CllessStilrs ',('jill/PI'

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Editorial Panel:

Technical Editor:

Translation by:

GM K.Landa, GM M.Makarov GM R.Ovetchkin 1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov

1M Semko Semkov

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright Alexander Khalifman 2007

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13: 978954878264-7

Opening for White According to Anandl.e4

Book X

1.e4 c5 2.f3 c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 f6 5.c3 Chelyabinsk Variation

Alexander Khalifman 14th World Chess Champion

Bibliography

The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005 The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2 : Anti-Nirnzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3 : Maroczy, English (1 . . . c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined

Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 . . . a6 Volume 2 : Ruy Lopez with 3 . . . a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1 . . . c6, 2 . . . g6 Volume 4: 1 . . .d6, 1 . . .g6 . . . and others Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 . . .b6 and other rare lines Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 . . . Nf6, 2006 Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006 Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines Volume 9: Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Paulsen and others Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti Current theory and practice series: The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 Challenging the Sicilian with 2 .a3 ! by Bezgodov The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007 Games collections

More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part 1. Rare Lines l.e4 c5 VM3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3

1 various without 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 various; 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 without 8 . . . ie6

and 8 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 3 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 various;

9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Part 2. Chelyabinsk Variation 1 .e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 ie7 1O.hf6 ixf6 11.c3

5 various without 11 . . .lLle7, 11 . . . ig5 and 11 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 6 11. . . lLle7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 7 11 . . . ig5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 8 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 various without 12 .. Jb8 and 12 . . . ig5 . . . . . . 106 9 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 10 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 b8;

13 . . . bxa4 14.xa4 without 14 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 11 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.xa4 a5 15.ic4 various . . . . 149 12 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.xa4 as 15.ic4 id7 . . . . . . 158 13 11 . . . 0-0 12 .lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.xa4 as 15.ic4 b8 . . . . . . . 175

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8

5

Preface

Dear readers,

You are holding in your hands book ten of the series "Opening for White According to Anand - l.e4". It is devoted mostly to the Sveshnikov system, which is also popularly named as the Chelyabinsk variation. Naturally, it is worth remembering that the move 5 . . . e7-e5 was played for the first time back in the year 1910 by great Lasker and this opening system changed its name numerous times throughout the years. The theory of that variation started developing rapidly during the 70ies of the last century, thanks to the efforts of Evgeny Sveshnikov, Gennadij Timoscenko and Alexander Panchenko (They all lived in the city of Chelyabinsk during those years.) and it seemed that the contemporary name should be most appropriate and logical.

In fact, starting from the seventies of the 20th century, the Chelyabinsk variation has never lost its popularity. The evaluation of that opening system has fluctuated between "100% reliable" to "almost refuted"; nevertheless, its theory has been developing intensely. Recently, the "anti-Chelyabinsk" systems - 3.ib5 and 3.lt:lc3 are becoming top fashion and that only proves that the Chelyabinsk variation should be taken quite seriously. Practically all the best chess players of the world have contributed to the theory of that variation and the majority of them for both sides at that.

Well, if we follow strictly the classical principles, it would hardly be possible to classify Black's set-up as positionally correct. It looks like White's undisputed dominance over the d5-outpost should provide him with a stable advantage. Still, things are much more complex in practice. Amazingly enough, Black always finds resources for active counterplay based on some already typical strategical maneuvers around White's basic outpost on d5.

6

My work with this book was a rather complicated task by itself. My colleagues asked me often (sometimes ironically, sometimes with genuine interest) whether I had managed to refute the Chelyabinsk variation and when that refutation would be published? Here, I must admit: no, I have not refuted the Chelyabinsk variation. Frankly speaking, I have not even tried to do that. As far as my experience and my understanding of chess are concerned, Black's opening set-up has a sound strategical basis and it can never be refuted outright. Having that in mind, I decided to try something different and that was to systematize the amassed material and knowledge and to point out the most unpleasant lines for Black.

In the first part of our book, we have analyzed some lines, which do not belong exactly to the Chelyabinsk variation (That is some rare tries for Black on move five after l.e4 c5 ViJf3 llJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4 llJf6 5.llJc3.), as well as some not so popular sidelines of the Sveshnikov variation. All these opening systems have long been outside of the favourable recommendations of theory and quite deservedly so. We did not need to add anything principally new, but still White should play very precisely. I hope that we have pointed out clear-cut and logical ways of obtaining the advantage for White in the opening.

The second part of the book comprises in fact its focus in the aspect of common sense. It deals with positions, which are being tested practically every month at all possible levels of competition. I agree completely with the majority of the grandmasters, who consider that the greatest problems which Black must face nowadays in the Chelyabinsk variation are in the system 5 . . . e5 6.llJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.llJa3 b5 9.llJd5 ie7 1O.hf6 hf6 1l.c3. I have not tried to change radically any theoretical evaluations, but I have managed to discover some new ideas and I have to tell you that Black will need to solve difficult problems after them.

AKhalifman 14th World Chess Champion

7

Part!

1.e4 c5 2.tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3

rare 5th moves for Black

S . . . eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.igS

rare o;th moves for Black

7 . . . a6 8.tLla3 ie6; 8 . . . bS 9.tLldS

rare 9th moves for Black

9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6

Black has not made up his mind yet what system of development he will choose. He can still play the Dragon variation or the Scheveningen, but usually he opts for that move order if he plans to continue with the system S . . . d6 (We will analyze it in our next volumes.) , or with S . . . eS and that is the system this book is devot-

8

ed to. We deal with some rarely played original lines in chapter 1 and several of them are quite acceptable for Black, despite looking a bit extravagant, like for example S . . J!b8 ! ?

Following S . . . e S 6.llJdbS d6 7 . .!gS, there arises the thematic position of the Chelyabinsk variation, which can also be reached via other move orders (for example S . . . e6 6.llJdbS d6 7 . .!f4 eS 8 . .!gS). White obtains the dS-outpost at a very early stage of the game, but one of his knights after 7 . . . a6 8.llJa3, remains temporarily out of action.

The awkward placement of White's pieces makes the Black

player reach almost automatically for his b-pawn in that position. He has some other possibilities too and we analyze them in Chapters 2 and 3. They are playable too; nevertheless, White does not have too many problems countering them.

In fact, only the move B . . . 1e6 requires certain precision from White. After 9.tLlc4 l3cB 1O.1xf6 , following 1O . . . YlYxf6 1l.tLlb6, as

well as after lO . . . gxf6 1l.1d3 and tLle3, Black comes under a longterm positional bind.

In Chapter 4, we deal with Black's last attempts to avoid the main "tabia". The variation B . . . b5 9.tLld5 YNa5+ 1O.1d2 YlYdB, often leads to a draw by a repetition of moves (1l.1g5), but that does not correspond to the objective evaluation of the position. In case of 1l.c4 ! , White seizes the initiative and Black must play very precisely in order to avoid the worst.

As for the variation 9 . . . 1e7 1O.1xf6 gxf6, it has been practically closed. Black's bishop on e7 is deployed much worse than on the long diagonal, so that move order has disappeared from tournament practice lately.

9

Chapter l l.e4 c5 2.tl)f3 tl)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tl)xd4 tl)f6 5.tl)c3

In this chapter, we will discuss some rarely played lines like: a) 5 tOxd4, b) 5 c7, c) 5 .l:b8 and d) 5 . a6 .

The other possibilities for Black usually transpose to positions we have already studied, for example: S . . . dS? ! 6.ibS id7 7.exdS tOxd4 B.,hd7+ xd7 9.xd4 - see 4 . . . dS, Book 9, Chapter 1 ; S . . .'IWaS 6.tOb3 c7 7.f4 and S . . . 1&b6 6.ttJb3 lead to 4 . . . 1&b6 - Book 9, Chapter 2 .

a) 5 . tOxd4 This exchange is somewhat

premature and White centralizes immediately his queen after it, forcing his opponent to consider the threat e4-eS.

6.xd46 That move is not so aesthetic

10

and it has not been tested in practice. Still, it is quite consistent in a way with Black's idea to seek simplifications.

The other possibilities for Black are at least not worse: 6 . . . d6 7.ig5 leads to the Rauzer system, in a favourable situation for White, because his queen has come to the d4-square without losing a tempo for the move d2 - see 2 . . . d6 ; It is not good for Black to play 6 . . . e6? 7.eS Burke - Calton, Flint 1992; after 6 . . . g6? ! White can follow with 7.eS tOh5 B.e6 ig7 9.ext7+ mxt7 10 .ic4+ e6 1l.d3;!; Drbohlav - Krupkova, Czech Republic 1999, but it is even stronger for him to continue with 7.ic4! and if 7 . . . ig7, then B.eS ttJgB, Kraft - Roesner, Germany 1994 (B . . . tOhS? 9.g4+-) 9.0-0 White ends up with a great lead in development.

7.xb6 axb6 8.e5 tOg4 9.f4

(diagram) White has a great space ad

vantage in the centre, while Black has long-term weaknesses on the queenside and that provides

l.e4 c5 2. CiJj3 CiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. CiJxd4 CiJf6 5. CiJc3

White with a clear edge in the endgame.

b) 5 Vfc7

Black might have planned to transpose to the Paulsen variation in that fashion, but it turns out that the absence of the move e7-e6 would not remain unpunished.

6. tOdb5! White seizes the initiative. 6,..Vfb8 In case of 6 . . . Vfd8 7.tOd5 lLlxd5

8.exd5 a6 9.CiJc3 lLle5, White can afford to continue with 10.f4 lLlg6 11.,ie3 d6 12.Vfd2 id7 13. O-O-O Berger - Badilles, Manila 1968.

7.tOd5 tOxd5 8.exd5 a6 That move restricts White's

possibilities a bit.

After 8 . . . lLle5, besides 9.ie2 a6 10.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6, White has the resource 9.d6 ! ? exd6 1O .f4 lLlc6 11. ,ic4 ie7 12.0-0t Lisitsyn - Troitsky, Leningrad 1938. There arises an analogous situation after 8 . . . lLld8 - White has the pleasant choice between 9.,ie3 a6 1O.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6 and the more aggressive line: 9.d6 ! ? lLle6, Petrosian - Bakhtadze, Tbilisi 1945, 10.ie3 a6 1l.lLlc3 1];Yxd6 12 .1];Yxd6 exd6 13.a4

9.lLlc3 lLle5 Black can hardly be happy af

ter the passive move 9 . . . CiJd8, Orvenyi - Steiner, Budapest 1932, in view of 1O.ie3 e6 11.Wfd2, while after 9 . . . CiJe5, there arises a position played for the first time in the game Malmdin - Andersson, Stockholm 1970. White did not act so convincingly later and the same thing happened in some other games subsequently. It is quite easy to find an improvement for White.

lO .ie2 ! This flexible move is definitely

the best here. White continues the mobilization of his forces, paying

11

Chapter 1

attention to the actions of his opponent.

1 0 e6 The line 10 . . . g6? 1l.f4+- loses

a piece for Black. In case of lO . . . d6 11.f4 lLld7 (11 . . . lLlg6 12 . .te3) 12. .!e3 g6 (12 . . . lLlf6 13.lLla4) 13 . .td4 lLlf6 14.lLla4 the weakness of the b6-square is considerable, while after 10 . . . %l'c7, White has the powerful response 11.%l'd4!, after which Black has problems with his development.

11. Vd4! lLlg6 Black's defence is difficult too

after 1l . . . b5 12 .0-0 .!b7 13.l3dl 12 .te3 e5 If 12 . . . %l'e5, then White should

better avoid the exchange with 13.%l'd2, because Black's queen is misplaced in the centre and it will soon come under attack by White with tempi.

13.Vd3 b5 Or 13 . . . .!e7 14.lLla4 14. 0 - 0 - 0 d6 15.h4

White has excellent middle game prospects. The advance of his h-pawn will emphasize the unstable placement of his oppo-

12

nent's knight on g6; meanwhile Black has not completed the development of his pieces yet and he risks coming under attack.

c) 5 . . . gb8

It is not easy to understand that move, but it cannot be refuted either. White's task is to continue in a way Black's fifth move might become useless.

6 .!e3 Black would not mind the

lines : 6 . .te2 e5 7.lLldb5 d6oo, or 6.lLlxc6 bxc6 7.e5 lLld5 ! 8.lLlxd5 cxd5 9.%l'xd5 .tb'Too

6 . . . a6 If 6 . . . e5? ! , then 7.lLldb5 and

White is threatening to capture on a7 as well as to penetrate with the knight to the d6-square.

In the game Apicella - Murey, Paris 1992, Black played 6 . . . e6, but White should have countered that with 7.lLldb5 ! .tb4 (In case of 7 . . . %l'a5 8.f3 d5, White has the powerful maneuver 9 . .tf4! e5 10 . .td2, with a great advantage.) 8.a3 hc3+ 9.lLlxc3 White has an excellent couple of bishops.

l.e4 c5 2. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Ci:Jxd4 Ci:Jf6 5. Ci:Jc3

After 6 . . . d6 7 . .te2 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9.f4t Raetsch - Fronczek, Bad Segeberg 2002, there arises a position similar to the Dragon variation, in which Black has lost a tempo for the not so useful move gb8.

7 .ie2 e5 Black lags in development, so

he should better refrain from the line: 7 . . . d5 8.exd5 Ci:Jxd5 9.Ci:Jxd5 \Wxd5 1O.0-0

S. Ci:Jb3 d6 White should be more than

happy after 8 . . . .ib4 9.,if3t 9. 0 - 0 In the game Borocz - Meszaros,

Szekszard 1995, White played 9.a4, but he did not need to be afraid of the move b7-b5 .

9 . .te7 1 0 .\Wd2t

That is a typical Sicilian position, but the purposefulness of the move gb8 is rather questionable. White's prospects are better.

d) 5 a6 The drawback of that move is

that Black does not control the central e5-square and White can exploit that immediately.

6. Ci:Jxc6! We will analyze both possible

captures: dl) 6 dxc6 and d2) 6 bxc6.

dl) 6 dxc6 In this line, the opponents

enter an endgame right after the opening. White is better, because Black's king impedes the development of his pieces, meanwhile his queenside pawn structure is not without defects.

7.\WxdS+ c.txdS S .tf4

S . . . e6 It is only a transposition of

moves after 8 . . . c.te8 9.0-0-0 and there might follow: 9 . . . e6 - see 8 . . . e6; 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jh5; 9 . . . b5 - see 8 . . . b5; 9 . . . !e6 - see 8 . . . ,ie6; 9 . . . Ci:Jd7 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jd7.

It is too risky for Black to play:

13

Chapter 1

B . . . ll:\hS 9.0-0-0+ .td7, Seibold - Neukum, Nuernberg 19BB (If 9 . . . 'i!?eB, then 10 . .tc7 ie6 1l.ll:\a4 cB 12 .iaS German - Bertoni, Buenos Aires 1994), because of lO .ll:\a4! bS (or lO . . . ll:\xf4 11.ll:\b6; 10 . . . 'i!?eB 1l.ll:\b6 ig4 12.f3 dB 13.xdB+ 'i!?xdB 14.ie3 .te6 15. ic4) 11.ll:\b6 a7 12 . .te3

Black would not solve his problems if he fianchettoes his king's bishop: B . . . ie6 9.0-0-0+ 'i!?eB lO . .te2 g6 11.a4 hS 12.aS ih6 13.hh6 xh6 14.f3 dB IS.ll:\a4 Socko - Lazar, Bastia 2005.

White is clearly better after B . . . bS 9.0-0-0+ ll:\d7 (If 9 . . . 'i!?eB, as it was played in the game Kononen - Vuorimies, Finland 2003, then White could have chosen lO.eS ! ? ll:\g4 1l.ll:\e4 .tfS 12 .id3 dB 13 . .tg3) lO.eS e6 11.ll:\e4 h6 12.ie2 'i!?c7 13.ll:\d6 ixd6 14.xd6 Navara - Dalecky, Czech Republic 1997.

The best alternative for Black to the main line B . . . e6 is the move B . . . ll:\d7, which is aimed at the preparation of the pawn-advance e7-eS. White can refute that plan with the move 9.0-0-0 with the idea to follow with e4-eS. Now after 9 .. .f6, White has lO.eS and it would be in his favour if Black plays lO . . . e6 1l . .tc4 'i!?e7 12.exf6+ gxf6, Semeniuk - Danielian, Vladivostok 1994, 13.hel eS (or 13 . . . ll:\b6? 14.he6 ! he6 IS.d6+-) 14.ie3, as well as 10 . . . 'i!?eB 11. exf6 gxf6 (or 1l . . . exf6 12 . .tc4) 12 . .te2 eS, Mavrich - Litovicius,

14

Neuquen 1992, 13 . .te3. It is more precise for Black to opt for 9 . . . 'i!?eB, but then again lO.eS and if 10 . . . gS ! ? (or lO . . . e6 11 . .te2 .te7 12.ll:\e4 ll:\fB 13.h4 ll:\g6 14 . .tg3 Molnar - Kovacev, Kecskemet 1990) 11.hgS ll:\xeS, Krebs -Kluss, Germany 19B7, then White can maintain his initiative with the help of 12.ll:\a4 ! ? if 5 (or 12 . . . ll:\d7 13.ie3 bS 14.ll:\c3;!;) 13.h3 gB 14.ie3;!;

9. 0 - 0 - 0 + 'i!?e8 It is not logical for Black to

play: 9 . . . id7 lO.ll:\a4 bS l1.ll:\b6 a7 12.f3 icS 13.ll:\xd7 xd7 14.id3 R.Fischer - Kuberczyk, Cleveland 1964 - World Champion obtained the two-bishop advantage and he won the game subsequently.

In the game Kurenkov -Jemelka, Olomouc 2003, Black tried 9 . . . ll:\d7 lO .ie2 .tcS 11 . .tg3 bS. Here White should have continued with 12.eS !? 'i!?c7 13.ll:\e4 ie7 14.ll:\d6 with a clear advantage.

1 0 .ie2;!;

The endgame is better for White. After lO . . . bS (otherwise Black must consider the possibility ll:\a4) 11.d3 (The third rank is

l.e4 cS 2. liJj3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 S. liJc3

an additional field of activity for White's rook.) 1l . . .E!a7 (or 11 . . . .1c5 12 .E:hd1.1b7 13.e5 liJd5 14 . .1g5;t -and Black has great problems) in the game Janssen - van der Wiel, Netherlands 1978, White chose 12 . .1f3 E:d7 13.E:hd1 .1e7 14 . .1d6, but Black could have countered that with 14 . . . hd6 15.E:xd6 E:xd6 16.E:xd6 e5 != , taking into account the fact that the c6-pawn was protected indirectly (17.E:xc6 @d7). It is more precise for White to play 12.e5! liJd5 13 . .1d2 ! and despite the fact that the position seems to be relatively simple, Black has difficult problems to solve, for example: 13 . . . liJxc3 (otherwise White deploys his knight to the e4-outpost and he prepares grad-ually c2-c4) 14.E:xc3 c5 (or 14 .. .

.1b4 15.E:xc6 @d7 16 . .1e3; 14 . . . E:d7 15.E:xc6 .1b7 16 . .1f3 !) 15 . .1e3 E:c7 16 . .1f3 b4 (Black has no other counterplay left - you should not forget that he has lost his castling right already.) 17.E:d3 c4 18 . .1b6 ! cxd3 19.hc7 dxc2 20 .@xc2 -White has good winning chances in that endgame.

d2) 6 . . . bxc6

Black captures with his pawn towards the centre, but he unavoidably loses tempi and that leads him to a considerable lag in development.

7.e5 tLJg8 In the variation 7 . . . liJd5? !

8.liJxd5 cxd5 9.'lMfxd5 E:b8 1O . .1c4 e6 11.'lMfd4 Black has no compensation for the pawn whatsoever, Yahkind - Frawley, Plymouth 1984.

8:i'f3!? White plays more often here

8 . .1c4, but the move 8.f3 ! ? is also very interesting. In essence, it is a prophylactic move. White is eyeing the c6-pawn in order to prevent the pawn-advance d7-d5.

8 . . . e6 Black has nothing better. It is

good for him to opt neither for 8 . . . d5? ! 9.exd6 'lMfxd6 10 . .1f4 e5 (or 1O . . . 'lMfd7 1l . .1c4 A.Potapov - Kazantzis, Korinthos 2000) 1l.'lMfe4 f6 12 . .1c4, nor for 8 . . . 'lMfc7? ! 9 . .1f4 e6 1O.liJe4 Recklingloh - Hisker, Passau 1997.

9 .1d3 c7 Following 9 . . . liJe7 1O.0-0 liJg6

15

Chapter 1

1l.VNhS;!; White maintains a stable advantage.

1 0 . VNg3 tOe7 White is clearly better after

10 . . . dS 1l.exd6 VNxd6 12 . .tf4 Martins - Andre, Internet 2001 and he can counter 1O . . .f6 with the simple move 1l.f4

11. 0 - 0 tOg6 12.f4;t; (diagram)

White's eS-pawn cramps Black his camp, therefore the position and if he pushes d7-d6, he would should be evaluated in favour of only create new weaknesses in White.

Conclusion

The possibilities for Black, which we analyze in this chapter, are played rather seldom in practice; therefore, White manages to obtain a lasting opening advantage almost effortlessly.

Black plays a bit more often the move 5 . . . a6, but after his opponent's concrete reaction 6.ltJxc6! dxc6 7.VNxd8+ xd8 8. if4 or 6 . . . bxc6 7.e5, we have convinced you that White seizes the initiative for long.

16

Chapter 2 1.e4 c5 2.f3 c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 e6 5.c3 e5

This move was discovered by the second World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, who tried it back in the year 1910 against Karl Schlechter in game nine of their match for the world crown. White did not react in the most principled fashion indeed - he played 6.lDb3, but it was a very interesting game and after a lively fight, it ended in a draw. The new idea did not gain popularity outright and for a period of several decades, the variation was out of the tournament practice. It came back triumphantly during the 70ies of the past century, when the system with 5 . . . e5, was often and what is even more important quite successfully played by the grandmasters from Chelyabinsk Evgenij

Sveshnikov and Gennady Timoscenko. Nowadays, this is one of the most reliable systems in the Sicilian Defence and its popularity is surpassed only by the Najdorf system.

The move 5 . . . e5 has a solid positional basis - it wins a tempo for development and it does not let White obtain an advantage in the centre. Black weakens the d5-square indeed and that becomes the key-point of the developing fight.

6.tLldb5 d6 The other possibilities for

Black - 6 . . . ib4+, 6 . . . ic5, 6 . . . h6 and 6 . . . a6 - are clearly worse. In that case, after transposition of moves, it all comes down to variations, which we have analyzed in Chapter 3 of the previous volume (the system with the early 4 . . . e5) - see the notes to Black's moves 5 and 7.

7.ig5 We will analyze now a) 7

ie6 and b) 7 a6. The alternatives are evidently

weaker:

17

Chapter 2

It is bad for Black to play 7 . . . h6? 8.,bf6 gxf6 9.tLJd5+Helmreich - Leibold, Germany 1986;

He loses a pawn without any compensation after 7 . . . i.e7? 8. !xf6 gxf6 (8 . . . i.xf6 9.tLJxd6+ @f8 1O.i.c4 Krumova - Villar, Buenos Aires 1978) 9.tLJd5 0-0 (9 . . . VNa5+ 1O.c3 Frank - Gertz, Hessen 1990; 9 . . . @f8 1O.VNh5 Hartl - Resch, Niederbayern 1995; 9 . . . l:3b8 1O.tLJbc7+ @f8 11. VNh5 Gresser - Loeffler, Split 1963) 10.tLJxe7+ VNxe7 (1O . . . tLJxe7 11.\1;!fxd6 i.e6 12.\1;!fxd8 l:3fxd8 13. tLJc7 Rigolot - Delivre, France 1999) I1.VNxd6. After 11 . . . VNxd6 (or 11 . . . l:3d8 12.VNxe7 tLJxe7 13.i.d3 Schmidt - Baier, Strelasund 1997; 11 . . . .ie6 12 .\1;!fxe7 tLJxe7 13.0-0-0 Arakhamia-Grant - Paraskevaidis, Lansing 1995) 12.tLJxd6 Black fails to create any counterplay, for example: 12 . . . J.e6 13.0-0-0 Kosmac - Ristov, Kranj 2004; 12 . . . l:3d8 13.0-0-0 tLJd4 14.tLJb5 Diaz Joaquin - Strube, Hessen 1988; 12 . . . tLJd4 13.0-0-0 .ig4 (about 13 . . . l:3d8 - see 12 . . . l:3d8) 14.l:3d3 Zaksaite - Zebelys, Radviliskis 1995; 12 . . . tLJb4 13. 0-0-0 ! (White regains his extra pawn quite favourably.) 13 . . . tLJxa2+ 14.@bl tLJb4 (14 . . . .ie6 15.c3) 15. J.c4 @g7, Papp - Nagy, Szeged 1998 (15 . . . tLJc6 16J3d3 Korniyuk - Brozhik, Kiev 2005) 16.c3 tLJc6 17.l:3d3 - and White maintains a great advantage in all these variations.

18

a) 7 i.e6

This move is a sensible alternative to the main line 7 . . . a6. The Moldavian master O.Chebanenko practiced it about half a century ago.

S.tLJd5 gcS After the hasty 8 . . . ,bd5 9.exd5

tLJe7 (9 . . . tLJb8, Orozco - Cespedes, Barranquilla 1995, 1O.,bf6 gxf6 11.i.d3 a6 12.tLJc3) White has the powerful resource 10 .c3 ! In view of the threats along the a4-e8 diagonal, Black loses his castling rights. In case of 1O . . . tLJexd5, White follows with 11.\1;!fa4 @e7 (It is a disaster for Black to try 11 . . . \1;!fd7? 12.tLJxd6+ @e7 13.\1;!fxd7+ @xd7 14.tLJxf7+-, while if11 . . . @d7, then 12.0-0-0 tLJb6 13.\1;!fb3-+ and White has a dangerous initiative.) 12.0-0-0 a6 (12 . . . tLJb6 13.VNb4) 13.l:3xd5 axb5, Dutreeuw - Ovezov, Istanbul 2000, 14.VNb4! @e6 15. l:3xb5, White is attacking in a position with equal material. If Black refrains from capturing his opponent's central pawn, he does not solve his problems either, for example: 1O . . . VNb8 11.!xf6 gxf6 12.\1;!fa4 @d8 13.VNa5+ ! (This is an

important intermediate move.) 13 . . . Wd7 (13 . . . b6 14.'1Wb4 lLlg6 15. g3 a6 16.lLla3 Ylfc7 17.lLlc4 l'!b8 18. lLle3) 14.c4a615.lLlc3W1c716.Wla4+ Wd8 17.iLd3; lO . . . lLlg6 1l.Wla4 We7 12. 0-0-0 a6 13.lLld4! (White has new tactical motives at his disposal with a black king on e7.) 13 . . . Wld7 (Black's position is not to be envied after 13 . . . exd4? 14. l'!e1+ lLle5 15.f4 Wld7 16.Ylfxd4+-) 14.iLb5 ! Ylfc8 15.id3 Jansa -Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1981; lO . . . a6 (This i s Black's relatively best chance.) 1l.hf6 gxf6 12 .Ylfa4! Wd7! (There is nothing else left.) 13.lLla3+ b5, Raszka - Mrozek, Katowice 1995 (After 13 . . . Wc7, it is interesting for White to try 14. O-O-O !?;!;) 14.Ylfg4+ f5 15.Ylfh5;!;

9.c3 ! White i s not in a hurry to ex

change on f6 in order not to allow counterplay on the g-file.

9 . . . a6 1 0 .lLla3 hd5 It deserves attention for Black

to opt for lO . . . iLe7!?, but then after 1l.hf6 hi6 12.lLlc4 ie7 (or 12 . . . hd5 13.Ylfxd5 Krajcovic -Kysel, Slovakia 1994) 13.lLlcb6 (It is also good for White to continue

5. lLlc3 e5 6. lLldb5 d6 7. i.g5

with 13.lLlxe7!? Wxe7 14.lLle3;!; Sipos - Angyalosi, Hungary 2000) 13 . . . l'!b8 and there arises by transposition a situation, which we will analyze later in the variation 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 ie6.

1l.ixf6! That is the right time for that

exchange, because White needs to capture the enemy bishop on d5 with his queen.

1l . . . Wlxf6 It would not work for Black

to try 1l . . . Wlb6? 12.exd5 Wlxb2 13.Wlc1+- (Jansa), and he loses a piece.

In the game Jansa - Danek, Czechoslovakia 1982, Black chose 1l . . . gxf6 12 .Ylfxd5 Ylfa5 (or 12 . . . b5 13.l'!d1 i.e7 14.lLlc2 Kosanski -Hibner, Velika Gorica 2005; 12 . . . Wld7 13.lLlc4 l'!d8 14.l'!dl Ranieri - Guglielmi, Eporediese 2001) 13.i.c4 l'!c7 14.Ylfxa5 lLlxa5 15.i.d5 l'!g8 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 l'!g5 18.f6 ! l'!f5 19.b4! lLlc6 (White would have countered 19 . . . l'!xc3? with 20.lLlb1+-) 20.b5, and White started decisive actions in that favourable endgame.

12. Wlxd5 ie7 13.ie2 0 - 0 14. 0 - 0;1;

19

Chapter 2

White has a clear positional advantage, thanks to his reliable control over the d5-outpost. It was tried later: 14 . . . g6 15.lLlc4 lMfe6 16.lLlb6 :gc7 17.lMfd2 Mote - Strenzwilk, USA 1982; 14 . . . lMfg6 15.lLlc4 lLld8 16.lLle3 :gc5 17.d3 lLle6 18.lLlf5 f6 19.93 Suetin - Sobura, Warsaw 1989; 14 . . . lLld8 (The transfer of the knight from c6 to f4 is Black's main idea.) 15.lLlc4 lLle6, Bors - Heiligermann, Hungary 2002, 16.lLle3 lLlf4 17.lMfd1 ! g6 18.!f3;J; and White keeps the edge in all the variations.

b) 7 a6 8.lLla3

Besides 8 . . . ie6 (Chapter 3) and the main line 8 ... b5, Black has also tried in practice bl) 8 dS?! , b2) 8 .ie7?! , b3) 8 h6? !

b1) 8 dS? ! Black plays analogously to the

so-called Pelican variation, which arises after the hasty exchange 8 . .ixf6? ! gxf6 9.lLla3 d5 ! ?+t and presents Black with sufficient counter chances. Here however, White is not obliged to exchange on f6.

20

9.c!LJxdS ha3 1 0 .bxa3IMfaS+ 1l.'flYd2 !

The exchange of queens is unavoidable, White remains with a bishop pair and an extra pawn, and he has a great advantage in that endgame.

1l 'flYxd2+ 12.hd2 c!LJxdS Or 12 . . . 0-0 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6,

Galdunts - Knoll, Vienna 2006, 14.0-0-0 !e6 15.'it>b2 :gfd8 16. !d3

13.exdS c!LJd4 14. 0 - 0 - 0 .if5 lS.c3 :gc8

Black would not change much with 15 . . . lLlb5 16.:ge1 f6, as it was played in the game Ghinda - T.Horvath, Rimavska Sobota 1975. White should have played the simple line: 17.f4 0-0-0 (or 17 . . . e4 18.g4 ! .ixg4 19.:ggl) 18 .fxe5 :gxd5 19.c4 :gc5 20 .'it>b2, and Black's position would remain too difficult.

16.@b2 c!LJbS 17.:ge1! f6 18.f4

White's considerable advantage is doubtless. That evaluation was confirmed in the game Sax -Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979, which followed with 18 . . . 0-0?

19.c4 gfe8 (19 . . . exf4 20 . .tb4+-; 19 . . . ttJd6 20 . .tb4+-) 20.g4 ! +-, and White won a piece. It would have been more resilient for Black to defend with 18 . . . e4 19.c4 ttJd6 2 0.gc1 b6, Preuss - Koch, Moron 2004, 21..ie3, but even then, he would have no reasons to be too optimistic.

b2) 8 . . . .te7? !

That is hardly the best decision for Black. He does not prevent the centralization of White's knight on a3 and that contradicts one of the main strategical ideas of the Chelyabinsk variation.

9.ttJc4! ttJd4 About 9 . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . .ie6. It would not work for Black

to opt for 9 . . . ttJxe4? 1O.lLlxe4 hg5 11.ttJcxd6+ 'it>f8 12.%Vh5+-

The move 1O.hf6 is now a positional threat for Black, because after the capture on f6 with the pawn, his bishop is misplaced on the e7-square and that can be illustrated in the following variations: 9 . . . b5 1O . .ixf6 gxf6 1l.ttJe3 0-0 (About 1l . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . iLe6; as for 1l . . . ttJd4 - see 9 . . . ttJd4;

5. ttJc3 e5 6 .ttJdb5 d6 7. iLg5

11 . . . %Va5 12 .iLd3 iLe6 13.0-0 Hirschhorn - van Rooy, Perth 1994.) 12.ttJcd5 'it>h8 13.iLe2 gg8 14.c3 .tf8 15 . .tg4! Gabran - Ryzhkov, corr. 1974.

In case of 9 . . . iLg4 (with the idea to provoke f2-f3), as it was played in the game Hofrichter - Dawid, Freiberg 1999, White's best line seems to be 1O.%Vd2 ! ttJd4 11.iLd3 h6 12 .hf6 .ixf6 13.ttJd5 iLg5 14.ttJce3 with an advantage for him.

It might be interesting for Black to try the gambit line 9 . . . 0-0 !? 1O.hf6 hf6 ! (about 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJd5 b5 12.ttJce3 - see 9 . . . b5), but that would not solve his problems either: after 11. %Vxd6 %Vxd6 (If 11 . . . ttJd4, then 12 . .td3 .id7 13.ttJd5 Korneev - Maze, Elgoibar 2005. It is in favour of White if Black tries 11 . . . .ie6 12 . 0-0-0 %Vxd6, Popovic - Todorovic, Novi Sad 2000, 13.gxd6, or 12 . . . %Ve8 13.ttJd5; 11 . . . iLe7 12.%Vxd8 gxd8 13.ttJd5 Escott - Ellison, COIT. 1993.) 12.ttJxd6 .ie6 (or 12 . . . gd8 13.ttJxc8 gaxc8 14.iLd3 Tucci - Calgaro, COIT. 1998), as it was played in the game Dueball - Roeder, Germany 1981, White can continue with 13 . .td3 ttJb4 (or 13 . . . g6 14.ttJd5; 13 . . . iLe7 14.ttJf5 .ic5 15.gf1 gfd8 16.0-0-0 g6 17. ttJ e3) 14.0-0-0 b5 (or 14 . . . .te7 15.ttJxb7 ttJxa2+ 16.ttJxa2 ha2 17.b3) 15.'it>bl - and Black has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

10 .bf6 ixf6

21

Chapter 2

It is not logical for Black to try 10 . . . gxf6, in view of 1Vt'JdS. Now, it is too dubious for him to opt for 11 .. .fS? ! 12.c3 tLlbS 13.tLlcb6 l3b8 14.a4 Kopylov -Kuzminykh, Leningrad 19S1, while White obtains a clear advantage after 11 . . . ie6 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 (or 12 . . . ,bdS 13.tLlxdS l3c8 14.c3 tLle6 1S.ie2 0-0 16.ig4 Segebarth - Szewczyk, DDR 1988) 13.c3 tLlc6 14. hS Zapata - Paredes, Merida 1991, the move 11 . . . bS creates a target for attack on the queenside and the undermining move a2-a4 becomes quite effective: 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 13.tLlxc8 l3xc8 14.c3 tLlc6 (or 14 . . . tLle6 1S.a4 Kolendo - Weber, Poland 1992) lS.a4 Armas - Horvath, Budapest 1973.

1l.tLld5 ie6 It is unsatisfactory for Black

to follow with 11. . .ig4? 12.xg4 tLlxc2+ 13.d2 tLlxal 14.tLlcb6 b8 lS.i.c4 i.gS+ 16.c3+- Coleman - Behrmann, corr. 1996 - because White captures two pieces for a rook and he has a winning position.

Black loses a pawn after 11 . . . 0-0? ! 12.c3 tLlc6 (or 12 . . . tLle6 13.tLldb6 b8 14.Wxd6 Korneev - Fabregas, Badalona 1995; 12 . . . i.g4 13.xg4 tLlc2+ 14.d2 tLlxa1 lS.iLd3+- Bejaoui - Villanueva, Istanbul 2000) 13.tLldb6 b8 14. Wxd6 Zuidema - Calvo, The Hague 1961.

If 11 . . . bS? ! , then 12.tLlcb6 b8 (or 12 . . . l3a7 13.tLlxc8 Wxc8 14.c3

22

tLle6 lS.a4 Ortega Magallanes -Ottenweller, corr. 1999) 13.tLlxc8 xc8 14.c3, and later 14 . . . tLlc6 lS.a4 b8 (lS . . . 0-0 16.axbS axbS 17.,bbS Durao - Hasan, Skopje 1972) 16.axbS axbS 17.tLlxf6+ gxf6 (17 . . . xf6 18.l3a6 Pierrot - Minervino, Argentina 1996) 18.WdS tLle7 19.,bbS+ f8 20 .Wd3 Kun - Heiligermann, Hungary 1993, or 14 . . . tLle6 lS.a4 ! 0-0 (lS . . . b8 16.axbS axbS 17.i.e2 tLlcS 18.c2 0-0 19. 0-0 Klenk - Tudosa, Germany 1998) 16.axbS axbS 17. ,bbS l3b8 18.c4 tLld4 (18 . . . tLlf4 19.0-0 tLlxdS 20.xdS Morovic - Sisniega, Santa Catalina 1987) 19.0-0 Averbakh - Korchnoi, Tula 19S0. The undermining move a2-a4 is White's standard resource to break Black's defence on the queenside in similar situations.

12.tLlxf6+! This i s simple and strong.

Black is in a lot of trouble after every possible capture.

12 xf6 Or 12 . . . gxf6 13.c3 ,bc4 (13 . . .

c8 14.tLle3 tLlc6 lS.i.c4 tLle7 16. Wd3 Raivio - Jensen, corr. 1997)

14.hc4 with a clear positional advantage for White, T.Horvath - Gladischev, Zalakaros 1995.

13.c3 It is also good for White to

try 13.tDxd6+ e7 14.c3 xd6 15.cxd4 exd4 16.'lWa4 Santiago -Ruiz Luis, Asturias 1993, because Black's too extravagant play can hardly be justified.

13 .hc4 14 .hc4 tDc6 15. O -O - White has a long-lasting advantage, thanks to his reliable control over the d5-outpost and Black's backward d6-pawn, Zei - Scuderi, corr. 1999. Meanwhile, White can increase his pressure against the f7 -square bringing his heavy pieces. Black's defence will be difficult and possibly fruitless.

b3) 8 . . . h6?!

That is a rarely played line, after which there arise typical situations in which the move h7-h6 is not so useful for Black.

9 .hf6 'lWxf6 In case of 9 . . . gxf6, White can

choose between 10.tDd5 f5, Herrmann - Gusseinow, Sebnitz

S. tDc3 eS 6 .tDdbS d6 7. gS

1998 (After 1O . . . b5 11.c3, it is too risky for Black to continue with 11 . . .f5 12 .exf5 hf5, in view of 13.Wff3 Farah - Serafim, Mar del Plata 1992, while if 11 . . . i.e6, then simply 12 .tDc2 Chiburdanidze - Merlini, Buenos Aires 1978 - and the move h7-h6 turns out to be just a loss of time.), 11.exf5 5 12.tDc4 i.e6 13.c3 ! (Black can counter 13.tDcb6 with 13 . . . tDb4!oo) 13 . . . i.g7 14.tDcb6 b8 15. e2 and 1O.tDc4 f5 (or 1O . . . ,te6 11.tDe3) 1l.exf5 i.xf5 12 .tDe3 e6 13.i.c4 !? Kozakov - Garcia Roman, La Roda 2007 and White has a much superior game in both variations.

1 0 .tDd5 Wfd8 U.tDc4 i.e6 The game Alexopoulos - Ka

tranas, Kallithea 1978, followed with 1l . . . b5 12.tDcb6 b8 13.tDxc8 xc8, and here White could have played 14.a4

12.c3 i.e7 After 12 . . . b5 13.tDce3 e7,

White has again the powerful resource 14.a4

13.ie2 White has a stable edge. In

case of 13 . . . 0-0 14.tDxe7+ Wfxe7 15.Wfxd6 'lWh4 16.'lWd3 ad8 17. 'lWe3 Black has no compensation for the pawn. In the game Moiseev - Backwinkel, Germany 1995, Black tried 13 . . . b5, but White could have countered that with 14.tDxe7!? xe7 15.tDe3, and Black would have lost his castling rights.

23

Chapter 3 1.e4 c5 2.li)f3 li)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.li)xd4 e6 5.li)c3 e5 6.li)db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.li)a3 ie6

The English master H.Bird first played this ancient line in the 19th century and later, during the sixties of the past century, it was a regular opening weapon of GM B.Larsen. Sometimes the name of that line is connected with these two players.

9.tLlc4! White activates his knight, in

creasing the pressure against the d6-pawn and he thus emphasizes the effect of the possible exchange on f6. Black has a choice here between the outdated move a) 9 . . . tLld4 and the contemporary line b) 9 . . . gc8!

At first, we will convince you that White's task is much easier after Black's other possibilities:

24

White has a clear advantage after the anti-positional move 9 . . . !xc4? ! 1O.!xc4 e7 11 .0-0 0-0 12.!xf6 ixf6 13.tLld5 Unzicker - Dunphy, Madrid 1957.

The line 9 .. .'I&c7? ! can hardly be recommended (Black's queen is misplaced here.) 10.h:f6 gxf6 11.tLle3 tLle7 12 .d3 h5 (or 12 . . . h6 13.0-0 !xe3 14.fxe3 Kosmac - Varga, Bled 1996) 13.'lWf3 Byvshev - Reshko, Leningrad 1957.

The move 9 . . . b5? ! looks seemingly active, but it only creates weaknesses for Black, since White can undermine his opponent's queenside pawns with a2-a4 at an opportune moment. There might follow: 1O.!xf6 gxf6 (In case of 10 . . . 'lWxf6, White should not play 11.tLlxd6+ !xd6 12 .'i&xd6 tLld4 13.i.d3 'lWg5;;, since it is much stronger for him to follow with 11.tLle3 ! tLld4 12.tLlcd5 !xd5 13.tLlxd5 'lWg6, Podlesnik - Starc, Bled 1994, 14.f3 or 1l . . . 'lWd8 12.tDcd5 with an advantage for White, Bednarski - Kavalek, Krakow 1984.) 11.tLle3.

S.liJc3 e5 6 .tiJdbS d6 7.gS a6 B. ttJa3 e6 9. ttJc4

Black has tried numerous possibilities here, but he fails to equalize in any of them:

About 11 . . . e7 - see 9 . . . ie7; The line 11 . . . ttJd4 12.ttJcd5

f5, loses the exchange for Black after 13.exf5 ttJxf5 14.ttJxf5 M5 15.'1Wf3 ! hc2 16.ttJc7+ V!ixc7 17. 'lWxa8+ e7 18.'lWxa6 Casella -Simpson, Long Island 1995;

It is too passive for Black to play 11 . . . g7 12.id3 0-0 13.0-0 :E!c8 14.ttJcd5 Melnikov - Vik. Ivanov, St Petersburg 2006;

If 11 . . . ttJe7, as it was played in the game Brondum - Andersen, Copenhagen 1979, then 12 .'lWf3 ig7 (12 . . . ttJg6 13.ttJcd5) 13.d3;

Finally, in case of 11 . . . h6 12.ttJcd5 he3 13.ttJxe3 ttJe7 (It is too risky for Black to opt for 13 . . . 'lWa5+ 14.c3 0-0-0 15.,te2 ttJe7, Opychaneyj - Jarmoluk, Argentina 1993, 16.a4 b4 17.:E!cl) White counters with the thematic line 14.a4! b4 (Black would not solve his problems with 14 . . . bxa4 15.:E!xa4 d5, Ellison - Nicholson, Port Erin 2000, because of 16.V!if3) 15.'lWf3 Honfi - Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1970 and he obtains a clear advantage.

After 9 . . . e7? ! White plays 10. 6 gxf6 11.ttJe3. That position has been tested numerous times in practice, but the results were terrible for Black.

Here are some of the possible developments:

About 11 . . . 'lWd7 12 .ttJcd5 d8 13.'lWh5 hd5 14.ttJxd5 ttJd4 15.d3 - see 11 . . . ttJd4;

11 . . . 'lWb6? ! (That is a loss of time.) 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 . . . 'lWxb2 13.:E!bl V!ixa2 14.ttJc7+ d7 15.ttJxa8 :gxa8 16.:E!xb7) 13.c3 Esplana - Alosilla, Peru 1999;

11 . . . 0-0 12.ttJcd5 h8 13.e2 :E!g8 14.0-0 Leiros Vila - Lucas, corr. 1985;

11 . . .lk8 12.ttJcd5 hd5, Suetin - Olbrich, Moscow 1991 (about 12 . . . b5 - see 11 . . . b5; 12 . . .f5 13.exf5 hd5, Nunn - Cox, Norway 1972, 14.ttJxd5) 13.exd5 ttJb8 14. d3;

11 . . . b5 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 . . . :E!c8 13.c3 ttJa5 14.a4 Wasnetsky - Nosal, Mannheim 1990; 12 . . . :E!b8 13.,te2 'lWd7 14.g4 Maucci - Plazaola, Buenos Aires 2002) 13.c3 Dolgener - Gierden, Dortmund 1988;

25

Chapter 3

1l . . . lDd4 12 .!d3 d7 (or 12 . . . hS 13.lDcdS Kotronias - Taksrud, Gausdal 1991; 12 . . . aS 13. 0-0 Westermeier - Hacker, Germany 1979; 12 . . . l:kS 13.lDcdS 0-0 14.c3 Melnikov - Spanoche, Eforie Nord 1999) 13.lDcdS .hdS (or 13 . . . !dS 14.c3 lDc6 IS.f3 Pitkanen - Rantanen, Naantali 1997) 14.lDxdS .idS (or 14 . . . c6 IS.c3 lDe6 16.'iNf3 lDcS 17.!c2 lDd7 IS . .ib3 Muslic - Segovic, Pula 2002) IS.hS EkS (or 15 . . . 0-0 16.c3 lDc6 17 . .ie2 Gazik - Matejov, Slovakia 2001) 16.c3 lDe6 17. !e2 Blau - Plater, Hilversum 1947;

ll . . . aS 12 . .id3 lDb4 (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.0-0 hS I4.lDcdS Wang - Mai, Wuxi 2005) 13.a3 lDxd3+ 14.xd3 (White's control over the dS and fS-outposts emphasizes the superiority of his couple of knights over Black's bishop pair.) 14 . . . EkS (14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.0-0 Ferreira - Romao, Portugal 1993) 15.0-0 gS 16.lDcdS cS 17.c3 Winterstein - Schwarz, Giessen 1991. All these variations confirm that after Black captures on f6 with a pawn, his bishop is misplaced on e7.

The game Hove - Graham, Minnesota 1996, followed with the move 9 . . . bS with the idea to remove the rook from an eventual threat on the b6-square. In that case, White's best line seems to be 10.lDdS! .hdS 1l . .hf6 'iNxf6 (or 1l . . . gxf6 12.xdS) 12.xdS and he occupies the central outpost.

26

Meanwhile, Black's rook is misplaced on bS.

After the not so well analyzed variation 9 . . . h6 10 . .bf6 xf6 (It is illogical for Black to play 10 . . . gxf6? ! 1l.lDe3 Tarnowski - Fabian, Glucholazy 1963 and White remains with a clear advantage.) l1.lDb6 bS I2.lDcdS;t Ribli - Zinn, Zalaegerszeg 1969, there arises a situation quite similar to the one we will analyze later after 9 . . . cS 1O . .hf6 'iNxf6 11.lDb6 bS I2.lDcdS - see variation hI. The difference is only that Black's pawn is on h6 and that is much rather in favour of White, because Black's counterplay is connected with the pawnadvance f'7-fS and it would lead to an additional weakening of his light squares on the kingside.

a) 9 d4

This move used to be popular. Presently it has almost disappeared from practice and the reason is that Black's centralized knight will be repelled later with the move c2-c3 and he can hardly prevent that.

1 0 .hf6 xf6

5JiJc3 e5 6 .ttJdb5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJa3 ie6 9. ttJc4

Black has problems after 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJe3 f5 (about 1l . . Jk8 12 .id3 - see 9 . . Jk8; 1l . . . !h6 12 .id3 .b:e3 13.fxe3 ttJc6 14.'f3 Wolff- Shtern, USA 1986) 12.exfS ttJxfS 13.ttJxfS ixfS, because of 14.'f3 'c8, Trautz - Adamczyk, COIT. 2003 (Black loses immediately after 14 . . . 'd7? lS.ttJdS+-, White is clearly better too following 14 . . . .b:c2 15J3c1 ig6 16.'xb7t) 15.ie2 ! ? ie7 (It is too dangerous for Black to try lS . . . hc2 16J!c1 ia4 17. 0-0 ic6 18.ttJdS, or 16 . . . J.g6 17.0-0) 16.0-0-0;1; with initiative for White.

1l.ttJb6 b8 It is insufficient for Black to try

the active line: 1l . . . d8 12.ttJcdS ixdS 13.ttJxdS 'g6 14.f3 ie7 (or 14 . . . ttJc6 lS.ttJc7+ d7 16.ttJdS Eiben - Kovari, Slovakia 1997) lS.c3 ih4+ (It is not advisable for Black to opt for lS . . . ttJe6 16.'a4+ d7 17.b4) 16.g3 hg3+ 17.hxg3 'xg3+ 18.d2 ttJxf3+ 19.c2 Husted - F.Hansen, Denmark 1991 and Black's threats have been neutralized.

12.ttJcd5 'd8 Black would lose his castling

rights after 12 . . . 'g6 13.ttJc7+ d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.'d3 Daurelle - Fanghui Feng, corr. 1998, or 12 . . . 'h4 13.ttJc7+ d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.'d3 Kraujunas - Lindberg, COIT. 1997.

13.c3 .txd5 White can counter 13 . . . ttJc6

with the powerful argument

14.'a4! , while in case of 14 . . . i.e7? (about 14 . . . .b:d5 lS.l2JxdS - see 13 . . . ixdS) he has the strong response 15.ixa6 ! ixdS 16.ttJxdS a8 17.'bS+- Mueller - Zunker, Oberursel 1972.

14.ttJxd5 e6 The endgame is worse for Black

after 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.'a4 'as (or IS . . . ie7 16.g3 ! ? 0-0 17.ih3 Cygon - Budt, Detmold 1976; lS . . .E!:c 8 16.ie2 ie7 17.ig4 b8 18.0-0 Cravero - Grosse Kloenne, corr. 2000) 16.'xaS ttJxaS 17.ie2 ie7 18 .0-0 c8 19J!fdl Telleria -Braso, Uruguay 1988.

15.g3 ie7 16.a4!? 0-0 17. i.h3 e8 18.0-0;l;

This position was reached in the game Tal - Wade, Reykjavik 1964. The eighth World Champion obtained a great positional advantage and he won the game promptly, with some assistance from his opponent, indeed - 18 . . . M8 19.aS ttJgS 20.ifS g6? (Black blundered the exchange here.) 21.id7! e6 22 . .b:e6 fxe6 23.ttJb6 hS 24.'e2 ie7 2S.f4 ttJf7 26.fS 1-0.

27

Chapter 3

b) 9 gc8!

This is an idea of GM Larsen. Black completes the development of his queenside and he takes the c-file under control.

IO .txf6 We will analyze bl) IO 'i'xf6

and b2) IO gxf6.

bl) IO 'i'xf6 Black does not allow doubling

of his pawns, but he enables his opponent to deploy his knights on the important b6 and d5-outposts with tempo.

1l.tLlb6 White should better refrain

from winning a pawn, because after 1Vxd6+ hd6 12.'i'xd6 :1'ld8, followed by lLld4, Black obtains an excellent counterplay.

1l gb8 Black should better keep the

d8-square for his queen, therefore it is dubious for him to try 1l . . . :1'ld8? ! 12.lLlcd5 %Yg6 13.lLlc7+ We7 14.lLlcd5+ We8 15.%Yd3 ie7 16.0-0-0 Eitel - Ennenbach, Goch 1997.

12.tLlcd5 Y!Yd8 If 12 .. .'g6? ! , then 13.Yd3 ie7

28

(or 13 . . . hd5 14.lLlxd5 !i.e7, Jabot - Felber, corr. 1995, 15.lLlc7+ wd7 16.lLld5) 14.lLlc7+ ! wd8 15.lLlcd5 and Black loses his castling rights. White is better after 15 . . . We8 16.g3 h5 17.0-0-0 Bindrich - Rovid, Budapest 2004, as well as following 15 . . . f5 16.0-0-0 fxe4 17.Yc3 ! ixd5 (or 17 . . . :1'lf8 18.ha6 ! :1'lxf2 19.ixb7 l:bcb7 20.%Yxc6 :1'la7 21.a4 ig4 22 .lLlc4) 18.lLlxd5 :1'lc8 19.wb1 :1'lf8 20.Yb3 ! b5 21 .%Ya3 lLlb8 (It is even worse for Black to play 21 . . . :1'lxf2 22.%Yxa6 :1'lxc2 23 .%Yb6+ We8 24.Wxc2 lLlb4+ 25.Wb1 e3+ 26.!i.d3 lLlxd3 27.%Yxb5+-) 22 .%Ya5+ We8 23.Yb6 - and Black had great problems in the game Herrera - Merino Garcia, Spain 1996.

13.c3 White takes control over the

d4-square and he is threatening Ya4 in some variations.

13 ie7 After the careless line 13 ... g6? !

14.Ya4 ! , the temporary weakening of the f6-square does not allow Black to retreat with his bishop to d7, otherwise White has a tactical strike on the a6-square: 14 . . . ig7 15.ha6 ! hd5 16.lLlxd5 :1'la8 17.Yb5 :1'lxa6 18.Yxb7+- Cifuentes Parada; 14 . . . !i.h6 15.ha6 ! 0-0 16.ib5 f5 17.0-0 wh8 18.:1'ladl Joecks - Chekhov, Germany 1997.

It is not so popular for Black to play 13 . . . lLle7, because White can choose between the calm line: 14.ic4 lLlxd5 15.Ya4+ id7 16. lLlxd7 %Yxd7 17.Yxd7+ Wxd7 18.

S.ciJc3 e5 6JiJdbS d6 7.!gS a6 8.tiJa3 ie6 9. &iJc4

ixd5;!; and the more ambitious 14. \Wa4+ .!d7, Zesch - Priebe, Berlin 2002, 15.\Wb4! ? &iJxd5 16.&iJxd5;!; with superior prospects.

14 . .tc40-0 About 14 . . . !g5 15.0-0 - see

14 . . . 0-0. 15.0-0.!g5 About 15 . . .hB 16.\We2 .tg5 (or

16 . . . g6, Salm - Henri, corr. 19B5, 17.a4 f5 1B.exf5 gxf5 19.f4;!;) 17.a4 - see 15 . . . .!g5.

White is clearly better after 15 . . . ixd5 16.&iJxd5 b5 17 . .tb3 !g5 1B.\Wd3 @hB 19J3ad1 &iJa5 20.&iJb4 b6 21..!d5 Palevich - Schlosser, corr. 19B6.

16.a4! White has completed his de

velopment and he consolidates his achievements on the queenside.

16 @h8 Black has no other counter

play except the pawn-advance t7-f5, but he has tried some other lines too.

It is only a transposition of moves after 16 . . . a5 17.YlYe2 g6 lB. ad1 @hB - see 16 .. . @hB, or 16 . . . g6 17.\We2 @hB - see 16 . . . @hB.

It is insufficient for Black to try 16 . . . .txd5 17.&iJxd5 &iJe7 1B.\Wb3 &iJxd5 19.ixd5 b6 20 .fd1 g6 21 . l3d3 Schmidt Schaeffer - Brameyer, Germany 2002.

After 16 . . . &iJe7, Ciolac - San Marco, Bethune 1992, White can play simply 17.a5;!;

It deserves attention for Black to opt for 16 . . . YlYeB ! ? White's most principled reaction seems to be 17.&iJc7 YlYe7 1B.&iJxe6 fxe6 19.YlYg4, threatening Black's e6-pawn. The move 19 . . . l3beB can be countered by White with the line 20 . .!xe6+ YlYxe6 21.\Wxg5, while in case of 19 . . . &iJdB, White maintains his initiative with 20.g3 !h6 21.l3ad1 f6 22 .l3d3;!; Tong - Lim, Singapore 1990.

17.ti'e2 g6 Black has numerous possibili

ties here, but neither of them is sufficient for equality.

He can try to redeploy his knight to the kingside with 17 . . . &iJe7 1B.a5 &iJg6, but that enables White to attack successfully his opponent's backward d6-pawn 19.13fd1 ih6 20.&iJe3 &iJf4 21.\Wf3 g6 22 . .txe6 fxe6 23.&iJec4 Wise - Leveille, corr. 1992.

The prophylactic move 17 . . . as has its drawbacks as well. In case of 1B.l3ad1, White is better after 1B . . . g6 19 . .ta2 ! f5 (or 19 . . . &iJe7 20 .\Wb5; 19 . . . .th6 20.&iJc4 f5 21.exfS gxf5 22 .&iJdb6) 20.exf5 gxf5, Friedman - Hausrath, Groningen 1996, 21.&iJc4 f4 22 .f3;!;, as well as following 1B . . . .th6 19.@h1

29

Chapter 3

g6 (if 19 . . . lLle7? ! , then 20.lLlxe7 'Wxe7 21.he6 fxe6 22 .lLlc4 or 20 . . . Wxb6 21.lLlfS Nunn - Manor, London 19B7) 20.ia2;:!; and White's queenside initiative increases.

The move 17 . . 'WeB !? is interesting here, just like on the previous move, and it was played in the game Janovsky - Sveshnikov, Moscow 19B7. White can increase the pressure against the d6-square with 1B.ia2 ! ? idB 19.1Llc4 'Wd7 20.adl;!;

If Black plays 17 .. .fS without preparation, then after 1B.exfS i.xfS 19.aS e4, White has the powerful maneuver 20 .ib3 ! eB (It is not any better for Black to try 20 . . . lLleS 21 .ic2 lLld3 22 .f4 exf3 23. fuf3, or 20 . . . lLle7 21.lLle3 ig6 22 .ie6 ! f6 23.Wg4;:!;, while in case of 20 . . . WeB 21.ic2 idB, it is good for White to continue with 22 .ae1 lLlxaS 23.ixe4 he4 24. Wxe4 hb6 2S.lLlxb6 'WbS 26. 'Wb4!;:!; Perz - Necula, corr. 2001, or 22J'!a4!?;:!;) 21 .ia4! - It becomes clear that Black is incapable of protecting his queenside. There might follow 21 . . .ih6 22. ixc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4, or 21 . . .eS 22 .hc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4 'WeB 24.lLlc4 e6 2S.lLlxa6 b7 26.lLlb4;:!; and Black has no compensation for his material losses.

18.l3adl i.h6 About 1B . . . aS - see 17 . . . aS. In case of the immediate move

1B . . .fS, Travi - Henri, corr. 1979, 19.exfS gxfS (After 19 . . . ixfS !?

30

20.id3 ie6 21.ie4 lLle7 22 .aS;:!; White has a slight, but long-lasting pressure.) White has the resource 20 .lLle3 ! he3 (or 20 . . . 'We7 21.he6 Wxe6 22 .lLlec4 bdB 23.f4 ! .tf6 24.'Wd2 ! ?;:!;) 21.fxe3 hc4 (This exchange is in favour of White: 21 . . .'Wxb6 22 .ixe6 lLle7 23.aS ! WcS 24.'Wd3 f4 2S.Wxd6, or 22 .. .f4 23.xd6 fxe3 24.d7! xf1+ 2S.Wxfl fB+ 26.We1! lLlbB 27.f7 xf7 2B.ixf7 lLld7 29.Wg4 lLlf6 30.WgS e4 31.h3) 22 .lLlxc4 f6 23.'Wd3 'Wg8 24.'WdS;:!; - and White is better, because of his dominance over the dS-outpost and Black's pawn-weaknesses on d6 and fS.

19.Whl f5 20.exfS gxf5 In case of 20 . . . ixfS, Reinaldo

- M.Garcia, Nigran 1997, White can follow with 21.id3 ie6 22 . ie4;:!;

21.f4 ig7 In the game Isupov - Che

khov, Orel 1996, Black chose the less precise response 21 . . . gB. White could have put that move under doubt with the line: 22 .fxeS ! dxeS (after 22 . . . lLlxeS, it is very good for White to follow with 23.id3 !) 23.lLlb4! Wxb6 (23 . . . ixc4 24.lLlxc4) 24.he6 lLld4 2S.cxd4 Wxe6 26.dxeS with a great advantage for White.

22.b4!;!; (diagram)

That position was reached in the game Herrera - Cifuentes Parada, Cienfuegos 1996. After 22 . . . lLle7 23.lLlxe7 'Wxe7 24.he6

5.tiJc3 e5 6.l1:J db5 d6 7.fig5 a6 B. ttJa3 fie6 9. ttJc4

'lNxe6 25.a5 :B:be8 26.ttJd5t White obtained a stable positional edge. Black would not have solved his problems with 22 . . . hd5 23.ttJxd5 e4. White has the undermining move 24.g4! and after 24 . . . fxg4 25.'lNxg4 YMc8 (or 25 . . . :B:g8 26.:B:gl; 25 . . . b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.fib3; 25 . . . ttJe7 26.:B:g1 ttJf5 27J!de1 b5 28.axb5 axb5 29.fib3) 26.'lNe2 YMf5 27.:B:g1 fih6 28.:B:g4t - Black has problems in all the variations.

b2) lO ... gxf6

This move is much more popular. Black opens the g-file and he plans to deploy his king's bishop to h6.

11 . .td3! That is the precise move order.

White is not in a hurry to place his

knight on e3, because Black can counter that with 11. . .fih6. After 1l . .td3, we will analyze b2a) 11 ... gg8 and b2b) 11 ttJe7.

About 1l . . . fig7 12 .0-0 0-0 13.ttJe3 ttJe7 - see 1l . . . ttJe7.

It is premature for Black to play 1l . . . .th6? ! in view of 12 .YMh5. The game Stevanovic - Schinis, Yerevan 1996, followed with 12 . . . .tg7 13.0-0 ttJe7 14.ttJe3 'lNb6 15. ttJcd5 hd5 16.exd5. It would be interesting for Black, but still not quite correct if he tries 12 . . . fif4 ! ? 13.g3 ttJd4 14.gxf4 fixc4 15.0-0-0 YMa5 (or 15 . . . b5 16.b1 b4 17.hc4 :B:xc4 18.ttJd5) 16.hc4 :B:xc4 17. :B:d3 with an advantage for White.

The move 1l . . . ttJd4? ! is not justifiable for Black, just like on move 9. The position after White's natural move 12.ttJe3 has been tested numerous times. His plan is simple - he must complete his development and then occupy the d5-outpost and push c2-c3. Black has nothing real to counter that plan with, for example :

12 . . . 1ih6 13.0-0 0-0 (about 13 . . J:1g8, see 12 . . . :B:g8) 14.ttJcd5 Dely - Flesch, Hungary 1965;

12 . . . h5 13.0-0 h4 (or 13 . . . fie7 14.ttJcd5 Guerrero - Regue, Catalunia 1997) 14.ttJcd5 fig7 15.c3 ttJc6 16.'lNf3 ! :B:h6 17.ttJf5 hf5 18.exf5 ttJe7 19.ie4 Bronstein - Pilnik, Moscow 1956;

12 . . . YMb6 13.ttJcd5 'lNxb2 14. ttJxf6+ d8 15.0-0 Hjartarson - Friojonsson, Iceland 1980;

31

Chapter 3

12 . . . i.g7 13.0-0 0-0 (or 13 . . . bS 14.tLlcdS fS lS.exfS hdS 16.tLlxdS gS, Hessmer - Eiselt, DDR 1974, 17.f4) 14.tLlcdS @h8 (or 14 . . .fS lS.exfS i.xdS 16.tLlxdS :B:cS 17.i.e4 Kasimdzhanov - Bentout, Metz 1997) lS.hS Herb - Bouton, France 1999;

12 . . . aS 13.0-0 :B:xc3 (or 13 . . . hS 14.lZlcdS Vehi - Riera, Manresa 1997) 14.bxc3 '

5. 0,c3 e5 6 .0,db5 d6 7. il.g5 a6 8. 0,a3 il.e6 9. 0,c4

ersen - Nilssen, Aarhus 200S.) in view of the accurate response by White 1S.l!?h1 il.e6 16.il.d3 il.h6 17.0,cdS;l; Kindermann - Ahmels, Germany 1982, with a better game for him.

13.tDd5 ,tg4!? Th e other possibility for Black

is also in favour of his opponent 13 . . . 0,b4 14.0,xb4 hc4 1S.hc4 Elxc4, Andersen - Heim, corr. 1994, 16.0,dS ! fS (16 . . Jixe4? 17. 'Wf3+-) 17.exfS 'WgS 18.0,e3

After 13 .. .fS, White has the resource 14.'WhS ! il.f8 1S.0,cb6 f4 ! (Black has no choice - 1S . . . Elb8? 16.exfS+-) 16.0,xc8 il.g4 17.'Wxh7 Elg7 18.'Wxg7! (but not 18.'Wh8 hc8oo) 18 . . . hg7 19.0,cb6 Matulovic - Arnason, Zemun 1983 -and White has a clear advantage with two rooks for a queen.

In case of 13 . . . hdS 14.exdS 0,e7, it is also good for White to try 1S.'WhS il.f4 (or 1S . . . il.gS, Herbrechtsmeier - Steiger, Germany 1992, 16.h4 il.f4 17.'Wxh7) 16. 'Wxh7 I!?f8, Owczarzak - Stryjecki, Poraj 1997 and here 17.0,e3 ! 'Wb6 (It is too risky for Black to open the f-file: 17 . . . he3 18 .fxe3 0,xdS 19.il.e4) 18.0,fS 0,xdS 19J!adl and he ends up in a very difficult position.

14.ie2 ih3 15.tDce3 tDb4!? Black has an original possibil

ity to deflect his opponent from protecting the g2-square, but it has not been tested in practice yet. In the game Klundt - Oechslein, Germany 1982, he chose 1S .. .fS,

but White could have countered that by transferring into a favourable endgame with the line : 16.l!?h1! he3 17.liJxe3 f4 18.gxh3 fxe3 19.fxe3 'WgS 20.Elg1 'Wxg1+ 21.'Wxg1 Elxg1+ 22 .Elxg1 l!?e7 23. c3

16 .tf3! The principled line: 16.0,xb4

he3 17.fxe3 il.xg2 18.Elf2 he4+ 19.1!?f1 'Wd7 20.il.d3 'Wh3+ 21 .I!?e2 il.g6 !oo leads to a rather unclear position.

16 . . . tDxd5 17.tDxd5;!; Black's temporary activity has

been neutralized and White's prospects are superior.

b2b) 1l . . . tDe7

Black forces his opponent's knight to retreat to the e3-square

33

Chapter 3

(the resource .th6 becomes even more effective then) and he increases his control over the vital squares dS and fS.

12.liJe3 White fails with the straight

forward line: 12.liJxd6+? xd6 13 . .tbS+, because of 13 . . . tbc6.

12 . . . .th6 Opening of the centre with

12 . . . dS? ! 13.exdS tbxdS 14.tbcxdS .txdS is too risky for Black. There might follow lS.0-0 .te6 (Black has also tried here lS . . . hS, Priborsky - Birklbauer, Aschach 200S, 16 . .tfS .te6 17.f3, as well as lS . . . .tc6 16.hS .tcS 17 . .tc4 e7, Parkanyi - Rovid, Hungary 1998, 18.tbfS f8 19.E!ad1 E!g8 20 . .tdS) 16.f3 e7 17.E!ad1 .tg7 18 . .te4 E!c7 19.E!d3 Konguvel - George, Chennai 2000 and Black has rather weak light squares.

Black has tested in practice some other dubious lines like: 12 . . . d7? ! 13.Wf3 .tg7 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.exdS a4 16.0-0 Ciric - Eisinger, Oberhausen 1961, or 12 . . . hS? ! 13.0-0 b6 14.tbcdS Kudrin - Fitzpatrick, Columbus 1987, or 12 . . . E!cS? ! 13.0-0 hS 14.tbcdS! .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS 16.exdS Gligoric - Littlewood, Hastings 1964.

In case of 12 . . . E!g8 13.0-0, it would be more prudent for Black to choose the move 13 . . . .th6, which we will analyze later - see 12 . . . .th6, since after his other attempts White obtains the advantage much easier, for example:

34

13 . . . E!gS? ! 14.f3 tbg6 lS.wh1 hS (or lS . . . tbh4 16.e2) 16.tbcdS Dely - Szilagyi, Budapest 1974.

White maintains a clear edge after the rather modest line for Black: 12 . . . .tg7 13.0-0 0-0 (about 13 . . . b6 - see 12 . . . Wb6; 13 . . . tbg6 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.tbxdS hS, Kroener - Eiselt, DDR 1974, 16.f3) 14.f3 E!e8 lS.tbcdS tbg6 16.g3 Almasi - Rovid, Budapest 1993 .

It is more principled for Black to try 12 . . . b6 and White must sacrifice a pawn in answer to that 13.0-0! xb2 (about 13 . . . .th6 14.tbcdS - see 12 . . . .th6; it is inconsistent for Black to play 13 . . . .tg7 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.exdS 0-0 16.hS tbg6 17.tbfS Borngaesser - Gelzenleichter, Dortmund 1987, or 13 . . . E!g8 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS 16.exdS h6 17.a4 Fishbein - Agdestein, Stavanger 1989 and he ends up in a difficult position.) 14.tbcdS. After 14 . . . .txdS, both captures seem to be reasonable for White, but still it looks better for him to opt for lS.tbxdS ! ? tbxdS 16.exdS. White's bishop is much stronger than its counterpart is, while Black's doubled extra pawn is completely immaterial. There might follow 16 . . . d4 (about 16 . . . E!c7 17.f3 We7 18.a4 ! Wd4 - see 16 . . . d4) 17.f3 We7 (It is not better for Black to try 17 . . . .tg7 18.a4 E!c7 19.E!fd1 cS 20.E!abl Coleman - R.Thomas, Internet 1997; in case of 17 . . . Wh4 18.E!ab1 bS, White has the resource 19.a4 ! Wit-

5.tiJc3 e5 6JiJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 B. ttJa3 ie6 9. ttJc4

tmann - Krustkalns, corr. 1976; it is only slightly better for Black to continue with 17 . . . h5 ! ? 1B.l:!ab1 b5, but even then the endgame is better for White after 19.a4 ! xa4 20.l:!a1 g4 21.'xg4 hxg4 22.!'bca6, or 19 . . . %Yg4 20.%Yxg4 hxg4 21.axb5 axb5 22.l:!xb5 Lakos - S.Horvath, Hungary 1997) 1B.a4 ! (That is an important intermediate move.) 1B . . . l:!c7 (or 1B . . . ih6 19.1:!fb1 l:!c7 20.l:!a3 id2 21 .l:!ab3 %Ya7 22.l:!b6 Paulucci - Perez, corr. 19BO) 19.1:!fd1 %Yc3 (19 . . . h4 20.l:!db1 l:!gB 21.l:!a3 ! g4 22 .ixh7) 20.l:!ab1 a5 21 . e4 Mednis - Lombardy, Pasadena 197B. It is quite evident that White's initiative is powerful. His pressure along the b-file and his control over the light squares provide him with a more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

13.0-0! White would not mind the ex

change on e3, since he would exert powerful pressure along the opened f-file.

13 . . . .ixe3 White maintains his advan-

tage effortlessly in case of 13 . . . l:!c5 14.%Yf3 ig5 15.ttJcd5 Lau - Enz-mann, Dresden 1997, or 13 . . . ttJg6 14.g3 ,be3 15.fxe3 h5 (or 15 . . . %Yb6 16.%Yf3) 16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 h4 1B.%Yg4 Kozamernik - Mlacnik, Bled 2000, or 13 . . . b6 14.ttJed5 ixd5 15.exd5 ig7 (but not 15 . . . %Yxb2? 16.ttJe4+-) 16.%Yg4 0-0 17.ttJe4 c;t>hB 1B.ttJg3 Alves - Limayo, corr. 1997.

It looks more logical for Black to play 13 . . . l:!gB. After 14.f3, the following line is clearly in his favour: 14 . . . l:!g6? ! 15.ttJcd5 ttJc6 16.c3 c;t>fB 17.%Yh5 c;t>gB 1B.ttJf5 Bresciani - Agnelli, Bratto 1997.

Therefore Black must choose between 14 . . . ttJg6 15.g3 ttJf4!? , Kosten - Ammann, London 19BB and here White could have maintained his positional pressure with the line : 16.ttJcd5 c;t>fB (or 16 . . . ixd5? ! 17.ttJxd5 ttJxd5 1B.exd5) 17.l:!fd1 ttJxd3 1B.l:!xd3 ixe3 19.ttJxe3t;

or 14 . . . ixe3 15.fxe3 b6 (If 15 . . . l:!g6, then 16.ttJd5 and Black has serious problems in all the variations : 16 . . . ttJxd5 17.exd5 ig4 1B.%Yf2; 16 . . . ixd5 17.exd5 l:!h6 1B.c4 b6 19.1:!f2 Becker - Krege, Ditzingen 2003; 16 . . . ttJgB 17.h3 c;t>fB 1B.a4 Hamilton - Goldsmith, Adelaide 19BO) 16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 f5 (Black fails to protect his pawn anymore: 17 . . . l:!c7 1B .l:!ael; 17 . . . ttJg6 1B.c;t>hl Suresh - Mahesh, Cochin 2 000.) 1B.ixf5 ttJxf5 19.xf5 xe3+ 20 .c;t>h1 l:!c7 21.xh7 g5

35

Chapter 3

22 .!U2 gg7 (The king and rook endgame after 22 . . . g6 23.xg6 gxg6 24.gafl Oliveira - Vitor, Lisbon 1994, seems to be hopeless for Black, since he is a pawn down.) 23.h8+ gg8 24.h3 Konguvel - Bhattacharyya, Calcutta 1994 and White remains with a material advantage.

14.fxe3 'iHb6 Here after 14 . . . gg8? ! lS.gxf6

b6 16.c1 gg6 17.gf2 Barnsley - Surroca, corr. 2000, Black is simply left with a pawn down. It is hardly advisable for him to try 14 . . . ltJg8? ! lS.ltJdS hS 16.c3 fS 17.b3 Pujols - Elissalt, Cuba 1999.

15.f3 h5! Black wishes to acquire the

h6-square for his rook. About lS . . . gg8 - see 13 . . . gg8. It is hardly advisable for Black

to continue with lS . . . xb2? ! 16.ltJdS hdS 17.exdS fS (or 17 . . . e4 18.xe4 eS 19.xf6 Tseshkovsky; 17 . . . b6 18.gab1 c7 19. xf6 gf8 20.c4 bS 21 .cxbS ltJxdS 22 .f3 Fantin - Terrieux, France 2006) 18.hfS ltJxfS 19.xfS Holmes - Shutler, Swansea 1987 - White is threatening to capture on f7 as well as the double attack - 20 .f6.

If lS . . . gc7, then 16.ltJd1 gg8 17.xf6 gg6, Mittermeier - Janzen, corr. 2001, 18.h4 and White remains with an extra pawn.

16.ltJd5 .b:d5 17.exd5 gh6 IS.gabl a5

36

In the game Tseshkovsky - Chandler, Minsk 1982, there followed 18 . . . gc7 19.c4 fS and White countered that with 20 .b3 (It was also good for him to play 20.hl !?, preventing fS-f4.) 20 . . .f4 (it is even worse for Black to play 20 . . . e4? ! 21.f4 gg6 22 .,te2) 21 .gbe1 ltJg8 (or 21 . . .fS 22.hl) 22 .h1 fxe3 23 .g3 ! (White is not in a hurry to capture the e3-pawn and he is trying to provoke at first the weakening move f7-f6.) 23 . . . f8 24.gS! f6 2S.h4 gg7 26 .,tfS ggS (The exchange of queens would not change the evaluation of the position 26 . . . d4 27.xd4 exd4 28.gf4 ggS 29.h3 d3 30.gd4) 27.,te6 White obtained a great advantage.

19.e4;!;

Black has too many weaknesses and his pieces lack coordination. White's advantage is indisputable because of that.

It is too dangerous for Black to opt for 19 . . . xa2? 20.e3 gh8 21.b6 ! (de Firmian).

His best chance is 19 . . .fS and after 20.a3 f4 (after 20 . . . f8, de

5. tDc3 e5 6 .tiJdb5 d6 7.i.g5 a6 B .tiJa3 i.e6 9 .tiJc4

Firmian - Matulovic, Vrnjachka Banja 1983, White's simplest reaction would be 21.c4) 21.b4! '\1;l(b6+ (21. . .'\1;l(xa3? 22 .i.b5+-) 22 . h1, White preserves his edge after 22 . . . llJg6 23.c4 lLlh4 (23 . . . YNe3 24.YNxe3 fxe3 25.g3) 24.YNh3 YNd8 25.c5 ! dxc5 26.bxc5 :E!xc5, Hess - Zdziubany, DDR 1987, 27.g3 !

lLlg6 (but not 27 . . . :gxd5? 28.exd5 '\1;l(xd5+ 29.g1 YNd4+ 30.:E!f2 '\1;l(xd3 31.'\1;l(c8+-) 28.:gxb7, while in case of 22 . . . h4, White follows with 23.c4 YNa7 24.:E!fc1 b6 (24 . . . h3 25.g3;!;) 25.:E!b3;!;. White prepares gradually the pawn-advance c4-c5 and Black would be forced to defend passively.

Conclusion about Chapters 2 and 3

The lines we analyze in these chapters are characterized by the fact that Black postpones the move b7-b5 and that enables White to improve quickly the placement of his knight on a3.

Among the numerous possibilities for Black to avoid entering the main line of the Chelyabinsk variation (B . . . b5), only the move B . . . i.e6 can be considered as a serious alternative for him with chances of obtaining counterplay. In case of 9. lLlc4! :E!cB! l O . il.xj6 YNxf6, there arises a situation in which White has the possibility of deploying his knight on b6 and then of fortifying it there with the pawn-march a2-a4-a5, preserving a considerable space advantage on the queenside.

In case Black plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, White places his knight on e3 and he impedes the pawn advances d6-d5 andf6-f5 for Black. Therefore, his active counterplay is reduced only to ih6 and '\1;l(b6. White maintains superior prospects too, but he must play precisely. It is also important that if Black captures on e3, White recaptures there with his f2-pawn and his pressure along the openf-file becomes rather unpleasantfor Black. White's unprotected b2-pawn proves to be poisoned in numerous lines.

37

Chapter 4 1.e4 c5 2.lLIf3 lLIc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLIxd4 e6 5.lLIc3 e5 6.lLIdb5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.lLIa3 b5 9.lLId5

We can see on the diagram the basic position of the Chelyabinsk variation. In this chapter we will analyze all Black's sensible moves as well as after the most logical and popular move for him 9 J.e7 and White's obligatory move 1 0 .txf6 - the dubious line for Black 1 0 gxf6?! - variation c). He has also tried among the rarely played moves a) 9 J.e6?! and b) 9 . . :a5+.

The other possibilities for Black seem to be even weaker:

9 . . . J.d7? ! , Popovic - Erkan, Tallinn 1997, lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3 !g7 IVtc2 f5 13.exf5 ixf5 14. tLJce3 - see 9 . . . ie6;

9 . . . tLJd4?! - Black helps his opponent to centralize his knight with tempi. lO.c3 tLJe6 1l.ixf6 gxf6, Trefny - Inneman, Czech

38

Republic 1992, 12 .tLJc2 tLJc5 13. YHf3 Black's central pawns are immobile and they restrict the scope of action of his dark-squared bishop;

9 . . . ib7? ! - The absence of Black's bishop from the c8-h3 diagonal helps White to control the fS-square. lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3 ig7 (It is terrible for Black to play 11 . . . ic8?, Balz - Sickert, Verden 1999, since he loses two crucial tempi and after White's most energetic reaction 12 .ixb5! axb5 13.tLJxb5, Black comes under a crushing attack.) 12 .tLJc2 0-0 (It is hardly any better for Black to try 12 . . . tLJe7 13.YHg4 g8 14.tLJxe7 'ifixe7 15. tLJe3) 13.id3 tLJe7, Brandstetter - Eberhard, Austria 1995 and here after 14.tLJxe7+ 'ifixe7 15. tLJe3 White controls the d5 and f5-squares and he has good attacking prospects against Black's compromised kingside;

9 . . . h6? ! - That is an obvious loss of time. 10.hf6 gxf6 11.c3 f5 (About 11. . .ie6 12 .tLJc2 - see 9 . . . ie6; in answer to 11 . . .ig7, Dhar Barua - Aguedo, Santiago 1990, White is totally dominant in the

5.tlJc3 e5 6. llJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 B. llJa3 b5 9. llJd5

centre after 12.'i;Yf3 0-0 13.llJc2 ie6 14.llJce3; 11 . . .l3gB - That is an attempt to organize some counterplay along the g-file. 12. Wf3 !!g6 13.h3 l3bB 14.llJc2 as, Kroeger - AMueller, Germany 1991 and here after IS.llJce3 it becomes obvious that the rook on g6 has no good scope of action, while Black's positional defects are evident.) 12 .exfS ixf5 13.Wf3 id7 (It is a disaster for Black to opt for 13 . . . ie6 14.llJxbS axbS IS.ixbS l3cB I6.llJb4+- Farah - Serafim, Mar del Plata 1992 and now even after his most tenacious defence 16 . . . e4 17.Wxe4 dS IB.Wd4 ixb4 19.WxhB+ ifB 20.0-0+White's rook with pawns is much stronger than Black's passive couple of light pieces.) 14.llJf6+ We7, Firnhaber - Kirmse, Rostock 2002 and here after IS.id3 ie6 (It is even worse for Black to play IS . . . l3cB 16.llJxd7+-, or IS . . . ig7 16.llJxd7Wxd7 17.ie4+-) 16.llJdS+ wd7 17.llJc2 WbB IB.O-O Black's king remains stranded in the center an he is in for a big trouble;

9 .. JThB? ! - Black determines the placement of his rook a bit too early. 1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 fS 12.exfS ixfS, Mohr - Peterwagner, Austria 1995, 13.Wf3 WcB (It is not preferable for Black to try 13 . . . ie6 14.llJf6+ We7 IS.llJc2 ih6 16.l3dl and White dominates in the centre.) 14.llJf6+ WdB 1S.g4 ie6 (1S . . . ie7 16.gxfS ixf6 17.0-0-0 Wd7 1B.llJc2) 16.llJc2 ie7 17.ig2 Black has no active

prospects due to the vulnerable position of his king.

a) 9 . . . ie6?! Black allows his pawns to be

doubled on the f-file in the hope of advancing f6-fS at some moment, but in that case his lightsquared bishop comes to fS in two moves - icB-e6xfS, therefore White wins a tempo in comparison to the line 9.ixf6 gxf6 1O. llJdS.

10.ixf6 gxf6 lt.c3

We will see now the moves al) It . . . f5 and a2) It . . . ig7.

Black has also tried in practice:

1l . . . ie7? ! 12.llJc2 - see 9 . . . ie7 1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 ie6 12.llJc2, variation c;

1l . . . hS? - That move does not contribute to the development of Black's pieces. 12 .llJc2 ixdS, Zorko - Serdt, Ptuj 2005 and here White's most aggressive reaction seems to be 13.exdS llJe7 (or 13 . . . llJaS I4.b4 llJb7 1S.a4) 14.a4 bxa4 1S.llJb4 Wd7 16.ixa6 and White remains with an extra pawn and a superior development;

39

Chapter 4

1l . . . h6? - Black loses time without any reason. 1VtJc2 fS (or 12 . . . ig7, Nekula - Kocab, Moravia 2003, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ttJce3 0-0 1S.'i;1fxa4 ttJe7 16.id3) 13.exfS ixfS 14.ttJce3 ig6 (In answer to 14 . . . ie6, Chiburdanidze - Merlini, Buenos Aires 1978, it looks strong for White to follow with 1S.a4 ! l3b8 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6 id7 18.id3 and Black has no satisfactory defence against 19.ifS with the unavoidable exchange of the light-squared bishops.) 1S.a4 l3b8 (or 1S . . . b4 16.aS ttJb8, Toth - Sebe Vodislav, Paks 1998 and after 17.'i;1fa4+ ttJd7 18.%Yxb4 ttJcS 19.ixa6+- Black loses plenty of material.) 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6 %Yc8 18.'i;1fb3 Akhigbe - Liwat, Saint Paul 2000;

1l . . . ih6 - Black's bishop is not useful on that square. 12.ttJc2 ixdS 13.'i;1fxdS ttJe7 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7, Jimenez Alvarez - Llaneza Vega, Gijon 2000 and here after 15.l3d1 fS (or 15 . . . l3d8 16.lLlb4 %Yb7 17.'i;1ff3 0-0 18.id3 White is in total control of the light squares in the centre.) 16.exfS %YxfS (Black should better refrain from 16 . . . lLlxfS 17.lLlb4 f8 18.g3, because he fails to discoordinate White's pieces after 18 . . . %Yb7? 19.%YxfS ! 'i;1fxh1 20.l3xd6+-) 17.%YxfS ttJxf5 18.g3 e7 19.ttJb4 Black's central pawns are weak and his pieces are too passive;

1l . . Jb8? ! - This development of the rook is premature. 12.lLlc2 ixd5, Stertenbrink - Dornieden,

40

Germany 1984 and here after 13.exdS ttJe7 14.a4 ih6 1S.lLlb4 Black has problems with the protection of his queenside pawns;

1l . . . l3g8 - Black's rook has no good scope of action on the g-file, because White can play g2-g3 at any moment. 12 .ttJc2 ixdS (12 . . . fS - That pawn-advance is premature too. 13.exfS ixfS, Ciampi - Antonischki, Italy 1998, 14.'i;1ff3 ! l3g5 1S.lLlf6+ e7 16.h4+- and White wins material; 12 . . . l3c8? ! - This move compromises Black's queenside, Blimke - Korp, Rimavska Sobota 1992 , 13.a4; 12 . . . ig4 - Black simply loses time, since the trade of the light-squared bishops is of course favourable for White. 13.ie2 ic8? ! 14.lLlce3 ih6 1S.0-0 f8, Petters - Sanchez Carol, corr. 2004, 16.ig4 ixe3 17.ixc8 'i;1fxc8 18 .fxe3 Black is incapable of defending his weaknesses on the f-file. After 12 . . . ih6 13.lLlce3 ixe3 14.lLlxe3 lLlaS 1S.'i;1fhS he has no compensation for his numerous weak pawns, Bentel - Hildenbrandt, Email 1997.) 13.%Yxd5 lLle7 (The move 13 . . . l3c8 - compromises Black's queenside and after 14.a4 'i;1fb6 1S.axb5 ttJe7 16.'i;1fb3 l3a8 17.g3 he remained a pawn down without any counterplay, Butze - Matjusjinskij, corr. 1984.) 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7, Huber - Reuschl, Nuremberg 2005 and here after 15.l3d1 7 (The endgame is difficult for Black in case of 15 .. .fS 16.exfS 'i;1fxfS 17.%YxfS lLlxf5 18.id3) 16.g3 fS 17.ig2 and

S.tijc3 eS 6 .tiJdbS d6 7. igS a6 B.ltJa3 bS 9.ltJdS

White is much better prepared for opening of the centre;

1l .. Jk8 12.ltJc2 fS (About 12 . . . ig7 13.ltJce3 - see 11 . . . ig7 12 .ltJc2 l'k8 13.ltJce3; 12 . . . hdS? ! - Black has problems protecting his queenside pawns after that exchange. 13.exdS ltJe7 14.a4 :1!c5 lS.axbS axbS, Baumegger - Herzog, Austria 1996, 16.ltJa3 ih6 17.hbS+ f8 18.0-0 White's pieces are much more active and he has an extra pawn. It would be very dangerous for Black to recapture it: 18 . . . :1!xdS 19.WlhS g7 20.ic4+-, or 18 . . . ltJxdS 19.b4 ltJxc3 20.Wlh5+-; The move 12 . . . :1!b8 - enables White to play actively on the queenside, Botterill - Littlewood, Coventry 1970, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ltJce3, or 13 . . . f5 14.axbS axbS 15.exfS !xfS 16. ltJce3) 13.exf5 !xf5 14.ltJce3 ig6 (after 14 . . . ie6 lS.a4 hd5? ! 16.ltJxdS Wlh4 17.axbS+-, Black falls behind in development considerably and he loses at least a pawn, Marduhajev - Wendland, Germany 1998) 15.a4 ig7 (It is not better for Black to opt for 15 . . . :1!b8 16.axbS axbS, Reppen - Steinskog, Copenhagen 2006, after 17.l'a6 Wlc8 18.Wlf3+- he has hardly any appropriate defence against 19.:1!xc6, for example 18 . . . e4 19.Wlf6 :1!g8 20 .ie2 hS 21. 0-0+- and Black is practically s1.'lliemated completely.) 16.axbS axbS 17.h4 ! It is quite useful for White to include that move and Black failed to find successful de-

fence. 17 . . . h5 18.!xbS f8 19.:1!a6 ltJb8 20 .:1!a7 ltJc6 21 .!xc6 :1!xc6 22 .Wla4 :1!c8 23.ltJe7 1-0 Gallagher - Hannaske, Eupen 1993;

11 . . . !xd5 12.exdS ltJe7 (After 12 . . . ltJb8 13.id3 ltJd7 14.0-0 White has a total control over the light squares. Black cannot activate his pieces with the line : 14 . . . fS lS.hfS WIgS, Jones - Schmuggerow, Chicago 1989, because after the simple reaction 16.!xd7 + xd7 17.c4 :1!g8 18.g3+- he has no compensation for the pawn. Black would not fare any better if he fights for the f5-square with 12 . . . ltJa7 13.id3 h5 14.ltJc2 ih6 15.0-0 Tsyvarev - KoroYin, St Petersburg 1997. Black is in trouble too following 12 . . . ltJa5 13.id3 :1!cB 14.0-0 h5 15.ifS, his main problems is his bad dark-squared bishop and the lag in development. After 15 . . . :1!cS? 16.b4 :1!xc3 17.ltJbl :1!c4 18.bxaS Wlxa5 19.1tJd2+- Black has lost a piece and he has not solved any problems at all, Sharma - Islam, Chennai 2004.) 13.ltJxb5 :1!b8 (It is too risky for Black to try to regain his pawn with 13 . . . Wlb6 14.ltJa3 Wlxb2 15.Wla4+ dB 16.WlaS+ d7 17.:1!bl Wlxa2 18.:1!b7+ 1-0 Perez Diaz - Mateo Lopez, Malaga 2000. His compensation for the pawn is rather dubious after 13 . . . ig7 14.ltJa3 0-0 15.ie2 f5 16.0-0 Castelfranchi - Corvi, Rome 1991.) 14.ltJa3 Wla5 (Black loses following 14 . . . :1!xb2 15.Wla4+ Wld7 16.Wlxa6 d8 17.ib5 Wlc7,

41

Chapter 4

Kosc - Formage, Debrecen 1992, and here White's simplest solution is 1S.tZlc4+-) 1S.tZlc4 Fressinet - Bienvenu, Montlucon 1997.

al) 1l . . . f5

Black accomplishes that thematic advance, but White is well prepared for it.

12.exfS hf5 After 12 . . .. bdS 13.WxdS tZle7

(It is evidently worse for Black to opt for 13 . . . :1kS 14.tZlc2 and here it is bad for him to try 14 . . . ElgS 1S.a4 tZlaS 16.axbS+- Abejon - Rivas, Madrid 2004, as well as 14 . . . WgS 1S.tZle3 1le7 16.a4 0-0 17.axbS axbS 1S.1lxbS tZldS 19.h4+- Hammond - De Roo, Germany 19S9. It is more resilient for Black to defend with 14 . . . tZle7 1S.Wf3 Wd7 16. tZle3 Wc6 17.Wxc6+ Elxc6, Kammer - Leiser, Regensburg 1997, 1S.a4 bxa4 19.Elxa4, but even then he can hardly prove any sufficient compensation for the pawn, or 14 . . . Wb6 1S.tZle3 hS, Manninen -Rauramaa, Finland 1995, and here after 16.f6 Elh6 17.Wf3 Black has problems with his development and his king stranded in the

42

centre, while he remains a pawn down anyway.) 14.Wf3 dS (The other possibilities for Black do not seem natural: 14 . . . ElbS? 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.Wc6+ 1-0 Coelho - Jacob, Brazil 2004; 14 . . . 1lh6, Wallace -Tulevski, Penrith 2003, 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.Wc6+ @fS 17.Eld1+-; 14 . . . WcS 1S.f6 tZlg6 16.1ld3 Ela7 17.tZlc2 Elc7 1S.tZlb4+- Schutt - Dini, Brazil 2003; 14 . . . ElcS, James - Taylor, Telford 2004, 1S.f6 tZlc6 16.tZlc2 dS 17.0-0-0 and Black has no compensation for the pawn, because his centre is vulnerable.) 1S.tZlc2 1lh6 (1S . . . Wb6, Chovanec - Hamarat, Internet 2004, 16.tZle3 e4 17.Wf4 EldS 1S.f6 tZlgS 19.a4 -Black's compensation for the pawn is evidently insufficient) 16.Eld1 e4 17.WhS Wd6 1S. 1le2 ElgS 19.Wh3 EldS 20 .0-0 Del Rio Angelis - Castaldo, Bratto 2003.

13.Wf3

.I . . . III , . , . . ; 'UN' III . i . i i .l.A). iif$a p":\ jijj%1. iif$a. i ."l-HL.

" . j B .'i. fJ f B fJ B f . 1f4l% i.. 1i

13 1le6 It is a disaster for Black to

play 13 . . . WgS? 14.tZlc7+ @d7 1S. tZlxa8+- Buttner - Coronel, Buenos Aires 2003. He would not save the game either with the line: 13 . . . 1ld7? 14.tZlf6+ @e7 1S.1ld3 1lg7 (or

S. !iJc3 eS 6 .!iJdbS d6 7. j.gS a6 B. !iJa3 bS 9. !iJdS

1S . . .l:!a7 16.e4+-) 16.!iJxd7 VNxd7 17.e4 gac8 18.i.fS+- Sadykov - De Silva, Doha 2003.

After 13 . . . j.g6 14.!iJf6+ @e7 1S. !iJdS+ @e8 16.id3 j.g7 17.0-0 @f8 18.!iJc2 VNgS, Schemmann -Karppa, Internet 2004, White obtains a total control over the light squares in the centre with 19.!iJc7 VNe7! 20.hg6 V!!xc7 21.e4

14.f6+ q;e7 15.c2 J.h6 The move 1S . . . dS? ! - is too

optimistic. Here, Black has problems protecting his central pawns. 16.gd1 e4 17.VNf4 VNb8? ! (This move loses, but even after the more tenacious line: 17 . . . J.g7 18.!iJxdS+ ixdS 19.!iJe3 !iJd4 20 .V!!gS+ @f8 21.VNxdS White preserves his extra pawn and superior development.) 18.VNh4 !iJeS 19.!iJxdS+ @d6 20.VNxe4 fS 21.!iJc7+ 1-0 Johannsen - Papenkordt, Bad Sooden 2003.

It is hardly better for Black to try 1S . . . gc8 16.!iJe3 J.g7, Ptlichthofer - Trefzer, Wuerttemberg 1998, and here after 17.!iJfdS+ @f8 18.j.d3 !iJe7 19.!iJxe7 VNxe7 20 .0-0, Black's defence is difficult, because of the vulnerable placement of his king.

16.gdl VNfS (16 . . . gc8? 17.ltJe4 fS 18.ltJxd6+- Olives - Serrano, Palma de Mallorca 2002) 17.d5+ .ixdS 18.ti'xd5 @d7 19.J.d3 - The light squares in Black's camp are catastrophically weak and his king is unsafe, moreover that the coordination of his pieces is not to be envied. The game ended very quickly: 19 . . . !iJe7 20.hbS+ axbS 21.VNxd6+ @c8 22 .VNd7+ @b8 23.ti'xbS+ @c8 24.VNcS+ @b8 2S.gd7 1-0 Isonzo - Bonaccorsi, Letojanni 2001 .

a2) 1l . ig7 This move looks the most natu

ral - Black is preparing to castle. 12.!iJc2

12 f5 About 12 . . . gb8 13.!iJce3 !iJe7

14.J.d3 - see 12 ... !iJe7 13.!iJce3 gb8 14.J.d3.

12 . . . gCS? ! - This rook is not useful on that square. 13.!iJce3 !iJe7 14.J.d3 ixdS 1S.exdS VNd7 16.ti'f3 Z.Almasi - Bigonnet, Bastia 200S.

12 . . . !iJe7 - Black fights for the dS-square with that logical move. 13.!iJce3 1"lb8 (About 13 . . . 0-0

43

Chapter 4

14.i.d3 - see 12 . . . 0-0; in answer to 13 .. .fS, Gasik - Gramcow, Laczna 2002, it seems logical for White to continue with 14.ttJxe7 Wixe7 lS.exfS i.d7 16.ttJdS WidS 17.i.d3 and he remains with a solid extra pawn. It is not better for Black to try 13 . . . ttJxdS 14.exdS i.d7 lS.i.d3 hS 16.Wif3 h4 17.i.fS and his dark-squared bishop has no active scope whatsoever, Hardarson - S.Farago, Budapest 200S.) 14.i.d3 hS lS.0-0 WicS 16.Wif3 Elh6 17.h3 White has prevailed in the fight for the central dS and fS-squares and after 17 . . . wfS lS.Elfc1 Elg6 19.c4 b4 20.ttJxe7 Wxe7 21 .ttJfS+ hfS 22 .exfS Elh6 23.cS-+ the presence of oppositecoloured bishops on the board enhances White's attack, Mus - Gaida, Poland 1991.

12 .. . 0-0 - This is a natural move. 13.ttJce3 ttJe7 (About 13 . . . ElbS 14.i.d3 ttJe7 1S. 0-0 - see 13 . . . ttJe7 14.i.d3 ElbS ; in answer to 13 . . . WhS, Alaverdyan - Ruzicka, Volyne 2003, it is logical for White to deploy at first his pieces according to the correct scheme and to start then active actions on the queenside with 14.i.d3 ElgS 1S.0-0 i.h6 16.a4; 13 . . . WiaS? ! Roberts - Sanchez Carol, corr. 2004, Black's queen is misplaced here, the only idea of the move is to push bS-b4, but White can parry that simply with 14.a3 !? ElfeS 1S.i.d3 ttJe7 16.0-0) 14.i.d3 i.xdS (After 14 . . . ttJxdS 1S.exdS i.d7 16.WihS h6, Luchko - Dikinov,

44

Krasnodar 2001, White's considerable advantage can be best emphasized with the accurate move 17.i.fS; it is not preferable for Black to try 14 . . . ElbS lS.0-0 WhS, Zacik - Kovarik, Slovakia 2002, after 16.Wif3 i.xdS 17.exdS ttJg6 lS.g3 Black's pieces are deprived of any active prospects; 14 . . . WhS lS.Wif3 ttJg6 16.h4 i.xdS 17.exdS Black's central pawns have been blocked and his knight has no reliable squares, his bishop is a sorry sight and it resembles a pawn. His attempt to free his position led him to a swift demise after 17 . . .fS lS.ttJxfS Wif6 19.hS ttJf4 20.h6+- Suarez Real - Barrio Garcia, Spain 1996. Black has problems too following lS . . . ttJgS, Beltre - Saez, Balaguer 2001, after 16.0-0 ElbS 17.Elfdl his pieces are tied up with the protection of the f6-pawn and they have no active prospects.) lS.exdS Wid7 (It is possibly best for Black to try lS . . .fS 16.i.xfS ttJxfS 17.ttJxfS WigS lS.Wif3 e4 19.Wih3, although even then he can hardly claim any compensation for the pawn, Feher - Domotor, Zalakaros 1995,) 16.0-0 fS? - This move blunders a pawn, but after 16 . . . ttJg6 17.WihS Black's defence is problematic anyway - 17.i.xfS ttJxfS 1S.Wig4 whS 19.WixfS+- Garcia Martinez - Rodriguez Bachiller, Alcala de Henares 2006.

12 . . . hdS 13.WixdS (After 13. exdS ttJe7, Black has more chances to advance his f6-pawn, in

5.tDC3 e5 6.tDdbS d6 7. :1I.g5 a6 B.tDa3 b5 9.li:Jd5

comparison to the case when he postpones the exchange on d5.) 13 . . . ttJe7 14.'lWd3 d5 (The move 14 . . . 'lWb6? ! - looks strange, be-cause his queen does not participate in the preparation of the pawn-advances d6-d5 and f6-f5, C.Mamedov - Davidov, Baku 2001, 15.:1I.e2 0-0 16.0-0 Ei:fdB 17.ttJe3; after 14 . . .f5 15.exf5 d5, van den Doel - Darnstaedt, Berlin 1993, White's most reliable line seems to be 16.:1I.e2 0-0 17.0-0 'lWd7 1B.:1I.g4 and Black will have problems proving that his centre compensates fully the pawn deficit. After 14 . . . 'lWd7 15.ttJe3 :1I.h6, Duda - Kucera, Liberec 2005, White must calmly complete his development, without being afraid of the trade of the passive bishop of his opponent. 16.:1I.e2 :1I.xe3 17.fxe3 ! 'lWe6 1B.O-O. He must act in an analogous fashion in the variation: 14 . . . Ei:a7 15.ttJe3 :1I.h6, Baze - Manohar, Kalamazoo 2003, 16.:1I.e2 'lWb6 17.0-0 and White's doubled e-pawns will impede Black to protect his weaknesses successfully.) 15.0-0-0 dxe4 16. 'lWxe4 'lWbB, Dluzniewski -Grabek, Augustow 1997, and here after 17.ttJe3 :1I.h6 1B.g4 White prevents the advance of Black's f6-pawn and he maintains a clear advantage thanks to his superior development and his better pawnstructure.

13.exf5 :1l.xf5 14.ttJce3 .!e6 14 . . . :1I.d7? ! - Black's bishop

does not control the d5-square

from here, Mader - Kranabetter, Austria 1992 , 15.:1I.d3 ttJe7 16.:1I.e4

It is possible for Black to try 14 . . . :1I.g6 15.h4 ! h5 (It is not preferable for him to opt for 15 . . . h6 16.h5 :1I.h7 17.:1I.d3 :1l.xd3 1B.'lWxd3 Ei:bB 19.Ei:h3. The central squares are in White's hands and Black has no counterplay in sight, Ghysels - Yurtseven, Innsbruck 1977; while after 17 . . . e4 1B.:1I.xe4 :1l.xe4 19.'lWg4 White regains his piece, remaining either with a huge lead in development, or with an extra pawn, Todorovic - Rodic, Obrenovac 2004) 16.a4 bxa4? (It is better for Black to follow with 16 . . . Ei:bB 17.axb5 axb5 1B.Ei:a6, or even 16 . . . b4 ! ? 17.cxb4 ttJd4 1B.:1I.e2, although it would be too hard for him to prove that his compensation for the pawn is sufficint.) 17.'lWxa4 1-0 Firt - Adamcik, Moravia 1996.

15.:1I.d3

15 . . . ttJe7 15 . . . :1l.xd5 16.ttJxd5 O-O?! (Black's

king comes now right under the gun, but even after 16 . . . ttJe7 17. :1I.e4 Ei:cB 1B.ttJxe7 'lWxe7 19.:1I.d3

45

Chapter 4

White maintains a stable edge thanks to his superior bishop.) 17.'lWhS fS? (After 17 . . . h6 1B.WfS eB 19.J.e4 White cannot checkmate outright, but his pressure on the light squares is tremendously unpleasant for Black.) 1B.hfS h6 19.'lWg6+- J.Kozel - Vyboch, Banska Stiavnica 2006.

15 . . . 0-0 16.'lWhS h6 (The move 17 . . .fS looks attractive, but it is not the best. 17.lLlxfS xfS 1B.ixfS hdS, Bonafede - Pechy, Venice 2003, and here after 19.dl ! J.f7 2 0.hh7+ @fB 21.'lWf3 dS 22 .J.g6 'lWf6 23.'lWxf6 ixf6 24.ixf7 @xf7 2SJxdS White has excellent winning chances thanks to his kingside pawns.) 17.J.e4 cB (It is worse for Black to play 17 . . . a7 18.d1 CiJe7 19.0-0 CiJxdS 2 0.ixdS eB, Wilhelm - Rudolph, Hessen 1996, because White's advantage is obvious after 21.he6 xe6 22 . dS. Black's d6-pawn is weak and White's knight is considerably stronger than Black's bishop. It is a disaster for Black to opt for 21 . . . fxe6? 22 .xd6+- and he remains a pawn down with a destroyed pawn-structure.) 1B.lLlfS hdS 19. ixdS 'lWf6, Diviak - Macko, Slovakia 2003, after the natural reaction 20 .0-0 CiJe7 21.lLlxe7+ Wxe7 22 .WfS cS 23.adl White's prospects are clearly superior, because of his domination over the light squares and Black's compromised king's position.

16.ie4 c8 16 . . . bB? ! - Black's king is

46

bound to remain in the centre after that move. 17.CiJxe7 'lWxe7 1B.!c6+ @fB 19.0-0 fS 20 .idS f4 21.he6 Wxe6 22 .CiJdS cB 23.Wf3 hS 24.a4 and despite the fact that Black has managed to advance f7-fS, his position remains difficult, due to his passive bishop and the unsafe king, Zaragatski - Schalk, Cologne 2004.

Following 16 . . . CiJxdS 17.hdS ixdS 1B.WxdS 0-0, Hitzgerova - Werner, Crailsheim 2000, it seems attractive for White to continue with 19.dl winning Black's d6-pawn.

17.0-0 lLlxd5 Or 17 . . . cS 1B.a4 lLlxdS 19.

ixdS ixdS 20.lLlxdS 0-0 21.axbS axbS 22 .'lWb3 'lWgS 23.a