A versatile move, 5 ... a6 prepares ... b7-b5 in order to defend the extra pawn on c4 or simply expand on the queenside, depending on the circum stances. This is more versatile than 5 ... b5 - if not quite as exciting - and is a popular choice against the Cata lan at every level of competition. Again I remind you of the similari ties and transpositional possibilities with this and 5 ... b5.
Game S Krasenkov - Kaidanov Gausdal 1991 1 c4 e6 2 W dS 3 d4 llJf6 4 g3 dxc4 5 .tg2 5 ... a6 6 0-0 b5
Introducing complications by in sisting on keeping the pawn, thus forcing/inviting White to generate an initiative. Black has one very impor tant alternative:
6 ..• c5 7 dxc5 'itxdl 8 ltxdl .ixc5
leads to a difficult game for Black af ter 9 llJe5. Razuvaev-Geller, USSR 1988 continued 9 ... lDbd7 10 lDxc4 lta7 1 1 lDc3 b5 12 lDd6+ �e7 1 3 lDce4 with a clear advantage to White.
The major alternative is the sober 6 •.• lDc6 (sometimes the order of
moves is 5 ... llJc6 6 0-0 a6, but we intend to meet 5 ... llJc6 with the un compromising 6 'iVa4 - see Flear Marciano, Game 7 - as after 6 0-0 Black can avoid 6 ... a6 in favour of 6 ... ltb8, when it is not clear how White should continue). My favour ite reply to 6 ... lDc6 is 7 e3, concen trating on the centre - which Black is neglecting in his efforts to hold on to the pawn. Then:
a) 7 .•• .td7 is the most popular of
Black's options: al) 8 llJc3, and now:
al l) 8 .. ..id6 was played in Tib ensky-Haba, Czechoslovakia 199 1 , and White now found an interesting idea which avoids the established theory. Instead of 9 'ite2 b5 10 ltd l
0-0 1 1 e4 e5 with an approximately equal position, White unleashed his bishop with 9 lbe5!? (D).
The game continued 9 ... .txe5 (or 9 ... lDxe5 10 dxe5 .ixe5 l l .ixb7 lta7 12 .ig2, when White has enough for the pawn) 10 dxe5 llJxe5 1 1 .ixb7 ltb8 12 .ig2 (White prefers to keep
8
the bishop on the long diagonal rather than grab a pawn with 12 i.xa6, although this does look quite promising, e.g. 12 ... i.c6 13 'ii'xd8+ 'iii>xd8 14 l:.d1+ �e7 15 b3, etc.). Now Haba gives 12· ... 0-0 13 'ii'd4 ! lbd3 14 ... xc4 and then 14 ••• lbxcl 15
l:.fxc1 l:.xb2 and 14 ... i.b5 15 �xb5
axb5 16 'ii'c2, evaluating both as slightly in White's favour.
a12) 8 ••• �d5 also met with a
new move in the game Khalifman A.Petrosian, Moscow 1987: 9 ... e2!? (both 9 e4 �xc3 10 bxc3 i.e7 and 9 lbd2 �xc3 10 bxc3 b5 1 1 a4 l:.b8 12 'ii'g4 g6! lead to a dynamically bal anced game) 9 ... �xc3 10 bxc3 i.d6 (10 ... i.e7 1 1 a4! �a5 12 �e5 gives White the better chances) 1 1 l:.d1 (1 1 ... xc4 is not possible at the mo ment in view of 1 l ...�a5 12 'ii'e2/d3 i.b5) 1 l...b5 12 �5 ! (D).
Instigating complications, the re sult of which requires an accurate evaluation. Black chose 12 ... i.xe5 (after 12 ... �xe5 13 dxe5 i.xe5 14 i.a3 !, 14 ... .i.xc3 15 l:.xd7 ! wins, so 14 ... l:.b8 is necessary, with a difficult defensive task ahead for Black) 13 dxe5 �xe5 (otherwise White domi nates), forcing his opponent to find
Open Catalan: 5 ... a6 49
the most active response in 14 'ii'h5 ! (14 i.xa8 'ii'xa8 simply hands over the long diagonal, while 14 i.a3 l:.c8 15 'ii'h5 'ii'f6 gives Black an edge) 14 ... �d3 15 .i.a3 ! (piling on the pressure; again 15 i.xa8 is an insult to the Catalan bishop, e.g. 15 ... 'ii'xa8 16 i.a3 'ii'd5 !, and the knight is too strong) 15 ... l:.b8! (15 .. .l:.c8? 16 i.e4!)
16 i.e4 b4! 17 "i.xb4 (D).
Thus far Black has succeeded in limiting his disadvantage, and now
17 • ..l:.b5! was necessary, even though
after 18 'ifg4 (18 'ii'e2 c5 19 .i.a3 0-0 20 .i.xd3 cxd3 2 1 'ii'xd3 ... a5 ! is equal) 18 ... 'ii'g5 (18 ... l:.g5 19 'ifh4 c5 20 i.a5!) 19 'ii'xg5 l:.xg5 20 i.xd3 cxd3 White can maintain excellent winning chances with 21 c4! (21
50 Open Catalan: 5 ... a6
l:txd3 l:td5 !), for example 2 l . ...i.c6 22 f4 !.
Instead in the game Black went wrong, playing 17 ... ll::lxb4?, when
White was able to exploit his oppo nent's lack of development and weak c-pawns: 18 cxb4 l:tb5 (18 ... :xb4? 19 .i.c6; 1 8 ... 'ti'e7 19 "ir'e5 ! 0-0 20 'ti'xc7 l:tfd8 21 :acl) 19 1i'e2 'ii'b8?! (19 .. . 'ti'e7 20 a3 0-0 21 1i'xc4 is the lesser evil) 20 a3 c5 21 Wxc4 ikc7 (2l ...cxb4 22 'ili'd4) 22 l:[ac l and White won a pawn and, soon, the game.
Note that ll::lf3-e5 did not only open the long diagonal for White's light-squared bishop, but the sub sequent trade on e5 cleared the d-file for White's rook, which proved equally uncomfortable for Black. Another important feature of this game was Black's stranded king (af ter .i.c 1-a3 ), illustrating the potential problems associated with neglecting the centre and development in the struggle to provide support for the c4-pawn.
a2) Continuing the theme, the ag gressive li::lf3-e5 has also been tried after White's other reply to 7 ... .i.d7, namely 8 'iVe2. After 8 •.• b5 we have:
a21) In the game Polugaevsky Panchenko, Sochi 198 1 , 9 l:[dl .i.e7
10 b3 !? cxb3 1 1 axb3 0-0 12 e4 re sulted in White having typical Cata lan compensation for the pawn in the form of open lines and a fluid centre (one idea is d4-d5 e6xd5, e4-e5, etc.).
a22) However, Toshkov-L.Spas sov, Albena 1985 continued 9 ll::le5!?
li::ld5 10 ll::lxd7 'ilxd7 1 1 l:td 1 l:td8, and now came 12 b3 ! (D).
The removal of his light-squared bishop makes the position after
12 ••• cxb3 13 axb3 more uncomfort
able for Black, so 12 ... c3 is the most sensible course. Then 13 .i.xd5 exd5 14 ll::lxc3 is at least slightly better for White, who has options involving a queenside strike with a2-a4, occupa tion of the c-file and expansion in the centre with e3-e4.
It is really quite logical that li::lf3- e5 can be an effective response to Black's queenside play in these ex amples. Accurate defence should limit White to an edge, but the more harmonious nature of White's devel opment tends to offer more in prac tice.
b) 7 ••• l:tb8 takes the rook off the
long diagonal in order to take the sting out of ll::lf3-e5 as a reply to ... b7-b5. Therecommended antidote is 8 li::lfd2!? (tying down Black's b pawn to the defence of the knight):
b1) Carlhammar-L.-A.Schneider, Swedish Ch 1991 saw Black try to rejuvenate 8 ... e5 with 9 .i.xc6+ bxc6
10 dxe5 ll::lg4 1 1 ll::lxc4 .i.e6 (the old 1 l ..."ii'xd1 12 :xdl .i.e6 1 3 ll::lbd2 l:[d8 14 b3 ! .i.xc4 15 bxc4 is good for White, e.g. 15 ... ll::lxe5 16 .i.b2
l:hd2 17 .txe5, or 15 ... .tb4 16 l:.b1 .tc3 17 l:.b3 .taS 18 f4), but after 12 .!Llbd2 'WdS 13 b3 White was still bet ter.
b2) 8 ••• 'ii'd7 9 .!Llxc4 b5 10 .!Llcd2
(10 .!Lle5 !?) 10 ... e5 1 1 .!Llb3 .i.d6 12 .!Llc3 leaves Black's position rather loose.
b3) 8 .•• .!LlaS does not defend the
c4-pawn because after 9 'Wa4+ c6 10 .!Llxc4, 10 ... b5 meets with 1 1 'ii'xaS, while 10 ... lbxc4 1 1 'Wxc4 gives
White an easy game.
b4) 8 ... .!Lla7?! manages to force
through ... b7-b5 at the cost of a cer- tain amount of time and the knight being poorly posted. Polugaevsky Portisch, Amsterdam 1981 went 9 .!Llxc4 b5 10 .!Lle5 c5 (10 ... .i.b7 1 1 .i.xb7 l:.xb7 1 2 a4! strikes at the weak queenside pawns, guarantee ing White an advantage) 1 1 i..c6+ i..d7 (1 1.. . .!Lld7 12 dxc5 .txc5 13 i..xd7+ i..xd7 14 .!Llxf7 ! �xf7 15 'it'h5+ and 16 'ii'xc5) 12 .!Llxd7 .!Llxd7 13 .tg2 .te7 14 a4!, and White domi nated. Note the power of the Catalan bishop here.
Now let us focus our attention back on 6 ... b5:
7 tbe5 (D)
Open Catalan: 5 ... a6 51
The result of Black's insistence on keeping the gambit pawn is the opening of the h 1-a8 diagonal for the Catalan bishop. If Black is not care ful he may end up in charge of a few squares on the queenside only to find the rest of the board belonging to White.
7 ... lLld5
7 ... l:.a7 is a little too passive and 8 a4 ! leaves the rook in trouble on the a-file. However, there is another way in which Black has tried to negate White's control of the long diagonal, and this is by offering a pawn sacri fice of his own with 7 ... c6. Then
White should choose the third of the following replies:
a) The natural reaction, 8 lbxc6,
fits in nicely with Black's plan, for example 8 ... 'ii'b6 9, .!Lle5 (9 .!Llxb8 l:.xb8 helps Black) 9 ... i..b7 10 a4 (or 10 .i.xb7 and 1 1 a4) 10 ... i..xg2 1 1 �xg2 'ii'b7+ 12 �g1 .!Llbd7 and then
13 axb5 axb5 14 l:.xa8+ 'it'xa8 15 .!Llxd7 .!Llxd7 16 .tf4 .i.b4 with an equal position, Cebalo-Sveshnikov, Athens 1983, or 13 b3!? cxb3 14 axb5 'ii'xb5 15 .!Llc3 'ii'b7 16 l:.b1 l:.b8 17 i..f4 .i.d6 18 .!Llxd7 'ii'xd7 19 .i.xd6 112-112 Razuvaev-Novikov, Vol
godonsk 1983.
b) In Vanheste-Mednis, Amster dam 1988, White ignored the offer and stepped up the pressure on the enemy pawn mass with 8 a4?!. This is the right idea but the wrong execu tion, and after 8 ... .tb7 9 .!Llc3 1i'c8 10 e4 .!Llbd7 1 1 .!Llxd7 1i'xd7 12 e5 .!Lld5 13 .!Llxd5 cxdS Black had a solid position and a useful extra pawn.
52 Open Catalan: 5 ... a6
c) Correct is 8 b3!, designed to combine the desirable aims of 'a' and 'b' - capturing the c6-pawn and undermining Black's queenside structure. This is possible because the forced 8 ... cxb3 is then met with 9 .!Llxc6! 'Wb6 10 .!Lla5 ! (D).
White's clever 8th move has pro vided the roaming knight with an ef fective retreat square on b3, from where the knight can support both the centre as well as a timely a2-a4. After 10 ... :a7 1 1 .!Llxb3 the game Krasenkov-Kohlweyer, Ostend 1990 saw Black bring his rook to the cen tre with 1 L.:d7 (worse are l l ...i.e7
12 e4 0-0 13 .i.e3 :d7 14 .!Ll1d2 'tlfd8 1 5 a4! bxa4 16 :xa4 .i.b7 17 .!Lla5 when White has excellent play, Razuvaev-M.Gurevich, Riga 1985, and 1 l . .. i.b7?! 12 d5 ! 'tlfc7 13 .i.e3 :as 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 .i.xb7 'tlfxb7 16 .!Lld4, Lingnau-Thesing, Bundesliga 1993). The game continued 12 e4! .i.b7 13 :et (13 'tlfe2!?) 13 ... i.e7 14 e5 .!Lld5 15 'tlfg4 g6?! (15 ... lii>f8 16 .i.g5 clearly favours White, but at least h6 and f6 are not weak) 16 .i.h6
.!Llb4 17 .i.xb7 'tlfxb7 (17 ... tLlc2? 18 .i.e4 .!Llxel 19 .!Llld2) 18 :e2 .!Ll8c6
19 .!Llc3 'tlfb6 20 :d2 and White had a decisive advantage: 20 ... a5 21 tLle4 a4 22 .!Llbc5 :ds (22 ... :xd4 23 :xd4 .!Llxd4 24 .!Llf6+ .i.xf6 25 'tlfxd4, or 22 ... :d5 23 .!Llxe6! fxe6 24 'tlfxe6 lti>d8 25 .!Llf6 :xd4 26 .i.e3, etc.) 23 .!Llxe6! fxe6 24 'ifxe6 tLld5 (24 ... :Xd4 25 .!Llf6+ lti>d8 26 .i.e3) 25 tLld6+ :xd6 26 exd6 1-0.
8 a4 (D)
Striking the queenside before Black consolidates, this thematic thrust is now established as being the most difficult to meet (having taken over from.8 .!Llc3). White wastes no time challenging the b5-pawn, gen erating pressure on the a-file. Note that 8 e4 .!Llf6 9 a4 .i.b7 transposes and rules out 8 a4 c6, though an ex amination of the next note demon strates that Black's extra option is nothing to be afraid of.
8 •.• .i.b7
Bolstering the pawns with 8 ••• c6
is possible, presenting White with the option of taking on b5 before striving to open the game for his bet ter-developed pieces:
a) In Kaidanov-Am.Rodriguez, Lucerne Wcht 1993 White went for
an immediate attack in the centre: 9
e4 lbf6 (on 9 ... lbb6, 10 d5 ! is good: 10 ... cxd5/exd5 1 1 a5, or 10 ... 'it'c7 1 1 .i.f4! g5 12 .i.e3 lbxa4 13 lbxc4 cxd5
14 exd5 .i.b7 15 l:.xa4 ! with a strong attack, Onat-Kirov, Pernik 1976) 10 d5 ! 'it'c7 !? (10 ... cxd5 11 exd5 exd5 12 axb5 .i.e7 13 lbc3 .i.b7 14 bxa6 0-0 15 a7 lba6 16 lbxc4 was clearly bet ter for White in Zaichik-I.Ivanov, Beltsy 1979, and 10 ... exd5 1 1 exd5 lbxd5 allows 12 lbxc6) 1 1 lbxc6 lbxc6 12 dxc6 'it'xc6 13 axb5 axb5, and instead of 14 l:txa8 'it'xa8 15 lbc3 'it'b8 with an unclear position, White first played 14 e5! lbd5 15 .i.xd5 exd5, obtaining an. advantage after 16 lha8 'it'xa8 17 lbc3 due to the threat to restore material equilibrium with a lead in development. Using the d4-d5 advance (even with black pawns on c6 and e6) to prise open the position for the Catalan bishop is a possibility we should always be looking for in these positions.
b) Heck-Zude, Germany 1994 tested the continuation 9 axb5 cxb5 10 lbc3 .i.b7 1 1 lbxd5 exd5 12 e4 .td6 13 exd5 0-0, which has been evaluated by Neishtadt as producing complicated play with chances for both sides. White's doubled, isolated d-pawns seem quite harmless com pared with Black's queenside pawns, but the weakness of the c6-square is a crucial factor, as was demonstrated in the game: 14 .i.d2 f6 15 lbc6 'it'c7 16 'it'f3 'it'f7 17 Afe1 .i.c8 1 8 .tf4 lbxc6 (otherwise the trade of dark squared bishops will give White con trol of the e7-square) 19 dxc6 .i.b4 20 Aed1 g5 21 .i.e3 .i.d6 22 d5. Now
Open Catalan: 5 ... a6 53
White's advanced queenside pawns are as dangerous as they look, hence Black's attempt to distract his oppo nent with a pawn storm on the other flank: 22 ... h5 23 'it'e4 f5 24 'it'd4 f4 25 .i.d2 f3 26 .i.c3 'it'g6 27 .i.fl h4 28 Ae1 'it'h6 29 g4 Af4 30 l:te4
.i.xg4 3 1 l:.xf4 gxf4 32 Ae1 cj;f7 33 tl;h1 .tf5 (D).
Notice that Black's queenside pawns have not moved since they as sumed this same pose early in the opening. In fact they remain motion less for the rest of this entertaining game! This is due in no small part to the fact that Black has been too busy addressing the problem of White's passed pawns, which came to life af ter the removal of the enormous knight on c6. The remaining moves were 34 .:te5 ! 'it'g5 (34 ... .i.xe5 35 'it'xe5 frees the d-pawn) 35 .i.h3 .i.xe5 36 'it'xe5 tl;g6 37 'it'g7+ tl;h5 38 .i.xf5 'it'xf5 39 'it'e5 ! tl;g4 (or 39 ... 'fi'xe5 40 .i.xe5 Ae8 4 1 .tc3) 40 h3+ tl;g5 4 1 'it'g7+ tl;h5 42 d6 'it'b1+ 43 tl;h2 'it'n 44 'it'f7+ (the start of a forced, decisive series of checks) 44 ... tl;g5 45 .i.f6+ lj;f5 46 .tg7+ tl;e4 47 'it'e6+ tl;d3 48 'ii'f5+ tl;d2 49
54 Open Catalan: 5 ... a6
i.c3+ �cl SO Wxf4+ �bl 5 1 Wxf3 :gs 52 Whl ! (D).
An unusual final position: 1-0.
9 axb5
9 e4 lL!f6 10 axbS axbS 1 1 lba8 transposes. An important and inter esting alternative is 9 b3, which fea tures in the next main game.
9 axbS 10 :Xa8 .i.xa8
11 e4 lL!f6
12 � c6
Not an attractive move to play, perhaps, but 12 ... b4 is dubious on
account of 13 Wfa4+ lL!bd7 14 lL!bS!.
13 dS! (D)
8
This energetic treatment of the position has replaced 1 3 .i.gS as
White's best hope of making some thing of his development lead. It is imperative that White does not give his opponent any time with which to consolidate, and the 'traditional' d4- d5 throws enough wood on the fire to cut across Black's plan of contain ment. Note that all the black pieces except the f6-knight are on the back
rank and the king is still in the centre.
13 ••. .i.e7
Of course White is prepared for any captures on dS. After 13 •.• cxd5
White has lL!c3xb5 (perhaps after 14 exdS), while 13 . . . exd5 14 exdS lL!xdS
leaves the hS-square free for the queen (e.g. 1 5 WhS and then 1S ... g6 16 lL!xg6 fxg6 17 WfeS+, or 15 ... Wf6 16 lL!xc6).
If Black can do nothing about the unwelcome d-pawn, then he may as well bring out his dark-squared bishop and accept whatever incon venience White has in store for him.
13 .•• .i.d6 is also possible:
a) It was first seen in Ulybin-An tunes, Bayamo 1991. White played the natural 14 .i.f4 and was re warded with an excellent position after 14 ... exd5? (14 ... g5? 15 dxe6! fxe6 16 lL!xc6! is no improvement, but Ulybin's carefui 14 ... Wfc7 !? cer tainly is, and 14 ... b4 is worth a try) 15 exd5 cxdS 16 'it'al ! .i.xe5 (16 ... .i.b7 17 'it'a7, or 16 ... lL!c6 17 lL!xc6 .i.xc6 18 'it'a6) 17 .i.xe5 lL!c6 18 .i.c7 ! 'it'xc7 19 Wfxa8+.
b) Perhaps not satisfied with 14 .i.f4, de la Villa found 14 lL!g4! (D).
This move was tested in Romero Antunes, Havana Capablanca mem
Black's influence over e4 and d5 by challenging the f6-knight and va cates the e5-square in preparation for a timely e4-e5. The diagram position has a number of pitfalls which Black should avoid: 14 •.• 0-0? runs into
15 e5 or 15 dxe6 fxe6 16 lilxf6+, 14 ••• cxd5 15 lilxf6+ 1i'xf6 fails to 16
lbxb5 .ie5 17 f4, 14 •.• lbxg4 15 Wxg4
1Vf6 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 l:.dl ! .ic7 1 8 e5 ! is terrible for Black and 14 ... .ie7 15 lbxf6+ (15 dxe6 Wxdl l6 lilxf6+ gxf6!) 15 ... .ixf6 16 dxe6 fxe6 17 Wg4 is clearly better for White. Finally, 14 ••• e5 avoids some nasty tactics but
simply invites 1 5 .ig5 with an un pleasant pin. Thus Black countered on the other flank with 14 ••• b4: 15
lilxf6+ gxf6 (15 ... Wxf6? is worse due to 1 6 lba4 1 6 dxc6) 16 Wa4?! (16 lbb1 ! followed by lilb1-d2 is sufficient for an advantage on ac count of Black's broken pawns) 16 ... .ib7? (returning the favour, whereas 16 ... bxc3 17 1Vxa8 cxb2! 1 8 .ixb2 cxd5 19 exd5 e5 ! 20 Wa4+ ltld7 21 1Vxc4 would have kept White's lead to a minimum) 17 e5 ! bxc3 18 exd6 Wxd6 19 dxe6 fxe6 20 bxc3 �f7 21 l:.d1 ile7 22 11t'xc4 l:.d8 23 l:.el ! and White's two bishops,
Open Catalan: 5 ... a6 55
command of the dark squares and pressure on the weak e6-pawn proved effective.
Returning to the main game, on e7
the bishop cannot fall victim to the opening of the d-file or to tricks in volving e4-e5.
14 dxe6!
Consistent. White wants to saddle his opponent with a weak pawn on e6, but the exchange also leaves Black's light-squared bishop locked in by the c6-pawn. Whereas Black is not ready to begin to use his 3-1 queenside pawn majority, White is well-placed to become active on the kingside (where he, too, has a major ity).
14 fxe6 15 1Ve2 0-0 16 .ib3 "IVeS
White can pile so much pressure on the e6-pawn that Black does not bother defending it with 16 ••• 1Vc8,
after which two moves have been played:
a) In Bareev-Novikov, USSR 1986, after 17 l:.d1 :e8 18 lbf3 tba6 19 lilg5, Black should have played
19 .•• lbc7!?, resulting in an unclear
position after 20 .if4 h6 21 .txc7 hxg5 22 .ie5. Instead 19 ••• lLics?! 20
.ie3 h6 21 .ixc5 turned out well for White, e.g. 2l.. . .ixc5 (2l...hxg5 22 .ixe7 l:.xe7 23 e5) 22 .txe6+ l:.xe6 23 lb:Xe6 1i'xe6 24 l:.d8+ �f7 25 e5 ! (25 l:.xa8 b4) 25 ... .ib7 26 exf6 .
b) Zilbershtein-Novikov, Blago veshchensk 1988 featured an im provement for White in the shape of the novelty 17 lilf3!, sending the
56 Open Catalan: 5 ... a6
without spending time bringing the rook to the d-file (thus depriving Black of ... l:r.f8-e8). The offer of a draw (by three-fold repetition) which followed the sequence 17 ... lba6 18 lbg5 lbc7 19 .tf4 lbfe8 20 W' g4 ll)r6 21 W'e2 ll)re8 22 W'g4 lbf6 was justi fiably refused with 23 Wxe6+!, which enabled White to regain the pawn and simplify to a favourable ending.
16 ... W'e8 defends the f7-square in anticipation of White's bishop arriv ing on e6. 16 ••• �h8 is also seen,
transposing to the text after 17 .txe6 We8.
17 .txe6+ �h8 (D)
The inevitable removal of the e6- pawn has left White in command on
the kingside and in the centre. The white pieces are active, Black's are passive, White's pawn majority is fluid (the e-pawn is already passed), Black is hampered by his doubled c pawns. In a way White is fortunate in that he can expect - and conse quently prepare for - ... c6-c5, as this is the only way for Black to liberate his light-squared bishop.
18 .tfS!?
One of Krasenkov's many contri butions to opening theory. Previously
18 l:r.d1 had been White's choice: a) 18 •.• c5 19 .tf4 ! lbc6 20 lbxc6
.txc6 2 1 .i.h3 Wg6 22 lbd5 .td8 23 fuf6 .txf6 24 .tf5 W'f7 25 .i.d6 with a clearly better position for White, Glek-Novikov, Blagovesh chensk 1988.
b) Black rejected ... c6-c5 in fa vour of 18 •.. .tb7 in the game Dan
ailov-S.Maksimovic, Cannes 1990, leaving the c5-square free for her knight. Although such a plan keeps the queenside pawns intact it gives White time to send his pieces into enemy territory: 19 .tf4 lba6 20 lbd7! lbxd7 21 .txd7 W'f7 22 e5 lbc5 23 e6 and the difference between the two pawn configurations is clear. The game ended 23 ... W'g6 24 .td6 .txd6 25 l:r.xd6 lbxd7 26 l:r.xd7 .tc8 27 e7 l:r.e8 28 l:r.d8 h6 29 lbe4 .tg4 30 W'xg4 W'xg4 31 .J:r.xe8+ �h7 32 l:r.d8 1-0.
Krasenkov's 18 .tf5!? is rather more provocative than 18 l:r.d l . Al lowing the bishop to remain on f5 means that extra protection is now provided for the e-pawn, so Black is invited to consider hitting the bishop with ... g7-g6, which would leave the h6-square vulnerable. Another point behind the retreat is that White no longer has to consider the conse quences of a discovered attack from the queen.
18 ••• c5
Not wanting to be completely dominated, Black liberates his own light-squared bishop. Unfortunately for him the price for this is the newly
weakened b5-pawn. Black should not take the bait and be tempted into
18 •.• g6? 19 .i.h3 on account of the
prospect of White's other bishop tak ing up residence on h6. However,
18 ••• .i.d6 comes to mind, though
White has with a clear advantage af ter 19 lL!g4 lOd.5 20 l:.d 1 !.
19 ..tr4
White increases his influence in the centre of the board, successfully continuing the strategy to which he has adhered throughout the opening - following up the sacrifice of a pawn on the queenside (and Black's subsequent endeavours to maintain the material lead) with aggressive play in the centre and an eye on the kingside. Black's band of queenside pawns lacks the support necessary to create problems for White.
19 .•. lL!c6?!
A risky venture in a difficult posi tion. Black's desire to do something is understandable, and he can be for given for missing the power of his opponent's 25th move. In answer to
19 ••• b4, Krasenkov offers 20 l:.al !
lL!c6 2 1 lL!b5 lL!xe5 22 lL!c7 'ii'c6 23 i.xe5 with a big lead. Another feasi ble course of action for Black is
19 ••• %5, which should be met with
the menacing and strong 20 1i'g4!. Then 20 ... lL!xf4 21 gxf4 forces 2 1 ...l:.f6 (due to the threat of lL!e5- g6+), when 22 l:.al followed by an invasion on a7 is decisive. In these lines where Black's light-squared bishop finds itself on a8 after an ex change of rooks, the possibility of at tacking this piece later in the game - either with the remaining rook or
Open Catalan: 5 ... a6 57
with the queen - is an important fea