grandmaster repertoire 9 - internet archive...had recommended in grandmaster repertoire 2 -i.d4...

Grandmaster Repertoire 9

The Griinfeld Defence

VolumeT"Wo

By

Boris Avrukh

Quality Chess www.qualitychess.co. uk

First edition 20 I I by Quality Chess UK Ltd

Copyright© 20I I Boris Avrukh

Grandmaster Repertoire 9 -

The Grfinfeld Defence Volume Two

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,

electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

Paperback ISBN 978-I-907982-00-2 Hardcover ISBN 978-I-907982-0 I-9

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Quality Chess UK Ltd, 20 Balvie Road, Milngavie, Glasgow G62 7TA, United Kingdom

e-mail: [email protected] website: www.qualitychess.co.uk

Distributed in US and Canada by SCB Distributors, Gardena, California, US www.scbdistributors.com

Distributed in Rest of the World by Quality Chess UK Ltd through Sunrise Handicrafts, Smyczkowa 4/98, 20-844 Lublin, Poland

Typeset by Jacob Aagaard Edited by Colin McNab and Andrew Greet

Proofread by John Shaw Cover design by Adamson Design

Printed in Estonia by Tallinna Raamaturriikikoja LLC

Preface The position which occurs after the opening moves l .d4 lt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 d5 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 will provide the starting point for this, the second volume in my two-part work on the Griinfeld. (I am not sure if" Griinfeld Defence" is really an accurate term.) In case the reader is not yet familiar with Volume One, I will once again share the story of how I became a devotee of this wonderful opening. As I wrote in the Preface to the first volume:

"After I moved to Israel in 1 995 my opening repertoire was rather shaky, so during my first few months there I made a serious effort to improve it. Fortunately the Beer-Sheva Club and its manager Ilyahu Levant provided the best possible conditions for such work. My first coach in Israel was Mark Tseitlin, whom I continue to regard as something of a 'Griinfeld guru'. I also received high quality support from Alex Huzman, a strong player who is best known for being the long-term coach of Boris Gelfand.

Ever since my first few lessons with Mark, I immediately understood that the Griinfeld was the opening for me. I was attracted by the combative and dynamic positions to which it leads, and relished the prospect of fighting for the initiative with the black pieces. It was especially helpful that all the strong players in my new club knew this opening well. Indeed, in the present work the reader will find plenty of references to the games of Mark Tseitlin, Alex Huzman, Alon Greenfeld, Victor Mikhalevski and Alex Finkel. At that time the influence of the computer was not so strong, and by analysing together we managed to discover a lot of interesting ideas. The Griinfeld has remained my first choice against 1 .d4 for sixteen years (and counting!), whereas against l .e4 I have changed quite a lot."

In the first volume I mentioned the problem of fighting against the Fianchetto Variation, which I had recommended in Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -I.d4 Volume Two. But this was not the only time I had to offer an antidote 'against myself'. I have used the main lines involving 3.ltlc3 d5 4.cxd5 lt:lxd5 5.e4 in numerous games with the white pieces, and I continue to relish the challenges presented by the Griinfeld from either side of the board. One of my favourite weapons with the white pieces has been the famous 8J!b 1 system, but as you can see in Chapters 13- 16, Black is currently doing fine there, so I have been forced to explore other avenues when playing against my pet opening. Another critical battleground is the 7.i.c4 system, against which I decided to offer a choice between two different approaches for Black, details of which can be found in Chapters 1 7-2 1 .

This second volume completes my Grandmaster Repertoire i n the Griinfeld. I have gained a lot of enjoyment as well as excellent results over the board with this great opening, and I hope that my two books will help the reader to do the same.

Boris Avrukh Beer-Sheva, June 201 1

Contents

Key to Symbols used & Bibliography 6

Various 5th Moves l.d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3 .lLJc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLJxd5

4.cxd5 ctJxd5 5.ctJf3 7 2 5.ctJa4 19 3 5.id2 26 4 5.g3 41

Various 7th Moves l.d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLJc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLJxd5 5.e4 lLJxc3 6.bxc3 �g7

5 7.ig5 57 6 7.ia3 62 7 7.\Wa4t 69 8 7.ib5t 78

l .d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLJc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLJxd5 5.e4 lLJxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�e3

9 Two Rook Moves 89 10 8.ctJf3 108 11 8.\Wd2 134

l .d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLJc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLJxd5 5.e4 lLJxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.lLJf3

12 Various 8th Moves 144

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3 .�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6 .bxc3 J.g7 7 .�f3 c5 SJ�bl

13 Various 9th Moves 14 ll.YMd2 15 ll..id2 YMxa2 - Introduction and other 13th Moves 16 13.ig5

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5 .e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7 .J.c4

17 Various 9th and 1Oth Moves 18 10 ... ig4 19 12.E:b 1 20 10 ... YMc7 21 ll...b6!?

Variation Index

162 169 181 194

203 212 222 229 241

255

Key to symbols used t White is slightly better i Black is slightly better ± White is better + Black is better +- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage

equality iii with compensation � with counterplay m unclear --+ with attack t with initiative

a weak move ?? a blunder

a good move !! an excellent move !? a move worth considering ?! a move of doubtful value # mate

Bibliography Aagaard: Starting Out: The Grunfeld Defence, Everyman 2004 Avrukh: Grandmaster Repertoire 2 -J.d4 Volume Two, Quality Chess 20 10 Cox: Starting Out: 1 d4!, Everyman 2006 Davies: The Grunfeld Defence, Everyman 2002 Dearing: Challenging the Grnnfeld, Quality Chess 2005 Delchev & Agrest: The Safest Grnnfeld, Chess Stars 20 1 1 Dembo: Play the Grunfeld, Everyman 2007 Rowson: Understanding the Grunfeld, Gambit 1999 Sakaev: An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld, Chess Stars 2006

Periodicals New in Chess Yearbooks Secrets of Opening Surprises (SOS)

Electronic/Internet resources ChessBase Magazine ChessPublishing.com

Various 5th Moves 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.�£3

Variation Index I.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxd5 s.tDf3

A) 6.g3 B) 6 . .id2 0-0 ?.:acl tDb6

B1) 8.e3 B2) 8 • .ig5

C) 6.�b3 D) 6.�a4t

s ... .ig7

E) 6 • .ig5 c5 ?.:acl tDxc3 8.hxc3 0-0 E1) 9.�d2 E2) 9.e3

B2) note to l l .d5!?

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . g4!N

B2) after l l .d5!?

a b c d e f g h

l l . . . �xc3t!N

E2) afrer ll.�e2

a b c d e f g h

l !. . .Wid5!N

8 9 9

10 13 14 16 16 17

8 Various 5th Moves

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.c:xd5 �xd5 5.�f3 .ig7

a b c d e f g h

This position is frequently reached via the move order of 4.tt'lf3 .!g7 5.cxd5 tt:lxd5. The main line is of course 6.e4, but in the present chapter we will pay attention to the significant sidelines of A) 6.g3, B) 6 . .id2, C) 6J�Yb3, D) 6.WI'a4t and E) 6 . .ig5.

6.tt:la4 0-0 7.e4 tt:lb6 leads to a position from Chapter 2, beginning with the 4.cxd5 tt:lxd5 5.tt:la4 move order.

A) 6.g3

a b c d e f g h

6 ..• �xc3 7.bxc3 b6!? The normal continuation would be 7 .. . c5

8 . .!g2 tt:lc6, transposing to the line 5 .g3 .!g7 6 . .!g2 tt:lxc3 7.bxc3 c5 8.tt:lf3 tt:lc6, as analysed in line B of Chapter 4. The immediate fianchetto of Black's light-squared bishop is an interesting and quite promising alternative, which enables the second player to neutralize any pressure along the h 1 -a8 diagonal.

s . .ig2 .ib7 9.� � Black's position should be perfectly safe, as

shown by the following illustrative lines.

a b c d e f g h

IO • .ie3 1 0 . .!a3 was played in the older game Cotta

- Mori, Belo Horiwnte 1966. At this point Black could have questioned the positioning of the bishop with the energetic 10 . . . c5!N, with the point that after l l .dxc5 tt:ld7 1 2.!!bl 'Wic7 13.cxb6 tt:lxb6 Black has promising compensation.

10 •.. �d7 l l.WI'cl c5 12 • .ih6 !!cS 13 . .ixg7 �xg7

White has managed to trade the dark-squared bishops, but the idea has cost him quite a lot of time, and in the following game Black was able to obtain the upper hand.

This particular move order allows Black an extra option, which I have chosen to explore here. 14.WI'a3 Wl'c7 15.!!fdl e6 16.!!acl !!fd8 17.e3

Chapter 1 - 4.cxd5 tLlxd5 5 .tLlf3 9

�e4 18.c4 Y;Yb7 19.c!Llel hg2 20.c!Llxg2 c!Llf6i Black was more comfortable in Meier -

Vachier Lagrave, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.

B) 6.�d2

This can sometimes transpose to the betterknown 5.�d2 line, but there are also some independent possibilities.

6 ... 0-0 7Jkl 7.e4 tLlxc3 8.�xc3 �g4 reaches a position

examined via the 5 . .id2 move order in line E of Chapter 3.

7 ... �b6 Now White's main possibilities are Bl) 8.e3

and B2) 8.�g5.

8.�f4 This is not dangerous at all.

8 . . . c5 9.dxc5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

9 . . . .ixc3t! This is an important idea which solves Black's problems easily.

1 0.bxc3 1 0J'!xc3 also leads nowhere for White: 10 .. .'Wxdlt 1 1 .'it>xd1 tLla4! 1 2.l'!a3 (1 2.l'!cl l'!d8t 13.'it>e1 tLlxb2 also gives Black no problems.) 12 ... ttJxb2t 13.'it>cl tLlc4 14.l'!c3 ltla5 1 5.e4 .ig4 16.ltle5 .ie6 Black was absolutely fine in Partanen - Halmeenmaki, Finland 200 1 .

10 . . . Wxdlt 1 1 .l'!xd1 ltJa4 1 2.c4 ttJc6 13 . .ih6?! l'!e8 1 4.�e3 �e6 15 .l'!b1 .ixc4 16.g3 .ia6

Black's position was already preferable in R. Nilsson - Koranyi, corr. 1 988.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Bl) 8.e3

a b c d e f g h

8 ... �c6! Black prepares the ... e5 advance, which

should ensure an active game for him.

It is worth mentioning that 8 ... ttJ8d7 is too passive, and following 9.a4! a5 10.e4 e5 1 1 .d5 c6 1 2.�g5! .if6 13.�e3 White obtained some advantage and won a very nice game, Topalov - Cheparinov, Sofia 2008.

9.�b5 It is natural for White to try and discourage

his opponent's idea. In the event of 9.�e2 e5

10 Various 5th Moves

10.dxe5 lt:\xe5 1 1 .lLlxe5 .ixe5 12.0-0 .ie6 15 ... �e7N 16.�c3 gdsi Black has absolutely no problems. Black has the more promising game, as

his bishop pair and active pieces are more 9 ... e5! significant than his damaged pawn structure.

This thematic move still works in spite of White's last move! B2) 8 . .ig5

a b c d e f g h

IO . .ixc6 exd4 l l.�xd4 bxc6 12.ttlce2 Accepting the pawn sacrifice with 1 2.lt:\xc6

leads after 12 . . . Wd7 13.lZle2 .ib7 14.Wc2 E:fe8! to a position in which Black has excellent compensation.

12 ... �d5 13.0--0 c5 14.�£4 �d6 15.ttlb5 This position occurred in Marcelin -

Sasikiran, France 2008. At this point the most accurate continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h

8 ..• h6 9 . .ih4 An interesting alternative is:

9 . .if4!? This move is tricky and relatively unexplored.

9 . . . lt:\a6!? One of the points of White's idea is that Black is unable to equalize in the same way as after 8 . .if4, as after 9 . . . c5?! 1 0.dxc5 .ixc3t? 1 l .bxc3 Wxdlt 12.E:xd1 lt:\ a4 White gets a winning position with the simple 1 3 . .ixh6. Some players have responded with 9 . . . lt:\c6 1 O.e3 g5 1 1 . .ig3 g4 but I find Black's play quite risky, and after 12.lt:\h4 I prefer White's position. The text move is rare but logical, as Black wants to carry out the usual ... c5 advance. In the following encounter White was unable to pose his opponent any problems.

10.e3 Maybe White should search in the direction of 1 0.e4!?N. In this case I am pretty sure Black should go for the sharp 1 O . . . c5 1 1 .d5 f5! with double-edged play.

10 . . . c5

Chapter 1 - 4.cxd5 l2Jxd5 5.tLlf3 1 1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 1 . .ie2

a b c d e f g h

1 l ..ixa6 can be met by 1 1 . . .cxd4! 1 2.exd4 bxa6 1 3 . .ie5 .ib? when Black has no problems.

1 l . ..cxd4 1 2.exd4 tLlb4! 13.0-0 .ie6 14.a3 lt'l c6 1 5 .E:e 1 E:c8

Black easily solved his opening problems in Epishin - Lalic, Seville 2006.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

9 ... g5!

a b c d e f g h

By safeguarding the e? -pawn Black prepares to counterattack using his c-pawn.

lO . .ig3 c5 From here White can choose between

aggression and solidiry.

l l .d5!? According to the database this ambitious

move has scored 3Y214 for White, including a

win by Morozevich over Shirov. Naturally we will consider the alternatives as well.

In the event of l l .dxc5, Black should play in exactly the same way as he does against 8 . .if4, as given on page 9: 1 1 . . . .ixc3t! 1 2.E:xc3 'Wxdl t 13.<>t>xdl tLla4 14.E:c l E:d8t 1 5 .<>t>el Ulibin Ris, Hoogeveen 20 10.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . tLlxb2N This natural improvement gives Black a good game with at least equal chances.

l l .lt'lb5?!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This kind of material-hunting rarely works well against the Griinfeld, especially when White is behind in development.

l l . . .cxd4 1 2.lt'lbxd4 In the event of 12.tLlc7 tLlc6 13.tLlxa8 lLlxa8 Black has more than enough compensation for the exchange.


· The same player later 'improved' with 1 2.tlJfxd4?! but soon came unstuck: 1 2 . . . a6! 13 . .ic7 Wfd5 14 . .ixb6 axb5 1 5 .e3 l=!xa2 Black was already winning in Priehoda - Sutovsky, Kaskady 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 2 . . . g4!N a b c d e f g h

After 1 2 . . . tlJc6 1 3.tlJxc6 Wfxd1 t 14.l:!xd1 bxc6 1 5 . .ie5 .ie6 1 6 . .ixg7 'itlxg7 17.b3 a5! Black equalized comfortably in Priehoda -Rotstein, Wattens 2000, but thanks to his lead in development can play for more.

13.tlJe5 Wfd6! 1 4.f4 14.tlJb5 Wfb4t 1 5.tlJc3 Wfxb2+ is even worse for White.

14 . . . tlJ8d7 White is obviously in trouble.

Finally, White has also tried the quiet move: 1 1 .e3

Needless to say, this is unlikely to cause Black any serious problems.

l l . . .tlJc6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 2.d5 1 2.dxc5 is harmless: 1 2 ... .ixc3t! 1 3.bxc3 Wfxd1 t 14.l:!xdl tlJa4 Black regains his pawn with a comfortable game, for example: 1 5 .l:!cl tlJxc5 16.tlJd4 tlJe4 (Another idea is 16 . . . .id7!?N intending ... l:!ac8.) 17.tlJxc6 bxc6 18 . .ic4 tlJxg3 19.hxg3 'itlg7= Schmidt - Ribli, Wijk aan Zee 1 972.

1 2 . . . .ixc3t This is the simplest solution, although Black can also consider 12 . . . tlJb4!? 13.d6 with complex play, as in Safin - Greenfeld, Calicut 2007.

13.l:!xc3 Wfxd5 14.Wfxd5 tlJxd5 1 5.l:!xc5 We have been following the game Bukic -Ribli, Bucharest 197 1 . At this point Black's most accurate continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . tlJf6N With the following possible continuation:

16 . .ib5 After 16 . .id3 .ie6 17 . .ib 1 1'!fd8 White's bishop pair is not particularly significant, and in the event of 1 8.0-0 Black can even think about the sharp 18 . . . g4!? followed by . . . l:!d2.

16 . . . .id7 1 7.0-0 tlJe4 18.l:!d5 .ie8 I prefer this over 1 8 . . . .ie6 19 . .ixc6 bxc6 20.l:!a5! when White has a nagging edge.

19 .l:!cl f6! Black is absolutely fine.

Chapter 1 - 4.cxd5 ltJxdS S.ltJf3 13

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

l l ..• .txc3t!N This new move enables Black to solve his

problems with ease. So far the only move to have been tested is 1 l . . .e6, after which 12.d6 lLldS 13.h4 led to an extremely complex game in Morozevich - Shirov, Pamplona 2006.

12Jhc3 �xd5 13J!:xc5 Obviously 13J:!d3? can be met by

13 . . . %lfa5t.

13 . • Jt:Jf6! 14.'!Wxd8 14.lt::ld4 lt::le4 looks risky for White.

15 . .ic7 Otherwise . . . lt::le4 might prove annoying.

15 .•• :!::!:e8 16.e3 .ie6 Black has the initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

I was surprised to discover that this oddlooking move has been played in over 500 games, and has been tested by several strong players from Capablanca to Kasimdzhanov.

6 • . . lthc3 7.bxc3 c5 14 ... :!::!:xd8 This thematic reaction should enable Black

Black is at least equal in this queenless to count on a good game. position, for instance:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

8.e3 0-0 9 • .ia3 The only significant alternative is 9 . .ie2,

which transposes to line A2 of Chapter 12 in Volume One, in which the position is reached via the move order 4.e3 .ig7 5.lt::l8 0-0 6 . .ie2 c5 7.cxd5 lt::lxd5 8.%lfb3 lt::lxc3 9.bxc3.

9 • . . cx:d4! A well-timed decision.

10.�xd4 10.cxd4

This natural recapture has been less popular, for reasons that will soon become clear.


lO . . . lLlc6 The point is that Black now threatens an annoying check on a5.

l l .E:cl Preparing to block with the queen on c3.

1 l .. . .ie6 1 2.'\Wb2 Wfa5t 13.lLld2 Now in the game Sandoval - Corsi Ferrari, Mar del Plata 2008, Black should have played:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . E:fc8N 14 . .ie2 Wfb6 Attacking the a2-pawn.

1 5.lLlb3 .id5 16.0-0 e5 Black has obtained comfortable equality

without any difficulties.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

IO ••• �c6 It is hard to imagine that White can aspire to

an opening advantage in a position with this pawn structure.

l l .Ae2 c!Lla5 12.Wfb4 c!Llc6

a b c d e f g h 13.�b2?!

This strange-looking move was an attempt to continue the fight. The intention is admirable, but objectively White should have admitted that he achieved nothing from the opening and settled for 13 .lLlxc6 (or 13.Wfb3 repeating the position) 13 ... bxc6 1 4.0-0 .if6 when the position is equal.

13 ... �b6! 14.0-0 �xb2 15.hb2 Ad7 In this position the players agreed a draw in

Bruzon Bautista - Sutovsky, Pamplona 2004. However, it seems to me that Black's superior pawn structure offers him the better long-term chances.

D) 6.�a4t

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 - 4.cxd5 ttJxd5 5 .ttJf3 1 5

This early queen sortie has not attracted many followers, but it is occasionally used as a surprise weapon.

6 •.• .id7 7.'flYc2 7.�b3

This move is also harmless. 7 ... tLlxc3

Black has more frequently defended or retreated his knight, but exchanging it is the simplest way to solve his opening problems.

8.bxc3 c5 9.e3 0-0 I O.i.e2 �c7 1 1 .0-0 ttJc6 We have already seen several examples featuring the same pawn structure. It is virtually always good for Black, and the present case is no exception.

1 2.E!:dl E!:ac8 13.i.a3 This was Turner - Seidman, New York 1957, and here I would recommend the naturallooking continuation:

8

7

6

5

4

3 w�\Uii�rN£'=/-�� 2

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . tLla5N 14.�b2 b6 Black has a comfortable game.

7 .. .tthc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.e3 9.e4?! looks too loosening, and after 9 . . . cxd4

1 0.cxd4 ttJc6 1 l .i.e3 i.g4 12.E!:d1 0-0 Black was already more than happy in Berezovics -Pribyl, Decin 1 996.

9 ... ttJc6 IO • .ie2 0-0 1 1.0-0 Once again, the same pawn structure results

in a pleasant game for Black, especially with the white queen misplaced on c2.

l l ... cxd4!? Normally Black would be in no hurry to

release the tension, but in the present position it makes some sense to harass the white queen.

12.cxd4 gc8 13.'flYb3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 13 ... b5! 14 • .id2

The b5-pawn is untouchable, as demonstrated by 14.i.xb5? E!:b8 1 5.�a4 E!:xb5! 16.�xb5 ttJxd4 when Black wins.

14 ... e5! 15.dxe5 1 5.d5 runs into 1 5 .. . e4 16.dxc6 i.e6! when

Black is doing well.

15 ... ltlxe5 16.tthe5 This position occurred in Mohr - Krasenkow,

Palma de Mallorca 1989. At this point I would suggest:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h


I6 ... i.e6N Based on the following line:

17.�xb5 �xd2 18.ttlf3 �d5 19.�xd5 .ixd5 20.�d4 i.xd4 2I.exd4 gfd8

Black will regain his pawn to reach an absolutely equal endgame.

E) 6 . .ig5

a b c d e f g h

This is quite a serious sideline which should be considered carefully.

6 ... c5 7.gcl This is the consistent follow-up to the

previous move.

7 ... ttlxc3

a b c d e f g h

Here I believe we should follow the example of Emil Sutovsky, a leading Griinfeld expert.

9 ... .ig4 IO.e3 L£3 l l.gxf3 �c6 12 . .ig2 Another idea is:

12.d5 lUeS 13 . .ie2 Gavrilov - Bagirov, Vladimir 2008. Now an obvious improvement would be:

This has been employed by some strong players, and overall it seems like the best a b c d e f g h

solution for Black. 13 . . . c4!N

8.bxc3 0-0 In this position White's main moves are

El) 9.�d2 and E2) 9.e3.

9 .e4 transposes to variation B of Chapter 15 .

EI) 9.�d2

Preventing White from supporting his centre by means of c3-c4, and even more importantly, creating tactical opportunities associated with a knight jump to d3. Here are some lines I analysed:

14.h4 14.f4? runs into 14 . . . tt'ld3t! 15 . .ixd3 'Wxd5 with a serious advantage for Black. 14.e4 f5 1 5 .f4 tt'lf7! is also poor for White.

14 . . . l::k8 1 5.E!:g1

Chapter 1 - 4.cxd5 tbxd5 5 .lbf3 17

In the event of 1 5.h5 Black once again has 1 5 . . . tbd3t! as after 1 6.i.xd3 Wfxd5 both of White's bishops are under attack.

1 5 . . . Wfd6 1 6.h5 e6 Black has the better game.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 ••. YMd5! Black must play energetically, otherwise

White will have time to consolidate his twobishop advantage with f4.

13 . .ih4 e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14.dxe5? This is a serious mistake which allows Black

to obtain a powerful initiative. The correct continuation was: 1 4.c4 Wfd6

1 5 .dxe5 Attempting to open the position for

the bishops must be the critical idea. ( 1 5 .d5 tbe7 looks comfortable for Black.) 15 ... Wfxe5 1 6.Wfd5 The most challenging move. (After 1 6.0-0 Wfh5 17.i.g3 !!adS Black has a good game.) 1 6 . . . Wfb2 1 7.0-0 Wfxa2 1 8.Wfxc5 a5! The a-pawn offers Black good counterplay.

14 ..• YMc4! 15.f4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 15 •.. ltlxe5!

This strong idea was missed by White.

16.fxe5 Wfxh4 17.0-0 !'!:adS 18.YMe2 Le5 19.f4 .ic7

Despite the opposite-coloured bishops Black maintained a strong initiative in Hochstrasser - Sutovsky, Zurich 2009.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

E2) 9.e3

a b c d e f g h


9.: . .ie6!? Black ignores the traditional rule of"knights

before bishops" in order to attack the a2-pawn, highlighting a drawback of White's early rook development. In my view it is Black's most promising idea in the position.

IO.'%Ya4 In one subsequent game White tried

1 0.Wfd2 but without much success: 10 . . . lt:lc6 1 l ..ie2 E!:c8 12.0-0 h6 13 . .if4 cxd4 14.cxd4 Wfa5! 1 5 . .ic4 .ixc4 16.l'l:xc4 '%Yxd2 17.lt:lxd2 e5 18.dxe5 lt:lxe5+ Babu - Gupta, Hyderabad 2005.

IO ••• t£lc6 II.J.e2 Now in the game Banikas - Eljanov, Plovdiv

2003, Black missed a very strong idea:

a b c d e f g h

l l...'%Yd5!N This queen activation is surprisingly

problematic for White. First he must worry about the a2-pawn.

12.c4 In the event of 1 2.E!:b 1 Black can simply play

1 2 ... cxd4 1 3.cxd4 a6! followed by . . . b5.

12 ••• '%Ye4! The queen does a great job on this unusual

square.

13.dxc5 White cannot play 1 3.d5? in view of

1 3 ... .ixd5!, exploiting the pin along the fourth rank.

13 ... h6 14.J.f4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ••• g5! Black continues to play energetically.

15.J.g3 g4 16.c!Llh4 !:!:adS 17.0-0 E!:d2t Black has great compensation for the pawn.

Conclusion

Over the course of this chapter we have examined a wide variety of set-ups, each giving rise to disparate sets of problems for each player. There are not really any common themes that can be applied across all the variations examined here, although certain ideas, most notably the inclusion of a timely . . . .ixc3t, occurred in a few different lines. Instead of trying to formulate general principles, in the present chapter we would do better to keep in mind that all of the lines examined are distinct from one another. Only by focusing on the specific features of the position in front of us can we optimize our chances of success. I hope that the material presented here will help to facilitate that goal.

Various 5th Moves a b c d e f g h

Variation Index Ld4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.ll:k3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.�a4

A) 8.�xb6?! B) 8.�f3 i.g4

81) 9.i.e2 82) 9.�c5

B I) after 13.f4

a b c d e f g h

13 . . .f6!N

s ... i.g7 6.e4 �b6 7.i.e3 0-0

B2) note to l l .ia6

1 2. . .l='i:d8!?N

B2) after 15.fxe3

20 21 21 22

I.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.�a4

This remarkable move was introduced into practice by the Armenian IM Nadanian in 1996. It quickly gained considerable popularity, but Black has gradually found some effective weapons against it. White is aiming to get control over the centre, while avoiding the knight swap on c3.

5 ... .ig7 The most natural move and a good one.

There are several alternatives for Black and I would just like to mention 5 . . . e5!? 6.dxe5 tt:lc6, which I think leads to an interesting battle where Black is by no means worse.

6.e4 �b6 7 . .ie3 7.tt:lf3 does not have any independent value,

since 7 . . . 0-0 8.ie2 ig4 9.ie3 leads into line B l .

7 ... 0-0 We shall examine A) 8.�xb6?! and B)

8.�f3, although White also has:

12.ie2 '1Wb6 White is behind in development and his next move doesn't help. 13.l::k2?! ixf3 14.gxf3 E:d8 1 5 .E:d2 'WaS Black had an edge in Legky - Mrdja, Cannes 1999.

8.ie2 tt:lc6 9.tt:lf3 ig4 transposes to B l .

A) 8.�xb6?!

The knight exchange on b6 cannot promise White any advantage, but it has nevertheless occurred several times in tournament practice.

8 ... axb6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

9 . .ic4

a b c d e f g h

In one game my opponent chose the prophylactic 9.h3?! but that appears too slow when White is lagging in development. Black managed to seize the initiative with energetic play: 9 . . . c5 10.tt:lf3 tt:lc6 1 l .d5 tt:lb4! 12.'1Wd2 (the tactic 12.a3? ixb2 shows how useful the semi-open a-file is to Black) 12 . . . f5! Black was clearly better in Legky - Avrukh, Paris 1998.

9 ... c5 10.t£le2 t£lc6 l l.dxc5 bxc5 8.tt:lc5 doesn't make much sense when the 1 1 . . .tt:le5!? looks promising as well. b7-pawn is def<?nded. Play may continue: 8 . . . tt:\6d7 9.E:cl tt:lxc5 1 0.E:xc5 c6 1 1 .tt:lf3 ig4 12.'\WxdS E:xdS

Chapter 2 - 5.tlJa4 21

a b c d e f g h

Unexpectedly White finds himself in trouble, due to Black's pressure on the queenside.

13 . .L:c5 �eS! 14J�cl Ae6 15 . .ib5 Ad7! Black is making all the best moves.

16.f4 .ixbS 17.fxe5 .ih6! 18J;al gd2-+ Black had a decisive advantage in Suvrajit -

Konguvel, Raipur 2002.

B) s.�f3 Ag4

Black shouldn't rush to strike in the centre with 8 . . . tt:\xa4 9.Wfxa4 c5 since White can obtain the better chances by: 1 0.l'!d1 Wfb6 1 l .l'!d2!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses either Bl) 9.Ae2 or B2) 9.�c5.

Bl) 9 . .ie2 �c6

Once again I would not recommend: 9 . . . tt:\xa4 10.Wfxa4 c5 1l .dxc5 .ixb2 12.l'!b1 .ic3t 13.'it>fl .ic8 14.g3 tt:\c6 15 .'it>g2 White's queenside pressure gave him a pleasant edge in Oms Pallisse - Lopez Martinez, Lleida 2009.

lO.dS 1 0.tt:\xb6 axb6 l l .d5 tt:\e5 transposes to the

note to White's eleventh move below.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

lO ... lLleS Black can temporarily win a pawn by

10 . . . tlJxa4 1 l .Wfxa4 .ixb2, but after 12.l'!b1 .ic3t 13 .'it>fa White will regain the b7-pawn with dividends, Juszczak - Zielinska, Wisla 1998.

l l .�xe5 I don't believe in the knight exchange:

1 1 .tt:\xb6?! axb6 White's score from this position is horrible, and surely the most White can hope for is equality.

12.tt:\xe5 Clearly inferior is: 12.tt:\d4 .ixe2 13.Wfxe2 c5! Black takes over the initiative. 14.dxc6 bxc6 1 5.l'!d1 Wfc8 16.a3 c5 17.tt:\b5 c4! 18.0-0 Wfc6 19.tt:\c3 e6 Black had a clear positional edge in Schnider - Feher, Zalakaros 2004.


a b c d e f g h

12 . . . .!xe2 13 .'\M!xe2 .!xe5 14.0-0 Black has comfortable play in this roughly equal position.

14 . . . '\M!d? 1 5 .a3 e6 1 5 . . .f5!? also comes into consideration.

I 6Jl:adl Elfe8 17.Eid2 exd5 18.Eixd5 '\M!e6 19.Eifd1 .!g7

The position was balanced in Legky -Mikhalevski, Montreal 2003.

1 I. . • he2 12.YMxe2 lL!xa4 13.f4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... f6!N In my opinion this is a significant

improvement over 1 3 . . . c6 Kaufman - Aagaard, Hampstead 1 998; I am then slightly concerned by: 14.b3N lt::lb6 1 5 .dxc6 .!xe5 1 6.fxe5 bxc6 17.0-0 White has good attacking chances.

14.l£lc4

Another possibility is 1 4.lt::lf3 f5 and now it's important that the tactical idea 15 .d6 is not dangerous for Black: 1 5 . . . fxe4 16.'\M!c4t e6! 17.dxc7 '\M!d3! 1 8.'\M!xd3 exd3 1 9.lt::le5 Elac8 Only Black can be better here.

14 ... 5 The point of Black's novelty; White is unable

to maintain his centre.

15.0-0 Or 1 5 .'\M!c2 '\M!d7 1 6.0-0 ( 1 6.0-0-0 fxe4

17.'\M!xe4 Elad8 is also fine for Black) 16 . . . fxe4 17.Eiad1 lt::lb6 18.'\M!xe4 '\Mff5 with roughly equal play.

15 ... fxe4 16,gad1 lL!b6! 17.hb6 axb6 18.'iNxe4 'iNd7 19.a3 b5 20.l£le5 'iNd6

Black is by no means worse.

B2) 9.l£lc5

a b c d e f g h

This makes some sense here, as White is attacking the b7-pawn.

9 ... lL!c6 I like this approach, which is clearly in the

spirit of the Griinfeld; Black sacrifices the b7-pawn for the initiative.

IO.t£!xb7

Chapter 2 - 5.lLla4 23

White has to accept the challenge, as otherwise he is not really fighting for an advantage. For instance: I O.d5 lLle5 I I . .ie2 .ixf3 12.gxf3 lt:\ec4 1 3.1.Mfc2 ( 13 . .id4?! lt:\xb2 I4.Wfd2 lt:\2c4 I 5 .Wfc3 e5! left White a pawn down for no compensation in Kantorik -Llaneza Vega, Pardubice 2008) I 3 . . . lt:\xe3 ( 13 ... .ixb2 I4J!bi lt:\xe3 I 5.fxe3 ig7 I6.a4! is far from clear) I4.fxe3 e6! I 5 .dxe6 Wfh4t Black has an initiative.

10 .•. '\WbS! Weaker is: IO .. . \Mfc8 I I .lt:\c5 .ixf3 I2.\Mfxf3!

lt:\xd4 13.\Mfdi Wfd8 (13 . . . :B:d8 I4 . .ia6 \Mfb8 I 5 .0-0 is good for White) I4.:B:cl White was slightly better. Luehrig - Svartbo, e-mail 200 I .

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

l l .�a6 This is clearly the critical continuation. Black

has no problems after: 1 I .lt:\c5 .ixf3 1 2.gxf3

Recapturing with the queen is no good: 1 2.\Mfxf3 lt:\xd4 I 3.Wfdi lt:\c4! This tactic strikingly demonstrates why the black queen should go to b8 rather than c8. I4 . .ixc4 (after 14 . .ixd4 \Mfb4t 1 5.'tt>e2 lt:\xb2! White has nothing better than 1 6.a3 Wfxd4 1 7.Wfxd4 .ixd4 and Black is a healthy pawn up) I4 . . . Wfb4t I 5 . .id2 Wfxc4 I6.:B:cl Wfxa2 Black was just a pawn up in Cody - Barnsley, e-mail I998.

a b c d e f g h

I 2 . . . :B:d8!?N I think this is the simplest solution. After 1 2 . . . .ixd4 Pridorozhni - Kalod, Pardubice I999, I found 13.\Mfc2!N and White keeps some pressure, thanks to his strong knight on c5. For example: I 3 ... :B:d8 14.0-0-0 a5 I 5 .'tt>bU

I 3.d5 e6 1 4.lt:\a6 \Mfb7 But not: I4 ... \Mfc8? I 5 .:B:cl±

I 5 .lt:\c5 \Mfb8= White doesn't have anything better than

taking the repetition.

l l ... e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

12.d5

a b c d e f g h

I also examined 1 2.dxe5 lt:\xe5 I 3.0-0 and from several attractive ideas my preference is for: 13 ... \Mfc8! 14 . .if4 .ixf3 1 5 .gxf3 :B:b8! Chasing the knight from b7 so that the dB-square will


become available for a black rook. 1 6.ltk5 '%Yh3 1 7.i.e2 ( 1 7.i.g3 leads to a difficult position for White after 17 .. .!!fd8 1 8.'%Ye2 E:d2! 19 .'%Ye3 ll:\bc4+) 1 7 . . . ll:\bc4 18.i.xc4 E:fd8! Black has a serious initiative. (Less strong is 1 8 . . . ll:\xc4 1 9.'%Yd3! ll:\e5 20.i.xe5 i.xe5 2 I .f4! and White forces simplification to an equal endgame.)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... �6xd5! A nice tactical idea that gives Black good

play.

14.�b7 I also looked at: 14.exd5 e4

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .ll:\xe4 (or 1 5 .0-0 ll:\xa6 [ 1 5 . . . exf3 16.gxf3 i.h3 1 7.i.b7! i.xfl 1 8.'it>xfl;!;] 16.ll:\xa6 '%Yc8 17.ll:\xc7 '%Yxc7 �8.h3 i.xf3 1 9.gxf3 E:ae8!

and the exposed white king offers Black good attacking chances) 1 5 . . . ll:\xa6 16.0-0 E:e8 17.ll:\g3 i.xf3 1 8.'%Yxf3 '%Yxb2 Black is at least equal.

14 ... �xe3 15.fxe3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 15 ... Lf3N

I found this relatively clear-cut route to equality. Instead in Kiss - Gara, Hungary 2008, Black understandably couldn't resist playing the fantastic 1 5 . . . ll:\a6 16.i.xa8 ll:\xc5 17.i.d5. The situation is rather unclear, although Black should have enough compensation for the exchange.

I6.gxf3 E:ds I7.'1Wb3 After 17.'%Ya4 ll:\d3t 18.ll:\xd3 '%Yxb7 White

is worse.

17 ... �£8! The key move.

18 . .lxa8 Another important line is: 1 8.'%Yxb4 a5!

1 9.'%Yb5 (After 19.'%Yb3 E:a7 20.i.d5 i.xc5 White can win a pawn but he finds himself in trouble: 2 I .i.xf7t 'it>g7 22.i.d5 c6! 23 .i.xc6 .ib4t Black will continue 24 . . . E:d2 with a powerful initiative.) 1 9 . . . i.xc5 20.'%Yxc5 '%Yxb7 2 1 .'%Yxe5 E:ab8 Despite being a pawn up, it is White who is fighting for equality.

Chapter 2 - 5.lt:la4 25

18 ... .ixc5 19.i.d5 �xd5 20.exd5 'ilYxb3 2l.axb3 he3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

I believe that only Black can try to win this endgame.

22. 'i!?e2 i.d4 23J:�hdl :axd5 24.:axa7 gb5 25.ga3 'i!?g7

Black is marginally better, although White should be able to hold.

Conclusion

Nadanian's 5.lt:la4 can be answered in many ways, but I consider the natural 5 . . . .ig7 6.e4 t!Jb6 7.ie3 0-0 to be entirely satisfactory for Black. The most critical line is then 8.t!Jf3 ig4 9.l0c5, but I believe that the combative 9 ... ltk6 lO.t!Jxb7 Wfb8! offers Black full compensation for the sacrificed pawn.


s.id2

Variation Index I.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 lLlxd5 5.�d2

5 ... �g7 6.e4 tDxc3 7.hc3 0-0 A) 8.�e2 B) 8J�d c5!? 9.d5 �xc3t 10.�xc3 e6

Bl) l l .�c4 B2) l l .d6

C) 8.'1Wd2 c5! Cl) 9.dxc5 C2) 9.d5

D) 8.�c4 c5 9.d5 �xc3t 10.bxc3 '!Wd6! Dl ) l l .'!We2 D2) l l .tDB D3) l l .tDe2

E) s.lLJB �g4 El) 9.'!Wd2 E2) 9.�e2

C2) after 1 2.lt:lf3

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . lt:lb6!N

E l ) after 1 8Jid l

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . \Wg4!N

E2) after 1 3.\Wb3

a b c d e f g h

13 ... lt:ld7!?N

27 29 30 31 32 32 33 35 35 36 36 37 37 38

Chapter 3 - 5 . .id2 27

l.d4 c!L!f6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!Llxd5 5 . .id2

White's last move sets up a clear idea: he would like to play e4 next, and in the event of a knight capture on c3, to recapture with bishop. For some reason this rather fashionable line . has rarely occurred in my own games. Of course I was always aware of it, and for many years my intended response was the system starting with the retreat 5 ... tt:lb6. However, I have more recently been inspired by the ease with which Emil Sutovsky, one of the world's leading Griinfeld theoreticians - not to mention my team-mate from both the ''Ashdod" Club and the Israeli national team - has solved his problems in this line.

s ... .ig7 6.e4 6.tt:lf3 reaches line B of Chapter I.

6 ... c!Llxc3 In terms of both popularity and statistical

success, this move ranks as a clear second choice behind the main line of 6 . . . tt:lb6. However, as long as it is followed up correctly, I believe it is the preferable solution for Black.

7.hc3

a b c d e f g h

7 .•• 0-0 Another interesting idea which has recently

become popular is 7 . . . c5 8.d5 .ixc3t 9.bxc3 0-0. Black has achieved decent results from this position, nevertheless castling immediately is my preferred choice.

We have reached the main tabiya for this variation. At this point White has a wide choice, the main options being A) S • .ie2, B) SJ�kl , C) 8.�d2, D) S . .ic4 and E) s.ttlf3.

A) S • .ie2

a b c d e f g h

At first glance this move looks strange, but it is actually quite logical as White wants to play tt:lf3 without running into the pinning ... i.g4. The drawback is that this move does not exert


any direct influence on the centre and Black easily carries out his planned counterplay.

8 ... c5 9.d5 e6 This undermining move is typical for the

present variation, and for the Griinfeld in general.

10.�f3 exd5 l l .exd5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

l l ... �d7 1 l ...'.Mfd6!? This natural blockading move

is a good alternative. 12 . .ixg7 This seems slightly inaccurate. (Preferable was 1 2.0-0, although after 12 . . . lt:\d7 13.'Wb3 tt:lb6 14J!fd1 .ig4oo Black has a decent position.) 12 ... �xg7 13.'Wd2

a b c d e f g h

This position occurred in Fedorowicz -Kadhi, Novi Sad (ol) 1990, and now after the

natural 13 . . . lt:\d7N 14.0-0 tt:lf6 1 5J!fd1 E!:e8+ Black's position is more comfortable.

12.0-0 In the event of 12.'Wd2?! as played in B.

Schmidt - Schlick, Germany 2009, Black can reply with the extremely strong 12 . . . lt:\f6!N with the point that 1 3.E!:d1 lt:\e4! 14.'Wc2 lt:\xc3 15.bxc3 'Wa5+ is highly unpleasant for White.

12 •.. tt:lb6 13.i.xg7 c;.t>xg7 14.'Wc2 White must work for equality, and this move

looks like the right way to do it.

14.d6 is riskier as the d-pawn lacks support: 14 ... 'Wf6 1 5 .'Wd2 E!:d8 16.E!:fd1 This was Teodorescu - Ocnarescu, Buzias 2002, and now after the strong 16 . . . .ie6!+N (intending . . . .id5) it will be hard for White to hold onto the d6-pawn.

14 ... 'i'xd5 15JUdl 'i'f5 16.'Wc3t 'i'f6 16 . . . 'kt>g8 is not an improvement, as after

1 7 . .id3 the c-pawn will soon fall.

17.'i'xc5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 • . • J.e6! Black wisely avoids 1 7 . . . 'Wxb2, after which

1 8.lt:\d4!� gives White a nice initiative for the pawn, while Black's pieces remain very passive.

Chapter 3 - 5 .id2 29

18.%Yd4 l:Ud8 19.%Yxf6t �xf6 The position was equal in Zueger - Schlick,

Germany 2006.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B) SJ�cl

a b c d e f g h

This can be considered a thematic move for the present line, as White once again wants to recapture on c3 with a piece rather than a pawn.

8 •.• c5!? Amazingly this natural move has only been

seen in two games, but a more telling fact is that both of them were high-level grandmaster affairs.

9.d5 This was White's choice in both games.

Presumably the reason why Black's previous move has been so rare is that players have been worried about: 9.dxc5N

This is playable enough, but Black's resources are quite sufficient.

9 . . . Wfxdl t lO.'i!?xdl The exposed position ofWhite's king clearly gives Black some compensation, although it is not completely clear how he should proceed on the next move.

a b c d e f g h

1 0 . . . ih6!? This is my first choice, although Black is probably also fine after 1 o .. J'!:d8t or 10 . . . ie6.

l l .id2!? This looks like White's best move. Instead after l l .:B:c2 ie6 1 2.b3 :B:c8 13.id2 ixd2 14.<;t>xd2 ttlc6 Black has powerful compensation and it seems to me that it is White who will be fighting for equality.

l l . . .:B:d8 12.ttlf3 ig4 Black can also consider 1 2 ... ie6!?.

1 3.<;t>el ixf3 14.ixh6 ixe4 1 5 .f3 id5 The position is roughly equal, as White's

bishop pair is balanced by Black's healthy development and coordination.

9 •.• i.xc3t IO.:B:xc3 Of course White recaptures this way in order

to make sense of his previous rook move.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


IO ••• e6 Black follows his usual plan. I would also like

to point out an interesting alternative, which is in the spirit of line D below: 1 0 . . . Wfd6!?N The following line looks logical: l l .lt:lf3 ig4 12 .ie2 ixf3 It is important to play this before White can retreat his knight to d2. 13.ixf3 lt:ld7 14.0-0 bS Black has reasonable chances in this complex position.

After the text move Black has a positional threat of ... exdS, leading to a pawn structure which is almost always pleasant for him in the present variation, as the previous exchange of two sets of minor pieces reduces the dynamic potential of White's position with the passed d-pawn.

With this in mind, it is logical for White to try and prevent this structure from occurring, and so far he has tried both Bl) I I ..ic4 and B2) l l.d6.

It is hardly worth mentioning that l l .E:xc5?! is too greedy, and after l l . . .lt:ld7 or simply l l ... exd5 Black will obtain more than enough activity for the pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Bl) l l . .ic4

a b c d e f g h

l l ... exd5 12.obd5 �d7 13.�e2 13.lt:lf3 can be met by: 13 . . . lt:lf6 14.E:xc5

( 14.0-0 lt:lxd5 1 5 .exd5 Wfd6 gives Black a

comfortable position.) 14 ... Wfe7! Black easily solves his problems.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... lt:\xd5 Perhaps an even simpler route to equality

would have been 14 . . . E:e8N 1 5 .E:xc5 Wfe7 16.Wfc2 lt:lxdS 17.E:xd5 Wfxe4 18.Wfxe4 E:xe4 19 .E:d8t �g7 when White is unable to exploit the pin along the back rank.

15.exd5 b6 This move not only defends the c5-pawn,

but also prepares to activate the bishop via b7 or a6.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 3 - 5.�d2 31

17 ... J.xe2! This secures an equal major piece

middlegame.

18.g lxe2 '%Yd6 19.h4 gadS 20J�d2 gres Black has no problems and the players soon

agreed a draw in Shirov - Sutovsky, Kallithea 2008.

B2) l l .d6

a b c d e f g h

This is a more challenging move, although the resulting positions are just as dangerous for White as for Black.

l l . .. e5! With this strong reaction Black not only

isolates the d6-pawn, but also creates a nice outpost for his knight in the future.

12.tLlf3 If White takes the pawn immediately with

12.E:xc5 then 12 . . . tLld7 13.E:d5 Wi'b6 gives Black enough counterplay, for instance: 14.tLlf3 Wfb4t 1 5.Wi'd2 Wfxe4t 16.�e2 Wi'bl t 17.�dl Wfe4t The game ends in perpetual check.

12 ... .ig4 13.gxc5 hf3 14.gxf3 c!Llc6 Black's strategy is clear: he will strive to

maintain control over the dark squares and install his knight on the ideal outpost d4 (and perhaps later f4).

15 . .ih3 I also examined 15 .d7 Wi'e7 16.E:d5

tLld4 17.�h3 f5 ! when Black has great compensation.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... '%Yf6 This is not a bad move, but the following

alternative may be even stronger: 1 5 . . . tLld4! ?N

This energetic move is very much in the spirit of Black's previous play.

16.E:d5 16.E:xe5?! Wfxd6 17.E:d5 Wfb4t is unpleasant for White.

1 6 . . . Wfh4 17.�g2 17.E:xe5? tLlc6!-+

17 . . . E:fd8 Black is doing well, for instance:

18.0-0 E:ac8 19.Wfa4

a b c d e f g h

1 9 .. .'1Wf4! Not only attacking the f3-pawn, but also

threatening an invasion on c l . White's position already looks precarious.

16.0-0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 .• .ll:�d4 17.d7 E!:ad8 18.El:d5 We have been following the game Moiseenko

- Rodshtein, Rijeka 20 1 0. At this point the most consistent continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 •.• tlhf3tN 19.g2 �g5 This irregular position seems to be balanced.

I analysed the following continuation:

20.f3 V!fe7 2I .V!fa4 f5 22.exf5 �xh3 23.xh3

E!:xf5 24. g2 g7 To me the position seems dynamically equal,

as White's strong passed pawn is balanced by the exposed position of his king.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

8 ••• c5!

C) s.V!fd2

a b c d e f g h

This temporary pawn sacrifice is more challenging than the more frequently played 8 . . . tt::ld7. White can choose between Cl) 9.dxc5 and C2) 9.d5.

Cl) 9.dxc5 V!fxd2t IO.xd2 E!:dSt

The misplaced position ofWhite's king should offer Black full compensation.

l l .c2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 3 - 5 . .id2 33

l l .•• .id7!?N I decided to analyse this interesting new idea,

although it is certainly not the only playable continuation.

The following is perhaps the simplest route to equality: l l . . . .ixc3 1 2.';!{xc3 .ie6 White can hardly hope to retain his extra pawn with his king in such an exposed position. 13 .lLlf3 lLld7 ( 13 ... !!c8N 14.b4 aS was also good enough.) 14.b4 aS 1 5 .ib5 lLlf6 16.!!hel axb4t 17.<;!{xb4 ixa2 Black had no trouble holding the draw in Dreev - Roiz, Russia 2009.

12.:Bcl This seems like the only serious attempt for

White to hang onto his extra pawn.

12 ... .ic6 13.f3 �d7 14 . .ixg7 �xg7 15.�bl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... :Bac8 Black calmly activates his last piece.

16 . .ie2 White's biggest problem is that the natural

16.lLlh3 allows 16 . . . lLlxc5! with the following justification: 17.!!xc5 ixe4t 1 8.fxe4 !!xeS 19 .ie2 !!d2+

Another idea is 16.b4, but after 16 . . . lLleS�

vulnerable in the near future, and his kingside pieces still need to be developed.

16 ... lt:lf6 In this position 16 . . . lLlxc5?! does not work:

17.!!xcS ixe4t 1 8.fxe4 :Bxc5 1 9.lLlf3;!; The resulting position may still be tenable, but it is only White who can play for a win.

After the text move Black has rich compensation for the pawn, especially taking into account the fact that White is still unable to complete his development in the natural way, as shown by the following line.

17.ltlh3? This careless move can be refuted tactically:

17 ... �xe4! 18.fxe4 he4t 19.�al .ixg2 20 . .ig4 bhl 21.bc8 .ic6 22 • .ig4 :Bd2

After a forced sequence of moves, the arising endgame is clearly in Black's favour.

C2) 9.d5

a b c d e f g h

9 ... e6 I like this more than 9 . . . ixc3 1 0.bxc3, even

though Black has achieved good results with the latter.

White's queenside pawns could easily become IO . .ixg7 �xg7 l l . .ic4


Another idea is 1 1 .0-0-0 exd5 12.exd5 as played in Lampen - Holmsten, Tampere 1994. The position is complicated, but I find it hard to believe in the concept of long castling for White. After spending some time on this position I finally found a strong idea for Black:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 .. .'1Ml'f6!N This move is directed against the development of the white knight to e2, which would now drop the f2-pawn. 13.f3 seems like a logical reply, but after 1 3 ... E:d8 14.lt:le2 lt:lc6! Black has an excellent game.

a b c d e f g h

ll. .. �d7! 12.�f3 The justification for Black's last move is

revealed after 1 2.dxe6? lt:le5 13.'1Mfc3 'IM!d4! when Black is already better.

12.lt:le2 lt:lf6 ( 12 . . . lt:lb6N 13.b3 'IM!h4!? also comes into consideration.) 13.lt:lc3 exd5

14.J.xd5 So far we have followed Mamedyarov - Sutovsky, Baku 20 10. At this point Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . J.e6N 15.J.xe6 ( 1 5.0-0? lt:lxe4!) 1 5 ... '1Mfxd2t 16.'it>xd2 fxe6 17.f3 E:ad8t 1 8.'it>e2 lt:ld7 1he endgame is roughly balanced.

"'

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 ... �b6!N Even better than 12 . . . exd5 13.J.xd5 lt:lf6

14.'1Mlc3 'it>g8 which was also decent for Black in D. Rombaldoni - Cmilyte, Novi Sad 2009.

13.0-0 �xc4 I4.'1Wc3t '%Yf6 15.'%Yxc4 exd5 16.'%Yxd5

After 1 6.exd5 b6+ the d-pawn is more of a weakness than a strength.

16 ... .ig4! Black has the more pleasant position.

Chapter 3 - 5 .�d2 35

a b c d e f g h

This time White arranges his bishops into an attractive formation.

8 •.. c5 9.d5 Harmless is:

9.lLle2 cxd4 10.lLlxd4 1 0.�xd4 #Jc6 1 l .�xg7 <;!;>xg7 1 2.0-0 occurred in Roussel Roozmon - Prahov, Montreal 2000. At this point Black should have played 1 2 . . . �g4N 13.�d5 '?Nb6+ when he is slightly better.

1 O ... '?Nb6! l l .lLle2 White felt compelled to play this in view of the impending . . . gds.

l l . . .�xc3t 1 2.bxc3 lLlc6 Black was already better due to White's

damaged queens ide structure, Fries - Mendege, Budapest 2006.

9 •.. hc3t IO.bxc3 'Wfd6! This is a thematic idea in positions with this

central structure. Black takes control over the important e5- and f4-squares before deciding how to deploy his pieces. White has tried three moves: Dl) l l ."?Ne2, D2) II.tl:lf3 and D3) II.c!i)e2.

Dl) l l ."?Ne2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

This logical move has so far only been tried once. White threatens to push his e-pawn, but the plan can be thwarted by the following remarkable idea:

l l . .. "?Ne5! The natural 1 1 ... lD d 7 is met by 12 .lLl f3 when

Black's position does not look very promising.

12."?Ne3 f5! The following continuation looks sensible

enough.

13.c!i)f3 'Wfxe4 14.'Wfxe4 fxe4 15.c!i)g5 .if5 16.0-0-0

16.gbl can be met by 1 6 . . . <;!;>g?! 17.gxb7 lLld7 intending ... gfbg when Black is by no means worse.

a b c d e f g h


16 ... �d7 17.d6t �g7 18.c!l:!xe4 �e5 19.dxe7 �Ue8 20.�d6 �xc4 21.�xc4 gxe7=

The complications have subsided and the position remains balanced, Zhou Weiqi -Sutovsky, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

D2) 1 1 .c!l:!a

a b c d e f g h

l l ... i.g4 Obviously Black should take the opportunity

to pin the knight.

12.e5 This must be the critical continuation.

Instead after 12 .h3 ixf3 1 3.'1Mfxf3 f5!? ( 13 ... lt:ld7N is also fine.) 14.0-0 lt:\d7 15.exf5 �xf5 Black had a healthy and active position in Gazarek - Bastijanic, Pula 1993.

12 ... Yic7 13.0-0 i.xf3 14.VIxf3 Ylxe5 15.gab1

White seems to have promising compensation, but with a few accurate moves Black can easily return his extra pawn and neutralize his opponent's initiative.

15 ... c!i:ld7 16,gfel Yld6 17.gxb7 gfbg 18,gb3 �e5 19.VIe4 c!l:!xc4 20.Yixc4 gxb3 21.axb3 gds

In this equal position the players agreed a draw in Grachev - Vachier Lagrave, Moscow 20 10.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

03) l l .c!i:le2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 ... £5! Thanks to Black's control over the e5-square,

this move is possible.

12.exf5 A recent game saw 12.id3, Vidit -Vakhidov,

Burdur 20 1 0, and now instead of rushing with 1 2 . . . fxe4, Black should have preferred 1 2 . . . lt:\d7N 13.0-0 lt:\e5 with a great position.

12 .. . i.xf5 13.0-0 c!i:ld7 14.c!l:!g3 �b6 15.Yib3 Ylf4 16.i.e2 c4 17.Yib5

This position was reached in Dreev -Kozakov, France 2009, and one subsequent game. At this point I found a clear-cut path to equality:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 3 - 5 . .id2 37

17 ••. .id3!N 18.L.d3 cxd3 19.:aadl 19 . W xd3 is met by 1 9 ... E:ad8 regaining the

d5-pawn.

19 ... d2 20.'We2 ttlxd5= Both sides have a weak pawn, and overall the

position is balanced.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

E) s.tt! a

a b c d e f g h ..

This has been White's most popular choice in the position.

8 • . . .ig4 From here White has occasionally tried El)

9.'%Yd2, but the main line is E2) 9..ie2.

El) 9.'%Yd2

a b c d e f g h

This rare move has so far scored three wins and two draws without a defeat for White, so it should not be underestimated. I like the following idea of Sutovsky:

9 •.• c5! IO.d5 .ixf3 l l.gxf3 .ixc3 12.bxc3 e6 The position is rather irregular and double

edged, but it seems to me that Black has adequate play.

13.d6 This must be critical. I also examined 13 .j.c4,

which can be met convincingly by means of: 13 . . . Wf6! 1 4.f4 ltJd7 White's centre is starting to look vulnerable, for instance: 1 5 .e5 'Wh4 16.j.e2 (or 16.dxe6 ltJxe5!) 16 . . . ttJb6 17.d6 ltJd5+

13 .•• '%Yf6 14.£4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 • . . e5! Black must of course prevent his opponent

from setting up a pawn chain from f4 to d6.

15.fxe5 White should probably have preferred

1 5 .f5N ltJd7 although Black is not worse here either.

15 . • . '%Yf3! White must have underestimated this move.


16.E:gl tl:lc6 17 . .ig2 �xe5! This simple tactic justifies Black's previous

play.

lS.E:dl We have been following the game I. Sokolov

- Sutovsky, Kragujevac 2009. At this point Black could have obtained better chances by means of:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 .. . �g4!N 19.�e2 �h4 1 9 . . . 'Wf4 is also good.

20.�e3 E:ad8! Bringing another piece into play. Black

has the initiative in a position with equal material.

E2) 9 . .ie2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This natural move is the clear main line.

9 ... c5 Black responds in the usual way.

10.d5 e6 Black has an interesting alternative:

1 o . . . .ixc3t l l .bxc3 e6 This undermining move almost always figures in Black's plans at some point.

a b c d e f g h

12.dxe6 I checked two alternatives as well: 1 2.c4 is risky due to 12 . . . exd5 13 .cxd5 E:e8, for instance 14.tLld2 .ixe2 1 5 .'Wxe2 lLla6 and White still cannot castle as his d5-pawn would hang. 1 2.0-0 is safer, but after 1 2 . . . exd5 13.exd5 'Wd6 14.'Wb3 b6 Black has a pleasant position.

12 . . . 'Wxd 1 t 13.'it>xdl 13.E:xd1 .ixe6 does not change much.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 3 - 5.i.d2 39

13 . . . i.xe6 14.�c2 lt:lc6 15 .:1!hd1 In this balanced position the players agreed a

draw in Dreev - Smirin, Plovdiv 20 1 0.

1 1 .0-0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

ll ••• exd5 12.exd5 W!'d6!

13 .•• lt:ld7!?N This is my improvement over the following

game: 13 . . . i.xc3 14.bxc3 b6 1 5.l'!fe1 ixf3 16.i.xf3 lt:ld7 17.a4 lt:le5 18.i.e2 Black's position was solid but slightly passive in Nikolov - Sutovsky, Rijeka 20 10.

14.Wfxb7 This is the most principled reply. Instead

after 1 4.h3 .ixf3 1 5 .i.xf3 b6 16.l'!fel l'!fe8 Black is fine.

14 ... .L:c3 15.bxc3 t£Je5! Perhaps unexpectedly, it turns out that Black

has full compensation for the pawn.

16.W!'b3 I also analysed 16.'1Wa6 lt:lxf3t 17.gxf3

'1Wxa6 1 8.ixa6 ixf3 19.c4 l'!fb8 20.l'!fb 1 l'!b6! 21 .l'!xb6 axb6 22.i.b5 l'!a3 when White may

Before developing the knight on d7, the even end up worse.

queen occupies her best possible square.

l3.Wfb3 In the event of 13.1MI'd2 Black soon gets

a comfortable position by playing natural moves: 13 . . . lt:\d7 1 4.h3 ixf3 1 5 .i.xf3 This was Mambrini - Beggi, Monrecatini Terme 1994, and now after 1 5 ... l'!fe8N 16.l'!fe 1 i.xc3 17.bxc3 b5 it is White who should be thinking about equalizing.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... L£3 l? . .L:£3 c4 18.W!'dl gadS= Black easily regains his pawn and the

resulting position will be equal.


Conclusion

The 5.id2 system has become quite fashionable in recent years, and its popularity shows no sign of abating. Many players have favoured a knight retreat to b6, either immediately or on the following move, but I believe that my recommendation of5 . . . ig7 6.e4 lt:lxc3 7.ixc3 0-0 is a preferable solution. White has tried a number of different set-ups, but in virtually all cases Black will respond in the same way, by playing the thematic counterattacking move . . . c5 at the earliest convenience. Normally White responds with d5, after which the further undermining . . . e6 will form the basis of Black's counterplay. Throughout the chapter we have seen plenty of evidence for Black's dynamic potential and tactical resources, and overall I believe that the second player has a full share of the chances.

Various 5th Moves

5.g3

Variation Index l.d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 lL!xd5 5.g3

A) 8.e3 V;V a5 A1) 9.lLle2 A2) 9 . .td2

B) 8.lL!f3 lL!c6! B1) 9.d5!? B2) 9.0-0

5 ... .tg7 6.e4 lLlxc3 7.bxc3 c5

B3) 9.e3 0-0 10.0-0 .te6 B31 ) 1 l .V;Va4 B32) 1 1 .lLld2 B33) l l . .ta3

B4) 9 . .te3 0-0 10.0-0 cxd4 B41 ) 1 l .cxd4 B42) 1 1 .lLlxd4 lL!a5!

B421 ) 12.V;Vc1 B422) 12.lLlb5 B423) 12.V;Va4 B424) 12.V;Vd3 B425) 12J�b1

a b c d e f g h

42 42 43 44

44 45 48 48 49 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 55


. l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 l£lxd5 5.g3

a b c d e f g h

This is a different version of the Fianchetto System, which was analysed in Chapters 3-7 of the first volume. This way White bypasses the ... c6 and . . . dS system which I recommended, but allows Black the option of creating a traditional Griinfeld structure by exchanging on c3.

5 ... J.g7 6.J.g2 �xc3! As I explained in the aforementioned

chapter, I have no intention of entering the 6 . . . l£lb6 7.tLlf3 line, unless I am sitting on the opposite side of the board.

7.bxc3 c5 From this position White can choose between

A) 8.e3 and B) 8.�£3. When I checked the database I was surprised to learn that the former has been played more frequently, as I believe the latter to be clearly the more challenging option.

A) 8.e3

This move ensures White of a solid foothold in the centre, but it is too slow to offer realistic prospects of an advantage.

8 ... '1'a5

In the end I decided to recommend this slightly unusual move, although the more orthodox alternatives of 8 . . . 0-0 and 8 . . . tLlc6 also promise Black a good game.

From here we will analyse A1) 9.�e2 and A2) 9.J.d2.

A1) 9.�e2

a b c d e f g h

This is not a bad move, but it allows Black to force a desirable pawn structure.

9 ... cxd4 10.exd4 This structure is virtually always harmless for

Black, as demonstrated in several lines in the first volume.

10 ... 0-0 1 1 .0-0 l£lc6 12.'1'b3 This has been the usual choice, although two

other moves have been tried.

1 2.a4 .ifS 1 3 . .ia3 1'!fd8!? (Black opts for an interesting pawn sacrifice, although there was nothing wrong with 13 . . . 1'!fe8.) 14 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 5 . .ixe7 1'!e8 16 . .ib4 WfdS 17.tLlf4 Wfc4� Black's bishop pair and light-squared control gave him sufficient compensation for the missing pawn in Korchnoi - Huzman, Beersheba 2004.

Chapter 4 - 5 .g3 43

1 2.:B:e I :B:d8 With this useful move Black prepares . . . e5. Here is a nice illustrative game, which once again involved a sacrifice of the e7-pawn: 13 . .id2 .ig4 14.h3 .ie6 1 5.lt:lf4 .ic4 16 . .ixc6 bxc6 17.:B:xe7

a b c d e f g h

17 ... c5! 1 8.d5 .if8 19.:B:e l 'Wa6 20.'Wf3 :B:d7 2 I .'Wg4 :B:ad8 Black regained his pawn with a comfortable game in Louro - Krueger, e-mail 2006.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 ... l::!.d8 13.d5 �e5 14 . .ig5 14.lt:ld4 .id7 1 5 . .ig5 occurred in

Mamedyarov - Grischuk, Almaty 2008, and now 1 5 . . . :B:e8N would have transposed to the main line below.

14 ... ge8 15.�d4 .td7 16.l::!.abl b6 17 . .tf4 l::!.ac8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black has absolutely no problems and positionally he stands better, so in the following game White took the opportunity to simplifY.

18 . .ixe5 After other moves White would simply be

worse.

18 ... .ixe5 19.�c6 �xc3 20.�xc3 .ixc3 2l.�xa7 !:!.aS 22.�c6 l::!.xa2 23.gxb6 gb2

At this point a draw was agreed in Ki.

Georgiev - Kramnik, Belgrade 1997.

A2) 9 . .td2

a b c e g

With this move White prevents an unfavourable change in the pawn structure.


9 ... 0-0 10.ttle2 t£lc6 11 .0-0 Black has tried several moves here, but my

favourite is:

l l ... YMa6!? 1 1 .. .:B:d8 has been the most popular choice,

while 1 1 . . .id7 looks like another reasonable option.

12.t£lf4 White tries to improve his passive knight.

He attempted a similar idea with 1 2.ttlcl in Avontuur - Schenning, Veldhoven 1992, and here I would suggest: 1 2 . . . id7N 13.ltlb3 b6 14.a4 (Black should almost never be afraid of 14.dxc5?!, and indeed after 14 ... :B:ac8 he has wonderful compensation for the pawn, thanks to White's dreadful queenside structure.) 14 . . . :B:ab8 The position is unclear and approximately equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... .id7 1 2 ... :B:d8 looks like a good alternative.

13.�e1 �ac8 14.-ifl White tries to harass his opponent's queen,

but the idea does not lead to any special benefit for him.

I4 ... YMa3 15.�b1 b6 Black has a comfortable position, and in the

fo llowing game White now went astray:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16.'iMb3?! YMxb3 17.axb3 e5 18.dxe5 ttlxe5i This queenless position is more pleasant for

Black thanks to his superior piece coordination, Annakov - Svidler, Internet (rapid) 1999.

B) s.ttlf3

a b c d e f g h

8 ... ttlc6! Black must be precise with the move order.

Instead after 8 ... 0-0 9.0-0 ltlc6 White has the promising option of 10.d5! which has recently yielded good results for him.

After the text move it is worth considering B1) 9.d5!?, B2) 9.0-0, B3) 9.e3 and B4) 9.ie3.

B1) 9.d5!?

Chapter 4 - 5.g3 45

a b c d e f g h

This surprising new move was played for the first time in 20 1 1 .

9 ••• tL!b4!?N This seems like a promising reply. White

obtained interesting compensation after 9 . . . .ixc3 t 1 0 . .id2 .ixa 1 1 l .'Mf xa 1 ttl d4 12.tt:lxd4 cxd4 13.'Mfxd4 f6 14.0-0 0-0 1 5 . .ib4� in Khismatullin - Kozul, Aix-lesBains 20 1 1 .

IO.cxb4 Otherwise White just loses material without

getting much in return.

IO . . • hal l l .bxc5 I find it hard to believe that 1 1 .0-0 cxb4

1 2 . .ih6 ic3 can be a serious option for White.

a b c d e f g h

l l ..• 'Mfa5t! Black should take the opportunity to pick

up a pawn, while also activating his queen.

12.J.d2 In the event of 1 2.ttld2 'Mfxc5 1 3.0-0 (or

13.tt:le4 'Mfd4+) 13 . . . .ig7 14.tt:le4 'Mfd4 Black is doing great.

12 ... 'Mfxa2 13.0-0 J.g7 Since move 9 both sides have played logically,

and the present position seems critical for the assessment of the whole line. I was unable to find any truly dangerous ideas for White, for instance:

14.J.f4 Or 14.e4 a5! 1 5 . .ie3 a4 16.e5 0-0 and Black

is better.

14 . . • 0-0 15.d6 Another line is 1 5 . .ie5 .ixe5 16.tt:lxe5 'Mfb2

17.tt:ld3 'Mfd4 when Black seems to be safe enough .

15 ... exd6 16.hd6 .ie6 Black is certainly not worse.

B2) 9.0-0

a b c d e f g h

9 ... cxd4!


·Black should accept the pawn sacrifice. Besides, 9 . . . 0-0 would transpose to the undesirable line mentioned in the note to Black's eighth move after 1 0.d5!.

10.cxd4 tllxd4 ll .tllxd4 �xd4 12J:i:bl White clearly has compensation for the

pawn, thanks to his superior development and powerful light-squared bishop. Nevertheless it is doubtful that he can aspire to anything more than equality.

1 2.Wxd4?! Black should be happy to see this inaccurate move.

12 . . . .ixd4 13 .E:b 1 Now Black has a strong defensive idea.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

13 . . . .ib6!

a b c d e f g h

Blocking the b-file makes Black's life a lot easier.

14.a4 Black should not be concerned by 14 . .ih6 preventing castling, as he can solve his problems easily by means of 14 . . . f6 intending . . . �f7.

14 . . . 0-0 1 5 . .ia3 E:e8 Black has managed to protect all his pawns and will soon be ready to develop his queen's bishop.

16.a5 .ixa5 17 . .ixb7 .ixb7 18 .E:xb7 e6+ It was clearly White who was fighting for the

draw in Schroeder - Hebels, corr. 1 990.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... 0-0 13.i.e3 �c4 This is the move I like best. 13 ... Wxd1

14.E:fxd1 a5 gave Black a tenable, though somewhat passive position in Gritsak -Schmidt, Warsaw 2009. Please note that 14 ... E:b8?! would not be an improvement, as after 15 . .ixa7 E:a8 16 . .ic5 E:xa2 17 . .ixe7 E:e8 1 8 . .if3!t White retains unpleasant pressure.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14.i.d5 I consider this the most important move,

not least as it was the choice of Aronian. Nevertheless White has a few playable alternatives.

According to theory, 14.Wd2 leads to a drawish position after the following sequence: 14 ... .ie6 1 5.E:xb7 E:ad8 16.Wa5 Wxe2

Chapter 4 - 5 .g3 47

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17.:1ha7 ( 17."/J.xe7 �xa2 leads to dry equality.) 17 . . . "/J.d1 1 8.h3 "'J.xfl t 1 9 . .ixfl �d 1 20.�d2 �xd2 2 l ..ixd2 .id4 22."/J.xe7 .ixa2= Krivonosovs - Sykora, Spain 2004.

16."/J.fe1 �h5 1 7."/J.bcl occurred in Vidarte Morales - Cuadras Avellana, Spain 2003, and here Black should have played: 17 ... e6!N (The game continued 17 . . . .ig4 18."/J.c5 e5?! 19."/J.c?t when Black had some problems.) 18 . .ig2 a5+

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14.a4 �a6 1 5 . .ie4?! Being a pawn down, 1 White should play more incisively. ( 1 5 ."/J.b5N looks better, after which 1 5 ... "/J.bS 16 . .if4 e5 a b C d e f g h

17 . .ixe5 .ixe5 18 ."/J.xe5 .ie6 reaches a balanced 16 ..• .if5!N position.)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . "/J.bS! White's compensation is in question and after the further mistake 16."/J.b4? .ih3 Black was clearly better in Grynszpan - S. Alonso, Argentina 2000.

14 •.. �a6 15.'!�Yb3 Wfxe2 Black should take the opportunity to bag

another pawn. Instead after 1 5 . . . "'J.b8 16 . .if4! e5 17 . .ie3 White retains some pressure.

16 . .ic5

This is a necessary improvement over 16 . . . .ie6 17.ixe6 �xe6 18.�xe6 fxe6 19 ."/J.xb7 "'J.f5 20."/J.c?;l; when, despite his extra pawn, Black was doomed to a passive defence in Aronian -Radjabov, Nice (blindfold) 2009.

17J�bel I also analysed:

17."/J.fe1 �d2 1 8."/J.bd 1 Another interesting line is 18 .ib4 �d4 ( 18 . . . �d3!? is not bad either.) 19 ."/J.bd1 .ic2! 20.�xc2 �xb4 21 ."/J.e4 �a3 22."/J.d3 "'J.ac8 23.ixf7t 'it>h8 with equality.

1 8 . . . �c2 1 9.�xc2 .ixc2 20."/J.cl if5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


2 1 ..ixb7 After 2 Uhe7 Elad8 22.ixb7 Elfe8 the evaluation is the same.

2 1 . ..Eiab8 22.Eixe7 Elfe8 The position is equal.

17 .•• %Yd3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18.�xe7 In the event of 1 8.'1Wxb7 Black can simply

play 1 8 . . . if6.

18 ... %Yxb3 19.axb3 19 .ixb3 b6 20.ia3 ie6! is also equal.

19 ... �ad8 20 . .ixb7 .if6 White has nothing here, for instance:

21.�c7 .ie5=

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B3) 9.e3

a b . c d e f g h

This time White plays more patiently and secures his centre before castling.

9 ... 0-0 10.0-0 J.e6 This is my preferred choice although there

are numerous alternatives. Now it is White who must make a choice, the main options being B31) I I .%Ya4, B32) l l .�d2 and B33) Il.J.a3.

l l .�e2 This has been played in a few games, but it should be harmless.

l l . . .Eic8 1 2.�dl Jedlicka - Akesson, Pardubice 2008. Now I developed the following idea:

12 . . . cxd4N 13.cxd4 Alternatively after 13.tt:lxd4 tt:lxd4 1 4.cxd4 ic4 15 .�d2 �d7= Black has a good game.

13 . . . tt:la5 14.tt:le5 b6 1 5.ia3 tt:lc4 16.tt:lxc4 ixc4 17.�d2 �d7=

The position is balanced.

B31) 1 1 .%Ya4

a b c d e f g h

l l ... cxd4 The untested l l .. .!k8!?N also looks

interesting.

12.cxd4 1 2.tt:lxd4 was played in Ngo - Vu Dinh

Hung, Kuala Lumpur 200 1 . Here I would

Chapter 4 - 5.g3 49

suggest 12 ... .id7N when 13.lt:Jxc6 .ixc6 14 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 5 .ia3 Vf!c7= is just equal.

12 ... '1Wd7! Setting up an important tactical moti£

13J:�dl Defending, at least for the moment.

In the following game both players were oblivious to the opportunity: 13 . .ia3? This was Stajcic - Szekely, Kecskemet 1 990, and here Black missed: 13 . . . lt:Jxd4!N 14.Vfixd7 lt:Je2t 1 5.i>h1 .ixd7 16.E!.ab 1 b6 17 . .ixe7 El.fe8 18.ib4 :i:'!ac8 Material is equal, but Black's superior pieces give him the advantage.

13 .. JUd8 I4 . .ib2? White should have guarded against the

following tactical strike, although Black has clearly solved his opening problems in any case. At this point, in the game Aaron - Geller, Stockholm 1962, Black should have played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... �xd4! Once again the complications work out well

for him:

15.\Wxd7lDxf3t 16.Lf3 �hd7 17J�xd7 hd7 18.hg7 i>xg7 19.hb7 El.bS 20.id5 El.b2i

White will have to fight for a draw.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B32) l l .�d2

a b c d e f g h

l l .. J:'ic8 12 . .ia3 12.Vfia4 was played in Rodjko - Shadrin,

Novosibirsk 1 998, and one subsequent game.

a b c d e f g h

discovered an interesting response in 12 . . . Vfia5!N when 13.ixc6 leads to the following forced line: 13 . . . Vf!xc3 14.ixb7 Vf!xa1 1 5 .ixc8 El.xc8 16.lt:Jb3 Vfib 1 17.lt:Jxc5 Vf!xa2 1 8.Vf!xa2 ixa2 Black is at least equal, and can try to make something of his two bishops and passed a-pawn in the endgame.

12 ... cxd4 13.cxd4 \WaS Immediately exploiting the vulnerable

position ofWhite's dark-squared bishop.

14 . .ib2 lDb4 15.a4


We have been following the game Barlov - Akesson, Valjevo 1984. At this point Black should have continued:

a b c d e f g h

15 ... b6N I6.�b3 YNa6i The position remains complex, but Black's

active pieces give him the better chances.

B33) II..ia3

a b c d e f g h

Forcing Black to release the tension.

l l ... cxd4 12.�xd4

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . b6N It is useful to safeguard this pawn from a future attack along the b-file, not to mention the X-ray vision of the bishop on g2. 1 5.tt:ld2 tt:lb4 ( I S . . . tt:le5!? 16.dxe5 :B:cd8 is also worth considering.) 16 . .ixb4 Wfxb4+ Black's bishop pair gives him the better chances.

12 ... .id5 This move equalizes easily, as shown by the

following illustrative example.

13 . .ixd5 YNxd5 14.'iNb3 YNxb3 15.axb3 i:Ue8 1 5 .. . :B:fc8 1 6.:B:fd 1 .if6= is fine for Black.

I6J:Ucl Akopian - Kuzmin, Dubai 2000.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Recapturing with the knight is quite thematic

for this variation. The alternative is 1 2.cxd4 a b c d e f g h

Wfa5 13.Wfd3 :B:ac8 14.:B:fcl Edouard - Vachier 16 ... :B:ac8N Lagrave, Chalons 2008, and here Black should have played:

This natural move would have maintained easy equality.

Chapter 4 - 5 .g3 5 1

B4) 9 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

White supports his centre while developing a piece. In my view this is the most challenging continuation at his disposal.

9 ... 0-0 10.0-0 cxd4 From this position White can play both

B41) l l.cxd4 and B42) l l .ttlxd4.

B41) ll .cxd4

By recapturing with the pawn White keeps his structure intact, but in doing so he restricts his dark-squared bishop.

l l ... .ie6 12.'ilYd2 White has also tried a different queen move:

12 .Wfa4 Here I recommend:

12 . . . Wfd7!? 13-l:l:fdl E!:fd8 14.Wfa3 I also examined: 14.E!:ac1N E!:ac8 1 5.lt:lg5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . b5! 16.Wfxb5 lt:lxd4 17.Wfxd7 .ixd7 1 8.E!:xc8 .ixc8 1 9.'it>fl With equality.

14 . . . .id5 1 5 .E!:ab l This position was reached in A. Rodriguez - Valverde Lopez, Peru 2000. Here Black could have safely played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 5 . . . b6N

a b c d e f g h

In the game he was most probably worried about:

1 6.lt:le5 But there is a clever retort available.

16 . . . .ixe5 17.dxe5 Wff5! Black takes over the initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

12 ... .id5 13.:Sabl Another game continued 1 3.E!:fdl E!:c8

14 . .ih6 Wfd6 1 5 . .ixg7 'it>xg7 16.E!:ab l b6 when Black had no problems in Faraci - Torrarolo, Imperia 1996.


13 .. J�c8 I4JUdl This position was reached in Beliavsky -

Balogh, Austria 2005, and here Black should have played actively by means of:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 .. .lt�a5N The following continuation looks normal:

15.i.h6 �c4 16.�£4 �d6 17.\Wh4 !xh6 }8.�xh6 f6CD

Black is by no means worse in this complicated position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B42) II.tllxd4

a b c d e f g h

This is considered to be the main direction. White 'sacrifices' his pawn structure in order to maximize the activity of his pieces.

II. .. ttl aS! With this multi-purpose move Black

safeguards his knight, defends the b7-pawn and eyes the c4-square, which could become a juicy outpost for his knight later in the game.

In this complex position White has a wide choice between B421) 12.�cl, B422) 12.ttlb5, B423) 12.�a4, B424) 12.�d3 and B425) 12J�bl .

B421) 12.�cl

The plan of trading the dark-squared bishops is slow and absolutely harmless for Black.

12 ... �c4 13J�dl The consistent 13.i.h6 actually leads to

trouble for White: 13 . . . e5! 14.i.xg7 'tt>xg7 1 5.lLlc2 Wlc7 16.lLlb4 i.e6+ Black is in control.

13 ... tllxe3 14.�xe3 �c7

a b c d e f g h

15.h3?! Too slow. Instead the energetic 15 .lLlbS!?N

WleS 16.Wlxe5 Axe5 17.f4 would have given White just enough activity to maintain the balance.

15 ... a6 I6J�acl gbs 17.c4 gdsi White does not have enough activity to

compensate for his opponent's bishop pair and

Chapter 4 - 5.g3 53

better pawn structure, Lew - Rawlings, e-mail 2008.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B422) 12.c�b5

a b c d e f g h

This move is a bit premature and not dangerous for Black.

12 • . . .id7! l3J;bl The main point behind Black's last move

is that 13.lDxa7?? is refuted by 1 3 . . . lDc4 14 . .id4 e5 1 5 . .ic5 '1Mfc7! 16 . .ixf8 .ixf8 when Black picks up the stranded knight to reach a winning position.

The text move was played in Rustemov -Yuferov, Minsk 1 994. Here Black could have solved all his problems by means of:

13 ... a6N 14.tLlc7 Senseless is 14.ltJd4?! '1Mfc7 when Black is just

better.

14 ... '1Wxc7 15 . .ib6 '!WcS 16 • .ixa5 .ic6= Black is doing fine.

B423) 12.'1Wa4

This is playable but slightly risky for White, as his queen can become a target for Black's pieces, starting from the very next move.

a b c d e f g h

12 ••. .id7 l3.'1Wb4 E:cS White must react precisely in order to avoid

falling into an inferior position.

14.E:fdl In a few games White has chosen the other

rook: 14J!ad1 E:c4 1 5.'1Mfb 1

1 5.'1Mfa3?! allows Black to consolidate his position: 1 5 . . . E:a4 16.'1Mfb2 '1Mfc8 17 . .ig5 e6+ White has no compensation for his positional defects, Kampenuss - Suetin, Riga 1962.

1 5 ... '\MfeS 16 . .ixb7 e5 17.lDf3 .if5 18.'1Mfb2 lDxb7 1 9.'1Mfxb7

Ftacnik - Bacrot, Hamburg 20 1 0. It is clear that Black has good compensation for the pawn and he is not worse at all. Still, from this position his most precise continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


1 9 . . . Wfa4N 20.\Wxa7 \Wxa7 2l .i.xa7 E!:a8 22.i.e3 E!:xc3 23.E!:d2 E!:ca3

With a level endgame.

14 .. J�c4 15.Wfb2 In another game White tried a different

queen move: 1 5.\Wa3 b6 16 .i.g5?!

Every move has a high price for White, and with this inaccuracy he slips into a worse position. Instead 16.ltJb3N would have maintained the balance.

16 . . . E!:c5! 17.h4 h6 1 8.lLlb3? A blunder in a bad position.

1 8 . . . lLlxb3 19.axb3 hxg5 20.\Wxa7 E!:c7-+ Gibbons - Akhayan, Kallithea 2008.

15 ... Wfc8 It is useful for Black to remove the queen

from d-file in anticipation of lLlb5.

16.Wfa3 16.ltJb5N \We8!? (Alternatively 16 . . . i.xb5

17.\Wxb5 b6 looks extremely solid.) 17.E!:ab l a6 1 8.ltJa3 E!:a4oo In this complex position Black's chances are by no means worse.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... b6N This is my improvement over 1 6 . . . E!:a4 as

at which point White should have played 17.Wfxe7N E!:e8 18 .\Wh4 I!Nxc3 19.E!:acl I!Nb2 20.i.d5 when Black is under some pressure.

17.Wfxe7 ges 18.Wfh4 gxc3 Black has nothing to worry about.

B424) 12.Wfd3

a b c d e f g h

12 ... a6 The need for this prophylactic move is

demonstrated by the line 1 2 ... i.d7?! 13 .lLlb3! lLlxb3 14.axb3t when White obtained some pressure in Benko - Chandler, Lone Pine 1979.

13.gacl 13.c4 \Wc7 14.E!:acl is an equally valid move

order.

13 ... Wfc7 14.c4 gdsN I found a convincing route to equality,

beginning with this move.

14 . . . i.d7 was Black's choice in Bolbochan - Najdorf, Buenos Aires 1 949, but after the natural 1 5 .E!:fdlN White has promising play. (The game continued with the inferior 1 5 .ltJb3?! i.f5! when Black was already better.)

played in Banus'Z - Wittmann, Budapest 2005, 15,gfdl

Chapter 4 - 5.g3 55

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... .L:d4! This exchanging operation solves all Black's

problems.

16 . .ixd4 c!Llc6 17.�e3 1 7.Wic3 can be met in exactly the same way.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B425) 12.gbl

a b c d e f g h

12 ... a6 It is essential to take control over the b5-

square. By doing so Black not only stops a knight invasion, but also secures a comfortable square for his queen on c7.

Black has comfortable equality, as 13.ltlb3 demonstrated by the following lines: 13 .'W'cl ?! Wic7 I4J:'!:dl E:b8 1 5 .lt:lb3 �f5+

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20.�b2 20.c5 E:d8 2 I .Wib4 �d5 is also equal.

20 .. Jk8 2l.c5 �a5! 22 . .ixb7 E:xc5 23J:!xc5 �xc5 24 . .L:a6 �a5

Black regains his pawn to reach a dead equal endgame.

White's play over the last few moves lacked vitality and he quickly found himself in an unpleasant situation, Bewersdorff - Gutman, Hessen 1990.

I also analysed a natural alternative: 13.Wia4N Wic7 I4.�g5 e5 1 5 .lt:lb3 lt:lc4 16.lt:ld2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

I6 . . . b5! This temporary sacrifice solves all Black's problems. 1 7.E:xb5 axb5 1 8.Wixa8


ke6 19 .'Wc6 'Wxc6 20.kxc6 f6 2 1 .ltJxc4 kxc4 22.ke3 Ei:c8 Black regains the pawn to reach an equal position.

13 ... �c4 14 . .id4 This position occurred in Banusz -

Wittmann, Balatonlelle 2005, and here I suggest the natural improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 . • . 'Wc7N In the game Black opted for the passive

14 . . . ltJd6?! and soon found himself in a difficult position.

15.�d2 White needs to exchange the strong knight at

some point. My analysis continues as follows:

15 .. J:id8 16.�xc4 'Wxc4 17.'Wb3 'Wxb3 18J��xb3 Ld4 19.cxd4 :!3xd4 20.Lb7 gbs 21.Lc8 gxc8=

With full equality.

Conclusion

The idea of fighting against the Griinfeld bishop by employing a symmetrical set-up with a bishop on g2 is not without logic. Nevertheless we have seen that this does not stop Black from obtaining his typical pressure against the enemy pawn centre.

In variation A with 8.e3, White supports his centre solidly but is slow in developing his pieces, which enables Black to develop smoothly and actively, and so B) 8.tt::lf3 is rightly considered more challenging. Then after the correct 8 . . . tt::lc6! White has a surprisingly wide choice. The aggressive B l ) 9.d5!? is a nice idea, but I believe I have shown a good way to defuse it. The pawn sacrifice B2) 9.0-0 leads to a simplified position in which White has full compensation, but no advantage. B3) 9.e3 can be compared with 8.e3 on the previous move; again, Black obtains easy development with good chances in the middlegame. Finally, the more active B4) 9 . .ie3 aims for more fluid development, but we have seen that Black can claim a full share of the chances here too.

Various 7th Moves 7.ig5

Variation Index l .d4 tl::J£6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 tl::lxd5 5.e4 tl::lxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ig5

7 ... c5 8J:!:cl 0-0 A) 9.d5 B) 9.tl::lf3 .ig4 10.d5 �d6 l l • .ie2 tl::ld7

81) 12.0-0 82) 12.h3

A) after 9 .d5 B) note to l i . . .ti::ld7

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

9 .. .f5! - the spirit of the Griinfeld 1 3 . . . e6N

82) after 14 .c4

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . bxc4!N

58 59 59 61


l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3Jl:k3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ig5

White's main idea in this line is to provoke the move . . . h6, and then to continue with .ie3 and Wfd2; compared with Chapter 1 1 , White would gain a tempo by attacking the black h-pawn. However Black can easily manage without moving his h-pawn.

7 ... c5 8.�cl 0-0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Here play may take two directions: A) 9.d5 or B) 9.�f3.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A) 9.d5 f5!

a b c d e f g h

This is very much in the spirit of the

Griinfeld; Black attacks the white centre, aiming to use his lead in development.

10 . .ic4 �h8 l l.�e2 Probably the most challenging move. The

alternatives are:

1 1 .exf5 E!:xf5 1 2.ltlf3 tt:ld7 13.Wfe2 tt:le5 14.tt:lxe5 :!'!xeS 15 . .ie3 e6 Black has comfortably equalized.

In Troff- Haessel, Las Vegas 20 1 0, White tried to hold the centre with 1 1 .f3. It is now very tempting to play: 1 l . . .Wfd6N 1 2 . .id3 tt:ld7 13.ltle2 c4 14 . .ib 1 fxe4 1 5 . .ixe4 tt'lc5 16.0-0 .if5 Black has the better chances.

l l ...fxe4 12.�g3 if5 If Black would prefer to avoid the repetition

in the main line, I can offer a reasonable alternative in 1 2 . . . tt:ld7N 13.tt:lxe4 tt:lb6 14.Wfe2 h6 15 . .ie3 tt:lxc4 16.Wfxc4 b6 with double-edged play.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13.0-0 Inferior for White is 13.Wfe2 ltld7 14.tt:lxe4

h6 1 5 . .ih4 g5 16 . .ig3 tt:lb6 17.:!'!d1 Lysyj -Sutovsky, Dagomys 2008. Now I recommend the straightforward: 17 . . . tt:lxc4N 1 8.Wfxc4 b5 19.'11Me2 .ixe4 20.Wfxe4 .ixc3t 21 .\t>fl Wfd7 Black is clearly better.

Chapter 5 - 7.i.g5 59

13 ... �d7 14.d6 White cannot afford to play slowly, for

example: 14.'We2 tt:le5 1 5 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxc4 1 6.'Wxc4 b5 16.Wfd3 c4 White is losing his d-pawn.

14 ... J.f6 15.i.h6 i.g7 16.i.g5 J.f6 17.i.h6 It seems that neither side can avoid the

repetition, Polak - Ftacnik, Czech Republic 2009.

B) 9.tLlf3 i.g4 10.d5 vtfd6

much prefer this positional concept to the sharp 1 O . . . f5 which leads to crazy complications: 1 l .'Wb3 �h8 12.tt:ld2 fxe4 13.'Wxb7 tt:ld? 14.h3 I don't have much faith in Black's position here.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .J.e2 It is quite risky for White to play: 1 l .'Wd2

tt:ld7 (I would prefer to limit White's options with the move order 1 1 . . .i.xf3 1 2.gxf3 tt:ld7) 12.i.e2 i.xf3 13.gxf3? (This is a serious strategical mistake; it was necessary to recapture with 13 .i.xf3, when a logical continuation is 13 .. .f5 14.exf5 E!:xf5 1 5.0-0 i.e5! 16.h3 E!:xg5 17.'Wxg5 i.h2t 1 8.�h1 i.f4 19.Wfh4 g5! 20.Wfg4 tt:le5 21 .'Wh5 tt:lxf3 22.Wfxf3 i.xcl 23.Ei:xcl E!:f8 24.Wfe3 Wfxd5 25 .c4 Wff5 26.Wfxe7 E!:£7 with an equal position.) 13 .. .f5! 14.i.f4 tt:le5 Black was clearly better in Eperjesi - Farkas, Hungary 2007.

l l • • . �d7 White's main options are B1) 12.0-0 and

B2) 12.h3, although he has also tried:

1 2.tt:ld2 It looks quite natural for the knight to head for the c4-square, but Black's counterplay arrives just in time. 1 2 . . . .ixe2 13 .Wfxe2

a b c d e f g h

This was Jenkinson - Fenwick, e-mail 2008. Black should now play: 13 ... e6N 14.tt:lc4 (no good is 14.c4 E!:ae8! and White cannot hold the centre) 14 . . . Wfa6 1 5 .tt:le3 Wfxe2t 16.•;he2 exd5 17 .exd5 (after 17 .tt:lxd5 f6! Black shouldn't experience any problems) 17 . . . E!:fe8 The position is pretty much balanced.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B1) 12.0-0 h£3 13.hf3 b5

a b c d e f g h

A very interesting concept. Black has given up his light-squared bishop, but in return


has made various gains: he has completed his development and connected his rooks, his queen is well-placed on d6, and he has started to advance his queenside pawns.

14 . .ie2 c4! Black now has the c5-square at his disposal.

15.f4 White has also tried:

1 5.Wc2 ttlc5 1 5 . . . f5 deserves serious attention.

16.l3fdl Mter 16.f4 Black has the strong idea 16 .. .f6 17 . .ih4 .ih6 and White has problems defending the f4-pawn. White's best option is 16 . .ie3, although 16 . . . a6 17 .!!fd I tLla4 secures Black good counterplay.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . f5! 17 .exf5 !!xf5 1 8 . .ie3 !!af8 Black had taken over the initiative in

Karavade - Gupta, Reykjavik 20 10 .

15 ... £6 There is an interesting alternative: 1 5 . . . ltJ b6N

16.W/c2 !!adS Black is intending to continue with . . . f5 .

16.J.h4 �c5 17.'1Wd4 e5! The key move, otherwise Black would be in

trouble.

18.dxe6 'IW.xd4t 19.cxd4 �xe6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20J�xc4!? The best try. Black is out of danger after

20.d5 tLlxf4! 2 l .!!xf4 g5.

20 ... £5! A very strong response. After 20 . . . bxc4

21 . .ixc4 followed by 22.f5 White has good chances of obtaining an advantage.

2l.e5? This is going too far. White could maintain

equality with 21 .!!b4 tLlxd4 22 . .ixb5 .

2I. .. bxc4 Now taking the rook is a different story.

22 . .L.:c4 l:Ue8 23.d5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 5 - 7 .�g5 61

23 ... g5! This is simply a refutation ofWhite's idea.

24.fxg5 �c5 25.d6t �h8 26.e6 �adS 27.�dl �xe6!

Black had a winning position in Nyback -Kovchan, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 .

B2) 12.h3 La 13.Lf3 b5 14.c4

White decides to prevent Black playing . . . c4.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... bxc4!N This is a natural improvement over 14 . . . b4

1 5 .0-0 a5, which led to complex strategical play in Nyback - Svidler, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.

15J�xc4 .id4! 16.0-0 �e5 17J�a4 f5 Black has an excellent game.

Conclusion

Developing the bishop to g5 leaves the d4-square poorly defended and means that the white d-pawn will soon have to advance. After A) 9.d5 Black can immediately attack the centre with 9 . . .f5, easily obtaining equal chances. When White opts for B) 9.ltlf3 �g4 1 0.d5, then 1 0 . . . f5 is not so clear; however 1 0 .. ."\Wd6 and l l . . .ltld7 offers Black fine play.

Various 7th Moves

7.ia3

Variation Index

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ia3

7 ... �d7! A) 8.�b3 B) 8.�f3 c5

Bl) 9 . .ic4 B2) 9.�b3 0-0

B21) 10 . .id3 B22) 10 . .ie2

A) after 13.�b4

a b c d e f g h

13...�b6!N

Bl) after 17.�b4

a b c d e f g h

17 ... :1'k7N

8

B22) after 13.ti'ld2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... b5!N

63 64 64 66 66 67

Chapter 6 - 7 .�a3 63

I.d4 tllf6 2.c4 g6 3.tllc3 d5 4.cx:d5 tllxd5 5.e4 tllxc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7 . .ia3

Quite a popular sideline, directed against ... c5.

7 ... �d7!

a b c d e f g h

A very concrete approach, preparing to carry out ... c5 anyway. An important point is that White will then be forced to waste time defending against the threat of ... cxd4 followed by .. .'Wa5t.

We have arrived at the first crossroads in this variation, with the main options being A) 8.'!Wb3 and B) 8.l£lf3.

Other possibilities to take into account are:

8.ic4 c5 9.'1Wb3 0-0 10.lLlf3 cxd4 leads into line B 1.

8.:!'k1 c5 9.d5 An interesting idea, but the white bishop on a3 is clearly misplaced. 9 ... \Wa5 10.'1Wb3 0-0 11.tLlf3 Garcia Gonzales - Lechtynsky, Cienfuegos 1985. Black should now play 11...tLlf6 12.id3 e6 and White is in trouble.

A) 8.'!Wb3 c5 9J�dl

9.ic4 0-0 10.tLlf3 transposes to B1, while 9.lLlf3 is B2.

9 •.. 0-0 IO . .ie2

1 o.lLlf3 is another transposition, this time to the note on 10Jl:d1 in line B2 .

10 •.• '1Wa5 II.l£lf3 l£1£6! A very strong idea; before White manages to

escape with his king, Black starts to attack his central pawns. The main idea of White's setup can be seen in the following continuation: 1l...cxd4 12.ib4 '1Wc7 13.cxd4 lLlf6 14.\We3 White had the better chances in V. Milov -V. Mikhalevski, Biel 2002.

a b c d e f g h

12 • .ixc5 Black's 11th move was a novelty I found

several years ago, although it has since been played. I would like to share some of the variations I examined:

12.tLld2 cxd4 13.ib4 (13.cxd4? tLlxe4 14.ib4 lLlxd2+) 13 ... \We5 14.cxd4 '1Wxd4 15.ixe7 lLlxe4! 16.lLlxe4 '1Wxe4 17 . .ixf8 .ixf8 Black has a strong initiative for the exchange.

12.id3 ie6! 13.'1Wb2 (After 13.d5 id7 14.!'k1 !'1ac8 Black threatens ... c4 and holds the initiative. For example 15.\Wb2 e6 16.d6 ic6 17.tLld2 '1Wd8 18.ixc5 ixe4 and Black is doing well.) 13 ... b6 14.0-0 ig4! Black has the better chances.


It is dangerous for White to capture the e-pawn: 13 .ixe7 :B:e8 14.ib4 Wffc7 1 5 .c4 (after 1 5 .0-0 a5 White loses his c-pawn) 1 5 . . . a5 16.ia3 a4 17.Wib2 ig4 1 8.0-0 tt::lg5 Black has the initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This occurred in De Virgilio - Molo, e-mail 2008. I believe that here Black should play:

l3 • . • Y!ll'b6!N 14.c!tld2 After 14.c4 a5 1 5 .ia3 '!Wxb3 16.axb3 tt::lc3

17.:B:d3 tt::lxe2 1 8.'ihe2 a4! only Black can be better.

14 • • • .ie6 15.Y!ll'a3 Of course not 1 5 .d5 '!Wxf2#.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ••• c!tld6 16.0-0 Y!ll'c7 Black is planning 17 . . . a5 next, and he is

absolutely fine.

B) 8.c!tlf3 c5

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses between Bl) 9.Ac4 and B2) 9.Y!ll'b3, although the two moves quite often transpose.

Bl) 9.Ac4 cxd4

a b c d e f g h

IO.Y!ll'b3 The idea 1 0.0-0? as played in Hvenekilde

- Fries Nielsen, Aalborg 1 979, is not correct. Black should accept the challenge: 1 0 . . . dxc3! 1 I .ixf7t �x£7 12.tt::lg5t liie8 13.tt::le6 (13 .'1Wb3 tt::le5+) 13 ... '1Wa5

Chapter 6 - 7 .ia3 65

14.lt:lxg7t c.t>f7 1 5 .'1Mfb3t c.t>xg7 16 . .ixe7 lt:lf6 17 . .ib4 Wfb6 1 8.Wfxc3 1:!e8 Black is clearly better.

10 ... 0-0 l l .cxd4 ltlb6 12.0-0 White can try to retain his light-squared

bishop: 1 2 . .ie2 .ie6 13.Wfb4 1:!c8

The thematic idea 1 3 . . . f5!? is worth considering, aiming to secure the d5-square for the knight. After 14.e5 lt:ld5 1 5 .Wfd2 1:!c8 16.0-0 lt:lc3 Black was doing very well in Dinerchtein - Wister, e-mail 2009.

a b c d e f g h

14.0-0 After 14.Wfxe7 Svidler, in his comments in Chess Informant 83, provides the following line: 14 . . . Wfxe7 ( 14 . . . lt:lc4 looks tempting as well) 1 5.ixe7 1:!fe8 16 . .id6 (or 1 6 . .ig5 .ic4 1 7.e5 f6!) 16 ... .ic4 1 7.e5 .ixe2 ( 17 .. .f6 may be even stronger) 1 8.c.t>xe2 lt:lc4 Black is fine.

14 . . . .ic4 Svidler pointed out that 14 . . . lt:lc4!? is a worthy alternative.

1 5.1:!fe1 .ixe2 16.1:!xe2 lt:lc4 Black had no problems in V. Milov - Svidler,

Moscow (3.2) 200 1 .

12 ... ltlxc4 13.�xc4 In my opinion, the power of the bishop pair

ensures that Black will not face any problems.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... .ig4 14J�ad1 I also checked: 14.lt:le5 .ie6 1 5.Wfb4 Wfb6!

16.Wfxb6 axb6 17 . .ixe7 1:!fe8 18 . .ib4 .ixa2=

14 ... i.xf3 1 4 . . . 1:!c8 is also promising.

15.gxf3 �d7 Black already has the better chances.

16J3d3 �:Uc8 17.�b4

a b c d e f g h

We have been following I. Ivanov - Lonoff, Chicago 1 990. Here I recommend the natural:

17 ... 1:!c7N 18J3cl a:xci t 19.bcl a5 20.�b3 b5i


Black's chances are better thanks to the plan of advancing his queenside pawns.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B2) 9.�b3 0-0

a b c d e f g h

Another crossroads, the main choices being B21) 10.i.d3 and B22) 10.i.e2. Other possibilities are:

1 0.i.c4 :!:l:b8?! I played this idea in Golod - Avrukh, Gibraltar 2009, but here it's quite dangerous in view of White's concrete threats. The simplest option for Black is to play IO . . . cxd4 1 1 .cxd4 lLlb6 transposing to B 1 above.

1 1 .lLlg5!N My opponent missed this brilliant idea.

1 1 . . .e6 1 2.ltJ xf7! :!:l:xf7 13 .i.xe6 Wf e8 14.0-0 I don't like Black's position.

10.:!:l:dl Wfc7! Black shouldn't rush with 1 O . . . cxd4 1 1 .cxd4 lLlf6 1 2.i.d3 i.g4, as White can play the natural 13 .0-0N with chances for an advantage. (Instead, in every game that reached this position, White has continued with the risky 13.Wfxb7 against which Black has scored terrifically.)

1 1 .e5 Defending against the idea of . . . lLlf6. After 1 1 .i.d3 Black can strike with the unexpected

1 1 . . . b5! and the pawn seems to be taboo. For example: 12.i.xb5 :!:l:b8 13.Wfc4 Wfa5! 14.i.xd7 Wfxa3 1 5 .i.xc8 (or 1 5."1Mfxc5 Wfb2!) 1 5 . . . :!:l:fxc8 Black clearly has the better chances.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 l . . .cxd4N This is an obvious improvement over Katki - Koch, corr. 1 958, in which 1 l . . .b6 12.i.e2 i.b7 13.e6! gave White the initiative.

1 2.cxd4 lLl b6 Black has good play.

B21) 10.i.d3 gb8!

This strong idea introduces the correct plan. Black is going to play . . . b5, which will make the white pieces feel uncomfortable on the queenside.

1 1.0-0 b5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 6 - 7 .ia3 67

12.'1'c2 Another line is: 1 2 . .ie2 .ib7 13.'<Mfc2 ( 1 3.d5

is strongly met by 13 ... b4!) 13 ... b4 ( 13 ... '<Mfa5 is also very promising) 14.cxb4 cxd4 1 5.E:adl B:c8 Black was better in Gomez Fontal -Herrera, Santa Clara 200 1 .

13 ... b5!N An interesting improvement over the quiet

13 ... b6. Evidently Black was concerned about the c5-pawn, but I don't believe it is such a big deal.

14.c!tle4 i.b7! 12 ... '1'a5 13.i.b2 i.a6 14.'1'e2 �b6! I consider this to be stronger than 14 ... b4

The black knight is heading for the a4- 1 5 .cxb4 cxd4 16.f4! when White is doing well. square. (Instead 16.b5 'Wxe5 17 . .id3 .ib7 is far from

clear.) 15.dxc5 ltla4 16.c!tld4 c!tlxb2 17.'1'xb2 b4!t

Black had a clear advantage in Goldenberg Roos, Courchevel l979.

B22) IO . .ie2 'i'c7 1 1.0-0 Eib8

The reader should always remember this thematic idea when the white queen is placed on b3.

12.e5 e6 Stopping e5-e6. Not so good is: 12 . . . b5

13.e6 c4 14.'Wb4! White benefits from his bishop being on e2, rather than hanging on d3! 14 . . . fxe6 1 5.'Wxe7 White is better.

13.�d2 With his last move Black weakened the d6-

square, so the white knight immediately heads there.

a b c d e f g h

15.ltlxc5 Black is ready to meet 1 5.ltld6 with: 1 5 . . . .id5

16.ltlxb5 (or 16.'Wc2 a6 17.B:acl 'Wc6 1 8.g3 f6 and only Black can be better) 16 . . . 'Wc6 17.c4 ixg2 18.E:fdl a6 19.d5 exd5 20.cxd5 '<Mfb6 2 1 .\t>xg2 .ixe5 22.B:abl axb5 23 . .ixb5 'Wd6 White should be worried about his weakened king.

15 ... c!tlxc5 16 . .ixc5

a b c d e f g h

16 ... .ixe5! The point behind Black's play.

17.Lfs .ixh2t IS.i>hl i>x£8 There is no doubt that Black has excellent

compensation for the exchange.

19.i.f3


. Defending against Black's idea of . . . Wff4-h4(h6) .

19 ... .ixa Very entertaining play arises after 1 9 ... Wff4,

with the following line looking more or less forced: 20.i.xb7 Wfh4 2 l .g3 i.xg3t 22.�g2 i.d6 23J!hl Wfg4t 24.�fl l:!xb7 25 .l:!xh7 �g8 Black is not in any danger.

20.gxf.3 .i£4 Black has fine compensation, although

White probably has good chances to hold.

Conclusion

I recommend 7 . . . lt::ld7! followed by 8 ... c5 as an entirely adequate way to meet White's early bishop excursion to a3. White will usually continue with Wfb3 at some point, after which preparing . . . b5 with . . . l:!b8! is generally Black's correct reaction - although not in all cases, as my comments on Golod - Avrukh in B2 indicate. However, in line B22 for example, the improvement 13 ... b5!N provides a good illustration of Black's active possibilities in this variation.


7.1a4t

Variation Index

I.d4 t[)f6 2.c4 g6 3.t[)c3 d5 4.cxd5 t[)xd5 5.e4 t[)xc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7.�a4t

7 ... t[)d7 A) 8.�e3 B) 8.�g5 C) s.t[)f3 o-o

Cl) 9.�e2 C2) 9.�e3 C3) 9.�g5 c5

C31) IOJ!bl C32) IOJ�dl C33) IOJ!cl

Cl) after 14 . .1ll.xf3

a b c d e f g h

14 ... .1ll.xd4!N

C31) after 13.cxd4

a b c d e f g h

13...'Wd6!N

C33) after 17.�bl

a b c d e f g h

17 ... '1\VbS!N

70 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 75


l.d4 t£1£6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 tLlxd5 5.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7.YlYa4t

a b c d e f g h

7 ... �d7 Black's most popular option in practice, and

in my opinion justifiably so, although theory considers 7 . . . �d7 to be playable too.

White now chooses from A) 8 . .ie3, B) 8.J.g5 and C) s.t£lf3, though the first two moves frequently transpose into line C if White subsequently plays ltl f3.

A) 8 . .ie3 0-0 9J�dl

9.l::k1 c5 1 O.ltlf3 transposes to C2.

9 ... c5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

IO.t£1£3 Another possible set-up is:

10 . .id3 ltlb6 1 l .�a3 1 1 .�b3 places the queen on a none too safe square. For example 1 1 ... .id7!? threatens . . . .ia4, and the queen has to move again.

1 l . . .cxd4 1 2.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . �d6! This typical idea helps Black to easily solve his problems.

13.�xd6 exd6 14.ltle2 f5 1 5.0-0 Also after 1 5. f3 fxe4 16. fxe4 .ie6 White is hardly fighting for an advantage.

1 5 ... fxe4 16 . .ixe4 .ig4 17.f3 E:ae8 18.ltlc3 .if5

Black had slightly the better chances in V. Milov - Ivanchuk, Warsaw 2005.

lO ... YlYc7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 7 - 7.'\Wa4t 71

l l • .id3 b6 This is a thematic set-up in this variation,

and promises Black decent play.

Black can also consider the more active:

Black was doing fine in Schandorff -Khalifman, Fuegen 2006.

B) S.J.gS 0-0 9J�d1

l l . ..cxd4 1 2.cxd4 '1Wc3t 13 .c;t>e2 lt:lb6 14.'1Wb3 9.lt:lf3 would transpose to C3. '1Wxb3 1 5 .axb3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . f5 ( 1 5 . . . �g4 was played in Holm -Borge, Denmark 1998. Now White should play 16.h3N �xf3t 17.c;t>xf3 and retain some pressure.) 16.h4 This was Yurkov - Pospelov, Vitebsky 2006. Here l like 16 . . . �e6 fighting for the d5-square and at the same time attacking the b3-pawn. Mter 17.exf5 gxf5 1 8.:B:b l �d5 Black has a nice game.

12.0-0 i.b7 13.:B:fe1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ..• a6 14.Y;Ya3 e6 1S.Y;Yb2 bS

9 ... c5 10.Y;Ya3 Here too, 1 0 .lt:\ f3 transposes, this time to

C32.

10 • . . Y;Yc7 11 .�f3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

11 . •. b6 As in line A above, I consider this set-up to

be the most reliable.

Another good option is l l ...lt:lf6 12.�d3 �g4 13.�e3 Berczes - Sebestyen, Hungary 2009. It is now tempting to play the aggressive: 13 . . . c4N (the more restrained 13 .. . :B:fd8 14.0-0 :B:ac8 is also fine for Black) 14.�c2 lt:lh5 1 5 .0-0 lt:lf4 Black has a promising game.

12 . .id3 i.b7 13.0-0 White should avoid 1 3.d5 lt:le5! when

continuing with 14 .lt:lxe5 '1Wxe5 1 5 .�d2 �xd5 would just lose him a pawn.

13 ..• e6 14.:B:fel a6 Preparing . . . b5.


15.e5 Quite a thematic idea with this type of pawn

structure. White wants to transfer his knight to the d6-square, while i.e7-d6 might also be an option.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 •• J�Uc8! A very accurate move, which allows Black to

equalize comfortably.

16 . .ie4?! White should prefer 16.l2Jd2N after which

16 . . . cxd4 17.cxd4 i.f8 18.'1Mfb2 '1Mfc3 19.'1Mfxc3 �xc3 20.i.e4 i.xe4 2 1 .tt:lxe4 �c2 leads to an equal game.

16 •.. J.xe4 17 .gxe4 b5 Black easily develops good play on the

queenside.

18.h4 cxd4 19.cxd4 �b6 20.h5 Yfc3 Black was definitely better in Pliasunov -

Neverov, St Petersburg 2003.

White now has various ways of developing his bishops: C1) 9 • .ie2, C2) 9 • .ie3 or C3) 9 . .ig5.

C1) 9 . .ie2 c5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

10.0-0 1 0 .i.e3 tLl f6

Black starts to attack the white centre. 1 1 .tt:ld2

1 1 .i.d3 was Danner - Birnboim, Lugano 1 989. I do not see any reason for Black to avoid: 1 1 .. .tt:lg4N 1 2.i.f4 i.d7 13.'1Mfa3 cxd4 14.cxd4 i.c6 1 5.�d 1 i.xd4 Black seems to be able to get away with grabbing this pawn. 16.tt:lxd4 1Mixd4 17.0-0 �feB After this calm move Black has nothing to worry about.

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .. .tt:lg4 12.i.xg4 i.xg4 White cannot seriously hope for an advantage against the bishop pair.

13.f3 i.d7 14.1Mfb3 cxd4 1 5.cxd4 This was Korobov - Obodchuk, Moscow 2002, and now I recommend:

1 5 . . . i.e6N 1 6.1Mib2 1Mia5 17.0-0 �fc8 Black has the better chances.

Chapter 7 - 7.Wfa4t 73

IO ... cxd4 l l .cxd4 �c5! C2) 9.J.e3 c5 IO.l3c1 A key idea in this variation; this elegant

tactic allows Black to create pressure against the d4-pawn.

12.Wfc2 J.g4 12 . . . tt:le6 is also enough for equality: 13 . .ie3

tt:lxd4 14 .tt:lxd4 .ixd4 1 5 .:B:ad1 e5 16 . .ixd4 exd4 17.Wfb2 .ie6 18.Wfxb7?! ( 1 8.l3xd4 Wff6=) 18 . . . Wfb6 19.Wfxb6 axb6 20.:B:xd4 l3xa2 Black managed to convert his slight advantage into a full point in Miron - lvanchuk, Havana 2007.

13.J.b2?! This is a serious inaccuracy. White should

settle for an equal position after: 13.:B:b 1 .ixf3 14.dxc5 .ixe2 1 5 .Wfxe2 1'ffic7=

13 ... L£3 Also interesting is 13 . . . tt:le6!? 14.d5 :B:c8

1 5 .Wid2 .ixb2 16.Wfxb2 tt:lf4 when Black had an edge in Loeffler - Balleer, e-mail 2007.

14.L£3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... .ixd4!N In Thilaganathan - Knott, Hastings 2006/7,

Black opted for 14 . . . tt:le6, which was good enough for equality.

15.l3fdl �e6 White must fight to equalize.

1 O.:B:d 1 transposes to line A.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

IO . .. cxd4! Once again, Black starts playing against

the centre before White has completed his development.

l l .cxd4 �b6 12.Wfa5 Another game continued 12 .Wfb4 Wfd6.

Not the first time that we have seen this idea. 1 3.Wixd6 exd6 1 4 . .id3 f5! 1 5.0-0 fxe4 1 6 . .ixe4 d5 Black has no problems and very soon took over the initiative in Karner - Rytshagov, Tallinn 1 989: 17 . .ic2?! ( 17 . .id3 .if5 1 8 . .ie2 would maintain the balance) 17 . . . tt:lc4 18 . .ib3 b5 19.:B:fe1 .if5+

a b c d e f g h


12 ... .tg4N This natural move seems to me more

convmcmg than 1 2 . . . f5 Pisulinski Malisauskas, Warsaw 1 989, when 13 . .id3!?N is rather unclear.

13.�e5 .te6 14.J.e2 f5! Black advances his f-pawn in a better

version.

15.exf5 gxf5 16.0-0 c!Lld5 Black is at least equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

C3) 9.J.g5 c5

a b c d e f g h

We have reached the last big crossroads in this variation, as White decides where to place his rook: C31) lO.gbl , C32) lO.gdl or C33) lO.gcl.

White has also tried 1 0.Wfa3 h6 1 I ..ie3 b6 12 . .id3?! which runs into: 12 . . . cxd4 13.cxd4 l0c5! 14.0-0 l0xd3 1 5 .Wfxd3 .ib7 16.E:ad1 e6 17.l0d2 Wfd7 1 8.f3 E:ac8 Black enjoyed the better chances in Varga - Navara, Pula 2003.

C31) lO.gbl c!Llb6

The most aggressive approach, although there is nothing wrong with 10 . . . h6 1 I ..ie3 Wfc7.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

l l.Wfa3 Instead 1 I .Wfa5 would not be so good, in

view of 1 l . ..cxd4 12.cxd4 .ig4! targeting the d4-pawn.

l l ... h6 It is essential to relieve the pressure on the

e7-pawn.

12.J.e3 cxd4 13.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... Wfd6!N Yet again, this idea crops up. It is clearly

an improvement over: 13 . . . f5 14 . .id3 fxe4 1 5 . .ixe4 .if5 1 6 . .ixf5 E:xf5 17.0-0 White was better in Moiseenko - Ganguly, Edmonton 2008.

Chapter 7 - 7.Wfa4t 75

14.Wfxd6 exd6 15.i.d3 f5 16.0-0 fxe4 17 • .L.:e4 i.f5 18 . .L.:f5 g:xf5

Black should have no problems at all.

C32) 10.gd1 'i:Vc7 ll .i.e2

1 l .Wfa3 is a transposition to line B. White has also tried:

1 1 . .id3 cxd4 1 2.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This occurred in Szeberenyi - An. Horvath, Budapest 2006. A clear improvement of Black's play here is:

1 2 . . . Wfc3t!N 13.:gd2 Or 13.\tJfl lt'lb6 14.Wfb3 Wfc?!? and White's king cannot feel safe on fl in this middlegame.

13 . . . e5 14.d5 A nice variation is 1 4.dxe5 lt'lxe5 1 5 .lt'lxe5 Wfxe5 16 . .ie3 Wfa l t! 17.Wfd1 Wfxd1t 1 8.\tJxd1 .ie6 and Black is slightly better.

1 4 . . . lt'lc5 1 5 .Wfc2 lt'lxd3t 16.Wfxd3 Wfxd3 17.:gxd3 f6 1 8 . .ie3 b6

Black has a fine game.

1 1. •• tllf6 12.d5 If White could complete his development

safely then the pawn structure would be favourable for him; however Black is in time to create enough counter-chances.

12 ... .id7 13.'i:Vc2 V:Va5! Threatening . . . .ia4.

14.tlld2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

We have been following Schandorff -Jasnikowski, Copenhagen 1989. Black should now continue:

14 •.• .ia4 15.tllb3 'i:Vc7 16.c4 V:Ve5! 17 . .ixf6 'i:Vx£6 18.0-0 b6 19.£4 'i:Vc3 20.'i:Vxc3 .L.:c3

The chances are equal.

C33) 10.gcl 'i:Vc7

This is more flexible than: 1 0 . . . h6 1 l ..ie3 e6 12 . .ie2 b6 13.0-0 .ib? 14.lt'ld2 a6 1 5.Wfb3 Wlc7 1 6.f3 White was slightly better in Belichev - Avrukh, Cappelle Ia Grande 1999.

1 I ..id3 a6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


12.YlYa3 This is the right way to defend against the idea

of ... b5. After 1 2.0-0 b5 13.'Wd1 ( 13.i.xb5? loses to 13 ... ltJb6) 13 . . . e5 14.'Wd2 l:!e8 1 5 .i.b 1 Gavrilov - Yuferov, Moscow 1 990,

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

the simple 1 5 . . . ltJb6N 16.d5 ltJc4 leads to a good game for Black; if necessary he can later blockade the d-pawn by . . . ltJd6.

12 ... e5 13.0-0 ges

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 . .ic4 White has also tried:

14.ltJxe5 This looks very natural, but somehow it fails to impress.

14 .. . ltJxe5 1 5 .dxe5 c4! A key intermediate move.

16.i.b 1 .ixe5 17 .f4 It is more circumspect to play 17.h3, as in the variation with 14.dxe5 below, although Black still has a comfortable position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . . i.d6! 1 8.'Wb2 f6! 1 9.i.xf6 Practically forced, since 19 .i.h6? loses unexpectedly to 1 9 . . . 'Wc5t 20.'tfih1 'Wh5!.

19 . . . i.xf4 i.g4+ White is losing material, Shipov - Ma.

Tseidin, Groningen 1994.

1 4.dxe5 c4! 1 5.i.c2 ltJxe5 1 6.ltJxe5 i.xe5 We have almost the same position as above, but with the bishop on c2.

17.h3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was Nagel - Roeschlau, Kaufungen 2003. Now I like:

17 . . . i.d6N 1 8.'Wb2 .ic5 Winning the exchange with 18 . . . 'W a5 19 .i.f6 i.a3 may be objectively stronger, but after

Chapter 7 - 7.'\Wa4t 77

20.�b1 E!:e6 21 .id4 ixcl 22.�xcl White obtains reasonable compensation.

1 9.o;!;>h1 b5 Black has a pleasant game.

14.E!:fd1 if8!? With this unusual manoeuvre, Black forces through the . . . b5 advance.

1 5 .�b2 b5 1 6.�d2 ib7 17.d5 c4 1 8.ic2 f6 19.ih6 lt:\c5 20.ixf8 E:xf8 21 .�e3 �d6

Black was fine in Gavrilov - Smikovski, St Petersburg 2004.

14 ... �b6 15.�a5 The alternative is: 1 5 .ib3 c4 ( 1 5 . . . if8

16.�a5! is not good for Black) 16.ic2 exd4 (the immediate 1 6 . . . lt:ld7!? could also be considered) 17.cxd4 lt:ld7 Black will continue with . . . b5 and . . . ib7. The position is very complicated, with mutual chances.

15 ... �c6 16 . .id3 c4 17 . .ibl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

We have been following Lev - Ma. Tseitlin, Israel 1 990. Here a nice continuation for Black is:

17 ... �b5!N 18.�xb5 axb5 19.dxe5 .id7!? An interesting positional idea. A natural

alternative is to regain the pawn with 1 9 . . . lt:\d7 20.lt:ld4 ixe5. The position is roughly level,

since after 2 1 .lt:lxb5 E!:a5 White cannot keep his extra pawn.

20 . .ie3 �a4 21.h3 .ic6 Black is not interested in regaining the e5-

pawn at the cost of his dark-squared bishop. Instead he intends to start play on the queenside with . . . if8 followed by . . . b4. It looks very promising for Black.

Conclusion

After 7.�a4t lt:ld7 it seems to me Black is not seriously inconvenienced by having developed the knight to the slightly passive d7 -square. In some instances, for example line C 1 , Black can utilize the pin on the long diagonal to later activate the knight by . . . lt:\c5 with good play. More commonly the knight will hit the white queen from the b6-square. When the white queen retreats to a3, an important resource for Black, which features in several lines throughout the chapter, is to offer the exchange of queens with . . . �d6; this generally offers Black comfortable equality.


7.ih5t

Variation Index l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 d5 4.cxd5 ltlxd5 5.e4 ltlxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.b5t

7 ... c6 8.i.a4 0-0 9.ltle2 c5 A) lO.d5 B) 10.i.e3 C) 10.0-0 ltlc6 l l .i.e3 ltla5

Cl) 12.dxc5 C2) 12.i.b3 C3) 12.d5 C4) 12J�bl

A) after 17 .id2

a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . . 11Nc7N

C l ) after 17 .11Nc2

a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . . a6!N

C4) note to 14.ib3

80 82 83 84 85 85 86

Chapter 8 - 7.�b5t 79

l .d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 Other options include: 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 �g7 7 . .ib5t

a b c d e f g h

7 •.• c6 This natural response is considered most

reliable for Black, according to the latest theory.

8 . .ia4 Other retreats do not make much sense. I

would just mention that 8 . .ic4 c5 leads into Chapters 17-2 1 .

8 . .. 0-0

a b c d e f g h

9.ttle2 This flexible move is by far the most popular.

9 . .ie3 c5 1 0.t0e2 transposes to line B.

9.tiJf3 Wla5!? This is Black's most annoying approach, although he can also play 9 . . . c5 1 0.0-0 cxd4 1 1 .cxd4 t0c6 1 2 . .ie3 .ig4 1 3 . .ixc6 bxc6, leading to a position which is examined as line 0 of Chapter 12 .

a b c d e f g h

l O . .id2 After 1 0.0-0 Wlxc3 it is hard to believe that White has sufficient compensation. The only game from this position continued: 1 1 . .ig5?! .ig4! 12 . .ixe7 :B:e8 13 . .ic5 .ltJd7 14.:B:cl Wla5 1 5 . .ib3 Tsiganova - Richtrova, Germany 1 995. Now 1 5 . . . .ih6!N would take control of the g5-square, thereby defending against the threat of .ixf7t. Black is clearly better.

10 . . . Wla6! Temporarily keeping the white king in the centre.

1 1 . .ib3 c5 1 2.d5 e6! Logical and very strong.

13.Wfe2 Wfxe2t 14.�xe2 exd5 1 5 . .ixd5 .ltJd7 16.:B:ab1 t0b6

Black was already better in Drozdovskij -Sutovsky, Moscow 2007.

9 . .ia3 This has been played by a couple of strong players. Here I found a remarkable idea:


a b c d e f g h

9 . . . Wa5!?N Not only attacking the c3-pawn, but also threatening . . . b5. White's reply is practically forced.

lO.ib4 We? l l .lLle2 b6 The white bishop is misplaced on b4, allowing Black to create counterplay very quickly. l l . . . a5 12.ia3 b5 13.ib3 lt:\a6 1 4.0-0 c5!? also comes into consideration.

1 2.0-0 c5 13.ia3 ia6

A) 10.d5

Quite an interesting alternative. As White I have scored two nice wins using this continuation, bur objectively Black is doing fine.

10 ... e6 The key idea in this kind of Griinfeld

position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Black has an excellent position, especially taking into account that White cannot play: a b C d e f g h

14.d5? b5 1 5.ic2 b4 1 1 .0-0 Black wins material.

9 ... c5

a b c d e f g h

White now chooses from A) 10.d5, B) 10 . .ie3 and C) 10.0-0. Instead lO.Eibl lt:\c6 l l .ie3 lt:\a5 1 2.0....:.0 transposes to line C4.

When I played this variation, my idea was to play: l l .ie3

But Black has a strong response. l l . . .Wa5!

After the natural l l ... b6 1 2.ib3 Avrukh -Greenfeld, Haifa (rapid) 2000, Black can no longer exchange pawns on d5, and White has chances to fight for the advantage.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 8 - 7.�b5t 81

12.ib3 After 12 .!'k 1 exd5 13 .exd5 b5 14.ic2 :t:!d8 1 5.0-0 ib? Black has the better chances. However, White should prefer 1 2.0-0, after which 1 2 . . . exd5 13 .exd5 lt:ld? transposes to the main line.

1 2 . . . exd5 1 3.exd5 ixc3t 14.lt:lxc3 Wl'xc3t 1 5 .'j{fl

This happened in Tyomkin - Ma. Tseitlin, Givataim 2000. Here simplest for Black is:

1 5 ... b6 16.E:cl Wl'e5+ Black will continue with . . . lt:ld7-f6. I do not

see enough compensation for the pawn.

l l . .. exd5 12.exd5 �d7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

White will have to worry about the knight jumping to any of the squares b6, e5 or f6.

13.ie3 'l1lY aS 14.ib3 Another continuation is:

14.E:b1 lt:lb6 1 5.ib3N This is of course critical. The strange 1 5.ib5? was played in Ristic - Misailovic, Vrnjacka Banja 2006. Here I can find no decent answer to 1 5 ... a6!N when White loses material.

1 5 . . . E:e8 16.c4 id? It is too dangerous to win the exchange by 16 . . . if5 17.E:cl ib2. After 1 8.lt:lg3 ixcl 19.WI'xcl White has great compensation

because the black queen is too far from the kingside.

17.lt:lg3

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

17 . . . lt:lc8!

a b c d e f g h

A very thematic idea for this kind of structure; the knight is heading for the d6-square.

18.E:e1 If White tries to stop Black's idea with 1 8.if4, then Black can strike from other side with 18 . . . b5 followed by ... lt:lb6, with nice counterplay.

18 . . . lt:ld6 19 .if4 Wl'a6 The position is balanced.

14 ... �e5 15.c4 if5 16.�£4 In my game against the Topalov's manager,

I opted for: 16.E:cl lt:ld3 17.E:c2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The simplest way to solve all Black's problems is:


17 . . . lt:\e5N My opponent played 17 . . . lt:\b2 18.'1Mfd2 '1Mfxd2 1 9.!!xd2 b5?! and ran into trouble after 20.cxb5 c4 2 1 .lt:\d4± Avrukh - Danailov, Wijk aan Zee 2000.

18 .!!d2 No good for White is: 18 .'1Mfd2 '1Mfb4! 19.!!ccl a5! Accepting a repetition with 18 .!!cl may be White's best option.

1 8 . . . !!fe8 I do not believe that Black can be worse, since

the white bishop on b3 is so badly placed.

16 .•. lt:\g4! 17 . .id2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

We have been following Hellsten -T. Ernst,

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) lO . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

10 ... cxd4 The main point behind White's bishop

development is that 1 0 . . . lt:\c6? can be met by 1 l .d5 followed by 12.ixc5 .

l l .cxd4 YlYa5t! l2 . .id2 YlYa6 A very interesting idea. Somehow White's

pieces have lost some of their coordination, and moreover the black queen can be pretty annoying on a6.

13.gcl I also briefly checked a couple of other

moves:

Sweden 2000. Here Black should play: 1 3J!:b1 id7 14.ixd7 lt:\xd7 1 5 .0-0 !!ac8

17 ... YlYc7N lS.!!cl .ib2 Winning the exchange may look a bit risky;

however with such a passive light-squared bishop, White can hardly create anything dangerous. For example:

19.h3 �e5 20.J.c3 bel 2l.d6 YlYc6 22 . .ixe5

Or 22.\Mfxcl f6.

22 ... .ixf4 23 . .ixf4 :aad8 Black has the better chances.

offers no problems for Black.

13.0-0 id7 14.ixd7 lt:\xd7 1 5 .ib4 !!fe8 is similarly comfortable for Black.

l3 .. Jt:Jc6 14.J.c3 This was Schulze - Hage, e-mail 2000, and

now I recommend the natural:

14 .•• .id7N This turns out to be unexpectedly strong;

White cannot castle as he would be hit by 1 5 .. . lt:\xd4.

Chapter 8 - 7.�b5 t 83

15 . .ib3 Other moves are also unimpressive:

1 5 .d5 fails tactically to: 1 5 . . . tLle5 16.ixd7? tLld3t 17.fl tLlxcl 18.'11*'xcl �ac8!-+

1 5 .ixc6 ixc6 16.d5 ib5 is certainly fine for Black.

15 ... ltla5 16.d5 lLlxb3 17.axb3 hc3t 18J�xc3 gac8 19.0-0 .ib5:j:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

C) 10.0-0 ltlc6

a b c d e f g h

1 1 .Ae3 By far the most popular continuation. A

couple of rarer alternatives are:

l l .d5 tLla5 12.ig5 Here I propose the active: 1 2 . . . f5!?N (I do not find the usual 1 2 . . . b6 very convincing.)

a b c d e f g h

1 3.ic2 (I also examined 1 3.Wfd3 h6! 14.ie3 fxe4 1 5 . WI xe4 if5 and Black is better.) 13 .. . tLl c4 14.f3 b5oo The position is double-edged and very interesting.

l l .ixc6 bxc6 1 2 . .ia3 cxd4 1 3.cxd4 1 3.tLlxd4?! has been played several times by Bonin, but there is a clear refutation: 13 . . . c5! 14.ixc5 Wfc7 1 5 .tLlb3 ia6 16.�el ixc3 17.�c l Axe l 18.Wfxe l �fd8+ White did not have enough compensation for the exchange in Bonin - G. Shahade, New York 2002.

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . . . Wfa5!N This is a clear improvement over: 13 ... ia6 14.ic5 ixe2 1 5.Wfxe2 ixd4 16.�adl ixc5 17 .�xd8 �fxd8 Black had to fight hard for the draw in Karpov - Morovic, Kansas (rapid) 2003.

14.ic5 Black has an edge after 14.ixe7 �e8 15 .ic5 �xe4.

14 . . . E:d8 1 5.Wfc2 e5 16.E:fdl ia6+ Only Black can be better here.

1 I ...ti�a5 Black's main choice according to theory.

In my experience with this variation I have noticed that the c4-square is highly important in this structure, especially in this line when it is not controlled by the white bishop. We have now arrived at the most important crossroads in this variation, with White having a wide


choice: Cl) l2.dxc5, C2) l2 • .ib3, C3) l2.d5 or C4) l2J�bl.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Cl) l2.dxc5

a b c d e f g h

I am never afraid to sacrifice the c5-pawn in return for damaging the white pawn structure. Nevertheless, capturing the c5-pawn is a very concrete approach and requires serious investigation.

l2 ... ti'c7!? I prefer to keep the queens on the board

here. First of all because it's more combative; and secondly I have not been able to find a clear route to equality after the exchange. For example: 12 . . . ltk4 13.Wfxd8 :B:xd8 14 . .ig5 .id? 1 5 . .ib3 ltla5 16.:B:fd1 (This is of course more challenging than 16 . .ixe7 :B:e8 17 . .id6 :B:xe4 1 8.lt:ld4 lt:lxb3 19.axb3 .ixd4 Y2-Y2 Topalov Kasparov, Linares 1 998.) 16 . . . .ic6 17.f3 .if8 1 8.e5 :B:xd 1 t 1 9 .!hd 1 e6 20 . .ie3 l:!c8

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

All these logical moves occurred in Avrukh - I. Sokolov, Amsterdam 1999, and now I missed a very strong positional idea: 2 1 .c4 .ie8 22.ltlc3 .ixc5 23 . .ixc5 :B:xc5 24.:B:d8 i>f8 25.ltle4 :B:xe5 26 . .ia4 lt:lc6 27 . .ixc6 bxc6 28.:B:a8±

l3.c!l)f4 e6 l4.c!l)d3 14.Wfd6 doesn't work, since after 14 . . . Wfxd6

1 5.cxd6 :B:d8 1 6.:B:fd 1 .id7 Black will eventually take the d6-pawn and then remain with the better pawn structure.

l4 ... b6 l5 . .ib5 I also examined 1 5.:B:b1 , but Black can react

with 1 5 ... .ia6 16.cxb6 axb6 17 . .ixb6 Wfxc3 18 . .ib5 .ixb5 19.:B:xb5 lt:lc4. It is White who must take care to maintain the balance.

l5 ... .ib7 l6.f3 :B:fd8 l7.ti'c2 Also after 1 7.Wfe2 Black can reply 17 . . . a6!

due to the following variation: 1 8.cxb6 Wfxc3 19 .:B:fc l Wfa3 20 . .ic5 .id4t! Black is at least equal.

a b c d e f g h

l7 ... a6!N This is a convincing way to equalize. In

Shariyazdanov - Dvoirys, Moscow 1998, Black traded light-squared bishops by 17 . . . .ic6 1 8 . .ixc6 Wfxc6. After the further moves 19.:B:fd1 bxc5 20.ltlxc5 lt:lc4 2 l ..if2 Black

Chapter 8 - 7.�b5 t 85

undoubtedly had positional compensation, but he still needed to prove that it was worth a pawn.

18 . .ia4 The main point of Black's idea is that 1 8.cxb6

loses material after: 18 . . . �xc3 1 9.�xc3 .ixc3 20.E:acl .if6-+

18 ... bxc5 White cannot take the c5-pawn with either

piece, and so Black has no problems.

C2) 12 . .ib3

In this line White is ready to give up his lightsquared bishop in order to maintain control over the c4-square.

12 ... .id7 Black is not obliged to rush with . . . cilxb3.

a b c d e f g h

13.dxc5 A logical alternative is 13 .E:cl C. Pedersen -

P.H. Nielsen, Denmark 200 1 , although Black can now solve his opening problems with the help of a forced line: 13 . . . cxd4N 14.cxd4 .ib5 1 5 .E:el E:c8 16.�d2 E:xc1 17.E:xcl .ixe2 1 8.�xe2 .ixd4 19.E:dl cilxb3 20.axb3 e5 2 l ..ixd4 exd4 22.�c4=

13 ... .ib5! This manoeuvre now appears in an even

better version for Black.

14.E:el �xdl lS.:aaxdl :afc8 16.£3 e6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Black is absolutely fine.

17.�d4 �a6 18 . .ia4? A move such as 1 8. <;!;>f2 would probably hold

the balance, but after the text White's position goes quickly downhill.

18 ... �c4 19.c6 bxc6 20 . .icl c5 21.�e2 �b6 22 . .ib3 he2 23.:axe2 hc3+

Hellsten - Avrukh, Kavala 2003.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C3) 12.d5

a b c d e f g h


12 ... b6 13.YHd3

Otherwise the black bishop will be very strongly placed on a6. For example: 13 . .ig5 .ia6 14.:!:'kl 1M'd6 Black prepares to undermine the white centre. 1 5 .:!:!el e6 Black was already better in Beliavsky - Belov, Moscow 2005.

13 ... e6 The calm 13 . . . .id7!? also deserves attention.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14.d6

a b c d e f g h

A very ambitious move, but it risks the d6-pawn becoming a target.

14 ... J.d7 15 . .ic2?! White should probably prefer 1 5 . .ixd7

1Mfxd7 16.f4, but after 16 .. .:!:!ad8 17.l'!adl f6! I still prefer Black.

15 ... J.c6 16.£4 YHd7 17.a4 17.e5 runs into 17 .. .f6! when White cannot

keep the pawn on e5.

17 ... a:ad8 IS.a:fdl We have been following Dyballa - Petzold,

Germany 2009. Black now has the strong positional idea:

18 ... f5 19.�g3 c4 Black is clearly better.

C4) 12.a:b1 �c4

The alternative 1 2 ... b6 is more popular, but I definitely prefer this straightforward move - as White I have had some unpleasant experiences facing it.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 . .ig5 The bishop may also retreat:

13 . .ic l 1M'c7 Not so accurate is 13 . . . b6 14 . .ic6 !!b8 Avrukh - Simonenko, Ubeda 200 1 . Here I missed the chance to play: 1 5 . .id5N .ia6 16.1M'd3 b5 1 7 . .if4 White has a promising position.

14.d5 After 14 . .ib3 Black should react with 14 ... cxd4 1 5 .cxd4 b5 with complex play.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . e6!?N

Chapter 8 - 7.i.b5t 87

This natural idea is a novelty here. In Shariyazdanov - Rade, Sibenik 2005, Black opted for 14 . . . e5 1 5.i.c2 ttld6 1 6.f4. In this very complicated position it seems to me that White has the more promising chances.

15 .i.b3 lLld6 1 5 ... exd5 runs into 16.ttlf4! lLlb6 17.lLlxd5 ttlxd5 1 8.i.xd5 with better chances for White.

16.dxe6 i.xe6 1 7.if4 �adS 1 8.i.xe6 fxe6 We have reached a very complex position, from which I offer one illustrative line:

19.Wfa4 e5 20.ig5 �d7 21 .Wfxa7 lLlxe4 22.ie3 c4

The game is balanced.

13 • • . Y:Yc7 Another option is 13 . . . h6, but there is no

need to kick the bishop yet, and I prefer to retain the possibility of playing . . . f6.

14 • .ib3 I once tried:

14.Wfcl b6 1 5 .i.b5 ttld6 Black's knight is well-placed on d6.

16.id3 f6 To secure the position of his knight Black needs to push . . . e5.

1 7.ih4 e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1 8.dxe5

a b c d e f g h

18.ig3N, as indicated by Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 71 , although after 1 8 . . . ie6 1 9.d5 c4 20.i.c2 i.d7 Black is doing fine.

1 8 . . . fxe5 1 9.c4 I had high hopes for the forthcoming transfer of my knight to d5, but it turns out not to be dangerous for Black.

19 . . . i.e6 20.ttlc3 Wffl 2 1 .tLld5 ixd5 22.cxd5 .if6 23 . .ig3 Wfe7!

With this strong prophylactic manoeuvre Black has prevented f2-f4, and he is ready to advance his queenside pawns. The game ended in a painful loss for White in Avrukh -Ma. Tseidin, Tel Aviv 1 999.

14.Wfd3 ttla3 15 .�b2 Wfa5 16 . .id l has occurred in three games, and here I offer the following improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . b6!N This has the concrete idea of ... i.a6, and an important point is that White cannot afford to take the e7 -pawn. 17 .ixe7? �e8 18 . .ig5 �a6 19.Wff3 ( 19.Wfg3 :!:'!:xe4+ is unpleasant for Whire) 19 . . . cxd4 20.cxd4 lLlc4 White cannot avoid losing material.

14 ... �a3 15.�cl c4 16 . .ic2 b5 The black knight looks strange on a3, but

White's light-squared bishop cannot easily escape from a future exchange.

The wrong plan. White should have played 17.Y:Yd2


8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

This was Lauber - Naumann, Bundesliga 1998. Now I suggest the following improvement:

17 ... .ib7 18.£3 e5 Aiming to clarify the position in the centre.

19.d5 VNd6!? Black does not insist on exchanging knight

for bishop, since it turns out that the a3-knight is useful for supporting the advance of the queenside pawns.

20.�g3 a5 The position is very complex, but I feel Black

has slightly the more promising chances, as he has a clear plan of advancing his queenside pawns.

Conclusion

As the reader will have gathered from many of the game references throughout the chapter, this variation used to form part of my repertoire as White. However, after several painful reverses I abandoned it a decade ago, and I have found no reason to be tempted back. Black seems assured of at least equal chances in all lines. Perhaps line C4 is most critical, leading to a complex strategical battle, but overall I would (nowadays!) certainly prefer to be playing the black side.

7.i.e3 Two Rook Moves

Variation Index l .d4 tt'lf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt'lc3 dS 4.cxdS tt'lxdS S.e4 tt'lxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3

7 ... cS A) 8J�b1 �aS 9.�d2 cxd4 10.cxd4 �xd2t 1 I .@xd2 0-0

A1) 12 . .id3 A2) 12.-ihS A3) 12 . .ic4 A4) 12.ttlf3

B) SJ��cl �aS 9.�d2 cxd4 10.cxd4 �xd2t 81) 1 I ..ixd2 0-0

81 1 ) 12.dS 812) 12.ttlf3 .ig4

8121) 13.dS 8122) 13.!k7 8123) 13 . .ie3

82) 1 I .@xd2 0-0 821 ) 12.dS 822) 12J�c7 823) 12.-ihs 824) 12 . .id3

90 90 91 92 93 9S 9S 96 97 97 99

100 101 101 102 103 10S

90 7.ie3

l .d4 lLJ£6 2.c4 g6 3.lLJc3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7.J.e3

a b c d e f g h

This became fashionable after Karpov adopted it in his 1990 match against Kasparov, and it has remained popular ever since.

7 ... c5 From this posltlon 8.lLlf3 will form the

subject of Chapter 10, and 8.'\Mfd2 will be covered in Chapter 1 1 . In the present chapter we will focus on the two rook moves A) SJ!�bl and B) S.:!�cl .

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A) s.gbl

a b c d e f g h

This move contains a few tricky points, but overall it should not worry us too much.

Certainly in terms of popularity it lags well behind the other rook move examined here.

8 ... �a5 I prefer this to 8 . . . 0-0, after which 9.'\Mfd2

prevents us from exchanging queens.

9.�d2 cxd4 10.cxd4 �xd2t A useful rule of thumb is that, as long as

White is unable to recapture with the knight on d2, all queenless positions of this type should be fine for Black.

l l .�xd2 0-0 Now White faces a choice between Al)

12.J.d3, A2) 12 . .ib5, A3) 12 . .ic4 and A4) 12.tLlf3.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Al) 12 . .id3

a b c d e f g h

12 .. ,gds 13.�e2 White's set-up does not work in the present

variation, for reasons that will soon become clear.

13 ... �c6 It turns out that White does not have a

desirable way to protect his d-pawn; compared with the analogous position with the rook on cl instead of b 1 , he is unable to move his rook to the fourth rank.

Chapter 9 - Two Rook Moves 9 1

14.d5 The alternative is 14.e5 as played in Garza

Marco - Exposito Amaro, Sants 200 1. This move is also a concession, and Black could have obtained a great game with:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 .. .f6!N With the following tactical point: 1 5 .f4 fxe5 16.fxe5 .ixe5! 17.dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 8.tt:lcl if5 19J::!:b3 :B:ac8 The plan is . . . :B:xcl followed by . . . tt:\xd3(t) . It is obvious that White will have to fight for a draw.

14 ... �e5 Now White will have to worry about . . . e6.

15.�d4 �xd3 16.i>xd3 e6i White was under pressure in Dearing -

Varley, England 1 998.

A2) 12 . .tb5

a b c d e f g h

White aims to provoke . . . a6, in the hope of compromising Black's queenside.

12 .. J:!d8 13.�e2 This position was reached in Cibin -

Parnenzini, corr. 1993. At this point I think Black should have played:

13 ... a6N 14.i.d3 �c6 Compared with the previous line A I , it

is true that the weakening of the b6-square improves White's chances slightly. Nevertheless the overall assessment is still by no means bad for Black.

15.d5 1 5.e5 meets with the same strong response

as in the aforementioned line: 1 5 ... f6! 16.f4 fxe5 17.fxe5 ixe5! 1 8.dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 9.tt:\c1 .if5 20.:B:b3 :B:ac8 Once again White will be struggling after . . . :B:xcl followed by . . . tt:lxd3(t) .

15 ... �e5 16 . .ib6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 .. J!d7! This strange-looking move appeals more to

me than 16 . . . :B:d6. The point is that White has an interesting exchange sacrifice available: 17.:B:hc 1 f5 1 8.f3 e6 19 . .ic7 .ih6t 20.�c3 tt:lxd3 2l .�xd3 fxe4t 22.fxe4 :B:d7 23.d6

92 7.ie3

ixcl 24J:!:xc l Black should be able to hold, but his position is a bit unpleasant all the same.

17J:!hcl e6 18.lilc3 f5! It is useful for Black to clear some space for

his bishops.

19.f3 fxe4 20.fxe4 �U7 2U�fl .id7 Black has no problems, and the position is

roughly equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A3) 12 . .ic4

a b c d e f g h

This third bishop development looks reasonable, but it is harmless and normally leads to a drawn double-rook endgame.

12 ... �c6 13.lilf3 13.lt::le2 l'!d8 ( 13 ... e6!? has hardly ever

been played, but the move is interesting and deserves consideration.) 14.id5 lt::lxd4! This can be compared with the main line below; the position of the knight on e2 makes no real difference, and the most likely outcome is a direct transposition.

13 .. J�d8 14 . .id5 14.d5 gives Black easy counterplay:

1 4 ... e6 1 5 .ig5 f6 16.if4 exd5 17.ixd5t ie6 1 8.l'!xb7 ixd5 1 9.exd5 l'!xd5t

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black has already taken over the initiative and in the following game White went downhill rapidly: 20.'.t>cl l'!c8 2 l .l'!c7? (2l .<;!;>b1 was necessary) 2 l ...l'!c5t 22. <;!;>d 1 l'!xc7 23.ixc7 ih6 24.l'!e1 lt::lb4 25.ib8 l'!cl t 26.<;!;>e2 l'!c2t 27.<;!;>fl lt::ld3-+ Varga - Szeberenyi, Balatonlelle 2005.

14 ... �xd4 15.lilxd4 1 5 . .ixd4 .ixd4 16.lt::lxd4 e6 17 . .ixb7 .ixb7

1 8.l'!xb7 l'!xd4t 1 9.<;!;>e3 l'!a4 was also just equal in Niebler - Laibold, Germany 2006.

15 ... e6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The game now follows a forcing path to dry equality.

16 . .ixb7 .ixh7 17J�xb7 .ixd4 18.�e2 Another game finished 1 8.l'!hb 1 l'!d6

Chapter 9 - Two Rook Moves 93

19.i.xd4 :B:xd4t 20.'tt>e3 :B:a4 2 1 .!'!: 1 b2 Yz-Yz

Dahmen - Mander, Kranenburg 2003.

18 •.• .ixe3 19.�xe3 This position was reached in Kleyner -

Verner, Moscow 1995. Now the easiest route to a draw would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

19 .•. l::!:ac8N 20.l::!:xa7 gc3t 21.�£4 !:!:d2 22.!:!:0 a:cc2

Regaining the pawn to reach a completely dead drawn endgame.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A4) 12.<�:lf3

a b c d e f g h

According to theory this is White's main line.

12 • . • l::!:d8 13 . .td3 e6 Black wants to develop his knight on the

active c6-square, so first he prevents the d-pawn from advancing.

14.a:hcl 14.:B:hd1 lLlc6 1 5 .e5 was seen in Van Beek

- Bolwni, Antwerp 1 999, but having the rook on d 1 instead of c1 can hardly be an improvement for White. Black can try to take advantage by means of 1 5 . . . b6!?N (this would not be possible with the rook on cl ) intending . . . i.b7 and . . . lfle7 with a good position.

14 •.. lflc6 15.e5 A serious alternative is:

1 5.:B:c4 i.d7 16.'tt>e2 White has also tried 1 6.h4. The plan of advancing the h-pawn is unlikely to cause Black many problems in a position without queens. 16 . . . i.e8 17.'tt>e2 :B:d7 18 .h5 gxh5! The queens are off and there is no rook on the h-file, so why not take the pawn? 1 9.:B:b5 !!adS 20.i.g5 f6 2 1 .i.h4 Now in Sherbakov - V. Mikhalevski, Leeuwarden 1 994, Black should have played 21 . . .ig6N to preserve his extra pawn, which is a significant asset, notwithstanding the fact that it is doubled.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . i.e8!?N In my opinion this thematic idea makes total sense. I should add that there is also nothing wrong with 16 . . . b6 17.:B:bcl :B:dc8 1 8.h3. 1his was

94 7.ie3

Wiley - Voloshin, Olomouc 2000, and now Black should have played 18 . . . .if8N when the idea of . . . tt:lb4 enables him to maintain the balance.

17.e5 l:!d7 1 8.g3 .if8 19 . .ie4 l:!c7= Black intends . . . l:!ac8, with a compact and

harmonious position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... h6! It is essential to take control over the g5-

square in order to prevent plans such as .ig5 and tt:lg5-e4. I am less attracted to the weakening 1 5 .. .f6 16.exf6 .ixf6 which has been played in a few games.

16.cbel White has also tried:

16.'it>e2 This makes no significant difference, and Black merely follows the same plan.

16 . . . .if8 1 7.ie4 tt:lb4 1 8.l:!c7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 . . . tt:ld5N Black blundered a pawn with 18 . . . l:!b8? 19 .ixh6!± in Verdnikov - Kochurov, lzhevsk 2008. After the text move the following sequence looks logical:

19 .ixd5 exd5! After the more natural 19 . . . l:!xd5 White has the strong positional idea of 20.tt:ld2! heading for e4.

20.ltld2 Black's position looks a bit passive, but with accurate play he can equalize comfortably.

20 ... b6 2 1 .l:!bcl .ie6 22.ltlb 1 l:!dc8 23.f3 a6 Black can also consider 23 . . . a5 with the

simple idea of trading both pairs of rooks. In both cases the position looks like a comfortable draw.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... J.f8 Black should refrain from the tempting

16 . . . tt:lxe5?! as the endgame arising after 17.tt:lxe5 .ixe5 1 8.dxe5 l:!xd3 19 .ixh6;!; is a bit unpleasant for him.

t7 . .ie4 �b4 ts.J.d2 I also checked:

1 8.l:!c7N This leads to similar play to the 16. 'it>e2 line examined above.


18 . . . tt::ld5 19.t.xd5 exd5! We know already from the aforementioned line that 1 9 .. Jl:xd5 runs into 20.tt::ld2!;i;.

20.t.d2 In the event of20.tt::ld2 b6 2 1 .f3 ie6 22.:B:bcl :B:dc8 Black experiences no problems.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . b6 2 1 .:1l:bc1 The tempting idea of exchanging the darksquared bishops does not really work: 2 I .t.b4 t.f5 22.:B:b2 t.xb4t 23.:B:xb4 :B:dc8!+ Black seizes control over the c-file.

2 1 ... t.a6 22.a3 :B:dc8 23.t.b4 ic4 The position is balanced.

18 .. Jl::Jd5 19.a4 b6 20.a5

a b c d e f g h

20 ... .ib7 Black completes his development just in

time.

21.axb6 axb6 22 . .ixd5 .ixd5 23J��xb6 i.x£3 24.gxf3 gxd4=

The simplifications resulted in a drawn endgame in Gelfand - lvanchuk, Astrakhan 20 1 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) SJ�cl

a b c d e f g h

This move has become quite topical in recent years, having been employed by Kramnik and Aronian amongst others.

8 .. .'�a5 9.Wfd2 cxd4 IO.cxd4 Wfxd2t Now we must consider both Bl) l l . .ixd2

and B2) l l .�xd2.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Bl) l l . .ixd2

a b c d e f g h

96 7 . .te3

This has been the less popular of the two options, but it is still a serious line which has been used twice by Kramnik.

1 1 ... 0-0 From here White has dealt with the attack

on his d-pawn with either Bl l) 12.d5 or B12) 12.c�f3.

Bll) 12.d5

This allows Black to begin a rapid counterattack in the centre.

12 ... e6 13.-tbs Weaker is:

1 3 . .ib4 l:!e8 Now White is more or less forced to play:

14.d6 This pawn will soon become a target for the black pieces.

14 . . . tt::lc6 Also worthy of consideration is 14 . . . .id7!? followed by . . . .ic6 and . . . tt::ld7.

1 5 . .ia3 This position occurred in Vaisser - Schmidt, Trnava 1983. Now the most logical continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . .id7N 16.tt::lf3 l:!ac8 17 . .ib5 In the event of 17 . .ie2 Black has the strong idea 17 . . . f5! .

17 . . . a6 18 . .ixc6 l:!xc6 19.0-0 e5 !+

Isolating the weak d6-pawn. The plan of .. .f6 followed by . . . 'tt>f7 -e6 is not easy for White to meet.

a b c d e f g h

13 ... Ad7 14.hd7 �xd7 15.dxe6 fxe6 Black has also tried the interesting pawn

sacrifice 1 5 ... tt::le5!? in a couple of games. The idea is probably sound, but the main line seems like a more reliable route to clear-cut equality.

16.c!tlf3 White can also try: 16.l:!c7 tt::lf6 17.f3

a b c d e f g h

17 ... l:!f7N I find this to be the simplest solution. (After the provocative 17 . . . l:!fc8!? a draw was agreed in Yuferov - Lanka, USSR 1 982. Logical would be 18 .l:!xb 7 l:!c2 19. ttJ e2 l:!xa2 when the position indeed looks balanced.) 1 8.l:!xf7 'tt>xf7 19 .tt::lh3 h6 20.'tt>e2 l:!c8 2 1 .l:!cl l:!xcl 22 . .ixcl tt::ld7 1he endgame is equal.


16 .• J:Uc8 The best reaction. Instead after 1 6 . . . ltle5

17.ltlxe5 .ixe5 18 . .ie3 White retains a slight edge.

17.�e2 ttlc5 18.ttlg5 We have been following the game Schmidt

- Jansa, Vrnjacka Banja 1 983. At this point I believe Black should have played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 •.• .if6N 19 • .ib4!? After 19.f3 �c7 20.�hd1 �ac8 Black is fine.

19 •.• ttla4! This accurate move solves Black's problems

with ease.

20.ttlxe6 gxcl 21 .gxcl ge8 22.ttlc5 ttlxc5 23 • .bc5 gxe4 t

The ending is equal.

B12) 12.ttlf3 .ig4

12 . . . e6!? is a reliable alternative, but the text move seems like the most challenging option. White can choose between B121) 13.d5, B122) 13.gc7 and B123) 13.Ae3.

Bl21) 13.d5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

13 ••• �d7 14.ttlg5 Two other moves have been tried, but Black

gets a comfortable game in all cases.

14.h3 .ixf3 1 5 .gxf3 �feB 16 . .id3 was seen in Tomescu - Zentgraf, Cesenatico 2002, and now Black has a simple improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . �xcltN 17 . .ixcl �c8 1 8.'it>e2 ltlc5 1 9.id2 e6! 20.�cl exd5 2 l .exd5 ie5 With . . . .id6 coming next, Black has easy equality.

14 . .ib5 �fc8 1 5 .h3 �xclt 16.ixcl .ixf3 1 7.gxf3 �c8 1 8.ie3 ltle5 1 9.f4 ltlc4 20 . .ixc4?! A clear inaccuracy. (White could still have maintained a balanced position with: 20.'it>e2 ltlxe3 2 J .\j;>xe3=) 20 . . . �xc4 2 I .e5 g5! 22.fxg5 ixe5+ Black already had the better game and he went on to win in Kantorik - Bobras, Pardubice 2002.

98 7 . .ie3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... �b6 Improving the knight while also making

room for the bishop to retreat.

15.i.e2 Other moves are no better:

1 5.h3 i.d7 16 . .id3 �fc8 17.0-0

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

17 . . . tt:la4!

a b c d e f g h

This aggressive idea enables Black to seize the initiative on the queenside.

1 8 . .ib4 h6 19.tt:lf3 e6 20.�xc8t For better or worse White should have played 20.d6N, although after 20 . . . tt:lc3 I still prefer Black.

20 . . . �xc8 2l .�b I b6+ Black's chances were higher in J. Pinter -

Shirov, lzmir.2004.

I also felt obliged to examine the active move: 1 5 .�c7N

This has never been played, for reasons that are about to become clear.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

1 5 . . . .ie5!

a b c d e f g h

It transpires that White's rook will run out of squares on the seventh rank.

I6.�xe7 Obviously the rook could retreat, but this would be a clear admission of failure.

I 6 . . . .id6 1 7.�xb7 .ic8 The rook is trapped, so White has nothing better than:

18.�xf7 �xf7 19.lt:Jxf7 \t>xf7 20 . .id3 �b8 Material is roughly balanced, but Black's

chances are higher as his extra piece will enable him to create threats on the queenside. The immediate plan is . . . tt:la4.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h


15 ... .ixe2 16.�xe2 h6 17.�f3 We have been following the game Maduekwe

- Bongiovanni, e-mail 2003. Here I found a nice idea for Black:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... f5!N It is hard to imagine that Black will get a

better chance to carry out this thematic undermining move, and indeed it works nicely here.

18.exf5 gx5 19.gc7 Otherwise White simply loses his d-pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 ... tl:Jxd5 Black can even consider 19 . . . g5!? intending

. . . g4. Taking away the f4-square from the white bishop might also prove useful in some lines.

20.gxb7 e5= Black's activity makes up for his isolated

e-pawn, and the position remains dynamically balanced.

Bl22) l3.gc7

a b c d e f g h

This principled move leads to sharp play, but the position soon peters out to equality.

l3 ••• .ixf3 14.gxf3 .ixd4 Black should accept the challenge.

15J�xb7 The alternative is:

1 5 .gxe7 lt::lc6! This pawn sacrifice enables Black to activate his pieces quickly and efficiently.

16J!xb7 gab8 17J�b3 17.gc7 can be met by 17 . . . lt::le5 1 8.i.e2 �b2 19.f4 i.b6 20.�cl lt::ld7 2l .a4 lt::lc5 when Black regains the pawn while keeping some initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

100 7 . .ie3

17 . . . l:l:fd8! 1 8 . .ie2 !!xb3 19 .axb3 .ixf2t 20.'Jixf2 !!xd2

The complications have subsided, and the resulting endgame should be equal.

2 1 . <;t>e3 !!b2 22 . .ic4 From this position, in the game Fish - Van de Monel, Haarlem 200 1 , Black played inaccurately and got into trouble. The correct path would have been:

22 . . . <;t>g7N Black easily maintains the balance.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 .. .ltlc6 16.Aa6 In this position the players agreed a draw

in Kramnik - Svidler, Dortmund 2004. The continuation might have been:

16 .. J�ab8 17.0-0 1 7. <;t>e2 .ib6 is safe enough for Black.

17 ... t£ie5 18.�g2 gxb7 19 . .ixb7 gbs 2o.i.dS gb2

Equally valid is: 20 . . . e6 2 1 . .ib3 lDd3 22 . .ih6 lDc5 23 . .ic2 f6=

2l..lb6 gc2 The position is equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

8123) 13 . .le3

a b c d e f g h

Around the start of 20 1 1 I had completed most of my work on the present chapter, and was happy with the results. However, I was forced to make some changes after the Wijk aan Zee festival in January, during which the Armenian grandmaster Gabriel Sargissian employed the present continuation twice.

l3 ... La My original recommendation was 1 3 .. . lDc6

14.d5 .ixf3 1 5.gxf3 ltJd4, but this was dealt a severe blow by the following improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . .ih3! f5 1 7.<;t>f1 Black has failed to equalize, and after the further 1 7 . . . e6 18.dxe6 lDxe6 19.exf5 gxf5 20.!!dl ! White's bishops were extremely strong in Sargissian - Li Chao, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 1 .


14.gxf3 e6 This solid continuation was Black's choice in

the second of Sargissian's games.

15 • .ic4 1 5.i.b5 should be met by 1 5 . . . a6 16.i.a4 b5

17.i.b3 a5! 1 8.a4 bxa4 19.i.xa4 lLla6 20.\t>e2 !:l:ab8 21 .!:l:hd1 :B:fd8 with equality.

1 5 .!'!c7 also allows Black to solve his opening problems: 1 5 . . . ll:\c6 16.d5 exd5 1 7.exd5 lLlb4 1 8.d6 i.e5 19.!'!xb7 lLlc2t 20.\t>d2 lLlxe3 2 1 .fxe3 i.xd6 The endgame is equal.

15 ... lLlc6 16.d5 exd5 17..ixd5 tLlb4 18 . .ixb7!?

White tries to complicate the game with the help of an exchange sacrifice, having presumably judged that lines such as 18 .!'!d1 ll:\xd5 1 9.!:l:xd5 !:l:fd8 would pose Black no problems whatsoever.

18 ••. tLld3t 19.�e2 ttlxcl t 20J::�xcl In the game Black now found a convincing

way to neutralize his opponent's initiative.

20 ••• :B:ab8 21.!'!bl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

21..J�bd8! 22 • .ixa7 .id4 After exchanging the dark-squared bishops

Black will easily be able to fight against the passed a-pawn.

23 • .ixd4 !'!xd4 24.�e3 !'!a4 25 . .id5 !'!a3t 26.�f4 ga7 27.�g3

Neither side can make progress and so a draw was agreed in Sargissian - Navara, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 1 .

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B2) l l .�xd2

a b c d e f g h

This can be considered the main line of the present chapter, at least in terms of popularity.

1 1 ... � From here it is worth considering B21)

12.d5, B22) 12.!'!c7, B23) 12 • .ib5 and B24) 12..id3.

It is worth mentioning that the most popular move of all has been 12.lLlf3, after which 1 2 . . . ll:\c6 transposes to variation C2 of Chapter 1 0.

B21) 12.d5

This move has never been popular, with good reason as the d5-pawn is a clear target for counterplay.

12 ••• e6 13 • .ic4 exd5 14 . .ixd5 14.exd5 seems risky: 1 4 . . . lLld7 1 5 .lLle2 !'!d8

16.:B:hd1 lLlb6 17.i.xb6 After swapping his dark-squared bishop for a knight, it is clear that White is not fighting for the advantage. 17 . . . axb6 1 8. \t>e 1 This was Bender - Pielmeier,

102 7.ie3

Germany 200 1 , and now after 18 ... ie5N 19.ib3 id6+ Black's bishop pair offers him a slightly better game.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... c!tlc6 This is the most principled continuation,

although 1 4 . . . lt:ld7 1 5.f3 lt:lb6 16.ib3 ie6 also seems to be playable.

15.ltlf3 It would be much too optimistic for White

to grab a pawn with his king misplaced in the centre: 15 .ixc6? bxc6 16J�xc6 ib7 Black easily generates a strong initiative, for instance: 17J!c4 ia6! 18 .l'l:cl l'l:fd8t 1 9.\t>e1 l'l:ab8 With . . . l'l:b2 coming next, White is in serious trouble.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.ib3!?N I decided to check this move in order to see

if White was justified in playing for a win. In the one practical encounter from this position White settled for a repetition: 16.ic5 ih6t 17 .ie3 Y2-Y2 Agdestein - Tisdall, Espoo 1 989.

16 .. ..id7 This is my recommended solution, which is

connected to the following idea:

17J�c7 gadS! 18.ig5 ltla6! 19.Ld8 gxd8 20J�c2 ic6t 21.cbc1

Black has full compensation for the exchange, and he can choose to force a draw should he wish it:

2I. .. Le4 22J!:c4 id3 23.gdl J.h6t 24.cbb2 ig7t=

The game ends in perpetual check.

B22) 12Jic7

a b c d e f g h

It looks strange to lunge forwards with the rook while White's three kingside pieces remain on their original squares; nevertheless this continuation is quite interesting.

12 ... ltlc6 I was slightly less happy with the alternative

12 . . . l'l:d8 13.ib5.


13.d5 gds 14 . .id3 ttle5 15.gxe7 Black's pawn sacrifice is justified by his lead

in development and the vulnerability of the rook on e7. Nevertheless he must still play accurately.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... i.d7!N This is my improvement over 1 5 . . . lt:Jd7

16. lt:Jf3 if8 as occurred in Dumitran - Karr, Paris 1998. At this point I was not completely happy with the position resulting from 17.�xd7!?N ixd7 1 8.�b1 b6 19 . lt:Je5 when White has interesting compensation for the exchange.

16.ttlf3 �xd3 It is important to eliminate White's light

squared bishop. Black could also have won the exchange by means of 16 . . . tt:lxf3t 17.gxf3 if6, but after 1 8.�xd7 �xd7 19.f4 White has solid compensation, due to his strong centre and bishop pair.

17.�xd3 .i£8 18 . .ig5 1 8.�xd7 �xd7 19.�c l can be met strongly

by 1 9 . . . 5! when it is obvious that White will be the one fighting for a draw.

18 ... h6 19 . .if6 .ib5t 20.�d4 l::fd6! It is important that Black takes the

opportunity to activate one of his rooks.

2l.e5 he7 22.he7 ga6 23J:�bl ga4t 24.�e3 gas

I would evaluate the position as dynamically equal, but essentially it is just unclear.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B23) 12.J.b5

a b c d e f g h

This thematic continuation is quite popular in the present position. White tries to provoke ... a6 in the hope of weakening his opponent's queenside.

12 .. J�d8 Black refuses to take the bait.

13.�e2 13 .'it>e2 is absolutely harmless: 13 .. . lt:Jc6!

14.d5 lt:Jd4t 1 5 .ixd4 ixd4 16. lt:Jf3 ig4 17.�c7 From here Black's key idea is:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

104 7.ie3

17 ... ie5! Not for the first time, Black can exploit the rook's lack of escape squares on the seventh rank. 1 8Jk2 (After 1 8.E:xb7 ic8 19.lthe5 ixb7 White will have to fight for a draw.) 1 8 . . . E:ac8+ Black's bishop pair gave him a slight edge in Crouch - Rowson, Oxford 2004.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 ... tl:k6! Black should not be afraid to incur a slight

pawn weakening. The text move is the best way to pursue his counterplay.

14 . .ixc6 bxc6 1 5.f3 This is the main line. Others moves are not

dangerous.

1 5 .E:xc6?! is clearly inferior: 15 . . . ib 7 16.E:c7 ixe4 17.f3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . . if5! 1 8.E:d1 ( 18.E:xe7 is too risky, as 1 8 . . . E:db8 gives Black a serious initiative.) 1 8 . . . @f8+ Black had the more pleasant game thanks to his bishop pair, Kelecevic - Smejkal, Sarajevo 1 982.

1 5.E:hdl is not a bad move, but nor does it challenge Black in any serious way: 15 ... E:b8 1 6.@e l E:b2 17.E:xc6 ib7 1 8.E:c7 ixe4 1 9.f3 idS 20.E:xa7 ixa2= The simplifications have resulted in equality, Grabowski - Coenen, Germany 2007.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

1 5 ... f5!N This is an ideal moment for this thematic

move. Black has achieved solid results with 1 5 . . . e5, but I was not altogether happy with his position there. Instead I believe it makes more sense to play on the light squares, considering the minor piece exchange that took place on the previous move.

16.exf5 I also analysed 1 6.E:xc6 fxe4 17.fxe4 ib7

1 8.E:c7 ( 18 .E:e6? does not work: 1 8 . . . @f7 19.d5 ixd5!+) 1 8 ... ixe4 1 9.E:xe7 ixg2 and only Black can be better.

16 ... i.xf5 17J�hdl 1 7.E:xc6 can be met by 17 ... E:ab8 1 8.@c3

E:dc8 1 9.E:xc8t E:xc8t 20.@b3 ie6t 2 l . @b2


.ixa2 and once again Black is pressing for the advantage.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ... E:ac8 lS.i>el E:d5 19J�d2 E:a5= Black has no problems.

B24) 12 . .id3

a b c d e f g h

Nowadays this is generally considered the most challenging of White's options on the twelfth move, but we will see that Black is in good shape here too.

12 ... l£lc6 13.l£le2 E:ds 14J�k4 The ability to defend the d4-pawn from the

fourth rank constitutes one of the advantages of 8.E:c l over 8.E:b 1 .

a b c d e f g h

14 ... .ie6!? I found and analysed this remarkable idea in

the summer of2010, but since then it has been tested twice in practice.

15.ga4 This was White's choice in the second game.

The first saw instead: 15 .d5 lt:le5 16.E:c7

Alternatively after 16.E:b4 .ic8 1 7.E:cl e6 Black commences strong counterplay against White's centre.

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . lt:lxd3N Black preferred 16 . . . .id7 and eventually drew in Solomon - Kislik, Budapest 20 1 0, but it seems to me that White was too hasty in grabbing the b-pawn with 17.E:xb7. Instead the superior 17 .E:b l !N b6 1 8 . .ia6 would have been quite unpleasant for Black.

106 7.ie3

. I found the stronger text move in my initial analysis before the aforementioned game.

1 7.'iilxd3 f5 1 8.f3 Alternatively after 1 8.lt:\f4 i.d7 19.:!:l:xb7 e5! 20.lt:\e2 fxe4t Black is fine.

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . i.xd5! This move is rather surprising, but such ideas are always possible when the white king settles on a square such as d3.

1 9.exd5 E:xd5t The next few moves are more or less forced:

20.'iilc2 E:e5 2 1 .E:c3 E:a5

a b c d e f g h

22.E:b3 Other moves are even less impressive: 22.a4 i.xc3 23.lt:\xc3 E:d8+ 22.E:c7 E:xa2t 23/Jidl b5 Black's queenside pawns are dangerous.

22 . . . E:xa2t 23.'i!ldl E:d8t 24.'iilel E:c8+ Material is currently about equal, and Black

has kept a nice initiative.

a b c d e f g h

15 ... Ad7 16J:�bl �e5! It turns out that the rook is not entirely safe

on a4 either, and Black can exploit this by threatening the bishop on d3.

17.Ab5 �c6!? This tacit draw offer seems to be the soundest

continuation. It is important for Black to trade the opponent's light-squared bishop for the knight, rather than his own bishop. The point can be illustrated by the following line: 1 7 ... e6 1 8.ixd7 E:xd7 1 9.E:ab4 b6 20.f4 lt:\c6 2 1 .E:c4 lt:\a5 22.E:c2 White keeps a slight edge.

a b c d e f g h 18.6

White cannot prevent the exchange of his light-squared bishop, as 1 8.E:a3? runs into 18 ... lt:\xd4! winning a pawn.


Obviously White also has the option of 18 . .id3 Conclusion tLle5 repeating the position.

18 ... a6 19 . .bc6 1 9 . .id3 can be met by 1 9 . . . tLle5 followed by

capturing the bishop on the next move.

19 ... .bc6 20.:Sa5 e6 21 .:Sc5 We have been following the game Melkumyan

- P.H. Nielsen, Plovdiv 20 10. At this point I like the following idea for Black:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

21. .. f5!N Yet again this move works well.

22.e5 This looks like the best attempt to keep the

black bishops out of the action.

22 ... .if8 23J�k2 Ae7 Black has absolutely no problems and in

the long term his bishop pair might become a serious factor.

Both 8.:Sbl and 8J'kl lead to broadly the same type of queenless middlegame after the standard sequence of 8 .. .'�a5 9.'Wd2 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 'Wxd2t, although of course the slight change in the rook's positioning will lead to some nuances. The analysis presented here indicates that Black has sufficient resources to hold the balance in all variations. Typically he will rely on the traditional Griinfeld methods of undermining the enemy centre. Particularly noteworthy is the ... £7 -f5 thrust, which proved to be of key value in sever:illines.

7.ie3 a b c d e f g h

Variation Index

l .d4 tLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 tLlxd5 5.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 8.tLlf3

8 ... Wfa5 A) 9.tLld2 B) 9 • .id2 0-0 10 • .ie2 .ig4 1 1 .0-0 �d8

B1) 12.d5 B2) 12.�b1 B3) 12.tLlg5

C) 9.Wfd2 tLlc6 C1) 10.�b 1 a6 1 1 .�cl .ig4 12.d5 �d8

C11) 13.tLlh4 C12) 13 . .id3 C13) 13 . .ie2

C2) 10.�cl cxd4 1 1.cxd4 Wfxd2t 12.@xd2 0-0 C21) 13 • .ib5 C22) 13.d5 �d8

C221) 14.@c2 C222) 14.@el tLla5

C2221) 15 . .if4 C2222) 15 . .id2 C2223) 15 . .ig5

109 1 10 1 10 1 1 1 1 13 1 13 1 14 1 16 1 17 1 18 120 122 124 124 125 127 128 129

Chapter 1 0 - 8.l'Llf3 109

l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 ttlxd5 5.e4 ttlxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.e3 c5 8.�f3

This is a major line, which is often reached via the move order 7.l'Llf3 c5 8.i.e3.

8 ... 'ilYa5 Once again we begin in the same way

as in the previous chapter. White can choose between A) 9.�d2, B) 9.i.d2 and C) 9.'ilYd2.

A) 9.�d2

a b c d e f g h

This should not pose many problems.

9 ••• c:xd4 IO.c:xd4 ttlc6 ll.d5 ttld4 12J�cl There is also 12 .Eib1 �d7 13.�d3 as played

in Sek - Namark, corr. 1 988, and now the easiest solution for Black would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . Wfc3!N 14.�xd4 �xd4 1 5.Wfe2 0-0 16.0-0 �g4! 17.Wfxg4 Wfxd2 The position is absolutely equal, for instance: 18 .Wfe2 Wfxe2 19.�xe2 b6=

The present position was reached in Kuligowski - Adorjan, New York 198 1 . Here I found an interesting idea:

a b c d e f g h

12 ... i.d7!?N Threatening . . . �a4.

13.Eic4 In the event of 13.�d3 �a4 14.Wfg4 Black

already has a draw in his pocket with 1 4 . . . �d7, when White has nothing better then retreating to d 1 . Ifhe tries to play for more with 15 .Wfg3?! then 1 5 . . . Wfa3! is unpleasant.

13 ..• �b5 14.Eia4 14.Wfb3 is not an improvement, and after

14 . . . 0-0 1 5 .�d3 l'Llc3 16.Eic5 b5 17.0-0 Elfc8'+ Black already has the more comfortable position.

14 ... 'ilYc7 If Black wishes to play for a win then he can

play 14 . . . Wfd8!?c.o with a complex game.

15.Eic4 White has nothing better.

1 1 0 7 . .ie3

1 5 .. .'!Wa5= Repeating the position from two moves

ago.

B) 9 . .id2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Retreating the bishop looks odd, but White hopes to show that the enemy queen is misplaced.

9 ... 0-0 IO . .ie2 .ig4 This is the main line, and the move I like

most.

ll .O-Ogds

a b c d e f g h

Here we will consider three main options for White: BJ) 12.d5, B2) 12.gbl and B3)

12.tLlg5.

1 2.a4 This has been used by a few good players, but it allows Black to mount an immediate central attack.

1 2 . . . .ixf3 1 3 . .ixf3 cxd4 14.cxd4 \MI'b6

a b c d e f g h

1 5.d5 Objectively White should probably have preferred 1 5.:B:b1N Wfxd4 16 . .ie3 Wfxd1 17.:B:fxd1 :B:xdlt 1 8 . .ixd1 b6, when his lead in development bishop pair should enable him to regain his pawn to reach an equal endgame.

1 5 . . . .ixa1 1 6.\MI'xal tt:ld7 1 7.e5 :B:ac8+ The position is complicated but it is hard to

believe that White has full compensation for the exchange, Polak - Timoscenko, Austria 2007.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Bl) 12.d5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 10 - 8.l2Jf3 1 1 1

This pawn sacrifice is thematic in some other lines of the Griinfeld, but in this particular case it is unpromising.

12 ... h:c3 l3.h:c3 Krasenkow mentions the following line in

ChessBase Magazine 89: 13J3:bl ixd2 14.ltJxd2 ixe2 1 5 .Wfxe2

Here I suggest the improvement: 1 5 . . . lLld7!

Krasenkow only gives 1 5 . . . Wfc7 16.lLlc4 lLld7, after which 17.f4 leaves White with definite compensation for the pawn.

1 6.13:xb7 Certainly White cannot play 16.e5? in view of the simple 16 . . . lLlxe5. 1 6.lLlc4 Wfa6 also leaves White with questionable compensation.

16 . . . Wfxa2 Black's chances are higher, as his extra pawn

counts for more than White's space advantage in the centre.

l3 ... '1Wxc3 14J�1cl From here Black should play:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... \WaSN In the stem game Black decided to return

the pawn for no apparent reason: 14 . . . Wff6?! 1 5.13:xc5 ixf3 1 6.ixf3;!; Maslik -Timoscenko, Slovakia 2009.

15.�e5 h:e2 16.'1Wxe2 �d7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17.tthd7 This seems to be best. For instance, if the

knight retreats with 17.lLlc4 then 17 .. . Wfa6! is annoying for White.

The alternative 17.f4 runs into 17 . . . lLlxe5! 1 8.fxe5 Wfc7 1 9.Wff3 Wfxe5 20.Wfxf7t \t>h8+ when White has no compensation.

17 .. J�1xd7 18.£4 '1Wc7 White certainly has some positional

compensation, but I doubt that it is really enough for the sacrificed pawn.

B2) 12J;b1

a b c d e f g h

1 12 7 . .ie3

Played in the spirit of the 8.E!:b 1 variation (see Chapters 1 3- 1 6).

12 ... cx:d4 13.cx:d4 Y:'fxa2 Taking the pawn is the most principled and

strongest response.

14.d5 White has the option of repeating the

position with 14 .E!:a 1 '!Wb2 1 5 .E!:b 1 , as avoiding the repetition would only lead to trouble for Black. But we will assume that our opponents will want to try and achieve something with the white pieces.

a b c d e f g h

14 ... �d7! Just as in several other variations of the

Griinfeld, Black takes a pa�n but then returns it in order to activate his pieces. The text move is the one I like most, although there is a serious alternative in 1 4 ... b6 when 1 5 . .ig5 �c6 1 6.E!:cl led to a highly unclear position in Degtyaryov - Pellen, e-mail 2009.

15.E!:xb7 �c5 16.E!:b4 If 1 6.E!:xe7 .if6 17.E!:c7 l2Jxe4 1 8 . .ic4 Wb2

1 9 . .icl Wc3 White should be careful.

16 •.. a5! Emphasizing one of Black's biggest trumps,

the passed a-pawn, supported by the a8-rook,

plus a bishop controlling the promotion square.

17J:�c4 �b3 18 . .ig5 Attacking the e7 -pawn is one of White's

typical resources in this kind of position.

18 .•. Lf3 19..ixa

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 ... .if6! This is the right way to neutralize the attack

against e7.

20.E:c2?! This is not sufficiently active. Black also has

no problems after 20 . .ixf6 exf6, when White's central pawns are somewhat immobilized.

White's best continuation would have been 20 . .if4N after which 20 . . . l2Jd2! 2 l .E!:a4 l2Jxf3t 22.gxf3 Wb2 promises Black adequate play.

20 ... Y:'fa3 2I..ie3 Also after 2 1 . .ixf6 exf6 22. W d3 a4 Black has

the better game.

21. •. a4 22.Y:'fd3 Y:'lb4 Black's strong a-pawn gave him the better

chances in Roiz - Avrukh, Natanya (rapid) 2009.

Chapter 1 0 - 8.lDf3 1 1 3

B3) ll.<��g5

a b c d e f g h

12 ... .ixe2 13.�xe2 �a6! This nice idea practically forces a queen

exchange, thus resulting in a pleasant queenless position for Black.

It is important to be precise with the move order. In the event of the preliminary central exchange 13 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 followed by 14 . . . Wa6, White has the additional option of 1 5 .'1Wf3! after which 1 5 . . .f6?? allows 16.'1Wb3t winning on the spot.

14.�xa6 In this position 14.'1Wf3?! f6! 1 5 .lDh3 cxd4

wins a pawn for scant compensation.

14 .. }2ha6 15.d5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... c4! Vacating the c5-square for the knight, from

where it will join the game effectively.

16 . .ie3 :Sac8 Insisting on activating the knight.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 . .ixa7?! White's position was already inferior, but

this pawn trade only worsens his situation, as Black obtains a dangerous passed pawn.

17 ... .ixc3 18.:Sabl :Sd7 Black was clearly better in Korchnoi -

Smirin, Biel 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C) 9.�d2

a b c d e f g h

1 14 7.ie3

Having dealt with two relatively minor options, we come to the move which is White's clear first choice in the position.

9 ••• l£lc6 9 . . . cxd4 I O.cxd4 Wxd2t I I .lLlxd2 is possible,

but as a general rule I prefer not to allow White to recapture on d2 with the knight. Objectively Black's position is not so bad; it is just my personal preference.

After the text move we reach an important crossroads where White normally chooses between the two rook moves: CI) IOJ::�bl and C2) IOJki.

CI) IOJ�bl

a b c d e f g h IO ... a6

There is an interesting queen sacrifice in the form of 10 ... 0-0!? l l .E:b5 cxd4 1 2.E:xa5 dxe3 1 3.\Wxe3 lLlxa5, but I consider the text move to be sounder.

Before moving on, it is worth comparing the recommendation given in line C2 later in the chapter: 1 0 . . . cxd4 1 1 .cxd4 Wxd2t 1 2.'k!?xd2 In this position the placement of the rook on b 1 instead of cl favours White. The point is revealed after 1 2 ... 0-0 13 .d5 E:d8 and now after 14 . .id3! the rook on b1 guards the b4-square against an invasion from the black

knight, which improves his chances in some lines.

ll .E:cl White hopes that the extra move . . . a7 -a6

will prove detrimental for Black. Other moves fail to pose any real problems, for example:

1 1 . .ic4 e6! Black has several good options, but this is my favourite.

12 . .id3 Admitting the failure of the previous move, but after 1 2.E:cl b5 1 3 . .ie2 cxd4 14.cxd4 Wxd2t 1 5.'k!?xd2 .ib7 Black has a pleasant version of a traditional Griinfeld endgame.

12 . . . b5 There is nothing wrong with 12 . . . 0-0N.

1 3.h4 This position occurred in Carrettoni -D' Amato, e-mail 2002. At this point Black should have played:

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . . . 0-0N Black has little to fear on the kingside, as he can simplify with . . . cxd4 at any moment.

14.e5 E:d8 1 5.ie4 .ib7 Black has no problems and I regard his

position as slightly preferable.

1 1 . .ie2 This is also pretty harmless.

1 1 . . .0-0 1 2.E:b3

Chapter 1 0 - 8.tt::\f3 1 1 5

Another idea is 1 2.0-0 cxd4 13.lLlxd4 lLlxd4 14 . .ixd4 .ixd4 1 5.'Wxd4. This position was reached in Kozma- Mullner, Hungary 200 1 . Here I recommend:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .. J!d8!N (So far Black has always chosen 1 5 ... 'Wxa2, but after 16 . .ic4 followed by :i:!b6 White's compensation is quite real.) 16 .'Wb6 'Wxb6 17.:i:!xb6 :i:!d2 18 . .ic4 :i:!c2! Black has a risk-free advantage, and White will have to fight hard for a draw.

12 ... b5 13 . .ih6 cxd4 14 . .ixg7 i>xg7 15 .cxd4 In the event of 15 .tt::\xd4 .ib7+ White has no compensation for his damaged queenside structure. The present position was reached in Frajka Banszegi, Slovakia 2009, and here I suggest:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . .ig4!N With the possible continuation:

16.d5 :i:!fd8 17.'Wc3t 'Wxc3t 1 8.:1!xc3 .ixf3 1 9 . .ixf3 ltJd4+

Black has an excellent game.

a b c d e f g h

l l ... .ig4 Compared with line C2, exchanging queens

is less desirable here: 1 1 . ..cxd4?! 1 2.cxd4 'Wxd2t 13 .i>xd2

The problem is that the inclusion of . . . a7 -a6 weakens the b6-square, which could prove to be of great significance in certain variations.

13 . . . 0-0 I will take this as the main line, in order to highlight the difference compared with line C2. The usual continuation is 13 .. .f5 but I was not happy with Black's position here either. I found the following game particularly impressive: 14.e5 .ie6 1 5 . .ic4 .ixc4 16.:1!xc4 0-0 17.i>e2 :!:!adS 1 8.:i:!b 1 :i:!d5 19.a4 :i:!fd8 20.g3 h6 21 .h4 lLla5 22.:1l:c7 :1!5d7 23.:i:!c5 :i:!d5 24.:1!xd5 :i:!xd5 25 .:i:!b6 i>f7 26 . .id2 .if8 27 . .ic3 e6

a b c d e f g h

1 1 6 7.ie3

28.ltJe1 ! White went on to win convincingly in Giri - Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 20 10.

14.d5 gds 1 5 .<j{e1 The immediate 15 . .ib6 is premature due to 15 . . . .ih6t.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

1 5 . . . ltJb4

a b c d e f g h

Finally the difference is revealed! Black is unable to continue in the same vein as in line C2, as 1 5 ... ltJa5?? loses to 16 . .ib6. Now in Bener - Ramon Pita, Novi Sad (ol) 1 990, White missed a strong continuation:

16 . .id2!N Winning a pawn by force.

16 . . . a5 17.a3 ltJa6 18 . .ixa5 Black is obviously struggling.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

t2.d5 gds

in this line. We will analyse Cl l) l3.�h4, Cl2) l3 . .id3 and Cl3) l3.ie2.

1 3.ih6 was suggested as interesting by Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 1 06, but according to my analysis Black has nothing to fear: 1 3 . . . ixh6 14.'Wxh6 .ixf3 1 5 .gxf3 ltJd4 16.ig2 e6! 1 7.'Wd2 ltJb5 1 8 .0-0 0-0+

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Cl l) l3.�h4

a b c d e f g h

This move has some logic, but it is rather slow.

13 ... 0-0 14.h3 .icS 15 . .ie2 e6 16.0-0 exd5 17.exd5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

This interesting move is the latest trend, a b C d e f g h which seems to be solving all Black's problems 17 ... c4!

Chapter 10 - 8.tLlf3 1 17

Preventing the advance c3-c4 is as always a key component of Black's strategy.

18J�fdl 18 . .ixc4 can be met by 18 . . .'1Wa4! when

Black is better.

18 ... �e5! 19.ll:H3 �d3! 20 . .ixd3 gxd5 2l..id4 cx:d3 22.'ilVxd3 J.h6i

Black's bishop pair and sounder pawn structure gave him the better chances in Khenkin - Fernandez Garcia, Las Palmas 1994.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Cl2) 13 . .id3

a b c d e f g h

13 ... 0-0!

It transpires that there is no need for Black to move his knight.

14.0-0 The point of the previous move is revealed

after 14.dxc6?! .ixf3 1 5 .gxf3 c4 16 . .id4 bxc6! 17 . .ixc4 c5 with better chances for Black.

14 ... .ixf3N This new idea was mentioned by Krasenkow,

although he considered it dubious. I have a different opinion.

14 ... f5 has been played twice, but I discovered an unpleasant retort: 1 5 .tLlg5 fxe4 16 . .ixe4!N

(This is clearly stronger than 16.lt:lxe4 lt:le5 when Black was fine in Khenkin - Dominguez Perez, Havana 2009.) 16 . . . tLle5 1 7.h3 .ic8 1 8.'We2! Black's position looks somewhat suspicious to me.

15.gxf3 e6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.c4!? This may be the most challenging option.

The alternative is: 16.dxc6

This was mentioned by Krasenkow. 16 . . . c4 17.cxb7

17.'Wb2 might lead to a forced draw: 17 . . . gxd3 1 8.'Wxb7 ( 18.cxb7 transposes to the line 17.cxb7 gxd3 1 8.'Wb2.) 18 . . . 'Wh5 19.c7 .ie5 20.f4 'Wg4t 2U!lh1 'Wf3t= The Polish grandmaster evaluated the present position as favourable for White, but according to my analysis Black is okay.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

1 1 8 7 . .ie3

17 . . . 1'hd3 18.Wfb21:l:b8 The b-pawn does not decide the game, and the exposed position of White's king gives Black enough counterplay, for instance:

1 9 . .ia7 Wfg5t 20.'Jih l .ie5 2l ..ixb8 .ixb8 22.1:l:gl Wfh5 23.f4 Wff3t 24.1:l:g2 1:l:d l t 25 .1:l:xd l Wfxd l t 26.1:l:gl Wff3t

The game ends in perpetual check.

16 ... tLlb4! In the event of 16 . . . Wfxd2 17 . .ixd2 lLld4

18 . g2 Black is under some pressure, especially as the move . . . a7-a6 has compromised his queenside.

17.1:l:bl I also examined 17.a3 Wfxa3 1 8 . .ixc5

Wfxd3 19 . .ixb4 Wfxf3 20 . .ixf8 Wfg4t with a perpetual.

17 .•• gc8 18.gb3 White can win a pawn with 1 8 . .ixc5 Wfxc5

19.Wfxb4, but after 1 9 ... Wfd4 20.1:l:fdl Wff6� Black's control over the dark squares gives him excellent compensation.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 • . . b5! From here I analysed:

19.cxb5 19.a3 can be.adequately met by 19 . . . Wfa4!.

19 . • . axb5 20.a3 ¥Na4! 21.axb4 ¥Nxb3 22.bxc5 exd5 23.gbl 'fNa3 24.exd5 .ic3 25.¥Nc2 gxc5 26.hc5 ¥Nxc5 27.gxb5 ¥Nd4

The position is equal, as White's extra pawn is balanced by his fractured kingside structure, and the opposite-coloured bishops could help to facilitate Black's kingside counterplay.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

CI3) I3.Ae2

a b c d e f g h

This is the main line according to theory.

13 ... 0-0 14.0-0 In one game White tried:

14.Wfb2 .ixf3 1 5 .ixf3 l2Jd4

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

16 . .idl

a b c d e f g h

I also checked 16 . .ig4 and found a remarkable idea for Black: 16 . . . lLlb5 17.i.d2 f5! 1 8.exf5 Wfa4! 19 . .if3 :!:l:xf5 20.0-0 :!:l:xf3!

Chapter 1 0 - 8.ltJf3 1 1 9

2 1 .gxf3 E:xd5 t Black has great compensation for the exchange.

16 . . . tt:lb5 1 7 . .id2 This position occurred in Ehlvest -Rytshagov, Tallinn 1 998. Here Black should have played the simple and natural move:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

17 . . . e6!N

a b c d e f g h

With some advantage for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... Lf3 An important moment. The text move has

only occurred in one game so far, but I believe it to be an improvement over the alternative: 14 . . . e6

After this natural move I found the following idea is rather unpleasant:

1 5 . .ig5! Black is doing fine after 1 5.E:fd 1 exd5 1 6.exd5 E:fe8, as seen in a number of games.

1 5 . . . f6 One of the main points behind White's idea can be seen in the following remarkable line: 1 5 . . . E:d7 16.Wff4! .ixf3 17.dxc6! .ixe2 18 .cxd7 f6 ( 18 ... .ixf1 1 9.E:d1 f6 20.Wfd6!±)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 .Wfd6!! fxg5 20.Wfxe6t E:f7 2 l .e5! Black is in trouble.

16 . .if4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

16 . . . exd5

a b c d e f g h

If Black is to have any chance of making 14 . . . e6 viable then he needs an improvement somewhere. One idea is 16 . . . b5!?N 17.h3 .ixf3 18 . .ixf3 tt:le5!? with a playable position, although I would still prefer to avoid this whole line altogether.

17.exd5 g5 18 . .ig3 .ie6 1 9.c4 Wfxd2 20.tt:lxd2 .if7 21 .tt:lb3 tt:\d4 22.tt:\xd4 cxd4 23 . .ic7 E!:d7 24.d6

Black faces serious problems in the endgame, Standaert - Nogga, e-mail 2009.

120 7.ie3

is.h£3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ••. e6 Naturally Black should not defer his central

counterplay.

16J:Udl exd5 17.exd5 ttle5 18.d6 1 8 . .ie2 c4! gives Black a good game.

The present position occurred in Ding Liren -Li Chao, Olongapo City 20 1 0. At this point Black could have easily solved his problems with:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 ..• c4!N 19.'1Wd5 '!Wxd5 20.E:xd5 ti:Jxf3t 2l.gd'3 E:d7=

Black is absolutely fine in this endgame.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C2) lOJ:�cl

a b c d e f g h

This has been White's most popular choice. There are some similarities with line C I , except that here White has chosen not to provoke . . . a7-a6.

10 .•• cxd4 This is my personal preference, although

it is important to mention that Black has an equally valid alternative: I O . . . .ig4!?

Just as in line C I. The posltlon of the black pawn on a7 instead of a6 does not significantly alter the evaluation.

I I .d5 E!:d8 Compared with the position from line C I , White only really has one way to try and exploit the absence of the move . . . a7-a6.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 0 - 8. lt:Jf3 121

1 2.Wfb2!? Against other moves, Black should respond exactly as indicated in lines C 1 1 , C 1 2 and C13. There could be a few sub-variations in which the position of the a-pawn provides an additional possibility for one side or the other, but I am not aware of any lines in which where the evaluation will be altered dramatically. Now the following sequence is more or less forced:

1 2 .. . .ixf3 13.gxf3 tt:ld4 14 . .ixd4 cxd4 15 .Wfb5t

This is the point ofWhite's idea, but it brings him no advantage.

1 5 ... Wfxb5 1 6 . .ixb5t 'it>f8 17.cxd4 .ixd4 1 8.!k7

From here Black only needs to find one good idea to ensure equality:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . .ie5! 1 9.!hb7 E:b8!= A draw was soon agreed in Yusupov - Anand,

Wijk aan Zee 1 994.

To summarize, if the reader wishes to reduce his study time by employing the . . . .ig4 line against both Cl) IO.E:b l a6 l l .E:cl and C2) 1 0.E:c l , then he should feel absolutely comfortable in doing so. However, I would like to make it clear that I did not produce the following detailed analysis of the 1 o . . . cxd4 variation merely to amuse myself! It is my opinion that the queenless middlegame positions lead to

richer play with greater potential for Black to take over the initiative, although of course the game should remain balanced if both sides play accurately.

Obviously this is just my own point of view, and other players may see things differently. Therefore I invite the reader to check the remainder of the chapter and make up his own mind.

ll.cxd4 Y;Yxd2t 12.�xd2 0-0 Now White's main options are C21) 13 . .ib5

and C22) 13.d5. .

Alternatives are almost never played. Here is a brief example: 13 . .id3 E:d8 14.E:c4

14.d5?! is worse: 14 . . . tt:lb4 1 5 . .ic5 tt:lxd3 16.'it>xd3 Now in the game Sakaev - Ruck, Panormo 2002, Black missed the powerful 1 6 .. .f5!, after which 17 . .ixe7 fxe4t 18 .'it>xe4 if5t 1 9.'it>f4 E:xd5 reaches a position in which Black's bishop pair gives him a clear advantage.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14 . . . f5!

a b c d e f g h

This typical undermining move works nicely. 1 5.exf5 ixf5 16 . .ixf5 gxf5 17.'it>e2 E:d5! Emphasizing Black's control over the light squares.

1 8.E:b l E:ad8 Black was at least equal in Damljanovic -

Antic, Subotica 2000.

122 7 . .ie3

C21) 13 . .ib5

a b c d e f g

This has been quite a popular choice, but Black has a well-established solution.

l3 ... f5! 14.exf5 White lacks reliable alternatives, for

instance: 14 .d5? fxe4!

Black soon takes over the initiative. 15 .dxc6

1 5 .ttlg5 occurred in Plachetka - Smejkal, Trnava 1980. At this point Black should have played the natural 1 5 . . . ttld4!N when best play continues as follows: 16 . .ixd4 .ixd4 1 7.ttlxe4 .if5 1 8.f3 E:ad8 1 9 . .ic4 �g7 Black has a positional advantage and virtually no risk.

1 5 . . . exf3 16.gxf3 bxc6 17.E:xc6 Material is equal, but it is obvious that Black has the superior position.

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . .ib7 18.E:c7 E:ad8t 1 9.�c2 .ixf3+ Black was better and went on to win in

Ligterink - Smejkal, Amsterdam 1 980.

14 ... Lf5

a b c d e f g h

15.hc6 I once had a somewhat unpleasant experience

on the white side of this variation: 1 5 . �e2 .ie6! 16 . .ic4 .ixc4t 17.E:xc4 E:ad8 1 8.E:b l E:d7 19.E:b5 E:fd8 Black had a very comfortable position and I soon got into trouble, although I eventually managed to save a difficult endgame in Avrukh - Van Wely, Ohrid 2001 .

15 ... bxc6 16Jhc6

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 0 - 8.l2Jf3 123

16 .. J�ab8! After this move Black gains full compensation

for the sacrificed pawn, as demonstrated in several games.

17.�c3 White has also tried:

17.l:!al !!b2t lS .'it>el There is little for Black to fear, especially after the following suggestion:

a b c d e f g h

1 S . . . ih3!N Black is doing quite okay after 1 S . . . ie4, but it is hard to refrain from the more eyecatching continuation.

19 .l2Jh4 Inferior is 1 9.ltlg5?! ixg2 20.l:!c7 if6+.

19 . . . ig4 20.h3 l:!e2t 2 l .�fl !!xe3 22.hxg4 ixd4 23.!!dl l:!e4 24.tt:lf3 ib6

The position is roughly equal.

a b c d e f g h

17 ... Ae4 18.l:!c7 l:!fc8 19.l:!xc8t l:!xc8t 20.�b4

20.'it>b2 !!bSt 2l .�c3 !!eSt leads to a repetition.

20 •. J::tbst

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2l.�a5!? This is White's only chance to play for a win.

2 1 . �c3 !!eSt leads once again to a repetition.

2l...l:!d8 22.cll�e5 This allows Black to regain the sacrificed

pawn, but the alternative of 22.!!dl e5! looks risky for White.

22 ... Lg2 23.l:!cl We have been following the game Pasierb

- Chovanec, corr. 2005. Now the simplest continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h

124 7 . .ie3

23 .. Jld5tN 24.cba6 he5 25.dxe5 :Sxe5= The endgame is equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C22) 13.d5

a b c d e f g h

This is the critical continuation.

13 ... :Sd8 From here White's main options are C221)

14.cbc2 and C222) 14.cbel.

14 . .id3?! tLlb4 transposes to the line 13 . .id3 :B:d8 14.d5?! tLlb4 as analysed on page 12 1 .

14 . .ic4 is also unimpressive: 14 . . . tLla5 15 .:B:hd1 (There is no time for 15 . .id3? as after 1 5 ... e6! White is in trouble.) 15 . . . tLlxc4t 16.:B:xc4 f5 17.<it>e1 fxe4 1 8.:B:xe4 .ic3t!? 1 9.mfl .if6+ Hoi - Helmers, Esbjerg 1982

C221) 14.cbc2

Curiously, this has been an especially popular move in correspondence games.

14 ... �a5 15.J.g5 Absolutely harmless is:

1 5 .tLld2?! .id? 16.mb 1 e6 17.tLlc4 b6! This strong idea is made possible by the placement of the king on b 1 , which would be in dire trouble in the event of an exchange on a5.

1 8.ig5 Now in the game Heinig - Gauglitz, Fuerstenwalde 1 98 1 , Black could have executed a strong exchange sacrifice:

a b c d e f g h

1 8 .. . exd5!N 1 9 . .ixd8 :B:xd8 20.tLlxa5 After 20.tLld2 .ie6t Black is clearly better.

20 . . . bxa5 2l .:B:c7 dxe4 22 . .ic4 ie5 23.:B:xa7 e3!

White can probably still hold this position, but Black clearly has the initiative.

15 ... cb£8 16..if4 16 . .id3 b6 17.md2 f6 1 8 . .ie3 was played

in Mathe - Swahnberg, e-mail 2006. Black should now have played the obvious move:

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . f5!N The following continuation looks logical: 19 .:B:hd1 fxe4 20 . .ixe4 tUb?! 21 .tLld4 tLld6 22 . .if3 .ixd4 23 . .ixd4 ib7 Black has equalized.

Chapter 1 0- 8.itJf3 125

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... .ig4N I prefer this active move over the softer

16 . . . b6, as played in Dothan - Acevedo Villalba, e-mail 2006.

17 . .ie2 17.ic7?! does not work due to 17 ... E:dc8

18.�bl lt:'lc6! when Black is already better.

17 .. J�ac8t 18.�bl 1 8.'tt>d2 invites 18 ... e6, and after 1 9.E:xc8

E:xc8 20.E:cl E:xc l 21 .�xcl <J;;e7 the position is equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... b5!?

practically forces his opponent to accept the pawn sacrifice.

19J�xc8 White does best to insert this exchange, as

the immediate 19.ixb5? E:b8 20.ixb8 E:xb8 sees Black win two pieces for a rook.

19 ... :axc8 20.hb5 �c4 21 .hc4 :axc4 From this position the following sequence is

more or less forced:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22.�d2 :ab4t 23.�c2 :ab2t 24.�d3 :axa2 25J�bl ga3t 26.:ab3 :axb3t 27.�xb3 .id7=

The dust has settled, and the resulting endgame is balanced.

8

7

6

5

4

3

C222) 14.�el

This is an interesting way to develop 2 counterplay. Black intends to play ... lt:'lc4 and

a b c d e f g h

126 7.ie3

14 ... �a5 We have reached the last major branching

point of the chapter. White has tested a wide variety of continuations, the most important being C2221) 15.i.f4, C2222) 15 . .id2 and C2223) 15 . .ig5 .

15 .ib5?! White fails to anticipate his opponent's counterplay.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . f5 ! 16 . .id2 b6 White's pawn centre is on the brink of collapse.

1 7.ixa5 bxa5 1 8.e5 .ib7 1 9 . .ic6 This was Kamble - Ganguly, New Delhi 2006. Now Black's strongest continuation would have been:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . E:ab8N 20.h4 .ia6 2 l .'tt>d2 E:b4 Black has the initiative.

1 5 . .id3?!

This move also fails to prevent the attack on White's centre.

15 . . . e6 16 . .ig5 Rogetzer - Gerold, Vienna 2003. Here a serious improvement would be:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . E:d7!N After this move Black soon takes over the initiative, for instance:

17 . .ib5 E:d6 1 8 . .if4 E:b6 1 9.id3 exd5 20.exd5 .ig4

The opening of the centre is clearly in Black's favour, bearing in mind that White has already forfeited the right to castle.

Finally, let's check one more minor continuation: 15 .lt:\d2 .id7 16 . .id3 e6 17.'tt>e2 exd5 1 8.exd5

This position was reached in Chachere -Chow, Illinois 1988, and one subsequent game. At this point Black could have exploited the vulnerability of the d5-pawn with:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 0 - 8.lDf3 127

1 8 . . . ie8!N The game continuation of 1 8 . . . ia4 is not bad for Black, but the text move has one major advantage.

1 9.ie4 f5 20.if3 if7! This is it! The d-pawn will perish, and White

faces an uphill battle to draw.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C2221) 15 . .if4

a b c d e f g h

Threatening ic7.

15 ... .td7 16 . .td3 f5! A clear improvement over 16 . . .!!dc8, as

played in a few other games.

17.�d2 White has also tried:

17.ic7 E:ac8! 1 8.e5 At first sight this seems very tempting, but in fact it leaves the d5-pawn vulnerable, as demonstrated in the following game:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . ie8! 19.'tt>e2 E:xd5 20.ixa5 E:xcl 2 1 .!'i:xcl E:xa5 22.E:c8 'it>f8+

White has some compensation for the missing pawn, bur overall Black's chances are higher and he eventually prevailed in Akobian - Negi, Wijk aan Zee 20 1 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ... fxe4 18 . .ixe4 �ac8 19.'i!?e2 J.b5t 20.<i!?e3

The position looks like it should be roughly equal, but with the help of a nice idea Black managed to pose some problems for his opponent.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

20 ... .ib2!? 21J�c7 .ia3! 22.<i!?f3 gxc7 23 . .ixc7 gffit 24. <i!?g3 b6i

White's position was a bit unpleasant in Karpeta - Plebanczyk, e-mail 2008.

128 7.i.e3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

C2222) 15 . .id2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... b6 Black has no reason to fear the doubling of

his queenside pawns, as his bishop pair and the open b-file would be far more relevant factors.

16 . .ib4 White's bishop manoeuvre is rather time

consuming and thus fails to cause Black problems. Nevertheless the following alternatives are even worse:

16.!k7?! e6 17 .i.xaS bxaS 18.i.c4 E:b8+ White's inability to castle gave him real problems in Sondermann - W. Schneider, Dortmund 200 1 .

16.i.bS?! f5 ! 17.i.xaS bxaS 18 .eS E:b8 19.i.c4 i.h6 20.E:d 1 E:b4 was clearly better for Black in Bazant - Yandemirov, Prague 1 990.

16 ... e6 17 . .ie7 White makes a third consecutive bishop

move; at least he is being consistent. The alternative is: 17.d6

This untested move was mentioned by Krasenkow in ChessBase Magazine 89.

17 ... i.b7 1 8.E:c7 Here I found an improvement:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . ixe4! Krasenkow gave 1 8 . . . E:dc8 which is also interesting, but it seems to me that Black can follow the more critical path of capturing the central pawn.

19.lLlgS From here I analysed the following continuation:

1 9 . . . tLlc6 20.id2 .idS 2 I .tLlxf7 E:dc8 22.ia6 E:xc7 23.dxc7 Wxf7 24.c8=Wf E:xc8 2S.ixc8 tLle7 26.ia6 ixg2 27.E:gl idS+

Black has two pawns for the exchange and can play for a win without risk.

17 .. J�d7 18.d6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... a6! It turns out that White is unable to maintain

his outposts in the heart of the enemy position. The threat is ... ib7 followed by . . . tLlc6.

Chapter 1 0 - 8.ctJf3 129

19 . .id3 .ib7 20J��c7 gxc7 21.dxc7 .i£8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 . .if6?! This just loses a pawn.

The best chance was 22 . .ixf8 'it>xf8 23.'it>d2 gc8 24.gcl 'it>e7 25 .'it>e3 when Black cannot capture the c7-pawn easily due to ctJg5 ideas. Nevertheless Black certainly has the better chances after 25 .. .f6, as noted by Krasenkow.

22 ... .id6+ White lost a pawn without obtaining the

slightest compensation in Cyborowski -Krasenkow, Warsaw 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C2223) 15 . .ig5

a b c d e f g h

15 ... .id7 16 . .id3 It is well established that taking the e7 -pawn

leads nowhere for White: 1 6 . .ixe7?! l:!e8 17 .d6 lt::lc6 18 . .ib5 .if8 Black easily regains his pawn. 1 9 . .ixf8 l:!xe4t 20.'it>d2 1his position occurred in Saucey - Atakisi, Antalya 2004, and now the most accurate continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . Wxf8N 2 1 .l:!hel l:!f4! With a slightly better endgame for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... £5! My decision to recommend the entire line

beginning with 1 0 . . . cxd4 was dependent upon this move working well for Black.

The more popular 16 . . . l:!dc8 17. 'it>e2 e6 is playable, but in my opinion Black is fighting for a draw here, whereas after the text move

130 7.ie3

the position is just as dangerous for White as it is for Black.

17.e5 This central advance is White's most popular

and principled response. Here are a few other possibilities:

17 ."8c7 has not been tested, and indeed after 17 ... fxe4 1 8.J.xe4 "8ac8 it is only Black who can be better, as he is about to exchange his opponent's most active piece.

Much more interesting is: 17.ixe7!? "8e8 1 8.d6 fxe4 19 .ixe4 ic6

Worse is 1 9 . . . if8?! 20.id5t i>g7 when 2 1 ."8c7! suddenly proves effective. After the text move I found an important improvement for White.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20.l2Jg5!N The only game here continued 20.ixc6?! l2Jxc6 2 Li>dl tDxe7 22.dxe7 "8xe7 when Black was already better in Truharr -Kherubim, Internet 2004.

20 ... h6!? This is the most ambitious move, although there are plenty of other ideas. One of White's ideas is revealed in the following line: 20 . . . ixe4 2 1 .l2Jxe4 l2Jc6 22."8xc6! bxc6 23.i>d2:i5 1he strong d6-pawn gives White fine compensation. Nevertheless Black has two reliable alternatives:

20 ... ih6 2 1 ."8c5 ixg5 22."8xg5 ixe4 23."8xa5 ixg2 24."8gl ic6 25.i>d2 i>f7= Despite the strong d6-pawn, I think Black should be able to hold this endgame with ease. The other playable line is: 20 . . . if8 2l .ixf8 i>xf8 22.f3 h6 23."8c5 hxg5 24."8xa5 "8ad8 The position is close to a draw.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2l .ixg6 hxg5 22.ixe8 "8xe8 23.f3 i>f7 In this unbalanced position the chances are

approximately equal.

Finally, White's most popular alternative to the main line has been: 17.l2Jd2 "8dc8

Black can also consider 17 ... fxe4 1 8.ixe4 ( 18.l2Jxe4? runs into 1 8 . . . if5 when the d5-pawn is in trouble.) 18 ... "8ac8 with a playable position, as demonstrated in a few games.

1 8 .�e2 e6! Increasing the pressure against the enemy centre.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 0 - 8.tt:lf3 131

19 .ie3 The strange 1 9.h4? is a clear mistake, and after 1 9 . . . exd5 20.exd5 :B:e8t 2l .�f3 :B:e5+ White lost his central pawn in Markos -Sutovsky, Bled 2002. I also checked the untested 19.exf5N gxf5 20.d6, but this fails to bring White any benefit due to 20 ... ie5 2 l .ie7 tt:lc6 22.tt:lf3 if4 23.:B:c4 tt:lxe7 24.:B:xf4 tt:ld5 25 .:B:c4 :B:c6! when Black is better.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 9 . . . fxe4

a b c d e f g h

The untested 19 . . . exd5N 20.exd5 :B:e8!? also deserves consideration.

20.ixe4 ib5t 2l .'it>f3 exd5 22.ixd5t �h8 The simplifications resulted in an equal

position in Ftacnik - Sutovsky, Kaskady 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ... .ie8! 18.d6 :B:dc8 19.dxe7

White has also tried: 1 9.�d2

But Black has a strong reply: 1 9 ... exd6 20.exd6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

20 . . . iffi!

a b c d e f g h

This gives White serious problems with the d6-pawn.

2 l .if4 Another game saw 2 l .ie7 ixe7 22.dxe7 tt:lc6 23.:B:he1 :B:c7 24.tt:ld4 if7! and White was unable to hang onto the e7-pawn in Schrancz - Pasko, e-mail 200 1 .

2 l . ..:B:d8! 22.:B:he 1 This position was reached in K.i. Georgiev -Krasenkow, Rethymnon 2003. At this point Black's most accurate continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 . . . :B:d7!N White will have serious problems dealing

with the attack on the d6-pawn.

132 7.ie3

A similar idea is: 19.�e2 exd6 20.exd6 .if8

Once again the same response works well.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2 1 .E:xc8 E:xc8 22.E:d 1 ! Compared with the previous line, the white king is not blocking the d-file, thus enabling him to maintain the balance.

22 ... .ixd6 23 . .ixf5 .ib5t 24 . .id3 The position was equal in Kalinski - Dvoirys,

USSR 1 982.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h 19 ... h6!

This intermediate move is an important detail, as it is essential to cover the g5-square before the rook exchange.

20.J.e3 20 . .id2 E:xcl t is the same of course.

2o .. J::�xcl t 21.Lc1 gcs

Black has another solid route to an equal position: 2 1 . ..tt:\c6 22 . .ic4t Af7 23.e6 .ie8 24 . .ia3 E:c8 25.�d2 tt:\xe7 26.E:cl .if6= Lennox - D. Blair, corr. 200 1 .

22.<i!?e2 22 . .ie3 does not change the assessment:

22 ... tt:\c4 23 .ixa7 tt:\xe5 24.tt:\xe5 Axe5 25 .�e2 �f7= Black regains the pawn to reach full equality, Piot - Spielmann, Rosny sous Bois 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

22 ... l'flc6 23.J.e3 Another idea is 23 . .ic4t, after which the

players agreed a draw in Banet - Hi. Krueger, e-mail 2003. The continuation would have been 23 . . . .if7 24.e6 ie8 followed by . . . tt:\xe7, when the position remains complex but roughly level.

23 ... lthe7 Equally playable is 23 . . . tt:\xe5 24.tt:\xe5

Axe5 25 .Axa7 (25 . .ixh6 �f7=) when a draw was agreed in Karpeta - Krzyzanowski, corr. 2008. Black's next move would surely have been 25 .. . E:c7, regaining the pawn with full equality.

24.ha7 ttldS! This active move ensures Black of a good

position.

Chapter 1 0 - 8.ltJf3 133

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

25.ie3 tLlc3t 26.�d2 tlle4t 27.�e2 tllc3t 28.�d2=

We have been following the game Zhou Jianchao - Ni Hua, Hyderabad 2005. Black chose to play for a win but the game was eventually drawn. In any case, from a theoretical perspective, the soundest continuation is:

28 • . • c!L!e4N= Forcing a repetition.

Conclusion

We have seen that the set-up involving 7.ie3 c5 8.lt'lf3 can lead to rich positions offering plenty of interesting possibilities for both players. Following the standard response of 8 . . . Wfa5, both A) 9.lt'ld2 and B) 9.id2 are pretty harmless, although the latter has developed a fair-sized body of theory. The really important line is C) 9.Wfd2 lt'lc6, when the game might veer in one of two main directions.

In the event of Cl) lOJ!b l a6 l l .!!cl , Black should avoid exchanges with l l . . .!g4 12.d5 !!d8, when the latest games and analysis suggest that he is doing fine.

After the more popular C2) lO.!!cl there is nothing wrong with 1 O ... ig4, with similar play to the aforementioned line, but my personal preference is 1 0 . . . cxd4 l l .cxd4 Wfxd2t 1 2.�xd2 0-0, reaching a queenless position which has undergone thorough analysis and practical testing. So far Black's position has proven resilient enough to withstand whatever the opponent might throw at him, while also providing enough dynamic resources to fight for the initiative.

7.ie3 8.�d2

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 8."Wd2

8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 �c6 A) 1 o . .ibs .id7

A1) 1 1 J�b1 A2) 1 1 .�e2

B) 10J�d1 0-0 B1) 1 1 ..ie2 B2) 1 1.d5 B3) 1 1 .�f3

note t o 9 .. . ti'lc6

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . :1'\abSN

AI) note to 1 3 . .ixc6!?N

a b c d e f g h

!6 . . . f5!N

B3) note to 1 3.0-0

135 136 137 138 139 140 141

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . a6N

Chapter 1 1 - 8.'1Wd2 135

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.tLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 tLlxd5 5.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 s.'l'd2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Here we see another slightly different way for White to arrange his pieces. The queen takes the sting out of any . . . �a5 ideas, and sets up the possibility of .ih6 later on. I recommend the following line for Black:

8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 tLlc6

a b c d e f g h

Immediately attacking the d4-pawn. White's two main responses are A) 10 • .ib5 and B) lOJ�dl.

A few games continued: 10.�f3 .ig4 1 l ..ib5

1 1 J�d 1 0-0 1 2 . .ie2 transposes directly to

variation B3, which occurs via the move order 1 0.1:'!:d 1 0-0 1 l .�f3 .ig4 "12 . .ie2.

1 l . . . .ixf3 1 2.gxf3 0-0 13 . .ixc6 bxc6 14.1:'!:cl 14.0-0 runs into 14 . . . c5 1 5.1:'!:adl cxd4 16 . .ixd4 .ixd4 1 7.�xd4 �a5 with equality, Karpov - Ponomariov, San Sebastian 2009.

14 ... �d7 1 5 .0-0 This position was reached in H. Andersen - Tschann, Germany 2004. Here the best solution for Black is:

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . 1:'!:ab8N For example:

1 6.1:'!:c5 After 16.1%fd1 1:'!:b5 17 . .if4 a5 the evaluation is similar.

16 . . . �h3 17.�e2 1:'!:b4! Black is doing fine.

A) 10 • .ib5

a b c d e f g h

136 7.ie3

IO ... J.d7 Now we reach a further division between

AI) I U�bl and A2) ll .tC!e2.

AI) l l .:Bbl 0-0 12.�e2

White has also tried a different knight move: 1 2.lt:lf3

Graf- Krasenkow, Berlin 2003. Here I like the natural yet untested move:

1 2 . . . .ig4! ?N 1 3.d5 I also examined 13 . .ixc6 bxc6 14.lt:le5 .ixe5 1 5.dxe5 :B:b8 when the position is equal.

1 3 . . . .ixf3 14.gxf3 lt:le5 1 5 . .ie2

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Here the important move is 1 5 . . . 1Mfc8!

We have reached a position examined in variation B2 of Chapter 1 3, beginning with the move order 7.lt:lf3 c5 8.:!'!b 1 0-0 9 . .ie3.

I also checked a new idea for White: 1 2 . .ixc6N .ixc6

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 3.d5 .ia4 14.lt:le2 1 4.:Bxb7?? loses on the spot to 1 4 . . . 1Mfc8!. White would like to castle and play .id4. If he had time to carry out this plan then he would have some chances for an edge, but Black can throw a spanner in the works:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

14 . . . :Bc8!

a b c d e f g h

Black takes advantage of his lead in development.

1 5 .:B:xb7 :!'!c2 16.1Mfd3 'Mfc8 1 7.:!'!xa7 :B:xa2 1 8.0-0 .ic2!

Black regains the sacrificed pawn to reach the more comfortable side of equality.

12 ... a6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

13.i.xc6!?N This untested move appears logical, so I

decided to analyse it as the main line.

Chapter 1 1 - 8.'�'d2 137

13 . .id3 This has been played in a couple of games, but it is not really dangerous.

13 . . . b5 14.0-0 Another game saw 14.h4 �a5 1 5 .�xa5 ltJxa5 16.md2 �fc8 17.�hcl e6 and a draw was agreed in Vyzmanavin - Huzman, Vilnius 1995.

14 . . . �a5 1 5.�xa5 ltJxa5 16.d5 This position occurred in Hillarp Persson -Kaufman, Hampstead 1 998. At this point Black's best continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . f5!N 17.f3 fxe4 1 8.fxe4 �xfl t 1 9.mxf1 �c8

Black has no problems and even has the more promising position.

13 ... .ixc6 14.d5 i.b5 15.i.d4 This is the only reasonable try, since 1 5 .0-0

runs into 15 . . . e6! with a good game for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... .ixd4! 16.ltlxd4 �c7! This is the simplest solution to Black's

problems.

17.tthb5 axb5 Black's pawn weaknesses are balanced by his

lead in development.

18.0-0 18.�xb5 might lead to a forced draw:

1 8 . . . �xa2 ( 1 8 . . . �a4!? is also possible) 1 9.�xa2 �cl t 20.'it>e2 �xh1 2 l .�xb7 �xg2 22.�xe7 �g4t 23.'it>fl �d1 t=

18 .. J�a4 Black has enough activity to maintain the

balance, for instance:

19.�d3 �e5 20J��xb5 �xe4 2l.�xe4 �he4 22.�xb7 �aS

Black regains his pawn to reach a drawish endgame.

A2) l l .c!be2

a b c d e f g h

This has been White's most popular choice in the position, but it is harmless and has yielded a dreadful score for the first player.

ll . . • a6 12.i.d3 Alternatively, 12 . .ixc6 .ixc6 13.f3 0-0

14.0-0 .ib5 1 5.�fd1 was played in Lehtivaara

138 7 . .ie3

- Rytshagov, Finland 1 996. From here the best way for Black to organize his position would have been: 15 ... .ic4!N 16Jl:acl E:c8 17 .d5 b5 1 8.tlJd4 e6! With a comfortable position.

12 ..• 0-0 13J:l:cl 1 3.E:bl b5 reaches the note to White's 13th

move in line Al above.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13 .. J:l:c8 14.0-0 Yl9'a5 15.Yl9'xa5 ttlxaS 16.d5 This is the only challenging idea at White's

disposal.

16 ... b5 17 • .ib6 1 7 . .id4 .ixd4 1 8.tlJxd4 was seen in Pascua

Vilches - Villamanan Alonso, Valladolid 2000, and now I foun? an easy solution for Black:

a b c d e f g h

18 . . . e6!N 1 9.dxe6 .ixe6 20.tlJxe6 fxe6 Black has the slightly better endgame.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... ttlb7 There is nothing wrong with 17 ... tlJc4

1 8 . .ixc4 bxc4, but the text move keeps Black's position more fluid.

18Jt�d4 Ah6! 19Jl:cd1 ttld6 20.ttlb3 �c4i Black slowly took over the initiative Wang

Yaoyao - Alterman, Beijing 1995.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) 10J��d1

a b c d e f g h

We have seen that developing of the bishop on b5 is pretty harmless, so it is not surprising that this flexible rook move is the main line.

10 ... 0-0 Now White's main options are B1) 1 1 ..ie2,

B2) l l .dS and B3) 1 I .ttlf3.

Chapter 1 1 - 8.'\Wd2 139

Less important is: l l .�c4 �d7

The position of White's bishop invites a quick . . . l::k8.

1 2.tt:le2 l::k8 1 3.0-0 Also after 13.Ekl e6 14.0-0 'W'a5 15 .'W'xa5 tt:lxa5 16.�d3 b5 Black has no problems.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 3 . . . tt:la5

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . 'W'a5!?N is not bad either. 1 4.�d3 tt:lc4 1 5 .�xc4 E:xc4 16.E:cl �b5 17.E:fd 1 'W'd7 1 8.E:xc4 �xc4 19.tt:lc3 b5+

Black had the more comfortable game in Alavi - Ghollasi Moud, Mashhad 201 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

81) I I..ie2

a b c d e f g h

White wants to put his knight on f3 without allowing the pinning . . . �g4, but the idea carries a drawback.

l l . . . e5! Black takes immediate advantage of the

vulnerability of the d4-square.

12.d5 1 2.dxe5 is absolutely harmless, and after

1 2 . . . 'W'xd2t 1 3.�xd2 �xe5 14.�c4 as occurred in Eperjesi - Dobos, Budapest 1993, Black could have simply continued 14 . . . E:e8N 1 5.tt:le2 �e6+ with the more pleasant game.

12 ... �d4 13.�f3 �xe2 14.Yfxe2 If White had time to castle then he would

have the makings of a positional advantage thanks to his passed pawn, but it is Black's turn to move.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... Yfa5t! 15 • .id2 One of the main points of Black's idea is

that 1 5.'W'd2 runs into 15 ... 'W'a4! when the weakness of the e4-pawn causes problems for White.

15 ... Yfa4! This important move was employed in

Gelfand - Svidler, Ohrid 2009. Previously Black had played 1 5 . . . 'W'xa2, but I suspect that Boris was ready for this, and indeed after 16.0-0 White has rich compensation.

140 7 . .ie3

After the text move the players agreed a draw, but perhaps Black should have played on. The following continuation looks logical:

16.0-0 b6 17.l3fel .ia6 18.�e3 l3ac8i The initiative is with Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B2) l l.d5

a b c d e f g h

l l ... �a5! A strong move. Instead after l l . . .tLle5 12 . .id4

White has good chances for an advantage.

12.�xa5 This is the only move to have been tested so

far, but the following alternative should also be considered: 12.�c1N �xd2t

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

13 . .ixd2

a b c d e f g h

13.�xd2 looks strange, and after 13 . . . tLla5 the prospect of a timely . . . e6 or ... f5 gives Black excellent chances.

13 . . . tDd4 14.tDe2 14.t2Jf3 f5 1 5 .lDxd4 .ixd4 merely transposes. 14 . .ib4 is pointless, as Black can exploit his superior development follows: 14 . . . .id7 1 5 . .ixe7 �ac8! 1 6.�b 1 �feB 17 .d6 .if8 Black has the better chances.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14 . . . 5!

a b c d e f g h

This undermining move often proves to be of key importance in Griinfeld endgames.

1 5.lDxd4 After 1 5 .f3 fxe4 1 6.fxe4 .ig4 17.tDxd4 .ixd4 1 8 . .ig5 �ac8 Black is at least equal.

1 5 ... .ixd4 The following sequence looks logical:

16 . .ih6 �d8 17.f3 .id? 1 8 . .id3 �ac8 19.'kt>e2 �f7

The position remains balanced.

12 ... tL!xa5 13 . .id2 Alternatively 1 3 . .ib5 a6 1 4 . .id3 was played

in Lim Chuing Hoong - Vu Dinh Hung, Kuala Lumpur 200 1 , and now with the help of some energetic play Black could have obtained an excellent game: 14 . . . f5!N 1 5.f3 b5 16.tDe2 fxe4 17.fxe4 e6+ White's position is unpleasant.

13 ... b6

Chapter 1 1 - 8.'1Wd2 141

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h Black need not fear an exchange on a5, as

the loss of White's important bishop would outweigh the slight weakening of Black's queenside pawns.

14.ttlf3 14.ib4 can be met strongly by 14 ... f5!

15 .id3 fxe4 16.ixe4 ib7 17.f3 Arreaga Orozco - Soederberg, e-mail 2003. Now after the simple improvement:

a b c d e f g h

a b c d e f g h

16 ... dxe4! White must have either overlooked or

underestimated this intermediate move.

17 . .ib4 exf3 18.gxf3 .ie6 19.Lfs .ix£8 20.a4 a6 2I..ic6 gc8

With a pawn for the exchange, a sounder structure and a lead in development, Black was clearly on top in Oumitrache - Vokarev, Bucharest 1 998.

8

7

6

5

4

3

B3) I I.ttlf3

17 ... if6N Black has the more pleasant 2 position.

14 ... e6 14 . . . ig4 1 5.ie2 :!!ac8= is also reasonable.

15 . .ib5 exd5 16.ha5? White commits an error. The correct

16.exd5N :!!d8 would have maintained the balance.

a b c d e f g h

This is the clear main line.

l l ... .ig4 12 . .ie2 'ti'a5 13.0-0 A playable though less popular alternative

is 13 .'1Wxa5 tt:lxa5 14.0-0 :!!ac8 1 5.d5 ( 15 .:!!cl

142 7.ie3

transposes to the main line below.) Arpa Pardo - Ferreruela Romero, Aragon 2005. Now I like the following idea:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . a6N 16J'k1 b5 17.h3 .ixf3 1 8 . .ixf3 ltlc4 1 9 . .ig5 .if6!= Black easily solves his problems.

l3 .. J�ac8 14.YlYxa5 Another direction is:

14.h3 .ixf3 1 5 . .ixf3 V:lfxd2 1 6.13xd2 ltla5! The simple plan of bringing the knight to c4 offers Black good counterplay.

a b c d e f g h

1 7 .ig5 ttl c4 Another method of handling the position is 17 . . . .if6, for instance 18 .ixf6 exf6 1 9.13bl 13fd8 20 . .ie2 13c3 2 l .d5 b6 and Black was not experiencing any problems in I. Sokolov - Ehlvest, Sweden 2003.

1 8.13d3 This position occurred in Melkumyan -Areshchenko, Rijeka, 20 1 0, and now the

most accurate continuation for Black would have been:

1 8 . . . 13fd8N 1 9.d5 Wf8 20 . .ig4 13c5 2 1 .13c1 b6

With easy equality.

14 ... ttlxa5 15.13cl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h 15 ... La!

This concrete approach to the position is justified by the fact that both recaptures imply certain drawbacks for White.

The alternative is less inspiring: 1 5 . . . ltlc6 16.d5 ixf3 17 . .ixf3 ltld4 1 8.ig4 f5 1 9.exf5 gxf5 20 . .ih5 Khashper - Khairullin, corr. 2002. Black's position is solid and reliable enough, although I am not sure if he can claim to have fully equalized as White's bishop pair might yet become an important factor.

16.Lf3 The alternative is:

16.gxf3 ltlc6!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 1 - 8.WI'd2 143

17.d5 White cannot protect the d4-pawn with 1 7.E:fd1 ?, as 17 . . . l2Jxd4! wins a pawn. In the event of 17 .E:cd 1 N Black can consider returning with 17 . . . l2Ja5!? for instance 1 8.d5 a6 19.E:cl b5= and Black is fine.

17 . . . l2Jd4 1 8 . .ixd4 .ixd4 Black is marginally better although of course

White should be able to hold the position, Danner - Gustafsson, Budapest 200 1 .

16 .. )L�c4 17.e5 White cannot avoid giVIng up his dark

squared bishop, so he concentrates on activating the other one.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ..• b5! Black should not rush to exchange on e3, as

White retains some pressure in the oppositecoloured bishop endgame. This point has been illustrated in a couple of games. 17 ... l2Jxe3 1 8.fxe3 .ih6

Another game continued: 18 ... b6 1 9 . .ib7! E:xcl 20.E:xcl e6 2 I .illf2! f6 22.exf6 .ixf6 23.'it>e2 E:e8 24 . .ia6! Black's passive play left him in an unpleasant position, Epishin -Rytshagov, Paernu 1 996.

19 .illf2 b5 This was lvanchuk- Svidler, Nice (blindfold)

20 10. Black was able to hold this position without too much trouble, but still I prefer the

game continuation, which aims for an improved version of the same type of endgame.

18.i.b7 Keeping the dark-squared bishop does not

promise White much: 18 . .if4 e6 19.E:fd1 E:fd8=

18 •.• E:b8 19.J.d5 l2Jxe3 I definitely prefer this to the risky 1 9 . . . E:fc8?!

20.e6 E:b6 2 1 .exf7t illf8 .as played in Hartwich - Michna, Internet 200 1 .

20.fxe3 e6 2I.i.c6 21 ..ie4 can be met by 2 1 . . .E:fc8 when there

is no .ib7.

2I...i.h6 22.�fl b4 23.J.a4 E:fc8= Black achieved comfortable equality in

Akesson - Rytshagov, Stockholm 1997.

Conclusion

8.Wfd2 is a reasonable-looking move, but it is a little on the slow side, and so the immediate attack on the centre with 8 ... cxd4 9.cxd4 l2Jc6 makes a good deal of sense. Variation A with 1 O . .ib5 .id7 is playable for White, but he can hardly hope to achieve any advantage following the early exchange of his light-squared bishop for the enemy knight. Line B with 10.E:d1 seems more principled, although here too Black's position seems to be perfectly in order. After 10 . . . 0-0 the critical line is B3) 1 I .l2Jf3, but my analysis shows that Black currently has no problems here, with the main line leading to an equal endgame.

a b c d e f g h

Various 8th Moves

Variation Index

I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.� c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.�f3

7 ... c5 A) 8.i.c4 145 m 8�� 1%

B1) 9.i.e3 146 B2) 9.d5 148

C) 8.h3 0-0 150 C1) 9.i.e3 151 C2) 9.i.c4 152 C3) 9.i.e2 153

D) 8 . .ib5t �c6 9.0-0 cxd4 10.cxd4 0-0 I l.i.e3 i.g4 12.i.xc6 bxc6 13J�cl 'WaS 155

D1) 14J�xc6 157 D2) 14JWe2 158 D3) 14JWd2 160

B I ) afrer 1 6 . .ib5

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . .ixf3N

C2) afrer 2 J .�a4

a b c d e f g h

2 J . . . .id3!N

02) afrer 2 1 .li'le I

a b c d e f g h

2 l . . .�b2!N

Chapter 1 2 - Various 8th Moves 145

I.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 The same position is frequently reached

via the alternative move order of 4.ll:\f3 .ig7 5.cxd5 ll:\xd5 6.e4 ll:\xc3 7.bxc3.

4 .• .tt�xd5 5.e4 ttlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttlf3

a b c d e f g h 7 ... c5

From this position by far the most important move is 8.�b l , which will receive full coverage in Chapters 13- 16. In the present chapter we will deal with A) 8 • .ic4, B) 8 . .ie2, C) 8.h3 and D) 8 • .ib5t.

The most significant deviation is actually 8.i.e3, but this has already been covered in Chapter 1 0 via the move order of 7 . .ie3 c5 8.ll:\f3.

A) 8 • .ic4

a b c d e f g h

The combination of ll:\f3 and .ic4 tends not to work well against the Griinfeld.

8 ... 0-0 After bringing his king to safety Black will

be ready to hit the enemy centre with . . . ll:\c6 and . . . .ig4. Note that the immediate 8 ... .ig4? should be avoided due to 9.ixf7t, which would be embarrassing.

9.0-0 This seems to be the logical continuation,

although it allows Black to develop decent counterplay, so perhaps White should consider 9.h3 transposing to line C2.

The alternatives are nothing special; 9 .�b 1 ?! reaches line A of the next chapter, while 9 . .ie3 lL\c6 1 0.0-0 (1 0.h3 transposes to line C2) I O . . . cxd4 1 l .cxd4 .ig4 is just a different route to the position reached in the present variation.

9 ... cxd4 IO.cxd4 ttlc6 l l . .ie3 .ig4

a b c d e f g h

12 • .id5 Worse is 12.e5?! .ixf3 13.Wfxf3 (Another

game continued: 1 3.gxf3 e6 14.f4 ll:\e7 1 5 .Wff3 �c8 16.�acl Wid? 17.�fd1 �fd8+ Khlebovich -Uzhva, Smolensk 200 1 .) 1 3 . . . ll:\xd4 14.Wfxb7 .ixe5 1 5 .�ad1 �c8+ Buczinski - De Melo,

146 7.lLlf3

e-mail 2008. White's bishop pair gives him some chances to hold, but he certainly does not have full compensation for the . . pawn.

m1ssmg

12 ... .ixf.3 l3.gxf3 Y*fd7 13 . . . .ixd4!?N 14 . .ixd4 lLlxd4 1 5.Wfxd4 e6

also leads to roughly equal play.

14J::!bl This position was reached l·n T:

K syvarev -

uzneszov, Volgograd 1996. At this point m preferred continuation would be:

y

5

4

3

2

c f g h

14 ... �6N 15.Lc6 �xc6 16.Y*fb3 b6 With a balanced position.

B) 8 . .ie2

4

3

2

a f g h

. This

. allows Black to strike at the centre

1mmed1ately.

8 ... �c6 White's main responses are Bl) 9 "' 3 d

B2) 9.d5. ,£e an

9 .E!:b 1 leads to simplifications: 9 . . . cxd4 10 cxd4 lLlxd4 1 1 .lLlxd4 Wfxd4 1 2 . .ib5t

.

6

5

4

3

a b c d e f g h

1 �· .. .id7! (Black should not become too greedy With 1 2 . . �f8�1 13 \1.11 . .

. . . . as .ae2 IS qutte dangerous

for htm.) 13 . .ixd7t Wfxd7 14.Wfxd7t 'it>xd7 1 5.E!:xb7t �e6 16 . .ia3 .if6 17 ..t.- 2 o:o:>h w· h ful

.�e 1=. c8

C It I equality, Summerscale - Jelen

annes 1996. '

Bl) 9 . .ie3

4

3

2

a e f g h

9 ... .ig4


White will not be able to hold his centre together without making some kind of concession.

IO.e5 With this move White gives up the d5-square

and loses his flexibility in the centre, but there was no other reasonable way to defend the d4-pawn.

1 O.d5? is too optimistic, as shown by the following game: 10 . . . ixf3 1 l .gxf3 ixc3t 1 2.c;t>fl ixa1 13 .'Wxa1 lLld4 14.ib5t cj;>fg 1 5.ixd4 cxd4 16.'Wxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 .. .f6 17.c;t>g2 'Wd6! White failed to obtain sufficient compensation in Zhu Chen - Van Wely, Batumi 200 1 .

1 0J�b 1 ?! ixf3 1 l .gxf3 cxd4 1 2.cxd4 ixd4! Black has every reason to fight for the advantage. 13 .1'!xb7 0-0 14.0-0 Gezaljan -Svidler, Leningrad 1990. At this point Black could have maintained an edge by means of:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . 'Wc8N 1 5.1'!b3 :!'!d8+ With some initiative.

a b c d e f g h

IO ••. cx:d4 ll.cx:d4 Wfa5t Black is also fine after 1 1 . . .0-0, but I like

the queen check as it forces White to make a difficult decision.

12.i.d2 12.'Wd2 'Wxd2t 1 3.lLlxd2 ixe2 14.c;t>xe2

:!'!d8 gives Black a pleasant endgame, and after 1 5.lLlb3 :!'!d5 1 6.1'!acl 0-0 17.1'!hd1 :!'!fd8 the players agreed a draw in Kotnik - Bozic, Otocec 2009.

1 2.lLld2 ixe2 1 3.'Wxe2

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . 'Wc3! Now White loses his central pawn, although he can probably scrape together enough compensation to equalize. 14.0-0 lLlxd4 15 .ixd4 'Wxd4 16.lLlf3 'Wa4 1 7.1'!acl

148

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . 0-0 (17 .. .'\MfaS!?N 1 8.e6 f5 deserves attention.) 1 8.1:k7 e6 1 9.!!xb7 l:!ab8 20.!!fb 1 !!xb7 2 I .!!xb7 !!c8 Black was doing fine in lstratescu - Gupta, Differdange 2008.

12 • . • YlYc7 13J�cl gd8! After this move it seems that Black already

has the better chances.

14.YlYa4 YlYd7 15 . .ie3 0-0 16 . .ib5 This position occurred in Tishin- Zinchenko,

Alushta 2006. At this point the natural and strong continuation would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 ••. L£3N 17.gxf3 YlYh3 18 • .ixc6 bxc6 19.YlYxc6 gcs

1 9 .. .f6!? is also interesting.

20.YlYe4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

20 .•. gxcl t 21..ixcl gcs 22 . .id2 YlYg2 23.gfl YlYxh2 24. �e2 .ih6i

White should probably hold this position, but he will have to work for a draw.

B2) 9.d5

a b c d e f g h

This sacrificial continuation is more challenging, but Black should be fine after correct play.

9 • • . Lc3t 10.i.d2 hal This move provides a sharp reminder of why

the 8.!!b 1 variation is so much more popular than the present one!

l l .YlYxal �d4 12.tLlxd4 cxd4 13.YlYxd4 0-0

Chapter 1 2 - Various 8 th Moves 149

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

White certainly has some compensation for the exchange, but objectively the most he should be able to hope for is equality.

14.0-0 White can win back the exchange:

14.�h6 However, this move squanders his initiative and is not really in the spirit of his earlier play.

1 4 . . . '\Wast I s.c;!;>fl f6 16.�xf8 �xf8 Material is equal but Black has the more comfortable game.

17.f3 17.g4 �d7 18 .e5 was played in Lerner -Malaniuk, Yalta 1 982, and now the accurate 18 ... \Wa4!N 19.'1Wxa4 �xa4+ would have led to a better endgame for Black.

17 . . . �d7 1 8.�f2

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . :1k8! This looks like the best chance for an advantage. In the event of 1 8 . . . \Wxa2 1 9.�a1 '1Wc2 20.�fl ! White should be able to hold a draw. It is worth mentioning that 20.�xa7? would be a mistake, as after 20 .. . �xa7 2 1 .'1Wxa7 �b5 22.'1We3 �c4 the b-pawn is dangerous and White faces a difficult defence.

19 .�b 1 �c2 20.�b2 �xb2 2 1 .'1Wxb2 \WeSt 22.�g3 b5+

Black retained a pleasant edge in Hernandez Onna - Sisniega, Matanzas 1 992, due to the possibility of creating a strong passed pawn on the queenside.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . t!fb6 Now White must decide where to retreat his

queen.

15.t!fal White has also tried: 15 .\Wc3 f6 16.�h6 �£7

White has no serious attacking ideas and Black slowly consolidates. 17 .�e3 'lW d8 1 8.f4 �d7 19.�b 1 b6 20.e5 fxe5 2 1 .fxe5 e6 Black had the upper hand and eventually prevailed in Mohr - Lputian, Altensteig 1989.

15 . . . i.d7 This is the only move to have been tested.

It works out fine for Black, but still I found

150 7.liJ f3

a serious alternative: 1 5 . . . �d8!?N Preventing White from regaining the exchange so easily.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.i.d3 (The active 16.i.h6 Wi'f6 17.e5?! Wl'h4+ only worsens White's position.) 1 6 ... i.d7 17.�bl Wl'c7+ White keeps a degree of compensation, but I do not believe he has full value for the exchange.

16-l::�bl 16.i.h6 f6 17.�b l Wl'c7 transposes.

16 ... WI'c7 17 . .ih6 f6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18.�cl In the following game White fell into an

inferior position relatively quickly: 1 8.i.xf8 'it>xf8 19.WI'd4 b5 20.WI'e3 �c8 2 l .f4 Wl'c2 22.�dl �c3 23.Wi'd2 b4+ Pein - Rowson, Birmingham 2000.

18 ... '%Ya5 19.hf8 �xf8 20 . .ifl �c8 2U=!xc8t hc8 22.e5

It looks like Black is under a bit of pressure, but with the help of an accurate manoeuvre he can completely neutralize his opponent's initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 ... '%Yb6! 23.d6 '%Yc5! 24.dxe7t �xe7 25.exf6t �f7=

Black will quickly regain his pawn to reach an equal endgame, Szabo - Lahdenmaeki, e-mail 2009.

C) 8.h3

a b c d e f g h

This continuation experienced a brief spurt of popularity after Kramnik employed it against Kasparov in the 2000 Wijk aan Zee

Chapter 1 2 - Various 8th Moves 15 1

tournament, but nowadays i t is hardly ever seen at the top level.

8 ... �

White must decide which bishop to develop, and on which square. His main choices are Cl) 9 • .ie3, C2) 9..a.c4 and C3) 9 • .ie2.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Cl) 9 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

9 .•. ttlc6 10.'1Wd2 I O.ie2 transposes to line C3.

10 •.• Wl'a5 l l.gdl White has to cover the d4-pawn, otherwise

he quickly falls into a worse position, for instance: l l .ic4?! cxd4 12.cxd4 '!Wxd2t 13.'it>xd2 E!:d8

a b c d e f g h

14.®c3

14.id5 was played as far back as the game Vidmar - Alekhine, Nottingham 1 936, as

well as a few subsequent encounters. So far no one has replied with the straightforward 14 ... e6!N 1 5 .ixc6 bxc6 1 6.E!:acl e5 when Black is clearly better.

1 4 . . . lLla5 1 5.ie2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . ie6 It is obvious that the white king is seriously misplaced on c3.

16.E!:hcl E!:ac8t 17.®b2 lLlc4t 1 8.ixc4 ixc4 Black obtained a pleasant edge in Seider -

Stefan, Slovakia 2002.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

l l. .. b6! White's eighth move ensured that the g4-

square would not be available for Black's pieces, but fortunately the bishop has another attractive post on b7.

152

12.Ae2 Another game continued 12.ic4 ib7

13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 '!Wxd2 15 .:1hd2 B:ac8 16.id3 B:fd8 17.ib1 Bouwmeester - Peelen, Netherlands 2000. Here the most logical continuation would have been:

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . tLla5!N Intending . . . tLlc4, with better chances for Black.

12 ... Ab7 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4 Y4'xd2 15.B:xd2

This position was reached in Koch - Gerland, Germany 1994, and here I would suggest:

a b c d e f g h

15 .. .ti�a5N 16.d5 B:fc8 Black is at least equal.

C2) 9.Ac4

a b c d e g 9 ... ttlc6 lO.i.e3 cxd4 l l .cxd4 Y4'a5t 12..td2

White has little to gain from forgoing the right to castle: 12. cj;>fl ?! b5 1 3.ib3 '!Wa6 1 4.'>tg1 tLla5 1 5 .ic2 tLlc4 Black was better in Borges Mateos - Djuric, Cienfuegos 1 989.

12 ... Y4'a3 l3.B:bl The usefulness of the black queen was nicely

illustrated by the following game: 13.d5?! lLla5 14.ie2 tLlb3! 1 5 .B:b 1 lLlxd2 1 6.lLlxd2 '!Wxa2 17.0-0 b6 1 8 . ttJ c4 ia6+ Salinnikov - Kovalev, Alushta 2000.

a b c d e f g h

13 ... ttlxd4!? This requires precise judgement, but analysis

shows that Black can get away with it.

The alternative 1 3 . . . 1:'!:d8 leads to highly complex play: 14.d5 lt:la5 15 . .ie2 This was Ahlander - Eriksson, Malmo 2000, and now Black should have accepted the challenge: 1 5 .. .'\Wxa2N 1 6.0-0 .id7 With a double-edged position.

14 . .ib4! �x£3t 15.�e2! Black's queen is trapped on a3, but it turns

out that he has enough resources.

1 5. c;!;>fl ? can be instantly refuted: 1 5 ... .ie6! 16 . .ie2 Wfxa2 17.gxf3 E:fd8-+ Worek -Moniszka, Wisla 1 998.

15 ... tl:ld4t

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.�£1!? White can force a draw by means of 16.<;!;>e1

lt:lf3t 17.c;!;>e2, but the text move must be critical.

16 ... i.e6! The key counter-blow.

17.ha3 .ixc4t 18.�gl �fd8 A remarkable position has arisen. Black

has only two minor pieces and a pawn for the queen, but his tremendously active pieces combined with the vulnerability of the white king give him sufficient compensation.

19.�h2 .ie5t 19 . . . :!:'!:d7 is also possible.

20.g3 i.e2 21.'Wa4 This position occurred in Adler - Strobel,

Germany 1 978. At this point a clear path to equality would have been:

a b c d e f g h

2I. .. i.d3!N 22.�xb7 Also after 22 . .ixe7 :!:'!:e8 23 . .ic5 b5 24.Wfa3

lt:lf3t 25.<;!;>g2 .ixe4 Black is not worse.

22 ... .ixe4 23J;xe7 �f3t 24.�g2 tl:ld4t= The game ends in perpetual check.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C3) 9.i.e2

a b c d e f g h

This is the main continuation.

154

9 .. . ltlc6 IO . .ie3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 f5! This is the move I like the most, although

1 I . . .Wa5t 1 2.i.d2 Wa3 1 3.d5 ltJe5 should also be okay for Black.

a b c d e f g h

12.exf5 Other options are not dangerous for Black

either.

12.i.c4t 'it>h8 13 .e5 (In the event of 13.0-0 Black can safely capture the pawn with 13 . . . f4 14.i.d2 ltJxd4 1 5.Ac3 i.e6! 16.i.xe6 ltJxe6 17.'1Wb3 Wb6! although White should be able to hold.) 1 3 . . . f4 14.i.c1 1his position was reached in Belov -Timofeev, Serpukhov 2008. At this point Black missed a nice idea:

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . b5!N 1 5 .i.b3 ltJa5 1 6.0-0 i.b?+ Black's control over the light squares gives him the better chances.

1 2.'1Wb3t 'it>h8 From here rwo moves have been tried:

1 3.!!d1 ?! This is not at all promising.

1 3 . . . fxe4 14.ltJg5?! 14.ltJe5 was a better try, but in any case White is already fighting to equalize.

14 . . . ltJxd4

a b c d e f g h

1 5.\Wc4 1 5 .ltJf7t !!x£7 1 6.\Wx£7 i.e6 17.'1Wf4 Wa5t 1 8.i.d2 Wa4 is winning for Black. 1 5 .i.xd4 Wa5t 16.'it>fl Wxg5 is also clearly favourable for him.

15 . . . Wa5t 16.!!d2 ltJxe2 1 7.ltJf7t !!x£7 1 8.\Wx£7 i.d7! 1 9.'it>xe2 i.b5t 20.'it>e1 !!c8-+

White's position was already hopeless in Arencibia - Eljanov, Ubeda 200 1 .

13.exf5 Wa5t! An important idea - Black wants to recapture the f5-pawn with his queen.

14.i.d2 Wxf5

a b c d e g


1 5 .'1Mfe3 A natural alternative is 1 5 .0-0N .ie6 16.'1Mfxb7 .id5 17.l"!acl ttlxd4 18 .ttlxd4 .ixd4 1 9.'1Mfxe7 .ixf2t 20.'tt>h2 l"!f7 2 1 .'1Mrg5 '1Mfxg5 22 . .ixg5 .id4 with full equality.

15 . . . .ie6 1 6.0-0 l"!ad8 17 . .ic3 .id5= Black had no problems in Mikanovic -

T urov, Quebec 200 1 .

a b c d e f g h

12 .. .'1Wa5t! Once again Black exploits the uncastled king

to activate his queen.

13.i.d2 Another game continued: 13.'1Mfd2 '1Mfxd2t

14.�xd2 .ixf5 White's king is clearly misplaced. 1 5 . .ic4 t �h8 16.l"!hd 1 This was Grachev - Belov, Vladimir 2002, and here for some reason Black rejected the simple tactical blow:

a b c d e f g h

16 ... .ixh3!N Perhaps he was afraid of 17.ttlg5, but after 17 ... .ixg2 1 8. ttl f7t l"!xf7 19 . .ixf7 ttlxd4 Black is clearly better .

13 ... YNxf5 14.i.c3 i.e6 15.0-0 .id5 The bishop is superbly placed here.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16J�bl b6 17.l:!b5 e6 18.i.c4 �e7 Black's position was slightly preferable in

Fedukovic - Rada, e-mail 2006.

D) 8 . .ib5t

a b c d e f g h

8 •• .ti�c6 This is considered to be a safe route to

equality.

9.0-0 cxd4

156

As an alternative I can recommend: 9 ... 0-0 I O . .ie3 �a5!?

Instead IO ... .ig4 or IO ... cxd4 would lead to our main line.

l l .�a4 �xa4 12 . .ixa4 cxd4 13.cxd4

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . f5 ! As we have already seen in many lines, this move is a key resource for Black after the queens are exchanged.

14.exf5 .ixf5 1 5 .E:acl .ie6! This accurate move equalizes on the spot.

16 . .ixc6 bxc6 17.E:c2 .id5 18 .ltle5 .ixe5 1 9.dxe5 E:fb8 20.f3 'tt>f7=

Black managed to grind out a win from this drawish endgame in Komarov - Sutovsky, Israel 20 1 0. Interestingly, a year later Emil went on to win a simUar endgame against Shi Porat in the Israeli league.

IO.cxd4 0-0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a c d e f g h

ll .Ae3 White has also tried:

I I ..ixc6 bxc6 12 . .ia3 1 2 . .ie3 allows 1 2 . . . c5 when Black has an easy game.

1 2 ... .ig4 1 3 . .ic5 Most games have continued with 1 3 . . . E:e8, but Black has an easier way to solve all his problems.

13 . . . .ixf3 14.�xf3

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . .ixd4! 1 5 .E:adl .ixc5 I6.E:xd8 E:fxd8 The queen sacrifice works nicely for Black, who risks virtually nothing.

17.�c3 .ib6 18 .a4 White's problem is that 18 .�xc6 allows the enemy rooks to penetrate to the second rank: 1 8 . . . E:ac8 19.�b7 E:c7! 20.�a6 E:d2+ The f2-pawn is a target.

18 . . . E:d6 It transpires that it is White who should be more careful.

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 12 - Various 8th Moves 157

1 9.a5 .ad4 20.Wfb3 E:ad8 Objectively White should still be okay here,

but in the game Tim man-Kasparov, Kopavogur (rapid) 2000, he eventually succumbed.

l l. .. Ag4 12 . .ixc6 bxc6 13J�cl Otherwise ... c5 was coming.

13 ... 'i;Ya5 This time the idea of giving up the queen

does not work so well: 13 . . . .axf3? 14.Wfxf3 .axd4 15 .1:'!:fd1 c5 1 6.1:'!:xc5 .axe3 17.1:'!:xd8 .axc5 1 8 .E:xa8 E:xa8 19 . WI c3;!; Kramnik - Kasparov, Moscow 1 998. Black was unable to hold this position, and indeed the absence of the c-pawn makes a big difference to the evaluation compared with the aforementioned Timman - Kasparov game, which took place two years after his defeat to Kramnik.

We have reached the final branching point of the chapter, where White can choose between Dl) 14J�xc6, D2) 14.'l;Ye2 and D3) 14.'l;Yd2.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Dl) 14J:!xc6

a b c d e f g h Capturing the pawn is an important option,

but it should not worry the second player.

14 ... 'l;Yxa2 15Jk7 White has also tried:

1 5.Wfa1 But this is hardly a serious try for an advantage.

15 . . . Wfxa1 16.1:'!:xa1 a5!? 16 ... E:fd8 is also fine.

17.h3 .ad? 1 8.1:'!:c7 E:fd8 1 9 . .ag5?! White should have preferred 1 9.tt::le5N .axe5 20.dxe5 a4 with equality.

1 9 ... f6 20 . .ad2 a4 2 L.ab4 This was Hawksworth - Knott, London 1980, and now the most accurate way to secure an edge would have been:

a b c d e f g h

2 l .. .ct?f7N Intending . . . 'it>e8 to liberate the d8-rook.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... a5! This is certainly the most active and

interesting approach, although Black is probably doing okay after the slightly passive

158

1 5 ... '%Ve6 1 6.h3 '%Vd6 1 7.:1l:c5 i.xf3 1 8.'%Vxf3 a5 1 9.e5 '%Vd7 as seen in I. Sokolov - Leko, Sarajevo 1999, plus a few other games.

16J�xe7 a4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17J:tb7?! This has been played in two games, but it

might have led to trouble for White.

According to my analysis 17.h3N is best. Play continues 17 . . . i.xf3 1 8.'%Vxf3 a3 1 9.e5 '%Vb3 20.:1!b7 '%Va4 21 .;ga1 ;gab8! when Black's strong passed pawn offers him full value for being a pawn down.

17 ... a3 lSJ�bl :!:!:fbs 19.gal �b2 20.h3 This position occurred in Lugovoi - Svidler,

St Petersburg 1 995, and now Black missed a strong idea:

a b c d e f g h

20 ... i.e6!N Followed by . . . a2, when White will have

a hard time dealing with the mighty passed pawn.

D2) 14.�e2

a b c d e f g h

Connecting rooks while defending the a-pawn.

14 ... gfd8 15.gc5 �a3 This is the best square for Black's queen.

16.�c4 The following attempt is even less

convincing: 1 6.;gd1 e5! 17.dxe5

17 .d5 cxd5 18 .exd5 was played in Sasikiran - Sutovsky, Pune 2004.

a b c d e f g h


The present posltlon can be better only for Black, and indeed I found that after 18 .. J�ac8!N 19.%Vc4 id7! 20.d6 E:xc5 2l .ixc5 %Va4!+ White should be very careful.

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . %Vxa2! This is the key point behind Black's previous move. White is already a bit worse, and in the following game he failed to hold the position:

1 8.%Vel ?! E:xdl 19 .%Vxdl a5 20.E:xc6 a4 21 .h3 ixf3 22.gxf3 ixe5+

The a-pawn decided the issue in Ligterink -Smejkal, Ter Apel l 987.

a b c d e f g h

16 ... i.e6! 17.d5 Exchanging the weak c6-pawn is not ideal

17 ... cxd5 18.exd5 j,f5

a b c d e f g h

19J�dl 19 .iLld4!N id3 20.%Vcl is the only way for

White to maintain the balance.

19 ... E:ac8! Now Black has better chances, for instance:

20.h3 h6 2l.�el We have been following the game F. Portisch

- Groszpeter, Zalakaros 2000. Black already has a pleasant position, and at this point his most accurate continuation would have been:

for White, but after 17.%!fcl %Vxa2 1 8.E:xc6 a b C d e f g h a5 Black was also fine in Pranjic - Debevec, 2l. .. �b2!N e-mail 2006. Preventing lLlc2. A possible continuation is:

160 7.lLlf3

22J�xc8 :Sxc8 23.'!Wa6 :Sc3! Black maintains his advantage, relying on

the fact that 24.\Wxa?? loses to 24 .. . \We2.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

D3) 14.YlYd2

a b c d e f g h

This has been the most popular choice, although Black has little to fear in the ensuing queenless position.

14 • . • YlYxd2 15.tihd2 :Sfd8 16.lLlb3 16.e5 fails to pose Black any problems after

16 . . . .ie6 1 7.l:hc6 ixa2 1 8J!a 1 .id5 19 .:Sca6 E:d7 with equality, Skembris - Stohl, Vrnjacka Banja 1 989.

16 . • . a5! According to the latest theory this move

enables Black to solve all his problems.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17.:Sxc6 The alternative is:

17.f3 ie6 1 8.tLlc5 18 .:Sxc6?! is a mistake: 1 8 . . . a4 19.tt::lc l .ixd4 20 . .ixd4 E:xd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The endgame is dangerous for White, as demonstrated by the following encounter: 2 l .E:f2 E:d 1 t 22.E:fl E:ad8 23.E:c3 E: 1 d2+ White faced serious problems in Ehlvest -Shirov, Tallinn 2000.

18 . . . ixd4 19.ixd4 E:xd4 20.tt::lxe6 fxe6 2 l .E:xc6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

2 1 ...E:d2!

a b c d e f g h

This forces a draw on the spot. 22.E:f2

Otherwise the planned ... E:b8-b2 would be dangerous for White.

22 . . . E:dl t 23.E:fl = Due to the impending threefold repetition

the players soon agreed a draw in Ftacnik -


Krasenkow, Jakarta 1996, as well as a few subsequent games.

17 ... a4 Is.tl:k5 Here Black can choose between a safe road to

dry equality and a more combative path which ultimately still results in a balanced position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h 18 ... i.xd4!?

This is the more enterpnsmg path. Objectively it does not lead to an advantage for Black, but it keeps the game alive.

The no-nonsense route to equality is 1 8 . . . .ie2 1 9.!!el .ixd4! 20.!!xe2 .ixc5 2 l .g3 .ixe3 22.!!xe3 !!d2 23.a3 !!b8 and a draw was soon agreed in Razuvaev - Tseshkovsky, Minsk 1979, as well as a few more recent high-level games.

19.i.xd4 !!xd4 20.£3 .id7 21.�k7 .ieS!? There is nothing wrong with 2 l . . .!!d8, but

Black is determined to break the equilibrium.

22.gxe7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 ... gc8!? Black continues to play for the win. Instead

22 ... !!d2N would force a repetition after 23.!!fL !!d1 t 24.!!fl !!d2.

23.gcl gd2 24.a3 ga2 25.gc3 .ib5i Black's activity fully compensates for his small

material deficit, and his uncompromising play eventually earned him a full point in the game Akobian - Ni Hua, Wijk aan Zee 20 10.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have analysed four alternatives to the main line of 8.!!b1 (coverage of which begins shortly in the next chapter) . All of them are decent, but none presents a serious threat to a well-prepared opponent. Both A) 8 . .ic4 and B) 8 . .ie2 allow a quick attack in the centre with an early . . . �c6 and possibly ... .ig4, giving Black adequate counterplay. With C) 8.h3 White prevents the latter idea, but spends a valuable tempo in doing so. Finally we checked D) 8 . .ib5t tDc6, which normally leads to positions in which Black's bishop pair gives him a full share of the chances.

a b c d e f g h

Various 9th Moves

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�f3 c5 8J�b1

8 . . . 0-0 A) 9 • .ic4?! B) 9 • .ie3 �c6

B1) 10 . .ie2 B2) 10.�d2

C) 9.�d2

A) after 1 5 .gxf3

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . Jhd8N

B 1 ) after 1 5 .0-0

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . !d7!

B2) note to 1 5 .0-0

163 163 164 166 167

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . Elfc8!N


l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 tbxd5 5.e4 tbxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.�8 c5 sJ:tbl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The 8.l'l:b 1 system is one of the most dangerous at White's disposal. The rook steps onto an open file while vacating its vulnerable position on the long diagonal.

8 ... 0-0 From this position White's most important

option by far is 9.i.e2, which will be covered in the next three chapters. Before then we will consider the somewhat offbeat continuations of A) 9.i.c4?!, B) 9.i.e3 and C) 9.Wld2.

A) 9.J.c4?!

I have already mentioned that the moves lLlf3 and i.c4 tend not to combine well. That is especially true in the present position, as White has spent a tempo on the move l'l:b 1 which is of limited value here.

9 ... tbc6 IO.J.e3 J.g4 Il .J.d5 White already has to resort to this artificial

looking move just to keep his centre together. Instead after 1 1 .0-0 cxd4 1 2.cxd4 i.xd4 13.l'l:xb7 i.xe3 14.fxe3 lLla5 15 .l'l:b4 lLlxc4 1 6.l'l:xc4 Wib6 White was already struggling in Koops - Dragojlovic, Cesenatico 2004.

ll ... cxd4 12.cxd4 Wla5t 13.Wld2 i.xf3

14.Wlxa5 tbxa5 15.gxf3 This was Yamamoto - Rain, Brazil 1995,

and here the correct plan would have been:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 .. J�ad8N 16.�e2 gd7 Intending ... l'l:fd8 and . . . e6 when the d4-

pawn will come under heavy fire.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) 9.J.e3

a b c d e f g h

This is not a bad move, although it does nothing to facilitate the important task of castling. White also forgoes the option of i.c 1 -g5 which can be useful in some positions.

9 ... tbc6 Now the main options are Bl) IO.J.e2 and

B2) IO.Wld2.

164 8.�bl

lO.ib5 This has been tried a few times.

1 0 . . . .ig4 l l ..ixc6 bxc6 1 2.0-0 cxd4 1 3.cxd4 %Vd7

I prefer not to rush with ... ixf3.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14.%Vd2N This seems like the best try in an uninspiring position for White. 14.h3 .ixf3 1 5 .%Vxf3 ixd4 16 . .ixd4 %Vxd4 17.�b7 %Ve5 White was struggling to demonstrate compensation in D. Rosner Garcia Rojas, e-mail 200 1 . 14.%Va4 ixf3 1 5.gxf3 was seen i n Appeldorn - Ju. Wagner, e-mail 2000, and now the simple 1 5 ... %Vh3N would have given White problems on the kingside.

14 ... .ixf3 1 5.gxf3 �ad8 1 6.�fd 1 %Vh3 1 7.%Ve2 f5

Black has the initiative.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Bl) 10.Ae2

a b c d e f g h

This is unimpressive, for reasons that will soon become clear.

10 ... cx:d4 ll.cx:d4 �a5t The point is revealed: Black has an improved

version of the well-known ... %Va5t variation which can be found in Chapter 1 4- 16.

12 . .id2 Clearly worse is:

12.%Vd2?! %Vxd2t 1 3.'kt>xd2 �d8 White is already obliged to sacrifice the d4-pawn.

a b c d e f g h

14.�hcl 14 .'Jic3?! .ig4 15 .�xb7 �ac8! leaves White in an even more difficult situation, for instance 16.Wd3 .ixf3 17.ixf3 lDxd4 and Black was clearly better in Maly - Yandemirov, T ula 200 1 .

14 . . . ltJxd4 1 5.ltJxd4 .ixd4 1 6 . .ixd4 �xd4t 17. We3 �a4 1 8.ic4

This position has been reached in a number of games. White has reasonable chances to fight for a draw, but I do not see much point in conducting a detailed investigation of this endgame, as it is obvious that Black has won the opening battle and runs virtually no risk of losing.

12 ... �:xa2 Compared with the main line of the 8.�b 1

variation, Black has gained the extra move . . . ltJc6.


8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

13.d5?! This seems like the most principled idea, but

the position does not justify it.

Objectively speaking, White's best continuation is 13.'1Wcl lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 i.xd4 1 5.ic4 which more or less forces a repetition: 1 5 . . . WI a4 16.ib5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... '1Wa2 (16 . . . i.xf2t? is too risky: 17.mxf2 '1Wd4t Wochnik - Pellegrinon, e-mail 2000, and now after 1 8.i.e3N '1Wxe4 19 J��d1 White's lead in development more than makes up for his slight material deficit.) 1 7.ic4 '1Wa4 18.i.b5 Y2-Y2 Werbeck - Goormachtigh, Eupen 199 1 .

The less accurate 13.�a1 ? ! was seen in Nguyen Hoai Nam - Truong Due Chien, Thua Thien Hue 2000. In this case Black is not forced

to repeat, but can instead try 1 3 . . . '1We6!?N as 14.d5 can be met by 14 . . . '1Wf6 attacking the rook, thus giving Black time to play . . . lt:le5 on the next move.

13 ... �e5 14.�xe5 .L.:e5 15.0-0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... i.d7! Just as in many other lines of the Griinfeld,

Black should not cling to his extra pawn. By returning it he can dramatically increase the activity of his pieces.

16J�xb7 White should regain the pawn while he has

the chance.

The slower 16.i.d3 was played in Stotika -Yandemirov, St Petersburg 200 1 , and here Black should have taken the time to consolidate with 1 6 . . . b6N 17.i.b4 �fe8 when White's compensation is questionable.

16 ... .ia4 17.Wfel E:fb8 We have been following the game J. B.

Gonzalez - M. G. Sanchez, corr. 2009. Black is fully mobilized and his passed a-pawn is an important asset. Overall his chances are somewhat higher, although White should still be able to hold the position.

166 8.:1:'ibl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B2) IO.�d2

a b c d e f g h

This seems like a more consistent follow-up to the previous move, although Black still has nothing to fear.

1 o ... cxd4 l l .cxd4 .ig4 This is the most principled continuation,

although I I .. .'Wa5 should be good enough to equalize.

12.d5 .La l3.gxf3 �e5 14.J.e2 If White had time to castle and push his

central pawns then he would stand better, but Black's counterplay arrives just in time.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... �c8! The queen is heading for h3, while

incidentally preparing a knight jump to c4 in case it is needed.

15.0-0 This leads to forced a draw, but it is doubtful

that White has anything better.

The risky 1 5 . .id4 'Wh3 16.:1:'ib3 occurred in Rajkovic - Laketic, Kragujevac 2009. Here Black should have played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . :1:'ifc8!N 17.'Wf4 (1 7.f4? 'Wg2 1 8.:1:'1[1 tt:lc4-+) 1 7 . . . 'Wg2 1 8.:1:'ifl g5! 19.'Wd2 b6 White is under serious pressure due to the awkward position of his king.

Another gamecontinued: 1 5.'Wd1 tt:lc4 16 . .ixc4 'Wxc4 17.'We2 'Wc3t 1 8.'it>fl b6 19 .'it>g2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 . . . f5! 20.:1:'ibcl 'We5 Black had promising counterplay in Rashkovsky - Ghinda, Lvov 198 1 .


15 • • . Wfh3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.Wfdl 1 6 . .id4 .ih6 17 .ie3 is merely a different

move repetition, Lacko - Marttala, Stockholm 1983.

16 ... �xf3t 17.Lf3 �e5 ISJ!�el .txh2t 19.@hl �g3t=

With a perpetual check, Gallardo Garcia -J. C. Fernandez Fernandez, La Roda 20 1 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C) 9.Wfd2

a b c d e f g h

I was surprised to find more than 1 50 games with this move in my database. It is hard to believe that such a move can seriously trouble Black.

9 ... �g4 IO.d5 This has been White's usual choice, but we

will check some other moves as well.

10 . .ie2 cxd4 1 l .cxd4 .ixf3 1 2 . .ixf3 .ixd4 13.E!:xb7 li:)c6 14.0-0 was seen in Pallnstorfer - Takac, Scharnstein 1 999. Now Black has a simple improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 . . . Wfc8 1 5.E!:b3 E!:d8+ Black has a risk-free edge, thanks to the passivity of White's lightsquared bishop.

1 0.E!:xb7 .ixf3 1 I .gxf3 cxd4 1 2.cxd4 occurred in Kotlyar - E. Klein, New York 1 993, and a few other games. Black is not obliged to capture on d4 immediately, and I found a strong novelty:

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . li:)c6!N 13 .d5 li:)d4 White is in trouble as he cannot defend the f3-pawn with the natural 14 . .ig2? in view of the elegant 14 . . . Wfc8!

168 8 .�bl

15 .�xe7 tt::lxf3t 16 . .ixf3 .ic3 winning the 13 • . • '%Yc7 queen. White's rook is misplaced on a3, and it will

take some time for it to find a meaningful role 10 • • • '%Ya5 1 1J�b3 in the game.

Here I like the following idea very much:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

ll . .. La 12.gxf3 c4! This excellent positional pawn sacrifice

increases Black's influence on the dark squares.

13J�a3 13 . .ixc4 �c8 14.Wfe2 tt::ld7 gives Black

superb compensation, for instance:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 5 .0-0 Wfc7 16.id3 tt::lc5 1 7.�a3 ie5+ White's extra pawn has no real influence, and Black's domination of the dark squares offers him fine prospects.

14J�a4 I also checked 14.h4 tt::ld7 1 5.h5 b5 16 . .ie2

a5 17. WI g5 b4 1 8.cxb4 axb4 when Black's queenside pawns are a dangerous force.

14 ••• b5 1S.:ab4 '%VaS 1 5 ... a6 intending .. . tLl d 7 -c5 also looks nice

for Black.

16.'%Yc2?? White's opening has not been a success, and

with this move things go from bad to worse.

16 •.. �a6-+ White suffered a fatal loss of material in

Tritschler - Urban, corr. 1990.

Conclusion

From the tabiya which occurs after 8.�bl 0-0, the three deviations examined in this chapter only account for around five percent of all games. This is hardly surprising, as they all suffer from a drawback of some kind. A) 9.ic4?! is just a weak move, after which White immediately has to struggle for equality. B) 9 . .ie3 is not so bad, but if White wants to put his bishop on e3 then he does not yet need his rook on b 1 , and would be better off going for the system analysed in Chapter 1 0. Finally the quirky C) 9.Wfd2 has been tested by some strong players, but we saw that logical development in conjunction with the strong pawn sacrifice 1 2 ... c4! should offer Black a fine game.

a b c d e f g h

Variation Index

l .d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.liJc3 d5 4.cxd5 liJxd5 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.liJf3 c5 8J�b1 0-0 9 . .ie2 cxd4 10.cxd4 WfaSt 1 l.Wfd2

A) 13 . .id3 B) 13 . .ie3 C) 13.d5 D) 13J�cl .ih7

D1) 14 . .id3 D2) 14.d5

E) 13.0-0 .ih7 E1) 14 . .id3 E2) 14.d5

B) after 1 6.1"1hcl

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . E:fd8N

1 l . .. Wfxd2t 12 . .ixd2 b6

D l ) after 20.exf5

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . exf5!N+

E2) note to 1 6.�e3

170 171 172 173 173 174 176 176 177

a b c d e f g h

2 1 . . .E:f5!N

170 8.1::1b 1

l.d4 c!b f6 2.c4 g6 3.c!bc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!bxd5 5.e4 c!bxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.c!Llf3 c5 SJ�bl 0-0 9 . .te2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This is overwhelmingly the most important ofWhite's options on the ninth move.

9 ... cxd4 Black has tried a variety of alternatives, the

two most significant being the solid 9 . . . b6 and the bold 9 . . . l2k6!?, both of which I have used successfully in my own games. However, I have decided to recommend the text move - which incidentally happens to be the main line -based on some important recent developments in some of the critical variations. Though I have not yet had a chance t<! use this line in my own games, I believe it to be the most promising line at Black's disposal at the present time.

10.cxd4 '!WaSt By targeting the a2-pawn, Black highlights

one of the drawbacks of the 8.E:b 1 variation. From here, the critical continuation is the pawn sacrifice 1 1 . .id2 l.Wxa2, which will be covered in Chapters 1 5 and 1 6. Before that, we need to consider the alternative:

ll .'!Wd2

recent years. Nevertheless it is not a bad move; it was popular during the mid- 1 980s and was once used by Karpov against Kasparov in their 1 987 Seville match.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

ll . .. '!Wxd2t 12.hd2 b6 1 2 ... e6 is a serious alternative which was

used by Kasparov to draw with Karpov, but I decided to concentrate on the text move. Now we reach an important branching point at which White can choose between A) 13 . .id3, B) 13 . .ie3, C) 13.d5, D) 13.E:cl and E) 13.0-0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A) 13 • .id3

a b c d e f g h This is less critical than the main line, and it 13 • • J�d8

has seldom been seen at grandmaster level in

Chapter 14 - l l .Wfd2 171

Also interesting is the untested 13 . . . i.g4!?N 14.d5 e6 when a possible continuation is 15 .�c4 lLld7 16.dxe6 i.xe6 1 7.�xe6 fxe6 with equality.

14 . .te3 White has nothing better:

14.0-0?! was played in Kiriakov - Kalod, Olomouc 1 999, and here Black could have safely eaten the pawn with 14 . . . .txd4N as White will not get much compensation.

The odd-looking 14 . .ic4 was seen in Mrkvicka - Steffelmaier, e-mail 1 989, and here the best way of dealing with the threat of �d5 would have been 14 . . . i.b7N, when Black is at least equal.

14 •.. �c6 15.d5 e6 16 . .tb5 �a5 17 . .ig5 f6 1S . .td2?

White should have opted for 1 8.�f4N exd5 19.�c7 dxe4 20.�xd8 exf3 2 1 .0-0 �e6 with a balanced position.

18 ... exd5 19.ha5

a b c d e f g h

19 ... dxe4! White must have failed to evaluate this move

properly.

20.�d2 bxa5 2l..ic6 Aa6 22 . .txa8 gxa8 Despite being the exchange down, Black was

clearly better in Novikov - Lputian, Kharkov 1 985.

B) 13 . .ie3 e6!

Before developing his bishop Black prevents d4-d5 .

14 . .id3 14 .1:k1?! looks strange, and after 14 . . . �b7

1 5.�d3 lLlc6 1 6.i.b5 gac8 White was already struggling in Maloberti - Migliorini, e-mail 200 1 .

Also after 14.0-0 i.b7 1 5.i.d3 lLlc6 16.e5 lLle7 Black was fine in Jezek - Ebeling, corr. 1994.

14 ... .tb7 15.i>e2 �c6 l6,ghcl Now the following idea looks logical:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... gfd8N Alternatively after 1 6 . . . gfc8 17.gc4 a draw

was agreed in Dao Thien Hai - Sasikiran, Esfahan 2005, and indeed the position is balanced.

17.gc4 £5! This thematic move enables Black to fight

for the advantage, for instance:

172 8.Elb1

18.e5 h6 19J�bcl gac8 20.h4 i.£8 Black has the more promising position.

C) 13.d5

a b c d e f g h

13 ... �a6! In response to White's last move the knight

wastes no time moving ro within touching distance of the outpost on c5. Depending on how White responds, the knight may even find a home on b4.

14.i.e3 Another option is:

14.i.b5 i.b7 1 5 .0-0 lt:\c5 16J!fe1 e6! It makes sense ro undermine White's centre while also getting ri� of the potentially weak e7-pawn.

17.i.c4 This position was reached in Cebalo - C. Wagner, Paris 1988, and one subsequent game. On both occasions Black exchanged on d5, but I prefer not to open the e-file for the enemy rook at this stage. Instead I propose:

1 7 .. J!ac8N 18J!bcl h6! It is useful ro take control over the g5-

square. Black intends to play .. J!fd8 next, when White will be virtually forced ro capture on e6, after which either recapture will offer Black a promising game.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... £5! Not fol the first time we see this idea working

nicely for Black after the queen trade.

15.i.c4 White has also tried: 1 5 .e5 f4 1 6.i.d4 i.f5

Black has a good game and in the following encounter White's position went downhill very quickly: 17.Elc l ?! lt:\b4 1 8.i.c4 lt:\d3t 1 9.�d2? lt:\xcl 20.!'!:xcl !!feB 2 1 .d6t �f8 Black was winning in Hertneck - Kasparov, Munich 1 994.

15 ... �h8 16.e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 ... £4! Grabbing important space.

Chapter 1 4 - l l .Wfd2 173

17.J.d2 Perhaps White should have preferred

17.�d4N although after 17 . . . �b7 ( 17 . . . �f5!? is also interesting) Black still gets strong pressure against the enemy centre: 18.0-0 E!:fc8 19.Ei:fcl l0c7 Here White's only decent idea is 20.�b3 l0xd5 2 1 .l0g5 h6 22.£0e6 g5 when he has sufficient compensation to maintain the balance, but not to fight for the advantage.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 17 • . • c!Llc5 18 . .ib4

1 8.0-0 runs into 18 . . . �g4 19 .E!:fel �xf3 20.gxf3 E!:f5 when White has to fight for equality.

18 .•. J.g4 19.e6 E!:ac8 20.0-0 We have been following the game Baba

- Kaabi, e-mail 2007. At this point I would recommend:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 .•• hf3N 2l.gxf3 J.e5i The most logical outcome is a draw, but

Black has a risk-free position and so he can prolong the fight for a while longer.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

D) 13J�cl

a b c d e f g h

l3 ... J.b7 Now White can choose between Dl)

14 . .id3 and D2) 14.d5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Dl) 14 . .id3

a b c d e f g h

Now the right response is:

14 ... Ei:d8 15.E:c7 1 5 .�e3?! is too slow: 1 5 . . . £0c6 16.d5 l0b4!

17 .�b 1 �a6 Black already has the initiative,

174 8.:!'%bl

and after the further 1 8.tt:ld4 e6! 1 9.a3 tt:ld3t 20.ixd3 ixd3 2 1 .tt:lc6 :Bd7 he had a serious advantage in Petursson - Conquest, Hastings 1 986.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 .. J�d7!

19.h3?! Strangely enough this is a significant

inaccuracy. White should have preferred 1 9.1'!ciN :Bxcl 20.ixcl tt:lf6 with an equal position.

19 ... f5! Suddenly White faces unpleasant problems.

20.exf5 This position occurred in Gaprindashvili

- Roesch, Baden-Baden 1 990. In the game Black recaptured with the wrong pawn; the correct choice was:

8

7

6

The rook trade leaves White with virtually 5

no chance of obtaining the advantage. 4

16J�xd7 �xd7 17.'ii>e2 gc8 3

17 . . . e5 also leads to easy equality. 2

18 . .tf4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 ... exf5!Ni

a b c d e f g h

18 ... e6! With this important move Black prevents

d4-d5 and prepares to challenge the e4-pawn with . . . lt:\f6 or .. .f5.

Followed by . . . idS with a pleasant positional advantage.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

D2) 14.d5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 4 - l l .'Wd2 175

14 ..• ttla6! Just as in line C above, this knight move

proves an effective counter to the d5-advance.

15 • .tg5 After the soft 1 5 . .ie3 l'!fc8 1 6.0-0 lL:lb4

Black already has chances to take over the initiative, which is exactly what happened in the following encounter: 17.a3 lL:lc2 18 . .id2 .ib2 19.l'!b 1 .ixa3+ Black was simply a pawn up in Kiriakov - Vorobiov, Moscow 1 996.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 •• J::!fc8! An important nuance; Black refuses to waste

time defending the e7-pawn, and immediately strives for counterplay.

16.0-0 In the event of 16.l'!xc8t l'!xc8 17.ixe7, as

occurred in Tschann - E. Schulze, Germany 1995, Black should obviously play:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . l'!c2!N The game might continue 1 8.a3 lLlc5 1 9 . .ixc5 bxc5 20.'�d 1 l'!a2 when Black has the upper hand.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 • . • f8 Black has emerged from the opening with

a comfortable position and can think about striving for the advantage.

17.ttld2 17.e5? is a mistake as White's central pawns

become unstable: 1 7 . . . h6 1 8.ih4 g5 19.ig3 Now in Pavlovic - Mikhalchishin, Trnava 1988, Black should have improved his knight by means of:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 . . . lLlc5N 20.d6 lL:le4! 2 l .dxe7t 'kt>xe7 White is worse and will have to fight hard for a draw.

17 ... ttlc5 ISJUel

176 8.Elbl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 •• .c!tla4! Heading for the attractive c3-square.

19 . .id3 h6 20 . .ie3 gc3 2l .gxc3 �xc3 22.a3 e6 23.dxe6 fxe6 24.h4 gds

At this point the players agreed a draw in Noble - Ainutdinov, e-mail 2006, but it seems to me that Black is slightly better and could easily have played on without much risk.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

E) 13.0-0

a b c d e f g h

l3 ... .ib7 Once again White can choose between El)

14.J.d3 and E2) 14.d5.

El) 14 . .id3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14 ... e6 Again we see this thematic move which is

intended to prevent d4-d5.

15.gfcl I doubt that White has anything better.

1 5.a4 is not dangerous for Black, since after the simple 15 . . . tLlc6 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5, as played in Lion - Belov, Internet 2004, he can reply with:

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . tLld4N 18.lLlxd4 .ixd4+ White's d-pawn is a significant weakness.

1 5.E!:fdl tLlc6 16 . .ie3 ( 16.d5 exd5 17.exd5 tLle5 1 8.lLlxe5 .ixe5 was equal in Brotherton - Crisci, e-mail 2008.) 16 . . . E!:fd8 17 . .ig5 E!:d7 1 8 . .ib5 a6 1 9 . .ixc6 .ixc6 Black had no problems in Nylen - Moberg, Sweden 2007.

Chapter 1 4 - l l .�d2 177

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ••. c!t:lc6 16.J.e3 gfd8 17.J.g5 17.e5? just loses a pawn: 1 7 . . . tt:lxe5! 1 8.tt:lxe5

ixe5 19.dxe5 (Or 1 9.ia6 ixh2t 20.\t>xh2 ixa6+ Dihm - Vetter, corr. 1996.) 1 9 .. Jhd3 20Jk7 E:ad8 2 1 .h4 1':!:8d7 Black's extra pawn gives him decent winning chances despite the opposite-coloured bishops, Stelting -Brettschneider, Germany 1 997.

White could consider defending the d-pawn with 1 7.E:c4N, but after 1 7 . . . ia6 1 8.E:c3 ixd3 19.E:xd3 E:ac8 Black is doing fine.

17 .. J:!d6 White does not have a comfortable way to

defend the d4-pawn, for example:

18.J.f4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

In this position Black prematurely accepted a draw in Beaumont - Gormally, Newport 1997, when in fact he has a strong continuation available:

18 ... e5!N 19.J.g3 c!t:lxd4 20.c!t:lxe5 �e6!t White has some problems, as his minor

pieces are unstable.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E2) 14.d5

a b c d e f g h

This can be considered the main line of the present chapter.

14 .•. J.a6 This is my first choice, although 14 ... E:c8

15 .1':!:fcl tt:ld7 is a reasonable alternative.

15.ha6 In some games White has preferred:

1 5.E:fe1 ixe2 16.E:xe2 I believe the most accurate move is:

16 . . . E:c8! 1 6 ... tt:la6 has been much more popular, but I prefer the rook move which enables Black to defend the e7 -pawn in a convenient way.

17.ig5 17.ib4 can be met by: 17 . . . E:c7 18.e5 tt:la6 19.d6 E:d7 20.ia3 exd6 2 l .ixd6 (After 21 .exd6? tLlc5 White's d-pawn is too weak.) 2 1 . . .E:e8 With a balanced position.

178 8 .E:b l

17 . . . �f8! This is only possible thanks to Black's previous move.

18.e5 h6 19 . .if4 This position occurred in Koch - Bakalarz, Germany 1 992. At this point Black should have reacted with:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 . . . :1:k4N 20 . .ig3 lt'la6 I prefer Black's position, due to his active

pieces and compact pawn structure.

15 . . . c!!ha6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16.J.e3 In the event of 1 6 . .ig5, as played in

Falkenhagen - Hustert, corr. 1 987, Black's simplest reply is 1 6 . . . f6 17 . .ie3 f5 transposing to the main line below.

Another possibility is: 1 6.E:fcl f5!

Once again we see this thematic idea in a queenless position. It works especially well after the exchange of light-squared bishops.

17.E:c4 fxe4 1 8.E:xe4 .if6!? Black avoids 18 ... E:f5 1 9.E:xe7 E:xd5 20.g3 which looks rather drawish.

1 9 . .ig5 lt'lc5

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

20 . .ixf6?

a b c d e f g h

This exchange sacrifice is not completely sound. 20.E:ee 1 N was the lesser evil, although White is fighting for equality.

20 . . . lt'lxe4 2 l ..ixe7 This position was reached in Danner -Schigan, Austria 1996, and here Black should have played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2 1 . . .E:f5!N 22.E:e1 lt'lc3 23.d6 E:d5+ White is in trouble.

Chapter 14 - 1 1 .'1Wd2 179

a b c d e f g h

16 ... £51 This move should come as no surprise by

now!

17.e5 f4 IS . .icl White needs to keep the d-file clear for

defending his d5-pawn.

18 .. J�ad8 19.gdl �c7 20.d6 exd6 21.exd6 White achieves nothing with 2 l . .ia3 ltle6

22 . .ixd6 E:f7 23.h4 E:fd7 24.E:dcl .if8 25 . .ixf8 i'xf8 26.i'h2 i'e7 when Black has slightly the more comfortable side of equality, Kiriakov -Belov, Ramenskoe 2006.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

21. .. �e6! Strangely this accurate move has only been

played once so far.

In most games Black preferred 2 1 . ..E:f5 but after the unpleasant 22.g4! Black will have to fight for the draw.

22 . .ib2 I also examined 22.E:b4N E:d7 23.E:e4 ltlc5

24.E:xf4 E:fd8 when Black picks up the d6-pawn to reach comfortable equality.

a b c d e f g h 22 ... t£lc5N

I believe this is slightly more accurate than the game continuation of 22 ... E:f5 23 . .ixg7 'it>xg7 24.E:d2 ltlc5 25.E:el 'it>f6 26.h4 E:d7 27.ltlh2 h5 28.ltlf3, when Black surprisingly failed to hold this roughly balanced position in Ernst - Nijboer, Oieren 2002.

23..ixg7 <tt>xg7 24.gb4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

180 8 .:1:lb l

24 . . J36! This is the thematic way to activate the

rook.

25.l!�d4 25J'!bd4 can be met by 25 .. J'!d7 when

White has no way to improve his position.

25 .. JU6 26.ll:�b5 gd7 27.f3 i>f7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h The position is equal.

Conclusion

After the standard sequence of 9.ie2 cxd4 10.cxd4 '�WaSt there is no doubt that l l .id2 (coverage of which begins in the next chapter) is White's most challenging continuation, but our present subject of 1 1 .'1Wd2 is certainly not a move which should be underestimated. After 1 1 . ..'1Wxd2t 12.ixd2 b6 Black should be able to generate sufficient play against the enemy pawn centre, using a number of thematic ideas which have featured throughout this and other chapters. Depending on the specific features of the position, Black's ideas will include:

a) Playing an early . . . e6 in order to inhibit the advance of the enemy d-pawn, followed by moves such as . . . :1:ld8 and . . . tt:lc6 to attack it.

b) If White plays an early d4-d5, then the a6-square becomes an excellent location for Black's knight. It can go there either immediately or, in the case of variation E2, after a preliminary bishop exchange on a6.

c) Finally, the undermining move . . . f5 is an important theme in this and many other Griinfeld positions in which the queens have been exchanged.

a b c d e f g h

l l .id2 �xa2 - Introduction and other 13th Moves

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 dS 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�f3 c5 8J�bl 0-0 9 . .ie2 cxd4 IO.cxd4 'lNaSt I l ..id2

1 1 ... 11Nxa2 12.0-0 .ig4 A) 13J�xh7 hf3 14 . .ixf3 hd4

AI) 15.e5 A2) 15 . .ih4

B) 13 . .ie3 �c6 81) 14J�xh7 �ab8

8 1 1) 15.�xb8 �xb8 812) 15.�c7

82) 14.d5 �aS 821) IS . .icS 822) IS . .igS

A) note to 1 4 . . . .ixd4

a b c d e f g h

1 7 . . J''lfb8!N

B2 1 ) note to 1 6.e5

a b c d e f g h

22 . . . a4!N

B22) after 25J''ld3

183 184 185 186 186 186 189 190 190 192

a b c d e f g h

25 . . -Ek?!?N

182 8.:B:b l

l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 ttlxd5 5.e4 ttlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttlf3 c5 SJ�bl 0-0 9 • .ie2 cxd4 10.c:xd4 Wfa5t ll.Ad2

a b c d e f g h

ll . .. Wfxa2 Black bags a pawn, while also making his

now passed a-pawn into a serious long-term asset. On the other hand his queen manoeuvre has taken up valuable time, and White enjoys a healthy lead in development and a mobile pawn centre as compensation.

As I explained at the start of the previous chapter, I have never employed this system with Black in my own games, although I have faced it successfully from White's side. I decided to recommend it because it is the reason why the entire 8.:B:b 1 system has been virtually abandoned at the top level, ever since a particularly important discovery which can be found in line B22 of the present chapter.

12.0-0 1 2.Wfcl is not a serious alternative, as after

12 . . . ig4 (if Black wishes to play for a win then 1 2 . . . Wfe6 keeps the game going) White has nothing better than 13.ic4 Wfa4 14.ib5 Wfa2 15 .ic4 repeating the position, as has occurred in a few games.

12 . • • i.g4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Black has tried numerous alternatives, but this logical developing move is widely regarded as the most reliable option. White's most frequent reply has been 13.ig5, which has developed a large body of theory and will therefore receive dedicated coverage in Chapter 16. The present chapter will focus primarily on the important alternatives of A) l3.:B:xb7 and B) l3.Ae3. The second is especially important as it was the weapon of choice of many top players before a new discovery altered the evaluation. Before exploring these moves in detail, let's first check a few rare sidelines.

13.ib4 ltlc6 14.ic5 b6 1 5 .:B:al Wfe6 16.d5 was Livecchi - Terreni, Palermo 2000:

a b c d e f g h

And now after 1 6 ... Wff6!N Black wins material.

Chapter 1 5 - l l ..id2 'Wxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 1 83

1 3.l'!a1 1!Ne6 14.lDg5 .ixe2 1 5 .1!Nxe2 1!Nd7 1 6 . .ie3 This was Bernabe Duran - Olivera Gutierrez, Oviedo 2000. Now instead of taking the d-pawn immediately, Black should have preferred 16 . . . ltk6N with the better chances.

1 3 . .ic3 .ixf3 ( 13 . . . !!c8 is also fine) 1 4.gxf3 (If I4 . .ixf3 lDc6 Black has strong pressure in the centre.) 1 4 . . . !!c8 1 5.l'!a1 1!Ne6 16.d5 1!Nd6 17 . .ixg7 ct;>xg7 1 8.l'!xa7 l'!xa7 1 9.1!Nd4t

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was Panush - Vorontsov, Serpukhov 2003, and now after the accurate 19 . . . 1!Nf6N 20.1!Nxa7 1!Nb2! Black has the better chances.

1 3.d5 This is the only sideline of any real significance.

13 ... lDa6! This simple and strong idea should give Black a good game.

14.!!xb7 lDc5

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

I

a b c d e f g h

1 5.!!xe7 The alternative is: 1 5 .!!b4 !!fc8 ( 1 5 . . . a5!?N 1 6.!!c4 !!ac8 was worth considering) 16 . .ie3?! Too passive. (Correct was 16 . .ig5N !!ab8 with a very complex game.) 1 6 . . . a5 17.l'!c4 lDb3 1 8.h3 .ixf3 19.gxf3 a4+ Black's a-pawn was becoming dangerous in Littke Livshits, Canada 1 995.

15 ... .if6 16.l'!c7 In the event of ·1 6.d6!? as played in Danner Sande, corr. 198 1 , Black's safest continuation looks to be 16 ... !!fd8N, declining the material and keeping a reliable position.

16 ... lDxe4 17 . .ic4 This position was reached in Engelhardt - J. Wells, corr. 1994, and here the best continuation is:

17 . . . 1!Na3N With a balanced game.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A) 13J�xb7

a b c d e f g h

White captures a pawn, but Black can immediately do the same thing in return:

13 ... .Lf3 14 . .Lf3 .ixd4 A well-prepared Griinfeld player should have

a relatively easy life from here. White's two main options are AI) 15.e5 and A2) 15 . .ib4.

1 5 . .ig5?!

184 8.8:b 1

This has seldom been seen, and looks rather risky for White.

1 5 ... e5 16.1Mfcl lDa6 It will not be easy for White to obtain compensation for the pawn.

17.i.e7? A better try was 1 7.i.f6N 1Mfe6 1 8.1Mfg5 1Mfc6 1 9.8:d7 lDc5 20.8:d5 when White has good chances to hold. The present position was reached in Matthiesen - Antonsen, Silkeborg 2009. At this point Black should have played:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . 8:fb8!N Exchanging the opponent's best piece.

18 .8:xb8t 8:xb8+ Black retains a healthy extra pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

AI) 15.e5

a b c d e f g h

15 ... ttla6 Theory and practice have demonstrated that

Black should have no problems here.

16.gxe7 Other moves also fail to threaten Black:

After: 1 6.i.g5 8:fd8 17.1Mfbl 1Mfxb l 1 8.8:bxbl (the alternative 1 8.8:fxblN lDc5 leads to equality after both 1 9.8:xe7 8:ab8= and 1 9.8:7b4 8:ac8 20.i.xe7 lDd3=) 1 8 . . . 8:ab8 1 9.ixe7 8:xb l 20.8:xb l 8:b8 it was White who had to think about equalizing in Haroutjunian - Davtian, Yerevan 1 996.

16.ie3 i.xe3 17.fxe3 8:ad8 18 .1Mfal 1Mfxal 1 9.8:xal lDc5 20.8:xe7 It is obvious that Black should have no problem holding this endgame; the clearest path seems to be 20 . . . 8:fe8 2 1 .8:axa7 8:xe7 22.8:xe7 'it>f8 23.8:a7 8:e8 24.i.d5 8:e7 when a draw was agreed in Kerkvliet - Rodriguez, e-mail 2000.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

I6 ... gad8 17.1Mfe2 The alternatives are unimpressive, for

instance: 17.1Mfel lDc5 18 .i.e3 lDd3

There is also nothing wrong with the solid 1 8 . . . lDe6.

1 9.1Mfe2

Chapter 1 5 - l l ..id2 Wfxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 185

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . Wfa3!? It seems that Black was not content with the drawn endgame which could have arisen after 19 . . . Wfxe2 20 . .ixe2 .ixe3 2l .fxe3 a5.

20 . .ixd4 !!xd4 2 l .!!b7 !!e8 The e5-pawn is a clear target.

22.Wfe3?!

18 . .ig5 Wfxe2 19 • .ixe2 he7 20.he7 �c7 21..ixd8 !!xd8

The endgame was level in Cech - Konopka, Czech Republic 2005.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A2) 15 . .tb4

Correct was 22 . .id5N !!e7 23.!!b8t 'tt>g7 a b c d e f g h 24.Wff3 !!f4 25.Wfg3 with a balanced 15 .• J�d8 position.

22 . . . Wfc5 23.!!b5 Wfxb5 24.Wfxd4 tt:lxe5 25.Wfxa7 tt:lxf3t 26.gxf3 WfgSt 27.\t>hl Wff4

White was unable to defend this slightly inferior but objectively drawish position in Ochkoos - McTavish, Toronto 1 993.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17 ... .ic5 In one game Black played 1 7 . . . !!fe8, which

also seems perfectly adequate.

In my opinion this is a much easier solution than 1 5 . . . tt:lc6.

16.Wfcl The next two moves look pretty forced.

16 ... �a6 17.he7 gac8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h 18.Wff4

186 8.E1b l

This was White's choice in all five games in which this position appeared. A queen exchange gives White nothing: 1 8."\Wb 1 "Wxb1 1 9.!'!:fxb 1 !'!:e8 20.!'!:d7 tLlc5 2 l .!'!:xd4 !'!:xe7=

18 • • • �c5 19.hd8 1 9.ixc5 ixc5 20.ig4 !'!:c6! is absolutely

equal, for instance 2 1 .e5 !'!:d2 22. "Wh6 !'!:dB and here White found nothing better than a repetition with 23."1Wf4 !'!:d2 24."\Wh6 in Petzold - Krueger, corr. 2004.

19 ••• �xb7 20 . .if6 h:£6 2I .Yfxf6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2I. •• Yfe6 This is the most �ccurate route to equality.

22.Vfd4 Vfb6 23.Yfxb6 axb6 The endgame was balanced in Ding - Negi,

Subic Bay 2009.

B) 13 • .ie3

Until a few years ago this was considered one of the most dangerous lines at White's disposal, and was the first choice of some leading experts, most notably Boris Gelfand. Later in the chapter we will see how a discovery in 2006 caused a re-evaluation of the entire variation.

13 .. .ti:�c6

From this position White has two options. BI) I4Jlxb7 is harmless according to current theory, but there are a number oflines that need to be studied. The main line is B2) 14.d5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Bl) I4Jhb7

a b c d e f g h

As said, present theory considers this line harmless for Black, but there are some lines that need to be studied and memorized.

I4 • • Jlab8 Black should begin by challenging his

opponent's active rook. White can choose between Bll) 15J�xb8 and BI2) 15J:!:c7.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Bll) 15J::!:xb8 gxb8

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 5 - l l .id2 '1Wxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 187

16.h3 Obviously 16.d5 ltle5 cannot promise White

much, for instance: 1 7.lt:ld2 .ixe2 18.Wfxe2 a5 (I also like 1 8 . . . Wla3N 19.f4 lt:ld3=) 1 9.�cl a4 Black has a nice position, though after 20.W/a6 White's well-timed counterplay was enough to maintain the balance in N. White - Normando, e-mail 2006.

16 ... .ixf3 17.i.xf3 e6!? With this move Black anticipates the d5-

push, which would otherwise have left him with a potentially weak pawn on e7.

I must stress that Black also has the option of 17 ... �d8 transposing directly to line B 12 below, the only difference being in the move numbering. From a practical perspective this option may well be the better choice, as it enables the reader to learn one line instead of two. Nevertheless I decided to provide coverage of the text move in order to demonstrate some of the interesting developments which may occur, and I will leave it to the reader to decide which option he prefers.

Before moving on, it is worth pointing out that 17 . . . lt:lxd4?? 1 8 . .ixd4 �d8 does not work due to 1 9.Wla1 !+-.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

18.d5

a b c d e f g h

Another option is: 1 8.e5 lt:le7N

This is my new idea, which seems like the most natural choice to me. The knight is heading for f5, from where it can eliminate White's dark-squared bishop. In the only practical encounter Black opted for 1 8 ... lt:lb4 1 9.Wla1 a6, Drummond -Berkley, e-mail 200 1 . Black's position should be tenable, but his defensive task might be unpleasant.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

19.Wla1

a b c d e f g h

This is the only reasonable idea for White. 19 . . . Wlxa1

In the event of 19 . . . �b2? 20.Wfxa2 �xa2 21 .�b 1 ! Black experiences definite problems.

20.�xa1 ltlf5 In return for the sacrificed pawn, Black ensures a transition to an opposite-coloured bishop endgame which should be easy to hold.

2 1 .�xa7

a b c d e f g h

188 8.E:b l

21 . . . h5!? It is hard to believe that White has any real winning chances after the primitive 21 . . .lt:lxe3 22 .fxe3 .ih6 23.E:a3 E:b2. Nevertheless the text move seems slightly more accurate as it secures the future of Black's dark-squared bishop on the c l -h6 diagonal. Another obvious point is that any g4-advance will lead to a pawn exchange which will bring the game closer to a draw. Here is an illustrative line:

22 . .ie4 lt:lxe3 23.fxe3 E:b3 24.d5 .ixe5 25.dxe6 fxe6 26. i>f2 g5

The position is equal.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... �e5 19 . .tg5 In the event of 1 9.dxe6N it is important to

insert the minor piece exchange: 19 . . . lt:lxf3t! (In ChessBase Magazine 66 Ftacnik gave 19 . . . fxe6?! 20 . .ie2 Wfa3 as equal, but in fact the position after' 2l .Wfc2 Wfb2 22.Wfc7! is extremely unpleasant for Black.) 20.Wfxf3 fxe6= Black has nothing to worry about, but this is still probably White's best option.

19 ... h6! Thanks to this accurate move Black will not

have to worry about his back rank.

Also 20 . . . exd5 2 l .exd5 E:b2 22 . .ie4 E:d2 was sufficient to maintain the balance, as indicated by Ftacnik.

2l.d6 Less challenging is 2l .dxe6?! Wfxe6+ when the

passed a-pawn could cause a serious headache for White.

21...gd2 22.VHb1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 ... YHa4! Black correctly assesses that his strong knight

will restrain White's seemingly dangerous pawn, while it is not so clear how White should handle the a-pawn.

Black could have reached an easy draw by means of 22 . . . '\Wxb l 23.E:xb l lt:lc4 24.E:b8t 'ifih7 25 .E:b7 lt:lxd6 26 . .ixd6 E:xd6 as pointed out by Ftacnik.

23.YHb8t? A mistake in a difficult situation. The only

way to maintain the balance was 23.'\We l !N after which Black has several satisfactory responses including 23 . . . E:d4, 23 . . . Wfa2, 23 . . . Wfd4 and 23 . . . lt:lxf3t 24.gxf3 Wfd4. Each of these moves is fine, but none of them promises any more than an equal game after correct play.

Chapter 1 5 - 1 l .�d2 'Wxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 189

23 ••• �h7 24.'Wc7 'Wd4+ Black had the more dangerous passed pawn

and the safer king in Wells - Rowson, London 1998.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Bl2) 15J�c7

a b c d e f g h

15 .. JUc8 16J:!:xc8t l::!:xc8 Compared with the previous variation, the

position of the black rook on c8 instead of b8 leads to some differences, although the overall evaluation remains similar.

17.h3 One game continued: 1 7.l''!el lt'lb4 1 8.h3

This was Schandorff - Akesson, Skaenninge 1 998. At this point there is no need for Black to trade his light-squared bishop, and instead he should prefer 1 8 . . . �d7N 19.'Wa1 a5 with a balanced game.

t7 ... ha ts.ha gds! This is a key move in this line, which forces

White to advance his d-pawn. Compared with line B 1 1 above, the slower 1 8 . . . e6 is less attractive when the black rook does not have a clear view of an open file.

19.d5 ltle5 20.'Wcl

2 1 .�xf6 exf6 Thanks to the structural change, White's e-pawn finds itself restrained. 22.'Wd4 l:'!b8 Black has no problems and he even gained the better chances after 23.�d1 l:'!b2 24.�a4 a5+ in Chernin - Stohl, Hungary 1998.

20 . • . �c4 21.�g5 ges 22.gel

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 • . • e6 Black can also consider the more double

edged 22 ... a5!? as in Hedlund - Cipolli, corr. 2002.

23.ge2 'Wb3 24.dxe6 gxe6 25.gc2 ltld6 26.gc6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

20.�g5 �f6! This is often a strong positional a b C d e f g h idea, as the doubled pawns will not be weak. 26 ... h5! 27.�e3

190 8.:B:b l

Black had no problems and the players agreed a draw in Khalifman - Stohl, Germany 1 997.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B2) 14.d5

a b c d e f g h

14 ... tlla5 We have reached a serious tabiya, from which

a considerable number of games have been contested between high-level grandmasters. White's two main options are B21) 15 . .ic5 and B22) 15 . .ig5 .

1 5 .:B:b4 has occurred in a few games. The logical 1 5 . . . b6 1 6.e5 was played in Bolduc Barbeau, Montreal 2006, and now Black has a simple solution:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . .ixf3N 17 . .ixf3 .ixe5 1 8.:B:a4 "!Wb2 1 9.d6 .ixd6 (I 9 ... :B:ad8!? also deserves attention)

20 . .ixa8 :B:xa8+ Black's chances are better as his connected queenside pawns might tell in the long term.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B21) 15 . .ic5

a b c d e f g h

15 ... .if6 This seems rather provocative, but it is a

tried and tested route to solid equality. Black could also consider 1 5 ... b6!? as it is doubtful that White has anything better than 16 • .ixe7 transposing to line B22 below.

16.e5 Another idea is the thematic rook lift:

16.:B:b4 This not only threatens :B:a4 but also prepares e4-e5, hitting the g4-bishop along the fourth rank.

16 ... :B:fc8! 1 7.:B:a4 "!Wb3 1 8.:B:xa5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 5 - l l .�d2 '\Wxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 191

18 . . . '\Wxd 1 Black can even try 18 ... '\Wc3!?N 1 9J'ha7 '\Wxc5 20.E:xb7 E:a2� when he should hold easily.

1 9.E:xdl b6 20.�xe7 �xe7 2 1 .1:'1:a2 21 .E:a6 runs into 2l . . . E:c2.

2 1 . . .aS 22.E:b 1 This position occurred in Tanggaard - Cu. Hansen, corr. 1 998, and here I like the following active idea:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

22 . . . a4!N

a b c d e f g h

White's best response is: 23.�b5 �xf3 24.gxf3 a3 25 .�c6

After 25 .e5 E:c3! 26.f4 �c5 Black is out of danger.

a b c d e f g h

25 . . . E:xc6! 26.dxc6 �c5 The c6-pawn will soon perish, so Black is

absolutely safe.

16 . . . Le5 17.1:'1:b4

17.h3 �xf3 18.�xf3 E:ae8 19.1:'1:e1 was seen in Rodriguez - Mueller, e-mail 2002. Here I propose the natural improvement 19 . . . ll:lc4N 20.E:xb7 �d6 2 1 .E:xa7 '\Wd2 with full equality.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

l? ... L£3 IS.i.x£3 From this position Peter Leko demonstrated a

clear path to equality in two different games.

18 ... E:ae8! 19.La7 b5 Defending against E:a4.

20.'\We2 The first encounter continued 20.E:xb5

lt:lc4 21 .'\We2 '\Wxa7 22.'\Wxc4 E:c8 when the position was marginally more pleasant for Black, although White held it easily enough in Krasenkow - Leko, Madrid 1 998.

a b c d e f g h

192 8J!b l

20 ... �xe2 21.Axe2 c!Llc4 White's 'improvement' has brought him

very little.

22 . .ic5 c!Lld6 23.Axb5 gbs 24 . .ic6 gxb4 25.Lb4 gbs

The position is equal and the players soon agreed a draw in Van Wely - Leko, Tilburg 1998.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B22) 15 . .ig5

a b c d e f g h

For a time this was considered one of the most challenging lines of the entire 8.!'!b1 system, but according to current theory it has been rendered harmless by the following idea:

15 ... b6! This is Black's latest word in this line, and one

of the key factors in my decision to recommend the scheme beginning with 9 . . . cxd4.

The main move used to be 15 .. .'\Wa3, after which 16.!'!el reaches an extremely complex position from which I once won a nice game with thewhite pieces: 1 6 . . . b6 1 7.e5 !'!ad8 1 8.d6 exd6 19 .i.xd8 !'!xd8 20. ttJ g5! if5 2l .!'!cl ±

Avrukh - Ruck, Gothenburg 2005. Later Black managed to find some improvements, nevertheless the text move has taken over as his clear first choice.

16.Axe7 gfe8 17.d6 c!Llc6 18 . .ib5 White's latest attempt here was:

1 8.'Wcl 'Wxe2 1 9.'Wxc6 !'!ec8! 20.'Wd5 i.e6

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

2 l .'Wb7

a b c d e f g h

In the event of 2 l .'Wdl 'Wxd l 22.!'!fxdl Black can block his opponent's passed pawn with 22 . . . i.d7! followed by advancing his own queenside pawns. This type of position might easily become dangerous for White.

2 l . . .!'!cb8 22.'Wc6 !'!c8 23.'Wa4? White should have settled for a repetition with 23.'Wb7.

23 . . . 'Wc2! 24.'Wxc2 !'!xc2 25.e5 i.d7 The white position is still not so bad, but over the next few moves he goes further astray.

26.tt:lel ?! !'!c4 27.f4 b5 28.!'!b2 a5+ Bacrot - Svidler, Marseille 20 1 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 5 - 1 1 .id2 '!Wxa2 - Introduction and other 1 3th Moves 193

18 • . )Lhe7! This sacrifice is the key idea which justifies

Black's 1 5th move. It has been played twice against Boris Gelfand, the world's leading expert on the white side of these positions. In order to demonstrate the validity of Black's concept, I need only mention that Boris scored just half a point from these two games, and has since abandoned 8.E!:b1 entirely.

19.h3

23JUel id4 24.:abdl '!We5 25.:ad3

The first game continued: 1 9.i.xe8 E!:xe8 2 20.dxe7

a b c d e f g h

20 ... Wi'a3! (Necessary prophylaxis, since 20 . . . E!:xe7?! runs into the unpleasant 2 l .Wi'd8t if8 22.E!:al .) 2l .h3 ixf3 22.Wi'xf3 Wi'xf3 23.gxf3 E!:xe7= The players soon agreed a draw in Gelfand - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2006. Black is in no danger as he can restrain his opponent's pawns with a subsequent ... ie5 and, if necessary, ... g5.

19 ... ha 20.Y:Y:x::f3 This was Gelfand's attempted improvement.

Once again Black must give up the exchange, but we will see that his compensation is entirely adequate.

20 .•• '1We6 21.he8 :axeS 22.dxe7 :axe7 Black's powerful bishop and connected

passed pawns give him a full share of the chances.

a b c d e f g h 25 •.. :ac7!?N

25 . . . a5 led to an eventual victory for Black in Gelfand - Shirov, Odessa 2007, but I consider the immediate rook activation to be a slight improvement.

26.E!:edl :ac4 27.'1We2 b5i Black's chances are not worse in this double

edged position.

Conclusion

The variation beginning with the moves 1 l .id2 Wi'xa2 1 2.0-0 is one of the richest battlegrounds in all of chess theory, and can lead to fantastically complex play. Several different lines have jumped in and out of fashion over the years, as players on both sides struggled to navigate the complications. In the year 20 1 1 the scheme beginning with 1 2 . . . ig4 has become established as the clear front-runner, in connection with the line B22) 1 5.ig5 b6! leading to a promising exchange sacrifice for Black. At the time of writing this plan has defied all ofWhite's attempts to fight for an advantage, and is responsible for the widespread decline of the 8.E!:b 1 system.

a b c d e f g h

13.ig5

Variation Index

l .d4 lLJf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxdS 5.e4 lLlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 ?.lLJ£3 c5 8J�b1 0-0 9 . .ie2 cxd4 10.cxd4 YMaSt 1 l ..id2 YMxa2 12.0-0 .ig4 13 . .ig5

A) 14.he7 B) 14 . .ih4 C) 14 . .ie3 lLlc6

C1) 1 5.:Sxb7 C2) 15.d5

A) after 1 6.�c5

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . lLlxc5N

13 ... h6

C l ) note to 17 . . . �d7

a b c d e f g h

22 . . . lLlxf3tN

Cl) after 26.l"1d l

195 196 198 198 201

a b c d e f g h

26 . . . l"1e2N+

Chapter 1 6 - 1 3 . .tg5 195

l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3Jt�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 ttlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttlf3 c5 SJ::lbl 0-0 9.Ae2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Ylfa5t l l..ld2 Ylfxa2 12.0-0 .ig4 13 . .ig5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h This natural move has been White's most

popular choice.

13 ... h6 We have reached our first crossroads, where

White can choose between A) 14..ixe7, B) 14..lh4 and C) 14 . .ie3. The first is harmless but the other two demand careful study.

A) 14 . .ixe7

This was once used by Kramnik but it should not trouble Black.

14 .. J��e8 15J��xb7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... �d7!? I rather like this rare move, although the

more common 1 5 ... �c6 is also quite reliable, as shown in the game Kramnik - Kasparov, Novgorod 1 994.

16.Ac5 Another encounter continued 16 . .tb4 E:xe4

1 7.E:el .txf3 18 . .txf3 E:xd4 19.'Mfcl 'Lle5+ when Black was a pawn up for very little, Hultin - Ernst, GaU$dal 1991 .

The present position was reached in Tolkmitt Schwenck, corr. 1997. Here I like the following simple idea:

16 ... �xc5N 17.dxc5 E:ad8 From here I have only found one reasonable

response for White.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 18.E:e7!?

Obviously after 1 8.'Mfb3 'Mfxb3 1 9.l:!xb3 E:xe4 White will have to fight for a draw.

18 . . • E:xdl 19.E:xe8t �h7 20 . .ixdl White has a slight material advantage, but

after the next accurate move it becomes clear that Black is at least equal.

20 .. ..le6! Black will soon capture the c-pawn and will

shortly thereafter start advancing his a-pawn.

1 96 8.:i:!bl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) 14 . .ih4

a b c d e f g h

14 ... g5! Analysis and tournament practice have

established this as the right direction.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 17 . . . e6!

This has only occurred in a few games, but it came under the spotlight when Anand used it against Kramnik in 2009.

For a long time 17 ... f5 was considered Black's main continuation, but to me it seems rather shaky due to the following line: 1 8.Ek7! fxe4 19Jhc6 exf3 20 . .ic4! Wl'a3 2 1 .:i:!e1 Shulman Votava, Pardubice 1 999. Although Black drew

this and one subsequent game that reached the same position, I would not recommend following this path.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18.ic7 White's hopes are mainly connected with

this move, although the following alternative is not bad: 18.d6

I analysed this idea myself, before discovering that it had been played in a correspondence game.

1 8 ... .ixf3 1 9 . .ixf3 Dubious is 1 9.gxf3?! tt:ld4 20 . .id3 e5! when White will lose his d-pawn.

1 9 . . . WI'a6 20.WI'b 1 .ie5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

2 1 .:i:!d1

a b c d e f g h

2 1 .d7 .ixg3 22.hxg3 tt:le5 23.:i:!d1 Wl'c6 24.:1!xa7 :i:!xd7 reaches the same position.

Chapter 1 6 - 1 3.ig5 197

2 l . . .�xg3 22.hxg3 tLle5 23.d7 \Wc6 24J:!xa7 :B:xd7

White's last chance to cause problems is: 25.:B:dxd7 tLlxd7 26.e5

But Black has an easy solution.

a b c d e f g h

26 . . . \Wb6!= 27.\Wxb6 lLlxb6 28.�h5 A draw was agreed in Zeihser - Aleksandrov,

corr. 20 1 0.

a b c d e f g h

18 . . . .lxf3! This was Anand's new approach, which

has rehabilitated the 17 . . . e6 line for Black. Previously 18 . . . exd5 had been seen, but after 19.�xd8 :B:xd8 20.exd5 :B:xd5 2 1 .\Wel ! Black was suffering in Lechtynsky - Mankeyev, Olomouc 2007.

19 . .lxf3 gd7

a b c d e f g h

20.dxc6!? The queen sacrifice is interesting, but Black

manages to keep everything under control.

It is important to point out the line 20.d6N \Wa6! 2 1 .:B:b l tLld4 when Black is doing fine, with ... �e5 coming next.

20.\Wbl ! ? This was White's choice in the most recent game to reach the position.

20 . . . \Wxb l 2 l .:B:fxbl

a b c d e f g h

2l .. .:B:c8!N In the game Black blundered with 2 l . . .exd5? 22.�g4! f5 23.�xf5 :B:e7 24.exd5 :B:xf5 25.dxc6 :B:e6 26.:B:b8t 'it>h7 27.�d6! and White won easily, Gareev - Bykhovsky, Berkeley 20 1 1 .

22.�g3 22.d6 ie5=

198 8.l:!b l

22 . . J'l:xb7 23.l:!xb7 llJd4 Black has no problems in the endgame.

20 .. -l:�xdl 2l.gxdl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

2l. .. �c2 22 . .id6 g4! This important resource diverts the bishop

away from the h l -a8 diagonal.

23.i.xg4 �xc6 24J�c7 �b6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

25J�d7! Without this White would simply be worse.

2s ... gds This was certainly the safest practical

decision. In the event of 25 . . . l:!c8 26.i.h5 the

position is dangerous for both sides, although ultimately it should still be balanced.

26..ic7 :axd7 27 .hb6 :axdl t 28 . .ixdl axb6 29.i>fl

A draw was agreed in Kramnik - Anand, Moscow 2009.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C) 14 . .ie3

a b c d e f g h

The position is the same as in variation B of the previous chapter, except that Black's pawn is on h6 instead ofh7, which could potentially benefit either player. The pawn move may have loosened the black kingside, but on the other hand White does not have the use of the g5-square for his pieces.

I4 • . . �c6 Once again White can choose between CI)

15.:axb7 and C2) 15.d5.

CI) 15.:axb7

Here we should play by analogy with line B 1 of the previous chapter.

15 ... :aab8 I6.gxb8 The alternative is 16.l:!c7 !!feB 17 .l:!xc8t

!!xeS 1 8 .h3 i.xf3 1 9.i.xf3 transposing to the note to Black's 17th move below.

Chapter 1 6 - 13.i.g5 199

16 .. J:txb8 17.h3 17 .d5 lt:\e5 18 .h3 is unimpressive, despite

having yielded two victories for White from two games. Black should play 1 8 . . . i.xf3 1 9 . .ixf3 as in Bouma - Erkens, corr. 2004, and now after the simple 1 9 . . . a5!N+ White will have to worry about the strong pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h 17 ... .td7

Black has a second decent line available. Even if the reader prefers the positions which occur in the main line, it is still essential to check the following, as White can more or less force a transposition to it by choosing the 1 6.:!'k7 move order as noted above.

17 ... .ixf3 1 8 . .ixf3 l:!d8 Play closely resembles line B2 1 of the previous chapter. The pawn on h6 leads to some differences, but the overall evaluation remains balanced.

1 9.d5 lt:\e5 20.Wfcl

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . a5 Mter the inaccurate 20 . . . �h7?! 2 l .Wfc7 l:!d7 22.Wfc8 Wfc4 23.Wfe8! White obtained a serious advantage in Gelfand - Kamsky, Dos Hermanas 1 995. However, Black could consider 2 1 . . .lt:\c4!?N with the possible continuation: 22 . .ixh6 .ixh6 23.Wfxh6 lt:\d2 24.l:!d1 (24.l:!e1 should be met by 24 . . . l:!b8 when Black has enough counterplay) 24 . . . lt:\xf3t 25.gxf3 Wfe2 26.l:!a1 Wfxf3 27.Wfe3 Wfxe3 28.fxe3 l:!d7 29.l:!a6 f5 30.l:!xg6t 'kt>f7 3 1 .exf5 l:!xd5 32.e4 l:!e5 The endgame is an easy draw.

2 l .Wfc7 l:!e8 22 . .if4 This position was reached in Arun Prasad - Negi, Nagpur 2008, and here I found an improvement:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 . . . lt:\xf3tN 23.gxf3 Wfb3 24.'kt>g2 a4 25.Wfd7 l:!a8 26.Wfxe7 a3 27.d6

Mter 27 . .ie5 a2 28 . .ixg7 'kt>xg7 29.'We5t 'kt>g8� Black is at least not worse as his a-pawn is powerful.

27 . . . Wfb8 Black should make an easy draw here.

18.d5 The tame 1 8 . .id3?! was played in San

Segundo - Azmaiparashvili, Madrid 1996. Here Black missed an opportunity to seize the initiative with 18 ... a5!N, for instance 19,.if4 l:!b2 20 . .icl l:!b7+ and Black's position is more promising.

200 8.!!b l

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

18 ... �e5! A well-timed pawn sacrifice.

19 . .if4 19.lt:\xe5 .ixe5 20.f4

So far nobody has risked capturing the unimportant h6-pawn, and indeed after 20 . .ixh6 a5!� Black's passed pawn starts to run very quickly.

20 ... .ig7 2 1 .e5 This looks tempting but it weakens the d5-pawn, and in the following game Black was able to make good use of this fact.

a b c d e f g h

2 1 . . . .ia4! 22.'?9el .ib3! 23 . .if3 .ixd5 24 . .ixd5 '?9xd5 25 .ixa7

At this point the players agreed a draw in Haveland - Lohmann, e-mail 2002, but it would have been worth playing on a little longer for Black. I would suggest:

a b c d e f g h

25 . . . 13b3N Obviously White should draw from here,

but from a practical point of view his position is mildly unpleasant.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 19 . .. �b2

This good positional move maintains control over the e5-square. Another idea is 19 . . . lt:\xf3tN 20 . .ixf3 13b2 when Black should also be fine.

20.�cl g5 2I ..ixe5 As Gelfand pointed out in ChessBase

Magazine 54, both 2 I ..ig3 13c8 22.'?9xb2 tt:lxf3t 23 . .ixf3 .ixb2 24.13bl 13cl t 25 .13xcl .ixc l , and 21 .tt:lxe5 .ixe5 22.'?9xb2 13xb2 23 . .ixe5 13xe2 24.f3 f5 lead to roughly equal endgames.

2I . . . .ixe5 22.1�he5 �xe5 23.�al :E:b2

Chapter 1 6 - 13 .�g5 20 1

Up to this point both sides have played logically, but now White went slightly astray.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

24.Vfxa7?! Correct was 24.�h5N when the position

remains equal.

24 .. J�xe2 25.Yfxd7 gxe4 26.gdl Gelfand - J. Polgar, Novgorod 1996. Here

Black should have tried:

26 ... ge2Ni White should of course be able to hold this

position, but he will have to tread carefully for a few more moves.

C2) 15.d5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... ttla5 This must be the correct decision.

I do not like 1 5 . . . �xf3? 16.�xf3 ltJeS since after 17J'!:xb7 e6 1 8.Wfe2! Black is in trouble, for instance: 1 8 . . . ttJxf3t 1 9.Wfxf3 exd5 20.exd5 aS 2 1 .d6 I found five examples of this position in my database, but even without any further investigation it is clear that White's d-pawn is extremely dangerous and Black will need a miracle to escape.

16 . .ic5 b6! On this occasion Black should avoid the

path of line B21 of the previous chapter, as the position of the pawn on h6 instead of h7 proves to be a liability: 16 . . . �f6?! 17.e5 �xe5 1 8J::l:b4 .ixf3 1 9 . .ixf3 l::!:ae8 Here White has ideas such as 20 . .ie3!, threatening !!a4 while targeting the h6-pawn. Black is under some pressure.

17.he7 We have almost transposed to line B22 of

the previous chapter, except for the inclusion of the move . . . h7 -h6 which actually benefits Black in this instance.

17 ... gfe8 18.d6 �c6 19.Ab5 ttlxe7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

White has tried a couple of ideas here:

202 8.E:b l

20.h3 20 . .ixe8 !he8 2l .dxe7

Once again Black's most accurate move is: 2l .. .'�a3!

Just as in the note to White's 1 9th move in line B22 of the previous chapter. I would like to draw your attention to one additional possibility afforded to Black by the extra move . . . h7-h6.

22.h3 .ie6!? There is nothing wrong with 22 . . . ixf3 as played in the Gelfand - Van Wely game (with the pawn on h7), but the idea of keeping the bishop pair also seems attractive. Here is one illustrative example:

23.lt:\d4 1lNxe7 24.lt:\xe6 1lf1xe6 25.E:el a6! With this important move Black slowly starts to advance his queenside pawns.

26.E:cl b5 27.1lf1d2 E:b8 The position is dynamically balanced,

Alferov - Bobel, e-mail 2008.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 ... Lf3 2I.Y;Yx£3 l::!:ec8!? There is nothing wrong with 2 I . . .'Ilf1e6 as

recommended in the position with the pawn on h7, but once again the pawn on h6 gives Black an additional possibility.

22.dxe7 Y;Ye6 23.e8=Y;Yt a:xe8 24 . .L:e8 a:xe8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black should be fine here, as illustrated by the following game:

25.Y;Ya3 a5 26.Y;Ye3 '!Wxe4 27.l:lxb6 i.d4 2S.Y;Yxe4 l::!:xe4 29.a:a6 a4 30.g3 i.b2 3I.:adl a3

Black made an easy draw in Leupold -Lahdenmaeki, e-mail 20 1 0.

Conclusion

We have reached the end of our investigation into the fascinating 8.E:b l system. 13.ig5 has been White's main line in terms of popularity, but the resolute 13 . . . h6 has proven a reliable counter, against which White has tested three replies. A) I4.ixe7 is not really a serious move and after my recommended solution Black can soon fight for the advantage. B) I4 . .ih4 is more challenging, but unless White can find a serious improvement over the Kramnik - Anand game from 2009, he will have no chance of an advantage here. Finally C) 14 . .ie3 is a good move which closely resembles line B of the previous chapter. Overall Black should be doing fine here, although he should study both sets of positions thoroughly in order to appreciate the pluses and minuses of the extra . . . h7 -h6 move.

7.Ac4 a b c d e f g h

Various 9th and 1Oth Moves

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.c4

7 ... c5 8.�e2 �c6 A) 9.d5 B) 9 .i.e3 0-0

Bl) IO.h4 B2) IO.�bl B3) IO.�cl cxd4 l l .cxd4 V:Va5t!

B3 1) 12.V:Vd2 B32) 12.i.d2 B33) 12.@fl V:Va3!

B331) 13.V:Vb3 B332) 13.V:Vd2 B333) 13.�c3

B3 1 ) after 1 4.l"lhd l B32) after 1 4.Wfb3

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . b5!N

B333) note to 1 5 .f3

204 205 205 206 207 207 207 208 208 209 210

204 7.ic4

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.c!Llc3 dS 4.cx:d5 �xdS S.e4 c!Llxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 cS

a b c d e f g h

s.c!Lle2 White has a couple of other ways to defend

his d-pawn:

8. ttJ f3 transposes to line A of Chapter 12.

In my opinion 8 . .ie3 is a slightly inaccurate move order, since 8 . . . 4Jc6 9.4Je2 is just a transposition to line B, while Black is allowed an extra option in 8 . . . 'Wa5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

We shall take a brief look at A) 9.d5 before turning to the usual B) 9 . .ie3.

A) 9.d5

This definitely shouldn't pose Black any problems, although it is useful to have a little knowledge of what to do.

9 .•. �a5 10 • .ib5t .id7 The exchange of light-squared bishops

combined with the black knight coming to the c4-square is liable to be very good for Black.

1 1 .�a4 In one game White tried: 1 1 .a4 0-0 12.0-0

b6 ( 12 ... c4, 12 . . . e6 and 12 .. .f5!? are all playable alternatives) 13 . .ig5 .ixb5 14.axb5 Wid? 1 5.:B:b l e6 1 6.W/d3 exd5 17.exd5 :B:fe8 Black's position was slightly preferable in Komljenovic - Herrera, Malaga 2002.

1 1 . • . b6 12.0-0 a6 13.hd7t �xd7

a b c d e f g h

14.�c2 As usual, the endgame is very comfortable

for Black: 14.W/xd7t c;t>xd7 15 .:B:b1 ltJc4 16.f4 b5+ Muci Kuechler - Vargas Solano, Hermosillo 2002.

14 • . • 0-0 15 • .ig5 �c4 16.a4 eS The immediate 16 ... b5!? is also fine for

Black.

Chapter 1 7 - Various 9th and 1 Oth Moves 205

17.Y¥b3 b5 Black had a comfortable game in Christiansen

- Gulko, Estes Park 1987.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) 9 . .ie3 0-0

a b c d e f g h White now chooses from Bl) 10.h4, B2)

lOJ::�bl and B3) lOJ�cl.

Bl) 10.h4 Y¥a5 ll.<i!?fl b6

It's clearly favourable for Black to trade the light-squared bishops.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h 12.h5 .ia6 13.ha6 Y¥xa6 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.<i!?gl

An example I like is 1 5.f3 cxd4 16.cxd4 E:ac8 17.cj;>f2 tt:lb4! and Black takes over the initiative: 1 8.E:b1 E:c4 19 .ih6 '1Wxa2 20.ixg7

cj;>xg7 2 1 .E:al '1Wb2 White's strategy had failed and Black's advantage was undisputable in Murey - Dvoirys, Cappelle Ia Grande 1999.

15 .. J:Ud8 16.V¥d2 V¥a4 17 . .ih6 .ih8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

18.i.f8!! White finds a brilliant idea; however it

seems to lead only to a forced draw! Previously the same player had lost a game from this position: 1 8.'1We3? cxd4 19.'1Wh3 dxc3 20.id2 ie5 21 .'\Wh?t cj;>fg 22.tt:lxc3 '1Wc2 White had a hopeless position in Nikolaidis - lvanchuk, Peristeri 20 10.

18 ... i.f6 19.Y¥h6 cxd4 20.f4! dxc3 2l.e5 tt:lxe5 22.fxe5 he5 23 • .L:e7 E:dl t 24Jhdl Y¥xdl t 25. <i!?fl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

206 7.ic4

25 ... i.d4t 26.lthd4 f;Vxd4t 27.�f3 f;Vd5t 28.�fl f;Vd4t

As so often happens, all the crazy complications have resulted in a perpetual check, Nikolaidis - Banikas, Vrahati 20 1 0.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B2) IOJ:�bl cxd4 ll.cxd4 f;Va5t

a b c d e f g h

We shall see the same reaction in line B3 after 1 0 .lk 1 .

12.i.d2 Other continuations for White are:

1 2.'tt>fl 'Wfa3! This has not been the most popular option here, but I cannot find any reason why not.

1 3.'Wfd2 The endgame with the white king on f1 can be better only for Black: 13.'Wfcl Wfxcl t (the standard 13 . . . 'Wfd6!? is not bad either) 14Jl:xcl :B:d8 15 .d5 lLle5 16.ib3 b6 17.'tt>gl ia6 18.lL!d4 :B:ac8 Black was slightly better in Kwatschewsky - Wittmann, Beersheba 1985.

1 3 . . . :B:d8 14.f3 This was Hertneck - Golod, Bad Wiessee 2000. Black should now play:

14 ... lLla5N 1 5.id3 ie6 Black is planning . . . ic4 with a nice game.

1 6.d5 ixd5! 1 7.exd5 :B:xd5 1 8.lL!f4 lL!c4 Black has a strong initiative.

1 2.'Wfd2

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 2 . . . E!:d8!N There is no reason to rush with 12 ... 'W/xd2t 13.�xd2 E!:d8, as that gives White the additional option of 14.E!:hdl .

13 .id5 Exchanging queens on a5 does not benefit White: 13.'Wfxa5 lL!xa5 14.id3 lL!c6! 15 .d5 lLle5 16.ic2 b6 Black will play ... ia6 next, with the better chances.

1 3 . . . 'Wfxd2t It is worth considering 13 . . . E!:xd5!? 14.exd5 'Wfxd5 1 5 .0-0 b6 1 6.lL!f4 'Wfd6 17.d5 lLla5 18 .'Wfb4 ie5 with complex play.

14.\hd2 lLlxd4! This equalizes comfortably.

15.lLlxd4 Black also has no problems after 1 5.ixd4 e6 16.ixb7 ixb7 1 7.E!:xb7 ixd4.

15 . . . e6 16.ixb7 ixb? 17.E!:xb7 ixd4 The position is absolutely equal.

a b c d e f g h

12 ... ti'h5!N This active square for the queen is best.

13 . .ie3 I also examined 1 3 . .ic3 Wl'g4! 14.lDg3

Wl'xdlt 1 5.!l:xdl .id7. Black will play . . . :B:ac8 next, with an edge.

13 ..• ti'g4 14.l2Jg3 ti'xdlt 15Jhdl .id7 The endgame is comfortable for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B3) IO.�cl c:x:d4 l l.c:x:d4 ti'a5t!

a b c d e f g h

This check is Black's principal option. White replies with B31) 12.ti'd2, B32) 12 • .id2 or B33) I2.<;f?fl.

B31) 12.ti'd2 ti'xd2t 13.�xd2 �d8

Quickly attacking the d4-pawn is always a key idea when the white king is on d2.

14.�hdl 14.d5 has been more popular, but it does

not look good: 14 . . . e6 1 5 .lDc3 (after 1 5 .:B:hdl lDa5 1 6.'it>el lDxc4 17.:B:xc4 exd5 1 8.exd5 b6! the bishop pair gives Black the advantage) 1 5 . . . lDa5+ White had serious problems with his centre in Hohl - Niebergall, Budapest 2000.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... .ixd4!N I believe that capturing the d-pawn in this

way is an important nuance. In practice, Black has always played 14 . . . l2Jxd4 but White maintains some pressure: 1 5 .lDxd4 .ixd4 16.c;!;>el (16 . .ixd4 :B:xd4t l?.<;i;>e3 :B:xdl 18 .:B:xdl .ig4 1 9.f3 :B:c8! was equal in Juptner - Mikuev, Czech Republic 2000) 1 6 . . . e5 1 7 . .ixd4 exd4 1 8 . .id5 .ie6 This occurred in lngersol - Krueger, Internet 2004, and here I would be slightly worried by 19 . .ixe6N fxe6 20.�c7. Although it is probably tenable, Black is doomed to passivity.

15.lthd4 �xd4 16.�c3 16 . .ixd4 :B:xd4t transposes to Juptner -

Mikuev in the previous note.

16 ••. ltlc6 17.�xd8t �xd8 IS.�dl �c6 19 . .id5 .ie6

Black has comfortable equality.

B32) 12 • .id2 ti'h5

This is my preference, although 1 2 . . . WI'b6 may well be good too.

13.d5 This looks to be the most challenging. After

13 . .ic3 Harmon - Dorn, San Francisco 1 974, Black has the thematic 13 . . . WI'g4N 14.lDg3

208 7.ic4

'!Mfxd lt 15 .�xdl �d?+. We have reached the same position as in the note to White's 13th move of B2.

13 • . Jt�e5 14.VNb3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

In two games where this position occurred, Black now played 1 4 . . . 1Mfh4, but it was far from convincing. I felt obliged to find a new idea:

I4 ... b5!N 15.Ad3 Both ways of accepting the pawn sacrifice

are dangerous for White:

1 5 .�xb5 �b8 16.1Mfa4 (or 16.lt::lg3 1Mfh4 17.'1Mfa4 f5! with a serious initiative for Black) 1 6 . . . a6 17.�c4 �d7 1 8.1Mfxa6 �a8 19.'1Mfb6 lt::lxc4 20.�xc4 �xa2 It is clear that Black's initiative is worth more than just a pawn.

1 5 .1Mfxb5 a5! Black's bishop will join the game from a6 with great effect. 16.lt::lg3 '1Mfh4 1 7.�e2 �a6 1 8.1Mfc5 �xe2 19.�xe2 �ab8 Black again has long-term compensation, due to the exposed white king.

1 5 . . • VNg4 I6.ttlg3 �xd3t 17.VNxd3 a5 Black's plan is very simple; he just wants to

activate his light-squared bishop via the a6-square. Play could continue:

18.0-0 b4 19J�c6 Ad7 20J�c7 �Uds Black is doing fine, with his bishop pair and

potential passed pawn on the queenside.

B33) 12.�fl

A principal idea in this line; White will leave his king on fl and try to launch an attack on the black king with h4-h5 etc.

I2 . • • VNa3! A remarkable move, which I would designate

as prophylactic! First of all Black prevents 1 3.h4, as then 13 ... ig4 is highly unpleasant because f2-f3 would leave the bishop hanging on e3. For the same reason the standard idea of f2-f3 followed by �f2 is ruled out.

Some years ago, Black used to automatically react with 1 2 . . . id7 but then 13.h4 leads to very complex play.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h Now White's options are B331) 13.VNb3,

B332) 13.VNd2 and B333) 13.l::!:c3.

B33I) 13.VNb3 VNd6!

Before Black found this move, there were quite a few games in which he suffered in the slightly passive endgame after 13 . . . 1Mfxb3 14.�xb3.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

14.e5

a b c d e f g h

Equally common is 14.i.d5, after which I like 1 4 . . . tLla5 1 5.'Wb5 'Wb6! 1 6.'%Vxb6 axb6 1 7.f3 e6 1 8.i.b3 tLlxb3 1 9.axb3.

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This occurred in Atalik- Rytshagov, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 997, and here the following improvement is very logical: 1 9 . . . i.d7N 20.'tt>f2 !!a3 2I .b4 i.b5 22.!!a1 !!b3 23J:l:hb 1 !!xb1 24J:l:xb 1 !!c8 25.!!cl !!xcl 26.tLlxcl i.c4+ Although White should most likely be able to hold, Black can play for a win.

14 • . . ¥Nd8 15.¥Na3 .if5 16.f3 c!tla5 17.fl ttlxc4 18.l:!xc4 .ie6

1 8 . . . f6!? is also worth considering.

19J:�b4 VNd7 The position was roughly equal in Ingersol

Da Costa Junior, corr. 2007.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14.d5

B332) 13.¥Nd2 :gd8

a b c d e f g h

After 14.h4 Black has the tactical blow 14 . . . tLlxd4! 1 5.lthd4 i.xd4 16.h5 McDonough - Masse, Montreal 2004. Here Black missed a very strong move:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 . . . ib6!N 1 7.hxg6 hxg6 1 8 . .id5 .ixe3 19.fxe3 e6 20.l:!c7 'Wf8! 2 I .'We1 'Wg7 22 . .ixb7 !!b8+ White has restored material equality, but his damaged pawn structure gives Black a clear advantage.

14 ... ttle5 15 • .ib5 After 1 5 . .ib3 b6 the play is very complex.

I prefer Black, since the exposed position of the white king should tell at some point: 16.f4 tLlg4 1 7 . .id4 .ia6 1 8.e5 !!ac8 Black had the initiative in Anderson - Martin, e-mail 1 998.

210 7 . .ic4

15 ... a6 16 . .ic5 �f3! I like this idea a lot.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17)t�g3? Missing Black's elegant follow-up blow. The

critical line is: 1 7 . .ixe7 '1Mfxe4 (or 17 ... .ih3!? 18 .lt:lf4 axb5 19.lt:lxh3 '1Mfxe4 20 . .ixd8 !!xd8 21 .!!d 1 '1M! a4 and Black has sufficient compensation) 1 8 . .ixd8 axb5 19.lt:lg3 'IM!g4 20.h3 '1Mfd7 21 ..ig5 lt:lc4 Black has fine compensation for the exchange.

17 ... .ih3! 18.gxh3 axb5 Black had a clear advantage in Kobylkin -

Khamrakulov, Menorca 1 996.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B333) l3J�c3 �d6

a b c d e f g h

14.h4 The most challenging continuation. Quiet

play does not promise White anything, for instance: 14.f3 !!d8 Black immediately starts to attack the white centre. 1 5.!!d3 lt:la5 16 . .ib3 .id7 17.'it>f2 .ib5 18 .!!d2 !!ac8 Black was significantly better in Brettschneider -Schmenger, Binz 1995.

14 ... h5 1 5.£3 By far the most popular option. Other

possibilities are:

1 5.'1Mfd3 lt:la5!N This was pointed out by Predojevic in Chess Informant 94, and improves on 1 5 . . . e5, which is very unclear.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

16 . .if4

a b c d e f g h

Black has a pleasant game after 16 . .id5 e6 17 . .if4 '1Mfe7.

1 6 . . . e5 17.dxe5 White achieves nothing after 1 7 . .ixe5 .ixe5 1 8.dxe5 '1Mfxe5 1 9 . .id5 .ie6.

17 ... \Mfxd3 1 8 . .ixd3 lt:lc6! Predojevic recommended 1 8 ... .ie6, but I am concerned about Black's position after: 1 9.lt:ld4 .ixa2 20.'it>e2 !!fd8 2 1 .'it>e3!;!; White's army is very nicely centralized.

1 9 . .ic4 lt:lxe5 20 . .id5 .ie6 Black has good play.

1 5.'1Mfd2

Chapter 1 7 - Various 9th and 1 Oth Moves 2 1 1

a b c d e f g h

15 . . .1'M8!?N This very natural idea is a novelty. In practice Black has played 1 5 . . . e5 16.d5 lLla5 17 . .id3 b6, but here I don't like: 1 8.8N (less convincing is 1 8 . .ih6 .id7 19.g3?! lLlb7 20.'i!ig2 lLlc5 2 I ..ie3 lLlxd3 22.1'hd3 f5 and Black had a promising game in Elsness - Predojevic, Pula 2005) 1 8 . . . .id7 (or 1 8 .. .f5 1 9.'i!igl) 1 9.g3;!; The position is very complex, but White's passed pawn may be a telling factor in the long term.

16J!d3 "I!Nb4 17 . .ib3 "I!Nxd2 1 8.!!xd2 b6 1 9.d5 lLla5

19 ... lLle5!? is also interesting. 20.f3 .ia6 2 I .'i!if2 !!ac8

Black has no problems.

l5 .. J:�d8 l6 . .id5 After 16. 'i!if2 Black has the tactical solution:

16 . . . lLlxd4! 17.lLlxd4 (clearly inferior is 17.!'!:d3 e5 1 8 . .id5 .ie6 1 9.lLlxd4 exd4 20 . .ixd4 .ixd4t 2l .!'!:xd4 1!N c5+ Lillevold - Martinsen, Oslo 2008) 17 ... .ixd4 18 . .ixd4 "I!Nxd4t 1 9."1!Nxd4 !!xd4 l!z-llz Grego - Kolodziejski, e-mail 2009. White has decent compensation for the pawn, but perhaps Black should play on.

a b c d e f g h

l6 ... e5! l7 . .ig5 Black obtains a good game after 17.'i!if2

.ie6!.

l7 ... .if6 l8.dxe5 V:Yxe5 l9.Lf6 Wfxf6 20.V:Yb3 .ie6 2l.he6

A draw was agreed in Murray - Freeman, e-mail 2002. The position is somewhat unclear, but it is roughly balanced.

Conclusion

The lines in which White forgoes castling can be very double-edged, especially when White continues with h4-h5. But provided he knows what he is doing, Black can meet such attacks with confidence. In particular, White's attack in line Bl looks extremely scary, but it offers him no more than a draw. I have recommended meeting both B2) IO.!!bl and B3) IO.!!cl with the natural lO . . . cxd4 l l .cxd4 "I!Na5t. Depending on White's reaction, Black must play inventively with his queen (the manoeuvres . . . "I!Nh5-g4 and . . . "I!Na3-d6 both feature prominently), but with accurate play Black can count on achieving at least equal chances.

7.ic4 a b c d e f g h

10 . . . ig4

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.0-0

A) 1 1 .d5 B) 1 1 .f3 .id7!?

B1) 12.'!Wd2 B2) 12.�h1 B3) 12.d5 B4) 12 . .id3 BS) 12J:�cl

A) after ! 6.f4

10 ... .ig4

B I ) after ! 6.Wb2 84) after 1 5 .Wa4?

213 214 215 216 216 218 219

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . �xe2 1 6.�xe2 liJxd4!

Chapter 1 8 - 1 O . . . .ig4 213

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 Eilxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ic4 c5 s.Eile2 �c6 9..ie3 0--0 10.0--0 !g4

This is one of the few places in this repertoire where I have recommended two main options for Black, as I also cover the little-explored line 10 . . . Wfc7 1 l .:B:cl b6 in the final two chapters. The reader may of course choose whichever line he feels more comfortable playing.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . i.xe2 (of course Black cannot play as in the main line with 1 5 . . . i.g7? because of 1 6.i.b6) 16.Wfxe2 b5 1 7.f4 1his was Sjoberg - Nylen, Stockholm 1 992, and here Black should play: 17 . . . tLlb7N 1 8.:B:fd1 f6 The position is very complicated and optically White has decent compensation, but I believe that the extra pawn is the more important factor.

12 ... c4 13.i.c2 iJc3 14J�b1 Sacrificing the exchange does not work:

14.f3 ixa l 1 5.Wfxal i.d7 1 6.i.h6 Wfb6t 17.'it>h 1 f6 1 8.i.xf8 :B:xf8 White has hardly any compensation for being a pawn down.

14 ... i.g7 15.f3 .id7 16.£4

8

7

6

5

White now chooses between A) ll .d5 and 4

B) ll.f3. 3

A) ll .d5 2

This relatively rare option is actually a pawn sacrifice.

ll ... Eila5 12.!d3 Matters are slightly different after 12.i.b5 a6

l3.i.d3 c4 14.i.c2 i.xc3 1 5 .:B:bl .

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1

a b c d e f g h

Here I like the idea of giving back the extra pawn in exchange for activity.

16 ... c3!?N Most of the games from this position have

gone 1 6 . . . b5 17.e5 a6 18 .tLlc3. Although White's results have been far from impressive, I feel that his strong centre gives him serious compensation for the pawn.

17 . .id4 The only reasonable idea for White. Mter

17.e5 i.g4 1 8.:B:f2 tLlc4 White is unable to create any play.

214 7 . .ic4

17 ... .ig4 18.hg7 ��7 19J�f2 Another important line is:

1 9.Wfd4t

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . e5! The key idea.

20.Wfe3 Of course White cannot play 20.Wfxe5 f6 and his knight drops. I also checked the piece sacrifice: 20.fxe5 .ixe2 2 1 .e6t (after 2 1 .1:!f2 .ic4 22.e6t Black can play 22 .. . '\t>gS! with advantage) 2 1 . . .f6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22.1:!f2 (Another variation runs 22.d6 .ixfl 23.e7 Wfd7 24.exf8=Wft 1:!xf8 25.'\t>xfl b5 26.Wfxc3 ltlc4. White will lose the d6-pawn and he is facing a struggle to draw.) 22 . . . .ia6 23.e5 ltlc6 24.exf6t Wfxf6! 25.Wfxf6t 1:!xf6 26.1:!xf6 'it>xf6 27.dxc6 bxc6 White finds himself in a clearly inferior endgame.

20 . . . .ixe2 21 .Wfxe2 Wfd6 With such a solid blockade, Black has

nothing to worry about.

19 ... �g8 20.%Yd4 .ixe2 2U�xe2 %Yc7 22.f5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 •. J:�ac8 It is a good practical decision to return the

pawn in order to exchange queens.

23.%Yxa7 %Yc5t 24.%Yxc5 1:!xc5:j: Black's c-pawn is strong in the endgame .

B) l l .f3 .id7!?

This move, which leads to typical Griinfeld play, has recently become quite a fashionable alternative to the well-known and exhaustively analysed 1 1 . . .ltla5. The resulting play is similar to that which arises after IO . . . .id7, but the inclusion of f2-f3 gives Black additional resources connected with the vulnerable position of the e3-bishop.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 8 - 1 O . . . i.g4 215

White now has a very wide choice. 12.1:'!:b 1 is examined in the following chapter, as is 12.dxc5 'We? 13.1:'!:b1 , while here we look at Bl) 12.Wfd2, B2) 12.i>hl, B3) 12.d5, B4) 12.i.d3 and B5) 12J::k1.

Bl) 12.Wfd2 Wfa5!

The standard response, threatening to capture on d4.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

13JUdl Other options are:

13.d5 li:le5 14.i.b3 was played in Naumkin Kyas, Cattolica 1 993:

a b c d e f g h

And now simply 14 . . . ib5!N would promise Black excellent play.

13.Wib2 b5! This equalizes on the spot. 14.Wlxb5 (1 4.id5 cxd4 1 5.cxd4 e6 16.ib3 E:ac8 gives Black good play) 1 4 . . . Wlxb5 15 .ixb5 li:lxd4 16.id3 Other moves would leave White worse. Michaelsen - Joecks, Hamburg 1989, was agreed drawn here, in view of 16 ... li:lxe2t 17.ixe2 ixc3 1 8.1:'!:ad1 followed by ixc5.

13 .. J'!:ac8 I also quite like: 1 3 ... cxd4 14.cxd4 b5N

1 5.Wlxa5 (or 1 5.ib3 Wlxd2 16.1:'!:xd2 li:la5=) 15 ... li:lxa5 1 6.id3 1:'!:fc8 Black has decent play.

14J�abl b6 Black tries to maintain his pressure on the

centre, and avoids the simplifying line: 14 . . . cxd4 15.cxd4 Wlxd2 16.1:'!:xd2 li:la5 17.id3 e6=

15.i.b5 After 15 .dxc5 li:le5 16.ib3 bxc5 Black has

no problems.

15 .. J�fd8 16.Wfb2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... cxd4!N This is the right moment to release the

pressure. After 16 . . . ie8 Barkhagen - I. Sokolov, Malmo 1992, White missed the powerful 1 7 .id2N, when the threats against the black queen would force the undesirable 17 . . . c4.

216 7.ic4

17.cxd4 a6 18.hc6 1 8.ic4 b5 1 9.ib3 e6 is also fine for Black.

18 .. J�xc6 19.t£!f4 e6

a b c d e f g h

14.Yfb3 After 14.ib3 Black can choose between

14 . . J:!fd8!? and 14 . . . cxd4 1 5 .cxd4 'Wa6, with a reliable position in either case.

14 ... b5! This blow equalizes immediately. If Black

would rather keep things less clear-cut, he could consider 14 ... 'Wc7, threatening . . . lLla5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

The position is roughly level, but I would 2 rather be Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B2) 12.<;f?h1 gcs 13J�cl

a b c d e f g h

encountered this position in the game Beliavsky - Avrukh, Netanya (rapid) 2009, but I failed to find a reasonable response and obtained a worse position. With hindsight I recommend:

13 .. .\Wa5N Black intends to continue with .. . b5.

a b c d e f g h 15.Yfxb5

After 15 .ixb5 Black strikes with: 1 5 . . . lLlxd4! (but not 1 5 . . . 1'!b8 1 6.a4 a6 17.'Wd5!) 16.ixd4 (or 16.lLlxd4 cxd4 17.ixd7 1'!b8!+) 16 . . . .ie6! Black is slightly better.

15 ... Yfxb5 16.Lb5 t£lxd4 17.�xd4 Ld4! The position is level.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B3) 12.d5

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 1 8 - 1 O . . . i.g4 217

12 ... l£le5N I believe that this is Black's best option. The

problem with 12 . . . lt:\a5 13 . .id3 is that Black cannot obtain a desirable pawn structure: 13 . . . c4 (or 13 . . . b6 14Jk1 e5 1 5 .c4 lt:lb7 16.lt:\c3 lt:\d6 17.a4t) 14 . .ic2 e5

a b c d e f g h

This occurred in Kiselev - Borisek, Internet 2006, and now the correct 1 5.dxe6N .ixe6 16.Wb 1 would give White the better chances, thanks to his control over the d4-square.

l3 . .ib3 tYa5

a b c d e f g h 14.a4

The alternatives are not impressive:

14.f4 lt:\g4 1 5 . .id2? c4! followed by ... WeSt wins material for Black.

14.c4 b5 gives Black lots of counterplay.

14 .. J�ac8 15.c4 After 1 5.�cl e6 White should probably

transpose to the following note by 1 6.c4, rather than play 1 6.dxe6 .ixe6 1 7 . .ixe6 fxe6 1 8.Wb3 Wa6 when Black has the advantage.

15 .. . e6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16)t�f4 Another line I analysed is: 1 6.�c 1 exd5

17.cxd5 ( 17.exd5 �feB leads to quite comfortable play for Black. In general the pawn structure after White recaptures with the e-pawn is pretty harmless.)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 . . . c4 18 . .ic2 c3! The c-pawn is strong enough to demand attention. 1 9 . .id4 l3c4 Black has good counterplay.

16 .. J:Ue8CD

218 7 . .ic4

The position is tense and very complicated. Black will aim to find an appropriate moment to release the tension in the centre by capturing on d5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B4) 12.i.d3

a b c d e f g h

12 . . • V:!fc7 Black has an interesting alternative in:

1 2 ... cxd4 13.cxd4 lL:lb4 14 . .ic4 14.:!'!b 1 lL:lxd3 1 5.'.Wxd3 a6! 1 6.:!'!xb7 .ib5 17.'1Wd2 .ixe2 1 8 .\Wxe2 .ixd4 results in equality.

1 4 . . . :!'!c8 1 5 .:!'!cl 1 5 . .ib3 is strongly met by 1 5 . . . .ib5! .

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was M. Braun - Benes, Czech Republic 2009, and here I like:

1 8 . .ib3 (after 1 8.e5 \Wxd1 19 .:!'!xdl lL:lc6 Black has no problems) 1 8 ... \Wb5 Black has active play on the queenside.

16 . . . e6 17.a3 lLlc6 1 8.'1Wb2 b5 1 9 . .id3 b4 Black has good counterplay.

13.£4 If White plays 1 3.:!'!cl then Black should

probably reply 1 3 . . . :!!ad8 with similar play to line B of Chapter 19 .

13 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 i.g4 15.V:!fa4? A tactical oversight. White should prefer

1 5 .:!'!clN, although Black is okay after:

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 . . . e6 16.h3 ixe2 17 . .ixe2 :!!fd8 1 8.e5 \Wd7 (or 1 8 ... 1Mfa5) 19 . .ib5 \Wd5 Black has a sound position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

I 5 . . . \Wa5N I 6.'1Wd2 a b c d e f g h Another line is: 16 . .id2 '1Wa3 1 7.:!'!c3 Wa4 15 ... he2 16.he2 lLlxd4!

Chapter 1 8 - 1 0 . . . .ig4 219

Black seized the initiative in Prohaszka -Valsecchi, Herceg Novi 2008. His tactical blow relies on the following key variation:

17.hd4 '!Wc6! 18.'\Wdl E:ad8 19.e5 '!We4i

a b c d e f g h

13.'1Wd2 Once again White is presented with a wide

choice:

13.d5 Black should always be ready for this advance and know how to react.

1 3 ... tt:le5 14 . .ib3 'Wa5! This allows Black to obtain counterplay on the queenside.

15 .h3 White prepares f3-f4, but this plan appears to be slow. After 1 5 .c4 b5! Black would clearly have the initiative on the queenside.

1 5 .. . 'Wa6! 16.f4 Continuing with his mistaken plan. It was more advisable to prevent ... .ib5 with 16.a4, although 16 . . . tt:lc4 is still pleasant for Black.

16 ... .ib5! 17.l:'k2 tt:lc4 17 . . . c4!? is not bad either.

18 . .if2 tt:la3 19.c4

a b c .d e f g h

19 . . . .ixc4N There seems to be no good reason not to grab this pawn, although 1 9 . . . .id7 was also quite promising for Black in Pinter - Brkic, Fuegen 2006.

20 . .ixc4 tt:lxc4 2 1 .e5 b5 It is difficult to believe that White has

sufficient compensation for the pawn.

13.dxc5 promises Black rich compensation. Here is one illustrative example: 13 . . . 'Wc7 14.tt:ld4 tt:la5 1 5 . .ie2 E:fd8 1 6.'We1

a b c d e f g h

This was Levin - Kalinitschew, Novosibirsk 1989, and now Black should play: 16 . . . e5N 17.tt:lb3 .ie6 18 .c4 tt:lxb3 (a safe approach, although Black could consider 1 8 ... tt:lc6 followed by ... tt:ld4) 19.axb3 .if8 20.b4 a5 Black has comfortable equality.

13 . .id3 has occurred only once and the game continued with the interesting: 13 . . . e6!?

220 7 . .ic4

1 4.'Wd2 'Wa5 1 5.e5 CfJe7 16.CfJg3 cxd4 17.cxd4 'Wxd2 18 . .ixd2 f5! Black had a good game in Volke - ). Horvath, Ljubljana 1995.

13 . . . 'Wa5 1 3 . . . cxd4 14.cxd4 'Wa5 should also be good

enough for equality.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14.%¥b2 I also examined two other moves:

14.d5 CfJe5 1 5 . .ib3 'Wa6! We have already seen this typical idea in previous variations.

16.f4 CfJc4 17.'Wd3 CfJxe3 1 8.'Wxe3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

18 . . . e5N

a b c d e f g h

Black has opted for 1 8 . . . c4 in three games, but it seems too risky; and so I recommend the text.

19.f5 19.dxe6 i.xe6 leads to good play for Black.

1 9 . . . c4 20 . .ic2 'Wxa2 I think that capturing the a-pawn is a risk that Black can afford to take, although he has a decent alternative in 20 . . . 'Wd6 2 1 .�hl b5 followed by the advance of his queenside pawns.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

21 .f6 .ih8 Obviously the bishop is not ideally placed

on h8, but I don't see any clear way for White to make use of it. Meanwhile Black has a clear plan of pushing his pawns on the queenside.

I4.dxc5 cannot pose Black serious problems: 14 . . . !!fd8 1 5 . .id5 e6 1 6 . .ib3 .if8 1 7.�h l .ie8 1 8.'Wel

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was Nasybullin - Voitsekhovsky, Roslavl 1 989. Black should now play 1 8 . . . .ixc5N 1 9 . .ig5 .ie7+ when White has no compensation for his damaged queenside pawn structure.

Chapter 1 8 - 1 O . . . ig4 22 1

14 ... cxd4 15.cxd4 �b4 A very sensible move, because endgames in

this line tend to be perfectly playable for Black. Also worth considering is 1 5 . . . b5!?N.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.�xb4 ltlxb4 17.a3 ttlc6 18.id3 It is possible for White to slip into a worse

position: 18J!fd1 lt:la5 19 .id3 ia4 20.!!e 1 ?! (the correct 20.!!xc8 !!xc8 2 l .!!cl would maintain equality) 20 . . . lt:lb3 2 l .!!xc8 !!xeS+ Black is better due to his control of the c-file, Cooke - Szeberenyi, Budapest 2000.

18 •.• a6 19.!!c2 ttlaS 20.!!fcl !!xc2 2l.!!xc2 !!c8 22.!!xc8t hc8 23 • .id2 ttlc6 24 . .ic3 e6 25.a4 .if8

In this equal position a draw was agreed in Dimitriadis - Kruger, e-mail 200 1 .

Conclusion

The pawn sacrifice A) 1 1 .d5 should not worry Black unduly, but it needs to be met with some care; I believe that my suggestion of 16 . . . c3!?N is a good way to defuse White's initiative and ensure Black an edge.

The principal branching point of this chapter arises after B) 1 1 .f3 id7. White's main reply of 1 2.!!b 1 is the topic of the following chapter, but we covered no fewer than five alternatives here. In these various lines there are some ideas which keep reappearing, such as the move .. JWa5. Black's main intention with this queen development is to advance on the queenside with . . . b5 (sometimes as a temporary sacrifice, as in line B2), although he may also be looking to exchange queens, since most endgames in this line tend to be comfortable for Black.


12J!bl

Variation Index

l .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.c4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9.i.e3 0-0 10.0-0 i.g4 1 l .f3 i.d7!? 12J��b1

A) 13.�£4 B) 13.i.d3 gadS

B1) 14.d5 B2) 14.W/d2

C) 13.i.f4

note after 1 2 ... 1Mfc7

1 6 . . . e5N

12 ... Wfc7

B) note after 1 3 .. ./'hdS

a b c d e f g h

1 4 . . . cxd4!?N

C) after 20.ia4

223 224 225 226 227

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . exf4N 2 I .ixf4 !'1e8f:!

Chapter 1 9 - 1 2.E!:b I 223

l.d4 ttlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 8.ttle2 �c6 9 • .ie3 0-0 10.0-0 .ig4 l l.f3 .id7!? 12.E!:bl Y!'!c7

I have recently switched to this move, having previously employed 12 . . . E!:c8. I have found that playing ... E!:ad8 and then . . . �c8 results in a more logical arrangement of Black's pieces; the kingside rook can be useful on the f-file should Black carry out . . . fS, or on the e-file when Black plays . . . e6 followed by capturing on d5.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

White's main options here are A) 13.ttlf4, B) 13 . .id3 and C) 13 . .if4, but he has also tried a couple of other moves:

13.dxc5 as always promises Black good longterm compensation: 13 ... E!:fd8 14.'We1 lt'la5 1 5 .�b3 e6 Black prepares the manoeuvre . . . �f8xc5 to regain the pawn. 16.'Wf2 �b5 17.E!:fdl

8

7

6

5

4

3

This occurred in Pribyl - P. David, Czech Republic 1 995, and now the simple 17 ... lt'lc4N would leave Black with a very comfortable game.

13.'Wd2 E!:ad8 14.E!:fcl �c8 15 .'Wb2 lt'la5 1 6.�d3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was Timoscenko - Zysk, Budapest 1989. Here I offer the following solution: 16 . . . e5N 17.�g5 (after 17.d5 c4 1 8.�c2 b6 Black would be happy with the pawn structure) 17 . . . f6 1 8.�e3 f5! The position is very complex, but it seems to me that Black is well prepared for a tactical battle.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

A) 13.ttlf4

a b c d e f g h

2 The idea of this move is easy to understand, since in this line the white knight can be a bit

a b c d e f g h

224 7.ic4

passive on the e2-square. However, thanks to the move f2-f3 which the manoeuvre . . . .ig4-d7 provoked, Black has a tactical solution here.

13 ... cxd4 13 . . . e6 was played in the game Computer

Rebel 1 0 - Anand, Ischia (blitz [ 1 ] ) 1 998, but after 14.d5N ll'le5 1 5 . .ie2 Black's position does not appeal to me.

14.cxd4 I also examined 14.ll'ld5, after which Black

can equalize with 14 . . . Wfa5 1 5.cxd4 e6 16.ll'lf4 Wfc3 17.Wfcl Wfxe3t! 1 8 .Wfxe3 .ixd4 19.Wfxd4 ll'lxd4 20J::!:fd 1 .ic6 21 .E:xd4 e5.

14 ... i.xd4 14 . . . ll'lxd4? doesn't work: 1 5 . .ixd4 e5

1 6.E:c l !±

I5.Ld4 Wfx£4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16.i.al White is hoping for compensation due to

the absence of Black's dark-squared bishop. Regaining the pawn by 16.E:xb7 is hardly advisable, in view of 1 6 . . . E:ad8 when White has serious problems arising from the vulnerability of his pieces on the d-file.

I also checked the natural 17.Wfb3, when the simplest solution is 1 7 . . . e5 18.Wfxb7 Wfe3t 1 9.'i!i>h 1 ll'la5=.

17 ... b6 18.YMc3 e5 I9.E:bdl YM£6 20.£4 YMe7 21.E:f2 .ig4 22.E:c1 c!Lld4 23.fxe5 .ie6

Black had finally emerged from the complex battle with a good position in De Ia Calle -Kuosa, e-mail 2007.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

B) 13.id3 E:ad8

a b c d e f g h

We shall now examine the direct Bl) 14.d5 and the natural B2) 14.VMd2. White has also tried: 14.Wfcl cxd4!?N

I suggest this as an improvement over 14 ... .ic8 1 5 .E:d1 e6 16 . .ib5 and White was slightly better in Gual Pascual - Kouatly, Lyon 1 99 1 .

1 5.cxd4 Wfd6!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 19 - 1 2.!!b 1 225

16.d5 After 16J!xb7 ltlxd4 17.l'!xa7 ltlxf3t! 1 8 .gxf3 1Mfxd3 only Black can be better.

16 . . . ltle5 17.1Mfd2 b6 Black has good play; he will start attacking

the white centre with either ... e6 or . . . f5 .

Bl) 14.d5

This line was suggested by Glenn Flear on Chesspublishing. com. We shall follow the game in which I faced it.

14 ... �e5 15.c4 f5 I played this move instantly, as it activates

my f8-rook and secures the position of my central knight.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

16 . .if4 e6 17.Yfb3 I carefully checked that 17 .�xe5 �xe5

1 8.f4 is not dangerous. Black can reply: 1 8 . . . fxe4! 19.�xe4 �g7 20.d6 Wfa5 2l .�xb7 (after 2l .l'!xb7 1Mfa6! Black will play . . . �a4 or ... �c8 next, followed by capturing the d6-pawn) 2 l . . .�a4 22.1Mfd3 l'!f7 The d6-pawn is falling.

17 ... .ic8! 18.exf5 Again I was ready for 1 8.�xe5 �xe5 19.f4.

Continuing 19 ... fxe4 20.fxe5 exd3 2l .d6 1Mfg7! leads to an advantage for Black.

18 ... gxf5 Aiming for a complex fight. Black could easily

choose 18 . . . exf5 with a roughly equal game.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

19 ... Yfe7 Also interesting is: 1 9 . . . exd5 20.l'!be1

(20.ltlxd5? runs into 20 ... l'!xd5! 2l .cxd5 c4 22.�xc4 1Mfxc4 23.1Mfxc4 ltlxc4 and Black's material advantage should tell) 20 . . . l'!fe8 21 .ltlxd5 1Mff7 Black has active piece play.

20J�bdl �g6 2l..ig3 e5�

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The position remains very complex. eventually managed to score an important victory in Antonsen - Avrukh, Helsingor 2009.

226 7.i.c4

B2) 14.'\Wdl i.cS 15JUcl

This reminds me of the line with 12 . . J'!c8, which I have also employed in a few games. Then after 13 . .id3 1lflc7 I 4.1lfld2 :B:fd8 White has recently been playing 1 5 .:B:fcl , which is considered to be quite annoying for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

15 ... b6 16.i.h6 This looks natural, but Black is ready for the

exchange of dark-squared bishops.

16 ... .ixh6 17.'1Wxh6 cx:d4 18.cx:d4 '1Wd6 Immediately attacking the d4-pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

19.e5

a b c d e f g h

White tries an interesting tactical idea. Objectively the stronger option may be: 1 9.d5

ll'le5 20 . .ib5 (after 20.1!fld2 e6 Black has the initiative) 20 . . . f5 (20 . . . a6 2 I ..ic6 b5 is also playable for Black) 2 I .ll'lc3 a6 Black has decent chances in this complicated position.

19 ... ti)xe5 20.i.e4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 ... £5! I wanted more than the draw by perpetual

check which results from 20 ... ll'ld7 2I .:B:c6 1lfla3 22 . .ixg6 (White cannot develop his attack with 22.ll'lg3 because of 22 . . . 1lfla4Ft) 22 ... fxg6 23.:B:xg6t hxg6 24.1!flxg6t �h8 25.1lflh6t.

2l.dxe5 '!Wxe5 The alternative 2 1 . ..1lfld2 leads to an equal

endgame after 22.1lflxd2 :B:xd2 23.:B:c2 :B:fd8 24.:B:bcl .ia6 25.ll'lg3 fxe4 26.lt'lxe4 :B:xc2 27.:B:xc2 :B:d5.

22.'1Wg5 i.a6 A very concrete approach, although my

engine prefers the "inhuman" 22 . . . �g7.

23.ti)f4 '!Wd4t 24.�hl fxe4 25.ti)e6 '1Wd6 26.ti)x:f8!

Capturing the other rook is wrong: 26.ll'lxd8 exf3! 27.ll'lc6 (27.gxf3 runs into the nice 27 . . . .ie2!) 27 .. .f2 28.lt'lxe7t �g7 29.:B:fl .ixfl 30.:B:xfl 1!fle6 Black obtains a winning advantage.

Chapter 1 9 - 1 2.:Bb 1 227

26 ... exf3 27.gxf3 .ih7!? A more or less equal position also arises after

27 . . . :Bxf8 28.:Bd1 !.

a b c d e f g h

2S.Y;Yg4? My opponent played this mistake rather

quickly. The correct continuation is 28.lt:lxg6!N ixf3t 29.<;t>g1 Wfd4t 30.c;!/fl Wfd3t 3 l .c;!/g1 and Black must give perpetual check, as after 3 1 . . .hxg6? 32.:Bb3 he would be in trouble.

28 .. J3xf8 29.:Bb3 g£4+ Black had a clear advantage in Dubessay -

Avrukh, Cannes 20 1 1 .

C) 13 • .if4

a b c d e f g h

The most popular move in practice.

13 • • • Y;Ycs I prefer this retreat to 1 3 ... e5 14.ig3 cxd4

1 5 .cxd4 :B:ad8 Kaspi - Khmelniker, Israel 2007; with 1 6.c;!/h1N White would keep annoying pressure along the h2-b8 diagonal.

14.d5 �a5 15 . .id3 e5 After 1 5 . . . c4 16.ic2 e5 17.dxe6! ixe6

1 8.Wfcl White is slightly better.

16 . .ie3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

16 ... c4 An important move; Black should prevent

c3-c4. The alternative is somewhat risky, but at the same time very interesting: 16 . . . f5 17.exf5 gxf5 18 .c4

Black has a sound game after 1 8.<;t>h 1 b6 19.ig5 Wfe8 20.lt:lg3 Wfg6.

1 8 . . . b6 The alternative 1 8 . . . e4 19.fxe4 fxe4 20.:B:xf8t Wfxf8 2 l .ixe4 lt:lxc4 leads to a complicated game with mutual chances, Trajanovski -Jakovljevic, Yugoslavia 199 1 .

19 .id2 lt:lb7 It might be interesting to try 1 9 ... e4N 20.fxe4 fxe4 2l .ixe4 lt:lxc4oo.

20.lt:lg3 Wfe8 2l .:B:e 1 Black had no problems after 2 l .ic3 Wfg6 22.ie2 lt:ld6 23.f4 e4= in Seirawan -Ftacnik, Lugano 1 989.

228 7.�c4

2 i . . .'Wg6 22.�c3 :gae8 23 .'Wc2 :ge7 24.'Wb2 :gfe8 25.:ge2 h5 26.:gbel h4 27.tt:lfl 'Wh6 28.�hl tt:ld6

A position of dynamic equality has arisen, Weber - Karasek, corr. 1995.

17.�c2 b6 This prepares the manoeuvre . . . tt:lb7-d6.

18.£4 f6 19.tt:lg3 tt:lb7 20.�a4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

We have been following J. Ivanov - Koziak, La Roda 2007. Black should now unexpectedly change direction and play:

20 •.. exf4N 2I ..ixf4 :ge8f! After the trade of light-squared bishops

Black may bring his knight to c5, with the idea of penetrating to the d3-square.

Conclusion

After 12.:gbl 'We? White can take the game in various directions. Against A) 13.tt:lf4 Black should accept the challenge and grab the pawn; although White obtains some compensation, Black is fine. Following 13.�d3 :gadS, I have personally faced both B 1 ) 14.d5 and B2) 14.'Wd2; in each case the position remains complex and roughly balanced. With C) 13.�f4 White crosses Black's plan of . . . :gad8 and then ... �c8. However the bishop is a bit exposed on f4, and in the main line Black plays 1 5 . . . e5 followed by 16 . . . c4, and obtains good play.


Variation Index

I.d4 lLlf6 2.c4 g6 3.lLlc3 dS 4.cxd5 lLlxdS 5.e4 lLlxc3 6.hxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 8.lLle2 lLlc6 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.0-0

A) 1 1 .�d2 B) 1 1 . .if4 C) 1 1 .d5 D) 1 1 .�cl .id7

D1) 12.�d1 D2) 12 . .id3 D3) 12.�h1

E) 1 1 .�b1 b6 E1) 12.dxc5 E2) 12.0 E3) 12 . .if4

B) note ro 1 3.d5

a b c d e f g h

I S . . . gS!N

10 ... �c7

02) after 1 2 .id3 E3) after 1 8J''1fd I

230 231 233 234 235 236 237 237 238 238 239

a b c d e f g h

1 8 . . . E\c5N

230 7.i.c4

I .d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.c4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9.i.e3 0-0 10.0-0 Y*fc7

8

7

6

5

4 3 2

1

a b c d e f g h

This move usually leads to a big main line after 1 1 .l:!cl l:!d8, but this is not my intention here. Instead I will give the lesser known, but equally viable 1 I .. .b6!?. The details of this line can be found in the next chapter.

In this chapter we shall cover all the other relevant options: A) ll.Y*fd2, B) I I .i.f4, C) l l.d5, D) l l.Y*fcl and E) I I .l3bl.

A) ll .Y*fd2

8 ��A·�-J-$� 7 � · � · f� i m i 6 . . . . . %U4iU ... . . %U.l�� 5 �� 4 �Rto!a�� 3� wfi � U

2 8··--j·�� 1 -� �., . . . . %·!=----

a b c d e f g h

Here a small problem is that if Black plays 1 I . . .l:!d8, then 12.l:!acl leads us straight into a big tabiya, which falls outside of the recommended

repertoire. Luckily Black can use the slightly vulnerable position of the c4-bishop:

l l...cxd4 I would like to briefly mention the following

alternative: 1 I . . .i.d7 1 2.l:!acl l:!ad8 13 .i.h6 lLla5 14.i.d3 e5 1 5.\tlh1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This all happened in Lutsko - Azarov, Minsk 20 10. Now 1 5 . . . f5!N would have lead to a complex game with fully adequate play for Black.

12.cxd4 �xd4 Less good is 1 2 . . . lLle5, as after 13 .i.b3 tt:lg4

14.i.f4 e5 15 .ig3 White was simply better in Bonrud - Hendrick, Dallas 1997.

8

7

6

5

4 3 2

a b c d e f g h

13.i.xf7t The only move that avoids losing a pawn.

Chapter 20 - 1 0 . . . 'Wc7 23 1

13 .. Jhf7 13 . . . 'kt>xf7 was tried out in Vuong Trung -

Pham Hoai, Vung Tau 2005. This is brave, of course, but I am a bit concerned about the vulnerable position of the black king. White can improve upon that game by capturing the knight with his bishop: 14 . .ixd4N l:'i:d8 1 5 .Wfe3 White has the better chances.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... .id7N The idea behind this novelty is of course to

quickly mobilize the queenside forces, but it is also important to have the resource . . . .ia4 to harass White, should he decide to place one of his rooks on d l .

In Bouma - Thomas, e-mail 1 996, Black went for 14 ... Wfd6. Here White should have continued with 1 5 .l:'i:fd1N .id7 16.Wfe2! .ia4 17.l:'i:d2;!;, instead of 1 5.l:'i:fcl b6 16.l:'i:c6 Wfd8 17.f3 e5 18 .itJb3 Wfxd2 19.ltJxd2 .ib7, which gave Black a decent game.

15.a4 Black easily solves his problems after:

1 5.l:'i:acl Wfd6 1 6.l:'i:fdl .ia4 17.lUb3 Wfxd2 1 8.l:'i:xd2 b6=

15 .. .l�M8 16.�a2 .ig4! 17.gacl �d7

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

A complicated battle lies ahead. Black should have at least equal chances thanks to the two bishops and the extra pawn on the queenside.

B) I I ..if4

A provocative move, but at the same time quite a standard idea in this variation.

ll ... e5 Black might experience some problems

after l l . . .Wfd7 12.dxc5, so quickly fixing the structure in the centre is my preference.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 . .ig3 This is the most natural move, keeping Black

restrained, but we should of course also look at:

232 7.i.c4

1 2.dxe5 i.xe5 In this instance it is useful for Black to exchange the dark-squared bishops in order to avoid an unpleasant pin.

13.Wd2 More principled is 13 .i.xe5N and after 13 . . . tt:lxe5 14.i.d5 i.e6 1 5 .tt:\f4 E:ae8 16.c4 We7 the position is complex, offering the players mutual chances.

13 . . . ie6 14.id5 !!adS 15 .ixe5 After 1 5 .E:ad1 i.xd5 1 6.exd5 l:'!:fe8 1 7.i.g3 the position is more or less equal.

1 5 . . . tt:\xe5

a b c d e f g h

16.f4? This is too aggressive. White could have maintained the balance with 16.tt:\f4N.

16 . . . tt:\c4 17.Wd3 b5 Black already had a clear positional advantage

in Caceres - Retamozo, Lima 1993.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . We7 Black has a reasonable alternative in:

1 2 . . . i.d7!? The following interesting game showcases some of Black's ideas.

13 .d5 tt:la5 14.d6 This looks quite challenging for Black, but Vallejo found a remarkable {and strong) idea.

14 . . . Wb6 1 5 .id5 The main point behind Black's play is of course the queen sacrifice 1 5.E:b 1 tt:lxc4! 1 6.l:'!:xb6 axb6, when Black has nice positional compensation.

a b c d e f g h

1 5 . . . 'i!ih8! 16.f4 Wxd6 17.fxe5 We7 The most accurate move.

18 .l:'!:b 1 E:ad8 1 9.tt:\f4 i.xe5+

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black was already a pawn up and on his way to claiming the full point in Del Rio Angelis -Vallejo Pons, Calvia 2005.

Chapter 20 - I O . . . WI'c7 233

13.d5 Again we should consider 1 3.dxe5. The

correct response is 1 3 . . . tt:\xe5 14 . .id5 .ie6, when after 1 5 .tt:\f4, as in Bator - Konopka, Gistrup 1992, Black should play:

a b c d e f g h

1 5 ... g5!N Fighting for the d5-square. After the possible line 1 6.tt:\d3 tt:\c4 1 7.E:b l .ixd5 1 8.exd5 b6 1 9.'®'g4 tt:\d2 20.E:fe l '®'d8 2 l .E:bd l f5 22.'®'h5 tt:\e4 Black consolidates just in time, with a decent game.

13 ... �a5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14.d6

a b c d e f g h

Again this push looks to be the most challenging move.

After 14 . .id3 c4 1 5 . .ic2, which was White's choice in Csonkics - Kis, Hungary 1 992, we

have a thematic position for this variation. Black should have reacted with the standard idea 1 5 ... b6N 16.'®'d2 tt:\b7, transferring the knight to the ideal d6-square, with promising play.

14 ... %Yd7 15.i.d5 �h8 16.f4 %Yxd6 17.&e5 he5 18.i.xf7 Lg3 19.�xg3 %Yxdl 20J�axdl �g7 2I.i.d5 i.g4=

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black is by no means worse in this endgame, Davidov - Gusan, e-mail 2007.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

C) ll.d5 ttla5

a b c d e f g h

12.i.d3 As the bishop has no other sensible squares,

there is only one alternative to consider:

234 7 . .ic4

12 . .if4 1lMd7 1 3 . .ib3 This slightly odd move has actually occurred twice in practical play. After 13 . .id3 I strongly recommend: 1 3 . . . e6N (after 13 . . . e5 14 . .ie3 c4 1 5 . .ic2 b6 16.f4 f6 1 7.f5t Black looked to be in some danger in Bator - Zezulkin, Gistrup 1 992) 14.dxe6 fxe6! Fighting for the d5-square. (I prefer this to 14 . . . 1lMxe6 1 5 . .ig3! followed by the tt:lf4-d5 manoeuvre.) 15.!!b l b6 Black has a good game.

a b c d e f g h

13 . . . b6N This idea appeals to me a lot more than 13 . . . b5, which has previously been played here. Black's idea is to activate the bishop on a6, which is logical now that the queen is on d7.

14.!!cl 14.1lMd3 e6 is good for Black.

1 4 . . . tt:lxb3! ·

14 . . . .ia6 1 5 .c4 b5 16.cxb5 llMxb5 17.!!e1 tt:lxb3 18 .axb3 might be slightly worse for Black, so the bishop should be eliminated.

1 5.axb3 a5 The idea of . . . a5-a4, along with the two

bishops, should offer Black great counterplay in the middlegame.

12 ... e6 13J�bl White has so far failed to prove sufficient

compensation for the exchange after 13 .c4 .ixa 1 14.1lMxal . Willetts - D. Howell, Kidlington 200 1 , continued with 14 .. .f6 1 5 . .ih6 !!f7 1 6.f4

b6 17.h4 exd5 18.exd5 llMe7 19.!!el llMe3t leading to a big advantage for Black.

13 ... exd5 14.exd5 At this point there is only one sensible

move.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14 ... b6N 14 . . . c4? is premature. After 1 5 . .ic2 .ig4

16.f3 .id7 17.d6 1lMc8 1 8 . .id4± White had a clear positional edge in Vasilev - Drenchev, Borovets 2008.

15J�el .ie5 16.h3 ge8 17.c4 �b7 With . . . �d6 coming soon, promising Black

adequate counterplay.

D) 1 1.\Wcl

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 20 - 1 0 . . . 'Wc7 235

This move has been played many times, but has never been rated highly by theory.

II . .. .id7 Out of the huge range of possible

continuations, this is the one I like the most. Black immediately tries to underline the somewhat vulnerable position of White's bishop on c4. He intends to follow up with . . . !'i:ac8, after which White must constantly watch out for . . . cxd4 followed by a random knight jump.

We should look briefly at what the options would be if Black decided to play similarly to our main line: l l . . .b6 1 2 . .ih6

a b c d e f g h

12 . . . .ib7N The only game played from this position went 1 2 ... .ixh6 13 .'Wxh6 cxd4 14.cxd4 ltlxd4, but after 1 5 .ixf7t !'i:xf7 1 6.ltlxd4 Black had definite problems. In the game he lost quickly after 1 6 . . .'Wc5 (I tried to make 16 . . . 'Wf4N work, but after 1 7.'Wxf4 !'i:xf4 1 8.f3 .id7 1 9.:1'i:acl White has unpleasant long-term pressure.) 1 7.ltlf3! .ig4?! 18.:1'i:acl 'Wa3? 1 9.ltle5+-, and it was already reasonable to contemplate resigning, Cerezo Montes - Garcia Carpalia, Aragon 1 997.

13 . .ixg7 �xg7 14.'We3 !'i:ad8 Instead of 1 5.:1'i:ac l , which transposes to line

03 in the following chapter, White can now

continue with 1 5.:1'i:ad l , when I fear he will achieve a favourable version of that line.

a b c d e f g h

At this point there are three reasonable moves to consider: Dl) 12J3dl , D2) 12 . .id3 and D3) 12J:�bl.

Dl) 12J�dl gac8

Although I believe strongly in Black's position, I don't want the reader to overrate it based on the games played from here. For some reason the White players all played quite unconvincingly.

13 . .ih6 In one game White played 1 3.ib5?. This

serious error allows a typical tactic:

a b c d e f g h

1 3 . . . ltlxd4! 14.ltlxd4 cxd4 1 5 . .ixd7 Wfxd7 ( 1 5 . . . dxe3!? also looks quite tasty) 1 6.Wfa3 d3

236 7.ic4

Black was clearly better in Dudyev - Ziuliarkin, Rodatychi 2006.

I believe White's best move is 13.;gb 1N. Then after 13 ... cxd4 14.cxd4 Black has a choice between 14 .. . a6 1 5.%Va3 b5 16.id3 VMa5 with balanced play, and the more energetic 14 .. . ltla5 1 5.id3 ia4 16.;gel ic2 17.ixc2 YMxc2 18 .%Va3 ltlc4 1 9.%Vxe7 ltlxe3 20.fxe3 b5! when Black has good compensation for the pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

13 ... cxd4!N An obvious novelty. For some reason Black

opted for 13 . . . ltla5 in the two previous games to reach this position. Maybe this is a typical case of knowing some standard ideas, but not understanding when they are desirable and when they are unnecessary.

14.Lg7 �xg7 1 5.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

15 ... c!Llb4! 16.J.b3 'l'xc1 17.gaxcl J.b5i Black has taken over the initiative and will

surely enjoy playing this endgame.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

D2) 12.J.d3

a b c d e f g h

This retreat has occurred twice in practical play. Here I found an unexpected way to put pressure on the white centre.

12 ... \Wd6!?N 13.'i'b2 There are a few ideas behind the last move.

One of them works out after: 1 3.;gdl cxd4 14.cxd4 ltlb4 1 5.ibl White cannot aspire to play for an advantage if he gives up the lightsquared bishop. 1 5 . . . ;gfc8 16 .%Vb2 %Vb6!

a b c d e f g h

Here we see the idea, to meet 17.a3 with 17 ... ltlc2! invading the white position. And after 17.;gd2 Black plays 17 . . . ;gc4 with the

Chapter 20 - 1 0 . . . '1Wc7 237

powerful idea 1 8.a3 E!:ac8!, which offers him good counterplay. The knight remains untouchable, as after 1 9.axb4? E!:xb4 20.Wa2 E!:a4 Black wins.

13 • • . cxd4 14.cxd4 :i:Ud8 15JUdl 15 .E!:adl is comfortably met by 1 5 ... Wb4=.

15 . • . �e6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

I6J�acl If White gets greedy with 16.Wxb7?! his

fortune will quickly turn after 16 . . . E!:ab8 17.Wa6 lt'lxd4+, when he will need to play some accurate moves to avoid drifting into a seriously worse position.

And if White plays 16 . .ib5, then 16 . . . a6 17 .ia4 .ic4! Black has the better bishops and the more pleasant game.

16 ... tihd4 17.'1Wxb7 gabS 18.'YlYxa7 gaS 19.'1Wc7

Also 19.Wb7 E!:db8 20.Wc7 lt'lxe2t 2 l ..ixe2 Wxc7 22.E!:xc7 E!:xa2= is quite safe for Black.

19 .•• 'YlYxc7 20J�xc7 c!Llxe2t 21.be2 gxdl t 22.hdl gxa2=

The game will end in a draw, or with one of the players committing suicide, on the board and then outside the playing hall.

D3) 12.gbl gac8 13.'1Wa3 cxd4 14.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This position occurred in Paessler - Balcazar Novoa, e-mail 200 1 . Now I like the natural idea:

14 .•. a6N The following approximate line seems

reasonable:

15.:i:Uc1 'YlYa5 16.'YlYb3 Black is absolutely fine after 16.Wxa5 lt'lxa5

17 . .id3 b5.

16 . . • b5 17.�d3 e6 We have a thematic, complex Griinfeld

middlegame, with chances for both players.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E) ll .gbl b6

a b c d e f g h

238 7.ic4

I like this move, played in the spirit of our main line. At this point it is worth considering the following options: E1) 12.dxc5, E2) 12.6 and E3) 12.�£4.

E1) 12.dxc5

This move always needs to be checked, but almost universally Black gets good positional compensation for the pawn.

12 ... tl:!e5 13.�d5 gbs

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

14.cxb6 14.f4 is quite challenging, but also rather

likely to backfire. Black played strongly in the following encounter: 14 ... lt::lg4 1 5 .cxb6 axb6 16.i.d4 i.xd4t 1 7.cxd4 (1 7."Wxd4 i.a6! is inferior for White) 17 . . . lt::le3 1 8."Wcl lt::lxd5 1 9.exd5 "Wd6 20."Wc6

8 7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

20 . . . "Wa3! Black had nice play in Hirscheider Baumann, e-mail 2005.

14 . • . axb6 15."Wa4 e6 16.ib3 �b7 17.6 So far we have been following Rao - Kamsky,

Chicago 1 99 1 . Here an obvious improvement can be found:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ••. ga8N 18.'\Wb4 �a6 19.c4 gfc8 Black has excellent compensation.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E2) 12.6

a b c d e f g h

12 ... gd8 Again we have the tactical option 12 . . . cxd4

1 3.cxd4 lt::lxd4, but after the counterblow 14.ixf7t! !l:xf7 15 .lt::lxd4 i.a6 1 6.!l:f2t, White

Chapter 20 - 1 0 . . . \Wc7 239

emerges with a better position due to the slightly weakened black pawn structure.

13 . .if4 Wfb7 This non-standard square looks a strange

place to put the queen, but concretely it works out well.

14.d5 �a5 15 . .ib5 If White plays 1 5 . .id3, then Black replies

1 5 . . . c4 16.ic2 e6 with good counterplay in the centre.

15 ... .id7 16.Wfc2 e5 17 . .ig5 f6 18 . .ih4 hb5 19J::�xb5 �c4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black cannot be prevented from completing the thematic transfer of the knight to the excellent d6-square. Furthermore the threat of . . . tLle3 means that White does not have time to arrange to meet . . . t2Jd6 with c3-c4.

20.Wfd3 �d6 2U�b2 c4! It is essential to prevent White from

reinforcing his centre with c3-c4.

22.Wfc2 :e!£8 Black is preparing the . . . f5 advance, and

clearly has a fine game, Laurier - Kamsky, Belgrade 1 99 1 .

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

E3) 12 . .if4

a b c d e f g h

12 ... e5 Again this makes most sense.

13 . .ig3 Wfe7 Black does not delay removing his queen

from the unpleasant pin.

14 . .id5 .ib7 15.Wfa4 E!fc8 It is also worth considering the following

idea: 1 5 ... tLla5!?N 16.dxe5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . ixd5! (accurate play is needed, as White would be better after 16 . . . .ixe5 17.c4!) 1 7.exd5 ixe5 1 8.!!fe1 Wff6 With a complex game ahead.

I6.dxe5 �xe5

240 7 . .ic4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

17.�£4 17 .c4 leads to an unbalanced position:

1 7 . . . .ixd5 1 8.exd5 ( 18.cxd5 allows 1 8 . . . c4! with nice counterplay for Black; the passed c-pawn is certainly an asset.) 1 8 . . . E!:e800

17 ... c4 18JUd1 This position occurred in Le Quang -

Ponomariov, Dortmund 20 1 0. Here I found a nice improvement:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 .. J�c5N 19.£3 .ixd5 20.lthd5 flYe8 21.YlYc2

The endgame after 2 l .Wfxe8t E!:xe8 22 . .ixe5 E!:xe5? should give Black adequate play, based on the .. .f5 break.

21 ... li:ld3!? I find this exchange sacrifice very tempting.

The powerful knight on d3 offers Black fine compensation.

22.�c7 �hc7 23 . .ixc7 YlYe7 24 . .ig3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

24 ... YlYa3!i IfWhite chooses to return the exchange then

Black will obtain strong counterplay against his pawns. I have not been able to find a way for White to play for an advantage.

Conclusion

10 . . . Wfc7 is Black's most popular move from the starting position of the chapter, and has been played in thousands of games. The queen move is normally associated with a quick . . . E!:d8, but I am yet to be convinced of the merits of this plan, which is why I am advocating a different approach based on an early ... b6. We saw this plan working well against E) 1 1 .E!:b 1 in the present chapter, although White's position is not without bite and the lines should be studied carefully.

Of course the real test lies in the main line of 1 1 .E!:c 1 , after which my recommendation of 1 l . . .b6!? can be found in the next chapter.


1 1 . . . b6!r

Variation Index ·

l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!Llxd5 5.e4 tDxc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.c4 c5 s.tDe2 tDc6 9.i.e3 0-0 10.0-0 Y*fc7 1 l .gcl

A) 12.f4 B) 12.i.f4 C) 12.dxc5 D) 12.Y*fd2 i.b7 13.i.h6 gadS

D1) 14.Y*fg5 D2) 14.gfd1

1 1 ...b6!?

D3) 14.i.xg7 i>xg7 1 5.Y*fe3 e5 D31) 16.d5 D32) 16.i.b5 D33) 16.i.d5

B) after 19 .�xe4

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . Ei:ae8!N

D 3 1 ) after 1 9 .�d3

a b c d e f g h

1 9 . . . c4!N

033) after 1 8.f4

243 245 246 247 248 249 249 250 251 252

a b c d e f g h

! 8.. .1i:lc4!?N

242 7.�c4

I.d4 c!ilf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!ilc3 d5 4.cx:d5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.0-0 Y!!c7 1 1J�k1

The main continuation, played in no less than 84% of the games from this position. So although it is important to keep an eye on the lines in the previous chapter, this is where you are likely to do business.

I I ...b6!?

a b c d e f g h

Rather a forgotten continuation, played in less than one in forty of the games from this position. Your opponents will certainly be familiar with the standard move l l . . . E:d8, which is played in more than nine out of ten games.

But obviously White has plenty of legal moves in this position, many of them tried out in practice, creating quite a few branches for us to climb along. The main options are A) 12.£4, B) 12..if4, C) 12.dxc5 and finally D) 12.9d2. The lastfsrillth is by far the main line here, and we shall spend a lot of time on it later on in the chapter.

We should also have a quick look at the following options:

12.lLlf4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 2 . . . e6N a b c d e f g h

I prefer to immediately control the d5-square, rather than allowing any ideas connected with ll.Jf4-d5. 12 ... �b7 was Black's choice in Berczes - Szeberenyi, Budapest 2005, but now 1 3.ll.Jd5N '!Wd8 14.dxc5 e6 1 5 .ll.Jb4 would have been quite dangerous for Black.

1 3.d5 This is obviously the testing move. 1 3 .e5 �b7 14.'1Wg4 ll.Je7 followed by ... ll.Jf5 leads to a very nice game for Black.

1 3 . . . E:d8! Accurate play is needed. 13 ... ll.Ja5 14.�b5 a6 1 5.�e2 e5 1 6.d6 '!Wd8 17.lLld5 '!Wxd6 1 8.E:b l gives White a lot of activity.

14.'1Wc2 lLla5 1 5 .�e2 e5 1 6.ll.Jd3 ll.Jc4 Black has a decent game.

1 2.f3 .ib7 Now 1 3.'1Wd2 would transpose to a position examined in line D after 1 2.'1Wd2 �b7 1 3.f3. For this reason we only need to check the following move here:

1 3.'\Wel

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 2 1 - 1 l . . .b6!? 243

This has been played in two games. managed to find a logical continuation:

13 .. .l'!ac8N 14.'Wh4 If White plays 14.'Wf2, then Black replies with 1 4 . . . lt'la5 1 5.�d3 cxd4 16.cxd4 'Wd6 17.lt'lc3 a6, with ideas such as . . . 'Wa3 and . . . 'Wb4 securing Black a good game.

14 ... cxd4 15 .cxd4 'Wd6! 16.e5 'Wb4 17.�g5 e6 Black is doing fine. 1 8.�f6 is not a dangerous

idea, as after 1 8 . . . �xf6 1 9.exf6 E:fd8! Black always has the defensive resource . . . 'Wf8.

A) 12.f4

White is looking for immediate action on the kingside. This certainly has some logic given that Black has been focusing on the centre and queenside with his last two moves. Black has to react precisely:

12 ... e6!

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

13.f5!? Quite a principled way of playing the

position - White is certainly not thinking about the endgame.

We should also have a quick look at a few other options:

1 3.'Wel lt'la5 1 3 . . . �b7N 14.'Wh4 lt'le7 is also an option worth considering.

14.�d3 f5 This is the standard reaction to White's aggressive stance on the kingside. Black does not want the battle for his king's future to take place on the sixth or seventh rank.

15.dxc5 bxc5 16.'Wf2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 6 . . . E:d8

a b c d e f g h

Giving up the f5-square with 16 ... fxe4 would be a positional concession. It is important to keep this square and restrict White's minor pieces. 17.�xe4 �b7 was played in Shen Yang - Bu Xiangzhi, Hefei {rapid) 20 1 0, and now the simple 1 8.lt'lg3N would have offered White the better chances.

17.E:fdl �f8! Black keeps everything under control.

1 8.�hl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

So far we have followed Krush-Charochkina, Moscow 2008. At this point I don't see any reason to refrain from natural development:

244 7.i.c4

1 8 . . . i.b7!N The bishop belongs here and the e6-pawn is a grown boy in no need of protection.

1 9.ll::lg3 :B:ab8+ Black's position seems preferable.

13.i.d3 :B:d8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

14.'\We1

a b c d e f g h

I also examined the following principled continuation: 14.f5 exf5 1 5 .exf5 ( 15 .i.g5 is not dangerous, in view of 1 5 . . . ll::le7 1 6.exf5 i.xf5! 17 .i.xf5 ll::lxf5 1 8 .i.xd8 :B:xd8 when Black has great compensation for the exchange) 1 5 . . . 'We7 (not 1 5 ... 'Wd6 1 6.i.g5 :B:d7 1 7.ll::lg3! followed by ll::le4, with an initiative for White) 1 6.'Wd2 cxd4 1 7.cxd4 ll::lxd4 1 8 .i.xd4 i.xd4t 19 .ll::lxd4 :B:xd4 20.:B:ce1 Now Black should take the chance to simplify the position with 20 . . . :B:xd3! 2 l .'Wxd3 'WeSt 22.'We3 'Wxe3t 23.:B:xe3 i.xf5, leading to a drawish endgame.

14 . . . 'Wd7!? Increasing the pressure on the d4-pawn.

1 5 .i.b5?! It is understandable that White did not like 1 5 .e5 i.b?+, but still this was already the lesser evil.

1 5 ... a6 16.i.xc6 'Wxc6 17.ll::lg3 cxd4 17 . . . a5N followed by . . . i.a6 also looks very strong.

1 8.cxd4 'Wa4+

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Black had the better chances in this complex middlegame in Kudrin - Elizarov, Tula 2004.

13 ... exf5 Black's move requires no explanation.

Now White has two attempts to develop an initiative, but analysis shows that both of them fall short.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

14.ti)g3 White offers a pawn, but he can of course

also recapture at once: 14 .exf5 'We?!?

14 . . . i.xf5 is also possible. In Chess Informant 1 8 Savon gives 1 5 .:B:xf5 gxf5 1 6.ll::lg3, considering this position to be dangerous for Black. In the computer era such emotional evaluations are becoming rare, as it is possible to check such assumptions accurately. In this case Black is almost winning after 1 6 . . . cxd4!

Chapter 2 1 - l l . . .b6!? 245

17.cxd4 llJxd4!. For example: 18.llJh5 ( 1 8 . .ixd4 E1ad8 1 9.llJxf5 .ixd4t 20.llJxd4 'W'f4!-+) 1 8 ... '11*fe5 19.if4 'W'e4 20.ih6 (20.id3 'W'e6+) 20 . . . ie5 2 I .ixf8 'W'e3t 22.<;t>hi E1xf8 Black is much better.

15 .'W'd2 .ixf5 16.ig5 'W'd7 1 7.llJg3 llJa5 1 8.ie2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

All this occurred in the game Knaak -Savon, Halle 1 974. The improvement is not surprising:

18 . . . ie6N However, it leaves Black with a serious

advantage.

14 .• Jl:la5! 15.i.d5 .ib7 16.dxc5 Just bad is 16.ixb7? 'W'xb7 17.exf5 llJc4+.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

This occurred in Grigorian- Bronstein, USSR

16 ... .ixd5!N 17.exd5 t!lc4 18 . .id4 bxc5 19 . .ixg7 �xg7+

White has no compensation at all for the sacrificed/lost pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

B) 12.i.f4 e5

a b c d e f g h

13 • .ig3 The standard idea in these positions, as we

saw in the previous chapter. Fortunately it fails to pose Black any serious problems in this version either.

13 ... i.b7 14.d5 I also checked 14.id3, when 14 . . . llJa5

1 5.d5 transposes to the main line, while 1 5 .f4 is strongly met by 1 5 .. .f5! giving Black nice counterplay.

14 ... �a5 15.i.d3 c4 16.i.bl �c5 It is useful to get this move in before carrying

out the standard break . . . f7-f5.

17.�hl f5 18.£4 White needs to play actively. After 1 8.f3 f4

19.if2 'W'd6 Black has a clear focus on the kingside in the spirit of the King's Indian, while it is entirely unclear what White is trying to do.

(ch) 1972. Now Black should continue: 18 ... fx.e4 19 . .ixe4

246 7 . .ic4

So far we have been following Ludgate -J. Littlewood, Blackpool 1 97 1 . It is not hard to improve upon Black's play here:

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 .. J�ae8!N 20J�el 20.fxe5 E!:xfl t 21 .1Mfxf1 .ixd5+ is also

pleasant.

20 ... E!:d8 21.Ei:c2 .ih6! With nice active play for Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

C) 12.dxc5 bxc5

a b c d e f g h

13.ltlf4 A reasonable positional idea. The knight is

going to d5 (and if that is prevented, White has a nice idea up his sleeve) . However, White

can also be lured by the apparent weakness of the c5-pawn.

The active 13.1Mfd5N looks quite tempting. I think this is best met with the following idea: 13 . . . tt:\e5! 14.1Mfxa8 tt:\xc4!? (an interesting alternative is 14 . . . .ia6!? 1 5 .1Mfxf8t .ixf8 16 . .ixa6 1Mfc6, with the idea that after 17 . .ixc5 1Mfxa6 1 8 . .id4 tt:\d3! Black has good compensation) 15 .1Mfd5 tt:\xe3 16.fxe3 .ih6� Black has a lot of play for the exchange. The dark squares look very tender.

I also considered what would happen after the 'too greedy to be true' 1 3 . .ixc5?. Still this most unfortunate decision was taken in R. Graf -Brunsch, Leipzig 2000. Here Black missed the strong idea 1 3 . . . E!:d8!N, with the point that after 14.tt:\d4 tt:\e5 1 5 .tt:\b5 1Mfa5 16.1Mfb3 tt:\xc4 17.1Mfxc4 .id7 Black is clearly better.

13 ... ltle5N This novelty is a good deal stronger than

13 . . . e6 14.tt:\d3 tt:\a5 1 5 .1Mfa4! which allowed White to apply serious pressure on the black position in Pekarek - Smejkal, Prague 1989.

14.ltld5 The most challenging move. After 14 . .ie2 e6

Black has a comfortable game.

14 ... 'i'd7 15 . .ib3 e6 16 . .ixc5 Another line goes 16.f4 tt:\c6 17 . .ixc5 exd5

1 8 . .ixf8 .ixf8 1 9 . .ixd5 E!:b8+ and Black's position seems preferable to me.

16 ... exd5 17 . .L:f8 <i!?xftl 18.hd5 Ei:b8 Black has a good position, with two pieces

for the rook and control of the open b-file. As it is quite natural for White to challenge this, I examined:

19.Ei:bl E!:xbl 20.'i'xbl

Chapter 2 1 - l l . . .b6!? 247

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a b c d e f g h

20 ... �f3t! Black has other playable options, but this is

too attractive to ignore.

2I.cbhl White should refrain from capturing the

knight, since after 2l .gxf3 .ie5 followed by . . . W/h3, Black has a crushing attack.

21. .• J.e5 22.Y;!fd3! �xh2 23.£4 �xf1 24.fxe5 J.b7 25.c4 J.xd5 26.cxd5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

26 ••• Y;Yg4 27.Y;!fxfl Y;!fxe4 28.e6= The position is drawn. The power of the

white pawns forces Black to take a perpetual check, sooner or later. Sooner makes more sense.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

D) 12.Y;!fd2 J.b7

a b c d e f g h

13.J.h6 There has only been one game in this position

in which White did not play this logical move; or two if you include transpositions.

1 3.f3 l:!fd8 There is also nothing wrong with 13 .. . 13ad8, as played in Vedrunes - Zigura, Massy 1993.

14.13fd 1 13ac8 15 .W/e1 cxd4 16.cxd4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

1 6 . . . W/d6!N An active new idea. In Urbankova -Koutecky, Klatovy 1 999, Black played less energetically with 16 . . . W/b8 1 7.W/h4 ltJa5 1 8 . .id3 e6, but still obtained a decent, if slightly passive, position.

17.e5 If White plays into 17.W/h4 ltJa5 1 8 . .id3

248 7.ic4

Wl'a3t he will find Black's counterplay to be very annoying.

17 . . . Wb4 1 8.id2 Wl'a4 Even the seemingly risky 18 . . . Wb2!? comes into consideration.

19 .ib3 Wa6 Black has a good game.

13 .. J:!:ad8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

Here we have a serious branching point. The most common approach is to exchange the bishops, but White has tried other moves as well. So our lines are Dl) 14.'i;Yg5, D2) 14JUdl and then of course D3) 14.ixg7.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Dl) �4.'i;Yg5

a b c d e f g h

14 ... J.xh6N An improvement on the only game to reach

this position, which continued: 1 4 . . . li:la5 1 5 .ixg7 �xg7 1 6.id3 f6 17.Wh4 g5?! 18 .Wh5 e5 19.li:lg3 ic8 20.d5 White was better due to the weakness of the f5-square, Gligoric -Razuvaev, Ljubljana/Portoroz 1973.

15.'i;Yxh6 tlla5 16 . .id3 e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

With or without bishops, this is a standard push in these lines. Black is hoping to get his knight to d6 as usual, as well as simply wanting to challenge the white centre.

17.f4 The most dangerous option. After the

compliant 1 7.d5 c4 1 8.ic2 ic8! Black reaches exactly the type of position he is aiming for. We can imagine the natural continuation 19.f4 f6 20.�h l li:lb7 2 l .fxe5 fxe5 22.li:lgl 'We? 23.li:lf3 li:ld6= leading to simple equality.

17 ... £6 This move not only reinforces the centre,

it also gives Black the important defensive resource . . . WI'g7.

18.d5 I also examined 1 8.Wh4, but White's centre

looks vulnerable: 18 . . . exd4 19.cxd4 'We?!

Chapter 2 1 - l l . . .b6!? 249

20.f5 g5 2 l .WI'g4 'it>h8! With better chances for Black.

a b c d e f g h

18 ... c4 19 . .ic2 .ics Black has achieved exactly the kind of

position he is has been praying for; similar to the one examined in the note to move 17.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

02) I4JUdl

a b c d e f g h

I hope that by now Black's reaction will seem quite standard to you.

14 .. .lt�a5 15 . .id3 e5 16 . .ixg7 cbxg7 17.�e3 Up to this point we have been following

Liang Chong - Bu Xiangzhi, Shandong 2007.

I should mention that Black has a good version

of the standard structure after 17.d5 c4 1 8 . .ic2 Wl'c5! 1 9.l2Jg3 .ic8, followed by the . . . l2Jb7-d6 manoeuvre. I prefer Black.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

17 ... �d6!N This idea is also becoming standard by now.

White is forced to clarify the pawn structure in the centre.

18.dxe5 After 1 8.d5 c4 1 9 . .ic2 .ic8 Black's knight

is ready to go to the c5-square via b7. Black is also thinking about how to carry out the .. .f5 break.

18 ... �xe5 19.£4 �e7 20.ltlg3 f6 Black has a good position.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

03) 14 . .ixg7 cbxg7

a b c d e f g h

250 7.�c4

15.'1We3 Mter 1 5J:!:fd1 , as played in Pesout - Zigura,

Pardubice 1 992, Black should continue with 1 5 . . . lt:la5 16.�d3 e5, transposing to line 02 above.

15 • . • e5

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

We have reached the last branching point of the book (unless you are the type that reads indexes for fun) . The options to consider at this point are: 031) 16.d5, 032) 16 • .ib5 and the main line 033) 16 • .id5.

On top of this I should mention that after 16.dxc5?! lt:la5! Black is already a bit better.

031) f6.d5

a b c d e f g h

16 • • . ll'le7 This move is fully playable, but I actually

prefer the following active option: 16 . . . lt:la5!?N 17.�d3 c4

17 . . . 5 is quite challenging for White, but at the same time also quite risky for Black: 18.exf5 Otherwise .. .f5-f4 is coming. 18 .. . �xd5 19.fxg6 hxg6 I don't see any concrete problems, but the vulnerable position of Black's king might tell in the long term.

1 8.�c2 �c8 Black is ready to follow up with . . . lt:lb7-d6,

with a good game.

17.ll'lg3 f6 18.h4 White probably wasn't satisfied with 1 8.f4

exf4 19.E:xf4 'Mfe5! when Black is ready to follow up with the . . . lt:lc8-d6 manoeuvre and has prospects of an easy game.

18 • • • tt'lc8 19 • .id3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 • • • c4!N It is vital to play this intermediate move.

After 19 . . . lt:ld6, as played in Fier - Caruana, Gibraltar 20 1 1 , White can reply with the typical 20.c4!N. (Instead he played 20.f4 in the game. After 20 .. . exf4 2 l .'Mfxf4 \We? 22.:9:£2 'Mfe5 23.'Mfxe5 fxe5 24.lt:lfl c4 25.�c2 �c8 Black got a nice position, with a structure and ideas

Chapter 2 1 - l l . . .b6!? 25 1

typical for this line.) After 20 . . . h5 21 .a4;!; I don't like Black's position. It seems passive, and even thought it might be tenable, White has a much more joyful experience ahead, combining queenside play and kingside ambitions.

20 . .ic2 �d6 21.£4 21 .h5 is not dangerous for Black, as he can

react calmly with 2 1 ... .ic8.

2l...exf4 22.'ilVxf4 22.�xf4 'l'!!fe7 is not that much different.

22 • . • 'ilVe7 23-l:�fl 'ilVeS 24.c!t�e2 .ic8 25.tLld4 gde8

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The position seems pretty balanced.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

032) 16 • .ib5 �aS 17.tLlg3 'ilVe7

a b c d e f g h

18.dxe5 White initiates an attack on the kingside,

which can seem quite a challenge for Black to face. But at the same time White is making a long-term concession, weakening his pawn structure slightly. Although this is all very fascinating, we should not lose sight of the other options at this point:

1 8.dxc5 is a concession of sorts. After the natural 1 8 ... V!fxc5 White almost has to force a draw by perpetual with 1 9.ttlh5t, otherwise he will be positionally worse.

If he is eager to avoid the draw, Black can play 1 8 . . . bxc5 19 .�fd1oo leading to a complex and interesting game.

1 8.l:l:fdl cxd4 19.cxd4 exd4 20.�xd4 �xd4 2 l .'l'!!fxd4t f6= Black has no problems finding adequate play.

1 8.d5 c4 19.f4 exf4 20.'1'!!fxf4 f5! leads to a very complex game, which is in no way worse for Black.

18 ... 'ilVxe5 19.£4 White has also tried: 1 9.�fd1 'l'!!fe7 20.'1'!!ff4

ttlc6 2l ..ie2

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

This was played in the old game Averbakh - Botvinnik, Moscow 1956. I believe Black could have secured himself a slightly better game with 2 1 . . .ttle5N 22.'1'!!fe3 f6 23.f4 ttlf7+.

252 7.ic4

Had he played this, White would have had to use a lot of his energy defending his e4-pawn.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

19 ... 'ilYd6! 20JUdl!? A strange decision at first sight. White wants

to use the tandem of the queen and knight in an offensive against the black king.

20.f5 should also be considered. I find the following line to be quite instructive: 20 .. . 'W'd2 (20 .. .f6 should not be too bad for Black either) 2 l .'W'f3 'W'g5 22-Ekdl E!:xdl 23.E!:xdl �c6! Black is in excellent shape thanks to his control of the dark squares.

20 ... 'ilYxdl t 21J�xdl Eixdl t 22. �fl

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

22 ... ltlc6!

An understandable decision. Black wants to bring his misplaced knight to the defence. Obviously White cannot allow this.

23.ixc6 .ixc6 24.f5! The correct decision. It seems that, although

certainly unbalanced in nature, the position should ultimately be evaluated as balanced nonetheless.

24 ... Eifd8 25.YlYg5 EIId6 26.ltlh5t �f8 27.ti�f6 �g7

a b c d e f g h

28.�h5t �f8 29.�£6 �g7 30.�h5t White has nothing better than this draw by

perpetual, Renet - Vachier Lagrave, Aix-lesBains 2007.

D33) 16.id5 �a5 17 . .ixb7 'ilYxb7

a b c d e f g h

Chapter 2 1 - l l .. .b6!? 253

18.f4 This is the critical continuation. In another

game White tried: 1 8.lt::lg3

There is no time for such moves, and it is not surprising that this line is quite harmless for Black.

1 8 . . . '11Me7 Another option worthy of consideration is 1 8 . . . lt::lc4 19 .'11Me2 bS. Black could also choose the safety-first option 1 8 . . . exd4 1 9.cxd4 :B:xd4, when White is to forced to make a draw with 20.lt::lf5t gxfS 2 1 .'11Mg5t �h8 22.'11Mf6t 'it>g8, and there is nothing more than a perpetual. Note that 23.:i:l:c3? :B:e8! just loses for White.

19 .:B:fd 1 hS 20.dxe5 lt::lc4 2 1 .'11Me2 lt::lxeS 22.f4 lt::lg4 23.h3 lt::lh6

The position remained unclear in Kindermann - Hort, Germany 1 988.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

18 ... tt:lc4!?N This is my new idea, intended to revitalize

the whole line. Maybe this is not the only playable move, but Black's position does not appeal to me after 1 8 . . . exd4 19.cxd4 :B:fe8, as played in Hoen - Olsson, Lidkoeping 1 969. The issue is that instead of 20.e5, White could have played 20.d5!N, with the main point that 20 . . . f5 2 1 .lt::lc3 fxe4 22.f5 gives White a strong attack. Also 1 9 ... cxd4 20.lt::lxd4 bS 2 l .f5 looks

a bit scary, so I had to find a new way to play the position.

19.�d3 <lLld6

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

20.d5 a b c d e f g h

Black is almost begging for this to be played, but White does not have any challenging alternatives:

20.lt::lg3 is met strongly by 20 . . . exd4 2 1 .cxd4 fS !. Black is making the most out of the active position of the knight on d6, and after 22.'11Mc3 lt::lxe4 23.lt::lxe4 '11Mxe4 24.dxc5t '11Md4t 25.'11Mxd4t :B:xd4 his chances are not worse.

Even weaker is 20.fxe5 '11Mxe4 2 1 .'11Mf3 '11Mxf3 22.:B:xf3 lt::le4 23.:B:e3 lt::ld2! 24.:B:e 1 :B:fe8+, when Black has the better chances in the endgame.

20 •• JUe8 2I.f5 Again it is worth looking for dangerous

alternatives, although the search may be futile.

After 2 1 .lt::lg3 exf4 22.:B:xf4 '11Me7 23.:B:cfl '11Me5 Black is fine, enjoying a nice thematic dark-squared blockade.

And after 2 l .:B:ce1 c4 22.'11Mf3 fS Black has strong counterplay in the centre.

21. .. gx5 22.exf5 whs

254 7.ic4

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

23J�cdl Also after 23.c4 b5 24.cxb5 c4 Black has

enough counterplay to equalize. For example 25 .'Wg3 lLle4 26.'Wh4 'Wxd5 27.lLlc3 'Wd4t 28.\t>hl lLlxc3 29.'Wf6t \t>g8 30.'Wg5t i>h8 3 l .'Wf6t with a perpetual.

23 . . . f6CD

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

a b c d e f g h

The opening is over and we have reached a complicated middlegame, in which Black should not be worse.

Conclusion

The l l . . .b6!? variation has not been a popular choice at either amateur or grandmaster level. However, I believe it to be a serious option whose popularity looks set to increase.

Despite leading to tactically fertile ground, the emire variation runs along clearly defined positional contours. Throughout the chapter, we have seen that Black's play tends to revolve around the plan of .. . lLla5, ... e5 and later . . . c4, . . . ic8 and . . . lLlb7-d6. If Black gets that far which seems to happen remarkably often - he may be able to follow up with .. .f5, destroying White's optically impressive pawn centre.

White's main plan is to soften up the black kingside by exchanging the dark-squared bishops, followed by a quick f2-f4 to launch an attack. There are a number of ways in which he can go about this task, some more dangerous than others, but all of them insufficient to claim an advantage according to the analysis I have presented here.

Theory will surely march forward and new ideas will be found for both sides, but at this stage it seems to me that White will have a hard time searching for an advantage against the 1 1 . .. b6 line.

Variation Index

Chapter 1

l.d4 c!l:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!l:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!l:lxd5 5.c!l:lf3 i.g7 A) 6.g3 8 B) 6 . .id2 0-0 7.1'!cl lLlb6 9

Bl ) 8.e3 9 B2) 8 . .ig5 1 0

C) 6.�b3 1 3 D ) 6.�a4t 14 E) 6 . .ig5 c5 7.1'!cl lLlxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 16

El) 9.�d2 16 E2) 9.e3 17

Chapter 2

l.d4 c!l:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!l:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!l:lxd5 5.c!l:lf3 i.g7 6.e4 c!l:lb6 7.i.e3 0-0 A) 8.lLlxb6?! 20 B) 8.lLlf3 .ig4 2 1

B l ) 9 . .ie2 2 1 B2) 9.lLlc5 22

Chapter 3

l .d4 c!l:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!l:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!l:lxd5 5 • .id2 .ig7 6.e4 c!l:lxc3 7 ..ixc3 0-0 A) 8 . .ie2 27 B) 8.1'!cl c5!? 9.d5 .ixc3t 1 0.1'!xc3 e6 29

B 1) 1 I ..ic4 30 B2) 1 I .d6 3 1

C) 8.�d2 c5! 32 Cl ) 9.dxc5 32 C2) 9.d5 33

D) 8 . .ic4 c5 9.d5 .ixc3t 1 0.bxc3 �d6! 35 D 1 ) 1 l .�e2 35 D2) 1 1 .lLlf3 36 D3) 1 1 .lLle2 36

E) 8.lLlf3 .ig4 37 El) 9.�d2 37 E2) 9 . .ie2 38

Chapter 4

l .d4 c!l:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.c!l:lc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!l:lxd5 5.g3 ig7 6.e4 c!l:lxc3 7.bxc3 c5 A) 8.e3 �a5 42

Al) 9.lLle2 42 A2) 9 . .id2 43

256 Grandmaster Repertoire 9 - The Griinfeld Defence Volume Two

B) 8.lLlf3 lLlc6! 44 B l ) 9.d5!? 44 B2) 9.0-0 45 B3) 9.e3 0-0 1 0.0-0 .ie6 48

B3 1) 1 l .�a4 48 B32) 1 I .tLld2 49 B33) 1 I ..ia3 50

B4) 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.0-0 cxd4 5 1 B41 ) 1 l .cxd4 5 1

Chapter 5

B42) 1 1 .lLlxd4 lLla5! 52 B42 1) 1 2.'<!;lfcl 52 B422) 1 2.lLlb5 53 B423) 1 2.Wla4 53 B424) 1 2.�d3 54 B425) 1 2.�b 1 55

l.d4 ti:)f6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxd5 5.e4 tDxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ig5 c5 S.:!�cl 0-0 A) 9.d5 58 B) 9.lLlf3 .ig4 IO .d5 W/d6 1 l ..ie2 tLld7 59

B1 ) 1 2.0-0 59 B2) 1 2.h3 61

Chapter 6

l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxd5 5.e4 tDxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ia3 tDd7! A) 8.Wfb3 63 B) 8.lLlf3 c5 64

B l ) 9 . .ic4 64 B2) 9.�b3 0-0 66

Chapter ?

B2i) 1 0 . .id3 66 B22) 1 0 . .ie2 67

l .d4 tDf6 2.c4 g6 3.tDc3 d5 4.cxd5 tDxd5 5.e4 tDxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.YlYa4t tDd7 A) 8 . .ie3 70 B) 8 . .ig5 71 C) 8.lLlf3 0-0 72

Cl) 9 . .ie2 72 C2) 9 . .ie3 73 C3) 9 . .ig5 c5 74

C3 1 ) I O.�b1 74 C32) I O.�d1 75 C33) 10.�cl 75

Variation Index 257

Chapter S

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cx:d5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ib5t c6 8 . .ia4 0-0 9.�e2 c5 A) I O.d5 80 B) I O . .ie3 82 C) 1 0.0-0 tt:lc6 I I ..ie3 tt:la5 83

C 1) 1 2.dxc5 84 C2) 12 . .ib3 85 C3) 1 2.d5 85 C4) 1 2.l:!bl 86

Chapter 9

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cx:d5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 A) 8.l:!b l �a5 9.�d2 cxd4 IO.cxd4 �xd2t l l .Wxd2 0-0 90

AI) 12 . .id3 90 A2) 12 . .ib5 9 1 A3 ) 1 2 . .ic4 92 A4) 1 2.tt:lf3 93

B) 8.l:!cl �a5 9.�d2 cxd4 IO.cxd4 �xd2t 95 B I) I I ..ixd2 0-0 9 5

B I I ) 1 2.d5 96 B I 2) 1 2.tt:lf3 .ig4 97

B l 2 1 ) 1 3.d5 97 B l 22) 1 3.l:!c7 99 B l 23) 1 3 . .ie3 1 00

B2) I I .Wxd2 0-0 1 0 1 B21 ) 1 2.d5 1 0 1 B22) 1 2.l:!c7 1 02 B23) 1 2.i.b5 1 03 B24) 1 2.i.d3 1 05

Chapter 10

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cx:d5 �xd5 5.e4 tLlxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ie3 c5 8.�f3 'llYa5 A) 9.tt:ld2 1 09 B) 9 . .id2 0-0 IO.i.e2 i.g4 1 1 .0-0 l:!d8 1 1 0

Bl ) 1 2.d5 1 10 B2) 1 2.l:!bl I l l B3) 1 2.tt:lg5 1 1 3

C) 9.�d2 tt:lc6 1 1 3 Cl ) I O.l:!b l a6 I I .l:!cl i.g4 1 2.d5 l:!d8 1 14

CI I ) 13 .tt:lh4 1 16 CI2) 13 . .id3 1 17 Cl3) 13.i.e2 1 18


C2) 1 0Jk1 cxd4 1 l .cxd4 '1Mfxd2t 1 2.'t!;>xd2 0-0 1 20 C2 1) 13 . .ib5 122 C22) 1 3.d5 :Bd8 1 24

Chapter 1 1

C22 1) 14.'t!;>c2 1 24 C222) 14.'t!;>e1 ltla5 125

C222 1) 1 5 .if4 1 27 C2222) 15 .id2 1 28 C2223) 15 .ig5 1 29

l .d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.i.e3 c5 8.'1Mfd2 cxd4 9.cxd4 �c6 A) 1 0.ib5 id7 135

A1) 1 l .:Bb1 136 A2) 1 1 .ltle2 1 37

B) 1 0.:Bd1 0-0 138 B1 ) 1 l ..ie2 139 B2) 1 l .d5 140 B3) 1 1 .ltlf3 1 4 1

Chapter 1 2

l .d4 � f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.�f3 c5 A) 8.ic4 145 B) 8.ie2 ltlc6 146

Bl ) 9.ie3 146 B2) 9.d5 148

C) 8.h3 0-0 1 50 Cl) 9.ie3 1 5 1 C2) 9.ic4 1 52 C3) 9.ie2 1 53 .

D) 8 . .ib5t ltlc6 9.0-0 cxd4 1 0.cxd4 0-0 1 l .ie3 ig4 1 2.ixc6 bxc6 13.:Bc l '1Mfa5 155 0 1 ) 14.:Bxc6 1 57 02) 14.'1Mfe2 1 58 03) 14.'1Mfd2 160

Chapter 13

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.�0 c5 8.:!3b1 0-0 A) 9.ic4?! 163 B) 9 . .ie3 ltlc6 1 63

B 1 ) 1 0 . .ie2 164 B2) 1 0.'1Mfd2 166

C) 9.'1Mfd2 167

Variation Index 259

Chapter 14

l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 dS 4.cxdS ti)xdS S.e4 ti)xc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 ?.ti)£3 cS 8J�b1 0-0 9.J.e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Wast n.Wd2 Wxd2t 12.J.xd2 b6 A) 1 3 . .id3 170 B) 13 . .ie3 171 C) 13.d5 1 72 D) 13.!k1 .ib7 173

D l ) 1 4 . .id3 173 D2) 14.d5 174

E) 13.0-0 .ib7 176 E1) 14 . .id3 176 E2) 14.d5 177

Chapter IS

l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 dS 4.cxdS ti)xdS S.e4 ti)xc3 6.bxc3 i.g7 7.ti)f.3 cS 8Jtb1 0-0 9.J.e2 cxd4 IO.cxd4 WaSt Il .J.d2 Wxa2 12.0-0 J.g4 A) 13.:E\xb7 .ixf3 1 4 . .ixf3 .ixd4 1 83

A1) 1 5 .e5 1 84 A2) 15 . .ib4 185

B) 13 . .ie3 tbc6 1 86 B l ) 1 4.:E\xb7 :E\ab8 1 86

B1 1) 15 .:E\xb8 :E\xb8 1 86 B 1 2) 15 .:E\c7 189

B2) 14.d5 tLla5 1 90

Chapter 16

B2 1) 15 .ic5 1 90 B22) 1 5.ig5 1 92

l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 dS 4.cxdS �xdS S.e4 ti)xc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7.ti)f.3 cS SJ�bl 0-0 9.J.e2 cxd4 10.cxd4 WaSt n.J.d2 Wxa2 12.0-0 J.g4 13.J.g5 h6 A) 14.ixe7 1 95 B) 1 4.ih4 1 96 C) 14.ie3 tbc6 198

Cl ) 1 5.:E\xb7 198 C2) 15.d5 20 1

Chapter 17

l.d4 ti)f6 2.c4 g6 3.ti)c3 dS 4.cxdS ti)xdS S.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7.J.c4 cS s.ti)e2 ti)c6 A) 9.d5 204 B) 9.ie3 0-0 205

B l ) 1 0.h4 205 B2) 10.:E\b1 206


B3) 10.!!cl cxd4 1 l .cxd4 �a5t! 207 B3 1) 1 2.�d2 207 B32) 1 2.i.d2 207 B33) 1 2.'kt>fl \!;!fa3! 208

Chapter 18

B33 1) 13.�b3 208 B332) 13.�d2 209 B333) 1 3.!!c3 2 1 0

I .d4 c!Ll f6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 s.ttle2 c!Llc6 9 . .ie3 0-0 10.0-0 .ig4 A) 1 l .d5 2 1 3 B) 1 l .f3 i.d7!? 214

B 1 ) 1 2.�d2 215 B2) 1 2.'kt>h1 216 B3) 1 2.d5 2 1 6 B4) 1 2.i.d3 2 1 8 B5) 1 2.!!cl 2 1 9

Chapter 19

I.d4 c!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 .i.c4 c5 s.ttle2 c!Llc6 9 • .ie3 0-0 10.0-0 .ig4 1 1 .£3 .id7!? 12.!!b1 YlYc7 A) 1 3.lLlf4 223 B) 1 3.id3 !!ad8 224

B 1 ) 1 4.d5 225 B2) 14.\!;!fd2 226

C) 13.if4 227

Chapter 20

I.d4 c!Llf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttlc3 d5 4.cxd5 c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7 . .ic4 c5 s.ttle2 c!Llc6 9..ie3 0-0 10.0-0 YlYc7 A) 1 1 .\!;!fd2 230 B) 1 l .i.f4 231 C) 1 1 .d5 233 D) 1 l .�c l id7 234

0 1 ) 1 2.!!d1 235 02) 1 2.id3 236 03) 1 2.!!b 1 237

E) 1 l .!!b1 b6 237 E1) 1 2.dxc5 238 E2) 1 2.f3 238 E3) 1 2.if4 239

Variation Index 261

Chapter 21

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 J.g7 7.J.c4 c5 8.�e2 �c6 9.J.e3 0-0 10.0-0 'f1Yc7 1 1.l:l:cl b6!? A) 1 2.f4 243 B) 1 2 . .if4 245 C) 1 2.dxc5 246 D) 12.'Wd2 !b7 13 . .ih6 �adS 247

0 1 ) 14.'Wg5 248 02) 1 4.�fd1 249 03) 14 . .ixg7 Wxg7 1 5.'We3 e5 249

03 1 ) 16.d5 250 032) 16.J.b5 25 1 033) 16 . .id5 252

Grandmaster Repertoire

An update to a Classic Concept

Creating the Grandmaster Repertoire series seemed a natural idea. There has been a glut of

opening books offering simplistic coverage of a subject. Apart from a few exceptions, it al most seemed l ike the concept of a high-level repertoire book had been forgotten. As chess players and fa ns, we felt we were missing out, and because we can, we decided to do something about

it.

The books in the Grandmaster Repertoire series are written by grandmasters, edited by

grandmasters, and will certainly be read by grandmasters. Of course, this does not mean that

players who are not grandmasters cannot benefit from them. We have worked hard to make our

books clear in their presentation and to make it possible for the readers to decide the depth to which they want to study them.

It is our conviction that most players will eventua lly enjoy greater success by playing the main

li nes, simply because they are, in most cases, based on stronger moves. Instinctively most

players know this, but for one reason or another they employ easy-to-learn but unambitious

systems, or dubious gambits. These approaches may yield success from time to time, but we would argue that they are less conducive to a player's overall development.

In these days of multi-mil l ion game databases, we all have access to information. The difficulty

comes from trying to navigate through the ever-expa nding jungle of games and variations. In

this groundbreaking new series, readers wil l be guided by the insights of grandmasters, each

chosen for their special expertise in the opening in question.

We are immensely excited about this new series, and we hope that the readers will share our

enthusiasm.

grandmaster repertoire 9 - internet archive...had recommended in grandmaster repertoire 2 -i.d4...

Documents