Alekhine's Defence [B02−05]

Written by GMs Gawain Jones, Jonathan Rowson, Nigel Davies, Neil

McDonald, IMs John Watson & Andrew Martin

Last updated Tuesday, July 19, 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

lekhine's Defence is one of Black's most dynamic reactions to 1 e4. Rarely

played at super−GM level, it remains however a dangerous weapon for club and

international players alike. Black gives White the opportunity to set up a

massive pawn centre, which he or she will then attempt to destroy.

AThe Four Pawns Attack is White's most direct option but at present Black's

counterplay seems sufficient. Many White players are currently opting for safe lines with c4

and exd6, with prospects of a slight edge. The Chase Variation is rarely played and

probably better than its reputation. The main line remains 4 ¤f3 where White is doing fairly

well, but there remains much room for debate.

An opening for the enterprising player!

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

2

Contents

1 e4 ¤f6 2 e5

2 ¤c3, 2 d3 Alekhine's Defence−Not 2 e5, & 2 e5 without 3 d4 [B02]

2...¤d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

3 d4

3 c4 Alekhine's Defence−Not 2 e5, & 2 e5 without 3 d4 [B02]

3...d6 4 ¤f3

4 c4 ¤b6 5 f4 (5 exd6 Alekhine's Defence−Exchange (5 exd6),+ other 3rd moves [B03])

5...dxe5 6 fxe5 Alekhine's Defence−Four Pawns Attack [B03]

4...¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3

4...dxe5 Alekhine's Defence−4 Nf3 without 4...Bg4 [B04]

5 ¥e2 e6 6 0-0

Alekhine's Defence−4 Nf3 Bg4 [B05]

Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go

straight to that section.

Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.

All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd

4

Alekhine's Defence − Not 2 e5, & 2 e5

without 3 d4 [B02]

Last updated: 10/09/06 by Andy Martin

1 e4 ¤f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzppzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

2 e5

2 ¤c3 This is not a very popular move. But as we shall see, Black has to solve a lot of problems after 2...d5 (The main drawback of this line is that Black can transpose into a Vienna with 2...e5 this has turned it into a no−go area for all but Vienna players, which also explains why there are so few GM games with it. Having said that, the two Vienna−wielding GMs that I know of (Balashov and Hector) both go 2 ¤c3 against the Alekhine, and Hector in particular has notched up tremendous results for White and his games bristle with new ideas.) 3 e5 (3 exd5 ¤xd5 4 ¥c4 (4 ¤ge2 is a type of Centre Counter, see Keres,P−Mikenas,V/URS 1968., 4 g3 ¤xc3 5 bxc3 ¥d7 6

¥g2 ¥c6 isn't very dangerous at all for Black. Neutralising the g2 Bishop in this way guarantees a good game. 7 ¤f3 g6 8 0-0 ¥g7 9 ¦e1 0-0= Novitzkij,D−Kupreichik,V/Minsk BLR 2004) 4...c6 5 £f3!? a few years ago a young Galkin tried to defend this line three times as Black against Skatchkov and lost each time. Now increased popularity has led to Black's resources being better understood, see Markovic,M−Andonov,B/Belgrade YUG 2002.) 3...¤fd7

5

a) 3...d4 4 exf6 (if instead 4 ¤ce2 Black has nothing better than 4...¤e4 transposing to 3...Ne4, as (4...d3 5 ¤f4! dxc2 6 £xc2 leads to a serious advantage for White.) ) 4...dxc3 5 fxg7 cxd2+ 6 ¥xd2 ¥xg7 Hector,J−Kengis,E/Haninge (Sweden) 1992.

b) 3...¤e4 4 ¤ce2! The critical move, aiming to gain time against Black's errant knight. 4...f6 (The other method of disrupting White's plans is with 4...d4 5 c3 White should undermine the d4 pawn as soon as possible, otherwise Black will strengthen it, with a comfortable game. (5 ¤f3!?N ¤c6 6 c3 ¥g4 7 ¤exd4 ¤xe5 8 £e2 £d5 9 ¤b5 0-0-0

10 c4 £e6 11 d4 ¤g6 12 d5 £f5 13 ¤bd4± a remarkable mess where White has the upper hand in view of Black's hanging pieces, Schmaltz,R−Gikas,B/Bundesliga 2002.) 5...¤c6! 6 cxd4 ¤g5 7 f4 ¤e6 8 ¤f3 Nisipeanu,L−Bagirov,V/Cuxhaven 1994.) 5 d3 ¤g5 6 ¥xg5! White gives up his Bishop, but gets strong pressure on the h−file. 6...fxg5 7 h4 g4 (7...gxh4 8 ¤f4 g6 9 ¦xh4 Vorotnikov,V−Kengis,E/Tallinn 1983, which has to be seen to be believed. White launches a sharp theoretical attack. Black has to reply with a string of only moves, eventually sacrificing his queen for a minor piece to reach a drawn ending queen for bishop down!) 8 ¤f4 ¥f5 9 ¤ge2 Hector,J−Van Der Werf,M/Berlin (Germany) 1993.

4 e6 This pawn sac is White's sharpest option. (After 4 d4 there is 4...c5!? (4...e6 5 f4 c5 6 ¤f3

we get a Steinitz variation of the French.) 5 ¤f3 e6 6 dxc5 ¤c6 7 ¥f4 ¥xc5 which transposed into a Steinitz variation of the French in Cherniaev − Baburin, 10th Monarch Assurance 2001) 4...fxe6 5 d4 c5 (5...g6 6 h4 ¥g7 7 h5 Hector,J−Maus,S/Copenhagen (Denmark) 1990.) 6 ¤f3 ¤c6 7 ¥b5!? Hector's move, fighting for control of the d4 and e5 squares, (7 dxc5 Rudd,J−Palliser,R/Nottingham ENG 2005) 7...g6 8 dxc5 (8 £e2 ¥g7 9 £xe6?? cxd4 10 ¥xc6 bxc6 11 £xc6 dxc3 12 ¥f4 cxb2 13

¦d1 ¥a6-+ was the unfortunate course of Dolshkova,K−Pavlov,S/Ukraine 2005)

8...¥g7 9 ¥e3 £a5 10 0-0 Hector,J−Sergeev,V/Berlin 1995. 2 d3 is a quiet but far from innocuous line to which the best answer may be 2...c5 (2...e5 3

¤f3 ¤c6 4 ¥e2 ¥e7 5 c3 0-0 6 0-0 d5 7 £c2 a5 8 ¤bd2 ¦e8 9 ¦e1 ¥f8 10 b3 b6 11 a3 ¥b7 12

¥b2 ¤b8 13 ¥f1 dxe4 14 dxe4 ¤bd7 15 b4 was better for White in Csom,I−Cooper,J/Nice 1974, 2...d5 3 e5 ¤fd7 4 f4 e6 5 ¤f3 c5 6 g3 ¤c6 7 ¥g2 ¥e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 c4 gave White a favourable pawn structure in Zaichik,G−Dreev,A/Lvov 1987) 3 f4 ¤c6 4 ¤f3 g6 5 ¥e2 (and now 5 g3 leads to positions akin to a Closed Sicilian) 5...¥g7 6 ¤bd2? d5 7 0-0 0-0 8 ¢h1 b6 9 exd5 was good for Black in Thomas,G−Alekhine,A/Baden−Baden 1925.

2...¤d5 3 c4

3 ¤c3

6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

An old line favoured by Keres. White accepts some flaws in his pawn structure but in return

obtains free piece play. 3...¤xc3 this natural move is definitely the best, (3...e6 4 ¤xd5

exd5 and now 5 £f3!? is a relatively recent idea. The queen intends to pressurize the black kingside early in the game, Oral,T−Pribyl,J/Pardubice CZE 2002) 4 dxc3 This move contradicts the well−known principle of capturing "towards the centre". But it has its points. White tries to gain an advantage in development, and maybe create pressure on the d−file. (4 bxc3 This old line is not so popular nowadays, however the Ukranian GM Vladimir Baklan plays it with great success. 4...d5 5 d4 c5 6 ¤f3 ¤c6

Baklan,V−Miroshnichenko,E/Alushta 1999.) 4...d6 (4...g6?! Uncommon, and to encourage an early blast with h2−h4 seems far too risky: 5 ¥f4 ¥g7 6 £e2 c6 7 0-0-0

£a5 8 ¢b1 0-0 9 ¤f3 ¤a6 10 ¤d4 b5 11 h4‚ Huebner,R−Junge,K/Bundesliga GER 2005 Black scarcely has a defence.) 5 ¤f3 The main line, the alternatives are harmless. 5...dxe5 (5...¤c6 6 ¥f4?! After this Black can transpose into what is probably a favourable endgame. 6...g6 (6...dxe5!) 7 ¥c4 Toothill,J−Davies,N/Birmingham 4NCL 2001.) 6 £xd8+ ¢xd8 7 ¤xe5 ¥e6! (7...¢e8 Rozentalis,E−Volzhin,A/Poland 2000) 8 ¥e3 ¤d7 9 0-0-0 ¢e8 (9...¢c8!=) 10 ¤f3 ¥g4 Ashton,A−Baburin,A/Nottingham ENG 2005.

3 ¤f3 d6 4 ¤c3!? this is unusual, but not bad. Not threatening either. 4...dxe5 5 ¤xe5 ¤xc3 6 £f3 (6 bxc3 ¤d7!=) 6...£d5 7 £xc3 ¤d7= Nagy,B−Kahn,E/Budapest HUN 2006.

3...¤b6 4 c5

The Chase Variation is infrequently played but is a direct challenge to the Alekhine's and Black must know how to react to it. This is one of the sharpest attempts to "refute" Alekhine's Defence, advancing his central pawns White obtains a space advantage. The main expert in this line is the Russian GM Evgeny Sveshnikov who invariably plays it against the Alekhine's.

4...¤d5 5 ¥c4

7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzppzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zPnzP-+-0 9-+L+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Or 5 ¤c3 e6 (5...c6 6 ¥c4 d6 7 £b3 White has to play this move, if he wants to fight for the

advantage, Sveshnikov,E−Knezevic,M/Dubna 1979. Here White plays an interesting trade of a piece for four pawns, then wins the piece back for three pawns. Semi−obscure and easy to fall for− if you don't know it., 5...¤xc3 is not good, as it helps White's development: 6 dxc3! d6 7 cxd6 exd6 8 ¥c4 ¥e7 9 ¥f4 with an obvious advantage for White.) 6 d4 ¤xc3 7 bxc3 b6! Black immediately undermines the White pawn chain and intends ...Ba6 (not obligatory). 8 £g4! White's play is consistent: pursuing the initiative at any cost. Now very interesting complications arise, with chances for both sides, Sveshnikov,E−Solozhenkin,E/Russia 1998.

5...e6

5...c6 6 ¤c3 (6 £f3!? e6 7 d4 b6 8 cxb6 axb6 9 ¤h3 ¥a6 Rose,M−Davies,N/4NCL Birmingham 2001.) 6...e6 7 d4 b6 8 cxb6 axb6 9 £g4 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 ¥a6 11 ¥xa6 ¤xa6 12 ¤e2 ¤c7 13 0-0 g6?! Black is being intimidated by the Queen on g4. 13...g6 is very compliant. Instead, if he sticks to his guns and goes for counterplay with (13...d5! he gets a good game.) 14 ¤g3 h5 15 £f3 b5 16 ¤e4 ¥e7 17 ¥g5 0-0 18 ¤f6+‚ Sevillano,E−Bego,N/North American Open, Las Vegas USA 2002.

6 ¤c3

6 d4 b6!? (after 6...d6 7 cxd6 cxd6 suddenly we have a position from the 2.c3 Sicilian!) 7 cxb6 axb6 8 ¤e2 Potkin,V−Neverov,V/St Petersburg 2000.

6 £g4!? is unusual, but Nurkic has played this before, Nurkic,S−Leventic,I/Neum BIH 2002.

6...¤xc3 7 dxc3 ¤c6 8 ¥f4

After 8 ¤f3 Black can take the pawn 8...¥xc5, and 9 £g4 is illegal now.

8...£h4!?

8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-zP-zP-+-0 9-+L+-vL-wq0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very interesting idea of the Romanian GM Mikhai Suba. This move wins a pawn by

force, and White has to prove he has sufficient compensation for it.

9 g3 £e7

Now White has to choose which pawn (e5 or c5) to sacrifice.

10 b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zppzppwqpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-zP-zP-+-0 9-zPL+-vL-+0 9+-zP-+-zP-0 9P+-+-zP-zP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¤f3 leaves Black comfortable, 10...b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 0-0 h6 13 £e2 g5 14 ¥d2 ¥g7

Black's pieces are remarkably effective remarkably quickly, Tavoularis,N−Cox,J/Gothenburg SWE 2005.

10...g5 11 ¥e3 ¤xe5 12 ¥d4!?

Black is okay but has to be careful, as White has many dangerous attacking possibilities which Alekhine players need to study, Posch,W−Baburin,A/Wien 1995.

9

Alekhine's Defence − Four Pawns Attack

[B03]

Last updated: 19/07/11 by Gawain Jones One of the most interesting lines in the Alekhine's is the Four Pawns Attack. Some experts

believe it's the most dangerous for Black. But in practice White chooses it rather infrequently, probably due to the necessity of knowing mountains of variations.

1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.c4

Vitolins and Kupreichik have championed the immediate 4.f4 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...dxe5 (4...¥f5 5.¤f3 e6 6.¥d3 ¥xd3 7.£xd3 was Vitolinsh,A−Shmit,A/USSR 1976) 5.fxe5 c5

(5...¥f5 6.¤f3 c5?! 7.¥b5+ ¤c6 8.c4 ¤c7 9.0-0 e6 10.¥xc6+ bxc6 11.£a4 was unpleasant for Black in Kupreichik,V−Alburt,L/Ashkhabad 1978) 6.¤f3 cxd4 7.£xd4 ¤c6 8.¥b5 £a5+ (8...¥f5! looked very good for Black in a recent game: 9.¤c3 e6 10.£a4 ¤db4

11.¥xc6+ bxc6 12.¥e3 ¥xc2 13.b3 £d3‚ Pelikian,J−Milos,G/Sao Paulo BRA 2004 Black has a tremendous initiative.) 9.¤c3 ¤xc3 10.¥xc6+ bxc6 11.¥d2 ¤b5 12.¥xa5 ¤xd4 brought about a complex and double−edged endgame in Kupreichik,V−Kengis,E/Podolsk 1990.

4...¤b6 5.f4

10

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-sn-zp-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+PzP-zP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...dxe5

5...¥f5!? 6.¤c3 e6 This move order isn't all that common, but it causes no harm to Black, and can even give White a few extra opportunities to make a false step. 7.¤f3 (7.¥e3

is the main alternative, after which 7...dxe5 8.fxe5 transposes to one of the main lines.) 7...¤a6 8.¥d3 ¥xd3 9.£xd3 c5 10.d5! (10.dxc5?! Djurhuus,R−Agdestein,S/ Asker NOR 2000. Although the game looks quite devastating, a closer inspection reveals that White might have been able to defend. Nonetheless, Black triumphed elegantly in this game.) 10...exd5 11.cxd5 ¥e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.£e4 White should have some advantage with his greater space, Jones,G−Baburin,A/Bunratty IRL 2011.

5...g6!? is another playable possibility for Black. This line is played rather seldom, but obviously it deserves more attention. 6.¤c3 ¥g7 7.¥e3 Brener−Pushkin/USSR 1988.

5...g5!? 6.exd6 £xd6 7.¥e2 c5! was messy in Kornilovich,D−Deviatkin,A/Smolensk RUS 2005.

6.fxe5 ¤c6

6...c5!? XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-sn-+-+-+0 9+-zp-zP-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

11

This move leads to a very sharp game. This is why it is often played by such brilliant tacticians as Lubomir Ljubojevic and Alex Shabalov. Although a lot of games have been played in this line, the theoretical assessment is still not clear. 7.d5 e6 According to Luther the last word was said on this in his two games against Bryson and Movsessian, (7...g6 is a line that is not very often seen in modern practice, but is by no means bad. It leads to sharp and complicated play− exactly what Black aims for by playing the Alekhine's. 8.¥f4 ¥g7 9.¤c3 0-0 10.£d2 e6 11.0-0-0 exd5 12.cxd5 ¦e8 my feeling is that this improves upon older theory, (12...¥g4 13.¦e1 c4 14.h3 ¥f5 15.g4 ¥d3 16.¥xd3 cxd3 17.£xd3 ¤a6 18.d6 ¦c8 19.¢b1 ¤c4 (19...¤b4

Movsesian,S−Varga,Z/Czech Rep CZE 2005) 20.¤d5 £a5 Volzhin,A−Svechnikov,L/Russia 1988) 13.¦e1 (13.¤f3 ¥g4 14.¥b5 Riedel,F−Schneizer,R/Germany 1994) 13...¤a6 14.¤f3 ¤b4 15.¥g5! f6 Smith,B−Shabalov,A/King of Prussia USA 2007 (15...£c7!? Shabalov Four Pawns−Analysis Continued/2008) 16.exf6) 8.¤c3 (The seemingly strong 8.d6 has a tactical refutation: 8...£h4+ 9.g3 £e4+ 10.£e2 £xh1 11.¤f3 White hopes to trap Black's Queen, but Black has good chances to escape. 11...¤c6! 12.¤bd2 ¤d7! 13.¢f2 ¤dxe5! 14.¤xe5 £xh2+

15.¥g2 ¤d4 16.£d1 ¥xd6 17.¤f1 Now the Queen really is trapped, but White has paid too high a price for it! 17...£xg2+ 18.¢xg2 ¥xe5 with a decisive advantage for Black. Bent Larsen once opined that he didn't like lengthy variations, as they always contain mistakes. I tend to share his scepticism, but sometimes we can't do without them!) 8...exd5 9.cxd5 c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-sn-+-+-+0 9+-+PzP-+-0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The critical position. White has a wide choice of continuations. 10.d6! a) 10.a3 ¥c5 The first achievement for Black: White cannot castle kingside. 11.¤f3

0-0 12.¥e2 Vetemaa,Y−Shabalov,A/USSR 1986, which shows how Black can crush an unprepared opponent in twenty moves. Black's winning move is a must see.

b) 10.¤f3 The Main line. 10...¥b4! The move which rehabilitated this line for Black− in the main line it leads to an endgame in which Black gets excellent positional compensation for a pawn. (10...¥g4 11.£d4! ¥xf3 12.gxf3 Gruenfeld,Y−Ljubojevic,L/Riga 1979.) 11.¥xc4 ¥xc3+ 12.bxc3 ¤xc4 13.£a4+ ¤d7 14.£xc4 Shulman,Y−Baburin,A/San Francisco USA 2001.

10...¤c6 (10...¥e6!? considered best by Cox, 11.¤f3 ¤c6 12.¤b5 critical, (12.¥e2 ¤d7!

Esserman,M−Yermolinsky,A/Mesa USA 2009) 12...¦c8 13.¥g5 Movsesian,S−Luther,T/4th IECC, Istanbul TUR 2003) 11.¤f3 (11.¤b5 not the only move to cause

12

Black some sticky moments as White probably stands well after the alternatives, see Bender,I−Rogulj,B/Velika Gorica CRO 2002.) 11...¥g4 12.¥f4 g5 13.¤e4 gxf4 14.¤f6+ £xf6 15.exf6 0-0-0 16.£c1 ¦e8+ 17.¢f2 ¥xd6 Bryson,D−Luther,T/Olympiad, Bled SLO 2002 eventually, White had to bale out!

This is another moment at which Black has tried a kingside fianchetto − 6...g6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

7.¤c3 (7.¤f3!? ¥g7 8.¥e2 0-0 9.0-0 c5 10.d5 Pinchon,H−Timmermans,D/Val Thorens 1989)

7...¥g7 8.c5 (8.¥e3 0-0 9.¤f3 c5 10.d5 ¥g4 was good for Black in Fish,A−Sharp,P/Birmingham 4NCL 1999, 8.¤f3 ¥g4 9.c5 ¤d5 10.¥c4 e6 Parma,P−Schiffer,K/Berlin 1971) 8...¤d5 9.¥c4 ¤xc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.¤f3 b6 with double−edged play in Rigo,J−Andruet,G/Wuppertal 1986.

6...¥f5 7.¤c3 e6 8.¥e3 ¥b4 9.¤f3 (9.£f3?! ¤c6 10.£f4 ¤a4∓ Collins,S−Baburin,A/ENG 2005) 9...c5 10.£d2?! is a very poor novelty, Boroday,S−Moliboga,V/Independence Cup, Kyiv UKR 2003, (10.a3 is better.)

7.¥e3 ¥f5

7...e6? is poor, blocking in the c8−bishop quite unnecessarily: 8.¤c3 ¥b4 9.£g4± g6 10.a3 ¥xc3+ 11.bxc3 h6 12.¤f3 White has the initiative and a tremendously powerful dark−squared bishop, Milenkovic,M−Farago,S/Budapest HUN 2005.

8.¤c3 e6 9.¤f3 ¥e7

13

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-snn+p+-+0 9+-+-zPl+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-vLN+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the main line. 9...¥g4 10.¥e2 ¥xf3 (10...£d7 11.0-0 ¥xf3 (11...¦d8 is examined in New analysis 4 Pawns

Attack/2009, and, 11...0-0-0 in New Notes on 4 Ps Alekhine/2009.) 12.¦xf3! 0-0-0 13.¦f4 Stopa,J−Ramirez,A/Richardson USA 2008) 11.gxf3 £h4+ (11...£d7 is another possibility, putting pressure on d4.) 12.¥f2 £f4 is a line that is supposed to be OK for Black but in fact may leave him with some problems. Two bishops are worth something in the endgame and a few canny exponents of the White pieces have cottoned on to this, 13.c5 ¤d5 (13...¤d7 14.£c1 £xc1+ 15.¦xc1 White should have the advantage here with more space and the bishop pair, Jones,G−Short,N/Bunratty IRL 2011) 14.¤xd5 exd5 15.£d2 £xd2+ 16.¢xd2 g6 (16...¤e7 17.¥b5+ c6 18.¥d3 White can make good use of his bishop pair whilst preparing a queenside pawn storm, Bologan,V−Rozentalis,E/Mulhouse 2010) 17.¥e3! ECO mentions this with approval. (17.f4 risks making the dark−squared bishop less effective 17...¥h6 18.¥e3 ¤e7 19.¥d3 ¤f5 20.¥xf5 gxf5 21.¦hg1 ¢d7 22.¦g3 ¦ag8 23.b4 ¦xg3 (23...¦g6 24.¢e2 ¥f8 25.¦g5 see Timman,J−De Firmian,N/Malmoe SWE 2001) 24.hxg3 ¥f8 White's extra space should count for something, although perhaps Black doesn't agree, see Atalik,S−De Firmian,N/San Francisco USA 2002) 17...f6 18.exf6 ¢f7 19.¥b5 ¤d8 20.¥d7 ¢xf6 21.¥f4 ¢e7 22.¥h3 c6 23.¦he1+ White has two bishops and substantially the more active pieces, Black's d8 knight being a particular eyesore, see Illescas Cordoba,M−Baburin,A/Gothenburg SWE 2005.

9...£d7?! An older variation, wheeled out for surprise by Nigel Short. 10.¥e2 0-0-0 11.0-0 f6 12.d5 ¤xe5 13.¤xe5 fxe5 14.a4 a5 15.¤b5 ¥b4 16.d6 ¤a8 Black's position gives cause for concern, Kotronias,V−Short,N/Gibraltar Masters, Catalan Bay ENG 2003.

9...¥b4 is slightly off the beaten track, 10.¥e2 £d7!? (10...0-0 11.0-0 ¤a5 12.¤d2 Kobese,W−Bouah,L/ch−RSA, Kempton Park RSA 2003) 11.0-0 ¤a5!? Bromberger,S−Kremenietsky,A/Gausdal NOR 2008.

10.d5

This is considered to be White's main weapon. 10.¥e2 this seems to be a very good move, perhaps better than its ancient reputation. 10...0-

0 11.0-0 f6 12.exf6 ¥xf6 13.£d2 £e7 14.¦ad1 ¦ad8 15.£c1 (I think 15.¢h1!?

strongly deserves attention.) 15...e5!

14

a) 15...h6 16.¢h1 (I suggested and analysed 16.¦f2 (!), which I think should give White an edge., 16.h3 is Yudasin,L−Kengis,E/Minsk 1985) 16...¢h8 17.h3 with a plus, 17...¥g6 (17...¥h7 Kondenko,A−Volkov,A/Voronezh RUS 2011.) 18.b3 Zilberstein,D−Baburin,A/San Fransisco USA 2007.

b) 15...¥g4 16.¤e4 this simply looks good for White, Moser,E−Baburin,A/Arvier ITA 2007.

16.d5 ¤d4 17.¥xd4 (17.¤xd4 exd4 18.¥xd4 ¥g5 19.£a1 c5 20.¥f2 ¥c2 21.¦de1 ¦xf2! Black seems to be have enough compensation for the pawn, Dushin,A−Siewert,W/ICCF Email 2003) 17...exd4 18.¤xd4 ¥c8! and again it seems that Black has enough play, see Andresen,T−Gilmore,A/corr 1995.

10...exd5

10...¤b4!? A discredited move which may or may not be due for a revival, 11.¤d4 ¥g6 12.a3 ¤a6 13.dxe6 0-0!? Black has at the very least dangerous compensation over the board, see Melnikova,Y−Rozentalis,E/Kavala GRE 2005.

11.cxd5

11.¥xb6?! axb6 12.cxd5 ¤b4 13.¤d4 ¥g6 Velimirovic,D−Cmilyte,V/Marianske Lazne CZE 2010.

11...¤b4 12.¤d4 ¥d7 13.£f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zppzplvlpzpp0 9-sn-+-+-+0 9+-+PzP-+-0 9-sn-sN-+-+0 9+-sN-vLQ+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.e6!? is the most dangerous continuation, which leads to unfathomable complications.

Theoretically crucial and tremendous fun to boot− this is real chess! 13...fxe6 14.dxe6 ¥c6 15.£g4 ¥h4+ 16.g3 ¥xh1 (16...¥f6?? Pommeret,J−Philippe,C/Gap FRA 2008) 17.gxh4 0-0 18.0-0-0 £f6 19.¥b5 £e5 20.¥g5! unclear, Klinger,J−Herndl,H/AUT−ch 1985.

13...c5 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.¥e2

Simple development.

15

15.e6 Pegoraro,G−Henderson,J/Ischia 1996. This game shows the dangers White faces in the Four Pawns Attack. A stunning innovation on move 18 followed by a Queen sacrifice improves on old theory. The White King has no chance of escaping from the crossfire of enemy pieces. An obscure masterpiece.

15...0-0

15...c5 16.0-0 menaces mate on f7.

16.0-0 ¤4d5 17.¥f2 £c7 18.¥g3 ¤xc3 19.bxc3 £c8 20.¥d3

White has more space, and attacking chances, Dominguez,L−Almeida,O/Santa Clara 2005.

16

Alekhine's Defence Exchange − 5...cxd6

+ other 3rd moves [B03]

Last updated: 15/08/10 by Gawain Jones There is quite a bit of interest in the Exchange Variation nowadays. As we concluded

earlier, it's quite unpleasant for Black as he has no active counterplay and White has had very good results. But recently Black has found new resources both with 5...cd and 5...ed.

1 e4 ¤f6 2 e5 ¤d5 3 d4 d6

3...g6?! is inviting a disaster. To play such rubbish against a strong grandmaster is not exactly the best solution. Probably Black believed that the move order is not important here and hoped to play ...d7−d6 later. Of course, White should play very energetically and creatively to refute this provocative play. 4 c4 ¤b6 5 c5! ¤d5 6 ¥c4 The transformation to the Chase Variation is quite the thing here, as g7−g6 in this line is just a waste of time and weakens Black's position. As we saw earlier, Black should undermine White's pawn chain (...d7−d6 or ...b7−b6) prior to developing his kingside, Sutovsky,E−Varga,Z/European Club Cup 1999.

4 c4

4 ¥c4 ¤b6 5 ¥b3 ¥f5! a clever idea of GM Bagirov's, 6 £f3 £c8 7 ¤e2 Conquest,S−Baburin,A/Dublin IRL 2008.

4...¤b6

Some White players don't like the wild complications that are unavoidable in the Four Pawns Attack. I can recommend the following system to them.

5 exd6

Currently this harmless looking move is very popular. Black has two possible recaptures.

5...cxd6

17

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-sn-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move is much more popular than the alternative, but it would be too easy to draw any

conclusions about the relative strengths of the moves from that! 5...exd6 is covered in another Roadmap.

6 ¤c3

6 a4!? As long as White doesn't ABSOLUTELY insist on originality this may be playable, 6...a5 7 ¥d3 (7 ¤c3!) 7...g6 8 ¤f3 ¥g7 9 ¥e3 0-0 10 £c1? ¤c6 11 ¥h6 ¤b4 12 ¦a3 ¤xd3+ 13 ¦xd3 ¥f5∓ Relatively straightforward play by Black has produced an excellent position, Prelevic,M−Dragasevic,S/Sutomore SCG 2004.

6 d5!? is a rather unusual move which attempts to nail down the pawn on e7. Black must react immediately. 6...¤8d7 (6...e5! is the mainline., 6...e6!, 6...g6 7 £d4 ¦g8 8 £h4 h5

was not very clear in Hoffmann,P−Khenkin,I/Dresden GER 2010) 7 b3 ¤f6 8 ¥b2 g6 9 ¥d3 ¥g7 10 ¤e2 0-0 11 0-0² Landa,K−De Jonghe,B/BEL 2005.

6...g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zpp+p0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤c6 sees another version of the early ...¤c6 set−up going through choppy waters: 7 ¥e3

g6 8 a4 (8 d5!± is without doubt best: 8...¤e5 9 ¥d4 ¥h6 10 c5 ¤bd7 11 c6 ¤f6 12 ¤f3±)

18

8...¥g7 9 a5 ¤d7 10 ¤f3 0-0 11 d5 ¤xa5÷ Marechal,A−Rozentalis,E/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2005.

7 ¥e3

7 h3 is Nataf,I−Konopka,M/Pardubice CZE 2002, in [B04]. 7 a4 was recommended by Soltis in one of his opening books. White disrupts Black's

natural plan of development. a reaction in the centre is appropriate but how best to organise it? 7...¥g7 8 a5 ¤6d7 9 ¤f3 0-0 10 ¥e2 e5 11 0-0 ¦e8N 12 ¤b5 e4 Buescu,N−Grunberg,M/ch−ROM, Satu Mare ROM 2003 A very double−edged position has arisen.

7 ¤f3 ¥g7 8 ¥e3 0-0 9 ¥e2 ¤c6 10 0-0 ¥g4 11 b3 ¥xf3 (11...d5) 12 ¥xf3 f5 Smolin,D−Pervakov,S/Alushta UKR 2006, when 13 £d2! would have been best, allowing Black to execute his 'threat': 13...f4 14 ¥xf4 ¤xd4 (14...¥xd4 15 ¥xc6 ¥xc3 16 £xc3 bxc6

17 ¥h6 ¦f7 18 ¦ad1±) 15 ¥xb7 ¦b8 16 ¥e4±

7...¥g7 8 ¦c1

A very clever decision: first of all White develops his queenside, overprotecting the knight on c3.

8...0-0 9 b3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+PsN-vL-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥e2 Refreshing to see someone playing another move here, 9...d5 (9...¤c6 10 b3 ¥f5 11

¤f3!? (11 d5!) 11...d5! Now Black has something to play for, Narayanan,S−Nakamura,H/Catalan Bay ENG 2007) 10 c5 ¤c4 11 ¥xc4 dxc4 12 ¤ge2 ¥f5 13 0-0 ¥d3 Kobalia,M−Ikonnikov,V/Port Erin IOM 2005.

9...e5

The main line of the Voronezh Variation.

19

9...f5!? is an interesting attempt to create counterplay. 10 ¤f3!? Other moves are possible, also with a slight advantage for White (10 g3 Voronezh question/2009) 10...f4 11 ¥d2 ¤c6 12 d5 Ivanov,V−Chekhov,V/Moscow 1995.

9...¤c6!? 10 d5 (10 ¤f3!? ¥g4 11 ¥e2 d5! Black resorts to a standard Alekhine plan − he has everything in the right place for it, Szoen,D−Rozentalis,E/Karpacz POL 2008)

10...¤e5 11 ¥e2 probably the most accurate. (11 h3 I don't like this move, because if and when White plays f4 he will really have a lot of weaknesses on his kingside, and if he doesn't play f4, then h3 doesn't have much point, see Socko,B−Rozentalis,E/Warsaw POL 2006) 11...f5 The pawn structure is now similar to a Leningrad Dutch mainline. Thus Black has a backward pawn on e7 and a hole on e6. On the other hand, the white bishop is on e2, which is a worse square than its typical post on g2 in the Dutch. Furthermore, there is no pawn on g3 as part of a fianchetto to deter a black kingside pawn advance. (11...¤ed7 12 ¤f3 ¤f6 13 h3 ¥d7 Black's position is prospectless, Lie,K−Lie,E/Hamar NOR 2007) 12 f4!? (12 ¤h3 develops and covers key squares, perhaps 12...¤g4 13 ¥xg4 fxg4 14 ¤g5 would follow., 12 ¤f3!? is a calm move, and not bad, 12...h6 13 £d2 Boric,E−Rakic,M/Sibenik CRO 2008)

12...¤g4 (12...¤f7 this just doesn't work out, 13 ¤f3 with more space, Stepanov,N−Tukhvatullin,T/Kazan RUS 2008) 13 ¥xg4 (13 ¥d4 e5 14 dxe6 ¥xe6 15 ¤f3 Black has problems, Howell,J−Panchenko,A/Hamburg 1995) 13...fxg4 14 ¤ge2 e5! Breaking up the centre and so gaining dynamic counterplay. (Inferior is 14...¥f5 15 0-0 h5 16 ¥d4

¥f6 17 ¥xf6 exf6 18 ¤d4 with total domination, Skorchenko,D−Tkachenko,G/Lugansk UKR 2007. ) 15 dxe6 ¥xe6 Black has counterplay, Milliet,S−Mirzoev,A/Basel SUI 2010.

9...a5!? is an awfully slow move, 10 ¥e2 ¤a6 11 ¤f3 ¥d7 12 0-0 ¦c8 13 £d2 a4 if Black has to play this (threatening nothing), things have gone badly, Leko,P−Ivanchuk,V/Odessa UKR 2007.

9...e6 10 ¤f3 ¥d7 11 ¥e2 ¥c6 12 0-0 Horvath,G−Chetverik,M/Zalakaros 2005.

10 dxe5 dxe5 11 £xd8

I don't believe the alternative: 11 c5 ¤6d7 12 ¥c4 Up to now this is all well−known theory. 12...£a5! A novelty,

according to my database. This move seems quite risky and ambitious, but it provides a good chance for Black to fight for the initiative. 13 ¤ge2 ¤c6 14 a3 Rowson,J−Baburin,A/Isle of Man 1999.

11...¦xd8 12 c5

12 ¤b5?! is too optimistic, as Black obtains excellent counterplay after 12...¤c6! 13 ¤xa7 ¤d4! and White is in big trouble.

12...¤6d7 13 ¤f3!

20

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnltr-+k+0 9zpp+n+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-zP-zp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+PsN-vLN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¥c4 One would think this would be fine for Black but a several times US Champion lost

without making an obvious error in Dzindzichashvili,R−Alburt,L/Parsippany 1996.

13...¤c6 14 ¥c4 h6

14...¤a5!? 15 ¥e2 (15 ¥b5!? this may be best, 15...¤f8 (15...¤c6 16 ¤e4 see FORUM analysis/2009) 16 0-0 (16 ¤e4 is also promising.) 16...h6 17 ¤e4 ¥d7 Hanley,J−Summerscale,A/London ENG 2007, when I like 18 ¥e2! with the idea 18...¤e6 19 ¤d6) 15...b6 (15...h6 this move is worse, Moreno Carnero,J−Schulze,U/Katernberg GER 2005., 15...¤c6 is Li Chao2−Hoang Canh Huan/Beijing CHN 2008) 16 cxb6 (16

b4 ¤c6 17 b5 ¤d4 18 c6 is actually considered relatively harmless, Daulyte,D−Nguyen Thu Giang/Dresden GER 2008, 16 ¤a4 ¤xc5 17 ¤xc5 bxc5 18 ¦xc5 e4 Hamdouchi,H−Fernandez Garcia,J/Donostia ESP 2009) 16...¤xb6 this position has been considered equal. 17 0-0 (17 ¤b5 ¤d5?! Gara,A−Grunberg,S/Mako HUN 2009 (17...¥b7!) ) 17...¥b7 18 ¦fd1 ¤c6? Alekhine's is still considered an opening in which both sides can play by instinct, but here you have to know your stuff. (18...¦xd1+ 19 ¦xd1 ¦c8 20

¤b5 ¤d5 is fine according to Cox) 19 ¤b5 ¦xd1+ (19...¤d5!? 20 ¦xd5! ¦xd5 21 ¤c7

with advantage, Zubarev,A−Aloma Vidal,R/Athens GRE 2008) 20 ¦xd1 ¤b4 21 ¤d6 (21 ¥c5 see Martin,K−Cox,J/Port Erin IOM 2005, Here Cox claims that 21 a4

"would have left White decidedly better.") 21...¥c6 Yandemirov,V−Konnov,O/Kazan RUS 2008, and now 22 a4!

15 ¤e4!

15 0-0 ¤f8 (15...¤d4?! 16 ¤e4! White simply allows doubled pawns in order to occupy Black's interior weaknesses, Luther,T−Pajeken,W/Dresden GER 2007) 16 ¤e4 ¥e6 17 ¤d6 Adams,P−Crocker,P/Manchester 2002, when 17...¦ab8 is probably good enough for equality.

15 ¤b5 This looks more promising than has previously been thought, and apparently somewhat advantageous. 15...¤d4?! (15...e4) 16 ¤d6! Li Chao2−Garma,C/Beijing CHN 2008.

15...¦e8

21

15...¤a5 16 ¥e2 (16 ¥b5!?) 16...f5 17 ¤d6 Andrews,T−Schmidt,L/ICC INT 2007.

16 0-0 ¦e7 17 ¤d6 ¤f8 18 ¤xc8 ¦xc8 19 ¤d2²

White has a nagging edge and the two Bishops, Adams,M−Santo Roman,M/France 2004.

22

Alekhine's Defence Exchange − 5...exd6

[B03]

Last updated: 15/08/10 by Gawain Jones

1 e4 ¤f6 2 e5 ¤d5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 ¤b6 5 exd6 exd6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-sn-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Taking back with the e−pawn tends to lead to more balanced positions, while 5...cxd6 leads

to more dynamic positions.

6 ¤c3

6 ¥d3 ¥e7 7 ¤e2 0-0 8 ¤bc3 transposes to 7 ¥d3

6...¥e7

6...¤c6!? A relatively new idea. This move looks provocative, but it is by no means bad! The idea behind the text is to prevent White's set−up with ¥d3 and ¤ge2. 7 ¥e3

a) 7 d5 ¤e5 8 f4 ¤ed7 9 £d4 By playing this move White hoped to put the brakes on Black's normal development. However an unpleasant surprise awaits him, see Minasian,A−Minasian,A/ch−ARM, Yerevan 1999.

b) 7 h3 ¥f5 8 ¥e3 (8 ¤f3 ¥e7 9 ¥d3 is less critical, (9 a3 Smeets,J−Reinderman,D/Eindhoven 2010) 9...£d7 Leko,P−Short,N/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 8...¥e7 9 ¤f3 0-0 (9...¥f6 10 b3 h6 Zaragatski,I−Baburin,A/Kemer TUR 2007) 10 d5

23

¤e5 11 ¤d4 ¥g6 12 b3 c6 with counterplay, Sarakauskas,G−Baburin,A/Cork IRL 2005

7...¥e7 8 ¤f3 (8 ¥d3 0-0 9 ¤ge2!? ¤b4 White's important light−squared bishop is exchanged, Hou Yifan−Short,N/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009) 8...0-0 9 ¥e2 ¥g4 (9...¦e8 10 0-0 ¥g4 11

b3 ¥f6= Pedersen,O−Wohl,A/Oslo NOR 2004 leads to a traditional position. With pawn jabs such as ...a5−a4 or...d6−d5 available, Black is comfortable. ) 10 b3 f5!? 11 0-0 (11 £d2! is a sterner test, delaying ...f5−f4 for the time being.) 11...f4 12 ¥c1 ¥f6 13 ¥b2 ¢h8 14 ¤e4 d5 15 ¤xf6 £xf6 16 ¦c1 ¦ad8 17 c5 ¤c8 18 £d2 ¤8e7 19 b4 ¤f5∓ Shukurova,M−Mamedyarov,S/Baku AZE 2006.

7 ¥d3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-sn-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is one of White's better tries against 5...exd6. Alternatives: 7 £f3!? is losing novelty value. As the line has become more popular so antidotes have

been discovered. 7...¤c6 (7...0-0 8 ¥e3 c6 9 0-0-0 d5 is good, but,) 8 ¥e3 0-0 9 0-0-0 ¥g5 (9...f5!? Kortschnoj,V−Miles,A/Biel 1992, 9...¥e6 10 c5! Caruana,F−Genocchio,D/Martina Franca ITA 2007) 10 ¤h3 ¥xe3+ 11 fxe3 £h4 12 g3 £g4!³ might be even better, Smolovic,M−Drazic,S/Belgrade 2003.

7 ¤f3 0-0 8 ¥e2 ¥g4 9 0-0 ¤c6 (9...c5!? Dvoirys,S−Zilberman,Y/Dieren NED 2000) 10 d5 ¥xf3 11 ¥xf3 ¤e5 Belkhodja,S−Vaganian,R/Moscow RUS 2001.

7 h3 stops the pin, 7...0-0 (7...¥f5 8 ¤f3 0-0 9 ¥e2 ¥f6 10 0-0 ¤c6 Schubert,S−Kopylov,M/Oslo NOR 2001) 8 ¤f3 (8 ¥d3 ¦e8 9 ¤ge2 ¥g5 10 0-0 ¥xc1 11 ¦xc1 ¤c6 12 a3 ¤d7 13 b4 ¤f6 14

£c2 ¥d7 15 ¦fd1 ¤e7 16 d5 ¤g6 17 ¤d4 ¤h5 18 £d2 ¤e5 19 ¥f1 £h4÷ Volokitin,A−Nogueiras,J/Calvia ESP 2004.) 8...¥f6 (Or 8...¥f5 9 ¥e3 Evidently White hopes to prosper by avoiding ¥e2 for a couple of moves. A characteristic Alekhine counterattack in the centre based on ...d6−d5 and answering c4−c5 with ...¤c4 is deterred if White can play ¥xc4 in reply 'in one go'. 9...¤c6 10 ¦c1 ¦e8 11 d5 ruling out ...d6−d5 ideas for good, MacKinnon,K−Kraai,J/Edmonton CAN 2009.) 9 ¥e2 ¥e6!? Volokitin,A−Ivanchuk,V/Foros UKR 2006

7...0-0

24

Black sometimes prefers 7...¤c6 8 ¤ge2 ¥g4 (8...a5!? 9 0-0 a4?! is awfully slow and can also expose the a−pawn to attack, see Leko,P−Ivanchuk,V/Mukachevo UKR 2007, 8...¥f6

9 ¥e3 0-0 10 b3 transposes below) 9 f3 ¥h5 10 0-0 ¥g6 (10...0-0 11 b3 (11 ¤f4! ¥g6 12

¤xg6 hxg6 13 d5 ¤e5 14 b3 ¥f6 15 ¥b2 with a small advantage for White) 11...¥f6 Simons,M−Baburin,A/10th Monarch Assurance 2001.) 11 b3 (11 ¥xg6 hxg6 12 d5 ¤e5

13 b3 is Davies,N−Sinha,K/Calcutta 1990.) 11...0-0 12 ¥e3 ¦e8 13 ¥xg6 hxg6 14 £d2 White will simply develop and use his space advantage, Leko,P−Ivanchuk,V/Odessa UKR 2007.

8 ¤ge2 ¤c6 9 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-snnzp-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-+NzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 b3!? first, is Aroshidze,L−Chigladze,I/European GP, Izmir TUR 2003.

9...¦e8

Black occupies the e−file and doesn't commit his minor pieces for the time being. 9...¥f6 10 b3 carefully played before committing the bishop to e3, (10 ¥e3 ¤b4 11 b3 ¤xd3 12

£xd3 ¥g4 Sermek,D−Zelcic,R/Makarska (Croatia) 1994, 10 c5!?) 10...¥g4 11 ¥e3 ¦e8 12 £d2 d5!? (12...¤b4?! 13 ¥b1 White retains his central predominance, Naiditsch,A−Timman,J/Dortmund GER 2002.) 13 c5 ¥xe2 14 ¥xe2 ¤c8 15 ¦fe1 ¤8e7 16 ¥g4! and White made his spatial plus count in Ivanchuk,V−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007.

10 b3

10 a3 ¥f6 Shaw,J−Davies,N/4NCL 2002.

10...¥f8

See Emms,J−Davies,N/Redbus rd1 2002.

25

Alekhine's Defence − 4 Nf3 without

4...Bg4 [B04]

Last updated: 15/08/10 by Gawain Jones

1 e4 ¤f6 2 e5 ¤d5 3 d4 d6 4 ¤f3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...dxe5

An old move, revived by Bent Larsen. 4...g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

26

This line is thought of as ultra−solid, but the Pawn on e5 can be a permanent thorn in Black's side. 5 ¥c4 ¤b6 (5...c6!? 6 exd6 (6 0-0 ¥g7 7 h3 dxe5 8 ¤xe5 ¤d7 9 ¤f3 It makes sense to decline the exchange on d7 as it would unclutter the black position. 9...0-0 10

¦e1 e6 Black is solid, Zeberski,J−Rozentalis,E/Warsaw POL 2009) 6...£xd6 7 0-0 ¥g7 8 h3 a promising continuation for White as Black's bishop is denied it's most active square, see Svidler,P−Akopian,V/Halkidiki GRE 2002 (8 ¤bd2 is an old line that has always been considered somewhat better for White, Fedorchuk,S−Genocchio,D/Conegliano ITA 2008) ) 6 ¥b3 ¥g7 (6...d5!? a speciality of the Hungarian Grandmaster Zoltan Varga, 7 h3 a5 8 a4 ¥g7 9 0-0 0-0 10 ¦e1 with an edge, Corrales Jimenez,F−Nogueiras Santiago,J/Havana CUB 2010) 7 a4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9P+-zP-+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most dangerous line for Black. a) 7 £e2!? ¤c6 8 ¤bd2 (8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 a5 (9...dxe5 10 dxe5 ¤d4 11 ¤xd4 £xd4 12 ¦e1

with a nice space advantage, Colovic,A−Pesotsky,V/Plovdiv BUL 2008, 9...¤a5 10

¤c3 ¤xb3 11 axb3 ¥f5 Adams,M−Zhukova,N/Caleta ENG 2010) 10 a4 dxe5 11 dxe5 ¤d4 12 ¤xd4 £xd4 13 ¦e1 e6 (13...¤d7?! Tregubov,P−McShane,L/Muelheim Nord GER 2006) 14 ¤d2 Short,N−Timman,J/Tilburg 1991.) 8...0-0 (8...¥g4? is simply bad on account of the tactical trick 9 ¥xf7+ intending 9...¢xf7 10 ¤g5+ followed by 11 £xg4.) 9 h3 Now White does take a prophylactic measure to stop ...¥g4, which really is a threat after Black has castled. 9...h6?! 10 c3! This not only supports White's central pawn−chain, but also allows White's light−squared bishop to drop back to c2 if attacked by ...¤a5. 10...¢h7 11 h4! Motwani,P−Tan,K/Tilburg Eksakt Weekender, Holl 2000.

b) The immediate 7 ¤g5 has also been played, but this move is not as strong since the addition of the moves 7.a2−a4 a7−a5 favours White, as we'll see later. 7...e6 this move of Alburt's is the best way for Black to continue. (7...d5?! 8 f4 f6 9 ¤f3

Ishkhamov,T−Chernin,O/Las Vegas 2002.) 8 f4 (8 £f3 £d7!? 9 ¤e4 with advantage, Reyniers,P−Marin,M/Arinsal AND 2009) 8...dxe5 9 fxe5 c5 10 c3 cxd4 11 0-0 0-0 12 cxd4 ¤c6 13 ¤f3 f6 14 ¤c3 fxe5 15 ¥g5 £d7 16 dxe5 £xd1 (16...¤xe5 is also good.) 17 ¦axd1 ¤xe5 18 ¤xe5 ¦xf1+ 19 ¢xf1 ¥xe5³ Radulski,J−Laketic,G/Vrnjacka Banja SCG 2005, a fragment which confirms the earlier assessment that Black is fine after 7...e6.

7...a5 This natural move is Black's most frequent choice. (7...dxe5!? is a very sharp move which leads to wild complications. 8 a5 (8 ¤xe5 is harmless: 8...¥xe5! 9 dxe5 £xd1+ 10

27

¢xd1 ¤c6 and in this ending Black has no real problems.) 8...¤6d7 9 ¥xf7+! This sharp combo is the only way to fight for an opening advantage. The alternatives are absolutely harmless. 9...¢xf7 10 ¤g5+ ¢g8 11 ¤e6 £e8 12 ¤xc7 £d8! This move was introduced by American GM Lev Alburt in the early nineties. (This line had previously been discredited because of a game in which Black had played 12...£f7,

but did not get enough for the exchange. Alburt's move is a significant improvement. Now White's Knight can't escape from a8.) 13 ¤xa8 (White can take a draw: 13 ¤e6

£e8 14 ¤c7 as he did in Svidler−Khalifman 1995, however White can hardly be happy with this result.) 13...exd4 14 0-0!? The latest development. (In my opinion, this move is more precise than the immediate 14 c3 ¤c5 15 cxd4 ¥xd4 16 ¥e3 e5 Oral,T−De Firmian,N/Reykjavik 2000.) 14...¤c6 15 c3 ¤c5 (15...h6 seems worse, Dgebuadze,A−Sadkowsky,D/Ghent BEL 2010) 16 b4 The critical position for the whole line, Almasi,Z−De la Villa Garcia,J/Pamplona 2000. (Although 16 cxd4 ¤xd4

17 ¥e3 is possible, and my suggestion for White.) ) 8 ¤g5! This move still remains one of White's main weapons. 8...e6 9 f4 dxe5 The only way for Black to obtain counterplay is to challenge the centre. 10 fxe5 c5 11 c3! (11 0-0 is less precise, 11...0-0? (Black could have exploited this inaccuracy by playing 11...£xd4+! Volzhin 12 £xd4 cxd4 with excellent prospects: 13 ¤xf7 (or 13 ¦xf7 ¥xe5) 13...0-0!) 12 c3 ¤c6?! Black doesn't want to give White's knight the c3−square after the exchange on d4. 13 ¤e4! White is not forced to protect the d4 pawn at all! Kasparov,G−Palatnik,S/Duagavpils 1978.) 11...cxd4 12 0-0! 0-0 13 cxd4 Grischuk,A−Ponomariov,R/Torshavn 2000.

4...¤c6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+nzp-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5 c4 This move drives back Black's knight from the centre. 5...¤b6 6 exd6 (6 e6!? This

must be critical for the theoretical standing of 4...¤c6. 6...fxe6 7 ¤c3 g6 8 h4 ¥g7 9 ¥e3 0-0 10 h5 e5 11 d5 ¤d4 12 ¤xd4 exd4 13 ¥xd4 ¥xd4 14 £xd4 e5 15 dxe6 (15

£e3 4...Nc6 Analysis/2009) 15...£f6 16 0-0-0 with an edge, Kobalia,M−Narciso Dublan,M/Rijeka CRO 2010) 6...exd6 (6...cxd6 7 ¥e2 g6?! 8 d5! Motwani,P−Pedersen,D/Vordingborg, Denmark 1980.) 7 h3 (7 ¥e2 ¥e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d5 Adams,M−Porper,E/Edmonton CAN 2009) 7...¥e7 8 ¥e2 0-0 9 0-0 ¥f6 10 ¤c3 ¥f5 (10...¦e8 11

b3 Adams,M−Nakamura,H/Tripoli LBA 2004. Perhaps White is a shade better, certainly he should not lose this position.) 11 ¥f4 ¦e8 12 ¦e1 (12 ¦c1 first is more

28

accurate) 12...¤b4 13 ¦c1 ¦xe2! at least equal, Degraeve,J−Bauer,C/Cannes FRA 2005.

4...c6 5 c4 (5 ¥e2!? ¤c7!? 6 0-0 dxe5 7 ¤xe5 g6 8 c4 ¥g7 9 f4 Space. Karjakin,S−Karttunen,M/Kemer TUR 2007) 5...¤c7!? even though the knight eyes e6, and may even come there at some point, Black's pieces never seem to coordinate after this move. 6 ¤c3 (6 exd6 exd6 7 ¤c3 ¥g4 8 h3 ¥h5 9 ¥e3 ¥e7 10 g4 ¥g6 11 £b3 £c8 led to sharp play in Gallagher,J−Baburin,A/Monarch Assurance 2001.) 6...g6 7 ¥f4 ¥g4 8 exd6 exd6 9 ¥e2 ¥e7 10 ¥h6 Socko,B−Efimov,I/Kallithea GRE 2008.

5 ¤xe5 g6

This move, the Kengis Variation, is solid and reliable. It was revived by the Latvian GM Vladimir Bagirov, and, of course, his compatriot GM Edvins Kengis is an old adherent of this line too.

5...c6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+nsN-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This, Tony Miles' pet line, is actually quite an interesting idea. Black wants to challenge White's knight on e5 with ...¤d7 without having to worry about

that nasty piece sac that occurs after 5...¤d7 (6.¤xf7!). Unlike the Kengis variation (5...g6) Black is not committed to a kingside fianchetto and can often develop his queen's bishop actively on either g4 or f5. Having said that, I believe that White must be able to preserve at least a tiny edge. 6 ¥c4 Arguably White's most natural move. Others:

a) 6 c4 ¤c7 (Black has also played the naive−looking 6...¤b4 and perhaps it isn't bad. 7 ¥e3 ¥f5 8 ¤d3 e5 9 ¤xb4 ¥xb4+ 10 ¤c3 £a5 11 £b3 exd4 12 ¥xd4 0-0 just looks very good for Black.) 7 ¤c3 ¤d7 8 ¤xd7 ¥xd7 9 ¥e3 Short,N−Miles,A/Ohrid MKD 2001.

b) 6 ¥e2! This would be my choice. Develop, castle, rook to e1 and then look for the right moment to play c2−c4! 6...¥f5

b1) 6...¤d7 7 ¤f3 ¤7f6 (7...g6 8 c4 (8 0-0 ¥g7 9 c4 ¤5f6 (9...¤c7 is better, and transposes) 10 ¤c3 Efimenko,Z−Nisipeanu,L/Rijeka CRO 2010) 8...¤c7 9 ¤c3 ¥g7 10 0-0 0-0 11 ¥g5 (11 ¥f4 Degraeve,J−Miles,A/Mondariz ESP 2000) 11...¤e6 12 ¥e3 ¤f6 13 h3 b6 14 £b3 £c7 15 ¦fe1 ¥b7 Bauer,C−Mamedyarov,S/Merida ESP 2005) 8 0-0 ¥f5 (8...¥g4 9 h3 ¥xf3 10 ¥xf3 Karjakin,S−Carlsen,M/Nice FRA 2008) 9

29

¤h4! ¥g6 10 c4 ¤b6 11 ¤c3 e6 12 g3! this protects the knight on h4 from discovered attacks, and restricts the influence of a bishop on d6, Anand,V−Carlsen,M/Nice FRA 2008.

b2) 6...g6 7 0-0 ¥g7 8 ¤f3 ¥g4 9 ¦e1 0-0 10 h3 ¥xf3 11 ¥xf3 ¤d7 12 c4 ¤5b6 13 c5 ¤c8 14 ¤c3 e5 15 ¥e3± an uninspiring position for Black in view of White's two Bishops and potential pawn breakthrough on the queenside, Hunt,H−Skripchenko,A/Calvia ESP 2004

7 0-0 (7 g4!? Kasparov hopes to use his advanced knight for this active thrust, but had he really calculated the consequences of Black's ninth? 7...¥e6 8 c4!? ¤c7 (8...¤b6 9

b3!? was a pawn sac in Kasparov,G−Short,N/Moscow RUS 2002) 9 ¦g1!? ¤d7 10 ¤f3 g6 11 ¤c3 ¥g7 12 ¥e3 0-0 13 £d2 b5! a typical light square grab via a pawn sacrifice, Anand,V−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007.) 7...¤d7 8 ¤g4!? (8 ¤f3 e6 9 a3

¥e7 10 c4 ¤5f6 11 ¤c3 h6 12 ¥f4 0-0 13 d5! an instructive positional break, Rublevsky,S−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007, 8 ¥g4!? ¥xg4 9 £xg4 e6 10 ¦d1 Adams,M−Zhao Xue/Edmonton CAN 2009, 8 ¤d3 e6 9 c4 ¤5f6 10 ¥f4 £b6 11 ¥e3 £c7 12 ¤c3 ¥d6 Black is solid, Fedorchuk,S−Shchekachev,A/Ghent BEL 2010) 8...e6 (8...¤7f6 9 c4 won quickly in Kosten,A−Ferguson,M/Nottingham ENG 2005) 9 c4 ¤5f6 (9...¤b4!? 10

¤e3! ¥xb1 11 ¦xb1 ¤xa2 12 ¥d2 ¤b4 13 d5! is the tactical point, with a nice attack for the pawn, Lupulescu,C−Grunberg,M/Bucharest ROM 2007) 10 ¤e3 ¥g6 11 ¤c3 (11

d5!? may be premature, 11...£c7 12 ¤c3 ¥d6 with good play, Hague,B−Cox,J/4NCL 2005) 11...¥d6! Grischuk,A−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007.

c) 6 ¤d2 White aims to maintain his knight on e5, hoping that this will guarantee a slight space advantage. But with a pair of minor pieces exchanged this won't mean very much. 6...¤d7 7 ¤df3 (7 ¤d3 g6 8 ¤f3 ¥g7 9 ¥e2 c5! is fine for Black, Tiviakov,S−Cox,J/Port Erin IOM 2005) 7...¤xe5 8 ¤xe5 g6 (8...¥f5 9 £f3 White must try to exploit the exposed bishop, Arakhamia−Baburin/4NCL 2004) 9 £f3 Tiviakov,S−Van der Werf,M/Leeuwarden NED 2001.

d) 6 ¥d3 is rather quiet but White may be able to work up a small nagging edge. 6...¤d7 7 0-0!

d1) 7 ¤f3 ¤7f6 8 h3 ¤b4! The Bishop has been used as a target to facilitate Black counterplay. 9 ¥c4 ¥f5 10 ¤a3 (10 ¤e5 e6 11 ¤a3 ¥d6 12 0-0 h6 13 c3 ¤bd5 14 ¤c2 £c7

15 ¥d3 ¥xe5 16 dxe5 ¥xd3 17 £xd3 £xe5∓ Del−Rio−Angelis,S−Conquest,S/4th IECC, Istanbul TUR 2003 Black went on to consolidate and win.) 10...e6 11 c3 ¤bd5 12 ¤c2 ¥e7 13 ¤e3 ¥g6 14 ¤e5 gaining the bishop pair, Adams,M−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007.

d2) 7 ¤xd7 has been played by Adams among other GMs, but I find it very hard to believe that White can hope for much by trading his active knight like this for Black's passive one, 7...¥xd7 8 0-0 g6 9 ¦e1 (9 c4 it looks a little strange to weaken d4, Zhigalko,A−Rozentalis,E/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2006) 9...¥g7 10 c3 0-0 11 ¥g5 £b6!? Cuijpers,F−Cox,J/Amsterdam NED 2006.

7...¤xe5 8 dxe5 ¤b4 (8...g6 this creates a slightly odd impression in conjunction with ...¤xe5, Sutovsky,E−Mamedyarov,S/Gothenburg SWE 2005) 9 ¥e4 £xd1 10 ¦xd1 f5 11 a3 ¤a6 12 ¥f3 g6 13 ¤d2 ¥e6 14 ¥e2 ¤c7 15 ¤f3 ¥d5 16 ¤d4 ¥g7 17 c4 ¥f7 18 f4!² Sutovsky,E−Carlsen,M/ECC, Rethymnon GRE 2003 Black has some problems to solve.

30

6...¤d7 (6...¥f5 7 ¤d2 (7 £f3! is a problem, when Black has no easy way to level things in view of 7...e6 8 ¤xf7) 7...¤d7 8 ¤df3 e6 9 c3 ¥d6 10 £e2 0-0? Walking straight into a big White attack. Black should wait a while with his King: (10...¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 £c7)

11 g4! ¤xe5 12 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 13 dxe5 ¥g6 14 h4 h6 15 h5 ¥h7 16 ¦g1 ¤b6 17 g5 ¤xc4 18 £xc4 ¥d3 19 £f4± Direct play certainly pays dividends! Potkin,V−Kopylov,M/Bad Wiessee GER 2004) 7 ¤f3 ¤7b6 This allows Black to develop his bishop to g4.

a) 7...b5 might not be too bad. 8 ¥b3 e6 9 0-0 ¥b7 10 ¤bd2 c5 11 c4 bxc4 12 ¤xc4 ¥e7 13 ¥g5 0-0 14 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 15 ¤d6 ¥xf3 16 £xf3 cxd4 17 ¤xf7÷ Gallagher,J−Wohl,A/4NCL, Telford ENG 2003 Randomising!

b) 7...e6 8 0-0 ¥e7 (8...b5 9 ¥d3 a6 10 b3 ¥e7 this hinges on whether Black can time ...c6−c5 successfully. If he cannot, then White surely holds the advantage, 11 c4 ¤5b6

12 ¤c3 b4 13 ¤e4 ¤f6 14 £c2± Kasimdzhanov,R−Brochet,P/Belfort FRA 2004 ) 9 ¥b3 b5 10 ¦e1 0-0 11 a4 ¤7f6 12 £e2 b4 13 ¤e5 ¥b7 14 a5² Skripchenko,A−Conquest,S/Pulvermuehle GER 2004

c) 7...¤7f6 8 h3 ¥f5 9 0-0 e6 (9...h6 10 ¥b3 e6 11 c4 ¤b6 12 ¤c3 ¥e7 13 £e2 0-0 14 ¥f4²

Ledger,A−Palliser,R/Scarborough ENG 2004 − Simple chess is enough for an edge.) 10 ¥g5 this doesn't achieve much, 10...¥e7 11 ¤bd2 h6 12 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 White only has a space advantage in return for the bishops, and it is shaky. I already prefer Black, Shirov,A−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007.

8 ¥e2! this seems a good, safe way to keep an edge: (8 ¥b3 ¥g4 9 ¤bd2 e6 10 0-0 Van der Weide,K−Miles,A/Saint Vincent ITA 2000.) 8...¥g4 9 0-0 e6 10 h3 (10 ¦e1 ¥e7 11 h3

¥h5 12 ¤e5 ¥xe2 13 £xe2 0-0 14 c4² Quillan,G−Cox,J/Birmingham ENG 2005)

10...¥h5 11 ¤e5 ¥xe2 12 £xe2 notice how utterly safe White's setup is. He retains a central pull while exposing nothing to attack, see Jakovenko,D−Bu Xiangzhi/Nizhniy Novgorod RUS 2007.

5...¤d7!? This move was introduced by the Danish Viking Bent Larsen in one of his candidates matches against Mikhail Tal. Tal didn't dare take on f7, afraid that he would have to settle for a draw. However, for many years ¤xf7 was considered the refutation of 5...¤d7, although this is no longer the case. 6 ¤xf7!? (6 ¤f3 If White isn't up to the challenge of 6 ¤xf7, this is an excellent alternative. Videki & Krizsany consider this White's best option after 5...¤d7. 6...e6 7 g3 The positional treatment. (White can also opt for the more aggressive 7 c4 ) 7...¥e7 8 ¥g2 Groszpeter,A−Pitschka,K/Pardubice CZE 2000.) 6...¢xf7 7 £h5+ ¢e6 The king has to go to the centre. 8 c4 (8 g3! This is probably the best move here. 8...b5 9 a4 c6 10 ¤c3? (10 ¥h3+! is essential, driving the black king to d6) 10...g6 Navara,D−Miroshnichenko,E/Antalya TUR 2004.) 8...¤5f6 9 d5+ ¢d6 10 £f7 ¤e5!? After considering different knight moves the conclusion is obvious: the knight should go to the centre! (10...¤b8?! didn't work too well in Mutschnik,I−Pitschka,K/Stuttgart GER 2005) 11 ¥f4 Now 12.c5 is threatened, so Black's next move is forced. 11...c5 12 ¤c3 a6 13 b4 Currently considered to be White's best try, and hair−raising complications ensue. (13 0-0-0 This old main line has fallen into disuse, but do you fancy the Black position circa move 15? 13...g6! This is the point. 14...¥h6 is threatened. 14 ¥xe5+ ¢xe5 15 d6 Rozentalis,E−Sokolov,A/Bern 1992.) 13...£b6! This move seems to be the only chance for defence. Alternatives are insufficient. 14 0-0-0 (14 bxc5+ was thought to be a winning move, but recent games have changed the

31

evaluation of this position.) 14...cxb4! A very important novelty, the notes to the game Mysliwiec,E−Krzyzanowski,A/corr 1995, reveal the current theoretical evaluation of this line, and things are looking good for Black. Take a risk and win!

6 c4

At the present time this looks like the most dangerous continuation. White takes bags of space, putting the onus on Black to find counterplay.

6 £f3 looks quite interesting and I don't know why its played so rarely. 6...¥e6 (In 'The Complete Alekhine' (1992) Burgess opined that 6...f6 was probably necessary but then reconsidered this view in 1996 ('New Ideas in the Alekhine Defence'). My view is that if Black has to play the ugly 6 ...f6 the Kengis variation would be put out of business.) 7 c4 ¤b4 The only move. 8 £xb7 £xd4! (Burgess and his trusty computer award this move a '?!' and give some convoluted lines based on 8...¤c2+ 9 ¢d1 ¤xa1 10 £xa8 ¥g7 11 ¥d2 (or 11 £b7 − Fleck) 11...c5!?, "all of which requires careful analysis". I'd prefer to skip the 'careful analysis' and go down the pub. Taking on d4 feels right to me.) 9 £xa8 £xe5+ (Burgess only gives 9...¤c2+ which feels all wrong to me. I like my knights where they are, bringing 'Dobbin' (the one on b4) back to c6 keeps White's queen out of play. Meanwhile Black will race ahead with the rest of his development − good compensation for the exchange as White's king is in the middle. This is the kind of factor that materialistic computers tend to underestimate. Let us see some analysis of Volzhin: 10 ¢e2 £xe5+ 11 ¢d1 £d4+ 12

¤d2 The few previous moves were forced, 12...¤xa1 13 £xb8+ ¢d7 14 £b5+ ¢d8 15

£b8+ ¢d7 16 £b5+ It seems this line is a sufficient defence for Black although I suspect either side may improve here. This line needs practical tests.) 10 ¢d1 ¤4c6 11 ¤c3 ¥g7 12 ¥e3 0-0 Ernst,T−Josefsson,K/Sweden 1983.

6 ¥c4 Currently the most popular continuation. 6...c6 7 0-0 (7 ¤d2 White intends to reinforce e5 with his other knight. 7...¥g7 8 ¤df3 Nijboer,F−Vaganian,R/NED 2001.) 7...¥g7 8 ¦e1 (8 ¤d2 0-0 9 ¤df3 ¤d7 10 h3 Movsesian,S−Svidler,P/Odessa UKR 2009)

8...0-0 9 ¥b3 (9 c3 ¥e6 10 ¤d2 ¤d7 11 ¤xd7 £xd7 12 ¤e4 gives White an edge, Krylov,S−Suder,R/Durham ENG 2007) 9...¤d7!? Adams deviates from the next note. Unfortunately this stops us seeing the improvement Kasparov had prepared against 9...¥e6. The text is an attempt to relieve Black's slight cramp by exchanging pieces. (9...¥e6 10 c3 (10 ¤d2 ¤c7 11 c3 ¥d5? Poor. Black forgets that he has a King to defend. Naturally, 11...¤d7 had to be played. 12 £g4! a5 13 ¤df3 a4 14 ¥c2 ¥xf3 15

¤xf3 ¤d7 16 £h4 e6 17 ¥g5 ¥f6 18 £h6 ¦a5 19 h4 ¦e8 20 ¦e4‚ Lane,G−Wallace,J/Canberra 2003 White has marshalled his forces excellently for the imminent winning attack.) 10...¤d7 11 ¤f3 ¤c7 Now the exchange on e6 is forced, Howell,J−Kengis,E/London 1991.) 10 ¤f3! White, who has a space advantage, should avoid any exchanges. 10...¤7f6 (10...¦e8 Sharma,D−Miroshnichenko,E/Mumbai IND 2009) 11 c4 ¤c7 12 h3 Otherwise Black starts pressurising the d4−square (...¥g4, ...¤e6). Now the bishop on c8 lacks good squares: Kasparov,G−Adams,M/Linares 1997. White's accurate manoeuvres here seem to give his world class opponent no chance at all. A game worthy of study for two reasons: firstly, to see the current state of theory in a main line and secondly, to see the World Champion at his best.

32

6 ¤d2 For reasons known best to himself, Miles awarded this move two exclamation marks in Informator 67 and splattered more exclamation marks over the rest of the game. I suspect he was being ironic, especially in view of the fact that he later changed sides. 6...¥g7 7 ¤df3 0-0 8 c4 ¤b6 9 ¥e2 Miles,A−Pons,S/Andorra 1996.

6...¤b6 7 ¤c3 ¥g7 8 ¥e3

8 ¥f4 0-0 9 ¥e2 a5!? 10 h4?! Quite a dubious move, as White has no real attacking chances, Gallagher,J−Kengis,E/Bern 1992, (The simple 10 0-0 should be preferred, although I doubt whether White has any advantage.)

8...c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-zp-sN-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The 'critical' line, but one which seems to leave Black fighting for a draw.

9 dxc5 £xd1+ 10 ¦xd1 ¥xe5 11 cxb6

Ernst,T−Bagirov,V/Helsinki (Finland) 1992.

33

Alekhine's Defence − 4 Nf3 Bg4 [B05]

Last updated: 16/05/11 by Gawain Jones

1.e4 ¤f6 2.e5 ¤d5 3.d4 d6 4.¤f3 ¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zppzpp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Main line of the Alekhine's, and Black is currently having serious problems − certainly

the statistics are very poor for him. In many lines White enjoys a small but steady edge, while Black is compelled to passive defence without serious chances of counterplay. Clearly Black urgently needs new ideas, otherwise it's time to switch to another variation.

5.¥e2

5.c4 ¤b6 6.exd6 (6.¥e2 e6 transposes below) 6...exd6 7.h3 Sahl,B−Mamedyarov,S/Saint Vincent 2005.

5...e6

The alternative is Flohr's line: 5...c6 6.0-0 (6.c4 has been considered testing, but in the following snippet, Black gets a good game: 6...¤b6 7.¤bd2 ¤8d7 8.0-0 dxe5 9.¤xe5 ¤xe5

10.dxe5 ¥f5 11.£b3 e6 12.¦d1 £c7 13.£g3 0-0-0 14.b3 h5÷ Greet,A−Baburin,A/Birmingham 2006, 6.¤g5!? is the line that originally deterred everyone from 5...c6, Baburin calls it the most critical, 6...¥xe2 7.£xe2 dxe5 8.dxe5 e6 this much−tested position is probably satisfactory for Black, see Jonkman,H−Krasenkow,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007) 6...¥xf3 (6...¤d7!? 7.¤g5 Ivanov,O−Derbenev,A/Lipetsk RUS 2009) 7.¥xf3 dxe5 8.dxe5 e6 9.¦e1

34

a) 9.£e2!? is considered inferior but everyone seems to play it! 9...¤d7 10.c4 (10.¤d2 ¥e7 11.b3? ¤xe5! Garcia Pantoja,R−Fernandez Garcia,J/Havana CUB 2009)

10...¤e7 11.¥d2 White's idea is to play ¥c3 and ¦e1, (11.¥g4!? is an idea of Botvinnik, see Arakhamia,K−Baburin,A/Triesen LIE 2007) 11...¤g6 (11...£c7 12.¦e1

¤g6 transposes) 12.¥c3 £c7 13.¦e1 0-0-0 (13...¤f4? 14.£e3!) 14.b4?! this just exposes White's position, 14...¥e7 now the threat is a triple capture on e5 followed by ...¥f6. 15.£b2 (15.a4? is losing, Ibarra Chami,L−Fernandez Garcia,J/Havana CUB 2007,

15.g3?! Illijin,N−Horn,P/Biel 1990) 15...f6 b) 9.c4 is considered completely harmless, but it may have some poison in it,

9...¤e7 10.£xd8+ ¢xd8 Bilic,V−Gavric,M/Vogosca BIH 2007, and now 11.¥d2! (11.b3?! Verbruggen,S−Krasenkow,M/Vlissingen NED 2007) 11...¤d7 12.¥c3 ¤g6 13.¦e1 with two bishops and more space.

c) 9.b3 Thinking in the abstract this sounds like a good idea− the white queen, rook and bishop will 'overprotect e5 in good Nimzowitschian style' as the phrase goes− but the problem is it doesn't seem to work! Once the bishop goes to b2 the black knight on d5 can exploit the undefended f4 square to reach g6, and then the e5 pawn is surprisingly fragile. 9...¤d7 10.¥b2 £c7 11.£e2 ¤f4 12.£e4 ¤g6 Black has at least equal chances through targeting e5, Breznik,K−Rogulj,B/Sentjur SLO 2009

9...¤d7 10.¤d2 £c7 (10...£b8?! is an attempt at an improvement, 11.¤c4 b5 Now Gufeld's combination doesn't work. 12.¤d6+ This pawn sacrifice is forced but strong! Cmilyte,V−Zhukova,N/Istanbul Olympiad 2000., 10...¥e7 11.¤c4! 0-0 12.a4 a5 13.¥d2

Baklan,V−Kosikov,A/Kiev 2000., 10...h6!? Black prevents ¥g5 and prepares ...g5 in some lines, Karjakin,S−Short,N/Kiev UKR 2008) 11.¤c4 ¤7b6! The only move. (11...b5? This optimistic move allows a brilliant combination. 12.¥xd5! cxd5 13.¤d6+

¥xd6 14.£xd5!! a lovely but easy to miss Queen sacrifice, Gufeld,E−Goh,C/Penang 1991.) 12.£d4!? ¤xc4 13.£xc4 White is slightly better due to the Bishop pair and space advantage. On the other hand, Black's position is very solid, with no weaknesses or bad pieces. 13...0-0-0 14.a3 (Instead 14.a4!? intends to throw all the pawns forward on the queenside. This is a rather obvious attempt at an improvement, 14...h5 15.c3 ¥e7 16.b4 and White had the superior attack in Vuckovic,B−Bogut,Z/Sarajevo BIH 2009.) 14...h6 an ambitious move, trying to attack on the kingside! (14...£a5?! Malakhov,V−Sedina,E/Porto San Giorgio 1999)

15.b4 g5 Senff,M−Krasenkow,M/Muelheim Nord GER 2007. 5...g6!? is an odd mix of systems, 6.¤g5! ¥f5!? 7.e6!? Popovic,D−Zubak,Z/Bizovac CRO

2008. 5...¤c6 6.c4 ¤b6 7.exd6 exd6 8.0-0 ¥e7 9.b3 0-0 10.¤c3 ¥f6 11.¥e3 d5 12.c5 ¤c8 is all

standard stuff, played hundreds of times before, Mok Tze Meng−Hernandez,G/Dresden GER 2008.

6.0-0

6.h3 ¥h5 (6...¥xf3 attempts to exploit the early h3, 7.¥xf3 c6 8.0-0?! dxe5! Libiszewski,F−Rozentalis,E/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2005, 6...¥f5!? Ni Hua−Torre,E/Cebu City PHI 2007) 7.c4 ¤b6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.¤c3 ¥e7 10.d5!

35

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqk+-tr0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-sn-zpp+-+0 9+-+P+-+l0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+P0 9PzP-+LzPP+0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This natural move seems to be a novelty. Now White obtains a space advantage and

prospects of a queenside attack. 10...e5 11.g4!? This is the most ambitious. It was introduced by Bologan. (11.¥e3 ¥xf3!? 12.¥xf3 ¤8d7 13.£e2 Black has a solid position (although White is slightly better), Bologan,V−Tischbierek,R/Wien 1996.) 11...¥g6 12.h4 h5 13.g5 ¤8d7 14.¥e3 The critical position for the whole line, see Hamdouchi,H−Baburin,A/Saint Vincent 2000.

6.c4 ¤b6 7.exd6 (or 7.h3, when 7...¥h5 8.exd6 transposes to the above line, 7.¤c3?! dxe5 8.¤xe5

¥xe2 9.£xe2?! £xd4 with a pawn more, Arnold,L−Rozentalis,E/Augsburg GER 2005.) 7...cxd6 8.0-0 ¥e7 9.h3 ¥h5 10.¤c3 Najer,E−Yermolinsky,A/Philadelphia USA 2008.

6...¥e7 7.c4 ¤b6 8.¤c3

It is still not clear if White should interpolate 8.h3 ¥h5 or not. Both variations have their merits and drawbacks.

8.h3 ¥h5 9.¤c3 0-0 (9...a6!? is an interesting little move which has been popular with the high−rated players who have taken Black's position in recent times, see Motylev,A−Yermolinsky,A/Moscow RUS 2005) 10.¥e3 d5 11.c5 ¥xf3 (11...¤6d7!? 12.b4 f6!?

Abdulyazanov,M−Tukhvatullin,T/Kazan RUS 2008) 12.gxf3!? This move became popular when it became clear, that (12.¥xf3 offers nothing. The position after the text is a "tabia" of the 4...Bg4 line. It has occurred in hundreds of games.) 12...¤c8 13.f4 ¤c6 14.f5!? White takes the first opportunity to break in the centre. It is a very interesting, but probably somewhat premature, decision, (14.b4 Fedorowicz,J−Baburin,A/San Francisco USA 2002) 14...exf5 15.¥f3 This is the idea behind 14. f5: the d5−pawn is defenceless. Now Black has to find counterplay, otherwise he'll be smashed by White's strong central pawns− Aseev,K−Bagirov,V/Berlin 1990.

8...0-0 9.¥e3

9.h3 ¥h5 10.¥e3 a6!? A curious semi−waiting move. 11.exd6 cxd6 12.£b3 (12.d5 Becerra Rivero,J−Yermolinsky,A/Ledyard USA 2009) 12...¤8d7 (12...£c7 13.¥f4 ¤c6) 13.a4 ¥xf3 14.gxf3 ¦b8 15.¢h1 ¥g5 16.¦g1 ¥xe3 17.fxe3 £h4 Hoepfl,T−Tischbierek,R/Osterburg GER 2006 Black has very acceptable play.

36

9...d5 10.c5 ¥xf3 11.gxf3 ¤c8 12.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnnwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zPpzP-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+LzP-zP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

We have suggested this line as the most dangerous for Black.

12...¤c6

12...¥h4?! 13.¥d3 g6?! Another inaccuracy. (13...f5 is obligatory here. White is clearly better on both sides of the board, but Black's defensive resources should not be underestimated.) 14.f5! exf5 15.£f3! Kobalija,M−Nalbandian,T/Moscow 1999.

13.b4

I believe this move is much more to the point than 13.f5

13...¥h4 14.b5

Ulibin,M−Morovic Fernandez,I/Las Palmas 1992.

37