The Easiest Sicilian
A Black Repertoire with 1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 tlJc6
GM
Atanas Kolev
GM
Trajko Nedev
Chess Stars
Current Theory and Practice Series
The Easiest Sicilian
Translation and editing by Semko Semkov Cover design by Kalojan Nachev
Copyright© 200 8 by Atanas Kolev and Trajko Nedev
Printed in Bulgaria
Contents 1 e4 c5 2 �t'3 �c6
Foreword by Atanas Kolev s
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part S Part 6 Part ? Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11 Part 12 Part 13
The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS 8
The Positional Variation 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jc3 eS
6 lt:JdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 lt:Ja3 bS 9 lt:JdS �e7 44
10 �xf 6 �xf6 11 c3 0-0 64
12 lt:Jc2 �gs 13 a4 bxa4 14 ruca4 as lS !c 4 !gb8 16 b3 c±>h8 17 lt:Jce3 92 Alternatives to the Main Line after 9 �xf 6 gxf 6 10 lt:JdS fS llS
9 hf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS f S 11 exf S MS 129
The Main Line 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS f S 11 �d3 �e6 140
12 0-0 160
6 lt:JdbS d6 7 lt:JdS 178
Unusual Seventh Moves 6 lt:JdbS d6 193
Unusual Sixth Moves 20 1
Rare Lines 3 c3 ; 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 eS 216 The Novosibirsk Variation 9 hf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS �g7 223
Bibliography Books
Opening for White According to Anand, vol. 10 by Alexander Khalifman, Chess Stars 2007
The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005 The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005
The Sicilian Defence. The 5 . . . es System (in Russian) by Sveshnikov, Fizkultura i Sport 1988
The BbS Sicilian by Richard Palliser, Eve ryman Chess 2005 Periodicals Informator New in Chess Chess Today Internet resources Databases
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com) 10 Days (Chessmix.com)
Inte rnet Chess Club (chessclub.com) ChessPublishing.com forum
Chesspro.ru
Foreword
About the Title
The book was already finished, but I still had doubts how to entitle it. At first I thought about "The Most Controversial Sicilian. " It seemed a proper name for a repertoire, based on the Sveshnikov. Indeed, for only 30 years, this brainchild of sever al players from Chelyabinsk has passed through the phases of total denial, angry attempts of refuting this defiance to the classical laws of positional chess, suspicious accept
ance, to be finally adopted by most leading grandmasters as Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik, Leko, Khalif
man, to name a few.
Then a series of internet blitz games struck me with another char acteristic feature of the modern Sveshnikov.
I realised how easy it was to include it in one's repertoire?
Most of my games reached in seconds the position on the follow ing diagram. 1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tlJxd4 tlJf 6 S tlJc3 eS 6 tlJdbS d6 7 i.gS a6 8 tlJa3 bS 9 tlJdS i.e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 i.gS 12 tlJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 !!xa4 as lS i.c4 !!b8 16 b3 <jf h8
We are already in the middle game, but independent play is still far ahead. Furthermore, Black's plan is obvious. He wants to push f S right away or after . . . g6 in case White plays 17 tlJe3 . Strategical ly, the Sveshnikov is a rather sim ple opening. You read part 3 and 4, leaf through the "Quick Reper toire" chapters of the other parts of the book, and you are ready to test a whole new Sicilian!
The so-called Positional varia tion against the Sveshnikov has be come lately the first choice of White
Foreword
players of all levels. A quick check in my database shows that in 2006-200 8 it occurred two times more often than the lines with 9 .ixf 6. Apparently fashion, but also fear of the sharper variations, have a strong impact on White's prefer ences. Otherwise it is difficult to ex plain this fondness of a line which is too well explored, aspires to a small positional edge at best, and is of ten rather boring . Of course Anand
or Shirov may have every reason to like it, provided it brings them full points sometimes, but they have su per technique and deep analyses of the arising positions and even end games . Thelowerthe level, theworse are White's statistics. Below 2400, first players scored only about SO percent in the last two years .
Currently I do not see any serious theoretical problems for Black .
I worked hard to neutralise two fresh ideas of Khalifman and Anand, and hope that our improve ments will withstand practical test. I show that Black's bishop pair is a fair match to the "magical " control of the centre, that attracts so many white players. Most importantly, I propose an ambitious repertoire, where White must take considera ble risks if he wants to aspire even to the slightest advantage . My aim was not so much to off er a survival guide for Black, but rather pick out variations that lead to rich and dou ble-edged play, with decent winning chances for him. I rejected from the repertoire all the lines where Black 6
would be playing for only two re sults. For instance, in the Positional variation I recommend 11. .. 0-0, while 11. .. �gS, followed by 12 ... CiJe7, is left for a backup line.
I follow the same approach after 1 e4 cs 2 CiJf3 CiJc6 3 �bs. White of ten tries to ki ll any life in the posi tion, hoping to squeeze us without
any risk thanks to his flexible pawn formation. I devoted 36 pages to ad vocate 3 . . . CiJf6 ! in this popular sys tem. You will find important new plans, developed by me or Nedev, which bring about double-edged unbalanced play. The fine point of this provocative move is that White
must pick up the gauntlet and push eS at some moment, or he should forget about opening advantage. Af ter eS, however, Black obtains clear counterplay. In some lines he can even castle long.
About the Authorship
I have been analysing the Svesh nikov for years with my friend GM Vasil Spasov. It is his main reper toire as Black, while I was more in terested for the White side. Gradu ally I discovered that Black was in perfect shape and I started playing it for both colours. When I finished war king on "The Sharpest Sicilian", I decided to go on with this series and write about the Sveshnikov.
As a coach of the Bulgarian wom
en's team, I had enough experience with explaining the most topical lines of that system. Still, I felt that I needed an outside critical view on my analyses. Thus I contacted GM
Nedev, who is one of the most de voted protagonist of the Sveshnik ov and has ample practical expe rience. We went together through all my files to synchronise our as sessments. During the last year, we had to repair some variations in the Rossolimo, (3 �bS) analyse the new ideas, developed by Khalifman, and fight the sneaky novelty of Anand against Shirov in Linares 2008. We also dropped some lines of the Novosibirsk variation, which turned to be unfit for playing for win.
The result is a repertoire book for Black which deals with positions arising after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6. It covers the Rossolimo (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS) and the Sveshnikov, (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 eS) as well as some rare lines after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6. The wide range of other Anti-Sicilians are beyond the scope of this book.
We have not aimed to off er a his torical survey or complete study on the Sveshnikov. We have endeav
oured to provide a sound, yet ag gressive repertoire, with a focus on the most topical lines.
About the Structure
This book is above all a practical guide, so I have arranged the ma terial in an order of importance. The Rosso limo variation is a f re
quent guest in tournaments and it is useful to know it even if you are
Foreword not a Sveshnikov fan. Then comes the Positional variation, which is the centre of our repertoire. Thus you'll be able to start playing the Sveshnikov even before finishing the book.
The closing Part 13 considers the Novosibirsk variation. (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ltJdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 l2Ja3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS �g7) It is a stand-alone system which is out side our repertoire. We included it to provide you with a backup line. You might also want to employ it as
.
a surprise weapon.
The presentation fallows the Chess Stars trademark structure, introduced by "The Safest Sicil ian" . Every system is examined in a separate part which contains three chapters: "Quick Repertoire"; "Step by Step"; "Complete Games".
You start with the "Quick Re pertoire". You'll find there all the vital information that you need to start playing the variation. These chapters contain more explanation and try to extract the essence of the numerous variations, analysed branch by branch in the "Step by
Step" chapters.
Finally, the "Complete Games" sections give practical examples and sometimes cover backup lines of the main repertoire.
I suppose that players above Ela 1900 will benefit most of this book.
Atanas Kolev April 2008
Part 1
The most frequent move you are go ing to face after 2 . . . l!Jc6, is 3 �bS. The lower your opponent's rating is, the higher the probability of get ting some Anti-Sicilian with �bS. The so-called Rossolimo Variation is often seen nowadays even at high est level. It is a fine choice if White wants to play "on understanding", or simply has not done his home work in the open main lines.
Do not neglect this system in your preparation as it is deceptively innocuous. We often defend this po sition with both colours and we are well aware of how rich and interest ing variation the Rossolimo is.
3 ... lllf6
3 . . . g6 is a solid alternative, but our choice goes for the text due to several reasons:
1. 3 . . . l!Jf6 allows to build up a repertoire which is independent of tricky move orders. For instance, if White tries 3 l!Jc3, we are happy to answer it with 3 . . . l!Jf6, not being afraid of 4 �bS. Otherwise 3 l!Jc3 would have been awkward, since 3 . . . g6 could be met by 4 d4.
2 . By attacking the e4-pawn, we 8
1 e4 c5 2 lllf3 lllc6 3 ibS QU IC K REPERTO IRE
restrict White's choice, because he has not castled yet so he is unable to protect it with E'!:el.
3. Should White attempt to slow torturing us by damaging our pawn chain with 4 hc6 dxc6 fallowed by 5 d3, we succeed in leading out our light-squared bishop to g4. This is an unexplored plan, which leads to original positions. It has been de veloped and tested by Kolev and we
are going to arm you with our analy sis, to ensure you some competitive advantage over your opponents.
4. The 3 �bS adepts usually pre f er to a void sharp opening lines and unbalanced positions. That might make them uncomfortable in the most challenging lines which in volve e4-e5.
After our attack on the e4-pawn, as early as on the fourth move, White has to settle for a plan.
A. 4 d3 B . 4 hc6 C. 4 e5 D. 4 We2 E. 4 l!Jc3
A. 4 d3
We propose to unbalance abrupt ly the game by
4 ••• �a5+!? S li)c3 li)d4 6 .b4
b5 7 .ib3 li)xb3 8 cxb3 .ib7 9 0-0 d6 1 0 .igS e6 with totally un explored play.
B. 4 .ixc6 dxc6
We do not capture with the b pawn, for White gains the initiative after c3 and d4. However, such a cap ture becomes a plausible option at a
later stage of the opening, especially if White had already played d3 .
5 d3 .ig4!?
A lot of players ref rain from 3 . . . l!Jf 6 in favour of 3 . . . g6. They be lieve that the knight is misplaced on f6 because Black seems unable to prevent e4-eS, with White's spa tial advantage. Nedev even made this system his weapon of choice as White. We have a fresh idea in mind, which leads to very interest ing and complex positions.
6 h3 .ihS!
The key point ! In the overhelm ing majority of games Black cap tures on f3 to struggle in a passive position. Kolev offers another plan:
1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS
1. Black wants to play l!Jd7, f6, eS. In many cases he castles long:
7 l!Jbd2 l!Jd7 8 l!Jc4 f6 ! ? 9 0-0 es 10 l!Je3 Vlfc7 11 a4 as 12 l!JfS �f7+±
2. Should White attempt to pre vent e7-eS by playing �f4, we get rid of our doubled pawn with . . . c4 ! , even at the cost of a pawn in some lines:
7 �f4 c4 !
The idea is to attack the enemy
Part 1
pawn-centre with our long-range pieces, rather than restricting its mobility by clamping on d4.
8 lLJc3 cxd3 9 cxd3 lLJd7 10 d4 e6 11 �e2 lie? 12 0-0 0-0 13 �adl �e8 14 �e3 �as 15 �fel
Superficially, White's _pawn cen tre should ensure him an edge. On the other hand, Black has no weak nesses, and all his pieces are well placed. The queen has a fine retreat to a6, the knight could head for c4 via b6 .
The game Grischuk-Kolev, rapid Mainz 2005 followed with 15 . . . �ac8 16 /ih2, when 16 .. . lLJb6 ! would have completely levelled the game.
3. If White advances his g-pawn, we get fine counterplay by . . . h7-h5! followed up with . . . h4, .ig6-h5:
7 g4 �g6 8 eS? ! lLJdS 9 e6
10
9 .. .f6 10 0-0 �d6 11 �el 0-0 -0 12 lLJc3 hSt.
White is overextended, with many weaknesses, while being una ble to attack anything for his part.
The thematic thrust . . . c4 also gains in strength after 7 g4 .ig6, for instance: 8 lLJc3 c4 !
9 gS lLJd7 10 dxc4 ihS! 11 �d3 �croo.
Black is enjoying the bishop pair advantage and very active pieces.
c. 4 es llldS s o-o lllc7 6 .axc6 dxc6 7 h3 (7 d3 .ig4) its
Black solves the opening prob lems as in the previous line, by lead ing out the light-squared bishop to g4 or f5. The c7-knight is longing to reach d4 via e6 or bS. In case of ex change on d4 we typically recapture
by queen, in order to retain coun terchances along the d-file with the breakthrough c5-c4. Note howev er, that if our bishop were stuck on c8, we should take by pawn in order to open up the long diagonal - see game 1 Mortensen-Ermenkov, Riga 1981.
In this line Black does not hurry with castling! His first task is to activate the c7-knight. Then he could decide to advance his kingside pawns or attack in the cen tre with . . . c5-c4.
5 0-0 4Jc7 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 ifS ! ? 8 d 3 h 6 ! 9 l:iJ bd2 e 6 10 V!! e2 l:iJ bS !
11 4Je4 4Jd4 12 4Jxd4 W!xd4 13 4Jg3 ig6 14 @h2 hS ! See for more details game 2 Movsesian-Chuchelov, Bundesliga 2005, where Black had the initiative.
D. 4 'Mfe2 g6
1 e4 cS 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 ibS Now we are going to exam ine positions where White defends the e4-pawn by queen and castles short. That significantly changes our plans, for we are unable to de velop the light-squared bishop as
comfortably as in the previous lines. Accordingly, we must seek another place for our dark-squared bishop, too. In all subsequent lines which we consider, it goes to g7.
Dl. White gains space with 5 eS; 02. White builds up a pawn cen tre with c3 and d4.
01 . s es �ds 6 o-o
Occasionally, White attempts to grab a pawn by 6 �c4, but then 6 . . . 4Jcb4 ! is quite awkward for him.
6 ... li:) c 7 ! 7 �xc6 dxc6 8 h3 .ig7
9 d3 0-0
A typical position. Black should aim for a kingside attack with the help of .. .f6, gS, h6, intending .. .f 5. He activates the a8-rook with the manoeuvre . . . b6, . . . a7-a5, .. . �a7. The game Minasian-Gagunashvili, Dubai 200 3 saw further:
10 li:) bd2 li:) e6 1 1 li:) b3 as 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 'Mfe4 ga1 1 4 'Mfh4 f6 ! 1 S ge1 'Mf dS 1 6 �e3 g S 1 7 'Mf g3
Part 1
Here, instead of 17 .. . hS, Black should have chosen 17 .. . h6 18 h4 g4 19 llJf d2 fSt. You can see another ex ample of this plan in game 3 De la Paz-Handke, Havana 2003.
02. 5 0-0 i g7 6 c3 0-0 7 �d1
A fashionable move, which aims to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS !? 8 e s tlJe4 9 .ie3 cxd4 10 cxd4 id? with a fine game for Black.
7 . . . e5
8 li:)a3 �ea 9 d3 a6 10 i xc6 bxc6 !
12
In an earlier stage of the open ing, when White was better devel oped, we used to take with the d pa wn, in order to keep control of the centre. In the diagram position, d4 is not a threat, so we follow the basic rule to "capture by pawns to wards the centre".
1 1 i e3 d6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4 d 5 1 4 �ac1 .id7 1 5 .id2 f! e7 1 6
ll:) b 1 ll:) h 5 1 7 a3 ll:) f4 1 8 ixf 4 ext 4 1 9 f! d2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976.
E. 4 li:)c3
In the previous lines we have seen that Black is fine if he achieves the manoeuvre tlJf6-dS-c7-e6(bS) d4. Therefore White's most testing options are connected with limiting the scope of the f 6-knight. The most fashionable response is 4 .. . Wf c7 aim
ing to prevent e4-eS.
The point of my(T .N .) reper
toire is not to prevent this ad vance, but rather to provoke it! This approach may be risky, but it does off er more chances to win the game as the resulting positions are highly unbalanced strategically. So we play:
4 ••• g6
White can vary the move or der, but basically he has two major plans:
1. White plays .ie3, Wfd2, il.h6 and eventually castles long, hoping for a kingside attack. Black's de fence is based on . . . es.
2. White restricts our knight with h3, es, g4.
1 . 5 �xc6 dxc6 6 h3 �g7 7 d3 0-0 8 �e3 b6 9 'Mf d2 e5 !
10 �h6
Or 10 0-0 tlJhS ! Black has good counterplay in the centre. He only has to find the right timing for cS-c4.
1 o . . . 'Mf d6 1 1 o-o-o as 1 2 �xg7 @xg7 1 3 � h2 a4 1 4 � g 4 � g 8!
Current practice i s favourable to Black, who stays solidly on the kingside, while maintaining fair chances for progress on the other
.
wing.
2. 5 h3
White is following the restrict ing strategy, started on the previ ous move. In fact, S eS tlJg4 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 tlJh6 often leads to the same positions. However, if White does not intend to follow up with
1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bs g4, the move order of the latter vari ation is not too precise, since after 8 d3 Black can use the difference with the main line (where the bishop is on g7, but the knight is still on g8) by playing 8 . . . tlJfS ! ?
5 . . . � g 7 6 e 5 � g8 7 �xc6 dxc6
8 d3
8 �e2 tlJh6 9 ttJe4 b6 10 d3 tlJfS 11 �gS ttJd4= is analysed in the "Step by Step" chapter, line E3a.
8 . . . � h 6 9 g4
Be sure to meet 9 �e3 with 9 . . . �aS ! , but not with the com mon 9 . . . b6? ! which would leave our strongest piece without prospects. The key point of our treatment of these positions is to activate the queen.
We further examine 10 g4 fS 11 gS tlJf7 12 �f4 �e6 13 �d2 000 !? -see "Step by Step" line E2 .
9 ... 0-0
Part 1
This is the basic position for line E. White's primary task is to deprive the opponent of counterplay. At the same time he should notf orget about development.
For his part, Black must activate the h6-knight and find targets in the enemy camp. He cannot survive without pushing the f-pawn, but the question is which move is best, f 6 or fS? Initially we thought that we must open up the kingside at all cost, so the answer of that question depend ed on the placement of White's bish op: if it went to f4, we would play
.. .f 6, while .ie3 would be attacked by . . .fS. Let us show examples:
a) 1 0 j.f4 f6
White is unable to keep control of the es-outpost with 11 �e2 , due to the hit 11 . . . l2Jxg4! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cu bas-Nedev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he should pref er 11 �d2 fxeS 12 hh6 hh6 13 �xh6 �f3 14 0-0-0 �f8 15 �xf8 + @xf8 16 �h2 ! The endgame looks better for White, but the the matic sacrifice c5-c4 balances the game, for instance 16 .. . h6 17 �el c4! ? 18 dxc4 .ie6.
b) 10 �e3 f5! 11 exf6 (Follow ing 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if 4 Black has an extra tempo for 12 . . . �aS! 13 �e2 14
�b4! 14 �e3 �xb2 with an attack.) 11. .. exf6 12 �d2 l2Jf7
Black is well coordinated and has the bishop pair in an open po sition. Should White grab a pawn, we'd get tempi to overrun him on the queenside: 13 hes �e8+ 14 .ie3 bS! 15 0-0-0 b4!?
It remains to examine White's third plausible option on move 10:
c) 10 Wfe2
While preparing to castle, White is waiting for us to reveal our plans. Thus, he will meet 10 .. .f 5 with 11 gS l2Jf7 12 .if 4! Although this posi tion is far from clear, we prefer to reach better versions of it, for in stance, with an extra tempo as af ter 10 .ie3 fS! 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if4. The
real venom of 10 �e2 is concealed in the variation 10 .. .f6 11 .id2 ! ? It turns out that Black's threat to the
eS-pawn can be ignored. White sim ply develops, counting on his bet ter pawn structure as in game 5 David-Nedev, ECC 2007.
However, we can outsmart the enemy by attacking the b2-pawn with:
1 0 ... %Yb6! ?
1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 �bs Now, the bishop is pinned to cl and White is suddenly faced with a difficult problem: how to disentan gle his pieces. 11 b3 f 5 12 tlJ a4 (12 gS tlJf7 13 �d2 tlJd8 14 0-0 -0 tlJe6 15 �del tlJd4 16 tlJxd4 cxd4 17 tlJa4 �a6 18 ©bl bS-+) 12 . . . �c7 13 hh6, Wen,Yang-Zhao Jun, Wch U20 Yerevan, 2006, 13 .. . fxg4 ! 14 hg7 gxf3+.
Remember! When White restrains our knight by g4, we must look for counterplay by attacking the queenside with our queen. Therefore, we play b6 only against �e4.
Part 1 3 ••• lllf6 A. 4 d3 B. 4 .bc6 c. 4 es D. 4 Wie2 E. 4 lZJc3 A. 4 d3 page 17 page 18 page 2 2 page 2 3 page 2 5
This modest move poses some move order problems. In case of 4 .. . g6 5 .bc6 dxc6 6 h3 White will throw us out of the proposed reper toire. Not that the position is diffi cult for Black, but it is too static for
our taste. Perhaps 5 . . . bxc6 is more precise. Usually this recapture is risky , because White gains the in-16
1 e4 c5 2 llif3 lllc6 3 .ibS STEP BY STEP
itiative by opening the centre with d2-d4. In our case this break would
be with a loss of tempo, so nothing can stop us f ram completing devel opment.
Besides, we have the daring al ternative:
4 ••• 'Wa5+!? 5 lllc3 llld4 6 .ia4
6 ic4 only gives Black the extra possibility of 6 . . . dS ! ? 7 .bdS lZJxdS 8 exdS ig4.
6 ••• bS 7 i.b3
Or 7 idS lZJxdS 8 exdS ib7 9 0-0 b4.
7 ••• lllxb3 8 cxb3 i.b7
There is no need to hurry with 8 . . . b4, because 9 lZJa4 ! unpleasant ly targets the cS-pawn. (9 lZJe2 g6! is OK for Black.)
9 0-0
9 �gS dS opens up play in Black's favour due to his bishop pair: 10 0-0 (10 hf6 dxe4 11 dxe4 gxf6 12 0-0 e6oo) 10 . . . dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 12 dxe4 f6oo.
9 ••• d6 1 0 .igS e6.
This analysis is, of course, just a starting point for further investiga tion.
B. 4 �xc6 dxc6 5 d3 .ig4!?
A key point in our repertoire. We catch the chance to lead out our problem bishop. This possibil ity is one of the major advantages of 3 . . . llJf6 over 3 . . . g6. Note howev er, that our idea is not just to get rid of our light-squared bishop by trad ing it for the f3-knight!
6 h3
Hoping for 6 ... hf3 7 Wxf3 with a slight edge. In case of 6 ttJbd2 Black fallows his main idea to clamp on d4 by 6 . . . llJd7 7 h3 �hS 8 g4 �g6 9 9 ltJc4 f6 ! when 10 eS? does not work: 10 . . . bS 11 llJcd2 hSt.
6 ••• J.h5!
We should not part light-heart edly with the bishop pair.
1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 �bS Bl. 7 g4 B2. 7 llJbd2 B3. 7 llJc3 B4. 7 �f4 81. 7 g4 .ig6 Bla. 8 eS? ! Blb. 8 llJc3 8 ltJeS ltJd7 9 ltJxg6 hxg6 is not appealing, for the stranded pawn on h3 is a serious drawback of White's structure: 10 �e3 es 11 llJd2 �d6 12 We2 ltJf8 13 0-0-0 ltJe6=.
Bla. 8 e5?! �d5 9 e6
This looks like an overoptimis tic way of treating the position. White neglects development,
Part 1
ing structural benefits. His prob lem is that he is overextended. After
. . . h7-hS he will have to worry about many weaknesses, while being una ble to attack anything for his part.
The first interesting option in the diagram position is 9 . . . hS! ? 10 ltJeS Wf d6 11 exf7+ hf7 12 l2Jxf7 (12 Wfe2 hxg4 13 l2Jxf7 �xf7 14 �xg4 Wies+ 15 Wf e4 Wff6t) 12 . . . �e6+ 13 Wfe2 Wfxf7= and Black's lead in de velopment gives him good chances. We'll consider also:
9 ... f6 1 0 0 - 0 10 l2Jh4? ! loses a pawn to 10 .. . Wf d6 11 Wf e2 l2Jc7 12 f4 l2Jxe6 13 fS ltJd4+. 10 Wf e2 �d6 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 l2Jc3 (12 l2J a3 hS 13 l2Jc4 �c7 14 l2Jh4 �e8t) 12 .. . hS 13 l2Jh4 �e8 14 l2Jf5 Wf c7t is quite good for Black, but adventurous players may try also 10 . . . l2Jb4!? with the idea of 11 0-0 (11 a3? hd3 !) 11. .. c4 ! . Still we pre f er to develop our pieces.
10 • • • Wfd6
10 . . . �c7!? is another attrac tive option: 11 l2Jh4 0-0-0 12 f 4 �e8 planning hS. Black's bishops enter play through the kingside.
11 gel 0 - 0 - 0 12 �c3 h5 t. Blb. 8 �c3 c4! 18 9 g5 9 ltJeS cxd3 10 cxd3 ltJd 7 11 l2Jxg6 hxg6 12 �e3 eS ! = 9 • • • �d7 1 0 dxc4 �h5! 11 Wf d3 Wfc7oo.
Black is enjoying the bishop pair advantage and very active pieces.
82. 7 ll) bd2 tl)d7 8 tl)c4
White is trying to prevent . . . es. 8 ltJfl is a plausible alternative. We can fallow up with 8 . . . es 9 l2Jg3 (9 g4 �g6 10 l2Jg3 is risky, for it could be attacked with the thematic sacri fice 10 . . . hS 11 gS h4 12 ltJfS ih5 13 b3 Wfc7 14 ltJSxh4 0-0-0 with com pensation) 9 . . . �g6 10 0-0 �d6. (10 .. .f6 11 l2Jh2 �f7 12 f4 c4 is un clear, but Black is somewhat unde veloped for such a committing ac tion) We refrain from .. .f6 in order to discourage 11 ltJf S, which would stumble into 11. .. hfS 12 exfS �f6 . Thus we win a tempo for the ma noeuvre l2Jd7-f8-e6. Play could con tinue with 11 �gS (or 11 �d2 l2Jf8 12 ltJf S l2Je6 13 �c3 f 6) 11. . .f 6 12 �e3 l2Jf8 13 ltJf 5 l2Je6 14 ltJ3h4 �f8 15 a4 �f7 with a solid position. Black con trols firmly f4 and will gradually re pel the enemy knight f ram f 5.
8 g4? ! �g6 only gives us more chances for counterplay:
9 h4 hS 10 gS Wic7 with a possi ble break f7-f6.
9 eS e6 10 Wie2 hS 11 gS Wic7 12 b3 0-0-0 13 �b2 h4 14 0-0-0 �e7 f!-. In this line Black could aslo try ll . . . h4 ! ?
1 2 llJe4 (12 b3 WiaS 1 3 �b2 0-0-0+!) 12 . . . c4 13 dxc4 llJc5 14 llJxcS �xcSoo. 9 llJc4 f 6 10 0-0 es 11 llJe3 V!ic7 12 a3 Alekseev-Eljanov, 2004, 12 .. . 0-0-0. 8 . .. f6 ! ?
M y (A. K.) treatment of this po sition is to protect the light-squared bishop whenever possible. The game Baklan-Nedev, 2007 saw in stead 8 . . . V!ic7 9 �d2 eS 10 a4 aS 11 g4 �g6 12 llJh4 f 6, when 13 llJxg6 hxg6 14 gSt would have been in White's favour.
9 o-o e5 1 0 �e3 Vlfc7 1 1 a4 as 1 2 �f5 i f7�
Black has a satisfactory game, for instance, 13 b3 g6 14 llJh6 �e6 .
8 3 . 7 � c 3 � d 7 8 g 4
O r 8 �e3 e S 9 g4 �g6 1 0 Wid2 �e7 11 0-0-0 Wic7 12 llJxeS llJxeS 13 f4 0-0-0 (13 . . . llJf3?! 14 Vlif2 llJd4 lS f S 0-0-0 16 fxg6 fxg6t) 14 fxeS V!JxeS= .
8 ... i g 6 9 if4
It is very instructive to observe how Black could take over the ini tiative if White attempts to display an activity: 9 es e6 10 �gS (10 Wie2 c4 ! Remember this sac! It proves especially effective when White has weakened his centre. 11 dxc4 Wib6
1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJ c6 3 �bS 12 a3 hS 13 gS h4+!) 10 . . . V!JaS 11 V!id2 h6 12 �h4 c4!
Killing two birds with one shot. Said in chess terms, Black opens up diagonals to both bishops. 13 dxc4 �b4 14 0-0-0 llJcS f!- lS �hel 0-0 16 �e7 llJb3 + 17 cxb3 he7oo. If you do not believe in the bishop pair's power, look at the following varia tion: 18 llJd4 �ad8 19 V!ie3 �d7 20 �d2 �fd8 21 �edl �b4 ! 22 llJc2 (22 a4 �cSt) 22 ... �xd2 23 �xd2 �xd2 24 V!Jxd2 hc2 2S i>xc2 V!JxeS+.
9 . . . h5 !?
The thematic break 9 . . .f6 10 es c4 11 dxc4 is not so clear, be cause White controls firmly eS, e.g. 11 ... V!ib6 12 �bl!oo The text is more consistent.
1 0 g5
Alternatively: 10 llJh4 �h7 11 19
Part 1 gxhS (or 11 �d2 eS 12 �gS �e7 13 J,xe7 �xe7 14 l!JfS hfS lS gxfS 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 gS=) 11 . . . eS 12 �g3 �b6 13 �d2 �g8 recapturing the h pa wn. 1 o ... h4! 1 1 Y«e2 i.h5
This is a fine setup for Black.
84. 7 i.f4 c4!
We see here a typical method of puting pressure on White's centre. This approach to solving the open ing problems has been introduced in the rapid game Grischuk-Kolev, M ainz 20 0S. The idea is to attack the enemy pawn-centre with our long-range pieces rather than re stricting its mobility by clamping on d4.
8 ti) c3
Following 8 0-0 Black could choose 8 . . . cxd3 as in the main line, or the more risky 8 . . . e6 9 l!Jc3 �b6 . I (A.K.) have reached in m y analysis a lot of funy positions after 10 E:bl E:d8 11 d4 �b4 12 g4 �g6 13 Wffe2 �as 14 �gs hS !?, for example lS es hxg4 16 hxg4 l!JdS 17 �d8 Wxd8 18 l!JxdS �xdS 19 Wg2 fS 20 exf6 gxf6 2 1 E:hl E:g8co. In short, we
coun-20
terattack all over the board, trying to unleash the power of our light sq uared bishop.
8 . . . cxd3
A solid move which offers Black good chances. Besides, we could speed up play with 8 . . . Wffb6? ! , but we are undeveloped for such ac tions. White could sacrifice the b2-pawn, as 9 0-0 Wffxb2? (9 ... e6 is bet ter) 10 �d2 hf3 11 E:abl Wffa3 12 E:xb7! would be disastrous for him, and even 9 E:bl E:d8 10 d4 e6 11 g4 �g6 12 Wffe2 �b4 13 0-0 �as 14 �gs looks good enough.
9 cxd3 ti) d7
The move order is not too im portant. Degraeve-Zhao Jun, Paris 2006 saw 9 . . . e6 10 0-0 �e7 11 Wff e2 when 11. . . 0-0 12 E:adl l!Jd7 would have transposed to our main line.
1 O d4 e6 1 1 Y«e2 i.e7
11. .. �f6 is risky. Such a devel opment of the queen is typical for some lines of the QGA, but here the knight is too passive on d7. White should fallow with 12 �e3 hf3 13 gxf3 �b4 14 E:gl h6 lS eS ! �fS 16 E:xg7 l!JxeS 17 dxeS WffxeS 18 E:g4 J,xc3+ 19 Wfl �as when 20 �d4 �xe2 + 21 Wxe2 E:f 8 22 �cs E:h8 is equal, but 20 E:dl!? poses concrete
problems.
1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 �ad 1 �e8 1 4 Y«e3 'Mias 1 5 �fe1
Both sides completed develop ment so it is time to strike a balance. Superficially, White's pawn centre should ensure him an edge. On the other hand, Black has no weakness es, and all his pieces are well placed. The queen has a fine retreat to a6,
the knight could head for c4 via b6. White's problem is that his only ac tive plan is linked with a kingside
pawn storm, but it could easily turn against him.
Now I had lS .. . �a6 !? (control ling c4) 16 a3 l2Jb6 17 g4 �g6 18 ltJeS (18 h4? l2Jc4 19 V9e2 fS) 18 .. . l2Jc4=, but the move I have played is not bad either.
1 5 .. . �ac8 1 6 .ih2
Basically, White is waiting. Anal ysis shows that he has no advan tage, for instance:
16 a3 l2Jb6 (or 16 . . . V9a6 17 g4 �g6 18 h4 hS 19 gS l2Jb6 20 ltJeS l2Jc4 21 V9h3 ltJxeS 22 �xeS V9c4) 17 g4 �g6 18 ltJeS V9a6 19 V9g3 l2Jc4 20 h4 ltJxeS
21 hes f 6 22 hS �f7 23 �c7 V9c4; 16 V9d3 f6.
1 6 .. . � b 6 !
This simple move would have completely levelled the game. In stead I preferred 16 .. . h6? ! 17 a3 �g6 (17 .. . l2Jb6 !? 18 g4 �g6 19 ltJeS �h7oo) 18 V9e2 �hS 19 V9d3 with a small edge for White in Grischuk Kolev, Mainz 200S.
1 7 g4
Or: 17 b3 �b4 18 �d3 cS !+; 17 �d3 l2J a4 (17 ... cs 18 dS c4 19 �d2
1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs hf3 20 gxf3 �b4oo) 18 l2Jxa4 V9xa4 19 b3 V9aS.
1 7 .. . .ig6 1 8 �es .if6 1 9 b3 c5=.
(19 .. . �e7!?f!)
C. 4 e5 � d5
Pushing e4-eS is commonly good if it repels the knight to a passive position. In the current situation it arrives at a central square, when further advancing by S c4 fails to S . . . l2Jc7.
Now White has to decide where to develop the queen's knight so he chooses, without success:
Cl: S l2Jc3 C2 : S 0-0
C 1 . 5 � c3 �c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 h3 �f5 !?
This development fits best into our repertoire. The standard setup is to fianchetto the bishop with 7 .. . g6, e.g. 8 d 3 �g7 9 �e3 b6 10 �d2 h6! White would happily trade his bishop so we should not oblige him. 11 0-0 �e6 12 �fdl (or 12 l2Je2? �dS ! 13 d4 .ixf3 14 gxf3 cxd4 lS V9xd4 V9xd4 16 hd4 cS 17 �c3 ltJdS+ 21
Part 1 Nanu-Andonov, Belgarde 2004) 12 .. . �d7= preparing ltJdS with a good position. 8 0-0 We answer 8 d3 with 8 . . . h6 ! in order to deprive the opponent of 8 . . . e 6 9 .igS! .ie7 1 0 he7 V!ixe7 1 1 Wid2 0-0 12 0-0-0+. Typically for this line, White's dark-squared bishop is less useful, than ours.
9 Wie2 l2Je6!
Black has less space for manoeu vering, therefore it is important to exchange his last short-range piece through d4. 9 . . . e6 10 ltJe4 ltJbS does
not fulfil that aim due to 11 c3+. 10 l2Je4 l2Jd4 11 l2Jxd4 Wixd4 12 l2Jg3 .ie6 13 0-0 c4! 14 dxc4 Wixc4 1S Wixc4 hc4 with a better endgame for Black in Yu Shaoteng-Zhao Jun, Wuxi 2006. (16 E!dl g6+)
8 ... e6 9 d3 .ie7 10 Y«e2 lll b 5 ! �
C 2: 5 0-0 � c7 6 .ixc6 dxc6 7 h 3
7 d 3 i s seldom seen, probably because the pin 7 .. . .ig4 is quite an noying: 8 h3 .ihS (We had already learnt f ram line B to keep the bi-2 bi-2
shop !) 9 l2Jc3 l2Je6 10 .ie3 l2Jd4. Now 11 g4 removes the pin, but badly compromises the king's position, 11. .. .ig6 12 hd4 cxd4 13 l2Je2 hS+t.
7 . .. .if5 !?
7 .. . g6 i s also good enough: 8 d3 .ig7 9 .ie3 (9 l2Jc3 b6 10 l2Je4 0-0 11 .id2 fS ! 12 exf6 exf6 13 Wicl gS 14 l2Jh2 ifs+ was fine for Black in game 3 De la Paz-Handke, Ha vana 20 03) 9 . . . b6 10 Wicl h6!
The idea is not only to preserve the bishop from exchange, but also to attack the enemy king with gS g4. In that scheme we castle long, if at all! We offer our analysis of that novelty:
11 a4 aS 12 E!dl (12 l2Ja3 ltJdS 13 l2Jc4 gS !?+t; 12 d4? ! cxd4 13 l2Jxd4 cS 14 l2Jf3 .ib7 lS E!dl Wic8+) 12 . . . ltJdS 13 .id2 (13 c4 l2Jxe3 14 Wixe3 0-0 lS
l2Jc3 Wic7 16 d4 cxd4 17 �xd4 �e6 18 �adl �ad8=) 13 ... gS !? 14 c4 g4 lS hxg4 l2Jc7 (lS .. . hg4 16 cxdS hf3 17 gxf3 �xdS is interesting, but not quite sound.) 16 �c3 hg4 17 Wie3 (17 �f4 hS 18 Wie4 Wid7 19 d4 0-0-0) 17 ... l2Je6 18 l2Jbd2 �d7f!.
8 d3
8 l2Jh4? ! �e6 9 f4 runs into 9 ... gS ! whereas 9 d 3 g6 underlines the clumsy position of White's knight, which has deprived of support the es-outpost.
8 . .. h6 ! 9 li:) bd2
9 l2Jc3 e6 10 Wie2 ltJbS ! transpos es to Cl. S l2Jc3.
9 ••• e6 1 O YMe2 li:) b S !
Commonly, i n the Rossolimo Black's knight heads for d4 via e6, but it has another route, too !
1 1 li:) e4 li:)d4 1 2 li:)xd4 YMxd4 1 3 li:) g3 .ig6 14 <i>h2 h 5 !
See for more details game 2 Movsesian-Chuchelov, Bundes liga 200S, where Black had the in itiative.
D. 4 Y«e2 g6
This is the most challenging
ap-1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS proach. Black does not hinder eS, on the contrary, he is provoking it.
01. S eS 02. s 0-0 S c3 transposes to 0 2, while S l2Jc3 �g7 6 eS l2Jg4 is covered in line E. 01 . s es li:) d S 6 o-o
Occasionally, White attempts to grab a pawn by6 �c4, butH ausrath's move 6 . . . l2Jcb4! is quite awkward:
a) 7 Wib3 a6 8 �c4 e6 9 a3 (9 a4 d6 10 0-0 dxeS 11 ltJxeS �g7+ Orabke
Hausrath, Bundesliga 2004) 10 . . . bxc4 11 dxc4 �g7 12 axb4 l2Jxb4= ;
b) 7 a3 a 6 8 �a4 bS 9 �e4 bxa4 10 axb4 l2Jxb4 11 0-0, Jens-Hausrath, Belgium 2003, when best is 11. . . dS !? 1 2 exd6 �fS 13 �es f6 14 �xcS Wixd6 lS Wixd6 exd6+.
6 l2Jc3 seems already late. Apart from 6 . . . l2Jf4 7 �e4 l2Je6 8 �c4 �g7 9 he6 dxe6 10 0-0 0-0 11 �el ltJd 4= Aronin-Shamkovich, Moscow 1961, Black has 6 ... l2Jc7!? 7 �c4 �g7 8 l2Je4? ! 0-0 9 ltJxcS d6t.
6 . . . li:)c7! 7 .ixc6 dxc6 8 h3 .ig7 9 d3 0-0
Part 1
A typical position. Black should aim to push f7-f6. The game Mina sian-Gagunashvili, Dubai 2003 saw further:
1 o ll:) bd2 li:) e 6 1 1 li:) b 3 as 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 '%Ye4 �a7 1 4 '%Yh4 f6 ! 1 5 �e1 '%Yd5 16 ie3 g5 17 '%Yg3
Here, instead of 17 ... hS, Black should have chosen 17 .. . h6 18 h4 g4 19 ltJf d2 f St.
0 2. 5 0-0 ig7
6 c3
After 6 eS Black chooses between the promising pawn sac 6 . . . ltJdS 7 �c4 ltJc7 8 �xc6 (8 �xcS b6 9 �c4 ttJxeS 10 ttJxeS �xeS 11 E'!:el �g7+) 8 . . . dxc6 9 �xcS �g4 10 ltJd4 �d7 with good compensation, or 6 . . . ltJg4 7
24
�c6 dxc6 8 d3 ltJh6 9 �f4 ltJfS ! ? 10 c3 h6f!, which has never been tes ted.
6 . . . 0-0 7 �d1
A fashionable move, which aims to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS ! ? (This i s slightly more precise than 7 .. . cxd4 8 cxd4 dS 9 eS ltJe4 when White has the option of 10 ltJc3. In that line White's dark-squared bishop goes to gS whereas the text practically forces it to e3 .) 8 eS (8 exdS �xdS 9 dxcS �xcS=) 8 . . . ltJe4 9 �e3 (9 ttJbd2? ! is dubious du to 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4 ttJxd2 1 1 �xd2 �b6+ or 10 .. . Wb6 ! ? 11 ttJxe4 dxe4 12 �xc6 �xc6 13 ltJgS �f St Utemov-Smirin, Podolsk 1990) 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4 �d7 with a fine game for Black:
11 ltJc3 (ll�d3 8:c8 12 ttJbd2 ttJxd2 13 �xd2 �aS 14 a3 �xd2 lS ttJxd2 f6 = Svidler-Leko, Monte Carlo 2004) 11. . . ltJxc3 12 bxc3 ltJaS! 13 �d3 8:c8= Svidler-Shirov, Leon 2004.
7 . . . e5
The point of White's setup is that 7 ... ds 8 es ltJe4?? is no longer possi ble, so we have to adjust our plan ac cordingly. The MegaBase shows Tse shkovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976 as the source of the text move.
8 � a3
8 hc6 dxc6 9 d4 (9 ltJxeS �e8 10 d4 cxd4 11 cxd4 l2Jxe4 ! favours Black) 9 . . . exd4 10 cxd4 cxd4 11 l2Jxd4 leaves White's pieces some what hanging. We can exploit that by 11 ... l2Jxe4 !?+ 12 ltJfS MS 13 �xd8 �axd8+ with overwhelming advan tage in development.
8 d3 is innocuous. Black achieves a good game with natural moves: 8 ... �c7!? (or 8 ... �e7 9 �gS h6 10 hf6 �xf6 11 l2Jbd2 a6 12 �c4 bS 13 �dS �b7 14 l2Jfl �ab8 1S l2Je3 l2Je7=) 9 l2Jbd2 a6 10 hc6 bxc6 11 l2Jc4 �e8 12 �gS dS 13 l2Je3 (13 exdS cxdS+) 13 . . . �e6+;
Finally, 8 d4? ! exd4 9 cxd4 cxd4 (9 .. . �e8 ! ?+) 10 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 11 �xd4 �b6 gives Black the upper hand.
8 .. . �e8 9 d3 a6 1 0 .ixc6 bxc6!
1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS Note this capturing. In an earli er stage of the opening, when White was better developed, we used to take with the d-pawn, in order to keep control of the centre. In the di agram position d4 is not a threat, so we follow the basic rule to "capture by pawns towards the centre".
1 1 .ie3 d6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4 d5
Or 13 .. . l2Jg4!? 14 �d2 fS= .
1 4 gac1 .i d 7 1 5 .i d 2 V!J e 7 1 6 � b1 � h5 1 7 a3 �f4 1 8 .ixf4 exf4 1 9 V!i d2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976 . E. 4 �c3 g6 El. S hc6 E2. S h3 E3 . S eS S 0-0 �g7 6 eS ltJg4 7 hc6 trans poses to El. E1 . 5 .ixc6 dxc6 6 h3
6 d 3 does not really save a tem po, for after 6 . . . �g7 7 �e3 b6 8 �d2 l2Jg4 White has to move the bishop twice: 9 �f 4 (9 �gS f 6 10 �h4 0-0 11 h3 l2Jh6 12 g4 l2Jf7 13 �g3 es 14 l2Jh4 2S
Part 1
�e6+ Van Mil-Kuijf, Antwerp 1997) 9 . . . es 10 �g3 f6 11 h3 lt:Jh6 12 lt:Jh2 lt:Jf7 13 f 4 0-0= Abreu-Hernandez, Havana 1998.
6 . .. �g7 7 d3 0-0
8i e3
8 �f 4 should be attacked with 8 . . . lt:JhS! (8 . . . lt:Je8 is too passive and passes the initiative to the enemy: 9 Vfffd2 f6 is the most interesting al ternative: 10 �e3 b6 11 h4! �g4 12 lt:Jh2 ! �e6 13 hS.) 9 �e3 Vfff d6 10 Vfff d2 eS 11 0-0-0 bS 12 lt:Je2 lt:Jf6 13 �h6 aS with counterplay in Grischuk-Leko,
Dubai 200 2 ;
8 0 - 0 is less testing. After 8 . . . b6 9 �f4 (�e3 eS 10 Vfid2 lt:JhS 11 �h6 Vfff d6=) 9 . . . lt:Je8 10 Vfffd2 f6 11 eS Black can force play with:
11 . . . fxeS! (Played in Shirov Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2004. There 26
is n o alternative t o this move. If White consolidates, he will main tain an edge due to his forepost on eS) 12 hes (12 lt:JxeS Vfff d4 is equal:
13 lt:Je2 V!ff dS 14 c4 Vfff d6 lS lt:Jf7 Vffff 6 16 lt:Jh6 + c;t>h8 17 �gs Vfffxb2 18 Vfffxb2 hb2 19 he7 hal=)
12 ... �f3!? (This exchange sacri fice poses problems to White. The source game saw 12 . . . hh3 13 hg7 lt:Jxg7 14 �fel=) 13 hg7 lt:Jxg7 14 gxf3 hh3 lS �f el Vffff8 with good compensation, e.g. 16 Vfffe3 lt:Je6 17 f4 Vffffs 18 Vfffg3 �f8 19 �es Vfffxf4 20 Vfffxf4 �f� or 16 f4 lt:JfS 17 lt:Je4 lt:Jd4 18 lt:JgS h6 19 c3 V!fffS 20 Vfffe3 hxgS 21 cxd4 gxf4- +.
8 . . . b6 9 '%Yd2 e5!
Depending on where White cas tles, the game could take rather dif ferent courses.
1 0 i h6
The plan with short castling is linked with the breakthrough f2-f 4, but it could be effectively opposed by 10 0-0 lt:JhS ! Black has good counterplay in the centre. He only has to find the right timing for cS c4: 11 �h6 Vfff d6 12 lt:Je2 f6 13 hg7 (as usual, the interpolation of 13 a3
aS is in Black's favour, 14 lt:Jh2 :§a7 lS :§adl �e6 16 hg7 :§xg7 17 lt:Jg4 :§d7= , Vachier Lagrave-Lautier, Val d'Isere 20 04) 13 . . . lt:Jxg7 14 :§adl aS 1S lt:Jh2 gS !? 16 lt:Jg4 hg4 17 hxg4 hS 18 gxhS lt:JxhS 19 g3 Wff e6 20 @g2 @f7 21 :§hl :§h8 22 b3 :§h7 23 Wffe3 :§ah8 24 Wfff3 lt:Jg7=, Vogt-Shirov, rapid, Mainz 200S.
Another implementation of the same idea is 10 a3 aS 11 0-0 a4 12 :§ael :§e8 13 lt:Jh2 when 13 ... c4 ! ? splits the enemy pawn chain (13 . . . lt:Jd7 14 f4 exf4 lS :§xf4 lt:Jf8 ! 16 :§efl :§a7 17 @hl lt:Je6 18 :§4f2 lt:Jd 4= Pridorozh ni-Smirnov, Nefteyugansk 20 02) 14 dxc4 Wixd2 lS hd2 �e6= .
1 0 ... Wd6
The plot is more or less clear now. We'll witness opposite attacks where every tempo counts. (White still could switch to the calmer 11 0-0 lt:JhS ! which was discussed o n the previous turn.) In the diagram position White chooses between 11 g4 and 11 0-0-0, while 11 hg7 i s not of independent significance.
Ela. 11 g4
Naturally White hardly believes
1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �bs that he could conduct a success ful attack without connecting the rooks. His intention is to wait till the last moment and even castle short at an opportunity.
11 ..• ie6 12 Wfe3! ?
Anticipating Black's main threat of cS-c4. This idea of Ponomariov has not caught up, but the alterna tives are not any better:
a) 12 lt:Je2 :§ad8 13 hg7 (13 lt:Jg3 lt:Je8 14 hg7 lt:Jxg7 1S lt:Jfl f6 16 lt:Je3 bS 17 Wic3 �f7 18 gS b4 19 Wid2 fSf!) 13 ... @xg7 14 Wffc3 lt:Jd7 1S lt:JgS h6! 16 lt:Jxe6+ fxe6 !=, Bologan-Leko, Dort mund 2003;
b) 12 hg7 @xg7 13 lt:Jh4 (or 13 :§gl :§ad8 14 0-0-0 as lS lt:Jh4 c4! 16 f4 cxd3 17 cxd3 Wies 18 @bl �c4 19 :§g3 bSt Nevednichy-Gladyszev, La Fere 2003. White should better come to his senses and develop his pieces with 13 0-0-0 :§ad8 14 :§hfl bS lS lt:JgS h6 16 lt:Jxe6+ Wixe6 17 @bl c4=, Shirov-Leko, Monaco 2002) 13 . . . :§ad8 14 0-0-0 c4 lS f4 exf4 16 d4 Wic7 17 gS lt:JhS 18 dS cxdS 19 Wid4+ @g8 20 exdS :§fe8+.
12 ••• a5 13 llle2 a4 14 a3 b5
Blackgained a lot of space on the queenside which would give him the 27
Part 1
upper hand in an endgame. White's chances are down the g-file.
15hg7 In Ponomariov-Leko, Linares 200 3 was 15 llJg3 llJe8 ! 16 0-0 f6 17 llJd2? ! :gas 18 hg7 ttJxg7 19 f4 exf4 20 �xf 4 �xf 4 21 �f 4 c4 with ini tiative. 15 ... ©xg716 �g3 ©h8
White should think how to keep the balance.
The key point of Black's counterplay in this line is to push c5-c4 at a moment when the opponent is unable to re
spond with d4 .
Eth. 11 0 - 0 - 0 a5
The black pawns run faster so White tries to create threats with his pieces. 12hg7 Perhaps 12 llJh2 !? at once is more precise: 12 . . . a4 13 llJg4 llJhS 14 llJe2 bS ! 15 hg7 �xg7 16 �h6+ �g8 17f4 a3 18 b3 f6 19 :gdfl exf4 20 llJxf 4 llJxf 4 21 �xf 4 �xf 4+ 22 M4 hg4= . After the text move Black gets the g8-square for his knight.
12 ... ©xg7 13 �h2 2 8
Several games at top level show that the setup with 13 g4, fallowed by llJc3-e2-g3, is way too slow. Black can attack in different manners. Leko prefers the pawn storm with b and a-pawn, while Ivanchuk fa vours piece play:
13 g4 a4 14 llJe2 (or 14 llJh4 bS 15 f4 exf4 16 llJf3 llJd7 17 ttJe2 a3 18 b3 �f6 19 d4 cxd4 20 gS �e7 21 �xd4+ �g8 2 2 llJxf4 llJcSf±) 14 .. bS 15 llJg3 b4 16 �gs :ges 17 llJd2? ! (17 ttJhs+ llJxhS 18 gxhS b3 19 cxb3 axb3 20 a3 i.a6f!) 17 .. . a3t Shirov-Leko, Dort mund 200 2 ;
1 3 g4 i.e6 ! ? 14 llJgS llJd7 15 ttJxe6+ fxe6 !t, see game 4 Shirov Ivanchuk, Edmonton 2005.
13 ... a4 14 �g4
14 llJe2 leaves the e4-pawn with out protection so Black has 14 .. . c4 ! 15 llJg4 a3 ! with an initiative.
14 ••• �gS ?
Subsequent play is not forced. Bot sides have a wide choice on eve
ry turn, but current practice is fa voura ble to Black, who could stay
solid or try to grab a pawn on the kingside:
(Grischuk-Ponoma-riov, Moscow 2002 saw lS .. . hg4 16 hxg4 �e6 17 @bl �xg4 when White has only partial compensation for the pawn.) 16 @bl �a7 17 tlJe3 �e6 18 g3 bS 19 f4 �d8 20 fxeS fxeS+ was fine for Black in Fridman-Lanka, Bochum 2005.
lS i>bl a3 16 b3 �d4 17 tlJh2 bS 18 tlJf3 �d6 19 l2Je2 �e6 20 g3 �ad8 21 tlJgS c4 22 f4 cxd3 23 cxd3 f6=, Gris chuk-Leko, Russia (rapid) 2002.
E2. 5 h3
White is following the restrict ing strategy, started on the previ ous move.
5 . . . .ig7 !
Ever since our first steps i n chess we have been taught that it is a ter rible sin to lose tempi in the open ing, moreover to return a developed knight to the initial square. On the other hand, it is a question of con crete calculations. If White proves
unable to make good use of his tem porary initiative, we'll complete de velopment with fair counterchanc es. Our plan consists of tlJg8-h6, f al lowed up byf7-fS (or f6). Notice that S . . . tlJd4? ! 6 eS tlJxbS 7 tlJxbS tlJdS 8 0-0 �g7 9 d4! cxd4 10 �xd4 is real ly dangerous for Black.
1 e4 cS 2 ttJf 3 tlJc6 3 � bS
6 es
White has no reason to delay eS anymore, after all the preparations he had made. After 6 0-0 0-0 Black's knight gets the e8-retreat square:
7 es (7 �el d6 8 d3 �d7=) 7 .. . ttJe8 8 hc6 dxc6 9 d3 tlJc7 10 tlJe4 (10 �e3 tlJe6 11 tlJe4 tlJd4 ! 12 ttJxcS ttJxf3 + 13 �xf3 heS=) 10 . . . ttJe6 11 �el
Black has a good game. He can realise his main plan at once: 11. .. fS 12 exf6 exf6 1 3 �bl b6 1 4 b 3 aS 15 a4 �a7 16 �b2 �e7 17 �d2 tlJd4 18 ttJxd4 cxd4=, Adams-Kramnik, FIDE-Web k.o. g/lS+lO Las Vegas 1999, or simply trade some pieces first:
11 . . . b6 12 tlJegS (or 12 a 4 aS 13 �e3 fS 14 exf6 exf6=, planning �a8-a7-e7 and h6, fS) 12 .. . tlJxgS 13 hgS h6 14 �f4 �e6 15 �d2 @h7 16 h4 �dS=.
6 ... �g8 7 .A xc6
It is time to kill the knight or it will jump to d4: 7 �e2 tlJd4 ! ? 8 ttJxd4 cxd4 9 tlJe4 heS 10 0-0 a6 when White does not get enough compensation for his central pawn.
7 . .. dxc6 8 d3
8 �e2 tlJh6 9 tlJe4 leads by trans position to a critical position, which is analysed in line E3a.
Part 1
8 ... ll.) h6 9 .ie3
Another version of this idea is: 9 g4 0-0 10 ie3 . White's idea is deeper than it seems at first sight. He is not just trying to win a tem po for his development. More im portantly, he hopes to provoke the
move 10 . . . b6? which would deprive
our queen of a pa th to the q ueenside.
As we will see later, that would con
siderably restrict our counter-chan ces. Luckyly, we have the nice pawn sac:
10 . . . fS! 11 exf6
Following 11 gS? llJf7 12 if 4 Black has an extra tempo for 12 . . . �aS! (12 .. . �b6! ? is also playable as in game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov, Krasnoyarsk OS .09. 20 07) 13 V9e2 V9b4! (or 13 .. . llJdS ! ? 14 0-0-0 bS lS a3 b4 16 llJbl gbs 17 llJf d2 ie6 lS '!9e3 idS 19 gh2 llJe6 20 h4, Menki novski-N edev, Struga 200S, when
20 . . . llJd4! 21 hS bxa3 22 llJxa3 gxb2 23 c;t>xb2 gbs+-+ would have won faster) 14 �e3 V9xb2 Black has an at tack, for example, lS c;t>d2 �a3 16 h4 gas 17 hS ttJd6! - + .
1 1 . .. exf6 1 2 �d2
The greedy 12 hcS? unleashes our bishop pair: 12 .. . ges+ 13 ie3 (in the blitz game Guseinov-Nedev,
30
2007 was 13 cj{fl fS 14 gS llJf7 1S ie3 cS! and the bishop takes the other long diagonal, e.g. 16 h4 b6 17 hS ib7 lS hxg6 hxg6 19 gh3 �d6!+ 20 V9d2 hf3 2 1 gxf3 �h2 22 c;t>e2 llJxgS 23 gg3 f4 24 gxgS fxe3-+) 13 .. .fS 14 gS f4 lS gxh6 hh6 16 �e2 fxe3 17 llJe4 exf2 + lS c;t>xf2 ifS+ with full compensation for the pawn.
12 . . . llJf7 13 hes ges+ 14 ie3 bS! lS 0-0-0 b4! ?
The game Feygin-Nedev, Iz mir 2004 saw lS .. . VNaS 16 a3 b4 17 llJ e4 gbs lS llJd4 �dS 19 axb4 fS ! and eventually I won, but the text is even better. 16 llJa4 VNdS 17 llJd4 fS ! lS c4 ! (or lS �xb4 f4 19 c4 V9d7 20 hf4 �xd4 2 1 ie3 �f6+) 1 S ... bxc3
19 llJxc3 �d6 20 llJb3 fxg4+.
Having seen this analysis, we might decide that:
9 g4 0-0 10 if4 is more con sistent, but then 10 .. .f6 ! offers fair
counterplay due to the hanging state of White's pieces on the f file. The point is that 11 V9e2 fails to 11 . . . llJxg4! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cubas N edev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he has to choose 11 V9d2 fxeS 12 hh6 hh6 13 V9xh6 gxf3 14 0-0-0 �fS lS �xfS + c;t>xfS 16 gh2 ! The endgame looks better for White, but the thematic sacrifice cS-c4 should balance the game, for instance 16 . . . h6 17 gel c4 ! ? lS dxc4 ie6 19 llJe4 hc4 20 ttJcs gas 21 ttJxb7 gas 22 b3 gbs 2 3 llJdS ids 24 c4 gbs 2S cxdS gxdS 26 dxc6 gc3+ 27 c;t>b2 gxc6 2S f3 ga3 29 gxeS gxf3=. 9 ... Y«a5 !
(T.N .) long evolution in understand ing these structures. (which cost me a couple of painful losses)
I had played here:
9 . . . b6 10 g4 fS, when 11 exf6?
exf 6 12 �e2 (Or 12 �d2 tlJf7 13 0-0-0 0-0) led to this position in Maciej a Nedev, Istanbul 200 3:
Instead of 12 ... Wfe7, afterthe game I found an improvement: 12 . . . 0-0 ! 13 0-0-0 fS ! and Black takes over the initiative: 14 gS (14 d4 fxg4 15 dxcS Wf c7 16 tlJgS gxh3+) 14 . . . ttJf7 15 d4 �e8 16 dxcS Wf eToo. The threat of 17 .. . f4 forces White to move the queen and we get a tempo to activate the second bishop on e6.
Unfortunately, instead of open ing the centre by 11 exf6?, White has 11 gS ! ttJf7 12 �f4. White has
lost a tempo with this bishop, but the extra move . . . b6 only hampers our counterplay on the queenside. The game Stojanovic-Majeric, Tuz la, 2006 saw a similar development and White had some edge.
Perhaps 10 .. .f6 !? would have been a better option, when 11 Wf e2 ! ?
would be similar togame 5 David Nedev, Kerner, 05.10 .2007.
Anyway, Black is not farced yet to push the f-pawn. It is better to ac tivate the queen first.
1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bS 1 0 g4 Alternatively: 10 tlJd2 tlJfS 11 ttJc4 ttJxe3 12 fxe3 Wf c7+; 10 Wfd2 tlJfS 11 �f4 ttJd4=. 10 ... f5 1 1 g 5
It turns out that White is behind in development so opening up the centre is hardly advisable: 11 exf6 exf6 12 Wfd2 (12 tlJd2? ! 0-0 13 ttJc4
�c7 14 ixcS �e8+ 15 �e3 bS 16 tlJd2 fSt) 12 ... ttJf7 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 d4 fS ! 15 gS �e6 16 a3 bS when our attack is running very fast.
1 1 .. . li:)f7 1 2 .if4 .ie6
12 .. . Wfb6 !? to impede White's castling is playable, too.
1 3 '%Yd2 0-0-0 !?
We are already the active side, so there is no reason to trade queens: 13 . . . �dS 14 ttJxdS Wfxd2 + 15 Wxd2 31
Part 1
cxdS 16 c3 l2Jd8 17 d4 l2Je6 18 cj{e3 :!%c8 19 :!%acl h6oo.
1 4 a3
Preparing a long castle. 14 h4 c4 15 d4 bS 16 hS b4 17 l2Je2 �dSt or 14 �e3? ! �dS 15 0-0-0 .ixf3 16 �xf3 ltJxeS+ favour Black.
1 4 .. . c4 1 5 d4 c5 1 6 0-0-0 b5t. E3. 5 e5 � g 4 E3a. 6 �e2 E3b. 6 �xc6 E3a. 6 Wf e2 .ig7 7 hc6 dxc6 8 h3 tllh6 9 tlle4! ?
A consistent and logical varia tion against Black's setup. It com bines strategical with tactical mo tives which the engines often fail to
32
assess correctly.
White's main positional aim is to bolster the e5-outpost with �f4, :!%el, but it is not too efficient if we man age to trade our last knight through d4. Therefore White tries first to dis suade us from this idea. The point is that 9 . . . 4.JfS could be met by 10 c3 b6 11 g4 4.Jh6 12 0-0 0-0 13 d4 cxd4 14 �f4!? dxc3 15 bxc3 with an over whelming position for the pawn.
9 g4 0-0 is considered in E3b. 9 ... b6 1 0 d3
10 l2Jf6 + only helps Black deve loping: 10 . . . exf6! 11 exf6+ cj{f8 12 fxg7+ cj{xg7 13 0-0 :!%e8= .
1 0 ... � f5
1 0 .. . 0-0 1 1 �f4 f6 1 2 0 - 0 ltj f7 13 :!%f el is an example of what Black should avoid. He is very passive and has too many minor pieces to acco modate in a little space.
11 .ig5
Black must make a crucial choice. He can fulfil his positional aim by trading the knight, which could however bring about a rath er complicated position, or reduce risk, and winning chances, too!
The solid alternative is 11 . . . 0-0 12
c3 f6 13 if4 fxeS 14 �xeS tLlh4! The point. Black gains the bishop pair, but his pawn structure is cripppled: 15 tLlxh4 �xeS 16 0-0 WdS. Black should be OK here. (A.K.)
12 �xd4 �xd4 13 �f6+ �f8 14 c3 �dS 15 �g4
These moves were farced and again Black must choose between the sharper and the calmer options. The game Tseshkovsky-Nataf, Her ceg Novi 2005 saw 15 . . . hS 16 tLlh2 Wds 17 tLlf3 �fs 18 �dl Wxa2 19 0-0 We6 20 �fel when Black is un der bind. 19 .. .f 6 is better, but Kolev does not like Black's position.
The engines like 15 .. . WdS be cause it grabs a pawn, but 16 f4 �xg4 17 hxg4 �d8 (17 .. . h6 18 ih4 gS 19 i.g3 �d8 20 0-0t) 18 0-0-0! h6 19 �h4 g S 20 if2 Wxa2 21 f� is awful for Black who is unable to connect his heavy pieces. Perhaps best is: 15 ... f6 16 M4 g5 17 exf6 exf6 18 .ih2 hg4 19 hxg4 �d5 2 0 0 - 0 E:e8 2 1 �c2 �f7 2 2 E:fel=. E3b. 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 �h6 1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 ibS 8 g4
This is the most topical option. The alternatives are:
8 d3 �g7 (8 . . . tLlfS heading for d4 is playable, too) 9 �e3 (9 tLle4 b6 10 �f4 tLlfS 11 c3 ia6) 9 ... WaS and we have reached the position f ram the main line E2 .
8 tLle4 b6 9 We2 tLlfS 10 c3 aS ! ? (In Rytshagov-Spasov, Yerevan 1996, was 10 ... �g7 11 g4 tLlh6 12 tLlf6+ when 12 . . . exf 6 13 exf6+ cM°8 14 fxg7 + �xg7 would have been unclear) 11 d3 ia6 12 c4 i.g7 (12 . . . tLld4? ! 13 tLlxd4 Wxd4 14 f4 0-0-0 15 tLld6+ �xd6 16 exd6;t Lilov-Spasov, Plovdiv 19.03. 2008) 13 tLlf6+ exf6 14 exf6+ cM°8 15 fxg7+ �xg7 16 0-0 �e8. Black completed development and has a good game.
8 ... i.g7
8 .. .fS is imprecise. It reveals Black's plans too early, thus allow ing the opponent to choose the best setup: 9 gS tLlf7 10 d3 �e6 11 We2 �g7 12 h4 �ds 13 tLlxdS WxdS 14 c4 We6 15 �f4 h6 16 0-0-0;t, Khalif man-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 2002.
9 d3
9 We2 0-0 10 d3 Wb6 ! ? transpos es to the main line.
9 ••• 0 - 0
Part 1
9 . . .f 5, intending to block the cen tre and castle long, is unclear.
1 0 �e2
(For 10 ie3 f5! or 10 if4 f6! -see E2)
This move is flexible to excess! The reason behind it is seen in the line 10 .. .f6 11.�d2 ! ? It turns out that Black's threat to the e5-pawn can be ignored. White simply de velops, counting on his better pawn
structure. While not ensuring him a big advantage, such an approach is quite awkward for Black. You can see a detailed analysis of the plan with 10 .. .f 6 in the "Complete Games" section, game 5 David N edev, ECC 2007.
The other major plan of Black is linked with 10 .. . f5 ! ? 11 g5 ttJ f7 12 �f4 Vfff aS! See game 6 Landa-Mir. Markovic, Belgrade 1991.
However, we can outsmartthe en emy by attacking the b2-pawn with:
34
1 0 ••• Wfb6 ! ?
Now, the bishop is pinned to cl and White is suddenly faced with a difficult problem: how to disentan gle his pieces. All plausible choices do not look encouraging:
a) 11 �d2 V9xb2 12 0-0 Vfff a3 13 llJe4 b6 14 if4 f5 15 exf6 exf6 16 �d6 8:f7 with a dubious compensation
b) 11 b3 f5 12 llJa4 (12 g5 llJf7 13 �d2 llJd8 14 0-0-0 llJe6 15 E!:del llJd4 16 ttJxd4 cxd4 17 llJ a4 Wa6 18 �bl b5�) 12 .. . �c7 13 hh6, Wen,Yang Zhao Jun, Wch U20 Yerevan, 2006, 13 ... fxg4! 14 hg7 gxf3+.
c) 11 �l (or 11 0-0) We can take a relieved breath here, as the long castle would have been a much more dangerous plan. 11 . . .f 5 12 g5 (or 12 exf6 exf6 13 �g2 llJf7 14 E!:el f5 15 g5 �d7) 12 .. . ttJf7 13 �g2 llJd8 14 b3 llJe6 with initiative. You can see also game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov, Krasnoyarsk 0 8.0 9. 2007.
Part 1
1 . Mortensen-Ermenkov Riga 1 981
1 e4 cs 2 li:)f3 li:)c6 3 ibS li:)f6 4 li:)c3 g6 s o-o .ig7 6 es li:) g4 7 ixc6 dxc6 8 �e1 0-0 9 d3
9 . . . li:) h 6 !
Black's main plan is to advance his kingside pawns, but first he should manoeuvre his knight to d4. Then he could think about activat
ing the a8-rook with . . . as, . . . b6, . . . E:a8-a7, and only then turn t o the kingside. The breakthrough . . . f7-f6 (or fS) will not run away.
1 0 if4 li:)fS 1 1 %Yd2 b6 1 2 li:) e4 li:)d4 1 3 li:)xd4 cxd4
If White's king had castled long, It would have been better to take on
1 .e4 c5 2.lllf3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.llld4 lllc6 5.lllb 5 d6 6.c4
COMPLETE GAMES
d4 by queen. With opposite attacks, it is imperative to have more open files while the pawn structure falls into the background. In our case Er menkov prefers to install his bishop on the long diagonal, f ram where it will be hitting the enemy king.
1 4 ih6 cs 1 S li:) g 3 ib7 1 6 ixg7 © x g7 17 f4 fS !
Black has realised the main ide as of this opening and took over the initiative. The tide is soon going to turn and it will be Black who will be attacking.
1 8 exf6+ exf6 1 9 fS %Yd7 20 h4 �ae8 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 h S %Yg4 23 'l;Yf 2 Y;Y g s !
Mortensen was reluctant to ad-35
Part 1
mit his opening strategy was a fail ure, and only deteriorated his posi tion. Black methodically went on to build up pressure.
24 �xea �xea 2S hxg6 <i>xg6 26 ti:) e2 �e3 27 ti:)f4+ <i>f7 2a q;h2 �f3 29 ti) h3 \Wes+ 30 <i> h 1 \WhS 31 <i>g 1 �xg2 32 \Wxg2 \Wxh3
3 2 ... �xh3 ! 33 �b7+ �g6 34 �g2+ � h6 3 5 �fl f 5- + was winning, w bile now White can still resist.
33 \Wxh3 �xh3 34 a4 <i>e6 3S as <i> d S 36 axb6 axb6 37 �a6 q;c6 3a �aa �e3 39 <i>f2 q;bs 40 �ta �e6 41 �da q;b4 42 �ca �es 43 �c6 �f s+ 44 <i>e2 bS 4S �d6 �f 4 46 �c6 c4 4 7 dxc4 bxc4 4a �ca �h4 49 c3+ <i>b3 SO �ba+ q;c2 S1 cxd4 �xd4 S2 <i>e3? (52 �b4 fS 53 �3 �d2 54 �a4=) S2 .. �d3+ S3 q;e4 ts+ S4 @es �b3 ss �ca q;d3 S6 �da+ <i>e3 S7 �ca �bS+ sa <i>f6 f 4 S9 �xc4 f3 60
�c3+ <i>f4 0-1
2. M ovsesian-Chuchelov B u ndesl iga 200 S
1 e4 cs 2 ti:)f3 ti:)c6 3 �bS ti:)f6 4 eS ti:) d S S 0-0 ti:) c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 h3 �ts a d3 h6 !
Thus Black preserves his dark-36
squared bishop f ram exchange as after 8 . . . e6? ! 9 �gs �e7 10 �xe7 �xe7 11 ttJbd2 White would have been slightly better. The point is that White has not a good place for his bishop.
9 ti:) bd2
After 9 ttJc3 e6 10 �e2 Black should not miss the moment for 10 . . . ttJbS ! = since one move later White would be able to cover the d4-square: 10 . . . �e7 11 ttJe4 ttJbS 12 c3.
9 . . . e6 1 O '%Y e2 ti) b S !
A key point i n Black's setup ! White was threatening with 10 . . . �e7 11 ttJe4 when 11. .. ltJbS would stum ble into 12 c3.
1 1 ti:) e4 ti:)d4 1 2 ti:)xd4 \Wxd4
Black has completely equal ised. Later on he could disturb his opponent with . . . c5-c4 or . . . h5-h4 while the only active idea of White is f4-f5.
1 3 ti:) g 3 �g 6 1 4 q;h2?
After this move White is deprived of any counterplay. His chance to was 14 �e3 0-0-0 15 f4, maintain ing the balance.
1 4 .. . h S ! 1 S f4 h4 1 6 ti) h 1 ?
Black to place a strong blow. Natu rally, 16 l!Je4 would have been bet ter. Black would have indeed the
same breakthrough as in the game, but with White's knight in the cen tre, it would not be so decisive due to 17 �e3 .
1 6 .. . c4! 1 7 dxc4 �hS !
Regaining the pawn with an ad vantage in view of the variation
18 �d3 �xd3 19 cxd3 �e2 20 �f2 �xd3+.
1 8 '%Yf2 '%Yxc4 1 9 fS?
Apparently White cannot be lieve that he could be worse so early in the game with White and makes "active" moves instead of develop ing. 19 �e3 would have made Black to choose between many appealing options. He might want to sacrifice a pawn with 19 .. . �e7, when 20 �xa7 cS 21 �b6 �a6 22 �c7 �g6 23 c3 �c6 24 �d6 �xd6 2S exd6 �xd6 26 �adl �hS is only slightly better to him. After the text White should not be
able to level the game any more.
1 9 .. . ext s 20 �gs �cs ! 21 '%YxfS
The endgame is rather gloom af ter 21 �xh4 �xh4 22 hh4 �e2 23 �f el �xh4 24 �xe2 �d8+ 21 . . . �g6 22 Y;Yf 3 �hS 23 �f 4 o-o-o+ 24 �t2?? �ts-+ 2s � d 3 � h S 26 b3 '%Yxc2 2 7 � a c 1 '%Yxd328 '%Yxd3 �xd3 29 �xcS g S 0-1 3. De la Paz- Handke H avana 2003 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 �bS �f6 4 es �d S s 0-0 � c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 h3 g6
We recommend 7 .. . �fS, but this
1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS structure is also important for our repertoire, since it could arise from other move orders.
8 d3 �g7 9 � c3 b6 1 0 �e4 0-0 1 1 �d2 fS !?
Handke conducts the game very consistently, without subtleties and fancy move orders. He knows what he is aiming for, and does not beat about the bush. Black is set for a kingside pawn storm.
We pref er first to activate the c7-knight with . . . l!Jc7-bS-d4, but the text is by no means bad. Black has solved the opening problems.
1 2 exf6
White is unable to blockade the kingside with 12 l!Jc3 h6 13 h4 l!Je6 14 �el due to 14 .. .f4.
1 2 .. . exf6 1 3 '%Yc1 g S !
This i s the right way to handle the pawns. Black should bolster up the gS square before proceeding with .. .fS.
1 4 � h 2 �ts 1 S � g 3 �g6 1 6 f4 f S
This is already too straightf or ward. Black would have kept the in itiative with 16 . . . �d6t. The text al lows White to escape into an end ing with 17 fxgS �d4+ 18 � hl �xb2
Part 1
19 1!9xb2 �xb2 20 �ael ltJbS with un clear play, but White misses this op portunity.
1 7 ic3?! ixc3 1 8 bxc3 � d S 1 9 � f3?
White cracks under the pres sure. 19 l2Je2 was more stubborn.
1 9 ... gxf4+ 20 �e2 Y«d6 21 � h4 gae8 22 Y«d2 Y«f6 23 � f3 ge7 24 �ae1 �fe8 2S d4 Y«d6 26 gf2 ge3 27 Y«c1 ihS
The rest is clear.
28 � e s ixe2 29 �xf4 �8xeS 30 dxeS Y«xeS 31 �f2 f4 32 Y«d2 ic4 33 �d1 Y«xc3 34 Y«c1 as 3S <i>h2 �xh3+ 36 gxh3 Y« g 3+ 37 <i> h 1 Y«xf2
38 � g 1 + <i>f7 39 Y«b2 � f6 0-1 4. Shirov-lvanchuk Edmonton 200 S 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 ibS g6 4 ixc6 dxc6 S d3 ig7 6 h3 �f6 7 � c3 0-0 8 ie3 b6 9 Y«d2 es 1 0 .ih6 Y«d6 1 1 o-o-o as 1 2 ixg7
<i>xg7
1 3 g4
Without any advantage in the centre, White's attack should not be lethal. Black's play is even easier. He entrenches himself with l2Jg8, f6 38
whereas on the queenside his pro gram includes . . . a4, bS, a3, and eventually the thematic . . . c5-c4. In the diagram position White has tried to organise play down the h file, but it has proved quite harm less; 13 l2Jh2 a4 14 l2Jg4 l2Jg8 15 �bl (or 15 l2Je2 �xg4 16 hxg4 Wff e6 17 �bl 1!9xg4 18 f3 1!9e6 19 g4 f6 20 f4 a3 21 fS 1!9d7oo, Grischuk-Ponomariov, Moscow 2002) 15 .. . a3 16 b3 1!9d4 17 l2Jh2 bS 18 l2Jf3 Wff d6 19 l2Je2 .ie6oo Grischuk-Leko, Moscow 2002 1 3 ... ie6
Karjakin-Topalov, Blindfold, Bil bao 19. 10 .2007, saw 13 . . . a4 14 l2Je2 �a7 15 l2Jg3 �e7 16 gS l2Je8 17 Wff c3 l2Jc7 18 �dfl ltJbS 19 Wffd2 a3 20 b3 f 6+ and Black had a strong pressure in the centre. Ivanchuk wants to bind the c3-knigt with the defence of the a2-pawn. Now, 14 l2Je2 ixa2 15 l2Jg3 �fe8 16 Wigs Wff e6 would fa vour Black, so Shirov has to think up another attacking plan. 14 l2Jh4 a4 ! 15 W1 gS (or 15 l2Je2 �xa2 16 l2Jg3 �h8) 15 .. . a3 16 b3 Wffd4 is unappeal ing, therefore White decides to kill the awkward bishop.
1 4 � g s � d 7 1 S � xe6+
The attempt of pushing f4 is too slow: 15 �dfl bS 16 f4 b4 17 l2Je2 �xa2 18 l2Jf3 f 6+. Time and again we see that without a good centre, a flank attack has little chances to succeed.
1 S ... fxe 6 !
It took to Ivanchuk only 1 5 moves to get the edge with Black! His attack will run very fast while Shirov will need a lot of tempi to
create even the smallest threat.
1 6 gS a4 1 7 h4 '%Yd4 1 8 gdf1 ?
After this passive move White is lost. He would have had more chances to resist after 18 l2Je2 ! Wff xf2 19 hS �f3 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 �h6 �h8+ (Finkel).
1 8 ... a3! 19 hS
Following 19 b3 bS 20 �dl �f3 White would be tied up and down.
1 9 .. . c4
Instead of this thematic break, Black was winning by brute force: 19 . . . axb2 + ! 20 �bl �a3 21 f4 �c3 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 Wff h2 �f7 24 Wffh 7 + �e8 25 Wffxg6+ �d8-+. (Finkel) 20 f4 cxd 3 ! 21 gf3 tiles 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 Wh2 axb2+ 24 @b1 dxc2+? !
Starting f ram here, Ivanchuk gradually begins to lose control of the game and eventually draws. In the next few moves he misses sever al killers, e.g. 24 . . . �h8 ! 25 �h3 �xh3 26 Wff xh3 Wff xc3- + . 2S Wxc2 exf4 ? ! (25 .. . �xf4 2 6 �fh3 �af8-+) 26 Wxb2 g h 8? ! 2 7 gd1 Wes 2 8 gxf4 ! + gh3 2 9 tll a4 Wxb2+ 30 tllxb2 gf8 ? ! 31 gxf8 @xf8 32 gd6 gh433 @c2 gh2+ 34 @c1 @e7 3S gxc6 tllxe4 36 gxb6 1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs gh4 37 @c2 gh2+ 38 @d3 tll x g S 3 9 a 4 tllf3 4 0 tllc4 g S 41 a s g 4 4 2 @e3 gc2 4 3 tlld 6 tll d2 4 4 @f4 ga2 4S a6 ga4+ 46 @g3 tll c4 47 tllxc4 gxc4 48 gba ga4 49 gas @f6 so a7 @es S1 @h4 @e4 S2 @ x g4 es S3 @g3 ga2 S4 @h4 @e3 SS @hS e4 S6 @ g s gas+ S7 @ g 6 %-% S. David-N edev European C lub C u p O S.1 0.2007 1 e4 cs 2 tllf3 tll c6 3 .ibS tll f6 4 tll c3 g6 s es tllg4 6 .ixc6 dxc6 7 h 3 tll h 6 8 g4 .i g 7 9 d 3 o - o 10 We2 1 o . .. t6
During the game I could not break away from the stereotypi cal thinking that made me consider only 10 .. .f6 and 10 .. .f 5. Only after the game I got the insight to shift my at tention to the other wing, and try to punish the opponent for his delay of development. Then I came up with the move 1 0 . . . Wb6 !? which I ana
lyse in the "Step by Step" chapter. The text is not that bad, of course, but David's next move was a sort of
surprise to me.
1 1 .id2 !
I had pleasant experience after 39
