6 and B) 6 .ie7 and after this we will analyse his two most fashionable and strongest respons­ es: C) 6 c6 and D) 6 .ie6.

4 .ig5

There do not arise original po­ sitions after 6 . . . h6, since follow­ ing 7.0-0-0+ �d6 S.h£6 - we reach a position from variation A, as well as after 6 . . . tt:\bd7, because following 7.0-0-0 c6 (7 . . . �e7 8. �h4 - see variation B; 7 . . . �d6 8.lt:lf3 - see variation A) 8.lt:lf3, there arises transposition to vari­ ation C.

•••

dxe5 5.fexd8+ l!?xd8 6.

•••

•••

•••

•••

A) 6 .id6 •••

This is the most natural move. White not only develops his bish­ op to an active position, but pre­ pares castling queenside, winning a tempo for development, since his rook will give a check to the enemy king (The fact that the dB­ square is not the best for Black's monarch is one of the pluses of the early trade of the queens.). Naturally, all this is very good for White, but we should not forget that there are no pawn weakness­ es in Black's camp and if he suc­ ceeds in completing his develop­ ment, White's advantage may evaporate. Therefore, he must play very precisely and energeti­ cally in this variation. Black has a great choice of possibilities in the arising posi244

This is not the best move for Black. Now, White's game is easy and he obtains an edge effortless­ ly. He only needs to play tt:\b5 at the right moment and to exchange on d6. White will not only obtain the two-bishop advantage in the process, but will provoke a weak­ ening of Black's pawn-structure.

7.0-0-0 This is the best.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJj6 3. liJc3 e5 4.de de 5. 'ffxdB
Black wishes to eliminate as quickly as possible the main de­ fect of his position - his lag in de­ velopment. It is obviously bad for him to choose 7 . . . .ie6?! due to 8.f4
completely the initiative in this endgame and can improve pa­ tiently his position (doubling the rooks on the d-file), while Black must adhere only to passive strat­ egy. Meanwhile, we should not forget that White has a superior pawn-structure. It also seems very good for him to try the straight­ forward line: 14.liJd5+ .ixd5 15. Ei:xd5 liJc5 16 ..ig2;!; - and he has a slight but stable edge in the end­ game. Black's d6-pawn is weak as well as his d5 and f5-squares, Col­ lins - Trevelyan, Gothenburg 2005. It would be too slow for him to choose 7 . . . a6 - Black parries the threat liJb5 indeed, but falls back in development even more. 8.liJf3 liJbd7 9 . .ixf6+. Now, he must comply with the weakening of his kingside pawn-structure in order not to lose a pawn. 9 . . . gxf6 10. liJd5 Ei:g8 11.liJh4 Ei:g4 12.liJf5 Ei:xe4 13.f3 Ei:a4 14.
8)L'lf3 c!>e8 He removes prudently his king away from the pin of the enemy 245

Chapter 17 bishop and the x-ray of his rook on dl. About 8 ... a6 9 . .ixf6 - see 7 . . . a6.

velopment indeed, but this is not much, since he can hardly find any target for attack in Black's po­ sition. In addition, we should not forget that he has two bishops.

9

•••

@e7

Black cannot play 9 . . . tt:Jxe4? in view of the simple tactical strike 10 .1'!xd6+-, and he loses material.

9)ilb5

This is the most natural and logical move for White. Black's bishop on d6 attracts White's knight like a magnet. It is interesting for him to try the move 9.�b5 ! ? , but it cannot guarantee an advantage for White. Now, Black must reply with the accurate move 9 . . . a6. (The careless reply 9 ... @f8? might cost Black a pawn. After 10 . .ixd7 tt:Jxd7 1l.lt:Jb5 f6 12 . .ie3 @e7 13. 1'!xd6 cxd6 14.tt:Jc7 b6 15.tt:Jxa8, naturally, White's knight will not run away from the aS-square, but while Black will be busy with its capturing, White will win a pawn, for which Black will have no com­ pensation at all. 15 . . . @d8 16.tt:Jd2 .ib7 17.tt:Jc4 .ixa8 18.tt:Jxd6 @c7 19.lt:Jb5± Jobava - Shanava, Tbi­ lisi 2012.) 10 . .ixd7+ tt:Jxd7 11. �e3oo Burreh - Schulz, Bad Sooden 2004. White leads in de246

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same after 9 . . . a6, since in the variation 10. tt:Jxd6+ cxd6, White's position is preferable due to his two-bishop advantage and the vulnerability of Black's d6-pawn. 11.lt:Jd2 h6 12. �e3 b5 13.f3 tt:Jc5 14.tt:Jb1 @e7 15. tt:Jc3 �e6 16.g4 tt:Jfd7 17.h4 f6 18. 1'!h2;!; A.Timofeev - L.Hansen, Skanderborg 2005. White has transferred successfully his knight from f3 to c3 and from there it can go to the d5-square at any mo­ ment. Now, he is preparing the doubling of his rooks on the d-file in order to attack decisively the enemy d6-pawn. Black's defence will be difficult.

10.tt:Jd2 This is a standard transfer of White's knight in this variation. From the d2-square it can go to c4, in order to attack the enemy d6-pawn, as well as to follow the route d2-b1-c3, going after the d5-outpost.

10

•••

h6 ll .th4 lilb6 •

Following ll . . . a6 12.tt:Jxd6 cxd6 13.f3;!;, White has a stable

l.d4 d6 2.e4 0.f6 3. 0.c3 e5 4.de de 5. Wixd8 �xd8 6. �g5 advantage thanks to his bishop­ pair and the weakness of Black's d6-pawn, Berescu - Badea, Ama­ ra 2007.

12.f3 .ie6 13 .tf2 �fd7 14. b3 ghc8 15.�xd6 cxd6 16.�b2 �c5 17.�bl! •

B) 6

• • •

.te7

This move is reliable, but somewhat passive. Black wishes to avoid the weakening of his pawn-structure.

7.0-0-0+

White's knight is not allowed to go to the c4-square by Black's pieces, so it goes along another route, which is longer, but not less effective, and its destination is the d5-square !

17 f5 18.exf5 .txf5 19.c4 •••

7 ... �bd7

This position was reached in the game Dvoirys - Spasov, Biel 1993. Black must capture White's knight in order to preserve chanc­ es of resisting. 19 -txbl! (After what was played in the game 19 . . . g5? ! 2 0 .0.c3±, White's posi­ tional advantage became almost decisive. Black was incapable of protecting the numerous weak­ nesses in his position.) 20.�xbU White's two bishops are evidently stronger than Black's knights and he has a weakness on d6; never­ theless he can still offer a tough resistance. •••

It may be also interesting for him to try the "super-solid" move 7 . . . �e8 and after 8.0.f3 0.bd7 (The move 8 . . . ig4 was tested in the game Sudakova - Sharovato­ va, Rybinsk 1999. White had to counter it with the active response 9.0.b5 ! ? and there might follow: 9 . . . 0.a6 10 .ic4 0.d7 ll.ie3;!;. In the oncoming fight, Black will have problems to ensure the safe­ ty of his king and to coordinate his rooks. It would be worse for him to choose instead 10 . . . 0.xe4? ! , because the opening of files in the centre will be in favour of White, since he is better developed, so Black will fail to hold on to his ex­ tra pawn. 11.he7 �xe7 12.!!he1 f5 13.0.c3 hf3 14.0.d5+ �d7 15. gxf3 0.d6 16.ixa6 bxa6 17.!!xe5 !!ae8 18.f4± White's doubled pawns on 247

Chapter 17 the f-file look much better than their black counterparts on the a­ file.) 9 . .ih4 a6 10 . .ic4 .id6, Zakha­ rov - Pribyl, Dresden 2008. Fol­ lowing ll.a3 ! ? b5 12 . .ia2 .ib7 13. tt:ld2 'it>f8 14.f3�, Black must lose time in order to evacuate his king to the g7-square and to connect his rooks, while White is perfectly prepared to exploit his opponent's queenside weaknesses (the conse­ quence of the move b7-b5) with tt:ld2-b3-a5. He has also tried in practice 7 . . . tt:lfd7 - Black wishes to trade the dark-squared bishops, which should facilitate somehow his de­ fence. 8 . .ie3. Naturally, White avoids this. 8 . . . c6 9.f4. He is try­ ing to occupy space with his pawns on the kingside. 9 . . . 'it>c7 10.tt:lf3 f6 ll . .ic4 .id6 12.f5

White maintains a slight edge. He has extra space and can gradu­ ally advance his kingside pawns, while Black must still complete the development of his queenside pieces. 12 . . . tt:lb6 13 . .ie2 id7, Mellado - Mundet, Banyoles 2002, 14. tt:lel ! ? White is transferring his 248

knight to d3, taking under control the c5-square. 14 ....ie8 15.b3 tt:l8d7 16.tt:ld3. Now, Black will not have the possibility to trade the bish­ ops on c5. 16 . . . i.a3+ 17.'it>ba, fol­ lowed by a pawn-offensive for White on the kingside. It seems interesting for Black to opt for 12 . . ..ic5 ! ? - he manages to exchange advantageously the bishops. He trades White's "good" bishop for his "bad" bishop (its mobility is severely restricted by the pawn on e5). 13.i.xc5 tt:lxc5 14.a4 aS 15.g4 h6 16.h4�

White has an advantage in this endgame, because his bishop on c4 is very active and Black's seem­ ingly "good" bishop is cramped considerably by the pawn on f5. After a2-a4, White prevents the further advance of his opponent's queenside pawns, while Black is incapable of countering White's pawn-break (g4-g5) on the other side of the board. (diagram)

8.i.h4! ? White i s transferring his bish­ op to the g3-square in order to at­ tack his opponent's pawn on e5.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 0,f6 3. 0,c3 eS 4.de de 5. 'ff!xdB �xdB 6. !g5

He wishes to provoke the move !d6, after which he plans to at­ tack the bishop with the move 0,b5. The careless move 8.0,f3 ena­ bles Black after 8 . . . 0,g4, to force a favourable exchange of the dark-squared bishops and since the temporary activity of White's pieces will be gradually neu­ tralised, Black will have great chances of equalising. 9.he7+ �xe7 10.0,d5+ �d8 11.0,g5 0,h6 12 .0,e3 �e7 13.0,d5+ �d8= Khen­ kin - Spiess, Germany 1999. Nat­ urally, White's knights are de­ ployed very actively, but it is not so clear what can he really achieve. Black has a very simple defensive plan. He wishes to oust White's active cavalry with the moves c6, �e7 and f6, equalising complete­ ly.

8

•••

ic7 13.0,e2 g6 14.0,e3 �e7 15.0,c3 0,b6 16 . .id3 .ie6 17.h4 0,g7 18 . .ih2 0,h5 19.g3 .id6 20.E:de1, draw, Miladinovic - Damljanovic, Herceg Novi 2008. Black has reached a completely equal posi­ tion and White must already think about how not to become worse, since his bishop on h2 is obvious­ ly misplaced.

10

•••

f6 U.0,xd6 0,xd6 12.£3

After Black has played f7-f6, his bishop has nothing to do on the g3-square and White trans­ fers it to a more active position.

12 �e7 13.0,e2 0,c5 14. ttlc3 c6 15 .if2;t •••

•

It is a well known fact that the power of the two bishops is best demonstrated in an open posi­ tion, but they guarantee White an edge even now. Later, Black will be faced with the rather unpleas­ ant task to defend a slightly infe­ rior endgame.

0,e8 9 .ig3 .id6 •

(diagram)

10.0,b5 ! ?

The move 10.0,d5 would not bring any particular dividends for White. 10 . . . c6 11.0,e3 f6 12.0,f5

C) 6

c6

This is one of the most popular moves for Black together with 6 . . . �e6, H e defends reliably against . . •

249

Chapter 17 the possible sortie of White's knight to bS and plans later to oc­ cupy space on the queenside with the move b7-b5.

7.0-0-0+ This is a very natural move. It is really very difficult not to castle with a check!

7 .. .rJlc7. This retreat of the king has a considerable defect - now it cannot protect the t7-pawn. 8.lt:Jf3 id6 9.ic4 ie6. Black's pawns are doubled after this move (It is pos­ sible that Black should better comply with the solid defensive move 9 . . . l:!f8, although even then after 10.a3t, White, thanks to the more active placement of his mi­ nor pieces and Black's lag in de­ velopment, maintains a stable ad­ vantage.). 10 . .he6 fxe6 ll.ih4 ! We are already familiar with this transfer of the bishop to g3, with the idea to exert pressure against the enemy eS-pawn. ll . . . lt:Jbd7 12. ig3 h6 13.l:!d2± and Black has a very difficult position, Schandorff - Nordqvist, Stockholm 1996. 250

With his last move, White has prepared the doubling of his rooks on the d-file after which Black, in order to preserve his bishop on the d6-square, must re­ treat with his knight to a passive position on e8; otherwise, he will lose his eS-pawn. 7 .. .'it>e8. This retreat of the king seems more reliable, because the t7-pawn will be reliably pro­ tected. 8.lt:Jf3 ig4 ! ? Black exploits the fact that White's knight is pinned and the eS-pawn is un­ touchable and develops his bish­ op to an active position (8 . . . lt:Jbd7 9.ih4 - see 7 . . . lt:Jbd7). 9.ie2 lt:Jbd7 10 .h3 .hf3 ll . .ixf3 icS 12. ih4 ie7, Scerbo - V.Georgiev, Cutro 2003, 13.ig3t White has a slight edge thanks to his bishop­ pair, moreover that Black has some problems with the protec­ tion of his eS-pawn.

8 . . . Wc7 9.ic4 ib4 10.l:!he1 hc3 ll.bxc3 l:!f8 12.a4t This is an important move. White does not allow his opponent to advance b7b5. All his pieces are in action and his bishops have occupied very active positions, while Black has not completed his development yet. Therefore, despite the weak­ ening of his queenside pawn­ structure, White's position is preferable.

9 . .ih4

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 e5 4.de de 5. V!ixd8 W xd8 6 . /igS Once again his bishop is trans­ ferred to g3 in order to exert pres­ sure against the enemy eS-pawn.

9 . . . .ib4 9 . . . /icS 10.ic4 ib6. Black's bishop is in a hurry to occupy the c7-square, in order to protect reli­ ably the eS-pawn and after that Black obtains a reliable but pas­ sive position. 11.�d2 . White plans to double his rooks. ll . . . fi.c7 12. �hd1 We7 13.a3 h6 14.b4. He oc­ cupies space on the queenside. 14 . . . �e8 15.ltJe1 ! This is an impor­ tant manoeuvre of White's knight. After Black has defended reliably the eS-pawn, White's knight has nothing to do on f3, so it is headed for the cS-square. 15 . . . ltJb6 16.fi.b3 gS 17 . .ig3 ltJhS 18.ltJd3 f6 19.ltJcS �d8 20.�xd8 ixd8 21.f3 aS 2 2 . if2 axb4 23.axb4;!; - The knight is very powerful on cS, while Black's bishop on c8 is squeezed with the protection of the pawn on b7, Malakhov - Damljanovic, Kal­ lithea 2002.

10 .ic4 .ia5 •

It seems rather dubious for Black to choose 10 . . . ixc3, since he would fail to exploit the defects of his opponent's pawn-structure due to his considerable lag in de­ velopment. ll.bxc3 bS 12 .fi.b3 cS, Videnova - Bednikova, Dupnitsa 2010 (Black loses after 12 . . . ltJxe4?, since following 13.ltJxe5+-, he cannot capture the knight in view of the checkmate and he is help­ less against the threats ltJf7 and �he1) 13.c4 ! ± White gets rid of his doubled pawns and obtains a bet­ ter position. Black's king is mis­ placed in the centre of the board, despite the fact that it is an end­ game and the move 13 . . . b4? loses immediately, since following 14. ia4 ! , White's bishop enters the actions with a decisive effect. 14 . . . We7 1S.fi.c6 �b8 16.ixd7 ixd7 17.ltJxe5 ie8 18.f3+-, Black is not only a pawn down, but has a seri­ ous weakness on cS which White can attack effectively with the moves ltJd3 and if2 .

ll.a3 h6 It is possibly more reliable for Black to try 1 1 . . .ic7, al­ though even then following 12. ltJe1 ! ? We7 13.ltJd3 �e8 14.f3 ltJf8, Jurkovic - Jovanovic, Sibenik 2005, 1S.if2i, White maintains a slight edge, because his pieces have occupied much more active positions. (diagram)

12 .ixf6!

. He exploits the fact . that the enemy eS-pawn is not sufficiently •

251

Chapter 17 attacked by White's rook on hl. There followed: 20 . . ,gxg3 21. hxg3 �f8 22.li)e3. White is re­ grouping his knights. Naturally, his knight on h4 belongs to the fS­ square. 22 . . . li)c8 23.li)hf5± After this move, Black is incapa­ ble of holding on too his hS-pawn and White has excellent chances of realising his material advan­ tage. -

protected and Black cannot cap­ ture on f6 with his knight, so White provokes a weakening of the enemy pawn-structure.

12

.••

gxf6 13.li)e2

White's knights are headed for the fS-outpost.

13 ... b5 14.ia2 .ic7 15.li)h4 li)b6 16.li)g3 ie6 17.ib3 h5 tS.c!l)gf5 ggs t9.gd3 gds 20. gg3

Black's position in the game Khenkin - Bellini, Bratto 2004 is difficult. He is faced with the un­ pleasant choice - to either give up to his opponent the g-file, or to exchange on g3, which will lead to the opening of the h-file, after which Black's pawn on hS will be 252

D) 6 . . . ie6 This is the most logical move for Black. He develops his bishop to an active position and prevents the appearance of White's bishop on c4, freeing the c8-square for his king in the process.

7.g3 ! ?

Grandmaster I.Khenkin likes to play this move. White is pre­ paring f2-f4 and wishes to be able to recapture on f4 with a pawn, if necessary, in order not to lose control over the eS-square. Black has two basic moves in this position: Dl) 7. . . ib4 and 02) 7. . . �c8 .

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 e5 4.de de 5. Wfxd8 c.!lxd8 6. :1J..g5 ie6 7.g3 Following 7 . . . i.e7 8.f4 h6 9. i.h4, he can sacrifice a pawn in the spirit of some of the variations of the Sicilian Defence, but White can still maintain the advantage after a precise play. 9 . . . g5 10.fxg5 ltJh7 ll.gxh6 i.xh4 12.gxh4 ltJf6 13.i.h3. The trade of the bishops is in favour of White, since Black's bishop is much more active. 13 . . . ixh3 14.ltJxh3 1'!xh6 15.ltJg5 c.!le7 16.1'!f1 (It is also good for White to continue with 16.ltJf3 ! ? ltJbd7 17. :B:gU and although his pawns on the h-file are doubled, but one of them is extra! ) 16 . . . c6 17.1'!f5 ltJbd7 18.ltJf3;t White's rook and knight squeeze Black's pieces with the protection of his e5-pawn, while White has an extra pawn despite its being doubled, Khenkin Belkhodja, Amsterdam 2005. It does not seem logical for Black to opt for 7 . . . h6. White of­ ten exchanges himself on f6 and here Black loses a tempo, falling back in development, in order to force this trade. 8.ixf6+ gxf6 9.f4 ic5 (The position is difficult for him in the variation 9 . . . ib4 10. 0-0-0+ c.!le7 ll.f5 ixc3 12 .fxe6 id4 13.exf7 ixg1 14.1'!xg1 c.!lxf7, Chuprov - Kodinets, chessassis­ tantclub.com 2004. Here, White could have obtained a great ad­ vantage by transferring his rook to the d-file. 15.1'!g2 ! c.!le7 16. 1'!gd2± Black's defence is very dif­ ficult, because he cannot com­ plete the development of his

queenside pieces, because his knight must protect the d7square against the penetration of White's rook.) 10.0-0-0+ c.!lc8 (Black loses a pawn after 10 . . . c.!le8 11.f5 ic8 12.4Jd5± Khenkin - El­ lenbroek, Almemlo 2006.) ll.fS id7 12.ltJd5 ic6 13.ltJxf6± - His compensation for the pawn is in­ sufficient. After 7 . . . ltJbd7, Black's bishop on e6 cannot retreat anywhere and White can exploit this with the energetic move 8.f4. (It is worse for him to play the routine move 8.0-0-0, because after that Black's bishop can retreat with tempo, attacking White's rook on dl. Later, in the game V.Belov ­ Yudin, Moscow 2009, there fol­ lowed 8 . . . c.!lc8 9.f4 ig4 10.1'!d3 and in this complicated and dou­ ble-edged position the opponents agreed to a draw.) 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . i.b4? 9.f5+-) 9.ixf6+ ltJxf6 10.0-0-0+ c.!lc8 ll.ltJf3 exf4 (in the game Prie - Alawieh, Fouesnant 1997, Black chose the active reply ll . . . ib4, but following 12.f5 i.d7 13.ltJxe5 ixc3 14.bxc3 1'!e8 15.ltJxd7 ltJxd7, White had the powerful tactical resource 16.f6 ! and as a result of 16 . . . ltJxf6 17.i.h3+ c.!lb8 18.e5±, he seized completely the initiative) 12.gxf4 g6, Santo-Roman - Cha­ banon, Nantes 1993, 13.ltJd4 ! ;t Black lags i n development and fails to preserve his two-bishop advantage without considerable positional concessions. ·

253

Chapter 17 Dl) 7 .ib4 8.0-0-0+ •••

Naturally, White removes his king from the pin with tempo.

8

• . .

lbbd7

Black ends up in a very passive position in the variation 8 . . . 'it>e8 9 . .bf6 gxf6 10.ttld5 .bdS. Unfor­ tunately for him he must part with his powerful light-squared bishop; otherwise, he loses a pawn 1U!xd5 c6 12 .!!d1 tt::l d7 13. ih3 tt::l b 6 14.tt::l f3;!; Rendle - Mah, England 2012. White's knight goes to fS and there it will be per­ fectly placed. The doubled f­ pawns are a permanent defect of Black's position and he must de­ fend for long a rather unpleasant endgame. 8 . . . 'it>c8 9.hf6. White is pre­ paring to occupy the dS-square with his knight. 9 . . . gxf6 10.tt::l d 5 hdS (Black's reluctance to ex­ change on dS leads to a worse po­ sition for him. 10 . . . ic5 11.tt::l xf6 .ixf2 12 .ih3 tt::l c6 13 . .be6+ fxe6 14.tt::l h3 ie3+ 15.'it>b1 b6, Khenkin - Koscielski, Bad Wiessee 2000, 254

16.!!d3 ! ih6 17.c3± - The arising endgame is difficult for Black, since he has no compensation for his compromised pawn-struc­ ture.) 11.exd5 (It is also interest­ ing for White to play here simply 11.!!xd5 ! ? c6 12 . .ih3+ 'it>c7 13. !!d3;!; and Black's doubled f-pawns do not beautify his position.) 11 . . . i.cS, Khenkin - Urban, Koszalin 1998, 12 .ih3 + ! tt::l d7 13.tt::l e 2 'it>d8 (It seems rather dubious for him to try now 13 . . . .ixf2 ? ! , because af­ ter 14.!!hf1 i.e3+ 15.'it>b1 'it>d8 16. tt::l c3 hS 17.i.xd7 'it>xd7 18.tt::l e 4±, White regains his pawn preserv­ ing all the pluses of his position.) 14.tt::l c3 hS 15.tt::l e4;!; and in the arising situation, White main­ tains a stable advantage.

9.f4 .ixc3 This was the idea of Black's move 7. He has compromised White's queenside pawn-struc­ ture.

10.bxc3 'it>e8 But not 10 . . . h6? 11 . .ixf6+ gxf6 12.f5 ha2 13.'it>b2 +- and Black's bishop was trapped in the game Zaragatski - Zeldin, playchess. com 2008.

ll.f5 .ixa2 It is bad for him to choose 11 . . . tt::l x e4, since after 12 .fxe6 fxe6 13. ie3 tt::l xc3 14.!!e1 tt::l x a2 + 15.'it>b2 tt::l b4 16.tt::l f3± White's minor piec­ es are evidently stronger than Black's pawns in this endgame,

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3Ji:Jc3 e5 4.de de 5. WixdB
- V.Orlov, Almemlo

12 .ixf6 ltJxf6 13.
•

White's bishop is more powerful than Black's three pawns.

D2) 7

•••


He evacuates prudently his king away from the pin.

8.{4 .lb4 9 .ld3 •

(diagram)

9 . . . ttle8 9 . . . ltJa6. His knight is headed for the cS-square. lO.ltJge2 ltJcS.

Now, White cannot obtain an edge with 11.0-0, because of 11 . . . .ih3 and Black has good counter­ play on the weakened light squares in his opponent's camp. It is stronger for White to play 11 . .ixf6 ! ? gxf6 12. 0-0-0;!; In the arising position, White's superior pawn-structure is a more impor­ tant factor than Black's two-bish­ op advantage. In addition, he must lose time in order to com­ plete his development and to bring his queen's rook into the ac­ tions. 9 . . . h6, Kornev - Shabanov, Moscow 2007, 10 . .ixf6 gxf6 11. ltJf3 ltJc6 12.a3 .ixc3+ 13.bxc3;!; The vulnerability of Black's pawns on the f-file is a more important factor than the weakness of White's pawns on the opposite side of the board. It deserves a very serious at­ tention for Black to consider here the move 9 . . ltJc6 ! ? . Later, in the game Kayser - Markoja, Email 2011, there followed lO.fS .ixc3+ 11.bxc3 .id7 12.ttlf3 ltJe8 13.g4 f6 .

255

Chapter 17 14 . .ie3 l2Jd6 15.c4 b6 16.g5;!; and White's extra space and the pos­ sibility for active actions on the kingside not only compensate the vulnerability of his queenside pawns, but also provide him with a slight edge.

10.fxe5 He has won a pawn, but keep­ ing it will not be an easy task for him.

10 h6 ll . .if4 g5 12 .ie3 c!LJd7 13.c!lJf3 if'S .••

•

(diagram) Black is transferring his bish­ op to g7 in order to increase his pressure against the enemy eS­ pawn, !.Popov - Khairullin, Ulan Ude 2009. Now, White can maintain a

slight advantage after 14.0-0-0 ig7 15.c!lJd5 c!LJxe5 16.c!LJe7+ �d7 17.c!LJf5 hf5 (17 . . . l2Jxf3?? 18 . .ib5+-) 18.c!LJxe5+ ixe5 19. exf5;!; and again, just like in many

variations which we have ana­ lysed in this chapter, White's two powerful bishops provide him with a slight edge.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 3 . . . e5 4. dxeS. There arises after it an endgame which is slightly better for White and he maintains the initiative thanks to his superior development. Depending on Black's responses, White can fight for the advantage in two different ways. Following 6 . . . c6, he develops his bishop to c4, his knight on f3 and castles queenside. Later, he squeezes his opponent with the protection of the pawn on eS with the help of placing his bishop on the g3-square. Subsequently, White doubles his rooks on the d-file and transfers his knight along the route f3-el-d3-c5 and if Black protects his pawn on eS with the move f7-f6, then White transfers his bishop on f2 (after f2-f3). All this guarantees for him a slight but long lasting advantage in the endgame. In response to 6 . . . .ie6, White prepares the pawn-advance f2-f4 with the move g2-g3 and forces again his opponent to adhere to a passive defence. In general, it is much easier for White to play this endgame.

256

Chapter 18

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 �bd7

This move is simple and strong! H .Pillsbury played like this back in the year 1902. White is preparing e4-e5 and wishes to exploit the basic draw­ back of Black's third move - the absence of the d7-square for the retreat of his knight on f6.

4 .. e5 .

It is easily understandable that with his last move Black prepares the pawn-advance e7-e5, avoiding the exchange on eS with a transfer into an endgame, which we have just analysed in our previous chapter. As a rule, the move 3 . . . ltlbd7 is usually chosen by chess players in a fighting spirit, who strive for complicated positions with many pieces on the board, irrelevant of the colour of pieces they play with. A.Morozevich, D.Khisma­ tullin and some other grandmas­ ters play like this. White cannot enter now a slightly better end­ game, but has some other promis­ ing possibilities.

4.f4

This is a logical move. Black has played 3 . . . ltlbd7 in order to advance e7-e5. His other possibilities are not only inconsistent, but are just du­ bious. For example: 4 . . . g6? ! S.eS lLlhS 6.�e2 ltlg7 7.ltlf3± Black has wast­ ed too many tempi for the com­ pletely useless fianchettoing of his knight. White has a powerful pawn-centre and a lead in devel­ opment. Or 4 . . . c5? ! S.eS ! cxd4 6.11tfxd4 ltlg4 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 6 . . . dxe5 7.fxe5±, be­ cause now the g4-square is con­ trolled by White's qQeen · and Black's knight will be forced to retreat to its initial position.) 7. 257

Chapter 18 exd6 exd6 8 . .id2 ! White plans to castle queenside. Now, Black will be faced with a rather unpleasant choice. He must either come un­ der attack in the middle game, or exchange the queens and enter an inferior endgame due to the vul­ nerability of his d6-pawn. 8 . . . lbgf6 9.0-0-0 .ie7 10 .g4 1M/b6 (His position will be difficult too following 10 . . . 0-0 ll.gS lbe8 12. lbdS±) ll.lbf3 1M/xd4 12.lbxd4 lbxg4 13.lbd5 .idS 14.:B:e1 + 'kt>f8 15. lbbS±. White maintains a great and possibly even decisive advan­ tage. Naturally, he will regain eas­ ily his sacrificed pawn after which Black will hardly manage to neu­ tralise the activity of his oppo­ nent's pieces and complete his development without material losses. After 4 . . . c6? ! S.eS lbdS 6.lbxd5 cxdS 7 . .id3 e6 8.lbf3 .ie7 (Follow­ ing the exchange 8 . . . dxe5, the f­ file is opened for White's rook and the c1-h6 diagonal for his bishop. 9.fxe5 .ie7 10.0-0 fS 11. exf6 lbxf6 12 .lbe5 0-0 13.c3 .id6 14 . .ig5 Wfc7 15.1Mle2± - His pieces have occupied very active posi­ tions and can begin an attack against Black's king at any mo­ ment, moreover that he must worry about the vulnerability of the pawn on e6, Kasimdzhanov Schubert, Mainz 2010.) 9.0-0 g6 10.1Mfe2t White has extra space, while Black lags in development, A.Muzychuk - Akobian, Wijk aan Zee 2010. 258

5.c!bf3 White increases his pressure against the eS-square and forces his opponent to give up the cen­ tre.

s

. . .

exd4

This is the best move for Black, since after his alternatives his po­ sition becomes very bad. It seems anti-positional for him to continue with 5 . . . 1M/e7, be­ cause Black's queen will hamper there the development of his kingside pieces. 6.fxe5 dxeS 7.lbb5 ! ? Now, the game is opened and this is in favour of White be­ cause he is better developed. 7 . . . lbb6 B.lbxeS lbxe4 9 . .id3 lbf6 1 0 . 0 - 0 c6 1l.lbc3 .ie6 12.l2le2 0-0-0 13.lbf4± - after the exchange on e6, White's bishop will turn into very powerful force. Naturally, Black cannot play 13 . . . :B:xd4? due to 14.lbxc6 ! + I t i s also very bad for him to choose 5 . . .exf4 6 ..ixf4± White has a powerful pawn-centre, a lead in development and in the future he

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltlf6 3. ltl c3 ltl bd7 4/4 can organise active actions on the f-fi.le after i.c4 and 0-0. Following 5 ... i.e7, White can simply capture on eS. 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.fxe5 lt:lg4 8 . .if4± Now, the pawn on eS is reliably protected and Black must only hope that he can create some counterplay connect­ ed with the penetration of his knight to the f2-square. This knight-sortie however, is doomed to fail in view of his lag in devel­ opment. 8 . . . ic5 9.'1Wd2 lt:lf2 (9 . . . .if2 + 10.�e2 i.b6 ll.h3 lt:lh6? 1 2 . igS+-) 10.E:g1 (10.-igS ! ? ; 10.e6 ! ? fxe6 1l.i.g5) 10 . . . lt:lg4, Malbran Tempone, Buenos Aires 1997 (Black's position is very bad after 10 . . . c6 ll.i.e2 lt:lg4 12.E:fl±, White not only has an extra pawn but his development is superior.). Here, he could have sacrificed the ex­ change beginning a decisive on­ slaught. 11.0-0-0 ! hg1 12.lt:lxgl. There may follow: 12 . . . 0-0 13.h3 lt:lh6 14.lt:ld5 i>h8 15.hh6 gxh6 16.'1Wxh6 E:g8 17.lt:lf6 E:g7 18. '!Wd2 +-, Black has avoided being checkmated on h7, but he has paid a too dear price for that. Now, he loses his knight because of the pin and White ends up with a decisive material advantage. The other possibility for Black to sacrifice his e5-pawn does not promise him an easy life either. 5 . . . c6 6.dxe5 dxeS 7.fxe5 lt:lg4 8. e6! White gives back his extra pawn just at the right moment and seizes completely the initia-

tive. 8 . . . fxe6 9.lt:lg5 lt:ldeS (9 . . . h5 10.ie2±) 10.'1Wxd8+ i>xd8 ll.h3 lt:lf6 (The character of the position remains more or less the same if Black retreats his knight to the edge of the board ll . . . lt:lh6, fol­ lowing 12.i.f4 lt:lg6 13.0-0-0+ \t>e8 14.i.g3± - he has a weakness on e6 and lags in development, Hoefer - Van Laar, Email 2003) 12.if4 lt:lg6 13.0-0-0+ i>e8 14. .ic7± Black is faced with a difficult defence in the endgame, since he can hardly coordinate his pieces and the weakness on e6 is hurting him, Lomonosovas - Barsciaus­ kas, Panevezys 2008.

6.tbd4

This is stronger than capturing with the knight. White intends to castle queenside and preserves the threat e4-e5.

6

•••

c6

This is the main response for Black. He takes the dS-square un­ der control and prepares · the move '!Wb6, just in case, fn order to try to trade the queens and to di259

Chapter 18 minish his opponent's attacking potential. He also has the active possibility to advance d6-d5, fol­ lowed by �cs. It is bad for Black to play 6 . . . g6? ! , due to 7.e5 ! dxeS 8.fxe5 �cS 9.¥tl'a4 tLlhS, Kulicov - Novitzkij , St Petersburg 1999. Now, White can begin a decisive offensive with the line: 10.g4! tLlg7 11.�g5 �e7 12 .he7 ¥tl'xe7 13.tLldS '?tfcS 14. 0-0-0 0-0 1S.b4 ¥tl'f2 16.¥tl'b3 c6 17.tLle7+ 'it>h8 18.tLlxc8+- and Black ends up a piece down. He should better avoid 6 . . . �e7, because of 7.e5 dxeS (or 7 . . . c5 8. ¥tl'd2 dxeS 9.fxe5 tLlg4 10.¥tl'f4± and Black's knight on g4 will be a cause of permanent worries for him, Zidu - Kuchta, Czech Re­ public 2000) 8.fxe5 �cS 9.¥tl'c4 '?tfe7 10.¥tl'e2 tLlg4 ll.lLldS �f2 + 12. ¥tl'xf2 tLlxf2 13.tLlxe7 tLlxh1 14. tLldS+-, Black's knight will not run away from the h1-square and White's two minor pieces will be obviously stronger than Black's rook, Martin Gonzalez - Ortega Ruiz, Linares 1998. 6 ... tLlcS. This is a possibility af­ ter which Black does not equalise indeed, but reaches a fighting po­ sition. 7.�e3 �e7 (It is not good for him to choose 7 . . . g6 - he is be­ hind in development anyway and cannot afford to lose time for fian­ chettoing the bishop. 8.0-0-0 ig7 9.e5 tLlg4 lO.�gl± Black has great difficulties with the protec260

tion of his d6-pawn. Later, in the game Yakovich - Johansson, Stockholm 1996, there followed: 10 . . . tLlh6 11.¥tl'b4 ! aS 12 .¥tl'a3 tLle6 13.exd6+- and Black had no com­ pensation for the pawn.) 8.0-0-0 0-0 9.e5 tLlfd7 (It is worse for him to play 9 . . . tLlg4, because after 10 .�g1 �e6 ll.h3 tLlh6 12 .g4±, White's pieces exert powerful pressure in the centre and Black's knight on h6 is horribly mis­ placed, German - De Freitas, For­ taleza 1951.) 10.'it>b1 ! ?t White ex­ erts rather unpleasant pressure against the d6-square, has extra space and can deploy easily his pieces to more active positions. The idea of the prophylactic move 12.'it>b1 for White is to avoid some tricks along the c1-h6 diagonal in the heat of the fight.

7 .ie3 .

7 d5 . . .

Black wishes to develop his bishop on f8 to an active position. He fails to equalise after the more prudent line: 7 . . . ¥tl'b6 8.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLJf6 3. lLJ c3 lLJ bd7 4/4 0-0-0 1Wxd4 (following 8 . . . ie7 9.1Wd2 '<Mfc7 10.id3 0-0 llJ''!:h eU, White has more space (a pawn on e4 against a pawn on d6) and can prepare patiently a breakthrough in the centre - e4-eS) 9.hd4 ie7 lO.eS dxeS lUxeS lLJhS 12 .lLJe4 0-0 13.lLJd6;!; Meszaros - Belk­ hodja, Agneaux 1999. He is better in this endgame thanks to his powerful knight on d6. Black will have problems completing his de­ velopment, since he cannot ex­ change on d6 (White will obtain a very powerful passed pawn if this happens.), so if he wishes to de­ velop his bishop on c8, he must not only remove his knight from the d7-square, but also take care about the protection of his b7pawn. It would be too precarious for Black to try 7 . . . 1i.e7 8.0-0-0 0-0, because after 9.eS, his knight will have to go to the rather unfavour­ able h6-square. 9 . . . lLJg4 (The re­ treat to the edge of the board does not look any better 9 . . . lLJe8 10. �bl '<MfaS ll.id3 dS 12.fS--+ Eren­ burg - Stanley, Oak Brook 2007. White's pawn-tandem eS and fS seems quite threatening. He is planning to follow with fS-f6, opening the way of his bishop to the h7-square and beginning a crushing attack. It is understand­ able that Black';s undeveloped queenside pieces are incapable of assisting in the defence of his king.) lO.igl dxeS (lO . . . dS ll.h3 lLJh 6 12.g4± and once again the

knight on h6 does not beautify Black's position, Sitnikov - Eren­ burg, Kolontaevo 1997) ll.fxeS lLJb6 (after ll . . . lLJgxeS 12.lLJxeS if6 13.1We4 ixeS 14.:gxd7 ixd7 lS. '<MixeS :ges 16.1Wg3±, White's two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawns) 12.'<Mfe4 1We8 13.h3 lLJh6 14.g4 fS 1S.exf6 ixf6 16.id3 1Wxe4 17.lLJxe4± Gro­ szpeter - Mikac, Austria 199S. He has succeeded in trading queens and now his king is not endan­ gered, but White is better in this endgame. His minor pieces have occupied very active positions and are well coordinated. On the contrary, Black's cavalry is roam­ ing on different sides of the board.

8.e5!? This i s a reliable move. White is striving to obtain a slight but stable advantage. He does not need to win a pawn and enter the tactical com­ plications in the variation S.exdS icS 9.1Wd3 1We7oo

8 ... �g4 Black's knight retreats with tempo. 261

Chapter 18 He has also tried in practice 8 . . . .ic5 9.1Mfd2 .be3 10.1Mfxe3 4Jg4 (It is not so good for Black to opt for 10 . . . 1Mfe7, since he will fail to preserve his knight on the f6square anyway. 11.0-0-0 4:\cS, Saltaev - Janoszka, Germany 2013. Now, White must simply advance his kingside pawns: 12.h3 ! ? 0-0 13.g4± and Black's defence is very difficult, moreover that he has no active counterplay at all.) 11.1Mfd2 "1Wb6 12.0-0-0 "!We3 13.h3 �xd2+ 14.Ei:xd2 4Je3 1S . .id3 4:\cS 16.l'l:el. The queens have been traded, but White maintains the initiative in this endgame. His pieces are better mobilised and he has a clear-cut plan for the occu­ pation of additional space on the kingside with the moves g4, fS etc. 16 ... 4Jxd3+ (16 ... 4:\fS 17.g4 4Je7 18. fS 0-0, Tiviakov - Khismatullin, St Petersburg 2012. Here, White could have played 19.b4 ! ? 4Jxd3+ 2 0 .cxd3;!; and he would have oc­ cupied space on the kingside and preserved the possibility to or­ ganise gradually a breakthrough on the opposite side of the board with a2-a4, b4-b5.) 17.cxd3 4Jf5 18. g4 4Je7 19.f5 �d7 (19 ... h5 20. 4:\gS hxg4 2l.hxg4 Ei:h4 22.l'l:g2± Hav­ ing advanced his pawns, White has not only occupied additional space on the kingside, but has re­ stricted considerably Black's bish­ op on c8. He will have problems to complete the development of his pieces even in the endgame and his defence will be very diffi­ cult, Zaja - Kosanski, Velika Gori262

ca 2006.) 2 0.f6;!; - Black's king is stranded in the centre and White is beginning active actions. Black will need to find plenty of very ac­ curate move in the oncoming fight; otherwise, White's initiative may become decisive, Palac Mrdja, Porto San Giorgio 2002.

9 .igl •

9

•••

.ic5

The endgame is inferior for Black following 9 . . . 1Mfb6 10.�xb6 axb6 ll.h3 4Jh6 12.4Je2 �b4+ 13. c3 �e7 14.g4;!; and once again it is easy to notice that Black's knight on h6 is obviously misplaced. Following 9 . . . 4Jh6 10.0-0-0 4:\fS (It is also possible for Black to try 10 . . . 4:\cS 1l.�d2 ie7 12.'it>bU; or 10 ... "\Wa5 1l.a3t and in both cases White maintains a slight ad­ vantage, since Black's knight is misplaced at the edge of the board.) 11.1Mfd2 �b4 12.a3 iaS, Dos Santos - Felgaer, Buenos Ai­ res 2008. Now, after the simple move 13. 'it>b1 ! ?±, White's pros-

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLJf6 3. lLJ c3 lLJ bd7 4/4 pects are evidently preferable, be­ cause Black's queenside counter­ play (b7-b5-b4), is evidently not so effective as White's actions with g4, fS etc.

10.Wd2 .ixgl lU�xgl Wb6 12.0-0-0 It is also good for him to con­ tinue with 12.lL:la4 ! ? We3+ 13. �xe3 lLJxe3 14.�d3 lL:Jb6 (14 ... b5 15.lL:Jc3 lL:Jb6 16.a3t Dreev - Kvei­ nys, Vienna 1996) 15.lL:Jc5t. The arising position resembles an endgame in the French Defence, except that Black's pawn is on c6 and not on e6. This difference is much rather in favour of White, because now, Black cannot organ­ ise counterplay on the c-file, while White can simply advance his kingside pawns. Black's bishop on c8, just like in the French De­ fence, is not so active as his oppo­ nent's bishop on d3, because it is severely restricted by his own pawns on b7, c6 and dS. When White advances g4 and fS, Black's bishop will have only one remain­ ing d7-square.

12 . . . .!l:\c5

There arises an already famil­ iar endgame with an advantage for White following 12 . . . �e3 13.h3 �xd2+ 14.'t!lxd2 lL:Jh6 15.g4t Black lags in development and it would be too risky for him to win a pawn with the line : 12 . . . lL:Jxh2, because after 13.lL:Jd4 lL:Jg4 (Following 13 ... lL:Jxf1 14.E!dxf1:;; Pa­ lac - Schmidt Schaeffer, Munich 1992, White's initiative compen­ sates his minimal material deficit with an interest. Black lags in de­ velopment, his king is stranded in the centre and castling kingside would be very risky for him, be­ cause in that case White will or­ ganise a powerful attack against the enemy king with the move f5f6.) 14.�e2 lL:JcS 15�£3 hS, Niehaus - Schmidt Schaeffer, Berlin 2006. Here, with the move 16.E!h1 !±, White could have created great problems for his opponent. His initiative is very powerful and Black's extra pawn is absolutely immaterial, moreover that he lags considerably in development.

13 . .!l:\d4 .!l:\e6 14.h3

263

Chapter 18 14 .tbxd4 ••

White has a better endgame after 14 . . . '?9xd4, for example: 15. '?9xd4 lLlxd4 16J'!xd4 lLle3 17.id3. Now, he should not be afraid of 17 . . . c5, because of 18.ib5+ <;!{f8 19J!:d2 .ie6 20 . .id3 !i:d8 21.lLlb5 d4 2 2 .lLld6;t - his knight on d6 is very powerful, while Black's strong knight on e3 is not stable, since White can undermine its base with the move c2-c3.

Vienna 2012. White must play here 15.hxg4 after which his po­ sition is preferable. Now, it seems tremendously risky for Black to try to win the exchange with the move 15 tbb3+ ?! (It is possibly better for him to opt for 15 . . . ixg4 16.'?9xd4 ixd1 17.'?9xb6 axb6 18. <;!;>xdU, but even then, White's two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawn.) 16.axb3 •••

'?9xgl 17.tbxd5 0-0 18.tbe7+ <;!;>h8 19.f5. White has a very powerful attack for the exchange.

19 '?9h2 20.'?9d6 '?9f4+ 2t.<;!;>bt ges 22.ic4 '?9xg4 23.'?9d3 ! ? .••

This position was reached in the game Kochetkova - Moser,

Black has great problems to parry White's threats (.if7 and f6, fol­ lowed by !i:h1). It would not be so clear if he chooses 23.hf7, be­ cause after 23 . . . hf5 24.ixe8 !!:xeS 25.'?9d8 ig6 26.lLlxg6+ '?9xg6 27.'?9d7 <;!;>g8 28.'?9xb7 !!:xeS;!; Black preserves some chances of saving the game in an endgame with ma­ jor pieces.

Conclusion Black's main idea in the variation with 3 . . . lLlbd7 is to avoid the slightly inferior endgame, arising after 3 . . . e5 4.dxe5. Following 4.f4, White creates serious problems for Black. He must either play a worse middle game (often with a "bad" knight on h6) or enter a very difficult endgame in which White has a much more active bishop ( d3 against a black bishop on c8) and a quite clear plan for active actions - advanc­ ing his kingside pawns - g4, fS. Naturally, it cannot be asserted that the endgame is winning for White, but no doubt his game is much more pleasant, while Black is forced to adhere for a long time only to a pas­ sive defence without any practical chances of seizing the initiative.

264

Chapter 19

l.d4 d6 2.e4 �f6 3.�c3 c6

queen to the aS-square in order for it to support the possibility e7e5. In addition, he might play at some moment b7-b5, or g7-g6. After the last move, there may arise a position which would be more typical for the Pirc Defence.

4.f4

This move is relatively seldom played in the contemporary tour­ nament practice. It is considered that Black can hardly obtain an acceptable position with it. In­ deed, he does not fight for the centre so actively and his pieces do not enter the actions so quick­ ly. On the other hand, it has been played by strong grandmasters like Sh.Mamedyarov, V.Bologan, Z.Azmaiparashvili etc. At the be­ ginning of his chess career M. Adams played often like this. All this emphasizes that although the move 3 . . . c6 seems somewhat slow, White's task to obtain an ad­ vantage might not be so easy. The main idea of Black's move three is to open the way of his

This is White's most popular and strongest move - he is pre­ paring e4-e5. Indeed, if Black is reluctant to play e7-e5, then why not play with White e4-e5, occu­ pying even more space?

Now, Black has a great choice of possibilities. We will deal with five moves for Black as. his main replies: A) 4 . . . d5, B) 4 .. b5, C)

4 .. Jfb6, D) 4 . g6, E) 4 . . . tfa5. .

.

265

Chapter 19 At first however, we will ana­ lyse some not so popular possi­ bilities. About 4 . . . lLibd7 S.es - see Chapter 18. It is obviously dubious for Black to choose 4 . . . e5? ! , although this move has been tested by grandmasters as well. It leads to a difficult position for him, since sacrificing a pawn on eS is easy, but regaining it proves to be very difficult. S.dxeS dxeS 6.'\M/xd8+ 'it>xd8 7.fxe5 lLig4 8.lLif3 lLid7 (Fol­ lowing 8 . . . .ic5 9.h3 lLie3 10 . .id3± Ivanisevic - Markovic, Kraguje­ vac 2012, the g2-pawn is untouch­ able, because if Black captures it, his knight will not run away from the g2-square: 10 . . . lLixg2 + ?? 11. 'it>f1 lLie3+ 12.'it>e2 lLig2 13J:!h2 +­ and he loses his knight. So, Black cannot restore the material bal­ ance and White will play the rest of the game with an extra pawn, despite its being doubled. He has all the chances of realising it.) 9. .if4 .icS 10 .h3 lLie3 ll.'it>d2 lLixfl+ 12.:!!hxf1 h6 13.:!! a dl± Asauskas ­ Jankauskas, Vilnius 2000. White is ahead in development and his rooks are very well placed on the d- and f-files. His e-pawns are iso­ lated and doubled, but we should not forget that one of them is extra. Black cannot facilitate his de­ fence with the move 4 . . . .ig4, be­ cause after S . .ie2 .ixe2 6.\Mfxe2, due to his lag in development he cannot prevent the pawn-advance 266

e4-e5. 6 ... e6 (The situation be­ comes even worse for Black fol­ lowing 6 . . . \Mfb6. He is behind in development anyway, so going after the enemy pawn on d4 is bound to end in a disaster. 7.e5 dxeS 8.fxe5 lLidS 9.lLie4 \Mfxd4 10. lLif3 \M!b4+ 1l.c3 '<Mfb6 12.c4 lLic7 13. .ie3 '<MfaS+ 14 ..id2 \Mfa6 15.lLifg5+-, White's attack has become crush­ ing, since Black's lag in develop­ ment is so great that he cannot parry White's threats: lLid6 and the simple move 0-0, after which his f7-pawn will be defenceless, Dabija - Gurgui, Email 2011.) 7.lLif3 .ie7 8.e5 lLifd7, Szymaniak - Klatt, Essen 2003, 9.exd6 hd6 10.f5 \Mfe7 ll.fxe6 \Mfxe6 12.\Mfxe6+ fxe6 13.lLie4± White has a clear advantage thanks to the vulnera­ bility of his opponent's e6-pawn. 4 . . . \Mfc7 S.lLif3 .ig4 (Black is in a very bad position following 5 . . . lLibd7 6.e5 lLidS 7.lLixd5 cxdS 8. .id3 e6 9.0-0 .ie7 10.c3 b6, Tka­ chiev - Bajramovic, Neum 2000, ll.lLigS ! .ixgS 12.exd6 ! \Mfxd6 13. fxgS± - He lags considerably in development, while White has two powerful bishops and exerts pressure against the f7-pawn.) 6. h3 .ixf3 7.\Mfxf3 (diagram) It is bad for Black to play 7 . . . lLibd7? ! , i n view of 8.e5± and his knight will be forced to retreat to its initial position, Sylvan - M. Hansen, Copenhagen 1993. It is not preferable for him to opt for 7... e6?! 8 ..ie3 .ie7 9.0-0-0

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lL\f6 3. tLlc3 c6 4f4 the loss of time is not so impor­ tant. Later, Black can organise counterplay on the fS and g4squares.

5.e5 White occupies tempo. 0-0 10 .�d3 tLlbd7 ll.g4±. White's pawns are dominant in the centre and now, he begins an offensive on the kingside. Following 7 . . . e5, Black can only dream about equalising. 8. �e3 tLlbd7 9.g4 ! ? White begins immediately a pawn onslaught on the kingside without delay. 9 . . . g6 10.0-0-0 �g7, D.Fridman - Ho­ kamp, Netherlands 2007, 11. dxeS ! dxeS 12 .f5. It is understand­ able that Black cannot leave his king in the centre, but after cas­ tling kingside he will be soon checkmated. It would not be easi­ er for him to defend the position after 12 . . . 0-0-0 13.g5 tLle8 14. ha7+-, White has an extra pawn and a better position.

space with

5 .lbg8 •.

Black is going to build a defen­ sive line on the kingside which will not be easy to break - hS, g6, tLlh6, taking under control the key squares g4 and fS. Naturally, White will obtain an edge (the loss of two tempi in the opening cannot go unpunished), but breaking Black's position will not be an easy task at all.

A) 4 . . d5 .

It is amazing but this move, which in fact loses two tempi for Black (one to advance dS in two moves and another to retreat the knight after e4-e5), has been test­ ed in practice many times and even a very strong grandmaster like M.Krasenkow has played it. It turns out that it is not so easy for White to obtain an advantage, be­ cau se the position is closed and

If Black retreats his knight to the centre of the board - 5 . . . tLle4, then after 6.tLlxe4 dxe4, he may have problems with the protection of his pawn on e4. 7.tLle2 fS. This is the only move; otherwise, he will lose the pawn on e4. 8.c4 e6 9.tLlc3 tLla6 10.�e3 tLlc7 11.'Mib3 !i.e7 12 J:!dl± Klovans - A.Ivanov, Beltsy 1977. White's advantage is doubtless, since Black can hardly parry the 267

Chapter 19 threat of the central pawn-break d4-d5. In addition, he has prob­ lems with castling, because fol­ lowing 12 . . . 0-0?, White's pawn­ break 13.d5 ! + - will be crushing.

9

•••

ll S . . . lLlg4. Black's position be­ comes horribly cramped after this move. 6.�d3 lLlh6 7.lLlf3 e6, San­ tos - Galego, Portugal 2003 (It may be possible that Black's best practical chance may be to try to build a barricade with 7 .. .f5 8.lLlgS e6 9.ie3 ! ? lLlf7 10.lLlxf7 �xf7 11. �f3 cS 12.0-0-0 cxd4 13.hd4 lLlc6 14.�f2 �aS 15.�bl± There arises a position of a French type, but with a misplaced black king on the f7-square. White's advan­ tage is doubtless, but Black can offer some resistance.) 8.�e3 �e7 9.�e2 0-0 10.h3 lLlf5 1l.�f2±, fol­ lowed by g2-g4 and White's king­ side attack develops effortlessly.

6 .id3 g6 7.lLlf3 h5 8.0-0 lLlh6 •

.if5 lO .ixfS c!Llxf5 ll.e6! •

This is the only move; other­ wise, Black will play e7-e6 and his position will become a hard nut to crack. •••

f6

This position was reached in the game Bareiss - Mueller, Ger­ many 2001.

12.c!Llh4 White must exchange the pow­ erful enemy knight on fS.

12

•••

c!Llxh4 13.ti'xh4 f5

He should better counter the move 13 . . . �d6 with the energetic response 14.f5 ! gxfS 15.l:!el. Now, White regains his pawn with the manoeuvre lLlc3-e2-g3-f5, for ex­ ample : 15 . . . lLla6 16.a3 �c7 17.lLle2 0-0-0 18.lLlg3 ih6 19.hh6 l:!xh6 20.lLlxf5;!; and his knight on fS oc­ cupies a dominant position and the pawn on e6 cramps Black's position considerably.

14.ti'g3 gb6 9.ti'el!? This is an interesting idea. White wishes to put a wedge in­ side Black's camp with the move. 268

White's knight on c3 is doing nothing (it is severely restricted by Black's pawns on dS and c6) and he should better transfer it to the f3-square and from there it

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ttJf6 3. ttJ c3 c6 4.f4 can go to eS or gS.

15.ltl bl!? .ig7 16.c3 ltla6 17 llJd2 c5 18.llJf3;!; White has more .

space and Black's rook is terribly misplaced on the h6-square.

B) 4 b5 •••

He wishes to seize the initia­ tive on the queenside.

5.e5!? The best way t o counter a flank attack is a strike in the centre, this is well known and White is doing exactly this with his last move.

s . . . b4 The exchange in the centre S . . . dxeS i s i n favour of White, be­ cause following 6.fxeS, his bishop on c1 will not be restricted by the pawn on f4.

The exchange of strikes, begun with the move 6 . . . b4, leads to a better position for White. 7.exf6 bxc3 8.fxg7 .bg7 9.bxc3 eS, Rup­ precht - Schunk, Germany 2008, 10.ttJf3 ! He must try to develop his pieces as quickly as possible. 10 . . . e4 n.ttJd2 0-0 12 .ie2 �as 13.ttJb3 ! White is not running af­ ter winning material, but wishes to have active pieces and to seize the initiative. 13 . . . �xc3+ . Other­ wise, Black would simply remain a pawn down. 14 . .id2 �b2 1S.ib4 E:e8 16.E:b1 �xa2. Now, he has al­ ready an extra pawn, but his queen will not run away from the a2-square. 17. 0-0 ie6 18.�d2 aS 19.E:a1 axb4 20.E:xa2 E:xa2 21.ttJc5 .idS 22.E:bl± Black's compensa­ tion for the queen is insufficient. His b4-pawn is very weak and he is likely to lose it soon and after that White will prepare the pawn­ advance c2-c4. Black's defence will be very difficult. 6 . . . ttJd5 7.ttJf3 g6 8 . .id3 .ig7 9.0-0 0-0 (He will have great problems after 9 . . . ttJxc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.�e1 ttJa6 12 .�h4� White's attack is very powerful, Barquero Pinar - Sanchez Camino, Barce­ lona 2006; ll.a4 ! ? bxa4 12 .�el±) 10.ttJxdS �xdS 11.�e1 f6 12.�h4 fxe5 13 . .ie4 �d7, Ehlvest - Kaka­ geldyev, Ivano-Frankovsk 1982. Here, White could have forced ad­ vantageous simplifications with 14 . .ih6 ! �g4 1S.�xg4 .bg4 16 . .bg7 @xg7 17.ttJxeS .E:xf1+ 18. E:xfl± and in the endgame Black will have pawn-weaknesses on c6 269

Chapter 19 and e7, which together with his undeveloped pieces provide White with excellent winning chances.

6.exf6 bxc3 7.fxg7 .hg7 8. bxc3 e5 Following 8 . . . lt:Jd7 9.id3 �aS lO.i.d2±, Black has no compensa­ tion for the pawn, Esserman Ginsburg, Mesa 2009.

9 .'f«a5 10 .id3 dxe5 • •

•

It seems very risky for Black to opt for 10 . . . �xc3 +, because after ll.i.d2 �cS 12.lt:Jf3 dxeS 13.�e2 i.e6 14.lt:JgSt, White will have powerful initiative and Black can hardly find a safe haven for his monarch.

ll.
C) 4

•••

�b6

9.dxe5! White should continue only this way. After 9.fxeS �h4+ ! , in order for him to fight for the advantage, he must sacrifice a rook. 10.g3 �e4+ ll.�e2 �xhl l2.exd6+ i.e6 13.lt:Jf3 lt:Jd7 14.'it>f2 lt:Jf6 1S.h3 lt:JdSoo. There has arisen a very complicated position, difficult to evaluate and White is a rook down in it, but Black's queen is strand­ ed on the hl-square. It is quite evident that White should better avoid it, since he can maintain an advantage by playing much sim­ pler. 270

This is not the best move for him. Developing the queen so ear­ ly in the opening is wrong as a rule. If Black wishes to make a move with his queen, he should better try the aS-square - see var­ iation E.

5.e5

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 c6 4/4 This is White's simplest re­ sponse against Black's move four.

5

• . •

ltld5

About 5 . . . ig4 6.ie2 .b:e2 7. \Wxe2 - see 4 . . . ig4. The exchange 5 . . . dxe5, just like in many variations that we have analysed, is in favour of White, because following 6.fxe5, he obtains the open f-file for his rook as well as the cl-h6 diagonal for his bishop on cl. 6 . . . ltJd5 7. ltJxd5 cxd5 8.id3 ltJc6 9.c3 g6 10. \1;lff3 ie6 11.ltJe2 ig7 12.ltJf4 0-0, Prokhorov - Mischuk, Illichevsk 2008. White can begin an offen­ sive against the enemy king under the cover of his powerful pawn­ centre. 13.h4�, Black will have problems parrying this attack, since he will have difficulties to bring his pieces to the protection of his king due to his lack of space.

6.ltlxd5 cxd5 7 .id3 •

White impedes the develop­ ment of the enemy bishop on c8 .

Black can insist on developing the bishop - 7 . . . g6 8.c3 if5 9. hf5 gxf5, but after 10.\1;l/h5 e6 11. ltJf3 ltJc6 12.ltJg5 ltJd8 13.g4, White can exploit the circumstance that the enemy king is stranded in the centre and begin a decisive offen­ sive. 13 . . . ie7 14.gxf5 exf5 15.ltJxf7 ltJxf7 16.e6± He regains his piece and Black has no compensation for the numerous pawn-weak­ nesses in his position, Wells Rashkovsky, London 1990. It is possible that he should prefer the more modest approach - 8 . . . ig7, but even then after 9.\1;lff3 (I can recommend to the readers who enjoy playing endgames to try the transfer to a better endgame with 9.\Wb3 ! ? \1;lfxb3 10.axb3;t) 9 . . . ie6 10.ltJe2 ltJd7 11.f5 ! ? , White begins active actions, while Black's king still remains in the centre. 11 . . . .b:f5 (but not 11 . . . gxf5, i n view of 12.exd6 ! \Wxd6 13.ltJg3± and White regains his pawn preserv­ ing all the pluses of hi� position) 12 . .b:f5 gxf5 13.e6 fxe6 14.\WhS+ \!;>d8 (14 . . . 1!1f8? 15.ltJf4+-) 15.\Wf7 271

Chapter 19 i.f6 16.�xe6;t. Black has an extra pawn indeed, but this should not create an illusion. White will re­ gain it with his next move and Black will hardly manage to main­ tain the material balance and evacuate his king away from the centre.

this pawn-sacrifice, White's at­ tack is developing very rapidly and effortlessly. l8 hb4 19.a5 •••

tfc7 20.gfbl .!.e7 21.c5 c.!?a8 22.gb3-+ gbs 23.c!bxc6 hc6 24.f5!± Now, Black will be forced

to give up the exchange without obtaining any compensation for it, since after 24 gbc8? 25 .!.f4 �d8 26.a6+-, White's attack is victorious. •••

8.c3 g6 9.§'f3 White provokes the move

9

••.

•

e6

Now, Black cannot castle king­ side due to the vulnerability of the dark squares on his kingside and his monarch will have a hard time on the other side of the board as well.

D) 4 g6 •••

10.ti'f2 .!.d7 ll.
15.exd6! This is a very non­ standard decision. White wishes to deploy his knight in the centre of the board in order to control the c4-square before the begin­ ning of the pawn-offensive against Black's king. 15 hd6 16.c!be5 .!.e8 17.b4 c!bc6, Tazbir - Pa­ kleza, Warsaw 2011, 18.c4! After •••

272

After this move there arises a version of the Pirc Defence which is not so good for Black, because in the variations of this opening in which White advances f2-f4, Black's main idea to create coun­ terplay is connected with under­ mining White's pawn-centre with c7-c5 (either immediately, or fol­ lowing the preliminary move lLla6 ). With a black pawn on c6 however, this will be done with a loss of a tempo.

5.lLlf3 .!.g7 This is the most natural move for Black.

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt\f6 3. lt\ c3 c6 4.f4 After s . . . .ig4 6 . .id3 Wfb6 ( 6 . . . fi.g7 7.h3 - see s .. ..ig7), White should play energetically: 7.e5 ! ll:JdS, Ma­ tijevic - Skrcevski, Struga 2011. Now, he maintains a slight edge with 8.exd6 ll:Jxc3 9.bxc3 e6 10. ia3 Wfa5 11 . .ib4 Wfd8 12.0-0 hd6 13 . .ixd6 Wfxd6 14.Wfb1 Wfc7 15.ltle5 .if5 16.hf5 gxf5 17.ll:Jc4 b6 18.Wfe1 ll:Jd7 19.Wfh4;!;, since Black can hardly find a reliable shelter for his king. His pawn-structure has been compromised both on the queenside and on the kingside. The active pawn-move on the queenside - S . . . bS cannot equal­ ise for Black. 6.id3 b4 7.ltle2 dS 8.e5 ltlh5 9.0-0 e6 10.a3 cS, Steel - Adly, Maputo 2011. Here, White had to play 11.b3 ! , ensuring his bishop against the threat c5-c4, for example : 11 . . . ll:Jc6 12 . .ie3;!;. In the arising position of the "French" type, White has more space and if the position is opened in the centre, his pieces will be much better prepared for this (Black's knight is horribly mis­ placed at the edge of the board.).

6.�d3

6 . . 0-0 .

About 6 ... ll:Ja6 7.0-0 0-0 8.e5 - see 6 . . . 0-0. Following 6 . . .b5 and 7.e5 dxeS 8.fxe5 ll:JdS 9.ltlxd5 WfxdS 10.0-0 0-0 11.Wfe1, there arises transpo­ sition to the variation with 4 . . . b5 . It would be too passive for Black to play 6 . . . tt:Jbd7, because he fails to advance e7-e5 anyway. 7. eS ll:JdS 8.ltlxd5 cxdS 9.0-0 0-0 10.c3 Wfb6 11.Wfel. White accom­ plishes the standard transfer of his queen to the h4-square. 11 . . . e6 12 .�h1 :B:e8 13.Wfh4± - He is per­ fectly prepared for an attack against the enemy king, Kotsur Anarkulov, Tashkent 2012. In the variation 6 . . . .ig4 7.h3 .ixf3 8.Wfxf3 Wfb6 (8 . . . 0-0 9.0-0 - see 6 ... 0-0), White parries eas­ ily his opponent's pressure against the d4-pawn. 9.ltle2 ltlbd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.a4 aS 12 .ie3 Wfc7 13.c3 e6 14.g4t Khenkin - Cher­ nyshov, Dagomys 2009. He has fortified reliably his centre and prepares a pawn-offensive on the kingside. Black is faced with a dif­ ficult defence, since his pieces ob­ viously lack space. It seems premature for Black to try 6 . . . Wfb6, because after 7.e5 dxeS 8.fxe5 ll:JdS 9 . .id2 0-0 (9 . . . Wfxb2? 10.ltlxd5 cxdS 11.:B:b1 Wfxa2 12.Wfc1 +-) 10.0-0 i.g4 11.ll:Ja4, his queen fill be forced to return ingloriously to its initial position. 11 ... Wfd8 12 .WfeU White has more 273

Chapter 19 space and good attacking pros­ pects against the enemy king: \Wh4, ih6, lt:JgS etc. but it looks like Black can still defend this po­ sition. Following 12 . . . b5? ! 13. lt:JcS±, as it was played in the game Kleiser - Kreutz, Email 2011, on top of all Black's problems, he added a weakness on cS and White's knight, which was idle at the edge of the board managed to enter the actions.

7.0-0

the eS-square, so he will have to work hard to find a good place­ ment of his bishop on g7. After 7 . . . lt:Jbd7 8.e5;!;, Black ends up in a very passive position, because White's eS-pawn cramps considerably his opponent's piec­ es. He has a very straightforward plan - to transfer the queen to h4 and to begin an attack against Black's king. There may follow: 8 . . . lt:Je8 (8 . . . lt:Jd5 9.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 10. c3 - see 6 . . . lt:Jbd7; 8 . . . dxe5 9.fxe5 lt:JdS 10.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 11.1We1 1Wb6 12 .c3 f6 13.exf6 exf6, Bragin Mamoshin, Gagarin 2009, 14. if4;!; - Black's bishop on g7 is passive and the pawn-advance f6f5 will weaken catastrophically the eS-square.) 9.1We1 lt:Jc7, Ku­ porosov - Mozes, Budapest 1991 and once again, White obtains a great advantage after the transfer of his queen to an attacking posi­ tion - 10.\Wh4±

7 .tg4 •••

His main plan in this position is to exert pressure against White's d4-pawn. The move 7 . . . lt:Ja6 was tested in the game Khenkin - Zahariev, Iraklion 1992. There followed 8.e5 lt:JdS 9.lt:Jxd5 cxdS 10.c3 lt:Jc7 11.1Wc2 (11.ie3 ! ?;!;) 11 . . . dxe5 12. fxeS f5 13.exf6 exf6 14.if4;!; Black's dS-pawn was very weak and his bishop on g7 was restricted by his own pawn on eS. He cannot ad­ vance f6-f5, because that would lead to a horrible weakening of 274

After 7 . . . b5 8.e5 lt:Je8 9.1We1 a6 10 .\Wh4, he has placed his queen on h4 and is perfectly prepared for a direct attack against Black's monarch. Following 7 . . . \Wb6 8.'kt>h1 ig4, White should better reply with the prophylactic move 9 .a3 ! ?, tak­ ing the b4-square under control. Now, Black cannot exchange on f3 and capture with his queen on d4, because after ie3 the queen has no square to retreat to. 9 . . . lt:Jbd7 ( 9 . . . lt:Jfd7 10 .e5 c S 11.lt:Jd5

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lbf6 3. lb c3 c6 4/4 '!Wd8 12.exd6 exd6 13.lbe3 .b:f3 14.'1Wxf3 lbc6 15.dxc5 dxcS 16.ic4 �h8 17.c3;!; White has the two­ bishop advantage, Filipenko Gavrikov, Severodonetsk 1982. You have to pay attention to his last move - 17.c3, after which Black's knight on c6 and his bish­ op on g7 are severely restricted in their movements.) 10.h3 .b:f3 11.'?;Vxf3 eS 12.dxe5 dxeS 13.f5 '?;Vc7 14.g4--+ A.Muzychuk - Vardi, Eilat 2012, White has a very powerful attack on the kingside and can play gS, followed by f6 at an op­ portune moment, sending Black's bishop into exile on the h8square. So, White will have prac­ tically an extra piece.

8.h3 hf3 9.'?;Vxf3

d4-pawn. White has more space, a powerful pawn-centre and two strong bishops, Pourkashiyan Hemmatizadeh, Teheran 2008.

10.lbe2 ctlfd7 Black increases the pressure against the d4-pawn. Besides his last move, he can attack the d4-square with his c- or e-pawns, for example : 10 . . . e5 ll.c3 lbbd7 12 .�hU and it is not clear how Black can increase his pressure against the centre, Janik - Kaminski, Pszczyna 2007. Or 10 ... c5 ll.eS ! ? (after ll.c3 cxd4 12.cxd4 lbc6fZ Black can cre­ ate good counterplay against White's pawn-centre, Cabrilo Titov, Vrnjacka Banja 1992) 11 . . . lbfd7 12 .ie3 - see 10 . . . lbfd7.

ll.ie3

Now, he has at least the two­ bishop advantage.

9 ... ti'b6 ll It would be too slow for Black to play 9 . . . lbbd7, since after lO .eS lOeB ll.ie3±, Black fails to organ­ ise counterplay against the enemy

•••

c5

It is understandable that it is not good for Black to capture on b2, since following 12 J:iab1, White not only regains his pawn, but ac275

Chapter 19 tivates noticeably his rook. The a2-pawn is untouchable - 12 . . . �xa2? 13J''!: a 1 �e6 14.f5+-

12.e5! This is the right move ! It is es­ sential for White to neutralise the pressure of Black's fianchettoed bishop.

12 ... ttlc6 Following 12 . . . cxd4 13.ttlxd4 lDcS 14.ttlb3 ttlbd7 15.c3 �c7 16. lDxcS ttlxcS 17.exd6 �xd6 18 . .ic2 E:ac8 19.f5 �a6 20.E:f2 , White's two bishops are powerful force in this open position. In order to parry his initiative, Black, in the game Barnsley - Grafen, Email 2008, decided to sacrifice a pawn, but after 20 . . . ttld3 21..ixd3 �xd3 22 . .ixa7 �xf3 23.E:xf3 E:fd8 24. .ie3±, White succeeded in realis­ ing his material advantage in the endgame.

Skulener, Moscow 1981, 14.c3 ! The best defence for Black is 14 . . . �xb2, after which there arises al­ most by force a slightly better endgame for White. 15.-ixcS dxcS 16.E:fb1 �d2 17.E:d1 �b2 18.E:ab1 �xa2 19.E:xb7 E:ac8 20 . .ie4 �a4 21.E:dd7 e6 22 . .ixc6 �xc6 23. �xc6 E:xc6 24.E:xa7 gS 25.g3;!; His rooks have been doubled on the penultimate rank, but there is just a few material left on the board, so Black has some chances for a draw.

13 ... cxd4 14.ttlxd4!? White must capture with the knight, because in the variation 14.cxd4 dxeS 15.fxe5, Black can already capture the pawn 15 . . . �xb2+!. There arises a very com­ plicated position. He has an extra pawn and can even sacrifice his knight on eS obtaining three pawns for it and very actively de­ ployed pieces.

13.c3 ! ? 14 . . . ttlxd4 H e maintains a slight edge fol­ lowing 13.dxc5 ttlxcS, Vitolinsh 276

Naturally, it is bad for Black to

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 c6 4.f4 opt for 14 . . .'�xb2? 15.liJb5+- and his queen is doomed on the b2square. There arise interesting com­ plications following 14 . . . dxe5 15. liJe6 W/xb2 (15 ... liJd4 16.cxd4 e4 17 . .he4 W/xe6 18 .f5 ! \Wb6 19.E:adl E:ab8 20.�c2 ! E:bd8 21.�b3tWhite has managed to transfer his bish­ op to a very powerful position and from there it exerts pressure against the f7-square, while the weakness of the isolated pawn on d4 is not felt at all.) 16.liJxf8 E:xf8 17.E:abU and due to the open character of the position, White's rook is more powerful than Black's minor piece and his two pawns.

ble his opponent's pawns after the exchange on c3 .

Still, White can play

5.e5!? His main task i s t o seize the initiative as quickly as possible. It is also possible for White to choose 5.id3 e5 6.liJf3;!;

15.cxd4 W/xb2 16.gfbl �c3 17 .!e4 liJb6 18.hb7 gabS 19. gel •

It deserves attention for White to try 19.if2 ! ? W/xf3 20 . .hf3;!; and thanks to his two powerful bish­ ops in the endgame his prospects are preferable.

19 ... �b2 20 .!£2;!; - Now, his two bishops are obviously strong­ er than Black's bishop and knight, moreover that White's e5-pawn restricts considerably Black's bishop. •

E) 4 ... �a5 This is Black's most popular move in this position. Now, after 5.e5 , he can play 5 . . . liJe4 and dou-

5 . . . liJe4 This is Black's most natural and strongest move. His knight not only attacks on c3, but also takes the d2-square under con­ trol, impeding the development of White's bishop. The inclusion of the moves 5 . . . dxe5 6.fxe5 i s i n favour o f White 277

Chapter 19 6 . . . tt:\e4 (6 . . . tt:\d5 7 . .id2 .if5 8 . .ic4 \1;'/d8 9.\1;'/f3 e6 10. 0-0-0;!; Cicak ­ Dinh Due Trong, Turin 2006. The exchange of the f-pawn for the central d-pawn was obviously ad­ vantageous for White. Meanwhile he is ahead of Black in develop­ ment and can begin a pawn-offen­ sive on the kingside (g4, h4).) 7. tt:\f3 .ig4 8 . .ie2 tt:\xc3 9.\1;'/d2 tt:\d7 10.bxc3 e6 11.0-0t Black lags in development and will have to ex­ change sooner or later on f3, after which White's two-bishop advan­ tage and his active possibilities on the semi-open f-file (eventual­ ly on the b-file as well), compen­ sate with an interest the compro­ mised pawn-structure on his queenside. 5 . . . tt:\d5. This move does not seem logical, because after 6 . .id2, White gets rid of the pin.

lowing 9 . . . Wxf4 10. 0-0� - White has completed his development, while only Black's queen is in ac­ tion, so his position seems to be beyond salvation.). 10.0-0 Wxc2 11.We1� and despite the loss of a pawn, White's prospects are obvi­ ously preferable due to his great lead in development, Goldin Young, Minneapolis 2005. He should not be afraid of the double-attack - 6 . . . Wb6, since it will be suicidal for Black to cap­ ture on b2 being so much behind in development. 7.tt:lf3 .ig4 (7 . . . \1;lfxb2?? 8.tt:\xd5 cxd5 9.E!:b1 Wa3, Izeta Txabarri - Rausis, Bordeaux 1990, 10.E!:b3 \1;lfxa2 11.Wc1+- and Black's queen gets trapped) 8. exd6 tt:\xc3 9 . .ixc3 e6 10.h3 .ixf3 11.Wxf3 .ixd6 12 .f5t White is fol­ lowing the classical principle "You should strive to open the po­ sition if you have the two-bishop advantage.", Liberzon - Hodg­ son, Palma de Mallorca 1989.

6.J.d3 White must get rid of his op­ ponent's centralised knight as soon as possible.

About 6 . . .dxe5 7.fxe5 - see 5 . . . dxe5. 6 . . . tt:\xc3 7 . .ixc3 Wd5 8.tt:lf3 We4+ 9 . .ie2 .if5. Running after the c-pawn seems very risky for Black's pieces. He lags considera­ bly in development (The situation would be even worse for Black fol278

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJf6 3. tiJ c3 c6 4.f4 6 .tbxc3 • .

The alternatives are clearly worse for Black.

White will regain his knight on the next move.

6 .. .f5 7.exf6 4Jxf6 (following 7 . . . 4Jxc3, White has at his dispos­ al a powerful intermediate move - 8.f7+ ! '.t>xf7 9.�d2;t - and Black loses his castling rights) 8.id2 tiJa6 9.a3;!; The e6 and f7-squares are terribly weak in Black's camp, Szieberth - Francsics, Budapest 1996. 6 ... d5 7.ixe4 dxe4 8.id2 �b6 9.4Jge2 . Now, he must defend very precisely in order to save his e4-pawn. 9 . . . if5 (In the game Glek - Scekic, Rethymnon 2003, Black solved radically the prob­ lem with his e4-pawn - he simply sacrificed it: 9 .. .f5 10.exf6 exf6 ll.tiJxe4;t, but it was understand­ able that his compensation was insufficient.) 10.tiJg3 e6 ll.ic1 ! ? After this paradoxical retreat of the bishop both White's pawns (b2 and d4) are protected. There may follow this exemplary varia­ tion: ll . . . ib4 12.0-0 hc3 13. bxc3 tiJd7 14.�e1 0-0 15.4Jxe4 c5 16.4Jd6 cxd4 17.cxd4 �xd4+ 18. ie3 �a4 19.c4 b6 20.:B:d1 ig6 21. �e2 and then 22 .g4t and al­ though Black has preserved the material balance, but this is just a small consolation for him, be­ cause White's pawn-offensive, with the support of the knight on d6, seems very dangerous.

Black must make up his mind now about his future plans and his main replies are El) 7. . . d5 and E2) 7 c5. •••

Following 7 . . . dxe5, White maintains a slight edge after 8. fxe5 cS (8 . . .g6 9.4Jf3 ifS 10.�xc3 �xc3+ ll.bxc3 ixd3 12.cxd3 ig7 13.0-0 tiJa6 14.a4 b6 15. ia3;!; Black's bishop is restricted by the pawn on eS, while White's bishop exerts powerful pressure on the a3-f8 diagonal.) 9.bxc3 tiJc6 10. tiJf3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 �xd2+ 12 .ixd2 e6 13.0-0;!; - He is much better developed and Black will hardly parry the threat of the break­ through in the centre: c2-c4 and d4-d5, Ahmad - Amjad, Bagdad 2010. After 7 . . .g6, White's best reac­ tion would be 8.4Jf3 ! (following 8.bxc3 dxeS 9.fxe5, Black can pro­ voke complications with 9 . . . ih6 10.�xh6 �xc3+ n.'.t>e2 �xa 1 12. tiJf3� and it is possible that White is better even then, but playing 279

Chapter 19 this position over the board would be too complicated, Finkel - Ora­ tovsky, Israel 1994) 8 . . . ig7 (8 . . . ih6 9.0-0 dxeS 10.lLlxe5 lL\d7 ll.lLlc4 Wic7 12.Wixc3 lLlf6 13.Wie1 lLldS 14.£5 i.g7 15.c3;!; White has succeeded in advancing the the­ matic move f4-f5 and seized the initiative, so Black must defend passively in a slightly worse posi­ tion.) 9.0-0 0-0 10 .bxc3 (It is also good for White to transfer into an endgame with 10.Wixc3 ! ? Wixc3 11.bxc3 lLla6 12 .i.a3;!; and his bishop exerts powerful pressure against Black's position.) 10 . . . lL\a6 ll.Wie1 cS 12 .id2 Wia4 13.Wih4;!; Novak - Dziadykiewcz, Trinec 1998. Now, White's queen has oc­ cupied the standard attacking placement for this variation. He is threatening f4-f5, ih6 followed by lLlgS with a crushing attack. After 7 . . . e6 8.bxc3 cS (there arises transposition of moves with 8 . . . d5 9.lLlf3 cS) 9.lLlf3, Black should better take the e4-square under control by playing 9 . . . d5 (in the variation 9 . . . dxe5 10.dxe5 ! ? lL\c6 ll.lLlgSt, White's knight is headed for the e4-outpost and his initiative becomes very danger­ ous).

10.c4. This transfer into an endgame is typical for this line and we will encounter it numer­ ous times. 10 . . . Wixd2+ ll.i.xd2 dxc4 12 .i.xc4 a6 13.c3 ! ? (This move is more precise than 13.a4 cxd4 14.lL\xd4= and White has no chances of obtaining an advan­ tage in the endgame in view of the vulnerability of his a and c­ pawns., AI Sayed - Akobian, Gi­ braltar 2009.) 13 . . . lLlc6 14. 0-0 bS 1S.id3 ib7 16.a4;!; - He is better developed and can exerts pres­ sure against Black's position on the queenside, as well as on the kingside with f4-f5.

El) 7 d5 8.lLle2 Now, White can capture on c3 with his knight is some variations. •••

8 ... e6 Black cannot equalise with 8 . . . cS. One of the defects o f this move is that White can capture on c3 with his knight, avoiding the dis­ rupting of his pawn-structure. 9. lL\xc3 e6. The arising position re280

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 c6 4.f4 sembles the French Defence. 10. dxc5 (10.ltJbS ! ?;t;) 10 . . . �xc5 (10 ... .ixcS? ! ll.ttJbS �b6 12 .b4 �e7 13. �b2 ttJc6 14.a3 aS 1S.lLld6+ hd6 16.exd6 f6 17.b5 ttJd8 18.�d4 �xd6 19.�e3 ttJf7 2 0 . 0-0 �d7 21. �cS �c7, Ivakhinova - Petrova, Taganrog 2011 and here, White overlooked the possibility 2 2 . c4 !±, after which the position would have been opened in his fa­ vour.) ll.a3 �d7 12 .b4 �b6 13.�b2 ttJc6 14.ltJa4 �c7 15.0-0;!; Nepom­ niachtchi - A.Ivanov, Dagomys 2010. Black cannot find a safe shelter for his king, because if he castles queenside, White will open the c-file with the move c2c4, while if Black castles kingside, White will organise a crushing at­ tack after f4-f5.

9.bxc3

The arising position is of a "French" type, except that White has doubled pawns on the c-file.

9

•••

c5

9 . . . �a4. This is not the best move for Black. 10.0-0 g6, Nem-

cova - Michna, Dresden 2007. Here, White could have obtained a great advantage with the line: ll.c4 ! dxc4 12.lLlc3± Black's extra pawn is of no importance. White's knight will go via e4 to d6 or f6 and his attack will be crushing. After 9 . . .ie7, White can try a very promising pawn-sacrifice 10.f5 ! ? (It is also possible for him to choose the more prudent line: 10.c4 �xd2+ ll . .ixd2;!;, maintain­ ing a slight edge in the endgame.) 10 . . . exf5 11.0-0 g6 12 .�h6 �f8 13. �h4 �e7 14.�g5 hgS 15.�xg5� ­ After the exchange of the bishops, White has an excellent play on the dark squares and Black's extra pawn is absolutely immaterial.

10.c4 Now, there arises an endgame.

10 ... �xd2+ ll . .txd2 12. cxd5 exd5 13.c3;!;

ttJc6

White has a cleat-cut plan in this endgame, connected with the preparation of the pawn-advance f4-f5. Later, in the game Sutovsky - Altounian, ICC 2002, there fol­ lowed 13 .tg4 14J'�bl 0-0-0 •••

281

Chapter 19 15 .le3. Black made a mistake here 15 cxd4 (He had better follow with 15 . . . c4 16 . .ic2;!;, main­ taining a slightly worse but still defensible position.) 16.tLlxd4± and it turned out that White's pieces are much better prepared than their counterparts for the opening of the position in the cen­ tre. •

•••

the weak pawn on d6. 12 ... exd6 13.tLlf3 .ie7 14.0-0 t2Ja6 (Follow­ ing 14 . . . 0-0 15 . .lb4 ! , Black will have great problems with the pro­ tection of his d6-pawn. 15 . . . t2Ja6 16.ixa6 bxa6 17.!Uel±) 15.:Bael;!; In the endgame Black will hardly complete his development due to the pin along the e-file.

9.tLlf3 c4 E2) 7 c5 8.bxc3 •••

8

•••

d5

8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �xd2+ 10. ixd2. In the endgame White's prospects are preferable, since his pawns on d4 and eS cramp con­ siderably Black's pieces. 10 . . . tLlc6 (10 . . . dxe5 ll.fxeS tLlc6 12 .c3 f6 13.tLlf3 ig4 14.0-0 0-0-0, Man­ ik - Rumpl, Austria 2003, White had to take care here of the safety of his eS-pawn with the move 15. .lf4 ! preserving the advantage.) ll.dS tLlb8, Balogh - Beim, Aus­ tria 2005, 12.exd6 ! He parts with his pawn-centre, but obtains good prospects on the e-file and against 282

He blocks the queenside, be­ cause it will be more difficult for White to exploit his lead in devel­ opment in a closed position. It seems too risky for Black to choose 9 . . . ig4, since White can open advantageously the position with the line : 10.c4 ! , for example: 10 . . . �xd2 + ll.tLlxd2 dxc4 12 . .ie4 t2Jc6 13.d5 t2Jd4 (The retreat of Black's knight to the edge of the board is clearly worse. 13 . . . t2Ja5 14 . .ib2 bS 15.a3 0-0-0 16 . .ic3 t2Jb7 17.h3 .id7 18.:Bb1 .ie8 19.0-0 hS 20.tLlf3 aS 21.f5 b4 2 2 .axb4 cxb4 23 . .id4
l.d4 d6 2.e4 lt:lf6 3. lt:l c3 c6 4.f4 It would be also interesting for Black to try here 9 . . . tt:lc6, keeping the possibility to develop his bish­ op on g4. 10.0-0 .ig4 (10 . . . e6 11. a4 c4 12 ..ie2 .id7 13.'\WeU White has a space advantage and the possibility to organise active ac­ tions on the kingside with the move f4-f5. All this more than compensates his compromised queenside pawn-structure.) 11. E:b1 .ixf3 12.E:xf3 c4 (12 ... 0-0-0, Prusikin - Weiss, Montecatini Terme 1997, 13.E:b5 Wfxa2 14.E:xc5 e6 15.E:b5;!;; Black's position will be terrible after 14 . . . a6? ! due to the cramping pawn-sacrifice 15. e6 !±) 13.ie2 Wfxa2 14.E:xb7 Wfa6 15.E:b1 e6 16.f5± White has more space and very actively deployed pieces, Orozco Lopez - Arribas Robaina, Guayaquil 2011.

10 .ie2 g6 •

(diagram)

ll.a4!? R.Fischer played like this in similar positions in the French Defence. White prepares the de­ velopment of his bishop on a3 .

After the routine reaction 11.0-0 Wfa4?, he cannot find an effective placement of his bishop.

ll .if5 12.0-0 e6 13.h3 h5 14.log5 h4 15 . .ia3 •••

The exchange of the dark­ squared bishops is in favour of White, since almost all Black's pawns are on light squares.

15 .b:a3 16.:!:�xa3 .!bd7 17. • • .

gb 1 gbs, Kanmazalp - Sirin, Konya 2011. Black's bishop is much more active than its coun­ terpart, so White should better exchange it. 18 .ig4!;!; - He has much more space and has an eas­ ier game on both sides of the board. •

Conclusion As a rule, in the variation with 3 . . . c6 White obtains effortlessly an

opening advantage. After 4.f4, Black has two main responses : 4 . . . g6 and 4 . . . '\WaS. In the first case, there arise favourable for White positions from the Pirc Defence, since Black has played the move c7-c6, which is not so necessary in this opening. Still, White must react very carefully and defend reliably his d4-square. In the second line (after 4 ... '\WaS), the position usually transfers into an endgame which is slightly better for White, or there arise situations of a "French" type, in which White maintains an edge thanks to his superior development and extra space. 283

Index of Variations Part 1. The Gruenfeld Defence 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 •

•

•

•

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

8

Chapter 1 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 •

5 . . . .!Db6 10 5 ... tt:Jxc3 6.bc ig7 7.tt:Jf3 0-0 8.ie2 tt:Jc6; 8 ... b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.ie2 c5 9. 0-0 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.ie2 c5 9. 0-0 b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 .

A) B)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 2 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8.J.e3 •

•

A) B) C)

8 . . . tt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8 ... 0-0 . . . 24 8 ... ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 3 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 . .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8.J.e3 %Ya5 9.%Yd2 •

A) B)

9 . . . b6; 9 . . . tt:Jd7; 9 . . .ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9 . . . cd 37 9 ... tt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 4 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 d5 4.cd .!Dxd5 5.e4 .!Dxc3 be J.g7 7 .!Df3 c5 8 .ie3 %Ya5 9.%Yd2 0-0 10.gc1 •

•

A) B) C) D) E) F)

•

10 . . . b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . tt:Jd7 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . .ig4 . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ... e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 cd . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ... E:d8 . . . . . . . . . . . ...

. . . . . .

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

Part 2. The King's Indian Defence 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 .ig7 •

•

•

•

•

•

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.

.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Chapter 5 1.d4 .!Df6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Dc3 J.g7 4.e4 0-0 5.i.e2

•

•

. . . . . .

•

. . . . . .

•

. 53 . 54 . 57 . 59 . 61 . 64

•

74

•

5 . . . c5; 5 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

284

Index of Variations Chapter 6 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S .ie2 •

•

A) B) C)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5 . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 5 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5 ... e5 . . 85 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 7 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6 .ig5 •

A) B)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6 . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 8 l.d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6.ig5 .!L!bd7 7.lM2 •

various . 94 7 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 .

A) B)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 9 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6 .ig5 .!Lla6 7.f4 •

7 . . . e5; 7 . . . c5 104 7 . . . Wfe8 . . 105 7 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 .

A) B)

•

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 10 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S .ie2 0-0 6.ig5 h6 7 .ie3 •

•

•

various 113 7 . . . lt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 7 ... e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 .

A) B) C)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 11 l.d4 .!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3 .!Llc3 ig7 4.e4 d6 S.ie2 0-0 6.1g5 cS 7.d5 •

various 7 . . . a6 . . 7 b5 . . 7 ... h6 . . 7 . . . e6 . .

.

A) B) C) D)

...

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

.

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . .

.

. . . .

. . . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

. . . . .

.

. . . .

. . . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.. . . . . . . . .

.

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

.

. . . .

... . 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 . . . . . . . . .. . . . � . 142 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

285

Index of Variations Part 3. The Modern Defence l.d4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Chapter 12 1.d4 g6 2.c4 A) B)

2 . . . d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 2 . . ..tg7 3.e4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3.e4 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 B1) B2) 3.e4 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 B3) 3.e4 lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Chapter 13 1.d4 g6 2.c4 1i..g7 3.e4 d6 4.lL!c3 various 179 4 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 4 . . . lL!c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 4 ... lt:Jd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 .

A) B) C)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 4. The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLlf6 3.�c3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Chapter 14 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lLlc3 g6 4.1i..e 3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 4 . . . a6 S.h3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Chapter 15 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lL!c3 g6 4.1i..e 3 1i..g7 5.Wd2 A) B)

c) D) E)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 S . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 S . . . lt:Jc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 s . lt:lg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 5 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 S . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 .

.

Chapter 16 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lL!f6 3.lL!c3 g6 4.1i..e3 c6 5.h3 A) B) 286

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

s i.g7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 s lt:lbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 ...

...

Index of Variations Part 4. Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.lilc3

242

• . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . • . • . . • • . . • . . . • . . . •

Chapter 17 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.ltlc3 e5 4.de de 5.'�xd8+ �xd8 6.Ag5

A) B) C) D)

6 . . . .id6 . . . . . 6 ... .ie7 . . . . . 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . 6 . . . .ie6 . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

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

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

244 247 249 252

Chapter 18 l.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3 . .!Llc3 lilbd7 4.f4 various 257 4 . . . e5 5.lilf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Chapter 19 1.d4 d6 2.e4 lilf6 3.lilc3 c6 4.f4 A) B) C) D) E)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . .�b6 . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . �a5 . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

287