opening repertoire

Nimzo and Bogo Indian

Christof Sielecki

EVERYMAN CHESS www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2015 by Gloucester Publishers Limited, North burgh House, 10 North burgh Street, London EC1 V OAT

Copyright© 2015 Christof Sielecki

The right of Christof Sielecki to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Briti sh Library.

I SBN : 978 1 78194 109 6

Distributed in North America by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. Ph : 717.794.3800.

Distributed in Europe by Central Books Ltd., 99 Wallis Road, London E9 5 LN . Ph 44(0)845 458 9911.

All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess,

Northburgh House, 10 Northburgh Street, London EC1V OAT email : info@everymanchess.com; website: www.everymanchess .com

Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under l icence from Random House Inc.

Everyman Chess Series Chief advisor: Byron Jacobs Commissioning editor: John Emms Assistant editor: Richard Palliser

Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing , Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Printed by TJ International Limited, Padstow, Cornwall .

About the Author

Christof Sielecki is an International Master and professional chess coach from Germany. As a player he has competed in the first l eagues of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, where he managed to win the National Team Championships with his team from Voeren­daal in 2012. In Germany he plays on the top board for his hometown club of Dinslaken, and in recent years he has helped the team to gain promotion from the 7th division to the 2nd division . His greatest success as an individual player was winning the Open Tourna­ment of Latschach 2013, ahead of several Grandmasters and International Masters.

He i s a regular producer of instructional chess videos and a live commentator of top­level events for on line chess platforms like the Internet Chess Club and Chess24. His own YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/chessexplained) features more than 3, 500 chess vid­eos and has an audience of close to 20,000 subscribers. This is his first book.

Contents

About the author 3

B i bliography 5

I ntrod uction 7

1 N imzo- l nd ian : Rare Li nes 11

2 N i mzo- l nd ian : Sam isch Variat ion, 4 a3 30

3 N imzo-l nd ian : 4 f3 57

4 N imzo- l nd ian : Kasparov-Roman i s h i n 4 lbf3 and s g3 82

s N imzo- l nd ian : Rub in ste i n Variat ion, 4 e3 107

6 N i mzo- l nd ian : Reshevsky Variat ion, 4 e3 0-0 s lbe2 111

7 N imzo-l nd ian: 4 e3 o-o S ..\td3 cs 6 lbe2 128

8 N imzo- l nd ian : Hubner Variat ion, 4 e3 o-o S ..ltd3 cs

6 lbf3 lbc6 7 o-o ..ltxc3 8 bxc3 d6 159

9 N imzo- l nd ian: Class ical Variat ion, 4 �c2 216

10 N imzo- l nd ian : Zur ich Variation, S ideli nes and 'i!Vxc3 Set-u ps 219

11 N i mzo- l nd ian: Zurich Variat ion, Wh ite Plays ..ltxc3 261

12 Bogo- l nd ian with 4 ..ltd2 as 300

13 Bogo- l nd ian with 4 lbbd2 355

14 The Catalan Bogo: 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 .i.b4+ 419

I ndex of Variat ions 43 7

I ndex of Com plete Games 439

Bibliography

Books A Practical White Repertoire with 1 .d4 and 2.c4, Volume 3, Alexei Komev (Chess Stars 2014) A Strategic Opening Repertoire for White, John Watson (Gambit 2012) Cha11enging the Nimzo-lndian, David Vigorito (Quality Chess 2007) Chess Openings for Black, Explained, Lev Alburt, Eugene Perelshteyn & Roman Dzindzicha­shvili (C I RC 2009) Playing 1 d4 - The Indian Defences, Lars Schandorff (Quality Chess 2012) Tango!, Richard Palli ser (Everyman Chess 2005) The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White, Larry Kaufman (New in Chess 2011)

The Modern Bogo 1 .d4 e6, Dejan Antic & Branimir Maksimovic (New in Chess 2014) The Nimzo-/ndian: Move by Move, John Emms (Everyman Chess 2011) The Strategic Nimzo-lndian, Ivan Sokolov (New in Chess 2012)

Electronic Chess24.com - videos by Jan Gustafsson & Niclas Huschenbeth

ChessBase Magazine

Mega Database 2015 and additional updates from Chess Base New in Chess Yearbook

Houdini 4, Stockfish 5 and Komodo 8

5

Introduction

Let me begin with a confession: I 've always been addicted to chess books. I 've bought, browsed through and read so many that I 've lost count.

This thirst for chess information has influenced my own play a lot. I have changed open­ings so often over the years that there is only very little territory on the wide map of chess openings that I have never dared to enter at least once. This has led to my knowledge of the openings being rather broad, but not very deep for any specific opening . I 've never had an opening that I felt particularly attached to, or where I felt I had some special knowledge or unique approach . When the idea of writing a book came up in early 2013, I had no idea what to write about as I basically played everything on and off - against 1 d4, the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Slav, the King 's Indian, the Tango, etc.

So what to write about? Rather quickly I decided that it should be a black repertoire book against 1 d4. Against 1 e4 I had already found 'my' reply with 1 ... es , but against 1 d4 I was constantly switching . So I figured to finally learn one opening in reasonable detail against 1 d4, I should for once not buy yet another new book, but write one myself.

I compiled a small l ist of points that a chosen repertoire against 1 d4 should fulfil :

1) Fundamental soundness; at best White should get a slight edge with perfect play. 2) It should act as a base for further repertoire expansion. 3) Sharing common strategic themes to simplify the learning of typical middlegames. 4) Possible to play without memorizing huge amounts of forced lines; it should be pos­

sible to find good moves over the board if you forget the concrete line you studied earl ier. s) If possible to create some imbalances to make it easier to play for a win if needed -

none or only very few lines that lead to very drawish positions. 6) If possible it should contain l ines that have not been covered extensively el sewhere. 7) As I want to play it well , I need to like it. All these points reduce the openings to consider quite a bit. I don't want to go through

all the possible openings and argue why I discarded them for this project, but let's discuss what I ultimately went for - I settled on one part of the repertoire rather quickly: the Nim­zo-lndian Defence with 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJc3 .tb4.

The Nimzo offers an excellent balance between soundness and asymmetry. It creates imbalances without risking anything substantial . Many lines of the Nimzo can be played with little concrete knowledge of specific variations as the position is rather closed. The Nimzo has many sub-variations so it's easy to switch to other lines if desired. All this pretty

7

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N i m z o a n d Bog o - ln d ia n

much added up to being the perfect fit for the needs described above.

While scanning the available repertoire style books on the Nimzo, I found out that al ­most all of them advocate a 'l ight-squared' approach . What does this mean? Well , they fo­cus on playing either with . . . b6 to fianchetto the light-squared bishop or they occupy the centre with a quick . . . ds .

The Nimzo is one of the most versatile of all openings. Because of the initially undefined central structure Black can interpret the opening in various ways. Another way to do things is a strategy focused on placing the pawns on dark squares, like cs, d6 and es . This ap­proach has not been covered as extensively and is perfectly playable against most white choices on move 4. Here is a classic example of a dark-squared strategy:

Black's very basic strategic theme behind the dark-squared approach is to trade the Nimzo bishop on c3 and then place his pawns on dark squares, keeping only his 'good bishop' and his pair of knights. The closed centre usually leads to a game based more on

8

I n tro d u ct ion

ideas and long-term understanding than on calculation or knowledge of concrete l ines; there is l ittle need to learn heaps of critical , long variations. Indeed, lots of l ines given in this book are there to illustrate typical ideas and stratagems; they are not included to be learnt by heart in hours of study. I can assure you that I don 't know all the concrete lines, but studying them while analysing the repertoire increases your chances considerably to find the best or at least a good solution over the board.

Of course, that is only about half of a black repertoire against 1 d4 as the Nimzo needs at least one supplementary opening if White avoids it by going 3 tt:'if3 or 3 g3 . After having decided on a dark-squared approach as the common link, the Bogo- lndian Defence after 1 d4 tt:'if6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:'if3 il..b4+ fitted the bill perfectly. In most lines Black will be able to follow up with . . . d6 and .. . es, and build the structure that is well known to us from the Nimzo­lndian . Here are two main positions that are part of the repertoire.

A serious practical advantage of the Bogo lines chosen for the repertoire is that 1 d4 tt:'if6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 , aiming for a Catalan, can be answered in the same style with 3 ... il..b4+ and has almost no independent value. If you elected to play the Queen 's Indian or a line in the Queen 's Gambit as a partner opening to the Nimzo, you would need to learn an en­tirely new line just to have an answer to 3 g3, whereas with the Boga it as almost a 'two­for-one' solution .

This book features some of my own games. Since the start of this project I have em­ployed the l ines presented here in my tournament games whenever possible and appro­

priate. Besides the included games with a classical time control , I have played the reper­toire in countless blitz and rapid games on the internet that are to be found as live com­mentary videos on my You Tube Channel: www.Youtube.com/Chessexplained.

Testing out your repertoire in internet blitz or rapid games is an excellent way to prac­tice the lines and arising middlegames. After every game do a little reference check with the book to assess your play and possibly learn of improvements to gradually increase your knowledge of the whole repertoire.

9

Op e n ing Rep e rto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ian

I believe that the repertoire presented in this book is a good choice for the practical player, aiming to get decent positions without studying heaps of theoretical l ines and ones that need to be memorized in a tedious process. The repertoire is fundamentally sound and you will be able to find good moves over the board in case you face something you not have yet studied or have simply forgotten .

1 0

I hope you'll both enjoy the read and your games with the Nimzo and Boga!

Christof Sielecki , Duisburg , Germany,

June 2015

C h a pte r On e

Nimzo-lndian: Rare Lines

1 d4 llif6 2 c4 e6 3 llic3 .tb4

Thi s opening chapter contains the rarely played sidelines of the Nimzo. All three moves combined account for less than 10% of all the Nimzo games found in ChessBase's Mega

Database 2015. Against those relatively harmless moves I have chosen easy-to-learn set­ups that require l ittle memorization of concrete l ines. Learning a complicated line against the Leningrad with 4 i..gs , for example, is a waste of time as it is l ikely that you have for­gotten the detai ls by the time the move is actually played against you.

Let's have an overview of the three moves. 4 il.d2 always had a kind of wimpish reputation, as White i s making a slightly passive

looking move mainly to avoid doubled pawns. It al so neglects control over d4, so it i s no surprise that attacking there i s amongst the most popular options for Black. However, while you may call 4 il.d2 unambitious, it for sure very sol id - you can 't expect to refute it

1 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - /n d i a n

or gain an advantage. As 4 i..d2 does not put any pressure on Black, he has quite a number of options avail­

able. In order to be consistent with the other chapters there is mostly 4 . . . cs , which is solid and good, or the more combative 4 . . . tt:Jc6, which bears obvious similarities with, or even simply transposes to, the Zurich variation against the Classical . I chose this l ine because it is strategically most consistent with our other choices and requires l ittle memorization . The game S.Kasparov-Bologan (Game 1) gives an overview of how to handle 4 i..d2. 4 'it'b3 is a very rare move that i s only occasionally seen as a surprise weapon amongst higher-rated players. It is obviously similar to 4 'it'c2, but the queen is simply worse on b3 compared to c2. The main problem is that it neglects the e4-square and often subjects the queen to attacks.

I recommend 4 . . . cs , directly attacking the weakened d4-pawn, even if 4 . . . tt:Jc6 is playable and consistent with our repertoire. 4 . . . cs is the better choice, as Black is very comfortable and has reasonable chances to obtain even a slight edge if White is not careful . The game Fries Niel sen-Ward (Game 2) shows the black strategy in textbook fashion . I t i s the oldest game in this book, but just too instructive to leave out. 4 i..gs, the Leningrad Variation, is an old favourite of former world champion Boris Spas­sky. It never obtained main line status, but it i s a viable surprise weapon that some players use from time to time. It definitely has more bite than the other two lines in this chapter.

Black has got more than one good reply to the Leningrad, the most popular being 4 ... h6 s i..h4 cs 6 ds i..xc3+ 7 bxc3 d6 8 e3 es . Of course there are some move order wrinkles, like 8 . . . 'it'e7, but the structure will arise later: it's the classical closed centre of the Nimzo. This one can be compared to some other lines, like 4 f3 cs s ds d6 6 e4 i..xc3+ 7 bxc3 es . Com­

pared to this l ine, Black has obtained two main advantages: he often manages to play . . . es­e4 and White's bishop on h4 is often misplaced and exposed to tempo-gainers like . . . g s . This l ine is a good option for Black, but I decided against it. The main reason : i t has been covered a lot in books before, most recently in The Nimzo-lndian: Move by Move.

While looking for an alternative, I discovered an approach that I even liked better than the classical closed centre Leningrad, leading to a central formation called the Nimzo­Benoni . This structure arises frequently in this book and is seen after 4 . . . cs S ds exds 6 cxds d6 7 e3 tt:Jbd7.

1 2

N i m zo - l n d ia n : R a re Lin es

The game Onischuk-lvanisevic (Game 3) examines this l ine in detail . Compared to our lines against 4 i.d2 and 4 �3, this middlegame type is more complicated and should be studied a bit more carefully. While there are a few tactical l ines that require memorization , it makes the most sense to develop a feel for piece placement and typical manoeuvres.

Game 1

S.Kasparov-V.Bologan Mi n sk Zon a l 2000

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:lc3 i.b4 4 i.d2 lllc6

5 lt:lf3 There al so i s 5 e3 , keeping the option open to use the knight on e2 . After s . . . o-o 6 i.d3 (6

1 3

Opening Reperto i re: Nimzo an d Boga-In dian

ct:Jf3 transposes to the main game), I suggest the new move 6 ... es 7 dS (7 ctJge2 can be an­swered by 7 . . . exd4 8 exd4 dS with a healthy position for Black; in the coming isolated pawn position both the knight on e2 and the bishop on d2 are not optimally placed) 7 ... 0ie7 8 ct:Jge2 a6, which is similar to the game Grigoriants-Vitiugov given in the notes to move Sin Game 21. If you don't like thi s idea, you can also play the more conventional 6 . . . d6.

Another move is s a3. Black has a simple answer in s ... i.xc3 6 .i.xc3 0ie4, with a coming .. . ct:Jxc3, . . . d6 and ... es plan . This is very similar to the Bogo- lndian with 4 .i.d2 'fie? S g3 0ic6, but in comparison White has lost a move here with a2-a3, so Black should have nothing to worry about. For further information on this please see also the note to the move 6 a3, be­low, which is a more common way to reach this l ine. s ... o-o 6 e3

6 'iYc2 d6 is a direct transposition to the Classical Zurich, examined in Games 25-28. This is probably White's best option. Of course, you might argue that Black should not allow White to transpose from a 'second-rate' line like 4 i.d2 to the main l ine of the Nimzo. This is probably true on a very theoretical level, but from a practical point of view it makes sense to play 4 . . . 0ic6. Other lines are at best equal anyway and you invest l ittle time in a l ine you will face very rarely.

Another reasonable option for White is 6 a3 .i.xc3 7 .txc3 :

a ) Here 7 . . . d6 i s possible, which in most cases will transpose to the Zurich after 8 'ifc2, but a move that irritates me is 8 b4, which prevents . . . es for the moment and expands nice­ly on the queenside. It's not clear that iVc2 is needed here.

b) I prefer 7 . . . 0ie4, which i s similar to the note regarding s a3. The high-level game N.Vitiugov-C.Bauer, European Club Cup, Eilat 2012, continued 8 �c2 0ixC3 9 �xc3 d6 10 e3 'iYe7 11 .l::!.cl:

bl) I now like the straightforward 11 ... es 12 dS 0ib8 13 cs Jtfs or 13 ... tt:Jd7 with about equal play. This central formation i s very standard in our repertoire. It arises frequently in the Zurich variation of the Classical , for example. A positive point for Black in this position

14

N i m zo - l n dian : R a re Lin e s

i s that he has already traded two pairs of minor pieces which is helpful because of his dis­advantage in space.

b2) In the aforementioned game Black went 11 ... .ltd7 12 b4 es 13 ds ll'id8 14 cs f6 1S .lte2 li:Jf7 16 o-o l:!.fd8 17 li:Jd2 when he was okay, but now became too ambitious with 17 .. .fs 18 ll'ib3 f4? 19 lt:Jas ll'ig s? which was simply not working tactically. Black now got dismantled swiftly: 20 exf4 exf4 21 .l::!.fe1 l:!.f8 22 .lth s 'i:Yf6 23 'ii'xf6 l:!.xf6 24 .l::!.e7 with an easy win for White.

Finally, White has also tried 6 g3 here, but Black can answer with his standard set-up. The game K.Miton-V.Bologan, Stratton Mountain 1999, saw 6 ... d6 7 a3 .ltxc3 8 .ltxc3 ll'ie4 9 'i:Yc2 ll'ixc3 10 'it'xc3 (this position also may arise from S a3 or 6 a3 move orders) 10 . . . 'ii'e7 11 .ltg2 es 12 ds ll'ib8 13 e4 fs 14 exfs .ltxfs 1s ll'id2 as 16 b3 ll'id7.

Black enjoys typical , good play. He has obtained the semi-open f-file and has no bad pieces.

Returning to 6 e3 : 6 ... d6 7 .i.d3

This i s one of those rare cases where White does not transpose to the Classical , which is possible with 7 'ii'c2, or grab the bishops immediately with 7 a3 .ltxc3 8 .ltxc3 . Again I rec­ommend getting rid of the arising bishop-pair as quickly as possible : 8 ... ll'ie4 9 'ii'c2 ll'ixc3 10 �xc3 transposes to the Vitiugov-Bauer game, above. 1 ... es

If you are able to play this move without any preparation by ... l:!.e8 and . . :W/e7 or even both, I usually recommend doing so. Freeing the e7-square for the knight on c6 is valuable. 8 ds ll'ie7 9 a3

This allows a very direct and favourable central transformation. White's main alternative i s 9 'i:Yc2, which is answered by the typical 9 . . . c6: for example,

10 dxc6 ll'ixc6 11 0-0 h6 12 lt:Je4 .ltg4 13 ll'Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 14 .lte4 .i.xd2 1S 'it'xd2 .l::!.fd8 with equality in V.Milov-A.Yermolinsky, Moscow 2001.

1 5

Op e n ing Reperto ire: N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

9 ... .i.xc3 10 .i.xc3 bS!

Black may al so play slow moves like 10 . . . c6, but I like Bologan's straightforward ap­proach . 11 b3 bxc4 12 bxc4 t2Jd7

It is now not so easy for White to make any progress on the queenside, whereas Black will build up on the kingside with .. .fs . While the position should be about equal , it seems that Black's position is somewhat the easier to play. In fact, Bologan quickly gains the ini­tiative. 13 o -o fs 14 .i.e2 tt:Jg6 15 tt:Jd2 e4!?

An interesting choice and Black had a wide range of moves/plans. Bologan 's move gains

the es-square, but improves White's bishop and allows a possible t2Jb3-d4. Instead, there were alternatives like 1s ... as with the intention to continue with ... tt:Jcs . 16 g3 tt:Jges 11 .i.d4 �gs?!

17 ... "V/i/e7 was probably better to keep an eye on cs, intending ... tt:Jcs/ ... as plans again. The text does not lead to much . 18 ltc1 tt:Jcs 19 .i.xcs?!

The tactical idea in connection with the next move backfires. 19 t2Jb3 ! was much better, with at least equal play for White. 19 ... dxcs 20 d6?! cxd6 21 tt:Jxe4 fxe4 22 "V/i/ds+ tt:Jf7 23 �xa8 .i.g4 24 "V/i/xe4 .i.xe2

1 6

Nimzo - ln d ia n : R a re Lin e s

This i s stil l a tricky position, but the weak l ight squares around White's king are hard for him to handle. 2S f4 'ief6 26 .l:!.fel i.g4 27 'iec2 i.d7 28 e4 i.c6 29 'ied3 h6

Missing the decisive 29 . . . g S ! . 30 .l:!.e3 .l:!.e8 31 .l:!.cel aS 32 h4 a4 33 hS 'iVe6 34 �e2 .l:!.b8 3S 'iVc2 .i.d7 36 .l:!.d3 'ii'h3 37 .l:!.bl .l:!.e8 38 'iee2 i.g4 39 'ii'e3 'iexhs

Now White fal ls apart. 40 .l:!.b7 iVg6 41 ts 'iehs 42 iVf4 iVgs 43 'ith2 tlies 44 .l:!.xd6 iVhs+ 0-1

Summary 4 ..td2 is not a move to lose sleep over. However, it is very solid and cannot be easily refuted or answered too aggressively. The solution suggested here fits well with our choice against the Classical 4 'iec2 line and, indeed, often transposes to it.

Game2 J.Fries Nielsen-C. Ward

Politiken Cup, Copenhagen 1994

1 d4 llif6 2 c4 e6 3 llic3 i.b4 4 'ieb3 cs

1 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re: N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

s dxcs As d4 is attacked, White has to react. He can al so cover the pawn with S tbf3, after

which the most straightforward path for Black is s ... tbe4: a) 6 i.d2 tbxd2 7 tbxd2 "ii'as 8 dxcs tba6 9 g3 tbxcs 10 'iYc2 i.xc3 11 bxc3 with a slight

edge for Black in N.Giffard-T.Sanikidze, Cappelle la Grande 2010. b) 6 e3 'iYas 7 i.d2 tbxd2 8 tbxd2 cxd4 9 exd4 tbc6 left Black very comfortable in

V.Ruban-E .Dragomarezkij , Moscow 1992. c) 6 tbd2 tbxd2 7 i.xd2 tbc6 8 dxcs i.xcs 9 tbe4 ii.e7 10 'iYg 3 o-o 11 i.c3 (original play,

but rather time consuming; Black answers with a pawn sacrifice, leading to unclear com­plications) 11 . . . e s ! ? 12 i.xes (12 J:.d1 is probably more prudent when 12 . . . 'iYc? 13 cs bS ! ? i s unclear) 12 . . . tbxes 13 'ifxes li.b4+ 14 tbc3 d6 1s °ii'd4 ii.e6 16 e3 'iYas 17 .td3 .l:i.ac8 with enough play to eventually regain the pawn in V.Alekseev-A.Zontakh, Kiev 1999.

The other move to cover the pawn is S e3 . It looks l ike a somewhat strange mix of sys­tems (who would play �3 in the Rubinstein?) , but is fairly solid and maybe better than some other l ines after 4 �3. Black can go s . . . tbc6 6 tbf3 o-o (6 . . . tbe4 is al so possible, but less reliable than just castling; here there follows 7 i.d3 fS 8 o-o ii.xc3 9 bxc3 b6 with inter-

esting play) 7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 'ifxc3 cxd4 9 exd4 (or 9 tbxd4 tbe7 ! ? intending ... d6 and ... e s; Black has some other moves, of course, but this is an original solution) 9 . . . ds, opening up the centre with White behind in development.

1 8

Nimzo - l n dia n : R a re Lin es

A possible continuation is 10 cs? ! .Ue8 ! , immediately intending . . . e s ! : for instance, after 11 ..ie2 e s ! 12 dxes d4 Black has excellent play. In stead, a move like 10 ..ig s is probably about equal .

s ... l2Jc6 6 t2Jf3 Black intends . . . l2Je4, so 6 ii.g s is a logical move. It will surrender the bishop-pair though,

as will become clear after 6 . . . h6: a) 7 ..ih4 t2Jd4! ? 8 1\Yd1 (or 8 1\Ya4 b6 ! 9 t2Jf3 ..ixc3+ 10 bxc3 ttJfs 11 ..ixf6 1\Yxf6 with excel ­

lent play) 8 . . . ttJfs 9 ..ixf6 (9 ..ig 3? l2Je4 is already fatal for White) 9 . . . 1\Yxf6 10 .Uc1 b6 ! (a key motif worth remembering; just taking cs is fine, but this is much more dynamic) 11 cxb6 axb6 12 t2Jf3 ..ib7 with great compensation for the pawn. Indeed, White faces a hard time just to stay in the game.

b) 7 il..xf6 1\Yxf6 8 t2Jf3 b6 ! ? (again this i s the key, although the simple 8 . . . 0-0 is fine as well) 9 cxb6 (a move like 9 .Uc1? ! runs into trouble after 9 . . . bxcs with . . . .t!.b8 to follow; Black has obtained the two bishops and pressure on the b-file) 9 . . . axb6 and now an 'early Sunday morning move' by White cut the game short in R.Stern-K.Landa, German League 1997: 10 e3 ?? (instead, after 10 l:tc1 ..ib7 Black has fine compensation for the pawn, a key idea being . . . ii.cs and . . . ttJes to open up the b7-bishop) 10 . . . l:ta3 ! and White resigned.

1 9

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re: N imzo a n d Bog a - In di a n

I should add the funny story that I got the opportunity to repeat this i n an over-the­board blitz game. When you play such moves instantly it has an interesting effect and is highly recommended. 6 • • • tlle4 7 i.d2

Against 7 e3 both captures on c3 are fine.

1 ... tllxd2 8 tllxd2 fs!

This is an important move and one Black needs to remember. Before recapturing on cs he takes e4 under control , thereby preventing any tlle4 ideas. 9 e3

Alternatively, 9 g3 'iVas 10 l:.c1 b6 ! ? (again ! } 11 i.g2 (if 11 cxb6 tlld4 12 �dl i.b7 with very good play for Black) 11 . . . i.b7 12 o-o i.xc3 13 �xc3 �xc3 14 i::txc3 bxcs 15 tllb3 d6 with equality in R.Spielmann-M.Euwe, Amsterdam 1932 . 9 ... i.xcs

2 0

N i m z o - l n d ia n : R a re Lin e s

Or 9 . . . o-o 10 i.e2 i.xcs 11 o-o b6 12 a3 i.b7 13 'it'c2 .l:Ic8 with a very comfortable posi­tion for Black. Here White erred with 14 i.f3? ! (14 tl:if3 is better) 14 . . .f4 15 b4? fxe3 16 bxcs exd2 17 i.e4 tt:Jd4 18 'ii'xd2 in Z.Pakleza-R.Wojtaszek,Warsaw 2007, and now l8 . . . tl:ib3 19 'iVd1 tl:ixcs leaves Black winning. 10 i.e2 b6 11 o -o i.b7

White doesn 't have a clear-cut plan in this position, whereas Black has good central control and the pair of bishops. White decides to get rid of one of the bishops, but in the process strengthens Black's centre. 12 tl:ia4 .l:Ib8 13 tl:ixcs bxcs 14 'ii'c3 'Yi'f6!

The doubled pawns are no weakness of course. Black improves his central position even more and in addition obtains play on the g -file. 15 'it'xf6 gxf6 16 f4 .l:Ig8 17 g3 i.a8 18 b3 rtle7 19 rtlf2 as 20 a4

A huge concession, but it was difficult to decide between set-ups that are all somewhat better for Black. If White allows . . . aS-a4 it is not much fun either. 20 ... tt:Jb4 21 i.f3 .l:Ib6 22 i.xa8 .l:Ixa8 23 rtle2 .l:Id6 24 .l:Ifc1 .l:Id3 25 .l:Iab1 nb8 26 tl:if3 .l:Id6 27

llc3 .l:Idb6 28 .l:Ib2 tl:ia6!

2 1

Opening Repertoire: Nimzo a n d 809 0 - l n dian

The first step in an excellent regrouping. The knight is on its way to e4. 29 ttJd2 ltJc7 30 llb1 ttJeS 31 �f3 tlld6

It is very difficult just to stay put and do absolutely nothing , but probably thi s is what White should have done. Breaking out now backfired in the end.

32 g4?! fxg4+ 33 'it>xg4 .UgB+ 34 @f3 tt:Jfs 3S @f2 ltJh4 36 J::i,g1 l:!,xg1 37 @xgl l:!,d6 The rook enters, completing a very nice strategic display by Chri s Ward. Black is better

and his position much easier to play, but White i s still fighting with chances for a draw. 38 ttJf1 l:i.d1 39 'it>f2 ttJfs 40 'itie2 .Mb1 41 J::i,d3?

This drops material and ultimately the game. In stead, 41 tt:Jd2 still keeps White in the game. 41 ••• ttJd6 42 ttJd2 .i::th143 e4 llxh2+ 44 'it>d1 .l:!.h4 4S llf3 fs 46 es tt:Je4 47 tt:Jxe4 fxe4 48 l:i,f1 �7 49 'it>e2 �g6 so .:.d1 @fs Sl l:!,xd7 'it>xf4 s2 .Mc7 l:!,h2+ S3 @d1 @e3 0-1

Summary 4 'irb3 is a rare move and most likely will never become popular. It is mostly an inferior ver­sion of 4 'ii'c2 and puts l ittle pressure on Black. Some l ines are fairly sol id though, l ike 5 e3, but even here Black obtains equal play and enough asymmetry to fight for more than a draw.

Game 3

l.lvanisevic-A.Onischuk World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011

1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 .ib4 4 .i.gs cs

22

Nimzo - l n di a n : R a re Lin es

5 dS Normal . In stead, s e3? i s awful for White after s . . . iVas , while s tllf3 more often arises

from 4 tllf3 cs S .tg s and is dealt with in the notes to Game 9.

s ... exds 6 cxds d6 The Nimzo-Benoni structure. Here White to my surprise almost exclusively plays:

7 e3 The arising positions seem completely toothless to me, as White is far from achieving

any central dominance, the main risk with the Benoni structure. A more ambitious approach is 7 f3 o-o 8 e4 l:te8 9 iVd2 a6 10 tt:Jge2 tllbd7 11 lllg 3 bS ,

which can be compared to Timofeev-Topalov, Eilat 2012 (see the notes to move 7 in Game 8). White is better off compared to that game, as the knight is not misplaced on f4, but this still seems like a fine position for Black. The game V.Milov-J .Emms, I sle of Man 1994, con­tinued 12 a3 .tas 13 .te2 h6 14 .te3 tt:Jes 1S 0-0 l:tb8 16 i.f2 .tb6 17 b4 cxb4 18 axb4 .txf2+ 19 'it>xf2 h S 20 h4 g6 21 l:th1 l:te7 22 l:thcl tllh7 with about equal play in this unbal ­anced position.

7 ... tllbd7 Black can al so castle first, with a likely transposition. 7 . . . tllbd7 allows 8 .tbs, but that

does not seem at all dangerous.

2 3

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

S .td3 The most natural move. The alternatives are: a) 8 .tbs and then : al) A simple solution i s 8 . . . .txc3+ 9 bxc3 'ifas 10 .i.xd7+ il'ixd7 11 il'ie2 il'ies. This se­

quence is forced after 8 . . . .i.xc3+ and Black has a fine position . A sample game: 12 o-o f6 13 .tf4 o-o 14 .txes fxes 15 il'ig 3 bs 16 'ifc2 .td7 17 f4 exf4 18 Mxf4 Mxf4 19 exf4 Me8 20 Mfl 'i'd8 21 'i\Vc1 'ife7 22 �a3 .tc8 23 'i'as 'ifb7 24 a4 b4 2 5 cxb4 'ii'xb4 26 'ii'xb4 cxb4 and Black went on to win thi s favourable endgame in V.Neverov-A.Shimanov, St. Petersburg 2012. The queen side majority often becomes more significant in the endgame, giving Black the upper hand.

a2) Very similar i s 8 . . . h6 9 .i.h4 .i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 'iWas 11 .i.xd7+ il'ixd7 12 il'ie2, after which Black decided to sacrifice the d6-pawn for good compensation: 12 . . . o-o!? 13 .te7 Me8 14 .i.xd6 "iWa6 15 .tf4 il'if6 16 o-o .tfs 17 Mel Mad8.

2 4

N i m z o - l n d ia n : R a re Lin es

Here Black was the more comfortable in A.Korobov-V.Kramnik, Tromso 2013.

a3) 8 . . . o-o 9 tllge2 a6 10 .llxd7 .llxd7 reveal s the idea behind 8 .tbs . Black is in a slightly awkward pin from the gs -bishop, but after 11 o-o h6 12 i.h4 .!:le8 13 °i¥c2 �e7 14 Wh l �es the pin has been broken and White i s struggling to maintain equality. Where is White's compensation for the loss of the bishop-pair? He now went for a radical solution with lS f4! ? 'i¥xe3 (lS . . . �fS was a simple and good alternative, giving Black at least equal chances) 16 l:tf3 �e7 17 tllg 3 .txc3 18 bxc3 .llg4 19 .i::E.ff1 'iii'e3 20 h3 tllxds 21 hxg4 'iii'xc3 22 �xc3 tllxc3 23 .i::l.f3 tlle4 24 tllxe4 l:txe4 2S .l:!.d1 and this complicated endgame was later drawn in V.Milov-Y.Pelletier, Swiss League 2012.

b) 8 tllge2? ! looks inharmonious to me, but it still leads to complicated play: 8 . . . 0-0 9 a3 .\las (taking would only help White with his lag in development) 10 l:tb1 h6 11 .th4 tlles 12 b4 i..b6 13 .i::E.cl and now Black could have obtained a nearly decisive advantage with 13 . . . cxb4 (instead, 13 . . . i..g4? ! was played in S.Conquest-J . Emms, Oakham 1994, which is less clear) 14 axb4 as lS bS a4, one point being 16 tllxa4 .!:Ixa4 17 �xa4 tlld3+ 18 Wd2 tllxcl 19 tllxcl gS 20 i..g 3 .\las+ 21 �dl tllxds and Black wins . White certainly can improve on moves 9-13, but Black is fine in any case.

Returning to 8 ii.d3 :

8 ... tlles Black can al so go pawn-grabbing with 8 . . . �as, as played by the very well -prepared Peter

Leko. For this repertoire I prefer not to be too material istic and to focus more on a strategi ­cally coherent repertoire, but if you want to sharpen the play and go in for tactical compli­cations, the queen sortie is a good way to do that. Leko's game continued 9 tllge2 tllxds 10 o-o i..xc3 11 bxc3 c4 12 .llc2 o-o 13 tllg 3 tllxc3 14 'iVh s fs lS e4 tllxe4 16 l:tadl tlldf6 17 .txf6 tllxf6 18 'ifh4 �cs 19 .l::!.d4 ds 20 l:tfd1 i.e6 21 tllxfs .txfs 22 .txfs l:tae8 23 g4 l:tes 24 .l::!.f4 h6 2s gs tllh s 26 'iVxh s .i::texfs 27 l:txfs l:txfs 28 �e8+ 'iWf8 and his opponent, Vladimir Georgiev, resigned at the I stanbul Olympiad of 2012.

9 tllge2 h6 10 i..h4 o -o 11 o -o

2 5

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

The alternative 11 i..c2 tt:Jg6 12 i..g3 tt:Jh s 13 o-o leads to the same thing . 11 ... tt:Jg6 12 i.g3

White will have to part with one of his bishops anyway, but 12 i..xg6 is probably a worse way of doing so. In J .Kolly-G.Siegel , Zurich 1996, after 12 .. .fxg6 13 f3 a6 14 tt:Je4 g s 15 tt:Jxf6+ 'ii'xf6 16 i..g 3 i..d7 17 'ii'c2 .l:rae8 18 e4 'ii'g6 19 .l:rad1 il.as 20 a4 l:tf6 21 tt:Jc3 h S White had no clear plan, whereas Black could easily become active, backed by the pair of bishops and the mobile pawns on the kingside. The coming ... g S-g4 will break down White's centre and king position . Indeed, after 22 i..e1 .l:rf7 23 i..d2 g4 24 @h1 gxf3 25 gxf3 h4 26 .l:rg1? (this loses instantly, but White was in big trouble anyway) 26 . . . 'ii'h s 27 i..e1 'ifxf3+ 28 'ii'g2 .i.g4 White resigned. 12 ... tt:Jhs

Black will bag the dark-squared bishop, netting him the pair of bishops and removing a piece that puts pressure on d6, the typical weakness of the Benoni structure. 13 .i.c2

White has tried some other moves too: a) 13 f4 is an ambitious advance, but it should not trouble Black too much: 13 . . .fs ! ? (an

interesting concept as Black decides to drop the knight back to f6, controll ing the e4-square; the simpler 13 ... tt:Jxg 3 14 tt:Jxg 3 l:te8 is al so playable when White may try the ag­gressive 15 'ii'hs , but it is effectively answered by 15 . . . tt:Jf8 : for example, 16 tt:Jce4 a6 17 a4 .l:i.b8 with complex play and mutual chances) 14 i..f2 tt:Jf6 15 @h 1 i..d7 16 h3 @h8 17 'ii'c2 and a draw was agreed in A.Moiseenko-E .Bacrot, San Sebastian 2012. Not exactly a 'forced draw', but by now deviating was not so easy. Both sides have numerous ways to avoid it beforehand, though, the easiest for Black being 13 ... tt:Jxg 3 .

b } 13 'ii'c2 with a choice for Black: bl} Just like in similar positions, the simple way to play is 13 . . . tt:Jxg 3 14 tt:Jxg3 tt:Jes with

a good Nimzo-Benoni again .

2 6

N i m z o - l n d i a n : R a re Lin es

In J .Cooper-B. Parma, Nice Olympiad 1974, White tried to establish a knight on fs by means of lS .ifs .ixfs 16 tt:'ixfs, but Black fought that instantly with 16 . . . �d7 17 tt:'ie2 h S (17 . . . g 6 ? 1 8 tt:'ixh6+ @g7 19 f4 doesn 't work for Black, but 1 7 . . . .l::tae8 was a viable alternative) 18 h3 g6 19 f4 tt:'ic4 20 tt:'ih6+ @g7 (very nice desperado knights; this all seems to be rather forced after 17 .. . h S) 21 �xc4 @xh6 22 fS �e7 (22 . . . �e8 ! was correct, to answer 23 �f4+ with 2 3 . . . g s ! 24 �xd6+ f6 2 S �e6 �S 26 tt:'ic3 .ixc3 27 bxc3 .l::tae8 28 �d6 'iWc4 and an un­clear position) 23 .i::tf3 (23 �f4+! �g s 24 �xg s+ @xg s 2 s fxg6 fxg6 26 tt:'if4 .i::tfs 27 .i::tf3 is better for White) 23 . . . .l::tfe8 24 fxg6 fxg6 2 S tt:'if4 �e4 26 �e2 .i::te s 27 .l::tafl .l::tf8 28 g4 c4 29 gxh s ? {White, the clear underdog, has put up a great fight, but now breaks) 29 . . . .ics ! 30 tt:'ixg6 .l::txf3 31 I1xf3 .l::txds 32 tt:'if4? (32 @h 2 wasn 't much fun, but was still tougher)

32 . . . I:i.g S+ 33 @f2 dS 34 .l::tg 3 �xf4+ and White resigned. b2) 13 . . .fs ! ? leads to the same unbalanced structure as seen in Moiseenko-Bacrot,

above. After 14 f4 .id7 lS .if2 lDe7 16 e4 .ixc3 17 bxc3 fxe4 18 .ixe4 tt:'if6 19 .ih4 °i!Ve8 20 .ixf6 .l::txf6 21 tt:'ig 3 �f7 Black has equalized.

27

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

I n J .Timman-M.Najdorf, Reykjavik 1976, the great Dutchman now initiated wild compli­cations : 22 i.h7+ @h8 23 l2Je4? ! (creative, but probably unsound} 23 . . . g6 24 l2Jxf6 (24 'iib2 is a typical computer move that seems to be slightly better than the game, although after 24 ... i.f5 25 l2Jxf6 iVxf6 26 iVxb7 l::td8 27 �xg6 l2Jxg6 Black is nonetheless better, based on the coming . . . i.e4 and . . . l2Jh4 ideas) 24 . . . iVxf6 2 5 i.xg6 l2Jxg6 26 .l:tae1 l::tg8 (White's rooks have no entry points and his majority on the king side is hard to advance) 27 @h 1 l2Jh4 28 g3 l2Jf5 29 'iid3 iVf7 30 .l:tf2 l2Je7 (provoking c4 to gain access to the d4-square) 31 c4 l2Jf5 32 .l:!.fe2 b5 3 3 iVc3+ .l:!.g7 34 .l:!.e6 (Black's knight was about to land on d4, so White plays a couple of most l ikely hectic time trouble moves) 34 . . . i.xe6 3 5 dxe6 iVb7+ 36 @g1 l2Jd4 37 @f2 bxc4 38 f5 l2Jxf5 39 iVf6 l2Je7 and Timman resigned. 13 ... �e7

A very instructive mistake occurred in O.Zier-N .Miezis, Wunsiedel 2012. White reacted badly to 13 ... l2Jxg 3 with 14 hxg 3? .

This recapture leads to problems for White. His kingside structure becomes even more rigid after it, in particular f2-f4 would weaken g 3 and g4 enormously. Moreover, what ex­actly is White's plan now?

After 14 . . . l2Je5 15 a3 i.a5 16 f3 a6 17 g4 b5 Black always has his majority to advance. White can try to get something going on the kingside, but it mostly weakens more squares: 18 l2Jg 3 .l:!.e8 19 l2Jce4 i.b6 20 l2Jf5? i.xf5 21 gxf5 l2Jc4 22 'ili'e1 l2Jxe3 23 f6 c4 and White re­signed. The black player in this game, GM Normunds Miezis, i s probably the leading expert on the Snake Benoni. This line bears some resemblance with that opening, as far as the general structure is concerned, but in the original Snake Benoni White would never put his knight on e2 or give up his dark-squared bishop. For Miezis , this must have felt l ike his Snake dream position . 14 'i\i'd3 i.d7 15 l2Jf4

This was the point of i.c2 and iVd3 . 1s ... l2Jhxf4 16 exf4 .l:!.fe8 17 fs l2Jes 18 'ili'e4 f6

2 8

Nimzo - l n d ia n : R a re Lin es

Black is very solid here. The only issue is a knight or rook landing on e6 - with careful play Black avoids this . 19 h3 tlJf7 20 �xe7 .l:!.xe7 2111:Je4 c4 22 a3 .i.cs 23 tlJxcs dxcs 24 .l:!.fe1 .l:!.xe1+ 25 .l:!.xe1 @fs 26 .i.f4 b6 27 g4 .l:!.eS 28 .l:!.e4 .l:!.xe4 29 .i.xe4 We7

This fortress is impregnable . 30 .i.bS11:Jd6 31 f3 a6 32 @f2 tlJcS 33 .i.c7 bs 34 We3 .i.eS 35 h4@d7 36 .i.bS i.f7 37 gs hxgs 38 hxgs 11:Jb6 39 .i.a7 11:Ja4 40 g6 .i.gS 41 .i.c2 .i.xds 42 .i.xa4 bxa4 43 .i.xcs @es 44 .i.b4 Yz-Yz

Summary The Nimzo-Benoni structure is an excellent answer to the Leningrad. It leads to unbalanced play where Black's ideas seem easier to realize than White's . Very often Black manages to gain the two bishops, giving him a long-term asset to exploit. The repertoire choice here is a fine middle-of-the-road approach - it i s playable with little memorization of concrete lines, but still leads to a full -blooded battle.

2 9

C h a pt e r Two

Nimzo-lndian: Samisch Variation, 4 a3

1 d4 lbf6 2 C4 e6 3 lbc3 i..b4 4 a3

This move initiates the Samisch variation . To be honest, I always thought that this l ine is close to being incorrect. White even encourages Black to wreck his structure and basi ­cally says: "Go ahead, I don't mind!" . However ,while studying the Samisch for this book in more detail, I learned that my initial view about this l ine was far too negative - Black needs to know what he is doing in order to obtain a satisfactory position out of the opening .

In some ways the Samisch is the King 's Gambit of the Nimzo complex. It neglects struc­ture and material (c4 is very often simply too weak to hold for White), in return for attack­ing chances based on the broad centre - a trade-off that at least makes this l ine a serious surprise weapon . So just like with the King 's Gambit, you better have a response prepared

3 0

Nimzo - l n di a n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

to avoid being attacked with less time on the clock because you don't know or forgot your reply.

A word about move orders. The Samisch may be played directly on move four, but it can al so be delayed and might occur after the initial moves of the Rubinstein : for instance, 4 e3 o-o S a3 or even 4 e3 o-o S i.d3 cs 6 a3 . The 4 a3 move order offers Black some additional flexibility because he has not yet castled or determined his c-pawn (you might play . . . tt:ic6 before ... cs) , but for the repertoire I have chosen to cover only one set-up that is playable against all versions of the Samisch, no matter on which move White goes for a3 .

The absolute main line for Black against the Samisch fits the bil l , as it includes an early . . . o-o and . . . cs . Let's examine the structure of the material : a) 4 a3 i.xc3+ S bxc3 cs 6 f3 .

The game Sutkovic-Predojevic {Game 4) contains all those lines that typically don't in­clude e3 by White, but rather focus on quickly going for f3 and e4 or even more obscure tries . Note that in this move order Black will often avoid . . . o-o, staying flexible with the king and maybe even going . . . o-o-o later.

b) 4 a3 i.xc3+ S bxc3 cs 6 e3.

3 1

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

White's most popular set-up involves an early e 3 , often played via a Rubinstein move order starting with 4 e3 . The game Jobava-Wojtaszek (Game 5) examines all l ines except the absolute main line with 11 f4. Those early deviations contain some venom, but are all at least equal for Black. That main line runs 6 . . . 0-0 7 .i.d3 llic6 8 llie2 b6 9 e4 llie8 10 0-0 .i.a6 11 f4 and is analysed in the game Richter-Howell (Game 6). It leads to complicated play with chances for both sides.

Game4 D.Sutkovic-B.Predojevic

Med iterranea n Open, Rijeka 2011

1 d4 llif6 2 c4 e6 3 llic3 .i.b4 4 a3 .i.xc3+ 5 bxc3 cs

3 2

N i m z o - l n d ia n : Siim is ch , 4 a 3

6 f3

This is the most straightforward move, intending e4 in one move. At first this seems to be quicker than playing e3 first and then following up with e4 later, but it has some draw­backs as well . There are a couple of alternatives:

a) In fact the most popular move is 6 e3, which after 6 . . . 0-0 leads to the main l ine exam­ined in Games S and 6 .

b} A surprisingly popular move is 6 ll:if3, which often arises from 4 ll:if3 cs S a3 �xc3+ 6 bxc3 . The combination of a3 and llif3 looks suspicious to me; in fact you could argue that White is playing the Hilbner variation (Games 16-20), but a tempo down due to a3. Amaz­ingly some rather strong players went for thi s anyway and after 6 . . . ll:ic6 (of course, you can al so play 6 . . . o-o or 6 . . . 'iVas) 7 e3 (7 �g s ? ! 'iVas ! i s embarrassing for White) 7 .. . d6 8 �d3 es we transpose to the realms of the Hilbner.

Compared to our Hilbner move order, Black has not castled yet and is somewhat faster in the centre. The game D.Sutkovic-B.Smith, Sarajevo 2012, saw the white player of our cur­rent main game struggling again after 9 e4 cxd4 10 cxd4 �g4 11 ds ll:id4 (Black is fine al ­ready, but the next move gets White into really big trouble} 12 'ii'a4+? bS 13 cxbs �xf3 14 gxf3 llixf3+ 1s @fl and now 1s .. . 'irc8 ! would have won outright for Black.

c) Another option for White is 6 'i¥c2. This is quite a decent move, intending to go e4 in one move, supported by the queen . I don't see anything l ike a refutation, so my advice is to just stick to common middlegame plans, as in the game K.Terrieux-M.Amold, Calvi 2012: 6 . . . ll:ic6 7 ll:if3 d6 8 e4 es 9 ds ll:ie7, reaching a familiar structure. Compared to the Hilbner White has managed to play e4 in one move, but on the other hand he played a3 and 'iVc2, which are not essential either. Let's follow the game to see some more typical middlegame motifs : 10 �e2 o-o 11 o-o ll:ig6 12 ll:ie1 ll:ie8 ! ( . . .fs i s the plan as Black needs some active play) 13 �d3 �d7 14 g 3 'irc8 (very logical play, preparing the key break) 1s ll:ig2 �h 3 16 f3 fS 17 exfs �xfs 18 f4? (this is too weakening) 18 ... �xd3 19 'irxd3 ll:if6 (19 . . . 'i¥113 ! was even better) 20 fxes? (20 fs was not great, but necessary) 20 ... llixes 21 'ife2 'ifg4 22 'i¥xg4 llifxg4

3 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ian

23 .if4 tt:Jxc4 24 h3 tt:'if6 25 .l:i.fd1 .l:i.ae8 26 a4 tt:Je4 - a swift dismantling of White's position . 6 Wic2 is a playable option for White, but as Black just go for a middlegame you know and try to outplay your opponent. 6 ... tt:'ic6

This is most precise move for our set-up. We don 't need to castle just yet. 7 e4

Once in a while White confuses his move order and plays 7 e3? . This is just a main l ine a tempo down for White, as he usually gets in f2-f4 in one move (see the following game) .

A rare alternative i s 7 dS tt:Jas 8 e4 (8 d6 was tried in V. Fedoseev-V.Papin , Taganrog 2013; instead of grabbing on c4, Black should have just played 8 . . . o-o 9 e4 tt:'ie8, leading to a

favourable version of the structure we'll see in Games 5 and 6), and now 8 . . . d6 leads to note 'b' to White's 8th move, below. 1 ... d6 8 .ie3

Here we see the most important drawback of the early expansion with f3 and e4 - the pawn on d4 is weakened, so White cannot develop in the most natural fashion with .id3 and tt:Je2, as d4 is simply hanging after 8 .id3 . Besides the text, he has tried:

a) 8 tt:Je2 b6 9 tt:'ig3 tt:Jas 10 f4. This ultra-aggressive, but very weakening set-up was tried in B.Spassky-R.Hubner, Turin 1982, which continued 10 ... 0-0 11 es tt:'ie8 12 .ie3 .ia6.

3 4

N i mz o - l n d ia n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

White is already busted here. He will lose material and keep h i s numerous weaknesses without any significant counterplay. In fact this scenario is a key problem for White in the Samisch in general : if he loses one of his weak pawns, he will still be weak on the whole queen side. Those weaknesses are permanent and don't vanish together with the c4-pawn . Play concluded: 13 .i.d3 .i.xc4 14 o-o fS ! (the typical blockading move) 1 5 exf6 lllxf6 16 'i'e2 .i.xd3 17 'i'xd3 'i'd7 18 l:!.ae1 l:!.ae8 19 .tel lllc6 20 fS exfs 21 lllxfs l:!.xe1 22 l:!.xe1 cxd4 23 cxd4 ds 24 'i'h 3 @h8 2 5 l:!.fl llle4 26 l:!.f3 l:!.f6 27 g4 llle7 28 lt:Jh4 'i'a4 29 l:!.xf6 'i'xd4+ 30 .i.e3 'i'xf6 31 gs lllxg s 32 'i'd7 llle4 33 @g2 ct:Jcs 34 'i'c7 llle6 3 5 'i'b8+ lllg8 36 lllf3 'i'g6+ 37 @h 3 'i'e4 and Spassky resigned.

b) 8 ds ct:Jas 9 .i.d3 b6 10 f4? ! (Black was very okay anyway, but this is too much) 10 . . . 0-0! and White is in big trouble: for instance, his position fal ls apart after 11 lt:Jf3 exds 12 cxds C4 13 .i.c2 ctJb3 . 8 ... b6

Black intends typical counterplay with . . . i.a6 and . . . lllas . An important point is , of course, that his king is still in the centre which defuses some of White's important ideas.

9 i.d3 The standard response to an early 9 'i'a4 is the typical 9 . . . 'i'd7, intending . . . ct:Jas. This ba­

sically gains a tempo as White needs to avoid the queen trade and must retreat. 9 ... lllas

Setting up play against c4. Note that Black is not playing . . . es just yet, but delays i t until appropriate.

3 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln dia n

10 ctJh3 The alternative 10 'Lie2? ! takes away the e2-square from the white queen and makes it

even harder to keep that pawn on c4. In the game M.Ezat-A.Kosten, Cairo 2003, Black ob­tained an excellent position after 10 ... i.a6 11 o-o 'Lid7 12 Ji.f4 "fic7 (12 ... e s ! ? was fine too) 13 �a4 0-0-0 14 l:i.fb1? (14 ii.g3 was still okay for White) 14 ... 'Lies ! 15 i.c2 ii.xc4 and went on to win . 10 ... es

With a tempo gain on the white knight. Here Black can also play in a more flexible manner with 10 .. . ii.a6. This was played in a

yet another Spassky-Hubner encounter, this time at Bugojno 1982. There 11 �e2 �d7 ! ? was provocative - Hubner is well known for h i s great defensive skill s and he often goes for material before defending successfully. Here he sets his sights on the a4-square to snatch the pawn. However, it allows 12 es dxes 13 dxes 'Lig8.

3 6

Nimzo - l n di a n : Siim is ch , 4 a3

This pawn structure is very static, which in principle should favour Black. On the other hand, there is an important weakness on d6 and, of course, losing time with the king's knight i s not ideal either. After 14 o-o l:De7 1S .l:i.ad1 �c7 {avoiding 1s . . . 'i\Va4 16 .ic2 ! �xa3?? 17 'i!Vd2 and White wins) 16 .ig s o-o-o 17 l:Df2 .l:i.d7 18 i..xe7 {well played; White continues with f4 and gets rid of his bad bishop) 18 . . . .l:i.xe7 19 f4 @b8 20 l:De4 .l:.d7 21 l:Dd6 l:Db7 22 l:Dbs ii.xbs 2 3 cxbs l:thd8 24 i..e4 play was about equal and the game was drawn after 63 moves. 11 l:Df2 �d7

There's nothing wrong with 11. . .i..a6 either. The only thing Black needs to avoid here i s castl ing too early. White i s struggling to find a plan so long as the black king is a 'moving target', keeping all options ( . . . 0-0-0, . . . o-o and staying in the centre) alive. A sample l ine: 12 o-o l:Dd7 13 �e2 cxd4 14 cxd4 .l:.c8 1s cs .txd3 16 l:Dxd3 dxcs 17 dxcs bxcs 18 .l:tac1 l:Db3 19 .l:.c3 l:Dd4 20 �f2 and White fights for equality. There are multiple options of both sides along the way, but this does illustrate a possible course of play.

12 0-0

White had two more aggressive alternatives: a) A direct way for White to play is the untried 12 f4! ? l:Dg4 {one point of playing . . . �d7 be­

fore . . . i..a6; possible alternatives are 12 . . . 0-0 and 12 . . . ..ta6, which are both playable) 13 l:Dxg4 �xg4 14 fxes (14 �xg4 ..txg4 1S fxes dxes 16 dxcs o-o-o is an important move to attack the bishop on d3 and after 17 ..te2 ..txe2 18 'lt>xe2 l:Dxc4 19 cxb6 axb6 20 a4 White is slightly worse) 14 ... dxes {14 ... cxd4 is a more solid choice with about equal chances: for instance, 1S cxd4 dxes 16 dS �xd1+ 17 .l:.xd1 ..ta6 18 cs ..txd3 19 .l:.xd3 bxcs 20 ..txcs l:Db7 21 .l:.c3 .l:i.c8 22 ..tb4 @d7 and Black is comfortable) 1S dxcs �xg2 16 l::tg1 'iVh3 17 l:tg3 �xh2 18 l::txg7 with crazy complications that are hard to assess. A quick possible end to the game is 18 . . . @f8 19 J:tg1 .l:tg8 20 .l:txg8+ @xg8 21 �e2 'i!Vh1+ 22 �f1 'ii'h4+ 23 �f2 'iVh1+ and a repetition .

b) In the game J .Diaz del Corral - 1 .Csom, Malaga 1981, White went for 12 ..tg s which was countered with the very nice 12 ... l:Dg8 ! ? (typical of Csom's original style) 13 dxes (this clari-

3 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

fies the situation in the centre; White's key plan is the knight tour to ds) 13 . . . dxes 14 ll:Jg4 f6 15 .i.h4 .i.a6 16 ll:ie3 o-o-o 17 .i.e2 'ii'xd1+ 18 l::!.xd1 l:Ixd1+ 19 'it>xd1 ll:ie7? ! (19 . . . ll:ih6! , heading directly to d6 via f7 was stronger) 20 @c2 l::!.d8 21 g4 g s 22 i.g 3 h6 23 h4 l::!.f8? ! 24 hxg s hxg S 2 5 .Uh7 and by now Black needed to play precisely to secure the draw. Black had an excellent position before though and the knight retreat followed by .. .f6 is an interest­ing motif worth remembering. 12 ... .i.a6 13 f4

The principled move, but not the only one. In fact it i s not clear if Black winning the c4-pawn is all that devastating : for example, 13 a4! ? .i.xc4 (Black might consider delaying this with moves like 13 . . . o-o or 13 . . . ll:ih s) 14 ..txc4 ll:ixc4 1S ..tg s and White's idea of taking on f6, followed by ll:ig4 is very annoying. Indeed, 1s . . . ll:ih s ! ? (not 1s . . . ll:ig8? 16 'ii'e2 ll:ias 17 dxes dxes 18 l::!.ad1 'ii'xa4 19 f4 and White's attack is very dangerous, if not decisive) 16 'ii'e2 ll:ias 17 dxes dxes 18 l::!.fd1 'ii'c6 19 l::!.ds f6 20 ..te3 o-o gives White compensation for the pawn . Having our knights on both as and h s is quite a picture. Playing this position might be not to everyone's taste, but there are alternatives on move 13 .

In stead of giving away c4 immediately, White can al so try to cover i t for the moment with 13 'ii'e2 . The point is that 13 ... 1Wa4 14 i.c2 is a nice trick. However, after 14 ... 'ii'c6 15 i.d3 0-0 the structure remains the same, with Black eyeing the c-pawns. This position should be at least equal for Black.

13 ... i.xc4 13 . . . exd4 14 cxd4 i.xc4 was another way to grab the pawn. It seems to be fine as wel l :

for example, 1s fs (after 1s es? ! ..txd3 16 'ii'xd3 dxes 17 fxes c4 18 'ii'e2 ll:id5 Black is better) 1s . . . i.xd3 16 'ii'xd3 c4 17 'ii'e2 'ii'c6 with complicated play. White has some compensation for the pawn, but Black does not face any immediate problems.

14 fxes dxes

15 dxcs?! This is a mistake that considerably eases Black's play. It probably doesn 't yet lead to an

advantage for Black, but 1S i.g s poses far more problems. Now Black can try:

3 8

Nimzo - l n di a n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

a) 15 . . . cxd4 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 17 cxd4 .txd3 18 �xd3 �xd4 19 'iYh 3 �d7 20 �xd7+ @xd7 21 tbg4 and White will regain the pawns with equality.

b) 15 . . . exd4 16 .txc4 lbxc4 17 cxd4 (17 .txf6? ! tbe3 18 �f3 gxf6 19 cxd4 tbxf1 20 .l:!.xf1 0-o-o 21 dxc5 is good for Black, but not so easy to play due to the open king position) 17 .. . cxd4 18 .txf6 tbe3 19 �xd4 �xd4 20 .txd4 tbxf1 21 @xf1 0-0 with an equal endgame that still has plenty of play left.

c) 15 . . . .Jtxd3 and then : c1) 16 �xd3 exd4 (or the sol id 16 . . . �d6 17 .txf6 - just in time before Black goes . . . tbd7 -

17 . . . �xf6 18 tbg4 �d6 19 tbxe5 o-o 20 tbg4 cxd4 21 cxd4 .l:!.ad8 22 .l:!.ad1 tbc6, which is a long , but plausible line, reaching an equal endgame) 17 cxd4 transposes to l ine 'a', above.

c2) 16 tbxd3 tbc4 (16 . . . exd4? ! 17 tbe5 �e6 18 �a4+ is just too risky for Black) 17 tbxe5 (the safe move for White; otherwise, there is 17 .txf6 gxf6 18 �f3 exd4 19 �xf6 .l:!.g8 20 tbf4 tbe3 21 .l:!.f3 .l:!.c8 22 tbd5 �e6 23 �xe6+ fxe6 24 tbf6+ @e7 25 tbxg8+ .l:!.xg8 and Black has sufficient compensation in this endgame) 17 . . . tbxe5 18 .txf6 gxf6 19 dxe5 �xd1 20 .l:!.axd1 fxe5 21 .l:!.d5 o-o 22 .l:!.xe5 .l:!.fe8 with an equal endgame.

Overall , 15 .i.g 5 leads to very interesting, complex positions. Black has various good re­pl ies that all seem to be about equal , but with lots of play left in the position . 1s ... i.xd3 16 tbxd3 tbg4 17 �e2 o -o 18 cxb6

Here White had some choice, as can be seen from : a) 18 .l:!.f5 ! ? tbxe3 (18 .. .f6 ! ? maybe gives more winning chances for Black; a possible l ine

runs 19 �xg4 �xd3 20 .l:!.f3 .l:!.f7 21 cxb6 lbb3 22 .l:!.af1 axb6 23 �e6 �xc3 24 �d5 .l:!.a5 25 i.xb6 .l:rxd5 26 .l:!.xc3 .l:!.b5 27 .l:Ib1 .l:!.xb6 28 .l:rcxb3 .l:!.xb3 29 .l:rxb3 .l:!.a7 and it's equal after all ) 19 tbxe5 �e7 20 �xe3 lbb3 21 .l:!.af1 �xc5 22 �xc5 tbxc5 2 3 tbc6 and White is active enough to draw, but it is not clear cut.

b) 18 i.g 5 f6 19 .Jth4 tbc4 20 cxb6 axb6 21 lbb4 �c8 with about equal play as the com­ing tbd5 compensates for White's bad structure. 18 ... tbxe3 19 �xe3 tbc4 20 �g3 f6 21 bxa7 'iWxa7+ 22 @h1

3 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

This was close to being forced after 18 cxb6. White has an extra pawn, but Black has a perfect structure with one pawn island as opposed to a four-island structure on White's side. So many weaknesses are very tough to defend and if one of them drops there are still several left. While White still should be able to hold 'with perfect play', it is very unpleasant to play in a practical game. 22 ••. 'iVb7 23 .l:.fe1 tbd6 24 .l:.ab1 W/f7 25 .l:.b6?

25 tt:Jb4 .l:i.xa3 26 'iVd3 with tt:Jds to come was a better defence. 2s ... 'iVc7 26 .l:.b3 'iYc4

Now White fal ls apart. 27 .l:.b4 'ifxc3 28 a4 'iVa3

That keeps a clear advantage, but the computer shows 28 .. .fs ! as an instant knockout; White's pieces are terribly coordinated. 29 h3 .l:.xa4 30 .l:.xa4 'iVxa4 31 'iYg4 'ifc4 32 tt:Jf2 'iVc8 33 °it'g3 'iVe6 34 tbg4 'it>h8 35 °it'h4 'ifb3

36 tt:Je3 °it'e6 37 .l:.a1 °it'f7 38 .l:.a6 Wlb3 39 .l:.xd6 'iVxe3 40 .l:.d7 .l:.b8 41 @h2

Probably due to time pressure there were some inaccuracies by both sides in the last few moves. Black has lost a good deal of his advantage, but still presses on . 41 ••. h6 42 'iYg4 'iVgs 43 'iVxgs hxgs 44 @g3 .l:.b4 45 @f3 'it>h7 46 .l:.a7 .l:.b3+ 47 @f2 .l:.b2+ 48 @f3 .l:.d2 49 .l:.b7 @gs so .l:.c7 @f8 51 .l:.a7 g6 52 .l:.b7 .l:.d3+ 53 @e2 .l:.d4 54@f3 .l:.d3+ 55 @e2 .l:.d8 56 .l:.a7 .l:.e8 57 @f3 .l:.e7 58 .l:.a6 'it>f7 59 'it>g4 .l:.d7 6o@f3?! fs 61 exfs? gxfs 62 'it>e3 .l:.d4 63 .l:.a7+ 'it>e6 64 .l:.g7 f4+ 65 'it>e2 @f6 66 .l:.g8 .l:.a4 67 .l:.f8+ 'it>e6 68 .l:.g8 @fs 69 .l:.f8+ @e4 70 .l:.g8 .l:.a2+ 71 @f1 'it>e3 72 'it>g1 e4 73 .l:.xgs .l:.a1+ 74 Wh2 f3 75 gxf3 exf3 76

.l:.es+@f4 77 .l:.e8 f2 78 .l:.f8+ 'it>e3 79@g2 .l:.g1+ so@h2 f1'iV 81 .l:.e8+@d4 82 .l:.d8+ 'it>es 83 .l:.e8+ 'it>d6 84 .l:.d8+ 'it>e7 85 .l:.e8+ 'it>xe8 0-1

Summary The early f3 and e4 in the Samisch is a viable option for White, but i s no big threat to Black if he knows what he is doing. The key is to avoid early castl ing and pile up on the c4-pawn .

4 0

N im z o - l n d ia n : Siim is ch , 4 a 3

At the right moment, the move . . . e6-eS can help t o block White's ambitions i n the centre and on the kingside.

Game s

B.Jobava-R. Wojtaszek FI DE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::lc3 .tb4 4 a3 .txc3+ 5 bxc3 cs 6 e3 o-o

7 .,td3 This is by far the most popular move, intending to continue with harmonious develop­

ment with llle2 followed by expansion in the centre with e4 and f4. This position will often arise via the move order 4 e3 o-o S a3 or S .td3 cs 6 a3, used by many Samisch players that combine this l ine with the Rubinstein. Some intend to play 4 e3 cs S tt::le2, but will go for the Samisch after 4 . . . o-o.

A rare choice via this move order i s 7 lllf3 , which after 7 . . . d6 8 .td3 tt::lc6 leads to a posi­tion that normally arises via the Hilbner line where has White lost a move with a3. How­ever this 'tempo loss' has some points and is discussed in the section on the Hilbner - see Game 16.

Once in a while White plays 7 tt::le2 . The idea is to quickly play lllg 3 and e4. After 7 .td3 the knight often ends on g3 anyway, so this i s an interesting try:

a) If you want to experiment there is 7 . . . �as ! ?, as played in J .Gomez-R. Ponomariov, Tromso Olympiad 2014. After 8 �c2 cxd4 9 tt::lxd4 (9 exd4 ds 10 lllg 3 lllc6 with ... es coming al so looks fine for Black) 9 . . . tt::lc6 10 a4 ds 11 cxds exds 12 f3 l::te8 13 .td2 "fi/c7 14 tt::lbs 'tlfes interesting play arises.

b) The main move is 7 . . . b6. This is very similar to the main line and in fact often trans­poses to it, as with 8 lllg3 tt::lc6 9 e4 (the more common 9 .td3 leads to note 'b' to White's

4 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

9th move, below) 9 . . . llle8 ! (the typical reaction to the threat of .igs and/or e4-eS ; Black also prepares . . .fs or . . . llld6 according to circumstances) 10 ..te3 d6 11 .id3, which transposes again to the notes to White's 9th move, below. In fact it is difficult not to transpose, as af­ter 7 llle2 moves other than the set-up with e4, .id3 and .ie3 (to cover d4) hardly make any sense. 1 . . . lllc6 8 tt:Je2

Again 8 lllf3 , transposing to a Hubner with a3, is possible and is discussed in Game 16. A far more tricky move is 8 e4! ? . This might come as sl ight shock to the unprepared, but

if Black knows this l ine, it is not dangerous at all : 8 . . . cxd4 9 cxd4 tt:lxd4 10 es 'ii'as+ 11 @fl llle8 ! .

Necessary, a s 11 . . . 'ii'xes?? loses a piece due to 12 .tb2 and the pin is deadly. After 11 ... llle8 ! , 12 .txh7+ @xh7 13 'iVxd4 d6 (13 . . .f6 ! ? is also fine) 14 exd6 es lS 'ii'd3+ e4 16 'iVd4 (also possible was 16 'iVxe4+ ..tfs 17 'ii'd4 lllxd6 with fine play for Black) 16 . . . lllxd6 ! ? 17 'iVxd6?? l:!.d8 18 ft4 l:!.d1+ 19 @e2 'iVh s+ 20 f3 exf3+ 21 gxf3 l:!.xg1 22 l:txg 1 'ii'xh2+ 23 @d1 'iVxgl+ 24 @c2 ..tfs+ 2S @b3 'iVd1+ 26 @a2 'ii'xf3 27 ..tb2 Black might have won in A.Yegiazarian-G.Sargissian, Yerevan 2003, such as with 27 . . . l:te8. 8 . . . b6

Preparing . . . ..ta6 and keeping the centre fluid. A closed centre set-up similar to the Hubner is less convincing here as White has the

knight on e2 and has not castled yet which is helpful for him. In this very closed set-up White often tries for a very broad advance, including g4 and h4. Let's look at a brief exam­ple of what to avoid: 8 . . . d6 9 e4 es 10 ds llle7 11 f3 llle8 12 g4 (that's the problem - without .. .fs Black's position is passive) 12 . . . g6 13 h4 f6 14 lllg 3 lllg7 lS 'iVe2 iVas 16 .td2 .td7 17 o­o l:!.f7 18 f4 when White enjoyed a huge space advantage and the initiative in V.Milov­K. Lemer, Ashdod 2003. Black's position is still fairly resilient, but overall this is just too pas­sive to recommend.

4 2

N im z o - l n dia n : Sa m isch , 4 a 3

9 e4 This is still the most popular move, but some Samisch experts have switched to other

moves or move orders, usually involving a quick li:Jg 3 . Those move orders look confusing at first, but there is nothing to be particularly afraid of. I 'll present concrete l ines below, but it's useful to remember some general guidelines:

1) If White plays e4, the response should always be . . . li:Je8 to prevent the pin with ..tg s . 2) White may sacrifice the d4-pawn . Black can usually take it, but i t i s easier to just ig­

nore the pawn and continue with typical moves. The pawn should only be taken if properly prepared.

3) Besides ... li:Je8, Black plays ... ila6 and usually ... tt:Jas to pressurize the c4-pawn . 4) On f 4 Black should have .. .fs ready, like in the main game, or be able to grab the c4-

pawn under favourable circumstances. S) Black very rarely plays the move . . . d6. Even on ile3 Black should investigate going

. . . li:Jd6 to counterattack against c4 or check for other ways to sacrifice the cs-pawn. This very much depends on the concrete position - just keep in mind the option to sacrifice the pawn on cs and don't play . . . d6 automatically.

Let's now look at some concrete moves: a) 9 o-o usually transposes elsewhere after Black's standard reply 9 . . . ila6. Now 10 e4

leads to the main game, while 10 li:Jg 3 is discussed via the 9 li:Jg3 move order. b} 9 li:Jg3 ila6 and then : bl} 10 o-o tt:Jas 11 e4 is a sharp attempt. In stead, the lame 11 "i-Ve2 can be answered by

the somewhat non-thematic 11 . . . cxd4! 12 cxd4 l:.c8 when White will lose c4 without any compensation, as in l .Santana-R. Leitao, Sao Paulo 2002. After 11 e4 Black may transpose to the main game with 11 . . . li:Je8, although 11 . . . ..txc4 is al so possible and not as ri sky as in oth­er l ines because the pin with ilg s is less of a problem with the knight on g3 . Indeed, 12 ilg s h6 13 i..h4 loses due to 13 . . . gs . I think Black should probably take the pawn here and not transpose to the main l ine - White's compensation looks insufficient to me. On the

4 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d i a n

other hand, i f you feel confused by the various move orders i t i s n o problem i f you just play . . . llle8 whenever White pushes e4.

b) 10 e4 llle8 11 0-0 al so has been tried, with a direct transposition to the main game. White may al so cover the d4-pawn with 11 .ie3, after which 11 . . . lllas 12 'ir'e2 .Uc8 trans­poses to the notes to White's 10th move, below. 9 . . . llleS!

Once again, e4 always should be answered by . . . llle8, avoiding the .tg s pin . 10 0-0

The main move, but there are various possible transpositions of course, such as 10 lllg3 , which transposes to 9 lllg3 , above.

On 10 .ie3 Black again can avoid the slightly passive 10 ... d6 with 10 ... .ia6. a) The capture 11 dxcs is not to be feared: 11 . . . bxcs (11 . . . llle s ! ? i s al so perfectly playable)

12 .ixcs d6 13 .id4 'ir'as 14 o-o llles 1s .ixes dxes 16 'i¥b3? (16 l:i.b1 was still about equal ) 16 . . . lllf6 17 'i¥b4 'ir'c7 18 'ir'a4 llld7 ! was excellent for Black in A.Sansas-E .Nievergelt, Bern 19S7 .

b) White's main move is actually 11 lllg3 lllas ! 12 'iee2 l:i.c8 and then : bl) 13 l:!.c1 'ieh4 (13 . . . llld6 was al so good, but I always have a soft spot for those long

queen moves) 14 o-o llld6 lS es llldxc4 and Black was better in A. lpatov-P.Drenchev, Sofia 2010. This game concluded 16 llle4 lllxe3 17 fxe3 .ixd3 18 1li'xd3 cxd4 19 .Uf3 dS ! 20 exd6 fs 21 llld2 llxc3 22 .Uxc3 dxc3 23 1\i'xc3 1\i'd8 24 1\i'es �d7 2s llg3 llf7 26 lllf3 lllc4 27 1\i'd4 'iVhs 28 lllg s es 29 1\i'd1 l:!.d7 30 h4 g6 31 hs .U.xd6 32 1\i'c1 'i¥b3 0-1.

b2) 13 dS i s the alternative, but 13 . . . 1li'h4! i s an excellent answer to that move as well (a rare top-level Samisch encounter saw 13 . . .fs ? ! 14 exfs exds lS cxds .i.xd3 16 �xd3 1\i'h4, P.Svidler-V.Kramnik, Paris/St Petersburg 2013; Black was fine here, but 13 ... 1li'h4 is even stronger), and after 14 o-o llld6 lS .U.ad1 fs ! was both very thematic and clearly better for Black in E .Geller-V.Smyslov, Leeuwarden 19S6 . 10 . . . .i.a6

4 4

Nimzo - l n di a n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

11 lllg3 The main l ine of the whole Samisch is 11 f4. This i s examined in detail in the following

game Richter-Howell . Of the alternatives, only the game move 11 lllg 3 carries some bite. Let's check some other moves, though:

a) A rare move is 11 es , after which I l ike 11. . .d6 as White's advanced centre is attacked immediately: 12 1!Vc2 h6 13 l:!.d1 cxd4 (as played in S.Brittner-A.Riazantsev, Ohrid 2009, but maybe even better is 13 . . . dxes 14 dxes 'W/c7 when White has a hard time defending both the C4- and es-pawns; in the game A.Stefanova-K.Lahno, Krasnoturinsk 2007, the former women's world champion decided to sacrifice the es-pawn, but after 1S i..f4 lllxes 16 i..e4 Black could have played 16 .. . l:!.b8 ! with a fine position, based on the point 17 °iWa4 lllf6 ! 18 i..xes 'W/xes 19 .tf3 i..b7, which was not possible in the game, where 16 . . . l:!.c8 was played which does not cover b7) 14 exd6 (14 cxd4 dxes 1S dxes 'W/c7 is about equal as well) 14 . . . lllxd6 1s cxd4 l:!.c8 16 cs .ixd3 17 'W/xd3 bxcs 18 dxcs lllfs 19 .if4 1!Vxd3 20 l:!.xd3 and I like Black with the better structure and firm blockade on c6, even if objectively it is about equal .

b) The somewhat slow 11 i..e3 should be answered by 11 . . . llld6 ! .

45

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

After 12 dxcs tl'ixc4 13 i.xc4 i.xc4 Black is already very comfortable and went on to win in F .Elsness-G.Kaidanov, Mallorca Olympiad 2004: 14 l:te1 'ilc7 15 tt:'ig 3 tt:Jes 16 cxb6 axb6 17 'iVd4 bs 18 .l:!.ed1 l:ta6 19 i.f4 d6. Nice play by Black, who is already clearly for choice, but now White miscalculated and went 20 tt:'ih s?? i.e2 21 tt:Jxg7 .i.xd1 22 .i.h6 .i.e2 23 'iVd2 Wie7 when he didn't have any serious attacking chances for the material . 11 . . . tt:Jas

11 . . . .l:!.c8 was preferred in B.Jobava-M.Neubauer, Rijeka 2010, but the type of position af­ter 12 f4 f6 (12 . . . tt:Jas 13 fs f6 is still very unclear) 13 es fs 14 ds tt:Jas 15 Wie2 g6 16 d6 is very tricky for Black, as the pawn wedge on d6 cuts the board in two. Now Jobava launched a very dangerous attack: 16 . . . tt:'ig7 17 .l:!.a2 .l:!.b8 18 a4 'iVc8 19 l:tf3 @f7 20 tt:'if1 l:th8 21 l:th 3 'iVc6 22 tt:'ie3 .l:!.bg8 23 l:th6 tt:'ih s? {it was already difficult for Black, but this loses on the spot)

24 .l:!.xh s ! gxh s 25 'iVxh 5+ .l:!.g6 26 tt:Jxf5 ! exf5 27 .i.xf5 'iVc8 28 i.e4 {the point) 28 ... i.b7 29 i.xb7 'i/xb7 30 f5 Wie4 31 fxg6+ hxg6 32 l:tf2+ @g7 3 3 'iVg 5 'iVh4 34 e6 dxe6 3 5 'iVe5+ @g8 36 'iVxe6+ 1-0.

4 6

Nimzo - ln d ia n : S i:i m isch , 4 a3

12 f4

Direct. There's al so: a) 12 1\Ve2 might be too slow for such an unbalanced position and after 12 . . . cxd4 13

cxd4 l:tc8 (13 . . . etJb3 is the greedy option and while it looks viable, I recommend sticking to the general rules laid out above: don 't take the pawn unless properly prepared; here i s an example anyway: 14 l:tbl ttJxd4 1S 1We3 es 16 f4 d6 17 .i.b2 ttJc6 18 ttJfs and White had some compensation for the pawn in J .Sikora Lerch-L. Pachmann, Luhacovice 1968) White has tried:

al) 14 cs was tried in l .Zenyuk-C.Baginskaite, St. Louis 2012, but after 14 ... .i.xd3 1S 1!Yxd3 bxcs 16 dxcs ltJb7 17 .i.e3? ! (17 .i.b2 ttJxcs 18 1\Ve3 d6 19 l:tacl was still okay for White) 17 . . . ttJxcs Black was better.

a2) S6 years before that game Efim Geller played 14 .id2 against Djurasevic, which again offered the d4-pawn. In this concrete case Black should take it, as he did in the game: 14 . . . etJb3 1s l:tad1 ttJxd4 16 1!Yh s ! ? (this sacrifices yet another pawn for insufficient com­pensation ; the alternative 16 1\Ve3 etJb3 17 .i.c3 ttJcs 18 .i.e2 also looks better for Black, but White can try to muddy the waters with f4 as usual ) .

The game concluded 16 . . .f6? ! 17 .i.c3 g6 18 1\Yh6 ttJb3 19 f4 1\Ve7 20 fS 'iWg7 21 1\Yh3 ttJcs 22 i.e2 es (Black i s still better, but possibly in time trouble Geller outwits his opponent) 23 l:tf3 g s 24 1\Vg4 1\Vf7 2 s h4 h6 26 hxg s hxg s 27 ttJh s i.xc4?? (this loses nicely) 28 ttJxf6+ ttJxf6 29 1\Vxgs+ 1\Vg7 30 .i.xc4+ ds 31 i.xds+ ttJxds 32 1\Vxg7+ @xg7 33 l:txds ttJxe4 34 i.xes+ @f7 3S l:td7+ @e8 36 l:txa7 l:tcs 37 l:ta8+ @f7 38 l:ta7+ @e8 39 l:ta8+ @f7 40 lixf8+ @xf8 41 i.d4 libS 42 g4 and Black resigned in E .Geller-B .Djurasevic, Belgrade 19S6 . How­ever, the computer age makes us fearless in analysis. Black in fact can just take the pawn -I (and Houdini) see no serious compensation for two pawns. A sample l ine 16 . . . .i.xc4! 17 i.c3 ttJb3 18 .i.xc4 l:txc4 19 .i.b4 d6 and White runs out of steam quickly. The conclusion is that 12 1\Ve2 does not convince at all .

b ) An entirely different approach is 12 dxcs ! ? .i.xc4 (12 . . . .Uc8, a s in D.Semcesen-

4 7

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

B.Lindberg , Vaxjo 2013, is also fine for Black) 13 ..txc4 tt::lxc4 1 4 �a4?! (14 �d4 tt::las 1S .l:i.b1 tt::lc6 16 �e3 is equal ) 14 . . . ds and Black was already slightly better in B.Vigh-J . Palkovi, Hun­garian League 199S . 12 ... ..txc4 13 ..txc4

Alternatively, 13 fs ! ? ..txd3 (not the only move, but sufficient) 14 �xd3 tt::lb3 1s l:tb1 tt::lxcl 16 l:tbxcl l:tc8 17 es (the only way forward for White) 17 .. .f6 and Black is at least equal here.

13 ... tt::lxc4 14 fs In the game E .Mensch-L.Murzin, Budapest 1998, White tried 14 �d3, but after 14 . . . ds 1S

fS cxd4 16 cxd4 l:tc8 17 es (17 f6? tt::lxf6 18 ..tg s dxe4 19 tt::lxe4 tt::lb2 loses for White) 17 . . .f6 ! his attack does not convince. This direct challenge improves somewhat on the game, which ended quickly in White's favour: 17 . . . exfs ? 18 tt::lxfs .l:i.c6 19 .l:i.a2 tt::lc7 20 l:taf2 l:tg6 21 �f3 tt::le6 22 h4 �d7? 2 3 h s l:lg s 24 ..txg s tt::lxg s 2 5 �g4 �d8 26 e6 fxe6 27 tt::le7+ �xe7 28 .l:i.xf8+

and Black resigned. 14 ... cxd4

Black should insert this . A later . . . bs and . . . �6 is the main reason. In stead, 14 .. .f6 is pos­sible, but the main game makes a good cause for first taking on d4. 15 cxd4 f6 16 l:tbl

16 l:tf4 was played by, amongst others, world junior champion Alexander lpatov. How­ever, the computer recommendation 16 ... bS ! is much better for Black.

The point is quick counterplay after ... �6: for example, after 17 l:th4 m6 18 .l:i.bl es White has no compensation for the pawn. 17 a4 is somewhat better, but also not convinc­ing for White. Jobava's 16 .l:i.b1 is directed against this . . . bs idea. 16 ... exfs 17 exfs

17 tt::lxfs ds 18 ..tf4 tt::led6 is only sl ightly better for Black. 11 ... ds 18 l:tb3 'ifd7 19 �hs tt::led6 20 tt::le2 �f7 21 �h3 l:tfe8 22 tt::lf4 tt::le4 23 tt::le6 l:tac8 24 �h4 tt::lcd2

4 8

N i m z o - l n dia n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

2 4 . . . .l:!.e7 ! was winning, preparing t o move the g -pawn, but 2 4 . . . .l:!.xe6? only draws due to 2 5 fxe6 �xe6 26 .:r.h 3 h6 27 .i.xh6 ! . 25 .i.xd2 llixd2 26 .:r.h3 hs 27 llixg7

27 ... @xg7

And here the cold-blooded 27 . . . llixf1 ! was winning, with 28 . . . .:.c1 ! the point after 28 llixe8. After the capture in the game, i t i s only a draw. 28 .:r.g3+ @fS 29 �f4 llixf1 30 �h6+ @e7 31 .:r.g1 llie3 32 .:r.xf7+ @xf7 33 �h7+ @fS 34 �h6+ @f7 35 �h7+ @fS 36 �h6+ @f7 Yz-Yz

Summary This whole l ine involving a sacrifice of c4 or d4 looks dubious for White. There are some practical chances, but Black does not need to fear this approach if he knows what he is do­ing. If you can call any approach for White 'solid' in the Samisch , it is the main l ine exam­ined in the next game.

Game 6 M.Richter-0.Howell

Wunsiedel 2012

1 d4 llif6 2 c4 e6 3 llic3 .i.b4 4 e3 o -o 5 a3 .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 cs 7 .i.d3 llic6 8 llie2 b6 9 e4 llie8! 10 o -o .i.a6 11 f4

Having examined all the deviations in Games 4 and s, we tum our attention to White's main line. 11 ... fs

4 9

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

This blocks the f-pawn and limits White's bishops. I tried to make the alternatives 11 . . .tLla5 and 11. . .f6 work to cut the workload a bit, but White's attack seemed too danger­ous to me, especially in a practical game. 12 exfs

At this point White has tried various ways to break through in the centre. As Black, of course, threatens to take on e4 and c4, White cannot play a slow move. Let's have a look:

a) 12 tLlg 3 g6 13 i.e3 (the traditional move; the alternative 13 exf5 exf5 14 dxc5 bxc5 leads back to the main game) 13 . . . cxd4! (the now classic procedure of A.Yusupov-A.Karpov, Linares 1993) 14 cxd4 d5.

Countering strongly in the centre. Now 15 cxd5 i.xd3 16 'i;\i'xd3 fxe4 17 'iVxe4 'ifxd5 18 'ifxd5 exd5 is fairly forced. Black has comfortably equalized, but in the classic Yusupov­Karpov game, the former world champion obtained an advantage rather quickly: 19 .l:!.ac1 .l:!.c8 20 f5 ttJd6 21 fxg6 hxg6 22 .l:!.xf8+ @xf8 23 h4 t2ic4 24 i.g 5 ? ttJxd4 25 h 5 ? gxh 5 26 .l:!.f1+

5 0

Nimzo - ln d i a n : Siim isch , 4 a3

@e8 27 lt:Jxh s lt:Jxa3 28 lt:Jg7+ @d7 29 l:If7+ @c6 30 .l:!.xa7 tt:Jac2 31 .tf6 bs 32 g4 b4 33 .l:!.a2 b3 34 l:tb2 @cs 3S tt:Jfs .l:!.g8 36 tt:Jxd4 .l:!.xg4+ 37 @f2 tt:Jxd4 38 .txd4+ @xd4 39 .l:!.xb3 .l:!.e4 40 .l:!.a3 .l:!.e8 0-1.

b) 12 es and then : bl) Black can now play 12 . . . tt:Jas, leading to an amazing mess after 13 ds d6 and now

even 14 g4! ? is possible . It is very important to know that 13 . . . .txc4 14 .txc4 tt:Jxc4 1S d6 is a type of position that Black should avoid, at least for practical reasons.

The knight on e8 is stuck and blocks Black's communication on both sides of the board. White has excel lent compensation .

b2) Much simpler and better is 12 . . . d6 ! 13 ds? ! (this is exclusively played, but is not es­pecially convincing for White; frankly speaking, the coming pawn sacrifice is mostly just a blunder by White, but the yet untested alternatives to 13 dS look quite toothless as well : for instance, 13 .te3 tt:Jas 14 'i'a4 .l:!.c8 and Black is better) 13 . . . exds 14 cxds .txd3 1S �xd3 dxe s ! (the point and probably the move that most white players missed; this is just an ex­tra pawn for Black) 16 fxes tt:Jxes 17 'i'd1 'i'd7 18 .tf4 tt:Jg6 19 'i'd3 tt:Jf6 20 l:tad1 .l:!.ae8 21 lt:Jg3 tt:Jxf4 22 .l:!.xf4 g6 and the highest-rated player of all time later converted convincingly in J .Werle-M.Carl sen, Dutch League 2008.

c) 12 ds exds ! (12 . . . tt:Jas 13 es leads to the c4-pawn sacrifice line mentioned in variation 'b1', which is playable for Black, but the alternative 12 . . . exds is just better) 13 cxds .txd3 14 'i'xd3 fxe4 1S �xe4 tt:Jd6 follows a forcing sequence up to now. Black already is substan­tially better: for example, 16 'i'd3 (or 16 'i'c2 tt:Jas 17 fs tt:Jac4 followed by . . . 'i'f6 and . . . l:Iae8 with a great set-up for Black in Y.Santiago-P.Drenchev, Varna 2014) 16 ... tt:Jas 17 fS 'i'f6 18 l:tb1 .l:!.ae8 19 lt:Jg 3 tt:Jb3 20 'i'f3 tt:Jxc1 21 .l:!.bxc1 .l:!.es 22 'i'f4 tt:Jxfs 23 tt:Je4 'i'e7 24 d6 'i'e8 2 S l:tce1 lt:Jh6 26 'i'xf8+ 'i'xf8 27 l:txf8+ @xf8 28 .l:!.f1+ tt:Jf7 29 tt:Jd2 @e8 30 .l:td1 l:tds 31 .l:!.e1+ 'it>d8 and White resigned in T.Radjabov-P. Leko, Monaco (rapid) 2007. Indeed, the whole ap­proach with 12 ds seems incorrect to me. 12 . . . exfs 13 dxcs

5 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

The only serious alternative is 13 lllg3 g6 14 dxcs bxcs , transposing to the game. 13 ... bxcs 14 lllg3 g6

A very peculiar structure is now on the board. White has still got weak pawns and squares, and lost dynamism in the centre, but al so gained some things in return . Black has many weaknesses as well , like dS and d6, and White has some ideas to improve his pieces: for example, .i.e3-f2-h4 and in particular lllf1-e3-dS. The most important thing, though, i s that the concrete idea of. . . 15 .i.e3

... attacking the pawn on cs, cannot be met with an ideal solution . How to cover it? 1s . • • d6

This i s a pawn sacrifice. An alternative i s 1 5 . . . �as 16 .i.e2 lllf6 17 �d6 Itfe8, and now White can draw with 18 �xf6 l:!.xe3 19 tt:lxfs or maybe try the untested 18 �xcs . In short, 15 . . . 'ii'as is worth investigating if you dislike Howell 's pawn sacrifice for some reason. 16 i..xfs

The principled move, grabbing the pawn. One year before the white player, the German GM Michael Richter, had tried 16 l:!.e1 against Axel Smith in Gothenburg : 16 . . . �d7 (Smith's move, but Black might al so go for 16 . . . tt:lf6 17 h3 �c7 18 �a4 i..b7 19 ..tf2 l:!.ae8 20 l:!.adl tt:las, as in D.Semcesen-P.Cramling Borlange 2014; Black is a at least equal here as well} 17 .i.f2 lllf6 18 lllfl Itae8 19 llle3 (White has employed the typical manoeuvres described above; Black al so has obtained a harmonious set-up and especially the e4-square to ex­ploit) 19 ... llle7 20 .i.h4 .i.b7 21 l:!.a2 tt:Je4 22 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 23 Itae2 lllc8 with about equal chances. As usual Black's structure is excellent, but the dark squares around the king are an issue. 16 ... gxfS 17 �dS+ .l:i.f7 18 �xc6

White has exposed his queen in the process of grabbing the pawn and allowed Black to dominate on the long diagonal and the light squares. 18 ... .i.b7!

5 2

Nimzo - l n d i a n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

The bishop just belongs o n the long diagonal . Taking the pawn with 18 . . . i.xc4 might be possible, but Howell correctly prefers not to

misplace the bishop for a very weak pawn. Black went down quickly from here in a recent example : 19 l:Ife1 'iWc8 20 'ii'f3 J::Ib8 21 l:Iad1 l:Ibb7 22 i.f2 l:!.be7 23 'iWh 5 i.e6 24 fte3 l:!.g7? 2 5 l:Ide1 lt:Jf6 26 'ii'd1 'ii'd7 27 ftd3 �7 28 ftxd6 i.d5 29 ftxf6 l:!.xe1+ 30 'ii'xe1 l:!.e7 31 �d1 i.xg2 32 'iWd8+ @g7 3 3 lt:Jh 5 and mate in J .Carow-S.Grigorian, Oberhof 2013. 19 'iWa4 'iWf6?!

This i s playable, but I prefer the very straightforward 19 . . . h 5 ! . Let's check White's op­tions here:

a) 20 lt:Jxh 5?? 'iWh4 21 lt:Jg 3 l::Ih7 is an obvious disaster for White. b) 20 l:!.fe1 was played in J .Sal imaki-J .Haapasalo, Hel sinki 1999: 20 ... h4 21 lt:Jfl .l:tg7 22

.:ta2 h 3 (22 . . . lt:Jf6 intending to go . . . lt:Je4 also looks like excellent compensation for the pawn) 23 g3 l:Ie7 24 'i¥d1 lt:Jf6 2 5 i.d2? (25 l:!.d2 lt:Je4 26 l:!.d3 still holds for White) 2 5 . . . 'i*'e8 26 l:Ixe7 �xe7 27 �el 'ied7 28 lt:Je3 l:!.e8 29 'iefl 'iec6 30 'iexh3 'iVh1+ 31 �f2 l:.xe3 32 i.xe3 lt:Jg4+ 33 'it>e2 i.f3+ 34 @d3 'ii'd1+ 35 l:Id2 i.e4# was a very nice illustration of Black's chances in this structure. The opposite-coloured bishops, with the dark-squared one oper­ating on the weakened long diagonal , provide great compensation .

c) 20 l:!.ab1 is probably the best move, attacking the bishop on b7 and threatening f5 in the process .

5 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In dia n

In my database this position was reached three times, with Black trying three different moves:

cl) 20 . . . ll'ig7 was played in N .Pedersen-L.Schandorff, Horsens 2003 . What I don't like about this move is that it gives up on the . . . ll'if6-e4(g4) ideas for the moment. After 21 'i!i'd1? ! (21 l:tfd1 h4 22 ll'if1 looks better, with about equal play; I bel ieve Black is very com­fortable in this general structure, though, as he doesn't need to rush things) 21 . . . h4 22 ll'ih1 'ili'e8 (22 . . . 'ili'f6 ! was even stronger, with an edge for Black) 23 lt:'if2 h3 (23 . . . 'ili'xe3 24 l:txb7 l::lxb7 2 5 'ili'd5+ Wh7 26 'ili'xb7 l:te8 is about equal and easier to play) 24 .l:!.xb7 .l:!.xb7 2 5 'ili'xd6 .l:!.c8 26 °*!Vd5+ l:tf7 27 i.xc5 a messy position arose that White eventually won .

c2) 20 . . . h4 is the most forcing move. After 21 ll'ixf5 (or 21 l:txb7 l:txb7 22 ll'ixf5 °*!Vf6 2 3 "*!Vc2 l:tf7, which is a very important move; the knight is unstable and White i s forced to play 24 g4 hxg3 2 5 ll'ixg3 , which is not clear at all , but Black cannot be worse, considering White's rotten pawn structure and not too scary piece activity) 21 . . . 'ili'f6 the knight on f5 i s in slight trouble. Now 22 .l:!.xb7 transposes to 21 l:txb7 above, while 22 'ili'c2 (22 g4 can be answered even with 22 . . . i.e4 and Black will win the exchange, with unclear consequences) 22 . . . i.c6 23 g4 hxg3 24 lt:'ixg 3 l:tg7 25 f5 'i\i'h4 26 i.f4 (the only move) 26 . . . ll'if6 27 i.xd6 i.e4 28 'ii'e2 i.xb1 29 .l:!.xbl .l:!.e8 30 .l:!.b8 l:txb8 31 .txb8 'ili'g 5 32 'ili'e6+ @h7 33 .ie5 'ili'e3+ 34 @g2 'ili'd2+ 3 5 @f3 'ili'd3+ perpetual check occurs.

In conclusion , 20 . . . h4 is the move for the tactically minded attacker, while the more con­servative 20 ... ll'ig7 might appeal to fans of slower, more methodical attacks. 20 l:tfel ll'ig7 21 'ili'd1 'ili'g6

There al so was the more aggressive 21 ... h 5 ! ? 22 ll'ixh 5 ll'ixh 5 23 'ii'xh 5 .l:!.g7 24 .l:!.e2 "*!Vxc3 25 l:tc1 °*!Vd3, giving Black fine compensation . 22 .l:!.a2

The computer likes 22 .if2 h5 23 h4 with some advantage for White, but I don't believe it.

5 4

Nimzo - l n d ia n : Siim isch , 4 a 3

Black should b e fi n e here - how is White's bishop ever going t o become active? 22 ... h5 23 l:i.d2 .l::[f6 24 l'Llf1 h4 25 h3 :es 26 �e2 l'Llh5 27 �f2 l'Llg3

By now Black has strong pressure. 2S .l::[b2 i..a6

28 . . . l'Lle4!? was also interesting, the point being 29 �xh4? .l::[f7 with . . . .i::[h7 to follow. 29 l'Lld2 .i::[fe6 30 l'Llf3 �f6 31 �d2 .i.xc4 32 .i.f2 .i::[xel+ 33 .ixel �e7 34 .i.f2 'it>g7 35 .i::[b1 �f6 36 .l::[d1 l'Lle4 37 .i.xh4 �h6 3S .i.g5 �e6 39 �b2 @gs 40 :e1 .i.d5 41 lLJd2 �f7 42 l'Llxe4 .i.xe4

Black has not played in the best possible way, probably being in time trouble. Indeed,

Howell is quite well known for his hazardous time management. Now Black is worse, but the strong bishop on e4 still gives him some chances to save the game. 43 .l::[d1 �e6 44 �f2 .i::[bS 45 .i::[d2 @f7

46 'i¥h4

5 5

Ope n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

4 6 a4 is better here: for example, 4 6 . . . 'ifg6 4 7 a s .l:!.b3 4 8 'iYe2 d S 4 9 l:tb2 and White maintains his extra pawn while reducing some of Black's activity.

46 ... 'iYg6 47 'iff2 '1i'e6 48 '1i'h4 'iYg6 49 'iYf2 l:tb3 Avoiding the direct draw by repetition .

so .:tb2 'iie6 51 'it>h2 as 52 l:txb3 '1i'xb3 53 'ifh4 @e6 54 'ikh6+ @d7 ss 'iig7+ @c6 56 i..e7 '1i'xa3 57 'ikg6 @bs 58 'iYxd6 'iYxc3 59 iib8+ @c4 60 'iYb6 'iib4 Yz-Yz

Summary The Samisch main l ine can be dangerous for the unprepared black player or if you don't take it seriously enough. The lines presented here are reliable, though, and often even lead to White being in trouble at the end.

5 6

C h a pte r T h ree

N i m zo- l n d i a n : 4 f3

1 d4 tl:if6 2 c4 e6 3 tl:ic3 i.b4 4 f3

The 4 f3 l ine. Yes, it has no generally accepted name that has caught on over the years. It is sometimes called the Kmoch variation, but if you tell someone "I play the Kmoch against the Nimzo", you'll probably earn some puzzled looks. The fact that it is a 'nameless' l ine does not make it any less dangerous. Indeed, in recent years the trend towards this move has increased and it is now perceived as one of the sharpest, yet sound options for White against the Nimzo. It i s quite telling that Vishy Anand opted for 4 f3 in his 2013 World Championship match against Magnus Carlsen when he desperately needed a win . In fact Carl sen has tried a number of l ines against 4 f3, finally opting for one of the l ines that I feature below.

There are some similarities and even transpositions between 4 f3 and 4 a3, the Samisch variation . Both l ines are very ambitious in their aim to build a strong centre with f3 and e4,

5 7

Ope n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

taking control of that very e4-square that Black tries to fight for with h i s pieces i n the Nim­

zo. There i s the school of thought that 4 f3 i s a more 'precise' version of the Samisch as White will only play a3 when it suits him and not show his cards immediately on move 4, thereby allowing Black to adopt a set-up specifically geared towards fighting the doubled pawns (the . . . b6 and . . . ila6 plan) .

Against 4 f3 I think that Black should play very actively, using a 'fight fire with fire' ap­proach - timid play will lead to trouble here. I offer two lines for Black. Both lead to unbal ­anced play, but one of them requires more concrete memorization and calculation, while the other is complicated in a more strategic sense and needs less work at home to play.

Both lines start with the move 4 ... cs, which fits well with the repertoire for other chap­ters, as Black opts for a dark-squared pawn formation . I 'd first like, though, to give you a brief overview of the alternatives and my rationale for why I discarded them as repertoire choices for the book.

After 4 f3 the most popular move is 4 ... ds, which leads to S a3 J1Lxc3+ 6 bxc3 cs . This is the choice of most top players. It is quite solid and rel iable, but sometimes leads to posi­tions that are difficult to play for a win as Black. This point and the different nature of play compared to our other repertoire choices made me decide against this l ine.

In stead, 4 . . . 0-0 has gained momentum recently. The main idea of it is to answer the natural S e4 with s . . . ds and Black opens up the position , being the better developed. In fact this encouraged some white players to even avoid S e4 and go S a3, transposing to the Samisch . I quite like 4 . . . o-o, but it was covered not that long ago in John Emms' Move by

Move book and I preferred to present something in my book that had not been covered be­fore.

While searching for a less explored alternative, I tried to make 4 f3 cs S dS ..i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 d6 7 e4 es work.

This sets up a typical pawn formation that usually is quite satisfactory for Black: for ex­ample, in the Hubner variation of the Rubinstein (see Games 16-20). Here, however, is the

5 8

Nimzo - J n dia n : 4 f3

most advantageous version for White imaginable. He didn 't need to spend a move on a3, he doesn't have a knight on f3 that i s misplaced and he has not castled yet, so even a quick g4 and h4 plan is sometimes possible. All this adds up unfavourably, so I decided this ap­proach is not acceptable as a main suggestion for the book.

However, playing with 4 ... cs is certainly in the spirit of the book, so this is, indeed, the starting point for the two lines I actually do recommend. The first l ine is 4 . . . cs 5 dS o-o (Black might al so play s . . . bs or s . . . d6 and castle on move 6 instead of doing it the other way around; there is no substantial difference between the move orders) 6 e4 bs.

Black allows e4-es which is examined in the game Volkov-Pashikian (Game 7) . This

leads to very sharp, tactically complicated positions that you should have studied in some detail before you play them. If you prefer a less theoretical workload, then 4 . . . cs 5 dS o-o 6 e4 d6 i s the approach to choose.

5 9

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

This l ine leads to unbalanced play a s well, but learning i t will take less time than the more explosive 6 ... bs . This option is covered in Nakamura-Carl sen (Game 8). Note that both lines

have not only been played by top players, but also in very important events like the Candi­dates and the Gashimov Memorial of 2014 - a good argument for our repertoire choices against 4 f3 .

Game l S.Volkov-A.Pashikian

Agza mov Memoria l , Ta sh kent 2014

1 d4 ll'if6 2 c4 e6 3 ll'ic3 .i.b4 4 f3 cs s ds White sometimes goes for 5 a3, after which s ... .txc3+ 6 bxc3 transposes to the Samisch

(see Game 4) . s .•• o-o 6 e4 bs

7 es

Critical , but there are plenty of alternatives: a) 7 .tg s often leads to the Nimzo-Benoni structure typical of the suggested l ine in Na­

kamura-Carl sen, below. There are al so di stinct similarities to the Leningrad with 4 .tg s . Black may exchange on dS immediately or insert . . . h6 : al ) 7 . . . exds 8 cxds l:!.e8 9 'ii'd2 (9 .txbs? is punished by 9 . . . tt:'ixe4! ) 9 . . . a6 10 tt:'ige2 d6 11

ll'ig3 ll'ibd7 12 .te2 c4 13 o-o .tcs+ 14 Wh l h6 15 .lte3 .txe3 16 'ii'xe3 tt:'ics and Black had a satisfactory game in S.Mamedyarov-L.Fressinet, Ohrid 2009.

a2) In serting . . . h6 first and trying to drive the bishop to h4 seems even better to me though, as avoiding the exchange with .te3 makes it more difficult to play ll'ie2-g 3 and helps Black's cause. Therefore I think 7 . . . h6 is the most precise:

a21) 8 .i.e3 quickly leads to problems for White: 8 . . . bxc4 9 .txc4 .ta6 ! is an improve-

6 0

Nimzo - l n di a n : 4 f3

ment on existing games. The nice point is 10 .ixa6 tl'ixa6 11 dxe6 (11 �d3 exds ! is al so ter­rible for White) 11 ... ds ! with excellent play for Black.

For example, 12 a3 .ixc3+ 13 bxc3 dxe4 14 �xd8 .l:!.fxd8 1S exf7+ @xf7 16 fxe4 .l:!.d3 and White will need to be precise to stay in the game.

a22) Better i s 8 Jlh4 exds ( in S.Volkov-K.Sakaev, New Delhi 2000, the sharp move 8 . . . .l:!.e8 ! ? was tested; this game between one of the leading experts on 4 f3 and the well­respected theoretician continued 9 dxe6 .l:!.xe6 10 tl'ige2 g s ! ? 11 .tf2 bxc4 12 a3 .tas 13 h4 g4 14 tl'if4 .l:!.b6 with fantastic complications that might fill pages of analysis that I cannot provide here) 9 cxds .l:!.e8 10 tl'ige2 (10 .ixbs?? tl'ixe4 finishes White off quickly) 10 . . . d6 and

Black is fine.

In fact Houdini already gives Black a tangible advantage in this position . I am not so sure about that, but Black has some easy moves to make, like . . . c4 and . . . tl'ibd7, heading for cs or es . White can try:

6 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

a221) 11 .tf2 is my suggestion for White to prepare lllg 3 and/or �d2. After 11 . . . tllbd7 12 �d2 (not 12 tllg3 ? ! �as ! ) 12 ... tlles 13 lllg 3 c4 (Houdini also likes 13 ... �h 3 , but that's too much for my taste) 14 .te2 .td7 interesting , unclear play arises.

a222) In stead, the game J .Kociscak-V.Babula, Czech League 2013, saw 11 g4? after which the simple 11 . . . tllbd7 intending . . . tlles would have given Black excellent play. Babula went 11. . .c4 ! ? 12 .tg2 .tcs 13 tllxbs �as+ 14 tllbc3 with great compensation, but 11 ... tllbd7 is even better.

b) White may al so break the pin with 7 .td2, but Black quickly gains play in the centre after 7 ... bxc4 8 .txc4 .ta6 (8 ... tllxds has not been tried here, but seems viable as well : for example, 9 .txds exds 10 tllxds �xd2+ 11 �xd2 fs ! and Black obtains counterplay; 8 . . . .ta6 is much easier to play though and preferable) 9 �xa6 tllxa6 (Black is developed and about to break up White's centre) 10 tllge2 exds 11 es (the only way to avoid a simple disadvan­tage) . We will now follow J . Rosenthal-Y.Pelletier, Biel 2010, where White put up a strong fight against his much higher-rated opponent: 11 . . . �xc3 12 �xc3 d4 13 exf6 dxc3 14 fxg7 .Ue8 1s bxc3 �e7 16 �d2 c4 17 @f2 tllcs 18 lllf4 �g s 19 .Uhd1 .Ues and here both sides have their chances in a practical game.

c) Another try for White is 7 a3, which lead to a quick draw in C.Sandipan-A.Motylev, German League 2010: 7 ... �xc3+ 8 bxc3 bxc4 (8 ... �as is just one of many possible devia­tions; in the game Motylev chooses a simple, logical approach, leading to a type of position similar to an old line, but with White's queenside rather weak) 9 .txc4 tllxds 10 .i.xds exds 11 �xds tllc6 12 tlle2 .ta6 13 @f2 .Ub8 14 .Ud1 �as 1s .i:ta2 �xe2 16 .Uxe2 �xc3 17 �e3 tlld4 18 .txd4 cxd4 19 �xd4 �xa3 20 .i:ta1 �e7 21 �xa7 �es 22 h3 ds 23 exds and V2-V2.

d) After 7 illh3 Black can again switch back to the old plan with . . . tllxds, as in this posi­tion type the white knight needs to go to e2 - on h3 it does not help much with the fight

for the centre. So we have: 7 . . . bxc4 8 ..txc4 tllxds 9 �xds exds 10 �xds .i.a6 ! 11 �g s (not 11 �xa8? �4+ 12 @d1 tllc6 and Black will obtain a very strong , probably winning attack) 11 . . . �6 12 @f2 tllc6.

6 2

N i m zo - l n di a n : 4 f3

The computer still thinks it's around equal , but ask White's king and knight what they think about that. It's just much simpler to play for Black at least. The game J . L.Hammer­R .Hess, Moscow 2011, continued 13 l:thb1 .l:tae8 14 ..ie3 llles 1S a3 ..ic4 16 lt:Ja4 'ifh8 17 �dl ..ib3 18 �fl ..ixa4 19 axb4 ..ic2 20 bxcs fs 21 ..if4 ..ixb1 22 �xbl fxe4 23 b4 exf3 24 gxf3 'ifhs 2s Wg 3 lllg6 26 'ifb3+ @h8 27 ..id6 .l:tf6 28 lllg s h6 29 lt:Je4 .l:txe4 30 fxe4 .l:txd6 31 cxd6 �es+ 32 @h3 �xal 33 �f7 �f6 34 �xd7 �f3# 0-1. Magnus Carl sen 's schoolmate and second allowed the mate here, ending an exciting battle.

e) There are al so games with 7 lt:Jge2, but 7 . . . bxc4 8 a3 ..ias 9 lt:Jf4 ..ia6 saw White strug­gling for any compensation in R.Van Ketel - 1 . Rausis, Leiden 2014.

Right, back to 7 es now. Here the most popular and reliable move for Black is : 1 . . . llle8

There al so i s 7 . . . lllh s ! ?, which was Ivan Sokolov's recommendation in his book The Stra­

tegic Nimzo-lndian about the Rubinstein variation. How does Sokolov reach this position via the Rubinstein ? Well , have a look: 4 e3 b6 s f3 ! ? o-o 6 e4 cs 7 ds bs ! 8 es lllh s ! ? .

Now: a) 8 ..ie3 is Sokolov's main line, which continues 8 . . . bxc4 9 f4 exds 10 �xds lllc6 11 a3

..ias 12 ..ixc4 ..ib7 "with active play for Black", but in fact Black is almost already winning here. The toughest defence seems to be 13 lt:Jh 3 (not 13 lt:Jf3? ..ixc3+ 14 bxc3 lllas 1S �d3 ..ixf3 16 gxf3 �4+ 17 @d1 lllxc4 18 �xc4 � 3 and White is in the middle of a disaster) 13 ... .l:tb8 ! 14 �d3 �4+ 1s @fl lt:Jd4 16 b4 ..ixg2+. I will stop the l ine here as it is not rele­vant for the whole issue. The final position of Sokolov's line i s just a clear edge for Black, so White must improve earlier.

b) I think that 8 g3 is tougher for Black. Now 8 ... bxc4 (8 ... .l:te8? ! , as played in H .Briseid­S.van Eijk, Oslo 2011, is not sufficient) 9 ..ixc4 ..ia6 10 ..ixa6 lllxa6 when White has a couple of moves that make sense. The most testing seems to be 11 dxe6 dS ! ? (11. . .fxe6 12 f4 g6 13 lt:Jf3 is playable, but looks better for White), reaching a position more than worthy of a dia­gram.

63

Op e n ing R ep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

After 12 exf7+ (if 12 exd6 l::te8 ! , showing that i t is important to be quick a s Black; if White is given time to stabilize the position, the weak squares and strange pieces on a6 and hS will tell , but here Black enjoys huge compensation after 13 e7 c4 14 g4 i.xd6 lS gxh s �xe7+ 16 @fl tt:Jcs) 12 . . . l::txf7 13 a3 i.as 14 @f2 tbc7 1s f 4 g6 16 'it>g2 .l:!.b8 it's quite messy, but probably better for White. The whole 7 . . . tt:Jh s ! ? l ine is well worth investigating, but risky for Black. If he doesn 't obtain very concrete play, the knight might well just find itself stranded on hs .

Funnily enough Black has al so tried not to move the knight at all and to sacrifice it. In­deed, 7 . . . exdS ! ? i s playable as well , and then 8 exf6 d4 9 a3 �as 10 b4 dxc3 11 bxas .

This crazy-looking sequence is forced after 7 . . . exds. Now 11. . .l::te8+ 12 @f2 �xf6 13 l::ta2 b4 14 l::te2 .l:!.f8 lS tt:Jh 3 tt:Jc6 16 tt:Jf4 i.a6 17 axb4 cxb4 18 tt:Jds �4+ 19 g3 �xc4 20 l::tc2 �cs+ 21 i.e3 �xas 22 �xa6 �xa6 23 tt:Jc7 'iYc4 24 tt:Jxa8 dS was a total mess in K.Mekhita­rian-E .L'Ami, Tromso Olympiad 2014. I have extensive analysis on this sacrifice, but you have to draw the l ine somewhere, so we'll return to my main recommendation, 7 ... tt:Je8:

6 4

N i m zo - ln d ia n : 4 f3

8 f4 other moves don't convince: for example, 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 cxbs a6 (8 cxbs a6 9 dxe6 fxe6

reaches the same position) 10 f4 axbs 11 i..d3 c4 12 i..c2 ds 13 tt:Jf3 lZ'ic6 14 i..e3 was T.Radjabov-A. l stratescu, Antalya 2004. I don't believe this line can pose many problems as Black obtains good play in the centre. 8 . . . exds 9 cxds

9 'ifxds? ! has been tried once, but it didn't work out well in W.Spoelman-M.Adams, German League 2012. Let's have a look at this game after 9 . . . lZ'ic7 :

a) 10 iVd1 is not very inspiring : 10 . . . bxc4 11 i..xc4 .l:te8 12 @f2 (not attractive, but what el se?) 12 . . . ..lla6 13 ..lld3 (or 13 i..xa6 tt:Jbxa6 14 tt:Jf3 c4 with . . . ds next and advantage to

Black) 13 ... ds ! 14 exd6 i..xd3 15 'ifxd3 c4 16 'ifxc4 'ifxd6 with excellent play for Black. b) Spoelman played 10 'ifd6 i..b7 11 i..e3 (11 tt:Jf3 i..xf3 12 gxf3 tt:Jc6 is al so clearly better

for Black) 11 ... bxc4 12 ..llxcs i..xcs 13 'ifxcs tt:Jba6 and Adams had a strong attack. 9 . . . d6 10 tt:Jf3

6 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - Jn d i a n

10 ... c4 The latest games suggest that this i s now perceived as the most promising course for

Black. 10 ... l2Jc7 is the alternative. The main difference is, of course, that it allows 11 .id3, look­

ing at Black's deserted kingside. After 11. . .c4 (11 .. .fs ? ! was Michael Adams' surprising choice against Alex Fier in Gibraltar; after 12 0-0 c4 13 .ic2 we reach the same position as after 11 . . . c4, but 12 a4! ? i s a way for White to improve) 12 .ic2 (trying to deviate with 12 .ie4?! fs 13 exf6 �xf6 was already better for Black in E .Toth-D .Navara, Pardubice 2012) 12 . . .fs 13 o-o .ib7 (13 . . . g6 was recently tried in A.Timofeev-A.Demianjuk, St Petersburg 2014; while there seems to be no clear drawback, Black does not need to play this move just yet and developing looks more natural to me) 14 @h 1 ttJba6 15 a4 i..xc3 16 bxc3 b4 17 l2Jd4 g6 the aforementioned game A.Fier-M.Adams, Gibraltar 2014, concluded 18 cxb4 dxes 19 ttJxfs gxfs 20 d6 l2Je6 21 fxes �4 22 i..xfs I:rxfs 23 l:f.xfs 'ith8 24 d7 l:f.d8 2 5 @g1 tLlb8 26 �d6 �g4 27 I:rg s �e4 28 i..d2 l:f.xd7 29 �xe6 �d4+ 3o @f1 �d3+ 31 @g1 �d4+ 32 @f1 V2-V2. Crazy complications where both sides could have won at some point. In short, 10 . . . ttJc7 is a viable but very sharp additional option for Black. 11 a4

This is played almost exclusively. In a recent game K.Grigoryan-A. Pashikian, Yerevan 2014, White tried 11 .ie2. Black now

has some options, but the game move looks fine: 11 . . . 'iW1>6 12 a3 (12 a4 l2Jd7 transposes to our main game) 12 . . . ..tas 13 �d4? ! (13 a4 b4 14 ttJbs c3 was better, with a sharp, unbal -anced position) 13 . . . tLlc7 14 .id2 l2Jd7 15 �xb6 l2Jxb6 (White's centre i s now crumbling) 16 exd6 .ixc3 17 dxc7 .ixb2 18 .l:!.b1 c3 19 .ixbs?? (19 .tel was not fun, but necessary) 19 . . . .ifs 20 .l:!.xb2 cxb2 21 @f2 ttJxds 22 .ias l:f.ac8 23 ttJd4 bl� 24 l:txb1 .ixb1 and White resigned. 11 ... l2Jd7

In the key game that put this whole l ine on the map, A.Shirov-V.Kramnik, Shanghai 2010, the 14th world champion played 11 . . . .ig4, which was not repeated even once after­wards, probably influenced by the result. There is room for ideas, though, after 12 axbs dxes ! ? (a new idea; Kramnik's 12 . . . ttJd7 wasn 't the reason for his defeat, but rather the time trouble that he got into) 13 fxes lLld7 and now:

6 6

N i m zo - J n d ia n : 4 f3

a) 14 .flxc4?? ilxf3 15 �xf3 �4+ is easy. b) 14 .tf4 tDc7 15 .txc4 tDb6 16 .te2 tDcxd5 and I 'd rather be Black. c) 14 �d4 ilxf3 15 gxf3 can be met by 15 ... tDC7 or 15 ... ilc5 ! ? 16 �xc4 l:tc8, which also

looks shaky for White. Black generates good play following 17 �f4 �e7 18 .te3 tDxe5 19 ilxc5 l:txc5 20 �f2 tDf6.

I l ike Black here, although Houdini, as so often, just claims dead equality.

12 ile2 Trying to castle certainly makes sense: a) 12 axb5 dxe5 13 fxe5 ? ! tDxe 5 ! 14 tDxe5 �4+ 15 @e2 tDd6 is a quick road to disaster

for White, given by Igor Stohl . b) 12 ild2 dxes 13 fxes �e7 14 axb5 tDxes 15 tDxes �xes+ 16 �e2 �d6 17 �xc4 tDf6

looked like excellent compensation for Black in S.Volkov- 1 . Bukavshin, Khanty-Mansiysk 2013.

6 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

12 ... 'ii'b6

'No castle for you! ' (see Seinfeld, Season 7, Episode 6) . 13 axbs dxes

This seems even better than 13 . . . tllc7, which was played a few weeks earl ier in S.Mamedyarov-S.Karjakin , Khanty-Mansiysk 2014: 14 'ii'd4 i.b7 (14 . . . 'ii'xd4 15 tllxd4 dxes 16 tllc6 ! ? is an additional option for White compared to the main game) 15 i.d2 i.xc3 16 bxc3? ! (16 i.xc3 was better, with a dynamically balanced game) 16 . . . dxes 17 fxes i.xds 18 i.e3 'ii'xbs and White's compensation was insufficient. Karjakin's 13 . . . tllc7 is no worse than 13 . . . dxes , but is more complicated to handle . 14 fxes tllc7

This position is fine for Black, and White needs to tread carefully with the exposed cen­tre and uncastled king . 15 i.xc4

A very natural move. If White goes 15 'ii'd4, just like Mamedyarov did against Karjakin, Black has 1s ... 1!Vxd4 16

tllxd4 tllxds (16 . . . tllxes 17 o-o i.xc3 18 bxc3 tllxds 19 .ltd2 leads to the same position) 17 i.d2 i.xc3 18 bxc3 tllxes and White has just about enough play to keep it equal : for in­stance, 19 o-o .ig4 20 .ixg4 tllxg4 21 lfa4 tllb6 22 lfa6 tllf6 23 .Ufa1 tlle4 24 .iel tllds 2 5 .Uxa7 .l:i.xa7 26 llxa7 .l:i.e8 27 @f1 tlle3+ 28 @g 1 tllds with a repetition .

Supporting es also comes into consideration : 15 i.f4 tllxbs 16 1!Vd2 .Ue8 17 i.e3 (17 .ixc4 tlld6 leads to 16 i.f4, analysed below) 17 . . . i.cs 18 .ixcs tllxcs 19 tllxbs 'ii'xbs and Black is fine in this still very sharp position . A crazy (obviously computer generated) sample line runs 20 o-o tllb3 21 'ii'f4 tllxal 22 tllg s l:i.f8 23 i.xc4 �6+ 24 @h1 i.a6 25 d6 .txc4 26 'ii'xc4 �3 27 'ii'e4 'ii'c2 28 'ii'ds h6 29 tllxf7 �3 30 tllxh6+ @h7 31 �e4+ g6 32 llxal @xh6 33 e6 'ii'xb2 and, of course, 'o.oo' - as expected.

Jokes aside, these positions are very sharp and tough to figure out, especially over the board. If you prefer a (relatively) calmer life, please check Game 8.

6 8

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 f3

1s ... l:Ie8

Now White erred. 16 �e2??

16 e6 fxe6 17 dxe6 tt'lf6 obviously leads nowhere for White, but after 16 .tf4 tt'lxbs 17 �d2 tt'ld6 18 .td3 tt'lxes 19 tt'lxes f6 20 .te2 fxes 21 .te3 White keeps the balance.

Lining up the king and queen on the e-file was now duly punished: 16 ... tt'lxes! 17 tt'lxes �d4 18 .te3

18 @f1 l:Ixes 19 �d3 J:Ifs+ is even worse. 18 ... �xes 19 b6

Against the desperate 19 d6, Black should play 19 . . . �xe3 20 �xe3 l:Ixe3+ 21 @d2 l:Ixc3 (not 21 ... J:Ie4? 22 .td3 l:i,d4 23 dxc7 .i.f5 24 @c1 l:Ixd3 25 b6 .txc3 26 bxc3 l:Ixc3+ 27 @d1 J:Ib3 28 l:Ixa7 l:Ixa7 29 bxa7 l:[a3 3o @e2 J:Ixa7 31 J:Id1 and White escapes to a pawn-down endgame) 22 bxc3 .txd6 2 3 J:Ihfl .te6 24 .txe6 fxe6 2 5 c4 .tc5 and Black has a clearly bet­ter ending. 19 ... .tg4 20 �xg4 �xe3+ 21 '1£td1 .txc3 22 bxc3 tt'lxds 23 l:Ixa7 �xb6 24 l:Ixa8 'ii'b1+ 25

@d2 �b2+ 0-1 White resigned, facing mate next move. Note that Pashikian is an excellent theoretician

who often helps Levon Aronian with his preparation.

Summary 13 . . . dxe5 is looking like yet another problem for White in this l ine. The variation with s . . . o-o and 6 ... b5 is an excellent way for Black against the 4 f3 system . Play can become very sharp, so it's not a natural choice for more cautious players, but do note that both Kramnik and Adams have played it - they are not exactly the kind of players who tread in unsound wa­ters.

Even if you usually prefer a more strategic battle this line should be considered - it's of­ten just fun to play with good development and the attack on White's exposed centre. If

6 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

you are not convinced by now . . . well , the following game presents an alternative for Black against 4 f3 l ine that is less committal , but still leads to unbalanced play.

Game B

H.Nakamura-M.Carlsen G a s h i m ov Memori a l , S h a mki r 2014

1 d4 lllf6 2 C4 e6 3 lbc3 ..tb4 4 f3 cs 5 dS o -o 6 e4 d6

6 . . . b5, as suggested in the previous game, might be too wild for some readers, so I decided to include this less forcing, but still interesting alternative. It usually leads to a Nimzo-Benoni structure, but if White allows it, Black still has the Blumenfeld-style . . . b5 up his sleeve. 7 ..td2

I have chosen this as the main move as it was tried in the most recent top-level encoun­ter, here by Nakamura. The two alternatives, however, have seen more outings over the years:

a) Maybe the most natural -looking move is 7 ..td3. Here Black has a pleasant choice be­tween the familiar Blumenfeld/Benko move of Game 7 and the more conventional Benoni set-up:

al) The Benoni-style way to play is 7 . . . lllbd7, which is a low maintenance choice: 8 lllge2 llle5 9 o-o (9 ..tg 5 h6 10 i.h4 exd5 11 cxd5 c4 12 ..tc2 i.c5 led to a fine position for Black in S.Mamedyarov-S.Grigoriants, Moscow 2015) 9 . . . exd5 and now:

all) 10 exd5 has been tried by the ever-creative Viktor Moskalenko. It does not seem too scary for Black though: 10 . . . lllxd3 (simply 10 . . . a6 11 a4 .l::i.e8 seems satisfactory) 11 1!Vxd3 llle8 12 f4 f5 13 b3 a6 14 a4 ..td7 15 i.b2 ..ta5 16 llld1 1We7 17 lllg3 g6 18 .l::i.a2 lllg7 19 i.a1 .l::i.ae8 20 .l::i.e2 1!Vf7 21 .l::i.f3 i.d8 22 .l::i.fe3 i.f6 was later drawn in V.Moskalenko-B.Shpilker, Noril sk 1987.

70

Nimzo - ln d i a n : 4 f3

a12) White, of course, has al so tried 10 cxds, but after 10 . . . c4 11 .tc2 .tcs+ the point of Black's set-up is revealed; the bishop occupies a strong post. In M.Yudkevich-L. Portisch, St Petersburg 2012, the Hungarian veteran scored a quick win after 12 'it>h 1 a6 13 llld4 .td7 14 f4 lllg6 1S .ie3 tl.c8 16 'iVd2 bS 17 t!.ae1? b4 18 llld1 .l:!.e8 19 lllc6 .txc6 20 dxc6 �6 21 es ? dxes 22 .txg6 hxg6 23 .txcs 'iVxcs 24 fxes t!.xes 2 S .l:!.xes 'iVxes 26 'iVxb4 lllg4 27 g3 'iVe2 and facing mate in a couple of moves, White resigned.

a2) The main move, however, i s the Blumenfeld-like 7 ... bs .

White now has a choice: a21) Accepting with 8 cxbs? ! has been tried, but leads to very lively piece play for Black

and more than adequate compensation . The game O.Touzane-S.Kiselev, Podol sk 1991, went 8 . . . exds 9 exds a6 10 tt:Jge2 (10 bxa6? leads to trouble after 10 . . . tl.e8+ 11 tt:Jge2 �6 and Black has great compensation ; in this structure the ds-pawn is very likely to fall ) 10 . . . �6 11 bxa6 lllbd7 (or 11 . . . tl.e8, like in the note above) 12 .tf4 tl.e8 13 @fl llles 14 .tbs .txa6.

7 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In dia n

Now White finds himself in a deadly crossfire and after 1s a4 �xbs 16 axbs l:i.xa1 17 'i'xal ..ixc3 18 ttJxc3 ttJd3 19 i..g 3 c4 20 ttJe4 ttJxe4 21 fxe4 'i'd4 22 b6 'i'xe4 23 h4 'i'e3 24 l:i.h 3 'i'xb6 2S 'i'a4 'i'e3 26 'i'a1 hs 27 'i'b1 l:i.es he resigned, being about to get mated.

a22) Much more solid and critical i s 8 ltJge2 : a221 ) 8 . . . ltJbd7 ! ? has been the choice of Sergei Kiselev, the main early practitioner of

this l ine. It leads to interesting gambit play: 9 dxe6 (the principled reply; a subsequent ... ttJes would have forced a central commitment anyway) 9 . . .fxe6 10 cxbs ttJes 11 ..if4

lLixd3+ 12 'i'xd3 ds with good compensation for the pawn. In addition , this type of position is much simpler to play for Black than for White, who needs to watch Black's centre and bishop-pair. This was all played in V.Moskalenko-S .Kiselev, Moscow 1996, where Black managed to win yet another nice game with his pet l ine after 13 exds exds 14 o-o d4 1S ltJe4 ttJxe4 16 fxe4 ..ie6 17 b3 l:i.c8 18 l:i.ac1 ..ia3 19 l:i.cdl c4 20 'i'xd4 .ii.cs 21 'i'xcs l:i.xcs 22 llxd8 llxd8 23 ..ie3? (the very computerish move 23 lLid4! would have secured the draw) 23 . . . l:i.xbs and Black converted 20 moves later.

a222) However, the simple 8 ... exds 9 cxds (9 exds? is a mistake; after 9 ... bxc4 10 ..ixc4 tLlbd7 11 0-0 ttJes Black has excellent piece play and the dS-pawn is a long-term target) 9 ... c4 10 ..ic2 leads to good play as well . Now 10 ... 'i'b6 is the easy move to play, but the pawn sacrifice 10 . . . ..ics ! ? of V.Shishkin-S.Arkhipov, Moscow 1996, is al so interesting . Black has a wide array of attacking options here.

White has tried two moves here: a2221) 11 ttJd4 was played in J .Barkhagen-Zhu Chen,Singapore 1990. The later women's

world champion, just 14 years old at the time and unrated, responded with a very interest­ing pawn sacrifice: 11 ... tLla6 ! ? (a simpler way to play would have been 11 ... l:i.e8 12 o-o .ii.cs 13 ..ie3 tt:ibd7 14 'iYd2 as with sharp play; 1S ttJcxbs? runs into 15 . . . ttJxdS ! ) 12 a3 .ii.cs 13 ttJdxbs? (this is too greedy; better would have been 13 ..ie3 tLle7 14 o-o as with sharp play typical of the Nimzo-Benoni) 13 . . . ..id7 14 a4 tLlb4 (White is in serious trouble now; he needs to defend accurately) 1S lLia3 (good defence; other moves would have led to even more dif-

72

Nimzo - l n d ia n : 4 f3

ficulties: for instance, lS .tg s ? lt:Jh s ! and .. .fs will lead to a decisive attack) 1S . . . .tf2+ 16 @f1 .l:.ac8 17 .tb1 and Black has very good compensation here. However, in the game the young Chinese player soon lost the thread and later the game.

a2222) 11 a4 is the most critical move. Now 11. . .bxa4 ! ? (better than Korchnoi's 11 . . . lt:Jbd7? ! ) worked out well for Black in P.Milicevic-M.Pucarevic, Belgrade 2006, as White erred immediately with 12 lLid4?! (my suggestion for an improvement would be 12 .tgs lt:Jbd7 13 �d2 as 14 .ie3 to enable castl ing, but it should not trouble Black too much : for example, 14 . . . lt:Jcs lS .txa4 lt:Jfd7 16 o-o lt:Jes with mutual chances) 12 . . . a3 13 @fl .i.d7 14 .l:.b1 axb2 1S .l:.xb2 as and Black was quickly winning.

To sum up, 7 .i.d3 has been unpopular in recent years for good reasons: Black obtains active play with 7 . . . bs or he may choose more conservative options that are fine as well .

b) Therefore the main move in recent years i s 7 lt:Jge2.

This became popular when the 8 lt:Jf4 idea was di scovered. However, Topalov's new con­cept introduced in 2012 (8 . . . a6 ! ) breathed new life into the whole l ine. Again, Black should respond with 7 . . . bs . Now only 8 lt:Jf4 poses a real threat, but we still need to check the al ­ternatives:

bl) After 8 lt:Jg 3 Black has more than one possibility, but a simple solution is 8 . . . bxc4 9 .txc4 �as, which was recently played in E . lnarkiev- 1 . Lysyj ,Vladivostok 2014. Following 10 .i.d2 .i.a6 11 .te2 lt:Jbd7 12 o-o .txe2 13 lt:Jgxe2 exds 14 exds c4 Black was already better due to the weak pawn on ds.

b2) 8 a3 .tas and then : b21) The crazy 9 b4! ? cxb4 10 lt:Jxbs was tried by Russian Champion Sergey Volkov against

Bocharov in Abu Dhabi 200S. Here 10 . . . bxa3+ was played by Bocharov, leading to a real mess, but my suggestion is 10 . . . exds 11 cxds b3+ 12 i.d2 lt:Jbd7 13 lt:Jbd4 b2 14 .Ubl lt:Jes .

73

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

While this i s still very messy, it does seem fine for Black. b22) 9 'llg3 is quite similar to 8 'llg 3 and rather harmless. b23) 9 dxe6 i.xe6 ( I 'm not sure what is wrong with 9 . . .fxe6 ! ?; maybe 10 lllf4 is the prob­

lem, but 10 ... a6 ! ?, which is similar to our main game, seems okay for Black, and if 11 cxb5 d5 ! } 10 cxb5 d5 11 exd5 lllxd5 {Black certainly has some compensation for the pawn) 12 i.d2 lllf6 13 lllf4 i.f5 14 i.e2 l!e8? is natural enough, but now the concrete 15 g4! .ig6 16 lllxg6 hxg6 17 o-o was better for White in A.Aleksandrov-A.Jankovic, Dubai 2009 . 9 . . . i.xe6 should not be too bad, but 9 . . .fxe6 seems more to the point.

b3} 8 'llf4 was the main argument against 7 ... b5 before Topalov introduced his novelty, 8 . . . a6 ! . The traditional move here was the passive 8 . . . e5 and after 9 lllfe2 bxc4 10 lllg 3

lllbd7 11 .ixc4 'llb6 12 .ie2 c 4 Black had no concrete counterplay i n S.Volkov-D.Bocharov, Kazan 2005 . It's not a terrible position for him, but playing this way is an unattractive pro­spect. After 8 ... a6 we have:

74

Nimzo - l n d ia n : 4 f3

b31) Captures fail for White: for instance, 9 dxe6 fxe6 and Black has gained the c6-square for his knight. A logical line: 10 a3 .tas 11 .te3 li:Jc6 12 cxbs axbs 13 .txbs li:Jd4 with excellent play for Black. Alternatively, 9 cxbs can be met with the simple 9 ... es (9 . . . axbs ! ? 10 .txbs l!Yas is also worth investigating i f you prefer a more complicated posi­tion) 10 li:Jd3 .txc3+ 11 bxc3 axbs and Black is okay.

b32) In M.Richter-V.Babula, Pardubice 2013, a new move was tested: 9 i.e2 exds (9 . . . e s ! ? is not that thematic, but comes into consideration as well) 10 cxds (10 li:Jfxds li:Jxds 11 iVxds .l:!.a7 is an interesting alternative that should be okay for Black; the white queen is exposed and allows Black's pieces to develop with tempo) 10 ... li:Jbd7 11 0-0 li:Jes 12 Wh l i.d7 13 li:Jd3 li:Jxd3 14 l!Yxd3 h6 1S g4? ! and here 1s . . . c4 16 iVc2 i.cs would have given Black fine play.

b33) In the stem game A.Timofeev-V.Topalov, Eilat 2012, there followed 9 .id2 exds 10 cxds (10 li:Jcxds li:Jxds 11 li:Jxds i.xd2+ 12 l!Yxd2 li:Jc6 is already slightly more comfortable for Black) 10 . . . i.as, which is a good move, preparing . . . b4 in response to a4.

After 11 i.e2 (instead, 11 a4 b4 12 li:Jce2 li:Jbd7 13 li:Jg3 tt:Jes 14 b3 l:!.e8 1S .te2 i.b6 shows a dilemma for White: how to get the king out of the middle? for instance, 16 i.e3 c4! ? 17 i.xb6 iVxb6 18 .txc4 li:Jxc4 19 bxc4 as with huge compensation for Black) 11. . .li:Jbd7 12 o-o li:Jes 13 @h1 c4 Black enjoyed a very comfortable position . Timofeev's next moves, though, made it rather too easy for Topalov. We will follow the game to the end as it illus­trates various typical ideas and motifs nicely. Following 14 b3 b4 there are :

b331) 1S li:Jb1 was toughest: for example, 1S . . . c3 (1s . . . i.b6 ! ? is another nice, maybe bet­ter option; after 16 .txb4 g s 17 li:Jh 3 i.xh 3 18 gxh3 li:Jh s we reach a mess that unsurpris­ingly Houdini assesses as 'o.oo', although I 'd still rather be Black) 16 i.e1 li:Jfd7 17 a3 tt:Jcs 18 axb4 i.xb4 19 .txc3 .l:!.b8 with probably insufficient compensation for Black.

b332 ) In the game 1S li:Ja4? c3 16 i.e3 i.C7 17 a3 as was played.

7 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

White is i n terrible shape here. He's got the offside piece on a4 and no active play at all . After 18 .tbs .Ub8 19 'i!Ve2 h6 20 .Ufd1 Wle7 21 axb4 axb4 22 .Ud4 g s 2 3 tllh 3 .txh 3 24 gxh3 .UxbS ! 2 S W/xbs .Ub8? ( 2 s . . . tllxf3 ! was winning : for instance, 26 'i!Vxb4 .tas ! 27 W/c4 tt:Jxd4 28 W/xd4 .l:i.b8 ! or 26 .Uxb4 .l:i.b8 27 'i!Vc4 .Uxb4 28 'i!Vxb4 Wies 29 .Ua2 tt:Jxds ! , which i s all very computer-like and easy to misjudge for a human) 26 Wie2 tllh s 27 h4 tt:Jf4 (Black is still fine, of course; the exchange means little with the knight stuck on a4) 28 W/f2 Wif6 29 hxg s hxgs 30 .Udd1 .td8 31 .Ua2 Wih6 32 Wig 3 Wh7 33 .Ug1 tllfg6 34 .Uf2 Wlh s 3 S f4 tlld3 36 .l:i.ff1 .tf6? (very likely in time trouble, both players understandably miss important points) 37 .ta7 l:!.b7 38 W/xd3 .Uxa7 39 .Ug 3?? (39 es just wins, the point being 39 . . . dxes 40 fxg s .td8 41 d6 and it's over) 39 ... tllxf4 (now Black is winning ! ) 40 .Uxf4 gxf4 41 es+ @h6 Timofeev resigned due to 42 .Uh 3 .th4 43 exd6 l:Id7 and White has ran out of gas. Black will pick up d6 and dS, and win with the c3-pawn .

Topalov's innovation 8 . . . a6 ! has revived this method of play and Black often gets good play in Benoni/Blumenfeld style. Let's now, though, return to 7 .td2 and the main game: 7 ... tt:Jbd7

Certainly not a bad move, but there are alternatives. Indeed, the best option seems to be the direct 7 . . . exds 8 cxds tllh s ! .

7 6

Nimzo - / n dia n : 4 f3

Now White has tried various moves, but none impress: a) 9 g4? �4+ 1o @e2 tl:ig 3+ 11 hxg 3 'it'xh1 12 @f2 . Amazingly this position was reached

in L.Aronian ( ! )-Z. Efimenko, Warsaw 2005, where Black could have secured a big advantage with 12 . . . c4 13 i.e3 �2+ 14 .tg2 tl:id7 15 tl:ige2 tt::Jes 16 'it'd2 tl:id3+ 17 @f1 i.d7. Black's queen is more annoying for White than in danger of being trapped.

b) 9 g3 ? ! fs 10 f4 (10 i.g2 tl:if6 11 tt::Jge2 fxe4 12 fxe4 tl:ibd7 is al so excellent for Black) 10 . . . �e8 11 i.e2 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 'it'xe4 13 tl:if3 l:te8 and White had insufficient compensa­tion in F. Bilobrk-R.Zelcic, Zadar 2013.

c) 9 tt::Jge2 fS 10 �c2 bS ! ? (of course, 10 . . . tt::id7 is fine as well) 11 o-o-o?! (11 e s ! ? tl:id7 ! 12 e6 tl:ib6 is very messy and unclear) 11 . . . i.xc3 12 bxc3 fxe4 13 fxe4? (13 tl:ig 3 ! tl:if6 is better for Black, but at least puts up a fight) 13 ... i.g4 14 l:te1 tl:id7 15 tl:ig 3 tt::Jxg3 16 hxg3 tt::Jes and Black soon won in J .Gomez Esteban-K.Supatashvili , Debrecen 1992 .

d) 9 'it'e2 is not the most natural-looking move, but White needs to do something about . . . �4+ (unless you are Levon Aronian and just go 9 g4). Once again, after 9 .. .fs (better than the 9 . . . bs of D.Pantaleev- B.Gulko, Havirov 1968) 10 0-0-0 (there is no other move really, but now Black is spoilt for choice) 10 . . . l:te8 (10 .. .fxe4 and 10 . . . tl:if6 are good as well) 11 'it'f2 fxe4 12 tl:ixe4 i.xd2+ 13 'it'xd2 tl:if6 14 l:te1 tt::Jxe4 15 fxe4 tl:id7 16 tl:if3 tt::Jes Black is in good shape.

All in all , this l ine looks like a fine and aggressive reply to 7 i.d2, and probably should be preferred over Carl sen's choice in the main game. Therefore the further course of the game is of less theoretical interest, but i s still very valuable as a demonstration how play might develop in this typical Nimzo-Benoni structure. 8 tl:ige2

8 tl:ih 3 should be answered by 8 . . . exds 9 cxds tt::Jes 10 tt::if2 c4 11 i.e3 a6 with typically sharp Nimzo-Benoni play. s . . . tt::ies

7 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - / n d ia n

Technically a novelty, but it will lead to familiar structures . 9 ctJg3 exds 10 cxds .i.d7

Carl sen wants to get in a quick . . . bs and without allowing White to reach a position such as the one seen in Milov-De Firmian above. However, d7 is an important square too for Black's knights and a few moves later the bishop will retreat.

The engines l ike 10 ... c4! ? for Black, leading to unbalanced play, such as with 11 .i.e3 (11 f4 lL'id3+ 12 .i.xd3 cxd3 13 'iVf3 .l:!.e8 gives Black good activity in the centre) 11 . . . 'iYc7 12 .i.e2 .tcs .

This i s a typical idea that should be perfectly fine for Black. 11 a3 .i.as 12 .i.e2 bs!? 13 o-o

Taking on bS is not a good idea: 13 lL'ixbs? .i.xbs 14 .i.xbs c4! and White is in trouble. 13 ... c4 14 .i.e3 .i.b6 15 'iVd2 .l:!.b8 16 lL'id1

Black has managed to obtain an interesting position with mutual chances. His pros-

78

pects are no worse than White's.

16 ... i.cS?

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 f3

The world champion intends to install a knight on d3 with . . . ll'if6-d7-c5-d3, but this is very time-consuming. One of the Benoni style moves like 16 . . . h s ! ?, 16 . . . �e8 or 16 . . . as was probably to be preferred. 17@h1

Useful and unavoidable in the long run . 11 ... li:Jfd7 18 f4!

Seizing the initiative. White is better now and Nakamura's powerful play soon leaves Carlsen on the ropes. 18 ... ll'ig6 19 i.xb6 �xb6 20 ll'ie3 ct::Jcs 21 i.d1 ll'id3

Black has managed to get a knight to d3, but White has achieved a big advance in the centre and on the king side, leaving Black under huge pressure. 22 fs li:Jgf4 23 a4 a6 24 ct::Jg4 hs 25 lt:Jf2!?

The forcing 2 5 �xf4 was also very good for White, but Nakamura's choice i s entirely suf­ficient. 2s ... 'i:Yf6

2s . . . ll'ixf2+ 26 VWxf2 li:Jd3 27 VWe3 is no improvement.

26 ll'ixd3? Nakamura misses his chance to score his first win against Carl sen after having lost a

ton of games in recent years : 26 ll'ixh s ! was excellent for White. After 26 . . . ll'ixh s 27 ll'ixd3 cxd3 28 as �b8 29 i.xh s, with d3 dropping , White should win this position. 26 ... lt:Jxd3 27 'ife3 I:i.b7 28 ll'ixhs?!

It was more precise to play 28 axbs axbs first, in order to go 29 lt:Jxh s 'ifh6 30 'i!Vd4 and White is still much better. 28 ... 'iVh6

Being greedy with 28 ... VWxb2? 29 f6 allows a decisive attack for White.

79

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

29 �xh6 Now 29 �d4 is not so clear at all due to 29 . . . bxa4 ! ? which shows why exchanging on

move 28 was better. 29 ... gxh6 30 axbs axbs 31 .i.c2

31 .•• tt:Jes? Both players were short on time. Instead, after 31 . . . tt:Jxb2 it will probably end in a draw;

White has enough play against Black's king to compensate for the duo of passed pawns. A long l ine given by Stockfish runs 3 2 tt:Jf6+ Wg7 33 tt:Jh s+ @h8 34 .l:i.a6 .l:i.d8 3 5 .l:i.fa1 b4 36 l:l.c6 b3 37 .i.xb3 cxb3 38 l:l.a8 tt:Jd3 39 l:l.cxc8 .l:i.xc8 40 l:l.xc8+ Wh7 41 lbf6+ Wg7 42 tt:Jh s+ and it's perpetual check. 32 l:l.a6 l:l.d8 33 tt:Jg3?

33 .l::!.a8 was much better for White, but Nakamura was al so in time trouble. 33 ... l:l.bS 34 l:l.a7 b4 35 tt:Je2 .i.d7 36 l:l.fa1?

36 tt:Jd4 kept the balance, but this position is murderous to play with l ittle time left. Now Carlsen takes his chance. 36 . • • i.bs 37 h3 l:l.dc8 38 'lt>h2

Accelerating the downfall , but White's position was beyond saving anyway. 38 ... c3 39 lZJd4 cxb2 40 l:l.b1 l:l.c4 41 tt:Jxbs l:l.xc2

8 0

N i m z o - l n d ia n : 4 f3

42 tt:Jd4 42 tt:Jxd6 .l:!.d8 ! al so wins, avoiding 42 . . . tt:Jd3?? 43 tt:Jxf7 .U.c1 44 tt:Jxh6+ @h8 45 .U.xb2

tt:Jxb2 46 tt:Jg4 and all bets are off.

42 ••• l:td2?! 42 . . . b3! was much quicker, but the text still wins .

43 tt:Jc6 l:te8 44 l:[a4 tt:Jd3 45 tt:Jxb4 tt:Jf2 46 l:ta2 tt:Jd1 47 l:txdl l:txdl 48 l:txb2 l:txe4 49 tt:Jc6 @g7 50 f6+ @xf6 51 l:tf2+ 'it>g6 52 tt:Jd8 l:te8 0-1

Nakamura resigned as 5 3 tt:Jxf7 l:txd5 sees the knight soon being trapped on f7.

Summary Compared to the approach of Game 7, this l ine requires somewhat less bold play, but you still need to be will ing to sacrifice material for the initiative. In my opinion 4 f3 needs to be fought with aggressive play and both our lines certainly fit the bil l .

8 1

C h a pte r Fo u r

Nim zo-lndi an: Ka s pa rov­Ro m a n i s h i n 4 t2Jf3 and 5 g 3

1 d4 tl'if6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:Jc3 �b4 4 tl'if3

This move has become more and more popular ever since the 1980s. It is a very flexible choice. White does not determine where he intends to develop his king 's bishop (g 2 or d3), and al so keeps open the option of playing �g s . The Catalan-style plan with g3, initially developed by Romanishin, was used with great success by Gary Kasparov in his matches with Anatoly Karpov.

The flexibility of 4 ll:Jf3 means that Black's response needs to be considered with move order issues in mind. Black has a wide choice, so here's another overview of what I re­

jected and the rationale behind it: a) 4 . . . b6 is a popular system amongst players who combine the Nimzo with the Queen's

Indian . Our repertoire i s more focused on a dark-square strategy, so 4 . . . b6 does not fit well .

82

N i m z o - J n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- R o m a n is h in , 4 tDf3 a n d 5 g3

b) 4 . . . ds transposes to the Queen's Gambit, Ragozin Defence - again a bit out of charac­ter and far too complex to play against 4 0,f3 if you don 't already play it as a partner open­ing with the Nimzo, as with 1 d4 ti'Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 0,f3 ds 4 ti'Jc3 .i.b4.

c) 4 ... cs s g 3 cxd4 6 tt'Jxd4 o-o 7 .i.g2 dS is the main l ine at the top level and very solid for Black. The main drawback for mere mortals is that some lines are not much fun to play and hardly winnable against decent play: for example, 8 cxds tt'Jxds 9 'i\Yb3 'i!Yb6 10 .i.xds exds 11 i.e3 i.xc3+ 12 �xc3 �a6 13 �d3 �xd3 14 exd3, as in M.Carl sen-V.Kramnik, London 2011. Kramnik drew after suffering for a further 41 moves. I see no point in allowing such a prospectless structure for a repertoire if there are more interesting choices.

d) 4 . . . cs 5 g3 cxd4 6 tt'Jxd4 tt'Je4 is similar to my suggestion, but there are differences, one being that 7 �c2 ! ? is possible. This can get tricky for Black rather quickly: for instance, 7 .. . �as 8 i.g2 tt'Jxc3 9 0-0 and White has all the fun.

e) 4 . . . cs 5 g 3 i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 �as is a fun line and playable without learning too much concrete lines. It is a rather fresh idea that was recommended in The Nimzo-lndian: Move

by Move. John Emms' coverage is still quite up to date, so there is l ittle point in exploring that l ine again here.

f) With the Zurich variation being the repertoire choice against 4 �c2, 4 0,f3 ti'Jc6 is an excellent alternative to 4 ... cs. The main reply is in fact 5 �c2 with a direct transposition to the Zurich . There are some alternatives for White, like 5 i.g s and 5 e3 , which were covered in Richard Palli ser's book Tango! and his l ines still seem valid to me. Instead of mostly copy­ing and refreshing his coverage, I decided though to present a different system that has not been covered before in a book.

These are the main alternatives to my choice. They are all playable, so feel free to select one of them if you dislike my line. I know it probably seems weird to some that I l i st all these alternatives, but I feel it makes sense to have a general overview of how my selected repertoire relates to the other options that are available .

Now to what I actually recommend. 4 . . . cs s g3 ti'Jc6 6 i.g2 tt'Je4 is my repertoire choice.

83

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In dia n

The coverage is split into two games: a) 7 'iVd3 and all rare lines up to this point are covered in Moiseenko-Gaprindashvili

(Game 9). Black follows up with 7 ... cxd4 8 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxc3 9 bxc3 tt:Jes and obtains a very at­tractive position in my opinion . He inflicts the typical Nimzo doubled pawns, but retains the dark-squared bishop. 7 'iVd3 is considered defanged nowadays, but you still face it from time to time, probably because white players often confuse it with s ... cxd4 6 tt:Jxd4 tt:Je4 7 'iVd3, which is entirely different upon closer inspection.

b) 7 .i.d2 is the main move for White. Now I recommend 7 . . . tt:Jxd2 8 'iVxd2 cxd4 9 lt:Jxd4 'iWb6, which sees Black seizing the bishop-pair and later often setting up a Hedgehog type of formation. I believe this leads to interesting, strategically unbalanced play, as analysed in Nakamura-Ponomariov (Game 10).

Please note that learning 4 . . . cs as a reply to 4 tt:lf3 means that you also have a response ready to 4 g3 , as 4 . . . cs will usually just transpose after 5 tt:lf3 . The only other try i s the un­

common 5 ds, after which there is s . . . tt:Je4 (s . . . exds 6 cxds o-o 7 .i.g2 d6 with a Nimzo­Benoni i s fine as well) 6 .i.d2 (avoiding 6 'iVc2? 'iVf6 ! ) 6 . . . .i.xc3 7 .i.xc3 lt:Jxc3 8 bxC3 d6 9 .i.g2 es , as in M.Cebalo-D.Vel imirovic, Budva 1981, with a comfortable position similar to the Hilbner variation .

Game 9 A.Moiseenko-V .Gaprindashvili

Kocae l i 2002

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 .i.b4 4 tt:lf3 cs

5 g3 This i s played most of the time, but there is nothing wrong with 5 e3, of course. It

transposes to the Rubinstein, but with an early commitment of the knight. We now can

8 4

Nimzo - l n d i a n : Kasp a ro v- R o m a n is h in , 4 ti:if3 a n d 5 g 3

easily transpose to our Rubinstein reply, the Hubner variation, by castl ing or playing s . . . ti:ic6. In the 4 e3 move order I prefer to castle first (4 . . . o-o), due to the somewhat annoy­ing l ine 4 ... cs s ti:ie2, but here with the knight committed to f3 you could delay ... o-o for a while. This has some points, but it is not essential to study these subtleties.

A less threatening but occasionally played move is S .i.g s . Black has a couple of good re-pl ies, but I l ike the straightforward s . . . .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 ..Was 7 .i.d2 (not attractive, but 7 'ilfc2 might lead to the same thing with 7 . . . tl:ie4, after which White needs to go 8 .i.d2 anyway) 7 . . . tl:ie4 8 ..Wc2 ti:ixd2 9 'i!Vxd2 o-o 10 e4 d6 11 .i.e2 ti:ic6 12 l:td1 es . Black has reached the fa­miliar Hilbner structure and later won the rather unevenly-matched game A. Linares­B. Lalic, Coria del Rio 2006.

There al so is s ds, but it seems to determine the central pawns a bit too quickly. A flexi­ble reply is s . . . d6 6 .i.g s (giving the position a Leningrad flavour; the alternatives are all a bit passive, like 6 .i.d2, for instance, when Black can simply aim for the same Benoni struc­ture, asking White what the bishop is doing on d2) 6 ... h6 7 .i.h4 exds (of course, the closed centre structure is possible as wel l : 7 . . . .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 es leads to a main line Leningrad as suggested in the Nimzo Move by Move book) 8 cxds and now both the solid 8 . . . o-o and the aggressive 8 . . . g s 9 .i.g 3 ti:ie4 are fine for Black. For example, after the latter play may go 10 l:tc1 'ilVf6 11 �3 o-o 12 e3 .

Here 12 . . . hS? ! (12 . . . ..ltfs is even better for Black; according to Houdini, White's best is 13 ti:id2 ti:ixd2 14 @xd2, which probably no human would ever play) 13 .i.d3 .i.fs 14 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 1S ti:id2 .i.xg2?? 16 .l:!.g 1 .i.f3 was seen in A.Kopasov-J .Kochetkova, Pardubice 2009. Now the rather simple 17 ti:ixf3 ..Wxf3 18 .i.xd6 wins for White, but in the game 17 ..th4 was played and White even lost quickly after it.

Finally, a move that is played surprisingly often is S a3, which after s ... .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 leads to a Samisch with a knight on f3 . This was examined in the notes to the game Sutkovic-Predojevic in the Samisch chapter.

s . . . ti:ic6

8 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

6 .tg2 This is the main move by far. Sometimes White tries 6 ds, after which 6 . . . i..xc3+ 7 bxc3 lllas is a logical reply. The cen­

tre i s now closed and the g3 move does not work well with the weak pawn on c4. We will follow the game Huang Qian- I .Krush , Khanty-Mansiysk 2012: 8 'lld2 o-o 9 i..g2 d6 10 o-o 'llg4! ? (going for the weakness on c4; there was al so nothing wrong with the standard plan of . . . l:tb8 to prepare . . . b6 and . . . i..a6) 11 e4 (White is going for a pawn sacrifice to maximize her activity) 11. . .llles 12 f4 'llexc4 13 lllxc4 lllxc4 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 'ife2 bS 16 .l:i.d1? (16 a4! was necessary, with compensation for the pawn) 16 . . . .tb7 17 ii.d2 a6 18 i..e1 'ife7 19 i..f2 �h8 20 a4 i..c6 by when Black was better and went on to win the game. 6 . . . 'lle4 7 'ifd3

Surprisingly 7 'ifc2 has been played only three times according to my database. After 7 ... cxd4 we have:

a) 8 'ifxe4 dxc3 9 o-o gives White some but probably not enough compensation for the pawn.

b) 8 lllxd4 ! ? lllxc3 9 bxc3 (or g lllxc6 dxc6 10 bxc3 ii.cs and Black is fine) 9 . . . lllxd4 10 'ifd2 reaches a strange position.

8 6

Nimzo - / n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- R o m a n is h in , 4 lLJf3 a n d 5 g 3

Following 10 . . . lLJc2+ !? ( a wise choice I think; instead, 10 . . . 'iic7 11 cxb4! ? 'iixc4 12 o-o lLJxe2+ 13 @h 1 lLJxc1 14 J:tfxc1 'i!Va6 1S l:tc7 gives White huge compensation for the two pawns and there is quite some new ground to explore after 7 'iic2) 11 'iixc2 .i.cs 12 0-0 0-0 13 l:\.b1 l:tb8 14 .i.f4 d6 15 l:\.fd1 a draw was agreed in E .Ubilava-M.Suba, La Roda 2013. Black is certainly fine in the final position .

c) 8 a3 was played in the original game for this l ine, J .Stocek-P.Vavrak, Slovakian League 2008, where after 8 ... .i.xc3+ 9 bxc3 ds? ! ( I don't l ike combining exchanging on c3 with ... ds, at least in cases where Black is not already up at least a pawn; opening the centre and weakening the dark squares even more cannot be too great against White's bishops) 10

lLJxd4 lLJd6 11 cxds lLJxd4 12 cxd4 exds 13 o-o .i.e6 14 'iVb3 'iVb6 15 'iixb6 axb6 16 .i.f4 @d7 17 .i.xd6 'it>xd6 18 l:tfb1 .l:ta6 19 .l:tbS 'it>c6 20 .l:tab1 .l:td8 21 .i:t5b3 White went on to win .

My suggested improvement on the game is 9 . . . 'iias 10 0-0 lLJxc3 11 e3 'iia4 (11 . . . dxe3?? loses to 12 .i.b2) 12 'iid3 (12 'i!Vxa4 lLJxa4 13 exd4 is probably al so some compensation for White, but is less clear than 12 'iid3) 12 . . . ds 13 cxds lLJxds 14 .i.b2 o-o (14 . . . b6 ! ?) 15 .l:tac1 .i.d7 (1s ... dxe3?? 16 lLJg s g6 17 lLJxh7 ! i s a quick knock-out) 16 lLJxd4 lLJxd4 17 .l:tc4 'iia6 18

'i!Vxd4 f6 19 l:.fc1 .i.c6 and it remains complicated, White having compensation for the pawn.

7 'iic2 doesn't look too bad for White, but by now you should have an idea how to re­spond. 1 . . . cxd4

8 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln di a n

8 ll:ixd4 Instead, 8 'i'xe4 dxc3 9 o-o is untried and would transpose to 7 'i'c2, above, where

White has some but probably not enough compensation for the pawn. 8 . . . ll:ixc3 9 bxc3 ll:ies 10 'i'c2

10 'i'e3 leads to good play for Black after 10 ... ll:ixc4 11 'i'd3 ll:ies 12 'i'e3 .td6, avoiding the draw and keeping the extra pawn: for example, 13 0-0 a6 14 .l:f.bl 'i'C7 and Black will untangle with a clear advantage. 10 . . . i.e7

This is the position Black was aiming for. White's pawn structure is a wreck and Black has kept the dark-squared bishop to protect his weaknesses. White's trumps are the strong pieces on g2 and d4 and pressure on the b-file. In practical play I believe Black's position is much easier to handle, a view also supported by statistics: Black scores clearly above 50% from here.

8 8

N i m zo - l n dia n : Kas p a ro v- R o m a n is h in , 4 Ci'Jf3 a n d 5 g 3

11 �b3 White has al so tried some other moves: a) 11 �a4 0-0 12 .l:tb1 d6 ! (an important motif; Black often simply gives up the b7-pawn

to get rid of the g2-bishop and will regain the pawn on c4 later with good play) 13 i.xb7 (if White doesn 't take, there is not much point in �a4 and .l:!.b1, but Black is now better) 13 ... .l:!.b8 14 .i.e4 .l:!.xb1 15 i.xb1 �c7 16 f4 i.b7 17 0-0 Ci'Jxc4 and Black went on to win in T.Anton-A.Kolev, Albena 2011.

b) A similar story is 11 .l:tb1 Ci'Jxc4 12 i.xb7 i.xb7 13 .l:txb7 �c8 14 .l:tb3 0-0 15 0-0 �a6 and Black had excellent play in J . Parker-M.Suba, Dublin 1991. The game continued 16 e4 .l:!.ac8 17 �e2 .i.cs 18 Ci'Jf3 �a4 19 i.f4 d6 20 Ci'Jg s es ?, which allowed a bolt from the blue.

White had the amazing 21 Ci'Jxh7 ! . Black now can draw with 21 ... exf4 22 Ci'Jf6+ (21. . .@xh7 22 � s+ @g8 23 i.h6 is also a draw), or continue with 21. . . .l:!.fd8 22 i.g s @xh7 2 3 i.xd8 .l:!.xd8 24 .l:!.b4 i.xb4 25 �xc4 �c2 26 11Vxb4 �xa2, which doesn't really play for a win . In­stead, 21 i.c1? returned the favour and after 21. . .�d7 22 Ci'Jf3 i.b6 23 .l:!.d1 �g4 24 @g2 fS Black was winning .

11 . . . 0-0 12 i.f4 Instead, 12 o-o often leads to the same position as in the main game after 12 . . . �c7 13

i.f4 d6, but an entirely different and strategically ri sky approach is 12 f4 Ci'Jc6.

8 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

Now: a) 13 o-o? tllas 14 'iVa4 was played in l . Kovalenko-0.Budnikov, Khmelnitsky 2009. Now

Black could simply play 14 . . . 'iVc7, winning c4 and probably the game as White has no com­pensation at all after lS i.e3 a6 (but not 1s . . . tt:Jxc4?? 16 tllbs) 16 i.f2 .Ub8 17 .Uabl tllxc4.

b) 13 i.e3 is better, but I still don 't think Black is in any danger. Indeed, it rather seems again that White is struggling to prove any compensation for his bad structure: 13 . . . 'iVc7 (13 ... tt:Jas 14 'ifa4 a6 fails to lS tllb3 when Black must return to c6) 14 tllbs �8 lS cs b6 (White's 12th weakened the light squares considerably, so Black aims for an exchange of bishops) 16 cxb6 axb6 17 c4 tllas 18 'ifd3 i.b7 and Black was already much better in D.Stamenkovic-5.Mareco, Campinas 2011, which concluded 19 o-o i.xg2 20 @xg 2 �7+ 21 @f2 .Ufd8 22 .Uab1 'iVc6 23 .Ufc1 .Udc8 24 tlld4 'iVa4 2s tllbs tllxc4 26 'iVxd7 i.a3 27 .Ud1 i.f8 28 a3 h s 29 'iVd3 es 30 i.cl i.cs+ 31 @el .Ud8 32 'iVxd8+ .Uxd8 33 .Uxd8+ @h7 34 i.d2 'iVc2 3S .l:tc1 'iVe4 36 e3 lt:Jxd2 0-1. 12 . . . 'iVc7 13 o -o

13 lt:Jf3 was the choice of the inventive Serbian GM Igor Miladinovic against Alexander Graf in Ohrid 2011. It doesn 't seem too threatening, though: 13 ... i.d6 (or 13 ... d6 to keep it more complex) 14 lt:Jxes i.xes 1s i.xes 'iVxes 16 .l:td1 .l:!.b8 17 'iVa3 bs 18 cxbs .l:!.xbs 19 o-o .l:!.as 20 �2 .l:!.cs 21 .l:!.d4 'iVc7 and Black was already sl ightly the more comfortable . He went on to win a marathon game of 129 moves. 13 . . . d6

13 . . . a6? is bad for Black after 14 tt:Jf3 tt:Jxf3+ 1S i.xf3 es (1s . . . d6 16 i.e3 is similarly de­pressing) 16 .i.e3 .i.cs 17 i.xcs 'iVxcs 18 .l:!.fdl 'iVc7 19 �4 as 20 'iVd6 'iVxc4 21 'iVxes .l:!.a6 22 i.ds 'iVg4 23 .Ud4 d6 24 'iVe3 'iVfs 2 s .l:!.ad1 bs 26 .l:!.e4 'iVf6 27 .l:!.e7 .i.e6 28 .l:!.xe6 fxe6 29 i.b7 .l:!.aa8 30 .i.xa8 .l:!.xa8 31 .Uxd6 .l:!.c8 32 .l:!.xe6 and by now he had to resign in B.Gulko­Y.Balashov, Tallinn 1983 . 14 tt:Jbs

Necessary, as otherwise Black plays . . . a6 and picks up c4 for nothing.

9 0

14 . . . �cs

This i s a critical position . 15 .i.e3

N i m zo - ln di a n : Kasp a ro v- Ro m a n is h in , 4 tf:::.f3 a n d 5 g 3

White has some other moves available : a) An unsuccessful try i s 15 .i.xes?, which instantly gives Black a di stinct advantage of

the bishops and the still better structure. In the game N.Gaprindashvili-5 .Melia, Tbilisi 2009, Black failed to convert though after 1s . . . dxes 16 a4 by playing 16 . . . .i.d7?, which al ­lowed the equalizing 17 �4! �xb4 18 cxb4 .i.xb4 19 .i.xb7. Instead, 16 .. .fs ! intending . . . e4 is much better for Black.

b} 1S tf:Ja3 is not a move that creates a huge impression, but it covers C4 and keeps the tension . After 1s . . . .td7 (the most logical and probably the best move, although 1s . . . tf:Jg4 was al so interesting in A.Barsov-M.Devereaux, Port Erin 2003, and if 16 h3 es 17 i.c1 tf:Jf6 18 tf:Jc2 .l:!.b8 19 .i.e3 �as with about equal chances) White has :

9 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln di a n

bi) 1 6 'iYb4 was tried i n T. Lanchava-M.Lomineishvili , I stanbul 2003, and after 1 6 . . . .l:!.ac8 17 .l:!.fd1? (White needs to play 17 i.xb7 'il¥xb4 18 cxb4 l:.b8 19 .tg2 l:.xb4 20 l:.fd1, trying to simplify to a draw) 17 ... b6 (now it's a one-way street - White simply suffers on the c-file) 18 l:.ac1 l:.c7 (18 ... l:.fd8 was even better) 19 i.e3 ? (19 lZ'ibs is the toughest defence, but not much fun either; after 19 . . . .txbs 20 cxbs .l:tfc8 Black is still pressing) 19 . . . 'il¥xb4 20 cxb4 .l:!.fc8 21 .tf4 .ta4 22 .l:!.d4 g s 23 .td2 dS White's position fell apart.

b2) 16 .l:!.ab1 i.c6 (simple and good; Black could al so play the more complicated 16 . . . .l:!.ab8: for example, 17 i.e3 'ilVas 18 'iYb4 'il¥a6 19 .txb7 .l:!.xb7 20 'il¥xb7 'il¥xa3 21 i.d4 .tf6 22 .txes i.c8 23 i.xd6 'il¥xd6 24 'il¥xa7 'il¥c6 and Black is better) 17 'iYb4 was seen in V.J ianu-S.Macak, Plovdiv 2008. Black played 17 . . . lZ'id7 with a fine game, but he had the op­portunity to change the structure with 17 . . . 'il¥xb4 18 cxb4 as 19 bS .txg2 20 �xg2 .l:!.fc8, leaving Black for choice.

c) What el se i s there? An untried computer suggestion is 1S 'il¥a3 ! ? .

The point is that 1s . . . lZ'ixc4 (1s . . . 'il¥xc4? is not advisable; after 16 .txes dxes 17 'il¥xe7 'ilVxbs 18 .l:!.fd1 it 's not clear how Black is going to untangle and White i s clearly better) 16 'ilVxcs dxcs 17 ttJc7 .l:!.b8 18 lZ'ids either wins the exchange after 18 . . . exds 19 .txb8 .te6 20 .tf4 b6, or after 18 . . . ..lld6 19 ..llxd6 lZ'ixd6 20 lZ'ie7+ �h8 21 .l:!.fd1 lZ'ic4 22 lZ'ixc8 .l:!.fxc8 23 .l:!.d7 White has enough compensation for the pawn. The former l ine is still playable for Black (in fact it's close to full compensation) , but not very attractive as you can hardly hope to win from this position.

The best reply seems to be 1s . . . 'il¥xa3 16 lZ'ixa3 and now 16 . . . gs, as c4-cS was threatened. After 17 i.c1 (to cover a3; 17 ..lle3 ds wins a pawn for Black, although this isn't so clear: for example, 18 .tel lZ'ixc4 19 lZ'ixc4 dxc4 20 .te3 and White has compensation for the pawn, but probably no more than that) 17 . . . .l:!.b8 complicated, probably about equal play arises.

Back to 1S i.e3 : 1s . . . 'i!Yxc4

9 2

Nim z o - l n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- R o m a n is h in , 4 tDf3 a n d 5 g 3

16 tfJxa7? After this Black is better. White has a better alternative in 16 f4 a6 17 tiJa3 (17 tiJxd6 ! ?

�xb3 18 axb3 ..ixd6 1 9 fxes ..ixes 2 0 ..id4 ..ic7 21 lfa4 is given by Houdini with compensa­tion ; I am not sure if it is enough, but it is more serious compensation than in the actual game) 17 . . . �xb3 18 axb3 tiJg4 19 ..id4 dS (19 . . . es is al so interesting) 20 e4 tiJf6 21 exds tfJxds 22 tiJc4 ..id7 23 ..ixds exds 24 tiJb6 .Uad8 25 tiJxds and White eventually drew in N .Batsiashvil i -N .Khurtsidze, Tbili si 2007. Somehow this l ine seems to be hugely popular in Georgian chess as there are many game references from Georgian players. 16 ... ds 11 ..id4

17 tfJxc8 .Ufxc8 18 .Ufe1 bs is al so better for Black and 17 .l:!.fe1?! is even worse than the game: 17 . . . ..id7 (now the knight on a7 is a bit stranded) 18 .Uab1 .Ufb8 19 ..id4 ..ia4 20 'ifb2 tiJd7 21 tfJbs es 22 ..ie3 .Ua6 and White i s struggling to stay in the game. 11 ... �xe2 18 tfJxcS .Ufxc8 19 �xb7 tiJc6 20 .Ufe1 �a6 21 �xa6 .Uxa6

9 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - J n d i a n

Black enjoys an excellent endgame. With the weaknesses on c 3 and a2, it i s only a mat­ter of time until a pawn drops.

22 ..te3 ilf6 23 .l:!.ab1 ll:Jes 24 Jtd4 ll:Jc4 2S .l:!.e2 ilxd4 26 cxd4 .l:!.ca8 27 .l:!.b4 ll:Jd6 28 ii.fl g6 29 .l:!.bb2 .l:!.a4 30 .l:!.ed2 ll:Jfs 31 .tbs .l:!.xd4

Okay, c3 was the one to go first.

32 .l:!.dc2 .l:!.a3 33 .l:!.c7 hs 34 'it>g2 ll:Jd6 3S ile2 'Et>g7 36 .l:!.d7 ll:Jfs 37 h3 .l:!.da4? 37 . . . @f6 was better in order to answer 38 l1bb7? with 38 . . . l:Id2, winning instantly.

38 .l:!.bb7 lZ'ih6 39 ..td1 .l:!.a8 40 ..tb3 Now White is alive again. Black is still better, but it's become more difficult.

40 ... @f6 41 g4 hxg4 42 hxg4 gs 43 f3 @es 44 @g3 .l:!.c8 4S .l:!.e7 .l:!.c3 46 .l:!.e8 fs 47 .l:!.b6 ll:Jxg4 48 .l:!.exe6+ @d4 49 .l:!.b4+ Wcs so .l:!.b8 lZ'ie3 s1 @f2 f4

s2 @e2? 52 .l:!.g6 was a tougher defence: for example, 52 . . . l:Icxb3 53 axb3 .l:!.a2+ 54 @g1 g4 5 5

.l:!.xg4 ll:Jxg4 56 fxg4 Wd4 57 l:i.e8 and White retains drawing chances. s2 ... ll:Jc4

52 ... @d4! was even better, but the text move keeps a big advantage. S3 .l:!.g8 .l:!.a7 S4 .l:!.xgs .l:!.h7 SS ilxc4 .l:!.h2+ S6 @d1 .l:!.xc4 S7 .l:!.e2 .l:!.xe2 S8 @xe2 .l:!.c2+ S9 @e1 @d4 60 .l:!.fs @e3 61 .l:!.es+ @xf3 62 a4 .l:!.a2 63 l:i.xds .l:!.a1+ 64 @d2 .l:!.xa4 6S l:i.hs .l:!.e4 66 .l:!.h3+ @g2 67 .l:!.h4 @g3 68 .l:!.h8 f3 69 .l:!.g8+ @f2 70 I:i.g7 .l:!.d4+ 71 @c3 .l:!.d8 72 @c2 @e2 73 .l:!.e7+ @f1 74 @c3 f2 7S .l:!.g7 l:i.ds

How many rook endgames end exactly like this? Just for fun I made a reference check to find out that exactly this position was reached on two other occasions. 76 @c4 .l:!.d1 77 @c3 @e2 78 .l:!.e7+ @f3 79 .l:!.f7+ @g2 80 .l:!.g7+ @h3 0-1

Summary Black is happy to see the move 7 �d3, which allows him the better pawn structure without giving up the bishop-pair. White has some compensation for the structural deficits, but this l ine is much simpler to play for Black.

94

N i m z o - / n d ia n : Kasp a ro v - Ro m a n is h in , 4 t:Df3 a n d 5 g 3

Game 10

H.Nakamura-R.Ponomariov Wijk a a n Zee 2011

1 d4 t:Df6 2 c4 e6 3 t:Dc3 .ib4 4 t:Df3 cs 5 g3 t:Dc6 6 .ig2 t:De4 7 i.d2

I believe that this i s best here. 1 . . . t:Dxd2

The capture on d2 leads to the quite uncommon scenario that Black is the one with the

bishop-pair in the Nimzo. It al so involves setting up a Hedgehog type of structure that might not be everybody's cup of tea.

If you prefer a more 'Nimzoish ' position then 7 ... .ixc3 might be the move for you. Black infl icts the typical doubled c-pawns on White. This move is perfectly suited to play for a win as the position becomes strategically unbalanced after 8 bxc3 :

a) 8 . . . o-o 9 o-o t:Das was played in the rapid game L.Aronian-V.Anand, Mainz 2007 : 10 ..tf4 dS 11 cxds t:Dxc3 12 �d3 cxd4 (12 ... t:Dxds 13 ..td2 c4 14 �c2 bS leads to very double­edged play where White enjoys promising compensation for the pawn) 13 dxe6 .ixe6 14 t:Dg s g6 15 t:Dxe6 fxe6 16 e3 t:Dc6. Anand is known to have a soft spot for knights, as we can see. Here White's bishops provide good play though, easily compensating for the material deficit. This l ine is possible if you don 't mind defending for a while or if you believe your opponent won't navigate this type of position well, but it does seem like a risky choice.

b} I recommend 8 . . .fs , which surprisingly has only occurred twice in practice.

9 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

In those games the black set-up was not tested at all , so I looked for some white im­provements to get a better picture:

b1) One critical line that I found is 9 dxc5 'iVa5 10 i..e3 ! {something simple like 10 o-o 'iVxc5 11 'iVa4 b6 is fine for Black) 10 . . . 0-0 {10 . . . 'iVxc3+ 11 llid2 lt:ixd2 12 .U.c1 llif3+ 13 @f1 llixh2+ 14 .l:.xh 2 'iVf6 15 .tf4 is not clear, but White has very good compensation for the pawn in this admittedly very computerish line) 11 0-0 llixc5 . In this complex position there are many possibilities. Very often Black wins one of the c-pawns like after 12 lt:id4 lt:ie4 13 �3 llixc3, but White has definite compensation .

b2) White may al so castle first, 9 0-0. Black aims at the c4-pawn in the long run, as with the bishop on g2 this pawn is very weak, so 9 . . . b6 is logical :

b21 ) In the game N .Zhukova-E . lturrizaga, Caleta 2012, Black had no problems after 10 llie5? ! llixe5 11 dxe5 i..b7 12 f3 (keeping the bishop with 12 i..e3 does not lead to much either after 12 . . . 'iVc7 13 'iVd3 h6 and it's about equal , but not dull} 12 . . . lt:ixd2 13 'iVxd2 'iVc7 14 .U.fd1 o-o-o 15 f4 i..xg2 16 @xg2 and now both the 16 ... 'iVc6+ of the actual game and 16 . . . g 5 ! ? are fine for Black.

b22) A try to improve for White is 10 i..e3 , suggested by Houdini. Black has a couple of options in response:

9 6

N i m z o - l n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- R o m a n is h in , 4 ti:Jf3 a n d 5 g 3

b221) The greedy 10 . . . 0.xc3 needs to be checked: 11 �c2 ti:Je4 12 dxcs 0.xcs 13 .l:i.ad1 o-o and right now, before Black completes his development, White needs to go 14 ti:Jes 0.xes ! 15 .ixa8 .ia6 16 .ig2 �c7. This seems playable for Black, although I understand that it's probably not 100% compensation .

b222) 10 . . . .ib7 11 dxcs bxcs 12 �c2 0.as is a solid alternative, very similar to 10 . . . 0-0. b223) 10 ... 0-0 i s my main l ine: 11 dxcs bxcs (11 ... .ia6 12 0.g s ! i s close to but not entirely

equal at the end after 12 ... 0.xg s 13 .ixg s 'ii'xg s 14 'ii'xd7 .ixc4 15 cxb6 �e7 16 .ixc6 �xd7 17 .ixd7 axb6 18 a4 .l:i.fd8 19 .ibs l:tdc8) 12 'ii'c2 .ib7 13 .l:i.fd1 0.as 14 .l:i.ab1 l:tb8 with com­plex play.

White's structure on the queen side i s obviously very weak, but he has good, active pieces and temporary targets on cs and d7 to aim at. If Black is given just one or two tempi, he would be much better, so the exact assessment mostly depends on concrete play.

Summing up, 7 ... .ixc3 8 bxc3 fs ! ? reaches almost unexplored territory. It is riskier than

9 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d ia n

the game continuation, but certainly worth analysing and testing in practice. 8 �xd2 cxd4 9 tbxd4

In this position Black has a choice of moves, but the structure in the end is usually al ­ways the same. The bishop will retreat to e7, usually followed by . . . d6 with a Hedgehog-like set-up. I have selected . . . 9 . . . �b6

... as the repertoire choice. The alternatives are: a) 9 . . . 0-0 was played in a top-level encounter, N .Vitiugov-V. lvanchuk, Reggio Emilia

2011/12. The creative Ukrainian tried a different approach for Black, playing with . . .fS : 10 a3 i..e7 11 o-o ttJes 12 b3 a6 13 .l:!.fdl �c7 14 tbe4 fS ! ? {very combative; instead the normal 14 . . . d6 followed by . . . .l:!.d8 and . . . .i.d7 leads to the same type of position as in the main game) 15 tbc3 .Ub8 16 e4 fxe4 17 tt:Jxe4 b6 18 �e2 .i.b7 19 f4 tt:Jc6 20 tbf3 tbas 21 J:!.d3 .txe4 {probably 21 ... .l:!.bd8 was better, but in the game Black was not doing badly either) 22 �xe4 tbb7 23 b4 tbd6 24 �e2 t1Jf7 25 �d2 .l:!.fd8 26 .l:!.el as 27 �c3 axb4 28 axb4 .l:!.bc8 29 tbd2 tbd6 30 l:!.c1 tbxc4?? (a blackout that shouldn't happen even in time trouble, but it happens to all of us) 31 tbxc4 and lvanchuk resigned. The plan with .. .fs might be a good choice if you want to generate some imbalance in the position .

b) 9 . . . tbes 10 b3 (or 10 tbc2, which might lead to the same position after, for example, 10 . . . .te7 11 b3 o-o 12 o-o a6 13 l:!.fd1 d6) 10 . . . 0-0 11 o-o a6 12 tbc2 .i.e7 13 .l:!.fdl d6 and now:

bl) A conventional approach is 14 .l:!.ac1, as played in E.Ghaem Maghami-S.Sul skis, Tromso Olympiad 2014. However, if you know Sulskis, you expect the unexpected: 14 . . . l:!.b8 15 tbe3 fs ! ? .

9 8

N i m z o - l n d ia n : Kas p a ro v -Rom a n is h in , 4 ti'Jf3 a n d 5 g 3

Here we go . . . After 16 a4 f4? ! 17 gxf4 0ig6 18 f5 0,f4 a mess arose that eventually ended in a draw. I don 't trust this idea, but it shows that Black has ways to stir up trouble even from this seemingly modest set-up.

b2) 14 �e3 ! ? is an interesting plan , played in S. Ernst-E . L'Ami, Amsterdam 2012. It's an unusually concrete approach to this position, intending 0ia4-b6. After 14 ... �c7 15 ti'Ja4 0id7 16 .l:!.acl .l:!.b8 17 �a7 (the logical follow-up; it seems unlikely though that thi s very sturdy black position can be cracked by piece play alone) 17 . . . ti'Jc5 ? ! (Black should wait with 17 . . . l:td8; there are no concrete threats at the moment and 18 ti'Jb4 is countered by 18 . . . "ifas) 18 0ib4! (this is very strong now, intending 0ic6) 18 . . . i.d8 (ugly, but the only

move) 19 ti'Jxcs dxcs 20 :xd8 �xd8 21 �xb8 cxb4 now 22 "iff4 would have led to a rather one-sided affair with a distinct white advantage.

As a general conclusion , Black is rather flexible with his concrete move orders starting at move 9. You can vary your play here - it is more of a set-up than a matter of concrete l ines. 10 0ic2

If White wants to keep the knight on d4, there only is 10 e3 . Then 10 . . . ti'Jes 11 b3 o-o 12 o-o �as? ! (provocative, but this backfired in the game J . L.Hammer-G.Kaidanov, Philadel ­phia 2012; Black successfully tried to induce a queen side expansion by White, but suffered) 13 �fcl a6 14 a3 .i.e7 15 b4 °i¥d8 16 cs (Black obviously wanted White to play this , but I 'd prefer an earl ier . . . .i.e7 and . . . d6 set-up; the next couple of moves are very logical , leading to a nice advantage for White) 16 . . . ds 17 cxd6 �xd6 18 0ie4 �d8 19 ti'Jcs saw Kaidanov defend successfully, but this position is not much fun to play. Just 12 ... .i.e7 followed by ... d6 would have stopped White's queenside play.

In stead, after 10 ti'Jb3 Black has the rare opportunity to start some concrete play with 10 . . . as ! ? . This more or less forces White to sacrifice a pawn with 11 c s ! ? (11 o-o a4 12 0ic1 a3 looks rather unappealing for White) 11.. . .i.xcs 12 ti'Jxcs �xcs 13 0ie4 �4 14 ti'Jd6+ @e7

1S o-o-o �xd2+ 16 :xd2.

9 9

Op e n ing Repe rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - J n d i a n

This i s quite forced after the gambit. White has enough compensation, but probably not more than that. The game Wang Yue-Yu Vangyi , Danzhou 2011, continued 16 . . . Itb8 17 Ithd1 llle s 18 h3 bs 19 b3 f6 20 ..ie4 lllf7 21 lllxf7 @xf7 22 l::tc2 fs 23 ..if3 ds 24 l:!.c7+ @f6 (Black has made some obvious progress, but it is still not easy to play; the game remains roughly balanced) 2 5 Ita7 a4 26 @b2 axb3 27 axb3 Itd8 28 Itel ..id7 29 It.cc? @e7 30 e3 Wd6 31 ..ie2 b4 3 2 f4 l::tb6 33 h4 g6 34 ..id3 h6 3 5 ..ic2 Itc6 36 Itcb7 l::tc3 37 l::txb4 l::txe3 38 l::tb6+ @cs 39 l::tbb7? (only this , played close to move 40, hands Black a clear advantage; 39 l::tba6 was still not at all clear) 39 . . . ..ic6 (39 . . . ..ie8 ! ) 40 l:i.c7 @b6 41 b4 d4 42 ..ib3 d3 43 il.a4 l::te2+ 44 @c3 l::ta2 45 bS l::txa4 and Wang Yue resigned. 10 . . . as is a good, concrete move, but be prepared to defend for a while if you intend to employ it. 10 • . . ..te7 11 o-o o-o 12 Itab1

What makes this position difficult to handle for White i s the fact that his dark-squared bishop is missing . Hedgehog-style positions usually need to be attacked by building up a

1 00

N i m z o - l n d ia n : Kas p a ro v - Ro m a n is h in , 4 CiJf3 a n d 5 g 3

big centre and even advancing pawns on the flanks, with f4-fS or g4-g S , for example. These plans are far riskier for White to employ without the bishop, as the dark squares are then seriously weakened.

However, for Black it is also not at all easy to formulate a straightforward plan of play. He mostly needs to react to White's plans, but has a hard time to do anything active on his own, as pawn breaks are difficult to arrange. The centre break . . . d6-dS i s close to impossible to play, but sometimes you can get . . . b7-b5 in. In general I think a set-up with . . . .id?, . . . l:tfd8 and . . . .l:i.ac8 is fine to start with and then wait to see what White comes up with .

Let's look at a couple of alternatives for White to get a feel for the play: a) 12 Wh1 with a choice: al) 12 . . . a6 13 f4 (going directly for the king ; as mentioned before, weakening yourself

like this entail s some long-term risk, but is nevertheless dangerous to face; we will now follow the game N .Sulava-D.Kuljasevic, Zagreb 2012) 13 ... �c7 14 l:tad1 l:td8 (this is slightly provocative, inviting White to play f4-fS and I think Black's game is difficult to play after it; therefore it makes sense to look for other moves, with alternatives being the pawn sacrifice 14 . . . b s ! ? and preparing this move with 14 . . . .l:i.b8) 15 fs (remove the queens from the board and Black is close to winning, but with the queens on the situation is rather unclear) 15 ... CiJes 16 �f4 f6 (I think this was Black's idea with delaying ... d6 and playing ... l:td8; the knight on es is excellently placed, of course, but White has definite attacking chances) 17 CiJe3 �as 18 �4 and now:

a11) Best was 18 . . . CiJf7 ! ?, securing the king side and in some cases placing the queen on es . After 19 � S ! (19 il.e4, as in the game, is now answered by 19 ... CiJg s) 19 ... .l:i,f8 (White's threat is revealed after, for instance, 19 . . . .l:i.b8 20 CiJeds ! ! exds 21 .ixds .l:i.f8 22 .l:i,f4 bS 23 .l:i.h4 h6 24 .l:i.g4 .ib7 2s �g6 .ixds+ 26 CiJxds CiJgs 27 CiJxe7+ @h8 28 h4 and White is win­n ing) 20 l:td4 CiJg s 21 .l:i.h4 �d8 22 .l:i,d1 �e8 Black has repelled the attack and is fine.

a12) In the actual game 18 . . . .l:i.b8? failed to very strong , concrete play: 19 .ie4! h6 20 CiJg4 CiJxg4 (20 . . . CiJf7 21 �S al so wins for White) 21 'i'xg4 bs 22 �g6 .tb7 23 J:If4 (23 fxe6

1 0 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d ia n

dxe6 24 'ml7+ @f7 2 5 tt:Jds ! exds 26 cxds l::tg8 27 i.fs wins for White as well) 23 . . . b4 and now there was a forced win :

a121) The spectacular 24 .l:!.dS ! ! wins outright: 24 . . . exds (it's quite amazing that 24 . . . .txds 2 5 l::tg4 i.f8 26 lt:Jxds exds 27 i.xds+ leads to exactly the same position as 24 ... exds) 25 l::tg4 i.f8 26 tt:Jxds i.xds 27 .i.xds+ @h8 28 'fliif7 and White wins .

a122) Sulava missed his shot for a bril l iancy, but after 24 l::tg4? .i.f8 2 5 i.xb7 bxc3 26 i.e4 cxb2 (Black is now better, but I guess the very complicated nature of the game had taken its toll on the clock; the remaining moves contain some errors by both sides) 27 'fliixf6? (27 'it>g 2 is still very unclear) 27 . . . 'ifa4? (27 . . . exfs ! ) 28 .l:!.b1 'fliixc4 29 'f!iig6 dS? 30 i.d3 (now it's over as White breaks through) 30 . . . 'fliicl+ 31 @g2 exfs 32 'i¥e6+ @h8 33 'ifxfs @g8

34 .l:!.f4 Black resigned. A great fight, illustrating that giving up the dark squares and es in particular may look terrible at first, but also gives White attacking chances. I think Black should investigate the alternatives on move 12 or 14, keeping the rook on f8 for the mo­ment.

a2) Another recent example saw the similar 12 . . . d6 13 f4 i.d7 14 J::tad1 .l:!.fd8 15 lt:Je3 i.f8 16 tt:Je4 J::tac8 17 b3 a6 18 fs tt:Jes .

1 02

N i m z o - l n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- Ro m a n is h in , 4 ti'Jf3 a n d 5 g 3

Black has a resilient position due to h i s dark-square dominance and after 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 ti'Jc2 W/c7 21 'ii'g s h6 22 �S dS eventually won in S. Ernst-M.Turov, Wijk aan Zee 2013.

b) In the following game White chose a much more conservative approach : 12 .l::tacl .l:!.d8 13 b3 d6 14 .l:!.fd1 .td7 1S Wie3 "i¥xe3 (1s . . . 'i!Vc7 was possible, to keep more tension) 16 ti'Jxe3 .te8 17 .J::td2 a6 18 tl'Ja4 .l::tab8 19 ti'Jb6 'it>f8 20 .l::tcd1 ti'Jes 21 a4 ti'Jd7 (this i s all very sol ­id for Black, but he has no constructive plan ; he can easily defend his only weakness on d6, but it's hard to generate some positive play of his own) 22 as ti'Jxb6 23 axb6 .l:!.dc8 24 b4? ! .tc6 2 S .i.h3 .td8 (after 2 s . . . .te8 26 .tg2 .td8 White struggles against the bishops, whereas in the game White is given the chance to sacrifice on c6) 26 llxd6 .i.e7 27 l:!.xc6! .l::txc6 28 cs .txcs ! (not 28 ... 'it>e8? 29 .tg2 .l:!.cc8 30 tl'Jc4 when Black, facing the threat of ti'Jas, needs to sacrifice on cs anyway and under much worse conditions) 29 bxcs .U.xcs 30 f4 We7 31 .tg2 as 32 .U.al .U.d8 3 3 .txb7 .l:!.b8 34 .te4 .l:!.xb6 3 5 .td3 .l:!.b4 36 ti'Jc2 .U.b8 37 ti'Je3 .U.b4 38 ti'Jc2 .U.b8 39 ti'Je3 .U.b4 and a draw was agreed in A.Lauber-R.Wojtaszek, Stockholm 2009.

c) 12 .l::tfd1 .l::td8 13 .U.acl d6 14 ti'Ja4 "i¥c7 1S ti'Je3 .tf8 16 ti'Jc3 b6 ! ? (16 . . . a6 is hit by 17 ti'Jcds and White i s better) and here:

cl) 17 ti'Jbs ! ? "i¥d7 18 ti'Jxd6 .txd6 19 .l:!.c3 is a very computerish line. Black can defend with 19 . . . .txg 3 20 .U.d3 .txh2+ 21 'it>hl .tf4 22 "i¥c2 (or 22 .U.xd7 .txd7 23 "i¥c2 .te8 and Black has enough for the queen) 22 . . . "i¥c7 2 3 .l::txd8+ ti'Jxd8 24 .txa8 .td6 with about equal chanc­es.

c2) The more human move is 17 "i¥c2 .

1 03

Ope n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - / n d i a n

This was played i n A.Naumann-P.Schlosser, Austrian League 2012 : 1 7 . . . .tb7 1 8 .te4 g6 19 tbcds �8 20 tbf6+ @h8 21 �a4 tbe7 22 �c2 .tg7 23 .txb7 �xb7 24 tbe4 (White has tried with piece play to provoke weaknesses) 24 . . . �c7 (here Black could simplify with 24 ... ds 2 s cxds tbxds 26 tbxds lixds 27 tbd6 lixdl+ 28 .l:rxd1 �d7 and White's activity i s only temporary with . . . .tes or . . . .tf8 to come at the right moment; there is nothing wrong with keeping the tension l ike in the game though) 2S b3 liac8? ! (2s . . . l:Id7 intending . . . liad8 and eventually ... ds was simpler) 26 �1 (26 �d2 @g8 27 tbxd6 .l:rb8 is not clear at all due to the self-pin , but was the way to go for White if he wanted to play for a win) 26 ... a6 27 .l:rc2 h6? (again, 27 . . . .l:rd7 was correct) 28 licd2 tbc6 29 tbxd6 (now White is just winning, but spoilt it , probably in time trouble) 29 . . . lib8 30 �e4 @g8 31 h4 tties 3 2 hs? fs 3 3 �g2 gxh s 34 cs bxcs 3 S tbec4 tbxc4 36 tbxc4 .l:rxd2 37 .l:rxd2 lid8 38 lixd8+ �xd8 39 �f3 h4 40 gxh4 �xh4 41 �c6 �g4+ 42 @fl �3+ 43 @g1 �g4+ 44 @f1 �3+ 4S @g1 V2-V2. 12 .. . d6 13 b4

Typically direct play by Nakamura. In the game Wang Hao-Yu Vangyi , Danzhou 2011, a slower approach again led to noth­

ing for White after 13 lifdl lid8 14 e3 .td7 lS b3 .l:rac8 16 .l:rbcl Jle8 17 h3 a6 18 tbd4 Jlf8. This is very resilient set-up. On a very good day Black might even be able to use the e8-bishop to play . . . bs , but it needs to be timed perfectly - often this advance just weakens the queen side. After 19 @h2 �as 20 tbce2 �a3 21 tbc2 �as 22 tbcd4 �a3 23 tbc2 �as 24 tbcd4 �a3 the game was already agreed drawn; White has no risk-free plan to make any headway. 13 .. . .l:td8 14 @h1 .td1 15 tbe3 .i.fS 16 bs ttias 17 f4

1 04

Nimzo - l n d ia n : Kasp a r o v- R o m a n is h in , 4 ti'Jf3 a n d 5 g3

A very interesting plan, combining queenside play to drive the knight to as with ad­vancing the f-pawn. 17 ... "fic7 18 .l:!.fc1 l:!.ac8

Simple and good. The computer is greedy as usual and wants to grab: 18 ... ti'Jxc4 19 ti'Jxc4 "fixc4 20 .txb7 .l:!.ab8 21 ..if3 "fies and Black is, indeed, fine. 19 ti'Je4 b6 20 l:!.c2 h6 21 l:!.f1 fs

Stopping f4-fS . White already needs to be careful here, as Black has long-term assets like the bishops and c4 to play against. 22 ti'Jf2 g6 23 ti'Jd3 i.g7 24 l:!.fc1 ..ieS 25 ti'Jd1 "fie7 26 �b4 l:!.c7 27 e4 fxe4 28 i.xe4 "fif6 29 ..if3 i.f7 30 ti'J1f2 "fid4

Black is better here, but Nakamura is tactically alert as usual .

31 ti'Jes ! i.xes 3 1 . . . dxes 3 2 .l:!.d1 is the point. Funny enough, this is playable for Black after 32 . . . exf4 33

1 05

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

I:i.xd4 I:i.xd4 a s h e has very good play for the queen . Ponomariov's move does win a pawn though .

32 fxes �xes 33 l'Llg4 �g7 34 I:i.d1 White has got rid of the bishops and has some active pieces.

34 ... hs 3s l'Llf2? 3 5 l'Lle3 keeps the fight going .

3 s ... �es?

35 . . . ds ! i s winning for Black. In the coming moves there are more mistakes, but most likely both players were in time trouble by now. 36 I:i.e1 'iVd4 37 I:i.d1 'iVes 38 I:i.e1 �fs 39 ..te4 �cs 40 �b2 �gs 41 .i.d3 es 42 l'Lle4 'iVe1 43 I:i.f1 @g1 Y2-Y2

There might follow 44 �cl ..txc4 (or 44 . . . I:i.dc8 45 .l:f.cf2 ..txc4 46 .i.xc4 l'Llxc4 47 l'Llf6 and White has enough play against the black king to equalize) 45 ..txc4 dS 46 I:i.f6 I:i.xc4 47 �g s �e8 48 I:i.cf2 .l:f.xe4 49 I:i.f7+ 'iVxf7 50 I:i.xf7+ @xf7 5 1 'iVxd8 and it will end in a perpetual .

Summary 7 ..td2 is a solid choice for White. Black may go into the Hedgehog-like main line, as played in the main game, or investigate the more Nimzo-like alternative given on move 7 . Both options lead to very different position types; a great feature of this very versatile opening is that it does not determine the pawn structure early on.

1 0 6

C h a pte r F ive

N i m z o- l n d i a n : Ru b i n ste i n Va r iat i o n , 4 e 3

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 .tb4 4 e3

The Rubinstein variation is one of two main lines of the Nimzo- lndian Defence, the oth­er being the Classical variation with 4 'i!Vc2, as examined in Chapters 9-11.

With 4 e3 , White signal s his intention to develop the king side. Note that in the first three moves, Black has made three moves that prepare short castl ing, while White has made zero moves in that regard. The secondary idea of the Rubinstein is to play S tlle2, covering c3 with the knight to avoid a doubled pawn on c3 .

The general approach of our repertoire is to set up a dark-squared pawn centre with moves like ... cs , . . . d6 and . . . es . How to set up such a formation against the Rubinstein?

There is one l ine that fits perfectly with our strategy: the Hilbner variation.

1 0 7

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d 809 0 - /n d ian

This i s the classic main line position of the Hubner variation . How to reach it? There are two sensible ways to go:

a) Via 4 . . . 0-0: 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 i.b4 4 e3 o-o S i.d3 cs 6 lbf3 lbc6 7 o-o ilxc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 e4 es .

b) Via 4 . . . cs : 1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 i.b4 4 e3 cs S ild3 lbc6 6 ttJf3 ilxc3 7 bxc3 d6 8 0-0 es 9 e4 o-o.

Which is the preferable move order to choose? The main difference between the two move orders becomes obvious when we examine

the reply S lbe2 to both . It i s essential to understand that Black should never then take on c3 as it accelerates White's development while giving up the bishop-pair.

Let's examine 4 ... cs s ttJe2 first.

White now threatens to force the trade on c3 with 6 a3. This means that moves like s . . . o-o or s . . . ds don't do the job. Black has two options I considered:

1 0 8

N i m zo - ln d ia n : R u b i n s te i n Va r iat ion , 4 e3

a) Going s . . . cxd4 to free retreat squares for the bishop. I discarded this because of 6 exd4 o-o 7 a3 ile7 8 tt:lf4 ds 9 cxds tt:Jxds 10 tt:Jcxds exds and White retains a nagging edge in a position that does not fit well with our general dark-squared approach . I looked for deviations in this l ine, but didn 't have any success.

b) The second, more interesting option is to play the entirely different s . . . b6 to facil itate 6 a3 ilas. It leads to fairly unique positions that offer good counterplay for Black.

Now let's check 4 . . . 0-0 S tt:Je2.

Here Black delays . . . cs , so retreating the bishop is easily possible. In fact I found that the move s . . . l:te8 leads to very interesting play after 6 a3 ilf8, which keeps the pawn structure

in the centre very flexible. Black can play . . . ds if appropriate, but often . . . d6, . . . es and/or . . . cs i s possible for a dark-squared strategy. In comparison to 4 . . . cs S tt:Je2 b6 6 a3 ilas, this l ine is al so simpler to learn in my opinion.

Ultimately I decided to go for the 4 . . . 0-0 move order, which is also by far the most popu­lar choice among the top players. One reason for this is the flexibility of this move, as you later can easily add an additional l ine to your repertoire: for example, the Karpov variation (4 e3 o-o S i..d3 cs 6 tt:Jf3 dS 7 o-o cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4 9 .i.xc4 b6).

The Hilbner variation and 4 . . . 0-0 S tt:le2 l:te8 will be two cornerstones of our repertoire, but what el se is there in the Rubinstein? The only substantial and non-transpositional op­tion is the .i.d3 and tt:le2 set-up. Against this there is no real alternative to the main reply which usually leads to an isolated queen's pawn for White.

1 09

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

This i s a typical position for this l ine. The main distinct feature of this IQP situation i s the knight on e2, which is a less threatening square for i t than f3 .

Our whole Rubinstein coverage is divided into three parts: Chapter 6 : 4 e3 o-o s tt:Je2 (the Reshevsky Variation); Chapter 7 : 4 e3 0-0 S .td3 cs 6 tlle2 ; Chapter 8 : 4 e3 o-o s .i.d3 cs 6 tt:lf3 tt:lc6 7 0-0 .txc3 8 bxc3 d6 (the Hubner Variation) .

1 1 0

C h a pte r S i x

N i m z o- l n d i a n : Re s h evs ky Va ri at i o n , 4 e 3 o - o 5 ttJe 2

1 d4 liJf6 2 C4 e6 3 liJc3 i.b4 4 e3 0-0 5 liJge2

This is a popular line for White named after Samuel Reshevsky. The idea is obvious: White avoids doubled pawns on the c-file and intends to recapture on c3 with the knight. In general almost all l ines with li:le2 in the whole Rubinstein complex share one character­istic: Black should not capture because doing so speeds up White's development. The e2-knight blocks the light-squared bi shop and very often needs to move again to prepare cas­tling .

It is very important to have something prepared against s li:le2, because it is the choice of all the recent 1 d4 white repertoire books by the likes of Schandorff, Watson and Komev. I actually think their choice is mostly determined by the fact that s li:le2 is easier and short-

1 1 1

Ope n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n di a n

shorter to present i n a book than the alternatives - i t i s not a set-up that promises White anything special in a theoretical sense. It will , however, almost invariably lead to a complex game with chances for both sides.

Let's begin with an overview of the material : a) s . . . ds is the big main line, but it has been covered a lot, most recently by John Emms

in The Nimzo-lndian: Move by Move. The beauty of a flexible main line opening like the Nimzo is the abundance of lines and strategies to choose from. For this book I decided to

avoid s . . . ds, not for the sake of quality (Black is fine here), but for variety's sake. b) s . . . c6 ! ? i s a relatively new line that has only recently become popular. I consider it to

be the only sound alternative at move S besides the main l ine and my repertoire choice, s . . . l::t.e8. I went for the rook move for the somewhat irrational reason that I 've always had a soft spot for the elegant, retreating concept to f8 at such an early stage. If you, however, dislike my choice, I 'd l ike to point you to s ... c6 - it is fully sound and less explored than the main line.

c) As already spoiled above, our repertoire move is s . . . l::t.e8.

Black anticipates that he will need to retreat the bishop and clears the f8-square for it. After a subsequent ... ds by Black, the rook is nicely placed in the possible Carl sbad structure for an exchange on dS or helping to prepare . . . e6-es if White does not take on ds. Except for the main line with 7 ds, all l ines after s ... l::te8 are covered in the game Gonzalez Vidal ­Ortega (Game 11) .

s . . . l::t.e8 6 a3 i.f8 7 ds i s White's main try for an advantage, grabbing space in the centre. Black often will attack the centre later with ... c6 or transpose into a Benoni structure with . . . cs . The beauty of this l ine is that the . . . l::te8 and . . . i.f8 set-up fits into many different pawn structures. I think that Black has no problems here, unlike Schandorff who claims a small edge for White. The game Avrukh-Wojtazsek (Game 12) discusses this in detail .

1 1 2

N i m zo - ln d ia n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 o - o 5 tfj e2

Game 1 1 Y.Gonzalez Vidal-M.Ortega

C u ba n Cha m pionsh ip, Santa Clara 2014

1 d4 tfjf6 2 c4 e6 3 tfjc3 i.b4 4 e3 o-o 5 tfjge2 .l::l.eS 6 a3 Sometimes the white player does not know the s . . . .l::l.e8 line and plays 6 g3, as happened to

yours truly in a game in the Belgium League in 2001. My opponent Denis Luminet replied with the normal 6 . . . ds. Only now did I understand that 7 cxds is answered by 7 . . . 'i!Vxds ! , which led to 8 .l::l.g1 �S 9 h3 es 10 g4 'tlih4 11 .i.g2 tfjc6 12 dS tfje7 13 'iWb3 .i.xc3+ 14 tfjxc3 c6 1S d6 .i.e6 16 'i!Vxb7 tfjedS with great compensation for Black in M.Bluvshtein-A.Onischuk, Montreal 2009. Yes, this was actually played in an all -GM game. My game in Belgium went, instead, 7 �3 cs 8 cxds 'ii'xds 9 �xds exds with a comfortable position for Black. 6 .. . .i.fS

This is a very flexible approach . Black now might play . . . d7-dS or employ other central set-ups like . . . d6 and . . . es with an Old Indian flavour. In some cases even a Benoni structure is reached - more on that later. 7 e4

White's most ambitious approach . He has many alternatives, of which 7 dS is the main l ine and will be examined below in Avrukh-Wojtaszek (Game 12).

If White does not want to advance in the centre there are two knight moves to prepare castling . Let's examine:

a) 7 tfjg3 ds i s the simplest response, giving Black easy play. There also is the Old Indian­like 7 . . . d6 8 .i.d3 es with completely different play. It is not a 'clear equalizer', but leads to a complicated strategical struggle. After 7 . . . ds White faces the question : to take or not to take. In most cases he exchanges on ds, but he doesn't have to:

al) 8 .i.e2 is important because it has been recommended in two recent books. It i s giv-

1 1 3

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og o - l n di a n

given i n John Watson's A Strategic Opening Repertoire for White and by Alexei Kornev i n his A Practical White Repertoire with 1 .d4 and 2.c4, which certainly increases the chances that you will face it. Black has tried various moves after 8 i.e2 :

all) My main recommendation is 8 . . . dxc4 9 o-o (or 9 i.xc4 cs 10 dxcs 'iVxdl+ 11 'it>xdl i.xcs with equality in R.Hungaski-P .Harikrishna, Philadelphia 2011, and nevertheless Black went on win - sometimes dull equality doesn 't guarantee a draw) 9 . . . cs 10 dxcs i.xcs 11 i.xc4 a6.

In this quiet position White has tried a few moves: a111) 12 b4 is Kornev's line, with his assessment of a sl ight advantage for White based

on the 12 . . . i.e7 13 i.e2 of V.Epishin-T.Polak, Dresden 2007, where Black now played 13 . . . as .

That was not a bad move, but 13 . . . i.d7, intending . . . i.c6 and . . . tllbd7 equalizes comfortably. a112) A similar set-up was seen in a recent game, Y.Kuzubov-Y.Kryvoruchko, Lvov 2014,

where White deviated with 12 i.e2 i.e7 13 i.d2 i.d7 14 °iWc2 i.c6 15 e4 tllbd7 16 i.f4 .l:k8.

1 1 4

Nimzo - ln di a n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 0 - 0 5 t:fJ e 2

Black has clearly equalized.

a12) As 8 . . . dxc4 leads to very sound, but al so dry positions, I'd like to point out the 8 . . . g 6 ! ? of L.Jaime Montalvan-J .L .Hammer, Gibraltar 2008. Here 9 o-o .i.g7 10 �c2 b6 11 b4 (instead of the game's 11 e4 t:fJc6 12 .i.e3 t:fJxe4 13 t:fJgxe4 dxe4 14 'iVxe4 .i.b7 with equal , but interesting play) 11 . . . ii.b7 12 i.b2 is given as a slight advantage for White by Kornev. I agree, but I 'd also like to point out that all pieces are on the board and it will be a compli­cated game. It i s still a good position to play for a win against a lower-rated player or in situations where 8 . . . dxc4 is just too equal . In some recent games Black has al so tried the other fianchetto with 8 . . . b6, so there's enough scope to fight if the situation calls for it.

a2) By far the more popular choice on move 8 is the switch to a Carl sbad structure with 8 cxds exdS : for example, 9 b4 (or 9 i.d3 t:fJbd7 10 b4 a6 11 �3 c6, as was played in M.Wiertzema-V.Epishin, Deizisau 2003; White now committed an instructive mistake: 12 a4? as ! 13 bs cs - Black opens the position in his favour; note the rook on e8 opposing White's king on e1 - 14 t:fJxds cxd4 1S o-o t:fJxds 16 �xds t:fJcs with a substantial advan­tage for Black that Vladimir Epishin converted in 32 moves) 9 . . . c6 10 .i.d3 t:fJa6 11 0-0 t:fJc7 12 f3 t:fJe6 13 t:fJce2 g6 14 .i.c2 as 1S .l:!.b1 axb4 16 axb4 b6 17 e4 cs, with a sharp, but bal­anced struggle in S .Bekker Jensen-E . L'Ami, Helsingor 2012. Black's knight journey to e6 was noteworthy. With the set-up of ... lie8 and ... .i.f8 this makes a lot of sense.

b} The other knight move is, of course, 7 l:iJf4, after which I feel Black should go 7 . . . d6 in order to kick this piece with . . . es (of course, you can play 7 . . . ds as well : for example, 8 cxds exds 9 .i.d3 t:fJc6 ! ? 10 o-o t:fJe7 11 .td2 c6 12 'iVc2 g6 13 b4 a6 14 a4 t:fJfs 1s bs as 16 t:fJa2 .i.d7 17 bxc6 bxc6 18 t:fJc1 t:fJe4 with about equal chances in B.Lalith-A.Aleksandrov, Nagpur 2012; the c6 weakness is not so easy to attack, while Black will initiate king side counterplay).

Following 8 .i.e2 (8 .i.d3 es 9 t:fJfe2 isn't dangerous; there is even 9 . . . ds to simplify to a drawish position) 8 . . . es 9 dxes dxes 10 �xd8 �xd8 11 t:fJfds t:fJe8 ! 12 o-o t:fJa6 13 .l:!.d1 .i.e6 14 t:fJe4 c6 1S t:fJdc3 ii.e7 if anything Black was the more comfortable in L.Schandorff­

P .H .Niel sen, Aalborg 2006.

1 1 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In dia n

c) 7 g 3 aims for the same structure as after s . . . ds 6 a3 i..e7 7 cxds exds - the positive difference from Black's point of view is the slightly better placement of the bishop on f8 as opposed to e7. After 7 ... ds (the normal move, but if you want to vary and set up a closed position you may also play 7 . . . d6 followed by . . . es; it's an Old Indian set-up where White doesn't have anything special besides the usual extra space, and if you want to play a long game with all the pieces on the board you can consider this) 8 cxds (delaying this with 8 i..g2 doesn't improve White's chances: for example, 8 . . . c6 9 b3 b6 10 o-o i..a6 11 cxds , as was played in F.Meyer-T.Henrich, German League 1991; Black recaptured with the e-pawn, but I l ike 11 . . . cxds even more when Black has an easy game) 8 . . . exds 9 i..g 2 as 10 o-o c6 we reach a typical set-up.

This general position type is not dependent on concrete move sequences, but on posi­tional understanding . It i s heavily recommended to study some games with it, also from the s ... ds move order as the pawn structure is identical . Black is certainly okay, but the po­sition remains complicated for a long time. One key point is that very often Black needs to play ... cs to obtain counterplay in the centre only after White has played f3 to prepare e3-e4. Some examples:

a) A funny early misstep by White happened in the game S.Bekker Jensen-J . L.Hammer, Borup 2008: 11 tt:'if4 tt:'ia6 12 f3 ti:Jc7 13 e4 cs ! (usually this is played right after f3, not wait­ing for White to play e4, but here the delayed ... cs sets White some tricky problems) 14 es? (14 i..e3 is not great, but was playable) 14 . . . cxd4 lS �xd4 tt:'id7 16 tt:'id3 .l::!.xes (the strange point, winning a pawn; however, the computerish 16 . . . b6 ! intending . . . i..a6 and . . . tt:Jcs i s even stronger, with an almost decisive advantage for Black) 17 f 4 Ite8 18 tllxds tt:Jxds 19

�xds �6+ 2o @h 1 ti:Jf6 21 �f3 i..g4 and Black was close to winning. b) The most principled move is 11 f3 which duly gets answered by 11 . . . cs ! . Here Black

even has the option of playing . . . tt:'ic6, compared to the example above where . . . ti:Ja6 was played before White started the central play. Now it is difficult for White to find a direct plan . In the game H .Nakamura-P .H .Nielsen, Oslo 2009, the aggressive American no.1 tried

1 1 6

Nimzo - l n di a n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 o - o 5 tt:J e 2

the ambitious 12 g4 ti:Jc6 13 g s tt:Jh s 14 f4, but Black obtained good play against the white centre with 14 ... �g4 1S h3 �xe2 16 tt:Jxe2 cxd4 17 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jxd4 18 'iWxd4 ti:Jg 3 19 .l:!.el, and now 19 . . . tl:Je4 would have been comfortable for Black. White's advances have created many weaknesses all over his position .

Let's now return to 7 e4. Black cannot allow any further expansion and so strikes back in the centre:

7, . . d5

This approach is very much in line with our repertoire in the Bogo with 4 ti:Jbd2 0-0 S a3 �e7 6 e4 ds (see Chapter 13). Instead of this active move, Black may also get creative with ideas like 7 . . . d6 8 f3 a6 9 �e3 c6 10 g4 bS , as in R.Montecatine Rios-L.Oll, Marchena 1990. This . . . d6 approach is certainly theoretically worse than going for 7 . . . ds, but remains an interesting option to 'just play chess' early on . 8 es ti:Jfd7 9 cxds

White needs to commit the c-pawn now. He can grab more space with 9 cs , but Black is ready to clarify things on the queen side immediately. His lead in development often allows him very aggressive play with sacrifices against White's exposed centre after 9 .. . b6 (9 .. . as as in M.Matuszewski -M.Bartel , Poznan 201s, i s also fine) 10 b4 as :

1 1 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

a) 11 i.e3 axb4 12 axb4 �xa1 13 �xa1 bxcs 14 bxcs f6 15 f4 fxes 16 fxes lllc6 is okay for Black. Note his ideas for counterplay like 17 g 3 {or 17 i.f2 lllcxes 18 dxes i.xcs with serious compensation for Black) 17 . . . i.xcs 18 dxcs llldxes , intending . . . d4. Black has fantas­tic compensation here and is even clearly better.

b) 11 �bl axb4 12 axb4 bxcs 13 bxcs and I don't see any worries for Black after 13 ... i.a6

or the aggressive 13 . . .f6 14 f4 fxes 15 fxes lllc6, with sacrificial ideas in mind like 16 g 3 llldxes 1 7 dxes i.xcs and White won't have much fun . 9 . . . exds

Here White has tried almost all the logical moves. 1o f4

The most common response. White has al so tried 10 g 3 cs 11 f4. It's hard to get by without this move for White, as the centre i s very exposed. In H .Koneru-T.Kosintseva, Mos­cow 2011, the multiple Russian Olympic medall ist now played 11. . .cxd4, but 11. . .lllc6 ! first would have been even stronger.

1 1 8

N i m zo - / n dia n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 o - o 5 liJ e 2

White must now fight for equality, probably without success. The only move is 1 2 ..te3 (other tries like 12 ..tg2? cxd4 13 liJxd4 liJdxeS ! 14 fxes l:Ixes+ 1s liJce2 'iWb6 16 liJf3 l:Ie8 lead to a vicious attack that i s winning for Black; the key motifs are . . . ..tfs and . . . dS-d4-d3 to increase the pressure - this type of position is well known from the French Tarrasch with 3 liJd2 liJf6 and a later f4 and g 3 expansion) 12 . . . liJb6 (the point; this knight will find a great spot on c4, harassing White's dark-squared bishop) 13 .i.g2 (13 dxcs? liJc4 14 .i.f2 .ifs 1S 'iib3 liJ4xeS ! 16 fxes d4 becomes an exercise in dodging bullets for White and one not to be recommended) 13 . . . .i.fs with excellent play for Black.

White has al so experimented with clamping down on the cs-square with 10 b4 as and now:

a) Surprisingly bad is 11 l:!.b1? axb4 12 axb4 liJc6 13 liJxdS (13 bs is similarly terrible due to 13 . . . liJcxes 14 dxes liJxes and the combined threats of . . . dS-d4 and . . . ..tfs win for Black) 13 . . . liJdxes 14 dxes ..tfs 1s l:!.b3 l:!.xes 16 liJe3 ..txb4+ and Black wins after 17 liJc3 �f6 ! with the ideas of . . . l:!.xe3 and . . . l:!.es-as-a1.

b) 11 bS i s the only move, even though White's plan to stop . . . cs has failed. After 11. . .cS 12 bxc6 (the overambitious 12 f4 liJb6 leaves White's centre terribly exposed with several essential squares weakened) 12 . . . bxc6 13 g 3 cs 14 ..tg2 cxd4 1s liJxd4 liJxes 16 0-0 ..tg4 17 'iWb3 ..tcs 18 ..te3 .i.xd4 19 ..txd4 liJf3+ 20 .i.xf3 .i.xf3 21 liJbs ..te2 22 l:!.fc1 ..tc4 23 l:Ixc4 dxc4 24 �c3 liJc6 2s .i.xg7 �g s 26 ..tf6 �xbs 27 �f3 h s 28 ..tc3 l:!.e6 29 a4 'iWg s White re­signed in J . Le Roux-M.Oleksienko, Guingamp 2007. 10 . . . cs 11 .i.e3 liJc6

12 dxcs White is running out of moves and takes on cs . The greedy 12 liJxdS? does not work due to 12 . . . cxd4 13 ..txd4 (or 13 liJxd4 liJdxes and

Black wins) 13 . . . liJdxes 14 ..txes liJxes 1s fxes �4+ 16 liJg3 (16 g 3 �e4 17 l:!.g1 'iWxes is a winning attack for Black; the combined threats of . . . .i.cs and . . . l:!.d8 are too much for White to cope with) 16 ... l:Ixes+ 17 ..te2 .i.cs followed by ... ..tg4 and Black wins .

1 1 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - / n d i a n

Instead, w e examined 1 2 g 3 lllb6 via 1 0 g3 , above. 12 ... lllxcs

A good alternative for Black is 12 . . . i.xcs 13 i.xcs (again, 13 lllxds i s not working , this time due to 13 . . . lllcxes ! 14 fxes �4+ 15 lllg 3 l:txes with the big threat of . . . lllf6; Black is fine) 13 . . . lllxcs 14 b4 (the only move; 14 lllxds ?? i.fs 15 lllec3 lllxes wins on the spot for Black) 14 . . . d4 and here:

a) 15 lllbs? llle6 (15 . . . lllxes is al so very interesting) 16 llld6 l:te7 and White is in trouble -the ideas of . . . d3, .. .f6 and . . . lllxf 4 are too much to handle.

b) 15 bxcs dxc3 (improving on 15 . . . �as , as played in S .Bekker Jensen-N .Pedersen, Aal ­borg 2006) 16 �xd8 l:txd8 17 lllxC3 llld4 18 @f2 lllb3 with about equal chances.

Houdini even comes up with the unbelievable 12 . . . g s ! ? in order to destroy White's cen­tre at all costs. Black is clearly spoilt for choice here. 13 lllxds

White grabs the pawn as the alternatives don't impress either: for example, on 13 b4 Black hits out with 13 . . . d4! 14 lllxd4 lllxd4 15 �xd4 �xd4 16 i.xd4 lllb3 17 J:td1 as (an im­portant motif to gain counterplay) 18 bxas i.g4 19 i.e2 i.xe2 20 lllxe2 l:txas and Black is fine in thi s complicated position . He will win the pawn back and has the b-pawn as an as­set. 13 .. . i.g4 14 J:tc1

White needs to tread carefully. There isn 't any way to untangle the kingside, as 14 g3 ? ? i.f3 painfully demonstrates. 14 ... llle4

Keeping the initiative with a natural move. 14 ... lllxes ! ? is al so possible, but is not entirely clear: 15 i.xcs ! (otherwise, White comes

close to losing ) 1 s . . . l:tc8 ! 16 fxes i.xcs 17 b4 l:txes 18 .l:.xcs l:txcs 19 bxcs .l:.xds 20 �cl (here Black has a draw at least, but I couldn't find a win) 20 ... .l:.es 21 �f4 �4+ 22 'it>d2 'i¥d8+ 23 @e1 °ilfh4+ is one plausible route to a repetition .

1 2 0

N i m zo - l n di a n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 0 - 0 5 tlJ e2

15 tlJdc3 Again, the only move to not get wiped out quickly. 15 b4? as or 15 'iVd3? i.fs will prob­

ably not last to move 25 . 1s ... 'iVh4+ 16 g3 'iVh6 17 tlJxe4

This initiates a long sequence of moves that is almost forced. After 17 i.g2 Black's attack is very strong , but maybe only good enough for equality

with best play. A fun line now is 17 . . . 1Iad8 18 'iVc2 tlJxc3 19 'iVxc3 'iVg6 20 h3 l:Id3 21 hxg4 1Ixc3 22 tlJxC3 'iVxg4 23 Wf2 when White i s nicely coordinated and probably has enough for the queen . 17 ... i.f3 18 tlJf2

Not strictly the only move, but a very understandable choice. White now becomes coor­dinated for the first time in the game.

18 ... i.xh1 19 tlJxh1 tlJxes 20 fxes 'iVxe3 21 'iVd4 'iVxd4 The arising endgame is about equal . Black could have kept the queens on the board with 21 . . . 'iVg S? ! , but 22 'iVf4 � 5 23 tlJf2

.l:!.xes 24 g4 'iVg s 2 5 'iVxgS .l:!.xg s 26 i.g2 ultimately reaches a worse endgame and even more problematic is 21 ... �6? ! 22 tlJf2 'iVxh2? 23 i.h 3 ! ; keeping the queen on has led to it being devoid of squares. 22 tlJxd4 l:Ixes+ 23 i.e2 l:Iae8 24 I:Ic2

The only move, as ... i.cs was a threat. 24 ... I:Ics 25 tlJf2 l:Ixc2 26 tlJxc2 i.cs 27 @f1 g6 28 tlJd3 i.d6 29 i.f3 I:Ie7 30 tlJcb4 'iii>g7 31

tlJds l:Ie8 32 @f2 fs 33 tlJc3 I:Ie7 34 tlJds l:Ie8 3 5 tlJe3 i.c7 The database has 3S ... i.e7 instead, but then White just takes on b7. I think 3S ... i.c7 was

played, allowing ... i.b6 in response to the capture on b7. 36 tlJds i.d6 37 b4 l:Ic8 38 i.d1 as 39 i.b3 axb4 40 axb4 l:Ia8 41 tlJcs i.xcs+ 42 bxcs I:Ias 43 tlJf4 @f6 44 i.ds l:Ixcs 45 i.xb7 Yz-Yz

1 2 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d ia n

Summary 7 e4 leads to very sharp play in which Black often obtains excellent attacking chances. The alternatives on move 7 are much more solid for White, but don 't trouble Black much . The . . . I1e8 and . . . i.f8 set-up is very flexible and works nicely with a range of pawn structures, including . . . ds for a Carl sbad centre and creative tries with . . . d6. A sterner test of Black's approach is 7 ds, which is examined in the following game.

Game 12

B.Avrukh-R. Wojtaszek French Tea m C h a m pions h i p 2011

1 d4 lLif6 2 c4 e6 3 lLic3 i.b4 4 e3 o-o 5 tLige2 I1e8 6 a3 i.f8 7 dS

The most popular move. 1 . . . d6

I l ike this move the most, but you can al so investigate 7 . . . as with the idea of . . . tLla6-cS. If

you don't l ike the Benoni structures of the main line, this is a viable alternative. 8 g3

White needs to play this or move the knight on e2 again to develop the kingside and prepare castl ing.

In a couple of games White tried 8 dxe6, but it 's hard to believe strengthening Black's centre can pose too many problems. R.Rapport-J . L.Hammer, Achaea 2012, saw 8 . . .fxe6 9 lLig 3 ds 10 i.e2 c6 with about equal play. I al so like 10 . . . cs to make c6 available for the knight.

More testing i s 8 lLig 3, intending to set up a classical centre with e4, i.e2 and if neces­sary f3 . This might lead to a set-up quite similar to other lines in the Nimzo, like 4 f3 . Black's position is quite flexible, so there is more than one plan available. It is obvious,

1 2 2

Nimzo - l n dia n : Res h e vs ky Va r ia t ion , 4 e3 o - o 5 ttJe2

however, that White has neglected development, so attacking the centre with 8 . . . c 6 seems very logical to me. After 9 ii.e2 cxd5 (very principled, but there i s room for creativity: for instance, with the yet untested 9 . . . g6 ! ?} 10 cxd5 exd5 White has:

a) An original move is 11 ttJh 5, but after 11 . . . ttJxh 5 12 i.xh 5 d4! 13 �xd4 ttJc6 14 'iYa4, instead of 14 . . . ttJe5, as played in F.Vareille-A.Bleunven, French League 2009, the simple 14 . . . g6 with . . . i.g7 and . . . i.e6 to follow seems quite comfortable to me .

b } Of course, the more obvious reply i s 11 ttJxd5 and after 11. . .ttJxd5 12 �xd5 ttJc6 13 o-o we reach the critical line given in Schandorff's book. He claims a sl ight edge for White, but I don't see any problems for Black. Why should he be worse? He's even slightly better devel ­oped and d6 i s no weakness at all , while the knight on g 3 and bishop on cl are passive. We can continue 13 . . . g6 (simpler to handle and preferable to 13 . . . i.e6 14 'ifb5 a6 15 �xb7 i.d5, which has been seen twice and 16 ii.f3 l:ta7 17 �xa7 ttJxa7 18 ii.xd5 is assessed as better for White by Schandorff; I am not sure about that, but maybe White's position is the easier to play) 14 l:tdl i.g7 and here:

bl} 15 l:tbl i.e6 16 'ifb5 a6 (16 . . . �c7 ! ? is simple, as well as comfortable for Black} 17 �xb7 ttJa5 18 'ifb4 i.b3 19 i.d2 i.xdl 20 l:txdl ttJc6 21 �a4 'ifb6 22 i.f3 l:tac8 and it i s not clear if Black can convert his sl ight material edge, although he ultimately succeeded in S.Brunello-R.Wojtaszek, Wijk aan Zee 2014.

b2} White should prefer 15 �xd6, despite 15 ... i.e6.

This gives Black excellent reversed Catalan-style pressure thanks to his bishops, espe­cially the one on g7 .

After 8 ttJg3, if you'd like to explore a more offbeat alternative you can deviate with 8 . . . g 6 ! ? 9 i.e2 h 5 10 o-o exd5 11 cxd5 h4 12 ttJh 1 c6 13 f3 ttJxd5 14 ttJxd5 cxd5 15 'ii'xd5 ttJc6 16 ttJf2 i.e6, as was played in N .Dzagnidze-T.Kosintseva, Gaziantep 2012. Black is already better here, so White needs to improve earl ier.

Overall , the 8 ttJg3 line does not seem too troublesome for Black. 8 . . . exds

1 2 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ian

This is the most straightforward move, heading directly for the Benoni structure. 9 cxds cs

10 dxc6 White avoids the Benoni structure and instead steers the game into 'hanging pawns'

territory. The Benoni needs to be carefully examined, though, so let's take a look after 10 i.g 2. In general I don't consider this form of Benoni to be dangerous, as a White set-up with e3 and tllge2/ i.g2 is hardly good in the Modern Benoni . White is ages away from any central break, but let's look at some practical examples - the precise move order is not too important:

a) 10 . . . tllbd7 11 o-o g6 (or 11 . . . a6 12 a4 'Vilic7 13 'Vilic2 l:tb8 14 as bs 15 axb6 'Vilixb6 16 .l:f.a3 tlle s 17 b3 g6 18 h3 i.g7 19 i.d2 'Vilib4 20 tllb1 'Vilibs 21 tllbc3 '1Wd3 22 '1Wd1 WDfs 23 f4 llld3 24

e4 �5 25 g4 tllxg4 26 hxg4 i.xg4 with a complicated position that is much easier to play as Black, D.Yang-T.Gelashvili , Wheeling 2012) 12 b4 a6 13 bS tlles 14 e4 i.g7 15 l:tb1 tllfd7 16 bxa6 .l:rxa6 17 tllbs tllb6 18 tllec3 tllec4.

1 2 4

Nimzo - l n di a n : Res h e vs ky Va r ia t ion , 4 e3 0 - 0 5 ti:J e2

This had l ed to characteristically unclear struggle in D.Bocharov-E .Alekseev, Tyumen 2012.

b) 10 . . . g6 11 o-o .ig7 12 e4 ti:Jbd7 13 l:!.b1 a6 14 b4 bs 15 h3 cxb4 16 axb4 ti:Jb6 17 .ie3 ti:Jc4 18 .id4 .ib7 19 f4 ti:Jd7 20 '1i'd3 l:!.c8 21 @h2 W/e7 22 .ixg7 @xg7 and it was roughly equal once again in this unbalanced situation in A.Kashlinskaya-T.Kosintseva, Gaziantep 2012. 10 ... bxc6 11 .ig2 ds 12 o-o tt:Jbd7 13 '1i'c2

White has also tried 13 ti:Jd4 here, reaching a level ending after 13 ... .ib7 14 b4 tt:Jes 15 l:!.b1 Wid7 16 W/c2 l:!.ac8 17 .U.d1 .ia6 18 tt:Ja4 .ic4 (this highlights White's dilemma; it i s hard for him to go ahead without playing b2-b4, but that weakens c4 considerably, allowing a black bishop or knight to use this outpost) 19 .ib2 tt:Je4 20 tt:Jf3 tt:Jxf3+ 21 .ixf3 tt:Jg s 22 .ig2 Wig4 23 l:!.d4 tt:Jf3+ 24 .ixf3 W/xf3 2 5 .l!f4 Wih s 26 l:!.h4 Wig6 27 W/xg6 hxg6 in D.Yang­Y.Shulman, Wheeling 2012. 13 ... ti:Jes 14 h3

Vladimir Epishin played 14 .U.d1 against Peter Wells in Ohrid, 2001. Just like with other moves, Black is not troubled too much . After 14 . . . Wib6 15 h 3 (15 ti:Ja4 W/a6 does not help White at all : for instance, 16 tt:Jd4 .ig4 17 f3 .ih s 18 b4 .ig6 19 W/b3 .U.ab8 when Black is the more harmoniously placed and White has numerous weaknesses to attend to) 1 s . . . g6 16 tt:Jd4 cs ! , grabbing the initiative while not risking too much .

Following 17 tt:Ja4? (this is too ambitious; instead, 17 ti:Jde2 .ib7 is still about equal , be­cause 18 tt:Jxds? tt:Jxds 19 .ixds tbf3+ 20 .ixf3 .txf3 is far too risky for White) 17 . . . Wid6 18 ti:Jbs W/c6 19 tt:Jbc3 .ixh3? (very tempting, but 19 . . . ..tfs ! 20 '1i'e2 c4 is the correct way to pun­ish White; he is pretty much tied down here without any active play) 20 .ixh 3 ti:Jf3+ 21 'it>f1 d4 22 e4?? (22 tt:Je2 holds for White and probably it should end in a perpetual) , winning straight away would have been 22 . . . tt:Jxe4! 2 3 tt:Jxe4 l:!.xe4 and White can't defend against . . . l:!.ae8 and/or . . . W/a6+. In the game Wells played 22 . . . dxc3 and only drew after missing some further chances to increase his advantage.

1 2 5

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

14 ... h s 1s b3 l:!.bs 16 l:!.d1 h4 Strong play by Wojtaszek. Houdini al so likes 16 . . . i..d7 17 e4 (one careless move like 17

tt:Jd4? is enough to send White to the verge of defeat after 17 . . . 'iVc8 18 Wh2 cs 19 tt:Jde2 i..fs 20 'iVa2 tlld3 and he is in complete disarray) 17 . . . tt:lxe4 18 tt:lxe4 dxe4 19 i..xe4 'iVb6 20 b4 i..xh 3 and Black has won a pawn. It is not entirely clear, though: for instance, 21 i..e3 �a6 22 i..f4 cs 23 tllc3 .ig4 24 l:!.el and White has considerable piece activity. 17 f4

Instead, 17 g4 gets immediately punished by 17 . . . tt:lfxg4 18 hxg4 i.xg4 already with a decisive attack for Black. 11 ... tbed1 18 g4 .ics

19 gs? 19 tlld4 is better, with about equal chances. From a practical point of view though, I

would prefer to be Black due to his safer king position. After 19 . . . .ixd4 20 l:!.xd4 (20 exd4 .ia6 should be okay too) 20 ... .ib7 21 b4 cs an interesting struggle l ies ahead. 19 ... tt:Jhs 20 tt:ld4 .ixd4 21 l:!.xd4 lllg3

White is now in trouble, as this knight is irritating . 22 wh2

22 b4! ? tllf8 23 bs .ifs 24 'iVf2 tt:le6 2s l:!.d1 tt:Jcs 26 bxc6 llld3 27 'iVa2 d4 is tough to de­fend for White. 22 .. . 'iVe7 23 tt:la4 'iVe6?!

It seems that 23 . . . 'iVd6 ! was much better: 24 b4 tllf8 25 tt:Jcs tt:lfs 26 l:!.d3 tt:Jxe3 ! is one point behind the queen placement. 24 .id2 tllfs 2s l:!.e1!

1 2 6

Nimzo - ln di a n : Res h e vs ky Va ria t ion , 4 e3 0 - 0 5 0. e2

Maybe this i s what Black missed when he played 23 . . . iVe6. With this strong move, White gets back into the game. 2 5 ••• ..ia6 26 .l:tb4 .l:txb4 27 axb4 0.g3 28 0.c3 'iYd6 29 .l:ta1 d4?

29 . . . .ic8 was still about equal . 30 exd4?

After 30 .l:txa6 ! dxe3 31 i.xe3 .l:txe3 32 .l:txc6 White is even now much better. The point is 32 ... iVxf4?? 33 .l:tc8+ 0.f8 34 0.ds iVes 3 5 .l:txf8+ @xf8 36 iVcs+ @g8 37 0.xe3 0.f1+ 38 @g1 iVxe3+ 39 @xf1 and White wins . 30 ••• i.e2 31 d 5 cxd 5 32 0.xd 5 i.f1 3 3 .l:te1 .l:txel

33 ... I!.e6 is better, but it's not a very human move. The endgame reached in the actual game seems to be a draw, albeit a pawn down for Black. 34 i.xel .ixg2 3 5 'ii'xg2 0.b6 36 0.xb6 axb6 37 .ixg3 hxg3+ 38 @xg3 iVxb4 39 iVaS+ @h7 40 'iYd 5 iVe1+ 41 @g4 'iYe2+ 42 'iYf3 'ife1 43 'iYd3+ g6 44 h4 'ifg1+ 45 @f3 iVh1+ 46 @e3 �xh4 47 @e4 'iYe1+ 48 @d4 iVc1 49 iVe3 'ii'c5+ 50 @d3 'iYb5+ 51 @c3 @gs 52 'iYd4 'iYa 5+ 5 3 b4 'iYa1+ 5 4 @c4 b 5 + 5 5 @d 5 'iYc1 56 'iYe4 'iYcS 57 'iYd4 'iYd7+ 58 @e4 'iYe6+ 5 9 @d3 'iYb3+ 60

@e4 Yz-Yz

Summary The main line with 7 dS is more testing than the earlier alternatives examined before. However, the Poli sh no.1 Rados law Wojtaszek has shown the right way against both 8 0.g3 and 8 g3 . Black opens up the centre in both cases, util izing his good development. A princi­pled alternative for White i s the Benoni structure after 10 ..ig2, but this type of Benoni with a passive knight on e2 can't be too troublesome for Black.

1 2 7

C h a pte r S eve n

N i m z o - l n d i a n : 4 e 3 o - o

5 .i..d 3 c s 6 ltJe 2

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:lc3 i..b4 4 e3 o-o 5 i..d3 cs 6 tt:Jge2

This is one of the 'nameless' l ines in chess. It has been played thousands of times, but there is still no player's name or geographical spot connected to it. It is a kind of anti­Hubner, though - the knight covers c3 to avoid the doubled pawns. Unlike in the Reshevsky line with s tt:Je2, White has fluent development in this l ine.

I have to admit that the 'nameless line' i s a sl ight annoyance for our repertoire's strate­gical consistency. In the majority of l ines selected for the book Black employs a dark­squared strategy, based on the moves . . . cs , . . . d6 and ... es , the prime example being, of course, the Hubner. Against 6 tt:le2 such an approach is simply not advisable. I have tried to make lines like 6 . . . d6 or 6 ... tt:lc6 followed by 7 . . . d6 work, but without any success. Compared

1 2 8

Nimzo - l n di a n : 4 e3 o - o 5 i.. d3 cs 6 lb e 2

to the Hubner, Black is just considerably worse placed, a s there is no chance t o inflict dou­bled pawns and on top of that, the knight is better placed on e2 than on f3 in this very closed structure, as the f-pawn is an important asset that should be ready to be moved at the right moment.

In the end I decided that the 'main line' i s the main line for a reason, so 6 li:Jge2 ds is my repertoire choice. This almost invariably leads to an IQP position for White. The special character of this l ine is defined by the position of White's knight on e2 . The usual spot for this piece in an IQP situation is f3 , but don 't assume that on e2 it is worse all the time. It has got some points on this square, mostly the indirect influence on the ds-square with moves like li:Jf4 at the right moment. The main negative drawback is, of course, that the aggressive move !Des, which often is the start of successful IQP play, is out of the picture.

It is important to understand too that in the i..d3 and tf:Je2 IQP complex move orders look nightmarish at first, but in general Black's set-up is quite similar all the time, so don 't despair. The presentation of this line is organized into three games.

We begin with 6 . . . ds 7 cxds cxd4 8 exd4 li:Jxds 9 o-o li:Jc6.

The game Tomashevsky-Predke (Game 13) analyses all earlier deviations after 7 cxds, as well as White's set-ups without the i..c2 and 'iWd3 battery from here on move 10.

White's main approach in the IQP positions with 7 cxds is , however, setting up that bat­tery with i..c2 and °ii'd3. These l ines (also on move 9 without castl ing) are discussed in Sokolov-Gundavaa (Game 14) .

In stead, 7 0-0 cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4 9 i..xc4 is a different form of the IQP.

1 2 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

This somewhat less popular option i s handled i n exemplary fashion by Black i n Sokolov­Swiercz (Game 15) .

Game 13

E. Tomashevsky-A.Predke Russia n H igher League, Yekate rinbu rg 2013

1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 4Jc3 ..ib4 4 e3 o-o 5 ..id3 cs 6 4Jge2 d s 7 cxd s cxd4 8 exd4 Once in a while 8 4Jxd4 is played. Against it, I recommend the active 8 . . . es ! ? 9 4Jde2

ltJxds with about equal play. s . . . ltJxd s

The most natural move, of course, and by far the main l ine. There is a certain drawback to this move, though : the resulting positions require some theoretical knowledge, as we will see, and there is at least one l ine where Black has no winning chances at all . This made me look for alternatives. I found 8 . . . 'iYxds 9 0-0 and now the novelty 9 . . . 'i¥d7 ! ? .

1 3 0

N i m z o - l n dia n : 4 e3 o - o 5 .ii.. d3 c5 6 tiJ e 2

I know, i t does not look like the most natural move ever, but it seems absolutely play­able and allows us to leave the trodden paths early. Black intends to play . . . b6 followed by . . . .ii..a6 or . . . .ii..b7, according to circumstances. Often White will prevent an early . . . b6, so . . . l:!.d8 and . . . tiJc6 comes first, putting some pressure on d4. The bishop on b4 usually re­treats to e7, as .ii.g s is a very natural move for White.

Let's look at some lines of my analysis. White obviously has many moves at his disposal : a) 10 .ii.g s .ii..e7 11 J:!.c1 tiJc6 (11. . .b6? ! 12 .ii..xf6 .ii..xf6 13 li..e4 is uncomfortable) 12 .ib1

l:!.d8 (one idea of this line is early pressure on d4; White now makes a pawn sacrifice out of it) 13 �d3 tiJxd4 14 l:!.fd1 tiJxe2+ 1S �xe2 �e8 16 l:!.xd8 .i.xd8 17 'iYd3 and White has enough compensation; he will probably regain a pawn on b7 or after . . . tiJds at some point.

b) 10 'iYc2 .ii..e7 ! ( I think this the most precise; now ... tiJc6 will also threaten ... tiJb4, so White will need to play a3 at some point) 11 l:!.d1 (to protect d4, but al so to support d4-dS breaks) 11.. .tiJc6 12 a3 l:!.d8 (12 ... b6? 13 dS exds 14 tiJxdS ! is a disaster to be avoided) and:

1 3 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

bl) An interesting approach is 13 i..c4, directly going for d4-dS. After 13 . . . lLids (13 . . . 'W/e8 ! ? i s also interesting) 14 lLixds (this does not lead to much, but I don't think White has anything great here: for example, 14 i..a2 lLixc3 lS bxc3 b6 seems fine for Black) 14 . . . exds lS i.d3 g6 16 i.e3 b6 White only has a very slight edge in this symmetrical posi­tion .

b2) White has many moves besides 13 i..c4, but Houdini's main move is 13 i.f4 ! ? b6 14 .l::tacl i..b7 1s ds exds 16 i..fs 'W/e8 17 ltJbs (a direct assault; the following sequence is not completely forced, but shows some typical play) 17 . . . lLib4 18 'Wic7 i..a6 19 lLied4 i..xbs 20 lLixbs 'Wixbs 21 'W/xe7 d4 22 .l:!.c7 'Wids 23 .l:!.xd4 ltJc6 24 'W/xd8+ lLixd8 2s .l::txds lLixds 26 .l:!.c4 lLixf4 27 .l:!.xf4 g6 28 i..h 3 lLic6, reaching an equal position. Quite a long line, but it shows that an early d4-dS often leads to tactically sharp battles in this line.

c) 10 a3 i..e7 11 'W/c2 seems less preci se than the immediate 10 'W/c2 as now Black is able to play 11 . . . b6. Slow moves net nothing here, so 12 ds ! ? is best and after 12 . . . i..b7 (12 . . . exds 13 .i.g s h6 14 i..xf6 i..xf6 lS i..h7+ 'it>h8 16 lLixds ! reveals the point of White's play, al ­though it's not 100% clear: 16 . . . 'W/xds 17 i..e4 'Wies 18 i..xa8 i..fs 19 'i!Vd2 ltJd7 20 i..f3 'Wixb2 21 'W/xb2 i..xb2 22 .l:!.a2 i..f6 and White is better here, but it's still a fight, if not a l ine to rec­ommend though) 13 dxe6 'Wixe6 White is sl ightly the more active, but I think it will fizzle out: for example, 14 ltJf4 'Wic6 lS i..e3 .l:!.d8 16 .l:!.adl lLia6 (16 . . . lLibd7 17 lLifdS is White's idea) 17 .l:!.fel i..d6 18 f3 ii.es and I don't see anything special here - the position is equal .

d) 10 lLie4 i..e7 and now:

dl) 11 ii.g s leads to simplification : 11. . .lLixe4 (11 ... lLids ! ?) 12 i..xe7 'Wixe7 13 i..xe4 lLid7 ! (13 . . . .l:!.d8 14 'W/c2 g6 lS .l:!.adl is l ess precise, as now 1s . . . ltJd7 16 'W/c7 is very annoying) 14 .l:!.cl lLif6 lS i..f3 .l:!.d8 with comfortable play for Black.

d2) 11 'W/c2 is more dangerous: 11 ... g6 12 i..g s lLixe4 13 i.xe7 'Wixe7 14 i..xe4 lLid7 lS 'Wio (1s .l::tacl lLif6 16 i..f3 .l::td8 i s similar to 11 ii.g s above and just equal ) 1s . . . .l:!.e8 16 .l:!.acl lLif6 17 'Wixe7 .l:!.xe7 18 i..f3 .l:!.b8 and Black will untangle with ... b6.

e) 10 i..c2 i..e7 11 'W/d3 lLic6 12 a3 and here:

1 3 2

Nimzo - l n di a n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 i.. d3 cs 6 CiJ e 2

el) Black has interesting tactical idea i n 12 . . . b5 ! ? .

However, 13 i..g 5 (13 �xb5 CiJxd4 14 CiJxd4 ifxd4 15 .l:!.d1 ifc5 is equal ) 13 . . . g6 14 .l:!.acl (14 iff3 .i.b7 ! ! i s a great resource, intending 15 .ixf6 CiJxd4 16 iff4 .i.xf6 17 'iVxf6 CiJxe2+ 18 CiJxe2 ifc6 19 CiJf4 ifxc2) 14 ... .l:!.d8 15 iff3 CiJd5 16 i..xe7 CiJcxe7 17 CiJe4 highlights a draw­back of . . . b5 .

e2) The sounder choice is 12 . . . b6 13 .l:!.d1 i..b7 14 CiJf4 .l:!.ad8 15 d5 exd5 16 CiJfxd5 (16 CiJcxd5 'it>h8 17 ife2 �e8 fizzles out to equality) 16 . . . 'it>h8 17 "VWe2 CiJxd5 18 CiJxd5 .i.c5. Now White may initiate a forced sequence with 19 � 5 g6 20 ifxh7+ 'it>xh7 21 CiJf6+ 'it>g7 22 CiJxd7 .l:!.fe8 2 3 i..g 5 .i.d4! (the point) 24 .i.xd8 ll.xd8 2 5 .i.a4 I!.xd7 26 I!.d2 @f6 27 Itel I!.d6

28 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 29 I!.xd4 l:Ixd4 30 1Ixc6+ 'it>g7 and Black will draw this endgame. Some of the given l ines above are quite long and complicated, but a novelty at such an

early stage in a rather non-forcing position offers a wide scope of possibilities . The new idea 9 . . . ifd7 ! ? i s worth exploring if you want to look for an early way out of known theory. I could not find a way to obtain a substantial advantage for White, but still I strongly advise doing some analysis on your own to get a feel for the arising positions.

Back to the standard 8 . . . CiJxd5 : 9 0-0

The main move, but White has tried a direct attack without castling as well . For these attempts please see the game Sokolov-Gundavaa, below. 9 . . . CiJc6

1 3 3

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

This is the absolute main position of the whole ..td3 and lt:Je2 IQP complex. White now has a huge range of moves; it almost seems as if all the moves that don 't blunder material have been tried. This wide choice makes learning the l ine somewhat tricky for Black, but he usually can follow a general regrouping plan , consisting of the moves . . . :es, . . . g6 and . . . ..tf8-g7. The bishop on c8 is sometimes developed via b7, but quite often Black manages to play . . . e6-eS to use it on its original diagonal , for example, on e6.

Let's have a look at the enormous variety of moves now - but don't be scared: this whole l ine rewards understanding of the position far more than knowledge of any con­crete l ines. So my advice is to go through the l ines below and study some more annotated games to gain a better feel for the arising middlegames. If you manage that, you will find good moves over the board and won't need to learn them by heart.

Just a quick additional idea: what about the move 9 . . . :e8 ! ? here? This has only been played a couple of times, but seems logical enough. If Black wants to go . . . .i.f8 and . . . g6 , why not prepare this immediately? Here 10 ..tc2 (10 a3 ..tf8 11 lt:Jxds exds is about equal ) 10 . . . lt:Jc6 transposes to 10 ..tc2 after 9 . . . lt:Jc6 below. I don 't want to deeply explore yet an­other sideline, but it's something to analyse if you want a surprise early on.

On move 10 White needs to decide between the classic IQP battery with ..tc2 and �d3 or other plans. The next game, Sokolov-Gundavaa, examines the ..tc2 and �d3 ideas, while this game analyses the less violent lines. 10 ..te4

Tomashevsky is an expert on the Rubinstein, so his choice is interesting. Usually if White avoids 10 ..tc2 or 10 a3 with ..tc2 to follow, the main alternative i s the simplistic 10 lt:Jxds exds 11 lt:Jf4, which leads to the well -known 'ram' pawn structure with total symme­try in the centre.

1 3 4

Nimzo - l n di a n : 4 e3 o - o 5 i.. d3 cs 6 tLJ e 2

Of course, i n this structure piece activity i s key and quite often the little tempo edge from being White secures him a slight advantage that Black needs to defend against care­fully. He should equalize, but this l ine is somewhat annoying, especially if you want to pre­serve some chances to play for a win. After 11 ... i..d6 White might try:

a) 12 .U.el i..xf4 (a novelty by Tomashevsky; like many top players he plays the Nimzo with both colours) 13 i..xf4 �f6 14 � S ! (otherwise, . . . .i.fs solves all Black's problems) 14 . . . h6 15 .i.es (after 15 .i.e3 ile6 16 .l:!.ad1 .l:!.fe8 Black is rock-solid once again) 1s . . . 'LJxes 16 "i;\Yxes "i;\Yxes 17 .l:!.xes .U.d8 and White i s slightly better, but Black should hold with some pre­cise moves. After 10 'LJxds it is very hard to create any winning chances, but in terms of

equality Black is not in serious danger. Here 18 .U.c1 i..e6 19 f4 .U.ac8 20 .U.xc8 i..xc8 21 .l:!.el ild7 22 .U.c1 .U.c8 23 .U.cs b6 24 .U.xc8+ (24 .U.xds ile6 25 .U.es .U.d8 is just equal as well) 24 . . . .i.xc8 led to a draw a couple of moves later in S.Atalik-E .Tomashevsky, Loo 2013.

b) After 12 i.e3 Black should proceed in similar fashion to main l ine: 12 . . . .i.xf4 13 .i.xf4 �f6 14 .i.e3 i.fs (the key idea; Black tries to exchange the light-squared bishops, so in or­der to try something, White avoids the trade) 15 i..e2 .U.fe8 16 "i;\Yd2 "i;\Yg6 17 .U.fel as 18 a3 a4 19 .U.acl 'LJas 20 �4 'LJc4.

1 3 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

Black had equalized comfortably here i n N .Khurtsidze-G.Sargissian , Caleta 2012. The only drawback: as in this game, a rating advantage of about 2SO points for Black is mean­ingless as the position is so simplified that there is no life left in it.

The other move to have a look at is 10 �c2, after which there is no reason to deviate from the usual formula of playing 10 . . . g6, intending to play . . . l:!.e8 and . . . ..tf8 to set up the fianchetto later. Now 11 l:!.d1 l:!.e8 12 ..te4 ..tf8 13 'ii'd3 ..tg7 14 �f3 transposes into 10 ..tc2 l:!.e8 11 �d3 g6 12 l:!.d1 ..tf8 13 �f3 ..tg7 14 ..te4, which is discussed in the next game. A funny transposition, but it shows that . . . l:!.e8, . . . . �.f8 and . . . g6 i s the almost universal re­sponse to various moves by White, often leading to similar or even identical positions via different specific move orders.

Let's return to the main game's 10 ..te4, after which Black replied: 10 . . . ll'lf6

In fact the by-now-well-known set-up starting with 10 . . . l:!.e8 is viable here as well . After 11 �d3 g6 12 �f3 (this is a key difference to other l ines examined before; the pressure on dS is increased much quicker here) 12 ... ll'lxc3 13 bxc3 ..tf8 (the computer prefers 13 ... ..td6 with about equal play, but after ... l:!.e8 and ... g6 the retreat to f8 is just more natural ; there is a concrete issue with it, though) White might try:

a) 14 ..txc6? ! grabbing a pawn, but giving up the star bishop: 14 . . . bxc6 1S �xc6 ..td7 16 �f3 l:!.c8 17 ..tf4 ..tg7 18 ll'lg 3 ..tc6 19 �e3 es 20 dxes g s 21 ..txg s �dS reveal s some great, dynamic play by Black.

1 3 6

N im z o - l n d ia n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 .i d3 cs 6 0. e 2

With computer-like accuracy White should maybe hold, but i n a practical game i t i s very hard to defend. Indeed, after 22 '1!\Yf3 '1!\Yxf3 23 gxf3 .ixf3 24 .ie3 l:i.xc3 2 5 .ixa7 h S 26 l:i.ac1 .ixes 27 l:i.xc3 .ixc3 28 l:i.b1 h4 29 0.fs l:i.e4 30 .ie3 @h7 3 1 J:i.c1 .if6 32 h3 @g6 33 0.h6 .ies (White has done a good job up to now) 34 0.g4?? l:Ixg4+ 3 5 hxg4 h3 36 l:tc6+ f6 he resigned in V.Gagarin-J .Stocek, Nova Gorica 2004.

b) Much better is 14 .if4! , keeping the tension, and after 14 ... i.g7 15 .ixc6? ! Gust like in the previous note, this does not lead to anything; a move like 1s l:i.ad1 is tougher to face, but still 1s ... i.d7 16 l:tfe1 l:tc8 should be okay for Black: for instance, 17 ds exds 18 i.xds 'i¥f6 gets the queen safely off the d-file) 1s ... bxc6 16 'i¥xc6 ild7 17 'i¥a6 (17 °iVf3 l:tc8 actu-ally transposes to Gagarin-Stocek above) 17 . . . �c8 18 �d3 l:td8 19 .Uac1 'iYc6 20 ife3 '1!Wa6 21 i.es f6 22 i.g 3 i.bs 2 3 l:i.fe1 l:i.e8 24 h4 .tc4 2 5 hS g s 26 @h1 J:!.ad8 Black has enough com­pensation for the pawn, although after multiple mistakes, probably time-trouble induced, White won in l . Lempert-R.Grabert, Werfen 1992 .

The conclusion is : after 10 .ie4 the standard reply 10 . . . l:i.e8 is playable once again, but does involves a pawn sacrifice due to the pressure on dS. Going for that or the solid but slightly passive move of the main game is a big choice. Personally I would go for the pawn sacrifice line, keeping the pieces active and gaining the bishop-pair if White decides to grab the pawn. 11 .if3 .id7

1 3 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

It is difficult to get . . . b6 and . . . .tb7 in when White has put his bishop on f3, so this is the only way to get this piece involved. 12 a3 .te7

In stead, 12 ... .td6 13 .tg s is an annoying pin. The fact that the computer assesses the line 13 . . . h6 14 .th4 g s 15 .tg 3 .txg 3 16 fxg 3 l:!.c8 as about equal is somewhat unsettling to my mind. While it may be better than it looks (terrible ! }, it still should favour White consid­erably. 13 b4

White's whole strategy is geared to queenside play, so this fits in nicely. Possibly, though, the alternative 13 .tf4 is more testing : for instance, 13 ... i..e8 (13 ... 'iWb6

14 b4 l:!.fd8 15 �d3 .te8 16 .l:.fd1 is somewhat better for White) 14 dS exds 15 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds 16 .txds .tf6 sees White keeping a small edge that Black should be able to neutralize with precise play. A possible continuation runs 17 tt:Jc3 .td7 18 .l:.el .tfs 19 'iWb3 'iib6 20 �xb6 axb6 and sees Black equalizing at the end with the idea of . . . b6-bS-b4. If you prefer a more active game than this, you should probably go for 10 . . . l:!.e8 instead. 13 ... �bS

A good regrouping. 14 @h1 l:!.d8 15 .tf4 .td6 16 .tgs .te7 17 i..e3

This allows Black to equalize completely, but White didn 't have much anyway. 17 l:!.cl h6 18 i..h4 .te8 19 bS tt:Jxd4 is a funny line, leading to equality as wel l : 20 tt:Jxd4

�f4 21 .tg3 �xd4 22 .txb7 'iVxdl 23 J::l.fxdl l:!.xdl+ 24 l:!.xd1 l:!.d8 2 5 J::l.xd8 .txd8 and the draw is not far away. 17 ... as?

17 . . . bS ! was the way to equalize completely.

1 3 8

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 .i. d3 cs 6 !D e 2

With . . . a s Black will clear the queenside. There are various repetitions possible here, such as 18 .i.f4 'iVb6 19 .i.e3 'iVb8 and 18 a4 a6 19 .i.f4 'iVb6 (19 ... 'iVb7 is possible here to continue) 20 .i.e3 'iVb8. A try for more is 18 ds, but 18 . . . exds 19 l?Jxds l?Jxds 20 iVxds as 21 l:!.ac1 axb4 22 axb4 l:!.a6 23 .i.f4 'iVb6 is just equal a s well . A spectacular way to draw now i s 24 iVh s g6 2 S 'iVh6 .i.xb4 26 .i.ds .i.e8 27 .l::txc6 .i.xc6 28 .i.xf7+ @xf7 29 iVxh7+ @f8 30 iVh8+ with perpetual check.

18 bs l?Ja7 19 a4 l?Jc8 20 iVb3 l?Jb6 This was Black's idea when going 17 ... as. He is still quite sol id, but White can press

without taking any risks.

21 .l:!.fd1 .l:!.c8 22 .i.f4 'iYa7 23 d s

White tries to make use of his superior piece placement. 23 ... exd s

The somewhat computerish move 23 . . . l:!.c4 ! ? is surprisingly good: 24 l:!.acl l:!.ac8 2S .i.es .i.d8 seems to be okay for Black, but it's not a very human continuation . 24 l?Jxd s l?Jfxd s 2 5 .i.xd s l?Jxd s 26 iVxd s .i.e6 27 iVf3 .i.cs?

This very natural -looking move leads to real trouble. 27 . . . l:!.d8 was better, but still tough for Black to defend: for example, 28 .i.c7 l:!.xd1+ 29 l:!.xdl iVcs ! ? (29 ... l:!.c8 30 b6 iVa6 31 l?Jd4 is al so very problematic) 30 iVxb7 l:!.c8 31 .i.xas iVc2 32 l:!.e1! iVxa4 33 l?Jg1! l:!.e8 34 'ilVc6 l:!.f8 3 S .i.c7 and Black struggles once again. 28 .i.es .i.xf2

28 . . . 'iVb6 wouldn 't have helped much due to 29 l?Jf4 f6 30 i.c3 i.xf2 3 1 .i.xf6 gxf6 32 l?Jxe6 iVxe6 33 iVxf2 l:!.e8 with a large advantage for White. 29 l?Jf4

1 3 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

29 ... .l:!e8? 29 ... 'ii'e3 was the only move to fight: 30 ifxe3 ..txe3 31 tl'ixe6 fxe6 32 l:td7 .l:!cs 33 .l:!xg7+

Wh8 ! 34 ..tf6 .l:tfs 35 .l:i.g6+ .l:txf6 36 .l:txf6 ..td4 37 l:tafl ..txf6 38 .l:txf6 .l:!d8 39 @g1 .l:td4 and it's still a game. 30 tl'ihs ife3 31 tl'if6+

The point. 31 • . . @hS 32 ifxe3 ..txe3 33 tl'ixe8 .l:!xe8 34 ..tc7 b6 35 .l:!a3 ..tcs 36 .l:!ad 3 'lt>g8 37 h3 ..tc4 3 8

.l:!d8 Wf8 39 ..td6+ ..txd6 40 .l:!8xd6 .l:!e6 4 1 .l:!xe6 ..txe6 42 .l:!d6 ..t b 3 43 .l:!xb6 We7 4 4 .l:!a6 1-0

Summary If White avoids the ..tc2 and ifd3 battery as he did in this game, then play takes on a much quieter character. With precise play Black equalizes quite comfortably, but 10 tl'ixds is not very exciting to face. It is difficult to avoid these kind of dry l ines altogether in a repertoire while still recommending sound lines in the first place. If you really must avoid it, then 8 . . . ifxds followed by 9 . . . if d7 is an early alternative.

Game 14 l .Sokolov-B.Gundavaa

Jakarta Open 2013

1 d4 tl'if6 2 c4 e6 3 tl'ic3 ..tb4 4 e3 o-o 5 ..td3 cs 6 tl'ige2 d S 7 cxd s cxd4 8 exd4 tl'ixd s 9 o-o What could be more natural ? However, White has been known to delay castling or even

to avoid it altogether. Let's have a look at these possibilities : a) 9 ..tc2 and now 9 . . . tl'ic6 10 ifd3 g6 i s the most obvious and satisfactory response:

1 4 0

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 .i. d3 cs 6 t:f:, e 2

a1) 11 a 3 e s ! ? i s a new move and now w e need t o check: a11) 12 axb4? Cf:,dxb4 13 'ir'd1 exd4 14 o-o dxc3 15 bxc3 Cf:,xc2 16 'ir'xc2 .i.fs with an ex­

tra pawn for Black. a12) 12 0-0 .txc3 13 bxc3 .tfs 14 'ir'd1 .txc2 15 'ir'xc2 exd4 (1s ... l:Ie8 ! ?} 16 Cf:,xd4 Cf:,xd4 17

cxd4 l:Ie8 with an excellent anti - IQP set-up for Black. a13) 12 dxes seems relatively best, although after 12 ... .tfs 13 'ir'd2 .txc2 14 'ir'xc2

.i.xc3+ 15 Cf:,xc3 .l:te8 16 o-o l:Ixes White struggles to maintain equality: for instance, 17 Cf:,xds Cf:,d4! 18 'ir'c7 .l:txds 19 'ir'xb7 .l:i.b8 20 'ir'a6 l:tbb5 and now White needs to find 21 ©h1 ! not to lose immediately.

a2) 11 h4?! is al so directly punished by 11. . .eS .

Now, for example, 12 dxes .tfs 13 'ir'd2 Cf:,xc3 14 bxc3 'ir'xd2+ 15 .txd2 .txc2 16 cxb4 Cf:,xes leaves Black slightly better. Of course, he can instead just retreat to d6 or e7, but why not fight fire with fire? Indeed, we can conclude that this particular move order is not work-

1 4 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

ing for White at all , s o he should try a different move order i f he intends to delay castling. b) 9 a3 .i.d6 10 .i.c2 tt:lc6 11 'ilfd3 (castl ing here or the move before just transposes to the

main line) 11 . . . g6 (much simpler than 11 . . . 'i\Vh4 12 .i.g s 'ilfh s 13 g4 'ilfg6 14 'ilfd2 fs 1s gxfs l:txfs 16 l:tg1 which led to a complete mess in M.Valles-J .Campos Moreno, Chambery 2014) 12 tt:Je4 (12 h4 tt:lxc3 13 bxc3 es gives Black the usual good counterplay in the centre, just as happens too after the superior 12 o-o tt:Jxc3 13 bxc3 es ) and now I'd like to suggest a new move instead of 12 . . . ile7, although that is fine: 12 . . . 'ilfas+ ! ?.

Now: bl) 13 tt:J2c3 .i.e7 14 o-o (14 h4? tt:ldb4 is one point) 14 . . . l:td8 with a fine position . b2) 13 i.d2 tt:Jcb4 14 o-o (14 'i\Vb3 tt:Jxc2+ lS 'ilfxc2 'ilfb6 16 tt:Jxd6 'ilfxd6 is about equal)

14 . . . tt:Jxd3 lS i.xas tt:l3f4 16 tt:Jxf4 ilxf4 17 tt:Jc3 .id7 again with equality. Returning to 9 0-0:

9 . . . tt:lc6

1 4 2

Nimzo - l n di a n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 .i. d3 cs 6 li:J e 2

10 ..tc2

A rather popular move is 10 a3, which prepares the battery with ..tc2 and �d3, and makes sure that Black's bishop is not able to retreat all the way to f8. I recommend 10 . . . .i.d6 here. This move is rarely seen in IQP positions with a knight on f3, but here it i s justified because of the additional option of playing . . . �4. This queen sortie defuses White ideas of his own kingside play, as does

11 li:Je4 (or 11 ..tc2 �4! 12 g3 �5 13 li:Je4 ..te7 14 li:J2C3 �xdl 15 1ixd1 11d8 and it was about equal in M.Wiedenkeller-N .Renman, Sundsvall 1989; once the queens are off in these positions, it 's White who needs to be the more careful ) 11 . . . .i.c7, keeping the . . . �4 idea al ive.

In stead, the conventional 11 ... ..te7 leads to more usual IQP play, as in, for example, the classic game G .Kamsky-N.Short, Linares 1994: 12 .i.c2 b6 13 �d3 g6 14 .i.h6 .l::i.e8 15 11ad1 ..tb7 16 .l::i.fel 11c8 17 ..tb3 a6 18 li:J2g 3 li:Jb8 19 �f3 11c7 20 lllh s llld7 21 h4 tt:J7f6 22 lllhxf6+ tt:Jxf6 2 3 ds li:Jxe4 24 dxe6 fs 2 5 .l::i.xd8 11xd8 26 1id1 and Short had seen enough. This is a drastic example of things going badly wrong for Black. Certainly there are ways to improve his play, but in general the position seems easier for White to play.

After 11. . . .i.c7 White has tried a couple of moves: for instance, 12 .i.c2, after which 12 . . . �4 again leads to fine play for Black.

Black slowly took over after 13 g3 (or 13 h3 h6 14 �d3 :!.d8 15 li:Jd2 li:Jf6 16 li:Jf3 � 5 17 .i.f4 .i.xf4 18 li:Jxf4 �as 19 :!.fel °Cfilc7 and Black had equalized in V.Korchnoi-A.Yusupov, Ubeda 1997) 13 . . . � s 14 tt:J2c3 �xd1 1s 1ixd1 .i.b6 16 tt:Je2 h6 17 b3 11d8 18 .i.b2 .i.d7 19 li:Jcs 11ab8 20 11ac1 .i.e8 in J . Lautier-5.Arkhipov, Belgrade 1988. The ... .i.d6-c7 and ... �4 idea is the key to Black's play after 10 a3, avoiding the conventional IQP set-ups with ... ..te7. 10 . . . 1ie8

Going for the standard ... g6 and ... ..tf8-g7 regrouping. 11 �d3 g6

1 4 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

1 2 'i!Vf3 This is just one of many moves that White has tried here. Don't worry too much about

getting confused by the variety of options - Black's play is consistent and logical , with ex­cellent chances of finding the moves over the board in case you have forgotten the precise response.

The alternatives include: a) A rare move that was recently tested in a top GM encounter is 12 .ih6. Now in

D.Khismatullin-A.Riazantsev, Khanty-Mansiysk 2013, after 12 . . . .ie7 (there i s a very good alternative in 12 ... .id6, which immediately eyes the h2-pawn, intending ... 'i!Vh4; after 13 'i!Vd2 tbxc3 14 bxc3 es 1S dS tbas 16 tbg3 fS 17 .l:f.fe1 .id7 18 .id3 .l:f.c8 19 ii.g s? 'i!Vc7 20

tbe2? e4 the game was already over with White resigning in A. Lauber-S.Baumegger, Buda­pest 1997) 13 'i!Vf3 .if6 14 .l:tad1 .ih8 1s .l:tfe1 .id7 16 .ib3 tbce7 17 tbxds tbxds 18 .i.xds exds 19 h3 'iVb6? ! (the simple 19 . . . .ic6 was at least equal) 20 ttJf4 .ic6 21 tt:ih s?? (instead, 21 tbxds .l:txe1+ 22 .l:txe1 .i.xds 23 'i!Vxds .ixd4 24 .l:te2 leaves White with a nagging pull ; Black should hold, but it 's not fun to play) 21 . . . .ia4 (21 . . .fs ! ) 2 2 b3 gxh s 23 'i!Vg3+ the data­base shows '0-1', which does not make any sense. Maybe just the wrong result and the

game was actually agreed drawn here? In any case 12 i..h6 does not scare Black much . b) White has al so tried 12 a3. After the coming . . . .i.f8, the threat of . . . tbb4 is annoying, so

White gets that out of the picture immediately. The l ittle nudge i s often played at a later stage anyway. Here 12 ... .i.f8 13 J:te1? ! (13 .l:td1 is al so possible and most likely better, trans­posing to 12 .l:td1) 13 ... tbxc3 14 bxc3 es i s a very important idea.

1 4 4

Nimzo - ln di a n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 i.. d3 cs 6 tb. e 2

The capture on c 3 followed by . . . e6-eS i s the most rel iable way for Black t o play and . . . i..fs is an immediate threat. After 15 ..te3 ..tfs 16 'i!Vd1 ..txc2 17 'i!Vxc2 .l:tc8 Black was al ­ready a bit more comfortable in A.Onischuk-A.Karpov, Biel 1996.

c) 12 l:td1 i.f8 and now: cl) If White plays 13 a3, Black just completes his mini-plan with 13 . . . ..tg7 (it's al so pos­

sible to play a la Karpov and go 13 . . . ti:Jxc3 14 bxc3 es, but now 15 'iif3 keeps the game equal : for example, 1 s . . . exd4 16 ti:Jxd4 ti:Jxd4 17 cxd4 ..te6 18 ..te4 'iVti4 and it's still an in­teresting position with about equal chances) 14 ti:Je4 and now I l ike the straightforward approach of the game S.Kitte-D.Gross, German League 1999: 14 . . . ti:Jce7 15 ..tg s 'iYb6 16 i.a4

.l::td8 (Black sets up a reliable blockade on ds and tries to increase the pressure on d4) 17 ti:J2c3 ..td7 18 ti:Jxds exds 19 ti:Jc3 ..txa4 20 ti:Jxa4 "iWd6 and again it was about equal .

c2) White also has 13 "iWf3, getting away from the . . . ti:Jb4 threat, but trying to avoid a3 for the time being .

1 4 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - J n d i a n

With 13 . . . i.g7 1 4 i.e4 h e increases the pressure on d s when 14 . . . tt:'ice7 keeps control of the <ls-square, but the simplest solution is 14 . . . ll'ixc3 15 bxc3 es , activating the l ight­squared bishop and therefore addressing the most urgent issue of the position . Black has already equalized: for example, 16 i.e3 exd4 (there also is the active-looking move 16 ... �4. but the text is simple and good) 17 cxd4 'fie7 (Houdini suggests 17 ... i.e6, which seems fine as well) 18 tt:'ic3 h S 19 h3 i.d7 20 .l:!.ac1 .l:!.ac8 with about equal play in A.Kaspi­A.Khasin, Rishon le Zion 1997.

d) 12 ll'ie4 i.f8 13 a3 i.g7 14 i.g s was tried in K.Leenhouts-S.Fedorchuk, Vlissingen 2014. Now, instead of Fedorchuk's 14 .. .f6, I suggest 14 . . . 'fib6 15 .l:!.ad1 h6 16 i.h4 tt:'ice7 with even chances.

e) Yet another option on move 12 i s 12 i.b3. Here Black can again go for the usual re­grouping: 12 . . . i.f8 13 'ifg 3 (instead, 13 'fif3 transposes to the notes to Black's 12th in our main game) 13 . . . ll'ixc3 14 bxc3 and now I suggest the new continuation 14 . . . i.d7 (14 . . . ll'ias led to a surprisingly quick defeat in A.Guseinov-M.Ulibin, Uzhgorod 1988: 15 i.g s i.e7 16 i.xe7 flixe7 17 tt:'if4 b6 18 .l:!.fe1 tt:'ixb3 19 axb3 i.b7 20 .l:tes @h8 21 dS f/Jf6 22 dxe6 fxe6 23 .l:!.ae1 .l:!.ad8 24 h4 .l:td6 2 5 hs gxh s 26 tt:'ixh s f/Jf7 27 .l:!.fs and Ulibin resigned; Black's play can be improved after 14 . . . ll'ias, which is in itself not that bad, but 14 . . . i.d7 seems to me more flexible and costs less time) 15 i.g s ll'ie7 ! (one important point; Black preserves the dark­squared bishop) 16 �4 (16 .l:Ifd1? ! ll'ifs ! is already preferable for Black) 16 ... 'fias 17 ll'ig 3 ..ltc6 with about equal chances.

It's difficult to analyse a new move l ike 14 . . . ..ltd7 here as both sides have so many possi­ble options. That i s a general feature of these IQP positions - they offer a lot of scope for creativity as there are few forced lines.

Back to Sokolov's 12 'fif3 : 12 . . . f/Jf6

This is okay for Black, but he might also go for 12 . . . i.f8. Now after 13 i.b3 tt:'ixc3 14 bxc3 White has obviously prevented ... e6-eS, but Black can switch plans with 14 ... ll'ias ! .

1 4 6

Nimzo - ln d i a n : 4 e3 o - o 5 Ji.. d3 cs 6 Ci'J e 2

This leads t o fine play, a s Black either obtains the bishop-pair o r establishes control over the important c4-square : 1S Ji..f4 Ci'Jxb3 16 axb3 'i'dS (this exchanges queens or wins a pawn; White wants to avoid the endgame against the bishops, so he now goes for the pawn sacrifice to obtain some activity) 17 'i'e3 ! 'i'xb3 18 Ci'Jg 3 f6? (18 . . . .llg7 was better, with White having compensation for the pawn, but no more) 19 Ci'Je4 ile7 20 ii.d6 il..xd6 21 J::i.fb1 'i'c2 22 Ci'Jxd6 l::1.e7 23 c4 es and now 24 'i'a3 was winning for White, instead of the 24 h3 ? of B.Kantsler-V.Ruban, Podol sk 1989, which allowed Black back into the game. 13 'i'e4

13 'i'xf6 Ci'Jxf6 is just nothing for White. After 14 ii.g s ile7 1s l:tfd1 �d8 16 �ac1 il..d7 17 h4 'it>g7 18 Ci'Je4 Ci'Jb4 19 i..b3 ilc6 20 Ci'Jcs h6 21 i..f4 �ac8 22 a3 Ci'Jbds Black was even

slightly better in S.Gligoric-T.Shaked, Cannes 1998. 13 . . . i..d7

A good choice, intending . . . Ci'Jce7 and later . . . i..c6. 14 h4 li'Jce7 15 i..gs 'i'g7 16 �ad1 ii..c6 17 'i'g4 �ac8

1 4 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

Black has a strong blockade on ds and a harmonious set-up. White lacks a concrete plan and needs to already be careful to gain enough activity to compensate for the IQP. 18 i.b3 h6 19 i.c1

Here 19 i.xe7 CDxe7 20 dS i.xc3 21 dxc6 i.xb2 22 cxb7 .l:t.c7 23 hs l:.xb7 24 .l:l.d2 gives White some compensation for the pawn. I am not sure if it i s sufficient, but it is more ac­tive than the game where Sokolov is just slightly worse without any great counterplay. 19 ... i.d6 20 l:tfe1 iDf5 21 �h3 h 5 22 i.g5 i.e7 23 i.c2 l:.cd8 24 a 3 a6 2 5 i.b3? l:.d7?

2s . . . iDb6 was strong . How does White defend the d-pawn? 26 i.xd 5 i.xd 5 27 iDf4?

27 CDxds J:Ixds 28 �3 was not very attractive for White, but necessary. 21 ... i.b3 28 l:.c1

28 .. . �xd4? In stead, Black could have called the 'all -in bluff' with 28 . . .f6 . Maybe he was afraid of 29

ds, but 29 . . .fxgs 30 CDxe6 'il'f7 31 hxg s bS looks to be winning for Black. That said, even af­ter 28 . . . 'i!Vxd4 Black has a huge edge.

29 CDce2 'ii'b6 30 i.xe7 l:.dxe7 3 1 CDc3 @g7 32 g4 hxg4 3 3 'i!Vxg4 l:.h8 34 h 5 l:.h6 35 iDe4?

3 5 'i!Vg s is still very much a fight. 35 .. . e5 36 hxg6

36 iDe2 i.e6 also wins for Black. 36 ... fxg6

Probably both players were under time pressure, as taking the knight with 36 . . . exf4! was very easy. The text move still wins though . 3 7 iDg3 CDxg3 38 'ii'xg3 'i!Vf6 39 iDh3 i.d5 40 l:.c3 l:.h5 41 l:.ce3 i.c6 42 f4

1 4 8

N i m zo - l n di a n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 i.. d3 cs 6 liJ e 2

42 •• Jixh 3?? Just 42 . . . 'iifs 43 l:!.fl .l:tf7 keeps a winning attack in hand.

43 'iixh3 'iixf4 44 'iig3?! After 44 J:If1 ! White i s back in the game.

44 . . • J:.f7 4S @h2 'iih6+ 46 'ilVh3 J:.f2+ 47 'it>g1 'iHxh3 48 J:.xh3 J:.g2+ 49 @f1 J:.xb2 so J:.he3 e4 S1 @g1 'it>f6 S 2 J:.1e2 l:.b1+ S 3 @f2 @es 54 l:!.e1 l:!.b2+ s s l:!.1e2 J:.xe2+ S6 'it>xe2 gs S7 .l:th3 @f4 s8 l:!.h7 .i.ds 59 J:Id7 i..c4+ 60 @e1 g4 61 l:!.xb7 g3 62 l:!.c7 .i.bs??

And here 62 . . . .i.ds wins quickly. 63 l:.f7+

Now, all of a sudden, it's a draw. 63 . . • @e3 64 l:!.g7 @f3 6S l:.f7+ 'it>g4 66 l:.g7+ 'lt>f3 67 l:.f7+ 'it>e3 68 J:.g7 @f4 Yz-Yz

1 4 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

Summary A very hectic game full of ups and downs. It i s clear, however, that Black had a good game from the opening . The .ic2 and �d3 plan remains a respectable option for White, but does not need to be feared by Black, who will set up the typical defensive formations: ... .l:!.e8 fol ­lowed by . . . .if8-g7, and . . . t'i'Jce7 followed by . . . .id7-c6 are manoeuvres that should be re­membered.

Game 1 5

l .Sokolov-D.Swiercz French Tea m C h a m pio n s h i p 2013

1 d4 t'i'Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 t'i'Jc3 .ib4 4 e3 o-o 5 .id3 cs 6 t'i'Jge2 d 5 7 o-o

The more popular move, 7 cxds , was discussed in the previous two games. 7 . . . cxd4 8 exd4 dxc4 9 .ixc4

We have reached another IQP structure. Black now needs to decide on the important is­sue of where to place the b8-knight. My suggestion is to attack the d4-pawn. 9 . . . t'i'Jc6

This knight development al so usually means that Black will later fianchetto the c8-bishop by means of . . . b6 or . . . a6 and . . . bs , which is my preferred way to play. In stead of 9 . . . t'i'Jc6 there is al so 9 . . . t'i'Jbd7, intending to set up a blockade on dS like in the recent game A.Rakhmanov-G .Sargissian, Linares 2014: 10 �d3 t'i'Jb6 11 .ib3 l:!.e8 12 .ig s ile7 13 0,f4 .td7 14 �g 3 ilc6 15 .l:!.fel t'i'Jfds 16 .txe7 .l:!.xe7 17 t'i'Jh s �f8 18 .txds .txds 19 t'i'Jf6+ 'it>h8 20 t'i'Jfxds exds 21 .l:!.xe7 �xe7 and it was about equal . In general I prefer 9 . . . t'i'Jc6 approaches, though ; it is more dynamic to attack the IQP than to blockade it. 10 .tgs

A natural developing move, pinning the knight. White has tried various move orders

1 5 0

Nim z o - l n d ia n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 .i. d3 cs 6 t}j e 2

and set-ups here, but it seems that Black can always go for a set-up with . . . a6, . . . b 5 , . . . i..b7 and, if necessary, retreating the other bishop to e7. Usually White will play a3 at some point, so the timing of this retreat is easy. It is very important, though, to evaluate the con­sequences of the d4-d5 advance correctly, as it often leads to simplifications that give Black very little chances of winning and sometimes even leave with White a nagging edge. A key resource for Black is the move . . . I:ta7, intending . . . .l::td7.

Let's look at some concrete examples, beginning with the most popular alternative to 10 i..g5 , 10 a3, immediately asking the bishop about its future. For the sake of simplifying the repertoire I recommend 10 . . . i..e7 here, but 10 . . . i..d6 i s an excellent alternative: for ex­ample, 11 h3 (11 i..g 5 ?? i..xh2+ is the simple point of 10 ... i..d6} 11 ... h6 12 i..e3 t}je7 13 1i'd2 i..d7 14 I:tad1 I:tc8 15 i..a2 i..c6 and Black was in good shape in J .Stocek-V.Zvjaginsev, Leg ­nica 2013.

To have a coherent set-up my preference is 10 . . . i..e7, though. Now White has tried many moves - against all of them Black can set up his queenside as described above. Let's have a look:

a) 11 .i.f4 a6 12 I:tc1 b5 13 i..a2 and now the original rook manoeuvre 13 ... I:ta7 ! (prefer­able to 13 ... .i.b7 14 d5 exd5 15 t}jxd5 t}jxd5 16 i..xd5 I:tc8 17 t}jc3 i..f6 and White was better in E .Relange-M.Piper, Oakham 1992) .

Here the most critical move is 14 d5, after which 14 . . . .l::td7 15 1i'c2 exd5 16 t}jxb5 axb5 17 'ii'xc6 d4 leads to good, active play for Black. It should be dynamically equal .

b} 11 i..g 5 is examined in the notes to move 11 in the main game. c) The sl ightly passive looking move 11 i..e3 contains some poison (think of the . . . I:ta7

resource). Black can play 11 ... a6 12 i..a2 b5 , but now in the game D.Shchukin-P-Kiriakov, St. Petersburg 1997, instead of 13 t}jf4, White could have played 13 ds exd5 14 t}jxds i..e6 15 t}jef4 t}jxds 16 ii..xd5 .i.xds 17 t}jxd5 i..d6 18 I:tc1 t}je7 19 g 3 t}jxds 20 1i'xds I:te8 21 I:tfd1 i..es and while Black will draw this with precise play, it is not much fun, so if you want a more complex game you should deviate on move 12 : for example, with 12 . . . h6 or 12 . . . i..d6.

1 5 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d 809 0 - l n d i a n

I n the aforementioned game after 13 tt:'if4 Black got good play with 13 . . . b 4 1 4 axb4 tt:'ixb4 1S Wif3 .l:!.b8 16 .i.b1 .i.b7 17 'fih 3 g6 and White's pieces were not ideally placed for a king­side attack, while the IQP remained a long-term weakness.

d) White may also decide not to develop the bishop for the moment and go for the typi­cal move 11 'iid3, possibly connected with l:Id1 and relocating the queen along the third rank. Black should respond as usual with 11. . .a6 12 l::td1 bS 13 .i.a2, reaching an important moment. This position has been reached multiple times, but the most interesting move has not yet been tried here, namely 13 ... l:Ia7 ! ? (worse is 13 ... .i.b7 14 dS ! , but 13 ... b4 is a sound alternative: for instance, 14 tt:Ja4 Wias 1S .i.b3 'fibs 16 .i.c2 ilb7 17 .i.e3 and a very early draw was agreed here in V.Chekhov-J .Dorfman, Lvov 1984). After 14 Wif3 (White has other moves, of course, but Black will play . . . l::td7 and . . . .i.b7 against almost all of them and I see no problems at all for Black) Black has:

d1) The amazingly ignorant move 14 . . . l:Id7 is playable : 1S ilxe6 (otherwise, the coming . . . ilb7 makes the queen on f3 look quite absurd) 1s . . . tt:'ixd4 (even 1s . . .fxe6 is feasible : 16 l\Vxc6 .i.d6 17 'iif3 and Black has good compensation for the pawn : for example, 17 . . . l:Idf7 18 .i.g s Wib6 19 l:Iac1 ilb7 20 Wih3 as and it's unclear) 16 tt:Jxd4 l:Ixd4 17 l:Ixd4 Wixd4 18 ilxc8 l:Ixc8 and it's completely equal .

d2) The more natural 14 . . . tt:'ias is also perfectly fine. Now 1s Wig3 l::td7 16 b4 tt:'ic4 17 a4 ild6 18 Wid3 tt:Jes ! is a funny line to illustrate Black's chances. White already fights for equal play here.

Overall , the new move 13 ... l:Ia7 seems to be quite promising , with White's best response being rather unclear; 14 Wif3 at least allows more than one good reply.

Besides 10 a3, White al so sometimes tries 10 ile3 or 10 'if d3, but after the standard re­ply 10 ... a6 White hardly has anything better than 11 a3 anyway.

Returning to 10 ilg S :

1 5 2

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 e3 o - o 5 il.. d3 cs 6 tb e 2

10 . . . JJ..e7 11 �d3 This move is quite rare, but Ivan Sokolov is probably the leading expert on the Rubin­

stein , so his choice must be taken seriously. White has tried other moves more often, though:

a) The most popular move is 11 a3. White usually plays thi s move at some point to give his light-squared bishop a retreat square on a2 and to control b4, so that after a subse­quent �d3 the reply . . . tbb4 is not possible. Here the plan with . . . a6 and . . . bs gains in strength, because the problematic advance d4-d5 i s less l ikely due to . . . tiJxdS, exposing a drawback of il..g s , so we can go 11. . .a6 12 il..a2 bS :

a1 ) After 13 Ik1 il..b7 14 �d3 tbes 15 � 3 tbc4 16 il..xc4 bxc4 Black already had the bet­ter chances in C .Hoi -A.Chernin, Copenhagen 1984.

a2) More to the point is 13 'iVd3 il..b7 14 l:!,ad1 when Black has a wide choice. In the game S.Grigoriants-G .Timoschenko, Kiev 2001, he played the prophylactic 14 . . . l:i.e8 (the

1 5 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

more direct 14 . . . lbd5 and 14 . . . b4 are untested, but fine a s well) 15 � 3 b4 16 ttJa4? (16 i.xf6 .ixf6 17 lbe4 was necessary, with still about even play) 16 . . . �a5 17 lbc5 lbxd4! (probably White overlooked this ; now Black is clearly better) 18 .l:.xd4 �xc5 19 .l:.xb4 �xg 5 20 .l:.xb7 .l:.ab8 21 �f3 and now 21. . .�e5 ! would have been even more convincing than the game's 21. . .a5, which nevertheless led to a black victory rather quickly.

b) The move 11 .l:.c1 has little independent value after 11. . .a6, although Black can also try to play l ike in the main game with 11. ..lbd5 ! ? 12 .ixe7 lbcxe7 13 �3 liJf6 14 .l:.fd1 a6 15 a4 lbc6 16 �a3 �e7 17 �xe7 lbxe7, with equality in J .Johansson-T.Sammalvuo, Espoo 1998. After 11. . .a6 White has nothing better than 12 a3, which transposes to variation 'a1' after 12 . . . b5 13 .ia2. A rare independent option is 13 .ixf6? ! .ixf6 14 d5 lbe7 15 ..ta2 exd5 16 ttJf4 .ib7 17 .l:.e1 g6 18 b4, but now in the high-level game G .Kamsky-V.Kramnik, Mos­cow 2007, Black could have played 18 . . . d4 (instead of 18 . . . .ig 5 19 �g4 lbf5 20 .l:.cd1 d4 and a draw was agreed) 19 lbe4 ..txe4 20 .l:.xe4 .l:!.c8 and while the computer clearly exaggerates Black's chances here, it is clear that White does not have enough compensation.

c) A surprisingly popular move is 11 �d2, which looks quite aimless to me. It connects the rooks, but does not combine well with the IQP play. Black even has a pleasant choice:

cl) 11. . .a6 12 .l:.ad1 b5 13 .id3 (13 .ib3 lba5 does not convince either) 13 . . . ttJb4 14 .ib1 i.b7 15 liJf4 �d6 16 .l:.fe1 J::tad8 with a fine anti- IQP position for Black in M.Szuminski­W.Kruszynski, Poznan 1995 .

c2) Of course, there is al so 11. . .b6 12 J::tad1 .ib7, which is slightly more attractive than usual . With . . . b6 and . . . .ib7 Black is one move quicker on the queen side and so gets in a well-timed . . . lba5 . Let's have a look at the game I .De Vita-M.Womacka, Olomouc 2004: 13 a3 .l:.c8 14 .ia2 liJd5 15 .ie3 lba5 16 �d3 �d7.

White has no active play here and now crumbled quickly: 17 l:!.c1 .l:.fd8 18 b4 liJxC3 19 .l:.xc3 lbc6 20 f4? (this i s just too weakening) 20 . . . g6 21 .l:.d1 .if6 22 .ib3 lbe7 23 .l:.xc8 l:!.xc8 24 .l:!.c1 .l:!.xc1+ 25 .ixc1 �c6 and White resigned.

Returning to 11 �d3 :

1 54

Nimzo - l n dia n : 4 e3 o - o 5 i.. d3 cs 6 ti'J e 2

11 . . . ti'Jds This was a novelty by the 2011 World Junior Champion . Black may again go for the standard recipe of 11 . . . a6 here. After 12 l:i.ad1 (12 a3 seems

better to me and will transpose to 11 a3 after 12 . . . b5 13 i..a2 .i.b7 14 l:i.ad1, and we've reached the game Grigoriants-Timoshenko, above), I suggest the new move 12 ... ti'Ja5 ! ? 13 d5 (trying to make something out of White's better development; otherwise, he will just have his bishop traded for no compensation) 13 . . . ti'Jxc4 14 'iVxc4 and now:

a) 14 . . . b5 15 'iVh4 exd5 16 tl'Je4 .l::te8 17 ti'Jxf6+ .ixf6 18 .ixf6 'iixf6 19 'iixf6 gxf6 leads to an endgame with an extra pawn for Black. His wrecked structure and the bad bishop give White excellent compensation though. I don 't recommend this l ine, which seems difficult to play for Black.

b) The fighting move is 14 . . . h6 15 .ixf6 (15 d6 hxg 5 16 'iVc5 is a computerish l ine, giving White some compensation for the pawn; after 16 . . . i..xd6 17 .l::txd6 'ilie7 18 .l::tfd1 g4 it's a fight in a tense position) 15 . . . i..xf6, pitting the bishop-pair against space and, most impor­tantly, a lead in development. The position probably is about equal : for instance, 16 'ifc5 b6 17 'ife3 'ifc7 18 d6 'ifc6 19 tl'Je4 i..d8 20 ti'Jd4 'ifd7 21 ti'Jf3 i..b7 with dynamic equality.

c) The simple (but boring) solution is 14 ... ti'Jxd5 15 ti'Jxd5 exd5 16 l:i.xd5 i..e6 17 l:i.xd8 i..xc4 18 .l:i.xa8 l:i.xa8 19 i..xe7 i..xe2 and it's a dead draw. 12 .ixds

12 .ixe7 ti'Jcxe7 was the alternative. To be honest I think White needs to be careful here. There are many ways to keep the game even, but playing too ambitiously can prove costly. After 13 l:i.ad1 b6 14 'ifg3 (an ambitious move; instead, 14 ti'Jxd5 is a sound option and it's dead equal after 14 . . . ti'Jxd5 15 i..xd5 'ifxd5 16 ti'Jc3 'ifa5 17 .l::tfe1 i..b7 18 .l::te5 'ifb4 19 'ife2 l:i.ac8 20 d5 exd5 21 ti'Jxd5 i..xd5 22 J::texd5) 14 . . . .ib7 15 .l::tfe1 .l::tc8 16 i..d3 "fiic7 I see no at­tack for White or chances to get rid of the IQP.

1 5 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

He is not significantly worse, but Black's position is the easier to play. I n general I think that Sokolov's move is the better choice for White if he wants a fight. 12 ... ..ltxgs 13 ..lte4

On 13 ..ltb3, I like the bishop redeployment 13 . . . g6 14 l:tad1 .ih6 1S l:tfe1 .ig7. The trans­formation on move 12 has given Black the two bishops and on g7 the extra bishop is safe from being exchanged. Similar to the main game, I think that White's most sensible ap­proach here involves d4-dS at the right moment to make use of his superior development. A sample l ine: 16 �e4 tt:Jas 17 ds es 18 d6 .ifs 19 'iib4 tt:Jxb3 20 W/xb3 W/d7 with about equal chances.

13 ... g6 14 l:tadl ..ltd7 15 a3

1s dS leads again to about equal play: 1s . . . exds 16 tt:Jxds l:te8 (16 . . . .ih6 ! ? i s also inter­esting) 17 tt:Jec3 fs 18 tt:Je3 (18 .if3 tt:Jes 19 Wid4 tt:Jxf3+ 20 gxf3 .ic6 21 f4 .ih4 does not trouble Black) 18 . . . .ie6 19 .ids W/e7 20 ..i.xe6+ W/xe6 21 tt:Jeds l:tac8 with about equal chances. 1s .. . Wlb6 16 �g3

16 ds can now be answered by 16 ... tt:Je7. 16 ... ..ltf6

1 5 6

Nimzo - ln d ia n : 4 e3 0 - 0 5 i. d3 cs 6 0i e 2

1 7 0ia4? The coming complications favour Black, so White should look for an improvement. 17

dS was probably the way to go, leading to a drawish position . A sensible line runs 17 . . . 0ie7 18 dxe6 i.xe6 19 °ii'f3 i.g7 20 b4 as (20 . . . 0ic6 ! ? avoids the immediate draw) 21 0ia4 ms 22 0iac3 "ii'b6 with a draw by repetition ahead. 17 ... 0ixd4! 18 .l:!.xd4 i.xa4 19 .l:!.b4

White could have gone for 19 .l:!.xa4, after which 19 ... 'ifbs was the point of Black's com­bination. Following 20 b3 'iVxe2 21 i.xb7 .l:!.ad8 22 'iVf3 'iVb2 (22 . . . 'iVxf3 2 3 i.xf3 l::td3 24 .l:!.xa7 .l:!.xb3 is better for Black, but tenable for White) 23 .l:!.xa7 .l:!.d2 24 i.a6 i.d4 2S .l:!.b7

"ii'xa3 26 i.c4 again White should hold. It is not much fun admittedly, so Sokolov's decision to avoid it is very understandable. 19 . . . 'it'as 20 i.xb7

20 'it'f4 i.g s 21 'iVg4 h s does not help much . 20 .•• .l:!.abS 21 'it'f4 "ii'es 22 .l:!.c1?

This loses. 22 "ii'xes i.xes 23 l:!.xa4 l::txb7 24 b4 l:td8 was to be preferred, but Black is

clearly on top here. 22 ... .l:!.fdS

22 . . . 'it'xf4 2 3 0ixf4 .l:!.fd8 was al so very strong . 23 'it'xes

23 Itxa4 'it'xf4 24 0ixf4 i.xb2 2 S .l:!.bl .l:!.xb7 al so wins for Black. 23 ••• i.xes 24 f4 i.f6 2s l:txa4 .l:!.xb7 26 b4 .l:!.d2

1 5 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

The remainder of the game is a brutal display of bishop against knight, combined with the more active rooks for Black. It's all over quickly. 27 @f1 l:tbd7 28 @e1 �d8 29 bS �b6 30 l:te4 l:ta2 31 a4 'it>g7 32 g4 l:td3 33 l:tec4 l:tf3 0-1

Summary Excellent play by Swiercz. Beating Ivan Sokolov in this style in one of his pet l ines is a great achievement. The line with 7 o-o is less popular than 7 cxds for a reason : Black does not need to know many concrete l ines to equalize. The queenside set-up with . . . a6 and . . . bs is a playable option almost all of the time, with timing being crucial to avoid a d4-d5 break­through being favourable for White, while the ... .l:i,a7-d7 manoeuvre is worth remembering. The main game shows that . . . 'bds is also a good option to release some pressure. Swiercz didn 't have any opening problems and went on to win a fine game against a Rubinstein expert.

1 5 8

C h a pte r E i g h t

N i m z o - l n d i a n : H u b n e r Va r i a t i o n , 4 e 3 o - o 5 �d 3 c s

6 lbf3 lbc6 7 o-o �xc3 8 bxc3 d 6

1 d4 ltJf6 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 .i.b4 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 ltJf3 liJc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

The Hilbner variation, my repertoire choice again st White's most natural set-up with .ltd3 and li:Jf3 in the Rubinstein . The concept of this set-up, giving up the bishop voluntarily to inflict the doubled pawns and then go . . . d6 and . . . es , dates back to Nimzowitsch himself (P .Johner-A.Nimzowitsch , Dresden 1926) . It was revived about 40 years later by Robert Hilbner, then a promising junior player who later came very close to challenging Anatoly Karpov for the world title .

While Hilbner's games showed the viability of the line, it only became popular in the

1 5 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

early 1970s when it was played by Bobby Fischer in Game 5 of the Match of the Century in Reykjavik to beat Bori s Spassky in just 27 moves. Nowadays the Hubner is still a very re­spectable line, but it is not that popular anymore at the top level . I think this is mostly due to the fact that other l ines with an open centre, like the Karpov variation, are easier to ana­lyse with engine assistance. Those open positions are much more likely to lead to forced lines that simplify to clear equality than the manoeuvring battles of the Hubner.

The Hubner variation leads to strategically very complex positions of a closed nature that offer wide scope for creativity. There are almost no forced lines that you need to know; it's all about structures, plans and patterns . I can assure you that many long-time Nimzo players rely on the opening's fundamental soundness and finding the right continuations while over the board, not at home using a chess engine.

Our coverage of the Hubner i s divided into five games: a) The game Ulko-Goganov (Game 16) gives an overview of White's less common devia­

tions before move 9, like early d4-d5 attempts. b) Often White goes 9 e4.

The game Kveinys-Sielecki (Game 17) analyses all the sidelines that White may play af­

ter 9 e4. c) 9 ... es 10 ds 0..e7 11 0..h4 is the main l ine of the Hubner with 9 e4. The game Anag­

nostopoulos-Antic (Game 18) is a recent example of White's most dangerous plan associ­ated with �f3 and 0..fs . Black's play is more demanding against this approach than against the older plans like Spassky's f4, where Black often even obtains the better game quite quickly.

On move 9 White is not obl iged to play the traditional 9 e4. Indeed, my database shows 16 different 9th moves that have tried, almost all the moves that don 't blunder material or are downright crazy. Don 't worry, we don 't need to look at all 16 moves, but the bad news is that that Games 19 and 20 will be full of transpositions and move order wrinkles. There is no way around that unfortunately.

1 6 0

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tDf3 tDc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

The good news is that very often we reach closed positions where understanding and strategic abilities are more important than concrete knowledge of some lines. With a proper feel for the position, you will find good moves and plans over the board in case you have forgotten certain details . The game Henrichs-Berkes (Game 19) shows the most dan­gerous plan for Black to face, initiated by the moves 9 0id2 es 10 dS.

This i s the most frequently played l ine after White has chosen to avoid 9 e4 in the first place. By avoiding e3-e4, the possibility of recapturing with the e-pawn after a later f2-f4 is introduced. However, I think that Black does not have any problems, as the situation in the centre is clarified early and he can react accordingly, as demonstrated in the actual game

and analysis. It is absolutely necessary to examine this game and Game 20 together to get a complete picture.

The direct 10 dS of Game 19 does not trouble Black too much, so White has tried to re­fine the idea of playing d4-d5 followed by a later f2-f4. Starting on move 9, White may adopt an approach that I call the 'Waiting Game' . He usually starts with 9 0id2 (though 9 .l:lb1, 9 .l::i.e1 and 9 h 3 may lead to the same), but does not clarify the central situation after 9 . . . es by going 10 ds directly, as examined in Game 19. In stead, he plays little strengthen­ing moves l ike .l:!.b1, h3, etc, and keeps the tension, hoping that Black will commit to some­thing that does not fit into the structure after d4-d5 i s ultimately played.

This sophisticated approach and White's other ideas on move 9 are seen in the game Van der Stricht-Sielecki (Game 20) . I consider the Waiting Game to be the most challenging approach for Black in the Hubner, as move order issues can become very confusing . The 'rules of thumb' approach described in the notes to Game 20 will , however, guide you through this tricky line.

1 6 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

Game 1 6

J .Ulko-A.Goganov I zhevsk 2014

1 d4 lZlf6 2 c4 e6 3 l2Jc3 .ib4 4 e3 0-0 5 .id3 Otherwise:

a) 5 a3 transposes to the Samisch, as discussed in Chapter 2 . b) s tt:Jge2 is the Reshevsky Variation examined in Chapter 6 . c) 5 tt:Jf3 has little independent value. After s . . . cs once in a while White tries 6 .ie2, but

Black can just answer in similar style as after 6 .id3, which would just transpose to the main l ine: 6 . . . tt:Jc6 7 0-0 .ixc3 8 bxc3 d6 (with the bishop on d3, White now could play e4, but this needs further preparation here) 9 tt:Jd2 es 10 dS l2Je7 11 'ili'c2 @h8 12 i.d3 . This is a sure sign that .ie2 was rather pointless - to be honest I don't quite understand the ration­ale behind it. In V.Balashov-E .Mochalov, Kaunas 2012, Black now went 12 . . . tt:Jg4, which I don 't like. It prepares .. .fs , but I prefer 12 . . . tt:Je8 with the same idea. s ... cs

6 l2Jf3 Again, 6 a3 leads to the Samisch, while 6 l2Jge2 was discussed in Chapter 7. The only independent move here i s 6 ds, after which Black may choose from two good

options; one leads to a decent Nimzo-Benoni structure, the other to a gambit in the spirit of the Blumenfeld. Let's examine:

a) A recent example of the Benoni-style set-up is 6 . . . exds 7 cxds d6 8 l2Jge2 tt:Jbd7 9 o-o a6 10 a4 .l:!.b8 11 h3 l::te8 12 @h1 tt:Jes 13 .ic2 bs 14 axbs axbs 15 e4 .id7 16 f4 l2Jg6 with sharp play in N.Short-D.Howell , Douglas 2014.

b) The gambit move 6 . . . bs was even played by Anatoly Karpov in his 1978 match against Viktor Korchnoi. After 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 cxbs a6 (in an earl ier game of the match Karpov had

1 6 2

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il.d3 cs 6 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 7 o-o i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

played 8 . . . .i.b7; his will ingness to repeat the gambit in a world championship match is quite a seal of approval and I 'll give the complete game because it features one of the most picturesque final positions in world championship history) 9 ti:Jge2 ds 10 o-o es 11 a3 Black has:

bl) 11 . . . axbs 12 il.xbs il.xc3 13 bxc3 il.a6 14 .l::.b1 �d6 1s c4 d4 16 ti:Jg3 ti:Jc6 17 a4 ti:Jas 18 �d3 �e6 19 exd4 cxd4 20 cs (after some inaccuracies by both sides, Korchnoi has now reached an almost winning position) 20 . . . .l::.fc8 21 f4 .l::.xcs 22 il.xa6 �xa6 23 �xa6? (23 .l::.b8+! @f7 24 .l::.bs wins even more convincingly, but the text move should al so be enough to win) 23 . . . .l:!.xa6 24 .i.a3 .l::.ds 2s ti:Jfs @f7 26 fxes .l::.xes 27 .l:!.bs ti:Jc4 28 .l::.b7+ @e6 29 ti:Jxd4+ @ds 30 ti:Jf3 (30 ti:Jc2 ! .l::.xa4 31 il.f8 is the computerish solution, but Korchnoi was in time trouble in almost every game of this match) 30 . . . ti:Jxa3 31 ti:Jxes @xes 32 .l::.e7+ @d4 33 .l::.xg7 ti:Jc4 34 .l::.f4+ ti:Je4 3 S .l::.d7+ @e3 36 .l::.f3+ @e2 37 .l::.xh7 ( 37 l:.e7 ti:Jcd2 38 .l:!.a3 is still

much better for White) 37 ... ti:Jcd2 38 .l:!.a3 l:.c6 (now White absolutely needs to move the g ­pawn to draw, but.. . ) 39 .l:!.a1?? ti:Jf3+ ! and Korchnoi resigned. This was Game 17 of the Ba­guio City match of 1978.

b2) 11 . . . il.xc3 12 ti:Jxc3 c4 13 il.e2 axbs 14 ti:Jxbs il.a6 1S ti:Jc3 ti:Jc6 is one improvement.

This should lead to about equal chances. 6 ... ti:Jc6 1 ds

This and 7 a3 are ways for White to avoid the main starting position of the Hubner after 7 o-o il.xc3 8 bxc3 d6, which is discussed in the subsequent games of this chapter.

Let's examine 7 a3. This is quite a curious way to play: isn't White just losing a tempo, wouldn't Black just capture voluntarily after 7 0-0, and isn't that just a Samisch with a misplaced knight on f3 ?

In some ways all these questions can be answered with 'yes', but there is a point to 7 a3 - players like Suat Atalik and Nikita Vitiugov know their openings and have some ideas behind their lines. Here White spends a move to force the typical Hubner structure, but with White's king uncommitted. This gives Black some additional issues to think about af-

1 6 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

ter 7 . . . .txc3+ 8 bxc3 d6.

This position al so arises from various different move orders, starting with 4 llJf3 or 4 a3. Frankly speaking , lots of weaker white players just stumble into this position without any particular idea and just play the Hubner a move down, but as explained above it's not that easy for Black. After 9 e4 (in fact the most popular move here i s 9 o-o, which simply is a Hubner a move down; by the way: this doesn't mean Black i s already better, as we are still talking about a very closed position here, although it should be a bit more comfortable than usual for Black and quite easy equality) 9 . . . es 10 ds llle7 White can try to expand on the kingside:

a) S.Atalik-J .Werle, Wijk aan Zee 2007, saw 11 g3 llle8 12 �c2 g6? ! , which weakens the dark squares. I prefer the straightforward 12 .. .fs .

One idea is the l ine 13 .tg s lllf6 ! (initiating a long , forced sequence) 14 exfs e4 15 .txe4 lllxe4 16 �xe4 .txfS 17 �e3 �d7 18 .txe7 .l:!.fe8 19 o-o .l:!.xe7 20 �d2 i..g4 and Black had

1 6 4

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 ljjf3 ll:ic6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

excellent play for the pawn. In the game, though , White exploited the 12 . . . g6? ! move im­mediately with 13 .i.h6 'l:ig7 14 h4 f6 1S 'l:ih2 @h8 16 f4 'l:ig8 17 .i.xg7+ @xg7 18 fs and enjoyed a huge space advantage. Black should go 12 .. .fs for more active play.

b} White may also play 11 'l:ih4, which is less pointed. The 'l:ih4 plan is quite normal for these structures, but not having castled is no particular bonus here. Black can just play as he would in the position with 0-0 played instead of a3 (see the main game). A sample game: 11 . . . h6 12 iVf3 ll:ig6 13 'l:ifs .i.xfs 14 iVxfs iVas ! (here not having castled is even a serious problem for White) 15 .i.d2 ll:if4! 16 .tf1 iVd8 ! 17 .i.xf4 g6 18 � 3 exf4 and Black was already significantly better in A. lpatov-A.Sumets, Palma de Mallorca 2009 .

c) Another way to initiate play on the kingside is 11 h3 'l:ig6 12 g 3 (White goes for slow expansion , not giving the black knights any early outposts) 12 ... .td7 13 @fl h6 14 J::.a2 'l:ih7 when Black is ready for .. .fs . White might now decide to prevent that, but it seems the cure is worse than the disease: 15 g4?! iVf6.

Black now has an excellent blockade on the dark squares and after 16 'l:igl 'l:ih4 17 f3 .l:i.fb8 18 �f2 g s (probably not the best move, but still leading to very one-sided play; now only Black has ideas to open up the queenside with .. . bs) 19 'l:ie2 a6 20 'l:ig3 bs 21 ll:ifs .i.xfs 22 exfs bxc4 2 3 .i.e4 (23 .txc4 e4 24 fxe4 iVxc3 is disastrous for White) 2 3 . . . .l::.b3 24 .l::.c2 "iid8 2 5 "iie2 iVas 26 iVxc4 �ab8 27 @f2 'l:if6 28 .i.d3 iVc7 29 .l::.dl .l:i.8b6 I am a bit sur­prised that Houdini only gives Black a minuscule edge. It's not so easy for him to make pro­gress, but it's clear that White is only suffering in defence. N .Vitiugov-D.Khismatullin, Plovdiv 2012, concluded 30 .i.e2 iVb7 31 @f1 @g7 32 'it>f2 .l::.bl 33 iVa2? (the decisive mis­take, but it wasn 't fun to play in any case) 33 . . . e4! 34 f4 �xcl 35 .l:i.cxcl gxf4 36 @fl iVe7 37 .i.c4 e3 38 �2 iVes 39 �c2 ll:ie4 and White resigned. 7 . . . .i.xc3+

This i s fine, but Black has some choice here: a) 7 . . . 'l:ie7, as played by Kasparov and leading to a closed position : 8 e4 d6 (8 . . . .i.xc3+ 9

bxc3 d6 might lead to the main line, but White has not castled yet and you can also view

1 6 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

this position as the l ine with 7 a3, but with an extra tempo for White; Kasparov's move i s more flexible, but it allows White to avoid the doubled pawns) 9 ..td2 exdS 10 exds (10 cxds lllg6 is a fine Nimzo-Benoni that can easily tum in Black's favour quickly) 10 . . . ..tfs (Black has less space and welcomes exchanges) 11 'iVc2 'iVd7 12 o-o ..txd3 13 'iVxd3 'iVfs 14 'iVxfs lllxfs .

Chances were equal here in R. Ponomariov-G .Kasparov, Linares 2003 . b) If you prefer a more open type of game, you can al so follow another legend's exam­

ple and play 7 . . . exds 8 cxds lllxds 9 ..txh7+ �xh7 10 'iVxds Wg8 11 o-o ..txc3 12 bxc3 d6 13 e4 ..tg4, with about equal play in S.Gligoric-B. Larsen, Niksic 1983 . Black needs to be a bit cautious though, as the missing h-pawn causes his king some discomfort.

8 bxc3 llle7 9 d6 This avoids transpositions like 9 e4 d6 10 0-0 es and leads to interesting play.

9 ... lllc6 Black should avoid 9 ... lllg6 10 h4 es? (10 ... CZJg4 is the weird computer move that is still

okay for Black) 11 hS e4 12 hxg6 hxg6 13 ..tc2 exf3 14 'iVxf3 and White already had a deci­sive attack in S. Furman-A.Cherepkov, Leningrad 19S6 . 10 0-0

10 e4 es will lead to the game position or something very similar, but Black should avoid 10 . . . llle8? ! 11 es ! , as happened in M.Raffalt-K.Petschar, Finkenstein 1990.

1 6 6

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 J..d3 cs 6 tDf3 tDc6 7 o-o J..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

10 . . • tDes Black was probably worried about the possible pin with .i.g s coming, but I don't think

this move is strictly necessary. I suggest going 10 . . . b6 to stay flexible. Now 11 e4 es 12 .i.gs is not that much of a prob­

lem due to 12 ... h6 13 .i.h4 .l:Ie8, intending ... .l:Ie6 and ... �f8, which will unpin and pick up d6 in the process : for example, 14 tDe1 .l:Ie6 15 tDc2 �f8 16 tDe3 �xd6 and I doubt that White has sufficient compensation . He has some (the engines evaluate this position as equal} , but his initiative might be only temporary. 11 e4

11 .i.c2 was interesting, trying to provoke a weakness in Black's kingside, although after 11 . . . b6 12 �d3 g6 13 e4 f6 14 .1Lh6 tDg7 Black is fine. 11 . . . es 12 .i.gs?! f6

This is a useful move for Black, so White shouldn't have provoked it with .i.g s . 13 .i.e3 b6

1 6 7

O p e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In di a n

White must act quickly, otherwise d 6 will fall without any substantial compensation . 14 ..te2 ..tb7 15 ll'ih4 'ilfb8

1s ... g6 16 ..th6 ll'ig7 was also good. Indeed, White will struggle to find compensation whenever his d6-pawn is attacked by the coming ... 'ilfe8 and ... ll'id8-f7 manoeuvre. 16 ..tg4

16 ..th s 'ilfxd6 17 'ilfg4 'ilfe7 doesn 't help either. White does not have enough compensa­tion for the pawn .

16 ••• ll'ixd6 17 ..txd7 ll'ie7? 17 .. . ll'id8 would have preserved Black's advantage.

18 f4? 18 'ii'g4 is still okay for White, quite surprisingly. After 18 . . . ..txe4 19 .l::i.ad1 the ideas of

..te6+ or 'ii'e6+ give him enough play: for example, 19 .. .fs 20 'ilfh3 ll'if7 21 ll'ixfs ll'ixfs 22 ..txfs ..txfs 23 'ilfxfs 'ilfe8 24 .l::i.d7 and it's about equal . 18 ••• ll'ixe4 19 'ilfg4 @hs 20 fs l1d8 21 ..te6

White has some compensation , but it's not enough. 21 ••• l1d3?

21 . . . .l::i.d6 ! was stronger, intending 22 ll'ig6+ ll'ixg6 23 fxg6 :xe6 24 'i\fxe6 'i\fc8 2 5 'i\fxc8+ l:!.xc8 26 gxh7 ..ta6 and Black is better, since he will soon enjoy two pawns for the exchange and a harmonious set-up. 22 l:!.ae1?

22 l:!.ad1! was key, and White i s even better. In the case of 22 . . . .l::i.xe3 ? 23 .l::i.d7 it's even a decisive advantage. 22 ••• iVeS

22 ... ll'ixc3?? 23 ll'ig6+ ll'ixg6 24 fxg6 'ilff8 2 5 'ilfh s was to be avoided. 23 l:!.f3 l:!.ad8 24 l:!.h3 ll'igs 25 ..txgs l:!.xh3 26 gxh3 fxgs 27 'ii'xgs iVfS 28 l:!.xes l1d1+ 29 @f2 iVf6 30 iVxf6 gxf6 31 l1e3 l1d2+ 32 @g3 @g7

1 6 8

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tiJf3 tiJc6 7 o-o ilxc3 8 bxc3 d6

The dust has settled. White now managed to hold thi s slightly worse endgame. 33 a3 @f8 34 tiJf3 ilxf3 3S @xf3 l:!.xh2 36 @e4 l:!.d2 37 a4 l:!.d1 38 l:!.e2 hs 39 as bxas 40 l:!.a2 l:!.e1+ 41 @f4 l:!.f1+ 42 @e4 l:!.e1+ Yz-Yz

Summary The early deviations don't challenge Black in a theoretical sense, but they lead to complex positions in almost all cases. I was particularly fascinated by 7 a3, which shows that losing a tempo might actually have a point in some cases. After early d4-d5 advances, Black usu­ally gets a decent Nimzo-Benoni structure or might even strike in Blumenfeld style with ... bs , as played by Karpov.

Game 1 7 A.Kveinys-C.Sielecki Ll ucmajor Open 2014

1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tiJc3 ilb4 4 e3 o-o S ild3 cs 6 tiJf3 tiJc6 7 o-o ilxc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 e4 es I was surprised to get the Hubner on the board in this game. Kveinys had rarely played

the Rubinstein and when he did he employed tiJe2-based set-ups. This game will analyse all White's ideas after 9 e4 with the exception of the main l ine with 11 tlJh4, which will be dis­cussed in the next game.

1 6 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

lO dS Once in a while White tries 10 h3 . This move is not exactly forcing in nature, so Black

has quite some range for creativity: a) The move played most often is 10 ... h6 . This is a useful move in the Hubner in most

cases. It serves multiple purposes, like clearing a square for the knight on h7, preparing . . . gs if needed, and avoiding i..g s {this is rarely a threat though} . After 11 i.e3 b6 the game l . lbragimov-M.Cebalo, Djakovo 1994, was very instructive: 12 ds ti:Je7 13 Wh2 ti:Jh7 14 "it'c2 (14 g4? ti:Jg6 is excellent for Black; see Vitiugov-Khismatullin, as discussed in the notes on 7 a3 in Game 16, for a similar structure) 14 .. .fs 1 5 exfs i..xfs (Black welcomes the exchange of the bishops, as with less space, some exchanges are useful ; in this specific case 1s ... ti:Jxfs ?? was not playable anyway due to 16 g4) 16 ti:Jd2 i.xd3 17 "it'xd3 ti:Jfs 18 ti:Je4:

al) In the game Cebalo continued 18 ... "it'e7 19 i.d2 (preserving the bishop to support the coming pawn advances) 19 . . . ti:Jf6 20 .l:tae1 .l:!.ae8 21 g4 ti:Jh4 22 f4 exf4? (this sacrifices material for insufficient compensation ; the computer still likes 22 . . . ti:Jxe4 23 .l:txe4 ti:Jg6 24 fs ti:Jh8 for Black, but it seems like a rather grim prospect to me and the alternative on move 18 i s just much easier to play) 23 ti:Jxcs bxcs 24 .l:txe7 .l:lxe7 25 i.xf4 ti:Je4 26 i.g3 l:.xf1 27 i.xh4 l:!.ff7 28 i.xe7 J::rxe7 29 Wg2 @f7 30 °it'f3+ ti:Jf6 and probably should have lost, but in the end held this semi-fortress.

a2) My suggested improvement is 18 . . . ti:Jf6, intending to exchange the minor pieces.

1 70

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 i..d3 cs 6 tDf3 tlJc6 7 o-o i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

If White now tries 19 i..d2 then Black has 19 . . . ltJxe4 20 'iVxe4 �4 21 'iVe2 e4! ? and he is fine.

b) Black has some alternatives to 10 . . . h6, of course. The ever-creative Bent Larsen came up with 10 . . . b6 11 l:.e1 Wh8 12 l:.b1 'iVe8 13 l:.b2 i..a6 14 ds ttJas. This is a rare set-up in this line. The normal square for the knight is e7, supporting . . .f7-fS or heading for g6 . In this particular case there is a concrete idea behind . . . ttJas :

bl) White can simply cover the pawn with 1S 'iVe2, after which 1s . . . 'iVa4 16 i..c2 ! 'ii'd7 (not 16 ... 'iVxc4?? 17 'iVdl ! and Black will have to lose material to save the queen) 17 ltJd2 leads to a complicated manoeuvring game. White has a more interesting option, though.

b2) 1S ltJh4 (very dynamic play by Svetozar Gligoric, a true master of the Rubinstein var­iation for White) 1S ... i..xc4 16 i..b1 'ii'd7 17 f4 ltJg8 (one point of the mysterious ... 'it>h8 move becomes clear) 18 fxes dxes 19 � S l:.ac8 20 l:.f2 (White could have captured on es , with excellent play, but I wonder if this i s a database error and Larsen actually played 19 ... l:tae8 instead of 19 ... l:.ac8) 20 ... ltJb7 21 l:.e3 g6 22 'iVg s (again , es was hanging, or not) and White had some compensation for the pawn, but Black enjoyed an extra pawn and had some hopes to convert it in the long run, S.Gl igoric-B. Larsen, Bugojno 1982.

Returning to 10 dS : 10 . . . tDe1

1 7 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d 809 0 - /n d i a n

1 1 tt:Je1 This is a rare move, but it has some interesting points. There are some less dangerous

alternatives, though: for example, the similar knight move 11 tt::'id2, which plans to move the knight to g3 or e3 , but it is rather slow and does not address Black's .. .fs plan at all . Af­ter 11 . . . h6 12 .l:!.e1 tt::'ih7 13 tt::'ifl fs 14 exfs i..xfs 1s tt::'ig 3 i..xd3 16 ll¥xd3 l\Vd7 17 a4 l:tf7 18 as .l:taf8 Black is in good shape once again. White's only meaningful plan is f2-f 4, and that is very hard to realize. In the game Y.Balashov-R.Vaganian , Odessa 1989, White lost his way in an equal position : 19 f3 tt::'ifs 20 tt:Jxfs .l:!.xfs 21 .l:!.b1 .l:t8f7 22 J::tb2 °iWd8 23 .l:.xb7 .l:!.xf3 24 gxf3 .l:txb7 2 S f4 �4 26 l\Vg 3 "iWxg 3+ 27 hxg3 e4! 28 fs (28 .l:!.xe4 tt::'if6 29 .l:tel .l:tb3 is about equal) 28 . . . l:tbl 29 'if;f1 Wf7 30 g4 tt::'if6 31 i..f4 J:txel+ 32 Wxel tt:Jxg4 3 3 i..xd6 a6 34 i..xcs ? (34 We2 was still equal ) 34 . . . tt:Jes 3S i..d4 tt:Jxc4 36 @f2 g6 37 fxg6+ Wxg6 38 i..b6 @f6 39 i..c7 hs 40 Wg3 @fs 41 'it>f2 h4 and 0-1.

There al so i s 11 i..g S ? ! , which does not match the position's requirements at all . After 11 ... tt::'ig6 12 tt::'ih4 h6 13 tt:Jxg6 fxg6 14 i..d2 g S Black was in very good shape in a number of games. In this pawn formation White has no real plans at all , while Black might consider ... tt::'if6-h S and always has the long-term target on C4. 11 • • • tt:Jes

I think that Black should go for the . . .f7-fS break as soon as possible in the Hubner. It gives him some space and possible play along the f-file. When Kveinys played 11 tt::'iel against me, I had to decide over the board what to do. I had looked at the move before, but forgotten the finer points.

In fact my files said Black should go 11 . . . tt::'ig6 instead. Looking at it again after the game, I had to agree that this i s preferable. Now White usually plays 12 g3 to control f4 and h4, and clear g2 for the knight. Following 12 . . . i..h 3 13 tt:Jg2 Black has tried various moves. Jan Timman played 13 . . . tt::'ie8 against Svetozar Gligoric in Bled, 1979, and then 14 .l:tel fs lS exfs i..xfs .

1 7 2

Nimzo- lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il..d3 cs 6 ti'Jj3 ti'Jc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

This i s already very convenient for Black. What exactly is White's plan in this position? Gligoric tried the active 16 f4?, but after 16 . . . .i.xd3 17 'ii'xd3 1\Vd7 18 l:tbl ti'Jf6 19 ttb2 l:tae8 20 l:tfl 'ii'h3 his light squares were terribly weak. Timman went on to win after some inac­curate moves by both sides: 21 fs tl'Jg4 22 ti'Je1 e4 2 3 1\Ve2 ti'J6es 24 1\Vxe4 .l:If7? (24 ... 'ii'h s ! ) 2S 1li'g2?? (2S 0,f3 would have been a good defence when White would have been back in the game) 2 s . . . 1\Vxg2+ 26 @xg2 tl'Jxc4 (now it's over) 27 .l:!.c2 .l:Ies 28 h3 ti'Jf6 29 g4 ti'Jxds 30 .l:If3 bs 31 l:tcf2 as 3 2 g s b4 33 cxb4 axb4 34 @h2 ti'Jc3 3 S a3 tl'Je4 36 l:te2 ti'Jxg s and Gligoric re­signed. In short, 11 . . .ti'Jg6 is perfectly acceptable for Black. 12 1\Vc2

White has a surprising alternative here that is not so easy to meet for Black, 12 g4 ! .

This is very radical , but a good move. Now . . .fs is out of the question and the el-knight gains a good spot on g2, where it covers the sensitive squares f 4 and h4, and helps to prepare the relevant pawn advances. Here 12 ... ti'Jg6 13 ti'Jg2 h6 (13 ... ti'Jh4 was tried in M.Tabatabaei-

1 73

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og o - / n d ia n

Y.Hou, Nakhchivan 2015; White should play 14 f3 intending �e1, when I think White is slightly better) 14 �f3 was played in H .Nakamura-E.Perelsteyn, Southampton 2003 :

a) The game went 14 . . . tt:Jh4? ! , which I believe is mistimed. The position is very interesting to study, though. Black would be in good shape ifthe e8-knight were on h7, supporting the block­ade. It is not so easy, though, to transfer it via f6 as this is met by g4-g5. After 15 �g3 tt:Jxg2 16 Wxg2 (now Black is in slight trouble; f4 is a threat and the only way to prevent it reliably is bad) 16 ... g s ? (16 ... tt:Jf6 is also answered with 17 f4!, but was relatively better) 17 .l::!.h1 tt:Jg7 18 h4 f6 19

hxgs hxgs 20 �f3 Wf7 21 .txg s .i.xg4 22 �xg4 fxgs Nakamura's 23 .l::!.h6 was clearly better for White, but 23 .l':th7 would have ended the game instantly; .l':tah1-h6 is just too much.

b) My suggested improvement for Black is a waiting move l ike 14 . . . b6. If White now plays 15 �g3, Black has the opportunity to play 1s . . . tt:Jf6. After that White should play 16 f3 (16 g s ? tt:Jh s 17 �f3 tt:Jhf4 18 gxh6 �f6 is excellent for Black) 16 . . . .l:te8 17 h4 tt:Jh7. This posi­tion is very resilient for Black, but he has few active ideas.

It seems to me that Nakamura's 12 g4 is a very interesting idea for White, so Black should opt for 11. . .tLlg6, instead of my move 11. . .tLle8. After Kveinys' 12 �c2, though, Black is fine and the game is not very relevant in a theoretical sense from here on . It does, though, illustrate some typical themes quite nicely. 12 . . . h6

Here 12 . . .fs ? ! was premature, in view of 13 f4! .

Now 13 . . . exf4 14 i.xf4 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 h6 16 .l:tb1 is slightly better for White. 12 . . . h6 i s a useful move anyway, though, and asks White to make a move that does the same; i .e . im­

prove a little bit without conceding anything. 13 g3

Technically a novelty, but we were just playing over the board, not reproducing some elaborate preparation. 13 a4 had been played before, after which 13 .. .fs 14 f4 fxe4 15 .i.xe4 exf4 16 .i.xf4 tt:Jf6 is similar to the note to move 14 and gives Black equality. 13 . . . fs

1 74

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 i..d3 cs 6 lDf3 lDc6 7 o-o i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

There are no useful preparatory moves left, so this i s right. 14 f4

14 exfs i..xfs 15 f4 i..h 3 16 0ig2 0if6 17 fxes dxes i s no problem for Black. Maybe White should still have taken on fS, though, as the improvement for Black in the next note seems promising. 14 . . . exf4?!

This is imprecise. Instead, 14 .. .fxe4! was a simple and good way to play. After 15 i..xe4 exf4 16 i..xf4 g s ! 17 i..d2 .l:!.xf1+ 18 @xf1 0if6 I'd rather be Black, given the choice.

Black will obtain play on the weakened l ight squares, with . . . i..h 3 and . . . �d7 being natu­ral follow-up moves.

15 exfs! This I had underestimated. I actually thought it did not matter if I took on e4 or f4 first,

and just wanted to get to the 14 . . .fxe4 l ine by another move order. 1s ... fxg3?

Making Black's l ife much tougher. Here 15 . . . i..xfs ! 16 i..xf4 �d7 was much simpler to handle and Black is fine. He has no problem piece and a sound structure - just what you want in this l ine. 16 hxg3 0if6 17 0ig2 0ig4 18 0ih4 lDes

I thought this manoeuvre was fine when I went for 1S . . .fxg 3 , but White now has the better chances. 19 f6

Direct play, but 19 i..e4! with a long-term build-up including i..f4, �g2, g4-g 5 and so on would have been difficult to defend. Here 19 . . . 0ixc4? fails to 20 f6 l:txf6 21 l:txf6 gxf6 22 i..xh6 lDes 23 .l:!.f1 and the attack smashes through. 19 ... l:txf6 20 l:txf6 gxf6 21 i..xh6 'ii'd7

Aiming for counterplay on h3 or g4. 22 l:tfl �h3?

1 75

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d ian

22 . . . �g4! was still okay for Black. He is under pressure, but not lost like i n the game con­tinuation .

23 .i.f4 .i.d7 Black needs to prepare . . . .l:f.f8, so there was not much choice.

24 .i.xe5 dxe5 24 . . .fxe5 ? 25 �f2 is over immediately.

25 �f2? 25 .l:f.f3 ! would have been unbearable for Black: for instance, 2 5 . . . 'i:Vg4 26 �f2 .l:f.f8 27 d6

ll'ic6 28 ll'if5 .txf5 29 .txf5 �xc4 30 �2 .l:f.f7 3 1 .i.g6 .l::i.g 7 3 2 .J::i.xf6 and we approach 'mate in x' territory. 25 .. . .l:f.fS

Black is back in the game now, if still worse. 26 d6?

1 7 6

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 i..d3 cs 6 Cbf3 tbc6 7 o-o i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

This hit me by surprise. Did Kveinys overlook the reply . . . i..c6? With 26 i..e4 White could have kept the initiative.

26 . . . i..c6 27 �e3 The only move to keep the balance.

21 . .. 0ic8 28 .l:!.fs?? This turns the table completely. Both 28 d7 and 28 i..fs would have kept an equal game or drawn straight away, such as

after 28 ... � 1+ 29 @f2 �2+ 3o @e1 0ixd6 31 i..e6+ @g7 32 'iWd3 0ie4 33 0ifs+ @h8 34 j_d5 i..xds 35 cxds �g2 36 0ih4 c4 37 �e3 �c2 38 �6+ with perpetual check. 2s . . . 0ixd6 29 .l:!.hs @f7

The king will be quite safe on e6. 30 i..g6+

30 l:th7+ @e6 al so leads nowhere. The knight on d6 is a nice example of the maxim 'the knight is the king 's best friend'. From here on Black has many ways to win and I managed to find one.

30 ... @e6 31 @f2 0ixc4 32 �d3 'iWh2+ 33 @e1 �gl+ 34 @e2 0id6 35 i..fs+ 'bxfs 36 'iWxfs+ @d6 37 .l:!.h7 �xg3 38 0ig6 'iWg2+ 39 @e3 .tbs!

The only move to win . Others only lead to a draw. 40 c4 �gl+ 41 'it>d2 �d4+ 42 'it>el �e3+ 43 @fl i..xc4+ 44 @g2 i..e6 0-1

A lucky win for me after I had bungled up the result of a good opening.

Summary All in all , the sidelines after 9 e4 are not too troublesome, but are interesting to study to gain a better feel for this type of position. Noteworthy is Nakamura's 12 g4, which initiates a fascinating strategic battle . Indeed, I recommend avoiding this possibil ity altogether by going for 11 . . . 0ig6.

1 7 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - /n d i a n

Game 18 K.Anagnostopoulos-D.Antic l sth mia Open, Vrachati 2014

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 3 tllc3 .i.b4 4 e3 o-o S .i.d3 cs 6 lllf3 lllc6 7 o-o .txc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 e4 es 10 dS llle7 11 lllh4

11 ... h6 Fischer's approach and still the main reply. A good alternative is 11 ... lllg6 . It will often transpose to positions similar or identical to

the main game after, for example, 12 lllfs h6 (12 ... lllf 4 13 .tc2 g6 14 lllh6+ Wh8 is recom­mended in The Modern Bogo and is , indeed, interesting, but I am very reluctant to play . . . g6 in the Hilbner, weakening the dark squares; nowadays that kind of general consideration is less and less important and concrete calculation is the main focus, but my experience still tel ls me to be cautious with this king side structure) 13 �f3 and a transposition to the main game is l ikely.

12 �f3 This prevents any . . . g7-g S ideas and supports lllfs, but there are al so: a) 12 f4 is an approach dating back to the classic Spassky-Fischer game from 1972. Sta­

tistically it is the main move, but I bel ieve it instantly gives Black an easy game. This is al so supported by statistics, which see Black scoring around 60% here. After 12 ... lllg6 ! (Fi scher's excellent concept, which at the time was a revelation, comparable to the 11 ... lllh s of Game 3 of the match ; instead, the greedy 12 . . . exf4? 13 .txf4 gS 14 .i.g3 ! gxh4 1S l:.xf6 hxg 3 16 es would be a disaster for Black} 13 lllxg6 fxg6 White has tried:

1 78

Nimzo-Jndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tbf3 tbc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

al) Let's start with the premiere of this structure: 14 fxes dxes 1S �e3 b6. This position was reached in the famous Spassky-Fischer game. In fact as early as this first game it be­came clear that Black has nothing to fear, so it's quite surprising that it has been played many times since without any success for White. The main problem is the blocked nature of the position, l imiting his bishops. Black has got a fine structure with no attackable weaknesses, while White may have problems with the c4- and e4-pawns. Especially in a minor piece ending, these pawns can easily fall to a combined attack by a knight on d6 and a bishop on a6 or g6 . After 16 a4 as ! (fixing yet another weakness on a4; the pawn on b6 is easily defended, though, because it can only be attacked by heavy pieces) 17 l:tb1 �d7 18 l:tb2 l:tb8 19 l:tbf2 "ile7 20 .i.c2 gs 21 .i.d2 °Yi'e8 22 .i.e1 Vi'g6 23 °ild3 tlih s 24 l:txf8+ l:txf8 2 s l:txf8+ Wxf8 26 .i.d1 ti:Jf4 27 "i/c2?? was a big blunder (after 27 "i\¥b1 White would still have had a viable position ; I don't agree with the engine assessment of completely equal though, as Black's position is just easier to play here and where is White's active play?).

1 79

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - / n di a n

After 27 . . . i..xa4 Spassky resigned the game. From being down 0-2, Fischer had levelled the score after Game S thanks to two black wins .

a2) A popular option in the earl ier days of thi s l ine was 14 fS, but Black even has two good answers:

a21) 14 ... bs (breaking in the centre immediately) 1s cxbs (White has al so tried the ul ­tra-aggressive 1S g4?, but after 1s . . . bxc4 16 i..c2 �as 17 �f3 .U.b8 he is just worse, being a pawn down and fishing for some vague compensation; now in B.Toth-5.Tatai , Napoli 1981,

White went for 18 .U.f2?, after which Black could have played 18 . . . lllxg4, winning instantly) 1s ... c4 16 i..c2 (16 i..xc4 �6+ 17 @h 1 lllxe4 18 �e1 gxfs, as in G.Botterill-A.Beliavsky, Hast­ings 1974/7S , isn't any better) 16 ... gxfs 17 exfs �6+ 18 @h1 'ifxbs (now White's ds-pawn is a l iabil ity) 19 i..a4 �a6 20 i..c6 i..b7 21 i..xb7 �xb7 22 i..a3 .U.fd8 2 3 �a4 .U.ac8 24 .l:!.ab1 �xds and an important central pawn was lost in W.Unzicker-J .Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1981.

a22) The powerful move 14 . . . bs is fine for Black, but there al so i s the simpler 14 . . . gxfs 1S

exfs e4, which is perfectly playable as well . For example, 16 .te2 �e7 17 i..e3 i..d7 18 �e1 lllh7 19 g4 lllg s led to a later draw in S.Gligoric-H .Mecking, San Antonio 1972 .

a3) White has al so tried to keep the tension in the centre with 14 �e1 �e7 1S �g3 @h7 16 fs (Black was threatening . . . lllh s at some point, so moving the f-pawn is an obvious choice, although Black has nothing to fear) 16 ... gxfs 17 exfs i..d7 18 .l:!.b1 b6 19 .U.b2 @h8 20 h3 .l:!.ae8 21 .Ue2 �f7, J .Tarjan-D.Rumens, Hastings 1976/77.

Here Black's structure is very stable. He also has ideas of . . . bs to work with, undermining the pawn on dS. This was

a4) There al so is 14 a4, which was tried in D.Swiercz-B.Macieja, Warsaw 2011: 14 ... as 1S .l:!.a2 i..d7 16 .l:!.af2 b6 17 fs g s (solid, but leading to a very closed position ; Black has various alternatives to keep the game more tense: for example 17 . . . �e8, retaining the possibility to capture on fS at the right moment) 18 g4 lllh7 19 h3 @f7 20 l:th2 �f6 21 i..e3 l:tab8 22 @g2 @e7 2 3 l:tfh 1 @d8 24 i..c2 @c7 (quite standard; the king plays a useful role on c7 and stays away from any possible king side action) 2 S Wid2 i..e8 26 �c1 @b7 27 h4 @a7 28 hxg s lllxgS

1 8 0

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 ti'Jf3 ti'Jc6 7 o-o ii.xc3 8 bxC3 d6

29 .txg s hxg s 30 �g 3 .tf7 and a draw was agreed.

Both Stockfish and Komodo give this position as quite favourable for White, clearly not having a clue what's going on. In these very closed positions, the computer still has obvious limits, while the human player quickly sees that Black has a fortress-like position . In fact, he would even draw after an exchange of all heavy pieces if you remove his bishop - there simply is no way forward even a piece up for White.

as) 14 l:f.b1 is a less common move. Let's still take a look, though, and explore more the strategic features of this structure: 14 . . . b6 lS .Ub2 l:tb8 16 'iiel 'it'e8 17 'it'h4 l::tb7 18 h 3 ? (White needed t o play 1 8 f s and after 18 . . . gxfs 1 9 exfs l:tbf7 chances are still about even : for example, 20 g4 e4 21 .te2 .ta6 22 .Ub3 ti'Jxds 23 .Ua3 ti'Jc7 24 .tf4 l::td7 is a characteristi­cally weird computer line where White has some compensation for the pawn; 18 fs should not trouble Black too much, but leads to an interesting fight) 18 . . . exf4! (improving over the 18 .. . l::tbf7? of D.Swiercz-N .Vitiugov, Czech League 2010) 19 'ii'xf4 l:!.bf7 (surprisingly strong ; i n general taking on f4 i s a move to play with caution, a s i t exposes d6 and opens up the position for White's dark-squared bishop, but here it i s justified by concrete play) 20 'iYe3 ll:id7 21 .l:lbf2 J:.xf2 22 l:txf2 l:.xf2 23 'iixf2 ll:ies 24 'it'e2 gs .

1 8 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

This is a dream position for Black. To sum up 12 f4 - Black is fine and mostly just needs to know the main ideas and stra­

tegic themes. Going through some of the sample lines here is enough to get you ready to play the line, as it is most certainly not necessary to learn any precise moves by heart.

b) 12 g 3 is a typical move, intending to place the knight on g2 and possibly e3 later. It al so prepares f2-f4 in the long run, allowing a recapture on f4 with the g -pawn . After 12 . . . i..h 3 13 lt:Jg2 lllg6 (instead of this conventional approach, Houdini suggests the re­markable move 13 ... b 5 ! ?, which after 14 cxb5 c4 15 i..c2 lt:Jg4 does, indeed, seem playable for Black; I don 't fully trust it, but it does lead to quite unusual play for the Hubner: for ex­ample, 16 'iVe2 f5 17 f3 �6+ 18 @h 1 lllf6 19 a4 fxe4 20 i..xe4 �f7 and Black is fine as White won't be able to keep the d5-pawn) we have :

bl) 14 f4? ! is premature due to 14 . . . exf4 (Black should not allow f4-f5 and this is an al ­most universal rule for this structure as it would concede too much space) 15 gxf4 �e8 16 'iff3 i..xg2 (the alternatives 16 . . . i..g4 17 'iVg 3 'iVd7 18 f5 and 16 . . . 'iVd7 17 f5 i..g4 18 'iVg3 llle5 19 h3 lllxd3 20 'il:Yxd3 i..h 5 21 lt:Jf4 are al so fine for Black, but the . . . b5 idea is too inter­esting to avoid) 17 �xg2 lllh4 18 �c2 b5 ! .

1 8 2

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il..d3 cs 6 l£Jf3 l£Jc6 7 o-o il..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

The key idea. Without this move Black's play starting with taking on g2 wouldn't make any sense (that said, 18 ... 'i'e7 will probably lead to a draw, as White hardly has anything better than 19 'i'f2 l£Jg6 20 'i'g2 l£Jh4 21 'i'g 3 l£Jg6, and so on), but now 19 cxb5 c4 20 .i.xc4 l£Jxe4 21 .i.d3 (already an only move; White needs to fight the knight without delay) 21. . .�6+ Oust one way in which Black can obtain very attractive compensation) 22 'it>h1 l£Jf6 23 c4 l£Jg4 24 a4 .l:[e1 2 5 .l:i.xe1 l£Jf2+ leads to a perpetual .

b2) 14 .l:tb1 (White has other moves here, but the position is more about plans than con­crete lines; Black just needs to make sure that a coming f2-f4 does not suffocate him and possibly try to prepare . . .f7-f5 himself) 14 ... b6 and now:

b21) 15 f4 is somewhat better than a move earl ier, as White control s b5 here. After 15 ... exf4 16 gxf4 .l:i.e8 17 �f3 il..xg2 18 �xg2 l£Jh4 19 �c2 �e7 (now White is unable to de­fend the e4-pawn, and 19 ... l£Jg4 is also interesting) 20 f5 (an interesting try; after 20 'i'f2? Black can steal e4 because of the position of the rook on bl) 20 . . . l£Jxe4 21 'it>h 1 l£Jg 5 White

1 83

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

has some compensation for the pawn : for example, 22 f6 gxf6 23 'ii'd1 'ii'd7 2 4 .l:!.xf6 � 3 25 ..tf1 'iixc3 26 ..i.b2 'ii'e3 27 ..tg2 'iie2 28 'iixe2 .l:!.xe2 29 .l:!.xh6 tl'ig6 30 h4 lllh7 31 h 5 tl'ie5 3 2 ..i.h 3 tl'if3 33 ..i.g2 llie5 with a draw by repetition. Of course, this is not forced at all - both sides may vary at a number of spots. The main point, though, is that Black can take on f4 to obtain concrete play, instead of allowing f4-f5 .

b22) Instead of the direct f2-f4, White may try for a more restrained approach, aiming to improve his position first and only then advance with pawns to the fourth rank. After 15 f3 I suggest the straightforward 15 . . . llld7, preparing . . .f7-f5 : for example, 16 .l:!.b2 f5 17 exf5 ..i.xf5 18 ..i.xf5 .l:!.xf5 is fine for Black.

b23) In the game A.Kashlinskaya-K.Abdulla, Athens 2012, White played 15 .l:!.b2 and Black connected the rooks with 15 . . . 'iid7 (on 15 . . . tl'id7? ! White has the disturbing move 16 � 5 ! , but 15 . . . tl'ih7 is a good way to play, again preparing . . .f5 and now 16 �5? ! leads no­where after 16 . . . 'iid7) 16 .l:!.e1 (16 f4? exf4 17 gxf 4 .l:!.ae8 is far too loose for White) 16 . . . .l:!.ae8

17 llie3 tl'ih7 18 @h1 'iid8 19 �5 tl'ig 5? (19 . . . 'iid7 was better) 20 'iie2? (missing 20 llif5 ! ..i.xf5 21 exf5 e4 22 ..i.xg 5 'iixg 5 23 'iixg5 hxg 5 24 .l:!.be2 tl'ie5 2 5 .l:ixe4 and Black is strug­gling) 20 . . . 'ii'f6 21 tl'if5 ..i.xf5 22 exf5 e4 23 ..txg 5 'iixf5 24 ..i.xe4 'i¥xg 5 .

Black is more than okay here, but now White blundered with 2 5 f4?? , which got pun­ished with 2 5 . . . tl'ixf4 26 gxf4 'iixf4 and Black was winning.

A general conclusion on the 'slower' alternatives on move 12 would be that these set­ups lead to a slow game with a heavy emphasis on strategy. The presented lines are just an overview showing the typical plans. I recommend too studying more games in this l ine to improve your understanding of thi s position type. Overall , Black needs to be patient and prepared to meet White's tries like f2-f4-f5 .

c) 12 f3 llig6 13 tl'if5 and now:

1 84

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tfJf3 tfJc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

cl) There i s the concrete 13 . . . .i.xf5 14 exf5 tfJf4 15 .i.b1 'i!Va5 16 g3 (or 16 .i.d2 b5 ! ) 16 . . . tfJ4h 5 17 'i!Vb3 b5 ! 18 cxb5 c4 19 �xc4 .Uac8 20 'i!Vd3 J::txc3 21 'i!Vd2 'i!Vb6+ 22 @g2 .Ufc8 and this position is not clear at all to me.

c2) More conventional and probably better is a slow move l ike 13 . . . tfJh7, with similar play as in the main game.

After that long but very important digression, we return to 12 'i!Vf3 . 12 . . . tfJg6 13 tzJfs

13 . . . @hs This position is not so easy to handle for Black. The knight on f5 i s quite a nuisance, but

it's not advisable to take it immediately or at any point where White's queen is able to re­capture. Let's have a look anyway, though: 13 ... .i.xf5 ? (the question mark is a bit strong, but after this move Black is just suffering) 14 'i!Vxf5 CiJh4 15 'i!Vh3 tfJg6 16 'ii'f3 CiJh4 17 'ii'e2 tfJg6. Black's play does not look very inspiring , but what active play does he have? In fact, after

1 8 5

Op e n ing R ep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

taking on fs I think the play is just very one-sided. Black's only active move ( . . .fs) is hard to realize and it's even questionable if it achieves anything positive. White, on the other hand, has all the time in the world to slowly improve on the kingside. Ideas like f2-f3 , g2-g3 , and placing the rooks on the f- and g-files come to mind. While Black is solid, he has no positive play and can only await the further course White will dictate. One brutal example con­cluded 18 g 3 l:te8 19 a4 if as 20 i.d2 l:te7 21 f3 t!.ae8 22 'ifg 2 @h8 23 @h1 tt:Jf8 24 l:tg1 tt:J6h7 2 S f4 exf4? (th is loses by force; Black had to keep the position closed) 26 gxf4 f6 27 es fxes 28 fxes dxes 29 i.xh6 g s 30 i.xg s tt:Jxg s 31 'ifxg s tt:Jh7 32 i.xh7 and Black resigned in E .Tomashevsky-B.Michiels, Legnica 2013 .

The game A.Yusupov-V. Epishin, Dortmund 1994, featured instead 13 . . . l:te8 . The strategy used in this game is very similar to the one used in the main game, but I think that 13 . . . @h8 has more point compared to 13 . . . l:te8, as the rook returns to f8 soon . Nevertheless, let's study this classic game to understand the strategy better. After 14 l:tb1 l:tb8 1S g3 (of course, White has many moves here; once again, exact move orders are less important here, but the black set-up is worth remembering) 1s ... tt:Jh7 (necessary to prepare the next move) 16 h4 tt:Je7 ! the point became clear.

Black challenges the knight with his own knight and intends to exchange, changing the pawn structure. Following 17 tt:Je3 l:tf8 18 tt:Jfs (it is slightly strange to return immediately, but thi s way we get to see the critical pawn structure after the capture; after slow play like 18 i.d2, Black should go 18 . . . i.h 3 19 l:tfe1 i.d7 with the idea of . . . 'ifc8 and . . .fs in an even but complicated position) 18 ... tt:Jxfs 19 exfs l:te8 Black prepares ... eS-e4 at the right mo-ment. The change of the pawn structure is unfavourable for White, who now has problems playing for a good pawn lever. Moving the g - or h-pawn is hard to accompli sh or simply pointless, which leaves f2-f4, which would open the e-file for Black's rook and is also hard to prepare. After 20 i.e4? ! Uust keeping the status quo with a move like 20 i.c2 is okay and about equal) Black has :

1 8 6

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il.d3 cs 6 ti'Jf3 ti'Jc6 7 o-o il.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

a) The straightforward approach 20 . . . ti'Jf6 ! ? was interesting and possibly best: for exam­ple, 21 il.c2 (White must retreat, otherwise Black takes on e4 and plays . . . 'iWf6, winning a pawn, as shown by 21 il.e3 ti'Jxe4 22 �xe4 �f6 and White needs to give up a crucial pawn) 21. . .e4 22 �f4 �as 23 �xd6 i..xfs 24 .i.e3 b6 and Black is in excellent shape.

b} That sharp l ine was not necessary though, as the game move 20 . . . il.d7 was fine as well . After 21 @g2 (White prepares kingside play with .l:1h1 and g4-g S , but Black's counter­play is quicker) 2 1. . .bS 22 .i::th 1 (if White takes with 22 cxbs , the i solated state of the dS­pawn is the problem; after 22 . . . i..xbS 23 .i::th 1 ti'Jf6 going . . . i..c4 followed by a queen transfer to as or to b7 in some cases gives Black too much on the queen side, as shown by 24 g4 �as

2s gs ti'Jxe4 26 �xe4 �xa2 27 Itb2 �c4 and Black wins) 22 . . . ti'Jf6 23 g4 �as 24 gs ti'Jxe4 2 s �xe4 h S ! (a classy and very human defensive move; Black could have grabbed some pawns, but this just holds the fort on the kingside} 26 cxbs �xc3 27 a4 �d4 28 f3 a6 29 i..e3 �xe4 30 fxe4 axbs 3 1 axbs i..xbs 32 @f3 i..d3 and Epishin won later in the endgame. This is an excellent display of Black's chances and well worth studying. It is very important to not take on fs when White is able to recapture with the queen and Epishin's set-up (knights on h7 and e7) is the key one here.

Returning to Antic's 13 .. . @h8 : 14 @h1

Of course, not forced, but Black's play is pretty much identical whichever slow move White plays. 14 ... ti'Jh71

Intending . . . ti'Je7. 15 g3 �f61?

1s . . . ti'Je7 was fine as well . 16 'iYhs

Alternatively, 16 �g2 i..d7 17 .i::tb1 b6 18 f4 .i::tae8 is a typically complicated struggle with chances for both sides.

1 8 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

1 6 ... i..d7 1 7 .ie3 l:!.ae8 18 l:!.fb1?! Around here White starts to go astray. 18 a4! ? is still equal I think.

18 ... ..tcs 19 ..tf1 tfJe7

20 tfJxe7 After this Black quickly takes over the game, but 20 tfJh4 g s 21 tfJg2 �g7 also looks fine

for him. 20 ... �xe1 21 ..tg2 f5 22 exf5 ..txf5

This is the scenario Black is playing for. He has the useful f-file and long-term targets in the c-pawns. 23 .:!.el .id3 24 ..tf1?

Now the weak l ight squares prove decisive.

24 ... tfJf6 25 �h4 ..txfl 26 l:!.xf1 �f7 27 l:!.ab1 b6 28 f4 �g6 29 fxe5 29 fS �g4 was tougher, but still probably lost in the long run .

29 ... l:!.xe5 29 . . . tfJg4! al so won quickly.

30 l:!.bel I:.e4 31 ..tf4 l:!.fe8 32 l:!.xe4 �xe4+ 33 @g1 �xc4 34 �h3 �xc3 35 ..txh6 @gs 36 �h4 l:!.e1 37 ..tg5 l:!.xf1+ 38 @xf1 �f3+ 39 @e1 tfJxd5 40 i..d2 tfJf6 41 �c4+ d5 42 �a6 �h1+ 0-1

Summary The Hubner main l ine with an early e4 has always enjoyed a good reputation for Black. It is a rel iable defence with chances to win if White overpresses or misjudges the often subtle manoeuvres. The most dangerous lines for Black are the slow ones like 13 �f3 or 12 g3 .

They don't lead to any theoretical edge for White, but they keep all the pieces on the board for a full -scale battle at a later stage. In comparison, the classic 12 f4 seems to fix the pawn structure too early and is even easier to handle for Black.

Flexibility is often key and therefore it is no wonder that delaying or omitting e3-e4 for some time has become the more popular option. This is analysed in the following two games.

1 8 8

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 0-0 5 i.d3 cs 6 tfJf3 tfJc6 7 o-o i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

Game 19

T.Henrichs-F.Berkes Ka rpos Open, Sko pje 2014

1 d4 tfJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tfJc3 i..b4 4 e3 o-o 5 .id3 cs 6 tfJf3 tfJc6 7 o-o i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 tfJd2 This is the most popular move if White avoids the old main l ine of 9 e4. Here White re­

tains more flexibility than after 9 e4. He keeps the option open to play e3-e4 later, but in­troduces the possibility of playing f2-f4 for a full -scale pawn advance. An additional idea connected to 9 tfJd2 is to play with the pieces in the centre, tfJe4 and 'i\Vf3 being key moves.

As mentioned above, White has played a plethora of moves here besides 9 e4 and 9 tfJd2. Let's examine the most important ones:

a) Easiest to deal with is 9 dS, as 9 . . . tfJe7 10 e4 es just leads to 9 e4 by transposition . For both sides, there are no sensible deviations.

b) A surprisingly popular move is 9 tfJg S ! ?, which frees the f-pawn and possibly will help win a tempo with a subsequent 'i\Vc2.

The knight will often drop back to e4, which is similar to the route tfJd2-e4. I suggest handling this approach in a very straightforward fashion with 9 . . . h6 . Of course, 9 . . . es and 9 . . . b6 are playable as well , but I think forcing the knight exchange is a simple solution . If you don't go . . . h6 now, White might go f2-f4 and retreat to f3 after a later . . . h6 . After 9 . . . h6 :

bi ) 10 f4? ! hxg s 11 fxg s tfJd7 12 'iVh s fs 13 .l::tf3 'iii'e8 14 'tin4 tfJdeS ! ( Ivan Sokolov's 14 ... 'iii'g6? is worse due to 1S .l:!.h3 es 16 i..e2 ! and Black needs to be precise to obtain even a draw) 1S dxes tfJxes 16 .l::tg 3 b6 and Black is better.

b2) 10 tfJe4 tfJxe4 11 Jl.xe4 tfJas (the point, attacking the weakest spot immediately) 12 'i!Ve2 'i//c7 13 il.d3 b6 14 dS i..a6 1S e4 J:tae8 and Black was already sl ightly the more com­fortable in R.Vogel -M.Steinbacher, German League 1987.

c) White has al so tried 9 'i\Vc2, which often transposes to 9 tfJd2, but there are a number

1 8 9

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

of independent ideas after 9 . . . e s : cl ) 10 tllg s h6 11 tllh7 ( 11 tlle4 tllxe4 12 .i.xe4 is basically the same position, only with

Black's king still being on g8) 11 . . . tllxh7 12 .i.xh7+ @h8 13 .i.e4 and here Black has various moves, but I l ike a set-up with 13 ... tlle7 to cover the ds-square. Black might try ... .l::!.b8, . . b6 and . . .fs as an active plan if White plays slowly.

c2) A similar idea is 10 dxcs dxcs 11 tllg s h6 12 tlle4 when again Black has some possi­bilities, but besides solid set-ups like 12 . . . tllxe4 13 .i.xe4 tlle7, there i s also is 13 . . . .i.e6 14

.l::!.d1 'iWas, which is a new move given by Houdini. After, for instance, 1S .l:i.b1 'iWa6 16 .i.ds tllas 17 e4 .l::!.ad8 Black is completely fine.

c3) 10 ds is played most of the time. After 10 . . . tlle7 the only sensible plan for White is to free the f-pawn. Quite often this i s done by 11 tlld2, which is discussed in the main game via the move order 9 tlld2 es 10 ds tlle7 11 'iWc2 . White has al so tried:

c3 1) 11 tlle1 h6 (or even Houdini's 11 . . . e4! ? 12 .i.xe4 tllxe4 13 �xe4 tllg6 with compen­sation) when White may play a slow move or strike prematurely with 12 f4? ! exf4 13 exf4 bs ! 14 cxbs a6, with good play for Black

c32) The more aggressive-looking 11 tllh4?? has been played 13 times in the Mega Da­

tabase, even with some GMs on the white side.

It is just a blunder though: 11 . . . e4! 12 i..xe4 tllxe4 13 'iWxe4 g s and Black was winning in E .Berisha-0.Romanishin, Zinnowitz 1972. Amazingly, out of those 13 games with 11 tllh4, this was the only one where Black played the refutation .

d) After 9 .l::!.b1 es White has nothing better than 10 tlld2, transposing to 9 tlld2 es 10 .l:i.b1, which is examined in Game 20.

e) It's a similar story with 9 .l::!.e1 es 10 tlld2, which is al so examined via 9 tlld2 es 10 .l:i.e1 in Game 20.

f) 9 h3 i s also transpositional OT just harmless: 9 . . . eS 10 tiJd2 transposes to 9 tiJd2 eS 10 h3 , as again dealt with in Game 20, while 10 e4 leads back to g e4 (Game 17) .

We now return to 9 tlld2 :

1 9 0

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il..d3 cs 6 tiJf3 tiJc6 7 o-o il..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

9 . . . es

It needs to be mentioned that Black also has 9 . . . b6 here. This i s not bad at all , but one problem with this approach is that White al so can start with countless other moves like 9 .:e1, 9 .l:Ibl, 9 h3 , 9 �c2, etc, as shown above. Against these the best move is 9 . . . es , after which White goes 10 tiJd2 and we transpose to 9 tiJd2 es anyway. So mastering the strate­gies related to 9 ... es is the most universal approach . It also leads to fascinating positions, so there is no need to avoid 9 .. . es here. 10 d5

This is the most popular move, but most likely not the most dangerous for Black. I t i s my

impression that by quickly deciding on the central structure with 10 ds, White in some ways makes it easier for Black, as he can adjust his piece placement accordingly. Therefore White has developed a more flexible approach that I call the 'Waiting Game', where he plays useful moves, but does not commit to a specific plan . Related moves to that approach are 10 l:tbl, 10 .l:i.el and 10 h3 . All those moves and the general concept behind them are examined in the following Game 20.

White has al so tried some non-transpositional moves here: a) 10 tiJe4 fights for the light squares e4 and ds in the centre. However, Black has a very

rel iable and concrete way to equalize in 10 . . . il..fs (of course 10 . . . b6 is al so possible, but 10 . . . il..fs is simpler) and here:

al) White has the tactical shot 11 tiJxcs ! ? , but after 11. . .e4 12 tiJxb7 �c7 13 tiJxd6 �xd6 the resulting position with three pawns for a piece shouldn't worry Black. The game S.Bogner-M.Klauser, Swiss League 2013 , continued 14 il..e2 .l:!.ab8 lS cs �c7 16 il..d2 .l:!.fd8 17 c4 and now 17 . . . tiJb4 would have kept matters unclear.

a2) The more obvious choice for White is 11 tiJg3, after which 11 ... il..xd3 12 �xd3 .l:!.e8 13 f3 (13 dS e4 is again a good option : for example, 14 tlJxe4 ttJes ! ? lS tiJxf6+ 'iHxf6 16 �e2 ·�g6 17 f3 �d3 and Black is fine as c4 will fall ) 13 . . . exd4 14 cxd4 dS (in J .Tella-T.Salo, Finnish

League 1999, Black went for 14 . . . cxd4? ! which turned out to activate White's bishop too

1 9 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

much : 15 exd4 dS 16 cs b6 17 .tg s h6 18 .tf4 .l:!.e6 19 lL\fs and White was too active for my taste) 1 5 cxds (15 dxcs lL\es is fine for Black) 15 . . . 'ii'xds leaves White's centre looking l ike a good target for Black's pieces.

a3) There also i s the forcing 11 lL\xf6+ iVxf6 12 e4 .td7 13 ds lL\e7. In general Black does not mind this piece trade. He has less space, so the knight exchange is welcome. The struc­ture is familiar, so here is just one example: 14 'iVh s h6 15 l:!.bl b6 16 g 3 'ii'g6 17 'iWxg6 lL\xg6 18 @g2 fs .

Here Black was comfortable in l .Zaja-A.Delchev, Zadar 2007. In the long term, White's pawn weaknesses on the queenside will become an important factor and overall 10 lL\e4 is not a particular dangerous move.

b) White has also tried the somewhat clumsy-looking 10 lL\b3 when I suggest 10 ... e4 (there is 10 .. . b6 too, which i s perfectly playable) 11 i.e2 b6 12 .td2 lL\e7 (typically creative play by Tony Miles, but, of course, Black has a wide range of options) 13 @h1 lL\fs 14 .tel fie? with comfortable play in L.Portisch-A.Miles, Niksic 1983. The whole l ine with 10 lL\b3 is out of fashion these days as it does not put Black under any pressure.

c) A somewhat strange-looking idea is 10 .tb2, but it has been played by some strong players like Rashkovsky and Najdorf: 10 . . . h6 (obviously not the only move; Black also has 10 . . . .l:!.e8 to introduce the . . . eS-e4 idea when 11 dS sees Black's rook misplaced, but what about the bi shop on b2?) 11 ti.el .l:!.e8 12 f3 b6 13 liJfl? ! e4 14 fxe4 lL\xe4 and Black was comfortably placed in M.Najdorf-L.Szabo, Palma de Mallorca 1969. I think 10 .tb2 is mostly played by players who want to cover d4, not being aware that Black never takes the pawn after better moves like 10 ti.bl for example. This is also discussed in the following game.

Returning to 10 dS : 10 • • • lL\e7 11 fic2

This is the most testing . White increases his control over fS and prepares f2-f4. It is worth noting that 11 f4? ! is mistimed as it allows 11 . . . exf4 12 exf4 .tfs ! .

1 9 2

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 j)_d3 cs 6 'Df3 tbc6 7 o-o j)_xc3 8 bxc3 d6

White usually plays �c2 to prevent this trade. Here Black already has a distinct advan­tage: for example, after 13 'Df3 �d7 14 �c2 j)_xd3 15 �xd3 �fs 16 �xfs 'Dxfs 17 .td2 .l:f.fe8 18 l:tae1 hS Black had a dream endgame in M.Urosevic-M.Tosic, Pirot 2004. It i s very likely that c4 and ds will fall rather quickly.

Yet another transposition is 11 e4, which normally arises from 9 e4 es 10 ds 'De7 11 'bd2 and is discussed via that move order.

In stead, an independent try is 11 f3, after which I l ike the direct 11 ... 'be8 best. Black quickly goes for .. .f7-f5 and obtained a fine position following 12 e4 h6 ! (12 .. .fs 13 exfs j)_xfs 14 ..ixfs 'Dxfs 15 CDe4 h6 16 �d3 �e7 is al so possible, but . . . h6 first is even better; it's

a useful move anyway and now White didn 't find anything better than waiting) 13 �f2 fs 14 exfs j)_xfs 15 'De4 'Df6 in M.Abeln-H .Hoeksema, Dutch League 2005 .

I 'd also like to mention meeting 11 f3 with 11 . . . i..fs ! ?, as this move was chosen in a textbook example for Black's chances in the Hubner, J .Pinter-J .Timman, Las Palmas 1982: 12 e4 ..id7 13 �c2 'Dh s 14 g 3 fs 15 exfs i..xfs 16 'De4 h6 17 i..d2 �d7 18 .l:i.ae1 i..h3 19 J:tf2 .l:i.f7 20 �d1 'Df6 21 .te3 'Dxe4 22 i.xe4 i.fs (the trade of bishops is beneficial for Black; at the end c4 will be even weaker without a bishop to defend it) 23 �c2 .l:i.af8 24 .l:i.ef1 i.xe4 25 �xe4 �fs 26 a4? �xe4 27 fxe4 .l::txf2 28 l:txf2? l:txf2 29 'iStxf2 .

1 93

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

Here 29 . . . a 5 ! i s the key move that fixes a4 and after 3o @e2 lt:Jc8 31 'it>d3 lt:Jb6 32 h 4 lt:Jxa4 Black won easily. 11 . . . 'it>hS!?

This is a rare move, but it makes some sense. Black does not want to commit to any­thing with a pawn move and just waits for White to do something substantial . Let's have a look at the more tested alternatives to get a better picture of the key strategies:

a) 11 . . . h6 allows the knight to move and after 12 f4 exf4 13 exf4 g6 (Black must, of course, prevent f4-f5) 14 h3 lllf5 (14 . . . h 5 ! ? is possible as well when 15 f5 .txf5 16 .txf5 lllxf5 17 .l:.xf5 gxf5 18 "iWxf5 "iWe7 is not clear to me at all , but definitely bad is 14 ... �f5 ? 15 g4 .txd3 16 "iWxd3 "iWd7 17 f5 ! gxf5 18 lt:Jf3 ! ) 15 lt:Jf3 Black has :

al) 1 5 . . . h 5 was played in A.Naiditsch-M.Mchedlishvili , I stanbul Olympiad 2012 . Black was okay there, but soon went astray. We should follow the game to see what to avoid: 16 .td2 .l:!.e8 17 .l:!.fel .td7 18 lllh2 .l:!.xel+ 19 .l:!.xel "iWf8? (instead, Black had to undertake some-

1 9 4

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 t/jf3 t/jc6 7 o-o .i.xC3 8 bxc3 d6

thing drastic l ike 19 . . . bs 20 cxbs c4 when he still is in the game) 20 g4 hxg4 21 hxg4 tjjg7 22 fs and maybe there ways to hold on , but this is exactly what White i s aiming for - bring­ing the bishops into play with f4-fS . Black went down quickly from here: 22 . . . gxfs 23 gxfs .:es 24 llfl flie7 2 s .i.g s flies 26 .i.f4 flie7 27 f/Jg2 tfjfh s 28 .i.d2 f/Jh4 29 f6 .i.h 3 30 f/Jf2 tfjg3 31 lle1 llxe1+ 32 f/Jxe1 .i.fs 3 3 .i.xfs t/j7xfs 34 'i!We8+ Wh7 3 S "ilkxf7+ Wh8 36 "il:Ve8+ and it was over.

a2) I suggest the simpler 1s ... tfjg 3 ! ? 16 lle1 .i.fs 17 i..xfs gxfs ! with a fine position for

Black. The knight will be excellent on e4, but 17 . . . t/jxfs ? 18 g4 t/jg7 19 fs would see White's idea being realized and leave Black suffocating .

b ) I don 't like the popular 11 . . . 96? ! due to 12 e4 ! and in this closed structure . . . g6 i s not a move you want to have played. Note that the dark squares will become a problem when Black plays . . .fs later and White is ready for the reply f 4 to open up the position, especially for the unopposed dark-squared bishop. This piece will benefit immensely from ... g6 .

c ) The most popular move is 11. ..t/jg6, which does, indeed, make a solid impression . Fol ­lowing 12 f4? ! {principled, but probably something slower like 12 f3 offers more chances; here 12 . . . t/jh S is , of course, al so decent for Black and this i s just the kind of battle that fre­quently arises in the Hubner) 12 . . . tfjg4 13 t/jf3 fs 14 h3 e4 1S hxg4 exd3 16 'i!Wxd3 fxg4 17 �g s f/Je8 Black is already for choice.

d) A very sensible move for Black is 11 .. . i..d7. As we will see in the coming moves and in Game 20 in particular, it i s very often useful for Black to have his bishop on d7, supporting . . . bs or allowing . . . "i!:Vc8. Play will be very similar to the main game.

We can conclude that on move 11 there are some good alternatives for Black to the game move, indicating that despite its popularity, the move 10 dS is not very critical .

12 llb1 Delaying any action for the moment and playing a useful move. Note that not only is

Black now tied to b7 with his bishop, but al so that possible counterplay with . . . bs i s more difficult to achieve.

1 9 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

Alternatively: a) 12 f4 exf4 13 exf4 g6 (13 ... b 5 ! ? 14 cxb5 tt:\exd5 is also interesting) 14 h3 (14 f5 ? .i.xf5

15 i.xf5 tt:\xf5 16 .l:f.xf5 gxf5 17 'iVxf5 'iVe7 was not sufficient in Z.Golubovic-Y.Seirawan, Nis 1979) 14 . . . .i.f5 (14 . . . tt:\f5 i s al so perfectly playable - see the note to move 13 , below, for this position with .l:r.b1 and . . . .l:r.b8 inserted) 15 g4 .i.xd3 16 'iVxd3 'iVd7 and Black is okay. He can even go for ... h 5 to undermine the g4-pawn . Another plan is .. .lfae8, . . . tt:\eg8, ... .l:f.e7 and . . . .!:!.fe8, doubling on the e-file . Note that . . . @h8 is a much better move in this position than

. . . h6 (remember Naiditsch-Mchedlishvili) , as here 17 f5 ? gxf5 is pointless because there is nothing to attack on h6 and . . . l:!.g8 is coming .

b) 12 h3 and now: bl) In H .Hemandez Carmenates-A.Horvath, Madrid 2012, 12 ... tt:\e8 was played and Black

got into some trouble after 13 f4 exf4 14 exf4 f5 ?.

This i s the type of structure that Black needs to avoid at almost all costs. White will be quicker on the e-file, has a possible g2 -g4 break for later, and Black has zero play. In stead, 14 ... b5 wasn't great, but anything is better than 14 . . .f5 , after which 15 tt:\f3 tt:\f6 16 .i.d2 tt:\h 5 17 .!:!.ae1 g6 18 tt:\g 5 gave White a clear advantage.

b2) 12 . . . i..d7 i s better, just like in the l ine 13 h3 .i.d7, examined below. 12 . . . .!:!.bS

12 . . . b6 was al so possible, of course. 13 f4

After this Black is in good shape. White had many better ways to continue with a slow move. Indeed, 13 h3 i s often a useful move to prepare f2-f4, as a later g 2-g4 prevents piece trades on f5 . After 13 ... .i.d7 White can try:

a) 14 f4? ! exf4 15 exf4 b5 ! (15 . . . g6? 16 g4! shows the point of h3) 16 cxb5 tt:\exd5 17 tt:\f3 'i'c8 18 'ilfb3 c4 19 'ilfxc4 (and not 19 .i.xc4? .i.xb5 ! ) 19 . . . 'iVxc4 20 .i.xc4 .l:r.fc8 21 .i.xd5 tt:\xd5 and Black is slightly better.

b) I had the idea 14 a4 'i'c8 ! ? to support ... .i.f5 .

1 9 6

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 0-0 5 .1ld3 cs 6 ti:Jf3 0ic6 7 0-0 .1lxc3 8 bxc3 d6

However, when I checked it with Komodo, it even gave . . . 0ifS-h4 in some lines; I don't th ink I 've ever seen this in the Hubner before. Following 15 as (15 f4 exf4 16 exf4 i..fs 17 g4 j;_xg4 18 hxg4 �xg4+ 19 'it>h2 �4+ is a perpetual) 1s ... 0if5 ! ? (15 ... i..fs was my original idea and after 16 i..xfs �xfs 17 e4 �d7 18 0if3 0ig6 Black is fine) 16 0if3 you can play any normal move or the crazy computer l ine 16 . . . e4 17 i..xe4 0ixe4 18 'iWxe4 0ig3 19 fxg 3 i..fs 20 �f4 .11..xbl 21 �xd6, which is supposed to be equal according to my three silicon friends. It's hard, though, to come to a definite conclusion about specific lines in these types of po­sition ; both sides have a wide range of manoeuvres available. 13 . . . exf4 14 exf4 g6

Now 14 ... bs? i s unconvincing , although ... bs was possible without .lab1 and ... .lab8 in­serted (see above; as usual White gains from .lab1, which is also a reason why I regard an early l:tbl as essential in the Waiting Game of Game 20), and after 15 0ie4 0ixe4 16 .11..xe4 a6 17 a4 White is much better. 15 0if3

We should al so consider:

a) 15 h3 and here: al) 15 . . . .11..fs ? ! 16 g4 .11..xd3 17 �xd3 �d7. We have already seen this position without the

inclusion of the rook moves in the notes to 12 f4. The rook moves give White an additional .:::!.b2-g2/h2 option, which helps him and makes Black's position look somewhat shaky. It might not be that bad, but I would rather avoid this l ine. Here 18 0if3 0ieg8 (18 . . . h S ? ! 19 fS ! hxg4 20 0ih4 is very scary) 19 .i:::tb2 .i:::tbe8 20 0ih2 0ie4 21 fs is a possible continuation . As mentioned, Black is not lost here, but if possible I would rather prevent f4-f5 if I can .

a2) 1 s . . . h s allows 16 fs ! ? i..xfs 17 i..xfs ti:Jxfs 18 .i:::txfs gxfs 19 �xfs �e7 20 0if3 0ih7 and now both 21 i..g s and 21 .1;,.f4 give White dangerous compensation .

a3) 15 . . . ti:Jfs ! is best here, and if 16 0if3 0ig3 (16 . . . h s is al so reliable) 17 .lae1 .11..fs 18 .ixfs gxfs ! .

1 9 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

With . . . tt:Jfe4 t o come, Black is i n good shape. b) 15 fs ? ! .i.xfs 16 tt:Jf3 (16 .i.xfs ? tt:Jxfs 17 J::txfs gxfs 18 'ii'xfs 'ii'e7 is not enough, just as

in the similar line starting with 12 f4) 16 ... .ixd3 17 �xd3 'ii'd7. White has some compensa­tion for the pawn here, but . . . tt:Jeg8 and moving the rooks to the e-file is a good set-up for Black. I don 't think it is enough for White. 1s .. . .i.fs 16 tZ'ih4

Here 16 .i.xfs ? tt:Jxfs is already very bad for White as his bishop is dead. Black will keep the pawn on f4 forever here as h3 , g4 and fs i s not going to work.

Instead, 16 h3 h s ! (not 16 ... 'YWd7? ! 17 g4 .i.xd3 18 'ii'xd3, leading us to the tricky note 'a1' to White's 15th move, above) 17 tZ'ih4 'ii'd7 ! (17 . . . .i.xd3? 18 'ii'xd3 and f4-f5 will win for White) 18 tt:Jxfs tt:Jxfs 19 .i.d2 J::tfe8 demonstrates a blockading strategy we will al so see in the game. Black is perfectly okay here and maybe his position is even the easier to play. 16 .. . 'ii'd7 !

1 9 8

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i..d3 cs 6 'bf3 tbc6 7 o-o .i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

Keeping the blockade intact. 11 'bxf5

Not 17 h3 ? .ixd3 18 'iWxd3 'bfs 19 'bf3 'bg3 (19 . . . h s gets hit by the irritating computer move 20 g4 hxg4 21 'bes , which is quite unbelievable; at least you know that your oppo­nent is cheating if this is dropped on you and in this total mess, 21 ... dxes 22 fxes 'bg8 23 hxg4 'bfh6 24 l::tb2 leads to a draw if you believe the engines) 20 l::tel 'bfh s and Black is bet­ter here.

11 ... 'bxf5 A rare case where two knights are not worse than two bishops. Black has set up a very

rel iable blockade that secures him equal chances. Overall , it is very difficult for both sides to make any progress. 18 .id2 l::tfe8 19 l::tfel 'iit>g7 20 'iWb3 b6 21 'iWc2 'bh4 22 h3 h5 23 l:i.xe8 l::txe8 24 l::te1 l::txel+ 25 l.xe1 'bf5

The rook trades were tough to avoid. It is still equal , but not a dead position, as we will see. 26 'iWe2

26 i.f2 followed by @h2 was safer to avoid . . . 'bg 3 . White is the one needing to be care­ful . 26 . . . h4 27 .if2 'bg3

It gets very tricky now for White. Black will invade and knight and queen are notoriously dangerous.

28 i.xg3 hxg3 29 'iWe3 'iWa4 30 'ifxg3 'fWd1+ 31 'it>h2 i¥d2 32 f5 'bh5 33 'iWf3 'iWf4+ A very interesting moment. Black enters the minor piece endgame a pawn down, but he

will get it back soon . 34 'iWxf4 'bxf4 35 i.f1

If 3 S .ic2 g s with . . . 'be2-c3 to come. This is equal , but the game move is no mistake. 35 . . . gxf5 36 'iit>g3 'bh5+ 37 @h4 'iit>h6 38 g3

1 9 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln di a n

38 g4 fxg4 39 @xg4 @g6 40 i..d3+ @h6 4 1 @fs @g7 4 2 @g s tt:Jf6 4 3 h 4 tt:Jg8 44 a 3 tt:Je7 4S hS f6+ is a plausible road to a draw, whereas in the game it is more problematic.

38 ... tlJf6 39 i..d3 tt:Jd7 40 i..xfs tt:Jes 41 g4 tt:Jxc4 42 gs+ @g7 43 i..d3 tt:Ja3 44 i..a6 c4 4S @g4 tt:Jb1 46 i..xc4 tt:Jxc3 47 h4 bs 48 i..d3 b4 49 hs tt:Jxa2 so h6+ @g8 s1 @fs tt:Jc3 s2 g6 fxg6+ S3 @e6 @h7 s4 @xd6 @xh6 s s 'it>cs tt:Jxds S6 'it>xds

This is now a total draw, but only an easy one for a non-biological entity. Over the board, with limited time, this could be a nightmare. S6 ... gs S7 @e4?

White draws with a sequence of only moves : S7 @c4 as S8 i..e2 @g7 S9 @b3 @f6 60 @a4 @es 61 i..d1 @d4 62 @xas @c3 63 @a4 and it's a draw. s1 ... @hs S8 i..e2+ @h4 sg @fs b3 60 i..c4 b2 61 i..a2 g4 62 @f4 g3 0-1

Summary As mentioned before, the line 9 tt:Jd2 es 10 ds is the most popular continuation for White when he avoids 9 e4. The early commitment in the centre allows Black to set up his posi­tion harmoniously to deal with White's plan of f2-f4. Blockading on the light squares is an essential strategy to avoid the activation of White's unopposed dark-squared bishop. In the examined game this worked perfectly, but more dangerous approaches by White are ex­amined in the following game.

Game 20 G.Van der Stricht-C.Sielecki

Belgi a n League 2014

1 d4 tt:Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 tlJc3 i..b4 4 e3 o-o S i..d3 cs 6 tt:Jf3 tt:Jc6 7 0-0 i..xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 tt:Jd2 Don't worry when you are confused by the move orders presented here: I will formulate

2 00

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 ii..d3 cs 6 CiJf3 tfJc6 7 o-o ii..xc3 8 bxc3 d6

some rules of thumb to guide you - and remember, it's just as tricky for the white player. The move order issues start right here. As well as the text, White can start with one of

the 'Waiting game' moves: 9 l:te1, 9 h3 , or 9 J::rb1, but they will all transpose after 9 ... es 10 -'.:Jd2, which leads to the main game. 9 . . . es

It i s my impression that by quickly deciding on the central structure with 10 ds, White makes matters easier for Black, as we have seen in Henrichs-Berkes {Game 19) . By commit­ting to d4-d5 so early, White's only dangerous plan is the one tried by Henrichs: 'i!Yc2 and f4, expanding on the kingside and trying to suffocate Black on that side of the board. Black just needs to keep the blockade of the ts-square to avoid that scenario.

Now let's switch our attention to what I call the 'Waiting Game' approach . With this approach White will not determine the pawn structure right away, but will make improv­ing moves first and only alter the structure if he feel s the circumstances have changed fa­vourably. So what happens is that on every move Black needs to consider if his response fits all the possible structural changes that the white player might force.

So what are White's structural changes and plans that we need to be aware of? There are a couple:

Plan A: Going for an improved version of Henrichs-Berkes. In my opinion this i s the most dangerous plan that Black needs to be aware of. If White manages to initiate this plan un­der favourable circumstances, he will prevent the blockade on fs and be better.

2 0 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

This diagram shows a typical position for Plan A . Note that useful moves for White to play before going ds are l::!.b1 (looking at b7, hindering ... bs and preparing l::!.b2 to switch to the kingside - again see Game 19), 'ii'c2 (controll ing fs) and h3 (supporting g4 later). Whenever White plays one of those moves, Black should reply with something that i s use­ful in case White initiates action in this direction.

PLAN B: White can go for f2-f4 without closing the centre first. This initiates very sharp play in the centre, often involving sacrifices. Note that with the Waiting Game moves, White i s offering the d4-pawn continuously, but Black is reluctant to take it as then the white bishops will come to life very quickly. After f4, Black should often consider taking on d4, but whether he will very much depends on the concrete position .

Here we see a typical Scenario for Plan B. We will see a couple of versions of it over the coming l ines and in the main game. The f2-f4 plan is often prepared by moves like .l:!.b1 (here enabling a possible exchange sacrifice on b4 - more on that later), h 3 (controlling

2 0 2

Nimzo-lndian: Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tDf3 t?Jc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

g4), .l:!.el (so that after . . . exd4, exd4 the rook is on an open fil e) and �c2 (setting up the bat­tery against h7) . Note too that only l:tel does not fit into both plans.

Plan C: White closes the centre with dS and then follows up with e4, setting up a centre that is usually reached via the traditional 9 e4. This plan comes into consideration if Black has played a move that does not fit into this structure. Indeed, it is quite typical for White to go for it when Black has played ... .l:!.e8, as the rook is better off on f8 in the closed centre. The loss of time might not look significant in this closed position, but White often manages to use the time to good effect by playing tDf1-g3 (e3) and �c2 to prevent . . .fs - and without the freeing pawn breaks, Black does not have much fun .

Note that in case of White having played �c2, the closing of the centre might allow Black to go . . . t?Jh s . To back this up with sample moves: 10 .l:!.el .l:!.e8? ! 11 dS ! i s much worse compared to 10 �c2 �d7 11 .l:!.e1 .l:!.e8, as after 11. . .t?Je7, ... t?Jh s is possible next.

Another and even more problematic scenario is Black having played a mistimed ... g6, which weakens the dark squares considerably. One sequence to illustrate that i s 10 dS t?Je7 11 �c2 g6? ! 12 e4! , as was mentioned in Game 19.

Plan D: White goes for t?Je4, trying to exploit the central squares with pieces. This is usually not that dangerous, but has to be taken into account. Play will very often become concrete if Black is able to respond with . . . .i.fs . In fact we had a look already at the immedi­ate 10 t?Je4 in Game 19 where 10 ... .i.fs was the correct answer.

We should al so assess the value of Black's responses and set-ups, what to go for, and what to avoid. As already mentioned, Black should be wary of the move . . . .l:!.e8, as it mis­places this piece in the case of White closing the centre. There needs to be a concrete rea­son for playing it and therefore it shouldn 't be played early.

A move to entirely avoid is . . . �e7, which takes away the e7-square from the c6-knight in the case of ds. Black always wants to place the knight on e7, closer to the king side where the action is about to take place. It is wrong on as in nearly all cases, as there is no chance ever to win the c-pawn.

This leads us to the bishop. It almost invariably should stay on the c8-h3 diagonal and not go to a6, especially if the centre is closed or White has that option. The reason is similar to the argument against . . . t?Jas: c4 is no target for the moment; there are more pressing matters on the kingside.

Black quite often will face the move .l:!.bl at some point. The almost knee-jerk reaction is to play . . . b6 to free the bishop on c8 and secure the queenside - I play exactly like that in the game. However, when I updated my script with my game I noticed that almost the same thing can be accomplished with the move . . . .l:!.b8, which is basically never played but

has some interesting points. I like this idea, so more on it later. Another move frequently seen is ... h6 (again , I play this in the main game). It allows a

possible . . . t?Jh7 when the centre is closed and anticipates the �c2 and .i.d3 battery. How­ever, the move ... h6 does not help much to fight Plan A described above, and we will see in the main game that Black does not need to play ... h6 quickly, but should prioritize other moves, especially . . . .i.d7. This . . . .i.d7 move looks rather irrelevant at first, but in fact it has

2 0 3

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

significance for Plan A: it prepares . . . 'if c8 to control fs and strengthen the blockade on that square.

Looking at all those general considerations, we should not forget that we play a very concrete game, so let's now look at some concrete moves. 10 .i::tb1

This is the most common move here, and for good reason . As described above, .l::tbl is almost universally useful for White in all possible plans, especially for Plans A and B. In many cases where White goes for one of the other waiting moves, he will play .J::i.b1 later, so we will transpose. All these lines are highly transpositional and therefore somewhat tricky to study. It is best to go through them all and look at some more games to increase your feel and knowledge of the arising positions. Then you will be able to find good solutions over the board.

Note that on both 10 li:Je4 and 10 li:Jb3, Black has an independent answer that does not relate to the Waiting Game - see Game 19. That leaves:

a) A rare start for the Waiting Game is 10 h 3, a useful waiting move. Controll ing g4 and preparing a later g2 -g4 is a small improvement, asking Black what he intends to do next. As mentioned above, White's play relates to Plan A, so I suggest that Black plays a move that helps in case White decides to go for that plan . 10 ... il.d7 is a new move already, al ­though note that the move order with 10 h 3 is quite rare (I discarded the already tested 10 ... .l::te8 and 10 ... 'i!Ve7 due to 11 ds when Black is not optimally placed for the closed centre; the only interesting alternative is 10 . . . h6, which is similar to the main game, but 10 . . . il.d7 is more precise I think, as explained in the notes to move 11, below) .

2 04

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 il.d3 c5 6 0.f3 0.c6 7 o-o il.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

Here: a1) 11 l:tb1 b6 leads back to the main game - notes to move 11 (or for 11. . .l:tb8, see

10 . . . .l:tb8, below). a2) 11 l:te1 does not pressurize Black in regards to Plan A. I suggest waiting with 11.. .b6.

Now 12 f4! ? exf4 13 exf4 cxd4 14 cxd4 d5 15 cxd5 0.b4 is fine for Black (note that was pos­sible because l:tb1 has been omitted) .

a3) 11 d5 0.e7 12 'ifc2 'ii'c8 sees the key point of the early . . . if..d7.

Now 13 f4 exf4 14 exf4 .i.f5 is possible. b) White can al so start with 10 l:te1, which is more popular than 10 h3. I am afraid again

I have to recommend a rare move for Black, but it makes perfect sense to start with 10 ... if..d7 (10 ... .l::te8 is again premature: 11 d5 0.e7 12 e4 is better for White, as al so assessed by Ivan Sokolov, quoting A.Aleksandrov-R. lbrahimov, Dubai 2005 ; however, 10 . . . b6, as in

M.Sadler-5.Tiviakov, Oslo 2011, is a serious alternative to 10 ... if..d7) when we have:

2 05

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

bl) For 11 h3 b 6 see 1 0 h3 i..d7 11 .l:i.el b6. b2} 11 'i'c2 b6 (note that the rook is wrong on el for Plan A) 12 d5 Ci'Je7 13 f4 exf4 14

exf4 g6 and Black will get in . . . i..f5 with good play. Note too the line 12 f4 exf4 13 exf4 .l:i.e8 14 i.a3 .l:i.c8 15 d5 Ci'Je7 16 f5? b5 .

This shows typical counterplay if White mistimes his actions. b3) 11 f4? ! exd4 12 cxd4 cxd4 13 e4 .l:i.e8 doesn 't give White serious compensation and

now 14 i.a3 i..g4 15 Ci'Jf3 .l:i.c8 is a logical continuation . b4} Play will most likely transpose after 11 .l:i.bl b6 (see the main game) . c) A very rare move is 10 'iYc2, which has little independent significance. Again, 10 . . . i.d7

is my favourite move to start with : 11 Ci'Je4 (the only move that directly relates to 'iVc2) 11. . .Ci'Jxe4 12 i.xe4 f5 13 i.d5+ Wh8 and with . . . b6 and . . . 'iVf6 coming, it should be about equal .

Returning to 10 .l:i.bl: 10 . . . b6

Black can win a pawn on d4, but it's almost never advisable to take it . Accepting the pawn sacrifice gives White excellent compensation and condemns Black to a defensive po­sition . Just to show an example why not to grab on d4: 10 . . . exd4 11 exd4 cxd4 12 cxd4 Ci'Jxd4 13 Ci'Je4 Ci'Jxe4 14 i.xe4 Ci'Je6 15 'iVh 5 h6 16 i.xh6 and White quickly crashed through in H .Hermesmann-D.Schlecht, German League 1998.

Meanwhile, again 10 . . . 1li'e7 and 10 . . . l::te8 are not optimal due to 11 d5. When I played this game I was still thinking that .l:i.bl should always be answered with

. . . b6. However, when I analysed deeper after the game, I had the idea to play 10 . . . .l:i.b8 ! ? .

2 0 6

Nimzo-lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .ii.d3 cs 6 tDf3 CiJc6 7 o-o .ii.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

This has been played only two times, so again the following is mainly analysis. What is the point of . . . l::tb8 instead of . . . b6? Well , there are some points to it . Black sometimes goes for . . . b5-based counterplay, which is now accelerated. In addition, . . . b6 undefends the knight on c6, which is tactically relevant in some lines. It is difficult to analyse all the possi­ble move order alterations, but I would like to give you an idea where . . . l::tb8 might be bet­ter than or different to ... b6:

a) 11 CiJe4 CiJxe4 12 .ii.xe4 CiJa5 is now possible. b) 11 d5 tDe7 12 'i!Va4 tries to expose a drawback of . . . l::tb8, but 12 . . . Ji.d7 ! i s possible, as 13

'i!Vxa7 b5 ! gives Black at least a 'perpetual ' on the queen .

c) 11 'i!Vc2 .fi.d7 12 d5 (12 f4 exd4 13 cxd4 CiJb4 14 I:txb4! ? cxb4 15 e4 b5 ! i s a l ine where ... I:tb8 is especially useful) 12 ... CiJe7 13 f4 exf4 14 exf4 g6 is fine for Black who will set up the blockade on f5 .

d) 11 l:tel .fi.d7 12 f4 (12 "i!Vc2 h6 13 d5 tDe7 14 f4 exf4 15 exf4 g6 is fine once again) 12 . . . exd4 13 exd4 cxd4 14 cxd4 d5 ! 15 cxd5? ! CiJxd5 16 .ii.xh7+ 'it>xh7 17 'i!Vh 5+ 'it>g8 18 'i!Vxd5 .ii.e6 shows why having the c6-knight still defended is useful .

e) 11 h3 .fi.d7 and now:

2 0 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

el) 12 l2Je4 .ifs (12 . . . l2Jxe4 13 ..txe4 f5 i s also possible) 13 l2Jxf6+ 'iWxf6 1 4 e 4 ..td7 15 ds l2Je7 and Black is okay. Note that White's pawn on h3 is not helping him, as it makes it harder to advance on the kingside and invites . . . l2Jf4 by Black.

e2) 12 f4 exd4 13 exd4 (13 cxd4 l2Jb4 14 .l::rxb4 cxb4 15 e4 bS ! needs to be compared with the note to Black's 11th move, below; here the extra move . . . .1::1.b8 gives Black a very substantial advantage and White has no compensation for the exchange) 13 . . . cxd4 14 cxd4 d5 15 cxd5 l2Jxd5 16 ..txh7+ @xh7 17 \ltVh 5+ @g8 18 'iWxds .i.e6 is again fine for Black.

e3) 12 �c2 h6 (or 12 ... �c8) 13 d5 l2Je7 14 f4 exf4 15 exf4 is almost identical to the line given on move 12 for White (albeit with . . . .l:!.b8 played instead of . . . b6), and here Black can play 15 ... bs in one go.

e4) 12 d5 lLle7 13 �c2 �c8 14 f4 exf4 15 exf 4 ..tf5 is a familiar idea by now. Overall , going 10 . . . .l::f.b8 is a nice finesse that I l ike very much and will test over the board

myself if given the chance. 11 h3

Once, again we have a bunch of other moves: a) With 11 d5 l2Je7 12 �c2 White shows his hand: Plan A has been chosen. The most

popular move here is 12 ... g6? ! , as was played by some very strong grandmasters, including lvanchuk, but 13 e4! is better for White.

2 0 8

Nimzo-Jndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 0-0 5 i.d3 cs 6 tbf3 tbc6 7 o-o i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

Black's knight is deprived of g6 and his dark squares are weak. Correct is instead, 12 ... .i.d7 13 f4 exf4 14 exf4 g6 . Now the timing is right and Black gets the blockade in.

b) 11 .l:te1 .i.d7 12 d5 tbe7 13 �c2 �c8 14 f4 exf4 15 exf4 J::!.e8 i s fine yet again . c ) 11 tbe4 i.f5 (11 . . . tba5 ! ? i s also interesting) 12 tbxf6+ �xf6 13 e4 .i.d7 14 d5 tbe7 is

slightly worse here than with the pawn already being on h3 , but still okay for Black. d) 11 �c2 is the most frequent alternative to 11 h3 . Here 11 ... .i.d7 (11 ... exd4 12 exd4 h6

is a non-standard solution that gave Black no problems after 13 tbe4 .i.b7 14 J::!.d1 cxd4 15 i.a3 tbxe4 16 .i.xe4 tba5 17 .i.xb7 tbxb7 18 cxd4 �c7 in R .Edouard-N.Short, l stan bul Olym­piad 2012) 12 h3 �c8 transposes to the next note to 11 . . . h6 .

11 . . . h6 This was suggested as best by Ivan Sokolov in The Strategic Nimzo-lndian and at the

time when the main game was played, I al so thought the move to be best. However, now I prefer 11 . . . .i.d7, which has been played quite often, but was viewed as imprecise by Soko­lov. His argument against it was 12 f4, but let's check why I prefer it now over 11 ... h6 . It's again due to Plan A, 12 d5 tbe7 13 �c2 �c8 ! or 12 �c2 �c8 ! .

2 0 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

Both allow Black to be in time with his blockade on fs. This he does not manage after 11 . . . h6, as we will see in the notes to move 12 , below.

Sokolov's 12 f4 (Plan B), of course, sharpens the game considerably. He gives the l ine 12 . . . exd4 13 cxd4 t'Lib4 14 .l:!.xb4 cxb4 15 e4 and concludes that White's centre and bishop­pair give him more than enough compensation for the exchange.

While I agree that this is interesting for White, it feels a bit strange to conclude the analysis at this point. A closer look reveals that Black can at least force a draw and objec­tively even should play for an advantage, though the type of play is probably not to every­body's liking.

Let's look at concrete moves: 1 5 . . . bS ! i s an important point. Black attacks the centre and prepares . . . �6:

a) The direct 16 es? is impossible : 16 . . . dxes 17 dxes (17 fxes i.g4 18 hxg4 �xd4+ 19 @h 1 �xd3 is no better) 17 . . . i.c6 18 �3 l'Lid7 with a clear advantage for Black.

2 1 0

Nimzo-Jndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 j_d3 cs 6 0if3 tl:Jc6 7 o-o ii.xc3 8 bxC3 d6

b) 16 i s cxbs the only playable move, but after 16 . . . .t:t.c8 the problem for White is: he lacks one or two moves to get organized, as Black attacks the centre very quickly. The com­ing complications are fine for Black, but also tricky to play. In case you are content with a draw you may go 16 . . . �6, after which White has nothing better than 17 0ic4! , forcing a draw: 17 . . . �xd4+ 18 .ie3 �c3 and now White has various ways to repeat with attacks on the black queen; even 19 ii.cl forces 19 . . . �d4+ with a draw, as other black tries are too ri sky.

After 16 . . . .Uc8 White has:

b1) 17 es? ! dxes 18 fxes (18 dxes ..lle6 19 0if3 tl:Jds 20 tl:Jg s h6 21 0ixe6 fxe6 22 @h2 0ic3 23 �f3 �d4 is al so insufficient for White) 18 i.xbs 19 i.xbs �xd4+ 20 @h1 �xes 21 i.c4 0ie4 22 0ixe4 .Uxc4 and Black is clearly better.

b2) 17 Wh2 is an interesting preparatory move given by the engines. Here 17 ... .Uc3 is a key idea to return the exchange. Black has more material istic approaches, but ending all White's attacking ideas has to be good. After 18 .t:t.f3 (18 0ib1 .t:!.xd3 19 �xd3 �as is al so comfortable for Black; the weak l ight squares guarantee him a slight edge) 18 ... .t:!.e8 19 i.b2 l:Ixd3 20 l:Ixd3 lt:Jxe4 Black is slightly for choice.

b3) 17 �e2 .t:t.e8 18 es (Black threatened . . . 0ixe4, so this i s mandatory) 18 . . . dxes 19 dxes (19 fxes is answered by 19 . . . ..llxbs , stopping the attack, and if 20 .ixbs �xd4+ 21 @h2 .Uxes 22 0,f3 .t:t.xe2 2 3 ll'ixd4 .t:t.xa2; now 24 ll'ic6 enables White to fight on and in fact my analysis goes on quite a bit, but I am not sure if White can hold and, in any case, Black can be very satisfied) 19 . . . i.e6 ! 20 i.b2 (20 exf6 .ifs 21 �xe8+ �xe8 22 ..llxfs .Ud8 is better for Black, as White's pieces don 't coordinate well) 20 . . . ..llxa2 looks very greedy, but it works.

2 1 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

White's only serious attempt here is 21 .i:t.f3 i.ds 22 .l:!g 3 g6 when a key defensive re­source for Black is . . Jk3: for example, 23 fs .l:!.c3 ! and Black defends successfully the ex­change up.

This last l ine is very complicated, though; humans are not computers and defending is tougher than attacking . However, if you want or need a win badly as Black, then this i s an excellent opening result. If a draw is OK, you may al so play 16 . . . �6, as shown above. As a third option if you need to avoid a draw and don 't want to defend with good chances, I point you to 10 . . . .U.b8 to replace 10 . . . b6. This al so prevents the Sokolov attacking plan , as Black has got the extra move . . . .l:!.b8 in (15 . . . bs comes in one go). 12 f4?!

This i s exactly what Sokolov wanted to address with 11.. .h6, as we will see in the game. However, here White had a stronger alternative, realizing Plan A: 12 dS ! CDe7 13 'ii'c2 .

Now I don't see a fully satisfactory solution :

2 1 2

Nimzo-lndian : Hiibner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 .i.d3 cs 6 tbf3 tbc6 7 o-o .i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

a) The creative, but also somewhat unnatural 13 . . . �d7? ! 14 f4 exf4 15 exf4 0,f5 was played in l . lbragimov-S.Giddins, Bad Wiessee 2000. Now 16 .:f3 h 5 17 tbf1 h4 18 tbe3 is crit­ical for Black's approach, leaving him in some trouble.

b) 13 . . . tbg6 ! ? i s tactically justified by the amazing 14 .i.xg6? (14 f4? exf4 15 exf4 tbh 5 ! 16 tbe4 f5 17 .i.e2 tbhxf4 18 .i.xf4 fxe4 19 .i.h2 �e7 is no better) 14 . . .fxg6 15 '1Wxg6 tbe4! ! and Black is fine. However, if White plays a slow move like 14 a4, what exactly has Black gained from . . . tbg6?

c) The most normal move is 13 . . . .i.d7, but after 14 f4 exf4 15 exf4 Black does not man­age to erect the blockade on f5 :

cl) 1 5 . . . b5 16 cxb5 tbexd5 17 tbe4 is better for White. c2) If Black plays passively, such as with 15 . . . g6 16 0,f3 .i.f5 17 g4 .i.xd3 18 'ii'xd3, White

is better. c3) It is too late for 15 ... �c8 16 f5 ! with a terrible position for Black. c4) Best seems to be 15 ... tbg6 ! ? with the point that 16 .i.xg6 fxg6 17 �xg6 'ili'e8 ! is fan­

tastic for Black, but again if White just ignores the pawn and slowly improves, what i s Black doing?

A possible move to start the slow improvement approach is 16 Wh2, after which I see no clear approach for Black. The position is not catastrophic for him, but I would still prefer to have the blockade on f5 prepared by going 11 . . . .id7 the next time I have this l ine on the board. 12 ... exd4 13 cxd4 cxd4 14 e4?

This is the typical method, but it simply fails in this concrete position. 14 exd4 d5 gives Black good play on the l ight squares, but was still what White needed

to do. This l ine is a key difference to 11 ... .i.d7. 14 ... .:tes 15 l:te1 tbd7

There is, of course, no bishop on d7. 16 tbf3 �f6 11 .:tb2 tbcs 18 .tb1 .tb7 19 .:tf2

2 1 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

White is a pawn down for no compensation . From here on, the game is full of mistakes. My opponent in fact had time problems already, but I played all the bad moves with lots of time on the clock. 19 ... d3 20 .txd3

20 ... tt:Jb4? 20 ... �c3 ! was clearly better for Black.

21 ii.b1 .txe4 22 .l:l.fe2 .tc6?? 23 a3? This keeps a big edge, but 23 .l:l.xe8+ ii.xe8 (23 . . . .l:l.xe8 24 .l:l.xe8+ .txe8 2 5 �el was what I

had overlooked before) 24 �d2 ! tt:\c6 2 5 .tb2 �d8 26 �c2 g6 27 �c3 would have won in no time. 23 ... .l:l.xe2

23 . . . tt:Jba6 didn't help much : 24 .tb2 �xf4 2 5 �c2 tt:\e4 26 .tel �f5 27 tt:\d4 wins as well . 24 �xe2 tt:Jba6 25 �c2?

25 .tb2 �xf4 26 tt:\d4 .td7 27 �c2 g6 28 tt:\f5 ! ! i s a brutal l ine that shows Black's prob­lems. 2s . . . g6?

25 . . . �g6 was still possible - not fun, but al so not losing directly. 26 .tb2 �Xf4 27 �C3 f6 28 �C2

28 tt:ld4! .te4 29 tt:\e6 was winning, whereas the game only held a clear advantage for White. 28 ... �g3 29 �xg6+ �xg6 30 .txg6 tt:\d7?

30 . . . .txf3 was ugly, but the only move. 31 tt:Jd4

31 .l:i.e7 was even stronger. 31 ... tt:\e5 32 .l:l.xe5 dxes 33 tt:Jxc6 'it>g7 34 .te4 tt:Jcs 3 5 .tds .l:l.e8

2 1 4

Nimzo- lndian : Hubner Variation, 4 e3 o-o 5 i.d3 cs 6 0.f3 0.c6 7 o-o i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6

Bluffing in time trouble. 36 i.c1

36 0.xa7 ! was possible and an easy win . 36 . . . 0.d3 37 i.e3 fs 38 'iiff1

Again, 38 0.xa7 ! . 3 8 ... f4 39 i.d2

After 39 'iife2 ! 0.cs 40 i.xcs bxcs 41 0.xa7 White will win with the a-pawn. 39 ... a6 40 'iite2 0.cs

Time trouble was over by now. White i s still much better, but didn 't convert in the end. I 'll stop with the question marks here as thi s game is already quite embarrassing for both

players . 41 i.c3 'iiff6 42 @f3 @fs 43 g4+ fxg3 44 i.e1 g2 45 'it>xg2 0.d3 46 i.d2 0.f4+ 47 @f3 e4+ 48 'it>f2 0.xh3+ 49 @e3 0.gs Y2-Y2

Here a draw was agreed after this tragicomedy (White is still better by the way, but once again he had l ittle time left}.

Summary This part of the Hilbner variation where White delays central action and initiates the 'Wait­ing Game' is among the most intricate of all the lines in this book. The move orders look confusing, but if you understand the rationale behind the moves, they do make a lot of sense upon closer inspection. My advice for this l ine and the Hilbner in general : look through the presentation here and analyse a bit on your own, toying around with move orders and ideas. It is impossible to analyse this l ine on a 'move-by-move' basis just using some engine lines; rather it is about understanding the various plans and how they relate to the specific moves.

2 1 5

C h a pt e r N i n e

N i m zo- l nd ia n : C l a ss i ca l Va r iat io n , 4 �c2

1 d4 ll'if6 2 c4 e6 3 ll'ic3 �b4 4 �c2

The Classical l ine of the Nimzo starting with 4 �c2 bears its name for a reason - it es­tablished its main l ine status right in the earl iest games played with the Nimzo- lndian in the 192o's. It lost its dominant main l ine status in the 195o's to the Rubinstein, but staged a comeback in the 1980's and 199o's due to the efforts of many top players, most notably the then world champion Garry Kasparov. Nowadays both l ines are equally popular on all levels, sharing the status of the 'main line' against the Nimzo.

White's idea is simple: he makes sure he avoids doubled pawns and intends to gain the bishop-pair without making any structural concessions. The drawback of �c2 is the fur­ther delay of development, in particular of the kingside. It will usually take more time for

2 1 6

N i m zo - ln d ia n : Cla s s i ca l Va ria t ion , 4 Wlc2

White to castle in the Classical variation than in the Rubinstein, for example. Black has a wide choice against the Classical . Let's take an overview of what I considered

for the repertoire and how I made my final choice: a) The current main line for Black at the top level i s 4 . . . 0-0 5 a3 i..xc3+ 6 �xc3 dS or

4 . . . ds 5 a3 i..xc3+ 6 'Yixc3 o-o.

This enjoys a good reputation at the moment, but I discarded it for the presented reper-toire due to various reasons :

1) I t ' s a light-squared set-up, so does not fit well with our other choices; 2) The need to learn many forced lines: for instance, 4 . . . o-o 5 e4;

3 ) Some lines lead to a forced draw, which is a practical problem; 4) It has been covered recently in The Nimzo-/ndian: Move by Move.

Don't get me wrong , it is a good l ine - but just does not fit the bill . b} There is 4 . . . cs , but this does not lead to a closed, dark-squared centre either. After 5

dxcs you will reach positions that are more likely to resemble a Hedgehog or English Open­ing where the c- and d-pawns are often exchanged.

c) A tricky sideline that recently received some attention is 4 . . . b6, but fianchettoing with . . . i..b7 really does not fit our general strategic concept.

d} Ultimately there are only two lines that fit the dark-squared approach . Black can aim for a set-up with . . . d6 and . . . t2Jbd7 (move orders are less defined here}, or go for the Zurich Variation that starts with 4 . . . t2Jc6 5 tLif3 d6:

d1} The main drawback of . . . d6 and . . . t2Jbd7 set-ups, such as after 4 . . . d6 S i..g s t2Jbd7 6 e3 , is that they put no direct pressure on White, so he is very flexible with regards to his own set-up. In a lot of cases Black is not able to play a later . . . e6-eS , but needs to develop with . . . b6 or even with a quick . . . 'Yias . It is not a bad l ine at all , but it has a chameleon type of quality that lacks the thematic consistency that I was after.

d2} In the end I decided to go for the Zurich variation. The main reason is that Black will invariably reach his desired structure of ... d6 and ... es , and with the dark-squared bishop

2 1 7

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

traded off o r outside the pawn chain.

Here Black will go . . . e6-eS over the next few moves and is guaranteed the kind of healthy, sound structure that is the main theme of our repertoire. Black's main plans will be discussed in the subsequent chapters that are structured as follows:

Chapter 10, Zurich Variation, Sidelines and �xc3 Set-ups; Chapter 11, Zurich Variation, White recaptures with .txc3 . The former chapter is about early deviations and the l ines where White opts to recap­

ture on c3 with his queen. In those l ines Black has no difficulty at all equalizing the game and gaining either a healthy, sound structure or even a sharp, gambit-style battle where the many queen moves by White might prove costly.

Nowadays it is rather clear that White should play .td2 (or .tg s-d2), in order to recap­ture on c3 with the bishop, not the queen . To be perfectly honest here Black has some prob­lems equalizing completely if White plays flawlessly. Thi s is, however, not so easy to do in practice and Black has his chances as well . If you are familiar with the structures and ideas, playing a theoretically slightly worse position is no problem at all . The slowish type of bat­tle favours the player with the superior knowledge of the middlegame. To use an analogy with physical sports: you don't mind being slightly behind at the start of the race if you trust in your ability to later overtake the quick starters.

2 1 8

C h a pt e r Te n

N i m zo- l n d ia n : Z u rich Va riation , S id e l i n es a nd �xc 3 Set- u ps

1 d4 liJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ltJc3 .il.b4 4 ii'c2 lLlc6

This chapter includes White's sidelines against the Zurich and those lines where he re­captures on c3 with the queen . Black has no problems at all in the sidel ines, but should study the game Mamedyarov- lvani sevic (Game 22) to be ready for White's early aggression with g2 -g4. In the �xc3 lines Black has the pleasant choice between being solid or aggres­sive, according to taste and tournament situation .

As just mentioned, the game Mamedyarov- lvanisevic (Game 21) analyses White's harm­less attempts on move S and 6 and features the new idea s liJf3 d6 6 g4.

2 1 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

The notes to the game show that this is dangerous for the unprepared black player, but is not a threat to our whole opening concept.

We then move on to s tt'lf3 d6 6 a3 i.xc3+ 7 �xc3 as .

With 7 . . . as Black slows down White's queen side play and will only later prepare . . . es to fight back in the centre. This l ine is suited to players who prefer a strategic battle and want to play on more general grounds. Evdokimov-Gelashvili (Game 22) features this approach .

A sharper option is s tt'lf3 d6 6 a3 .txc3+ 7 �xc3 0-0 8 b4 es .

2 2 0

Nimzo - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'ikxc3 Se t - ups

The l ine with 7 . . . 0-0 is much more aggressive than 7 . . . as , as Black is basically committed to gambit play by allowing White to expand on the queen side with b2-b4. In almost all cases Black will play 8 . . . es to sacrifice a pawn and open up the centre using his better de­

velopment. The game Valerga-Peralta (Game 23) analyses this sharp line, excluding the critical main continuation which is examined in Game 24.

Indeed, the critical test of 1 . . . 0-0 is 8 b4 es 9 dxes lZJxes 10 lZJxes dxes 11 'ikxes .

White grabs the pawn and falls far behind in development, but has few weaknesses and the pair of bishops. I think that Black is fine here, but only with one specific line, played only once before in Peng Zhaoqin-Plasman (Game 24). As there are no other examples, this whole concept rel ies largely on analysis published here for the very first time.

2 2 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

Game 21 S.Mamedyarov-1.lvanisevic

Tromsl!) Olym piad 2014

1 d4 tZ'if6 2 c4 e6 3 tbc3 i..b4 4 'iVc2 tbc6 5 tbf3 As d4 is attacked, the only other playable move is the modest 5 e3 . This is a fairly rare

move that makes White's set-up look l ike a hybrid between the Classical and the Rubin­stein. White intends to recapture on c3 with a knight or bishop, instead of the queen . The main drawback to this approach is its negligence of development. I suggest the immediate s ... es . Black has decent alternatives in s ... o-o or s ... d6, but starting counterplay in the cen­tre makes sense due to White's slow build-up. Now:

a) White usually advances, but 6 dxes tbxes can lead to interesting play: al) 7 tbf3 'iVe7 {better than 7 . . . tbxf3+ as played in Y.Seirawan-5.Makarichev, Moscow

1990) 8 i..d2 {or the immediate 8 tbxes 'iVxes 9 i..d2 c6! 10 a3 i..as 11 i..d3 o-o 12 o-o .l:i.e8 and Black has no problems) 8 . . . c6 9 a3 i..as 10 tbd4 d6 11 i..e2 o-o 12 0-0 .l:i.e8 when Black is about to complete his set-up with . . . ..td7 and . . . .l:i.ad8, preparing . . . ds with equal chances.

a2) 7 i..d2 i s similar to 7 tZ'if3, as White will often play that move later. I now suggest 7 . . . c6.

This i s a new idea, which keeps the centre flexible and opens a route for the bishop to c7 {after 7 . . . 0-0 8 a3 i..xc3 9 i..xc3 .l:i.e8 10 tbf3 d6 Black was sol id, but slightly passive in M.Turov-A.Roos, Vlissingen 2012): for example, 8 a3 (if 8 tbf3 Black answers with 8 . . . 'iVe7, transposing to variation 'al') 8 . . . i..as 9 f4! ? {ambitious, but also weakening; tbf3 immedi­ately or i..e2 to prepare it is more solid) 9 . . . tbg6 10 tbf3 ds and Black obtains fine play in the centre. Moreover, White's pawn on e3 might become a l iability in the long run .

b) By far the most popular for White is 6 dS and after 6 . . . tbe7 if he neglects his devel ­opment any further, he will encounter problems in the centre:

2 2 2

Nimzo - l n di a n : Zu rich Va r ia t ion , S ide l i n e s a n d 'fixc3 Se t - ups

bl) 7 a3 i..xc3+ 8 'i'xc3 d6 9 f3 (9 i..d3 e4 10 .ic2 bs ! ? reveals a key idea) 9 . . . o-o 10 i..d3 c6 ! 11 dxc6 (11 e4 al so gets hit by 11. . .bS ! ) 11. . .ll'ixc6 12 tt'ie2 i..e6 13 o-o lk8 with good play for Black in M.Schachinger-5 .Baumegger, Zadar 2009. Both . . . bs and . . . ds are important plans.

b2) 7 i..d2 o-o 8 .i.d3 (after the slow 8 a3 i..xc3 9 .i.xc3 d6 10 i..d3 bs! Black was fine in V.Korchnoi-G .Danner, Velden 2009) 8 . . . d6 9 tt'ige2 c6 10 e4 bS ! ?, again with typical counter­play.

b3) It's better for White to go 7 ll'ige2, when I like 7 ... a6 ! ? .

This is a very interesting and slightly unusual concept. Black intends to keep his bishop and settle it on a7. For example :

b31) 8 a3 .i.cs 9 b4 i..a7 does not lead to much : 10 ll'ig 3 (10 cs d6 will favourably open up the position for Black) 10 ... d6 11 .i.e2 o-o 12 o-o ll'ie8 with .. .fs to come, creating coun­terplay for Black.

b32) In S.Grigoriants-N .Vitiugov, Taganrog 2011, White preferred 8 g 3 0-0 (another good possibil ity is 8 .. . bS ! ? : for example, 9 a3 .i.d6 10 b3 c6 11 e4 bxc4 12 bxc4 cxds 13 cxds o-o 14 .tg2 .i.cs with no particular problems for Black) 9 i..g 2 d6 10 o-o .i.cs 11 .i:i.b1 h s ! ? .

2 2 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

Black is trying to provoke weaknesses on the kingside i n order to gain targets for coun­terplay. While Black's play is fairly straightforward, it is not so clear how White should make progress on the queenside. Indeed, after 12 h3 tt:lh7 13 e4 fs 14 b4 Ji.a7 15 �d3 fxe4 16 tt:Jxe4 .llfs I like Black's chances on the king side and Vitiugov went on to win convinc­ingly. s . . . d6

6 g4 Yes, two squares ! Nowadays you need to be ready for this lunge almost every time you

dare to move your king's bishop out. Objectively speaking, Black should be fine, but figur­ing it out over the board is tricky, which is why I decided to feature 6 g4 in a main game. It i s the only dangerous alternative to 6 a3 (see the following three games) and the i..d2 set­ups of our next chapter. That said, let's still briefly check the other moves that White has tried:

2 2 4

N im z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'Wixc3 S e t- ups

a ) 6 e3 o-o and now:

al) 7 .i.e2 es 8 o-o .i.xc3 (Black was worried about ll:JdS; there i s al so the somewhat Pet­roff-looking 8 ... exd4 9 exd4 .i.g4 10 .i.e3 'ii'd7, with about equal play) 9 'ii'xc3 ll:Je4 10 'ii'c2 i..fs 11 'ii'd1 as 12 ll:Je1 exd4 13 f3 ll:Jcs 14 exd4 ll:Jd7 lS ds ll:Jb4 16 .i.e3 .l:i.e8 17 .i.d4 ll:Jcs 18 .l:i.f2 'ii'g s 19 .tf1 hS 20 .i.c3 'ii'e3 21 .td4 and a draw was agreed in this even position in M.Dambacher-D .Hausrath, Dutch League 2014.

a2) 7 .i.d2 es i s a slightly improved version of 6 .i.d2 for Black. He didn 't need to play .. :fie7 to get in . . . es , so retains more options.

a3) 7 .i.d3 es 8 ds ll:Je7 is also a comfortable version of a standard Zurich . Indeed, Black prefers to have played . . . ll:Je7 instead of . . . 'ii'e7 and . . . ll:Jb8. Here it might even be possible to retain the dark-squared bishop, as in the main game.

b) After 6 e4 o-o 7 a3 (both 7 .i.d3 es 8 ds ll:Je7 and 7 ds ll:Jes pose no problems either, but are preferable for White) 7 ... .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 es Black obtains good play against the weakened white centre.

c) 6 g3 o-o 7 .tg2 es will transpose el sewhere in most cases.

For example: cl) 8 a3 .i.xc3+ 9 iVxc3 leads to the notes to move 8 in Game 24. c2) 8 dxes dxes 9 0-0 i..xc3 10 'ii'xc3 'ii'e7 looks like a standard position, but White has

not spent a move on a3, so it should be more favourable than usual for him. Still , Black has no problems here: for example, 11 .i.e3 .l:i.e8 12 h3 as 13 .l:tfel h6 14 .l:tadl i..fs 1S ll:Jd2 'ii'b4 was equal and a hint that omitting a3 also gives Black additional options, V.Tkachiev­Y.Quesada Perez, I stanbul Olympiad 2012.

c3) Following 8 ds ll:Je7 9 o-o Black needs to address the idea of .tg s , combined with ll:Je4. He is okay after 9 ... h6 : for example, 10 ll:Ja4!? .tas 11 e4 .i.d7 (11 . . . b S ! ? 12 cxbs a6 13 bxa6 c6 14 dxc6 .l:txa6 is an interesting idea suggested by Houdini; I am not sure it i s suffi­cient in the long run, but is certainly creative play by the engine) 12 .l:tbl cs with equal chances in a complicated position .

2 2 5

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - In di a n

Now back to 6 g4:

6 . . . es Probably the most logical move, playing the intended central advance anyway. Black

has many other possible moves, but the limited practical experience with 6 g4 thus far does not give us a clear picture:

a) Black might play the cautious 6 . . . h6 : al) In two games White replied with 7 g s ? ! when Black should play 7 . . . i.xc3+ ! 8 bxc3 {8

Wl/xc3? ! tbe4 9 Wl/d3 tbxg s 10 i.xg s hxg s 11 l'.:i.g l es 12 ds tbe7 13 l:i.xg s g6 was fine for Black in A.Popovics-B.Bakos, Hungarian League 2007; White has no compensation for his slightly damaged structure) 8 ... hxg s 9 i.xg s b6, aiming for ... i.b7, ... Wile? and ... o-o-o. Again Black is fine due to his structural superiority.

a2) 7 l:Ig1 is plausible, but it's not clear if the rook move is useful all the time: for exam­ple, after 7 . . . es 8 ds i.xc3+ 9 Wl/xc3 tbe7 White's best move is 10 h3 anyway, so probably line 'a3' makes the most sense for him.

a3) 7 h3 es 8 ds i.xc3+ 9 Wl/xc3 tbe7 and here White has too many possible moves to se­riously analyse with concrete l ines. The structure is familiar and sound, so there is no ur­gent need for a jungle of variations. Indeed, I think that 6 ... h6 is a good choice if you just want to play a game and not strive to refute 6 g4, which is not possible anyway it seems.

b) I was surprised to find that 6 . . . tbxg4 is also quite okay for Black. However, you should only take the pawn if you know what you're doing : you either have to keep the pawn and suffer for it, or sacrifice yourself:

bl) The obvious 7 l:Igl? ! es 8 dS runs into the amazing 8 ... i.cs ! ! with good play for Black.

b2) 7 ds and now: b21) 7 . . . i.xc3+ is the move for the defenders amongst you. After 8 Wllxc3 tbces 9 tbxes

tbxes 10 l:Ig 1 White has good compensation for the pawn : for instance, after 10 . . . Wl/f6 11 i.g s Wllg6 12 l:i.g3 f6 13 i.e3 Wilf7 14 i.g 2 Black needs to be very precise in defending this

2 2 6

N im z o - l n dia n : Zu rich Va r ia t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d �xc3 S e t - ups

position . I 'd rather be White here, but i t might appeal to some to grab the pawn and run . b22) 7 . . . ..tcs ! ? is the choice of the attacking player, and if 8 dxc6 ..txf2+ 9 @d1 bxc6 10

..th 3 hs .

This i s a real mess, but certainly playable for Black. It's tough to say what White's best move is here: 11 ..tg s can be answered by the funny 11 . . . �xg s 12 tt:Jxg S lt:Je3+ 13 @d2 tt:Jxc2 14 @xc2 ..te3 15 tt:Jf3 with an interesting endgame ahead, so taking on g4 certainly comes into consideration . 7 dxes

7 gs had been tried before: 7 . . . tt:Jh s (7 . . . lt:Jd7 ! ? 8 a3 ..txC3+ g �xc3 o-o is al so possible, but yet untried; there is much scope for exploration in such uncharted waters) 8 a3 ..txc3+ 9 �xc3 and now Black must avoid the 9 . . . e4? ! of B.Kocwin-J .Szotek, Karvina 2012, because of 10 dS ! and White is better. In stead, 9 . . . �e7 10 .l:i.g1 0-0 leads to complicated play with chances for both sides. 1 . . . dxes

7 . . . tt:Jxg4! ? would have led to an entirely different game. The position after 8 ..tg s �d7 9 exd6 ..txd6 arises by force from 7 . . . tt:Jxg4. White obviously has many possible moves here. Let's take a look to gain a better feel for the position :

a) 10 .l:i.g l f6 11 ..th4 o-o 12 o-o-o �fs is about equal . b) 10 .l:i.d1 �fs 11 �xfs ..txfs 12 .th4 f6 is quite harmless for Black. c) 10 h3 tt:Jges 11 o-o-o is a sharp attempt, but 11. . .lt:Jxf3 12 exf3 �fs again solves

Black's problems. I think if Black goes for 6 . . . es in the first place he should continue with 7 . . . tt:Jxg4. While

the game continuation is not obviously bad, I think the resulting positions are easier to play for White.

2 2 7

Op e n ing Repe rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

8 gs i.xc3+ 8 . . . tt:'id7 is passive, while 8 . . . tt:Jh s is assessed as equal by Houdini. Still it doesn 't feel right

to place the knight on the rim - I'd rather deviate earl ier than try to improve here. 9 bxc3!

9 �xc3 tt:Je4 10 �e3 i.fs would certainly help Black. 9 . . . tt:Jd7?

9 . . . tt:Jh s was still quite okay for Black, . . . �d7-f5 being a key idea again . 10 i.a3 tt:'ib6?

This loses quickly. 10 . . . tt:Jas allows Black to hang on, but given the many possible improvements earl ier, it

is not so relevant for the overall assessment of 6 g4. It does clearly show, however, that a strong GM like lvanisevic was not able to cope with such a l ine over the board. 11 �dl i.d7 12 i.h3

2 2 8

Nimzo - ln d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i n e s a n d Wixc3 S e t - u p s

12 ... .i.xh3

The crossfire of rook and both white bishops is too much for Black. 12 . . . �c8 loses as well due to 13 l:txd7 lt:Jxd7 14 o-o with l:Id1 to come. 13 .Uxd8+ .Uxd8 14 Wke4

White is already winning and only needs to be reasonably precise to convert. 14 ... tt:Ja4 15 Wie3 .Ud7 16 lt:Jd4 .i.g2 11 l:Ig1 'it>d8 18 tt:'ifs .ie4 19 lt:Jxg7

19 Wkxe4?? l:Id1+ 20 @xd1 lt:Jxc3+ 21 @e1 lt:Jxe4 was to be avoided. 19 ... .ig6 20 Wih3 tt:'ib6 21 tt:Jhs fs 22 gxf6 lt:Jxc4 23 .ie7+ lt:Jxe7 24 fxe7+ l:Ixe7 25 tt:'if6 .if7 26 .Ug7 .ie6 27 Wih6 tt:'id6 28 l:Ixe7 @xe7 29 lt:Je4 tt:Jxe4 30 Wkg7+ 1-0

Summary The rare continuations on move 6 are mostly harmless or can be countered with play based on common sense. The new idea 6 g4 is, however, dangerous to face over the board as the black player experienced here. There are plenty of improvements/alternatives available for Black though, especially 6 . . . h6 and 7 . . . tt:Jxg4 for solid play, or the piece sacrifice line after 6 ... tt:Jxg4 7 dS .ics ! ? for the more adventurously minded. You should choose and learn one of them to be ready in case someone 'accidentally' pushes the g -pawn two squares against you.

Game 22

A.Evdokimov-T .Gelashvili World Open, P h i la d e l p h i a 2012

1 d4 tt:'if6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 i..b4 4 Wkc2 lt:'ic6 5 tt:'if3 d6 6 a3 .i.xc3+ 7 Wkxc3

With 6 a3 White immediately gains the bishop-pair and resolves the pin. It is important to note that White's queen al so now control s the es-square, hindering Black from realizing

2 2 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

his desired break. I t does however, invite various pawn sacrifices with . . . e6-eS as White then loses even more time with the queen. An additional option for Black is the move ... llle4, centralizing with tempo. In the lines with 6 .td2 White recaptures with the bishop on c3, delegating that duty to a minor piece. Therefore in those lines the . . . e6-eS break is l ess l ikely to be possible .

After 7 'i!Vxc3 I recommend two basic options for Black: 7 . . . as , hindering b2-b4 from White and playing without an immediate pawn sacrifice, and 7 ... 0-0, which basically com­mits to 8 b4 es , with gambit play. 1 . . . as

This can be played without knowing too many concrete l ines and is a good choice for the strategist, intending to outplay one's opponent later on . 8 b3

The logical reaction to 7 . . . as , avoiding a further . . . a4 by Black to freeze the queenside. It

al so prepares .tb2, strengthening White's grip on es . Moreover, the alternatives don 't im­press:

a) 8 .tg s h6 9 .th4 {the game Em.Lasker-A.Alekhine, Nottingham 1936, saw a quick draw after the simplistic 9 .txf6 'i!Vxf6 10 e3 o-o 11 .ie2 es 12 dxes dxes 13 o-o i..g4 14 h 3 .th s 1s .l::tfd1 .l::tfe8 16 .i::tds .tg6 1 7 .l::!.ad1 i.fs 18 .l::!.sd2) 9 . . . W/e7 10 e 3 es 11 dxes {the alter­native 11 ds lllb8 12 b4 g s 13 .tg3 tlle4 14 'i!Vb2 h S al so sees Black gaining lots of activity on the queenside) 11 . . .dxes 12 i.e2 i.fs 13 o-o g s 14 ..tg3 tlle4 1s 'i!Vc1 hs .

This was played in Y.Seirawan-J .Benjamin, Philadelphia 1989, where Black went on to win a fine attacking game. Overall , it i s rather obvious that i.g s does not fit into this struc­ture, as the bishop becomes the subject of an attack with ... g s and ... h s .

b ) 8 g 3 {ignoring the positional threat) 8 . . . a4! {Black should take h i s chance) 9 i.g2 o-o 10 o-o Wlie7 11 i.g s {without b3, it's hard to find a place for thi s piece, so White exchanges it) 11. . .h6 12 i.xf6 (a messy alternative i s 12 dS hxg s 13 dxc6 g4 14 tlld4 b6 with unclear play) 12 ... Wl/xf6 with comfortable play for Black. In general allowing ... a4 means that after

2 3 0

Nim z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'flixc3 S e t - u p s

the white d-pawn moves (d4-dS or dxes) , Black will favourably gain control over the cs­square and freeze the queenside. 8 . . . 0-0

This is the most precise move order. Black tries to play . . . e6-eS without preparing it with . . . 'flie7. This might save a tempo and allows . . . tfJe7 after the centre closes down with d4-dS. 9 i.b2

White prevents . . . e6-eS for the moment. However, in the long run Black will manage to carry out the central break and then it is sometimes questionable what the bishop is doing on b2 after the centre closes. That is why White sometimes tries 9 g3 , after which Black can choose between the solid 9 . . . l:te8 and the pawn sacrifice 9 . . . es , which I will show just briefly. It is similar to 7 ... o-o 8 g3 es , but has some additional points like ... l:ta8-a6, for in­stance:

a) 9 . . . l:te8 10 i.g2 es 11 ds tfJe7 sees White manage without i.b2, but allow the . . . tfJe7 retreat. This enables Black to initiate play with .. . C7-c6 and possibly . . . b7-bS :

a1 ) A typical position arose after 12 tfJd2 c6 13 dxc6 tfJxc6 in A.O'Kelly de Galway-5.Reshevsky, New York 19S1 . Black is very solid in this structure, with a possible ... d6-dS to come. The game continued 14 tfJe4 (instead the 14 0-0 of R.Edouard-0.Moor, Swiss League 2013, should be answered by 14 ... tfJd4 1S l:te1 i.g4 and Black has no problems) 14 ... i.e6 1S i.e3 tfJxe4 16 i.xe4 ds 17 l:td1 d4 18 'iic2 h6 19 o-o 'iie7 and Black was already for choice.

a2) 12 o-o a4 (Black also has the option of 12 .. . tfJe4 13 'iic2 fS 14 i.b2, transposing to note 'a12' to White's 10th move, below) 13 b4 bS ! .

2 3 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

The point of . . . a4, breaking up the centre. After 1 4 tl'ld2 bxc4 1S e4? { 1 S �xc4 ii.b7 16 e4 c6 17 dxc6 ii.xc6 was still about equal) 1S ... c6 16 l:tdl cxds 17 exds in N .Ristic-G .Grecescu, Felix Spa 2007, 17 ... ii.g4 would have given Black a clear advantage.

b) 9 . . . es and here: b1) 10 dxes i s the critical choice, but risky for White: 10 . . . dxes 11 tllxes tllxes 12 �xes

.l:!.e8 13 'iWb2 {in the twin line with 7 . . . 0-0 8 g 3 es this is not possible, of course) 13 . . . �d3 {the computer move and probably best) 14 ii.e3 {after 14 ii.g2 ii.g4 1S o-o .l:!.xe2 Black gets the pawn back with the initiative) 14 . . . �e4 1S .l:!.gl a4 with unclear play.

b2) A slight letdown from Black's perspective is the move 10 ii.g2, after which 10 ... .l:!.e8 is probably the best move, just transposing to l ine 'a', above. 9 . . . .l:!.e8 10 .l:!.d1

Continuing to play against . . . e6-eS and basically forcing . . . �e7, which blocks this square from the queen's knight. Alternatives allow exactly that scenario, simplifying Black's task:

a) 10 g3 es and now White needs to decide about the centre. In general I believe the on­ly serious way to play for White is d4-dS, gaining space. That said, we do need to check both approaches:

al) 11 dS ll'le7 when Black has two different ways to generate play. One is to go . . . C7-c6 and . . . b7-bS if possible, breaking up the centre; the other i s to go . . . ll'lf6-e4 and . . .f7-fS , gain­ing space in the centre and on the kingside. Let's see how this plays out in practice:

all) 12 tl'ld2 control s e4, but after this retreat the plan with . . . cc6 i s usually the way to go:

a111) Incorrect i s 12 . . . tllg6 13 ii.g2 tlld7 14 e4 tllcs 1S o-o fS 16 f4 and White was much better in P.Shaw-5.Berry, Liverpool 2008.

a112) 12 . . . c6 13 dxc6 tllxc6 14 ii.g2 ii.e6 is right.

2 3 2

Nimzo - ln di a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d �xc3 Se t - ups

Now . . . d6-dS will follow with no problems at all for Black. a12) 12 .ig2 tlie4 (going for kingside play; here 12 ... c6 has not yet been tried, but there

does not seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with it: for example, after 13 dxc6 tlixc6 14 o-o h6, intending ... .ie6, White is at best slightly better) 13 �c2 fs 14 o-o g s ?.

This very ambitious move was played successfully in B.Kelly-G.Danner, Bled Olympiad 2002, but it should lead to huge trouble for Black after the powerful ls g4! (lS cs was played in the actual game, leading to unclear play) 1s ... tlig6 (alternatively, 1s ... l:.f8 16 gxfs .ixfs 17 tlixes ! with the nice point 17 . . . tlig3 18 tlig4! and White wins) 16 gxfs ..txfs 17 tliel tlig 3 18 e4 tlixfl 19 exfs tlih4 20 ..lle4 and White is close to winning . My suggested im­provement over this game is 14 . . . l:.f8. This move anticipates ideas like tlih4 or g4. White has a wide choice here : for example, lS b4 �e8 16 tlid2 tlif6 and with . . . � s coming, Black ob­tains play on the kingside.

a2) 11 dxes dxes 12 ..tg2 �e7 (in A.Baburin-L.Winants, Mallorca Olympiad 2004, Black chose 12 . . . h6 13 o-o ..tfs 14 b4 e4 1S tlid4 tlixd4 16 �xd4 �xd4 17 i.xd4 tlid7, leading to a

2 3 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ia n

marginally better endgame for White) 13 o-o .i.g4 14 h3 .i.fs 1S J::!.fd1 h6 is a slow improv­ing move that has not been tried yet.

In the game D.Rogozenco-M.Marin , Brasov 2011, the well -respected author tried the ac­tive 1s . . . tt:Je4, but after 16 'ife3 'ires 17 J::!.d3 he was forced to sacrifice a pawn . The game continued 17 . . . 'ifxe3 18 .Uxe3 tt:Jcs 19 tt:Jxes tt:Jxes 20 .txes c6 (Black probably has enough for the pawn, as White's queenside is weak and ... tt:Jxb3 a concrete threat) 21 b4 tt:Jd7 22 .i.d4 .Uxe3 23 fxe3 axb4 24 axb4 .Uxa1+ 2S ..llxa1 i.e6 26 bS i.xc4 27 bxc6 bxc6 28 .i.xc6 i.e6 with a draw a couple of moves later.

After 1S ... h6, 16 b4 is the most direct way to play. It does not lead to much, though . Maybe a slow move l ike 16 'ife3 keeps more tension when Black might respond with . . . .i.e4 or ... 'ife6. I don't see any dangers for him in any case. After 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 tt:Je4 18 'ifb3 .Uxal 19 .Uxal tt:Jxb4 20 tt:Jxes 'ires a typically weird computer line runs 21 'iff3 J::!.xes 22 J::!.a8+ 'it>h7 23 'iff4 tt:Jc6 24 .i.xes 'ifxes 2 s 'ifxes tt:Jxes 26 g4 i.g6 27 f4 tt:Jxc4 28 fs tt:Jed6 with a likely draw as the result. In stead, the normal-looking 23 ... .Ue7 would be one to avoid.

2 3 4

Nim z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , S ide l i n e s a n d 'ilxc3 S e t - u p s

This allows 24 l:.hS+! 'itg6 2S g4 and White wins . b) 10 e3 es and again White needs to commit in the centre: bl) 11 dS tjje7 ( I believe this is preferable to ... tjjbS in most cases; there have been a

couple of games with the retreat as well , though: for example, 11. . .tjjbS 12 .te2 tjjbd7 13 'ilc2 tjjcs 14 tjjd2 c6 1S dxc6 bxc6 16 o-o 'ilb6 17 i..c3 i..g4 1S i..xg4 {ijxg4 19 h3 {ijf6 20 b4 and White was slightly better in P.Karthikeyan-J .Deepan Chakkravarthy, Chennai 2011) 12 tjjd2, played in order to avoid ... {ijf6-e4 and . . .fs plans by Black. However, as usual it allows Black play instead on the queen side:

b11) The standard way to proceed is 12 . . . c6 and then : b111) 13 e4 supports the centre. In the game P. Lafuente-J .Gonzalez Garcia, Havana

2004, Black was slightly worse after 13 . . . cxds 14 cxds i..d7 1s a4 :cs 16 'ild3 {ijg6? ! , but instead with

16 . . . 'ilb6 ! he could have obtained decent play.

For example, 17 .te2 (17 tjjc4?? loses immediately due to 17 . . . .l:.xc4 1S 'ilxc4 :cs 19 'ild3 'ilb4+ 20 'ild2 'ilxe4+ 21 'ile2 'ilb4+ 22 'ild2 'ilxb3 and Black collects the whole central and queenside pawns; 17 g3?? al so fail s, this time to 11 . . . tjjg4 1S 'flf3 :c2 19 i..a3 'ild4 20 :d1 :xd2 21 :xd2 'iVal+ 22 'ild1 'ilxa3) 17 ... {ijg6 1S g3 i..h 3 and Black is active enough to hin­der White from exploiting his space advantage. A nice continuation here is 19 i..a3 'iVd4 20 'ilxd4 exd4 21 f3 tjjxds which illustrates Black's chances. This position is probably about equal .

b112) 13 dxc6 tjjxc6 (13 . . . bxc6 is al so interesting , as after the direct 14 cs Black uses his development advantage to good effect with 14 . . . ds ! ? 1s 'fixes - otherwise, . . . d4 will come anyway with an attack, so White grabs the pawn, but it allows an immediate draw -1S . . . {ijfs 16 'flf4 d4 17 e4 tjjds 1S 'flf3 tjjh4 and Black has at l east a draw by repetition) 14 i..d3 i..e6 and this standard structure is at best slightly better for White.

b12) The very direct 12 ... b s ! ? was tried in 1 .Cheparinov-M.Drasko, Heraklion 2007.

2 3 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

After 13 e 4 Black went 13 . . . bxc4 1 4 i.xc4 i.d7 (14 . . . i.b7 with . . . c 6 t o come still seems okay) 15 o-o c6 16 dxc6 i.xc6 17 f4 "iWb6+ 18 @h 1 tt:Jg6 19 fxes dxes 20 a4 l:tad8 21 l:tac1 tt:Jf4? 22 i.xf7+ @xf7 23 tt:Jc4 'i!Vd4 24 tt:Jxes+ l:txes 25 'i!Vxd4 .l:txd4 26 i.xd4 l:txe4 27 i.xf6 and had to resign. However, he could have complicated matters further with 13 . . . c6 ! ? 14 dxc6 (of course, White could al so keep the tension, but it does not promise much : for in­stance, after 14 .l::i.c1 bxc4 15 bxc4 i.a6 Black is even the more comfortable) 14 . . . tt:Jxc6 15 cxbs tt:Jd4 (Black's play is easy here: . . . i.b7 or . . . i.d7, . . . .l::i.c8 and . . . ds to open the position) 16 l:tc1 (this i s close to being the only move; after, for example, 16 a4 i.b7 17 'i!Vd3 l:tc8 18 i.xd4 exd4 19 f3 i.xe4 20 fxe4 dS Black will win with a direct attack) 16 . . . i.d7 17 i.c4 l:tc8.

This results in about equal play, as White cannot keep the pawn with 18 a4? due to 18 . . . ds 19 exds tt:Jxds 20 'i!Vg3 .ifs with a decisive attack for Black.

b2) I regard the exchange 11 dxes dxes as pretty harmless for Black. Some sample l ines : b21) 12 'i!Vc2 'i!Ve7 13 1le2 1lg4 14 h3 1lh s 15 tt:Jh4?! i.xe2 16 'iitxe2 'i!Ve6 17 g4 l:tad8

2 3 6

Nimzo - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l in es a n d 'ikxc3 S e t - ups

(around here Black could even try for more, but being solid against the world champion certainly is not bad at all ) 17 . . . .l:!.ad8 18 ttJfs g6 19 t2Jg 3 l2Jd7 20 .l:!.adl tlJcs 21 .l:!.xd8 .l:!.xd8 22 t2Je4 t2Jxe4 23 �xe4 �d6 24 �c2 f6 2 S .l:!.dl with a draw in V.Anand-E .Almada, Zurich (sim­ul ) 2009.

b22) After 12 .l:!.d1 �e7 13 .ie2 .ifs 14 o-o t2Je4 1s �cl tlJcs 16 tlJxes tlJxes 17 .ixes t2Jxb3 18 'i!fb2 �xes 19 �xb3 .ie4 Black was already slightly better and won quickly in H .Thallinger-L.Gofshtein, Zillertal 1993 : 20 .l:!.d7 �g s 21 g3 .ic6 22 .l:!.d4 .l:!.ad8 23 .l:!.fd1 .l:!.xd4 24 .l:!.xd4 h s 2 s �d1 �cs 26 Ji.xh s �xa3 27 Ji.e2 a4 28 �fl 'i!fb2 29 cs a3 30 Jl.c4 a2 31 .l:!.d1 il.e4 32 f3 .ic2 0-1.

After that long but important digression, we return to 10 .l:!.d1: 10 • • • 'iWe7

There is no other way to get in ... e6-es . This move blocks e7 from the knight, though, so it usually needs to retreat to b8. 11 e3

Alternatively: a) The main alternative is 11 g3 es 12 ds (12 dxes led to nothing after 12 ... dxes 13 Ji.g2

h6 14 o-o il.fs 1S l2Jh4 .1e4 16 .1xe4 t2Jxe4 in P.Cramling-S .Khukhashvili , Batumi 2012) 12 . . . t2Jb8 13 .tg2 c6 (13 . . . l2Je4? i s not playable here due to 14 �c2 fS 1S l2Jh4! ) 14 dxc6 t2Jxc6 1S o-o h6 (a familiar structure) 16 'iWc2 �c7 17 l2Jh4 l2Je7 18 h 3 .ie6 19 lli'd2 .l:!.ed8 20 'iWe3 t2Jd7 (20 . . . a4 seems better for Black even) 21 f4 f6 22 a4 and a draw was agreed in S .Kishnev-L.Winants, Belgian League 2003.

b) A very direct approach is 11 dS t2Jb8 12 dxe6 (otherwise, Black will play . . . e s and transpose to regular lines) 12 .. .fxe6 (12 . . . .txe6 has been tried as well , but this structure must be somewhat better for White due to the strong bishop on b2) and now:

bl) The ultra-aggressive 13 e4 was the typical choice of U.S. chess legend Walter Browne against one of the experts of Black's cause, Georgi Orlov, in Reno, 1992, where Black should have taken the bait with 13 . . . t2Jxe4! {the game went 13 . . . es? ! 14 cs t2Jc6 1S .tc4+ @f8 16

2 3 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

cxd6 cxd6 with a clear advantage for White) .

After 14 l\i'c2 (or 14 li¥e3 ttJcs 1S b4 ltJa4 16 .ia1 axb4 17 axb4 ltJc6 and I don't see any compensation with . . . e6-eS coming) 14 . . . lLif6 1s ttJg s ltJc6 16 .i.d3 h6 White's compensation seems insufficient to me.

b2) 13 g 3 is the sensible way to proceed: 13 . . . b6 14 ii.g 2 ilb7 1S o-o lLibd7 16 ttJe1 .i.xg2 17 ltJxg2 ttJcs 18 f3 .l::tab8 19 a4 dS with about equal chances in J .Donner-S.Reshevsky, Am­sterdam 19SO. Now the future Dutch GM went astray with 20 �c2 .i:%.bd8 21 .ia3 d4! 22 ttJe1? ! e s 23 e4? (now it's serious trouble for White) 23 . . . dxe3 24 lLid3 e4 2S ltJxcs exf3 ! 26 .i:%.xf3 .l:Ixd1+ 27 °iixd1 e2 28 l\i'e1 bxcs 29 .i.c1 .i:%.d8 ! and had to resign. 11 . . . es 12 ds

Exchanging on es is even more toothless than usual here, as d1 is a more suitable place for the fl-rook than the al-rook, which might be useful on the queenside.

White could delay d4-dS with 12 .ie2, but after 12 . . . .ig4 13 ds lLib8 it transposes to the game anyway. 12 ... ltJbS 13 .i.e2

In the game R.Pogorelov-A.Belezky, Seville 2013, White employed a very slow set-up and got into trouble quickly: 13 h3 ilfs 14 b4? ! ltJe4 (14 . . . axb4 1S axb4 lLibd7 16 .ie2 bS ! is an­other textbook approach to punish the mistimed b2-b4 advance) 1S l\Vb3 ltJa6 16 .i.e2 axb4 17 axb4 cs and Black was in excellent shape. 13 . . . .ig4

Black just develops, but he could also try the untested 13 . . . ltJe4 14 l\i'c2 fs , with the pos­sible follow-up 1S o-o lLid7 16 ttJe1 l\i'g s 17 f4 l\Vh6 with unclear play.

2 3 8

Nim z o - J n d ia n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , S ide l i ne s a n d �xc3 S e t - u p s

In general these closed centre positions give both sides room for active play on the flanks, leading to tense middlegames. 14 0-0 ttJbd7 15 �C2

Covering e4 and the bishop on e2. The position looks about equal .

1s ... c6 Gelashvili , who is an active and creative player, doesn't want to sit tight for any longer

and so opens up the position. Black al so could have waited and improved slowly with , for instance, 1s . . . i..h s . 16 h3 ii.hs 11 tllh4

White wants to use the fs-square for the knight, which is a good plan . 11 ... ii.xe2 18 tllfs 'i!Vf8 19 �xe2 cxds 20 cxds g6

A move with consequences. It is fine, but whenever you play . . . g6 without your dark­squared bi shop (pretty much all the time in the Nimzo/Bogo complex), your king can come

2 3 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d ian

under fire later. Indeed, White's stupid-looking bishop on b2 might become the hero of the day after a later f2-f4, breaking open the long diagonal .

21 tLlg3 'Wie7 22 e4 ttJcs?! I believe the plan initiated with this move is wrong . Black could have obtained decent

counterplay with the active 22 ... h S ! 23 :fel h4 24 tt::if1 ttJcs 25 'Wif3 tLih s and he makes sure that the long diagonal remains closed. 23 'i\Ve3 "JJ.ac8 24 "JJ.d2 a4 25 b4 tLlb3

This was Black's intention on move 22, but this piece i s far from the kingside. 26 ".IJ.e2 ttJd7 27 f4

21 ... exf4? 27 . . . ".IJ.c7 was a tougher defence, keeping the pawn on es as long as possible. The com­

puter actually still assesses this as equal, but it is far easier for White to play. 28 'i!Vxf4 tt::ies 29 'i!Vh6

29 .txes was interesting as well , but Black can defend actively with 29 ... 'i\Vxes ! 30 'i\Vxf7+ Wh8 and it's not easy to find anything concrete here for White: for example, after 3 1 'i!Vf6+ Wg8 32 'i\Vxes :xes 33 :f6 ttJd4 34 .l:!.ef2 tLlbs Black gains enough play to hold the balance. 29 ... 'Wif8 30 'ii'gs 'ilile1?

30 . . . h6 was harder to crack. 31 'i!Vh6 'i!Vf8 32 'Wigs 'i!Ve7? 33 ".IJ.f6!

After repeating, probably in time trouble, White finally plays the refutation of . . . 'i!Ve7. 33 .. . h6 34 'ii'h4 ttJc1 3 5 .l:!.e3

It's too much now for Black, with tt::ifs and :g3 on the cards. 35 ... 'i!Vf8 36 'it>h2 "JJ.c2 37 .txes dxes 38 tt::ifs hs 39 .l:!.g3 llc7 40 'ii'xhs 1-0

Summary The 7 . . . as l ine i s a good choice if you l ike to avoid the complications of the pawn sacrifice discussed in the subsequent games of thi s chapter. It can be played based on knowledge of the key plans and ideas, and leads to rich positions that are interesting to play.

2 4 0

N im z o - l n di a n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , S ide l i ne s a n d �xc3 S e t - ups

Game 23 D.Valerga-F.Pera lta

Argent inea n Cha m pionsh i p, Buenos Ai res 2010

1 d4 l'Llf6 2 c4 e6 3 l'Llc3 .i.b4 4 �c2 l'Llc6 5 l'Llf3 d6 6 a3 .txc3+ 7 'ii'xc3 0-0

This is the much sharper alternative to the more strategically focused 7 . . . as. By allowing 8 b4, which must be the critical move, Black essentially commits to the pawn sacrifice 8 . . . e s ! , as otherwise his position becomes too passive. Black has enterprising answers to

White's other choices as wel l : for instance, 8 g3 es and 8 .tg s h6 9 .i.h4 gs both leading to interesting play. This game will cover all the sidelines after 7 ... 0-0, while the next game fo­cuses on the gambit main l ine with 12 'i!Vb2. I believe that White can almost force that criti ­cal position on move 12, as Black's alternative 8 b4 es 9 dxes l'Lle4 falls short, as we will see in this game. 8 b4

The sharpest move, forcing the pawn sacrifice. White has tried some other, less direct moves too:

a) A mix of �xc3 and .i.g s in the Zurich variation usually fails to impress and 8 .i.g s i s no exception :

a1) Black has a solid move in 8 . . . .l:f.e8, for example, 9 e3 es 10 ds l'Llb8 11 .te2 as 12 b3 .tfs 13 .i.xf6 �xf6 14 l'Lld2 l'Lld7 1s e4 ..tg6 16 o-o �g s 17 b4 fS with about equal chances in L. Lenic-R.Antoniewski , Sibenik 2012.

a2) Also possible is 8 . . . 'ii'e7 9 ds l'Llb8 10 .i.xf6 �xf6 11 �xf6 gxf6 12 e3 as 13 b3 l'Lla6 with a complex endgame in N.Maiorov-R.Wojtaszek, Warsaw 2013.

a3) The sharpest and most interesting approach is 8 . . . h6, which initiates 9 .i.h4 gs 10 .i.g3 l'Lle4 11 �c2 fS 12 e3 �f6 and here White has tried various moves:

2 4 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

a31) 13 o-o-o es 14 dxes dxes lS cs i.e6 ( 1 s . . . a 6 al so looks satisfactory for Black, just in­tending to continue with . . . i.e6 and . . . l:tad8) 16 i.bs lt:Jxg 3 17 hxg 3 g4 18 lt:Jd2 'it>g7 19 i.xc6 bxc6 20 f4 exf4 21 exf4 l:tfd8 22 l:the1 l:td4 and Black's nicely centralized pieces guar­anteed him good play in G .Hertneck-G .Titov, Moscow Olympiad 1994.

a32) 13 i..d3 lt:Jxg 3 14 hxg 3 es lS ds lt:Je7 16 e4 'it>g7 was played in A.Postl-G.Danner, Austrian League 2011. This is about equal . Black can always take on e4, followed by ... i.fs or even . . . tt:Jfs, intending ... g4 and . . . lt:Jd4, which looks riskier. Indeed, it is important not be­come overambitious here, as White i s fairly solid.

a33) 13 c s ! ? i s a sharp approach . Black has a good reply, though, in 13 .. . dxcs . This was condemned by Vitali Golod in his notes, but he had missed Black's point on the next move: 14 dxcs l:td8 ! .

This prevents castl ing and l:td1, l imiting White's options. Now lS i.xc7 can be answered by the simple 1s ... l:td7 16 i.d6 lt:Jxd6 17 cxd6 .l:.xd6 with ... i..d7 and ... l:tc8 to follow, giving

2 4 2

N i m z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'iixc3 S e t- ups

Black good play. White has some better alternatives to lS il.xc7, of course, but i t doesn't look scary: for example, lS il.c4 ltJxg3 16 hxg 3 'it>g7 and White still cannot go 0-0-0, while Black may even play . . . e6-eS or . . . tt:Jes soon . In stead, 13 . . . h s ? ! was seen in G .Kacheishvil i ­A.Mastrovasilis, I stanbul 2003, when 14 h4 (after 14 cxd6 cxd6 lS h4 g4 16 lLld2 Mastrova­sil is could have obtained the better position with 16 . . . tt:Jxg3 17 fxg3 il.d7) leads to a plus for White with the crazy computer l ine 14 . . . g4 lS il.h2 ! ! , when Black would need to be precise to avoid a quick disaster. Fortunately, though, 13 . . . dxcs is a simple equalizer for Black.

b) 8 e3 is the least ambitious move for White. The simplest response now would be 8 . . . as, with a likely transposition to 7 . . . as, or alternatively 8 . . . .l:!.e8, when Black manages . . . e6-eS without the need for . . . fie7, thus keeping open the option of . . . lLie7. However, it seems that Black also play the sharp pawn sacrifice 8 . . . e s ! ? once again . A sample l ine: 8 . . . e s ! ? g dxes dxes 10 tt:Jxes tt:Jxes 11 fixes .l:!.e8. In the comparable position from 8 b4, White has b2 as a relatively safe retreat square. Here it is not that easy and in the only game reference G .Andruet-T.Bottema, Groningen 1988, White now went 12 fic3?? (this already loses by force; after a better alternative l ike 12 'iff4 Black has a wide choice, but I l ike 12 . . . as ! ?, introducing the idea of a later . . . .l:!.a8-a6} 12 . . . tt:Je4 13 'ifc2 il.fs 14 il.d3.

Here Black could have won with the fairly straightforward 14 . . . tt:Jxf2 ! lS il.xfs tt:Jxh1 16 il.xh7+ @h8 17 .ifs 'iff6 and White has no way to get to the knight on hl . This whole 8 . . . es idea after 8 e3 seems worth a try, but as 8 e3 i s a fairly rare move, I don't want to fill pages with analysis on it. If you enjoy attacking play and don 't mind sacrificing some small mate­

rial for it you can certainly give such a move a try even without analysing for hours. Keep in mind that over the board between humans such positions are murderous to play for White, as witnessed in this game.

c) 8 g 3 es ! i s not even a real pawn sacrifice, as taking it is clearly too risky for White:

2 4 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - / n di a n

cl) 9 dxes dxes and here: ell) 10 lllxeS ? ! lllxes 11 'ifxes .U.e8 and now: c111) 12 'iff4 can be answered by the very direct 12 . . . l:[e4 13 °it'f3 (or 13 'ifd2 .l:!.d4 14 'if c2

i..fs ! lS iib3 i..e4 and only a computer or a real glutton would take White, as Black's com­pensation is swiftly becoming scary) 13 . . . 'ife8 ! ? with excellent compensation .

c112) 12 'if c3 llle4 with a further divide: c1121) 13 'ife3 i..g4 14 h3 'ifd7 ! lS i..d2? (lS 'iif4 is a much tougher defence; remarka­

bly, I didn't find a win or even a clear edge for Black: for example, 1S ... 'ifd4!? 16 hxg4 .l:!.ad8 17 i..e3 'ifxb2 18 l:!.cl lllc3 19 f3 llla2 20 gs .l:!.xe3 21 'ifxe3 'ifxcl+ 22 'ifxcl lllxcl 23 .l:!.h4 lllb3 and White has dodged all bullets - this is not forced, of course, and all the fun is with Black, but where is the win?) 1S . . . l:!.ad8 16 .tc3 tt:Jxc3 17 'ifxc3 i..f3 18 .l:!.g l .l:!.e4 19 b3 .l:!.d4 20 'ifcl l:!.d2 21 g4 'ifd4 22 l:!.b1 l:!.d1+ and with mate to come, White resigned in K.Makarczyk­B.Sl iwa, Poznan 19S2 .

c1122) The 13 'ii!Vf3 'ifd4 of B.Michiel s-M.Bartel , Legnica 2013 , was also good for Black. Now 14 'ife3 (the game's 14 e3 was a disaster for White after 14 ... lllcs lS i..e2 'iVes 16 0-0 lllb3 17 .l:!.a2 i..h3 , with a quick win for Black) 14 ... 'ifxc4 lS f3 is the relatively best l ine for White, after which Black can even try 1S . . . i..g4 16 'iff4 (16 fxg4? l:!.ad8 is deadly) 16 . . . .th s 17 h4 .U.ad8 with a tremendous attack.

c12) 10 i..g2 (wisely declining to snatch the pawn) 10 . . . .l:!.e8 and now: c121) 11 i..g s was very modest, but safe in B.Privman-J .Benjamin, New York 20os . Fol ­

lowing 1l . . . llld4 (11 . . . h6 is al so fine: for example 12 .Udl 'W/e7 13 i..xf6 �xf6 14 o-o i..g4 lS h3 i..h s 16 g4 i..g6 17 l:td2 .l:!.ad8, as in A.Dreev-P .Harikrishna, Dubai (blitz) 2014) 12 l:!.dl cs 13 .l:!.d2 h6 14 i..xf6 'W/xf6 lS 0-0 i..g4 Black had an active game.

c122) The natural -looking move 11 0-0 already leads to some trouble for White: 11 . . . e4 12 llld2 llld4 13 .l:!.el i..g4 14 i.fl e3 ! lS fxe3 lllfs 16 e4 'ii!Vd4+ 17 'W/xd4 lllxd4 18 .U.bl .l:!.ad8.

2 4 4

N i m z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l in es a n d 'iixc3 S e t - u p s

A picture of harmony. Black has far more than enough compensation and is already close to winning: 19 h3 .ih s 20 g4 .ig6 21 .i.g2 tt:Jc2 {this allows an exchange sacrifice on f6; maybe it was simpler just to go 21. . .tt:'ixe4 22 tt:Jxe4 i.xe4 23 i.xe4 l:txe4, with an over­whelming advantage in a slightly more simplified position) 22 l:tf1 tt:'ie3 23 l:txf6 gxf6 24 .if3 tt:Jc2 2S @f2 l:te6 26 e3 l:td3 27 b3 tt:'ixa3 28 l:ta1 tt:'ic2 29 l:txa7 .l::!.ed6 30 l:txb7 l:txd2+ 31 .ixd2 l:i.xd2+ 32 @g3 cs 3 3 h4 h6 34 h s .i.h7 3 S es fxes 36 .ids tt:Jxe3 37 .ixf7+ @f8 3 8 .ie6 .ie4 39 l:.c7 tt:'if1+ and 0-1 in N .Kalesis - 1 .Papaioannou, Achaea 2012. From move 22 onwards there were many inaccuracies, probably due to time pressure in a complicated position .

As usual the capture on es does not cause Black any trouble and advancing is far more

testing : c2) 9 dS tt:'ie7 10 .ig2 and now:

c21) 10 . . . tt:Je4 is interesting : 11 "iie3 {the normal -looking 11 'ii'c2 gets hit by 11.. . .ifs and the queen needs to move again) 11. . .fS 12 o-o as was the game S.Reshevsky-P.S.Milner-

2 4 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n di a n

Barry, Margate 193S . Now White played the remarkable 13 a4? ! , giving up h i s queenside play and any hope of an advantage. That said, even after 13 b3 Black has many ideas: for instance, 13 . . . �e8 or 13 . . . tt:Jcs with ideas of . . . a4 or even .. .f4 to follow.

c22) Another possibility is 10 ... .ifs, as played in K.Dragun-R.Wojtaszek, Warsaw 2013. It's quite obvious that the Pol ish players have studied this l ine extensively. The game went 11 o-o �d7 12 lt:Jh4 .ih 3 13 �c2 h6 14 e4 .ixg2 1S @xg2 tt:Jh7 16 cs fs with typical coun­terplay for Black.

c23) 10 ... h6 was played in a rapid game by Polish Junior World Champion Darius Swiercz against Anatoly Karpov in Potsdam, 2012. After 11 o-o .ifs 12 lt:Jd2 �d7 (this i s similar to Wojtaszek's play above) 13 e4 .ih 3 (it may look weird to exchange off White's potentially bad bishop. but due to Black's disadvantage in space, exchanges are welcome) 14 b4 we have:

c231) Swiercz now played 14 . . . lt:Jh7? ! , immediately initiating typical king side play with

.. .fs , but after 1S f4! i.xg2 16 @xg2 exf4 17 gxf4 c6 18 .ib2 the former world champion gained a distinct advantage and went on to win.

c232) My suggested improvement is 14 . . . .ixg2 1S @xg2 c6 , and if 16 .ib2 (16 f4? ! , as in the game, can now be answered by 16 . . . exf4 17 gxf4 cxds 18 cxds lt:Jg6 when White's cen­tre and king position look shaky) 16 . . . cxds 17 cxds .l:!.ac8 18 �3 lt:Jh7.

Now . . .fs will be stronger than in the game, as dS is immediately undermined with the c4-pawn missing.

c3) On 9 .ig2 Black obtained a fine position in Z .Hracek-A.Yusupov, German League 2012, with 9 ... e4 10 lt:Jd2 ds 11 cs? ! (giving up the pressure on Black's centre looks wrong to me; after 11 o-o l:!.e8 12 e3 .ifs 13 cxds lt:Je7 it should be about equal) 11 ... as 12 lt:Jfl a4 13 h 3 lt:Jas 14 .ig s h6 1s .ixf6 �xf6 16 lt:Je3 lt:Jb3 17 .l:!.d1 c6 18 o-o �g6 19 lt:Jc2 � S 20 g4 �4 21 f3 exf3 22 exf3 and here a draw was agreed, maybe due to match tactics. After 22 . . .fs Black just seems to be comfortably better.

At last we can return to the critical 8 b4:

2 4 6

Nim z o - l n di a n : Zu rich Va r ia t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'ikxc3 S e t- ups

s . . . es !

9 dxes 9 i..b2 should be answered with 9 . . . .l:.e8 (9 . . . e4 10 tt:Jd2 dS 11 e3 is slightly more com­

fortable for White), when opening the position with 10 dxes leads to the main game. In­stead, 10 e3 i..g4 11 ds tt:Jb8 12 tt:Jd2 c6 13 e4 as led to a typical Zurich position in Ding Li ­ren-L. Fressinet, Beijing 2012. After 14 i..d3 I would though prefer 14 . . . axb4 to Fressinet's 14 . . . tt:Jbd7, as after 15 axb4 .l:.xal+ 16 i..xal cxds 17 cxds tt:Jh s Black begins play on the king side. 9 . . . tt:Jxes

In the early days of the Zurich 9 . . . tt:Je4? ! was a topical l ine. It seems insufficient, though, after 10 'ike3 fS 11 i..b2 :

a) 11 . . . tt:Jxes 12 tt:Jxes dxes 13 g 3 i..e6 was played in R .Fine-C.Alexander, Margate 1937, and is defused by either 14 .l:.cl or 14 i..g2 , intending 14 . . . i..xc4 15 .l:.cl i..ds 16 f3 tt:Jf6 17

2 4 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln di a n

'ii'xes and White is clearly better. b) A more recent try is 11 ... as 12 bs lllxes 13 lllxes dxes 14 g 3 (this is better than 14

.i.xes W/e7 lS .i.b2 .i.e6 16 .l:Icl .l:!.ad8 and Black's compensation is becoming very danger­ous) 14 ... .i.e6 lS J:.c1 �d7 16 .i.g2 (16 .i.xes is more interesting here than on move 14; still , I feel that just improving the position is stronger) 16 . . . llld6 17 W/xes lllxc4 18 W/c3 lllxb2 19 �xb2 .i.ds 20 .i.xds+ �xds 21 o-o. Black didn't have any great alternatives on the way to this rather ugly endgame. He will suffer and probably lose against good technical play. The game R.Pogorelov-C.Matamoros Franco, Seville 2007, continued 21 . . . J:.f7 22 J:.fdl W/e6 2 3 e3 h6 24 J:.cs .l:Ie8 2 s i¥c2 J:.ee7 26 J:.dds b6 27 .l::td8+ 'it>h7 28 J:.c6 Wies 29 i¥d3 W/e4 30 Wid1 �es 31 a4 g6 32 h4 h s 33 Wid4 �xd4 34 l!xd4 and White converted in the end.

The general problem with the 9 . . . llle4 line is that it places the knight on an unstable square while the centre behind it with . . . es and .. .fs is vulnerable. 10 .i.b2

10 lllxes dxes 11 i.b2 is another route to the game position, while 11 W/xes is obviously the critical move to examine in detail . For detailed analysis on it, please see the following game, Peng Zhaoqin-Plasman. 10 . . . .UeS

11 lllxes White has al so tried without this move. For example : a) 11 .l::tdl has not been tried yet, but needs to be checked. Here 11 . . . 'iie7 12 lllxes leads

to note 'b' to White's 12th move, below. Instead, 12 e3 llle4 13 'iid4 (avoiding 13 'iic2? lllg4) 13 . . . i.fs 14 i.e2 (14 h3 takes g4 under control , but is too slow: 14 . . . cs ! lS bxcs lllxcs and Black is seriously better already due to the ideas of . . . lllb3 and . . . .i.c2, winning the ex­change) 14 . . . b6 lS o-o as and this middlegame, quite similar to Gereben-Najdorf below, is about equal .

b) 11 e3 llle4 12 �d4 .i.fs 13 i.e2 'iif6 14 o-o as was played in E.Gereben-M.Najdorf, Budapest 1936 . Black is fine here and even had reasonable alternatives in Georgi Orlov's

2 4 8

Nimzo - ln dia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l in es a n d 'flxc3 Se t - ups

11. . .b6 or 13 . . . cs , as given by Richard Palli ser. 11 . . . dxes 12 e3

Again, there are alternatives : a) 12 g 3 i s a sensible move, but it neglects coverage of the c4-pawn. This i s Black's spot

to attack with 12 ... tt:le4! 13 'fle3 (or 13 'flcl 'f/f6 and ... tt:ld6 next move is even more com­fortable than the text for Black) 13 . . . tt:ld6 14 'f/c3 i.e6 lS .l:f.d1 'flc8 16 cs tt:lc4 17 i..a1 bs 18 �g2 c6 19 o-o i.h 3 20 a4 i..xg2 21 @xg2 as and Black had taken the initiative: 22 .l:!.b1 'f/e6 23 e4 f6 24 .l:!.fdl 'flg4 2S f3 'fle6 26 'f/d3 axb4 27 .l:!.xb4 .l:!.xa4 28 .l:f.xa4 bxa4 29 .l:f.cl lllas 30 'fla6 lllb3 31 .l:f.dl tt:lxcs 32 'fla7 'f/a2+ 33 @h 3 tt:le6 34 f4 exf4 3S 'fld7 tt:lg s+ 36 @g4 'fle2+ and 0-1 in G.Battaglini-P. Lafuente, St Petersburg 2009.

b) The insertion of the move pair 12 .l:f.dl 'fle7 changes the position slightly compared to 11 e3 or 11 g3 . Here:

bl) 13 g3 i..fs (Black could also try 13 . . . tt:le4 ! ?, tempting White to grab es with 14 'fixes 'fixes 1S i..xes , after which 1s . . . i..g4 is not clear at all ) 14 i.g2 (14 'fle3 prevents . . . tt:le4, but allows 14 . . . as with counterplay) 14 . . . llle4 (again, we see this regrouping to d6) 1S 'f/e3 tt:ld6 16 'f/c1 i.e4 with a good position for Black.

b2) 13 e3 i..fs (one of the experts, Georgi Orlov, preferred 13 ... as 14 i..d3 b6 1S o-o i.b7 16 i.c2 axb4 17 axb4 tt:le4 18 i.xe4 i..xe4 and equalized easily in G .Umezinwa-G.Orlov, New York 1994; my suggested move 13 ... i.fs is not better objectively, but features some interesting ideas).

Some possible continuations are: b21) 14 i.e2 tt:le4 1S 'flc1 'fig s or 1s .. .f6 16 cs tt:lg s is a regrouping worth noting . With

.. .f6 and . . . lllf7 Black will be very solid. In this concrete case the active . . . 'fig s is just stronger though, al so with good counterplay.

b22) 14 cs? ! further neglects development, which Black can exploit with 14 ... tt:Je4 1S 'i'c4 'i'g s and he is already for choice. The computer actually indicates 16 f3 as the only playable move here, assessing the position after 16 ... 'i'xe3+ 17 'i'e2 'i'xe2+ 18 i.xe2 lllf6 as

2 4 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n di a n

only marginally better for Black. While I agree that converting the pawn won 't b e easy, White is far away from having adequate compensation, so this evaluation seems ques­tionable to me.

b23) I believe it is best to immediately take e4 under control : 14 f3 ! , after which I sug­gest starting play on the queenside with 14 . . . c s ! ? 1 s i.e2 llld7, targeting the c4-pawn with the possible set-up . . . lllb6, . . . i.e6 and .. .f6 if necessary. 14 . . . cs also makes sure that White does not advance with c4-cS, improving his bishop on e2, and this position should be roughly equal .

12 ... tlle4!? The simple 12 . . . i.fs is fine as well . White's most ambitious reply i s 13 f3, which can be

answered with . . . llld7 and . . . cs, just like after 12 l:td1 �e7 13 e3 i.fs . In the game 1 . Farago­P.Motwani, Forli 1991, Black played the active-looking 13 . . . lllh s ? ! , but after 14 g3 i.g6 1S i.e2 as, 16 l:tdl improves on the strange 16 bxas of the game. I don 't see how Black can

gain adequate play here: for instance, 16 . . . axb4 17 axb4 �e7 18 l:tds f6 (otherwise es sim­ply falls , but the piece sacrifice doesn 't work) 19 g4 tllf4 20 exf4 exf4 21 l:td2 l:tad8 22 @fl and White wins. 13 �c2 .ifs

A very direct way to play. 14 i.d3

Instead, 14 g4 looks a bit insane, but nowadays people play g2-g4 whenever possible, so it needs to be checked: 14 . . . i.g6 1S i.d3 tllg s 16 o-o-o i.xd3 17 �xd3 f6. Black had alterna­tives along the way, but he can force this position, which looks about equal to me.

However, the careless 14 .J:td1? leads to big trouble for White after 14 . . . �g S : for exam­ple, after 1S �3 l:!.ad8 16 h4 'iWf6 Black has a winning attack. 14 ... lllxf2

Black grabs the exchange. This is forced after 12 . . . tlle4 from his perspective. 15 i.xfs lllxh1 16 @f1

2 5 0

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i ne s a n d 'iixc3 Se t - ups

16 ..txh7+? ! loses too much time and 16 . . . 'it>f8 17 i..e4 (securing the bishop before Black

traps it with . . . g6} 17 . . . 'iig s is very annoying. White probably needs to play 18 g 3 lZ:Jxg3 19 hxg 3 'iixe3+ 20 'iie2 'iixg 3+ 21 'it>d2 'in>3. While I believe Black is better here, this is not such an easy position to play, and maybe there are improvements possible earl ier. 16 ... g6

The direct 16 . . . iVg s was interesting as well . 17 ..th3 iVgs 18 iVe2 .l:tad8 19 'it>g1 ltd6

Planning to invade on the d-file. 20 C5

20 'it>xhl was a stiffer test for Black: for example, 20 . . . .l:ted8 21 i..c3 'iVe7 (the direct 21 ... ltd3 fall s short after 22 i..d4 ltb3 23 iVc2 exd4 24 iVxb3 dxe3 2 5 .l:tel e2 26 '1i'c2 l'1e8 27 iVd3 and while this is not lost for Black, it's certainly no position to aim for} 22 .l:tf1 ltd3 2 3 'iie1 'iig s with dynamically equal play. 20 ... .i:tds 21 .l:tf1 lZ:Jg3 22 hxg3 'iWxg3 23 ltf3 1\Vgs 24 1\Vc4 c6 25 'it>h2 1\Ve7 26 e4 .l:td1 27 1\Vb3 lte1 28 1\Vc4 ltd1 29 1\Vb3 lte1 Yz-Yz

Summary I don't see any particular problems for Black with the sidelines after 7 . . . 0-0. It seems the only stern test of the gambit approach is acceptance, as covered next in Game 24.

Game 24

Peng Zhaoqin-H.Plasman Hoogeveen Open, E ssent 2001

1 d4 lZ:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lZ:Jc3 i..b4 4 'iWc2 lZ:Jc6 5 lZ:Jf3 d6 6 a3 i..xc3+ 7 1\Vxc3 o-o 8 b4 es 9 dxes lZ:Jxes 10 lZ:Jxes dxes 11 'iixes

2 5 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In di a n

'The proof of the pudding is in the eating' . I n practice White does not 'eat' s o often, but you certainly need to have something prepared in case your opponent is hungry. 11 . . . 1:!.eS 12 'ieb2

The only move ever played here, and with good reason. Other retreats concede even more time or directly give up the c4-pawn, l ike 12 'ief4 1:!.e4 13 'ieg3 1:!.xc4. After the correct 12 �2 Black has a wide choice, with 12 . . . tt:'ig4 being regarded as the main move. My analy­sis, however, has shown that Black's best bet i s : 12 . . . as !

This move was only played once in the main game. Let's have a brief look at the alterna­tives to demonstrate why I went for 12 . . . a5 as my recommendation :

a) The very direct 12 . . . tt:Jg4 i s usually regarded as the main move here and was even awarded an exclam by Richard Palli ser in Tango!. Palliser mentions the critical l ine of 13 .i.f4! and now:

al) 13 . . . 'iee7 is his suggested improvement. This is strange, as the simple 14 h3 tt:'ies 15 .i.xe5 'iexes 16 'iexes 1:!.xes 17 e3 as 18 o-o-o ile6 19 b5 leaves White with a clear extra pawn; I don 't see sufficient compensation . White needs to avoid 19 Wb2 though, as 19 ... axb4 20 axb4 bs is an important resource.

a2) I tried to make 13 ... 'ied3 work, but after 14 e3 'iee4 15 0-0-0 ! (and not 15 .ig 3?? tt:'ixe3) 1 5 . . . "ii'e7 16 h3 tt:'if6 17 g4 while White needs to be precise with his slightly exposed king , this is not a position to recommend for Black.

a3) The most aggressive move is 13 ... g s , but this seems almost unplayable to me: 14 l:tdl "Cfl/e7 (a long-time team mate of mine tried 14 ... 'iexdl+ here, but it did not lead to enough play for the queen : 15 Wxdl tt:'ixf2+ 16 Wcl gxf4 17 .I:.g1 l:te4 18 g3 , and White won quickly in A.Jossien-D .Hausrath, French League 2009) 15 .i.cl ! .i.fs (if Black tries 15 ... tt:Jes, then White responds in the same vein with 16 h4 gxh4 17 'iec3 , which leaves Black with a disastrous position in view of the coming .i.b2) . After 1s . . . .if5 the improvement is the simi­lar 16 h4! (far better than the 16 e3 of A. Lunev-S.Voitsekhovsky, Moscow 1999) 16 . . . gxh4 (or

2 5 2

Nimzo - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i n e s a n d 'ilxc3 S e t - u p s

16 . . . llle 5 17 i..xg 5 f6 18 i..e3 lllxc4 19 'iiib3 i..e6 20 i..d4 and White consolidates; after 20 . . . a5, 21 e4! i s strong) 17 i..f4 .l:!.ad8 18 l:.xd8 .l:!.xd8 19 e3 and Black is in deep trouble. An interesting defensive try i s 19 .. .f6 20 lixh4 llle5 intending . . . llld3+, but 21 i..xe5 fxe5 22 g 3 i s still insufficient. Maybe you can find an improvement, but I think that 1 2 . . . ll:Jg4 is just not working at all .

b ) Another move that has been both tried and analysed is 12 . . . '¥Vd3 . Here Houdini sug­gest the new move 13 f3 , followed by 13 . . . 'ifxc4 14 e4 'ife6 15 i..d3, which seems like a long­term nagging edge for White to me. Instead of 13 f3 , White even has other critical moves, but compared to 12 ... a5 this is just less convincing .

Let's return to 12 . . . a5 and examine White's options.

13 i..gs

A very logical move, but of course there are other possibilities too to analyse. Keep in mind that the following is all new and has never been tried in practice:

a) Let's start with 13 f3 . Thi s prevents knight jumps and prepares e4: al) The immediate 13 . . . i..e6 i s interesting, and if 14 e3 (14 e4?? lllxe4 is losing quickly

for White) 14 . . . llld7, planning . . . i.xc4 as in the line below. a2) My main road of analysis, however, i s 13 ... '¥Ve7 14 i..d2 (14 b5 'i¥c5 is not convincing

for White; lines like 15 e3 i..f5 16 i..e2 .l:!.ad8 17 @f2 i..d3 see him struggling to defend) 14 . . . i..e6 15 e3 (on 15 e4 Black has a typical sacrifice available : 15 ... lllxe4 16 fxe4 'ifh4+ 17 'it>d1 'iWxe4 with a strong attack that is at least good enough for a draw; one possible draw­ing l ine is 18 Wcl axb4 19 axb4 .l:!.xal+ 20 'ifxal i.f5 21 'iiib2 l:.a8 22 'it>d1 i..g4+ 23 Wcl i.f5, etc) 15 . . . llld7.

2 5 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d ian

This introduces the idea of . . . i.xc4 and . . . 'iVh4+. While Black's compensation is obvious, it's not so easy to determine a main l ine from here. Houdini suggests the computerish 16 h4 which makes some sense though ; h S-h6 gets the rook in play and 'iVh4 is prevented. Here 16 ... axb4 17 axb4 �d6 18 i.e2 .l:i.xa1+ 19 �xa1 cs i s just one possible line, with Black retaining enough play for the pawn . Quite often he will get c4 back, leading to bishops of opposite colours after the sequence . . . lbxc4; i.xc4 ..txc4.

b) The advance 13 bS makes sure that the a-file is kept closed, but White also weakens the cs-square considerably. This gives Black additional options and after 13 . . . ..te6 (com­pared to move 12, now 13 . . . �d3 is more interesting, as at least 14 f3 �xc4 1S e4 �cs is fine for Black; 13 . . . �d3 is a l ine worth investigating, but I l iked 13 . . . ..te6 even more) White needs to attend to the c4-pawn : bl) Yet another move with the queen like 14 �c2 seems very risky. Besides the simple 14 . . . �d4, there is the more interesting 14 . . . lbg4 !? (a l ine I couldn't make work is 14 . . . c6 1S bxc6 .l:i.c8 ! 16 cxb7 .U.xc4 17 �2 �c7, which looks utterly crazy from the white side, but I didn 't manage to find a win for Black - maybe you will be more successful ?), when White has only two satisfactory moves:

2 5 4

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va r ia t ion , S ide l in es a n d 'Wixc3 Se t - ups

b11) 1S e3? ! i s not one of them : 1S . . . �4 16 h3 (or 16 g 3 �f6) 16 . . . .l:tad8 17 g 3 (17 .l:ta2? .!llxe3 18 .i.xe3 .i.g4 is already decisive) 17 . . . �f6 18 hxg4 �xa1 and Black is better.

b12) 1S �c3 .i.xc4! one idea of .!llg4. 16 .i.b2 tt:Jes 17 .l:td1 �f6 18 �xc4 .!llxc4 19 .i.xf6 gxf6 and this endgame is about equal .

b13) 1S .i.b2 �g s 16 .l:td1 (normal-looking moves like 16 e3? .i.fs and 16 g 3 ? .l:tad8 lose instantly; White has to walk a thin line here) and now:

b131) 16 . . . �f4 is interesting , but after 17 .i.d4 .!llxh2 (a weird computer line, but it does regain the pawn) 18 .i.b2 {18 g 3 ?? tt:Jf3+ 19 exf3 .i.fs+ is yet another way down) 18 .. .f6 19 .l:td4 �6 and the only move 20 �d1 Black's queen is in an awkward pin and I don't trust this l ine.

b132) Better seems to be 16 . . . c6, opening up the position . After 17 bxc6 bxc6 White still cannot develop normally, so play might proceed 18 �d2 �S 19 h4 tt:Jes 20 �g s �xg s 21 hxg s tt:Jxc4 22 iLc1 .l:tab8.

2 5 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

Black is fine here. I t is not easy analysing these complicated positions, yet alone playing them over the board. But be aware of the fact that attacking in chess is easier than defend­ing - and White needs to be precise here to stay in the game.

b2) Instead of covering the pawn, White can also return it immediately with 14 ..ig s .ixc4 {there is nothing better) 1S .l:!.d1 �e7 16 .ixf6 (I don't think White has a useful im­proving move first, so taking is the most logical ) . Now both recaptures are possible, but going into the endgame with 16 . . . �xf6 17 �xf6 gxf6 is the easiest. After 18 e3 ..ixfl 19

.l:!.xfl Iles the weakened white queen side gives Black good play. Thi s i s why . . . as i s such an important move. Instead, 16 . . . gxf6 is more complicated and riskier: for example, 17 .l:!.c1 �e6 18 e3 ..ixfl 19 @xfl .l:!.ad8 20 h4 .l:!.ds 21 .l:!.h 3 �d6.

An interesting fight l ies ahead, with about equal chances. b3) Now let's check the most logical move to cover the pawn, 14 e3. Here Black obtains

fine piece play starting with 14 . . . tbe4: b31) White's only move is line 'b32 ', other tries l ike 1S ..id2? �4 16 .ic3 .l:!.ad8 17 g 3

� S 1 8 ..ie2 �3 lead t o a decisive attack fo r Black. b32) After 1S .te2 �g s 16 o-o .l:!.ad8 Black has strong compensation here. Let's check

some moves for White: b321) The computer's funny main line i s 17 'it>h1 �4 18 @g1 �g s with a repetition .

2 5 6

Nimzo - ln d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l in es a n d "fixc3 S e t- ups

If Black wants to continue, he can play 19 Wh l �cs, intending . . . ti:Jd6-c4 with good compensation .

b322) 17 .:e1 i.h 3 18 i.f3 .:d6 19 'ii'e2 h s 20 "f/f1 'ii'f6 21 .:a2 "f/xf3 22 gxf3 .l:i.g6+ 23

'it>h1 .ixfl 24 .l:i.xfl tt:Jg s 2 5 f4 ti:Jf3 is a spectacular l ine that White should avoid. b323 ) 17 .l:i.a2 .ih3 18 .if3 .:d6 19 i.xe4 .l:i.xe4 20 f4 'ii'e7 also gives Black fine compensa­

tion and now 21 gxh3 .l:i.g6+ 22 @f2 'ii'h4+ 23 @f3 .l:i.xc4 24 'ii'es "f/xh 3+ 2 5 We2 leads to a direct draw. In general these positions are full of possibilities - I originally had even more analysis on these lines, but there are limits as to what you can discuss in a book.

c) The final logical move to consider is 13 e3 , after which Black has various ways to play. The most aggressive method is 13 ... tt:Jg4, which has gained in strength , now that .if4 is no longer possible (other playable options for Black are 13 ... tt:Je4 and 13 ... �e7, but I don't want to analyse all of them when 13 ... tt:Jg4 is perfectly okay) : for example, 14 .te2 (at some point of the game White needs to get his pieces into play; other moves don't help much : for in-stance, 14 'ii'c3 to prepare .ib2 is answered by 14 . . . axb4 15 axb4 .:xa1 16 �xa1 1\Vh4 17 g 3 �5 18 .ie2 � 3 and it's at least a repetition) 1 4 . . . �4 15 g 3 ( 1 5 .ixg4 .ixg4 1 6 o-o axb4 17 axb4 .l:i.xal 18 �xal .ie2 is just dead equal ) 15 . . . � 3 16 .tfl �6 17 .ig2 tt:Jes 18 0-0 .ih 3 and Black has at least adequate compensation .

In conclusion , the alternatives for White on move 13 all offer Black good counterplay. It i s all untested analysis, though, so there i s still much to explore. For now, let's return to 13 .ig s .

2 5 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

1 3 ... axb4 1 4 axb4 l:!.xa1+ 15 �xa1 �d3 This has all been forced after 13 .tg s . Now White needs to return the pawn.

16 f3 Instead, 16 e3? �3 17 �xf6 gxf6 18 �e2 �xb4+ 19 @f1 is even slightly more comfort­

able for Black, while 16 �2 �xc4 17 f3 may lead to the main game (here 17 e3 �dS 18 �xf6 gxf6 is just awful for White and similar is 17 .txf6? gxf6 18 e3 �e4 when White i s paralysed). 16 ... �XC4

11 .txf6? This could have led to trouble for White. Better was 17 �2 tZ'ids 18 e4! (18 �d2? lZ'ie3 should be avoided) 18 . . . �xb4+ 19 �xb4

lbxb4 20 @f2 and here White probably has exactly enough to keep the balance. A possible line i s 20 .. . .te6 21 .te2 l:!.a8 22 l:!.b1 cs 23 �d2 l:!.a4 24 @f1 b6 25 �bs l:!.as 26 �e2 with a

2 5 8

N im z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , S ide l i n e s a n d "i!Vxc3 Se t - ups

draw by repetition . 17 ... gxf6 18 "ifb2

White needs to cover b4. After 18 "ifxf6? "ifxb4+ 19 @f2 "ifcs+ 2o @g3 l::te6 Black is close to winning. 18 • • • .i:i.es?

The right move was 18 . . . .l:!.e3 ! .

White finds herself i n some trouble : a) 19 Wf2? .l:!.c3 i s clearly better for Black. b) 19 "ifxf6? "ifxb4+ 20 Wf2 "ifcs is deadly.

c) 19 "iVd2 is relatively the best move. Following 19 ... "iVc3 Uustifiably playing for a win ; 19 . . . l::tb3 20 "iVd8+ Wg7 21 "iVxc8 "iVxb4+ 22 Wf2 "ifd4+ 23 Wg 3 "ifes+ is just a perpetual ) 20 "iVxc3 .l:!.xc3 21 e4 .l:!.b3 22 bs .i.d7 23 .l:!.g1 .i.xbs 24 .i.xbs .l:!.xbs I am shocked by Houdini's assessment of a slight edge for Black - it looks at least clearly better for Black, if not win­ning to me. 19 e4 "iVe6 20 .i.d3

Now White has consolidated. 20 ... "iVb6 21 @e2 .i.d7 22 'i!Vd2 i..bs 23 .l:!.b1 fs 24 "iVgs+ Wh8 25 .l:!.d1 f6 26 "ifh6 .l:!.e8 27 .i.xbs "ifxbs+ 28 @f2

2 5 9

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

28 ... fxe4? 28 . . . '1i'b6+ 29 @f1 fxe4 30 fxe4 '1i'hs+ 31 @f2 '1i'h6+ is still a draw for Black.

29 'iYxf6+ @g8 30 .l:i.d4 Maybe Black had overlooked this move. It was still possible to fight, but now he fal ls

apart. 30 • • • cs?? 31 .l:i.ds e3+ 32 @g3 h6 33 'iYg6+ @fs 34 .l:i.fs+ �e7 35 .l:i.f7+ 1-0

Black resigned in view of the coming mate.

Summary The move 12 . . . as ! i s a very important resource that keeps the pawn sacrifice 8 . . . es viable.

However, almost all of this is based on analysis that has been published here for the first time. My advice i s to look through the lines given here and explore a bit on your own . It will help you to play the position over the board, even if you forget the concrete moves. On a practical note, Black's position is much easier to play here than White's, who needs to de­fend precisely against Black's initiative.

2 6 0

C h a pt e r E l eve n

N i m zo- l n d ia n : Z u rich Va riat ion , W h ite P l ays �xc 3

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jc3 i..b4 4 'iWc2 lt:Jc6 5 lt:Jf3 d6 6 i..d2

White breaks the pin and will recapture on c3 with the bishop. I believe this approach is more testing for Black than 6 a3 i..xc3+ 7 'iWxc3, as examined in the previous chapter. The bishop on c3 and queen on c2 complement each other well , one key difference being that the bi shop now control s es , compared to the 'iWxc3 lines where the queen fulfil s that role. The consequence is that after 'iWxc3 pawn sacrifices with . . . e6-eS are playable (see Games 24 and 2 5), whereas .llxc3 renders those attempts incorrect.

After 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 i.xc3 8 i.xc3 'iWe7 this chapter is structured as follows:

2 6 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

a ) 9 g 3 leads t o strategically complex positions and is the main subject of Game 2 5 , Docx-Hausrath . This game al so includes a discussion on the earlier deviations and the al ­ternative 9 b4 for White.

b) 9 e3 is currently viewed as the main line against the Zurich . White aims for a small advantage with the bishop-pair in a half-open position . The game Zaja-Jakic (Game 26) examines this line. I think Black is quite OK here, but I can quite understand why this l ine is recommended for White, for example, by Jan Gustafsson in a recent video series - it i s not clear-cut equality for Black.

c) 9 e4 is the most aggressive l ine for White. Here Black needs to be precise to success­fully fight White's advantage in space, as we'll see in Giri -Belezky.

White al so has the option to start with 6 .Jig s and only after . . . h6 put the bishop on d2, so we'll finish our Zurich coverage with 6 i..g s h6 7 i..d2 o-o 8 a3 i..xc3 9 i..xc3 'ili'e7.

This extra move for Black is very difficult to evaluate. In some lines it is an asset to have

2 6 2

Nimzo - J n dia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i..xc3

the extra move, in others it i s a clearly negative change to Black's structure. There i s one line in particular where Black needs to be very precise: the aggressive set-up with an early e2-e4 and b2-b4. To my surprise, I recently had the opportunity to play this l ine with White in the game Sielecki -Deglmann (Game 28) . This game discusses the differences between having ... h6 in and not having it in, and shows how to play against the critical l ine I chose when sitting at the wrong side of the board.

Game 25

S.Docx-0.Hausrath Belgia n League 2013

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 3 lllc3 .tb4 4 Wic2 lllc6 5 lllf3 d6 6 i..d2 o-o This is Black's main move and the one I recommend. The alternatives are playable, but

at best transpose to position that 6 . . . 0-0 reaches anyway. Let's have a quick look though: a) 6 . . . as prevents or discourages early b4 advances by White and al so protects the bish ­

op, so °iVa4+ after a later . . . llle7 is no problem. After 7 a3 .txc3 8 i..xc3 Black has a choice between two continuations:

al) The worse of the two is 8 . . . 0-0? ! 9 e4 and now Black is in trouble: 9 . . . 'iVe7 (the pawn sacrifice 9 . . . e s ? ! 10 dxes dxes 11 lt:Jxes lllxes 12 i.xes .l:l.e8 13 .l:\.d1 al so does not convince; I tried hard to make it work, but it ultimately fal ls short) 10 es dxes 11 dxes llld7 12 i..d3 was much better for White in A.Lenderman-AA.De Jong , Wolvega 2014.

a2) The more reliable move is 8 ... Wie7 9 e4 es 10 ds lllb8, but the problem now for Black is 11 cs ! .

Black has problems equalizing here. I t is not terribly bad, but compared to the main lines just a fraction worse. I consider 11 . . . lllbd7 12 cxd6 cxd6 13 b4 axb4 14 .txb4! to be the most critical , with a nagging edge for White.

2 6 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In di a n

b ) The other move I investigated i s 6 . . . e s . This move often tempts White to play 7 ds, as Black is now forced to capture on c3 without White having lost a move with a3. However, as compensation, Black is able to get in ... ti:Je7 and didn't need to invest any preparatory moves like .. :file7 or . . . .l:te8 to play . . . es in the first place. After 7 . . . ..ixc3 8 j.xc3 ti:Je7 9 e4 the position is assessed as very comfortable for White by Jan Gustafsson in his video series on the 4 "filc2 Nimzo for Chess24.com. I actually don't think Black needs to be so pessimistic here, but one practical drawback is that instead of 7 ds, White al so has 7 a3, after which Black has nothing better than 7 . . . .i.xc3 8 .i.xc3 "file7, which will transpose to 6 . . . o-o ulti­mately. So there i s l ittle to gain by 6 . . . es, but it is not a bad move in itself. 7 a3 j.xc3 8 .i.xc3 "file7

The questionable 8 . . . as? ! is discussed above via 6 . . . as , but 8 . . . .l:!.e8 is a popular alterna­tive. However, after 9 .l:!.d1 Black needs to play 9 ... 1\Ve7 anyway. In the upcoming closed cen­tre structures with . . . e6-eS and d4-dS, Black's rook move is rather pointless and even makes the . .fs option less likely. This whole l ine is playable, but the 8 . . . "file7 of the main game is just more straightforward. 9 g3

Here White must decide which central set-up to aim for. The text is quite a popular move, although it doesn 't put too much pressure on Black. The alternatives are:

a) 9 e3 is the main line, as examined in Game 27 . b) The most direct approach, 9 e4, will be analysed in Game 28. c) White has also tried 9 b4, which is not worse than the more popular moves. After

9 ... es White has a further choice: c1) 10 ds ti:Jb8 11 e4 is possible, transposing to 9 €4, as examined in Game 28. c2) 10 dxes (opening up the position) 10 . . . ti:Jxes (the other recapture fail s : 10 . . . dxes? 11

bS e4 12 bxc6 exf3 13 gxf3 bxc6 14 .l:!.g 1 and White i s much better due to his strong bishop and the open g-file) and now:

c21) White can try to delay the capture on es , trying to induce Black to take on f3 . This

2 64

N im z o - J n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays ii.xc3

would result in a similarly negative scenario to 10 . . . dxes - a monster bishop on c3 plus g ­fi le pressure for White. After 11 e3 b6 (alternatively, 11 . . . Ji.g4 12 Ji.e2 l:tfe8 - note that Black never captures on f3 - 13 l:td1 lt:Jfd7 14 tt:Jd4 Ji.xe2 1S 'ii'xe2 lt:Jb6 16 o-o f6 17 tt:Jfs 'ii'e6 and Black had no problems at all in Tran Tuan Minh-Nguyen Huynh Minh, Ho Chi Minh City 2012) 12 ii.e2 Ji.b7 13 tt:Jxes dxes 14 o-o l:tfe8 15 f3 lLid7 16 l:tfd1 lt:Jf8 17 iVfs cs 18 l:td2 .i.c8 19 iVe4 Ji.b7 20 'ii'g4 Ji.c8 21 'ii'e4 Ji.b7 22 'ii'g4 Ji.c8 23 'ii'e4 a draw was agreed in J .Gustafsson-A.Yusupov, Pulvermuehle 2006. White i s maybe slightly better here, but Black is very solid of course.

c22) The straightforward move is 11 lt:Jxes dxes when White has two ways to get the light-squared bishop into play:

c221) 12 e3 Ji.g4 (or 12 . . . b6 with a l ikely transposition to Gustafsson-Yusupov, above) .

Here 13 Ji.e2 is very unambitious, but White's set-up does not promise much anyway: 13 . . . Ji.xe2 14 i¥xe2 lt:Je4 1s 'ii'c2 tt:Jxc3 16 iVxc3 l:tfd8 17 o-o l:td7 18 l:tad1 l:tad8 19 l:txd7 .l:txd7. This was played in T.Wiley-V. Epishin, Leinzell 2011. Of course, Black is more comfort­able with the d-file, but it's amazing how quickly White now loses: 20 iVc2 cs 21 .i:td1? .l:txdl+ 22 'ii'xd1 cxb4 23 axb4 'ii'xb4 24 'ii'd8+ 'ii'f8 2 s 'ii'e7 'ii'a8 ! 26 'ii'xes as 27 �cs a4 28 'ii'a3 h6 29 g 3 'ii'a6 30 'ii'cs a3 3 1 'ii'c8+ @h7 32 e4 'ii'as 33 @g2 a2 34 cs aliV 3 S iVfs+ g6 36 'ii'xf7+ 'i¥g7 and White resigned.

c222) White might instead fianchetto the bishop with 12 g3 lie8 13 Ji.g 2 c6 14 o-o hs (an interesting approach ; Black could al so play more conservatively with , for example, 14 . . . Ji.g4, planning . . . 'ii'e6 and . . . Ji.h 3 or the transfer to g6} 1 s l:tfd1 h4 16 bs hxg 3 17 hxg3 . Now in V.Golod-D.Kopec, Schaumburg 2006, Black went 17 . . . cs and White was slightly bet-ter. Instead, the computer points out the crude-looking 17 ... lt:Jg4 18 bxc6 bxc6, and now 19 Ji.xc6?? loses due to 19 ... 'ii'cs . In stead, 19 'ii'd3 or 19 'ii'e4 would lead to unbalanced play worth investigating for Black.

Returning to 9 g 3 :

9 . . . es

2 6 5

Op e n ing Rep e rto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

10 d5 As usual exchanging doesn't lead to much : 10 dxes dxes 11 .i.g2 .l:r.d8 {very direct play

by the three-time U.S . Champion, intending . . . lbd4} 12 o-o lbd4 13 .i.xd4 exd4 14 cs {oth­erwise, Black will play . . . cs himself} 14 . . . .l:r.dS lS .l:r.acl .i.fs 16 "iWa4 .i.e4 with good play for Black in D.Gurevich-J .Benjamin, New York 1994. 10 . . . lbbS

Here a very enterprising option, instead of the simple retreat, is 10 . . . e4! ? 11 tt:Jg s (the only challenging move; on 11 tt:Jd2 e3 12 fxe3 tt:Jes Black is fine with long-term compensa­tion) 11 . . . tt:Jes 12 tt:Jxe4 (White has no decent alternative: for example, 12 .i.g2? gets re­buffed by the embarrassing 12 . . . tt:'id3+! 13 @fl tt:Jxf2 14 @xf2 tt:'ig4+ lS @g1 "iWxg s 16 "iWxe4 °iWe3+ 17 "iWxe3 tt:Jxe3 with a slight edge for Black} and now:

a) 12 . . . .i.fs ? ! seems insufficient to me due to 13 lbxf6+ "iWxf6 14 °iWdl (or 14 .i.xes �xes lS °iWc3 and Black does not have enough compensation) 14 . . . °iVe7 lS .i.g2 f6 16 .i.xes "iWxes 17 °iWd2 and White went on to win in G .Timoscenko-G .Aczel, Banska Stiavnica 2011.

b} In stead, the high-level game V.Malakhov-R. Ponomariov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009, saw 12 . . . tt:Jxe4 13 "iWxe4 fs 14 'iVe3 f4 lS gxf4 .l:!.xf4.

2 6 6

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite Plays i..xc3

Following 16 0-0-0? ! (the computer suggestion of 16 l:!.g1 ! is stronger: for instance, 16 . . . l:!.xc4 17 o-o-o .tfs 18 l:!.d4 l:!.xd4 19 'ii'xd4 and White is at least slightly better) 16 . . . 'ii'f7 (now Black has enough play for the pawn) 17 l:!.g 1 l:!.xf2 18 .txes dxes 19 �xes .td7 20 �d4 g6 21 e4 �f4+ 22 ©b1 l:!.e8 23 i..d3 .i::txh2 24 cs �es 2S �4 b6 26 c6 i.c8 27 i..c2 @g7 a draw was agreed. Overall , the idea 10 . . . e4! ? is worth investigating, although I have my doubts that it is fully correct. Besides the normal retreat to b8, there al so is 10 . . . t'Lld8? ! . Black's concept didn't work, though, in M.Gurevich-J .Timman, Rotterdam 1990: 11 i..g2 i.g4 12 t'Llh4 c6 13 o-o cxds 14 cxds 'ii'd7 1S f4 �S 16 e4 .te2 17 l:!.fe1 .i.d3 18 �d2 l:!.e8 19 @h1 g6 20 a4 �a6 21 b3 lk8 22 .i.f3 t'Lld7 23 J::i.ad1 t'Llcs 24 fxes bS 2 s ii.d4 bxa4 26 .i.xcs and Timm an resigned. The unfortunate knight on d8 never moved. Some lines of the Bogo­lndian and the closed Ruy Lopez feature this knight move to d8, but there it quickly gets back into play via f7 after the black f-pawn has cleared the way. In the Zurich Variation it never seems to be playable, as the f-pawn counterplay takes a bit longer and in the mean­time the piece on d8 just clogs up Black's position . 11 .tg2 as

Staking out some space on the queenside and intending . . . aS -a4. Black has also tried two other moves that are worth considering:

a) Queenside play with 11 . . . c6 12 t'Lld2 (or 12 dxc6 t'Llxc6 13 0-0 l:!.d8 with a typical , sound structure for Black, very similar to 13 dxc6 in the notes to White's 13th move, below) 12 ... cxds 13 cxds .i.g4 14 e4 t'Lla6 1S o-o l:!.ac8, after which Black was fine in V.Malakhatko­J . Riff, Zurich 2009.

b) Preparing . . .f7-fS with 11 . . . t'Llh s 12 o-o fs 13 e3 t'Lld7 14 t'Lld2 as 1s b3 b6 16 f4 e4 and here I sl ightly prefer White with his strong bishop on c3, K. Landa-A.Yusupov, German League 2006. The .. .fs break loses some bite against White's fianchetto set-up. 12 b3

2 6 7

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

12 ... c6 I l ike this best. Larry Kaufman only considers 12 ... tt:Jbd7 13 o-o tt:Je8 14 e4 c6 15 tt:Jd2 tt:Jc7 16 f4 is his

book The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White, and evaluates the position as clearly better for White. Well , I agree - but this can 't be optimal play from Black, combining ... tt:Jd7 with ... c6 and ... tt:Je8-C7 is far too passive. 13 e4

I believe this allows Black fairly easy equality and simple plans to follow. 13 dxc6 is more testing : 13 ... tt:Jxc6 (13 . . . bxc6? 14 cs is to be avoided) 14 o-o and the only

practical example, l .Naumkin- 1 .Zaja, Reggio Emilia 2002, ended in a draw right here. Now: a) The immediate 14 . . . .ie6 is interesting when 15 tt:Jg s a4 is Black's idea. Now 16 tt:Jxe6

�xe6 17 .l:!.abl axb3 18 �xb3 l::ta7 leads to an unbalanced position .

White has two bishops against two knights, but a3 and c4 are targets and there is no clear-cut way for White to improve his position.

2 6 8

Nimzo - ln d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite Plays i..xc3

b) My main suggestion is 14 . . . h6, but here I am unsure about White's best move order. He will play a rook to dl and probably lllh4, but the al-rook or the fl-rook, or lllh4 first?

bl) 1S lllh4 'iWc7 ! 16 .l:!.fdl (16 lllfs dS ! is an important tactical trick) 16 ... llle7 17 'iWd2 .::i.a6 with complicated play. White as usual has the two bishops, but Black has ideas with . . . aS-a4 or sometimes even . . . g s with . . . llle4 to follow.

b2) lS .U.fdl ii'c7 ! (not 1S . . . i.e6? ! 16 lllh4 and Black is not in time to prevent lllfs) and here a very interesting question from a strategic point of view for White is should he play a4 to prevent Black's . . . aS-a4 idea? Let's investigate: 16 a4 i.e6 17 .l:!.acl (17 ll:Jh4 dS ! i s im­portant: 18 cxds lllxds 19 i.xds llld4 20 'iWd3 'iWxc3 21 i.xe6 'iWxd3 22 .U.xd3 lllxe6 23 lllfs l:l.fd8 and Black equalizes at the end of this long sequence) 17 . . . .l:!.fe8 (and not 17 . . . ds?? 18 lllxes ! ) 18 lllh4 .l:!.ad8 19 e4 (otherwise, . . . ds will simplify considerably) 19 ... llld7 20 lllfs lllcs . Probably this is a position where both sides are not that unhappy. White has the bishop-pair, but Black has some good posts for his knights and a good bishop on e6. Objec­tively speaking, White might be slightly better, but it i s nothing special . 13 . . . cxds 14 cxds

In general 14 exds is an uncommon way to recapture in this structure. Here there is a concrete reason why in 14 . . . b s ! . 14 ... i.d7!

That is the best set-up. Black aims for . . . .i:[c8 quickly and threatens . . . i.bs in the process. The knight will come to a6, nicely prepared by the earl ier . . . as .

15 0-0 On 1S llld2 Black should play 1S ... a4 (1s ... i.bs ! ? 16 a4 i.a6 17 i.xas looks risky for

White, but it is not that clear what Black should do) 16 b4 i.bs with a fine position . 1s .. . .l:!.c8 16 .l:!.fe1

A logical move. White covers e4 in order to allow the queen to leave the c-file. Of course, he had other moves, but I think it i s already clear that he cannot claim any advantage here in any case.

2 6 9

Open ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

1 6 ... tl:ia6 1 7 tl:ih4? This leads to problems. 17 tl:id2, keeping the knight in play on the queenside, was better. Now I l ike 17 . . . bs for

Black; . . . tl:ics and . . . 'iWd8-b6 are good moves to follow. 11 ... tl:ics!

The most precise move; Black threatens . . . a4. 18 .l':!.ad1?!

18 l:tacl is a tougher defence, but 17 tl:ih4 is tough to repair. Now 18 . . . 'iWd8 19 tl:ifs i..xfs 20 exfs a4 is not much fun for White, but it still holds. 18 ... 'iWd8!

Very logical play. The queen is transferred to b6, where it i s ideally placed. 19 'iWb1?

This loses the game. The engines try to hang on with moves like 19 l:te3, but no human would play like that.

Moreover, 19 . . . tl:ig4 20 l:tf3 a4 21 b4 tl:ib3 is still pretty grim for White. 19 ... 'iWb6

19 ... tl:ifxe4 was also winning, but the move played in the game is just as convincing and easier to play. Over the following moves there are quicker wins for Black, but 'keep it sim­ple' is one of the most valuable concepts to follow in chess (and in many other areas ! ) . 20 l:te3 'iWxb3 21 'iWa1 tl:ig4 22 l:tf3 'iWc4 23 tl:ifs i..xfs 24 exfs tl:if6 25 l:te3 tl:ig4 26 l:tf3 tl:if6 27 l:te3 bS 28 ilfl 'iWa4 29 'iWb2 0-1

Summary The early deviations for Black are unattractive; he should follow the main l ine that leads to the crossroads at move 9. Here both 9 b4 and 9 g3 leads to interesting, complex play. White should capture on c6 (see move 13) , with chances for a slight advantage, as the main game shows that 13 e4 poses no problems for Black.

2 70

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i.xc3

Game 2 6 1 .Zaja-1.Jakic

Bos njaci Open 2014

1 d4 CZ'if6 2 c4 e6 3 CZ'ic3 .ib4 4 'ifc2 CZ'ic6 5 CZ'if3 d6 6 .id2 o-o 7 a3 .ixc3 8 .ixc3 'ife7 9 e3

This i s the l ine recommended by the highly respected theoretician Jan Gustafsson in his video series on 4 �c2 for Chess24.com. The e3 set-up is very flexible, aiming at a small ad­vantage with the bishop-pair in a semi-open position . 9 . . . es

Instead of this straightforward move, Black may al so play the prophylactic 9 . . . as . This move is a good alternative in case you want to deviate from the main l ine of 9 . . . es given here. In general a good feature of the closed positions arising from the Zurich variation is their flexibility - it is easy to vary with little move order twists and subtleties. In this posi­tion White mostly plays:

a) 10 i.e2 es (the typical queenside freezing move 10 . . . a4 was played in D.Gumula­W.Moranda, Sroda Wielkopol ska 2008 : 11 dS CZ'ib8 12 dxe6 fxe6 13 o-o CZ'ibd7 14 CZ'id4 CZ'ics 1S i.b4 CZ'ifd7 16 .l:!.adl b6 17 CZ'ibs 'ifd8 18 i.f3 ?? - a careless move; after anything el se it would have been around equal - 18 . . . .l:!.xf3 ! 19 .ixcs CZ'ixcs 20 gxf3 'iigs+ 21 Wh l 'YWh s 22 CZ'id4 es 23 'iie2 exd4 24 exd4 i.b7 2S ds l:.e8 and White resigned; 10 . . . a4 is a viable alter­native to the straightforward 10 ... es ) 11 o-o (as usual , 11 dxes doesn't promise much ; J .Speelman-G .Orlov, New York (rapid) 1994, continued 11. . .dxes 12 h3 CZ'id7 13 o-o a4 14 CZ'id2 fs and Black had no problems at all ) 11 . . .a4 12 dS CZ'ib8 13 e4 CZ'ibd7 14 h3 CZ'ics 1S CZ'id2 CZ'ifd7 16 .fi.g4 CZ'if6 17 i.e2 CZ'ifd7 18 i.g4 CZ'if6 19 .ie2 and a draw was agreed in K. Labeckas­M.Marin, Porto Carras 2011. Of course, both sides could have continued.

b) 10 i.d3 es 11 dS CZ'ib8 12 CZ'id2 (at some point there will be the ... eS-e4 fork threat, so this typical regrouping is played immediately; a long-term plan for White might be to play

2 7 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

f2-f4, trying to improve the c3-bishop, which is al so why Black now seeks counterplay in the centre) 12 . . . c6 13 e4 tllh s 14 g3 .ih 3 (a common picture; Black's pieces on the rim im­pede White's coordination) 15 .ie2 tllf6 16 0-0-0 bS ! .

This i s a textbook display of Black chances. In V.Pelletier-V.Bologan , Biel 1999, the Mol­dovan GM went on to win after many adventures.

c) The move I l ike most for White here is the sound 10 b3, making sure that . . . a4 won't freeze his queenside. Here 10 ... es reaches the main game position with the extra moves . . . as and b3 inserted. Now:

c1) White may try to keep the tension with 11 .ie2, but after 11.. . .ig4 the central ad­vance is unavoidable anyway: 12 dS (12 o-o eases Black's task considerably: 12 . . . e4 13 t'Llh4 .ixe2 14 �xe2 ds and Black is at least equal ) 12 . . . tllb8 13 o-o and in the game D.Debashish­B.Adhiban, Mashdad 2011, Black now played the interesting 13 . . . a4! ? (of course, there was also nothing wrong with simple moves like 13 ... tllbd7 and 13 ... c6, leading to typical play with about equal chances) 14 b4 bS (the point, attacking White's centre) 15 cxbs tllxds 16 .ib2 tlld7 17 .l:i.fd1 tll7b6?? (instead, 17 . . . .ie6 was just slightly better for White) 18 tllxes .ixe2 19 tllc6 �e6 20 �xe2 and White was winning, although later spoiled it to a draw.

c2) More popular is the instant 11 dS tllb8 12 tlld2 c6, with typical counterplay. Now White may take on c6 or support the centre with e4:

c21) S. Feller-L. Fressinet, Belfort 2012, continued: 13 e4 tllbd7 14 .ie2 tllcs 15 b4 axb4 16 axb4 .l:i.xa1+ 17 .ixa1 tlla6 18 �1 .ig4.

2 72

Nimzo - l n di a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , White Plays i.xc3

This i s an important move and a reoccurring theme throughout the Zurich l ine . Black needs to ease his task by exchanges or provoke f2-f3 by White, allowing other ways for counterplay. Following 19 i.xg4 (or 19 f3 i.c8 with . . . 'Lih s to follow) 19 . . . 'Lixg4 20 0-0 .l:!.c8 Black was fine.

c22) The capture 13 dxc6 was the choice of Nimzo specialist Rados law Wojtaszek in a recent game: 13 . . . 'Lixc6 14 i.d3 i.e6 (14 . . . 'Lid4! ? is again interesting, as given below in the main game) 1s o-o h6 16 .l:!.ac1 ds 17 cxds 'Lixds 18 i.b2 .l:!.ac8 19 �1 'Lib6 and White was slightly better in R.Wojtaszek-M.Dziuba, Pol i sh League 2014, but 14 ... 'Lid4 is an improve­ment.

We can conclude that 9 . . . as i s viable, but no improvement over 9 . . . es. It i s best for White to play just l ike Dreev and Wojtaszek did: capture on c6 to open the position for the bish­ops. The addition of . . . as and b3 does not change the evaluation : Black is very solid with no bad pieces and a healthy structure, but White may claim a slight edge with his bishops. 10 d5

This i s best. The simpler 10 dxes does not challenge Black's play: 10 ... dxes and now 11 i.e2 (11 b4

i.g4 12 i.e2 as is nothing much either) 11 . . . as transposes to 9 . . . as 10 i.e2 es 11 dxes , as mentioned above. 10 ... CZ'ibS 11 CZ'id2

White often goes for 11 i.e2, after which Black has two satisfactory replies, including 11 . . . i.g4.

2 73

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

Whenever White plays i.e2 i n combination with a knight on f3, this move becomes an important option for Black. The c8-bishop, while technically the 'good bishop', doesn't have an awful lot to do in these positions and often would like to be exchanged. With �e2 played, the sortie to g4 ensures that the bishop will be traded after a knight move. White has no way to ignore or play around this piece - it is different with the white bishop on fl or d3, which often sees Black's bishop being stranded on g4 and sometimes being kicked by h2-h 3 .

At this point, besides 11 . . . �g4, there is al so 11 . . . as , which is similar to 9 . . . as . In A.David-5 .Azarov, Chalkida 2009, Black managed to demonstrate an additional strategical device: 12 b4 axb4 13 axb4 l:txa1+ 14 i.xa1 bs ! ?, which is the point to remember. Black now gains good play on the queenside and against White's centre.

After 11 . . . �g4 12 e4 White is now a move down on the 9 e4 of Game 27, Giri -Belezky. Of course, this does not trouble Black much . Here is a recent example: 12 . . . lllbd7 13 b4 c6 14 dxc6 bxc6 1s o-o �h s 16 l:tfe1 .l::i.fd8 17 l:tad1 i.g6 18 �d3 �h s (see the notes above; this bishop performs a useful role on the kingside) 19 �e2 lllf8 20 �e3 llle6 21 cs lllg4 22 cxd6 .l::i.xd6 23 �cl lllxf2 (23 ... lllxh2 ! would have been a huge blow: for example, 24 lbxh2 �xd1 25 l:txd1 I:!.ad8 26 i.e2 ll\f4 and Black wins) 24 'it>xf2 i.xf3 25 'it>xf3 I:!.ad8 26 i.fl �f6+ 27 'it>e2 lllf4+ 28 \t>e3 �g s 29 l:txd6 l:txd6 30 'it>f2 l:tf6 31 'it>g1 lllh3+ 3 2 'it>h1 lllf2+ 33 'it>g1 lllh3+ 34 'it>h1 and a draw was agreed in D.Bocharov-A.Moiseenko, Moscow 2010. 11 . . . c6

Of course, the closed nature of the position gives Black some leeway. He could al so go for 11 . . .aS or the slightly bizarre 11. . .llle8 12 �e2 �g s 13 g 3 �e7. Well , tempi are not es­sential here, but this still this leaves a strange impression . However, the Belorussian GM Azarov went on win this game quickly after 14 o-o-o as 1S b3 llld7 16 .i::i.he1 lllcs 17 f4 i.d7 18 'it>b2 lllf6 19 ll\f3 ll\g4 20 i.fl f6 21 h3 lllh6 22 g4 lllf7 23 fS I:!.fb8 24 a4 c6 2S e4 i.e8 26 l:ta1 bs 27 axbs cxbs 28 cxbs i.xbs 29 �xbs I:!.xbs 30 llld2 lllg s 31 I:!.e3 �a7 32 l:tg3 lllgxe4 and 0-1 in N.Maiorov-5.Azarov, Minsk 2005.

2 74

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , Wh ite P lays j/_xc3

Going 11 . . . lbe8 and then . . . 'i!Yg s and back is not the perfect way to play if we would look this position up in a 30-piece tablebase, but it shows that these closed positions leave room for creative play that delays the fight to a later stage of the game. If you have some experi­ence of these positions and have gained understanding of the typical set-ups and ma­noeuvres, these structures offer many ways to play for a win in the middle and endgame. 12 dxc6

12 e4 does not convince, especially compared to 9 e4. A sample game went 12 ... cxds 13 cxds lbh s 14 lt:Jc4 lt:Ja6 1s lbe3 j_d7 16 'i¥d1 g6 17 j_d3 lbcs 18 j_c2 l:tac8 19 g 3 lbg7 20 o-o fS and Black had a good game in V.Malaniuk-A.Yermolinsky, Lucerne 1993 . 12 . . . lbxc6 13 ii.d3

This i s the set-up I associate with the move 9 e3 . White reaches a semi-open position where he enjoys the bishop-pair. Black, on the other hand, has got a very healthy structure with good central control . 13 ... lt:Jd4

This is the best way to regroup Black's pieces. 13 . . . h6 14 b4 dS? ! was more comfortable for White in A.Dreev-5 .Brynell, Hel singor 2012.

Here 14 . . . lbd4 is a way to improve, but then you might as well play it immediately. As we will see, . . . h6 is not necessary. 14 ..ixd4

This is not critical and the following moves now take on a forcing character where Black ends up without any problems. The alternatives:

a) 14 'i¥d1 is no better due to 14 . . . .tfs ! and without the bishop-pair, White has nothing to show.

b) 14 'iWb1! i s the clearly best move, leading to 14 ... lbe6 15 b4 b6.

2 75

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

Our point. Black will have a powerful bishop on b7 and a secure position on the queen­side. Going for thi s position is Jan Gustafsson 's recommendation for White against the Zu­rich . He concludes that it is more pleasant for White. It is the common policy for a black repertoire book to claim that Black is fine and at least equal in all l ines, but I am going to break that routine and concede that White is, indeed, the more comfortable - having the two bishops in this semi-open position is a nice asset for White.

On the other hand, I don't see a clear way for White to make substantial progress. Black is sol id here, with no weakness and well -coordinated pieces. I al so think that any direct at­tempts fail : for example, 16 ll'ie4 ll'ixe4 17 .txe4 .tb7 ! . Now:

bl) 18 .txh7+ surprisingly doesn 't net White anything : for example, 18 . . . @h8 19 .te4 (19 .tfs l:tac8 20 �d3 �g s 21 .te4 .txe4 22 �xe4 fS 23 '*'ds �g6 is good compensation for Black as well ) 19 . . . l:tac8 20 'ifd3 bS with good play for the pawn . Indeed, White probably needs to return it to calm Black's initiative.

b) 18 o-o and now the simple 18 ... .txe4 (18 ... l:tac8? was insufficient in R. Lev-E .Shvidler, I sraeli League 1996) 19 �xe4 l:::!.ac8 20 l:::!.acl l:tc7 21 .tb2 l:::!.fc8 22 l:::!.fdl f6 23 Itds ll'ig s 24 'i!id3 l2Jf7,

2 7 6

N im z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va r iat ion , Wh ite P lays i..xc3

This demonstrates that Black has equalized here. 14 ... exd4 15 e4 ds

The most forcing move. 1s . . . i.d7 or 1s . . . i.e6 are both playable to keep more life in the position, but they are objectively worse. 16 o-o dxe4

The solid choice. 16 . . . dxc4? ! i s al so interesting. The main drawback for Black is that 17 tt:Jxc4 i.e6 allows

the long line 18 es i.xc4 19 exf6 i.xd3 20 fxe7 i.xc2 21 exf8'iY+ \t>xf8 22 f4 d3 23 .i::tf2 l:td8 24 l:f.d2 l:f.d6 and it is clear that Black can absolutely never win; it is only a question if this holds or not, so we can discard the whole idea. 17 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jg4?!

Here the simple 17 . . . h6 leads to equal play: for example, 18 ti:Jxf6+ 'i¥xf6 19 i.h7+ 'it>h8 20 i.e4 l:f.d8 21 l:f.adl l:f.b8.

2 7 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

Black is fine with . . . .i.e6 and . . . .l:!.d7 on their way. 18 cs

18 tt:Jd2 ! was even more promising for White. The knight coming to f3 will give Black some problems with the d4-pawn, and what is his knight doing on g4 in the first place? 18 .•• "i!Ves?

18 . . . .i.fs was still playable for Black. Now it goes downhill quickly. 19 tt:Jg3 hS 20 .l:!.ael °i!Vc7 21 h3 h4 22 hxg4 hxg3 23 gs g6 24 fxg3 "i!Vxg3 2S .i.xg6 .i.e6 26 .i.e4 "i!Vxgs 27 .i.xb7 d3 28 °i!Vxd3 "i!Vxcs+ 29 .l:!.f2 .l:!.ad8 30 °i!Vg3+ �h7 31 .l:!.e4 1-0

Summary While not challenging Black's play fundamentally, 9 e3 is the main l ine for White against the Zurich nowadays. In my opinion other l ines are more dangerous for Black (see Games 27 and 28), but White's system with 9 e3 is a good choice for players who want a low-risk, minimal advantage. There is not much to be afraid of from Black's point of view, but to call it just 'equal ' would be painting a slightly too rosy picture.

Game 2 7

A.Giri-A.Belezky Germ a n League 2014

1 d4 llJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:Jc3 .i.b4 4 "i!Vc2 tt:Jc6 s tt:Jf3 d6 6 ii.d2 o-o 7 a3 .i.xc3 8 ii.xc3 °i!Ve7 9 e4 The most aggressive move, l imiting Black's options.

9 ... es Black cannot allow e4-e5 , of course. Indeed, 9 . . . as? ! 10 es dxes 11 dxes tt:Jd7 12 .i.d3 is a

position we have seen before via 6 . . . as and was briefly discussed in the notes to Docx­Hausrath (Game 2 5) . 10 ds tt:Jb8

A typical closed centre position where Black needs to find some concrete play, otherwise he will suffer against the two bishops and White's space advantage. The main source of counterplay is . . . tt:Jh s and .. .fs . As White didn 't insert .i.g s to provoke . . . h6, the reply llJh4, as seen in the game Sielecki -Deglmann (Game 28) , loses its sting.

Unfortunately the direct 10 . . . tt:Jd4? ! fails to solve Black's problems. This i s a case where having the extra move ... h6 changes the evaluation completely. With ... h6 included Black gets a satisfactory game with the knight jump (see Game 28 for details) , but here 11 tt:Jxd4 exd4 12 ii.xd4 is awkward:

a) 12 ... tt:Jxe4 fails to 13 o-o-o "i!Vg s+ 14 .i.e3 "i!Ves 15 .i.d3.

2 78

Nim z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays Ji..xc3

Now Black is able to play . . . lllc5 in the ' . . . h6 included' position, but here this i s impossi­ble, rendering the whole . . . ll:Jd4 manoeuvre unplayable.

b) 12 . . . �xe4+ is a sad necessity. Here 13 �xe4 ll:Jxe4 14 Ji..d3 lllc5 15 Ji..c2 .l:te8+ 16 'it>d2 ll:Je4+ 17 'it>c1 .ii..fs was played in J .Moreno Ruiz-P.Mascaro March, Arenal d'en Castell 2011, and now 18 b4 would have given White a clear edge with the bishops in an open position . This bleak endgame is the best that Black can obtain after 10 . . . ll:Jd4, so here (without . . . h6) it is to be avoided.

Returning to 10 ... lllb8:

11 .ii..e2 The most popular move. Let's examine the other moves White has tried, though: a) 11 ll:Jd2 and now: al) 11 . . . ll:Jh 5 12 g 3 ! is unconvincing for Black: 12 . . .f5 13 Ji..e2 �f7 14 o-o-o ll:Jd7 (14 . . .fxe4

15 ll:Jxe4 .i.f5 16 .i.d3 is also better for White) 15 f3 (15 f4 looks even more promising)

2 79

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d i a n

15 . . .f4 16 g 4 lZ'lhf6 1 7 g 5 lt:Je8 1 8 h4 and White was much better i n M.Paragua-E.Torre, Ta­gaytay City 2013.

a2) A good alternative is the yet untested 11 . . . a5 , delaying . . . lt:Jh 5 . This is tricky to ana­lyse, as White can play just about any move that doesn 't blunder material : 12 b3 (this looks logical to stop ... a4; White could also try 12 b4, which is analysed in note 'b' to Black's 12th move in Game 28, albeit with . . . h6 included, but here it is not that relevant) 12 . . . b6 ! ? (there are many alternatives, but this waiting move is interesting) 13 i.e2 (13 i.d3 lt:Jh 5 is similar to 11 i..d3 and unpromising for White, or if 13 g 3 c6 ! ?, intending 14 .ig2 cxd5 15 cxd5? ! Jla6) 13 . . . i..g4! 14 f3 i..c8 ! ? with . . . lt:Jh 5 to come. There is much to explore here - 11 . . . a5 i s certainly okay, but the resulting positions are very complicated and hard to analyse be­cause of the great number of possibilities for both sides.

b) 11 i.d3 doesn 't fit the set-up. Black immediately goes 11 . . . lt:Jh 5 12 g3 (otherwise, Black has . . . lZ'lf4, intending . . .f5) 12 . . . i..h 3 (12 . . .f5 i s too early; White replies 13 exf5 e4 14 i.xe4 i..xf5 15 lt:Jd2 and the pin supplies insufficient compensation) .

This bishop is a serious annoyance for White. After, for example, 13 i.f1 i..xfl 14 @xf1 'ii'd7 ! ? Black's queen replaces the bishop on h3 and/or .. .f5 is coming with play against the white king .

c ) 11 g 3 i s a good move, planning to go lt:Jh4 to prevent . . .f5 . I t al so control s the f4-square, which is a potential destination for Black's knight. Here 11 . . . a5 (now 11 . . . lt:Jh 5 is answered by 12 lt:Jh4, which secures some advantage for White: for example, 12 . . . g6 13 i..e2 lt:Jg7 14 o-o i..h 3 15 .l:f.fe1 f5 16 exf5 lZ'lxf5 17 lZ'lxf5 .ixf5 18 'ii'd2 and a coming f4 will be problematic; maybe 18 ... g5 is the best move here, but it feel s shaky) 12 b3 lZ'lbd7 (a slow approach ; alternatively, there is 12 ... c6 13 .ig2 b5 ! ? with queen side play for Black and after the fianchetto this makes some sense) 13 i.g2 lt:Jc5 14 lt:Jd2 i..d7 15 o-o b6 16 .l:f.ae1 lt:Jh 5 (at some point Black needs to go for concrete play) 17 f4! ? exf4 18 i.f3 ? was seen in A.Kaspi­E .Najer, Eilat 2012.

2 80

N im z o - l n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays il.xc3

Now instead of 18 . . . 'it'g s , leading to equal chances, Black could have punished White's mistake with 18 . . .fxg 3 ! 19 il.xh s 'it'h4 and White is reduced to muddying the waters, being material down.

d} 11 b4 is a typical space-gainer on the queen side. Again it is advisable to start with concrete play with 11 . . . tt:Jh s and now:

dl} After 12 tt:Jd2 fS 13 il.e2 tt:Jf4 14 il.f3 'it'g s 1S 0-0-0 a draw was agreed in 1 . Khenkin­A.Yusupov, Osterburg 2006. This doesn 't relate to the position, which promises a tough battle.

d2} A similar, but probably inferior approach, al so leading to unbalanced play, i s 12 o-o­

o?! as 13 tt:Jd2 axb4 14 axb4 fS 15 f3 .i.d7 16 exfs .txfs 17 tt:Je4 tt:Jd7 18 g3 .i.g6 19 .i.e2 tt:Jhf6 20 l:thfl c6 and Black was much better already in T.Balla-M.Marin , Brasov 2011.

d3} 12 g3 fs and here: d31) 13 il.g2 fxe4 14 'it'xe4 tt:Jf6 (14 . . . il.fs 1S 'it'e2 tt:Jd7 is also feasible} 1S 'it'e3 (1S 'it'c2

'iWe8, intending 16 0-0 'it'h s, was an alternative way to play; with 'it'e3 White wanted to give extra protection to the f3 -knight and his kingside} 1s . . . tt:Jbd7 16 o-o tt:Jb6 17 tt:Jd2 tt:Ja4 18 .l:!.ael tt:Jg4 19 'iVd3 il.fs 20 i..e4 i..xe4 21 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxc3 22 'iVxc3 h6 23 cs tt:Jf6 24 'iVd3 and a draw was agreed in C.Holt-E . Perel shteyn, Wheeling 2014.

d32) Worse is 13 il.e2? ! fxe4 14 'it'xe4 il.fs 1S 'it'e3 tt:Jf6 16 tt:Jh4 il.h 3 .

2 8 1

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

Again, we see this irritating bishop placement on h3 . Black gains the concrete play nec­essary to offset the strategical assets of the other side - space and the bishops. Black is al ­ready the more comfortable here and the game A.Goldin-A.Yermolinsky, Chicago 2002, continued 17 J:.g 1 ltJg4 18 i..xg4 .ltxg4 19 h3 (this i s a try to gain some activity; it doesn 't work, but White was in trouble anyway) 19 . . . i..xh 3 20 J:.h 1 i..fs 21 ttJxfs J:.xfs 22 'iife4 g6 23 f4 ttJd7 24 o-o-o 'iiff7 2 s J:.de1 l:.f8 26 fxes ttJxes 27 J:.e2 a6 28 J:.hel bs 29 cs ttJc4 30 'iifd4 J:.es 3 1 .l:txes dxes 3 2 'iife4 'iiff2 3 3 d6 'iifxg3 34 'iifds+ 'it>g7 3 S .. lhes+ ttJxes 36 'iifxes+ 'iifxes 37 J:.xes cxd6 38 cxd6 l:.d8 39 l:.e7+ 'it>f6 40 J:.xh7 J:.xd6 41 J:.h 1 gs and White resigned.

Finally, we come to 11 .te2 :

11 . . . ttJhs!? This is the most principled move. The evaluation of this move depends on the move

12 ... ltJf4, as the main game continuation leads to long-term problems for Black. As things stand, 12 . . . ttJf 4 is not reliably equalizing for Black either (see below), so an alternative

2 8 2

Nimzo - l n di a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays iLxc3

would be most welcome here.

The main alternative i s 11. . .aS . This move is of special importance because this position might al so occur with the pawn on h6 via the 6 i..g s l ine (Black can deviate earl ier there with l1. . .tlld4, as we'll see in Game 28) . Both versions don't differ considerably. Given the choice, Black would probably prefer the pawn on h7 (due to .. .f7-fS being easier to play}, but it's not a big deal .

So what about 11. . .aS here? The general consensus is that Black is worse. The move was played in C.Ward-R. Palli ser, British Championship, Scarborough 2001. In Tango! Palliser states that 11. . .aS is imprecise because of Ward's continuation of 12 cs . In Challenging the

Nimzo-lndian, David Vigorito recommends 9 e4 followed by 11 i..e2 and al so quotes that game, agreeing with Palli ser's assessment of a slight advantage for White. As we will see, it is not that bad for Black, but let's first check the alternatives to 12 cs :

a ) 12 b3 tllh s i s a much better version of the main game. Now 13 tt:Jxes tt:Jf4 gains in strength as White's queenside i s weakened.

b) 12 0-0 a4 13 cs .ig4 is similar to 12 cs i..g4 and nothing to fear for Black: 14 cxd6 cxd6 lS tllel i..xe2 16 'iUxe2 tlla6 17 tlld3 J:.ac8 18 f3 tlld7 and a draw was agreed in L.Portisch -M.Tal , Skelleftea 1989.

c) 12 cs can be met by the new move 12 . . . .ig4! .

I th ink that quite often . . . i..g4 is the key move for Black. Trading a pair of minor pieces i s helpful , considering he has less space. It also improves on Pall iser's 12 . . . tllbd7 and now I don 't see anything special for White:

cl) 13 h3 .ih s (13 . . . .ixf3 14 cxd6 cxd6 lS .ixf3 J:.c8 is al so possible} 14 tt:Jh4 .ixe2 lS cxd6 cxd6 16 tllfs 'iUd8 17 'iVxe2 tlla6 and Black is okay.

c2) 13 0-0 tllbd7 and Black is fine: for example, 14 cxd6 cxd6 lS h3 i..xf3 16 i..xf3 .l::tfc8 and Black can choose to block with . . . a4 and . . . tt:Jcs, or play on the queen side, with . . . tllb6-c4 for instance. Here 1s . . . i..h s ! ? is more interesting when 16 tllh4 i.xe2 17 tllfs 'iUd8 18 'iUxe2 tt:Jcs 19 tllg3 'iUb6 is a logical continuation , with about equal play.

2 83

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d 809 0 - l n d ia n

After the main game's 11. . .tLlh s , White has two options : to play g 3 to prevent . . . tt:Jf4 or to try to exploit the knight on the rim .

12 tt:Jxes This is the critical test of 11 . . . tt:Jh s . The alternatives are complex, but clearly less threat­

ening than the main move. Still I will devote some space to them as studying them is inter­esting and helpful to improve our understanding of the type of positions we often reach in the Zurich :

a) 12 g 3 prevents . . . tt:Jf4, but the combination of g 3 and i.e2 has its drawbacks. Indeed, 12 . . . i.h 3 obstructs White's play nicely:

al) 13 tt:Jh4 tt:Jf6 has been reached only once, in a game E .Bareev-A.Filippov, Moscow 2009 :

a11) Now there is the straightforward 14 o-o-o tt:Jbd7 and then : a111) 1S f4! ? exf4 {1s . . . tt:Jcs is a solid alternative, giving Black a sound position) 16

.l:.de1 ! is the completely weird point, given by Houdini. Following 16 . . . .l:.fe8 17 i.f1 i.xfl 18 .l:.hxf1 fxg 3 ! ? {a safer move is 18 . . .f3) 19 tt:Jfs 'iif8 20 .l:!.f3 tt:Jes 21 .l:.xg3 g6 White has serious compensation for the pawn, although it is very unclear and complicated.

a112) 1s tt:Jfs i.xfs 16 exfs as 17 f3 {a direct attack; of course, there are other plans, but Black will play with . . . c6 in any case) 17 . . . tt:Jcs 18 g4 c6 19 g s tt:Jh s and a sharp position is on the board.

2 84

Nimzo - l n di a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i.xc3

A possible follow-up is 20 f6 gxf6 21 gxf6 �xf6 22 dxc6 bxc6 {22 . . . tt:Jf4 ! ? i s al so very un­clear) 2 3 i.d3 and this position is hard to assess. This whole line is not forced of course, but is meant to be an illustration of the typical plans.

a113) 15 �bl tt:Jcs 16 f3 as with about equal chances. a12) However, Bareev played the sneaky 14 'ii'd3, after which Black has a crucial choice: a121) If Black plays the normal looking 14 . . . tt:Jbd7, then White reveals his intentions

with 15 g4! i.xg4 16 'ii'g3 with very dangerous play. It i s not totally clear, but Black should avoid this .

a122) Better is 14 . . . tt:Jfd7 ! 1 5 b4 {White i s grabbing space on the queenside, but where will the white king now find a safe spot?) 15 ... as 16 bxas ?! { I don't like this move, as it helps Black to coordinate his pieces on the queenside; instead, 16 i.f1 i.xf1 17 �xf1 g6 18 �g2 tt:Jf6 19 i.d2 tt:Jbd7 leads to a position with about equal chances) 16 . . . tt:Ja6 17 'ii'e3 tt:Jacs 18 i.b4 �h8 19 .if1.ixf1 20 �xf1 g6 21 �g2 .l:!.g8 22 .l:!.hf1 .l:!.af8 23 .l:!.ae1 fs and Black got the thematic break in, equalizing the position . In the game Bareev-Filippov, he even went on win, maybe influenced by the time situation.

a2) 13 tt:Jd2 is my suggestion for White to improve on Bareev-Filippov.

2 8 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

Now: a21) 13 . . . 'iVg5 ! ? i s an active-looking possibility. Black tries to keep the knight on h5 ,

avoiding the retreat. This should accelerate the play with . . .f5 , but in fact that move has its drawbacks, as shown by 14 0-0-0 tLld7 15 @b1 f5 16 f4! 'iVh6. This position looks somewhat shaky to me, but nothing clear i s apparent for White : for example, 17 fxe5 ttJxe5 18 i.xe5 dxe5 19 exf5 i.xf5 20 i.d3 i.xd3 21 'iVxd3 l:tae8 and White's advantage is not overwhelm­ing.

a22) 13 . . . tLlf6 is simpler and more reliable : 14 f3 lLlfd7 ! (the most straightforward move, going for . . .f5 immediately} 15 o-o-o f5 16 l:tdg1 (intending to cut off the bishop on h3 } 16 . . . a5 (Black needs to avoid 16 . . .fxe4? 17 g4 ! and now i t is very complicated} 17 g4 fxg4 (17 . . .f4 might be playable, although it looks weird having the bishop cut off).

Here: a221}18 fxg4 11f2 19 i.f3 lLlc5 20 l:tg3 'iVh4 21 'iVd1 (necessary, as other moves fail , like

2 8 6

N im z o - l n dia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays .i.xc3

21 @b1? .l:!.xh2 ! ) 21 . . . l::txh2 22 .l:!.xh2 �xg 3 2 3 � 1 tZ:ld3+ 24 @b1 tZ:lf4 and Black is fine in this unusual position.

a222) 18 .l::rg 3 ! ? h 5 ! is the only move, as the alternatives fail to address the bishop's posi­tion properly. A possible continuation is 19 fxg4 ilxg4 20 ilxg4 hxg4 21 l:txg4 tZ:lf6 22 .l::rg6 �bd7 2 3 °YWdl, which prevents . . . tZ:lh 5 and prepares a switch to the kingside. At first sight thi s position looks difficult for Black, but in fact it is not so clear. White's minor pieces don 't contribute to a kingside attack and Black's structure is sound: for example, 23 . . . tZ:lc5 24 .:i.hg1 .l:!.f7 25 �e2 c6 26 h4 cxd5 27 exd5 �d7 28 @b1 b5 29 cxb5 tZ:lxd5 30 'Yi'c4 tZ:lxc3+ 31 bxc3 @f8 and it i s very unclear. Of course, this line i s far too long , but as there are no prac­tical examples I thought thi s overview would be helpful to see more ideas in our structure.

b) Only recently has the retreat 12 tZ:ld2 has been introduced: 12 . . . tZ:Jf4 13 ilf3 f5 14 h4 ·�f7 15 o-o-o was seen in A.Moreno Trujill-J .Clement Gomez, Linares 2014, and now 15 . . .fxe4 16 tZ:lxe4 h6 intending . . . ilf5 should be okay for Black in an interesting position .

Now back to the critical move, 12 tZ:Jxe5 : 12 • • • tZ:lf6?!

This retreat i s the solid choice, where Black accepts that he will defend a worse position . As this is not satisfactory, we need to examine the improvement 12 . . . tZ:lf4 ! ?, which has been known since Richard Palli ser recommended it in Tango! some 10 years ago.

Strangely enough, in all four games that have seen the position after 12 tZ:lxe5, Black avoided it. As far as I (and the engines) can see, there is no clear-cut reason for this . While

White probably retains an advantage in the complications, 12 . . . tZ:lf 4 just gives Black far bet-ter prospects than the 'no counterplay' position in the actual game with 12 ... tZ:lf6.

I think the most logical continuation here is 13 tZ:lf3 tZ:lxg2+ 14 'it>d2 f6 (14 . . . tZ:lf4 first is the other move order and while it will probably transpose, I think that my move order with 14 .. .f6 might limit White slightly) 15 .l:!.hg l tZ:lf4.

2 8 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

This position is very complex with mutual chances i n a practical game. White enjoys a potentially powerful bishop-pair, but at the moment the bishops are not doing that much . For his part, Black would like to go . . . lt:Jd7-eS, using this excellent outpost in the centre. What he needs to prevent at almost all costs is White driving the knight on f4 away and playing f2-f4, which also takes away the es-square. So much for general concepts, here are some concrete moves:

a) Palliser's original analysis went 16 lt:Jd4 cs 17 dxc6 lt:Jxc6 with good counterplay for Black. I agree, but 16 lt:Jd4 seems to be rather uncritical , though.

b) The second l ine that Pall iser analyses is 16 l::tg 3 and now: bl) He gives 16 . . . .Ue8, but after 17 .Ue1 ! Black's rook move has accomplished little :

17 . . . lt:Jd7 18 .i.d1 tt:Jes 19 lLld4! @h8 (19 . . . lt:Jxc4+? i s a loss of time that Black already cannot afford: for example, 20 @c1 @h8 21 tt:Jfs .i.xfs 22 exfs 'iVd7 23 l::te4 and White wins) 20 @c1 g6 21 .i.d2 and Black is in huge trouble.

b2) I tried to make 16 . . . lt:Jd7 work, reaching a critical position after 17 .Uag1 g6 18 lt:Jd4:

2 8 8

N i m zo - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i..xc3

b21) 18 . . . ll'les ? ! 19 ll'lfs should be avoided, as 19 . . . �e8 2o @c1 @h8 21 ll'ld4 followed by �d2 will be a huge problem.

b22) 18 . . . .l:!.e8? ! 19 i..fl ! ll'les (19 . . . 'ii'xe4? 20 �dl! i s also very computerish, but strong) 20 @c1 and again Black has 'i!Vd2 to face. Now a nice l ine runs 20 . . . ll'lh s 21 ll'lfs ! i..xfs 22 exfs ll'lxg3 23 .i:txg 3 gs 24 f4 ll'lf7 2S h4 and I don't think Black will survive.

b23) 18 . . . ll'lcs i s relatively the best defence, but after 19 .i:te3 as 20 i..g4 and White i s still better.

b3) Black, however, has the simple 16 ... lZ'lh S ! , which invites 17 .l:i.gg 1 ll'lf4 with a repeti ­tion that nullifies 16 llg 3 as a winning attempt. Not repeating as Black is more than risky, as the analysis above shows.

c) I al so looked at 16 i..fl, which tries to play around the knight on f4, planning .l:i.el, @cl and ultimately 'i!Vd2 or i..d2, attacking the knight. Here 16 . . . ll'ld7 17 .l:i.el ll'les is a very important tempo gain that shows the downside of 16 i..fl. After 18 ll'ld4 'i!Ve8 19 @cl � S Black has counterplay i n this tense position and 1 6 .ifl seems a bit too slow to pose seri­ous problems.

d) 16 llael is the critical l ine in my opinion and after 16 . . . ll'ld7 (16 . . . cs? 17 ll'lh4 is no im­provement) White has :

d1) 17 @c1 will probably transpose to 17 ll'ld4 (line 'd3 ' ) after 17 . . . ll'les 18 ll'ld4. d2) 17 ll'lh4 is a very serious move. Indeed, following 17 ... ll'les (17 ... ll'lcs 18 i..g4 is strong

for White) 18 @cl @h8 19 l:tg 3 (not the only moves for White, but rather logical ones and now it seems hard for Black to avoid ... g s in some form or other) 19 ... g s 20 ll'lg2 (one point of ll'lh4; White fights against the outpost) 20 ... ll'lxe2+ 21 �xe2 i..d7 White is to be pre­ferred.

That said, this is a very tough position to play for both sides. d3) 17 lZ'ld4 lZ'les 18 @cl cs ( I don't see a serious alternative to this ; if White i s given

time he will attack the knight on f4 with �d2 or i.d2) 19 dxc6 ll'lxc6 (not 19 ... ll'lxe2+? 20

.l:i.xe2 ll'lxc6 21 ll'lxc6 bxc6 22 c s ! dxcs 23 es and White wins, while after 19 ... bxc6 20 i..fl

2 8 9

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

White i s much better) 20 lllxc6 bxc6 21 .tf1 llle6 i s slightly better for White, but again the position remains complicated and hard to play over the board for both sides. This can be said about 12 . . . lllf4 in general - it does not equalize for Black, but leads to a complicated game that i s difficult for both sides to handle over the board.

Returning to Belezky's less challenging 12 ... tt:'if6 : 13 lllf3 lllxe4

14 0-0 This is the most precise move. 14 ild4 ..tfs gains valuable time and after 15 'iVb3 lllcs ! (an improvement over the

1s . . . .l:te8 of J . Bluebaum-B.Von Herman, German League) 2011) 16 ilxcs dxcs 17 .l:!.d1 (17 'i'xb7? fail s to 17 . . . llld7 and White cannot handle Black's play on the e-file) 17 . . . b6 18 .l:td2 llld7 Black is at least equal . 14 .. . lllxc3 15 'i'xc3 tt:'id7

A necessary improvement on 1s . . . .tg4? ! 16 llld4! (this i s much better than the previ ­ously tested rook moves to el) 16 . . . .i.xe2 (retreating is sad, so Black plays into White's idea) 17 .l:!.fel llld7 18 .l:txe2 'i'f6 19 .l:tae1 and Black is in big trouble. White will gain even more space, supported by his control of the e-file, and Black has no counterplay at all . 16 tt:ld4

Giri's preparation has an excellent reputation, so this was probably still part of his homework. Belezky plays this l ine regularly, so Giri could have steered to this position eas­ily enough.

Instead, 16 .l:!.fel 'i'f6 seems to be less testing. After 17 llld4 llles 18 ii.fl ild7 19 .l:!.e4 'i'h6! 20 .l:tael fs (or 20 ... lllg4 21 h3 tt:'if6 22 .l:!.e7 .l:!.fe8) 21 .J:t4e2 f4 Black is okay. Likewise, if 16 ild3 'i'f6 17 llld4 a6 18 ilc2 tt:'ies 19 f4 lllg6 20 g3 ild7 and Black will gradually equalize with moves like doubling on the e-file or . . . llle7-fS . 16 ... lllf6 17 .l:tfe1

2 9 0

Nimzo - /n d i a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i..xc3

17 ... i..d7? Here Black needed to be more precise. With 17 . . . .l:!.e8 the problems still seem to be man­

ageable. Something l ike 18 i..d3 �f8 19 .l:!.xe8 �xe8 20 .l:!.el �f8 is not much fun admit­tedly, but if Black gets in (and I think he will } moves like ... i..d7 and ultimately ... .l:!.e8, his chances of holding are still intact: for example, 21 �as (an interesting move to weaken the light squares; 21 h 3 i..d7 22 b4 .l:!.e8 sees Black getting closer to equality) 21 . . . b6 22 �c3 i..d7 23 i..fs i..xfs 24 tt:Jxfs .l:!.e8 25 .l:!.e3 .l:!.xe3 26 �xe3 g6 27 tt:'ie7+ 'it>g7 28 tt:'ic6 and Black is at last almost equal . This was a long l ine , but it illustrates that Black is not in as bad shape as in the game. Still , this is not something to be enthusiastic about - you're playing for two results only, and a win is not one of them. 18 ..if3 �d8 19 tt:'ie6 fxe6 20 dxe6 i..xe6?!

With 20 . . . .l:!.e8 21 exd7 .l:!.xel+ 22 .l:!.xel c6 23 ..ig4 tt:'ixd7 Black could have continued in a clearly worse position, whereas after the text, Giri won convincingly: 21 .l:!.xe6 .l:!.b8 22 .l:!.ae1 .l:!.f7 23 h4 'it>h8 24 hS h6 25 i..d1 tt:'ig8 26 ..ic2 �h4 27 g3 �g4 28 �d3 tt:'if6 29 .l:!.e8+ .l:!.f8 30 .l:!.8e7 .l:!.bc8 31 .l:!.1e6 'it>g8 32 'it>g2 .l:!.f7 33 .l:!.xf6 .l:!.xf6 34 f3 �gs 35 �h7+ 'it>f8 36 .l:!.d7 @es 37 .l:!.xg7 �d2+ 38 'it>h3 1-0

Summary This game shows how quickly Black can get in serious trouble when he is not precise against 9 e4. After 12 . . . tt:'if6? ! he i s definitely worse and while he might be able to limit the

damage with careful defence, it is not a l ine to recommend for regular use. So what should Black play instead? 12 . . . tt:Jf4 is definitely better than 12 . . . tt:'if6 as it leads to far more compli­cated play. The arising complex positions are better for White, but this l ine can be played against the right opponent. My overall recommendation 'for regular use' is to go 11 . . . as, which will lead to a typically complex middlegame structure without any immediate dan­ger, unlike after 11 . . . tt:Jh s .

2 9 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

1 d 4 liJf6 2 C4 e6

Game 28 C.Sielecki-L.Deglmann

Bad Wiessee 2014

How did I end up on the white side of my repertoire? Well , my opponent, who usually plays the Dutch Defence, actually didn 't play 2 ... e6, but went for 2 ... lllc6 to surprise me. He had never played i t before, so I figured i t might be a good idea to transpose to the Zurich and try a l ine against him that I consider very testing . Indeed, 3 lllf3 e6 4 ll'lc3 .i.b4 S 'iWc2 transposed to the game. 3 ll'lc3 .i.b4 4 'iWc2 lllc6 s ll'lf3 d6 6 ii.gs

By playing ii.g s first, White provokes the move . . . h6 and then returns to d2. Compared to the immediate 6 .i.d2, Black has gained an extra move, but in many cases it represents a disadvantage. This disadvantage is often related to a weakening of the king side, in particu­lar the g6-square in the case of a later . . .fs . There are also are rare additional ideas for White with g4-g S . 6 .. . h6 7 ..\l!.d2

The main reason why 6 ii.g s scores poorly in comparison to 6 .i.d2 is that some players don 't drop back to d2, but instead play:

a) 7 ii.h4? gs 8 .i.g3 g4. Don't laugh - this has happened in some grandmaster games. Black is already better: for example, 9 dS exds 10 cxds ll'lxds 11 llld2 was J . Pinter-V.Milov, Swiss League 2012, and now 11. . . .i.xc3 12 bxc3 'iWf6 would have given Black a good position with an extra pawn to boot.

b) 7 ii.xf6? ! just gives up the bishop-pair for nothing. Here 7 ... 'iWxf6 8 e3 o-o 9 .i.d3 es 10 dS was V.Cmilyte-K.Georgiev, Caleta 2011, and now I prefer 10 . . . lllb8 to Georgiev's 10 . . . llle7, but Black has nothing to fear in any case. He will reach the closed Zurich centre with two

2 9 2

Nimzo - ln di a n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays Jixc3

pairs of minor pieces traded and thus no problems with his disadvantage in space. 1 . . . 0-0

We discussed some alternatives to this in the non- ... h6 version and the same conclusion applies : just avoid the sidelines and castle. 8 a3 Jixc3 9 Jixc3

9 . . . 'Viie7 Here I al so tried to make other approaches work, but unfortunately without any par­

ticular success. Let's have a look, though, as maybe you can find an improvement? a) 9 .. . e s ? ! 10 dxes dxes 11 lllxes lllxes 12 .i.xes l::te8 i s a gambit approach, but 13 l:!.d1

Wle7 14 Jixf6 'i'xf6 15 e3 ifc6 16 h4! intending hS and l::th4 occurred to me. After a while the computer agrees that White i s better.

b} Another l ine I investigated is 9 ... as 10 e4 'i'e7, which gains in strength compared to the . . . h6-less version (the pawn sacrifice 10 . . . e s ? ! 11 dxes dxes 12 lllxes is not sufficient). After 11 es dxes 12 dxes llld7 White does not have the important tempo Jid3 and while this position is still not terribly attractive, it i s certainly playable here.

10 b4!? This i s a refined move order to avoid a specific l ine after 10 e4. Let's first examine the al ­

ternatives and check how the inclusion of . . . h6 changes the evaluation : a) After 10 e3 the extra . . . h6 helps Black. If White continues like in Game 26, following

Jan Gustafsson's recommendation in the non-. . . h6 version, 10 . . . e s 11 ds t'Llb8 12 llld2 c6 13

dxc6 lllxc6 a point of . . . h6 becomes apparent: 14 J..d3 dS ! will equalize instantly. b) 10 g 3 also loses any bite: 10 . . . es 11 dS e4! is the reason . The move lllg s is now impos­

sible, so White i s reduced to 12 llld2 e3 13 fxe3 llles and Black had excellent compensation in M.Gurevich-E .Torre, Jakarta 1996.

c) This leaves 10 e4. I know it sounds strange at first, but I think this move is al so inaccu­rate. If White aims for the game position , he should start with 10 b4 like I did. After 10 . . . es 11 dS Black has :

2 9 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

cl) 11 . . . tt:Jd4! i s the key move that causes m y doubts about the viability of 1 0 e4.

I believe that Black has no problems here at all . The position after 12 tt:Jxd4 exd4 13 i.xd4 tt:Jxe4 (this natural move is a novelty; up to now only 13 . . . 'iWxe4? has been played, with a bleak endgame) 14 o-o-o has been assessed as better for White by various sources, but after 14 . . . 'iWg 5+ ! Black is fine. White now has a choice:

c11) After 15 i.e3 'iWe5 Black intends . . . tZ:lc5 and . . . i.f5 , obtaining a good game. A key point is 16 i.d3 (16 @b1 .l:.e8 17 .id3 tZ:lc5 is similar) 16 . . . tt:Jc5, which is only possible with the pawn on h6. This makes . . . tt:Jd4 only playable against 6 .ig 5 and not against the 6 .id2 line, where the pawn stays on h7 .

c12) 15 @b1 tt:Jc5 16 h4 'iWg6 and Black is completely fine. c2) However, there i s al so nothing wrong with 11 . . . tZ:lb8. As 11 . . . tt:Jd4 i s only really suit-

able if a draw is sufficient, this normal continuation is still of some value. Now: c21) 12 b4 leads to the main game. c22) The most popular move is 12 .ie2: c221) In this position without . . . h6, Black's main move is 12 . . . tt:Jh 5 , as was analysed in

the game Giri-Belezky (Game 27). It i s worse here because after 13 g3 .ih 3 (13 . . . tZ:lf6 is bet­ter, but not exactly an advertisement for 12 ... tt:Jh 5) 14 tZ:lh4 tZ:lf6 15 g4! g6 16 .l:.g 1 tt:Jxg4 17 tt:Jxg6 the move . . . h6 makes all the difference: 17 . . .fxg6 18 .ixg4 .ixg4 19 .l:.xg4 and White is better.

c222) I suggest going 12 ... a5 , which was al so mentioned in the non- ... h6 version as a good alternative. As Black is not going for a quick . . . tt:Jh 5 here, the move . . . h6 is not of major importance. Please refer to Game 27 for more on 12 . . . a5 (there it is move 11, of course) . 10 . . . es 11 ds tt:Jbs 12 e4

2 94

Nimzo - l n dia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays Ji..xc3

For a while I regarded this as one of the critical positions for the whole Zurich variation . Black has very few decent deviations earlier, so it has undoubted importance. One reason why I regarded it as especially critical is that the normal way for counterplay in the non­. . . h6 version, with 12 . . . lllhs , is not recommended here for Black. I now think that Black can obtain satisfactory play with two continuations, but in the main game my opponent played the move that White's whole concept is designed against: 12 . . . lllhs?!

Clearly aiming for . . .fs , but this i s never going to happen under favourable circum­stances and quite often Black needs to retreat to f6 later, conceding a serious loss of time.

I have analysed two alternatives here that lead to a decent game for Black. Both moves have never been played in a practical game, though, even including the version without . . . h6 being played:

a) 12 ... c6 gains in strength with White having played b4, weakening the c-file. Note that the bishop on c3 and queen on c2 are not ideally placed for an open c-file, as we will al so see later in the main game. White now has a wide choice, so let's look at some set-ups:

al) 13 i..e2 cxds 14 cxds ..ig4! (whenever ..ie2 is played, this becomes a serious option; Black aims for the simple . . . lllbd7 and .. Jk8 with a fine position) 15 h3 i..h s (1s . . . i..xf3 16 ..txf3 lllbd7 intending . . . .Ufc8 and . . . lllb6-c4 is also playable) 16 o-o .l:.c8 17 .Ufcl lllbd7 18 lllh4 (trying to solve the issues on the c-file by tactical means) 18 . . . lllxe4! 19 lllfs 'iff6 20 �xe4 i..xe2 21 lllxg7 @xg7 22 �xe2 lllb6 and if anyone, Black is the more comfortable.

a2) 13 dxc6 lllxc6 is relatively easy for Black to play. Here . . . b6, . . . Ji..b7 and a possible . . . llld8-e6 is a set-up we already know from the analysis of Game 26 . Here White has a pawn on e4 which helps Black a bit; White's bishop on d3 is restricted.

a3) 13 h3 just stops any ... i..g4 ideas, but with 13 ... cxds 14 cxds Ji..d7 ! Black will quickly get . . . .Uc8 in.

2 9 5

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - /n d i a n

After 15 ile2 ( 1 5 ild3 .l:!.c8 1 6 o-o lllh 5 i s similar) 15 . . . .l:!.c8 1 6 .l:!.c1 a6 17 o-o now 1 7 . . . lllh 5 is possible, a s 18 lllxe5?? fails due to 18 . . . lllf4 and overall Black has no problems after 13 h3 .

a4) 13 llld2 i s the most testing move I think: a41) 13 . . . lllh 5 ? ! does not lead to anything after 14 g3 . a42) I don't quite trust 13 . . . b 5 ! ? , but I couldn 't refute i t either and 14 dxc6 lllxc6 15 cxb5

llld4 16 ilxd4 exd4 17 ild3 ilg4 certainly gives Black some compensation . a43) 13 . . . a5 (obviously similar to the direct 12 . . . a5 ) 14 ile2 axb4 15 axb4 .l:!.xa1+ 16 ..ixa1

iLg4 17 f3 ild7 and Black can be satisfied here. He has misplaced the bishop on a1, . . Jk8 is coming, and both ... b5 and ... lllh 5 are ideas.

b) 12 . . . a5 is the second option for Black and maybe the best one. Just as after 12 . . . c6,

White has a plethora of moves:

b1) 13 ile2 lllh 5 ! ? 14 g3 (14 lllxe5 ? ! lllf4! is a vastly improved version of the lines exam­ined in Giri -Belezky) 14 . . . axb4 15 axb4 l:i.xa1+ 16 iLxa1 ilh 3 and we reach a position from

2 9 6

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite Plays i.xc3

the main game which was okay for Black.

b2) 13 h3 axb4 14 axb4 .l:.xa1+ 15 .i.xa1 c6 16 .i.e2 cxds 17 cxds .i.d7 with a structure that will arise in the main game as well . Black obtains a reliable set-up with . . . .l:.c8, possibly with ... 'if e8 and ... .tbs to come. In this very static position, White's bishops don't count for that much .

b3} 13 tZ::id2 axb4 14 axb4 .l:.xa1+ 15 .i.xa1 c6 16 ..ie2 .i.g4 transposes to variation 'a43 ', above.

b4} 13 bxas is in the spirit of the King's Indian, Bayonet Attack. One idea is to follow up with .i.b4 if possible, as shown by 13 ... tZ::ia6 14 ..ib4:

b41) 14 ... b6 ! ? is interesting and after 15 tZ::id2 (not 15 .i.c3? ! tZ::ics 16 tZ::id2 bxas and Black is better) 1s . . . .i.d7 16 .i.e2 bxas 17 ..ixas tZ::ics 18 .i.b4 .i.a4 19 1fib1 .l:.fb8 20 o-o all the top engines give Black enough compensation . I have my doubts, but as Black has a good alter­native on move 14, it is not that important.

b42) More reliable is 14 ... tZ::ld7 15 .i.d3 tZ::idcs 16 o-o fs .

Here Black's position is very harmonious.

To sum things up: both 12 . . . c6 and 12 . . . as are satisfactory for Black, unlike 12 .. . tZ::ih s ? ! to which we now return . 13 g3 !

Preparing tZ::lh4 in response to . . .fs . 13 . . . as

Here my opponent realized that . . .fs was not possible : 13 . . .fS ? 14 tZ::lh4 'iif7 15 exfs .i.xfs

16 tZ::ixfs 'iixfs 17 'iixfs .l:Ixfs actually happened in P .H .Niel sen-K.Memeti, Plovdiv 2010, and here Carl sen 's second missed 18 f4! , which wins outright.

After 13 . . . as we had a funny situation regarding the clock. While I had more time than we had started with (thanks to the 30-second increment}, my opponent had used about 80 minutes. Unfortunately here I played far too quickly, still not in thinking mode after simply

copying my own analysis from script for this book.

2 9 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

14 i.e2?

14 i.g2 was much stronger. Black then has a worse version of 12 . . . as, as shown above.

The knight on hs does not make much sense here and will probably need to retreat at some point, losing two tempi in the process. 14 ... axb4 15 axb4 l:l.xa1+ 16 i.xa1 i.h3 17 tllh4 illf4!

I had underestimated this when I played 14 i.e2. White i s now hampered by the strong bishop on h3 , preventing castl ing. 18 i.f3 lllg6 19 tllf5 'il¥d7 20 i.c3 c6!

Correctly initiating play on the c-file. Black is not in bad shape here, being just slightly worse. 21 llle3 cxd5 22 cxd5 l:l.c8

This pawn structure arises frequently when White expands early on the queen side. I think that in most cases Black can be satisfied as he can trade some pieces {rooks on the a­file, for example} to better handle his disadvantage in space. Al so White's bishops would prefer a less static position where there is a good pawn break in sight to open more files. 23 @d2 llla6 24 'il¥d3 tlle7

Trying for . . .fs after all . I am not sure this i s a good idea though. 25 i.e2 f5?!

2 9 8

N im z o - l n d ia n : Zu rich Va ria t ion , Wh ite P lays i..xc3

26 f3?! This was somewhat modest. I saw that 26 f4! was possible, but 26 . . . exf4 27 gxf4 fxe4 28

'ii'xe4 tZJfs 29 tZJxfs i..xfs 30 'ii'd4 "O.c7 31 "0.g1 'ii'e7 was the l ine I saw and I couldn't assess it properly. I thought Black might be able to get in ... tiJb8-d7 at some point and was unsure how to improve further. In fact, 32 i..g4 i..xg4 3 3 "O.xg4 'ii'f8 34 fS looks rather grim for Black. 26 ... tiJc7 27 "O.a1 "O.a8?

Here Black is equal , given that he will play 27 . . .fxe4 28 fxe4 tiJe8 with . . . tiJf6 to follow. The only bad piece in Black's camp is the knight on e7 which might improve via g6-h8-f7-

g 5 if allowed. 28 "O.xa8+ tZJxaS 29 g4

This was underestimated by my opponent, who now needed to be precise to stay in the game. 29 .. .fxe4?

This loses immediately.

29 .. .fxg4 30 fxg4 tiJg6 3 1 tZJfs i..g2 32 'ii'hs VWxbs 33 i..xbs i..xe4 34 tZJxd6 i..xds 3 5 i..d3 would be tough to hold, but there is still work for White to do. 30 'iWxe4

Now the combined threats of i..d3 and f4 are too much . 30 ... tiJb6 31 i..d3 g6 32 f4 1-0

Summary This game and the analysis shows that Black does not need to fear 6 i..g s , but he should be aware of the finer points of the move. In some cases the extra move is helpful for Black, while in others it requires entirely different play compared to the related non-. . . h6 lines.

2 9 9

C h a pte r Twe lve

Bogo- l n d i a n wit h 4 � d 2 a s

1 d4 t'Llf6 2 c4 e6 3 t'Llf3 .tb4+ 4 .td2 as

A very positive feature of the Bogo- lndian is that very early on (on move 4 ) Black can choose from a variety of lines that are all playable. I have opted for 4 . . . as followed by . . . d6, as it is most suited to lead to position types that are the main theme of the book - the dark-squared set-up.

Here is an overview of the chosen l ine and some additional information on the alterna­tives that I discarded, but are interesting ways to expand your repertoire.

a) 4 . . . cs i s interesting and combative, but less in keeping with the general theme of the book than 4 . . . as and . . . d6. It's still a good alternative, though, and relatively easy to learn .

b) 4 . . . .txd2+ is the rock solid choice. Black has quite good chances to equalize in this l ine, but very often the equality i s of a sterile nature, making it quite a non-starter for any winning attempts. There is nothing wrong with this line, it's just not very exciting to exam-

3 00

Bog o - ln d ian with 4 i.. d2 a s

ine i n an openings book.

c) 4 ... 'i¥e7 is the traditional main move. For a while Black suffered a bit here due to the l ine 5 g 3 tl'ic6 6 tl'iC3 , but recent practice suggests that instead s . . . i..xd2+ 6 �xd2 tl'ic6 ! ? is very interesting. For the repertoire I was mostly debating whether to opt for this or the l ine I chose in the end. As a possible addition to your repertoire, 4 . . . �e7 certainly comes into consideration .

d ) And now to 4 . . . as : dl) 5 a3 (and minor moves).

The game Lenderman-Sielecki (Game 29) features White's early deviations on move s , in particular the game's 5 a3, which gained some attention because it was recommended by Larry Kaufman in his repertoire book. My game shows that Black obtains a fairly stan­dard dark-squared closed centre and has nothing in particular to fear.

d2) White main choice against 4 ... as is to decide on playing g3 or not. The game Khen­kin-Anton Guijarro (Game 30) features White's set-up with an early 5 tl'ic3 where the fi­anchetto is avoided.

d3) 5 g3 d6 6 i..g2 tl'ibd7 7 0-0 es reveal s White's most popular set-up after starting with 5 g3 .

3 0 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

One admittedly very abstract logical reason behind getting castled quickly is t o unpin the bishop on d2. White tries to prove that . . . as was a waste of time because Black may take on d2 anyway or faces the bishop being stranded on b4 after he has played . . . d6. My repertoire suggestion is to set up the dark-squared centre with . . . d6, . . . tt:Jbd7 and . . . es . The game Stefansson-Navara (Game 31) shows the way to the main position after 7 . . . es , which is a big crossroads for White:

d31) Game 31 examines 8 .i.c3, 8 .i.e3 and 8 .i.cl. Those bishop moves force Black to capture on d4, as the bishop is in danger of being trapped on b4.

d32) 8 .i.g s is the most popular move of that type and is dealt with separately in the next game. Nowadays it has become clear that Black has little to fear after 8 .i.g s and in

recent years attention has shifted to other attempts. The game Abel -Kveinys (Game 32 ) highlights Black's chances excellently. It is a fairly o ld game compared to most of our other main games, but 8 .i.g s has seen very few recent developments.

d33) While not objectively dangerous, 8 e3 presents a different approach compared to the lines examined before.

3 02

809 0 - /n d i a n with 4 il d2 a s

White makes a capture on d4 unattractive by allowing him t o recapture with a pawn and actually threatens something - the retreat .il.c1, leaving the b4-bi shop out in the cold. This is a serious threat and, for example, after the careless 8 ... 0-0 9 .il.c1 ! Black is in trouble. The game Potkin-Bruzon (Game 33) shows the way to handle this line. Black offers a pawn sacrifice that gives excellent compensation if White dares to accept it.

d34) 8 tllc3 i s White's most popular choice. It leads to a complicated game where I rec­ommend keeping the central tension instead of taking on d4. This l ine is covered in Mo­randa-Bartel (Game 34).

d3 5) The capture on es i s an option for White, starting on move eight with 8 dxes . He might al so delay it and play moves l ike tt:Jc3 or 'i'c2 first in order to take on move 9 or 10. Recently this approach has gained momentum as conventional l ines fail to give White any­thing . The game Antic-Goumas (Game 35 ) features the capture on moves 8 to 10 and shows how to counter this simple approach by White.

Game 29 A.Lenderman-C.Sielecki

Bad Wiessee 2014

1 d4 tllf6 2 c4 e6 3 tllf3 .il.b4+ 4 ild2 as

3 03

Ope n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

Now by far the most popular moves are S g 3 and S tl'ic3 . This game contains White's al ­ternatives on move S, most importantly the game continuation. 5 a3

In the majority of games White just plays S a3 without any particular idea in mind, but there is a point to it, as Larry Kaufman demonstrated in his repertoire book. White forces the capture on d2 in order to reach a 'Wid2 and tl'ic3 set-up quickly. It is the only dangerous alternative on move S that leads to unique positions, but let's still have a look at the other moves:

a) S 'W/c2 is fairly rare, but not bad at all . I suggest a very simple reply in the spirit of the book that has not been played a lot: s . . . .i.xd2+ ! ? 6 tl'ibxd2 d6. Black will set up the dark­squared centre and with the knight on d2, White has nothing.

al) 7 g4 h6 8 l:l.g1 tl'ic6 9 h4 es 10 gs hxg s 11 dxes dxes 12 .U.xg s 'Wie7 with very unclear play in A.Bonte-M.Suba, Eforie Nord 2007.

a2) 7 e4 tl'ic6 8 .i.e2 (8 es dxes 9 dxes tl'id7 10 'ii'c3 'Wie7 11 a3 a4 12 .i.d3 tl'ics was also fine for Black in V.Korchnoi-B.Larsen, Las Palmas 1981) 8 . . . es and Black is fine.

b) S e3 i s a quiet move that gives Black some leeway. For our repertoire s . . . d6 fits best. The game A.Borsuk-M.Drasko, Cappelle la Grande 2013, continued 6 .i.d3 'Wie7 7 e4 es 8 ds tl'ia6 9 tl'ic3 tl'ics 10 'W/e2 and now 10 . . . tl'ih s even improves over the game, in which Black was comfortable; . . . 'Wif6 and . . . tl'ih s is a useful idea to remember.

c) S .i.xb4 is rarely played for good reason. The b4-pawn is a nuisance for White, taking away the c3-square from the knight. Black al so benefits from the opening of the a-file, get­ting his rook into play as early as move S: s ... axb4 6 tl'ibd2 d6 7 g3 0-0 8 .i.g2 cs g o-o tl'ic6 10 tl'ib3 'Wie7, as in E .Ovod-D.Bocharov, Serpukhov 2003, shows a good set-up for Black. He is already slightly for choice here. s . . . .i.xd2+ 6 'ifxd2

3 04

Bog a - In d ian with 4 il d2 a s

This i s the only move that makes sense, but let's examine the harmless move as well : 6 ll'ibxd2? ! , which is very comfortable for Black. The knight voluntarily takes up a bad spot on d2. U sually Black has little problems if the knight appears there without any specific idea in mind. After 6 . . . a4 (the typical queenside freeze) 7 e4 d6 8 �c2 �e7 9 ll'ib1 ! ? (an interesting move, trying to highlight the weakness of the a4-pawn) 9 . . . es 10 dxes dxes 11 ll'ic3 ll'ibd7 12 ll'ixa4 ll'ixe4 13 �xe4 .l:!.xa4 Black was even slightly the more comfortable in S .Dimitrijevic-D.Kosic, Valjevo 2011. 6 . . . 0-0

Black's most reliable set-up starts with ... o-o and ... d6, which can be played in any order. However, what Black should avoid is the following: 6 ... d6 7 ll'ic3 ll'ibd7? ! (7 ... 0-0 transposes to the main game) 8 g4! (injecting life into the game) 8 . . . o-o (8 . . . b6 9 gS ll'ig8 10 o-o-o ll'ie7 11 h4 looked promising for White in M.Kanep-V.Malakhatko, Jyvaskyla 2007) 9 g S ll'ie8 10 o-o-o b6 11 h4 ds, which was played in G .Pap-V.Babula, Hungarian League 2011, with murky play where White has gained too much space for my taste. 1 ll'ic3 d6

One idea of S a3 is that ... ds-based set-ups lose their appeal , as the inclusion of a3 and . . . as compared to the line 4 ild2 ilxd2+ s �xd2 ds favours White considerably. In many lines Black needs to play . . . cs later which doesn't go well with ... as at all . We don't mind playing . . . d6 anyway, though, so it 's no big issue. 8 e4

3 05

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

The logical follow-up. The alternatives are too timid to trouble Black: a) If 8 g 3 'ile7 followed by . . . e s with a comfortable position . It is helpful that Black has

not yet committed his knight on b8. On d7 it would obstruct the bishop, while on c6 it might get hit by d4-dS. It is fairly normal to play . . . li:Jc6 and then . . . li:Jb8 in the Boga when the centre is closed, and here Black might avoid losing those two tempi . After 9 i.g2 es 10 0-0 .l:!.e8 11 e4 i.g4 (Black tries to use the weakened d4-square) 12 lt:Je1 exd4 13 'i/xd4 li:Ja6 14 f3 i.d7 1s lllc2 lllcs 16 .l:!.ad1 hs Black obtained good counterplay with . . . h S -h4 in S. Logothetis-5.Kapnisis, Porto Rio 2014.

b) Against 8 e3 again I l ike the idea of going 8 ... 'ile7 first: for example, 9 'ii'c2 es 10 ds lt:Ja6 11 i.e2 lt:Jcs 12 b3 i.g4 13 o-o i.h s 14 lt:Jd2 i.xe2 1s lt:Jxe2 c6 with equal play in S.Azaladze-E .Ghaem Maghami, Tabriz 2012. 8 . . . li:Jc6

Larry Kaufman only mentions 8 ... 'ile7 here. His analysis continues 9 es dxes 10 dxes li:Jfd7 11 i.d3 lllc6 12 'i/e2 lt:Jcs 13 i.c2 b6 14 o-o i.b7 1s lt:Je4 and gives White a small ad­vantage. While this is debatable, I think 8 . . . li:Jc6 is slightly more accurate for Black. It allows the same e4-eS advance structure, but in a more comfortable form as we will see below. 9 l:ld1

Preventing ... e6-eS for the moment. The less forceful 9 i.e2 es 10 ds llle7 helps Black find a good square for his knight on g6 . 9 . . . 'ile1 10 i.e2

Here White had the chance to radically change the structure a la Kaufman with 10 e s ! ? . After 10 . . . dxes 11 dxes llld7 12 'ile3 lllcs Black is fine. Now 13 i.d3 can simply be answered

by 13 ... li:Jxd3+ 14 l:lxd3 b6 and Black completes his development, getting his bishop on to a good diagonal . 10 . . . es 11 ds

11 dxes lllxes (11. . .dxes ? 12 li:Jds is just good for White) 12 o-o i.e6 is too simplistic to give White anything.

3 0 6

B og a - In d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

1 1 ... 'LlbS 1 2 b4

Black has obtained a fairly standard Bogo structure and now needs to select a plan . 12 ... i..g4

Similar to the structures in the Zurich variation, I feel that Black often has a hard time finding a useful role for his bishop, so trading on f3 i s an option . My opponent had some doubts about this in the post mortem, but neither he nor the engine at home found any­thing tangible for White.

In stead, 12 ... 'Llh S ! ? is interesting too. After 13 g3 'Llf6 14 o-o i..h3 15 .l:!.fe1 'Lla6 we reach a complex position that is just about slightly better for White. 13 h3

I was a bit surprised by this as I intended to take anyway. As mentioned, Lenderman thought this trade was favourable for him so he forced the issue. 13 ... i..xf3 14 i..xf3 axb4 15 axb4 'Lla6

3 0 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

With just two minor pieces, Black's spatial disadvantage does not hurt s o much. 16 t'bbs

16 :b1 cs! leads to play similar to the game. 16 ... t'be8!

Black has to get in . . . c6/cS to gain space for his pieces. 11 :b1

Played to keep the game more complicated. After 17 o-o c6 18 dxc6 bxc6 19 lbxd6 t'bxd6 20 'iVxd6 'iVxd6 21 .Uxd6 t'bxb4 22 cs .l:tfb8 Black has completely equalized. 17 ... c6 18 dxc6 bxc6 19 t'bc3 lbac7 20 o-o t'be6 21 lbe2

The direct 21 bs doesn 't promise much either. Moreover, 21 . . . 'iVb7 22 i.g4 lbd4 23 lbe2 cs 24 lbxd4 cxd4 2S 'ifb4 "V/He7 26 b6 t'bf6 27 b7 :ab8 is a line that makes White's bishop look rather silly. 21 ... t'bf6 22 .l:.fd1 .l:.fd8 23 .l:.a1 .l:.xa1 24 .l:.xal

24 ... ds? Opening the position prematurely. It's not terrible, but only gives White additional

chances.

In stead, I should have played a small improving move l ike 24 . . . g6 when Black has a com­fortable position . He has a healthy structure, while White has a problematic bishop on f3, and it's tough for either side to make any progress. 2 5 exds e4 26 i.g4 cxds 27 i.xe6 dxc4 28 i.xf7+ @xf7 29 "V/Hc3 "V/1Jc1

When I played ... ds, I had this position in mind. What I did overlook, however, is that c4 always falls with check. 30 bs

30 .l:!.cl .l:td3 31 "V/Hxc4+ is check. This is what I didn 't appreciate when going ... dS : my king position becomes an issue. That said, this l ine continues 31 . . . "V/Hxc4 32 .Uxc4 lldl+ 3 3 @h2 .Ud2 34 lbc3 l:txf2 3 S t'bxe4 lbxe4 36 :xe4 .l:.b2 and Black should hold the endgame. 30 ... .l:.d3?

3 0 8

809 0 - ln d i a n with 4 .td2 a s

This was the decisive mistake. As usual you realize it right after you make the move - I saw his reply straightaway.

30 . . . 'iVcs was still OK for Black. After 3 1 b6 "i&'xb6 32 'iVxc4+ 'i£/g6 Black needs to be care­ful , but this is miles better than the actual game. Here I believe that at least objectively Black should defend with perfect play, whereas in the game I am just wiped out quickly. 31 b6 'iVxb6 32 "i&'xc4+ @e1 33 .l:!.a6 'iVbS 34 g3 .l:!.d5 3 5 tt:Jd4 ifb1+ 36 @g2 'ii'd3 37 .l:!.a7+ l:td7 38 'iVe6+ @ds 39 .l:!.aS+ 1-0

Mate follows.

Summary Kaufman's 5 a3 was certainly an underestimated l ine before he presented it in his book. However, this game shows that Black's standard dark-square set-up leads to a middlegame type that he should be content to enter, given that i t closely resembles structures we aim for in other l ines. A key idea in my opinion is . . . .tg4 to trade one pair of minor pieces, eas­ing Black's play given the disadvantage in space that he has.

Game 30 l .Khenkin-0.Anton Guijarro

Span i sh Tea m Championsh i p 2012

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:Jf3 ..tb4+ 4 .td2 as 5 lt:Jc3 Very natural play. White just develops his knight and gives the play a distinct Nimzo­

lndian character. In fact there are some direct transpositions possible as we will see.

s .. . b6

With a heavy heart I recommend this move. A heavy heart because I would have pre­ferred to present an approach that fits better with the whole repertoire.

3 09

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

Unfortunately, it seems that s . . . d6 does not offer Black equal chances. 6 �c2 is the most popular move and keeps the most flexibil ity. After 6 . . . tt:lbd7 (6 . . . tt:lc6 now leads to the Clas-sical Zurich, but unfortunately to a slightly inferior version as . . . as has been played too ear-ly; this was discussed in Game 2S ) 7 e4 es 8 a3 ii.xc3 9 ii.xc3 �e7 10 ii.d3 I don 't see how Black even comes close to equality. He cannot force White to release the tension with dS and is suffering . 10 ... 0-0 11 o-o a4? 12 cs ! is particularly bad.

If you want to avoid s ... b6 and stay with ... d6-based play, 6 ... tt:lc6 is the relatively better choice. This version of the Zurich is not brilliant, but playable if it is not a main part of your repertoire. On the other hand, s ... b6 is probably just the best move and going for some­thing different once in a while can't hurt. Moreover, it's also not very heavy on concrete lines, so is fairly easy to learn . 6 ii.gs

That's the only sharp, critical continuation . White i s essentially transposing into a Queen's Indian with 1 d4 tt:lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:Jf3 b6 4 tt:lc3 ii.b4 S ii.g s where Black has been gifted the extra move . . . as. This move will sometimes turn out to be a negative for Black: for example, the queenside, especially bS, is weaker now and a possible break with c4-cS i s more dangerous. However, Black has a way to tum the curse into a blessing , as we will see.

Let's first check the less challenging alternatives for White at move 6: a) 6 e3 and then :

a1) Black has a no-nonsense equalizing approach : 6 . . . ii.xc3 7 ii.xc3 tt:Je4 8 �c2 ii.b7 9 ii.d3 tt:lxC3 10 �xc3 d6 11 e4 tt:ld7 12 o-o o-o 13 .l:!.fe1. This was played in D.Jakovenko­A.Morozevich , Kazan 2014, and now 13 ... es 14 .l:!.ad1 �f6 would have equalized. This way of playing is not very exciting , but certainly solid and appropriate for some occasions.

a2) More interesting i s 6 . . . ii.b7 7 ii.d3 d6:

a21) Allowing a knight to e4 is very comfortable for Black: for example, 8 0-0 tt:lbd7 9 a3 ii.xc3 10 ii.xc3 tt:le4 11 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 12 �e2 a4, as in S.Kalkhof-M.Womacka, German League 2012. The opposite-coloured bishops are no drawing factor here yet and Black has some

3 1 0

B og o - J n d i a n with 4 il.. d2 a s

active ideas and flexibility with his structure. H e can play for . . . cs , . . . e s or even . . . b s or . . .fs as the situation permits.

a22) 8 iVc2 increases White's control over e4 and should be met by 8 . . . tt:Jbd7: a221) 9 e4 es 10 tt:Jds il..xd2+ 11 iVxd2 o-o 12 o-o l:!.e8 13 l:!.fe1 tt:Jf8 14 g 3 tt:J6d7 1s il..f1

tt:Je6 was an instructive regrouping in O.Cvitan-M.Taimanov, Baku 1983 .

Black has equalized and even has chances to have the better bishop in the long term af­ter a future . . . cs .

a222) 9 a3 ..ixc3 10 ..ixc3 and here the couple of games that reached this position saw Black playing . . . iVe7 and . . . es . What I don 't like about this structure is that White will never move the d-pawn and Black has a hard time to find a plan . I suggest an approach with . . . cs instead: for example, 10 . . . cs 11 o-o o-o 12 .l:tad1 .l:tc8 and Black is fine.

b) Of course, there i s al so 6 g3, but here it i s very comfortable for Black, who even has some choice. Indeed, after 6 . . . .i.a6 7 b3 there are three good plans to choose from :

bl) 7 . . . o-o 8 il..g 2 c6 9 a3 ..ie7 10 ..ig s ds with a Catalan-style position . A.Karpov­A.Yusupov, Linares 1992, continued 11 ..txf6 ..txf6 12 cxds cxds 13 o-o tt:Jd7 14 'i\fd2 .i.e7 1S .l:Ifc1 bs 16 e3 b4 and Black was already in good shape.

b2) 7 .. . ..ib7 8 il..g 2 0-0 9 0-0 d6 10 iVc2 tt:Jbd7 11 .l:tfe1 ..ixc3 12 il..xc3 with a structure you might already have in your repertoire when you go for 4 tt:Jbd2 d6 of Game 36 (Malak­hatko-Sielecki) .

b3) The most dynamic l ine i s 7 . . . ds 8 cxds exds 9 ..tg2 o-o 10 o-o l:!.e8 11 l:!.e1 tt:Jbd7 with a complicated position, more typical of the Queen's Indian .

3 1 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d i a n

This i s the right choice if you want to complicate matters. After 12 a3 .if8 13 .if4 c6 14 ttJes lLixes 1S .ixes? in S.Siebrecht-D. Fridman, Germany 2013, the multiple German Champion already could have obtained a big advantage with 1s . . . ttJg4 16 .if4 g s 17 .id2 'ii'f6 18 :fl 'iWxd4 and White has nothing for the central pawn.

c) Quite obviously harmless is 6 a3, but it allows us to see Bogo guru Vereslav Eingorn in action : 6 . . . i.xc3 7 i.xc3 i.b7 8 .id2 d6 9 i.g s a4 10 e3 l:.as ! 11 .ih4 lLibd7 12 i.d3 °iVa8 13 o-o gs ! 14 .ig 3 h s 1s h4 gxh4 16 lLixh4 l:tg8 17 l:.e1 :ag s .

Fantastic play by Black, who is already clearly better. What was White's mistake here in A.Chernuschevich-V. Eingorn, French League 2004? Probably i.d2-g 5 was wrong, giving Black too many tempi on the kingside.

Back to 6 .ig s :

3 1 2

Bog a - In d ian with 4 .i d2 a s

6 ... a4!? Trying to make sense of the pawn on as; . . . l:tas is al so a key manoeuvre.

7 a3 As . . . a3 was threatened, there i s no choice.

7 .. . .txc3+ 8 bxc3 .ib7 9 tt:'id2 Aggressive play by Khenkin. He tries to get f3 and e4 in. Usually White goes 9 e3 and now 9 . . . l:tas ! ? is just too nice not to play it (of course, you

can al so play conservatively with 9 . . . d6}.

Very interesting play arises after 10 i.h4 d6 11 tt:'id2 (11 .id3 tt:'ibd7 12 J:tb1 'i¥a8 13 �bS .tc6 14 l:txas 'ilVxas 15 'i¥c2 'iVh s was al so nice for Black in V.Epishin-M.Turov, Helmond 2012) 11 . . . gs 12 .ig3 tt:'ibd7 ! (12 . . . h S ? ! is mistimed due to 13 h4! } 13 f3 and now 13 . . . l:tg8

was played in A.Khalifman-A.Aleksandrov, St Petersburg 1996. Instead, I suggest 13 . . . g4

immediately. The idea is 14 .i.d3 gxf3 15 gxf3 'ilVa8 with . . . �g S/h S and . . . 'ilVas to follow. It's

3 1 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

just a super complex game with mutual chances. 9 .. . h6

I am not totally convinced by 9 . . . l:ras 10 .Jlh4 d6 here. It will probably often transpose to the scenario after 9 e3 with Black going for . . . gs quickly, but 11 f3 tt'lbd7 12 e4 makes it more difficult for Black to obtain counterplay. 10 .i.h4 d6

This solid set-up is always possible instead of the quick ... .l:!.as. Khenkin's early tt'ld2

makes ... l:ras harder to play as we have seen , so it' s good to have thi s set-up to fall back on . 11 f3

White may also switch back to the more restrained 11 e3 tt'lbd7 12 f3, after which Black chooses a set-up like 12 . . . es 13 .i.e2 o-o 14 o-o l:re8 when . . . tt'lf8-g6 is an idea to break the pin . 11 ... es

This has a specific idea in mind, as we will see. Of course, 11 . . . tt'lbd7 followed by . . . flie7, . . . es, etc, is playable as well .

12 e4 tt'lc6!? That's the idea, but again 12 . . . tt'lbd7 was the safe way to go.

13 cs!? This was invited by Black's last and doesn't seem too dangerous. What else was there? a) 13 ds ! ? tt'lb8 (13 .. . tt'le7 14 .i.xf6 gxf6 1s cs dxcs 16 .i.bs+ @f8 17 o-o tt'lg6 is very

murky, but White has more play here than after 13 . . . tt'lb8) 14 cs (the point; otherwise mat­ters would be excellent for Black with his knight coming to cs) 14 ... bxcs 1s l:rb1 .i.c8 16 .i.bs+ .i.d7 17 .tc4 with some compensation for the pawn for White, but nothing to be afraid of.

b) 13 .tf2 tt'ld7 intending . . . Wif6 looks nice for Black. 13 ... dxcs?!

13 . . . exd4 was better, leading to an opening of the game with Black being nicely devel -

3 1 4

Bog a - In di a n with 4 �d2 a s

oped. I t i s a difficult move to play over the board, though, with the many complicated l ines now possible :

a) 14 cxb6 o-o 15 cxd4 (15 bxc7 'ii'xe7 16 .txf6 gxf6 is a terrible structure, but White i s underdeveloped, has got the king on el and some dark-squared weaknesses; Black is better after, for example, 17 l:tcl dxc3 18 J::txc3 d5 ! } 15 ... t2lxd4 16 .td3 (16 bxc7? 'V//ixc7 17 .l:tc1 'flie7 is already very good for Black; he will open the centre with . . . d6-d5 against the white king) 16 . . . cxb6 17 o-o t2le6 18 J::tb1 and I think it i s about equal .

Black is a pawn up, but he will most likely have to return it, resulting in exchanges and equality.

b) The only other sensible move is 14 cxd4, which might just transpose after 14 . . . t2lxd4 15 cxb6 o-o and we transpose to 14 cxb6. Here 15 . . . c5 and 15 . . . d5 are also possible too, so 14 cxb6 is more precise. 14 dxcs

This is now a critical situation . Black is in danger of obtaining a bad structure on the queenside, with White's bishops gaining strong diagonals (.tf2 will pressurize b6} .

14 . . . 0-0!

3 1 5

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

An excellent solution by David Anton Guijarro. White is still slightly better after it, but his position is very difficult to play. 15 cxb6 l2Ja5 16 �xa4 cxb6 17 �b4 �c7

White is a pawn up, but Black has play against c3 and later on the d-file. 18 i.b5?1

18 i.f2 ! l2Jd7 19 ..te2 ttJcs 20 o-o was better I think, even if it still won't be at all easy to convert the pawn. It i s still not fun for Black, though, who is only playing for two results. 18 ... .UfdS 19 c4?1

After this Black has full compensation for the pawn with lots of activity. 19 ... .Ud3 20 o-o .Uad8 21 .Ua2 .U8d6 22 .Uc1 �d8?

22 . . . i.c6 immediately was better, and if 23 a4 i.xbs 24 axbs ltJh s with excellent com­pensation . 23 l2Jf1 i.c6 24 ..txc6?

24 a4 was possible. Black then has some problems with his coordination, leaving him in trouble. 24 ... ttJxc6 25 �b5 .Ud1 26 .Uxd1 .Uxd1

3 1 6

B og o - ln dia n with 4 il. d2 a s

Now Black has good play for the pawn once again and Khenkin, probably i n time trou­ble, immediately erred. 27 'iVxc6?? °iVd4+ 28 il.f2

28 .i::tf2 .l::txf1+ 29 @xf1 °iVd1# is maybe what White had overlooked. 28 ... °iVd3 29 h3 'iVxf1+ 30 @h2 °iVh1+ 31 '>t>g3 @h7 32 °iVc8 g6 33 il.xb6 ll'ihs+ 34 @h4 �h2 35 'i\f g4 lbf6 0-1

Summary Unfortunately s . . . d6 i s not fully satisfactory after s ll'ic3 , but it can still be played if you want to get in . . . d6 and ... es at all costs. In stead, s . . . b6 is the best continuation and should be played based on the quality of the move. As we have seen, it leads to interesting play with chances for both sides. If you want to learn more about the structure arising in the main game, you can study the l ine 1 d4 ll'if6 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 b6 4 lbc3 il.b4 S il.g s il.b7 6 e3 h6 7 il.h4 il.xc3+ 8 dxc3 d6 which is similar. The a-pawn is an obvious difference, but many manoeuvres are the same.

Game 31

H.Stefansson-D.Navara Reykjavi k Open 2012

1 d4 ll'if6 2 c4 e6 3 ll'if3 il.b4+ 4 il.d2 as s g3 d6 Instead, s . . . b6 transposes to a Queen 's Indian, while s . . . ds leads to a sideline of the Cata­

lan that has a decent reputation . Both moves are worth investigating if you want to ex­pand your repertoire beyond the lines examined in this book. 6 ..\lg2 ll'ibd7

Here Black has a little explored alternative in 6 . . . ll'ic6 7 o-o es .

3 1 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

Here: a) 8 ds !De7 (8 . . . !Db8 9 !Del !Da6 10 !Dd3 .i.xd2 11 !Dxd2 o-o 12 a3 l::!.e8 13 e4 c6 14 l:i.cl

ended in an early draw in K. Landa-L.Ni sipeanu, Dresden 2007) g .i.xb4 axb4 10 'ili'd2 cs 11 dxc6 !Dxc6 12 J::!.d1 .i.e6 13 b3 !De4 14 'ili'e3 !Des and Black had equalized in R.Kasimdzhanov-M.Turov, Nancy 2011.

b) 8 .i.e3 exd4 9 !Dxd4 !Des with play very similar to the 6 . . . !Dbd7 main line. c) 8 .i.g s exd4 9 !Dxd4 !Dxd4 (9 . . . !Des? ! 10 a3 .i.cs 11 !Dc3 o-o 12 !Db3 is not satisfactory) 10 'ili'xd4 h6 11 .i.xf6 'ili'xf6 12 'ili'xf6 gxf6 13 a3 .i.cs 14 !Dc3 c6 lS e3 @e7 with a very uncon­ventional endgame in A.Giri-V. lvanchuk, Reggio Emilia 2011/12. This quite clearly is not everybody's cup of tea, but the whole l ine with 6 . . . !Dc6 is worth exploring .

1 o-o es

8 i..c3 White intends to recapture on d4 with the bishop. As I recommend obliging and simply

3 1 8

B og a - I n d ia n with 4 .iL.d2 a s

taking o n d4, the similarly minded 8 .ile3 amounts t o the same thing after 8 . . . exd4 g .ilxd4, but Black, just like after 8 .iL.C3, may choose to vary with 8 . . . o-o or 8 . . . �e7. There is some room for creativity here.

White has also played 8 .ilc1, which is a rather logical idea - quite often the bishop does not do much on the c1-g 5 diagonal , so White intends to fianchetto it after a subsequent b3 . After 8 ... exd4 9 lllxd4 0-0 he has:

a) 10 lllc2 ? ! does not fit well with the idea of .ilc1 (to go b3 and i.b2), and 10 . . . l:!.e8 11 a3 .ilc5 12 lZ:Jc3 a4 13 lZ:Jb4 lllb6 14 .ilg 5 h6 15 i.xf6 �xf6 16 lllbd5 lllxd5 17 lllxd5 'ili'd8 18 e3 .ile6 19 l:!.c1 c6 20 lllf4 .ilf5 led to very nice play for Black in S . lrwanto-V.Tkachiev, Jakarta 2012.

b) 10 'ili'c2 l:!.e8 11 lZ:Jc3 lZ:Jb6 (after 11 . . . lZ:Je5 White has the irritating 12 llla4) 12 b3 a4 13 .ilb2 illustrates White's desired set-up.

Both White's bishops are well placed, especially the g2-bishop which exerts annoying pressure on the queenside. Thi s i s a major difference compared to 8 lllc3 followed by e4, when the long diagonal is blocked by the e4-pawn . Now:

b1) The routine 13 . . . c6? gets punished by 14 .txc6 ! . b2) 13 . . . .tc5 i s a decent option for Black.

b3) 13 . . . a3 14 .ilc1 c6 15 .ilf4 d5 16 l:!.ad1 'ili'e7. Black is in good shape here, but went down in the ensuing complications in Z.Gyimesi -N .Nestorovic, Hungarian League 2012: 17 .ilg 5 l:!.a5 (17 . . . dxc4 ! ? was interesting as well and is very unclear) 18 cxd5 l:!.c5 19 .ilxf6 'ili'xf6? (19 . . . gxf6 20 l:!.d3 cxd5 was somewhat ugly, but interesting; Black is not in bad shape here) 20 llle4 'ili'xd4 21 lllxc5 'ili'xc5 22 'ili'xc5 .txc5 23 dxc6. This endgame is not at all easy to play, but only White can be better and later won .

The l ine with 8 .tc1 is still rather unexplored, but is not worse than the more popular moves. As we have seen Black is holding his own, but some precision is needed.

Finally, 8 'ili'c2 is very transpositional with little independent value: 8 ... o-o g lllc3 trans­poses to Game 34, while 9 .tg 5 is Game 32 .

3 1 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

8 . . . exd4 The simplest reply, leading to the structure that we employ against 8 .tel and 8 ..tg s

(Game 32) . There is nothing wrong with holding the centre either, as the white player in our main game experienced two years later at the same place in H .Stefansson-E . Porper, Reykjavik 2014. After 8 ... �e7 9 a3 ..txc3 10 t2Jxc3 c6 11 ds cs 12 t2Jd2 o-o 13 �c2 t2Je8 14 .l:!.ab1 fS Black had no problems. 9 ..txd4 0-0

Black has enjoyed some success with 9 ... a4! ?, but I think it is less rel iable than the main move. The i ssue seems to be 10 t2Jc3 (10 ..tc3 is less threatening, as shown by 10 . . . i.xc3 11 t2Jxc3 t2Jb6 12 �d4 o-o 13 cs dxcs 14 �xcs c6; this roughly equal position was reached in P. Panteleev-J .Stocek, Plovdiv 2012) 10 . . . a3 11 b3. Now the assessment of the position de­pends to some extent on the a3-pawn. Is it a weakness? One thing is clear, though: the a­file, often opened to Black's benefit in other lines, will stay closed here. This is al so the rea­son why I prefer to keep the pawn on as, where it is more flexible. After 11 ... o-o 12 ltJds i.cs 13 b4 i.xd4 14 t2Jxd4 White was slightly better in R.Martyn-J .Stocek, Coventry 20os . 10 t2Jc3

White may also play 10 a3, but it is actually quite close to a loss of tempo, as a3 does not bring any benefits and . . . i.cs is a move Black wants to play anyway. In fact this position is usually reached via 8 . . . o-o 9 a3 exd4 10 i.xd4 i.cs, which is yet another viable move or­der for Black to choose. White may deviate though with 9 t2Jc3, for instance, allowing Black to take on c3 - food for thought. Let's examine some games after 10 . . . i.cs to illustrate the middlegame themes:

a) 11 t2Jc3 .l:!.e8 12 �c2 c6 and now: al) 13 .l:!.adl was played in Le Quang Liem-L.Bruzon Batista, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011,

where Black obtained a very solid position with chances to play for a counterattack: 13 ... �e7 14 .l:!.d2 i.xd4 lS t2Jxd4 l2Jb6 16 �3 (16 b3 a4 is unattractive for White) 16 ... �c7 17 a4 (not the most desirable move, but ... a4 was a threat; now, though, Black obtains a

3 2 0

B og a - I n d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

good post on cs for the knight) 1 7 . . . tt:Jbd7 1 8 'iVc2 tt:Jcs 1 9 .l:!.fd1 � 6 2 0 h3 h6 21 e3 �4 22 b3 i.d7 23 l:rb1 .l:Iad8 24 tt::lde2 i..c8.

The ideal , harmonious counterattacking set-up. Now White threw his king side forward, maybe being forced to win in a match situation (it was a F IDE World Cup knock-out event) . If White stays put it i s probably about equal , as Black does not have many active plans at his disposal , although he might try to push . . . h s -h4 or transfer the queen to the kingside if he needs to get something going . After 2S g4? ! .l:!.es 26 tt::ld4 .l:!.ee8 27 l:rdd1 �6 28 @h1 tt::la6 29 "iVd2 'iVcs 30 f4 tt::lb4 (preparing a well-timed . . . d6-dS advance) 3 1 e4 tt::lh7 3 2 tt::lde2 °iVf2 33 tt::ld4 �4 34 @g1 tt::lf8 3 S l:rf1 tt::la6 36 tt::lce2 tt:Jcs 37 tt:Jc3 tt::lg6 (White has a clearly

exposed position that is difficult to play; it's not necessarily bad, but doesn 't allow many inaccuracies at all ) 38 b4? axb4 39 .l:!.xb4 'iVg3 40 tt:Jde2 �4 41 .l:!.bb1 h s 42 gxh s 'iixh s 43 'iVe3 �6 44 'iVg3 tt::lh4 4S fs tt::lxg2 46 'iixg2 'iVe3+ 47 @h2 tt:Jxe4 Black later won .

a2) A high-level encounter saw 13 l:f.fd1 'iVe7 14 h3 tt:Jes (14 . . . tt::lb6 ! ? is al so interesting, intending to play 1s i.xcs dxcs 16 b3 a4 with good counterplay on the queen side; both knight moves are of about equal value) 1S i.xcs tt:Jxf3+? ! (1s . . . dxcs is more precise, with

about equal play similar to the game, while avoiding 16 exf3 ! ) 16 i.xf3? ! (16 exf3 ! was sur­prisingly strong : for example, 16 . . . dxcs 17 tt::la4 i.e6 18 f4 g6 19 'iVc3 and White exerts an­noying pressure) 16 . . . dxcs 17 i.g2 'iVes 18 e4 g S ! ? 19 '1Wd2 g4 20 h4.

3 2 1

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d ia n

Now 20 . . . .te6 would have been equal in L.Van Wely-H .Nakamura, Wijk aan Zee 2013. a3) Another recent example went 13 .l::tfel .txd4 14 tlixd4 tlib6 15 tlie4 (15 b3 a4 is an­

noying again) 1s . . . tlixe4 16 .txe4 g6 17 .tg2 Wi/e7 18 b3 a4 19 b4 cs 20 bxcs dxcs 21 tlif3 .tfs 22 Wi/c3 l::tad8 and Black was in good shape in D.Swiercz-N .Vitiugov, St Petersburg 2012. Black's well centralized pieces provide easy, equal play.

b) A slightly different set-up was tried in V.Pel letier-A.Kosten, Le Port Marly 2009 : 11 b3 .l:te8 12 tlic3 c6 13 Wi/c2 (Loek van Wely's most recent try i s 13 h3 , but Black was okay after 13 ... 'iVe7 14 l::ta2 h6 15 �h2 tlies 16 .ixcs dxcs 17 'if cl tlixf3+ 18 .txf3 ilfs 19 e4 ..llg6 20 ilg2 Wilc7 21 .l:i.e1 .l:i.ad8 22 .l:i.e3 .l:i.d4 in L.Van Wely-N .Vitiugov, Dubai (rapid) 2014; he con­trol s some useful squares and attacks white centre and queen side pawns, which compen­sates for the doubled pawns) 13 . . . Wi/e7 14 e3 (interesting ; Black waited a bit with taking on d4, so White takes the chance to play e3 , discouraging Black from exchanging) 14 . . . ilb6 (this i s playable, but I prefer 14 ... tlib6, introducing the familiar ... aS-a4 idea and making development much easier; 15 .txcs dxcs is no problem at all with the doubled pawns con­trolling many squares and helping to blunt the g2-bishop, and we will see something simi­lar in the main game) 15 .l::tfel ilC7 16 e4 tlies 17 tlih4 (this becomes slightly uncomfortable now) 17 . . . tlig6 18 tlifs ..llxfs 19 exfs 'ifxel+ 20 .l:i.xel .l:i.xel+ 21 .i.fl tlies 22 �g2 by when Black was is real trouble and went on to lose. 10 . . . :es

3 2 2

B og o - J n d ia n with 4 il.d2 a s

You may vary the move order here with 10 . . . il.c5, but most likely it will end up i n the game position anyway as . . . .l::te8 is such a natural move. 11 .i::tc1

11 �c2 is a very natural move as well, intending to place a rook on the d-file. After 11 . . . c6 12 .l::tfdl (12 a3 was played in the Le Quang Liem-Bruzon Batista encounter mentioned above; we can see that transpositions abound in this line, but that is not a bad thing - you should learn the opening by developing a sense for the appropriate set-ups and manoeuvres, not by learning concrete moves by heart) 12 . . . �e7 13 e3 tt:\e5 14 tt:\d2 il.g4 15 f3 il.e6 16 b3 h5 a po­sition with mutual chances was reached in P.Kiss-A.Del Monaco, Venice 2004.

11 . . . ..tcs As we have seen, Vereslav Eingorn is a real expert on the Bogo, so let's follow another of

his games: 11 . . . c6 12 tt:\a4 �e7 13 e3 tt:\e4 14 �c2 tt:\ec5 15 tt:\xc5 dxc5 16 il.c3 il.xc3 17 '1i'xc3 f5 18 tt:ld2 tt:\f6.

3 2 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

Black has comfortable play. The g2-bishop is blunted and the pawns on cs and f s con­trol some important central squares. After 19 l:!.fel tt:Je4 20 'YWc2 tt:Jxd2 21 'YWxd2 'YWf6 22 l:!.edl a4 23 'YWc3 'ifxc3 24 l:!.xc3 .ie6 2 S Wfl Wf7 26 e4 l:!.ad8 27 l:!.xd8 l:!.xd8 28 exfs .ixfs 29 Wel it should be a draw, but if anybody Black will have some chances, because the white queenside is under some pressure, notably the pawn on c4 that is on a light square and can be attacked by the bishop. Indeed, following 29 . . . .l::td4 30 .ifl i.e6 3 1 .ie2 Wf6 32 b3 a3 (now White needs to be cautious; the a3-pawn is a constant cause for concern) 33 l:!,f3+? ! (33 l:!.e3 .ifs 34 l:!.e8 .ibl 3 S l:!.a8 was a better defence) 3 3 . . . .ifs 34 .i.d1 Wes 3 S l:!.e3+? (3S l:!.c3 was necessary, still with decent chances to hold) 3 S . . . l:!.e4 36 Wd2 l:!.xe3 37 Wxe3 g s ! 38 f4+ gxf4+ 39 gxf4+ Wf6 40 i.e2 .ic2 41 Wd2 .ixb3 42 Wc3 .ixa2 43 .id3 h6 44 Wc2 bs 4S cxbs cxbs 46 .ixbs WfS White resigned in M.Konopka-V. Eingorn , Austrian League 2000. This ending is quite typical of this l ine, with White's light-squared bishop being a slightly problematic piece due to the pawn on c4. 12 e3 c6 13 -VWc2 tt:Jb6

13 . . . .ixd4 14 exd4 lllb6 lS b3 .ig4 is a solid alternative. Black will exchange an addi­tional minor piece on f3 or h3 (prepared with . . . �d7), and is about equal . He has got less space, but i s very compact and can play . . . d6-dS to expand in the centre if the timing is cor­rect. Navara's choice in the game is bit more combative and typical of an Open event where you need to score wins with Black as well with White. 14 l:!.fd1 'YWe7

15 .ixf6 Simplifying the position . Houdini initially likes 1s tt:Jg s , but 1s . . . lllbd7 is a good reply (1s . . . .ixd4 16 l:!.xd4 h6 17

lllge4 is solid for Black, but slightly passive) and after 16 tt:Jge4 (16 h3 h6 17 tt:Jge4 lllxe4 18 tt:Jxe4 llles i s similar) 16 . . . tt:Jxe4 17 �xe4 (17 lllxe4 llles i s about equal again) 17 . . . 'iff8 18 'ifc2 'ife7 19 tt:Ja4 tt:Jes I don 't see any serious issues for Black, though the computer gives White a small advantage, probably due to the doubled pawns which will soon emerge.

3 2 4

B og a - I n d ia n with 4 j_ d2 a 5

Black will continue with a possible . . . f6 and . . . �e6 plan, completing development. 1s .. . 'i!Vxf6 16 'Lle4 'i!Ve7 17 'Llxcs dxcs 18 h3 �e6 19 b3 a4 20 'Lle1

The knight was not doing much on f3 . I think this position is about equal , with both sides having some problems finding a constructive plan . Black obviously hopes for an end­game where b3 and c4 are possible targets, especially for his l ight-squared bishop. Thi s i s in fact quite similar to the well -known Berlin Wall endgame in the Ruy Lopez. 20 ... h6 21 e4 .Uad8 22 .Uxd8 .Uxd8 23 l:.dl

23 ... 'Lla8 Very creative play. I just love knight moves to the comer that actually make some sense

and here the route to b4 is envisioned. 24 'Lld3 'Llc7 2S 'Llb2 a3

The start of a very ambitious idea. Just 2s ... axb3 26 axb3 l:.d4 was fine and easy to play for Black.

26 'Lla4 .Uxdl+ 27 'i!Vxd1 bs The point of . . . a3.

28 'Llb6 bxc4 29 bxc4 'Lla6 Going for the a2-pawn, but I think Navara must have missed something, as the simple . . .

30 'i:Va4 ... solves all White's problems and in fact now Black needs to be precise.

30 ... 'ifb7? 30 . . . 'Llb4! 31 �xa3 �d8 was the narrow path to find. Now a line like 32 �a7 �d1+ 33

@h2 'i:Vd2 gives Black enough play to draw the game. 31 �as

Black begins to suffer a bit.

31 ... @h7 32 .Iii.fl f6 33 h4 .ig4 34 .ig2 .ie6 3S es 35 h S ! first is even better.

3S ... fxes 36 .ie4+ g6 37 hS .tfs 38 .ltxfs gxfs

3 2 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

39 @g2 White had the very computerish move 39 'ifxa3 ! , the idea being 39 . . . 'ifxb6 40 'ifd3 e4 41

'ifd7+ @h8 42 'ife8+ @g7 43 'if g6+ @h8 44 'ifxh6+ @g8 45 'if g6+ @h8 46 'ifxfs and White retains good winning chances. 39 ... tt:ib4?

39 . . . e4! was good, intending a further . . .f 4 to obtain some attack on White's king . Black should be equal here. 40 ctJa4 ttJxa2 41 ttJxcs 'if e7 42 ctJd3

Again , 42 'ifxa3 ! was strong . 42 . . . f4? 43 ttJxes fxg3 44 ttJg6

White is now completely winning, but just watch what happens. 44 ... iff7 4S f4 'ires 46 'ifa1+ @gs 47 'ifxa3 'ife2+ 4S @xg3 'ife1+ 49 @f3 'iff1+ so @g4 'ifd1+ s1 @fs 'ifd7+ s2 @es 'ifg7+ S3 @e6 'iff7+ S4 @d6 'iff6+ ss @c7 ttJc3 S6 'ifas+ @h7 S7 'ifxc6 'iVg7+ ss 'iVd7 ctJe4 S9 fs @gs 60 'iVxg7+ @xg7 61 @b6 @f6 Y2-Y2

Puzzling as with 61. . .@f6 62 ctJh4 @g s 63 @c6 ! @xh4 64 @ds White could still have won .

Summary I think Navara played a bit too ambitiously in this game. A simple way to proceed was sug­gested on move 25 , with Black being very comfortable. Overall White's idea to recapture with the bishop on d4 leads to interesting play. A key motif is the doubled c-pawns that Black allows quite often, gaining play against White's queenside and/or centre .

Game 32

T.Abel-A.Kveinys Germ a n League 1998

1 d4 tt:if6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:if3 �b4+ 4 �d2 as s g3 d6 6 �g2 ttJbd7 1 o-o es s �gs

3 2 6

B og a - I n di a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

This i s the second most popular move after 8 ll:lc3 , but i s rarely played i n top-level games these days as Black's chances seem quite promising . The bishop move threatens to trap Black's bishop on b4, so Black needs to capture on d4. 8 ... exd4 9 ll:lxd4

White's queen began a rather unfortunate journey in G .Beckhuis-J .Horvath, Vienna 2012, starting with 9 Wi/xd4 0-0 10 ll:lc3 h6 11 i.d2 (instead, the simplifying 11 i..xf6 ll:lxf6 12 ll:le4 ll:lxe4 13 Wi/xe4 l:re8 14 Wi/c2 Wi/f6 gave Black the bishop-pair for no compensation in E .Demircioglu-A.Delchev, Skopje 2014) 11 . . . l:re8. Black has no problems whatsoever here, but now White went 12 e3? and got his queen into serious trouble. After 12 ... ll:lc5 13 ll:ld5? ll:lxd5 14 Wi/xd5 c6 (her majesty is getting short of air) 15 'iVh 5 ll:le4 16 .txb4 ll:lf6 17 'iVh4 l:re4 White resigned a couple of moves later. 9 . . . 0-0

Here Black varies between the text and 9 ... h6, but play usually transposes anyway as Black can hardly play without . . . o-o. I see no particular move order finesse here, so it does not matter which one you choose.

1o a3 This i s the most popular choice, allowing White to develop comfortably with lLlC3 later.

There are other moves, of course, but Black's reply to all of them is familiar to us already. Let's have a look at some concrete moves:

a) 10 Wi/c2 h6 11 i..f4 ll:le5 12 l:td1 Wi/e7 13 lLlC3 ll:lg6 14 .te3 .tc5 15 h3 c6 16 l:tac1 was

the game A.Evdokimov-M.Venkatesh, Moscow 2012. In stead, of the game's original

16 . . . l:ta6, I suggest the simple 16 . . . l:re8. Maybe Black was worried about 17 ll:la4? ! , but this is actually answered very convincingly by 17 . . . ll:lh 5 ! with some advantage for Black already.

� 2 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

White should, of course, avoid lt:Ja4, but I see no trouble for Black i n any case. He has got easy development and fine pieces; . . . i..d7, . . . .l:lad8 and . . . i..c8 is a simple mini -plan to further improve. Under the right circumstances you can even consider ... hS -h4 ideas, but often this i s answered by i..g s , so be careful with becoming too ambitious.

b) There al so i s 10 ct:Jc2, but retreating from d4 should not be too scary for Black: 10 ... i..cs 11 ct:Jc3 h6 12 i..e3 (the idea behind ct:Jc2) 12 ... ct:Jg4 13 i..d4 lt:Jges 14 b3 .l:le8 and here Boga guru Aloyzas Kveinys has shown how to handle the black side:

bl) 15 ct:Ja4 was played in V.Muutnik-A.Kveinys, Tallinn 2001. After 1s . . . i..xd4 16 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 17 �c2 Black offered the b-pawn with 17 ... i.d7? ! , but White can now simply take the pawn and I don't see any compensation . However, Black was not forced to play 17 . . . .id7, of course. Instead, I suggest 17 . . . h s ! ? to initiate play on the kingside. This plan gains in strength when the dark-squared bishops have been exchanged as White does not have the reply i..g s anymore.

b2) 15 h3 lt:Jc6 (1s ... i..xd4 16 ct:Jxd4 ct:Jcs is al so fine, intending ... i..d7-c6 as one possible set-up; another build-up is . . . c6, . . . i..d7, . . . �f6 and . . . .l:lad8, and do al so keep the . . . hS -h4 idea in mind) 16 i.e3 ct:Jb4 17 i.xcs ct:Jxc2 18 �xc2 ct:Jxcs 19 @h2 i..d7 20 .l:lad1 i..c6 21 ct:Jds and a draw was agreed in R.Swinkel s-A.Kveinys, Ohrid 2009. Let's continue a bit to see some more middlegame motifs : 21. . .i..xds ! ? 22 .l:lxds (22 cxds is answered with the important 22 ... bs ! , securing the knight on cs ; Black's play includes further moves like ... �f6, doubling on the e-file and pushing the h -pawn; I think it i s about equal in an interesting position) 22 . . . �f6 23 e3 .l:i.es and Black is okay here. White's bishop looks strong , but after a later ... .l:i.ae8 and ... b6 it might point into thin air. 10 . . . i.cs

3 2 8

B og o - l n di a n with 4 il.d2 a s

1 1 b3 This i s rare. Much more common i s 11 tl'ic3, which i s countered as usual with 11.. .h6 12

il.f4 tt:Jes . Now I can't resist showing maybe the biggest-ever upset in our chosen l ine . We will follow the sensational game A.Shirov-G.Seul , German League 1992 : 13 tl'ia4 (a later try for an improvement was 13 b3 , but 13 . . . c6 14 h3 "fie7 15 @h1 .!:i.e8 16 e4 °fie? 17 il.e3 il.d7 18 f4 tl'ig6 19 il.f2 .l:te7 20 �d2 .U.ae8 was very harmonious for Black in L.Seres-G.Kovacs, Hungarian League 1995) 13 ... il.a7 14 tl'ibs il.b8 15 cs (this was Shirov's idea with the knight moves, but Black i s not without chances whatsoever) 1s . . . tl'ig6 (15 . . . �e8 ! ? is a good alterna­tive) 16 il.e3 dS 17 tl'ibc3 c6 18 tl'ib6 .l::ta6 and now White should take on c8, netting the

bishops and making sure that the knight i s not stranded on b6. After Shirov's 19 il.d4? ! il.fs 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 .U.xal 22 "f/xal l:i.e8 Black can play around the knight and has an extra piece in play on the kingside. The game proceeded 23 tl'id1 il.g4 24 f3 il.e6 25 tt:Je3 tl'ih s 26 f4?.

3 2 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

Now 26 . . . lligxf4! was great play by Seul , demonstrating no fear. After 27 gxf4 tlixf4 28 'ife1 'fic7 29 l:tf2 llih3+? ( 2 9 . . . i.h 3 ! was winning, one point being 30 .tf1 llig2 ! ) 30 .txh3 i.xh 3 31 llif1? (31 'ilc3 was holding for White) 31 . . . .l:!.e4! (now Black is winning again and he doesn't give his great opponent a second chance to escape) 32 e3 'ife7 33 .l:!,f3 i.g4 34 'ilf2 i.xf3 3 S 'ifxf3 'ifg s+ 36 @f2 i.es 37 i.xes 'ifxes 38 llid7 'ife6 39 tt::ib6 .Uxb4 40 tlig 3 l:tb2+ 41 llie2 l:tc2 42 'iff4 gs 43 'fia4 'iffs+ 44 @e1 'ifd3 4S 'ifg4 'ifxe3 46 @f1 d4 47 ttJd7 .l:!.xe2 48 llif6+ @g7 Shirov resigned.

11 ... h6 12 .tc1 .l:!.e8 13 lllc3 This position is similar to the 8 i.c1 line, but here Black has got the extra move . . . h6

(neutral ) , and White has played a3 (weakening the queenside a bit) . Therefore the situation should be slightly better for Black compared to the earl ier bishop retreat. Another point is more subtle: on cs the bishop attacks the knight on d4, so White is tied to defending it with the queen . He doesn't want to play e3 or llic2, so it's a bit of a dilemma for him. In the 8

i.c1 l ine White is quick enough to cover d4 with a rook and play 'ifc2 early, which makes his position much easier to play. 13 ... c6

The other typical move 13 . . . llies led to an unusually quick defeat for White after 14 h3 i.d7 1S a4? ! (passive, but not fatal) 1s . . . c 6 16 e4?.

However, this is fatal : 16 . . . i.xh 3 and White resigned in R .Kistella-K.Podzielny, Goch 1993 . A short day at the office for the legend of German blitz chess ('Podz-Blitz'). 14 i.b2 llies !

I don 't l ike the material istic 14 . . . i.xd4 15 'ilxd4 llics . After 16 .l:!.ad1 llixb3 17 'i'f4 'ile7 White can improve on the game J .Torres-C.Rios, Pamplona 2012, with 18 .l:!.xd6 and I much prefer White here. The computer actually assesses this as about equal , but I like the bish­ops. In any case the main move 14 . . . llies ! is much more interesting to play anyway and therefore preferable. 15 .l:!.c1

3 3 0

Bog o - l n d ia n with 4 il d2 a 5

I selected this game because I l ike Kveinys' straightforward attacking style. From here on it's all forward . . . 1s ... il..d1 16 'iYd2 'ires 11 :fd1 ilh3 1s j;_h1 'iYg4

Matters become quite scary. Only the a8-rook is not exerting pressure around White's king . White i s walking a thin l ine here already. 19 'iYf4? 'iYhs 20 f3

This is very ugly, but it was probably already too late to save the game. 20 ... gs?

20 . . . il..e6 i s better according to Mr Houdini, with close to a winning advantage for Black.

21 'iYd2 :e1 22 i..g2? 22 lt:Ja4 was a much better chance, but I still prefer Black's attacking play.

22 ... :aeS Now the position is beyond saving, as all Black's pieces attack.

23 g4 To illustrate the threat: 23 :b1 i..xd4+ 24 'iYxd4 i..xg2 2 5 'it>xg2 lt:Jxf3 ! 26 exf3 :e2+ 27

lt:Jxe2 :xe2+ and Black wins . 23 . . . lt:Jexg4 24 il..xh3 'iYxh3 25 fxg4 i.xd4+ 26 'iYxd4 :xe2 0-1

Summary The whole l ine with 8 il..g s does not put much pressure on Black. Fluid piece play and easy development quite often lead to nice attacking games for Black. One very important fea­ture: White has no easy, clear-cut plan to follow. There are position types where absolutely every player knows at least one plan : for example, let's say the minority attack in the Queen 's Gambit Declined, Carl sbad structure, or the h4-h 5 push in the Dragon Yugoslav Attack. Even a player with no profound knowledge will know those plans and play accord­ing to them, but what exactly is White's plan here?

3 3 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d i a n

Game 33

V.Potkin-L.Bruzon Batista Wijk a a n Zee 2012

1 d4 tllf6 2 c4 e6 3 tllf3 .ib4+ 4 .id2 as s g3 d6 6 .ig2 lllbd7 7 o-o es 8 e3

8 . . . c6 This is the most interesting move, but it involves some unbalanced play including a

pawn sacrifice. Before employing it, I recommend studying the game and the lines given here.

If you are looking for a low maintenance alternative, my suggestion is the simple cap­ture 8 . . . .ixd2. This does not lead to clear, full equality, but i s certainly playable and guaran­tees a complicated, long battle without any concrete theoretical knowledge needed. White has tried all three recaptures. Let's examine:

a) I l ike 9 tllfxd2 for White: for example, 9 . . . 0-0 10 tllc3 l:i.e8 11 'ifc2 c6 12 l:i.adl �e7 13 h3 hs 14 a3 tllf8 with a solid, but slightly passive position for Black in V. lkonnikov­L.Winants, Belgian League 2003 .

b) Usually d2 is a poor place for the queen's knight, so 9 tlibxd2 does not impress much . Indeed, it should not give Black much trouble after 9 . . . 0-0 10 'ifc2 'ife7 11 e4 l:i.e8 12 l:i.adl c6 13 l:i.fe1 h6 (this allows 14 cs, which could have been prevented with the somewhat ugly looking 13 ... cs , which is in fact quite viable for Black and is a motif worth remembering, especially with the knight on d2) .

3 3 2

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

Here: bl) White could have played 14 cs ! ?, suddenly making sense of the d2-knight. It's still

not enough for an edge, though: 14 ... exd4 (not 14 ... dxcs lS dxes tt:Jxes 16 tt:Jxes 'iVxes 17 tt:Jc4 'iVh s 18 es and White i s in excellent shape) lS cxd6 '1i'xd6 16 lt:Jc4 'iVcs 17 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jb6 18 tt:Jxb6 '1i'xb6 19 es tt:Jds 20 '1i'b3 a4 is okay for Black.

b2) In A.Sharevich-A.Kveinys, Reykjavik 2011, the regrouping 14 tt:Jb1 was chosen . After 14 . . . lt:Jh7 lS tt:Jc3 tt:Jg s (a good manoeuvre, weakening White's central control ; at some point White will need to move the d-pawn) 16 dS (the exchange on es is excellent for Black, of course, as d4 is severely weakened, so White closes the centre) 16 . . . tt:Jcs 17 tt:Jxg S hxgs Black enjoys a healthy structure in this still complicated position .

c) 9 '1i'xd2 seems the most logical recapture to me, as c3 is the most efficient place for the bl-knight. After 9 . . . c6 10 tt:Jc3 o-o White has :

cl) In P.Tregubov-A.Kogan, Las Vegas 2010, Tregubov went for the dull 11 dxes , which pretty much gives up any hope of an edge: 11. . .dxes 12 l:Ifdl 'iVe7 13 'iVd6 '1i'xd6 14 l:Ixd6 l:Ie8 lS tt:Jd2 a4 16 .l:.d1 tt:Jcs 17 h 3 i..e6. This type of position is already slightly more com­fortable for Black. The g2-bishop is blunted and Black has some points to attack on the queenside, like the c4-pawn. It's still very drawish , of course, but there is room to fight and outplay weaker opposition. In the actual game Black won a marathon endgame of 99 moves.

c2) Instead, White should play the normal 11 e4, after which 11. . .J::l.e8 12 J::l.fel a4 13 l:Iabl 'iVas 14 b4 axb3 lS axb3 '1i'b4 16 i..f1 tt:Jf8 was fine for Black in A.Grischuk-A.Kogan, French League 2004.

3 3 3

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

Kogan went on t o draw without much effort, but at least 11 e 4 leads t o a full scale bat­tle, whereas exchanging on es almost never yields any substantial benefits.

Conclusion : 8 .. . .txd2+ is a viable alternative to the main move, and leads to a more closed, manoeuvring game.

Let's now return to the main move, 8 . . . c6. The most principled reply is , of course : 9 .tel

This essentially forces Black to offer a pawn sacrifice. However, White has al so tried some other moves:

a) First there i s the simple move 9 a3, which leads to similar play as after 8 . . . i.xd2+, but with White having lost a tempo and weakened the queenside slightly. After 9 . . . .txd2 10 tt:Jfxd2 (looking for another quick win by Black in our l ine? As usual Kveinys del ivers : 10 iVxd2 a4 11 tt:Jc3 o-o 12 l:tad1 iVas 13 ds cxds 14 tt:Jxds tt:Jxds 15 "iYxds "iVxds 16 l:txds tt:Jb6 17 l:txd6 tt:Jxc4 18 l:tds .te6 19 l:tbs f6 20 J:tc1 l:tac8 and in this equal position White erred

3 3 4

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

with 21 i..fl?? llld2 22 lllxd2 l:txc1 and had to resign i n H .Nordahl-A.Kveinys, Norwegian League 2013) 10 . . . 0-0 11 lllc3 Wile7 12 b4 l:td8 13 dS cs the position was about equal in Guo Qi-N .Zhukova, Khanty-Mansiysk 2012.

b} White has also tried to keep the tension with 9 lllc3 , after which 9 . . . 0-0 10 Wi/c2 l:te8 11 l:tadl e4 12 lllg s i..xc3 13 i..xc3 dS was a typical sequence for this l ine . White now played very creatively with 14 f3 ? ! h6 1S lllxf7 @xf7 16 cxds cxds 17 fxe4 dxe4 18 i..xe4, but this i s hardly enough compensation and after 18 . . . @g8 19 Wilh3+ @h8 20 i..b1 I:I.xe3 21 dS Wi/e8 Black had a winning position in E . Postny-L.Fressinet, Aix les Bains 2012. Here a yet untested move is 10 a3 i..xc3 11 i..xc3, after which Black has a fundamental decision to make.

Should he move the e-pawn or protect it? I suggest the ambitious 11 .. . e4! ?, while Hou­dini al so likes 11 . . . llle4 and even taking on d4, which surprises me. After 11 . . . e4 12 llld2 dS Black's idea is to quickly go for . . . b7-bS to clarify the situation on the queen side: for in­stance, 13 cxds cxds 14 f3 exf3 1S Wi/xf3 bS 16 Wi/f4 lllb6 17 e4 dxe4 18 lllxe4 lllfdS 19 Wilf2 ll\c4 with interesting, complicated play.

c) A quite uncommon approach was tested in E . Porper-J . Benjamin, Edmonton 2011: 9 i..xb4 axb4 10 °iVd2 cs 11 dxcs dxcs 12 Wi/c2 o-o 13 lllbd2 Wile7 14 a3 bxa3 1S .l:.xa3 .l:.xa3 16 bxa3 b6 and Black had no problems at all , though admittedly the position was not terribly exciting .

d} 9 i..c3 was tried in E .Bacrot-L. Fressinet, Calvi (rapid} 2013. After 9 . . . e4 10 llle1 (10 lllfd2 ds 11 a3 i..e7 12 cxds cxds 13 f3 is al so possible, with similar motifs; Black has useful space for his pieces and no problems at all } 10 . . . 0-0 11 a3 i..xc3 12 lllxc3 .l:.e8 13 f3 ? (Black had no problems anyway, but this leads to serious trouble for White) 13 . . . exf3 14 Wi/xf3 lllb6 1S b3 a4 Black was winning already due to White's queenside fall ing apart. 9 . . . e4

3 3 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

1o a3 Potkin tries this rare move instead of the far more common 10 tt:Jg s , after which we get

a forced sequence: 10 . . . ds 11 cs (otherwise, Black just retreats to d6 and now a3 is threat­ened again) 11. . .h6 12 tt:lh 3 a4 13 a3 ii.as 14 'i!Vxa4 tt:lf8 1S b4 ..txh3 16 ..11i.xh3 ii.Cl 17 'i!Vd1 hs .

A long sequence of moves, but very logical and almost forced. White has a terrible score here, though: out of 9 games in my database he has only scored 2 points, losing most games to swift mating attacks. From a practical point of view this position is, indeed, a bad choice for White who is on the defensive for just a rather unimportant pawn. Let's check some typical play:

a) White cannot play without f4, but tried to delay it in J . Pinter-Z.Hracek, Rabac 2003, by going 18 tt:Jd2 h4 19 g4 tt:l8h7 20 f4 (otherwise, . . . tt:Jg s followed by . . . ..11i.b8 and .. .'W/c7 is sim­ple and deadly) 20 . . . exf3 21 tt:Jxf3 tt:Je4 22 tt:Jes? (22 bS is a tougher defence, but still not

3 3 6

Bog o - l n d i a n with 4 i. d2 a s

attractive to play) 22 . . . tllhg5 23 i.g2 h3 and Black's attack already had enormous power, leading to a nice win .

b ) 18 lllC3 h4 19 @g2 tll8h7 20 i.g4 tllg 5 (20 . . . tllxg4! 21 'fi/xg4 lllf6 22 'fi/d1 'fild7 23 .l:!.h 1 �f5 is a winning attack already) 21 i.b2 g6 22 .l:!.h l 'file7 23 i.e2 �e6 24 h3 hxg3 2 5 h4 tllf3 26 i.xf3 exf3+ 27 "i&'xf3 gxf2 (27 . . . .l:!.h 5 ! was decisive) 28 @xf2 0-0-0 29 @e2 tllg4 3o @d3 .l:!.h 5 3 1 .l:!.ag1 f5 32 .tel l:!.dh8 33 @c2 .l:!.xh4 34 .l:!.xh4 .l:!.xh4 35 @b3 .l:!.h2 36 .l:!.h 1 .l:!.xh l 37 'filxhl tllxe3 38 'filh8+ i.d8 39 tlla4 f4 40 tllb6+ @c7 41 "i&'g7+ i.e7 42 "i&'h8 i.d8 43 'filg7+ i.e7 44 �8 and White completed a very lucky escape with a draw in A.Bykhovsky­A.Bachmann, Cappelle la Grande 2014.

c) The main defence is 18 f4 exf3 19 "i&'xf3 h4 20 g4 tll8h7 (20 ... °i&'e7 has al so been played with success, but i s less direct) and now:

cl) After 21 tllc3 tllg 5 22 �g2? (22 °i&'f5 ! is necessary, with unclear play, such as after 22 ... tllfh7 23 i.92 o-o 24 .l:!.a2 h 3 2 5 i.h 1 g6) 22 ... 0-0 23 b5 .ta5 24 tlle2 lllfe4 Black was al ­ready much better in J . Le Roux-AA.Lagarde, Sautron 2012.

c2) The other move is 21 'fi/f5 g6 22 °i&'f2 and in the game A.Baryshpolets-E .Romanov, Vo­ronezh 2012, Black now chose the interesting 22 ... °i&'d7 ! ? 23 �xh4 (White probably should have played 2 3 lllc3 , leading to unclear consequences after 23 . . . tlle4 24 tllxe4 dxe4 2 5 'fi/xh4 'file7 26 'filxe1+ @xe1 27 d5 i.e5 28 d6+ @d7 29 l:!.b1 tllg5 , all of which is complicated and not forced; if you intend to play this gambit, some analysis on your own will be very rewarding to obtain a better feel for the attacking ideas, although even without that I

think Black's practical chances are excellent) 23 . . . g 5 24 'i'f2 lllf8 (24 . . . tlle4 25 'i'g2 tt:Jhf6 i s

fine as well and simpler to play) 2 5 �xf6 l:!.xh 3 26 "i&'f5 (after 26 'i'xg 5 Black has more than one good option ; here is one: 26 . . . l:!.xh2 27 l:!.f2 .l:!.h7 28 lllc3 tlle6 29 °i&'f6 "i&'e7 30 �xe7+ @xe7 31 J:!.g2 l:!.ah8 32 @f2 tllg 5 with ongoing compensation, even in the endgame) 26 . . . l:!.xh2 27 l:!.f2 .l:!.h4 28 l:!.92 "i&'e7 29 lllc3 tlle6 30 i.d2 0-0-0 and Black had a strong attack.

3 3 7

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

To b e honest, I think white players mostly get into this l ine by accident. Black has fan­tastic compensation for a mere rook's pawn . Let's now return to the main game, where the excellent theoretician Potkin avoided such a plight. 10 ... exf3 11 .i.xf3 .i.cs 12 dxcs tt:Jxcs

This was forced after 10 a3 (well , there is 11 'iixf3, but there is little point to it). White has won the two bishops, but Black has got his trumps as well . He has got a well­positioned, secure knight on cs and very fluent development, gaining even more time with . . . .i.h 3 . 13 b3

Slow, but something like 13 tt:'ic3 .i.e6 14 b3 a4 isn't too inspiring either. 13 ... 0-0 14 tt:Jd2 .i.h3 15 .i.g2

15 J:.e1 tt:'id3 feels rather embarrassing for White. 1s ... .i.xg2 16 'it>xg2 dS

3 3 8

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

A l ine like 1 6 . . . �e7 1 7 i..b2 .l:!.fe8 1 8 �c2 'Dfe4 is playable as wel l . 17 �c2 'Dfe4 18 .l:!.b1 �e7 19 cxds cxds

White needs to be accurate here as Black's active knights restrict his options. 20 b4 axb4 21 axb4 'Dxd2 22 i..xd2 CDe4 23 .l:!.bdl �e6

Up to this point White has defended successfully, but now . . . 24 h4?

. . . was a mistake. 24 �3 was a tougher defence, but not much fun either after, for ex­ample, 24 . . . .l:!.fc8 25 i.e1 .l:!.c4. 24 • • • .l:!.fc8 25 �d3 .l:!.a2

26 i..e1?

The only move to continue was 26 f3 .l:!.c3 27 �e2 'Dd6, but I still doubt White would have survived until move 40. 26 ... �g4 27 'it>g1 .l:!.cc2 28 �xds 'iWxg3+!

3 3 9

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

Sometimes you hear you cannot win attacking games i n a somewhat positional open­ing l ike the Boga, but once in a while it still happens. 29 @h1 �xh4+ 30 @g1 �g4+ 31 @h1 ll:ig3+ 0-1

Summary The 8 e3 l ine leads to some unique positions compared to White's other options on move 8. Black enjoys good, active play if he goes for the aggressive 8 . . . c6, often sacrificing a pawn in the subsequent complications. 8 . . . ..txd2+ is a solid alternative, playable without any spe­cific preparation, but even if you like to be on your own early and try to avoid early skir­mishes, still study 8 ... c6, as it's just more fun to play.

Game 34

W .Moranda-M.Bartel Pol is h C h a m pionsh i p, Wa rsaw 2012

1 d4 ll:if6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:if3 ..tb4+ 4 ..td2 as s g3 d6 6 ..tg2 ll:ibd7 1 o-o es As we have seen , White has a number of options here. This game discusses set-ups with

White going for a quick e4, not moving the bishop from d2. 8 ll:ic3

Note that White can also take on es on move 8, 9 or 10. All of these exchanges are ex­amined next up in Antic-Goumas (Game 3 5) .

There al so i s 8 �c2. Now 8 . . . o-o 9 lt:Jc3 leads to the game position, while deviations ei­ther don't make much sense or transpose el sewhere: for example, 9 ..tg s exd4 transposes to 8 ..tg s (Game 32) .

8 . . . 0-0

Black delays the capture on d4, going for . . . o-o and ... .l:r.e8 first.

3 4 0

B og a - In di a n with 4 i.. d2 a 5

9 �c2 This is the most popular move. In recent times White has tried some alternatives

though, still searching for a way to an advantage without any success. Let's have a look at those tries.

a) The direct 9 a3 does not lead too much due to 9 . . . i..xc3 10 i..xc3 e4 and now: al) 11 tZ:le1 tZ:lb6 12 b3 a4! and Black is fine, gaining control of the light squares. a2) 11 tZ:ld2 .l:.e8 12 e3 tZ:lb6 13 °ilt'c2 .tfs is at least okay for Black. Playing on the light

squares with . . . aS-a4 and . . . d6-dS even gives Black a space advantage in the centre. a3) 11 tZ:lg s dS ! ? (there is nothing wrong with 11 ... .l:.e8, but this is interesting) 12 cxds

'flie7 13 d6 (in order to get in d4-dS to prevent a black knight landing on ds) 13 ... cxd6 14 dS h6 1S tZ:lh3 tZ:les 16 f4 tZ:leg4 17 'W/d4 i..d7 18 .l:.acl .l:.fc8 (Black is already quite comfortable, but from here it goes swiftly downhill quickly for White) 19 b4? i..bs 20 bxas? l:Ic4 21 'W/d2 .l:.ac8 22 i..b4 'Wic7 23 l:Ixc4 'W/xc4 24 fS tZ:lxdS 2S tZ:lf4 tZ:lde3 26 l:Ib1 tZ:lxg2 27 tZ:lxg 2 e3 28 'W/d3 'W/a2 29 'W/xbs 'W/xbl+ 30 tZ:le1 .l:.c1 and White resigned in L.Van Wely-G.Miralles, French League 2003, one of quite a few black wins against much stronger opposition . The entire l ine with ... as, ... d6, ... tZ:lbd7 and ... es is still not too well known and catches out many play­ers lacking any prior knowledge or experience of the l ine and its middlegame motifs .

b) 9 tZ:lds i..xd2 10 'W/xd2 c6 11 tZ:lxf6+ 'W/xf6 12 tZ:lg s 'Wie7 13 tZ:le4 fs 14 tZ:lc3 tZ:lf6 looked like quite a comfortable Dutch position for Black in V.Kosyrev-P. Eljanov, Biel 2004.

c) 9 dxes is discussed in Game 3S . 9 ... .l:.eS

1o e4 Not only occupying the centre, but al so preventing Black from pushing ... eS-e4 himself.

The alternatives are : a) 10 .l:.adl i..xc3 11 i..xc3 e4 12 tZ:lg s 'flie7 and then : al) GM Robert Markus is a regular Bogo player. He faced 13 ds against Branko Damlja­

novic in Skopje 2011, and after 13 . . . h6 14 tZ:lh 3 tZ:les 1S f3 i..fs (excellent centralization and

3 4 1

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

overprotection; Black just has a harmonious position) 16 °iWcl exf3 17 exf3 tt:Jd3 18 'VWd2 b5 ! ? 19 cxb5 tt:Jxd5 20 tt:Jf2 tt:Jxc3 21 'VWxc3 tt:Jxf2 22 .l::txf2 a4 23 f4 .l:i.ab8 24 .ic6 .id7 25 .:tc1 .ixc6 26 'VWxc6 °iWe3 27 'it>g2 .l:i.b6 28 'VWxc7 .l:i.xb5 29 °iWc3 �e4+ a draw was agreed.

a2) 13 °iWcl h6 14 tt:Jh 3 d5 15 b3 c6 16 f3 b5 and once more Black had an easy, active game in N .Grandelius-Z.Hracek, German League 2011.

b) 10 dxe5 i s covered in Game 35 . 10 . . . exd4

Black is out of good preparatory moves. The only available one left would have been 10 ... c6, but after a following capture on d4 this move is of questionable value. Sometimes it i s necessary, but committing to it now would be imprecise. 11 tt:Jxd4 tt:Jes

12 b3 The most natural move, but White has tried too: a) 12 .ig 5 ! ? and now: al) 12 ... c6 is the only move played in this position so far, but after 13 tt:Ja4! h6 14 .if4

tt:Jg6 (14 . . . .ig4! ?) 15 .ie3 tt:Jg4 16 .tel 'VWf6 17 l:tdl b5? (after this Black is in huge trouble, but I think he should prefer the earl ier . . . h6 anyway) 18 cxb5 cxb5 19 a3 bxa4 20 axb4 axb4 21 h3 b3 22 �d2 tt:J4e5 23 f4 White was close to winning in L.Van Wely-L. Fressinet, Aix les Bains 2012.

a2) In stead, I suggest 12 . . . h6! 13 .ixf6 (otherwise .ig 5 makes little sense, but Black seems fine anyway) 13 . . . 'VWxf6 14 tt:Jd5 'VWd8 15 tt:Jxb4 axb4 and it is about equal . Given the choice, I would rather be Black here because of the open a-file and the ideas on the dark squares. White's plans are less apparent to me.

b) Another gambit try is 12 .l:i.adl. To take or not to take? bl) 12 . . . tt:Jxc4?! i s ri sky, but probably playable. After 13 .ig 5 tt:Jb6 14 tt:Jcb5 c6 15 .ixf6

gxf6 16 tt:Jc3 the position is quite ugly for Black, but 'a pawn is a pawn'. Probably White has no more than enough compensation .

3 4 2

Bog o - ln d i a n with 4 i.d2 a s

b2) I prefer 1 2 . . . i.cs 1 3 t2Jce2 i.g4 1 4 f3, as was played i n M.Sebenik-V.Babula, Novi Sad 2009. Babula now went 14 ... i.h s , which was satisfactory, but the bishop might later be offside on g6. As such, I suggest 14 . . . i.d7: for example, 15 @h1 a4 16 b4 axb3 17 axb3 W/e7.

This i s a fairly typical position for this l ine. One important feature is the white pawn on f3 and the resulting weaknesses on the kingside. Black even has . . . h7-h5 -h4 as a possible plan . 12 . . . i.cs

The usual post for the bishop, but there is a more direct, tactical approach as well : 12 . . . a4! ? 13 t2Jxa4 (this doesn't lead to much, but a build-up move l ike 13 h3 i s also nothing special after a normal reply l ike 13 . . . i.d7) 13 . . . i.xd2 14 W/xd2 t2Jxc4 15 W/c2 tLies 16 t2Jc3 c6

17 h3 Wlb6 18 .l:!.fdl h S ! and White i s at best slightly better here. Now, though, he over­looked a tactical trick in L.Cemousek-T.Polak, Slovakian League 2012, by going 19 f4? when 19 .. . i.xh 3 ! would have given Black excellent play. 13 tLits

3 4 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - / n di a n

Maybe this is the best move, but White i n general scores rather poorly here. Black's piece play, pressurizing White's centre, i s not easy to contain. Going for any substantial progress as White often means pushing pawns, which will seriously weaken his position . White's play needs to be delicately timed.

Besides 13 tllf5, both retreats have been tried: a) 13 tt:lce2 and now: al) 13 . . . i.g4 14 h3 i.h 5 15 g4? ! i.g6 16 .l:tad1 was played in L.Cemousek-Z.Hracek, Slo­

vakian League 2009. Now Black could have gone in for a tactical strike: 16 . . . tt:lxe4!? 17 i.xe4 tllf3+ 18 i.xf3 i.xc2 19 tt:lxc2 c6 and I prefer Black here, with . . . �4 and play on the e-file to come.

a2) 13 . . . c6 with a great idea in mind: 14 h3 b5 ! ? is the aggressive point and quite atypi­cal for the given pawn structure. It leads to interesting, active play for Black after 15 cxbs cxb5 .

Maybe White should now take the pawn : 16 tt:lxb5 i.a6 17 a4 'ih>6 18 tt:lec3 .l:!.ac8 and while Black has some compensation, White still has a solid position. In the actual game, White was just a bit passive with even material on the board after 16 l:.ad1 b4 17 i.e3 i.a6 18 l:.fe1 .l:tc8 19 �1 �6. This was R.Vazquez lgarza-E . lturrizaga,Alcala de Henares 2007, where Black was pretty comfortable.

b) The other knight retreat seems entirely harmless: 13 tllde2 i.g4! (Black is in fine shape here, making good use of the weakened l ight squares) 14 'it>h1 i.f3 (a motif to re­member: 14 ... a4! ? is possible due to the unstable knight on e2) 15 i.g 5 c6 16 tt:Jf4 h6 17 i.xf6 'iYxf6 18 i.xf3 tt:lxf3 19 'it>g2 tt:lh4+ 20 'it>h 1 i.d4 21 l:.ac1. We have followed V.Golubenko-D.Ciuksyte, Tallinn 2005, and now the simple 21 . . .i.xc3 22 '1i'xc3 'ii'xc3 23 .l:txc3 .l:.xe4 was to be preferred, instead of the complicated 21. . .g 5 ! ? of the game. Black is just a pawn up. 13 . . . h6

One of the most prolific Boga experts, the Czech GM Zbynek Hracek, has played the

3 4 4

B og o - l n d i a n with 4 .i.d2 a s

simplistic 1 3 . . . .i.xfs here. It's fairly solid, but objectively worse than keeping the tension. In A. Flum bort-Z.Hracek, German League 2009, Hracek got into trouble quickly: 14 exfs c6 1S .l:tad1 l::tc8 16 .i.g s h6 17 .i.h4 (this i s an awkward pin) 17 . . . t2Jed7 18 l2Je4 �C7 19 ttJxcs tLixcs 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 l::td4 and White was winning . Hracek usually is a player to watch and pos­sibly copy when it comes to the Bogo - this game is rare exception .

A good alternative, however, is 13 . . . .i.d7. Now 14 .U.adl a4 1S .i.cl axb3 16 axb3 leads to the structure of the main game: for example, 16 ... t2Jc6 17 .i.b2 .i.xfs 18 exfs t2Jd4 19 �d3 t2Jc6 20 h3 h6 21 g4 �e7 with mutual chances in A.Filippov-N.Sedlak, Bol 2014. 14 .l:tad1 .i.d7

15 .i.c1 It is not easy at all to suggest a clear-cut plan for White. Both pawn pushes, b2-b4 and

f2-f4, are tough to even prepare. Probably White needs to settle for modest goals , like ex­changing the bishop on cs by means of .i.e3 . This was tried in S.Swapnil -B . Esen, Golden Sands 2012, where White went 1S h 3 a4 16 .i.e3 axb3 17 axb3 'iYc8 (inviting White to un­balance the pawn structure; a decent alternative was 17 . . . .i.xe3 18 t2Jxe3 �c8 19 @h2 hS , with about equal play, but I prefer the text as the doubled pawns are no problem at all ) 18 .i.xcs dxcs 19 @h 2 (or 19 ttJds ! ? tLixds 20 cxds .i.xfs 21 exfs l2Jd7 22 d6 cxd6 23 .U.xd6 t2Jf6 24 l::tfd1 �c7 with about equal play) 19 . . . .i.xfs 20 exfs c6 21 l2Ja4 t2Jed7 22 .l:td6 �c7 23 .l:tfdl .U.es 24 �d2 .U.e7 2S 'iYc3 h s 26 @91 l::tae8 27 .i.f3 .U.es (it's about equal , but now White finds the self-destruct button) 28 g4?! lLif8 29 g s ? (after 29 'it>g2 still not much is happen­ing) 29 . . . ttJ6h7 30 h4 .l:txfs and it was over. 15 . . . �cS 16 .i.b2 a4 17 'it>h1 axb3 18 axb3

3 4 5

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - / n d ia n

Black's play has been exemplary up to this point. A major advantage of the whole l ine i s that Black does not suffer from any structurally bad piece. All his pieces are actively placed and either hinder or attack White. The a-pawn push even opened up the rook on the a-file. Now Bartel , being a fairly concrete player, immediately changes the structure. 18 . . . .txfs

Moves like 18 . . . .ta3 or the semi-waiting 18 . . . l1a6 were possible as well , but they don't change much . Bartel 's move is fine, quickly leading to much sharper play. 19 exfs ll'ic6?!

This was the idea, but 19 . . . ll'ied7 is a more flexible move, and if 20 ll'ids ll'ixds 21 i..xds c6 22 i..g2 .tb4.

Black intends ... °iVc7-b6 and it's about equal . 20 ll'ids ll'ixds 21 .ixds l1a2?

21 . . . i..a3 22 i..a1 i..cs isn't particularly great, but still better than the game.

3 4 6

B og o - l n d i a n with 4 Ji.d2 a s

22 'i/Nc3? 22 f6 ! intends 'i!Ng6 and curtains , so Black goes 22 . . . 'i!Ng4, but it's too late already: 23 �1

.l:!.ea8 24 f3 'i!Nh s 25 g4 'i!Ng s 26 fxg7 and White i s winning. 22 ... .l:.es

Suddenly Black is in the game in this tactical position . He's still worse, but it's tricky. 23 .ii.xc6 bxc6 24 b4 'i!Nb7

24 . . . 'i!Nb8 is more precise, but still not equal : for instance, 25 'i/Nb3 .l:!.xb2 26 'i!Nxb2 .i.xb4 27 .l:!.de1 ! .l:!.xfs 28 .l:!.e3 @h7 29 f4 and White is pushing. 2 5 'i!Nb3 .l:.xb2 26 'i!Nxb2 .i.xb4 27 'i/Nc2?

After 27 .l:.de1 ! we see the difference compared to 24 . . . �8 - the back rank. Following 27 . . . .l:.xfs 28 .l:.e8+ @h7 29 'i!Nc2 cs+ 30 f3 g6 31 'i!Nb2 .l:.es 32 .l:.xes dxes 33 'i!Nxes White is winning . 21 . . . cs+ 28 f3 'i!Nc8 29 .l:.ds .l:.e3 30 .l:.dd1 'i!Ne8 31 'i!Ng2 'i!Nes

Now White even needs to be a bit careful . 32 g4 'i/Nf4 33 .l:.a1 @h7 34 'i!Ng3 'i/Nxc4 35 gs

Trying to secure the draw by active play. 3 5 ... .l:.e8 36 g6+

36 gxh6 ! ? g6 37 .l:.g1 'li'd3 38 fxg6+ fxg6 is about equal : for example, 39 'iYg4 .l:.e7 40 h4 'i!Nfs 41 'i!Nxfs gxfs 42 .l:.g7+ .l:.xg7 43 hxg7 @xg7 44 .l:.a7 @g6 45 @g2 @h s 46 @g3 c4 47 @f4 c3 48 .l:.a2 ds and this will dissipate to a draw. 36 ... @g8 37 f6 fxg6

Avoiding the coming simplification with 37 ... 'i!Ne6 ! ? was al so possible . 38 'iVxg6 'i!Nf7 39 .l:.g1 'iVxg6 40 .l:.xg6 @f7 41 .l:.xg7+ @xf6

3 4 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

This completes a forced sequence since move 37 . White should have decent chances to draw, but it is a thankless task. 42 l:!.xc7 ds 43 l:!.a6+ @es 44 l:!.xh6 @f4 4S @g2 @e3 46 f4 @xf4 47 @f2 @e4 48 l:!.h3 d4 49 @e2 l:!.a8 so l:!.d7 l:!.a2+ s1 @d1 l:!.d2+ s2 @c1 l:!.f2 S3 @d1 l:!.a2 S4 l:!.d8 l:!.g2 SS l:!.d7 ii.as S6 .l:td6 l:!.d2+ S7 @cl l:!.a2 S8 @d1 .tc7 S9 l:!.c6 .tf4

Black can always try to press, ri sking very little. 60 .l::i.xcs?!

60 .l::te6+ ! ? @ds 61 l:!.e2 l:!.al+ 62 @c2 .l:!.fl 63 @b2 was easier, but the game is still a draw. 60 ... l:!.al+ 61 We2 d3+ 62 l:!.xd3 l:!.a2+ 63 @f1 @xd3 64 h4

The notorious rook and bishop versus rook ending. It's a draw, at least theoretically speaking. 64 . . . @e4 6s @e1 .te3

66 l:!.c8?

3 4 8

66 l:.bs ! was the only move to draw.

66 ... @f3?

B og a - In d i a n with 4 i.. d2 a s

6 6 . . . @d3 wins . Now it's a draw again, or s o the tablebase tells me. 67 l:.f8+ j_f4 68 @d1?

Again, 68 .l:!.d8 ! . 68 ... l:.d2+ 69 @e1 l:.ds 70 l:.f7 l:.es+ 71 @f1 l:.cs 72 l:.e7 l:.c1+ 73 l:.e1 l:.c2 74 l:.e8 l:.h2 7S @g1 l:.xh4 76 l:.f8 l:.h7 0·1

White resigned in view of the coming 77 .l:!.fs .l::td7. Of course all those question marks near the end of the game are not entirely fair, as with little time such mistakes are bound to happen.

Summary 8 lllc3 is White's main move statistically, but it does not impress much . The ari sing struc­ture with . . . exd4 leads to interesting, unbalanced play where Black's piece play gives him good chances. Recently White's hopes have been more focused on exchanging on es, as examined in the next game.

Game 35 D.Antic-G.Goumas Anogia Open 2014

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 3 lllf3 i..b4+ 4 i..d2 as s g3 d6 6 i..g2 lllbd7 7 o-o es Recently it has become fashionable to capture on es , a trend probably initiated by the

fact that the older l ines are rather unpromising, as we have seen . The reason why the trade on es has any bite at all l ies in the fact that ... as in combination with a later ... c6 weakens the queen side to some extent. White tries to use those weak squares, especially b6 and d6, for his pieces. Typical manoeuvres that Black needs to be aware of are ctJc3-a4 and lllf3-h4-fs . However, if Black plays the initial moves carefully, he has nothing to fear.

White has tried the exchange on es at various moments - all are examined in this game. 8 lllc3

The earliest possible capture, 8 dxes , i s a bit irritating for Black as he has not castled. The issue is that Black should always take with the knight on es, trading one pair of knights in the process. This exchange of one minor piece helps him considerably in setting up a harmonious defensive position . 8 . . . lllxes ! has only been played once, but is still the correct move (8 . . . dxes 9 lllc3 o-o is just a transposition to a position we like to avoid - more on this later).

3 4 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

After 9 tt:Jxe5 dxe5 10 'Yi'a4+ (instead, 10 tt:Jc3 o-o will just transpose to the main game, but the text makes the early trade additionally irritating for Black; he has nothing to be afraid of, but if you don't know that beforehand you might be put off by the check) 10 ... 'iVd7 (10 ... i..d7? needs to be avoided due to 11 'iVb3 and Black has problems with b7 and on the d-file : for example, after 11 . . . i.xd2 12 tt:Jxd2 0-0 13 .l:i.fd1) 11 'iVxd7+ (ultimately lead­ing to nothing, but 11 'iVc2 c6 12 .l:i.d1 'iVf5 is easier for Black for handle) 11 . . . tt:Jxd7 12 lt:Jc3 c6 (Black still needs to be a bit careful here, as his queen side weaknesses need attention) 13 a3 Black has:

a) The only example of 8 . . . tt:Jxe5 went 13 . . . i.c5 14 tt:Ja4 i..a7 and now 15 i..c3, instead of 15 e3? ! lt:Jb6 ! , would have kept nagging pressure for White in l . Farago-M.Turov, Budapest

2014. Note that Maxim Turov is one of the main Bogo special ists, so his choice of 8 . . . tt:Jxe5 is noteworthy.

b) However, I think his play can be improved with 13 . . . i..e7.

3 5 0

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 ii. d2 a s

After 14 ttJa4 (an important move; otherwise, Black plays . . . ll:ib6 and has good play) 14 . . . 0-0 the position is not so easy to analyse as White has some choice, but Black's idea in any case is to go . . . l:ta6 to cover b6 and then play . . . ll:ics to trade the annoying knight on a4; if White plays ii.e3 to avoid that then . . .fS -f4 is an important resource. Going . . .fs al so al ­lows a set-up with . . . e4 and . . . ll:ies if appropriate. Let's look at just one l ine as an example: 1s I:tfd1 fS 16 Ji.e3 I:ta6 17 l:tac1 f4 18 Ji.d2 fxg 3 19 hxg 3 ll:ics 20 ll:ixcs Ji.xcs 21 e3 Ji.g4 and Black has no problems at all .

We can conclude that 8 . . . ll:ixes is satisfactory for Black and that the additional option of �a4+ is nothing special for White. 8 . . . o-o 9 dxes

White rarely delays the exchange any longer, but let's have a look at 9 �c2 l:te8 10 dxes . Now:

a) 10 . . . dxes? ! is slightly more attractive than before with . . . Ji.f8 being possible, but i s still no fun at all to play: for example, 11 a3 Ji.f8 12 l:tad1 c6 13 i.e3 ! (13 h3 ? ! �C7 14 ttJh4 ll:ics was fine for Black in V.Gunina-Hou Yifan, Bilbao 2014; White needs to control cs and b6 quickly) 13 . . . �c7 14 ttJa4.

Here it's tough for Black to free himself from the grip on the dark squares. Note that .. .fs , a key idea in the main game with knights traded, i s impossible here.

b} Again, I think Black should take on es with the knight, so 10 . . . ll:ixes ! . After 11 ll:ixes (11 a3 ii.cs 12 ll:ixes l:txes transposes, but 12 . . . dxes? 13 ii.g s would be very awkward for Black, with ttJe4 being the most annoying threat) 11. . .l:txes 12 a3 ii.cs the structure is fa­miliar from other l ines that we have in the repertoire. Black is only marginally worse: for example, 13 ll:ie4 !? ll:ixe4 14 Ji.xe4 h6 1S .ic3 l:te8 16 b4 Ji.b6 and White has more space, but few direct ideas. 9 . . . ll:ixes

Here 9 . . . dxes? ! again leads to the typically congested position and 10 a3 ! (before . . . l:te8 can be played) 10 . . . i.e7 11 �c2 c6 12 l:tfd1 �c7 13 ttJa4 b6 14 h3 l:tb8 1S Ji.e3 Ji.a6 16 l:tac1

3 5 1

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

.t!.fc8 17 tt:Jd2 was uncomfortable for Black i n W.Arencibia-L. Bruzon Bati sta, Montreal 2012. 10 tt:Jxes dxes

Black has traded one pair of knights which helps him a lot to set up a harmonious for­mation . 11 a3

Instead, 11 'ifc2 ..ifs ! i s a neat trick worth remembering.

It immediately solves all of Black's problems: 12 'ifxfs (12 e4 .i.e6 does not help White at all , who has just closed the long diagonal for his bishop and weakened the d4-square) 12 ... 'iVxd2 13 .i.xb7 .t!.ad8 14 .t!.ad1 'iVxb2 15 .l:!.xd8 .l:!.xd8 16 tt:Jds tt:Jxds 17 .i.xds .l:!.f8 and this i s very equal .

11 ... .i.e7 12 'iVc2 c6 13 .t!.fdl .i.e6 14 tt:Ja4 'iYc7

15 .t!.acl 15 .i.e3 was played just 16 days later in D.Antic-A.Delchev, l sthmia 2014. Unfortunately

3 5 2

Boga - I n d i a n with 4 iL.d2 a s

the game ended i n a draw right here, but that i s understandable with the beautiful Greek beaches around in August. The position is, indeed, about equal and, of course, comparable to the main game.

Dejan Antic i s one of the authors of The Modern Bogo and examined this l ine for that book. There he and Maksimovic suggest that White i s better here in almost all cases, pretty much regardless what he plays. I understand the reasoning based on White's more active piece placement and the weakness of b6. However, I feel that Black has ideas to improve his position, in particular the .. .fs advance, while in some ways White has already achieved his optimum placement and no clear way forward. We will see some of these ideas in the game. 15 ... lt:Jd7 16 cs

16 iL.e3 fS ! i s an essential idea for Black. Following 17 iL.h 3 .l:i.ad8 18 cs e4, intending . . . iL.f6 and/or . . . ll'ies, I see no issues for Black. 16 ... fs

This is not the prelude to a kingside attack, but designed to gain space for Black's piec-es. 17 iL.h3 g6?

This is a mistake. In stead, 17 . . . e4 was thematic, giving Black access to the es-square and allowing . . . iL.f6 to

be effective.

Black is okay here: for instance, 18 iL.f4 (probably the only testing move) 18 ... ll'ies 19 ll'ib6 .l:i.ad8 20 'i!Vc3 l:.xdl+ 21 .l:i.xdl iL.f6 22 'i!Vxas 'i!Vf7 and Black has good compensation for the pawn, considering his extra space in the centre and most importantly the offside white knight on b6. 18 e4

Now Black's central pawns are fixed and both the knight on d7 and the bishop on e7 remain passive. It i s still not very easy, though, for White to make substantial progress.

3 5 3

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

18 ... .l:rf7 19 .ie3 .l:re8 20 f3? 20 b4! was better, intending to reroute the knight via b2-c4 to d6.

20 ... .ifS 21 exfs Again, 21 b4 was key, improving the bad piece on a4.

21 ... gxfs 22 .l:re1 �d8 23 .l:rcd1 �f6 Now Black is fine. All pieces are central ized and he has good activity.

24 f4 .ih6 2s .l:rd6 .ifs 26 .l:rdd1 .ih6 21 .l:rd6

27 ... .ifS Black is content with a draw. With 27 . . . .ixf4! 28 .ixf4 (28 gxf4? �4 is very awkward for

White) 28 . . . exf4 29 gxf4 �4 he could have gone for more, but probably it would not have led to much against good defence: 30 .l:rdxe6 .l:rxe6 31 .l:rxe6 �xh3 32 .l:re8+ 'lt>g7 3 3 �g2+ �g4 34 h3 �xg2+ 35 'lt>xg2 lt:'if6 36 .l:res and this will most likely end in a draw. 28 .l:rdd1 Y2-Y2

Summary Many openings have their Exchange variation, most famously the Slav and the French spring to mind. Even the Bogo- lndian has one, and we just witnessed in this game and the analysis that it leads to quiet waters. Black should always trade one pair of knights on es , even in the case of the early capture without castling . The resulting positions are unexcit­ing, but not terrifying for Black to play.

3 5 4

C h a pte r T h i rtee n

Bogo- l n d i a n wit h 4 tt:J bd 2

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 lt:Jf3 .i.b4+ 4 lt:Jbd2

I regard 4 lt:Jbd2 as the critical move against the Bogo- lndian . White intends to grab the bishop-pair without making any structural concessions, quite comparable to the Classical 4 °iYc2 in the Nimzo. I decided to cover two lines against 4 lt:Jbd2 in this book. I believe that objectively 4 . . . 0-0 is the best move for Black. He intends to retreat the bishop to e7 and then strike back with ... ds later. At the moment White has no clear way forward against this set­

up, although the g h4 of Game 42 is certainly dangerous. However, I felt that showing 4 . . . 0-0 as the only reply is unsatisfactory. It leads to fairly

untypical positions (no dark-square strategy), and requires more memorization than usual for l ines in our repertoire. Therefore I have added a secondary option for Black, the rare but sound move 4 . . . d6. It is essential to understand that Black has little chance to deviate once

he essays 4 . . . o-o in the first place. The only viable alternative is 5 a3 .i.e7 6 e4 d6, instead of 6 .. . ds. This is not bad for Black, but if you like that line, you might as well start with 4 . . . d6

3 5 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

and avoid 4 . . . o-o altogether. Here is the overview of the chosen lines, starting with 4 ... d6, the less work-demanding

move.

The game Malakhatko-Sielecki (Game 36) features White's main reply to 4 . . . d6, the im­mediate bishop-pair grab with 5 a3. With perfect play by White he will obtain a sl ight edge, but nothing special .

The game Sasikiran-Eingorn (Game 37) features White's other tries on move 5 , mostly the one chosen in the game, 5 g3 . This leads to complicated play with Black having good counter-chances as Boga guru Eingorn skilfully demonstrates.

After 4 . . . 0-0 overwhelmingly the main l ine i s 5 a3 .i.e7 6 e4, which must be the critical test. However, not every white player l ikes such sharp play and there are many less forcing options. The game lvanchuk-Kasimdzhanov (Game 38) examines White's alternatives on move 5, mostly 5 g3 and 5 e3 .

The next opportunity to avoid the main l ine i s on move 6 for White after 5 a3 .i.e7.

3 5 6

Bog o - / n d i a n with 4 t'iJ bd2

Again set-ups with g3 or e3 are h i s main alternatives, a s analysed in Esen-Kotsur (Game 39) .

After 6 e4 dS 7 es t'iJfd7 White has two main options : a) For a while 8 b4 was believed to be White's best bet for an advantage against 4 . . . 0-0.

The game Levin-Goganov (Game 40) shows how Black neutralizes White's space-gaining play on the queenside. I believe that with precise play Black has an equal game and with chances for more if White overpresses. This game also contains White's alternatives on move 7.

b) 8 .i.d3 sees White speeding up his kingside development. After 8 ... cs the central ten­sion quite often leads to the position opening up with plenty of complications.

Both sides will have lively piece play. The game Nyzhnyk-Bluvshtein (Game 41) discusses this l ine, excluding the violent move 9 h4, which is examined separately in Game 42.

9 h4 has become the absolute main l ine of the 4 t'iJbd2 o-o Boga in no time at all . It was basically unknown until 2012, when games by Ding Liren and Ivan Cheparinov highlighted the dangers for Black. Nowadays White's hopes against 4 . . . 0-0 are almost solely dependent on this l ine as older attempts like 8 b4 have failed. It is a case of if Black can make 9 h4 work for him, then 4 t'iJbd2 loses much of its bite. The game Wagner-Socko (Game 42) shows the current state of affairs. Black holds his own, but play is razor-sharp and a careful study of the l ines is advised.

Game 36 V .Ma lakhatko-C.Sielecki

Latschach Open 2013

1 d4 t'iJf6 2 C4 e6 3 t'iJf3 i.b4+ 4 t'iJbd2 d6 This game was very important for me, as Malakhatko and I were sharing first place be-

3 5 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

fore this penultimate round. However, I only had limited time to prepare and when I found out that Malakhatko is a huge expert in the 4 lbbd2 line, I decided to avoid a theoretical battle starting with 4 . . . 0-0.

This game contains many references to illustrate typical play up into the middlegame, which is the main knowledge you need here - learning moves by heart i s not necessary or useful even. 5 a3

I consider this move to be the most critical . White immediately grabs the bishop-pair, which is the main idea behind 4 lbbd2. All other moves, the most popular being S g3 , are di scussed next in Sasikiran-Eingom {Game 37) . s . . . ..txd2+ 6 �xd2

With this recapture White signal s his intention to play with b3 or b4 and a subsequent ..tb2 . Taking with the queen is sl ightly more popular than 6 ..txd2, after which Black has some choice:

a) After 6 . . . lbbd7 the overwhelming main move is 7 ..tg s (in a recent game Bogo special­i st Kosic faced 7 �c2 W/e7 8 e3 o-o 9 ..te2, after which he could have played 9 ... es, but var­ied with 9 ... b6 10 0-0 ..llb7 11 .U.fdl cs, with about equal play in B.Bogosavljevic-D.Kosic, Neum 2014), and after 7 . . . W/e7 8 e3 es 9 ..te2 o-o 10 o-o l:Ie8 11 b4 h6 12 ..th4 lbf8 Black enjoyed a solid position in H.Rau-V. lkonnikov, German League 2007. Thi s should be about equal .

b) 6 . . . lbc6 feel s a bit less flexible compared to 6 . . . lbbd7, but is nevertheless playable. Here's a sample l ine from the game S . lonov-M.Taimanov, St. Petersburg 1999. Taimanov has vast experience in many Nimzo/Bogo lines with a dark-squared flavour, so his games are always worth studying . Unfortunately the Taimanov variation of the Rubinstein Nimzo 4 e3 lbc6 ! ? is not sound enough to be the choice for this book, although I tried to make it work. Here lonov-Taimanov went 7 ..tg s o-o 8 e3 as 9 b3 W/e7 10 lbd2 h6 11 ..th4 es 12 dS lbb8 13 ..te2. No comments up to now, as it all feel s very logical and familiar if you have

3 5 8

Bog o - ln d i a n with 4 ti:J bd2

studied the Zurich variation of the Nimzo. Black now can repeat Taimanov's move 13 . . . ti:Jbd7, but I suggest the direct 13 . . . g s 14 �g 3 �fs and I don 't think the sl ightly weak­ened king side matters so much . 6 ... ti:Jbd7

7 g3 Surprisingly this move was only played once, in the game given here. It i s entirely logi­

cal , so it is quite a surprise that it i s not seen more often. However, the whole Boga/Queen 's Indian/Catalan complex is very move order sensitive - in this game we reach a more popular position just a couple of moves later that usually arises via different

routes. We need to check the alternatives on move 7: a) 7 e3 es and now: al) If White does not take, he has to reckon with something like 8 b4 e4 9 !Dg 1 dS 10 cs

ti:Jf8 11 h3 hS and I already prefer Black slightly, L. Lenic-M.Turov, Internet (blitz) 2006. a2) 8 dxes is the most popular move. The position after 8 . . . dxes 9 b4 was reached five

times in my database, among which are two black games each by Alex Yermolinsky and Maxim Turov.

3 5 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

This means both had the chance to avoid this l ine on the second occasion, but did not. However, I don't like how they handled matters, as they advanced the es-pawn immedi­ately or a couple of moves later. This opens up the long diagonal , but also gives Black the opportunity to play . . . ll:ies ('to get squares, you've got to give squares') :

a21) To illustrate my point, let's have a look at W.Browne-A.Yermolinsky, San Francisco 2002: 9 .. . e4 10 ll:id4 ll:ies 11 i..b2 o-o 12 ll:ibs flle7 and here 13 fid4 lt'ig6 14 �cs fixes 1s bxcs would have been awkward for Black. Maybe Black can improve after 9 . . . e4, but I 'd ra­ther deviate earlier.

a22) I suggest another set-up starting with 9 . . . flle7 ! ? . After this White may choose be­tween various moves: for example, 10 i..b2 o-o 11 i..e2 b6 12 o-o i.b7 and Black is fine. He still has the option to push . . . e S-e4, but is more flexible than in the aforementioned games.

b) The early b4 was met by a typical response worth studying : 7 b4 as 8 i..b2 axb4 g axb4 .l::txal+ 10 i..xal bS ! .

3 6 0

Bog o - ln d ian with 4 0:. bd2

This i s the point, fighting for the light squares. Whenever White goes for b4, this option should be considered seriously - we will see this motif in the main game as well . After 11 cxbs i.b7 12 e3 'iVa8 13 'iid1 'ii'a3 14 i.e2 'iixb4+ Black was getting the pawn back with fine play in A.Goldin-J .Benjamin, Philadelphia 2001. Unfortunately the further course of the game Oust three more moves) does not make any sense, but hopefully at least this po­sition was reached in the game.

c ) I 'd also l ike to mention the yet untested move 7 g4 !? . As this thrust is so common in general nowadays, it i s only a question of t ime when it will be played in a game, so we might as well be ready for it . I suggest stopping g s with 7 . . . h6 : for example, 8 .l:.g 1 (to pre­pare h4 and gS ; after the slower 8 h3 b6 9 i.g2 i.b7 10 o-o o-o the extended fianchetto with g4 does not have much point and the position is about equal) 8 . . . b6 9 h4 i.b7 10 g s hxg s 11 hxg s 0:.e4 12 'iVc2 'Wle7 and Black will castle queenside, with interesting chances for both sides. It's not necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of an untested move like 7 g4, but it is good to know it is possible and that . . . h6 with . . . b6 to follow is a reliable reply.

Returning to 7 g 3 : 1 . . . b6

A very logical set-up against the coming kingside fianchetto. Playing with ... es is possi­ble as well , but I remembered the . . . bs idea and hoped to get the chance to play like that. 8 i.g2 i.b7

While technically 7 g3 was a novelty, we have reached charted waters again . This posi ­tion was played before, mostly from a 4 . . . b6 move order. The moves 4 . . . d6 and 4 . . . b6 are closely related in fact. There are some key differences, though . One important point is that after 4 . . . b6 S a3 i.xd2+ 6 'iixd2 Black is obviously committed to a . . . b6 type of formation even in cases where White does not develop with g 3 and i.g2, whereas with 4 . . . d6 we re­tain the option to play with an early . . . es (see the notes to move 7) . However, when White selects the kingside fianchetto, both lines might lead to the same position as ... d6, ... 0:.bd7,

... b6 and ... i.b7 can occur in both move orders.

3 6 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

9 b4!? White either goes b3 or b4 in this set-up, but normally only after playing 9 o-o first. I

now like to go 9 . . . as to prevent b4 for the moment. After 10 b3 0-0 11 i.b2 i.e4 this type of position is well known from various Queen's Indian lines. For example, after 1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:Jf3 b6 4 g3 i.a6 5 b3 i.b7 6 i.g2 i.b4+ 7 i.d2 as 8 0-0 0-0 9 tt:Jc3 d6 10 °iWc2 tt:Jbd7 11 1:\.fel i.xc3 12 i.xc3 i.e4 13 'iWb2 Black's side is 100% identical to our set-up.

The overall difference is minimal , but given the choice I prefer our Bogo version as White has weakened his queenside a bit with a3. A key plan for Black now is to play on the queenside with ideas like . . . c6, . . . bs , . . . ds and . . . a4, fighting for light-square outposts l ike c4. Following 12 °iWc3 c6 13 i.h 3 (a standard manoeuvre; White wants to fight the bishop on e4 with tt:Jd2, but without allowing a trade on g2 ) 13 ... h6 14 tt:Jd2 .i.g6 (you can control e4 not

only from b7) 15 i.g2 ds 16 a4 (otherwise, . . . bs is a good idea for Black) 16 . . . .l:Ie8 17 .l:Ifel I l ike a preparatory move such as 17 . . . l:tc8, instead of the immediate 17 . . . cs of K.Miton­V.Quesada Perez, Havana 2007.

3 6 2

Bog o - ln d i a n with 4 ti:J b d2

With . . . cs timed correctly, Black has no problems. All his pieces are in play and White's queen side offers targets for counterplay. 9 ... as 10 i..b2

After 10 bs White's pawn structure loses flexibility: for example, if Black plays . . . es at a later stage, any move of the d4-pawn will give up control over cs . 10 . . . axb4 11 axb4 .U.xa1+ 12 i..xa1 bS!?

Very tempting and thematic. Of course something along the l ines of 12 . . . 0-0 13 0-0 °iile7 14 .tb2 ti.a8 was al so very sensible and about equal , but the pawn sacrifice i s more inter­esting . Black is fighting for the light squares and has good chances to regain the pawn in the long run, especially considering that White's light-squared bishop is not on the f1-a6 diagonal . 13 cxbs o-o 14 o-o iVbS

14 ... ti:Jb6 with the idea of ... i..ds and ... 'iUd7 al so gives Black good compensation . 15 .U.c1 .U.cS 16 i..f1!?

A good plan . White wants to expand in the centre long term with a knight move fol ­lowed by f3 and e4. 16 ... i..aS

16 . . . i..xf3 ? 17 exf3 ti:Jb6 and then . . . ti:JbdS is a very tough construction to break down, but al so completely passive. Black has no need to go in for this . 11 ti:Je1 "ii/xbs 18 f3 iVb6 19 ti:Jd3

This move surpri sed me, as I thought White should play something like 19 e3 to close the b6-g 1 diagonal . After a brief thought I went: 19 ... es?

This is a serious mistake. In stead, after, for instance, 19 . . . i..c6 20 e4 i..bs Black has a good, flexible position .

3 6 3

Op e n ing Rep erto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

He has play on the a-file and on the light squares, while White has no clear way for­ward. The position is about equal . 20 lllf2?

It was quite obvious that my opponent had not considered 19 . . . es? at all and after some moments he played 20 lllf2? and offered a draw. Instead, he should have played 20 e4! with the idea of 20 . . . exd4 21 lllf2 cs? (21 . . . l::tb8 ! 22 �xd4 �xd4 23 i.xd4 l::txb4 24 i.xf6 lllxf6 2 s l:txc7 l:tb8 26 l:ta7 is Black's best option, but he will suffer for a while here; White has nagging pressure) 22 bxcs dxcs 23 i.xd4 and White is clearly better. The bishops have come alive and Black's c-pawn is weak, while the bishop on a8 stares at the f3 and e4 cen­tral construction helplessly. 20 ... e4

Now only Black can be better, so I declined the draw offer. 21 fxe4

21 f4 i.c6 22 i.b2 i.bs is al so sl ightly better for Black. My opponent preferred to open the position, trying to use the bishop-pair. 21 ... lllxe4 22 lllxe4 i.xe4 23 i.h3 .l::td8

Here 23 . . .fS ! was an alternative and would have posed more problems.

3 6 4

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 l?J b d2

I was reluctant to play loose pawn moves, but the game continuation seems easier for White to handle . 24 'ii'g5 l?Jf6 2 5 °iia5

This I could have prevented with 23 . . .fs . After the queen trade Black is still comfortable, but I don't see a clear way forward. 25 ... l?Jd5 26 'i:Vxb6 cxb6 27 i.c3 f5 28 i.d2 Wf7?!

I should have tried 28 . . . .l:ta8, but White will hold. A sample line runs 29 i.f4! l?Jxf4 30 gxf4 J:la4 31 i.g2 J:lxb4 32 i.xe4 fxe4 33 J:lc6 .l:!.xd4 34 @f2 dS 35 .l:txb6 @f7 36 @e3 and White is active enough here to defend.

29 g4 g6 30 gxfs gxfs 31 lla1 @e6 32 @f2 .l:!.c8 33 .l:!.a7 We both were low on time here.

33 .. . .l:!.c2 34 @e1 .l:!.b2 35 .l:!.xh7 l?Jxb4 36 .l::!.h6+ 'it>ds 37 i.f4 l?Jc2+ Yz-Yz I offered a draw because I saw the following line 37 . . . l?Jc2+ 38 @f2 l?Jxd4? ! ( 38 . . . bS ! 39

.l:!.xd6+ 'it>c4 40 i.es .l:!.b3 is the silicon l ine , with what seems to be an almost forced draw after, for instance, 41 i.g2 i.xg2 42 \t>xg2 l?Je3+ 43 Wg3 l?Jds+ 44 @f2 l?Je3) 39 .l:!.xd6+ @c4? 40 i.fl and it looks grim for Black. Fortunately Malakhatko accepted the draw, not testing what I would have played on move 38 . This game and another draw in the final round gave me a final score of 719, which surprisingly was enough to win the tournament on Buchholz tie-break.

Summary The line 4 . . . d6 5 a3 nets White the bishop-pair early on. Black obtains a very sound, flexible structure in all l ines. It is useful to remember that g 3 set-ups are answered with . . . b6 and . . . i.b7, while e3 set-ups can be answered with our more common . . . es approach . This ap­plies to 6 'ifxd2 and e3 , as well as to 6 i.xd2 followed by i.g s and a later e3 . The whole line is not dependent on concrete knowledge of moves, but rather on strategic decisions and knowledge of middlegame plans.

3 6 5

Open ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bogo - ln d ian

Game 3 7

K.Sasikira n-V .Eingorn F I D E World C h a m pions h i p, Moscow 2001

1 d4 l2Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 l2Jf3 .tb4+ 4 l2Jbd2 d6 5 g3 White's main continuation, S a3, was examined in Malakhatko-Sielecki . All White's oth­

er tries on move s are discussed here: a) Sasikiran 's choice in the main game is the most popular among these, but there al so

is the more harmless S e3 0-0:

al) Now the modest looking 6 .te2 does not leave the bishop slightly exposed on d3, so Black needs to prepare . . . es by either . . . tt:Jc6 or . . :fie7, which I recommend to leave the c­pawn and queen 's knight flexible. Here's an example where this mattered: 6 ... 'iJ/e7 7 o-o i..xd2 8 i..xd2 es 9 i..c3 (9 dxes dxes 10 i..c3 tt:Jc6 11 'iilc2 i s close to a transposition to the Zurich , but . . . as and a3 have not been played; in any case this structure is not terribly dan­gerous for Black) 9 . . . l2Je4 10 .l:.cl tt:Jxc3 11 .l:.xc3 cs ! ? 12 a3 .tg4 13 b4 e4 14 tt:Jd2 i..xe2 lS 'iJ/xe2 l2Jd7 with about equal play in N .Rashkovsky-J . l saev, Ekaterinburg 1997 . Along the way Black had various ways to deviate and there is lots of room for creativity in those closed positions.

a2) More natural i s 6 .td3, which allows the immediate 6 . . . e s ! ? 7 o-o. Here Black has a choice; he can initiate concrete play in the centre or keep the position closed:

a21) 7 . . . i..xd2 8 l2Jxd2 with a further choice: a211) 8 . . . tt:Jc6 is viable, but no clear equalizer. It keeps some tension, though. The posi-

tion after 9 ds tt:Je7 10 'iVc2 has been reached a couple of times, with Black scoring quite badly. My suggestion is to play 10 . . . c6 11 dxc6 tt:Jxc6 12 tt:Je4 (12 a3 i..e6 is a fairly normal position similar to the Zurich, and one which is at best sl ightly favourable for White) 12 . . . h6 13 tt:Jxf6+ 'iJ/xf6 14 i..h7+ �h8 lS i..e4 .te6 and White is only sl ightly better.

3 6 6

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 tb. b d2

a212) 8 . . . exd4 is simple and good, and objectively to be preferred over 8 . . . ll'ic6. After 9 exd4 I suggest the new 9 . . . ll'ic6 (this seems more precise to me than 9 . . . ds) : 10 ll'if3 (the most natural move, whereas 10 dS tb.es 11 .tc2 .tg4 12 f3 .th s looks comfortable for Black; White has some weaknesses in the centre and Black will play ... .tg6 to get rid of the bishop­pair) 10 ... .tg4 11 .te3 ds.

Strangely enough somehow this position resembles a Petroff Defence. Black seems fine to me, but I admit play might peter out quickly in some lines. An important l ine now is 12 h 3 .txf3 13 'i!Vxf3 lt:Jb4! 14 .tfs dxc4 1S "fixb7 ll'ibds with good piece play for Black who also will win the dark-squared bishop.

a22) 1 . . :fie7 is interesting as well . Note that it may look like a routine move, but it leads to unique positions : for instance, after 8 ll'ie4! ? ll'ixe4 9 .txe4 exd4 (otherwise a3 or °fia4 is a real problem) 10 ii'c2 dxe3 11 .txe3 h6 12 a3 �cs 13 l:tfel White has serious compensa­tion for the pawn.

b) s ii'c2 o-o 6 e4 (otherwise it is not clear what S 'ifc2 has accomplished) 6 . . . e s ! (if you can get this in without any preparatory moves, you generally should not hesitate; being flexible with the queen and the b8-knight is valuable) 7 dxes dxes 8 a3 {8 ll'ixes?? .l:i.e8 9 f4 'if d4 is a disaster for White) 8 . . . .txd2+ 9 .txd2 'ife7 and now in F.Mueller-M.Turov, Nord­hausen 2009, White's best bet was probably 10 .tc3 ll'ic6, which is identical to a Zurich variation where White has exchanged on es , instead of closing the centre. Black has no problems in these structures.

c) Bogo special ist Milan Drasko has recently been hit by S g4!? . While nowadays this type of move does not surprise anyone, i t still feels a bit early to play it here. Black is not yet committed to anything like . . . b6 or . . . ll'ibd7, which might take away a square from the f6-knight. Drasko's response is logical , but certainly not the only one: s . . . ll'ic6 (s . . . 0-0 and s . . . ds ! ? are also fine) 6 gs ll'id7 ( I also like 6 . . . ll'ie4!?) 7 ds exds 8 cxds ll'ices 9 ll'ixes dxes 10 'iVb3 'ife7 was played in N .Potpara-M.Drasko, Ulcinj 2014, with equal chances in an inter­

esting position.

3 6 7

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

Returning to 5 g 3 :

s . . . lbc6 I think this instant preparation for the ... es advance is best here. Black may al so delay it

with s . . . 0-0, but this mostly transposes to s . . . tt::lc6. An independent try is 6 .1i.g2 °Wie7 7 0-0 .1i.xd2 8 .1i.xd2 es , which transposed into a Zurich-style position via 9 dxes dxes 10 �c2 lLic6 11 i.c3 .i.g4 in l .Nyzhnyk-K.Reshetkov, Ukrainian Team Championship 2010. Now the computer suggests 12 b4! ?, which, indeed, looks quite annoying for Black. I guess Black should prefer 11 ... as in order to prevent that possibility, retaining fair chances that way. 6 .1i.g2 as

Here 6 . . . e s i s possible and will transpose to 6 . . . as most of the time. However, there i s one independent possibility for White that i s important. 7 ds closes the position while gaining the two bishops. The resulting position type is familiar to us from the Zurich . Here White has gained the bishops under sl ightly more favourable circumstances, saving time on �c2 for example. The resulting position is playable for Black, of course, but i t seems un­necessary to allow it if 6 . . . as is an easy move order wrinkle for Black. Nevertheless, l et's have a look at a typical sequence: 7 . . . .1i.xd2+ 8 .1i.xd2 lbe7 9 o-o o-o 10 tt:Je1 lbg6 11 .1i.C3 h6 12 lbd3 tt::lh7 13 �d2 'Wie7 14 e4 with a comfortable game for White in A.Saric-P.Jaracz, No­va Garica 200S . 1 o-o es

3 6 8

B og o - l n di a n with 4 tiJ bd2

8 d5 Instead of closing the position, White has also tried 8 a3, trying to exploit the bishops in

a more open position . After 8 . . . ilxd2 he has : a) 9 ilxd2 has not yet been tried in practice, but i s not bad at all . Now 9 . . . exd4 10 ilf4 0-

o 11 tlJxd4 seems rather uninspiring for Black and should be avoided. I suggest continuing with 9 . . . 0-0. White will probably play d4-d5 soon as keeping the tension does not yield any­thing : for example, 10 i.c3 is answered by 10 . . . tlJe4.

b} 9 WVxd2 0-0 10 b3? ! allows Black an easy game, but if you play 9 'ili'xd2 and don 't fol­low up with b3, then what was the point of taking with the queen in the first place? Here the routine 10 ... 'ili'e7 is playable of course, but rather lame compared to the central pawn push . Given the chance, Black should almost always use the opportunity to gain space, so correct is 10 . . . e4! :

bl) 11 tlJe1 d5 is excellent for Black, as 12 ilb2 a4! fal ls short for White. b2} 11 tlJg 5 d5 and Black was already the more comfortable in D.Jakovenko-M.Turov, So­

chi 2006. This game continued 12 ilb2 (12 cxd5 'ili'xd5 13 i.b2 h6 14 tlJh 3 ilxh 3 15 ilxh3 'iVxb3 is an insufficient pawn sacrifice for White) 12 . . . h6 13 tiJh3 (13 cxd5 'iVxd5 leads to the note above, but is still better than the game) 13 . . . a4! 14 cxd5 tlJa5 15 .l:i.ad1 axb3 (15 . . . tiJxb3 16 'it'c2 'iVd6 is also close to winning for Black} 16 .l:i.c1 ilxh3 17 ilxh3 tlJxd5 18 ilg2 .l:i.e8 and Black won convincingly. 8 . . . tlJe7

3 6 9

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

9 e4 Some alternatives for White: a) After 9 a3, besides just taking on d2 with a standard position, Black may al so experi­

ment with 9 . . . .i.cs ! ?, which has been tested only once in the game E.Chasovnikova­E.Borisova, Serpukhov 2008. Black actually threatens something here, namely pushing the e-pawn :

al) The concrete 10 ll:ib3 needs to be checked, but after 10 . . . .i.b6 11 cs ! ? (the point) 11. . . .i.a7 ! 12 .i.g s ll:ie4 Black is fine.

a2) In the game White stopped the e-pawn with the straightforward 10 e4 0-0 11 �e2 a4 12 ll:ib1 h6 13 ll:ic3 ll:ie8 14 ll:iel fs 1S ll:id3 .i.d4 and Black was fine.

b) In the game F.Doettl ing-H .Wirthensohn, German League 2003, White preferred a typical regrouping we'll al so seen later in the main game, 9 ll:ie1:

bl) Keeping the bishop with 9 . . . .i.cs is an interesting option . After 10 ll:id3 .i.a7 11 e4 White threatens c4-cS . Black can prevent that with 11. . .ll:id7 or initiate complications with 11. . .c6 12 cs ! ? (after a slow move like 12 .l:i.el Black has no problems by going 12 . . . cxds 13 cxds o-o and I actually prefer his position already) 12 . . . 0 -0 ! (a cool -headed move; Black can al so take on cs both ways, but this just develops quicker) 13 cxd6 ll:ig6 14 dxc6 �xd6 1S ll:ic4 �e6 16 ll:ixas bxc6, with compensation for the pawn due to the coming . . . .i.a6 and .. . l:tfd8. This i s far from being forced, of course, and the less committal 11. . .ll:id7 is a very good choice if you don't l ike the complications after 11. . .c6.

b2) In the actual game Wirthensohn didn't mind to give up the bishop by simply going 9 . . . 0-0 10 ll:id3 .i.xd2 11 .i.xd2 ll:ig6 (this i s playable, but I l ike 11. . . .i.fs even more, intending to exchange the bishop with . . . �d7 and . . . .i.h 3) 12 e4 ll:ie8 13 cs fs 14 f3 ll:if6.

3 70

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 Ci':i b d2

Black has obtained counterplay with . . .fs and White's bishops are not terribly danger­ous at the moment. White's main problem though is the knight on d3, which only fulfils defensive tasks. Wirthensohn's approach is certainly okay, but I 'd prefer to try 9 . . . ..ics for more interesting play.

9 . . . .id7

Not just an innocent developing move, as we will witness in the game. Note that Black does not castle yet. It is not a necessary move at the moment and delaying it allows some additional ideas. 10 Ci'Je1

This position has been reached only in this single game, so there are no other game samples to examine. Let's have a look at some other ideas, though:

a) 10 a3 asks the eternal question : to take or not to take? The more interesting option is 10 . . . ..ics 11 b3 c6 ! ? 12 'iie2 (12 .l:i.b1 cxds 13 cxds ..ibs can't be White's intention) 12 . . . 0-0 13 ..ib2 'iib6 and Black is fine, with about equal chances. In stead, 10 ... .ixd2 11 Ci'Jxd2 a4 is less enterprising , but playable . Note that clearly White's best move here i s 12 Ci'Jb1 ! , curing the bad position of his knight. You always need to consider this retreat - it very often is the best solution to White's coordination issues.

b) 10 'i!Ve2 c6 (10 . . . a4 is al so interesting) 11 a3 ..ics 12 Ci'Jb3 (not a great position for the knight, but played with a concrete idea) 12 . . . ..ia7 (12 . . . ..ib6? 13 cs ! is an important motif to avoid) 13 .ig s cxds 14 ..ixf6 gxf6 15 cxds and now 1s . . . bs or even 1s .. .fs is possible: for example, 15 .. .fs 16 Ci'Jbd2 o-o 17 '1ac1 .l:!.c8 18 exfs lllxfs . This not forced at all and both sides have various possible deviations. 10 . . . bs!

3 71

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln di a n

An excellent way t o gain activity for Black. I t makes good use of White's misplaced knights to grab space on the queenside. 11 b3

This has obvious drawbacks, as will become clear in the game. What are White's alter­natives?

After 11 �e2 we have: a) The immediate 11. . .c6 ! ? is interesting . A sharp sample line (of many possible) i s 12

dxc6 tt:Jxc6 13 tt:Jc2 lk8 ! 14 .l:!.d1 .i.g4 15 f3 .tcs+ 16 'it>h1 .i.e6 17 cxbs tbd4 18 tt:Jxd4 .txd4 and Black has compensation for the pawn .

b) 11. . .'iib8 12 tt:Jc2 o-o (12 . . . ..tcs? ! 13 tt:Jb3 .i.b6 14 .tg s is slightly awkward for Black; combining ... bs and ... 'iib6 with doubled f-pawns is not advisable) and now:

bl) Forcing the bishop to cs does not help much : 13 a3 .tcs 14 tt:Jb3 is very nice for Black after 14 . . . .i.g4 and there is no comfortable square for the white queen . Indeed, after 15

3 72

Bog o - ln dia n with 4 lLJ b d2

'i!Ve1 (1S 'i!Vd3? bxc4 16 'i!Vxc4 .i.b6 with . . . c6 to come is quickly becoming very unpleasant for White) 1S ... .i.b6 now 16 cxbs? is impossible due to 16 ... a4 17 ltJd2 .i.d7 when White is struggling to stay in the game.

b2) 13 ltJxb4 axb4 14 cs (the most interesting move for White; 14 cxbs .i.xbs 1S ltJc4 c6 16 dxc6 ltJxc6 17 .i.e3 ltJa5 18 b3 'i!Vc8 19 l:tfc1 'ilfe6 does not pose any problems for Black) 14 . . . dxcs 15 ltJb3 c4 16 ttJcs c6 and now White has two moves to keep the balance: 17 d6 (the other move is 17 i.d2 which might transpose to 17 d6 anyway, as with 17 ... l:td8 18 d6

ltJc8 19 .i.xb4 ltJxd6) 17 ... ltJc8 18 .i.d2 ltJxd6 19 i.xb4 l:td8 20 f4 ltJb7 (the cs-knight needs to be exchanged) 21 fxes (or 21 ltJxb7 'i!Vxb7 22 fxes ltJg4 23 i.d6 'ilfa7+ 24 �h1 'i¥e3 and Black is already slightly better) 21 . . . ltJxcs 22 exf6 ltJd3 23 ifh s ! 'iib6+ 24 @h1 'i!Ve3 2 5 fxg7 i.e6 26 es l:tds 27 .i.c3 ltJf2+ 28 l:txf2 'i!Vxf2 29 l:tf1 'ikc2 and Black is okay with White having some compensation, but probably not enough . Of course, that was a terribly long line, but the main point is to gain a feel for the typical ideas and manoeuvres. As there are not many practical examples to study, some deeper analysis of the not yet tested moves is helpful . 11 ... .i.c3 12 l:tbl b4

Black makes good use of the b3 move, planting the bishop right into White's camp. As Black is threatening to open the a-file too, White now stops it: 13 a4 hS !

Strong play. 14 h4

Almost forced as allowing Black to push . . . h S-h4 would not even keep an equal game.

After the text move it i s very difficult to make any short-term progress - some manoeu­vring is necessary. 14 ... ltJg4 15 ltJdf3

I suspect that White was not worried much about a possible ... g 7-g S break by Black, but was only asking himself how to reposition the awkward knight on d2. 1s ... c6

3 73

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

There aren't many levers left, but this is one of them . Going for . . .fs is al so possible, but due to the weaknesses created with . . . h s (lllf3-g S-e6), it needs to be timed carefully. Clarify­ing things on the queenside as in the game seems best to me. 16 .ib2

Opening the position with 16 dxc6 does not promise White too much . Black can even reply with the slightly weird concept 16 ... .ic8 ! ? 17 .ib2 .ixb2 18 .i::i.xb2 l::ta6 ! 19 J::!.d2 .i::i.xc6 20 cs J::i.h6 ! . You don't see that every day, but it's fine for Black. If that's too much creativity for you, though, just 16 . . . .ixc6 is okay as well . 16 . . . .ixb2 17 .i::i.xb2

17 ... cxds 18 exds After 18 cxds? o-o 19 lt:Jd2 .i::i.c8 the weakness of c3 would cause White long-term trou­

ble. He needs to recapture with the e-pawn as in the game. 18 ... 0-0 19 lt:lgs

A good regrouping . White needs to find a good defensive set-up here. With c4-cS as the only active plan being rather unrealistic, Black already has the more interesting ideas. He does not have an objective advantage, but I would rather be Black. He ' s got endgame­related ideas (queen side light-square targets for the bishop), and might push . . .f7-fS after good preparation . While . . .f7-fS might never be possible after precise White play, Black has got an idea at the very least, whereas White has a hard time coming up with any plan at all . 19 . . . 'i:Vb6 20 .if3 J::!.ac8 21 lllg2 g6 22 .i::i.e1 'it>g7 23 .i::i.d2 lllg8 24 'i:Va1 lll8f6 25 lt:Je3 Yz-Yz

This was the first game of a mini-match in one of the F IDE knock-out world champion­ship tournaments. Therefore a draw as Black was fine for Eingom, who easily could have played on if the situation dictated it. One plan for Black could be to reposition a knight to cs and try for . . .f7-f5 later. This is not at all easy to accomplish though and needs careful preparation . I think it is around equal , but certainly not a particularly drawish position.

3 74

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 ti:J bd2

Summary If White does not go for the bishops immediately with 5 a3, play often takes on a slow, stra­tegic character. There are no forced lines that are essential to memorize, just typical ideas

and plans. Quite often Black has the option to keep his dark-squared bishop and employ it on cs , which can easily turn out to be a good idea. The pawn play with ... bs and ... h s of the main game is also very noteworthy.

Game 38 V.lvanchuk-R.Kasimdzhanov

F IDE World C h a m pion s h i p, Tri pol i (ra pid) 2004

1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 ti:Jf3 i.b4+ 4 ti:Jbd2 0-0

3 75

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n di a n

Most of the time White now plays S a 3 t o collect the bishop-pair o r force the retreat. Our repertoire response is s . . . .i.e7, keeping the bishop. This continuation is the main line and examined in the following games. This game discusses all deviations on move s . One key point to understand is that not inserting the moves S a3 .i.e7 changes the situation regarding the break ... cs for Black. With the bishop still out on b4, this move cuts off its re­treat and forces Black to take on d2 if White plays a3 in response to ... cs. In most cases this i s perfectly acceptable, though, l ike in the main game.

5 g3 One of two major alternatives to s a3 : a) White al so plays S e3 rather frequently. Here my recommendation is to play s . . . d6,

which will transpose to the notes to move S in Sasikiran-Eingom (Game 37). This i s a sim­ple solution that reduces the workload for Black considerably. There are other lines like s . . . b6, of course, but I don 't think they are more rel iable than a .. . d6 set-up here.

b) S �c2 will transpose almost invariably to S a3 i..e7 6 �c2 (see the notes to the Game 39) or to s a3 .i.e7 6 e4 ds 7 �c2. Let's have a look at the details :

b1) I l ike to avoid things l ike s . . . cs 6 dxcs .i.xcs 7 a3 b6 8 b4 .i.e7 9 .i.b2 d6 10 g4, as in S.Mamedyarov-L.Dominguez Perez, London 2012. This position is not bad for Black, but White has more fun here.

b2) Against the early �c2 it i s quite logical to put a pawn in the centre, so s . . . ds i s indi­cated:

b21) One independent try is 6 g3 , after which 6 ... cs opens the game quickly and thus tries to exploit the early �c2 . After 7 dxcs .i.xcs 8 .i.g2 lLic6 9 o-o d4 10 liJb3 i..e7 11 .l:!.d1 es 12 e3 .i.g4 Black had active play in V.Topalov-M.Carl sen, Nice (rapid) 2008.

b22) The other move for White that does not transpose elsewhere in the book i s the modest 6 e3 . Now 6 . . . cs is right: for example, 7 a3 (or 7 dxcs .�hes 8 cxds 'ifxds 9 a3 .i.e7 10 b4 .i.d7 11 .i.b2 f!.c8 and Black was fine in V.Bogdanovski -N .Rashkovsky, Skopje 1991) 7 . . . .i.xd2+ 8 i..xd2 cxd4 9 exd4 (9 lLixd4 es 10 liJf3 lLic6 is also fine) 9 . . . dxc4 10 .i.xc4 .i.d7,

3 7 6

Bog o - l n d i a n with 4 0i b d2

intending to answer 11 o-o with 11 . . . .tc6 and a good game.

b23) White's main move is 6 a3, after which 6 . . . .te7 transposes to 6 'iWc2, as examined in the notes to Esen-Kotsur (Game 39). s . . . b6

This i s consistent with S a3 .fi.e7 6 g3 b6. If you insist on not fianchettoing your bishop and staying within the patterns of our other l ines you can al so play s ... d6, but this i s less

precise than on move 4. Indeed, if you are focused on . . . d6 types of positions, go instead for the immediate and more flexible 4 . . . d6. 6 .tg2 .fi.b7 7 0-0

Now Black is at a crossroads. The next move will set the tone of the further play.

1 . . . cs In the end I decided to go for this move as it fits my suggestion against the Catalan very

well . In most cases we will transpose to the exact same or similar positions as in the game Gevorgyan-Palac (Game 43) .

Alternatives : a) I al so explored an offbeat alternative that is perfectly playable as well . Black may de­

lay the ... cs break and go for 7 ... 'iWc8 ! ? . The main virtue of this move is the protection of the b7-bishop, while supporting a later . . . cs . After 8 a3 (or the immediate 8 'iWc2, after which I l ike the set-up starting with 8 . . . .txd2 9 .i.xd2 .i.e4 10 'iWc3 d6 11 .l::tad1 0ibd7 12 .l::tfe1 .l::te8 13 .tf4 as 14 .i.h 3 'iWa6, which demonstrates an additional point of . . . 'iWc8; Black was okay here in l . Nyzhnyk-A.Zude, Bad Worishofen 2010) 8 . . . .fi.e7 (8 . . . .i.xd2 9 'i¥xd2 .i.e4 is also vi ­able, with a slightly worse version of the set-up mentioned above) 9 'i¥c2 cs White has:

3 7 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d ia n

al) 10 e4 leads to a Hedgehog-type of position : 10 . . . cxd4 11 tt:lxd4 (or 11 es tt:lg4 12 .l:te1 f6 ! ? with interesting play) 11 . . . tt:lc6 ! ? 12 tt:Jxc6 �xc6 with about equal play.

a2) 10 ds ! ? is an enterprising way to deal with ... cs . This advance, often played as a full pawn sacrifice, has come into fashion in various l ines of the Queen's Indian . Here following 10 . . . exds 11 cxds .Jlxds 12 e4 .Jle6 (this is better than 12 . . . .Jlb7? ! 13 es tlle8 14 tt:le4, as played in M.Baekgaard-J .Carstensen, Danish League 2009; White has typical compensation here) 13 es Black has the more active reply 13 ... tt:Jds and White may have enough for the pawn, but it is less obvious than in the game mentioned above.

b) As a funny side note, even 7 ... .Jle7 ! ? is a viable and popular move here - not exactly an advertisement for the line S a3 .i.e7 6 g3 . Again, Black prepares . . . cs without having to deal with a3 forcing the capture on d2. As we will see in the main game, this is not a prob­lem, but some players have successfully experimented with keeping the bishop. 8 a3

The only critical test: a) 8 dxcs .ixcs is comfortable for Black. For more on this structure please see the note

on S dxcs in Gevorgyan-Palac (Game 43) . b) After 8 tt:lb3 cxd4 9 tt:lbxd4 Black may just build a Hedgehog starting with . . . a6, . . . .ie7

and . . . d6, or go for 9 . . . tllc6 10 .i.f4 tllxd4 11 tt:lxd4 �c8 12 'ilih3 ii.xg2 13 @xg2 �7+ 14 �f3 �xf3+ 1S tllxf3 .l:tac8 with simplification and equality in G .Bagaturov-V.Golod, Yerevan 2014. 8 . . . .ixd2 9 .ixd2

The most popular move here is actually 9 �xd2, after which Black goes 9 . . . cxd4 and we have reached the note to move 9 in the game Gevorgyan-Palac. The position after 9 .ixd2 is only possible in this pure Boga- Indian move order, as in the Catalan 1 d4 tllf6 2 c4 e6 3 g 3 .ib4+ 4 tt:Jd2 c s S a 3 .i.xd2+ 6 ii.xd2? just gives up d4 for n o compensation . 9 . . . cxd4 10 .ib4

The only ambitious move.

3 7 8

Bog o - J n d i a n with 4 tb b d2

Instead, 10 tb.xd4 .ixg2 11 @xg2 ds 12 .i.b4 .l:!.e8 is nothing for White. 10 . . . .l:!.eS 11 �xd4

Probably the most dangerous move here is 11 .id6.

Now Black has tried various moves, but failed to equalize. The important novelty to level the game is 11 ... tb.c6 ! . Let's have a look at some of White's possibilities :

a) 12 tb.xd4 !bas ! is one point. Now 13 .ixb7 lllxb7 14 l2Jb5 l2Je4 15 �d4 l2Jexd6 16 lllxd6 lllxd6 17 �xd6 .l:!.c8 is just as equal as it gets.

b) The only testing move is 12 llles : bl ) 12 . . . lllxes ? ! i s interesting, but after 13 .ixb7 l2Jxc4 14 .ixa8 �xa8 15 �xd4 �dS 16

�xds exds 17 .ib4 .l:!.xe2 18 b3 Black's compensation is only good enough to suffer for a draw at best.

b2) 12 ... �c8 13 .l:!.c1 lllxes (13 ... l:i.d8 ! ? i s more combative, threatening ... llle8 to fight the bishop on d6; after 14 l2Jxc6 dxc6 15 cs llle8 16 ..tf4 l2Jc7 White has compensation for the pawn, but the position is playable for Black and a way to unbalance the game if the drawish positions after 13 . . . lllxes are not acceptable under concrete circumstances) 14 .ixes .ixg2 15 \t>xg2 l2Jg4 16 'ifxd4 'iUc6+ 17 @g 1 lllxes 18 'ifxes d6 19 �d4 J:.ac8 and Black has equalized.

Instead, we have already looked at 11 l2Jxd4 .ixg2 12 \t>xg2 dS via 10 lllxd4 - it's still nothing for White. 11 . . . lllc6 12 �d6

3 79

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d ia n

The obvious move and the one that White has played in all three games that have reached this position. Now there is no great square for the black queen. 12 . . . .l:!.cS

The easiest move to play. An alternative for Black is 12 ... tt::Je4 13 'i1Vf4 ds 14 .l::tfdl, as was reached in l .Nyzhnyk-P.Schlosser, Haguenau 2013. There Black played 14 ... 'i1Vf6? ! (better is 14 ... l::tc8 when Black's pieces will become rather active with ... .ia6 imminent) 15 cxds lllxb4?! and now White missed the computerish 16 dxe6 ! with a clear advantage. 13 l::tfd1

Thi s gives White nothing, but I don 't see any improvements that make a difference: A good try for White i s 13 llld2 :

a) I tried to make 13 . . . es work, but it does not seem to be completely sufficient. 14 .l:!.ad1? ! .l::te6 15 'i1Vd3 lllxb4 16 axb4 .ixg2 17 'it>xg2 e4 is Black's idea, giving him excellent play, but critical is 14 ..ic3 lllas and now:

al) 15 .ixes is nothing special for White: 1s ... ..ixg2 16 'it>xg2 .l:!.e6 17 'i1Vd4 lllh s 18 'i1Vc3 (the best move; 18 .id6 'i1Vf6 19 'i1Vxf6 lllxf6 20 .ib4 .l::txe2 is nothing for White at all ) 18 ... ds 19 .l::tad1 'i1Ve8 20 .id4 dxc4 with interesting play and about equal chances.

a2) 15 .ixas sets Black some problems. After 1s . . . .ixg2 16 .ixb6 axb6 17 'it>xg2 .l:!.e6 18 'i1Vb4 ds Black has some compensation for the pawn, but not enough.

b) Black should be modest here and play 13 . . . lllxb4 14 ..ixb7 'i1Vc7 15 'i1Vxc7 .l:!.xc7 16 axb4 .l::txb7 with simplifications. Now a reasonable continuation is 17 e4 ds 18 es lllg4 19 .l::tfe1 .l::td8 20 h 3 lllh6 21 g4 'it>f8 intending . . . lllg8-e7 and Black regroups successfully. 13 . . . lllxb4

3 8 0

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 tiJ bd2

14 'ifxb4?! It was better for White to go 14 axb4! .txf3 15 .txf3 lixc4 16 lixa7 �8 17 lib7 (this is

forced after 14 axb4, otherwise White would even be worse) 17 . . . 'ifxd6 18 lixd6 lixb4 19 I:Idxb6 (19 I:Ibxb6? ! I:Ib8 ! i s slightly better for Black) 19 . . . lixb6 20 lixb6 dS and it 's equal . Black's centre and harmonious set-up compensates for the passed pawn. 14 ... �c7

14 . . . as 15 �3 lies was a bit more ambitious, but a draw was certainly okay for Black in this playoff game. 1s l:!.ac1 dS

This now equalizes completely. 16 tiJd4 a6 17 b3 lied8 18 �e1 dxc4 19 lixc4 "Yfie7 20 l:!.xc8 l:!.xc8

Here lvanchuk forgot to exchange on b7 first, which would have kept matters very drawish .

3 8 1

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

21 .Uc1?? 'iVxa3 22 .Uxc8+ ..txc8 23 'iVc3 .i.d7 24 .i.c6 White does not get any activity with 24 'iVC7?? due to 24 ... 'iVa1+.

24 ... 'iVcs 25 'iVxcs bxcs 26 .i.xd7 cxd4 27 .i.c6 as 0-1 And lvanchuk resigned this hopeless endgame.

Summary The early deviations on move 5 very often transpose to l ines that are examined el sewhere.

The main independent approach is the one with 5 g3 discussed here. Even this l ine often transposes to the Catalan Bogo and Gevorgyan-Palac (Game 43) . Black's main decision here is at move 7, where Kasimdzhanov's 7 . . . cs is a solid choice. It sometimes leads to positions though that are difficult to play for a win . If you want to keep things more complicated, the alternatives discussed on move 7 are good choices (or even move 4 with 4 . . . d6).

Game 39

B.Esen-P .Kotsur Tro m s¢ Olym piad 2014

1 d4 lt'lf6 2 c4 e6 3 ll:if3 il.b4+ 4 lt:Jbd2 o-o 5 a3 .i.e7

Overwhelmingly the main line i s now 6 e4, but White may al so play less directly. This game discusses all such deviations on move 6.

6 g3 Other possibil ities are: a) A solid and quite popular option for White is 6 e3 when Black has a wide choice. I

think a simple and good solution is 6 . . . cs : al) After 7 dxcs as ! ? (going for a Hedgehog with 7 . . . .i.xcs is al so fine of course) 8 b3

lt'la6 9 b4 b6 10 .i.b2 axb4 11 axb4 .i.b7 12 'iVb3 bxcs 13 b5 lt'lb4 Black was fine in

3 8 2

Bog o - ln d i a n with 4 tl:i b d2

V.Akobian-J . Friedel, Saint Louis 2014. He has active pieces and . . . ds will grab space in the

centre. a2) White may also try to hold the tension with 7 .i.d3 when again Black has various op­

tions . At first I was bit reluctant to recommend 7 ... ds, as the chosen repertoire rarely in­cludes both . . . cs and . . . ds . However, here it seems to be the best solution, leading to good piece play in the centre:

a21) 8 cxds cxd4 is completely harm less . a22) A very interesting middlegame unfolded after 8 o-o dxc4 9 tl:ixc4 bs ! ? 10 tl:iceS c4

11 .i.e2 .ib7 12 a4 a6 13 axbs axbs 14 .l:!.xa8 .i.xa8 lS b3 tl:ie4! and Black was fine in V. lnkiov-P.Nikoic, Zagreb 1987.

a23) 8 dxcs as ! i s the most important point.

Black intends taking on cs with the knight later, obtaining very active pieces: 9 cxds (9 o-o tl:ibd7 10 .i.c2 tt::lxcs 11 b3 dxc4 12 tt::lxc4 bS 13 tt::lces .i.b7 was played in V.Kunin­A.Delchev, Wunsiedel 2014, when Black had some extra space on the queen side, but it was still equal) 9 ... 'i'xds (there is nothing wrong with 9 ... exds either) 10 .i.c4 'i'xcs 11 b4 'i'c7

12 bS .l:!.d8 13 .i.b2 a4 14 o-o tt::lbd7 1s .l:!.c1 tt::lcs 16 'i'e2 b6 17 tt::les .i.b7 with about equal play in C.Sandipan-N .Short, Mumbai 2006.

b) 6 b4! ? grabs space on the queen side. As we play with . . . ds in the main line anyway, I suggest going 6 . . . ds . White now has a choice: to advance or keep the tension :

bl) 7 cs tt::le4 is concrete and strong . Black intends to go into a good Stonewall with .. .fs and possibly . . . .i.f6 to come. Moreover, taking on e4 is not advisable for White: 8 tt::lxe4? ! dxe4 9 tt::les (9 tt::lg1? was tried in V. Fedoseev-G.Palchun, St Petersburg 1997, when instead of Palchun 's 9 ... .i.f6, there was the powerful 9 ... e s ! with a distinct advantage for Black and one that easily grows to decisive proportions after 10 dxes ? 'i'xdl+ 11 'it>xdl as) 9 . . . b s ! and White needs to play ugly moves to stay in the game, like 10 h3 or 10 f4. Black is already the more comfortable.

b2) White may al so keep the tension with slower moves like 7 e3. A good response i s

3 8 3

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - J n d i a n

7 . . . b6, intending to break with . . . c s . I f White mechanically prevents that with 8 c s , Black goes for 8 . . . as 9 i.b2 c6, intending . . . i.a6 to exchange the problem piece. Black is okay here, as thi s structure is very comparable to the QG D with i.f4 (1 d4 ds 2 c4 e6 3 lt:Jf3 lllf6 4 lt:Jc3 i.e7 S i.f4 o-o 6 e3 lllbd7 7 cs c6 8 i.d3 b6 9 b4 as 10 a3 i.a6), but with White's bishop being on b2 instead of f4 there is less pressure on Black, and even this QG D line i s quite comfortable for him.

b3) 7 'ii'c2 i s more flexible. A simple response i s 7 . . . c6, again intending to go 8 cs as 9 i.b2 .

Play is similar to the l ine above. In general 6 b4 should not trouble Black, but i t i s an ear­ly creative try by White that leads to interesting play.

c) White sometimes goes for 6 'ii'c2, after which 6 ... ds is the most rel iable move. Now there is a further divide:

cl) 7 e4 will transpose to the line 4 lllbd2 o-o s a3 i.e7 6 e4 dS 7 'ii'c2. c2) Against slower moves I recommend playing for a quick . . . cs to open up the position,

trying to exploit the early queen move: for example, 7 g3 cs (this is a novelty, surprisingly; of course, moves like 7 ... b6 are playable as well , leading to hanging pawns in the long run) 8 dxcs as 9 i.g2 lllbd7 10 o-o lllxcs and with . . . b6, . . . i.b7 and .. Jk8 coming, Black i s fine.

c3) In most cases White plays 7 e3 , after which again I recommend the direct 7 . . . cs 8 dxcs (8 cxds exds 9 dxcs as 10 .l:!.b1 a4 transposes) 8 . . . as 9 cxds exds 10 l:tb1 a4 11 lt:Jd4 'ii'as 12 b4 axb3 13 lt:J4xb3 'ii'a4 and Black will regain the pawn in a few moves, keeping active pieces and equalizing .

Returning to 6 g 3 :

3 84

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 tb bd2

6 ... b6 Not the only move, of course. Indeed, a solid way to proceed is 6 ... ds 7 i..g 2 b6 8 o-o

i..b7, but I want to avoid l ines with hanging pawns for this book. This pawn structure i s

more typical of the Queen 's Indian and I feel i t i s not a practical decision to go for i t and study the strategical points of it just for a rather rare sideline.

If you want a completely non-theoretical , long battle, there is al so 6 . . . d6 7 i..g 2 'Dbd7 8 o-o es with an Old Indian set-up. White has the extra moves a3 and the especially useless 'Dbd2. He has al so fianchettoed, which isn't considered to be most testing approach against the Old Indian . If you don 't mind this general type of position, it's a good way out of charted waters and to just play a game of chess. 7 i..g2 i..b7 8 0-0

The most natural , but there also is the immediate 8 'it'c2, which Black should answer with the usual 8 ... cs :

a ) 9 0-0 cxd4 is nothing for White and 10 'Dxd4 i..xg2 11 �xg2 'it'c7 with . . Jk8 to follow is a good set-up. Both the queen and the knight are misplaced for White.

b) 9 e4 cxd4 10 es ? ! (10 'Dxd4 was still okay for White) 10 ... 'Dg4 11 o-o 'it'c7 12 J::te1 i..cs 13 �d3 'Dc6 and Black was already much better in G .Vojinovic-B.Smith, Skopje 2011.

c) 9 dxcs bxcs 10 o-o tbc6 11 J::td1 �6 12 'Db3 as and Black is fine here, going on to win in S.Conquest-M.Piper, London 2009.

Instead, a rare and recently tried move is 8 b4, but after 8 . . . cs 9 bxcs bxcs 10 o-o cxd4 Black already has the superior structure and went on to win quickly following 11 'Db3 'Dc6

12 'Dbxd4 'Das 13 'il!Va4 .l::tc8 14 'Db3 'Dxc4 1s 'il!Vxa7 i..ds 16 'il!Vd4 tbe4 17 'il!Vd3 i..f6 18 'Dbd4 'Des 19 'il!Vd1 i..xf3 20 exf3 i..xd4 21 'il!Vxd4 'Db3 22 'il!Vc3 'Deas 23 'il!Vb2 'Dxal 24 'il!Vxal 'Db3, and White resigned in l .Naumkin-A.Delchev, Forni di Sopra 2014. s . . . cs

3 8 5

Ope n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

9 dS!? The most aggressive move and the only one after which concrete knowledge of lines i s

clearly helpful : a) By far the most popular move is the tame 9 b3 , after which Black is comfortable. The

knight on d2 makes White's set-up completely toothless after 9 . . . cxd4: al) The simple recapture 10 lt:Jxd4 sees Black easily obtain a comfortable game:

10 . . . i.xg2 11 @xg2 'iic8 (the typical queen manoeuvre after the exchange, after which Black may choose between a Hedgehog set-up and playing . . . ds early, simplifying in the centre; we now see an example of the Hedgehog approach, which I prefer) 12 i.b2 'iih7+ 13 @g1 a6 14 lt:J2f3 d6 15 .l:i.c1 lt:Jbd7 16 b4 .l:i.fc8.

This was played in E .Rapoport-5 .Halkias, Tallinn 1997. It's about equal , but the position still offers good chances to fight for a win later, whereas an early ... ds i s much less combat­ive.

3 8 6

Bog o - l n d i a n with 4 li:J b d2

a2) 10 i.b2 tries to keep some tension in the position. Then 10 . . . \\\Vc7 11 ..txd4 d6 sets up the Hedgehog . Even if you don 't regularly play this structure, it is worth becoming familiar with it to some extent. In the whole Nimzo/Bogo/QI D complex Hedgehog structures ap­pear quite frequently, often in rather favourable forms compared to the concrete l ines aris­ing from the Symmetrical English or even the Sicil ian .

Here White's pieces are simply too passively placed to cause Black any di scomfort. In addition his insufficient control over ds allows the simplifying . . . ds advance if Black just wants to equalize without much of a fight. Let's look at a sample game to better under­stand this type of position . It is not so much about concrete moves/lines, but about general ideas and set-ups: 12 .l:!.c1 li:Jbd7 13 \\\Vc2 .l:!.fe8 14 i.b2 .l:!.ac8 1S \\\Vb1 \\\Vb8 16 .l:!.fd1 \\\Va8.

This is a set-up to remember. Black finds a good spot for the queen and always has the option to prepare the . . . ds and . . . bs breaks if desired. The game P.Cramling-P.Carl sson, Vasteras 2011, continued 17 li:Je1 a6 18 b4 .l:!.c7 (after White has played b4, piling up on the c-pawn is logical} 19 i.xb7 \\\Vxb7 20 t?Jg2 .l:!.ec8 21 \\\Vd3 as 22 e4 h6 23 t?Je3 t?Jes 24 \\\Vb1 axb4 2S axb4 li:Jed7 26 \\\Vd3 t?Jes 27 \\\Vb1 h S ! 28 h4 li:Jfg4. I have shown the game up to this point because this . . . h s idea is very instructive. I already slightly prefer Black here, which is confirmed by Houdini. Be patient, though, in the Hedgehog structures and pick your spots to fight later in the game. Remember too that it's difficult to 'do nothing' as White, so very often you'll get a fight simply because White will go for something.

Here 21 . . . t?Jg4! ?, intending . . . t?Jges, i s interesting as well . There i s some fight in these positions, despite the rather defensive look of the Hedgehog formations. Very often a prac­tical idea for Black is to shuffle around a bit, if possible probing here and there, and in the process simply letting the clock run down . Only when the time is lower for White or both sides, do you try for something concrete. Don 't be afraid to do 'nothing' in a Hedgehog for a while - there is still time later to do something.

b} White has al so tried 9 dxcs , but after 9 . . . bxcs 10 b3 as 11 i.b2 a4 the position already looked slightly more comfortable for Black in E .Schiendoerfer- 1 . Krush, Caleta 2012. This

3 8 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d i a n

game continued 12 �c2 axb3 13 tLixb3 .i.e4 1 4 �c3 d 6 1S lLibd2 i.c6 1 6 tLie1 .i.xg2 17 ttJxg2 lLic6 when White struggled with the weak a-pawn and no constructive plan . 9 . . . exds

There is no choice as allowing White to support the centre with e2-e4 would just be too terrible for the b7-bishop. 10 lLih4

This typical pawn sacrifice is certainly less dangerous with a knight on d2 compared to other positions : for example, 1 d4 lLif6 2 c4 e6 3 tLif3 b6 4 g 3 i.b7 s i.g2 cs ! ? 6 dS exds 7 lLih4 when White still has lLic3 available. Nevertheless, in our actual position from the Boga, Black still has to be precise.

10 . . . g6 Instead, 10 . . . .i.c6 11 cxds tLixds 12 tLifs allows the knight to appear on fs, which always

gives White dangerous play. Don't underestimate his practical chances, even if you are confident in your defensive abilities . After 12 . . . ttJc7 13 e4 .i.f6 14 .l:!.e1 Black is under pres­sure. The engine wants to go 14 . . . g6, claiming equality, but I feel White's play is dangerous. In the game Zhao Xue-T.Kosintseva, Nalchik 2011, Black came under heavy fire following 14 . . . d6? 1S ttJc4 ds 16 ttJcd6 dxe4 17 �g4 'it>h8 18 tLixe4 lLie6 19 .i.e3 lLid7 20 .l::i.ad1 .l:!.b8 21 l:td6 i.xe4 22 .i.xe4 �c7? 23 tLixg7 ! (a very nice shot) 23 . . . .l:!.g8 24 �d1 .l::i.xg7 2S .l::i.xd7 �es 26 .i.h6 �xb2 27 .i.xg7+ tLixg7 28 .l::!.xf7 .i.d4 29 �f3 and Kosintseva resigned. Kotsur's move in the game is more reliable, shutting down the tLifs option. 11 tLib1!?

Did I mention the knight is misplaced on d2? This i s a very creative move, but also Hou­dini's top choice. Maybe the white player even prepared it at home.

In an earlier game, the more direct 11 cxds .i.xds 12 e4 .i.c6 13 es lLie8 14 ttJdf3 tLia6 was tried. We have been following the game A.Gupta-P.Vishnu, Dubai 2012, where White's compensation was insufficient, mostly due to the knights stepping on each other's toes. Now Gupta continued 1S �d2? ! ttJac7 16 �6 lLie6 17 .l::i.d1 and here, instead of 17 . . . �c7,

3 8 8

Bog o - l n d ian with 4 tb b d2

which still kept a substantial advantage, Black could have gone 17 . . . tb8g7 which pretty much wins on the spot, the threat being, amongst others, . . . g s . 11 • • . t:Dh5!

An excellent solution by Kotsur. The following sequence of moves results in an attrac­tive position for Black, but I don't see any great way for White to improve. 12 .txd5

Houdini suggests the not very human move 12 g4!? . It is nothing special for White, though, after 12 ... .txh4 13 gxh s tbc6 14 cxds tbd4 when Black is the better developed and has the sounder pawn structure. 12 ... .txd5 13 'it'xd5 tbc6 14 tLJf3 t:Df6 15 'it'd1

15 'it'd3 ds is similar to the game. 15 . . . d5

Black has no problems at all here. White has no serious weaknesses though, resulting in an about equal position. 16 'it'a4!

16 cxds? ! 'iVxds 17 �xds tLJxds is l ess precise, with a quick . . . .tf6 and pressure on the queen side to follow. 16 ... tba5 17 .th6 .l:.e8 18 cxd5 'iVxd5 19 tbc3 �c4 20 �xc4 t:Dxc4 21 .l:.ab1 .tf8 22 .txf8 @xf8 23 .l:.fc1 .l:.ad8

Black's position is somewhat the easier to play with the active knight on c4 and the pawn majority on the queen side being a possible asset later on . White still should draw, though, with precise play. 24 .l:.c2 .l:.d7 25 @f1 tbg4 26 @g1 .l:.ed8 27 h3 tbge5 28 t:Dxe5 t:Dxe5 29 @f1 f5 30 @e1 @f7 31 .l:.cc1 .l:.e7 32 .l:.d1 tbf3+ 33 @f1 t:Dd2+ 34 @e1 .l:.ed7 3 5 .l:.bc1 'it>e6 36 h4 h6 37 .l:.c2 tbb3 38 .l:.xd7 .l:.xd7

3 8 9

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

It's not much fun for White, but h i s drawing chances are still very real istic. 39 e3?!

39 lba2 was more stubborn, trying to get rid of the b3-knight. 39 . • . gs 40 hxgs hxgs 41 @e2 g4 42 f3 gxf3+ 43 @xf3 @es 44 g4?

Now White is lost. In stead, 44 @e2 still put up serious resistance. 44 . . .fxg4+ 4S @xg4 .l:!.d2!

After the rook trade White's pawns will be too vulnerable. 46 .l:!.xd2 lbxd2 47 @g3 lbc4 48 b4 lbxa3 49 bxcs bS so @f3 b4 s1 lba4 lbc4 s2 @e2 @ds S3 @d3 lbes+ S4 @c2 @c4 SS @b2 lbd3+ S6 @c2 lbxcs s1 lbb2+ @ds ss lbd1 a6 s9 lbf2 as 60

lbg4 a4 61 @b2 lbd3+ 62 @c2 @c4 63 e4 @d4 64 lbf6 b3+ 6S @b1 a3 66 lbds a2+ 67 @a1 lbe1 0-1

Summary Against g3 l ines I recommend going with a . . . b6 based set-up. This approach, often leading to Hedgehog-style positions, i s sl ightly different strategically than most other lines in the book. However, the ensuing positions are objectively rather harmless for Black and there­fore I feel this line i s a good spot to explore some middlegame types that are atypical for this book. In the main game White avoided the Hedgehog structure with the d4-d5 pawn sacrifice, but Kotsur's precise play defused that completely. He achieved easy equality with chances for more, ultimately winning the slightly better endgame.

Game 40

E.Levin-A.Goganov C h igori n Me moria l , St Pete rs b u rg 2014

1 d4 lbf6 2 c4 e6 3 lbf3 .ib4+ 4 lbbd2 o-o S a3 i..e7 6 e4

3 9 0

Bog a - In d ian with 4 ti:J bd2

The most principled and dangerous continuation . We have seen that other approaches by White don't challenge Black's set-up fundamentally, whereas after 6 e4 the play can become very sharp and concrete, so preci se knowledge plays a much larger role than in other l ines presented in this book.

6 . . . d s Initiating a complicated struggle i n the centre. An alternative is the more restrained 6 ... d6. Most of the time Black is going for an Old

Indian structure where he hopes to prove that the tempi lost with ... .ib4-e7 and ... e6-eS are compensated by White's bad knight on d2. This is a valid approach that has recently gained

some popularity, mostly due to the fact that not all black players like to face 9 h4, as ana­lysed in Game 42. If you don 't mind the Old Indian pawn structure this approach is viable as it leads to long , complicated games that offer chances to outplay an opponent in the long run . Objectively speaking though, I believe that 6 . . . ds is the better move. Indeed, if want to you look for an alternative option to 6 . . . ds, the early 4 . . . d6 examined in Games 36 and 37 seems best.

7 es This is the most natural move and nowadays considered as the only critical try. The

keep-the-tension moves have been defused: a) 7 'Wic2 dxe4 8 ti:Jxe4 with a choice for Black: al) The less forcing move 8 ... ti:Jbd7 is fine: for example, 9 .id3 (9 ti:Jxf6+ ti:Jxf6 10 .id3 b6

is a satisfactory version of the Rubinstein French for Black; unlike there, White is commit­ted to c4 and cannot castle long anymore) 9 . . . ti:Jxe4 10 .ltxe4 fS ! (a concept worth noting; Black takes over the initiative in the centre) 11 .id3 cs 12 .te2 cxd4 13 ti:Jxd4 ti:Jf6 14 ti:Jf3 'ilic7 15 o-o .id? 16 b3 .tc6 17 .tb2 Ci:Jg4 18 g 3 .ie4 19 'Wic1 f4 and Black was on the way to winning with a quick mating attack (a rare sight in the Boga) in E .Schiendoerfer-0.Sangupta, Biel 2012.

a2) The more direct way to play is 8 . . . ti:Jc6 9 .lte3 (9 .ltd3 ti:Jxd4 10 ti:Jxd4 'Wixd4 11 ti:Jxf6+

3 9 1

O p e n i n g Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

i.xf6 12 .i.xh7+ @h8 13 .i.e4 .i.d7 14 .l:!.b1 .i.c6 1S .i.xc6 bxc6 16 .i.e3 'ii'es was equal in C .Hansen-A.Yusupov, Munich 1992) and then :

a21) The simple 9 . . . tl'ixe4 10 'i!Vxe4 fs 11 'i!Vd3 .i.f6 12 o-o-o es should equalize, but offers few chances for an interesting game.

a22) After 9 . . . ll'ig4 10 .i.d3 fS 11 ll'ic3 .i.f6 12 o-o-o g6 13 h3 tl'ixe3 14 fxe3 .i.g7 1s @b1 .l:!.b8 16 h4 h S a very double-edged position was reached in V.Bologan-D.Jakovenko, Poik­ovsky 2007. The computer clearly prefers White here, but Black's chances are not to be un­derestimated. If you dislike this position too much, though, there are some earlier alterna­tives.

b) The other move to keep the tension is 7 .td3, after which Black goes 7 . . . cs : bl ) 8 es ll'ifd7 will transpose to the main l ine. b2) 8 dxcs leads to mass exchanges. After 8 . . . dxe4 9 tl'ixe4 tl'ixe4 10 .i.xe4 'i!Vxd1+ 11

'it>xd1 Black has a few moves:

3 9 2

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 tiJ b d2

b21) Black should avoid 11. . .il.xcs, as after 12 b4 White has the more comfortable game. b22) The most precise continuation is 11 . . . as . The game B.Gelfand-V. lvanchuk, Biel

2009, continued 12 il.f4 il.xcs 13 We2 fS 14 il.c2 0ic6 1S .l:!.hd1 a4 16 @fl b6 and it was about equal .

Returning to 7 es : 7 ... 0ifd7

We have arrived at an important crossroads. 8 b4

The major alternative for White is 8 il.d3, as discussed in the following two games. With

b4, White grabs as much space as possible on the queenside, cramping Black. This is only temporary, though, as with precise, active play Black can obtain good counter-chances. This needs to be initiated with : s . . . as 9 bs cs

Usually in our repertoire the centre i s closed and play is initiated on the flanks. This is not the case here - we have huge tension in the centre with the pawn pack {c4, d4, cs and dS) ready to change the structure at any moment. The important question for White i s now: to keep the tension or exchange on ds . 10 il.b2

The important alternative i s 10 cxds exds 11 il.d3 to which 11 . . . cxd4 is the most straightforward reply.

3 9 3

Op e n ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

Black clarifies the central situation and does not commit h i s pieces before the central pawn structure is defined. Now:

a) 12 if c2 tickles the h-pawn . While admittedly ... h6 i s not a very helpful move for Black, it is not clear that the queen is well placed on the c-file. After 12 ... h6 13 tl'ib3 a4 14 tl'ibxd4 tl'ics 15 i.e3 now 1S ... tl'ibd7, similar to the main game, is fine and leads to a complicated battle. In stead, 15 . . . tl'ixd3+ is simple and al so good: 16 ifxd3 ll'id7 17 ll'ifs tl'ics 18 tl'ixe7+ ifxe7 19 i.xcs (19 ifxds? ll'ib3 20 I:f.a2 .ifs is excellent for Black} 19 . . . 'iVxcs 20 o-o i.d7 21 I:f.abl I:f.fc8 and Black was pretty comfortable in l .Smirin -A.Demchenko, S t Petersburg 2012.

b} 12 ll'ib3 is the main move: bl} A recent approach here is 12 ... 'iVC7, after which 13 o-o tl'ixes 14 tl'ixes ifxes 15 If.el

gives White clear compensation . I think Black should avoid this , though, as White had all the fun in A. l stratescu-D.Navara, Haguenau 2013.

b2} Black should go for 12 . . . a4, which leads to sharp play after 13 tl'ibxd4 tl'ics 14 i.c2 (or 14 o-o tl'ibd7 and play will almost certainly transpose to 14 i.c2) 14 ... ll'ibd7 15 o-o tl'ib6.

3 9 4

Bog o - l n d i a n with 4 0i bd2

Black has obtained very good, natural outposts for the knights. With the white knight being on d4, any plan with .. . b6 and . . . j,,b7 i s out of the question, so Black goes for devel ­opment with . . . 0ib6 and . . . j,,d7. Here:

b21) The simple approach with 16 tiJfs? ! didn't amount to much after 16 . . . ..txfs 17 kxfs 0ib3 18 l:ta2 g6 19 .ic2 0ixc1 20 1!1Vxc1 1!1Vc7 21 1!1Vb1 0ic4 and Black was already better in l .Dorfanis-M.Szymanski, lkaros 2003.

b22) White al so tried 16 1!1Ve2 lle8 17 l!d1 Jtg4 18 h3 kh s 19 g4 (the flashy 19 .txh7+ doesn 't lead too far after 19 . . . 'it>xh7 20 0ig s+ kxg s 21 'ilVxh s+ j,,h6 22 j,,xh6 g6 23 'ilVg s 1!1Vxg s 24 .txg s lhes , reaching a level endgame) 19 . . . kg6 20 tiJfs j,,f8, with unclear play in B.Dubessay-R.Graca, Nimes 2012. White has played aggressively, but has weakened himself in the process. Black has good outposts on b6, cs and c4 and additional counterplay against the es-pawn .

b23) The most important continuation is 16 lle1 lle8 17 h3 and now 17 . . . .td7, as in 1 .Cheparinov-N .Vitiugov Moscow 2011, i s perfectly fine for Black. There's al so 17 . . . 0ic4 18 Jtf4 1!1Vb6 19 tiJfs .txfs 20 kxfs l:tad8, simply allowing tiJfs .

White now needs to be precise, as otherwise Black will get the advantage quickly: 21 tiJg S ! (the only move to keep the balance) 21 . . . g6 22 e6 .txg s 23 .ixg s, and now 23 . . .fxe6 (23 . . . gxfs ? was mistaken in J .Gonzalez Garcia-A.Alvarez Pedraza, Barcelona 2011) 24 kxd8 1!1Vxd8 2S kg4 b6 gives Black good compensation for the minimal material investment. The position should be about equal here.

We now return to 10 kb2 : 10 . . . cxd4

Activating the queenside pieces as quickly as possible. Black may al so play 10 ... b6, but in comparison this feel s too passive to me.

3 9 5

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d ia n

11 .ixd4 The most popular move. There are alternatives, but very often they will transpose to the

game position quickly or just are less testing for Black: a) Inserting the exchange with 11 cxd5 exd5 helps Black, who gains the additional op­

tion of ... .i.g4. The worst that can happen to him is a transposition to the structure of the main game. 12 .ie2 a4 13 .ixd4 'Llc5 14 o-o .ig4 15 .ib2 'Llbd7 was the course of P.Schlosser-M.Wahls, German League 1997, and Black is very comfortable here.

b) 11 .ie2 'Llc5 12 .ixd4 transposes to the main game, while 12 'Llxd4 'Llbd7 13 'Ll4f3 b6 14 cxd5 exd5 is the same structure with a slight twist. Now 15 'Llf1 ! ? .ib7 16 'Lle3 f6 17 exf6 .ixf6 18 .ixf6 'Llxf6 was fine for Black in G .Sargissian-5. Fedorchuk, German League 2006. He has active, centralized pieces and the isolated pawn isn't a serious weakness. 11 . . . 'Llcs 12 .ie2 'Llbd7

13 0-0

3 9 6

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 0. bd2

In this l ine there are many possible move orders for White, but the good thing from Black's point of view is : whatever White plays, Black's reply is always similar. Let's look at some of those alternatives :

a) 13 'iVc2 b6 14 cxds exds lS o-o i..b7 is very similar to the main game. As mentioned below, I believe Black is perfectly fine here, with even the easier game to play in practice. Let's examine further:

al) 16 .l:.acl 0.e6 17 i..b2 .l:.c8 18 'iVfs 0.dcS 19 0.d4 and now 19 . . . i..g S ! improves upon B.Macieja-M.Bartel, Warsaw 2010. After 20 f4 0.xd4 21 i..xd4 0.e6 22 i..b2 (22 i..e3? 1:1.xcl 23 .l:.xcl d4! wins for Black) 22 ... .l:.xcl 23 .ixcl g6 24 'iYg4 .ie7 Black is slightly better.

a2) The strongest players that have reached this position went for 16 1:1.fel, but 16 ... I:l.c8 17 �2 0.e6 18 i..e3 0.dcs (there is al so the very direct 18 . . .f6 ! ?, with complications ahead} 19 1:1.acl fS ! ? (active play, leading to a rather unclear position) 20 0.b3 f4 21 i..d2 0.e4 22 I:l.xc8 'iVxc8 23 0.fd4 0.xd4 (instead of the blunder 23 . . . a4? 24 i..g4, with a winning position for White in A.Dreev-D.Bocharov, Tomsk 2006} 24 0.xd4 0.xd2 2S 'iVxd2 i..xa3 is just better for Black; White doesn 't have adequate compensation for the pawn.

b} After 13 a4 Black just should avoid 13 . . . 0.b6 14 'iVc2 0.xc4? lS i..xc4 dxc4 16 0.xc4, which left him in trouble in E .Bareev-D. Bocharov,Kazan 200S. Better is 13 ... b6, as in the main game. Now 14 'iVc2 i..b7 lS o-o I:l.c8 16 1:1.acl h6 17 'iVa2 0.e4 gave Black the upper hand already in A.Huzman-M.Adams, Rogaska Slatina 2011. The additional option of ... i..b4 after White's a4 is very useful . 13 . . . b6

This i s the best set-up. It stabilizes the outpost on cs and prepares . . . i..b7. 14 cxds exds

I know this sounds optimistic, but I actually believe Black is already for choice. It's no ob­jective advantage, but his position is much easier to play: es is a target ( . . . I:l.e8, . . . i..f8, . . . g6 and . . . i..g7 is a clear plan}, and compared to that White's play is less obvious.

15 .l:.e1

3 9 7

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

Here 15 'iVc2 leads to a position already examined via the 13 'iVc2 move order. 1s ... a4

An interesting novelty at the time. Black does not commit his bishop to b7 yet, but plays a useful move on the queenside. He takes b3 under control and fixes White's pawn on a3, which will always be eyed by the bishop on e7.

There is nothing wrong with 1s . . . .i.b7 either. There are two examples of this natural move:

a) After 16 .i.b2 .l:!.c8 17 .i.f1 et::Je6 18 et::Jb3 et::Jdcs 19 et::Jbd4 et::Jxd4 (19 . . . et::Je4! ? is more ambi­tious) 20 et::Jxd4 et::Je6 21 'ifg4 i.cs 22 .l:!.ad1 'iVg s Black had equalized in A.Shabalov­G .Shahade, New York 2011.

b) White has al so tried 16 'iVb1? ! .l:!.e8 17 .i.d1 .i.f8 18 i.c2, but this whole regrouping with 'iVb1 and .i.d1-c2 does not make a lot of sense when Black is ready to play . . . g6 . After 18 ... g6 19 a4 .l:!.c8 20 'iVb2 et::Je6 21 i.b3 i.g7 in Zhou Jianchao-D.Bocharov, Moscow 2007,

Black had completed his regrouping with an already substantial advantage. 16 i.f1

Lending support to es , but al so a first sign that White lacks an active plan . 16 ... et::Je6 17 i.b2 et::Jdcs 18 et::Jd4

White feels like his knights are standing on each other's toes, so he tries to exchange one of them. Note that Black's . . . a4 move took away the b3-square from the d2-knight. 18 ... et::Jxd4 19 i.xd4 .i.fs

One point of the early . . . a4 - Black's bishops have good diagonals . 20 'iff3

There are alternatives obviously, but Black's play is connected with . . . et::Je6 and . . . i.cs al ­most all of the time. A sample l ine runs 20 .l:!.c1 et::Je6 21 i.b2 i.cs 22 et::Jf3 i.g4 with good play for Black. 20 . . • i.g6 21 'ife3 .l:!.e8 22 g3 et::Je6 23 i.g2?

23 ii.xb6 ?? d4 was even worse and 23 et::Jf3 was necessary: for example, 23 . . . i.cs 24 .l:!.ad1

3 9 8

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 0. bd2

.ie4 2s .txcs bxcs 26 l:rd2 and White i s still i n the game. 23 ... .tc5?

The simple 23 . . . 0.xd4 24 'iVxd4 .tcs would have given Black a huge advantage: for ex­ample, 2s 'iVf4 (2s 'iVxds ?? 'ifxds 26 .ixds .l:!.ad8 blunders a piece) 2s . . . 'ifd7 26 .if1 'iffs 27 'iVxfs .ixfs with a fantastic endgame for Black. The two bishops, targets l ike a3, es and bs, and the passed d-pawn are worth a lot. 24 .txc5 bxc5

Black is still for choice here, but it is not as good as 2 3 . . . 0.xd4 would have been . 25 'iff3?!

2S .l:!.ed1 was better, intending 0.c4. It's not much fun for White, but he is not in big trouble here. 25 ... .l:!.a7 26 'ifc3 .l:!.d7 27 .l:!.ad1 ilh5 28 .l:!.b1 'i¥b6 29 'ife3 0.d4

White has lost ground step by step over the last few moves. His position is now critical and with the next move matters become very easy for Black. 30 @h1?? 0.c2 31 'ifg5 0.xe1 32 .l:!.xe1 .tg6 33 f4 .id3 34 f5 'ifh6 3 5 'iVxh6 gxh6 36 ilh3 .txb5 37 e6 fxe6 38 fxe6 .l:!.d6 39 0.f3 d4 4o @g1 .tc4 41 e7 d3 42 0.d2 .tf7 43 .l:!.e4 c4 0-1

Summary A general conclusion about this set-up, characterized by White playing an early b4 and .tb2, is that Black obtains some key squares for his pieces (cs and often e6 for the knights), and a ready-made target to attack in the pawn on es . He needs to decide whether to place

the bishop on fS/g4 or on b7. Both plans are viable most of the time, as we have seen on move 1S in the main game. One key problem for White i s that he does not have a simple, apparent plan available. I quite like Black in this line, at least from a practical point of view - his position is just easier to play.

3 9 9

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

Game 41

l .Nyzhnyk-M.Bluvshtein G roni ngen Open 2000

1 d4 tt:'if6 2 c4 e6 3 tt:'if3 i..b4+ 4 tt:'ibd2 o-o 5 a3 i..e7 6 e4 dS 7 es White sometimes starts with 7 cxds exds 8 es tt:'ifd7 9 i..d3, leading to the game posi ­

tion . In fact that was the actual move order of the game given here, but I have changed it to the more normal one to include those sidelines where White delays the capture on ds . 7 .. . tt:'ifd7 8 i..d3

Instead, 8 cxds exds 9 i.d3 is an alternate road to the main game, while 8 b4 was ex­amined in Levin-Goganov (Game 40), above. s . . . cs

9 cxds Compared to the space-gaining approach of Levin-Goganov, White relies on fluent piece

play in the centre. The position can be compared to a French Defence - it looks just like a French Tarrasch , but with White's c-pawn exchanged for Black's e-pawn . On a very abstract level this seems excellent for Black, as the light-squared bishop is not a problem anymore. The concrete lines, however, are far from clear.

White has al so tried to delay the exchange and develop first with 9 o-o tt:'ic6 10 .l:f.e1 as . This i s very similar to the main game, but, of course, the exchange on ds has not been played. This allows White to play 11 tt:'ib3, after which 11. . .dxc4 12 i..xc4 a4 13 tt:'ixcs tt:'ixcs 14 dxcs 'iWxd1 15 .l:!.xd1 tt:'ias 16 i..a2 i..xcs was solid for Black in R. Leitao-R.Hungaski, Mar del Plata 2012.

Here the more interesting move is 11. . .b6 12 i..f4 dxc4 13 i.xc4 a4 14 tt:'ibd2 (14 dS ! ? exds 15 i..xds tt:'idb8 16 tt:'ic1 .l:ta7 17 i..e4 'iWxd1 18 .!:txd1 tt:'ias is an interesting alternative, leading to about equal play) 14 ... cxd4 15 i..bs i..b7 16 i..xc6 i..xc6 17 tt:'ixd4 i..ds 18 iVg4

4 0 0

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 t[J b d2

'it>h8 and Black had the bishop-pair in K.Sasikiran-M.Adams, I stanbul Olympiad 2012. This position is probably about equal too, but at least Black knows that in the long term he is fine. Another try for White i s 11 i..c2, but Dominguez Perez had no problems with both 11. . . .l::te8 and 11. . .'11Vc7, played on subsequent days( ! ) versus Giri and Gelfand in the Khanty­Mansiysk Grand Prix 2015 .

In stead, White's most aggressive move and probably the critical test of the whole l ine at the moment is 9 h4, which is examined in Wagner-Socko (Game 42), below. An important point to remember is that 9 Qc2 should be answered with 9 ... h6, which will very l ikely transpose to 10 111Vc2 examined below. 9 ... g6 instead is very tricky to handle due to 10 cxds exds 11 e6, which sees White attacking with a draw in hand. 9 . . . exds

10 0-0 The most natural choice, but there are two alternatives worth mentioning : a ) The move 10 h4 !? i s examined in the notes to Game 42 , as i t i s so similar to 9 h4 that I

felt it should be dealt with in the same main game. b) Instead of the caveman-style h2-h4 or the simple o-o, White has also tried the subtle

10 111Vc2 . In fact he can play 111Vc2 at almost any point, provoking . . . h6 . After 10 . . . h6 11 0-0 t;Jc6 12 .l:!.el (White needs to support es) 12 . . . as the similarities with the main line are ob­vious. Here White has tried various moves:

bl) 13 i.fs cxd4 14 t;Jb3 '11Vb6 15 i..xd7? (15 e6 t}Jf6 16 exf7+ .l::txf7 17 .tg6 .t:!.f8 18 t;Jbxd4 was still okay for White) 1s . . . .txd7 16 111Vd3 .l:!.ae8 ! (16 . . . a4 was only about equal in M.Socko­

J .Demina, Plovdiv 2008) 17 i..d2 a4 18 t;Jbxd4 .tcs 19 i..C3 i..g4 and Black is already slightly better.

b2) 13 dxcs t;Jxcs 14 t;Jb3 t;Jxd3 15 111Vxd3 is probably around equal , but Black has ob­tained the two bishops as a long-term asset. In the game C.Seel -M.Wahls, German League 2006, Black quickly got the upper hand after 1s ... .tg4 16 t;Jfd4 a4 17 1!1Vg3 111Vc8.

4 0 1

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

Now 18 lllxc6 bxc6 19 lt:Jd4 was necessary, but certainly no worry for Black. In the game 18 e6? was played and now 18 . . . h S ! 19 lt:Jxc6 bxc6 20 llld4 i.f6 21 il.e3 i.xe6 would have given Black a clear advantage.

b3} Funnily enough the strong Pol ish GM Robert Kempinski has played 13 �di? ! here. After the natural reply 13 ... .l:.e8 14 ii.bl lllf8 1s dxcs i.xcs 16 lt:lb3 i.b6 (a fairly typical po­sition for this line has arisen) 17 i.f4 i.g4 18 i.g 3 ii.c7 19 h3 i.xf3 20 �xf3 i.xes Black was winning the es-pawn and with it the game in R.Kempinski-A.Naiditsch , Griesheim 2002.

b4) White has al so tried the regrouping 13 lt:lfl cxd4 14 lt:Jg 3 lllcs . White's play is geared towards playing a piece to fS ; both options have been tried, but only lead to a good game for Black:

b41) 1S il.fs il.e6 ! (in A.Sokolov-A.Rotstein , Sofia 1988, Black played 1s . . . �6, which al ­lowed 16 il.xh6 ! and only leads to a draw at best for Black) 16 i.f4 (White has other possi­bilities, but Black has a good game anyway) 16 . . . �d7 17 .l:.ad1 a4 18 lllxd4 lt:Jxd4 19 .l:.xd4 .l:.ac8 20 �1 lllb3 21 .l:.dd1 .l:.c4 and the d-pawn will soon become a strong asset.

b42) 1s lllfs lllxd3 16 �xd3 i.xfs 17 �xfs �c8 18 �d3 ii.cs 19 i.d2 �e6 20 .l:!.ac1 b6 21 �S and here in the game A.Czerwonski -W.Kruszynski , Lubniewice 1994, a repetition oc­curred with 21 ... lt:Ja7 22 �d3 lllc6 23 �s. Black could have continued, though, with 23 . . . a4, which still leaves White searching for concrete compensation for the pawn .

Frankly speaking, I don't think �c2 is a very useful move for White. Black seems to ob­tain good play against it without any particular effort.

We now return to 10 0-0: 10 . . . lllc6

4 0 2

Bog o - l n d i a n with 4 tiJ bd2

11 .l:!.e1 Instead, 11 dxcs tZJxcs 12 ..tb1 kg4 13 'ii'c2 g6 14 b4 tfJe6 did not trouble Black, who had

obtained good central control and no weaknesses in S.Temirbaev-D.Bocharov, Salekhard 2006. 11 ... as

The move 11 . . . l:te8 is almost extinct nowadays, but for no particular reason . The text move is probably slightly better, but there is nothing wrong with the old move either: for instance, 12 'ii'c2 h6 13 tiJfl .1Lf8 14 .1Lf4 tfJxd4 15 tfJxd4 cxd4 16 b4? ! (16 tiJd2 was better, with about equal chances) 16 ... aS ! 17 l:tabl axb4 18 axb4 g s 19 kg 3 kg7 and Black was clearly for choice in L. Portisch-P.Nikolic, Tilburg 1988. 12 kc2

White has some other moves, often transpositional ones: a) It i s hard to complete development without moving the d2-knight, so 12 tiJfl is a

popular alternative. After 12 . . . cxd4: al) Quite common at this point is 13 'ii'c2, which transposes to 10 'ii'c2, above. a2) White has al so tried 13 kc2, which will transpose to the main game. a3) 13 tiJg 3 tZJcs 14 kc2 was played in R.Kaufman-K .Holroyd, Arlington 2010. Now Black

should play 14 . . . kg4, intending 15 h3 kxf3 16 'ii'xf3 .l:!.e8 17 ..\tf4 d3 18 .1Lxd3 tfJxd3 19 'i¥xd3 kg s 20 kxg s 'iVxg S with easy equality. The computer points out some possible im­provements along the way, but they are all ri sky for Black, like going . . . 'iVb6-b2 while White has all his pieces in the attack.

b) White al so has 12 'ii'c2, which again transposes to 10 'ii'c2. c) Harmless is 12 dxcs tZJxcs 13 tiJb3 tZJxd3 14 'ii'xd3 ..\tg4 15 tiJbd4 'i¥d7 (a move l ike

1s . . . .l:!.c8 keeps more tension in the position if Black wants to fight) 16 tZJg s kxg s 17 kxg s tfJxd4 and a draw was agreed in L.Schandorff-5.Kindermann, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1988. 12 . . . .l:!.eS

4 0 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

1 2 . . . cxd4 is al so popular, but allows 13 tZ'lb3, giving the d2-knight an easy route t o activ­ity. I prefer to keep the tension . 13 tZ'lf1

White has also tried to continue the waiting game with 13 h3 , after which Black has some choice. I like 13 . . . g6 , staying flexible and preparing a possible bishop transfer to g7 (13 . . . �C7 and 13 . . . tZ'lf8 al so seem fine to me , but less convincing in comparison) . This posi­tion has only been reached once, in U .Boensch-0.Lehner, Austrian League 2001. The former coach of the German national team now played 14 i..a4 .l:.b8 1S .tbs, securing the centre. It's obvious, though, that Black did not experience any problems after 1s ... i¥b6 16 a4 tZ:Ja7 17 .txd7 i.xd7 18 dxcs i..xcs 19 .l:.e2 i¥b4 (19 ... tZ'lc6 is al so possible when 20 tZ'lb3 .if8 21

i..e3 i¥b4 22 .id2 'i¥b6 is a way to end the game quickly} 20 b3 tZ'lc6 21 .ia3 'i¥b6 22 .ixcs 'V:Wxcs 23 .U.c1 i¥b4 24 tZ'lf1 l:tbd8, with equal chances. 13 . • . cxd4 14 .if4

Alternatively, 14 tZ'lg 3 tZ'lf8 (14 . . . g 6 ! ? is suggested by Houdini, with a slight edge for Black already; the text move is perfectly okay as well} 1S tZ'lxd4 .Iles 16 tZ'lxc6 bxc6 17 .ie3 i..b6 18 i..xb6 �xb6 19 l:tb1 .l:!.a7 20 .ifs i..e6 21 �g4 .l:!.ae7 and again Black was slightly for choice in G .Hertneck-H .Hecht, Munich 1988. 14 . . . 'V:Wb6

4 04

Bog a - I n d i a n with 4 tb b d2

Just keeping the pawn . In A.Yusupov-J . Ehlvest, 3rd matchgame, Saint John 1988, Black returned the pawn and went 14 . . . tb.f8 15 tb.xd4 .tcs 16 tb.xc6 bxc6 17 .tg 3 'iib6, with a po­sition somewhat similar to Hertneck-Hecht, above. Black is okay here, but 14 ... �b6 seems even stronger. 15 .l:lb1

15 tbg 3 is no real improvement: for instance, 15 ... tb.f8 16 tb.fs .txfs 17 .txfs g6 18 .td3 tbe6 and again Black is better, intending . . . .tf8-g7. 15 ... tb.fs 16 h3 .te6

16 ... tb.e6 ! 17 �d2 .td7 was a good and probably better alternative when White does not have enough for the pawn. 17 tb.1d2 tb.g6 18 .tg3 f6 19 exf6 .txf6 20 .td3 .tf7

Black has kept the extra pawn, but it is obviously difficult to convert. That said, a draw is the best White can hope for. 21 �c2 tb.f8 22 .td6 g6 23 .tc5 �dB 24 .l:lxe8 �xe8 25 .txf8?

2 5 tb.b3 tbd7 26 .txd4 tb.xd4 27 tb.bxd4 l:tc8 28 'iWd2 is al so uncomfortable, but better than the game. 25 .. . �xfS 26 �b3 �e7 27 'iWb6

4 05

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d Bog o - ln d ia n

27 .. . .l:!.c8? 27 ... a4! was more precise, keeping the knight passive.

28 .l:!.c1 'it>g7 29 tt:Jb3 Now White has gained some activity, with lt:Jb3-c5 being one idea.

29 . . • 'i'd8 This allows a forced sequence that leads to a draw, but by now Black had missed his

chance. 30 'ii'xb7 l:tb8 31 'ii'xc6 .l:!.xb3 32 'ii'c2 'ii'b8 33 .l:!.b1 .i..e6 34 g4 .l:!.b7 35 'ii'c6 .i..f7 36 gs il.e7 37

tt:Jxd4? 37 .l:!.el is better.

37 . .• .txgs 38 lt:Je6+ ..txe6 39 ·�xe6

39 ••. .l:!.xb2? 39 . . . .l:!.f7 ! i s great for Black, but the point 40 'ii'xds il.e3 ! i s hard to spot in time trouble .

4 0 6

Bog o - Jn d ian with 4 0i bd2

After 41 .l:!.f1 .l:!.xf2 42 .l:!.xf2 'iVg 3+ 43 'iVg2 �xf2+ 44 @f1 'iVxd3+ 45 @xf2 'iVc2+ 46 Wg3 'iVxg2+ 47 @xg2 Black wins with 47 . . . a4. 40 .l:!.xb2 'iVxb2 41 'iVxds 'iVxa3 42 'iVxgs 'iVxd3 43 'iVe7+ @gs Yz-Yz

Summary Looking at the lines given here White's approach with 9 cxdS looks less than convincing . Black seems to obtain reasonable play without any particular problems and quite often even gains the upper hand quickly, with White struggling to keep his centre and sacrificing the d4-pawn. White badly needs improvements here - the current theoretical status of this l ine is excellent for Black.

Game 42

D. Wagner-B.Socko London C l ass ic Open 2014

1 d4 0if6 2 c4 e6 3 0if3 �b4+ 4 0ibd2 o-o s a3 �e7 6 e4 ds 7 es 0ifd7 8 �d3 cs 9 h4 There's nothing subtle about this move. If Black is not yet awake, the game will be short

and painful . This is probably the only line in the book where you are absolutely forced to look at all the concrete lines and learn them by heart - solving this position over board is not a very rewarding idea.

Before we look at concrete moves after 9 h4 we should check 9 cxds exds 10 h4.

This is obviously closely related to the main subject of this game, but on an abstract level the exchange should favour Black, as he gains additional defensive resources :

a) 10 . . . 0ic6 ! ? is one of them : al) Now the tempting 11 �xh7+ is not convincing at all , but this is very hard to figure

out for White over the board: 11 . . . @xh7 12 0ig s+ @g8 13 'iVh s 0if6 14 exf6 �fs is the only

4 0 7

Open ing Rep erto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

move; i t not only prevents mate, but i n fact leads to a clear advantage for Black after 15 fxe7 'Vi'xe7+:

a11) Now 16 'ii'e2 i s answered by 16 . . . 'Vi'd7 17 tt:Jb3 {or 17 o-o? tt:Jxd4 18 'Vi'd1 i.c2 19 'Vi'h 5 f6 and Black is close to winning) 17 . . . .l:!.fe8 18 i.e3 tt:Jxd4 19 tt:Jxd4 cxd4 and Black is clearly better.

a12) That leaves 16 @f1, but after 16 ... tt:Jxd4 White is very uncoordinated. He needs to play 17 g 3 .l:!.ae8 18 'it>g2, but now 18 ... 'ii'd7 is very difficult for White to meet: for example, 19 b4 .l:!.e2 20 tt:Jgf3 tt:Jc2 21 .l:!.a2 tt:Je3+ 22 'it>g 1 tt:Jg4 and White's position fal ls apart.

a2) In stead of the sacrifice, there al so is the aggressive 11 tt:Jg 5 ! ? h6 12 e6 fxe6 13 tt:Jxe6 tt:Jde 5 ! ? {not strictly necessary, but not playing this spectacular move would be a shame; nevertheless, 13 . . . 'Vi'e8 is al so interesting after 14 tt:Jxf8 i.xf8+ 15 'ii'e2 'iVxe2+ 16 i.xe2 tt:Jxd4 17 i.d1 tt:Je5 with some compensation) 14 tt:Jxd8 tt:Jxd3+ 15 'it>e2 tt:Jxf2 16 tt:Jxc6! {an­other only move) 16 . . . bxc6 17 °iVa4 tt:Jxh1 18 'iVxc6 .l:!.f2+ 19 @e3 cxd4+ 20 'it>xd4 i.f6+ with a draw by repetition . Maybe there is something better even along the way, but I didn't man­age to find a win for Black.

Thus it seems that 10 ... tt:Jc6 is an interesting move, worth investigating more. b) Black may al so simply play 10 . . . h6, as happened in all five tests of thi s l ine.

White has now tried various moves : bl) 11 b4 cxd4 12 tt:Jb3 tt:Jc6 13 i.f4 .l:!.e8 14 o-o i.xh4 15 .l:!.e1 i.e7 was okay for Black in

H .Pi laj -H .Hecht, Solingen 2005 . Black is two pawns up, but will lose d4 for sure. It's just a messy position where precise calculation will win the game.

b2) Another logical move is 11 i.b1 .l:!.e8 12 'iWc2 tt:Jf8 13 dxc5 tt:Jbd7 14 0-0 tt:Jxc5 15 b4 tt:Jce6 16 g3 b6 17 tt:Jb3 i.a6 with interesting , but equal play in V.Stegariu-G .Kantor, Par­dubice 2012.

b3) A couple of years ago Ding Liren, now one of China's top players, went 11 tt:Jg 5 cxd4 {11 ... tt:Jc6 would transpose to variation 'a2', above; the text seems to be even better though) 12 e6 {12 tt:Jdf3 ! ? tt:Jc6 13 e6 tt:Jde5 is another messy alternative) 12 . . . tt:Je5 13 exf7+ tt:Jxf7 14

4 0 8

Bog a - In d i a n with 4 {[J bd2

{[Jxf7 l:!.xf7 lS �S 'ii'd6 16 lllf3 lllc6, but Black is better here with his extra pawn and be­cause White's attack has come to an end. After 17 .i.d2 'ii'e6+? ! {17 . . . .i.d7 18 0-0 .l::i.af8 was better, keeping a clear edge) 18 @fl 'ii'g4 19 'ii'xds .i.e6 20 'ii'e4 'ii'xe4 21 .i.xe4 the game was drawn a couple of moves later in Ding Uren-Zhou J ianchao, Beijing 2009.

The 9 cxds exds 10 h4 l ine i s rare in practice, but dangerous - and for both players . Both 10 . . . {[Jc6 and 10 . . . h6 are playable, leading to wild complications which require good nerves and calculation skil ls .

We now return to the immediate 9 h4: 9 . . . g6

If you compare this position to 9 cxds exds 10 h4 you will see that 9 . . . lllc6 ?? just loses to 10 .i.xh7+, as Black lacks the necessary . . . .ifs resource.

However, 9 . . . h6 has been played multiple times and is worth investigating. It ultimately seems to fail, though, to cut a long analytical story short. The problem line runs 10 .ii.bl .l::te8 11 dxcs as 12 'ii'c2 lllf8 13 lllfl ! and here Black comes under heavy fire.

I have tried to make this position work, but it just seems to be too tough to defend. I still very much believe in human intuition and my intuition says that 9 ... h6 should be better than 9 ... g6 - concrete analysis, however, shows that this is not the case. One key problem with ... h6 is that quite often White can just sacrifice on h6 and crash through. One very brutal example of this is the following: 13 ... {[Ja6 14 .i.xh6 ! , as in S.Kapnisis-K.Markidis, Achaia 2013, and now 14 . . . gxh6 lS 'i'd2 �g7 16 {[Jg 3 fS 17 exf6+ .i.xf6 18 {[Jh s+ �f7 19 'i'xh6 sees White storming Black's king position quickly. So in the end you have to play 9 . . . g6 , no matter what your intuition may tell you.

4 09

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

10 hS The most obvious move, but White has tried others. Almost all of them transpose, which

makes some sense as you can hardly play without hS : a) 10 b4! ? is very creative, but probably doesn 't lead to much i f Black reacts perfectly

with 10 . . . cxd4 (the only move; 10 . . . cxb4 11 h s gives White a huge attack) 11 �e2 tt:Jc6 12 cxds exds 13 e6 tt:Jf6 and now:

al) 14 bS ! ? should be answered by 14 ... .ixe6 ! ? (14 ... tt:Jas is the engine choice, but in a practical game I prefer the piece sacrifice) 15 bxc6 bxc6 16 tt:Jxd4 .id? and Black will obtain a strong initiative in return for the material .

a2) After 14 tt:Jg s? ! Black is better: 14 . . . i.xe6 15 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 16 �xe6+ 'it>g7 17 o-o tt:Jh s? was played i n B.Khotenashvil i -N .Dzagnidze, Geneva 2013, but instead 17 . . . �d7 would have secured a pretty big advantage. In the game, though, matters became very unclear and Black lost her way in the complications.

b) 10 �c2 cxd4 11 cxds exds and here: bl) 12 hs transposes after 12 . . . tt:Jcs to our main game. b2) 12 ctJb3? ! tt:Jc6 13 .if4 l:!.e8 14 0-0-0 tt:Jf8 was just too slow for White in W.Chu­

D.Raznikov, Albena 2014. c) 10 o-o looks somewhat strange, but it was played by Anand's second Gregorz Ga­

jewski . After 10 . . . cxd4 11 tt:Jb3 tt:Jc6 12 l:tel .ixh4 13 .ih6 l:!.e8 14 l:!.cl White has some com­pensation, but Black is certainly not overly concerned and now 14 . . . dxc4 improves on the 14 . . . ..ie? of G .Gajewski-F .E lsness, Fagernes 2014.

d) 10 cxds exds 11 h S cxd4 is examined via 10 h S cxd4 11 cxds, below. 10 . . . cxd4

4 1 0

Bog o - ln d ia n with 4 0. bd2

11 �C2 This has been played the most often, but the alternatives are also important, especially

11 cxds which transposes to the main game: a) 11 hxg6 seems to be relatively harmless. Note that it not only opens a file for White's

rook, but al so one for the rook on f8. A key defensive move is 11 . . .fxg6 12 �c2 �e8 and here:

al) 13 0.b3? ! seems natural , but underestimates Black's ideas.

Indeed, 13 . . . .l:f.xf3 ! (the f-file ! } 14 gxf3 0.xes gave Black all the fun in S .Hautot-Z.Hracek, European Club Cup, Rhodes 2013. Now 1S f4? 0.xd3+ 16 �xd3 dxc4 17 �xc4 �c6 18 �xc6 0.xc6 led by force to a winning endgame for Black.

a2) 13 o-o 0.c6 14 .l:f.e1 as 1s cxds exds 16 .tbs 0.cs and Black is fine in this interesting position , Z.Kozul-Z.Arsovic, Sarajevo 2012.

b) 11 cxds has seen some new games of late and it might be where the interest is shift-

4 1 1

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

ing to. I t deserves close study i n any case. After 11 . . . exd5 { 1 1 . . . tt:Jc5 ? 12 d6 ! is very strong for White)

White has tried a few moves, but only 12 e6 and 12 'i'c2 {transposing to the main game) look dangerous to me:

bl} 12 hxg6 fxg6 13 'i'c2 'i'e8 is similar to 11 hxg6 above and fine for Black. b2} 12 tt:Jb3? ! is too slow and after 12 ... tt:Jc6: b21) White should play 13 e6 tt:Jde5 14 tt:Jbxd4 ..ixe6 when Black should be okay, but it is

very complicated. b22) 13 ..if4 is the only move that has been played here {three games in Mega Database

2015), but is not good I think. Following 13 ... g 5 ! 14 ..ig3 g4 15 e6? (15 tt:Jfxd4 tt:Jdxe5 is bet­ter for Black, but still preferable to the text) in L.Javakhishvili-M.Socko, Erfurt 2014, Black could have played 15 . . . gxf3 ! 16 exd7 fxg2 17 .l:tg1 ..ixd7 18 .l:txg2 .l:te8 ! , which is a tough move to find. Black allows the discovery, but White has no good one and is lost, at least if Black plays perfectly like a computer.

b3) 12 e6 {a very forcing move) 12 ... tt:Jc5 13 exf7+ .l:txf7 14 ..ib1 is all only moves up to this point, but here Black has a choice:

b31) 14 . . . 'i'd6? ! 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 b4 was better for White in 1 . Khenkin-N .Huschenbeth, Hamburg 2014. Huschenbeth himself suggested the improvement 14 . . . ..if6 in his video series on the Boga- Indian for Chess24.com.

b32) 14 . . . ..if6 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 ..ixg6 �g7 17 �h6 'iYe7+ 18 @f1 d3 19 @g 1 iVe2 20 'i'xe2 dxe2 21 ..ic2 ..ie5 is his {and Stockfish's) main line.

4 1 2

Bog a - In d ian with 4 0. bd2

Black is definitely not worse here, but of course there are various points where you can dig deeper, even in the final position of the line.

b4) 12 �c2 0.cs leads back to the main game and therefore i s Black's most economical choice. There are al so 12 . . . 'iVe8 and 12 . . . 0.c6, but they do not lead to a black edge, just the usual murkiness.

c) 11 Nb3 was played successfully by Navara against Timman in Wijk aan Zee 2015 . However a few months later Timman's 11 . . . dxc4 was improved upon in the game A.Boruchovsky-T.Banusz, Zalakaros 2015 : 11 . . . 0.c6 12 i..f4 dxc4 13 i..xc4 g s ! ? (the impor­tant point) 14 i..g 3 g4 15 0.fxd4 0.dxes 16 o-o and White had some compensation for the

pawn in this unconventional position. An interesting point is that later Navara did not re­peat 11 0.b3, but switched to 11 �c2 against Najer (see below). 11 . . . 0.cs

Again, there i s not much choice for Black. 12 cxds

This is the main l ine and especially important for us because of the move order starting with 11 cxds - there we end up in the same position as in the main game. What el se is there for White?

a) 12 i..f1 was chosen by Ivan Cheparinov in one of the first games where 9 h4 was played. It seems defused today. Getting rid of the potentially dangerous bishop with 12 . . . d3 makes good sense (Black could investigate alternatives - Niclas Huschenbeth's 12 . . . 0.c6 is fine as well , as i s 12 . . . as of D .Navara-E .Najer, Jerusalem 2015 - but we have enough on our plate in this l ine anyway), and after 13 i..xd3 0.xd3+ 14 �xd3 my suggested improvement is 14 . . . b6.

4 1 3

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - In d i a n

Black played 1 4 . . . dxc4 i n two games, but that move has one drawback. An important positional feature here is the knight on d2 - as long as there is a pawn on dS, this knight is badly placed. Once the pawn moves, though, the knight can join the game via e4 or c4. This is the common sense ratio behind not taking ; the concrete moves are 1S 'iie3 g s 16 tt:Jxc4 tl:ic6 17 tt:Jxg s 'iids 18 .l:.h 3 'iixc4 19 tl:ixh7 with a mess where White has a forced draw if wants one.

Let's explore a bit after 14 . . . b6: a1) 1S cxds 'iixdS ! (1s . . . i.a6 16 'iie3 'iixds 17 tt:Je4 tl:id7 18 hxg6 fxg6 19 .l:.xh7 leads to a

draw) 16 'iixds (or 16 'iie3 i.b7 ! preventing tl:ie4) 16 . . . exds and with the bishop-pair and queens off, only Black can be better.

a2) 1S hxg6 fxg6 16 tt:Jd4 'iic7 (16 ... dxc4 17 'iixc4 'iids 18 'iixds exds is a slightly worse version of line 'al', but still comfortable for Black; 16 ... 'iic7 is stronger, though) 17 tt:J2f3 dxc4 18 'iie2 c3 and White is struggling .

a3 ) 1S 'iie3 gs ! and it's not easy for White here: a31) 16 tt:Je4 and now 16 . . . h6 is strategically fine if you don 't trust the capture, but there

is 16 . . . dxe4! 17 'iixe4 'fie?, after which 18 tt:Jxg s (18 'iixa8? tl:ic6 is very simple and 18 i.xg s i.b7 19 'iih4 .l:.e8 al so fails for White) 18 .. .fs 19 exf6 i.xf6 20 'iixa8 tl:ic6 sees Black coming out ahead.

a32) 16 cxds 'iixds 17 tt:Jxg s i.a6 ! (17 . . . 'iixg2 18 'iie4 'iixe4+ 19 tt:Jgxe4 is less ambitious) 18 tl:idf3 .l:.d8 19 i.d2 tl:id7 with a nice initiative for Black.

b) White al so has 12 i.e2, after which I suggest just playing 12 ... d3 and going for the same line as after 12 i.fl.

c) 12 hxg6 does not pose any problems, as early games from 2012 showed. Indeed, it i s quite surprising that it was played by two GMs in 2014, but they didn't add anything new to the equation . After 12 . . . tt:Jxd3+ 13 'iixd3 fxg6 White has lost his dangerous light-squared bishop and Black has a fine position. The open f-file is also useful .

4 1 4

Bog o - ln d i a n with 4 0. bd2

cl ) 14 0.xd4 0.c6 15 0.xc6 bxc6 16 '1Wti3 l:!f7 17 0.f3 dxc4 18 o-o 'ii'd3 and Black was al ­ready the more comfortable in Y.Shulman-G.Kaidanov, Saint Louis 2012.

c2) 14 cxds 'ii'xds 15 'ii'xd4 0.c6 16 'ii'xds exds and Black had clearly the better game in l .Nyzhnyk-Y.Quesada Perez, Arlington 2014. Quite a curious game as llya Nyzhnyk is a 4 0.bd2 special ist - did he confuse something in his preparation ?

c3) 14 'ii'xd4 0.c6 15 'ii'e3 and now 1s . . . 'ii'b6 (instead of the 15 . . . as of V.Zakhartsov-5.Sagar, Dresden 2014) 16 'ii'c3 as leaves White fighting with his clumsy development against Black's bishops.

Returning to 12 cxdS:

12 . . . exds Black even has some choice here after a ton of forced moves, but 12 . . . exds fits very well

as it may also arise from the 11 cxdS move order - so we kill two birds with one stone (or feed two birds with one seed if you're vegan) . Still let's have a brief look at the alternative 12 . . . 0.xd3+ 13 'ii'xd3 and then :

a) 13 . . . 'ii'xds is the first option . There is a drawback, though : White basically has a draw in hand in some very forcing complications : 14 0.e4 0.d7 15 i.h6 l:!e8 (1s . . . 0.xes ? 16 0.xes 'ii'xes 17 f4 is insufficient for Black) 16 i.g s b6 17 i.xe7 l:!xe7 18 0.f6+ 0.xf6 19 exf6 J::i.d7 20 hxg6 fxg6 21 �d2 'ii'd6.

4 1 5

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

This has all been best play and with no chance to deviate. After 22 g 3 ( 2 2 .l:txh7 already ends in a perpetual here) 22 . . . e5? ? (22 . . . °iff8 was the only move and now 23 .l:txh7 would draw here as well) 23 l:txh7 (now this is not a draw, but a win) 2 3 . . . 'ifxf6 24 .l:th6 l:tg7 2 5 l:tah 1 �f8 26 °ife4 l:tb8 27 'ifxe5 'ifxe5 28 tLixe5 .ib7 29 l:t1h4 .l:.d8 30 I:th8+ .l:Ig8 31 .l:t4h7 l:txh8 32 tLixg6+ Black resigned in E .Can-M.Kazhgaleyev, Turkish Team Championship 2014. From a practical point of view, this l ine makes little sense for Black. He has no chances to win and any misstep might prove very costly.

b) 13 ... exd5 is the second option and will probably transpose to our main game. I don 't think there are good deviations, at least for White: 14 tbxd4 (otherwise, . . . i..f5 will come with tempo) 14 . . . tbc6 (14 . . . tbd7 15 hxg6 tLixe5 16 gxh7+ �h8 is a crazy l ine that Stockfish

evaluates as equal after a while - any takers?) and now 15 tLi2f3 is the transposition. 13 tbxd4

13 hxg6 tbxd3+ 14 °ifxd3 fxg6 15 tbxd4 tbc6 will very likely transpose to the game. 13 . . . tbc6

Black is perfectly fine with this natural move, but 13 ... tbxd3+ 14 �xd3 �6 is suggested by Huschenbeth and worth looking at if you dislike the game because it is a bit too equal for you. 14 tLi2f3 tbxd3+ 15 �xd3 l:te8

I am a bit sceptical about the 15 ... .ltc5 ? ! 16 tLixc6 bxc6 of A.Sorokin-M.Askerov, I zhevsk 2014, when 17 °ifc3 .ie7 18 .ih6 l:te8 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 �xc6 is an improvement for White. 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 o-o .ig4

4 1 6

Bog o - J n d i a n with 4 lD bd2

I think Black has equalized here. He has the bishops and no serious structural problems. Moreover, his king i s safe, for once in this l ine. 18 .Jlh6 "ild7 19 l::!.fe1 .Jlxf3?

This gets Black into trouble. He had a good regrouping with 19 . . . .Jld8 20 .l:iacl .Jlb6, keeping the chances equal . 20 e6! "ild8 21 "ilxf3 .Jlf6 22 e7?

22 t2Jxc6 bxc6 23 l::!.acl l:!.c8 24 b4 would have been very hard to defend. 22 ... .txe7 23 t2Je6 "ild7 24 l::!.ad1 .Jlh4!

The only move, but it keeps Black in the game.

25 l::!.xd5 "f/f7 26 "flxf7+ @xf7 27 l::!.d7+ l::!.e7 28 l::!.xe7+ .Jlxe7

From here on the result was not in doubt, but they continued until (almost) just the bare kings were on the board.

29 lDg5+ @gs 30 l::!.d1 l::!.dS 31 l::!.xdS+ .JlxdS 32 t2Je4 .te1 33 @f1 @f7 34 lDg5+ .txg5 3 5

4 1 7

Ope n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - / n d i a n

..txgs @e6 36 @e2 @ds 37 @d3 tl'ies+ 38 @c3 hs 39 f3 a 6 40 b 3 tl'if7 4 1 ilf4 tl'id8 4 2 a 4 tl'ie6 43 ile3 gs 44 @d3 @es 4S @e2 @fs 46 @f2 tl'if4 47 @f1 tl'id3 48 @e2 tl'ies 49 @f2 tl'ic6 so ..tb6 tl'ib4 s1 @e2 tl'ids s2 ..td4 tl'if4+ S3 @f1 tl'id3 S4 ile3 tl'ies SS @e2 g4 S6 fxg4+ tl'ixg4 S7 @f3 tl'ies+ S8 Wg3 We4 S9 ..tb6 tl'ig6 60 ilcs @ds 61 ilf2 @e4 62 b4 bs 63 axbs axbs 64 ..tcs @d3 6S ..td6 @c4 66 @h3 @ds 67 .tbs @d4 68 ..td6 @e4 69 g4 hxg4+ 10 @xg4 tl'ies+ 71 @g3 tl'id3 72 ..tf8 @e3 73 @g2 @d2 74 @f3 @c3 7S @e2 tl'ixb4 76 @d1 tl'id3 77 ..te1 @c4 78 @c2 tl'ics 79 ..txcs @xcs Yz-Yz

Summary The l ine 9 h4 is a typical case of modern, very concrete chess. White tries to overrun Black with direct aggression that demands a precise response. I think the main l ine presented in the game is a very sensible approach for Black. He manages to exchange the light-squared bishop on d3 and secures his king position .

The whole 4 tl'ibd2 0-0 complex very much depends on the 9 h4 line as White's other at­tempts look rather harmless, as examined in the earlier games. It is very likely that new innovations from the white side will start with 9 h4 or similarly spirited approaches, so if you want to invest time analysing yourself and expanding my overview, I recommend fo­cusing on 9 h4.

4 1 8

C h a pt e r F o u rt e e n

The Cata l a n Bogo : 1 d 4 tiJf6 2 C4 e6 3 g 3 � b4+

1 d4 ltJf6 2 C4 e6 3 g3 i.b4+

With 3 g3 White aims to reach a Catalan after 3 ... ds, but we don 't have to comply. A benefit of learning the Bogo- lndian as opposed to the Queen's Indian is that by checking on b4, we still get the position type we are looking for and don 't need to learn something en­tirely different here. The only additional lines are not that theoretically challenging for Black and are examined in the following two games.

After 4 tt:Jd2 I recommend 4 . . . cs . This move gives Black a sound position and is the most reliable from a theoretical point of view. Black quite often reaches comfortable positions in the style of the Hedgehog, as happened in a game of mine in the 2014 European Club Cup. A more testing approach was played in the game Gevorgyan-Palac (Game 43), which exam-

4 1 9

Op e n ing Rep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

ines this l ine i n detail . Instead, 4 .td2 as will transpose to the regular Boga almost all of the time as lllf3 i s

such a natural for White to make soon . The few independent possibilities that White has are analysed in the game Abdel Razik-Moiseenko (Game 44) .

Game 43

D.Gevorgyan-M.Palac E u ropea n I n d ivid u a l C h a m pio n s h i p, Yereva n 2014

1 d4 lZ:Jf6 2 C4 e6 3 g3 i.b4+ 4 tiJd2 CS This i s probably the most reliable move. However there i s a very low maintenance alter­

native that usually just transposes into the regular Bogo with 4 lllbd2 d6, starting with 4 . . . lllc6.

Now the most obvious move is s lllgf3, after which s . . . d6 simply transposes to the aforementioned l ine with White committed to a g 3 set-up. If you like this structure, that's

a simple solution to the Catalan move order with 4 lZ:Jd2. Are there any alternatives for White though to avoid the transposition ? Let's check:

a) 5 a3 .txd2+ 6 �xd2 and now both 6 ... ds and 6 ... b6 look feasible. This i s all uncharted territory, though, that you probably will never get on the board.

b) The only other logical move is 5 e3 , but after s ... es 6 dS llle7 7 a3 .txd2+ 8 .txd2 d6 Black is certainly okay, as this is clearly an improved version of the original Boga l ine with 4 lllbd2 d6. 5 a3

The critical test. Others: a) White's main alternative i s the simple 5 dxcs . Now the very logical main line goes

s . . . .txcs 6 .tg2 o-o 7 lllgf3 lllc6 8 o-o and here Black faces a fundamental choice:

4 2 0

Th e Ca ta lan B og o : 1 d4 tl:Jf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g 3 il b 4 +

al) 8 . . . d s i s perfectly fine and usually leads to IQP-type of positions which are a bit rare in our repertoire. That said, something like 9 a3 as 10 cxds exds 11 ti:Jb3 ii.b6 12 ti:Jbd4 .l::te8 13 b3 tl:Je4 14 ii.b2 'i!Vf6 1s .l:!.c1 ..ig4 16 J::tc2 'i!Vh6 17 tl:Jxc6 bxc6 18 tl:Jes? .l:!.xes 19 i.xes tl:Jxf2 20 .l:!.xf2 'ti'e3 was much more fun for Black in B.Tadic-G .Battaglini, Arad 2014.

a2) I played 8 ... b6 in my game against Christoph Nogly in the European Club Cup in Bil­bao, 2014.

It leads to complex play and keeps some tension in the position : a21) My game against Nogly continued 9 a3 Ji.b7 10 b4 i.e7 11 i.b2 .l::tc8. After the

game I discovered that this position had been played quite a lot before; my preparation had basically ended with 8 . . . b6 and I was just playing over the board. My opponent went for 12 'i!Vb3 (there is al so 12 e4 d6 13 'i!Ve2 'i!Vc7 14 .l::tac1 'i!Vb8 1s .l::tfd1 as ! ? 16 bS tl:Jes with about equal chances in M.Kopylov-S.Vukanovic, Internet (bl itz) 2004) 12 . . . as ! ? (I wanted to change the structure on the queenside to gain the cs-square and complicate the game) 13

4 2 1

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d ia n

bS ttJb8 14 �d3 (after 14 .Ufd1 �c7 1S .Uacl l:tfd8 Ratmir Kholmov and Mikhail Tal already called it a day in Baku 1972, but they might well have continued) 14 . . . g6 ( I was irritated by tt::Jg s ideas, so I decided to stop that idea altogether) 1S �d4? ! (something like 1S .l:!.acl d6 16 l:tfd1 �c7 17 tt::Jg s tt::Jbd7 improves and is about equal) 1s . . . d6 16 tt::Jg s .txg2 17 @xg2 tt::Jbd7 18 l:tad1 es 19 �d3 ? ! tt::Jcs 20 �c2 �c7 21 .Uc1 �7+ 22 'it>g 1 .l:!.c7 by when Black was already slightly better. Now with time trouble looming my opponent erred with 23 f3 ?, af­ter which 2 3 . . . tLlg4 netted me victory in 4S moves.

a22) E .Steflitsch-A. Felsberger, Austrian League 1997, saw instead 9 tLlb3 .te7 10 i.f4 and after 10 . . . .ta6 11 .Uc1 .Uc8 12 i.d6 i.xd6 13 �xd6 �e7 14 .l:!.fdl �xd6 1S .l:!.xd6 l:tc7 16 l:tddl l:tfc8 Black had good play against c4.

b) A rare move is s tt::Jgf3 when s ... cxd4 (s . . . tt::Jc6 is also possible, but might lead to a transposition that Black does not want: for instance, 6 a3 .txd2+ 7 �xd2 cxd4 8 tt::Jxd4 and we transpose to the 7 . . . tt::Jc6 alternative in the main game that probably is not everybody's cup of tea) 6 tt::Jxd4 �6 reaches a position which more often arises from other move or­ders: for example, 1 c4 cs 2 tLlf3 ttJf6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt::Jxd4 e6 S g3 i.b4+ 6 tt::Jd2 �6, or even starting with 1 d4 ttJf6 2 C4 e6 3 tLlf3 cs 4 g3 cxd4.

In any case, Black has no problems here due to White's misplaced knight on d2: bl) 7 a3 .tcs ! ? (7 . . . .te7 is also simple and good) 8 tt::J2b3 ttJc6 9 tt::Jxcs �xcs 10 e3 tt::Jxd4

11 �xd4 �c6 was fine for Black in D .Blagojevic-V.Akopian, Kallithea 2002. b2) 7 e3 tt::Jc6 8 tLl4f3 (8 tt::Jc2 .te7 9 i.g2 ds equalizes easily as well) 8 . . . ds 9 .tg2 o-o 10 o­

o .l:!.d8 and Black was okay in K.Ozturk-N .Dzagnidze, Kanya 2011. s . . . i.xd2+ 6 �xd2 cxd4 7 tt::Jf3

After 7 �xd4 Black, of course, goes 7 ... ttJc6 and now White has tried almost all every queen move, which is very similar to the situation in the main game on move 10 (in fact 7 �xd4 will often just transpose to the main game) :

4 2 2

Th e Ca ta la n Bog o : 1 d4 0.f6 2 c4 e 6 3 g 3 i.. b4 +

a) After 8 iVh4? ! Black should deviate from routine moves and play 8 . . . e s ! , intending . . . 0.d4 and now 9 0.f3 e4 10 0.d2 ds is already great for Black.

b) 8 °iVc3 b6 will most likely lead to the main game, but 8 ... ds 9 cxds �xds 10 0.f3 es is also attractive for Black.

c) After 8 �dl both 8 ... b6 and 8 . . . d6 9 0.f3 es 10 i..g 2 0-0 11 0-0 i.e6 12 b3 h6 are two fine set-ups.

d) 8 �d3 b6 (also possible is 8 ... ds 9 cxds 'iVxds 10 'iVxds 0.xds if you don't mind this type of endgame) 9 0.f3 i.b7 10 .i.g2 is the cleanest road back to the main game. 1 . . . b6

Black has a very interesting alternative in 7 . . . 0.c6. This leads to sharp play after 8 0.xd4 �6 9 0.bs (critical and probably best, but White can also go 9 liJf3 when after 9 . . . o-o 10 b4 ds 11 cs �c7 a draw was agreed in 1 .Hera-M.Palac, Oberwart 2011, although a possible continuation like 12 i..g2 es 13 i.b2 i.e6 14 o-o llle4 leads to interesting play, while after 9 e3 I like 9 . . . o-o 10 i.g2 es with equal play) 9 . . . ds ! ? somewhat sharpens the position .

4 2 3

Open ing R ep e rto i re : N imzo a n d Bog a - I n d i a n

Now White has some choice, but checking on d 6 seems critical : a) 10 cxds 'ii'xbs 11 dxc6 'i'xc6 12 f3 0-0 should give Black about equal play with his ex­

cellent development pitted against the bishops. b) 10 'i'd3 was played in Y.Kuzubov-A.Zubarev, Kharkov 2007, and after 10 . . . lt:Jg4! 11

i.e3 lt:Jxe3 12 'i'xe3 d4 Black was in fine shape. c) The natural 10 i.g2? ! o-o sees White struggling a bit (but not 10 . . . tt:Jas? 11 'i'e3 ! ) ; c4

hangs and . . . tt:Jas is in the air. Following 11 a4 dxc4 12 'i'c2 es Black is fine. d) 10 lt:Jd6+ We7 11 cxds ! (the only move; all other moves lead to big trouble, as shown

by 11 lt:Jxc8+ .l:!.axc8 12 i.g2 lt:Jd4 and Black is already winning) and now: dl) The only sample game went 11 . . . tt:Jas, after which White could have played the cra­

zy-looking 12 b4 (12 e4 tt:Jb3 13 tt:Jc4 is another incomprehensible computer l ine) 12 ... tt:Jb3 13 'i'b2 'ii'd4 14 .l:!b1 'i'xds 1S e4 tt:Jxe4 16 i.g 2 tt:Jxcl 17 .l:!.xcl 'ii'xd6 18 i.xe4 with good compensation . All this is very complicated obviously, but I don't trust 11 . . . tt:Jas much .

d2) 11 . . . exds is probably best, reaching a unique position after 12 tt:Jxc8+ .l:!.hxc8. Black is excellently developed, but White has two bishops against two knights. Now there are only two moves to investigate: 13 'i'e3+ (the alternative is 13 i.h 3 tt:Je4 14 'i'f4 g s 1S 'i'fs and now Black must force a draw with 1s . . . tt:Jd4 16 'ii'es+ @f8 17 "Mi8+ 'itie7 18 'i'es+ Wf8) 13 . . . @f8 14 'ii'xb6 axb6 1S i.h 3 .Ue8.

This sequence is quite logical , although now it's not easy to clearly evaluate the posi­tion . A possible l ine i s 16 @fl tt:Jas 17 .l:rb1 d4 18 i.fs tt:Jb3 19 i.f4 tt:Jds and it's about equal . This whole l ine starting with 7 . . . tt:Jc6 and 9 . . . ds leads to sharp and unexplored play. The ap­proach of the main game with 7 ... b6 is much simpler to learn, but also less forcing and testing for White. 8 i.g2

A recent new try is 8 tt:Jxd4, as played in l . Papaioannou-N .Miezis, Nakhchivan 2013. Af­ter 8 . . . i.b7 9 f3 o-o 10 i.g2 Miezis played 10 . . . ds, which was fine, but I like the computer's suggestion of 10 . . . i.a6 ! ? . Now 11 b3 ds 12 cxds 'i'xds 13 i.b2 tt:Jbd7 is about equal ; Black

4 2 4

Th e Ca ta lan Bog o : 1 d4 ti'Jf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g 3 ii. b 4 +

has a future . . . tt'Jcs t o play against the weakness on b3 .

8 . . . ii.b7

9 'ii'xd4 White has an important alternative here in 9 0-0, giving Black a choice. a) 9 .. . ii.xf3 ! ? i s an interesting, early deviation . For example, after 10 exf3 ti'Jc6 11 f4 o-o

12 b4 .U.c8 13 ..ib2 d6 14 ..ixd4 ti'Jxd4 15 'ilVxd4 'ii'C7 16 .U.fc1 .U.fd8 17 'ii'e3 'ii'd7 18 'ii'd4 v;gc7 19 'ii'e3 'ii'd7 20 'ii'd4 a draw was agreed in S.Volkov-E .Tomashevsky,Taganrog 2011.

b) Much more common is 9 . . . 0-0: bl) Now 10 ti'Jxd4 ..ixg2 11 'it>xg2 dS i s very meek, giving Black an easy game.

b2) 10 b4 is more interesting. This 9 0-0 0-0 10 b4 move order is especially relevant be­cause the position might al so arise from a regular Boga move order - see the game lvan­chuk-Kasimdzhanov (Game 38) :

b21) 10 . . . ..ixf3 ! ? i s an interesting new idea in this position that also avoids the pawn sacrifice with 11 ..ib2 that you might find annoying. After 11 ii.xf3 (11 exf3 ti'Jc6 transposes to Volkov-Tomashevsky, above) 11 . . . ti'Jc6 12 bs (12 ii.b2 l:!.c8 13 ..ixc6 l:!.xc6 14 iixd4 .U.e8 15 l:!.fdl es i s equal ; Black obtains play against the c4-pawn to compensate for his d-pawn is­sues) 12 . . . tt'Jas 13 ..ixa8 1lVxa8 Black enjoys fine compensation for the exchange.

4 2 5

Op e n ing Reperto ire : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d i a n

I n fact I think many white players might b e inclined t o return i t immediately with 14 'it'xd4 (it's tough to analyse this position to a clear conclusion if White tries to hold on to the material ; one sample l ine is 14 'i¥d3 ll:le4 1s .i::ta2 es 16 .i.d2 lllcs 17 'it'c2 lllab3 18 .i.b4 d3 19 �d1 llld4 20 .i.xcs dxe2 21 J:txe2 bxcs 22 J:te3 fs with a very nice initiative for the material investment) 14 . . . lllb3 1S 'i¥d3 lllxa1 16 .i.b2 'Yi'e4 17 l:txa1 l:tc8 18 .i.xf6 'Yi'xd3 19 exd3 gxf6 and it 's an equal endgame. There are ways for Black to deviate in this line, but it's good to prove first that simple play suffices for equality. All in all , the new idea of 10 . . . .ixf3 seems very viable.

b22) The tried and tested move is 10 . . . lllc6: b221) After 11 lllxd4 lllxd4 12 'Yi'xd4 (12 .i.xb7 lllb3 13 'Yi'd3 lllxa1 14 .i.xa8 'i¥xa8 1S

.i.b2 ds 16 l:i.xa1 l:tc8 is very equal) 12 . . . .i.xg2 13 'itixg2 ds 14 cxds 'Yi'xds+ 1s 'Yi'xds lllxds 16 .i.b2 fS Black again has no problems.

b222) More dangerous is 11 .i.b2 °inJ8 12 .Uac1 ! ? e s 13 e3 dxe3 14 ifxe3 l:te8 and White has compensation for the pawn. While I (and the engines) believe that it is not more than enough compensation, I would still like to point you to the 10 . . . .i.xf3 idea as a way to avoid it. Personally I would rather sacrifice material for interesting play than take it and need to be precise in defence.

b3) White can al so just play 10 'Yi'xd4 lllc6 and we will transpose to the main game. 9 . . . lllc6

4 2 6

Th e Ca ta lan Bog o : 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g3 .1'. b 4 +

1o 'JJ/ic3 This i s the most popular move, but White has tried just about everything else. The good

news is that Black has no problems in all l ines and the play is rather similar: a) 10 �4 f!.c8 11 .tg 5 tiJa5 12 f!.c1 h6 13 o-o o-o 14 .txf6 'JJ/ixf6 15 'JJ/ixf6 gxf6 16 tiJd2

.txg2 17 @xg2 .l:!.fd8 with an equal endgame in V.Mikhalevski-V.Yemelin, Beersheba 1998. b) 10 �f4 tiJa5 11 .td2 .l:!.c8 12 .txa5 bxa5 13 o-o 'JJ/ic7 14 .l:!.fc1 'Vixf4 15 gxf4 .l:!.b8 and

Black went on to win the endgame in N .Pushkov-V.Balashov, Moscow 2007. c) 10 �d3 tiJe5 (10 . . . f!.c8 with . . . tiJa5 to come is al so fine of course) 11 'Vid4 tiJxf3+ 12

exf3 .l:!.c8 13 .te3 .ta6 and Black had equalized in F.Vallejo Pons-AA.Carl sen , Monaco (blind­

fold) 2007. 10 . . . f!.cS 11 b4

This move prevents . . . tiJa5. White can al so ignore Black's idea and go 11 o-o tiJa5 12 b3 d5 13 .l:!.d1 o-o 14 'JJ/ib2 . This

very logical sequence was played in R.Kempinski-A.Riazantsev, Warsaw 2011. Now instead of Riazantsev's 14 ... 'JJ/ie7, the engine suggestion of 14 ... 'JJ/ie8 is strong : for instance, 15 tiJe5 (15 .td2 dxc4 16 .txa5 bxa5 17 bxc4 .ta6 is harmless) 15 . . . dxc4 16 .txb7 c3 17 'i!Vc2 tiJxb7 18 a4 tiJd5 19 .ta3 f5 ! and Black is fine. 11 . . . 0-0

You can also start with 11 ... tiJe7 - it makes no difference. 12 o-o tiJe7

4 2 7

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - ln d ian

Black has good counterplay against c4 and no bad pieces. He i s well coordinated and holds the balance. 13 i.gs

Instead, 13 i.b2 i.a6 14 tl:ies i.xc4 15 tl:ixc4 dS does not impress much .

13 ... tl:ie4 14 'ii'd3 f6 15 i.e3 ds ! The most straightforward way to go. Grandmaster Mladen Pa lac is a Bogo expert and he

shows the right way here. In stead, the 15 . . . tl:ifs of K.Landa-A.Poluljahov, Sochi 2012, i s less convincing due to 16

tl:id4! (Landa's 16 l:racl is al so not bad, but not as forcing) 16 . . . tl:ixe3 (not 16 . . . tl:ixd4 17 i.xd4 dS 18 l:rfdl! dxc4?? 19 'it'e3 and White wins) 17 'ifxe3 fs 18 :acl, which gives White nag­ging pressure. 16 cxds

This looks normal , but there is also: a) 16 i.h 3 fs (16 . . . tl:ifs i s also fine) 17 l:rfc1 (or 17 cxds ?! :c3 18 'ii'd1 tl:ixds 19 i.d4 :cs

with . . . tl:ic3 coming) 17 . . . dxc4 18 l:rxc4 'iVxd3 19 exd3 tl:id6 20 :xc8 .U.xc8 with an equal , but still interesting endgame.

b) White might sacrifice with 16 tl:id4! ?, which forces 16 . . . dxc4 17 'iVc2 'ii'ds 18 l:rfd1. Now the cleanest move is 18 . . . c3 , leading to a draw after 19 tl:ib3 'iVfs 20 tl:id4 'ii'es 21 tl:if3 ms 22 tl:id4 'ii'es , and so on . 16 ... �xds

After this White probably maintains a very slight pull , but the somewhat less obvious move 16 ... i.xds leads to a very safe position for Black:

4 2 8

Th e Ca t a l a n Bog o : 1 d4 t'iJf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g3 iL b 4 +

a) 1 7 .l:lfcl �d7 1 8 t'iJel t'iJd6 (initiating a long sequence; 1 8 . . . 'iih7 i s al so fine) 1 9 .i.f4 .txg2 20 'ii'xd6 .tc6 21 .l:lxc6 'ii'xc6 22 �xe7 es 2 3 .te3 .l:lf7 24 bs "i!Vxbs 2 s "i!Ve6 "i!Vc4 with an equal position.

b) 17 .l:lacl 'ii'd7 18 .l:lfdl .l:lxcl 19 .l:lxcl .l:lc8 20 .l:lxc8+ 'ii'xc8 21 t'iJd4 t'iJd6, again with equality. 17 t'iJd4

The best move, otherwise Black might even be sl ightly more comfortable, such as after 17 �xds t'iJxds when c3 is a good square for a black knight.

11 ... t'iJfs 18 t'iJxfs

18 .l:lacl li:Jxd4 19 .txd4 .l:lfd8 20 l:lxc8 .l:lxc8 21 l:ld1 l:lc7 is also just equal . 18 ... exfs

18 . . . 'ii'xfs could al so be considered. Let's have a look: 19 l:lacl l:lcd8 20 'ii'c2 .tds 21 Wkc7 t'iJd6 22 'ii'xa7 t'iJc4 23 .l:tc3 Ji..xg2 24 @xg2 bS and Black has some compensation for the pawn. However, 16 . . . .txds is really the spot to improve. 19 'ii'xds+

This makes it very easy for Black. 19 J::tfc1 ! was much better. Black is struggling a bit after 19 ... .l:i.fd8 20 l:txc8 l:txc8 21 a4

l:ld8 (21 . . . 'ii'xd3 22 exd3 li:Jd6 23 as is not much fun either) 22 "i!Vxds+ ii.xds 23 as and while he might hold this, he is under constant pressure. 19 • • • .txds 20 .l:lac1 @f7 21 .l:lfd1 @e6

4 2 9

Open ing R ep e rto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d ia n

Now Black's excellent centralization gives him equal play. 22 f3 tt::ld6 23 i..d4 ilb3 24 .Uel .Uxcl 2S .Uxcl .Uc8 26 .Uxc8 tt::lxc8 27 @f2 tt::ld6 28 i..b2 i..c2 29 i..fl tt::lc4 30 i..c1 @ds 31 e3 tt::les 32 i..b2 llld3+ 33 ii.xd3 i..xd3 34 @e1 @c4 3S @d2 i..f1 36 e4 @b3 37 @c1 ilg2 38 exfs ii.xf3 39 h3 i..g2 40 h4 ii.h3 41 @b1 ilxfs+ 42 Wal hs 43 i..cl ii.e4 44 i.b2 @c2

44 ... ii.d3 ! 4S ii.cl fs was winning here. The very brutal main line of the engine goes 46 .i.f4 (46 ii.b2 gs 47 hxg s f4 48 gxf4 h4 is easy) 46 ... @xa3 47 i..d2 @b3 48 ii.el bS 49 ii.d2 g s ! s o hxg s h4! Sl gxh4 @c2 S2 i..f4 a s with forced mate i n 11 moves. 4S ii.d4 @d3

Missing 4S . . . 'it>b3 ! .

46 ii.b2 @c2 47 ii.d4 ilc6 48 ile3 @b3 49 i..cl ii.d7 so i.b2 @c2 Sl i.d4 @b3 S2 i.b2 @c4 S3 i.c1 @d3 S4 ilf4 gs SS i.b8 fs S6 hxgs Yz-Yz

To be honest, I am not entirely sure that the game score in the database is correct for the endgame, as there are some very weird spots.

Summary Black obtains good play with 4 . . . cs , but might al so consider 4 . . . tt::lc6. This option al so comes in handy if you prefer a more complex game, as some lines in the 4 . . . cs complex are solid, but not very exciting, like the course of the main game, for example. Within the 4 . . . cs line, there i s the alternative of 7 . . . tt::lc6, which is sharper and might be worth a try as well .

Game 44

K.Abdel Razik-A.Moiseenko World Tea m C h a m pio n s h i p, Anta lya 2013

1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 i..b4+ 4 ii.d2 as

4 3 0

Th e Ca ta la n Bog o : 1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g3 i. b4 +

This approach i s just as good as i n the regular Bogo move order. About 90% of the time it will just transpose to what we already have examined, but sometimes White tries to reach independent positions. This game features those few attempts and is therefore rela­tively l ight on comments. 5 i..g2

The most natural follow-up, but White has also tried S ti:Jc3 : a ) The classical s . . . ds is fine, but doesn 't fit our repertoire's dark-square flavour. b) s . . . d6 is possible : for example, 6 i..g 2 ti:Jbd7 7 a3 (7 ti:Jf3 es transposes to a regular

Bogo, as examined earlier) 7 . . . i.xc3 8 i..xc3 0-0 9 ti:Jf3 (9 �c2 ! ?) 9 . . . tl:Je4 10 �d3 ti:Jxc3 11 �xc3 �e7 and Black has not much to fear, but it i s not very exciting .

c) I like the active approach s . . . ti:Jc6 6 ti:Jf3 (6 a3 i..xc3 7 i.xc3 ti:Je4 is easy equality for Black, and 6 e3 es is also harmless) 6 . . . d6 7 i.g2 (7 a3 i..xc3 8 i..xc3 ti:Je4 we already know) 7 ... es . Here Black obtains a fairly standard position : for example, 8 a3 (or 8 dS ti:Je7 9 o-o o-o 10 ti:Je1 i..cs 11 Wh1 i..a7 12 ti:Jd3 ti:Jd7 13 e3 fs 14 f4 e4 1S ti:Jf2 ti:Jf6 with an interesting , about even position in J . Benjamin-V. Eingorn, Reykjavik 1990) 8 . . . i..xc3 9 i.xc3 ti:Je4 (the

typical simplification) 10 l:ic1 o-o 11 o-o ti:Jxc3 Oust before White might retreat to el) 12 .!:.xc3 a4 13 dS ti:Jb8 14 cs ti:Jd7 1S cxd6 cxd6 16 �c2 b6 17 tl:Je1 tt:Jcs and Black was fine in G.Meins-E . Paehtz, German League 2013. s . . . d6

This usually leads to a transposition to the main Bogo lines. If you like to experiment there is s . . . ti:Jc6 ! ? 6 ti:Jf3 d6 7 0-0 es. This looks l ike our Bogo 4

i..d2 as main line, but with the black knight on c6 instead of d7. This was discussed in the notes to Moranda-Bartel (Game 34).

4 3 1

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

6 e4 By far the most popular here is 6 lllf3 , which directly transposes to the main line Bogo,

while 6 lllc3 was discussed via s lllc3 , above. Instead, 6 e3 is a very solid choice for White. It does not put any huge pressure on Black,

but aims for a very harmonious set-up: a) Now the main move is the obvious 6 . . . es , but the resulting positions might not be to

everybody's taste. Let's investigate after 7 lt:Je2 0-0: al) 8 lllbc3 c6 9 0-0 was played in A.Korobov-A.Riazantsev, Dubai (bl itz) 2014, when I

suggest 9 . . . exd4 10 exd4 (or 10 lllxd4 lllbd7 with a standard position type for our chosen line) 10 . . . .i.e6 11 b3 (11 ds cxds 12 cxds .ifs 13 llld4 i..g6 is al so fine) 11 . . . ds and Black equalizes.

a2) 8 o-o threatens Ji.cl, so 8 . . . i..xd2 9 'ii'xd2 l:te8 is prudent, and if 10 lllbc3 tt:\c6 (10 . . . lllbd7 is probably too passive; 11 h3 exd4 and now 12 exd4! is better for White, in­stead of the 12 lllxd4 of Wen Yang-Wang Yue, Chinese Team Championship 2014) 11 b3 .ifs 12 h3 h6 when White maintains a slight pull . It 's not easy to analyse these positions to clear equality, but White has more space and the easier plans, while Black is very solid and has no weaknesses.

b) I didn 't l ike 6 . . . es so much, so I looked for alternatives. A creative approach for Black is 6 . . . i..xd2+ 7 'ii'xd2 o-o 8 lllc3 c6 ! ? .

4 3 2

Th e Ca t a l a n Bog o : 1 d4 lhf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g 3 i.. b 4 +

The idea is t o switch to a . . . ds-based set-up, similar to the closed Catalan . For example: bl) 9 lt'Jge2 b6 10 o-o .lla6 11 b3 dS and Black should be okay. There i s play against c4

that will provoke White to exchange now I guess: 12 cxds cxds 13 .l:i.fc1 'iVd7 and with . . . lt'Jc6 to follow, Black has equalized.

b2) Maybe 9 0,f3 is better. Just one sample line to illustrate, as the whole idea with . . . c6 is new: 9 ... lt'Jbd7 10 o-o b6 11 e4 .lla6 12 'iVe2 {not 12 es ? dxes 13 dxes lt'Jxes ! ), and now 12 . . . ds and even 12 . . . e s come into consideration. 6 . . . es 7 lt'Je2

Necessary. In stead, 7 dS ? ! lt'Jbd7 8 lt'Je2 lt'Jcs 9 'iVc2 i..xd2+ 10 lt'Jxd2 h s ! gives Black an

excellent position . 7 . . . o-o 8 o-o .l:i.e8

8 ... exd4 9 lt'Jxd4 lt'Jbd7 transposes to a position type we are very familiar with from the regular Bogo. The precise position , however, is impossible to construct from that move or­der, but you'll know the ideas well enough just to play it over the board. 9 d5?!

There is some logic to this, closing the centre after . . . .l:Ie8 is played. Still it poses no prob­lems to Black. Instead, 9 lt'Jbc3 exd4 10 lt'Jxd4 lt'Jbd7 could have led to a familiar structure.

4 3 3

O p e n i n g Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - I n d i a n

This was Bori s Avrukh's recommendation for White i n h i s GM Repertoire book, claiming a sl ight advantage for White. I think this is debatable, as we have seen in Game 34 that Black always has good counter-chances against the white centre. 9 . . . ltJa6 10 lLlbc3 c6

Gaining some space on the queenside. With the bishop on g2 and White's control over bs weakened, this advance came strongly into consideration . 11 h3 cxds 12 cxds i.cs 13 @h2 i.d7

14 f4? 14 a4 was not pretty, but was probably necessary.

14 ... bs Now the white centre crumbles.

15 fxes .i::txes 16 i.f4 .i::th s 17 ttJg1 i.xg1+? Quite shockingly this is not good enough for a black advantage.

4 3 4

Th e Ca t a l a n Bogo : 1 d4 tDf6 2 c4 e 6 3 g 3 il. b 4 +

1 7 . . . � 6 is what the merciless engines suggest, with Black winning the exchange in most cases: for example, 18 0,f3 tDg4+ 19 @h 1 tiJf2+ 20 l:!.xf2 .i.xf2 21 tiJd2 g6 and White is still in the game, if in serious trouble. 18 @xg1 .i.xh3 19 .i.xh3 l:!.xh3 20 �f3?

20 e s ! was a tough move to find. After 20 . . . dxes 21 .i.xes White gains some serious ac­tivity: for example, 21 ... l:!.h6 22 d6 �6+ 23 @g2 �7+ 24 �f3 'i'xf3+ 25 @xf3 b4 26 tiJbs and it's not at all clear. 20 ... �d7 21 l:!.ae1

21 ... 0,g4?! 21 . . . b4! was right, kicking the white knight back first.

22 tiJxbs tiJh2 23 'i'e2 tiJxf1 24 l:!.xf1 gs 2s .i.xd6 What a mess !

2 s . . . l:!.h6 26 es �h3 27 �g2 tiJb4? After thi s White i s much better, with the e-pawn becoming huge.

28 �xh3 l:!.xh3 29 e6 fxe6 30 dxe6 tiJc6 31 e7 31 l:!.c1 ! was winning, but I can easily image that both players were in time trouble here.

31 ... tiJxe7 32 @g2 g4 33 ii..xe1 l:!.e8 34 l:!,f4 l:!.hs 3S llxg4+ @f7 36 tiJd6+ @xe7 37 tDxe8 'it>xe8 Black has escaped to a rook endgame a pawn down, which is quite often the dream

scenario when you are in huge trouble. 38 @f3 I:th2 39 lle4+ @f7 40 I:te2 I:th1 41 Iles I:th2 42 I:tbs a4 43 a3 hs 44 'it>e3

44 g4 was the final chance to obtain something serious. Following 44 ... hxg4+ 45 @xg4 'it>e6 46 @f3 'it>d6 47 @e3 llh8 48 @d3 'it>c6 49 l:!.b4 lla8 I think Black should hold, but am not taking any substantial bets on it. 44 ... @g6 4S I:tb4 @gs

4 3 5

Open ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d B og o - l n d i a n

Now i t i s a quite easy draw, a s Black is too active. 46 @f3 .l:tc2 47 .i:tbs+ 'it>g6 48 .l:tb8 'it>fs 49 .i:tbs+ 'it>g6 so .l:tb7 'it>fs s1 .i:tb4 'i£tgs s2 .l:txa4 .l:txb2 S3 .l:tb4 .l:ta2 S4 .i:tbs+ 'it>g6 SS .i:tas .l:tc2 S6 .l:ta8 .l:tc4 S7 a4 h4 S8 gxh4 .l:txh4 S9 as 'i£tg7 60 a6 .l:th6 61 'it>e4 .l:te6+ 62 'it>ds .l:tf6 63 @cs .i:tfs+ 64 'it>d4 .l:tf6!

This is the key defensive move that you should remember from this endgame. If the term 'Vancura Defence' does not ring a bell , look it up in an endgame book or on Wikipe­dia, which is an excellent chess resource nowadays. 6S .l:ta7+ 'i£tg8 66 'it>ds .l:tb6 67 .l:ta8+ 'it>g7 68 �es .l:tc6 69 @d4 .l:td6+ 10 'it>cs .l:tf6 Yz-Yz

Summary The Catalan Bogo with 4 �d2 as will transpose to the regular Bogo in the majority of cases. The independent tries for White are mostly harmless or will just transpose at a later stage. The only l ine worth studying a bit i s 6 e3 , which is not going to wipe you out if you don 't know it, but does carry a bit of venom.

4 3 6

I n dex of Va r i a t i o n s

1 d4 lllf6 2 c4 e6 and now:

A: 3 tllc3 B: 3 lllf3 (and others)

A) 3 lllc3 .tb4 4 e3 4 .td2 - 13 4 'ifb3 - 17 4 .tg s - 22 4 a3 �xc3+ S bxc3 cs

6 f3 - 32 6 e3 - 41, 49

4 f3 cs S dS o-o 6 e4 6 . . . bs - 60 6 . . . d6 - 70

4 lllf3 cs S g3 lllc6 6 .tg2 llle4 7 �d3 - 84 7 .td2 - 9S

4 �C2 ltJc6 S ltJf3 d6 6 g4 - 222 6 .tg s - 292 6 a3 .txc3+ 7 �xc3

7 . . . as - 229 7 . . . 0 -0 - 241, 2 S1

6 .td2 0-0 7 a3 .txc3 8 .txc3 �e7 9 g3 - 263

9 e3 - 271 9 e4 - 278

4 . . . 0-0 5 .td3 s llle2 o-o 6 a3 .tf8

7 e4 - 113 7 dS - 122

4 3 7

Op e n ing Reperto i re : N imzo a n d Bog o - l n d i a n

s .. . c s 6 tt:Jf3 6 tt:Jge2 ds

7 cxds - 130, 140 7 0-0 - 1SO

6 . . . tt:Jc6 7 o-o 7 ds - 162

7 . . . .ixc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 tt:Jd2 9 e4 es 10 ds lLie7

11 tt:Je1 - 169 11 tt:Jh4 - 178

9 .. . es 10 dS - 189 1o i::tb1 - 200

B) 3 tt:Jf3 3 g3 .ib4+

4 tt:Jd2 - 420 4 .td2 - 430

3 • • . .ib4+ 4 .id2 4 tt:Jbd2

4 . . . d6 - 3 S7, 366 4 . . . o-o s a3 (s g 3 - 37S ) s . . . .ie7 6 e4 (6 g3 - 382} 6 . . . ds 7 es tt:Jfd7

8 b4 - 390 8 .id3 cs

9 cxds - 400 9 h4 - 407

4 ... as s g3 S a3 - 303 S tt:Jc3 - 309

s ... d6 6 .ig2 tt:Jbd7 1 o-o es s tt:Jc3

8 .iC3 - 3 17 8 .ig s - 326 8 e3 - 332

8 ... 0-0

4 3 8

9 �C2 - 340

9 dxes - 349

I n d ex of Com p lete G a m e s

Abdel Razik.K-Moiseenko.A, World Tea m Cham pionsh ip, Anta lya 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

Abel .T-Kveinys.A, German League 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Anagnostopoulos.K-Antic.D, l st hm ia Open, Vrachati 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 78

Antic.D-Goumas.G, Anogia Open 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Avrukh.B-Wojtaszek.R, F rench Tea m Cham pion sh ip 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Docx.S-Hausrath.D, Belgia n League 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Esen.B-Kotsur.P, Troms<t> Olym piad 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

Evdokimov.A-Gelashvi l i .T, World Open, Ph i l ade lph i a 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Fries Nielsen.J-Ward.C, Pol iti ken Cup, Copen hagen 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

Gevorgyan.D-Pa lac.M, E u ropea n I nd ivid ua l Cham pionsh i p, Yereva n 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420

Giri .A-Belezky.A, Germa n League 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 78

Gonzalez Vidal .Y-Ortega.M, Cuban Cham pionsh i p, Sa nta C l a ra 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Henrichs.T-Berkes.F, Ka rpos Open, Skopje 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

lvanchuk.V-Kasimdzhanov.R, F IDE World Cham pionsh i p, Tri po l i (ra p id} 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75

lvanisevic.1-0nischuk.A, F IDE World Cup, Kha nty-Ma ns iysk 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Jobava.B-Wojtaszek.R, F IDE World Cup, Kha nty-Mans iysk 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Kasparov.S-Bologan.V, Minsk Zona l 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Khenkin.1-Anton Guijarro.D, Spa n i sh Tea m Cha m pionsh i p 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Kveinys.A-Sielecki.C, L lucmajor Open 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Lenderman.A-Sielecki.C, Bad Wiessee 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Levin.E-Goganov.A, Ch igor in Memoria l , St Pete rsbu rg 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

Malakhatko.V-Sielecki.C, Latschach Open 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

Mamedyarov.S-lvanisevic.I, Troms<t> O lym piad 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Moiseenko.A-Gaprindashvi l i .V, Kocae l i 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Moranda.W-Bartel .M, Pol i sh Cham pionsh i p, Wa rsaw 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

Nakamura.H-Carlsen.M, Gash i mov Memoria l , Shamk i r 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Nakamura.H-Ponomariov.R, Wij k a a n Zee 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Nyzhnyk.1-Bluvshtein.M, G ron i ngen Open 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Peng Zhaoqin-Plasman.H, Hoogeveen Open, Essent 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Potkin.V-Bruzon Batista.L, Wij k a an Zee 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

Richter.M-Howell .D, Wuns iede l 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Sasikiran.K-Eingorn.V, F IDE World Cham pionsh i p, Moscow 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

4 3 9

Op e n ing R e p e rto i re : N imzo a n d B og a - In d i a n

Sielecki.C-Deglmann.L, B a d Wiessee 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

Sokolov.1-Gundavaa.B, J a ka rta Open 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Sokolov.1-Swiercz.D, French Tea m Cha m pion sh i p 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Stefansson.H-Navara.D, Reykjavi k Open 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7

Sutkovic.D-Predojevic.B, Med iterra nea n Open, R ijeka 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Tomashevsky.E-Predke.A, Russ ia n H igher League, Yekate ri n bu rg 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Ulko.J-Goganov.A, I zhevsk 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Valerga.D-Peralta.F, Argent inea n Cham pionsh ip, Buenos A i res 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Van der Stricht.G-Sielecki.C, Be lg ia n League 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Volkov.S-Pashikian.A, Agza mov Memoria l , Tash kent 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Wagner.D-Socko.B, London C l a ss ic Open 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Zaja.1-Jakic. 1 , Bosn jaci Open 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 71

4 4 0

I S B N 9 7 8 - 1 - 7 8 1 9 4 - 1 0 9 - 6

I I I 5 2 9 9 5

9 7 8 1 7 8 1 9 4 1 0 9 6 I I