chess publishing- french c15-19 - winawer

Winawer [C15−C19]

Written by GM Neil McDonald

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

By pinning the white knight Black shows he is interested in counterattack rather than

defence. The situation is immediately imbalanced, which is ideal for those players looking

to win with either White or Black. Now over the next few moves there are many

possibilities for both sides, but let's begin by looking at the position after the standard 4 e5

c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7:

2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Winawer is one of the most positionally complex opening lines in the whole of

chess theory. White has the two bishops and a space advantage in the centre. More

specifically, the absence of Black's dark square bishop has weakened his kingside. This

often provokes an immediate lunge at g7 with £g4. On the other hand, White's queenside

pawn structure has been seriously undermined. Can he afford an adventure like £g4 and

£xg7 when his pieces are undeveloped and his queenside insecure? Or should he prefer 7

¤f3, developing in solid style? Theory has yet to come up with an answer to this question,

but that won't stop us trying to find it here!

All the games given in blue can be accessed via ChessPub.exe, simply head for their respective ECO code.

3

Contents

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4 e5

4 ¥d3 Winawer 4 Bd3 [C15] 4 a3 Winawer 4 a3 [C15] 4 ¤ge2 Winawer 4 ¤ge2 [C15] 4 £d3 Winawer 4 £d3 [C15]

4...c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+

5...¥a5 6 b4 (6 £g4 Winawer 5...¥a5 6 £g4, 6 ¥d2 [C17]) 6...cxd4 7 £g4 (7 ¤b5 Winawer 5...¥a5, 7 ¤b5 [C17]) 7...¤e7 8 bxa5 dxc3 9 £xg7 Winawer 5... ¥a5 7 £g4 [C17]

5...cxd4 Winawer 4 e5 c5 5 a3 cxd4 [C17]

6 bxc3

4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤e7

6...£a5 Winawer 6...£a5 [C18]

7 £g4

7 h4 Winawer 7 h4 & 7 ¤f3− [C18] 7 ¤f3 £c7 8 h4 b6 Winawer 7 ¤f3 £c7 b7−b6 ideas [C19] 7 a4 Winawer 7 a4− [C19]

7...0-0

7...£c7 8 £xg7 ¦g8 9 £xh7 cxd4 Winawer 7 £g4 £c7 8 £xg7 & 8 ¥d3 [C18]

8 ¥d3

Winawer 7 £g4 0-0 & 7...¢f8 [C18]

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

5

Winawer 4 Bd3 [C15]

Last updated: 07/03/03 by Neil McDonald

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

White avoids the mainline French structure without resorting to a gambit line. Nevertheless,

this move feels a little clumsy.

4...dxe4

More aggressive is 4...c5

5 ¥xe4 ¤f6 6 ¥f3 c5 7 ¤ge2 ¤c6 8 ¥e3

A sensible developing move that lays a cunning trap.

8...¤d5?

A plausible looking move as it puts more pressure on c3 and prepares to answer 9.dxc5 with 9...¤xe3 followed by ¥xc5, regaining the pawn with the better game. Unfortunately Black is now already in deep trouble! That is what makes knowledge of opening theory so important: finding the best move depends on trial and error, and even obvious moves can prove to be fatal errors. A rule of chess theory is that a player often reacts badly to a surprise, even if he is a Kasparov or Kramnik. The games of the great German player and French Defence devotee Wolfgang Uhlmann show us how Black should play:

8...cxd4 9 ¤xd4 ¤e5!

6

9 ¥xd5 £xd5?! 10 0-0!

Bauer,C−Sedina,E/Saint Vincent ITA 2003.

7

Winawer 4 Qd3 [C15]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 £d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-sNQ+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's motto is 'the queen is the strongest piece: I should use it!'

4...¤e7!

I consider this is a better approach than conceding the centre with 4...dxe4

5 ¥d2 0-0 6 a3 ¥xc3 7 ¥xc3 b6!

Black prepares ...Ba6 when the exchange of bishops will give him equality or possibly more as White's light squares could become shaky. Levitt,M−Nogueiras,J/Bled SLO 2002.

8

Winawer 4 a3 [C15]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...¥xc3+

Or 4...¥a5!? 5 b4 ¥b6 6 e5 a5 7 b5 c5? A natural move but it falls for a clever positional trap. 8 ¤a4! cxd4 9 £g4! ¢f8 10 ¤xb6 £xb6 11 a4! A highly instructive sequence of moves by White: he has stopped Black castling, got rid of Black's important dark squared bishop and cleared the way for his own bishop to reach a3 with lethal effect. This seems a very severe punishment for the mistake 7... c5. Mortensen,E−Fant,G/Copenhagen DEN 2001.

5 bxc3 dxe4

A way to avoid the sharp lines is 5...¤e7 when 6 e5 c5 is the Winawer Mainline. is the mainline Winawer. This approach was used by the brilliant GM Rozentalis when he faced 4 a3 as Black recently. Of course it may be unwelcome to you if after 4 e5 c5 5 a3 you normally play 5...Ba5. Though remember that an opponent who plays 4 a3 is unlikely to have made a study of the mainline Winawer− he will almost certainly be on as unfamiliar ground as you!

6 f3

9

6 £g4 ¤f6 7 £xg7 ¦g8 8 £h6 ¤bd7 9 ¤e2 b6 This line represents the most popular response by Black to 4 a3, so if White can find an advantage here then it is great news for him! 10 ¤g3 This looks more promising than (10 ¥g5) 10...¥b7 11 ¥e2! £e7 12 a4 and White had the initiative in Berkvens,J−Galyas,M/Budapest 2000.

6...e5!

A simple and good response to the sacrifice. White is left with a flimsy pawn centre and an exposed king. Meanwhile the black king is never in the slightest threatened by an attack.

Here's a nice win by Black after the acceptance of the pawn: 6...exf3 7 ¤xf3 ¤e7? (7...¤f6!)

8 ¥d3 c5 9 0-0 ¤bc6? (9...¤d7! and Nf6 ) 10 ¤g5 f6 11 £h5+ g6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-sn-+p0 9-+n+pzpp+0 9+-zp-+-sNQ0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+-+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 ¥xg6+! ¤xg6 13 ¤xh7 ¤ce7 14 ¤xf6+ ¢f7 15 ¤g4+ ¢e8 16 ¥h6! cxd4 17 ¦ad1 e5 18

¤xe5 £a5 19 cxd4 £d5 20 c4 £g8 21 ¦de1 ¥e6 22 ¤xg6 1-0 Jensen,S−Reimer,L /Gambitserie−Grundklasse 1990.

Meanwhile 6...b6 is recommended by John Watson and is objectively good, but I guess White gets the type of position he is hoping for after say 7 fxe4 ¥b7 8 ¤f3 ¥xe4 9 ¤g5

7 ¥e3 exd4 8 cxd4 ¤h6!

10

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-sn0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPp+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 fxe4

If 9 ¥xh6 £h4+ 10 g3 £xh6 leaves White positionally busted.

9...£h4+ 10 ¢d2 £xe4 11 ¤f3 ¤f5 12 ¥b5+ ¤c6 13 ¦e1 0-0

Black is now a pawn up with an attack, Grabarczyk,B−Gdanski,J/POL−chT (Lubniewice) 1993.

11

Winawer 4 Nge2 [C15]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 ¤ge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzPP+NzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...¤c6

In Mastering the French, my co−author Andrew Harley and I went as far as giving this move an exclamation mark, but some important improvements have now been found for White.

Alternatively 4...dxe4 is the long established response to White's fourth move. Indeed, what could be more natural than taking a centre pawn that is en prise? 5 a3 ¥e7 6 ¤xe4 ¤f6 7 ¤2g3 0-0 8 c3 ¤bd7 Black keeps the option of either c7−c5 or e6−e5, Rogers,I−Zhang Zhong/Wijk aan Zee NED 2003.

5 a3 ¥a5 6 ¥e3 ¤f6

Or 6...¤ge7!? Short is ready to reply to 7.e5 in simple, logical style: 0-0 and f7−f6, attacking the white centre. He doesn't try to refute White's set up by going after the dark squared bishop with Nf6 and Ng4. 7 e5 0-0 8 ¤g3 f6 9 f4 fxe5 10 fxe5 ¥d7 11 £g4? White wants to castle kingside and so enters a line of play where Black gets a pawn on f5, but it turns out poorly for him as he loses time with his queen. Berg,E−Short,N/Malmoe SWE 2002.

7 e5 ¤g4 8 ¤f4!

12

The key variation which seems to demonstrate that the initiative is back with White after 4...Nc6.

8...¤xe3 9 fxe3 £h4+ 10 g3 £g5 11 £f3!

This looks stronger than lines hitherto given in theory.

11...f6

A very plausible reply, but it cuts off the black queen's retreat.

12 h4 £h6 13 g4!

Suddenly the black queen found itself a target in Berg,E−Kindermann,S/Plauen GER 2002.

13

Winawer 4 e5 c5 5 a3 cxd4 [C17]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 cxd4 6 axb4 dxc3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-zP-+-+-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 £g4

The most aggressive response, which as you can see was favoured by the great Bobby Fischer.

White should also be better after the solid 7 ¤f3

7...£e7?

I'm a bit disappointed here as I thought that Korobov had come up with a clever way to invigorate this system for Black. However, looking more closely it seems that he was just bluffing his opponent! Not that Black has fared very well with natural moves, e.g.

8 bxc3?

I just think 8 £xg7 is good, even winning for White:

8...f6!

Now Black's seventh move turns out well as he has succeed in defending g7 without weakening himself with g7−g6. Landa,K−Korobov,A/Halkidiki GRE 2002.

14

Winawer 5...Ba5, 7 Nb5 [C17]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥a5

A speciality of Armenia's super−GM Smbat Lputian. XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9vl-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 b4 cxd4 7 ¤b5 ¥c7 8 f4 ¥d7

Not so precise is 8...¤e7 9 ¤f3 ¥d7 10 ¤xc7+ £xc7 11 ¥d3 ¥a4?! 12 0-0 ¤bc6? Black is oblivious to any danger. The best move was still 12...a6! 13 b5! White cuts off the bishop's retreat with gain of time. 13...¤a5 14 £e1! Luther,T−Schenk,A/Besancon FRA 2003.

9 ¤xc7+

Alternatively 9 ¤f3 ¥xb5!? 10 ¥xb5+ ¤d7 I have described this as one of Black's best ways of handling the 'Winawer Declined' but after White's next move that verdict may need changing. 11 f5! A powerful gambit. Golubev,M−Gussjatinskij,A/UKR 1999. (If 11 ¤xd4 a6 12 ¥d3? ¥xe5! White had set a 'trap' but it rebounded in Fantin,L−Kinsman,A/White Rose, York 2000.)

9...£xc7 10 ¤f3 a6

15

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+ntr0 9+pwql+pzpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-zP-zp-zP-+0 9zP-+-+N+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¤e7 11 ¥d3 a6 12 0-0? ¥b5! 13 ¤xd4 ¥xd3 14 cxd3 ¤bc6 15 ¥e3 0-0 16 ¦c1? This is

also too routine. 16...£b6! A bold move based on a deep knowledge of this type of pawn structure. Black plans to oust White from the d4 square in Khachian,M−Lputian,S/Yerevan ARM 1999.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+p+-snpzpp0 9pwqn+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-zP-sN-zP-+0 9zP-+PvL-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¥a4 This seems to be a Barsov speciality. Its good feature is that it sidesteps the

mainline. 11 ¥d3 £c3+ 12 ¥d2 £xd3 13 cxd3 ¥xd1 14 ¢xd1 ¤e7 15 ¤xd4 ¢d8 16 ¢e2 After this Black achieves an easy development. Much more logical would be

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-mk-+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-zP-sN-zP-+0 9zP-+P+-+-0 9-+-vLK+PzP0 9tR-+-+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16

(Alternatively, White could play more sharply with 16 ¤b5 but then 16...¤f5 17 g4 a6! looks fine for Black.) 16...¤bc6 17 ¤b3 ¤f5 18 ¥e3 g5! A standard positional theme in this type of pawn structure. Black undermines the white centre and achieves at least equality. Van Delft,M−Barsov,A/Vlissingen NED 2000.

11 a4!?

This prevents Black from exchanging off his bad light squared bishop. Instead by transposition

11 ¥d3 ¤h6 12 ¥b2 ¥a4 13 ¥xd4 ¥b5 14 0-0 ¤f5 15 ¥f2 h5 This is made to look bad by some fine positional play by White. Ponomariov,R−Vaganian,R/Yerevan ARM 2001. 16 ¤g5! The perfect square for the knight. It can be considered an outpost deep in enemy territory as it can hardly ever be evicted with f7−f6 in view of the weakness left on e6.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9+pwq-+pzp-0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+l+pzPnsNp0 9-zP-+-zP-+0 9zP-+L+-+-0 9-+P+-vLPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¤e7 12 ¥d3 ¤f5 13 0-0

Of course we expect a player rated 2769 to be able to see the potential of moves like 11 a4, but Anand had a far harder task in evaluating whether he could keep control in the hard fight that follows. Lputian is straining to break out of his straitjacket while Anand is doing his best to restrain him.

13...¤c6 14 £e1 £b6 15 ¦b1

17

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+p+l+pzpp0 9pwqn+p+-+0 9+-+pzPn+-0 9PzP-zp-zP-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9+RvL-wQRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's plan is to conquer the d4 square but he is in absolutely no hurry to play Bxf5 as this

would loosen his bind on the centre and leave the c2 pawn vulnerable. Therefore he begins slowly by preparing b5 to drive away a defender of d4. Anand,V−Lputian,S/Corus Wijk aan Zee NED 2000.

18

Winawer 5...Ba5 7 Qg4 [C17]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥a5 6 b4 cxd4 7 £g4

This is White's main alternative to 7 Nb5. The bishop on a5 is a long way from the defence of the kingside, so it makes sense.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9vl-+pzP-+-0 9-zP-zp-+Q+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤e7 8 bxa5

Or 8 ¤b5 in my opinion this variation is suspect for White− he should stick to the well−known 8...¥c7 9 £xg7 ¦g8 10 £xh7 a6! The key move which basically calls White's bluff− Black invites him to exchange bishop for knight as he knows that his queen will enter the game in grand style.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+r+0 9+pvl-snp+Q0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+N+pzP-+-0 9-zP-zp-+-+0 9zP-+-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

19

11 ¤xc7+ £xc7 12 £d3 White cannot defend both c3 and e5. 12...£xe5+ 13 ¤e2 £c7!? 14 f4 f6! Black isn't to be prevented from setting up a broad pawn centre. Orlov,V−Kruppa,Y/St Petersburg RUS 2000.

8...dxc3 9 £xg7 ¦g8 10 £xh7 ¤bc6 11 f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+r+0 9zpp+-snp+Q0 9-+n+p+-+0 9zP-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zp-+-+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 ¤f3 Almost by force we have reached a position which has much in common with the

5...Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 Qxg7 Poison Pawn Winawer. The differences include the fact that the c file is blocked so that Black has no tactical tricks along it. Therefore White doesn't have to rush back to d3 with his queen. This means that he has the option of Bd3, a nice square for the bishop− though he has to watch out for ...Rxg2. Note that c7 is still the usual square of choice for the black queen as it puts pressure on the e5 pawn. Furthermore, White has a weak pawn on a5 which is surely doomed. One question is whether Black should ignore it or spend a tempo to eliminate it with ... Qxa5. 11...£c7 12 ¥f4 ¥d7

a) Or 13 a6!? 0-0-0! Black is supremely contemptuous of the white a pawn. Nevertheless, the latent threat of axb7(+) does prove useful for White in the complications after 14 ¥d3 in Dolmatov,S−Ivanov,S/Kazan Russian−club−ch 1995 (Instead White cashed in the threat immediately with 14 axb7+ £xb7? in Bryson,D−Wagener,C/Leon ESP 2001 )

b) Meanwhile 13 ¥g3 0-0-0 14 ¥d3 would be a a transposition to the main line. c) 13 ¥d3

20

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+Q0 9-+n+p+-+0 9zP-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9zP-zpL+N+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...0-0-0 14 ¥g3 £xa5 15 0-0 ¦h8 (Another sharp line involving the exchange sacrifice

begins 15...£c5 16 £xf7 ¦df8 17 £h7 ¦xf3 18 gxf3) 16 £xf7 (16 £g7? White will soon regret sparing the life of the f7 pawn. 16...d4 17 £g4 ¤f5 18 ¦fb1 ¤xg3 19 £xg3 £c7 20

¢f1 ¦hg8! The correct rook. The other one is needed to defend the d4 pawn, even if indirectly− see the note to move 23. 21 £f4 f5! Khalifman borrows a trick from the McCutcheon Variation to assert control of the position. Of course, taking en passant now drops White's queen− apologies if you think I'm stating the obvious, but the first time someone played this move against me− it was the veteran American player Dan Mayers− it took me a little while to realise what was happening! As the pawn is immune, it is therefore transformed from a weakling on f7 to a monster on f5, where it controls the e4 square and supports the idea of Rg4 followed by doubling rooks on the g file. And indirectly it helps Black's attack by clearing the second rank so that his queen and rooks can cooperate together Polgar,J−Khalifman,A/Hoogeveen NED 2000 ) 16...¦df8 17 £g7 ¦hg8 18 £h6 ¦xf3 This exchange sacrifice removes White's best minor piece and leaves him with a fractured White's kingside. 19 gxf3 ¤d4! The obvious move here was 20 £f4 This looks awkward, but it defends f3 and prevents a further attack with ... Rf8. 20...¤ef5 21 ¢h1 ¥b5! By exchanging light squared bishops Black makes c2 into a target and eventually manages to tie down a couple of White's major pieces to its defence.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-+r+0 9zpp+-+-+-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9wql+pzPn+-0 9-+-sn-wQ-+0 9zP-zpL+PvL-0 9-+P+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

21

22 ¦fd1 ¥xd3 23 ¦xd3 £c5 24 £c1 ¢b8 25 £d1 ¦c8 26 ¥f4 ¤c6 27 £e1 White is the exchange and a pawn ahead, but he can't find a good plan to coordinate his pieces. Galkin,A−Khalifman,A/Hoogeveen NED 2000.

11...£xa5

Instead 11...¥d7 12 ¤f3 £c7 13 ¦b1?! This may be inaccurate as it wastes a precious move that

White could be using to develop his kingside. Critical is XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+Q0 9-+n+p+-+0 9zP-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zp-+N+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9+RvL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(13 a6!) 13...0-0-0 14 a6 b6 15 ¤g5? This is too risky. To be preferred was 15...¦xg5! 16

fxg5 £xe5+ 17 ¥e2 ¤f5 Now White is faced with the threat of 18...Rh8 driving away the queen followed by 19...Ncd4 when e2 drops. 18 £h3 ¦h8 19 £d3 ¦h4! A powerful entrance by the rook. White is paralysed and has no answer to the plan of Re4 and Ncd4. Anderson,J−Short,P/Kilkenny IRL 2000.

12 ¤f3 ¥d7 13 ¦b1 0-0-0 14 £d3 a6

Khalifman's new idea rules out Rb5 and also makes possible the idea of Na7 followed by Bb5. So Anand responds in the sharpest possible style to preempt this.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9+p+lsnp+-0 9p+n+p+-+0 9wq-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zpQ+N+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9+RvL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

22

14...¤f5 15 ¦g1 d4 16 g4 White chases the knight from its active post, but on the other hand his kingside is seriously loosened. 16...¤fe7 More or less forced. An attempt to break open the centre is heroic but would be doomed to failure. 17 ¦g3 It's useful to put extra pressure on c3.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9zpp+lsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9wq-+-zP-+-0 9-+-zp-zPP+0 9zP-zpQ+NtR-0 9-+P+-+-zP0 9+RvL-mKL+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...¥e8 18 h4 ¤f5 19 ¦g1 ¤e3 20 ¥xe3 dxe3 21 £xe3 ¤e7 22 ¥c4! The best post for the

bishop as it fights for control of the d5 square. 22...¥c6? After this White picks up the c3 pawn. Although Black then achieves a dynamic set up with pressure along the c file he is always struggling to justify the two pawn deficit. Shipov has suggested (22...¢b8!? 23 ¦b3 ¦c8 holding onto the c pawn.) 23 ¦b3 ¢b8 24 £xc3 and White had a promising position in Anand,V−Khalifman,A/Linares ESP 2000.

Alternatively 14...d4 One of the good things about this move is that it dissuades White from immediate action on the kingside. 15 g3 Lutz concentrates on simple development rather than forcing matters on the queenside with (15 ¦b5 etc.) 15...¢b8 Korchnoi has a new idea up his sleeve, which he has borrowed from another variation of the Winawer: he will play Be8 and then f7−f6, followed by Bg6 to bring the bishop to an active diagonal. This is an ambitious strategy but alas it fails against Lutz's precise play. Lutz,C−Korchnoi,V/Berlin GER 2002.

15 ¤g5!? ¦xg5

This sacrifice is more or less forced but it offers Black a lot of play.

16 fxg5 ¤f5

After the obvious 16...¤xe5? 17 £d4 ¤7c6 18 £b6 forces the of queens when Black would be very close to defeat. His counter chances all depend on exploiting the precarious position of the white king in the middlegame.

17 ¥f4

Now he really does need to defend e5.

17...£xa3 18 ¦b3 £a4 19 g3 d4 20 ¥e2

23

With a very complicated game which needs a deep analysis.

20...¤a5 21 ¦b1 ¥b5 22 ¦xb5!

White returns the exchange to safeguard his game against a d4−d3 breakthrough and so win time to complete his development.

22...axb5 23 0-0 ¤c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+-+0 9+p+-+p+-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+p+-zPnzP-0 9q+nzp-vL-+0 9+-zpQ+-zP-0 9-+P+L+-zP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black appears to have the initiative, but the two bishops and the weakness on f7 will

suddenly become important features. Anand,V−Khalifman,A/Dortmund GER

2000.

24

Winawer 5...Ba5 6 Qg4, 6 Bd2 [C17]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥a5 6 £g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9vl-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 ¥d2 This looks less, but Kasparov has discovered a new idea with which to test Black.

6...¤c6 The best response: Black puts immediate pressure on d4, the centre point that White has neglected with his last move. 7 £g4!? A novelty. Up until now White had concentrated on

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9vl-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zPPvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

(7 ¤b5 e.g. 7...¤xd4! 8 ¥xa5 £xa5+ 9 b4 £b6! Keeping the queen active. If now 10 bxc5? Qa5+

11Qd2 Nxc2+ is bad for White. 10 ¤xd4 cxd4 11 £g4!? Played in the same spirit as Kasparov's 7 Qg4. 11...£c7! 12 £xd4 ¤e7 13 ¤f3 ¤f5 14 £d2 ¤h4! This clever move leads to a similar position to the last note but with the knights exchanged and

25

White's pawn structure damaged. 15 £d4 ¤xf3+ 16 gxf3 The consolation for this weakness is the chance to activate his king's rook on the g file. A balanced game resulted in Shaposhnikov,E−Lastin,A/Tomsk RUS 2001 ) 7...¢f8 8 dxc5 ¤xe5 9 £g3 ¤g6 10 0-0-0 ¤f6 Now everything is fine about the position for Black apart from the difficulty he will have in getting the rook on h8 into active play. 11 f3 White rules out any idea of Bxc3 followed by Ne4 and prepares a space gaining pawn advance on the kingside. This is the natural plan as Black is very solid in the centre. 11...¥d7 12 ¤ge2 ¥c7 In view of White's impending attack on the kingside, Khalifman wants to get rid of the c5 pawn and open up lines against White's own king. A double edged position resulted in Kasparov,G−Khalifman,A/SuperGM Linares ESP 2000.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-mk-tr0 9zppvll+pzpp0 9-+-+psnn+0 9+-zPp+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-+PwQ-0 9-zPPvLN+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤e7 7 dxc5 ¥xc3+ 8 bxc3 ¤g6

8...£c7 9 £xg7! The most challenging move. XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zppwq-snpwQp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zPpzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¦g8 10 £xh7 £xc5?! 11 ¤e2 ¤bc6 12 a4! A powerful move which not only activates

the dark squared bishop but in doing so indirectly defends the e5 pawn, as if 12...Nxe5 13 Ba3 followed by Bxe7 will win a piece. 12...¥d7 13 ¥a3 £c4 14 f4 £xa4 Black regains his pawn but puts his queen in jeopardy. White is now able to arrange castling whilst maintaining all the positional advantages he normally

26

achieves in the 7 Qg4 Poisoned Pawn Variation− a very bad sign for Black. Sutovsky,E−Jacimovic,D/Ohrid MKD 2001.

8...0-0 This is another of Black's many options here. White responds in the most aggressive style.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zPpzP-+-0 9-+-+-+Q+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥d3 ¤bc6 10 ¤f3 f5 11 exf6 ¦xf6 12 ¥g5 e5 13 £h4 e4 The only way to counter the

double attack on f6 and h7. Black temporarily loses the exchange but the fork on e4 will win a piece. This line should be compared with an identical one in the 7 Qg4 Mainline Winawer, save that White has in effect an extra tempo as here Black plays Ba5 and only then Bxc3+. In the Winawer this line is meant to be fairly harmless for Black− does the extra tempo alter things much? In any case, an unclear position was reached in Karayannis,A−Halkias,S/Agios Nikolaos GRE 2000.

9 ¤f3 ¤d7 10 ¥d3 £c7 11 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zppwqn+pzpp0 9-+-+p+n+0 9+-zPpzP-+-0 9-+-+-+Q+0 9zP-zPL+N+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¤xc5!

11...¤dxe5 12 ¤xe5 £xe5 13 ¥b5+ ¥d7 14 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7 15 £a4+ and Black was in trouble in Leko,P−Khalifman,A/Linares ESP 2000.

27

12 a4 0-0 13 ¥a3 b6 14 ¦fe1 f5 15 exf6 ¤xd3 16 cxd3 ¦xf6 17 £g3 £xg3? 18 hxg3

White has control of f4 and e5, though his flimsy queenside gives Black counterplay.

18...¥d7 19 ¥d6!

A nice manoeuvre. Now Black must either let White put his bishop on d4− where it guards c3 and is well centralised− or exchange it as soon as it reaches e5 Leko,P−Khalifman,A/ Istanbul TUR 2000.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zp-+l+-zpp0 9-zp-vLptrn+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+-zPP+NzP-0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28

Winawer 6...Qa5 [C18]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9wq-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 ¥d2 £a4 8 £b1

More aggressive is 8 £g4 when Black does best to respond 8...g6! when 9 £d1 returns to guard c2.

8 ¤f3 c4 More flexible was XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+ntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9q+pzP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+N+-0 9-+PvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(8...b6 followed by Ba6, but Psakhis prefers to close the queenside forthwith to avoid any

tactical tricks.) 9 g3 This turns out to be too slow. If after the kingside fianchetto White could achieve the f4−f5 advance in a favourable way then everything would

29

be fine, but all his preparations turn out to be in vain. (More aggressive was 9 ¤g5

with the plan of Be2, 0-0 and f2−f4 angling for the f5 breakthrough. If necessary White would prepare this advance with g2−g4. Another idea after 9 Ng5 is the standard manoeuvre Nh3, Nf4 and Nh5 to put pressure on g7 ) 9...¤e7 10 ¥h3 ¤bc6 11 0-0 ¥d7 12 ¤h4 0-0-0 13 f4 ¤f5! This obstructs White's intended 14 f5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+-tr0 9zpp+l+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzPn+-0 9q+pzP-zP-sN0 9zP-zP-+-zPL0 9-+PvL-+-zP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¤g2 h5! Again Black avoids being over run on the kingside, this time preventing 15 g4

and 16 f5. 15 ¤e3 g6 16 ¥g2 White only has one plan− to advance f4−f5. He therefore embarks on an elaborate scheme to force through this move, but in doing so he allows the h file to be opened to Black's advantage. 16...¢b8 17 ¥f3 ¥c8 18 ¢f2 ¤fe7 19 h3 f6!! A very clever way to attack White's centre. 20 g4 (If 20 exf6 ¤g8

21 f7 ¤h6 regains the pawn with advantage.) 20...¦df8 21 ¤g2 hxg4 22 hxg4 f5 So White never succeeded in playing f5. Black's possession of the h file gives him a definite advantage. Gunnarsson,J−Psakhis,L/3rd Int Torshavn FAI 2000.

8...c4 9 ¤e2

White plays his knight to h5 as quickly as possible. Alternative plans were 9 h4 to utilise the h pawn straightaway or 9 f4!? The idea behind this is to prepare a breakthrough with f4−f5. If White played 9 Nf3

he would have to move the knight again to clear the way for the f2−f4 advance. So he plays the pawn move without more ado. The only real drawback is that the common knight manoeuvre Nf3−g5−h3−f4−h5, which puts pressure on Black's kingside as a preliminary to the f4−f5 advance, is no longer possible as the f4 square is blocked. 9...¤e7 10 ¤f3 ¤bc6 11 g3 ¥d7 12 ¥h3 0-0-0 13 0-0 reaching a critical moment in Fedorov,A−Pogorelov,R/Moscow RUS 2002.

9...¤c6

Or 9...f6 Black decides to immediately challenge White's control of the centre. This is entirely logical, but of course double edged as the dark squares are opened for White's bishop on c1.

30

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+ntr0 9zpp+-+-zpp0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9q+pzP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+PvLNzPPzP0 9tRQ+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 exf6 ¤xf6 11 ¤g3 ¤c6 12 ¥e2 0-0 13 0-0 e5?! This is a consistent move which

continues Black's strategy outlined at move nine. I asked Jonathan Rowson in an email if this was a freeing move or was it just a weakening move? He replied that he didn't like it as it made White's dark squared bishop an unchallenged monster. Rowson,J−Pert,N/Scarborough HUN 2001.

10 ¤g3 ¤ge7 11 ¤h5 ¦g8 12 g3 ¥d7 13 ¥h3

I wonder if a computer could ever understand that putting a bishop on a diagonal where it attacks an absolutely impregnable point like e6 can be a good idea? The reason for this bishop deployment is made clear in the next note.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zpp+lsnpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+N0 9q+pzP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-zPL0 9-+PvL-zP-zP0 9tRQ+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...0-0-0 14 0-0 ¦df8 15 ¦e1!

White continues his restraining strategy− he prevents Black from freeing himself with 15... f6 because of the indirect attack on e6.

15...¢b8 16 £b2 ¤c8!

31

Black finds an alternative way to generate counterplay by heading for a4 with his knight. On this square it would form an interesting mirror image with White's knight on h5. In closed positions the knights really do dominate proceedings!

17 ¦e3 ¤b6 18 ¦f1 £a5 19 £c1 ¥e8?

This is a crucial loss of time in a finely balanced position. Black had to continue his queenside action without any more ado−

19...a6! when 20 f4 ¤a7 21 g4 (Of course White drops material after 21 f5 exf5 22 ¥xf5 ¥xf5

23 ¦xf5 g6) 21...¤b5 22 f5 £xa3 23 £e1 would be unclear− White's kingside build up looks impressive, but Black's passed a pawn could prove highly dangerous.

20 ¤f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-mk-+ltrr+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-snn+p+-+0 9wq-+pzP-+-0 9-+pzP-sN-+0 9zP-zP-tR-zPL0 9-+PvL-zP-zP0 9+-wQ-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Meeting the threat of 20...f5. In fact, the white knight is delighted to be chased back to g2

where it doesn't interfere with White's f4−f5 advance. Rowson,J−Motwani,P/Aberdeen SCO 2001.

32

Winawer 7 Qg4 0-0 & 7...Kf8 [C18]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7 7 £g4 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Or 7...¢f8 Black shows he is content just to hold the kingside and seek counterplay on the

queenside. The king is considerably safer on f8 than it would be on g8 after the standard 7...0-0, in fact the only drawback to the king move is that the rook on h8 cannot easily be brought into the game. 8 ¤f3 (Intriguing is 8 ¥d2 £c7 9 ¥d3 c4!? 10

¥e2?! £b6! in Ulfarsson,M−Johannesson,I/Jonsson Memorial Reykjavik, Iceland 2001.) 8...£a5 9 ¥d2 £a4 10 ¦a2 This looks slightly awkward, but the natural (10

¥d3? c4 just drops the c2 pawn.) 10...b6! As so often in the French, the exchange of light squared bishops is one of Black's key ideas.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-mk-tr0 9zp-+-snpzpp0 9-zp-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9q+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zP-+N+-0 9R+PvL-zPPzP0 9+-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

33

a) 11 £f4 then Black should respond 11...h6! to rule out the attacking move 12 Ng5. A quick disaster would be (11...¥a6?? 12 ¤g5 £e8? 13 ¤xe6+ etc. In fact, it is a 'golden rule' in this line that Qf4 should almost always be met with the preventive h6.)

b) 11 ¥d3 If White plays 11...¥a6 12 0-0 ¥xd3 This appears to strengthen White's pawns, but the newly formed pawn on d3 is vulnerable to attack, say with Qa6 or Qb5. Besides, Black is keen to get rid of White's 'good' bishop. 13 cxd3 ¤bc6 14 £h5 h6 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 ¦b2 White gambits the a pawn. He has to generate an attack before he is tied down to his loose pawns. His main cause for optimism is the rook still sitting out the game on h8. Gongora,M−Nogueiras,J/Santa Clara CUB 1999.

8 ¥d3

Another variation is 8 ¤f3 ¤bc6 9 ¥d3 f5 a) 10 exf6 ¦xf6 11 ¥g5 ¦f7 really does n' t seem to offer White much, while I also quite

like the position for Black after the more enterprising (11...e5!? 12 ¥xh7+ ¢xh7 13 £h4+

¢g8 14 ¥xf6 gxf6 15 dxe5 £f8!? etc.) b) 10 £h3!? This is becoming more popular as

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-sn-zpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-zppzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+N+Q0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...£e8 Black intends Qg6 and Qg4 but he will be prevented from completing this plan.

Nevertheless the looming positional threat of Qg4 forces White into pre emptive action on the kingside with his next move. White is given no peace to calmly play 11 0-0 followed by a4, Ba3 etc. 11 ¦g1 c4 12 ¥e2 £g6 How does White now deter 13...Qg4? 13 g3! White would prefer to play g4 'in one go', but after (13 g4? fxg4 14

¦xg4 £xc2 he loses a pawn. Therefore he settles on this rather curious−looking move, which frustrates Black's plan.) 13...¥d7 (After 13...£g4 14 £f1!? the black queen must retreat back to g6.) 14 ¥f4 h6! Black decides he wants to keep his queen where she can bolster the kingside against the coming white attack. Hence he creates a hideaway for her on h7. Motylev,A−Riazantsev,A/St Petersburg RUS 1999.

8...£a5!?

This is a Rustemov speciality.

34

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9wq-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zPL+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Instead 8...¤bc6 9 £h5 The most critical and popular move. Black has to know a precise

sequence of moves to stay alive. XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+Q0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

(Instead 9 £h4 At first glance allowing the exchange of queens doesn't appear promising for

White, but in what follows Sutovsky shows that Black cannot afford to play inaccurately. 9...¤g6 10 £xd8 ¦xd8 11 ¥g5!? Sutovsky,E−Drasko,M/Valle d'Aosta ITA 2002.) 9...¤g6! This is probably the only good move, as (9...h6? 10 ¥xh6! and 9...¤f5?!

10 ¤f3 c4 11 g4 cxd3 12 gxf5 are both known to give White an overwhelming attack.) 10 ¤f3 (Or 10 ¤h3!? White wants to escape from the well trodden mainline 10.Nf3. The plus side of this move is that it keeps the option of f2−f4 which could be the prelude to a kingside pawn storm. In one of the illustrative games White also manages to make use of the move Nf4! to great effect. Of course, the downside is that White is breaking the fundamental rule that you should centralise your pieces. The particular drawback here is that d4 is left undefended by the knight. Stefansson,H−Psakhis,L/Torshavn 2000.) 10...£c7! 11 ¥e3 (Instead 11 h4 is an extremely aggressive move which was introduced at elite level by the one and only Alexander Morozevich. 11...cxd4 12 ¢d1! with a sharp and unclear position. Rowson,J−McDonald,N/Edinburgh SCO 2003.)

a) 11...c4 but after 12 ¥xg6 fxg6 13 £g4 the centre is blocked and so White can contemplate an attack on Black's king with h2−h4−h5 etc. without worrying too much about the safety of his own monarch. The outcome of this attacking plan is far

35

from clear− but Black can keep more dynamic options of opposing it by delaying or avoiding altogether the closure of the centre. 13...£f7!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+qzpp0 9-+n+p+p+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+pzP-+Q+0 9zP-zP-vLN+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¤g5 (Or 14 h4 White begins his attack without more ado: it seems he isn't afraid of the

reply 14...Qf5 which would force the exchange of queens by attacking c2. It is the idea of Qf5 which has persuaded White in most games to play Ng5. 14...h6 This is a useful−looking quiet move that prevents Ng5. Nevertheless, it is a significant theoretical victory for White if he doesn't have to waste time worrying about 14...Qf5. 15 ¢d2? A poor reaction that justifies Black's previous move. White thinks he can 'punish' Black for avoiding Qf5 by defending c2 with his king, so that 15...Qf5 can be answered by 16.Qg3. Alas, the king is badly placed on d2 and he is making no progress with his kingside attack. Delorme,A−Apicella,M/Sautron FRA 2003 ) 14...£e8 If (14...£f5? 15 £e2! when the threat of 16 g4 is decisive.) 15 h4 h6 16 ¤h3

a1) Or 16...b5!? As White has been playing 17.Qe2 rather than 17.Nf4, Black feels that there is no need to hurry with Ne7: he can leave the knight on c6 and gain a tempo for his queenside counterplay with b5−b4. Or you could even claim it is two tempi as keeping the black knight on c6 is useful for Black's attack as well as the b7−b5 move. 17 £e2!? White continues with the plan that is trendy against 16...Ne7, even though Black's queenside assault will be supercharged. Evidently he hopes to exploit the (temporary) absence of Black's knight from the kingside. 17...¥d7 18 g4 a5 19 h5 gxh5 20 ¦g1!? (an attempted improvement on 20 g5 hxg5 21 ¤xg5 g6 Van den Doel,E−Psakhis,L/Bled SLO 2002.) 20...¤e7 21 gxh5 ¢h7 22 £g4 ¤f5 23 ¢d2 £e7 24 £g6+ ¢h8 25 ¤f4 Threatening 26.Qxf5! in view of a knight fork on g6. The position is full of danger for Black and I'm sure that Almasi must have analysed it carefully at home before facing Leko. 25...¤h4! Leko,P−Almasi,Z/Budapest HUN 2003.

a2) 16...¤e7 17 ¤f4 (The latest idea is 17 £e2!? Judging from the Lutz game and the Dutreeuw game in the note within it on 17.h5!?, White has decided that playing Nf4 isn't best as the knight becomes a target: it is better to leave the knight on h3 and let the kingside pawns do the work! Lutz,C−Jussupow,A/Essen GER 2002.) 17...£f7 The black kingside now looks very solid. In the game White fails to find a way to breakthrough and mate, after which his own king eventually comes under attack. Szabo,G−Apicella,M/Bucharest ROM 2000.

36

b) 11...¤ce7!? This is a recent nuance. The usual move has been XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppwq-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+n+0 9+-zppzP-+Q0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPLvLN+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 h4!? Anyway! 12...¥d7 13 a4 This is a useful semi waiting move which rules out Ba4 by

Black. 13...f5 14 exf6 ¦xf6 15 0-0 c4 16 ¥xg6 ¤xg6 17 £g5 e5!? This prepares an exchange sacrifice which leads to obscure play. Anand,V−Lputian,S/FIDE WCh KO New Delhi IND 2000. (Instead I think 17...¦f5! 18 £g4 e5 is fine for Black.)

Alternatively 8...f5 9 exf6 ¦xf6 10 ¥g5 (Or 10 £h5 The attacking scheme began with this move is considered to allow Black too much counterplay. 10...h6 11 g4 ¤bc6 12 ¤e2!?

White has prepared a new idea involving a queen sacrifice. 12...£f8! 13 g5 g6! 14 gxf6

gxh5 15 fxe7 ¤xe7 16 ¦g1+ ¢f7 The king runs for the centre: this makes more sense than trying to hide on the h file as both of White's bishops are pointing to the right! White has a useful initiative, but is it enough for the queen? Dominguez,L−Arencibia,W/Havana CUB 2003 ) 10...¦f7 11 £h5 This has been generally accepted as White's strongest response to 8...f5. He provokes a weakness in Black's kingside and then retreats his queen all the way back to d1. 11...g6 12 £d1 ¤bc6 (Ivanchuk's latest try has been 12...£a5!? Was this an idea left over from his FIDE World Championship preparation? Black achieved easy equality in Leko,P−Ivanchuk,V/Monaco MNC 2002.) 13 ¤f3 £f8 14 0-0 c4 15 ¥e2 h6 16 ¥c1 ¢h7 (16...¥d7 17 ¤e1!? Ponomariov,R−Ivanchuk,V/Linares ESP 2002.) 17 a4 ¥d7 18 ¥a3 This position has been reached as Black many times in games by strong GMs such as Timman himself, Ivanchuk and Kindermann. They have all elected to play Qg7 at some point. 18...£b8!? Timman comes up with an entirely different queen deployment. He reasons that Black's main enemy is the move Bd6 by White, getting control of the b8−h2 diagonal. So he stops this plan by putting his queen on b8. 19 £d2 ¤f5 20 ¦ab1 (Or 20 ¦fe1? White embarks on a slow plan that aims to get control of the important e5 square. However, whilst this is happening Black is able to build up pressure along the f file. 20...£c7 21 ¥f1 g5! Van den Doel,E−Delemarre,J/Leeuwarden NED 2003.) 20...b6 (Or 20...£c7? 21 ¥c1! Black is in trouble after this powerful move as it threatens 22.g4 and he no longer has the option of 21...Qf8. 21...g5 22 h4! Bacrot,E−Pelletier,Y/Biel SUI 2003.) 21 a5! with unclear play in Shirov,A−Timman,J/Wijk aan Zee NED 2003.

9 ¥d2

37

9 ¤e2 This shows why 8 Bd3 is more flexible than 8 Nf3. The alternative knight deployment to e2 allows the e5 pawn to be supported by a later f2−f4: a vital part of White's plan, as shall be seen.

a) 9...c4? 10 ¥xh7+ ¢xh7 11 £h4+ ¢g8 12 £xe7 wins a pawn for White. The immediate 9...cxd4! was played in Shabalov−Rustemov. I would recommend this alternative move order, even though it should amount to a transposition.

b) 9...cxd4 10 ¥g5 ¤g6 11 f4 ¤d7? (11...¤c6 12 h4 f5! is discussed in the notes to the Shabalov−Rustemov game.) 12 ¥xg6! (12 h4? f5 13 £g3 ¦f7 14 h5 ¤gf8 Black's king is defended by three pieces and besides there is no big hole in his pawn structure or open lines, so why should he be mated? Short is a fine attacking player if given the chance but he can find no way through the blockade and meanwhile he is collapsing on the queenside. Short,N−Shulman,Y/Ohrid MKD 2001.) 12...hxg6 (The only chance was 12...fxg6 but then 13 £xe6+ ¢h8 14 0-0 gives White a massive positional advantage in view of his passed pawn.) 13 h4! White's attack now looks decisive. Shabalov,A−Rustemov,A/Bad Wiessee GER 1999.

c) 9...¤bc6 Note that 10 ¥g5 A very direct plan which aims to mate the black king. White is prepared to sacrifice his d pawn and if necessary the c3 pawn in order to gain time for his onslaught.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9wq-zppzP-vL-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zPL+-+-0 9-+P+NzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...cxd4 11 f4! White's position is crumbling on the queenside but this won't matter if he

can deliver a fatal blow to the black king. 11...b6? this proves much too slow, so Black must try (11...¤g6! 12 h4 f5 13 £g3 ¦f7! this reaches by transposition a variation discussed in the game Shabalov−Rustemov above. Black's kingside looks solid enough to withstand an attack. Of course, White might answer 12... f5 with 13 exf6, but Black's centre looks powerful after 13...e5. 14 h5 ¤f8 15 h6 g6 is by no means clear− how exactly does the white attack break through? So maybe White should investigate the complications after 12 exf6 e5, but Black becomes very active. Black could also play 11...Nbc6, to answer 12 h4 with 12...f5, etc. but there is no need to allow White other options like 12 Bxg6.) 12 ¥f6! and White's attack was decisive in Nijboer,F−Vysochin,S/open, Cappelle la Grande FRA 1997.

9...¤bc6 10 ¤f3

38

10 £h5 h6 11 g4 (Or 11 ¤f3 A natural developing move, but if White intends to launch a pawn storm on the kingside it seems more precise to begin with 11.g4. 11...c4 12 ¥e2

f5 13 exf6 ¦xf6 14 g4 ¥d7 15 g5 ¥e8! Here we see why 11.¤f3 seems less accurate than 11.g4. Black has time to get his bishop involved in the game and therefore manages to keep a firm blockade on the kingside. Neelotpal,D−Barsov,A/Dhaka BAN 2003.) 11...c4 A sensible decision, even though it gives up any potential pressure on d4. Black forces the bishop off the dangerous diagonal as a prelude to f7−f6. The focus of the struggle becomes fixed on the kingside: both players will try to prove that their pieces are benefiting most from the open lines there. 12 ¥e2 f6 13 exf6 ¦xf6 14 g5 g6! 15 £h4 ¤f5 16 £f4 e5! An explosive move, but there is just enough cohesion in the white position to keep things intact. 17 dxe5 ¦e6 Karjakin,S−Barsov,A/Hastings ENG 2003.

10...f5 11 exf6 ¦xf6 12 £h5 ¤f5!

If Black can respond to the threat to h7 in an active way he should certainly prefer it to weakening his pawns with 12...g6. However, can he avoid White's immediate attack?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9zpp+-+-zpp0 9-+n+ptr-+0 9wq-zpp+n+Q0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+N+-0 9-+PvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 c4!?

The latest try. Svidler reasons what could be more natural than to prevent Black closing the queenside by playing c4 himself? It depends whether Black can find a convincing counterblow against White's centre in the next couple of moves. If not White will escape into the middlegame with a clear positional plus.

13 0-0 may have been better, but Black has no problems, e.g. 13...c4 14 ¥e2 £a4 13 g4!? It is interesting that Shirov, a great expert in sharp positions, prefers this method of

attack.

39

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9zpp+-+-zpp0 9-+n+ptr-+0 9wq-zpp+n+Q0 9-+-zP-+P+0 9zP-zPL+N+-0 9-+PvL-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...c4 14 gxf5 (Instead 14 ¥xf5?? is a bad mistake. Unless there is a clear and immediate

benefit it is never a good idea to give up the important light square bishop for a knight in this type of position. 14...exf5 15 g5 How can this hope to work when Black has the e file and control of the light squares? 15...¦e6+ 16 ¢d1 g6! 17 £h3 f4 A pawn sacrifice, when effective, almost always attracts an exclamation mark, but here we forbear. In this type of position it is entirely commonplace for Black to want to activate his bishop with this line clearing pawn offer, Cuijpers,F−Rustemov,A/Pamplona 1999.) 14...cxd3 15 ¦g1 ¥d7 16 c4 £c7! A vital move

the queen must help defend the second rank. 17 ¥h6 ¥e8! Black clears the way for a defence of g7 with gain of time. 18 £h4 ¦xh6 Black is forced to give up the exchange but he gets plenty of compensation. 19 £xh6 dxc4 Shirov,A−Khalifman,A/Dos Hermanas ESP 2003.

The latest word is 13 ¤e5 The idea behind this is pretty amazing: rather than attack the black king White intends to place his queen deep in enemy territory on c6. 13...c4 14 ¥xf5 ¦xf5 15 £e8+ ¦f8 16 ¤xc6 bxc6 17 £xc6 ¦b8 18 0-0 The queen looks slightly strange on c6, but on the other hand White has a completely safe king and can try to exploit the holes on Black's dark squares in the centre. Meanwhile Black's bishop has very little scope. Compared to these positional plusses the fact that White has an extra pawn is of less significance. In fact as we soon see Topalov is willing to give up two pawns to develop his attack on the dark squares.

Black had better find an improvement as not everyone is as resourceful and lucky as Ponomariov! Topalov,V−Ponomariov,R/Leon ESP 2003.

13...£a4

Also deserving attention is 13...£c7 to answer 14 cxd5 with 14...¤cxd4

14 cxd5

Here 14 dxc5 is White's latest attempt to bust the 'Rustemov' System. 14...dxc4 15 £g4 ¤cd4! Goloshchapov gets it right! Nijboer,F−Goloshchapov,A/Hoogeveen NED 2002.

40

14...¤cxd4!

This is undoubtedly better than XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9zpp+-+-zpp0 9-+-+ptr-+0 9+-zpP+n+Q0 9q+-sn-+-+0 9zP-+L+N+-0 9-+PvL-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...exd5? In a rapid play game this is the natural reaction. However, Black is left a semi−

useful pawn down with weak dark squares. He had to try to mix things with 15 dxc5 ¥d7 16 0-0 ¥e8 17 £h3 ¥g6 18 ¥c3! White forces the d pawn to advance, which denies the black knights the d4 square and shuts off the black queen still further. 18...d4 19 ¥d2 ¤fe7 20 ¤g5 ¥xd3 21 £xd3 ¤g6 22 f4! This completes his plan of gaining control of the centre by keeping the black knight out of e5. Now Black is helpless because his queen is totally cut off from the action. Svidler,P−Psakhis,L/Haifa ISR 2000.

15 ¤g5

More analysis on White's alternatives here can be found in Svidler−Psakhis.

15...h6 16 ¤e4 ¦f8

Inferior is 16...¦f7? 17 0-0 exd5 18 ¤xc5 £c6 19 ¤b3! Now Black had no compensation for White's bishop pair and general superiority on the dark squares in Bluvshtein,M−Shulman,Y/Toronto CAN 2002.

17 0-0! b6!

Inferior is 17...exd5? 18 ¤xc5 £c6 19 ¤b3! Now it is the same old story as in the Bluvshtein game: White not only gets the better pawn structure as d5 is a target but also has a strong dark square bishop. Cheparinov,I−Baklan,V/Bled SLO 2002.

18 ¦ae1!?

The reasoning behind this pawn sacrifice is that the e6 pawn is important in two ways. Firstly, it blocks the e file and secondly it supports the knight on f5. If White plays

41

18.exd6 then after 18...Bxe6 the black bishop takes over the role of the pawn. So why not give up the d5 pawn to get rid of the e6 pawn?

18 ¤c3 Simmelink,J−Evans,G/IECG (email) 2000. Noteworthy is 18 ¤g3 White puts immediate pressure on the f5 square as a prelude to an all

out kingside attack. 18...¥a6 the natural response with unclear play in Seres,L−Erdos,V/Budapest HUN 2003.

18...exd5 19 ¤g3

Now we see what White has gained for the pawn: his rook has the e file and there is strong pressure on the knight on f5, which is doing an essential job in blocking the diagonal against an attack by the white queen and bishop with Qg6.

19...c4!

Sutovsky,E−Goloshchapov,A/Moscow RUS 2003.

42

Winawer − 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 Qxg7 & 8 Bd3

[C18]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7 7 £g4 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zppwq-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 £xg7

A major alternative is 8 ¥d3!? XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zppwq-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zPL+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

43

a) Or 8...c4 which is a sound, but less enterprising, alternative to 8...cxd4. The fact that it is played comparatively rarely is perhaps psychological: having already risked his neck with the daring 7...£c7 rather than the sound 7...0-0 Black is unwilling to revert to solid play with a blocked centre. 9 ¥e2 ¤f5 10 ¤f3 £a5! A finesse: as Black wants to tie down White's bishop to the c3 pawn it makes sense to play this immediately. 11 ¥d2 ¤c6 12 £h5 h6 13 g4 ¤fe7 14 ¤g5 ¦f8 15 ¤h7? (After 15 ¤h3 White was gradually outplayed in Gullaksen,E−Farago,I/Hamburg GER 2002.) 15...¦g8 and Black managed to exploit the trapped knight after a hard fight in Langheinrich,F−Farago,I/Fuerth GER 2002.

b) 8...cxd4 9 ¤e2 dxc3 10 £xg7 ¦g8 11 £xh7 b1) Instead more solid is 11...¤bc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+r+0 9zppwq-snp+Q0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-zpL+-+-0 9-+P+NzPPzP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 ¥f4 ¥d7 (Here 12...¤xe5 13 ¢f1! with the idea of Re1 and Qh5 is best avoided.) 13 0-0 0-

0-0 14 ¥g3 d4 (Alternatively 14...¤xe5 15 ¦fe1 ¦de8!? is a noteworthy suggestion from John Watson.) 15 ¦fe1 ¥e8? This is a common idea in such positions to defend f7, but it is practically refuted by White's reply. Black should investigate 16 ¤f4! Heading for h5. It turns out the e5 pawn lives a charmed life. Lautier,J−Poldauf,D/York ENG 1997.

b2) 11...£xe5 If Black can get way with capturing on e5 then he must be doing well− he has demolished White's pawn centre without even having to weaken himself with ...f6. That's something he can only dream of in the 8 Qxg7 mainline. The problem is that White's h pawn is very fast: just three steps h4, h5 and h6, and already there are ideas of Qxg8+! Nxg8, h7 forcing the pawn through to the queening square. 12 h4!? This is an interesting new idea. White reasons that the black queen will have to retreat from e5 anyway, so why play 12 Bf4, driving it where it wants to go?

44

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+r+0 9zpp+-snp+Q0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+pwq-+-0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9zP-zpL+-+-0 9-+P+NzPP+0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(The reason 11...Qxe5 is normally regarded with some suspicion is 12 ¥f4 £f6 13 h4 though it

is by no means clear.) 12...£d6 The queen takes the chance to retreat to a good central square before it is forced to the f6 square by 13 Bg5. 13 ¥g5! Pushing the h pawn doesn't work: (13 h5?! ¤d7 14 h6?? ¤f6 wins the white queen.) 13...¤bc6 14 0-0 a6 Rather than aim for play in the centre with 0-0-0 and e5 Black utilises his queenside majority. Because it works out well in the game there is a strong tendency to heap praise on the move, but 'unclear' or 'slightly better for White' seems the best assessment of the position. 15 ¦ab1 b5 16 a4 b4 17 ¤g3! The threat of Nh5 and Nf6 looks very strong, but Black finds an intriguing way to deal with it. 17...¥b7 18 ¦fe1 ¢d7 19 ¤h5 ¦xg5 Black sacrifices the exchange and trusts in his pawn shell to secure his king. Sutovsky,E−Hillarp Persson,T/York ENG 1999.

8...¦g8 9 £xh7 cxd4 10 ¤e2 ¤bc6

An interesting side line is 10...dxc3!? 11 f4 ¥d7 12 £d3 ¤f5 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+r+0 9zppwql+p+-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzPn+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zpQ+-+-0 9-+P+N+PzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤xc3 (13 ¦g1 £b6 Preventing Rb1 and taking some of the force out of White's g2−g4

advance by attacking g1. Volokitin,A−Firman,N/Lvov UKR 2001. Alternatively 13 £xc3 transposes to the 13.Qxc3 mainline after Black's reply that develops

his knight−but only until Black's 14th move! 13...¤c6 14 ¦b1 ¦c8 Black leaves his king in the centre. Previously I have been scathing of this idea, as Black may find

45

that his rooks become uncoordinated, to say nothing of the danger to his own king if he pursues the standard plan of d5−d4 etc. However, Firman has no intention of weakening his centre in this fashion. 15 ¥d2 b6!? Black plays it solidly: he doesn't rush into an all out attack, which can only backfire with his own king stuck in the centre. Karjakin,S−Firman,N/Sudak UKR 2002.) 13...¤a6!? The reason Black avoided 10...Nbc6. He wants to put the knight on c5 where it attacks White's queen and can go to e4 in many lines after White's knight leaves c3 (perhaps because it is forced away by d5−d4 or voluntarily goes to b5). By leaving the c file unblocked by a knight on c6 Black gives himself the option of Rc8 with immediate pressure on c3.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwql+p+-0 9n+-+p+-+0 9+-+pzPn+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-sNQ+-+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 ¤b5 This is the sharpest response to Black's opening system, but there seem to be at

least three reasonable replies for Black. 14...£c6 Lutz,C−De la Villa Garcia,J/Pamplona 1997.

11 f4 ¥d7 12 £d3 dxc3 13 h4!?

This is a dangerous move, against which the theorists still have to determine Black's best method of development. However, White has many other important moves.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-zP0 9zP-zpQ+-+-0 9-+P+N+P+0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Firstly 13 ¤xc3

46

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-sNQ+-+-0 9-+P+-+PzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...a6 14 ¦b1 ¤f5 15 g4 The most aggressive move. Also possible is (15 ¤e2 after which

15...¤a7!? −aiming for 16...Bb5− gives enough counterplay.) 15...¤fe7 (Farago gives this move an exclamation mark in Informator 63. Of course, 15...¦xg4? is ghastly after 16 ¥h3 ¦g6 17 ¥xf5 exf5 18 ¤xd5 However, the piece sacrifice) 16 ¦g1 ¦c8 According to Farago this is incorrect. Indeed, a plan aimed at utilising the c file for an immediate counterattack rarely proves effective in this type of position. Usually the loss of the right to whisk the king away to the queenside and coordinate the rooks with ...0-0-0 soon comes to haunt Black. 17 ¦g3! The lateral use of the rooks is a standard feature of this variation.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+k+r+0 9+pwqlsnp+-0 9p+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9zP-sNQ+-tR-0 9-+P+-+-zP0 9+RvL-mKL+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...¤a5 18 £d4 ¦h8 19 h3 b5 20 ¥d2 ¤c4 21 ¥xc4 £xc4 22 £xc4 ¦xc4 23 ¢d1 White

now has a fairly useful extra pawn, but Black has an exceptionally solid pawn structure in the centre and on the queenside. It will be very difficult to arrange the advance of the h pawn with the black rook sitting on h8. Leko,P−Farago,I/Budapest 1995.

Secondly 13 ¥e3 0-0-0! Black hardly ever profits through leaving his king in the centre in this type of position. It is also a good idea to wait a move before committing the knight with 13... Nf5. As the game shows, g6 can be a more effective square.

47

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zpQvL-+-0 9-+P+N+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 g3 Instead 14...d4! 15 ¥f2 (Not 15 ¤xd4? ¤xd4 16 ¥xd4 ¥c6 17 ¦g1 ¤f5 and wins.)

15...¤g6! 16 £c4 This allows Black a powerful initiative, but (16 ¥g2 ¤gxe5! is also dangerous for White.) 16...f6! with excellent chances for Black in Rytshagov,M−Djurhuus,R/75th Ann., Asker NOR 1997.

The third option is 13 £xc3 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-wQ-+-+-0 9-+P+N+PzP0 9tR-vL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...0-0-0 (The very interesting side line 13...¦c8 14 ¦b1 b6!? is analysed above via the move

order 10...dxc3− see the note at move 10. ) 14 ¦b1 ¤f5 (Or 14...¢b8 Rather than start immediate action in the centre Black clears the c8 square. This may be useful to allow Rc8 utilising the c file or the manoeuvre Bc8 and Bb7. 15 g3 d4 with active play for Black. Swathi,G−Neelotpal,D/Edinburgh SCO 2003.) 15 ¦g1 d4 16 £d3 White hopes to quell Black's counterplay by dislodging the knight with 17 g4. 16...f6 ...while Black aims to dismantle White's pawn centre and then strike a knock out blow against the enemy king. Of course the stakes are very high, as Black will be giving his opponent four (!!) passed pawns on the kingside. So the kingside is a disaster area for Black. On the other hand, the white king is more or less obliged to stay in the centre and will suffer greatly if Black succeeds in developing a powerful attack. From this reasoning, it would appear that it is a case of do−or−die for Black. This isn't quite true, as often the immense complications of this line seem to burn out to a draw! (Instead 16...¤a5!? is a little known but highly interesting alternative. A game that is food for thought for ambitious players of Black went 17 ¦b4 a6! Von

48

Buelow,G−Poldauf,D/Hamburg GER 2002.) 17 g4 ¤h4 For (17...¤e3?! This is an obvious attempt to open the centre and expose the white king, but it seems inferior to 17...Nh4. The point is that Black should be working on the light squares, rather than exchanging his active knight for the dark square bishop, which is better left sitting passively on c1. 18 ¥xe3 dxe3 19 exf6 e5! 20 f5! In contrast to the 17...Nh4 variation, White is able to keep his kingside passed pawns intact and prevent ...Bxg4. Another advantage for him is that the pawn on f5 greatly curbs the power of the bishop on d7. Black now makes a vigorous attempt at counterplay, but accurate play should carry the day for White. Lyne,C−Fountain,A/Corres. 1996.) 18 exf6 e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9zppwql+-+-0 9-+n+-zP-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zp-zPPsn0 9zP-+Q+-+-0 9-+P+N+-zP0 9+RvL-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(18...¥e8!? More direct is 19 ¦g3 The stakes are very high. If White can sufficiently bolster

his defences to withstand Black's coming onslaught, then the passed pawns will win the game for him. It is a good idea to have the rook on the third rank, where it can offer lateral support to the centre. 19...¥g6 20 £c4 ¥f7!? A little bit of cat and mouse. The black bishop is determined to harass the white queen. 21 g5 e5 22 ¥h3+ ¢b8 23

¥e6 The white bishop rescues his queen from these vexatious attentions, but Black's initiative nevertheless grows apace. Savtjak−Voina/Corr. 96/98 1998.) 19 f7 (A new critical move is 19 f5!? In order to stay alive after this move White has to play with tremendous accuracy− there are all sorts of ways to stumble and lose. On the other hand if he makes it through the minefield he will be four passed pawns up in the endgame! 19...e4 This is the riposte which has deterred most White players from trying 19.f5. Black breaks open the centre and appears to have a winning attack. But things aren't as simple as that! 1-0 Goloshchapov,A−Ahlers,B/Hoogeveen NED 2002.) 19...¦xg4 20 ¦xg4 ¥xg4 21 ¥h3 £d7 22 ¦b3 ¥f5? This doesn't work, but I wonder if Black can simply play 23 £g3! e4 Black's initiative doesn't quite compensate for the piece. Guthrie,M−Plesset,K/Las Vegas 1994.

Next 13 ¦b1 is a logical move, but Black's best scheme of development has been well worked out.

49

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+r+0 9zppwqlsnp+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9zP-zpQ+-+-0 9-+P+N+PzP0 9+RvL-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...0-0-0 14 ¤xc3 Instead 14 Qxc3 could transpose to 13 Qxc3 lines above. 14...¤a5! This

is the most active way to deal with the threat of 15 Nb5. The key to Black's counterplay is the utilisation of the c file, which also explains his next move which clears c8 for the rook. 15 g3 ¢b8 16 ¤e2 It is a good idea to redeploy the knight to d4, but unfortunately White forgets to put it there next move! 16...¥a4 17 c3? This is not a natural move for White in the Winawer. In fact I am being much too polite: it is horrible! As will be seen, it severely weakens White's hold on the light squares. In particular, it leaves the b3 square as a nice outpost for a black knight or bishop (in the latter case, en route to c4). It also leaves c2 underdefended and so allows Black a breakthrough in the centre. Instead 17 Nd4 is such an obvious move that we must wonder why Svidler didn't play it. Perhaps he was afraid of 17...Nf5, but then 18 Be3 looks more than adequate for White. 17...¤f5 18 ¥h3 Here 18 Bg2 looks safer. 18...d4! This is a logical move which breaks open the centre in order to exploit the fact that White hasn't yet castled. Nevertheless, the success of Black's attack depends on some well calculated variations.

Finally 13 h3 is yet another move to set Black problems. White is willing to let Black hold onto the c3 pawn with ....d4, as then after g4 and Bg2 his bishop will control the only open diagonal on the board, with pressure against b7 when combined with Rb1. Also, the black knight on e7 will be denied the f5 square by g4. 13...0-0-0 14 ¦b1 d4 Of course it isn't all doom and gloom for Black. He has kept the c3 pawn, which offers him considerable tactical chances. 15 g4 ¤xe5!? This is the critical move. Black sacrifices a piece to break up White's centre and hopefully gain an attack against his king. Slower methods seem ineffective. 16 fxe5 ¥c6 17 ¦g1 ¤g6 18 £g3 ¥e4? (This is refuted in what follows, so Black has to try 18...d3 19 cxd3 c2 20 ¦b4 ¤xe5

which is given as unclear by John Watson. Black is still a piece down but there are threats to d3 and f3, besides the passed pawn just one step from queening. Although I suspect that White is better with precise play, e.g. 21 ¦b3! ¤f3+ 22 ¢f2 a heavy struggle is still ahead, with chances for both sides to win or lose.) 19 ¦b4! This is a significant improvement which avoids the complexities of (19 ¥g2 ¥xc2 when b7 drops but Black's passed pawns look menacing. Harman's move simply demolishes the Black centre, after which White emerges a piece up for nothing. Harman,K−Lane,P/BFCC Open 1999.)

50

13...¤f5 14 ¦b1 0-0-0 15 h5 d4 16 ¦g1!

This move, espoused by the English correspondence master Jonathan Tait, leads to a turmoil of complications. At the moment it is looking good for White, whose kingside pawn rush seems to become overwhelming before Black can get at the white king.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+r+0 9zppwql+p+-0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+-zPn+P0 9-+-zp-zP-+0 9zP-zpQ+-+-0 9-+P+N+P+0 9+RvL-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...f6 17 g4! ¤h6

The sacrifice 17...fxe5 18 gxf5 exf5 was interesting and may well be Black's best chance.

18 ¤xd4!?

A key moment. Capturing on d4 appears to do Black's job for him by opening the centre, but the black king also becomes a target. Furthermore, the d pawn is eliminated before it can spearhead a pawn roller with ...d3, etc. The major alternative is 18 exf6?! e5! etc. See the analysis in the Harley−Webster game.

18...¤xg4 19 ¤b5 ¤cxe5! 20 fxe5 ¥xb5 21 £xb5 ¦d5

This looks very strong and would surely win in an 'over the board' game. However, playing by post or email means that magic can still happen!

22 £e2!!

51

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+k+-+r+0 9zppwq-+-+-0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9+-+rzP-+P0 9-+-+-+n+0 9zP-zp-+-+-0 9-+P+Q+-+0 9+RvL-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White walks straight into a pin as the way to refute Black's attack! It turns out that the

counter pin on the g−file is much more significant. Harley,A−Webster,P/e−mail 1998.

52

Winawer 7 h4 & 7 Nf3 [C18]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7 7 h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-zP0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

If 7 ¤f3 £a5 8 ¥d2 ¤bc6 9 h4 cxd4 10 cxd4 £a4 11 h5 is another way to reach the

Kasparov Gambit− see move eleven of the main game.(11 ¥c3 allows Black easy equality or more after 11...b6 and 12...Ba6 )

Alternatively 7 ¥d3 is a rare move played in the 1980s by Romanishin. 7...£c7 8 ¦b1 An original position in the Winawer after only eight moves was reached in 1-0 Short,N−Poulton,J/Birmingham ENG 2002.

7...¤bc6 8 h5 £a5 9 ¥d2 cxd4

Or 9...¥d7 Psakhis decides to play it solidly. 10 ¤f3 0-0-0 11 h6 gxh6! 12 ¥d3 c4 13 ¥e2 ¤g8! This surprising retreat is Uhlmann's recipe and seems better than the static 13...Nf5. Black aims for an immediate attack on White's centre. Short,N−Psakhis,L/Monarch Assurance IOM 1999.

53

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+ntr0 9zpp+l+p+p0 9-+n+p+-zp0 9wq-+pzP-+-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+N+-0 9-+PvLLzPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 cxd4 £a4 11 ¤f3!

This is the Kasparov Gambit which sets Black a lot of problems. XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzP-+P0 9q+-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-+N+-0 9-+PvL-zPP+0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¤xd4 12 ¥d3 ¤ec6 13 ¢f1 ¤f5! 14 ¢g1

White keeps the tension.

14...£g4!

The queen is well placed on g4 where she helps hold the kingside together after the planned ...f6 counterattack.

Inferior is the routine 14...b6? 15 £e2 etc.

15 £e2

White's compensation for the pawn is positional: he is in no hurry. Black's main problem is what to do with his king. Castling queenside is risky in view of the open b file

54

the kingside would be decidedly inhospitable as White is planning h6! to soften up the dark squares. Therefore Gulko leaves his king in the centre. The drawback is that the king may be caught in the cross fire after he opens the position with his next move.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+pzPn+P0 9-+-+-+q+0 9zP-+L+N+-0 9-+PvLQzPP+0 9tR-+-+-mKR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...f6!?

The position now becomes very murky. Black's pawns conquer the centre but his kingside collapses. If Black's bishop were already on d7 so that he had the possibility of whisking his king away to the queenside, he would have good winning chances. But with his queenside undeveloped Gulko is obviously taking a risk by opening lines. Nevertheless, I suspect Black is doing well here.

16 h6!

The thematic move which opens lines and increases his control of the dark squares. Fedorov,A−Gulko,B/Las Vegas USA 1999.

55

Winawer 7 Nf3 Qc7...b7−b6 ideas [C19]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7

Or immediately 6...£c7 a) If 7 ¤f3 b6 Here Black aims to exchange light squared bishops with Ba6, but it takes

time. The question is whether White can exploit it. 8 a4!? White's attacking scheme based on a quick a4 and a5 is very logical as Black has created a target on b6. If White plays energetically he can put Black under serious pressure. (However, 8 h4 is interesting. 8...¥a6 9 ¥xa6 ¤xa6 White hasn't wasted time with the intermediate Bd3 and the knight on a6 will need to be rerouted to c6 or d7 ) 8...¥a6 9 ¥xa6 ¤xa6 10 £e2!? Attacking the knight is the most forceful move. Mueller,M−Berg,E/Plauen GER 2002.

b) 7 £g4 7...f5 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+ntr0 9zppwq-+-zpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+Q+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 exf6 White simply takes the pawn! It looks like this is just playing into Black's hands as

after the knight recapture he loses more time with his queen. 8...¤xf6 9 £g3 So this is the idea. White wants an endgame −or should I say 'queenless middlegame'? 9...£e7?! (After 9...£xg3?! 10 hxg3 White can claim a slight advantage as his dark squared bishop will rule the roost. He could eventually expand on the kingside with f3 and g4, etc. Of course, the weaknesses on the c file would always be there so Black would still be a long way from defeat, but Short seems right to avoid this. Nevertheless, I don't think the game move is best. More active was) 10 ¥f4! White is willing to give up his dark squared bishop in order not to be bothered by ... Ne4 ideas. 10...¤h5 (More dynamic was 10...¤e4!? 11 £e3 0-0) 11 £g4 ¤xf4 12 £xf4 c4 13 ¤f3 ¤c6 14 g3! White appears to have lost time compared to other ways of

56

reaching this standard blocked Winawer centre. However, looking more closely we see things are a bit deceptive. Thus once Black has played ... c4 closing the position, the best place for the king's bishop is g2. Here it goes there straight from f1, whereas if White had played Bd3 earlier and then castled kingside, the only way to reach g2 is after the tortuous sequence of moves Bd3, Be2 (after being attacked with c4), Rfe1, Bf1, g3 and Bg2. So it's quite a time saving to have left the bishop on f1! Also, after castling White can leave the king's rook on f1 without interfering with the bishop manoeuvre to g2. This gives him the option of putting the queen's rook on e1.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-wq-zpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+pzP-wQ-+0 9zP-zP-+NzP-0 9-+P+-zP-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...£f6 15 £e3 0-0 16 ¥g2 ¥d7 17 0-0 ¦ae8 18 ¦ae1 White now has an ideal set up for

this variation. His plan is to intensify the pressure on e6 and so reduce all Black's pieces to passivity. Shirov,A−Short,N/Sarajevo BIH 2000.

7 ¤f3 £c7

7...b6 Of course there are numerous playable alternatives, but Black's chosen move has the follow−up idea of ... Ba6 to exchange off his remaining bishop for the white counterpart.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zp-+-snpzpp0 9-zp-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zP-+N+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¥b5+ ¥d7 9 ¥d3 It might seem odd to first play Bb5+ before Bd3, but White's point is

that Black no longer has the possibility to execute the aforementioned ... Ba6 idea. 9...c4 (More precise is 9...¥a4 10 0-0 h6!? A nuance in move order. The closed

57

positions that occur after c5−c4 are very difficult to handle properly as a lot of long range thinking is required. In the game given here Psakhis, a great French expert, comes up with a subtlety in move order that prevents White carrying out one of his strongest manoeuvres. Deprived of this plan, White plays over passively and Black wins in smooth positional style by adopting a famous king and queen manoeuvre. 11

¦e1 After this move White no longer has the option of Ne1 and so Psakhis is happy to close the position− his clever move order has ruled out a strong knight manoeuvre. Khruschiov,A−Psakhis,L/Pardubice CZE 2002 ) 10 ¥f1 Back to "square one"! The bishop plans to soon re−emerge at h3, but one should always consider whether the precious time spent on such manoeuvres can be afforded. In the long−term it could be profitable, but the immediate cost may be high ...especially if one is not very careful when using several tempi with the same piece. 10...¥a4 11 h4 ¤bc6 12 h5 h6 13 g3 ¢d7 14 ¥h3 £g8 Not new, but the idea of getting Black's queen to h7 to attack c2 is still noteworthy. Fierz,A−Hochstrasser,G/Swiss League 2001.

8 h4

Personally I don't value this move very highly. White wants to gain space on the kingside but he is loosening his structure and the pawn on h5 can become a liability. Still, as Svidler and Topalov have also played this move maybe I am missing something!

8 a4 h6!? An interesting idea. Shaked's reasoning is that if White plays h4 and h5 it will be necessary to answer ...h6 anyway−see the Svidler game in the note above−while if White develops with Bd3, Black plays ...b6 and ...Ba6, when the capture Bxa6 will mean White has lost a tempo with Bd3. A more established variation is the sharp line

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zppwq-snpzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9P+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(8...b6 9 ¥b5+ ¥d7 10 ¥d3) 9 ¥d3 b6 10 a5 It is logical for White to do something fast on the

queenside as 8...h6 is a slow move. 10...bxa5?! After the game Tal Shaked said he was afraid to play (10...¥a6 because of 11 axb6 axb6 12 ¥b5+ but then 12...¤ec6 looks OK for Black.) 11 0-0 ¥a6 If (11...c4 12 ¥e2 followed by 13 Ba3. The black king is then in trouble, as 0-0-0 is extremely risky, while after 0-0 White can slowly begin an attack on the kingside with f4 eventually.) 12 ¥a3 ¥xd3 13 cxd3 ¤d7 14 dxc5 ¤xc5?! If (14...¤c6!? 15 d4 0-0 16 ¤d2 f6 17 f4 with a strange position. The white pawns in the centre are strong, but the bishop is bad. Certainly Black should try this, as the

58

game continuation is very dangerous for him.) 15 c4! dxc4 16 ¦c1! Now White has a strong attack. McDonald,N−Shaked,T/London International 1997.

8...b6 9 h5 h6 10 ¥b5+ ¥d7 11 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9zp-wqlsnpzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zppzP-+P0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+N+-0 9-+P+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 ¥e2? This is a bad error. 11...¥a4 12 dxc5? This leaves the e5 pawn fatally weak,

though admittedly things were already uncomfortable for White. Rowson,J−Psakhis,L/Port Erin 1999.

11...¥a4

This ensures that White will never be able to break up Black's kingside with a3−a4−a5 or clear the a3 square for the dark squared bishop.

11...¤bc6 12 ¢f1 More usual was XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zp-wqlsnpzp-0 9-zpn+p+-zp0 9+-zppzP-+P0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPL+N+-0 9-+P+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQ+K+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(12 0-0 when after 12...0-0 13 ¥e3 Black should attack the white centre with 13...f6) 12...¤a5 13

¦h4 0-0-0 14 dxc5 A very committal move. Logical was 14...bxc5 15 ¢g1 (This is too passive. He could play for the attack, e.g. 15 ¥a6+ ¢b8 16 ¦b1+ ¢a8 17 c4 with complications.) 15...¢b8 16 ¦g4 ¦dg8 17 £e1? ¢a8 18 ¥d2 c4 19 ¥e2 ¤ac6 20 ¥f4 g5! 21 ¥h2 The bishop has ended up on a hopelessly passive square 21...¤f5....and now the rook on g4 is 'stalemated'. Therefore White can't prevent an invasion by the

59

black pieces on the undefended queenside. Milos,G−Short,N/Buenos Aires ARG 2000.

12 0-0 ¤d7 13 ¥e3

This doesn't seem very purposeful as it isn't clear yet which square the bishop will be best placed on. Other options were

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zp-wqnsnpzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zppzP-+P0 9l+-zP-+-+0 9zP-zPLvLN+-0 9-+P+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¦e1 or 13 ¤h4

13...c4 14 ¥e2 0-0-0 15 £d2 ¦df8 16 ¥f4 £d8 17 ¦ac1

White is just moving around his pieces with no pawn advance in mind. As Botvinnik once remarked, it is a sure sign that things have gone wrong for White in this type of centre if he cannot utilise his pawns as well as his pieces.

17...f6!

This undermines White's centre after which the black pieces prove to be much the better coordinated. De Firmian,N−Kindermann,S/Bundesliga 2000.

60

Winawer 7 a4 [C19]


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤c3 ¥b4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 ¥xc3+ 6 bxc3 ¤e7 7 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zppzP-+-0 9P+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-+P+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The reason for this move is often alleged to be to clear a3 for the bishop, but after Black's

reply the bishop almost always goes to d2 to defend c3− so it never gets to a3!

7...£a5 8 £d2

The most consistent move as it keeps the option of ¥a3. White usually tries to justify the pawn move these days with a continuation involving

8 ¥d2 and then ¥b5, when the pawn on a4 defends the bishop on its aggressive square.

8...¤bc6 9 ¤f3 f6!

The most aggressive response. Black hits the white centre without waiting to develop with Bd7. Felgaer,R−Korchnoi,V/Bled SLO 2002.

chess publishing- french c15-19 - winawer

Documents