Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IM Sergey Soloviov
Translation by:
GM Evgeny Ermenkov
The publishers would like to thank Phil Adams for advice regarding
the English translation.
Kalojan Nachev
Nikita Vitiugov
Chess Stars
Bibliography
French Defence: 3.tt:lc3 b4 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003
French Defence: 3.tt:ld2 by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2003
Advance and other anti-french variations by L.Psakhis, Batsford 2003
French Defence: Steinitz, Classical by Lev Psakhis, Batsford 2004
Opening for White Ace. to Anand (vol. VI-VII) by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2006
The Flexible French by Viktor Moskalenko, New in chess 2008
Repertoire books:
Opening for White Ace. to Kramnik l.ll:'lf3 by A. Khalifman
Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 2: Anti-Nim-Ind, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, 2008
Volume 3: English (l...c5), English (four knights), 2011
Volume 4: Maroczy, Modern, Trifunovic, 2011
Opening for White According to Anand l.e4 by A. Khalifman
Volume 8: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines, 2006
Volume 9: The Sicilian, Paulsen-Taimanov and other lines, 2007
Volume 10: The Sicilian, Sveshnikov, 2007
Volume 11; The Sicilian, Dragon, 2009
Volume 12: The Sicilian, Rauzer Attack, 2009
Volume 13: The Sicilian, English Attack, 2010
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman
Current theory and practice series:
The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007
The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2nd rev.ed. 2008
The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov, 3rd. rev. ed., 2008
The Easiest Sicilian by Kolev and Nedev, 2008
The Petrosian System Against the QID by Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin, 2008
Kill K.I.D. by Semko Semkov, 2009
The King's Indian. A Complete Black Repertoire by Victor Bologan, 2009
The Scotch Game for White by Vladimir Barsky, 2009
The Modern Philidor Defence by Vladimir Barsky, 2010
The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2010
Squeezing the Gambits by Kiril Georgiev, 2010
A Universal Weapon l.d4 d6 by Vladimir Barsky, 2010
The Meran & Anti-Meran Variations by Alexey Dreev, 2011
The Safest Grunfeld by Alexander Delchev and Evgenij Agrest, 2011
Fighting the French: a New Concept by Denis Yevseev, 2011
The Modern Reti. An Anti-Slav Repertoire by Alexander Delchev, 2012
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Part 1. White avoids the main lines
l.e4 e6
2 .b3; 2.f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
2.tt:lf3 d5 3.tt:lc3 ; 3.e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
2 .d4 d5 3 .id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
2 .d4 d5 3.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0
1
2
3
4
2 .'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6
2 .d3 d5 3.tt:ld2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9
2 .d3 d5 3.'&e2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6 .ie2
6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8 . .b:h6 ; 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9 .ie3
6.a3 l2Jh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 l2Jf5 9.ib2 . . . . . . .
6.a3 id7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
52
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8.id2 ; 8 . .b:f6 ; 8 .ie3 . . . . . . . 8 0
5.tt:lf3 l2Jgf6 6.ig5 h6 7.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 8 .ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5 .l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.g3 ; 7.id3 ; 7.ie 2 ; 7.ie3 . . . . . . 9 9
5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6 .l2Jxf6 l2Jxf6 7.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0
5.l2Jf3 l2Jgf6 6.id3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9
21
22
4.tt:lgf3
148
4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
269
2 73
2 79
2 85
293
Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Index ofVariations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
6
Nikita Vitiugov
Saint-Petersburg, January 2012
7
PREFACE
Chess is a microcosm of life and the same principles are applicable there are many questions and no definitive answers. In the French de
fence we have already seen devastating novelties in variations which
previously had an unblemished reputation, as well as rehabilitation of
lines long thought to be dead and buried. So I have decided to present
to my readers the French defence - just as I see it and understand it.
I believe that chess players of all levels can find something new in
this book. It will enable some of you to include the French defence in
your opening repertoire and others of you to enrich your knowledge of
this opening and sharpen your understanding of its ideas.
The time has long passed when you could play the opening simply
according to common sense. Therefore there are many extensive analy
ses of concrete positions in the book, as well as new ideas discovered in
the process of preparation for games and tournaments.
This book has been written from Black's point of view, but this
should not preclude a study of it by players who prefer the white side of
the French. It is always useful to know something thoroughly. It might
happen that a player who loves the white side of the French might be
come an ardent fan of it as Black!
Nikita Vitiugov
Saint-Petersburg, April 20 10
Part l
In the first part of our book we shall deal with the different ways in
which White tries to avoid the main lines of the French defence. Objec
tively, he can hardly rely on gaining an opening advantage with these
variations. However, he is following a different philosophy in this case.
It is far from easy to prove an advantage for White in the main lines an
yway, so the idea is to obtain an original, non-standard position, which
the opponent has not studied deeply at home. This last factor is be
coming more and more important in contemporary competitive chess.
Accordingly, Black must be well prepared to counter this approach and
to obtain good positions against the less principled lines.
Among the chapters included in our first part, the exchange vari
ation is the most interesting. No doubt there are drawish tendencies
in it, but in practice it turns out that making a draw is not so easy for
either side. It should be enough to remember the famous game Gu
revich - Short in the last round of the Interzonal tournament in Manila
1990. White only needed to make a draw to qualify for the next round
of the competition, but even such a super-expert in the French defence
for Black as Mikhail Gurevich failed under pressure to achieve the
desired result and lost. Nigel Short qualified to play a match against
Garry Kasparov thanks to this same remarkable game ! So we can high
light the fact that modern chess history was greatly influenced by this
game. I can therefore advise White players to refrain from playing the
exchange variation of the French defence, at least to avoid the appear
ance of new schisms in the chess world.
10
Chapter 1
l.e4 e6
Some seldom played variations
2.b3
4)lJC3 lbf6
This move can hardly be
dangerous for Black. Neverthe
less, it is tried periodically by
some strong players. The hero
of this variation is that legend of
Saint-Petersburg chess, Vladimir
Ivanovich Karasev.
2 . . . d5
I can recommend to players
with wide opening knowledge the
move 2 . . . c5 ! ? , transposing to the
Sicilian defence.
3 . .ib2
White's plan is based on this
semi-gambit move.
3 . . . dxe4
I think that this is the most
unpleasant response for White to
face.
5.e2
It seems too extravagant to
play 5.g4?! .id7 6.g5 (6 . .ig2 .ic6
7.g5 lt:Jd5 8. lt:Jxe4 h6 9 .h4 lt:Jf4t)
6 ... lt:Jd5 7.lt:Jxe4 .ic6 and there a
logical question arises - was it re
ally worth it for White to weaken
his position to that extent, only to
regain the pawn he sacrificed with
his third move?
5 . . . .ie7 6.lt:Jxe4
It is imprecise for White to
play 6.0-0-0?! lt:Jc6 7.lt:Jxe4 lt:J d4
8.d3 lt:Jxe4 9.xe4 .if6--t 1 0 .g4? !
11
Chapter 1
d7! 11.hd4 c6 12 .b5 hb5
13 .11*'xb7 0-0 Karasev - S.lva
nov, Leningrad 1991.
6 0 - 0 7.lt)f3 (7. 0-0-0
a5 ! ?) 7 a5!? 8.a4 b6 9. 0 - 0 - 0
.ib7 1 0 .d3 c!Llbd7 and Black has a
very good position.
..
..
2 .f4
7 ... d7 8.d4
It would be too depressing for
White to continue with 8.l2Je3 ? !
f6 ! and h e will have t o play 9.exf6
(It is too risky for him to play
9.d4? cxd4 10.cxd4 fxe5 ll.fxe5
b4+ 12.1i>f2 o-m= and White's
position is close to being hope
less.) 9 . . . gxf6 10 .d3 0-0-0 11.e2
d6 and Black had a clear advan
tage in the game Komliakov Rustemov, Moscow 1998.
8 k8. This is a useful pre
paratory move. 9 . .id3 cxd4.
Black demonstrates a concrete
approach to solving his problems.
(It is also possible for him to opt
for 9 . . . e7! ?) 1 0 .cxd4 (He can
counter 10.l2Jcxd4 with c5?)
.
10
..
2
5.c3
..
..
c!Llh6 6.c!Lla3
..
b6 7.c!Llc2
Chapter 2
l.e4 e6 2 .lt f3 d5
4 . . . c5
The move 4 . . . lt:Jc6 ? ! flouts the
opening principle laid down by
Philidor - pawns in front and
pieces behind . . . 5.c3 e5 6.cxd4
exd4 7.'a4 c5 8 .b4i and Black
has problems.
We shall analyze a) 3.c3
and b) 3.e5.
a) 3.c3
This is one of the ways for
White to avoid the main lines of
the French defence. He some
times chooses a similar system
of development against the Caro
Kann defence and there it seems
more reasonable.
3 . . . d4
This is, of course, a much more
principled move than 3 . . . lt:Jf6 .
White is allowing his opponent
to occupy additional space and it
would be a sin not to make use of
that.
4.e2
White has also played 4.lt:Jb5? .
5.c3
This is the most concrete deci
sion for White. He wishes to im
mediately destroy Black's pawn
centre, which has just appeared
on the board.
5.lt:Jg3 a6 ! ? (After 5 . . . lt:Jc6
White can simply play 6.b5 d7
7.hc6 hc6 8.lt:Je5 V!ic7 9.lt:Jxc6
V!ixc6 10.d3 and he has some pros
pects for active play on the king
side. ) 6.a4 (6.e2 lt:Jc6 7.0-0 e5
(Black can also try here 7 . . . h5 ! ?
and 7 . . .d6.) 8.d3 g6 and it i s not
obvious what White is supposed
to do, while Black's plan is crystal
clear - g7, lt:Jge7, 0-0, h6, e6,
b5 etc.) and now 6 . . . lt:Jc6. Here is a
possible continuation : 7.c4 d6
(7 . . . e7! ? 8.0-0 h5) 8.d3 lt:Jge7
9.0-0 0-0 lO.lt:Jel :t'lb8 ll.f4 b5
13
Chapter 2
1 2 . axb5 axb5 13.b3 b7 with a
complicated position.
After 5.d3 there arise positions
with a King's Indian pawn struc
ture but with colours reversed.
Black can usually only dream
of this sort of outcome from the
opening. 5 . . . Lt'lc6 6.g3 e5 7.g2
e7 8.0-0 g5 (8 . . . h5 ! ?) 9 .Lt'ld2
h5 ! ? and White already has prob
lems (9 . . . e6 10.f4 f6 ll.Lt'lf3 h6
12.c4oo Bachin - Korchnoi, Togli
atti 2003).
5 .lbf6
..
6.cxd4
I think it is weaker for White
to play 6.e5 Lt'lfd7 7.cxd4 cxd4
8.Lt'lexd4
cxd4
7.lLlexd4 lLlxe4
Wfxe4 i.c5
It turns out, however, that
Black has obtained excellent com
pensation for the sacrificed ma
terial and White must play accu
rately to avoid being worse.
11.i.c4
The fanciful move 1l.d3
changes nothing important 1l.. .g6 12 .c4 0-0 13.0-0 E'i:e8
14.he6 E'i:xe6 15.1Mfc4 b6 and the
presence of the pawn on g6 is not
disadvantageous for Black's posi
tion.
11
0 -0 12. 0 - 0
12
l3e8 13.d3
13
8 .lLlxe6
It looks as if White has caught
his opponent in a trap.
The check on b5 would not
achieve much - 8.b5+ d7 and
then what. . . ?
h6 14.xe6
Moscow 2 0 07.
15
Chapter 2
b) 3.e5 c5 4.b4
4 . . . cxb4
The most principled reaction
for Black is no doubt to accept the
sacrifice. The resulting positions
have not been well analyzed yet
and this is easily understandable.
There are not so many players
with White who would be willing
to sacrifice a pawn for such ob
scure compensation. I shall not
analyze this position extensively
and I shall just show you the cor
rect moves to start off with. These
are not at all obligatory, just some
of the possibilities.
Black's attempt to maintain
the tension with 4 . . . b6, can be
countered with 5.c3 '1Wd7 6.a3 .ia6
16
8 . . . i.d7
The character of the position
has been defined early, so Black
should not be in a hurry to com
plete the development of his king
side. It is obvious that White will
develop his initiative there, so
Black should leave his king in the
centre for a while.
I do not like the move 8 ... lLlh6
very much, because then White
ll . . . f6 12 . .if4 f5
9 . .id3 a6
It would be interesting to play
the aggressive move 9 . b5 ! ? in
tending to follow up with b4.
. .
1 0 .h4
After 10.0-0 Elc8, White will
have difficulty proving that his
compensation for the pawn is
sufficient.
1 0 .. .'c7
Black
is
preparing
undermining move t7-f6.
ll.Elh3
the
17
Chapter 3
3 . . . dxe4
It would be interesting for
Black to play 3 . . . c5, but White has
the attractive tactical possibility
4.exd5 (After 4.c3 cxd4 5.cxd4
dxe4 6 . .be4 '2lf6 7.f3 it is un
clear why White's bishop on f3
has occupied the knight's usual
place; 4.dxc5? and White must
begin to fight for equality. 4 . . .
dxe4 5.b5+ d7+; 5.xe4 xdl+
6 .'tt> x dl .bc5 7.'tt> e 2 '2lf6 8 .d3 b6;
8 .f3 ct:Jbd7+) 4 . . . xd5 (The move
18
5 . . . c5
I do not think that Black has
anything to worry about after, for
example: 5 . . . e7 6 .'2le2 0-0 7.
6.Ci:Je2 Ci:Jc6
Black continues in the same
fashion, exerting maximal pres
sure against his opponent's centre.
7 .ie3 cxd4
8.lt:lxd4
8 . lt:le5
.
9. 0 - 0
For example, if 9.1Mfe 2 , Black
simply captures with 9 . . . Ci:Jxf3 +
and begins fighting for the advan
tage.
11
1Mfc7! ?
12.liJcb5
12 .f4 ? ! Ci:Jc4
19
Chapter 4
l.e4 e6
The Exchange Variation
2.d4
After 2.c4 there do not arise
any original positions, since Black
can enter the main lines of the
exchange variation without any
problems. 2 . . . d5 (I can recom
mend to players who wish to play
more complicated positions the
move 2 . . . c5, which leads to a good
version of the Sicilian defence.)
3.exd5 exd5 4.d4 (White does
not achieve anything much with
4.cxd5 tt'lf6 5.b5 + tt'lbd7 6.tt'lc3
e7 7.tt'lf3 0-0 8.0-0 tt'lb6 with
easy equality for Black.)
2 . . . d5 3.exd5
3 . . . exd5 4)iJf3
This is the most solid and flex
ible move for White. It is also pos
sible for him to play 4.c4, but in
general it is not so advantageous
for him to clarify his plan so early
in the game.
...
.td6
Chapter 4
Black sometimes tries to pro
voke complications with the move
4 . . . 4Jc6, but he may have difficul
ties in the well-known variation
after 5.b5 d6 6.c4 dxc4 7.d5
a6 8.a4 b5 9.dxc6 bxa4 10.0-0
4Je7 11 .1Mfxa4. White risks nothing,
while Black must still make sever
al very accurate moves. Of course,
his most reliable resource here is
the symmetrical move - 4 . . . 4Jf6 .
5.c4
The famous principle of asym
metry in the Exchange variation
can be illustrated here with the
move - 5.d3.
I should inform my readers
that according to this principle
Black should be in no hurry to de
velop his king's knight early, since
if its counterpart goes to f3, then
Black should deploy his knight
to e7, and vice versa . . . Of course,
you should not take all these par
adoxical principles completely
seriously, but still, it is always
useful to keep them in mind. For
instance, in the following game
Black obeyed all these rules and
managed to gradually outplay his
22
8.tt:lc3
It is interesting for White to try
to seize the initiative immediately
with 8.4Je5 ! ? Black must react
very precisely: 8 . . . 4Jc6 ! This is
the right move ! (It is weaker for
him to opt for 8 . . . 4Jbd7? ! 9.f4
4Jb6 10 .b3 4Jfd5 ll.g3 e6
12 .4Jd2 l"1e8 13 .4Je4 1M/e7 14.l"1cH
and White obtained an advantage
in the game Tregubov - Vitiugov,
Sochi, 2009.) 9.4Jxc6 (Now he
cannot play 9 .f4 because of the
routine reply 9 . . . xe5 10.dxe5
4Jg4, and White cannot protect
his pawn.) 9 . . . bxc6. Black's pawn
structure has been weakened a lit
tle, but he is not worse. For exam
ple : 10.4Jc3 l"1e8 11.1Mlf3 l"1b8 12 .h3
9 . . . h6
8 .ll:l c 6
1 0 .ge1
From this moment on, the
opening has many things in com
mon with the Chigorin defence.
It is obvious that in this rather
original and complicated open
ing, Black's position is considered
as acceptable, but things are not
so simple here.
9.h3
The seemingly active move
9.ig5, strangely enough, is not
dangerous for Black at all. 9 .. .
h6 (It is less precise to play 9 . . .
ig4, since White can counter
this with 10.'Lld5, obtaining the
advantage of the two bishops.
10 . . . ie7 ll.'Llxe7 + Wfxe7 12 .h3
ixf3 13.Wfxf3 Wfe4 14.Wfxe4 'Llxe4
15.ie3 'Lld6 16.b3 with some ad
vantage to White, Lputian - Rom
anishin, Manila 1992.) 1 0 .ih4
ig4. It looks as if White's best
here is the forced draw after ll.h3
ixf3 1 2 .Wfxf3 'Llxd4 13.Wfxb7 Elb8
14.Wfxa7 Ela8 15.Wfb7 Elb8, Gure
vich - Azmaiparashvili, Saint
Vincent 2 0 03 .
Chapter 4
12 .xe6 fxe6 13J'le1 '\Wd7 14.d2
ct:Jbd5 15.1Wd3 l'l:ad8 16.l'l:e2 1Wf7
17.l'l:ae1 l'l:fe8 18.'Lle4;t; Tkachiev Sulava, Gonfreville 2006.) with
the idea of responding to 12.l'l:e1
with 12 ... ct:Jbd5. It is also worth
considering 10 . . . 'Ll a5 11.d3 e6.
ll.a3 b5 12 .d3 b7, with good
counterplay.
ll . .ie3
The eventual consequences of
the exchange of rooks were ana
lyzed in our previous notes. I will
just mention that after ll.l'l:xe8+
1Wxe8 White cannot prevent the
development of Black's bishop to
f5 - 12 .1Wd3? 'Llb4 !
ll .. .if5
.
1 0 J'l:e8
24
12.a3 a6
Part 2
Chigorin Variation
l.e4 e6 2.e2
King's Indian Attack
l.e4 e6 2.d3
25
ChapterS
l.e4 e6 2 . e2
Chigorin Variation
...
c5
l.e4 e6 2. e2 c5
tified, because after 3.exd5 Black
must play 3 . . . ihd5. There arises
a strange version of the Scan dina
vian defence (with the inclusion
of the moves d1-e2 and e7-e6)
which has not been evaluated by
the theoreticians yet.
3.lilf3
There is a multitude of possi
bilities and move-orders in this
position. We shall analyze White's
most natural and purposeful
moves.
Black should counter 3.f4 with
3 . . . d5. Here is a possible continu
ation: 4.exd5 xdS S.ltJc3 d8
6.ltJf3 ltJc6 7.g3 ltJf6 8.ig2 ie7 9.
0-0 0-0 10 .d3 id7 11.ltJe4 8:c8
12 .c3 ltJdS with an approximately
equal position, Short - Korchnoi,
Groningen 1997.
3.g3 ltJc6 4.c3 g6 S.ig2 i.g7 6.
f4 ltJge7 7.ltJf3 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.
tt:la3 8:b8 10.'it>h1 fS 11 .d3 bS 1 2 .
exfS ltJxfS 13.id2 d S 14.g4 ltJh6
15.ltJg5 d7 16.8:ae1 b4 17.ltJb1
bxc3 18.bxc3 ltJd8 Lastin - Ba
reev, Elista 1997.
c!Llc6 4 g3
.
g6
5.g2 g7 6. 0 - 0 c!Llge7
Black is unable to develop this
knight to a more active position
6 . . . ltJf6 7.c3 ! d5 (It is no improve
ment for him to opt for 7 . . . 0-0
8 .d4 d5 9 .e5 ltJd7 10 .ig5 and
White obtains a clear advantage.)
8.e5 ltJd7 9.d4 f6 10.exf6 xf6
ll.ltJgS and Black is in great trou
ble.
7.c3 0 - 0 8.d3
8 .8:d1 e5 9.d3 dS 10 .ltJbd2 d4
ll.ltJb3 b6 12.cxd4 cxd4 13.ig5
27
ChapterS
e6 14.1Mfd2 f6 15.h6 1Mfd6 16.
hg7 lt>xg7 with a clear advantage
for Black, Chahrani - Gleizerov,
Dubai 2002.
8 ... d6
Black has two possible plans in
this position - playing on the
queenside, based on advancing
b7-b5-b4, or natural central strat
egy of the type - e6-e5 and f7-f5.
Chapter 6
l.e4 e6 2.d3
King's Indian Attack
3.lild2
This move is definitely a bit
slow and usually indicates that
White wishes to postpone any
sharp struggle to the middle
game. It is also possible that
White is just a bit too lazy to study
the basic theoretical lines at home
and is trying to play safely and se
curely early in the game.
2 . . . d5
Nowadays
broad
opening
knowledge is one of the most im
portant features of a strong chess
player. For example, here it seems
very reasonable for Black to trans
pose to the Closed Sicilian with
2 . . . c5 3.lLlf3 lLlc6 4.g3 g6 5.g2
g7 6.c3 lLlge7 7.0-0 0-0 (It is
maybe a bit more precise to play
7 . . . e5 ! ?) 8 .8:e1 (8.d4 ! ?) 8 . . . e5 9 .
lLla3 d 6 10.e3 b6 1l.'Wd2 and
3 .. .lilf6
Here Black has an equally ef
fective move for our suggested
scheme of development - 3 . . . c5.
The text move has been chosen
mostly for the sake of the clarity
29
Chapter 6
of our explanation. Our notes
over the next few moves will help
you to become acquainted with
some positions in which Black
changes the pawn structure with
d5xe4 and e6-e5. This is going to
be our basic weapon against the
scheme with 3.e2. After 3 . . . c5
White can consider placing his
pawn on f4, which is aimed
against Black's set-ups with d6
and Ci:Jge7 or g6, g7, Ci:Jge7, for ex
ample : 4.g3 ! ? Ci:Jc6 (or 4 . . . d6
5.g2 Ci:Je7 6.f4) 5.g2 Ci:Jf6 (after
5 . . . g6, White can play not only
6 .f4 followed by Ci:Jgf3, but also 6.
Ci:Jh3 ! ? , played by Morozevich)
6.f4. This idea has been tried only
rarely and it is difficult to assess
whether it is dangerous for Black.
The most likely continuation
would be then - 6 . . . e7 7.e5 Ci:Jd7
8.Ci:Jgf3 leading to positions which
we shall analyze in our next
notes.
4.c!Llgf3
Here if 4.g3 Black has at his
disposal the after quite effective
set-up: 4 . . . dxe4 5.dxe4 e5 6.Ci:Jgf3
c5 ! 7.g2 0-0 8.0-0
30
and now:
8 . . . l"\e8 ! ? this is a very precise
move, with which Black shows his
reluctance to determine immedi
ately the placement of his b8knight. 9.c3 (After 9 .b3 it would
be good for Black to play 9 . . . Ci:Jc6)
9 . . . a5 10. c2 a4 1l.Ci:Jc4 Ci:Jbd7 12.
Ci:Je3 ! ? b6 13.l"\d1 b7 14.Ci:Jh4 g6
15.h3 ? ! This idea is just wrong.
15 ...he4! 16.fud7 hc2 (16...xd7?
17.i.xd7 hc2 18.i.xe8 he3 19.i.c6!
hc1 20.E1xc1 +-) 17.E1xd8 E1axd8
18.Ci:Jxc2 l"\d1+ 19.@g2 h5 ! ? (This
is a prophylactic move, the point
of which can be seen in the varia
tion 19 . . . Ci:Je4 20 .g4 ! , but it is
even stronger for Black to prepare
the exchange of the active enemy
rook on d1 with the move 19 . . .
l"\ed8 ! when White's situation be
comes critical.) 20.g5 E1xa1 21.
Ci:Jxa1 Ci:Je4 22.d7 l"\b8 23.Ci:Jf3 f6
24.c1 Ci:Jxf2+ Nadanian - Lpu
tian, Armenia 1998;
However, Black can try to play
more simply: 8 . . . Ci:Jbd7 9 .b3 b6 10.
b2 a6 (On the next move it
would not be so convenient for
him to develop his bishop to the
a6-square: 10 . . . e7 ll.Ci:Jc4 a6
12.Ci:Jfxe5 Ci:Jxe5 and now White
can either capture a pawn : 13.
...
c5
Chapter 6
5.g3
5 . . . g6
This set-up is only seldom
played and its idea is not only to
surprise the opponent, but to en
ter a complicated position with
counter chances for Black. The
classical scheme in this situation
looks to me to be a bit passive s . . . tLlc6 6 .g2 e7 7. 0-0 b6 8J'!e1
b7. I have played many games
with it, not without considerable
success, but I think White's play is
easier, since he makes the impor
tant decisions.
6 . .ig2 .ig7
7. . . 0 - 0
7. 0 - 0
White can try to seize the ini
tiative with 7.exd5, but Black can
counter this with 7 . . . tt'lxd5 (But
not 7 . . . exd5 ? ! and he will have
problems after 8 .'e2 + .ie6 9 .
tt'lg5; the endgame arising after
8 .. .'e7 9.xe7+ xe7 10.tt'lb3t is
no good for Black at all.) 8.tt'lb3 ! ?
(White cannot hurt his opponent
with 8.tt'le4 tt'lc6 9.0-0 b6 10 . .ig5
f6 1l ..id2 0-0 and the position is
double-edged.) 8 . . . tt'lc6 (It seems
weaker for Black to play 8 . . . 0-0
9.0-0 tt'ld7 10.Ei:e1 and he will
have problems with the develop
ment of his light-squared bishop.
For example: 10 . . . b6? ! ll . .ig5 f6
12 . .ic1 ; ll . . . .if6 12 ..ixf6 xf6 1 2 .
tt'lfd2 ! ?) 9.0-0 b6 and i t will b e
difficult for White t o achieve any
thing from this position. For in
stance, 10 .d4 (10.c4 tt'lde7 ll.d4
.ia6 ! ) 10 . . . .ia6 1l.Ei:e1 cxd4 (But
not ll . . . c4? ! 1 2 . tt'lbd2 c3 13. tt'le4
cxb2 14.hb2 0-0 15 ..ia3 tt'lce7
16.tt'le5t) 12.tt'lbxd4 tt'lxd4 13.
tt'lxd4 0-0 14.tt'lc6 (White cannot
obtain any advantage with 14.c3
SJel
The line 8.e2 tt'lc6 9.c3 b6 is
not so good for White, because af
ter Black's natural reaction 10 .e5
tt'ld7 ll.d4 a5, White's queen is
obviously misplaced.
33
Chapter 6
8 .lZlc6
9.c3
White has completed his
King's
Indian
attack
"pro
gramme". We shall try to go a bit
deeper into the intricacies of this
position.
White cannot change much
with indifferent moves such as 9 .
a 3 b6 10 .c3, although White often
plays like this. He has tried also
l OJ''lb l. . . Unfortunately, he does
not do that very often . . .
White also has difficulties af
ter 9 .'\We2 b6 lO.tiJfl (10 .c3 ia6)
10 . . . h6 ! ? (It is also very good for
Black to play the immediate 10 . . .
e 5 ll.tiJe3 ib7) ll.h4 e 5 12.tiJe3
ie6 13.exd5 tiJxd5 14.liJc4 ig4+
and Black is simply better, Ma
tikozian - Lputian, Yerevan 1999.
(diagram)
9 .l'e8
Chapter 6
lt:Jxf6 15.d2;!; White has a slight
edge, Bologan - Komarov, Ulcinj
1997) ll.dxe4 xd1 12 .Elxd1 a4 !
(but not 12 . . . lt:Jxe4 13 .ie3 with
excellent compensation for Black).
Black is threatening a4-a3 and
has good counterplay.
It looks natural for White to
play 10.a4, but after 10 . . . b6, White
again has problems. Now a switch
to a French Defence pawn struc
ture with e4-e5, followed by d3d4, would present the b4-square
to his opponent, while after lt:Jf1,
Black can go into an endgame and
occupy the d3-outpost with his
knight via e5, or c5 after c5-c4,
while 11.exd5 exd5 12.lt:Jf1 ia6 13.
if4 lt:Jh5 14.ig5 d6 would not
achieve much for White.
13.c4 ! ?
1 0 .e5
White decides to make a solid
preparatory move without forc
ing the game. If nothing dramatic
happens, Black's plan is simple
- b6, ib7, c7, Elad8 etc., typi
cal central strategy. Therefore we
shall study attempts to sharpen
the game.
36
Chapter 6
18 ..bc4 :gf8 ! (18 . . . g4?! 19.
e2 ! ) 19.f3 f5 . Black has ob
tained an excellent game for the
sacrificed material. His counter
play is rich and easy - all in the
centre. He can also try 19 . . . h3 ! ?
2 0 .fl d7.
13 .. .l:f8
It is logical for Black to move
the rook back to its worki ng
file.
His alternatives are inferior:
it is bad for him to continue
with 13 . . . dxc4 14.dxc5 tLlde5 15.
tLle4 tLlxf3+ 16.hf3 '\Wd4 17.'1We2
(17.:gb1 ! ?) 17 . . . :gd8 18.:gb1 ! (Me3)
18 . . . '1Wd3 19 .e3;
13 . . . tLlxd4 14.cxd5 e5 (after
14 . . . tLlb6 it is good for White to
play simply 15.tLlxd4 '1Wxd4 16.
'1We2 ; 15 ... cxd4 16.dxe6 and Black
has problems; or 15.tLle4 '1Wf8 16.
d6 e5 17.tLlxd4 cxd4 18 .g5) 15.
tLle4 '1Wf8 and White has several
promising possibilities : 16.g5 ! ? ,
o r 16 .b4 tLlb6 17.bxc5 g4 18.cxb6
xf3 19.'1Wd3 axb6 2 0 .b2 , or
16.e3 tLlf6 17.tLlfg5 tLlxe4 18.
tLlxe4.
14.cxd5 exd5 15.dxc5
38
39
Chapter 7
. . .
a) 3 .tl:lc6
4.ll:lf3 e5
This position was reached in
the game Damljanovic - Svidler,
Plovdiv 2 003. White chose the
seemingly attractive 12 .ig5 (after
12 .if4 e7 13J:'i:d1 cxd4 14.cxd4
Ei:xf4 Black probably has sufficient
compensation for the exchange. It
is good for White to play simply
12 .%'\dl. It seems to me that he
should also consider 12.tt:lg5 ! ?)
12 . . .f5 13.ie3 . Now Black's best
decision would be 13 . . . cxd4 (in
the above mentioned game there
followed 13 . . . b6 14.tt:Ja3 a6 15.
Ei:ad1 ib7 16.tt:Jg5 Ei:fe8 17.f4 and
Black ended up in an unpleasant
position) 14.tt:Jxd4 (White should
41
Chapter 7
5.exd5 !
This is the only way for White
to utilize his two extra tempi in
comparison with the Philidor De
fence with colours reversed.
After S.c3 tt:lf6, Black has no
serious problems. An early white
attempt to seize more space on
the queenside backfires : 6.b4 (It
would be too passive for him to
develop according to the scheme
of the Philidor Defence with col
ours reversed and an extra tempo,
for example: 6.c2 aS 7.e2 h6
8 . 0 - 0 d6 9.tt:lbd2 0-0 10J'l:d1
l'l:e8 11.li:Jf1 e6 12.tt:lg3 c8 13.h3
a4 14.e3 li:Je7+ and in the game
Zhang Zhong - Bareev, Wijk aan
Zee 2004, Black even gained an
edge.) 6 . . . g4 !
5 .. .\!'xd5 6)i:'lc3
6 . . . .ib4
7.li:Jbd2 (7.a3 aS 8 .bS dxe4 9 .
bxc6 exf3 10 .gxf3 e6 ll.cxb7 l'l:b8
12.f4 exf4 13.g2 d6 14.c6+
tt:ld7 1S.d4 0-0 16.bS e7 17.
ci>d1 tt:lb6 18.li:Jd2 h4 19 .f3 h3
20./'l:e1 l'l:fd8 21./'l:e2 f8+ Black is
obviously better in this position,
Skripchenko - Ulibin, Dubai
2003. White's chances would not
be improved by 12.g2 d6 13.
li:J d2 0-0 14. 0-0, Totsky - Ru
dolf, Cappelle la Grande 2006
42
9.Wfe4
White's alternatives are weaker:
he does not achieve much with
9.d4 0-0-0 (but not 9 . . . e4 10 .h3
ih5 1l.c4 xc4 12.ixc4 exf3 13.
g4 and owing to the threat of d4d5 White regains his piece, main
taining an advantage) 10 .dxe5 be
cause of 10 . . . tt::l f 6 ! and White must
be on the alert. 11.l"ld1 (after 11.h3
ixf3 12.xf3, Black has a pleas
ant choice between the simple
move 12 . . . tt::l e 4f! and the sharp
line : 12 . . . l"lhe8 13 .f5+ lf?b8 14.
ie2 tt::l e 4 15.l"ld1 xd1 + 16.ixd1
tt::l xc3 17. 0-0 tt::l x d1 with an excel
lent position in both cases) 11 . . .
xd1 + 12.xd1 l"lxd1+ 13.1f?xd1
tt::l e4 14.ie1 tt::l xe5 15.ie2 l"ld8+ 16.
lf?c1 and Black can draw by play
ing 16 . . . tt::l xf3 17.gxf3 ih5 18.l"lg1
g6=
We have to mention the
original move 9.l"lg1 ! ? , which
Black should probably counter
with 9 . . . tt::l f 6 (however, even after
the simple response 9 . . . tt::l g e7 1 0 .
e4 xe4+ 11.dxe4 f6 12.tt::l d2
0-0-0 13 .f3 ie6 White did not
achieve anything in the game
Maiorov - Kuzmin, Kramatorsk
2003; after 9 .. .f6 10.Wfe4 d7 11.
h3 if5 12.a4 0-0-0 13.0-0-0
tt::l ge7 14.d4 lf?b8 a complicated
position arises.) 10.h3 ixf3 11.
xf3 e6f! White will have tem
porary difficulties if he castles
queenside and permanent prob
lems if he castles kingside, so
Black's prospects are at least
equal.
43
Chapter 7
<;t>xf6 19 . .ig2 Ei:e8 20 . .ie4 h5 2 1 .f3
ltld8oo and his chances would not
be worse in the arising endgame.
12 .. A:ld4
9 . . . .ixf3
The text move does not pro
vide Black with complete equali
ty, so he should consider the less
ambitious line : 9 .. .'W'xe4+ ! ? 10.
dxe4 f6.
1 0 .'\Wxf3 '\Wx3 ll.gxf3 f6
ll . . . ltld4 1 2 . 0-0-0 0-0-0 13.
Ei:e1 lt:lxf3 14.Ei:e3:t
13. 0 - 0 - 0
tt:lxd2 15.hb7
tt:lx3
14 . .ig2
15 Jb8
12 . .id2 !
This is a very powerful novel
ty.
The seemingly attractive move
12 .Ei:g1, followed by 12 . . . <;t>f7 13.
0-0-0 Ei:d8 14.f4 exf4 15.Ei:g4 g5
16.Ei:xg5 fxg5 17 . .hh8 , was tried in
the game Jones - Broomfield,
Millfield 2 003. Black should have
continued with 17 . . . ltlf6 18 . .hf6
44
16 . .ic6+ f8
After 16 . . . mf7 White has an
important intermediate check 17 .
.id5+ ! me7 18.Ei:xd2 md6 19 . .ib3
lt:Je7 (after 19 . . . c5 20.f4 exf4 21.
fi:e1 t he retains a powerful initia
tive) 20 .d4 e4 21.fi:e1 f5 22.f3t
and his pieces are very active.
17.gxd2
19.c3
lt:Je7
18 . .ig2
c5
19
. .
c!Lld7
Chapter 7
on g2 is not as good here. Black
can exploit one of the drawbacks
of the move 3.1We2 by developing
his bishop on a6: 6.g3 ? ! LLlf6 7.
ig2 ic5 8.0-0 0-0 9 .LLlbd2 b6 !
This is a very typical motif! 10.
l2Jb3 id6 11.ie3 aS 1 2 . LLlc1 ia6
13.LLld3 LLld7+ - with a better posi
tion for Black, Motwani - Glek,
Belgium 1997) 6 . . . l2Jf6 7.\Wc2
and now:
7 . . . a5 8.ib5 is not good for
Black;
7 . . . id6 8.l2Jbd2 0-0 9 . l2J c4 h6
10 .ie2 l'l:b8 ! ? This is a strange
move. Black provokes a2-a4. Lat
er he wants to undermine White's
b4-pawn with a7-a5 and White
cannot support it with a2-a3. This
will give Black access to the im
portant c5-square. Is it possible
that Speelman anticipated these
development so early in the
game?! 11.a4 b6 1 2 . 0 - 0 ib7 13.
l'l:e1 l2Ja5 (It also looks very good
for Black to continue with 13 . . .
l2J e 7 14.if1 l2Jg6.) 14.l2Jxd6 cxd6
15.ifl and White maintains a
slight edge thanks to his bishop
pair, Zhang Zhong - Speelman,
Bled 2 0 0 2 .
I t would b e interesting for
46
6.ll::l b d2
After 6.c3 tt:lgf6 7.\Wc2 fie7=
there arises a symmetrical, equal
position.
White's immediate fianchetto
runs into the above-mentioned
problems on the fl-a6 diagonal :
6.g3 tt:lgf6 7.!ig2 ficS 8.0-0 0-0
9.h3 l'l:e8 10.tt:le1 b6 11.tt:ld3 , Yuda
sin - Cifuentes Parada, Dos Her
manas 1998. According to Ci
fuentes, Black could have solved
all his opening problems with the
natural reaction ll . . . fia6 12.l'l:d1
\We7 13 .tt:lc3 l'l:ad8 14.figS c6 1S.
\Wf3 fid6 16.l'l:d2 h6=
. . .
!ic5 ! ?
7.ll::l c4
After 7.tt:lb3 it seems to me
that Black should reply with 7 . . .
fid6 (the move 7 . . . !ib6 allows 8.a4
aS 9.tt:lfd 2 ! :t with an edge for
White) and the knight on b3
would need to be redeployed.
In practice White has tried 7.
g3 tt:lgf6 8 .fih3 0-0 9.0-0, Popo
vic - Bodiroga, Valjevo 2011.
Black can counter this with 9 ... b6
or 9 ... aS and having saved a tem
po by omitting \Wd8-e7 he should
47
Chapter 7
be able to continue comfortably
with the plan of developing the
bishop on a6, or attack the enemy
e4-pawn by developing the bish
op on b7.
7 fie7
.
16.g3 .!Llf6
Now we shall analyze bl) 8.c3
and b2) 8.g3.
17.g4 ! ? l'!e8
(diagram)
ll.b5+
26
..
. .
gf6 9 . .ih3
f4+ 27.@bl
9... 0 - 0
An attempt by Black to ex
27 xg5 !+
. .
b2) 8.g3
1 0 . 0 - 0 a5
49
Chapter 7
The development of the bish
op on a6 does not solve Black's
problems here : 10 . . . b6 1l.i.g5 i.a6
(ll. . .h6 ! ?) 1 2 . Elad1 e8 (White is
also better after 12 . . . Elfd8 13.hd7
Elxd7 14.i.xf6 gxf6 15.lt:lh4 e6 16.
b3 Elad8 17.lt:lf5t) 13.c3 h6 14.i.cU
In practice Black has tried 10 . . .
Ele8 ll.a4 b 6 ( H e could also try
ll . . . lt:lb6 12 .i.xc8 Elaxc8.) 12.lt:lh4
(12 .i.g5 ! ?) 12 . . . g6 13 .i.g5t and
White exerts pressure, Seminara
- Needleman, Mar del Plata 1998.
ll.i.g5 h6 12 . .ixf6 lt:lxf6
13 . .ixc8 E:fxc8
(diagram)
and now the move 14.a4 ! ?t,
postponing capturing on e5 for a
while, gives White a minimal
edge.
50
Part 3
The Advance Variation
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5
In the third part of our book, we shall analyze the Advance variation
of the French defence, which arises after 3.e5. This is in fact White's
most ambitious reply against the French set-up. White starts to exert
strong pressure over the whole board right from the start of the game,
trying as hard as he can to restrict his opponent's space. Black must
immediately play very actively; otherwise his pieces will be squashed
by the lack of operating space.
However, White's strategy also has a drawback. It might turn out
that he is not well enough prepared for a task of this magnitude. Black
is immediately presented with targets to attack, in particular his oppo
nent's d4-pawn. There are several variations in which White's king is
endangered and sometimes his pieces have to occupy rather awkward
squares in order to protect and preserve his d4-e5 pawn-chain.
I think it would be useful to restate here the famous axiomatic
rule, known since the time of Aaron Nimzowitsch, who was an keen
exponent of the Advance variation of the French, that the d4- and e5squares are absolutely crucial in this variation. Will White succeed in
securely protecting his centre pawns? How effective will Black's at
tempts to undermine them with c7-c5 and f7-f6 be? The outcome of
the opening battle, and possibly of the entire game, can depend on the
answers to these questions.
I should add that, in addition to Nimzowitsch's efforts, the
Advance variation has been played and actively popularized by Evgeny
Ellinovich Sveshnikov. There have also been many important games
played by Alexander Grischuk, Peter Svidler, Alexey Shirov, Alexander
Motylev and many other strong masters who from time to time use this
interesting variation, which leads complicated and fighting positions.
51
Chapter 8
4 .'!Wb6 5.ll:l f3
4.c3
This is a necessary response
and nowadays it is absolutely au
tomatic.
There were times when there
were serious debates about the
possibility of 4.dxc5, after which
there arises a variation of the Ca
ro-Kann defence which is satis
factory for Black and here he even
has an extra tempo. 4 . . . lLl c6
(White can counter 4 . . . .bc5 with
5.Wfg4.) 5.lLlf3 .bc5 6 .i.d3 f6 7.
Wfe2 fxe5 8.lLlxe5 lLlf6 9 . 0 - 0 lLlxe5
10.1Mfxe5 0-0 ll.c4 Wfb6 12 .1Mfe2
i.d7 13.lLld2 ac8 14.cj;>hl cj;>h8
with a complicated position, Mak
ropoulos - Hug, Nice 1974.
52
..
lLlc6
6.e2
This is by no means the most
dangerous move for Black. White
develops his bishop to a very
modest position. Black can obtain
a very comfortable game in this
line.
The game proceeds in similar
fashion after the seldom played
but very interesting move 6.liJa3 .
I think that our readers will be
hardly surprised to learn that Va
dim Zvjaginsev is one of the expo
nents of this variation. 6 . . . cxd4
7.cxd4 b4 + . This is a principled
move. Black is trying to exploit
the early development of his op
ponent's knight. (It is weaker for
him to opt for 7 . . . liJh6 8.liJc2 liJf5
9.d3 e7 10.0-0 d7 and here
White has the strong move
1l.g4 ! ? . It is also interesting for
him to continue with 1l.b4, as in
the game A.Zhigalko - Vitiugov,
Warsaw 2008.) 8 .d2 d7 (It is
rather dubious for Black to play
8 . . . ha3 9.bxa3 liJxd4 10 .W1a4+
liJc6 1l.d3 liJge7 12.!'1b1 W1c7 13.
0-0 and White has an excellent
compensation for the pawn.) 9 .
liJc2 . I think this is the only way
for White to fight for an opening
advantage. (He would not achieve
much with 9 .hb4 liJxb4 - after
9 . . . W1xb4+ 1 0 .'!!1d 2 White might
consolidate his position - 10.liJc2 .
Without this move White's knight
on a3 might remain out of play for
a long time. 10 . . . liJxc2 + ll.W1xc2
liJe7 12 .W1d2 0-0 with equal
chances. It would be harmless for
Black for White to try 1 2 . e2 E1c8
6 . . . cxd4
As always, it is important for
Black to employ the right move
order.
It might seem that he reduces
the tension in the centre in this
fashion, but this assumption is
wrong. He is just avoiding some
rather unfavourable variations.
It is inferior for Black to play
6 . . . liJh6, since White can counter
this with 7.hh6 ! gxh6 (Black los
es now after 7 . . . W1xb2? in view of
8 .e3 W1xa1 9 .W1c2 cxd4 10.liJxd4 !
and this shows the difference be
tween playing the immediate 6 . . .
liJh6 and inserting the exchange
53
Chapter S
6 . . . cxd4. 10 . . ..b3 11.tLlb5+ - ; 10 . . .
d7 1 1 . 0 - 0 l"lc8 12.tLlxc6 l"lxc6 13.
b5 +-) 8.Wfd2 g7 9 . 0 - 0 0-0 10.
tLl a3 cxd4 11.cxd4 d7 12 .tLlc2 f6
13.exf6 l"lxf6 14.b4 l"laf8 15.b5 tLle7
16.tLle5 e8 17.g3 and White ob
tained an advantage in the game
Topalov - Bareev, Novgorod
1997.
7.cxd4 tiJh6
Again White has a choice, but
Black should not be afraid. White
has only two acceptable moves in
this position.
8.tiJc3
This is the most natural move.
He develops his b1-knight to its
most active position. However,
the point is that in this pawn
structure the c3-square is hardly
the best one for this knight.
After the inclusion of 6 . . . cxd4,
capturing - 8.hh6 is not so good
for White any more and Black not
only can but should capture the
sacrificed pawn - 8 . . . Wfxb2
(diagram)
and now:
it is very bad for White to play
9 .e3? Wfxa1 10.Wfb3 b4+ and he
54
Chapter 8
then retreats his bishop to its usu
al place. 11.lLlc3 (Or ll.h4 f6 ! ? ;
1l.id3 0 - 0 12 .h4 f6 13.hf5 exf5
and Black has the initiative.)
1 1 . . . 0 - 0 12 .lLla4 iWd8 13 .g3 f6 14.
exf6 ixf6 15. <;t>g2 '&d6 16.Ei:e1 b6
with an excellent position for
Black, Kupreichik - Piskov, Ger
many 1998.
8 .id3 ! ? Apart from 8 .lLlc3,
this is the only interesting move
which might cause trouble for
Black. The first impression is that
White has just touched his bishop
by accident, and decided to move
it one square forward along the
same diagonal. In fact, things are
far from being that simple . . . 8 . . .
id7 9.ic2 (But not 9.l2Jc3 ? ! l2Jxd4
10.0-0 ic5 1l.a4 iWb3 12 .iWd2
lLlxf3 + 13.gxf3, Movsesian - Iva
nov, Chalkidiki 2 0 0 2 , and here,
after the simple move 13 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? ,
Black obtains a n overwhelming
advantage).
8 . . . l'iJf5
9.l'iJa4
White has only just managed
to develop this knight and now he
is forced to place it on the edge of
the board.
It is easy to be convinced that
the alternatives are even worse
for him. 9 .b5 d7 10.hc6 hc6
and White has no compensation
9 . . . 1Mfa5+ 1 0 .d2
This is a natural and reasona
ble move. It would be futile for
White to play too enterprisingly
- 10.It>f1 b5 (It is also interesting
for Black to play 10 . . . d7! ? 11.d2
Wd8 .) ll.l'iJc3? (ll.l'iJc5 hc5 1 2 .
dxc5 b 4 13.g4 l'iJfe7 14.e3 h 5 and
he seizes the initiative) ll . . . b4 1 2 .
l'iJ b 1 a6 13 .e3 e7 14.l'iJbd2 0-0
15.l'iJb3 Wb6 16.ha6 Wxa6+ 17.
We2 Wb6 18.g4 l'iJxe3+ 19.Wxe3
f5 ! (In the game Black played the
weaker move 19 . . . a5 and after
2 0 .It>g2 l"lfc8 21.l"lac1 a4 2 2 .l'iJ c5
l"lc7 23 .h4 Wa7 24.l'iJd3 he came
under a crushing attack on the
kingside and lost, Movsesian Vitiugov, Novy Bor 2010.) 2 0 .exf6
l"lxf6 2 1.g5 l"lf7 2 2 . Wxe6 l"laf8 and
White will have problems with
standing his opponent's pressure
on the f-file.
1 0 . . . b4 ll . .ic3
White can sacrifice a pawn
here, but why? 11.l'iJ c3 l'iJfxd4 1 2 .
l'iJxd4 l'iJxd4 13.a3 l'iJxe2 14.axb4
l'iJxc3 15.hc3 Wb5.
ll . . . b5
This is Black's simplest re
sponse. He should not be too
57
Chapter S
greedy 11 . . . hc3+ 12.'t:Jxc3 1M/b6
13.ib5 0-0 14.ixc6 1M/xb2 15.
lt:J a4 1Mib4+ 16.1M/d2 1M/xd2+ 17.
xd2 bxc6 18.li:J c5 with an inferi
or position for Black.
15.\Wa4
This seems to me to be White's
most solid move.
The ambitious attempt 15.ib5
might boomerang after 15 . . . id7
58
15
Chapter 9
8 . . . tt:lxd4
6 . . . cxd4
The move 6 . . . d7 presents
White with the additional possi
bility of 7.dxc5 ! ? hc5 8 . 0 - 0 .
7.cxd4 .id7 8. 0 - 0
This i s the idea behind the en
tire operation. Now Black is prac-
9.ll)xd4
It is very attractive to lure
Black's queen into the centre of
the board.
The alternative for White is 9 .
tt:lbd2 ! ? tt:l e 7 ( I f 9 . . . tt:l c 6 Black
might have problems after 10.tt:lb3
tt:lge7 ll .e3 \Wc7 1 2 Jk l tt:lg6 13.
tt:lc5, Leon Hoyos - Meier, Merida
2008.) 10.tt:lxd4 \Wxd4 ll.tt:lf3 \Wb6
12 .e3 \Wc7 13J'kl tt:lc6, with a
solid position for Black, Haba 59
Chapter 9
Goloshapov, Cappelle Ia Grande
1998.
Vbd4 1 0 .tl:\c3
1 0 ... a6
This is a solid move. Black
takes the important bS-square
under control.
I have failed to find more than
a draw for White in the variation
lO . . . xeS ! ? 1Ule1 d6 (It would
be rather unclear for Black to
choose ll . . . b8? ! 12.CiJxdS .id6
13 .g4 <j;lf8 14 . .id2 fS - 14 . . . hS
1S.h3 with good compensation
for White - 1S.hfS exfS 16.d4
and White's attack might easily
become crushing. ) 1 2 . 4JbS (Black
neutralizes his opponent's attack
after 1 2 .f3 CiJf6 13.l2lbS b6
14 . .ie3 aS, or 13 . .if4 b4 14.a3
b3 1S . .ieS .ie7 16.Elad1 and
White has some compensation,
but not more.) 12 . . . b6 (It is sim
ply weak for Black to continue
with 12 . . . b8? 13.f3 .id6 14.
xdS hh2 + 1S.<j;lh1 l2lf6 16.gS
0-0 17.4 and he is in great trou
ble.) 13 . .ie3 as.
ll.e2
White can also play ll.Ele1, but
his compensation after ll . . . l2le7
1 2 . .ie3 xeS 13.Elc1 Elc8 can hard
ly be proved.
ll
.!L\e7
12.<j;lhl
12 . . . ttlc6 13.f4 c5 ! ?
Black i s i n a hurry t o place his
bishop on a7, before he has evacu
ated his queen away from the cen
tre.
It is possible for him to play
more actively 13 . . . ti:lb4 14Jd1
c5 ! ? (It is obvious that White
has some initiative after the cap
ture on d3 - 14 . . . ti:lxd3 15.Elxd3
Wffb 6 (It is weaker for Black to opt
for 15 . . . Wffc4? ! 16.b3 Wff c 7 17.b2
c6 18.l''k 1 with good compensa
tion for the pawn, Sveshnikov Razuvaev, Belgrade 1993.) 16.e3
c5 17.xc5 Wffxc5 18.f5. Now, af
ter the precise move 18 . . . d4 ! ? ,
Black has good chances o f obtain
ing a satisfactory position: 19.b4
Wffc 7 2 0 .Elad1 0-0-0 21.Elxd4 (21.
ti:le4 b5) 2 l . . .c6 2 2 .fxe6 Elxd4
23.Elxd4 fxe6=) 15 . .ba6 Wfff2 16.
Wffxf2 M2 17.b5 c6 and the end
game is very pleasant for Black,
Smimov - Smikovski, Omsk 1996.
14.a3
White cannot effectively ex
ploit the awkward position of his
opponent's queen 14.Eld1 Wfff2 15.
Wffg4 0-0-0 ! ? and Black is better.
14 . . . .ia7 15 . .id2
He can counter the ugly move
15.ti:ld1, with 15 . . . Wffa4 for exam
ple.
15 . . . b6 16.g4 g6 17.b4
d8
61
Chapter 1 0
6 . . .ltlh6
This move requires deep
knowledge of theory from both
sides.
We shall say a few words about
Black's other possibilities in the
next chapter.
As often happens, the inclu
sion of the moves a3 - aS (or a6
- a4 with colours reversed) is ad
vantageous for the side which has
advanced his pawn only one
square forward. 6 . . . aS? ! 7.d3
cxd4 8.cxd4 d7 9 .c2 and Black
does not have the resource ct:Jb4
(It is also possible for White to
play the risky move 9.0-0 ! ? , en62
..
lt:lf5 9.e3
9 . . . f6
I remember here an old cliche
- "You must strike a blow against
your opponent's centre from the
flank ! "
1 0 .exf6
There arises a well-known
draw after 10.b5 lt:lxe5 11.dxe5
lt:lxe3 1 2 .fxe3 Wxe3+ 13.We2 Wc1+
14.Wd1 We3 + (It does not appear
that Black has any serious
grounds for continuing the fight
here. He can still try, though . . .
1 4 . . . Wb2 15.lt:lbd2 fxe5 16Jb1
Wxa3 17.lt:lxe5 We3+ 18 .We2 Wc3,
but I should prefer White's po-
Chapter 10
tors. 18.'Lle2 'it>b8 19 J''!b 1 l"!d5
2 0 .'Llc4 'fff c 7. In Sveshnikov's book
"Win against the French Defence"
(Moscow, 2 0 05) this position was
evaluated as + / = . I disagree cate
gorically with this opinion! 2 l.l"!c1
i.xb5 2 2 . 'Lle3 Wd7 23. 'Llxd5 exd5
and in this position, with a mate
rial imbalance, I should even pre
fer Black.
10
fxe3
..
14 .. .c!l:\e7 15. 0 - 0
This is again quite logical.
White mobilizes his forces in the
most natural fashion. The tricky
move 15.'Lld2 is harmless for
Black. For example : 15 . . . 0-0-0
16.0-0 e5 17.'Llb3 l"!hg8 18.i>h1 e4
19.i.b5 i.g4
If White insists on preventing
his opponent from castling queen
side, Black can go kingside. 15.l"!c1
0-0 16.0-0 e5 ! This is an impor
tant moment. This pawn-break is
even stronger now that White's
rook is on cl. 17.i.bl e4 18.'Lld2
(18.'Llh4 l"!ac8) 18 ... 'fff a 6 19.l"!fe1
Wxe2 2 0 .l"!xe2 l"!fc8 with a very
complicated and double-edged
endgame.
12
..
i.h6 13.'fffe 2
13 . . . i.d7 14.c!tJC3
If White has already read this
book and tries to cleverly change
the move-order - you should not
panic. 14.0-0 0-0-0 (The rou
tine 14 . . . 'Lle7 can be countered
64
15
0 - 0 - 0 !?
16.a4
There is no more resolute re
action for White than a direct
pawn-assault.
He could try something differ
ent though - 16.b5 mb8 17.tl:Ja4
'&d6 18.ti:Jc5 j,c8 with a compli
cated position (or 18 . . . e5 ! ? 19.
ti:Jxd7+ Elxd7 20.dxe5 fxe5 2 l.e4
d4).
t6 . . . mbs
Black should avoid accepting
gifts - 16 . . . '&xb4? ! 17.Eltb1 '&d6
18.ti:Jb5 hb5 19.axb5 mb8 2 0 .b6
axb6 2l.'&a2 and White has won
derful compensation for the sacri
ficed pawns.
17.b5
1 7. . . '&d6 18.a5 e5
65
Chapter 1 1
.id7 1 0 .g4
10 . . . 'l:lfe7
Now Black's knight is headed
for another route . The targets are
the vulnerable f4- and h4squares.
It is less principled, but still
quite playable, for Black to con
tinue with 10 ... 'Llh6 ll.h3 (It would
be worse for White to leave his
king in the centre with ll.gl f6
1 2 .exf6 gxf6 13.'Llc3 'Llf7 14.'Lla4
Wc7 15.cl Wf4 and Black h as ob
tained good counter ch ances,
Short - Lputian, Batu mi 19 99.)
ll . . .f6 12.exf6 gxf6 13. 'Ll c3 'l:l f7,
Shirov - Berg, Tallin n 2 00 6.
ll.c!Dc3
14.h4
ll
. .
a5 !
12.d2
White cannot allow his oppo
nent's knight to come to c4.
He achieves nothing with the
more natural line: 12 .V!ic2 lUc4 13.
xc4 dxc4 14.lUd2 V!ic6 1S.l2Jce4
and here Black can choose be
tween a forced draw and playing a
position a pawn down but with
excellent prospects. 1S . . . c3 ! ? (lS . . .
lU e S 16.CUxc4 bS ! ?) 16.lUd6+ (M
ter 16.V!ixc3 cuds, the missing
pawn is practically irrelevant.)
16 ... 1!/dS 17.lUxf7+ l!le8 18.lUd6+
l!ld8= Sveshnikov - Radjabov,
Tallinn 2 0 04.
12 Jk8 13.:1kl g6
..
14
. . .
i.e7
Chapter 11
is also possible for White to try
the more forcing line 17Jk2 'Llc6
18.'Lla4 'l'd8 19.'Llc5 hc5 2 0 .bxc5
'l'a5 reaching a position which
has not yet been analyzed exten
sively.) 17 . . . g6 18Jk2 'Llc6 19.'Lla4
'l'd8 2 0 .'Llc5 xc5 21.dxc5. It
looks as if White can still hope to
gain an edge, but Black has his
counter-chances.
15.g5
Black successfully blockades
his opponent's pawns after 15.h5
'Llf4 16.'1'f3 g5.
15
0-0
16.'1'g4
White exerts positional pres
sure over the entire board and he
forces his opponent to temporari68
16
hb4
. .
18
:Bxc3
19.hc3 '1'xc3
2 0 .!%h3
White should not be in a hurry
2 0 .h5 'Lle7 2 1.h6? 'Llf5 !
20
V!ffc7 21.i.d3
21 .tbe7 22.h5
22
CiJf5 23.f4
23 . tbc6
69
Chapter 12
l . e4 e6 2 . d4 d5 3 .e5 c5 4.c3 b6
5 )2 3 lLlc6 6 . a3
6 . . . d7
This is a universally useful
move in blocked French posi
tions. It is almost impossible to
find a line in which the d7-square
would not be a reasonable one for
this black bishop.
The struggle develops in an
entirely different way after 6 . . .
c4 ! ? The resulting closed posi
tions are not to everyone's liking,
but this move has its logic, in its
chess aspects as well as in the
70
and here:
8.h4 JJ.d7 9.h5 f5 10.l'l:b1 tiJh6
11.1J.e2 1J.e7 1 2 . 0-0 l'l:c8 13.l'l:e1 tiJ7
14.Wffc 2 Wff c7 15.tiJh2 g5 16.tiJhf1 g4
17.tiJe3 tiJg5 and Black exploited
his enormous space advantage,
Shabalov - Akobian, Philadelphia
2004;
8 .1le2 1J.d7 9.0-0 tiJe7 10 .l'l:b1
(10.l'l:e1 f5 1l.exf6 gxf6 12.l'l:b1
0-0-0 13 .b4 cxb3 14.tiJxb3 1J.a4
15.tiJfd2 1J.h6 with a good position
for Black, Klimov - Vysochin, St
Petersburg 2 008) 10 . . . Wffc7 ll.l'l:e1
tiJcB 12.tiJf1 tiJb6 13.1J.f4 tiJb3 14.
tiJ3d2 (14.tiJg3 1J.a4 15.1J.fl 0-0-0
16.tiJh5 h6 17.fffe 2 tiJ a5 18.fffd 2
Wff c 6 19.l'l:e2 fffe 8 2 0 .g4 1J.e7 21.
l'l:bel Wffg 8 22.Wffc 1 Wffh7 23.Wffb 1 fffxb1
24.l'l:xb1 g6 25.tiJg3 1J.b3 26 .1J.h3
tiJa4 27.l'l:f1 b5 28.1J.e3 tiJc6 29.tiJe1
aS 3 0 .f4 b4+ and Black realized
his advantage in the game S.Zhi
galko - Andreikin, Moscow 2 0 10)
tiJa5 15. tiJg3 1J.a4 16.fffc 1 0-0-0
9 . . . 1J.e7! ? ( 9 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 1 0 . 0-0
f5? This was a questionable deci
sion after which Black's position
was soon in ruins. ll.exf6 gxf6
12 .l'l:e1 1J.d6 13.1J.h3 1J.c7 14.l'l:b1
71
Chapter 12
lt>b8 15.b4. It is already practical
ly over. 15 . . . cxb3 16.l2lxb3 l2Je7
17.l2Jfd2 c6 18.l2lc5 l2lf5 19.l2Jdb3
l2Jxb3 2 0 .xb3 and the game last
ed fifteen more moves only owing
to
White's
inaccurate play,
Grischuk - Vitiugov, Moscow
2 0 1 0 . A typical manoeuvring
game might arise after 9 . . . l2Je7,
followed by the standard transfer
of the knight to the b6-square.)
10.0-0 hS 11.l2le1 h4 12 .h3 hxg3
13.fxg3 l2Jh6 14.g4 fS 15.exf6 gxf6
16 .c2 0-0-0 17.l2Jdf3 l2lb3 18.
l"lb1 eS and Black won quickly,
Hadzimanolis - Lputian, Athens
2 005.
7.b4
The awkward move 7.l"la2 ? ,
tested b y Sergey Fedorchuk, i s
unlikely t o attract any followers.
7 . . . c4 8 .i.f4 l2Jge7 9.l2lbd2 lLlaS 1 0 .
i.e2 l2J c 8 11.h4 c7 12 .h5 h6 1 3 .
l"lh3 l2J b 6 14.a4? c6 15.g4 l2Jxa4
and White ended up simply a
pawn down and unsurprisingly he
went on to lose, Fedorchuk - Alsi
na Leal, Aix-les-Bains 2 0 1 1 .
. .
9 . .ib2
It seems to me that in this
case White must consider the
possibility of developing his
bishop to a more active position
- 9 .i.e3 l2Jh6 10 .i.d3 l2Jg4 11.0-0
i.e? 12 .l2lbd2 l2Jxe3 (It is weaker
for Black to play 12 . . . 0-0?! 13.
l2lb3 l2Jxe3 14. fxe3 d8 15.l2lc5
b6 16.l2lxd7 xd7 17.l"lc1 with
pressure for White.) 13 .fxe3 l2Jb8
14.e2 ia4 15.l"lac1 l"lxc1 16.l"lxc1
0-0 with equality, Areshchenko
Paehtz, Gibraltar 2 0 0 8 .
W e have already seen several
times that the development of
White's bishop on e2 does not
bring him any benefits : 9 .i.e2
l2Jge7 (9 . . . a5 ! ? 1 0 .b5 l2Jxd4 11.
l2Jxd4 l"lxc1 12.xc1 xd4 Nikitin)
10.0-0 lLlfS 1l.i.b 2 i.e? 12 .d2
0-0 13.l"ld1 f6 14.l2lc3 fxe5 15.dxe5
ie8 16.l"lac1 i.hS 17.l2Ja4 d8
18.l2lc5 hcS 19.E\xc5 l2Jh4 and
Black's prospects are no worse,
Sveshnikov - Lputian, Podolsk
1990.
. . .
a5 ! ?
and now:
12 .l'!cl This move is played
Chapter 12
by the presence of bishops of op
posite colour on the board.) 18.
1Wd2 (White cannot hurt his oppo
nent at all with the line: 18.g4
tt:Jh4 19.tt:Jxh4 1xh4 2 0 .tt:Je3 b5.)
18 ... 0-0 19J'Ud1 1e6 and Black
has a good position.
12. tt:J c5 tt:Jc4
1 0 .c!L!bd2 .!Llc4
ll .!Llxc4
13 . . . exd5 14.xd5
15.e4
14 . . .c!l:\e7
I believe Black should respond
in this fashion. It is a sin not to
use this tempo to develop his
knight.
It seems too routine for Black
to opt for 14 . . . b5 15.1J.e2 lt'Je7
16.Wff d 2 Wffg 6?! - he is playing too
optimistically. (He should try
here 16 . . Jl:d8 ! ?) 17. 0-0 flc6 and
after the simple move 18J'Ud1 ! ?
Black has great problems. For ex
ample, after 18 . . . 4'lf5, White has
the resource 19.hc4 ! bxc4 2 0 .
15 . . . b5 16 ..ie2
Or 16.4'ld4 c3 ! ? 17.E1xc3 E1xc3
18.hc3 Wffx a3 19.1i>d2 Wff a 2 + 2 0 .
li> c 1 g 6 2 1 .4'lxb5 SJ.h6+ 2 2 .f4 0 - 0
and Black has good compensation.
16 . . . g6 17.'e3 .ic6 with
counterplay.
75
Part 4
76
Chapter 13
4 . tl:ld7
. .
5.g3
At the beginning of the 2 1st
century, this slightly unnatural
move was very fashionable for a
while, but then Black found a way
to counter it successfully and its
popularity gradually ebbed away.
..
e5 !
8.Wfe2
Black has no problems after
8.li:Jf3 exd4 9.0-0 i.e7 10.l"lel 0-0
ll.'&xd4 c6 1 2 .i.f4 'Wxd4 13.li:Jxd4
l"le8 = , or even 8 . . . e4 ! ? 9 .li:Je5 i.d6
10.0-0 0-0 ll.i.f4 c5oo with an
unclear position.
8.d5. The position is tremen
dously interesting after this move
and there are plenty of possibili
ties for both sides. 8 . . .i.g4 (8 . . .
i.d6 9 . li:J e 2 0-0 1 0 . 0 - 0 i.f5 ll.c4
77
Chapter 13
d7 1 2 .tt:lc3 ih3 13.igS ixg2 14.
Wxg2 fS 1S.ixf6 xf6 16.a3 aS
17.tt:lbS e4= with approximately
equal chances, Naiditsch - Milov,
Bastia 2 0 0S) 9.tt:le2
8 . .'xd4 9.tt:lf3 d5
.
10.0-0
1 0 . . e4!
.
78
and now:
1Ule1 ig4 12 .c4 (Black equal
izes easily after 12 .h3 ? ! hf3 13.
ixf3 e4= ) 12 ... c6 13.d3 e4 14.
tt:lgS 0-0-0 1S.b3 ie6 16.tt:lxe4
(White cannot obtain any advan
tage in case of 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17.
igS icS.) 16 . . . hc4 17.tt:lxf6 hb3
18.hc6 ie6 19.tt:lhS bxc6 2 0 .
tt:lxg7 id7, Black's bishop-pair
fully compensates for his disrupt
ed pawn-structure.
It would be interesting for
White to opt for ll.tt:lxeS ! ? xeS
12 .xeS+ !xeS 13.Ele1 tt:lg4 (It is
weaker for Black to continue with
13 . . . ie6 14.hb7? ! Elb8 1S.ic6+
We7 16.ElxeS Wd6 ! 17.Elxe6+
fxe6= ; 14.ElxeS ! 0-0-0 1S.if4
and White has obtained the ad
vantage of the bishop pair for
nothing.) 14.f4 ie6 1S.fxeS 0-00 16.h3 tt:lh6 17.igS Eld7 18 .g4.
This position looks very difficult
for Black, but things are not as
bad as they seem. 18 . . . tt:lg8 19.
Elad1 hS with some pressure for
White.
ll.l:dl
ll ... c5
13.xf3 e5-+
The position peters out to ster
ile equality after 12 .l"\el g4 13.h3
hf3 14.hf3 0-0-0 15.he4
liJxe4 16.xe4 d5 ! =
12 d6 13.liJg5 0 - 0 14.
tbxe4 liJxe4 15. xe4
..
12.h3 ! ?
This i s quiet move i s sensible.
White's attempt to smash his
opponent's position right away
would not work after: 12 .g5 e6
13.hf6 exf3 14.xf3 gxf6 15.xb7
l"\c8 16.l"\el <i>d8. Black has an
extra piece and a quite defensible
position.
It would be a crude blunder
for White to play 12 .e3? exf3
15
.h:c5
..
79
Chapter 14
7_.!ljxf6+
7 . .ih4 ! ? This is an interesting
possibility for White. He post
pones the exchange on f6, with
the idea of exploiting the fact
that Black's knight on d7 stands
in the way of his other pieces.
7 ... .ie7 (White can counter 7 . . .
c S with 8 .c3 aS - After 8 . . . cxd4
he replies with the simple move
9.xd4 - 9.tt:lxf6+ tt:lxf6 10.hf6
gxf6 11.dS .id7 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.
.ic4 0-0-0 14.e2 b6 1S.O-O-O
.id6 16.Wb1 Wb8 17J':1he1 E1he8
18.e3 .if8 19.tt:lh4 .ic8 2 0.tt:lg6
and Black will have problems
protecting all his weaknesses,
Gashimov - Illescas Cordoba,
Lugo 2 0 09.) 8.tt:lxf6+ .ixf6. With
out the inclusion of the moves h6,
.ih4, White would have the move
80
2.d4 d5 3 . Ci'J d2 de 4Ji'Jxe4 Ci:J d7 5. Ci:Jj3 Ci:J gf6 6. i.g5 h6 7. Ci:Jxf6 Ci:Jxf6
slightly worse in the game Kur
nosov - Lysyj , Rijeka 2 0 1 0 . ) 14.
i.c4 Ci:Jf6 15.e3 cxd4 16Jl:xd4
l"lxd4 17.xd4 id7 18 .l"ld1 ie8
19.g4 l"lc8 2 0 .h4 cS= Kurnosov
- Grachev, Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
7 .-!Lixf6
a) 8.i.d2
White plans to attack the tar
get on h6. This is not so danger
ous for Black, though . . .
8 . . . c5
ll . . . e5!
9.dxc5
Chapter 14
E!df1 .ih3 17.E!hg1 W/xh2 18.1Mif3
and White had the advantage in
the game Khalifman - Dreev, Yal
ta 1995.
12. o- o - o ges 13 .ic3
After 13 ..ib5 .id7 14.hd7 W/xd7
15 . .ie3 he3 + 16.W/xe3 W/a4 17.
\tl b1 E!ac8 18.1Mib3 W/xb3 19.axb3
ltlg4 2 0 .E!d2 e4+ Black's position
is preferable, Bologan - Dokhoi
an, Germany 1993.
b) S .ix6
.
8
.id7
82
..
ll . .!De5 ! ?
This i s the most unpleasant
move for Black to face.
The position is swiftly simpli
fied after 11.0-0 cS ! 12 .c3 cxd4
13.cxd4 .ic6 14.ltle5 .id6 15.ltlxc6
bxc6 16.W/a4 0-0 17.W/xc6 W/xd4
18.E!ad1= Amonatov - Vorobiov,
Moscow 2006.
White has also tried the tricky
move 11 .c3, but Black can obtain
an acceptable position in that case
as well. 1l.. . .id6 (The complica
tions after 11.. .0-0-0 12.0-0 cS
13.1Mib3 .ic6 14.ltle5 .idS 15.c4
.ixg2 16. \tl xg2 E!xd4 are unclear
and Black does not need to go in
for them, although his prospects
there are not at all bad. 17.f4 .id6
18.E!ae1 E!xf4 19.E!xf4 W/xf4co Amo
natov - Maslak, Moscow 2 006.)
12 .1Mie2 cS 13.0-0 cxd4 14.cxd4
W/e7 15.ltle5 .ixe5 16.dxe5 .ic6 17.
.ie4 .ixe4 18 .W/xe4 0-0= Anand
- lvanchuk, Monte Carlo 2 004.
It is a bit too solid for White to
continue with 11.1Mie2 0-0-0 1 2 .
0 - 0 - 0 .id6 (12 . . . c5 ! ?) 13. \tl bl
\tl b8 14.a3 .ic8 15 ..ie4 eS 16.dxe5
heS 17.ltlxe5 W/xeS 18 . .if3 W/f6
19.E!xd8 E!xd8 2 0 .E!dl= Vallejo
ll . . . d6 12.'!We2
13. 0 - 0 c5 14.c3
0-0-0
8 . . . d5
c) 8 . .ie3
9 . .id3
Chapter 14
luctant to operate like this in the
middle game or the endgame.
Black achieves quickly the de
sired result after 9.d2 ib4 ! This
is an exquisite manoeuvre and its
idea will become clear a bit later.
10 .c3 id6 1I.id3 (11.0-0-0 e7
1 2.l2le5 ixe5 ! ? 13.dxe5 id7 14.
d4 tt:lxe3 15.xe3 ic6 16.id3 b6
17.ic2 Eld8 18.Elxd8+ xd8 19.f4
d5 = Najer - A. Rychagov, Mos
cow 2 008.) 11 . . . e7 1 2 . 0-0-0
id7 13.tt:le5 ia4 ! This is the point
of Black's move nine. White's
rook on d1 is very uncomfortable.
14.ic2, draw, Amonatov - Vitiu
gov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.
9 .id2 c5
Now:
10 .c4 tt:lf6 1I.id3 cxd4 12.0-0
id6 13.h3 0-0 14.tt:lxd4 e5 15.l2lb5
ic5 16.e2 e4 (16 . . . a6 ! ? 17.tt:lc3
id4 18.Elad1 id7=) 17.ic2 e7
18.ie3 id7 19.tt:l c3 ic6 2 0 . Elad1
Elfe8 2 l .Elfe1 a6 2 2 .a3 a5 23.id4
and Black had to struggle to
equalize for most of the game,
Amonatov - Potkin , Belgorod
2010;
10.l2le5 a6 11.id3 White has
this possibility only when Black's
pawn is on h6. 1 1 . . .cxd4. This is
84
2.d4 dS 3 J i:J d2 de 4J uxe4 lLJ d7 5. li:Jf3 li:J gf6 6. 1lg5 h6 7. li:Jxf6 li:Jxf6
26.cxb6 xb6 27.bS heS 2 8 .fxeS
a6 and Black is better. His power
ful knight on dS protects the dark
squares, while White's pawns are
vulnerable, Shirov - Wang Hao,
Moscow 2010.) 19 . . . hS 2 0 . 0-0 h4
2 1 .h3 hS 2 2 . fdl. This is an at
tempt by White to improve on
Leko's play (22.fe1 a6 23.b3
d8 24.a3 <>g8 2S.c2 fS 2 6.1lc1
li:Jf4 27.!lxf4 xf4, with a quite
comfortable position for Black,
Leko - Gurevich, Elista 2 0 07.)
2 2 ... a6 23.b3 d8 24.a3 i>g8
2S.!le3 fS 26.d3 li:Jf4 ! = Nai
ditsch - Vitiugov, Poikovsky
2010.
ll . . . c5! ?
That i s a rarely played move.
However, I believe that it will be
come much more popular in the
coming years.
Black will have to fight long
and hard for a draw after 11 . . . eS
12.dxeS !lcS 13 .!lbS+ (But not
13.!lc4? e7 14.d2 0-0 1S.
0-0-0 c6 16.hf1 bS 17.1lb3 aS
18.a3 a4 19.!la2 b4 2 0 .axb4 a3
2 1 .b3 hb4 2 2 .c3 !laS 23 .b4 !lc7
24.li:Jd4 xeS 2S.li:Jxc6 e8 26.
li:Jd4 !lg4 2 7.de1 !leS and Black
had a powerful attack in the game
Nakamura - Akobian, San Fran
cisco 2 0 0 2 . ) 13 . . . c6 14.xd8+
i>xd8 1S.!lc4 i>e7
ll.e4
The cautious move 11. e2
does not combine well with the
loss of the dark-squared bishop
on the previous move. ll . . . e7
12.0-0-0 eS 13.1lc4 0-0 14.f2
!lg4 (Or 14 . . . e4 ! ? 1S.li:Jd2 c6, with
an excellent game for Black.)
1S.hf1 ae8 16.h3 h3 17.xf3
exd4 18.exd4 e3+ 19.xe3
xe3 = Jenni - Pelletier, Zurich
2006.
Chapter 14
d4 23.aS a6 24J'k4 .beS 2S.
'LixeS @xeS and White failed to
break down Black's defences in
the rook and pawn ending, Nai
ditsch - Akobian, Moscow 2009.)
16 ... e6 (After 16 . . . l"i:d8 17.a4 a6
18.@e2 e6 19 . .be6 @xe6 2 0 .
l"i:hfl l"i:d7 2l.l"i:ad1 l"i:xd1 2 2 . l"i:xd1 aS
23.'Lie1 g1 24.g3 b6 2S.'Lid3
@e7 2 6.g4 l"i:d8 27.l"i:f1 c7 2 8 .h4
l"i:e8 2 9 .hS @f8 30.l"i:fS White real
ized his advantage, Gashimov Akobian, Caleta 2 0 09.) 17 . .be6
@xe6 18.@e2 b6 19.l"i:hf1 l"i:hf8
2 0.l"i:ad1 l"i:ad8 2 l . l"i:xd8 .bd8 2 2 .
l"i: d 1 c7= Leko - lvanchuk, More
lia/Linares 2 0 07.
12
e7 13.d2
12.e5
Black should not be afraid of
12 .dS exdS 13 .bS+
(diagram)
13 . . . @e7! (It is also acceptable
for him to continue with 13 . . . d7
14 . .bd7+ xd7 1S.xdS 0-0-0
16.0-0 l"i:he8=) 14.e2 (Or 14. 0-0
a6! 1S.xdS axbS 16.'LieS .beS
17.xf7+ @d6 18.dS+ @c7 19.
86
0 - 0 - 0 c6 15.@b1 c8 16.
dxc5 .bc5 17.f4 b6 18.e4
0 - 0 19 . .bc6 xc6 and Black
gained an excellent position in the
game Yu Shaoteng - Wang Hao,
Cebu City 2 0 07.
Chapter 15
a ) 9.dxc5 ! ?
White solves the problem in
one move.
8 . . . c5
This is an energetic reply.
White can counter it in about ten
different ways, so Black must be
prepared against all of these.
The alternative is - 8 ... .\ke7.
This move is safer but it is a bit
passive.
Here White can choose be
tween: a) 9.dxc5, b) 9 .\kc4, c)
9 . . . a5 +
Unfortunately, it is inferior for
Black to continue with 9 . . . xdl +
10.l"lxd1 .llxc5 ll.ti:Je5 (It would be
just a loss of time for White to
play ll..lkb5+ rJJ e 7 12 .ti:Je5 g5 13.
.\kg3 li:Je4 and Black equalizes. For
example: 14 . .\ke2 .\kd6 15.ti:Jxf7
.llxg3 16.ti:Jxh8 .llxf2 + 17. rJJ fl .llb 6
18 . .\kh5 ti:Jf2 19.'it>e2 ti:Jxh1 2 0 . l"lxh1
.lld 7 2 l .ti:Jg6+ rJJ d 6 2 2 .l"ld1 + rJJ c 7
23.ti:Je5 l"ld8 =) 11. . . 0-0 12 . .\ke2
ltld5 13 . .\kf3 ib4+ 14.rJJ f1 f5 15.c4
ti:Je7 16 . .\kxe7 he7 17.ti:Jg6 l"lf7 18.
li:Jxe7+ l"lxe7 19.l"ld8+ rJJf7 2 0 .rJJ e 2
87
Chapter 15
l"i:c7 2 1.b3 Sivokho - Serov, St
Petersburg 2008.
12. 0 - 0
This is the classical set-up for
White.
It would be more aggressive
for him to opt for 12 .e2 0-0
15
and then :
after 13.0-0-0, Black has the
possibility of placing his light
squared bishop in an active posi
tion. 13 . . . d7 14.l2Je5 a4 ! (It is
possible, but I believe more pas
sive, to play 14 . . . c6.) 15.l"i:d2,
Morozevich - Zvjaginsev, Mos
cow 2 0 05 (do not think that Black
88
.ib7
..
16.l3adl
b) 9 . .ic4
16 . . . l3d6 17.b4
The alternative is 17 . .ig3 !"1ad8
18.b4? xc3 19.1"1c1 xb4 2 0 .!"1c7
.ie4 2 1 .he4 0,xe4 2 2 . 1"1fl 0,c3 23.
c2 0,d5 24.0,c6 1"1xc6 25.1"1xc6
.ic5, but Black gains a serious ad
vantage.
17 . . . c7 18 . .ig3 !"1dd8
19. 0,xt7!?
In the game White played
19.1"1c1 ? ! and he was even worse,
although his opponent failed to
punish him. 19 . . . .id6 2 0.a3 a5 2 1 .
1"1ed1 1"1ac8, Fressinet - Degraeve,
Val d'Isere 2 004.
cxd4
1 0 . 0 - 0 .ie7 11.e2
It is obvious that the move 11.
0,xd4 does not combine well with
89
Chapter 15
the development of the bishop to
c4. 11 . . . 0-0 12 J e 1 'Wb6 13 .i.b3
aS ! ? 14.a4 Ei:d8 15.c3 tt'ldS 16.i.g3
i.f6 17.Ei:e2 tt'le7 18.Ei:d2 i.d7 19.i.c4
Ei:ac8 2 0 . tt'lb5 i.xbS 2 1.hb5 tt'lfS
and Black is in no danger, Pono
mariov - Bareev, Moscow 20 0 1 .
11 . . . 0 - 0 12.gadl b6
Black is forced to play aggres
sively.
13.tiJxd4
White cannot obtain an edge
with the modest-looking move
13.i.b3? ! : 13 . . . Ei:d8 14.Ei:d3 a5 15.a4
i.d7 16.Ei:fd1 i.c6 17.tt'lxd4 i.e4 18.
Ei:3d2 i.g6 19.tt'lf3 i.hS 2 0 .i.g3
Ei:xd2 2 1 . Ei:xd2 'Wb4 and despite
Black's strange bishop manoeu
vre, his position is quite accepta
ble, E . Romanov - Zhou Weiqi,
Moscow 2006.
13 . . . xb2 14.tiJf5 !
The game becomes simplified
after this move, but White cannot
develop his initiative in any other
way.
16.he6
After 16.Ei:b1, I recommend
that Black try the novelty - 16 . . .
90
c) 9.lt:le5
9 . . . a6
The game proceeds quite dif
ferently after 9 . . . a5+ 1 0 .c3 cxd4
11.xd4 i.c5 12.f4 (An equal
endgame arises after 12.l2Jc4 hd4
13.l2Jxa5 i.b6 14.l2Jc4 i.c7 15.i.e2
i.d7 16.i.g3 hg3 17.hxg3 @e7 18.
i.f3 Ei:ac8 19.l2Je5 Ei:c7 2 0 . 0-0-0
Ei:d8 2 1 . Ei:h4 i.e8 2 2 . Ei:xd8 @xd8
23.Ei:b4 b6= Topalov - Milov,
Ajaccio 2 004.) 12 . . . i.d6 13 .i.g3
0-0
1 0 .dxc5
The correct way for Black to
equalize after 10 .c3 was demon
strated by a truly classic French
defence game : 10 . . . cxd4 11.a4+
i.d7 12 .xd4 i.b5 ! 13.i.xb5+ axb5
14.e3 d5 15.0-0 e4 ! 16.xe4
l2Jxe4 17.Ei:fe1 l2Jd6 18.a3 i.e7 19.
Ei:ad1 Ei:d8 2 0 .i.g3 0-0= Short Korchnoi, Reykjavik 2 0 0 0 .
10
'%Ya5 +
91
Chapter 15
Black should try the line: 10 . . .
c7 ! ? 11.t2Jc4 (After 11.g3 hc5
12 .d3 d6 13.e2 b4+ ! ? 14.
<i>f1 d6, the manoeuvres of
Black's bishop might give the im
pression that Black is showing
disrespect for the opponent, but
they seem logical enough.) 11 . . .
hc5 12 .g3 c6 13 .e2 0-0
14. 0 - 0 t2Je4=
0 - 0 .ic6 =
d) 9.b5+
13.ltJg4
This is the only way for White
to challenge Black's intention to
equalize.
13
e7
9
ee2
..
11
..
.ie7 12. 0 - 0 - 0
12
..
0 - 0 13.dxc5
1 0 . . . J.c5!
16
hb2 +
Chapter 15
17.<bf6 gxf6 18.f3 r!!l e 7 since Black
has tremendous compensation
for the pawn. Of course, it would
have been a disaster for him to
opt for 13 . . . fxe6? 14 . .bd7+ \Wxd7
15 ..bf6 .bf2 + 16.\Wxf2 Ei:f8 16 . . . 0-0?? 17.\Wd4+ - - 17. 0-0
Ei:xf6 18.\Wh4; 15 . . . 0-0 16.h4
and White retains the extra
pawn.) 13 . . . \Wxd7 14. 0-0-0 tt:ld5
(It looks as if White cannot ex
ploit the temporary stranding of
Black's king in the centre.) 15.f4
(Or 15.tt:lf5 0-0 16.tt:lxg7 r!!l xg7 17.
c4 \Wa4 ! 18. Ei:xd5 exd5 19.\Wg4+
r!!l h 7 20.\Wf5+ r!!l g 8 2 1.\Wg4=)
15 ... 0-0 16.f5 Ei:ae8, and Black's
powerful centralized knight on d5
keeps him out of trouble.
12
14
r!!l e7
1Wxf6
13.hd7+ r!!lxd7
17.\Wb5
White has tried 17.Ei:d3 several
times, but without any success.
17 . . . xd4 18.\Wa3+ r!!l e 8 19.cxd4
\We7 and in the game Almasi - Er
dos, Kazincbarcika 2 0 05, the op
ponents agreed to a draw. We can
continue this variation a bit fur
ther, but the evaluation remains
the same: 2 0 .\Wxa7 Ei:a8 21.\Wb6
Ei:xa2 2 2 .d5 ga6 23 .\Wb5+ r!!l f8=
14. 0 - 0
94
..
b6 26.E:cl xd4=
f) 9.e2 ! ?
4Jd5 14.f3 4Jf4 15.E\d2 g 5 16.g3
0-0-0=
12
E:c8 13. 0 - 0 - 0 a6
..
..
cxd4 1 0 .xd4
12 .!Db5
Chapter 15
It seems to me that if White
wishes to bring about a long and
hard struggle, he should choose
this move.
9 . . . cxd4
9 . . . a5+ ! ? Alexander Morozevich is reluctant to follow
well-trodden paths. 10 .c3 cxd4
11.l2Jxd4 id7 1 2 . 0 - 0 id6 (Black
managed to equalize even after
the more passive line : 12 . . . ie7 13.
Ele1 0-0 14.ig3 Elfd8 15.ic2 Eiac8
and the opponents agreed to a
draw, Sutovsky - Roiz, Netanya
2 0 09 . ) 13.f3 h5 14.xh5 t2Jxh5
15.f3 l2Jf4 16.ie4 ic5 17.if2 hd4
18 .hd4 t2Je2+ 19. i>f2 t2Jxd4 2 0 .
cxd4 c>e7= Nepomniachtchi Morozevich, Moscow 2011.
In this position we shall ana
lyze the moves: g1) 1 0 . xd4 and
g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 .
13. 0 - 0 - 0 b6 14.d2
0 - 0 15.c4 \Wc5 16.e5 .ic6
17.xc6
11.b3
White is fighting for a tempo.
It is more natural, but too
96
17 . . . bxc6 !
This is a very smart move. Af-
g2) 1 0 . 0 - 0 ! ?
1 0 . . . .id7!?
This is an interesting move. al
though slightly strange-looking.
The attempt to hold on to the
pawn would be too risky for Black:
10 . . . ic5 ll.Wfe2 0-0 12.1fe 5 and
obviously he would have to give
up the extra material in order to
avoid the worst. 12 . . . ie7 13.ig3
11.1M'e2
The rather romantic-looking
line 11.11Je5 .id6 12 .1M'e2 .ic6 13.f4
0-0 would not yield any benefit
to White. Black can counter 11.
1M'e2 with ll ... ic6.
If 11.11Jxd4 1Mfb6 ! ? (Here he can
also try ll . . . .ic5 12.11Jf3 .id6 with
similar ideas.) 12 .c3 (After 12.11Jf3
.id6, Black obtains an excellent
position.) 12 . . . .ic5 (It is rather
passive for Black to play 12 . . . .id6
13. :1'1el 0-0-0 14.1Mif3i and White
seizes the initiative.) 13.11Jf3 .id6
14.1M'd2 1Mic7 and Black has suffi
cient counter-chances.
ll . . . .ic6 12.tlJe5
97
Chapter 15
12
..
.id6
98
Chapter 16
7 b6
.
a) 7.g3
8.i.b5+
This is a very unpleasant sur
prise for Black! It turns out that
White was just waiting for this weak
ening of his opponent's position.
After the routine move 8 .i.g2 ,
Black can equalize i n a n interest99
Chapter 16
ing fashion : 8 . . . i.b7 9.0-0 i.e7
10 .c4 0-0 11.b3 aS ! 12 .i.b2 a4 13.
e2 fi:a6 14.fi:fd1 fi:e8 1S.i.c3 l2Je4
16 .i.e1 axb3 17.axb3 fi:xa1 18.fi:xa1
i.f6 19.fi:d1 a8 = Shirov - Anand,
Mainz 2 004.
..
i.d7 9 . .ie2
1 0 . 0 - 0 .id6
After 10 . . . i.b7? ! 11.lLleS a6 12.
c4 i.d6 13.i.f3 (13.a4 + ! ?) 13 ... c8
14.i.c6+ i.xc6 1S.l2Jxc6 0-0 16.
f3 fi:e8 17.i.gS l2Jd7 18 .fi:fe1 f6 19.
i.e3, Black failed to obtain an ac
ceptable position in the game Timo
feev - Riazantsev, Ulan Ude 2009.
12
..
.ic6
..
xdl
16.:!'\xdS +
16.d3 f3 17.:t!d2 g4 18.c3
hS 19 .fl :t!xd2 2 0 .xd2 :t!d8 2 1 .
e3 4'Jc6 2 2 .h3 :t!d1 23.:t!xd1 hd1
24.b5 b7 25.f2 a6 26.f1 4'Je7
27.g2+ c8 28.e1 c2 29.f3
g6 3 0 .e2 aS 3l.c4 c5= Vachier
Lagrave - Meier, Khanty-Mansi
ysk 2 0 0 9 .
8. .ie3 ! ?
This i s a sharp move. I f White
wishes to bring about a sharper
struggle in this position, this is
how he should play.
White does not achieve much
with 8.dxc5 hc5 9 . 0 - 0 0-0
lO .gS b6 11.'1We2 b7 12 .:t!ad1
'!Wc7 13.hf6 gxf6 14.e4 E1fd8 15.
hb7 '!Wxb7 16.c3 '!Wc7 17.g3 :t!xd1
18.:t!xd1 :t!d8 19.4'Je1 :t!xd 1 2 0 .'1Wxd1
e7 2 1 .4'Jg2, and the opponents
agreed to a draw, Anand - Gel
fand, Monte Carlo 2 0 07.
It would be too cautious for
White to continue with 8.0-0
cxd4 9.4'Jxd4 cS
b) 7. .id3 c5
8 ...c7 9.e2
101
Chapter 16
18 .i.xh7+ ! rtJxh7 19.hS+ rtJg8
2 0 .g6 fxg6 2 1.'2lxg6 f6 2 2 .fS !
exfS 23J''lxfS+ - Spraggett - Po
gorelov, Andorra 2 0 0 6 .
..
i.e7
1 0. 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 ll.dxc5
Black has temporarily sacri
ficed a pawn and has gained the
bishop-pair. The pawn wedge "f6eS" looks very logical and White's
pieces are restricted in their mo
bility, so Black might even gain an
advantage.
15J'i:hdl
ll... tl:\d5 !
Black should avoid ll ... i.xcS
12 .i.xcS xcS 13.'2leS e7 14.f4 b6
1S.g4 i.b7 16.Elhf1 Elad8 17.gS
l2ld7. White crowned his strategy
with a crushing kingside attack 102
c) 7 .ie2
15... e5 16.Wfd5+
Black's task is simpler after
16.e3 e6 17.3d2 Wfc8 18.h3 b6
19 .c6 and the opponents agreed to
a draw in this rather complicated
position, Volokitin - Roiz, Beer
sheba 2 0 05.
16 \t>hS
18.he5
..
17.4Jxe5
fxe5
c5 8. 0 - 0
cxd4
103
Chapter 16
9.'!'xd4
Strangely enough, the whole
idea of White's set-up is based on
this particular capture. White
hopes to prevail in the endgame.
He should refrain from 9.
Lt:lxd4 fie7 10.fif3 0-0 11.1'1:e1 V!ffc 7
and Black has a good game.
12....ia4!
13.adl
In response to 13.'Llb3, Black
should react simply with 13 . . . fie7.
It is inferior for him to play 13 . . .
fid6 ? ! 14.fixd6 1'1:xd6 15.fixb7+
<>xb7 16.'Llc5+ <>c6 17.Lt:lxa4 and
he can hardly prove that his com
pensation for the pawn is suffi
cient. He cannot equalize after the
rather strange knight manoeuvre
- 13 . . . Lt:ld5 14.fig3 Lt:lb4 15.c3 'Llc6
16.1'1:fe1 - Black's bishop on a4
does not beautify his position.
8...c5
d) 7. .ie3 ttld5
9..ib5+
8 .id2
105
Chapter 16
106
12 .. f6 ! ?
.
9 . . . .id7
1 0 . .ixd7+
If 10 .e 2, White more or less
gives up the idea of obtaining the
advantage - 10 . . . cxd4 ll.CiJeS CiJf6
12.0-0-0 a6 13 . .b:d7+ CiJxd7 14.
Ei:he1 (14.i.f4 CiJf6 15.CiJf3 dS 16.
@b1 e4 = ) 14 . . . CiJxe5 15.xe5
d6 16.i.f4 Ei:d8 17.xd6 .b:d6 18.
Ei:xd4 .b:f4+ 19.Ei:xf4= Adams Mamedyarov, Baku 2 0 0 8 .
and now:
18.CiJf3 hS ! This move is an im
portant part of Black's plan - he
wants to activate his king's rook.
19.0-0 (White can halt the march
of his opponent's rook-pawn, but
obviously he should not do so:
19.h4 g6 2 0 . 0 - 0 @g7 and Black's
position is acceptable.) 19 . . . h4 2 0 .
h 3 Ei:hS 21.Ei:fe1 a 6 2 2 .Ei:e4 Ei:c8 2 3 .
d1 d8 24.e2 @g8 25.Ei:cc4 g6
26.i.c1 aS 2 7.a3 axb4 28.axb4 Ei:a8
2 9.i.b2 Ei:a2 3 0.Ei:c2 Ei:xb2 ! = Jako107
Chapter 16
venko - lonov, Dagomys 2 0 0 9 ;
18.'2ld3 (Here, with a pawn on
h6, Black would have the impor
tant resource 18 . . . g5 ! , but he
cannot play that here and so his
position is worse.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0
d8 2 0 .Wb3 h5 2 l.a4 h4 2 2 .h3
h5 23 .b5 and White's pawns
were advancing to promotion
rather quickly, Karjakin - Nav
ara, Khanty-Mansiysk 2009.
It would be tremendously
risky for Black to play 12 . . . cxd4 ? !
13.c5 '2ld5 14.'2le5 Wb5
Now:
Black can withstand his oppo
nent's pressure after 13.0-0 cxd4
14.'2le5 Wd8 (It would be more ac
curate for him to play 14 . . . Wc7 ! ?
15.e1 'Ll d 7 16.f4 d6 17.Wxd4
he5 18 .he5 'Llxe5=, while if 15.
f4 Black can play 15 . . . Wd8.) 15.
Wb3 (White has a powerful alter
native here - 15.Wh5 Wf6 16.fe1
e7 17.c5 '2ld5 18.We2 ! and he wins
material.) 15 . . . '2ld7 16.'2lf3 c5
17.Wxb7 b8 18.Wc6 b6 19.Wa4
xb2 2 0.a5 Wc8 with an excel
lent position for Black, Jakovenko
- Mamedyarov, Dagomys 2 008.
13.dxc5 hc5 14.b4 e7 15.c5
'Lld5 16.'2le5 Wc7 17.Wa4+ mf8
18.'2lc4 (After 18.'2ld3 ! ? White's
far-advanced pawns might be
come a powerful force in the near
future.) 18 . . . a6 19.0-0 h5 2 0 .fe1
h4 21.h3 h5 2 2 .Wd1 g6 23.We2
d8 - Black ended up with a per
fectly satisfactory position after
the opening, Motylev - Ding, Ji
angsu Wuxi 2 0 0 8 .
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.{jj d2 de 4.{jjxe4 {jj d7 S.{jjj3 l:jj gf6 6.[jjxj6 l:jjxf6
14.b4 ii.e7 15.b3 0-0 16.0-0
l'l:ac8 17.l'l:fd1 l'l:fd8 18.1J.e1 a4=
Bacrot - Meier, France 2 0 1 0 .
(diagram)
14 . . . e5
14 . . . l'l:c8 - It is obvious that
this is not the best square for this
rook. 15.e2 0-0 16.l'l:fd1 e5 17.
ii.e3 c6 18.1i.xc5 xeS 19.{jj d 2.
Black has some problems to wor
ry about, Rasmussen - Meier, Co
penhagen 20 10 .
109
Chapter 17
8 .ll)e5
This is a safe and solid move
yet it marks the beginning of a
very aggressive plan, which in
cludes queenside castling for
White.
Black is faced with a difficult
choice - the immediate a) 7 c5
grants White a long-lasting initia
tive, although it is the more prin
cipled move, and the more relia
ble; b) 7 . . . i.e7, which later on
will probably turn out to be a tem
po loss, since Black can hardly
ever play the Rubinstein variation
without the pawn advance c7-c5.
..
a) 7
..
c5
a6
9. .ie3
9...\Wc7 1 0.\Wa4+
This is just one of the ideas be
hind White's seventh move.
a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0 .
al) l l . .ib5 cxd4 12.hd7+
hd7 13.xd4
lO
ttJd7
13
. .
b5 ! ?
Chapter 17
A more conservative approach
would be 13 .. .f6 14.li:Jxd7 xd7 15.
xd7+ i>xd7 16.0-0-0+ i>c6 17.
l'!d4 b5 18.l'!hd1 i.e7 19.l'!d7 l'!he8
14.a4 i.d6
(diagram)
15_.!ljxf7!?
The alternative here is 15.axb5
i.xe5 16.a4 0-0 17.b6 e7 18.
0-0 l'!fd8 19.l'!fd1 g6 2 0 .g3 l'!ac8
2 1.l'!xd8+ E\xd8 2 2 .l'!d1 hS 23.h4
l'!xd1 + and the players agreed to a
draw, D.Mastrovasilis - Meier,
Kallithea 20 0 8 . However, the
112
17.i>e2!
White must centralize his king
most of all !
Black can counter 17.E\d1 with
the automatic reply 17 . . . l'!hd8.
17..J!hd8
In the following encounter be
tween two champions of this vari
ation White prevailed: 17 . . . c6.
This is a clear loss of time. Black
should have considered the idea
of c4 + , which would be more
relevant than the pressure against
the g2-pawn. 18.l'!hd1 l'!xa1 19.
l'!xa1 b4 2 0 . E\d1 l'!d8
And now:
2 l.b6 c4+ 2 2 .Wel i.c7 23.
xb7 :1'\xdl + 24.Wxdl bxc3 25.b3
d5+ 26.xd5 exd5 27.i.d4 i.xh2
28.g3 ! i.gl 29.We2 c2 3 0 .i.e3
We6 ! This is an important im
provement by Meier on his game
against Ragger. However, I should
advise you to think twice before
you decide to contest files with
your king in this manner on a reg
ular basis. (30 . . . d4? 3l .i.cl We6
3 2 . Wfl i.h2 33.Wg2 +- Ragger Meier, Rijeka 2010) 3l .Wfl i.h2
3 2 .<i>g2 <i>e5 33.<i>xh2 <i>e4 34.b4
d4 35.i.cl Wd3 36.b5 We2 37.b6
d3 38 .b7 d2 39.hd2 <i>xd2 40.
b8 cl 4l.f4+ <i>dl 42 .g4+
Wel 43 .xg7 c2 ! = Guseinov Meier, Marrakesh 2 0 1 0 .
21.'1Wh4 i.e7 2 2 .f4+ W g 8 2 3 .
:r"'xd8 + hd8 24.xb4 xg2 2 5 .
b5 ! This endgame looks only
equal, but in fact it is rather un
pleasant for Black. The game only
confirmed this evaluation. 25 . . .
c6 26.xc6 bxc6 27.b4 <i>f7 2 8 .
<i>f3 i.f6 29.c4 g 6 30 .We4 i.g7 3 1 .
b 5 cxb5 32 .cxb5+ - and t o hold
this ending in a practical game
would be extremely difficult, L.
Dominguez - Meier, Havana
18.gxa8 gxa8
It might look as if Black has
simply lost a tempo, but this is not
the case.
19.gdl ga6
19 . . ..ite7 2 0 .f4+ i.f6 2 l.g4
:r"\a4 2 2 .f3 :r"\a2 23 J!d2 b4 24.
xc6 bxc6 25.cxb4 :r"\xb 2 = lstra
tescu - Meier, Antwerp 2 0 1 0 .
2 0 .b3
White is forced to play this
move if he wants to play for a win;
otherwise, Black will simply force
a drawish endgame.
22.
24.
26.
and
White was unable to achieve more
113
Chapter 17
than a draw in the game Vachier
Lagrave - Grachev, Dagomys
2 009 .
a2) 11. 0 - 0 - 0
This is the White's most ag
gressive option.
ll
. .
cxd4
13.Wfxd4 ic6
The ending is worse for Black
after 13 . . . e5 14.Wb6 Wxb6 15.ixb6
l'l:c8 16.ie2 ic5 17.ixc5 l'l:xc5 18.
if3 l'l:c7 19.l'l:d6 We7 2 0 .l'l:b6 l'l:b8
2l.l'l:e1 f6 2 2 .l'l:e4 l'l:c6 23 .l'l:eb4
l'l:xb6 24.l'l:xb6 ic8 25.a4 Gashi
mov - Sumets, Cappelle Ia Grande
2 007.
12.lt:lxd7
White loses his advantage af
ter 12 ..bd4? ! id6 13.lt'lxd7 ixd7
14.Wc4 Wxc4 15.ixc4 l'l:c8 16.ib3
ic6 17.f3 0-0= Nepomniachtchi
- Vitiugov, Serpukhov 2 0 0 8 .
12... hd7
If White plays precisely, he
will be able to prove an advantage
after 12 . . . Wxd7 13.Wc2 icS 14.
ixd4 ixd4 15.l'l:xd4 Wc7 (Black
has also tried 15 . . . Wc6 16.f4 White would maintain a powerful
initiative after 16 .id3 ! - 16 . . . b5
17.id3 ib7 18 .ie4 Wc7 19.Wb1
l'l:d8 2 0 .l'l:xd8+ Wxd8 2 l.ixb7.
Wxb7 2 2 .l'l:d1+ We7 23.Wd3 Wc6
24.Wg3 h6 ! = L.Dominguez - Dre
ev, Tripoli 2 004.) 16.id3 id7 17.
g3 h6 18 .l'l:d1 0-0-0 19.l'l:c4 ic6
2 0 .ie4 l'l:xd1+ 2 l.Wxd1 l'l:d8 2 2 .
114
14.ic4
If Black succeeds in develop
ing his kingside he will not be
worse at all, but at the moment he
has obvious problems in accom
plishing this.
14... l'l:d8
Black is almost lost after 14 . . .
b5? ! 15.ib3 ixg2? 16.l'l:he1 if3
17.ig5 ! ixd1 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19.
l'l:xe6+ ie7 2 0 .l'l:xe7+ Wxe7 21.
ixe7 Wxe7 2 2 .Wxg7+ We6 23.
Wxd1+- Baklan - Tratar, Trieste
2 0 07.
15.Wfg4 h5
20
16.\Wg5 !
White continues to exert pres
sure against his opponent's posi
tion.
Black's defence is much easier
after 16.l"lxd8+ \Wxd8 17.\Wg3 iWd6
18.f4 h4 19.\Wg4 ie4 2 0 . l"ldl \Wc6
2 Lib3 ifS 2 2 .1Wf3 ie4 23.\Wf2
l"lhS 24.g4 hxg3 2S.hxg3 and
White offered a draw, which was
accepted, Anand - Bareev, Monte
Carlo 2 0 04.
16
l::1xdl+
17.l::1xdl g6 18JU6
.tf3
21 .if4
21. 1Wc6
llS
Chapter 17
b) 7...i.e7
8.i.d3
The rather bizarre move 8 .
a4+ implies that chess has
evolved considerably.
2.d4 d5 3. liJ d2 de 4.l!Jxe4 l!Jd7 5.l!Jj3 l!Jgf6 6. liJxf6 l!Jxf6 7.c3 ie7
good piece play. However, Black
must keep in mind that his oppo
nent has a material advantage
and a quite serious one at that.)
17.g3+ liJg4 18.xg4+ Wh7 19.
liJg5+ (It is scarcely better for
White to opt for 19.xd3 + f5
2 0 .liJg5+ hg5 2l.xg5 g8 2 2 .
h5+ Wg6 23 .g4 d5 with a very
sharp game. ) 19 . . . ixg5 2 0 . xg5
ie4 ! This is Black's only possible
reply, but it is satisfactory. (Not
20 . . . h8? 2l.xd3 + f5 2 2 .g3
'it>h6 23.g6+ 'it>h5 24.g5+ wh6
25.g7 and Black resigned, Moty
lev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk
2005.) 21 .h5+ (2l.f4 ig6 2 2 .h5
if5+) 2 l . . .Wg8 2 2 .h6 f6 23.f3
if5 24.g4 d6 ! This is the last dif
ficult move. 25.gxf5 g3 + 26. Wd2
f2 + 27.Wxd3 xf3 =
...
0-0
9.c2
The overly routine move 9 .
0-0 would not give White any ad
vantage : 9 . . . b6 1 0.e2 ib7 1Lif4
c5 1 2 . dxc5 bxc5 13.fd1 b6 14.
liJe5 adS 15.ig3 ia8 16.liJg4 c6
17.f3 liJd5 18.liJe5= A.Sokolov Dorfman, France 2 0 0 2 .
Chapter 17
for the pawn, Shirov - Bareev,
Monte Carlo 2 0 04.
9...b6 1 0.i.g5 h6
13... fd8
It is preferable for Black to
play 13 . . . xa2 14 . .bh6 a1+ 15.
md2 a5 16.1e3 c5 with a very
sharp game.
14.c!lJe5
ll.h4! ?
White maintains his initiative.
There was a recent game which
continued ll ..bf6 i.xf6 1 2 .1e4
(White would not change much
by inserting the check - 12 .1h7+
mh8 13 .1e4 l"lb8 14.0-0-0 1b7
15 . .bb7 l"lxb7 16.e4 d5 17.
xd5 exd5 18.l"lhe1 c6 19.mc2
mg8 20. lt:J e5 l"lc8 = Berelovich Totsky, Bucharest 1998.) 12 . . . l"lb8
13.0-0-0 1b7 14 . .bb7 l"lxb7 15.
e4 d5 16.xd5 exd5 17.l"lhe1 c6
18.lt:Je5 l"lc8 19. mc2 mf8 2 0 .lt:Jd3
l"le7 2l.l"lxe7 1xe7 2 2 .l"le1 1d6 =
Ovetchkin - Mihajlovskij , S t Pe
tersburg 2006.
11...1b7 12. 0 - 0 - 0
If 12. l"lh3 c5, there arises a
transposition to the game Mo
tylev - Roiz, Khanty-Mansiysk
2 0 05, which we analyzed in the
note to White's eighth move.
12...d5! 13.h3
This is a bit too risky. It seems
more natural for White to play 13.
mb1 c5 with chances for both sides.
118
14...hxg5 15.hxg5
Chapter 18
b) 6
. .
c5.
We shall now analyze : al)
8...ffd6
Black
might
be
totally
squashed after 8 . . . e7? ! 9 .xf6
hf6 10 .ffd3 ! c6 11.0-0-0 d7
12.ltJe5 g6 13. f4 ffe7 14.ffe3
0-0-0 15J=!d3 e8 16.c4 ffc7
al) 9.d3
This move involves
more risk for both sides.
much
9 . ffb4+ 1 0.d2
. .
Chapter 18
15.dxc5 hcS 16J'Ud1 fffe 7 17.i.b5+
'tt> f8 18.l2Je5+- h6 19Jd7 hd7
2 0 . hf6 hf2 + 21.\Wxf2 gxf6
2 2 . l2Jxd7+ 'it>g7 23.1"1b3 1"1hd8 24.
1"1g3+ 'it>h8 25.ffff4 and Black
terminated his resistance, Alek
seev - lsmagambetov, Khanty
Mansiysk 2 0 07.) 11.hd2 cS 1 2 .
0-0-0
ll...fff a3
Black retreats his queen im
mediately.
ll . . . ie7 12.c4 cS
a2) 9 .bf6
12.11Je5
12 .We2 ! ? Wd6 13 .c4 cS 14 . .ic3
.ie7 1S.d5 exdS 16 . .ie5 Wd8 17.
hf6 gxf6 18.cxd5 .ig4 19.l"lab1
l"lb8 2 0 . l"lfelt N. Kosintseva - Za
tonskih, Hangzhou 2011.
12
d6
..
gxf6 1 0.c3
10 ... f5
ll..ic2
It is possible that White should
seriously consider 11 . .id3 here.
The following game illustrates
this convincingly. 11 . . . .id7 12.11Je5
.ig7 13.11Jxd7 Wxd7 14.e2 0-0-0
15. 0 - 0 cS 16 . .ib5 c7 17.dxc5
121
Chapter 18
'l'@'xc5 18.a4 l"ld6 19.\Wh5 1'@'c7 2 0 .a5
a6 2l.e2 <;t>bS 2 2 .l"la4 and
White's initiative gives him prac
tical chances, A.Timofeev - A. Ry
chagov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.
13
e8
ll... d7
It is essential for Black to play
his moves in the correct order: if
ll . . . g7? 12.\We 2 ! and he is in
trouble. 12 ...d7 (After 12 . . . 0-0 13.
0-0-0, White's attack against the
enemy king will be decisive.) 13.
h5 0-0-0 14.c2 h5 15.0-0-0
c6 16.e4 \Wf4+ 17.4:ld2 d5 18.
<;t>b1 e5 19.1'@'e3 1'@'f6 2 0 . dxe5 1'@'xe5
21.1'@'f3 e6? 2 2 .xb7+ <;t>bs 23.
a6+- Alekseev - lsmagambe
tov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2 007.
14.b3
It is very important that Black
can counter 14. 0-0-0 with the
double-attack 14 . . . \Wd5 ! , winning
a pawn.
14
g7 15. 0 - 0 - 0
12.1'@'e2
1 2 .4:le5 g7 13.f4. White's wish
to avoid entering a position with
bishops of opposite colours is un
derstandable, but now Black equal
izes easily. 13 . . . xe5 14.fxe5 'l'@'d5
15.1'@'f3 c6 16.\Wxd5 hd5 17. 0-0
<;t>e7 18 .b3 e4= Macieja - Ana
stasian, Stepanakert 2 0 04.
12
0 - 0 - 0 13.e5
7. 0 - 0
White should not go too far in
his desire to develop all his pieces
immediately. 7.YJ.g5 cxd4 8.CiJxd4
aS+ (I think that the routine
move 8 . . . YJ.e7 is weaker in this
particular case : 9.e2 CiJxe4 10.
he7 xe7 11.he4 0-0 12.0-0-0
CiJcS 13.f4 YJ.d7 14.YJ.f3 Elfd8 15.Eld2
CiJa4 16.Elhd1 b4 17.c3 Eldc8
18.CiJc6 ! YJ.xc6 19.Eld8 +- Navara
Luther, Deizisau 2 005.) 9.YJ.d2
(White would not achieve any
thing with 9.d2 ? ! e5 ! 10. CiJf3
CiJxe4 ll. CiJxeS CiJxd2 1 2 .CiJxd7
CiJf3 + ! 13. gxf3 hd7.) 9 . . . e5 10.
CiJf3 xb2 11.0-0 J.e7 1 2 .CiJxf6+
CiJxf6 with a complicated game.
This position is similar to the
game Kasparov - Anand, Kopa
vogur 2 0 0 0 , which we analyzed
7.. )2Jxe4
Black should not help his
opponent to carry out his plans :
7 . . . cxd4? 8.CiJxd4 CiJxe4 (Black
can also opt here for 8 . . . YJ.e7 9.c3
0-0 1 0 .e2 CiJxe4 11.he4 c7
12 .J.c2 CiJf6, but equalizing com
pletely would then be a hard task
for him to accomplish. 13.YJ.g5
CiJdS 14.e4 g6 1S.J.h6 Ele8 16.
YJ.b3 CiJf6 17.f3 J.d7 18.Elfe1 J.c6
19.CiJxc6 xc6 2 0 .xc6 bxc6 and
White maintained a comfortable
edge in the endgame, Motylev Akopian, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.)
9.he4 CiJf6 10.J.f3 JJ.e7 ll.YJ.f4
0-0
123
Chapter 18
12 .c3. Black already has some
serious problems. 12 . . . a6 13.Eie1
Eia7 14.a4 i.d7 1S.Wfb3 Wc8 16.a5
i.cS 17.Eiad1 i.xd4 18.Eixd4 i.c6
19.Wfb6 ! with a great advantage
for White, Alekseev - Mamedya
rov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .
9... cxd4
1 0.lt:!xd4
White can also try here the
semi-gambit move 10 .Wfe2 , which
Black should counter in an ag
gressive and even greedy fashion.
10 . . . Wb6 ! (Black's problem is that
playing in classical fashion would
not work here : 10 . . . i.e7? ! ll.Eiad1
tt:lxe4 12.Eixd4 tt:lxgS 13.Eixd8 +
hd8 14.tt:lxg5 hgS 15.Wb5 + - , or
12 . . . Wxd4 13.ltlxd4 tt:lxgS 14.h4)
11.hf6 (White has also tried 11.
Eifd1 i.cS? ! 12.hf6 gxf6 13.b4
Wxb4 14.:1ab1 Wa4 1S.Wfd2 Wd7
16.c3 d3 17.Wfh6 e7 18.Eixd3 Wfc7
19.Eibd1 with a decisive attack,
Rublevsky - Kacheishvili, Ohrid
124
1 0 . . . .ie7
It looks rather dubious to play
10 . . . h6?! ll . bf6 Wlxf6 12.'W!d3 a6
13 .:ad1 .ie7 14.CiJc6 ! e5 15.CiJxe7
W!xe7 16.f4 exf4?? 17.hb7 and
White won, Svidler - Bareev,
Wijk aan Zee 2 004.
.
ll ..i3 0- 0
Chapter 18
Kramnik tested here the inter
esting line: 12.a4 ! ? a6 13.l"1e1 Wffc 7
14.c3 l"1e8 15.Wffb 3 l"1b8 16.g3 d7
17.a5 c5 18.l"1ad1 Wffxa5 19.f4
hd4 2 0 .hb8 xf2 + 2l.cJixf2
l"1xb8 2 2 .l"1d4 and White prevailed
in the game Kramnik - Bareev,
Monte Carlo 2005. It looks better
for Black to play actively with 14 . . .
l"1d8 ! ? 15.Wffd 2 ! (15.g3 tt:ld5 16.he7
tt:lxe7 17.Wffe 2 d7=) 15 . . . d7 16.
f4 (White can capture his oppo
nent's bishop with 16.l2lf5, but
this will not gain him any advan
tage : 16 . . . c6 17.tt:lxe7+ Wffx e7 18.
Wfff4 hf3 19.Wffxf3 h6! Black repels
his opponent's bishop from its
wonderful square. 2 0.h4 l"1d2 ! ;
2 0.e3 l"1d5 = ) 1 6 . . . d6 17.hd6
Wffx d6 with an approximately
equal position.
bl) 12.l"1el b6
13)L\b3
White is understandably re
luctant to retreat from the centre,
but in this case it is forced.
The ultra-aggressive move 13.
tt:lf5 led to a quick exhaustion of
126
13 . . . l"1d8 14.e2
14 . . . d7
Black plays this with the al
most stereotyped idea of exchang
ing the light-squared bishops.
It would be too risky to play
14 . . . a5 15.l"1adl! (It is less precise
for White to play 15.e3 Wffc 7 16.c4
d7 17.d4 a4 18 .e5 d6 19.
hd6 Wffx d6 2 0 . l"1adl Wffb 6 21.tt:ld4
e8 with an excellent game for
Black, Shomoev - Bareev, play
chess.com 2 0 04.) 15 . . . d7 (After
15 . . . a4 16.e3 Wffc 7 17.l"1xd8+ hd8
18.tt:ld4 d7 19.a3 - Black's
queenside has slightly weakened
by the advance of his a-pawn.)
16.e3 (It is stronger for White to
play 16.Wffe3 ! Wffx e3 17.he3 c6
18.xc6 bxc6 19.l"1xd8 + xd8 and
he obtains a long-term advantage
thanks to Black's devastated
queenside.) 16 . . . Wff c 7 17.tt:ld4 c5
15 . .id2
That is the right way for White
to create problems for his oppo
nent.
15 . . . .ib4
It is premature for Black to
play 15 . . . a5, because of 16.'We5 !
and Black has have problems.
16.c3
16 . .ie3 ? ! 'Wc7 17.c3 .id6=
16 ....id6 17.c4 a5
18.l'edl ! ?
This has the idea o f placing the
rooks on cl and dl, rather than dl
and el.
White can create wild compli
cations with 18.acl, but he might
end up on the wrong side of them.
18 . . . a4 19 .c5 hh2 + 2 0 . @hl
(Black obtains an excellent posi
tion in the event of 2 0 . @xh2 'Wc7+
2 1.g3 axb3 22 . .if4 'WeB 23. axb3
.ic6.) 2 0 . . . 'Wc7 21.CiJa5 (It would
be disastrous for White to play
21.CiJd4? .if4 2 2 . hf4 'Wxf4 23.
.ixb7 ab8 - 23 . . . 'Wxd4? 24.c4 !
Chapter 18
but that's down to the individual.)
21.hb7 :1l:ab8 2 2 .:1l:c7 ib5 23.ll>Jt'e3
:1l:d3 ! (Black cannot stop half-way,
since that might lead to his
swift demise. ) 24.ll>Jt'f4 (24.ll>Jt'a7
:1l:xb7! - + ) 24 . . . tLle8 25.ie4 (25.
:1l:e7 :1l:xd2 ! 26.ll>Jt'xd2 ll>Jt'f6 and his
position is slightly the more active
after 27.:1l:xe8+ he8 28.if3 :1l:xb2
29.ll>Jt'xa5 ll>Jt'd4.) 25 . . . ll>Jt'xf4 26.hf4
ttJxc7 27.hc7 :1l:dd8=
The straightforward move 18.
:1l:ad1 enables Black to simplify the
position after 18 . . . ic6 19.ixc6
bxc6 2 0 .ic3 ib4 ( 2 0 . . . a4 ! ? 2 1 .
tLld2 ib4 2 2 . hb4 ll>Jt'xb4 23.tLlf3
with approximate equality, or 2 1 .
:1l:xd6 :1l:xd6 2 2 . c5 ll>Jt'd8 23.cxd6
axb3 and Black is not worse at
all.) 21.c5 ! ? ll>Jt'a7 2 2 .:1l:xd8+ :1l:xd8
23.hf6 gxf6 24.:1l:c1 :1l:d5=
20
a4
21.xd6! ?
After 21.ctJd2 ib4= White will
merely reach a weaker version of
the variation which we analyzed
in our notes to White's eighteenth
move
18
ic6 ! ?
128
12
'1Wc7
Chapter 18
White's position looks preferable,
but his pawns are not likely to
promote any time soon. Black's
counter-chances seem to be suffi
cient for equality.
13.:afel
The active sortie 13.Ci:JbS would
not yield any benefits after 13 . . .
WeS 1 4 . .ie3 .id7 1S.a4 .ic6 =
The move 13 . .ih4 was tested
recently by a young Russian
grandmaster. His opponent was
one of the main experts in the en
tire Rubinstein variation and he
found a worthy response : 13 . . .
Ci:Jg4 ! 1 4 . .ig3 Ci:JeS 1 S . .ixeS WxeS.
White's pieces are active and it
looks as though he has the initia
tive, but Black has the bishop pair
and no weaknesses at all in his
camp, so the prospects are equal.
16.:aad1 a6 17.Wc4 l"i:b8 18.l"i:fe1
WaS (18 . . . WcS ! ?) 19.Ci:Jb3 Wb6 2 0 .
a 4 .id6 2 1 .g3 Wc7 2 2 .Wxc7 hc7=
Timofeev - Meier, Havana 2009.
13.l"i:fd1 :adS? This is a weak
move (It was much better to play
13 . . . a6.). 14.c4 (After 14.Ci:JbS ! WaS
1S.Wxd8+ .ixd8 16.b4 Wb6 17.
.ie3 + - ; it appears that the least of
130
131
Parts 5 and 6
The Tarrasch Variation
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ti)d2
When you think about the Tarrasch variation the words that first
come to mind are reliable, flexible and elastic. The positions arising
from 3.lLld2 do not depend so much on pawn-structure and manoeu
vres, like after 3.e5, but on the other hand they are not so irrational and
sharp as those arising after 3.tt:Jc3. If your opponent prefers to play
quiet positions, then most probably he will be willing to include this
variation in his armoury. White does not risk much and the possible
set-ups after the opening are less varied and can be easily studied. You
very rarely find weak squares or pawn-weaknesses in White's position.
On the other hand, the more straightforward the game-plan your
opponent adopts, the easier it will be for you to prepare against it. If
White wishes to avoid any sharp theoretical debates, then it should be
simple enough for Black to implement his own plans in the absence of
any pressure from the opponent.
It is considered that after 3.tt:Jd2, Black has two main possibilities at
his disposal - 3 . . . c5 and 3 . . . tt:Jf6 . Recently, however, a variation which
used to be regarded as a sideline - 3 . . . e7 - has become very popular.
I recommend to readers who are willing to take risks, both strategically
and tactically, to consider this particular variation. Later, for the play
ers who prefer a "classical" approach, we shall also analyze 3 . . . c5. The
system with 3 . . . tt:Jf6 was undoubtedly a fairly trustworthy weapon for
Black for many years and also deserves attention. However, I do not
like it very much, because in that line Black can find it difficult to reach
really complicated positions. And there are so many weak squares in
Black's camp that he is likely to fail to equalize.
132
Parts 5
The Morozevich Variation
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)ijd2
133
Chapter 19
4 . . . c5
4.c3
This is a solid move. It is even
a bit too solid to enable White to
fight for an opening advantage.
It is absolutely senseless for
White to transpose to the ex
change variation - 4.exd5 exd5=
White has also tried 4.g3, but
White can hardly create any seri
ous problems for his opponent by
playing in that exotic fashion. M
ter 4 . . . tt:Jf6 5.i.g2 dxe4 6 .tt:Jxe4
tt:Jxe4 7.he4 c5= Black has a
comfortable game.
A French grandmaster tried to
play a joke here : 4.a3 dxe4 (The
move 4 . . . tt:Jf6 looks quite reason
able too.) 5.tt:Jxe4 tt:Jf6 6.tt:Jxf6+
hf6 7.tt:Jf3 b6 8 .i.d3 i.b7 9 . 0 - 0
tt:Jd7 10 .Wfe2 0-0 ll.Eidl Wfe7
134
5.dxc5
5 . . . .ixc5
Black can also play more con
cretely with S . . . tt:lf6 ! ? 6.exd5 tt:lxdS
(An interesting position with
compensation for Black arises
after 6 . . . '\WxdS 7.b4 0-0 8.tt:lgf3 b6
9.c4 '1Wc6 10.cxb6 axb6 1l.b2
b7 12 .'1We2 :8d8 13.0-0-0?!
Rather reckless . . . 13 . . . '\WcS 14.<;t>b1
dS 15.a3 tt:lc6 16.:8he1 :8a7 17.g3
\WaS 18 .hd5 tt:lxdS 19.tt:lc4 bS 2 0 .
tt:l e 3 tt:lxe3 2 l.fxe3 :8c8 - the posi
tion looks better for Black, Burg
- Werle, Netherlands 2 0 10.) 7.
tt:le4 (7.tt:lb3 tt:ld7 8.tt:lf3 0 - 0 9.d3
a5 10 .'1Wc2 h6 1l.c6 bxc6 12 .a4 a6
13.xa6 :8xa6 14. 0 - 0 '\Wc7 15.
tt:Jbd4 f6 16.:8d1 :8b8 = Tiviakov
- Shulman, Montreal 2 009)
7 ... 0-0 8 .c4 '\Wc7 9.tt:lf3 b6 10.
0-0 :8d8 11.hd5 :8xd5 12.cxb6
axb6 13.'1Wc2 tt:lc6 14.c4 :8f5 15.'1We2
b7 16.:8d1 tt:laS 17.tt:ld4 :8e5 18.
f4 xe4 19.'1Wxe4 :8xe4 2 0.hc7
tt:lxc4 with the better endgame for
6.lbb3
White does not create any
problems for his opponent with
6.tt:lgf3 tt:lf6 7.e5 (It is completely
harmless for White to play 7.d3
dxe4 8 .tt:lxe4 tt:lxe4 9 .'1Wa4+ d7
10.'1Wxe4 c6 11 .'1We2 tt:Jd7= Svidler
- Shipov, Moscow 2 0 06.) 7 . . .
'1Wb6 ! Black obtains dynamic
counter chances with this little
tactical trick. (7 . . . tt:Jfd7! ? 8.tt:lb3
b6 9.tt:lbd4 tt:lc6 10 .b5 '\Wc7 11.
0-0 tt:JcxeS 1 2 .f4 tt:lxf3 + 13. '\Wxf3
'\Wd8 14.d6 '1Wf6 15.'1Wg3 a6 16.a4
'1Wg6 17.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 18.'1Wg3 '1Wg6
19.'1Wh3 '1Wh6 2 0 .'1Wg3 '1Wg6= Vajda
- Mkrtchian, Bled 2 0 0 2 ) 8 .tt:ld4
tt:lfd7 9.'1Wg4 0-0 (9 . . . g6? ! 1 0.
tt:l 2b3 ! tt:lxeS 11 .'\Wgsgg) 10.tt:l 2f3
tt:lc6 ll.h6 g6 12.0-0-0 tt:J dxeS
13.'\Wf4 f6 14.xf8 xf8 . Even
though Morozevich lost that
game, he had a very good position
for the sacrificed exchange. 15.
'\Wxf6 tt:lg4 16.'1Wh4 eS 17.tt:lg5 hS
18.tt:ldf3 i.fS 19.:8xd5 tt:lb4 2 0 .c4
<;t>g7 21.:8hd1 tt:lxdS 2 2 .:8xd5 :8c8
23. tt:lxe5 e7 24.d3 '1Wxf2 25.
135
Chapter 19
li::l e 6+ lt>h6 and Black decided not
to wait for White's obvious re
sponse 26.li::l g4 and instead re
signed, Onischuk - Morozevich,
Germany 1999.
tlJf6
9 .ie2
8.tlJf3
The tricky move 8 .e2 + does
not promise White any advantage
at all. 8 . . . li::l e7 9 . .ie3 .ixe3 10 .xe3
0 - 0 11.d2 (11..ie2 li::l f5 12 .d2
l"le8 13.li::l f3 e7 14.0-0?? xe2
15.l"lfe1 b5 16.xd5 .id7- + ; 14.
li::l fd4 li::l xd4 15.li::l x d4 li::l c 6 16.li::l x c6
bxc6 17. 0-0= Zatonskih - Shul
man, Lindsborg Kansas 2 0 0 2 . )
l l. . . li::l b c6 12 . .ie2 li::l g 6 13.li::l f3 f6
14. 0 - 0 li::l f4 15.l"lfe1 .ig4 16 . .id1
l"lfe8 17.l"le3 h5 18.g3 l"lxe3 19.xe3
li::l e 6 2 0 . It>g2 l"ld8 2 1 .li::l fd4 li::l cxd4
2 2 .li::l x d4 li::l xd4 23.xd4= Borisek
- Caruana, Brno 2 0 0 6 .
136
9 0 - 0 1 0 . 0 - 0 tlJc6 11.
tlJfd4 :!%e8 12 .ie3 tlJe5 13.:!%el
h6 14.ti'c2 .id7 15.:!%adl
Chapter 2 0
4 . . . c5 5.g4
This initiates complications,
involving risky decisions from
both players. Black fiercely at
tacks his opponent's centre, but
he will have to pay for this with
the rather unsafe position of his
king. This might look anti-posi
tional and risky, but in this varia
tion Black will need to advance
Chapter 2 0
l l . @xd2 , after which h e cannot
even dream about an advantage,
Coratella - Glek, Porto San Gior
gio 2 0 0 1 ; it looks more reasona
ble for him to opt for 6.lLle2 ! ? , but
Black's immediate attack on the
e5-square thwarts White's plans :
6 . . .f6 7.lLlf3 fxe5 8.dxe5 !1c7 9 .f4
lLlh6, with a complicated posi
tion.)
Now:
After 6 . . . !1b6 7.d3 cxd4 8 .
cxd4, it i s too slow for Black to
play 8 . . . d7 9.lLle2 lLlb4 lO .bl
!1a6 11.lLlc3 l"i:c8 1 2 . a3 d8 13.e3
h6 14.h4 lLle7 15.h5 lLlbc6 16.d3
!1b6 17.lLla4 !len and his position
is cramped, so White's prospects
are better, Balogh - Rapport,
Szombathely 2011, but after 8 . . .
b4+ h e should avoid 9 .d 2 ? !
(the correct move is of course 9.
@fl) 9 ... lLlxd4 1 0 .lLlxd4 !1xd4 11.
!1a4+ d7 12.!1xb4 !1xd3 13.
!1xb7 l"i:c8 14.lLlf3 lLle7 with endur
ing compensation for Black, or
1l.b5+ @e7 1 2 .lLlf3 hd2 + 13.
!1xd2 !1xd2+ 14. @xd2 d7 and
Black ends up with an extra pawn
in the endgame, Ni Hua - Vitiu
gov, Ningbo 2 0 1 0 ;
The Polish G M Mateusz Bar138
. . .
wf8
6.dxc5
White is forced to give up the
centre.
If 6.c3 ? ! lLlc6 and it is even
harder to hold his centre against
Black's pressure.
It is possible that the rather
slow move 6.lLlb3 may become
more popular in the near future. I
believe that Black should counter
this with 6 . . . c4 7.lLld2 lLlc6 8 .c3
lLlh6, with a very complicated po
sition. It looks as though White
has lost several important tempi
in the opening trying to keep the
position closed.
It is bad for White to continue
with 6.lLlgf3 ? ! hS 7.Wig3 (He would
not fare any better with the awk
ward line : 7.Wh3 lLlc6 8 . dxcS Wc7
139
Chapter 2 0
and White will lose his e5-pawn;
8 . . . g5 ! ? 9.g4 c7. ) 7 . . . h4 8.h3
tLJc6.
tDc6
7.tilgf3
This is the most natural move
for White and probably the
strongest.
It seems rather artificial for
him to opt for 7.tDdf3 . Although
this move is quite sensible (it
looks attractive to develop the
bishop on c1 as soon as possible),
White's other knight looks a sorry
sight. 7 . . .f6
For
140
comparison's
sake,
Chapter 2 0
i s the most principled response.
13 . . . dxe4 14.he4 i.xc5 ! GM Pel
letier quite correctly recommend
ed this move in his annotations :
(14 . . . ltJd4? ! 15.d3gg Nevednichy
- Pelletier, Gothenburg 2 005).
15.ltJf5 (15.e3 l2ld4 16J'lae1 l"1g8
17.i.xd4 xd4 18.b3 ltJgS and
Black is already counter-attack
ing.) 15 . . . i.xf5 16.i.xf5 dS+
7.e2 ! ? This is an original and
logical try. White does not wish to
lose more tempi moving his queen
and so retreats it back home right
away, protecting his pawn in the
process. 7 . . . i.xc5 (Or 7 . . . f6 8.f4
i.xcS 9.ltJgf3 ltJh6 10.l2lb3 b6
11.e3 ltJfS 12.f2 i.xf2 + 13.xf2
b6 14.d3 e3 + 15.xe3 ltJxe3
16.\t>f2 ltJg4+ 17.\t>g3 ltJh6 18.l'%he1
ltJf7 19.i.b5 fxeS 2 0 .fxe5 l2lb8 2 1 .
ltJbd4 with a n obvious advantage
for White, Timman - Paehtz, Ant
werp 2011. Black also has an in
teresting pawn-sacrifice here 7 . . . b6 ! ? 8.cxb6 axb6 9.l2lgf3 c7
with plenty of promising possi
bilities. Tournament practice will
show how meaningful Black's
compensation is.) 8. ltJb3 b6 9 .
e3 ltJge7 10.f4 ltJfS 11.f2
7 . . . h5
The author of this book has
successfully tried 7 . . . l2lh6, but on
the whole this move can only be
considered as experimental. 8.
h5 f6 9.b5 l2lf7 10 .i.xc6? ! bxc6
11.ltJb3?! g6 12 .g4 fxe5 13.h4 e4
14.ltJg5 e5 15.g3 f6 16.d2 a5
17.a4 f5 18.0-0-0 h6 19.l2lxf7
\t>xf7 2 0 .f3 exf3 2 1 .gxf3 d4 22 .f4
d5 23.fxe5 i.xeS 24.f2 c4
25.e1 f4+ 26.\t>b1 xb3 27.
l"1xd4 e3 28.l'%d7+ \t>e8 0-1 Papin
- Vitiugov, Saratov 2 007.
8.g3
Chapter 2 0
situation o n the board i s totally
chaotic, Black's prospects are not
at all worse, or 17.'tt> b 1 Ei:xgS 18.
lLlxgS l2lf4 19.f3 e3 20.xe3
xe3 21.l2lf3 l2lxd3 2 2 . cxd3 b6,
with an excellent game. ) 12 .l2lb3
(White must refrain from 12 .b4?
lLlgxeS 13.b2 f6 and Black is
clearly better.)
8 . . . c7 - I believe this is
Black's best move. (It would less
consistent for him to play 8 . . . hcS
9.l2lb3 e7 10.f4 l2lh6 11.d3
lLlfS 1 2 .xfS exfS 13 .e3 e6 14.
0-0-0 Ei:c8 1S. <i>b1 c7 16.Ei:he1
lLl aS 17.l2lbd4 h4 18.l2lgS d7 and
White had a clear advantage in
the game lvanchuk - Mkrtchian,
Yerevan 2 004. Black will not
equalize with 8 . . . d7 9.bS hcS
10.l2lb3 e7 11 .e3) 9.f4 f6
(This is a very important motif.)
10.bS (Black should counter
White's activity after 10.l2lh4 with
the calm response 10 . . . <i>f7, al
though practice has seen 10 . . .
xeS+ 11.xeS lLlxeS 1 2 .f4 gS
. . .
h4
For example:
After White's natural response
9 .d3, Black can continue with
his pawn-storm 9 . . . h4 10.'\Wf4 (Or
10 .'\Wh3? f6 and White is in trou
ble.) 1 0 . . . g5 l l.'\We3 tt:lg4 (It would
also be interesting for Black to
give further tests to 1 1 . . . tt:lf5, e.g.
12 . .bf5 exf5 13.tt:lb3 f4 14.'\Wc3 h3
15.g3 d4 16.4Jfxd4 '\Wd5 17.'\Wf3
'\Wxe5+ 18.tt:le2 f5 19.gxf4 '\We6
2 0.Elg1 g4 2 1.'\We3 '\Wd5 2 2 .d2
e8 and he had a powerful initia
tive in the game Zhang Zhong Shipov, Internet 2 0 07.) 1 2 .'\We2
.bc5. An attentive reader might
have realized by now that we have
already analyzed a similar posi
tion in our notes to White's previ
ous move, examining the conse
quences of 8.'\Wf4. The difference
is that here Black's pawn is al
ready on h4 and this will soon be
very important. 13.fl (Now it is
less attractive for White to con
tinue with 13.0-0 tt:lxf2 14.xf2
g4 15.b4? tt:lxb4 16.a3 g3- + ; 15.
@h1 .bf2 16.'\Wxf2 gxf3 17.tt:lxf3 h3
and the position is unclear but
still quite playable for Black.) 13 . . .
'\Wc7 14.tt:lb3 e7 1 5 . .bg5 .bg5
16.tt:lxg5 '\Wxe5 and Black is at least
equal.
145
Chapter 2 0
9.lt:lb3 lt:lf5 (Black has tried,
without much success, the stand
ard and logical line: 9 . . . a5 10.c3
a4 11.lt:lbd4 ixc5 12 .1d3 b6 13.
0-0 1d7 14.1e3 lt:lxd4 15.cxd4
1e7 16.1g5 ixg5 17.xg5 Kob
alia - Ivanov, Togliatti 2003.)
10.f4 (10 .h3 ? ! aS 11.a4 b6! We
already know this motif and once
again it works perfectly for Black.
12.cxb6 lt:lb4 13 .1d3 lt:lxd3+ 14.
cxd3 xb6 and White is worse;
12 .c3 bxc5 13.1b5 b6 with an ex
cellent game for Black.) 10 .. .f6.
White is forced to defend in a
rather bizarre fashion against
with the threat of g5. ll.h3 (Or
11.h4? ! <;f;>f7 and the white pawn
on h4 will soon drop.) ll . . . g5 1 2 .
h2 . You rarely see White's queen
ending up on this particular
square ! 12 . . . <;f;>g7 (It would be pre
mature for Black to play 12 . . .
lt:lxe5 ? ! 13.lt:lxe5 fxe5 14.xe5 1f6
15.1xg5 1xe5 16.ixd8 ixb2 17.
l"lb1 1c3+ 18.<;f;>d1 and White is
better in this endgame.) 13 .1d3
b6gg. The situation resembles an
ancient battle. Black has sacri
ficed a small regiment of soldiers,
but has also deflected his enemy's
main forces away from the centre
of the battlefield. How all this will
end is not so easy to predict and it
requires thorough practical test
ing.
9.f4
The following possibility does
not need any further comment:
9.g4? c7.
g5
1 0 .a4
It is simply very bad for White
to play 10 .g4?! lt:lh6 11.h5 f5 !
It is hardly any better to con
tinue with 10 .e3 lt:lh6 11.h3 lt:lf5
12.c3 f6 13.1b5 lt:lxe5 14.lt:lxe5
fxe5 15.xe5 1f6 16.h2 and the
placement of White's queen is in
sharp contrast to that of its black
counterpart.
1 0 . . . .id7
Black can also try 10 . . . c7, but
after ll.lt:lb3 1d7 12 .1b5 lt:lxe5
13.lt:lxe5 xeS+ 14.1e3 ixb5 15.
xb5 White is better.
ll . .ib5 a6
This might not be very good
for Black, but it is at least his most
consistent continuation.
It would not do for him to try
to be too tricky - ll . . . lt:lh6 12 .lt:lb3
a6 13.ixc6 ixc6 14.b4, and
White's blockade is working per
fectly.
15.'&g4 hc5
14.h3 !
This is a very important im
provement for White. Unfortu
nately it is becoming clear that in
this variation Black needs to look
for an improvement at some ear
lier point.
It is much weaker for White to
play 14.lt:Jb3? ! lt:Jf5 15.'&d3 d4 (or
15 . . . i.b5 ! ? 16.'&c3 E1c8) 16.l"1g1 '&c7
17.lt:Jfxd4 '&xe5+ 18 .i.e3 '&xh2 19.
0-0-0 lt:Jxd4 20.'&xd4 E1h6 21.
'&g4 '&e5 2 2 . lt:Jd4 i.f6 23.c3 '&e4
and Black had an excellent posi
tion in the game Adams - Mo
rozevich, Sarajevo 1999.
14 .tlJf5
147
Chapter 21
4 .tt:l f6 5.e5
..
5 .li:lfd7
149
Chapter 21
6 . .id3
White sometimes plays 6.c4,
against which I recommend
6 . . . 0-0. (It is also possible for
Black to opt for 6 . . . dxc4 7.lLlxc4
lLlb6 8.a3 lLlxc4 9 . .ixc4 lLld7 10.
0-0 lLlb6 ll . .id3 .id7 12 . .ie4 lLld5
13 . .ixd5 exd5 14.b3 .ic6 15 . .id2
a5 16J:Uc1 0-0 17.l"lc3 l"le8 18.l"lac1
l"la6 19 .c2 .id7 2 0 .b3 .ic6 2 1 .
c2 .id7 and the opponents re
peated moves in the game An
toniewski - Bosiocic, Austria
2008.)
6 . . c5
.
150
7.c3
Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu has
played several times the appar
ently unambitious move 7.0- 0 ! ?
This fact should make u s pay seri
ous attention to this plan. 7 . . . lLlc6
8.l"le1
. .
'Llc6
Chapter 21
prevent in the long run anyway.
B.'e2 aS 9.a4 ! ? (9.0-0 a6 10.c4
lLlc6 ll.cxd5 hd3 12.1Wxd3 exd5
13.l"\e1 0-0 14.'\WfS cxd4 15.lLlb3
lLlcS 16.lL:lbxd4 1WcB 17.l2Jxc6 1Wxc6
1B.l2Jd4 1Wd7 19.1Wxd7 l2Jxd7 20.e6
l2Jc5 21.exf7+ <>xf7 2 2 .e3 f6=
and Black has an excellent posi
tion, Jones - Grigorian, Yerevan
2 0 07. White did not obtain any
advantage after 13.dxc5 lL:lxcS
14.1Wb5 1Wd7 15.a4 0-0 16.!"1d1 1Wc7
17.lL:lf1 lL:lxe5 1B.lLlxe5 1Wxe5 19.e3
l'!fdB 2 0 .d4 1We6 and his com
pensation for the pawn was insuf
ficient in the game Adams - Yemelin, Ohrid 2 0 09.) 9 . . . a6 10 .b5
'\WeB 11.c4 b7 (11 . . . 0 - 0 ! ? ) 12.
dxc5 0-0?! Black is excessively
generous. (He should calmly play
12 . . . bxc5 13.cxd5 hdS.) 13.cxb6
l2Jxb6 14.b3 and White ended up
with a solid extra pawn, Fedor
chuk - Burlai, Evpatoria 2 007.
It is interesting for White to
play in tactical fashion with B.
l2Je4 ! ? h6? ! This move is both a
loss of a tempo and weakening of
the position. (Black might also
have problems after B . . . h6 9.ha6
l2Jxa6 10.lLld6+ hd6 11.exd6 and
suddenly his d6-pawn will soon
be a great source of anxiety. The
line B . . . '\Wc7 ! ? 9.lLlg3 a6 can be
recommended, but it requires
practical testing.) 9 .lLlg3 a6 10.
lLlhS hd3 11.1Wxd3 <i>fB 12.0-0
lLlc6 13.e3 g6 14.l2Jf4 <>g7 15.c4
cxd4 16.cxd5 lL:lcS 17.1We2 l2Jb4 1B.
lL:lxd4 lL:lxd5 19.!"1fd1 lLlxf4 2 0.hf4
'\WeB 21.lLlb5 l'!dB 2 2 .lLld6 Gopal
- Drasko, Banja Luka 200B.
152
8. 0 - 0
. . .
a) 8
. . .
a5
. . .
cxd4 1 0 .cxd4
9.E1el
It is weaker for White to play
9.b3? ! , because then Black's pre
vious move is perfectly justified :
9 . . . a4 ! 10.bxa4 c4 11.ic2 IMfaS 12.
tt:Jb1 h 6 ! 13.ia3 tt:Jb6 14.h4 id7
15.h5 tt:Jxa4 16.he7 tt:Jxe7 17.ha4
10
. . .
g5
Chapter 21
'Llc3. The gaping weakness on
the b5-square spells a lot of trou
ble.
ll.h3
It would be weaker to play 11.
g4? ! h5 12 .h3 'W'b6 13.'W'a4 (The
sacrifice of the central pawn is ob
viously not in the spirit of the po
sition - 13.'Llfl? ! hxg4 14.hxg4
'Llxd4 15.'Llg3 'Llxf3 + 16.'W'xf3 'W'd4
ll h5 12.lL!fl g4 13.hxg4
hxg4 14.lL!3h2 ib4
..
15.ge3 h4
18 . .if4! Degraeve - Ganaus,
Vienna 2 0 1 1 .
O f course, the game is not over
yet, but White's pieces are placed
much more harmoniously. Black
has so many weaknesses in his
position that I shall refrain from
further comment. . .
b) 8
16.gg3 !
It is only this original rook
manoeuvre that enables White
h5 ! ?
. .
Chapter 21
does not weaken his kingside as
much. Of course, you can confuse
your opponent by playing like
this, but that's all . . .
9 . . . g5
9.:1:le1
Black's idea is perfectly justi
fied after 9 . dxc5 ? ! lLldxe5 10.t2Jxe5
lLlxe5 11.lLlb3 lLlxd3 12.xd3 h4
13. :i:le1 h3 14.g3 a5 15.f4 0-0 16.
lLld4 hc5 17.l"le5 f6 18.:1:lxe6 he6
19.lLlxe6 b6 2 0 .lLlxf8 hf2 + 21.
<i>f1 <i>xf8 and Black was fighting
for the advantage in the game
Hracek - Morozevich, Rethym
non 2 0 03.
After 9.b3 g5 10.b2 cxd4 11.
cxd4 b6 White has great prob
lems with the protection of his
d4-pawn.
9 .e2 ! ? g5 (It is a matter of
tempi, but his idea would not
work after 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 g5 11.
lLlb3 a5 12 .e3 a4 13.lLlbd2 g4 14.
lLle1 - White has parried his op
ponent's initial pressure and is
now ready to launch a counterat
tack. Black can win a pawn, but
this would be insufficient com
pensation after 14 . . . b6 15.lLlc2
xb2. ) 10.dxc5 lLlxc5 (It would be
156
9.dxc5
Black's position is quite ac
ceptable after 9.a3 g4 (But not 9 . . .
h5? ! 10 .b4 g 4 11.b5 ! and White's
idea is perfectly justified : 11 . . .
li.Jxd4 12 .cxd4 gxf3 13.li.Jxf3 c4
14.c2 a6 15J'1bl axb5 16Jl:xb5
a3 17.li.Jg5 cl 18.xcl li.Jb8
19.li.Jh7 <;ild7 2 0 .li.Jf6+ <;ilc7 2 l .e4 !
with an overwhelming attack, Ni
sipeanu - Volkov, Saint Vincent
2003.) lO.li.Jel cxd4 11.cxd4 b6 !
12.li.Jc2 (Black has n o problems
after 12 .xg4 xd4 13 .xd4
li.Jxd4 14.li.Jef3 li.Jc5! It looks as
though White was not familiar
with my previous book and en
tered an inferior endgame straight
from the opening: 15.li.Jxd4 li.Jxd3
16.li.J2f3 b6 17.li.Jb5 <;ild7 18.l"ldl
a6 19.l"lxd3 b5 2 0 . l"lc3 l"lac8
and Black failed to save this posi
tion, Jones - Korobov, Aix-les
Bains 2 011.) 12 . . . li.Jxd4 13.xg4
li.Jxc2 14.c2 c7 15.a4 xe5
16.li.Jf3 h5! Black should be reluc-
9 . . .g4
Was that the reason Black
made his previous anti-positional
move?
The alternatives are less con
sistent and weaker for the most
part.
It is absolutely not in the spirit
of the position to continue with
9 . . . li.Jxc5?! 10 .b5 b6 11.li.Jd4 a6
12 .c6+ bxc6 13 .b4 li.Jd7 14.h5
li.Jxe5 15.li.J2f3 li.Jg6 16.g5 Ariz
mendi Martinez - Herraiz Hidal
go, Sant Lluis 2 0 05.
9 ... li.J dxe5? !
10.li.Jxe5
(The
large number of pieces left on the
157
Chapter 21
board is definitely not in White's
favour in this case. lO .bS? ! d7
11.\We2 \Wc7 12 J"!e1 lt:Jg6 13.lt:Jb3 g4
14.lt:Jfd4 eS 1S.lt:Jc2 a6 16 .a4 hS
17.Eld1 0-0-0 18.ElxdS lt:Jd4 19.
hd7+ Elxd7 2 0 . cxd4 ElxdS 2 1.lt:Jb4
Eldd8 2 2 .dS aS 23.d6 hd6 24.
cxd6 \Wxd6+ Rublevsky - Volkov,
Ohrid 2 0 01.) 10 . . . tt:JxeS 11.lt:Jb3 ! ?
This tempo for the development
of the initiative is much more im
portant than the light-squared
bishop. (Or 1l.bS+ d7 1 2 .
hd7+ \Wxd7 13.lt:Jf3 lt:Jxf3 + 14.
\Wxf3 eS 1S.e3 \We6 16.c4 d4
17.hd4 exd4 18.\Wxb7 \Wc8 19.
\We4 Elb8 2 0 .Elfe1 \WxcS 2 l .b4 \Wc7
2 2 .a3 Eld8 23.Elad1 f8 24.Elxd4
g7 2S.Elxd8 Elxd8+ Meier Socko, Bastia 200S. It would be
worse for Black to play the slightly
awkward line : 12 . . . tt:Jxd7 13 .b4 b6
14.c4 dxc4 1S.lt:Jxc4 bxcS 16.lt:Jd6+
hd6 17.\Wxd6 \Wb6 18 .\Wg3 cxb4
19.\WxgS \WcS 20.\Wg3 and his posi
tion is difficult, Rublevsky - Mo
rozevich, Togliatti 2 0 03.)
lO .!LJd4 .!LJdxe5
ll .ib5
.
ll
. . .
d7
12)L! 2b3
This is White's most sensible
move. He develops his knight,
protects his pawn and opens the
diagonal for his dark-squared
bishop. Nevertheless, some other
12
. . .
h5
1S9
Chapter 21
It is inferior to play 12 .. J !g8,
because th en he loses the possi
bility of castling kingside, no mat
ter how ridiculous that might
seem at the moment. 13.Ei:e1 'Llc4
14 . .if4 'Llxd4 15.'2lxd4 Ei:c8 16.
Ei:xe6! and the issue has been al
ready settled. (16.b3 'Lla3 17 ..id3
Ei:xc5 18 ..ixh7 Ei:g7 19 . .id3 Ei:xc3
20 . .ie5 .if6 2 l .Wfd2 .ixe5 2 2 . Ei:xe5
Wfc7 23.Ei:h5 Ei:g8 24.Ei:h7 e5 25.'2lf5
e4 2 6.Wfg5+ - Smirin - Akobian,
Minneapolis
2 0 05.)
16 . . . fxe6
(16 . . . .ixb5? 17.Ei:e1 .ia6 18.'2lf5 + - ;
1 7 . . . .id7 1 8 . .id6 + - ; 1 7 . . . '2lxb2 1 8 .
Wlb3 .id3 19 . .id6+-) 17.'2lxe6
.ixb5 18.'2lxd8 Ei:xd8 19.Wfe2
Black's pieces are so discoordi
nated that they are unable to pro
tect his king.
13.l'el
13 . .if4 'Llg6.
The move 13 .Wfe2 has been
played twice, quite successfully,
by Sergey Erenburg. I think Black
should respond with 13 . . . a6 ! ?
(13 . . . '2lxd4? ! 14.Wlxe5 .if6 15.
ixd7+ i'f8 16.Wfd6+ .ie7 17.Wfe5
if6 18.Wfd6+ .ie7 19 . .ig5 .ixd6
20 . .ixd8 'Llxb3 2 L.if6 'Llxc5 2 2 .
160
13 )/jxd4
. .
and now:
Black has tried 14 . . . a6 15.hc6
(15.cxd5 ? ! axb5 16.dxc6 hc6 17.
ct:lxc6 xd1 18.l"ixd1 bxc6 19 .d2
h4 2 0 . ct:l a5 l"ic8 2 1 .ct:lb7 l"ih5 2 2 .
e3 l"ia8 23.a4 l"ixa4 24.l"ixa4 bxa4
25.l"ia1 h3 26.l"ixa4 l"id5 with a su
perior endgame for Black, Naray
anan - Shimanov, Chennai 2 0 11)
15 ... bxc6 (It is stronger to contin
ue with 15 . . . hc6 ! ? 16. ct:lxc6 bxc6
and Black has managed to ex
change his queen's bishop, which
is usually very passive in this
pawn-structure.) 16.d2 e5 17.
a5 b8 18.cxd5 cxd5 19.c6 c8
2 0.c7 b7 21.l"ic1 d7 2 2 .ct:lc5
xc5 23.l"ixc5 0-0 24.b3 xb3
25.ct:lxb3 e6 26.l"ic6 l"lfe8 27.
ct:l c5 Timofeev - Arencibia Rod
riguez, Cappelle Ia Grande 2 004.
It looks attractive for Black to
play 14 . . . dxc4 15.hc4 ct:lxd4, but
unfortunately White has a very
powerful riposte : 16.ct:lxd4 (If 16.
xd4 f6, and the white queen
does not have a comfortable
square to retreat to: 17.d3 ct:le5;
17.d1 c7 with an excellent po
sition for Black.) 16 . . . hc5 (It
would be inconsistent to play
16 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! 17.c2 ! ; while the
move 16 . . . c7 is simply very risky
in view of 17.b4 0-0-0 18.b2 .)
17.he6 fxe6 (White gains an ad
vantage in problem-like fashion
after 17 . . . he6 18 .a4+ ! d7
19.ct:lxe6 fxe6 2 0.c2 ! ) 18.c2
e7 (Black loses after 18 . . .hd4
19.xg6+ \tlf8 2 0.l"ie4 e5 2 1 .
l"lxd4 ! ! exd4 2 2 .f4+-) 19.xg6+
fl 2 0.e4 0-0 2 1 .e3, and
161
Chapter 21
White has a clear, if small, advantage . . .
14 . . . l/Jxd4 1S.ll:lxd4 (Or 1S.
'&xd4?! .b:bS 16.cxbS .if6 and
Black's position is acceptable.)
1S ... .b:cS 16.cxdS .ixbS 17.l/JxbS
'&b6 ! Black's position looks peril
ous, but in fact it is quite satisfac
tory. 18.'&e2 (Or 18.dxe6? .ixf2 +
19.mh1 '&xbS 20 .exf7+ mf8 2 1 .
l'l:f1 .id4 ! and Black neutralizes
White's attack. ) 18 . . . 0-0 19 . .ih6
l'l:fe8 with counterplay.
14 . . . hb5
15.lilxb5 ! ?
14. lilxd4
Activating the white queen
with 14.'&xd4 is harmless for
Black after 14 . . . .b:bS 1S.l'l:xeS (IS.
'&xeS .if6 16.'&f4 '&e7) 1S ... '&d7 (It
is essential not to overlook the
trick 1S . . . .if6 16 . .igS ! ) 16.l'l:xdS
'&xdS 17.'&xh8 + md7 18.'&d4 .ic6
19 . .if4 l'l:d8 and Black will have
excellent compensation in the en
suing endgame.
14 . .ixd7+ '&xd7 1S.cxd4 l/Jg6? !
(I believe that this is not the right
square for this knight. It seems
much more natural for Black to
continue with 1S . . . l/Jc6 16 . .if4
.idS, reaching a very complicated
162
. .
ttlg6 16.c4
19.cxd5
16
. .
i.xc5
19 .'b6
.
17.W c2 ! 0 - 0
It would be too risky to play
17 .. J'k8 18.l"lxe6+ fxe6 19.Wxg6+
<j;ld? 2 0 . cxd5 with an enduring
initiative for White.
18.i.h6
If 18.l"lxe6, Black has the pow
erful riposte 18 . . . Wd7!
18 . . .l:e8
Black is worse after 18 . . . Wb6
19.i.xf8 <j;lxf8 20.tt'lc3 dxc4 2 1 .
tt'l a4 Wc6 2 2 . tt'lxc5 \MixeS 23.l"lad1
and the position is open, so
White's rooks are very powerful.
2 0 .ttlc3
After 2 0 . dxe6, Black can reply
with 20 ... <j;lh7! 21.exf7 fue1+ 22.fue1
<j;lxh6 23.Wd2+ <j;lg? 24.l"le8 WxbS
25.fua8 Wc6! and he can easily co
ordinate his pieces after taking con
trol of the important dS-square.
163
Chapter 22
5.dxc5
4 . . . c5
Without this move Black has
no chance of organizing any
meaningful counterplay, not only
in this variation, but in the entire
French defence in general.
164
5 . . . .!Llf6
It is too passive for Black to
play 5 . . . tt:Jd7, after which White
can maintain a slight advantage
by simple means : 6.exd5 exd5 7.
tt:Jb3 tt:Jxc5 8.tt:Jxc5 hc5 9.tt:Jf3 tt:Jf6
10.1Mfe2 + V!ffe 7 ll.V!ffx e7+ <>xe7 1 2 .
0-0 l"i: e 8 13.g5 h6 14.l"i:fe1+ e6
15.e3 xe3 16.l"i:xe3 <>d6 17.
tt:Jd4;t Meier - Bartel, Germany
2008.
6.1Mfe2
ll'lc6 and b) 6
a) 6
0-0.
4Jc6 7.ll'lgf3
8. 0 - 0
ll'lb4!?
This time-consuming ma
noeuvre to nab White's bishop
brought good results to Mo
rozevich in several games.
It seems more natural for
Black to play 7 . . . .b.c5, but this is
in fact a loss of time. 8 . 0 - 0 Vfffc 7
9.a3 ! ? This is a rather tricky move.
(White fails to obtain any advan
tage with the concrete line : 9.exd5
ltJxdS 10 .4Je4 e7 l l.g3 ! eS !
12.4Jeg5 - 12 .c4? 4Jdb4 13.b1
g4 and Black has an excellent
position - 12 . . . h6 13.c4 hxgS
14 . .b.d5 h3 15.Ei:d1 f6, with
chances for both sides, but it is
worth considering 9.e5 ! ? 4Jd7
10 .4Jb3 e7 ll.Ei:e1 b6 12 .c3 ltJcS
13.c2 a6 14.Vfffd 1 4Jd7 15.4Jbd4
0-0-0 16.4Jxc6 Vfffxc6 17.a4 <i>b7
18.a5 Vfffc 7 19 .e3 Vysochin Socko, Polanica Zdroj 2 0 0 0 . ) 9 . . .
d7 l O .eS 4Jg4 ll.b4 4Jd4 1 2 .Vfffd 1
b6 13.b2 4Jxf3+ 14.4Jxf3 a4
15.Vfffe 2 0-0-0 16.Ei:ac1 <i>b8 17.h3
Chapter 22
Libiszewski, Pula 2003, while the
move 12 . .ie3 does not achieve
anything after 12 . . . a5 13.0-0
.ixc5 14 . .ixc5 xc5 15J'1fc1 b6
16.e5 lt:lg8 17.e3 xe3 18.fxe3
lt:le7 19.lt:ld4 .id7 2 0 .E\c7 E\b8 2 1 .
b 4 f6 2 2 . 'Ll 2f3 lt:l g 6 23.exf6 gxf6
24.E\ac1 1t>d8 25.1t>f2 lt:le7 26.E\7c5
b6 27.E15c3 E1c8 28.E\xc8 + lt:lxc8
2 9 .lt:lh4 lt:le7 30.lt:lhf3 e5 31.'Lle2
.ib5 and Black has a good posi
tion, Navara - Duppel, Pardubice
2 0 0 0 . ) 12 . . .hf6 13.exd5 (If 13.e5,
Black obtains enduring compen
sation for the pawn with his bish
op-pair and the possibility of un
dermining his opponent's pawn
centre. 13 . . . .ie7 14.E\c1 a5 15.e3
.id7 16.0-0 0-0 17.E\c2 E\fc8
18.E\fc1 E1c7 19 .d4 E\ac8 2 0 .b4
axb3 2 1 . 'Llxb3 a6 2 2 .'Lle1 f6 23.
exf6 hf6 24.b4 e5 25.d4 e4 26.
b6 a4 27.d6 .ic6 28.E\d1 E\f7
29.g3 E\eSgg Pogonina - Tairova,
Moscow 2 007, or 15 . . . b6 16.cxb6
idS 17.c5 xc5 18.E\xc5 .ixb6
19J=\c2 0-0 2 0 .'Llf1 .ia6 2 l . lt>e2
.ib5 2 2 .'Lle3 f5 23.E\hc1 E\ab8
24.a3 g5 25.h3 lt>g7 2 6.E\b1 lt>g6
27.E\cc1 h5gg Godena - Moroze
vich, Istanbul 2 0 0 0 . ) 13 . . . xd5
(The move 13 . . . 0 - 0 ? ! strikes me
as too gambit-like, but in the fol
lowing game Black was quite suc
cessful. 14.lt:le4 exd5 15.lt:lxf6+
xf6 16.0-0 b6 17.E\ac1 bxc5
18.E\xc5 .ig4 19.e5 b6 2 0 . E\xd5
.ixf3 21.gxf3 E\ab8 2 2 . E\b1 a3
23.b4 E1fe8 24.d4 E\e2 25.xb6
E1xb6 26.E\a5 E\xa2 and the players
agreed to a draw, Rozentalis Pert, Dublin 2 0 07. It looks attrac166
ll . . . h6 1 2 . .ih4
12 . . b6 ! ?
.
b) 6
0 - 0 7.c!Llgf3
a5
Chapter 22
10 . . . tt:ldxc5. Black is forced to
strike this counter-blow. (The
routine move 10 . . . exd5? ! leads to
an inferior position for Black after
l l.h:a6 !'1xa6 12 . .te3 Wic7 13.Wib5 !
and White preserves his c5pawn.) 11.dxe6 tt:lxd3+ 12 .Wixd3
h:e6 13.Wixd8 !'1fxd8 14.tt:lbd4
tt:lb4 15 . .td2 (Here White can also
try 15. 0-0, but then Black obtains
a good position with 15 . . . .tc4
16.!'1e1 .tf6) 15 . . . .td5 16.0-0-0
.tf6 with sufficient compensation
for the pawn. Black also solves his
problems after ll.tt:lxc5 tt:lxc5
12 . .tb5 exd5 13 .tt:ld4 (White was
obviously reluctant to play the
natural move 13 . 0 - 0 , because of
the possible pin - 13 . . . .tg4.) 13 . . .
.tf6 14 . .te3 tt:l e 6 ! This i s a concrete
variation and Black obtains a
good game with it. 15.!'1d1 (Black's
position is also perfectly accepta
ble too after 15. 0-0-0 tt:lxd4 16.
h:d4 .tf5) 15 ... h:d4 16 . .txd4 WigS
17. 0-0 tt:lf4 18.Wif3 .tg4 19.Wig3
tt:lh5 20 .Wie5 Wixe5 21 ..txe5 .txd1
2 2 . l"i:xd1 and Black won this end
ing, Milos - Vitiugov, Khanty
Mansiysk 2009.
168
8. 0 - 0
The symmetrical response
8.a4 is not at all satisfactory for
White after 8 . . . tt:la6 9.e5 tt:ld7
10.tt:ld4 tt:ldxc5 (10 . . . tt:lb4 ! ?) 11.
.txa6 !'1xa6 12.tt:l 2f3 .td7 ! ? (It
seems to me that Black played in
even more straightforward fash
ion in the following game : 12 . . .
tt:le4 13.0-0 f6 14.c4 Wic7 15.cxd5
exd5 16 . .tf4 Wic4 17.Wid1 .td7 18.
l"i:c1 Wixa4 19.l"i:c7 Wixd1 20.!'1xd1 fxe5
2 1..txe5 tt:lc5, with a complicated
position, Navara - Pelletier, Plov
div 2003.) 13.b3 tt:le4 14.0-0 Wib6
with an excellent game for Black.
White did not achieve much
with the risky line : 8.c4 tt:la6 9.
cxd5 tt:lxc5 10.0-0 exd5 11.e5
tt:lfd7 (Or ll . . . tt:lxd3 ! ? 12.Wixd3
tt:ld7 13.Wixd5 tt:lc5 14.Wixd8 !'1xd8
and Black has good compensa
tion for the sacrificed pawn.)
12 ..tc2 f6 13.e6 tt:le5 14.tt:lxe5 fxe5
15.Wixe5 .tf6 16.Wie2 !'1a6 ! A crea
tive move. 17.tt:lb3 l"i:xe6 18 .h:h7+
'it>xh7 19.Wih5+ 'it>g8 2 0 .tt:lxc5 l"i:e5
2 1.Wid1 Wid6 2 2 .tt:ld3 l"i:e4 23 . .te3
d4 and Black seized the initiative
in the game Sjugirov - Bajarani,
Rijeka 2 0 1 0 .
White plays only rarely here
8.c3 tt:la6 ! ? (8 ... tt:lfd7 9.exd5 tt:lxc5
10 . .tb5 exd5 11. 0-0 tt:lc6 12. tt:ld4
.td7 13.tt:l2f3 .tf6 14 . .te3 !'1e8 15.
!'1fd1 tt:le4 16.a4 Wic7 17.h3 l"i:ad8=
Almasi - Radj abov, Pamplona
2 0 0 1 . White was not successful
either after 9 . 0 - 0 tt:lxc5 10 . .tc2
b6 11.!'1d1 .ta6 12 .Wie3 !'1a7 13.exd5
and the players agreed to a draw,
8 . . . tba6 9 .e5
9 . . . tbd7
1 0 .c3
White must play in this con
sistent fashion, implementing his
169
Chapter 22
plan step by step, in order to ob
tain an edge.
The other possible treatment
of this position is 10.'2:l d4 'i:ldxcS
ll.f4 ! ? (It is too cautious for White
to opt for 1l.'i:l 2f3 'i:lxd3 12.cxd3
d7 13 .e3 a4 14.a3 'i:lc5 1S.Ei:ac1
Ei:c8 16.Ei:c3 b6 17.f4 fS 18.h3 h6
19.Ei:fc1 e8 with a good game for
Black, Ki.Georgiev - Kornev,
Warsaw 2 0 0S.) 1l.. .b6 12.'i:l 2f3
d7 13.a3 'i:lxd3 (Black should re
frain from 13 . . . 4Je4 14.Ei:a2 'i:lacS
1S.e3 a4 16.h1 f6 17.exf6 xf6
18 .e1 'i:lxd3 19.cxd3 'i:lcS 2 0 .
'i:le2 bS 2 l.b4 Ei:fc8 2 2 .4Jed4+
Kotronias - Barsov, Montreal
2 0 0 2 . ) 14.cxd3 'i:l cS 1S.e3 a6
and the position remain rather
unclear.
White does not need to in
crease the tension in the centre
with 10 .c4 'i:laxcS 1l.c2 b6 12 .b3
b7 13 .b2 b8 (Black should
avoid the risky line : 13 .. .fS 14.4:ld4
b8 1S.Ei:ad1 xeS 16.xeS 'i:lxeS
17.4JxfS exfS 18 .xeS Ei:ac8 19.
Ei:fe1 g6 20.cxdS xdS 2l.'i:lc4
xc4 2 2 .bxc4 f6 23.f4 Ei:fd8
24.Ei:dS f7 2S.e3 e7 26.Ei:b1
Ei:b8 27.Ei:xd8 Vachier Lagrave Sprenger, Germany 2 0 0 8 ; 13 . . .
c7! ?) 14.Ei:ad1 Ei:c8 1S.Ei:fe1 'i:lf8
16.b1 a4 17.e3 axb3 18.axb3
'i:lg6 19 .h4 h6 2 0 .hS 'i:lf8 2 l.'i:lh2
gS 2 2 .f4 h4 and the position
remained very sharp in the game
Kaplan - Rodshtein, Biel 2 0 07.
10
4Jaxc5 11 ..ic2
(diagram)
ll . . . b6
I believe the possibility of 1 1 . . .
170
12.Ei:el .ia6
Yuri Shulman, one of the ex
perts in this variation for Black,
tried an interesting novelty here
in a recent game - 12 . . .f6 ! ? 13.
exf6 (Black's idea is best illustrat
ed by the variation 13 .b4 axb4
14.cxb4 'i:la6 ! ) 13 . . . hf6 14.'i:lb3
a6 , but White can also counter it
14 . . . fxe5
Black should not try to be too
tricky with 14 . . . axb4 ? ! 15.cxb4
fxeS 16.bxc5 JJ.xc5 17.b3 !
13.e3 f6
14.b4!
White does not achieve any
thing by playing cautiously with
14.exf6, in view of 14 . . . JJ.xf6
15.4Jb3 eS 16.4Jxc5 (16.d2 JJ.b7
17.4Jxc5 bxc5 18.C/Jg5 iJ.xgS 19.
xg5 b6) 16 ... bxc5 17.C/Jg5
hg5 18.xg5 e8 19.Ji.e3 f7
2 0 .h4 h6 2l.l"lad1 l"lab8 and I
17 . . . xf2
A reasonable alternative here
is 17 . . . JJ.xf2 + ! ? 18.Wh1 JJ.xe1 19.
xe6+ . I think White should not
be greedy here. (It would be
stronger for him to continue with
19.xe1 d6 2 0 .a4! l"lfe8 2 l.CiJf3
eS and his prospects in the ensu
ing complicated struggle are
slightly better.) 19 . . . mh8 2 0 .xe1
d4 2 1.Ji.b2 (2l.CiJf3 ! ? d3 2 2 .Ji.d1,
White wishes to redeploy his
bishop to a working diagonal.)
2 1 . . .d3 2 2 .Ji.d1 g5 23.4Jf3 l"lae8
171
Chapter 22
24.f2 d2 25.i.a4 l"i:e2 2 6.g1 e7
27.c4 i.b7 28 .l"i:fl l"i:e1 29 .i.d1 l"i:xf3
30.gxf3 1'lxd1 0-1 Kristjansson Caruana, Reykjavik 2 0 0 8 .
18.hl
Once again, White should re
frain from gobbling pawns. 18.
xe6+? Wh8 (The computer rec
ommends here the paradoxical
move 18 . . . Wf8 ! ?, with the follow
ing sample variation 19.h1 g5
2 0.h3 l"i:e8 2 1.l"i:g1 - 21.l"i:xe8 + ! ?
xeS 2 2 .i.a4+ b 5 23 .i.b3 - 2 1 . . .
i.c8 2 2 . lLlb3 xc1 23.l"i:gxc1 hh3
24.lLlxc5 bxc5 25.gxh3 l"i:ee2 26.
i.a4 l"i:xh 2+ 27.Wg1=) 19.h1 h4
2 0 .lLlf3 (White loses after 2 0 .
xd5? l"i:af8 2 1.e4 i.f1 ! ! - + , as
well as after 2 0 .i.b2 ? l"i:af8 2 1 .
xd5 i.b7 2 2 .xb7 i.d6-+) 2 0 . . .
l"i:xf3 21.gxf3 f2 a n d here White
must find two very important
moves : 2 2 .e8+ ! (White lost in a
really childish fashion after 2 2 .
i.e3?? xf3 + 23.g1 i.f1 ! - + Du
rarbeyli - Yemelin, Budva 2009.)
2 2 ... i.f8 23.e3 xc2 24.i.a3 ! d4
(24 . . . f5 25.i.xf8 l"i:xf8 26.l"i:ab1
18 . . .'e7
White can counter 18 . . . h4
with the same manoeuvre: 19.i.d1!
2 0 . . . f6 21. b8 + f8 22.
'\Wg3 a4 23.c4!
Concluding out survey of the move 4. i.d3, we must say that Black
should be prepared to play some quiet and solid lines and he has a
wide choice. Attempts by Black to sharpen and complicate the game
can be countered by White quite venomously. However, none of this
means anything conclusive from the practical point of view. The ele
ment of surprise. or finding White unprepared, can dramatically
change the outcome of the opening battle.
172
Part 6
The Tarrasch Variation with 3...c5
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)t)d2 c5
173
Chapter 23
4.exd5
After 4.c3 White can cannot
count on any advantage : 4 . . . cxd4
5.cxd4 dxe4 6.t2:lxe4 l2:lf6 - this is
the most concrete order of moves
for Black.
Now:
Black has no problems after
7.l2:lxf6+ xf6 8.l2:lf3 d7 (8 . . . tt:Jc6
9.d3 - 9.a3 ! ? - 9 . . . b4+ 10 .d2
174
V!Jxd5 5.dxc5
a) 5
V!Jc6
7 .ic4
Chapter 23
treats of his queen, but it has be
come clear that the last move is
his best option.
He can also play 7 . . .'d6 8.
0-0 c7 9.e2 lt'lc6 10.lt'le4 fi.e7
ll.c3 ? ! White's last defensive
move is absolutely senseless. (He
could have maintained his open
ing initiative with 11.fi.g5 ! ?). 1 1 . . .
b6 12 .fi.g5 fi.b7 13J'!ad1 0-0 14.
lt'lxf6+ hf6 15.fi.xf6 gxf6 16.fi.d3
h8 17.fi.xh7 xh7 18.e4+ h6
19 .h4+ g7 2 0 .g4+ h6 2 1 .
h4+ and the game Pogonina Xu Yuhua, Krasnoturinsk 2008,
ended in a draw by perpetual
check.
It is rather dubious for Black
to play 7 . . . h5?! 8.e2 a6 9.lt'lf1
fi.d6 10.fi.g5 h6 11.0-0-0 hxg5
12.l'l:xd6 g4 13.d2 lt'lc6 14.lt'lg5
fi.d7 15.lt'lg3 h6 16.e3 lt'le7 17.
h3 Carlsson - Braun, Wijk aan
Zee 2008 .
9. 0 - 0 l!Jbd7
It is interesting to opt for the
prophylactic line : 9 . . . fi.d6 10 .fi.d3
fi.c7 ll.l!Jc4 l!Jbd7 12.l'l:d1 b5 13.
lt'lce5 lt'lxe5 14.lt'lxe5 c5 15.lt'lg4
lt'lxg4 16.xg4 fi.b7 17.h4 g6 18.
fi.g5 fi.d8 19 .fi.xd8 l'l:fxd8= Adams
- Speelman, London/Crowthorne
2006.
1 0 .l!Jb3 b6
8.e2
11.l!Jxc5
8 .. 0 - 0
.
13
14
.ib7 14.l'iJe5
l::1 ad8
b) 5
t'iJf6
Chapter 23
resource - 6.'Lle4 b4+ 7.'Llc3
tt:lf6 8.i.d3 tt:lbd7 9.a3 ? ! Why force
the enemy queen to a better
square? 9 . . . d6 10.'Llf3 tt:lc5 11.
i.b5+ i.d7 12 .e2 a6 13.i.c4 c7
14. 0 - 0 i.d6 15.b4 c8 16.i.b2?
tt:la4 17. .be6 'Llxc3 18 . .bd7+ \tlxd7
and Black realized his extra piece
almost effortlessly, Timofeev Morozevich, Taganrog 2 0 11.
6.l!Jgf3
White has an alternative here
as well : 6.'Llb3 xd1+ 7.\tlxd1
i.d7! This is a very good move.
Black's bishop might go to the a4square in many variations. 8.f3 . A
renowned master of opening
preparation, Vladimir Potkin, an
alyzed this position thoroughly
and found a move which was not
at all obvious. 8 . . . ie7. Black plays
quite simply and develops his
pieces in the most natural fash
ion. 9.'Lla5 ic6 10 .ie3 tt:lbd7 11.c3
ixc5 12.ixc5 and the players
agreed to a draw, Potkin - Vitiu
gov, Khanty-Mansiysk 2011. It
would be fair to say that it is hard
for White to fight for an advan
tage in this variation.
. .
xc5
7 ..id3 .ie7 8. 0 - 0 0 - 0 9.
e2 l!Jbd7 10 .l!Je4 c7 11 ..ig5 b6
12.l'adl
In the first game played in this
line there followed 1 2 .'Llxf6+ tt:lxf6
13.'Lle5 .ib7 14.fe1 adS 15.ad1
d6. This is a typical manoeuvre
in such positions, and is often
seen, for example, in the Rubin
stein variation. 16.if4 'WeB 17.
tt:lg4 and a draw was agreed on
White's proposal, Kobalia - Vitiu
gov, Dagomys 2 01 0.
14
..
19 .lL!g8 !
.
179
Chapter 24
4 . . . cxd4
There are other acceptable
moves here, but since after 4.exd5
I advise Black to continue with
4 . . .'xd5, here it logical for Black
to opt for 4,,cxd4, which often
transposes.
5.ltJxd4
After 5.exd5 xd5 there is a
transposition to the main theo
retical lines which we shall ana
lyze later.
5 . . f6
.
6.exd5
It is possible, but not very logi
cal, for White to play 6.e5 CiJfd7
181
Chapter 24
. . .
Vbd5
7.tt:\b5
This is the way for White to try to
create problems for his opponent.
There is a quieter possibility 7.11J2f3 a6 8.d3 11Jbd7 9.0-0 cS
10 .c4 1gfd6 11.11Jb3 a7 12 .1gfe2
0-0 13 .g5 1gfc7 14.h4 l'%e8 15.
l'!fe1 b8 . This is an original ma
noeuvre. However, the player
with Black, Igor Lysyj , is one of
the most eminent experts in the
French defence in general, and in
this variation in particular, so we
should trust his moves, no matter
how wild they might seem at first
sight. 16.l'%ad1 b6 17.g3 1gfa7 18.
tiJeS 11Jxe5 19 .he5 xeS 2 0 .1gfxe5
1gfb8 and the players agreed to a
draw, Vysochin - Lysyj , St Peters
burg 2009. It is weaker for Black
to play 7 . . . 11Jc6 8.11Jxc6 1gfxc6 (It is
possible that Black's seventh
move might be justified by the
strategically risky line : 8 . . . 1gfxd1 +
9.\t>xd1 bxc6 with a very compli
cated endgame.) 9.d3 1gfc7 ! ? (9 . . .
a6? ! 1 0 . 0 - 0 d6 ll.b3 b S 12.a4
b4? 13 .b5 ! axbS 14.axb5 xh 2 +
tt:\a6
8.c4
This is the only move for White
which combines aggression and
soundness.
There are interesting develop
ments after the gambit line : 8.e2
d7 9 .c4 (White even tried a
"double gambit" in the following
blitz game - without success,
though . . . : 9 . 0 - 0 xbS 10 .c4 hc4
11.xc4 1gfc6 12 .1gfe2 tt:lc7 13.tt:lf3
183
Chapter 24
id6 14.ig5 0-0 15J'l:ac1 iWb6 16.
.b:f6 gxf6 17.iWe4 ie7 18.iWh4
E1ad8 and the position was very
complicated, Svidler - Grischuk,
Moscow 2008.) 9 . . . 1Wxg2 10.if3
iWh3 1l ..b:b7
Now:
9 . a3 il.e7 10 .i/.c4 0-0 (Or 10 . . .
lLlc7 1 1 . 0 - 0 0 - 0 12.\Wf3 lLlfdS 13.
lLlde4 fS 14.lLlg3 lLlxc3 1S.\Wxc3
lLldS 16.\Wf3 bS. GM Emil Sutovs
ky usually treats the French de
fence as a cross between the Gru
enfeld Defence and the Najdorf
Sicilian . . . 17.hbS \Wc7 18.c4 Black
is unlikely to obtain compensa
tion for his wild sacrifices, Ni Hua
- Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.)
11.0-0 (White did not achieve any
advantage with the line: 11.\We2
lLlcS 1 2 . 0 - 0 a6 13.b4 lLlcd7 14.il.b2
aS 1S.bxaS \WxaS 16.lLlbS lLlb6 17.
i/.c3 \Wa4 18.il.b3 \Wh4 19.1:iJc7
l"lxa3 = Timofeev - Ni Hua, Tai
yuan 2 0 0 6 . It would be rather
Chapter 24
2 l .bxc3 'LldS 2 2 . Wlf3 Wlc6 23.ixf8
Elxf8 and later, showing tremen
dous tenacity, Black somehow
managed to save the game, Svidler
- Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son,
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 0 1 1 .
Wlc6
9.lLlf3
Over-complex solutions to the
position, such as the move 9.a3,
do not accord with the style of
competitive grandmasters. I do
not quite understand the idea of
this move in any case. 9 . . . ie7 10.
b4 (White tried something very
strange in this game : 10.'Llf3 0-0
1l.ie2 8:d8 12 .Wlc2 'LlcS 13 .b4 Wle4
14.'<Mixe4 'Llcxe4 1S.ib2 id7 16.
0-0 aS 17.bxaS ElxaS+ and Black's
position is much the more pleas
ant, Kogan - Grischuk, Rogaska
Slatina 2 0 11.) 10 . . . 0-0 11.Wlf3.
This is another strange-looking
move. (It looks positionally more
sensible for White to play ll.ib2
Eld8 1 2 .'<Mif3 'Llb8 but after 13.'<Mic3?
186
9
ie7
...
16
c5 ! ?
..
14
..
cxd4!
2U!xc8
ghxc8
2 2.a6
gc3 ! ? I believe that this move is
16.b4
White tried to obtain an ad
vantage with much quieter meth
ods in the following game, but he
did not achieve much : 16.l"1ad1
0-0 17.CiJe5 l"1e8 18.e3 CiJce4 19.
f4 l"1d8 20.f3 CiJd6 2 1.g3 CiJd7
187
Chapter 25
6 .ic4
'1Wd6
189
Chapter 25
8.ltlc4 (8.ltle4 Wd8 9.0-0 :Jie7
10 .We2 lt:lf6 11.:gd1 0-0 12 .c3 eS
13.h3. Black has an extra pawn
and no problems whatsoever. 13. . .
:JifS 14.lt:lg3 d3 15.We1 Wd7 16.
lt:lxeS lt:lxeS 17.Wxe5 :Jig6 18.:Jie3
:gfe8 and White must think about
equalizing. Black played less
strongly in the following game,
but he still won the rather compli
cated ending after 18 . . . :Jid8 19.
:Jic4 :Jic7 20.Wb5 WxbS 2 1.:Jixb5,
Hansen - Akopian, Turin 2006.)
8 . . .Wd8 9.0-0 lt:lf6 10.We2 d3 !
The Chinese player treats the po
sition in a very original fashion.
White's pieces are really awk
wardly placed from the point of
view of fighting against the iso
lated pawn. ll.cxd3 :Jie7 12 .d4
0-0 13.lt:lce5 lt:lxd4 14.lt:lxd4 Wxd4
15.:Jig5 lt:ldS 16.:gfd1 Wb4 17.:Jixe7
lt:lxe7 18.:gacl lt:lc6 19.ltlxc6 bxc6
2 0 . :gxc6 :Jib7= Timofeev - Ding,
Sochi 2009.
9 . . . a6
I recommend that Black fol
lows the most principled path.
Sometimes Black plays 9 . . .
190
1 0 . 0 - 0 - 0 b5 ll.:Jid3 :Jie7
Both sides have almost completed the mobilization of their
forces.
White can choose here between several possibilities.
12.:ghel
This move has not been thor
oughly analyzed yet, but I think it
is White's most promising. This is
quite typical of contemporary
chess. You can hardly win a game
at any level without demonstrat
ing something new . . .
I t would b e a mistake for
White to opt for 1 2 .:Jie4? lt:lxe4
13.Wxe4 :Jib7 14.lt:lbxd4 Wc7 and
Black is even better.
The logical move 12.ltlbxd4
can be countered forcefully with
12 . . . lbxd4 13.lt:lxd4 WdS !
(diagram)
14.:Jixf6 :Jixf6 15.mbl. It looks
as though White has created some
difficulties for his opponent, but
that assumption would be wrong.
15 . . . :Jib7! This novelty solves all
Black's problems. (Previously
Chapter 25
12
. . .
h6
13.i.h4
After 13 .hf6 ? ! hf6 14.i.e4
i.b7 1S.C2Jbxd4 C2Jxd4 16.C2Jxd4
he4 17.Vfffxe4 0-0, Black can be
quite happy.
13
0-0
17.c!bxd4 E1fd8
14.i.g3
14.ltJbxd4? ltJxd4 15.ctJxd4 Vffff4-+
The preliminary 14.'1t>b1 merely presents Black with additional
possibilities. For example : 14 . . .
i.b7 1S.C2Jbd4 (1S.i.g3 Vfff d 8 16.
C2Jfxd4 C2Jxd4 17.C2Jxd4 i.dS ! ?) 15 . . .
C2Jxd4 16.ctJxd4 Wxh 2 . Black's
boldness can be envied. In fact,
everything which is not forbidden
is allowed! 17.i.g3 Vfffh S 18.f3 ttJdS
18 .ie5
The plan with 7. Vfff e2 is becoming less and less popular lately.
White must try to find an improvement in this variation!
193
Chapter 26
194
1 0 .xd4
The endgame is absolutely
harmless for Black after 10.xd4
xd4 ll.liJxd4 id7 12.if4 E!c8
13 .ib3 icS 14.E!adl 0-0 1S.liJf3
E!fd8 16.liJeS ibS 17.c4 ie8 18.
E!xd8 E!xd8 19.E!dl l'!c8 2 0 . Wfl aS,
and Black even had the better po
sition in the game Pavasovic Roiz, Valjevo 2 0 07.
10
. . .
a6
ll.l'el
This is his main and most ag
gressive move. Now Black is faced
with concrete problems and he
must react very precisely.
It is weaker for White to play
ll.a4 Wc7 12 .b3 (12 .We2 id6 13.
h3 0-0 14.c3 h6 lS.l'!el b6 16.id3
ib7 17.id2 E!fd8 18.E!adl icS=
Short - lvanchuk, Montreal
2 007.) 12 . . . id6 13.h3 0-0 14.ib2
eS 1S.liJf3 e4 16.liJgS (16.li:Jd4 id7
17.We2 l'!ae8 18.icl WaS 19.l'!dl
WeS with an initiative for Black,
Tiviakov - Dreev, Podolsk 1992)
16 ... ifS 17.hf6 gxf6 18 .WdS
ih2 + 19.Whl ieS 2 0 .liJxe4 ie6
2 l.dl hc4 2 2 .bxc4 fS 23.liJg3
hal 24.Wxal f6. White has com
pensation for the exchange, but
not more than that, Movsesian Morozevich, Reggio Emilia 2 01 1 .
It i s hardly interesting for
19S
Chapter 26
White to opt for l l.i.d3 i.d7
12.li'lf3 Vfic7 13.l"le1 i.d6 14.Vfie2
li'l d5 15.a3 li'lf4 (Black has a rea
sonable alternative here in 15 . . .
0-0 16.li'le5= Azarov - Akopian,
Plovdiv 20 0 8 .) 16.i.xf4 .b:f4 17.g3
i.d6 18 .l"lad1 l"ld8= Ponomariov Huebner, Istanbul 2 0 0 0 .
Black has some problems to
solve if White plays in prophylac
tic fashion with 11.i.b3 .
Chapter 26
Chemnitz 2009. This is probably
the sign of a very strong player to anticipate the inevitability of a
certain result, long before it has
become really obvious . . .
I t looks reasonable, but rather
slow, for White to play ll.c3 V!ff c7
12 .i.b3 (White cannot create any
real problems for his opponent
with the line: 1 2 .V!ff e 2 i.d6 13.h3
0-0 14.i.g5 'Lle4 15.i.e3 b5 16.i.d3
i.b7 17.V!ffc 2 'Llf6 18 .i.g5 h6 19 .
.hf6 gxf6 2 0.i.e4 .he4 2 1 .V!ffxe4 fS
2 2 .V!fff3 Elac8 23.Elad1 i.eS 24.Eld3
Elfd8 25.Elfd1 i.g7 and Black equal
ized easily, Bagirov - Djurasevic,
Oberhausen 1961; 12 .i.d3 i.d6 13.
h3 i.d7 14.V!fff3 0-0 15.i.g5 i.h2 +
16.<i>h1 i.eS 17.Elae1 .hd4 18.cxd4
'Lld5 19.V!ffe4 fS 2 0 .Wffe 2 V!ffb 6 21.Eld1
i.bS with an excellent position
for Black, Tiviakov - Kramnik,
Kherson 1991.) 12 . . . i.d6 13.h3
0-0 14. i.gS 'Lle4 15.i.e3 i.h2 +
1 6 . 'tt> h 1 i.f4 17.V!fff3 i.xe3 18.V!ffxe3
'Llf6 19.f4 bS 2 0 . Elae1 Ele8 2 1 .V!ff e5
V!ffx eS 2 2 . ElxeS i.b7 23.f5 exfS 24.
ElexfS Elad8 25.<i>h2 i.dS 2 6 . .hd5
ElxdS 27.Elxd5 'LlxdS= Tiviakov Huebner, Venlo 2 0 0 0 .
198
11
V!ffc7
and here:
it is bad for Black to play 12 . . .
V!ffc S? 13 . .he6 fxe6 1 4 . .hf6 gxf6
15.'Llxe6 .he6 16.Elxe6+ i.e7 17.b4
V!ffc 3 18.Ele3 V!ffc 7 19.V!ffh 5+ <i>f8 2 0.
Elae1 and White has a decisive at
tack, Adams - Nisipeanu, Sofia
2 0 07;
as is 12 ... V!ffc 7? 13 ..he6 i.xe6
14 . .hf6 gxf6 15.'Llxe6 fxe6 16.
Elxe6+ <i>t7 17.V!ffd 5 \t>g7 18.V!fff5
V!fft7 (18 . . . i.e7 19.Elae1 Elhe8 2 0.
V!ffe 4 <i>f8 2 1 .V!ffx h7 Elad8 2 2 .h4 V!ff cS
23.h5 1-0 Shytaj - Malakhatko,
Tromsoe 2009.) 19.Eld1 i.e7 20.Eld7
Elhe8 2 1.g3 Elab8 2 2 .h4 hS 23.c4
b6 24.b4 Elbc8 25.Elexe7 Elxe7
26.Elxe7 V!ffx e7 27.V!ffx c8 + - Andria
sian - Rodshtein, Yerevan 2 0 0 6 ;
1 2 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 13.Ele3
Chapter 26
25.c4 d7 and the knight on a7 re
mains a sorry sight.
12 .ib3
.
...
.id7!?
Chapter 26
'Wxfl (After 2 l . E:xh2? f6 2 2 .g4
d7, Black can fight for the ad
vantage.) 2 l . . . 'Wf5 2 2 . E:xh5+ 'WxhS
23.'Wf6+ 'Wg6 24.'Wh4+ 'Wh5 25.
'Wf6 = Geenen - Barsov, France
2 0 07.
19.e3 fS 2 0 .g4 liJf6 2l.gxf5+
exfS 2 2 .'Wg2 + liJg4 23.f3 bS 24.
d4 'it>gS 25.e6 g3 26.xc8
E:axc8 27.fxg4 xe1 28.E:xe1 'Wc6
29.gxf5+ 'Wxg2 + 3 0 .\t>xg2 lt>xfS
and the position should be techni
cally winning for Black, Sarakaus
kas - Dochev, Tanta 2001.
19 .c1 f4 2 0 .g4 liJg3 + 2 l .fxg3
xc1 2 2 . E:axc1 b6. This move en
sures both the development of
Black's bishop on the long diago
nal and also the c5-square for the
queen. (There is nothing wrong
with the less intricate 22 . . . d7! ?
2 3 .c2 + lt>g7 24.'We3 c6+ 25.
'it>h2 h6=) 23.c2 + (After 23.
'We3, a game by one of the most
famous experts in this line, Ser
gey Ivanov, proves that Black has
no problems whatsoever: 23 . . .
b7+ 24.\t>h2 'Wc5 25.'Wf4 'WgS
2 6 .c2 + 'it>h6 27.E:cd1 'Wxf4 28.
gxf4 f3 29.E:xd8 E:xd8 30.'it>g3
E:d2 = Solovjov - S. Ivanov, St Pe
tersburg 2 005.) 23 . . . \t>g7 24.e4
E:a7 25.E:c2 b7 26.E:h2 xe4
27.'Wxe4 'Wb7 28.E:xh7+ lt>g8 29.
'Wxb7 E:xb7 30.E:h2 E:d3 3l.'it>g2
E:d2 + 32.'it>h3 E:xh2 + 33. 'it>xh2
E:d7 34.E:e2 'it>g7 35. \t>h3 bS 36.b3
E:c7 37.E:e3 lt>f6 38.E:f3+ lt>g5=
Brodsky - Glek, Wijk aan Zee
1999.
13.'\W3
White achieves very little with
202
13 . . . d6
This is the right answer for
Black. He must occupy the b8-h2
diagonal before his opponent
does.
The author of this book made
a terrible mistake in the move-or
der in one of the morning rounds
of the Bundesliga. This led to six
hours of hard and laborious de
fence, but in the end it all ended
successfully, by a miracle: 13 . . . 00-0? 14.f4 d6 15.xd6 'Wxd6
16.E:ad1 'Wc7 17.E:e3 'it>b8 18.E:c3
'WeS 19 .c4 lt>a7 2 0 . E:a3 ! 'We4
(20 . . . 'Wc5 2 l.'We3 ! ) 2 1.'\Wc3 (Black
would have even greater prob
lems to solve after 2 l.'Wg3 ! E:c8
2 2 .f3 'Wg6 23 .xa6 ! 'Wxg3 24.
d3 + 'it>b8 25.hxg3) 2 l . . . E:c8
2 2 . 'Wb4 'WeS 23.e2 'WcS 24.
'Wxc5+ ::xeS 25.b4 E:cc8 26.c4
E:hd8 27.f4 and White had very
powerful pressure, Efimenko Vitiugov, Hamburg 2009.
15 . .ig5
Black easily solves his prob
lems after the more modest line :
15.ie3 <i>b8 16.c4 e5 17.c5 ixc5
18.l"l:acl (18.l"l:ec1 Wffb6 19.l"l:xc5 Wlxc5
2 0 . [iJe6 Wlc6 2 1 .Wffx c6 ixc6 2 2 .
[iJxd8 l"l:xd8 23 .ixf7 [iJdS =) 18 . . .
Wffb 6 19.{iJf5 he3 2 0 . l"l:xe3 hf5
21.flxf5 e4 22 .ixf7 l"lhf8 23 .ib3
l"l:d2 24.Wfff4+ Wffd 6 25.Wffx d6+ l"l:xd6
with an equal endgame, Pavaso
vic - Sakalauskas, Plovdiv 2003.
15 . . . c5
The other plan for Black does
not work: 15 . . . ih2 + 16. <i>h1 ie5
17.l"l:ad1 h6 18 .ie3 g5 19.l"l:d3. It is
quite obvious that if White can
manoeuvre his rook along the
third rank in this variation, this
causes plenty of problems for the
opponent. 19 . . . <i>b8 2 0 .l"l:c3 Wffd 6
21.l"l:d1 Wffe 7 2 2 .ic4 with a power
ful initiative for White.
14 . . . 0 - 0 - 0
Black cannot change his mind
now: 14 . . . 0-0?! 15.ig5 ie5 16.
Wle3 and White obtains an advan
tage.
16 . .ie3
It is too risky for White to gob
ble up the gambit pawn : 16.ixf6
gxf6 17.Wffxf6 l"l:hg8 18 .l"l:ad1 l"l:g6 !
19.Wffxf7? ! (The line 19.Wfff3 l"l:dg8
2 0.g4 h5 can hardly be consid
ered satisfactory for White. For
2 03
Chapter 26
example : 2 l.'Wxf7 hxg4 2 2 .he6
gxh3+ 23.Whl he6 24.!'1xe6
'Wd5+ 25.f3 l"1gl + 26.!'1xgl !'1xgl +
27.Wxgl 'Wxd4+ 28 .Wfl 'Wc4+ and
White is rather lucky that Black
has nothing better than delivering
perpetual check. .) 19 . . . !'1f8 2 0 .
'Wxh7 'WgS 2 l .g3 hg3 2 2 .'Wxd7+
Wxd7 23.'Llxe6+ Wc6 24.'Llxg5
hf2 + 25.Wh2 .bel 2 6 . !'1xel l"1xg5
and only White can lose this posi
tion.
2 0 . .ig5
White might create more
problems for his opponent with
the line : 2 0.f3 .tg6 2 1 .'Lle2 h6 2 2 .
Wg2 (White did not achieve any
thing much after 2 2 . Wf2 .th7
23.a3 .teS 24.c3 l"1xdl 25.!'1xdl
!'1d8 26.!'1xd8 + Wxd8 27.g4 hS
28.'Llf4 hxg4 29.hxg4 'Lld7 3 0 .
204
Parts 7-9
The last three parts of our book will be devoted to the analysis of the
most popular and, I believe, also the most dangerous move for Black
- 3.tt:lc3 . White maintains the tension in the centre and develops his
knight to a more active position, in comparison with the variation with
3.tt:ld2. Now, unless Black opts for Rubinstein's 3 . . . dxe4, which we cov
ered in Part 4, the game continues according to one of two basic sce
narios - 3 . . . tt:lf6 or 3 . . . .ib4. The positions arising from each of these
moves are completely different; but what they have in common is the
importance of handling the different pawn structures correctly, plus
the tremendous importance of concrete variations in the implementa
tion of the various plans. Thus the play involves great risks for both
sides.
205
Part 7
2 06
Chapter 27
b) 4.i.d2
This move reminds me of
those good old one-move traps.
dxe4 5.g4
a) 4.d3
This move looks a bit awk
ward.
. .
tt::le 7
Chapter 27
White continues in the same
style. He is not trying to mate his
opponent right away, but some
thing similar. . .
15 a6 !? 16.h4 b5 17.c!iJh3 b4
ts.gdfl bxc3 19.gxf6 i.g7 2 0 .
gffl f5 21.i.h5+ e7with an ad
c) 4."\Wg4
8 . . . .if8
Black can also play 8 . . . l"l:g6 ! ?
9.Wh4 (It i s weaker for White
to play 9.Wf4?! i.d6 10.liJge2 hf4
ll.liJxd4 i.e5 and he ends up a
pawn down in an endgame.) 9 . . .
l"l:g4 10."\Wh3 "\Wxf2 ll.i.e2 l"l:g6
with some compensation for
Black.
9."1Wh4
But not 9.Wf4? ! i.d6.
9
gh4
13 "\Wh6
15.bl
.
2 08
14.i.xh6 i.xh6+
ll.tlJge2
Black equalizes in the most
simple fashion after 1 l.d2 .bc3
12 .xc3 d5 =
ll . . . ttJd7 12.d2
Black has an excellent position
after 12.f4 tLlf6 13 .d3 d7 14.
0-0-0 c6.
d ) 4.exd5 exd5
9 . .ixe4
This is White's only move.
9 . . . dxe4 1 0 .Wxe4
5 . .id3
1 0 . . . gg6
Black must play accurately:
after 10 . . . d5? 1l.xd5 exd5 1 2 .
l!?f1 ! he loses a pawn.
Chapter 27
what happens later, White should
think about equalizing with the
move 6.e3 .) 6 . . . ttJc6
Now:
after 7.xd5? ttJf6 8.c4 i.e6
9.d3 0-0-0 White will not sur
vive for long;
7.i.e3 ttJf6 8 .h3 ttJe4 (It seems
quite sensible for Black to play
here 8 . . . i.xc3 + ! ? , for example : 9.
ttJxc3 ttJxd4 ! or 9.bxc3 ttJe4 and
White has problems.) 9.a3 (Black's
play is quite easy after 9 . 0-0-0
i.xc3 10.ttJxc3 ttJxc3 11.bxc3 i.e6
12 .i.d3 0-0-0 13.2"1he1 ttJaS 14.
<;1;>d2 a3 and he is in no danger,
Onoprienko - Riazantsev, Biel
2 0 1 0 ; 12 .g3 0-0-0 - 12 . . . 0- 0!?
- 13.xg7 E1dg8 14.h6 i.fS 15.
<;1;>d2 a3 16.h5 i.e4 17.f3 i.xc2
18.<;1;>xc2 xa2+ 19.<;1;>d3 E1e8 - The
complications have ended in
Black's favour, Lehmann - Fara
go, Kiev 1978) 9 . . . i.a5 (It would
be less ambitious to opt for 9 . . .
i.xc3 + 10.Ci:lxc3 Ci:lxd4 11.i.xd4
Ci:lxc3+ 12 .e3 xe3+ 13.fxe3 Ci:le4
14.i.xg7 E1g8 15.i.e5 i.e6 16.g4=
with an approximately equal posi
tion.) 10.b4 ttJxc3 11 .bxa5 (11.
Ci:lxc3?! ttJxd4 12 .d1 ttJfS 13.ttJxd5
Ci:lxe3 14.ttJxe7 ttJxd1 15.ttJxc8 Ci:lc3
210
7.xf6
White cannot gain any ad
vantage from 7.f4 lt:Je7 8.g3
lt:Jd7 9 .lt:Jge2 0-0 10.0-0-0 lt:Jg6
11.g5 d6 12 .xd6 xd6 13.h4
h6 14.d2 lt:Jf6 15.h5 lt:Je7 16.f3
f5= Moreno Camero - lvan
chuk, Mallorca 2 004.
e) 4 . .id3
White wants to maintain the
tension in the centre. The idea is
excellent, but this way of imple
menting it is questionable.
6.f3
Black equalizes easily after 6 .
lt:Jge2 ct:Je7 7 .0-0 f5 8.lt:Jg3 hd3
9.xd3 0-0 10.lt:Jce2 lt:Ja6 ll.c3
d6 12.f4 lt:Jc7 13Jae1 lt:Je6= on
- Short, Parnu 1996.
6 . . . f6
Chapter 27
tion after 7.a3 hc3 + 8.bxc3 c7!
9.ltlf3 c4 10 . .ie2 ltld5 11.d2 ltld7
1 2. a4 ltl7f6. Black has seized the
initiative with a series of strong
moves and he went on to win the
game, not without some mistakes
by his opponent. 13.g5 0-0 14.
h4 ltlxc3 15J''1 a3 ltlxe2 16. Wxe2
c3 17.l"ld1 b6 18.Wf1 .ia6+ 19.Wg1
.ie2 2 0 .l"le1 .ixf3 21.gxf3 ltld5-+
V.Shcherbakov - Petrosian, Mos
cow 1955.) 7 ... cxd4 8.ltlxd4 e5 9.
ltlde2 .ig4 10.f3 .ie6 11.a3 .ie7
12 . .ie3 0-0 13.0-0 ltlbd7 14.ltlg3
.ic5 15 . .if2 hf2 + 16.l"lxf2 b6
and Black had a slight edge in the
game Renet - lvanchuk, Izmir
2 0 04.
6 ... 0 - 0
Black has a good alternative
here : 6 . . . c5 ! ? 7.ltlge2 ltlc6 8.a3
.ixc3 + 9.bxc3 e5 ! 10 .hc6+ bxc6
11.0-0 exd4 1 2 .cxd4 0-0 13.l"le1
.ia6= 14.ltlg3 cxd4 15.ltlf5 l"le8
16 ..ig5 a5 17.ltlh6+ Wf8 18.
l"lxe8+ l"lxe8 19.hf6 gxf6 2 0.h4
l"le4 21.f3 l"lxh4 2 2 .ltlg4 f5 23.
xd4 fxg4 24.l"lb1 .ic8 0-1 M .
Tseitlin - Yusupov, Moscow 1983.
7.li:lge2
212
7 . e5 !
..
8. 0 - 0
This is the most solid response
by White.
Greediness such as with 8 .
dxe5 does not bring White any ad
vantage whatsoever. 8 . . . xd1+ 9.
Wxd1 ltlg4 10 .hg4 hg4 11.f3 .if5
12 . .id2 ltlc6 13.f4 l"lad8 14.Wc1 f6
15.a3 hc3 16.hc3 .ig4 17.ltlg3
fxe5 18.fxe5 l"lf2 and Black was
clearly better, Muromtsev - Lysyj,
Sochi 2006.
The endgame is worse for
White after 8 . .ig5?! h6 9 . .ih4 exd4
10 .xd4 xd4 11.ltlxd4 l"le8+ 1 2 .
Wf1 hc3 13.bxc3 ltle4 14.he4
l"lxe4 15 . .ig3 ltla6 16.l"ld1 .ie6 17.f3
.ic4+ 18.Wf2 l"lee8, Movsesian Shirov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 .
..
1 0 .c!l:\b5 c5 11.i.f4
(diagram)
ll .. .ll:\e8!?
The more cautious move 11 . . .
a6 presents White with a slight
12.c3
White did not achieve much
with 12 .Ele1 lt:Jc6 13.c3 a6 14.Elxe8
Elxe8 15.lt:Jc7 '&f6 16.'&d2 .id7
17.Eld1 Elac8 18.lt:Jxe8 Elxe8, with a
solid extra pawn for Black, Sarie
go - Diaz, Bayamo 1991.
tDbd7
9.tDe2
t) 4.a3
Chapter 27
10 . . . Ei:xg2? ll.tt'lg5 a5 1 2 .
<>f1 ! + 10 . . . a5 1Li.d2 Ei:xg2 12.tt'lg5
cxd4 13.g7! (We shall analyze
13 .cxd4? ! f5 ! a bit further on.)
13 ... Ei:xg5 14.xg5 xg5 15.hg5
dxc3 16.0-0-0. It looks as though
Black's knight and three pawns
should be sufficient to compen
sate the missing rook, but in this
open position White's long-range
pieces can become very powerful.
16 . . . a6 17.Ei:hg1 b5 18.Ei:g3 tt'ld5 19.
Ei:h3 f6 2 0 .i.e3 tt'lxe3 2 l.fxe3 l2lf8
2 2 .i.h5+ <>e7 23.Ei:g3 i.d7 24.Ei:g7+
and Black resigned, since he loses
214
10 .ig5
10
1We 7
11.1Wh4
The seemingly logical move
11.lt:lg3? loses for White owing to
the beautiful reply 1 1 . . .lt:lg4! 12.
i.xe7 lt:lxh6 and White's bishop is
trapped.
ll . . . i.b7 12.ttlg3
12 . . . h6!
That is an important finesse.
13 .id2
13
gg4
Chapter 27
here - 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.i.e2 e3 15.
fxe3 hg2 16.Elg1 i.e4 ! ?
14.'1Wxh6
If 14.'\Wh3 Elg6 15.i.e2 0-0-0,
the queen seems misplaced on h3.
..
dxe4
5.a3 hc3+
g) 4.ge2
216
tt:lge7 8.i.g5
f6 9 .e3 0 - 0
1 0 .V!fd2
White should not try to regain
his pawn : 10.tt:lxe4? fS 11.'Llg5 f4
12 .d2 Wd5 ! 13.xc6 ct:Jxc6 14.'Llf3
'Llxd4 1S.'Llxd4 Wxd4 16.c3 We4+
17.We2 Wxe 2 + 18.xe2 eS and he
has no compensation for the
pawn, Thorhallsson - Moskalen
ko, Copenhagen 1995.
10
f5
Chapter 27
13.'Llxe4 ib7 14.f3 d7 15.Elhe1
Elad8 16.e2 Elfe8 17.\t>b1 f7
18.Eld2 Ele7 19.Eled1 Eled7= Ben
tivegna - Drasko, Cutro 2 005.
11. 0 - 0 - 0
Black can counter the prema
ture ll.f3 with ll . . . f4 ! ? 1 2 .hf4
xd4 13.fxe4 eS 14.ie3 xd2+
15.hd2 'Lld4 16.id3 ig4= Solo
dovnichenko - Feygin, Germany
2003.
13 Jfd7 14.d5
.
ll . . . a6
Black can even consolidate his
extra pawn with 1 1 . . .'Lld5, but this
is not satisfactory. 1 2 .'Llxd5 exdS
13.ixc6 bxc6 14.g5 e8 15.if4
Elf7 16.h4 ie6 17.a5 b8 18.Elh3
bS 19.d2 with excellent com
pensation for White, Hector Furhoff, Stockholm 1993.
12 .xc6 'Llxc6
13.g5 ! ?
Black has considerably fewer
problems after 13.f3 exf3 14.
gxf3 eS 15.d5 'Lle7 16.ig5 (Black
can answer 16.ic5 with 16 . . . Elf7
17.e3 b6! 18.d6 bxcS 19.dxe7
xe7 2 0 .'Lld5 d6 2 1 . Elhe1 ib7
and he ends up with extra mate-
218
14 . . .ll:le5 ! ?
This i s a n aggressive move.
It would be fair to say that
White maintains some initiative if
Black tries to plays more quietly.
14 . . . exd5 15.'Llxd5 f7 16.if4 ie6
(Perhaps Black can consider the
exchange sacrifice 16 . . . Eld8 17.
hc7 ie6 18 .hd8 Elxd8 19.c4
ixdS 2 0 .cxd5 'LleS but not every
one would be happy to go in for a
sacrifice of this type.) 17.'Llxc7
Elac8 18.'Llxe6 xe6 19.d7 a2
20.d5+ xdS 21.Elxd5 'Lle7 2 2 .
Eld7 'Ll g 6 23 .ie3 Elf7 24.Elhd1 and
White still has some pressure in
this endgame.
15.3 'Llc4
15 . . . exf3? 16.Elhelt
Chapter 28
...
c5
Now:
Although it looks a bit exotic,
it is quite reasonable for Black to
play S . . . .if8 6.Li:lf3 (Or 6 . .ibS + c6
7 ..ia4 .ia6 8.Li:lce2 .ibS 9 ..ib3 cS
10 .c3 Li:lc6 ll.Li:lf3 Li:lge7 12 ..ic2
Li:lfS 13.hfS exfS 14.0-0 cxd4 1S.
cxd4 .ie7 16J"1e1 .ixe2 17.l"lxe2 h6
18.iWd3 iWd7 19.l"lc2 l"lc8 and the
game is equal, Dinesh Kumar Hamdouchi, Sort 2 0 07.) 6 . . . Li:le7
7.h4 (Or 7.b4 c6 8.a4 Li:lfS 9.l"lb1
Li:ld7 10 ..id3 aS 1l.bxaS l"lxaS
12 .iWe2 g6 13 .h4 h6 14.hS gS 1S.g4
Li:le7 16 . .ia3 .ib7 17. 0-0 Li:lc8 18.
hf8 l"lxf8 19.Li:ld2 cS 2 0 . Li:lb3 l"la8
2l.Li:lxcS bxcS 2 2 . l"lxb7 and White
went on to win, Najer - Hort,
Fuegen 2006.) 7 . . . h6 8 .hS aS
9 . .ibS + c6 10 . .ia4 Li:ld7 1l .Li:le2 bS
12 . .ib3 cS 13 .c3 Li:lc6 14. 0-0 iWc7
1S.l"le1 c4 16 . .ic2 Li:lb6 17 . .if4 .ie7
18 . .ig3 l"lb8 and Black has his typ2 19
Chapter 28
ical "French" counter-chances,
Kasparov - Ivanchuk, Horgen
1995;
5 ... hc3 + 6.bxc3 t'jje 7 (I think
it is riskier for Black to play 6 . . .
\Wd7 7.\Wg4 f5 8.\Wg3 ia6 9 .ha6
t'jjx a6 10.t'jje 2 t'jjb 8?! ll. t'jjf4 t'jjc 6?
1 2 .t'jjx e6 \Wxe6 13 .\Wxg7 0-0-0
14.\WxhS \Wg6 15.0-0 :1:'!d7 16.:1:'!e1
Wb7 17.if4 :1:'!g7 18.g3 t'jjg e7 19.
\Wf8 + - Zhigalko - Mihajlovskij ,
Minsk 2006; 1l.c4 ! ? dxc4 12 .d5
exd5 13.t'jjd4 t'jja 6 14. 0-0 0-0-0
15.e6 \Wd6 16.if4 \Wc5 17.\Wxg7
t'jje 7 18.c3 and White had excel
lent compensation in the game
Grischuk - Dizdar, Mainz 2006;
10 . . . wf7 1l.a4 ! ? c5 12. \Wd3 \Wc8
13.!a3 t'jje 7 14.h4 t'jjc 6 15.\Wf3 :1:'!f8
16.h5 wg8 17. 0-0 :1:'!f7 18.h6 g6
19.c4 dxc4 2 0.d5 t'jjx e5 2 1.\Wc3
t'jjg4 2 2 .ib2 e5 23.:1:'!ad1 t'jjb4 24.
f3 t'jjf6 25.\Wxc4 \Wa6 2 6.\Wxa6
t'jjx a6 27.he5 and White exploit
ed his edge in this endgame,
Vitiugov - Ulibin, Biel 2 007;
l l.h4 c5 12 .h5 :1:'!c8 13.h6 g6 14.
\Wh4 cxd4 15.cxd4 :1:'!xc2 16.:1:'!h3
\Wb5 17.t'jjc3 \Wc4 18.id2 t'jjb 8 19.
:1:'!b1 t'jjc 6 2 0 .t'jjb 5 \Wa2 2 l .t'jjd 6+
Wf8 2 2 . :1:'!d1 \Wb2 23.:1:'!d3 :1:'!xd2
24.:1:'!3xd2 \Wxa3 25.:1:'!c2 1-0 Moty
lev - Ulibin, Moscow 2 0 1 0 . White
won a very good game. He sacri
ficed a pawn for the initiative and
gradually increased his pressure,
while Black's kingside remained
static.) 7.\Wg4 t'jjg 6 8.h4 h5 9.\Wg3
(White sometimes plays the origi
nal line: 9.\Wf3 \Wd7 10.a4 c5 1 1 .
ib5 t'jjc 6 12 .a5 \Wc7 13.t'jje 2 !d7
14.axb6 Wxb6 15.hc6 \Wxc6 16.
220
a) 5.g4? !
This move cannot be recom
mended to White.
5 . . .tbe7
..
Wa5 ! 7.axb4
6.a3
For 6.dxc5, see 5.dxc5.
After 6 .d2? cxd4 7.'&xd4
tt:lbc6, Black is better.
6.tt:lf3 ? ! cxd4 7.tt:lxd4 c7! ? 8 .
b5+ d7 9 . 0 - 0 hc3 10.hd7+
tt:lxd7 11.tt:lb5 '&b6 12.tt:lxc3 0-0
13.l"1e1 l"1fc8 14.a4 l"1c4 15.'&h3
l"1ac8 16.tt:lb5 tt:lf5 17.g4 l"1xc2 18.
l"1fl tt:ld4 19.e3 tt:le2+ 2 0 .<i>h1 d4
0-1 Friedel - Mamedyarov,
Chalkidiki 2003.
6 .'&xg7l"1g8 7.'&h6 (It would be
a disaster for White to opt for 7.
'&xh7? cxd4 8.a3 '&a5 9.tt:lf3 dxc3
10.b3 tt:lbc6 ll.tt:lg5 tt:lxe5 1 2 .f4
l"1xg5 13.fxg5 d6-+ Manik - Yu
supov, Warsaw 2005.) 7 . . . cxd4
8.a3 dxc3 (The game is rather un
clear after 8 . . . '&a5 9.axb4 Wxa1
10 ... d7 11.xa8
ll . . . a6!
This accurate move was rec
ommended by Korchnoi in the
notes to his game. Black can also
play here 1 1 . . .tt:lbc6 12 .b5 tt:lb4 13.
221
Chapter 28
xd4, which was played in the
game Cuijpers - Yusupov, Nether
lands 2009 and now his simplest
response would be 13 . . . tt:Ja2
14.d2 Elxa8 with an overwhelm
ing advantage.
b) 5.dxc5
7 . .td3
. .
tt:Je7 6.tt:Jf3
. .
tt:Jd7
7 . . . tt:Jxc5
It makes less sense for Black to
play 7 . . . c7 8.0-0 hc3 9.bxc3
tt:Jxc5 and, since he cannot cap
ture on e5 in any case, he might as
well delay the development of his
queen. 10.c4 d7 11.a3 h6 1 2 .
Ele1 0-0 13.Elb1 b6 14.e2 Elfe8
15.cxd5 tt:Jxd5 16.hc5 tt:Jc3 17.e3
xc5 18.xc5 bxc5 19.Elb3 tt:Jd5
c) 5 . .id2
..
ll:le7
Chapter 28
yond the capabilities of an ama
teur player: 17 .. Jc7 18 .g4 f6 19.
l"1e3 fxeS 20.l"1xe5 0-0 2 1.d3 l"1f6
2 2 . cj;>d2 cj;>f8 23.cj;>e3 aS 24.a4 c8
25.g5 hxgS 26.fxg5 l"1ff7 27.h6
gxh6 28.gxh6 cj;>g8 29.l"1g4+ cj;>h8
30 .l"1eg5 l"1f8 31.h7 d4+ 32 .cj;>e2 +
Movsesian - Guedon, Bourbon
Laney 1997.
6.ll:l b5
This is White's most consist
ent move.
It is too provocative to play 6.
f4? ! tt:lfS 7.tt:lf3 cxd4 8 .tt:lb5 cs
9 .b4 e7 (The complications are
quite unclear after 9 . . . b6 10.
d3 d7 11.g4 tt:le3 12 .tt:ld6+ cj;>e7
13.e2 c7 14.l"1c1 tt:Jc4 15.tt:lxc4
dxc4 16.hc4 c6 17.d3 hS 18.
0-0 hxg4 19.tt:lg5 tt:ld7 2 0 .xg4
l"1af8 21 . tt:le4 cj;>d8 2 2 . tt:ld6 gS with
a rather messy position, Watson
- Lputian, Belgrade 1988.) 10.
tt:lbxd4 tt:lxd4 l l .tt:lxd4 tt:lc6 1 2 .
tt:lxc6 bxc6 13 .d3 b6 and White
should be happy if he manages to
equalize, De Ia Villa Garcia - Ariz
mendi Martinez, Palma de Mal
lorca 2009.
It is too slow and inadvisable
224
Chapter 28
White is nearly helpless against
Black's powerful central pawns.
14.g5 e4 15.tt'ld4 tt'lxd4 16Jxd4.
Here Black can make a choice be
tween two excellent possibilities :
16 . . . xc3 ! ? 17.xe7 Vfixe7 18.Vfixc3
E1xf2 19.E1xd5 e6, with a very
good game, or 16 . . . xc5 17.xe7
xe7 18.E1xd5 E1f4 and in this open
position Black's bishop pair fully
compensates for the sacrificed
pawn.
6 . . . .b:d2 + 7.xd2 0 - 0
Black should not neglect the
possibility of castling.
8.f4
This is a routine move.
Black has no problems in the
greedy line 8.dxc5 <iJd7 9.f4 (9.
Vfic3 f6 10.exf6 tt'lxf6 11 .d3 d7
12.<iJd4 e5 13.<iJb3 Wic7 14.f3 a5
15.a4 e6 16.b5 Wh8 17.d3 d4
18.c4 f5 19.Vfie2 <iJed5 with an
excellent position for Black, Jur
cik - Chytilek, Olomouc 2005;
10.<iJf3 <iJxe5 ll.tt'lxe5 fxe5 12.
Vfixe5 d7. This is an ambitious
approach. Black is trying to derive
maximum benefit from his lead in
development. He does not appear
226
.ixb5 1 0 . .ixb5
8 . . . .id7! ?
This is a rarely played move,
but it sets White some rather unu
sual (for this variation) problems.
Black should avoid 8 . . . a6 9.
tLld6 cxd4 10.tLlf3 ttJbc6 11.d3 f6
12. 0-0 fxeS 13.fxeS E1xf3 14.2"1xf3
ttJxeS 1S. iWf4 ttJxf3 + 16.gxf3 ttJc6
17.iWf7+ 'it>h8 18.'it>h1 g6 19 .hg6
\We7 2 0 .\Wf4+ - Perelshteyn Berg, Southampton 2003.
Black fails to solve his prob
lems with 8 . . . ttJbc6 9.tLlf3 a6 10.
tLld6 ttJxd4 11.tLlxd4 cxd4 1 2 .d3
\Wb6 13.0-0-0 d7 14.g4 (White's
game is much easier.) 14 . . . ttJc8
1S.tLlxc8 E1axc8 16.fS bS 17.hbS
iWxbS 18 .f6 d3 19.c3 \Wa4 2 0.'it>b1
iWc2 + 2 1.\Wxc2 dxc2+ 22. 'it>xc2
and White has the edge in this
endgame, thanks to his advanced
kingside pawns, Landa - Marzo
la, Paris 2006.
9.dxc5
10 . . . a6
This is a new plan for Black in
this position.
Or 10 ... b6 ! ? 11.iWf2 bxcS 1 2 .
iWxcS tLld7 13.\Wa3 E1b8 14.hd7
\Wxd7 1S.tLlf3 E1fc8 16.0-0-0 aS
and he has good play along the
open files, Westermeier - Z.Med
vegy, Austria 2 00S.
ll . .id3 .!Lld7
It is obvious that if Black re
gains his pawn he will have an ex
cellent position.
227
Chapter 29
5...hc3+
Nowadays Black rarely plays
5 . . . i.a5 ! ?, which has been named
"The Armenian variation", mostly
as a tribute to its greatest expo
nents, Rafael Vaganian and Sm
bat Lputian. Black's position
would be fine, were it not for 6 .
b4 ! cxd4 (Accepting the sacrifice
with 6 . . . cxb4 would be fatal
for Black, because after 7.lLlb5
White's initiative is crushing.) 7.
Wg4 lLle7 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.Wxg7 Ei:g8
10.Wxh7 lLlbc6 ll.lLlf3 Wc7. This
position attracted a lot of atten
tion, at various levels, but then
Andrey Volokitin revealed an
analysis which proved to be very
unpleasant for Black. 1 2 .i.f4 i.d7
228
6.bxc3 c!L!e7
Black has some popular alter
natives here - 6 . . . Wa5 7.i.d2 Wa4
with interesting play, as well as
6 . . . Wc7 7.Wg4 f6 (7 .. .f5 8.Wg3
cxd4 9.cxd4 lLle7 10 .i.d2 0-0 11.
i.d3 b6 12.lt)e2 i.a6 13.lLlf4 Wd7
14.h4 i.xd3 15.Wxd3 lLlbc6 16.Ei:h3
Ei:ac8 17.Ei:g3 Ei:f7 18.h5 lLld8 19.c3
Ei:f8 2 0 .'tt>fl Ei:c4 2 l .'tt>g l and White
has a clear-cut plan of action,
Kasparov - Short, Novgorod
1997.) 8.i.b5+ 'tt>f8 9.lLlf3 WaS
'tYa5
..
b) 7.h4!?
a) 7 .id3
7 .tbbc6 8 .tbf3
.
7 . . . tia5
After 7 . . \Wc7!? 8.Elh3 lt'Jbc6
9.hS h6 10.lt'Je2 f6 1 l .exf6 gxf6
12.Elf3 eS 13.Elxf6 ig4 14.Elxh6
.
229
Chapter 29
E1xh6 15.1xh6 ltJf5 16.ig5 exd4
17.f3 hh5 18.g4 ltJe5co, wild
and unpredictable complications
arise, Shukh - Shimanov, Irkutsk
2 010.
7 . . . ttJbc6 8.h5 h6 ! ? 9.'W'g4 ltJf5
10.id3 0-0 11.l2le2 cxd4 12.cxd4
'WaS+ 13 .id2 'W'a4 14.E1b1? ltJxe5 !
and Black realized his advantage,
Nepomniachtchi - Savchenko,
Olginka 2011.
8.i.d2 'W'a4
Or 8 . . . ttJbc6 ! ? 9.ltJf3 id7 10.
h5 0-0-0 1l.id3 f6 1 2 . 0-0 c4
13 .1e2 fxe5 14.ltJxe5 ttJxe5 15.dxe5
E1df8 16.1g4 E1f7 17.'W'e2 @b8 18.
@h2 @aS 19.f4 g6 2 0.ih3 ltJf5
2 l .g4 ltJe7 2 2 .h6 with a complicated
position,
Alekseev
Grischuk, Moscow 2008 .
9)bf3
It is not very advisable for
White to try the risky line: 9 .h5 h6
(9 . . . b 6 ! ? 10.ltJf3 ia6 ll.E1h4 hf1
1 2 .@xfl ltJf5 13.E1f4 ltJc6 14.@g1
cxd4 15.g4 ltJfe7 16.cxd4 h6 17.
ltJh4 E1c8 18.c3 'W'xd1 + 19 .E1xd1
ltJa5 and the endgame is excellent
for Black, Sasikiran - Sutovsky,
Antwerp 2009.) 10.E1h4 ltJf5 11.
230
ll.cxd4
1l.id3 dxc3 1 2 .hc3 ltJf5 13.
h6. After this, the play is forced
for many moves. 13 ... gxh6 14 . .ixf5
exf5 15.e6 'W'e4+ 16.@f1 'W'c4+ 17.
'W'd3 'W'xd3+ 18.cxd3 0-0 19.exf7+
E1xf7 2 0 . E1xh6 d4 ! 2 1 .hd4 ltJxd4
14.hf5
Or 14.g1 ? ! Vfffg4 15.Vfffe 2 f6 16.
h6 fxe5 17.hxg7 l"i:g8 18.1"i:xh7 e4
19.liJg5 Vfffx e2 20 .he2 l"i:xg7 2 1 .
l"i:h8 + e 7 and Black i s better, Fe
dorov - Gulko , Las Vegas 1999.
c) 7.a4
13. fl
13
liJf5
Chapter 29
square can be used by a black
knight after an eventual exchange
of pawns on d4.
7 . . . \Wc7!?
The essence of White's idea
can be best seen in the line : 7 . . . b6
8 . .ib5+ .id7 9 . .id3 . Following a
typical manoeuvre, Black's bishop
was denied the use of the a4square, where it would have been
excellently placed. 9 . . . ltJbc6 10.
ltJf3 h6 11.0-0 \Wc7 12Je1 0-0,
with a complicated position, Her
nandez - Ivanov, Balaguer 1997.
8.tt:lf3 h6 ! ?
This i s a very interesting mo
ment. Black is in no hurry and
makes a useful prophylactic
move.
9 . .id3
After 9.h4 b6 10 . .ib5+ .id7 11.
.id3 lt'lbc6 12 . .id2 c4 13 . .ie2 f6 14 .
.if4 0-0 15.d2 lt'lg6 16.hh6
fxe5 17.g5 .ie8 18.h5 lt'lf4 19.g4
exd4 20.cxd4 e5 21.dxe5 lUxeS
22 . .ixf4 E1xf4 23 .e6+ ltJf7 24.h6
l=\e4 25.f5 d7 26.xd7 ixd7,
the endgame is better for Black,
Konguvel - Rustemov, Biel 2 0 04.
1 0 .a5
After 10.0-0 .ia6 11.a5 hd3
1 2 . axb6 axb6 13.l=\xa8 ixfl 14.
xf1 0-0 15.d3 ltJec6 16.b5
E1c8 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.xc5 lt'ld7 19.
d6 b7 2 0 .l=\xc8+ xc8 2 1..ie3
ltJa5, Black has excellent compen
sation for the pawn, De Firmian
- Ibragimov, New York 2 005.
d) 7.tt:lf3 b6
9 . . . b6!
8 . .ib5+
We are already familiar with
this manoeuvre.
It is less principled for White
232
1 0 .h4 h6
ll.h5
Chapter 29
play so far has been excellent.
This is exactly how his pieces
should be deployed in this pawn
structure - the knight on e3, the
light-squared bishop eyeing the
e6-square. He only had to make
one more important move and
Black's position would have been
very difficult. . . 27.f4? ! (It was
much stronger to play 27.Wh2 ! ,
protecting the bishop o n g3, and
his opponent would have been in
great difficulties.) 27 .. .f5 ! Black
exploits the fact that the white
bishop on g3 is hanging and he
eases his defence a little with this
move. 28 .'\Wd1 !1'Je7 29.l"lf1? ! (It
was again worthwhile for White
to play 29.Wh2, with the same
idea - to protect the bishop.) 29 . . .
g 5 30.hxg6 !1'Jxg6 31.hf5?! White
has already lost his positional ad
vantage and now he goes in for
complications. (It is important
that he cannot play 31 .'\Wh5, be
cause of 3 1 . . .!1'Jxe5 ! ) . 31. .. exf5 3 2 .
!1'Jxf5 <i> a 6 33.'\Wf3 h 5 34.!1'Je3 h4
35.h2 h3 and Black triumphed
in the time scramble, lnarkiev Vitiugov, Moscow 2 0 0 8 .
ll . . . c4
Yusupov tried another set-up
in his match against A.Sokolov:
11 . . . !1'Jbc6 1 2 . l"lh4 c4 13.e2 <i>d7
14.e3 '\Wg8
234
13
..
15 )Da6 ! ?
235
Chapter 3 0
. . .
cxd4! ?
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. t:iJ c3 i2.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc t:iJ e7 7. Wg4 cd
begin with 7 . . . Wc7, because then
White has the additional possibil
ity of 8 .i2.d3 ! ? cxd4 9.t:iJe2 dxc3
10.Wxg7 l"i:g8 11.Wxh7 Wxe5 1 2 .i2.f4
Wf6 13 .Wh6 t:IJg6 14.i2.g5 l"i:h8 15.
i2.xf6 l"i:xh6 16 .hc3, with an ad
vantage in the endgame, Carlsen
- Sanchez Alarcos Galian, Madrid
2 008.
Completely different positions
result from 7 . . . 0-0, but that
might be the subject of another
book.
8.xg7
It is not so good for White to
play 8.cxd4? ! c7
and now:
it would be too artificial to play
9 .l"i:a2 t:IJf5 10.t:iJf3 t:IJc6 1 1 . Wd1 h5
12 .Wg5 i2.d7 13.Wf4 f6 14.exf6
Wxf4 15.hf4 gxf6 16.c3 l"i:c8 17.
i2.d3 t:IJa5 18.a4 l"i:g8 19.l"i:e1 Wf7 2 0 .
hf5 exf5 2 1.i2.d6 l"i:ce8 2 2 . l"i:xe8
he8 23. We1 t:IJc4 24.i2.f4 l"i:xg2
25.i2.g3 f4 26.hf4 i2.d7 and Black
is better, So - Li Shilong, Manila
2 008.
I t looks too provocative for
White to choose 9.Wd1 h5 (Black
sometimes plays 9 . . . 0-0 10 .i2.d3
f5 11.exf6 l"i:xf6 12.Wh5 h6 13.g4 e5
14.g5 hxg5 15.h4 e4 16.hxg5 l"i:g6
Chapter 3 0
any case. 12.lt:le2 0 - 0 13 .g4 .id7
14 . .ig2 .ic6 15 . .ie3 tt:Jd7 16.tt:lc3 f5
17.exf6 tt:Jxf6 18.g5 tt:Jfd5 19.he4
tt:Jxc3 2 0 .hc6 tt:Jxc6 21.Ei:xc3
Ei:ad8. I failed to win this position,
but still Black should be quite ea
ger to go in for it again, Kobalia Vitiugov, Tomsk 2006.
White can also try the clever
move order 8 . .id3 WaS 9.tt:le2
(9.Ei:bl. This is Bojan Vuckovic's
excellent idea. 9 . . . Wxc3 + 10.d1
f8 11.tt:lf3 b6 12 .Wh5 h6 13.tt:lg5
g6 14.Wh4 Wc7 15.tt:Jxf7 xf7 16.
Wf6+ g8 17.Ei:b3 g5 18 .hg5 hxg5
19.Wxg5+ f8 2 0.Wf6+ e8 2 1 .
Wxh8+ d7 2 2 . .ib5 + tt:Jbc6 2 3 .
Wf6 a 6 24 . .ixc6+ Wxc6 25.h4 a5
26.Wf4 Wc5 27.d2 .ia6. Black's
pieces have great scope and are
tremendously active, Vuckovic Grischuk, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
It would be interesting to know
what White had in mind against
the solid move 9 . . . tt:Jg6 ! ? For
example: 10.tt:lf3 Wxc3 + 11..id2
Wc7 12.0-0 tt:Jc6 13.h4 0-0 14.
Wg3 f6 and Black's extra material
might become the decisive fac
tor. )
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. Wfg4 cd
if6 l"lf7 20 .Wie8+ l"lf8 2 1.Wie7 l"lf7
and the players did not avoid the
triple repetition of the position,
Svidler - Grischuk, Nalchik 2009.
l O .liJe2
The following line is long out
of fashion: 10. \ild1 dxc3 11.liJf3
liJbc6 1 2 .liJg5 Wfxe5 ! ? (In the past
there were theoretical debates
about the merits of 12 . . . liJxe5 13.
f4 l"lxg5 14.fxg5.) 13.Wixf7+ \ild7
14.if4 Wfd4+ 15.\ile1 e5 16.ie3
Wfg4 17.ie2 Wff5 18.g4 Wfxc2 19.
liJh7 \ilc7 2 0 .liJf6 l"ld8 2 1.if3 d4-+
Busquets - Ivanov, Irvine 1997. It
is inferior for Black to play 10 . . .
liJbc6 11.liJf3 and here 1 1 . . . Ci:Jxe5
(ll.. .dxc3 ! ?) presents White with
a clear way to seize the initiative :
12.if4 Wfxc3 13.Ci:Jxe5 Wfxa1+ 14.
ic1 l"lf8 (Black should avoid 14 . . .
d 3 15.Wixf7+ \ild8 16.Wff6 - 1 6 .
Wff4 ! ? - 16 . . . dxc2 + 17.\ild2 Wfd4+
18.id3 Wfc5 19.\ile2 id7 2 0 .ie3
and White's game is much easier,
Stein - Beliavsky, London 1985.)
15.id3 id7 16.\ile2 liJc6 17.Ci:Jxf7
l"lxf7 18.Wfg8+ l"lf8 19.ig6+ \ile7
2 0 .Wig7+ \ild6 2 1.if4+ l"lxf4 2 2 .
10 .c!l:lbc6
239
Chapter 3 0
ll.f4
White easily won the following
game after 1l.f4, but that was
owing more to the overwhelming
difference in playing-class rather
than the intrinsic strength of
White's move. 1 1 . . . dxc3 12.1Wd3
Elg4 (12 . . . d7 ! ? 13.\Wxc3 0-0-0
14.l2ld4 l2lxd4 15.\Wxd4 l2lf5 16.
\Wd2 c6 17.Elb1 d4 with an excel
lent game for Black, Lehmann Martinovic, Sibenik 20 07. Black
can go into an endgame if he so
wishes - 12 ... l2lxe5 13.\Wxc3 \Wxc3+
14.l2lxc3 f6 with chances for both
sides.) 13.\Wf3 Elh4 14.g3 Elh8 15.
\Wxc3 l2lg6 16.l2ld4 l2lxf4 17.l2lb5
\Wb6 18.gxf4 d7 19.a4 d4 20.\Wa3
\Wa5+ 2 1 . ciJd1 0-0-0 2 2 .l2ld6+
ciJb8 23.Elb1+- Tal - Grefe, San
Francisco 1991.
ll . . .id7
.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ttJ c3 ii.b4 4.e5 cS 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ttJ e7 7. Wffg 4 cd
Chapter 3 0
21.Wg3 E1xd3 2 2 .Wxd3 f8 23.f2
g7 24.Wg3 lt:Jf3 25.d3 E1d8 26.
e3 E1xd3 ! 27.cxd3 Wb5- + Ortiz
Suarez - Nogueiras Santiago, Ha
vana 2010) 16.Wf2 Wc6 17.d3
(17.g4 We4+ 18 .We2 Wa4 19.E1b1
c6 2 0 .f2 Wd4+ 2 1.e3 lt:Jxe3 2 1 . . .Wd8 ! ? - 2 2 .Wxe3 Wxe3+ 23.
xe3 E1h8 24.h3 and White won,
Volokitin - Cornette, Aix-les
Bains 2011. It seems to me that it
would be more precise for Black
to continue with 18 . . . Wd5 19 .g2
Wc5 20.Wf2 lt:Jd4 2 1.e4 0-0-0
2 2 .e3 c6 ! ) 17 ... Wd5
12.'1Wd3 dxc3
a) 13.l"1gl, b) 13.'1Wxc3,
13.gbl or d) 13.lZlxc3 .
c)
a) 13.13gl
This move has become popu
lar just recently.
13
0 - 0 - 0 14.g4 d4 15.h4
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3 . tiJ c3 il.b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc tiJ e7 7. Wig4 cd
It seems to me that it is illogi
cal for White to advance his h
pawn after it has been deprived of
the support of the rook from be
hind it. Alexey Shirov, however, is
usually so good in this type of po
sition that we should perhaps
trust his choice . . .
b) 13.Wixc3
This move leads to very com
plicated positions.
13
. .
14.l"lb1
15
. .
il.e8
Chapter 3 0
l"la2 a 6 22 .g4 j,b5 23.g5 with ap
proximate equality, Frolov - Bak
lanova, St Petersburg 1994; 16 . . .
a5!?) 1 6. . .lLle7!? 17.xc7 l"lxc7 18. j,d2
j,a4 19.j,d3 lLlf5 and Black should
be able to hold this endgame.
White sacrifices a pawn some
times in order to simplify the po
sition a little. Naturally, he does
not obtain any advantage by do
ing so. 14.g4 l"lxg4 15 .j,h3 l"lh4 ! ?
16.hf5 exf5 17.j,e3 0-0-0 18.
0-0-0 with a double-edged game.
14.g3 d4 15.d3 0-0-0 16.j,g2
lLlce7 17.0-0 j,c6 18.hc6 xc6 19.
j,d2 <i>b8 2 0 . l"lf2 . Black had some
compensation for the pawn, but he
continued sacrificing needlessly
with 2 0 . . . lLld5? (20 . . . b6 ! ? ; 2 0 . . .
l"ld7!?). 2 1 .lLlxd4 b6 2 2 .c3 lLlxc3
23 .hc3 lLlxd4 24.e3 Fogarasi
- Degraeve, Arnhem 1989.
14 . . . d4
15 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 16.:ggl
15.d3
White just helps his opponent
if he plays 15.c5 b6 16.c4 l"lc8 ! ?
(16 . . . b7 17.l"lg1 l"ld8 18.d3 lLlce7
19.g4 lLlh4 2 0 .lLlxd4 j,c6 2 l . l"lg3
l"lxg4 2 2 . l"lxg4 l"lxd4 23.h3 lLlhf5
24.j,d3+ - Brkic - Sengupta, Bel244
17.g4
After 17.:1'1b4 Black should play
17 . . . a6 and if 18 .g4 then 18 . . . li'Je3 !
19.xe3 b5 2 0 .Vfid2 dxe3 2 1 .
V!ixe3 V!ixc2 22 .li'Jd4, Sharma Riedel, Bad Wiessee 2009, 22 . . .
Vfih2 ! 23.b5 a b 24.:1'1b5 V!ih4 25.
mfl E1g4=
17
.ia4 18.c3
18
.ic2 !
22
l'!xg4
Chapter 3 0
<>d1 <>b8 33 .'&d3 '&xd3+ 34.hd3
tt:lc3+ 3S.<>d2 tt:lxb1+ 36.hb1
::xf4 and the endgame is worse
for White.) 31.xbl gxf4 32.
d3 g2 + 33.<>dl xa3 and
Black triumphed in the ensuing
complicated struggle, Volokitin Ganguly, Moscow 2 0 07. Natural
ly, the sharpest variation with 13.
Qc3 requires a very precise play,
but I think that in the pages of this
book it should be sufficient for me
to give you an idea of the outlines
of the arising positions and
schemes.
c) 13.gbl
13 . . . d4
Now after 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.tt:lxc3
Black cannot play 14 . . . a6??, be
cause of 1S.'&xa6 !
14.ll:lxd4
This is no doubt White's most
logical reaction.
He cannot obtain an advan
tage with 14.g3 0-0-0 1S ..ig2
246
16 . . . Wic6
16 .. .f6 17.exf6 liJ dS 18.Wic4
(The best move for White is 18.
4Jxd4 ! 4Jxf6 19.4JbS fi:xd3 20.
4Jxc7 fi:xg3 2 1.4Jxe8 fi:xe8 2 2 .hxg3
and Black has great problems.)
18 ... eS 19.gS 1J.f7 2 0 .Wid3 1J.g6 2 1 .
fS fJ.hS 2 2 . Wie4 fi:ge8 23.<i>f2 1J.f7
24.1J.g2 4Jb6 2S.g6 fJ.dS 26.Wig4 e4
27.f7 Svidler - Berg, Heraklio
2 007.
Instead of 16 . . .f6, it looks very
good to me for Black to continue
with 16 . . . 4JaS ! ? 17. <i>f2 (After 17.
1J.g2 '!lieS 18.fl:b4 4Jec6 19.fi:bS Wie7
2 0 .Wih7 Wif8, White suddenly sac
rificed a piece, but his position
was rather suspect in any case : 2 1 .
Chapter 3 0
V1/c6 21.:E!b4 V1/f3+ 2 2 . 1!?e1 V1/d5
( 2 2 . . . V1/h5 23 .:E!c4+ c6 24.:E!xg8
lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2 V1/h4+ 26.:E!g3 V1/xh2+
27.\!?e3 lt:Jxe5 2 8 .V1/a8+ l!?c7 29.
V1/a5+ l!?c8 30.:E!xc6+ lt:Jxc6 31.
V1/g5+-) 23.:E!c4+ (It is even sim
pler for White to play 23 .V1/xd4 !
V1/xd4 24.:E!xd4 :E!xd4 25.1!?f2 +-)
23 ... Wxc4 24.xc4 lt:Jf3 + 25.1!?f2
lt:Jxg1 26.\!?xg1 c6 + 27.1!?f1+- Be
rescu - Vargic, Djakovo 2005.
17J'!b4 d5 18.:E!gl c6
d) 13.lt:Jxc3 a6
White was threatening to pen
etrate to the d6-square with his
knight.
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc liJ e7 7. '?1ig4 cd
The move 14.h4 merely pre
sents Black with some additional
interesting possibilities : 14 . . . liJf5
15Jh3 0-0-0 (Or 15 . . J'k8 16.:id2
liJxe5 ! ? 17.fxe5 :ib5 18.'?1ff3 Wxe5+
19.'i!ld1 hf1 20.'?1ixfl d4 2l.liJe2
d3 2 2 .liJc3 E\xc3 23 .hc3 Wxc3
24.E\c1 E\g4 with excellent com
pensation ; 18.liJxb5 Wxe5+ 19.
'i!lf2 '?1ixa1 2 0 .liJc3 E\g4 2 1.h5 Wxa3
leading to a complicated position
with a material imbalance. ) 16.h5
'?1ia5 ! ?
White sometimes plays 14.
:id2 , but I think this move will
lead to original positions only if
White starts looking for trouble;
otherwise, after 14.E\b1 or 14.liJe2
there will be a transpositions to
another variation : 14 . . . liJf5 (If
14 ... liJa5 15.h4 liJf5 16.E\h3 liJ c4 17.
E\a2 0-0-0 18.h5 :ic6 19.liJe2
l!lb8 20.liJd4 Wb6 2 l.liJb3 :ib5,
Black was better in the game Mor
zywolek - Grzesik, Wroclaw
2005.) 15 .g4 E\xg4 16.:ih3 liJxe5 !
17.fxe5 Wxe5+ 18.'i!ld1 (Or 18.'i!lf2
E\d4 19.We2 Wf6 2 0 .hf5 E\xd2
2 1.'?1ixd2 Wxf5+ 2 2 .'i!le1 We5= 23.
'i!ld1 ? ! E\c8 with the better pros
pects for Black.) 18 . . . E\d4 19.'?1ie2
Ele4 2 0 .Wf2 liJe3 + ! (20 . . . E\c8 2 1 .
hf5 exf5 2 2 .'?1if3 E\cc4 23.E\b1 :ia4
24.E\b4 + - Frackowiak - Her
rmann, Germany 2002 ) 2 l.'i!lc1
E\c8 and Black's attack is decisive.
14.g3 liJa5 15.liJe2 (After 15.
:ig2 E\c8 16.:id2 liJc4 Black's posi
tion is quite acceptable.) 15 . . . liJf5
(Or 15 . . . :ib5 ! ? 16.Wd2 Elc8 with a
complicated game.) 16.lh3 E\c8
17.hf5 :ib5 18.Wc3 :ixe2 19.Wxc7
dl) 14.c!L!e2
White's knight retreats . . .
14 . .l''k8
.
15.d2
If 15.Eib1 Black must play
inventively: 15 . . . liJa7 (15 . . . liJf5 ? !
16.h3 liJce7 17.g4 liJ h 4 18.liJd4
liJc6 19.liJxc6 Wxc6 2 0.E\h2 E\h8
2 l .'i!ld1 '?1ic7 2 2 .'?1ib3 '?11c 5 2 3.'?1ib6
Wxb6 24.E\xb6 Chandler - Tim
man, Linares 1988; Black should
also consider 15 . . . liJa5 ! ? with the
idea of countering 16.liJd4 with
16 . . . liJac6.) 16.:ie3 (Or 16.liJd4
249
Chapter 3 0
CL!bS 17.d2 '\Wc5 18.lt'lxb5 hb5
19J=!xb5 axb5 20.'\WxbS+ '\WxbS 2 1 .
xb5+ <i>f8 2 2 .g3 l"1xc2 and the
endgame is winning for Black,
Oliveira - Leitao, Campinas
2 009 ; 17 . . . CL!xd4 ! ? 18.'\Wxd4 CL!fS
with excellent position for Black.)
16 . . . CL!b5 17.CL!g3 CL!c3 18.b6 '\Wc6
19.l"1b4 CL!e4 2 0 .CL!h5 l"1g6 2 l.Wd1
CL!fS 2 2 .CDf6+ l"1xf6 23.exf6 d4 24.
<i>e1 '\Wxc2 25.'\Wxc2 l"1xc2 26.l"1b1
CL!c3 27.l"1a1 c6 2 8.d3 l"1xg2 29.
l"1f1 e4 and White resigned, Ves
covi - De Toledo, Americana
1997.
15 .. .ll) f5
16 . . . llJce7
16.l:gl
This move is rather dangerous
for Black.
16 .l"1b1 CL!a7 (He should carry
out the same idea but with the
stronger move 16 . . . CL!ce7! 17.h3 ? !
a4 18.c3 d4 19.CL!xd4 l"1d 8 20.h4
l"1g3 21.'\We4 CL!xd4 2 2 .cxd4 c6
23.'\Wc2 l"1xd4 24.l"1b4 '\Wd8 25.
l"1xd4 '\Wxd4 26.l"1h3 l"1xh3 27.gxh3
CL!fS and Black was better, Maslak
- Averell, playchess.com 2007;
17.'\Wc3 '\Wxc3 18.xc3 b5 ! ; 18.
CL!xc3 c6 19.CDe2 d4 2 0 . l"1g1 e4
250
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 ilb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc CiJ e7 7. !!lff g 4 cd
tinue with 15.id 2 ? ! CiJ c4 16.CiJe2
CiJf5 17.h3 !!lffc5 (It is even stronger
for Black to play here 17 . . . ib5
18.g4 e7 ! ) 18.g4 CiJxa3 19.:1'i:b2
CiJc4 2 0 . :1'i:xb7 c!Llfe3 2 1.he3 CiJxe3
2 2 .:1'i:b3 CiJxc2 + 23.'it>d2 :Bc8 24.
!!lffc 3? !!lffa 7 25.!!lffb 2 ia4 26.:1'i:c3
:Bxc3 27.!!lffx c3 'it>d7-+ and White's
position is hopeless, Karjakin Ni Hua, Moscow 2 005.
15
..
c!Llf5 16.l':lh3 0 - 0 - 0
17.h5
d2) 14.l':lbl
14
c!Lla5
15.h4
It is too slow for White to con-
Chapter 3 0
19.a4 .ba4 20.tLld4 ttJxd4 2 1 .
xd4 .bc2 2 2 .l"kl ia4 23.h5 ic6
24.h6, White obtained good com
pensation, Klimov - Ivanov, St
Petersburg 2 005.) 19 .h5 (If 19.
ttJxd4 ib5 2 0 .tLlxb5 axb5- + ; or
2 0 . tLlxf5 Ei:xd3 21.cxd3 tLlxd2 22.
tLld6+ b8 23.xd2 c5 and
White is clearly worse.) 19 . . . ib5
with an excellent game for Black.
17
tLlc4
18.h6
White has a reasonable alter
native here - 18.Ei:b4 ic6 19.tLle2
(Or 19.h6 Ei:g6 2 0 .h7 Ei:h8 2 1.dl
Ei:g7 2 2 .g4 tLle7 23 .id3 tLlg6 24.
.bc4 dxc4 25.ie3 Ei:gxh7 26.Ei:h5
f6 ! and Black has the initiative,
Chigvintsev - Pokrasenko, Novo
sibirsk 2 0 0 2 . ) 19 . . . ib5 2 0.a4 (It is
more logical for White to contin
ue with 20.tLld4 ! ttJxe5 2 1.c3
tLlc4 2 2 .h6 ttJxd4 23.xd4 f5 24.
Ei:bb3 and he maintains the
advantage; 2 1 . . . tLlxd4 2 2 .xc7+
xc7 23.Ei:xd4 .bfl 24.xfl tLlc4
with a complicated endgame; 2 1 . . .
tLlc6 ! ? 2 2 . tLlxb5 axb5 23.Ei:xb5 tLld6
with some initiative for Black.)
2 0 ... c5 2 1.c3 ( 2 1.ia3 ic6 2 2 .
252
18 ... Ei:g6
This is one of the most impor
tant ideas for Black in this varia
tion. He keeps this active rook on
the g-file and blocks the passed
pawn with his other rook.
19.h7 ghs
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3Ji:Jc3 ib4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 hc3 6.bc ltJ e7 7. 1Jf1g4 cd
2 0 .Y;'/f3
White fared terribly after
20.ltJe2 ibS 2 1 .ltJd4 ltJxeS 2 2 .Y;'/dl
ixfl 23.'it> xfl 1Jf1c4+ 24.ltJe2 1Jf1e4
25J'!bb3 iWxg2+ 26.mel ltJc4- +
Karjakin - Grischuk, Moscow
2 008.
The game ends in a forced
draw after 2 0 .ltJe4 dxe4 2 1.'1Wxc4
iWxc4 2 2 .ixc4 :1'1xg2 23.ha6 bxa6
24.:1'1c3+ ic6 25.:1'1xc6+ md7 26.
:1'1xa6 :1'1xh7 27.:1'1a7+ mc8 2 8 . :1'1a8+
mc7 29.:1'1a7+ mc8 30 .:1'1a8+ Becer
ra Rivero - Bhat, ICC 20 0 8 .
(diagram)
2 0 )tJce3 !
21.i.xe3
Y;'/xc3 +
2 2 .id2
iWxf3 23.:1'1xf3
After 23.gxf3 :1'1g7 the endgame
is better for Black.
23 :1'1xh7 and Black has a
promising position, because if
24.i.xa6? he has the hidden tac
tical resource 24 bxa6 25.
:1'1c3+ .ic6! (but not 25 ... md8??
2 6.:1'1b8+ me7 27.l'k7 +-) 26.
:1'1xc6+ 'i!?d7-+
253
Chapter 31
a) 7.ll::l f3
This is a very good developing
move, which is a bit stronger here
in comparison to the variation 6 . . .
'1Wa5
Chapter 31
8 .id2
.
. . .
a4
9.gbl
White should also consider
9.dxc5 f6 10.C/Jd4 C/Jxd4 11.cxd4
xd4 12 .1lb5+ f7 13.0-0 xe5
9 . . . c4 1 0 .cl b6
Chapter 31
encounter Yemelin - Akopian,
Moscow 2008, in which after
12 0 - 0 - 0 13J3h3 f6 14 .if4
f8 15 . .ie2 U'7 16 . .ih2 i>b7 17.
i>fl h6 lS.i>gl ll:lge7 19.\'Nb2
hf8 2 0 .fl \'Na5 21..if4 h8=
..
9 . .id2
It is also quite logical for White
to continue with the plan for de
velopment based on deploying
the bishop on a3 : 9.'1Wd2 .
Black
obtained
approximate
equality and neither side could
improve his position.
b) 7.a4
..
258
ii.d7
l O .iJ.b5
This position has been reached
in more than two thousand
games, but it has still not been
analyzed thoroughly. Black has
succeeded in obtaining a good
game is several different ways.
White has tried some other
moves instead, but not very suc
cessfully:
10 .h4 f6 ll .h5 fxe5 1 2 .Lt:lxe5
Lt:lxe5 13.dxe5 Wlc7 14.f4 0-0-0oo
with a complicated position, Pirt
timaki - Farago, Helsinki 1983 ;
White did not achieve much
with 10 .g3 0-0-0 1l.ii.h3 f5 1 2 .
ii.g2 h6 1 3 . 0 - 0 ii.e8 14.Lt:le1 c4,
Van der Wiel - Nikolic, Wijk aan
Zee 1984;
Black obtains a good position
after 10.ii.d3 c4 1l.ii.e2 f6. We
have seen the same position in the
10
. . .
a6
Chapter 31
Anand - Oil, Rome 1990.
It is far from clear whether
White's bishop is better placed on
b5 than on e2 in the line 10 .. .f6
ll.c4 V/ic7 12.exf6 gxf6 13.cxd5
ltlxd5 14.dxc5 0-0-0 15.0-0
E1hg8 16.a5 e5 17.a6 ltlc3 18 . .bc3
h3oo with a very sharp position,
Nunn - Wang Hao, Amsterdam
2 006.
ll . .ixc6 .ixc6 (Black has a
good alternative here - 1 1 . . . ltlxc6
1 2 . 0 - 0 Wic7.) 12. 0 - 0 h6 13.
c) 7.g4
7 g6
o n d Kasimdzhanov
against Ponomariov.
in
games
8.h4
It is a bit less precise for White
to follow the same idea with the
move-order 8 .d2 in view of 8 . . .
f5 ! (it i s also good for Black t o play
8 . . . d7, planning 9.h4 f5).
Now:
the variation 9.V/if4 h6 10.h4
V/ib6 ll.dxc5 V/ixc5 leads to a posi
tion we have discussed in our
notes to Black's eighth move in
the main line ;
the pawn-sacrifice 9.Wig3 is
not very dangerous: 9 . . . cxd4 10.
ltlf3 (10.h4 dxc3 ll.Wixc3 d4 1 2 .
Wic5 e7oo) 10 . . . dxc3 11 . .bc3 ltlh6
and Black's position is quite reli
able;
Chapter 31
tial, but White should test the
consequences of the aggressive
move 11.c4 ! ? It looks as though
Black's position is O.K. after 11 . . .
V!ffc 7 1 2. cxd5 exd5 and White will
be unable to hold his centre, for
example: 13 .c3 cxd4 14.li:lf3 li:lxe5 !
15.Vlffe 2 0-0-0 16.li:lxe5 dxc3 17.
l"lc1 cxd 2 + 18.V!ffx d2 ic6ro. All this
seems rather risky, but Black has
two extra pawns as meaningful
compensation for his difficulties.
The position is unclear.) 9 .id2
. . .
h6
Chapter 31
not solve his all problems with the
move 8 . . .fS because of 9.g3 ! (It
would less convincing for him to
opt for 9.f4 h6, for example:
10.dxcS aS 1 1.d2 xeS 12.li:Jf3
li:Jge7 13 .d3 d7 14.0-0 0-0-0.
Black has sufficient counterplay
on the kingside, for instance 1S.
l"lfb1 gS 16.hxgS - 16.h2 aS after 16 . . . li:Jg6 17.g3 hxgS 18.e3
e7 19 .xgS h7 2 0 . Wfl l"ldg8i
Black has the initiative on the
kingside.) 9 . . . cxd4 lO .hS gS 11.
xgS aS 12.li:Je2 (Black obtains a
good position in the endgame af
ter 12 .d2 dxc3 13.xc3 xc3
14.hc3 li:Jh6.) 12 . . . dxc3 13.li:Jf4 ! ?
with advantage t o White. I t i s also
very good for White to continue
with 13.xc3 xc3+ 14.li:Jxc3
liJxeS 1S.liJbS with a powerful
initiative for the sacrificed pawn.
Black's position in the main
line is not very reliable, so he
should consider much more care
fully the line: 8 . . . aS 9 .d2 a4
(or 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 a4) lO .hS
xc2 (10 . . . liJxeS? 11.g3 li:Jd7
12.hxg6 fxg6 13.l"lxh7) 11.li:Jf3
cxd4 1 2. cxd4 h6 13.hxg6 xg6
9.d2
White has tried 9.hS gS 10.f4
aS 11.d2 fS 12.g3 g4 13.dxcS
xeS 14.d3 li:Jge7. In the game
Motylev - Kruppa, Predeal 2007,
Black succeeded in closing the po
sition on the kingside and his
prospects were by no means
worse.
9 . . . .id7
1 0 .i/.d3
1 0 . . e7
.
ll.'Llh3 ! ?
White plans t o deploy his
knight on f4, preventing the im
portant pawn-advance for Black
in this system - f7-f5. Of course,
the deployment of the knight on
f4 and the queen on g3 is mainly
prophylactic and it is possible
that to accomplish a break on the
kingside he will have to regroup
his forces. Black will then have
the chance to play f7-f6, or f7-f5,
but it would not be very pleasant
2 65
Chapter 31
for him to await developments
with a paralysed kingside.
11 . . . 0 - 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 c4 13 .
.ie2
13 . . . .ie8
Black's position is worse after
13 . . . f5 14.1&xg6 1&xh4 15.'i:Jf4.
The option 13 ... g5 ! ? deserves
a thorough analysis. Strangely
enough, it would be very difficult
for White to prove a substantial
advantage here: 14.1&h5 (after 14.
hxg5 hxg5 15 . .ixg5 f6 16.exf6
'i:Jxf6 17.f4 l"ldf8 with the idea of
't&h7, Black has compensation for
the pawn) 14 . . . f6. Now after 15.
hxg5 Black manages to hold the
balance in the forced variation
15 . . . fxe5 16.gxh6 'i:Jf6 17.1&h4 'i:Je4
18.1&xe7 'i:Jxe7 19 ..ig5 'i:Jxg5 2 0 .
'i:Jxg5 l"ldf8 21.dxe5 l"lxh6 22.f4
'i:Jg6 23 .g3 l"lg8 24.'i:Jf7 l"lh7
25.'i:Jd6+ Wc7 26.Wg2 .ic6= , with
enough counterplay to draw. It
looks very attractive for White to
play 15.f4 .ie8 16.'t&f3 gxh4 (it is
worse for Black to play here 16 . . .
gxf4 17.'i:Jxf4 fxe5 18.dxe5 .if7 19.
l"laeU with an edge for White) 17.
.ie1 , but even then after 17 . . .f5
266
16.a5 !
This i s a n important improve
ment, which transposes to the
game Kasimdzhanov - Ponomar
iov, Moscow 2 007. Another pos
sible continuation is 16 . .ic1 f5 !
17.exf6 'i:Jxf6 18.1&xe6 't&g7 19.'t&h3
.id7 2 0 .'t&g3 .if5 2 1.'i:lh5 't&e7 2 2 .
'i:Jxf6 't&xe2 and Black ended up
with excellent compensation for
16
..
g5? !
17.hxg5
It is less convincing for White
to continue with 17.4Jh5 f5 18.exf6
h7.
2 0 .hg5 1J.g6
2 0 . . . 1J.h5 21.f4
2 67
Part S
Chapter 32
5.exd5
Attempts by White to main
tain the tension in the centre do
not achieve much.
After 5.d3 Black obtains an
excellent game by undermining
White's centre with 5 . . . c5 (This is
probably even stronger than 5 . . .
dxe4 6.he4 c 5 7.'Llge2 (7.dxc5 see 5 . . . c5) 7 . . . cxd4 8.tt:Jxd4 a5
9 .hf6 hc3 + 10.bxc3 xc3 +
11.d2 xd 2 + 12.i>xd2 gxf6
13 .l':lab1 'Ll a6 and Black has at
least equalized ; or 11.i>f1 gxf6 1 2 .
l':lb1 'Ll d7, and White's compensa
tion for the pawn is sufficient only
for equality.) 6.dxc5 (It is rather
dubious to opt for 6.e5 ? ! cxd4 7.
a3 dxc3 8 . axb4 cxb2 9.l':lb1 h6.)
6 ... dxe4 7.he4 xd1+ 8.l':lxd1
'Llbd7 9.f3 hc3 + 10.bxc3 'Llxc5=
2 69
Chapter 32
8.exd5 (The position is very
complicated but good for Black
after 8.b4 ib6 9.e5 'We7 10.ti:la4
id7 11.c3 0-0 12.t2lf4 ie8 13.g3
f6 14.exf6 'Wxf6 15.1"1a2 ti:lc6 16.h4
if7 17.ig2 1"1ad8 18.0-0 e5oo Hec
tor - Glek, Copenhagen 1995 .)
8 ... 0-0 9.'Wd3 (The game is equal
after 9.'Wd2 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6
11.'We3 t2lc6 1 2 . 0-0-0 ixc3 13.
ti:lxc3 ti:lxd4 14.id3 c5 15.1"1d2 b6=
N.Mamedov - Antic, Kavala
2 010.) 9 . . . 1"1d8 10.dxe6 ixe6 11.
0-0-0 'Wxf2 1 2 .ti:le4 'Wf5 13.t2lc5
'Wxd3 14.1"1xd3 ic8 15.g3 ti:ld7 16.
b4 ib6 17.ig2 c6 18.ti:lf4 a5 19.
'it>b2 ti:lf6 2 0 .d5 axb4 2 1 . axb4 ixc5
2 2 .bxc5 if5 = Unzicker - Piskov,
Germany 1991.
6.hf6
a) 6 . . . hc3+
b) 6 gxf6
a) 6 . . . hc3+
xd5
..
7.bxc3 gxf6
(diagram)
s:d2
This is White's most precise
move. He cannot obtain much in
this pawn-structure however.
It is harmless for Black for
White to continue with 8.ti:lf3 b6
8 . . . Wff a5
This is Black's most popular
continuation - a prophylactic move
against c3-c4 - but the attempt to
undermine White's centre imme
diately deserves close attention :
8 . . . c5 9.li'Je2 cxd4 10.cxd4 li'Jc6
11.Wfff4 ct;e7 12.c3 '&aS 13.g3 :1'i:d8
14.Wff e 3 eS with sufficient coun
ter chances, Smirin - Vaisser, Tel
Aviv 199 2 ;
8 . . .e 5 9.li'Jf3 (Black has n o prob
lems after White's active queen
sortie 9.Wffh 6 Wffe 4+ 10.ct;d2 Wffg 6
11.Wffxg6 hxg6 12 .:1'i:e1 li'Jc6 13.dxe5
fxeS 14.b5 :1'i:h5 15.li'Jf3 d7, A.
Sokolov - Korchnoi, Switzerland
2002.) 9 . . . li'Jc6 10.dxe5 Wffxd2 + 11.
ct;xd2 fxeS 1 2 . li'Jxe5 liJxeS 13.:1'i:e1
f6 14.f4 e6 15.fxeS 0-0-0+ 16.
d3 fxe5 17.:1'i:xe5 xa2 18.:1'i:a1 dS
19.:1'i:xa7 ct;bS 2 0.:1'i:a4 xg2. White
maintains some minimal pres
sure, thanks to his well-placed
bishop on d3 and the vulnerabili
ty of Black's h-pawn, but the posi
tion has been simplified so much
that a draw seems inevitable, A.
Sokolov - Kolly, Lenk 2011.
Chapter 32
'i!?xd2, A.Sokolov - S.Atalik, Ger
many 2 003 and here it seems
quite reasonable to follow GM
Andrey Sokolov's recommenda
tion: 13 . . . 4Jb6 14.c3 0-0-0
b) 6 . . . gxf6
12
7.4Jge2
After 7.'&d2 '&aS 8.4Jge2 it is
good for Black to play 8 . . . 4Jd7,
planning to transfer the knight via
the attractive route lt:Jd7-b6-dS.
9 .'&f4 (the position is simplified
and balanced after 9.0-0-0 tt:Jb6
10.'i!?b1 4JdS = ; if 9.a3 tt:Jb6 10J'1d1
!J.e7 ll.lt:Jc1 fi.d7 12.4Jb3 '&gS, Black
has nothing to complain about)
9 . . . bS ! ? 10.0-0-0 !J.e7 ll.'i!?b1
b4
4Jc6 8.a3
272
b6
19.llJg5
It is more accurate to continue
with 19.4Jf6 !J.c8 2 0 .4JhS lt:Jd6, but
Black has a good position in any
case.
If 2 2 .2'l:b1 c4.
22 llJxb5 White has to fight
for a draw, Morozevich - Kovalev,
Moscow 1994.
Chapter 33
h6 6.exf6
tLlc6 ! ?
Chapter 33
Wgxe6+? cj;Jc7 2l.Wf4+ cj;Jb6 2 2 .
Wee3 + ic5 23.g8W b1W
and here :
Black plays 9 . . . ie7 only rarely.
This might be owing to fear of
some old but spectacular analysis
by Alekhine. Many inaccuracies
and mistakes have been discov
ered in it, but still it is not every
day that you see a position where,
in a quite natural and logical way,
five (yes five ! ! ) queens appear on
the board. 10 .g3 (It would be
much more unpleasant for Black
for White to play simply 10.tt:lf3
if6 1l.Wf4 a6 1 2 . 0-0-0t with a
powerful initiative.) 10 . . . c5 11.
gxh4 (It is better for White to play
here 1l .dxc5, but after ll . . . if6
Black has an excellent position,
for example: 1 2 . 0-0-0 Elxg7 13.
We2 We7 14.tt:lb5 cj;lfS 15.tt:ld6 tt:ld7
16.Wb5 Elb8 ! planning b6; or 1 2 .
tt:lf3 Elxg7 13.Wf4 tt:l d 7 14.0-0-0
tt:lxc5? ; 12 .ib5+ id7 13.0-0-0
hg7 14.cj;Jb1 cj;lfS?) 11. . . cxd4 12.
h5? ! dxc3 13.h6 cxb2 14.Elb1 Wa5+
15.cj;Je2. Unfortunately, here Black
can obtain a clear advantage, neu
tralizing his opponent's attack
with the move 15 . . . if8 ! The fa
mous position with five queens on
the board arises after 15 ... Wxa2
16.h7 Wxb1 17.hxg8W+ cj;Jd7 18.
Wxf7 Wxc2+ 19.cj;lf3 tt:lc6 20.
274
Chapter 33
to advance his h-pawn, transpos
ing to the main line. He can reach
original positions by playing 9 .hxg5
'Wxg5 10.lt:lf3 1Wg6 11.'Wd2, or 9.lt:lf3.
1';xg7
9.h5
It is also good for White to
play 9.'Wd3 ! ? l"\xg7 (the line 9 . . .
'Wf6 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 also deserves
attention) 10.hxg5 'Wxg5 11.lt:lf3
'Wf4 12 .a3 'We4+ 13.'Wxe4 .ixc3+
14.bxc3 dxe4 15.lt:ld2 f5 16.f3 exf3
17.lt:lxf3 lt:ld8 ! ? 18.0-0-0 lt:lf7
White's position appears to be
more attractive, at least optically,
but there is just too little material
left on the board for him to be
able to achieve anything.
Black should not fear the im
mediate 9 ..ib5 l"\xg7 10.lt:lf3, be
cause of 10 . . .gxh4 11.lt:le5 'Wg5 ! It
is also possible for play simply 9 . . .
gxh4 10.'Wh5 (White's attempt to
exploit his rapid development
fails after 10.lt:lf3 l"\xg7 ll.l"\xh4
l"1xg2 12 .!"1h8+ .if8 13 .'Wd2 'Wf6
and his attack comes to a dead
end; 11.lt:le5 .id7 12 . .ixc6 .ixc6
13.'Wh5 'Wf6 14.!"1xh4 l"\xg2 and he
has nothing) 10 . . . !"1xg7 ll.'Wh8 +
.if8 1 2 .lt:lf3 l"\xg2 13.lt:le5 .id7 14.
276
1 0 .h6?!
The advance of White's passed
pawn, in combination with an at
tack on the advanced g5-pawn,
looks quite natural, but it is prob
ably stronger for him to opt for
10 . .ib5 .id7 1l.'Wd3 (or 11.lt:lf3 f6 ! ?
12 .'We2 'We7 13.h6 l"\h7 14 . .id3 l"\h8
15.a3 .ixc3+ 16.bxc3 o-o-m= and
Black's position is preferable) 11 . . .
'Wf6 ( l l . . . 'We7 1 2 .h6 l"\g8 13.lt:lf3 f6
and Black's game is rather pas
sive). However, Black's position
would be acceptable after 12 ..ixc6
(or 1 2 .lt:lf3 .ixc3 + 13 .bxc3 g4) 12 . . .
.ixc6 13.lt:lf3 @e7!?+
10 . . 1';h7
.
ll.i.d3
The line ll.lt:lf3 'Wf6 ! loses the
h6-pawn for White, as does ll.a3
.if8 .
ll . . . l"i:h8
13
..
ll::l xd4
12.'Wh5 ! ?
1 2 .a3 iJ.f8 13.h7 l1Jxd4 14.'Wh5
(the line 14.iJ.g6 iJ.g7 is in Black's
favour) 14 . . .'Wf6 15.0-0-0 iJ.d7+
with a clear advantage for Black.
12 . . . 'Wf6!
It is less accurate for Black to
opt for 12 . . . l1Jxd4 13 .l1Jh3 'Wf6 (af
ter 13 . . . iJ.e7 ! ? 14. 0-0-0i White
has initiative for the sacrificed
pawn) 14.l1Jxg5 and there is a
transposition to the game, but
Black loses the possibility of im
proving his play on move 13.
13. ll::l f3
Chapter 33
15 . . . hc3 + 16.bxc3 xf5 17.
l"lh3
16.l"lh4!?
16.0-0-0 .ie7 17.lt:Jf3 xh5
18.l"lxh5 f6 ! and Black can be very
happy with his position (but not
18 . . ..if6? 19 .g4) .
15.hf5 !
This is the correct move for
White, as pointed out by Mo
rozevich in his annotations to the
game, from where we have bor
rowed his analysis.
White went wrong in the game
and Black maintained an advan
tage: 15.h7?! hc3+ 16.bxc3 xc3+
17.We2 e5+ (but not 17 . . . lt:Jd4 + ?
18.Wd1 18 . . . xa1+ 19.W d 2 lt:Jb3+
2 0 . axb3 f6 21.lt:Jxf7+ - ; 19 . . .
xh1 2 0.xf7+ Wd8 21.f6+ Wd7
2 2 .xh8 ; 18 . . . lt:Jxc2 19 . .ib5+ c6
2 0. xf7+ md8 2 Uk1) 18.Wd2
f4+ 19.We2 lt:Jd6! 2 0 . l"lae1 .id7
2 l .Wfl 0-o-m: Landa - Mo
rozevich, Samara 1998.
15 . . . xf5
278
16 . . . .ie7
It is bad for him to continue
with 16 . . . c5? 17.l"lxb4 ! cxb4 18.
lt:Jb5 me7 19.h4 !
White is also better in the
event of 16 . . . .if8 ? ! 17.h7 .ie7 18.
f4.
Chapter 34
7.g4
6 . . . 'Lle4
Here it would make sense for
Black to try a move which has not
7 . . . g6
7 . . . gS. This move unnecessarily
weakens his position. 8.'Llge2 (Af
ter 8.a3 .ixc3 + ! ? - 8 . . . .iaS 9.'Llge2
transposes to 8.'Llge2 - 9.bxc3 cS
10 ..id3 hS 1l.f3, Black should
consider 1 1 . . .'Llxc3 ! ? 12.dxcS 'Llc6,
since the alternatives are not at
all impressive : ll . . . g4 12 .e3
'Llxc3 13.h3 'Llc6 14.hxg4 cxd4 1S.
f4t White has a powerful initia
tive, Hector - Vitiugov, Horsholm
2 0 0 8 ; if 1 1 . . . cxd4 White is better
not only after 12 ..ixe4 g4 13.d1
dxe4 14.cxd4 aS+ 1S . .id2 dS
16.'Lle2 e3 17 . .ixe3 xg2 18.!"1g1
2 79
Chapter 34
Wc6 19.c4 Khalifman - Janovs
ky, Kirishi 2007, but also after
12.cxd4 ti:Jc6 13 .ti:Je2 WaS+ 14.<i>f1
Wd2 1S.i.b 2 ! , or 1S.g3 h4 16.gxh4
Wxc1 + 17 .Elxc1 ti:Jd2 + 18. lt>g2 ti:Jxf3
19.ci>xf3 Elxh4 2 0 . ElcgU with an
advantage for White in all lines.)
8 . . . cS 9. a3
and now:
9 . . . a5 10.dxc5 (the line: 1 0 .b4
C2Jxc3 11.bxa5 C2Jxe2 12 .xe2 C2Jc6
is not very promising for White.
He has compensation for the
pawn, but nothing more) 10 . . . C2Jc6
(for 10 ... C2Jd7 - see 10 ... C2Jc6 ll .b4
C2Jxe5 ; after 10 . . . 'Wc7 ll.'Wf4 a
somewhat better endgame for
White arises by force : l l . . . C2Jxc3
12.C2Jxc3 hc3 + 13.bxc3 C2Jc6 14.c4
'Wxe5+ 15.'Wxe5 C2Jxe5 16.cxd5
exd5 17J'l:bU; GM Suetin's recom
mendation from his book "The
French Defence" 10 . . . C2Jxc3 11.
C2Jxc3 d4 12 .b4 dxc3 13.bxa5 C2Jc6
does not stand up to scrutiny, be-
Chapter 34
that Black should refrain from the
natural move 16 . . . e7 17.'Llc3 e3
18.'Llb5 exf2 + 19.e2 i!.b8 2 0 .
'Lld6 and White i s clearly better.)
16 . . . e3 17.fxe3? ! (Here White
should not have ignored the open
d-file: 17. 0-0-0 ! , for example :
17 . . . a6 18.'Lle4. Black's position
looks rather worrying. He cannot
play 17 . . . 'Llg4?, because of 18 .i!.e2 !
'Llxf2 19.'Llb5) 17 . . . 'Llg4 18 .i!.e2
i!.g3+ 19.d2 'Llf2f7 with chances
for both sides, Bruzon Batista Short, Havana 2 0 1 0 .
I t would b e interesting for
Black to try 9 . . . hc3 + ! ? 10 .bxc3
(after 10.'Llxc3 f5 11.exf6 'Llxf6 1 2 .
W d 1 cxd4 13.'\Wxd4 'Ll c 6 14.'\Wc5+
'\We7 15.i!.e3 i!.d7 16.0-0-0 f7
White obtains a minimal edge, but
Black made a relatively easy draw
in the endgame after 17.i!.d3 Wxc5
18.i!.xc5 'Lle5 19.i!.d4 'Llxd3+ 20.
cxd3 ghc8 2 l . d2 'Llg8 2 2 .f4 'Lle7
23.'Lle2 i!.a4= with equality, Bu
kavshin - Volkov, Samara 2011)
8.ll:l ge2
9.a3
8 . . . c5
It would be interesting for
Black to test the rare move 8 . . .
t/Jxc3 9.bxc3 (If 9.t/Jxc3 c S 10.a3
xc3 + ll.bxc3 WaS 12 .d2 Wa4 a
position arises which resembles
some of the lines of the Winawer
variation, but with the exchange
of a pair of knights. Naturally,
Black must also consider the pos
sibilities of 10.dxcS or 10 .d2 .)
9 ... e7 10.l2Jf4 cS ll.bS+ l2Jc6 12.
a4 cxd4?! This reduction of the
tension in the centre is the main
cause of Black's difficulties. (after
12 . . . Wa5 13 .d2 c4 14.0-0 d7
Black maintains a good and safe
position) 13.cxd4 d7 14.0-0 Wc7
1S.a3 0-0-0 16.xe7 l2Jxe7 17.
l2Jd3 White has an edge, thanks
to his queenside pressure, Najer
- Glek, Silivri 2 003.
..
hc3 +
Chapter 34
White's weakened pawn-struc
ture, Spraggett - Vernay, La Mas
sana 2 010) 11.b4 tt:JxeS 12.1lfih3
:!c7 13.LLlxe4 dxe4 14.LLlc3 aS, Negi
- Nepomniachtchi, Wijk aan Zee
2007 and in this position the
move 1S.:!b2 creates serious
problems for Black.
13.3
White's alternative here is to
sacrifice the exchange : 13.fi:b1
J.bS 14.fi:xbS 'WxbS 1S.f3 LLlgS 16.
'Wf4. White has definite compen
sation, but Black has no reason to
be afraid of this position.
12
J.d7
Complications
arise
after
Black's other attractive move 12 . . . l2Jc6 ! ?, but it looks as though
White retains an edge at the end
of the variation. 13.1J.e3 hS (the
line 13 . . . l2Je7 14.1lfih3 f6 might turn
out to be better for Black than it
looks at first sight) 14.1lfih3 bS 1S.
fi:c1 (1S.f3 tt:Jxc3 16.1J.d2 b4oo) 1S . . .
'Wxa3 16.f3 l2Jb4 (the only move)
17.cxb4 ! (after 17.fxe4 tt:Jd3+ 18.
md2 dxe4 the threat of bS-b4
provides Black with reasonable
284
Chapter 35
6 .ti:'le4 7.g4
f8 and b) 7 . . . g6 .
At this particular point, in the
variation with 6.ie3 it seems to
me that weakening the pawn285
Chapter 35
structure on the kingside with
(7 . . . g6) is a lesser evil for Black
than moving the king, although
both moves have their pluses and
minuses.
The pawn-advance 7 . . . gS ! ? is
interesting, but weakens Black's
position considerably and irrevo
cably.
his pawns.
8 .h4 hS 9.'&d1 (The spectacu
lar queen-sacrifice 9.hxgS led to a
quick sharing of the point after 9 ...
hxg4 10.l"lxh8+ M8 ll.l2Jxe4 dxe4
12 .l2Je2 cS 13.0-0-0 '&aS 14.l2Jc3
cxd4 1S.hd4 l2Jc6 16.l2Jxe4 l2Jxd4,
draw, Shirov - Volkov, Rethym
non 2 0 03.) 9 . . . cS 10. l2Jge2 l2Jc6 11.
a3 cxd4 12.axb4 dxe3 (it is prefer
able for Black to opt for 12 . . . l2Jxc3
13.hgS L2Jxd1 14.hd8 LLlxf2 1S.f6
l2Jxh1 16.hh8 l2Jxb4 17.l2Jxd4 l2Jg3
with approximate equality) 13.
l2Jxe4 dxe4 14.'&xd8+ xd8 1S.
hxgS exf2 + 16.xf2 l2Jxe5 17.l2Jc3
l2Jg4+ 18.g3. White has the ini
tiative in this complicated end
game. We should like to quote
this brilliant game to the very
end : 18 . . . l2Je3 (Here it is prefera
ble for Black to play 18 . . .f5, with
good chances of equalizing.) 19.
l"le1 l2Jf5+ 2 0 . f4 l2Jd6 2 l .g4 h4
2 2 . l"ld1 e7 23.eS l"ld8 24.l"lxh4
aS 2S.bS a4 26.l"lh7 a3 27.g6 a2
28.l"lxd6 l"lxd6 29. l"lxf7+ e8 30.
xd6 a1'& 31.l2Jxe4 1-0 Lanin Skorchenko, Sochi 2006.
a) 7
. . .
f8
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. 4Jc3 4Jj6 4. ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6 . ile3 4J e4 7. Wff g 4 r;f;JB
8.a3
The alternatives for White are
not convincing:
In the variation 8 .4Jge2 , you
can see one of the differences be
tween 6.iJ.e3 and 6.iJ.cl: 8 . . . c5 9.f3
4Jxc3 ! 10 .bxc3 cxd4 ! l l.hd4 iJ.a5
12.f4 4Jc6 with a good game for
Black, Savchenko - Volkov, Dag
omys 2 0 0 8 ;
After 8 .iJ.d3 4Jxc3 9 . a 3 , i t is
equally attractive for Black either
to capture the pawn with 9 . . . iJ.a5
10 .iJ.d2 4Ja4, or to simply preserve
his bishop with 9 . . . 4Ja2+ lO.r;f;fl
iJ.e7 11.l"1xa2 b6; he has a very good
position in both cases.
..
.h:c3 + 9.bxc3
9 . . . 4Jxc3
This move, followed by 10 . . .
4Jc6, i s based o n the idea o f pre
serving a closed pawn-structure.
Black's attempt to retain the
possibility of organizing more ef
fective counterplay with 9 . . . c5 is
in crisis at the present moment.
10.iJ.d3 4Jxc3 (10 . . . Wffa 5 ll.CiJe2
cxd4 12 .hd4 4Jc6 13.0-0) ll.dxc5
4Jc6 (White should counter 11 . . .
Wffa5 with the standard resource
Chapter 35
Istanbul 2 003. After losing this
game, one of the main experts in
the MacCutcheon variation for
Black - GM Volkov - switched to
the defensive system with 9 . . .
li'lxc3 and 10 . . . li'lc6.
lO . .id3 lDc6
ll.lDf3
White has also tried some oth
er plans in this position.
11.li'lh3 f5 12.'&g3 '&e8 (This is
Volkov's improvement on his
game against Areshchenko, in
which Black's position was very
suspect: 12 . . . g5 13.f4 g4 14.li'lf2
li'le4 15 . .ixe4 dxe4 16.h3 gxh3 17.
Ei:xh3 '&e7 18.c4 b6 19.d5t with a
dangerous initiative for White,
Areshchenko - Volkov, Gibraltar
2006.) 13 .'&h4 '&e7 14 . .ig5 '&f7 15.
f3 g8 16 . .id2 li'la4 17.Ei:b1 li'lb6
18.c3 li'lc4 19.icl '&e7 2 0.'&g3
li'lxa3 2 1.Ei:a1 li'lc4 2 2 .li'lf4 '&fl 23.
h4 h5 and Black gradually con
solidated his position and real
ized his extra material, Zenklusen
- Volkov, Fuegen 2006.
11.h4 li'le7 1 2 .f3 ! ? (In the game
Amonatov - Volkov, Khanty
Mansiysk 2009, White neglected
288
ll . . . lDe7
White has also tried ll . . . li'la4
12.0-0 (12.Ei:b1 ! ?) 12 . . . li'lb2 13.ie2
li'l c4 14.li'ld2 li'lxd2 15 . .ixd2 f5 (It
is worth trying 15 . . . b6, with the
idea of a7-a5, ic8-a6.) 16.exf6
'&xf6 17.c3 e5 18.'&g3 with pow-
12.J.d2
The move 12 .h4, with the pos
sible plan of h4-h5, Ci'Jf3-h4, Ei:h1h3-g3, was tried in the game S.
Solovjov - Yemelin, St. Peters
burg 2 0 1 1 : 12 . . . Ci'Jf5 (it seems very
promising for Black to opt for
12 . . . 11.d7 with the idea of ffl.bS.)
13.J.d2 Ci'Ja4 14.h5 (14.Ei:b 1 ! ?) 14 . . .
Ci'Jb2 15.ffl.e2 Ci'Jc4 16.11.b4+ 'kt>g8 17.
f4 b6 18 .g4 Ci'Je7 19.Ei:g1 cS 2 0 .
dxcS aS 2 1.ffl.c3 bxcS 2 2 .g5 Ci'JfS 2 3 .
ffl.d3 hxgS 24.Ei:xg5 d 4 25.0-0-0.
There arose a very sharp position.
After the correct response 25 . . .
b6 ! White must defend very
carefully.
b) 7 g6 8.a3
hc3+ 9.bxc3
(diagram)
This is a very typical position
for the 10 . . . Ci'Jc6 variation. Black's
extra pawn is irrelevant at the
moment and he has no counter
play at all . His attempt to acti
vate his pieces ended up in
White's favour: 15 c5 ! ? 16.
c5 and b2) 9
b1) 9
ttJxc3.
c5
1 0 .J.d3
289
Chapter 35
1 0 . . . h5
It is slightly worse for Black to
play 10 . . . tt'lxc3 ll.dxc5 tt'lc6 (11 . . .
\WaS 12.1b4 '\Wxb4 13.axb4;t; and
White is a bit better, for example:
13 ... tt'lc6 14.:i'l:a3 d4 15.hd4 tt'ld5
16.c3 tt'lxd4 17.cxd4 tt'lxb4 18.e4
d7 19.md2 c6 20.f3;t; Iorda
chescu - Foisor, Naujac 2 0 0 2 ;
19.hb7? ! :i'l:b8 2 0 . :i'l:xa7 tt'l c6, or
20 . . . c6) 12.tt'lf3 (12 .d2 ! ?) 12 . . .
d 4 ( 1 2 . . . '\WaS 13.0-0 '\Wa4 14.'\Wxa4
- 14.'\Wh3 ! ? - 14 . . . tt'lxa4. The end
game is in White's favour. 15.b5
tt'lc3 16.a4 d7 17.:i'l:a3 tt'le4 18.:i'l:b1
tt'l a5 and Black managed to hold
the position, Hracek - Vaisser,
Pula 1997. However, it is more
promising for White to opt for
15.:i'l:ab1 a6 16.:i'l:fc1, or 16.h4 ! ?)
11.'\Wf4
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. CiJ c3 CiJf6 4 . ilg5 ilb4 5.e5 h6 6. ile3 CiJ e4 7. 111i g 4 g6
b2) 9
ci)xc3 1 0 .ld3
291
Chapter 35
10
..
b6 ! ?
..
292
..
..
..
..
Chapter 36
7.bxc3
The move 7.hc3 ! ? is much
less popular, because it makes the
standard queen-sortie d1-g4, af
ter Black's knight moves, sense
less. Still, a move which keeps
White's pawn-structure solid and
intact should not be bad. 7 . . . tt:Je4.
Now:
the awkward move 8 . .iaS with
the idea of provoking b7-b6 and
Chapter 36
a6 and Black has no problems at
all and can even think about fight
ing for the advantage, Guseinov Nepomniachtchi,
Porto-Karras
2011.
9.d3
9.lLlf3 c5 10 .d3 t2Jxd2 1l.Wxd2
(it is not convincing for White to
opt for 1l.t2Jxd2 t2Jc6, with the idea
of a5) - see 9.d3.
We should take a look at
White's alternatives.
If in the main line White wants
to use the plan with 11.h4 and
l"lh1-h3, then it would be good for
him to play the immediate 9.h4,
depriving Black, after 9 .d3 t2Jxd2
10.Wxd2 , of the possible transi
tion into an endgame with 10 . . .
g5, although, a s w e will see lat
er, this is not good for him in any
case. 9 . . . c5 10.l"lh3 t2Jc6 1l.d3
t2Jxd2 12.Wxd2 c4 and on the
board we have a position from the
main line.
The move 9.f4 enables White
to avoid the necessity of placing
his king on d2, but his queen is re
moved from its active position.
294
shall
analyze
now
a)
a) ll . .!lJ:3
It is important here that White
does not have the standard re
source 1Wg4-b4, which is possible
with a pawn on a3. 12 .iJ.d2 1Wa4
13.h3 1Wxg4 (13 . . . !1Je4 14.4:Je2 4:Jd7
15.iJ.xe4 1Wxe4 16.1Wxe4 dxe4, Klo
vans - Dvoretsky, USSR 1974.)
14.hxg4 !1Je4 (14 ... 4:J a4 ! ?) 15.iJ.xe4
dxe4 16.f4 iJ.d7 17.4:Je2 'LJa6 18 .iJ.e3
Elc8 19 .Elb1 'LJxcS 2 0 .iJ.xc5+ ElxcS
2 l . Elxb7 \ile7= Black can hold the
balance in this endgame, Hebden
- Lautier, London 1988.
Chapter 36
which might lead to some difficul
ties in advancing his queenside
pawns, or to allow the typical cap
ture on c5 after 11.. .li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ?
ll . . . c4
11. .. li'lc6 12.dxc5 ! ? (The line :
12 .h4 c4 13 .ie2 b5 has been ana
lyzed below after the move order:
1l. .. c4 12 .ie2 b5 13.h4 li'lc6; simi
lar positions arise after 12.1l*'f4 c4
13 .ie2 b5.). Here, the natural
moves 12 . . . 'Wa5 13.'Wf4 Wxc5 14.
li'ld4 id7 (It is too passive for
Black to continue with 14 . . . li'lxd4
15.Wxd4 Wxd4 16.cxd4 id7 17.
Elhb1 Elb8 18.a4 r:J1e7 19.a5t with a
small but stable advantage for
White, Brynell - Bagirov, Lenin
grad 1989.) 15.Elhb1 b6 (This is a
recommendation in the annota
tions to the game Leko - Hueb
ner, instead, 15 . . . li'ld8?! 16.a4 Elc8
was tried in the game Morozevich
- Vallejo Pons, Pamplona 1999,
but of course with tragic conse
quences for the Spanish grand
master: 17.Elb3 a6 18 .h4 Elc7 19 .g4
li'lc6 2 0 . li'lxc6 ixc6 2 l.'Wb4 - here
Morozevich recommends 2 l.h5t
- 2 1 . . . 'Wxb4 2 2 . cxb4t and White
went on to convert his minimal
advantage into the full point.) 16.
a4 li'la5 17.ia6 leads to a position
in which White succeeds in tem
porarily blocking his opponent's
queenside, but Black's position is
quite safe, Leko - Huebner, Dort
mund 2000. Black can consider
Leko's suggestions - 17 . . . Eld8 or
17 . . . 'We7.
12 . .ie2 b5
296
13.h4
White is trying to consistently
implement his plan of g2-g4-g5.
He has tested some other ideas
too.
After 13.Elhb1 id7 14.'Wf4,
Black can try 14 . . . li'l c6 ! ?, exploit
ing the fact that after 15.Elxb5, he
has the tactical shot 15 . . . g5 ! +
The move 13.a4 breaks up
Black's pawn-structure and pre
vents the threat of b5-b4, but pre
sents Black with other possibili
ties: 13 . . . bxa4 14.Elxa4 id7 15.
Elaa1 li'lc6 16.h4 aS 17.'Wf4 a4 18.
g4, Ganguly - Volkov, Moscow
2 0 07. After the immediate reac-
13
tt:Jc6 14.a3
14
a5 15.\Wf4 i.d7
ll
tl:lc6
12.l"i:h3 c4
b) ll.h4
This plan is based on exerting
piece-pressure against Black's
kingside. White's rook is deployed
on the third rank and his knight is
developed on f4.
13.i.e2
An important point here is
that White cannot play 13 J"!g3
cxd3 14.\Wxg7+ @e7 1S.\Wf6+ @d7
16.\Wxf7+ tt:Je7+ when Black has a
big advantage, since 17J"!g6 l"i:f8
18.\Wxe6+ @e8 does not work and
so White can resign, Kopec Smith, Virginia Beach 2 0 04 .
13.i.fl b S 14.l2Je2 a S (It i s also
good for Black to play here 14 . . .
l"i:b8 1S.a3 \WaS, exploiting the fact
297
Chapter 36
that White's rook on a1 is unde
fended. 16.f3 d7 17.g4 rile?
18.g2 b4 19.cxb4 l"1xb4 20.axb4
xa1 2 l.a3 xa3 2 2 . !"1xa3 li:Jxb4
23. !"1xa7 !"1b8 24.f4 li:Jc6 25.!"1a1 f6
2 6.h5 - An equal endgame with
an already familiar pawn-struc
ture has arisen and here the play
ers agreed to a draw, Volokitin Vallejo Pons, Wijk aan Zee 2009.)
15.a3 d7 16.li:Jf4
13 . . .b5
14.f4
This move is played with the
idea of increasing the effect of the
advance of the g-pawn by moving
the bishop to the h5-square.
If 14.!"1f3 a5 15.a3 d7 16.li:Jh3
li:Je7oo Arnold - Almasi, Budapest
1997.
Or 14.a3 a5 15.f4 !"1a7 16.h5
e7 17.!"1g3 l"1h7 18.!"1f3 rileS 19.
\Wg3 g6 2 0 .!"1f6 b4 2 l.d1 h5
2 2 . li:Jh3 rild8 23.li:Jf4 d7 24.\WgS
bxc3 + 25. rile3 !"1c7 2 6 .li:Jxh5 gxh5
27.\Wg8+ e8 28.\Wxh7 li:Jxd4oo
14
15
i.d7
18.g5
The preparatory move 18.l::l a h1
was tested in the game Kinder
mann - Reefschlaeger, Alten
kirchen 1999: 18 . . . l::l a 7 19.gS CiJe7
2 0.JJ.g4. Here Black missed a
wonderful opportunity to close
the kingside with the move 20 . . .
hS ! , since White would lose a
piece after 2 1 .he6? 'it>g8 2 2 .JJ.fS
g6.
18
hxg5
19.hxg5
'it>e7
15.i.h5
It is premature for White to
play 1S.g4?! b4 ! 16.cxb4 'Wb6 17.
l::l b 1 CiJxd4 18.c3 CiJc6 19.a4 'Wc7
2 0 .l::l e 3 d4 21.l::l e 4, Areshchenko -
299
Part 9
The move 4.e5 introduces the Steinitz variation and the game usu
ally develops into the sort of complex positional struggle of which the
first World Champion was so fond! Nowadays, the tabia of the varia
tion arises after 4 . . . tt'lfd7 5.f4 c5 6.tt'lf3 tt'lc6 7.e3 . All the typical fea
tures of the French defence are displayed here - the passive bishop on
c8 and the undermining pawn-breaks against White's centre, ranging
from the routine f7-f6 and c7-c5 to the more classical b5-b4 and the
ultra-modern g7-g5. White's plan is often based on his control of the
d4-outpost; posted there, his knight is usually very powerful. His active
play is usually connected with a pawn-storm on the kingside (particu
larly in positions with opposite sides castling), or with a combination of
piece-pressure and the pawn-break f4-f5. Players of the black pieces
are attracted to this line because it is reliable but they can also play it
actively and sharply. I believe that at present this is a very important
variation of the French defence.
300
Chapter 37
5.exd5
I think it is a bit artificial for
White to play 5.'Llf3 cxd4 6.'Llxd4
eS (White can counter 6 . . . 'Llc6
with 7.i.b5 ! ?) 7.'Llf3 d4 (It is worse
for Black to choose 7 . . . dxe4 8 .
i.b5+ i.d7 9.'Llxe5 i.b4 10.'Llxd7
'Llbxd7 11.0-0 i.xc3 12 .bxc3 0-0
13 .i.a3 l"le8 14.l"lb1 and White has
the initiative.) 8.'Lle2
We
shall
now
analyze
a)
a) 4 . .id3
Sometimes White maintains
the tension in the centre in this
fashion.
4 . . . c5
This is the best move for Black.
He tries to undermine his oppo
nent's centre.
Chapter 37
is a typical manoeuvre. In pawn
structures of this type, which are
completely untypical for the
French defence, it is advanta
geous for Black to exchange the
dark-squared bishops and he can
achieve this here.) 10 .id2 4Jc6
ll.ixb4 4Jxb4 1 2 . 0-0 0-0 13.a3
4Jxd3 14.cxd3 b6 15 .h3 ixf3 16.
xf3 g6 and Black has the better
position.
5 . . . cxd4
6 .. )l:\xd5
6)L\b5
Here White often plays 6.ib5+
id7, for example : 7.xd4 ixb5
8 .4Jxb5 4Jxd5 9.4Je2 4Jc6 10 .a4
a6 (After 10 . . . ic5 ! ? Black has
chances of seizing the initiative.)
11.4Jbd4 4Jb6 12 .4Jxc6 4Jxa4 13.
4Jxd8 Elxd8 14.0-0 ie7 15.b3 if6
16.Elbl lLlc3 17.4Jxc3 ixc3 = Stein
itz - Blackburne, Vienna 1873, or
7.ixd7+ 7 . . . xd7 8.'Wxd4 4Jc6 !
9 .dl exd5 10.4Jf3 d4 (It would
be too risky for Black to opt for
10 . . . 0-0-0?! 11.0-0 4Je4 12 .ie3
f5 13.4Jb5 a6 14.4Jbd4 id6 15.
4Jxc6 bxc6 16.d3 b7 17.c4 d4
18.ig5 Eld7 19.Elabl h6 2 0 .id2
ib8 2 1.b4 g5 2 2 .a4 Elg8 23.c5 and
302
7)L\f3
7.4Jxd4 e5 ! This sharp move
enables Black to obtain a fine po
sition. (If 7 . . . ib4+ 8.id2 g5 9.
ixb4 4Jxb4 10.4Jgf3 4Jxd3 + 11.
xd3 a5+ 12 .c3 4Jc6 13.4Jxc6
bxc6 14.'Wd6 ib7 15.0-0-0 Eld8
16.'Wxd8 + 'Wxd8 17.Elxd8 + lt>xd8,
Black might have problems in this
endgame, Ljubojevic - Padevsky,
Amsterdam 1972 .) 8.'We2 (8.4Jdf3
4Jb4 9.ic4 'Wxdl + 10.\t>xdl f6 and
only Black can think about an ad
vantage.) 8 . . . ib4+ 9.c3 0-0 10.
4Jb3 4Jxc3 (10 ... e4 ! ?) ll.bxc3
ixc3+ 12 .id2 ixa1 13.4Jxal lLlc6,
Black has some initiative in a po-
..
<tlc6
5.<tlce2.
bl) 5.<tlf3 ! ?
White sometimes prefers to
defend his centre with pieces.
5 . . . c5
b) 4.e5 <tlfd7
6.dxc5
Once in a while White even
plays 6 .ib5 here, but I believe
Black has various ways to solve all
his problems. Here is j ust one of
his possibilities : 6 . . . a6 7.hd7 +
ixd7 8 . 0 - 0 tLlc6 9J"le1 'Wc7 10 .ie3
cxd4 l l.hd4 ie7 12.tLle2 0-0
13.'Wd2 l:'i:fc8 14.l:'i:ac1 b5 15.tLlg3
tLlxd4 16.<tlxd4 'Wc4 17.b3 'Wc3
18 .'Wxc3 l:'i:xc3 with a considerable
advantage for Black, Buckley Riazantsev, Cannes 1997.
White has also tried 6.ie3 ? !
tLl c 6 7.ib5 cxd4 8.ttlxd4 'Wc7
(Here Black could consider 8 . . .
ttldxe5 9.f4 a 6 10.fxe5 axb5 11.
0-0 ic5 1 2 . ttlcxb5 0-0 13.Wh1
ie7 14.tLlf3 l:'i:a4 ! ? and his position
is preferable.) 9.f4 ic5 10 .'Wd2 a6
303
Chapter 37
11 .i.e2 0-0. A position from the
Classical variation has arisen, ex
cept that White had lost a tempo.
12.0-0-0 b5 13.li:J xc6 xc6 14.
i.xc5 'Llxc5 15.i.f3 i.b7 16.f5 b4
17.f6 gxf6 18 .h6 fxe5 19.g5+
wh8 2 0 .f6+ Wg8 2 1.g5+ wh8
2 2 .f6+ Wg8 23 .g5 + , draw,
Rausis - Bricard, Paris 1995.
8.i.d3
8 . . . f6
6
..
'Llc6
7.i.f4 .ixc5
Black can also continue with
7 . . . 'Llxc5. For example, Ian Nepo
mniachtchi is an keen fan of the
following line for White : 8 .h4 a6
9.a3 b5 10 .h5 h6 1U''lh 4 i.b7 1 2 .
ig3 b6 13.b4 'Ll d 7 14.d2. One
cannot expect to gain an advan
tage with such wild play, but you
can certainly confuse your oppo304
9.exf6 xf6
This is an interesting idea for
Black and it less well-analyzed
than 9 . . . 'Llf6.
1 0 . . . 7
11 . . . 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 - 0 h6 13
.th4
ll.e2
White occasionally plays 11 .
.th4 ttJ deS (It was quite unclear
what Black was trying to achieve
with 11 . . . h6 12.0-0 0-0 13 . .tg3
4:Jf6 14.4:Je5 ttJxeS 15.he5 .td7 16.
'i!ih1 .tc6 17.f4 4:Je4 18 .e2 4:Jd6
19.4:Jb5 hbS 2 0 .hb5 ltJfS 2 1.c3
4:Je3 2 2 . E1f3 4:Jg4 23 .h3 ttJxeS 24.
xeS= Tsigelnitskiy - Leniart,
Moscow 2006.) 1 2 .4:Jxe5 ttJxeS
13 . . . a6
Black has a reasonable alter
native here in 13 . . . .tb4 ! ? , since it
is ineffective for White to contin
ue with 14.4:Jb5 (Or 14.e3 hc3
305
Chapter 37
15.bxc3 e5 with an excellent game
for Black.) 14 . . . a6 15. l2Jc7 \Wf4+
16.'\t>b1 \Wxc7 17.\Wxe6+ j:\f7 18.
ih7+ c1s . .ig6 ttJb6 ! ) 1s ... mfs 19.
\Wxd5 l2Jf6 2 0 . .ixf6 gxf6 and
White's attack has reached a dead
end, while Black has retained an
extra piece.
2 0 .c!Lle5 c!Llxe5
b2) 5.c!Llce2
This move is practically
White's only real alternative to
the Classical system with 5.f4. He
wants to play the Advance varia306
c5 6.f4
Chapter 37
tt:Jxf3 + 2 0 .gxf3 e5 2 1 .j!,l{d2 hb2
2 2 . Elc7 Elf7 23. 'tt> g 2 xa3 24.Elfl
and White won from this complex
position, Morozevich - Gurevich,
Moscow 2001.) 10. 'tt> f2 0-0+ 11.
LLlf3 tt:Jc6 12.a3 (If 12 .e3, Black
can try 12 . . . tt:Jb6 ! ?) 12 . . . LLldxe5 (It
looks very strong for Black to play
the novelty 12 . . . a5 ! with the idea
of transferring the bishop to the
b6-square, attacking White's cen
tre and his king. 13 .e3 b6 14.h4
LLldxe5 15.dxe5 d4 and Black seiz
es the initiative.) 13.axb4 (13.dxe5
c5+ 14. 'tt> e 1 tt:Jxe5 15.tt:Jxe5 f2 +
16. 'tt> d 2 j!,l[g5 + 17.'tt> c 2 j!,l{xe5 18.
'tt> b 1 d7 19.LLlg3 Elac8 2 0 .d3
e8 2 l.d2 g6 2 2 .hg6 hxg6
23 .c3 d4 24.b4 Elf4 25.\t>a2.
White realized his extra piece,
Popov - Danin, Smolensk 2005.)
13 ... "*'h4+ 14. 'tt> g 1 LLlxf3 + 15.gxf3
Elxf3 16. LLlg3 LLlxd4 17.g2 Elf7
18 .e3 tt:Jf5 19.LLlxf5 Elxf5 2 0 .b5
d7 21.b6 a6 2 2 .j!,l{d4 j!,l{h5 23.h3
c6 24.'tt> h 2 and Black's compen
sation was insufficient in the
game Polgar - Hernandez, Meri
da 2 0 0 0 .
6 . . .c!i)c6
308
7.c3
After 7.tt:Jf3 it would be quite
logical for Black to play 7 . . . b5, fol
lowed by the standard pawn-of
fensive on the queenside and the
development of the bishop to a6.
(Of course, the natural move 7 . . .
e7 i s quite playable too.). 8.a3
Elb8 9 .g3 j!,l{b6 10 .c3 a5 11.g2 b4
1 2 . axb4 axb4 13. 0 - 0 a6 14.Elf2
cxd4 15.tt:Jexd4 c5 16.'tt> h 1 0-0
17.e3 bxc3 18.bxc3 c4 and
Black's position is slightly better,
Tiviakov - Navara, Sibenik 2009.
In this pawn structure, Black
has several typical ideas and
plans. He can also prepare a clas
sic knight-sacrifice on e5 after
preparation with f6, e7, j!,l{b6 and
0-0.
7 b6
. . .
8.lt:lf3 f6
9.a3
This move is standard in simi
lar positions - White prevents the
309
Chapter 37
possible check from the b4-square
and prepares the pawn-advance
b2-b4, seizing extra space.
He has a safer plan here - 9 .g3
cxd4 10.cxd4 (10.<Llexd4 ! ? <Llxd4
11.<Llxd4 cS and Black has a good
position ; 1l.cxd4 fxeS 12 .fxeS
b4+ 13.<>f2 ! ? e7 14.\t>g2 <Llb8
1S.d3 <Llc6 16.:1'11 d7 17.:1'1f2
0-0-0 18.e3 E1df8 19.a3 and it
appears that White is slightly bet
ter, Kosintseva - Edouard, Cap
d'Agde 2010 ; 10 . . . fxeS ! ? 1l .ti:lxe6
e4 12.<LlfgS <Llf6 13.\Wb3 - this po
sition needs further practical test
ing.)
Now:
Black should refrain from 13 . . .
\WaS 14.\Wc2 <LlcS 1S.dxcS d 4 since
after 16.0-0-0 dxc3 17.<LlgS E1fS
18.c4 he is in a great trouble.
13 . . . e7 14.a3. White is able to
hold his centre in this paradoxical
fashion and thus retain the open
ing advantage. (It is weaker to
play 14.\Wd2? gS ! 1S.<LlxgS xgS
16.hgS ti:lxd4 17.g2 <LlxeS 18.
0-0-0 E1f2 19.\Wxf2 <Llb3+ 20.
axb3 \Wxf2 2 1.:1'1d2 \WfS 2 2 .h6
<Lld3+ 23.<>b1 <Llf2 + 0-1 Dolmatov
- Bareev, Elista 1997. White
should also avoid 14.h3? \Wxb2
1S.\Wc1 - 1S.xe6+ ? <>h8 16.ti:la4
\Wg2 ! - + - 1S . . . \Wxc1 + 16.:1'1xc1 <Llb6
17.<LlbS <Lld8 18.<Llc7 :1'1b8 19.0-0
h6 2 0 .d2 <Llc4 2 l .c3 bS and
White lost this pawn-down end
game, Anand - Sisniega, Philadelphia 1987.) 14 . . . :1'1f7 1S.ti:la4
\Wd8 16.h4 <Llf8 (16 . . . <Llb6 ! ?) 17.
d3 d7 18.b4 b6 19.<Llc3 aS 2 0 .
bS <Lla7 21.<LlgS hgS 2 2 .xgS \WeB
23 .\We2 :1'1c8 24.d2 :1'1c7 2S.E1fl
E1xf1+ 26.\t>xfl Dubinin - Ala
tortsev, Leningrad 1947.
13 . . . <LldxeS ! This is a powerful
1 0 .h4
10 . . . 0 - 0
1Uh3
.ie7
Chapter 37
ficient compensation for the
knight. He can also try 17 . . . Elxf3
18.gxf3 li:Jxd4 19 .hh7+ lt>xh7
2 0 .V!ffxd4 and the position is un
clear.)
ll . . . a5 12.b3
The play of both sides might
seem rather mysterious to any
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'J c3 l:i'Jf6 4.e5 l:i'Jfd7 5. Ci'J ce2 c5 6j4 l:i'J c6
non-specialists in this variation.
12
c7
13.tbegl
White loses immediately after
13. Ci'Jg3?? cxd4 (There was only
one game played with this line
and Black decided to trust his op
ponent and played only to equal
ize : 13 . . . b6 14.id3 f5 15.Ci'Jg5 ixg5
16.hxg5 g6 17.ie3 ia6 18. mf2
ixd3 19.'\Wxd3 E!f7 20.E!hh1 E!c8
2 1 . E!hcl cxd4 2 2 . cxd4 Wb7 23.Ci'Je2
E!ff8 24.Ci'Jc3 and the players
agreed to a draw, Klimov - Danin,
Smolensk 2 005.) 14.cxd4 fxe5
15.fxe5 Ci'Jdxe5-+
16.dxe5
ll::l xe5
17.ll::l xe5
xe5+ 18.e2 hh4+ ?
Anand recommended here the
move 18 . . . Wc7, followed by the
advance of his centre pawns. Nev
ertheless, White is slightly better.
19.c!>dt
13
..
a4
Anand recommended 13 . . . b6 ! ?
i n his annotations to the game
and this move gives Black an ex
cellent position. 14.ie3 ia6 15.
ixa6 E!xa6. Now White's attack-
313
Chapter 38
6.ltlf3
White should avoid the inferi
or line 6.dxc5 'Llc6 (White can an
swer 6 . . . ixc5 with 7.Wg4 ! ?) 7.a3
ixc5 8.Wg4 0-0 9.id3 (9J2jf3.
Here it would be interesting for
Black to try 9 . . . Wb6 ! ? 10 .id3
if2 + 1l.We2 f5 12 .Wh3 'Llc5 with a
good position.) After 9 . . . We7 10.
id2 f6 1l.Wh4 h6 1 2 .exf6 'Llxf6
13.0-0-0 e5 14.fxe5 'Llxe5 15.'Llf3
'Llxd3 + 16.cxd3 b5 17J'l:he1 Wb7
18 .ie3 ixe3 + 19.l'i:xe3 aS Black
went on to gain a winning posi
tion, but then. . . lost the game,
Short - Morozevich, Reggio Emil
ia 2 0 1 0 .
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. liJc3 liJf6 4.e5 liJfd7 5f4 c5 6. liJ.f3 liJc6 7. ie3 Vf1 b6
defence, Viktor Lvovich Korch
noi, treated this position in a very
original fashion : 8 .ie2 cxd4
9 .liJxd4 ic5 10.Vfid2 0-0 1 1 .l'!d1
Vfih4+ 1 2 .if2 Vf1e7 13.0-0 liJb6
14.liJcb5 id7 15.Vf1e3 liJxd4 16.
liJxd4 B:bc8 17.Vf1h3 f5 18.c3 Vf1e8
19.ih5 g6 2 0 .ie2 ixd4 2 1 . l'!xd4
ib5 and Black equalized, Landa
- Korchnoi, Reggio Emilia 2 007)
8 . . . Vf1a5 9 . a3 b5
a) 7 Vf1b6
. . .
8.ll:\ a4
It is riskier for White to opt for
8.Vf1d2 vt1xb2 9.B:b1 Vf1a3 10.ib5 ! ?
(10.liJb5? vt1xa2 ll.l'!c1 B:b8 12 .ie2
cxd4 13.liJfxd4 ib4 14.c3 Vf1xd2+
15.<i>xd2 ic5 and White has no
compensation whatsoever for the
two sacrificed pawns, Ragger Andreikin, Gaziantep 2008. In
the game Nakamura - Mo315
Chapter 38
rozevich, Reggio Emilia 2 0 1 2 ,
White continued with 10.f5? ! a6
11.fxe6 fxe6 12 . .te2 .te7 13 .0-0
0-0 14. i>h1 cxd4 15.Ct:Jxd4 tt:Jdxe5,
but in the resulting position he
could already resign.) 10 . . . c4
(10 .. .'a5 ? ! 11.0-0 c4 12.f5 tt:Jb6
13.\19e1 exf5 14.a4 .te6 15 . .td2 .tb4
16J''1 xb4 xb4 17.Ct:Je4 b2 18.
Ct:Jd6+ i>f8 19 . .tc3 xc2 2 0 .Ct:Jxb7
tt:Jxa4 2 L.tb4+ ci>g8 22 ..txc6 c8
23.f2 b3 24.Ct:Ja5+- Kamslq Akobian, Saint-Louis 2011) 11.f5
tt:Jb6 12 .f6 g6 13.0-0 .td7 14.bc6
bxc6 15.Ct:Je2 h6 16 .c3 0-0-0 17.
h4 ci>b7 18.Ct:Jh2 i>a8 19. Ct:Jg4 g5
2 0 .hxg5 hxg5 Sethuraman Volkov, Vrachati 2 0 1 1 .
I t i s too slow for White t o play
8.a3? ! cxd4 9.Ct:Jxd4 .tc5 10.Ct:Ja4
aS+ 1 l.c3 .txd4 12 . .txd4 Ct:Jxd4
13.xd4 b6 14 . .te2 (White should
not go into an endgame here, be
cause his knight on a4 will be un
able to come into play any time
soon: 14.b4 xb4 15.axb4 ci>e7
16 ..tb5 .tb7 17. 0-0 hd8 18.i>f2
f6 19 . .txd7 xd7 2 0 . i>e3 f8 2 l.b3
.tc6 2 2 .Ct:Jb2 .tbs 23.f3 ci>d8 24.
d1 ci>e7 25.a1 c7 26.i>d4 .te8
27.e1 .tg6 with advantage to
Black, Nunn - Ehlvest, Reykjavik
1988.) 14 . . . .ta6 15 . .td1 b5 16.b4
c8 17.Ct:Jb2 c6 18.c1 0-0
(Black can resort to a more con
crete response here - 18 .. .f6 19.
exf6 tt:Jxf6 2 0 . .tf3 ? ! 0-0 2l.c4?
d7 2 2 . a4 .txc4 23.tt:Jxc4 xa4
24.0-0 xb4 and he gained a
winning position in the game
Gueroff - Jackelen, Germany
316
8 . . .'a5+ 9.c3
9 . . . cxd4
This is an aggressive move
based on a piece-sacrifice. Inci
dentally, Black is not obliged to
play so riskily. He has alternatives
which lead to a quiet positional
struggle.
9 . . . c4 10.b4 c7 1 1.g3 .te7 12 .
.th3 (12 . .tg2 ! ? f5 13 .0-0 tt:Jf8 14.
b1 b6 15.g4 ! fxg4 16.Ct:Jd2 Ct:Jg6?
17.f5 exf5 18.bd5 d7 19 . .txc4
f4 20 . .txf4 Ct:Jxd4 2 L.tg3 Ct:Je6 2 2 .
Ct:Je4+- Edouard - Michiels, Ant
werp 2011. Black should have
been less generous and preserved
his centre with 16 . . . h5 17.f5 tt:Jd8
and Black should be able to with
stand his opponent's initial offen
sive.)
Chapter 38
first to sharpen the game and af
ter 19 . . . bS? ! 2 0 .a4 aS? 2 l.axbS
LL'l a7 2 2 .b6! Wxb6 23 J''1 x aS, he
ended up a pawn down in an infe
rior position, Almasi - Volkov,
Nakhchivan 2011.) 13.LL'lb2 d7
14.a4. It seems that White has se
cured his queenside and will soon
begin his kingside offensive. The
position on the board however,
changes with dramatically speed.
14 . . . LL'lg6 1S.We1 fS 16.LL'lgS 0-0 17.
Wg3 a6 18J'U3 bS 19.aS LL'lxb4 !
White's attack never even started
and Black's pawn-mass settled
the issue, Shomoev - Volkov,
Tomsk 2006.
Black can also try a very clever
move order here - 9 . . . b6 10.d2
c4 1 1.b4
13
. . .
b6
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. Ci'J c3 Ci'Jf6 4.e5 Ci'Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. Ci'Jf3 Ci'J c6 7. e3 Wfb6
Black with an acceptable position.
14J"1b1 gxf4 (White won beauti
fully after 14 . . . a6 15.d3 gxf4
16.0-0 4Jxe5 17.4Jb6 l"lb8 18.4Jxc8
- 18.4Jf3 ! ? - 18 . . . l"lxc8 19.l"lxb7
4Jxd3 20 .Wfh5 0-0 21 . 4Je4 l"lc1
2 2 . l"lxc1 4Jxc1 23.4Jf6+ lt>g7 24.
4Je8+ Wh8 25.Wfe5+ f6 26.l"lxh7+
Kalegin - Okotchik, Russia 1992.)
15 .b5 l"lb8 16.4Jc5 Wfc3 17.4Jd3 a6
18.l"lc1 Wfa3 19.Wfb3 Wfa5 2 0 .hd7+
xd7 21.4Jxf4 Short - Timman,
Amsterdam 1994.
Another possible try for White
here is 13 . . . 0- 0 ! ? 14.d3 b5 15.
Ci'Jb2 Ci'Jb6 16.0-0 (It is weaker for
White to play the cautious move
16.Wfc2 Ci'Jc4 17.hh7+ Wh8 18.
d3 d7 19.We2 l"lac8 2 0 .4Jf3 f6
2 1.hc4 bxc4 2 2 .4Jxd4 fxe5 23.
fxe5 l"lf4 and White is unable to
maintain the blockade, so Black's
position is good enough. He has
no problems either after 18.4Jbxc4
bxc4 19.0-0 d3 2 0.xd3 cxd3
21.Wfxd3 a6 2 2 .Wfh3 + Wg8 23.
l"lf2 l"lac8 .) 16 . . . 4Jc4
Chapter 38
lt'lh4 d3 23.E1f3 E1e8 24.lt'lxg6 fxg6
25.E1g3 'Wh7 26.E1xg6+ Wh8 27.
'Wg5 E1f8 28.E1h6 E1b8 29.E1xh7+
<>xh7 30 .'Wh5+ <>g7 31.'Wg5+ <>h7
32.f5 E1xf5 33 .'We7+ Wg6 34.'Wc7
E1a8 35.E1b1 E1f7 36.'Wc6 d2 37.'Wa4
d7 38.'Wc2 + Wg7 39 .'Wxd2 and
White realized his advantage in
the game Edouard - Hovhani
sian, Antwerp 2011) 22 .. .f6 (22 . . .
exfS 23.E1ae1 f6 24.exf6 'Wh7 25.
'Wf4 'Wf7 26.E1e7 'Wxf6 27.E1fe1 E1f7
2 8 . E1xf7 Wxf7 29.lt'lg5+ Wg7 30.
'Wc7+ <>h6 31.'Wh7+ <>xg5 32 .g3
1-0 Zherebukh - Jaiswal, New
Delhi 2011.) 23 .fxg6 'Wg7 24.'Wh5
d7 25.exf6 E1xf6 26.lt'le5 E1af8
27.E1xf6 E1xf6 28.E1b1 e8 29.E1b8
E1f8 30.'Wh3 hg6 31.'Wxe6+ f7
3 2 . E1xf8+ 'Wxf8 33.'Wg4+ 'Wg7 34.
'Wxd4, Black's position is accepta
ble in this endgame, Frolyanov Danin, Belgorod 2010 .
17 'Wa3
18.'Wb5+ e7 19. 0 - 0
White's knights are rather
misplaced, but Black cannot ex
ploit this.
19 'We3+
21.1'!afl
14.d3 a6
Black plays quietly, relying on
his three pawns and White's un
coordinated pieces.
15.liJb2 ttlc5
After 15 . . . hd3 16.lt'ld2 lt'lc5
17.lt'lf2 , White easily consolidates
320
2 0 .E1f2
1'!hc8
l.e4 e6 2.d4 dS 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. 4Jj3 4Jc6 7. 1l.e3 a6
tbdl e4 24. axb3 l'k5 25.a6
@f8 26.d2 'it>g7 27.a4 bl
28.xd4 and White went on to
win, S.Zhigalko - Podolchenko,
Minsk 2 0 11.
b) 7 ... a6
8.d2
8.4Je2 ! ? This is an original and
fashionable move. White is trying
to emphasize that Black's last
move is useless, by transposing to
positions more typical of the
S.lij ce2 variation. However, the
point is that White's extra tempo
- the move ie3 - might even turn
out to be harmful for him. Black
has some active, concrete possi
bilities up his sleeve. 8 . . . b6
(Black has a reasonable alterna
tive here : 8 . . . ie7 9.c3 0-0 10.a3
f6 11.4Jg3 cxd4 12.cxd4 b6 13.
d2 ltJ aS 14.:gd1 b3 ! 1s.:gc1 4Jb6
16.:gc3 a2 17.id3 4Jbc4 18.c2
fS 19.ic1 bS 2 0 . 0 - 0 b4 21.axb4
hb4+ Svidler - Vitiugov, Mos
cow 2 0 0 9 ; lO.dxcS ! ? ttJxcS 11.
4Jed4 4Jxd4 1 2 .4Jxd4 id7 13.ie2
with relatively quiet play.) 9.Wc1
(With 9.:gb1 WaS+ 10 .id2 Wc7
1 1.c3 bS 12 .f5 exfS 13.4Jf4 4Jb6
14.id3 c4 15.ic2 ie7 16.0-0 g6
17.b3 cxb3 18.axb3 0-0 19 .e1
4Jd8 2 0 .c4 dxc4 2 1.ia5 ib7 2 2 .
bxc4 hf3 23.:gxf3 Wxc4, White
sacrificed too much material and
went on to lose, Shirov - An
dreikin, Plovdiv 2010.)
Chapter 38
16.Lt:l xc6 bxc6 17.xcS 'xeS Black's centre should compensate
for the vulnerability of his king.
Instead it would be interesting for
Black to play: 13 . . . h6 ! ? 14.gxh6
xh6 1S.xh6 'Wxd4 16.'Wf4 'Wxf4
17.xf4 'Llc6 with a very compli
cated endgame.) 10 . . . cxd4 11.cxd4
b4+ 1 2 . f2 f6 13 .g3 g4 ! Mo
rozevich improves on his own
previous game. (Or 13 . . . E1f8? 14.
g2 g4 1S.l2:lh4 E1g8 16.h3 hS 17.
hxg4 hxg4 18.'Llc3 fxeS 19 .fxeS
'LlcxeS 20.dxeS d4 2 1 .'Lla4 'WaS
2 2 .'Wc4 'LlxeS 23.'Wxd4 'Llf3 24.
'Llxf3 gxf3 + 2S.f2 'Wxa4 26.d3
Topalov - Morozevich, Morelia/
Linares 20 07.) 14.'Llh4 fxeS 1S.
fxeS 'LldxeS 16.dxeS d4 17.f4 E1f8
18.g2 d7 19 .h3 d3 20.hxg4
dxe2 2 1.xe2 'Lld4, White's king is
in a more perilous situation than
its black counterpart, Predojevic
- Morozevich, Sarajevo 2008.
8 . . . b5
9.a3
This is the most fashionable
move in the position. White tem
porarily impedes the advance of
his opponent's pawns.
322
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. tt'J c3 tt'Jf6 4.e5 tt'Jfd7 5.f4 c5 6. tt'Jf3 tt'J c6 7. .ie3 a6
.ixc4 ! dxc4 17.'1We2 and Black's
position was practically hopeless
- 16 . . . '1Wf6 17 . .ig2 .ie7? (17 . . . .ic5 ! )
18 J':1he1 g 5 19 .fxe6 .ixe6 2 0.b3
gxf4 21.bxc4+- lnarkiev - Vitiu
gov, Dagomys 2008.) 11 ..ig2 a5
1 2 . 0-0 .ia6 13J':1f2 h5 14.h3 '&b6
15.l"l:d1 l"l:c8 16.g4 hxg4 17.hxg4
.ixe2 18.l"l:xe2 cxd4 19.tt'Jxd4 tt'Jxd4
20 . .ixd4 '&xd4+ 21.'1Wxd4 .ic5 and
Black has good prospects in the
approaching endgame, Richards
- Kiriakov, West Bromwich 2 005.
For a long time White used to
play here 9 .dxc5 .ixc5
Chapter 38
13.4Je2 aS 14. 0 - 0 .ia6 1S.c;t>h1
4Je7
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3. ltJ c3 ltJf6 4.e5 ltJfd7 5j4 c5 6. ltJj3 ltJ c 6 7. .ie3 a6
White sometimes tries the hy
peractive line : 9.h4 b4 10.ltJe2
.ie7
Khanty-Mansiysk 2 011.
..
Wfb6
Chapter 38
l O . lLle2
This move is the best.
Black equalizes easily after
10 .e2 b7 11.0-0 cxd4 1Vuxd4
cS 13J'!ad1 !"k8 14J"\f3 CiJxd4 15.
xd4 hd4+ 16.xd4 We7 17J"\g3
Ei:hg8 18.xb6 CiJxb6 19.Ei:d4 and
the players agreed to a draw, Na
jer - Vitiugov, Dagomys 2009.
It would be interesting for
White to opt for 10.g3 cxd4 11.
CiJxd4 CiJxd4 12 .xd4 cS 13.CiJe2
xd4 14.xd4 b7 15.xb6 CiJxb6
16.CiJd4 We7 17.h3 g6 18.fl CiJc4
19.b3 CiJ aS 2 0 . Wd2 CiJc6 2 l . We3
CiJxd4 2 2 .Wxd4 c6 and his posi
tion is passive but very solid in
this endgame. 23 .e2 hS 24.Ei:hfl
d7 25.l"i:f3 l"i:ac8 26.l"i:c1 Ei:hg8 !
This is an important manoeuvre.
Black is maybe threatening gS,
maybe not, but White has to con
sider this possibility. 27.h4. I
don't think White can breach
Black's defences after this move,
Nepomniachtchi - Grachev, Mos
cow 2 0 1 0 .
10 ... b4! ?
I was able to demonstrate this
idea back in the year 2009. Black
326
l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3)1jc3 ti:Jj6 4.e5 ti:Jfd7 5f4 c5 6. ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 7. .ie3 a6
.ih4 24.\Wg4 g5 25 . .id2 Ei:de8 26.
0-0-0 ti:Ja5 and Black seized the
initiative and triumphed in the
subsequent struggle, Kasparov Radjabov, Linares 2 003.
ll.axb4
ll . . JWxb4
This is the point.
12.c3
Some practical tests are re
quired of the endgame arising af
ter 12.\Wxb4 ti:Jxb4 13.Wd2 and
now Black has plenty of possibili
ties on almost every move. 13 . . . c4
(13 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ; 13 . . . ti:Jc6 ! ?) 14.g4 h5
(14 . . . ti:Jb6 ! ? ) 15.gxh5 Ei:xh5 with a
very complicated position.
12
b7
(diagram)
13.ti:Jcl ! ?
This i s a non-standard deci
sion. It did not bring White any
success in this game, though . . .
After the introduction o f this
line for Black, it attracted some
popularity and several very inter
esting games have been played
from the diagram position during
Karjakin - Vitiugov,
Mansiysk 2009.
Khanty
327
Chapter 39
10.0-0-0
If White does not wish to study
theory, he has an interesting
alternative here, one which
should not be underestimated :
10.g3 ! ?
10
. . .
a6
Chapter 39
there arose an endgame in which
Black managed to hold the bal
ance convincingly, Svidler - Zv
jaginsev, Moscow 2010.) 13 . . . b5
14 .l2le2 b4 15.l2lc1 l2lxd4 ! Black
played very carefully, which
should be admired (White's idea
was 15 . . . a6 16.l2lb3 'a4 17.f5t
with initiative.). 16.'xd4 l2lc5 17.
h5 d7 18.h6 g6 19.l2lb3 l2lxb3
2 0 . axb3 mcB 21.f5 'c5 2 2 .\WxcS
2:xc5 and in the resulting end
game Black had no problems
achieving a draw, Naiditsch Grachev, Sibenik 2 0 1 1 .
I should like t o mention that
1 1 . . .\WaS ! ? is part of a new plan.
Previously Black connected the
preliminary exchange with the
standard move 11 . . . a6. He pre
vented the plan which we analyze
in our next chapter - 10 . . . a6 11.
l2lb3 - but as so often happens,
simpler was better.
ll.h4.
Positions of a quite different
character arise after 1l. CiJb3 which
we shall consider later.
White cannot hurt his oppo
nent much with 1l.CiJce2 l?!ffe 7 1 2 .
CiJb3 xe3 13.l?!ffx e3 f6 14.exf6
CiJxf6 15.h3 a5, and Black has a
good game, Svidler - Morozevich,
Moscow 2 005.
The move 1l.b1 seems to be
more precise, but is less aggres
sive.
Chapter 39
gen, in which Black managed to
equalize;
a good continuation is 11.. .1!tfe7
12 .h4 (12 .tt:lb3 ! ?). Here, in com
parison with the ll.h4 variation
Black's queen is a bit misplaced
on e7, but nevertheless it is ac
ceptable for him to continue with
12 .. .f6 , or 12 . . . tt:lxd4 13.hd4 bS
14.Elh3 b7, analogously to the
variation with 11 .1!tff2 ;
l l . . .tt:lxd4 12 .xd4 b S 13 .1!tfe3
1!tfb6 ! ? 14.xc5 tt:lxcS 15.d3 b4
16.tt:le2 aS 17.tt:ld4 a6 (Black can
also consider the attractive line:
17 . . . a4 18.f5 exfS 19.tt:lxf5 hfS
2 0 .hf5 Elfd8? and he obtains
good counterplay, Wojciechowski
Scibior, Szklarska Poreba
2 0 07.) 18.f5 tt:lxd3 (or 18 . . . hd3
19.cxd3 , with an edge for White.)
19.f6 ! ? Timoshenko - Korchnoi,
Panormo 2001. Now, instead of
accepting the pawn-sacrifice,
Black could have tried to fight for
the initiative by sacrificing mate
rial himself with 19 . . . b3 ! ? 2 0 . axb3
gxf6 21 .cxd3 a4 2 2 .exf6 h8
23.bxa4 Eltb8 24.Eld2 eS?
a) 11.1!tff2
332
a2) ll . . . hd4.
12 . . .1!tfe7
The idea of this move is not to
allow 1!tff2 -h4, as was played in the
game Kramnik - Radjabov.
It is also possible for Black to
opt for the routine and rather pas
sive move 12 . . . b6 ! ?
The seemingly attractive and
most popular move 12 . . . 1!tfc7 does
not solve his problems either.
13.d3 hd4. Black is forced to
entice the enemy queen to the d4square. (After 13 . . . b5, White has
the standard manoeuvre 14.1!tfh4 !
h6 15.tt:le2. It is interesting that
and now:
14 . . . V'ffc 5 15.tt:Je2 b5 16.Wb1 !
White can also play the move
16.1"\he1 and transpose to varia
tions with 14 . . . b5, but the position
now arising is one of the most im
portant in this variation and can
be reached via different move or
ders. In fact, Black can reach it by
force, if he so wishes, but this is
less favourable for him. 16 . . . b4
17.1"\c1 f6. This is probably Black's
most resilient defence. (He has
also tried 17 . . . V'ffxd4 18.tt:Jxd4 tt:Jc5
19.1"\hd1 tt:Ja4 - otherwise c2-c3 2 0 .1"1e1 d7 2 1.1"\e3, planning f4f5. White has a slight but stable
advantage, Khalifman - Gurev
ich, Germany 2002.) 18.exf6
Chapter 39
a6 2 U!e3 a4, Black obtains
sufficient counterplay, while he
should counter 17.bl with 17 . . .
b7, but not 1 7. . . b4? ! 18Jkl and
the inclusion of the moves l'l:hel ,
2: e8 is not in Black's favour. I n
fact, his position i s bound t o re
main worse, no matter what . . . )
14)i:le2 !
14 . . . b4
13.i.d3
(diagram)
13 . . . b5
We should like to highlight an
important detail : if 13 . . .xd4
14.1hd4 bS (14 . . . \WcS 1S.lLle2 - see
12 . . . \Wc7) White has a very strong
334
15.bl!
It would be less convincing for
White to choose 1S.\We3 ! ? aS
16.\Wh3 (he has a good alternative
here - 16.bS ! ) 16 . . . g6 17.''h6
a6 18.h4 b3 19.cxb3 , Kulaots -
15 . . . a5 16 ..ib5
Chapter 39
In fact, the point of this move
order for Black is to obtain this
position and to play here the
move 15 . . . b4 ! ?
I t looks risky, but i t cannot be
refuted directly.
After 1S .. .'cS there arises a
position which is disadvanta
geous for Black and which we an
alyzed using the move order 11. . .
'Llxd4 12 .ixd4 1l!ic7. Black has also
tried 1S . . . ib7 16J''l h e1 but now he
should avoid 16 . . . b4, which led to
an inferior position for Black after
17.'Lle2 aS 18.1lffe 3 'LlcS 19.'Lld4
'Lle4 2 0.ixe4 dxe4, Dolmatov Korchnoi, Las Vegas 1999 and
now, according to Korchnoi's rec
ommendation, 2 l . 'LlbS idS 2 2 .
'Ll d 6 fS 23 .g4. White's dominant
knight provides him with an over
whelming advantage. Instead, af
ter 16 . . . 1lficS 17.'Lle2 b4 18.fS 1l!ixd4
19.'Llxd4 E\ae8 2 0 .g4 E\e7 2 1.E\e2
exfS 2 2 .e6 'LlcS 23.gxfS fxe6 24.
fxe6 g6 2S.E1e3 E1f4 2 6.ie2 Wg7=
Black equalizes, Hillarp Persson
- Brynell, Lund 2 0 1 0 .
16.tl:le4 a5
336
. . .
.ixd4
12 ..ixd4 b5 13 ..ie3 b4
White has a slight edge after
13 . . . V!fa5 14. b1 ib7 15.t2le4;!;
Of course, it is also possible for
Black to play patiently with 13 . . .
ib7, for example: 14.id3 tt:Jb4
15.id4 Ei:c8 16.bl V!1e7 17.Ei:he1
t2lc5 1 8 .hc5 V!1xc5 19.V!1xc5 Ei:xc5
2 0 .ifH with a slightly better end
game for White. After some forty
more moves Black equalized com
pletely in the game Khalifman Iljushin, Sochi 2005.
14.a4
White's knight is very well
placed here at the edge of the
board.
In contrast, he does not
achieve much with 14.t2le2 aS 15.
t2ld4 tt:Jxd4 16.hd4 ia6 17.f5 (or
17.b1 V!fc7 18 .h4 Ei:fc8 19.h5 t2lc5
2 0 .hc5 V!1xc5 21.V!ixc5 Ei:xc5=
with an equal rook and pawn end
ing, Shirov - Radjabov, Leon
2 0 04) 17 . . . exf5 (it is good for
Black to play here 17 . . . V!fc7 ! ) 18.
V!1xf5 V!1e7 19.g4 hf1 2 0 .Ei:hxf1
l"lfc8 2 1.l"lf2 t2lf8 2 2 .ie3 V!1b7 23.
V!1f3 l"lc4 24.l"lxd5 l"lxg4 25.b3, Kar
jakin - Stellwagen, Wijk aan Zee
2 0 05. Black eventually lost this
game, but according to Karjakin's
recommendation, the move 25 . . .
l"lg6 would have led to a very com
plicated position.
14
. .
a5 15.h4
15
. .
.ia6
Chapter 39
nately for him White's knight on
a4 completely paralyses Black's
queenside counterplay, so he will
have to resort to the undermining
move f7-f6 in the majority of cas
es. However, any opening of the
position will be in White's favour,
since he has an unopposed bishop.
16.h5
If Black avoids playing f7-f6,
his position can become very dan
gerous; this is best illustrated by
the following game : 16.g4 .bfl
(he would not change much with
16 . . . Wb8 17.h5 ! ) 17J''1hxfl Wb8? !
(Fedorov recommends here 1 7. . .
f6 ! 18.exf6 Wxf6 19 .h5 Elac8 2 0 .
bl+. Predoevic analyzes : 18.ct:Jc5
We7 19.f5 exf5 2 0 .gxf5 ct:Jdxe5 2 1 .
ct:J e 6 ct:Jg4 2 2 .Wg3 ct:Jxe3 23.Wxe3 . I
believe that after 23 . . . ct:Jd8 24.
Elxd5 ct:Jxe6 25.fxe6 Elfd8, Black
can hold the balance.) 18.h5 Elc8
19.h6 g6 2 0 . b1 Wb5 2 1 .b3 Elc7
2 2 .ct:Jb6 ct:Jxb6 23 .xb6 Elb7 24.
c5 ct:Je7 25.f5 ! exf5 26.Wd4+
with a winning position for White,
Fedorov - Hassan, Abu Dhabi
2006.
17Jhxfl
It is also possible for White to
play 17.h6, which leads to a trans
position of moves.
17 f6 18.h6 g6
ct:Jxf6 2 0 .We2 lt'le4
16
338
.hfl
19.exf6
(diagram)
This is an important position
for the evaluation of the plan with
xd4. It looks a bit worse for
Black, since his king is not as safe
as his opponent's and White's
threat of g2-g4 and f4-f5 might
break up his pawn structure. It
looks as though White has played
21.'l;Vd3
After 21.Wb5, in the game
Cheparinov - Stellwagen, Wijk
aan Zee 2006, Black immediately
made a mistake. He should have
continued with 2 1 . . .'l;Vc7 2 2 .g4
!'labS 23 .Wa6 WeB, holding the
balance in the endgame.
b) ll.h4
ll . . . c!ilxd4
339
Chapter 39
White has generally responded in
one of the following ways :
13J:1h3
13J'l:h3 - This move seem less
convincing against Black's chosen
plan. 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4 (14.ct'le2 aS)
14 . . . aS etc.
After 13.hS, the simplest road
for Black to equality is transpose
favourably to the ll.h4 ct:Jxd4 vari
ation, by playing 13 . . . b4 14.ct:Ja4
aS 1S.b3 ct:Jxd4 16.xd4 i.b7.
Black should react similarly to
13.b1 b4 14.ct:la4 as 1S.b3
ct:lxd4 16.xd4 i.b7.
White has also tried the moves
13.i.g1 and 13 .i.f2 , while the na
tural move 13 .i.e3, strangely
enough, has not been sufficiently
tested. Nevertheless, it would be
quite interesting to see whether
White can continue with 13.i.e3
b4 (13 . . . aS 14.b1 b4 1S.ct'le2
ct:JcS 16.eU with an edge for
White. ) 14.ct:Ja4 aS 1S.f2 , trans
posing to the variation with 11.
f2 i.xd4, in which Black must
still play very precisely to fight for
equality. We shall not examine
this in detail and instead we shall
try to equalize for Black using the
tried and tested classical recipes.
12.hd4 b5
340
13
. . .
b4
Chapter 39
14)!Ja4
It is no improvement for White
to opt for 14.LLle2 a5 15.i!tfe3 i!tfc7
16.hc5 LLlxc5 17.LLld4 a4 18.\t>b1
(The move 18.a3 ! = would have
maintained the balance.) 18 . . . a3
19.b3 ia6 and Black managed to
obtain a better position : 2 0 .ixa6
l"lxa6 2 1.i!tfe1 l"lb6 2 2 . c3 i!tfb7 23.l"lc1
LLle4 24.cxb4 l"lxb4 25.l"ld3 l"lc4 !
Polgar - Shirov, Prague 1999.
16 . .ib5 b8
17.c4!
This i s the only way for White
to create problems for Black.
17 . .bd7 j,xd7 18.li'Jc5 Ei:c8 19.
Ei:d2 Wff c 7 20 .li'Jxd7 Wffxd7 and his
game is much easier, Wells Glek, Vienna 1998.
White does not obtain much
with 17.j,d3 .
17. . . bxc3
Here the move 17 . . . li'Jb6 ! ? is
worth considering.
343
Chapter 39
18.tb xc3 \Wb6 19.\Wxb6 i'!xb6
2 0 .b3 f6 21.exf6 ltlxf6
26
ltlxb5
344
Chapter 4 0
a) l l . . . b6
This is a very fashionable re
sponse by White.
He avoids the exchange of
knights and his own knights often
prevent the advance of Black's a
and b-pawns. The positions aris
ing are difficult to evaluate and
the correct choice of a line for
Black is not at all easy. The Dutch
GM Friso Nijboer has contributed
greatly to the development of this
variation, winning several spec
tacular games in this fashion. The
move ll.lt:Jb3 has also been rec
ommended and analyzed as the
main line for White in the book
"Opening for White According to
Anand".
I should like to point out here
Black's possible ways of creating
counterplay, as well as the com-
345
Chapter 4 0
15 . .if2
15J'l:g3 <j;Jh8 (it is bad for Black
to opt for 15 . . . lLle7 16 . .id3 lLlc5
17 . .ixc5 bxc5 18 .f5 ! ---+ Lorand Werner, Budapest 2008) 16.a3
.ixc3 (it seems to me that after the
simple move 16 . . . .ie7 Black has a
very good position) 17.xc3 lLla5
18.b4 c7 19.lLld4 lLlc5 20 . .id3
lLlc4 2 1 . <j;Jb1 lLle4 2 2 . Elh3t with the
slightly better game for White, Di
ermair - Luther, Austria 2009. It
is far from clear, however, how he
can improve his position.
15.h6 g6 16.a3 .ie7 17.lLle4
ttJ dxe5 (Black could have avoided
this exchange of blows with the
simple reply 17 . . . c7 ! ? , obtaining
excellent prospects.) 18 .fxe5 dxe4
19 .f2 c7 (after 19 . . . e8 the po
sition seems to be in Black's fa
vour) 2 0 . .ixb6 xe5 2 l . Eld7,
Baramidze - Buhmann, Bad Wo
erishofen 2008 and after the pos
sible continuation 2 1 . . . .if6 2 2 .c3
.ia8 23 ..ixa6 Elb8, Black's chances
look very good in this sharp posi
tion.
17.t!xc5 hb2 +
I t would b e interesting for
Black to try 17 . . . .ixe5 ! ? 18 .fxe5
(Black regains his piece after 18.
lLlxb7 .ixf4+ 19.<j;Jb1 c7 20 .xa6
lLlb8 2 l.a4 .ie5 and the position
remains unclear) 18 . . . bxc5 19.
h6!?, but it is all very risky for
him.
15 . . . ttJc5 16.e2
Black should not be afraid of
16 ..ih4 lLlxb3 + 17.axb3 .ie7 18 .
.ixe7 xe7 19 . .id3 f6 2 0 .exf6
xf6 2 1.f5 lLla5 2 2 .<j;Jb1 exf5 23 .
.ie2 d4, because the resulting
endgame is very good for him,
Saw - Smerdon, Canberra 2009.
(diagram)
16 . . . hc3?!
The forcing lines conclude in
White's favour.
Black should prefer the quiet
er response 16 . . . c7, with good
346
14 . . . a5 15.'h3
13.i.d3 b4 14.ll:la4
White has tried all the possible
knight-retreats :
the seemingly attractive move
14.CiJe4 aS 1S.CiJbcS CiJxcS 16.CiJf6+
leads only to a draw (His attempt
to continue the fight with 16.WixcS
CiJe7 17.CiJgS h6 18.CiJf3 :ia6 19.b1
Wffd 7 2 0 .g4 a4 21 .ha6 l"lxa6 2 2 .
347
Chapter 4 0
15
..
g6
c) ll . . ..ib4
12.1i.d3 b5
The line 12 . . . tiJa5 13.g4 Wic7 is
too passive. 14.tiJxa5 1i.xa5 15.1i.d4
fi.b6 16.1i.xb6 tiJxb6 17.Wie3 f6,
Bachmann - Berelowitsch, Nu
remberg 20 08 and here White's
simplest reaction would be 18.
exf6 l"1xf6 19. tiJe2 keeping a slight
edge.
13.g4
We should mention the game
Anand - Morozevich, which end
ed in a spectacular draw: 13.l"1hf1
tiJb6 14.a3 (Here I shall mention
another game as well: 14.Wif2 tiJc4
15.1i.xc4 bxc4 16.tiJd4 tiJe7 17. g4
and now Bareev gives an exclama
tion mark to the move 17 .. .f6 ! ,
evaluating the position after 18.
exf6 l"1xf6+, as slightly preferable
for Black, Cabrilo - Bareev, Bel
grade 1988. We shall soon en
counter a similar position.) 14 . . .
fi.e7 15.tiJd4 Wic7 16.tiJxc6 Wixc6
13 .lt:'la5
Chapter 4 0
l"lg3 g6 ! ? (It i s too late for 15 . . .
'Lla5 ? ! 16.1:'\h3 g 6 1 7. .id4 and
White is threatening f4-f5, Nijbo
er - Sielecki, Breda 20 0 1 . Black
can postpone any decisive action
a few more moves: 15 . . . 1:'\eS 16.
l"lh3 g6 17.1Wf2 , and here, not the
passive line 17 . . ..if8 18.g5 'Llb4
19.b1 'Llxd3 20.cxd3 .ic6 2 1 .
'Lle2t - even though i n the result
ing position White's edge is just
minimal, Nijboer - Glek, France
2003, while 17 . . . 'Ll a5, or 17 . . . .ixc3
18 .bxc3 \We7 19.g5 d4 ! ?oo lead to
rather unclear consequences.)
16.1:'\h3 f6. This was the idea be
hind Black's previous move.
17.b 1 !
This
position was
reached in the computer game
Rajlich - Rentner2 , Playchess.
com 2 0 07.
14.i.d4
14 .ti:Jc4
.
15.f2 a5 !
12.h4 b5 13.1!lbl
The game we were following
transposed to the main line after
13.h3 fJ.b7 14.mb1, Nijboer Stellwagen, Leeuwarden 2 0 0 2 ,
but Black had a good alternative
- 13 . . . 4J a5 ! ?
d) ll . . . fJ.e7
13 . . . 1J.b7
It is rather difficult to evaluate
whether Black should allow his
queenside to be blocked for the
sake exchanging the light-squared
bishops: 13 . . . b4 14.4Ja4 aS.
He can follow the same plan
with b5-b4 and 4Jc6-a5, even
without the preliminary move
fJ.c8-b7, for example: 13 . . . Vfffc 7 14.
hS b4 15.4Ja4 CiJaS 16.Vffff2 4Jc4 17.
fJ.xc4 dxc4 (but not 17 . . . Vfffx c4 18.
fS) 18.4Jbc5 b8 and it is hard to
see how White can convert
the temporary activity of his piec
es into anything really meaning
ful.
14.h3 c7
The position is far from clear
351
Chapter 4 0
after the risky-looking immediate
14 . . . b4 15.tt:la4 tt:la5 16.tt:lbc5, but
Black should not allow this unless
he has to. It appear that he can af
ford to lose a tempo to take the
c5-square under control.
21.axb3
17 .ic6!
.
18.c!Llxa5
The move 18.tt:lbc5 presents
Black with the extra possibility of
18 . . . d4 ! ? and, compared with
18.tt:lac5 tt:lxc5 19.tt:lxc5 tt:lc4 (19 . . .
.ib5 i s also good) 2 0 . .ixc4 dxc4
2 1.'&e2 l"lfd8, he has an excellent
position.
18 . . Jba5
This looks risky, but the forc
ing line is very interesting.
It would be acceptable for
Black to choose the quieter varia
tion: 18 . . . ha4 19.tt:lb3 l"lfc8 2 0 .
.id3 .ib5 = with equality.
352
21
c4
23.fxe6 fxe6 (The variation
23 . . . '2lxe5 24.hb5 axb5 2 5.hg7
i.h4 26.e7 Ei:fe8 27.he5+ hg3
2 8.hg3 Ei:xe7 29.Ei:xd5 leads to a
sharp endgame which is difficult
to evaluate.) 24.Ei:xg7+ Wh8 25.
i.d3 i.b4 = and White does not
have any more than a draw.
23
..
27. . . ggs
dxc4 24.bxc4
24
..
.ib4
25.gxd7!
White cannot achieve more
than a draw with 25.Ei:d4 i.c6
2 6.hg7 Ei:fb8 and he unable to in
crease the pressure.
25
27.f6
. .
.ixd7 26.gxg7+
Wh8
353
AFTERWORD
Finally, I should like to tell you that the dynamic progress of the devel
opment of contemporary chess theory obliges us to regard almost every
book with a degree of scepticism. Everything in this world undergoes
evolution and chess is no exception. The assessment of certain posi
tions changes dramatically and sometimes even entire openings are
refuted. New variations and theoretical novelties appear and fade into
oblivion every day. I have therefore tried in my book to show you some
of the general principles, typical manoeuvres, exchanges, plans and
tactical resources which are intrinsic to the French defence, all based
on concrete analysis. I believe that a book of this type will be always
useful.
354
Index of Variations
Part 1. l.e4 e6
White avoids the mail lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
Chapter 1 l.e4 e6
2 .b3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 .f4 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
3 .tt'lc3 d4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 .e5 c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.he4 tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
26
3 . . . tt'lf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 ... tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 ... dxe4 4.dxe4 e5 5.tt'lf3
5.tt'lf3
5.tt'lf3
b1)
b1)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
tt'lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
tt'ld7 6.tt'lbd2 c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.tt'lbd2 .ic5 7.tt'lc4 We7 8.c3 . . . . 48
8.g3 . . . . 49
355
Index of Variations
Part 3. l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5
The Advance Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter 8 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 b6 5 . .!L:rf3 lLlc6
6 . l2J a3 cxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6 .ie2 cxd4 7. cxd4 tLlh6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
76
7.ih4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.tLlxf6 tLlxf6 8 .id2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
8 .ie3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
9.ixf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
9.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Index of Variations
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
9.i.c4 .
9.CUe5 .
9 .i.b5 +
9.c3 . .
9.i.e2 .
9.i.d3 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
91
92
93
95
95
7.i.c4
7.g3 .
7.i.d3
7.i.e2
7.i.e3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7 . . . c5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7 ... i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
b)
....
....
....
. . .
.....
.....
.....
. . . .
....
....
....
. . .
.....
.....
.....
. . . .
. . . 119
. . . 119
. . . 121
. . 123
357
Index of Variations
Chapter 22 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.tl:\d2 i.e7 4.i.d3 c5
a)
b)
a)
b)
188
189
189
190
206
4.'&d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
4.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
4.'&g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4.exd5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
4.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 13
4.tt:Jge2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Index of Variations
Chapter 28 l.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.lt:lc3 .ib4 4.e5
2 19
4 . . . b6
4 . . . c5 5.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 1
4 . . . c5 5.dxc5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2
4 . . . c5 5.i.d2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3
.
a)
b)
c)
5 . . . i.a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 8
5 . . . i.xc3 6.bxc3 ljj e 7 7.i.d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9
7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 9
7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
7.ljj f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
7.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.ljj f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.'\Wg4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
254
254
258
260
268
Index of Variations
a)
b)
7.Wg4 g5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
7.Wg4 c;t>8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
7.Wg4 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
30 0
a)
b1)
b2)
a)
b)
6.dxc5 l2lc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.l2lf3 l2lc6 7 ..ie3 Elb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 . .ie3 Wb6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 . .ie3 a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 314
. 314
. 315
. 321
a)
b)
10 .g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
10. 0-0-0 hd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
10.0-0-0 l2lxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
1 0. 0-0-0 a6 11.l2lce 2 ; 11.c;t>b1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
11.Wf2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
11.h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
a)
b)
c)
d)
360
11. .. b6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
11. .. he3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
11. .. .ib4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
11. .. .ie7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351