obodchuk - the four knights game, new in chess, 2011sm

The Four Knights Game

Andrey Obodchuk


A New Repertoire in an Old Chess Opening

New In Chess 2011

© 2011 New In Chess Published by New In Chess, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

www.newinchess.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys

tem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher.

Cover design: Steven Boland

Translation: Steve Giddins

Supervisor: Peter Boel Proofreading: Rene Olthof Production: Anton Schermer

Have you found any errors in this book?

Please send your remarks to [email protected]. We will collect all relevant

corrections on the Errata page of our website www.newinchess.com and implement them in a possible next edition.

ISBN: 9 7 8-9 0-5 6 91-3 72-4

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 1 - The Three Knights' Opening ........................ 9

Chapter 2 - The Four Knights Black avoids the main line on move 4 ................ 57

Chapter 3 - The Symmetrical Variation 1.e4 e5 2.tt.:lf3 tt.:lc6 3.tt.:lc3 tt.:lf6 4.�b5 �b4 ........... 7 3

Chapter 4- The Metger System .............................. 97

Chapter 5 - The Rubinstein System .......................... 11 3

Chapter 6 - 5 .�c4 in the Rubinstein ......................... 1 61

Chapter 7- The Belgrade Gambit ........................... 203

Afterword ............................................... 2 2 5

Bibliography ............................................. 2 2 7

Index of Variations ........................................ 2 2 9

Index of Players ........................................... 2 3 3

Introduction

Emanuel Lasker once joked that his only contribution to opening theory was the observation that knights should be developed before bishops. The Four Knights opening illustrates this thesis in ideal fashion. Both sides first place their knights accurately, and then think about what to do further. Joking aside, if such a plan is completely harmless, then how come this simple plan has attracted the interest of such serious players as Shirov, Sutovsky, Nunn, Bacrot, Rublevsky, Short, Motylev and Naer? And, incidentally, what is it that unites these players? This is clear - a creative approach to the game, and a constant willingness to enter into the battle.

In recent times, computers have gone a long way towards proving the truth of the axiom that 'Chess is a draw' , steadily analysing out many complicated lines, and ending up with the assessment '00:00'. The silicon monsters have established particularly depressing dead-ends in lines such as the Petroff Defence and the Berlin Wall variation of the Ruy Lopez. But , surprisingly, things are by no means so sad in the Four Knights. Looking through recent games in the Rubinstein Variation 1 .e4 eS 2 .lbf3 lbc6 3 .lbc3 lbf6 4.�b5 lbd4 S .�c4 �cS 6 .lbe5 , one rather unexpectedly comes across a remarkably large number of white queen sacrifices , although whether these are correct or not is a different question.

It is interesting to compare this trend, which occurs in the supposedly peaceful Four Knights , with the situation in its allegedly much sharper close relative, the Belgrade Gambit , which is highlighted in a separate chapter at the end of the book: Chapter 7. In the majority of variations of this system, which lie off the beaten track of current theory, the play results in an equal ending , unless Black plays in the style of the old masters , and fearlessly accepts all of the sacrifices ( 1 .e4 eS 2 .lbf3 lbc6 3 .lbc3 lbf6 4. d4 ed4 S .ltJdS ltJe4? ! ) .

If White is prepared to play the Four Knights , he must also be ready to face various attempts by Black to avoid this , on the third move. The first chapter of the book is devoted to these lines. It looks at the variation l .e4 eS 2 .lbf3 lbf6 3 .lbc3 �b4: White does not want to allow the Petroff Defence, but Black wants to avoid the Four Knights ! Later, we examine Black's attempts to avoid the Four Knights on move three, after 1 .e4 eS 2 .lbf3 lbc6 3 .lbc3 , the most popular method being 3 . . . g 6 .

Chapter 2 looks at various rare fourth moves for Black, such a s 4 . . . �c5 , 4 . . . a6 and 4 . . . �d6 ! . The last of these was not even mentioned in John Nunn's book New Ideas in the Four Knights, published in 1 99 3 , since at that time there were no significant practical examples. However, in our day, the system with 4 . . . �d6 enjoys a degree of popularity that compares with the main lines.

Chapter 3 and 4 are devoted to the classical l . e4 eS 2 .lbf3 lbc6 3 .lbc3 lbf6 4 .�b5 .tb4, which is characterised by a complicated strategic battle, with a small advantage for White. (However, Karpov, in his best years , several times outplayed his opponents as Black in this line, showing that here, the knights are not inferior to the bishops, if they are handled by a player of the highest class. )

7

T h e F o u r Kn i g h ts Gam e

In Chapter 5 and 6 , we look at Akiba Rubinstein's immortal variation, 4 . . . tLld4. Note that after 5 .�a4 �c5 or 5 .�c4 �c5 , White is not obliged to capture on e5 , although it is in precisely these variations that we can witness the amazing adventures and miracles for which we love chess. To be quite frank, it is the recent games in this variation that inspired the author to produce the present work.

Chapter 7 looks at White attempts to squeeze water out of the stone that is the Belgrade Gambit - not an easy task, it must be said .

8

Ju ly-Oc to b er 20 I 0 Andrey Obodc hu k

Chapter 1 The Three Knights' Opening

This modest-sounding title actually conceals a whole series of different set-ups, beginning with l.e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 tt:lf6 3.tt:lc3 (diagram left) or 2 ... tt:lc6 3.lLJc3 (right) , which Black can bring about by the simple expedient of not playing the most natural move, i .e . by not bringing his second knight to its most natural development square.

1.1 The Anti-Russian Gambit In this section, we are not concerned with any form of Russophobia - it is just a question of move-orders, in which Black offers his opponent the chance to enter the Russian Game, i .e. the Petroff. White in his turn announces that he would prefer to battle in the Four Knights, and then Black declines this invitation, and by means of the move 3 ... 1tb4, - after l.e4 e5 2.tt:lf3 lLJf6 3.lLlc3 - heads into a variation which is formally part of the Three Knights.

It should be noted that this line is not to the taste of all Russian Defence players, since, despite its outwardly unassuming character, it generally promises White a small, but stable advantage, where the main question is whether Black can make a draw or not. Maybe for this reason, such leading practitioners of the Russian Game as Kramnik and Gelfand prefer in this position to go into the Four Knights.

Game No 1 [C42] Munoz Pantoja,Miguel Fenollar Jorda,Manuel Andorra 2 0 I 0 ( 4)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. lLJf3xe5

e7-e5 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4

Incidentally, this move is not forced. White, could for example go into the

9


Vienna Game with 4 . .tc4 . In his day, this position was played with great success by the recently departed Bent Larsen , who many times showed that things are not so simple here. However, the Vienna is a scene from a different drama, and so we will not cover it here.

4 . ... 0-0

A fairly unpopular line is : 4 .. .'iVe7 S.ti:ld3 �xc3 S . . . tt:lxe4 6 .ti:ld5 +-. 6.dxc3 'itVxe4+ In the event of 6 . . . tt:lxe4 7 .i.e2 the character of the battle is little different from the lines considered below, with the exception of the fact that sooner or later the black queen will have to lose a tempo, to retreat from the open file.

Analysis d iagram

7 .�e2 White is slightly better after 7 .'iYe2 'iYxe 2 + 8 .i.xe2 . 7 ... 'iYxg2 s.�f3 'iVh3 9.tt:lf4 'iYfS 1 o.'iYe2+ \t>f8

1 0

ll.�e3 with sufficient compensation for the pawn, Bialek-Tichy, Czechoslovakia tt 1 993 .

5. .tf1-e2

Also possible is S.tt::ld3 �xc3 6.dxc3 tt:lxe4 7.�e2 dS 8.0-0 �fs

Analysis d iagram

9.�e3 The standard method of crowding the black pieces in this variation , 9.tt:lf4 c6 1 O.g4 �g6 1 L�.e3 tt:ld7 1 2.c4 dxc4, should also give White a small plus : 1 3 .'i¥d4! ?. 9 ... c6 IO.tt:lf4 ti:ld6 ll.b3 .!le8 12.�d4 Or 1 2 .l:te 1 tt:la6 ( 1 2 . . . tt:ld7 1 3 .c4;£) 1 3 .a4 tt:lc7 1 4.c4 tt:le4 ( 1 4 .. . dxc4 1 5 .bxc4 tt:le6 1 6.g4 .tg6 1 7.tt:lxg6 fxg6 1 8.'ti'd3;£) 1 S .i.f3 dxc4 1 6 .bxc4 and White retains a small amount of pressure. 12 ... tt:ld7 13.tt::lh5?! More consequent is 1 3 . c4 cS ( 1 3 . . . dxc4 1 4 . .txg 7;£) 1 4 . ..tb2 d4 1 5 .c3 'it'gS 1 6.i.c 1 (also good is 1 6 .g3 dxc3 1 7 . ..txc3 tt:le4 1 8 .�b2 .l:!.ad8 1 9.ti:ldS ;t) 1 6 . . . 'ife7 1 7.cxd4! ? gS 1 8.dxc5 gxf4 1 9.cxd6 'iYxe2 20.�xf4 White has sufficient compensation for the piece. 13 ... £6 14.tt::lg3 A strange manoeuvre ; the knight stands more actively on f4. 14 ... �g6 15.c4 dxc4 16.�xa7 .l:!.xa7 17.'ti'xd6 tt::lb6 18.'tli'c5 cxb3 19.cxb3 'iYc7 with equal play, Zelcic-Kalod, Turin ol 2006.

5 . ... .l:!.f8-e8

S ... d6 seems less accurate, since it deprives Black of the chance to put the pawn on dS in one move. However, in this case too, the character of the battle is not changed much. For example : 6.tt::ld3 ..txc3 7.dxc3 tt::lxe4 8.0-0 ltJd7 9.f3 tt::lef6 1 O.c4 .l:!.e8 11..l:!.e1 dS 12.tLlf4 I 2 .cxdS ;l; . 12 ... tt::lb6 13.cxd5 ttJbxdS 14.tt::lxd5 'ifxdS 1S.ifxd5 ttJxdS 16.�d2 i.fs 17 .ilt.c4 ttJ b6 1s . ..tf l �xc2 19 . .l:!.ac l �a4 20 . .l:!.xc7 �c6 2I..l:!.ce7 .l:!.xe7 22 . .l:!.xe7 White retains a small , but stable plus in the ending, Simacek-Popchev, Olomouc 2 0 0 5 .

6. ttJe5-d3 7. d2xc3

8. 0-0

itb4xc3 ttJf6xe4

Some theoreticians claim that 8 .tt::lf4 is more accurate, not allowing . . . d7 -dS . But the top players have their own theory. Thus , in the game SvidlerGashimov, Sochi tt 2 0 0 8 , White began with 8.c4: 8 ... d6 9.0-0 tt::ld7Worthy of attention is 9 . . . tt::lc6 I O .�e3 �fS I I ..l:!.e i h6 I 2 .tLlf4 tt::lf6 . I think that in this case, i t would be more difficult for White to reach the ideal set-up he achieves in the game.

C h a p t e r I - T h e T h re e Kn i g h t s ' Open i n g

Analysis d iagram

Various continuations have been tried here : e 1 O.i.e3 tUdeS?! 11.tLlxc5 ttl xeS 12.i.f3 'Yi'f6 13.�d4 'ifg6 14.�h5 White obtains a small advantage after I 4 .�xc5 dxcS I S . .l:!.e i . 14 ... 'Yi'e4?! I 4 . . .'ti'fs I S .b3 �d7= . 1S.b4 tt::le6 16 . .l:!.e1 'i:Vc6 17.'iff3 I 7 .'Yi'e 2 ;l; . 17 .. .'iWxf3 18.�xf3 �d7 19.�e3 �c6 20.�d5 tt:lf8 If 2 0 . . . ilLxdS 2 l . cxdS ttJf8 2 2 . f3 tt::lg6 2 3 . a4 White has a small advantage. 21.�xc6 2 I . f3 ilLxdS 22 . cxdS f6= . 21. .. bxc6 22.a4? An oversight. After 2 2 . f3 aS 2 3 .b5 tt::ld7 the position i s about equal . 22 • . • .l:!.e4 23.c3 .l:!.xc4 ± Starostits-Picar t , D'Angers 2 0 0 6 ; e Practice has also seen 1 O.ilLf3 tt::ldf6 1 1..l:!.e1 �fS?!. Black plays rather defiantly. A more cautious move is I I . . . h 6 , preparing a retreat for the bishop on h7 . For example, 1 2 .b3 �fS I 3 .�b2 c6 I 4 .'Yi'c i tt::lg S I S . .l:!.xe 8 + tt::lxe8 I 6 .'Yi'f4 ( I 6 .ilLe2;l;) I 6 . . . �xd3 I 7 . cxd3 tt::lxf3 + I 8.'ti'xf3 'tWgS I 9 .'i¥e3 (it was possible to go into a slightly better endgame after I 9 . .l:!.e i 'ifd2 2 0 .'Yi'e2 'Yi'aS 2 l .�c i tt::l c 7 2 2 .'iid2 'tWxd2 2 3 .�xd2) I 9 . . . tt::lc 7 2 0 .�c3 draw, Solak-Jakovlj evi c , Herceg -Novi tt 2 0 0 8 .

Il

T h e F o u r Kn i g h ts G a m e

'ifi. •

� �

1.1.1. � A

ttJ k �� Vi'� �

Analysis d iagram

12.�xe4 It seems that White is only looking for a draw. A more adequate reaction to Black's play is 1 l . g4 .tg6 ( 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 . g 5±) 1 3 .tbf4 tbc5 1 4 .tbxg6 hxg6 1 5 .b4 tbe6 1 6 . .txb7 .l:t.b8 1 7 . .tc6;!;. In any event , it would be easier for White to make a draw here . . . 12 ... .txe4 13.�g5 h6 14.�h4 g5 15.�g3 'i!Vd7 16.£3 �g6 17.'Yi'd2 b6 18.�£'2 'i!VfS 19.gd4 .l:t.e6 20.b3 l:tae8 21.�b2 tbd7 22.'Yi'c3 f6 23.tbb4 aS 24.tbd5 c6 25.tt::le3 'Yi'f4 26.tt::lg4 'it>g7 27.l:txe6 .l:he6 28 . .l:r.e1 l:txe1+ 29.'i!lhe1 tbe5 30.tbxe5 3 0 .tbe3 = . 30 ... dxe5=i= 0-1 (80) Kuderinov-Mamedyarov, Istanbul Wch-jr 100 5 . • 1 o.tt:Jf4 tbdf6 and now: A) 11.f3 tbc5 1 2 .b3 'ilVe7 1 3 . .!:t.f2

'iV e5 1 4 .J::i.b 1 .tf5 1 5 . 'ilV dl tbce4 1 6 .fxe4 tbxe4 1 7. 'ilV e 1 tbxf2 1 8. 'iV xf2 .ixcl 1 9 . .ibl 'iVgS lO . .!:t.fl .te4 l l .h4 'it'h6 22 .tbh5 f6 2 3 .tbf4 fS 24Jic l .!:t.e 7 l 5 . .ifl .tc6 l 6 . .l:t.c3 .l:t.e4 2 7 . .ic 1 .l:t.ae8 l 8 .l:t.g3 .l:t.8e7 l9 . .tdl 'ilVf6 3 0 . .ic3 'ti'h6 3 I ..I:t.g5 g6 3 l . .id3 .l:t.e3 3 3 . .idl .l:t.3e5 34 .'t!Vg3 .te8 3 5 .tbds .!:t.f7 3 6 . .if4 .l:t.e6 3 7.jLxf5 .!:tel 3 8 .jLd3 .l:t.e6 39 . .if5 .!:tel 40 .l:t.xg6+ hxg6 4 1..�. xh6 .!:t.xfS 4l .'t!Vc3 .!:teeS 43 .tbxc7 .ic6 44.tbds 'it>h7 4S . .igs bs 46 .'ifd4 �xdS 47.cxd5 .!:t.f7 48 . ..ie3 a6 49 .a3 .!:t.fe7 S O . ..if2 l:tf7 5 1 . .ig3 .!:tel S l .'ti'g4 .l:t.dl 5 3 .hS gxhS 1 - 0 Naer-

12

Mamedyarov, Khanty-Mansiysk blitz 100 5 . B ) 11.l:t.e1 b6 12.£3 tt:Jcs 13.b3 'Yi'e7

14.'t!Vd2 't!Ves 15.l:t.b1 .ib7 16.�b2 't!Vgs 17.l:t.bd1 h6 18.tt:Jds tbxds 19.cxd5 'Yi'xd2 20Jhd2 l:i.e7 21.'it>f2 1:tae8 22.c4?!This natural move is an inaccuracy, allowing Black to strengthen his knight. If, for example, 2 2 . .!:t.dd 1 f6 ( l2 . . .a5 2 3 .a3;!;) l 3 .b4 tba4 24 . .ia 1 White could still torture his opponent for longer, as it is hard for the black knights to find a way back. 22 ... a5! 23.1:tdd 1 �c8 24 . .ifl �fs 25.1:txe7 1:txe7 26 . .id4 h5 27.1:te1 l:i.xe1 28.'it>xe1 a4 29.bxa4 draw, SvidlerGashimov, Sochi tt 100 8 .

8 . ... d7-d6

• More natural is 8 ... d5 9.tbf4 c6 10.c4 Or 1 0 . .ie3 tbd7 ( 1 0 . . . tbd6 , preventing c3 -c4) 1 l . c4 dxc4 1 2 . .ixc4 tbeS 1 3 .'i¥xd8 1:txd8 14 . .iel .ifs White has the bishop pair with a symmetrical pawn structure, but it isn't clear whether this is sufficient for a win: 1 5 .g4 ..td7 1 6 .f3 tbf6 1 7 . .!:t.ad 1 tbg6 1 8 .tbxg6 hxg6 1 9 .c4 �e6 lO.b3 b6 l l .'it>f2 cS 22 .h4 'it>f8;!;, S. Popov-Onischuk, Leningrad jr 1 99 1 . 1 O ... d4 11 . .id3 Insidious ! The trivial 1 1 .l:t.e 1 tba6 n . .ifl .ifs 1 3 .f3 tbf6 1 4 .l:t.xe8+ tbxe8 1 5 . g4 ii.g6 1 6 .tbxg6 hxg6= 1 7 .c3 does not promise anything in particular.

Analysis d iagram

ll ... tt::la6 In the event of the natural 1 1 ...tt:Jcs n.�xh7+ �xh7 1 3.'ti'h5+ �g8 1 4.'ti'xc5 , then after 14 . . . tt::la6 1 5.'iih5 tt::lb4 ( 1 5 ... �e6 1 6.tt::lxe6 l:l.xe6 1 7.�d2:t) 1 6.�d2 tt::lxc2 1 7.l:l.ac 1 d3 1 8.�c3 White has an advantage in development, and the pawn on d3 is weak. 12.c3 cS 13.tt::ld5 White obtains some advantage after 1 3.cxd4 cxd4 ( 1 3 ... 'ii'xd4 1 4.�e3 'iies 1 5.l:l.e 1 �fs 1 6.tt::ld5 tt::lb4 (nothing better is apparent) 1 7. tt::lxb4 cxb4 1 8.f3 tt::lf6 1 9.�f2 'iias 20.l:l.xe8+ tt::lxe8 2 1 .�xf5 'ifxfS 2 2.'tWe 1 aS 23.'ife7 l:l.c8 24.b3±) 1 4.tt::lds tt::lc7 1 5.l:l.e 1 �fs 1 6.f3 tt::lxdS 1 7 .cxdS tt::ld6 1 8.l:l.xe8+ 'tWxe8 1 9.�f4:t. 13 • • • �f5 14.f3 tt::ld6 15.�f4 1 5 .�xf5 tt::lxfS 1 6.�f4 l:l.e6 1 7.li'd2 tt::le7 1 8.tt::lxe7+ l:l.xe7 1 9.l:l.ad 1 l:l.d7 20.l:l.fe 1 :t. 15 ... �e6 16.cxd4 1 6.l:l.e 1 �xdS 1 7 .l:l.xe8+ tt::lxe8 1 8.cxd5 'iixdS 1 9.il..e4 'iid7 20.'ii'b3 tt::ld6 21...�.xd6 'ifxd6 22.l:l.d l . 16 . . • cxd4 17.l:l.cl tt::lxc4 18.�xc4 il..xdS 19.'iixd4 1 9 .�bS l:l.e6 20.'ti'xd4 ha2 2 1 .'iixd8+ l:l.xd8 2 2JHd 1 l:l.xd 1 + 2 3 .l:l.xd 1 :t. 19 ... hc4= 20Jbc4 bS 21.'ti'xd8 draw, Baklan-Ruck, Austria tt 2007 /08 ; • Interesting is 8 ... b6!? 9.f3 tt:ld6 10.�f4 1 0.tt::lf4 �b7 1 1 .l:l.e l . 10 •. .'iff6 ll.l:l.el �a6 12.'iicl tt::lc6 13.�g5 'iifS 14.b3 h6 15.�h4 'iias 16.'iid2 tt:ld4 17.�fl �b7 18.�£'2 l:l.xel 19.l:l.xel tt::le6 20.a4 'il'gs 21.'il'xg5 hxgS 22.a5

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p en i n g

Analysis d iagram

A typical picture for this vanatlon : White is pressing a little, but for the moment , he has no more than 'plus-equals'. 22 ... f6 23.l:l.dl �f8 24.c4 tt:lfS 25.c5 Premature. More accurate is 25 .c3 �f7 2 6.l:l.a 1 :t. 25 ... bxa5 26.tt::lb2 �c6 27.l:l.al tt:lf4 2 7 .. . tt::lfd4 2 8.�d3 �bS = . 28.l:l.xa5 l:l.e8 29.tt:lc4 29.b4 tt::le2+ 3 0 .�h 1 :t. 29 ... tt:le2+ 30.�xe2 l:l.xe2 31.l:l.a2 �bS 32.Wfl �xc4 33.bxc4 l:l.e6 34.l:l.xa 7 J:!:c6 35.We2 3 5.g3 tt::le7 3 6.�e2 tt::lg6 3 7.�d4:t. 3S . . • tt:lh4 36.�xh4 gxh4 3 7.l:!:a5 We7 38.f4 3 8 .�d3 fS 3 9 .c3 �f6 40 .f4:t. 38 ... J:!:e6+ draw, Chadaev-Gorbatov, Voronezh 2007.

9. tt::ld3-f4

The quite fresh idea 9.f3 tt::lf6 1 0.�g5 ! ? will be examined in the next game.

9 . ... tt::le4-f6

1 3

T h e F o u r Kn i g h t s G a m e

• Also seen in this position i s 9 ... ttlc6 IO.�e3 �fS Il .J::i.el 'iVd7 12.�fl h6 13.f3 ttlf6 14.c4 J::i.e 7 1 s.'iVd2 llae8 16.tt:ldS J::i.e6 1 7.�d3?! It is hard to understand why he wishes to get rid of his main asset, the two bishops. Any sensible move looks better, for example : 1 7 .a4 a6 ( 1 7 . . . a5 1 8 .�f2:t) 1 8 .b4:t, 1 7 .�f2 or 1 7 .b3 promise White a small , but comfortable edge. 17 ... �xd3 18.cxd3 tt:leS= 19.tt:lxf6+ J::i.xf6 20.b3 iYfs 21.d4? Hara-kiri . Equality was guaranteed after 2 1 .�f2 J::i.g6 2 2 .1tg3 = . 21. . . tt:lxf3 + 22.gxf3 J::i.g6+ 23.'iYg2 'ii!Yxf3 0- 1 , Mijovic-Nasri , Yerevan Wch-jr 200 7 ; • And 9 . . . tt:ld7 1 0 .lie 1 h 6 1 1 .1tf l tt:ldf6 1 2 . f3 tt:lcS 1 3 .�e3 �fs 1 4.�d2 'iYd7 1 S . ..td4 tt:lh 7 1 6 .tt:lh5 tt:le6 1 7 .J::i.xe6 ! fxe6 1 8 .tt:lxg7+- DegraeveTeschke, Germany Bundesliga 2007/08 .

1 0. b2-b3 .itc8-f5 1 1 . 1tc1 -b2 �f5-e4?!

An unfortunate idea. If Black wanted to put this bishop on the long diagonal , then he could have done so with less loss of time. White retains a small plus after l l . . .tt:lc6 1 2 .c4 tt:le5 1 3 .J::i.e 1 t .

1 2. c3-c4

1 2 . f3 �c6 1 3 .c4 tt:lbd7 1 4.�d2t .

1 4

1 2 . ... 1 3 . �e2-f3

1 3 .f3 .tc6 1 4.'iYd2t .

1 3 . ... 14 . .itf3xe4 1 5. 'iWd1 -d5

tt:lb8-d7

tt:ld7-e5 tt:lf6xe4

Promising is lS.tt:lhS ttlf6 ( 1 5 . . . �h4 1 6 .tt:lxg7 ..t>xg7 1 7 .f4 f6 1 8 .fxe5 dxeS 1 9 .'iYd7+ ..t>h8 20 .'tWfS±) 16.f4 tt:led7 1 7.tbxf6 + tt:lxf6 IS.J::i.el J::i.xel + 19.'ii!Yxel t.

1 5 . ...

1 5 . . . tt:lc5 = .

1 6 . tt:lf4-d3

'ifd8-h4

The pawn could also have been taken: 16.Ji£.xeS J::i.xeS 1 6 . . . dxe5 1 7 .'iYxe4 'iYxf4 1 8 .'iYxb 7 ± . 17.'fhb 7 J::i.ae8 18.g3±.

1 6. ... tt:Je5-c6 1 7. J::i.f1 -e1 tt:le4-f6 1 8. 'iVd5-b5t

Black has not managed to solve satisfactorily his typical problem in this variation , the poor coordination of his knights.

1 8 . ... 1 9. g2-g3

J::i.e8-b8 'iYh4-h6

20. tt:Jd3-f4 tt:Jf6-g4 21 . i¥b5-h5

Fixing a small advantage in the endgame. 2 1 .h3 tt::lgeS 2 2 .l::l.e3 also promises the strategic initiative ; the black knights are getting under each other 's feet.

21 . ... 22. tt::lf4xh5 23. l:re1 -e4

23 .�g2;!; .

23 . ... 24. f2-f4

24.�g2;!;.

24 . ... 25. l::l.a1 -e1

26. b3-b4

'ti'h6xh5 f7-f6

tt:Jg4-e5

tt:Je5-d7 �g8-f7

There was no need to so weaken his own pawns in the endgame. A normal continuation such as 2 6 .g4 g6 2 7 .tt::lg3 l::l.e8 2 8 .a3 was possible. Admittedly, the small advantage White would have in this case, might not suffice for victory.

26 . ... 27. l::l.e4xe8 28. l::l.e1 xe8 29. b4-b5 30. tt:Jh5xg7+

l::l.b8-e8 l::l.a8xe8 �f7xe8 tt:Jc6-a5 �e8-f7

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p en i ng

31 . tt:Jg7-f5 32. �b2-d4

3 2..�.c3 = .

32 . ... 33. �d4xa7

tt:Ja5xc4=

tt:Jc4-a3 tt:Ja3xb5

After 33 . . . We6 34 .tt::lg7+ �dS =F it is Black who can play for the win.

34. �a7-e3

More accurate is 34 .�d4 != .

34 . ...

Game No 2 [C42] Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter Fridman, Daniel Romania tt 2009 (2)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg 1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3 4. tt:Jf3xe5 5. �f1 -e2 6. tt:Je5-d3 7. d2xc3 8. 0-0 9. f2-f3

1 0. �c1 -g5!?

e7-e5 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 l::l.f8-e8 �b4xc3 tt:Jf6xe4 d 7-d6 tt:Je4-f6

An interesting idea , which deserves careful attention. It turns out that it is not so easy for Black to untangle.

1 5

T h e F o u r Kn i g h t s Gam e

1 0 . ... h7-h6

• The stem game of the variation was interesting : 1 O ... tZ:lc6?! 11.�el!? The sharp 1 1 .f4! ?;!; also deserves attention. In this case, it is not so easy for Black to escape from the pin. 11 ... h6 12.�4 .itf5 13.�fl �xe1 14.'ihe1 gS Now too, the pin proves fairly unpleasant. 15.�£'2 tZ:ld7 16.'ii'd2 �f6 17.�e1 tLldeS 18.f4 tL:lg4 19.fxg5 Black faces serious problems after 1 9 .tZ:lb4! , threatening to transfer the knight to d5 : 1 9 . . . tZ:lxb4 ( 1 9 . . . tZ:lxf2 20 .tZ:ld5 tZ:lh3+ 2 l .gxh3 'ti'g7 (2 1 . . . 'ti'd8 22 .lle8++-) 22.fxg5 'ti'xg5+ 23 .'ti'xg5+ hxgS 24.tZ:lxc7±) 2 0 .i.d4 'ti'd8 2 1 . cxb4;!; . 19 .. . hxg5 20.�e3 20 .i.g 3 ;!; . 20 ... �h6 21.h3 tZ:lxe3 22.�xe3 'it>f8 22 . . . �e6=. 23 . .l::!.g3 f6 24.'Yi'f2 24.tZ:lb4 �e6 (24 . . . tZ:lxb4 2 5 .cxb4 �e8 26 .'ti'f2±) 25 .tZ:lxc6 bxc6 2 6 .c4;!;. 24 ... �d7 24 . . . �e6= 25.tLlb4 tL:le 7 26.�c4 c6 A. Ivanov-Dominguez Perez, Buenos Aires 2005 (2 7 J1e3 fS=) ; • A game between two young talents saw White maintain clear pressure : 10 ... tLlbd 7 11.�e1 b6 12.a4 1 2 .tLlf2;!;. 12 ... a5 13.tZ:lf2 h6 14.�h4 tZ:lfS

Analysis d iagram

15.tLle4 Here too, there is the interesting 1 5 .f4 �f5 (it is not possible to break out at once - 1 5 . . . tZ:lg6 ? ! 1 6 .�f3 (or 1 6 .�xf6 gxf6 ( 1 6 . . . 'ifxf6 1 7 . .tf3 ±)

1 6

1 7 .'il'd2;!;) 1 6 . . . �xe 1 + 1 7 .'ti'xe 1 �b8 1 8 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 9 .'ifd2;!;) 1 6 .g4 .td7 1 7 . .tf3 .!::txe 1 + 1 8 .'ifxe 1 �b8 1 9 .f5 tLl8h7 20 .tZ:le4 'ti'e8 2 1 .tLlxf6+ tZ:lxf6 2 2 .b 3 ;!; . 15 ... g5 16.tZ:lxf6+ 'ti'xf6 17.�£'2 �fS 18.'ii'd2 'ti'g6 19.�acl �adS 20.h4 f6 21.b3 White is definitely somewhat better. 2 1 . 'if d5 + .te6 22 .'ifb7 'iff? 23 .-tbs .l::!.e7 24.�d3 ;!; . 21...'it>g7 22.�b5 �d7 23 . .id3 'i!t'£7 24.�d4 24.hxgs hxg5 2S .f4;!; 24 ... 'i!t'hs 25.hxg5 hxgS The position has stabilised and White's advantage is not significant . 26.g4?! 'iYh4 2 7.'t\Yf2 �h3 28.'iYg2 'i:Vxg2+ 29.'it>xg2 tZ:lg6 30.'it>g3 tZ:lf4 Jl .jlfl �xe 1 32 . .l::!.xe 1 .l::!.e8 33.�xe8 3 3 .�e3 = . 33 ... �xe8 34.�e3 �g6=F 35.�xf4 gxf4+ 36.'it>xf4 �xc2 37.�c4 c6 38.'it>e3 dS 39.'it>d2 dxc4 40.'it>xc2 cxb3+ 41.'it>xb3= f5 42.'it>c4 'it>f6 43.'it>d4 bS 44.axb5 cxbS 45.c4 bxc4 46.'it>xc4 fxg4 47.fxg4 'it>gS Draw, D. Howell-Giri, Wijk aan Zee III 2009 .

1 1 . .tg5-h4

1 1 . . . tZ:lc6 1 2 .f4;!; .

1 2. tZ:ld3-f2

1 2 .�e 1 ;!; .

1 2 . ... 1 3. �f1 -e1 1 4. �h4-g3 1 5. 'iYd1 -d2

tZ:lb8-d 7

'ti'd8-e7 g7-g5 tZ:lf6-h5 tZ:ld7-e5

1 6. �e2-b5

Worthy of attention is 16.f4 gxf4 1 6 . . . tt::lxg3 1 7 .hxg3 gxf4 1 8 .gxf4 tt::lc6 1 9 .�d3 'iff8 20 .lhe8 'ifxe8 2 1 .f5 'iff8 2 2 .tt::lg4± . 1 7.�xf4 tt:Jxf4 18.'ifxf4 \t>g 7 1 8 . . . 't/Vgs 1 9 .'iYxg5 + hxgS 2 0 .tt::le4 'lt>g7 2 1 .tLlxgS ;!; . 19.-tbs c6 1 9 . . . �d7 20 . ..txd7 'iYxd7 2 l .l:le3;!; . 20.�d3;!; 'iYgS 21.'iYxgS+ hxgS 22.tt::le4;!; .

1 6 . ... l:le8-f8 1 7. l:la 1 -d 1

White can retain hopes of an opening advantage after 1 7 . ..txeS!? dxeS 18.'Yi'e3 f6 1 8 . . . c6 1 9 . .ic4± l:le8 2 0 .tt::ld3 . 19.'ti'e4 tt::lf4 20.g3 tt::lh3+ 21.tLlxh3 �xh3 22 • .i.d3!. The black king's protection is weakened, the pawn on b7 is hanging, and g3 -g4 represents a big threat , going after the bishop on h3 . Black faces tough times.

1 7 . ... 1 8. h2xg3

tt::lh5xg3 'ti'e7-f6

The knight on eS holds Black's position together.

1 9. 't/Vd2-d4

No advantage comes from 1 9 .f4 gxf4 20 .gxf4 tt::lg4 2 l ."ifd4 't1Vh4 2 2 .tt::lxg4 �xg4 2 3 .l:lb l a6 24 . .id3 l:lae8 2 5 .l:le4 �d7 26 . f5 l:lxe4 2 7 . .ixe4 b6=.

C hap t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p en i n g

In this sense, i t seems logical first to defend the square g4 , and only then drive away the knight: 1 9 .�e2 �e6 20 . f4 gxf4 2 1 .gxf4 tt::lg6 2 2 .g3 . White has a small advantage, nevertheless.

1 9 . ... 'iff6-g7

White has a large advantage in development , but the powerful knight on eS ensures Black against unpleasantness.

20. l:le1 -e3=

Draw.

One gets the impression that if White manages to exchange the knight on eS , then the better mobilisation of the white pieces should have its say. However, after the immediate 2 0 .tt::ld3 tt::lg6 2 1 .'1!We4 c6 i t turns out that the white bishop is in a fairly unfortunate position : 2 2..� a4 aS 2 3 .a3 dS 24.'1!We3 bS 2 5 .�b3 a4 2 6 .�a2 . Therefore, it makes sense first of all to see to this bishop, for example : 20 .�c4 (planning \t>d3 ) and now:

Analysis d iagram

A) 20 . . . tt::lc6 2 l .'ti'd2 ..td7 22 . .idS ;!; ; B ) 2 0 . . . 't/Vg6 2 l .tLld3 ( 2 1 .�d5 ! ?)

2 1 . . .tt::lc6 2 2 .'1!Wf2 �e6 2 3 .�xe6 fxe6 24.'1!We2 l:lae8 2 5 .g4;!; ; C) 20 . . . .ifs 2 1 .�d5 �xc2 2 2 .l:lc l

�g6 2 3 .�xb7 l:tab8 24.'1!Wxa7;!; .

I 7


Or 20 .ita4 ..te6 2 l..�. b 3 l::tfe8 2 2 .lLld3 lLlxd3 2 3 .�xd3 a6 (23 . . . �xb3 24.cxb3 l:teS 2 S .f4;!;) 24 . .ixe6 fxe6 2 5 .g4. The pawn structure favours White and Black must fight for the draw. The idea of I O .�gS deserves further study.

Game No 3 [C42J Yap Kim, Steven Nguyen An Dung Cebu City Ach 2007 (3)

This game attracts attention for the fact that it contains an idea which is not common in this variation, involving opposite-side castling.

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg 1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. tt:Jf3xe5 5. tt:Je5-d3 6. d2xc3

e7-e5 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 .ib4xc3

The structure reminds one of the currently popular variation of the Russian Game I .e4 eS 2 .lLlf3 lLlf6 3 .lLlxe5 d6 4.lLlf3 lLlxe4 S .lLlc3 lLlxc3 6 .dxc3 �e7 7 .�e3 lLlc6 8. � d2 ..te6 9. 0-0-0 . But there are some differences : White has two bishops and Black has already castled kingside, whereas in the analogous line of the Russian Defence, he quite often castles queenside. White has yet to determine the position of his own king, so the

I 8

question arises whether he can castle queenside and play on opposite sides?

6 . ... tt:Jf6xe4 7. �c1 -e3

From the viewpoint of the plan with queenside castling, it is less consequent to play 7.tt::lf4 l:te8 8.�e3 lLlc6 9.'ti'f3 9 .�d3 d6 I O .'tWe2 lLlcS I l . 0-0-0 lLlxd3+ I 2 .'li'xd3 lLleS=. 9 ... tt::lgS? In the spirit of the position was 9 . . . d5 I 0 .0-0-0 (I O .�bS tLleS=F) I O . . . lLleS I I .'ife2 c6 1 2 .f3 lLlf6 ( 1 2 . . . lLld6 I 3 .'iff2 lLlfS=) I 3 .�d4 'tWd6 I 4.'iff2 b6 I s .'li'g3= . 10.1\Yhs tt:Jes 11.0-0-0 d6 12.h3 c6?! 13.tt::ld3! The knight returns to where it came from. 13 ... tt:Jxd3+ 14 . .txd3 h6 1S.l:the1 �d7 16.h4 lLle6 17.g4+-0krugin-Malygin, Kostroma 2008 .

7 . ... 8. �d1 -f3!? 9. 0-0-0

9 . ...

d7-d6 l:tf8-e8

tt:Jb8-c6?!

It seems the other knight move was better : 9 ... lLld7 10.g4 More flexible is I O .tLlf4 lLldf6 I I .h3 �d7 I 2 .c4 with mutual chances. 1 O ... tt:Jdf6 11.l:tg1 lLldS 12.l:te1 .ii£.d7 13.gS with a roughly equal game. However, all this requires further practical tests.

1 0. g2-g4 tt:Je4-f6

The exchange 10 .. .'i!kf6 ll.'ikxf6 1 1 .lLlf4 gS+ ll. .. ltJxf6 12.h3 doesn't give full equality : 12 ... h5 1 2 . . .�e6 1 3 .lLlf4:t. B.gxhs 1 3 .gs ttJds 1 4 .gd2 �fs 1 S .�g2 �e4 1 6 .�xe4 l:txe4 1 7J:X de 1 .!:tae8 1 8 .c4 ttJb6 1 9 .b3 =. 13 ••• ttJxh5 14.11gl ttJf6 15.�g2 �f5 16.lldelt

1 1 . .!:th1 -g1 ttJf6-d7

1 l . . .�e6 1 2 .lLlf4 ttJeS 1 3 .'ti'g2 �d7 1 4 .c4 �c6 1 S .ttJdS:t.

1 2. �f3-g3

1 2 .g5 ttJdeS 1 3 .lLlxeS ttJxeS 1 4 .'ti'f4:t.

1 2 . ... 1 3. c3-c4 1 4. a2-a3 1 5. �e3-g5

1 S .�e2:t.

1 5 . ... 1 6 . �g5-e3

1 6 . .. l:ta5 ! ?.

1 7. �g3-g2 1 8. ttJd3-f4 1 9. h2-h3 20. �g2-h 1 ± 21 . ttJf4-d5

a7-a5 a5-a4 ttJd7-f6

h7-h6 ttJf6-e4

'ti'd8-h4 ttJe4-f6 ttJc6-e5 ttJf6-d7

2 l .g5 hxgS (2 1 . . .h5 22.lLldS±) 22 .tLldS±.

21 . ... 'ti'h4-d8 22. g4-g5 h6-h5

C h a p t e r 1 - The T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p e n i n g

23. g5-g6 ttJd7-f6

23 . . . tbxg6 24.�g5 f6 2 S .�xf6+- .

24.g6xf7+ 'it>g8xf7 25.'ti'h1 -g2 .!:te8-g8 26.f2-f4 ttJe5-c6 27.c4-c5 �c8-e6 28.�f1 -c4 g7-g6 29.c5xd6 c7xd6 30 . .ie3-b6 'if d8-c8 31 .ttJd5xf6 �e6xc4 32.ttJf6xg8 �c8xg8 33 . .!:td 1 xd6 �c4-e6 34.f4-f5 �e6xf5 35.'ti'g2-d5+ 'it>f7-g7 36 . .!:tg1 -e1 'it>g7-f8 37 . .!:td6-f6+ 'it>f8-g7 38 . .!:tf6xf5 1 -0

1.2. Nihilism in the opening Chess can be played in different ways. There are many chess players who prefer less explored byways, trusting in their ability to invent something not known to the professionals, who spent day and night exploring long computer variations. In this section, we will look at a couple of examples of this rather nihilistic approach to opening problems , in the shape of the move 3 . . . d6 (after l . e4 eS 2 .tLlf3 tbc6 3 .ttJc3 ) . Its clear drawback is that White has carte blanche to choose the set-up for his pieces .

Game No 4 [C46] Skripchenko,Almira Ye Rongguang Groningen 1998 (9)

1 . e2-e4 2. ttJg1 -f3 3. ttJb1 -c3 4. d 2-d4

e7-e5 ttJb8-c6 d 7-d6

White could also go into one of the lines of the Steinitz Defence to the Spanish, after 4.it.b5 . Examination of this line is outside the scope of the pres-

1 9


ent book. However, 4 . . . �g4 5 .d4 transposes into a position from the current game.

4 . ... 5. �f1 -b5 6. 'i!Yd 1 xd4

�c8-g4 e5xd4 ti:Jg8-e7

'The madness of the brave deserves praise ' ! Grandmaster Ye Rongguang has often played this position , believing in its hidden resources.

7. �c1 -g5

7 . .. . a7-a6

• His attempts ended unfortunately after 7 ... �xf3 8.gxf3 a6 9 . ..txc6+ tt::lxc6 IO.'ii'e3 f6 ll.�h4 tt::leS?! 1 1 . . . 'iWd7 n.o-o-o 'ifh3 1 3 .�g3 h5 1 4 .<1Jd5 0-0-0 1 5 .tLlf4 ( 1 5 .'ifc3 'ifd7 1 6 .h4;;!; , or 1 5 . . . .:f.e8 1 6 . .:f.d4 ! ?;;!;) 1 5 . . . 'i!Yd7 1 6 .h4 'iVf7 ;;!; , Rausis-Zapolskis, Riga 1 99 5 . 12.f4 tbg6 13 • ..tg3 c6 14.0-0-0

20

'tWas IS.h4!± hS?! 1 5 . . . 'i!Yc5 ;;!; 16.eS! 0-0-0 1 6 . . . fxe5 1 7 . fxe5 dxe5 ? (> 1 7 . . . d5±) 1 8 .'ii'd3 ! ti:Je7 ( 1 8 . . .<1t>f7 1 9 .'ii'f5 + +-) 1 9 .'i¥d7+ <litf7 20 .tLle4+- . 17.exd6 .l::!.h6 1 7 . . . �xd6 1 8 .'i¥e6+ <lt>c7 1 9 .'iff7 + tLle7 20Jhd6 .:f.xd6 2 1 . f5 +- . 18.'i¥e6 + <lt>b8 19.fS+- tt:Jes 20 • .l::!.hel ti:Jd 7 21.�f4 .:f.hs 22.<1itbl <lt>as 23.tt::le4 tt:Jes 24.-txeS fxeS 25.d7 .l::!.h6 26.'it'e8 <lt>a 7 2 7.c3 'i¥b6 28.'i¥xeS �a3 29 . .:f.e2 .:f.hh8 30.<It>al .tfs 31.tbgs �cs 32.tt::lf7 .:f.h£'8 33.tt::lxd8 .:f.xd8 34 . .:f.dd2 aS 3S.'ii'xg7 a4 36.'iVeS a3 3 7.b4 .:f.g8 38.bxcS .:f.gl + 39 . .l::!.el .l::!.xel + 40.'�'xel 'ii'xcS 41.'ife3 1 - 0 Antonsen-Ye Rongguang, Copenhagen 1 99 5 . • In 1 996 , this position again arose in one of Ye 's games : 7 ... f6 8 . ..th4 The bishop looks better on the open diagonal - 8 . .te3 . 8 ... a6 9.�xc6+ bxc6 After 9 . . . <1Jxc6 1 0 .'i¥e3 ii...e7 1 1 . 0 -0 -0 0-0 Black i s a little worse. 10.h3 ..te6?! l l .�xf6! 'ii'b s 12 • ..txg 7 ..txg 7 13.'ifxg7 .:f.g8 14.'ii'f6 .l::!.g6 IS.'i*'h8+ .:f. g8 16.'iVf6 .:f.g6 1 7.'iVd4 'ifxb2 IS . .:f.bl 'ii'a3 19.tt::lh4 with a large advantage to White, Vehi Bach-Ye Rongguang, Groningen 1 996 .

8 . �b5xc6+ 9. 'iYd4-e3

1 0. �g5xe7 1 1 . 0-0-0 1 2. h2-h3

1 2 . . .�xf3 1 3 .gxf3;;!; .

1 3. g2-g4 1 4. ti:Jf3-d4 1 5. tt:Jc3-e2 1 6. tt:Jd4-f5 1 7. tt:Je2-g3

tt:Je7xc6 ..tf8-e7 tt:Jc6xe7 0-0 �g4-c8

b7-b5 b5-b4 d6-d5 .:f.f8-e8 Ji...c8-b7??

After 1 7 . . . ti:Jxf5 1 8 . gxf5 followed by .:f.hg 1 , White, of course, would have the

initiative, but the whole battle would be ahead, whereas now a fearful blow lands.

1 8. t2Jf5xg7! 1 9. t2Jg3-h5+ 20. 'iYe3-d4

Mate is unavoidable.

Game No 5 [C46] Rublevsky,Sergey Kolasinski,Marek Cheliabinsk II 199 1

1 . e2-e4 2. t2Jg1 -f3 3. t2Jb1 -c3

'it>g8xg7 'it>g7-g6 1-0

e7-e5 t2Jb8-c6 d7-d6

This move usually tends to transpose into positions from other openings.

4. d2-d4 e5xd4 5. t2Jf3xd4

5 . ... t2Jg8-f6

C hap t er I - T h e T h ree Kn i g h t s ' O p e n i n g

After 5 ... g6 we reach a position , similar in spirit to the line examined in section I . 4 of the present book. But there is also a fairly significant difference : in the main variations of this line, Black quite often gets in . . . d7 -dS in one move, so the early 3 . . . d6 may turn out to be a loss of a tempo. Here is a practical example : 6.�e3 �g7 7.'ti'd2 lbge 7 8.h4 8 . 0-0- 0 ! ?;!; . 8 ... h5 9.0-0-0 tbe5 10.£'3 a6 ll.�g5 f6 12.�e3 lLJ 7c6 13.lLJd5 White has easy play, Bauer-Mitrovic , Metz 2008 .

6. �c1 -f4

• The unpretentious 6 .tbxc6 bxc6 7 .�d3 is also perfectly possible. It reaches a position similar to the Scotch Game, with Black having not played the strongest moves : I .e4 eS 2 .lLJf3 tbc6 3 .d4 exd4 4.lLJxd4 lLJf6 s .t2Jc3 d6 ? ! (S . . . �M=) 6 .tbxc6 bxc6 7 .�d3 �e7 8 . 0-0 0-0 9 .l:f.e i l:tb8 I O .b3 l:f.e8 I I .h3 lLJd7 !2 . .ie3 .tf6 I 3 .'ii'd2 cS 14.l:f.ad i lLJeS I S . .te2 lLJd7 !6 .lLJdS with some advantage to White, Vescovi-Pelikan, Brazil 2000 . e Among other good plans , one may mention the transposition to a standard Philidor position , with kingside castling: 6 . .te2 .te7 7 . 0 -0 0-0 8 . f4 tbxd4 9 .'ii'xd4 l:te8 I O . .te3 lLJd7 I I ..af3 lLJb6 12 .'ii'd2 �f6 I 3 .b3 �d7 14.a4 .tc6 I 5 .aS lLJd7 I 6 .a6 bxa6 I 7 .eS .txf3 18 .exf6 .tb7 I 9 .fxg7 'it>xg7 2 0 .f5 White 's position is significantly better, Jones-Barle, Pula 2 00 7 . • Finally, it is possible to transpose to the Steinitz Defence of the Spanish, where, according to current theory, White has good chances to achieve an advantage. Although examination of this line lies outside the scope of this book , we will give a couple of examples

21


from recent tournament practice : 6.�b5 .td 7 7.i.xc6 7 . 0-0 �e7 8 . ..txc6 bxc6 9 .�f3 0-0 1 0 .b3 J::!.e8 1 1 .h3 cS l l .tt::lfs �f8 1 3 .�g5 �xfS 1 4 .'li'xf5 �d7 1 s .'ti'f3 �e7 1 6 .J::!.ad 1 'ti'c6 1 7 .J::!.fe 1 tt::ld7 1 8 .�f4 �f6 1 9 .tt::lds �eS 20 .�g5 f6 2 l .�d2 tt::lb6 2 2 .tt::le3 c4 2 3 .h4 J::!.ad8 24.h5 cxb3 2 S .cxb3 dS 2 6 .'ti'g4 fS 2 7 .tt::lxf5 dxe4 2 8 .tt::lh6+ Wf8 29 . .tb4+ 1 -0 Guseinov-Kavacik, Istanbul 2008 . 7 ... bxc6 8.'iVf3 J::!.b8 9.b3 'ife 7 1 o.o-o 'iVes tt.tt::lfs �xf5 12.exf5 Wd 7 13.�b2 J::!.e8 14.J::!.adl tt::le4 15.tt::la4 'iVa5 16.c4 h5 17.h4 tt::ld2 18.'ti'd3 tt:le4 19.J::!.fel tt::lc5 20.tt:Jxc5+ 'if xeS 21.J::!.xe8 Wxe8 22Jlel + Wd 7 23.f6 g6 24.'ife4 �h6 25.'iVe 7+ Wc8 26.'iVxf7 �b 7 2 7.'ifxg6 'ifa5 28.J::!.e2 'ifxa2 29.£7 'i:Vxb3 30.J::!.el i.d2 31.i.xh8 �xel 32.f8'it' 1 -0 , FercecBarle, Pula 2 0 0 7 .

6 . ... 7. 'ti'd 1 -d2 8. 0-0-0

�f8-e7 0-0

We have reached a favourable, for White , form of a position typical for the Philidor Defence. After the standard move order l .e4 eS 2 .tt::lf3 d6 3 .d4 exd4 4 .tt::lxd4 tt::lf6 5 .tt::lc3 �e7 6 .�f4 0-0 7 .'i¥d2 White must reckon with the possibilities of 7 . . . d5 8 . tt::ldb5 c 6 ! 9 .tt::lc7 d4 or 7 . . . c 6 8 . 0-0-0 b5 , whereas here, Black has a more restricted choice.

22

8 . ... 9. �d2xd4

1 0. �d4-d2

tt::lc6xd4 �c8-e6

Probably it is even more accurate to play 1 0 .f3 tt::ld7 1 1 .'iYe3 ! 'iYb8 1 2 .g4 tt::le5 1 3 .h4 c6 1 4 .g5 bS 1 5 .�g3 . White outstrips his opponent in development, Volokitin-Harikrishna, Lausanne 2 0 0 5 .

1 0 . ... 1 1 . �c1 -b1

tt::lf6-d7 f7-f5?!

White 's position is somewhat better, but there was no reason for such a nervous reaction.

1 2. e4xf5 1 3. g2-g3 1 4. �f1 -d3 1 5. 'ti'd2xd3 1 6 . tt::lc3-d5 1 7. tt::ld5xf4

�e6xf5 tt::ld7-b6 �f5xd3 �e7-g5 �g5xf4

White has a small , but stable advantage.

1 7 . ... 1 8. 'i:Vd3-b3+ 1 9. h2-h4 20. 'ti'b3-f3 21 . h4-h5 22. 'it'f3-c3 23. h5-h6 24. tt::lf4-e6! 25. tt::le6-g5 26. J::!.d 1 -d4

'iVd8-d7 \tg8-h8 'ifd7-f7 d6-d5 \th8-g8 c7-c6 g7-g6 J::!.f8-e8 'il'f7-f8

Unnecessary. More accurate is 2 6 . J::!.de 1 tt::ld7 2 7 .f4± .

26 . ... 27. f2-f4

'iYf8-f6 J::!.e8-e7?

As a result of his inaccuracy at move 2 6 , White has fallen into a rather unpleasant pin and 2 7 . . . J::!.e2 2 8 .a3 l::!.f8 would virtually equalise. Now Sergey finds a beautiful combination.

28 . .!:[d4-e4!! d5-d4

28 . . .'�xc3 29 . .!:[xe7 ! 'iff6 3 0 . .!:[he 1 and the black queen cannot deal with the enemy rooks. After the relatively best 30 . . . lt:Jc4 3 1 .l::re8+ .l:!.xe8 3 2 . .!:[xe8+ 'li'f8 3 3 .l:[xf8+ 'it>xf8 34 .lt:Jxh7+ the knight ending is winning for White.

29 . .!:[e4xe7

The exuberance of youth! After the prosaic 2 9 .'if cS lt:JdS (2 9 . . . .!:[ae8 3 0 . .!:[he 1 .:l.xe4 3 I .lt:Jxe4 'iYf8 3 2 .lt:Jf6+ +-) 30 .l::!.he 1 White dominates : 3 0 . . . .!:[ae8 ( 30 . . . .!:[xe4 3 1 .lt:Jxe4+-) 3 1 .'iYxa7 or 3 1 .a3 , Black has no moves.

29. d4xc3 30 . .!:[e7-g7+

Here too, after 3 0 . .!:[he 1 ! lt:JdS 3 I ..!:[e 8 + .!:[xe 8 3 2 . .!:[xe 8 + 'iff8 3 3 . l:[xf 8 + 'it>xf8 3 4 . lt:Jxh 7 + 'it> g 8 3 5 .lt:Jg5 the knight ending should be winning for White.

30 . ... 'it>g8-f8?

A mistake in return : 3 0 . . . 'iYxg7 3 1 .hxg7 .!:[e8 3 2 .lt:Jxh7 .!:[e3 was a better defence.

31 . .!:[h1 -e1

Black resigned, although 3 1 . . .'iVxg7 would still put up some resistance. 3 1 . lt:Jxh7 + ! was winning.

C hap t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p en i n g

1.3 The Romanishin Variation The Three Knights line beginning l.e4 eS 2.lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3.lt:Jc3 �cS, has a dubious theoretical reputation, with the tactical blow 4. lt:JeS! being regarded as almost a refutation. This is what Grandmaster John Nunn wrote in his book on the Four Knights : ' Studying the published theoretical sources suggests that this line is very bad for Black, and this is probably the case, although White has to show some accuracy' . Admittedly, this deadly view is not shared by everyone, most notably the Grandmaster from Lvov, Oleg Romanishin. He has played this line for many years , with good results. The truth , as so often , probably lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Game No 6 [C46] Pedzi.ch,Dominik Romanishin,Oleg Koszalin 1997 (5)

1 . e2-e4 2. lt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. tt:Jf3xe5 5. d 2-d4 6 . d4xe5 7. f2-f4 8. b2xc3

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 �f8-c5 tt:Jc6xe5 �c5-d6 �d6xe5 i.e5xc3+

23


Now: • Premature is 8 . . . 'ifh4+ 9 .g3 'ife7 1 0 .�g2 tLlf6 1 1 . 0 -0 ( 1 1 . e5 ! ?) 1 1 . . .d6 1 2 .�a3 �g4 1 3 .'tWb 1 c5 1 4J:te 1 0-0 1 5 .e5 tLld7 1 6 .'fkxb7 dxe5 1 7 Jhe5 'iff6 1 8 . .l:re3 with advantage to White, Kobalia-Papazov, Herculane jr 1 994 . • More deserving of attention, if only because it has been played by the great enthusiast of the variation , Romanishin , is : 8 .. .'iVe7 9.�d3 dS Practice has also seen 9 . . . 'i!Yc5 ! ? 1 0 . .l:rb 1 d6 ( 1 0 . . . tt:Je7 ! ?) 1 1 ..l:rb5 'ifxc3+ 1 2 .�d2 'ifd4 1 3 .'i¥b 1 tt:Je7 1 4 .c3 'i¥f6 1 5 . 0 -0 a6 1 6 . .l:rg5 tt:Jg6 1 7 . .l:rg3 tLle7 1 8 .\t>h 1 ( 1 8 .�e3 ! ? 'i¥xc3 1 9 . .l:rc 1 ±) 1 8 . . . h6 1 9 .c4. White has a small positional advantage, which more than compensates for the pawn deficit , Vasiesiu-Mozes , Predeal tt 1 99 7 . 10.0-0 Principled is 1 O . e5 and now 1 O . . . 'irh4+ 1 1 . g3 'i¥h3 1 2 .�fl 'i!Ye6 .

Analysis d iagram

A complicated battle, with non-standard strategic features , lies ahead. Possible, for example, is 1 3 .�a3 tLlh6 ! ? 1 4 .�e2 .i.d7 1 5 . .l:rb 1 0-0-0 Both sides have their chances. 1 o ... dxe4 11.�xe4 tt:Jf6 12.�f3 0-0 13.l:te1 jt_e6 14.�xb7 .l:ad8 1S.'iff3 'ifcS+ 16.�e3 On 1 6 . 'it>h 1 there would probably follow 1 6 . . . �d5 1 7 . .txd5 tt:Jxd5 1 8 .�d 2 f5 , and White 's extra pawn does not play a large role. 16 • . .'ihc3 17 .'ifc6 'ii'xc6

24

18 . .1hc6 .idS 19 . .ia4 White has achieved some advantage in the ending. 19 ... c6 20.�cS He could retain the advantage by 20 . ..txa7 ! .l:ra8 2 1 .l::!.e7 .l:rfc8 (2 1 . . . ..te6 22 . ..txc6 .l.:!.ac8 23 . ..tf3 .l:rxc2 24 . a4±) 2 2..�. b 3 c5 ( 2 2 . . . �xb3 2 3 . axb3 tt:Jd5 24 . .l:re4±) 2 3 .�xd5 tLlxd5 24 . .l:rd7 tt:Jxf4 2 5 .a4i . 20 ... .l:rfe8 21.�e7 �c8 22 . .¥hf6 gxf6 23 . ..tb3 aS 24.�ad1 �xe1+ 25Jhe1 a4 26.�xa4 �xa2 27.�b3 draw, IsonzoRomanishin, Bratto 200 7 . • A line regarded as dubious is 8 ... tt:Jf6 and now:

A) 9 .�d3 d5 1 0 .e5 and now: A 1 ) 1 0 . . . tt:Je4 1 l .�xe4 dxe4

1 2 .'i!Yxd8+ \t>xd8 1 3 .�e3 f5 1 4 .exf6 gxf6 1 5 .f5 �xf5 ( 1 5 . . . \t>e7=) 1 6 . 0 -0 �e6 1 7 . .l:rxf6 .l:re8 1 8 . .l:[d 1+ \t>c8 1 9 . a 3 b6 with an equal ending, L . Ilic-Mitkov, Skopje 1 99 8 ;

A2) 1 O . . . ..tg4 1 1 .'ird2 tLle4 1 2 .'li'e3 0-0 ( 1 2 . . .'i¥h4+ 1 3 .g3 'i¥h3 1 4 .c4 'fk g2 1 5 . .l:rfl 'i!Vxh2 1 6 .cxd5 tt:Jxg3 with unclear play.) 1 3 . 0 -0 f5 1 4 .exf6 ? ! 'i¥xf6 1 5 . ..txe4 dxe4 1 6 . ..ta3 .l:rfe8 . The game is equal , Potkin-Buturin, Pardubice 1 99 8 . B ) 9.eS

Analysis d iagram

B 1 ) 9 ... tt:Je4 10.'ifdS! f5 and now: B 1 1 ) It is surprising that, in John

Nunn's book New Ideas in the Four

Knights, the only game quoted in support of this variation's inadequacy is one which looks more like a cooperative effort . Martorelli-Bellia , Chianciano Terme ch-ITA 1 9 8 6 : 1 O .. .'ti'h4+? 11.g3 tt::lxg3 12.hxg3 'ti'xg3+ 13.'it>d1 d6 14.'ili'd3? White obtains a decisive advantage with 1 4 .�b5+ ! Wf8 1 5 .�d2 . 14 • • . �g4+ 15 . .i1Le2 'ti'g2? But now Black misses his chance ; after 1 S . . . .ixe2+ 1 6 .'ti'xe2 0 -0 -0 1 7 . e6 l:rhe8 he obtains good compensation for the sacrificed piece. 16J:th4

Analysis d iagram

16 .. .'iYfl +? Black has better chances of saving the game by 1 6 . . .'ti' g 1 + 1 7 . Wd2 .ixe 2 1 8 . 'ifxe2 0 - 0 - 0 1 9 .'ti'g4+ 'ifxg4 2 0 Jhg4 dxe S + 2 l .We2 exf4 2 2 .l:rxg 7 .l:r.he8+ 2 3 .'it>f3 l:rd 1 24 .�b2 l:rd2 ;t . 17.'it>d2 'iYxf4+ 18.'it>e1 jLxe2 19.�xf4 kxd3 20.cxd3 dxeS 21.�xe5 0-0-0? Why not 2 1 . . . f6 2 2 .ilxc7 l:rc8 2 3 .�g3 l:rxc3 ? White is better, but the three connected passed pawns mean that Black is not quite dead yet . 22.'it>d2? It is interesting to wonder what attracted John Nunn to this game? Tempting is 2 2 .�xg 7 .l:r.hg 8 2 3 . l:rxh 7 l:rxd3 24 .We2+- . 22 • • • f6 23.�d4 l:rd7?! More natural is 2 3 . . . b6 24 .l:rah 1 h6 . One can still not be absolutely confident that White will win . 24.l:rah1 h6

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kni g h ts ' O p en i n g

25.l:r4h3 'it>d8? 25 . . . b6 2 6 .l:rg3 cS 2 7 .�f2 l:re8 2 8 . l:rhg 1 l:rde 7 = or 28 . . . l:ree 7 = . 26.l:rg1 a6? 27.l:rhg3? 2 7 . l:rxg 7 .l:txg 7 2 8 . .ixf6 + +- . 27 ... c5? 2 7 . . . l:lh7 , and White still has some work to do. 28 . .i1Lxc5, and White soon won ;

B 1 2) 1 o ... fs 11 . .i1LdJ �h4+ 12.g3 'ti'h3 IJ.jLxe4 1 3 .�a3 ± . 13 ... fxe4 14.�a3 'if e6 15. 'if cS 'it>d8 16.f5 b6 17.'ii'd4 1 7 . fxe6 bxcS 1 8 . .ixc 5 ± . 17 .. .'i:Yxfs 18.l:rfl with advantage to White, Leveille-Nikcevic , Paris 1 99 6 .

B 2 ) 9 .. .'ti'e7 10.'ti'e2 1 O .'iff3 d 6 ( 1 0 . . . d5 1 l .�d3;t) 1 I ..ia3 0 - 0 1 2..� e 2 ;t deserves consideration. 10 ... tt:Jds 1I.'ife4 'ii'cs 12.c4 tt::lb4 13.�d3 'ti'c6 14.'ii'e2 tt:lxd3+ 15.cxd3 b6 16.ilb2 i!.a6 17.0-0 0-0-0 18.'i'if3 1 8 .l:rfc 1 ;t 18 ... l:rhe8 19 . .llac 1 dS 20.�d4 �a4 2I.ilf2 'it>b8 22.c5 'ii'a3 23JHdl d4 24.�h4 .llc8 25.'it'd5 �xd3? 26.'ii'f3 1 -0 Votava-Buturin, Decin 1 99 5 .

8 . ... d 7-d6

9. �f1-c4

• Black has fewer problems after 9.'ti'd4 tt:lf6 1 O.eS tt::lg4?! It seems that the following line suffices for equality : 1 0 . . . cS ! ? 1 l .�b5 + ( 1 1 . 'tWxd6 'ii'xd6 1 2 .exd6 'it>d7 1 3 .�c4 'it>xd6 1 4 .�xf7 �fs 1 S .'it>f2 �xc2=) 1 1 . . .�d7

25


1 2 .'iYd3 dxeS 1 3 .fxeS 0 -0 1 4 . 0 -0 ( 1 4 . exf6 .l:!.e8+ 1 S .<Jif2 'ifxf6++) 14 . . . �xbS 1 S .'ifxbS ti:ldS 1 6 .'iVxb7 tt:lxc3 1 7 .�e3 'ifb6= .

Analysis d iagram

Now: A) 11.�b5+ c6 12.�e2 dxeS

13.fxe5 By comparison with the very similar variation given in the note to White 's 1 1 th move , here the black king has a flight on c7 . The game is equal . One can only marvel at the almost imperceptible nuances , on which the outcome of a game can depend ! 1 3 .'iVxd8+ <Jixd8 1 4 .h3 tt:lf6 1 S .fxeS tt:le4 1 6 . 0 - 0 ..te6 . 13 ... 0-0 14.0-0 .l:!.eS 15.�xg4 'i!fxd4+ 16.cxd4 �xg4=, Bobras-Stempin , Krynica tt 1 9 9 7 ; B) Only the sophisticated 1 1...te2

dxeS Romanishin 's trick is not so effective here : 1 1 . . . 'ifh4+ 1 2 . g3 'iYh3 1 3 .�fl 'iYh6 1 4 .�g2 �e6 1 5 . 0 - 0 dxeS 1 6 . fxe5 'ti'xeS 1 7 . .ia3 'iYxd4+ 1 8 . cxd4 with a strong initiative for the sacrificed pawn 12.'�xd8+ <Jixd8 13.h3 tt:lf6 1 3 . . . tt:lh6 1 4 . fxe5 tt:lfs 1 5 .�f4;\; 14.fxe5 tt:le4 15.0-0 with the idea after I S . . . tt:lxc3 ? ! to reply 1 6 . ..ths g 6 1 7 .�g5+ <Jie8 I 8 . ..tf3 ± , retains any hopes o f the initiative for White . • 9.i.d3 'ifh4+ 10.g3

26

Analysis d iagram

10 .. .'iYe7 1 0 . . .'i:Yh3 1 I .'ti'f3 ( 1 1 .�fl transposes to the main variation) 1 1 . . . �g4 1 2 .'iff2 tt:le 7 = . 11.'iYe2 1 1 . 0 - 0 ;\; . 11 ... tt:lf6 12.�a3 �g4 13.'iYe3 0-0 14.<Jid2? A difficult move to explain, after which it is White who is suffering for the rest of the game (admittedly, as a reward for this suffering, he eventually won the game) . More sensible seems 1 4 . 0 - 0 = . 14 ... .l:!.fe8 1S . .l:!.ae1 'iYd7 16.e5 dxeS 17.fxe5 ti:lds 18.'iYd4 .l:!.ad8 1 8 . . .'tli'c6 ! + . 19 . .l:!.hfl .te6 20.'ifh4 g6 21.l:te4 �c6 22.c4 tt:lb6 23.�e7 .!he7 24.'i"Yxe7 l:td7 25.'iYh4 tLlxc4+ with wonderful compensation for the exchange for Black, Paakkonen-M. Ivanov, Finland tt 2009/ 1 0 .

9 . ... 1 0. g2-g3

'iYd8-h4+ 'iYh4-h3

1 O . . .'iYe7 1 1 . 0 -0 ..te6 1 2 .�d3 ;\; .

1 1 . �c4-f1

Dubious is 1 l .�d5 tt::lh6 and now: A) 1 2 .�f l 'i¥e6 1 3 . .l:!.b 1 'i¥xd5 1 4.exd5

0-0 ( 1 4 . . . �f5 ! ? 1 5 . .l:!.xb7 �e4=) ; B) 1 2..�.b5+ �d7 1 3 .�f l ( 1 3 .'ifxb7

0-0 1 4 .�xd7 'i¥xd7 1 5 . 0 -0 'i¥h3 =) 1 3 . . . 'i¥e6 1 4 .'i¥xb7 0-0 1 5 .�d3 'i¥h3 1 6 .�d2 .l:!.fc8 - Black has sufficient counterplay for the pawn.

1 1 . ... 1 2. �f1 -g2 1 3. 0-0 1 4. 'i¥d 1 -d4

'i¥h3-e6 tt::lg8-f6 0-0

It may be that 1 4 . .l:!.e 1 ;£ is slightly more accurate, to answer 1 4 . . . .l:i.e8 with 1 5 .e5 dxe5 1 6 . .l:!.xe5 getting rid of the weakness on e4 and opening the diagonal for the bishop on g2 . Then a possible continuation is 1 6 . . . 'i¥a6 ( 1 6 . . . 'Wc4 1 7 .'ifd4;£) 1 7 .'ifd3 , and White retains a small advantage.

1 4 . ... 1 5. .l:!.f1 -e1 1 6. c3-c4 1 7. 'ifd4-c3

1 8. f4-f5

.l:!.f8-e8 �c8-d7 c7-c5 d6-d51?

The principled line is 18.cxd5 tt::lxdS

C hap t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p e n i n g

(20 . . . .l:!.xc2 2 l .'ifxb7±) 2 1 ..l:!.b l tt::lxc2 22 . .l:!.e2 'ifc4 2 3 .'iff2;£;

B) or settle for 1 9 .'ifa3 tt::lf6 ( 1 9 . . . tt::lb4 20 .�b2 ;!;) 2 0 .�b2 �c6 2 l .�xf6 'ifxf6 22 .e5 'it'e6 2 3 .�xc6 'ifxc6 24 . .l:!.ad 1 with a probable draw.

1 8 . ... 'ife6-e7 1 9. e4-e5?!

Now natural is 1 9 .cxdS tt::lxdS 1 9 . . . �xf5 ? 20 .d6 'ife6 2 l .d7 l:!.e7 22 . .l:!.d l +- . 20.'ifb3 tt::lb6 Black can also stick to his guns and sacrifice the c-pawn for the open file : 20 . . . c4 2 I .'ifxc4 tt::lb6 22 .'i¥c7 .l:!.ec8 23 .'ifxb7 'ti'b4, obtaining typical counterplay. 21.�f4 ..tc6 It scarcely makes sense to drive the white queen closer to one's own king; after 2 1 . . . �a4 2 2 .'iff3 �c6 ( 2 2 . . .�xc2 23 . .l:!.ac l �a4 24.e5 and White has the initiative for the pawn) 2 3 .'ti'g4 White is a little better. 22 . .l:!.adl .l:!.ad8 23.e5 c4 24.'ifc3 'ifcS+ More accurate is 24 . . . tt::ld5 2 5 .'ifxc4 tt::lxf4 2 6 . .l:!.xd8 'ti'xd8 2 7 .'ifxf4 'i!Va5 2 8 J1e2 'ifxa2 29 .�xc6 bxc6 3 0 .h4 and White 's position is a little better, but the most logical result is a draw. 25.�e3 'ifbs 26.�xc6 'ifxc6 27 • .l:!.xd8 .l:!.xd8 28.'ifa3 White 's position is more promising.

1 9 . ... 20. 'ti'c3-d3 21 . �c1 -f4

tt::lf6-e4 'ti'e7xe5 'ife5-f6

and White can choose between : £!:, A) the difficult to calculate and assess .S,

1 9 .'i¥xc5 ! ? .l:!.ac8 2 0 .'ti'xa 7 tt::lb4 l-:=="----'-'

27


22. g3-g4?1

Very artificial !

22 . ... tt:le4-c3

Black can obtain the advantage by 2 2 . . . 'iYh4 ! 2 3 .'iYf3 ( 23 .cxd5 �f2+ 24.Wh 1 �xe 1 +-+) 23 . . . �c6 24.cxd5 �xdS+.

23.�f4-d2 tt:lc3-e4 24.�d2-f4 tt:le4-c3 25.�f4-d2 tt:lc3-e4 26.�d2-f4

Draw.

Game No 7 [C46J Willemze, Thomas Romanishin,Oleg Hoogeveen 2009 (5 )

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg 1 -f3 3. tt:lb1 -c3 4. tt:lf3xe5

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 �f8-c5 tt:lc6xe5

Definitely weaker is 4 ... ..txf2+ S.'it>xfl tt:lxeS 6.d4 tLlg6 .

Analysis d iagram

White can choose practically any sensible set-up : thanks to the two bishops and strong pawn centre, he stands significantly better. For example :

A) 7.�c4 tt:lf6 8.�£'3 Prophylaxis , directed against 8 . .l:f.fl 0-0 9 .Wg 1 tt:lxe4 ,

28

however, in this case, 1 0 . tt:lxe4 dS 1 1 .tt:lf6+ gxf6 1 2..�.d3 leads to a clear advantage to White. 8 . . • d6 9 . .l:f.f l �e6 1 o.j(,bJ Too academic. More ambitious , for example , is 1 0 . tt:ldS . 1 0 ... 0 -0 11.'it>g1 cS 12.j(,xe6 fxe6 13.dxcS lLldS 14.�d3 J:!.xf l + 1S .'tlt'xf l lt:lxc3 16.bxc3, Navara-Korenek, Czech Republic tt 1 99 7 / 9 8 , and the simple 1 6 . . . dxcS equalises ; B) 7.ii..e2 �h4+ 8 .g3 'iWf6+ 9 .Wg2

d6 1 O .J:!.fl �d8 1 1 .�c4 lt:lf6 1 2.. �g5 The game has only just begun, but Black is already in a bad way, Jovanovic-Peric , Dvorovi 2005 ;

C) 7.ii..e3 d6 8 .�e2 �h4+ 9 .g3 �d8 1 O .Wg2 tt:l8e7 1 1 .h4 White has a serious advantage, Kutuzovic-Bradaric , Zadar 1 99 7 .

5 . d2-d4 6. d4xe5 7. �d 1 -d3

j(,c5-d6 �d6xe5

This idea is bound up with queenside castling. It seems as though the further course of the game should involve mutual pawn storms on the flanks, but things turn out differently.

7 . ... tt:lg8-f6 8. �c1 -d2

Premature is 8 .f4? ! �xc3+ 9 .'iYxc3 0-0 (9 . . . tt:lxe4? 1 0 .�xg7 �f6 1 1 .�xf6

tbxf6 1 2..� d 3 ;!;; ) 1 0 . e 5 ( 1 0 .�d3 ? tbxe4) 1 0 . . . tbe4 1 1 . 'iY f3 dS with good counterplay for Black. Common sense suggests that , before launching the pawn storm, one should try to weaken the black king position, by means of the provocation 8 .�g5 h6 9 .�d2 , but in fact, this is not so. The mutual attacks do not come about, whilst the bolthole for the black king proves useful.

8 . ... 0-0 9. 0-0-0

Premature is 9 . f4? ! �xc3 1 0 .�xc3 dS 1 1 . e5 tbe4 1 2..�e2 �g4= .

9. ... .!::rf8-e8

A strong move, directed against 1 O . f4. Less convincing is 9 . . . tbg4 1 0 .'iYf3 ( 1 0 .'iYe2 ! ? d6 1 1 .h3 t2Jf6 1 2 .f4 �d4 1 3 .�e 1 ;!;; ) 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 .h3 tbf6 ( 1 I . . .tbh2? 1 2 .l:hh2 �xh2 1 3 . g 3 ) 1 2 . g4 l:!.e8 1 3 .�d3 �e6 1 4 .'ifg2 tbd7 1 5 . f4 �xc3 1 6 .�xc3 ;!;; GeenenTrevelyan , Haifa Ech-tt 1 9 8 9 .

1 0. f2-f3

In practice, White has tried 1 oJ:te 1 c6 Possible is 1 0 . . . tbg4 1 1 . f4 ! ? tbf2 1 2 .'ti'e3 �xc3 1 3 .'ifxf2 �xd2 + 1 4 .'iYxd2 d6 1 5 .�d3 , and White is slightly better.


• 1 1.f4 �xc3 12.�xc3 dS 13.exdS tt:lxdS 14.l:!.xe8+ 'iYxe8 1S.�d2 t2Jf6= 16.�e3 �fS 17.'iYxe8+ t!.xe8 .

• , , .

• • • • •

• •

/'}:, /'}:, /'}:, � �

Analysis d iagram

Once again , we have an endgame typical for this variation, and in far from the best version for White. Here, White 's two bishops do not promise more than equality. 1 8 .l:!.g 1 hS 1 9 .h3 a6 20 .�c3 tt:Jds 2 1...�.d2 h4 2 2 .g3 hxg3 2 3 .l:!.xg3 l:!.e6 . Black has done better at strengthening his position , but the situation still does not go beyond the bounds of equality, Adamson-Altounian , San Diego ch-USA 2004. • Worthy of consideration is 11.g3 dS 12.exdS �xc3 13.�xc3 and now:

Analysis d iagram

A) 13 . .. tt:lxdS 14.l:!.xe8+ 'iYxe8 1S.�d2 �e6 16.'iYd4 Thanks to his two bishops , White retains slightly the better chances, and Black must exercise

2 9


caution. 16 .. .'iVd7 Maybe more accurate was I 6 . . . b6 , freeing the rook from the defence of the pawn, for example 1 7 .�d3 ( I 7 .�g2 l:d8=) I 7 . . . l:d8 . 17.c4 lLlb6 18.'�'xd7 lLlxd7 19.�c3 l:!.d8 20.�e2 l2Jc5 21.l:dl .l:hdl + 22.'11i>xdl The typical endgame of this variation has arisen. White retains a small advantage, and Black's defence is quite unpleasant . 22 ... f6 23.�d4 b6 24.b3 �£7 25.�f3 �d7 26.�d2 �e7 27.�e3 l2Je6 28.b4 g5 29.�e4 h6 30.�c3 30 .c5 ! ? 3 0 . . . bxc5 ( 30 . . . b5 3 l .a3 lLlg7 3 2 .�c3 lLlf5 3 3 .iii.d2 �e6 34.h3 lLle7 3 5 .�d4 ili.e8 3 6 .g4 f5 3 7 .�g2 �f7 3 8 .f4t) 3 l .bxc5 l2Jc7 3 2 .�d3 lLld5 3 3 .�d2 �e6 34.h4t. 30 ... c5 31.b5 tt:lg7 32.f3 ttJB 33.� t2Jd6 34.�d3 �c8 35.a4 �b7 36.f4 g4 37 . ..ie3 B 38.a5 �d7 39.a6 �f3 40.�cl �e6 41...ib2 h5 42.�d2 �e4 draw, KorneevRomanishin , Zaragoza I 99 6 ;

B ) 13 ... l:xel+ I 4 .�xe i lLlxd5 1 5 .c4 'ife7 I 6 .'ife2 'ti'xe2 I 7 .iii.xe2 lLlf6 I 8 .i.c3 �f5 I 9 . .i.xf6 gxf6 20 .l:d 1 and White has a small advantage in the endgame, Polovodin-Malaniuk , Tallinn I 9 8 3 . • l l.h3!? is another interesting possibility.

Analysis d iagram

A) In the event of the standard approach for this variation : l l ... �xc3!?

3 0

12.�xc3 d5 13.exd5 t2Jxd5 I 3 . . . l:xe I + I 4 .�xe i lLlxdS I 5 .'i¥d4 !t ( 1 5 .c4 'ife7 1 6 . .id2 lLlf6) . 14.l:!.xe8+ 'irxe8 15.�d2 White's position is preferable ;

B) ll...d5 12.exd5 ..txc3 13 . ..ixc3 is just a transposition of moves , into variation A;

C) ll ... h5?! looks dubious : 12.f4?! Stronger is 1 2 . g4 �xc3 ( 1 2 . . . hxg4? I 3 .hxg4 ; 1 2 . . . d5 I 3 . exdS �xc3 I 4 .l:xe8 + 'i¥xe8 I 5 .�xc3 lLlxd5 I 6 .gxh5 with advantage to White) 1 3 . .ixc3 d5 1 4 .exd5 .!::[xe l + I 5 . .txe 1 'i¥xd5 (after I 5 . . . t2Jxd5 , 1 6 .iii.d2 promises White a clear advantage. Less good are I 6 .gxh5 'iVg5 + I 7 . .td2 'iYxhS 1 8 . .!::[g i .if5 t or I 6 .c4! ? 'ti'e7 1 7 . .id2) 1 6 .'ti'xd5 lLlxd5 1 7 .f3 t ( 1 7 . gxh5 ! ? - V Mikhalevski) . 12 ... �xc3 13 • ..ixc3 d5 14.exd5 Or 1 4 .'it'd4 and now:

Analysis d iagram

i) I 4 . . . dxe4 1 5 . 'ifxd8 ( 1 5 Jhe4 .te6 ! ( I 5 . . . 'ifxd4 I 6 Jhe8 + lLlxe8 I 7 .�xd4;i;) 1 6 .'ti'xd8 l:axd8 1 7 . .txf6 gxf6=) I 5 . . J:!.xd8 I 6 . .txf6 gxf6 I 7 Jhe4 �e6= ; ii) I4 . . . l:xe4 I 5 .l:xe4 c5 I 6 .'iYe5 !

dxe4 I 7 .�c4 ! with the initiative for White ;

iii) I 4 . . . c5 ! ? I 5 .�xcS l2Jxe4 I 6 .�bS ! ( I 6 .�e3 .tfs ( I 6 . . . �d7) 1 7 .-tbs l:e6) I 6 . . . l2Jxc5 I 7 .l:xe8+ 'ifxe8 I 8 .�xe8t;

iv) 1 4 . . . 'iYb6 ! ? 1 5 . e5 ( 1 5 .'iYxb 6 ? axb6 1 6 .exd5 .l:i.xe 1 + 1 7 .kxe 1 tLlxdS) 1 5 . . . tt:le4= . 14 .. .tt:Jxd5 In V. Mikhalevski 's opmwn, better is 1 4 . . Jhe 1 + 1 5 .�xe 1 'it'xdS 1 6 .'iYxdS tLlxdS 1 7 .�d2 �fS ! = , however after 1 6 .c4 it is not so simple for Black to equalise :

Analysis d iagram

i) 1 6 . . . 'iYcs 1 7 .'iYd8+ 'iff8 1 8 .'iY:xf8+ �:xf8 1 9 .kb4+ �g8 20 .�d3 - here White retains the advantage;

i i) 1 6 . . . 'ifxd3 1 7 .�xd3 �d7 1 8 .�c3 b6 1 9 . .l:i.d 1 - this version of the endgame is good for White ;

iii) 1 6 . . .'ti'd7 1 7 .�c3 'iYe7 1 8 .g3 bS ( 1 8 . . . tt:le4 1 9 . 'iY e3 - White is better) 1 9 . cxb5 cxbS 20 .�g2 �b7 2 1 ..l:i.e 1 'ifc7 22 . .ixb7 'i:fxb7 2 3 .�xf6 gxf6 24 .�b 1 Black has to work for a draw. 1S . .l:i.xe8+ 'if xeS 16.�d2 aS The most accurate, and typical for positions of this type, is 1 6 . . . ttlf6 ! ? and if White does not want a draw with 1 7 .�c3 tLldS , then he must play 1 7 . g4 hxg4 ( 1 7 . . . tt:le4 1 8 . .l:i.g 1 tt:lxd2 1 9 .'it'xd2 hxg4 20 .hxg4±) 1 8 .hxg4 �xg4 1 9 .'it'g3 'iYe4 20 .'iYh2 tLlhS (20 . . . 'ti'h7 2 1 .'ti'g 1 ±) 2 1 .�d3 'i:ff3 22 .'ir'h4 White has compensation for the pawn, and in purely practical terms , his position is easier to play.

C hap t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' Open i n g

Analysis d iagram

17.'ii'e2 !? It would interesting to enter ' the race ' : 1 7 .a3 bS ! ? 1 8 .g4 b4 1 9 .gxh5 bxa3 20 .'i:Vxa3 'iYe4 2 1 ..l:i.g 1 tt:lb4 22 ..�d3 tt:lxd3 + 2 3 . cxd3 'it'd4 24 J�g5 f6 2 S . .l:i.g3 . In the resulting position, White 's chances are superior, but, in general , such play is strictly for amateurs. 17 ... .ie6? Stronger is 1 7 . . . �f5 ! (or 1 7 . . . 'ifxe2 1 8 .he2 h4;!;) 1 8 .g4 'ti'e4! ( 1 8 . . . �e4 1 9 .Ag2 hg2 20 .'i:fxg2;!;) 1 9 .'iYxe4 �xe4 20 . .l:i.h2 hxg4 2 1 .hxg4 ttlb4! 2 2 .kc4 bS 2 3 .kb3 cS ! = (V. Mikhalevski) 24.a3 a4 (24 . . . tt:lc6 2S . .l:i.h5 c4 26 .ka2 ttld4 2 7 .�c3 ttle2+ 28 .�d2 tt:lxc3 2 9 . �xc3 ;!;) 2 5 .�xf7 + �xf7 26 .axb4 cxb4 2 7 .hb4 �f3 28 . .l:i.hS;!;. 18.g4 1 8 .'iYxh5 ! ?;!; . 18 . . . tt:lb6?! More accurate is 1 8 . . . ttlf6 1 9 . gxhS !;!; . t 9.f5 ? 1 9 .gxhS ! . 19 .. . .11Lds 20-'iWxeS+ .!:!.xeS

Analysis d iagram

3 1


Thus, in this game too, with frightening inevitability, we have reached the typical endgame, with three pawns each on each flank, and White having two bishops against his opponent's bishop and knight. 21.l:f.h2 Chances of an advantage could be retained by 2 1. .l:Ig 1 hxg4 (2 1 . . .tLlc4 22 .�xc4 �xc4 2 3 .gxh5 �h7 24 .�xa5 ±) 22 .l:hg4! when the pressure on the g-file could become very dangerous. 21 ... tLlc4 22.�xc4 ( 22 . gxh5 ! ?) draw, LarsenTerre, Bad Homburg 1 99 8 . Mikhalevski has analysed : 2 2 . . . .txc4 2 3 . gxhS ! ? ( 23 .�xa5 hxg4 24.hxg4 l:f.e2 ! 2 S . l:f.xe2 �xe2 26 . g5 f6 ! =) 23 .. J:re2 ! 24 . .l:.xe2 (24 .l:th 1 .l:.fl) 24 . . . .txe2 2 5 .�xa5 ( 2 5 . f6 a4 ! = ; 2 5 .h6 gxh6 2 6 .�xh6 f6 ! =) 2 5 . . . f6 ! = .

Back to the game.

1 0 . ... c7-c6

The game Itkis-E. Ragozin, Alushta 2 0 0 0 , ended surprisingly quickly : 1 0 . . . aS 1 l . g4 .l:.a6 1 2 . 'if e3 .l:!.b6 1 3 .tt:Ja4? ! ( 1 3 .tt:Jbs a4 1 4.�a5 l:r.a6 1 5 .�c3;!;) 1 3 . . . .l:Id6 1 4 .c3 ( 1 4 .h4;l;) 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 .f4? �xf4 1 6 .'ifxf4 .l:.xe4 0- 1 .

1 1 . g2-g4

Rather tame is 1 1 . g3 bS 1 2 . .i.g2 b4 1 3 .tt:Je2 'it'as ( 1 3 . . . 'iYb6 ! ?=F) 1 4 .'it'b3

3 2

.l:.b8 1 5 .f4 .tc7 1 6 .e5 .ta6 1 7 .tt:Jd4 cS 1 8 .a3 tLlg4 1 9 . 'iff3 (the complications after 1 9 . .itd5 cxd4 20 .�xf7 + �h8 2 l .�xe8 .l:.xe8 2 2 .'iff7 l:f.c8 2 3 .�xb4 do not promise White more than equality) 1 9 . . . cxd4 20 . .txb4 .l:.xb4 2 l .axb4 'ifxb4 2 2 .'iYdS d3 2 3 .'it'xd7 .l:.b8 24 .'ifxc7 d2+ 0- 1 , Golubev-Torre, Leuven 2003 .

1 1 . ... 'iWd8-b6!

An improvement on 1 1 . . . d5 1 2 .exd5 .txc3 ( 1 2 . . . tLlxdS 1 3 . tLlxdS cxdS:;!;) 1 3 .�xc3 tLlxdS 1 4 .'it'd4 'it'g S + 1 S . .i.d2 'iff6 1 6 .'iVxf6 tt:Jxf6 Once again this endgame ! 1 7 .h4 ( 1 7 . .itd3 �e6 1 8 .c4 .l:.ad8 1 9 .�c2;!;) 1 7 . . . h5 ? ! ( 1 7 . . . �e6 1 8 .c4 .l:.ad8 1 9 . .tc3 .l:.xd l + 20 .�xd 1 ;!;) 1 8 .g5 tt:Jd7 1 9 .g6 ! ? fxg6 ( 1 9 . . . tt:Je5 ! ? 20 . gxf7 + �xf7 2 l...�.c3 ! tt:Jxf3 ? 2 2 .�g2+-) 20 .�c4+ �h7 2 l ..l:.he 1 tLlf6 2 2 . .tf7 ! .l:.xe 1 23 . .1:.xe 1 �h3 24 . .l:.e7± Bologan-Romanishin, Nikolaev zt 1 99 5 .

1 2. .td2-e3

After 1 2 . .1:.e 1 dS 1 3 . exd5 tLlxdS 1 4 .�b 1 �d7 1 5 .tt:Ja4 'it'c7 1 6 .tt:Jcs .l:.ad8=F Black's position is slightly the more pleasant: 1 7 .tt:Jxd7 .l:.xd7 1 8 .'it'b3 .l:.de7 ( 1 8 . . . .1:.ed8=F) 1 9 .�c4 tLlb6 2 0 .f4 tt:Jxc4 2 l .'ifxc4 �d6 2 2 .l:he7 'iVxe7= 2 3 .�c3 ? ( 2 3 . .1:.d 1 =) 2 3 . . . 'ife4 (23 . . . 'ife3 =F) 24.'ifxe4 .l:.xe4 2S . .l::rd 1 .tf8 2 6 . .l:.d8 ? ( 26 .�d2 fS =i=) 2 6 . . Jhf4 2 7 .a3 fs 2 8 .g5 b6 29 .�a2 .l:.e4 3 0 . .I:.d7 .l:.e7 3 1 .l:f.d3 f4 3 2 .l:f.f3 .l:.e4 33 . .td2 �d6 34 .�b 1 cS 3 5 .c3 �f7 3 6 .�c2 c4 3 7 .a4 �g6 3 8 .h4 �fs 3 9 . .1:.f2 �g4, 0 - 1 Palkovi-Romanishin, Balatonbereny 1 996 .

1 2 . .. . 'ifb6-a5 1 3. �e3-d4

Nothing comes from 1 3 . g 5 tt:lhS 1 4 .Wb l dS l S .exdS �xc3 1 6 .bxc3 cxdS and Black is not at all worse.

1 3 . . .. d7-d6

Romanishin strives for complicated play. He could equalise by 1 3 . . . dS 1 4 .�xe5 dxe4 ( 1 4 . . Jhe5 l S . exdS tt:lxdS 1 6 .'i¥d4 'i¥c7 1 7 . .tc4 .te6 1 8 . .txdS �xdS 1 9 . .l:!.hfl ;!; ) 1 5 . tt:lxe4 l S . . . 'ifxe S = or l S .'iYd4 'ifxeS 1 6 .'it'xe5 l:.xeS 1 7 . .l:!.d8 + .l:!.e8 1 8 . .l:!.xe8+ tt:lxe8 1 9 .tt:lxe4= .

1 4. wc1 -b1 1 5. h2-h4 1 6. 'iYd3-d2

�c8-e6= .l:!.a8-d8 c6-c5

Worthy of consideration was 1 6 . . . b5 1 7 .tt:ldS 'tWxd2 1 8 .tt:lxf6 + �xf6 1 9 .�xd2 �xd4 20 . .l:!.xd4 dS + .

1 7. �d4xe5 1 8. 'iYd2-e1 1 9. 'iYe1 xd 1

d6xe5 .l:!.d8xd 1 + .l:!.e8-d8=F

C h a p t e r 1 - The T h ree Kn i g h t s ' O p e n i n g

20. 'ti'd 1 -c1

White is worse. It made sense not to allow . . . b7 -b5 : 2 0 .'i¥e2 .l:!.d4 2 l .a3 'i¥d8 2 2. 'tW e 1 , and White should hold.

20 . ... 21 . �f1 -h3 22. g4-g5 23 . .th3xe6

23 . . . cxb2 24.'iYe3 tt:lhS + .

b7-b5 b5-b4+ b4xc3 tt:lf6xe4

24.�e6xf7+ 'it>g8xf7 25.f3xe4 'ti'a5-b4 26.b2-b3 'ti'b4xe4 27 . .l:!.h 1 -e1 'ti'e4-g4 28.a2-a4 .l:!.d8-d2 29 . .l:!.e1 -f1 + wf7-e6 30 . .l:!.f1 -g1 'ti'g4-e4 31 .h4-h5 'ife4-f4 32.g5-g6 h7-h6 33 . .l:!.g1 -h 1 �f4-f3 34 . .l:!.h1 -g1 a7-a5 35 . .l:!.g1 -h 1 'ti'f3-f5 36 . .l:!.h1 -g1 c5-c4 37.b3xc4 "iYf5-f8 38.c4-c5 "iYf8xc5 39 . .l:!.g 1 -g4 "iYc5-d5 40 . .l:!.g4-g1 'ti'd5-d4 0-1

Game No 8 [C46] Sermek,Drazen Romanishin,Oleg Bled 199 8 (6)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg1 -f3 3. tt:lb1 -c3 4. tt:lf3xe5 5. d2-d4 6. d4xe5 7. �f1 -d3

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 �f8-c5 tt:lc6xe5 �c5-d6 .td6xe5

Devoid of ambition is 7 .�d2 tt:lf6 8 .�d3 d6=. Bad is 8 . . . d5 9 .exd5 tt:lxdS 1 0 .0-0 tt:lxc3 and now instead of 1 1 . 'tW e 1 (Moldovan-Mitkov, Mamaia Wch-jr 1 99 1 ) , I I .'it'hS ! gives White a serious advantage: l l . . .�xh2+ 1 2 .Wxh2 tt:ldS I 3 JHe l + Wf8 1 4.c4 tt:lf6 I S .'ti'f3± .

3 3

The F o u r Knigh t s Game

7 . ... tt:Jg8-f6

• The drawbacks of the interesting move 7 ... 'ifh4 were disclosed in the game Glek-Romanishin, Biel i 9 9 6 :

A) s .'ifd2 ttJf6 9 . 'ii'g 5 'ifxg 5 I O .�xg5 0-0 I l .�d2 l::le8 1 2 .0-0-0 �xc3 I 3 .�xc3 lLlxe4 I 4 . l:.he i = , Smagin-Romanishin, Cappelle la Grande I 99 5 ;

B ) 8.�e3 tLlf6 9 .g3 �xc3 + ( 9 . . . 'ifg4 I O . 'ifxg4 �xc3 + I l . bxc3 lt:Jxg4 1 2 .�d4 0-0 1 3 .f3 ttJf6 I 4.e5 ttJd5 I 5 .�f2 ± , Istratescu-Hauchard, Bucharest I 99 3 ) I O .bxc3 'ifh3 I I .'ife2 0-0 1 2 .e5 ttJd5 1 3 .�d4 d6 I 4.'ti'e4 �e6 I 5 .exd6 cxd6 I 6 .�d2 ? ! l::lac8 draw, lstratescu-Romanishin, Cappelle la Grande I 9 9 5 ; Black has some advantage after I 6 . . . 'ifh6+ I 7 .f4 :ac8 ;

C) 8.g3 'ifh3 and now:

Analysis d iagram

C I ) Principled i s : 9 .ltJd5 ! 'ti'g2 9 . . . tLl e 7 ? ! I O . 'ife2 'ti'g2 I I . .I:.fl ;;!; ;

34

9 . . . c6 I O .�f4 �xf4 I I .tLlxf4 'ifh6 1 2 .e5±. 1 O • .l:.fl 'ilfxh2 I O . . . c6 I I .tLle3 'ifxh2 1 2 . tLlg4 'ifh5 I 3 .�e 2 +- . 1 1 .�f4 �xf4 1 2.gxf4± ;

C2) 9.�fl ? ! 'ti'e6 1 0.�g2 �xc3+ 1 1 .bxc3 tt:lf6 1 2.0-0 0-0 1 3.'ti'd4 .r:tes 1 4.c4 I 4.l:[e i d6 ( I 4 . . . d5 ? I 5 .e5 lt:Je4 I 6 .c4 c6 I 7 .cxd5 cxd5 I 8 .c4+-) I 5 .f4 c5 ( I 5 . . . �d7 ? I 6 .c4 c5 I 7 .'ifc3 �c6 I 8 .�b2±) I 6 .'ifd3 �d7 I 7 .e5 . 14 ... d6 1 5.�b2 I 5 . .1:.b i b6 ! . 1 5 ... 'ti'e5 ! 1 6.'ifxe5 Better was I 6 . .:!.fe i b6 ( I 6 . . . 'ifxd4 I 7 .hd4 tt:ld7 I 8 .f4;;!;) I 7 .'ifxe5 dxe5 I 8 .f4 ttJd7 I 9 .:ad i f6 20.:d5 exf4 2 l .gxf4 lLlc5 22 .e5 l:[b8;;!;. 1 6 ... dxe5 , the game is level, Luther-Romanishin, Altensteig I 992. D) 8.tt:ld5 !?

Analysis diagram

D I ) 8 ... tt:le7 leads to a clearly inferior position: 9.g3 'ifh3 1 o.tt:lxe7 wxe7;;!; 1 1 .f4 'ti'g2 1 2 • .l:r.fl �d4 1 3.'ifh5 !

Analysis d iagram

ron

Typewritten Text

(1)

D 1 1 ) And now 13 ... d5 14.�d2! l::td8 15.f5! �xb2 16.l::tdl !+- dxe4 17 . .tc4 1 -0 was Glek-Romanishin, Biel 1 99 6 . According to Dautov's analysis , other continuations on move 1 3 also promise nothing better:

D 1 2) 13 ... g6 14.'iVd5 �g7 15.f5!± 'ifxh2 16.f6+ 1 6 . .tgs + 'lt>e8 ( 1 6 . . . f6 1 7 .'ti'e5 + ! ) 1 7 . fxg6 'ifxg3 + 1 8 .\t>d 1 'iYg4+ 1 9 .'>t>c 1 'iYe6 20 . gxf7 + 'lt>f8 2 1 .'ii'c5 + d6 22 .'iVxc7+- . 16 ... �xf6 17 .l::txf6 'lt>xf6 18.'ii'd4++- ;

D 1 3 ) 13 ... d6 14.c3 g6 1 4 . . . �c5 ? 1 S .'iYgS + ! . 15.'ii'h6! 1 5 .'i¥d5 �g7 1 6 .f5 c6 . 15 ... �f6 1 5 . . . �g 1 1 6 .f5 ! �xh2 1 7 .�g5 + 'lt>e8 1 8 . 0-0 -0+- . 16.e5 dxe5 17 .fxe5 �xeS 18 • .tg5 + 'lt>e8 19.0-0-0± .

Other continuations on move 8 also fail to promise equality to Black :

D2) 8 ... 4Jf6!? 9 . g 3 'ifh3 1 0 .�f4 �xf4 1 I .ti:Jxf4 'iYg4 1 2 .e5 'ti'xd 1 + 1 3 .l::txd 1 tt:Jg4 1 4.tt:Jd5 'lt>d8 1 5 .f4±; D3) 8 ... c6 9.g3 'iYd8 9 . . . 'ti'h3

1 0 .ti:Jf4 ! ? �xf4 1 l.. �xf4 'ii'g2 1 2 . ttfl ± . 1 O.f4 Also good i s 1 0 . tt:Je3 d6 ( 1 0 . . . d5 ? 1 l .exd5 cxdS 1 2..�.bS + with the better game - R. Dautov) 1 1 . f4 �f6 1 2 . 0 -0 tt:Je7 1 3 .'ti'h5 with the initiative. 1 O ... �d6 No better is 1 O . . . �b8 1 l .ti:Je3 d6 1 2 .�d2 ti:Jf6 1 3 .'iVf3 0-0 1 4 .0 -0-0 �c7 1 5 .'>t>b 1 when White 's chances are clearly better. Nor can Black hope for equality after 1 O . . . �d4 1 1 .�e2 �cS 1 L �.e3 d6 (there is nothing better) 1 3 .�xeS dxcS 1 4. ti:Je3 and White has the better chances. 11.ti:Je3 .tcs 12.'iYg4 g6 13.'iYf3 d6 14.�d2 tLlf6 15.0-0-0 0-0 16.f5 White 's position is preferable.

• Also possible is 7 ... d6 8.0-0 and now:

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h re e Kni g h ts ' O p en i ng

Analysis d iagram

A) 8 ... ti:Jf6 A 1 ) 9 . .id2 Nothing much comes

from this quiet move : 9 ... 0-0 10.f4 �d4+ 11.'lt>h1 .td7 12.'ti'f3 �c6 13."t!Yg3 'iYd7 14.h3 d5 A good alternative to the text is 1 4 . . . l::tae8 1 5 .l::tae 1 .l:!.e7 1 6 .l::te2 bS with a good position for Black. 15.e5 tt:Je4 16 . .txe4 dxe4 17.l::tad1 'iffs 18.ti:Je2 .txb2 19.l::tb1 �bs 1 9 . . . l::tfd8 20 .�e3 'ti'hs 2 1 .'ti'f2 .ta3 with mutual chances. 20.l::tfe1 .txe2 2 1.l::txe2 �d4 22.l::tbe 1 l::tad8 23.l::txe4 l::tfe8 with a roughly equal game, A. Kovalev-Kupreichik , Minsk ch-BLA 2003 ;

A2) 9.ti:Je2!? A logical manoeuvre, aiming to drive away the active enemy bishop : 9 ... d5 10.f4 �d6 11.e5 �c5+ 12.'lt>h1 tt:Jg4 13."�'e1 c6 14.b4 �b6 15.�d2;!; It would probably be useful to include the moves 1 5 .h3 hS ( 1 S . . . ti:Je3 1 6 .�xe3 .txe3 1 7 .'i¥g3 ± ; 1 S . . . ti:Jh6 1 6 .f5±) and only now com-plete development : 1 6 .�d2 g6 1 7 . a4 (it was also possible to play more solidly : 1 7 .c3 followed by ti:Jd4 - White also has some advantage in this case) 1 7 . . . a6 1 8 .a5 i.a7 1 9 .ttf3 - one knight on g4 is not going to achieve anything. White has the advantage. 15 ... g6 Worthy of consideration is 1 5 . . . 0 -0 1 6 .'i¥g3 f6 , in order after 1 7 .h3 to have 1 7 . . .fxe5 1 8 .hxg4 e4. 16.a4 a6 17.a5

3 5

T h e F o u r Kn i g h t s G a m e

.Yl.a7 1 8 .c3 ti:Jh6 1 9 .ti:Jg3 1 9 .ti:Jd4;!; Back to the game. ikxd4 20 . cxd4 �fS 2 1 .l::ra3 and Black can hardly maintain the blockade : White has plenty of resources to break through and his game is preferable. 19 • . .'1Wh4 20.ti:Je4 'iYxe1 21.tLld6+ We7 22.�xe1, and White retains a solid advantage , Emms-Pieper Emden , Germany tt 1 99 3 / 94;

B) 8 .. .'i\Yh4 9 .f4 .itd4+ 1 0 .Wh 1 �b6 1 1 ..1ibS+ c6 1 2 .�e2 ti:Jf6 1 3 . f5± is a recommendation of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.

• 7 ... ti:Je7 s:iWhs ti:Jg6 9.0-0 �d8-h4 1 O.'ti'xh4 ti:Jxh4 11.ti:Je2

Analysis d iagram

Despite the fact that the queens have disappeared from the board, White 's chances are distinctly preferable : 1 1 . . .ti:Jg6 1 2 .f4 .Yid6 1 3 . .ite3 b 6 1 4.ti:Jc3 �e7 1 S .a4 aS 1 6 .�d4 i.cS 1 7 . .Yl.xcS bxcS 1 8 .ti:Jb5 Wd8 1 9 .e5 �b7 20 .l::rae 1 l::re8 2 1 .g3 Wc8 22 .h4 l::ra6 2 3 .ti:Ja3 l::ra7 24.ti:Jbs l::ra6 25 .ti:Ja3 l::ra7 26 . .Jibs ti:Jf8 2 7 .f5 �dS 2 8 .�c4 .ixc4 29 .ti:Jxc4 Wb7 3 0 .Wg2 Wc6 3 1 .g4 l::rb8 3 2 .b3 dS 3 3 .ti:Jd2 Wd7 34.tt:Jf3 l::rb4 3 5 .Wg3 l::ra6 3 6 .ti:JgS We8 3 7 .e6 f6 3 8 .ti:Jf3 We? 3 9 .l::re3 l::rd6 40 .l::rd 1 c6 4 1 .l::rc3 c4 42 .bxc4 l::rxc4 43 .l::rxc4 dxc4 44.l::rxd6 Wxd6 4S .ti:Jd2 1 -0 , Hennigan-Lodhi, Norwich ch-GBR 1 994.

3 6

8. 0-0

Also not bad is the manoeuvre 8.ti:Je2 c6 9.f4 i..c7 10.e5 ti:JdS 11..td2 1 1 .c4 ti:Jb4 1 2...i e4 d6 1 3 . .td2 ti:Ja6= , Hector-Mitkov, Metz 1 9 9 2 . 11. .. d6 1 1 . . .�b6 ! ? 1 2 .ti:Jg3 d6 1 3 .'iYf3 dxeS 1 4 .fxe5 0-0 1 5 . 0 -0-0;t . 12.c4 ti:Je7 13.'�'c2 dxeS 14.0-0-0! �g4 15.�c3 'i¥c8 16.fxeS;!; 'i¥e6 17.h3 �xe2 18.�xe2 0-0-0 19.l::rhfl ± l::rhf8 20.Wc2 Wb8 21.�g4 'i¥xg4 22.hxg4 cS 23 . ..txh7 l::rxd1 24.Wxd1 ti:Jc6 25.e6 l::rdS+ 26.We2 fxe6 27.�xg7 l::rd7 28 . .1:1.£'8+ ..tds 29.�f6 Wc7 30.�xd8+ ti:Jxd8 31.�e4 tt:lf7 32.b3 Wd6 33.We3 WeS 34 . ..tf3 b6 "35 • .l:i.g8 tLld6 36 • .l:i.g5+ Wf6 37J:tgs .l:i.h7 38 . .l:i.d8 wes 39 . .l:i.f8 ti:Jf7 40 . .l:i.e8 tt:Jgs 41..l:i.b8 .l:i.g7 42.a4 tLlh7 43.a5 ti:Jf6 44.a6 ttJxg4+ 45.We2 tLlf6 46 . .l:i.b7 .l:i.d7 47 • ..ic6 .l:i.h7 48.We3 Wd6 49 . ..tf3 WeS 50.g4 .l:i.h3 51.g5 tt:Jg4+ 52.We2 tLlh2 53.�c6 .l:i.xb3 54 . .l:i.xa7 .l:i.a3 55.g6 tt:lg4 56.g7 tLlh6 57.�b5 Wf6 ss . .l:i.b7 Wg6 59.a7 Wf6 60 • .tc6 1 - 0 Shaked-Romanishin , Linares Open 1 99 7 . One of the few defeats Romanishin has suffered in this variation.

8 . ... 9. f2-f4

0-0 .ie5xc3

There is also nothing wrong with : 9 ... �d4 + l O .<;t.;>h t d6 1 0 . . . �xc3 1 l . bxc3 dS 1 2 . e 5 tt:le4 1 3 .�xe4 ( 1 3 .c4;l;;) 1 3 . . . dxe4 1 4 .'ifxd8 ? ! .!:l.xd8 1 5 .�e3 aS 1 6 . .!:1.fd 1 l:.xd 1 + 1 7 . .!:1.xd 1 �e6 1 8 .a3 hS 1 9 . .!:1.d4 .!:l.a6 20 . .!:I.xe4 .!:l.c6 2 l .�d2 .!:l.b6 2 2 .<;t.;>g 1 .!:l.b2=F Oliveira-Mitkov, Lisbon 1 999 . l l .'iff3 .!:l.e8 12.�d2 �d7 13 . .!:1.ael=, Campora-Mitkov, Elgoibar 1 9 9 5 . White 's position looks very pretty, but after, say, 1 3 . . . h6 it is not clear why Black should stand worse. Even so, the text is more consequential .

1 0. b2xc3 1 1 . e4-e5 1 2. f4-f5

d7-d5 tt:lf6-e4

Logical is 1 2 .c4 fS ( 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 .�e3 �fS 1 4 .cxd5 cxdS 1 5 .c4;l;;) 1 3 .'ii'f3 .ie6 1 4 . .l:!.d 1 'ife7 1 5 . cxd5 �xdS 1 6 .'ii'e3 and White is very slightly better, but no more.

1 2 . ... 'ifd8-e7

1 3 . .id3xe4

The direct attack only leads to a draw: 1 3 . f6 'it'cS + ( 1 3 . . . 'ifxe5 1 4.fxg7 'ii'xg7 1 S .'it'h5 .!:l.e8 1 6 . .ih6 .ig4 1 7 .'ii'xd5 'ifxh6 1 8 .�xe4 'ii'e3 + 1 9 .<;t.;>h 1 'ifxe4 20 .'ifxf7 + =) 1 4 .<;t.;>h 1 lLlf2+ 1 S .l:hf2 'ifxf2 1 6 .�a3 �fS ! = .


1 3. d5xe4 1 4. 'ifd 1 -d4 .!:l.f8-e8 1 5. e5-e6 f7xe6 1 6. f5-f6 g7xf6 1 7. .!:l.f1 xf6 .!:l.e8-d8 1 8 . 'ifd4-e5 .!:l.d8-d 1 + 1 9. l:.f6-f1

Weaker is 1 9 .<;t.;>f2 ? ! .!:l.dS 2 0 .'ii'g 3+ 'if g 7 , and only White i s risking anything.

1 9 ... .!:1.d1 xf1 + 20.<;t.;>g 1 xf1 'ife7-g7 21 .'ife5xe4 �c8-d7 22.�c1 -e3 'ifg7-f6+ 23.<;t.;>f1 -g 1 �d7-c6 24.'ife4-g4+ 1f2- 1f2

1.4 Kingside Fianchetto Variation 1.e4 eS 2.tt:lf3 tt:Jc6 3.tt:lc3 g6

Anyone who wishes to play the Four Knights Opening needs to be prepared for this, one of the most common lines in the Three Knights , which is characterised by the fianchetto of Black's king 's bishop. It is employed most often by stronger players against weaker opponents , because it generally leads to complicated, sharp positions. White must work hard to achieve an opening advantage. Practice shows that only by castling queenside, in various different forms , can White pose his opponent real problems. This does not exclude less ambitious set-ups , such as in the style of the Italian Game, with moves such as �c4, d3 , a3 and 0 -0 . However, in this book, we will look at attempts to gain the advantage after the initial moves 1 . e4 eS 2 .tt:lf3 tt:lc6 3 .tt:lc3 g6 4 .d4 exd4 and, a s a rule, involving queenside castling.

3 7


Game No 9 [C46J Zimmermann,Julian Kurz,Alexander Germany Bundesliga 2004/05 ( 5 )

1 . e2-e4 2. ttJg1 -f3 3. ttJb1 -c3 4. d 2-d4 5. ttJc3-d5 6 . �c1 -g5 7. ttJf3xd4

7 . ...

e7-e5 ttJb8-c6 g7-g6 e5xd4 �f8-g7 ttJc6-e7

c7-c6

Dubious is 7 ... h6 8.�h4 gS 9 . ..ig3 ttJxdS 1 O.exdS d6 11.�b5 + '1t>f8 12.0-0 tLle7 13J:te1 �f6 14.'ifd3 More solid is I 4 .c4 '1t>g7 I 5 .'ifd3 h5 I 6 .f4 , retaining an opening advantage, without any sacrifices. 14 ... h5 15.f4?! An unnecessary pawn sacrifice. The pluses of the position could be retained by I 5 .h3 , utilizing the fact that I 5 . . . tLlxd5 is impossible due to I 6 . .l:!.e8 + . 15 • • • gxf4 16.�xf4 ttJxdS 17 . ..id2 c6 18.�c4 �xd4+ 19.'ifxd4 'ti'b6 draw, Nouro-Rantanen, Jyvaskyla 2006 . In principle , White could fight on : 2 0 .'iYxb6 tLlxb6 2 I .�b3 . The two bishops and superior piece positioning compensate for the pawn minus.

8. ttJd5xe7 9. 'ir'd1 -d 2

3 8

ttJg8xe7 d 7-d5

It seems that 9 . . . h6 I 0 .jLh4 d5 is more accurate, which is examined later, under a different move-order.

1 0. 0-0-0

1 0 . 0-0?!

• 10 ... h6 1 1.�h4 By contrast with the position after the inclusion of . . . h7 -h6 on move nine, here White has the additional resource I l .�xe 7 ! ? 'iYxe 7 1 2 . exd5 0 - 0 ! ? ( I 2 . . . cxd5 I 3 .�b5 ±) I 3 .dxc6 bxc6 I 4 .c3 (it is risky to play I 4 .tLlxc6 'iVb7 I 5 .tLld4 .l:!.d8 , with excellent compensation) . Admittedly, Black has some compensation for the pawn. 11 ... g5 12.�g3 and now:

A) Bad is 12 ... i.g4 13.f3 ..ihS 14.'ifb4 A good move, fixing a small , but clear advantage. Even so, the preliminary I 4 .exd5 'iYxd5 ( I 4 . . . tLlxd5 I 5 .tLlf5 ±) was more decisive, and only now I 5 .'iYb4 0-0 I 6 . c4 ( I 6 .tLlb3 �xb2+ I 7 .'1t>xb2 'iVxd l 1 8 .'iVxe7t) I 6 . . . c5 ( 1 6 . . . 'iVd7 1 7 . tLlc2 'ti'e6 I 8 . .l:!.e i +-) I 7 .'iVe i 'iYd7 I 8 .tLlb5 �d4 I 9 .h4± . 14 ... 'ifh6 1S.'iYxh6 axb6 16.exd5 ttJxdS 17 .i.c4 0-0 18Ji:jf5 I 8 J�he I keeps the advantage . 18 . . • �g6 19.tt:lxg7?! An oversight , logically resulting from the previous move . 19 ... '1t>xg7 The preliminary I 9 . . . tLle3 !

20 .tbe6 ! fxe6 2 I . .ixe6+ .i£7 2 2 .l:i.d3 .ixe6 2 3 .l:i.xe3 l:i.xa2 24.l:i.he i l:i.d8 2 S .<;t>b i l:Ida8= draws. 20.l:i.he1 t2lb4? 2 0 . . . t2lf4! . 21..id6 1-0 , KarasevGazizov, Tula ch-RUS sr 2004;

B) 12 ... dxe4 13.'i:Ve3

Analysis d iagram

B I ) Black lost quickly in the game Szmetan-Frey, Bogota I 9 7 7 : 13 .. :if dS 14.tbbs .ixb2+ IS.<;t>xb2 'i:Yxd1 16.tbc7+ <;t>ds 17.�d3 Nunn gives this move an exclamation mark, however, White also wins after I 7 .�c4 'iY d7 ( I 7 . . . 'iYxh i i 8 .'iYd4++-) I 8 .t2lxa8 t2ld5 I 9 .'i:Yxa7+- or I 7 .�e2 'ifd7 I 8 .t2lxa8+-. 17 .. .'iV:xh1 18.'ti'd4+ ttJds 19.'tj':xh8+ <;t>e7 20.'iYe8+ <;t>f6 21.'ti'e5+ <;t>g6 22.he4+ B 23.'iYe8+ 1-0.

B2) 13 ... 'i:Yb6! 'This is the best move, although the position is very sharp ' -John Nunn. 14.�d6 Analysis shows that White can also play more sharply : 1 4 .'iYxe4! fS ( 1 4 . . . 0 -0 1 S . .td3 t2lg6 1 6 .c3!) 1 S .'i:Ye2 �xd4 1 6 .l:i.xd4 'iYxd4 1 7 .�e5 'i:Yds ( 1 7 . . .'iYe4 1 8 .�xh8 does not change the essence of things : in the endgame, White 's chances are superior) 1 8 .�xh8 .te6 ( 1 8 . . . 'ti'xa2 is bad : 1 9 .'i:Yh5 + <;t>d7 20 .'iYxh6 'iYa 1 + (better is 20 . . . 'iYe6 2 1 .'iYxe6+ <;t>xe6 with an inferior, but probably not lost endgame) 2 1 .<;t>d2±) 1 9 .c4! .

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kni g h ts ' O p e n i n g

14 ... �e6 1S.�xe7 Wxe7 16.'iYa3+ There is nothing wrong with 1 6 .'ifxe4 l:i.hd8 1 7 . ttJfs + <;t>f8 1 8 .l:i.xd8 + l:i.xd8 1 9 .t2lxg7 <;t>xg7 20 .�d3 . White has slightly the better king, but Black should draw. 16 ... c5 17 .tbxe6 fxe6 18.�c4 l:i.ad8 19.l:i.del 'Yi'c6 20.'it'b3 a6 21.£'3 bS 22 . .ixe6 c4 23.'i\Ya3+ <;t>xe6 24Jhe4+ WfS 2S.h4 l:i.he8 26.hxg5 hxgS 27.'it'e3 l:i.xe4 28.fxe4+ <;t>f6 29.l:i.h5 <;t>e ? 30.e5 'iYxg2 31.'iYcS+ We8 32.b3 'i!t'dS White resigned, Morgulev-Shereshevsky, USSR 1 9 7 5 . • After 1 o ... dxe4

Analysis d iagram

Nunn considers strongest 11.'iYe3 with a very promising position for White. Other lines which also look very good are 11..ic4 0-0 1 2 .l:i.he l and ll.'i:Yf4!?, intending after 1 1 . . . .ixd4 1 2 . .if6 or even 1 2 .'ifxe4, in both cases with the better chances for White. e Worthy of study is 1 O ... f6 11.�f4 dxe4 12.�c4 B 1 2 . . .t2ld5 ? 1 3 .t2lbs± 13.£'3 with good compensation for the pawn.

1 1 . e4xd5 f7-f6

1 1 . . . cxd5 1 2 .h4! .

1 2. �g5-h6

A pragmatic decision , retaining the advantage, but even stronger is 1 2 . .if4

3 9


'i¥xd5 ( 1 2 . . . tLlxd5 1 3 . .tc4 'i¥b6 1 4 .�e3±) 1 3 .�b4 ! 'iYe4 ( 1 3 . . . c5 1 4 .�b3 ±) 1 4 .�c4+ tLld5 ( 1 4 . . . Wh8 1 5 .�d6+-) 1 5 .�d6 l:.d8 1 6 .f3 'iY e3 + 1 7 . Wb 1 , and Black has big problems.

1 2. ... 'i¥d8xd5 1 3 . b2-b3 .tg7xh6 14. �d2xh6

1 4 . ... 'iYd5-g5+

The resulting endgame is difficult for Black. Probably he should seek his chances with the queens on , for example : 1 4 . . .'ti'a5 1 5 .�c4+ tLld5 1 6 .�b_I �d7 . although in any case, White s chances are superior. In the same vein, 1 4 . . . 'iVc5 ! ? was already tried in Persitz-Filip, Reykjavik 1 9 5 7 .

1 5.'iVh6xg5 f6xg5 1 6 . .tf1 -c4+ t2Je7-d5 1 7.f2-f3 g5-g4 1 8.l:th1 -e1 Wg8-g7 1 9.�c4xd5 c6xd5 20.l:te1 -e5 g4xf3 21 .g2xf3 .tc8-h3 22.l:te5xd5 l:ta8-e8 23.c2-c4 l:tf8-f7 24.Wc1 -d2 l:tf7-e7 25.Wd2-c3 l:te7-e3+ 26.Wc3-b4 .l:i.e8-e7 27.l:td 1 -d2 Wg7-f6 28.a2-a4 h7-h5 29.l:td5-d6+ Wf6-g5 30.c4-c5 h5-h4 31 .a4-a5 l:f.e7-d7 32.l:td6xd7 �h3xd7 33.a5-a6 b7xa6 34.c5-c6

40

.td7-c8 35.Wb4-c5 Wg5-f4 36.'it>c5-d6 l:te3-c3 37.t:Lld4-e2+ Wf4-e3 38.tLle2xc3 We3xd2 39.tLlc3-d5 g6-g5 40.�d6-c7 .tc8-h3 41 .'it>c7-d8 Wd2-e2 42.c6-c7 �e2xf3 43.tLld5-f6 1 -0

Game No 1 0 [C46] Thavandiran,Shiyam Ganguly, Surya Shekhar Guelph 2005 (8)

1 . e2-e4 2. tLlg1 -f3 3. tLlb1 -c3 4. d2-d4 5. t:Llc3-d5 6 . .tc1 -g5 1. t:Llf3xd4 8. t:Lld5-c3

e7-e5 t:Llb8-c6 g7-g6 e5xd4 �f8-g7 t:Llc6-e7 c7-c6

Another principal line in this variation.

8 . ... �d8-a5

8 . . . h6 9 . .te3 Here bad is 9 . .th4 d5 1 0 .exd5 �b6 1 1 .tLlb3 �b4+ - Nunn. Also prospectless is 9 .�f4 d5 1 0 .�d2 tLlf6 1 1 . 0 -0-0 t:Llxe4 1 2 .tLlxe4 dxe4 1 3 . .tc4 tLlf5 1 4 .tLlb3 �xd 2 + 1 5 .tLlxd2=F Lehmann-Keres, Hamburg FRG-USSR, 1 9 60 . e Here, Nunn considers 9 • • • tLlf6 the strongest, a move which, for reasons

that are impossible to understand, has not been seen in practice at all in recent years :

Analysis d iagram

A) 10.'ii'e2!? 0-0 1l.f3 1 1 . 0 -0-0 b5 1 2 .f3 b4 1 3 .tt:'la4 'i:Wa5 1 4 .b3 dS with good play for Black, Utasi-Westerinen, Havana 1 98 6 . ll ... d5 1 1 . . .b5 1 2 .a3 . -12.0-0-0 b6= ;

B) Unconvincing is 1 O.�c4 0-0 Also equalising is 1 O . . . tt:'lxe4 1 1 .tt:'lxe4 d5 1 2 .'i!Vf3 dxc4 1 3 .tt:'lf6+ �f8 , and also the immediate 1 O . . . d5 1 l .exd5 tt:'lexd5 1 2 .tt:'lxd5 tt:'lxd5 1 3 .'i!Vf3 0-0 . 11.e5 A tactical oversight occurred with 1 I .'ti'f3 ? d5 1 2 .exd5 cS ! + , Gufeld-T. Petrosian , Moscow ch-URS 1 9 6 9 . 11 ... tt:'le8 12.'ii'd2 More solid is 1 2 . 0 -0 , but i t still does not bring any advantage : 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 .exd6 tt:'lxd6 1 4 .i..b3 tt:'ldfS 1 5 . tt:'lxf5 tt:'lxf5 = . 12 ... d5 13.exd6 tt:lxd6 14.�b3 , Tarve-Keres , Parnu 1 9 7 1 , and now 14 ... c5 15.tt:'ldb5 tt:'lxb5 16.tt:'lxb5 'i!Vxd2+ 17.�xd2 b6 gives Black a small advantage ; C) 1 o . .te2 This move has not been tried in practice. 1 0 ... 0-0 Possibly better is the immediate 1 O . . . d5 1 1 . e5 tt:'ld7 (worthy of consideration is 1 1 . . .tt:'le4 ! ? 1 2 .f4 tt:'lxc3 1 3 .bxc3 0-0 1 4 .0 -0 f6 , when Black is not worse) 1 2 . f4 0 - 0 with mutual chances . 11.'ti'd2 �h7 1 1 . . . d5 1 2 . 0 - 0 - 0

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kni g h ts ' O p e n i n g

( 1 2..�. xh6 tt:'lxe4 1 3 . tt:'lxe4 dxe4 1 4 . ..ixg 7 �xg 7 1 5 . 0 - 0 - 0 ti:Jf5 ) 1 2 . . . dxe4 1 3 .�xh6 tt:Jfs 1 4 .i..xg 7 �xg 7 1 5 .tt:'lxf5 + �xf5 1 6 .�e3 ;\; . 12.0-0-0 1 2 .h4 d 5 1 3 .h5 g5 1 4 .e5 ( 1 4 .exd5 tt:'lexdS =) 14 . . . tt:'lg4 1 S .jg,xg4 �xg4 1 6 .f3 i..d7 1 7 . 0 -0 -0 �xeS 1 8 .f4 �xd4 1 9 .�xd4 tt:Jfs 20 .�b l . 12 ... d5 13.tt:lb3 aS 14.a4 'ifc7 15.£'3 White retains a small advantage (analysis) . • 9 ... d5 1 O.exd5 tt:'lxd5 11.tt:'lxd5 'i!Vxd5 12.tt:'lb5! and now:

Analysis d iagram

A) Practice has seen 12 ... .te5 1 3 .'i¥xd5 cxd5 1 4 . 0 -0-0 tt:'le7 1 5 .i..xa7 i..e6 1 6 .a3 . White has an extra pawn and the better position, Nei-Helle, Finland 1 96 8 ; B ) Definitely losing i s 1 2 .. .'i!fxd1 +

13Jhdl cxb5 14 . .ixb5+ �e7 15.�c5+ �e6 16 • .ic4+ �f5 17.lld5+ �e6 18.lld6+ . Speaking purely in general terms , without any variations, it is obvious that the black king should get mated : 18 ... �f5 1 8 . . . �e7 1 9 . .1lxg6++- ; 1 8 . . . �e5 1 9 .f4+ �fs 20 .�d3+ �xf4 2 1 . 0 -0+ �g5 2 2 . llxf7 ..if6 2 3 .lld5 + �fs 24 .i..e3 + �h4 2 5 .g 3+ �h3 2 6 Jhf5 - this joke is even stronger than Ed. Lasker-Thomas ! 19.�d3+ �e5 20.f4+ �xf4 21.0-0+! �g5 2 1 . . . �e5 2 2 . .lle 1 + �f4 2 3 . .lle4+ and mate is not far away; 2 1 . . . '>t>g4

4 1

T h e F o u r Kni g h ts G a m e

2 2..� e 2 + Wh4 2 3 .g3 + 'it>h3 24 . .l:!.f4 with mate either on h4 or fl . 22.�e3+ Wh5 2 2 . . . Wh4 2 3 .g 3 + WhS 24.�e2+ �g4 2 S . .ixg4+ Wxg4 26 JH4+ WgS 2 7 JHd4+ WfS 2 8 . g4+ '>ites 29 .�f4# . 23.l:bf7 �f6 24.llf8 and Black cannot do anything.

C) 12 .. .'�We5 A new try. 13.tt::ld6+ Wf8 and now:

C 1 ) 14.tt::lc4 'ife7 15.�e2 .ie6 16.0-0 1 6 .�f4;;!; . 16 ... tLlf6 17Jii'd2 ttJds 18.�d4 �f6 19.�£'3 1 9 .llae 1 ;;!; . 19 ... l:.d8= 20.l:.ad1 Wg7 draw, PeterDemarre, Issy-les-Moulineaux 2004 ;

C2) A clear advantage arises from the sharp 14.�c4! :

C2 1 ) 14 .. J!i'xb2 1 S . llb 1 'ifc3 + 1 6 .Wfl , and Black cannot defend all his weak points : 1 6 . . . tt::l e 7 ( 1 6 . . . �e6 1 7 .�xe6 fxe6 1 8 .lhb7 +-) 1 7 J:tb3 'ifas 1 8 .�xf7 .ies 1 9 .tt::lc4 'ifa6 20 .l:.a3 'fibs 2 1 .l:.aS ± ;

C 2 2 ) 1 4 ... .ig4 1 S . tt::lxf7 ..txd 1 1 6 .tt::lxe5 ..txeS 1 7 .l:.xd 1 ± ; C2 3 ) 14 ... �e6 1 S .�xe6 'ifxe6

( 1 S . . . l:.d8 1 6 .'iff3 'iixe6 1 7 .tt::lxb7 ±) 1 6 . 0 -0 . C 3 ) The simple 14.tt::lxc8 l:.xc8

15.'ti'd7 tt::le7 16.c3 also retains the advantage.

Back to the game.

9. 'ifd1 -d2 tt:Jg8-f6

42

Black has also tried 9 ... h6 10.�f4 d5 11.0-0-0 tLlf6 12.Wb1 'ti'b6 13.£'3 o-o 14.�xh6 �xh6 15.'ii'xh6 dxe4 16.'ifg5 1 6 . fxe4! ? l:.d8 ( 1 6 . . . �g4 1 7 . .ie2±) 1 7 .'iff4 l:.xd4 1 8 .'i1Vxf6 l:.xd 1 + 1 9 .tt::lxd 1 - there is no visible compensation for the pawn . 16 ... tLled5 17 .t2Jxd5 tLlxd5 18 . .ic4 exf3 19.tt::lxf3 1 9 . .ixd5 cxdS 2 0 . gxf3 ± 19 ... �e6 20.�b3 and White has the initiative, Sievers-Stern , Germany Bundesliga B 2004/ 0 5 .

1 0. tt:Jd4-b3 'ifa5-c7 1 1 . 0-0-0

1 I ..if4 'iYd8 1 2 .'i:Vd6 tt:Jhs 1 3 .�e3 ± .

1 1 . ... 1 2. �g5-f4 1 3. �f4-d6

0-0 'ifc7-d8 a7-a5

After 1 3 . . . tt::le8 1 4.�g3 White is a bit better.

1 4. e4-e5?1

With this move, White gives away too many squares. It made sense to fix the queenside with 1 4 .a4, retaining an opening advantage.

1 4 . ... 1 5. tt:Jb3-d4 1 6. f2-f4 1 7. e5xd6 1 8. tt:Jd4xf5

tt:Jf6-e8= b7-b5 tt:Je8xd6 tt:Je7-f5 g6xf5

The strong dark-squared bishop more than makes up for the weakened pawns. Black takes over the initiative.

1 9. h2-h3

Slightly more tenacious is 1 9 . 'iH2 (to block the queenside with 'ifc5 ) 1 9 . . . a4 20 .a3 b4 2 l .axb4 a3 2 2 . c;t>b 1 .

1 9 . ... a5-a4 20. g2-g4?

20 .a3 was obligatory.

20 . ... a4-a3+

Now White 's position is untenable.

21 .g4xf5 'ti'd8-f6 22Jlh 1 -g1 b5-b4 23.'tWd2-d4 a3xb2+ 24.c;t>c1 -b1 'i¥f6xd4 25 . .!::!.d1 xd4 c;t>g8-h8 26 . .!::!.g1 xg7 c;t>h8xg7 27 . .!::!.d4xb4 �c8-a6 28.�f1 xa6 .!::!.a8xa6 29 . .!::!.b4-b7 .!::!.f8-d8 30.tbc3-e4 .!::!.a6-a5 31 .tbe4-g3 c;t>g7-f6 32.c2-c4 .!::!.a5-a3 33.llb7-b3 .!::!.a3xb3 34.a2xb3 .!::!.d8-e8 0-1

Game No 1 1 [C46J Koukoufikis,Alexandros Skembris,Spyridon Korinthos Open 2004 (5 )

1 . e2-e4 2. tbg1 -f3

e7-e5 tbb8-c6

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p e n i n g

3. tLlb1 -c3 4. d2-d4 5. tbf3xd4 6. �c1 -e3

7. 'ii'd 1 -d2

g7-g6 e5xd4 �f8-g7 tbg8-e7

It was also possible to prevent the break d5 - 7.�c4 d6 8.'ti'd2 0-0 9.0-0-0 tbxd4 10.�xd4 �xd4 11.'iYxd4 tbc6 12.'i�Vd2 �e6 13.�xe6 1 3 .�d5 ! ? , and White is slightly better. 13 ... fxe6 14.f3 He should not give up the square f4 ; stronger is 1 4 .f4 , and Black still has to prove equality. 14 ... 'i�Vf6 1S.h4 't'Vf4 16. 'tWxf4 .!::!.xf4 17 .tbe2 .!::!.f7 The ending is roughly equal , Song-Rogers , Brisbane ch-AUS 2006 .

7 . ... d7-d5?!

'An unwarranted move ' - Nunn . Other possibilities :

A) 7 ... 0-0 8.0-0-0 Weaker is 8 .h4? ! d 5 with sufficient counterplay for Black. 8 • • • d6 9.h4 hS 10.f3 1 0 .tbxc6 tbxc6 ( 1 0 . . . bxc6 1 l.. �c4;l;) 1 l .tbd5 ;!; . 10 ... t2Jxd4 11..txd4 �xd4 12.'i�Vxd4 tt::lc6 13.'�'d2 �e6 14 . .te2 'i�Vf6 1 S.f4 .!::!.ae8 16.fS gxfS 17.�xhS and Black's position is worse, Stertenbrink-Spassky, Germany Bundesliga 1 9 8 6 I 8 7 ;

B) 7 ... d6 8.0-0-0 �e6 9.h4 It looks logical to flick in 9 . tbxe6 fxe6 and only now play 1 O .h4 'i�Vd7 1 1 .h5 0-0-0

43


1 2 .g3 Wb8 1 3 .h6 ii.f6 1 4 .f4 with some pressure for White. 9 .. .'iYd7 1 O.hS 0-0-0 11.h6 1 1 .<i:Jxc6 tbxc6 l l .<i:JdS ;!; . 11. .. ii.xd4 12 . .ixd4 <i:Jxd4 13.'i!Yxd4 Wb8 14.ii.bs c6 1S . .ia4 fS 16.ii.b3 l:thf8 1 6 . . . ii.xb3 1 7 .axb3 fxe4 1 8 .tbxe4 <i:JfS = . 17.f3 1 7 . e S ;!; . 17 • . • �xb3 18.axb3 Wile? 19.'ti'g7 tbg8 20.l:td2 f4 21.'i!Yd4 Wie7 22.b4 a6 23.tba4 l:tf6 24.eS l:te6 2S.exd6?? l:texd6 26.'iYxf4 gS 27.'iYh2 'i!Ye3 28.l:td1 Wa7 0- 1 , Glek-Granda Zuniga (rapid game) , El Sauzal 2006 .

8 . e4xd5

• Stronger here is the tried and tested 8.<i:Jxc6 bxc6 9.0-0-0 .te6 10,j£_d4 Worthy of attention is 1 O .�cS 0-0 1 1 .h4 with the better chances to White. 10 ... 0-0 ll ,j£_xg7 Wxg7 12.ii'd4+ f6 1 2 . . . Wg8 1 3 . h4± . 13.WicS! 'i!Yd7 14.�c4 l:tad8 1S.Wixa7 'i!Yd6 16 . .ib3 �f7 17 .exdS cxdS 18.<i:JbS 'i!Yf4+ 19.Wb1 l:td7 20.ii'cs ±, NunnBeliavsky, Belgrade 1 99 1 . • Also good is 8.0-0-0 0-0 8 . . . dxe4 9 . <i:Jdb5 'ifxd 2 + 1 O . l:txd2 0 - 0 1 1 .tbxc 7 ;!; . 9.exdS tt:lxdS 9 . . . tbb4 1 O .�gS f6 1 1..� f4 <i:JbxdS 1 2 .�c4± . 1 0. tbxc6 bxc6 11. <i:JxdS cxdS 1 2. 'if xdS 'i¥f6 13.c3 .tg4 14.l:td2 l:tad8 1S.'i!Ygs and Black does not have full compensation for the pawn.

44

8. ... <i:Je7xd5 9. <i:Jd4xc6 b7xc6

1 0. <i:Jc3xd5 Wlid8xd5 1 1 . 'iWd2xd5

1 1 . 0 -0-0 gives White a small advan-tage, on account of his superior pawn structure, but in reality, it is only good for a draw.

1 1 . ... c6xd5 1 2. 0-0-0 c7-c6= 1 3. �e3-c5 �c8-e6 1 4. �f1 -a6 we8-d7 1 5. l:th1 -e1 l:th8-e8 1 6. l:td 1 -d3 l:ta8-b8 1 7. l:td3-b3 �g7-h6+ 1 8. Wc1 -d1 ilh6-f4 1 9. h2-h3 �f4-c7 20. �c5-e3 h7-h5 21 . l:te1 -e2 ilc7-d6 22 . l:te2-d2 Wd7-c7 23. .l:Ib3xb8 l:te8xb8 24. c2-c3 f7-f5 25. f2-f4 h5-h4 26. .l:.d2-e2 r:J;;c7-d7 27. b2-b4 ild6-c7 28. a2-a3 �c7-b6 29. .ite3-d4 �b6xd4 30. c3xd4 Wd7-d6

31 . Wd 1 -c2?

Class tells. White would not be risking anything after the accurate 3 1 .l:te3 gS 3 2 .fxgS l:[g8 3 3 .l:H3 l:txg5 34 .i!lfl ;!; .

31 . ... 32. f4xg5 33. .l:i.e2-f2 34. ita6-d3 35. a3-a4 36. b4-b5?! 37 . .id3xb5 38. 'it>c2-b2 39 . .l:i.f2-e2? 40. 'it>b2-c1 ?

40 . . .f3 -+ .

g6-g5 .l:i.b8-g8 .l:i.g8xg5 'it>d6-e7 'it>e7-f6 c6xb5 .l:i.g5-g3=F a7-a5 f5-f4 .ie6-f5

41 . .l:i.e2-f2 'it>f6-g5 42 . .ib5-f1 .l:i.g3-a3 43 . .if1 -b5 .if5-e4 44.'it>c1 -d1 f4-f3 45.g2xf3 �e4xf3+ 46.'it>d 1 -e1 'it>g5-f4 47 . .l:i.f2-c2 'it>f4-e3 48 . .l:i.c2-c1 'it>e3xd4 49 . .l:f.c1 -c6 .if3-e4 0-1

Game No 1 2 [C46] Niisken,Nikolas Nogly,Christoph Baden Oos tt 2 005 ( ! )

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg1 -f3 3. tt:lb1 -c3 4. d2-d4 5. tt:lf3xd4 6. .ic1 -e3

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 g7-g6 e5xd4 .if8-g7 tt:lg8-f6

Less accurate is 6 ... d6 7.'ifd2 tt:lf6 8.£'3 0-0 9.0-0-0 a6 1 o.tuxc6 bxc6 and now:

Analysis d iagram

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h ts ' O p e n i n g

A) 11.g4 ite6 1 2 .h4:;!; hS 1 3 .g5 tt:ld7 1 4 .�e2:;!; ; B ) 11.eS ttldS 1 1 . . .tt:le8 1 2 . exd6

tt:lxd6 ( 1 2 . . . cxd6 1 3 .h4 'iVaS 1 4.h5 .l:i.b8 1 5 .a3 dS 1 6 . .id4:;!;) 1 3 .h4:;!; . 12.tt:lxdS cxdS 13.exd6 'it'xd6 14.'iVxdS .l:i.b8 1S.c3 �xc3 16.bxc3 'ifa3+ 17.'it>d2 l:rb2+ 18.'it>e 1 l:re8:;!;;

C) 1 1.�h6 l:re8 l l . . .�xh6 1 2 .�xh6 �e6= . 12.ihg 7 Wxg 7 13.g4 'ife 7 14.h4 'lWes 1S.�g2 The positional l S .hS gS 1 6 .h6+ �g8 1 7 . .ie2 .l:i.b8 1 8 .l:rhfl aS 1 9 . a3 ( 1 9 .f4 gxf4 20 . .l:i.xf4 .l:i.b4) 1 9 . . . .ie6 20 . f4 gxf4 2 I . l:lxf4:;!; also deserves attention. 1 s ... l:rbs 16.f4?! White overestimates his attacking chances. More solid is 1 6 .h5 gS 1 7 .h6+ 'it>g8 1 8 .'it>b i ;t . 16 ... 'ifcs 17.gS tt:lhs 18.fS gxfS 19.exfS 1 9 . .l:i.he l 'ti'b4 20 .b3 with unclear play. 19 ... �xfS 20.ttla4 'ii'b4 21.�xc6 l:res 22.b3 �g6 It was also possible to play to take over the initiative : 2 2 . . . tt:lg3 ! ? 2 3 . .l:i.h2 'i¥xd2+ 24 .Wxd2 �e4=F . 23.'ii'xb4 l:rxb4 24.c4 tt:lf4 2S.Wb2 l:re2+ 26.Wa3 l:rb8 2 7.l:rde 1 l:rd2 28.l:rd1 l:rc2 29.ttlb2 l:rb6 30.�£'3 l:[£'2 31.l:rhfl l:rh2 32.�g4 tt:le6 33.l:rh 1 l:rg2 34.�h3 l:[£'2 3S.l:rhfl l:rh2 36.l:rh1 l:[£'2 37.l:rhfl l:rh2 draw, Reshetnikov-Tiurin, St Petersburg 2004.

7. 'ifd1 -d2 0-0

45


Practice has also tested : 7 • . . t2lg4 8.l2lxc6 Better is 8 .�g5 f6 9 .�f4 0-0 (9 . . . t2lxd4 1 o .'i'ixd4±) 1 o .tt:Jxc6 bxc6 1 1 . 0 -0 -0i . 8 ... bxc6 9.�d4 �xd4 10.'iVxd4 'iVf6 11.�d2 d6 12.h3 tbes 13.�e2 1 3 . f4 tLld7 1 4 . 0-0-0 0-0 1 S . g4i. 13 ... g5 14.'�'e3 Unnecessary caution. After 1 4 .0-0-0 the pawn on f2 is indirectly defended: 1 4 . . . 'iVxf2 ? ( 1 4 . . . 'iVf4 1 S .h4 'tixd2+ 1 6 . �xd2 g4 1 7 . f4i) 1 S .tLldS ± . Now Black equalises .

14 .. .'Yi'f4 1S.'ifxf4 gxf4= 1 6 .f3 fS 1 7 .�d3 .l:[b8 1 8 .b3 0-0 1 9 .�f2 aS 20 . .l:[he 1 l:r.b4 2 I ..l:[ad 1 �g7 2 2 .exf5 �xfS 2 3 .�xf5 .l:[xfS 24 . .l:[e4 tLlg6 2 5 .a3 .l:[xe4 26 .tbxe4 cS 2 7 .tLlc3 tbes 2 8 .tLlbS .l:[f7 29 . .l:[e l �f6 30 . .l:[e4 �e6 3 I ..l:[a4 tbc6 32 . .l:[e4+ tbeS 33 . .l:[a4 tbc6 34 . .l:[e4+ tLleS draw, C. MartinezLima, Sao Paulo 2004 .

8. 0-0-0

8 . ... .l:[f8-e8

In Nunn's opinion, the strongest move. Other continuations : e 8 ... t2lg4 9.�g5 f6 9 . . . �f6 I O .�xf6 'tixf6 l l .f3 'tixd4 1 2 .'iYxd4 tbxd4 1 3 .l:r.xd4 tLlf6 (no better is 1 3 . . . tLle3 1 4 .tLlb5 c6 1 S .tLld6±) 1 4 .e5 t2le8 1 S .tLle4± . 10.�f4 tLlxd4 l O . . . fS ? ! l l .�gS �f6 1 2 ..txf6 'iYxf6 1 3 .tLldbS± . 11.'iYxd4 fS 12.�c4+ cJthS 13.�xc7 'tif6 14.l::td2?! 1 4 .'iYe2±

46

Makarichev. 14 • • • fxe4 1S . .ig3 draw, Mazurok-Suschev, Chernigov 200 5 . • 8 . • • tLlxd4 9.�xd4 d6 10.£'3 I O .h4 �e6 l l . .te2i . 10 ... �e6 11.g4! A sug-gestion of Yurtaev. 11 ... c5 12 . .te3 'tWaS 13.�h6! �xh6 1 3 . . . �xa2 1 4 . .txg7 �xg 7 1 s .tbxa2 'YWxa2 1 6 .'iYc3 +- . 14.�xh6 bS!? 1 4 . . . .txa2 1 S .h4 �e6 1 6 .h5 'iYc7 (no better is 1 6 . . . �a l + 1 7 .�d2 �xb2 1 8 . .l:[b l ! 'iVa3 1 9 .hxg6 fxg6 20 . g5 tLlhS 2 I ..l:[xh5 gxhS 22 . g6+-) 1 7 .lLlbS 'i¥e7 1 8 .tbxd6± . 1 S . .txbS .!:i.ab8

Analysis d iagram

16.a4! Beautiful ! By sacrificing a piece, White closes the b-file for good. But there were also other ways to play : 1 6 .h4! .l:!.xbS 1 7 .tbxb5 'tWxbS 1 8 .h5 .l::lb8 1 9 .b3 'ti'd7 20 .e5 tLle8 (20 . . . tLldS 2 1 . f4 ! dxeS 22 .f5 ! +-) 2 1 .hxg6 fxg6 2 2 .exd6 lLlxd6 2 3 . .l:[he 1 ±. Here the rook is stronger than the two minor pieces. 16 • • • a6 17Jhd6! axbS 18.e5 tbxg4! He is losing after 1 8 . . . tbe8 1 9 . tbe4, when the threats of 20 .tLlf6+ and 20 .tLlgS are impossible to meet. 19.fxg4 'tib4! 20.a5! 'tixg4? A mistake. Black had good chances to hold the position after 2 0 . . . .l:[bd8 2 l .h4 .l:[xd6 22 . exd6 'tixaS 2 3 .h5 'iVa i + 24.tLlb l �a7 2 S .'iVf4 - White has only a minimal advantage.

21.l::l.e 1 With the threat of 2 2.<1:Je4. 21. • .'iff5!? 2 1 . . .'iVh3 2 2 .'ihh3 �xh3 2 3 .tt::le4± . 22.'i!Yh4

Analysis d iagram

22 ... b4?! 'After 2 2 . . . hS ! ? the situation would be less clear ' - Nunn. However, in this case there would follow 2 3 .tt::l e4 , e . g. 2 3 . . . l::l.a8 24 .a6 , and it is impossible to see any counterplay for Black. 23.tt:le4 hS 24.l::l.d2! ± Wg7 2S.'i¥f6+ Wh6 26.tt::lxcS l::l.bS 27.tt:lxe6 fxe6 28.'ifxf5 l::l.xf5?! 28 . . . exf5 ! ? would at least have given Black a passed pawn. However, the endgame is bad all the same: 29 .a6 f4 30 .l::l.d6 l::l.aS 3 l .e6 f3 3 V.to>d2 f2 3 3 .l::l.fl +- .

29.a6 l::l.fxeS 30.l::l.xeS l::l.xeS 31.l::l.d6!+WgS 32.c4 Wh4 33.Wc2 Wh3 34.Wb3 Wxh2 3S.Wxb4 l::l.e1 36.a7 l::l.a1 3 7 .l::l.d2 + 1-0 , Makarichev-Tukmakov, Palma de Mallorca 1 9 8 9 . Back to the game.

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kni g h ts ' O p en i n g

9. f2-f3

The alternative is 9.tZ:lxc6 bxc6 1 O.�gS and now: • 10 ... l::l.b8 11.l::l.e1 1 1 .f3 �e7 1 2 .�c4 d6 1 3 . ..tb3 ..te6 1 4 .l::l.he 1 �f8 1 5 .Wb 1 tt::ld7 1 6 . f4 tt::lcS=F 1 7 .�xe6 ! l::l.xb2 + 1 8 .Wxb2 tt::la4+ 1 9 .Wb3 �xc3 20 .'i1Ve3 dS ! with a decisive advantage to Black, Wegener-Szinka , Budapest 1 9 9 3 . 11...d6 12 . .ic4 .ie6 13.�b3 'ii'c8 14.Wb1 and now:

A) 14 . . • cS?! 1S.eS dxeS 16 . .ixf6 ..ixf6 17.tt::le4 �e7 18.'tlt'c3 c4 19.�xc4 ..txc4 1 9 . . . fs 2 0 .tt::lc5 �xeS 2 1...t xe6+ �xe6 2 2 .'�'xc5 'ti'b6 2 3 .'ti'c4+ Wg7 24.b3 = . 20.'ti'xc4 'ti'b7 21.b3 i s equal , Abdelnabbi-Nikolac , Bahrain 1 99 0 ;

B ) More consequent was 1 4 . . . 'ti'b7 , strengthening the threat . . . c6-c5 . Analysis shows that Black already has the better chances:

B 1 ) White is worse after 1 S.f3 cS 16.eS dxeS 17.l::l.xeS 1 7 .�xf6 �xf6 1 8 .tt::le4 �e7 1 9 .'ti'c3 c4 2 0 .�a4 l::l.ed8+ ; White lacks constructive ideas. 17 ... tt::ld7 18.l::l.xe6 l::l.xe6 19.'ti'xd7 c4 20.l::l.d1 �xc3 21.bxc3 l::l.e2+ ;

B 2 ) The idea tried in the game does not work here : 1S.eS? dxeS 16 . ..ixf6 .ixf6 17 .tt:le4 �g7 18.tt::lc s 'ifb6 19.tt:lxe6 l::l.xe6!+ . • Ofequal merit is 10 • . . 'ife7 11...tc4

Analysis d iagram

47


11. •. 'ii'eS. An unconvincing manoeuvre . Worthy of consideration was I l . . .d6 l 2 .l:the i l:tb8 I 3 .�b3 �e6 I 4 .h4 'iVf8 by analogy with the game Wegener-Szinka , quoted below. Black gets his queen out of the x-ray from the enemy rook and prevents the exchange of dark-squared bishops , whilst preparing the manoeuvre . . . Wf6-d7 -cS . What more can one expect from a single move? Both sides have their chances. 12Jide1 d6 13.f4 'ifas 14.e5 dxeS 1S.lhe5 l:txeS 16.fxeS 'iVxeS 17.'iVd8+ tLle8 18..l:H1 �b7 Insufficient is I 8 . . . �e6 ! ? I 9 .'iYxa8 �xc4 20 . .if4 .ih6 ! 2 I .�xh6 .ixfl 2 2 .'ifxc6 ;;!; . 19.�xf7+ <;t>hs 20.'iVe7 tt:ld6 21.�b3 By continuing 2 I . 'ifxe5 ! ? .ixeS 2 2..�.e6 l:te8 2 3 .�d7 White retains some advantage . 21. . • l:te8 2 2.'ihe5 .ixeS 23.tLla4 cS Equality could be maintained by 2 3 . . . �a6 . 24.tLlxcS .ixg2 2S.llfl .ic6 and now instead of 2 6 .tLld3 with equality, as played in the game Abdel Megid-Van der Sterren , Lucerne Wch-tt I 9 8 9 , White could have achieved a significant advantage by 2 6 .tLle6 tLle4 2 7 . .if4 ! .

9 . ... d 7-d5

This equalises.

1 0. e4xd5

48

• A more complicated fight is promised by 1 O.tbxc6 bxc6 and now:

A) 11.kgS! ? .l:[b8 12.�c4 'ifd6 I 2 . . .h6 ! ? I 3 . .ie3 ( I 3 .�xh6 dxc4 I 4 .'ifxd8 �xh6+ I S .Wb i l:txd8 I 6Jhd8+ Wg7=) I 3 . . . 'iVe7 I 4.�b3 dxe4 I S . l:the I with a double-edged position. 13.�b3 �a6 More natural is I 3 . . . .ie6 I 4 .l:the I 'iYb4 with mutual chances. 14.exdS cS A risky idea .

Analysis d iagram

1S.'iff4? White can obtain a serious advantage by I S .�f4 ! . A I ) Neither I S . . . 'iff8 I 6 .�xc7 c4

I 7 . .ixb8 ( I 7 . .ia4 also keeps the advantage) I 7 . . .lhb8 ( I 7 . . . cxb3 I 8 . .ig3 , and Black has nothing) I 8 .:the I cxb3 I 9 . axb3 �h6 20 . f4 with the better position for White ;

A2) Nor I S . . . 'iVd8 I 6 . lihe i c4 I 7 .�a4±; A3) Nor I S . . . 'iVb6 I 6 .tLla4 'iVb4

( I 6 . . . 'iVb5 I 7 .c4±) I 7 .'ifxb4 .l:.xb4 I 8 .�d2± , helps. 1 S ... l:teS Now Black takes over the initiative. 16.h4 The problems are not solved by I 6 .�xf6 �xf6 I 7 .tLle4 l:!.xe4 I 8 .'iVxd6 cxd6 I 9 .fxe4 c4 20 .�a4 l:txb2+ . 1 6 • • . l:tb4 17.'iVd2 c 4 18.a3 l:!.b8 19.�a2 tLlxdS-+ 20.tt:la4 'iVc6 21..l:.he1 'ilixa4 22 . .l:.xeS .ixeS

23.�xd5 �xb2+ 24.'\i;>d2 'ii'xa3 2S.'lt>el 'ifxa2 0-1 , Ganor-Berkovich, Israel tt 2 0 1 0 ;

B ) ll .�h6 �e6 12 . .txg7 'lt>xg7= 13.g4?! dxe4 14.'ii'e3 'ii'e7 IS.gS tt:ldS 16.'ii'd4+ 'lt>g8 17.tt:lxe4 �fS 18.tt:lf6+ tt:lxf6 19.gxf6 �e3+ 20.'ihe3 l:.xe3 21.�d3 l:.xf3=F 22.�xf5 l:.xfS 23.l:.hfl l:.xfl 24.l:.xfl h6 25 . .1:.£4 aS 26.l:.a4 lla6?! 2 6 . . . c5 2 7 .l:.c4 l:.a6 2 8 . l:.xc5 g5= . 27.b4 l:.b6 28.bxa5 l:.a6 29.h4 'lt>f8 30.'lt>d2 'lt>e8 3I.l:.e4+ 'lt>d7 32.l:.e7+ 'lt>d6 33.l:.xf7 'lt>e6 34.llxc7 'lt>xf6 35.'lt>c3 gS 36.hxg5+ hxgS 37.'lt>b4 g4 38.l:.c8 'lt>es 39.l:.e8+ 'lt>f4 40.1:.£'8+ 'lt>e3 41.lle8+ 'lt>f2 42.llf8+ draw, S. Soloviev-Olenin, Smolensk tt-2 200 5 .

• N o advantage comes from IO.�bS ..td7 ll.exdS

Analysis d iagram

l l...tt:lxd4 l l . . . tt:le5 1 2.. �e2 ! ;i; Nunn (± - the author) . 12.�xd4 �xbS 13.tt:lxb5 'ii'xdS! 14.tt:lxc7 'ii'xa2 15.c3 l:.ac8! This is even stronger than 1 5 . . . l:.ec8 ! 1 6 . .txf6 ( 1 6 .tt:lxa8 ? tt:ld5 ! ) 1 6 . . . l:.xc7 1 7 .�xg7 'lt>xg7 1 8 .'ii'd4+ 'lt>g8 1 9 .l:.he l l:.ac8 2 0 .'ii'f6 'iVa i + 2 1 .'lt>c2 'ifa4+ 2 2 .'lt>b l l:.d7 2 3 .l:.xd7 'ifxd7 24 .lle4 'ifd3 + with a draw, Malakhov-E . Geller, St Petersburg 1 994 .

C h a p t e r 1 - T h e T h ree Kn i g h t s ' O p e n i n g

Analysis d iagram

16 . .ixf6 1 6 .tt:lxe8 tt:ld5 ! ! with the idea after 1 7 .tt:lxg7 (the least of the evils is 1 7 .'ifd3 �h6+ 1 8 .1d.d2 llxe8=F) to mate by 1 7 . . . 'iVa 1 + 1 8 . 'lt>c2 tt:lb4+ 1 9 . 'lt>b3 'i¥a2+ 2 0 . 'lt>xb4 llc4+ 2 I .'lt>b5 'i¥a4# . 16 ... llxc7 17.�xg7 l:.ce7! 18.b3 1 8 . ..tf6 lle2 1 9 .'i¥xe2 'ii'a l +-+ . IS ... 'ii'al+ 19.'lt>c2 'ii'a6 20.l:.al 'ii'bs=F (analysis) .

Back to the game.

1 0 . .. . 1 1 . tt:ld4xc6 1 2 . .ie3-d4

1 2 . ...

tt:lf6xd5 b7xc6

.ic8-e6?1

Equalising is 1 2 . . . .ixd4 1 3 .'i¥xd4 'if g5+ 1 4 . 'lt>b 1 'i¥e3 1 5 .'ifxe3 tt:lxe3 .

1 3. ..td4xg7 'lt>g8xg7 1 4. tt:lc3-e4 f7-f5?1

49


He should not weaken himself without necessity. After 1 4 . . . �f5 Black has no particular problems.

1 5 . tt::le4-c5 �e6-f7 1 6 . .tf1 -c4

1 6 . ... tt::ld5-e3

1 6 . . .'ifh4= .

1 7.'ifd2-c3+ 'ifd8-f6 1 8.'i\Yc3xf6+ 'ito>g7xf6 1 9.�c4xf7 'ito>f6xf7 20.�d1 -d7+± 'ito>f7-g8 21 .�d7xc7 tt::le3xg2 22.�h1 -d1 �e8-e1 23.�c7xc6 �a8-d8 24.tt::lc5-d3 �e1 -e3 25.f3-f4 �e3-e2 26.b2-b4 �d8-d7 27.b4-b5 'ito>g8-g7 28.a2-a4 'iti>g7-h6 29.a4-a5 �d7-d4 30.b5-b6 a7xb6 31 .a5xb6 tt::lg2xf4 32.b6-b7 tt::lf4xd3+ 33.�d1 xd3 1 -0

Game No 1 3 [C46] Kim,Alexey Isakov,Andrey Voronezh 2005 ( 6)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt::lg1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3 4. d2-d4 5. tt::lf3xd4 6. �c1 -e3 7. tt::ld4xc61?

s o

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 g7-g6 e5xd4 �f8-g7 tt::lg8-f6

The analysis of the previous game leads the author to the conclusion that after 7 .'iYd2 0-0 8 . 0 -0 -0 �e8 ! White has no real advantage. This forces him to seek chances in another direction.

7 . ... b7xc6 8. e4-e5

8 . . .. tt::lf6-d5

Geller's idea . Theory considers the move 8 ... tt::lg8 to be more solid . After that move, White has tried the following possibilities :

A) 9.f4 Considered the strongest. We will consider Black 's possible options.

A I ) 9 ... f6 and now:

Analysis d iagram

A 1 1 ) Interesting is 1 O.�c4 ! ? fxe5 1 1.0-0 ! ? In principle, it is also not bad to play l l .�xg8 .l::Ixg8 1 2 . 0 -0 .ta6 1 3 .�e 1 'ito>f7 and here instead of 1 4 .'i!Yf3 ? ! in Ponos-Franic , Zagreb

1 9 9 7 , White should play simply 1 4 . fxe5 .l:!.e8 ( 1 4 . . . �xe5 1 5 .�d4 �xd4+ 1 6 .'ir'xd4 with the initiative to White) 1 5 .�d4 �g8 1 6 .'ti'f3 when Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn. 11. • • e4 White 's idea is based on the fact that the natural 1 1 . . . ds loses . . .

Analysis d iagram

. . . on account of 1 2 . tLlxdS ! cxdS 1 3 .�xd5 �fs 1 4 .�c6+ �f8 ( 1 4 . . . �d7 1 S .'i¥f3 +-) 1 S .�cS + tLle7 ( 1 S . . . �f7 1 6 .'i!Yd5 ++-) 1 6 .g4 'ifxd 1 1 7 . .l:!.axd 1 , and White wins back the sacrificed material , with a decisive advantage . 12.tt:Jxe4 dS

Analysis d iagram

13.5! Also good is 1 3 .�d4. 13 ... � 1 3 . . . dxc4 1 4.'iVxd8+ �xd8 1 S . .l:!.ad l + �e8 ( 1 5 . . . .td7 1 6 . fxg6 �e8 1 7 . .l:!.f7+-) 1 6 .f6 , gaining back the piece, with advantage. 14 • .l:!.ill dxc4 1S . .l:!.cs± with the advantage to White.


A l l) No serious problems are posed by 10.exf6 'iVxf6 ( 1 O . . . tt:lxf6=) 11.i.e2 ( 1 I .'ti'f3 tLle7 1 2 . 0 -0 -0;!;) 11. .. tLle7 12.0-0 0-0 13.i.f3 d6 with roughly equal play, Lehtimaki-Rantanen, Finland 2008 ;

A 1 3 ) 1 O.'ii' d2 f:xeS 11.fxeS Probably even stronger is 1 1 . 0 -0 -0 dS 1 2 .fxe5 tt:le7 ( 1 2 . . . �xe5 1 3 .l:f.e 1 ±) 1 3 .tLle4 �xeS 1 4 .�d4 dxe4 1 S .i.xe5 'iVxd2 + 1 6 . .l:!.xd2;!; . 11 ... i.xeS The line 1 1 . . .'tWh4+ 1 2 .g3 'it'b4 1 3 .a3 'i!Yxb2 14 . .l:!.a2 'tWb7 1 5 .�c4 �xeS 1 6 . 0 -0 dS is no improvement for Black:

Analysis d iagram

1 7 .tLlxdS ? ! (White can obtain a large advantage with the striking 1 7 . .l:!.aa 1 ! ± dxc4 1 8 . .l:.ab 1 ( 1 8 . .l:!.ae 1 +-) 1 8 . . . 'i!Ya6 1 9 .�cS +-) 1 7 . . . cxdS 1 8 .�xdS (White gets nothing special from 1 8 .'i!Yxd5 'iVxdS 1 9 .1txd5 .l:!.b8 2 0 .�xa7 tt:le7 ! ) 1 8 . . . c 6 1 9 .�d4 .txd4+ 2 0 .'ti'xd4 cxdS 2 1 ..l:!.e 1 + ? (better is the immediate 2 1 .'ti'xh8 with an unclear position) 2 1 . . . �f8 (2 1 . . . �f7 2 2 .'ti'xh8 'iVb6+ 2 3 .�g2 tLlf6-+) 2 2 .'ti'xh8 'ti'g7 (22 . . . 'ti'b6+ 2 3 .�g2 �fs +) 23 . .l:!. e 8 + �f7 24.'ti'xg 7 + �xg7 2 5 . .l:!.b2 �f7 2 6 . .l:!.d8 tt:le7 ( 26 . . . tt:lf6=F) 2 7 .c3 aS 28 . .l:!.f2+ �e6 ( 28 . . . �g7 29 . .l:!.e2 .l:!.a7 30 . .l:!.xe7+ .l:!.xe7 3 1 ..l:!.xc8 .l:!.e l + 3 2 .�f2 l:f.a 1 =)

5 1


l9J:tel+ �£7 3 0 .l:i.f2 + �e6 3 1 .l:i.el+ �f7 3 l . l:i.fl + draw, PodlesnikGombach, Ljubljana 100 0 . 12.0-0-0 d6 13.l:i.e1 lLlf6 14.�g5 �e7 15 . ..ic4 ..ie6 16.ltJe4 tbxe4 17 .l:i.xe4 'iVd7 18.�f6 l:i.fS 19.kxe5 dxeS 20.'iVxd7+ ( l O .�e l ± ) 20 ... �xd7 21.l:i.d1+ �dS 22.�xd5 cxdS 23.l:i.xd5+ �c6 24.l:i.dxe5± ShabanovVorotnikov, USSR I 9 7 7 .

Al) 9 . ./1Je7 and now:

Analysis diagram

Al l ) Practice has seen 1 O • ..ic4 dS ( I O . . . ltJfS I L�.f2 dS is a simple transposition) 11.�b3 ttJfs 12 . .!tf2 0-0 13.0-0 d4?! It was better to wait : 1 3 . . . l:i.e8 1 4 .�f3 aS I S .l:i.fd l , when White stands a little better, but no more than that. Also interesting, although somewhat committal , is 1 3 . . . g S . 14.ltJe4± 'ii'e7 15.'ifd2 a5

Analysis diagram

5 2

16 . .tc4 There was already a tactical solution : 1 6 .c3 cS 1 7 .cxd4 tbxd4 ( 1 7 . . . cxd4 1 8 .l:!.fc l ±) 1 8 . .1xd4 cxd4 1 9 .�xd4 .l:i.d8 lO .'iYc3 ± . 1 6 ... c 5 1 7 .a4 More accurate i s 1 7 .'i¥d3 ± . 17 ... ..ib7 18.'ifd3 ..th6? In the event of 1 8 . . . �xe4 ! ? 1 9 .'ifxe4 ltJd6 lO .�d3 tbxc4 l l .�xc4 l:i.fb8 22 .b3 l:i.b4 White still has to demonstrate that he has a real advantage. 19.tLlf6+ �h8 20.�h3+- �g7 21.g4 l:i.h8 22.gxf5 gxfS 23 . ..th4 1 -0 , Pavasovic-Gombach, Bled lOOl . A22 ) 10.'ifd2 dS 11.exd6?! More

was promised by 1 1 . 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 I L�el;!; , or l l . .tcs l::te8 1 3 . .tel lLlfS 1 4 .g4 tbh4 1 5 .tLle4 �e6 1 6 .tt'lg5 with some prospects of a positional advantage. 11...cxd6 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.�d4 1 3 . .tel tLlfS is also roughly equal , Hennigan-Rayner, Wrexham 1 9 94 . 13 ... �xd4 14.'iVxd4 tLlfS 15.�d2 dS with approximately equal chances , Maciej a-Bartel , rapid game, Warsaw 100 5 . A 3 ) 9 ••. d6 10.'iYf3 tbe7 11.0-0-0 0-0

Analysis diagram

The pressure on the d-file gives White some initiative, but the position is very complicated :

A3 1 ) 12 . .tc5?! Too direct. 12 ... tLld5 13.tLlxd5 cxdS 14.exd6

Analysis diagram

14 ... c6? The natural 1 4 . . J:tb8 gives sufficient counterchances : 1 S .�d4 ( 1 S .b3 c6 - only now! Black has good counterplay for the pawn) 1 S . . . �xd4 1 6 .l::rxd4 'tWxd6 1 7 .'i:YxdS 'ir'b6=. 15.'iVa3 Now the black queen will never get to aS . White has a large advantage: 15 ... l:i.b8 16.c3 �g4 17J:td2 'ti'f6 18.g3 l:i.fd8 19.�g2 1 9 . .td3±. 19 ... �5 1 9 . . . �f8 20 .h3 �fs 2 1 .g4 �c8 22 .'ifxa7 bd6 23 .�d4 'ifh4 ( 2 3 . . . 'if xf4 24 .l:i.fl ±) gives Black more hope. 20.l:i.e2 ..id3 21.l:i.e5 l:i.e8 n.l:i.hel l:i.xe5 23.l:i.xe5 'itd8 24.l:i.e3 ..i5 25.'it'xa7 l:i.a8 26.'it'c7 'tW£\1 27.a3 l:i.c8 28.'ii'e7 ..ie6 29.l:i.xe6 1 -0 , JanesCastaldo, Italy 2004;

A3 2) It made sense to complete development first : 12.�c4 .te6 1 2 . . .d5 1 3 .g4:

A3 2 1 ) 1 3 . . . ..td7 1 4 . ..ta6 f6 ( 1 4 . . . ..ic8 1 s . ..txc8 tLlxc8 1 6 .h4±) 1 S .exf6 .txf6 1 6 .tLla4±; A3 22) Or 1 3 . . . f6

Analysis diagram

Chapter 1 - The Three Knights ' Opening

1 4 . tLlxdS cxdS 1 S . l:i.xd5 tLlxdS 1 6 .'ti'xd5 + 'tWxdS 1 7 . -txd S + �e6 1 8 . ..txe6+ Wh8 1 9 .�c5 with a clear advantage to White. 13.�xe6 fxe6 14.'tWh3 'ifd7 1 4 . . . tLlfs 1 S . ..tf2 followed by l:i.he 1 and g2-g4 promises White the better game. IS.l:i.hel Also good is 1 S .tLle4. Black's position is very cramped and it is difficult for him to find a useful move, for example : 1 S . . . tLldS 1 6 .l:i.he 1 tLlxe3 1 7 .'tWxe3 dS 1 8 .tLlcS 'iff? 1 9 . g3 ± . 15 ... l:i.ae8 16.Wb1 Black has no counterplay, and in particular, he cannot play 1 6 . . . tLldS because of 1 7 .tLlxdS cxdS 1 8 . .l:!.xdS with a clear advantage to White.

A4) An alternative which has not been tried in practice, but is not without some sense, is the move 9 ... tLlh6, after which it is logical for White to look to queenside castling after : 10.'itf3 Or 1 0 .'i!fd2 0-0 1 1 . 0 -0-0 d6 1 2..te2 .te6 1 3 . ..tf3 'ti'd7 1 4 .h4 ttJfs 1 5 .�f2 after which White 's position is preferable . 1 0 ... 0-0 11.0-0-0 d5 12.h3 f6 13 . ..tc5 fxeS The exchange sacrifice is a necessary step. Not playable is 1 3 . . . .l:!.e8

Analysis diagram

1 4 .tLlxdS cxdS 1 S .l:i.xd5 +-; nor is 1 3 . . . l:i.f7 on account of the following sacrifice :

5 3


Analysis diagram

1 4.�b5 ! cxbS 1 S .ti:Jxd5 +-. The other version of the sacrifice is less good : 1 3 . . . �e6 1 4 .�xf8 'ifxf8 1 5 .exf6 'ifxf6 1 6 .g4 tt:Jf7 1 7 .�g2 ti:Jd6 1 8 . .l::rhe 1 .l::rb8 1 9 .'it'g3 �f7 2 0 . .l:[d3 and Black's compensation is inadequate. 14.�xf8 �xf8 lS.fxeS+ ti:Jfl 16 . .l::rel 'it'gS+ 17.�bl �xeS 18.�d3 �g8 19.ti:Ja4± (analysis) All of this needs practical tests.

B) 9.�d4!? 'ife7 Maybe more prospects of equality are offered by 9 . . . f6 1 O . exf6 tt:Jxf6 1 1 .'ife2+ �f7 1 2 . 0-0-0 dS 1 3 .'it'd2 l:f.e8 1 4 .�d3 �g8 1 5 .f3 . White 's position is preferable. On 9 . . . ti:Je7 the simplest of all is 1 0 .e6 0-0 1 1.. �xg 7 �xg 7 1 2 .'ifd4+ f6 1 3 . exd7 'ifxd7 1 4 .'ifxd7 �xd7 1 5 .�c4 .l:[ae8 1 6 . 0-0-0 with a comfortable plus in the ending.

Analysis diagram

5 4

10.'it'e2 f6 11.exf6 tt:Jxf6 In the game Solozhenkin-Rantanen, Finland tt 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 , there followed 1 1 . ..'ili'xe2+ 1 Lixe2 tt:Jxf6 1 3 .�f3 0-0 1 4 . 0-0-0 aS 1 S . .l:[he 1 .l:[b8 White has emerged from the opening with a small advantage. 1 6 .�a7 ! ? (after, for example, 1 6 .ti:Ja4 Black's game is quite unpleasant , but White is seduced by the possibility of a beautiful tactical blow) 1 6 . . Jib7 1 7 . ..ics .l:[f7 1 8 .�xc 6 ! ? White 's last move evidently made such an impression on his opponent that the latter collapsed at once. In fact, after the intermediate check 1 8 . . . �h6+ 1 9 .�b 1 dxc6 2 0 . .l:[d8+ �g7 2 1 .�d4! (weaker is 2 l ..l:[xc8 .id2 2 2 . .l:[e3 �xe3 2 3 .�xe3 .l:[b4, and Black is even slightly better) 2 l . . .�f5 2 2 .g4 cS 2 3 .�xf6+ �xf6 24.gxf5 �xfS Black retains quite good drawing chances. 12.0-0-0! 'ifxe2 1 2 . . . d5 . 13.�xe2 �f714.l:.hel d6 1S . .tf3 By weakening the dark squares in the enemy camp with 1 5 .�c4+ dS 1 6 .�b3 , White could count on a small but lasting advantage. 1S ... �d7 16.tLle4 A minimal advantage could be retained by 1 6 .h3 . 16 ..• .l:i.he8 17.b3 aS 18.tt:Jxf6 �xf6 19.l:.xe8 :xeS 20.�b2 He should prefer 2 0 . ..ixf6 �xf6 2 1 ..l:[d4 .l:[e l + 22 .�d2 .l:[fl 2 3 .�e3 :e 1 + 24 . ..ie2 with a symbolic advantage to White. 20 ... cS 21.�dS+ �g7 22.i.xf6+ �xf6 23.l:.d3 2 3 .�f3 = . 23 •.. .tg4 24.h3 �e2 2S.l:.c3 gS 26.�a3 .l:i.eS 27.�c6 .l:[£5 28.£'3 �fl 29.g4 l:.f4 30J:te3 i.xh3 31.�e4 3 1 .c4 ..ig2 3 2 . ..idS = . 31. .. �g2 32.�a4 dS -+ and 0 - 1 (42) , Marciano-V. Popov, St Petersburg-Paris 1 99 6 . C ) 9.�c4 �xeS

Refusing the sacrifice by 9 . . .tbe 7 1 O .kf4 0-0 1 1 . 0 -0 removes the break . . . f7 -f6 from the agenda and leaves White with an advantage, free of charge. 10.0-0

Analysis diagram

The following moves do not promise Black anything good:

i) 1 O . . .tt:le7 1 1 . �d4 kxd4 1 2.'ifxd4 0 - 0 1 3 .tLle4 tt:lfs 1 4 .'it'c3 tt:l g 7 1 5 .tt:lf6+ r.t>h8 1 6 . l:.fe 1 d 5 1 7 . .l:i.ad 1 ke6 1 8 .g4 with the idea of .l:i.d 1 -d3 -h3 , and White 's initiative starts to grow to serious proportions;

ii) 1 O . . . r.t>f8 1 1 . f4 �f6 1 2.tLle4 d6 1 3 . 'if f3 �f5 (Black is not offered an easy life by 1 3 . . . �xb2 1 4 . .l:r.ab 1 �g 7 1 5 . f5 ) 1 4.tt:lxf6 tt:lxf6 1 5 . .td4 and White has strong pressure for the pawn. So, 1 O • • • d5, and now instead of 1 1 . �d4?! �xd4 1 2 .'ifxd4 tt:lf6 1 3 . .l:i.fe 1 + �e6 with a good position for Black , Barglowski-Szymczak , Polanica Zdroj 200 1 , White should have ventured : 11.tLlxd5! cxd5 12.�xd5 �e6 . The only sensible defence. Not 1 2 . . . .1:i.b8 1 3 . �xf7 + r.t>e7 1 4 . �c5 + .td6 1 5 . .tb3 ! tt:lf6 ( 1 5 . . . �xc5 1 6 . .1:i.e l + �e6 1 7 . .l:i.xe6+ r.tf8 1 8 .'ti'f3 + r.tg7 1 9 . .1:i.d 1 .td6 20 .c4 - White 's attack is irresistible) 1 6 .'ifd2 ! (also good is the prosaic 1 6 . .!:i.e 1 + r.t>f8

Chapter 1 - The Three Knights' Opening

1 7 . .txa7 l:.b5 1 8 . 'ifd3 ;!;) with a strong initiative for White. 13.�xa8 'ifxa8 14.�d4 'ti'd5 15.�xe5 'ifxe5 16 J�el 'ti'f6 17.c3 Cjje7 18.'ti'a4+ c6 19.'ti'xa7 0-0 20.a4 and White has the advantage.

D) Interesting is 9.'ti'e2!? tt:l e 7 1 o . .tcs d 6 1 l . exd6 cxd6 1 2. 0-0-0 d5 1 3 .h4 h5 1 4 . r.t>b 1 �xc3 1 5 .bxc3 �e6 1 6 .'ti'e5 'ti'b8 + 1 7 .'ti'xb8+ .l:i.xb8+ 1 8 .r.t>a 1 a S 1 9 .�a7;!; . The existence of several extremely promising possibilities for White at move 9 leads one to feel that all is not well in Black's kingdom.

Back to the game.

9. tt:lc3xd5 1 0. 'ifd1 xd5 1 1 . �f1 -c41?

c6xd5 .l:i.a8-b8

The inventor of the pawn sacrifice, Geller, did not manage to hold the inferior endgame against Campara (Berne 1 98 8) : 11.�xa7 .l:i.xb2 1 2. �d4 l:.b8 1 3 .�c4 0-0 1 4 . 0 -0 �b7 1 5 .'ti'a5 'ti'gs 1 6 .f3 d6 1 7 . .1:i.f2 c5 1 8 . f4 'ifh4 1 9 .kc3 dxe5 20 .'ifc7 'ti'd8 21 . 'ifxd8 .l:i.bxd8 22 .fxe 5 . The passed a-pawn gives White a significant advantage. Also worthy of attention is 11.0-0-0 0-0 1 2..�xa7;!; .

1 1 . 1 2. 0-0

0-0 kc8-b7

5 5


Black does not equalise after 1 2 . . . d6 1 3. exd6 i.e6 1 4. 'ifc6 'ifxd6 ( 1 4 . . . cxd6 IS. i.xe6 fxe6 1 6 . .l:tad l .l:txb2 1 7 . a4±) IS. 'ifxd6 cxd6 1 6 . .tb3;!;.

1 3. 'ifd5-c5?1

An inaccuracy, giving away a large part of the advantage. More accurate is 1 3.'ifd4 d6 1 4 .f4 with a healthy extra pawn. Starting with this move, White's play loses its logical thread. However, from a theoretical point of view, the important thing for us is that White obtained a clear advantage in the opening.

1 3. 1 4. e5xd6 1 5. 'ifc5xa7

56

d7-d6 c7xd6

1 5 . ... 'ifd8-c81

Not only attacking the bishop, but also threatening 1 6 . . . �xg2 with perpetual check.

1 6. �c4-e2 1 7. .l:tf1 -e1 1 8. .l:ta1 -d1

'ifc8xc2 i..g7xb2 'ifc2-c8

1 8 . . JHe8= equalises without any particular problems.

1 9. �e3-h6 .l:tf8-e8 20. 'ifa7-b6??

Strange things start happening .

20 . ... .tb2-g7?

Both 20 . . . �xg2 2 1 .'iYxd6 �c6 2 2 . 'ifg3 'ife6 , and 20 . . . �c3 lead to an advantage for Black.

21 . �h6xg7 Wg8xg7 22. .l:td1 -c1

This is probably a mistake in the game score, since this move simply loses in one move to 22 . . . .l:txe2 . The move 2 2 . 'ifxd6 retains winning chances. The game score ends with 1-0.

Chapter 2 The Four Knights

Black avoids the main line on move 4

In this chapter, we will look at Black's ways of avoiding the main line at move 4 after l . e4 eS 2 .tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 .tt::lc3 tt::lf6 4.�b5 . The reputation of the variations analysed here varies from the dubious ( 4 . . . a6? - see Game 1 6) to the more or less playable ( 4 . . . �cS - see Game 1 4- 1 5 ; incidentally, this move was played successfully by the great Morphy ! ) to the perfectly solid ( 4 . . . �d6 ! ? - Games 1 7 - 1 9) . It is interesting that the theory of the last move has only been formed in the last 1 5 - 2 0 years; one only has to recall that in John Nunn's book New Ideas in the Four Knights ( 1 9 9 3 ) this line was not mentioned at all . This i s no surprise - to respectable masters o f the last century, it looked rather strange to place one 's bishop in front of one 's pawns in this way. But ' tiempi cambi ' , as they say !

2.1 A Nice History: 4 ... �c5 The variation l . e4 eS 2 .tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 .tt::lc3 tt::lf6 4 . .tbs .tcs has a nice history. Who does not remember the wonderful game Paulsen-Morphy?

Game No 1 4 [C48] Paulsen, Louis Morphy,Paul Charles New York 1 85 7 (6)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt::lg 1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6 �f8-c5

5. 0-0 6 . tt::lf3xe5 7. tt::le5xc6?!

0-0 l:lf8-e81?

One inaccuracy and Black takes the initiative. According to theory, White retains a small advantage only with 7.tt::lf3! tt:lxe4 8.d4 tt::lxc3 9.bxc3 �b6 (9 . . . �f8 I O .dS tt::leS !I .tt::lxeS .l:!.xeS 1 2 .�f4;;!;) 10.dS tt::le7 11.d6;;!;. The fact that Morphy's remarkable idea has not lost its relevance is confirmed by contemporary theory. Here is a comparatively rare example : 7.tt::lf3 tt:lxe4 8.tt:lxe4l:lxe4 9.d3!? l::te8 1 O.d4;;!; The modern treatment of the variation in action. White strives for a position in which his opponent has the minimum counterplay. 1 o ... .ifs 11.dS tt::les 12.tt::lxeS l:lxeS 13.�f4 Worthy of consideration is 1 3 .'tl!ff3 with a small , but stable plus. 13 ... l:l£5 14 . .tg3 1 4 .�e3 ;;!; . 14 ... c6 1 S • .tc4 bS 16 • .tb3 .tb 7 17 .c4 Also not bad is I 7 .c3 with the idea after 1 7 . . . cxdS to reply 1 8 .�c2 with the advantage.

57


17 ... bxc4 1S.�xc4 'ti'b6 19.'ti'd3 g6= 20.d6!? �g7 Equalizing is 2 0 . . . a5 followed by . . . i.a6 . 21.l:rae 1 kd4 More solid is 2 1 . . . .tf6 = . 22.b4!? 2 2 .l:!.e7 !± . 22 ... c5 23.b5 a6 24.a4 axb5 25.axb5;!; trf8 26.l:re7 'ti'dS 27.'ti'a3 'ti'cs 2S.'ti'a2± 'it>g7 29.l:rfel h5 30.h4 �aS 31.'ti'a7 �b7 32 . ..td3+- .t:r.f6 33.�e4 i.xe4 34.l:rlxe4 'tWaS 35.'ti'xaS l:rxaS 36.l:rxd7 l:ral+ 37.Wh2 l:rf5 3S.l:re2 c4 3 9.b6 l:rb5 40.b7 Wf6 41Jic7 l:rbbl 42 . .tf4 trhl+ 43.Wg3 l:ra3+ 44.l:re3 i.xe3 45.fxe3 1 - 0 , Lima-Shabalov, Boca Raton 2 0 0 8 .

7 . ... 8 . .ib5-c4

9 . .tc4-e2

d7xc6 b7-b5

Bad is 9 .i.b3 ? .ig4 1 0 .'ife 1 b4+ .

9. ... lbf6xe4 1 0. lbc3xe4

Immediately losing is 1 0 .i.f3 ? lbx£'2 1 1 .l:rxf2 'i!Vd4 1 2 .lbe4 ( 1 2 .'iVfl 'i!Vx£'2+ 1 3 .'ti'xf2 l:re 1 + #) 1 2 . . . l:rxe4 1 3 .�xe4 'ifxf2 + 1 4 .Wh 1 i.g4 1 S . .tf3 l:re8-+ .

1 0. ... tre8xe4 1 1 . i.e2-f3

More solid was 1 1 .d3 l:re6 1 2 .i.f4. However, the ambitious 1 1 .c3 ends badly : 1 1 . . .'i!Vh4 1 2 . g3? ( 1 2 .d4 .td6

58

1 3 .g3 'i!Vh3 1 4 .f4 i.d7 1 S .i.f3 l:re7 'only ' brings White a bad position) 1 2 .. .'iVh3 1 3 . .tf3 l:rh4 1 4.gxh4 .td6 mating.

1 1 . ... tre4-e6 1 2. c2-c3?

Better was 1 2 .d3 'ti'f6 1 3 .c3 .l:re8 1 4.d4 i.d6 with roughly equal chances.

1 2 . ... 'i!Vd8-d3 1 3. b2-b4

More stubborn is 1 3 . .l:re 1 .l:rxe 1 + 1 4 .'i!Vxe 1 .td7 1 S .'ti'fl 'ti'c2 1 6 .d4 .td6 with slightly better chances for Black.

1 3 . ... 1 4. a2-a4 1 5. 'ti'd1 xa4

Stronger is 1 S . . . .ib7 .

i.c5-b6 b5xa4 i.c8-d7

1 6. .l:ra1 -a2?

The only defence was 1 6 .'iYa6 .

1 6 . ... 1 7. 'ifa4-a6

1 7 . ... 1 8. g2xf3 1 9. �g 1 -h 1 20. .l:rf1 -d1

.l:ra8-e8

'iVd3xf31 .l:re6-g6+ i.d7-h3

He cannot save himself by 2 0 .'ti'd3 fS ! 2 1 .'iVc4+ Wf8 2 2 .'ti'f4 .tx£'2-+ ;

Whilst a quick mate follows after 20 . .l::!.g i .l::!.xg l + 2 l . W xg i .l::!.e l + 22 .'ti'fl .l::!.xfl #.

20. 21 . 'it>h1 -g1 22. 'it>g1 -f1

.th3-g2+ ilg2xf3+ .tf3-g2+

He could mate more rapidly with 2 2 . . . .l::!.g2 ! 2 3 .'ti'd3 .l::!.xf2 + 24 .Wg i .l::!.g2+ 2 S .'it>h i .l::!.g i #.

23. 'it>f1 -g1 ilg2-h3+

And here the game could have been ended at once by 2 3 . . . .te4+ 24 .Wfl �fS ! 2 S .'ife2 �h3 + 2 6 .We i .l::!.g i #.

24. 'it>g1 -h 1 �b6xf2 25. 't/Va6-f1 �h3xf1 26. .l::!.d 1 xf1 ld.e8-e2 27. ld.a2-a1 .l::!.g6-h6 28. d2-d4 ilf2-e3

0-1

It is amazing how, even in our times , when theory has been worked out in the smallest details , this game by the American genius still creates a strong impression. In addition, nobody in the past I S O years has come up with a better way of fighting for an opening advantage than the exchanging combination 6 .tt::lf3 xeS ! (or S .tLlf3 xeS ! ? - see Game I S below) , invented by Paulsen.

Game No I S [C48 J Naer,Evgeny Landa,Konstantin Novokuznetsk 2008 (3)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5 5. tt::lf3xe5!

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 .if8-c5 tt:Jc6xe5

Chapter 2 - The Four Knights

S ... 0-0 ( in the spir it of PaulsenMorphy !) has also been played: 6.tt::ld3 It was also possible to take the pawn: 6 .�xc6 dxc6 7 .tt::lf3 tt::lxe4 . There is nothing better. 8 .tt::lxe4 .l::!.e8 (8 . . . 'ti'e7 9 .'ife2 .l::!.e8 I O .d3 fS I l .tLlc3 'ifd8 1 2 .tLleS ±) 9 .d3 fs I 0 . 0 -0 fxe4 I l .dxe4 with the better prospects for White. 6 ... �d4 7.0-0 �xc3 Interesting is 7 . . . dS ! ? 8 .exdS ( 8 .tt::l xdS tt::lxdS 9 . exdS 'ifxdS with compensation for the pawn) 8 . . . �g4 9 .'iYe i .l::!.e 8 . 8.dxc3 tt:lxe4 9.tt:lf4 d6 lO . .l::!.el tt:Jcs ll.�e3 tt:le6 12.'ifhs tt:lxf4 13.�xf4 The two bishops and better development give White some advantage, Jonkman-Ashton , Port Erin 2 0 0 3 .

6. d2-d4 ..tc5-d6 7. f2-f4

7 . ... tt:Je5-c6

Best. If 7 . • . tt::lg6 8.eS c6, JanowskiLasker, Cambridge Springs I 90 S , the piece sacrifice is interesting: 9.exd6!? 9 . ..td3 .tc7 I O .exf6 'ifxf6 I l .'ti'e2+ tt:le7 1 2 . 0 -0 0 -0 I 3 . ..te3 dS I 4 .g4 9 ... cxbS Probably Black does better to refuse the sacrifice by 9 . . . 0 - 0 , but in this case, White has the better chances : I o .�e2 tt::lh4 I I . 0 - 0 tt:Jfs I 2 .'i!Yd3 tt::lxd6 1 3 .fS ;l; 10.'ife2+ 'it>f8 ll.fS tt:lh4 12.0-0. White has enormous compensation for the piece.

59


Black is worse after 7 ... �b4 8 . fxe5 tbxe4 9 .'Yi'f3 tbxc3 I 0 . 0-0 0-0 1 1 .bxc3 Jie7 1 2...tc4 'Yi'e8 , I . Almasi-S. Farago, Budapest 1 99 1 , 1 3 .'iVe4± .

8. e4-e5 �d6-b4

Black obtained a bad position in the following game: 8 ... �e7 9.d5 lbb4 1 O.exf6 .ixf6 ll.a3 �xc3+ 12.bxc3 tt::la6 13.0-0 0-0 14.f5 1 4 .�e 3 i . 14 .. .'iVf6 15.�e3 d6 16.Vi'g4 tt:Jcs 17.�d4± 'ifh6 18JH'3 a6 19.�e2 f6 20.�e3 It was already possible to take the pawn: 2 0 .�xc5 dxcS 2 l .'ti'c4. 20 ... 'iVg6 21.'Yi'h3?! The extra pawn in the ending is not worth much : 2 1 .'ti'xg6 hxg6 2 2...t xcS dxcS 2 3 .fxg6 . 2I. .. "iH7 22.l:tf4 'J{He] 23.-txcS 2 3 . .l::!.e 1 i . 23 ... '{/he2+ 24 . .td4 .td7 25.l:th4 2 S .'iVd3+. 25 ... h6 26J/Vg3 ..txfS 27.l:tf4 'i:Vxc2 28.l:tafl �g6 29.h4 �h7 30.'Yi'h3 l:tae8 31.h5 .te4 32.�h2 l:te7 33.l:tlf2 'Yi'd3 34.'Yi'g4 �xd5 35.�xf6 l:txf6 36.l:td4 l:txf2 0 - 1 , Tzermiadianos-Mastrovasilis , Athens ch-GRE 2 0 0 2 .

9. e5xf6

9 .d5 tbe4 1 0 .'Yi'd3 fS ! (Nunn) 1 1 . exf6ep tbxc3 1 2 .bxc3 'ti'xf6+ .

60

9. ... 'ti'd8xf6

1 0. �c1 -e3

The only hope of a small advantage was 10.a3 �xc3+ 1 0 . . . �a5 1 l .�e3 i , since the move 1 1 . . . dS is impossible because of 1 2 .b4. ll.bxc3 0-0 Probably better is 1 1 . . . a6 1 2..�d3 0 -0 , and now only the surprising 1 3 .�f2 ! ? (not 1 3 . 0 -0 ? tbxd4) retains some sort of initiative: 1 3 . . . d6 1 4J:tb 1 l:te8 1 S .'iVf3 . 12.0-0 dS 13.f5 a6 Or 1 3 . . . tbe7 1 4 . ..td3 l:te8 1 S .�d2 �d7 1 6 .iVhSi ( 1 6 . iVf3 i) . 14.�e2 �d7 15.�d2i.

1 0 . ... 1 1 . 0-0 1 2. b2xc3

d7-d5 i.b4xc3 ..tc8-f5

Black has equalised completely.

1 3. c3-c4 1 4. c4xd5 1 5. �e3-f2 1 6. J:ta 1 -c1 1 7. 'ti'd1 -f3 1 8. i.b5-c4

1 8 . ...

0-0-0 4Jc6-b4 ttJb4xc2 'J{Hf6-g6 a7-a6

'Yi'g6-d6?1

More solid is 1 8 . . . hS with mutual chances. Now the initiative is again in White 's hands.

1 9. g2-g4 'Yi'd6-g6 20. 'ti'f3-g3

White obtains the advantage after 2 0 .�g3 ! �xg4 (20 . . . 4Jxd4 2 1 .'Yi'd 1 ±) 2 1 .'Yi'c3 ..tfs 2 2 .�b3 ± .

20. 21 . f4-f5 22. a2-a3

�f5-e4 'ifg6-b6

If 2 2 . 'iib3 Black is definitely worse, but Naer is attracted by the idea of trapping the black knight.

22 . ... 23. l:[f1 -d1

tt:Jc2xd4! l:rd8xd51?

After 2 3 . . . tt::lf3 + 24 .�fl 'iVd6 25 .�e2 White is better.

24. l:rd1 xd4?

The losing move. White has the advantage after 24 .l:re 1 ! 'i¥b2 (24 . . . tt::lf3 + 2 S .'ifxf3 +-) 2 S . .l::!.c3 tt::lf3 + 2 6 .l:rxf3 �xf3 2 7 . 'if xf3 . White would also face no risk if he took his king out of the range of the checks by means of 24 .'it>fl : 24 . . . l:rdd8 2 S .f6 ! gxf6 2 6 .'ti'g 1 'i!Vd6 2 7 .�xd4 'iff4+ 2 8 .'iYf2 .

24 .... l:rd5xd4 25.�c4xf7 l:rh8-d8 26.l:rc1 -e1 �e4-c6 27.h2-h3 'ifb6-b2 28.�f2xd4 l:rd8xd4 29.�f7-e8 �c6-d5 30 . .te8-h5 l:rd4-d2 31 .l:re1 -e8+ �c8-d7 32.l:re8-e7+ �d7xe7 33.'ifg3xc7+ �e7-f6 34.g4-g5+ �f6xf5 35.�h5-g4+ �f5-e4 36.'ifc7-e7+ 'iYb2-e5 0-1


2.2 The Dubious 4 ... a6 The variation 1 . e4 eS 2 .tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3 .�b5 tLlf6 4 .tLlc3 a6?! has been considered dubious ever since the classic game Znosko-Borovsky-Rubinstein , Ostend 1 90 7 , but even so , it i s met from time to time in the practice of strong players.

Game No 1 6 [C48] Motylev,Alexander Kharlov,Andrey Izmir tt 2004 (2)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. �f1 -b5 4. tt:Jb1 -c3 5. .ltb5xc6

6. tt:Jf3xe5

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 a7-a6?! d7xc6

White can perfectly well go into more positional channels by means of 6.d3 , as was played (with a small transposition of moves) by Capablanca against Janowski (New York 1 9 1 4) : 6 ... �g4 From the lofty heights of modern positional understanding, this looks premature , because the bishop will soon be exchanged off, or driven to a poor location. Here is an example of more subtle strategy by Black : 6 . . . �d6 7 .'iYe2 'i¥e7 8 .itd2 �d7 9 .tLld 1 (it is interesting

61


that White plays the same moves as Capablanca) 9 . . . tLlh5 1 0 .g3 g6 1 1 .tLle3 b5 1 2 . 0-0-0 f6 1 3 .Wb 1 tLlg7 1 4 .h4 tLle6 1 5 .h5 0-0-0 - the position is still no more than equal , but Black's position is easier to play, Smagin-Ivanchuk, Pinsk 1 98 6 . 7.h3 .ihS 8.'ti'e2 .id6 9.0-0 'i!Ve7 1 O.tLld1 The position is equal , but in the subsequent play, the future world champion outplayed his opponent .

6 . ... 7. tt:Jc3xe4 8. 0-0 9. d2-d4

tt:Jf6xe4 'ifd8-d4 'ifd4xe5

The aforementioned game ZnoskoBorovsky-Rubinstein continued 9J:tel!? .ie6 10.d4 'i!VfS 11.�g5 Nothing comes from 1 1 .tLlg5 ? 0 - 0 - 0 1 2 .tLlxe6 fxe6= . Now:

Analysis diagram

A) 11 ... h6 12.�h4 1 2 .'i!Vd3 !? Yudasin 1 2 . . . Wd7 1 3 .ith4 !:::.. c4, l:tad 1 , d5 . 12 ... g5 13 • .ig3 0-0-0 14.-ies also does not relieve Black's problems;

B) In the game Sirtlanov-Obodchuk, Tiumen 1 99 6 , Black tried to strengthen Sagalchik's play against Yudasin, considered below: 11 ... ilb4!? 12.c3 �d6 The idea of the bishop manoeuvre is to ease Black's defence by preventing the white queen coming to d2 and then b4. After

62

13.tt::lxd6+ (better was 1 3 . c4 h6 ( 1 3 . . . kb4 1 4 .l:te3 ;;!;) 1 4 .tLlxd6+ cxd6 1 5 .d5 hxg5 1 6 . dxe6;;!;) 13 ... cxd6 14.'ii'd2 h6 1S.�f4 0-0-0 Black obtained good play;

C) 11 ... .td6 C 1 ) 12.g4 'ii'g6? Better is 1 2 . . . 'ifd5 .

13.f4 fS 14.tt::lxd6+ cxd6 1S.d5 with a winning position for White.

C2) 80 years later, Yudasin played more convincingly against Sagalchik, Kemerovo 1 995 : 12.'ii'd2 h6 1 2 . . . 0 -0 1 3 .tt::lxd6 cxd6 1 4 .�e7± . 13.�h4 gS 14.tt::lxd6+! cxd6 1S.�g3± 0-0-0 16.'i!Vb4!'i¥ds 17.b3 hs 1 7 . . . f5 !? 1 8 . f4! 1 8 . . . l:the8 1 9 .ii.f2 ± . 18.l:tad1 bS 19.'i!Va3! Wc7 20.c4 bxc4 21.bxc4 'i¥xc4 22.d5!+- .txdS 2 2 . . . cxd5 2 3 J:k1 h4 24 Jhc4+ dxc4 2 5 .'ifc5 + . 23.l:te7+ 'it>c8 24 . .txd6 l:td7 2S.'ii'b2! l:txe7 26.'i!Vb8+ 1 -0 .

9 . ... 'ife5-f5

Of similar merit is 9 ... 'i\Yds 10.l:te1 .ie6 11.-igS Less is promised by 1 1 .tt::lg5 0-0-0 1 2 .tt::lxe6 fxe6 1 3 .'ife2 ( 1 3 .'iYg4!? is insufficient for an advantage : 1 3 . . . 'ifxd4 1 4 .'ti'xe 6 + l:td7 1 5 .�g5 ii.d6) 1 3 . . . c5 = ( 1 3 . . .'ihd4? 1 4 .�g 5 +-) 1 4 . c4 'i!Vf5 1 5 . dxc5 il.xc5=. 11 ... .id6 1 1 . . .h6 1 2 .�f6!? 'ti'a5 ( 1 2 . . .'iVf5 1 3 .'ti'd3;;!;) 1 3 .kh4;t. 12.b3;!;:.

1 0. tt:Je4-g31 1 1 . �c1 -f4 1 2. tt:Jg3-h51

'iVf5-d5 .tf8-d6

Also good is 12 . .txd6 'Wxd6 13 • .l:!.e1+ Another bizarre computer idea is 1 3 .'tWe 1 + .te6 ( 1 3 . . . 'tWe7 1 4 .f4 'tWxe 1 1 5 . .l:!.axe l + 'lt>f8 1 6 .f5;!;) 1 4 .tLlf5 �f8 1 S .'iVes 0 - 0 - 0 1 6 .tt:Jxg 7 �dS 1 7 .tLlhS ;!;. 13 ... �e6 14.tt:Je4 't!lfds 1 S.tLlcS 0-0-0 16.tLlxe6?! Some advantage could be retained by 1 6 .c3 . 16 ... fxe6 17 .c3 .l:!.h£'8 18.l:i.eS 'iYxeS 19.dxeS .l:!.xd1+ 20 . .l:!.xd1 .l:!.f4 21.f3 .l:!.a4 22.a3 .!:!.aS 23.f4 draw, Khamrakulov-Radulski , La Roda 2 00 7 .

1 2 . ... .l:!.h8-g8

Both 1 2 . . . 0 -0? 1 3 .�h6 , and 1 2 . . . .txf4 1 3 .tt:Jxf4 'tWd6 ( 1 3 . . . 'iVfs 1 4 . .l:!.e 1 + .te6 1 5 .tLlxe6 fxe6 1 6 . .l:!.e5 ±) 1 4 . .l:!.e l + 'lt>f8 1 S .'tWf3 ± (Motylev) are bad.

1 3. b2-b3

Not 1 3 .�h6 ?? because of 1 3 . . . �h3 !

1 3 . ... 'ti'd5-f5?

Black's position is worse in any event. Even so, more tenacious was 13 .•. �e6 14.c4 'tWas 1 4 . . . 'iVfs 1 5 .�xd6 cxd6 1 6 .tLlg3±. 1S.�xd6 cxd6 16.b4! 1 6 .d5 cxdS 1 7 .b4 'ti'xb4 1 8 . cxd5 �g4 1 9 .'ti'd3 .txhS 2 0 .'ti'xh7 0 - 0 - 0 2 1 ..l:!.ab 1 ! 'ti'd2 (2 1 . . .'ti'g4? 2 2 .'ti'c2+


'it'd? (22 . . . 'it>b8 2 3 . .l:!.xb7 + ! ) 2 3 . .l:!.xb7 + 'lt>e8 2 4 . .l:!.e 1 + 'lt>f8 2 S .'ti'c 7 +-) 22 .'ifxh5±. 16 ..• 'Wxb4 17 . .l:!.b1 'Wxc4 18 . .l:!.xb7- Motylev.

1 4. �f4xd6 1 5. tt:Jh5-g3 1 6. tt:Jg3-e4

c7xd6 'iff5-a5 'lt>e8-e7

No better was 1 6 . . . 'ifc7 1 7 . c4 1 7 . . . .tfs 1 8 .tLlg3 .tg6 1 9 . .l:!.e 1 +± (Motylev)

1 7. .l:!.f1 -e1 �c8-e6 1 8. c2-c4 .l:!.g8-d8 1 9. d4-d5 c6xd5 20. b3-b41 'iYa5xb4 21 . c4xd5 �b4-a5

If 2 l . . .�d7 2 2 . .l:!.b 1 'i!Va3 2 3 .tLlg 5 + 'lt>f6 ( 23 . . . '1t>f8 24.'i!Vh5 +-) 24 .�h5 g6 2 5 .�h6 Black's position is dreadful.

22. d5xe6 23. 'iYd1 -g4

f7xe6 1 ·0

2.3 A New Line: 4 •.• �d61? As said, the theory of the line l.e4 eS 2.tt:Jf3 tLlc6 3.�bs tt:lf6 4.tLlc3 �d6!? has only been developed over the past 1 5 years. Once it became clear that there was no direct refutation of this rather extravagant-looking move, it started to appear occasionally even at the very highest level. Even so, the great majority of very top-class players, cherishing every tempo (it is clear that the bishop will have to move from d6) are still not rushing to include this move in their repertoires. In this section , we will look at those directions in which the strongest players have ventured in recent times. It is clear that the nature of this system has much in common with closed variations of the Spanish, in which plans , schemes and assessments are often more important than concrete variations.

63


Game No 1 7 [C48J NiHua Sangrna,Rahul Calcutta 2009 (!)

This example shows how easily and naturally this variation can lead to Spanish-style positions.

1 . e2-e4 2. tLlg1 -f3 3. �f1 -b5 4. tLlb1 -c3

5. d2-d3

e7-e5 tLlb8-c6 tLlg8-f6 �f8-d6

The plan of exchanging on c6 does not promise White much : 5.0-0 0-0 6.�xc6 bxc6?! A poor move. Probably, Black wanted to complicate the battle. Correct is 6 . . . dxc6 7 .h3 (7 .d4 tLlg4=) 7 . . . cS 8 .d3 = , although it is true that it would be very difficult to play this position for a win as Black. 7.d4 exd4 8.'ihd4 �e78 . . . c5 9 .'i:Vc4 l:!e8 1 O .l:!e 1 �b7 1 L�.gS h6 1 2 .�h4 g S 1 3 .e S;l; . 9.�g5 A large advantage for White results from 9 .e5 lLle8 1 0 .'ii'a4± . 9 ... h6 10.�h4 1 0 .�xf6 �xf6 1 1 . e5 �e7 1 2 .l:!fe 1 ;!; . 10 ... g5 ll.�g3 d6 12.e5 lLlh5 13.�c4 �d7 14.exd6 cxd6 15.'ifd3 tt::lxg3 16.hxg3 l:!b8 Black is already slightly better, but it would be wrong to take this game as a model for Black's opening strategy, Zeytinoglu-M. Yilmaz, Turkey tt 2 0 1 0 .

64

5 . ... 6 . �b5-c4 7. �c4-b3

a7-a6 b7-b5 1i!.d6-c5

By comparison with the Spanish variation 3 . . . a6 4 .�a4 lLlf6 5 .d3 bS 6 .�b3 �cS 7 .tLlc3 White simply has an extra tempo - not bad for what is supposed to be a harmless opening !

8. a2-a4 9. tLlc3-d5

1 0. �c1 -e3

b5-b4 h7-h6 d 7-d6

1 O . . . �xe3 ?! 1 1 . fxe3 0-0 1 2 .'ifd2 aS 1 3 . 0 -0;l; .

1 1 . 0-0

Nothing is promised by 1 1 .�xc5 dxcS 1 2 .tLle3 0-0 1 3 .a5 �e7 1 4 . 0 -0= . The standard Spanish plan of fighting for the centre deserves attention here : 1 1 .c3 0 -0 1 2 . 0 -0 bxc3 . For example, 1 3 .bxc3 �xe3 1 4 .lLlxe3 and White has a small initiative.

1 1 . ... �c8-e6

1 2. �e3xc5

Here, Ni Hua had at his disposal an interesting tactical blow : 12.lLlxe5!? lLlxeS 13.d4 �xd5 14.exd5 tLleg4 15.�f4 il.a7 16.h3 1 6 .l:!e l + �f8 1 7 .h3 hS ! ? 1 8 .hxg4 hxg4 1 9 .c3 also leads to an interesting position, in


which chances are about equal . 1.. 16 ... t2lxf2 Here the idea of 1 6 . . . hS is not as good : 1 7 .hxg4 hxg4 1 8 .c3 'it>f8 1 9 .f3 with somewhat better chances for White. 17 Jhf2 0-0 18.'ti' d3 In the resulting position , White 's chances are slightly superior.

1 2. 1 3. tt::ld5xf6+ 1 4. �b3xe6

d6xc5 'ii'd8xf6

Tempting is 14 . .tds .txd5 1 4 . . . �d7 1 S .tt::ld2 0-0 1 6 .'ti'f3 ! ? 'ii'xf3 1 7 .tt::lxf3 .l:lae8 1 8 .�xc6 �xc6 1 9 .tt::ld2 .l:le6 20 . f3 with some advantage to White in the ending : the good bishop does not fully compensate for the weakness of the queenside. 15.exd5 Ci'Je7 16 . .l:!.e1 0-0 17.t2lxe5 .l:!.fe8 1 7 . . . tt::lxdS 1 8 .tt::ld7 'tWxb2 1 9 .tt::lxf8 .l:!.xf8 2 0 .aS ;!;; does not promise Black full compensation for the exchange. 18.�£'3! 'ifxf3 19.Ci'Jxf3 t2lxd5 20.g3;!;; Black faces a difficult defence for a draw.

1 4 . ... 1 5. tt::lf3-d2

'iff6xe6 tt::lc6-a5

As distinct from the variation given in the note to move 1 4 , here the situation is somewhat different; the black queenside pawn structure looks rather vulnerable, but attacking it is not really possible in this position.

1 6. b2-b3

Small chances were offered by 1 6 .tt::lb 3 ! ? tt::lxb3 (more solid is 1 6 . . . tt::lb7 1 7 .�e2 , and White is very slightly better) 1 7 .cxb3 0-0 1 8 . .!:I.e 1 , and the weakness of cS may tell.

1 6 . ... 0-0

It is not clear where White can break through. The position is level.

1 7. 'li'd 1 -h5 1 8. f2-f4 1 9. tt::ld2xc4 20. b3xc4 21 . 'ifh5xe5 22. f4xe5 23 . .l:!.a1 -a3

.l:!.a8-d8 c5-c4 tt::la5xc4 b4-b3 'ii'e6xe5 b3xc2 .l:!.d8-d7

Slightly more precise is 2 3 . . . .l:!.d4 with a draw, having in mind after 24 .'it>f2?! to reply 24 . . . fs 2 S .'it>e3 fxe4, and it is already White who must think about a draw.

24. 'it>g1 -f2 25. 'it>f2-e3 26. .l:!.f1 -c1 27 . .l:!.a3xd3 28. l:td3-d5 29. 'it>e3-e4 30. 'it>e4-d3 31 . 'it>d3-d4 32. 'it>d4-c3 33 . .l:!.c1 xc2 34 . .l:!.c2xe2 35. .l:!.d5-d2

f7-f5 f5xe4 e4xd3 .l:!.d7-e7 .l:!.f8-f5 .l:!.f5-f2 .l:!.f2-f5 .l:rf5-f2 l:tf2-e2 l:te7xe5 l:te5xe2

He should have tried 3 S .l:td8 + , although in this case too, the winning chances are not great.

35 ... l:te2xd2 36.'it>c3xd2 c7-c5 37.'it>d2-e3 'it>g8-f7 38.g2-g4 a6-a5 39.'it>e3-f4 'it>f7-f6 40.'it>f4-e4 'it>f6-e6 41 .h2-h4

65


g7-g6 42.�e4-f4 �e6-f6 43.�f4-e4 �f6-e6 44.�e4-f4 �e6-f6 45.g4-g5+ h6xg5+ 46.h4xg5+ �f6-e6 47.�f4-e4 �e6-d6 112-112

In the notes to the following game, we see a plan which has become popular lately, involving the modest move d2-d3 . To preserve the Spanish bishop, White is prepared to lose a tempo. And why not, indeed; after all , the bishop on d6 will have to move again.

Game No 1 8 [C48] Hammer,Jon Ludvig Moradiabadi,Elshan Greece tt 2 0 I 0 (5)

1 . e2-e4 2. ti:Jg 1 -f3 3. ti:Jb1 -c3 4. ..tf1 -b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3

e7-e5 ti:Jb8-c6 ti:Jg8-f6 ..tf8-d6 0-0

Possible is 6 . .i:[e 1 .i:[eS 7.d3 h6 8.a3 ..tcs 9 .b4 �f8 1 o .�c4 d6 1 1 .h3 ..te6 1 2 .ltJd5 1 2 . ..txe6 l:he6 1 3 .ltJdS ;!; . 1 2 .. . �xd5 1 3 .exd5 ltJe7 1 4.�b5 ltJd7 1 5 .c4 ltJg6 1 6 .�e3 �c8 draw, Panarin-Belov, Krasnoyarsk 2 0 0 7 . In the final position , Black is slightly worse, for example : 1 7 . ..ta4 Or 1 7 .d4 e4 1 8 .ltJd2 .i:[e 7 ( 1 8 . . . f5 1 9 .�hS ;!;) 1 9 .�a4 ti:Jf6 2 0 .f3 . 1 7 . . . a6 1 8.d4 e4 1 9 .ltJd2 fS 2 0 .ltJb 1 '>ith 7 2 0 . . . f4 2 l .'ifg4 bS 2 2 .'iVxg6 fxe3 2 3 .cxb5 exf2+ 24 .�xf2±. 2 1 .ltJc3 fi.e7 22 • .i:[b 1 .l:[f8 2 3 .c5 ltJf6 24.'iVd2 .i:[dS and in both cases , White retains some advantage.

66

6 . ... a7-a6

• Quite popular is 6 ... h6 7 .a3 .i:[eS and now:

A) 8.tLle2 This Spanish knight transfer does not fit too well with the idea of 7 .a3 . 8 ... tt:le7 9.ti:Jg3 It was logical to follow the example in the main game Hammer-Moradiabadi , and strengthen his position in the centre with 9 .c4 tLlg6 1 0 .h3 (the essence of things is not changed by 1 O .�e3 tLlg4 1 1 .�d2t) 1 O . . . c6 1 1 ..!ta4 �c7 1 2 .�e3 . A complicated battle lies ahead , with mutual chances. 9 ... ttJg6 1 0 . .i:[e 1 c6 1 1 .�a4 .i..c7 1 2.c3 dS Black has solved his opening problems. Degraeve-Bacrot, Pau ch-FRA 2008 ;

B ) Immediate development looks good : 8 . .!te3 ttJg4 8 . . . �f8 9 .�c4. 9 . .i..c4 9 .�d2;!; . 9 ... �f8 1 O.h3 ttJxe3 1 1 .fxe3t; C) A similar idea is 8.h3 and now:

Analysis diagram

C 1 ) Worth consideration is: 8 ... lt:Jd4 9.�c4 More principled is 9 .tt:lxd4 exd4 1 o . tt:le2 c6 1 1 .i.c4 i.cs 1 2 .tt:lf4 ( 1 2 . b4 ! ?) 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 . exd5 cxdS 1 4 .i.b3 l:les 1 S . .td2 'i¥d6 ( 1 5 . . . a5 1 6 .'iff3 l::!.fs 1 7 . g4 l::!.gS 1 8 .tt:lg2 l:tes ( 1 8 . . . a4 1 9 . i..xgS hxgS 2 0 .�a2;!;) 1 9 . l:lae 1 l:lxe 1 2 0 .l:txe 1 a4 2 l .�a2 'i¥b6 2 L�c 1 ;!;) 1 6 .'iff3 ..td7 1 7 .l::!.ae 1 l:tae8 1 8 . l:lxe5 l:lxeS 1 9 .l:te l l:txe l + 20 .-txe l . The pawn weaknesses give White a small advantage. 9 ... c6 1 0.�e3 .i.cs l l ..i.a2 dS =

C2) 8 ... �£'8 9.l:te l 9 .i.e3 d6 1 0 .i.c4 i.e6 1 1 .�xe6 l::!.xe6 1 2 .tLldS;!; tt:le7 1 3 .c4;!; . 9 .•. d6 9 . . . tt:ld4 1 0 .tt:lxd4 exd4 1 1 .tt:le2 c6 1 2 .i.c4 'it'b6 .

Analysis diagram

C2 1 ) It looks good to head for positions similar to those arising from the Steinitz Defence to the Spanish, with 1 O .d4 exd4 l l .tt:lxd4 �d7 1 2 • ..tf4 lt:Jxd4 1 3 .i..xd7 Worthy of consideration is 1 3 .'ifxd4 �xbS 1 4 .tt:lxb5;!;. 1 3 ... tt:lxd7 1 4.'ti'xd4 lUeS l S .l:tad l t White's advantage bears only a symbolic character. 1 S ... c6 1 6.�xe5 Too direct an attempt to make a draw. Common sense suggests that the queenside pawns should be placed on light squares and the position of the knight on c3 improved, since it currently has few prospects. For example,


1 6 .tt:le2 'ti'b6 ( 1 6 . . .'ti'a5 1 7 .i.d2;!;) 1 7 .b3 'it'xd4 1 8 .tt:lxd4 g6 1 9 .�c l ;!; ; or 1 6 .a4 'it'c7 1 7 .tt:le2;!;. 1 6 . . . dxe5 1 7 .'ifxd8 1 7 .'i¥e3 = . 1 7 . . Jbxd8 1 8 .l:txd8 l::!.xd8 1 9 .l:td l l:txd l + 20.tt:lxd l = bS 2 1 .'tt>fl �cS 22.'tt>e2 'tt>f8 23 .'tt>d3 'tt>e7 24.c4 a6 25 .cxb5 25 .b4 .td4 26 .c5 = . 25 •.. axb5 26.lt:Je3 g6 2 7 .tt:lg4 'tt>e6 2 8 .f3 hS 29.lt:Je3 'tt>f6 30.h4 'tt>g7 3 1 .tt:lc2 B 32.b3 'tt>f6 3 3 .a4 'tt>e6 34.a5 f4 3 5 .'tt>e2 'tt>d6 36.tt:le l ? 3 6 .b4 i.g l 3 7 .tt:le l cS 3 8 .bxc5 + i.xcS 3 9 .tt:ld3 i.d4 40 .'tt>d2 'it>c6 4 1 . 'tt>c2 'it>b7 4 2 . 'tt>b3 'tt>a 7 (42 . . .'it>a6? 43 .'it>b4+-) 43 . tLlb4 'tt>b7=. 36 . . . �b4 3 7.a6 'tt>c7 3 8.tt:ld3 .id6+ 3 9 .b4 'it>b6 40.'tt>d2 'tt>xa6 4 1 . 'tt>c3 'it> b6 4 2. 'tt>c 2 'tt>c 7 4 3 . <;f;>d 2 'tt>d 7 44.'it>e2 'tt>e6 45.'tt>f2 �c7 46.g3 ..tb6+ 47.'tt>g2 fxg3 48.'tt>xg3 �e3 49.'tt>h3 'it>d6 SO.'it>g3 cS S l .bxcS+ ..txcS 5 2.£4 �d4 5 3.'tt>f3 'tt>e6 54.fxe5 ..txeS S S .'tt>f2 �d6 5 6 .'tt>f3 ..te 7 0 - 1 , GinsburgElianov, Germany Bundesliga 2009 I 1 0;

C 2 2 ) 1 0 .�e3 a6 l l .�c4 �e6 1 2 .i..xe6 nxe6 1 2 . . . fxe6 1 3 . d4;!; . 1 3 .tt:ld5 draw, Ghaem MaghamiHarikrishna , Abu Dhabi 2 004 . In the meantime, though, Black has far from equalised. In the final position, White has a small , but clear advantage. • The move 6 ... tt:le7?! looks dubious ,

Analysis diagram

67


as it allows the blow 7 .tt::lxeS ! . There are also other possibilities. After 7 .�gS c6 8 .�xf6 gxf6 9 .�a4 �b4 1 0 .tt::lh4 tt::lg6 1 1 .tt::lfs dS 1 2 .'tWf3 = a position could arise which is similar to those examined in Chapter 4. White can also count on a small advantage after the quiet 7 .�c4 tt::lg6 8 .h3 c6 9 .�b3 . ? ... �xeS 8.d4 d6 9.dxe5 dxeS I O.�e3 1 0 .'i!Vf3 c6 l l...�.d3 tLlg6 1 2 .h3 ;!; . I O • • . c6 l l .�c4 'fie? 1 2.£3 tt::lg6 1 3 .'it'd2! 1 3 .a4. 1 3 ... tt::lf4 1 4.l:!.fdl �e6 I S . .tfl .l:Hd8 1 6.'ti'f2 b6 1 7.a4 l:!.xd l I S.l:!.xd l tt::lg6 1 9 .'ti'd2 tt::le8 20 .a5 2 0 . g 3 ;!; . 20 .•• tt:J f8 2 I .tt::la4 2 1 .a6 . 2 1 . . . l:!.b8 22.b4 tt::ld7 2 3 .'Yi'c3 tt::ld6 24.'ii'd2 tt::le8 25 .a6 <t>f8 26.tt:lb2 ld.c8 27 .tt::lc4 tt::lb8 28.'ti'f2 2 8 .f4 tt::ld7 2 9 .c3 . 28 . • . tt::ld7 29.'ti'd2 tt::lb8 30.c3 tt::ld7 3 1 .h3 f6 3 2.f4 <t>e7 3 3 .fxe5 3 3 .f5 �g8 3 4.'i!Ve l . 3 3 ..• tt::lxe5 34.tt::lxe5 'ti'xeS 3 5 • .tf4 'ifxe4 36 . .td3 'ti'ds 3 7 . .txh7 3 7 .'ii'e l ;!; . 3 7 •. .'ihd2= 3 8 .lhd2 <t>f7 and draw ( 6 1 ) , Michiels-Stefanova, Antwerp 2009 .

Back to the game.

7. �b5-a4 l:!.f8-e8 8. a2-a3

This 'beginners ' move ' is the key to the whole variation. It contains an interesting idea . White does not seek a direct refutation of Black's fourth move, but secures a flight for his light-squared

68

bishop and aims to place his minor pieces on comfortable squares.

8 . ... h7-h6

The transposition into a Spanish set-up with . . . b7 -bS with the knight on c3 has certain nuances of its own. In particular, with the rook on e8 , the square f7 can be weak. For example: 8 ... b5 9.�b3 �cS The previous statement is well illustrated by such lines as 9 . . . h6 1 0 .�e3 tt::lg4? l l .tLlgS !± ; or 9 . . . �f8? l O .tt::lgS l:!.e7 I l .f4 d6 1 2 . tt:Jds ± . 1 o.tt:Jds 1 o. tt::lg s l:!.f8= . I O •.• h6 l l .c3 d6 1 2.d4 ( 1 2 .a4 !?) In this position, more typical of the Spanish, White has some initiative.

9. �c1 -e3

Just so. White refrains from the Spanish motif, involving the transfer of the knight via e2 to g 3 . His immediate plans involve instead moves such as h2-h3 , 'Yi'd2 , b2 -b4, �b3 and if appropriate, tiJdS and c2 -c4. It will be difficult for Black to prevent this.

9 . ... �d6-f8

On 9 . . . tt::lg4 both 1 O .'i!Ve2 tt::lxe3 1 1 .fxe3 ;!; and simply 1 O .�d2 are good.

1 0. tt:Jc3-d5

1 0 .�b3 ! ?.

1 0 . ... d7-d6?!

More interesting was : 1 O .. .tuxdS 1 1 .exd5 Ci:Je 7 1 2 .Ci:Jxe5 1 2 .c4 bS 1 3 .�c2 Ci:Jfs 1 4 .�d2 'iff6= . 1 2 ... tt:Jxd5

Analysis diagram

White has a number of interesting possibilities , but it seems that none gives him a clear advantage : • 1 3 .Ci:Jxf7? 'i!Vf6; • 1 3 .'i!Vh5 g6 1 4.tLlxg6 Ci:Jf6 1 5 .'\i'fS dS 1 6.'iff3 fxg6 1 7.�xe8 Ci:Jxe8+; • 1 3 .d4 c6 1 4.c4 1 4 .'iVf3 'iYf6 . 1 4 ... tt:Jxe3 1 5 .fxe3 f6 and now: A) 1 6 .tLlg4 hS 1 6 . . . 'iYe7 1 7 . c5

( 1 7 .�c2 dS 1 8 .cxd5 cxdS 1 9 .'i!Vd3 =) 1 7 . . . dS 1 8 .cxd6 'i¥xd6 1 9 .�c2 �xg4 20 .'i!Vxg4 l:!.xe3 2 1 .'i1Yg6=. 1 7.Ci:Je5 fxeS 1 8.'iYxh5 l:!.e7 1 9.c5 dS 20.cxd6 'ifxd6 21..�b3+ �e6 22.'iYg6 .!:i.d8 23 . .!:i.f6+-;

B) 1 6 • .tc2 fxeS 1 7 .dxe5 l:te6; C) 1 6 .Ci:Jg6 l:!.xe3 1 7 .'i:Vd2 .l::te8

1 8 . .!:i.ae 1 d6 1 9 .�c2 l:!.xe 1 2 0 Jhe 1 fS . • 1 3 .�d4 c6 and now:

Analysis diagram


A) 1 4.f4 Ci:Jf6 1 4 . . . d6 1 S .Ci:Jxc6 bxc6 1 6 . .txc6 Ci:Jc7 1 7 . .txa8 Ci:Jxa8 1 8 .fS;!;. 1 5 .'iff3 dS = An interesting try is to include the light-squared bishop by means of 1 5 .f5 :

A 1 ) 1 5 •. .'iYas 1 6 .tt:lxf7 'i!Vxa4 1 6 . . . Wxf7 1 7 . .txf6 Wxf6 1 8 .'ifhs .l:{es 1 9 .'i1Yg6+ We7 20 . f6+± . 1 7.Ci:Jxh6+ Wh8 1 8 .�xf6 gxf6 1 9.'i!i'h5 .!:i.e? 20 . .!:i.ae 1 +-; A2) 1 5 ... c5 1 6.tLlxf7 Wxfl 1 7 . .tb3 +

dS 1 8.�xf6 gxf6 1 8 . . . 'ifxf6 1 9 .'ii'h5 + Wg 8 2 0 . �xd5 + +-; 1 8 . . . Wxf6 1 9 . 'iYhS ;!;. 1 9 .�xdS + Black also emerges intact after 1 9 .'i!Vh5 + Wg8 20 .l:!.ae 1 l:!.e7 2 1 .Wh 1 (2 I ..!:i.xe7 'i!Vxe7 22...\txdS + Wh8 2 3 .h3) 2 l . . .c4 2 2 .dxc4 dxc4 2 3 .�xc4+ Wh8 + . 1 9 ... We7 1 9 . . . 'i!Vxd5 20 .'iYh5 + Wg8 2 1 .'i!Vg6+ Wh8 2 2 .'iYxe8;\;. 20.'i!Vf3 Wd6 2 1 .�xb7 �xb7 22.'i!Vxb7 'it'd? 2 3 .'fif3 Wc?=F.

B) 1 4.'fif3 'i\Yf6 1 S .l:!.fe 1 'ifxf3 1 6 .Ci:Jxf3 l:!.xe 1 + 1 7 .l:!.xe 1 d6=; C) 1 4.'i!Vh5 .!:i.e? Outwardly, White 's

position looks very nice, but he has nothing real . Also good is 1 4 . . . 'i\Y e 7 1 5 . f4 Ci:Jf6 1 6 .'i\Yh4 cS 1 7 .�c3 ( 1 7 .l:!.ae 1 cxd4 1 8 .Ci:Jg4 Ci:Je4 1 9 .'iVxe7 .l:Ixe7 20 .dxe4 dS =) 1 7 . . . b5 1 8 .l:!.ae 1 dS 1 9 .�b3 l'ic7= . 1 S . .!:i.ae 1 Ci:Jf4=.

Back to the game.

1 1 . c2-c4

69


White has emerged from the opening with a clear advantage.

1 1 . . . . �c8-d7

l l . . . �g4 1 2 .h3 �hs 1 3 .b4;!;; 1 1 . . . tt:Jg4 1 2 .�d2;!;.

1 2. h2-h3 tt:Jc6-b8

1 2 . . . tt:Jxd5 1 3 .cxd5 ti:Je7 1 4 .d4 exd4 1 5 .tt:Jxd4;!;.

1 3. �a4-b3

1 3 .b4;!;. If White does not wish to exchange light-squared bishops, then 1 3 .�c2 looks more logical , not obstructing the path of the b-pawn.

1 3 . ... �d7-c6?!

Black obtains good chances of equality with 1 3 . . . c5 . Then the advance f2-f4 does not promise anything: 1 4.ti:Jh2 It is probably better to play on the queenside: 1 4.�d2 ti:Jc6 1 S .�a4 l:tb8 1 6 .b4 bS 1 7 .�b3;!;, although the manoeuvres of the light-squared bishop create a rather clumsy impression . 1 4 . . . <1Jc6 1 5 .f4 tt:Jxd5 1 6.cxd5 ti:Jd4 1 7.fxe5 dxeS=

1 4. tt:Jf3-h2 tt:Jb8-d7 1 5. f2-f4 e5xf4 1 6. l:tf1 xf4 �c6xd5 1 7. c4xd5 tt:Jd7-c5 1 8. �b3-a2 a6-a5 1 9. 'ii'd 1 -c2±

70

Black's pieces have practically run out of moves. Even the bishop on a2 looks good here.

1 9 . ... 20. tta1 -f1 21 . 'iYc2-b3

l:ta8-c8 tt:Jc5-d7

2 1 .l:tfs l:tes 2 2.l:tsf2 .l:f.e8± .

2 1 . ... 22. l:[f4-f2 23. �a2-b1 24. d5xc6 25. d3-d4 26. tt:Jh2-g4 27. ifb3-d3

.if8-e7 tt:Jd7-e5 c7-c5 b7xc6 tt:Je5-d7 a5-a4

Not being distracted by trivia. In principle , it was also possible to grab the pawn: 2 7 .'iYxa4 tt:Jxg4 2 8 .hxg4 �f6 (28 . . . ti:Jf6 29 .e5+-) 29 .'iYc2± .

27. ... tt:Jf6xg4 28. h3xg4 tt:Jd7-f6 29. g4-g5 h6xg5 30. �e3xg5+- tt:Jf6-h7 31 . �g5-d2 tt:Jh7-f6 32. 't'Vd3-g3 l:tc8-b8 33. �d2-h6

3 3 . e5+- .

3 3 ... g7-g6 34.e4-e5 l:tb8-b3 35.l:tf2-f3 d6xe5 36.�b1 xg6 'iYd8xd4+ 37.Wg 1 -h1 l:tb3xf3 38.�g6-h7+ 1 -0

Game No 1 9 [C48] Alvarez Pedraza,Aramis Borisek,Jure Spain tt 20 1 0 (2)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg 1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-d6

5. 0-0 0-0 6. d 2-d3

In the notes to this game, we see ' Spanish ' plans by White, involving mainly the transfer of the queen's knight to g3 . As a result, we usually reach fairly complicated positions , reminding one of various Smghtpanish lines with an d2-d3 .

6. h7-h6 7. tt:lc3-e2

7 . ... a7-a6

Possible is 7 .•• .l::te8 . Eventually Black cannot manage without this Spanish-style regrouping. 8.c3 �f8 9.4Jg3 d6 1 0 . .l::te 1 �d7 1 1 .�a4 g6 1 2.h3 tt:las 1 3 .�c2 cS We are following the game PopovicNyback, Germany Bundesliga 2 0 0 7 / 0 8 . We have reached a position typical of the closed Spanish. As a rule, in positions of this type, White has a certain initiative, but Black's position is extremely solid . 1 4.d4 Maybe too early. Black is quite well-prepared for the opening up of the game. It made sense to manoeuvre a little more in his own camp, for example: 1 4.�e3 .l::tc8 1 S .'i!Yd2 Wh7 1 6 .b4 cxb4 1 7 .cxb4 tt:lc6 1 8 .�b3 , although in this case, Black's position would be fairly solid .


1 4 ••• cxd4 1 S .cxd4 tt:lc6 1 6.b3 .l::tc8=

Analysis diagram

1 7.�b2 4::lb4 In positions of a similar type, Black equalises as a rule with 1 7 . . . exd4 1 8 . tt:lxd4 tt:leS . After, for example, 1 9 . .l::tc 1 �g7 20 .'iYd2 'iYb6 Black has nothing much to complain about: the weakness of the d6 pawn is compensated for by his excellent piece positioning. 1 8 • ..tb 1 tt:lc6 1 9.'iYd2 'iih6 20.dS tt:lb4 2 1 .�c3 aS 22 • .l::te3 .l::tcs 23 .a3 tt:la6 24.b4 axb4 2 S .axb4 .l::tcc8 26 . ..td3 �bS 2 7.hbs 'iYxbS 28 . .l::tas 'it'c4 29.'iih2 hS 30.4Jd2 'it'c7 3 1 ..l::tf3 ..tg7 32 • .t:l.a1 4Jd7 3 2 . . . h4 3 3 .tt:lgfl tt:lhS=. 3 3.tt:lgfl 4Jb6 An unfortunate manoeuvre. 34.bS tt:lcs 3 S.�aS .!laS 36.llfa3;!; tt:lcd7 3 7 .tt:le3 �h6 3 8 .tt:ldc4 tt:lxc4? 3 8 . . . �xe3 39 .tt:lxe3 .l::tec8 40 .'it'b4 'it'b8;!;. 39.hc7 .l::txa3 40.'it'b 1 ? Obviously, 40 .tt:lxc4 .l:!.xa 1 + 4 1 . 'iY xa 1 was winning. 40 •.. .l:!.xa 1 41 .'iVxa1 tt:lxe3 42.fxe3 �xe3+ 43.Wh1 43 .'\tfl ;!; ji_cs 44.We2 .l::tc8 4S .'it'as. 43 ... �cS 44.'iVa4 44.'it'aS;!;. 44 ... tt:lf6 44 . . . .l:!.c8= . 4S.h6 'itg7 46.Wh2 46 .g3;!;. 46 ..• h4= 47.'it'a7 tt:lxe4 48.'it'xb7 tt:lg3 49.'it'c6 tt:lfl +Draw.

8. �b5-a4 9. tt:le2-g3

1 0 . .ta4-b3

.l::tf8-e8 b7-b5 tt:lc6-a5

71


A natural move, but seemingly not the best. White has nothing special after either 1 0 . . . �cS 1 1 . a4 ( 1 1 . c3 dS 1 2 .'iYe2=) 1 1 . . . b4 1 2 .�e 3 =; or 1 0 . . . �f8 1 1 . a4 ( 1 1 . c3 d S =) 1 1 . . . �b7=. However, the resulting po-sitions are quite complicated and promise a tense strategic battle.

1 1 . �f1 -e1 tt:Ja5xb3 1 2. a2xb3 .tc8-b7 1 3 . h2-h3 �d6-f8 1 4. c2-c4 d 7-d6i 1 5. ti:Jf3-h2 c7-c5 1 6. f2-f4

White is promised some initiative by 1 6 .ti:Jfs .tc8 1 7 .tt:Jg4 �xfS 1 8 .exfS i .

1 6. ... �b7-c6

A reasonable alternative was 1 6 . . . exf4 1 7 .�xf4 g6 1 8 .'iYd2 �h7 1 9 .�fl �g7 20 .ti:Jf3 'i¥e7 2 1 .�ae 1 ti:Jd7 with a solid position.

1 7. f4-f5

••

White has clear play on the kingside.

1 7 . .. . �e8-e7

The counterplay is too late : 1 7 . . . aS 1 8 .ti:JhS tLlxhS 1 9 .'iYxhS a4 20 .t2lg4

72

�d7 2 1 .�xh6i gxh6 2 2 . t2lxh6 + .ixh6 2 3 .'ifxh6+-; Matters are not changed by 1 7 . . . ti:Jd7 1 8 .'iYg4 ( 1 8 .ti:JhS ?! 'ifh4) 1 8 . . . ti:Jf6 1 9 .'iYf3 aS 2 0 .ti:JhS tLlxhS 2 1 .'iYxhS a4 2 2 .t2lg4 �d 7 ( 2 2 . . . axb3 2 3 . �xa8 'i¥xa8 24.f6±) 2 3 .�xh6 and White is clearly better.

1 8. ti:Jg3-h5

1 8 .tLlg4i .

1 8. ... ti:Jf6xh5 1 9. 'iYd 1 xh5 f7-f6

Nor are all problems solved by 1 9 . . . �b7 2 0 .tLlg4 bxc4 2 1 .bxc4 �b3 2 2 .�fl ( 22 . f6 g6 2 3 .ti:Jxh6+ �xh6 24 .'i¥xh6 'iYxf6 2 S .�fl 'iYg7 2 6 .'ifh4 fS=) 2 2 . . . f6 2 3 .l:rf3 i .

20. �e1 -e3 21 . 'ifh5-h4 22. �e3-g3

22 . . . �h8 2 3 .<1Jg4± .

23. ti:Jh2-g4

�c6-e8 �e7-b7 �g8-f7

�f7-e7

24.�c1 xh6 �e7-d725.�h6-c1 a6-a5 26.<1Jg4-e3 �d7-c8 27.'iYh4-h8 �e8-c6 28.h3-h4 �b7-f7 29.ti:Je3-d5 1 -0

Chapter a The Symmetrical Variation l.e4 e5 2.t2Jf3 t2Jc6 3.t2Jc3 t2Jf6 4.jLbs jLb4

In this chapter, we look at the oldest branch of Four Knights theory. For more than a hundred years , numerous teachers all around the world , the author included, have taught their pupils why it is impossible to follow symmetrical lines forever in the opening. And there is no better example of this than in Bilguer 's Handbuch: 1 .e4 eS 2.tt:Jfl tLlc6 3 .tt:lc3 tt:Jf6 4 . .ibs ..tb4 s.o-o o-o 6.d3 d6 7 • .igs ..tg4 s.tt:Jds tt:ld4 9.tLlxb4 tLlxbS 1 O.tLldS tLld4 1 1 ..ixf6 .ixf3 1 2.'t/Vd2 'ifd7

1 3 .tLle7+ <;!thS 1 4.�xg7+ <;!txg7 1 S .'�gS + <;!thS 1 6.'ti'f6#. Incidentally, Bilguer now poses a question : 'Find for yourself why 1 4 .'ifh6 ? ? loses.' (Answer: 1 4 . . . tLle2 + 1 S . <;!th l .txg2+ 1 6 . <;!txg2 'iig4+ 1 7 . <;!th l 'i¥f3 #) .

In fact, though, even in this textbook example, it is not so simple to demonstrate an advantage for White. The simplest thing is for him to settle for a small but stable advantage after l .e4 eS 2.tLlf3 tt:Jc6 3 .tLlc3 tt:lf6 4 . .tbs .tb4 S.0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.-tgS .tg4 s . .txf6 gxf6 Both 8 . . . 'it'xf6 9 .tLldS 'it'd8 I O . .txc6 bxc6 l l .tLlxb4 aS 1 2 .tLlxc6 'ti'e8 1 3 .tLlcxeS± , and 8 . . . .ixf3 9 .'ifxf3 'ifxf6 I O .'i:Yxf6 gxf6 l l .tLldS± are bad for Black. 9 . .txc6 bxc6 1 O.h3 ..thS 1 1 .g4 ..ig6 1 2.tLle2i.

Euwe, in his textbook, gives the following variations (notes are by the present author) in Bilguer's line 8.tLld5 tLld4 9.tLlxb4 tLlxb5 1 O.tLld5 tLld4:

73


1 1 . 'if d2 (the simplest is 1 1 . � h 1 ! , preparing in advance for the opening of the g-file) .

A) 1 I . .. tt::lxf3 + 1 2.gxf3 �xf3 1 3 .h3 ! 1 3 . ..txf6 gxf6 1 4 .'tWh6? ( 1 4.'ife3 ! ?) 1 4 . . .<�h8 1 5 .IHc 1 l:tg8+ 1 6 .Wfl l:tg6+ . 1 3 •.. c6 1 4.tt:lxf6+ gxf6 1 5 .�h4 'it>h8 1 6.Wh2 l:tg8 1 7.l:tg 1 l:tg6 1 8.'ife3 �h5 1 9.f4 exf4 Otherwise 2 0 .f5 and 'ti'h6 . 20.'ti'xf4 Wg7 2 1 .l:tafl , and White wins;

B) 1 1 . .. c6 1 2.�xf6 Strongest in Euwe's opinion. 1 2 ... gxf6 If 1 2 . . .tt::lxf3 + , then 1 3 .gxf3 gxf6 1 4 .fxg4 cxd5 1 5 . exd5 with an extra pawn. 1 3 .tt::lxd4 cxdS Weaker is 1 3 . . . exd4. 1 4.tt:le2 or 1 4.gxf3 with a small advantage for White.

Less effective is : 1 2.tt::lxf6+ gxf6 1 3 .�h4 �xf3 1 4.'ifh6 'ifd7 Worse is 1 4 . . . tt::le2 + 1 5 . Wh 1 �xg2 + 1 6 . 'it>xg2 tt::lf4+ 1 7 . Wh 1 tt::lg6 1 8 .f4 with advantage to White, a recommendation of Bilguer 's Handbuch. Now bad is 1 5 .�xf6 because of 1 5 ... tt::le2+ 1 6.Wh 1 �xg2 + 1 7.Wxg2 'ifg4+ 1 8.Wh 1 'iVf3#, or 1 5 .'irxf6 'ifg4!; or 1 5 .gxf3 'ifh3, winning for Black in all cases.

However, it seems that things are not so bad for White in this variation. By continuing 1 5.h3 !, he eliminates Black's tactical threats and remains with a decisive advantage.

All this is just the prelude. The real opera begins with 1 .e4 e5 2.tt::lf3 tt::lc6 3.tt:lc3 tt::lf6 4.�b5 kb4 5 .0-0 0-0 6.d3 d6 7.kg5 kxc3 8.bxc3 and is known as the main variation. The Metger System, which is characterised by the manoeuvre . . . 'ife7 followed by . . . tt::lc6-d8-e6 , will be dealt with separately in the next chapter.

This chapter will also look at various ways for both sides to avoid the main line at various points. In truth, the Metger System has not seen significant theoretical

74

Chapter 3 - The S ymmetrical Variation

changes since the times of Dr Tarrasch and the young Capablanca. Indeed, I have studied the main lines, based on Euwe's presentation in his 1 9 3 5 textbook, although I have used in my work examples from contemporary practice. With all due respect to the classics , the reader is interested in how this variation is handled today.

The next three examples are concerned with the early exchange on c6 : on move 6 (Game 20) , move 7 (Game 2 1 ) and move 8 (Game 22 ) . Surprisingly, the character of the struggle in each of these lines is quite different from one another.

Game No 2 0 [C49J Michiels,Bart Sasikiran,Krishnan Antwerp 2009 (!)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg1 -f3 3 . tt:lb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6. �b5xc6

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 i.f8-b4 0-0

In looking at symmetrical systems , it makes sense to start with this, generally rather boring variation, which is justifiably regarded as a good starting point for draw negotiations. Even so, it would be wrong not to cover it at all , as for many amateurs, looking to purloin a precious rating point or two from a higher-rated opponent, this variation is ideal .

6 . ... d 7xc6

Worse is 6 . . . bxc6 7 .tt:lxe5 'ii'e8 8 .tLld3 �xc3 9 . dxc3 'ii'xe4 1 O . .l::.e 1 'ifh4

slightly the better game for White. The game M.S . Tseitlin-Haba , Ostrava 1 99 1 , ended unexpectedly quickly : 1 2 . . . l:i.ae8 1 3 . ..if4 ..ic8?! 1 4 .tLld3 tt:Jds 1 S .�g3 'ifc4??

Analysis diagram

1 6 .l:i.xe8 l:i.xe8 1 7 .tt:leS .l:!.xeS 1 8 .�xe5 d6 1 9 .�d4 tt:le7 2 0 .b3 'tWe6 2 l .'ife3 1 -0 .

7. tt:lf3xe5

No advantage is promised by 7 .d3 �xc3 (a more complicated struggle results from 7 . . . �d6 - also with approximately equal chances : 8 . bxc3 l:i.e8=) .

7. .l::.f8-e8 8. tt:Je5-d3 .tb4xc3 9. d2xc3 tt:lf6xe4

1 0. �c1 -f4 �c8-f5 1 1 . .l::.f1 -e1 tt:le4-d6 1 2. 'ifd1 -f3 'ifd8-f6 1 3. a2-a4 h7-h6 1 4. h2-h3

1 l .'iff3 .ta6 l l .tLleS ( 1 2 .�f4!?) with The position is dead equal .

7 5

The Four Kni ghts Game

14 . ... 1 5. �f3-g3 1 6 . 'iYg3-h2 1 7. .!:[a1 -d1 1 8. c2xd3 1 9. �f4xd6 20. .!:[e1 -e3 21 . .!:[d1 -e1 22. �g1 -h 1 23 . .!:[e1 xe3

i.f5-g6 tt:ld6-e4 tt:le4-d6 �g6xd3 .!:[e8-e6 c7xd6 .!:[a8-e8 'iYf6-g5 .!:[e6xe3 .!:[e8-e5

Now the position equalises totally. In his attempts to force a draw, White has drifted into a slightly worse position, and with 23 . . . .!:[xe3 24.fxe3 'iVdS 25 .d4 fs

Analysis diagram

Black would have some grounds for playing on: the queen ending favours him.

24.d3-d4 .!:[e5xe3 25.f2xe3 'i¥g5-f6 26.'i¥h2-f4 'iff6xf4 27.e3xf4 �g8-h7 28.�h1 -g1 �h7-g6 29.�g1 -f2 h6-h5 30.�f2-f3 �g6-f6 31 .g2-g4 h5xg4+ 32.h3xg4 d6-d5 33.b2-b3 b7-b5 1f2-V2

Game No 2 1 [C49] Chadaev,Nikolay Ginzburg, Yakov Irkutsk 20 1 0 (3)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg1 -f3

7 6

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6

3. tt:lb1 -c3 tt:lg8-f6 4. �f1 -b5 �f8-b4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d2-d3 d7-d6 7. �b5xc6 b7xc6 8 . tt:lc3-e2

The main point of this move is to avoid the well-known paths and force the opponent to use his own head. It does not offer chances of an opening advantage, but a fairly complicated battle results.

8 . ... �c8-g4

The players have reached a position which arises with reversed colours in the main line after 7 .�g5 �xc3 8 .bxc3 tt:le7 .

A) Roughly equal play results from 8 ... �c5 9 .�d2 aS 1 0 .tt:lg3 .!:[e8 l l .h3 dS 1 2 . .!:[e l 'it'd6 , Motylev-Khairullin, Krasnoyarsk 200 7 ;

B) Also good is : 8 . . . .!:[e8 9.c4 aS 1 0 .h3 d5 l l .'iVc2 �f8 1 2 .�g5 1 2 .tt:lg 3 =. 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 .�xf6 �xf6 1 4.cxd5 cxd5 1 5 .tt:lc3 dxe4 1 6.tud5 ! ? Preferable was 1 6 .tt:lxe4 , although here too, Black's chances would be better. 1 6 .. .'it'g6 1 7.dxe4 ..txh3 with advantage to Black , Shirazi -Emelin , Cappelle-la-Grande 2006 .

9 . tt:le2-g3 'ti'd8-d7

By comparison with the position with reversed colours , 9 ... tt:lh5 is possible,

with an equal game : 1 0.h3 l O .<�:J fS ! ? . 1 o ... tt::lxg3 l l .fxg3 .tcs + 1 2. Wh2 .txf3 1 2 . . . .td7 ! ? . 1 3 .1lhf3 'i:Vd7 1 4 . .td2 , Hort-M. Erwich , Germany tt 2 0 0 7 / 0 8 .

1 0. h2-h3 .tg4-e6

1 1 . �c1 -e3

White gets some mltlatlve from l l ..tgs tt::le8 1 2 .c3 .ta5 1 3 .d4.

1 1 . ... ..tb4-a5 1 2. d3-d4 e5xd4 1 3. �e3xd4 tt::lf6-e8

An unfortunate manoeuvre. Worthy of attention was 1 3 . . . 'ife7 1 4 .b3 cS 1 5 . ..tb2 l:!.fe8;l; .

14. �d1 -d3 ..ta5-b6 1 5 . l:!.f1 -e1 ;t l:!.a8-b8 1 6 . .td4-c3 f7-f6 1 7. tt::lf3-d4 ..tb6xd4 1 8. 'ifd3xd4 c6-c5 1 9. �d4-d3

Chapter 3 - The S ymmetri c a l Va r i ati on

Black's problem is that he lacks active counterplay and can only wait.

1 9 . ... 20. �d3-d2 21 . l:!.a1 -d1 22 . a2-a3 23. 'ifd2-e3 24. f2-f4 25. f4-f5 26. tt::lg3-e2 27. g2-g4 28. 'ife3-g3

�d7-b5 �b5-d7 l:!.b8-d8 �d7-c8 a7-a6 c7-c6 ..te6-f7 c5-c4 l:!.d8-d7

The opposite-coloured bishops increase Black's difficulties , by enhancing the white attack.

28 . ... 29. tt::le2-d4 30. tt::ld4-f3

'ifc8-d8 c6-c5

Also good was 3 0 .tt::lc6 �c7 3 l .tt::la5 ± . But , o n the contrary, the advantage is lost by the tempting 3 0 .tt::le6 ? .txe6 3 l . fxe6 l:!.e7 3 2 . e 5 dS ( 3 2 . . . fxe5 3 3 .�xe5±) 3 3 .exf6 tt::lxf6= .

30. ... Wg8-h8?! 31 . l:!.d1 -d2 ..tf7-g8 32. l:!.e1 -d1 �d8-c7

33. wg1 -h2

It was already possible to go over to decisive measures : 3 3 .eS dS 3 3 .. . fxe5 34 .tt::lxe5 dS ( 34 . . . l:!.d8 3 S .tt::lg6++-)

77


3 5 .'ifh4 l::rd6 3 6 .l::rf2 d4 3 7 . .td2± . 34. �g2 with a serious advantage to White.

33 . ... �c7-c6 34. tt::lf3-h4

34 .e5 ± .

34 . .. . .tg8-f7 35. e4-e5

This is still good, although the most favourable moment for this break has passed.

35 . ... 36 . .tc3xe5

f6xe5 l::rd7-e7?

Overlooking a deadly blow. Black would retain some chances to hold the position after 3 6 . . . d5 3 7 . g5 d4 3 8 .f6 gxf6 3 9 .gxf6 l::rg 8 .

37. �e5xg7+ �h8xg7

3 7 . . . tt::lxg7 3 8 .f6 l::reS 3 9 .fxg7 + �xg7 40 .tt::lf5 ++- .

38. f5-f6+ �g7xf6 39. 'i\fg3-f4+

3 9 .tt::lf5 +- .

39 ... �f6-g7 40.tt::lh4-f5+ �g7-h8 41 .�f4-h6 l::rf8-g8 42.tt:Jf5xe7 'ii'c6-c7 43.tt::le7xg8 d6-d5+ 44.�h2-g1 �f7xg8 45.l::rd 1 -f1 d5-d4 46.'ifh6-f4 �c7-e7

78

47.�f4-f2 tt:Je8-g7 48.l::rd2-e2 'ti'e7-d6 49.'ti'f2-f4 'iVd6xf4 50.l::rf1 xf4 d4-d3 51 .l::re2-f2 h7-h5 52.g4xh5 'it>h8-h7 53.Uf4-f3 d3xc2 54.l::rf2xc2 tt::lg7xh5 55.l::rf3-f5 1 -0

Game No 2 2 [C49] Varga,Zoltan Gagarin, Vasily Croatia tt 2009 (4)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt::lg1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3 4. .tf1 -b5 5. 0-0

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6 .tf8-b4

Probably S .d3 is inaccurate because of S . . . tLld4 6 . .ta4 bS 7 . .tb3 dS with strong counterplay for Black, as seen in the old game Rokhlin-Botvinnik , Leningrad city championship 1 9 3 0 .

5. ... 0-0 6. d2-d3

6 . ... .tb4xc3

But here 6 . . . tt::ld4 is less justified, because of 7 .tt::lxd4 exd4 8 .tLle2 c6 9 . .ta4 dS 1 O .eS tt::lg4 l l .c3 dxc3 1 2 .bxc3 .tas 1 3 . d4 'ifh4 1 4 .h3 (also good is 1 4 . .tf4) 1 4 . . . tLlh6 1 5 . .tc2 .tfs I 6 .l::rb 1 bS 1 7 . .txfS tLlxfS 1 8 . 'iV d3 � e4 1 9 . if xe4 dxe4 2 0 .f3 exf3 2 1 .l::rxf3 tt::le 7

2 2 ..�a3 .l:[fe8 2 3 . .l:[bfl with a clear advantage to White, Perlis-Alekhine , Carlsbad 1 9 1 1 .

7. b2xc3 d7-d6 8. itb5xc6

Yet another variation on the c6-exchange plan. This rare move is not as harmless as it may appear. In a symmetrical position, White has an extra tempo, and Black must demonstrate some accuracy.

8 . ... b7xc6 9. h2-h3

It was also possible to start with 9.-igS h6 1 0.i£.h4 'iYe7 ( 1 0 . . . �g4 1 1 .h3 �hS 1 2 . g4 �g6 1 3 .tLld2 does not solve all ofBlack's problems) 1 1 .h3 .

9 . ... h7-h6

The most accurate. If 9 . . . l:l.e8 10 . ..tgs h6 1 1 . .th4 Black still has to solve the problem of the pin on his knight: 1 1 ••• l:l.e6 1 l . . . g5 1 2 .tLlxg5 hxgS 1 3 .hg5 is rather risky - White has good compensation for the sacrificed piece: 1 3 . . . 'tl:Ve7 ( 1 3 . . . <it>g7 1 4.f4±) 1 4.'tl:Vf3 (probably 1 4.f4 exf4! 1 5 .'ti'f3 ( 1 S . .l:[xf4 'tlfeS +) 1 5 . . . 'i¥e5 1 6 . .Lf4 'ifhs 1 7 .'t!!fg3+ 'tWg6 I 8 .'tl:Vh4 also gives sufficient compensation for the piece) 1 4 . . . <it>g7 1 5 .'tlfe3 'tl:Ve6 1 6 .f4 exf4 1 7 . .l:[xf4 tLlh7 1 8 . ..th4. Although White


has only two pawns for the piece, his initiative more than compensates for the material deficit. 1 2.t2Jh2 The immediate 1 2 .c4! ? .id7 1 3 .'iYd2 'tl:Ve8 1 4 . .l:[ab 1 is worth considering. 1 2 .•. 'tl:Ve8 1 3.c4 tLld7 1 4.�g3 White retains a small initiative after 1 4 .tLlg4. 1 4 . . . .l:[b8 1 S .f4 exf4 1 6 . ..txf4 l:.g6 1 7.tLlf3 ttJ£8 1 8.<it>h1 cS 1 9 . .td2 'i!Ve7 20.'ti'e 1 �d7 2 1 .'i!Vf2 Worth consideration is 2 I .tLlh4 .l:[f6 22 .tLlf5 with a small advantage to White, since 22 . . . .ixf5 2 3 .exf5 'tl:Vd7 24.'i!Ve4 .l:le8 25 .'t!!fg4 leads to a position in which Black's knight and rook are shut out of play. 2 1 . .. .l:le6 22 . .ie3? ! Missing Black's reply. 22 . .l:lab 1 ! ?:;!; retains some initiative. 22 .. .t2Jg6 22 . . .fS ! ? would take over the initiative. 2 3 . .llab 1 l:l.b6 24.l:l.b3 fS 2S.exB draw, Popovic-Lalic, Germany Bundesliga B 2004/05 . After 2 5 . . . .l:lxe3 2 6 .fxg6 l:l.e2 2 7 .'tWg3 'ii'e3 ! chances are about equal.

1 0. ttJf3-h2 d6-d5

Play develops in interesting fashion after the outwardly logical 1 O • • • 'ti'e 7 1 1 .f4 dS 1 2.fxeS 'ti'xeS

Analysis diagram

1 3 . ..if4! There are no prospects in 1 3 . exd5 'i!Yxc3 1 4 . .l:lb 1 tLlxdS . 1 3 . . . 'i!Vxc3 1 4.eS tLld7 1 S . 'ifhS tt:lcs 1 5 . . . 'ti'xc2 1 6 .l:l.f3 with good compen-sation. 1 6 . .l:lae 1 'ii'xc2 1 7 . ..ixh6 'ifxd3

7 9


1 8.1txg7 '>t>xg7 1 9J:tf6 with the initiative for the sacrificed material.

1 1 . f2-f4 e5xf4

The programs advise maintaining the tension by 1 I . • .'i!Vd6 . However, after 1 2 .fxe5 ( 1 2 . exdS tt::lxdS 1 3 . fxeS 'ti'cS +) 1 2 . . .'ihe5 1 3 .�f4 'ti'xc3 1 4.e5 tt::ld7 1 5 .'ii'h5 the concentration of white forces on the kingside is becoming threatening (see the note to Black's 1 O th move) .

1 2. e4-e5 tt::lf6-h7 1 3. �c1 xf4

As a result, White has a small initiative.

1 3 . ... c6-c5?1

If, say, 1 3 . . . 'ife7 1 4 .'ifh5 'ti'cS + 1 5 JH2 'ti'xc3 1 6 . .l::tafl Black's extra pawn is hardly worth having , as White 's pressure is very strong.

14. 'ifd1 -d2

And now 1 4. 'ti'hS looks very good. It was also worth giving serious attention to 1 4 . .l::tb l .

14. tt::lh7-g5

Unconvincing is : 14 . . . c4? ! I S J:tae l It made sense to start with 1 5 . tt::lf3 ! ? , and the rook can come in later, depending on how the game develops : 1 5 . . . cxd3 1 6 .cxd3 aS 1 7 . .l::tab 1 ! ? .l::ta6 ? ! 1 8 .l:!.b8 ! ?

80

( 1 8 . .l:i.b5 ! ? ) . 1 5 . . . cxd3 1 6 .cxd3 aS 1 7.tt::lf3 .l::ta6 1 8.'1t>h2 1 8 .�e3 ! ? .l::tg6 1 9 .'1t>h2i . 18 . . . 'iVe7 1 9.'ii'e3? ! 1 9 .tt::ld4 .l::te8 2 0 .'iVf2 with a small initiative for White. 1 9 . . . .l::te8 20.'ti'd2 2 0 .tt::ld4 tt::lf8 2 1 .�g3 . 20 .. . tt::lf8 2 1 .�g3 .if5 22 . .ih4 'ti'd7 2 3 .g4 �g6 24.tt::ld4 .l::tb6 2 5 .tt::lf5 .l::teb8 2 6 . .l::te2 '>t>h7 2 7 • .l::tef2 .l::tb 1 2 8 . .l::txb l l:!:xb l 29.'iVe3 2 9 .d4 tt::le6 3 0 .'ti'd3 .l::ta 1 � . 29 .. .tt::le6 30.'ti'f3 'ti'a4 3 I .'ti'xd5 �x£'5 32 .l:!:xf5 l:!:b2 + 3 3 .�f2 'ti'xa2 34.'ife4 34.'ifxa2 .l::txa2 3 5 . .l::txf7 a4+ . 34 .. . tt::lg5 3 5 .'ife3 l:!:e2 36 .'ti'c5 tt::le6 3 7.'ili'a7 'ifds 38 .d4 'ife4 39 .'1t>g3 .l::tc2 40.'iha5 tt::lgs 0 - 1 , KeitlinghausMokry, Czech Republic tt 1 994/ 9 5 .

1 5. h3-h4

An interesting decision. White plays for the attack. He can obtain a small advantage in the ending after 1 5 .�xg 5 if xg 5 ( 1 5 . . . hxg5 1 6 . .l::tab 1 i) 1 6 .'ti'xg5 hxgS 1 7 . .l::tab l .

1 5. 1 6. �f4-g3

tt::lg5-e6 d5-d4

The program's recommendation 1 6 . . . .l:!.b8 does not insure Black against the attack: 1 7 .tt::lg4 d4 1 8 .c4 it,d7 ( 1 8 . . . �b7 1 9 .tt::lf6+ gxf6 20 .'ifxh6 'ti'd7 2 1 .exf6 'ti'c6 22 . .l::tf3+-) 1 9 .tt::lf6+ gxf6 20 .'ti'xh6 fxeS 2 1 .�xe5 f6 22 .hf6±.

1 7. c3-c4

1 7 . ... f7-f5?!

Things are difficult , but this medicine is worse than the disease. It was worth considering 1 7 . . . l:l.b8 1 8.lt:Jg4 White 's threats should not be underestimated. Thus, simple development by 1 8 . . . .td7 leads to immediate catastrophe after 1 9 .tt:Jf6+ �h8 ( 1 9 . . . gxf6 20 .'ilfxh6 fxeS 2 l . .ixe5+- 20 .l:l.f5) with the threat of l:l.hS . Trying to include the rook in the defence with 1 8 . . . l:l.b6 looks logical , with the idea :

Analysis diagram

A) After 1 9.ttJf6+ gxf6 2 0 .'ilfxh6 , to reply 2 0 . . . f5 2 l .l:l.xf5 lt:Jg7 2 2 .l:l.f6 'iYd7 with good chances of a successful defence ;

B) Similar results come from 1 9.l:l.f6 ! ? hS ! 2 0 .lt:Jh6+ gxh6 2 l .'ti'xh6 tt:Jg7 + ;

C ) I n this connection 1 9 .l:l.ab 1 ! ? looks interesting : 1 9 . . . .td7 Black retains chances of defending after 1 9 . . . l:l.xb l 20 .l:l.xb l 'il:Ve8 ! ? ( 20 . . . .id7 2 1 .l:l.fl ±) 2 1 .l:l.fl tt:Jd8 ! 2 2 .tLlf6+ gxf6 2 3 .'il:Vxh6 'il:Ve6 . In any event , this was better than what happened in the game. 20.l:l.xb6 axb6 2 1 .ttJf6+ with a decisive attack for White ; D) Attempting to drive the rook from

the sixth rank is interesting : 1 9.a4 'il:Vd7 20 .a5 l:l.a6 2 1 .l:!.f6 ! ? .


1 8. e5xf6 1 9. 'ti'd2-e2 20. tt:Jh2-g4 21 . l:l.a1 xf1

l:l.f8xf6 l:l.a8-b8 l:l.f6xf1 +

The result of Black's mistaken strategy is that all of the white pieces are in dangerous proximity to the black king.

21 . ... tt:Je6-f8

Only 2 l . . . .id7 2 2 .tLle5 l:l.b6 retained any chances of defending, trying somehow to include some more pieces in the defence. Admittedly, even in this case, after 2 3 .lt:Jxd7 'ifxd7 24 .'il:Ve4 White 's positional advantage is indisputable.

22. tt:Jg4-e5 23. tt:Je5-f7 24. 'ilfe2-e5

24 . ...

l:l.b8-b6 'iYd8-d7

'ilfd7-g4

24 . . . l:l.c6 allows him to maintain material equality. However, even here, Black has trouble defending. The simplest is 2 S .'it'ds ( 2 S .'il:Ve4 ! ?) 2 5 . . . 'il:Vxd5 26 . cxd5 l:l.a6 27 . .ixc7 l:l.xa2 2 8 .l:l.f2 The passed d-pawn is very dangerous.

25.�g1 -h2 l:l.b6-e6 26.'il:Ve5xc7 l:l.e6-g6 27.l:l.f1 -f3 'ti'g4-d7 28.'il:Vc7xc5 l:l.g6xg3 29.l:l.f3xg3

1 -0

8 1


The following variation is somewhat unique. Its nearest relative is the line seen in Game 24, Nisipeanu-Ponomariov, where similar ideas, with colours reversed, are adopted by Black. But it is well-known that employing black ideas with colours reversed often fails to bring White the benefit he might expect. Such is also the case here : the manoeuvre 7 .tDe2 promises White very little, whereas the analogous knight jump by Black 7 . . . tDe7 gives him good practical results.

Game No 2 3 [C49] Kozlov, Vladimir N Atalik,Suat Moscow Open 2005 (4)

Use was made of GM Suat Atalik's commentary.

1 . e2-e4 2. CDg1 -f3 3. CDb1 -c3 4. .if1 -b5 5 . 0-0 6. d2-d3

e7-e5 CDb8-c6 CDg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 d7-d6

I have chosen this particular game to illustrate the subtleties of this variation, because I believe in the opening recommendations of the Turkish Grandmaster, an eminent theoretician and real professional .

7. CDc3-e2!?

82

'This symmetrical variation contains a good deal of poison, but I had learnt the lesson given to me by my game with Campara' - Atalik.

7 . ... CDc6-e7

Black has no good reason to enter a position similar to that which arose in Game 24, Nisipeanu-Ponomariov, with reversed colours : 7 . . ,jt,g4 8.�xc6 8 .c3 .tcs 9 .CDg3 CDhs l O .CDfs �b6 l l ..te3 (worth consideration are l l .a4 ! ? and l l .<itth l - Nunn ; l l .tDe3 .txe3 1 2..�.xe3 'i¥f6 1 3 .d4, Podlesnik-Sorokin, Sochi II 1 9 89 , 1 3 . . . CDf4=) l l . . .'i¥f6 1 2 .h3 .txfS 1 3 .�g5 'ifg6 1 4.exf5 'ifxfS 1 5 .g4 'ife6 1 6 .gxh5 'ifxh3 1 7 .�e3 �xe3 1 8 .fxe3 . Black's compensation for the pawn is inadequate, Rubinstein-Marshall, 1 st match game, Warsaw 1 908 . 8 . . . bxc6 9.CDg3 CDhS 1 O.h3 CDxg3 1 1 .fxg3 �cS + 1 2.<itth2 �d7 1 2 . . . �xf3 1 3 .Wxf3 'with a microscopic advantage to White ' - Nunn. 1 3 .tLlh4 dS 1 4.11t'e2 l:i.e8 1 S .tLlfS �£8 1 6.�d2 f6 1 7 .g4 In Nunn's opinion, White has the advantage: he can gradually prepare an attack on the kingside, whilst Black has no counterplay.

8. c2-c3 9. CDe2-g3

1 0. �b5-a4 1 1 . d3-d4

.tb4-a5 c7-c6 CDe7-g6

White is the first to achieve this advance in the centre, and for a while, Black has to play ' second fiddle ' .

1 1 . . . . .l::!.f8-e8 1 2. �a4-c2

1 2...i b3 h6 1 3 .h3 exd4 1 4 .tbxd4 dS 1 5 . exd5 tbxdS 1 6 .tbdf5 'ilf6= -Atalik.

1 2 . ... 1 3 . h2-h3

h7-h6 �a5-b6!

Worse is 1 3 . . . 'ife7 ? ! 1 4 .�e 1 'iVf8 1 5 .a4 cS 1 6 .d5 tbf4 1 7 .tbd2 ! ± , CamporaAtalik, Calvia ol 2 004.

14. �c1 -e3

1 4 .�e 1 'ti'c7 1 5 .�e3 �e6= .

14 . ... d6-d5?!

Too sharp. ' I should have settled for equality with 1 4 . . . .te6 1 S .'ifd2 'ifc7 1 6 .�fe i .l:!.ad8 , planning I 7 .�xh6? gxh6 I 8 .'ilxh6 'i¥e7 ! -+ ' - Atalik.

1 5. e4xd5!

Atalik considers this strongest, and the move came as a surprise to him. Full equality results from 1 5 .dxe5 tt::lxe4 Atalik's recommendation seems weaker: I S . . . tbxeS ! ? I 6 .tbxe5 �xeS I 7 . ..if4 �e6 ( I 7 . . . �e8 I 8 .eS , with the initiative to White) I 8 .e5 tbd7 I 9 .�f5


1 6 .�xb6 I 6 .tbxe4 dxe4 I 7 .'ifxd8 �xd8 I 8 .�xe4 tbxe S = . 1 6 . . . 'ifxb6 1 7.�xe4 dxe4 1 8.tbxe4 tbxe5 = .

15 . ... e5xd4

I S . . . e4? ! I 6 .tbe5 tbxeS ( I 6 . . . cxd5 I 7 .tbxg6 fxg6:t) 1 7 . dxe S tbxdS I 8 .�xb6 'ifxb6 I 9 .�xe4 'iYxb2 2 0 .�xd5 cxdS 2 I .'ti'xd5 'iYxc3 2 2 JHe I ;!; - analysis by Atalik.

1 6. �e3xd4 tt:Jf6xd5

1 7. 'ifd1 -d2

In Atalik's opinion , mistaken is I 7 .tbh5 ? ! tbgf4 I 8 .tbxf4 ( I 8 .tbxg 7 ? tbe2+ I 9 .�h i tbxd4 2 0 .tbxe8 tbxc2 2 I .'ii'xc2 'iVxe8+) I 8 . . . tbxf4 with equal play. However, here too, after I 9 .�e I White is more active.

1 7 . ... 1 8. tbf3xd4 1 9. �a1 -e1

�b6xd4 tt:Jd5-f4

The other rook formation deserved consideration : I 9 .�fe i ! ? .ite6 2 0 .�ad i and White's position seems somewhat preferable.

1 9 . ... 20 . ..tc2xg6 21 . f2-f4 ! 22. f4-f5 23. f5xe6

.tc8-e6 tt:Jf4xg6 c6-c5 c5xd4 �e8xe6

83


24. l:re1 xe6 25. 'i¥d2-d3!

2 S .cxd4? ! 't!fds =F .

25 . . .. 26. 'it'd3-e4

f7xe6

tt:Jg6-e5 'li'd8-d5

2 6 . . . 'li'g5 ? ! 2 7 .'i!Yxb7 .l:re8 2 8 . cxd4 'iYe3 + 29 .�h2 'i!Yxd4 3 0 .t2JhS with the initiative for White.

27. 'i¥e4xd5 28. c3xd4

e6xd5 tt:Je5-c6

28 . . . tt:Jd3 ? ! 2 9 .l:rf3 tt:Jxb2 3 0 .l:rb3 t2Jc4 3 1 Jhb7 t - Atalik .

29. l:rf1 -f5 .l:!.a8-d8 30. tt:Jg3-e2

30 . ... l:rd8-e8!?

Practically forcing the draw. ' I had had enough of this game! ' (Atalik) . 3 0 . . . g6 3 1 .l:rf6 (3 1 .l:rf2 �g7 3 2 .tbc3) 3 1 . . .�g7 3 2 . .l:!.e6 �f7 3 3 . .l:!.e3 = changes nothing.

31 . tt:Je2-c3 tt:Jc6xd4 32. l:rf5xd5 tt:Jd4-e2+ 33. tt:Jc3xe2 l:re8xe2 34. l:rd5-b5 b7-b6 35. a2-a4 �g8-f7 36. a4-a5 b6xa5 37. l:rb5xa5 l:re2xb2 38. l:ra5xa7+ �f7-g6

1h·V2

84

Games 24 and 2 5 deal with the cunning black knight manoeuvre at moves 7 and 8 (after the preliminary exchange on c3) . These continuations are not regarded as the main lines by theory, but they certainly have the right to exist, and any white player of the Four Knights should be acquainted with them.

Game No 24 [C49J Nisipeanu,Liviu-Dieter Ponomariov,Ruslan Bazna 20 1 0 ( 1 0)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6 . d2-d3 7. .tc1 -g5

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 d7-d6 tt:Jc6-e7!?

Quite a rare continuation , but theory does not have a clear answer, as to how White can secure any sort of advantage.

8. tt:Jf3-h4

Kritz ' recommendation 8.t2Je2 has not been tested in practice, which is not surprising ; after, for example, 8 ... t2Jg6 9.c3 �aS 1 0.t2Jg3 (after Fritz ' suggestion 1 O .t2Jh4 there could follow 1 O . . . c6 1 1 . ..ta4 tt:Jxh4 1 2..�. xh4 h6 with an equal game) 1 0 . . . h6 1 1 .11i.d2 c6 leads to a fairly insipid position .

8 . ... c7-c6

• 8 . . • il£.xc3 9.bxc3 tLlg6 l O.lLlxg6 fxg6 l l .il£.c4+ Wh8 1 2.£4 'ife8 was seen in two games ofKortchnoi.

Analysis diagram

Black's position looks a little worse, but he drew both games :

A) 1 3 .fxe5 dxe5 After 1 3 . . .'ihe5 1 4 .'ti'd2 White has some advantage. 1 4.'tir'b 1 b6 1 5 .'tir'b3 ;\; �d7 1 6.a4 h6 1 7.l::txf6 (the quiet 1 7 .il!.d2 is worth considering , for example : 1 7 . . . .!:td8 1 8 .'ii' a3 ii.e6 1 9 .il!.xe6 'ti'xe6 2 0 .aS ;;!; with some initiative for White) .

Analysis diagram

1 7 .. .l::txf6 ! ? Also possible is 1 7 . . . hxgS 1 8 . .!:tffl ;!; Wh7 - White 's advantage is insignificant. 1 8 .ii.xf6 gxf6 1 9 .�£7 Wie7 20 .il!.xg6 ii.e6 2 1 .'ti'b4 'ti'g7 22 . .if5 l:lg8 2 3 .g3 c5 24.'it'b 1 .ixf5 2S.exf5 h5 26.'ti'fl 2 6 .'ti'd 1 'ti'gs


2 7 .'ti'c 1 i . 26 . . . 'ti'g4 2 7.Wg2 .l:tgS = Black's counterplay is fully adequate for a draw. 28 .'iYf3 'ti'xf3 + 29.Wxf3 .l:txfS + 30.Wg2 c4 3 1 .a5 e4 3 2.axb6 axb6 3 3 .dxe4 .!:taS 34.l:tb 1 White retains some advantage in the event of 3 4 . .l:tfl Wg7 3 S .Wf3 .!:ta3 3 6 .We3 .!:txc3 + 3 7 .Wd2 .l:ta3 3 8 .l:tf5 h4 3 9 . gxh4 .!:th3 40 .h5 .!:txh2+ 4 l .Wc3 .!:te2 42 .h6+ Wg6 43 .h7 .!:th2 44.l:tbs . 34 .. . .!:ta2= 3 5 .l:txb6 .!:txc 2 + 3 6 .Wh3 .!:txc 3 3 6 . . . Wg 7 = . 3 7 .Wh4 .!:tc2 3 8 .h3 3 8 . Wxh5 ! ? Wg7 ( 3 8 . . . l:txh 2 + 3 9 .Wg6+-) 3 9 . .l:tb7 + Wf8 40 .h4 .!:tg2 4 1 .Wg6 .!:txg 3 + 42 . Wxf6 .!:tf3 + 43 .We5 .!:th3 44 . .l:tc7 .!:txh4 4S . .!:txc4 .!:th6= . 38 ... .!:tc3 39.Wxh5 draw, Adams-Kortchnoi, Madrid 1 996 ; B ) 1 3 .'it'd2 �e6 1 4.�b3 a S 1 5 .fxe5

dxe5 1 6.il£.xe6 'ti'xe6 1 7 .c4 b6

Analysis diagram

The position is close to equality. 1 8 . .!:tf3 tLld7 1 9 J:tafl .thf3 20 • .!:txf3 Wg8 2 1 .�e3 'ti'd6 22.'iYe1 t2Jf8 2 3 .'ti'b l tLle6 24.'iib5 c5 2 5 .Wf2 h6 26.'ti'b2 .l:te8 2 7.g3 'ti'c7 28.Wg2 g5 29.1:!.£'5 lLldS 30 . .id2 t2Jf7 3 1 .�c3 .!:te6 3 2.'ti'a 1 "il/e7 3 3 .g4 3 3 .h3 ! ? . 33 .. JH6 34.'ti'fl .!:te6 3 5 .'ti'a 1 .!:tf6 36.'it'b 1 .!:te6 3 7.'iYb2 Wh7 3 8.h3 wgs 39.Wfl Wh7 40.We 1 Wg8 4 1 .Wd2 g6 42 . .!:tfl .!:tf6 43.'it'a 1 .!:tf4 44.We2 hS 4S .i.d2 hxg4! ? 46.hxg4 After 4 6 .�xf4 gxf4 4 7 .hxg4 'i!Yh4

8 5


48 .�d2 'i:Yxg4 chances are balanced. 46 .. Jhg4 47JH'2 l:tg3 48.'iffl 'ife6 49.�e3 'ifg4+ 50 .�d2 l:tgl 5 I .'ife2 ti:Jh6 5 1 . . . 'if xe 2 + ! ? . 5 2.l:th2 ti:Jf7? Good is S 2 . . . l:tg3 with the idea of meeting S 3 Jhh6 ? ( S 3 .�fl =) with S 3 . . . .l::i.g2 S4 .�f2 'ii'f4+ with the advantage. 5 3 .�xg l 'ifxg l ± 54.l:tg2 "iWa l 5 5 .'iff3 'il'h l 56 .'iff2 S 6 .l:tf2 . 5 6 ••. 'ifh3 5 7.l:tg3 'ife6 5 8.l:tf3 �g7 5 9.'ti'h2 g4 60.l:tfl tt:lgs 6 1 .�c3 ti:Jf3 62.'�'g3 62 .'i:Yf2t . 6 2 . . . 'i:Yd7= 6 3 .l:txf3 'i:Yd4+ 64.'i¥;>d2 gxf3 6 5 .'ifxf3 'iVd6 66.'ifg4 'iff6 draw, Vallejo Pons-Kortchnoi , rapid match, Vera 2 004 . • Black obtained good play after 8 .. . �g4!? 9 .'ti'c l ..ixc3 1 0.bxc3 ti:Jd7 l l .h3 �e6 1 2 .d4 f6 1 3 .�d2 ti:Jb6 1 4.�d3 c6= I S .'i:Ye l tbc4 1 6.�c l bS=F 1 7.g4 'ii'd7 1 7 . . . 'ti'c7 =F . 1 8.ti:Jf5 tbxfS 1 9.gxf5 �f7 20.f4

Analysis diagram

20 •.. 'i¥;>h8 2 0 . . . l:tfe8=F . 2 1 .�h2 l:tae8 22 .'ifg3 l:tg8 2 2 . . . exd4 2 3 .cxd4 'i:Yd8 24.a4 b4=F . 2 3 .a4 a6 24.axb5 axb5 25.l:tgl = b4 2 5 . . . exd4 2 6 .cxd4 cS= . 26.'ifh4 bxc3? 2 6 . . . exd4 27 .cxd4 'i:Ye7 2 8 .l:tg4 l:tgf8 29 .l:ta4 cS � . 2 7.l:tg4+l:tgf8 2 8.fxe5 dxe5 2 9 .l:txg7 'i¥;>xg7 3 0 • .lth6 + 1 - 0 , K. Szabo-Portisch , Szekesfehervar ch-HUN 2006 .

Back t o the game.

86

9. �b5-c4

Or 9 . .lta4 and now: A) After 9 ... ti:Jd7 1 0 . .tb3 h6? 1 1 .be7

'ti'xe7 1 2 .ti:Jg6 'iVgS 1 3 .ti:Jxf8 ti:Jxf8 1 4 .'iVc 1 t tbe6 ? ! 1 S .�xe6 �xe6 1 6 .'ihg5 hxgS± Black does not have sufficient compensation for the exchange, Girya-Alexandrov, Vladimir 2008 ;

B ) 9 . . . ti:Je8 I O.�b3 �h8 l l .f4 f6 1 2.fxe5 In the variation 1 2 .'ifhS fxgS 1 3 .fxg S Black, unlike in the very similar position reached in Adhiban-Y.Vovk (see Game 25 ) Black has the move 1 3 . . . tbc7 . 1 2 ... dxe5 1 3 • .lte3 tt:lc7 1 4.'ii'f3 ti:Je6 1 5 .tt:le2 �c5 1 6.�hl �xe3 1 7.'ii'xe3 aS 1 8.a4 b6 1 9 . .ltc4 tbcs 20.d4 exd4 2 I .ti:Jxd4 �d7 22.e5 fxe5 2 3 .'ifxe5 tt:lg8 24.tbhf3 (24.tLlhfS ! ?) draw, BagirovKortchnoi , Leningrad ch-URS 1 96 3 . C ) 9 ... ti:Jg6 ! ? 1 o .tt:lxg6 hxg6 1 1 .�b3

aS = .

9 . ... d6-d5

1 0. �g5xf6?!

e Nothing is promised by 1 O.�b3 �d6 1 1 .f4 �cS + 1 2.d4? Better is 1 2 .�h 1 tLlg4 1 3 . fxe5 tLlf2+ 1 4Jhf2 'iYxf2 with mutual chances 1 2 . . . 'iYxd4+ 1 3 .'i¥xd4 exd4 1 4 . ..txf6 gxf6 with advantage to Black, ApflerJaschke, Bad Wiessee 2 0 0 8 . • However, it is definitely worth looking at 1 0.exd5 cxdS 1 1 ...tb3 .tg4 1 2.'1i'c1 'ti'd6 1 3.h3 illis 1 4.f4 e4 1 5 .dxe4 dxe4 1 6.'ti'e1 Defending the knight on h4, in the event of 1 7 .�6 'iYxf6 1 8 .g4, and sharpening the position. 1 6 ... h6 1 7 . .tx£6 'ii'xf6 1 8.g4 .!:tac8! ? A roughly equal game results from 1 8 . . . �g6 1 9 .tt:Jxg6 (interesting is 1 9 .l:td 1 �7 20 .f5 Lc3 2 l .bxc3 tbc6 22 .l:td7 with chances for both sides) 1 9 . . . tt:Jxg6 20 .'1i'xe4 hc3 2 l .bxc3 '11Vxc3 . 1 9.l:td1 hc3 20.bxc3 l:txc3 2 1 .l:td6 'ti'xd6 22.'1i'xc3 �g6 23.B illi7

Analysis diagram

The bad position of the bishop on h7 allows us to assess the position as slightly better for White. 24.'1i'e3 �h8 24 . . . 'i:Yd8 2 5 .'i¥xe4 tbc6 26 .tLlf3 l:te8 2 7 .'ir'c4 'ti'c7 2 8 .�g2 l:te3 29 .'1i'c5 and White is slightly better. 25 .'1i'xe4 tbc6 26.�g2 f6? ! 27 • .id5 l:td8 28.i.xc6 bxc6 29.tLlg6 + �xg6 3 0.fx.g6 �g8 3 1 .'1i'c4+ 'iVdS + 3 2 .'1i'xd5 + l:txdS


n.l:tb 1 ± �f8 34.l:tb7 l:tgs 3 S . .!:tf7+ �g8 3 6.l:txa7 l:txg6 3 7.l:ta5 cS 38Jhc5 f5 39Jhf5 l:ta6 40 • .!:tf2 l:i.xa2 4 1 .c4 1 - 0 , Panarin-Demchenko , Bielorechensk 2 0 0 7 .

1 0 . ... 1 1 . ..tc4-b3

g7xf6 a7-a5

This is even stronger than the classical 1 1 . . .'ii'd6 1 2 .'iff3 �h8 1 3 . exd5 �xc3 1 4 .bxc3 cxdS 1 S .c4 d4 1 6 .c5 '11Vc6 1 7 .'ifhs ( 1 7 .'ifxc6 tt:Jxc6 1 8 . f4 �g7 1 9 .i.a4;l;) 1 7 . . . tLlg6 , and Black is at the very least not worse, Tarrasch-Yates , Carlsbad 1 9 2 3 .

1 2. a2-a3

Rough equality could be maintained by 1 2 .a4 tt:Jg6 1 3 .tt:Jfs �h8 1 4 .�h 1 �xc3 (or 1 4 . . . �xf5 1 5 . exf5 tLle7 1 6 .'ifh5 'ir'd7 with a roughly equal game) 1 S .bxc3 dxe4 1 6 .dxe4 �xfS 1 7 .exf5 'ifxd 1 1 8 JHxd 1 tLlh4 1 9 J:[d7 tLlxfS 2 0 .�g 1 l:tab8 2 l .�xf7 tt:Jd6= .

1 2. ..tb4xc3 1 3. b2xc3 a5-a4 14. .tb3-a2 tt:Je7-g6

The poor position of the bishop on a2 permits the position to be assessed as slightly more pleasant for Black. However, White still has no serious cause for concern.

87


1 5 . 'ii'd 1 -h5 1 6 . 'it>g1 -h1 1 7. d3-d4?1

'it>g8-h8 .:c:tf8-g8

It seems that the white player overestimated his position here. After 1 7 .g3 tt:lxh4 1 8 .'Yi'xh4 l:i.g4 1 9 .'Yi'h5 the bishop on a2 does not look very wonderful , but White 's position is quite solid .

1 7. f6-f5 1

Seizing the initiative.

1 8. tt:lh4xf5?

White collapses surprisingly quickly. He could have retained drawing chances by 1 8 . tt:lf3 fxe4 1 9. tt:lxeS 'ife7 2 0 . f3 tt:lxeS 2 1 .'YWxe 5 + 'iYxeS 2 2 . dxe5 exf3 2 3 .l:i.xf3 .te6 24 .l:i.e 1 . Mind you , knowing the quality of Ponomariov 's technique, it is doubtful that White could survive with such a bishop.

1 8. 1 9. 'ii'h5-h6 20. 'tWh6-h4 21 . 'ifh4xd8+ 22. e4xf5 23. d4xe5

tt:lg6-f4 .:c:tg8-g6 �c8xf5 .:c:ta8xd8 .:c:tg6xg2 .:c:td8-g8

White resigned. It is painful to look at the bishop on a2 .

88

Game No 2 5 [C49] Adhiban,Baskaran Vovk,Yury Vlissingen 2009 (8)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:lg 1 -f3 3. tt:lb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. b2xc3 8. �c1 -g5

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 .tf8-b4 0-0 �b4xc3 d7-d6 tt:lc6-e7

This variation is a close cousin of the one seen in the preceding game. In Nunn's opinion, the preliminary exchange on c3 is inferior to the immediate 7 . . . tt:le7 : ' In many variations , the exchange on c3 frees White 's hands and weakens Black's control over the dark squares ' .

9 . tt:lf3-h4 tt:lf6-e8?!

It is considered more exact to play 9 . . . c6 :

Analysis diagram

• 1 0.i.c4 dS 1 1 .i.b3 tbg6 1 I . . .'ti'd6 ! ? 1 2 .'iff3 h 6 (in the variation 1 2 . . . a5 1 3 .a4 dxe4 1 4 .dxe4 .ig4 1 5 .'i¥g3 ..te2 1 6 .l::rfe 1 tbxe4 1 7 .'i¥e3 tbxg5 1 8 .'i¥xg5;!; White also retains some pressure) 1 3 . ..txf6 'ti'xf6 1 4 .'ifxf6 gxf6 1 5 .f4 White retains some advantage. 1 2.exdS cxdS 1 3 . .l:i.e 1 'i¥d6 1 4.'iff3 e4 1 S .'ifg3 'ifxg3 1 6.hxg3 tt:lxh4 1 7.gxh4 exd3 1 8 .cxd3 �e6 1 9 .�e3 .l:i.fe8 20 . ..id4 tbd7 2 1 ..l:i.e3 �fS 22 . .l:i.g3 It is hard to say why White did not take the pawn : 2 2 . ..txd5 l:he3 2 3 .fxe3 �xd3 24.�xb7 .l:i.b8 25 . .tf3 with winning chances. 22 ••. g6 2 3 .�c2 2 3 . ..txd5 tLle5 24.�xb7 .l:i.ab8 2 5 .�a6 .l:i.e6 26 . ..txe5 l:.xe5 2 7 . .l:i.e3 ± . 2 3 . . . bS 2 3 . . . l::!.e 2 24 . .l:i.c 1 l:rae 8 = . 24 . .l:i.b 1 24 . a4 a6 2 5 . .l:i.e3 retains a small advantage. 24 ... a6 2S .a3 draw, Kogan-Delorme, Andorra Open 2 0 1 0 . • 1 o.�a4 tt:Jes More reliable is 1 O . . . d5 1 1 .'iYf3 ( 1 I ...txf6 gxf6 1 2 .'fi'f3 tLlg6 1 3 .tLlf5 .ixf5 1 4 .exf5 tbe7 with a solid position for Black; 1 l . f4 ! ?) 1 l . . .'ti'd6 1 2 . ..tb3 . 1 1 .�b3 �e6

Analysis diagram

A) 1 2.�xe6 fxe6 1 3 .'ifg4 'ii'd7 1 4.f4 exf4 1 S . .l:i.xf4 .l:i.xf4 1 6 .'ifxf4 tLlf6 1 7.�xf6 .l:i.£'8 1 8.'iYe3 .l:i.xf6 1 9.'i¥xa7 White has a sound extra pawn, 'but Marshall 's technique was appalling ! ' -


Nunn. 1 9 • . • gs 20.tLlf3 g4 2 1 .'ill'd4 2 l .e5 ! ? . 2 1 ...l:i.f7 22.tLleS cS 2 3 .tLlxd7 cxd4 24 . .l:i.fl l::txfl + 2 S .�xfl dxc3 26.tLlf6+ �f7 2 7.tt:lxg4 tt:lc6 28 .tLle3 bS 29.a3 b4 3 0.axb4 tbxb4 3 1 .�e2 dS 3 2.exdS exdS 3 3 .d4 �f6 34.g3 hS 3 S .h3 �gs 36.h4+ �f6 3 7.�f3 �e6 3 8 .g4 hxg4+ 39.�xg4 tt:lc6 40.tt:Jfs tLlb4 4 1 .hS �f7 42.tLle3 tbc6 43 .h6 �g6 44.tt:lxdS tbxd4 4S.tLle3 tbxc2 draw, Marshall-Capablanca, New York m- 1 7 1 909 .

B) 1 2.d4 h6 1 3 .�e3 b6? 1 4.�xe6 fxe6 1 S. 'if g4 .l:i.f6 1 6.f4 exf4 1 7 .l::txf4 eS 1 8 . .l:i.xf6 tbxf6 1 9 .'Yi'e6+ �h7 20 . .l:i.fl 't/V£'8 2 1 ..l:i.f3 .l:i.e8 2 2 . ..txh6 �xh6 23 . .l:i.h3 1 -0 , Nunn-Tatai , Manila ol 1 99 2 .

Back to the game.

1 0. .ib5-c4 �g8-h8

There is no equality from 1 O . . . ..te6 1 1 ...txe6 fxe6 1 2 .'ti'g4 'iYd7 1 3 .f4 - by analogy with the aforementioned Marshall-Capablanca game - 1 3 . . . exf4 1 4 . .l:i.xf4 .l:i.xf4 1 5 .'ifxf4 tLlf6 1 6 .�xf6 .l:i.f8 1 7 .'iYe3 ± .

1 1 . 'ti'd1 -h5 f7-f6 1 2. f2-f41

Nothing comes from 1 2 .�e3 g5 1 3 .'iYh6 tLlg7 1 4 .tLlf3 d5 = .

8 9


1 2 . ...

1 2 . . . fxgS 1 3 . fxgS ± .

1 3. f4-f5! 14. tt::lh4-g6+ 1 5. f5xg6 1 6. .l:!.f1 xf6 1 7 . .l:!.f6xf8+ 1 8. .l:!.a1 -f1 1 9. .l:!.f1 -f7 20. �c4xe6 21 . c3-c4

22. .l:!.f7xc7

�c8-d7

f6xg5 tt:Je7xg6 tt:Je8-f6 h7-h6 'iYd8xf8 'iYf8-c8 �d7-e6 �c8xe6 rbh8-g8

White retains some advantage after 2 2 .h3 .l:!.f8 ( 22 . . . .l:!.c8 2 3 .'iYg4 'iYxg4 24 .hxg4) 23 . .l:!.xc7 dS 24.cS .

22. ... d6-d5!?

Black seeks tactical chances in an unpleasant position.

23. c4-c5

90

Black also retains drawing chances after 2 3 . .l:!.xb7 dxe4 ( 2 3 . . . dxc4 24.h4 cxd3 2 S .cxd3 gxh4 2 6 .'iYfS 'iVxfS 2 7 .exfS a6 2 8 .Wf2) 24.'i!Yh3 g4 2 S .l!Yg3 .l:!.f8 2 6 . .l:!.b l exd3 2 7 .'i!Yxd3 'iYf6 2 8 .g3 'iVf2 + 29 .rbh l l!Yf6 3 0 .'ti'dS + rbh8 3 1 .l!Ye4.

23 . ... 24. d3xe4 25. h2-h4 26. h4xg5 27. rbg1 -h2 28. rbh2-g1

d5xe4 'i!Ye6-c4 'ifc4xe4 'iYe4-e3+ l!Ye3-f4+

It is not clear that there is any objection to the move 28 .rbh3 . The variation 2 8 . . . 'iYfS + 29 .'iYg4 �xg6 3 0 .l:hb7 hxgS 3 l..�. e7 .l:!.e8 3 2 J:he8+ 'iVxe8 3 3 .'ifc4+ 'iYf7 34.'iYe4;l; 'ii'xa2 3 S .c6 leaves White some small winning chances. In any event, the risk was small.

28 .... 'ii'f4-e3+ 29.rbg1 -h2 'ife3-f4+ 30.Wh2-h1 l!Yf4-f1 + 31 .rbh1 -h2 'fif1 -f4+ 32.rbh2-g 1

1f2-1f2

Games 2 6 and 2 7 deal with two related variations, starting with the manoeuvre �d7 on the eighth and ninth (after including 8 . . . h6 9 .�h4) moves. In the author's opinion, in both cases it makes sense for White to play 9 .d3 -d4 (or 1 0 . d4, as appropriate) , with chances of an opening advantage.

Game No 26 [C49] Edouard,Romain Howell,David Andorra Open 2008 ( 7 )

1 . e2-e4 2. tt::lg 1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6

4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6 . d2-d3 7. �c1 -g5 8. b2xc3

�f8-b4 0-0 d7-d6 �b4xc3 .tc8-d7

Along with the main line 8 . . . 'i¥e7 this is considered a reliable continuation.

9. d3-d41?

Why prepare this important advance, if it can be played at once? • More popular is 9J:tb 1 a6 1 0.�a4 .l:!.b8 1 1 . .ib3 In the following game, White did not oppose his opponent's plans : 1 1 ..l:!.e 1 h6 1 2 .�h4 CiJe7 1 3 . .tb3 tLlg6 1 4 . .tg3 l:re8 1 5 .CfJd2 bS 1 6 .l:ra 1 draw, Svidler-Yakovenko, Sochi tt 2 009 . 1 1 . . . h 6 1 2 . ..th4 'ti' e 7 1 3 .l:re 1 CfJas 1 4.d4 .l:!.bd8 1 5 .h3 Or I S .'iVc i �g4 I 6 .'ii'a3 CfJxb3 I 7 .dxe5 ! gS I 8 . exf6 'ii'xf6 I 9 . .ig3 CiJcS 20 .e5 (20 .CiJeS ! ?) 20 . . . 'ti'g6 2 l .exd6 cxd6 2 2 .CfJe5 dxeS 23 .'iYxc5 with a small , but stable advantage to White , Acs-Greenfeld , Balatonlelle 2 0 0 2 . 1 5 . . . \t>h7 1 6.'ifc l gave White slightly more pleasant play in the game Short-Speelman, London m- 1 I 99 1 . • The game McShane-Motylev, Moscow 20 I 0, proceeded very sharply : 9 . .l:!.b 1 a6 1 0.�a4 .l:!.bs l l .'iYc l h6 1 2.i.h4 CfJe7 1 3 . .ixf6? !

C hapter 3 - T h e S ymmetrical Variation

Analysis diagram

An interesting, but risky try. Equality results from 1 3 .�xd7 CiJxd 7 = . 1 3 . . . .ixa4 1 4.CiJh4 ! ? .td7 Worse is I 4 . . . gxf6 1 S .'ti'xh6 dS I 6 .l:rbe i d4 I 7 .cxd4 exd4 I 8 . f4+- . 1 5 .f4 The most ambitious. 1 5 . . . gxf6 Black must accept the challenge. Both I S . . . exf4 1 6 . 'i�Vxf4 gxf6 I 7 . 'i¥xh6 ± and I S . . . \t>h7 1 6 . fxe 5 gxf6 1 7 . exf6 ( I 7 .l:rxf6 CiJg8 I 8 .CiJfS �xfS 1 9 .l:rxf5 dxeS=F) I 7 . . . CiJc6 I 8 .d4 l:rg8 I 9 .'li'e3 l:rg4 are worse. 1 6 .fxe5 \t>h7 ! I 6 . . . fxe5 I 7 . 'li'xh6 tt::lg6 I 8 .CfJf5 ( I 8 .CfJxg6 fxg6 I 9 .'li'xg 6 + =) I 8 . . . 'iYf6 ( I 8 . . . �xf5 1 9 . exf5 'li'h4 2 0 .'iVxh4 CiJxh4 2 1 .l:rb4 CiJg6=) 1 7 .exf6 If I 7 . l:rxf6 CiJg8 I 8 .CiJfs �xfS I 9 Jhf5 dxeS 2 0 . l:rxe5 White faces a hard fight for a draw. 1 7 . . . tLlg6 ? ! After I 7 . . . CfJc6 White does not have full compensation for the piece : I 8 .d4 l:rg8 I 9 .'ife 1 ( 1 9 .'ti'e3 l:rg4+) 1 9 . . . l:rg4 . l S .CiJfS �xfS 1 9 .lhf5 tt:Jes 20.d4 tLld7 2 0 . . . CfJc4 2 1 . 'ti' fi CfJ e 3 2 2. 'iY f 4 CiJxfS 2 3 .'ihfs + \t>h8 24 .'ti'f4= ; 2 0 . . . CfJc6 2 I .'ii'e 3 l:rg 8 . 2 1 .'ti'e3 .l:!.g8 2 2 . l:f.bfl l:.g6 2 3 .llh5 .llxf6 24.e5 dxeS Black can play for the win after the more or less forced 24 . . . dxe 5 2 5 .dxeS CiJxeS 26 • .llxe5 .l:!.xf1 + 2 7 . \t>xf1 'ii'd 1 + 2 8.'ti'e 1 'ii'xc2 '/z- '12.

Back to the game.

9 I


9 . ... h7-h6 1 0. �g5-h4

Nothing comes from 1 O .�xf6 'i!Vxf6 1 1 .d5 tt::lb8 1 2 . .l:f.b 1 �g4 1 3 . .l:f.e 1 �xf3 1 4 .'iVxf3 'iYxf3 1 5 .gxf3 = .

1 0 . ... 'iV d8-e 7

Dubious is 1 O . . . g S ? ! 1 1 .tt::lxg5 hxgS 1 2..�xg5 Wg7 ( 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3 . f4±) 1 3 .f4±.

1 1 . .l:f.f1 -e1 .l:f.a8-d8 1 2. .l:f.a1 -b1

By comparison with the games ShorrSpeelman and Acs-Greenfeld, quoted above, White has saved a tempo on bringing his bishop to b3 . However, it is not yet clear whether this brings him anything real .

1 2 . ... 1 3 . 'iYd1 -d3

9 2

b7-b6 tt::lc6-b8

Black is forced to undertake this cumbersome manoeuvre to break the pin. We can see the benefits of the early d3 -d4.

14. i.b5xd7?!

Illogical. Almost any sensible move looks better, for example: 1 4 .a4 ! ? c6 1 S . ..tc4 ..te6 1 6 . ..txe6 'iVxe6 1 7 .a5 with a clear advantage, or 1 4 .h3 �xbS 1 5 .'i¥xb5 tt::lbd7 1 6 .'iYc6 ( 1 6 .'tWa4 ! ?) .

14. ... tt::lb8xd7 1 5. tt::lf3-d2 'tWe7-e6

Even so, White still has some advantage.

1 6. tt::ld2-f1

1 6 .f3 looks quite good, not allowing the black queen into g4, and White will follow up with, say tt::lc4 and a4, with a comfortable plus.

1 6 . ... 1 7. i.h4-g3 1 8. f2-f3 1 9. �g3-h4

'iVe6-g4 'ti'g4-g6 tt::lf6-h5

Some initiative could be retained by 1 9 .'ti'a6 'iVe6 ( 1 9 . . . tt::lxg3 2 0 .tt::lxg3 with advantage to White) 2 0 .�h4.

1 9 . ... tt::lh5-f4 20. 'iVd3-d2 .l:f.d8-c8 21 . tt::lf1 -g3 'tWg6-e6 22. tt::lg3-f5 tt::lf4-g6 23. .l:f.b1 -d1 tt::lg6xh4 24. tt::lf5xh4 tt::ld7-f6 25. d4-d5 'tWe6-d7 26. tt::lh4-f5 Wg8-h7 27. c3-c4 .l:f.c8-e8=

The position is equal , and it is hard for either side to improve his position.

28. g2-g4?!

This does not lead to anything good.

28 . ... 29. h2-h4 30. h4-h5 31 . e4xf5 32. f5xg6+ 33. 't!Vd2-d3

tt::lf6-g8 tt::lg8-e7 tt:Je7xf5 g7-g6 f7xg6 .l:rf8-f6

White 's aggressive plan has led to a situation where the weakness of the f3 pawn and the squares around the white king is more significant than the unreliable pawn protection of the black king. The rest of the game sees Black hold the initiative.

34 . .l:rd1 -d2 'lt>h7-g7 35.h5xg6 .l:re8-f8 36 . .l:re1 -e3 .l:rf6-f4 37 . .l:rd2-h2 .l:rf8-f6 38 . .l:rh2-h3 'ii'd7-e8 39.\t>g1 -g2 a7-a5 40 . .l:rh3-h1 'li'e8xg6 41 . .l:rh1 -e1 �g6-f7 42 . .l:re1 -h1 .l:rf4-d4 43.'ii'd3-e2 .l:rf6-f4 44 . .l:rh1 -h5 .l:rd4xc4 45 . .l:rh5xe5 d6xe5 46 . .l:re3xe5 'lt>g7-f8 47 . .l:re5-e6 .l:rc4-d4 48.'ii'e2-e5 .l:rf4xg4+ 49.\t>g2-f2 .l:rd4-f4 50.'t/Ve5-h8+ .l:rg4-g8 51 .'li'h8xh6+ .l:rg8-g7 52.'ii'h6-h8+ 'iVf7-g8 53.�h8-h6 .l:rf4-f7 54.d5-d6 'ii'g8-h7 55.d6xc7 �h7xc2+ 56.\t>f2-e1 'iVc2-c3+ 57.\t>e1 -d1 'ti'c3xf3+ 58.\t>d1 -c2 .l:rf7xc7+

White resigned.

Chapter 3 - The S ymmetr i c a l Va r i ati on

Game No 2 7 [C49] Dzhumaev,Marat Balogh,Csaba Cappelle-la-Grande 2009 (9)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt::lg 1 -f3 3. tt::lb1 -c3 4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. �c1 -g5 8. b2xc3 9. �g5-h4

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 d7-d6 �b4xc3 h7-h6 �c8-d7

A direct relation of the variation seen in the previous game .

1 0. d3-d4 .l:rf8-e8

e Risky is 1 O ... g5 l l .tLlxg5 hxg5 ( 1 1 . . .tt::lxe4 1 2 .tt::lf3 tt::lgS 1 3 .�xg5 hxgS 1 4 .�xc6 �xc6 1 S .dxeS , and White is simply better) 1 2.�xg5 and now:

A) 1 2 . . . tt::lxd4 1 3 .�xd7 �xd7+ B) 1 2 . . . 'lt>g7 1 3 .f4 'fVe8 1 4 .fx;S tt::lg4

1 5 .�f6+ 'lt>h7 1 6 .h3 tt::lh6 1 7 .exd6 cxd6 1 8 .�d3 .l:rg8 1 9 .e 5++- ;

C) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 .�xc6 �xc6 1 4 .f4 exd4 1 S .'t!Vxd4 �xe4 1 6 .�xf6 cS 1 7 .�xe4 �xf6 1 8 . .l:rf3 .l:rfe8 1 9 .'iVxb7+- ·

D) 1 2 . . . exd4 1 3 .cxd4 a 6 1 1 .�xc6 �xc6 1 s .'fVf3 �xe4 1 6 .'Yi'f4 tt::lhs 1 7 .� g4 with advantage.

93


• 1 0 . . . 1lt' e7 transposes into the variation seen in the previous game.

1 1 . l:f.f1 -e1 a7-a6

Here too, the attempt to break out at once leads to problems : l l . . . g S 1 2 .ti:Jxg5 hxgS 1 3 .�xg5 a 6 ( 1 3 . . .'>to>g7 1 4 .l:f.e3 with an attack for White ; 1 3 . . . Wh 7 1 4 . d 5±) 1 4 .�xc6 bxc6 1 S .l:f.e3 ± .

1 2. d4xe5

This move was used in the predecessor game Shirov-Yakovenko (see below) . In my view, the simple 1 2.�d3 ;!;; preserves the initiative.

Analysis diagram

This move has not been met in tournament practice. It is not easy for Black to escape from the pin. Thus, it is quite dangerous to play 1 2 ... g5Maybe Black should resort to the tried and trusted Metger method with 1 2 . . .'iYe7 , although in this case, White will retain some initiative. For example, 1 3 .h3 (preventing . . . �g4) 1 3 . . . axbS (the typical 1 3 . . . ti:Jd8 1 4.'ir'd2 does not solve the problem, as 1 4 . . . ti:Je6 fails to l S .dxeS ±) 1 4.'ir'd2 , and it is still difficult for Black to escape from the pin. 1 3.tt::lxg5 ! ? Also good is 1 3 .�g3 g4 ( 1 3 . . . exd4 1 4.cxd4 g4 1 S .�h4!;!;;) 1 4.dS;!;; ti:JaS 1 S .ti:Jd2 . 1 3 . . . hxg5 1 4.�xg5 exd4 1 4 . . . 'iitg 7

94

I S .f4± ; 1 4 . . . Wh7 1 S .l:f.e3 ! ? . 1 S .'ti'f3 'iitg7 The endgame arising after I S . . . tt:Jes 1 6 .'iYxf6 'i¥xf6 1 7 .�xf6 dxc3 1 8 .l:f.e3 tt:Jxd3 1 9 .cxd3 c2 20 .l:f.c l l:f.e6 2 I .l:f.g3 + 'iith7 2 2 .l:f.h3 + 'iitg6 2 3 .�c3 is in White's favour. 1 6.cxd4 tt:Jxd4 1 7.'iVg3 gives White sufficient compensation for the pawn. For example: 1 7 ... tt:Je6 There is no other way to escape from the pin. 1 8.�4+ 'iitfti No better is 1 8 . . . 'iith6 1 9 .'iYe3 + 'iitg7 2 0 .e5 dxeS 2 I .'i!Vg3+ Wf8 22 .'i!Vxe5 'iitg7 2 3 .l:f.e3 . 1 9.1lt'f3 'iitg7 20.e5 dxeS 2 1 .1lt'g3 + 'iitfti 22.'iYxe5 '1t>g7 23 .l:f.e3 tt::lfli 24.'iVgS + ti:Jg6 2S . .ixg6 fxg6 26.l:f.d1

Analysis diagram

The abundance of deadly pins reminds one of the game Morphy-Duke of Brunswick.

Back to the game.

1 2 . ... d6xe5

1 2 . . . tt:lxe5 ! ? is also sufficient for equality : 1 3 .tt:lxe5 axbS 1 4 . .txf6 ( 1 4.tt:lxd7 'ifxd7 1 S . .txf6 gxf6 1 6 . .l:J.e3 l:ra4=) 1 4 . . . 'ifxf6 1 s .tt:lxd7 'i¥e6 1 6 .tt:lb6 cxb6 1 7 .'i¥d3=.

13 . .th4xf6 14. 'ii'd 1 xd7 1 5. 'i¥d7xc7

1 6. a2-a3

'i!Vd8xf6 a6xb5 'i¥f6-e6=

This does not change the assessment of the position, from that seen previously : 1 6 .h3 .l:f.e7 1 7 .'i¥b6 tt:ld4 1 8 .'iYxe6 tt:lxf3 + 1 9 . gxf3 l:rxe6 2 0 .l:teb 1 l:tf6 2 1 .�g2 l:ra3 draw, Shirov-Yakovenko, Sochi tt 2 006 .

16 . ... 1 7. 'ifc7-b6

l:re8-e7 tt:lc6-d4

Chapte r 3 - The S ymmetri cal Var i ation

Forcing a transition into a practically drawn rook ending. Also good was 1 7 . . . 'ifc4 1 8 .'i¥e3 - White 's extra pawn promises more of a moral , than a real victory.

1 8. 'iYb6xe6 1 9. g2xf3 20. l:re1 -e3

tt:ld4xf3+ l:re7xe6

Or also : 2 0 . l:red 1 .l::r c 6 2 1 .l:rd3 (2 1 .l:rd5 l:rxc3 2 2 .l:rxb5 .l::rxf3 2 3 .l:rxe5 l:tfxa3 is equal) 2 1 . . .l:rac8 2 2 . .l:J.b 1 .l::rxc3 2 3 .l:rxc3 l:rxc3 24 .l:rxb5 l:rxa3 2 S .�g2 f6 2 6 . l:rxb7 l:rc3 2 7 .l:b2 . It is impossible to realise such an extra pawn.

20 ... l:re6-c6 21 . �g 1 -f1 l:ra8-c8 22.l:ra1 -b1 l:rc6xc3 23.l:re3xc3 l:rc8xc3 24.l:rb1 xb5 l:rc3xa3 f7-f5 28.e4xf5 b7-b5 29.l:re7-e5 l:rf3-c3 30.l:re5xb5 l:rc3xc2 3Vit>f1 -g2 �h7-g8 32.�g2-g3 �g8-f7 33.h2-h4 �f7-f6 34.f2-f3 l:rc2-c4 35.l:rb5-b7 h6-h5 36.l:rb7-b5 l:rc4-d4 37.l:rb5-a5

Draw agreed.

95

Chapter 4 The Metger System

Games No 2 8 - 3 5 are devoted to what is regarded as the main line. The manoeuvre . . . 'iWe7 followed by . . . tLld8 and . . . tLle6 , breaking the pin of the poisonous bishop on gS , is the idea of the 1 9th century German master, Johannes Metger.

Game No 2 8 [C49] Kogan,Artur Lafuente,Pablo San Sebastian 2009 (7 )

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jb1 -c3 3. tt:Jg1 -f3 4. �f1 -b5 5. 0-0 6 . d2-d3 7. b2xc3

A slight move-order trick.

8. �c1 -g5

e7-e5 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jb8-c6 �f8-b4 0-0 �b4xc3 'ti'd8-e7

h7-h61?

8 . . . d6 9 .l:f.e I transposes into the main line.

9. �g5-h4 1 0. l:f.f1 -e1 1 1 . d3-d4

d7-d6 tt:Jc6-d8 �c8-g4

l l . .. tLle6 (with a small transposition) was seen in the game Speelman-Karpov, Linares 1 99 2 : 1 2.dxe5 ! dxeS 1 3 .tLlxeS 'ifcs 1 4 . .ixf6 'ti'xbS I S .tLlg4 hS 1 6.tLle3 gxf6 1 7.tLldS .l:f.d8 1 7 . . . 'itg7

1 8 .l:f.e3 ( 1 8 .'ti'f3 c6 1 9 .'iixf6+ 'ith7 20 .'ti'f5 + 'ith6 2 I .'ti'f6+= - Karpov) 1 8 . . . l:f.h8 1 9 .l:f.g3 + 'itf8 2 0 .'ii'f3 l:f.h6 2 l .tLlxf6 with good compensation for the piece. I S .'ilhhs l:f.xdS 1 9.exd5 tt:Jg7 20.'ti'h6 �fs 2 I .'ti'xf6 'ti'b6

:� •

22.'ti'h4 Worthy of consideration was 2 2 .'ti'gS ! ? 'iid6 2 3 .c4 i.xc2 24 .l:f.ac l , and White's chances are clearly superior. 22 • • . .itxc2 23 • .l:te7 Black's position is worse, but in the remainder of the game, Karpov defends with great mastery and cold-bloodedness. 23 ... 'iid6 24.c4 bS 2 5 .cxb5 'ir'xdS 26 .a4 c6 2 7.bxc6 'ti'xc6 28 .h3 2 8 .'ti'f4 'iig6 2 9 . l:f.xa 7 ± 28 • . • .itg6 2 9 • .l:f.e5 l:c8 3 0 . .I:!.ae l a6 3 1 .a5 tLle6 32 .'iif6 tt::J£'8 3 3 .'iixc6 .l:f.xc6 34.l:.dl tLle6 3 S .h4 '>t>g7 36.h5 .ith7 3 7.J:[d7 '>t>f6 3 8J:te3 jt_f5 3 9.lld5 tLlf4 40.l:l.d4 tt:Je6 4 I .J:[dS draw.

1 2. h2-h3 �g4xf3

Or 1 2 . . . �h5 1 3 . g4 .tg6 1 4 .�d3 . White has the strategic initiative (also good is 1 4 . .l:f.b l ! ?) .

97


1 3. 'ifd1 xf3 14. l:ta1 -d1

1 4 . . . tbf4 ! ? .

1 5 . �h4-g3 1 6 . h3-h4 17 . .tb5-c4 1 8. h4xg5 1 9. .ic4-f1

tt:Jd8-e6 g7-g5?1

tt:Je6-g7;t a7-a6 b7-b5 h6xg5 �g8-h7

Or 1 9 . . . tt:Jfhs 20 . .th2 tL:lf4 2 1 .c4 with advantage to White.

20. c3-c4 b5-b4

21 . c4-c5!± 22. c5xd6 23. "i¥f3-b3

�h7-g6 c7xd6

Worth considering was 2 3 .c3 ! ? bxc3 ( 2 3 . . . a5 24 . dxe5 dxe S 2 S J:td5 ! ) 24 ."i¥xc3 ± .

23 . ... 24. 'ti'b3xb4 25. f2xg3 26. .tf1 -c4 27. 'it'b4-a3 28. �a3-d3 29. l:te1 -f1

2 9 .c3± .

29 . ... 30. "iYd3xd4 31 . l:td 1 xd4

98

tt:Jg7-h5 tt:Jh5xg3 l:tf8-d8 a6-a5 l:ta8-c8 V/ie7-a7

'ifa7xd4+ e5xd4 l:tc8-c5

32 . .ic4-b3

3 2..�. d 3 ! ? .

32 . . .. 33. l:td4-d3 34 . .tb3xf7+ 35. .tf7-b3

l:tc5-e5 tt:Jf6xe4 �g6-g7 l:td8-f8

3 5 . . . tbcS retains some chances to hold.

36. .!:If1 -e1 37. .!:Ie1 -d1 38. J::[d3-f3

Game No 29 [C49] Dzhmnaev,Marat Filippov,Anton

.!:lf8-e8 l:te8-f8 1 -0

Tashkent ch-UZB 2009 ( I 0)

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. .tf1 -b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. b2xc3 8. .tc1 -g5 9. l:tf1 -e1

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 .tf8-b4 0-0 .tb4xc3 d7-d6 'tWd8-e7 .tc8-g4

This quite rare move appears better than its reputation.

1 0. h2-h3 .tg4-h5

1 1 . g2-g4

• An old recommendation of Euwe's . As the present game shows , White has nothing special here. Worth considering is l l .llb 1 h6 and now:

A) 1 2 .�xf6 'i!Vxf6 I 3 . .ixc6 bxc6 I 4 .g4 .ig6 I S .llb7 hS I 6 .lt:Jd2= ; B) 1 2.�h4 gS I 3 . .ig3 a 6 I 4 . .ixc6

( I 4 .ii.a4 bS I S . .ib3 tt::las I 6 .h4) I 4 . . . bxc6 I S .d4 ( I S .h4 ! ?) I S . . . llab8 I 6 .llb3 l::rfd8 I 7 .'i!Vd3 (White has some initiative) I 7 . . . ii.xf3 I 8 :ihf3 �g7 I 9 .dxe5 dxeS 2 0 .'i!Vfs with a clear advantage to White. • However, the most logical move in the position seems to be l l .d4 and now:

A) The pawn cannot be taken : l l . .. exd4 1 2 .g4 ii.g6 I 3 .cxd4± ; B) l l . .. �xf3 1 2 .'ti'xf3 exd4? ( 1 2 . . . a6

I 3 .ii.xc6 bxc6 I 4 .llab I with the initiative to White) I 3 . .ixc6 bxc6 I 4 .cxd4± ; C) l l . . .h6 1 2 . .ih4 a6 1 2 . . . ii.xf3

I 3 .'ti'xf3 gS I 4 .�g3 exd4 I S . .ixc6 bxc6 I 6 .cxd4±. 1 3 • .ia4 White gets nothing after I 3 .ii.xc6 bxc6 I 4 .'i!Yd3 �xf3 ( I 4 . . . 'i!Ye6 I S .tt::ld2) I S .'i!Yxf3 J::!.ab8 I 6 .ii.xf6 'i!Yxf6 I 7 .'i!Yxf6 gxf6 1 8 .llab 1 = . 1 3 ••• b5 1 4.�b3 gS Or 1 4 . . . tt::la5 1 S .'ti'd3 llfe8 1 6 . a4 c6 1 7 .tt::ld2 and White has the initiative. ( 1 7 . .ia2 ! ?) . 1 S . .ig3 llfe8 1 6.'i!Yd3 White 's position is somewhat better (analysis) .

1 1 . ... .ih5-g6 1 2. tt::lf3-d2

Here too, 1 2 .d4 deserves attention.

1 2 . ... 1 3 . �g5-h4 14. f2-f4?!

h7-h6 tt::lc6-d8

Too risky. The position is close to equality and it would have been sensible to

Chapter 4 - The Metger S ystem

acknowledge this : 1 4 .'i!Yf3 tt::le6 1 S . .ixf6 'ir'xf6 1 6 .'ir'xf6 gxf6=.

14 . .. . 1 5. d3-d4 1 6. tt::ld2-f3

e5xf4 tt::ld8-e6 �g6-h7

1 7. e4-e5

White has no compensation for the lost material , but maybe he should have tried 1 7 .ii.d3 gS I 8 .ii.f2 llfe8 1 9 .eS .

1 7. ... d6xe5 1 8. lle1 xe5 "ife7-a31+ 1 9. 'i!Yd1 -e1 'i!Va3-b2 20. ii.b5-d3 .ih7xd3 21 . c2xd3 'ir'b2-c2 22. lla1 -d1 'i!Yc2xa2 23. .ih4xf6 g7xf6 24. lle5-e2

24 .llh5 tt::lgs 2 5 .tt::lxg5 fxgS 26 .llxh6 llae8+ .

24 ... 'i'Va2-d5 25.tt::lf3-h4 tt::le6-g5 26.'ir'e1 -f1 llf8-e8 27.lld1 -e1 lle8-e6 28.lle2xe6 f7xe6 29.�g1 -h2 'ir'd5-d6 30.'i!Yf1 -f2 c7-c5 31 .tt::lh4-g6 f4-f3+ 32.�h2-h1 c5xd4 33.h3-h4 �g8-g7 34.h4xg5 h6xg5 35.'i!Yf2xf3 �g7xg6 36.�h1 -g1 'i!Yd6-d5 37.'tWf3-h3 d4xc3 38.lle1 -e2 'ti'd5-d4+ 39.�g 1 -h1 'i!Yd4-d5+ 0-1

99


Game No 3 0 [C49] Delchev,Alexander Cori Tello,Jorge Pamplona 20 1 0 (8)

1 . e2-e4 e7-e5 2. t2Jg1 -f3 t2Jb8-c6 3. t2Jb1 -c3 t2Jg8-f6 4. .tf1 -b5 ..tf8-b4 5. 0-0 0-0 6. d2-d3 d7-d6 7. �c1 -g5 �b4xc3 8. b2xc3 'iWd8-e7 9. l::l.f1 -e1 t2Jc6-d8

1 0. d3-d4 a7-a6

A rare continuation.

1 1 . �b5-d3 h7-h6 1 2. �g5-d2 �c8-g4 1 3. h2-h3 �g4-h5 14. g2-g4 �h5-g6 1 5. t2Jf3-h4:t tLlf6-d7

Worth attention is 15 . . . tLle6 1 6.tLlf5 'iWdS 1 7.'iWf3 !? Dubious is 1 7 .f4 exf4 1 8 .d5 ( 1 8 .'iWf3 tLlgs 1 9 .'iWh 1 dS=F) 1 8 . . . t2Jcs 1 9 .'iif3 l::l.e8 20 .�xf4 tLlfd7 , and White is not likely to get anything worthwhile from his attack. Now Black does not have too many useful moves. 1 7 . . . tLld7 1 7 . . . exd4 1 8 .cxd4 .ixfs 1 9 .exfS tLlxd4 20 .'iWxb7:t . 1 8.�e3 and Black has a slightly passive, but very solid position.

1 6. t2Jh4-f5 'iWe7-f6

1 00

White 's position is clearly more promising.

1 7. f2-f4

The move 1 7 .dS was in the spirit of the position, closing the centre and shifting the centre of the battle to the kingside :

A) 1 7 . . . c6 1 8 . c4 tLlcS 1 9 . -ifl ( 1 9 .'li;>h2 ! ? bS) 1 9 . . . b5 20 .'iif3 ; B) 1 7 ... �xf5 1 8 . gxf5 c6 1 9 .c4 tLlcS

20 .'li;>h2 (20 .�fl ! ?) ; C) 1 7 . . . tLlc5 1 8 .'li;>h2 c6 l 9 .Ug l with

the threat of gS . White 's prospects are superior.

1 7 . ... 1 8. f4xe5 1 9. l::l.e1 -f1 20. e4xf5

t2Jd8-e6 d6xe5 .ig6xf5 t2Je6-g5

Black has sufficient counterplay : the weakness of the white king is noticeable.

21 . h3-h4 22. c;i;>g1 -g2 23. �d2xf4 24. 'iY d 1 -f3 25. .l:rf1 -h1

2 5 .'iWxf4 tLlf6= .

25 . ...

tt:Jg5-h3+ tLlh3-f4+ e5xf4 'iWf6xh4

'iih4-g3+

Also adequate is 25 . . . 'iVf6 26 . .:Ih5 Jd.fe8 2 7 .gS 'iWd6 2 8 . l::l.fl = ( 2 8 . gxh6 ? .l:re3 +) .

26. 'iYf3xg3 f4xg3

27. g4-g5

The last try. After 2 7 . 'it>xg 3 it is a draw.

27 . ... 28. .l:rh1 -h3 29. .l:ra1 -h 1 30. .l:rh1 -e1

h6xg5 .l:rf8-d8 'it>g8-f8

Nothing comes from 3 0 . .l:rxg3 'it>e7 (30 . . . f6 3 1 .�c4;l;) 3 1 Jhg5 'it>f6= .

3 0 ... tt:Jd7-f6 31 . .l:rh3-h8+ tt:Jf6-g8 32 . .l:re1 -e3 .l:rd8-d6 33 . .l:rh8-h5 g5-g4 34.'it>g2xg3 tt:Jg8-h6 35.'it>g3-f4 .l:ra8-e8 36 . .l:re3-e5 .l:rd6-c6 37.c3-c4 .l:rc6-d6 38.d4-d5 b7-b6 1f2-1f2

If 3 8 . . . .l:rxe5 3 9 .'it>xe5 f6+ 40 .Wf4 .l:rb6+ it is White who should look for the draw.

Game No 3 1 [C49] Adams,Michael Werle,} an

London 2009 (7 )

1 . e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1 -f3 3. tt:Jb1 -c3 4. .if1 -b5 5. 0-0

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0

Chapter 4 - The Metger S ystem

6. d2-d3 7. �c1 -g5 8. b2xc3 9. .l:rf1 -e1

1 0. d3-d4 1 1 . h2-h3

1 1 . ...

d7-d6 .ib4xc3 ifd8-e7 tt:Jc6-d8 �c8-g4

�g4-h5

It is at the very least illogical to play 1 l . . . .ixf3 ? ! 1 2 .'ti'xf3 tlJe6 1 3 .�e3 h6 1 4 .h4 tt:Jh7 1 5 .g3 'iYf6 1 6 .'iYd 1 'iYg6 1 7 .a4 tlJf6 1 8 . .id3 aS 1 9 .'ilf3 tlJg4 2 0 .�c 1 .l:rae8 2 1 ..l:rb 1 exd4 2 2 .e5 fS 2 3 .exd6 cxd6 24 .cxd4 tt:Jxd4 2 5 .'iYd5 + 'iff? 2 6 .'ihf7 + Wxf7 2 7 . .l:rxb7+ 'it>g6 28 . .l:rxe8 .l:rxe8 29 .Wg2 tt:Je5 3 0 .�b2 tt:Jef3 3 l ..l:rd7 tt:Je 1 + 3 2. Wfl tt:Jxd3 3 3 .�xd4 .l:re l + 3 4 . Wg2 tt:Jc5 3 5 .l:Ixg7+ Wh5 3 6 .f3 tt:Je6 3 7 .g4+ 1 -0 , Negi-Yuldashev, Delhi 20 1 0 ( 6) .

1 2. g2-g4 �h5-g6 1 3. d4-d5

This continuation was seen in SpasskyGligoric , Sarajevo 1 9 86 . Worth considering is 1 3 . .id3 ! ? . White gets nothing from: 1 3 .tLlh4 tLle6 Weaker is 1 3 . . . h6 ? ! 1 4 .tlJf5 �xf5 1 5 .�xf6 'iYxf6 1 6 . exf5 a6 1 7 .dxe5 dxe5 1 8 .�d7 tlJc6 1 9 .'iYf3 tlJb8 20 . .!:!.ad 1 c6 2 1 ..l:rd2 .l:f.d8 2 2 . .l:red 1 .l:ra7 2 3 . .l:rd6 e4 draw, Lundquist-V Ragozin , correspondence 1 9 5 6 . 'An incomprehensible decision , since

1 0 1


24.'iWe3 .l:i.xd7 2 S .'il'xa7 simply wins ' Nunn. 1 4.'iWd2 On 1 4.�c 1 Black can even play 1 4 . . . �xe4 1 5 . g S tt:lxdS 1 6 . .l:i.xe4 tt:lxc3 1 7 .tt:lfS 'i¥d8 1 8 .'ifd3 tt:lxe4 1 9 .'ifxe4 exd4 with unclear play. 1 4 . . . h6 1 4 . . . �xe4 ! ? . 1 5 .tt:lf5 .iii.xfS 1 6 . .txf6 'iYxf6 1 7.exf5 t2Jf4 1 8.'1t>h2?! Better is 1 8 .�e3 . 1 8 . . . h5 1 9.'1t>g3??

Analysis diagram

1 9 . . . hxg4 2 0 .hxg4 'Wh6 0 - 1 , D. Abhishek-Yuldashev, Delhi 2 0 1 0 (8) .

1 3. ... c7-c6 1 4. .itb5-d3 .l:i.a8-c8

The above-mentioned game between two of the greats went 1 4 . . . cxdS 1 S .exd5 e4? ! 1 6 .�xe4 ! .itxe4 1 7 .'ifd4, and Spassky had an extra pawn.

1 5. c3-c4 1 6 . tt:lf3-d2 1 7. .itg5-h4 1 8. f2-f3

b7-b6 h7-h6 �g6-h7

The prophylactic 1 8 .a4 tt:lb7 1 9 .tt:lb3 ;!; was worth considering.

1 8 . ... g7-g5

More solid is 1 8 . . . tt:lb7 , but even here, after 1 9 .tt:lb3 White 's space advantage guarantees him a small advantage.

1 9. .ith4-f2 20. a2-a4

1 0 2

tt:lf6-d7 tt:ld8-b7

21 . tt:ld2-b3;!; .l:i.c8-c7 22. 'ifd1 -d2

2 2 .a5 ! ? .

22 . ... .l:i.f8-c8 23. .l:i.a1 -a2 �h7-g6 24. h3-h4 f7-f6 25. a4-a5 tt:lb7-c5 26. a5xb6 a7xb6 27. h4-h5

Maybe he should have maintained the tension. 2 7 .tt:lxcS tt:lxcS 2 8 .�e2 at least keeps the possibility of a breakthrough.

27. ... �g6-e8 28. tt:lb3-c1 tt:lc5xd3 29. c2xd3

Worth consideration was 2 9 . tt:lxd3 cxdS 3 0 .cxd5 tt:lcS 3 1 .'ifb4;!; .

29. ... c6-c51

This move creates a fortress. White keeps a formal advantage, but can do nothing with it.

30.tt:lc1 -e2 tt:ld7-f8 31 . .l:i.e1 -b1 .l:i.c7-b7 32.tt:le2-g3 �e8-d7 33 . .l:i.a2-a6 �e7-d8 34.�d2-a2 .l:i.c8-b8 35 . .tf2-e1 'ifd8-c7 36.�e1 -c3 '1t>g8-f7 37.'1t>g 1 -g2 '1t>f7-e8 38 . .l:i.b1 -b3 �d7-c8 39.tt:lg3-f1 .tc8-d7 40.tt:lf1 -e3 .td7-c8 41 .'1t>g2-f2 �c8-d7

42.<ot>f2-g2 �d7-c8 43.'ifa2-b1 �c8-d7 44J:la6-a2 �d7-c8 45J:ra2-b2 <ot>e8-f7 46.<ot>g2-f2 <ot>f7-e8 47.<ot>f2-e2 <ot>e8-f7 48.<ot>e2-d2 <ot>f7-e8 49J:lb3-a3 �c8-d7 50.'ifb1-a1 <ot>e8-d8 51 . .l:!.a3-a6 �d7-c8 52.tt:Je3-c2 �c8-d7 53 . .l:!.b2-a2 ikd7-c8 54 . .l:!.a6-a3 ikc8-d7 55 . .l:!.a3-a7 .l:!.b7xa7 56 . .l:!.a2xa7 .l:!.b8-b7 57 . .l:!.a7-a8+ .l:!.b7-b8 58 . .l:!.a8-a3 'lll:Vc7-c8 59.tt:Jc2-e3 'ifc8-c7 60.<ot>d2-c2 'i¥c7-c8 61 J:la3-a6 'iYc8-c7 62.tt:Je3-f5 �d7xf5 63.e4xf5 tt:Jf8-d7 64."tWa1-a4 .l:!.b8-b7 65 . .l:!.a6-a8+ .t:i.b7-b8 66 . .l:!.a8-a7 1f2-1f2

Game No 3 2 [C49J Yuldashev,Saidali Amin,Bassem AI Ain tt 2008 (5)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. b2xc3 8. �c1-g5 9. .l:!.f1-e1

10. d3-d4

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 �f8-b4 0-0 �b4xc3 d7-d6 "tWd8-e7 tt:Jc6-d8 tt:Jd8-e6

Chapter 4 - The Metger System

11. �g5-h4

Not considered strongest, since by comparison with usual positions from the Metger, where the white bishop ends up on h4, here Black has saved a tempo on . . . h7 -h6 However, even here, it is not so easy for him to equalise. The main moves are 1 1 .�d2 and 1 1 . .itc 1 .

11. ... 12. tt:Jf3-d2

tt:Je6-f4 c7-c5

Practice has also seen 1 2 .. . �h8 1 3 . .itfl h6 1 4.f3 gS 1 S . .itg3 .l:!.g8 1 6.tLlc4 .l:!.g7 1 7.tt:le3 hS 1 8 .c4 .i1Ld7 1 9.c3 .l:!.ag8 20.tt:lfS �xfS 2 1 .exfS h4 22 • .i1Lf2 g4 23 .�xh4

Analysis diagram

2 3 .. . gxf3 Worth consideration is 23 . . . tt:Je4 24 .fxe4 (24 .�xe7 tLlh3 + 2 5 .gxh3 gxh3 + mating) 24 . . . 'ifxh4 25 .g3 tLlh3 + 26 .<ot>h 1 tLlfl+ 2 7 .<ot>g2 tt::lxd 1 2 8 .gxh4 tt::lxc3 29 .dxe5 dxeS 30 .a4 with a double-edged position -Kamsky. 24.'ii'xf3 .l:!.g4 24 . . . tt:Jxg2 2 5 .�xg2 .l:!.xg2+ 26 .<ot>h 1 ± . 2S • ..ig3± tLl6hS 26.�4 tt:lxf4 27.g3 'i!Yh4 28.l:te3 tLlhS 29.'�'£'2 exd4 30.cxd4 lhd4 31..l:!.ael 'i¥f6 32 . .l:!.e4 .l:!.xe4 33 . .l:!.xe4 'il:Ygs 34.'il:Yd4+ <ot>h7 3 S . .l:!.h4 .l:!.es 36.'ti'dl <ot>h6 37 . .ite2 .l:!.xe2 38.'il:Yxe2 a6 39.a4 b6 40 . .l:!.h3 'tlt'cl + 41 .�g2 1 -0 , Kamsky-Timman, Til burg 1 99 1 .

103


13. �b5-f1 14. tt:Jd2-c4 15. f2-f3

h7-h6 .l:[f8-d8

15 .a4!? b6 16.f3 looks more accurate.

15 . ... b7-b6

It is worth considering 15 ... b5 16.tLle3 (16.tLla5 'i:Vc7!? 17.�xf6 gxf6 18.tLlb3 c4 19.tLlc1 d5 with counterplay) 16 ... b4, creating counterplay on the queenside. On 17 .g3 there is 17 ... gS 18.gxf4 gxh4 with unclear consequences.

16. tt:Jc4-e3

It is not easy for Black to untangle.

16 . ... 17. �h4-f2 18. 'ifd1-d2

g7-g5 �c8-e6

Worth attention is 18.g3 tLlh3+ (18 ... tLlg6 19.d5) 19.�xh3 .txh3 20.g4;!;;; or 18.d5 �d7 19.c4 in both cases with the initiative for White.

18 . ... 19. g2-g3

'iti>g8-h7 tt:Jf4-g6

He cannot solve all his problems by 19 ... tLlh3+ 20.�xh3 �xh3 2l.g4 'ife8 22.tLlf5.

20. a2-a4;!;;

20.d5!? �d7 21.c4.

104

20 . ... 21. d4-d5 22. �f1-b5

22.c4!?.

22. . .. 23. .l:[e1-b1 24. c;t;>g1-h1 25. �b5-d3 26. c3-c4 27. tt:Je3-f5 28. h2-h4 29. e4xf5 30. h4xg5

'ife7-c7 �e6-d7

�d7-c8 .l:[a8-b8 tt:Jf6-g8 tt:Jg8-e7 .l:[d8-f8 f7-f6 tt:Je7xf5 tt:Jg6-e7

Maybe it made sense to maintain the tension for now, so as to open the h-file in more favourable circumstances: 30.g4 �d7 3I.c;t;>g2 c;t;>g7 32 . .l:[h1 .l:[h8 33 . ..te3.

30 . ... 31. c;t;>h1-g2 32. g3-g4

h6xg5 c;t;>h7-g7

No advantage is given by 32 . .l:[h1 �xfS 33.�xf5 tLlxfS 34.'i:Vd3 'i:Vd7 35.g4 tLlh4+ 36.�xh4 gxh4 37 . .l:[xh4 .l:[h8 38 . .l:[ah1 = .

32 . ... �c8-d7 33. �f2-e3 .l:[f8-h8 34. a4-a5 c;t;>g7-f7 35. a5xb6 a7xb6 36. l:rb1-h1 'ifc7-b7

A very similar structure arose in the game Adams-Werle (see Game 31): White has a large space advantage, but it is very hard to find a point at which to break through.

37 . .id3-e4 l:[b8-a8 38.l:.a1-b1 'tib7-a6 39 . .ie4-d3 .:a8-g8 40.�g2-g3 'tia6-a8 41.'iid2-c3 .l:[h8xh1 42J:tb1 xh1 l:[g8-h8 43.'tic3-a1 'tia8xa1 44.l:[h1 xa1 :Z.h8-b8 45J:ta1-b1 tt::Je7-c8 46.l:[b1-h1 �f7-g7 47 . .l:[h1-a1 l:[b8-b7 48.�g3-f2 .l:[b7-a7 49J:ta1-b1 112-112

Game No 33 [C49] lotov, Valentin Dimitrov Kravtsiv,Martyn Enschede YM 2010 (6)

1. e2-e4 2. tt::lg1-f3 3. tt::lb1-c3 4. ..tf1-b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. ..tc1-g5 8. b2xc3 9. .t:tf1-e1

10. d3-d4 11. .ig5-d2

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6 ..tf8-b4 0-0 d7-d6 kb4xc3 'iid8-e7 tt::Jc6-d8 tt::ld8-e6

This move is no weaker than the main line 11 . ..tc 1 .


11. ... c7-c5 12 . ..tb5-c4

The typical 12.d5 tt::lc7 13 . ..td3 promises a small space advantage, but White is seeking a livelier game.

12 . ... 13. a2-a4 14. tt::lf3-h41? 15. c3xd4 16. .id2-g5;t

tt::Je6-c7 l:[a8-b8 c5xd4 e5xd4

The pin is rather unpleasant.

16 . ... 17. tt::lh4-f3 18 . ..tg5xf6

'tie7-e5 'tie5-c5

White could go into a favourable endgame with 18.'iixd4 tt::le6 (18 ... 'tixd4 19.tt::lxd4±) 19 . ..txe6 fxe6 20.'iixc5 dxcS 2I...tf4 l:[a8 22 . ..td6 lle8 23 . .ixc5±.

18. ... g7xf6 19. 'tid1xd4

White also keeps some advantage with queens on: 19.'tid3 ..te6 20 . ..tb3 ..txb3 2l.cxb3 tt::le6 22Jhcl 'iib4 23 . .l:[c4.

19 . ... 20. tt::lf3xd4 21 . ..tc4-b3 22. l:.a1-d1

'tic5xd4 ..tc8-e6 .t:tf8-d8

! OS


White retains unpleasant pressure in the ending. Black has to work for a draw.

22 ... �g8-f8 23 . .!:f.e1-e3 ..te6xb3 24.c2xb3 d6-d5 25.e4-e5 f6xe5 26.l:.e3xe5 .!:f.d8-d7 27 . .!:f.e5-h5 f7-f6 28 . .!:f.h5-h6 .!:f.d7-f7 29.tt:ld4-f5 .!:f.b8-d8 30.g2-g3 tt:lc7-e6 31 . .!:f.d1-e1 tt:le6-c7 32.tt:lf5-d4 .!:f.d8-e8 33 . .!:f.e1-c1 tt:lc7-e6 34.tt:ld4-b5 .!:f.e8-d8 35 . .!:f.c1-e1 tt:le6-c5 36.tt:lb5-d4 .!:f.d8-e8 37 . .!:f.e1-d1 a7-a5 38.�g1-g2 b7-b6 39 . .!:f.h6-h5 .!:f.f7-d7 40 . .!:f.h5-h6 .!:f.d7-f7 41.h2-h4 �f8-g8 42.tt:ld4-c6 tt:lc5xb3 43J::i.d1 xd5 tt:lb3-c5 44.tt:lc6xa5 .!:f.e8-e4 45.tt:la5-c6 .!:f.e4xa4 46 . .!:f.d5-d8+ �g8-g7 47 . .!:f.h6-h5 .!:f.f7-d7 48 . .!:f.d8xd7+ tt:lc5xd7 49 . .!:f.h5-d5 tt:ld7-c5 50.tt:lc6-d4 .!:f.a4-a2 51.�g2-f3 �g7-f7 52.tt:ld4-f5 �f7-e6 53.tt:lf5-e3 �e6-f7

Game No 34 [C49] Sutovsky,Emil Efimenko,Zakhar Serbia tt 2009 (8)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. ..tf1-b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3 7. .ic1-g5 8. b2xc3 9. .!:f.f1-e1

10. d3-d4 11. ..tg5-d2 12. tt:lf3-h41?

1 06

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 ..tf8-b4 0-0 d7-d6 ..tb4xc3 'ti'd8-e7 tt:lc6-d8 tt:ld8-e6 c7-c5

As they say, 'One man 's meat is another man's poison ' . A more solid player would prefer 1 2 .d5 tt:lc7 1 3 . ..td3 ..td7 1 4 .h3 bS 1 5 . c4;!; with a small , but clear plus for at least the next 2 0 moves .

12 . ... c5xd4 13. tt:lh4-f5 'fiie7-c7 14. c3xd4 tt:le6xd4 15. tt:lf5xd4 e5xd4 16. ..td2-f4 'i¥c7-c5 17. .!:f.a1-b1

The two bishops in an open position are sufficient compensation for the pawn, but no more than that . Chances are equal .

17 . ... tt:lf6-g4

An equal position with mutual chances results from 1 7 . . . a6 1 8 . ..td3 ( 1 8 . ..ta4 bS 1 9 . ..tb3l::!.e8=F) 1 8 . . . J:le8= .

18. ..tb5-d3 tt:lg4-e5 19. .!:f.b1-b5 'i:Yc5-c7 20. �d3-f1 a7-a6 21. .!:f.b5-d5 d4-d3 22. c2xd3 ..tc8-e6 23 . .!:f.d5-d4

Seemingly an inaccuracy.

23 . ... 'ti'c7-c5

Safer is 2 3 . . . .l:!.fc8 24.'i¥d2 (24.'i:Ya 1 bS=) 24 . . . b5= .

24. 'ii'd1-a1! 25. lle1-c1 ;t 26. llc1-b1 27. �f4-c1

llf8-c8 'ii'c5-a3 b7-b5

Worth considering was 2 7 .'i¥b2 'ifxa2 28 .'iYxa2 .txa2 29 .llb2 .te6 30 . .l:i.xd6;!; .

Analysis diagram

In this position, the two bishops are a more significant factor than Black's pair of passed pawns.

27 . ... 28. �c1-e3 29. jle3-c1 30 . .iii.c1-e3 31. f2-f4?1

'ifa3-c5 'ti'c5-a3 'i!Ya3-c5 'i!Yc5-a3

Too enterprising. 3 l ..tc 1 'iY c5 3 2 . .te3 promised a repetition of moves, whilst 3 l . . .'iVxa2 3 2 .llxd6 leads to a sharp endgame, in which White's chances are probably somewhat better.

31 . ... 32. llb1-c1 33. 'f!Ya1-c3 34. llc1xc3 35. �e3-c1 36. lld4xd6

llc8-c2 llc2xa2 'ifa3xc3 tt:le5-g4 a6-a5=F

This version of the ending is unpleasant for White, as Black's passed pawns are very dangerous. Worth attention was 36 . f5 b4 3 7 .llc7 �b3 3 8 .llxd6=F.


36 . ... 37. llc3-c5

38. e4-e5?

b5-b4 h7-h6

The wrong way. With 3 8.f5 (or 3 8 .h3 tt:lf6 3 9 .f5 tt:le8 40 .llb6 .tb3 4 1 .11i.f4=F) 3 8 . . . �b3 3 9 .e5 White would retain more chances of counterplay. Now the black pawns become unstoppable.

38 ... b4-b3-+ 39.h2-h3 tt:lg4-f2 40.lld6-b6 a5-a4 41.g2-g4 g7-g6 42.�c1-e3 tt:lf2-d1 43.�e3-d4 lla2-c2 44.llc5-b5 b3-b2 45 . ..tf1-g2 lla8-d8 46.llb6-d6 lld8-c8 47.f4-f5 g6xf5 48.g4xf5 �e6-b3 49 . .td4xb2 llc2xb2 50.e5-e6 f7xe6 51.f5xe6 tt:ld1-e3 52.�g2-c6 llc8-f8 53.lld6-d8 llf8xd8 54.e6-e7 lld8-c8 55.llb5-e5 .tb3-f7 0-1

Game No 3 5 [C49] Acs,Peter Timman,Jan Paks 20 I 0 (7)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. .tf1-b5 5. 0-0 6. d2-d3

e7-e5 tt:lg8-f6 tt:lb8-c6 .if8-b4 0-0 d7-d6

107


7. �c1-g5 8. b2xc3 9. l:rf1-e1

10. d3-d4 11. �g5-c1

�b4xc3 'iYd8-e7 tt:lc6-d8 tt:ld8-e6

This position has been reached in practice countless hundreds of times. It is considered that White has some strategic initiative, thanks to his preponderance in the centre and the two, albeit for the time being , passive bishops, but in general , the position is close to equality.

11. ... l:rf8-d8

Another popular continuation for Black is 1 1 ... c5, immediately trying to clarify the central pawn position. Here is a typical example from recent tournament practice : 1 2.�£'1 l:rd8 1 3.d5 More lively play results from 1 3 .tt:lh4 tt:le8 1 4.g3 ( 1 4.tLlf5 !? 'iYf6 1 5 .d5 tLlgS 1 6 .g4;t) 1 4 . . . exd4 1 5 .tLlf5 'fff6 1 6 .cxd4 dS 1 7 .e5 ( 1 7 .exd5 l:rxdS 1 8 .�d3 is worth considering, after which it is not too good to play 1 8 . . . cxd4 1 9 .'iYf3 l:rd8 20 .g4 when White has a serious initiative for the pawn) 1 7 . . . 'iYxfS 1 8 . .i.d3 'iYh3 1 9 .�fl 'iY fS 2 0 . .i.d3 'iYh3 draw, Cornette-Hammer, Cappelle-la-Grande 20 1 0 (4) . 1 3 ... tt:l£S 1 4.g3 h6 1 S .tt::lh4 tt:l6h7 1 6.c4 'iYf6 1 7.'iYf3 White aims at maximum solidity. The natural 1 7 .�g2

10 8

tt:lg6 1 8 .tLlf3 retains a little pressure. 1 7 .. .'iYxf3 1 8.tt:lxf3 gS 1 9.h4 f6 20.a4 .i.d7 draw, K. Szabo-Hammer, Cappellela-Grande 20 1 0 (2) . In the final position, White has some advantage.

12. .i.b5-f1 !

A solid, well-tested continuation. This is one of the key positions in the Metger.

12 . ... h7-h6

• This is the moment to remember one of the classics : 1 2 ... tt::lfS?! 1 3 .tt:lh4 tt::lg4? 1 3 . . . tt:lxe4? 1 4 .l:rxe4 fS 1 S . .i.c4+ Wh8 1 6 .'iYh5 fxe4 1 7 . .i.g5 'iYd7 1 8 .�f7. 'and Black is defenceless against the strengthening of the attack by means of l:re 1 -e3 ' - Nunn. 1 4.g3 'ti!Yf6 1 5.£'3 tt::lh6 1 6 . ..ie3 l:re8 1 7.'it'd2± tt::lg6 1 8.tt::lg2 .ih3 1 8 . . . 'iYxf3 1 9 . .i.e2 'iff6 20 .�c4 'il'e 7 2 I ..i.xh6 ± . 1 9 . .i.e2 .txg2 20.Wxg2 d5

Analysis diagram

Out of misery. .. 2 1 .exd5 exd4 22.cxd4 tt:lfs 23 .�£'2 .lled8 24.c4 hS 25.h4 bS 26.'ifg5 'ifxgS 2 7.hxg5 h4 28 . .id3 hxg3 2 9 .�xg3 tt:lxd4 3 0 • .llad l cS 3 1 .dxc6 tt:lxc6 32.�e4 .llac8 33 . .llxd8+ tt::lxd8 34.-ifs .lla8 35 . .lle8+ 'it>h7 36.cxb5 f6 3 7.�c7 tt:le6 38 . .llxa8 tt::lxc7 39 . .llxa7 tt:lxbS 40 . .lld7 fxgS 41 .a4 1 -0 , Botvinnik-Reshevsky, World Championship The Hague/Moscow 1 948 ; • A line tested a number of times is 1 2 ..• b6 1 3 .tt::lh4 g6 1 3 . . . c5 1 4.tt:lfs 'ti'c7 1 5 .dS tt:lf8 1 6 .'iYf3 tt:le8 , Khamatgaleev-Datu, Calcutta 200 1 , and now 1 7 . .igS (or 1 7 .a4 strengthening White's positional pressure) 1 7 . . .f6 1 8 . .id2 . 1 4.g3 �b7 1 4 . . . tt:le8 1 S . .ig2 .llb8 1 6 .h3 tt:l8g7 1 7 .tt:lf3 f6 1 8 .tt:lh2 hS 1 9 .h4;!; with some initiative for White, A. Kuzmin-Andrianov, Moscow ch-city 1982.1 5.�g2 tLld7 1 6.hH.lle8 1 7.tt:lf3 'ti!Yf6 1 8.a4 aS 1 9.tt:lh2 'i!Vg7 20 . .ie3 tt::lf6 2 1 .tt:lg4 tt:lxg4 2 2.hxg4 gS 23. 'if d2

Analysis diagram

Black is condemned to passivity and White has the advantage, GrischukMorozevich , Dubai rapid 2 0 0 2 ; • 1 2 . • • tt:ld7 1 3 . g 3 tt:ldf8 1 4 .�g2 cS 1 S .dS tt:lc7 1 6 .h4 �g4 1 7 .'i!fd3 'i!fd7 1 8 .'iYfl 'ti'e8 1 9 .tt:lh2 �d7 2 0 .'iYe2;!; with a space advantage for White, Istratescu-Schwartzman , Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 99 3 .


13. g2-g3 tt:lf6-h7 14. �f1-g2

1 4 .h4 is too ambitious , after which instead of the rather strange move 1 4 . . . g5? (Istratescu-Nestorovic , Belgrade 1 9 94) , a logical reaction is 1 4 . . . tt:lf6 with the idea of transferring this knight to the g4-square, which was weakened by White 's last move.

14 . ... 15. tt:lf3xg5

tt:le6-g5 h6xg5

In the event of 1 S . . . tt:lxgS 1 6 .'ti!Yh5 tt:lh7 White 's position, with more space and the two bishops, is preferable.

16. f2-f4

This looks too sharp. White could retain a solid plus by 1 6 .h3 tt:lf8 1 7 .�e3 .

16. ... g5xf4 17. g3xf4 'ife7-h4 18. .lle 1-f1 .ic8-h3 19. 'i!fd1-f3 �h3xg2 20. 'ii'f3xg2 .lld8-e8

Black's position has no weaknesses and he exerts certain pressure on the white centre. He should not be seriously worse.

21. �c1-d2 22. d4-d5 23. .lla1-e1

c7-c5 tt:lh7-f6 'iVh4-g4

109


24. 'iYg2xg4 25. f4-f5 26. .l:lf1-f3 27 . .l:lf3-g3

tt:Jf6xg4 tt:Jg4-f6 <;t>g8-f8 <;t>f8-e71?

Timman was obviously afraid of White 's plan of exerting pressure on the g 7 pawn . This is understandable: White 's attack looks very dangerous. Even so, there is no win for White: 2 7 . . . b5 2 8 .<;t>f2 .l:leb8 (28 . . . .l:lab8 ) 2 9 . <;t>f3 ( 29 .�g5 <;t>e7=) 2 9 . . Jlb6 3 0 . .l:leg l l:!.a6 3 I ..l:lxg7 .l:lxa2 3Lth6 (3 2 .h4 .l:lxc2 33 . .l:l7g2 <;t>e7 , and only White is risking anything) 3 2 . . . <;t>e7

Analysis diagram

3 3 . .l:l l g6 .l:lxc2 34 . .tgs .l:lxc3 + 3 S .<;t>e2 <;t>fg 3 6 . .txf6 fxg6 3 7 . fxg6 .l:lc2 + 3 8 .<;t>d3 .l:lxh2 3 9 . .l:lf7 + <;t>e8 40 . .l:le7 + <;t>f8 4 I . .l:l f7 + with perpetual check.

28 . .l:lg3xg7

White has an extra pawn, but too many weaknesses. Black has excellent drawing chances.

28 . ... 29 . .l:lg7-g3 30 . .l:lg3xg8 31. <;t>g1-f2 32 . .td2xf4

.l:le8-g8 tt:Jf6-h5 .l:la8xg8+ tt:Jh5-f4!

A few chances remain after 3 2 . <;t>f3 .l:lh8 3 3 . .l:lh l tLlh3 34.c4 <;t>f6 - it isn't clear how White can strengthen his position.

1 10

32 . ... e5xf4 33. <;t>f2-f3

33 . ... <;t>e7-f6

He should not have great problems holding the draw after 3 3 . • . .l:lh8:

A) 34 . .l:.e2 .l:lh4 3 S . .l:lg2 <;t>f6 3 6J:tg8 .l:lxh2 3 7 . .l:ld8 (3 7 . <;t>xf4 .l:lf2 + 3 8 .<;t>e3 .l:lxc2 3 9 . .l:ld8 <;t>eS =) 3 7 . . . <;t>es 38 . .l:le8+ <;t>f6 39 . .l:lb8 <;t>eS = ; B ) 34.e5 dxeS 3 S . .l:lxe5+ <;t>d6 3 6 . .l:le2

<;t>xdS 3 7 .<;t>xf4 f6 3 8 .<;t>g4 (3 8 . .l:le7 .l:lxh2 3 9 . 1d.xb7 l:tf2+ 40.<;t>g4 .l:lxc2=) 38 . . . �c4 3 9 .h4 <;t>xc3 40 .h5 aS=; C) 34.�xf4 l::rxh2 3 5 . e 5 dxe S +

3 6 .�xe5 f6+ 3 7 .<;t>f4+ <;t>d6 3 8 .t!.e6+ �xdS 3 9 .l::rxf6 l:!.xc2= ; D) 34 . .l:le2 l:lli4 35 .c4 <;t>f6 36 . .l:lg2 <;t>es

37 .I:rg8 .l:lxh2 38.1d.e8+ <;t>f6 39 . .l:ld8 �eS=; E) 34 . .l:lh l .!:[h3 + 3 S . <;t>xf4 <;t>f6

3 6 . .l:lg l .l:lxh2 3 7 . .l:lg8 .l:lf2+ 3 8 .<;t>e3 .l:lxc2 39 . .l:ld8 <;t>es 40 . .l:le8+ <;t>f6= .

34. <;t>f3xf4 35. .l:le1-h1 36. �f4-e3 37. h2-h4 38. <;t>e3-f4

.l:lg8-g2 .l:lg2-f2+ .l:lf2xc2 .l:lc2xc3+

This version of the ending also looks close to a draw. However, it turns out not to be so. There are certain nuances . . .

38 . ... <;t>f6-g7

Nor is there a draw after 38 ... l:l.c2 39.h5 �g7 40.h6+ 'iii>h7 4l.e5 dxe5+ 42.�xe5±.

39. h4-h5 'if;lg7-h6


A textbook example: White to play and win.

40. .l:rh1-d11 41. f5-f61 42. �f4-f5 43. e4-e5+-44. �f5-g4

l:l.c3-c4 l:l.c4-a4 l:l.a4xa2 .l:f.a2-f2+ c5-c4

44 ... l:l.e2 45.e6 fxe6 46.l:l.f1! also wins for White.

45. e5-e6 c4·c3 46. e6-e7

Black resigned.

111

Chapter s The Rubinstein System

This chapter deals with White's replies to 4 .. .lt::ld4! (after l .e4 e5 2.tt::lf3 tt::lf6 3 .tt::lc3 tt::lc6 4.�b5) . Black's fourth move was popularized by Akiba Rubinstein at the beginning of the last century, although it had been played since at least 1 8 7 6. Nowadays it is considered Black's best method of equalising.

In the search for an initiative, White has tried many moves, but none of these ensures him any significant advantage.

The author felt it made sense to divide this chapter into two. In the first, we analyse variations which have not caused Black too much trouble in recent years , and have largely lost their topicality.

5.1 The variation 5.tt::lxd4 exd4 6.e5, traditionally considered a reliable way for White to duck out of the battle, is considered in Game 3 6 . As a main example, we have chosen the game Priborsky-Romanov, in which Black managed to overcome the drawish tendency of the variation and, with the help of a striking long king march , to win an interesting bishop ending.

5.2 The move 5.tt::lxe5! ? is not without a drop of poison, as demonstrated by the quick white win in the game Short-l'Ami (Game 3 7 ) .

5.3 The so-called 'Anti-Rubinstein' , beginning with 5.0-0 , brought White good results in the 1 990s. In our day, this line has lost its former popularity, as reliable equalising methods have been found for Black. Nevertheless, here too there are many hidden reefs , which require accuracy from Black, if he is to avoid shipwreck (Game 3 8 , Hirscheider-Weidemann, ending with a nice white combination) .

5.4 We end this chapter with Games 3 9 -49 , dealing with the line l .e4 e5 2.tt::lf3 tt::lf6 3 .tt::lc3 tt::lc6 4.�b5 tt::ld4 5 • .ta4. Decades ago, this was considered the main means of fighting for an advantage. Motylev's striking victories over Shirov and Grischuk, at the start of the 2000's , drew the attention of many lovers of sharp play,

1 13


but chess fashion changes, and in recent years, most supporters of the Four Knights have switched their attention to S . .tc4. Even so, the positions reached in this line are complicated and still little-studied, and many tactical tricks and strategic subtleties remain hidden here. In No 43, Shirov-Hansen, where Black played 6 . . . 't!Va5, White did not exploit all ofhis chances in the opinion of the author.

The fashionable move s . .tc4 is examined in detail in Chapter 6 .

5.1 The Variation 5.ti:Jxd4 exd4 6.e5

Game No 3 6 [C48] Priborsky,Jan Romanov,Evgeny Erevan Wch-jr 2007 (4)

1. e2-e4 2. ti:Jg1-f3 3. ti:Jb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. ti:Jf3xd4 6. e4-e5

e7-e5 ti:Jb8-c6 ti:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 e5xd4

A primitive, but very reliable way to try to kill the game. Now Black, if he wishes to play for a win, must take some strategic risk.

6 . ... 7. e5xf6

d4xc3 'ti'd8xf6

It has been known for a long time that taking the pawn leads to a difficult position : 7 ... cxd2+ 8.�xd2 'iYxf6 9.0-0 �e7 10.�c3 'iYgS l l ..l:!.el 0-0 Definitely bad is 11 . . . 'ti'xb5 12 .'i¥g4+-

114

.l:!.g8 13 .'i¥h4 (this is even simpler than 13 . .l:!.xe 7 + �xe 7 14.'i\Ye4+ �d8 1S.'t!Vh4+ f6 16 .�xf6+ �e8 17 . .l:!.e1+ Wf7 18 . .l:.e7 + Wg6 19 . .te5 +- ]. Shipman-Weber, New York 19 8 5 ) 13 . . . f6 14.'t!Ve4 'i\Ycs 1S . .tb4 dS 16 .'i\Yh4 winning. 1 2 . .l:!.e5 'i!Vf6 12 . . . 'ifh4 13 . .l:th5 ± 1 3 .�d3 g6 1 4.'iYe2 , and Black stands badly.

8. d2xc3

8 . ... .tf8-e7

• Another way to complicate the game is 8 ... c6 9.�d3 dS 10.0-0 .td6 Black obtained a bad position after 1 O . . . .te6 l l..�. e3 �d6 12 . 't!Vhs h6 13 .f4 g6 14.'iYf3 'iYe7 1S . .l:!.ae1 .l:tg8 16 .�d4 0-0-0 17 .�xa7 cS 18 . .tb6±, Husari-L. Vajda, Budapest 2 010 . l l .'t'Vhs h6 1 2 . .l:!.el+ Probably more dangerous for Black is 12 . .te3 0-0 13 .f4, by analogy with the game Husari-Vaidya : 13 . . .'iVe6 14 . .l:tfe1 'Yi'g4 1S .'ti'xg4 �xg4 16 .f5 . 1 2 . . . .te6 1 3 .�e3 0-0 14.�d4 'it'gs

1S .'ifxg5 hxgS 16 .�e5 �e7 The game is equal , R. Martinez-Dervishi , Porto San Giorgio 201 0 ; e The classical way to equalise is 8 • . Jii'e5+ 9.'ife2 Or 9 .�e2 gcs 10 .0-0 0-0 11..�. d3 d6 (11 . . .d5=) 12 .'iff3 .l:!.b8 ? ! 13 .�f4 'iff6 14 .'iYg3 �fs 15 .�g5 'iYg6 16 . .l:!.ae1 l:rfe8 17 .�d2 'iYxg3 18 .hxg3 �g6 19 . .l:!.xe8+ .l:!.xe8 20 . .l:!.e1 �f8 21.�fl aS draw, StopaGareev, Mesa 2 010 . 9 .. .'ihe2 + 1 0.�xe2 , and the position is completely lifeless.

9. 0-0 10. 'iYd1-d4

10 .�d3 = .

10 . ... 11. 1i.b5-d3 12. c3xd4

0-0

d7-d6 'iYf6xd4

The endgame is completely equal .

12. ... 1i.e7-f6 13. c2-c3 �c8-e6 14. .l:!.f1-e1 .l:!.a8-b8 15. 1i.d3-e4 a7-a5 16. d4-d5 ge6-d7 17. �c1-e3 .l:!.f8-e8 18. ge3-d4 1i.f6xd4 19. c3xd4 �g8-f8 20. b2-b3 �d7-b5 21. f2-f4 h7-h6 22. �g1-f2 .l:!.e8-e7

Chapter 5 - The Rubinstein System

23. �e4-f3 .l:!.b8-e8 24. a2-a3 .l:!.e7xe1 25. .l:!.a1 xe1 �b5-d3 26. .l:!.e1xe8+ �f8xe8 27. �f2-e3 �d3-c2 28 . b3-b4 a5xb4 29. a3xb4 �e8-d8 30. h2-h4 �d8-c8 31. �f3-h5 f7-f6 32. g2-g3 �c8-b8

33. 1i.h5-g4

The ending is still drawish, but White already needs to show some accuracy. For example, he could place an impenetrable barrier before the black king with 3 3 .�e2 �a7 34.g4 gS (34 . .. �b6 35 .g5=) 35 .hxg5 hxgS 36 .�b5 �b6 3 7 .�d7=.

33. �b8-a7 34. �e3-d2 �c2-b3 35. 1i.g4-f3 �a7-b6 36. �d2-c3 �b3-a2 37. �c3-b2 �a2-c4 38. �b2-c3 �b6-b5 39. 1i.f3-e4 �c4-e2 40. �e4-f5 �b5-a4

This is already dangerous. The black king has crossed the board and penetrated the white position.

41.�f5-c8 b7-b6 42.�c8-f5 �e2-f3 43.gf5-e6 �a4-a3

115


44.�c3-c4 �f3-e2+ 45.�c4-c3 �a3-a2 46.�e6-f7 �a2-b1 47.�f7-g6+ �b1-c1 + 48 . ..tg6-c2 .te2-f3 49 . ..tc2-b3 b6-b5 50.�b3-a2 �f3-d1 51.h4-h5 f6-f5 52.�a2-c4 b5xc4 53.�c3xc4 �d1-e2+ 0-1

5.2 The Move 5.lt:Jxe5!?

Game No 3 7 [C48] Short,Nigel 1' Am.i,Erwin Wijk aan Zee II 2009 (3)

In analysing this variation, I have made use of the commentaries by V.

Aveskulov (ChessZone Magazine, No 20 1 0) and V. Lebedev ( crestbook.com).

1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. ti:Jg1-f3 ti:Jg8-f6 3. ti:Jb1-c3 tt:Jb8-c6 4. ..tf1-b5 tt:Jc6-d4 5. tt:Jf3xe5

5 . ... tt:Jd4xb5?!

An inaccuracy. The accurate path to equality is S .. .'ti'e7! 6.f4 6.ti:Jf3 tLlxbS 7.ti:Jxb5 'iVxe4+ 8.'i!Ye2 'iVxe2+ 9.�xe2 ti:JdS ! 1 0 . .ld.e 1 f6 ( 1 0 ... a6 1 l .ti:Jc3 t2lxc3+ 1 2 .�d3 + �e7 1 3.�xc3 d6 1 4.d4=) 1 1 .d3 �f7 1 2 . ..td2 ( 1 2.c4 a6=) 1 2 ... a6 1 3.ti:Jc3 ti:Jb4? ! ( 1 3 ... ti:Jxc3+ leaves Black

1 1 6

a small plus in the endgame) 1 4 .l:f.ac 1 ( 1 4.�d 1 b6 1 5.a3 tLlc6 1 6 . ..tf4 d6 1 7.ti:Jd5 .ld.a7=) 1 4 ... b6 1 5.a3 ti:Jc6 with a roughly equal game, A. KubbelGrigoriev, Moscow ch-URS 1 9 2 0. 6 .. .tuxb5 7 .tt:JxbS d6 7 . .. dS ? ! 8 .exdS ti:JxdS 9 .c4 (9.'iVf3) 9 ... jt,d7 (9 ... a6 1 O.cxdS axbS 1 1 .'iVe2 f6 1 2.'iVxb5 + �d8 1 3 .d6 cxd6 1 4 .'iVb6+ �e8 1 5.'iVb5+=) 1 0.a4 f6 ? 1 l .cxd5 .Lbs l 2.axb5 fxeS 1 3.0-0 'iVcS+ 1 4.�h 1 0-0-0 l S .fxeS l:f.xdS 1 6.'iVg4+ ( 1 6.d4 !±) 1 6 . .. �b8 1 7.'iVf3 b6 1 8.d4 'iVxd4 1 9 . .tf4 'iVc4 2 0.e6 'iVxbS 2 l ..ld.fc 1 .ld.cS 22.b4 .ld.xc 1 + 23 .l:hc 1 �d6 24 .�xd6 cxd6 2 5 .'iVf7 'i!Ye8 2 6.'ii'c 7+ �a8 2 7 .e 7 1 -0 , BorosBeinoras, Warsaw 20 1 0 . S.ti:Jfl 'iVxe4+ Also sufficient for equality is 8 .. . c6 9. ti:Jc3 ti:Jxe4 1 0.0-0 ti:Jxc3 1 1 .dxc3 'iid8 1 2 . .ld.e 1 + �e7 1 3 .'iYe2 �g4 1 4.h3 (slightly more accurate, although it does not change the essence of things, is 1 4.b3 � ( 1 4 ... 'iVd7 1 5.c4;t) 1 5.'iVxf3 0-0 1 6.�e3 �f6=) 14 . . . �xf3 1 S .'iVxf3 0-0 1 6.�e3 �f6 1 7 .g4? ! g6 1 8 . .l:.ad 1 l:f.e8 1 9.f5 .tes Short-Khalifman, Moscow m-2 200 1 . 9.<;1;>£'2 9.'iVe2 'iVxe2+ 1 0.�xe2 ti:JdS 1 l .c4? ! a 6 1 2.cxd5 axbS with comfortable equality. 9 ... tt:Jg4+ 1 0.<;i;>g3 1 0.Wg 1 'iVc6 ! ? (Bogoljubow) 1 l .a4! ? a6 1 2.ti:Jbd4 'iid7 1 3.h3 ti:Jf6 1 4.�h2 �e7=. l O ... 'iVg6!

Analysis diagram

This move was first seen in the game Spielmann-Rubinstein , Baden-Baden I 9 2 5 . • That game continued 1 I .'ife2+ �d8 12 . .:te1 �d7 13 .tt:ld4 tt:le3 + 14.�£'2 tt:Jxc2 I S .tt:Jxc2 'it'xc2 . White has insufficient compensation for the pawn. • Subsequent generations of theoreticians concentrated chiefly on 1I .ttJh4!? and now:

A) 11 .. .'ii'f6 ! ? 1 2.h3 ! g5 13.'ii'e2+ tt:Je5 ! - 'with an excellent game for Black' - Aveskulov. 14.d4 I 4 .fxe5 ? ? 'iYf4#. 14 . . . gxf4+ I S .�h2 �d8 16.dxe5 'ilfxh4 17.exd6 'ii'g3+ Lebedev looked only at I 7 . . . c6 I 8 . .:tfl ! �xh3 ! I 9 . 'iYf2 ! 'iYxf2 2 0 . .:txf2 .ixg 2 ! 2 I...t xf4 cxbS 2 2 .�xg2 with chances of equality for White. 18. <;t>g1 �d7

Analysis diagram

It is not completely clear how White can develop, and the number of pawns does not have great significance. A I ) 19.dxc7+? <;t>cs 20.'it'f2 20 .tt:Jd4

..tcs 2 l .c3 .:te8-+ ; 20 .�fl f3 2 l .gxf3 ..txbS 2 2 .'ifxb5 'i:Yxf3 +-+. 20 ... 'i:Yxf2+ 21.�xf2 �c5+ 22.<;t>f3 �c6+ 23 .<;t>xf4 ..ixb5-+ ;

A2) 19.a4 �xbS 2 0 .dxc7+ �xc7 2 I .'i:Yxb5 b6+; A3 ) 19.tt:Jc3 �c6 20 .dxc7+ �xc7

2 I .'iff2 �d6 with advantage to Black.


B) l l . . . 'i:Yh5 ! and now:

Analysis diagram

B I ) If 12.h3 , then 12 ... 'ii'xb5 'Only equality comes from I 2 . . . tt:Jf6 ? ! I 3 .'i:Yxh5 ttJxhS + I 4.�f2=' - Lebedev. 13 .a4 I 3 .hxg4 gS ! with attack (Lebedev) : I 4.fxg5 'i!YeS + I S .�h3 'i:YxgS I 6 .d4 'ilfhs + . 13 .. .'ii'd5 14.hxg4 h5 I 4 . . . g5 I S .'ife2+ ..te6 I 6 . fxg5 0-0-0 I 7 .d3 = (Lebedev) ; I 7 . . . �g 7 I 8 .tt:Jf3 .

Analysis diagram

In Lebedev's opinion , Black has the advantage here, but I do not think he has any thing special : 15.'i:Yf3 Or I S .'it'e2 + �e7 I 6 . g 5 �g4 I 7 .'i:Yb5 + 'i:Yxb S I 8 . axb 5 = . 1 5 . . . 'i:Yxf3 + Or I S . . . 'i:Yc4 I 6 . gxh5 'ifxc2 I 7 . .:ta3 with unclear play. 16.gxf3 .id7 17 . .:te 1 + <;t>ds 1 8 .d3 with a roughly equal game.

117


B2) ' 1 2 .tt::lxc7+ was refuted by Wagner, back in the 1 9 2 0s ' - Lebedev : 1 2 ... Wd8 and now: B2 1 ) If 1 3 .tt::lxa8 , then 1 3 ... g5 ! with a

strong attack - Razuvaev : 1 4.fxg5 and now:

B2 1 1 ) 1 4 .. . d5 ! ? 'Creative, but rather stronger is 1 4 . . .'iYxg 5 ! , as advised by the wise old books.' - Lebedev. By 'creative ' , our respected commentator means ' the first choice of Rybka ' . After 1 4 . . . d5 ! ? there follows : 1 5 .d4 Or 1 5 .d3 �d6+ 1 6 .�f4 'i¥xg5 ! 1 7 .'i¥f3 .l:!.g8 !-+ 1 8 .�xd6 tt::le 5 + 1 9 .Wf2 tt::lxf3 2 0 .�c7 + We7 2 1 .tt::lxf3 'i¥xg 2 + 2 2 .We3 �g4-+ - Lebedev. 1 5 . . . �d6+ 1 6 • ..tf4 'iVxgS 1 7.�xd6 tt::le3+-+ ; B2 1 2) If l4 .. . 'i¥xg5 ! 1 5 .tLlf3 1 5 .d4??

tt::le3 + . 15 ... �g7! 1 6.'ii'g l dS 1 7.d4 1 7 .d3 �d6+ 1 8 .�f4 �xf4+ 1 9 .Wxf4 'iWf6+ 20 .Wg3 'i¥d6+-+. 1 7 .. . �d6+ 1 8.�f4 �xf4+ 1 9.Wxf4 'ii'f6+ 20.Wg3 'iVd6+ 2 1 .Wh4 'iVf4.

B22) First 1 3 .h3 doesn't really help : 1 3 ... tLlf6 ! 1 4.tLlxa8

Analysis diagram

1 4 .. .'ihh4+ ! ! 1 5 .Wxh4 tLle4 1 6.'ti'g4 �e7+ 1 7.'ti'gs �xgS+ 1 8.fxg5 h6 ! 1 9.g6 fxg6 20 . .l:!.fl gS+ 2 1 .Wh5 tLlg3+ 22.Wg6 tt::lxfl - Black has the advantage (Razuvaev) .

Back to the game.

1 1 8

6. tt::lc3xb5;t 7. tt::lb5-c3

c7-c6 'iWd8-e7

Aveskulov's recommendation offered more chances of defending : 7 . . . �b4 8 .d3 0-0 9 . 0 -0 d5;!;. The two bishops promise Black some counterplay.

8. tt::le5-f3 9. 0-01

10. d2xc3

tt::lf6xe4 tt::le4xc3

White has an enormous lead in development.

10 . ... d7-d5

If 1 0 .•. 'ti'd8 , then l l .�gS ! f6 Or 1 l . . .�e7 1 2 .�xe7 Wxe7 1 3 . .l:!.e 1 + Wf8 1 4 .'iYd6+ Wg8 1 5 . .l:!.e7 and .l:!.ae 1 +- . n.tt::les ! d 6 1 2 . . . fxg 5 ? 1 3 . 'ti'h5 + . 1 3 .'iVh5 + g6 1 3 . . . We7 ? ? 1 4 .'ii'f7#. 1 4.tt::lxg6 hxg6 1 5 .'iYxg6 + Wd7 1 6 . .txf6± .l:!.h6 ! ? Or 1 6 . . . .te7 1 7 . .txh8 'i¥xh8 1 8 . .l:!.ae 1 etc. 1 7.'ilff7+ �e7 18 .�g5 'i:Yf8 1 9 .'ti'xf8 i..xf8 20.�xh6- Lebedev.

11. .tc1-g5 'ife7-d6

No better is 1 1 . . .'i¥c5 1 2 . .l:!.e 1 + �e6 1 3 .tt::ld4 Wd7 1 4 .'it'f3 �e7 1 5 .b4 !+- , 1 -0 , Campara-Aguilera, Osuna 1 99 1 .

12. .l:i.f1-e1+

If 1 2 . . . Wd7 1 4 .tt::lxf7 +- .

.tc8-e6

1 3 .tt::le 5 + Wc7

13. tt:lf3-d4 c6-c5

Bad is 1 3 ... �e7 1 4.tt:lfS ! �xfS 1 S . .l:!.xe7+ �f8 1 6 Jhb7 ±.

14. tt:ld4xe6 15. 'tlVd1-h5+

f7xe6 g7-g6

On 1 5 ... �d7 White gets a decisive advantage after 1 6 . .l:tad 1 (Lebedev) and 1 6.c4 d4 1 7 .'t/Vf3 (Aveskulov) .

16. 'iYh5-g4 �e8-f7 17. c3-c4!

17 . ... d5-d4

Black 's position is hopeless in any case.

18. 'tWg4-f3+ 19. i.g5-f6

�f7-g8 1-0

On 1 9 ... �g7 there follows 2 0.'tWxb7 ! , winning.

5.3 The 'Anti-Rubinstein'

Game No 3 8 [C48] Hirscheider,Helmut Weidemann,Uwe Germany, by correspondence 2004

In writing this section, I have made use of Hirscheider 's comments on his game. I have also used extracts from games quoted in his commentary, which is notable for its thoroughness.


1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg 1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. 0-0 6. tt:lc3xb5 7. tt:lb5-c3 8. d2-d4

9. �c1-g5

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 tt:lc6-d4 tt:ld4xb5 c7-c6 d7-d6 'i!Vd8-c7

Here is a fresh example from contemporary tournament practice : 9.h3 i..e7 1 O.a4 0-0 l l .b3 A harmless plan. 1 1 .i.gS ! ? is definitely more interesting. l l • • • .l:!.e8 1 2.�a3 ..tf8 1 3 .dxe5 dxeS 1 4 . ..txf8 .!hf8 I S .'it'd3 The game is equal. 1 5 .. . i.e6 1 6JHdl .l:!.ad8 1 7.'tWe3 aS 1 7 ... 'ti'as 1 8 . .l:!.db 1 a6 1 9 .b4 'tWc7 2 0.a5 tt:lhS = 2 1 .'iVgS tt:lf4 with the idea of 2 2 .'ifxe5 'ti'xeS 2 3 .tt:lxe5 J:l:d2 = .

Analysis diagram

119


1 8Jhd8 Playing for a draw. However, nothing comes from 1 8.tt:lgS �c8= either, nor is much likely from the outwardly more ambitious 1 8.'ifcS tt::ld7 1 9.'ifd6 ( 1 9.'ifa7 f6=) 1 9 . . .'ihd6 ( 1 9 ... 'ifb6=) 2 0 Jhd6 �de8 21..l:Xad 1 tt::lcs 2 2 .tt::le 1 f6 2 3 .tt::ld3 tt::lxd3 24.�6xd3 Wf7 =. 18 . . .l:txd8 1 9.�d1 1 9.'ifgs tt::ld7 2 0.'ife7 'ifb8 2 1 .�d 1 �e8 2 2.'ifgs f6. 1 9 . . . �xd1 + 20.tt::lxd1 h6 2 1 .tt::lb2 tt::ld7 22.'ifa7 Wh7 23Jt:ld2 'it'b6 24.'iYxb6 tt::lxb6 2S .tt::lbc4 .txc4 26.tt::lxc4 tt::lxc4 27.bxc4 Wg6 28.£'3?! 2 8.c5 =. 28 ••• fs 28 ... b6 ! ?. 29.g3 wgs 30.Wf2 g6 3 1 .cS draw, SatyapragyanGupta, Kuala Lumpur 2 0 1 0.

9 . ... �f8-e7 10. 'ifd1-d3

'I prefer wherever possible simple development, Sutovsky prefers to include prophylactic moves such as h3 and a4' - Hirsch eider. 1 O.h3 and now:

Analysis diagram

A) 1 0 ••• 0-0 1 1 .'ifd2 bS 1 I .. . .ie6 1 2.a4 �fd8 1 3 .a5 h6 1 4 . ..txf6 itxf6 1 S .dS �d7 1 6.a6 cS 1 7 .axb7 'i!Yxb7 1 8.�a5 l:!.dc8 1 9.�fa 1 a6 2 0.tt::ld 1 �d8 2 1 .�Sa2 fS 22 .iYe2 c4 2 3 .tt::ld2 �bS 24.tt::lc3 f4 2 S.tt::lxb5 axbS 2 6.'it'g4 �e7 2 7.tt::lf3 b4 2 8.Wh2 �xa2 2 9.�xa2 �a8 3 0.�xa8 + 'ifxa8 3 1 .'it'd7;!; Wf8

1 20

3 2.tt::ld2 'i¥a6 3 3 .�c7 c3 34.bxc3 'i¥e2 3 S.tt::lc4 'ifxf2 3 6.'it'c8+ <it>f7 3 7."ti'e6+ (3 7 .tt::lxd6 + ! .ixd6 3 8.'i¥e6 + Wf8 3 9.'i!Yxd6+±) 3 7 ... Wf8 3 8.'i!Yc8 + Wf7 3 9.tt::lxd6 + �xd6 40.'it'e6 + Wf8 4 1 .'ii'xd6+ Wg8 42 .'it'g6 bxc3 43.d6 'i¥xc2 44.'ife6+ Wh7 4S .'iVfS + Wh8 46.'iff8+ Wh7 draw, Sutovsky-Nunn, Oxford 1 998 . 1 2.a3 a6 1 3 . .l::!.fd1 .l::!.e8 1 4.'ife3 exd4 1 S .tt::lxd4 cS 1 6.�xf6 itxf6 1 7 .tt:Jds cxd4 1 8 .tt::lxc7 dxe3 1 9 .tt:lxe8 .ixb2 2 0 . .l::!.ab 1 exf2 + 2 1 .Wxf2 i.xa3 22.<1:Jxd6 .te6 23 .Wf3 h6 24 . .l::!.d3 itcs 2S . .l::!.bd1 �h7 26 . .l::!.c3 �xd6 27 . .l::!.xd6 .ic4 28 • .l::!.a3 aS 29.c3 a4 30.g4 .l::!.c8 3 1 .We3 .tb3 32.�d3 itc4+ 3 3 .�e3 itb3 34.�d3 .l::!.cS 3S .�d4 .l::!.c4+ 36.�d3 .l::!.cs 37.�d4 .l::!.c4+ 38.�d3 .l::!.cS draw, Sutovsky ZhangZhong, Elista ol 1 998 (3 ) ;

B) 1 o . . . h6 1 t ..ih4

Analysis diagram

1 1 . .. tLlhS 1 1 ...g5 1 2.dxe5 gxh4 1 3 .exf6 .txf6 1 4.l:re 1 �g8 1 S .Wh 1 .l::!.g6 1 6.e5 i.e? 1 7.tt::lxh4 ! .l::!.e6 1 8.exd6 �xe l + 1 9.'ifxe 1 'i¥xd6 20.'ife4 iff6 2 1 ..l::!.e 1 .ie6 22.<1:Jf3 0-0 -0� 23 .'ife3 .tb4 24.tt::les ifgs 2 S.f4 "iYh4 2 6.�fl .txc3 2 7.bxc3 Wb8 2 8.f5 �xa2 29.c4 'i:Yd4 3 0.ifg3 Wc8 3 1 .c3 ife4 3 2.�a 1 "iYxfS 3 3.Wh2 l:!.d2 34.tt::lf3 �b2 3 S.�d 1 ? (3 S .l:!.e 1 'ifd7 3 6.tt::leS;!;) 3 S ... 'ifg6 3 6.�d6 "iYxg3 + 3 7 .Wxg 3 ..txc4

3 8 .l:hh6 aS 3 9J:th8+ Wc7 40 .h4 .ifl 4 1 .h5 lhg2+ 42 .Wf4 .te2 43 .tLld4 a4 44.h6 .td3 4S .tLlf3 a3 46 . .l::ta8 a2 47.tLle 1 �a6 48 .tLlxg2 a 1 'if 49.h7 'iffl + S O .WeS 'ife2+ 5 1 .Wf4 'iff2+ 5 2 .We5 'i¥g3 + 0- 1 , Sutovsky-Piket, Elista ol 1 99 8 ( 1 0) . 1 2.i.xe7 'ifxe7 1 3 .tLlxe5 dxeS 1 4J!fxh5 exd4 1 5.tLle2 0-0 1 6 .tLlxd4 'ifxe4 1 7 . .tbd 1 .l::te8 1 8 JHe1 'ifxe 1 + 1 9 Jhe 1 lhe l + 20.<;i;>h2 �d7 2 1 .'i¥c5 .lld1 22.c3 b6 23 .'i¥e7 cS 24.'ihd7 cxd4 25.cxd4 .lld2 26.b4lhfZ. 27.a4 .l::tb2 28.b5 llb4 29 .'i¥b7 l::td8 3 0 .'ifxa7 l::tdxd4 3 1 .'i¥xb6 l::txa4 32.'it'b8+ Wh7 33 .b6 l:tab4 34.'i¥e5 l::tdc4 35.'i¥d5 llf4 36.'ifd2 gS 37.'ifc2+ <;i;>g7 38 .'ifc3+ <;i;>h7 3 9 .'i¥c7 l::tf6 40.b7 llfb6 4 1 . 'ifxf7 + <;i;>hs 42. 'iffS+ <;i;>h7 43 .'iff7+ draw, Sutovsky-Illescas Cordoba, Pamplona 1 99 8 ; C ) 1 o ... �d7 1 1 .a4 h6 1 2.�e3 0-0

1 3 .'i¥d3 .!ladS 1 4.a5 c5 15.d5 tt:Jhs 1 6. 'if c4 'if c8 1 7. 'if e2 tLlf4 1 8.�xf4 exf4

Analysis diagram

1 9.e5? ! 1 9 .'ifd2;;!;. 1 9 ... �f5 20 . .llfe 1 dxeS 2 1 .tLlxe5 �f6 22 .'ifd2 .l:.fe8 23 .'i¥xf4 �xc2 24.tLlc4 .llxe1 + 25.l:txe1 �d3 26.tLle4 �gS 2 7 .tt:JxgS hxgS 28.'ifcl l:txd5 29.tLle5 'iffS 30.tLlg4 'iff4 3 1 .'i¥d1 c4 32.l::te8+ Wh7 33 .'i¥e 1 ? 3 3 .tLle3 lld6 34.g3 'i¥d4 3 S .'ifh5 +±. 3 3 . . . 'ifc7 34.'i¥e3 l::txaS 35.tLle5 f6


36.'iff3 �g6 37 .tLld3 .lla1 + 38.tLle1 , 0- 1 Sutovsky-V Mikhalevski, Israel tt 1 999 .

Back to the game.

10. ... 0-0 11. h2-h3

'Still more direct is 1 I .llfd1 lld8 1 l . . .�g4 1 2 .h3 �hS 1 3 .tLle2 .' 1 2.�xf6 ! ? 'Usually White gives up the two bishops in this variation , but as a rule, after the provocation h 6 .' 1 2 . . . �xf6 1 3 .d5 cS ? ! ' Probably Black should not close the position so quickly, which helps the side with the knights.' ( 1 3 . . . �g4! ?) 1 4.tLld2 �d7 1 5.a4 a6 1 6.a5 .l:tf8 1 7 .tLlc4 l::tad8 1 8.tLlb6 g6 1 9 .tLle2 1 9 .tLlxd7 'ifxd7 2 0 .l::tdb 1 �gS 2 I .b4;;!;. 1 9 . . . �g7 20.lla3 f5 2 I .tt:Jxd7 l:txd7 22.c4 .lld£7 23 .llfl 'ifd8 24.tLlc3 �h6 25.f3 'ifh4 26.g3 'ifh3

Analysis diagram

'White slowly develops his queenside play and allows Black good counterplay

121


on the kingside.' 27 . .!:i.f2 ..igS 28.tLle2 f4? ! 28 . . . fxe4 2 9 .'iYxe4 'tihs with counterplay. 29.g4! -ih4 30 . .!:i.g2 �el 3 1 .l:.al �b4 32 .tt::lc 1 'iYh4 33.'it'dl 'it'd8 34.'it'a4 ..iel 3S .tt::ld3 i.h4 36.b4 exb4 37.'ihb4 .!:i.e? 3 8 • .!:i.e l �e7 39 .'�'b6 'ti'd7 40J:tge2l::tfe8 41 .eS �d8 42.<i¥thl ! .!:!.xeS ! ? 42 . . . Wg7 43 .'it'b2± 43 .tt::lxeS ! .!:!.xeS 44.'ifa7! .!:i.xe2 4S . .!:i.xe2 'ii'bs 46.Wg2 ! Wg7 47.'it'b8 'ii'b3 48."it'e8 �xaS 49.'it'd7+ Wh6 SO . .!:i.f2 'it'b6 S l .h4 gS S2 .'it'f7 'it'd8 S 3 .hxgS + 'it'xgS S4.Wfl 'it'h4 SSJ:th2 1 -0 , Bondarevsky-Zagoriansky, Moscow city championship 1 945 . (notes by H. Hirsch eider)

11. h7-h6 12. .tg5xf61 �e7xf6 13. d4-d5 �f6-e7 14. .!:i.a1-d1 .!:i.f8-d8 15. tt:Jf3-d2 a7-a6 16. a2-a4 c6-c5 17. tt:Jd2-c4 b7-b6 18. f2-f41 e5xf4 19. .!:i.f1xf4 .tc8-d7 20. e4-e51

Also possible was 2 0 . .!:i.dfl .!:i.f8 ? (20 . . . b5 ! with counterplay) 2 1 .e5 dxeS 2 2 .d6 .txd6 2 3 .tt::ld5 ! 'it'b8 24 .tt::lf6+ ! ! gxf6 2 5 ."it'g3 + Wh7 2 6 . .!:i.xf6 �e6 2 7 ."it'h4 mating - Hirsch eider.

20 . ... d6xe5

122

21. .!:i.f4xf711 Wg8xf7

2 I . . .ite8 2 2 . .!:i.ffl bS 2 3 .d6 ! ± .

22. 'ii'd3-h71 23. .!:i.d1-f1 24 . .!:i.f1xf6+!

�e7-f6 .!:i.d8-h8

Black resigned. 'Probably somewhat premature, although this is common in correspondence games ' - Hirscheider. After 2 4 . . . Wxf6 2 5 .tt::le4+ Wf7 2 6 .tt::lcd6 + 'iYxd6 2 7 .tt::lxd6 + Wf6 2 8 .'iYe4 followed by tt::lc4, Black's position is lost.

5.4 The Move 5.ita4 For a long time, the line l .e4 e5 2.tt::lf3 tt:Je6 3.tt::le3 tt:Jf6 4.�b5 tt:Jd4 s . ..ta4 was the main area of sharp debate in this variation. In his excellent, but sadly now outdated book New Ideas in the Four Knights (New York, 1 99 3 ) John Nunn analysed the line 5 . . . �c5 6 .tt::lxe5 0-0 with great thoroughness , concluding that it leads to an extremely confused position with mutual chances. Times change ; now it has a reputation bordering on the drawish. In this section, I will limit myself to looking at new ideas , demonstrated by Black in recent times. In our day, the main response to 5 . ..ta4 is the sharp move 5 . . . c6 ! . Supporters of the white side of this line were dealt a strong psychological blow by the game Rublevsky -Mamedyarov, Foros 2 006 , where White effectively failed t o survive the opening. Even so, this variation still appears from time to time at the very highest level. White can hardly pretend to any advantage here, but the resulting positions are extremely complicated , and allow scope for a sharp battle.

Game No 3 9 [C48] Adhiban,Baskaran Alexandrov,Alexey Calcutta 2009 (2)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. 11Lf1-b5 5. �b5-a4

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 ltJg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 �f8-c5

The classical continuation, with much to recommend it. In recent times , though, it has been largely superseded by S . . . c6 .

6 . tt:Jf3xe5 0-0

The attempt to avoid the main line by means of 6 . . . 'We 7 ?! has not justified itself: 7 .tt::ld3 tt::lxe4 8 . 0 - 0 tt::lxc3 9 . bxc3 (similarly good is 9 . dxc3 ) 9 . . . ltJe6 1 0 .tt::lxc5 'WxcS 1 l .'iff3 0 -0 1 2 .d4 'ifd6 1 3 .�b5! ? l:rb8 1 4 .�d3 bS 1 S . d5 tLlcS 1 6 .�f4 'Wb6 1 7 .'ifg3 with the better game for White, Pahtz-Mamedyarova , I s tanbul Ech 2 0 0 3 .

7. tt:Je5-d3 �c5-b6 8. e4-e5

Fairly harmless is the alternative 8.tt::lf4 and now:


Analysis diagram

• 8 .. . c6 9 .d3 dS 1 0 .�e3 l:re8 1 1 . 0 -0 dxe4 ( 1 1 . . .kg4! ? 1 2 .'ifd2 dxe4) 1 2 .dxe4 lLlxe4 1 3 .tt::lxe4 l:rxe4 1 4 .c3 tt::le6 1 S .'ifxd8+ �xd8 1 6 .lLlxe6 �xe6 1 7 .�c2 l:reS 1 8 .a3 �b6 1 9 .�xb6 axb6 2 0 .l:rfe 1 l:rxe 1 + 21..l:.xe 1 l:rd8 2 2 .l:rd 1 l:rxd 1 + draw, Tomashevsky -Sakaev, Serpukhov 2007; • More ambitious is 8 ... d5 9 .tt::lfxd5 tt::lxdS (9 . . . tt::lxe4! ?) 1 0 .ltJxdS 'ifh4 1 1 .tLle3 fS!? ( 1 1 . . .'ifxe4!?) 1 2 .exf5 � 1 3 .o-o l:rf6 1 4.tt:JxfS l:rxfs 1 S .kd7 tt::lf3+ 1 6 .gxf3 l:rhs 1 7 .h3 'iYg3 + 1 8 .<.t>h 1 l:rxh3+ 1 9 .hh3 'ifxh3+ 20 .'1tg 1 'iYg3+ 2 1 .'1th1 'iYh3+ 22 .'1tg 1 'iYg3+ 23 .'1th1 .h£2 24 .l:rxf2 'iY xf2 2 5 . 'iY g 1 'iYxf3 + 26.'iYg2 'iYhS+ 2 7 .'iYh2 ifd1 + 28 .'iYg 1 'iYhs+ 29 .'iYh2 'iYfs 30 .d3 l:rf8 3 1 .'iYe2 'iYh3+ 32 .'1tg 1 'iYg3+ 3 3 .'1th 1 'iYh3 + 34.'1tg 1 'ifg3+ 3 5 .'1th 1 'iYh3+ draw, Navara-Shirov, Prague m- 1 2 004.

8 . ... tt:Jf6-e8

1 23


9. ttJc3-d5

9.0-0 d6 1 0.exd6 ttJxd6? ! It has been known since time immemorial that 1 O . . . tLlf6 ! ? is an interesting try, in order to counter 1 l .dxc 7 ? ! with 1 l . . .�d6 with a strong black initiative for the pawn. l l .tLldS c6 1 2.tLle3 �h4 1 3 .c3 tLl4f5 1 4.tt::le5 cS 1 5.tt::lf3 'ifh5 1 6.d4 �e6 1 7 .ttJxfS ttJxfS 1 8.d5, and White retains a healthy extra pawn with the better position, Jenni-Gustafsson, Lippstadt 2003 .

9 . ... 10. ttJd5-e3

d7-d6 c7-c6

There are a couple of aggressive continuations. One has never been fashionable, but for the sake of completeness, we will provide a recent example of it: l O • • . 'i!fgS 1 1 . f4 �g6 1 2 .0 -0 f6 1 3 .�h 1 c6 1 4 .b4 a6 1 S .�b2 with a serious advantage to White, Volkmann-Dervishi, Istanbul Ech 2 0 0 3 . The other is 1 0 .. .'ifh4, which has lost its former popularity and will not be examined in detail here.

11. c2-c3 ttJd4-f5

It is harder to demonstrate compensation for the pawn after 1 1 . . .tLle6 1 2 .�c2 �c7 1 3 .exd6 'ifxd6 1 4 .tLlfS �d8 1 S.O-O b6? ! ( 1 S . . . g6) 1 6 .tt::lb4 �d7 1 7 .d4 (the position of the white pieces is very comfortable. There is no visible compensation for the pawn) 1 7 . . . aS 1 8 .tLld3 ..tc8 1 9 .tLleS ..tb7 2 0 .'i!fg4 and Black's position is close to being critical, N. Kosintseva-Stefanova, Krasnoturinsk 200S .

12. 0-0 ..tb6-c7 13. f2-f4

124

13. ttJf5xe31?

Nor does the following line solve all the problems : 1 3 . . . dxe5 1 4.tt::lxe5 tt::lxe3 15.dxe3 'i!fe7 1 6 . ..ic2 ttJf6 1 7.e4 .l:[eS 1 8.ttlf3?! Better was 1 8 .�f3 �xeS 1 9 .fxeS tLlg4 ( 1 9 . . . 'i!fxeS 20 .�f4 �bS 2 1 .eS;!:; leaves White with the advantage) 20 . ..tf4;!:; with prospects of an advantage. 1 8 . . . tt::lxe4 1 9.l:te l ..tf5 20 • ..te3 l:tad8 2 1 .ttld4 ..tg6=, Short-Speelman, London m- 1 1 99 1 .

14. d2xe3 �c8-f5

Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

15. ttJd3-f2

Returning the pawn and going into an equal endgame. Neither 1 S . ..tc2 dxeS 1 6 .tLlxeS �xd I 1 7 .�xd 1 tLlf6, when the extra pawn means little, nor I S .exd6 tLlxd6 1 6 .tLleS �e7 1 7 .�c2 .l:i.ad8 1 8 .�e2 tLle4= with equality, brings any advantage. 1 9 .g4 �xeS 20 .gxfS (or 20 . fxeS �g6, and Black is simply better) 2 0 . . . ..tc7 - the black pieces stand too well and White must seek a draw: 2 l .�g2 .l:l.fe8 2 2 . ..txe4 �xe4 2 3 .�xe4 .l:l.xe4 24.�£'2 �b6 2 S .�f3 .l:i.ee8 - the position is close to a draw and the extra pawn cannot be realised.

15 . ... 16. e3-e4 17. f4-f5 18. .I:If1-e1 19. �a4xd1

d6xe5 �f5-e6 �e6-c4 'iYd8xd1 f7-f6=

The position is absolutely level - a re-sult of logical opening play by both sides.

20. �c1-e3 t2Je8-d6 21. �d1-b3 .I:If8-d8 22. .I:Ie1-d1 �c4-f7 23. �b3xf7+ �g8xf7 24. b2-b3 g7-g6

24 . . . t2Jb5 ! ? .

25. g2-g4 �c7-b6 26. �e3xb6 a7xb6 27. .I:Id1-d3 �f7-e7 28. .I:Id3-h3 .I:Id8-h8 29. a2-a4 b6-b5 30. a4-a5 c6-c5 31. .I:Ia1-d1 g6xf5 32. e4xf5 c5-c4 33. b3-b4 h7-h5 34. g4xh5 .I:Ia8-g8+ 35. �g1-h1 t2Jd6xf5 36. t2Jf2-e4 .I:Ig8-g4?

A terrible mistake in an equal ending, after which White actually should have won.


37. .I:Id1-d7+ 38. t2Je4xf6+ 39. t2Jf6xg4 40. h5-h6

40 . . . �f5 4 l .t2Jf2±.

41 . .I:Ih3-e3

4l..i:i.f3 ± .

41 . ... 42. h2-h3 43. �h1-g2 44. .I:Ie3-f3+ 45. .I:If3-e3

�e7xd7 'lt>d7-e6 t2Jf5-d6 t2Jd6-e4

�e6-f5 .I:Ih8-d8 �f5-f4 �f4-g5

White has winning chances after 45 .h7 �g6 46 .h8'iY .!:i.xh8 47.tLlxe5+±.

45. ... �g5-f4 46. .!:.e3-f3+

46 .h7 ! ?± .

46 . ... 47. h6-h7 48 . .I:If3-e3

�f4-g5 .!:i.d8-h8

48JH7! ? t2Jxc3 49 .t2Jxe5 tLla2 S O .h4+ �h6 ( S O . . . �hS S l ..l::!.fS+ +- ) S l ..!:i.xb7+- .

48 . ... 49 . .!:i.e3-f3+ 50 . .!:i.f3-e3 51. .!:i.e3-f3+

�g5-f4 �f4-g5 �g5-f4 1/2·V2

125


Game No 40 [C48] Sulskis,Sarunas Neubauer,Martin Vienna 2008 (7)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. �f1-b5 4. tt:lb1-c3 5. �b5-a4 6. tt:lf3xe5 7. tt:le5-d3 8. e4-e5 9. tt:lc3-d5

10. tt:ld5-e3

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 tt:lc6-d4 �f8-c5 0-0 �c5-b6 tt:lf6-e8 d7-d6 c7-c5

Considered sufficient for equality.

11. c2-c3 tt:ld4-f5

The move l l ... tt:le6 has a slightly worse reputation. After 1 2.�c2 fS ? ! 1 3.f4 dS 1 4J1Vf3 d4 1 S .tt:lc4 Black stands clearly worse. 1 S ... �c7 1 6.b4? !

Analysis diagram

126

He should not let the genie out of the bottle. White 's positional advantage could be secured by 1 6 .0 -0 .!:[b8 1 7 .a4; or the immediate 1 6 .a4. 16 ... bS ! ? A desperate attempt to break out. White does not have an easy choice : • A fairly wild game results from 1 7.<i:laS !?± c4 ( 1 7 . . . dxc3 1 8 .'iha8 tt:ld4 1 9 .�d 1 c2 20 .�e2±) 1 8 .'il'xa8 �xaS 1 9 .bxa5 cxd3 20 . .tb3 tt:lc7 2 1 .'iYxa7 tt:ldS - Black has many chances to confuse things; • The most solid is 1 7.tt::lcb2 l:l.b8 ( 1 7 . . . c4 1 8 .'iha8 cxd3 1 9 .�b3 ±) 1 8 .tt::lxc5 tt::lxcS 1 9 .bxc5 dxc3 2 0 .dxc3 , stabilising the position. • 1 7.'i!ha8 bxc4 l S.<i:lxcS tt::lxf4 1 9.d3 Playing a position such as arises after 1 9 .g3 ! ? d3 2 0 .�d 1 �xeS 2 l .gxf4 'ifh4+ 2 2 .�fl t2lf6 2 3 .'il'g2 (23 .'it'f3 �xf4 24 .'iYf2 'ii'h6 with strong counterplay for Black) 23 . . . �xf4 is far from a pleasure for everyone, even if White objectively has the advantage. 1 9 ... kxeS 20.dxc4 tt::lf6 2 1 .'ti'f3 Or 2 1 . 0 -0 tt::le2+ 2 2 .�h 1 .txh2 with good counterplay for Black.

Analysis diagram

2 1 . .. l:l.e8? ! The position reaches boiling point after 2 1 . . . tt::lxg2 + ! 2 2 .'i!fxg2 d3 2 3 .0 -0 (if 2 3 .�d 1 �xc3 24.l:l.b 1 dxc2+ 2 5 . �xc2 'i!fd4 2 6.l:l.g 1 g6 both sides have their chances, but Black's

game is definitely easier to play) 23 ... �xc3 24.�xd3 (24.:bi dxc2 2S.'ii'xc2 'ii'd4+ 26.�hl �xb4 27.l:.xb4 'ii'xcS with good compensation for the exchange for Black) 24 ... �xal and Black is, in any event, not worse. Now:

A) 22.�a4!? .l:r.e7 23.0-0 lt:Je2+ 24.�hl �xh2 25.�dl 25.Wxh2 lLJg4+ 26.�h3 f4 is not for timid souls; or 26.�hl .l:r.e3 27.'ii'd5+ (27.�xe3 'ii'h4+ 28.'ii'h3 lLJg3+=) 27 ... 'ii'xd5 28.cxd5 lLJg3+=. 25 ••• d3

Analysis diagram

with a head-spinning position. B) 22.0-0 lLJe2+ 23.�hl

Analysis diagram

23 ••• lt:Jg4 Worthy of consideration is 23 ... �xh2 24.�dl lLJhS 25.�xh2 lLJhg3 26.'ii'xg3 lt:Jxg3 27.�xg3 dxc3 with an unclear position. 24. 'ihe2 lLJxh2 25.'ii'xe5 Maybe 25 . .l:r.xf5!? lLJfl


(25 ... �xf5 26.�xf5 'ii'h4 27.g3 'ii'xg3 28.lLJe4 'ii'h4 29.�g5+-) 26.'ii'xe5 .l:i.xeS 27 . .l:r.xe5 'ii'h4+ 28.�gl 'ifh2+ 29.�xfl 'ii'xeS 30.lLJd3 also gives White some sort of advantage, but it is difficult to count on any specific result. 25 ••• l:l.xe5 26.Wxh2 'ii'h4+ Very strong was 26 ... d3! 27.�dl (27.lLJxd3 l:l.e2+; 27.�xd3 llxcS) 27 ... d2+ (27 ... l:.el !?) 28.�b2? (the lesser evil was 28.c;itgl dxcl'ir' 29.l:.xcl 'ii'h4+) 28 ... 'ii'h4+ 29.�gl gS

Analysis diagram

With the idea of pushing this pawn to g3, with a great advantage to Black. 27.�gl l:.el 28.il.a3 l:.e3 28 ... llxal 29 . .l:r.xal 'ir'g3 30.l:.dl 'ir'e3+ 31.�h2 'ii'f4+=. 29.l:.adl 29.llf2;;!;. 29 ••• l:.h3 30.gxh3 'it'g3+ 31.�hl 'ifxh3+ draw, Voitsekhovsky-Zaiats, Kazan 2006. A crazy game!

Back to the main game.

127


12. 0-0

• After this move, Black equalises , but other moves do not promise White any advantage either : 1 2 .ii.b3 dxeS 1 3 .tt::lxe5 tt::lxe3 1 4.fxe3 'ii'gs Interesting is 1 4 .. .'ti'h4+ 1 5 .g3 'ii'e4 1 6.lLlf3 �fs 1 7.0-0 lLld6. 1 5 .d4 'ii'xg2 1 6 . .l:[fl tt::ld6 1 7 .'iff3 'ifxf3 1 8 • .l:[xf3 �e6 1 9.�xe6 fxe6 The game is equal. 20.�e2 .l:[xf3 2 1 .lLlxf3 .l:[f8 22.a4 2 2 . ..td2 tbc4 2 3 .�c 1 =. 22 . . . tt::le4 23 .a5? ! 23 .lLld2 =. 23 ... �c7 24.a6 bS 24 ... b6 looks sensible. At least, in the variation 25 .dxc5 lLlxcS 2 6.lLld4 �xh2 2 7 . b4 tbe4 the pawn on bS would not be hanging. 25 .dxc5 tt:lxcS 26.tt:ld4 ii.xh2 2 7 .b4 tbe4 28 .tt::lxb5 �b8 29 .tt::ld4 ! ? An excellent chance ! 2 9.�d3 =.

Analysis diagram

29 ... tt:lxc3+ It was time to show his trumps : 29 ... h5 3 0.b5 h4 3 l..�. a3 ( 3 1 . b6 h3 3 2 . ..ta3 .l:[f7 , and Black is fine) 3 1 ...lLlg3 + 3 2.�d3 .l:[e8 3 3 .lLlc6 h3 34 . .l:[a2 tt:Jfs 3 5 .lLlxb8 .l:[xb8 3 6.�c5 (3 6.c4 gS 3 7.ii.c5 .l:[d8 + 3 8.�e4 g4 3 9.b6 (3 9.�xa7 g3+) 39 . . . g3 and the black pawns prove the more nimble) 3 6 ... .l:[xb5 3 7 . ..txa7 h2 3 8 . .l:[xh2 .l:[aS and although the endgame is slightly worse for Black, with accurate play, he should draw. 30.�d3 lLldS 3 1 .lLlc6 �d6

1 2 8

32.b5 tt::lb4+ No better is 3 2 ... ii.c5 3 3 . ..ta3 il.xa3 34 . .l:[xa3 .l:[f7 3 5.�d4 with advantage to White. 3 3 .tt:lxb4 �xb4 34.b6 axb6 3 5 .�c4 ii.aS 36.�bs ± :as 3 7.�b2 gs 3S . .l:[c 1 ii.d2 39 . .l:[c7 1 -0 Kornev-Fressinet , Warsaw Ech 200 5 ; • 1 2 .exd6 The most ambitious. 1 2 .. .'ihd6 1 3 .�c2 tt:lf6 1 4.0-0 �c7 1 5 .g3 bS It seems that Black does not have full compensation for the pawn after 1 5 ... tbxe3 1 6.dxe3 ( 1 6.fxe3 �h3 1 7 . .l:[f2 tbe4 or 1 7 ... :ae8=) 1 6 .. .'ifc6 1 7 .f3 c4 1 8. tbf2. 1 6.tt::lf4 lLlh4 1 7 .d4 Risky is 1 7.lLlh5 ! ? �b7 1 8.f4 lLlxhS 1 9 . ..txh7+ ( 1 9.'ii'xh5 lLlf3 + 2 0 . .l:[xf3 g 6 2 1 .lLlf5 gxhS 2 2 .lLlxd6 �xf3 2 3 .lLlxb5 �b6=) 1 9 ... �xh 7 2 0.'ifxh5 + �g8 2 1 .'ifxh4 .l:[fe8 , and the weakness of the light squares more than compensates for Black's pawn deficit. 1 7 ... �b7 1 8.d5 .l:[ad8

Analysis diagram

1 9.a4 A complicated struggle results from 1 9.lLlh5 ! ? , provoking his opponent to sacrifice a piece : 1 9 .. . tbxd5 (probably it makes sense for Black to play 1 9 ... .l:[fe8 20.lLlxf6+ 'ifxf6 2 1 .f3 c4 2 2.�e4 �b6 with sufficient compensation for the pawn) 2 0. 'if g4 tbf3 + 2 1 .'ifxf3 tbxe3 2 2 .'ifxe3 'ifdS 2 3 .lLlf6+ gxf6 24.f3 'ifhs 25 .'ife7 .l:[de8 (or 2 5 ... �xg3 2 6.hxg3 .txf3

2 7 .l:!.xf3 'ti'xf3 2 8 .'YWe3 'iWhS 29 .'ti'f2, and White 's position is preferable) 26 .'it'xc7 l:!.e2 2 7 .g4 'YWh3 2 8 .'ti'g3 'YWxg3+ 29 .hxg3 l:!.xc2 3 0 .�h6 l:!.e8 3 1 . .l:!.f2. It is not easy for Black to bring his king into play. White has the advantage. 1 9 ... 'it'd7 ! 20.gxh4 �xf4 2 I .'ti:Yf3 A delicate balance is maintained by 2 1 .tLlfs 'ilk'c7= 2 L �.xf4 'ifxf4 2 3 .'iYd3 . 2 1 . .. 'YWc7 22 . .lldl �xh2+ 23.�fl a6 24.axb5 axb5 25 .tLlg4 tt:Jxg4 26.'YWxg4 �xd5 2 7.�xh7+ �xh7 28Jhd5 'YWc6 29 .'ifh5 + �g8 3 0 .l:!.xd8 'YWh l + 3 1 .�e2 .!:i.xd8 0- 1 , Acs-Khalifman , Hoogeveen 2002 .

Back to the game.

12 . ... 13. d2xe3 14. tt:Jd3-b4

tt:Jf5xe3 c5-c4 d6xe5

The outcome of the opening is clear: the game is even.

15. 'iYd1-h5

A completely equal game results from 1 S .'iWxd8 �xd8 1 6 .e4 tLlf6 1 7 .l:re 1 �e6 1 8 .f3 h6 ( 1 8 . . . �b6+ 1 9 .�fl .l:!.fd8 , and Black's position is slightly more pleasant) 1 9 .�e3 ii..e7 20 .l:!.ad 1 .l:!.fd8 2 1 ..if2 �xb4 2 2 .cxb4 tLlhS 2 3 .g3 gS 24 .�e3 �g7 2 S .a3 tt:Jf6 26 .�c2 a6 2 7 .�b6 .l:!.xd 1 2 8 . .l:.xd 1 tLld7 2 9 .�e3 �f6 3 0 .�f2 �e7 3 1 . a4


b6 3 2 .�e2 f6 3 3 .�d2 h5 34 .�c3 l:!.h8 3 5 .h4 gxh4 3 6 .gxh4 l:!.g8 3 7 . .l:!.g 1 l:!.xg 1 3 8 .ii..xg 1 b5 3 9 . .id 1 �d6 40 .ii..e2 �c6 4 1 .a5 ii..f7 42 .ii..fl draw, Dukhin-Romanov, Serpukhov 2004.

15 . ... �b6-c7?1

An inaccuracy. 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 . .l::i.d 1 tLlf6= was good, or 1 5 . . . ii..d7 1 6 .ii..xd7 (dubious is 1 6 .l:!.d 1 ?! .ixa4 1 7 . .l:.xd8 l:!.xd8 1 8 .b3 cxb3 1 9 .axb3 tt:Jf6 2 0 .'YWe2 �xb3 with more than sufficient compensation for the queen) 1 6 . . . 'YWxd7 1 7 .'YWxeS tLlf6 1 8 .'YWf4 .thc8 with sufficient compensation for the pawn.

16. l:!.f1-d1 17. l:!.d1xd8 18 . .l:!.d8xf8+ 19. tt:Jb4-d5 20. �a4-b5 21. ii..b5xc4

tt:Je8-f6 tt:Jf6xh5 �g8xf8 ii..c7-d6 ii..c8-e6

As a result of Black's mistake at move 1 7 , White has won a pawn.

21 . ... tt:Jh5-f6

Black would have more drawing chances after 2 1 . . . e4 .

22. tt:Jd5xf6 23. tt:Jf6xh7+ 24. tt:Jh7-g5 25. �c1-d2 26. tt:Jg5-f3

ii..e6xc4 �f8-e7 .l:!.a8-d8 �d6-a3 ii..c4-e2

1 29


Some drawing chances would be maintained after 2 6 ... �d5 2 7.�c l �xf3 2 8.gxf3 .l:i.d l + 2 9.�g2 �d6 3 0.b3 bS 3 l...�.b2 .l:i.d2 32 . .l:i.b l �e6.

27. �d2-e1

Passing by a nice tactical trick : 2 7 .tt::ld4 ! �xb2 (2 7 ... exd4 2 8.exd4 !±) 2 8 . .l:i.b l exd4 29.exd4 �xc3 3 0 . .l:i.xb7+ .l:i.d7 3 1 ..l:i.xd7+ �xd7 3 2.�xc3 ±.

27. ... �a3xb2 28. .l:i.a1-b1 .l:i.d8-d1 29. .l:i.b1 xb2 �e2xf3 30. g2xf3 .l:[d1 xe1 + 31. �g1-g2 b7-b6

In what follows, Black misses some good drawing chances.

32. .l:i.b2-b4

3 2 . . . .l:i.a 1 ! ? 3 3 .a4 .t:i.a3 .

33. .l:i.b4-c4 34. f3-f4 35 . .l:i.c4xf4

3 5 ... f6 ! ?.

.l:i.e1-c1

�e7-d6 e5xf4 .l:i.c1xc3?

36 . .l:i.f4xf7 .l:i.c3-a3 37 . .l:i.f7xg7 .l:i.a3xa2± 38.h2-h4 a7-a5 39.h4-h5 .l:i.a2-c2 40.h5-h6 .l:i.c2-c8 41.f2-f4 a5-a4 42.h6-h7 .l:i.c8-h8 43.�g2-f3 b6-b5 44.�f3-e4 �d6-c5 45.f4-f5 a4-a3 46.f5-f6 a3-a2 47 . .l:i.g7-a7

1 3 0

.l:i.h8xh7 48 . .l:i.a7xa2 b5-b4 49.�e4-f5 .l:i.h7-h5+ 50.'>t>f5-e6 .l:i.h5-h3 51.e3-e4 .l:i.h3-e3 52.f6-f7 .l:i.e3xe4+ 53.�e6-f5 1-0

Game No 4 1 [C48] Kornev,Alexey Nielsen,Peter Heine Warsaw Ech 2005 (8)

1. e2-e4 2. tt::lg1-f3 3. tt::lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-a4 6. tt:Jf3xe5 7. tt:Je5-d3 8. e4-e5 9. tt:Jc3-d5

e7-e5 tt::lg8-f6 tt::lb8-c6 tt:Jc6-d4 �f8-c5 o-o �c5-b6 tt::lf6-e8 c7-c61?

Yet another interesting idea, which has obtained a degree of popularity in the current century.

10. tt:Jd5-e3 11. c2-c3 12. 0-0

The critical position .

13. �a4-c2

d7-d5 tt:Jd4-f5 f7-f6

Another line which has been tried is 1 3 . .tb3 '>t>h8 Worth consideration is 1 3 ... fxe5 ! ? 1 4.tt::lxe5 tt::lxe3 1 5 .fxe3 ( 1 5.dxe3 'iVe7 1 6.f4 tt::ld6 with com-

pensation for the pawn, a typical picture for this variation) I 5 . . . tt:lf6 . 14.'iYh5 tt:lh6 1 4 . . . fxe5 ! ? I S .tt:lel Good was 1 5 .itc2 , going into well-known patterns, with a loss of a tempo. l S •.. fxeS! 16.'iYxe5 d4 1 6 . . . �c7 ! ? . 17.tt:lc4 tt:lg4 18.'iYh5? 1 8 .'iYe2 . 18 . . . g6 19.'iYh3

Analysis diagram

19 . . . .i.cs 1 9 . . . ..tc7 2 0 . g 3 tt:lxf2 ! ; 1 9 . . . tt:lxf2 2 0 .'it'g3 il.c7 2 I .tt:le5 = . 20.'it'g3 tt:lef6 2 I .'ifh4 bS 22.tt:le3 dxe3, and Black won, Vallejo PonsLeko, Monaco (blind) 2 0 0 5 . The standard of play was no doubt affected by the fact that this was a blindfold game.

13 . ... 'it'd8-e7

Black played in less enterprising fashion in the following game: 1 3 . . . ..tc7 1 4.f4 tt:lxe3 1 5 .dxe3 �fS 1 6 .b3 'it'e7 1 7 .'ife2 ( 1 7 . a4 ! ?) 1 7 . . . ..te4 1 8 . .i.b2 fxeS 1 9 .fxe5 ( 1 9 .tt:lxe5 hc2 20 .'it'xc2 heS 2 I .fxe5 .l:i.xfl + 2 2 . .l:i.xfl 'it'xeS 2 3 .'it'f2 'iff6=) 1 9 . . . .l:i.xfl + 2 0 . .l:i.xfl itxe5 2 I .tt:lxe5 'ifxeS 2 2 .'it'f2 tt:lf6= 2 3 .he4 'it'xe4 24.c4 .l:i.f8 2 5 .'it'g3 tt:le8 2 6 . .l:i.c l ? ! dxc4 2 7 .bxc4 .l:i.fl 2 8 .h3 h6 29 .�h2 �h7 3 0 . c5 tt:lc7 3 I . .l:i.fl draw, Motylev-Shomoev, Togliatti tt 2003 .

14. f2-f4 15. d2xe3

tt:lf5xe3 .tc8-f5

Chapter 5 - The Rubins tein Sys tem

His better piece placement ensures Black sufficient compensation for the pawn.

16. a2-a41 a7-a5

Probably Black should play in the spirit of the game Motylev-Shomoev : 1 6 . . .fxe5 1 7 .tt:lxeS (or 1 7 . fxeS fie? 1 8 .b3 il.xeS 1 9 .tt:lxe5 'it'xeS 2 0 .fia3 .l:i.f6 2 I .itxf5 .l:i.xf5 with equality) 1 7 . . . itxc2 1 8 .'it'xc2 �c7 1 9 . tt:lf3 ( 1 9 .tt:ld3 tt:ld6) 1 9 . . . tt:ld6. The weakness of the e3 pawn and his better development promises Black definite compensation for the pawn.

17. b2-b3 'it'e7-e6

18. .tc1-a31

White returns the pawn, in the hope of taking over the initiative after 1 8 . . . .txe3 + 1 9 .�h l .l:i.fl 20 .'it'e2 �a7 2 I . .l:i.ae l . Passive is 1 8 .'it'd2 fxeS 1 9 .tt:lxe5 (or 1 9 . fxe5 .txd3 2 0 . .l:i.xf8 + �xf8 2 I .'it'xd3 g6 2 2 .ita3 + �g8 with sufficient counterplay for Black) 1 9 . . . tt:ld6 20 . .td3 tt:lfl , and the weakness of e3 will have its say.

18 . ... 19. �g1-h1 20. 'ifd1-e2

:tf8-f7 g7-g6

1 3 1


.i .. . .l X .l .t. .l 'if .l .l .

.l .l LS .t. LS LS � LS LS CiJ LS

� 'i¥ LS LS n �

Worth consideration is 2 0 . lLlcS �xeS 2 l .�xfS �xfS (slightly better is 2 l . . . gxfS 2 2 .�xcS fxeS 2 3 .fxeS �xeS 24 .�f3 tt:lf6 2 S .�g3+ �g7 2 6.�d4 'iYe6 2 7 .�xg 7 + <ot>xg 7 2 8 .'iYhS ) 2 2 .�xcS tt:lg7 (or 2 2 ... fxeS 2 3 .fxeS 'iYxeS 24.�xf7 <ot>xf7 2S .'iYf3 + 'iYfs 2 6 .'iYe2 with a serious initiative for White) 2 3 .�d4 with advantage.

20 . ... tt:le8-g7?1

Missing a good chance to equalise with 20 . . . �xd3 2 l .'iYxd3 fxeS 2 2.c4 �d8 , and in this position , the two bishops are only a moral victory.

21. e5xf6 22. ttJd3-c5 23. e3-e4

�f7xf6 'iYe6-f7

It was worth considering 2 3 .c4.

23 . ... d5xe4

It seems that 2 3 . . . �e8 would have equalised, since White is promised nothing by 24.eS �xc2 2 S .'iYxc2 �xf4, and Black is even better.

24. tt:lc5xe4 25. 'iYe2-f3 26. �c2xe4

�f6-e6 �f5xe4

The position has turned out in White 's favour and he has a healthy extra pawn.

26 . ... �a8-e8

1 3 2

Worth considering was 2 6 . .. lLlfS ! ? 2 7 .�xfS 'iYxfS 2 8.�ae l �ae8 , significantly hampering White's realisation of his advantage .

27.�e4-d3± �e6-e3 28.�d3-c4! tt:lg7-e6 29.'1Wf3-f2 'fif7-c7 30.�a 1-e 1 �e3xe 1 31. 'iYf2xe 1 'iYc7-f7 32.'iYe1-e4 'iYf7-f5 33.'iYe4xf5 g6xf5 34 . .t:l.f1-e1 <ot>g8-f7 35.g2-g4 <ot>f7-f6 36.g4-g5+ 1-0

Game No 42 [C48] Motylev,Alexander Carlsen, Magnus Wijk aan Zee 2007 (6)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-a4 6. tt:lf3xe5 7. tt:le5-d3 8. e4-e5

LS ..

{jj {jj

e7-e5 ttJb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 tt:lc6-d4 �f8-c5 0-0 �c5-b6 c7-c61?

x • .l .l .l �

LS LS LS LS LS LS LS :a: � 'iV �

A relatively new idea, a positional piece sacrifice.

9. 0-0!

Accepting the sacrifice is very dangerous : 9.exf6 �e8+ l O.<ot>fl 'iYxf6 and now:

• 1 1 .g3 dS 1 2 .h3 1 2.'ltig2 l:i.e2 ! 1 3 .tt::lf4 �g4 1 4 .tt::lcxe2 �f3 + 1 5 .<it/fl .l:!.e8+ . 1 2 .•• �c7 1 2 . . . �f5 ! ? . 1 3.tLlxdS 1 3 . �g2 bS 1 4 .�b3 �fs - Black has good compensation for the piece. 1 3 ... cxdS 1 4.�xe8 �f5 1 S .�a4 .il!.e4 1 6.�g1 tLlf3+ 1 7.�fl tt:Jd4; e 1 t .h4 d6 1 2 .g3 1 2 .h5 tLle2 ! 1 3 .tt::lxe2 �g4 1 4 .�b3 l:i.xe2 1 5 .'ti'xe2 �xe 2 + 1 6 .�xe2 l:le8 + 1 7 . �fl ( 1 7 .�d 1 �gS +) 1 7 ... d5 1 8 .l:i.h3 'iYe6 The white pieces lack coordination . Black has the advantage . 1 2 .•• ti:Jf3 1 3 .�g2 .il!.g4 1 4.'ti'fl dS 1 S .tLlf4 l:i.e7 1 5 . . . tt:Je5 ! ? 1 6 .d3 �f3 + 1 7 .�g l tt::lg4 1 8 .l:i.h2 h6 with the idea of . . . g7 -gS also promises Black good compensation for the piece. 1 6.d3 l:i.ae8 1 7 .tLlcxdS cxdS 1 8.�xe8 .!:.xeS 1 9 .ttJxdS 'ii' c6 20.c4 .l:teS+ ;

• 1 1 .h3 aS !

Analysis diagram

A surprising move ! 1 2.a3 White has no normal useful moves ! 1 2 .�b3 dS 1 3 .g3 a4 1 4 .tt:Jxa4 �c7 1 5 . f4 ( 1 5 .tt::lf4 .txf4 1 6 .gxf4 'ii'h4-+; 1 5 .�g2 .l:te2 1 6 .tt::lc3 'iVf3 + 1 7 .�g 1 �f5 -+) 1 5 . . . ti:Je2 1 6 .'iYe 1 'tWg6-+. 1 2 ••• dS ! ? 1 3 .g4 Jl..a7 1 4.b4 1 4.tt::lxd5 'ti'd6 with compensation. 1 4 ... bS 1 S .�b3 hS Despite his extra piece, it is not easy for White to defend the position.


9 . ... tt:Jf6-e8 1 0. tt:Jc3-e2

1 0.tt::le4 dS 1 1 .tLlg3 'ti'h4 1 l . . .'ifg5 ! ? 1 2 .c3 �g4 1 3 .'iVe 1 �e2 ! with sufficient counterplay for Black. 1 2 .c3 tLlfS 1 2 . . . �g4 ! ? 1 3 .'it'e 1 tt:Jfs . 1 3.�h1 Worth attention was 1 3 .'it'hS ! ? 'iY xhS 1 4. lLlxhS f6 1 5 .�c2 . Probably it is necessary for Black to seek equality by means of 1 3 . . . 'iYxa4 (instead of 1 3 .. .'ihh5 ) 1 4 .tt:Jxf5 �xfS 1 5 .'iYxfs tt::lc7 when it seems that White 's poor piece placement represents sufficient compensation for the pawn, even if the computer thinks otherwise. Worse is 1 5 . . .'ifc2 1 6.'ti'h3 f6 1 7 .tt::le 1 'iVe4 1 8 .d4 fxeS 1 9 .'ife6+ �h8 20 .'iVxe5 and there is no compensation for the pawn.

Analysis diagram

Here is a possible further development of events : 1 6 .b3 'tWe4 1 7 .'tWxe4 dxe4 1 8 .tt::lb2 l:!.fe8 1 9 .tt::lc4 tt:Jds 20 .�a3 .tc7 2 l .�d6 bS 22 .ti:Jb2 �xd6 23.exd6 l:i.ad8 24.c4 tt:Jf4 25 .c5 l:!.eS 26 .b4 aS 2 7 .a3 l:i.dS 28 . .t!.ad 1 axb4 29 .axb4 tt::le2+ 30 .�h 1 l:i.d4 3 1 .l:i.fe 1 tt::lf4= . This variation needs further development and correcting. 1 3 ... f6 1 4.�c2 �c7 1 S.l:!.e l ?! 1 5 .'ife 1 ! ? . 1 S . . . f:xeS 1 6 .ttJxeS �xeS 1 7.l:!.xeS tt:Jxg3+ 1 8.f:xg3 'ii'f6 1 9J:te1 ? 1 9 .l:!xe8+ 1 9 ... .ig4 0- 1 BaramidzeBabulian, Erevan Wch-jr 2006 .

1 3 3


Back to the game.

10 . ... 'it'd8-h4

He does not equalise after 1 O . . . d6 1 1 .tt:lxd4 .ixd4 1 2 .c3 .ifs ( 1 2 . . . .ixe5 1 3 .tt:lxeS dxeS 1 4.l:!.e 1 ±) 1 3 .'iff3 .

11. tt:le2xd4

After l l .tLlg3 ! ? d5 1 2.c3 we reach a position from the game BaramidzeBabulian, and here it is worth considering 1 2 ... �g4 1 3 .'ifel tLlfS 14 . ..tc2 I 4 .�h i ! ? f6 1 S .�d l .

Analysis diagram

1 4 ... f6 Black can win back the pawn by 1 4 ... tt:lxg3 I S .hxg3 'iYxg3 , but after 1 6 .tt:lf4 'tWh4 1 7 .d4 White has the advantage. 1 5 .tt:lc5 Best. If 1 S .tt:le2 tt:lc7 Black has excellent compensation for the pawn. 1 5 ... ..txc5 After 1 S . . .fxeS 1 6 .tt:ld7 tt:ld4 1 7 . ..txh7+ 'ti'xh7 I 8 .tt:lxf8 �xf8 1 9 .cxd4 �xd4 20 .d3 ! 'ifxd3 2 l .i.e3 the compensation for the exchange is in-

1 34

sufficient. 1 6.t2Jxf5 Or 1 6 .i.xfS fxeS 1 7 .'if xeS .ixfS I 8 .tt:lxfS 'ti'e4 1 9 .'ifxe4 dxe4 20 .tt:lg3 tt:lf6 2 1 .b4 �d6 - White's advantage is not great . 1 6 . . . �xf5 1 7.�xf5 fxe5 1 8.'ihe5 �h8!? 1 9.g3 'irbs 20.g4 .td6 2 1 .gxh5 �xeS 22.�c2 t2Jf6 23 .d4 ..td6 24.�dl .!::tae8 with a small advantage to White.

11. ... 12. �a4-b3 13. 'iYd1-e2

'iVh4xd4 d7-d5

Nothing is promised by 1 3 .'iYf3 f6 1 4 .c3 'ti'h4 I S .g3 'ti'h3 with good compensation for the pawn.

13 . ... f7-f6

Not bad either is 1 3 . . . aS 1 4 .a4 tt:lc7 1 s .'ti'e3 .tfs or the immediate 1 3 . . . tt:lc7 1 4 .h3 'ti'h4 1 S .tt:le I tt:le6 1 6 .tt:lf3 tt:lf4 with good compensation for the pawn in both cases.

14. e5-e6 tt:le8-c7

Black is not risking anything in particular after 1 4 . . . tt:ld6 1 S .c3 'iVe4 1 6 .'iVxe4 tt:lxe4 1 7.tt:lf4 l::te8 1 8 .d4 tt:lgS =.

15. c2-c3 'iVd4-h4 16. g2-g3 'iVh4-h6

1 6 . . . 'ti'gS ! ? .

17. tt:ld3-c5

After this, chances are completely equalised. No advantage is guaranteed by 1 7 . e 7 ! ? l:te8 1 8 . c4 l'Hg6 1 9 J:te l ( 1 9 .tt:lf4 �g4 with chances for both sides. ) 1 9 . . . il..g4 2 0 .'iYfl 'i¥f7 - the position continues to remain sharp and the chances balanced.

17 . ... �b6xc5 18. d2-d4 �h6-h3 19. d4xc5 tt:lc7xe6 20. �c1-e3 l:tf8-e8 21. 'i¥e2-d2 tt:le6-f8 22. l:ta1-e1 tt:lf8-g6 23. f2-f3 h7-h5 24. ile3-d4 �c8-f5 25. c3-c4 tt:lg6-e7 26. l::re1-e3 �f5-e6 27. 'i¥d2-e2 �g8-f7 28. g3-g4 tt:le7-g6 29. f3-f4 �e6xg4

30. c4xd5

An oversight . An equal position results from 3 0 .f5 �xe2 3 1 .fxg6+ �xg6 3 2 .l:txh3 �xfl 3 3 .�xfl dxc4 34 .�xc4 l::rad8 3 5 .�d3 + �h6.

30 . ... 31. d5xc6+ 32. l:te3xh3 33. �g1xf1 34. f4-f5 35. l:th3-h4

�g4xe2 �f7-f8 ile2xf1 b7xc6 tt:lg6-f4 tt:lf4-d3


More winning chances were offered by 3 S . . . .l:t.e l + 3 6 . �xe l tt:lg2+ 3 7 .�f2 tt:lxh4+ .

36. �b3-e6

3 6 .�c3.

36 . ... 37. l::rh4xh5

37 . ...

l:ta8-b8

l:tb8-b4?

Black returns the favour. He could retain more winning chances with 3 7 . . . tt:lf4 3 8 .l:th 8 + �e7 3 9 .l::rxe 8 + l:txe8 40.�b3 l:rh8+ . Now White forces a draw by means of a beautiful blow.

38. l:th5-h8+1 39. �d4xf6+

�f8-e7 �e7xf6

3 9 . .. gxf6 40.l:th7 + �d8 (40 . . . �f8 4 l .l::rh8+=) 4 l .l:td7 + �c8 42 .l::re 7+= .

40.l:th8xe8 l:tb4xb2 41.l:te8-f8+ �f6-e5 42.l:tf8-f7 tt:ld3xc5 43.l:tf7xg7 l:tb2xh2 44.l:tg7xa7 tt:lc5xe6 1f2-1f2

Game No 43 [C48] Shirov,Alexey Hansen,Lars Bo Moscow ol 1 994 (8)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6

1 35


3. lbb1-c3 4. .tf1-b5 5 . .tb5-a4 6. 0-0

6 . ...

lbg8-f6 lbc6-d4 c7-c6

'ti'd8-a5

This move, practically forcing a subsequent recapture on b3 with the c-pawn, is considered the most accurate way for Black to obtain good play. Black failed to equalise in the following game after 6 ..• lbxf3+ 7.'ti'xf3 d6 8.d3 aS 9.�b3 �e7

Analysis diagram

1 O .h3 1 0 .a4! ?;!; . 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 .i.e3 lUeS ? ! 1 2 . .1:i.ad 1 1 2 .d4! ? . 1 2 . . . i.g5 1 3 .d4 'iYe7 1 4.dxe5 dxe5 1 5 .i.xg5 1 5 . .tb6! ? lbc7 1 6.lba4 lbe6 1 7 . .txe6 'ti'xe 6 1 8 . .tc5 i.e7 1 9 .'ifc3 ±. 1 5 . • .'t/Vxg5 1 6.lba4 tt:lf6 1 7 .lbb6 .l:i.a6 1 8.lbxc8 .l:i.xc8 1 9.a4 b6 20.�c4 .l:i.aa8 2 1 .'iYb3 'iYg6 22.l:i.fe1 .l:i.ab8 23 .�a6 .l:i.£'8 24.l:i.d6 'iYgs 25 .l:i.xc6 lbhs 26.g3

136

lbf4 2 7 .i.fl tt:le6 2 8 .'1We3 'fie? 29 . .1:i.xb6 fie? 30.l:[xb8 .l:i.xb8 3 1 .b3 'ii'xc2 32 . .1:i.c l 'iYb2 3 3 .�c4 lbd4 34.rJtg2 h6 3S . .tds .l:i.b6 36.'ti'c3 'iYe2 3 7.l:i.e 1 'ii'a6 38.'iYc7 .l:i.f6 39 . .1:i.e3 rJth7 40.h4 tt:lc6 4 1 .h5 1 - 0 , Sutovsky Gofshtein, Israel tt 1 9 99 .

7. .l:i.f1-e1 !?

A cunning move, defending the e4 pawn, so as to allow d2 -d4 in one move. • Practice has also seen 7.i.b3 lbxb3 8.cxb3 d6 9.h3 .te7 1 0.d4 0-0 1 1 .a3 exd4 1 2.tt:lxd4 'iVhS 1 3 .'fixh5 lbxh5

Analysis diagram

1 4.l:i.e 1 1 4.g4 lbf6 1 5 .i.f4;!; - White is slightly better. 1 4 ... l:i.e8 1 5 .g4 tt:lf6 1 6 .i.f4 i.e6 1 7 . .l:i.ad 1 dS 1 8 .exd5 tt:lxdS 1 9.tt:lxe6 fxe6 20.i.e5 .l:i.ad8 2 1 .lLle4 tt:lf6 22.lbd6 �xd6 23 .i.xd6 rJtf7 24.b4 a6 25 .i.e5 .l:i.dS 26 . .1:i.c1 .l:i.ed8 2 7 .�g2 .l:i.d3 2 8 .l:i.c4 .l:i.d 1

29 .�xd 1 l:hd 1 3 0 .J::td4 �xd4 3 l .�xd4 tLld7 3 2 .f4 g6 3 3 .Wf3 We7 34 .We4 Wd6 3 5 .a4 b6 3 6 .a5 bxa5 3 7 .bxa5 We7 3 8 .b4 We8 3 9 .�£'2 Wfl 40 .Wd4 We7 4 l .. �h4+ We8 42..�g5 Wf8 draw, Spassky-Kortchnoi , St. Petersburg 1 999; • And 7.d3 d6 8.h3 bS 9.�b3 tt:Jxb3 I O.cxb3 �e7

Analysis diagram

l l .�gS A typical plan for this variation starts with 1 l .d4. Then possible is 1 l . . .b4 1 2 .dxe5 dxe5 1 3 .tLla4 .ta6 . Black solves the important problem in this line, of his light-squared bishop. 1 4 .'iWc2 �d8 1 5 .l:te 1 0-0 1 6 .�g5 = . -1 1 ... 0-0 1 2.tLle2 1 2 .a3 ! ? h6 1 3 .�h4 'iWb6 1 4 .d4 exd4 ( 1 4 . . . l:.d8 1 5 .dxe5 dxe5 1 6 .'tWc2;!;) 1 5 .tLlxd4 �e8 1 6 .'it'd3 - chances are about equal , although Black still has to solve the same problem. 1 2 ... cs 1 3 .tt:Jg3 �e6 1 4.tt:Jh4 h6 1 S .�d2 �c7 1 6.tLlhfS l:!.fe8 1 7.f4 .1:f.ad8 1 8.�cl tLlh7 1 9.�el b4 20.tLlxe7+ �xe7 2 1 .fS �c8 22.4::lhs f6 23 JH3 Wh8 24.l:f.g3 J:i.g8 2S . .llc l �a6 26.'it'f2 �f7 2 7.�f3 dS 28.�e3 �xd3 29.exd5 �xdS 3 0 .�xd5 l::txds 3 l ..l:f.d l c4 32.bxc4 �xc4 33 .l:tc l �e2 34.4::lxg7 tt:Jgs 3S .�xg5 hxgS 36.4::le6 e4 3 7.h4 gxh4 38.l:txg8+ Wxg8 39.J:i.c8+ Wh7 40.�c7+ Wh6 41 .l:tf7 l:.xfS 42.tLld4 l:!.fl + 43. Wh2 �g4 44.lha7 J::tfl 0- 1 , Navara-Khamatgaleev, Decin 1 99 8 .

Chapter S - The Rubinstein System

Back to the game.

• .t • l .l i .l

, . � .l

� � l2J l2J

� � � � � � � � � 'if � �

7 . ... d7-d6

Dubious is 7 . .. �c5 ? ! (Grund-Jenni , Germany 1 999) on account of 8 .tLlxe5 b5 9 . .tb3 d6 1 0 .tLlf3 tt::lg4 1 1 .l:.fl 'it'b6 1 2 .tLlxd4 �xd4 1 3 .�f3 ±.

8. h2-h3 b7-b5

8 ... �e7 9.d3 bS 1 0.�b3 tt::lxb3 l l .cxb3 0-0 This was a good time for 1 l . . .b4. Then possible is :

Analysis diagram

A) 1 2 .4::la4 c5 1 3 .tLlh4 ( 1 3 .4::ld2 0-0 1 4 .4::lc4 �c7 1 5 .f4 �b7 1 6 .�fl exf4 1 7 .�xf4 �d7 1 8 .tLle3 g6 1 9 .a3 with a complicated, roughly equal position; 1 3 .a3 ! ?) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 .'iWf3 'iWbs 1 s .tt:Jfs �xfS 1 6 .exf5 .l:.ab8 1 7 .�d2=; B) 1 2 .4::le2 0-0 1 3 .tLlg3 'iWbs 1 4 .d4

The position is not so simple; Black still

1 37

The F o ur Knights Game

has to find a convenient post for his light-squared bishop. A sample variation is 1 4 ... .1:td8 I S .�e3 g6 1 6.'iYc2 �b7 1 7.a3 bxa3 1 8.dxe5 dxeS 1 9.bxa3 lt:Jd7 20 . .I:ted l ..ta6 and Black is close to equality. 1 2.d4 b4 1 3 .lt:Ja4 The position looks roughly equal. White controls the centre, but any opening of the position may turn out in favour of Black, who has the bishop pair.

Analysis diagram

• 1 3 ... �b7? ! After this inaccuracy, Black starts to experience serious difficulties. 1 4.d.xe5 ! d.xe5 1 5 .�g5 Also good is I S .'ti'c2 l:rfd8 1 6 . ..tgs;t. 1 5 . . JHd8 I S ... h6 1 6.�xf6 ..txf6 1 7.'iYc2 �e7 1 8.l:rac l l:rfd8. 1 6.'ti'c2 c5? 1 6 ... h6 1 7.�xf6 �xf6 1 8.lLlcS (the bishop on b7 is misplaced) 1 8 ... �c8 1 9.a3 'ti'b6 2 0.axb4 'ti'xb4 2 I .l:ra4;!; with a small advantage for White. 1 7 .lt:Jxe5 c4 1 8.�xf6 �xf6 1 9.lt:Jxc4 'i'khs 20.'i'ke2 'Yi'gs 2 1 .'ii'g4 'Yi'b5 22.l:rad1 h5 23 .'ti'f4 1 -0 Rozentalis-Pitl , Cappelle-la -Grande 2 0 0 8. Releasing the central tension, in the hope of exploiting the dynamic factors in the position , is also not good enough to equalise : • 1 3 .. . exd4 1 4.lt:Jxd4 �d7 1 S.�f4 l:rfe8 ( 1 5 ... l:rac8 1 6.lLlfS �xfS 1 7.exf5

1 3 8

lLl d S 1 8 .f6 �xf6 1 9 .�xd6 .l:tfd8 2 0.'iYg4;!;) 1 6.lt:Jf3 l:rad8 1 7 .eS dxeS 1 8.lt:JxeS;!;; • Worth considering is 1 3 . . . lt:Jd7 1 4.d.xe5 lt:Jxe5 1 5 .�£4, although here too, Black has to demonstrate that the two bishops compensate adequately for his central pawn weaknesses.

9 . ..ta4-b3 10. c2xb3

tt:Jd4xb3 b5-b4

After 1 O ... ..te7 possible is 1 1 .d4 b4 1 2.dxe5 dxeS 1 3 .lt:Ja4 0-0 1 4.'iYc2 , by analogy with the game Rozentalis-Pitl , with some advantage to White.

11. tt:Jc3-e2 c6-c5

We have arrived at the critical moment in the game.

12. d2-d3

It would be very interesting to try to exploit Black's lag in development by means of 1 2.d4!? cxd4 1 3 .lt:Jexd4 exd4 1 3 ... �b7 1 4.'iYd3! ? (also worthy of attention is 1 4.lLlfS lLlxe4 1 S .lLlgS lt:JxgS 1 6.�xg5 'iYc7 1 7.'iYg4 'iYd7 1 8.l:rad 1 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn) 1 4 ... exd4 (the problems are not solved by 1 4 ... 'iYa6 1 s .tt:Jbs 'iYc6 1 6.�d2 a6 1 7 .lt:Jbd4! exd4 1 8.lt:Jxd4 'iYd7 1 9.�xb4 �e7 2 0.e5 ±) 1 S.e5 lt:Jd7 ( 1 s ... tt:Jds 1 6.exd6 + �d8

1 7 .tt::le5±) 1 6 . exd6+ 'lt>d8 1 7 .�xd4 (probably 1 7 .lt::lg5! ? �d5 1 8.lt::lxf7 + 'ti'xf7 1 9 .'iib5 is also possible, with good compensation for the material . Another interesting move is 1 7 . .if4! ?) 1 7 ... �d5 ( 1 7 . . . �xf3 ?! 1 8.gxf3 .l::!.c8 1 9.�f4 'iib6 20.�d3 , and it is not easy for Black to defend) 1 8 .'ti'h4+ f6 1 9 . .!H4!?

Analysis diagram

White has enough compensation for the sacrificed piece. 1 4.e5 The rook on e 1 proves excellently placed . 1 4 .. /t::ldS 1 5 .exd6 + ..te6 1 6 .lt:Jxd4 .ixd6 1 7 .lt:Jxe6 fxe6 1 8 .lhe6+ 'i!t>d7 1 9 .'tWg4 h5 20.�g6 'i!Ycs 2 1 .�g5 !1Jc7 2 2 .�e3 'ii'ds 23 . .l:[e4

Analysis diagram

The black king will not find any peace for a long time to come. White has good compensation for the piece (analysis) .


12 . ... 13. lt:Jf3-d2 14. lt:Jd2-c4 15. f2-f4

�f8-e7 'ti'a5-c7 0-0

White could have retained some small pressure by 1 5 .tt::lg3 g6 1 6.�h6 l:re8 1 7.'ti'f3;!;.

15 ... �c8-d7 16.f4xe5 d6xe5 17.lt:Je2-g3 J:i.a8-d8 18.'i!Yd1-f3 �d7-c8 19.�c1-d2 �c8-e6 20.lt:Jg3-f5 �e6xf5 21.e4xf5 l:rd8-d5 22.l:i.e1-e3 l:rf8-d8 23.l::ra1-e1 �e7-d6 24.l:re1-e2 .!::!.d5-d4 25.g2-g4 e5-e4 26.d3xe4 �d6-f4 112-112

In the final position , it is already Black who has some advantage.

Game No 44 [C48] Djurhuus,Rnne Sahl,Bjarke Fredrikstad ch-NOR 20 1 0 (8)

1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. lt:Jg1-f3 lt:Jg8-f6 3. lt:Jb1-c3 lt:Jb8-c6 4. �f1-b5 lt:Jc6-d4 5. �b5-a4 c7-c6! 6. 0-0

Not the most principled line. However, it also forces Black to solve a few problems.

1 3 9


6 . ... 7. 'ti'd1xf3

7 . ... 8. h2-h3 9. i1i,a4-b3

10. d2-d3

tt:ld4xf3+ ?!

d7-d6?1 i1L.f8-e7 0-0

White has the freer position .

10 . ... 11. �c1-e3 12. �e3xc5

tt:lf6-d7 tt:ld7-c5

1 2.d4 tt:lxb3 1 3 .axb3 f6 1 4.'ife2 gives a small advantage.

12 . ... 13. 'ti'f3-g3

d6xc5 i1i,e7-d6

In the spirit of the posltlon was 1 3 ... i1L.f6 1 4.tLld 1 g6 1 s .tt:le3 �g7 =.

14. tt:lc3-d1 'lt>g8-h8 15. tt:ld1-e3 �d6-c7 16. 'ii'g3-f3

The start of a dubious plan. A small strategic initiative was guaranteed by a plan of playing on the other flank , with something such as 1 6 .a4 g6 1 7 .tt:lc4 'lt>g7 1 8.a5 'ti'e7 1 9 .'ti'e3.

16. ... g7-g6 17. g2-g4 ?! 'lt>h8-g7 18. 'lt>g1-h2 �d8-e7 19. l:rf1-g1 �e7-f6

1 40

20. 'ti'f3-g3 21. �h2-g2 22. 'ti'g3-f3 23. 'ti'f3xf6+ 24. c2-c3 25. �g2-f3 26. �f3-e2 27. h3xg4 28. a2-a4 29. .!::!.a1-f1 30. l:rf1-d1 31. �b3-c4 32. b2-b4

l:rf8-h8 h7-h5 �c8-d7 �g7xf6=i= l:ra8-d8 iii,d7-c8 h5xg4 l:rh8-h3 .l:ld8-h8 �f6-e7 b7-b6 iii,c8-d7 �c7-d6?

Having the two bishops, it was logical to try to open the game : 3 2 . . . cxb4 3 3 .cxb4 �d6 34.b5 �cS =i= .

33. b4-b5 34. l:rd1-a1 35. b5xc6 36. l:rg1-b1

l:rh8-h7 �d6-c7 �d7xc6

White has a clear plan of play on the queenside. Black can think only of equalising.

36 . ... 37. a4-a5 38. �c4-b5

39. �b5-d7!

'lt>e7-f6 �f6-g5 �c6-b7

A beautiful idea , involving the sacrifice of a piece. Nothing is promised by 3 9.axb6 �xb6 40.i1i,a6 i1i,c6= .

39 . ... 40. g4xf5 41. .l:!.b1-g1 + 42. .l:!.g1xg6+

f7-f5 .l:!.h7xd7 �g5-f6 �f6-e7?!

More tenacious is 4 2 . . . �f7 , although this also does not promise an easy life : 43.a6 �c8 44Jhg 1 .l:!.h8 4S . .l:!.g7 + �f8 46.f6 bS 47 .tt:lfs �d8 48 . .l:!. 1 g6 with the threats of �d6 and �h6 . Despite his extra piece, Black is close to zugzwang.

43.a5-a6 �b7-c8 44 . .l:!.a1-g1 .l:!.h3-h8 45.tt:Je3-d5+± .l:!.d7xd5 46 . .l:!.g6-g7+ �e7-d8 47 . .l:!.g7-g8+ .l:!.h8xg8 48 . .l:!.g1xg8+ �d8-e7 49.e4xd5 �c8xa6 50J:tg8-g7+ �e7-d8 51.f5-f6 �c7-d6 52.c3-c4 �d6-f8 53 . .l:!.g7xa7 �a6-c8 54.�e2-f3 �f8-d6 55.�f3-e4 �d8-e8 56 . .l:!.a7-h7 �c8-d7 57 . .l:!.h7-h8+ �d6-f8 58.�e4xe5 b6-b5 1-0

Game No 45 [C48J Rublevsky,Sergey Bacrot,Etienne World Cup, Khanty-Mansisk 2005

1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. tt:lg1-f3 tt:lb8-c6 3. tt:lb1-c3 tt:Jg8-f6 4. �f1-b5 tt:Jc6-d4 5. �b5-a4 c7-c6 6. tt:Jf3xe5

The principled continuation. In the event of 6 .d3 ?! bS 7 .�b3 tt:lxb3 8 . axb3 d6 9 . 0-0 �e7 White cannot count on more than equality. However, the outwardly harmless 6 .0-0 contains more poison than may at first appear, therefore in this book, we devote some attention to it (see Games 43 and 44) .


6 . ... d7-d6

Later, this move was almost wholly superseded by the more resolute 6 . . . d5 (see Games 46-49) .

7. tt:Je5-f3

Practice has shown that 7 . tt:ld3 bS 8 .�b3 aS 9 .a3 dS ! favours Black. 1 0 .eS tt:le4 1 1 . 0 - 0 tbcS 1 2 .tt:lxc5 �xeS 1 3 .�h 1 ( 1 3 .tt:le2 ? ? �g4-+) 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4.tt:le2 a4 ( 1 4 . . . tt:lxb3 1 5 .cxb3 d4 1 6 .d3) 1 S .�a2 f6 ! , Adams-Kramnik, Linares 1 99 9 .

7 . ... 8. d2-d3

il.c8-g4 d6-d5

9. e4xd5!

The most principled. The alternative is -9.0-0 and now:

E ' '

' '

� � � j_ Ci:J � Ci:J

� � � � � � s: � 'iY � w

Analysis diagram

• Scarcely correct is 9 ... �d6 1 O.exd5 Or 1 0 .eS �c7 ! ? 1 l .exf6 0 -0 ! ? 1 2 .tt:le2 �xf3 (no better is 1 2 . . . tt:lxf3 + 1 3 .gxf3

1 4 1

The F o u r Knights Game

�xf3 1 4 . 'ti' d2 'ti'xf6 I S .lbg3 'ti'h4 1 6 .'ti'e3 - Black's compensation for the piece is insufficient) 1 3 . gxf3 lbxf3 + 1 4 .'it>g2 'ti'xf6 I S .ltJg3 ltJh4+ 1 6 .'it>h l lbf3 1 7 .c3 .l:f.ae8 1 8 .iii.c2 - Black does not have full compensation for the piece. 1 o ... �xf3 1 1 .gxf3 0-0 1 2.dxc6 'tWas 1 3 .'it>g2 bxc6 1 4.�e3 ; e Satisfactory for Black is 9 •.• b5 1 O.�b3 b4 1 1 .lt:Jb1 dxe4 1 2.dxe4 ltJxf3+ 1 3.gxf3 'ti'xd1 1 4 • .l:f.xd1 �xf3 1 5 • .l:f.e1 ltJd7 1 6.�f4 Also good is 1 6 .ltJd2 ltJeS 1 7 . .l:f.e3 ?! (preferable is 1 7 .lbc4 lbxc4 1 8 .hc4 �cS 1 9 .�e3 �e7 ( 1 9 . . . �d6 20 .eS;!;) 20 .�f4 and White is slightly better) 1 7 . . . �hS 1 8 . .:!.g3 �d6 ( 1 8 . . . 0-0-0 ! ?) 1 9 .f4 ltJg6 20 .ltJc4 (20.e5 .tcS + 2 I .'it>fl .l:f.d8 2 2 .c3 bxc3 2 3 .bxc3;!;) 20 . . . �4 2 l . .l:!.xg6 Le i 22 . .l:f.xg7 (22 .l:!.xc6=) 22 . . . iii.h6 23 .ltJd6+ (23 .l:!.g3=) 23 . . . 'it>d7+ 24.l:!.xf7+ L£7 25 .ltJxf7 .l:f.hg8+ 26 .�hl �f4 2 7 .l:!.fl .l:tg4 28 .h3 .l:f.h4 29 .l:!.f3 .l:f.e8 30 . .l:f.d3 + 'it>c7 3 l ..l:f.d4 �e3 32 .l:!.xb4 l:!.g8 3 3 . .te6 .l:!.f4 34.�g4 l:!.x£7 0- 1 , V Kozlov-Turov, Moscow 2007 . 1 6 ... �e7 1 7.ltJd2 �5 1 8.tbc4;!; 0-0 1 9.ltJa5 .l:f.ac8 20.lt:Jb7 c5 2 1 .�c4 2 I...t d6 ! ? hd6 22 .lbxd6 .l:f.c7 23 .eS;!;. 2 1 . •. ltJb6 2 I . . ..l:!.c6=. 22.�b5 c4 23.a4 bxa3 24.bxa3 c3 25.ltJa5 l:rc5 26.a4 lbxa4 2 7.ltJc6 �g5 28.�d6 .l:txb5 29.� � 30 . .l:txa4 �d2 3 1 ..l:!.xa7 g6 32 . .!:i.ea1 � 33 • .1:!.7a4 .!::!.g5+ 34.'it>fl 'it>g8 35.l::!.c4 l:lli5 36.ltJd4 h4 3 7.lbe6 fxe6 38 • .!::!.xe4 'it>£7 39.h4 'it>f6 40.'it>e2 e5 4 1 .l::!.a5 'it>e6 42 • .!::!.b5 h6 43.f3 'it>f6 44 • .!::!.c5 'it>e6 45.'it>f2 'it>f6 46 . .:!.a4 'it>B 47 . .l:f.c6 ..t£4 48 . .1:i.aa6 .l:f.xh4 49 • .!::!.£6+ \t>gs 50.l:rxg6+ \t>h5 5 l ..l:f.g2 .l:th1 52.l::tc6 .l:f.d1 53 .l::txc3 .l:td2+ 54.\t>fl .l:f.d1 + 55.\t>£2 draw, Vallejo Pons-Z. Almasi, Tripoli Wch 2004; • 9 . • • dxe4 1 0.lbxe4 Worthy of attention is I O .dxe4 �xf3 I l .gxf3 bS

1 42

( 1 1 . . . 'ti'b6 ! ? 1 2.. �e3 �cS ) 1 2 .�b3 �cS 1 3 .e5 ltJd7 ! ? ( 1 3 . . . "iVd7 ? 1 4 .exf6 0-0-0 1 S .'it>g2 !+- Nunn-Kristensen, Vejle 1 994) 1 4 . .l:f.e l 'ti'c7 I S .f4 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the piece. 1 0 ... lbxe4 1 1 ..l:!.e 1 White gets nothing from 1 l .dxe4? ! �xf3 1 2 .gxf3 'ti'f6 1 3 .f4 'ti'g6+ 1 4 .'it>h l 0-0-0 with a good game for Black.

Analysis diagram

A) Black does not equalise after 1 1 . .. 1hf3 1 2 .gxf3 'ii'f6 1 3 Jhe4+ �e7 1 4 .f4 0-0-0 I S . .te3;!;; B) Nor has the following line proved

justified: 1 1 ...B 1 2 .c3 ltJxf3+ 1 3 .gxf3 .ths 1 4.dxe4 'ifxdl I S .bdl 0-0-0 1 6.e5 gS 1 7 .'it>g2 f4 1 8 .�c2 �g6 1 9 .hg6 hxg6 20.e6 .te7 2 I .b3 .l:!.d3 22 .c4 .l:f.e8 23 .�b2 .tb4 24 . .l:f.e4 .!::!.d2 25 .�6 �cs 26 .. l:tfl .l:f.xa2 2 7 .bg5 .l:!.b2 28 . .txf4 l:txb3 29 . .l:f.dl .l:f.d8 30 . .l:f.ee l �e7 3 1 .l:txd8+ 'it>xd8 32 .h4 .l:td3 3 3 .l:tb l b6 34.�b8 �4 35 .�7 'it>e7 3 6.l:txb6 .l:!.d6 3 7 .c5 l:txe6 38 .�b8 Wf6 39 .�d6 .l:.e2 40.l:txc6 <;i;>f) 4l .�g3 hg3 42.'it>xg3 l:k2 43 . .l:f.c8 Wf6 44.f4 l:tc3+ 4S .'it>g4 'it>e6 46.'it>g5 'it>d7 47 . .l:f.a8 l:txcS+ 48.'it>xg6 .l:tc6+ 49 .'it>g7 l:tcS SO . .l:f.a4 l:tdS S l ..l:f.e4 1 -0 , Acs-Pavasovic, Neum t t 2000 .

C) 1 1 . .. �e7 12 . .!::!.xe4 lbxf3+ 1 3 .gxf3 �f5 1 4 . .l:te5 �e6 1 4 . . . 'ti'd7 I S .'ti'e i ;!; 1 5 • ..ib3 ..ixb3 1 6.axb3 0-0 1 7.'ti'e2 �d6 1 8.l::!.e4 'ti'c7 1 9.\t>g2 !

Analysis diagram

19 ••• £'5?! 20J:te6 �xh2? !± 21..:te7 't!Vd6 2 2 • .:ta4! 2 2.lhb 7 .:tfe8 ! with counterplay. 22 .•• .:tf6 2 2 ... .:tf7 2 3 . .:te6 'ifc7 24.f4+-. 23.�g5 .:tg6 2 3 . . . .:tf7 24 . .:te6 'ifb8 2 5.f4 h6 2 6.�xh6 !+-. 24 • .:te8+ �f7 24 ... .:txe8 25 .'ifxe8+ 'iff8 2 6.'ifxf8 + �xf8 2 7.�xh2 .:txg5 2 8 ..l:ha7 b5 2 9 . .:tc7 ! .:tg6 3 0.b4 ! .:td6 3 l .b3 h6 3 2.'iiig3 g5 3 3.f4±. 25.'ife7+ 'ifxe7 2 6 . .:txe7+ �g8 27.�xh2 .l:f.xgS? !+- More stubborn is 2 7 ... b5 28 . .:taxa7 .:txa7 29 . .:txa7 .:txg5 30 . .:tc7 l:l.g6 3 I .b4±. 28.l:l.xb7 aS 29.l:te7 cS 30.f4 l:tg4 31.£'3 .:th4+ 32.�g3 l:th1 33.J::tes .:ta6 34 • .:txf5 .:tah6 35.l:bc5 l:t 1 h2 36Jbxa5 .:t6h3+ 37.�g4 .l:lh4+ 38.�f5 h6 39.�e4 I -0 , MotylevGrischuk, Moscow 200 I .

Back to the game.

9 . ... ttJf6xd5


10. 0-0

Mistaken is I 0. tLlxd4? �xd I I 1 . tLlxc6 tt:lxc3 (Black can win at once by I I ... bxc6 ! I 2.�xc6+ �e7 I 3 .tLlxd5 + �d6 I 4.�xa8 'ifxa8 I 5.tLle3 �h5-+) 1 2.tLlxd8+ tLlxa4 I 3 .tLlxf7 �xf7 + , Nijboer-Fernandez Garcia , Linares zt I 995 .

10 . ... �f8-e7

Black can perfectly well go into the line 1 0 ... tt:lxc3!? 1 1 .bxc3 tt:lxf3 + 12.gxf3 �e6 13.�b3 White has nothing better. 13 .. . �d6 14.�xe6 Maybe it makes sense for White to play I 4.f4 0-0 I 5.'iff3 'iff6 I 6.�d2 .:tae8 1 7 . .:tfe i , where his advantage is not great , but he at least has an extra pawn in a quiet position. 14 ... fxe6 Worse is I 4 ... 'ifh4 I 5 .�xf7 + �xf7 I 6.f4 .l:lhe8 I 7.'iff3;!;. 15.'ii'e2 'iff6 I 5 ... 0 -0 I 6.'ifxe6+ �h8 I 7.'ifg4! ?;!;. 1 6 . .l:le1 I 6 . .:tb i 0-0-0=. 16 .. . �d7 17 J:tb 1 b6 1 8.a4 In the event of the natural I 8.'ti'e4 .:thf8 I 9.�g2 ( I 9.f4 g5=) I 9 .. J:tf7 White has too many weaknesses to count on anything real. 1 8 . . . .:the8 Also sufficient is I 8 ... .:thf8 I 9.a5 'ifg6+ 20.�fl 'iff5 2 I .'ife4 'ifxa5=. 19.'ii'e4 'ifxc3 20.�b2 'ifcs White has no particular hopes of a win here.

11. .:tf1-e1 12. ttJc3xd5

0-0 c6xd5

Another line which has been tried is 12 .. . 'ii'xd5 13 . .:txe7 tt:lxf3+ 14.gxf3 �xf3 15.'t!Vd2 I 5 .'ife i 'ifd4 I 6 . .:te4 ( I 6 .'ife5 'ifxa4 I 7 .'iff4 'ifxf4 I 8 .�xf4 .:tfe 8 I 9 . .:tae i .:txe 7 2 0 Jhe7 b6=) I 6 .. Jhe8 ! I 7 .�b3 �xe4 I 8.dxe4 .:txe4 I 9 .'iffl ( I 9 .�e3 .:tg4+ 2 0.�fl 'ife4=F) I 9 ... .:tfe8=F. 15. . J:tae8

I 43


Analysis diagram

• 1 6 . .tb3 'iY d8 1 7 .. lhe8 �xe8 1 8 . .txf7 + 'lt>xf7 1 9 .'i¥f4+ 'i¥f6 2 0.'i!Vxf6+ 'lt>xf6 2 1 .�e3 a6=, BerkesGyimesi , Heviz ch-HUN 2003 . • An obvious improvement i s 1 6.'i!Vg5 ! 'i!Vd4 1 7.�b3 h6 1 8 . .txf7+ There is no particular sense in 1 8. 'i1V fS �xe 7 1 9.'i!Vxf3 �e 1 + 2 0.'lt>g2 with a position that is hard to assess. 1 8 . . . \t>hS 1 8 ... �xf7 1 9.�xe8 + 'lt>h7 2 0.'iVeS+-. 1 9.'i!Ve3 'i!Vg4+ 20.\t>fl .tg2+ Best. 2 0 ... 'i!Vg2 + 2 l .'lt>e 1 'i!Vg 1 + 2 2.\t>d2+-. 2 1 .\t>el 'i!Vb4+ 22.�d2 'i!Vxe7 23 .�xe8 �xeS 24.'i!Vxe7 �xe7+ 25 .�e3±

13. c2-c3 �g4xf3!?

The game Acs-Gelfand, Warsaw tt 2 003 , saw White obtain the advantage : 1 3 ... 4Jxf3 + 1 4.gxf3 �hS 1 S.�eS 'i!Vd6 1 6 .d4 'i¥f6 1 7.'t!Vd3 !;t 'ifh4 1 8.'iYfs g6 1 9.'i¥f4 �fd8 20.�e 1 'iVf6 2 l .'lt>g2 gS 2 2.'t!Vg3 �g6 23 .'iYeS 't!VxeS 24.�xeS �f6 2S .�xgS �xeS 2 6.�xd8 �xd4 2 7.�h4 �b6 28.�d l �d8 29.�g3 a6 3 0.�xdS bS 3 l .�b3 �f6 3 2.�eS 'lt>g7 3 3 .�xf6+ 'lt>xf6 34.\t>g3 l::[g8 3 S.'lt>f4 �e8 3 6.�d6+ 'lt>g7 3 7 .�xa6 �e2 3 8.�b6 �xfl 3 9.\t>g3 �xb2 40.�xbS �b l 4 l .�dS 'lt>f6 42.�d 1 �b2 43.c4 �b 1 44.cS �xa2 4S .�xa2 �xa2 46.�c l 'lt>e7 47 .c6 \t>d8 48.h4 'lt>c7 49.�c4 �a 1 S O.'lt>g4 �g l + S l .\t>fs �g3 S 2.'lt>f4 �g6 S 3.hS �e6 S4 .\t>gs h6+

1 44

S S.'lt>fS �d6 S 6.f4 �e6 S 7.�e4 �xc6 S 8.�e7+ 'lt>d8 S 9.�xf7 'lt>e8 60.�f6 �c 1 6 l .�xh6 'lt>f7 62 .�h 7 + 'lt>g8 63.�a7 llh l 64.'lt>g6 �g l + 6S.'lt>f6 l:!.h l 66.fS .l:.h2 6 7.�g7+ 'lt>h8 68.�gS 'lt>h7 69.'lt>f7 l:!.a2 7 0.�g 7 + 'lt>h6 7 1 .l:rg6+ 'iiiixhs 72 J:te6 l:!.a7 + 7 3 .�e7 �a6 74.f6 'iiiih6 7 S .�e6 �a8 7 6.�e8 �a7+ 7 7.\t>e6 �a6+ 7 8 .\t>fs �aS + 79 .�eS l:!.a8 80 . .l:i.dS 'iiiih7 8 l .�d7+ 'lt>h6 8 2.�d l 'lt>h7 83 .�h l + 'lt>g8 84.\t>g6 �a7 8 S.�d 1 �g7+ 86.fxg7 draw, Acs-Gelfand, Warsaw t t 2 0 0 3.

14. g2xf3 4Jd4-e6 15. f3-f4

1 S .d4 �d6 ! (also good is l S ... �gS 1 6.�eS �f4 1 7 .�xf4 tLlxf4 with good compensation for the exchange) 1 6.f4 'i!Vh4=F.

15 . ... 16. f4-f5

d5-d4 4Je6-c5

'Because of the weakened position of his king, White can hardly play for a win' -

L Kritz. I think this judgement is only partly correct, because for the moment, and indeed for the rest of the game, the white king is not actually attacked ...

17. �a4-c2 18. 'i¥d1-f3 19. �e1xe8+ 20. �c1-d2

�f8-e8 �e7-f6 'ii'd8xe8

Thus, White has almost completed his development , retained his extra pawn and his king is not currently under any attack, since all of Black's play is directed at the queenside.

20. 21. .l:i.a1-b1

22. 'itf3-d5?1

'it'e8-b5 'i¥b5-a5

Now the draw comes about by force. After 2 2 . a4 ! ? tt::lxa4 (22 . . . dxc3 2 3 .bxc3 �xc3 24 .l::r.b 5 +- ; 2 2 . . . 'it'c7 2 3 .b4 tt::ld7 24 .c4±) 2 3 .'it'xb7 tt::lb6 24.�b3 .l:i.f8 25 . .l:i.e 1 ± White would retain winning chances.

22 ... .l:i.a8-d8 23.b2-b4 .l:i.d8xd5 24.b4xa5 d4xc3 25.�d2-e3 �f6-d4 26.�e3xd4 .l:i.d5xd4 27 . .l:i.b1-b5 tt::Jc5xd3 28 . .l:i.b5xb7 Wg8-f8 29 . .l:i.b7xa7 tt::ld3-b4 30.�c2-b3 c3-c2 31.�b3xc2 tt::Jb4xc2 32.a5-a6 .l:i.d4-a4 33 . .l:i.a7-c7 .l:i.a4xa6 34 . .l:i.c7xc2

Game No 46 [C48] Nikel Kireev Correspondence 2005

1. e2-e4 2. tt::lg1-f3

1f2-1f2

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6


3. tt::lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-a4 6. tt::lf3xe5

tt::Jg8-f6 tt::Jc6-d4 c7-c6 d7-d51

In recent years , this move has achieved great popularity, by comparison with 6 . . . d6 (see the previous game) .

7. e4xd5 �f8-d6 8. d5xc6

Nor are things so simple after 8.tt:lf3 !? �g4!? Worthy of attention i s 8 . . .'ti'e7 9 .Wfl tt::lxf3 (if 9 . . . �g4 ! ? 1 0 .dxc6 0-0-0 1 1 .h3 �xf3 1 2 .gxf3 Black still has to show that he has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed material) 1 O .'i!Vxf3 bS 1 1 .�b3 b4 1 2 .tt::le2 �g4 1 3 .'i¥e3 tt::lxdS 1 4 .'iYxe 7 + Wxe 7 . 9.dxc6 bxc6 A transposition of moves occurs after 9 . . . 0 -0 1 0 .d3 bxc6 . 1 0.d3 0-0 1 1 .�e3 .l:i.e8 . Black has enough compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

8 . ... 9. tt::Je5-c4

0-0 b7-b51?

Worthy of consideration is 9 . . . .l:i.e8+ 1 o.tt::le3 1 o . Wfl bxc6 with obvious compensation for the pawn. 1 o ... bxc6 1 1 .d3 1 1 . 0 -0 ? �xh2+ 1 2 .Wxh2 tt::lg4+ 1 3 .tt::lxg4 'ifh4+ 1 4.Wg 1 �xg4 1 5 .f3 �xf3 1 6 . .l:i.xf3 tt::lxf3 + 1 7 .gxf3 .l:i.e6 ! + 1 1 . . . �c7 ! ? 1 2 .h3 1 2 . 0 - 0 �xh 2 + ( 1 2 . . . 'i¥d6 1 3 .f4 'iVcS probably also

145


gives Black enough counterplay ) 1 3 .�xh2 tt:Jg4+ 1 4 .tt:Jxg4 'ir'h4+ 1 5 .�g 1 �xg4 1 6 .f3 ti:Jxf3 + 1 7 .l:hf3 .ixf3 1 8 .gxf3 l:i.e l + ( 1 8 . . . 'ir'g3 +=) 1 9 .'ir'xe 1 'ifxe 1 + 20 .�g2 hS (it seems Black is not risking a lot) 2 1 .l:i.b 1 h4 2 2 .�f4 'ir'e6 2 3 .l:i.h 1 'ir'f6 24 . .id2 'ifg6+ 2 S .�fl l:i.e8 2 6 .ti:Je4 (26 ..l:hh4 'ir'g3 2 7 .l:i.f4 gS 2 8 . l:i.e4 'ifxf3 + 2 9 . �e 1 l:i.xe4+ 3 0 .ti:Jxe4 g4+) 2 6 . . . l:i.xe4 2 7 .fxe4 'ir'g3 2 8 .�e 1 'iff3 + 29 .�g 1 gS 3 0 .l:i.h2 h3 3 1 . .ixc6 g4 3 2..�.d5 'ir'd 1 3 3 .�fl 'iVf3 + 34 .c.t>g 1 = .

10 . .ia4xb5

A forced draw results from 1 O .ti:JxbS itg4 1 1 . f3 .ixf3 1 2 . gxf3

Analysis diagram

1 2 . . . ti:Je4 ! 1 3 .ti:Jxd4 'ifh4+ 1 4.�e2 'iff2+ 1 5 .�d3 ti:JcS + 1 6 .�c3 ti:Jxa4+ 1 7 .�d3 draw, Degraeve-Koch, Auxerre ch-FRA 1 996 .

10 . ... 11. tt:Jc4xd6 12. h2-h3 13. �e1-f1 14. �f1-g1 15. g2xf3 16. �g1-f1 17. h3-h4 18. tt:Jc3xb5 19. d2-d3

1 46

ti:Jf6-g4 'ifd8xd6 l:i.f8-e8+ tt:Jg4-h2+ ti:Jh2-f3+ 'iVd6-g6+ 'ifg6-h5 tt:Jd4xb5 'ifh5xb5+ 'fkb5xc6

The forced play is over. White has three ( ! ) extra pawns , but one cannot conclusively pronounce the position in his favour. His king is chronically weak, his heavy pieces are not playing, whilst the opposite coloured bishops strengthen the black attack and add to White's headaches.

20. l:i.h1-h2

2 0 . .ie3 does not promise an easy life, eg. 2 0 . . . l:i.b8 2 1 .b3 �g4 2 2 .�g2 l:i.bS 2 3 .�g3 .ihs 24 .l:i.h3 l:i.fs 2 s .�g2 l:i.e6 2 6 .�h2 �xf3 and White is in trouble.

20 . ... 'i¥c6-g6

It is hard to judge the play of players , equipped with more powerful computers than the author. However, from the viewpoint of a carbon-based player, Black's last move looks rather abstract. I would prefer to attack something : 20 . . . l:i.b8 2 1 .b3 l:i.bS 2 2 . .ie3 l:i.hS , or 2 0 . . . 'iff6 2 1 .�g 1 .td.b8 2 2 .l:i.b 1 l:i.b6 2 3 .h5 �b7 . Black has counterplay, but it is a big question whether it is worth three pawns.

21. h4-h5

Not allowing the queen to hS . The position after 2 1 .�e3 'ifhS 2 2 .�g2 .ib7 2 3 .l:i.h3 l:i.e6 24 .l:i.g3 l:i.f6 does indeed look very dangerous for White.

21 . ... 22. <iitf1-g1 23. h5-h6 24. l:!:h2-g2

'iVg6-d6 ..tc8-b7 l:!:e8-e6 l:!:e6-g6

White is currently playing without a bishop and a rook.

25. �c1-e3

2 5 .'iVe2 �c6 followed by l:!:e8 looks very dangerous for White. Then 2 5 .hxg 7 l:!:xg 2 + 2 6.<iitxg2 'ifg 6 + 2 7 . <iitfl 'ifhs is simply bad.

25. ... 'ifd6-f6 26. l:!:g2xg6 h7xg6

27. h6xg7?

So is this the fatalism of a man armed with a computer? Of course, the opposite bishops are unpleasant for White, but I do not see a forced loss for him , for example : 2 7 .<iitg2 gxh6 2 7 ... l:!:d8 ! ? 2 8 .'ife2 gxh6 2 9.�d2 (2 9.l:!:h l gS 3 0.<iitg l l:!:d6 3 l .l:!:h3 'ifxb2 3 2.�xa7 l:!:e6 3 3 .�e3 'ifxa2) 29 ... 'ii'd4 3 0 . <iitg3 gS ( 3 0 . . . 'ifxb 2 3 l .'if e 7 'ifxa l 3 2 .'ifxd8 + <lith7 3 3 .'ife7 �dS =) 3 1 Jig I 'ifh4+ 3 2.<iitg2 ..tc6. 28.d4 'iffs 29 .c4 'ifg4+ 30.<iith2 1t'h4+ 3 1 .<iitg l .C.e8 32.d5 'ii'xc4 33.d6 , and White is holding.


27 . ... 28. 'ii'd1-d2 29. �e3xa7

Game No 47 [C48] Ivanchu.k, Vasily Caruana,Fabiano Biel 2009 (3)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-a4 6. tt:Jf3xe5 7. d2-d3

�b7xf3 'ii'f6-h4 'ii'h4-h1 # 0-1

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d41? c7-c6 d7-d5

7.exd5 �d6 8 .dxc6 is Game 46.

7 . ... .if8-d6 8. tt:Je5-f3

8.f4 practically disappeared from use after White 's terrible defeat in Rublevsky-Mamedyarov, Foros 2 0 0 6 : 8 .. . .ic5! 9.exd5 0-0 I O.t2Je4 I O.dxc6 ? ! bxc6 I I .<iitfl l:!:e8 1 2.h3 'ii'd6 with more than enough compensation for the sacrificed pawns. 1 O • . • tt:Jxe4 l l .dxe4 'ii'h4+ 1 2.g3 'ii'h3 1 3.�e3 1t'g2 White has serious problems already. 1 4J:tgl 'ii'xe4 1 5.<iitf2 .C.e8 1 6.'ii'd3

1 47


Analysis diagram

1 6 ... .llxe5 ! 1 7.fxe5 'i!Vf3+ 1 8.<t>e1 !li.fs 1 9 . .llfl �b4+ 20.c3 �xd3 2 1 .llxf3 ttJx£'3+ 22.<t>f2 tLlxh2 23 .cxb4 tt:lg4+ 24.<t>f3 tbxe5 + White has no compensation for the lost material .

8 . ... 9. �c1-e3

�c8-g41? ttJd4xf3+

Worth consideration is 9 •.. �c5 ! ? 1 O.hd4 If 1 O .exdS .ixf3 1 l .gxf3 tLlxdS 1 2 .tLle4 �b6 Black has enough compensation. 1 0 ... �xd4 1 1 .'i!Vd2 .b£'3 1 2.gxf3 b5 1 2 . . . 0-0 deserves serious attention: 1 3 . 0-0-0 (probably better is 1 3 .tLld 1 , but here too, after 1 3 . . . 'i!Vd6 ! ? 1 4.c3 .ib6 it is difficult for White to find a safe square for his king: 1 S .tLle3 ( 1 5 .�c2 .llad8 1 6 .d4 dxe4 1 7 .fxe4 tbxe4, winning back the c-pawn with a good game) 1 S . . . 'i!Vf4 with mutual chances) 1 3 . . . a5 1 4.tLle2 .Lf2. 1 5 .llhf1 �a? 1 6 .c3 bS 1 7 .�c2 d4 with comfortable play for Black.

Analysis diagram

1 48

• On 1 3 .�b3 ! ? (Shirov) it is possible to play 1 3 ... a5 and now:

A) 1 4.a3 0-0 with chances for both sides. White 's extra pawn is not really felt.

B) Shirov gives the variation 1 4.a4 b4 1 5 .tLle2 �xb2 1 6.llb 1 .tes 1 7.f4 After 1 7 .d4 ..tc? 1 8 .e5 tLld7 1 9 . f4 0-0 2 0 .c3 .llb8 Black should not be much worse ; White has too many pawn weaknesses. 1 7 . . . !ll..c7 1 8 .e5 tt:lh5 Also quite solid is 1 8 . . . tLlg4 1 9 .d4 'i!Vh4 2 0 .tLlg3 0 - 0 . 1 9.d4 'i!Vh4 1 9 . . . 0 -0 ! ? . 20.c4 bxc3 2 1 .'i!Vxc3 0-0 22 .'ihc6 with advantage to White. Without going into great detail , one can say that the final position of Shirov 's analysis is unclear. Thus , there could follow 22 ... ttJxf4

• •

Analysis diagram

23 .'i!Vc3 2 3 .tLlxf4 'i!fxf4 , and on account of the threat of . . . 'tW e4+ and . . .'i!Vxd4 only White can have problems , whilst 2 3 .�xd5 tbxe2 24 .<t>xe2 'i!Vxd4+ is simply bad. 2 3 ... tbxe2 24.<t>xe2 .llac8 , and White is not better. • 1 3 .tLlxb5 ! ? cxb5 1 4.�xb5 + tLld7 1 5 .c3 �b6 1 6.d4 dxe4 1 6 . . . 0 -0 ! ? . 1 7 .fxe4 0-0 1 8.0-0-0 .llbs 1 9J:tdg1 tLlf6 20.e5 Now Black has an interesting piece sacrifice :

Analysis diagram

20 . . . i..xd4 ! ? 2 0 . . . tt:ld5 2 1 .'ii'h6 g6 2 2 . .l:i.g3 'iVc7 2 3 . .l:i.h3 f6 24.il.c4 ! .l:i.bd8 2 5 . .l:i.g 1 with good compensation : 2 5 . . . 'ii'g 7 2 6 .'ti'd2 'iVe7 ( 26 . . . .l:i.fe8 2 7 .exf6 'ti'xf6 2 8 . .l:i.h5 'iYc6 2 9 .i..b3±) 27 . .l:i.h5 ! ? f5 2 8 .h4 - White 's attack is dangerous. 2 1 .exf6 'ifxf6 22.'ii'xd4 'iYxd4 23.cxd4 .l:i.xbS 24 . .l:i.d1 , and White gradually realised his extra pawn, Shirov-I. Sokolov, Linares 1 99 5 .

10. g2xf3 il.g4-h5 11. e4xd5

11. . .. 0-0

In the opinion of Lebedev, who annotated this game on the website crestbook.com, stronger was 1 1 . .. bS ! ? 1 2.i..b3 b4 1 3.tt:le4 tt:lxdS with compensation for the pawn: • 1 4 . .l:i.g 1 0-0 1 4 . . . tt:lxe3 1 5 . fxe3 'ifh4+ 1 6 .<;;i;>d2;;!;; . 1 S • .l:i.gs tt:Jxe3 1 6.f:xe3 �g6 1 7 .f4 ii.e7 1 8 . .l:i.eS;;!;; - Lebedev.


• More natural seems 1 4.tt:lg3 with the idea:

Analysis diagram

A) After 1 4 . . . i..g6 of answering 1 S .f4 tt:lxf4 Or 1 5 . . .'t/Vf6 1 6 .'il''f3 0-0 1 7 . f5 (also good is 1 7 .0 -0-0 tt:lxf4 1 8 .<;;i;>b 1 ) 1 7 . . . tt:lxe3 1 8 . fxe3 �xg 3 + ( 1 8 . . .'ifxb2 ? 1 9 . 0 - 0+-) 1 9 .hxg 3 'ifxf5 20 .'ii'xf5 �xf5 2 I .<;;i;>d2 (the endgame favours White) 1 6.'iYf3 followed by 0 - 0 - 0 , for example 1 6 . . . 0 -0 1 7.0-0-0 'iYf6 1 8.<;;i;>b 1 and White 's position is preferable (analysis) ;

B) 1 4 ... tt:lxe3 1 5 .'iVe2 ! 'ifh4 1 6 .tt:lf5 ! 'iVf6 1 7 . tt:lxd6 + 'iixd6 1 8 . fxe3 ( 1 8 . 'iixe3 +! ?) - Black does not have full compensation for the piece. ;

C) Also after 1 4 ... 'ifh4 1 5 .kxd5 ! ? cxd5 1 6 .tt:lxh5 'ti'xh5 1 7 .f4 Black still faces a fight for a draw.

12. d5xc6 b7xc6 13. .l:i.h1-g11

There is no sense in getting involved in 1 3.�xc6 .l:i.b8 1 4.'iic 1 1 4 .i..xa 7 ? .l:!.xb 2 + ; 1 4 .tt:le4 ! ? tt:lxe4 1 5 .�xe4 .l:i.xb2 , and whatever happens subsequently, the white king will be stuck in the centre for a long time to come, and it is hard for the white rook to come into play. 1 4 ... �eS , and it is impossible to hang onto his ill-gotten gains : 1 S .f4 1 5 .i..e4 'ti'c7 1 6 .d4 (the threat was

1 49


1 6 . . Jhb2) 1 6 . . .<�:Jxe4 1 7 . fxe4 ..tf3 1 8 J:tg l �xh2 1 9 . .l::tg 5 fS with counterplay for Black. 1 5 • . • �xc3+ 1 6.bxc3 'ti'c7 1 7 .�g2 'iYxc3+ with good play for Black.

13 . ... tt:Jf6-d5

This position had already been seen in the game Spraggett-A. David , Casablanca 1 994 , in which there followed 1 3 . . . g6 : • Now the capture 1 4.�xc6 involves less risk; thus, in the variation 1 4 . . . .l::tb8 l S .'it'c l 'it'c7 1 6 . ..te4 �eS (more dangerous for White is 1 6 . . . .txh2 1 7 . .l::tgS .l::tfe8 ! ? , and the extra pawns do not guarantee White an easy life) 1 7 .d4 tbxe4 1 8 .fxe4 the move 1 8 . . . �f3 is not available, unlike in the line given in the note to White 's 1 3 th move ; • However, it looks more sensible to aim for queenside castling : 1 4.l:l.g5! ? ; • Weaker - with the same idea - i s 1 4.'ti'e2 on account of: 14 • • . tt:Jd5 1 4 . . . i.xh2 l S . .l::tg S . 1 5.tt:'le4 1 5 .�xc6 tbxc3 1 6 .bxc3 .l::tc8 1 7 . .te4 .l::txc3 gives Black good counterplay. 1 5 . . . �xh2 1 6 .l:l.h1 'tWaS + 1 7.c3 'iYxa4 1 8 . .l::txh2 fS with sufficient counterplay for Black . 1 4 . . . .l::tb8 1 5.�b3 .l::te8 1 6 .'it'e2 h6 1 6 . . . .txh2 1 7 . 0 - 0 - 0 and , having completed his development , White can count on the

1 5 0

advantage. 1 7 . .l::tg 1 Perfectly possible is 1 7 .l:hh5 ! ? tbxhS 1 8 . 0 - 0 - 0 �xh2 1 9 .tbe4 with fully adequate compensation for the exchange. 1 7 ... �xh2 1 8J:tg2 .tes 1 9 .d4 �xd4 20 .0-0-0 cS 2 1 .'ii'c4 ( 2 1 . .tc4) , and Whi te 's chances are preferable ; • The game saw 1 4 . .tb3? !

Analysis diagram

1 4 .. . �xh2 1 5 • .l::th1 �eS It is interesting to wonder why not immediately 1 5 . . . �c 7 1 6 .'iYe2 'ii'd7 1 7 . 0 - 0 - 0 ( 1 7 .tbe4 'iYfS=) 1 7 . . . 'ii'fs ? 1 6.d4 �c7 1 7.'ife2 'it'd? 1 8.0-0-0 'iYfs 1 9.'tlfd3 'ii'xd3 20 . .l::txd3 �xf3 2 1 . .l::th4 In the ending, White has a small advantage. 2 1 . . . �g2 22.d5 2 2 . .tgS ! ? . 22 • . . tt:Jxd5 2 3 .tbxd5 cxdS 24.�xd5 �xdS 25 . .l::txd5 .tb6 25 . . . .l::tfd8= . 26.�xb6 axb6 27.a4 .l::taS 28 . .l::txa5 bxaS The rook ending is absolutely equal . 29 • .l::td4 hS 30.�d2 l:l.e8 3 1 .c3 l:l.a8 32.'J;>e3 �g7 33 . .l::td5 �f6 34.f4 .l::te8+ 34 . . . l:!.b8= , in particular, the pawn ending arising after 3 S . .l::tb5 .l::txbS 3 6 .axb5 �e6 3 7 .b3 �dS 3 8 .c4+ �cS , is drawn. 35.�£'3 .l:!.b8 36 . .l:!.b5 .l:!.a8 3 6 . . . .l::txb5 3 7 . axbS �e6= . The result is not changed by 3 8 .f5 + gxfS (3 8 . . . �d5 =) 3 9 .b3 h4= . 37.c4 .l::ta7 38 .c5 �e6 39.�e4 1 -0 The result of the game does not fit the final position, which is drawn.

14. tt:Jc3xd5 15. .l:[g1-g5!?

c6xd5 d5-d4?

After this move, the only question about the result of the game is : will White win , or, more likely, will Black manage to scrape a draw? The only way to keep some tension in the position was 1 S .. . g6 1 6 . .l:[:xhS The most resolute, although by no means forced. 1 6 .c3 1 6 . . . d4 ! 1 7 . cxd4 .l:[b8 - Lebedev ; 1 6 .'it>fl ! ? . l 6 . . . gxhS 1 7.'iVd2 White has good positional compensation for the exchange ; all of Black's pawns are weak, and his king position is unsafe. Even so, there is all to play for. A possible continuation, for example, is 1 7 . . . 'iVh4 1 8 .d4 'ilfh3 1 9 .0 -0-0 'ilfxf3 2 0 . .tb3 .txh2 2 1 .�h6 'iii>h8 ! 2 2 .'ti'e3 ! ? (Black's pawns are so weak that even in an ending with an extra exchange, he stands worse) 2 2 . . . 'ilfxe3 + 2 3 .�xe3 .l:[ad8 24 . .l:[h 1 Ylc7 2 S . .l:[xh5 fS 2 6 . .th6 .llf7 2 7 .'it>d2 and the ending favours White ; or 1 7 . . .'iVf6 1 8 . 0-0-0 I::rab8 ( 1 8 . . .'it'xf3 1 9 . .l:[e 1 ) 1 9 .�b3 d4 20 .�h6 �xh2 2 1 . .l:[h 1 with sufficient compensation for the exchange.

16 . .l:[g5xh5 17. f2xe3 18 . .l:[h5-h3

1 8 . .l:[dS ? .tb4+ .

d4xe3 g7-g6


18. 19. 'it>e1-f2 20. d3-d4 21. �a4-b3?!

'iVd8-b6 'iVb6xb2 :a8-c8

More pragmatic is 2 1 . 'iV c 1 'iV c3 2 2 .�b3 .l:[fe8 2 3 . .l:[b 1 ± .

21 . ... .l:[c8xc2+

An excellent chance.

22. 'ti'd1 xc2

The simplest. However, the more fanciful 22...�.xc2 ! ? is also worth considering : 2 2 . . . .l:[c8 2 3 . .l:[c 1 �a3 24 . .l:[h4, bringing the rook into the game : 24 . . . 'iVxc 1 2 5 .'iVxc 1 .txc 1 2 6 .Ylb3 .l:[e8 2 7 .e4 .tb2 2 8 .'it>e3 .l:[d8 2 9 .e5 with good winning chances.

22. 23. f3-f4 24. 'iVc2-c4 25. 'iVc4-f1

'iVb2xa1 'iVa1-h1 a7-a5 'ilfh1 xf1 +

The essence of things is not changed by 2 5 . . . 'ilfc6 26 . .l:[f3 (closing the black queen's line of penetration - 2 6 .f5 ! ?) 2 6 . . . .l:[b8 (26 . . . .l:[c8 2 7 .'iVd 1 with an extra pawn and a stable position) 2 7 .'iVc4 (2 7 .fS ! ?) 2 7 . . . 'iVxc4 2 8 . .txc4 .l:[b2+ 29 .'iii>g 1 - the character of the play is not very different from what occurred in the game.

151


26. Wf2xf1 Wg8-g7 27. f4-f5

An interesting practical chance. After the 'normal ' 2 7 .We2 f5 2 8 J:[g3 l:!.c8 White 's win is also problematic.

27 . ... 28. �b3-c2

g6xf5 .l:rf8-c8?!

More drawing chances were offered by 2 8 . . . .l:rb8 ! 2 9 .�xf5 h6 followed by . . . .l:rb2 - Lebedev.

29. �c2xf5 30. Wf1-e2

3 0 . . . .l:ra 1 ! ? .

31. �f5-e4 32. .l:rh3-h4 33 . .l:rh4-g4+ 34. h2-h3 35. �e4-d5 36. we2-d3 37 . .l:rg4-g8 38 . .l:rg8-a8

3 8 . e4! ? .

.l:rc8-c1+ h7-h6?!

a5-a4 a4-a3 Wg7-f6 �d6-c7 .l:rc1-c2+ .l:rc2-f2 �c7-d6

38 ... Wf6-g7 39 . .l:ra8-a6 �d6-b4 40 . .l:ra6-a7 �b4-f8 41.e3-e41+h6-h5 42.Wd3-e3 .l:rf2-f6 43.e4-e5 .l:rf6-f5 44. We3-e4 .l:rf5-f2 45.We4-e3 .l:rf2-f5 46.We3-e4 .l:!.f5-f2 47.e5-e6! Wg7-g6 48.We4-e3 .l:!.f2-f1 49.We3-e2 1-0

Game No 48 [C48] Gormally,Daniel Hebden,Mark Newport 2004 (3)

1. e2-e4 2. 4::lb1-c3 3. 4::lg1-f3 4. �f1-b5

! 52

e7-e5 4::lg8-f6 4::lb8-c6 4::lc6-d4

5. �b5-a4 6. 4::lf3xe5 7. d2-d3 8. tt:Je5-f3 9. g2xf3

c7-c6 d7-d5 �f8-d6 4::ld4xf3+ 0-0

In this position , other logical moves require to be analysed, for instance 9 . . . aS or 9 . . . b5 .

The position in the diagram has not been investigated very deeply and conceals many surprises. In this connection, I would like to suggest a couple of ideas.

10. �a4-b3

A colourless move. White obviously fears the loss of this bishop. e White quickly fell into a bad position in the game L. Vajda-Bluvshtein, Budapest 200 7 : 1 0.�e2 tt:lhS 1 0 . . . dxe4 ! ? l l .dxe4 'ti'e7 1 2 .�e3 .l:!.d8 with a comfortable position for Black. l l .c3 �h4 1 2.�e3 fS 1 3 .exd5? 1 3 .�b3 ! ? 1 3 ...f4 1 4.�cl �d7 1 5.�b3 �ae8 1 6.dxc6+ �e6 1 7JWxb7 tt:lg3 ! l S . .I:!.g l 1 8 .fxg3 fxg3 1 9 .Wd l 'i\Yxa4+ 20 .b3 �aS -+ ; 1 8 .�xf4 tt:lxh l -+ . 1 8 . . . �xh2 -+ 1 9.c7 .Jld7 20.�e3 �xa4 2 1 .�d5+ Wh8 22 .�xd6 J:l.f6 2 3 .c8� l:!.xc8 24.�e5 J:l.e8 2S .�c7 g6 25 . . Jhe3 2 6 . l:!.xg3 ( 2 6 .�d8 + .l:!.e 8 -+) 26 . . . l:!.xe2+ 2 7 .Wxe2 .l:re6+ 2 8 .Wfl fxg3 -+ .

Analysis diagram

26.lhg3 ! fxe3 27 .fxe3 l:h£'3 28.'iha7 l:tfl 29 .'it'd4+ �g8 30.'�d5 + �g7 3 1 .'ti'd4+ �g8 draw; • 1 0.i.g5 ! ? The author's suggestion. This move has not been seen in practice :

A) 1 O ... l:te8 and now: A I ) 1 1 .'Yi'd2 h6 1 2 .i.xh6 ! ? gxh6

1 3 .'Yi'xh6 �f5 1 4.0-0-0 i.g6 1 5 .l:tdg1 'i¥c7

Analysis diagram

A confused position results from 1 6.tt:le2 1 6 .�b l .l:f.e5 1 7 .l:txg6+ fxg6 1 8 .l:tg l i.f8 1 9 .l:txg6+ �g7 20 .'i!Yh4 �f7 2 1 .'Yi'g 3 . 1 6 ... i.f8 1 7.'i!Yh4 b5 1 8 . .ib3 fi.e7 1 9.'ti'h6 .if'S 20.'ili'h4 Playing for a win in this position involves great risk for both sides ;

A2 ) 1 1 .i.xf6 'ifxf6 1 2 .tt:lxd5 'ti'xb2-+ ;

A 3 ) 1 1 .tLlxd5 cxd5 I f l l . . .'iVa5 + 1 2 .'iYd2 'iYxd5 1 Ltxf6 'iYf5 1 4 . .id4 'iYxf3 1 5 .l:tg l g6 1 6 .'iVh6 �e5


1 7 . .ixe5 l:txe5 1 8 .'iYe3 'iVf6 Black does not have full compensation for the pawn. 1 2.�xe8 'tlfxe8 1 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 4.l:tg 1 + �h8 1 5 .'tlfd2 'tiffS 1 6.exd5 b5 - chances are balanced;

B) 1 O .. . d4?! At first glance, this simply wins a piece. 1 1 .tLle2 'li'a5+ Or l l . . . h6 1 2 . .id2 with chances for both sides; Black has compensation, but it is easier to defend in a closed position and a pawn is a pawn. 1 2.'li'd2 .ib4 In fact, he cannot win a piece : 1 2 . . . 'i¥xa4? 1 3 .ihf6 gxf6 1 4.l:tg l + �h8 1 5 .'ifh6+- . 1 3 .c3 �e7 1 4.�xf6 i.xf6 1 5 .i.b3 dxc3 1 6.bxc3 White has a strong centre and an extra pawn, and Black does not have any obvious threats. Even so, the position still looks fairly unclear.

C) 1 O ... h6 1 1 .1i.e3 This is the idea of the move 1 0 . .ig 5 . Having forced a weakening of Black's kingside, White prepares a sacrifice on h6 . 1 1 ... l:te8 1 I . . . .tb4 ! ? . 1 2 .'ii' d2 1 2 . l:tg l ! ? . 1 2 ... i.h3 1 3.0-0-0 b5 1 4.1i.b3 1i.g2

Analysis diagram

1 5 .i.xh6 ! ? fi.x£'3 1 6 . .l:f.hg1 tt:lg4 If 1 6 . . . g6 1 7 .exd5 cxd5 1 8 .l:tde l b4 1 9 .tt:la4 tt:lg4 20Jhe8+ 'tlfxe8 2 1.. �f4 White 's position is preferable. 1 7.lhg4 .ixg4 1 8 .l:tg1 'tifh4 1 9 .£'3 'iixh6 20.'i¥xh6 gxh6 2 1 .exd5 l:tac8 22.dxc6 .l:f.xc6 23 .h3 a6 24.fxg4 White has a small advantage.

15 3

The Four Kni ghts G ame

• 1 0 • .te3 ! ?Less subtle, but perfectly playable. 1 O ••• l:.e8 An unclear game results from I O ... .tb4 I l .a3 �xc3 + 1 2.bxc3 'ifaS 1 3 . ..tb3 'ifxc3 + 1 4 . .td2 'ifes I S .f4 'ife7 I 6.e5. 1 I .'ifd2 b5 Or I I .. . ..th3 1 2.l:.gi ..txh2 I 3 . .l:.hi 'ifd6 I 4.0-0-0 ..tg2

Analysis diagram

I S .f4! ? ..txhi I 6.l:txhi d4 I 7 .l:!.xh2 tLlg4 (after I 7 ... dxe3 I 8 .fxe3 the powerful centre more than compensates for White's lost exchange) I 8 . .l:tg2 tLlxe3 I 9.fxe3 dxc3 20.'ifxc3 'ifh6 2 I .'ifei White has sufficient compensation for the exchange. Chances are about equal. 1 2 • ..tb3 ..th3 1 3 • .l:.g1 ..txh2 1 4 • .l:.h1 'ird6 1 5 .0-0-0 ..tg2

Analysis diagram

1 6.f4 ..txh 1 1 7J:txh1 d4 1 8 • .1:1.xh2 dxe3 1 9 .fxe3 with compensation (analysis) .

Back to the game.

1 54

1 0 . ... tt:Jf6-h5

It is worth considering opening the position : 1 O ... dxe4 1 1 .fxe4 Dubious is I l .dxe4 'ire? 1 2 . ..te3 l:.d8 1 3 .'ire2 ..tes - the white king in the centre may become a source of problems. 1 1 . .. tLlg4 1 2.'iff3 'it'h4 1 3.d4 c5 Black has good counterplay. I 0 ... .l:.e8 ! ? , maintaining the tension, also does not look bad.

1 1 . e4xd5

Black obtains good play after I I . ..te3 tLlf4 1 2 . .1:.g 1 ..th3 1 3 .d4 tLlg2+ 1 4.�d2 'ifh4 1 5 .eS ..tc7 followed by ... fl -f6.

1 1 . ... .l:.f8-e8+

It is worth considering 1 l ...cxd5 1 2.tLlxdS aS 1 3 .tLlc3 l:!.e8+ I4 . ..te3 a4 1 S . ..tc4 ( 1 5 .�xa4 %:txa4 1 6.tLlxa4 'ii'h4+) 1 5 ... a3 with strong counterplay for Black.

1 2. ..tc1 -e3

12 . ... c6xd5

Interesting is 1 2 . ..ti:Jf4! ? 1 3.dxc6 bxc6 1 4 .'iYd2 ( 1 4 .�d2 iit.fs with a doubleedged position) 1 4 . .. tt:lg2+ 1 S .We2 �b4. Almost all White's pieces are badly placed. Black has good practical compensation for the two pawns.

13. tt:lc3xd5

14. tt:ld5-c3

1 4.'iYd2 ! ?.

14 . ...

15. �b3xe6

16. 'lt>e1-f1

17. tt:lc3-e4

iit.c8-e6

'ti'd8-a5

.l:!.e8xe6

'ir'a5-e5

iit.d6-e7

In case of 17 . . .f5! ? 1 8 .tt:lxd6 "'i1Vxd6 Black has sufficient counterplay.

18. h2-h3

19. .l:!.h1-g1

20. c2-c4

21. f3-f4

22 . .l:!.g1xg6 23. 'lt>f1-g2

'iYe5-b5

.l:!.a8-e8

'iYb5-d7

.l:!.e6-g6

h7xg6

White has successfully coordinated his forces and the advantage is now on his side.

23 . ... b7-b6

24. d3-d4?!


More solid is 24.'ir'd2 or 24.tt:lc3 with a clear advantage.

24 . ... 'i'Vd7-c6

25. "'i1Vd1-f3?

Now chances are equalised. One wonders what White was afraid of? After 2 S .'iVc2 Black cannot exploit the pin: 2S .. .f5 (2S . . . tt:lf6 26.f3+-) 26 .d5+- .

25. ... 'i\Yc6xc4 26. f4-f5 g6xf5 27. 'i'Vf3xf5 tt:lh5-f6

28. tt:le4xf6+

Some chances of an advantage could have been retained by 28.tt:lc3 �a3! 29.'iVbS .

28 ... iit.e7xf6 29.b2-b3 'i\Yc4-e2

30 . .l:!.a1-c1 'iVe2xa2 31 . .l:!.c1-c8

.l:!.e8xc8 32.'iYf5xc8+ 'lt>g8-h7

33.'iYc8-f5+ 'lt>h7-g8 34.'iVf5-c8+

Game No 49 [C48J Shanava,Konstantin Khenkin,Igor Dresden Ech 2007 (2)

1. e2-e4

2. tt:lg1-f3

3. tt:lb1-c3

4. iit.f1-b5

5. iit.b5-a4

112-1!2

e7-e5

tt:lg8-f6

tt:lb8-c6

tt:lc6-d4

c7-c6

155


6. tt:lf3xe5

7. d2-d3

8. tt:le5-f3

9. �c1-e3

1 0. tt:lc3xe4 ?I

d7-d5

�f8-d6

�c8-g4

d5xe4

After this, Black practically equalises. In the event of 10.dxe4 tt:lxf3+ ll.gxf3 i.hS a position arises which is difficult both to assess and to play.

Analysis diagram

Black definitely has compensation for the pawn: his minor pieces are better placed. The pawn on f3 is under permanent attack, and it is not easy to evacuate the white king. However, the assessment is not all one-way; a pawn is a pawn, White has no clear weaknesses , and there are no forcing variations , leading to a black advantage. The position is rich in playing potential. I will offer a fragment of my analysis.

1 56

• 12.'ii'e2 i.eS If White is allowed to castle, then his main problems will be behind him, and the extra pawn will remain.

A) Preparing queenside castling with 13 • .td2 leads to the regaining of the pawn , with an inferior position : 1 3 . .. tt:ld7 1 4.'iVe3 g 5 ! ? 1 5 .0 - 0 - 0 ( 1 5.'iYxg5 'iVxg5 1 6 .�xg5 �xf3 1 7 . .l:tfl i11.xh2+; 1 5 .tt:le2 'ilf6 1 6 .c3 i11.xf3=F) 1 5 . . . 'iVf6;

B) Nothing particularly great for White is promised by 13.i11.b3 'iVd7 14 . .l:tgl 0-0-0 - White has problems with his king;

C) 13 • .l:tgl!? is an attempt to start concrete play. Black has a pleasant choice :

C 1 ) 13 .. .'tlhs 14 . ..td2;t Interesting is 1 4 . 0-0-0 �xc3 ( 1 4 ... 0-0 1 5 .i.d4 or 1 5 .�b3! ?;t leaves White with an extra pawn and a good position)

Analysis diagram

1 5 . 'iV c4 ! (a neat tactic) 1 5 . . . �e5 ( 1 5 ... 0-0 1 6 .'ifxc3 'i!Yxa4 1 7 .'i¥xf6 ..tg6 1 8 . b3 'i!Yxa2 1 9 .'it'b2 ;t) 1 6 . i11.xc6 + �f8 1 7 .�xb7 .l:tb8 ( I 7 .. . .l:te8 1 8 .f4 ! , and suddenly Black is in trouble) 1 8 .'it'c5 + 'i¥xc5 1 9 .i11.xc5 + �g8 20.i.xa7 and White has the advantage (see analysis diagram next column) .

Analysis diagram

C2) 13 ••• 'ii'd6and now: C2 I ) The desired reorganisation by

14 • .i1Ld2 followed by I S . 0-0-0 is a little too late : 14 ... tt::ld7 15.0-0-0 It looks better to play I S .l:lgS g6 ( I S . . . �g6 I 6 .0 -0-0 'ii'f6 I 7 .l:lxeS + 'ii'xeS I 8 .f4 'ii'hS I 9 .f3 f6 2 0 .�e3 with sufficient compensation) I 6 . .l:i.g3 ( I 6 . 0 -0-0 �f6 I 7 .'ii'e3 'ii'xf3 I 8 .l:lxe S + tZ:lxeS I 9 .'ii'd4 'iff6 20 .tLldS 0-0-0 2 I .�f4 'ifxf4+ 2 2 .tt::lxf4 l:lxd4 2 3 .l:lxd4 with a probably draw) I 6 . . . 'iVf6=F I 7 .l:lh3 bS I 8 .�b3 aS with sufficient counterplay for Black. 1 5 •.. 'iVf6=F 16 . .i1Lg5 'ii'xf3 17.'ii'd2 'iVh3 18.r:i.de1 f6 19.�e3 0-0-0!? with mutual chances, in which Black is at least not worse ;

C22) 14.'ii'd3!? C22 I ) 14 •.. 'ii'e7 I S .�d2 ( I S .�b3 ! ?)

I S . . . 0 -0 I 6 . 0-0-0 with chances for both sides ;

C2 2 2) White has slightly the more pleasant position after the exchange of queens: 14 • . . 'iVxd3 I S . cxd3 �xf3 I 6 .�d l i; C2 2 3 ) 14 ... 'ii'c7 15.0-0-0 The most

logical. I S .l:lxg7 l:ld8 I 6 .'ii'e2 �g6 gives Black good compensation for the sacrificed queen. 1 5 .•• .i1Lxf3 16.l:ld2 I 6 .l:lxg7 ? .ixdt=F . 16 ... 0-0 17.�c5 �xc3 18.bxc3 'iVxh2 I 8 . . . .ixe4 I 9 .'iVd4 �g6 2 0 .�d6 with a complicated battle.


Analysis diagram

19.l:lxg7+ 'it>xg7 20.'ii'xf3 l:lfd8 21.�d4 'ifh6 Or 2 I . . . 'ifh4 2 2 .'iffs -Black has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn . White 's counterplay is fully adequate for a draw, but he can hardly count on anything more. And Black's third alternative on move I 3 :

C3) 13 ... 0-0 14 • .i1Lb3 and now: C3 I ) 14 •.. b5 1 5.a3 Or I S .�h6 �g6

I 6 . .id2 aS I 7 . a3 �xh2 I 8 .l:lgS 'ii'c7 I 9 . 0 -0 -0 .ieS 2 0 . .ie3 and Black has good play, although the position is still double-edged. 1 5 ... �xh2 16.l:lg5 �e8 17 .�d2 .te5 18.0-0-0 'tii'c7 19.'it'e3 l:lad8 20.tLle2 - chances are balanced ;

C3 2 ) 14 ... g6 This creates the threat of I S . . . �xc3 I 6 . bxc3 tt::lxe4 (after I 4 . . . �xh2 I S .l:lgS l:le8 I 6 . .td2 'ii'c7 I 7 . 0 - 0 - 0 we reach a double-edged position , the outcome of which is hard to predict) . 1 5 . .tg5 Also possible is I S .l:ldi 'ii'e 7 I 6 .�d4 .ixh2 I 7 .l:lh I �f4 I 8 .l:lh4 .ieS I 9 .�xeS 'ii'xeS 2 0 .l:ld3 with equality. 15 ..• 'ii'd7 Or I S ... bS I 6 .'iYe3 with unclear play ; dangerous is I S . .. .txh2 I 6 .l:lhi .ies I 7 .l:lxhS gxhS I 8 . f4 �xc3 + I 9 .bxc3 with good compensation for the exchange for White. 16.'ii'e3 l:lfd8 Now White has a difficult choice :

I 5 7


Analysis diagram

Bad is 1 7 .�f4 �d4 1 8 .'ir'e2 kxc3 + 1 9 .bxc3 tLlxe4+, but 1 7 .l::rg3 ! ? is interesting , with the idea of 1 7 . . . i.xg3 ? 1 8 .hxg3± . After 17.tLle2 White has good chances to extinguish his opponent's initiative and retain his extra pawn (analysis) . Of course, all of this needs practical tests.

Back to the analysis positiOn after 1 O.dxe4 tt::lx£'3 + ll.gxf3 .ihS:

Analysis diagram

Studying the variations which result from I 2 .'ife2 make one think that , since the white queen soon has to move in small steps via e2 to d3 , he should perhaps seek an alternative at move 1 2 , and determine the queen's position later : • 12.l::rgl 0-0 13 • .ig5 bS 1 3 . . . �eS ! ? I 4 .'ti'xd8 l::raxd8 (or I 4 . . . l::rfxd8 I S .�xf6 i.xf6 I 6 .l::rg3 and Black has

I 58

sufficient compensation for the pawn) 1 S . .ih6 .ig6 1 6 . .ie3 ..txh2 I 7 .l:!.h 1 i.eS = . 14 • .tb3 'ir'e7 15.'ti'd4 1 S .'iYe2 ! ? . lS ... .tes 16.'i!Ve3 l:!.ad8 17.tt:le2! and since it is bad to take on b2 - I 7 . . . .ixb2 I 8 . .l:!.b 1 .ies I 9 .f4 .ic7 20 .eS± - then after I 8 .c3 White will have good chances to take over the initiative ; • Reconstructing the white king position fails: 12.�b3 0-0 13.'iYe2 .tes and the compensation for the pawn is self-evident; • Tempting is 12.'ifd4?!, with the idea after I 2 . . .i.xf3 to reply I 3 . e S ! ? ( I 3 .l:!.g 1 ! ?) I 3 . . . itxh 1 I 4.exd6 with good compensation for the exchange.

Analysis diagram

However, after the precise reply 12 .. .'�c7 White, in order to avoid the worst, has to go into a position in which he does not have sufficient compensation for the exchange : 1 3 . 0-0-0 itxf3 I 4. ti:JdS tLlxdS I S .exdS i.xh I I 6 .l::rxh I 0-0 I 7 .dxc6 bxc6 I 8 .l::rg I g6 I 9 .h4+ ; D) 12.h4!? 0-0 13.�b3 l:!.eS 14.l:!.gl

White has made all of the useful moves , trying to define the position of his queen only at the last moment. This involves its risks . . . 14 ... 'iVc7 Unclear is I 4 . . . tLlxe4 I S .'ti'd4 ti:Jf6 I 6 . 0 - 0 - 0 . 15.�h6 g6 16.'ir'e2 .th2 17.l:!.hl Inter-

esting is 1 7. 0-0-0 ! ? . 17 .. Jbd8 with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn for Black.

Back to the game.

10 . ... tt::lf6xe4

11 . .te3xd4

Of equal ment 1s 11.dxe4 tt::lxf3+ 12.g:xf3 �hS The tempting 1 2 . . . �xf3 1 3 . 'ilfxf3 'ilfaS + 1 4.c3 'ilfxa4 leads after 1 S . .l:tg 1 .l:tg8 ( 1 S . . . �f8 1 6 . 'iVfS ±) 1 6 .eS �xeS 17 . .l:tg4 'ii'as 1 8 . 0-0-0 to problems for Black . 13 . .l:tg1 'iff6 1 3 .. . i.xf3 ? 1 4 . 'ilfxf3 'if a S + 1 S . c3 'ifxa4 1 6 . .l:txg7 and White i s winning. 14Ji'dS �xf3 1S.i.xc6+ bxc6 16.�xc6+ We7 17.'i!t'b7+ Wf6 18.�d4+ We6 19.'iYdS+ We7 20.'ilfb7+ with a draw.

11. ...

12. c2-c3

13. �d4-e3?1

'ti'd8-a5+

tt:Je4-g5

Equality results from 13.h4 tt::le6 1 3 . . . �xf3 1 4 .gxf3 tt::le6 1 S .i.e3 tt::lf4 1 6 . .l:tg 1 0-0-0 1 7 .'ti'c2;!; with the more pleasant game for White. 14.�e3 0-0 1 S.�b3 Also sufficient for equality is 1 S .�c2 tt::lf4 1 6 .i.xf4 i.xf4 1 7. 0-0 .l:f.fe8 1 8 . d4 'ilfhs 1 9 .'iVd3 i.xf3 2 0 .'i:Vxf3 'ti'xf3 2 1 . gxf3 .l:te2 = .


1 S ... tt::lf4 16.i.xf4 ..txf4 17.0-0 'ifhS 1 7 . . . .l:tae8 1 8 .d4 'iYhS 1 9 .'ti'd3 �fs 20 .'i¥d 1 = . 18.d4 l::tae8 19.'ii'd3 �fS 20.iYc4=.

13 . ...

14. g2xf3

15. �e3xg5

i.g4xf3

'ti'a5-f5

Now White is worse. 1 S.f4 ji,xf4 16.'ii'e2! 0-0 1 6 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 1 7. 0 - 0 - 0 .l:the8 1 8 .h4 tt::lh3 ( 1 8 . . . tt::lf3 1 9 .i.c2=) 1 9 .Wb 1 = . 17.0-0-0 l::tfe8 18.h4 tt:lf3 19.Wb1 allows him to hold the bal-ance.

15 . ... 'iff5xg5

The pawn is irrelevant. The white king will not find peace and the oppositecoloured bishops strengthen the black attack.

16.'ot>e1-f1 'ifg5-h4 17.h2-h3 0-0

18.f3-f4 i.d6xf4 19. 'ti' d 1-g4

'i¥h4-h6 20 . .l:ta1-e1 .l:ta8-d8

21.i.a4-b3 i.f4-c1 22 . .l:te 1-e 7

.tc1 xb2 23 . .l:te7xb7 �b2xc3

24 . .l:tb7xa7 'iVh6-f6 25 . .l:ta7-a4 jt,c3-d4 26.'ti'g4-g3 .l:tf8-e8

27.Wf1-g2 .l:te8-e5 28.h3-h4

.l:te5-f5 29 . .l:th1-f1 .l:tf5-f4

30 . .l:ta4-a5 .l:tf4xh4 31 . .l:ta5-g5

.l:th4-f4 32 . .l:tg5-g4 .l:tf4-f5

33 . .l:tg4-e4 .l:tf5-g5 34 . .l:te4-g4

1 S9


.l::[g5-f5 35 . .l::[g4-e4 .l::[f5-g5

36 . .l::[e4-g4 �d4-e5 37.f2-f4

.l::[g5xg4 38."f!Vg3xg4 .2.e5-c7

39.'t!lfg4-g5 't!lff6xg5+ 40.f4xg5

.l::[d8-d7 41 . ..tb3-c4 ..tc7-d8

42 . .l::[f1-f5 g7-g6 43 . .l::[f5-c5

�d8-b6 44 . .l::[c5-e5 �g8-f8

45.�g2-f3 .l::[d7-e7 46 . .l::[e5xe7

�f8xe7 47.�c4-b3 �b6-d4

1 60

48�b3-a4 c6-c5 49h4-b3

�d4-c3 50.a2-a4 �c3-d2

51�b3-c4 f7-f6 52.g5xf6+ �e7xf6

53.i.c4-b5 'it>f6-g5 54.i.b5-c6

�g5-h4 55.i.c6-e4 i.d2-c3 56.�f3-e3 �h4-g3 57.�e3-e2

�g3-f4 58.�e2-f2 c5-c4

59.�f2-e2 i.c3-a5 60.�e2-d1

�f4-e3 61.<�id1-c2 �a5-b4 0-1

Chapters 5.�c4 in the Rubinstein

The present chapter is one of the key ones in the book. It is the line examined here that brought renewed interest in this ancient opening. It is remarkable that in John Nunn's outstanding 1 99 3 book, New Ideas in the Four Knights, which has become a classic , the move 5 .�c4 is not mentioned at all ! Nunn looks at 5 .�a4 as the only method of fighting for an advantage. However, in the 1 7 years since his book appeared, the face of theory in the Four Knights has changed beyond recognition. The decisive word in this surprising transformation has been spoken by such players as Motylev, Naer, Sutovsky, Bacrot, Rublevsky and Howell. Black's defences have been manned by such great names as Kramnik, Aronian , Gelfand, Shirov, Bologan, Naiditsch and Inarkiev. (I sincerely ask for forgiveness , if I have missed anyone out . )

The main variation in this line begins with the moves S ... �cS 6.tLlxeS 'ii'e7 7.tt:Jf3 dS! S.�xdS! . However, for the sake of presenting a complete picture, we will first look at Black's numerous possibilities at move 5 :

1 ) S ... tt:Jx£'3+ (Game 5 0) ; 2) S ... c6 (Game 5 1 ) ; 3 ) S .•• d6 (Games 5 2 and 5 3 ) ;

and, finally, the main line 4) S • • . kcS 6.tLlxeS! 'ii'e7 (6 . . . d5 - Game 54) 7.tLlf3 dS S . .tdS kg4 (8 . . . tt:Jd5 -

Game 5 5 ) 9.d3 tLld7! (9 . . . 0 -0-0 ! ? - Game 5 7 ; 9 . . . c6 ! ? - Game 5 8) 9.�e3 (9 .h3 - Game 5 6) 9 .•• tt:Jes lO.tLlxd4!? - Game 5 9 .

Game N o 5 0 [C48] Bacrot,Etienne Sargissian,Gabriel Antwerp 2009 (I)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3

e7-e5

tt:Jb8-c6

3. tt:Jb1-c3

4. .tf1-b5

5. �b5-c4

tt:Jg8-f6

tt:Jc6-d4

tt:Jd4xf3+

Amongst the rare continuations in this position, the aforementioned exchanging line deserves attention: 5 ... tt:Jxe4? !

1 6 1


Analysis diagram

6.tt:lxd4 Less is promised by 6 .tt:lxe5 tt:ld6 7 .Ad3 g6 8 .'it'g4 tt:lc6 9 .tt:lf3 �g7 1 0 .0-0 0-0 1 1 .b3 tt:le8 1 2..�b2 d6 1 3 .'iff4 lLleS . The game is equal , Malisauskas-Sulskis , Kaunas ch-LTU 2 00 1 . 6 ... tt:lxc3 6 . . . exd4? ! 7.�xf7 + �xf7 8 .'ifh5 + g 6 9 .'it'd5 + �g7 1 O .tt:lxe4 The pawn on d4 will be lost and compensation is hard to see. 7 .dxc3 exd4 The simple 8 .'it'xd4 suffices for an advantage. However, also interesting is 8 . 0-0 dS 9 .l:te l + �e6 1 0 .'it'h5 dxc4 ( 1 0 . . . 'it'd7 1 1 .�xd5 0-0-0 1 2 .�xe6 fxe6 1 3 .cxd4 also leaves White a clear advantage) 1 1 Jhe6+ �e7 1 2 .l:te4 0-0 1 3 .l:txd4 with some advantage to White. 8 •.• c6 8 . . . 'iff6 9 .'ifxf6 gxf6 1 0 .0-0;t. 9.�f4 dS In case of 9 . . . 'ife7 + 1 0 .�fl dS ll.l:te 1 �e6 1 2..�.d3 it is hard for Black to complete his development. 10.0-0-0 'it'b6 11. 'if eS + �e6 The threat of opening the position by means of c3 -c4 gives White the advantage. For a long time, it was considered that the simple exchange on f3 solves Black's problems. However, the surprising

6. g2xf3

poses him new questions. Black's task is easier after the natural 6 .'it'xf3 , for example : 6 . . . d6 7 .d3 �e7 8 .h3 c6 9 .g4? ! (9 .a4;t) 9 . . . b5 1 0 .�b3 0-0 1 l . g5 tt:ld7 1 2 .h4 tt:Jcs 1 3 .Ae3

1 62

tt:lxb3 1 4 . axb3 Ae6 1 5 .d4 exd4 1 6 .�xd4 b4 1 7 .tLle2 cS 1 8 .�e3 dS 1 9 .tt:lf4 d4 20 .Ad2 'it'd7 2 1 .l:tg 1 aS 2 2 .tLlh5 'it'c6 2 3 .'it'f4 �h8 24.f3 c4 2 5 .bxc4 'ifxc4 2 6 .'it'e5 l:tg8 2 7 .f4 'ifxc2 2 8 .l:tc 1 'it'd3 2 9 .l:tg3 'it'a6 3 0 .'iixd4 l:tad8 3 1 .'iff2 'ifb7 3 2 .'ife2 l:td4 3 3 .l:te3 l:tgd8 3 4 .l:td 1 Ac4 3 S .'ifg2 b3 White resigned, WehmeierRomanishin, Calvia Open 2006 .

• .t • K iii iii

. � . i 8

8 8

•

An important role in the development of this line was played by the sharp game Naer-Mamedyarov, KhantyMansiysk 2 0 0 5 .

6 . ... �f8-c5

Black has tried various continuations in this position, but is yet to demonstrate full equality: • 6 ... d6 7 .d4 �e6

Analysis diagram

8.d5!:t �h3 Hardly any better is 8 . . . �d7 9 .f4 exf4 1 0 .hf4 g6 1 1 . 'if d2 (another

set-up deserves more consideration: 1 1 . l:rg 1 kg 7 1 2 .'ti'f3 :t) 1 1 . . .kg 7 1 2 . 0 -0-0 0-0 1 3 .l:rde 1 l:re8 1 4 .kg5 b5 1 5 . ..txb5 .txb5 1 6 .tLlxb5 l:rxe4. Now Black obtains a difficult ending by force: 1 7 .l:rxe4 tt:Jxe4 1 8 .�xd8 tt:Jxd2 1 9 .�xc7 �h6 2 0 . tLlxd6 ! tLle4+ 2 l .<it>b 1 tLlxf2 (2 1 . . .tLlxd6 2 2..�xd6 l:rd8 23 . .tc5 l:rxd5 24 . .txa7 +- ) 2 2 . l:rfl tLlg4 2 3 .tLlxf7 �g7 24.tLld8 tLle3 2 5 .l:re 1 l:rxd8 2 6 .�xd8 tLlxd5+- , Naer-Mamedyarov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 0 5 . 9.£4 exf4 Bad is 9 . . . kg2 ? 1 O .l:rg 1 both because of 1 0 . . . kxe4 1 1 . tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe4 1 2 .'ti'e2 tLlc5 1 3 .fxe5 dxe5 1 4 .�b5 + tLld7 1 5 .'i¥xe5 + 'ti'e7 1 6 .'il'xe7 + <it>xe7 1 7 .�f4 with the better chances , and because of the intermediate 1 0 .�b5 +. 1 o.�xf4 tLld7 11.l:rg1 'ifcs n.'t/Vf3 tLlb6 13.�b3 1 3 .1it..d3 ± . 13 .•. h5 14.'il'e3 f6 15.'il'd3 aS 16.a4 �d7 17.0-0-0 <it>£7

Analysis diagram

Now there follows a lovely example on the theme of ' the blow against the strong point ' : 18.e5! fxe5 19.'ti'g6+ <it>g8 20.tLle4! 'iVdS There is no other defence against mate ( 2 0 . . . exf4 ? ? 2 I .tLlf6#) . 21.�xe5! �g4 22.tLlf6+ 'it'xf6 23.�xf6 l:rh6 24.'it'xh6! NaerIppolito, Philadelphia 2 0 0 7 . • Untested in practice, but worth considering, is 6 ... .tb4 7 .d4 7 .l:rg 1 ! ? g6 8 .a3

Chapter 6 - 5. �c4 in the Rubinstein

�d6? ! (8 . . . Jla5 ! ?) 9 .d4 tLlh5 ? 1 0 .dxe5 he5 1 l .kxf7+ <it>e7 1 2.. �g5+ 1if6 1 3 .kxf6+ tLlxf6 1 4 .kb 3 +- l:re8 1 5 .'ii'd2 c6 1 6 .0-0-0 d6 1 7 .e5 dxe5 1 8 .'ifh6 Black resigned, Anil Kumar-Juneia, India 1 999 . 7 ... 'iVe7 8.ke3 d6 Better is 8 . . . .ixc3 + 9.bxc3 d6 1 0 .l:rg 1 g6 and Black has a solid position. 9.'ti'd3 a6?! 10.0-0-0± hc3 11.'i'ixc3 tt:Jhs 12.dxe5 'it'xe5 13.�d4 'ti'e7 14.l:rhg1

Analysis diagram

White has achieved everything he could dream of in the opening, NebolsinaGlukhov, Tomsk 2008 . • 6 ... c6?! A logical move. Black fights for the centre. 7.d4 d5 8.exd5 It was simplest to go straight into an ending, typical of the Exchange Spanish: 8 .dxe5 dxc4 9 .'i'ixd8 + <it>xd8 1 O .exf6 gxf6 1 1 .l:rg 1 �d6 1 2 .h4 and White has a small , but stable positional advantage.

Analysis diagram

1 63


8 ... tt::lxd5 Maybe it was better to continue in gambit style : 8 . . . �b4! ? 9 .dxe5 tt::lxdS 1 O .�xdS cxdS 1 1 .'ifd4 �xc3 + 1 2 .'ti'xc3 �fS with a more or less playable position. Now, instead of 9 .�xdS (H. Andersen-Groenli , Sarpsborg 2 0 0 1 ) , an advantage was promised by 9.tt::lxd5 cxd5 10 . .tb5+ �d7 11.�xd7+ 'ti'xd7 12.dxe5 'ife6 13.'it'd4. Black does not have full compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

Back to the game.

7. l:[h1-g1

The less logical 7.d3 has also been seen : 7 ... d6 8.l:tg1 g6 9.f4 Worth consideration is 9 .tt::la4! ? �b4+ 1 0 .c3 �aS 1 1 .b4 �b6 1 2 .f4 . 9 •.. �e6 10.�xe6 fxe6 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.�g5 l:[f8 13.'it'f3 'it'd7! 1 3 . . . 'i¥e7 1 4 . 0-0-0;!;. 14.�xf6 �e7 15.'it'h3 �xf6 16.0-0-0 0-0-0 Pihlajasalo-Molander, Finland ch-FIN jr 1 996 . Black is in no way worse.

7 . ... tt::lf6-h5

Black's move looks very logical , but . . . • Untried in practice i s 7 ... 0-0!? , for example : 8.d3In the event of 8 .d4? ! �xd4 (also good i s 8 . . . exd4 9 .�h6 g6 1 O .�xf8 'it'xf8 with compensation) 9 .�h6 g6 1 0 .�xf8 'i¥xf8 1 1 .'i¥d2 c6 Black has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. 8 ... c6 9.�h6

1 64

tt::le s 10.�d2 'ti'h4 11.0-0-0 bs 12.�b3 The position has a doubleedged character. • Allow me to add my two cents ' worth to the theoretical purse: 7 ... l:[g8?! 8.f4 d6 9.d3 c6 10.'ti'f3 .td7 11.fxe5 dxe5 12.�g5 �e7 13.0-0-0± Obodchuk-M. Bezgodov, KhantyMansiysk 2009 .

8. d2-d41 �c5xd4

8 ... exd4 9 .l:[gs! and now: e9 ... dxc3 10.l:[xc5 tt:lf6 11.�d4 1 I . l:[eS + 'it>f8 1 2 .'iVd4 d6 1 3 . l:i.g5 cxb2 1 4 .�xb2 also looks quite unpleasant for Black. 11 ... 0-0 Completely bad is l l . . . cxb2 ? ! 1 2 .�xb2 0-0 1 3 . 0-0-0 . n.'it'xc3 d6 1 2 . . .h6 1 3 .�b3 ;!;. 13.l:[gs White 's chances are superior; e 9 • . . �e7 10JH�! tt:lf6 11.'it'xd4 d5 The most principled ( 1 1 . . . 0 - 0 1 2 . l:[gS;l;) . 12.l:txd5 The only move. 12 ... tt::lxd5 13.tt:lxd5 and now:

A) 13 ..• �f6 14.�c5 �e5 15.�e3 c6 16.l:[dl! 1 6 .0 -0-0 'iYd6 , and Black holds. 16 . • .'iVd6 17Jii'a5 'i¥b8 1 7 . . . cxd5 1 8 . l:[xd5 ± . 18.�f4! This resource would not have been available after 1 6 . 0 - 0 - 0 . 18 •.. �xf4 1 8 . . . b6 1 9 .'ti'b4 cS 2 0 . 'i\Ya4++- ; 1 8 . . . cxd5 1 9 Jhd5 +- . 19.tt::lxf4 Black is in trouble, since after 19 ... 0-0

Analysis diagram

both the human move 2 0 .tt::lh5 followed by 'ifc3 or 'iYgS , and the computer blow 20 . .l:!.d8 ! ! g6 2 1 .tt::lh5 win.

B) 13 ... 0-0 14.�f4 Also worthy of study is 1 4 .i.d2 ! ? followed by �c3 and 0 -0 -0 . In that case White has good compensation for the exchange, and his position looks superior. A possible variation is: 1 4 . . . �e6 1 5 .�c3 f6 1 6 . tt::lxc7 'i¥xc7 1 7 .�xe 6 + �h8 1 8 . 0 - 0 - 0 .l:!.fd8 1 9 .�d5 . 14 ... �d6 Possible is 1 4 . . . c6 1 S .tt::lxe7 + 'ti'xe 7 1 6 . �d6 'i¥d8 ( 1 6 . . . .l:!.d8 1 7 .'ifxg 7 + ;!;) 1 7 . 0 - 0 - 0 .l:!.e8 1 8 . .l:!.g l g6 1 9 . eS and White has sufficient compensation for the exchange, but no more than that. 15.e5 �b4+ 1 5 . . . �e7 1 6 . 0 - 0 - 0 c6 1 7 . tt::lxe 7 + "iYxe 7 1 8 . e 6 fxe 6 1 9 . i.d6 'i!:Yf6 2 0 . �xf8 'i!:Yxd4 2 1 . .l:!.xd4 �xf8 2 2 .�d3 g 6 2 3 . .l:!.d8 + �f7 24 .f4±. 16.c3 �e6! 17.0-0-0 c6

Analysis diagram

18.tt::lf6+ gxf6 19.'i!:Ye4 fS 1 9 . . . 'iVxd l + 20 .�xd 1 fS 2 1 . 'i!:Ye3 ..itxc4 2 2 .cxb4 with a clear advantage for White. 20.'ife2 'i!:Ye8 21.cxb4 ..txc4 22.'ifxc4 and also in this case, White certainly has sufficient compensation for the exchange.

Back to the game.

Chapter 6 - S . �c4 in the Rubinstein

9. tt::lc3-e2

Probably it is more accurate to play 9 .tt::lb5 dS l O .�xdS c6 l l .tt::lxd4 , reaching a position from the game.

9 . ... d7-d5

Black had the interesting tactical resource 9 . . . 'ife7 ! 1 0 .tt::lxd4 'ifb4+ l l .c3 'ifxc4 with sufficient counterchances.

10. �c4xd5

11. tt::le2xd4 12. .l:!.g1-g5

13 . .l:!.g5xd5

14. .l:!.d5xh5

15. b2-b3

c7-c6

c6xd5

e5xd4

'ifd8-b6

�c8-e6

White has a healthy extra pawn and no compensation is to be seen.

15.

16. �c1-b2

17. �b2xd4

18. �d4-f6

Black resigned.

Game No 5 1 [C48] Varga,Zoltan Zherebukh, Yaroslav Budapest 2009 (10)

1. e2-e4

2. tt::lg1-f3

3. tt::lb1-c3

0-0?1

g7-g6

"iYb6-c7

e7-e5

tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6

165


4. �f1-b5

5. �b5-c4

tt:Jc6-d4

c7-c6

An interesting gambit idea, first seen back in the game NimzowitschLevenfish , St Petersburg 1 9 1 3 / 1 4 . Black's poor play in that game took the idea away from public attention for a long time .. ..

6. tt:Jf3xe5

Declining the sacrifice means giving up the fight for an opening advantage. Thus , after 6.0-0 the simple 6 ... tt:Jxf3+ 7.'tlfxf3 �c5 equalises (worse is 7 . . . d6 8 .d3 �e7 9 .'tlfg3 0-0 1 0 .�h6 tt:le8 1 1 .�e3 with a small advantage to White) . In reply to 6.d3 plans af forcing the exchange of the bishop on b3 for the knight d4 are considered to be a solid route to equality, for example : • 6 ... 'tlfa5 7 .�d2 �b4 8 .�b3 tt:lxb3 9 . axb3 'iYc7 1 0 .0 -0 �e7 ( I O . .. �xc3 l l .bxc3 d6 should also suffice for equality) 1 1 .h3 0-0 1 2 .tt:le2 dS and Black has comfortable play, ConquestHebden, Hastings 1 996/9 7 ; • Or 6 ... b5 7 .�b3 'iYaS (also sufficient is 7 . . . tt:lxb3 8 . axb3 d6= ; or 7 . . . tt:lxf3 + 8 .'iYxf3 aS 9 .a3 d6 1 0 .0 -0 a4 1 1 .�a2 �e7 =) 8 .tt:lxe5 (8 .�d2 'iYc7 9 .0-0 b4 1 O . tt:le2 tt:lxf3 + 1 l . gxf3 g S ! =F) 8 . .. tt:lxb3 9 . cxb3 b4 1 0 .tt:lc4 'iYd8

1 66

l l .tt:le2 dS with good compensation for the pawn.

6 . ...

7. e4xd5

d7-d5

�f8-d6

In the aforementioned game Nimzowitsch-Levenfish, there followed 7 . . . cxdS 8 .�bS + tt:lxbS 9 . tt:lxbS a6 1 o.'iYe2 �e7 1 1 .tt:ld4 0-0 1 2 . 0 -0 .l:f.e8 1 3 .tt:ldf3 'iYc7 1 4 .d4 �fs 1 5 .c3 , and Black did not obtain sufficient compensation for the pawn.

8. tt:Je5-f3

The complications arising after S.tt::lx.£7?! 'oir>x£7 (also good for Black is 8 . . . 'iYe7+ 9 . tt:le2 (9 .�fl 'iYxf7 +) 9 . . . �xf7 1 O .dxc6+ �e6 1 1 .�xe6+ 'iYxe6 1 2 .d3 ( 1 2 .cxb7 .l:.ae8-+) 1 2 . . . .l:.he8 1 3 .�e3 tt:lxc6=F) are of only theoretical interest: 9.dxc6+ �f8 I O.d3 �g4 Simpler is 1 0 . . . tt:lxc6=F. Three pawns for the piece do not constitute sufficient compensation in this position . ll.f3 'tlfe7+ 12.tt:le4 tt:lxe4 13.dxe4 �c5 1 3 . . . .l:.d8 1 4.fxg4 'iYh4+ I S .�fl ( 1 5 .�d2 'iYf2+ 1 6 .'oir>c3 �b4+ 1 7 . �xb4 tt:lxc6 + 1 8 .Wc3 'ti'f6++) I S . . . 'iff6+ leads to perpetual check. 14.cxb7 .l:l.d8 15.b8'it' 1 S .fxg4 'iYxe4+ 1 6 .�fl �e7 1 7 .�g5 + �d6 1 8 .�e2 .l:l.df8+ 1 9 .�f3 �c7 20 .'iYd3 tt:lxf3 2 1 .'iYxe4 tt:ld2+ 22 .�e2 tt:lxe4+. 15 ... .l:l.xb8 16.�e3! Worse is 1 6 .c3 'ir'h4+ 1 7 .�d2 'iff2+ 1 8 .<;itd3

tt::lc6 1 9 .'il:fe2 ( 1 9 . .if4 .l:i.xb2-+ Schubert-Baturinsky, correspondence 1 9 60) 1 9 . . . tt::l eS + 2 0 . Wc2 �xf3 2 l . gxf3 tt::lxc4 2 2 . 'il:fxf2 �xf2=F ; or 1 6 .fxg4 'il:fxe4+ 1 7 .Wfl We7 -+ . 16 ... �e6 1 6 . . . tt::lxf3 + I 7 . gxf3 �xe3 I 8 .fxg4 'ir'h4+ I 9 .We2 'iff2 + 2 0 .Wd3 ..tf4 2 1 .';We2+- 17 • .ixd4 �xc4 with unclear play.

8 . ... tt::ld4xf3+

Interesting is the intermediate 8 . . . 'ir'e7 + 9 .Wfl tt::lxf3 I O .'ifxf3 0-0

Analysis diagram

11.h3?! Here this move is not quite appropriate. Better is I I .d3 .ig4 1 2 .'ti'e3 'ti'c7 (in case of 1 2 . . .'ti'd7 I 3 .dxc6 bxc6 1 4 .f3 l:tfe8 1 S .tt::le4 tt::lxe4 I 6 .dxe4 ..te6 I 7 .�xe6 .l:i.xe6 I 8 .'iYd3 Black does not have any particular compensation for the pawn) I 3 .dxc6 l:tfe8 I 4 .tt::le4 tt::lxe4 1 5 .dxe4 'ti'xc6 I 6 . ..td3 and the solid pawn structure and healthy extra pawn allow one to assess the position as better for White. 11. .. .l:i.e8 12.g3 bS 13 . ..tb3 b4 14.tt::ldl cxdS Black has rich counterplay for the pawn. 15.tt:le3 �b7 He can fight for the initiative with I S . . . d4 ! . 16.d4 White has got off lightly. The advantage is on his side. 16 ... tt::le4 17 .tt:lfS 'iff6 18. 'itg2 �f8 19.�e3 1 9 .tt::le3 ! ? 'iYxd4 2 0 . .l:i.di ;t. 19 ... a5 20.�a4 .l:i.ec8 21.tt::lh4 2 I . .l:i.he I .


21. •. 1tc6 22. �xf6 tt::lxf6 23 . ..txc6 .l:i.xc6 24.l::thcl .l:i.ac8 25.tt::lf3 .l:i.xc2 26.tt::le1 .l:t2c4 27.b3 .l:i.xcl 28.l::!.xc1 .l:i.xcl 29.�xcl tt::le4 30.�b2 �d6 31.tLlc2 g6 32.tt:le3 tt::lf6 33.'itf3 draw, Keitlinghaus-Karpachev, Germany tt 2 0 0 0 / 0 1 .

9. 'il:fd1 xf3 0·0 10. h2·h3

In principle, it was possible to ignore Black's threats and play 1 0 .0 -0 tt::lg4 I l .g3 tt::lxh2 1 2 .Wxh2 'ti'h4+ I 3 .Wgi 'ifxc4 I 4 .d3 with some advantage.

10 . ... .l:i.f8·e8+

• Also seen is 1 O ••• bS 11.�e2 More chances of an advantage are offered by I L�.b3 .l:i.e8 + 1 2 .tt::le2 cxdS 1 3 . 0 -0;t. 11. •. b4 12.tt::le4 1 2 .tLldi cxdS I 3 . 0 -0 .ic7 with counterplay. 12 .•. tt::lxe4 13.'ifxe4 .l:te8 14.'ti'f3 cxdS 15.d4 ..ta6 16.�e3 �xe2

Analysis diagram

1 6 7


17.'ilhe2 No better is 1 7 .�xe2 'ifc7 1 8 . .l:f.hd 1 'ir'xc2 + 1 9 . �fl l:re4=F 2 0 .'ir'f5 'ir'c6 2 1 .l:rdc 1 'ir'b7 2 2 . l:rc2 g6 2 3 .'ir'g5 �e7 24 .'ir'g3 'ir'a6+ 2 5 .�g 1 b3 26 .l:rcc 1 bxa2 2 7 .Wic7 .l:f.e6 2 8 .b3 .td8 29 .'ifd7 'ir'd6 3 0 .'iYxd6 .l:f.xd6 3 1 ..l:f.xa2 �b6 3 2 .�fl l:re8 3 3 . .l:f.a4 l:rdd8 34 .�e2 .l:f.c8 3 5 . .l:f.xc8 .l:f.xc8 3 6 .�d3 f6 3 7 . .l:f.a 1 �f7 3 8 . .l:f.c l .l:f.xc 1 3 9 .�xc 1 �e6 40 .f3 �d7 4 1 .i.a3 a6 4 2..�b4 draw, Keitlinghaus-Van den Doel , Germany Bundesliga pff 2 0 0 3 / 04.17 .. .'ii'b6 1 7 . . . f5!? . 18.'iYd3;!; .i:[e4 19.0-0-0 1 9 . 0 - 0 ;!;. 19 ... a5 20 . .l:f.he1 a4 21.�b1 .l:f.e7 2 l . . . a 3 2 2 . b3 ;!;. 2 2 . .tc1 .l:f.b7 2 3 • .l:f.e2 b3 24.cxb3 axb3 25.a3 .l:f.c7 26.l:rde1 .if'S 27 . .td2 .l:f.c4 28.�c3 'ii'c6 29.l:rcl l:rc8 30.l:ree1 'ifa6 31.'ii'd1 l:rb8 32.l:re3 l:ra4 33.'ii'd3 'ifa7 34.l:rce1 'ii'd7 35.g4 g6 36.'ife2 l:raa8 37.f4 �h6 38.l:re7 'ii'c6 39.f5 .tf8 40.l:re3 .th6 4 I .l:re7 .if8 42.l:re3 .th6;!; draw, Arm . Petrosian-Remille, Salon de Provence 2006 ; • Definitely weaker i s 1 O ••• cxd5?! 1 1 . tLlxd5 tLlxdS 1 2..�xd5 .l:f.e8 + 1 3 .�d 1 �e6 1 4 .l:re 1 'ir'b6 1 S . .txe6 .l:f.xe6 1 6 . .l:f.xe6 fxe6 1 7 .'ir'b3 'iYxf2 1 8 .'ir'xe6+ �h8 1 9 .c3 .tg3 2 0 .'ir'e4 h6 2 1 .�c2 l:rd8 2 2 .b4 �h4 2 3 .�b3 .tgs 24.d3 'ir'f7+ 2 5 .'ir'c4 'ife7 2 6 .�xg5 'ir'xgS 2 7 .'ir'e4 'ir'd2 2 8 . .l:f.fl bS 29 .d4 l:.c8 3 0 .'ir'c2 'ir'e3 3 1 .l:!.d 1 aS 3 2 .'ir'd3 'ir'e6+ 3 3 .d5 'ir'a6 3 4.a3 axb4 3 5 .cxb4 'ir'd6 3 6 .'ti'xb5 'ttg 3 + 3 7 .'ir'd3 'ir'xg2 3 8 .d6 1 -0 , Z. Varga-Roussel Roozmon, Balatonlelle 2 0 0 5 .

11. .tc4-e2 c6xd5

Slightly more accurate is 1 1 . . .tLlxd5 1 2 .tLlxd5 cxdS 1 3 .d4 'ti'b6 1 4.c3 g6 1 5 . 0 -0 �fS . The realisation of the extra pawn in this position is an extremely

1 68

difficult task for White, although of course, he is taking hardly any risk at all . . .

12. d2-d4

At a minimum, White is not better after 1 2 .tLlxd5 ? ! tLlxdS 1 3 .'ifxd5 �d7 ! (but not 1 3 . . . 'ifc7 1 4 . c 3 �e6 1 S .'iff3 ± or 1 3 . . . �e6 1 4 .Wif3 Wlas 1 5 . 0 -0 'ifes 1 6 .'ir'g3 'i!Vxg3 1 7 .fxg3 .ixh3 1 8 .�bS .l:f.eS 1 9 . gxh3 .l:f.xbS 2 0 .c4±) with good compensation for the pawn for Black, for example : 1 4 . 0 -0 �c6 1 5 .'ir'd3 'iff6 .

12. ... ttJf6-e4

1 2 . . . 'ir'b6 1 3 . 0 -0 ( 1 3 .'ii'd3 �c7 1 4 .0-0 'ir'd6 1 5 .f4 .td7 1 6 .�f3 a6 1 7 . .td2±) 1 3 . . . �b8 1 4 .�b5 .l:f.d8 , and now instead of 1 5 .�f4? 'ir'xd4 1 6 .�xb8 .l:f.xb8 1 7 .�d3 �e6 1 8 . .l:f.ab 1 draw (Podlesnik-S. Polgar, Ljublj ana 1 994) a clear advantage is retained by 1 5 .i.g 5 , planning to answer 1 5 . . . 'ir'xd4 with 1 6 . .l:f.fd 1 'ifes 1 7 . .txf6 gxf6 1 8 .tLlxd5 ± .

13. 0-0 14. b2xc3;!;

15 . .te2-b5

16. a2-a4

17. �c1-d2

18. .l:f.f1-e1

ttJe4xc3 �c8-e6

.l:f.e8-f8

.l:f.a8-c8

�d6-b8

Simpler is 1 8 . .td3 'ir'd6 1 9 .g 3;!;.

18 . ... 19. g2-g3

20. �e1-e5

'tlt'd8-d6 �e6xh3

2 0 .�c l 'ii'g6 2 l .�a3 wins the exchange.

20 . ... 21. �g1-g2

�h3-e6 f7-f6?!

A serious weakening. After 2 1 . . . a6 2 2..�.d3 �fe8 there is nothing too terrible for Black.

22. �e5-e2 23 . .tb5-d3 24. �a1-e1 25. 'iff3-g4

a7-a6 g7-g6 �e6-f7

A nice advantage could be assured by 25 . .l::!.e7 'ifc6 2 6 .c4! ? with the idea of meeting 2 6 . . . dxc4 with 2 7 .�e4± .

25 . ... 26. 'ifg4-f3 27. �e2-e7

h7-h5 �b8-c7 �f8-e8?

2 7 . . . fS allows Black to hold.

28.�e 7xe8+ �f7xe8 29.�e1 xeS+! �c8xe8 30.it..d3xg6 �e8-e7 31.'iff3xh5 'tWd6-e6 32.it..g6-d3 b7-b5 33.a4xb5 a6-a5 34.�d2-h6 a5-a4 35.'tlt'h5-g6+ �g8-h8 36.�h6-f8 f6-f5 37.�f8-g7+ �h8-g8 38.�g7-f6+

Chapter 6 - 5 . .£c4 in the Rubinstein

�g8-f8 39.�d3xf5 'tWe6-f7 1-0 40. 'if g6-h6+

Game No 5 2 [C48] Rublevsky,Sergey Bologan, Viktor Poikovsky 2008 (4)

In the notes to this game, we have made use of variations and assessments from Rublevsky's commentary in Chess Informant 1 04.

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5 . .tb5-c4

6. tt:Jf3xd4

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 d7-d6

Nothing special is promised by 6.tt::lgs dS! 6 . . . �e6 7 .tt::lxe6 fxe6 8 . 0 - 0= . 7 .exdS 7 . tt::lxdS tt::lxdS 8 . tt::lxf7 'it>xf7 9 . 'ifh5 + (9 . c3 tt::le6 1 O . .txdS c6 l l . .tb3 g6+) 9 . . . g6 l O .'tlt'xeS �g7 I 1 .�xd5 + �e6 with advantage to Black. 7 .•. h6 s.tt:Jf3 �g4 9.�e2 �xf3 I O • .itxf3 .itb4 with a good game for Black, Vallejo Pons-Kramnik, Monaco rapid 2005 .

6 . ... 7. tt:Jc3-d5

e5xd4 tt:Jf6-g41?

The move 7 . . . tt::ld7 , which is now considered the main line, will be examined in the next game.

1 69


8. d2-d3 c7-c6

After 8 . . . tt:Je5 9 .�b3 c6 1 0 .tt:Jf4 White is a little better.

9. tt:Jd5-f4 'ii'd8-h41?

Here too, 9 . . . t2le5 ? ! 1 0 . .tb3 1l.e7 (du-bious is 1 O . . . .tg4 1 1 .f3 'ii'h4+ 1 2 .g3 ! tt:Jxf3 + 1 3 .�£'2 'ii'f6 1 4 .h3 ! gS 1 5 .hxg4 tt:Jes 1 6 .�g2 gxf4 1 7 .gxf4±) 1 1 . 0 -0 0-0 1 2 .c3 assures White an opening advantage.

10. g2-g3 'ii'h4-f6 11. f2-f31

1 I ..tb3 ! ? .

11. . .. tt:Jg4-e5

Interesting is 1 1 . . . tbe3 ! ? 1 2 . .txe3 dxe3 1 3 . c3 bS ! ? ( 1 3 . . . d5 1 4 . exd5 .id6 1 5 .t2lg2 0-0 1 6 .'ii'e2 bS 1 7 .�b3 .tb7 1 8 . 0 -0 ! ? cxdS 1 9 .d4 b4 20 .t2lxe3±Rublevsky) 1 4.�b3 aS 1 5 .a4 b4 with a double-edged position.

12. 0-0 tt:Je5xc4?1

Black is slightly worse after 1 2 . . . g6 1 3 .�b3 �g7 1 4 .c3 tLld7 1 5 .�d2;!;. However, after 1 2 . . . �e7 1 3 .�b3 1l.d8 ! ? 1 4 .c3 �b6 his position seems perfectly playable.

13. d3xc4 14. b2-b3

170

g7-g6 �f8-g7

15. 1l.c1-b2 0-0 16. 'ii'd1-d2

Probably more exact is 1 6 .'ii'd3 .ie6 1 7 .tt:Je2 cS 1 8 .c3 ;!; , retaining the same pluses of his position, as in the game, but not giving the opponent the tactical chance he had in the game.

16 . ... 17. tt:Jf4-e2 18. c2-c3

18 . ...

1l.c8-e6 c6-c5

b7-b51?

A remarkable chance in a dubious position ! Bologan sacrifices several pawns one after another, so as to open lines for his bishops. Bad is 1 8 . . . dxc3 1 9 . ..txc3 'ii'e7 2 0 .�xg7 �xg7 2 l ..:f.ad 1 .:f.ad8 2 2 .tLlc3 ± .

19. c4xb5 d4-d3 20. 'ii'd2xd3 c5-c4 21. 'ii'd3xd61

Principled ! After 2 1 . bxc4 .l::[ac8 2 2 .'ii'xd6 �xc4 2 3 .'ii'xf6 �xf6 24 . .:f.f2 .txbS 2 5 .tLld4 �c4, despite his pawn deficit, Black has good drawing chances in the endgame - Rublevsky.

21 . ... 22. a2xb3 23. 'ti'd6-f41

c4xb3 .:t.f8-d8

A practical decision . 2 3 .'ii'a3 l:l.d2 24.l:l.f2 'iY gS looks too risky.

23. ... 'iVf6xf4 24. tt:le2xf4 �e6xb3 25. l:l.f1-f2 l:l.d8-b8 26. tt:lf4-d5

Black retains drawing chances after 26 .l:l.a5 kc4 2 7 .l:!.d2 l:l.xbS 2 8 .l:l.a4 �e6 (28 . . . l:.c8 29 .lhc4±) 29 .tt:lxe6 fxe6 .

26 . ... �b3xd5 27. e4xd5 l:l.b8xb5 28. l:l.a1-d1 l:l.a8-d8 29. d5-d6 �g7-f8 30. c3-c4 l:l.b5-c5

31. l:l.f2-e2?1

In time-trouble, White misses a win , which he could achieve by means of 3 l .d7 ! ? l:!.c7 3 2 .l:l.fd2 �e7 3 3 .�c3 l:l.xc4 34 .l:l.d3 ! �f8 3 S .�a5 �cS + 3 6 .�g2 �b6 3 7 .1it.c3 l:l.xd7 (3 7 . . . �c5 3 8 . .l:f.c 1 �g8 3 9 .l:l.e 1 +-) 3 8 .l:l.xd7 l:l.xc3 3 9 .f4 with a technically winning endgame - Rublevsky.

31 .. .f7-f51 32.d6-d7 �g8-f7 33.�b2-c1 l:l.c5-c7 34.�c1-e3 it.f8-c5 35.�e3xc5 l:l.c7xc5 36.l:l.d1-d4 l:l.c5-c7 37.l:l.e2-d2 �f7-e7 38.l:l.d2-e2+ �e7-f7 39.l:l.e2-d2 �f7-e7 112-112

Chapter 6 - S . .£c4 in the Rubinstein

Game No 5 3 [C48] Svidler,Peter Gelfand,Boris Astrakhan 2010 (12)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. kb5-c4 6. tt:lf3xd4 7. tt:lc3-d5

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:lg8-f6 tt:lc6-d4 d7-d6 e5xd4 tt:lf6-d71

Nowadays considered strongest. Simply bad is 7 ... tt:lxe4? 8 .'iYe2 fS 9 .d3 c6 1 0 .dxe4 cxd5 1 1 .�xd5 +- . Other continuations have also been tried: • 7 ... i.e6 White is a little better after 7 . . . c6 8 . tt:lxf6 + 'iYxf6 9 . d3 �e7 1 0 . 0 -0 0 -0 1 l . f4 . 8.0-08 .d3 ! ? c6 (8 . . . tt:lxd5 9 . exd5 .td7 1 0 . 0 -0 �e7 1 1 .'iYhS ;!;) 9 . tt:lxf6+ 'iYxf6 1 0 .�b3 ;!; (L.Kritz) . The threat o f the advance f4-f5 gives White some advantage. 8 ..• c60n 8 . . . tt:lxe4 9 .'iYe2 ( 9 .l:l.e 1 tt:lf6 1 O .b3 c6 1 I .tt:lf4 dS 1 2 .tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 3 .�d3 ;!;) 9 . . . tt:lf6 White has a pleasant choice between 1 O . tt:lf4 dS 1 1 . tt:lxe6 fxe 6 1 2 . 'iYxe 6 + and 1 o. tt:lxf6 + 'iYxf6 1 1...t xe 6 fxe 6 1 2 .'tWbS + �f7 1 3 .'i¥xb 7 , retaining some advantage in both cases . 9.tt:lxf6+

Analysis diagram

1 7 1


Worthy of attention is 9 .'i¥e2 , ' transferring ' the move to the opponent. 9 ... 'i¥xf6 10.d3 0-0-0 1 I..ixe6+ fxe6 12.f4 g6 13.�d2 .ig7 14.'ti'g4 with a roughly equal game, T. Willemze-Van der Veen, Hoogeveen 2009 . • A line hardly seen in tournament practice is 7 ... tt:lxd5 8 . .txd5 c6 9 . .tb3 g6 9 .. . Ji...e7 1 0 .0 -0 ( 1 0 .d3) 1 0 . . . 0 -0 1 l .d3 ;;!;. 10.'ti'f3 More natural i s 1 0 .d3 �g7 1 1 . 0 -0 0-0 1 2 .�f4 when White 's advantage is not great , but it is stable ; it is unpleasant to play such a position as Black. 10 ... 'ti'e7 11.d3 h6?! 1 1 . . . .ie6 . -12.0-0 i.g7 13.'ti'g3 i.e6 14.f4 ..ixb3 15.axb3 a6 16.f5 gS 17.'ti'f2 .if6 18.�d2 cS 19.b4 0-0-0 20.c4 dxc3 21.�xc3 �xc3 22.bxc3 c4 23.'ti'd4 cxd3 24.'ihd3 l::the8 25.l::tfe1 'i:Vc7 26.l::ta5 dS?? 27.l::tc5 Black resigned, Lugo-Lopez , ICC 2005 . • 7 ... tt:lg4 - see Game No 5 2 .

8. 0-0

• The game Carlsen-Gelfand, Nice (blind) 2 0 1 0 , developed in similar vein : 8.d3 c6 9.tt:lf4 g6 10.a3!? The imminent appearance of the bishop on g 7 suggests the idea o f advancing the h-pawn in one fashion or another: 1 O .h4 bS 1 I ..ib3 tt:lcS 1 2 .h5 .ig7 1 3 . 'iV f3 , with a double-edged game. 1 O ... ..ig7 11.0-0 Here too possible was

1 7 2

1 1 .h4 tt:les 1 2 .Ji...a2 'ir'b6 ( 1 2 . . .h5 1 3 .c3 ;;!;) 1 3 .h5 with unclear play. 11...0-0 12.�a2 tt:lcs 13.�d2 'i!Vh4 14.tLle2 �e6 15.tLlg3 Tempting is 1 5 .f4 ! ? �xa2 1 6 .l: ha2 l::tae8 ( 1 6 .. . d5 1 7 .b4 tt:ld7 1 8 .exd5 cxdS 1 9 . .te 1 'ife7 20 .kf2 ;;!;; 1 6 . . .f5 1 7 .exfS l:rxfS 1 8 .tt:lg3 l:rf7 1 9 . .l:i.a 1 .l:i.af8 2 0 . .l:i.e 1 dS 2 l .'ti'e2 tt:la4 22 . .l:i.ab 1 kh6 2 3 .tt:lfl with a complicated battle) 1 7 .fS .iteS 1 8 . tt:lf4 and White is slightly better. 1 5 . . . kxa2 1 6 . .l:i.xa2 dS 1 7 .exdS cxdS 1 8 .a4 l:rac8 . Black has comfortable play, although White later won after a tough battle ; • I will allow myself here to present a personal recommendation: bring the knight to f4 earlier, so as to be able to meet g6 with the move h4 : 8.tt:lf4 g6 9.h4 tt:leS l O .i.e2 �g7 l l . c3 (or 1 1 .h5 ) .

8. ... g7-g6

Considered more accurate than 8 ••. c6 9.tLlf4 and now: • 9 .•. g6 1 O.c3 'iff6 11.d3 dxc3 12.bxc3 'ti'xc3?! Brave, to say the least. 13.l:tb1 'ti'as 14.�b2 tt:les 15.tLle2 J::tgs 16 . ..ib3 'iV a6 17 .tt:lc 1 ..ig7 18.f4 tt:lg4 19.'ti'd2 �e6 20.i.xg7 .l:i.xg7 21.h3 tLlf6 22.'i!Vc3, and White obtained excellent compensation for the pawn, AndreikinStefanova, Moscow 2006 . • 9 .•• b5

A) 1 O • .ie2 has also been seen, moving out of the attack: 1 O ••• g6 11.c3 .ith6 Worse is 1 1 . . . .tg7 1 2 .a4 with the better chances for White. 12.d3 .itg7 13.'i:Vc2 dxc3 14.bxc3 0-0 15.d4 1S .• .tZlb6 16 • .ie3, and White 's chances are superior, thanks to his preponderance in the centre , Sutovsky-Bacrot , KhantyMansiysk 2005 .

B) However, the less subtle 10.i.b3 also deserves consideration, and if 1 O ••• tL:lcS 11.c3 ( 1 l .d3 .te7 1 2 . tLle2 i.f6 1 3 .c3 tL:lxb3 1 4.axb3 cS 1 5 .cxd4 cxd4 1 6 .tLlf4 0-0 1 7 .t2Jds i.e6=) 11. .. d3 12.'i:Vf3 'i:Vf6 13.'i:Ve3 'iVgS!? (L. Kritz assesses this position as unclear) 14.�d1 aS (slightly better is 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .b4 tLla4 1 6 .g3 0-0 1 7 . .l:!.e 1 and the pawn on d3 falls) 15.b4 axb4 16.cxb4 tL:la4 17.g3 ( 1 7 . tL:lxd3;!;) 17 ... �e7 18.'i:Vxd3 White has a healthy extra pawn. )

9. a2-a3

Tournament practice in recent years has shown that the plan involving the break c2-c3 does not promise White a scrap of advantage : 9.c3 �g7 10.cxd4 .txd4 Or 1 0 . . . 0 -0 1 1 .d3 �xd4 1 2..�h6 c6 1 3 .tL:lc3 .lle8 1 4 .'il'd2 bS 1 5 .�b3 tL:lcS 1 6 .�e3 �xe3 1 7 .'i:Vxe3 b4 1 8 .tLle2 'ii'b6 1 9 .�c2 draw, Rublevsky-Inarkiev, Moscow 20 1 0 .

Chapter 6 - S.�c4 in the Rubinstein

• 11.tLlc3 0-0 1 l . . .c6 1 2 .tLle2 .tg7 1 3 .d4 0-0 1 4 . .tb3 t2Jf6 1 5 .f3 �e6 1 6 . �xe6 fxe6 1 7 .'iYb3 'iYd7 1 8 .�e3 led to a small advantage to White in the game Ivanchuk-Gelfand, Nice (blind) 2 0 0 8 . 12.tt:le2 'ti'e7! 13.'ii'c2 �g7 14.d4 tL:lb6 15.�b3 .lle8 16 . .i.e3 'i:Vxe4 17.'i:Vxc7 'ife7 18 . .llfcl �e6 19.'il'xe7 draw, Radj abov-Aronian , Novi Sad Ech-tt 2009 ; • The game Motylev-Shirov, Poikovsky 2009 , developed in dramatic fashion : 11.d3 c6 12.tt:le3 1 2 .tLlc3 tL:leS 1 3 .tLle2 �g4 1 4 .�h 1 .txe2 1 S .'i:Vxe2 tL:lxc4 1 6 .dxc4 �f6 1 7 .'il'd3 cS with an equal game, Naer-Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 0 7 . 12 ... 0-0 13.�h1 tL:lcS 14.f4 dS 15.exd5 cxdS 16 . .itb3 .lle8 Black already has a serious advantage. 17.'ii'f3 tL:lxd3?! 1 7 . . . .i.xe3 1 8 . �xe3 �g4 1 9 .'il'g3 d4 20 .�g 1 tL:lxb3 2 l .axb3 �fs + . 18.f5 �h8 1 8 . . . t2Jxc 1 1 9 .fxg6 fxg6 20 . .llaxc 1 �h8+ . 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.'il'dl! �xe3 21.'il'xd3 d4? 2 I . . .i.xc 1 2 2 . 'il'd4+ �g8 2 3 . .llaxc l .ite6 24 . .llce 1 ± . 22.�xe3 .l:f.xe3 23 • .!:f.f8+ �g7 24 . .!:f.g8+! 1-0.

9. ... �f8-g7 10. d2-d3 0-0

1 O . . . c6 1 I .tLlf4 0-0 1 2 .1ta2 leads to a position from Carlsen-Gelfand, examined earlier.

1 7 3


11. �c4-a2

Now too, the advance h2-h4 deserves consideration : 1 1 .h4 c6 ( 1 1 . . .'i¥xh4 1 2.<�:Jxc7 l:tb8 1 3 .'i¥d2 with the idea 1 3 . 'i!Vg St; 1 1 . . . h6! ? 1 2 .hs lbes 1 3 .�b3 with a complicated game) 1 2..�. g S lbf6 1 3 . lbxf6+ �xf6 1 4.f4t.

11. ... lbd7-c5 12. lbd5-f4

1 2 .h4 ! ? .

12. 13. �c1-d2

�g8-h8 c7-c6

White 's position looks the more pleasant. The set-up 'i!fe 1 , f3 , lbe2 (opening up the dark-squared bishop) and 'it'g3 followed by h2 -h4 is tempting.

14. �g1-h1 15. f2-f3 16. �d2-b4

a7-a5 a5-a4

Worth consideration is 1 6. 'if e 1 t. It is hard for Black to improve his pawn structure.

16. 17. �b4-e1 18. �e1-f2 19. 'i!fd1-d2 20. h2-h4 21. 'it'd2-c1

••

1 74

lbc5-a6 lba6-c7 .ic8-d7 �d8-g5 'i!fg5-a5

It is hard for either side to strengthen its position, and the position is clearly about equal , but just at this moment , Gelfand commits a terrible oversight.

21 ... f7-f5?? 22.itf2xd4! .itg7xd4 23.lbf4xg6+ �h8-g7 24.lbg6xf8 �g7xf8 25.'i:Yc1-h6+ 'it>f8-e7 26.c2-c3 �d4-f6 27.l:tf1-e11 f5-f4 28.d3-d4+- lbc7-e6 29.e4-e5 d6xe5 30.'ti'h6xh7+ �e7-d8 31.'ifh7-f7 1-0

Game No 54 [C48] Shirov,Alexey Kramnik, Vladimir 6th game, Candidates match Spain 1998

1. e2-e4 2. lbg1-f3 3. lbb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-c4 6. lbf3xe5

e7-e5 lbg8-f6 lbb8-c6 lbc6-d4 �f8-c5 d7-d51?

This rare move poses White definite problems. In order to fight for an advantage, he has to demonstrate a good deal of accuracy. The main continuation 6 . . . 'ife7 , first met in the classical game BernsteinRubinstein , Vilna 1 9 1 2 , will be examined below.

7. kc4xd5

• In essence, the only move. Weaker is 7.tLlxd5 tLlxdS 8.d3. Others are worse still:

A) 8.�xd5 'ifgs 9 . .itxf7 + 'iir>f8 I O . .ithS 'ifxeS+ ; B ) 8.c3 tLlf4 9 .g3 tt:Jfe6 White regains

the piece, but his position has more holes than a sieve;

C) 8.'it'h5 g6 9 .tt:Jxg6 tt:Jxc2 + 1 0. 'it>fl 1 0 . 'it>d 1 �g4+ 1 1 . 'i:Vxg4 tt:Jde3 + 1 2 .fxe3 tLlxe3 +-+ . 10 .. .'it'f6 1 1.£'3 1 I .'i:Ve5 + 'ifxe5 1 2 .tLlxe5 t2lxa 1 -+ ; 1 1 .'i:Ve2 hxg6 1 2 . exd5 + 'it>f8 -+ . 1 1 ••. hxg6 12.'ii'xd5 l:thS with a decisive advantage to Black, SpangenbergTkachiev, Villa Martelli 1 99 7 ; • After 7.exd5 0-0 8.0-0 .l:te8 9.tt:Jf3 9 .tLld3 ? �g4-+ . 9 ••. .ig4 10.d3 Craftier is 1 o.tt:Jbs tt:Jxf3 + 1 l .gxf3 �h3 1 2 .d4 �xfl 1 3 .�xfl , but here too, White 's position is not all sweetness and light. 1 O • • .'it'd7 White 's extra pawns are scant comfort for his hopelessly weak king.

7 . ... tt:Jf6xd5

In the game Obodchuk-Pridorozhny, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 0 , there occurred 7 ..• 0-0 and now: • 8.tt:Jf3 tt:Jg4 9.0-0 'i:Vd6 The immediate 1 O . . . c6 is more accurate, transposing into the game. 1 O.g3 1 0 .e5 ! . 1 O • • • c6 1 1.�b3 'ifh6 12.h4 'iff6 draw.

Analysis diagram

Chapter 6 - 5 . �c4 in the Rubinstein

White believed that after the apparently forced 1 3 .�g2 tt:Jxf3 I 4.'i:Vxf3 'ifxf3 + 1 5 . 'it>xf3 tt:Jh 2 + I 6 . �e 2 tt:Jxfl I 7 . �xfl

an approximately equal ending would arise. In actual fact, White 's chances are slightly superior. However, analysis shows that it is even stronger to play 13.tt:Jxd4 �xd4 ( 1 3 . . . 'ifxd4 1 4.'ife2 tt:Jes 1 5 .tt:Ja4 �e7 ( 1 5 . . . �g4 I 6 .'i:Ve3 ±) 1 6 .'it'e3 , and White is better) 14.tLle2! �xf2+ ( 1 4 . . . tt:Jxf2 1 5 .tLlxd4 tLlxd 1 1 6 . .l:txf6 gxf6 1 7 .tLlf3 �g4 1 8 .'it>g2 , and the black knight is trapped) 15.'it>g2, and it is hard for Black to escape the pin. White has the advantage. • 8.0-0 'it'e7 Worth consideration is 8 . . . tt:Jxd5 9 .tLlxd5 .l:te8 1 0 .tLld3 �d6 with counterplay for Black, for instance : 1 I .tLlc3 ( 1 I ..l:te 1 ? ! �xh2+ 1 2 . 'iir>xh2 'it'h4+ 1 3 . 'iir>g 1 .ltg4 1 4.f3 tLlxf3 + Black has a decisive attack) 1 1 . . . 'it'h4 1 2 .e5 �xeS I 3 .tt:Jxe5 .l:l.xe5 with the initiative for the pawn. 9.tt:Jf3 �g4 1 O.d3 tt:Jd7 1 1.�e3 tt:JeS leads to variations, analogous to those examined in the next section.

8. tt:Jc3xd5

Not 8 . exd5 'it'g5 -+ .

8 . ... 0-0

Here 8 ... 'it'g5looks interesting,

Analysis diagram

175


But after 9.tt:'lxc7+ We7 (if 9 . . . Wf8 1 O . Wfl 'ii'xe5 1 l .tt:'lxa8 'ii'xe4 1 2 .d3 'ti'h4 1 3 .i.e3 the position remains sharp, but White's chances are clearly better) 10.0-0 (the simple l O .Wfl is also good) 1 O ... �h3 (or 1 0 . . .'ihe5 1 l .tt:'lxa8 ..te6 1 2 .c3 ..td6 1 3 . g3 tt:'lc6 ( 1 3 . . . 'ii'xe4 1 4 . cxd4 lha8 1 5 . d3 'ii'xd4 1 6 . l::r e 1 +- ) 1 4 . .l:re 1 .l:f.xa 8 1 5 .d4, and Black i s i n a bad way) 11.tt:'ld5+ Wf8 12.tt:'le3 'it'xeS 13.c3 White beats off the attack and keeps his extra material .

9. c2-c3

The timid 9 . 0 -0 ? ! .l:f.e8 1 0 .tt:'ld3 �d6 1 l .tt:'le3 ( 1 l ..l:f.e l ? �xh2+ 1 2 .Wxh2 'iih4+ 1 3 .Wg 1 i.g4-+) 1 1 . . Jhe4 1 2 .b3 fig s gives Black good counterplay.

9. . . . .l:f.f8-e8 1 0. c3xd4 ..tc5xd4 11. 0-0 l:te8xe5

Weaker is 1 1 . . . ..txe5 1 2 .d4 ..td6 (the sacrifice is incorrect: 1 2 . . . ..txh 2 + 1 3 .Wxh2 .!:txe4 1 4 .tbf4 l:txf4 1 5 .i.xf4 'iih4+ 1 6 .Wg 1 'iixf4 1 7 .'iib3 ±) 1 3 .e5 �f8 1 4 .tt:'lf4, and Black does not have compensation for the pawn.

12. d2-d3

Worse is 1 2 .tt:'lc3 'ii'h4 1 3 .d3 �e6 ( 1 3 . . . .l:f.h5 1 4.i.f4) White 's extra pawn is hardly felt.

12. . . . c7-c6 13. tt:Jd5-f4

Some chances of an advantage were still offered by the cunning 1 3 .'iia4 ..txf2 + 1 4.llxf2 cxd5 1 5 .i.f4 .l:f.e7 1 6 .e5 .

13 . . . . b7-b6

1 3 .. . 'iib6 ! ? 1 4 .a4 a5 .

1 76

14. 'iid1-c2

Both 1 4 .'iia4 and 1 4 . tt:'le2 ! ? ..ta6 1 5 .'iia4 were worth consideration.

14 . . . . 15. 'iic2-e2

1 5 .'iia4 ! ? .

15 . . . . 16. ..tc1-e3 17. l::ra1-c1 ?I

.l:te5-c5

..tc8-a6 'ii'd8-d6

After 1 7 .hd4 'iixd4 1 8 . .l:f.ac l White has good chances to realise his extra pawn.

17 . . . . 18. .l:f.f1xc1

l::rc5xc1 i.d4-e5

Draw. After 1 8 . . . �e5 1 9 .g3 ( 1 9 .'iid2 .l:f.d8 20J:td 1 g5 2 1 .tt:'lh3 'iixd3 22 .hg5 'iixd2 23 Jhd2 .l:f.xd2 24.hd2 hb2 +) 1 9 . . . .l:f.d8 Black has fully adequate compensation for the pawn.

Game No 5 5 [C48] Sandi pan, Chanda Klip,Hans Tromso 2010 (2)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:'lg1-f3 3. tt:'lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5 . ..tb5-c4 6. tt:Jf3xe5

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 ..tf8-c5 'iid8-e7

7. tt:le5-f3 d7-d5 8. �c4xd5

8 . ... tt:lf6xd5

A perfectly plausible decision. Black virtually forces an ending a pawn down, but with good chances of a draw.

9. tt:lf3xd4

Little is promised by : 9.tt:lxd5 'ii'xe4+ 1 O.tt:le3 �g4?! Simpler is I O ... tt:lx£H I I .'ifxfl 'ifxfj I 2.gxfl 0-0=. 1 1 .tLlg5 'iff4 I I ...'ife5 1 2.'ifxg4 tt:lxc2+ I 3.�di tt:lxai I 4.tt:lf3 'iff6 I 5.'ir'e4+ 'ife7 I 6.'ifxe7 + he7 I 7 .b3i. 1 2.tt:lxg4 'ifxgS 1 3.c3 tt:lc2+ 14.'t\bc2 'ii'xg4 1 5.0-0 0-0-0 1 6.d4 with a healthy extra pawn, Neubauer-Neumeier, Oberwart 2004.

9 . ... tt:ld5xc3

• Apparently best. After 9 . . . �xd4 1 O.tLlxdS 'ii'xe4+ 1 1 .'ii'e2

Analysis diagram

Chapter 6 - 5. �c4 in the Rubinstein

A) 1 1 ... 'ii'xe2+ 1 2.�xe2;!; �d8 1 3 .c3 l:te8+ 1 4.tt:le3 �f6 1 5 .d4;!; - this version of the ending seems better for White than the one arising in Sandipan-Klip ;

B) 1 1 . .. �f5 1 2 .'ifxe4+ �xe4 1 3.tt:lxc7+ �d7 1 4.d3 �xg2 1 5 .l:tg1 �xc7 1 6 . .l:txg2 l:the8+ 1 7 .tot>fl f5 1 8.c3 �f6 White retains real winning chances : I 9.�g5 �xg5 20.l:txg5 g6 2 I .l:tei �d6 22..l:1g3 .l:txe l + 23.�xei f4 24.l:tgi l:te8+ 25.�d2 l:te5 26.l:tg4 g5 27 . .l:tgi l:la5 2 8.a3 �e6 29 . .l:f.ei+ �f5 3 0.l:te7 �g4 3 l .�e2 h5 3 2.d4 l:td5 3 3.a4 l:td6 34.l:te5 a6 35 .d5 b5 3 6.a5 l:td8 3 7.b3 h4 3 8.h3 + �xh3 39.l:txg5 �h2 40.c4 bxc4 4 l .bxc4 h3 42.c5 �hi 43.�f3 l:[b8 44.c6 .l:f.b3 + 45.�xf4 h2 46.l:[h5 .C.c3 47.�e5 �g2 48 . .l:l.xh2+ �xh2 49.�d6 I - 0 , Vorobiov-Hayrapetian, Gyurmi 2008.

• Rather dubious is 9 ... tt:lf4? 1 0.'Wf3 tt:lxg2+ 1 1 .'Wxg2 �xd4 1 2.tLld5

Analysis diagram

with advantage to White : I 2 ... 'ifh4 I 3 .d3 �e5 I 4.�g5 'ii'h5 I 5 .f4 c6 I 6.fxe5 cxd5 I 7 .exd5 ..tg4 I 8 . .l:f.gi �f3 I 9.'iff2 f6 20.exf6 0-0 2 I .<Jild2 .C.ae8 22.l:taei .l:f.xei 2 3.'ifxei 'ifxh2+ 24.�ci �xd5 2 5.�bi �fl 26.�f4 'ifxf4 2 7.l:txg7+ �h8 28.l:txf7 l:tg8 29.a3 'ifd4 3 0.'ife7 I -0 , Keitlinghaus-

I77


Kuraszkiewicz, Germany Bundesliga 2002/03 .

10. d2xc3

Possibly there would be more chance of realising the extra pawn after 1 0 . bxc3 ! ? �xe4+ 1 1 .�e2 'iVxe2+ 1 2 .�xe2 �d7 1 3 .d3 0-0-0 1 4 .�e3 l:lhe8 1 5 .�d2 .

10 . ... 11. �d1-e2 12. �e1xe2

'ti'e7xe4+ �e4xe2+ �c5xd4?1

Premature. More accurate is 12 ... �d7 :

Analysis diagram

e After 13.b4 �xd4 1 4 .cxd4 aS Black breaks up his opponent's pawn structure and practically equalises : l S .bxaS l:haS 1 6 . .l:!.e 1 .te6 1 7 .a3 �d7 i . e Worth attention i s 13.�f4 0-0-0 14 . .l:!.hd 1 .l:!.he8+ 1 5 .�f3 , but in this case, Black has very good chances of a draw. e 13.�e3 0-0-0 14.£'3 1 4 . .l:!.ad 1 .l:!.he8 1 5 .�f3 �d6= ; 1 4 .�f3 ! ? . 14 ... llhe8 1 S.'i.t£'2 �e7! 16.c4 �h4+ Immediately equalising was 1 6 . . . c5 1 7 .tt:JbS a6 1 8 .<1Jc3 �e6= . 17.g3 �f6 18.c3 a6 19.cS .l:!.es 20.b4 llde8 21.llhe1 g6 22.h4 hS 23.lle2 .I:!.Se7 24.a4 �eS 2S.f4 �xd4 26.cxd4 .itc6 27 . .l:!.a3 �d7 28.lla1 draw, Avalkin-S. Bezgodova , Kazan 2 0 1 0 . A rating gap of 3 5 0 points between the opponents proved insuffi-

1 7 8

cient for victory, a tribute to the quality of Black's opening preparation.

13. c3xd4

This version of the ending is significantly more comfortable for White than the similar position reached in Avalkin-S. Bezgodova.

13 ... �c8-d7 14.�c1-e3 0-0-0 15.c2-c4± .l:!.h8-e8 16.�e2-d2 a7-a6 17.�d2-c3 h7-h5 18.h2-h4 .l:!.e8-e4 19.a2-a4 .l:!.d8-e8 20.a4-a5 �d7-f5 21 . .l:!.a1-e1 g7-g6 22.b2-b3 �c8-d7 23.d4-d5 �d7-c8 24 . .l:!.e1-e2 �f5-g4 25 . .l:!.e2-d2 �g4-f5 26.g2-g3 �f5-d7 27 . .l:!.h1-d1 .itd7-g4 28 . .l:!.d1-a1 �g4-f5 29 . .l:!.d2-d4 .l:!.e4xd4 30.�c3xd4 �c8-d7 31.b3-b4 .l:!.e8-e4+ 32.�d4-c3 c7-c6 33 . .l:!.a1-d1 �f5-g4 34 . .l:!.d1-d2 c6xd5 35.lld2xd5+ �d7-e6 36 . .l:!.d5-d8 �g4-f3 37 . .l:!.d8-b8 .l:!.e4-e5 38.�e3-d4 .l:!.e5-f5 39.�c3-d2 �f3-c6 40.f2-f4 �e6-d7 41.�d2-e3 �d7-c7 42 . .l:!.b8-f8 rJ;;c7-d7 43.�d4-e5 �d7-e7 44 . .l:!.f8-c8 f7-f6 45 . .l:!.c8-c7+ �e7-d8 46.�e5-d6 g6-g5 47.b4-b5 a6xb5 48.a5-a6 b5xc4 49.a6xb7 �c6xb7 50 . .l:!.c7xb7 .l:!.f5-d5 51.�d6-e7+ 1-0

Game No 5 6 [C48] Rublevsky,Sergey Onischuk,Alexander Poikovsky 2009 (5)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:lg1-f3 3. tt:lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-c4 6. tt:lf3xe5 7. tt:Je5-f3 8. �c4xd5 9. d2-d3

e7-e5 tt:lb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 �f8-c5 't!Yd8-e7 d7-d5 �c8-g4

The critical position of the variation. In recent years, it has been the scene of several remarkable battles , at the very highest level . • An unimpressive attempt is 9.h3 ..txf3 1 O . gxf3 0 -0-0 1 1 .�c4 tt:ld7 1 2 .h4 (not allowing the queen into h4) 1 2 . . . tt:le5 1 3 .�e2 't!Yf6 1 4 .l:!.h3 , and if he wishes , Black can force a draw with 1 4 . . . 't!Ye6 1 S J:tg3 'ii'f6 1 6 .l:!.h3 ; • So far, nobody has been found, who is willing to test the queen sacrifice in this version : 9.0-0

A) Now 9 ... tt:ld7, by analogy with Game 6 4 , does not work , see : 10.�xb7 l:!.b8 1 0 . . . ..txf3 1 l . gxf3 't!Yg s + 1 2.'�fr>h 1 't!Yhs ( 1 2 . . . l:!.bs 1 3 .l::rg 1 'ifh4 14 . ..ta6 �d6 1 S . .I:.g2±) 1 3 . l:!.g 1 tt:lxf3 1 4 . l:!. g 2 ± . 11.tLlxd4 �xd1 12.tt:lc6± ;

B) 9 ... 0-0-0 10.d3 c6 Or 1 0 . . . tt:ld7 1 l..�. e3 tt:leS 1 2 . tt:lxd4 ( 1 Ltxd4 �xd4 1 3 .tt:lbs �b6+) 1 2 . . . ..txd 1 1 3 .tt:lf5 't!Yf6 1 4 .l:!.axd 1 (the position arising after 1 4 .�xc5 is considered in the notes to Game 64) 1 4 . . . �xe3 1 S .tt:lxe3 with a position which is difficult to assess. 11.�b3 tt:ld7 12.�e3 tt:le5


Analysis diagram

13.t2Jxd4 �xd1 14.tt:lf5 't!Yc7 15 . ..txc5 �g4 16.f4 1 6 .tt:le3 b6 1 7 . ..ta3 gS=F . 1 6 .. . �xf5 17.fxe5 �g6 18.l:!.ad1 1 8 .�d6 ! ? . 18 ... 'il'he5 19 • ..txa7 with a situation which is far from clear.

9 . ... tt:lf6-d7 10. h2-h3

• A draw results from 10.�xb7 tL,es 11.t2Jxd4 �xd 1 12.tLlc6 1 2 .�xa8 �xd4 1 3 .tt:lxd 1 c6 1 4 . f4 't!Yh4+ 1 5 .Wfl Wd7 1 6 .fxe5 l:!.xa8+ . Yet another crazy picture involving material imbalance arises after 1 2 .tt:lf5 't!Yd7 1 3 .tt:lxd 1 .!:f.b8 14 . .tds g6 1 5 .tt:lh6 . 12 ... 't!Yf6 13.Wxd l tt:lxc6 14.tt:ld5 't!Yxf2 15 . ..txc6+ Wd8 16 . ..txa8 't!Yxg2 17.l:te1 Wd7 18.�b7 l:!.b8 19 . ..ta6 't!Yg4+ 20.l:.e2 't!Yg1 + = ; e Untested i s 1 O • ..tf4?! c 6 11.-tgl, offering a piece sacrifice similar to the game. Then there could follow 1 1 . . .hS 1 2 .h4 �xf3 1 3 . gxf3 't!Yf6 1 4 .�b3

1 7 9

T h e Four Knigh ts G ame

tt:lxf3 + 1 5 . 'it>fl . White has compensation for the pawn, but the position has much play remaining.

1 0. 1 1 . g2xf3

1 2. f3-f41?

.tg4xf3 c7-c6

An interesting idea. The bishop does not have to retreat from d5 , since if it is captured, White gets three pawns for the piece, a powerful knight in the centre and a mobile pawn centre. But what useful move can White make? • Apart from the text, there is the tempting simple developing move 1 2 . ..te3 . A) Now 1 3 ... cxd5 1 3 .tt:lxd5 'i¥d8

1 3 . . . 'i¥h4 1 4.b4± ( 1 4.tt:lc7 + ! ?) 1 4.c3 tt:le6 1 5 .d4 .tb6 1 6 . 'i¥b3 leaves White good compensation for the piece, but: B) After 1 2 .. .'i'ih4 it is hard to meet

the threat of 1 3 . . . tt:lxc2 comfortably:

Analysis diagram

1 80

1 3 .tt:la4 In the variation 1 3 . 'it>fl cxd5 1 4 .tt:lxd5 0-0-0 1 5 .c3 tt:le6 1 6 .d4 Af8 White is slightly worse; the poor position of his king has its say. 1 3 ... tt:lxc2+ 1 4.'ifxc2 Axe3 1 S .'ife2 .td4 1 6.Ah3 tt:les 1 7.0-0-0 'i¥f4+ , and White is definitely worse. • Interesting is 1 2.h4, losing a tempo, but not allowing the black queen to this square :

A) 1 2 ... cxd5 1 3 .tt:lxd5 'i¥d8 1 4.c3 tt:le6 1 5 .d4 �b6 1 6 . .te3 0-0 1 7 .'i¥b3 followed by 0-0-0 . I believe White has compensation for the piece ;

B) White must also reckon with 1 2 ... 'i¥f6 1 3 .f4 cxd5 1 4.tt:lxd5 'i¥c6 (or 1 4 . . . 'i¥g6 1 5 .tt:lc7 + 'it>e7 1 6 .�fl .l:.ac8 I 7 . tt:ld5 + �f8 with unclear play) 1 5 .c3 tt:le6 1 6 .b4 Ad6 1 7 .c4 with a fairly non-standard balance of forces , and with

C) 1 2 ... tt:le5 1 3 .f4 tt:lef3 + 1 4.�fl 'i¥d7 1 5 .f5 cxdS 1 6 .tt:lxd5 with quite unclear consequences.

1 2 . ... 'i¥e7-h4

After 1 2 . . . cxd5 1 3 .tt:lxd5 'i¥d8 1 4 .c3 tt:lc6 1 5 .d4 �b6 1 6 .'i¥g4 White has full compensation for the piece, for example: 1 6 . . . .1:.g8 1 7 . f5 ( 1 7 .Ae3 ! ?) 1 7 . . . tt:lf6 1 8 .tt:lxf6+ 'ifxf6 1 9 .Ags 'i¥d6 20 . 0-0-0 and White's position looks preferable.

1 3. tt:lc3-a4 14. tt:la4xc5 1 5. Ac1 -e3

c6xd5 tt:ld7xc5 d5xe4

After 1 5 . . . tt:lce6 only Black is taking any risk: 1 6 .c3 tt:lbS 1 7 .'i¥a4 a6 1 8 .exd5 tt:lc7 1 9 .'i¥e4+ (worse is 1 9 .c4 0-0 2 0 . cxb5 tt:lxdS 2 1 . 0 - 0 - 0 axb S ) 1 9 . . . 'ife7 2 0 .'i¥xe 7 + (20 . 0-0-0 tt:ld6=F) 20 . . . �xe7 2 l .c4 tt:la7 . Black must fight for a draw.

16. �e3xd4 tt:Jc5-e6 17. �d4-e3 tt:Je6xf4 18. 'iYd1-g4 'iYh4xg4 19. h3xg4 tt:Jf4-g2+ 20. 'it>e1-d2 e4xd3 21. c2xd3 0-0 22. llh1-h5 g7-g6 23. llh5-c5

E .

The ending looks more pleasant for White : his rooks are more active, his king is in play - but this turns out to be insufficient for a win.

23 . ... 24. f2xe3 25. g4xf5

tt:Jg2xe3 f7-f5

The essence of things is not changed by 2 5 .g5 .l::.ac8 (25 . . .f4? ! 26 . e4;l;) 26 .llac 1 llxc5 2 7 .llxc5 llf7 2 8 .d4 lle7 29 .b4 'iii>f7 = .

25 . ... 26. llc5xf5 27. lla1-c1

llf8xf5 g6xf5

2 7 .llfl llf8 2 8 .d4 'ltg7 29 .'it>d3 h5 3 0 .d5 'it>g6 3 1 .'it>d4 lle8 3 2 .llf4 'it>g5 3 3 .d6 h4= .

27 ... lla8-f8 28.'it>d2-e2 'it>g8-g7 29.'it>e2-f3 'it>g7-f6 30.llc1-h1 'ftf6-g6 31. 'it>f3-f4 llf8-d8 32.d3-d4 lld8-e8 33.llh1-c1 lle8-e4+ 34.'it>f4-f3 lle4-e7

Chapter 6 - 5 . Jlc4 in the Rubinstein

35.llc1-c8 h 7-h5 36.llc8-g8+ 'it>g6-f6 37.llg8-h8 'it>f6-g5 38.d4-d5 h5-h4 39.llh8-d8 'it>g5-f6 40.lld8-h8 'it>f6-g5 41.llh8-d8 lle7-h7 42.d5-d6 h4-h3 1f2-112

Game No 5 7 [C48] Vallejo Pons,Fransisco Dominguez Perez,Leinier Cuernavaca 2 0 0 6 ( 4)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jb1-c3 3. tt:Jg1-f3 4. .if1-b5 5 . .ib5-c4 6. tt:Jf3xe5 7. tt:Je5-f3 8. �c4xd5 9. d2-d3

10. .ic1-e3

10 . ...

e7-e5 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jc6-d4 .tf8-c5 'iYd8-e7 d7-d5 �c8-g4 0-0-0!?

tt:Jf6xd5

Apparently weaker is 1 O ... llhe8 1 I . .tb3 This is more accurate than 1 1 . 0 -0 lbxf3 + 1 2 . gxf3 .th3 1 3 .Wh l �xe3 1 4 .fxe3 ..txfl 1 5 . 'iY xfl lbxd5 1 6 . lbxd5 llxd5 ( 1 6 . . . 'iYh4=) 1 7 . exd5 'iYxe3 with an equal game , ObodchukM usakaev, Khanty-Mansi ysk 2 0 0 9 . ll ... .ix£'3 12.gxf3 ltJh5 13.f4 'ifh4 14 . .ixf7 tt:Jxf4 15 . .ixe8 lbxc2+ Things

18 1


are not eased after 1 5 . . . tt:lg2+ 1 6 .�d2 tt:lxe3 1 7 .fxe3 'iff2+ 1 8 .Wc l 'ifxe3 + 1 9 .Wb 1 tt:lf3 2 0 .a3 .l:txe8 2 1 .�a2 with a decisive advantage to White. 16.'ihc2 ..txe3 17 . ..tbs a6 18 • ..tc4 b5 19.�d5 Black does not have sufficient compensation for the lost rook, although some tension remains in the position. 19 ... b4 1 9 . . . ..txf2+ 2 0 .�d 1 �e3 2 1 .l:tfl +- . 20.ti:Jdl?!

Analysis diagram

The most accurate is 2 0 . �d 1 +-

20 ... ..tb6 Missing an excellent chance : 2 0 . . . ..txf2 + ! ! 2 1 .�d2 (2 1 .tt:lxf2 tt:lg2+ 2 2 .�d2 'ifg5 + 2 3 . �e2 'ifh5 + with perpetual check) 2 1 . . . tt:lxd5 2 2 . �c 1 ! ( 22 .exd5 'iff4+ 2 3 . ..te2 .:f.e8+ , and it is Black who wins) 2 2 . . .tt:lf4 2 3 .tt:lxf2 'ifxf2 24.'ifxf2 tt:lxd3 + 2 5 .�c2 tt:lxf2 , retaining drawing chances. 21.'ifc4 tt:lxd5 22.exd5 l:te8+ 23.'iti>d2 'ifg5+ 24.'0tc2 'ifg2 25.tt:le3 J:f.xe3 26.'iti>b3 .I:Z.e2 27.l:the l 'i!ff3 28Jhe2 'ifxe2 29J:tg l 'iti>b8 30.l:txg7 'ifd l+ 31.'ifc2 'ir'f3 32 • .l:r.g8+ Black resigned, D. Howell-Dzhumabaev, Puerto Madryn Wch-jr 2009 .

11. tt:lc3xd5

12. e4xd5 .:f.d8xd51 l:th8-e8

An interesting alternative is 1 2 . . . ..txf3 1 3 .gxf3 tt:lf5 . After 1 4 .d4 tt:lxe3 1 5 .fxe3 'ifxe3 + 1 6 .�fl ..txd4 1 7 .'ife2 'i!fg5

1 8 2

1 8 .c3 ..te3 Black has definite compensation for the exchange, although White still has the better chances. 1 2 . . . l:te8 1 3 . 0-0 �xf3 1 4.gxf3 'ifh4 1 5 .f4 tt:lxc2 ( 1 5 . . . ..td6) 1 6 . ..txc5 tt:lxa 1 1 7 .f3 'ii'xf4 1 8 .'ii'xa 1 'ifg5 + 1 9 .�h l .

13. c2-c3

Leading to a forced draw. 'Only time, practice or, more likely, detailed computer analysis , can determine whether 13.0-0 is better. The move looks very risky, but I do not see a clear refutation of it ' - P. Wells. 13 ... ..txf3 Worse is 1 3 . . . tt:lxf3 + 1 4 . gxf3 �h5 1 5 . .:f.e 1 ..txe3 ( 1 5 . . . ..td6 1 6 . ..td2 'it'd? 1 7 Jhe8 + 'ifxe8 1 8 .'ife 1 +-) 1 6 .l:txe3 'iYg5 + 1 7 . ..tfl l:txe3 1 8 . fxe3 'iff6 1 9 .'ife2 ..txf3 2 0 .'iff2 'ifxb2 2 1 . l:l.e 1 �xd5 2 2 .c4±. 14.gxf3 'ifh4 It seems that slightly more accurate is 1 4 . . . ..td6 1 5 . f4 , which after 1 5 . . . 'ifh4 transposes into the main line of the analysis , or 1 5 . c 3 'ifh4 ( 1 5 . . . tt:l e 2 + 1 6 .�g2 'ifh4 1 7 .l:th 1 ti:Jf4+ 1 8 . ..txf4 ..txf4 1 9 . c4 'ifg 5 + 2 0 . �fl 'iff5 2 1 . h4±) 1 6 . f4 g 5 1 7 . cxd4 gxf4 1 8 .'iff3 fxe3 1 9 .h3 'ifxd4 2 0 . fxe3 'ifxb2 2 1 .'iff2 'ifg 7 + 2 2 . �h 1 'ifh6 and Black 's initiative should suffice for a draw. 15.f4 Wells does not consider the quite natural move 1 5 . �g2 ! ?

�d6 (more cunning is the computer's 1 S . . . .l:!.eS 1 6 .l::t.h 1 .l:!.xe3 1 7 .fxe3 'ifgS + 1 8 . <lti> f2 tt:Jfs 1 9 . 'if d 2 tt:Jxe3 2 0 . <lti>e 1 'tieS 2 l .c3 ! lt:Jc2 + 2 2 .<1ti>d 1 lt:Jxa 1 2 3 .'ife2 with advantage to White) 1 6 . .l:Z.h 1 when it seems that White should beat off the attack. Thus, after 1 6 . . . ti:JfS (nothing better is apparent. For example, after 1 6 . . . .l:!.xe3 1 7 .fxe3 'ifgS + 1 8 .<1ti>fl ti:Jfs or 1 8 . . . 'ifxe3 1 9 .c3 lt:Jxf3 2 0 .'ife2 ti:Jd2 + ( 2 0 . . . 'iff4 2 l .'ife8#) 2 l .<lti>e 1 ti:Jf3 + 2 2 .<1ti>d 1 Black's attacking resources are exhausted) 1 7 .�d2 'ifhS 1 8 .h4 tt:Jxh4+ 1 9 . 'ttfl .

Analysis diagram

Black's pieces are well-placed, but it is not clear how to continue the attack. For example : 1 9 . . . g S 2 0 . f4 g4 2 l .c4 the pin on the h-file gives White the advantage. 15 .•. �d6 16.'tthl It must be said that in the variation given by Wells , almost all the moves by both sides are forced. Thus, White gets nothing after :

A) 1 6 .c3 ? ! 'ifh3 1 7 .cxd4 gS ! 1 8 .'ife2 ( 1 8 . .l:!.e 1 gxf4 1 9 .�xf4 �xf4 2 0 Jhe8 + <lti>d7=) 1 8 . . . gxf4 1 9 .f3 fxe3 2 0 .'ifg2 'tid? 2 l ..l:Z.ae 1 fS , and Black has fully sufficient compensation for the exchange ;

B) Perpetual check results after 1 6 . .ixd4 �xf4 1 7 . <lti>g 2 'if g S + 1 8 . <lti>f3

Chapter 6 - 5 .�c4 in the Rubinstein

�d6 1 9 .�e3 'ifhS + 2 0 .'0tg2 'ifxh2+ 2 I .<Iti>f3 'ifhS + 22 .Wg2 'ifh2+ . • The following game was played at a moment when this book was almost written : 16 .. .'ifh3! 17 J:tgl ti:Jf3 18J�g2 g5!

Analysis diagram

It is clear that White has fallen into his opponent's opening preparation and must already look for a way to save himself. 19.c4 No better is 1 9 .c3 gxf4 2 0 .'ii'a4 c6 2 l . dxc6 (not 2 l .�xf4 ti:Je 1 -+ ; 2 l .�xa7 lt:Je 1 ) 2 l . . . fxe3 2 2 .cxb7 + <lti>d8 2 3 . fxe3 ( 2 3 .'ii'c6 'Ot e 7 -+ ) 2 3 . . . ti:Jxh2 (23 . . . �xh2 ? 24.'i:fg4+-) . Going into such a position as White is no great pleasure. If he manages to find a perpetual , that will be a good result. 24 .'ltg 1 'ifxe 3 + 2 S . �h 1 ti:Jf3 2 6 .'i:faS + 'ltd? 2 7 .'i:fb S + 'Otc7 2 8 .b8'i:f+ l:!.xb8+. 19 ... gxf4 20.'i:fa4 <lti>d8 The alternative is 2 0 . . . .l:!.d8 2 1 .c5 ti:Jh4 2 2 .l::J.ag 1 lt:Jxg2 23 . .l:!.xg2 fxe3 24 .cxd6 e2 2 S .'i:fe4 - White has good chances to survive. 21.c5 tLlh4 22.l:ragl �e5 But not 2 2 . . . lt:Jxg2 2 3 .cxd6 lt:Jxe3 24 .dxc7+ <lti>xc7 2 S .'ifxf4+ , and White has the advantage. 23 . ..txf4 tt:Jxg2 24.l:rxg2 'ilffl

1 8 3

The Fou r Knights Game

Analysis diagram

25 .�xe5? A catastrophe! After the accurate 25 .�g3 �xg3 (or 25 . . . �d6 ! ? 26.'ifh4+ �c8 2 7 .h3 , and Black has nothing) 26 .hxg3 l:.eS (26 . . . 'ifxd5 27 .'ifc4=) 2 7 .d6, by the most surprising means, White has everything under control. 2 5 •. Jhe5 26.'ifh4+ f6 27 .h3 .l:!.g5 28.'ife4 'ifxh3+ 29.�gl f5 30 • .I:!.xg5 fxe4 3 1 .dxe4 'ifh6 32 • .:tg8+ �e7 33 .b4 'iff4 34 . .:tg3 'ittf6 35 • .:te3 <;!;les 36.a3 h5 3 7.�g2 'ifg4+ 38.�hl a6 39.<;i;lh2 h4 40.a4 'ifdl 4I ..:th3 �xe4 42 • .:txh4+ �f3 0- 1 , Motylev-Radjabov, KhantyMansiysk ol 20 1 0 . • 1 6 • • . ..txf4 1 7 • ..txf4 'it'xf4 1 8.'ifh5 1 8 .l:tg 1 ti:Jf3 1 9.l:l.g2 .l:!.e 1 + 20 .'ifxe 1 ti::lxe 1 2 1 .l:l.xe 1 'ifd2 = . 1 8 • • • ti:Jf3 ( 1 8 . . . ti::lxc2 1 9 . .l:!.ac 1 ti::ld4 20 .f3±)

· · · � · . ' . , i • • • •

• · � · .'iV • • itl •

· � ·�· � · • · 1:!: ·�

Analysis diagram

And Black does not have enough compensation for the exchange (per Wells) .

1 84

It is hard to believe this; Black's pieces are too active and the position of the white rooks creates a tough impression. It is not practical to give a full analysis of this position, but I will point out a few key variations :

A) 1 9.'ifh3+ <;i;lbS 20.c4 Not the best. Black manages to create counterplay. 20 ... l:l.e5 Also sufficient is 2 0 . . . g5 2 l .'ifg3 'tiffs 22 .d6 cxd6 23 .'ifxd6+ �c8 24.b4 with the threat of 2S .'ifc5 , but. . . 24 . . . .l:!.eS . and to avoid worse, White should give perpetual check. 2 1 .d4 If he wishes, he can also lose: 2 1 .'ifxh7? ! (2 1 .'ifg3 'iff6=) b6 22 .'ifh3 g6 B .'ifg3 'iff6 24.'ifg4 .l:f.hs 2S .h3 tt:Jes 26.'ifg3 'iffS-+ . 2 1 . • • .:tgs 22 • .:tfel Accepting the fact that he does not have a real advantage. 22 ••• tt:Jxel 23.l:!.xel a6 24.'it'e3 'iff6 25.a4 2S .b4 l:!.g4 26J:td 1 =. 25 .. .h5 26.a5 h4 27.'ifa3 'ifxd4 28 . .:te8+ �a7 29.'ife3 'iixe3 30.fxe3 He is hardly going to win this endgame; B) Not the route of least resistance :

1 9 . .:tgl tt:Jxg 1 20 .<;i;lxg 1 l:.es 2 1 .'ifh3 + �d8 22 .l:l.fl g6 , and White is even a bit worse ;

C) I 9.'ifh3+ c;t;>bs The outwardly less logical 1 9 . . . <it>d8 also deserves a further examination.

• i

Analysis diagram

20 .a4 .:teS 2 1 .l:.a3 ti:Jd2 (not all problems are solved by 2 1 . . . .:te2 22 .d6 ti:Jd2

(bad is 2 2 . . . cxd6 2 3 . .l::l.c3±) 2 3 .dxc7+ r:J;xc7 24 . .l::l.c3 + r:J;d6 2 5 . .l::l.g l .l:lxf2 2 6 .'ti'g3+-) 22 . .l::l.fa l li'xf2 2 3 .'ti'g3 'ti'd4 24 . .l::l.g l ( 24 . . . .l::l.e2 2 5 . .l::l.aa l li'xdS + 2 6 . .l::l.g2 g6 2 7 .c4 'ti'c6 2 8 .b4±) 24 . . . 'ti'xd5 + 2 5 .'ti'g2 tbf3 (it is slightly better to exchange queens, leading to a technical position with an extra exchange for White) 2 6 . .l::l.fl .l::l.fS 2 7 .d4 with advantage. Evidently, even in analysis, the search for a white advantage in the position of the previous diagram is not an easy task. 20.a4 (with the idea of bringing the rook into play via a4 or a3) is probably the strongest continuation. However, even this does not by any means promise an easy win. 20 ... .l::l.e5 21.a5 and now:

Analysis diagram

C 1 ) 21. •• .l:f.xd5 22.a6 .l:.gS 2 2 . . . bxa6 23 . .l:!.xa6 tt:Jxh2 ! ? ( 23 . . . g6 24.'ti'g3 li'fs 2 5 . .l:l.fa l +-) 24 . .l::l.g l g6 2 S .'ti'g3 li'f3 + 2 6 .li'xf3 ± . 2 3 . .l::l.a 3 bxa6 2 3 . . J1g6 24.d4 tbxd4 2 5 .'ti'e3 li'xe3 26 .fxe3 tt:Jbs 2 7 . .l::l.xf7 bxa6 28 . .l::l.b3 r:J;cs 2 9 .e4 t2Jd6 3 0 . .l::l.f8 + r:J;d7 3 1 . e5 tbe8 ± . 24 . .l:l.c3 The rook comes into play, and now even without variations it is obvious that White 's chances of realising his extra exchange have grown appreciably. 24 •• Jle5 24 . . . g6 2 5 . .l:l.c4 'iff6 2 6 .'ti'd7 cS 27 .'ife8+ 'iitb7 2 8 .l:te4. 25 . .l:l.c4 'iff6 26.l:tal;


C2) 21. • • g5 2 2.'it'g 3 2 2 . a6 g4 2 3 .'ifxh7 l:te8 24.'ti'h5 probably also gives White the advantage, but the move 2 2 .'ifg3 looks more sensible. 22 .. .'�ff5 2 3 • .l::l.a4 h5 Or 2 3 . . . a6 24 .'ti'g4 'ti'f6 25 . .1:f.e4, solving the main strategic problems, namely getting the rook into play. 24.a6 bxa6 25 • .C.fal l:txdS 26 • .l:f.xa6 h4 27.'ifg2 .tlbS 28 • .l:l.6a2 White has the advantage;

C3) 21. .. a6 22.li'g3 'iff'S 2 2 . . . li'f6 2 3 . .l::l.a4 .l::l.hs 24.h3 li'fs (24 . . . .l::l.xd5 25 . .l::l.f4 .l::l.fs 26 . .l::l.xf5 'it'xf5 2 7 .r:J;g2+; 24 . . . t2Jd4 2 5 . .l::l.e l .l::l.xd5 26 . .l::l.e8+ r:J;a7 27 . .l::l.xd4 .l::l.xd4 2 8 .'it'xc 7 -+ ) 2 S .r:J;g2± . 23 • .l:f.a4 gS 24.'ifg4 'iff6 25 • .l:f.e4 The white rook has come into play, a bad sign for Black. 25 . • . h5! The best chance; 25 . . . .l::l.xd5 26 . .l::l.e8+ r:J;a7 2 7 .'ti'c8 .l:f.xa5 2 8 .'it'xc7 t2Jd4 2 9 .'ti'b8+ r:J;b6 3 0 .'ti'd8+± . 26.'i:Vg3 2 6 .li'xh5 .l::l.xe4 2 7 .dxe4 'iff4. 26 . • • h4 27."it'g4 ti:Jd2 28 . .l:f.xe5 'ifxeS 29 • .tldl 'ii'xdS+ 30.'it'g2 tt:Jf3 3 1.h3 'it'c6 3 2.c4 with advantage to White;

C4) 21. .. g6 2 2 .li'g3 'iffs 23 . .l::l.a4, and White is close to consolidating his position.

In the position of the diagram, it is obviously also possible to start with the move 19.a4 .

Analysis diagram

185


For example, 19 ... g5 20.a5 Or even 2 0 .'ir'h3 + g4 2 1 .'ir'g3 'iffs 2 2 .a5 l:le2 2 3 .a6 b6 24.d6 lle6 2 S .lla4 llh6 2 6 .llf4 tbxh2 2 7 .�g2 'ifdS + 2 8 . lle4 fS 2 9 .'ir'f4 l:lxd6 3 0 .c4 and White has the advantage. Just do not look at these variations on a dark night . . . 20 ... a6 21.'ir'h3+ g4 22.'ir'g3 �d4 23.c3 'ir'xdS 24.'ir'xg4+ �b8 25.c4 'ir'c6 26.c5 tLle l + 27.f3 tt:Jxd3 28.'ir'fs, retaining chances of realising the extra exchange. I would point out that in many cases, in choosing a move and assessing the resulting positions , I have relied on my own common sense, rather than that of the computer. An old-fashioned approach I agree . . .

Back to the game !

13 . ... 14. g2xf3 15. �e1-d2

There is nothing else.

• i •

tt:Jd4xf3+ 'ir'e7-h41

15 ... l:le8xe31 16.f2xe3 'ti'h4-f2+ 17.�d2-c1 �g4xf3 18.'ir'd1-e1 �c5xe3+ 19.�c1-b1 �f3xh1 20.'ir'e1xh1 'iff2-e21 21.a2-a4 'ir'e2xd3+ 22.�b1-a2 'ir'd3-c4+ 23.�a2-b1 'ifc4-d3+ 24.�b1-a2 'ifd3-c4+ 25.�a2-b1 1f2- 1f2

1 8 6

Game No 5 8 [C48] Vorobiov,Evgeny Gerzhoy,Leonid Moscow Open 20 I 0 (7)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jb1-c3 3. tt:Jg1-f3 4. �f1-b5 5. �b5-c4 6. tt:Jf3xe5 7. tt:Je5-f3 8. �c4xd5 9. d2-d3

10. �d5-b3 11. .tc1-e3

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 tt:Jc6-d4 �f8-c5 'iYd8-e7 d7-d5 �c8-g4 c7-c6 tt:Jf6-d7

Definitely weaker is l l.�gS t2Jxf3+ The classical approach is in no way worse : l l . . .'iYd6 l l .tLlb l ? ! 'ti'g6 1 3 .�e3 �xf3 1 4.gxf3 'ifg2 1 S .�d2 t2Jxf3+ 1 6 .�c 1 l:ld8 ( 1 6 . . . a5 1 7 .tLlc3 0-0:f) 1 7 .h3 he3 + 1 8 .fxe3 ttJdeS 1 9 .'ir'fl 'ifgS 20 .'ife2 t2Jd4 2 1 .'ifd2 tt:Jclf3 22 .'ife2 t2Jd4 draw, Bernstein-Rubinstein, Vilna 1 9 1 2 . 12.gxf3 'ir'xgS 13.fxg4 tt:Jes 14.<1Ja4 �+ 15.�:xf2 tt:Jxg4+ 16.�e l 'ir'h4+, which led to perpetual check in

Drabke-Delchev, St Vincent 2004.

11 . ... tt:Jd7-e5

12. tt:Jf3xd41

It was for the sake of this that the whole line started!

1 2 . ... 1 3. tt:ld4-f5 1 4. i..e3xc5 1 5. d3-d4

1 5 . ...

..tg4xd1 'ife7-f8 't!lff8xc5

tfc5-a5?1

• Untested is: 1 5 • • .'ifflJ 1 6Jbd1 Interesting is 1 6 .dxe5 i..h5 1 7 .tt:ld6+ Wd7 1 8 .f3 �c7 1 9. 0-0-0 - the position is quite irrational. 1 6 ••• tt:lg4 1 7 .f3 tt:lh6 1 7 . . . tt:lf6 1 8 .e5 tt:ld5 1 9.tt:ld6+ <Ji;e7 20 .hd5 cxd5 2 1 .tt:lxd5+ �d7 22 .c4±. 1 8.tt:lxh6 gxh6 1 9 .es 0-0-0 20.tt:le4 White has compensation for the queen, but Black has counter-chances. • The stem game was very dramatic: 1 5 • • • 'ii'b4 1 6.l::lxd 1 tt:lg6 1 7.tt:lxg7+ 'ifilfiJ 1 8.tt:lf5 aS 1 9.a3 'ii'b6 20.0-0 .l:td8 2 1 .e5 Black faces problems after 2 I .tt:lh6 .l:txd4? 22 .l:l.xd4 'tixd4 23 .l:l.d 1 'tif6 24.tt:lxf7 .l:tg8 2 5 .g3± . 2 1 . .• l:l.g8 22.f4 tt:le7 23 .tt:ld6 tt:lc8 24.tt:lxf7 l:l.xd4

Analysis diagram

Chapter 6 - 5 . .tc4 in the Rubinstein

25.�h1 Somewhat more accurate is 25 .l:hd4 'tixd4+ 26 .�h 1 , speculating on the threats of 2 7 .tt:lg5 and 2 8 .tt:le6 , for instance : 26 . . . b5 2 7 .tt:lg5 , and Black must give the exchange at least : 27 . . Jhg5 2 8 . fxg5 + We8 29 .i..g8 tfxe5 3 0 . .i.xh7 tt:ld6 3 1 .i..d3 'tixg5 3 2 .g3 , and White has every chance of gradually realising his advantage. 2 5 • • • a4 25 . . . l:l.xd 1 2 6 .tt:lxd 1 a4;;!; . 26.tt:lxa4 l:l.xd1 2 7.l:l.xd1 'iff2 28.tt:lg5 .l:[g6 29.tt:lxh7+ �e7 30.tt:lgs 'ifxf4 3 I .tt:lf3 'ife3 32.tt:lc3 'iff2 3 3.l:l.g1 tt:lb6 3 3 . . . l:txg2 34 . .!:.xg2 'ifxf3 gives Black good chances of saving the game. 34.tt:le4 'ife2 3 S .tt:lg3 'iff2 36.l:fl 'ifcs 3 7 .e6 Worthy of attention was 3 7 .tt:lf5 + '1to>d8 3 8 .h4, bringing up the reserves. 3 7 . . . tt:ldS 3 8.tt:ld4 l:l.f6 39.tt:lgf5 + �e8

Analysis diagram

40.tt:lg7+? �fiJ? 40 . . . '1to>d8 leads to a draw: 4 I .l:l.xf6 (or 4 I .tt:ldf5 tt:le3 42 .g4 l:l.xf5 4 3 .l:txf5 tt:lxf5 44. tt:lxf5 'if f2 45 .h3 with perpetual check) 4 1 . . . tt:lxf6 42 .tt:ldf5 (42 .tt:lgf5 'ife5 43 .h3 tt:lh5 , and Black is even better) 4 2 . . . 'if f2 43 .e7+ 'ifilc7 44.h3 'ii'e 1 + 45 .�h2 'ife5 + 46.g3 'ife2+=. 4 I .l:l.xf6+ tt:lxf6 42.e7+ 42 .tt:ldf5 �g8 ! 43 .e7 + �h8 44.h3 tt:le8 45 .tt:lxe8 'ifxf5 46 .tt:ld6 'iifl + 47 .'1to>h2 'iif4+= . 42 ... 'ifxe7? 42 . . . 'ifilxe7+ . 43.tt:lde6+ �g8 44.tt:lf5

1 87


Black resigned, Motylev-Shirov, Bastia rapid 2004. It must be pointed out that this was a rapid game.

Back to the game Vorobiov-Gerzhoy.

1 6 . .l:t.a1 xd1 1 7. tt:lf5xg7+ 1 8. t2Jg7-f5

t2Je5-g6 <ite8-f8 J:la8-e8?1

A poor decision. It was better to begin with the other rook. In any case, White has good compensation for the queen: I 8 ... .l:t.g8 I 9.g3 .l:.d8 20.0-0 and White's position is definitely easier to play.

1 9.0-0 e4-e5

t2Jg6-f4 20.

Maybe it made sense to include 20.g3 l:!.g8 , in order after 2 I .e5 cS to have 22.tLlh6 l:!.g7 23.tLlxf7 with a serious advantage to White.

20. 21 . g2-g3 22. t2Jf5xd4

c6-c5 c5xd4

A good move. However, White has a reliable alternative : 22.gxf4 dxc3 23.l:!.d7 .l:[g8+ 24.�hi White's advantage is obvious.

22. 23. g3xf4 24. �g1 -h1 25. t2Jc3-d5

1 8 8

'ifa5xe5 .l:.h8-g8+ 'ii'e5xf4

25 . .-tdS ! ? allows White to consolidate his position more easily.

25 . ... 'iff4-h4

26. t2Jd5-c71?

A very beautiful idea! But unfortunately, not entirely realistic ...

26 . ... J:le8-c8

If Black had included the preliminary 26 ... 'ii'h3 ! , then after 2 7 .:lg I .l:f.xg I + 28.l:!.xgi .l:.e4 the result of the game would have been different: 29.c3 .l:[h4 3 0.l:!.g2 l:tg4 3 l . .l:t.xg4 'iixg4. The material is about level, but the white pieces are insufficiently coordinated, and Black now has some advantage.

27. t2Jc7-e6+ 28. t2Jd4xe6+ 29. .:tf1 -e1 1?

f7xe6 �f8-e7

This is not just a position, but a song ! It is very easy for Black to go wrong. In-

teresting was 2 9 . tt::ld4 , retaining the tension.

29 . ... 'iih4-g4??

Unjustified bravery, apparently the result of time-trouble. After the cautious 2 9 . . . <;t>f6 Black is not risking very much.

30. tt::le6-g5+

Suddenly the black queen is lost.

30 . ... <;t>e7-f6

3 0 . . . <;t>f8 3 1 .tt::lxh7 + <;t>g? 3 l. .�g 1 +- .

31. tt::lg5xh 7 + 1 -0

Game No 5 9 [C48] Sutovsky,Emil Naiditsch,Arkady Wijk aan Zee II 20 I 0 (8)

This is the very game which induced the author to write this book! I very much wanted to work out what was really happening in the game, but alas, this proved to be an impossible dream . . . Many of the variations and assessments in the following notes are taken from Sutovsky's annotations in 64 - Chess Review, No 3 , 20 1 0 .

1. e2-e4 2. tt::lg1-f3 3. tt::lb1-c3 4. �f1-b5 5 . ..tb5-c4 6. tt::lf3xe5 7. tt:Je5-f3 8 . .tc4xd5 9. d2-d3

e7-e5 tt::lb8-c6 tt::lg8-f6 tt::lc6-d4 �f8-c5 'iid8-e7 d7-d5 �c8-g4 tt::lf6-d7

9 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 1 0 .�e3 tt::lxd5 1 1 .tt::lxd5 l:txd5 1 2 .exd5 l:te8 - see Game 5 7 ; 9 . . . c 6 1 o . ..tb3 tt::ld7 1 l ..�. e 3 tt::le5 1 2 .tt::lxd4 ! ? - see Game 5 8 .


10. �c1-e3 tt::ld7-e5 11. tt::lf3xd4!?

An interesting variation is 1 1 .�xd4 �xd4 1 2.. �xb7 ( 1 2 .h3 �xf3 1 3 . gxf3 c6 1 4 .�b3 'iVf6+) 1 2 . . . l:tb8 1 3 .tt::ld5 �xf3 1 4 .tt::lxe 7 ( 1 4 . gxf3 'iWh4-+) 1 4 . . . ..txd 1 1 5 .tt::lc6 l:txb7 1 6 .tt::lxd4 �g4=F . In this complicated endgame, chances are apparently about level.

11. . .. �g4xd1

12. tt::ld4-f5

Before thi s , practice had tested 12.lhd l !? 'iif6 1 2 . . . .txd4 ! ? 1 3 . .txd4 c6 1 4 . .tb3 'iWg5 1 5 .�xeS 'iixe5 1 6 . d4 'iYf4 1 7 . o - o o - o + . 13.tt::lf s �xe3 14.tt::lxe3 0-0-0=F 15.0-0 Worthy of attention is 1 5 . d4 ! ? tt::lg 6 1 6 .tt::le2 'iYb6 1 7 .i.xf7 (also not fully clear is 1 7 . .ib3 c5 1 8 . 0 - 0 cxd4 1 9 . tt::ld5 'iic 5 2 0 . l:txd4 <;t>bs

1 8 9


2 1 ..l:.fd I =F. The knight on d5 is very good, and White's immediate plans include c3 , �c2 , b4, a4 etc. The material advantage is with Black, but it is not easy for him to find any sort of constructive plan. Chances are about level) I 7 . . . 'ifb4+ I 8 . .l:.d2 'ifxb2 I 9.�b3 'ifa3 20 .0-0 'ife7 2 I .f3

Analysis diagram

A difficult position to assess. The white passed pawns in the centre may become dangerous. 1 5 ... h5 1 6.�b3 Worth attention was I 6 .d4! ? lLlg4 I 7 .e5 'ifb6 I 8 .�xf7 'ii'xb2 I 9.lLlcd5 lLlxe3 20 .fxe3 20 . . . 'ifxc2 2 I . .l:f.ci 'ife4 2 2 . .l:.f4 'ifd3 23 .l:!.c3 'ifd l + 24.l:tfl 'ife2 25 .l:!.bi (2 5 JH2=) 2 5 . . . b6 2 6 . lLlxc7 c;t>b7 2 7 .�c4

Analysis diagram

with good prospects for White. 1 6 • • • lL:lg4 1 7 .h3 'ii'f4 1 8.g3 I 8 .hxg4 hxg4 I 9 ..l:tfe I .l::.h I + 2 0 . c;t>xh I

I90

'ii'xf2 -+ . 1 8 . . • 'iff6 I 8 . . . 'iff3 ! + . 1 9 .lLlcd5 I 9 .hg4 hg4oo. 1 9 • • • 'ifh6 20.lLlf5 'ii'h7+ 2 1 . 'it>g2 lLlh6 22.lLlfe3 .U.he8 23 .l:!.de 1 'it' g6 24.f4 'it' d6 25 .lLlc4 'ii'c5 26.lLlde3 g5 2 7.£'5 h4 28.g4 b5 29.lLld2 'ii'e5 3 0.l:!.f3 'ii'xb2 3 1 .l:le2 c6 32.lLldl 'ii'a1 H . .l:[fl a5 34.a4 bxa4 35 • ..tc4 a3 36.lL:lf3 9;;c7 3 7.lLle3 'iVb2 3 8 . ..tb3? a2 ! -+ 39.l:lee 1 l:lxd3 40.lLlc4 'ii'c3 4 1 .cxd3 'ii'xb3 42 • .1:[c 1 'ii'xd3 4 3 .lLlxa5 .l:[xe4 44.l:!.xc6+ 'it>b8 0- I Naer-Shirov, Poikovsky 2006 .

1 2 . ... 'ife7-f6

An important alternative is 1 2 ••• 'ii'f8 and now: • 1 3.d4 �xc2 I 4.dxc5 0-0-0 I S .0-0 l:!.xd5+ Sutovsky; • 1 3 . ..txc5 'ii'xc5 1 4.d4 I 4 . .l:.xd I 'ii'b4! I 5 .lLlxg7+ 'it>f8 I 6 .lLlf5 'ii'xb2 I 7 .lLle2 'ii'xc2-+ . 1 4 • • • 'ii'b6 I 4 . . . 'ifb4 I S . .l:.xdi 'ii'xb2+ . 1 5 • .1:[xd1 g6 1 6.dxe5 'ii'xb2+ , 'and White has everything hanging ' - Sutovsky; • 1 3 . .1:1.xdl ..txe3 and now:

• • i

Analysis diagram

A) 1 4.lL:lxe3 0-0-0 A I ) 'A confused position results from

1 5 .f4!? ' - Sutovsky. It is interesting to continue this variation: 1 5 • • • lL:ld7 Or I 5 . . . lLlc6 I 6 . ..txc6 bxc6 I 7 .0-0 'ifc5 I 8 . .l:.f3 .l:.he8 I 9.lLla4 'ii'b4 20 .b3 .

Analysis diagram

It will not be easy for Black to find a break-through point, but nor is it easy for White to play for a win. 1 6.0-0 c6 1 7 • .ib3 tt::lcs 1 8.e5 tt::lxb3 1 9 .axb3 'irb4 20.tt:le41? The engines happily recommend 20J:tf2 f6 2 l .e6 l:the8 2 2 .f5 g6 2 3 .l:te l with unclear consequences. 20 • • • 'ii'd4 2 1 .:l.fe 1 'ii'xb2 22.c3 'iii>b8 2 2 . . . 'ifxb3 2 3 .:l.b l 'ifa4 ( 2 3 . . .'ife6 24 .tLlc5) 24 .d4 'ifa6 2 5 .tLlf5 = .

Analysis diagram

A l l ) 2 3.tt:lc4?1 'ifxb3 24.:l.b l 'ifc2 2 5 .tt::lcd6 (25 .d4 b6 26 .tLlcd6 :l.d7+) 25 . . . :l.d7 26 .tLlc5 .l:.e7 2 7 .tLlf5 l:the8 2 8 .tLld4 'ifxc3 29 .tt::lxc6 + r:j;c7 3 0 .l:lec l 'ii'xc l + 3 1 Jhc l bxc6+; A l 2) 23 .:l.b 1 'ira3 24.d4 f6 25 .tt:lc5

2S .e6 b6 26 .fS 'ife7 2 7 .1:tbd l l:the8 28 .:l.e2 aS 29 . .l:.ed2 'ifc7 . 25 • • • 'ira5 26 .b4 'ii'a2 2 7.e6 .l:.he8 2 8.f5 b6 29.tLle4

Chap ter 6 - S . ..tc4 in the Rubinstein

Analysis diagram

2 9 • • • 'ii'a6 3 0 • .l:.bd 1 3 0 .<ittf2 'ifb 7 3 l .Wf3 .l:.e7 3 2 . .l:.a l g6 3 3 .g4 . 3 0 • • • 'iib7?! A computer ambush. The author of this move never dreamt of the reply. . . 3 1 .c4 The silicon monster suggests 3 l. .l:f.e2= as best. 3 1 . • • 'ira6 3 1 . . .cS 3 2 .dS cxb4 3 3 .tLlc2 aS 34.tLld4.

Analysis diagram

White is at least not worse. 32.d5 'ii'a4 3 3 .d6 'ii'xb4 34.�£'2

Analysis diagram

Chances are equal.

19 1

The Four Kni g hts Game

A 1 3) 23.b4 'ir'b3 24.f5 b6 25 .d4 'ifa4 2 6 . l:.a l 'ir'bs 2 7 .tbd6 'ir'd3 28 .tbxf7 'ir'xc3 29 .e6 'ir'xb4 3 0 .f6 ! gxf6 3 I .tbfs

Analysis diagram

3 I . . J1df8 3 2 .tbxh8 l:Z.xh8 3 3 .e7 l:.e8 34 . .l::tab l ( 34 . .l:f.e6 aS 3 5 .l:Z.ae l a4 3 6 .tbg7 l:.xe7 3 7 .l:Z.xe7 a3 =F , and already White should seek a draw) 34 . . . 'ir'a3 3 S . .I:tbc l 'ir'b4 3 6 .l:.b l = .

A2) 1 5 .d4 tt:lg6 1 6.0-0 tt:lf4 1 7.�c4 h5 1 8.a3 h4 1 9.e5 'ife8 20.l:Z.fe 1 h3 2 1 .g3 tt:le6 22.d5 tUgS 23 .�e2

Analysis diagram

All of Black's pieces, bar one, are on the eighth rank. White has sufficient compensation for the queen, for example: 23 ••• <ot>bs 23 . . . c6 24.tt:lc4 c;t>bs 25 .d6 'ife6 26 .b3 'ifg6 27 .f4 tbe6 28 .�d3 -chances are equal; 23 . . . 'ir'xe5 ? 24.�g4+ �b8 25 .f4;l;; . 24.f4 tt:lh7 25.tt:lc4 'it'd7 26.tt:la5 White's position is already so

1 92

good that almost any more or less logical move is possible: 26 .l::tfl or 26.tbe4.

Analysis diagram

26 • • • g5 2 7.l:.d4 cS 28.l:Z.c4 with a complicated battle; White's chances are certainly no worse.

B) 1 4.tbxe3 0-0-0 1 5 .d4 tt:lg6 1 6.0-0=F ' . . .leads to an extremely unusual position: White has two pieces , two pawns and a dominance in the centre, for the queen. Even so, Black's chances are in no way worse, since his king is well protected. However, it is not easy to play Black' - Sutovsky. Let us look: 1 6 • • • h5 1 7.f4 1 7 .tbe2 ! ? . 17 • • • tt:le7 1 8.�b3 tt:lc6 1 9.tt:le2 Unclear play also arises after 1 9 .dS 'if cS 2 0 .l1d3 tbb4 2 I .tba4 'ifbs 2 2 .tbc3 'ifb6 23 .tba4 'ifas 24.tbc4 (24.l:!.ddl tbxa2 25 .l:Z.a l tbb4 26 .tbc4 'ifbs 2 7 .tbe5 'ir'e8 28 .d6 cxd6 29 .tbxf7 'ifxe4 30 .tbxh8 l:.xh8+) 24 . . . 'ifb5 25 JM2 tbxa2 26 .d6.

Analysis diagram

1 9 . . . tt:Jas 20.e5 tt:Jxb 3 2 1 .axb 3 h4 22.h3 The position is not clear.

Back to the game.

1 3. �e3xc5

1 3 .d4

Analysis diagram

1 3 . . . �g4 1 4. 0 -0 ( 1 4 .dxe5 'i!Vb6+) 1 4 . . . tt:Jc6 1 5 . dxc5 i.xfS 1 6 . exfS 0-0-0+ .

1 3. i.d1 xc2 1 4. 0-0

1 4 . ... c7-c6?1

Sutovsky considers 14 ... 0-0-0 ! strongest, but without giving any variations: ' . . . White has a whole host of tempting continuations. However, I fear that a detailed analysis of the position would preclude playing the variation again in the future, so I will leave the reader to

Chapter 6 - S. �c4 in the Rubinstein

work out for himself the rich variety of possible lines ! ' The author of the present book has another reason for his modesty : attempting to research such variations would take us into such a forest of lines that it would be almost impossible to pick out the more sensible ones. The number of striking possibilities for both sides , at every move, defies belief, but does not help the assessment. To give any kind of more or less complete analysis of this position would require a separate book. Here, I will give only one line of my analysis which, with a great deal of caution, I will describe as the 'main line ' : e Evidently insufficient is 1 S .�e7 'ifb6 1 6 .d4 ( 1 6 .�xd8 l:.xd8 1 7 .d4 is a transposition of moves) 1 6 . . . tt:Jd3 1 7 .�xd8 l:.xd8 1 8 .tZ:le2 ( 1 8 .�xf7 g6 1 9 .tLle3 'ifxb2 20 .�e6+ �b8 and the black pieces are too active) 1 8 . . . g6 1 9 .tLle3 'ifxb2 20 . .tc4 bS 2 l .�xf7 �a4-+ ; • Another line requiring study is 1 S .�d4 g6 1 6.tLlh6 1 6 .�xe5 'ifxeS 1 7 .d4 'iff6 1 8 .tLle3 �d3 1 9 . .1:!.fd 1 'ifxd4 20 .tLlc2 (20 J:td2 c 6 2 1 J:tad 1 cxdS 2 2 .tZ:lexdS �b8 2 3 .l:.xd3 'ifeS +) 2 0 . . . 'ifb6 2 1 Jhd3 c6 (2 1 . . .'ii'xb2 2 2 . l:.b 1 'ifxc2 2 3 .�xb 7 + Wb8 24.�d5 +=) 22 .tLld4 cxdS 2 3 .tZ:lxdS 'if d6 2 4 .l::tad 1 and Black is better. 1 6 ... tt:Jf3 + 1 7 .gxf3 'ii'xd4 1 8.tt:Jxf7 c6 Here White 's counterplay seems insufficient . 1 9 .�b 3 'i:Vxd3 2 0.tZ:lxh8 l:.xh8+ ; e An interesting idea i s to give up the weak pawn, but bring all the pieces into play by means of 1 S .a4 �xd3 1 6 . .l::tfd 1 g6 1 7 .tLle3 �b8 1 8 .�d4 ! ? lLlf3 + 1 9 .gxf3 'i:Vxd4 20 .aS 'i:Vb4 2 1 .lhd3 c6 22 .b3 cxdS 2 3 .tZ:lcxdS 'i:VbS 24.tLlc4 f6 2 S .l:.ad 1 .l::td7 26 . f4 l:.hd8 2 7 . f3 .

1 9 3


Analysis diagram

The computer assesses this position as a large advantage to White. In reality, the position on the board is some kind of fortress. It is hardly likely that either side can strengthen its position. • 1 5 .d4 tt::ld3 1 6 • ..txa7 1 6 . ..te7 ! ? .

Analysis diagram

A) After 1 6 • • • tt::lxb2 1 7 • .l:.fc l ..td3 1 8.-tcs .l:.he8 Or 1 8 . . . .l:.d7 1 9 . ..tb3 he4, when White has sufficient resources : 20 .tt::ld6+ cxd6 2 I .tt::lxe4 'ifg6 22 .tbxd6+ �b8 23 . .l:.cb l tbd3 24 . ..tc2 .l:.xd6 2S . ..txd3 'ifh6 26 . ..txd6+ 'ifxd6 2 7 . ..te4 b6 28 .d5= . 1 9.tt::le3 The black knight risks being cut off in enemy territory:

A I ) 1 9 • • • 'ifa61 The strongest. 20.a41? 20 . ..txf7 ! ? ; 2 0 .e5 ! ? . 2 0 • • . l:l.d7 Or 20 . . . tbc4 2 I .tbxc4 ..txc4 22 . ..txc4 1i'xc4 2 3 .tt:Jbs 'ife2 24 . ..tb6 c6 25 .hd8 l:l.xd8 26 .e5 f6 2 7 .tbd6+ �c7 28 .l:l.ab l l:l.b8 29 .a5 .

194

Analysis diagram

Chances are equal. Now 2 1 .e5 is quite unclear: 2 1 . • • f6 2 1 . . . ..tg6 n.tt:Jbs

Analysis diagram

2 2 . . .tbd3 (2 2 . . .�d8 2 3 .�a3 tt::ld3 24.l:l.d l tt::lf4 2S .�c4 'ifa8 26 .�b2 with good counterplay for White) 2 3 .�c4 'ifa8 24.�xd3 �xd3 2S .�d6 c6 26 .tt::lds .

Analysis diagram

White has sufficient counterplay. 22 • ..ta3 tt::lc4 2 3 • ..txc4 �xc4 24.tt::le4 .l:.xd4 25.tt::lc5 'ii'c6 26.tt::lxc4 b6

Analysis diagram

2 7.tt::ld6+ Lovely ! 2 7 ... cxd6 28.tt::le4 l::rd 1 + 29.l:.xd1 'ifxe4 30 . .ixd6 fxeS 3 1 .a5 bxa5 3 2.l:f.xa5 = ; A2) 1 9 ... �a6 20.e5 'ii'h4 2 1 .�xf7

tt::ld3 22.g3 'ifh6

Analysis diagram

2 3 .tt::lcd5 tt::lxc 1 24.l:l.xc 1 l:l.xdS 25 .�xd5 and White is at the very least not worse;

A3) 1 9 ... 'ifolb8 20.�a3 'ifb6 2 1 .�b31? 'ifxd4 22.�xb2 �xe4 2 2 . . . l:f.xe4? ! 2 3 .tbxe4 'ifxb2 24.tt::lc5

Analysis diagram

Chapter 6 - 5 . ..tc4 in the Rubinstein

24 . . . .ig6 25 .l:f.d l l:f.xd l + 26 .l:f.xd l ±. 2 3.�xf7 l:tf8 24.l:.d1 with mutual chances.

B) 1 6 ••. t2Jf4 1 7 .tt::le3 �d3 1 8.l:.fc 1 1 8 . .l:tfe l 'ifa6 1 9 . .ic5 'ii'g6 20 .g3

Analysis diagram

with wild play. B l ) 1 8 ... b6 1 9.a4 'ifg6 1 9 . . . 'ii'xd4? !

20 .a5 could end very badly for Black: after 20 . . . 'iff6 2 l .axb6 c6 22 .'�h l ! White's initiative is very dangerous. 20.g3 20 .�h l ! ? . 20 ... h5 2 1 .h4 2 l .a5 ? h4 22 .tt::lf5 'ii'gs 2 3 . .ic6 (23 .axb6 .l:.xd5 -+) 23 . . . hxg3 24.fxg3 bxa5-+ . 2 1 . .. l:.d7 22.a5 b5 2 3.�c5

Analysis diagram

The position is completely surrealistic , like the whole variation. The chances are about level . Thus, after 2 3 . . . c6 there follows 24 . .ixc6 'ii'xc6 2 5 .gxf4 .ixe4 26 .a6 (another quite beautiful

195

The Four Kni g hts G ame

picture arises after 2 6 .fS <it> b8 2 7 .�b6 ..tf3 2 8 .ltJcd5 'ifh6 29 .�c7+ <it>a7 3 0 .�f4

Analysis diagram

with double-edged play) 2 6 . . . <it>b8 2 7 .:as �a8 (2 7 . . . ..td3 2 8 .ltJcd5 ) 2 8 Jhb5 �d3 29 .l:[b6

Analysis diagram

and the result is hard to predict.

Back to the position after 1 8 .:fc 1 :

Analysis diagram

1 9 6

B2) 1 8 • • • l:l.d7 1 9.a4 One of many possible continuations. In the light of the variations examined below, the move 1 9 . <it>h 1 deserves consideration. Now:

B2 1 ) 1 9 ••• h5 20.a5 h4 2 1 .h3 .l:.e8 22.e5 'ifa6 2 3.�c5 'ifg6 24.<ilthl f6 25.a6 !? bxa6 A small sketch from the scene of a much larger battle : if instead 25 . . . �xa6

Analysis diagram

2 6 .�e4 'ifhs ( 26 . . . 'iff7 2 7 .b4;!;;) 2 7 .ltJbS (2 7 .b4 fxeS 2 8 .b5 exd4 29 .bxa6 bxa6 3 0 .l:txa6 :xe4 3 1 .ltJxe4 dxe3 3 2 .l:[a8+ �b7 3 3 .l:[a7+ �c8 34.l:ta8+=) 2 7 . . . Wd8 2 8 .ltJa7 :e6 29 .b4

Analysis diagram

with confused play. White's chances are not worse. 26 • ..tc6 l:l.e6 26 . . . fxe5 2 7 .dS 'iVf7

Analysis diagram

28 .l:f.a4 l:f.ee7 29 .l:f.b4 l:f.d6 3 0 .�a7+-. 27.�d6! Slightly worse, i t seems , is 2 7 .i!.xd7+ �xd7 28 . .ta7 ! ? (with the idea of .tb8 ; 2 8 .lug4? ! fxeS 29 .dxe5 .tfs 3 o .l:f.d 1 + �c8 3 l .l:f.d4 lt:Jd3 3 2 . b4 i!.xg4 3 3 . l:f.xg4 'i!ffS +) 2 8 . . . �d8 29 .lt:Jcd5 lLlxdS 3 0 .lLlxdS fxeS 3 1 .dxe5 which also does not promise an easy life to either side. 27 ... l:f.dxd6 28.exd6 l:f.xd6 29.d5 'i�VgS 30.b4 tt::le2 31.lt:Jxe2 .txe2 32.tt::lc4 ( 3 2 .l:f.a2 .td3 3 3 .l:f.a3 =) White has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed (lost) material .

Analysis diagram

B 2 2 ) The pendulum manoeuvre 19 .•. 'i�Va6! 20.�c5 'ilig6, suggested by the computer, leads to quite incomprehensible play : 21.�h l Avoiding a weakening of the kingside. This move seems the most logical - if one can speak about logic at all in such a position.

B22 1 ) Worse, it would seem, is 21.g3 hS 22.h4 22 .�c4 h4 2 3 .�xd3 lt:Jxd3

Chapter 6 - S .�c4 in the Rubinstein

24.l:f.c2 'i!ff6 2S .lt:Jcd5 'iYf3 + . 22 ••. l:f.e8 and now:

B2 2 1 1 ) Insufficient is 23.l:f.e l ?! b6 24.�b4 24 . .ta3 c6 2 S .�b3 .txe4 2 6 . lt:Jxe4 l:f.xe4 2 7 . .tc2 l:f.dxd4 2 8 .l:f.ad 1 l:f.xd 1 2 9 .l:hd 1 lLldS 3 0 .lLlxdS cxdS 3 l...t b4 'iYc6 3 2...t xe4 dxe4 3 3 . .tc3 'i�Vxa4-+ . 24 ... c6

Analysis diagram

25.�xc6 flxc6 26.gxf4 l:f.xd4 27.lt:Jcd5 'iYg6+ 28.�h2 �xe4 29.lt:Je7+ l:f.xe7 30.�xe7 �c6+ The white king is too weak;

B22 1 2) Bad is 23.a5? .txe4 24 . .txe4 l:lxe4-+ ;

B 2 2 1 3 ) 23 .es f6 24.e6 lt:Jxe6 25.�xe6 l:f.xe6 26.d5 l:f.eS 27.a5 �b8 28.b4 ( 28J:rd 1 l:f.e8) It is surprising that although the white king is weak and all the black pieces active, White retains some counterchances . 28 ... f5 29.lt:Jg2 'i�Vg4 30.b5 �e4 31.b6 'i¥f3 32.lt:Jxe4 l:f.xe4 33.a6

Analysis diagram

1 9 7

The Four Kni ghts G ame

3 3 ••• bxa6 34.bxc7+ �xc7 3 5 • .l:r.ab l .l:r.xdS 3 6.ltJf4 .l:r.xf4 3 7 .�a3 + 'ittd8 3 8 • .l:r.b8+ c;i;>d7 39 • .l:r.b7+=

Analysis diagram

A miracle! B222) So, 2 1 .'iil>hl , and now: B2 22 1 ) 2 1 . •• b6 22.�b4 c;i;>b8

After 2 2 . . . ltJxd5 2 3 .ltJcxd5 �xe4 24.ltJe7+ .l:r.xe7 25 .�xe7 'iitb7 26 .�h4 c6 2 7 .£3 'ifh6 28 .�£'2 �d5 29 .a5 bxa5 3 0 . .l:r.xa5 .l:r.a8 3 1 ..l:r.ac5 .l:r.a2 3 2 .ltJxd5 cxd5 3 3 .�g3 chances are balanced. Not everyone can understand what is going on after 23.a5 Insufficient is 2 3 .f3 fS 24.a5 ltJxdS 2 5 .ltJcxd5 fxe4 26 .axb6 cxb6 2 7 .f4 c;i;>b7+ White's pieces lack stability. 23 .•• c6

Analysis diagram

24.ltJe2! ! cxd5 Another crazy variation illustrates the richness of White 's resources : 24 . . . �xe2 25 . .l:r.xc6 'ifgS 26 . .l:r.xb6+

1 9 8

'itta7 2 7 .�c6 ltJd3 2 8 .�c5 ltJxcS 29 .dxc5 .l:r.c7 3 0 .ltJd5 .l:r.xc6 3 1 ..l:r.xc6 �c4 3 2 .f4 'irh4 3 3 .a6 �xd5 34.exd5

Analysis diagram

34 . . . 'irxf4 3 5 .d6 g5 3 6 .b4 'irxb4 3 7 . .l:f.c7 + rJr>a8 3 8 .d7 +- .

2 5 .ltJxf4 'ifxe4 26 .ltJxd3 'ifxd3 27 .axb6 'irxd4 28.�c5 'irf4 29.ltJc2

Analysis diagram

29 ••• d4 Or 29 . . . .l:r.c8 3 0 .ltJb4 .l:r.e7 (3 0 . . . 'ifd2 3 l .c;i;>g l .l:xc5 32 . .l:r.xc5 .l:r.d6 3 3 .l:k2 'irf4 34.ltJc6+ �b7 3 5 Jbc l 'iitxb6 36 .ltJe7 .l:r.d7 3 7 .lLlc8+ �b7 3 8 . .l:r.c6 'irb4 3 9 J:tb6+ 'irxb6 40 .ltJxb6 �xb6 4 l .'iti>fl =) 3 l .�g l 3 l .h3 (or 3 l .b7 .l:r.cc7 3 2 .h3 c;i;>xb7 3 3 .ltJxd5 'ifgS 34 .ltJxc7 .l:r.xc7 3 5 .b4=) 3 1 . . . .1:lxc5 3 2 .lLla6+ 'iti>b7 3 3 .ltJxc5 + �xb6 34 .ltJa4+ (3 4 .ltJd3 'ird2 3 5 .l:ta3 =) 34 . . . c;i;>b7 3 5 .ltJc5 + = . 30.ltJb4 'ilh6 3 1 ..l:r.e l .l:r.c8 32 • .l:r.a4 'irgs 3 3 • .l:r.a5

Analysis diagram

'with a roughly equal position' - it sounds like a joke, doesn't it?

B2222) 2 l . • • �b8 22.a5 ti:lxd5 22 . . . c6 2 3 .�a2 �xe4 24.ti:lxe4 'ifxe4 25 .�b l 'ife8 26 .a6

Analysis diagram

26 . . . bxa6 (no better is the 'logical' 2 6 . . . bs 2 7 .�fs ti:le6 28 .�b6 .l:td6 29 .�g4 g6 3 0 .ds fs 3 l .�f3 ti:lgs 3 2 .l:.xc6±) 2 7 .�f5 ti:le6 2 8 .�xe6 'ifxe6 29 . .l:txa6 and White is guaranteed perpetual check. 2 3.exd5 6 24.b3 24.f4 l:.e8 25 .l:.e l hS 26 .b3 �e4+. 24 ••• f4 25.ti:lc4 f3 26.g3 ..txc4 26 . . . 'iffs 2 7 .ti:le5 hS 28 .ti:lxd7+ 'ifxd7 29 .l:.g l gS 30 .b4 �e2 3 l .b5 �xbS 3 2 .ti:lxb5 'ifxbS 3 3 .d6 cxd6 34.�xd6+ �a8 3 5 .a6 b6 3 6 .l:.ab l 'ifas 3 7 .�c7 'ifa2 3 8 .d5 'ifxf2 3 9 .�xb6 'ifd2 40 .l:.bd l 'ife2 4 1 .l:.de l 'iVb2 42 .l:.b l 'it'a2 . 2 7.bxc4


Analysis diagram

2 7 ... h5 28.h3 'if6 29.�h2 h4 Scarcely better is 2 9 . . . g5 3 0 .ti:Jb5 (3 0 . .!:f.e l 'ifc2 3 l .ti:le4 g4 32 . .!:f.ac l +t) 30 . . . g4 3 1 .h4 'iVd3 3 2 .�g l .l:te8 3 3 .d6 cxd6 34 .�xd6+ �a8 3 5 .d5 .l:te2 3 6 .�c5 'ifg6 3 7 .ti:ld4 .l:.b2 3 8 .l:.d l +t (3 8 .�a3 .l:.d2 3 9 .�c5=) . 3 0.g4

Analysis diagram

The engines cheerfully assess this position as winning for Black, but the human player asks himself the question how Black can actually get at his opponent, even in principle? And there is a second question : if Black cannot achieve anything soon, can White even play for a win? 3 0 • • .'ifd3 and now: B2222 1 ) 3 l .ti:Jb5 .l:.e8 32.l:.c3 'ife2

3 3 .�gl 'ifh2 34.l:.cc l 34.l:.ca3 'ifd2 (34 . . . .!:f.e2 3 S . .I:.fl .l:.f7 3 6 .d6 cxd6 3 7 .ti:lxd6 .l:tf6 3 8 .a6

1 99

The Four Knights G ame

Analysis diagram

3 8 . . . bxa6 (3 8 . . . b6 3 9 . a 7 + 'it>a8 40 . ttJ b5 l:tc6 4 1 .l:txf3 .:es 4 2...txb6 l:f.xb6 43 .4Jc7 + �xa7 44.4Jxe8 'ifxd4 45 .c5 'ifxc5 46 .4Jxg7;;!;) ) 3 5 Jhf3 'ife2 3 6 .�g2 'ifxc4 3 7 .4Jc3 .!:txd5 3 8 .4Jxd5 'ifxd5 3 9 .l:[a3 and Black's winning chances are insignificant. 34 ... .1:le2 3 S .l:[cb l 'it'c2 3 6 .a6 b6 36 . . . ..1:lxf2 3 7 . ..ta7 ++- . 3 7.a7+ 'it>a8 3 8.4Jxc7+ .l:lxc7 39 . .1:lxb6 .l:le8

Analysis diagram

40.d6 .l:lb7 41 .l:txb7 Wxb7 42.d7 l:ta8 43.i.e7 'it'b2 44.%:.d l = ;

B22222) Another way i s also possible : 3 1 .Wgl .l:le8 3 l . . .'ifxc4 3 2 .a6 b6 (3 2 . . . bxa6 3 3 .4Ja2 'ifxd5 34.4Jb4 'ifa8 (34 . . . 'ifg5 3 5 .d5=) 3 5 .4Jxa6+ 'it>c8 3 6 . ..tb6 (3 6 .4Jxc 7 = ; 3 6 .4Jb4=) 36 . . . ..1:lh6 3 7 .4Jc5 'ifdS 3 8 .4Jxd7 l:[c6 3 9 .4Je5 l:txb6 40.l:ta7=) 3 3 .a7+ 'it>b7 34.d6 bxc5 3 5 .4Je4 'ifxd4 3 6 .4Jxc5 + 'it>a8 3 7 .tt:Jxd7=. 3 2.a6 b6 3 3 .a7+ <itla8

200

Analysis diagram

34.d6 cxd6 35 .4Ja4 .!:txa7 36.i.xb6 ..l:lxa4 3 7Jha4+ 'it>b 7 3 8 .c5 Wc6 39.cxd6+ Wxb6 40 • .l:.b4+ <iitas 4 1 ...1:lb2 'ifa3 42.d7 l:td8 43 • ..1:lc5 + Wa6 44 • ..1:lc6+=.

B2 2 2 3 ) 2 1 . • • lLJxd5 2 2 .exd5 b6 22 .. J:te8 23 .a5 'it>b8 24J:td l .l:!.dd8 . 23.i.b4 'it'f6 The white knights occupy very solid positions. 24.d6 Interesting is 24.a5 ? ! 'ifxd4 2 5 .axb6 'ifxb4 26 .4Ja4

Analysis diagram

White has just a knight for the queen, but, amazingly, the battle is not over yet : 26 . . . .l:!.d6 ! Practically the only move ! ( 2 6 . . . 'it>d8 2 7 .4Jc5 'it>e7 28 .4Jxd3 'ifxb6 29 .4Jc4 'iff6 3 0 .4Jce5 , and White is in no way worse) 2 7 . tt:Jc5 ..l:lxb6 2 8 . 4Jxd3 'ifbs ( 2 8 . . . 'ifd4 29 .4Jc4 ..l:lb3 30 .4Jce5 .l:f.b8 3 l ..l:!.c4 'ifxd5 3 2 .l:[a7 'ifd6 3 3 .4Jxf7 'ifb6 34 . .l:.axc7+ 'ifxc7 3 5 .l:txc7+ 'it>xc7

3 6 .lt:Jxh8 and White should draw) 29 .lt:Jcs l:e8 3 0 .lt:Jfs .l:le l + 3 1J he l 'WxcS 3 2 .lt:Je3 .l:lxb2 3 3 .d6 c 6 34.l:l.ac l The probable result is a draw. 24 • • .'ibf2 25.lt:Jcd5 Wb7 26.l:l.dl .te4 2 7 .l:!.d2 'it'h4 28.lt:Jxc7

Analysis diagram

The analysis shows that White has enough resources to hold the balance. The author does not think it appropriate to give any more lines here, showing this - there are simply too many of them . . .

Back to the game.

1 5. d3-d4 1 6. lt:Jf5-d6+ 1 7. e4-e5

tt:Je5-d3 �e8-d7

1 7 . .txf7 lt:Jxc5 1 8 .dxc5 �c7 1 9 . .l:lac l .td3 20 . .l:.fe l ;!;; , and White has excel-lent prospects - Sutovsky.


1 7 . ... 'Wf6-h4 1 8. g2-g3

1 8 . .te4! lt:JxcS 1 9 . .txc2 lt:Je6 20 .d5± (Sutovsky) .

1 8. ... 'Wh4-g4?

1 8 . . . 'iVhS ! 1 9 . .txf7 'iVf3 20 .e6+ �c7 2 l .e7 lt:Jf4 leads to a draw. 'However, I was planning to reply 1 9 . .te4! �c7 20 .f4, and White continues the attack, despite the fact that the computer considers the repetition .tf3-'Wg6-.te4 unavoidable ' - Sutovsky. A possible scenario for the continuation of the attack is : 20 . . .f6 2 l .lt:Jf5 lt:JxcS 22 . .txc2 .l:[ad8 23 .lt:Jxg7 'iff7 24.lt:Jfs lt:Je6 2 S . .l:lad l fxeS 26 . fxe5 'Whs 27 .lt:Je4

Analysis diagram

with mutual chances.

1 9. f2-f3 20 . .td5-e4

2 0 . .txf7 ! ?;!;; - Sutovsky.

20 . ... 21 . .te4xc2 22. �c2-f5

'Wg4-h3

lt:Jd3xc5 lt:Jc5-e6 'ifh3-h5

2 2 . . .'Wh6 2 3 .lt:Jxf7 'We3 + 24.�g2 .l:[af8 2S . .l:[ae l 'i!fd2+ 2 6 . .1:r.e2 'Wxe2+ 2 7 .lt:Jxe2 :Z.xf7 28 . .te4 �e7 29 .f4± Sutovsky.

20 1


23. d4-d5

2 3 .�g4 'ti'g6 ( 2 3 . . . 'ifh6 24 .tbxf7 'We3 ++-) 24.d5 Wc7 2 5 .dxe6 fxe6 2 6 .tLle2 'iYgS 2 7 .tbf4 'iYxeS 2 8 .�ad l ± - Sutovsky.

23 . ... wd7-c7

2 3 . . . cxd5 24 .tbxd5and White is clearly better - Sutovsky.

24. g3-g4?

24.dxe6 fxe6 25 .tLle2 ! ! , ' and suddenly the black queen is mated' - Sutovsky. 2 5 . . . exf5 ( 2 5 . . .'iVg5 2 6 . tLlf4 Wb8 27 . tbxe6 'ti'e3 + 2 8 . �f2 "ii'xeS 29 .�d l +-) 2 6 .tLlf4 'ti'h6 2 7 .tbf7 with a winning advantage.

24 . ... 'ti'h5-h6 25. d5xe6?1

2 5 .tbxf7 'iYe3 + 2 6 .Wh l tLlf4 2 7 .d6+ Wb6 (the position is unclear -Sutovsky) 2 8 .tbxh8 �xh8 2 9 .tLle4 hS 3 0 .d7 hxg4 3 l...�.xg4 Wc7 3 2 .�fd l tUd3 3 3 .e6 Wd8 34.tLld6= .

25. ... f7xe6 26. �f5-e4

2 6 .�c2 ! ? 'ti'f4 2 7 .�ae l hS 2 8 . �e4± was better for White - Sutovsky.

202

Analysis diagram

Certainly, after 28 . . . 'i¥d2 29 .�e2 'ii'f4 30 .�b3 hxg4 3 I .fxg4 'i¥xg4+ 3 2 .�g2 'it'd4+ 3 3 .Wh l 'ti'xe5 (3 3 . . . wb6 34.tbce4±) 34.tbf7 'ti'd4 35 .tbxh8 �xh8 36 .he6 only he can play for a win.

26 ... "ii'h6-f4 27.tt:Jd6-c4 h7-h5 28.tt:Jc3-e2 'ti'f4-g5 29.tt:Je2-d4 �h8-h6 30.f3-f4 "ii'g5xg4+ 31. r:J;;g 1-h 1 �a8-f8 32.tt:Jc4-e3 'iVg4-h4 33.tt:Je3-g2 'ti'h4-e7 34.�f1-d1 g7-g5 35.�a1-c1 �f8-d8 36.�d1-d3 'ife7-b4 37.�c1-d1 g5xf4 38.tt:Jg2xf4 �d8-e8 39.�e4-g6 �h6xg6 40.tbf4xg6 'ti'b4xb2 41.�d3-d2 'i¥b2-a3 42.tbg6-f4 wc7-b8 43.tt:Jf4xh5 c6-c5 44.tt:Jh5-f6 c5xd4 45.tt:Jf6xe8 'Wa3-f3+ 46.<oith1-g1 'ti'f3-g4+ 47.Wg1-f2 'ti'g4-f4+ 48.Wf2-g1 'ti'f4-g4+ 49.wg1-f2 'ifg4-f4+ 112-v2

Chapter 7 The Belgrade Gambit

This prodigal son of respectable parents - the Four Knights and the Scotch Game -is nothing like them in character, being a line for adventurers. It is characterised by the moves l .e4 eS 2.t1:lf3 t1:lc6 3.t1:lc3 tZ:lf6 4.d4 exd4 s.tL:lds !?

In response to such early aggression , Black can either stick to his principles and take the pawn by means of S ... t1:lxe4!? (Games 60-6 1 ) , or decline the gambit. In the first case , we get very complicated, even chaotic positions , with a mass of tactical possibilities . Objectively, Black has good counterplay, but demonstrating this in a practical game is far from a simple matter. Consequently, amongst black players , no less popularity is enjoyed by those variations which allow Black to achieve equality, with much less expenditure of nervous energy.

For this purpose, Black has three reliable ways of declining the Trojan horse: S ... �e7 (Game 62) , S ••• tZ:lb4 (Game 63) and S ... tZ:lxdS 6.exdS �b4+ /6 ... tZ:lb4 (Game 64) .

Game No 60 [C47] Van der Weide,Karel Timmermans,Ivo Sas van Gent 1 99 6 (I)

1. e2-e4 2. tZ:lg1-f3 3. tZ:lb1-c3 4. d2-d4 5. tZ:lc3-d5

e7-e5 tZ:lb8-c6 tZ:lg8-f6 e5xd4 tZ:lf6xe4!?

The most principled. However, in playing this way, the black player needs to know a number of forcing variations , and faces some serious unpleasantness if he does not.

6. 'ti'd1-e2

The alternative 6 .�c4 is seen in Game 6 1 .

203


6. ... f7-f5

7. tt:Jf3-g5

7 . .if4 has also been seen.

7 . ... d4-d3!

7 ... tbe7? 8. tbxe4 fxe4 9. �h5 + g6 10.'We5 .ld.g8 1 I..ig5 .ig7 12.t2lxc7+ 'itf8 13.'tif4+ 1 -0 Van der Weide-Ye Rongguang, Haarlem 1 996. A good illustration of the principle that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' !

8. c2xd3

No good is: 8.'ifxd3? tt:lxgS 9 . ..ixg5 'ifxgS 10.tbxc7+ �f7 10 ... �d8?? 1 I.tLle6++-. 11.tt:lxa8 dS 12.'ihd5+ �e6 The huge lead in development and the stranded white knight on a8 give Black the advantage.

8. ... tt:Jc6-d4 9. 'ife2-h5+

White loses after 9. tbxe4 tbxe 2 1 o . ..tg5

Analysis diagram

10 ... tbf4!!, and White loses material in all variations, without compensation.

9. 1 0. 'ifh5-h4 11. d3xe4 12. e4xd5

204

g7-g6 c7-c6 c6xd5

One of the critical positions of the variation. After 12.exfS ECO gives the following vanatlon: 12 ... tt:lxf5 13J!i'a4 1 3.'i¥g4!? �c5 1 4 . .id3 'ife7+ 1 5.�d1 0-0+, McCormick-Evans, correspondence 1 965. 13 ... 'ife7+ (this variation is not forced; by continuing, for example, 13 .. .'it'b6 14.�e2 �b4+ 15.'itfl 0-0; or 13 ... �g7 14.�d3 (1 4.'ifa3 h6 1 5.tLlf3 'itf7+) 1 4 ... 'ife7+ 1 5.'itd1 0-0, Black can obtain the better position without problems. 14.�d1 1tit6 1S.�c4 �xgS 16 . .ld.e 1 �xc 1 17 . .l:l.xc 1 dxc4 18 • .l:l.xc4 0-0 19 . .l:l.xe7 tt:lxe7 20 • .l:l.ce4 .l:l.f7 21.'ili'a3 �£8 22.'ifd6- V. Stoica.

12 . ... ..tf8-g7

The simplest and most reliable continuation. Black simply completes his development at once. Many practical tests have taken place in the line 12 ... 'ifaS+ and now: • Theory considers 13 . ..id2 'iVa4! bad for White, but does not offer any convincing demonstration of this: 14.'ifg3 f4! Unclear is 1 4 ... t2lc2+ 1 5.<eite2 �g7 (1 5 ... tbd4+ 1 6.'1te1 �g7) 1 6.b3 'ifa3 1 7. tbxh7. 1 S.�xf4 Firstly, this does not lose. Secondly, practical tests are still awaited of Tal's suggestion 15. 'if c3!?. 1S ... �b4+ Unclear is 15 ... tbc2+ 16.�d2 tbxa 1 17.�d3. 16 . ..id2 �xd2+ 17.�xd2 0-0 17 ... 'ifc2+ 1 8.�e1 0-0 1 9.�d3 'ifxb2 20 . .ld.b 1

'if c3 + 2 1 . �fl , and the position is far from clear. 18.�d3 'iVb4+ 19.�dl tt:JfS 19 ... 'ifa4+ 20.�c 1

Analysis diagram

20 ... tt:Jb3+? 2l.axb3 'i¥xa 1+ 22.�c2 'ifxh 1 23 .tt:Jxh7 +-; 19 ... 'iVxb2 20J:tb 1 'ifxf2 2l..l:i.b4 with unclear play, in which White's chances are not worse. 20.'iVh3 h6 21.tt:le4 'it'xb2 22.l:tb 1 'iVd4 23.g4 with a complicated, unclear game. However, given that 12 ... �g7 guarantees Black a fully comfortable future, this analysis is of purely theoretical interest. • 13.�dl 'iYxdS 14.kc4 'ifxc4 IS .l:!.el + ke7 16.l:txe7+! �xe7 17.tt:le4+ �e6 18.'iVf6+ �ds 19.tt:lc3+ �cS 20.b4+ �xb4 20 ... 'ifxb4

Analysis diagram

2l.�d2! 'if c4 22 J:tc 1, and Black must give perpetual check by means of 22 ... 'iffl+ 23 . ..te 1 'iVd3+ 24.�d2.

Chapter 7 - The Belgrade Gambit

21.�d2 Also possible is 2I.'iVd6+ �aS 22..� d2 'iYfl+ 23 . ..te 1 'iVd3+ 24 . ..td2=, Lubienski-Szczepaniec, Poland 1955. 21. • .'�fl + 2l...�c5; 21 ... �a5 22.t2ld5+ �a4 23.t2lc3+= 22.-tel 'iVd3+ 23.�d2= with a draw, and nothing is changed by 23 ... tt:lc6!? 24.l:tcl 24.'ifxh8=. 24 .. .'iYfl + 25 . ..tel 'iVd3+ 26.�d2 'iffl + with perpetual check.

Back to the game.

13. �e1-d1

Apparently best. However, given that just a few moves after this 'best move' , White reaches an ending which is objectively worse for him, entering this position can only be regarded as pure masochism. The move 13.'i:Yg3!? has been tried many times, hoping for 13 ... t2lc2? 14.�d 1 tt:Jxa 1 15.�c4 �f8 16.lle 1 with a decisive advantage to White. However, after the cold-blooded 13 ... 0-0 14.d6 Completely bad for White is 14.�d3 'iYas 15.�fl b6 16.'i¥h3 h6 17.t2lf3 'iVxdS-+, Nikonov-Yudovich, USSR 1949. 14 ... 'ifa5, the game turns out in Black's favour. Also good is 14 ... b5!? 15.�d3 �b7- the start of a solid plan involving the completion of his development, which guarantees Black comfortable

205


play, see: 16.0-0 'ii'f6 17 .tLlh3 h6 ( 1 7 ... ..te4!? with some advantage to Black) 18.�e3 tLle6 19.tLlf4 tLlxf4 20.'ii'xf4 �c6 2 1.'ii'b4 c;i;>h7 22.l:Hd 1 aS 23.'ii'b3 f4 24.�d4 'ii'gs 2S.itfl �xg2 0- 1 Klauner-Hebden, Marbella zt 1982. Even stronger, however, is, 1 S ... 'iYaS+ 16.�d2 (no better is 16.c;i;>fl �b7 17 . ..te3 'ifb4 with the advantage) 1 6 .. J:te8 + 1 7. c;i;>d 1 'iY a 4+ 18.b3 "iYa3 19.�c3 'ii'cs 20.l:i.c 1 �b7 with a large advantage to Black (Szklarczyk-Brauer, correspondence, 1984) .15 • ..id2 1S.c;i;>d 1 and now:

Analysis diagram

A) 1 S ... 'ii'ds 16.�d3 bS with the better game for Black;

B) In ECO, an article by Mishuchkov, and in Nunn's book on the Four Knights, the variation 1 5 ... 'iY a4+? 16.b3 tLlxb3 17.axb3 'ii'xa 1 18.�c4+ c;i;>h8 19.tLlxh7 �h6 is given, when after 20.c;i;>c2 White has a decisive advantage, but after 19 ... 'ii'd4+ 20.c;i;>c2 (20.�d2 'ii'al+ 2 1.c;i;>c2 'ir'b2+ 22.c;i;>d 1 'ii'a 1 +=) 20 ... b5! it turns out that things are not so simple: 2 1.'iYh3 (or 2 1.tLlxf8 bxc4 22.tLlxg6+ c;i;>g8 23 .tLle7 + c;i;>f8 with unclear play; it is unlikely that White has more than a draw here. If 2 1.tLlg5 'ii'g4 22.f3 'iYhS 23.�xb5 .l:.b8 24.�c4 l:i.b6 White also has to be satisfied with perpetual check

206

by 25.tLlf7+ c;i;>h7 26.tLlg5+ c;i;>h8) 2 1 ... 'iYg4 22.'ii'xg4 fxg4 23.tLlxf8 bxc4 24.tLlxg6+ c;i;>h7 with a probable draw. 15 ... l:i.e8+ 16.c;i;>d1 'iYa4+ Also possible is 16 ... 'ifd5!? 17J:tc 1 ( 17.'iYd3 'iYxd6+) 17 ... bS with an obvious advantage to Black. 17 .b3 tLlxb3 18.�c4+! 'ifxc4 19.axb3 'ii'g4+ 20.'ilt'xg4 fxg4 2l ..l:.a4 h6 22.l:i.e4 l:i.fS 23.h4 hxgS 24.h5 aS 25.�xg5 bS 26.h6 �c3 27.l:i.e3 �d4 28 • .1:.e4 �a1 29.c;i;>e2 �b7 0- 1, MishuchkovMalinin, corr. 1990.

Back to the game.

13 . ... 14. tt:Jg5-f3

h7-h6 tLld4xf3

Also fine for Black is 14 ... 'iYxh4 15.tLlxh4 c;i;>£7 with slightly the better game. Here is an example from recent tournament practice: 16.�e3 Definitely best. Weaker is 16 . ..td3? b6 17 .d6 �b7 18.�c4+ tLle6 19.tLlf3 l:i.ac8 20.�b3 .txf3+ 2 1.gxf3 l::rc6 when White's position is close to critical, Bednar-Werle, Hoogeveen 2006. 16 ... f4 17.�xd4 �xd4 18.�d3 gS ?! The more cautious 18 ... l:i.g8!? also preserves slightly the better chances for Black. 19.tt:Jf5 �xb2 20.l:i.b1 �es 21.d6! White has good compensation for the pawn. 21 ... b6 22.l:i.e1 c;i;>f6 23.l:i.b5 �a6 24.l:i.exe5

�xbS 25Jhb5 .tt.ac8 26.�d2 He should probably retain rooks on the board. After 26.tt::ld4 .tt.cs 27 . .l:!.b4 .l::r.ds 28.�d2 .l:!.xd6 (28 ... a5!?) 29.tt::lb5 White would have more chances to fight for a win. 26 ... llc5= 27.a4 �e6 28.g4 fxg3 29.fxg3 h5 30.h3 llf8 31.g4 hxg4 32.hxg4 llh8 33.llxc5 bxc5 34.�c4+ �e5 35.�b5 lld8 36.�e3 �d5 37.�d3 �e5 38.�c4 �f4 39.�xc5 �xg4 40.�xd7 llxd7 41.�c6 llh7 42)2jd4 �f4 43.d7 llh8 44.t�:Je6+ �f5 45.tt::lxg5 �xg5 Draw, Slingerlaud-De Vreugt, Amsterdam 2006.

15. 'iYh4xd8+ 16. g2xf3

�e8xd8 d7-d6

Perhaps he should grab the pawn in the variation 1 6 ... �d4!? 1 7.llg1 gS 1 8.f4 g4 1 9.�e3 �xb2 20 . .l:!.b 1 �g7.

17. f3-f4 �c8-d7

Black would have some hopes of an advantage after 1 7 ... �d4!? 1 8 . .l:!.g 1 .l:!.g8.

18. .tf1-c4 ?I

A poor move. Now Black takes over the initiative. He should prefer 1 8 . .l:!.g 1 !?

18. 19. �c4-b3 20. .l:!.h1-e1+ 21. .l:!.e1-e2

.l:!.a8-c8

�d8-e7 �e7-f7 .l:!.h8-e8


It made sense to include 2l...a5 22.a4 and only now 22 ... .l:!.he8 23.�e3 .l:!.e4.

22. �c1-e3 g6-g5

White would have more difficulties making a draw after 22...�b5 23 . .l:!.d2 aS 24.a4 �c4.

23. .l:!.a1-c1 24. �e3xc1 25. �d1xe2

.l:!.c8xc1+ .l:!.e8xe2

g5xf4?!

It is illogical to relieve the opponent of his weakness and help him bring his pieces into play. Some sort of chances could be retained after 25 ... -ltbS+ 26.�e3 �g6.

26. .tc1 xf4 .tg7-e5 1f2-112

Game No 61 [C47] Bednar,Jaromir Virostko,Petr Czech Republic tt 2004/05 (5)

1. e2-e4 2. tt::lb1-c3 3. tt::lg1-f3 4. d2-d4

5. tt:Jc3-d5 6. itf1-c4!?

e7-e5 tt::lg8-f6 tt::lb8-c6 e5xd4 tt::lf6xe4

This move is a comparatively fresh attempt to revive this old gambit.

6 . ... �f8-b4+1?

207


This move may put the seal on the whole line with 6.�c4.

A) Events work out well for White after 6 ... tLlc5?! 7 .�gs f6 8.tLlh4 d6 9.�xf6 gxf6 10.'tWh5+ ..ti>d7 1l.'tWf5+ tLle6 12.tLlxf6+ ..ti>e7 13.tLld5+ ..ti>d7 14.'i1Vf7+ tLle7 15.tLlf6+ ..ti>c6 16.�xe6±; B) In practice, Black has also tried

6 ... 1t..e7, when: B 1) There is no danger for Black in -

7.0-0 0-0 8J�e1 White would have greater practical chances after 8.�f4!? d6 9.l:te 1 tLlf6 (possible is 9 ... tLlc5 1 O.tLlxd4 when Black must take care, as White's piece pressure is noticeable. Even so, White does not have full compensation for the sacrificed pawn: 10 ... tLle6 1 1.tLlxe7+ 'tWxe7 12.tLlxc6 bxc6) 10.tLlxe7+ tLlxe7 1 1.tLlxd4. The two good bishops and well-positioned pieces give almost full compensation for the pawn deficit. 8 ... tLlf6 9.tLlxe7+ tt:Jxe7 1 O.'ifxd4 d5;

B2) 7.tLlxd4 o-o s.tt:Jbs it..b4+ 9.c3 tLlxfl 10.'iYh5 tLlxh1 11.cxb4 tLlxb4?? However, after the correct 1 1 ... l:te8+ 12.'>fi>fl l:reS 13.'tWf3 d6

Analysis diagram

... the possibility of the opposite result would have been somewhat greater: 14.1t..f4 l:rfS 15.tLlbxc7 tt:Jes 16.'iYe4 tLlxc4 17.tLle7+ ( 17.'tWxc4 �e6+)

208

1 7 ... '>fi>f8 1 8. tLlxfS 'iY xc 7 +. However, in this case too, play has a rather confused character and it is very easy for either side to go wrong. 12 . .tgs l:re8+ 13.'iitfl l:te5 14J:tel ! brought White a quick win in Kenworthy -Van der Sterren, Ramsgate 198 1.

7. c2-c3

White is not promised anything by 7 .tLlxb4 tLlxb4 8.0-0 8.tLlxd4 dS + 9.'iYxd4 0-0 Also possible is 9 ... tt:Jxc2!? 1 O.'iYxg7 'ti'f6 1 1.'ti'xf6 tLlxf6 12..�.gS tLlxa 1 13 .�xf6 dxc4 14 . .1xh8 tLlc2- in the resulting endgame, White faces a fight for a draw. 1 0.1t..xd5 'tWxdS 11.'iYxb4 cS Even so, compared with what happens in the game, this is the lesser evil.

7.

8. 0-0 9. a2-a3

d4xc3 0-0

If 9.'i¥c2 tLld2 10 . .1xd2 cxd2 1 1.tLlxb4 tLlxb4 12.'i¥xd2 tLlc6+ White's compensation for the two pawns is clearly inadequate.

9. 10. 'iYd1-c2 11. �c1xd2 12. �c4-d3 13. �d3xh7+ 14. �h7-f5

�b4-c5 tt:Je4-d2 c3xd2 d7-d6 ..ti>g8-h8

14. 15. tt:Jf3xe5 16. 'ti'c2xc5

tt:Jc6-e5! d6xe5

16.�xc8 'ifxdS 18.'ilixc5 'iYxb2-+.

17 .�xb7 'il:fxb7

16 . ... itc8xf5

White's position is lost. The Czech master Jaromir Bednar plays the Belgrade Gambit with admirable loyalty, which makes such a rapid fiasco in his favourite opening all the more surprising.

17.tt:Jd5-e3 �f5-d3 18..l:l:t1-d1 �d3-e2 19.l:!.d1-b1 l:!.f8-e8 20.f2-f3 'ifd8-d4 21.'ifc5-c3 d2-d1'il:f+ 22 . .!:!.b1xd1 �e2xd1 23.l:!.a1 xd1 'il:fd4xc3 24.b2xc3 l:!.a8-d8 25.l:!.d1-b1 .!:!.d8-d3 26.�g1-f2 b7-b6 27 . .!:!.b1-c1 .!:!.e8-d8 28.tt:Je3-c4 f7-f6 29.a3-a4 .!:!.d3-d1 30 . .!:!.c1-c2 l:!.d1-a1 0-1

Game No 62 [C47] Almasi,Istvan Bezgodov,Alexey Balatonbereny 1996 ( 4)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. d2-d4 5. tt:Jc3-d5

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6 e5xd4 �f8-e7


The most reliable reply to the Belgrade Gambit. Black simply completes his development, ignoring his opponent's intrigues.

6. �c1-f4

• The alternative is 6.�c4 0-0 6 ... tt:Jxe4 goes into the line with 6 ... tt:Jxe4, see Game 15. Black also equalised after the passive 6 ..• d6 in the game Krnan-Bluvshtein, Edmonton 2005: 7.tt:lxd4 0-0 8.0-0 tt:JxdS 9 . ..txdS tt:Jxd4 10.'il:fxd4 �f6 11.'tlfd3 'ife7 12.c3 c6 13.�b3 l:!.e8 14.�c2 g6 1S .�f4 �eS. 7.tt:lxd4 7.0-0. 7 .•• tt:JxdS 8.�xdS tt:lxd4 9.'ifxd4 �f6 10.'iVd3 c6 11.�b3 dS 12.0-0 Dubious is 12.exd5?! l:!.e8+- here only White can be worse. 12 ... dxe4 13.'�xe4 l:!.e8 with a comfortable game for Black, MorrisWedberg, New York 199 1; • No more than equality is offered by 6.tt:lxd4 tt:lxdS 7.exdS tt:Jxd4 8.'ifxd4 0-0 9.�e2 �f6 10.'ifd3 d6= 11.c3 1 1.0-0 l:!.e8 12...t f3 =. 11. .. l:!.e8 12.�e3 �gS 13.£4 13.0-0 �xe3 14.fxe3 'it'gS IS .l:!.f4=. 13 ... .ih6 Here the king is more vulnerable. After 13 ... �f6 14.0-0 �fS 1S.'il:fxf5 l:!.xe3 16.�f3 'ti'e7 Black retains a small advantage. 14.�d2 Equality could be maintained more simply by 14.�f2. 14 .. .'Yi'f6 A good move, keeping the initiative. However, even stronger was 14 ... g6 with the idea of �fS, which places White in a critical position. 1 S .'ii'd4 White is slightly worse but nothing too tragic has happened to him yet. After the accurate 15.g3!? �fS (IS ... cS!?) 16.'it'd4 'it'g6 17 .�d3 Black has nothing special. 1S ... 'il:fg6 16 . .if3 �g4 17.�xg4 'il'xg4 White's position is simply unpleasant. 18.g3 l:!.e7 19.l:!.ae1 .!:!.ae8 20.'ifxa7 A committal move. 20.�c2!?. 20 ... cS ?!

209


White would face greater problems after 2 0 .. .'ti' f3!?. 21.dxc6 bxc6 22.�£'2? After the cold-blooded 22.'ii'a6 White's risky idea might have proved justified. In any event, nothing forcing for Black is apparent: 22...'iff3 23 . .l:thfl 'i¥g2+ 24 . .l:tf2 'i¥d5+ 25.'it>c 1 and White retains his extra pawn, although of course, Black has compensation. 22 ... .1:i.e2+ 23 • .1:i.xe2 .l:i.xe2+ 24.<;i;lcl g5!

Analysis diagram

25 • .1:i.dl An interesting situation; despite his extra pawn, White's position is practically hopeless: his pieces entirely lack coordination. 25 ... gxf4 26.'i¥b8+ �f8 27.ii..a7 f3 0- 1, B. SavchenkoTseshkovsky, Maikop 2004.

6 . ... d7-d6

The most solid. Adventure lovers may be attracted by 6 ... 0-0!?

Analysis diagram

2 10

7.il.xc7 Bad is 7.!1Jxc7 tt:Jhs +. 7 .. .'iVe8 8.i.e2 tt:lxe4 8 ... d6 9.tt:Jxf6+ gxf6 with the idea of trapping the bishop on c7 fails to 10.tt:Jxd4 f5!? ( 10 ... 'i¥d7 1 1.tt:Jxc6 'ifxc6 12..�a5 'ti'xe4 13.0-0 with advantage to White) 1 1.tiJb5 (or ll.exf5 'i!Yd7 12.tt:Jxc6 'iYxc6 13.i.a5 'iYxg2, also does not inspire great optimism) 1 1 .. .'it'd7 12...�.xd6, and the bishop emerges. 9.il.f4 'i¥d8 10.0-0 tt:lf6 11..i.c4 White has a small advantage after ll.i.c7!? 'ii'e8 12.tt:Jxf6+ i.xf6 13 . .!:i.e 1. 11 ... tt:Jxd5 12 . .i.xd5 'ti'as 13.i.b3 'tlr'cs 14 . .1:i.e1 d5 15.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 16.�e3 �f6 17 .c3

Analysis diagram

17 ... tt:Jxb3?! An interesting sacrifice of the queen for three pieces, leading to a roughly equal position with chances for both sides. After the banal 1 7 ... i.e6 18.il.xd4 i.xd4 19.'ti'xd4 'ii'xd4 20.cxd4 the normal result of the game is a draw. 18.i.xc5 tt:Jxc5 19.'ti'xd5 tt:Ja4 20.'ifb5 tt:lb6 2l ..l:i.ad1 �e6 22.a4 .l:i.ab8 23.h3 .l:i.fc8 24.<;i;lh1 Worthy of consideration is 24 . .1:i.d6!? tt:Jc4 25 . .1:i.dxe6 fxe6 26 . .1:i.xe6. 24 ... h6 25.'it>g1 .l:i.c6 26.a5 a6 27.'ti'b4 tt:Jds 28.'ti'a3 .l:i.bc8 29 . .1:i.e2 tt:Jc7 30.'i¥b4 tt:Jbs 31.'tlr'f4 .l:i.6c7 32.'tlr'f3 .l:i.c6 33 . .1:i.ed2 .l:i.6c7 34.<;i;lh1 .l:!.e8 35 . .1:i.e2 l:tce7 36.'it>g1 tt:Ja7 37.l:!.d6 tt:lc6 38.'ti'h5 38.b4=. 38 ... i.b3 38 ... ii..g5!?, and Black's chances are al-

ready slightly preferable. 39 . .ld.xe7 .ld.xe7 40 . .l:t.d2 40 . .ld.xf6!? gxf6 4l.'ifxh6 .ld.e6 42.'ir'f4 with sufficient counterchances for White, in view of the poor protection of the black king. 40 ... .tr.e 1 +?! Black can obtain a large advantage by 40 ... .tgs 41 ..l:t.d3 .ld.e1 + 4V�h2 lLlesthe white queen can escape only at the cost of other material losses. 41.'1t>h2 ..til.gs 42 . .ld.e2 .td1

Analysis diagram

43.'ii'xgS .l:t.xe2 44JWg4 .ld.d2 4S.'ifc8+ lLld8 Black has the advantage. 46.b4 .ta4 47.£3 .tc6 48.'1t>g3 g6 49.�8 '1t>h7 so:ti'f4 .ld.d7 Sl .c4 lLle6 S2.'ifes tt::ld4 S3.'1t>f2 hS S4.h4 '1t>g8 SS.'iff6 '1t>h7 ss ... lLlfs+. S6.'ifes .ta4 S7.g4 �c6 S8.gxhS lLlxf3 S9.hxg6+ fxg6 60.'ti'f4 lLld4 61.'ii'f6lLJB?! 6l...�e4!?. 62.hS= lLle7 63.'ifgs gxhS? 64.'ifxhS+ 64.b5± axbS 65.cxb5 .idS? 66.'ifxh5+ <it'g7 67.'iYg4++-. 64 •.. '1t>g7 6S .bS axbS 66.cxbS .ixbS ?? 66 ... .l:t.d5=. 67.'ifxb5+- tbc6 68.a6 .l:t.£7+ 69.'1t>g2 '1t>f8 70.axb7 lLlb8 1 -0, Van der WeideWinants, The Netherlands 1 996.

7. lLlf3xd4 0-0

Also possible is 7 ... lLlxdS 8.exdS tt::lxd4 9.'it'xd4 0-0 10.'ifd2 .tf6 11.0-0-0 .tfs 12.f3 The position is roughly equal, but White's play is slightly easier: he has the clear plan of advancing the

Chapter 7- The Belgrade Gambit

kingside pawns. 12 ..• hS!? 13.l:tg1 l:te8 14.�d3 1 4.g4 hxg4 1 5.fxg4 �g6 1 6.g5 .teS=. 14 .. .'�'d7 1S . .txB 'ifxfS 16.g4 hxg4 17.fxg4 'ti'g6 18.gS �es with an equal game, Biro-Petran, Balatonbereny 1 996.

8. lLld4-b5 lLlf6xd5 9. e4xd5

'One of the key positions for the variation starting with S ... .te7'- Nunn.

9 . ... lLlc6-e5

The most solid. • Practice has also seen 9 ... lLlb4 10.c3

Analysis diagram

1 o ... a6 Black also has an interesting tactical trick: 1 O ... �gS 1 1 . .txg5 'ifxgS 1 2.lLlxc7 (1 2.cxb4 .l:t.e8+ 1 3 . .te2 'ir'xg2 1 4.<it>d2 'iYxf2 with excellent compensation for the sacrificed piece) 1 2 ... .if5 1 3.cxb4

211


Analysis diagram

13 .. J:!.ac8 (it is worth considering playing in the style of the old masters: 13 .. . l:i.ae8+ 14.tt::lxe8 l:i.xe8+ 15.�e2 'ifxg2 16.l:i.fl ( 16.<Jtd2? 'iVxdS+ 17. <Jtc3 l:i.c8+-+) 16 ... .ig4 17 .f3 �xf3 18 .l:i.xf3 'iVxf3 19 .l:i.c 1 'iVh 1+ 20.Wd2 'iVxdS+ 2 1 . .id3 'iVxa2 with unclear play) 14.l:i.c 1 l:i.fe8+ 1S . .ie2 'iVxg2 16. tt::lxe8 (both 16.<Jtd2 'iVgS+-+ and 16JH 1 l:i.e7 are bad for White; further material losses are inevitable) 16 ... 'iVxh 1+ 17.<Jtd2 'iVxdS+ 18.<Jte 1 'iVxdl+ 19.<Jtxd 1 l:i.xe8 20.l:i.c7, and White should survive (analysis) . l l .tt::la3 l:i.e8 12 . .ie2 ..llli4 13.tt::lc4 In the event of the seemingly tempting 13.<Jtfl Black obtains strong counterplay by means of 13 ... l:i.xe2! 14.'iVxe2 tt::lxdS 1S . .ig3 �f6. The pawn for the exchange, and noticeably better piece placement allows us to assess the position in favour of Black. 13 ... �g4 14.tt::le3 .i.xe2 1S.<Jtxe2 'iVd7 16.g3 ..tf6 17.h4 If 17.cxb4 gS 18.�xg5 �xgS 19.'iVd4 i.xe3 20.fxe3 l:i.eS Black has sufficient compensation for the lost pawn. 17 ... 'iVbS + 18.<Jtf3 lhe3+! 19.�xe3 tt::lxdS Black has fully adequate compensation for the exchange. 20.'ii'd2 'ii'c6 21.<Jtg4 'ii'd7+ 22.Wf3 'i:Vc6 draw, Skrobek-Pinkas, Wroclaw ch-POL 1987; • And 9 ... ..tgs l O . ..txgS 'it'xgS l l .'ii'd2 1 1.tt::lxc7 'iVe7+ 12..�.e2 'iVxc7 13.dxc6

212

bxc6=. l l ... 'ii'eS+ The position arising after 1 1...'ii'e7+ 12 . ..te2 a6 13.tt::lc3 ( 13.tt::lxc7 'iVxc7 14.dxc6 bxc6=) 13 ... tt::le5 14.0-0-0, Nunn assesses as in favour of White. 12..�e2 a6 13.tt:lxc7 tt::ld4 14.tt:lxa8 �g4

tt.J .

Analysis diagram

1S.c3 If 1S.tt::lb6 �xe2 ( 15 ... tt::lxe2 16.tt::lc4 'iVe7 17 .tt::le3) 16.f4 'iVe4 17. <Jtfl± 'I do not see how Black can obtain sufficient compensation'- Nunn 1S ... tt::lxe2 16.'ii'e3 'ii'f6 17.tt::lb6?

A) Stronger is 17 .tt:lc7! tt::lf4 ( 17 ... 'iVd8 18.f3) 18.0-0±;

B) Or even 17.<Jtd2 'iVd8 18.tt::lc7!±, deflecting the black queen from the defence of square e8: 18 ... 'iVxc7 19.f3±. 17 .. .'i:Vd8! 18.tt::lc4 l:i.e8 White is in desperate trouble. 19.h3 l:i.xe3 19 ... tt::lf4-+. 20.tt::lxe3 'it'b6 21.hxg4 'iVxb2 22 . .l:tdl tt:lxc3 and Black won, Juarez-De la Vega, Buenos Aires 1985.

Back to the game.

10. .tf1-e2

This looks more logical by comparison with 1 O.'ti'd2, as practice confirms -White concentrates on kingside castling.10.'iYd2 and now: e 1 O ... cS!? 11..txeS!? If 1 1.0-0-0 tt:lg6 12.�g3 fS 13.f4 a6 14.tt:lc3 bS Black outstrips his opponent in developing his initiative. 11 ... dxeS 12.d6 �gS 13.'iVdS 'ii'aS+ 14.c3 .!:!.dS Tempting is 14 ... ..te6!? 1 S.'ii'xcS ( 1 S.'ifxeS .!:!.fe8+; 1 S.'ti'xb7 .!:!.ab8-+) 1 S .. . a6

Analysis diagram

16.h4 ( 16. b4 'ti'a4 17.tt:lc7 b6! 18.'ihe5 'ifc2, and White is doing badly ) 16 .. . .!:!.ac8 17.'ti'a3 'ti'xa3 18.tt:lxa3 .th6. It is clear that the d6 pawn will soon be lost and the endgame favours Black. 1 S .�e2 't!Vb6 16.l:!.d1 .te6 17.'ifxeS ..tf6 1S.'iVhS �xa2 19.0-0 jLb3 20.l:!.d3 .!:tabS 21.c4 �c2 22.l:!.d2 .i.g6 23.'ti'dS a6 24.tt:lc3 �d4+ 2S.d7 11Vc7 26.�g4? 26.'ti'f3 'ifxd7 27.tt:lds + 26 •.• 'iff4-+ 27.l:!.e2 'ifxg4 2S . .!:!.fe1 h6 29.l:!.eS+ 'it>h7 30.'ti'd6 'it'fS 31.tt:ld1 khs 32.tt:le3 .!:!.xeS 33.'it'xbS jLxe3 0- 1, G. GarciaAlexandrov, Turin ol 2006; • Also good is 10 • • • c6 11.tLlc3 .tfS= Or 1l...�g4 12.h3 .ths 13 . .te2 .txe2 14.'ifxe2 tt:lg6 1S . .td2 l:!.e8 16.0-0 Af6 17.'ti'c4 'ti'b6 18.tt:le4 .tes


1 9 . .te3 cS 20 . .!:!.fe 1 'iV d8 (also possible is 20 .. .'ifxb2 2 1.l:!.ab 1 bS! 22.'iYxbS (22.'ti'd3 'ifxa2) 22 ... 'ifxc2 - White has sufficient compensation for the pawn) 2l.c3 l:!.c8 22.l:!.ad1 a6 23.a4 h6

- and the battle does not go beyond the confines of equality, Toufighi-El-Taher, Dubai 2006 (0- 1) .

10. ... tt:le5-g6

Also perfectly possible here is 1 O ... c6 1 1.tLlc3 �fs (1 1. ..'ti'b6!?) 12.0-0 l:!.e8 with roughly equal play.

11. .tf4-g3

More natural is 11 .i.e3.

11 . ... f7-f5 12. f2-f4 .te7-f6 13. c2-c3 .!:!.f8-e8 14. 0-0 a7-a6 15. tt:lb5-d4

15 . ... .tf6xd4+1

A good, and more or less necessary decision; if, for example, 1 S ... 'ti'e7 16.l:!.e1 'ti'f7 1 7.'ti'b3, Black could experience some problems.

16. c3xd4 17. .!:!.f1-e1 18. 'ti'd1-d2 19. .!:!.a1-d1

�c8-d7

'ti'd8-f6 .!:!.e8-e41

213


Black's minor pieces are somewhat short of freedom of movement, but this is compensated for by the counterplay on the e-file and the weakness of the pawn on dS.

19 . ... 'it'f6-f7 20. 'it'd2-c1

Evidently, after 20 . .tf3 the plan was to sacrifice the exchange with 20 . . . 'it'xd5 2l.�xe4 fxe4 22.b3 �c6 and Black is, at least, no worse.

20 . ... �a8-c8

21. �e2-c4 ?I

Now White simply remains a pawn down. He should accept the sacrifice: 2I..tf3 'iYxdS 22.�xe4 fxe4 23.'ii'c2 .tc6 24.'ti'b3. Black has full compensation for the exchange, but with accurate play, White should not lose.

21 . ... tt:Jg6-e7

22. \'Vc1-c2 .l:i.e4xe1+

23. .l:i.d1xe1 tt:Je7xd5 24. .tg3-h4 .t:!c8-e8 25. .l:i.e1xe8+ �d7xe8 26. .th4-d8 �e8-b5 27. .tc4-b3 'it'f7-e6 28. h2-h3 c7-c6

29. �g1-h2 h7-h6 30. a2-a4 .tb5-f1 31. 'ii'c2-d1

214

3l.�gl !?.

31 . ... 32 . .tb3xd5 33. 'iid1-d2 34. 'ti'd2-b4

.tf1-e2 c6xd5 .te2-c4 .tc4-f1

Tempting is 34 ... .td3 followed by ... �e4. White would still have to fight for the draw.

35. 'ti'b4-d2 \'Ve6-e8 36. .td8-h4

36 . ... 'ife8xa4?

Black falls into a concealed trap. Preferable was 3 6 .. .'if e4+.

37. \'Vd2-e1!

38. 'iVe1-e6+ 39. �h4-f6!

.tf1-d3

�g8-h8

1h·V2

Now perpetual check cannot be avoided: 39 ... gxf6 40.\\Y£7.

Game No 63 [C47] Krnan, Tomas Bick,John Ottawa 2007 (!)

1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. tt:Jg1-f3 tt:Jg8-f6

3. tt:Jb1-c3 tt:Jb8-c6 4. d2-d4 e5xd4 5. tt:Jc3-d5 tt:Jc6-b41?

Yet another move with a reputation for being very solid.

6. tt:lf3xd4

On 6.�c4 a precise route to equality is considered to be 6 ... t2Jbxd5 7.exd5 �b4+ 8.�d2 "iVe7+ 9."iVe2 .txd2+ 10.�xd2 "iVxe2+ l l .�xe2 c5! 12.dxc6 bxc6! 13.t2Jxd4 d5 14.i.b3 The stem game saw I4 . .td3 c5 I5.l2lb5 0-0 I6.b3 .te6 I7.c4 .l:.fe8 I8.Wf3 .l:.ad8 with a minimal advantage to Black, Van Haastert-Golod, Dieren I998. 14 • • . c5 15 . .ta4+ We7 16.tt:lf3 l:!.b8 17J�hel �d6 18.b3 tt:le4 19.�d3 f5 I9 ... tt:lxf2++-. 20.c4 d4 21..l:!.e2 t2Jc3 nJ:tes i.b7 23 . .l:!.eel �e4+ 24.�d2 tt:lxa4 25.bxa4 .l:.b2+ 26.�dl .l:.xf2 27.tt:lg5 .l:.e8 28.tt:lxe4+ .l:.xe4 29 . .l:.gl .l:.ee2 0-I, Hrzica-Banusz, Trieste 2008.

6 . ... tt:lb4xd5

Not the most principled decision. Even so, it appears sufficient for equality, a rather bad sign for lovers of the Belgrade Gambit. This position more often arises via the move-order 5 ... tt:lxd5 6.exd5 tt:lb4 7 .tt:lxd4 <i:lxd5. The position reached after 6 ... tt.Jxe4! deserves a diagram. Ever since Prie-Psakhis, Paris I990, a game which got a great deal of publicity at the time, nobody has managed to demonstrate any improvement for White in this variation.


Analysis diagram

• If 7.'fVe2 tt:lxd5 8.'fVxe4+ 'fVe7 9 . .td3 'ii'xe4+ I 0 . .txe4 tt:lf6=F White has insufficient compensation for the pawn; • Little also comes from playing for a lead in development: 7.�d3!? t2Jxd5 Less good is the outwardly tempting 7 ... tt:lxf2 8.'ir'e2+ il.e7 9.tt:lxb4 tt:lxhi IO.<i:lf5 Wf8 II.'tWxe7+ 'ii'xe7+ 12.tt:lxe7 Wxe7 I3.il.e3±- the knight on hi is cut off. 8.i.xe4 i.b4+ 9.i.d2 i.xd2+ 10.'ihd2 tt:lf6 l l .i.f3 'ii'e7+ 12.tt:le2 0-0 13.0-0-0=F White's slight advantage in development hardly compensates for his pawn minus; • The line 7 .tt:lb5 tt:lxd5 8.'ihd5 has been tested in practice.

Analysis diagram

A) In a practical game, it is hard to decide on 8 ••. 'ii'e7! and now:

AI) Bad is 9.tt:lxc7+? Wd8 IO . ..tf4 d6! Il.0-0-0 Wxc7, and White does

215


not have sufficient compensation for the piece;

A2) Interesting is 9.'ifd4!?, although after 9 ... 'ifb4+ 1 o.'ifxb4 �xb4+ 1 1.c3 �aS he still does not have full compensation for the pawn;

A3) 9.i.f4!? c6 10.tt:lc7+ �d8 1 1.'iVeS 'ifxeS 12..�.xeS d6 13.tt:lxa8 dxeS 14 . .!:f.d 1 + �d7 with advantage for Black.

B) 8 ••• tt:lcS is a perfectly good reply. 9.�e3 tt:le6 10.0-0-0

Analysis diagram

The development advantage represents certain compensation for the pawn, but it is hard to say if this is adequate. Also worth consideration is 1 0 .�d3!? �e 7 1 1.0-0 a6 12.tt:ld4. 10 ... �e7 1I.tt:ld4 o-o n.tt:lfs 1 2..�.d3!?. n ... �gs 13.h4?! The plan of piece pressure is of similar merit: 13 .i.d3 .txe3 + 14.tt:lxe3. In either case, Black's position has no weaknesses and White must fight to show that his lead in development constitutes sufficient compensation for the pawn. 13 ... �xe3+ 14.tLlxe3 d6 15.g4 'iff6 15 ... tLlcS!?. 16.'ifd2 'iff4 17 . .!:f.g 1 tt:lcS?! Apparently missing the opponent's reply. 18.tt:ldS 'ifa4 19.tt:lc3 'ifa5 20.f4 More chances were offered by 2o.hS!?. 20 ... bs 20 ... �d7 2 1.hs tt:la4 looks more solid. 21.�xb5 �e6?! More natural is 2 1.. . .!:f.b8 with mutual

216

chances. 22.a3 f5? Black's position is already slightly worse, but the text looks like suicide. 23.gxf5 Now White has a significant advantage. 23 ... .!:f.xf5 ? Black's position would also be fairly bad after 23 ... �xf5 24.'ifg2 g6 (24 ... tt:le6 25.�c4+-) 2S.h5±, but at least he would not be a rook down. 24.'ifg2 g6 25.'ifxa8+ �g7 26.�d3 .l::!.xf4 27 . .l::!.gfl tt:lxd3+ 28.cxd3 �e5 29 . .!:f.xf4 'ii'xf4+ 30.�b1 1-0, Ochoa de EchaguenRohde, Alicante 1 9 7 8. • 7.tLlfs c6 8.tLlxb4 'ii!VaS ! 9.'ti'f3 ii.xb4+ and now:

Analysis diagram

A) 10.<oti>dl ? 'ife5! 10 ... d5 1 1.tt:lxg7+ �f8 12.tt:lf5 ii.cS 13.�h6+ We8 also favours Black. 11.tt:lxg7+ Wd8 12.tt:lf5 d5 The difference in piece activity is clearly in Black's favour. The symmetry in king positions is unusual. 13.tt:lh6 Simply losing, although it is difficult to recommend anything better. If 13. tt:le3 fS White stands badly. A tactical solution is also possible: 13 ... tt:lc3+ 14.bxc3 'ifxc3 1S.ii.d3 'ifxa 1 16.tt:lxd5!? �d6+. 13 • • .'ifd4+ 14.�d3 tt:lxf2+ 15.<oti>e2 .!:f.e8+ 16.�e3 tLlxd3 16 ... �c5 17.'ifxf2 .!:f.xe3+ 18.Wfl l:rxd3 -+. 17 .c3 tt:lf4+ 18. <oti>f2 tt:ld3 + 19.We2 'ifc4 20.tt:lxf7+ <otl>c7 2I.<oti>d2 �c5 2l...d4 22.�f4+ Wb6-+. 22.'ifg3+ �b6 23.tLld6 �xe3+

24.'i!fxe3+ .:xe3 25.lbxc4+ dxc4 26.�xe3 �g4! 27.b3 �c5 (27 ... .:es+ 28.�d4 lbf2 with unavoidable mate) 0-1 Prie-Psakhis, Paris 1990.

B) Psakhis assesses the position after 10.c3 lbxc3 11.a3 lt:JdS+ 12.�d1 as unclear. Analy sis shows that the advantage lies with Black: 12 ... 0-0 13.�6 Or 13.'i!fg3 g6 1 4.�c4 d6 15.lbh6+ c;£;>g7 16.h4 �c5 17 .h5.

Analysis diagram

Objectively, Black's position is close to winning, although White retains some tactical resources. 13 ... d6 Nunn recommends 13 ... l:te8 with advantage, and this assessment is justified, although after 14.�c4 �f8 (or 14 ... .1:te5 15.lbxg7 �e7 16.b4 with the idea of 16 ... �xb4? 17.lbf5±; 14 ... g6 IS.l:f.cl �f8 16.�xd5 'ifxd5+ 17.'ifxd5 cxd5 18.�xf8 gxf5 1 9.�b4

Analysis diagram


gives White good drawing chances) 15.�xg7 �xg7 16.'ifg4 White retains many chances to complicate the game. 14.lbxg7 14.�xg7l:te8-+.

Analysis diagram

14 ... �d2! 15.�xd2 'ifa4+ 16.';ite1 16.c;£;>ci �g4+. 16 .. /�xg7 17.'ifg3+ �h8 18.�c3+ f6, and White's counterplay is extinguished.

Back to the game.

7. e4xd5

8. 'ifd1-f3

lt:Jf6xd51?

• More natural is 8.�c4, although in this case too, it is not easy to show enough compensation for the pawn: 8 ... �b4+ 9.�d2 9.c3 lbxc3 IO.bxc3 ..txc3+ II.c;t>fl hal 12 . ..ta3 d6! 13.'ifxal 0-0 could lead to an interesting position with unbalanced material, in which Black's chances still look preferable (next page):

21 7


Analysis diagram

9 • • • i.xd2+ 10.'ihd2 tbb6 If 1 0 ... tbe7 1 1 .0-0-0 dS 1 2 .%:the 1 0-0 1 3. 'if gS f6 1 4.'iYg3 c6 1 S.i.d3 White has definite compensation for the pawn. 11 • ..td3 1 1 .'iYe2+! ? 'iYe7 1 2.0-0-0 'iYxe2 1 3.i.xe2 dS 1 4.tbbs c;fr>dS 1 S.c4 c6 16.tbc3, and White's compensation should be enough for a draw. 11 .•• 0-0 12.0-0 1 2.0-0-0 cS 1 3.tbf3 dS+. 12 .•. c5 13.tbf3 dS White does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn. • The most dangerous move in a practical sense is 8.tbf5. This position arose by transposition of moves in the game Bellon Lopez-Jamieson, Wijk aan Zee II 1 977, where there followed: 8 ... tbe7 9 . .tgs! f6 More solid is 9 ... dS! ? 1 0.i.xe7 i.xe7 1 l .tbxg7+ c;fr>fS 1 2.tbhS .t:f.g8 1 3.g3 'iYd6 with good play for Black. Despite Black's loss of castling, it is the white king which looks the more vulnerable.

Analysis diagram

21 8

10 • ..txf6! gxf6 11.'ifh5+ tbg6 12.0-0-0 d6 13.tbh4! Nunn considers 1 3.i.d3 more dangerous, although after 1 3 ... 'it'd7 (or even 1 3 ... i.xfS 1 4 . .t:f.hel + 'iii>f7 1 S.i.xfS i.g7) 1 4 . .t:f.he 1 + Wd8 followed by ... c7 -c6 and ... 'iti>c7 Black should beat off the attack, for example: 1 S .tbd4 ( 1 S .i.e4 c6 1 6.tbxd6 i.xd6 1 7 .l:txd6 'iYxd6 1 8 . .t:f.d1 'ifxdl + 1 9.'ifxd1 + 'iti>c7-+) 1 S ... 'if g4 1 6.i.xg6 'iYxg6 1 7 .'iYf3 'iYf7+. 13 • • • .tg7 14.i.c4 Worthy of attention is the more forcing 1 4 . .l:f.e 1 + 'iii>f8 1 S .i.c4 with the threat of 1 6.'iYxg6!.

Analysis diagram

1 S .. .fS!? (1 S ... dS 1 6.hdS±) 1 6.ltJxg6+ (1 6.ltJxfS? 'iYf6 1 7.ltJxg7 'iti>xg7 and Black is out of danger; nor does 1 6.'iYxg6? hb2+-+ work) 1 6 ... hxg6 1 7.'iYxg6 'iYd7 1 8 . .t:f.e3!? (a practically equal endgame results from 1 8 .i.e6 hb2+ (there is nothing else) 1 9.'iti>xb2 'iYg7+ 20.'iYxg7+ �xg7) 18 ... .l:f.h6 1 9.'iYgS dS 20.hdS (worse is 20 . .t:f.he1 dxc4 2l ..l:.e8+ 'iYxe8 22.l:txe8+ <it>xe8 23.'iYxg7 .l:.e6. The position remains complicated, and the h-pawn may become dangerous, but even so, Black's chances are preferable) 20 ... .l:f.d6!? (20 ... 'iYxdS 2l ..l:.d1 hb2+ 22.<it>xb2

l:tb6+ 23.'iti>c1 .l:.b1 + 24.<it>xb1 'iYxd1 + 2S.�b2 'iYd4+ with perpetual check) 21 .l:.he 1 .l:.xdS 22. 'ifhs!? (despite the

absence of the bishop pair, White's threats are very dangerous. Or 22.l:te7 .l:td1+ 23 . .1:!.xd1 'Wxe7 24.l:!.d8+ rJ;l£7 2S.'ifhS+ rJtf6 26.'ilh4+) 22 ... hb2+ 23.rJtxb2 'Wg7+ 24.c3 White's initiative more than compensates for the missing piece. 14 • • • 'if d7 15 • .l:!.he 1 + rJtds 1 s ... 'Ot>fs? 16.'ifxg6. 16.lt::Jxg6 hxg6 17.'ifxg6

Analysis diagram

17 ••• �6+ 17 ... .1:!.h6 18.'it'g3 �f8! followed by ... 'it'g7 and ... �d7 refutes the attack. 18.Wb1 'it'g7 19.'it'e4 'It is hard to believe that White has enough compensation for the piece' - Nunn. 19 • • • l:!.b8 The immediate 19 ... fS 20.'ifds 'iff6 21.'ifas �g7 22.c3 .l:!.xh2+ is good. 20 • .I:!.d3 B 2I.'ifd5 'Wf6 22.'ifa5! An excellent practical chance. 22 ••• b5 Worth consideration is 22 ... a6, and on 23.lle6 there is 23 ... b6! 24.'ifa3 �xe6 2S . .llxd6+ cxd6 26.'it'xd6+ 'lt>e8 27.'ifxb8+ 'ifd8 winning.

Analysis diagram


23 • .l:te6! With this beautiful blow, White forces a draw. 23 •.. 'ifxb2+!! Not 23 ... �xe6 24..l: hd6+±. 24.�xb2 bxc4+ 25.<.;i;>c3 �g7+ 26.'.td2 �xe6 27..1:.Xd6+ �d7 28 • .1:!.xd7+ '.txd7 29.'ii'xf5+ <j;e7 30.'ifc5+ rJtd7 3I.'iff5+ We7 32.'ife4+ '.td8 33.'ii'd5+ <.;i;>e7.

Back to the game.

8 . ... 9. �f1-e2

10. c2-c3 11. 0-0=

'ifd8-e7+ 'ife7-e5 c7-c6

Black's extra pawn is balanced by White's slight lead in development . Chances are equal.

11. ... 12. g2-g3 13. .l:tf1-d1

13.�d2=.

13 . ...

.if8-d6 0-0

�d6-b8

It cannot be right to cut off his own rook. More solid is 13 ... �cS 14. ttJ b3 �b6=.

14. c3-c4

14.�d3!?i.

14 . ... 15. �c1-f4

lt::Jd5-f6 'ife5-e4=

21 9


16 . .tf4xb8 17. �e2xf3 18. tt:Jd4-f5

'i!Ve4xf3 .l:!.a8xb8

g7-g6?1

After 18 ... .l:!.e8 19 .tLld6 .l:!.e6 20.b4 White would have sufficient compensation for the pawn, but not more.

19. .l:!.d1-d6!?

Also good is 1 9. tLld6.

19 . ... 20. .l:!.d6xf6 21. .I:i.f6xf5

21 . ...

g6xf5 �g8-g7

d7-d6?

Why leave oneself a potential weakness on d6? After 2 1 ... d5 22 . .l:!.f4 dxc4 23 . .l:!.xc4 .l:!.d8 the endgame takes on a drawish character.

22. .l:!.f5-a5 23. .l:!.a1-d1 24 . .l:!.a5-g5+ 25. h2-h4

2S . .l:!.h5! ?.

25 . ... 26 . .l:!.d1-d4 27 . .l:!.g5-h5 28. .l:!.h5-a5 29. g3-g4 30. g4-g5+

30.'iitg2!?.

220

a7-a6 .l:!.f8-d8 'iitg7-f6

�c8-f5 h7-h6 �f5-g6

.l:!.b8-c8 .l:!.c8-c7

30 . ... 'iitf6-g7

30 ... hxg5 3 1.hxg5+ 'iitg7=.

31. .tf3-g2 h6-h5? 32. f2-f4

32 . ... f7-f5?

Firmly walling up his own bishop. 32 ... c5 33 . .l:!.d2 f6 would give some chance of hanging on.

33 . .tg2-h3

33.'iiff2±.

33. ...

33 ... .l:!.e7!?.

34. 'iitg1-f2

35. .l:!.d4xd6 36. 'iitf2-f3 37. .l:!.d6xg6+

Game No 64 [C47] Toufighi,Homayoon Lenderman,Alex Belfort jr 2005 (2)

1. e2-e4 2. tt:Jg1-f3 3. tt:Jb1-c3 4. d2-d4 5. tt:Jc3-d5 6. e4xd5

.l:!.c7-f7?

.l:!.d8-e8 .l:!.e8-e4 .l:!.f7-e7 1-0

e7-e5 tt:Jb8-c6 tt:Jg8-f6

e5xd4 tt:Jf6xd5 �f8-b4+

The plan bound up with this move is not good enough for equality. The alternative is 6 •.• tLlb4 7 .�c4 This continuation appears to pose Black the most problems. The position arising after 7. tLlxd4 tLlxdS is considered in detail in the notes to Game 17, Krnan-Bick. Therefore, here I will only point out that the most dangerous move for Black, in my opinion, is 8 .t2Jf5.

Analysis diagram

• 7 .. .'ii'e7+ Strongest. 8.�d2?! Clearly, White is improvising. Better is 8.�fl. keeping open the path of the bishop on cl. For example, 8 .. .'ii'c5 (if 8 ... c6 9. tLlxd4 tLlxdS 1 0 .�xd5 cxd5 1 1. tLl b5 White's chances are slightly better) 9.'twxd4 b5 (9 ... tLlxc2? 10.'twe4+; 9 ... 'twxd4 10.t2Jxd4 �c5 1l.�e3 �xd4 12.�xd4 tt:Jxc2 13.�xg7 .l:lg8 14 . .l:lc1 .l:lxg7 15 . .l:lxc2 leaves White a small advantage in the ending) 1 O . .ib3 'twxd4 11.tLlxd4 �b7 12.tLlxb5 .ia6 13.c4 tt:Jxd5 14.a4 c6! 15.g3 �c5 16.�g2 0-0

- Black is close to equality. 8 •.• g6 There is nothing obviously wrong with concrete play by 8 ... l'ic5 9.'twe2+ !k.e7 10 . .l:le1 b5 1L�.b3 .ib7 12.'iYe5 tLlxd5 13.'twxg7 0-0-0 and the battle turns out in Black's favour. 9.'twe1 �g7 9 ... b5!?. 1 O.a3 Deserving of attention is 1 0. �d 1 ! ? , opening the path of the dark-squared bishop. For example,


10 ... b5 1l.d6 cxd6 12.-igs l'ixel+ 13..1he1+ �f8 14.�e7+ �g8 15.�xd6, and White's chances are preferable. 1 O .•. b5 11.�b3 11.d6!? cxd6 12.'ti'xe7+ �xe7 13 . .l:i.el+ �d8 14.�xf7. 11 ... tLla6 12.d6 cxd6 13.'twxe7+ �xe7 14 . .l:i.e1+ �fl115.�d1 jt_b7 16.�f4 �f6 17 .�xd6+ �g7 and in this rather confusing position, Black's chances are slightly better, Reefschlager-Gschnitzer, Germany 1989; • Weaker is 7 ..• c6 8.0-0! cxd5 9 . .i.b3 More decisive is 9.'ti'xd4! intending 9 ... tt:Jxc2? (9 ... dxc4? 10 . .l:i.e1++-) 1 O.'iYxd5 'ti'e7 1l.�d2 tt:Jxa 1 12 . .l:i.e1 with a decisive advantage. 9 • • • .i.e7 1 o.tt:lxd4 0-0 11.tt:lf5 tLlc6 12. 'twxd5 d6 13.tt:lxe7+ tLlxe7 14.'twf3 and White has more than enough compensation for the pawn, Bednar-T. Balogh, Bratislava 2000; • He does not equalise after: 7 ... �e7 8.tLlxd4 Worth attention is 8.0-0 0-0 9 .a3 tLla6 1 0. tLlxd4 with a noticeably better game for White. 8 ... 0-0 9.c3 tLla6 1 o.o-o tLlb8 1L�d3 1 1. tt:Jfs !? d6 12.tLlxe7+ 'twxe7 13 . .l:i.e1±. 11. .. d6 12.'ifc2 h6 13.�e3 13 . .if4!?. 13 ..• tLld7 14.tLlf5 tt:le5 15.tt:lxe7+ 'twxe7 16 . .l:i.ae1 'twh4 17 • .id4 tt:lxd3 18. 'twxd3 c5

Analysis diagram

19.�e3 Missing the last chance to fight for an advantage after 19 .dxc6 bxc6

221


20.'iff3 �d7 (20 ... d5 2I.l::te5, retaining pressure) 2I.l::te4 'Yi'gs 22.h4 'iYfs 23.'ifg3 'ii'g6 24.'Yi'xg6 fxg6 25.l:!.fel. 19 ... ..id7 20.£'3 with an equal game, Cvicela-T. Balogh, Slovakia tt 2007/08.

Back to the game.

7. �c1-d2 8. 'ifd1-e2 9. �e1xd2

10 . ..tf1xe2

'ifd8-e7+ �b4xd2+ 'ife7xe2+

The critical position of the variation. In the subsequent battle, White retains a small, but stable advantage.

10 . ... tt:Jc6-e7

The assessment of the position, as somewhat better for White, is not changed by 10 ... ttJb4 11.d6! cS Il...cxd6 12.ttJxd4 ttJc6 13.ti:Jb5 �e7 I4.l::tae I, and White's advantage takes on something real. 12 • .itc4 0-0 13.l::the1 bS I3 ... g6 I4.ttJe5 (worthy of consideration is I4.a3 ttJc6 IS .b4!? cxb4 I6.axb4 ttJxb4 I7.ttJxd4 ttJc6 I8.ttJxc6 dxc6 (I8 ... bxc6 I9.l::te7±) I9 .l::te7 with advantage to White) I4 ... �g7 IS.a3 ttJc6 I6.ttJxc6 dxc6 I7.l::te5 �fs (I7 ... �f6!? I8.l::txc5 l::td8 I9 . .!:i.e I l::txd6, and Black's chances are already preferable) I8.l::te7 bS I9.�d3 1/2-1/2 Svidler-Georg, Dortmund Open I99I. In the final position, Black's

222

chances are slightly superior. 14.-ixbS J:!.b8 15.�c4 �a6 16.ttJe5 Worth attention is I6.�xa6 ttJxa6 I7 .l::te7 l::txb2 I8.l::txd7 ti:Jb4 I9.ltJei with some advantage to White. 16 ... �xc4 17 .tt:Jxc4 ttJc6 and now:

Analysis diagram

A) 18.b3 l::tfe8 19.f4 f6 20.a3 'it>f7 21.'it>d3 l::te6 22.h3 l::tc8 23.J:!.ab1 .!:i.b8 24.g4 h6 25.h4 25.l::txe6!? �xe6 26.�e4 g6 27.f5+ gxfS+ 28.gxf5+ �f7 29.�d5 l::te8 30.l::tdi with a small advantage for White. 25 ... g6 26 • .!:i.xe6 �xe6 2 7 • .!:i.e 1 + 'it>dS Chances are about equal, Toufighi-Mammadov, Teheran 2006;

B) 18.a3 f6 19.l::te2 l::tfe8 20.l::tae1 'it>f7 21.f4 l::te6? A mistake. Chances of a successful outcome were offered by 2I..Jhe2+ 22.l::txe2 �g6. 22.f5 Stronger is 22.l::txe6 dxe6 23.�d3±. 22 ... l::txe2+ 23.l::txe2 g6 with approximate equality, Rodriguez GuerreroIbanez Auliana, Seville 2004;

C) In actual fact, the strongest continuation in this position was demonstrated in the game Polovodin-M.D. Tseitlin, Leningrad I979: 18.l::te7! tt:Jxe7? More tenacious is I8 ... .l:Hd8 I9.l::taei �f8 20.b3 g6. 19.dxe7 l::tfe8 20.l::te1 l::tb6 21.ti:Jxb6 axb6 22.b4! d6 23.a4 f6 24.a5 bS 25.�d3 'it>f7 26.a6 g6 27.a7 hS 28.f4 h4 29.h3 f5 30.l::te2 I-0.

Back to the game.

11. d5-d6! c7xd6

11 ... tLlc6 1 2..l:i.ad 1 cxd6 13. 'it>c 1 dS (better is 13 ... b6 14 . .l:i.he 1 'it>d8 15.tLlxd4 tLlxd4 16 . .l:i.xd4 �b7 17 . .l:i.xd6) 15.tLlxd4 with the idea 16.tLlb5.

12. ttJf3xd4 13. �e2-f3 14. .l:i.h1-e1 15. .l:i.a1-d1 16. 'it>d2-c1

a7-a6 'it>e8-d8

g7-g6 ttJe7-c6

White has a small, but clear advantage.

16 . ... 'it>d8-c7

After 16 ... tLleS 17 .�dS fS 18.tLlf3! tLlxf3 19.�xf3 White's advantage is clearly outlined: 19 ••• .l:i.e8 20..lhe8+ 'it>xe8 21..l:i.xd6 'it>e7 22 . .l:i.b6 d6 n . ..tds J:f.bs u.'it>d2 'it>d7

Analysis diagram

• 2S • .l:i.b3! 'it>e7 After 25 .. .f4 26 . .l:i.f3 ! gS 27 . .l:i.h3+- Black's position is close to critical. 26 • .l:i.e3+ 'it>f8 27.l:f.c3 .td7 28 • .l:i.c7; • Strong and aesthetic is 2S.a4 'it>c7 26.a5±, fixing Black's pawns on the colour of the enemy bishop. e 2S . ..tg8 h6 26.�h7? gS 27 . .l:i.b3 'it>e7 28 . .tg8 .te6 Three moves, and the lion's share of the advantage is lost. 29 .. 1he6 'it>xe6 30.l:tb6 30.a4!? with a


small advantage in the rook ending. 30 ... 'it>d7 31.c4 Here too, 3 l.a4 was preferable, although it is now far from as effective. 31. .. 'it>c7 32.cS dxcS n.l:f.xh6 J:tdS+ 34.'it>c3 J:tds 3S.h3 f4 36.b3 J:tes 37.'it>d3 aS ?! 37 ... J:td5+ 38.'it>e2 c4 39.bxc4 l:taS=. 38.h4 J:tdS+ 39.'it>e2 gxh4 40.J:txh4 J:td4 41.g3 The advantage is again with White. 41. .. a4 42.g4 42..!hf4 l:txf4 43.gxf4 a3 44.'it>d3 bS 45.f5 'it>d6 46.'it>e4 c4 47.b4= (47.bxc4 b4-+) . 42 ... axb3 43.axb3 J:tb4 44.l:th3 f3 + 4S .J:txf3 J:txg4 46.'it>d3 bS 47.J:tf7+ 'it>d6 48.£3 c4+ 49.'it>c3 l:l.gl SO.bxc4 J:tcl + 1/2-1/2,

Vijay-Brunello, Belfort jr 2005.

17. �f3-d5

The plan of transferring the knight to dS deserves attention: 17.tLle2 J:te8 17 . .. ttJes 18.tLlc3 ttJxf3 19 .gxf3 'it>d8 20.J:txd6 bS 21.tLld5 l:te8 22.l:txe8+ 'it>xe8 23.'it>d2± 18.tt:lf4 J:teS 19.tLldS+ 'it>d8 20.tLlf6 hS 21.l:te2, and Black is very cramped.

17 . ... 18. .l:re1-e3

18 . .l:rd3!?.

18 . ... 19 . .l:i.e3-h3

.l:i.h8-f8

b7-b5 h7-h5

White cannot make any progress. The position is close to equality.

223


20. .l:i.d1-e1

20 . .l:i.e3=.

20 . ... 21. tt:Jd4xc6 22. �d5xc6 23. .l:i.e1-e7+

24. .l:i.h3-f3 25 . .l:i.e7xe8 26 . .l:i.f3xf7

26 . ...

�c8-b7 �b7xc6 d7xc6 �c7-b6 .l:i.a8-e8 .l:i.f8xe8

.l:i.e8-e6

Slightly passive, but enough for a draw.

224

Equality could be secured without any problems after 26 ... .l:i.el+ 27.�d2 .l:i.gl 28.g3 h4!? (28 ... g5=) 29.gxh4 (29.1:tf6 gS 30 . .l:i.g6 .l:i.hl 31 . .l:i.xg5 l::rxh2=; 29 . .l:!.g7 .l:!g2 30.�e3 .l:!.xh2=) 29 .. J:tg4 30.l:lh7 .l:i.g2.

27. �c1-d2 a6-a5 28. h2-h3

28.f4 d5 29.g3!?.

28 ... d6-d5 29.g2-g4 h5xg4 30.h3xg4 �b6-c5 31.f2-f4 .l:i.e6-e4 32.g4-g5 a5-a4

33 . .l:i.f7-f6 b5-b4 34.�d2-d3 �c5-b5 35 . .l:i.f6xg6 .l:i.e4xf4 36 . .l:i.g6-g8 .l:i.f4-g4 37.g5-g6 �b5-c5 38.g6-g7 .l:i.g4-g3+ 39.�d3-d2 'it>c5-d4 40.c2-c3+ b4xc3+ 41.b2xc3+ 'it>d4-c4 42 . .l:i.g8-c8 .l:i.g3xg7 43 . .l:i.c8xc6+ 'it>c4-b5 44 . .l:!.c6-e6 .l:i.g7-g2+ 45J:te6-e2 .l:i.g2-g1 46 . .l:i.e2-e1 .l:i.g1-g4 47 . .l:i.e1-e8 .l:i.g4-g2+

1f2-1h

Afterword

This book started out as a small opening booklet for my pupils. I included the most interesting games on the subject, and my own analyses and assessments, until it grew into the solid tome it has now become.

At one moment, I received the latest issue of a certain chess magazine, and decided to analyse the game Sutovsky-Naiditsch, Wijk aan Zee 20 10, simply because I admire Sutovsky's creative play, and to include the results in this work. However, I just could not convince myself that White has sufficient compensation for the queen in the critical position, and so did not feel able to recommend this adventure to my pupils.

The more I delved into the position, the less I understood what was going on. Time after time, the silicon monster ruthlessly denied my desperate attempts to prove that White was OK, but then, around move 30-40, it would suddenly change its mind. Eventually, after about two weeks of Sisyphian effort, I surveyed the resulting 30-page file of crazy variations, with all kinds of material imbalances, and I realised that it was simply impossible to make full sense of this cross-bred offspring of human and computer brains. As Goethe's Faust put it, 'Da stehe ich ein armer Tor und bin so klug, wie auch zuvor .. .'- 'Here now I stand, poor fool, and see I'm just as wise as formerly.' 'Yes, but you are no Sutovsky, and are rated 300 points lower' , I said to myself, bitterly.

·

Nonetheless, I have included in this book some of the discoveries from that file.

Does the Four Knights give White real chances to fight for the advantage? No, of course not! But it does guarantee a lot of adventures, and adrenaline rushes, especially if both sides are disposed to a sharp fight!

November 2 0 10 Andrey Obodchuk

225

Bibliography

Here is a list of the books, magazines and material from Internet sites I used for this book:

1. Max Euwe Uchebnik shakhmatnoiigry, (Chess Instructor) , Leningrad 1935 2. Zhurnal64 ShakhmatnoeObozrenie (Magazine 64 Chess Review) 2009-20 10 3. John Nunn New Ideas in the Four Knights (Batsford, USA 199 3) 4. Sahovski Informator S. Sahovski ECO 2007 6. New In Chess Yearbooks 7. ChessBase Megabase 2009 8. Correspondence Chessbase 2008 9. www.chesszone.net.ru 10. www.crestbook.com 1 1. www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic.- TWICs for 2007-201 0 12. www.chessgames.com

Wherever I have used any analyses, variations or comments from these books and sites I have always indicated this.

The author

227

Index of Variations

Three Knights: Anti-Russian

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.tt:Jg1-f3 tt:Jg8-f6 3.tt:Jb1-c3 Af8-b4

4.lt:Jxe5 .................... 9 (Games 1-3)

Three Knights: Various

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.tt:Jg1-f3 tt:Jb8-c6 3.tt:Jb1-c3

3 ... d6 ..................... 19 (Games 4-5) 3 ... �c5 ... . ............... 23 (Games 6-8) 3 ... g6 4.d4 exd4

s.tt:Jds ................. 38 (Games 9-10) s.lt:Jxd4 ................ 4 3 (Games 11-13)

229


Four Knights Opening

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.lLlg1-f3lLlb8-c6 3.lLlb1-c3lLJg8-f6 4 . .if1-b5

4 ... �c5 ................... 5 7 (Games 14-15) 4 ... a6 ..................... 61 (Game 16) 4 ... �d6 ................... 64 (Games 17-19)

Symmettical Variation

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.lLlg1-f3lLlb8-c6 3.lLlb1-c3lLlg8-f6 4 . .if1-b5 .if8-b4 5.0-0 0-0

230

6.�xc6 ................... 75 (Game 20) 6.d3

6 ... d6 7.hc6 .............. 76 (Game 21) 7 .l:Oe2 ............... 82 (Game 23) 7 .�g5 0.e7 ........... 84 (Game 24)

6 ... hc3 7.bxc3 d6 8.�xc6 .............. 78 (Game 22) 8.�g5

8 ... 0.e7 ........... 88 (Game 25) 8 ... �d7 ........... 9 1 (Game 26) 8 ... h6 9.�h4 ..id7 ... 9 3 (Game 27)

Index of Variations

Metger System

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.tt:Jg1-f3 tt:Jb8-c6 3.tt:Jb1-c3 tt:Jg8-f6 4 . ..tf1-b5 ..tf8-b4 5.0-0 0-0 6.d2-d3 ..tb4xc3 7.b2xc3 d7-d6 a . ..tc1-g5 'ifd8-e7

7 ... 'ile7 8.i.g5 h6 9.i.h4 d6 ... 97 (Game 28) 9 .l:te 1

9 ... i.g4 ................ 98 (Game 29) 9 ... t2Jd8 10.d4 .......... 10 0 (Game 30)

1 o ... i.g4 ............ 1 o 1 (Game 31) 10 ... t2Je6 ............ 10 3

(Games 32-35)

Rubinstein System

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.lt:Jg1-f3 tt:Jb8-c6 3.tt:Jb1-c3 tt:Jg8-f6 4...tf1-b5 tt:Jc6-d4

5.t2Jxd4 .................. 114 (Game 36) 5.t2Jxe5 .................. 116 (Game 37) 5.0-0 .................... 119 (Game 38) 5.i.a4

5 ... �c5 ................ 123 (Games 39-42) 5 ... c6

6.0-0 .............. 136 (Games 4 3-4 4) 6.t2Jxe5

6 ... d6 ........... 141 (Game 45) 6 ... d5 ........... 145 (Games 4 6-49)

231


232

Rubinstein System with S.i.c4

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.ttJg1-f3 ttJb8-c6 3.ttJb1-c3 ttJg8-f6 4.�f1-b5 ttJc6-d4 5.�b5-c4

5 ... ttJf3 ................... 161 (Game 50) 5 ... c6 .................... 165 (Game 5 1) 5 ... d6 .................... 169 (Games 5 2-5 3) 5 ... i.c5 .................. 174 (Games 54-59)

Belgrade Gambit

1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.ttJg1-f3 ttJb8-c6 3.ttJb1-c3 ttJg8-f6 4.d2-d4 e5xd4 5.ttJc3-d5

5 ... ttJxe4 . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 20 3 (Games 6 0 -61) 5 ... i.e7 .................. 20 9 (Game 62) 5 ... ttJb4 .... .............. 214 (Game 63) 5 ... ttJxd5 ................. 220 (Game 64)

Index of games

Chapter 1 The Three Knights' Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Game No 1 [C42] Munoz Pantoja ,Miguel - Fenollar Jorda,Manuel (20 1 0) . . . . 9 Game No 2 [C42] Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter - Fridman, Daniel (2009) . . . . . . . 15 Game No 3 [C42] Yap Kim, Steven - Nguyen An Dung (2007 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Game No 4 [C46] Skripchenko,Almira - Ye Rongguang (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Game No 5 [C46] Rublevsky,Sergey - Kolasinski ,Marek ( 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Game No 6 [C46] Pedzich,Dominik - Romanishin,Oleg (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Game No 7 [C46] Willemze,Thomas - Romanishin,Oleg (2009) . . . . . . . . . . 28 Game No 8 [C46] Sermek,Drazen - Romanishin, Oleg (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Game No 9 [C46] Zimmermann,Julian - Kurz,Alexander (2004/05 ) . . . . . . . 38 Game No 10 [C46] Thavandiran,Shiyam - Ganguly, Surya Shekhar (2005 ) . . . . 40 Game No 11 [C46] Koukoufikis,Alexandros - Skembris ,Spyridon (2004) . . . . . 43 Game No 12 [C46] Nusken,Nikolas - Nogly, Christoph (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Game No 13 [C46] Kim,Alexey - Isakov,Andrey (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter 2 The Four Knights - Black avoids the main line on move 4 . . . . . . . . S 7 Game No 14 [C48] Paulsen,Louis - Morphy,Paul Charles ( 185 7) . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Game No 15 [C48] Naer,Evgeny - Landa ,Konstantin (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Game No 16 [C48] Motylev,Alexander - Kharlov,Andrey (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Game No 17 [C48] Ni Hua - Sangma,Rahul (2009 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Game No 18 [C48] Hammer,} on Ludvig - Moradiabadi ,Elshan (20 1 0) . . . . . . . 6 6 Game N o 1 9 [C48] Alvarez Pedraza ,Aramis - Borisek,Jure (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chapter 3 The Symmetrical Variation l.e4 eS 2.00 ttJc6 3.ttJc3 tt:lf6 4�bS i.b4 • . 7 3 Game No 20 [C49] Michiels ,Bart - Sasikiran,Krishnan (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5 Game No 21 [C49] Chadaev,Nikolay - Ginzburg,Yakov (20 1 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 Game No 2 2 [C49] Varga,Zoltan - Gagarin,Vasily (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Game No 23 [C49] Kozlov,Vladimir - Atalik,Suat (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 Game N o 2 4 [C49] Nisipeanu,Liviu-Dieter - Ponomariov,Ruslan (20 1 0) . . . . . 84

Game No 25 [C49] Adhiban,Baskaran - Vovk,Yury (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Game No 26 [C49] Edouard,Romain - Howell, David (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Game No 27 [C49] Dzhumaev,Marat - Balogh,Csaba (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Chapter 4 The Metger System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Game No 28 [C49] Kogan,Artur - Lafuente ,Pablo (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Game No 29 [C49] Dzhumaev,Marat - Filippov,Anton (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Game No 30 [C49] Delchev,Alexander - Cori Tello,Jorge (20 1 0) . . . . . . . . . . 100 Game No 31 [C49] Adams,Michael - Werle,Jan (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 01 Game No 3 2 [C49] Yuldashev,Saidali - Amin,Bassem (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Game No 33 [C49] Iotov,Valentin Dimitrov - Kravtsiv,Martyn (20 10) . . . . . . . 1 OS

233


Game No 34 [C49] Sutovsky,Emil - Efimenko,Zakhar (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Game No 35 [C49] Acs ,Peter - Timman,Jan (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 5 The Rubinstein System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Game No 3 6 [C48] Priborsky.]an - Romanov,Evgeny (2007 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Game No 3 7 [C48] Short ,Nigel - l ' Ami ,Erwin (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Game No 38 [C48] Hirscheider,Helmut - Weidemann,Uwe (2004) . . . . . . . . 119 Game No 39 [C48] Adhiban ,Baskaran - Alexandrov,Alexey (2009) . . . . . . . . . 1 23 Game No 40 [C48] Sulskis,Sarunas - Neubauer, Martin (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Game No 41 [C48] Kornev,Alexey - Nielsen,Peter Heine (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Game No 42 [C48J Motylev,Alexander - Carlsen,Magnus (2007 ) . . . . . . . . . . 13 2 Game No 43 [C48] Shirov,Alexey - Hansen,Lars Bo (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Game No 44 [C48] Djurhuus,Rune - Sahl,Bjarke (20 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Game No 45 [C48] Rublevsky, Sergey - Bacrot,Etienne (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Game No 46 [C48] Nikel - Kireev (2005 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Game No 47 [C48] lvanchuk,Vasily -Caruana,Fabiano (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Game No 48 [C48] Gormally,Daniel - Hebden,Mark (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2 Game No 49 [C48J Shanava,Konstantin - Khenkin, Igor (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Chapter 6 S . ..tc4 in the Rubinstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Game No 50 [C48] Bacrot,Etienne - Sargissian,Gabriel (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Game No 51 [C48J Varga,Zoltan - Zherebukh,Yaroslav (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Game No 52 [C48] Rublevsky,Sergey - Bologan,Viktor (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Game No 53 [C48J Svidler,Peter - Gelfand,Boris (20 1 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Game No 5 4 [C48] Shirov,Alexey - Kramnik,Vladimir (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Game No 55 [C48] Sandipan,Chanda - Klip,Hans (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6 Game No 5 6 [C48] Rublevsky,Sergey - Onischuk,Alexander (2009) . . . . . . . . 179 Game No 57 [C48] Vallejo Pons,Fransisco - Dominguez Perez,Leinier (2006) . 181 Game No 58 [C48] Vorobiov,Evgeny - Gerzhoy,Leonid (20 1 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6 Game No 59 [C48] Sutovsky,Emil - Naiditsch,Arkady (20 1 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Chapter 7 The Belgrade Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Game No 60 [C47] Van der Weide, Karel - Timmermans , lvo ( 1996) . . . . . . . . 203 Game No 61 [C47] Bednar.]aromir - Virostko,Petr (2004/05 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Game No 6 2 [C47 ] Almasi ,Istvan - Bezgodov,Alexey (199 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Game No 63 [C47] Krnan,Tomas - Bick.]ohn (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Game No 64 [C47] Toufighi ,Homayoon - Lenderman,Alex (2005 ) . . . . . . . . 220

23 4

Index of Players

Numbers refer to pages.

A Bellon Lopez 2 1 8 Demchenko 8 7 Abdel Megid 48 Belov 66 Dervishi 1 1 5 , 1 24 Abdelnabbi 47 Ben dar 207 Djurhuus 1 3 9 Abhishek,D 1 02 Berkes 1 44 Dominguez Perez 1 6 , 1 8 1 Acs 9 1 , 1 0 7 , 1 29 , 1 42 , 1 44 Berkovich 49 Drabke 1 8 6 Adams 8 5 , 1 0 1 , 1 05 , 1 4 1 Bernstein 1 74, 1 86 Dukhin 1 2 9 Adamson 29 Bezgodov,A 209 Dzhumabaev 1 8 2 Adhiban 88 , 1 2 3 Bezgodov,M 1 64 Dzhumaev 9 3 , 9 8 Aguilera 1 1 8 Bezgodova ,S 1 7 8 Alekhine 7 9 Bick 2 1 4 E Alexandrov 86 , 1 2 3 , 2 1 3 Biolek 1 0 Edouard 90 Almasi , I 60 , 209 Biro 2 1 1 Efimenko 1 06 Almasi,Z 1 42 Bluvshtein 1 5 2 , 209 Elianov 67 Altounian 29 Bobras 26 El-Taher 2 1 3 Alvarez Pedraza 70 Bologan 3 2 Emelin 76 Am in 1 03 Bondarevsky 1 2 2 Emms 3 6 Andersen 1 64 Borisek 70 Erwich,M 7 7 Andreikin 1 7 2 Boros 1 1 6 Evans 204 Andrianov 1 09 Botvinnik 7 8 , I 09 Ani! Kumar 1 63 Bradaric 28 F Antonsen 20 Brauer 206 Farago,S 60 Apfler 8 7 Brunello 223 Fenollar Jorda 9 Aronian 1 7 3 Buturin 24-25 Fercec 2 2 Ashton 5 9 Fernandez Garcia 1 43 Atalik 82-83 c Filippov 98 Avalkin 1 7 8 Campora 3 7 , 5 5 , 8 3 , 1 1 8 Franic 5 0

Capablanca 6 1 , 89 Fressinet 1 2 8 B Carlsen 1 3 2 , 1 7 2 Frey 3 9

Babulian 1 3 3 Caruana 1 48 Fridman 1 5 Bacrot 66 , 1 4 1 , 1 6 1 , 1 7 3 Castaldo 5 3 Bagirov 86 Chadaev 1 3 , 7 6 G Baklan 1 3 Conquest 1 66 Gagarin 7 8 Balogh,Cs 93 Cori Tello 1 00 Ganguly 40 Balogh,T 2 2 1 -2 2 2 Cornette 1 08 Ganor 49 Banusz 2 1 5 Cvicela 222 Garcia , Gild 2 1 3 Baramidze 1 3 3 Gareev 1 1 5 Barglowski 5 5 D Gashimov 1 1 - 1 2 Barle 2 1 -2 2 Datu 1 09 Gazizov 3 9 Bartel 5 2 David,A ! 5 0 Geenen 29 Baturinsky 1 6 7 De Ia Vega 2 1 2 Gelfand 1 44, Bauer 2 1 De Vreugt 207 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 Bednar 206 , 2 2 1 Degraeve 1 4, 66 , 1 46 Geller,E 49 , 5 5 Beinoras 1 1 6 Delchev 1 00 , 1 8 6 Georg 2 2 2 Beliavsky 44 Delorme 89 Gerzhoy 1 86 Belli a 2 5 Demarre 42 Ghaem Maghami 67

235


Ginsburg 67 Isakov s o Kozlov,V 82 , 1 42 Ginzburg 7 6 Isonzo 24 Kramnik 1 4 1 , 1 69 , 1 74 Giri 1 6 Istratescu 34, 1 09 Kravtsev l O S Girya 86 Itkis 3 2 Kristensen 1 42 Glek 34-3 5 , 44 Ivanchuk 6 2 , 1 48 , 1 7 3 Krnan 209 , 2 1 4 Gligoric 1 0 1 Ivanov, A. 1 6 Kubbel,A 1 1 6 Glukhov 1 63 Ivanov,M. 26 Kuderinov 1 2 Gofshtein 1 3 6 Kupreichik 3 5 Golod 2 1 5 J Kuraszkiewicz 1 7 8 Golubev 3 2 Jakovljevic I I Kurz 38 Gombach 5 2 Jamieson 2 1 8 Kutuzovic 28 Gorbatov 1 3 Janowski 5 9 , 6 1 Kuzmin,A 1 09 Gormally 1 5 2 Jaschke 8 7 Granda Zuniga 44 Jenni 1 24, 1 3 7 L Greenfeld 9 1 Jones 2 1 , 5 3 ! 'Ami 1 1 6 Grigoriev 1 1 6 Jonkman 5 9 Lafuente 97 Grischuk 1 09 , 1 43 , 1 7 3 Jovanovic 2 8 Lalic 79 Groenli 1 64 Juarez 2 1 2 Landa 59 Grund 1 3 7 Juneia 1 63 Larsen 32 Gschnitzer 22 1 Lasker 59 Gufeld 4 1 K Lehmann 40 Gupta 1 20 Kalod 1 0 Lehtimaki 5 I Guseinov 22 Kamsky 1 0 3 Leko 1 3 1 Gustafsson 1 24 Karasev 39 Lenderman 220 Gyimesi 1 44 Karpachev 1 6 7 Leveille 25

Karpov 9 7 Levenfish 1 66 H Kavacik 2 2 Lima 46, 5 8

Haba 7 5 Keitlinghaus 80 , 1 6 7 - 1 68 , Lodhi 36 Hammer 66 , 1 08 1 7 7 Lopez 1 7 2 Hansen,LB 1 3 5 Kenworthy 208 Lubienski 205 Harikrishna 2 2 , 6 7 Keres 40-4 1 Lugo 1 7 2 Hauchard 34 Khairullin 7 6 Lundquist 1 0 1 Hayrapetian 1 7 7 Khalifman 1 1 6 , 1 2 9 Luther 34 Hebden 1 5 2 , 1 66 , Khamatgaleev 1 09 , 1 3 7

206 Khamrakulov 63 M Hector 3 6 Kharlov 6 1 Macieja 5 2 Helle 4 1 Khenkin 1 5 6 Makarichev 47 Hennigan 36 , 5 2 Kim s o Malakhov 49 Hirsch eider 1 1 9 Klauner 206 Malaniuk 30 Hort 7 7 Klip 1 7 6 Malinin 206 Howell,D 1 6 , 90, 1 8 2 Kobalia 24 Malisauskas 1 62 Hrzica 2 1 5 Koch 1 46 Malygin 1 8 Husari 1 1 4 Kogan 89 , 9 7 Mamedyarov 1 2 , 1 2 2 , 1 48 ,

Kolasinski 2 1 1 63 I Korenek 2 8 Mamedyarova 1 2 3

Ibanez Auliana 2 2 2 Korneev 3 0 Mammadov 222 Ilic ,L 24 Kornev 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 Marciano 54 Illescas Cordoba 1 2 1 Kortchnoi 85 -86 , 1 3 7 Marshall 8 2 , 89 Inarkiev 1 7 3 Kosintseva ,N 1 24 Martinez,C 46 Iotov l O S Koukoufikis 43 Martinez,R l i S Ippolito 1 63 Kovalev,A. 3 5 Martorelli 25

2 36

Mastrovasilis Mazurok McCormick McShane Metger Michiels Mijovic Mikhalevski Mishuchkov Mitkov Mitrovic Mokry Molander Moldovan Moradiabadi

60 46

204 9 1 9 7

68 , 7 5 1 4

1 2 1 206

24 , 33 , 3 6-3 7 2 1 80

1 64 3 3 6 6

Morgulev 3 9 Morozevich 1 09 Morphy 5 7 Morris 209 Motylev 6 1 , 7 6 , 9 1 ,

1 3 1 - 1 3 2 , 1 43 , 1 7 3 , 1 84, 1 8 8 Mozes 24 Munoz Pantoja 9 Musakaev 1 8 1

N Naer 1 2 , 5 9 , 1 63 , 1 7 3 , 1 90 Naiditsch 1 89 Nasri 1 4 Navara Nebolsina Negi

2 8 , 1 2 3 , 1 3 7 1 63

Nei Nestorovic Neubauer Neumeier Nguyen An Dung Ni Hua Nielsen Nijboer Nikcevic Nikolac Nikonov Nimzowitsch Nisipeanu Nogly Nouro

1 0 1 4 1

1 09 1 2 6 , 1 7 7

1 7 7 1 8 64

1 3 0 1 43 2 5 4 7

205 1 66

1 5 , 84 45 3 8

Nunn Niisken Nyback

44, 89 , 1 20 , 1 42 45 7 1

0 Obodchuk 6 2 , 1 64, 1 7 5 ,

1 8 1 Ochoa de Echaguen Okrugin

2 1 6 1 8 49 3 7 1 2

Olenin Oliveira Onischuk

p Paakkonen Pahtz Palko vi Panarin Papazov Paulsen Pavasovic Pedzich Pelikan Peric Perl is Peter Petran Petrosian,Arm Petrosian, T Pi cart Pieper Emden Pihlajasalo Piket Pink as Pitl Podlesnik Polgar,S Polovodin Ponomariov Po nos Popchev Popov,S Popov,V Popovic Portisch Potkin Priborsky Pridorozhny Prie Psakhis

R Radjabov Radulski Ragozin,E

26 1 2 3 3 2

66 , 8 7 2 4 5 7

5 2 , 1 42 23 2 1 28 79 42

2 1 1 1 68 4 1 1 1 3 6

1 64 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 8

5 2 , 8 2 , 1 68 1 68

30 , 2 22 84 5 0 1 1 1 2 54

7 1 , 79 86 24

1 1 4 1 7 5 2 1 5 2 1 5

1 7 3 , 1 84 63 32

Index o f P laye rs

Ragozin,V Ran tan en Rausis Rayner Reefschlager Remille

1 0 1 3 8 , 5 1 , 54

20 5 2

2 2 1 1 6 8

Reshetnikov 45 Reshevsky I 09 Rodriguez Guerrero 2 2 2 Rogers 43 Rohde 2 1 6 Rokhlin 7 8 Romanishin

Romanov

2 3 -24, 2 8 , 3 0 , 3 2 -3 6 , 1 62

1 1 4 , 1 29 1 68 1 3 8

Roussel Roozmon Rozentalis Rubinstein

Rublevsky

Ruck

s Sagalchik Sahl Sakaev Sandi pan Sangma Sargissian Sasikiran Satyapragyan Savchenko,B Schubert Schwartzman Sermek Shabalov Shabanov Shaked

62 , 8 2 , 1 1 7 , 1 74, 1 8 6

2 1 , 1 2 2 , 1 4 1 , 1 48 , 1 7 3

1 3

62 1 3 9 1 2 3 1 7 6 64

1 6 1 7 5

1 20 2 1 0 1 6 7 1 09 3 3 5 8 5 2 3 6

1 5 6 3 9

1 1 4 76

Shanava Shereshevsky Shipman,] Shirazi Shirov 9 5 , 1 2 3 , 1 3 5 , 1 49 ,

1 7 3 - 1 74, 1 8 8 , 1 90 1 3 1 Shomoev

Short Sievers Simacek Sirtlanov Skembris

9 1 , 1 1 6 , 1 24 42 I I 62 43

2 37


Skripchenko 1 9 Teschke 1 4 Volokitin 22 Skrobek 2 1 2 Thavandiran 40 Vorobiov 1 7 7 , 1 86 Slingerland 2 0 7 Tichy 1 0 Vorotnikov 5 2 Smagin 34, 62 Timman 1 0 3 , 1 0 7 Votava 2 5 Sokolov,l 1 49 Timmermans 203 Vovk 88 Solak 1 1 Tiurin 45 Soloviev,S 49 Tkachiev 1 7 5 w Solozhenkin 54 Tomashevsky 1 2 3 Weber 1 1 4 Song 43 Torre 3 2 Wed berg 209 Sorokin 8 2 Toufighi 2 1 3 , 2 20 , 2 2 2 Wegener 47-48 Spangenberg 1 7 5 Trevelyan 29 Wehmeier 1 62 Spassky 43 , 1 0 1 , 1 3 7 Tseitlin,Mark 2 2 2 Weidemann 1 1 9 Speelman 9 1 , 9 7 , 1 24 Tseitlin,Mikhail 7 5 Werle 1 0 1 , 1 05 , 206 Spielmann 1 1 7 Tseshkovsky 2 1 0 Westerinen 4 1 Spraggett I S O Tukmakov 47 Willemze,T 28, 1 7 2 Starostits I I Turov 1 42 Winants 2 1 1 Stefanova 68 , 1 24, 1 7 2 Tzermiadianos 60 Stem pin 26 y Stern 42 u Yakovenko 9 1 , 9 5 Stertenbrink 43 Utasi 4 1 Yap Kim 1 8 Stopa l i S Yates 8 7 Sulskis 1 2 6 , 1 62 v Ye Rongguang 1 9-20 , 204 Suschev 46 Vajda,L 1 1 4, 1 5 2 Yilmaz,M 64 Sutovsky 1 06, 1 20- 1 2 1 , Vallejo Pons 86 , 1 3 1 , 1 42 , Yudasin 62

1 3 6 , 1 7 3 , 1 89 1 69 , 1 8 1 Yudovich 205 Svidler 1 1 - 1 2 , 9 1 , 1 7 1 , 2 2 2 Van der Sterren 48, 208 Yuldashev 1 0 1 - 1 0 3 Szabo,K 86, 1 08 Van der Veen 1 7 2 Szczepaniec 205 Van der Weide 203 -204, 2 1 1 z Szinka 47-48 Van Haastert 2 1 5 Zagoriansky 1 2 2 Szklarczyk 206 Varga,Z 78, 1 65 , 1 68 Zaiats 1 2 7 Szmetan 3 9 Vasiesiu 24 Zapolskis 20 Szymczak 5 5 Vehi Bach 20 Zelcic 1 0

Vescovi 2 1 Zeytinoglu 64 T Vi jay 2 2 3 Zhang Zhong 1 2 0

Tarrasch 8 7 Virostko 207 Zherebukh 1 65 Tarve 4 1 Voitsekhovsky 1 2 7 Zimmermann 3 8 Tatai 89 Volkmann 1 24 Znosko-Borovsky 62

238

F i na l ly ava i l a b l e i n E ngl ish !

I Matthias wahiS, Karsten MilDer & Hannes Langrock

l '

l The Modern

l scandinavian

" It's a n i m p ressive work a n d it is c lear that a lot of

effort has been put i n . Fa ns of l . e4 dS w i l l fi n d it

req u i red rea d i ng, but there i s a lot more on offe r t h a n

m e re ly g u i d i n g the Sca n d i nav ian fa ithfu l ! t h ro u g h

the i r favo u rite o p e n i ng; the m i d d l egame w i s d o m

i m p a rted s h o u l d be o f i nterest t o a l l practica l p l aye rs ."

Marshtower Chess Reviews

"Conta i n s a concise re pertoi re for B lack ( . . ) very

usefu l fo r p l aye rs who a re j u st ta k ing up the

defence ( . . ) I n a l l , the book conta ins a n a m a z i n g

a m o u nt of h igh-q u a l ity mater ia l , a n d i s c lear ly

a l a b o u r of l ove by the a uthors . It w i l l be t h e

defin ite book o n t h i s o p e n i n g for a long ti m e ."

Joe Petrol ito, Austra lasian Chess Magazine

Pa perback • 384 pages • € 27.95 • avai lab le at you r local (chess) booksel l e r or at newi nchess.com

A NEW iN Olf85 PUBLICATION

Bologa n has done it aga i n !

" H e l ps you to l e a rn t h rough u n d e rsta n d ing t h e mate r i a l ( . . ) I fee l t h i s is a book the chess wor ld h a s been wa iti n g for."

German Federation for Correspondence Chess

"Th e re a re n o va r iations l a b e l led 81332212 h e re ! ( . . ) The re's co mpa ratively l itt l e to memor ize, a n d what

s h o u l d be m e m o rized i s l a rgely conceptua l ."

Dennis Monokroussos, ChessToday

"Bo loga n offe rs h i s mate r i a l in a n a p p roach that co m b i nes us ing

a struct u re based a ro u n d 'mode l ga mes' a n d a strict o p e n i ng

book. Th is synthes is works we l l with the Rosso l i m o that i s

u s u a l l y a bout ideas but can b e c o m e s h a r p a n d theoretica l ."

IM John Donaldson, jeremysi lman.com

"An i d e a l wea p o n aga i n st the S ic i l i a n with l i tt le theory a n d

good prospects ( . . ) T h e a d d itio n a l t ra i n i ng tests a re great."

Europa Rochade Magazine

Pa perback • 238 pages • € 22.95 • avai lab le at you r local (chess)booksel ler o r at newinchess.com

A NEW IN ClmlS PUBLICATION

obodchuk - the four knights game, new in chess, 2011sm

Documents

knights black

knights game andrey

old chess

rubinstein variation

rubinstein system

new repertoire

lc3 tt

lf3 tt