queen's gambit declined [d30 39] [d50 59] [e01 09]d31 qgd/2 exchange variation − 3...be7...

Queen's Gambit Declined

[D30−39] [D50−59] [E01−09]

Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov

Last updated Tuesday, July 5, 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

he solid, classical, reply to 1 d4. Black defends his outpost in the centre and

looks to develop his kingside as quickly as possible. Perhaps not the most

exciting of variations, and one that will mostly appeal to positional players.

Black will normally aim to equalise, and must be wary of the Minority Attack.

T

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

Contents

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

3 ¤c3

3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 g3 ¥e7 5 ¥g2 E01-E09 Catalan Opening

3...¤f6

3...c5 4 cxd5 exd5 (4...cxd4 D32 QGD/1−Shara−Hennig Gambit) 5 ¤f3 (5 dxc5 D32 QGD/2 Tarrasch Defence−Various White's moves) 5...¤c6 6 g3 ¤f6 (6...c4 7 ¥g2 ¥b4 D33 QGD/3 Tarrasch Defence−Swedish Variation) 7 ¥g2 ¥e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ¥g5 with:

9...cxd4 D34 QGD/5 Tarrasch Defence−Main Lines 9. ¥g5 cd4 9...c4 D34 QGD/4 Tarrasch Defence−Main Lines 9. ¥g5 c4 3...¥e7 D31 QGD Exchange Variation − 3...Be7

4 ¤f3

4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 a) 6...0-0 7 ¥d3 c6 8 ¤ge2 ¤bd7 9 £c2 (9 ¤g3 D35 QGD/6 Exchange Variation−Various

lines with ¤g1-e2) 9...¦e8 D36 QGD/7 Exchange Variation−Main lines with ¤g1-e2

b) 6...¤bd7 7 ¥d3 (7 ¤f3 c6 8 £c2 D36 QGD/8 Exchange Variation−various lines with ¤g1-f3) 7...0-0 8 ¤f3 ¦e8 9 0-0 D36 QGD/9 Exchange Variation−main lines ¤g1-f3 and 0-0

4...¥e7

2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4...c6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5 7 cxd5 (7 ¤d2 D52 QGD/17 Cambridge Springs−9. ¤d2 +

other moves) 7...¤xd5 8 £d2 D52 QGD/18 & 19 Cambridge Springs−9. cd5 4...dxc4 D39 Vienna Variation − 7. Bxc4 ... 10. Bb5+ Bd7 4...¥b4 D38 QGD/14 − 16 Ragozin System

5 ¥f4

5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 (6...¤bd7 D60-D66 QGD/24 Classical Approach ...Nb8−d7) 7 ¥h4 b6 (7...¤e4 D56/7 QGD/20 & 21 Lasker's Defence) 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 D58 QGD/22 & 23 Tartakower System

5...0-0 6 e3 c5

6...c6 7 £c2 D37 QGD/10 5. ¥f4− without ...c7−c5

7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2

8 ¦c1 D37 QGD/11 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 various White systems

8...¤c6 9 a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...£a5 10 0-0-0

10 ¤d2 D37 QGD/13 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 the lines with Qd1−c2 and 0−0

3

10...¥e7 D37 QGD/12 5. ¥f4 0−0 6. e3 c5 the line Qd1−c2 and 10. 0-0-0

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 ChessPublishing.com Ltd

4

QGD/1 Various options [D30]

Last updated: 06/12/07 by R.Scherbakov

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is playing without ¤b1-c3, trying to avoid such systems as Ragozin or Cambridge

Springs, which may not work well if White still has an option ¤b1-d2. However, the early bishop's sortie gives Black some other good options.

4...h6

4...dxc4 is also playable. It may lead to the Vienna but also might be something special − see the game Epishin − Scherbakov/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2003 for details.

5 ¥xf6 £xf6 6 ¤bd2 ¤d7 7 g3!?

A Catalan development of the bishop seems to be the only White's option now. White may also include 7 ¦c1 c6 and after 8 g3 £e7 9 ¥g2 g6 10 0-0 ¥g7 11 e4 dxe4 12

¤xe4 ¤f6 13 ¤c5 0-0 14 b4 ¦d8 Black has achieves acceptable play.

7...g5!?

Black could restrain himself to a typical ...g7−g6 set−up, similar to the above−mentioned line but this active push looks very interesting.

8 h3 ¥g7 9 ¦c1 c5!?

5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pvl-0 9-+-+pwq-zp0 9+-zpp+-zp-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+NzPP0 9PzP-sNPzP-+0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is playing energetically, trying to use White's somewhat passive play in the opening.

10 e3

10 ¥g2 cxd4 11 cxd5 can be met with 11...d3!? 12 exd3 (or 12 ¤e4 £xb2 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 exd3

0-0 etc.) 12...exd5 13 0-0 0-0 with a good play.

10...0-0 11 ¥g2 b6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 0-0 ¥b7 14 ¦e1

This position arose in the game Aronian − Grischuk/WCh Mexico City 2007. It seems that here

14...£e6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpl+n+pvl-0 9-zp-+q+-zp0 9+-zpp+-zp-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-zPNzPP0 9PzP-sN-zPL+0 9+-tRQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

was the most accurate option, taking care of the only vulnerable point in the position − f5−

square and so avoiding unnecessary problems.

6

D31 QGD/2 Exchange Variation − 3...Be7

[D31]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7

Black intends to play a main line QGD of some description after 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 but this allows him to avoid the ¥g5 lines of the Exchange.

4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...c6

5...¤f6 Was Kasparov's preference.

6.e3

Should White not wish to have to patiently grind, then he may play the more enterprising 6.£c2!? g6 preparing ...¥f5, but there are alternatives, and (6...¥d6!? deserves attention because after 7.¥g3 ¤e7 8.e3 ¥f5 9.£b3 Black has 9...¤c8!, 6...¥g4 7.e3 ¥h5

8.¥d3 ¥g6 was met by the dynamic 9.¥xg6!? hxg6 10.0-0-0 in Carlsen,M−Nakamura,H/Medias ROU 2011.) 7.f3!? more promising than (7.e3 ¥f5 8.£d2) 7...¤f6 8.0-0-0!? Izoria,Z−Sturua,Z/Dubai Open 2006.

7

6...¥f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqk+ntr0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+p+l+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black immediately gets to develop his light−squared bishop (something which is always a

major problem in the 3...¤f6 Exchange lines) Black can also simply lose a tempo with the rather simplistic, but extremely solid 6...¥d6

7.¥g3 (White should now consider Grischuk's 7.¤ge2 ¤e7 8.h4!?) 7...¤e7 8.¤f3 ¤f5!? (8...¥f5 9.£b3 is Palliser,R−Eggleston,T/Street 2004) 9.¥d3 White concedes the bishop pair in return for a healthy spatial advantage on the kingside, 9...¤xg3 10.hxg3 ¤d7 11.£c2 ¤f6 12.0-0-0 h6 13.¤h4!? White appears to have a slight edge, see Sokolov,I−Baramidze,D/Bundesliga 2005.

7.g4!

The main line and the critical test of Black's idea. 7.¤ge2 ¤d7 8.f3 should be met by the accurate 8...¥g6 as in Lautier,J−

Vaganian,R/Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2004, a crushing demonstration of the potential of Black's position.

7.¥d3 is a very unambitious continuation, but it might prove tricky for those striving as Black for the win, 7...¥xd3 8.£xd3 ¤f6 9.h3 ¥d6 10.¤ge2 level, Polak,T−Blatny,P/Czech Championship, Brno 2006.

7...¥e6 8.h4!?

White continues to seize space even though Black prudently hasn't retreated his bishop to g6.

Botvinnik's 8.h3 is more restrained, 8...¤d7 9.¥d3 g5! seizing the kingside initiative in Krush,I−Bruzon,L/American Continental, Buenos Aires 2003.

8...¤d7

The classical counter 8...c5?! might not be too advisable, because of 9.¥e5! ¥f6 10.¥xb8! ¦xb8 11.g5 ¥e7 12.¥g2 h6 13.¤ge2! White relies on his superior development and

8

pressure against d5 to maintain some advantage, Dautov,R−Lputian,S/Istanbul Olympiad 2000.

9.h5 ¤h6!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+p+l+-sn0 9+-+p+-+P0 9-+-zP-vLP+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-zP-+0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Karpov's idea remains rather unexplored despite leading to some fascinating positions.

10.¥e2 ¤b6

Turov,M−Vaganian,R/Aeroflot Open, Moscow 2002, when White should play

11.¦c1

9

Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This defence (or, rather, counter attack) became famous in 1887−1889 when

Siegbert Tarrasch used it in a couple of games. He considered 3...c5 to be the only move

which could help Black to achieve active counterplay. In doing so he allows the isolation of

his d−pawn after which his minor pieces can be developed much more actively than in the

"orthodox" systems, especially the bishop on c8 and the knight on b8.

After years of success with the move 3 ...c5, many respected players of that time

agreed with Tarrasch, (who considered the modest 4 e3 to be the best reply to his invention)

that the isolated d−pawn is not a weakness.

However a new set−up which was introduced by Carl Schlechter in Prague 1908 and

then developed by Akiba Rubinstein and Richard Réti struck a severe blow to the Tarrasch

Defence. It was connected with a fianchetto of the White Bishop by g2−g3 and Bf1−g2

which exerts additional pressure on the isolated pawn as well as reducing Black's active

possibilities on the kingside. After numerous examples of Black losing the game without

making any visible mistake, but rather just because the defects of his pawn structure

eventually told due to White's not only strong but accurate play, the defence lost its

10

popularity. Tarrasch himself made a lot of effort to prove that comfortable development

should compensate for the isolated d−pawn, but while he improved some lines, tournament

statistics relentlessly verified Black's failures and the defence began disappearing from

practice.

A long time has passed and a lot of variations have been reappraised. Nowadays the

Tarrasch Defence is still not very popular in spite of it being in the repertoire of Garry

Kasparov in the first half of 1980's when he used it on his way to the World Title. The

problem is still the same − Black should maintain the initiative with high creativity and

precision but just one mistake may force him to switch to an unpleasant defence. This is

obviously not to everyone's taste. However if the weapon is well−polished it may work very

well− there are lots of lines where White' simple and accurate play leads nowhere. He

should not only be generally well prepared but demonstrate something more than official

theoretical advice in order to prove an advantage. Just like in the almost every opening ...

11

QGD/3 − Shara−Hennig Gambit [D32]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Shara−Hennig (or Von Hennig−Shara) Gambit. Thanks to a rather witty pawn

sacrifice, Black gains an advantage in development and takes the initiative. However both theory and practice seem to prove that White has the better chances. Nevertheless in many lines very sharp positions can arise and White needs to know exactly what to do.

5 £a4+

5 £xd4 can lead to the main line after 5...¤c6 6 £d1 exd5 7 £xd5 a) From the 1930s to the 1950s the ending after 7...¥e6?! 8 £xd8+ ¦xd8 was thoroughly

tested and it was proved to be favourable for White after 9 e3 ¤b4 10 ¥b5+ ¢e7 a1) 11 ¢e2? is much weaker as after 11...¤c2 12 ¦b1 a6 there is no good square for the

bishop: 13 ¥a4 (13 ¥d3 ¤b4) 13...¥c4+ 14 ¢f3 ¤e1+ 15 ¢g3 ¦d6 16 f4 ¦g6+ 17 ¢f2 ¤d3+ 18 ¢f3 ¤e1+ with the repetition of moves

a2) 11 ¢f1! 11...¤f6 (11...a6 12 ¥e2 g5 13 ¤f3 ¤c2 14 ¦b1 h6 15 ¤e1±) 12 ¤f3 ¤c2 13 ¦b1 ¥f5 14 ¥d2!± and Black doesn't have sufficient compensation for the pawn

b) 7...¥d7 and so on.

5...¥d7

The surprising 5...b5?! is probably worse: 6 £xd4 (White should not capture on b5: 6

£xb5+? ¥d7 7 £b7 dxc3 8 £xa8 cxb2 9 ¥xb2 £a5+ 10 ¢d1 ¥a4+ 11 ¢c1 £e1#

12

or 6 ¤xb5? ¥d7 7 dxe6 fxe6 followed by ...a6 and ...Qb6)

a) 6...b4? is bad due to 7 ¤b5! a6 (7...exd5 8 £xd5+−) 8 dxe6!+− and White is winning b) 6...¤c6 7 £d2 exd5 8 £xd5 ¥d7 and now White can play 9 ¥g5 (9 £e4+? ¥e7 10 ¥g5 h6

11 ¥xe7 ¤gxe7©) 9...¤f6 10 ¥xf6 £xf6 11 e3± with a clear advantage.

6 £xd4 exd5 7 £xd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqkvlntr0 9zpp+l+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+Q+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vL-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤f6

7...¤c6 usually lead to the same variations after a) 8 ¥g5 is weaker: 8...¤f6 9 £d2 £a5!? 10 ¥xf6 (10 £e3+!? is probably better although

after 10...¥e7 11 ¥xf6 gxf6 12 ¤f3 ¤b4ƒ Black has certain initiative to compensate for the pawn) 10...gxf6 11 ¤d5? The text move allows Black to launch a very strong attack with the queen's off. (11 ¤f3 seems to be safer but anyhow Black's initiative looks to be more than sufficient to compensate for his minor material loss after 11...0-

0-0) 11...£xd2+ 12 ¢xd2 0-0-0 13 ¢c1 ¥h6+! 14 e3 ¥f5 15 ¤c3 ¦he8! Suddenly the White king finds himself in big trouble: Rxe3 is threatened! 16 b3 and here in the game Avrukh − Novgorodskij/Alma−Ata 1991 the king was invited to go for a walk by 16...¦xe3!! 17 fxe3 ¥xe3+ 18 ¢b2 ¦d2+ 19 ¢a3 ¥c5+‚ with very strong attack.

b) 8 e3 b1) 8...¥b4 is weaker: 9 ¤f3 £e7 10 ¥e2 0-0-0 11 £b3 ¤f6 12 0-0 g5 In this standard

position the bishop is usually on c5. This difference favours White a great deal: 13 ¤d4! ¤xd4 (13...g4 14 ¥d2 and White is clearly better) 14 exd4 ¥c6 15 ¥e3 ¥d6 16 ¦fd1 ¤d5 17 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 18 ¦ac1+ ¢b8 19 ¥c4± with a huge advantage

b2) 8...¤f6 b2a) 9 £b3 is a promising plan, too: 9...¥c5 10 ¤f3 £e7 11 ¥e2 0-0-0 12 0-0 (By means of

12 a3 followed by Qc2 and b4 White can switch to the plan which was tried in the game Grabliauskas − Hector/Copenhagen 1998) 12...g5

b2a1) 13 ¥d2!? is a good alternative: 13...g4 14 ¤d4 ¦hg8 (neither 14...¤xd4 15 exd4 ¥xd4 16

¥f4

nor 14...¥xd4 15 exd4 ¤xd4 16 £c4+ ¥c6 17 ¦fe1 solve Black's problems) 15 ¦ac1 ¢b8 16 ¦fd1 and White looks clearly better here but Black's play can probably be improved upon

13

b2a2) 13 ¤d4!? b2a21) 13...¤xd4?! is dubious as 14 exd4 ¥xd4 15 ¥xg5 ¦hg8?! can be strongly met by

(15...¥c6 16 ¥b5!?) 16 ¥f3! ¥e6 17 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 18 ¤d5 with a huge advantage b2a22) 13...¥xd4 14 exd4 ¤xd4 15 £c4+ ¥c6 16 ¥e3 £e5 (in case of 16...£e6?! 17 ¥xd4

£xc4 18 ¥xc4 ¦xd4 19 ¥xf7 ¦d2 20 b4 Black does not get sufficient compensation for the pawn) 17 ¦ad1 ¤xe2+ 18 ¤xe2 ¦xd1 19 ¦xd1 This position arose in the game Moreno − Vilela/La Habana (m/2) 1996. Despite of his good−looking pieces Black still has the problems. He suffers not so much because of his slightly exposed king, but because his kingside pawn structure is weak thanks to his 'active' g−pawn.

b2b) 9 £d1 9...¥c5 10 ¤f3 and so on.

8 £d1

Another retreat 8 £b3 ¤c6 9 e3 was just considered above.

8...¥c5 9 e3 ¤c6 10 ¤f3 £e7 11 ¥e2

White also tried 11 a3 0-0-0 a) 12 b4 ¥b6 13 £c2 ¢b8 14 ¥e2 g5 usually leads to similar positions. The attempt to

achieve more with 15 ¤a4 (15 ¥b2 g4 16 ¤d2) 15...¥c7 16 ¥b2 g4 17 ¤d4 fails to 17...¤xd4 18 ¥xd4 ¥xa4 19 £xa4 ¦xd4! 20 exd4 £e4 21 ¢f1 ¥b6÷ with very unclear play, where Black seems to be at least not worse

b) 12 £c2 b1) Black can also try 12...¢b8 After the possible 13 ¥e2 g5 14 b4 g4 15 ¤d2 ¥d6 (15...¥b6

16 ¤a4!?) 16 ¤c4 ¥c7 17 ¥b2 a key position in this line arises. Practice has shown that Black has acceptable play although White's chances are probably slightly better.

b2) 12...g5 13 ¥e2 g4 14 ¤h4!? A new idea − the knight blockades the Black's kingside pawns and at the same time keeps an eye on the square f5. Nevertheless this looks rather risky as the knight is offside and in the game Grabliauskas − Hector/Copenhagen 1998 Black proved his superiority by playing 14...¢b8 15 ¥d2 ¦c8 16 ¦d1 ¤e5 and so on.

11...0-0-0 12 0-0 g5

14

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-+-tr0 9zpp+lwqp+p0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-vl-+-zp-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Starting immediate actions against White king.

13 b4!?

Recently this is one of White's most promising attempts to gain the advantage. He gives the pawn back and tries to start an attack against the Black king, who can easily become vulnerable as he is not well protected by pawns.

White can also try 13 ¤d4!? g4 14 b4! The position after 14...¥xb4 (in my opinion, 14...¤xd4!? 15 exd4 ¥xb4 is a more precise move order) 15 £b3 (15 ¥b2 could transpose to the game) 15...¤xd4 16 exd4 ¥e6 17 £b2!ƒ is known to be in White's favour

13...¥xb4

13...g4 has also been played. White can win another pawn with 14 bxc5 (the position after the more reliable 14 ¤d4!? was considered in the previous note) 14...gxf3 15 ¥xf3 but after 15...¤e5© Black's pieces become very active.

14 ¥b2 g4 15 ¤d4 h5

15...¤xd4? is bad for Black due to 16 £xd4 ¥c5 17 ¤d5! ¤xd5 18 ¦ac1 ¥c6 19 ¦xc5+− with an almost decisive advantage

after 15...¦hg8 16 ¤cb5 ¢b8 17 £b3 ¤e4 18 ¦fc1ƒ White also takes the initiative the immediate 15...¢b8!? looks logical. After possible 16 ¤cb5 a6 17 ¤xc6+ ¥xc6 18 ¤d4

¥d5 19 ¥d3 ¦hg8„ Black can obtain a good counterplay

16 ¤cb5 ¢b8

16...¥c5?! is bad for Black due to 17 £c2‚ followed by Rc1 with a strong attack.

17 £a4 a6 18 ¤xc6+ ¥xc6 19 ¥xf6

It seems that White has solved all the problems and retains an extra pawn, but in actuality the real fight only begins now.

15

19...£e4!!

XIIIIIIIIY 9-mk-tr-+-tr0 9+p+-+p+-0 9p+l+-vL-+0 9+N+-+-+p0 9Qvl-+q+p+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The routine 19...£xf6? 20 £xb4 axb5 21 ¥xb5 is unsatisfactory for Black.

20 f3

By means of 20 ¥e5+ ¢a8 (20...£xe5? 21 £xb4 axb5 22 ¦fb1) 21 ¤c7+ ¢a7 22 ¤b5+ ¢a8= White can force a draw.

20...£xe3+ 21 ¢h1 £xe2 22 £xb4 gxf3!?

A tempting 22...¦d2 can be strongly met by 23 £f4+ ¢a8 24 ¤c7+ ¢a7 25 ¥d4+ b6 26 ¥f2 gxf3 27 g3 ¦hd8! 28 ¤d5!! (28 ¤e6? £xe6 28 ¦ab1?? £xf2!) 28...¦8xd5 29 £c7+ ¥b7 30 £xb6+ ¢b8 and here both 31 ¢g1 (and 31 ¦ac1 give White a strong initiative)

23 £f4+ ¢a8 24 ¤c7+ ¢a7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+-tr0 9mkpsN-+p+-0 9p+l+-vL-+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-+-wQ-+0 9+-+-+p+-0 9P+-+q+PzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

16

This position arose in the game Krush − Kapnisis/WCh Boys Oropesa del Mar 1999. In my opinion White should not waste time capturing on f3 as it does not solve her problems on the long diagonal. A possible improvement is

25 ¥d4+! b6 26 ¦f2!

and it looks like White has an overwhelming advantage here.

17

QGD/4 Tarrasch Defence − Various White

moves [D32]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5

Slow development by 4 e3 ¤f6 5 ¤f3 leads to the Symmetrical Tarrasch which generally doesn't promise too much for both sides. Yet, the typical position with isolated d−pawn (it may be either White's or Black's one!) requires a good understanding of such kind of position from both players. In the game Renet − Conquest/Clichy 2001 Black didn't follow the symmetry, having preferred 5...a6, keeping in mind ...d5xc4 followed by ...b7−b5. (5...¤c6 is a common option) 6 cxd5 exd5 7 ¥e2 (Black's earlier useful ...a7−a6 move has ruled out 7 ¥b5+ ) 7...¤c6 8 0-0 ¥d6 9 dxc5 ¥xc5 10 b3 0-0 11 ¥b2 ¦e8 12 ¦c1 ¥a7 13 ¤a4 ¤e4 14 ¤d4 (A fascinating possibility 14 ¥xa6 could have been met by 14...¥xe3! 15 ¦xc6 (15 fxe3 ¦xa6) 15...bxc6 16 ¥xc8 ¤xf2! and the position after 17 ¦xf2 £xc8 should be in Black's favour, although it's not a simple clear−cut matter after 18 ¥d4) 14...£g5!„ and Black started a typical play on the kingside.

4...exd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

5 dxc5

18

It is interesting to realise this idea with inclusion of the moves Ng1-f3 and Nb8−c6: 5 ¤f3 ¤c6 6 dxc5 d4 7 ¤a4 b5! A typical pawn sacrifice.

a) There are a lot of alternatives. 7...¥xc5?! leads to quite play with a stable advantage for White: 8 ¤xc5 £a5+ 9 £d2!? (9 ¥d2 £xc5 10 e3 dxe3 11 ¥xe3 £b4+ 12

£d2 £xd2+ 13 ¤xd2 ¤ge7²) 9...£xc5 10 e3 dxe3 11 £xe3+ £xe3+ 12 ¥xe3 ¤ge7 13 ¥c4 ¥e6 (Black should neutralise the bishop but it damages his pawn structure) 14 ¥xe6 fxe6 15 ¤g5 ¢d7 16 0-0-0+ ¤d5 17 ¦he1²

b) Both 7...¥f5 c) and 7...¥g4 were also tested but the problems seemed to be not completely solved. 8 cxb6 axb6 9 e3 ¥b4+ (9...b5? doesn't work due to 10 ¥xb5 £a5+ 11 ¤c3!+−) 10 ¥d2 ¥d7

The best continuation. a) 10...dxe3?! is unsuccessful: 11 ¥xb4 £xd1+ 12 ¦xd1 ¦xa4 13 ¥c3 ¤ge7

(13...exf2+ 14 ¢xf2 ¤ge7 15 ¥b5 ¦xa2 16 ¤e5 ¥b7 17 ¦d6+−) 14 fxe3 (here 14 ¥b5 gives nothing: 14...¦xa2 15 ¤e5 ¥b7 and White cannot win the knight on c6 because his rook has to guard the first rank) 14...¦xa2 (14...0-0 15 a3) 15 ¥xg7 ¦g8 16 ¥c3+− with an almost decisive advantage.

b) 10...d3?! cannot bother White very much: 11 ¥xb4 ¤xb4 12 ¤d4 ¤f6 13 ¤c3 0-0 14 ¥xd3 ¤xd3+ 15 £xd3 ¥a6 16 ¤cb5 with two extra pawns

c) finally, 10...¥xd2+? can be simply met by 11 £xd2 ¦xa4 12 ¥b5 winning the piece back in a favourable situation.

11 ¥b5 ¤f6 (11...¦a5?! seems to be dubious: 12 ¥xb4 (12 ¥xc6 ¥xd2+ 13 £xd2 ¥xc6 14 b3

¥xa4 15 bxa4 dxe3 16 £xe3+ £e7 is drawn) 12...¦xb5 13 ¥d2± with a healthy extra pawn in a safe position) 12 ¥xb4 This capture allows White to gain a big material advantage but the result is a forced draw. (12 0-0!? is probably more testing − it could secure an extra pawn and complete development. After the possible 12...¥xd2 13 £xd2 ¦a5!? (13...0-0 14 b3) 14 £e2 0-0 15 b3 dxe3 16 fxe3 Black has some compensation for the pawn. He has good pieces while White should be careful about his e−pawn, but an extra pawn is an extra pawn − White's chances are preferable.) 12...¤xb4 13 ¥xd7+ £xd7 14 ¤xb6 (In the case of 14 b3 dxe3 15 fxe3 ¤d3+ followed by ...Rd8 Black has more than enough compensation for the minor material losses.) 14...£b5 15 ¤xa8 ¤d3+ 16 ¢f1 (Of course, not 16 ¢d2?? ¤e4+ 17 ¢c2 0-0!-+ and Black is winning.) 16...¤f4+ and here a draw was agreed in the game Krasenkow − Halkias/Kavala 2001.

Another curious option is 5 e4

19

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This gambit was introduced into tournament practice by Frank Marshall at Monte−Carlo

1904. Recently it is out of fashion, which is quite understandable − instead of sacrificing a pawn White can follow Rubinstein's set−up to pressurize Black in the Tarrasch Defence. 5...dxe4 6 d5 (the idea 6 ¥c4?! cxd4 7 £b3?! is dubious: 7...¤f6! 8 ¥xf7+ ¢e7 and White's resources are not enough to make his action successful. 9 ¤b5 (9 ¤d5+?! ¢xf7 10 ¤c7+ ¢g6 11 ¤xa8 ¤a6 was bad for White in the game Nadanian − Godena/EU−ch Saint Vincent 2000) 9...¤c6 10 ¥d2 a6 11 ¤a3 a5! and Black's powerful center in addition to his extra pawn and White's poor coordination gives him a big advantage, Mamedyarov − Genba/Pardubice rapid 2008) 6...¤f6 (6...f5 is ambitious but somewhat weakening: 7 ¥f4 (other continuations seem to be weaker, for example, 7 f3 ¥d6!? 8 ¤h3 ¤f6 9 ¥b5+ ¤bd7 10 fxe4 fxe4 11 ¤g5 a6 12 ¤e6

£e7 and the knight on e6 can easily be neutralized) 7...¥d6 8 ¥b5+ ¢f7 9 ¤h3 ¤f6 10 ¥c4 a6 11 a4 ¦e8 (11...h6!? looks quite good for Black) 12 £d2 £e7 This position arose in the game Starck − Baumbach/Colditz 1967. A possible knight's raid to e6 may grant White compensation for a pawn, but it can hardly promise White serious chances to fight for the initiative.) 7 ¥g5 ¥e7 8 ¥b5+ Now Black has a good choice. The game Knaak − Baumbach/Frankfurt/Oder 1977 continued 8...¤fd7 This knight's retreat is double−edged.

a) The other continuations are also not bad: 8...¥d7 9 d6 (9 ¥c4 ¥f5 is fine for Black)

9...¥xb5 10 dxe7 £xd1+ 11 ¦xd1 ¥d3 12 ¥xf6 gxf6 13 ¤d5 (13 ¤xe4 ¥xe4 14 f3 ¢xe7

15 fxe4 ¤c6) 13...¤a6³ b) 8...¢f8!? 9 ¤ge2 a6 10 ¥a4 h6 11 ¥h4 b5 12 ¥c2 ¥b7 with a good play for Black 9 ¥f4 0-0 10 £d2 a) 10 ¤ge2 can be met by 10...a6 11 ¥c4 ¥g5!? 12 £d2 (12 ¤xe4 ¥xf4 13 ¤xf4 ¦e8)

12...¥xf4 13 £xf4 b5 14 ¥b3 f5 and Black's chances look preferable. b) 10 ¤xe4 ¤f6 11 ¤c3 ¥d6 is also in Black's favour 10...a6 11 ¥e2 ¤b6!? 12 d6 e3!? A nice counterblow, which damages White's pawn

structure. 13 fxe3 ¥h4+! It is also useful to force some weakening of the White's K−side. 14 g3 ¥f6 15 h4 (15 ¤e4 could not prevent 15...g5 since after 16 d7 ¤8xd7 17

¤xf6+ £xf6 18 ¥d6 ¦e8 White still couldn't develop his K−side as 19 ¤f3? was met by 19...¤c4!) and now it seemed better to prevent Nc3−e4 by 15...¥f5!? with excellent play. (15...¥e6!? was also worthy of consideration.)

20

5...d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Theory considers the move 5...¤f6 to be a good alternative. In ECO Kasparov gives the

line 6 ¥e3 ¤c6 7 ¤f3 £a5 8 a3 ¤e4 9 ¦c1 ¥e6 10 £a4 £xa4 11 ¤xa4 ¤a5 12 b4 ¤c4 13 ¥d4 with 'equality' in a couple of moves, but in my opinion this position is clearly better for White.

6 ¤e4!?

Recently White prefers to move his knight to the centre of the board, rather than the edge. This allows Black to restore the material balance but as compensation White tries to gain other advantages. The idea is not without poison, but does not seem to be a serious attempt to fight for the advantage. Theory has never seriously considered this continuation but Black obviously should know what to do.

6 ¤a4 b5! (6...¥xc5?! is weak, after 7 ¤xc5 £a5+ 8 ¥d2 £xc5 9 ¦c1 £f5 10 £a4+ ¤c6 11 ¤f3 £d5

12 e3 dxe3 13 ¥xe3 White obtains a clear advantage) 7 cxb6 axb6 8 b3 The only move to prevent ...b6−b5. (8 £b3?! is too dangerous for White because after 8...b5! 9 £xb5+ ¥d7 10 £e5+ ¥e7 11 b3 ¥xa4 (11...¤c6 followed by ...Nb4 also looks good)

12 bxa4 ¤c6 the attack looks very strong.) 8...¤f6 9 e3 (9 ¤f3 should be met by 9...¤e4! and the pawn on d4 cannot be taken.) 9...¤c6!? An interesting attempt. (9...¥d7 is the main line according to theory but the text move is probably not weaker. After 10 £xd4

a) the alternatives are 10 ¤f3 b5 11 ¤b2 dxe3 12 fxe3 (12 ¥xe3 ¥b4+ 13 ¥d2 £e7+ 14

¥e2 ¤e4 15 ¥xb4 £xb4+ 16 ¢f1 0-0 with compensation) 12...¤e4 13 £d4 £a5+ 14 ¤d2 f5 15 £e5+ ¥e7 16 ¥d3 £c3 17 £xc3 ¤xc3 with good compensation for the pawn in the ending

b) and 10 exd4 ¥b4+ 11 ¥d2 £e7+ 12 £e2 ¤e4 13 ¤f3 ¥xa4 14 bxa4 0-0!? with the initiative

10...¤c6 11 £b2 ¤e4 12 a3 b5 13 ¥d3 f5 14 ¥xe4 fxe4 15 ¤c3 ¤e5 16 ¢f1 ¤d3© Black's initiative is probably sufficient compensation for two pawns) 10 ¥b5 (10 ¤f3!? looks more reliable although Black can achieve good play by 10...b5 11 ¤b2 ¥b4+ (11...¤e4!?) 12 ¥d2 dxe3 13 fxe3 £b6 14 ¥xb4 ¤xb4 15 ¤d4 ¥d7 16 ¤d3 ¤bd5 followed by ...0-0, ...Rfe8 and so on) 10...£d5! 11 £e2 (Of course 11 ¤xb6 £xb5 12

21

¤xa8 £a5+ followed by Qxa8 is not what White is playing for) Here in the game Ruban − Arencibia/Habana 1990 Black came up with excellent 11...¦a5! 12 exd4+ ¢d8!ƒ and seized a strong initiative.

6...¤c6

The most natural reply. 6...¥f5!? also looks good: 7 ¤g3 (7 ¤d6+ ¥xd6 8 cxd6 £xd6 9 ¤f3 ¤c6 10 ¥d2 ¤f6 11 g3 0-0 12

¥g2 d3! gives Black the better chances) 7...¥e6 and so on.

7 ¤f3 ¥f5 8 ¤g3 ¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+l+0 9+-+-+NsN-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¥g6 9 e4 is in White's favour but 8...¥e6!? is worthy of consideration.

9 b4!?

An interesting attempt! 9 £b3 does not promise much: 9...£a5+ 10 ¥d2 £xc5 11 ¤g5 (11 £xb7 is risky for White:

11...¦b8 12 £a6 ¤b4 13 £a4+ ¥d7 14 ¥xb4 ¦xb4 with some initiative) 11...¤h6 12 h3 ¥c8 13 ¦c1 £b6 14 £xb6 axb6 15 a3 ¥e7 16 ¤f3 ¤f5 with a good ending.

9 £c2!? deserves attention. After 9...¤f6 (if 9...£a5+?! White could hope for a small edge by playing 10 ¥d2 £xc5 11 £e4+! ¥e6 12 ¤g5) 10 h3 d3!? 11 £xd3 (11 exd3? is hardly good for White: 11...¥xf3 12 gxf3 ¤d4 and so on) 11...£xd3 12 exd3 ¥xf3 13 gxf3 ¥xc5 (13...¤d4 14 ¥e3 ¤c2+ 15 ¢d2 ¤xa1 16 d4 with compensation) 14 ¥e3 White has the slightly better chances in the ending thanks to his extra pawn, but Black should be able to hold the balance because White has a lot of weak pawns and a passive light−squared bishop.

9...¤xb4 10 £a4+ ¤c6 11 ¦b1

11 ¤e5!? is worthy of consideration.

22

11...£d7 12 e3 ¥xf3

12...dxe3 13 ¥xe3 seems to be in White's favour.

13 gxf3 ¥xc5 14 ¤e4 ¥e7 15 ¦g1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+ntr0 9zpp+qvlpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Q+-zpN+-+0 9+-+-zPP+-0 9P+-+-zP-zP0 9+RvL-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

After rather logical play an important position was arisen in the game Babula −

Leito/EUCup 1997. The long−range White pieces are very good, but his king is not totally safe. It seems that Black should be okay but of course concrete and precise play is required.

23

QGD/5 Tarrasch Defence − Swedish

Variation [D33]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 c5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¤f3 ¤c6

5...¤f6?! is supposed to be less precise due to 6 ¥g5

6 g3 c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzP-zP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Swedish Variation. It was introduced and developed by famous Swedish players

Gideon Stahlberg, Erik Lundin and Goesta Stoltz. Black avoids an isolated d−pawn and his pieces can come into play quickly by ...Bf8−b4 and ...Ng8−e7, after which Black is not worried about Bc1-g5 in contrast to those lines where the knight is developed to f6. However the advance ...c5−c4 unties White's hands in the centre and increases the potential of the d−pawn very much.

7 ¥g2

The immediate 7 e4 is known to be not too dangerous for Black and can be met by the brave 7...dxe4 8 ¤g5 £xd4!

7...¥b4 8 0-0 ¤ge7

24

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 e4

In case of 9 a3 ¥a5 10 e4 0-0 11 exd5 ¤xd5 12 ¥g5 (12 ¤g5 with the idea of £c2 can be parried by 12...¤xc3 13 bxc3 (13 £c2? £xg5!! 14 ¥xg5 ¤xd4 and the queen is trapped!) 13...¥f5 with good play.) the inclusion of the moves a3 and Ba5 allows Black to play 12...¤xc3!? (12...f6 13 ¤xd5 £xd5 14 ¥e3) 13 bxc3 f6 14 ¥d2 ¥e6 with acceptable play.

9 ¤e5!? deserves serious attention. White intends to exchange on c6 weakening Black's pawn structure, then to undermine it with b2−b3 or e2−e4. The game Van Scheltinga − Stahlberg/Amsterdam 1950 continued by 9...0-0 10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11 e4 (Alternatives such as 11 ¤a4, or 11 ¥d2 followed by b2−b3 would promise a small edge for White.) 11...¥e6 12 e5!? This game was played half a century ago but strangely enough in that time, no−one has repeated this pawn advance. (Recent attempts do not bother Black very much, for example: 12 ¥f4 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 dxe4 14 ¥xe4 ¥d5 15 f3 ¤g6 16 £d2

¤xf4 17 £xf4 £a5 18 £d2 ¦ab8 and Black has no problems at all) 12...¦b8 (Black has a lot of possible continuations such as 12...£d7, 12...¤f5 and, 12...¥f5 which are all worthy of consideration.) 13 ¤e2! ¥a5 (13...¥f5!? deserves attention.) 14 b3 with certain advantage.

9...0-0

The main line. The alternative 9...dxe4 10 ¤xe4 0-0 doesn't promise full equality. (10...¥f5?! seems even

worse for Black due to a strong 11 ¤h4! ¥e6 (In case of 11...£xd4 12 ¤xf5 ¤xf5 13 £g4

£d7 14 ¤c3 White could have obtained the better chances, for example: 14...¤cd4 15

¤d5ƒ with initiative. However, Black might have considered this option more thoroughly) 12 a3 ¥a5 13 ¤c5 £xd4 14 ¤xe6 fxe6 15 £h5+! g6 16 £e2² and White has achieved clearly better chances, Arencibia − Bruzon/CUB−ch Santa Clara 2005) 11 £c2! The main idea is to free the square d1 for the Rook with tempo, after which the passed d−pawn might become very powerful. Here Black has a lot of possible continuations. (The alternative 11 a3 ¥a5 12 £a4 ¥g4 13 ¥e3 (13 £xc4 ¥xf3 14 ¥xf3

25

¤xd4= followed by ...Rc8 is good for Black) 13...¥b6 is thought not to be dangerous for Black) 11...£d5

a) 11...¤xd4?! is dubious, after 12 ¤xd4 £xd4 13 ¦d1 £e5 14 ¥f4 £h5 15 £xc4 White wins the pawn back and gains tangible advantage

b) If 11...¥g4 White proves his advantage by the simple 12 £xc4! ¥xf3 13 ¥xf3 £xd4 (13...¤xd4?! is weaker as after 14 ¥g2 ¦c8? does not work due to 15 £xb4 ¤c2 16

¤f6+! gxf6 17 £g4+ ¤g6 18 ¦b1 with an almost decisive advantage) 14 £b3 with a certain edge thanks to the bishop pair

c) 11...¥f5?! fails because of 12 ¤h4! ¦c8 (12...¥xe4 13 ¥xe4 £xd4 14 ¦d1, 12...£xd4 13

¤xf5 ¤xf5 14 ¦d1 £e5 15 £xc4, 12...¤xd4 13 £xc4 ¥e6?! 14 £xb4 ¤c2 15 £xb7 ¦b8 16 £xa7

¤xa1 17 ¥g5 in all case with a certain edge) 13 ¤f6+!± with a clear advantage. 12 ¥e3 and White achieved better prospects in the game Reshevsky − Stahlberg/Zurich (izt)

1953.

10 exd5

Another possible way is 10 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 11 exd5 £xd5 12 a3 (a good attempt seems to be 12 ¥e3 ¥f5 (If 12...¥g4 White gets the edge by playing 13 ¤e5! £xg2+ 14 ¢xg2 ¥xd1 15

¤xc6 bxc6 16 ¦fxd1 ¥d6 17 ¦ac1 ¦fb8 18 ¦xc4 ¦xb2 19 ¦xc6 ¦d8 20 ¦a6) 13 ¤e5 £b5 (13...¥e4?! does not solve Black's problems because of 14 ¤xc6! £xc6 15 ¥xe4 £xe4 16

£a4 a5 17 a3 winning the pawn on c4) 14 £f3 ¥d3 15 ¤xd3 cxd3 and here a very strong idea 16 £d5! posed certain problems for Black in the game Becerra Rivero − Palao/Cuba 1995) 12...¥a5 With this retreat the Bishop doesn't allow the Rook on f1 to go to e1. 13 ¤e5 (the sharp 13 ¤g5 £xd4 14 £a4 doesn't bother Black very much, as was proved in the game Szabo − Bronstein/Amsterdam (ct) 1956) 13...£b5 (of course not 13...£xd4?? 14 ¤xc6+−) 14 a4 £a6 15 ¥e3!? An interesting approach. (White used to capture on c6, damaging Black's pawn structure but after 15 ¤xc6 bxc6

the weak pawns at c4, c6, b2 and d4 probably compensate each other.) 15...¥e6 (After 15...¤xe5 16 dxe5 the kingside pawn majority gives White reasonable chances for attack.) 16 £h5!? A good idea − White begins kingside actions while Black's queen on a6 and the bishop on a5 are far from their king. 16...¦ad8 17 ¦fd1 and White's chances look preferable, Lautier − Conquest/Clichy 2001.

10...¤xd5

10...¥xc3? is bad due to 11 dxc6

11 ¥g5

26

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+n+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+-zPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A recent attempt − White provokes f7−f6 before capturing on d5. The immediate 11 ¤xd5 was considered above.

11...£a5!?

After 11...f6 White obtains better chances by 12 ¤xd5 £xd5 13 ¤e5 £b5 14 a4! £a6 15 ¤xc6 (15 ¥d5+? ¢h8 16 ¥xc4 does not work due to 16...£a5 17 ¤xc6 bxc6 18 ¥e3 ¥h3

with a slight edge) 15...bxc6 16 ¥d2 ¥xd2 17 £xd2 ¥e6 18 ¦fe1ƒ with initiative.

12 ¤xd5

12 ¤e4?! can hardly be recommended: 12...f6 13 ¥d2 ¥g4 14 a3 ¥xd2 15 £xd2 £xd2 16 ¤exd2 c3 17 bxc3 ¤xc3 with advantage for Black.

12...£xd5 13 a3 ¥a5 14 ¤e5 £b5 15 a4 £a6 16 ¤xc6 bxc6 17 £c2!?

After 17 ¥d2 ¥xd2 18 £xd2 ¥e6 Black does not have major problems as his bishop is supported by the pawn on f7 as opposed to the line 11 ...f6.

17...¥e6 18 ¦fc1 ¦ab8 19 ¥f1²

27

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-trk+0 9zp-+-+pzpp0 9q+p+l+-+0 9vl-+-+-vL-0 9P+pzP-+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9-zPQ+-zP-zP0 9tR-tR-+LmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This rather important position occurred in the game G.Timoshchenko − M.Tseitlin/Palma

de Mallorca GMA 1989. The pawn weaknesses are likely to be eliminated soon but White captures first and so Black should be very careful otherwise he may find himself in trouble at the end of some forced line, as happened in the game. This is one of the main drawbacks of the Swedish variation − White is quite often able to play for a win without risk, while Black has to defend very precisely to get half a point.

28

QGD/6 Tarrasch Defence − Main Lines

9. Bg5 c4 [D34]


1 ¤f3 d5 2 d4 c5 3 c4 e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 ¤c6 6 ¥g2 ¤f6 7 0-0 ¥e7 8 ¤c3 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-zpp+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays this is the main line of the Tarrasch Defence.

29

9 dxc5!? is less ambitious but rather annoying for Black because it seriously reduces his possibilities of getting active counterplay, too. 9...¥xc5 10 ¥g5 d4 11 ¥xf6 £xf6 12 ¤d5 (12 ¤e4 £e7 13 ¤xc5 £xc5 is fine for Black, for example: 14 ¤e1 ¦e8 15 ¤d3 £b6

16 £d2 ¥f5 17 ¦ac1 ¥e4! and Black has no problems thanks to the pressure on e−file)

12...£d8 a) 13 ¤e1 but it is much less popular probably because the knights begin to duplicate

functions. A possible continuation is 13...¦e8 14 ¤d3 ¥f8 15 £d2 (15 a3!? with the idea of b2−b4 deserves attention) 15...¥f5 and now after 16 b4 Black can solve the problems by 16...¥xd3! 17 exd3 ¦e5 18 b5 ¤e7= with equality

b) 13 ¤d2 Sometimes White plays b1) 13...a6 14 ¦c1 ¥a7 15 ¤f4 ¥d7 16 ¤e4ƒ with an initiative b2) 13...¥e6 14 ¤f4 £d7 15 ¦c1 ¥b6 16 ¤xe6 (16 £a4 ¦ac8 17 ¤c4²) 16...£xe6 17 ¥xc6

bxc6 18 ¤c4 ¦fe8 19 ¦c2 ¦ad8 20 £d3 ¦d5 21 ¦fc1² with a clear advantage b3) 13...¦e8 There are some alternatives which seem to be less precise: 14 ¦c1 ¥f8 Another

possibility is (14...¥b6!? A lot of games were continued by 15 ¤c4 ¥g4 16 ¦e1 ¥a5 17

¤xa5 £xa5 18 b4! ¤xb4 19 £xd4 ¤xd5 20 £xg4 ¦ad8 21 ¦ed1 ¤f6 22 £c4 b5 23 £c2² with small advantage thanks to the superiority of bishop over the knight) 15 ¤f4!? ¥g4 16 ¥f3 and (16 ¦e1 16 ¤f3!? were worthy of consideration keeping the strong and very useful bishop on the board.) 16...¥xf3 In the case of (16...¥f5 17 £b3² White keeps the pressure as well.) 17 ¤xf3 with a slight edge, Miles − Lautier/Biel 1992.

9...c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Thanks to great efforts of Alexander Grischuk, this continuation recently gained popularity.

The position is similar to the Swedish variation but Black has more problems with the d5 pawn as the white bishop is on g5. On the other hand, the knight on f6 reduces the possible sting from White's plans connected with e2−e4.

If Black does not want to play the position with an isolated pawn, he can also try 9...¥e6 However, it is recently not very popular, mostly because after 10 dxc5 (it seems that in case of 10 ¦c1 Black can achieve acceptable play by playing 10...c4) 10...¥xc5

a) 11 ¦c1 after which Black chooses between 11...¥b6 and(11...¥e7 keeping a slightly worse position but the text move is more popular.)

30

b) 11 ¥xf6 White achieves a very nice ending with a modest but definite and stable advantage: 11...£xf6 12 ¤xd5 £xb2 13 ¤c7 ¦ad8 14 £c1 £xc1 15 ¦axc1 ¥e7 in the case of (15...b6 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 e3 h6 18 ¦c4 ¦d6 19 ¦e4 ¦f5 20 h4² and Black is suffering 15...¥b6 White plays the same 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 ¦c4 h6 18 ¦e4² with a typical advantage.) 16 ¤xe6 fxe6 17 ¦c4!² That's why the ending is so attractive for White! The excellent manoeuvre Rc1-c4−e4 allows him to obtain the initiative combining pressure on the pawn on e6 with a possible advance of the kingside pawns. The fact that the bishops are of the opposite colour as usual favours the side which has the initiative. Black is forced to maintain endless defence without a sign of counterplay. The game Yusupov − Spraggett/Quebec 1989 continued by 17...¥f6 18 e3! ¦d6 19 h4 h6 20 ¦e4 ¦fd8 21 ¥h3! ¢f7 22 ¢g2 ¦e8 23 ¦c1 ¦e7 24 ¦c2 and White maintained the pressure.

10 ¤e5 ¥e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+lsn-+0 9+-+psN-vL-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 f4

11 ¤xc6 bxc6 12 b3 also looks promising but Grischuk successfully stand up for this kind of position: 12...£a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zp-+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+lsn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+PsN-+-zP-0 9P+-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

31

a) In the game Bareev − Grischuk/Wijk aan Zee 2002 White has not achieved much after 13 ¤a4

a1) in case of 13...¦fd8 14 e3 c5 15 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 16 dxc5 £xc5 17 ¥xf6 (17 bxc4!? is an alternative: 17...dxc4 18 ¥xa8 ¦xd1 19 ¦fxd1 ¤d7 20 ¥f4² with slightly better chances for White) 17...gxf6 18 bxc4 dxc4 19 ¥xa8 ¦xd1 20 ¦fxd1² Black experienced certain problems, Dzhandzhgava − Lputian/ch−URS (semifinal) Lvov 1987

a2) 13...¦ab8!? 14 ¥f4 ¦b7 15 £c2 ¦c8 16 bxc4 ¦b4 17 ¤b2 £b6 18 ¦ab1 dxc4„ with quite acceptable play for Black. His pawn structure is somewhat damaged but in fact the doubled c−pawns are more strong than weak. The pawn c6 gives additional control over the center and is also ready to advance at appropriate moment while the c4−pawn is passed and White should be always care about it.

b) 13 £c2 13...¦fd8 b1) In the game White has tried 14 e3 was also tested: 14...¦ac8 15 bxc4 (15 ¤a4 does not

bother Black very much: 15...c5 16 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 17 ¥xf6 gxf6 18 dxc5 £xc5 19 ¦fd1 d4 20 exd4

¦xd4 21 ¦xd4 £xd4 22 ¦d1 £e5 and Black is at least not worse, as was proved in a number of games.) 15...dxc4 16 ¤e4 £f5 17 ¦ac1 (17 ¥xf6!? gxf6 18 ¦ab1!? deserves attention, with idea to counter 18...c5 with 19 ¦b5 although everything is still too far from clear) 17...c5 18 dxc5 ¦d3! (18...¥xc5? is just bad for Black: 19 ¤xf6+ gxf6 20 £xf5

¥xf5 21 ¥xf6 and so on.) 19 ¥xf6 gxf6© Thanks for his very good pieces Black has got reasonable compensation for the sacrificed pawn, Lautier − Grischuk/Wijk aan Zee 2002.

b2) 14 ¤a4 14...¦ac8 15 ¦fd1 c5 The programmed pawn advance. 16 ¥d2!? (16 ¤xc5 ¥xc5

17 dxc5 £xc5 18 ¥xf6 gxf6 is acceptable for Black.) 16...£b5! Another fruitful idea by Alexander Grischuk. (in the game Bareev − Gluzman/FIDE WCh, Moscow 2001 the pair of bishops secured White's advantage after 16...£c7 17 ¥f4 £a5 18 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 19

dxc5 £xc5 20 e3²)

b2a) 17 ¤xc5 is a worthy alternative. Black can continue by 17...¥xc5 18 dxc5 £xc5 19 b4 (19 e3!?) 19...£b6 20 e3 ¥g4!? (20...¤e4) 21 ¦dc1 ¤e4„ with acceptable play.

b2b) 17 bxc4 17...cxd4! An excellent and far−sighted decision! Black sacrifices a pawn but it will turn out later that White cannot support his extra pawn − Black's doubled d−pawns keep many important squares under control and prevent White's manoeuvring very well. (In case of 17...£xc4 Black could have achieved a safe but worse endgame: 18 £xc4 dxc4 19 ¤xc5 ¦xd4 20 ¤xe6 fxe6 21 ¥c3 ¦xd1+ 22 ¦xd1 ¢f7²) 18 £xh7+! ¢xh7 19 cxb5 ¤e4! 20 ¥a5 ¦d7© This important position was proved to be good for Black in the game Bacrot − Grischuk/Dubai 2002 but White can obviously look for improvements.

11...¤g4

11...¤xe5?! is dubious: 12 fxe5 ¤e4 13 ¥xe7 ¤xc3 14 bxc3 £xe7 15 e4 £d7 16 a4 ¦fd8 17 £h5±

11...£b6?! is also suspicious although things are maybe not so clear: 12 f5! ¤xe5 13 ¤a4! £c7! (13...£a5 14 dxe5 ¥d7 15 exf6 gxf6 16 ¥h6±) 14 dxe5 £xe5 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 fxe6 fxe6 and Black has compensation for the piece although White's chances still look preferable

32

12 ¤xg4

it seems that 12 ¥xe7 also does not promise too much. For example: 12...¤xe7 13 £d2 ¤h6!? 14 h3 f6

15 ¤f3 ¤hf5 16 g4 ¤d6 17 f5 ¥f7 18 £f4 b5! 19 ¦ad1 £d7÷ with complicated play

12...¥xg4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+pzP-zPl+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9PzP-+P+LzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13 ¤xd5!

Strangely enough, White always captured the pawn with the bishop, trying to get advantage after

13 ¥xd5 ¥xg5 14 fxg5 £xg5 15 ¦f4 but after 15...¥e6 (15...¦ad8 16 £f1 ¥e6 17 ¥xe6 fxe6 18

e3² may promise an edge for White) 16 ¥g2 ¦ad8 17 ¢h1 ¤e7! Black can probably achieve quite acceptable play

13...¥xg5 14 fxg5 £xg5 15 ¦f4 ¦ad8 16 £d2 ¦fe8 17 e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trr+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+N+-wq-0 9-+pzPPtRl+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9PzP-wQ-+LzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

33

17...¥e6

The immediate 17...b5!? was worthy of consideration.

18 ¦c1

White finds the way to take aim at the pawn on c4.

18...¥xd5

The swapping of the b−pawns deserved attention: 18...b5!? 19 b3 ¥xd5 20 exd5 ¤e7 21 bxc4 bxc4 22 ¦xc4 and now 22...¦b8!? only

not(22...¤xd5? 23 ¦c5 h6 24 £a5 ¤xf4 25 ¦xg5 ¤e2+ 26 ¢f2 hxg5 27 ¥c6+−)

19 exd5 ¤e7 20 ¦xc4 ¤xd5 21 ¦c5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trr+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-tRn+-wq-0 9-+-zP-tR-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9PzP-wQ-+LzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and Black found himself under pressure, G.Timoshchenko − Halkias/EU−ch Ohrid 2001.

34

QGD/7 Tarrasch Defence − Main Lines

9. Bg5 cd4 [D34]


1 ¤f3 d5 2 d4 c5 3 c4 e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 g3 ¤c6 6 ¥g2 ¤f6 7 0-0 ¥e7 8 ¤c3 0-0 9 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-zpp+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+NzP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...cxd4 10 ¤xd4 h6

The immediate 10...¦e8 is supposed to be less precise. After 11 ¦c1 in the game R.Scherbakov − Magomedov/Cheliabinsk 1990 Black played an inaccurate 11...¥d7?! and after a rather unexpected 12 ¥f4!± he faced some concrete problems.

11 ¥e3

11 ¥f4 is much less popular but here Black should also work hard to solve his problems completely: 11...¥g4 the alternative (11...£b6!? leads to more complicated play) 12 h3 ¥e6 13 ¦c1!? £d7 (13...¦c8!?) 14 ¤xe6 fxe6 15 e4 d4 16 e5 dxc3 17 exf6 £xd1 18 ¦fxd1 ¥xf6 19 bxc3² and White proved a small but stable advantage in a number of games.

11...¦e8

35

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+n+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+-sN-vL-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is a tabia of the Tarrasch Defence. Thousands of games have started from here. White

has a lot of possible plans.

12 ¦c1

12 a3 ¥e6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+n+lsn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9zP-sN-vL-zP-0 9-zP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

a) 13 ¢h1!? However, it seems that Black can obtain a good counterplay by 13...¥g4! 14 f3

and (14 h3 14 £b3 seem to be the principled continuations, according to Kasparov)

14...¥h5 15 ¤xc6 after (15 ¥g1 £d7! 16 £a4 ¥c5! 17 ¦ad1 ¥b6 18 ¦fe1 ¥g6 Black has no problems) 15...bxc6 16 ¤a4 £c8! 17 ¥d4 £e6 18 ¦c1 ¤d7 19 ¦c3 ¥g6÷ with mutual chances.

b) 13 ¤xe6 in the earlier games of the match Smyslov tried to pose problems for Black by playing 13...fxe6 14 £a4 ¦c8 15 ¦ad1 ¢h8 the immediate (15...a6!? deserved attention.) 16 ¢h1 a6 17 f4 This position arose in the game Smyslov − Kasparov/Vilnius 1984. White looks preferable but Black is not without a counterplay. The plan, invented by Vassily Smyslov (Kg1-h1 with the idea of f4, Bg1 and e2−e4), is really interesting.

12 £b3

36

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-+n+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+QsN-vL-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...¤a5 13 £c2 ¥g4 14 ¤f5 another possibility is (14 h3 ¥h5 15 ¦ad1 ¦c8 16 g4 ¥g6 17 ¤f5)

14...¦c8 (14...¥b4 is the alternative.) 15 ¥d4 (15 ¤xe7+ does not promise too much)

15...¥c5 16 ¥xc5 ¦xc5 17 ¤e3 Increasing the pressure on the pawn on d5. 17...¥e6 18 ¦ad1 £d7!? after (18...£c8 19 £a4 ¦d8 20 ¦d3² White achieved a stable advantage in the game Karpov − Kasparov/Moscow (m/9) 1984. His play is clear − to create as much pressure as possible on the isolated pawn.) 19 £d3!? as it turns out, (19 b4 is not dangerous for Black: 19...¦c7 20 bxa5 d4 21 ¦d3 ¥f5!) 19...¤c4 20 ¤xc4 dxc4! 21 £d6!? £xd6 22 ¦xd6ƒ White keeps the initiative in this ending but Black's position is defensible as was proved in the game Lastin − Bezgodov/Moscow 1999.

12 £a4 12 £c2 are also well−known.

12...¥f8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrvlk+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+n+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+-sN-vL-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main alternative 12...¥g4 gives Black less chances of obtain good counterplay: 13 h3 ¥e6 a) 14 ¢h2 is also not bad: 14...£d7 15 £c2 (15 £a4!?) 15...¦ac8 (15...¤e5!?) 16 ¦fd1 ¥f8 17

a3² b) 14 £a4 14...¤e5!? 15 ¦cd1 a6 (15...¥d7 16 £b3 ¥c6 17 ¤f5±) 16 ¥f4!ƒ and White seizes a

strong initiative

37

13 ¤xc6

White has tried some other possibilities which also promise him a small advantage. 13 £a4 ¤e5 (13...¤a5 14 ¦cd1 ¥d7 15 £c2 ¦c8 16 £b1!²) 14 ¦cd1 ¥d7 15 £b3 ¥c6 16 ¤xc6

bxc6 17 ¥d4 ¦b8² with counterplay but White's chances are still preferable 13 ¤a4 ¥d7 14 ¤c5 ¤a5 (14...¤e5²) 15 b3 ¦c8 16 ¤xd7 £xd7 17 £d3 ¤c6 18 ¤xc6 bxc6

19 ¦fd1² with a small edge 13 a3!? ¥g4 14 h3 ¥e6 15 ¤xc6 bxc6 16 ¥d4 (16 ¤a4 £c8 17 ¢h2 £a6!„) 16...¥d7 in the

case of (16...¤e4 White secures the advantage by 17 ¤xe4 dxe4 18 ¥c5 ¥xc5 19 ¦xc5 ¥d5

20 b4²) 17 £d3² with a small but stable advantage.

13...bxc6 14 ¤a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrvlk+0 9zp-+-+pzp-0 9-+p+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9N+-+-+-+0 9+-+-vL-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¥d7

14...£a5? is a well−known mistake due to 15 ¦xc6! ¥d7 16 ¥d2! ¥b4 (16...£b5 fails to 17

¦xf6! gxf6 18 ¤c3 £xb2 19 ¤xd5 with a huge advantage for White, for example: 19...¦ac8 20 ¥c3! ¦xc3 21 ¤xf6+! ¢g7 22 £d4!+−) 17 ¦c5 £xa4 18 £xa4 ¥xa4 19 ¥xb4 ¦xe2 20 b3 ¥d7 21 ¦a1± with a big advantage in the ending.

15 ¥c5

An exchange of dark−square bishops is tempting in order to establish full control over the squares d4 and c5 but this perhaps is not the only way to treat this kind of position.

15...¥xc5 16 ¤xc5

38

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9zp-+l+pzp-0 9-+p+-sn-zp0 9+-sNp+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9PzP-+PzPLzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight White should be much better here but actually things are not so clear as Black

has counterplay because all his pieces are active. Both rooks have half open files to operate on while the rest of his army also has good prospects. The main and fairly serious drawback is of course his bad pawn structure which White is eager to exploit.

16...¥g4

16...¥f5 does not solve the problems completely: 17 e3 ¦b8 18 b3² with small but stable advantage, R.Scherbakov − Orsag/Polanica Zdroj 1996.

17 ¦e1 £a5

The preliminary 17...¦b8?! 18 b3 £a5 allows White to avoid the weakening of the queenside by playing a

natural 19 £c2

18 h3 ¥f5 19 £d4

The standard 19 ¤a4!? deserves attention, after 19...¤e4 20 e3² White's chances should be preferred.

19...¦ab8

Of course not 19...£xa2? 20 ¦a1 £c4 21 £xc4 dxc4 22 ¥xc6± and White wins an exchange.

20 a3

39

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+r+k+0 9zp-+-+pzp-0 9-+p+-sn-zp0 9wq-sNp+l+-0 9-+-wQ-+-+0 9zP-+-+-zPP0 9-zP-+PzPL+0 9+-tR-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20...£b6!

The queen is much better placed on b6 not only because it is more mobile there (the only way to retreat from b5 is actually to b6) but also pins the knight which is rather important.

20...£b5 21 b3! Black cannot take on e2 anyway while the queen is not very useful on b5 (21 b4 a5!„)

21 b3

21 b4 is pointless due to 21...a5

21...¤e4! 22 ¥xe4 dxe4

22...¦xe4!?÷ also came into mind.

23 g4 ¥e6!

Transferring the bishop to d5.

24 ¦c3 ¦bd8 25 £e3²

40

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trr+k+0 9zp-+-+pzp-0 9-wqp+l+-zp0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9-+-+p+P+0 9zPPtR-wQ-+P0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's play looked fairly logical, however, the control over some important dark squares

probably gives White slightly better chances, Filippov − Bezgodov/Petropavlovsk 1999.

41

Exchange Variation

This system includes all the lines where White makes an early exchange in the

center− c4xd5. After ...e6xd5 the pawn structure acquires a very specific nature:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This kind of structure drew much attention after the Carlsbad 1923 tournament

where it was tested in a number of games. Therefore this is frequently referred to as the

"Carlsbad pawn structure".

The system is rather popular and occupies an important place in chess theory. It

contains a number of typical positions and strategic ideas and plans which are very

important for general chess understanding. Of course there are many concrete variations but

most of them originate from basic strategic concepts.

Let's take closer look at the possible plans for both sides. White usually selects one

of the following schemes:

1) A minority attack by means of b2−b4−b5xc6 with the aim of creating a weak

pawn on the side where the opponent has a pawn superiority. This plan is used in practice

very often.

42

2) Central attack with e3−e4. This plan is much more dangerous with the Knight on

e2 than on f3.

3) Kingside attack with the kings on the same side.

4) Kingside attack with the kings castled opposite sides. Like the plan of e3−e4 this

also looks more promising with the Knight on e2.

Black's counterplay is connected with central and kingside operations. On the

queenside he usually defends passively. So the main defensive methods are:

1) Counter attack with pawns on the kingside.

2) Counter attack with pieces on the kingside. These kingside operations have more

chance of being successful if White has weakened his kingside pawn structure, especially

with the move h2−h3.

3) Positional methods of defence such as: creating a pawn barrier with ...b7−b5,

preparing for ...c6−c5 in reply to b4−b5, obtaining piece control over the b5, c4 squares, the

pawn advance ...a6−a5 with the aim of taking control over the b4 square, the knight lunge

...¤f6−e4 and various others.

4) Counter attack on the queenside in the case of White's long castling.

Of course this division is rather conventional and in practice the playing methods are

usually combined with each other. For those who want to get a good understanding of these

positions, thorough study of classic games are very important.

For example, one of the typical problems is in whose favour the exchange of light−

square bishops is? Taking into account some static features of the position (black pawns b7,

c6, d5 are on light squares) we can conclude that black's queen's bishop is worse than the

white counterpart and would be better off exchanged. Black has even invented a very

original plan to do this:... ¤d7−f8−e6,...g7−g6,...¤e6−g7 and ...¥c8−f5. But in some

situations this Bishop is very useful and it is Black who needs to secure it from exchange.

There are lots of such strategic problems which cannot be solved with move by

move calculations. But if you know what the best players did in similar situations the task

becomes much easier. It was one of my main openings till the end of '80s and I believe it

helped me greatly in understanding chess better.

43

The main Black's adherents are: GMs Arthur Yusupov, Paul van der Sterren,

Alexander Beliavsky, Andrey Kharitonov, Sergey Smagin, Alexander Panchenko, Uwe

Bonsh, Janis Klovans, Ventzislav Inkiov and others.

A lot of famous GMs play the Exchange Variation with pleasure, including Garry

Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov, but they are often widely diverse in their approaches

So the whole system is strategically complex and looks attractive for White who has

clear and logical plans. Black's active possibilities are limited and he must defend carefully.

Nevertheless his position is quite safe and solid and if he understands it well and knows its

many subtleties then his chances to outplay the opponent are quite reasonable.

With the knight on e2 White's main plan seems to be a central pawn advance e3−e4.

Sometimes he realises this plan with a quite interesting method. First he makes it

appear that he is going for minority attack by a2−a3 and b4−b5 − notice that the Rook is not

used but then he completely switches for the e3−e4 break, having additional control over

the c5 square to prevent the quite typical Black reaction ...c6−c5.

44

QGD/8 Exchange Variation − Various

lines with Ng1-e2 [D35]


1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 d5 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...¥e7

Sometimes Black opts for an early ...Nf6−h5, exchanging the dark−squared bishops: 5...c6 6 e3 ¥e7 7 ¥d3 ¤bd7

a) similar position would arise after 8 £c2 ¤h5 (of course, 8...0-0 any time can lead to the main lines ) 9 ¥xe7 £xe7 10 ¤ge2 g6 11 0-0-0 ¤b6 12 ¤g3 ¤g7!? (After 12...¤xg3?! 13 hxg3 White is clearly better) 13 ¢b1 ¥d7 14 ¦c1 0-0-0 15 ¤a4 ¤xa4 (15...¢b8 16 ¤c5 ¥c8 17 b4ƒ would also allow White to seize a strong initiative on the Q−side.) 16 £xa4 ¢b8 17 ¦c3ƒ with initiative on the queenside, Kasparov − Andersson/Reykjavik 1988

b) 8 ¤ge2 8...¤h5 (The fact there is no queen on c2 allows Black to play 8...¤e4 but it does not solve his opening problems: 9 ¥xe7 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 £xe7 11 £b3 followed by c3−c4 with a small but stable advantage.) 9 ¥xe7 £xe7

45

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqpzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+n0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9PzP-+NzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 g4!? Taking an opportunity to get some space on the kingside. 10...¤hf6 11 ¤g3 b1) 11...¤b6 may lead to the transposition after 12 g5 ¤g8 13 h4 b1a) while 13...h6 looks risky as it allows White to advance the g−pawn. However, in the

game Petursson − Hjartarson/Reykjavik 2000 14 g6 ¤f6 15 £f3 (15 gxf7+!? £xf7 16

£c2 deserves attention: 16...0-0 17 ¥g6 £c7 18 0-0-0 ¤g4 19 ¦df1 ¥e6 20 ¤h5ƒ with initiative on the kingside) 15...0-0 16 ¤f5 ¥xf5 17 £xf5 ¦ae8 18 ¦g1 Black proved that White doesn't have real threats on the kingside: 18...£b4 19 0-0-0 ¤c4 and so on.

b1b) 13...g6 and so on b2) 11...h6 is not very popular: 12 h3 ¤b6 13 £d2 ¥d7 14 b3 g6 15 a4 a5 16 f3² with small

but stable advantage b3) 11...g6 12 h4 (12 g5 ¤g8 13 h4 gives Black an extra possibility: 13...h6 14 gxh6 ¤df6!?)

12...¤b6 13 g5 ¤g8 b3a) Later in the game Milov − Andersson/Groningen 1997 White tried to improve with 14

¢d2!? , not giving Black the possibility to exchange all the kingside pawns but after 14...h6 15 f4 hxg5 16 fxg5 (16 hxg5!? ¦xh1 17 £xh1 was worthy of consideration.) 16...¥e6 17 £f3 0-0-0 18 ¤ge2 £d7 19 a4 ¤e7 has finished his development and seemed to be fine.

b3b) 14 £e2 14...h6 b3b1) 15 f4 did not promise too much: 15...hxg5 16 hxg5 (16 fxg5!?) 16...¦xh1+ 17 ¤xh1

¥e6 18 ¤g3 0-0-0 19 0-0-0 £d7 20 ¦h1 ¤e7 with ...Nf5 to follow. b3b2) 15 0-0-0!? An interesting pawn sacrifice. 15...hxg5 16 h5! This is the point. White is

trying to use his advantage in development to get at the Black king before it escapes to the queenside. 16...gxh5 17 ¤xh5 ¦h6! 18 ¦dg1 White's initiative looks very strong. Ng7+ followed by Bh6 and Qh5 is threatened as well as the simple f2−f4. However, a very cool defence 18...¢d8! (This is probably the only move because all the alternatives were bad: 18...¥d7? 19 ¤g7+ ¢f8 20 ¦xh6 ¤xh6 21 £h5+−

or 18...f6?! 19 ¤g3!± with a rather annoying initiative.) 19 £f3 ¥d7! allowed Black to defend successfully in the game Vyzmanavin − Kharitonov/Helsinki 1992.

6 e3 0-0 7 ¥d3 c6

46

An attempt to treat the position without c7−c6 grants White an interesting options: 7...¤bd7 8 ¤ge2 ¦e8

a) 9 £c2 ¤f8 10 0-0-0 ¥e6 Black tries to advance his pawn to c5 in one step. 11 ¢b1 To move the king from the c−file is rather useful in view of Black's plan. 11...¤g4 (11...¦c8!? deserves attention) 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¤f4 ¤f6 14 f3 White begins action on the kingside so Black, who wasted a couple of tempi with the knight's manoeuvring is forced now to undertake his plan without good preparation. 14...c5 (In the case of 14...¤g6 15 g4! ¤xf4 16 exf4± followed by f4−f5, g4−g5, etc and White's attack seems to be very strong.) 15 g4! and Black faced problems, Kasparov − Campora/Thessaloniki (ol) 1988

b) 9 0-0 9...¤f8 an now White has a rather unexpected 10 b4! XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-zP-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9P+-+NzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

b1) The pawn cannot be taken for free: 10...¥xb4?! 11 ¥xf6 gxf6 12 ¤xd5! £xd5 13 £a4

¥h3!? (both 13...¥e7 14 £xe8 ¥h3 15 ¤f4!+−

and 13...¥d6 14 £xe8 ¥h3 15 £e4!+− do not seem to work) 14 ¤f4 £a5 15 £xa5 ¥xa5 16 ¤xh3 ¤e6² and Black is far from equality because of his weakened kingside pawns structure

b2) 10...h6!? is worthy of consideration: 11 ¥xf6 (11 ¥h4!? is interesting: 11...g5 12 ¥g3 ¥xb4

13 ¤b5 ¥a5 14 £c2 c6 15 ¤d6 ¦e7÷ with complicated play) 11...¥xf6 12 b5² with a small advantage for White(or 12 £b3² )

b3) 10...¤g6 11 b5 ¤g4 doesn't promise a full equality due to 12 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 13 ¥xg6! hxg6 14 ¤f4 c6 15 h3 ¤f6 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 ¤d3! ¥a6™ 18 ¦e1 ¥xd3 19 £xd3 ¤e4 20 ¦ec1! ¤xc3 21 £xc3 ¦e6 22 ¦ab1± with certain advantage

b4) 10...¤e4 does not solve Black's problems, too: 11 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 12 £c2 ¥f5 13 ¤f4 and so on

b5) 10...a6 11 a3 c6 12 £c2 With a slightly different move order we have transposed to the main lines. The game Kasparov − Short/London 1993 continued by 12...g6 13 f3 White's main plan should be connected with central pawn advance e3−e4. Black's typical reaction is ...c6−c5 but here it is not so easy to realize as White has taken additional control over the c5 square. 13...¤e6 14 ¥h4 ¤h5 (in case of 14...¤g7

White achieves the advantage by 15 ¥f2 h5 16 h3 ¤h7 17 e4 ¥h4 18 £d2 ¥xf2+ 19 ¦xf2±)

15 ¥xe7 (After 15 ¥f2 ¥d6„ Black was not without a counterplay.) and here 15...£xe7 seemed to be better. After the possible (15...¦xe7?! 16 £d2 b6?! 17 ¦ad1 ¥b7

47

18 ¥b1!±) 16 ¦ae1 a5 17 £b2 axb4 18 axb4² White could have secured small but lasting edge.

8 ¤ge2 ¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9PzP-+NzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¤g3!?

This line is not very popular but actually is quite tricky. White postpones the move Qd1-c2 hoping to use the queen for some other purpose.

9...¤b6!?

This square is not very common for the knight but in this position more concrete reasoning should prevail.

Black has tried a lot of alternatives. 9...h6 10 h4 ¤b6! a) 11 £f3? is impossible: 11...¥g4! 12 £f4 hxg5! 13 hxg5 ¥d6 14 ¥h7+ (both 14 gxf6 ¥xf4

and 14 £xg4 ¤xg4 is not enough to make a perpetual check as every time Black is able to cover the king with a minor piece on h6) 14...¤xh7 15 £xg4 £xg5 16 £h3 £g6-+ with a clear extra piece.

b) 11 £c2 11...¦e8 Here in the game Gulko − Van der Sterren/Amsterdam 1988 White continued very consistently and creatively by 12 0-0-0 and confused his opponent in the struggle although objectively the position was too far from clear.

White's idea works to its full in case of the "automatic" 9...¦e8?! 10 ¤f5 and Black is in trouble: 10...¥f8 (the position after 10...¤f8 11 ¤xe7+ £xe7 is not much fun for Black)

11 £f3 h6 12 h4ƒ with a strong initiative on the kingside I have been lucky enough to have this position a couple of times in rapid tournaments

an old alternative 9...¤e8!? deserves attention. After 10 h4 the best continuation is, in my opinion 10...¤d6! with a fairly solid position

10 h3!?

Rather unusual in these positions.

48

In case of 10 £c2 h6 11 ¥f4 ¥d6 12 ¤ge2 (12 ¥e5? is impossible due to 12...¥xe5 13 dxe5

¤g4) 12...¦e8 Black obtains a solid position but probably do not equalises completely.

10...h6 11 ¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzp-0 9-snp+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-sNLzP-sNP0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¦e8!

Intending to play ...Be7−d6 next. Immediate 11...¥d6?! was an inaccuracy in the game, which allows White to prove the

advantage by 12 ¥e5! ¥xe5 Otherwise f2−f4 will follow. 13 dxe5 ¤fd7 Thanks to the move 10. h3 the g4 square is unavailable for the knight. 14 f4 ¤c5 15 0-0² R.Scherbakov − Boensch/EUCup Final Munich 1992.

12 £c2 ¥d6 13 ¤ge2²

White has a small advantage, keeping in mind queenside castling as well.

49

QGD/9 Exchange Variation − Main lines

with Ng1-e2 [D36]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 0-0 7 ¥d3 ¤bd7 8 ¤ge2 c6 9 £c2 ¦e8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9PzPQ+NzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 0-0

Another option is 10 0-0-0 A long castling with the knight on e2 is rather dangerous plan for Black who really has to know what he is doing. 10...¤f8 11 h3

a) Black has also tried for counterplay with other moves: 11...£a5 12 ¢b1 (12 g4 ¤e4 13

¥xe7 ¤xc3 14 ¤xc3 ¦xe7 15 ¢b1²) 12...¥e6 13 f4!? ¦ad8 14 g4 ¥c8 15 ¥h4 ¤e4 16 ¥e1 ¤xc3+ 17 ¤xc3 £c7 18 ¥f2²

b) 11...¥e6 12 g4 ¦c8 13 ¢b1 a6 (13...c5!?) 14 f4 ¦c7 15 f5 ¥c8 16 ¥f4 ¥d6 17 ¦he1 ¦ce7² with a small advantage in both cases

c) 11...b5 A queenside pawn avalanche remains to be the main Black's weapon in this line − it is known to be double−edged and so is quite acceptable for Black. 12 ¢b1 a5 13 g4 a4 14 ¤g3 £a5 15 ¤ce2 ¥d7

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+rsnk+0 9+-+lvlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9wqp+p+-vL-0 9p+-zP-+P+0 9+-+LzP-sNP0 9PzPQ+NzP-+0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been tested many times and so is rather important. White has a number of

possibilities. (It seems that Black should not hurry with 15...a3 16 b3 as the rigidity of the queenside pawn structure reduces Black's attacking possibilities: 16...¥d7 17 ¤f5

¥xf5 18 ¥xf5 with better chances.) c1) 16 ¥f5 which is probably not so good for White due to 16...b4! c1a) 17 ¥xd7 ¤8xd7 18 £xc6?? was impossible due to 18...¦ac8 19 £b7 ¦c7-+ and the

Queen is trapped c1b) the superior attempt 17 ¥xf6!? did not promise too much either because of 17...b3! 18

£c3 (18 £c1 bxa2+ 19 ¢xa2 ¥xf6∓) 18...bxa2+ 19 ¢xa2 ¥xf6 20 £xa5 ¦xa5÷ and Black should be satisfied with this position as the White king is still not quite safe. However maybe it was the best way for White.

c1c) 17 £d2 17...g6 18 ¥xd7 ¤8xd7 19 ¦c1 ¦ac8 20 ¤f4 ¤b6ƒ Black's chances are preferable − he has the initiative on the queenside and so White should defend carefully, Cebalo − Inkiov/Roma 1985.

c2) Among the alternatives 16 ¤h5 deserves attention, a possible continuation being 16...¤xh5 17 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 18 gxh5 b4 19 £d2 ¦e6 20 ¦dg1 ¢h8 21 ¦h2 ¦f6 22 ¦hg2 ¤e6 23 f4 h6 24 h4 a3 25 b3 ¦g8÷ with complicated play

c3) This position has been tested many times and so it is rather important. 16 ¤f5 Logical and probably the best continuation. 16...¥xf5 17 ¥xf5!? (White would not achieve too much with the open g−file: 17 gxf5 ¦ac8 18 ¦hg1 ¢h8 and c6−c5 comes soon, with a good counterplay as was proved in a couple of games) 17...¦a6 18 ¥d3 (18 ¤f4

seems to be less precise: 18...b4 19 £d2 ¤e4! 20 ¥xe4 ¥xg5 with excellent play) 18...¦b6 19 ¤g3 b4 20 £d2 g6÷ with complicated and double−edged play where White's chances are maybe slightly better.

10...¤f8

51

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9PzPQ+NzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A startposition of this system. White has a lot of possible continuations.

11 f3

The most direct and dangerous plan for Black. White is going to advance e3−e4 immediately or after some preparation.

11 a3 ¤g6 Black has in mind the standard ...Be7−d6 followed by ...h7−h6 trapping the Bishop on g5. (11...g6 can lead to the game Kasparov − Short/London (m/15) 1993 after 12 b4 a6 and so on.) 12 b4 a6 13 ¤g3 (White can achieve a small advantage after 13 ¦ad1 ¤g4 14 ¥xe7 £xe7 15 h3 ¤f6 16 ¤g3 a5 17 £b2 axb4 18 axb4 ¥e6 19 b5 c5 20 dxc5

£xc5 21 ¤ce2²) 13...¥d6 14 ¦ae1 h6 15 ¥xg6?! (15 ¥xh6!? looked more promising, although Black's chances should not be worse after 15...gxh6 16 ¥xg6 fxg6 17 £xg6+

¢h8 18 e4 ¥f4÷) 15...hxg5! 16 ¥d3 ¥e6³ and Black has achieved the better chances, Shirov − R.Scherbakov/Borzhomi 1988

11 ¦ad1 A modern approach. White tries to keep his plan in secret for a while. Nevertheless it is hard to believe he has something other than e3−e4 (after f2−f3) in mind. 11...¤g6 (11...¤h5!? deserves attention: 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¦fe1 ¤g6 14 ¤g3 ¤xg3 15 hxg3

¥e6 16 a3 £d6 with quite a solid position) 12 ¤g3 (By means of 12 f3 White can transpose to the main lines) 12...¥e6 The manoeuvre ...Be7−d6 followed by ...h7−h6 is not possible every time. 13 h3 ¦c8 14 f4 White chooses another possible plan connected with the f−pawn advance. This set−up is rather poisonous as the Black's pieces look slightly overcrowded in the center. Besides this advance wins a couple of tempi. Its main drawback is that the pawn e3 becomes detached and White's central pawns cannot be improved with e3−e4 because the pawn d4 would become isolated in this case. 14...¤f8 15 f5 ¥d7 16 £f2 (16 ¥f4 c5÷ would lead to unclear and complicated play.) 16...¤g4! 17 hxg4 ¥xg5 18 e4 In the game Maksjutov − R.Scherbakov/Magnitogorsk 1989 Black realised a strong rearrangement: 18...¥h6! (after 18...dxe4?! 19 ¤cxe4 following with Bc4 White's pieces could become very active) 19 ¦fe1 £g5! 20 £f3 ¦cd8!„ with very complicated play

11 ¥xf6 White parts with a dark−squared Bishop to gain a tempo for the minority attack. This idea is not very popular with the knight on f3

here it is even less promising. 11...¥xf6 12 b4 a6 13 a4 g6 14 b5 a5! Nowadays this is well known and typical reaction for the minority attack but twenty years ago it was rather

52

a new method of defence. Now the weakness of the pawn c6 (and of the square c5 as well) cannot be exploited directly as the square a4 is not available for a white knight. As to the b−file, Black can use square b4 for his pieces while the square b5 is just covered by the pawn on c6. 15 e4 (an attempt to put the knight on c5 by 15 ¤c1?!

doesn't work, as was proved in the very instructive game Vaganian − Panchenko/Sochi (Russia) 1980: 15...¤e6 16 ¤b3 £d6 17 ¦fd1 ¥d7 18 £d2 ¦ed8 19 ¥e2

¥g7! Starting a very strong redeployment of pieces. While White has no active plan Black finds a way to launch an initiative on the kingside. 20 ¦a2 ¥e8 At the same time Black keeps pressure on the e4 pawn to deprive White from a possible e3−e4. 21 g3 ¥f8 22 ¦b1 £e7 23 ¦c2 £f6 and Black is ready to begin kingside actions by ...h5−h4, then ...Kg7,...Rh8 and so on. A dark−squared Bishop is in no hurry to occupy its ideal position on d6 − it might be useful on b4 as well. Notice that the square c5 is still covered twice to prevent Nc5. Black's chances are clearly better.) 15...dxe4 16 ¥xe4 £d6 17 ¦ad1 ¥d7÷ and Black is okay

Generally speaking, the minority attack itself is not too effective with the Knight on e2. After 11 ¦ab1 Black has many possible answers, including strange looking 11...a6!? (11...¥d6?! with idea ...Bxh2+ and ...Ng4 is not good as White suddenly switches to the alternative plan: 12 ¢h1 ¤g6 13 f3! ¥e7 (there was no better way of meeting e3−e4) 14 ¦be1 ¤d7 15 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 16 ¤g3 ¤f6 17 £f2

among other alternatives 11...¤g6 looks quite good, for example: 12 ¤f4 ¤g4!? 13 ¥xe7 £xe7

14 h3 ¤f6 15 ¤ce2 ¤h4 16 g3 ¤f3+ 17 ¢g2 ¤g5 18 h4 ¤ge4 19 ¦be1 ¤d6 20 ¤c3 h6 and Black has no problems, Chernin − Inkiov, Saint John 1988) 12 b4 g6 (with the pawn on b4 12...¥d6!? is maybe not so bad as compared to the game Botvinnik − Keres. White cannot switch so easily to the plan with e3−e4 as the pawn on b4 is hanging.) 13 a4 a5!? Another interesting idea − Black himself provokes b4−b5. He would meet b4−b5 with a6−a5 anyway but his idea is to deprive White from possible a4−a5 by analogy to the game Kortchnoi − Karpov. However it gives White another option which should be taken into account. 14 bxa5!? ¦xa5 15 ¤c1 ¤e6 16 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 17 ¤b3 ¦a7 18 a5 ¥e7 19 ¦a1 ¥d6 20 ¤e2 ¥d7 with good play for Black.

11...¥e6

Nowadays Black begins with ...Be6 rather than with 11...¤g6 This seems reasonable because, as we have already seen, 1) the idea to trap the bishop g5 by ...Be7−d6 followed by h7−h6 is hardly possible here and 2) the knight is quite often forced to go back to f8 where it has more possibilities for the manoeuvring. Still, the same positions arise quite often. 12 e4 A straightforward approach. (Both 12 ¦ad1

and 12 ¢h1 , trying to advance e3−e4 in the most favourable situation, seem to be more dangerous for Black. Also deserving of attention is the plan of the f−pawn advance by Rae1, Ng3, f3−f4 and so on.) 12...dxe4 13 fxe4 ¥e6

a) 14 h3!? leads to very sharp play after 14...c5!? 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 e5 ¥g5! (in case of 16...cxd4 White can achieve good attacking possibilities by 17 exf6 dxc3 18 bxc3 gxf6 19

¤g3!ƒ) 17 d5! − the position looks dangerous for Black but he is probably holding on as was proved in a couple of games

b) 14 ¦ad1 14...¤g4! 15 ¥c1 (15 ¥xe7 is also in Black's favour: 15...£xe7 16 £d2 c5 17 d5 ¥d7

18 h3 ¤4e5³ with a small advantage) 15...c5! Getting a very good square e5 for the

53

pieces. 16 d5 (16 ¥b5 £c7 17 g3 ¦ed8 18 d5 ¥c8³) 16...¥d7 and Black is at least not worse, Nenashev − Panchenko/Minsk 1986

12 ¦ae1

There are some alternatives. 12 ¦ad1 may lead to the same positions after a) 12...£a5?! was proved to be dubious in the game Baburin − Ziatdinov/Oak Bridge 2000

13 a3! (13 ¥h4? ¤g4!) 13...¦ac8 14 ¢h1 a6 15 b4! £c7 (15...£xa3?? 16 ¦b1+−) 16 ¤a4 ¤h5 17 ¥xe7 ¦xe7 18 ¤c5± Black's position is difficult

there is no sign of counterplay and e3−e4 is coming. b) while 12...¦c8 is one of the main continuations c) 12...¤g6 13 ¢h1 and so on 12 ¢h1 ¦c8 13 ¦ad1 ¤g6 14 e4 is a quite logical play. Compared to the game Nenashev −

Panchenko White makes the programmed advance in a better situation − the inclusion of the moves Kh1 and ... Rc8 is definitely in his favour as the king is hidden from possible tricks over the g1-b6 diagonal. (14 ¤g3!? looks quite good leaving the advance e3−e4 for later and trying to achieve some advantages beforehand. A possible continuation is 14...a6 15 ¤f5 ¥f8 16 e4 ¥xf5 17 exf5 ¤e7 18 g4

£d6 19 £f2 ¤d7 20 ¥b1² and White' s chances look preferable) 14...dxe4 15 fxe4 ¤g4 16 ¥c1 c5 17 e5! In the game Nenashev − Panchenko White could not even think about this possibility. 17...cxd4 18 ¤xd4 £xd4 19 ¥xg6 £xe5 20 ¥f4 £c5 21 ¥xh7+ ¢h8 22 ¥e4 At first sight Black looks completely OK but actually he has still to avoid some dangers connected with the slightly opened position of his king, Sadler − Asrian/Las Vegas 1999.

12...¦c8 13 ¢h1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqrsnk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+lsn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPP+-0 9PzPQ+N+PzP0 9+-+-tRR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤6d7

After 13...c5 14 dxc5 ¦xc5 15 ¤d4² White has a certain advantage 13...a6 14 a3 h6 15 ¥h4 c5 is similar: 16 dxc5 ¥xc5 17 ¤d4² with a small edge.

54

14 ¥xe7 £xe7

14...¦xe7 has been played a couple of times but in my opinion a capture with queen looks more natural.

15 £d2

The immediate 15 e4 could be met well by 15...dxe4 16 fxe4 c5„ with a good counterplay.

15...¤b6

The Knight is rather useful here.

16 b3

16 e4 c5= was fine for Black.

16...¦cd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trrsnk+0 9zpp+-wqpzpp0 9-snp+l+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+PsNLzPP+-0 9P+-wQN+PzP0 9+-+-tRR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Not only placing the rook on the d−file to meet e3−e4 head on but at same time keeping in

mind a possible knight transfer to d6 (via c8). Black's position looks quite solid now, Lutz − Yusupov/Tilburg 1993.

55

QGD/10 Exchange Variation − Various

lines with Ng1-f3 [D36]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥g5 ¥e7 6.e3 ¤bd7 7.¤f3 c6 8.£c2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In case of 8.¥d3 Black would think about 8...¤e4!? 9.¥f4 ¤df6 10.£c2 0-0!? (10...¥f5

11.¤e5 g6 12.f3 ¤d6 was somewhat better for White in the game Fressinet − Ponomariov/Khanty−Mansiysk (ol) 2010. Here he should have played 13.¥xf5 ¤xf5

14.g4 and so on) 11.0-0 a) White cannot grab the pawn: 11.¤xe4? dxe4 12.¥xe4 ¤xe4 13.£xe4 g5 14.¥g3

f5 15.£e5 f4 16.exf4 g4 17.¤d2 ¥f6 18.£h5 £e8+ 19.£xe8 ¦xe8+ 20.¢d1 ¥xd4³ b) other options do not promise much as well: 11.h3 ¥f5 12.g4 (12.¤e5 g6 13.g4 ¥e6)

12...¥g6 13.¤e5 ¤xc3 14.¤xg6 fxg6 15.£xc3 ¥d6÷ c) or 11.¤e5 ¤xc3 12.bxc3 (12.£xc3 ¤e4 13.£c2 f6) 12...c5 13.0-0 c4 14.¥e2 ¤e4„ 11...¥f5 12.¤e5 g6 with slightly worse but acceptable play for Black.

8...0-0

A simplifying manoeuvre 8...¤h5 is more popular when White develops his knight to e2. 9.¥xe7 £xe7 10.0-0-0 (10.¥d3?! hardly promises White any advantage due to 10...¤f4! and Black is okay: 11.0-0 ¤xd3 12.£xd3 0-0 13.¦ab1 a5 14.a3 ¤b6 15.¤d2 g6 16.f3

¥e6= with good play) 10...¤b6 11.¤e5!? Beginning an interesting and rather

56

promising set−up. (another approach is 11.h3 g6 12.g4 ¤g7 13.¥d3 ¥e6 14.¢b1 0-0-0 and now White begins queenside actions with 15.¤a4 ¤xa4 16.£xa4 ¢b8 17.¦c1 intending to manoeuvre both rooks closer to the Black king via the c−file and the 3rd rank. Yet, Black's defensive resources are not to be underestimated) 11...g6 12.g4 (in the game Van Wely − Filippov/WCh Tripoli 2004 White achieved a typical slight edge after 12.h3!? f6 13.¤d3 ¤g7 14.¢b1 ¥e6 15.¢a1 ¥f7 16.¦c1 ¤e6 17.¥e2²) 12...¤g7 13.h3 ¥e6 14.¥e2 Keeping the d3−square available for the knight's retreat after ...f7−f6 as well as for the rook's manoeuvring. 14...0-0-0 15.¤a4 ¤xa4 16.£xa4 ¢b8 17.¦d3! and White has got a rather annoying initiative in the game Kasymdzhanov − Hertneck/GER−chT 2001. The White rook quickly gets to the queenside while Black is late to transfer his knight to c8.

9.¥d3 ¦e8 10.0-0-0 ¤f8 11.h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+P0 9PzPQ+-zPP+0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¥e6

Immediate queenside pawn attack does not seem to be well prepared: 11...a5 12.g4 a4 13.¤xa4! Principal and probably the best. (some faint−hearted alternatives are not good for Black, for example: 13.¦dg1?! a3! 14.b3 ¥e6 15.¥xf6?! (15.¢b1 with Rc1 to follow is much safer) 15...¥xf6 16.¢b1 ¦c8 17.¤e2 g6 18.h4 ¤d7 19.h5 c5‚ and Black's attack comes first) 13...£a5 14.¤c3 b5 (14...¥e6!? deserves attention) Black's initiative looks dangerous but it is White's turn at the moment. 15.¥xf6 ¥xf6 It's hard to believe but after this natural move Black can only look on at the total destruction of his position. (after the game we can assume the ugly 15...gxf6!? is the last chance for improvement. Yet, the position doesn't look so clear as Black's initiative should not be underestimated) 16.g5 ¥e7 17.¤e5 ¥b7 Not everything looks so bad for Black here but unfortunately White can immediately start a strong and probably decisive attack. (17...¥xg5 can be hardly called an improvement: 18.¤xc6

£b6 19.h4 ¥d8 20.¤xd5 £b7 21.¢b1 ¥d7 22.¤db4+− with a decisive advantage)

18.¥xh7+! ¤xh7 19.g6!‚ with decisive attack, Ruban − B.Lalic/Jyvaskyla 1991.

12.¢b1 £a5 13.g4 ¦ac8

57

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+rsnk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+lsn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+P+0 9+-sNLzPN+P0 9PzPQ+-zP-+0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A solid approach against White's queenside castling − Black prefers to develop all his

pieces to active squares... 13...¤e4 is also quite good: 14.¥xe7 (after 14.¥xe4 dxe4 15.¥xe7 ¦xe7 16.¤d2 ¦ae8 Black gains

an extra tempo compared to Quinteros − Andersson/Mar del Plata 1981 which may not be too important in itself but this clearly gives Black a good game) 14...¤xc3+ (14...¦xe7 was pretty good) 15.£xc3 (it's better to swap the queens as after 15.bxc3 ¦xe7

the White king is not safe) 15...£xc3 16.bxc3 ¦xe7 and Black is completely okay, Bischoff − Van der Sterren/Munich 1990.

14.¦c1 ¤e4

14...c5 gives White better chances after 15.dxc5 ¦xc5 16.¤d4²

15.¥xe4

15.¥xe7 ¦xe7 was also acceptable for Black.

15...dxe4 16.¥xe7 ¦xe7 17.¤d2 ¦ce8 18.a3 ¥d5=

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rsnk+0 9zpp+-trpzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9wq-+l+-+-0 9-+-zPp+P+0 9zP-sN-zP-+P0 9-zPQsN-zP-+0 9+KtR-+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

58

This position arose in the game Quinteros − Andersson/Mar del Plata 1981. Black has fortified his e4−pawn and his pieces are sufficiently good not to be worried about possible White activity on the kingside.

59

QGD/11 Exchange Variation − Main lines

Ng1-f3 and 0-0 [D36]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.¥g5 ¥e7 6.e3 ¤bd7 7.¥d3 0-0 8.¤f3 ¦e8 9.0-0

Delaying castling may give Black some interesting extra options: 9.£c2 c6 (9...c5!?) 10.h3 ¤e4!? 11.¥xe4 dxe4 12.¤xe4 £a5+ 13.¢f1 ¥f8 with active play for the pawn.

9...c6 10.£c2 ¤f8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A start position of this system. White has a lot of possible continuations and it's impossible

to say which is preferable. It's just a matter of taste but of course depends on the plans which the player has in mind.

11.¦ab1

This is an old and still most popular continuation. White is preparing for the "minority attack".

11.h3 is one of the most promising attempts: 11...¤g6 a) 11...¥e6 12.¦fc1!? (12.¥f4 was also tried. Black can obtain a good play by 12...¥d6

13.¥xd6 £xd6 14.¦ab1 ¦e7!? 15.b4 ¦ae8 16.¦fc1 ¤g6 17.b5 c5 18.dxc5 £xc5 and White should be careful about his kingside − such ideas as ...¥e6xh3 followed by ...¦e7xe3

60

are hovering over the board, Van Wely − Yusupov/Frankfurt Masters 2000)

12...¤6d7 13.¥f4 ¤b6 14.¦ab1 ¥d6 (It was possible to include 14...¤g6!? 15.¥h2 ¥d6

but it is not so clear if the Knight is better placed on g6.) 15.¤e2 ¤g6 It seems that it was to too bad to do it on the previous move. 16.¥xd6 £xd6 17.a4! ¦ac8 18.£c5 £b8 19.£a3 a6 20.¦c3 £c7 21.¦bc1 ¦a8 22.¤d2² with a certain advantage, Karpov − Kharitonov/USSR (ch) 1988

b) 11...¥d6?! is dubious as the standard ...¤f8−g6 and h7−h6 cannot be realised here. After 12.¦ae1 ¥d7 (Of course not 12...¤g6?! 13.e4 dxe4 14.¤xe4 ruining Black's pawn structure on the K−side.) 13.a3!? ¤g6 14.e4 dxe4 15.¤xe4 ¥e7 16.¤c5 ¥c8 17.¥c4 Black has got better chances, R.Scherbakov − Polovodin/Tula 1999

c) 11...g6 is playable. After 12.¥xf6 ¥xf6 13.b4 a6 14.a4 ¥e6 15.b5 axb5 16.axb5 ¤d7! White realised that he cannot prevent ...c6−c5 so Black's only problem will be the d5 pawn: 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.¤e2 c5! and Black held this position without much problems, Karpov − Ehlvest/Vienna 1996

12.¥xf6 ¥xf6 13.b4 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+-vln+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-zP-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+P0 9P+Q+-zPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...a6 14.a4 can be met by 14...¥e7 15.b5 ¥d6 (15...axb5?! is a clear mistake as it made a4

square available for the White's knight: 16.axb5 ¥d7 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.¤a4 ¦a5 19.¤d2 £c7

20.¤b3 ¦a7 21.¤ac5± and Black's life is difficult) 16.bxc6 bxc6 17.¥f5 a5 18.¦fc1 £f6 19.¥xc8 ¦exc8 with reasonable play for Black

A straightforward approach 11.¥xf6 ¥xf6 12.b4 is not very popular nowadays. 12...¥g4 13.¤d2 ¥e7 A typical manoeuvre− Black moves the bishop to its best square on d6. (in the game Kortchnoi − Karpov/Baguio City (m/31) 1978 White achieved a slight edge after 13...¦c8 14.¥f5 ¥xf5 15.£xf5 £d7 (15...¤e6!? was not so bad, keeping queens on the board: 16.¦ab1 g6 17.£d3 ¥g7 with acceptable play) 16.£xd7 ¤xd7 17.a4 ¥e7 18.¦fb1 ¤f6 19.a5!? Since it is hard to realise the plan b4−b5xc6 White comes up with an interesting scheme: he blockades the kingside and hopes to target the b7 pawn at a future date via the center or the kingside. Black's position is safe and solid but he has no active possibilities at all. 19...a6 20.¤a4 ¥f8 21.¤c5 ¦e7 22.¢f1 ¤e8 23.¢e2 ¤d6 24.¢d3² and Black has not managed to hold this endgame although it is obviously drawn) 14.¦ab1 (White cannot advance 14.b5?! without sufficient control over the c5 square: 14...c5! 15.dxc5 ¥xc5 16.¤b3 ¥b6³ with already better chances for Black) 14...¥d6 15.¥f5 ¥h5! A modern and concrete approach to the dilemma of exchanging light−square bishops: here Black's is more useful and so

61

he refrains from its trade. 16.¦fc1 (16.b5?! is still in Black's favour: 16...c5 17.¤xd5 cxd4

18.e4 ¥e2 19.¦fe1 d3ƒ) 16...g6 17.¥d3 (17.¥h3?! was dubious: 17...¤e6 18.¥xe6 ¦xe6 19.h3

g5!³ with an advantage for Black.) 17...£g5„ XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+rsnk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+pvl-+p+0 9+-+p+-wql0 9-zP-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9P+QsN-zPPzP0 9+RtR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

with a good counterplay, Timman − Kasparov/London 1984 11.¦ae1 Black has tried lots of continuations here. 11...¤e4 This manoeuvre is quite typical

for the "Karlsbad structure". a) 11...¥e6 seems to be weaker. After 12.¤e5 ¤6d7 13.¥xe7 ¦xe7 14.f4 f6 15.¤f3

the position looks similar to Browne − Lukov but with a little difference which is rather important. Compared to the line 11. ¤e5 ¤g4 White has secured both knights so he has much more active possibilities. In particular, the knight on f3 not only help with a possible kingside attack with g2−g4, h2−h4, g4−g5− its potential is far greater... 15...¦c8 16.f5 ¥f7 17.g4 c5 18.£f2 a6 19.¤h4! A very good manoeuvre. The knight is going to f4 to exert pressure on the d5 pawn. 19...b5 20.a3 It was dubious to allow ...b5−b4 followed by ...c5−c4. 20...£b6 21.¤g2 ¦ce8 22.¦c1! A subtle move. 22...£d6 23.£f4² with advantage, Rogers − Speelman/Spain 1994

b) Among the many possibilities which Black has tried in this position I would like to pay attention to the move 11...g6 A possible continuation is 12.¤e5 ¤e6 13.f4 (13.¥h4!? ¤g7 14.f3 deserves attention) 13...¤g7 14.h3 ¥f5 15.g4 ¥xd3 16.£xd3 ¤d7! 17.¥xe7 ¦xe7 18.e4 ¤f6„ with mutual chances.

12.¥xe7 (12.¥f4 has been played from time to time. Probably Black's most reliable answer is 12...¥f5 with the possible follow−up 13.h3 ¤xc3 14.bxc3 ¥xd3 15.£xd3 ¤g6 with acceptable play) 12...£xe7 13.¥xe4 dxe4 14.¤d2 f5

62

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+rsnk+0 9zpp+-wq-zpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+-+p+-0 9-+-zPp+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.f3 The main continuation which is quite consistent with previous play. (15.d5 does not

pose any problems for Black: 15...¥d7! The best defence. 16.f3 (16.£b3 is not dangerous for Black: 16...cxd5 17.£xb7 (17.¤xd5?! allows Black to take the initiative: 17...£f7 18.¤c7 ¥e6 19.¤xe6 ¤xe6ƒ) 17...¦eb8! 18.£xd5+ ¥e6 19.£c6 ¥d7 and White should take a draw by repetition.) 16...exf3 17.¤xf3 cxd5 18.¤xd5 £e4 19.£xe4 ¦xe4 20.¤d4 ¦ae8 and Black has no problems at all, Spassov − Van der Sterren/Albena 1983) 15...exf3 16.¤xf3 ¥e6 17.e4 fxe4 18.¦xe4 h6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+rsnk+0 9zpp+-wq-zp-0 9-+p+l+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPR+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPQ+-+PzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been played many of times but White has failed to prove any advantage.

19.¦fe1 (in case of 19.¤e2 Black can get a counterplay by 19...£b4! 20.a3 £b3 21.£d2

¥d5 22.¦xe8 ¦xe8 23.¤e5 ¤e6 24.¤c3 £b6 25.¤xd5 and now 25...£xd4+! 26.£xd4 ¤xd4=)

19...¦ad8 It is known that the pin over e−file cannot give anything tangible for White. 20.h3!?

a) White has tried many possibilities here, for example: 20.¦1e3 £f7 21.£e2 ¥c4 22.£e1 ¦xe4 23.¦xe4 ¥e6 24.h4 ¦e8 25.¤e5 £f6 26.£g3 £d8³ with a small edge for Black

b) 20.¦e5 £f7 21.b4?! (¹21.a3) 21...¤d7 22.¦a5? (¹22.¦5e3) 22...¥g4ƒ with the initiative

20...£d6 21.¦1e3 Both sides consolidated their armies. White's position does not look promising to fight for advantage, Yussupow − Kramnik/Vienna Millenium 1996

63

11.¤e5 This active−looking move only makes Black's defence easier. 11...¤g4! Black has tried various moves here but the text seems to be the safest and most solid one. 12.¥xe7 £xe7 13.¤xg4 ¥xg4 14.¦ae1 ¥h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+rsnk+0 9zpp+-wqpzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+l0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzP-+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here a lot of continuations have been tested. The immediate bishop retreat seems to be one

of the most reliable. White's possible plan is: f2−f4−f5 then Rf4, Qf2, g4, h4 trying to seize the initiative on the queenside. The first problem Black has to solve is: where is the proper place for the Bishop in view of all this? The correct answer is on f7 where it not only covers some important squares on the kingside but also helps to create queenside counterplay with ...c6−c5. 15.f4 f6 16.£f2 (16.f5 ¥f7 17.£f2 ¦ad8= is also good for Black) 16...¥g6!? Black provokes f4−f5 at the cost of a tempo so as to make clarify the structure. 17.f5 (17.¥xg6 ¤xg6 18.f5 was pointless as after 18...¤h8!

Black will transfer his knight to d6 obtaining small advantage) 17...¥f7 18.¢h1 a6 19.¦g1 c5 20.g4 h6 21.h4 ¤h7 22.a3 b5 Both sides are playing very logically. Black has successfully defended on the kingside and now begins actions on the opposite side of the board where he has a pawn majority. Of course White cannot wait otherwise his queenside will be destroyed. 23.e4! cxd4 (23...dxe4? was just bad because of 24.¥xe4 ¦ad8 25.¥c6+−) 24.¤xd5 This position arose in the game Browne − Lukov/Palma de Mallorca 1989. Here 24...£e5 seemed much more reliable: 25.¤f4 ¥c4 26.¥b1 ¦ad8 27.¦g3 a5 28.b3 ¥f7÷ with mutual chances.

11...¤g6

One of the safest and most solid continuations. Instead of this standard approach Black tested a number of moves, the main possibilities

being: 11...a5 11...¤e4 11...g6

12.b4

64

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+p+-snn+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-zP-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9P+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...a6

12...¥d6 was also tried. At first sight the play without the inclusion ...a6 and a4 seems to be in White's favour but Black is not without a counterplay anyway: 13.b5!? (13.¥f5

¥xf5 14.£xf5 can be strongly met by 14...£d7! and White is forced to swap the queens: 15.£xd7 ¤xd7 16.b5 ¤b6 with roughly equal endgame) 13...h6 14.¥xf6 (14.¥xh6? does not work: 14...gxh6 15.¥xg6 fxg6 16.£xg6+ ¢h8 17.£xh6+ ¤h7∓, 14.bxc6 bxc6 15.¥xf6 £xf6

16.e4 can be met by a standard 16...¤f4! 17.e5 £e6! 18.¤e2 ¤xd3 19.£xd3 ¥e7 (the fact the a−pawns are on the board deprives Black of the possibility of activating the Bishop on a6) 20.¦fc1 £f5 21.£c3 ¥d7 22.¤g3 £e6 23.¤e1 ¦eb8 24.¤d3 £g6 25.¦b3 ¦b6

26.¤c5 ¥c8 27.¤f1 h5 28.¦e1 h4 29.h3 ¦ab8 with excellent play) 14...£xf6 15.e4! (now 15.¦fe1 is out of the point: 15...¥g4 16.¤d2 ¤h4 with initiative on the K−side.) 15...¤f4! 16.e5 £e6™

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+pvlq+-zp0 9+P+pzP-+-0 9-+-zP-sn-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9P+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.¤e1 a) 17.exd6?! was in Black's favour: 17...£g4 18.¤h4 (18.¤e1 ¦xe1 19.f3 ¦xf1+ 20.¦xf1

£e6∓) 18...£xh4 19.¦fe1 ¥h3‚ with an attack. b) 17.¤h4?! was also dubious: 17...£g4 18.g3 ¤xd3 19.exd6 ¤f4∓ and the Knight

escapes.

65

c) 17.¤e2!? deserved attention: 17...¤xd3 (17...¤xg2? 18.¤g3!+−, 17...¤xe2+ 18.¥xe2!

¥c7 19.bxc6 bxc6 20.¦fc1 ¥d7 21.¥a6 <−>c6) 18.£xd3 ¥c7 19.bxc6 bxc6 20.¦fc1÷ with unclear play

17...¥f8 18.¤e2 (The preliminary 18.bxc6?! bxc6 gave Black an extra possibility in activating the Bishop: 19.¤e2 ¤xd3 20.¤xd3 ¥a6„) 18...¤xd3 19.¤xd3 cxb5! Otherwise it could be very difficult to solve the problem of the c6 pawn. 20.¤df4! (After the hasty 20.¦xb5 Black could quickly activate his pieces: 20...£a6 21.£b1 (21.¦xd5? ¥e6,

21.£b3 b6! 22.¤ef4 ¥d7 23.¦xd5 ¥a4 24.£c3 ¦ac8) 21...¥f5ƒ taking the initiative.) and here Black should have played 20...£c6!? (20...£g4? 21.¦xb5 b6 22.h3 £g5 23.¦b3!±

Dydyshko − Kveinys/Moscow 1994) 21.£b3 (21.£d3 b4! 22.¦fc1 £d7÷) 21...b4 22.¦fc1 (22.¦bc1 £a6 23.£xd5÷) 22...£a6 23.¦c7 ¥e6 24.¦bc1© with complicated play.

13.a4 ¥d6

Black is threatening to trap the Bishop with ...h7−h6.

14.¦fe1!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-snn+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9PzP-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting attempt. White tries to combine both b4−b5 and e3−e4 ideas. Before only 14.b5 was played: 14...axb5 15.axb5 h6 16.¥xf6 £xf6 and now: 17.¦fe1 a) 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.e4 (18.¦b6 ¥g4 19.¤d2 ¦e6 20.¤a4 ¤h4ƒ with the initiative)

18...¤f4! 19.e5 £e6! (a typical resource) 20.¤e2 ¤xd3 21.£xd3 ¥a6 with excellent play

b) 17.e4 ¤f4! (17...dxe4 is weaker because of 18.¤xe4 £f4 19.¤xd6 £xd6 20.bxc6 bxc6

21.¦fc1² with a small advantage) 18.e5 £e6! 17...¥g4 18.¤d2 ¤h4 with a queenside initiative.

14...¥g4!

14...h6?! 15.¥xf6 £xf6 16.e4 may be unfavourable for Black.

15.¤h4 ¥h5!?

66

After 15...¥d7 16.h3² White has a small advantage.

16.¤xg6 ¥xg6 17.¥h4!

(...Bh2 was threatened)

17...¥e7 18.¥xf6 ¥xf6 19.¥xg6

The immediate 19.b5? was a serious inaccuracy as after 19...¥xd3 20.£xd3 axb5 21.axb5 c5! 22.dxc5? ¦a3 is followed by ...£a5 capturing the Knight.

19...hxg6 20.b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9p+p+-vlp+0 9+P+p+-+-0 9P+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9+R+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has finally advanced his b−pawn and probably stands slightly better. But his

advantage is not so easy to increase as Black can successfully fight against the possible transfer of the knight to c5.

20...¦c8!?

Black wisely refrains from exchanging the pawns so as not to make the a4 square available for the knight. Notice another interesting idea: Black also does not play ... a6−a5, trying to use the a5 square for the queen!

21.bxa6 bxa6 22.¤e2 ¥e7 23.¦ed1 c5²

with a slightly worse but quite defensible position, Knaak − Balashov/Berlin 1988.

67

5 Bf4 System

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-vL-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The system with 5. ¥c1−f4 is rather popular nowadays. It offers many attractive

variations for those who like boring play with a small, often disappearing, advantage but

with no counter chances for the opponents, as well as for the tough fighters, who try to

destroy their rivals from the very beginning even if this involves conceding real

counterplay.

The theory of the system 5. ¥f4 is well developed but there are many different

variations and many strong players are searching for the truth, so surprises are quite

possible either in the well−beaten or in the almost forgotten paths. Read "Chess Publishing"

and be a pioneer− good luck!

68

QGD/12 5.Bf4 − Black delays ...c7−c5

[D37]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-vL-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The system with 5. ¥c1-f4 is rather popular nowadays. It offers many attractive variations

for those who like boring play with a small, often disappearing, advantage but with no counter chances for the opponents, as well as for the tough fighters, who try to destroy their rivals from the very beginning even if this involves conceding real counterplay.

5...0-0 6.e3

69

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-vL-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpnvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-vL-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black delays the programmed advance ...c7−c5 for a while, hoping to gain a tempo is White

develops his light−squared bishop or to see the less useful move. Sometimes Black prefers to postpone a confrontation in the center by playing 6...c6,

avoiding the positions an isolated d−pawn or the complications with opposed−castled kings. However, it is somewhat passive and the future attempts to get active counterplay won't be as easy as Black is hoping for. 7.£c2 ¤bd7 8.h3 a6 9.¦d1 Black keeps in mind a capture on c4 so White is in no hurry to develop the king's bishop, playing as many useful moves as possible first. The rook is good on d1 in case of a possible ...c6−c5 too. 9...h6 (The queenside action 9...b5 would be met by 10.c5 and after 10...b4 11.¤a4 a5 12.¥d3 ¥a6 13.¥xa6 ¦xa6 14.0-0 £c8 15.¤e1 ¥d8 16.¤d3 ¥c7 17.a3 bxa3 18.bxa3 ¦e8 19.¥xc7 £xc7 20.¦b1 e5 21.¦b6! ¦aa8 (21...¤xb6 22.cxb6 ¦xb6 23.¤xb6 £xb6 24.¤xe5 ¦e6 25.¦c1+−) 22.£b2± White achieves a tangible advantage) 10.a3 dxc4 (It wasn't so easy for Black to keep patience in a rather dull situation but such a waiting move as 10...¦e8!? would be playable)

11.¥xc4 ¤d5 (11...b5 12.¥a2 ¥b7 13.e4 ¦e8 14.¥b1± is clearly better for White) 12.0-0! (The routine 12.¥g3 ¤xc3 13.£xc3² could also secure the edge but the text is more energetic.) 12...¤xf4 13.exf4 The downside of damaging the pawn structure would

70

be probably outweighed by some obvious benefits. White has secured control over the center, gained the e−file for the rook − Black can only dream about getting his c8−bishop into play. The f−pawn would be used as a ram at some point and, as we'll see, the d−pawn is not fixed, either. The game Kramnik − Lputian/Debrecen 1992 continued 13...£c7 14.¤e5 ¤f6 (The attempt 14...c5!? deserved attention but White's pieces are too active to allow Black to get activity. A possible line was 15.¥a2!? (15.d5 ¤xe5 16.fxe5 £xe5 17.¦fe1ƒ) 15...¤xe5 (15...cxd4? 16.¥b1 ¤f6 17.¤d5!+−)

16.dxe5 b5 17.¥b1 g6 18.¦d3!‚ with an attack on the kingside) 15.¥a2 ¥d7 16.¥b1± and White has obtained a clear advantage.

Another opportunity to delay ...c7−c5 is 6...b6 but it's not much popular: 7.cxd5 ¤xd5 8.¤xd5 £xd5 (8...exd5 is a less popular alternative. A possible line is 9.¥d3 ¥b4+ 10.¢e2 (10.¤d2!?²) 10...¥d6 11.¥xd6 £xd6 12.¦c1 (12.£c2 ¥a6 13.¦hd1²) 12...c5! (12...¥a6?! 13.¥xa6 ¤xa6 14.£a4 b5 15.£c2±) 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.£a4 ¥a6 15.¦hd1 ¥xd3+ 16.¦xd3² with a typical stable advantage for White thanks to the pressure over the "hanging pawns") 9.¥d3 The game Sakaev − Tregubov, Tch−RUS St.Petersburg 1999 continued by 9...c5!? This programmed advance looks like a blunder as Black loses a pawn at once. However everything is not so clear (The more reliable 9...¥a6

doesn't solve the problems completely. After 10.0-0 c5 11.e4 £b7 12.d5 exd5 13.exd5 ¥xd3

14.£xd3 ¤a6 15.¦ad1² White keeps better chances thanks to the strong passed pawn)

10.£c2 Thanks to the threat Bd3−e4 White wins a pawn h7. 10...¥b7 The only move. 11.¥xh7+ ¢h8 12.¥d3 (12.dxc5!? was also possible: 12...£xc5 (12...g6

13.¥xg6 fxg6 14.£xg6±) 13.£xc5 ¥xc5 14.¥d3± with an extra pawn in the endgame but perhaps White didn't want to sacrifice the bishop.) 12...¤a6 A capture of the pawn h7 cost White two tempi and, as often happens, Black gained the initiative. Now ...Na6−b4 should be prevented. 13.a3 cxd4 14.exd4 £a5+! 15.¢e2 (Unfortunately for White, 15.¥d2 could have been strongly met by 15...¤b4! 16.¥xb4 (16.£b1 ¤xd3+ 17.£xd3 £h5÷) 16...¥xb4+ 17.¢e2 ¦ac8© with excellent compensation for the pawn.) 15...¦ac8 16.£d2 £h5 All Black's pieces are very active. 17.¦hc1 and here 17...¦cd8!? would promise Black satisfactory counterplay. Yet, this approach looks risky and White's play would be definitely improved.

7.a3

7.£c2 is an alternative: 7...c5 (7...a6 seems dubious as after 8.cxd5 exd5 9.¥d3 c6 the transposition to the Carlsbad pawn structure seems to be clearly in White's favour. The move a7−a6 might be a waste of time while the position of the bishop on f4 (instead of g5) has its benefits − such typical manoeuvres as ...Nf6−e4 (after Rf8−e8) or ...Nf8−g6 have no effect as the bishop is already secured from exchange. The game Khalifman − Kamsky/Wch (m/2) Las Vegas 1999 continued by 10.h3 ¦e8 11.g4

¤f8 12.0-0-0 ¥e6 13.¤g5!? and White began direct actions on the kingside) 8.dxc5 ¤xc5 with playable but probably slightly worse position for Black.

7.c5 can be met by 7...¤h5 8.¥e2 (White has really struggled to prove anything after 8.¥d3

¤xf4 9.exf4 b6 10.b4 a5 11.a3 c6 12.0-0 £c7) 8...c6 9.0-0 ¤xf4 10.exf4 Grischuk − Gelfand/Kazan RUS 2011.

7...c5

71

The main option, otherwise Black would begin to lose time, giving White more chances to arrange his pieces in the best possible way.

8.cxd5

8.dxc5 does not promise much: 8...¤xc5 9.cxd5 (9.¥e2 ¤fe4) 9...¤xd5 10.¤xd5 £xd5!? with a good play for Black.

8...¤xd5 9.¤xd5 exd5 10.dxc5 ¤xc5 11.¥e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-snpvL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-+-zPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A typical position with an isolated pawn is reached. 11.¥e2 ¥f6 12.¥e5 ¥xe5 13.¤xe5 ¥e6 Wojtaszek − Berkes/Paks HUN 2011.

11...¥f5!?

Black has also tried some other possibilities: 11...¥g4 12.¥e2 ¥f6 (the other options would help Black to get rid of the isolated pawn but they do not completely equalise: 12...¤e6 13.0-0 ¥f6 14.¥xf6 £xf6 15.£xd5 £xb2 16.¥d3², or 12...¥xf3 13.¥xf3 ¥f6 14.¥xf6

£xf6 15.£xd5 £xb2 16.0-0² with a small advantage for White in both cases) 13.¥xf6 £xf6 14.£d4 ¤e4 (or 14...£xd4 15.¤xd4 ¥xe2 16.¢xe2 ¦fc8 17.¦ac1 ¤e6 18.¤f5 and so on) 15.£xf6 ¤xf6 16.¤d4 ¥xe2 17.¢xe2 ¦fc8 18.¦ac1 a6 19.f3² White has got a typical small and stable advantage. Black should hold such endgame with precise play but White can pressurize comfortably and long − in the game Leitao − Bruzon/Havana 2003 Black has eventually failed to hold on.

11...¥f6 has been played a lot: 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.£d4 (in case of 13.¦c1 an isolated pawn's dream would come true after 13...¤e6 14.¦c2 ¦d8 15.¦d2 d4! 16.¤xd4 ¤xd4 17.¦xd4 ¥e6

18.¥e2 ¦xd4 19.£xd4 £xd4 20.exd4 ¦d8 21.¥f3 b6 22.¢e2 ¦xd4 23.¦c1 ¦c4 24.¦xc4 ¥xc4+

25.¢e3 ¢f8= with a dead draw) 13...£xd4 a) 13...£d6!? seems to be a good alternative: 14.¦d1 ¦d8 15.¥c4 (or 15.¥d3 ¤xd3+

16.¦xd3 ¥f5 17.¦c3 ¥e4 18.0-0 ¥xf3 19.gxf3 £g6+ 20.¢h1 £f5 with excellent play) 15...¥f5 16.0-0 ¥c2! 17.¦c1 dxc4 18.¦xc2 b5 19.£xd6 ¦xd6 20.¤d4 a6 21.¦b1 ¦ad8 and Black is completely OK

72

b) 13...£e7!? is also worthy of consideration: 14.¦d1 ¦d8 15.¥d3 (15.¥e2 ¥f5 was fine for Black) 15...¤xd3+ 16.¦xd3 ¥f5 17.¦c3 ¦ac8 18.0-0 ¦xc3 19.£xc3 ¦c8 20.£b3 ¥e4 21.¤d4 h6 22.f3 ¥g6 23.¦e1 ¦c4 24.£d1 £c5 25.£d2 a5 and White cannot achieve much

14.¤xd4 ¥d7 15.f3² White has achieved a typical small advantage in the endgame thanks to the better pawn structure. Black can defend such positions with isolated pawn but he should play accurately and in the game Zvjagintsev − Lputian/Poikovsky 2003 he has failed to get half a point.

12.¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-snpvLl+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-+-zPN+-0 9-zP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...¥f6!?

A straightforward approach. 12...a5!? is an alternative, which gives acceptable play for Black after 13.0-0 a4 14.¦c1 ¥e4

and so on.

13.¥xf6 £xf6 14.¤d4

This position arose in the game Anand − Kramnik/WCh (m/4) Bonn 2008, which continued

14...¤e6!? 15.¤xf5

This capture does not look very promising but otherwise Black would equalise by capturing on d4.

15...£xf5 16.0-0 ¦fd8

73

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+-+p+q+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-+-zP-+-0 9-zP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and Black has no problems playing this position with isolated pawn as he keeps better

control over the d4−square. However, some accuracy is required as he might still get worse after possible exchange of central pawns, having the knight against White's bishop.

74

QGD/13 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 Nbd7 7.c5 [D37]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 ¤bd7 7 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpnvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-zPp+-+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A common reaction. White prevents ...c7−c5 once and for all, at the same time gaining

space on the Q−side. Other options, such as 7 a3 and 7. Qc2 are considered in the line D37 QGD/10 5. Bf4

7...c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-zPp+-+-0 9-+-zP-vL-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black refrained from thematic ...c7−c5, which usually leads to the positions with isolated

pawn. His pawn structure is solid here but at the same time he does not have space,

75

sufficient for active manoeuvring. Yet, the position is getting rather closed and it is going to be tough to break Black's defence.

8 h3

White often plays this prophylactic move before developing his light−squared bishop to d3. The point is obvious − he wants to save time if Black comes up with a typical Q−side action.

8 ¥d3 is a natural alternative: 8...b6 (Black can eliminate White's bishop by 8...¤h5 it takes time and helps White to fortify his Q−side pawn chain. The game Mchedlishvili − Warakomski/Polanica Zdroj 2008 continued 9 £c2!? ¤xf4 10 exf4 h6 11 0-0 £c7 12 g3 b6

13 b4 a5 14 a3 ¥a6 15 ¦fe1 and White has maintained a small edge but Black's position remained very solid) 9 b4 a5 This typical Q−side action does not break White's pawn structure but it helps to get rid of the light−squared bishop, which is very much desirable for Black because of his lack of space and his pawns arrangement. 10 a3 (10 b5 can be well met by a cool 10...¥b7!

a) 10...bxc5? is bad due to 11 bxc6± b) while 10...cxb5!? is also playable though White might still achieve somewhat

better chances after 11 ¤xb5!? (11 c6 ¥b4! 12 ¦c1 ¤e4 13 ¥xe4 dxe4 14 ¤d2 ¤f6 is unclear) 11...bxc5 12 ¥c7 £e8 13 ¤d6 ¥xd6 14 ¥xd6 c4 15 ¥c2 ¥a6 16 ¤e5²

11 bxc6 ¥xc6 12 cxb6 ¤xb6 13 0-0 ¤fd7 14 £c2 h6 15 ¤b5 ¥xb5 (15...¦c8 16 ¤a7 ¥a4 17

£e2 ¦c3 18 ¤b5 ¥xb5 19 ¥xb5²) 16 ¥xb5 ¤c4! (16...¦c8 17 £b3²) 17 ¥xc4 ¦c8! 18 ¦ab1 ¦xc4, solving the opening problems) 10...¥a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+nvlpzpp0 9lzpp+psn-+0 9zp-zPp+-+-0 9-zP-zP-vL-+0 9zP-sNLzPN+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 0-0 a) An immediate 11 b5 does not promise much: 11...cxb5 12 c6 £c8 13 ¦c1 (or 13

¤xb5 £xc6 14 ¦c1 ¥xb5! 15 ¦xc6 ¥xc6 and Black is okay: 16 £b3 (16 a4 ¥b4+ 17

¢e2 ¤e4∓) 16...b5! 17 0-0 b4 18 axb4 axb4 19 ¦c1 ¦fc8 with excellent play) 13...£xc6 14 ¤e2 (14 ¤e4!? ¤c5 15 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 16 dxc5 bxc5 is also good for Black − a very similar position is considered in the game Milos − Vescovi/Sao Paulo 2006)

14...¤c5 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 a4 b4 17 ¤ed4 £b7 18 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 and Black has achieved the better chances

76

b) an ambitious 11 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 12 b5!? cxb5 13 c6 is rather unclear: 13...£c8! (13...b4? 14 ¤b5 bxa3 15 0-0!±) 14 c7! (14 ¤xb5? £xc6 15 ¤c7 ¦a7 16 ¦c1 £b7 is simply better for Black) 14...b4 (14...¥xa3 is well met by 15 ¤xb5! ¥b4+ 16 ¢e2©) 15 ¤b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+q+-trk+0 9+-zPnvlpzpp0 9rzp-+psn-+0 9zpN+p+-+-0 9-zp-zP-vL-+0 9zP-+-zPN+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¤e4 b1) 15...bxa3 16 0-0 a4 17 £c2 gives White sufficient compensation for the pawn b2) while a typical 15...a4!? with idea ...Ra6−a5 deserved attention: 16 ¦c1 ¤e4 (not

16...b3? 17 ¥d6!) 17 ¤d2 ¤df6! (17...¤c3 18 ¤xc3 bxc3 19 ¦xc3 b5 20 0-0 is simply better for White) 18 ¤xe4 dxe4!? with unclear play but perhaps White would still get the edge by playing 19 ¤d6 ¥xd6 20 ¥xd6 b3!? 21 ¥xf8 ¢xf8 22 £d2 ¤d5 23 0-0 and so on.

16 0-0 bxa3 17 £a4 (Both 17 £c2!?, and 17 ¤d2 ¤xd2 18 £xd2 were also worth considering.) 17...g5!? A good reaction, as otherwise White would get time for the better protection of his main trump − the passer on c7. 18 ¥g3 g4 This position arose in the game Karpov − Kir.Georgiev/Dubai 2002, which continued 19 ¤e1!? An interesting exchange sacrifice. (19 ¤e5 ¤xe5 20 ¥xe5 £d7 was okay for Black) 19...¤d2 20 £d1! ¤xf1 21 £xg4+ ¢h8 22 ¢xf1© White's powerful pawn on c7 gives him sufficient compensation for the exchange but the position is probably roughly balanced.

11...£c8 12 h3 As a rule, White does not touch his queen early, playing some useful moves. a) In case of 12 £c2 ¥xd3 13 £xd3 Black gets an extra tempo but it does not give

him the right to play ambitiously, as he did in the game Nyback −Carlsen/Dresden (ol) 2008: 13...¤h5?! 14 ¥e5 £b7 15 ¦fc1 ¦fc8 16 h3 ¤xe5 17 ¤xe5 b5 (Black did not have time to get his knight back into play by 17...¤f6? because of 18 ¤a4!) 18 ¦cb1 and after a careless 18...£c7?! White came up with a typical break on the Q−side by 19 a4! axb4 20 axb5! bxc3 21 ¤xc6 ¤f6 22 £xc3 with a big advantage

b) White also tried other moves, which somehow improve his position but does not change a course of the game very much: 12 ¦b1 axb4 13 axb4 ¥xd3 14 £xd3 £b7 15 h3 with a typical slight edge

12...£b7 (12...¥xd3 might give White some benefit, which, however, is not so great in such a closed position: 13 £xd3 axb4 (or 13...£b7 14 ¦fc1 (14 g4!? axb4 15 axb4 ¦xa1 16

¦xa1 ¦a8 17 ¦b1 ¦a3 18 £c2 h6 19 ¢g2²) 14...h6 15 £c2 ¦fc8 16 ¦ab1 axb4 17 axb4 ¦a7 18 ¤e1 ¦ca8 19 ¤d3²) 14 axb4 £b7 15 £c2 ¦fc8 16 ¦fb1 ¥d8 17 ¤d2 ¦xa1 18 ¦xa1 ¦a8 19 ¦xa8 £xa8 20 £a2 £xa2 21 ¤xa2² and, thanks to his tangible space advantage on the Q−side White has maintained the pressure. Black has a

77

limited number of squares for manoeuvres but it should still be possible to hold on such position) 13 ¦b1 (an immediate 13 £c2 has been played as well: 13...¥xd3 14 £xd3 ¦a7 (Black also tried the more direct approach: 14...axb4 15 axb4 ¦xa1 16 ¦xa1

¦a8 For example, 17 £b1 ¦a7 18 ¤d2 ¥d8 19 ¦xa7 £xa7 20 £a2² with a slight edge) 15 ¤d2 (A rearrangement of the major pieces by 15 ¦fb1!? ¦fa8 16 £d1 deserves attention, does not giving Black control over the a−file) 15...¦fa8 16 ¦ab1 axb4 17 axb4 ¦a3 (A typical manoeuvre 17...¥d8!? deserved attention: 18 ¤b3 b5 with acceptable play for Black) 18 £c2 White's main task is to secure his Q−side pawn chain without giving counter chances to his opponent, then he would begin to think about possible progress. The game Nakamura − Bruzon/Wijk aan Zee B 2004, continued 18...¥d8 19 ¤b3 and here Black should have preferred something like 19...b5 sealing the Q−side (or exchange a couple of pawns by 19...bxc5 20 bxc5 £a6) ) 13...axb4 14 axb4 ¦fc8 The game Cheparinov − L'Ami, EU−ch Budva 2009 continued 15 ¥xa6 £xa6 (a simple 15...¦xa6 looked more natural) 16 £c2 ¥d8 17 ¦b2 £b7 18 ¤e1 ¥c7 19 ¤d3 and White maintained a small advantage.

8...b6 9 b4 a5 10 a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+nvlpzpp0 9-zpp+psn-+0 9zp-zPp+-+-0 9-zP-zP-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¥a6

A slow approach 10...¥b7 avoids possible sharp variations but it gives White a whole extra tempo compare to the common lines: 11 ¥d3 £c8 (11...axb4?! 12 axb4 ¦xa1 13 £xa1

£a8 is dubious: 14 0-0 £xa1 15 ¦xa1 ¦a8 16 ¦xa8+ ¥xa8 17 ¥a6 with a clear advantage)

12 0-0 (an attempt to prevent Black's thematic action by playing 12 ¦c1 does not work well: 12...axb4 13 axb4 ¥a6 14 b5?! This tempting push brings White an extra piece. However, it will turn out soon that Black gets more than sufficient compensation for it. 14...cxb5 15 c6 £xc6 16 ¤e4 (Other retreats: 16 ¤e2 ¤c5 17 dxc5

bxc5, 16 ¤xb5 ¥b4+ 17 ¢f1 ¤c5 18 ¤e5 £b7 19 dxc5 bxc5ƒ, or 16 ¤a2 ¤c5 17 dxc5 bxc5 18

¤b4 £b6 19 ¤xa6 ¦xa6 20 0-0 c4 were favourable for Black) 16...¤c5 17 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 18 dxc5 bxc5 and Black's three connected pawns overwhelmed White's extra piece in the game Milos − Vescovi/Sao Paulo 2006) 12...¥a6 13 ¦b1!? ¥xd3 14 £xd3² and White keeps a small advantage.

78

10...¤e4!? is a rare but very interesting idea where Black begins action in the center, trying to gain benefit from the fact that White is still to complete his K−side development: 11 ¤xe4 (11 £c1 doesn't bother Black very much: 11...axb4 12 axb4 ¦xa1 13 £xa1 bxc5 14

bxc5 ¥f6 with the idea ...¤d7xc5. Yet White had sufficient compensation after 15 ¥e2

¤dxc5 16 0-0 ¥d7 17 ¤e5 ¤xc3 18 £xc3 ¤e4 19 £b4©) 11...dxe4 12 ¤e5 (12 ¤d2 is well met by 12...bxc5 (12...e5!?) 13 dxc5 (13 bxc5?! e5! 14 dxe5 ¤xc5ƒ) 13...¤f6 (or 13...e5!? 14

¥g3 f5„) 14 ¥c4 ¤d5 15 ¤xe4 ¤xf4 16 exf4 £c7 with a good play for Black) 12...¥b7 (12...¤xe5!? deserves serious attention: 13 ¥xe5 f6! (13...axb4 14 axb4 ¦xa1

15 £xa1 f6 16 ¥g3 £d5 17 ¥e2 bxc5 18 bxc5 e5 19 dxe5 f5 20 0-0 is better for White) 14 ¥g3 £d5! 15 ¥e2 ¥a6 16 0-0 axb4 17 axb4 ¥xe2 18 £xe2 b5 and Black has almost equalised) 13 ¤c4 axb4 14 axb4 ¦xa1 15 £xa1 £a8 16 £b2 (16 £b1 bxc5 17 bxc5 ¥a6

is fine for Black) 16...bxc5 17 bxc5 e5 (A preliminary 17...¥a6!? deserves attention as well. For example: 18 ¥e2 e5 19 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 20 ¥xe5 ¥xe2 21 £xe2 £a1+ 22 £d1 £c3+ 23

£d2 £a1+= with repetition of moves) 18 ¤xe5 (18 ¥xe5 is hardly better: 18...¤xe5 19

¤xe5 £a5+ 20 ¢d1 ¥a6 21 ¥xa6 £xa6 22 ¦e1 ¥f6 and White had to be careful with his vulnerable king) 18...¤xe5 19 ¥xe5 £a5+ 20 £d2 White still failed to complete development of his K−side so he should be satisfied Black has no more than repetition of moves. 20...£a1+ 21 £d1 £c3+ 22 £d2 £a1+ draw agreed, Cyborowski − Berkes/Trier 2008.

11 ¥xa6 ¦xa6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wq-trk+0 9+-+nvlpzpp0 9rzpp+psn-+0 9zp-zPp+-+-0 9-zP-zP-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 b5

A straightforward approach. After 12 0-0 £c8 13 £c2 £b7 14 ¦ab1 White keeps a small advantage but Black's position

is quite solid and playable: 14...axb4 15 axb4 ¦a7 (Black also tried other options, such as 15...¦fa8 16 ¦fc1 (16 ¤e1 b5 17 ¤d3 ¥d8 18 f3 ¥c7 19 g4²) 16...b5 17 ¤d2 ¥d8 18 ¤b3 h6 (or 18...¥c7 19 ¥xc7 £xc7 20 f4 h6 21 ¦f1 ¦8a7 22 ¤a5²) 19 ¦a1 ¦xa1 20 ¦xa1 ¦xa1+ 21 ¤xa1 ¥c7 22 ¤b3² with a typical small advantage for White) 16 ¤d2 ¦fa8 In some games, in which White was less precise in the opening, this position has been reached with two extra moves for Black, ...b7−b5 and ...¦a7−a3. However,

79

in such closed positions time is less important. 17 ¦fc1 (If, for some strange reason, White played 17 £d3 then the position from the game Nakamura − Bruzon/Wijk aan Zee B 2004 would have been reached) 17...h6 (An immediate 17...b5 is playable: 18

£b2 ¥d8 19 ¦a1 ¦xa1 20 ¦xa1 ¦xa1+ 21 £xa1 with a small edge) 18 ¤b3 b5 In many games in such position White maintained a slight edge by swapping the rooks along the a−file. The more ambitious approach 19 f3 might eventually give Black counter chances, as happened in the game Khismatullin − Zvjaginsev/RUS−ch Krasnoyarsk 2007: 19...¤f8 20 e4 ¤e8 21 ¦e1 (It deserved attention to swap a pair of rooks by 21

¦a1!?, preventing Black's possible invasion through the a−file once and for all) 21...£d7 22 ¥h2 ¤g6 23 e5 ¥d8 24 g4 ¥c7 25 ¦e2 f5 and so on.

12...cxb5 13 c6! £c8! 14 c7!

The point of White's play − he gets a very strong passer on c7. However, Black has got an extra pawn and counter chances on the Q−side.

14 ¤xb5 does not promise much: 14...£xc6 15 ¤c7 ¦a7 16 ¦c1 £b7 17 ¤b5 ¦aa8 18 ¦c7 £a6 19 a4 ¥b4+!? 20 ¢f1 ¦fd8! followed by ...Nf6−e8.

14...b4 15 ¤b5 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+q+-trk+0 9+-zPnvlpzpp0 9rzp-+psn-+0 9+N+p+-+-0 9pzp-zP-vL-+0 9zP-+-zPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A typical push with the idea to not only get a strong passer after ...b4−b3 but also to disturb

his opponent's knight by ...¦a6−a5. 15...bxa3 does not bother White very much: 16 0-0 a4 a) other options do not solve the problems: 16...¦a8 17 £c2 ¤e4 (17...£a6 18 £c6±)

18 £c6 h6 19 ¦fc1 ¥b4 20 ¦c2± b) or 16...¤e4 17 £c2± 17 £c2 ¤e4 (17...¦a5 18 ¥d6!) 18 ¦fc1 and White secures his main trump: 18...h6 19 ¥h2 g6

20 ¤e1 ¦a8 21 f3 £a6 22 ¦ab1 ¤ef6 23 ¥d6! ¥xd6 24 ¤xd6 ¦fc8 25 £c6+−

16 ¦c1

White gives more support to his powerful c7−pawn.

80

An alternative 16 axb4 deserves attention as well: 16...¥xb4+ 17 ¢e2 ¦a5 18 £d3 (not 18

¦xa4? ¦xb5 19 £d3 failed to 19...¤e4! 20 ¦c1 ¦c5! 21 dxc5 ¤dxc5 and Black gets material advantage: 22 £b5 ¤xa4 23 £xa4 ¤c3+ 24 ¦xc3 ¥xc3 Yet, White keeps compensation for the exchange after 25 ¥d6 ¦e8 but it's hard to believe it might promise any winning chances) 18...¤e4!? (18...£a6 can be well met by the strong 19 ¥d6! (19

¦hb1 is less promising as 19...£xb5 20 £xb5 ¦xb5 21 ¦xa4 ¦c8 22 ¦bxb4 ¦xb4 23 ¦xb4 ¤e8

24 ¦b2 ¢f8 25 ¦c2 ¢e7 and Black solves the problems) 19...¥xd6 (19...¦c8?! is very risky for Black: 20 ¥xb4 ¦xb5 (or 20...£xb5 21 £xb5 ¦xb5 22 ¦xa4, locking up the rook on b5) 21 ¦a2! (21 ¦hc1?! ¤e8) 21...¦xc7 22 ¦ha1 ¦c4 23 ¦xa4 £c8 24 ¦a8 and Black has to give up his queen by 24...¦bxb4 25 ¦xc8+ ¦xc8±) 20 ¤xd6 £xd3+ 21 ¢xd3 ¤e4 22 c8£ ¦xc8 23 ¤xc8 ¤xf2+ 24 ¢c3 ¤xh1 25 ¦xh1 and White has won a piece and achieved good winning chances, Akobian − A.Onischuk/Merida 2008) 19 ¦hc1 £a6

a) 19...£b7?! would be met with 20 ¤g5! (20 ¦ab1 ¥e7 is okay for Black) 20...¤xg5 (20...¦c8?! 21 ¤xe4 dxe4 22 £c4±) 21 ¥d6!! and Black faces problems: 21...¥c5 (or 21...¤c5 22 dxc5 ¦c8 23 ¥f4±) 22 ¥xf8 ¢xf8 23 f3! f5 24 dxc5 ¤xc5 (24...bxc5 25

¦cb1+−) 25 £b1 £a6 26 £b4 ¦xb5 27 c8£+! £xc8 28 £xb5+− b) perhaps a restrained 19...¥e7!? is more precise but it requires more analysis 20 ¤d6 (20 ¦ab1 ¥e7) 20...£xd3+ 21 ¢xd3 ¥xd6 22 c8£ ¦xc8 23 ¦xc8+ ¥f8 This ending

has been considered acceptable for Black thanks to his Q−side passers but White might still hope for advantage: 24 ¥c7! ¦a6 (24...¤xf2+?! 25 ¢e2 ¤e4 26 ¦d8 ¤df6 27

¥xb6 ¦b5 28 ¥c5) 25 ¦d8 ¤df6 26 ¦a2 b5 27 ¤e5 and 27...b4? fails to a shocking 28 ¥a5!! ¦xa5 (28...b3 29 ¥b4+−) 29 ¤c6+−

16...¤e4

Neither 16...b3 17 ¥d6! or 16...¦a5 17 ¥d6! can solve Black's problems.

17 ¤d2!

White did not have time for 17 0-0? due to 17...¦a5!

17...¤df6

17...¤c3 does not seem equalising: 18 ¤xc3 bxc3 19 ¦xc3 with better chances for White. For example, 19...b5 20 0-0 £b7 21 £c2² with advantage.

In case of 17...e5 White secures his advantage 18 ¤xe4! dxe4 19 ¥xe5 ¤xe5 20 dxe5 ¥c5 21 £d5!? bxa3 22 £c6 and so on.

18 f3

81

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+q+-trk+0 9+-zP-vlpzpp0 9rzp-+psn-+0 9+N+p+-+-0 9pzp-zPnvL-+0 9zP-+-zPP+P0 9-+-sN-+P+0 9+-tRQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...¤xd2!?

This simple capture deserved serious attention. 18...¦a5?! was known to be acceptable for Black but it is far from truth: 19 ¤xe4! (19

fxe4?! is weaker: 19...¦xb5 20 ¥g5 (20 £xa4?! ¦a5 21 £c6 bxa3) 20...b3 21 e5 ¥xa3! 22 ¥xf6! (22 exf6? ¥xc1 23 £xc1 b2-+, 22 ¦a1? ¤e4 23 ¤xe4 ¥b4+ 24 ¤d2 £xc7-+)

22...gxf6 23 exf6 ¢h8 24 ¦c6 ¦g8 and White has to look for equality: 25 ¤f3 b2! 26 ¤e5 ¦xg2 (26...b1£?? 27 ¤xf7#) 27 £b1 ¦b3 28 ¢f1! ¦g6! 29 ¢e2 ¦xf6 30 ¦f1 ¦xf1 31 £xf1 b1£ 32 £f6+ ¢g8 33 £g5+!? (33 £xf7+ ¢h8 34 £f6+=) 33...¢f8 34 ¤d7+ ¢e8 35 ¤f6+ ¢f8 36 ¤d7+= with perpetual check) 19...¤xe4 20 fxe4 ¦xb5 21 £xa4 ¦a5 22 £c6 bxa3 23 exd5 ¦xd5 24 £xb6 £d7 25 0-0 ¦c8 Both sides have got strong passed pawns but White's passer is stronger because White's pieces are much more active! The game Tomashevsky − Riazantsev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2008 continued 26 ¦c6! h6 (Perhaps 26...¥b4!? was more stubborn: 27 £b7 g5 28 ¦b6!? ¦a5 (28...¢g7 29 £xc8! £xc8 30 ¦b8 £a6 31 ¦xb4! a2 (31...gxf4 32 ¦b8+−) 32 ¦a1 ¦d7 33 ¦b8 ¦xc7 34 ¥xc7 £a3 35 ¥e5+ f6 36 ¥g3 £xe3+ 37 ¥f2 £c3 38 ¦xa2 £c1+ 39 ¢h2 £f4+ 40 ¥g3 £xd4 41 ¦b7+ ¢g6 42 ¦a6+−) 29 ¥xg5! ¦xc7 30 £b8+ ¥f8 31 ¥d8! ¦aa7 with chances to survive as the position remained quite complicated) 27 ¦fc1 ¢h7 28 £a6! ¦f5 29 ¥d6! ¥h4 30 £xa3 and White has got a decisive advantage.

19 £xd2 £d7

82

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-zPqvlpzpp0 9rzp-+psn-+0 9+N+p+-+-0 9pzp-zP-vL-+0 9zP-+-zPP+P0 9-+-wQ-+P+0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

20 ¤d6

Or 20 ¥d6 ¦c8 21 £xb4 ¥xd6 22 ¤xd6 ¦xc7 23 ¦xc7 £xc7 24 ¢d2 ¦a8 25 ¦c1 £d8

20...¥xd6 21 ¥xd6 ¦c8 22 £xb4 ¤e8 23 ¥g3 ¤xc7 24 0-0 ¤e8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+n+k+0 9+-+q+pzpp0 9rzp-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9pwQ-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-zPPvLP0 9-+-+-+P+0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black keeps good chances to neutralise White's pressure.

83

QGD/14 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 − various White

systems [D37]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥f4 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-vL-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.e3

6.¦c1 is a very rare option but perhaps it's a bit underestimated. 6...c5!? (6...dxc4 may lead to problems: 7.e4 The point of delaying e2−e3. 7...c5 (Both 7...b5 8.¤xb5 ¥b4+ 9.¤c3

¤xe4 10.¥xc4, and 7...¥b4 8.e5 ¤d5 9.¥g5 followed by ¥f1xc4 give White the better chances) 8.¥xc4 cxd4 9.¤xd4 White's advantage in development certainly promises him the better chances, Jakovenko − Ghaem Maghami, Khanty−Mansyjsk (ol) 2010) 7.dxc5 ¥xc5 8.cxd5 (White can also play 8.e3 ¤c6 and here 9.a3 transposes to the line, which is considered below) 8...exd5 9.e3 ¤c6 10.¥e2 (not 10.a3 d4!, or 10.¥d3?!

d4!, which gives Black the better chances) 10...d4!? (10...¥e6 11.0-0 promises small advantage for White, according to the tournament practice) 11.exd4 ¥xd4 12.0-0 ¥xc3! (in case of 12...¥f5 White would maintain small advantage by 13.¤a4!?)

13.¦xc3 ¥e6 Black has obtained a good play but perhaps White can still hope for a slight edge.

6...c5 7.dxc5 ¥xc5 8.a3 ¤c6 9.¦c1

84

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation is less popular than the common 9. £c2. Here Black has a wide choice.

9...a6

There are many possibilities. Some examples: 9...dxc4 10.¥xc4 £xd1+ 11.¦xd1 a6 12.¥d3 ¦d8 13.¤a4!? ¥a7 14.¥c7 ¦d7 15.¥b6 ¤d5 16.¥xa7 ¦xa7 17.¥c4 b5 18.¥xd5 ¦xd5 19.¦xd5 exd5 20.¤c3 ¥e6 21.¤d4! ¤xd4 22.exd4² with stable advantage

9...¥e7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.¥e2 ¥e6 12.¤d4 ¦c8 13.0-0 a6 14.¤xc6 ¦xc6 15.¥e5², and Black has not equalised

9...d4 10.exd4 (10.¤xd4 can be met by an interesting 10...e5! 11.¤b3 ¥xa3 12.bxa3 exf4 13.£xd8

¦xd8 14.exf4 ¥e6© with a compensation) 10...¤xd4 11.¤e5 a) 11.¥e2 is an alternative: 11...£e7 (11...¤xe2 12.£xe2²) 12.b4 ¦d8 13.¥d2 ¤xf3+

(13...¤xe2 14.£xe2²) 14.¥xf3 ¥d4 15.0-0 e5 16.£c2 ¥e6 17.c5² with small advantage b) 11.b4 forces the issue in the center, 11...¤xf3+ 12.£xf3 ¥d4 13.¤b5 see

Grischuk − Gelfand/Kazan RUS 2011. 11...b6 12.¥d3 ¥b7 13.0-0 h6 14.b4!? ¥e7 15.¤b5!² and Black still faces problems.

10.b4

The alternative 10.cxd5 seems less promising as after 10...exd5 it's almost impossible for White to prevent the simplifying ...d5−d4. 11.¥d3

a) 11.¥g5?! was proved to be dubious in the game which continued 11...d4! 12.¤b5?! (according to Nigel Short, White already faced problems: 12.¤e4 £a5+

13.b4 ¤xb4 14.axb4 ¥xb4+ 15.¤ed2 ¤e4 16.¥f4 dxe3 17.¥xe3 ¦d8‚, 12.¥xf6 gxf6 13.¤e4

¥b6ƒ, 12.exd4 ¤xd4 13.¤xd4 £xd4! 14.£xd4 ¥xd4 15.¥e2 ¦e8³) 12...dxe3! 13.£xd8 (13.¦xc5 exf2+ 14.¢e2 £e7+-+) 13...exf2+ 14.¢e2 ¦xd8∓ and White is in trouble

b) 11.¥e2 is harmless for Black: 11...d4 12.exd4 (12.¤b5 axb5 13.¦xc5 dxe3 14.¥xe3

b4=) 12...¤xd4 13.¤xd4 ¥xd4 14.0-0 ¥e6 15.£d2 £b6 16.¤a4 £a7 17.¦cd1 ¦ad8÷ with unclear play

c) 11.b4 ¥a7 12.¥e2 d4 looks equal as well: 13.exd4 ¤xd4 14.¤xd4 £xd4 15.¥e3 £xd1+ 16.¤xd1 ¥d7 17.¥f3 a5 18.¥xb7 ¥xe3 19.¤xe3 ¦ab8 20.¥f3=

11...¥a7 (11...¥g4 is also not so bad) 12.0-0 d4 13.exd4 ¤xd4 14.¤xd4 £xd4 15.¥e3 £h4 16.¥xa7 ¦xa7 17.£a4 £xa4 18.¤xa4 The ending is drawish but Black should play

85

precisely. 18...¥e6! (18...b5 19.¤c5²) 19.¥e2 ¦e8 20.¦fe1 ¢f8 21.h3 b5 22.¤c5 ¥d5 with equality.

10...¥d6

Black has also tried the other bishop's retreat to e7 and a7, but it seems that White keeps the advantage in all lines: 10...¥e7 11.c5 ¤h5 12.¤a4 (12.¥d3 ¤xf4 13.exf4²) 12...¤xf4 13.exf4 £c7 14.¤b6 ¦b8 15.£d2 ¥d7 16.¥d3 ¥f6 17.0-0 ¤e7 18.¦fe1²

10...¥a7 11.c5 h6 12.¥e2 ¥b8 13.0-0 e5 14.¥g3²

11.¥g5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9p+nvlpsn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-zPP+-+-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting idea to pressurise Black's position in the center. 11.¥xd6 seems less promising: 11...£xd6 12.¥e2 (or 12.cxd5 exd5 13.¥e2 ¥g4 14.0-0 ¦fd8)

12...¦d8 13.cxd5 exd5 14.0-0 ¥g4 with good play for Black.

11...a5!?

In reply Black begins concrete actions against White's Q−side − a rather unusual and risky approach.

11...¥e7 does not promise a full equality: 12.c5!? h6 13.¥h4 ¤d7 14.¥g3 b6 15.cxb6 ¤xb6 16.¥e2 ¥b7 17.0-0²

12.b5 ¤e5 13.¤xe5

13.c5 is an interesting idea. However, it does not promise real chances to get advantage: 13...¤xf3+ 14.gxf3! (in case of 14.£xf3?! White's idea did not work well: 14...¥xc5

15.¤xd5 exd5 16.¦xc5 £d6ƒ with a strong initiative) 14...¥xc5 15.¤xd5 £xd5 16.£xd5 ¤xd5 17.¦xc5 This position arose in the game Najer − Kaidanov/Moscow 2003. White has got a pair of bishops in the endgame but a lack of development and the poor position of the bishop on g5 do not give him real chances to obtain an advantage. The game continued 17...f6 18.¥h4 ¥d7 19.e4 ¤b6 20.¥g3 e5 21.f4 ¦ac8! with a good play for Black.

86

13...¥xe5 14.c5 a4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+PzPpvl-vL-0 9p+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-zP-+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Preventing the annoying Nc3−a4.

15.f4 ¥xc3+ 16.¦xc3

Black's position looks bad but a beautiful and fairly unexpected idea of Vishy Anand gives him reasonable counter chances.

16...e5!!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+PzPpzp-vL-0 9p+-+-zP-+0 9zP-tR-zP-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A brilliant resource − if White was able to put his queen on d4 then the whole Black's set−

up was just wrong.

17.¥xf6

The point of Black's trick is that 17.fxe5? fails due to the unexpected 17...£a5!

17...£xf6 18.fxe5 £h4+

87

Before taking the pawn e5 Black can force some weakening of the White's K−side.

19.g3 £e4 20.¦g1 ¥g4!?

20...£xe5 is also playable: 21.£d4 £h5 22.h4 ¥g4 23.¥d3 ¥f3! 24.¢f2 ¥e4 25.¥xe4 dxe4 26.£xe4 ¦ad8© with good compensation for the pawn thanks to the vulnerable position of the White king.

21.¥g2 £xe5ƒ

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+PzPpwq-+-0 9p+-+-+l+0 9zP-tR-zP-zP-0 9-+-+-+LzP0 9+-+QmK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It looks like White should be very careful in this complicated position. Black keeps the

initiative, P.H.Nielsen − Kaidanov/Bled (ol) 2002.

88

QGD/15 5. Bf4 0-0 6. e3 c5 − the line Qd1-

c2 and 0-0-0 [D37]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2 ¤c6 9 a3 £a5 10 0-0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

At first sight it appears that White takes too much risk castling queenside − however, he

supposes that the activity of his pieces won't give Black the time to think about attacking.

10...¥e7

89

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This bishop's retreat is recently the most popular continuation. Black has also tried a lot of possibilities. The position after 10...¥d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+l+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 g4 (Both 11 ¢b1, and 11 ¤d2 were also tested) 11...¦fc8 12 ¢b1 is rather important. Here

Black has a surprising option. 12...b5!? (12...¥f8 is the alternative, after which the knight's attack 13 ¤g5!? looks interesting. (13 g5 is a promising alternative: 13...¤h5 14 ¥g3 ¤e7 15 ¥e2!? (15 ¤e5 ¥e8 16 ¥e2 f6!„) 15...¥e8 16 ¥d6!? g6 17 ¤e5 £d8 18 ¥xe7 £xe7 19 cxd5 exd5 20 f4!± with certain advantage) The game Vera − G.Garcia/Matanzas 1992 continued by 13...g6 14 h4 ¥g7 15 h5ƒ White has achieved better chances, but Black is also not without counterplay) 13 cxb5!?

a) 13 cxd5?! is strongly met by 13...b4! 14 dxc6 (14 ¤a4? bxa3!? 15 ¤xc5 a2+ 16 ¢a1

¤b4-+) 14...¥xc6 15 axb4 ¥xb4‚ followed by ...Bc3 and ...Be4 with a decisive attack

b) 13 b4? is hardly possible: 13...¤xb4 14 axb4 ¥xb4 15 ¥e5 ¤xg4 16 ¥d4 bxc4 followed by ...Rab8 and so on.

c) 13 ¤xb5 ¤e7!?÷ is unclear d) 13 g5 ¤h5 14 cxb5 ¤xf4 15 exf4 (15 bxc6 ¥xc6 16 exf4 d4 17 ¤e4 ¥xa3) 15...¤e7 16

¤e5 ¥e8„ also looks very good for Black 13...¤e7 14 ¤d2 Bringing up the reserves. (There are some other possibilities. After 14 ¥e5

¤xg4 15 ¥xg7 ¤xe3!? 16 fxe3 ¢xg7÷ Black's chances are at least not worse, 14 £d2 ¥xa3

15 ¤xd5 £a4 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6÷ also looks quite good for Black, Finally, 14 £a4!? deserves

90

serious attention. A possible play is 14...£d8 15 ¤e5 ¥e8 16 £a6!? ¦cb8 17 ¤c4!? ¤xg4

18 ¦g1 ¤xf2 19 ¦d2± with clearly better chances for White) 14...£d8 (14...¥xa3? doesn't work due to 15 ¤b3 £b4? 16 ¦d4+−) 15 ¥e2 and Black still has to do a good work to prove compensation for the pawn. (15 ¤b3?! was proved to be weaker in the game Gelfand − Beliavsky/Linares 1991)

In case of 10...¦d8 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can probably prove better chances by 11 ¤d2!? dxc4 12 ¤xc4 (12 ¥xc4!? is also

worthy of consideration. Then possible is 12...¥e7 13 ¤b3 ¦xd1+ 14 ¦xd1 £h5 15 f3 ¤a5

16 g4 ¤xb3+ 17 £xb3 £c5 18 ¢b1 h6 19 e4 £c6 20 ¢a2² with small advantage)

12...¦xd1+ 13 £xd1 £d8 14 £xd8+ ¤xd8 15 ¥e2² with advantage in the ending, Gelfand − Kir.Georgiev/Novi Sad (ol) 1990

In the original game of the plan 10. 0-0-0 Black decided to capture on c4 before the knight comes to d2: 10...dxc4 A quick disaster gave little credit to this move but later Black found some improvements to prove it to be playable. 11 ¥xc4 ¥e7 (11...a6 gives White an interesting possibility to launch an attack by 12 ¤g5!? ¥e7 (12...b5? 13

¤ce4+−) 13 ¥d3! g6 (13...h6!?) 14 h4 ¤e5 15 h5 ¤xd3+ 16 ¦xd3 e5 17 ¤xh7!? exf4 18 ¤xf8 ¥xf8 19 hxg6 fxg6 20 ¦d5!‚ and Black can hardly survive here) 12 g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+L+-vLP+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Starting direct action on the kingside. 12...e5 The most principled continuation.

91

a) There are some alternatives: 12...¤xg4?! looks risky: 13 ¦hg1 £h5 14 h3 ¤f6 15 ¥e2ƒ gives White a strong initiative, for example: 15...¦d8 16 ¤e5 £h4 17 ¥g5! £xf2 18 ¤f3! ¤d5 19 ¥h6 g6 20 ¤e4 £xg1 21 ¦xg1+− with decisive advantage

b) 12...a6 is playable: 13 g5 ¤h5 (13...¤d7? is too passive: 14 ¤e4 ¤c5 15 ¤f6+!ƒ with a strong initiative on the K−side) 14 ¥d3 (14 ¥d6!? is maybe more promising: 14...¥xd6 15 ¦xd6 ¤e5 16 ¥e2 ¤xf3 17 ¥xf3 £xg5 and here 18 ¦hd1!?© deserves serious attention with a fairly promising compensation for the pawn) 14...g6 15 ¥e4 This position arose in the game Khalifman − Onischuk/RUS−chT Togliatti 2003, which continued 15...e5! 16 ¥xe5 ¤xe5 17 ¦d5 £c7 18 ¦xe5 ¥e6 19 ¦d1 ¥d6 20 ¦xe6 fxe6 21 £b3 ¤g7 22 £xb7² with better chances for White but Black's position should be defendable.

c) 12...b5?! seems to be an impatient reaction. After 13 ¥xb5 ¥b7 14 ¤d2!± Black suddenly faces serious problems with his queen, M.Gurevich − A.Sokolov/USSR (ch) 1988

d) 12...¦d8!? is a solid continuation which seems to be a sufficient antidote to the g−pawn advance. Here 13 e4 looks too risky: (13 g5 gives nothing due to 13...¤d5 (13...¤h5!? is also not bad) ) 13...¤xg4 A principled reply. 14 ¦hg1 ¦xd1+ 15 £xd1 (15 ¤xd1 ¤ge5∓ looks comfortable for Black) 15...¤xf2 (15...¤ge5 16 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 17 £d4

¤g6 18 ¤b5© would promise some compensation for the pawn.) 16 £f1™ The only move to prevent ...Nh3. 16...¥xa3 17 ¥d2 (Of course, not 17 £xf2? £xc3+-+) 17...¥c5 18 ¢b1 Black already gained three extra pawns but he still has to be very careful as White has many pieces in action. Besides, the knight f2 is in danger. Yet, Black's chances should be preferred, Shabalov − Kharitonov/USSR 1989

13 g5 exf4 14 gxf6 ¥xf6 15 ¤d5 (15 ¦d5!? looks interesting but it seems that its real effect is less than expected: 15...£c7 16 ¦h5 (16 ¤e4 is met by 16...£e7! (16...¤e7? is bad due to 17 ¤xf6+ gxf6 18 ¦g1+ ¤g6 (18...¢h8?? 19 £xh7+!!) 19 ¦c5!+−) 17 h4 g6! 18 h5 ¥f5 19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 and Black is okay) 16...g6 17 ¤d5 £d8 18 ¦g1 ¥e6 19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 20 ¥xe6 and here Black has a strong counter resource: 20...£xe6! (after 20...fxe6 21 ¤g5ƒ White gets some initiative) 21 ¤g5 £a2! and it seems that White is already in trouble: 22 ¤xh7 ¤e5!-+ and White loses material in all lines) 15...¤e7! A very important defensive manoeuvre− otherwise White's attack is really strong. (For example: 15...¥d8 16 ¦hg1 fxe3 17 fxe3 g6 18 h4‚ followed by h4−h5 and so on.) 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-snp+p0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+L+-zp-+0 9zP-+-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

92

This position was tested many times and White failed to prove that he can provide serious problems for Black. 17 ¦hg1+ (the alternative 17 ¤d4 does not bother Black very much: 17...fxe3 18 fxe3 £e5 19 ¢b1 ¥f5 (19...¢h8!?) 20 ¤xf5 ¤xf5 with good play, Huebner − Van der Sterren/Germany 1994) 17...¢h8 18 e4 (both 18 £e4 ¤g6 19 £d4

£b6 20 £xb6 axb6 21 ¦d6 ¥h3!?, and 18 ¤d4 fxe3 19 fxe3 ¥f5 20 ¤xf5 £xf5 21 ¥d3 £e5 22

¢b1 f5÷ are acceptable for Black) 18...b5 19 ¥d5 ¤xd5 20 exd5 The game Anand (+C) − Kramnik (+C)/Advanced Chess Match, Leon 2002 continued by 20...b4 21 axb4 £a1+! 22 ¢d2 £a6 23 £c6 ¦d8 24 ¢c3 ¥b7 25 £xa6 ¥xa6 26 ¦d4 ¦ac8+ 27 ¢d2 ¥b7 28 ¦c1 ¦xc1 29 ¢xc1 ¢g7 and this ending was once again proved to be drawn.

11 ¢b1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Loek van Wely's favourite move. As we already saw many times this prophylactic king's

retreat is always useful so it is reasonable to play it before the active moves. In case of 11 g4 dxc4 (the immediate 11...¦d8!? was also tested) 12 ¥xc4 we transpose to the

already considered position − see the line 10 ...dc4 11. ¥c4 ¥e7 12. g4 etc. 11 h4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-zP0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPP+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is an interesting and rather unexpected idea of Garry Kasparov− instead of the g−pawn

advance, White moves his neighbour on the h−file. At first sight, it does not create

93

immediate threats (such as g4−g5) and requires further spending of time to achieve the desired effect. On the other hand, it does not allow Black to respond with immediate counter−actions in the center, utilising the advanced position of the g−pawn. In the game Kasparov − Vaganian/Novgorod 1995 Black was smashed quickly in very impressive style, but thorough analysis and further practice helped him to find some good ways to achieve acceptable play. 11...a6

a) 11...dxc4 12 ¥xc4 b6 was played in the just mentioned game. After 13 ¤g5 (White shouldn't win the queen by 13 ¥b5 ¥b7 14 ¤d2 as after 14...a6 15 ¤c4 axb5 16

¤xa5 ¤xa5© as Black has achieved good compensation, for example: 17 ¥d6 ¥xd6 18

¦xd6 b4 19 axb4 ¤c4 20 ¦dd1 ¦a1+ 21 ¤b1 ¦c8© and so on.) 13...¥a6 14 ¤ce4 g6 (The preliminary 14...¤xe4 seems to be in White's favour: 15 £xe4 g6 16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 h5±

and White is quicker) 15 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 16 ¤e4 (Here White cannot capture the piece for free− the position after 16 ¥xa6 £xa6 17 £xc6 ¦ac8 18 ¥c7 ¦xc7 19 £xc7 ¦c8 20

£xc8+ £xc8+ 21 ¢b1÷ is good for Black) 16...¥e7 17 ¥xa6 £xa6 18 ¢b1² White has obtained better chances

b) 11...¦d8!? looks solid. Possible play is 12 ¤d2 A typical manoeuvre − White is trying to bother Black's queen. (12 g4 ¥d7 (12...dxc4!? deserves attention: 13 ¥xc4 ¥d7

14 g5 ¤h5 15 ¥d6 ¦ac8 16 ¥e2 ¥e8 17 ¥xe7 ¦xd1+ 18 ¦xd1 ¤xe7÷ with good play for Black) 13 ¢b1 dxc4 (13...¥e8 14 g5 ¤e4 15 ¤xe4 dxe4 16 ¤d2 £b6 17 ¢a1 ¤a5 18 ¥e2

¦xd2™ 19 ¦xd2 ¤b3+ 20 ¢a2 ¤xd2 21 £xd2 a5 22 ¥e5² is slightly better for White) 14 ¥xc4 ¦ac8 15 g5 ¤h5 16 ¥d6 ¥e8!? (16...g6 looks also playable) 17 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 18 ¦xd8 ¦xd8 19 ¦d1 ¦c8 20 ¥b3² White has a small advantage but Black can be also satisfied with the position) 12...dxc4 13 ¤xc4 (13 ¥xc4 can be well met by 13...¤e5!?)

13...¦xd1+ 14 £xd1 £d8 15 £xd8+ (Otherwise Black could hardly face problems, for example, 15 £c2 ¤d5 with good play) 15...¤xd8!? 16 ¥e2² White keeps a small advantage in the endgame thanks to his more active pieces but Black still has good defensive resources, Topalov − Kramnik/Wijk aan Zee 2007.

12 ¤g5 According to tournament practice and thorough analysis this aggressive approach does not promise White very much.

a) There are many alternatives but the move h2−h4 does not seem to be a good combination with some of them. 12 ¢b1 dxc4 13 ¤g5 £f5 14 £xf5 exf5 15 ¥xc4 h6 16 ¤f3 ¥e6 is fine for Black

b) 12 g4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4 b5 14 g5 (14 ¥d3!?) is not dangerous for Black: 14...bxc4 15 gxf6 ¥xf6 16 ¤e4 £f5 17 ¤xf6+ £xf6 18 ¤g5 £f5 19 ¥d6 £xc2+ 20 ¢xc2 ¦e8 21 ¢c3 e5 22 ¢xc4 f6 23 ¤e4 ¥e6+ 24 ¢c3 a5 with roughly equal ending

c) the h−pawn advance 12 h5 dxc4 13 h6 doesn't bring much effect: 13...g6 14 ¥xc4 b5 15 ¥d3 ¥b7÷ followed by ...Rac8 with good play for Black.

12...¦d8 (Obviously not 12...h6? 13 cxd5 exd5 14 ¤xd5 hxg5? 15 hxg5+−) 13 cxd5 exd5 14 e4 (A slow line 14 ¢b1 h6 15 ¤f3 ¥g4 16 ¥e2 ¦ac8ƒ just gives Black better chances − White has no possibility of attack while he should be very careful about his own king)

14...dxe4 (14...¤xe4!? is maybe even stronger) 15 ¥c4 ¤d4 (15...¥g4!? was also not so bad: 16 ¥xf7+ (16 ¦xd8+ ¤xd8 17 ¤cxe4 ¥f5) 16...¢f8 17 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 18 £b3 ¤d4 19 £xb7 ¥xa3! 20 ¢b1 and here the play may be ended by the repetition of moves: 20...¦d7 21 £c8+ ¦d8 22 £b7= (22 £c4 £b6÷) ) 16 ¦xd4 ¦xd4 and here in the game Pelletier − Doettling/Essen 2000 White should have played 17 ¥xf7+! ¢f8 18 ¥a2!©

94

with good compensation for the exchange thanks to the idea of possible invasion after Qc2−b3.

11...a6

11...¦d8 is a solid continuation. After 12 ¤d2 dxc4 (a careless 12...£b6? loses to the rather unexpected 13 c5!! £xc5 14 ¤b3 £b6 15 ¤a4+− and the queen is trapped!, 12...e5!? is interesting. In case of 13 ¥g3 ¥e6 14 ¥e2 ¦ac8 Black's position looks very good) 13 ¥xc4 £f5 A good idea− Black sends the queen to the kingside to make the programmed pawn advance ...e6−e5 more efficient. 14 ¤de4 ¦xd1+ 15 ¦xd1 ¤xe4 16 ¤xe4 e5 17 ¥g3 ¥e6 18 f3 (18 ¥xe6 £xe6 19 ¤c5 ¥xc5 20 £xc5 f6 is also very good for Black) 18...¦c8 19 £b3 ¥xc4 20 £xc4 h5! Black has achieved a very good play in the game Van Wely − Van der Sterren/Wijk aan Zee 1998.

12 ¤d2 £b6 13 ¤b3 ¤a5 14 ¤xa5 £xa5 15 cxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+-+psn-+0 9wq-+P+-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zP-+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...exd5

15...¤xd5 16 ¤xd5 exd5² does not solve the problems completely.

16 ¥e5 ¥e6 17 ¥d3 ¦ac8 18 £d2²

95

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9p+-+lsn-+0 9wq-+pvL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sNLzP-+-0 9-zP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

After rather logical play White has achieved a small advantage thanks to the better pawn

structure, Van Wely − Kramnik/Wijk aan Zee 1998.

96

QGD/16 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 − the lines with

Qd1-c2 and 0-0 [D37]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 £c2 ¤c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 a3

The set−up without the typical a2−a3, 9 ¦d1 £a5 10 ¥e2 has gained some popularity thanks to Ivan Sokolov's efforts. It looks too simple but in fact it is rather poisonous! (here 10 a3 is transposition to 9. a3 ) 10...¤b4!?

a) The main alternatives are: 10...dxc4 11 ¥xc4 and here, for example, 11...a6 12 0-0 ¥e7 13 a3²

b) 10...¥b4 Black makes use of the fact that White did not cover the b4−square but this bishop advance is probably not the best: 11 0-0 dxc4 (11...¥xc3 12 bxc3 gives White a stable advantage, for example: 12...h6 (or 12...¤e4 13 ¦c1 b6 14 cxd5 exd5 15 c4

¤b4 16 £b2²) 13 ¤e5 ¦e8 14 ¥f3²) 12 ¥xc4 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 b6 (An attempt to get the bishop into play by 13...e5 could be well met by 14 ¥g5, 13...£c5!? 14 ¥b3 e5 15 ¥g5 £e7

seems more reliable but it cannot completely solve the problems) 14 ¥d6 ¦e8 15 e4 White's Q−side pawn structure is damaged but it does not really matter in this position. He is going to fortify his strong bishop on d6 and open the way to the K−side for the other pieces. Although Black did not commit any serious mistakes his

97

life is difficult as his forces are seriously restricted, see Grachev − Vaganian/Moscow 2009.

11 £a4!? (or 11 £b3 dxc4 12 ¥xc4 ¤bd5 (12...a6 13 £a4 ¤c6 14 £xa5 ¤xa5 15 ¥d3 b5 16 ¤e4

¥b4+ 17 ¢e2²) 13 ¥e5 £b4!? 14 0-0 £xb3 15 axb3 b6 with almost equal play) 11...£xa4 12 ¤xa4 ¥e7 13 a3 ¤c6 with a slightly worse but quite acceptable ending for Black.

9...£a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zPN+-0 9-zPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¤d2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zP-+-0 9-zPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This continuation is recently becoming White's main attempt to fight for the advantage. Before the long castling 10. 0-0-0 appeared on the scene at the end of 1980s, the main

White's attempt was 10 ¦d1 ¥e7 (an immediate 10...¤e4?! can be well met by 11 cxd5 (11 b4? ¤xb4) 11...exd5 12 ¦xd5 ¤xc3 13 bxc3! £xa3 (13...¥e6? 14 ¤g5) 14 ¤g5!‚ with a strong attack) 11 ¤d2 (here 11 ¥e2 still promises a slight edge for White: 11...¤e4!? Black has some other interesting options. (11...dxc4!? 12 ¥xc4 e5 is slightly reminiscent of the ¥f4 Variation in the Grunfeld Defence, but here Black's dark−squared bishop is not on g7. After 13 ¥g3 ¥g4 14 0-0 White maintains a small

98

advantage, according to tournament practice., An immediate 11...e5 would be met by 12 ¥xe5!? dxc4 13 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 14 ¥xc4 ¥f5 15 ¥d3 with good chances to extinguish Black's initiative and escape with an extra pawn) 12 cxd5 ¤xc3 The game I.Sokolov − Meier/EU−ch Budva 2009 continued 13 £xc3 £xc3+ 14 bxc3 exd5 15 ¦xd5 ¥xa3 16 ¤d4 and White has secured a small advantage in the ending thanks to his superiority in the center, while Black cannot give sufficient support to his good−looking passed pawn on the a−file.) 11...e5 12 ¥g5 d4 13 ¤b3 £d8 (The alternative 13...£b6 leads to the quiet play with small advantage for White: 14 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 15 ¤d5 £d8 16 ¥d3² g6 17 exd4 ¤xd4 18 ¤xd4 exd4 19 0-0 (19 ¤xf6+ £xf6 20 0-0 ¥e6

21 ¦fe1 ¦ac8 22 b3 ¦fd8²) 19...¥g7 20 ¦de1 ¥e6 21 ¤f4 ¥d7 22 ¥e4 ¦b8 23 ¤d3 £c7 24 b3², although Black usually holds the balance without much problem) 14 ¥e2 (An attempt to win the pawn on d4 without the development of the kingside is double−edged: 14 exd4 ¤xd4 15 ¤xd4 exd4 16 ¤b5 ¥g4!? 17 ¦xd4 ¦e8! and Black is at least not worse) The pawn d4 seems to be in trouble but Black has got an excellent resource. 14...a5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9zp-+-zp-vL-0 9-+Pzp-+-+0 9zPNsN-zP-+-0 9-zPQ+LzPPzP0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The idea of Efim Geller − Black intends to push the attacker of the d4−square by ...a5−a4.

15 ¤a4 The main field of investigation before the plan with 10. 0-0-0 became popular.

a) in case of 15 exd4 Black obtains good counter chances by 15...a4! Black sacrifices this pawn in order to disturb the coordination of White's pieces. 16 ¤xa4 ¤xd4 17 ¤xd4 exd4 18 b3 (18 0-0 is harmless for Black: 18...£a5 19 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 20 b3

¥d7=, while the attempt to bring the knight back to the center by 18 ¤c3 fails to 18...£a5 19 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 20 b4 ¥f5!ƒ and Black takes the initiative.) 18...£a5+ 19 ¥d2 (19

£d2 can be parried easily by 19...¥d7!?) 19...¥f5! An excellent counter attack. 20 £b2 £e5 21 ¥b4 A principled attempt. (White could think about 21 ¥e3 £a5+ 22 ¥d2 with repetition of moves and it was really not such a bad idea.) 21...¥xb4+ 22 axb4 ¦fe8 23 ¦xd4 White has got two extra pawn and everything looks well−protected... 23...¥c2! Wonderful!!! 24 ¦d2! The only move. (24 £xc2 £xd4) 24...¥xb3! 25 £xb3 £a1+ 26 £d1 £xd1+ 27 ¦xd1 ¦xa4 28 f3 ¦xb4³ Black restored material balance and still has the initiative, Portisch − Beliavsky/Moscow 1981

b) other continuations also do not promise too much: 15 0-0 a4 16 ¤c1 ¥e6 c) and 15 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 16 0-0 a4 17 ¤c5 £a5 18 ¤3xa4 ¥e7 19 b4 £a7© are good for

Black

99

15...g6 (15...h6!? 16 ¥h4 ¥d7 was tried several times with good results for Black.) 16 ¥xf6 (The alternative 16 exd4 is usually met by 16...¥f5 17 £c1 ¤xd4 18 ¤xd4 exd4 19 0-0 ¦c8

with acceptable play for Black.) 16...¥xf6 17 c5 White is hoping to exploit the weaknesses which were created by the a−pawn advance. However, Black has sufficient counterplay. (17 0-0 £c7 18 c5 ¥e6 19 e4 ¥g5÷ is also good for Black)

17...¥e6 18 e4!? Consistent play − White should keep the center closed. (yet, a natural 18 0-0 is worthy of consideration.) and here Black started interesting counter actions by 18...£e8!?„ Alterman − Kasparov/Tel Aviv (simul) 1998.

10...¥e7

10...¥b4 is recently put in doubt: 11 cxd5 exd5 (11...¤xd5 doesn't solve the problems: 12 ¤xd5 exd5 13 ¥d3 h6 14 ¦c1 ¥e7 (14...¥xd2+ 15 £xd2²) 15 0-0 ¥e6 16 ¤b3 £b6 17 ¤c5 ¥xc5 (17...¦ac8 18 ¤xe6 fxe6 19 £e2 ¥f6 20 £h5! ¤e7 21 b4± is clearly better for White ) 18 £xc5 £xb2 19 ¦b1 £d2 20 ¦fd1 £a5 21 ¦b5 £a4 22 ¦a1 ¦fc8 23 ¦xb7 ¤a5 24 £b5 £xb5 25 ¦xb5² with certain advantage.) 12 ¥d3 (12 ¤b3 ¥xc3+ 13 bxc3

£a4 14 ¥d3 doesn't promise too much due to 14...b6 followed by ....Ba6. For example: 15 ¤d4 £xc2 16 ¥xc2 ¥d7 17 f3 ¦ac8 18 ¢d2 ¤a5 19 ¥d3 ¥a4 with a slightly worse but obviously drawn ending.) 12...d4 13 0-0! ¥xc3 (13...dxc3?! is dubious because of 14

axb4 £xb4 15 bxc3±) 14 ¤c4 £h5 15 bxc3 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+q0 9-+Nzp-vL-+0 9zP-zPLzP-+-0 9-+Q+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important position for this line. Black has two possibilities. 15...¤d5 (15...dxe3 is a

serious alternative but White's chances still look preferable. A possible line is 16 ¤xe3 (An interesting sacrifice 16 ¦ae1!? exf2+ 17 ¦xf2 gives White a certain initiative but the position remains far from clear: 17...¥e6 18 ¤e5 ¤d5!? etc. (18...¤g4?! 19 ¤xg4 ¥xg4 20 ¦b1ƒ, 18...¦ae8!?) ) 16...¥d7!?

a) 16...¥e6 seems to be worse due to 17 ¦ab1 ¤d5 18 ¦b5! ¦fd8 (18...¤xe3 19 ¦xh5

¤xc2 20 ¥xh7+ ¢h8 21 ¥xc2+ ¢g8 22 ¥h7+ ¢h8 23 ¥f5+ ¢g8 24 ¥xe6 fxe6 25 ¥e3+−) 19 c4 ¤d4 (19...¤xe3 20 fxe3 £h4 21 ¦xb7+−) 20 £b2 ¤xb5 21 cxd5 ¥xd5 22 ¥xb5± with a huge advantage

b) 16...¦e8 17 ¦ab1 a6 18 ¤c4 b5 19 ¤d6ƒ gives White a certain initiative. 17 ¦ab1 (17 ¦fd1 can be well met by 17...¤e7!? 18 c4 ¥c6 (18...¦fe8!? is also worth

considering: 19 ¥e2 £a5 20 £b2! ¤g6 21 ¥d6 ¥c6 22 c5 ¤e4 23 ¦ac1 ¤xd6 24 ¦xd6² with a slight edge for White) 19 ¥g3 ¦fe8 20 ¦e1 and here in the game Avrukh −

100

Hammer/Helsingor 2009 Black should have prevented c4−c5 by playing 20...£c5!? (or 20...b6!? ) ) 17...¤a5!? (this is much safer than 17...¤e5? 18 ¥e2! and Black is in trouble, while 17...¤d8?! 18 ¥g3 ¦c8 19 ¦fd1ƒ is also clearly better for White) 18 ¤f5² and White keeps better chances. For example, 18...¤d5 19 ¤g3 £h4 20 ¥d2 ¦ac8 21 ¦fe1 ¦fe8?! 22 ¦xe8+ ¥xe8 23 ¤f5ƒ with the initiative) 16 ¥g3 dxe3 17 ¦ae1!? ¥e6 (In case of 17...exf2+ 18 ¦xf2© White's initiative is more than enough to compensate minor material loss) 18 fxe3 ¦ad8 (18...¤de7 does not solve the problems: 19 ¤d6 b6 20 ¦b1! f6 (20...¤d5 21 ¦b5 (21 £d2!?) 21...£h6 22 ¦f3² is also better for White) 21 ¦b5 ¤e5 22 ¦f4! ¤7g6 23 ¦d4 and White has secured the better chances thanks to his very active pieces, Topalov − Kasimdzhanov/Linares 2005) 19 ¤d6 (19 e4?! could be strongly met by 19...¤f4! 20 ¥xf4 ¥xc4 21 ¥xc4 £c5+

followed by ...Qc4.) 19...¤e5 The game Topalov − Kramnik/Monaco 2001 continued: 20 ¥xh7+! £xh7 21 £xh7+ ¢xh7 22 ¥xe5± and White has gained an extra pawn although his pawn structure is far from perfect and it makes his task not so easy.

10...£d8 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+P+-vL-+0 9zP-sN-zP-+-0 9-zPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is a rare, and fairly surprising continuation − Black simply retreats the queen back.

Strangely enough, such a waste of time is not so bad here as he has to defend against ¤d2−b3 anyway. 11 ¦d1 (11 cxd5 exd5 12 ¤b5 ¥b6 13 ¥d3 d4 looks satisfactory for Black.) 11...h6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 ¤de4!? (The routine 13 ¤f3!? looked quite good, keeping the better chances.) 13...¥f5 The only move. (13...¤xe4? was bad due to 14

¦xd5!) 14 ¤xf6+ £xf6 15 ¥d3 (15 ¤xd5 gives nothing: 15...¥xc2 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6 17 ¦c1

¤b4! and Black is okay, for example: 18 f3 ¢g7 19 ¥e2 ¦ac8 20 axb4 ¥xb4+ 21 ¢f2 ¦fd8

and so on., 15 £c1 is too risky as after 15...¤e7 16 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 17 ¦xd5 ¥e7© he is late in development.) 15...¥e6 (15...¥xd3 16 £xd3 ¦fd8 17 0-0² is worse for Black but quite playable.) This position occurred in the game Kaidanov − Shabalov/WCC Moscow 2001. Now the simple 16 0-0!?² would have secured the better prospects.

11 ¥g3

11 ¦d1 may lead to the line, which is known to be good for Black: 11...e5 12 ¥g5 d4 13 ¤b3 £d8 14 ¥e2 a5! and so on − refer to 10. ¦d1.

11 ¤b3!? is worthy of consideration.

101

11...¥d7

11...£b6 does not seem fully equalising: 12 ¥e2 (12 b4 is acceptable for Black: 12...d4 13 c5

£d8 14 ¤ce4 and here Black can try 14...dxe3!? 15 fxe3 ¤d5„ followed by ...f7−f5−f4 with good counter chances, The rather unexpected change of course 12 ¤f3!?

deserves more attention) 12...d4 13 ¤a4 £d8 14 0-0² and White has got a slight edge in the game Kaidanov − Lputian/Calvia (ol) 2004.

12 ¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+lvlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9zP-sN-zP-vL-0 9-zPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important position is arisen. Black has a wide choice.

12...¦fc8

Preparing the queen's return. 12...£b6?! does not seem to be the best. 13 b4!? White does not spend time for castling,

gaining space on the Q−side at first. a) 13 cxd5 exd5 14 0-0 ¦ac8 15 ¦fd1 ¥e6 16 ¤b3 a6 17 ¦ac1 ¤e4„ gives Black a

good counterplay. b) after 13 0-0 d4 14 ¤a4 £d8 Black still faces problems: 15 b4 (15 e4!? deserves

attention) 15...dxe3!? (in case of 15...¦c8 16 ¤b2 e5 White would have proved the advantage by 17 e4!±) 16 fxe3 ¤e5!? A tricky way to simplify the position. However, it doesn't bring the desired relief. 17 ¥xe5 ¥xa4 18 £b2² The pawn majority on the queenside and more active pieces secure White's advantage, Lautier − Khalifman/FIDE WCh KO (3.1) Moscow 2001.

13...d4 14 ¤a4 £d8 15 e4² White has got clear advantage. The d4−pawn can excellently be blocked by the knight, after which White would think about flank actions, I.Sokolov − Short/Bled (ol) 2002.

A deep retreat 12...£d8 is not as bad as it looks like. A possible play is 13 cxd5 ¤xd5 14 ¤xd5 exd5 15 0-0 d4 16 e4 ¦c8 17 £d3 f5 18 f3 ¢h8„ with good play for Black.

13 0-0 £d8

102

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+rwq-+k+0 9zpp+lvlpzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9zP-sN-zP-vL-0 9-zPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...£b6 is a bit inconsistent with previous move: 14 b4 d4 15 c5 £d8 16 ¤b5ƒ and White

takes the initiative.

14 ¦ad1

The alternative is 14 cxd5 exd5 (14...¤xd5 15 ¤de4² gives better chances for White) 15 ¤f3² with a typical slight edge.

14...¤a5!?

14...d4 15 ¤b5 dxe3 16 fxe3 £b6 17 £d3! followed by b2−b4 and c4−c5 seems better for White.

15 cxd5 ¤xd5 16 ¤de4 £e8 17 £d3²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+q+k+0 9zpp+lvlpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9sn-+n+-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9zP-sNQzP-vL-0 9-zP-+LzPPzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White keeps a small advantage.

103

QGD/17 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 − 7.dxc5...

9.Nxd5 NOT 12...d4 [D37]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥f4 0-0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 ¥xc5 8.cxd5 ¤xd5 9.¤xd5 exd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9+-+-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This variation is rather popular at the GM level nowadays. As a rule White is able to

achieve a slight edge but, apart from his isolated pawn, Black does not have any other problems and usually gets acceptable play. Many games end in a draw but if Black defends inaccurately he may certainly face problems. White has less chances to go astray but to get a full point he has to show excellent technique, endgame knowledge and an ability to put pressure on his opponent in boring positions.

10.a3

The main continuation. 10.¥d3 is an alternative. White does not waste time preventing a possible check, hoping

that his king will be fine in the center while Black's bishop would not be useful on b4. 10...¥b4+ 11.¢e2

a) 11.¢f1 can be met with 11...¥d6!? (in case of 11...¤c6 White can think about the direct 12.h4!? ¥d6 (12...h6?! might be weakening and White would try to exploit it by 13.¥c2!? ¥e7 14.£d3 f5 15.¥b3 ¥e6 16.¦d1 with a clear advantage) 13.¥xd6 £xd6 14.h5 followed by ¦h1-h4, increasing control over the d4−square and securing the better

104

chances) 12.¥g3 (Here in case of 12.¥xd6 £xd6 13.h4 Black would save time for the move ...¤b8−c6 and play 13...h6 14.h5 ¥g4) 12...¤c6 13.¥c2 (13.e4?! is dubious: 13...dxe4 14.¥xe4 ¥e7 15.£e2 ¥e6 16.h4 and here the solid 16...h6 could have secured the better chances for Black in the game Jobava − Rustemov/Aeroflot Moscow 2006 after 17.¢g1 (17.¤g5? failed to a simple 17...¥xg5 18.hxg5 £xg5∓)

17...£b6 18.¢h2 ¦fe8 and so on) 13...¥e7!? 14.h4 ¥f6 15.£d2 d4 with a good play. b) 11.¤d2 gives White the possibility to castle but this retreat is not quite desirable

against an isolated pawn as he loses control over the important d4−square. 11...¤c6 12.0-0 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vl-zp-vL-+0 9+-+LzP-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Without any delay Black pushes his central pawn forward. As a rule, he is fine if this pawn

is exchanged but here it is not the case as White can advance his e−pawn. Nevertheless, it is usually not too bad for Black when his isolated pawn becomes a passer but he can still find some other resources as it is well blocked! (12...£f6 13.a3

¥xd2 14.£xd2 ¥f5 15.¥xf5 £xf5 is not completely equalising: 16.¦ac1 ¦ad8 17.¦c5 ¦d7

18.b4 h6 19.¦d1² with a small advantage, In case of 12...¥d6 13.¥xd6 £xd6 14.¤f3 White regains control over d4−square and maintains a small advantage, 12...¥e7 13.a3 ¥f6 is playable) 13.e4 Now White's hopes are connected with a pawn majority on the K−side, which can be well supported by his pieces. The game Harikrishna − Charbonneau/Montreal 2007 continued by 13...f5!? An interesting novelty − Black immediately destroys White's hopes to build a strong pawn center! 14.a3 ¥a5 15.b4 fxe4! Now this capture is possible. 16.¥xe4 ¦xf4 17.bxa5 ¤xa5 18.£c2 h6 19.¦fe1 and White has achieved sufficient compensation for the pawn thanks to his better development and weakened position of Black's king.

11...¤c6 (11...¥d6 does not seem fully equalising: 12.¥xd6 £xd6 13.£a4 ¤c6 14.¦hd1 with a small advantage) 12.£b3!?

a) White can also begin an interesting rearrangement by playing 12.£b1!? h6 (12...g6!?) 13.¦d1 ¦e8 14.¢f1 ¥g4 15.¥e2 £d7 16.a3 ¥e7!? (16...¥f8 17.b4 a6 18.¦a2

¦ad8 19.¦ad2²) 17.b4 ¥f6 18.¦a2 ¦ac8!? 19.¦ad2 ¤e7!? gives Black a good counterplay

b) 12.£c2 is the most popular option but possibly not the most promising as in many cases c2 is not the best place for the queen. 12...h6 (12...g6 is a natural alternative: 13.¦hd1 (13.h3!?) 13...¥g4 14.¢f1 ¥xf3 15.gxf3 £f6 16.¢g2 White keeps a slight edge but Black is solid enough) 13.¦hd1 ¥e6 (13...£f6 is also playable as the bishop

105

might come a the more active position: 14.a3 (or 14.¢f1 ¥a5!? 15.¥e2 ¥b6) 14...¥e7 However, White can maintain a small advantage by playing 15.¢f1 and if 15...¥g4 then 16.£b3!?) 14.¢f1 ¦c8 This position arose in the game Bacrot − A.Sokolov/FRA−chT Marseille 2008 which continued 15.£e2 (15.£a4!? might be stronger. Then after 15...¥d6 (15...£b6 16.¦ac1 ¥e7!? seems more to the point although White would still hope for a slight edge by 17.¤e5!?) 16.a3 ¥xf4 17.£xf4² and White secures a typical small but stable advantage) 15...¥d6!? This exchange seems to be in White's favour as it increases his control over some important dark squares. However, such types of worse positions are known to be drawn with accurate defence. 16.¥xd6 £xd6 17.¢g1 ¤e5!? and Black did not face serious problems on his way to half a point.

12...¥g4 13.¦hd1 £f6!? (a natural 13...¦e8?! is not quite necessary here: 14.¢f1 The game Dobrov − Ziatdinov/Caerleon 2005 continued 14...¥d6? (14...¥xf3 15.gxf3 £d7 16.¢g2

with idea Bd3−e4 was better for White, as well as 14...£d7 15.¥e2) 15.¥xh7+! ¢xh7 16.¦xd5 (16.¤g5+!? ¢g8 17.¦xd5 might have been stronger) 16...¥xf3 17.gxf3 ¤e5 18.¥xe5 ¦xe5 19.£d3+ ¢g8 20.¦xd6 and White has converted his advantage) 14.¢f1!? (14.£xd5?! £xb2+ 15.¢f1 ¦ad8 16.£e4?! g6 was in Black's favour in the game Samraoui − Marciniak, corr. 1985) 14...¥xf3 15.gxf3 ¦fd8 (15...g5?! 16.¥g3 £xf3 was well met by 17.¥b5 ¥e7 18.£xd5, increasing the advantage) 16.¢g2 with a slight edge for White but Black was also doing well.

10...¤c6 11.¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¥b6

11...¥e7 This bishop's retreat is played from time to time − Black is shifting the bishop to the long diagonal. However, it takes time and does not completely neutralise White's pressure against the isolated d−pawn. 12.0-0 (A preliminary 12.£c2 seems less precise as c2−square is not the best square for the queen: 12...g6 (12...h6 is also playable: 13.b4 ¥f6 14.¦c1 ¥g4 with a good play for Black) 13.0-0 ¥e6 with acceptable play) 12...¥f6 13.£b3!? (13.¦c1 ¥e6 (13...¥xb2?! 14.¥xh7+!) 14.b4² also promises a small edge for White, according to tournament practice) 13...£e7!? Black tried

106

many option and this modest queen's advance deserves attention among them. (A logical 13...£b6?! leads to the problems: 14.£xd5 At first sight White helps Black to get rid of the isolated pawn but he gets good attacking prospects on the K−side thanks to his active pieces. 14...¦d8?! A natural but actually dubious continuation, which increases White's attacking chances. (14...¥e6! should have been played although White still kept the initiative after 15.£e4 (or 15.£h5 g6 16.£h6 ¥g7 17.£h4

£d8!, swapping the queens) 15...g6 16.¥h6 ¦fe8 17.£f4 ¥xb2 18.¦ab1ƒ) 15.£e4 g6 16.¥g5! £xb2 17.¥c4! ¢g7 18.£h4 h5 19.¥xf7! and White launched a very strong attack, Kramnik − Short/Wijk aan Zee 2000) 14.£xd5 (14.¦ac1 ¥g4 seems good for Black) 14...¦d8 15.£e4! (in case of 15.£b3 ¥e6 16.£c2 ¦ac8!? Black gets a very active play) 15...£xe4 16.¥xe4 ¥xb2 17.¦a2 ¥f6 18.¦b1 ¥e6 19.¦c2 White is pressurising Black's Q−side but this ending seems defendable for him.

12.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...¥g4

One of the main continuations where Black comfortably develops his bishop. 12...£f6 is not the most popular continuation but in fact it is rather playable: 13.b4 ¥f5 (a

preliminary 13...h6!? deserves attention: 14.¥c2!? This seems more promising. a) 14.b5 can be well met with 14...¤d4! 15.¤xd4 ¥xd4 16.¦b1 A new continuation,

which does not impress much. White tried other possibilities but Black keeps solid position in all cases. (16.exd4 £xf4 is equal, 16.¦c1 ¥b2 17.¦c7 ¥xa3 is also good for Black) 16...¥c5 17.a4 ¥f5 and Black had no problems in the game Swiercz − Sachdev/Wijk aan Zee C 2011.

b) while 14.¥g3 ¥g4 is acceptable for Black: 15.h3 ¥xf3 16.£xf3 £xf3 17.gxf3 ¦fe8 18.¢g2 ¦ad8 19.¦fe1 d4 and Black slowly solves his problems

14...¥f5 15.¥xf5 (Since is met by 15.b5 ¤d4! White agrees to play the position with Black's extra move ...h7−h6) 15...£xf5 16.b5 ¤a5 17.¥e5 ¦fc8 18.h3 This position arose in the game Grachev − Akobian/Moscow 2009, which continued (18.¥d4!?) 18...£e4 (18...¦c2 was worthy of consideration: 19.¥d4 (not 19.¤d4?! ¥xd4 20.¥xd4 ¤b3 21.¦b1

¤d2) 19...£e4 20.£b1 ¦ac8 and Black's pieces were very active although he still

107

couldn't do anything with White's blockading piece on d4) 19.¥d4 ¥xd4 (19...¤c4!?

was also possible) 20.¤xd4 ¤c4 21.£e2 a6 22.¦fd1 axb5 23.¤xb5 and here 23...¦c5 24.a4 b6 was more reliable.) 14.¥xf5!? (14.b5 can be well met by 14...¤d4!, which almost equalises: 15.¥xf5

a) 15.¤e5 brings nothing: 15...¥xd3 16.£xd3 ¦fd8! 17.a4 (17.¤g4?! £g6! 18.£xg6

¤e2+! 19.¢h1 hxg6³) 17...¤e6 18.a5 ¥c7 19.¤g4 £e7 20.¥xc7 £xc7= b) 15.¤xd4 ¥xd4 16.¦c1 (16.exd4 ¥xd3 17.£xd3 £xf4=) 16...¥b6 17.¥xf5 £xf5 18.¥c7

£e4 leads to equality as well 15...¤xf3+ 16.£xf3 £xf5 This position has been tested many times. Thanks to the better

pawn structure White keeps a slight edge but apart from his isolated pawn Black is fine. As a rule, he is able to hold balance without serious problems. 17.a4 (After 17.¦fd1 Black gets acceptable play, too: 17...¦ad8 (17...d4!? is interesting but White should be better after 18.exd4 £xb5 19.£xb7 ¦ad8 20.¥e3²) 18.¦ac1 ¦d7 and so on) 17...¦fd8 18.a5 ¥c5 19.¥c7 (19.¦ac1 was a natural alternative: 19...b6 (or 19...¦ac8

20.¦fd1 b6) 20.¦fd1 ¦ac8 Here White would have tried 21.a6!? but it would hardly be possible to get access to the pawn a7 if Black defends accurately) 19...£xf3 20.gxf3 ¦d7 21.b6 This position arose in the game M.Gurevich − Beliavsky/Belgrade 1991. Here Black had a precise way to solve the problems: 21...¥d6! 22.¥xd6 (22.a6 failed to 22...¥xc7 23.axb7 ¥xh2+!, while after 22.¦fc1 ¥xc7 23.¦xc7 ¦xc7 24.bxc7 ¦c8 25.¦c1 ¢f8

the pawn on c7 was not well supported) 22...¦xd6 23.bxa7 ¦xa7 with a drawn ending) 14...£xf5 15.b5 (15.£b1!? is worthy of consideration: 15...£xb1 Black does not hesitate to simplify into the ending, which is slightly worse but defendable. (In case of 15...£e6 White would have maintained some edge by playing something like 16.¦d1 h6 17.£b2²) 16.¦axb1 ¦fd8 17.a4 The game Dautov − Lutz/Essen 2001 continued 17...¦ac8 18.a5 ¥c7 19.¥xc7 ¦xc7 20.¦fc1 ¦dc8 21.¢f1 Thanks to his better pawn structure White has maintained a small advantage but Black should not face too many problems) 15...¤a5 (15...¤d8!? deserves attention) 16.¥e5 ¦fd8 17.¥d4 ¦ac8 18.¥xb6 axb6 19.¤d4 £e4 20.£e2 h6 21.h3 ¦c3 22.¦fd1 ¤c4 23.a4 Black's position is quite defendable but White's play is easier thanks to his very solid knight on d4.

13.h3 ¥h5 14.b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+l0 9-zP-+-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

108

14...¦e8

14...a6 15.¦c1 a) 15.¦a2 can be well met with 15...d4 16.e4 ¥c7!? 17.¥xc7 £xc7 with acceptable

play for Black, Seirawan − Kir.Georgiev, Dubai 1986. b) but 15.¥e2!? is a serious attempt. It would also be met by the same central

counter strike 15...d4!? but it does not completely equalise: (after 15...¦e8 16.¦a2 White maintains the edge: 16...¥g6 (here 16...d4? fails to 17.¤xd4 ¥xd4 18.¥xh5)

17.¦d2 ¥e4 18.¤g5! £f6 19.¤xe4 dxe4 20.¦d7² with a clear advantage) 16.exd4 (not 16.¤xd4? ¥xd4) 16...¥xf3 17.¥xf3 £xd4 (17...¥xd4!? 18.¦a2²) 18.¥e3!? (but 18.¥xc6!? is worthy of consideration: 18...bxc6 19.£f3 £f6 20.¦ac1 ¦ac8 21.¦fd1² with a stable advantage) 18...£xd1 19.¦fxd1 ¥xe3 20.fxe3² and White has secured a small advantage in the ending.

15...¦e8 may lead to the same line (15...d4 is always an option. White can play 16.e4 (16.¥e4!?) 16...¦e8 17.g4 ¥g6 18.¦e1 ¦c8 (18...f6?! 19.¥c4+ ¢h8 20.¥d5 is better for White) 19.e5!? (19.¢g2 ¥c7 20.£d2 ¥xf4 21.£xf4² gives White a slight edge) 19...¤e7 20.¥c4 and here Black should have played 20...¤d5 21.¥g5 £d7 with good counter chances.) after 16.¥xa6!? and so on.

14...d4!? 15.b5 (White tested 15.g4 ¥g6 16.e4 (16.¥xg6 is well met by 16...fxg6!„) 16...¦c8 17.¦c1 with a slight edge) 15...¤a5 16.exd4 ¥xd4 (Black also postponed the capture, getting more pieces into play first of all: 16...£d5 17.¥e2 ¦ad8 18.¦b1 ¥xf3 19.¥xf3 £xd4 20.£xd4 ¦xd4 21.¥e5 ¦d3 and here White would have thought about 22.¦bd1! ¦fd8 (22...¦xa3?! 23.¥d6±) 23.¦xd3 ¦xd3 24.¦c1 ¦d8 25.¦c3!? with a certain advantage) 17.¥xh7+! ¢xh7 18.£d3+! (Black was okay after 18.£xd4?! ¥xf3

19.£xd8 ¦fxd8 20.gxf3 ¦d5) 18...¥g6 (Surely not 18...¢g8? 19.¤xd4 with extra pawn for White) 19.£xd4 ¤b3 20.£xd8 ¦axd8 (20...¦fxd8 has also been tested: 21.¦a2 ¥d3

22.¦e1 ¥xb5 23.¦b2 ¥c4 24.¦eb1 ¤a5 25.¥c7 ¦d5 26.¥xa5 ¦xa5 27.¦xb7 ¦xa3 28.¤e5 ¥d5

29.¦d7 ¥e6 30.¦e7 and White has maintained a slight edge) 21.¦ad1 ¥d3 22.¦fe1 ¥xb5 23.¦b1 ¥c4 24.¦e7 Thanks to his active pieces White has secured the advantage. 24...¥d5 In the game Shulman − Ippolito/Philadelphia 2008 White came up with a strong novelty 25.¤g5+! ¢g8 26.¦d1! and achieved good winning chances as he wins a pawn.

15.¦c1

15.¦a2 is the less popular alternative. Black gets counterplay by a typical 15...d4! and if 16.g4 then 16...£d5! 17.¦b2 ¥g6 18.¥xg6 hxg6 19.b5 ¤a5 with active play.

15...a6

109

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+p+-+pzpp0 9pvln+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+l0 9-zP-+-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move allows a tactical blow. However, Black supposes it would be acceptable. Here 15...d4?! is not sufficient due to 16.g4 ¥g6 17.¥xg6 hxg6 18.b5! ¤e7 (18...dxe3 fails to

19.bxc6 e2 20.£xd8 exf1£+ 21.¢xf1 ¦axd8 22.cxb7+−) 19.exd4 £d5 20.a4± with extra pawn for White.

16.¥xa6!?

16.g4!? deserves attention among other options: 16...¥g6 17.¥xg6 hxg6 18.£d3!? (after 18.¦c3 d4 19.¦d3 £d5 20.exd4 ¦e4 Black achieves a good compensation for the pawn)

18...d4 19.e4 with a slight edge.

16...¦xa6 17.b5 ¦xa3 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.¦xc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqr+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-vlR+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+l0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9tr-+-zPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position is simplified. White still keeps a slight edge thanks to his better pawn structure

but Black's position should be defendable.

19...¦a7

19...¦e6 is inaccurate for after 20.¦xe6 fxe6 21.£c1 Black faces problems. 21...¦a6 (21...£a8? is a serious mistake due to 22.¤g5!± with ideas ¤g5xe6 and £c1-b1!)

110

22.£c6 £e8 23.¦c1 £xc6 24.¦xc6 ¥xf3 25.gxf3 d4 26.e4! and White keeps winning chances.

20.¦d6

20.£b3 ¥xf3 21.gxf3 ¥c7 22.¦xc7 ¦xc7 23.¥xc7 £xc7 24.£xd5 £e5 leads to a drawn ending.

20...¦d7 21.£xd5 ¦xd6

21...¥xf3 22.gxf3 ¦xd6 23.£xd6 £xd6 24.¥xd6 leads to the game position.

22.£xd6 £xd6 23.¥xd6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-vl-vL-+-+0 9+-+-+-+l0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zPN+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has got an extra pawn in the ending but all the pawns are on one side, which gives

Black reasonable drawing chances. Now he faces a dilemma − to damage White's pawn structure by giving up his pair of bishops or to keep it as it is. In the game Leko − Kramnik/WCh (m/5) Brissago 2004 he preferred

23...¥xf3

23...¦d8!? is maybe more reliable: 24.¥g3 (or 24.¥f4 ¥g6 25.¦c1 ¥e4 26.¦c4 ¥d5 27.¦b4 ¥c5

28.¦b5 ¦c8 29.¤d2 ¥e6 30.¤e4 ¥e7 31.¥d6 ¥d8 and Black keeps defending) 24...¥c5 25.¦c1 ¥f8 26.¤d4 ¥g6 27.¦c7 h6 28.h4 ¦e8 29.¤b5 ¦b8 30.¤c3 ¦e8 and Black is holding on.

24.gxf3

111

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-vl-vL-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zPP+P0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and Black eventually failed to get half a point.

112

QGD/18 5.Bf4 0-0 6.e3 c5 − 7.dc5...9.Nd5

ed5 ... 12...d4 [D37]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 cxd5 ¤xd5 9 ¤xd5 exd5 10 a3 ¤c6 11 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-vlp+-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¥b6 12 0-0 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zp-vL-+0 9zP-+LzPN+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

113

One of the main options where Black takes the good opportunity to push his isolated pawn forward. It solves all the problems with the pawn itself, but it is firmly blocked and it makes Black's minor pieces (Bb6 and Nc6) rather passive. Besides, White gets a pawn superiority on the K−side and can think about possible active play. As a rule, White keeps a slight edge but Black's position remains solid − as usual in this variation.

13 e4

Simplifications after 13 exd4 are harmless for Black. White keeps a slight initiative but it does not promise much: 13...¤xd4 14 ¥e5 ¤c6 (a careless 14...¥g4?! gives White an extra pawn after 15 ¥xd4 ¥xd4 16 ¥xh7+ ¢xh7 17 £d3+! ¢g8 18 ¤xd4±) 15 ¥c3 ¥g4 16 h3 ¥h5 and Black slowly equalises

Some years ago 13 £c2!? came on stage thanks to Alexey Dreev's efforts. White avoids a pin over the diagonal d1-h5 but Black is still solid enough: 13...h6 (13...dxe3? fails to 14 ¥xh7+! ¢h8 15 fxe3 g6 16 ¤g5 ¥f5 17 £f2 with a strong attack, but 13...g6!? still needs more tests) 14 e4 ¥g4

a) Black also tried other options: 14...£f6 15 ¥g3 ¥g4 16 e5! (16 ¤d2 ¦ac8 is fine for Black, according to the tournament practice) 16...£e6 (16...£e7 17 £e2 ¥xf3 18 gxf3!²)

17 £e2 ¥xf3 (17...¥f5 18 ¥c4 £e7 19 ¤h4 ¥e6 20 ¥d3²) 18 gxf3² b) or 14...¥e6 15 £e2 (15 b4 ¦c8, 15 ¦ac1!?) 15...¦c8 16 ¤d2 ¦e8 17 ¥g3 ¥c7 18 f4 f6

19 £h5 ¥f7 20 £g4 ¥e6 21 £h4 £d7 22 ¦ae1 and White has maintained a slight edge

15 ¤e5 (White also tried 15 ¤d2 but Black is okay: 15...¦c8 16 £a4 £f6!? 17 ¥g3 ¤e5 18 ¥xe5 £xe5 19 ¤c4 £f4 20 ¦fe1 (20 ¤xb6 axb6 21 £b4 ¦c6 is good for Black since White the pawn on d4 is untouchable: 22 £xd4? ¦d6 23 £c3 ¦c8 24 £b3 ¥e6 25 £b5

¥h3!!-+, but 20 g3!? £f6 21 f4 deserves attention) 20...¦fd8 21 e5 £g5 22 ¤d6 (22

¤xb6!? ¥f3 23 g3 axb6=) 22...¥f3 23 g3 ¦c7 and Black is at least not worse) 15...¤xe5 16 ¥xe5 Dreev played this position many times but it might promise only a very slight edge for White: 16...¦e8 (or 16...¦c8 17 £d2 ¦e8 (17...¥e6 18 ¦ac1 £d7 19 h3

¦xc1 20 ¦xc1 ¦c8 21 ¦xc8+ £xc8 22 £f4 £d8 23 ¥d6²) 18 £f4 £g5 19 ¥d6 £g6 20 ¦ac1 ¦cd8 21 ¥b4 £g5 with acceptable play for Black) 17 ¥g3 ¦c8 18 £d2 ¥a5 19 £f4 £g5 20 ¦ac1 (or 20 h4 £xf4 21 ¥xf4 ¥d8 22 f3 ¥d7 23 ¥g3 with a very slight edge)

20...£xf4 21 ¥xf4 g5 22 ¦xc8 ¦xc8 23 ¥e5 ¥e6 with equal ending.

13...¥g4

13...¥c7 does not seem fully equalising: 14 ¥xc7 a) 14 £d2 would be met with 14...¥g4! b) but White can think about a rather unusual 14 £c1!? ¦e8 (here 14...¥g4? fails to 15

¥xc7 £xc7 16 ¤xd4±) 15 ¦e1² with a small edge 14...£xc7 15 h3 £b6 (15...¥e6!? was worthy of consideration, intending to meet 16 ¤g5 with

16...¤e5) 16 b4 ¥e6 17 ¦c1 h6 18 £d2 ¦fd8 19 £f4!² and White has achieved a certain advantage.

14 h3

114

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zpPvLl+0 9zP-+L+N+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¥h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+l0 9-+-zpPvL-+0 9zP-+L+N+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has a wide choice in this position. 14...£f6 is interesting counter action. However, it might be not the most reliable

continuation: 15 ¥g3 a) A straightforward approach 15 hxg4!? deserves attention: 15...£xf4 16 g5 ¤d8! A

good rearrangement. (Other options do not solve the problems, for example: 16...f6?!

17 g6!ƒ, or 16...¦fe8 17 g3 £g4 18 ¢g2 ¤e5 19 ¤xe5 £xd1 20 ¦axd1 ¦xe5 21 f4±) 17 g3 (17

e5?! ¤e6 18 £c2 g6 is fine for Black) 17...£g4 18 ¢g2 White's play is rather simple: he is going to use the opened h−file and superior bishop to put problems for Black on the K−side. 18...¤e6 19 ¦h1! ¤f4+ (The middlegame with opposite coloured bishops after 19...¤xg5 20 ¤xg5 £xg5 21 f4 £g6 (21...£e7? 22 ¦xh7!) 22 £f3 h6 23 ¦ac1² is clearly better for White thanks to his superior bishop and flexible K−side pawn structure) 20 ¢f1 ¤h3 (20...¤g6 couldn't solve the problems: 21 e5 ¦ae8 22 £e2

¦e7 23 ¦e1 ¦fe8 24 £d1 and White keeps things under control) 21 £d2 This position arose in the game Beliavsky − Meier/EU−ch Plovdiv 2008. It continued 21...¥d8 and here 22 ¢g2! would have secured a small advantage for White: 22...¤xg5 (in case of 22...¥xg5?! 23 ¤e5! ¥xd2 24 ¤xg4 ¤g5 25 ¦ad1 ¥a5 26 e5 h6 27 f4 ¤e6 28 f5 ¤c5 29

¥c4 b5!? 30 ¥a2+− White's K−side initiative would not be parried) 23 ¤xd4 g6 24

115

¦ad1 ¥f6 (24...¤xe4? 25 £h6 ¤f6 26 ¤f3 £a4 27 ¤e5 ¦e8 28 b3! £xa3 29 ¤d7! £xb3 30

¥e4!! £b4 31 ¥d5 £e7 32 ¤xf6+ £xf6 33 £xh7+ ¢f8 34 ¥xf7! £xf7 35 £h8+ £g8 36 ¦xd8!+−

) 25 f3 £d7 26 ¤e2 ¦ad8 27 ¤f4 £d4 28 b4² followed by ¤f4−d5 and so on b) The less active 15 ¥h2 is played with the idea to push Black's bishop by g2−g4.

Thus it is logical for Black to capture on f3: 15...¥xf3 (15...¥h5 16 g4 ¥g6 might still be playable) 16 £xf3 £xf3 (16...¤e5?! 17 ¥xe5 £xe5 18 £d1 g5 19 g3² is better for White) 17 gxf3² Despite the damage White's K−side pawn structure remained flexible and his pair of bishops give him a small advantage. Yet, Black's position seems defendable: 17...¤a5!? 18 ¦ac1 ¤b3 19 ¦c2 ¦ac8 20 ¦d1 ¤c5 and Black held on this position without serious problems

15...¥xf3 (With White's bishop on g3 it is logical to postpone a capture on f3, not being worried about g2−g4 push: 15...¥h5!? 16 ¦c1 ¦ac8 etc.) 16 £xf3 £xf3 (The position after 16...¤e5 17 ¥xe5 £xe5 is not equal, as has been mentioned above) 17 gxf3² In the ending White keeps a small advantage. It has already been considered in the comments to 15. ¥h2, the position of White's bishop on g3 certainly gives him some benefit. The game A.Onischuk − Vaganian/Moscow 2009, continued 17...¤a5 18 ¦ac1 ¦fc8 19 ¦fd1 ¤b3 20 ¦c4!? ¤a5 (In case of 20...a5 White would maintain his advantage by 21 ¢g2 g6 22 ¥e5²) 21 ¦b4² and White has maintained a small but stable advantage.

15 ¦c1

White has tried such options as 15 ¦e1 15 e5 and 15 g4 ¥g6 16 ¦c1, and in all cases he has maintained a slight edge, but Black's position

was always solid enough.

15...¦e8

In case of 15...f6 White can improve his light−squared bishop by 16 ¥c4+ ¢h8 17 ¥d5 ¦c8 18 £d3² with better chances.

16 ¦e1 ¦c8

A typical position is reached. Black's passed pawn in center is firmly blocked and it seriously decreases potentiality of Black's pieces. On the other side White's pawn structure is flexible and it gives him somewhat better chances.

17 e5!

116

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqr+k+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-vln+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+l0 9-+-zp-vL-+0 9zP-+L+N+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...¥xf3!

After 17...£d7? White came up with 18 ¥xh7+! ¢xh7 19 ¤g5+ ¢g6 and here, in the game Andreikin − A.Onischuk/RUS−chT Dagomys 2008, White could have achieved a big advantage by playing 20 £d3+! £f5 21 £g3 f6 22 exf6 ¢xf6 23 £h4 g6 24 ¦e4!! with serious problems for Black.

18 £xf3 ¤xe5 19 ¥xe5 ¦xe5 20 £xb7 ¦c7 21 £f3 g6 22 g3²

Thanks to the better pawn arrangement (Black's pawn on d4 is fixed on the same colour square as the bishop) White keeps a slight edge. However, a draw would still be the most likely result.

117

Ragozin System

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 ¥b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This opening system was named after the Russian Grandmaster Viacheslav Ragozin. He

didn't achieve great triumphs over the board but he is famous for his successful work as a second of World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik.

The Ragozin system reminds me both of the Nimzo−Indian and the Queen's Gambit and it is quite logical − Black plays both the ... ¥f8−b4 and ...d7−d5 moves. Transpositions are quite possible − for example, for those who can play the Rubinstein Variation of the Nimzo−Indian this system does not bother much since they can simply continue 5. e3 and so on.

The Ragozin system also resembles the Vienna Variation and this sharp system can be also be reached if White does not capture on d5. However, despite the similarities, the Ragozin System has its own typical ideas, manoeuvres, subtleties and concrete lines. It seems to be a positional opening like the Nimzo, but at the same time it is rather ambitious and White players cannot feel too comfortable − in some lines Black begins to create threats very quickly!

Statistics tell us that the Ragozin System does not belong amongst the most popular openings but perhaps it is a bit underestimated and still waiting for its time...

118

QGD/19 Ragozin System − Black plays

...h7−h6 [D38]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 ¥b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This opening system was named after the Russian Grandmaster Viacheslav Ragozin. He

hasn't achieved great successes over the board but he is famous for his successful work as a second of World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik. The Ragozin system reminds me both of the Nimzo−Indian and the Queen's Gambit and it is quite logical − Black plays both the ...¥f8−b4 and ...d7−d5 moves. Transpositions are quite possible − for example, for those who can play the Rubinstein Variation of the Nimzo−Indian this system does not bother much since they can simply continue 5. e3 and so on. The Ragozin system also resembles the Vienna Variation and this sharp system can be also be reached if White does not capture on d5. However, despite the similarities, the Ragozin System has its own typical ideas, manoeuvres, subtleties and concrete lines. It seems to be a positional opening like the Nimzo, but at the same time it is rather ambitious and White players cannot feel too comfortable − in some lines Black begins to create threats very quickly! Statistics tell us that the Ragozin System does not belong amongst the most popular openings but perhaps it is a bit underestimated and still waiting for its time...

5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5

119

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pin looks rather annoying for Black, who has already sent his bishop to b4. Now he

must think how to solve this problem.

6...h6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black usually plays 6...¤bd7 which leads to the main lines after 7.e3 followed by Bf1-d3

and so on. (A typical 7.£c2, which may transpose into the Nimzo, does not seem necessary at the moment. It might give Black a good extra option: 7...h6 8.¥h4 0-0 9.e3 c5 10.¥d3 c4 11.¥f5 ¤b6!? with good play. The game Van Wely − Mamedyarov/Dortmund 2008 continued 12.g4?! This ambitious move is interesting but it does not look solid and certainly gives chances for Black as well.

a) Yet, routine moves do not bother Black much: 12.¥xc8 ¦xc8 13.0-0 ¥e7 14.¦ad1 ¤h5 15.£f5 g6 16.¥xe7 £xe7 17.£h3 ¢g7 18.¤e5 ¤f6 with acceptable play

b) 12.0-0 ¥xf5 (or 12...¥e7!? 13.¦fe1 ¥xf5 14.£xf5 £c8 15.£c2 ¦e8 16.¦ac1 £e6) 13.£xf5 £d7 14.£c2 £e6 15.¥xf6 £xf6 and Black is doing well

12...g5! 13.¥g3 ¥xf5 14.gxf5 ¤e4 with excellent play for Black.)

7.¥h4

120

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An exchange 7.¥xf6 is not very popular: 7...£xf6 8.£b3 White plays this variation with a

hope to achieve a slight but comfortable edge without being involved in complications. However, Black keeps good counter chances. 8...c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-wq-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+QsN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.dxc5 a) 9.e3 is one of the main alternatives: 9...¤c6!? (9...0-0 is also playable) 10.dxc5 0-0

11.¥b5 d4 (11...¥xc3+?! 12.£xc3 £xc3+ 13.bxc3) 12.¥xc6 (surely not 12.¤xd4?! ¤xd4

13.exd4 £xd4³) 12...dxc3 13.£xb4 cxb2 14.¦b1 bxc6, after which White chooses between 15.£xb2 (and 15.0-0 with somewhat better chances in both cases, according to the tournament practice)

b) 9.a3!? might be promising: 9...¥xc3+ (in the ending after 9...cxd4 10.axb4 dxc3

11.£xc3 £xc3+ 12.bxc3² White keeps the edge) 10.£xc3 (10.bxc3 can be well met by 10...c4! 11.£b5+ £c6 12.£xc6+ (12.a4 0-0÷, 12.¦b1 0-0 13.e4 dxe4 14.¤e5 £xb5 15.¦xb5

¤d7 16.¤xc4 b6 17.¤e3 ¦d8 18.¢d2 ¥b7÷) 12...bxc6 13.e4 0-0 14.¤d2 ¤d7 15.¥e2 ¦e8 16.0-0 c5!„ and Black achieves good counter chances) 10...¤d7!?

b1) other options do not solve all the problems: 10...b6 11.¦c1 ¤d7 12.e3² b2) 10...0-0?! 11.£xc5 b3) 10...c4 11.b3 0-0 12.bxc4 dxc4 13.£xc4 ¥e6 14.£b5! ¥g4 15.e3 ¥xf3 16.gxf3

£xf3 17.¦g1² b4) or 10...¤a6?! 11.¦c1 c4 12.b3 b5 13.bxc4 bxc4 14.e4! £e7 (14...dxe4 15.¤e5 0-0

16.¥xc4±) 15.£e3 0-0?! 16.exd5 £d8 17.¥xc4 ¦e8 18.¤e5 £d6 19.0-0+−

121

11.£e3+!? (or a simple 11.e3² ) 11...£e7 (11...£e6 12.£xe6+ fxe6 13.dxc5 ¤xc5 14.¦c1²)

12.£xe7+ ¢xe7 13.dxc5 ¤xc5 14.¦c1 with a small advantage in the ending, which should be defendable for Black: 14...¤e6 (14...¤e4 15.e3 ¥d7 16.¥d3²) 15.e3 ¦d8 16.¢d2 ¦d6 17.¥d3² and so on

c) Other options are harmless for Black: 9.¦c1?! ¤c6 10.e3 c4 11.£d1 0-0 is already better for him

d) 9.0-0-0?! is too risky: 9...¥xc3 10.£xc3 c4 (10...0-0!?) 11.e4 dxe4 12.¤d2 and here Black can secure the edge by a simple 12...0-0!? 13.¤xe4 £g6 14.f3 b5³

e) Accepting the gift by 9.£xd5? is really dubious: 9...¤c6 10.e3 ¥e6 11.£e4 0-0-0ƒ with a strong initiative.

9...¥xc3+ (9...¤a6 10.e3 ¥xc3+ 11.bxc3 ¤xc5 12.¥b5+ gives better chances for White.) 10.bxc3 (The ending after 10.£xc3 £xc3+ 11.bxc3 is fine for Black: 11...¤d7 12.0-0-0 ¤f6 13.e3 0-0

14.¥d3 ¥g4 15.¦d2 ¦ac8 with a good play) 10...0-0 (10...¥e6!? is also playable: 11.¤d4

¤d7 12.g3 0-0 13.¥g2 ¤xc5 14.£b4 ¦fc8 and so on) 11.¤d4 (11.¦c1 is well met by 11...¤a6! 12.e3 ¤xc5 13.£xd5 £b6! 14.£d2 ¥e6 15.¤d4 ¦ac8 16.f3 ¦c7 followed by ...Rf8−c8, getting the c3−pawn back) 11...¥e6!? (Black has also tried 11...¤a6 12.e3 (12.£xd5 ¦d8 13.£f3 £g5! (13...£e5 14.e3 £xc5 15.¦c1 ¤b4 16.¥e2 ¤xa2 17.¦c2 seems to be in White's favour) 14.e4 ¥g4! 15.£g3 ¤xc5 16.h4 £g6 17.f3 £b6! 18.£f2 ¤a4!? and Black grabbed the initiative) 12...¤xc5 13.£xd5 b6!? 14.£xa8 ¥b7 15.£xa7 ¦a8 16.£xa8+ ¥xa8 with reasonable compensation. For example, 17.f3 £h4+! 18.g3 £g5 19.¢f2?! (19.¢e2!) 19...¥xf3!! with a big advantage since the bishop is untouchable: 20.¤xf3 ¤e4+ 21.¢g2 £xe3ƒ and Black gets everything back with benefit. However, White might certainly find the more precise way to extinguish Black's initiative in this variation) 12.e3 White might begin with 12. £a3 as well. (12.£xb7?! is dubious as White gets nothing but problems. The game Akobian − Mitkov/Chicago 2008, continued 12...¤d7 13.£b4 ¦ab8 14.£a3 ¦fc8 15.e3

£g6 16.f3 ¤xc5 17.¢f2 £f6! 18.¦c1 £e7! 19.¢g1 ¥d7! 20.¦e1 ¦b1! and Black eventually smashed his opponent in style) 12...¤d7 13.£a3 This position has been tested many times in practice. Conclusion: Black is okay. For example, 13...¦fc8 (13...£e7!? with idea to get the pawn back after 14.¥e2 ¦fc8 is interesting) 14.c6 bxc6 15.¥a6 ¦cb8 16.0-0 ¦b6 17.¥e2 £g6 (or 17...c5 18.¤xe6 £xe6 19.¦fd1 c4 20.£a5 ¤f6 21.¥f3 ¦a6

22.£b5 £b6! 23.£xb6 axb6 24.¥xd5 ¤xd5 25.¦xd5 ¦xa2 26.¦xa2 ¦xa2 27.¦d8+ ¢h7 28.g4 ¦a3

29.¦d6 with a draw in the endgame) 18.¤xe6 £xe6 19.¦ab1 ¦ab8 20.¦b3 ¤f6 with good play for Black.

7...c5

122

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The concrete and rather risky attempt to get rid of the pin and obtain counter chances by

7...g5 8.¥g3 ¤e4 does not solve the problems. White has a strong resource 9.¤d2! (9.¦c1?! is known to be bad as after slightly unexpected 9...h5! White cannot save his bishop without serious concessions) 9...¤xc3 (in case of 9...¤xg3 White gets the edge after 10.hxg3 c5 This active approach is double−edged.

a) 10...¥e6 11.£c2 c6 12.a3 ¥e7!? (the deep retreat 12...¥f8?! is rather typical for such positions as Black thereby fortifies his K−side. However, this delay in development might be costly for him. 13.e4! dxe4?! Another move, which can only promote White's initiative. (the more solid 13...¤d7 14.0-0-0 ¥g7 does not solve the problems completely: 15.f4 dxe4 16.¤dxe4ƒ) 14.0-0-0ƒ and White's initiative has become threatening, S.Ernst − Miedema/NED−ch Haaksbergen 2009) 13.0-0-0 ¤d7 14.e4 and here Black should prefer 14...¤b6!?, keeping the worse but defendable position.

b) a restrained 10...c6 11.e3² leads to a similar play 11.a3 cxd4 (11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 ¤c6 13.e3 ¥f5 does not solve Black's problems: 14.¥b5 £a5

15.£f3! £xc3 16.0-0 and White's initiative should bring himself real benefit soon)

12.£a4+!? (12.axb4 dxc3 13.bxc3 may also promise better prospects for White: 13...£f6

14.e3 0-0 15.¦a3² and so on) 12...¤c6 13.axb4 dxc3 14.bxc3 £f6 15.b5 The game Chabanon − Anic/Enghien les Bains 1997 continued 15...¤e7 16.£d4! £xd4 17.cxd4² and thanks to his active rooks and the better pawn structure White has achieved a stable advantage in the endgame) 10.bxc3 ¥xc3 11.¦c1 Here Black has a choice. 11...¥b2 The main continuation.

a) In case of 11...¥xd2+?! 12.£xd2 c6 13.h4ƒ Black is just suffering without counter chances

b) while after 11...¥a5 12.e3 (a logical 12.h4 is also possible: 12...g4 (a surprising 12...¦f8 does not equalise: 13.e3 c6 14.¥d3 ¥c7 15.¥xc7 £xc7 16.£h5 ¥e6 17.hxg5 hxg5

18.£xg5 ¤d7², in case of 12...c6?! 13.hxg5 £xg5 14.e3© White obtains more than enough compensation for the pawn) 13.e3 c6 (or 13...0-0 14.¥d3 c6 15.0-0©) 14.¥e2© followed by castling with excellent compensation for the pawn) 12...¥f5 (12...c6?! is less precise since White can develop his bishop more actively: 13.¥d3 ¥c7 14.¥xc7 £xc7

15.0-0ƒ and Black can hardly stop White's actions) 13.¥e2 (a typical 13.h4 deserves attention as well) 13...¤d7 14.0-0 White is playing without pawn but he has already completed his development and ready to act. The game Yermolinsky −

123

Zilberstein/San Francisco 2003 continued 14...c6 15.e4! dxe4 16.¤c4 ¥c7 17.d5ƒ and White seized the initiative

12.¥xc7 (12.¦xc7!? is also rather interesting: 12...¤a6 (Black fails to trap the rook: 12...¤c6? 13.e3 ¥a3 14.¥b5±) 13.¦c2 ¥xd4 14.e3 ¥g7 (The bishop had to retreat since 14...£e7? failed to 15.¥xa6 bxa6 16.¦xc8+! ¦xc8 17.£a4+ £d7 18.£xd4+−) 15.¥xa6 bxa6 16.0-0 0-0 17.¤b3² and thanks to the better pawn structure White can claim a small edge, Stocek − Izoria/EU−ch Antalya 2004) 12...£e7 (12...£d7 is less popular: 13.¦b1 ¥c3 (other options are not completely satisfactory for Black: 13...£xc7 14.¦xb2

¤c6 15.e3 ¥e6 16.¥d3±, or 13...¥a3 14.¥xb8 ¦xb8 15.e3 0-0 16.¥d3² in both cases with a certain advantage for White thanks to Black's weakened pawn structure) 14.¥e5 (White would also get a small advantage by 14.¥g3 ¤c6 15.e3², and 14.¥xb8 ¦xb8

15.e3², as was tested in some games) 14...0-0 This position arose in the game Moiseenko − Giorgadze/ESP−chT Sanxenxo 2004, which continued 15.¦b3!? ¥a5 16.h4ƒ and White has got initiative on the K−side though Black still had a lot of defensive resources) 13.¥d6! £e6 14.¦b1 Probably the best series of moves. 14...¥c3 (14...£xd6?! gives a certain edge for White after 15.¦xb2 ¤c6 16.e3) 15.¥a3 ¤c6 16.e3 ¥xd4 Black has got extra pawn but his king got stuck in center. 17.¦c1!?

a) In the game Shabalov − Mitkov/Chicago 2002 White preferred 17.¥b5 ¥f6 (in case of 17...¥e5 White can simply continue by 18.0-0 ¥d6 19.¥xd6 £xd6 20.¤e4 £e5

21.£xd5 £xd5 22.¤f6+ ¢f8 23.¤xd5ƒ with initiative) 18.¤b3!? ¥c3+ 19.¢f1 a6 20.¥d3 b5 21.¥c5 ¥f6 22.a4ƒ but Black has eventually extinguished White's initiative by 22...¥e7!

b) In a number of games Mitkov successfully defended the ending after 17.¥e2 ¥e5 18.0-0 ¥d6 19.¥xd6 £xd6 20.¤e4 £e5 21.£xd5 £xd5 22.¤f6+ ¢f8 23.¤xd5² − White keeps a slight edge but it's difficult to convert it into something more substantial.

17...¥f6 18.¥b5 Here is the point − Black's king cannot escape from the center. The game Cheparinov − Mitkov/Morelia 2007 continued 18...¥e7 19.¥xe7 ¢xe7 20.¤b3 A tempting but perhaps not the best continuation. (20.0-0!? ¢f8 21.¤b3 came into consideration with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn) 20...£g4! 21.£xd5 £b4+ 22.¢e2 ¦d8 23.£c5+ £xc5 24.¤xc5² and White's pressure has eventually brought him a full point.

8.e3

124

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.dxc5 is an alternative, which may lead to complications: 8...¤bd7 9.¦c1 £a5 10.a3

(Perhaps White should pay more attention to the old 10.£d4!?, which has been tried in practice more often: 10...0-0 (or 10...¥xc5 11.£d2 0-0 (11...¥b4 12.a3 is simply better for White) 12.e3 ¥b6 13.¥d3 (13.¥e2!?) 13...¦e8 14.¥b1 with somewhat better chances) 11.a3 ¥xc5 12.£d2 ¥e7 13.e3 ¤b6 (13...£d8 14.¥d3 (14.¥e2 ¤c5 15.¤d4²)

14...¤c5 15.¤d4² with a stable advantage) 14.¤d4 ¤e4 (perhaps 14...¤c4!? is preferable) 15.¥xe7! ¤xd2 16.¥b4 £xb4 17.axb4 ¤xf1 18.¦xf1 ¥e6 19.b3 (19.¤cb5!?) 19...a5 20.bxa5 ¦xa5 21.¢d2 ¦fa8 22.¦c2² and White has secured a small edge) 10...¥xc3+ 11.¦xc3 ¤e4 12.b4 ¤xc3 13.£a1 £a4 (Black can also try 13...£a6 14.£xc3 £g6 15.e3 £b1+ 16.¢d2 0-0 but perhaps White is still able to maintain some pressure: 17.¦g1!? A simple way to get rid of the pin and get the K−side pieces into play. If White manages to secure his king he will be able to maintain the pressure thanks to his better pawn structure and strong minor pieces. The material balance is almost equal as White has got one pawn for the exchange. Besides, his king has already become a real piece. (17.¤e1?! a5 brings only problems for White, but 17.£c2!? deserves attention: 17...£a1 18.£h7+!? ¢xh7 19.¥d3+ ¢g8!?

20.¦xa1 a5 21.¢c3!? axb4+ 22.¢xb4 and White keeps excellent compensation for the exchange and may try to increase pressure over Black's Q−side, using his strong pieces, including the king. However, here White's Q−side pawn structure was damaged and Black looks okay after, for example, 22...¤b8!? 23.¥g3 ¤c6+ 24.¢c3 ¥d7)

17...£a2+!? (after 17...a5 18.¥c4 axb4 19.axb4 £e4 20.¥d3 £e6 21.¤d4 £e5 22.¥g3 £f6

23.¤b5! White has obtained the better chances in the game Delchev − Palac/Khanty−Mansyjsk (ol) 2010) 18.¢c1 a5 19.£b2 £xb2+ 20.¢xb2 axb4 21.axb4 ¦a4 22.¢b3 ¦a1 Here White has to exchange his last major piece but perhaps he still has some edge after 23.¥b5 ¦xg1 24.¤xg1) 14.£xc3 0-0 15.e3 a5 16.b5 We have considered a very similar position in the chapter "D38 QGD/19 Ragozin System deviations from the main line" in the games Khenkin − Maze/Geneve 2007 and N.Kosintseva − Zdebskaja/EU−ch Dresden 2007. Here the moves ...h7−h6 and ¥g5−h4 have been included. 16...¤xc5 Black is in a hurry to create counter chances against uncastled opponent's king. (16...¦e8 17.¥e2 gives White a small but stable advantage) 17.£xc5 ¥f5! A good idea, Black places his bishop more actively. (17...¥e6 also seems playable. White would try to extinguish Black's initiative by 18.£c1

125

a) 18.£d4 £xa3 19.¥e2 can be well met by 19...£c1+ 20.£d1 (20.¥d1? a4 21.0-0 a3

22.¥e2 ¦fc8!) 20...£c3+ (or 20...¦fc8!?, 20...£b2? 21.0-0 a4 22.¥g3! f6 23.¤d4 ¥f7 24.¥d3 a3

25.¤f5 a2 26.£g4 gives White a very strong attack) 21.£d2 (or 21.¤d2 d4 22.0-0 dxe3

23.¤e4 £b4) 21...£a1+ 22.£d1 (22.¥d1 looks risky for White: 22...a4 23.0-0 a3 24.¤d4

¦fc8 25.¥c2 £b2 and Black's a−pawn is very strong) 22...£c3+ with a repetition b) while 18.¥e2 ¦fc8 19.£d4 ¦c1+ 20.¥d1 £xb5 looks okay for Black, for

example: 21.£d2 ¦ac8 22.¤d4 £c4 but perhaps White can still look for some way to prove his advantage in this line

though here the moves ...h7−h6 and ¥g5−h4 give Black more resources: 18...¦ac8 19.£a1 ¥g4 20.¥g3 d4! with good counter chances as White is still seriously behind in development) 18.£c1!? (the dubious 18.£d4?! £xa3 19.¥e2 £b4+! 20.£xb4 (20.£d2 ¦fc8 was not much better) 20...axb4 gave Black a rather annoying initiative thanks to his strong passed pawn and active rooks, Aronian − Kramnik/Tal Memorial Moscow 2010) 18...¦ac8 19.£a1 can be met by the already mentioned 19...¥g4 20.¥g3 d4! but the position is still rather unclear. This line still deserves more analysis.

8...0-0

The drastic measure 8...g5 9.¥g3 ¤e4 still seems risky for Black: 10.¥b5+ ¢f8 (other options cannot equalise: 10...¤c6 11.0-0² is considered in the game Borovikov − Alexandrov/Kramatorsk 2001, while 10...¥d7 11.¥xd7+ ¤xd7 12.0-0² also gives White a small but stable advantage) 11.0-0 (Garry Kasparov preferred 11.dxc5!?, which is interesting but probably less clear: 11...¤xc3 12.bxc3 ¥xc3+ 13.¢e2 ¥xa1 14.£xa1 f6 (14...¢g8 wasn't easier for Black: 15.¥e5 ¦h7 16.¥f6 £a5 17.¥d3 ¤d7 18.¥c3! (18.¥xh7+?! ¢xh7 19.¥d4 b6!) 18...£xc5 19.h4! g4 20.¤g5!‚ with decisive attack) 15.h4 and here Black must continue 15...¢g7÷ with a sharp and complicated play, according to some correspondence games) 11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 c4 (12...¤xc3?! 13.£c2!

¤xb5 14.£xc5+ ¢g7 15.£xb5±) 13.¤e5 (13.£c2 ¥f5 14.£b2² could have promised some advantage for White) 13...¤xc3 14.£h5 £f6 15.f4! g4 16.f5!© with the initiative although Black could still defend

After 8...¤c6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+n+-sn-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

126

White has a choice. The most natural decision is to continue the development. 9.¥b5 (9.¥e2 is also playable though a bit less active: 9...g5 10.¥g3 ¤e4 11.¦c1 £a5 12.0-0 ¥xc3 13.bxc3 ¤xc3 14.£e1 ¤xe2+ 15.£xe2 c4 Black has secured his extra pawn but his king is not castled and White can begin actions first. The game Chekhov − Inkiov/Polanica Zdroj 1981 continued 16.¤e5!? (16.e4!? deserves serious attention)

16...¤xe5 17.¥xe5 ¦g8 and here 18.e4!ƒ was stronger. White's chances seemed preferable since he was playing against the opponent's king) 9...g5 (Black tried some other options to get rid of the annoying pin but failed to equalise: 9...£b6 10.0-0 ¥xc3

11.¥xc6+ £xc6 12.¤e5 £e6 13.bxc3 0-0 14.¤d3², or 9...£a5 10.¥xc6+ bxc6 11.¥xf6 ¥xc3+

12.bxc3 £xc3+ 13.¤d2 gxf6 14.¦c1 £d3 15.¦xc5±) 10.¥g3 ¤e4 11.0-0 ¥xc3 12.bxc3 0-0 (After 12...¤xc3 13.¥xc6+ bxc6 14.£c2 ¤e4 15.dxc5² White gets the better chances)

13.¥xc6 bxc6 14.dxc5 ¤xc5 This position arose in the game Borovikov − Aleksandrov/Kramatorsk 2001 which continued 15.¤d4 (an alternative 15.¤e5!? is also worthy of consideration) 15...£f6 16.£f3! £g6 17.c4! and White has achieved the better prospects.

9.¥d3

White tried a number of continuations here but this natural move seems to be the best.

9...c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlpzP-+-vL0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pawn advance is typical for the Ragozin. Black gets rid of the eventual d4xc5 and

obtains a pawn superiority on the Q−side. Of course, it gives White free hands in center and he will certainly try to prepare e3−e4. However, this task is not so simple and Black hopes to get use of his trump in the complex middlegame.

10.¥b1!?

127

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-vlpzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRL+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very interesting idea − White is going to use the c2−square for his queen! The natural 10.¥c2 would also promise a small advantage for White: 10...¤bd7 (in case of

10...¥g4 White can play 11.0-0 ¥xc3 12.bxc3 ¤bd7 13.£b1 ¥xf3 14.gxf3², maintaining the edge, R.Scherbakov − A.Aleksandrov/Sochi 1997) 11.0-0 £a5 (11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 £a5

is too complaisant and White gets a stable advantage by 13.£c1 ¦e8 14.¤d2²) 12.¤e2 (12.¦c1 ¥xc3 13.bxc3 £xa2 14.¤d2© also gives White a good compensation for the pawn but this way requires more analysis and practical tests) 12...¦e8 13.b3 ¥a3! Preventing a rather annoying a2−a3 followed by b3−b4. The game Kir.Georgiev − Kacheishvili/Dubai 2005 continued 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.¦b1!? b5 16.¤e5÷ with a very complicated play.

10...¤bd7

A routine 10...¥xc3+ 11.bxc3 ¦e8 does not prevent White's plans: 12.¤d2 ¤bd7 13.0-0 ¤f8 14.h3 ¤g6 15.¥g3 £a5 16.£c1² with better prospects.

11.0-0 £a5 12.£c2 ¥xc3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-vL0 9+-vl-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tRL+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.£xc3!?

128

Another important decision − White supposes the endgame is more promising to him! 13.bxc3² could have also maintained a small advantage since 13...¤e4?! was strongly met

by 14.¤d2! £xc3 (14...f5 15.¤xe4 fxe4 16.f3±) 15.¤xe4 £xc2 16.¥xc2 dxe4 17.¥xe4± with a tangible advantage.

13...£xc3 14.bxc3 ¦e8 15.¤d2²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+-+-sn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+pzP-+-vL0 9+-zP-zP-+-0 9P+-sN-zPPzP0 9tRL+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has achieved a stable advantage in the endgame − he can play on both the Q−side

and the center, Kasparov − Aleksandrov/Bled (ol) 2002.

129

QGD/20 Ragozin System − 7. e3 c5 8.

dxc5 [D38]


1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥b4 4.¤f3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.e3 c5 8.dxc5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-zPp+-vL-0 9-vl-+-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is not the most popular way to counter the Ragozin variation but perhaps it's

underestimated.

8...£a5 9.¦c1 ¥xc3+

9...£xa2?! is too risky: 10.¥xf6 ¤xf6 11.¥b5+ ¥d7 12.0-0 ¥xc3 13.¥xd7+ ¤xd7 14.¦xc3 £xb2 (or 14...0-0 15.b4 ¦fc8 16.¤d4) 15.¦c2 £f6 16.£xd5 £c6 17.£xc6 (17.£d6!?)

17...bxc6 18.¤d4 with a clear advantage 9...¤e4 10.£xd5 ¤xc3 11.bxc3 ¥xc3+ 12.¢d1 0-0 is an alternative topical line, in which

Vladimir Kramnik recently gave Black problems: 13.¥c4 ¤f6 (13...¤xc5?! favours White: 14.¥e7 ¥b4 15.¥xf8 ¥e6 16.£d4 ¦xf8 17.¢e2 and White gets the better chances. For example, 17...¥a3 18.¥xe6! ¥xc1 19.¥c4 ¥a3 20.¤g5 b5 21.¥xf7+ ¦xf7 22.¤xf7 ¢xf7

23.£d5+ and so on) 14.¥xf6 ¥xf6 15.¢e2 and White gets the better chances, according to tournament practice

9...0-0 is a transposition to another important line, which usually arises via a different order of moves: 6...0-0 7. ¦c1!? ¤bd7 8. e3 c5 9. dc5 £a5 and it is considered in "D38 QGD/19 Ragozin System Deviations from the main line".

130

10.bxc3 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9wq-zPp+-vL-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-zPN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.¤d4!?

This rare option is rather interesting. White usually played 11.¥e2 ¤e4 12.0-0 but Black is recently doing well: 12...¤xc3 (or

12...¤dxc5 13.¥e7 ¦e8 14.¥xc5 £xc5 15.c4 dxc4 (15...¥e6!? 16.¤d4 ¦ac8) 16.¦xc4 £e7 17.£c2 ¤d6 18.¦c7 ¥f5 19.£c1 with some pressure) 13.£d2 ¤xe2+ 14.£xe2 b6!? 15.¦fd1 ¥a6 16.£c2 ¤xc5 17.¥e7 ¦fc8 18.¦xd5 h6 19.¥xc5 ¥b7! followed by ...¥b7xf3 and Black solved all his problems.

11...£xc5

The brave alternative 11...£xa2 is risky but worth considering. Here 12.¥f4!? deserved serious attention. (12.¥e2 £a3 13.¤b5 £xc5 14.¥f4 ¤e8 15.0-0 ¤b6 16.£d4!? £xd4 17.cxd4

also gives White good compensation for the pawn) 12...a6!? a) both 12...¤xc5 13.¥d6 ¤fe4 14.¦c2 £a5 15.¥xf8 ¢xf8 16.f3 b) and 12...¦e8 do not solve the problems: 13.¥b5 £a3 14.0-0! £xc5 (14...a6? 15.c6!)

15.c4 a6 16.cxd5 £xd5 17.¥a4 £h5 18.¦c7 and White gets the initiative 13.c6 bxc6 14.¤xc6 ¦e8 15.¥d3 with somewhat the better chances for White.

12.¥d3 ¤e4

12...¦e8 13.0-0 (13.£c2 h6 14.¥f4 ¤h5) 13...¤e4 14.¥f4 is also better for White.

13.¥f4

131

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-wqp+-+-0 9-+-sNnvL-+0 9+-zPLzP-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has maintained a small but stable advantage, Nakamura − Grischuk/Wijk aan Zee

2011.

132

QGD/21 Ragozin System − Deviations

from main line [D38]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 ¥b4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzpn+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...0-0 is not very popular. Recently White tried to put problems for Black by playing an

early 7.¦c1!?, making a typical ...c7−c5 more difficult. (7.e3 may still lead to the

133

main lines but some subtleties are always there, for example, after 7...c5 8.¥d3 c4

White cannot put his bishop on f5. Then after 9.¥c2 ¤bd7 10.0-0 £a5 is considered below in the line 6 ...Nbd7 7. e3 c5 8. Bd3 c4 9. Bc2!?) 7...¤bd7

a) Black can also include 7...h6, after which 8.¥xf6 (8.¥h4!?) 8...£xf6 9.a3 ¥xc3+ 10.¦xc3 c6 11.e3 ¥g4 gives him a slightly worse but playable position.

b) 7...c5 can be well met with 8.dxc5 ¥e6 (or 8...¤c6 9.e3 h6 10.¥xf6 £xf6 11.¥b5 (11.a3!?) 11...£g6 12.0-0 ¥h3 13.¤e1! with idea ¤c3−e2−f4, which gives White a clear edge) 9.e3 (an attempt to win a pawn by 9.a3?! ¥xc5 10.¥xf6? is dubious as White is getting late in development: 10...£xf6 11.¤xd5 ¥xd5 12.£xd5 ¤a6!ƒ and Black has seized the initiative, Chuchelov − Jobava/EU−ch Dresden 2007) 9...¤bd7 10.a3 ¥xc5 11.¥b5 (11.¥e2 ¦c8 12.0-0² also gives White the better chances) 11...¥e7 12.0-0 ¤c5 13.¥f4² with a small edge in a typical position with isolated pawn

8.e3 Despite the knight on c3 is protected by the rook White does not want to waste time for pushing the bishop, supposing that he is well prepared for the advance ...c7−c5 anyway. (In case of 8.a3 ¥xc3+ (Black might also think about 8...¥e7 9.e3 c6,

transposing into the Carlsbad type of position, in which White's one extra move on the Q−side might not be very important − however, it is not completely in the more active Ragozin system which he initially played) 9.¦xc3 h6 10.¥h4 c6 11.e3 g5!? 12.¥g3 ¤e4 13.¦c2 ¤df6 Black has got acceptable play) 8...c5 Otherwise what was the point of moving the bishop to b4?! 9.dxc5 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9wq-zPp+-vL-0 9-vl-+-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(9...¤xc5 10.£d4 ¥xc3+ 11.£xc3 ¤ce4 12.¥xf6 £xf6 13.£xf6 ¤xf6 is certainly not equalising as

White enjoys a comfortable edge in the endgame with isolated pawn) 10.a3! This pawn push was supposed to be not so good for White since 1929! (10.¤d2 was known to be the main continuation, preventing ...¤f6−e4: 10...b6!? (10...£xc5 11.a3

¥xc3 12.¦xc3 £b6 13.£b3²) 11.c6! d4! (11...¥xc3? fails to 12.¦xc3 d4 13.¥xf6! ¤xf6 14.¤c4!

followed by £d1xd4) 12.cxd7 dxc3 13.bxc3 ¥xc3!? 14.¥xf6 gxf6÷ This position has been tested in several games and White failed to pose problems for Black) 10...¥xc3+ 11.¦xc3 ¤e4 12.b4 ¤xc3 At the moment Black has a whole extra rook but the knight is going to be lost. 13.£a1 £a4 (in case of 13...£c7!? 14.£xc3 a5 White can secure his advantage by 15.¥b5!? (15.¥d3 axb4 16.axb4 ¦e8 17.0-0 ¤e5 is rather unclear) 15...axb4 16.axb4, trying to keep Black's pieces passive) 14.£xc3 a5 At first sight this position should be fine for Black − he has got the exchange while

134

White's king is still in center. However, it soon becomes clear that White's superiority is based on solid positional grounds. 15.b5 ¦e8!?

a) 15...¤xc5?! 16.£xc5 does not give Black sufficient compensation: 16...¥e6?! (16...¥d7!? is preferable) 17.£c1! ¦fc8 18.£a1! and after this cool defence Black finds himself without targets

b) while after 15...b6 16.c6 ¤c5 17.¥d3 £g4 (17...¥g4!? came into consideration but it seems that White would simply continue by 18.0-0) 18.0-0 ¤xd3 19.£xd3 White has secured the better chances in the game Khenkin − Maze/Geneve 2007

16.¥e2 (16.¤d4!? might have been more precise, locking up Black's queen. Then it would be a transposition to the game after 16...¤f8 17.¥e2 ¤e6) 16...¤f8 (Black had an interesting attempt 16...£e4!? 17.0-0 d4!? 18.exd4 ¤xc5! 19.¦e1 ¤a4 20.£d2ƒ White had the initiative but it seemed bearable) 17.¤d4 (In case of 17.0-0 Black could have thought about 17...¥g4!?) 17...¤e6 The game N.Kosintseva − Zdebskaja/EU−ch Dresden 2007 continued 18.¤xe6 ¦xe6 19.0-0 ¥d7 20.£b2² and White has secured the better chances.

6...c5 is usually played after ...h7−h6 and ¥g5−h4 or after ...¤b8−d7. Here White can secure the better chances by 7.dxc5 (7.e3 would be a transposition into the other lines) 7...0-0 8.¦c1 − see 6...0-0 7. ¦c1 c5.

7.e3

Recently White began to play 7.¦c1 as well, trying to make a typical ...c7−c5 more difficult for Black. However, he still failed to put real problems: 7...c6 (7...c5?! 8.dxc5 gives better chances for White, according to the tournament practice: 8...£a5 (or 8...¤xc5

9.£d4 ¥xc3+ 10.£xc3 ¤ce4 11.¥xf6 £xf6 12.£xf6 ¤xf6 13.e3 with stable advantage) 9.¥d2 (9.a3 ¥xc3+ 10.¦xc3 ¤e4 11.¥d2 looks promising but Black can almost solve the problems by 11...¤dxc5! (11...¤xc3?! 12.¥xc3 £xc5 13.¥xg7 ¦g8 14.¥d4ƒ) 12.¦c1 ¤xd2 13.£xd2 £xd2+ 14.¤xd2 b6 15.e3 ¢e7 16.b4 ¤e6 17.¤b3 a5 and so on) 9...¥xc5 10.e3 with a comfortable edge) 8.e3 (8.a3 deserved attention, clarifying situation on the Q−side) 8...£a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.¥d3!? (9.£b3 ¤e4 10.¥f4 can still be met by 10...c5! Despite being played in two steps this

typical pawn advance is still rather strong. 11.a3 ¥xc3+ 12.bxc3 c4 The game Laznicka − Sargissian/GER−chT 2006 continued 13.£b4 £xb4 14.axb4 a5 15.bxa5 ¦xa5 with

135

acceptable play for Black) 9...£xa2 10.0-0 £a5 Black played some wasteful moves in the opening so White should have good compensation for the pawn. However, it's still not so easy to pose real problems. The game Navara − Aronian/Wijk aan Zee 2007 continued 11.¤e5 0-0 12.£f3 ¤xe5 13.dxe5 ¤g4 14.£g3 ¤xe5 15.£xe5 f6 16.¥xf6 ¦xf6 17.£e8+ ¦f8 18.£h5 h6 and White had no more than repetition of moves by 19.£g6 ¦f6 20.£e8+

7.£c2 is also playable, 7...c5 8.dxc5 h6 9.¥d2 0-0 10.e3 ¥xc5 11.¦c1!? Carlsen − Ivanchuk/Medias ROU 2011.

7...c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-zpp+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.¥d3

An alternative 8.¥e2 is rarely played. White develops his bishop to the less active position but at the same time Black will not gain time by his typical c−pawn advance. 8...£a5 9.0-0 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9wq-zpp+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(Black also tried 9...c4 10.£c2 ¥xc3 11.bxc3 ¤e4, and an immediate 9...¥xc3 10.bxc3 c4) 10.¤d2!?

White prevents the typical ...¤f6−e4 at the same going to disturb Black's advanced Q−side pieces.

136

a) A rather unexpected 10.¤xd5!? deserves attention: 10...¤xd5 11.dxc5 (11.a3!?)

11...h6 12.¥h4 ¤7f6 13.a3 ¥xc5 14.b4 ¤xb4 15.axb4 £xb4 16.¥xf6 gxf6 17.£c2© and White has achieved good compensation for the pawn

b) 10.dxc5 ¥xc3 11.bxc3 ¤e4!? 12.c4 is acceptable although maybe slightly worse for Black: 12...dxc4!?

b1) 12...¤c3 does not fully equalise: 13.£c2 ¤xc5 (after 13...¤xe2+?! 14.£xe2 dxc4?!

15.£xc4 b6 16.c6! ¥a6 17.£g4! ¥xf1 18.cxd7 ¥d3! 19.£d4 f6 20.£xd3! fxg5 21.£c4+ ¢h8

22.¦d1± White has got a clear advantage) 14.cxd5 ¤xd5 15.¦ac1 b6 16.¦fd1² with a certain edge

b2) 12...¤xg5!? is playable although White keeps a slight edge after 13.¤xg5 h6 14.¤f3 dxc4 15.¥xc4 ¤xc5²

13.¥xc4 £xc5 14.£d5 (14.¦c1?! ¤xg5 15.¥xf7+ ¤xf7 16.¦xc5 ¤xc5) 14...£xd5 15.¥xd5 ¤df6, exchanging White's dark−squared bishop and almost equalising.

c) 10.£c2 can be met with 10...¥xc3 (10...c4 11.¤d2 ¦e8 12.¥h4 ¥xc3 13.bxc3 ¤e4

14.¤xe4 ¦xe4 15.¥g3 gave White a small but stable advantage in the game A.Rychagov − Zvjaginsev/RUS−ch Superfinal Moscow 2007) 11.bxc3 (The endgame after 11.£xc3 £xc3 12.bxc3 ¤e4 does not promise much for White) 11...¤e4 (It is also worth considering to open way for the bishop by playing 11...b6!? ) 12.c4 cxd4 This position arose in the game Radjabov − Aronian/Wijk aan Zee 2007, which continued 13.cxd5 (after 13.exd4 ¤xg5 14.¤xg5 ¤f6 15.c5 ¥d7 16.¥d3 g6 17.¤f3 White's position looks a bit better but Black is solid enough) 13...¦e8! (The more reliable 13...¤xg5 14.¤xg5 ¤f6 could be well met by 15.¥d3! g6 (15...h6 16.¤h7 ¤xh7

17.¥xh7+ ¢h8 18.¥e4²) 16.e4² with better prospects) 14.¦ad1 h6 15.¥h4?! (An alternative 15.¥f4 dxe3 16.¥xe3 at least gave Black a very useful tempo) 15...dxe3 16.fxe3 ¤c3! 17.¥e1 ¦xe3 18.¥d3 £c5! and after the forced 19.£xc3 ¦xe1+ 20.£xc5 ¦xf1+ 21.¥xf1 ¤xc5∓ White has found himself in the endgame with a pawn down.

10...¥xc3 (In case of 10...c4 11.£c2 the game could transpose into a typical position with some advantage for White − perhaps this way is more reliable for Black) 11.bxc3 £xc3 12.¦c1 £a3 13.dxc5 £xa2 14.¥f4! ¦e8 15.¤f3 ¤e4 16.¥b5 a6 17.¥a4 ¤exc5! 18.¦xc5 ¤xc5 19.¥xe8 ¥e6 20.¥e5! ¦xe8 21.¥xg7! ¢xg7 22.£d4+ ¢g8 23.£xc5© White has achieved good compensation for the pawn thanks to the Black's vulnerable king, Morozevich − Aronian/Morelia Linares 2007.

8...c4!?

Black usually begins with 8...£a5

9.¥f5

137

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+LvL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In case of 9.¥c2!? Black can continue according to his plan 9...£a5, intending to grab the

pawn: 10.0-0 ¥xc3!? (in case of 10...0-0 11.¤e5 (11.¤e2!?² might also promise some edge for White, according to the tournament practice) 11...¦e8 (after 11...¥xc3 12.¤xd7! (12.bxc3 is less promising: 12...¤xe5 13.dxe5 (13.¥xf6 ¤g6) 13...¤e4 14.¥e7 ¦e8 15.¥b4 £c7 16.¥xe4!? (16.£xd5 ¦xe5 17.£d4 ¥f5 18.¦ad1 ¦ee8 is fine for Black) 16...dxe4 17.¥d6 £c6² and White keeps somewhat better chances thanks to his strong bishop on d6) 12...¤xd7 13.bxc3 and the c3−pawn cannot be taken for free: 13...£xc3?! 14.£b1!, gaining the h7−pawn thanks to the idea ¥g5−e7−b4, trapping the queen) 12.¤xd7 ¤xd7 13.¤e2 ¤f8 14.¤f4 ¥d6 15.¤h5 £c7 16.£f3 ¤g6 with acceptable play for Black) 11.bxc3 £xc3

a) 11...¤e4 12.¥h4 is better for White according to the tournament practice but perhaps Black should try a brave 12...¤xc3!? (12...0-0 13.¥xe4 dxe4 14.¤d2 £d5 15.a4²,

12...£xc3 13.¦c1 £a3 14.¥xe4 dxe4 15.¤d2ƒ, 12...¤df6 13.¥xf6 ¤xf6 14.£c1 0-0 15.a4²)

13.£e1 b6 14.e4 ¤xe4 (14...0-0!?) 15.¥xe4 £xe1 16.¦fxe1 dxe4 17.¦xe4+ ¢f8 with defendable position.

b) 11...0-0 12.¤e5 is also supposed to be better for White but Black's position is playable. (there are some other options such as 12.¦c1 The game Van Wely − Carlsen/Biel 2007 continued 12...¤e4!? (12...¦e8 is also not bad) 13.¥b1 ¦e8 14.¥f4 ¤b6!? with good counter chances) 12...¤xe5!? (only not 12...£xc3? 13.¤xd7 ¤xd7 14.£b1! (with idea Be7−b4!) 14...£a3 (14...¦e8 15.¥xh7+ ¢h8 16.¥c2± with a clear advantage) 15.¥xh7+ ¢h8 16.¥c2± with a big advantage) 13.dxe5 ¤e4 14.¥e7 ¦e8 15.¥b4 £c7 16.¥xe4!? (16.£xd5 ¦xe5 17.£d4 ¥f5 18.¦ad1 ¦ee8 is at least not worse for Black) 16...dxe4 17.¥d6 £c6² and White keeps somewhat better chances thanks to his strong bishop on d6.

12.¦c1 (12.£b1!? looks interesting but it gives Black the time to complete development: 12...0-0 13.a4!? (13.e4 can be met by 13...dxe4! 14.¥d2 £a3 15.¥b4 £a6 16.¥xf8 exf3 with excellent play for Black, as was proved in a few games) 13...£a5 14.¤e5 ¤xe5 15.dxe5 ¤e4 with good play for Black) 12...£a5 (12...£a3!? is also worthy of consideration: 13.¤e5 b5!? This looks suspicious but it's not so easy for White to disprove it. (a natural 13...0-0 is also possible: 14.¤xd7 (14.£f3 £d6 15.£g3 h6 16.¥xh6

¤h5 is favourable for Black) 14...¤xd7 15.e4© gives White good compensation but Black does not look bad) 14.¤xd7 ¥xd7!? (14...¤xd7 15.e4 h6 16.¥h4 ¤b6 17.¦e1 0-0

18.e5ƒ gives White strong attacking possibilities) 15.£f3 (15.¥xf6!? gxf6 16.e4©

138

deserved serious attention) 15...£d6 16.¥xf6 (16.a4?! ¥g4! 17.¥f4 £e6!?³) 16...gxf6 (16...£xf6 seems worse: 17.£xd5 ¦c8 18.e4 ¥c6 19.£c5 £e7 20.£h5 0-0 21.¦cd1 with advantage thanks to the strong central pawns) 17.e4 with good compensation. However, this still line looks quite playable for Black, especially in case he needs a win) 13.¤e5 0-0 This position arose in the game Harikrishna − B.Savchenko/Aeroflot Moscow 2007. After 14.¤xd7 ¤xd7 15.¥e7!? ¦e8 16.£h5 ¤f8!? 17.¥xf8 g6 18.¥b4 £xb4 19.£xd5 ¥e6÷ Black has achieved acceptable play.

9...¤b6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-sn-+-sn-+0 9+-+p+LvL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting idea − Black benefits from the White bishop's early sortie, intending to

complete development of his Q−side first of all. On the other hand, it deprives Black from his typical manoeuvre ...Qd8−a5 and weakens the knight on f6.

9...£a5 is a common option. Here White can also sacrifice a pawn by 10.0-0 (10.£c2 0-0

leads to the main line, see D38 QGD/16 and D38 QGD/17 for details) 10...¥xc3 (10...0-0 11.£c1!? is a very rare option, Mchedlishvili − Gajewski/Konya 2010)

11.bxc3 ¤e4 a) This time it was rather dangerous for Black to capture the pawn: 11...£xc3?!

12.¥xf6 ¤xf6 (12...gxf6 13.£a4) 13.¥xc8 (13.£a4+?! ¢e7! 14.¦fc1 b5! 15.£xb5 £a3

16.£b1 ¦e8²) 13...¦xc8 14.£a4+ƒ followed by £a4xa7 with a strong initiative. b) while after 11...0-0 12.£c2 it may turn out that Black exchanged his bishop for

the knight a bit early − see D38 QGD/17. 12.£c2 The game Tarjan − Lein/Greenville 1983 continued 12...¤df6 13.¥xc8 ¦xc8

14.¥xf6 ¤xf6 15.¦fb1 ¦c7 16.¦b4! b6 17.a4 0-0 18.¦b5 £a6 19.¤e5² and White has secured a small advantage.

10.¥xc8

White has also tried other possibilities. 10.£c2 does not promise much: 10...¥xf5 11.£xf5 £d7 (11...¤a4!? is also interesting)

12.£e5+ £e6 with a good play A bit unexpected retreat 10.¥c2!? deserves attention − now Black does not have the typical

...£d8−a5 and so White's knight on c3 is safe. A possible line is 10...¥g4 11.h3 ¥h5

139

12.¥a4+!? ¢f8 13.¥c2 £d6 14.¥xf6 (14.0-0 could be met with a typical 14...¥xc3

15.bxc3 ¤e4 16.¥f4 £a3 and Black was fine, for example: 17.¥xe4 dxe4 18.g4 ¥g6 and so on) 14...£xf6 15.g4 ¥g6 16.¤e5 £e6 and Black is fine.

10...¦xc8 11.0-0 0-0 12.¤e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-sn-+-sn-+0 9+-+psN-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In case of 12.£c2 Black may think about 12...¥e7, supposing that the exchange of the

light−squared bishop improved his position.

12...¥xc3

Here 12...¥e7!? has also been tried in a number of games with good results. However, it seems that White is able to keep some pressure: 13.¥xf6 (or 13.£f3 £d6 14.¦ac1²)

13...¥xf6 14.a4 a5 15.f4 £e7 16.£f3² with a slight edge but Black's position always remains solid enough.

After 12...¦e8 13.£f3 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 £d6 15.¦fb1 ¦c7 16.¥xf6 £xf6 17.a4² White has got somewhat better chances, too.

13.bxc3 £d6 14.¥xf6 £xf6 15.a4 ¦c7 16.£g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9zpptr-+pzpp0 9-sn-+-wq-+0 9+-+psN-+-0 9P+pzP-+Q+0 9+-zP-zP-+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

140

The game Moiseenko − B.Savchenko/Aeroflot Moscow 2007 continued:

16...£e6 17.£xe6 fxe6 18.¦fb1 ¤d7 19.¤xd7 ¦xd7 20.¦b5 ¦ff7 21.¦ab1²

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9zpp+r+rzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+R+p+-+-0 9P+pzP-+-+0 9+-zP-zP-+-0 9-+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and White has maintained a small advantage.

141

QGD/22 Ragozin System − Main line

White plays 13.Bh3 [D38]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¤f6 4.¤f3 ¥b4 5.cxd5 exd5 6.¥g5 ¤bd7 7.e3 c5 8.¥d3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+-sn-+0 9wq-zpp+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A common approach − Black is not pushing White's bishop from g5, which in most cases

comes under attack from the Black queen, and so White usually has to waste time to solve this problem in the future.

9.£c2

9.0-0 may still lead to the same line but Black can also try some deviations: 9...c4!? (9...0-0?! gives White some good options, such as 10.¤xd5!? (10.£c2 c4 11.¥f5 leads to the main line, while it is also rather interesting to deviate by 10.¦c1!?, intending to meet 10...c4 with 11.¥b1²) 10...¤xd5 11.a3 cxd4 (11...h6 12.¥h4 cxd4 13.axb4 £xb4 14.¤xd4©

with a good compensation for the pawn, according to the tournament practice)

12.axb4 £xb4 13.¦a4!? £xb2 14.¦xd4 ¤c3 15.£c1! ¤e2+ (15...£xc1? 16.¦xc1+−)

16.¥xe2 £xe2 17.£c7© with more than sufficient compensation for the pawn) 10.¥f5 (or 10.¥c2 − both these lines are considered in D38 QGD/15.)

9...c4 10.¥f5 0-0 11.0-0 ¦e8 12.¤d2 g6

142

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9wq-+p+LvL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position for this variation. White faces a very important choice.

13.¥h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+L0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¥xc3

The most popular approach − Black is fighting against White's main idea e3−e4. 13...¥e7?! seems dubious: 14.¦ae1 (14.f4!?) 14...¤f8 15.¥xc8 ¦axc8 16.f4 £d8 17.£d1 £d6

18.£f3 ¤8d7 19.f5ƒ with annoying activity on the K−side 13...¢g7!? is not quite safe for the king − in some cases it may be disturbed by White's

bishop from e5. However, Black keeps reasonable counter chances: 14.¦ae1 a) 14.a3 also gives White somewhat better chances: 14...¥xc3 15.bxc3 ¤e4 (15...b5

16.a4 b4 17.cxb4 £xb4 18.¦fb1², 15...h6 16.¥xd7 ¥xd7 17.¥xf6+ ¢xf6 18.e4²) 16.¤xe4 dxe4 17.¥f4 ¤b6 18.¥xc8 ¦axc8 19.¦fb1!? (after 19.f3 Black has to play 19...¤d5! 20.fxe4

£xc3 21.£f2 ¦xe4 22.¥e5+ f6 23.¥xf6+ ¤xf6 24.£xf6+ ¢g8 25.£f7+ ¢h8 26.£xb7 £xe3+

27.¢h1 ¦ce8 28.d5² with a small advantage for White) 19...¦e7 20.¥e5+ f6 21.¥d6 ¦e6 22.¥c5ƒ with a clear advantage

b) 14.¥h4 might initiate interesting complications: 14...¤b6!? 15.¤b3!? (15.¥xc8 ¦axc8 16.¥xf6+ ¢xf6 does not seem logical as White simply loses tempo for the

143

manoeuvre Bg5−h4xf6. For example, 17.a3 (17.e4 dxe4 18.¤dxe4+ ¢g7³) 17...¥xc3 18.bxc3 ¤a4 19.¦ac1 ¢g7 20.e4 dxe4 21.¤xe4 ¦c6 with a good play for Black) 15...cxb3 16.axb3 ¥xc3 17.¦xa5 ¥xa5 18.¥xf6+ ¢xf6 19.£c5 ¥xh3! 20.gxh3 ¥d2 21.¦d1 ¥xe3 22.fxe3 ¦xe3 23.£c7 ¢g7 24.¦f1 ¦f8 25.£xb7 (25.h4!?) 25...¦xb3 26.£xa7 ¦xb2 with sufficient compensation for the queen

14...¤e4 (Black also tried 14...¤b6!? 15.¥xc8 ¦axc8 16.¥xf6+ ¢xf6 He had completed the development but it will certainly take time to secure his advanced king so White would think about direct actions such as 17.f4 (perhaps the immediate 17.e4!? is more promising) 17...¢g7 18.f5 ¤a4 19.¤db1 ¥xc3 20.bxc3 ¦e4! 21.£f2 ¦f8 22.f6+ ¢h8÷ with a complicated play) 15.¤dxe4 dxe4 This position has been tested many times. 16.¥f4 (another retreat 16.¥h4 does not put any problems for Black: 16...¤b6 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.f3 ¥xc3 19.bxc3 The game Beliavsky − Mamedyarov/EU−chT Crete 2007 continued 19...£d5 (19...f5!? is also possible. Then a tempting break 20.g4!? can be met with 20...exf3 21.gxf5 £xf5 22.£xf5 gxf5 23.¦xf3 ¤d5 and Black seems to be ok even though his position looks suspicious) 20.¥f6+ ¢g8 21.¥e5 ¤d7 22.fxe4 £e6 and Black got the pawn back with a good play) 16...f5!? Black gets more control over the key e4−square and cuts off the h3−bishop but weakens his king. (in the game Huzman − Dreev/Uzhgorod 1987 White showed a good way to put problems for Black after 16...¤b6 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.f3! exf3 19.¦xf3 f5 20.e4! ¢g8

21.¥g3! fxe4 22.¦xe4 ¥xc3 23.bxc3 £d5 24.¦g4! £d7 25.¦g5‚ with good attacking prospects on the K−side) 17.f3 ¤f6 18.a3 (18.¥e5?! is certainly met by 18...¦xe5!

19.dxe5 £xe5 with excellent play for Black, but 18.¥g5!? was interesting, trying to break in center, 18.£f2 does not impress much: 18...exf3 19.gxf3 ¤d5! 20.¥e5+ ¦xe5!

21.dxe5 ¤xc3 22.bxc3 ¥xc3 23.¦c1 ¥e6! with better chances for Black, Tregubov − Delchev/FRA−chT Noyon 2008) 18...¥xc3 19.bxc3 This position arose in the game Grischuk − Morozevich/WCh Mexico City 2007. White's chances look preferable but Black's position is actually full of life.

A deep retreat 13...¥f8 does not seem fully equalising. Black secures his bishop and prepares for his Q−side pawn advance but White can already begin some actions: 14.¥h4 (14.¦ae1!? also looks promising: 14...h6 (14...¥g7 15.b4!²) 15.¥xd7 ¤xd7 16.¥f4 ¤f6 17.e4!? ¥e6 18.¥e5ƒ) 14...h6 (A solid 14...¥g7!? comes to mind as well) 15.a3 (A concrete action 15.¥xd7!? ¤xd7 16.e4 deserved attention) 15...g5 This position arose in the game Sakaev − Aleksandrov/EU−ch Istanbul 2003. It seems that a natural 16.¥xd7 ¥xd7 17.¥g3 ¦ac8 18.¦ae1² could have secured somewhat better chances for White.

The rather unexpected retreat 13...¤h5!? was almost never played before. However, it is quite reasonable − Black releases his other knight on d7 and gives way for his f−pawn, which could increase control over the center as well as cut the bishop on h3. Besides, he takes control over the squares of possible dark−squared bishop retreats and so hopes to exchange it. 14.a3 (Since Black's control over the center was just decreased it seemed logical to advance the e−pawn. However, it did not bring real benefit for White: 14.e4 dxe4 15.¤dxe4 ¥xc3! (15...¤b6 16.¥xc8 ¦axc8 17.¥h6²)

16.£xc3 (16.bxc3 ¦xe4! 17.£xe4 £xg5) 16...£d5 17.¦ae1 ¤b6 (17...¦xe4? 18.¦xe4 £xe4

19.¦e1 £d3 20.¦e8+ ¤f8 21.£e1+−) 18.¥xc8 ¦axc8 19.¤f6+ ¤xf6 20.¥xf6 £f5 with excellent play for Black) 14...¥xc3 (Perhaps Black could still think about 14...¥f8!?,

keeping his bishop alive. Then a logical 15.b4 was not so clear: 15...cxb3 16.¤xb3 £c7

144

followed by ...¤d7−b6 with counterplay) 15.£xc3 £xc3 16.bxc3² White's chances should be preferred in this typical endgame. He can combine a pressure over the b−file with preparations of the e−pawn advance. However, Black's position is still quite playable, Kunte − Aleksandrov/Dubai 2005.

14.£xc3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-wQ-zP-+L0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.bxc3 has been played much more often but actually it does not seem promising for

White. 14...¤e4 15.¤xe4 dxe4 Here White has a choice. 16.¥h6 a) 16.¥f4 may promise some advantage for White: 16...¤b6 (16...¤f6!? is worthy of

consideration: 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.¥e5 ¤d5 19.¦fc1 f6 20.¥g3 ¦c6 with acceptable play for Black) 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.¦fb1!? (18.f3 can be strongly met by 18...¤d5! 19.fxe4 £xc3

20.£xc3 ¤xc3 21.e5 b5∓ with a certain advantage for Black, according to the tournament practice) 18...¤d5 19.¦xb7 £xc3 (19...¤xc3 20.a4 ¤d5 21.¥e5²) 20.£xc3 ¤xc3 21.¢f1 ¤d5 22.¥d6 ¦e6 23.¥c5 a6 24.¢e1² with advantage in the endgame

b) 16.¥xd7 ¥xd7 17.¥f4 This position has been tested many times but White failed to find anything substantial. The game Ubilava − Campos Moreno/Andorra 1997 continued 17...£d5 18.a4 ¦e6 19.a5 (19.¦fb1 is a common and probably the better option although it does not promise much for White. For example: 19...¦a6!? 20.¦b4

b5!? 21.£b2 bxa4 22.¦b8+ ¢g7÷ and Black is completely okay) 19...a6 20.£b2 ¦c8 21.¦ab1 ¥b5 and Black had no problems.

16...¤f6!? It is rather typical for such positions to move the knight to b6 to get counter chances on the Q−side but this way also has its advantages. As we have seen in the game W.Schmidt − Rogers/Prague 1990, if the knight placed on b6 then White can create pressure over the b−file − here a simple advance ...b7−b6 solves the problem. Meanwhile, the knight gets more control over the center being on f6. (16...¤b6 is also playable but maybe a bit less precise. The game W.Schmidt − I.Rogers/Prague 1990 continued 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.f3 £f5 (18...f5!? is quite popular: 19.¦ab1 ¦e7 20.fxe4 ¦xe4 21.h3 ¦ce8 22.g4!? and here Black should play 22...¤d5! (22...£d5?! is strongly met by 23.£f2ƒ) 23.gxf5 ¤xe3 24.f6 ¤f5÷ with unclear play) 19.¦ab1 ¦c6 20.fxe4 (20.¥f4!?) 20...£xe4 21.£f2 and White has maintained some pressure) 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.f3 This typical breakthrough does not bring desired effect. However, some other options White tried in this position did not pose any problems

145

for Black. (For example, 18.¦ab1 b6 19.a4 ¤d5 20.¦bc1 ¦c6 21.¥f4 ¢g7 22.¥e5+ f6 23.¥g3

¦e7 24.¦fe1 a6 25.h3 b5³, or 18.a4 ¤d5 19.¦fc1 ¦c6 20.¦ab1 ¦b6 21.¦xb6 ¤xb6÷) 18...¦e7 (an immediate 18...exf3!? comes into consideration: 19.¦xf3 (19.gxf3?! £h5 20.¥f4

¤d5) 19...¤e4 with a good play) 19.¦ac1 The game Dokhoian − Arencibia/Pamplona 1991 continued 19...¦ce8 20.£e2 £h5 21.¥f4 exf3 22.¦xf3 ¤e4 with a very good play for Black.

14...£xc3 15.bxc3²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+pzP-+-+0 9+-zP-zP-+L0 9P+-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In the endgame White can claim some advantage but Black's position is quite playable.

15...¢g7!?

15...¤e4 does not equalise: 16.¤xe4 dxe4 (after 16...¦xe4 17.¦fb1 f5 18.g3 b6 19.¥g2 Black has to sacrifice exchange: 19...¥b7 20.¥xe4 fxe4 21.¦b2±) 17.¥g4!

a) 17.¦fb1 is an alternative way, which seems to be less promising: 17...¤b6 18.¥xc8 ¦exc8! It is important to keep the a7−pawn protected. (18...¦axc8?! 19.¦b5 (19.a4 ¦c7!) 19...¦c6! 20.¦a5 Moiseenko − Ponomariov,R/Kiev UKR 2011.) 19.¦b5 (19.a4 ¤d5! 20.¦xb7 ¦ab8!?„) 19...¤a4! 20.¦c1 a6 21.¦xb7 ¦ab8 22.¦xb8 ¦xb8 23.f3 f5 24.fxe4 fxe4÷ with excellent counter chances

b) The endgame after 17.¥xd7 ¥xd7 has been played many times and the most likely result is obviously a draw. For example, 18.a4 a5 (or 18...¦e6 19.a5 ¦a6 20.¦fb1

b6 21.axb6 axb6 22.¦xa6 ¦xa6 23.h3 b5 24.¥e7 f5=) 19.¦fb1 ¥c6 20.¢f1 ¦e6 21.¢e2 ¢f8 22.¢d2 ¢e8 23.¢c2 ¦a6 24.¥f4 ¢d7 25.¦b2 ¢c8=

17...¤b6 18.¥e2² and in the game A.Karpov − V.Milov/Cap d'Agde (rapid) 2002 White conclusively converted the advantages of his position.

16.¦fb1 b6

16...¤b6?! 17.¥xc8 ¦axc8 18.a4± is clearly better for White.

17.a4²

146

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+-+0 9zp-+n+pmkp0 9-zp-+-snp+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9P+pzP-+-+0 9+-zP-zP-+L0 9-+-sN-zPPzP0 9tRR+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has maintained a small advantage but Black's position is quite playable, according to

tournament practice.

147

QGD/23 Ragozin System − Main line

White plays 13.Bxd7 [D38]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 ¥b4 5 cxd5 exd5 6 ¥g5 ¤bd7 7 e3 c5 8 ¥d3 £a5 9 £c2 c4 10 ¥f5 0-0 11 0-0 ¦e8 12 ¤d2 g6 13 ¥xd7

White gives up his bishop but gains time for development. This approach is more popular than the retreat 13 ¥h3, which costs a tempo and in most cases does not secure the bishop from exchange with its Black's counterpart anyway.

13...¤xd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 f3

148

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPP+-0 9PzPQsN-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An advance e3−e4 is the White's main idea − it increases a power of his pieces, which are

getting closer to the weakened Black's king. However, before pushing his e−pawn forward, White has to do something with his bishop on g5, which falls under attack of the Black queen on a5 after usual...d5xe4.

14 a3 clarifies the situation but in many cases turns out to be a waste of time since Black often parts with his bishop without invitation. Besides, the pawn on a3 is not protected by the queen: 14...¥xc3 15 bxc3 ¤b6 16 f3 As we can see in the other games, in this position White is usually able to play more useful move then a2−a3. 16...¥d7!? (16...£a4?! seems like an inaccuracy as in most cases it just saves White a tempo − there is no need for him to do something with the bishop on g5 before playing e3−e4: 17 £b1 f6 18 ¥h6 £a5 19 £b4!? £xb4 20 axb4 g5 21 ¢f2 ¥d7 22 h4² with better chances in the endgame, 16...¤a4 does not bother White very much: 17 ¦ac1 f6

18 ¥h6 ¥d7 19 e4² with a typical small edge for White, Arencibia − Disconzi da Silva/Buenos Aires 2005) 17 ¦fe1 ¥a4 18 £c1 ¥c6 19 ¦a2 ¦e6 (19...f5!?) 20 ¤f1 ¦ae8 21 h4 ¤c8!? with a good play for Black.

14 h4 is a logical but probably not the best move. White's main hopes are connected with the K−side play so he advances his h−pawn and at the same time protects the bishop on g5, preparing the advance e3−e4. However, in some cases White can play e3−e4 without wasting time for the bishop's protection as it can be done by capturing on e4 with the knight. Besides, the bishop is rather useless on g5 and in many cases White just moves it somewhere. 14...¤b6 15 f3 ¥xc3 Black has tried some other options.

a) A rather unexpected 15...f6!? is interesting: 16 ¥f4 ¥d7 17 ¦ae1 (17 e4 ¥a4! 18 £c1

¥c6 19 ¦e1 ¤a4„) 17...¥a4 18 £c1 ¥c6 19 e4 ¦ac8÷ with acceptable play for Black b) 15...¥d7 16 e4 ¥c6 17 ¦ae1 ¦e6÷ is also not so bad for Black c) 15...¥f8!? is rather interesting. Apart from thematic capture on c3 this retreat is

also playable − Black's dark−squared bishop might be very useful while opponent's direct actions do not look harmful. However, White is also happy to keep his strong knight on c3 alive. The game Cheparinov − Mamedyarov/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007 continued 16 e4 ¥g7 17 ¥e3 ¥e6 18 a4 ¥d7?! A bit unexpected change of the course. (Black had some reasonable options at his disposal, such as 18...¦ad8, and 18...¤c8!? followed by ...Nc8−e7, fortifying the d5−square, or maybe even 18...h5, stopping the opponent's pawn advance) 19 h5 (White had an interesting tactical shot 19 b4!?, which could have led to a roughly equal ending after 19...cxb3

149

20 ¤xb3 £b4 21 a5 ¤c4 22 ¤xd5 ¤xe3 23 ¤xb4 ¤xc2 24 ¤xc2 ¦ac8 and White's extra pawn did not promise him any winning chances. For example, 25 ¤c5 (or 25

¦f2 ¦c3 26 ¤c5 ¥c6!? 27 ¦b1 ¦d8„) 25...¥xd4+ 26 ¤xd4 ¦xc5=) 19...¦ac8 20 ¦fe1 ¥c6 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 e5² and White has achieved somewhat better chances while Black's position is still full of resources.

16 bxc3 The game Pinter − Greenfeld/Beersheba 1991 continued 16...£a4 a) 16...¤a4 17 ¦ac1 ¥d7 18 e4 f5 19 ¦fe1 ¦ac8 20 ¦e3² (20 e5²)

b) 16...¥d7 17 e4 f5 18 e5² 17 £b1 (17 £c1?! ¥f5 18 ¦e1 £c6 19 ¤f1 ¤a4 20 ¤g3 ¥d3³) 17...£a3 18 ¦c1 ¥d7 (18...£d6!?

deserved serious attention, intending to meet 19 e4 with 19...f6 20 ¥e3 (20 ¥h6?!

£g3) 20...£g3 21 ¥f2 £f4 22 £c2 ¥d7 23 ¦e1 ¥a4 24 £b2 ¥c6÷ with a quite acceptable play) 19 e4 ¦ac8 and Black could be satisfied with his position.

14 ¦ae1 ¤b6 15 f3 may also lead to the main line. 14 e4!? is a rarely played option. As a rule, White prepares this thematic pawn push by f2−

f3. 14...¥xc3 (14...dxe4 can be met by 15 h4!? ¥xc3 (15...¤b6 16 ¤dxe4ƒ) 16 ¤xc4! £c7 (16...£d5 17 £xc3 ¤b6 18 ¤e3²) 17 £xc3 b5 18 ¤e3 £xc3 19 bxc3 with a small but stable advantage in the ending) 15 £xc3! (15 bxc3?! dxe4 is fine for Black)

15...£xc3 16 bxc3 Such type of ending is known to theory but it is usually played after White bishop's retreat to h3 (D38 QGD/19). However, even without a pair of bishops it may still promise some advantage to White thanks to his better pawn structure and possible pressure on the Q−side. 16...f6!?

a) 16...¤b6!? 17 f3 (17 ¦fe1!?) 17...¥d7 18 ¦fe1 is also acceptable for Black b) while after 16...dxe4?! 17 ¤xc4 ¤b6 18 ¤d2! ¥d7 19 c4 ¦ac8 20 ¦fc1² White

has obtained a stable advantage in the ending in the game Kramnik − Grischuk/Nice rapid 2010.

17 ¥h4 g5 18 ¥g3 ¤b6 only with a very slight edge for White.

14...¤b6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPP+-0 9PzPQsN-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...f6?! just promotes White's plans: 15 ¥h6 ¤b6 16 e4 ¥xc3 17 bxc3 £a4 18 £c1 ¥e6 19

¦e1 £c6 20 £c2 ¥f7 21 a4± with a clear advantage. In case of 14...¥xc3 15 bxc3 ¤b6 White can also think about 16 ¦fe1 − then White can

protect his c3−pawn with the other rook, using his knight for actions in center. The

150

game Mamedyarov − R.Bagirov/Baku 2005 continued 16...¥d7 17 ¥h6 (perhaps White would also consider an immediate 17 ¥f4!? ) 17...¦e6 (A natural 17...¤a4!?

seemed good, forcing White to play a wasteful move: 18 ¦ac1 ¦e6 19 e4 ¦ae8² with a slightly worse but acceptable play) 18 e4 ¦ae8 19 ¦e3² and White has achieved a typical small advantage.

15 ¦ae1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPP+-0 9PzPQsN-+PzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15 ¥f4 is a typical retreat, which would promise the better chances for White: 15...¥d7 a) A capture 15...¥xc3 should not be equalising: 16 bxc3 £a4 (16...¤a4 17 ¦ac1 ¥d7

18 e4²) 17 £b2 ¥f5 18 ¦fe1 ¥d3 19 e4 £c6 20 e5 ¤a4 21 £c1² b) while 15...¥f8!? is worthy of consideration: 16 e4 (16 ¦ae1 ¥g7) 16...¥g7 17 ¥e3

¥d7„ with good counter chances. 16 ¦ae1 (An immediate 16 e4 is also playable: 16...¥xc3 (16...¦ac8 17 ¦ae1 ¥f8 18 ¤db1 ¥g7

19 £f2 ¥e6 20 ¦d1 ¦ed8 21 ¥g5 ¦d7 22 e5²) 17 bxc3 ¥a4 (17...¤a4 18 ¦fc1 ¥c6 19 e5 ¥d7

20 ¤f1±) 18 £c1 ¥c6 19 e5 ¤a4 20 ¤b1 £b6 21 ¦f2² with a small advantage for White) 16...¥f8!? Black wants to keep his bishop on the board. In the game Huebner − Tischbierek/Saarbruecken 2002 White continued 17 ¤db1 ¥g7 18 £f2² with somewhat better chances.

15 h4 is a transposition to the game Pinter − Greenfeld/Beersheba 1991.

15...¥xc3

Black also treated this position without immediate capture: 15...¥d7!? 16 ¥h4 (White also tried such typical preparatory moves as 16 h4, and 16 ¥h6 ) 16...¤a4

a) in case of 16...¥xc3 17 bxc3 ¤a4 White can probably maintain a small advantage by 18 ¤b1² For example, 18...f5 (18...£b5?! 19 e4 £b2 is a dubious idea: 20 £xb2 ¤xb2

21 exd5 f5 22 ¤a3 b5 23 ¦xe8+ ¦xe8 24 ¦b1 ¤a4 25 ¤xb5+−) 19 ¥g3!? (19 e4 dxe4 20 fxe4

fxe4 21 ¥f6 e3! 22 ¥e5 ¦f8! 23 £e4 ¥c6 24 £xe3 £d5„) 19...¦e6 20 e4!ƒ with initiative. b) 16...¥a4 17 £c1 ¥c6 18 e4² also gives White the edge according to the

tournament practice.

151

17 ¤db1 White fortifies his Q−side with this typical manoeuvre. The game Bellon Lopez − Campos Moreno/Spain 1991 continued 17...¦e6 (It deserved attention to keep the bishop alive by 17...¥f8!?, intending to meet 18 e4 with 18...¥g7 19 ¥f2 ¤b6²) 18 e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zpp+l+p+p0 9-+-+r+p+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9nvlpzPP+-vL0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPQ+-+PzP0 9+N+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...¥xc3 19 bxc3 ¦ae8 20 e5 f5 21 £c1 £c7 22 ¥f6 ¦b6 23 h4 f4! 24 £xf4 ¥f5© and

Black has achieved good counter chances although White's chances still seemed a bit better after 25 £g5²

16 bxc3 ¤a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9n+pzP-+-+0 9+-zP-zPP+-0 9P+QsN-+PzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...£a4?! is dubious as in most cases it just saves White a tempo − there is no need to do

something with the bishop on g5 before playing e3−e4: 17 £b2 £c6 18 e4 ¥e6 19 ¦e3 and White is doing very well.

17 e4!?

152

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9n+pzPP+-+0 9+-zP-+P+-0 9P+QsN-+PzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very energetic and interesting approach − after placing his Q−side rook on e1 White

found the way to protect his c3−pawn without moving his knight back to b1! 17 ¤b1 does not put serious problems before Black: 17...¥d7 (17...¥f5!? was also

interesting: 18 e4 dxe4 19 fxe4 ¥xe4 20 ¦xe4 £xg5 with a good play for Black. Here White has to play 21 ¦ef4 ¤b6 22 ¦xf7 £e3+ 23 £f2 £xf2+ 24 ¦7xf2= with a roughly equal endgame) 18 h4 (White can probably maintain a small advantage by 18 ¥h4!?,

or 18 ¥f4!? ) 18...¦e6!? (Black does not want to play a weakening 18...f5, which could be met by 19 h5 ¦e6 20 hxg6 hxg6 21 ¥f4² with a small advantage for White) 19 e4 The game Navrotescu − Inkiov/FRA−chT2 2003 continued 19...f6!? Stopping further advance of the e−pawn. (19...¦ae8 seems playable as well: 20 e5 £b6 21 £f2 ¤b2 22 ¦e3

¤d3 23 £d2 f5÷ with a complicated play) 20 ¥f4 ¦ae8 21 ¦e3 b5 22 a3 ¥c6 23 ¦fe1 £d8 and Black has successfully consolidated his forces and fortified the center. White failed to get initiative on the K−side or in center so Black has no problems at all and can slowly do something on the Q−side.

17...¥d7

Black could hardly capture on c3: 17...£xc3?? was just lost to 18 £xa4 £xd4+ 19 ¥e3+− while 17...¤xc3? 18 ¤xc4! dxc4 (or 18...£xa2 19 £xa2 ¤xa2 20 ¤d6 ¦e6 21 ¤b5+−) 19 ¥d2

£xa2 20 £xc3 £b3 21 £a1± was too dangerous for the Black king. 17...dxe4? was also bad since Black was losing his knight after 18 ¤xe4 ¦xe4 19 fxe4

£xg5 20 £xa4+−

18 ¦e3

18 exd5 does not look promising: 18...£xc3 (18...£xd5?! can be met with 19 ¥e7! £c6 20 d5!ƒ

with a strong initiative) 19 £xc3 ¤xc3 20 ¤xc4 (20 d6 b5÷) 20...¤xd5 21 ¤d6 ¦xe1 22 ¦xe1 f6 23 ¥d2 b6 with a good play in the endgame.

18...dxe4

153

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9zpp+l+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9wq-+-+-vL-0 9n+pzPp+-+0 9+-zP-tRP+-0 9P+QsN-+PzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19 h4

Obviously 19 ¤xe4? was met with 19...¦xe4! but both 19 ¥h6!?² and 19 ¥h4!?² would promise a small advantage for White.

19...exf3 20 ¤xc4 £d5 21 ¤e5 fxg2 22 ¦xf7 ¦xe5! 23 ¦xd7 £xd7 24 ¦xe5²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zpp+q+-+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-tR-vL-0 9n+-zP-+-zP0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+Q+-+p+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The forced play has led to a position with the better chances for White − his pieces are

strong and his passed d−pawn would increase his chances in the endgame. However, a lack of material and the open position of the white king give Black sufficient counter chances, Korotylev − Landa/RUS−chT Dagomys 2005.

154

Vienna Variation

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vlpzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Vienna Variation is known to be one of the sharpest in the entire body of opening

theory. However, in many cases after a well−known series of moves the position becomes rather quiet and White can maintain some slight pressure.

155

Vienna Variation/1 − Early deviations

[D24]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4


The Vienna Variation is known to be one of the sharpest in the whole of opening theory.

However, in many cases after a well−known series of moves the position becomes rather quiet and White can maintain some slight pressure.

6 ¥g5

6 ¥xc4!? is a rather unexpected attempt to fight against Vienna Variation − White simply gives up his central pawn! 6...¤xe4 7 0-0

156

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vlLzPn+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤xc3 a) 7...¤f6 does not promise full equality: 8 £a4+ ¤c6 9 ¤e5 ¥e7 10 ¤xc6 bxc6 11

£xc6+ ¥d7 12 £f3² b) 7...¥xc3?! is suspicious. Black takes another pawn but gives up his important

bishop and delays his development. The game Pedersen − P.H.Nielsen/Faaborg 2007 continued 8 bxc3 ¤xc3 9 £b3 ¤d5 10 ¥a3 (White could have thought about 10 ¦e1,

intending to meet a logical 10...0-0 with 11 ¥a3 ¦e8 12 ¥xd5 exd5 13 ¦xe8+ £xe8 14 ¦e1

¥e6 15 £xb7ƒ with initiative) 10...¤c6 11 ¦fe1 ¤ce7 12 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 13 d5ƒ and White has developed a strong initiative.

8 bxc3 ¥e7 (the greedy 8...¥xc3?! is too suspicious: 9 ¦b1 (9 ¥a3 ¥xa1 10 £xa1© with compensation looks interesting as well) 9...c5!? (in case of 9...0-0 10 £d3 followed by ¤f3−g5 White's initiative looks almost decisive) 10 ¥g5 f6 11 £b3!? cxd4 (11...fxg5

12 ¥xe6ƒ) 12 ¥xe6ƒ with a strong initiative against Black's centralized king) 9 ¤e5 0-0 10 £g4 Thank to his lead in development and control over the center White can already begin attacking actions. 10...¢h8!? Black radically prevents the threat of ¥c1-h6. (after 10...¤c6 11 ¥h6 ¥f6 12 f4© White has achieved excellent compensation for the pawn in the game Potkin − Kharlov/RUS−chT Sochi 2006) 11 £h3 £e8 12 ¥d3 f5 13 ¦e1 White's compensation for the pawn is beyond doubts. His pieces are comfortably developed and he can continue further improvement using his space advantage. However, Black has a solid position although he must defend very carefully, Kasimdzhanov − Gelfand/Candidates (m/4) Elista 2007.

6...c5 7 e5

157

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-zp-zP-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pawn push was almost forgotten but it recently seems to be back. 7 dxc5!? is another rare option. It has never been popular but perhaps White can count for a

slight edge in the ending, which arises after 7...£xd1+ 8 ¦xd1 ¤bd7 a) An inclusion of 8...¥xc3+!? deserves serious attention as otherwise Black will not

get the chance to damage opponent's pawn structure: 9 bxc3 ¤bd7 10 c6 a1) White has some other options but it is rather unclear how he can secure the better

chances, for example: 10 ¦d4 ¤xc5 11 e5 ¤d5 12 ¥xc4 ¤e7÷ a2) 10 e5 ¤e4 11 ¥e3 ¤dxc5÷ (or even 11...¤xc3!? )

a3) but perhaps it is at least more precise to include 10 ¥xf6!? gxf6 (10...¤xf6 11

¦d4!²) 11 c6 bxc6 (11...¤b6!?) 12 ¥xc4² with a slight edge 10...bxc6 11 ¤d2 ¥a6 12 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 13 f3 and here it seems more accurate to play

13...¢e7!? 14 ¥xc4 ¥b5 with equality. b) 8...¤c6 9 ¥d2 0-0 10 ¥xc4 ¥xc3 11 ¥xc3 ¤xe4 12 ¥b5² gives White a small

advantage c) The simple 8...0-0 is also worth considering. A possible line would be 9 ¤d2 (9

¦d4!?, 9 e5!?) 9...¤bd7 10 f3 ¤xc5 11 ¤xc4 ¤a4 12 ¥d2 ¤xc3 13 ¥xc3 ¥xc3+ 14 bxc3 ¥d7 15 ¤d6 ¥c6 16 ¥e2 ¦fd8 17 ¢f2 ¢f8 and Black solves the problems. However, White's play might be improved.

9 ¥d2 Black has a choice. (9 ¦d4!? deserves attention: 9...h6 (9...¤xc5!?, 9...a5!?) 10 ¥d2 ¤xc5 11 ¥xc4 0-0 (11...¥xc3!? 12 ¥xc3 ¤fxe4 13 ¥b4ƒ) 12 e5 ¥xc3 13 ¥xc3 ¤d5 14 ¥xd5 exd5 and here it deserves attention to simply capture the pawn by 15 ¦xd5!? b6 16 ¦d4 ¥a6 17 ¢d2² /±) 9...¥xc3!? A principled choice.

a) in case of 9...¤xc5 White maintains a small advantage: 10 ¥xc4 a6 11 e5 ¤fd7 12 a3 (12 ¥e2!?²) 12...¥xc3 13 ¥xc3 b5 14 ¥e2 ¥b7 15 0-0 ¥d5 16 ¤d2 0-0 17 ¥d4 ¦fc8 18 ¦c1 ¦ab8 19 f3 ¢f8 20 ¢f2²

b) 9...¥xc5 is a natural option, too: 10 ¥xc4 ¤g4 (10...a6 can be met by an interesting pawn sac: 11 e5!? (perhaps 11 ¥e2!? ¥d6 12 0-0 0-0 13 a3 b5 14 ¥e3 ¥b8 15

¤d4 ¥b7 16 f3² with a small advantage is more promising) 11...¤g4 12 ¤e4 ¤gxe5 13 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 14 ¥c3 ¤xc4 15 ¥xg7 However, it seems that Black can achieve acceptable play by 15...f5! (not 15...¥b4+? 16 ¢e2 ¦f8 17 ¤f6+! ¢e7 18 ¤xh7! etc.) 16 ¤f6+

b1) 16 ¥xh8? fxe4 is bad for White

158

b2) while 16 ¤xc5!? ¦g8 17 ¥f6! ¢f7 18 ¥c3 b6 (18...¦xg2?! 19 ¦d8 ¦g8?! 20 ¦xg8

¢xg8 21 ¦g1+ ¢f8 22 ¦g7±) 19 ¤d3 ¥b7 20 f3² would still promise some edge 16...¢f7 17 ¥xh8 e5!? 18 ¤d7 ¥d4 19 ¦xd4 exd4 20 ¤e5+ ¤xe5 21 ¥xe5 ¥e6 and Black

should hold on without problems) 11 0-0 a6 12 ¥e2² White keeps a slight edge in this ending, Nyback − Macieja/Warsaw 2008.

10 ¥xc3 ¤xe4 (after 10...¤xc5 11 ¥xc4 ¤cxe4 12 ¥b4 ¥d7 13 ¤e5ƒ White seizes the initiative, which more than compensates the sacrificed pawn) 11 ¥xg7 ¦g8 12 ¥d4 ¤exc5! (12...¤dxc5? can be strongly met by 13 ¤e5! b6 14 f3 ¤f6 and here in the game Matlakov − Landa/RUS−ch Qualifier Ulan Ude 2009, the simple 15 ¤xc4 was good enough to secure a clear advantage) 13 ¥xc4 ¦xg2 White keeps sufficient compensation for the pawn in this complicated ending but perhaps not more than that. For example, 14 ¢e2 (14 b4 ¤e4÷) 14...a6 (14...b6!?) 15 b4 ¤e4 16 ¦hg1 ¦xg1 17 ¦xg1 b5 and Black has got acceptable play.

7...h6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+-+psn-zp0 9+-zp-zP-vL-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This sharp and risky alternative to 7 ...cxd4 does not solves all Black's problems.

8 exf6 hxg5 9 fxg7 ¦g8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+r+0 9zpp+-+pzP-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zp-+-zp-0 9-vlpzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

159

10 £c2!

White is continuing development and at the same time heading his queen to h7. In the endgame after 10 dxc5 £xd1+ 11 ¦xd1 ¦xg7 Black is okay but perhaps White

slightly better. For example, 12 ¦d4 ¥xc3+ 13 bxc3 ¤c6 14 ¦g4 f6 15 h4 ¦h7 16 ¦xc4 e5 17 ¥d3 ¦h6 18 h5 ¥e6 19 ¥g6+ ¢d7 20 ¦a4²

10 a3 ¥xc3+ 11 bxc3 may also promise better chances for White: 11...cxd4 (11...£a5 12 dxc5

¤c6 13 ¤d2! gives better chances for White) 12 ¤xd4 ¤c6 13 ¤xc6 £xd1+ 14 ¦xd1 bxc6 15 h4² with small advantage in the endgame

10 ¥xc4!? is a rare but interesting option: 10...g4 11 ¤d2 cxd4!? 12 ¤ce4 ¦xg7 13 h3!?ƒ and White has seized the initiative, Moradiabadi − Barsov/Doha 2006.

10...cxd4

10...¤d7 fails to solve the problems: 11 dxc5 £f6 12 ¥xc4 ¤xc5 13 0-0 ¥xc3 14 bxc3 ¦xg7 (or 14...¥d7 15 £e2 ¦xg7 16 ¤e5², 14...g4 15 ¤d2 £f5 16 £xf5 exf5 17 ¦fe1+ ¥e6 18

¦e5 b6 19 ¤b3 0-0-0 20 ¥xe6+ ¤xe6 21 ¦xf5±) 15 ¦fe1 ¥d7 16 ¦ab1 ¢f8 17 ¤e5 ¥e8 18 ¥b5 b6 19 a4 £f5 20 £d1± and Black's forces are divided in two parts.

11 £h7 ¢e7 12 ¦d1

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-+r+0 9zpp+-mkpzPQ0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-vlpzp-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 0-0-0!? deserves attention but White's king might be unsafe.

12...¤c6

An attempt to stop White's development by 12...d3? fails to 13 ¥xd3! ¥xc3+ 14 bxc3 cxd3 15 ¦xd3‚ and White's has launched a very strong attack, Moiseenko − Bluvshtein/Edmonton 2005.

13 ¥xc4 ¥d7 14 ¤xd4

14 a3!? is worthy of consideration.

160

14...¤xd4 15 ¦xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-+r+0 9zpp+lmkpzPQ0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-vlLtR-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...£b6

15...£a5? was proved to be bad for Black in the game Tkachiev − Kharlov/RUS−chT Sochi 2006: 16 0-0 ¥xc3 17 bxc3 £e5 18 £b1! ¥c6 19 ¦e1 £a5 20 ¥xe6!+− with a decisive attack.

16 £d3!?

Black is fine after 16 £e4?! ¥c6 17 £e5 £c5

16...¥c6 17 0-0²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+r+0 9zpp+-mkpzP-0 9-wql+p+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-vlLtR-+-+0 9+-sNQ+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White keeps better chances thanks to the vulnerable position of Black's king.

161

Vienna Variation/2 − 7. e5 cxd4 8. Qa4

[D39]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4


6 ¥g5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 £a4+

This is an old main line, which leads to a very sharp and complicated play. It has been thoroughly tested on practice but after Black found good counter chances it almost disappeared for years. However, recently White has found some ideas...

8...¤c6 9 0-0-0

162

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-+-zP-vL-0 9Qvlpzp-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¥d7

9...h6 is a rare continuation, which is not as dubious as it may look like: 10 exf6 hxg5 11 fxg7 ¦g8 12 ¤xd4 (12 ¤e4 can be well met by 12...d3! 13 ¥xd3 cxd3 14 ¦xd3 £e7! 15 ¤e5

f5) 12...¥xc3! (An immediate 12...¥d7? is known to be bad for Black: 13 ¤e4! £e7 14

¤c2 f5 15 ¤xb4 fxe4 16 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 17 £xc4 ¦c8 18 ¢b1 ¢f7 19 ¥e2 with a big advantage for White) 13 bxc3 (13 ¤xc6?! should be met by 13...¥d7! 14 bxc3 £c7 15 £xc4 ¥xc6 with acceptable play for Black) 13...£a5! (In case of 13...¥d7 White grabs initiative by 14

¤b5ƒ) 14 £xa5!? Perhaps the most promising continuation. a) 14 £xc4 promises some edge for White: 14...¥d7 15 ¤b5 ¦xg7 16 ¤d6+ (16 £c5

0-0-0 is okay for Black) 16...¢e7 (16...¢f8 17 ¤xb7 £a3+ 18 ¢b1 £e7 19 ¤c5 ¦b8+ 20

¢a1 ¥e8 21 h4±) 17 ¤xb7 £a3+ 18 ¢c2 (18 ¢b1?? ¦b8-+) 18...¤e5 19 £c5+ £xc5 20 ¤xc5 but Black keeps good compensation for the pawn after 20...¥c6 21 ¦e1!? (21

h3 ¦h8) 21...f6 22 f3 ¦c8© b) A tempting blow 14 ¤xc6?! actually gives nothing: 14...£xc3+ (Surely not

14...£xa4?? 15 ¦d8# mate!) 15 ¢b1 bxc6 16 £xc6+ ¢e7 17 £d6+ ¢f6 and White does not have more than a draw − see the game Malakhatko − Perez Felipe/La Laguna 2008 for details.

14...¤xa5 15 h4 g4 (15...gxh4!? 16 ¦xh4 ¢e7 17 ¦h8? ¥d7, 15...¦xg7? 16 hxg5 ¦xg5 17 ¦h8+) 16 h5 ¦xg7 17 h6 ¦h7 18 ¥e2² with advantage in the endgame.

10 ¤e4

163

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpp+l+pzpp0 9-+n+psn-+0 9+-+-zP-vL-0 9QvlpzpN+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¥e7

10...¤xe4?! is a very unexpected idea in a well−known position. Black's queen sacrifice may come as a surprise for the opponent but objectively White should be able to secure the better chances with precise play. 11 ¥xd8 ¦xd8 12 ¤xd4 ¥d2+! The best chance. (12...¤xf2 13 ¤xc6 ¤xd1 14 £xb4 ¥xc6 15 ¥xc4 ¤f2 16 ¦f1 ¤d3+ 17 ¥xd3 ¦xd3 does not solve the problems, as was tested in a few games) 13 ¦xd2 ¤xd2 (In case of 13...¤xd4 White can continue 14 £xc4 (14 £xa7!? deserves attention: 14...¤c6 15 £e3

¤xd2 16 ¢xd2 etc.) 14...¤xd2 15 £xd4 ¤xf1 16 £b4! ¤xh2 17 ¦xh2±, keeping winning chances) 14 ¤xc6 (14 ¤b5? failed to 14...0-0! (but not 14...¤xf1?? 15 £a3!)

15 ¢xd2 ¤xe5 and Black wins the knight on b5 after the forthcoming ...a7−a6) 14...¥xc6 15 £a3 ¤xf1 16 ¦xf1 The game Ivanchuk − Nisipeanu/Foros 2007 continued 16...¦d3 17 £b4! a5 18 £xc4 ¦d5 19 ¦d1 0-0 20 ¦xd5 ¥xd5 21 £a4 ¥xg2 22 £xa5 and White has managed to get a pawn majority of the Q−side, which gives him reasonable winning chances although it may take a long time.

11 exf6 gxf6 12 ¥h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9zpp+lvlp+p0 9-+n+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Q+pzpN+-vL0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

164

12...¦c8

12...¤b4? can be strongly met by 13 £xb4! ¥xb4 14 ¤xf6+ ¢f8 15 ¦xd4 £a5 (15...¥e7 16

¤e5 ¥a4 17 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 18 ¥e2±) 16 ¤xd7+ ¢e8 17 ¤f6+ ¢f8 18 ¤e5 (or 18 ¥xc4 ¦c8

19 ¢b1 h5 20 ¦hd1 ¥e7 21 ¤d7+ ¢e8 22 ¥g3±) 18...h5 19 ¥xc4 and Black's extra queen cannot fight against White's superior forces: 19...¢g7 20 ¤fd7 ¦hc8 21 ¢b1 b5 22 ¥f6+ ¢g8 23 ¦h4 ¥e7 24 ¥xe7 ¦xc4 25 ¤f6+ ¢g7 26 ¦xh5 with inevitable checkmate

12...¤e5? is also unsatisfactory for Black due to a wonderful 13 £a3!! 0-0 (or 13...¥xa3 14 ¤xf6+ ¢f8 15 ¤xe5 £a5 16 ¤fxd7+ ¢e8 17 ¤xc4 ¦c8 (17...£c7 18 ¤f6+ ¢f8 19 ¥g3)

18 ¢b1±) 14 £xe7! £xe7 15 ¤xe5 ¥a4 16 ¦xd4! and White is overwhelming: 16...£b4 17 ¤xf6+ ¢h8 18 ¥xc4 £c5 19 ¦e4 followed by Nf6−d7 with decisive attack.

12...b5?! is dubious: 13 £xb5 e5 and here White can secure a big advantage by 14 £d5! (14

£xc4 ¦c8 15 ¢b1 0-0„ gives Black good counter chances) 14...¤b4 15 ¤xf6+! ¥xf6 16 ¥xf6! ¤xd5 17 ¥xd8 ¦xd8 18 ¤xe5± and White will soon gets a healthy extra pawn in the endgame

12...¤a5?! is bad for Black: 13 £c2 e5 14 ¤xd4! exd4 15 ¦xd4 £b6 a) 15...¤c6 16 ¦d6 ¥xd6 17 ¤xf6+ ¢f8 18 £d2!+− (but not 18 ¤xh7+?? ¦xh7 19

¥xd8 ¦xd8 20 £xh7 ¥f4+ 21 ¢b1? (21 ¢c2 ¥f5+! 22 £xf5 ¤d4+-+) 21...¥f5+! 22 £xf5 ¦d1+ 23 ¢c2 ¦c1# mate!) 18...¥e6 19 £h6+ ¢e7 20 ¤e4+ ¢e8 21 ¥xd8+−

b) 15...¦c8 16 £c3 ¦c6 17 ¥e2 £b6 18 ¦d5 ¦e6 19 ¥g4! ¦xe4 20 ¥xd7+ ¢f8 21 ¥g5!+−

16 ¦d6! £b4 17 a3 £a4 18 ¤xf6+! ¥xf6 19 ¥xf6 £xc2+ 20 ¢xc2 ¦g8 21 g3± with a clear advantage in the endgame

Another side line, which deserves more attention, seems to be 12...e5!? 13 ¥xc4 a6!? (or 13...0-0 14 ¢b1 ¦c8 15 ¦c1 ¤b4 with compensation for the piece but perhaps White can somehow prove the better chances: 16 ¤xf6+!? (16 £d1 b5 17 ¥b3 ¦xc1+ 18 £xc1

¥f5 19 ¤fd2 a5 20 a3 a4 21 ¥c2 ¤d5© this line certainly requires more analysis)

16...¥xf6 17 ¥xf6! ¥xa4 18 ¥xd8 ¦fxd8 19 ¤xe5 ¥e8 (19...¢g7!÷) 20 a3 ¤c6 21 ¦he1² with a small advantage.) 14 £b3 ¤a5!? 15 ¤xf6+! (15 ¥xf7+?? fails to 15...¢f8 16 £d3 (16 £d5 ¦c8+ 17 ¢b1 ¥c6 18 £xd8+ ¦xd8-+) 16...¥b5 17 £d2 ¢xf7-+ with a huge advantage for Black) 15...¥xf6 16 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 17 £a3+! (17 £b4+ £e7!

18 £xa5 ¥xh4÷) 17...¢g7 (17...¢xf7? 18 ¤xe5+! ¢e8 19 ¥xf6 £xf6 20 ¦he1+−, 17...£e7?? 18

¥xf6+−, 17...¥e7 18 ¥xe7+ £xe7 19 ¤xe5! ¦c8+ 20 ¢d2!? £xa3 21 bxa3 ¢g7 22 f4² /±) 18 ¥xf6+ £xf6 19 £xa5 ¥f5! 20 ¥b3 ¦ac8+ 21 ¢d2 e4 22 ¤xd4! (22 £e5 exf3 23 £xf6+

¢xf6 24 gxf3 ¢e5© ∆ ...¢e5−f4) 22...¦hd8 23 ¢e1 ¦xd4 24 ¦xd4 £xd4 25 £d2 £f6² and, since White has already castled once, Black keeps reasonable compensation for the pawn although White's chances still seem preferable.

12...a6!? is a rare option, which has recently become popular. At the moment White fails to show any advantage: 13 £xc4 e5 14 ¤xe5! (A simple development could only give Black a time to seize initiative, for example, 14 ¥d3? ¥e6ƒ and so on while White's pieces are still doing nothing) 14...¤xe5 15 £xd4 ¦c8+ (15...£c7+!? is also interesting: 16 ¢b1 (after 16 £c3 ¦c8 17 £xc7 ¦xc7+ 18 ¢b1 ¥f5 19 f3 0-0 20 ¥e2 ¦fc8

Black was fine in the endgame, Riazantsev − Sorokin/Salekhard 2006) 16...0-0-0!?

165

a) 16...¦c8? fails to 17 ¥xa6! (17 ¥e2 ¥f5 18 ¢a1²) 17...¥f5 (17...bxa6 18 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 19

¥xf6+−) 18 ¥b5+ ¢f8 19 ¢a1± b) while 16...¥f5 does not fully equalise: 17 ¥e2 £c6 18 f3² 0-0 19 £e3 ¦ac8 20

¢a1² with a small advantage for White. 17 ¦c1 ¥c6 18 £e3 The game Lysyj − Wojtaszek/Stockholm 2010 continued 18...f5 19

¥xe7 £xe7 20 ¤c5 ¢b8 and after 21 ¥xa6!? This tempting blow looks strong but Black can defend. (21 £f4 ¢a8 was okay for Black, but perhaps 21 ¥e2!? would have still promised the better chances for White) 21...bxa6 22 ¦he1 ¥e4+! 23 ¤xe4 fxe4 24 £xe4 ¦he8 25 ¦e3 £d7 26 ¦b3+ ¢a7 27 £e3+ ¢a8 28 £e4+ the game ended with repetition of moves.) 16 ¢b1 ¥f5!? An interesting continuation. (A common 16...0-0 still seems more reliable though not fully equalising: 17 ¥e2 ¥f5 18 £e3! (18 £xd8 ¦fxd8 19 f3 ¢g7 looks acceptable for Black) 18...£c7 19 ¢a1! with a small advantage for White) 17 £a4+ ¥d7 (17...¤d7? is senseless as White could simply continue his development by 18 ¥d3±) 18 £b3 (18 £d4 ¥f5 would be a repetition of moves) The game Kunin − Khenkin/EU−chT Budva 2009, continued 18...£c7! 19 ¥d3 ¥e6! 20 £a4+ and here the rather unexpected retreat 20...¢f8! would have given Black reasonable chances to hold balance. (in the just mentioned game White seized a strong initiative after 20...b5? 21 £d4ƒ) 21 ¦c1 £b6! 22 ¦xc8+ ¥xc8 23 ¥c2 ¥d7 (23...¦g8÷) 24 £b3 £xb3 25 ¥xb3 ¥c6÷ with a good ending for Black.

13 ¢b1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqk+-tr0 9zpp+lvlp+p0 9-+n+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Q+pzpN+-vL0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The rather unexpected 13 ¥xf6 should not be harmful for Black: 13...¥xf6 14 ¤d6+ ¢f8 15

¤xc8 £xc8 16 £xc4 ¢g7 (an immediate 16...e5!? is maybe even stronger: 17 ¢b1 (17 ¥d3 ¥e6) 17...¥f5+ (17...¥e6!?) 18 ¢a1 and here Black should have chosen a restrained 18...¢g7 (after a hasty 18...e4?! 19 ¤d2 ¢g7 20 g4! ¥g6 21 ¥g2 White obtained good counter chances, Gormally − Wells, Hereford 2006) 19 ¤d2 (19 g4

¥e6! 20 £a4 ¦d8∓) 19...¦e8 with powerful play) 17 ¢b1 (17 ¥d3 ¤b4!?) 17...e5 18 ¥d3 ¥e6 19 £a4 a6!? (19...¥f5 is also good) 20 ¦c1 ¥d5 (20...¥f5!?) 21 ¤d2 ¥g5 and White has to fight for equality.

13...¤a5

166

Here Black also has some other options. After 13...b5? 14 £xb5 Black fails to prove compensation for material losses: 14...e5 a) or 14...c3 15 ¤xd4 £c7 (15...¤xd4 16 ¦xd4 c2+ 17 ¢c1+−, 15...a6 16 £b3! ¤a5 17 £c2

cxb2 18 £xb2+−) 16 £c4+− b) 14...¤e5 15 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 16 £xe5 ¥xe5 17 ¥xd8+− 15 ¥xc4 ¦b8 16 £d5 0-0 17 ¥xf6 £b6 18 b3 ¥e6 19 ¥xe7! ¥xd5 20 ¤f6+ ¢g7 21

¤xd5+− 13...e5 is not so easy to refute: 14 ¥xc4 a6 15 £b3 ¤a5 (the position without inclusion of

moves is considered in the line 12 ...e5!?) 16 ¤xf6+!? (after 16 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 17 £d3 ¥b5

18 £d2 ¢xf7 19 £h6© White's initiative is probably sufficient only for some perpetual) 16...¥xf6 17 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 18 £a3+ ¥e7 19 ¥xe7+ £xe7 20 £xa5 ¦c5 21 £d2 ¥f5+ 22 ¢a1 ¢xf7 23 ¦he1² and White's chances look preferable thanks to Black's vulnerable king

13...a6 14 £xc4 e5 is a transposition to 12 ...a6 after 15 ¤xe5! a) 15 ¥xf6?! can be strongly met by 15...¥f5! (but not 15...¥e6? 16 ¥xe7! £xe7 17

£c5!? ¥xa2+ 18 ¢a1! £xc5 19 ¤xc5 ¤b4 20 ¦c1 0-0 21 ¤xe5 b6 22 ¤cd3+−)

b) while 15 a3?! is slow: 15...¥e6 16 £a4 and here Black can secure the better chances by 16...£d5! 17 ¤xf6+! (17 ¤c3 £b3!∓) 17...¥xf6 18 ¥c4! ¥f5+!? The most ambitious though a risky choice.

b1) 18...£e4+ 19 ¥d3 £f4 20 ¥g3 £h6 21 ¦de1© b2) 18...£xc4 19 £xc4 ¥xc4 20 ¥xf6 ¦g8 21 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 22 ¦he1!? (22 ¥xe5 d3³)

22...¥e6 23 ¥xe5 ¦xg2 24 ¦xd4 ¦xf2³ 19 ¢a1 £d6 20 ¥xf6 £xf6 21 ¤xe5! (otherwise White does not get sufficient

compensation for the pawn) 21...b5 22 ¥xf7+ ¢f8 23 £xa6 £xe5 24 ¦he1 £f6 25 ¥d5 ¢g7 26 g4 ¥d7 (26...¥xg4?! 27 ¦g1ƒ) 27 g5 £d6 28 ¦xd4 ¦he8 and Black consolidates his position and maintains the advantage.

15...¤xe5 16 £xd4 and so on.

14 £c2 e5 15 ¤xd4!

Otherwise White's pieces are too restricted.

15...exd4 16 ¦xd4 £b6

167

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+k+-tr0 9zpp+lvlp+p0 9-wq-+-zp-+0 9sn-+-+-+-0 9-+ptRN+-vL0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9+K+-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A very important position is reached. White has tried a number of possibilities.

17 ¦d5!?

A fresh idea, which recently caused some headache for Black. 17 ¦xd7 ¢xd7 18 ¥e2 is known to be fine for Black: 18...£e6!? (18...¢e8 19 £c3 ¦c6 seems

playable as well) 19 ¦e1 ¢c7 20 ¥g3+ ¢b6 21 f3 ¢a6³ and White has to work hard to prove compensation for the exchange

17 ¦d6 used to be the most popular option: 17...¦c6 (surely not 17...¥xd6? 18 ¤xf6++−) 18 ¦xc6 (18 ¥xf6 is worse: 18...¦xd6 19 ¥xh8 (19 ¤xd6+? is losing to: 19...£xd6 20 ¥xh8

¥f5!-+ 21 £xf5 £d1#) 19...¥f5 20 ¥e2 ¦e6 21 ¥f3 and here 21...¥g6! (21...¢f8 22 g4

¥g6 23 ¥g2 is very unclear, while 21...¤c6?! 22 ¤d6+ ¦xd6 23 £xf5± gives White a clear advantage) 22 ¥c3 ¤c6 23 ¦e1 ¤b4 24 £a4+ ¢f8 25 ¦e2 f5 26 ¤c5 ¥xc5 27 ¦xe6 f4+! with sufficient counterplay) 18...£xc6 19 ¥e2 f5! (19...0-0 20 g4!²) 20 ¥xe7 £xe4 21 ¥f6 (21 ¥b4 ¤c6 22 ¥c3 ¦g8 is okay for Black) 21...¦g8 22 ¦e1 £xc2+ 23 ¢xc2 ¥e6 24 ¦d1 ¤c6 25 ¥f3 ¥d7 26 ¢c3 ¦g6 27 ¦d6² and White gets somewhat better chances in the endgame, which is likely to be drawish.

Another well−known option is 17 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 18 £e4+ ¢f8 19 ¥xf6 £xf6 20 ¦xd7 ¦e8 does not promise much for White: 21 £d4 (or 21 £c2 £g6 (21...¦e1+!? 22 ¦d1 ¦xd1+

23 £xd1 ¢g7 24 £g4+ £g6+ 25 £xg6+ hxg6=) 22 £xg6 ¦e1+ 23 ¢c2 hxg6= and Black almost equalised) 21...¦e1+ 22 ¢c2 £xd4 23 ¦xd4 ¢e7² with slightly worse but quite playable endgame, in which Black does not face serious problems in practice.

17 ¦d2!? looks harmless but Black should defend accurately: 17...¥f5 18 ¤d6+! (This is forced as an attempt to keep things complicated would be harmful only for White: 18

g4? ¥xe4 19 £xe4 0-0! 20 £xe7 c3 etc.) 18...£xd6! 19 £xf5 ¦c5! 20 ¦xd6 ¦xf5 21 ¦d1© with good compensation for the pawn, Riazantsev − Zhu Chen/Biel 2009.

17...¥e6 18 £a4+

White has also tried 18 ¦h5!? ¥g4 19 £a4+! ¤c6 20 ¦b5 and here Black has to play 20...£a6! (after in the game Riazantsev − Jakovenko, Moscow 2006 Black faced problems after 20...£d4?! 21 f3 ¥e6 22 ¥f2 £d7 23 ¥xc4 ¥xc4 24 £xc4 0-0 25 ¥h4±) 21 £xa6 bxa6 22 ¦b7 ¥f5 23 f3 ¦g8!, transposing to main line.

168

18...¤c6 19 ¦b5

19 ¥xc4 can be well met by 19...£b4! 20 £xb4 ¤xb4 21 ¥b5+ ¢f8 22 ¦d2 ¥xa2+ 23 ¢a1 ¥e6 24 ¤xf6 ¢g7 25 ¤h5+ ¢f8 26 ¤f6 ¢g7 27 ¤h5+ with repetition of moves.

19...£a6! 20 £xa6 bxa6 21 ¦b7 ¥f5 22 f3 ¦g8!

Black gets his K−side rook into play as quickly as possible. 22...¥c5 23 ¥xf6!? (23 ¥xc4 is also worth considering: 23...¤a5 24 ¥xf6 ¤xc4 25 ¥xh8 ¤a5 26

¦b3 ¤xb3 27 axb3 and Black has to do a good work to get half a point) 23...0-0² is worse for Black.

After 22...0-0?! Black also faces problems: 23 ¥xc4 ¤a5 24 ¦xe7 ¤xc4 25 ¥xf6²

23 ¥g3 ¦g5!? 24 a4 ¤d4 25 ¦b8 ¥xe4+ 26 fxe4 ¦gc5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tRr+k+-+0 9zp-+-vlp+p0 9p+-+-zp-+0 9+-tr-+-+-0 9P+psnP+-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-zP-+-+PzP0 9+K+-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has achieved good play in the ending, Khmelniker − Khenkin/ECC Feugen 2006.

169

Vienna Variation/3 − 7. e5 cxd4 8. Nxd4

[D39]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4 6 ¥g5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 ¤xd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-zP-vL-0 9-vlpsN-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¥xc3+ 9 bxc3 £a5 10 exf6 £xg5 11 fxg7 £xg7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pwqp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+psN-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This line is known to be harmless for Black but White is trying to put problems for him

from time to time.

170

12 £d2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pwqp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+psN-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Recently this is the most popular continuation. White doesn't cover the 3rd rank, which

might be used for rook's transfer to the opened g−file. The line 12 £f3 ¤d7 13 ¥xc4 0-0 is good for Black: 14 ¥b3 (In order to secure his bishop

White also tried another retreat 14 ¥e2 but failed to achieve good prospects: 14...¤c5 (14...¤e5 15 £e3 ¤g6! is also acceptable for Black) 15 0-0 b6! 16 ¦fe1 (16

£xa8? ¥b7) 16...¥b7 17 £h3 ¦ad8 with a good play) 14...¤c5 (14...£e5+!? deserves serious attention: 15 ¤e2!? (or 15 ¢d2 £g5+ 16 £e3 £xe3+ 17 ¢xe3 ¤c5 18 ¥c2 ¥d7

with good endgame for Black) 15...¤c5 16 0-0 ¥d7 17 ¤d4! and White may still hope for some edge) 15 ¥c2 (15 0-0 can be strongly met by 15...b6! 16 ¦fe1 (16

£xa8? ¥b7 17 £xf8+ ¢xf8 18 f3 £g5 19 ¥c2 £e3+ 20 ¦f2 ¥a6∓ is clearly better for Black)

16...¥b7 17 £h3 ¢h8 (17...¤d3!? is maybe even stronger) 18 ¦e3 ¦g8 19 f3 £f6 20 ¥c2 ¦g7 and Black achieves the better chances) This position arose in the game Kir.Georgiev − Perunovic/Vrnjacka Banja 2005 which continued by 15...£e5+ (However, Black's position looks fine and it can probably be proved by energetic 15...e5! 16 ¤f5 e4! 17 ¤xg7! exf3 18 ¤h5 ¦e8+! 19 ¢f1 ¦e5∓ with superior play) 16 ¢f1 and here Black has solved opening problems by a typical 16...b6!=

12...0-0

12...¤c6 is a rare but interesting continuation: 13 ¤xc6 bxc6

171

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-+-+pwqp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 0-0-0!? (the common 14 ¥xc4 is well met by 14...£e5+! 15 ¢f1 (15 ¥e2 ¥a6= leads to an

equal endgame) 15...¥b7!? (both 15...£c5?! 16 £f4! ¦g8 17 ¦b1! ¦g5 18 g4! a5?! 19 h4!

¦g7 20 g5!±, and 15...0-0 16 h4 £c5 17 ¥e2 e5 18 £g5+ ¢h8 19 £f6+ ¢g8 20 h5 ¦e8 21 h6

£f8 22 ¦h5+− have been unsatisfactory for Black) 16 ¦d1 0-0 with good play for Black) 14...0-0 15 ¥xc4 Here White cannot count on easy play against Black's king since his own monarch is also unsafe. The game V.Popov − Filippov/ECC Saint Vincent 2005 continued 15...e5! 16 h4 h6 (In case of 16...¥f5 17 £g5!² White could achieve small advantage in the endgame) 17 ¦he1 ¥g4!? (17...¥f5 18 ¦e3 ¦ab8 19 ¥b3²

couldn't completely solve Black's problems) 18 f3 ¥f5 and here White should have played 19 g4!? ¥g6 20 g5² with somewhat better chances.

13 ¥xc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pwqp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LsN-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¦d8

13...a6 looks a bit slow but perhaps still playable: 14 0-0 b5 (in the game Topalov − Naiditsch/Dortmund 2005 Black faced serious problems after the dubious 14...¦d8?!

15 £f4!±) 15 ¥b3 b4 16 ¦ac1 ¦d8 17 £e3 ¥b7 with acceptable play.

172

14 £e3

14 £f4 is well met by 14...¤c6!

14...¥d7 15 0-0 ¤c6 16 ¤f3 ¤e7 17 ¤e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zpp+lsnpwqp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9-+L+-+-+0 9+-zP-wQ-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...¤g6

17...¥c6 is less precise: 18 g3!? ¤d5 (18...¥d5!? 19 ¥b3²) 19 ¥xd5! ¦xd5 20 ¦fe1 ¦ad8 21 £f4² and White's strong knight is dominating over the Black bishop although it was still not easy to create real threats.

18 f4 ¤xe5

18...¦ac8 19 ¥e2 can still promise a slight edge for White.

19 fxe5 ¥c6 20 g3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zpp+-+pwqp0 9-+l+p+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+L+-+-+0 9+-zP-wQ-zP-0 9P+-+-+-zP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

173

White is hoping to exploit a weakened position of Black's king and awkward position of Black's queen but a lack of resources as well as activity of Black's remaining pieces makes this task too difficult. Yet, White can still hope for a small edge but even if achieved it usually does not promise him real winning chances.

20...¦d7 21 ¦f4

In the game Onischuk − Jakovenko/Foros 2007 White tried 21 ¦f6 He wants to restrict Black's queen, however, the doubled rooks on the d−file give Black sufficient counter chances. 21...¦ad8 22 ¥e2 ¦d2! (In case of 22...¢h8 23 ¦af1 White kept Black's major pieces restricted) 23 ¦f4!? (Here 23 ¦af1 could have been met with 23...¦8d3! 24 £xd3 ¦xd3 25 ¥xd3 £g5 with sufficient counterplay against weakened opponent's king, for example, 26 ¥xh7+ ¢h8! (26...¢xh7?? 27 ¦xf7+ ¢g8 28

¦f8+ ¢g7 29 ¦1f7+ ¢h6 30 ¦h8+ ¢g6 31 ¦g8++−) 27 ¦xf7 £e3+ 28 ¦1f2 £e1+ 29 ¦f1 £e3+= with repetition of moves) 23...¢h8 24 ¦d4 (24 ¦g4 £f8 was okay for Black)

24...¦2xd4 25 cxd4 f5 26 exf6 £xf6 and Black has eventually equalised without serious problems.

21 ¥e2!? is worthy of consideration: 21...¢h8 22 ¦ad1 ¦ad8 (22...¦xd1!?) 23 ¦d4 with a small advantage.

21...¢h8

A careless 21...¦ad8? is strongly met by 22 ¥e2± followed by Rf4−g4. 'followed by Rf4−g4'

22 ¦af1 ¦ad8

This position arose in the game Shulman − Van Wely/Foxwoods 2006. It seems that White should have preferred

23 ¦d4 ¦xd4 24 cxd4²

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+-mk0 9zpp+-+pwqp0 9-+l+p+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-+-wQ-zP-0 9P+-+-+-zP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

, still hoping to maintain a slight edge.

174

Vienna Variation/4 − 7. Bxc4 ... 10. Bxf6

Qxc3 [D39]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4


The Vienna Variation is known to be one of the sharpest in the whole of opening theory.

However, in many cases after a well−known series of moves the position becomes rather quiet and White can maintain some slight pressure.

6 ¥g5 c5 7 ¥xc4 cxd4 8 ¤xd4

175

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-vlLsNP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¥xc3+

In the Vienna Variation Black begins Q−side actions rather early, trying to put some concrete problems for White, to force him to make some concessions, for example, to sacrifice a pawn. Thus if Black suddenly stops at the half−way and decides to complete his K−side development by 8...0-0, White usually does not have any problems and he can comfortably think about concrete actions. The first moves in Vienna are promoting White's development and Black must at least get something as a compensation, even by taking more risk. 9 0-0 ¤bd7 10 £e2! A strong idea − White simply continues his development, not being worried about such ideas as ...Nd7−e5 or ...Ba5xc3 followed by ...Qd8−a5. 10...¥xc3 (10...¤e5 could be well met by 11 ¦ad1 ¤xc4 12 £xc4ƒ with initiative) 11 bxc3 £a5 12 f4 e5!? Black is trying to get his bishop into play and so the Q−side rook but it is still not so easy − in the game Ivanisevic − Ninov/Lazarevac 1999 White seized a strong initiative on the K−side after 13 ¤f5ƒ

Sometimes Black does not want to damage his K−side pawn structure and plays 8...¤bd7 before capturing ...¥b4xc3 and ...£d8−a5, for example, such players as Andrei Kharlov, employs this approach from time to time. Next Black castles with a hope that the weak c3−pawn will make White's life less comfortable. However, White should not be too worried about it. It also gives him the possibility of castling and his chances seem to be better thanks to his good development and active pieces − everything is in his hands to get real benefit by using the advantages of his position. What Black is hoping for? The position becomes unbalanced and in such situation, as a rule, one cannot play just safe moves − strong chess is very much required and so it gives Black chances to outplay the less experienced opponent. 9 0-0 (9 ¤db5

cannot put serious problems for Black: 9...0-0 10 a3 ¥e7 11 0-0 a6 12 ¤d4 ¤e5 13 ¥e2 ¥d7

14 ¥f4 ¤g6 15 ¥e3 £b8 16 g3 ¦c8 with a good play) 9...¥xc3 10 bxc3 £a5

176

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9wq-+-+-vL-0 9-+LsNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Attacking both bishop on g5 and pawn on c3. However, in many cases a capture of the

pawn is too risky. (In case of 10...0-0 White can continue his development by 11 ¦e1 (or 11 £e2 £a5 12 f4 − Ivanisevic − Ninov/Lazarevac 1999) 11...£c7 (11...¤e5 12 ¥b3²)

12 ¥b3 £c5 (12...£xc3 is suspicious: 13 e5 ¤d5 14 ¥xd5! exd5 15 ¤f5ƒ with a strong initiative) 13 £d2² and White's chances are preferable 13...b6 14 ¥xe6!? fxe6 15 ¤xe6 followed by 16. Nxf8 with better chances for White.) 11 ¥h4 The main continuation. Let's take a look at some other options.

a) 11 e5?! looks interesting but in fact Black has sufficient defensive resources: 11...£xe5 12 f4 £c5 13 £e2 0-0 14 ¢h1 h6 and Black is fine

b) 11 ¤b5!? deserves attention: 11...0-0 12 ¥xf6!? ¤xf6 13 e5² and White's chances are preferable.

c) 11 ¥xf6 This simple approach can still put some problems for Black but they do not seem too dangerous. 11...¤xf6 12 ¥b5+ ¥d7 13 ¦b1 ¥xb5 (13...¦d8!? is also worthy of consideration: 14 e5 ¤d5 15 c4 ¤e7 with a good play for Black) 14 ¦xb5 This position arose in the game Dreev − Kharlov/chessassistantclub.com 2004, which continued 14...£xc3!? (it also deserves attention just to move the queen back by 14...£c7!? White must find the way to maintain the initiative otherwise his weak c3−pawn gives Black an easy play: 15 e5 (15 £b3 b6=) 15...¤d7 (in case of 15...¤d5?!

White can think about 16 ¦xd5! exd5 17 ¤b5ƒ followed by 18. Nd6 with initiative) 16 f4 0-0 17 ¦f3² and White's chances look preferable although Black's position is rather solid) 15 e5 and here Black should have thought about 15...¤e4!? 16 ¦xb7 0-0 with acceptable play

11...0-0 (11...a6 is a bit slow: 12 ¦e1 0-0 13 ¥b3 £h5?! 14 £xh5 ¤xh5 15 ¥e7! ¦e8 16 ¥d6± with a clear advantage) 12 ¦e1

a) Other continuations might also promise somewhat better chances for White, for example: 12 £e2 £c5 (12...a6 13 ¦fd1²) 13 ¦ad1 b6 14 ¢h1 ¥b7 15 f3²

b) or 12 £c2 b6 13 ¦fe1 ¥b7 14 ¤b5 ¤e5 15 ¥f1² 12...¤e5 a) Other moves do not solve the problems: 12...£c5 13 ¥xe6 (White can also make

some preparations first: 13 £e2 b6 14 ¦ad1 ¥b7 15 ¤xe6!? fxe6 16 ¥xe6+ ¢h8 17 ¥xd7

although Black gets counter chances after 17...¤xe4) 13...fxe6 14 ¤xe6 £c6 (or 14...£h5 15 ¥xf6 (15 ¤xf8!?) 15...£xd1 16 ¦axd1 gxf6 17 ¤xf8 ¢xf8 18 ¦e3 b6 19

177

¦h3 ¢g7 20 ¦hd3 ¤c5 21 ¦d8 ¥b7 22 f3 ¢g6 23 ¢f2±) 15 £b3 ¢h8 16 ¤xf8 ¤xf8 17 ¥xf6 £xf6 18 ¦ad1 £e7 19 £b4! £xb4 20 cxb4±

b) Or 12...b6 13 ¥b5 a6 14 ¥c6 ¦a7 15 e5!? ¤xe5 16 ¥g3ƒ with initiative 13 ¥f1 (13 ¥b3!? is also worthy of consideration) 13...¥d7 The game Sakaev −

Kharlov/YUG−chT Budva 1996 continued 14 ¤b3! £d8 15 ¥g3 ¤g6 16 ¥d6 ¦e8 17 e5± and the very strong bishop on d6 gave White a clear advantage.

Sometimes Black begins with 8...£a5, which gives White a chance to protect his knight on c3. However, a principled way is still 9 ¥b5+, which may lead to one of the main lines. (9 ¥d2!? is supposed to be not so ambitious but White might still count for some edge: 9...£c5 (9...0-0 deserves attention among other possibilities. 10 £e2 (10 ¤c2?! is dubious: 10...¥xc3 11 ¥xc3 £g5 12 £e2 £xg2 13 0-0-0 £xe4 14 ¦hg1 g6! 15 ¤e3 (15 ¥xf6? £f4+∓) 15...e5 and Black is already better) 10...e5 11 ¤c2 ¤c6 12 a3 ¤d4 13 £d3 ¤xc2+ 14 £xc2 £c7 15 ¥b3 ¥e7 16 ¦c1 £b6 17 ¥e3 £a6 18 £e2² with advantage) 10 ¥b5+ ¥d7 (10...¤bd7 11 ¤b3 £b6² does not equalises completely according to tournament practice: 12 £e2 a6 13 ¥d3 ¤e5 14 0-0 ¥d7 15 ¦ac1 0-0 16 ¥e3

£d6 17 ¦fd1² and so on) 11 ¤b3 In the game Bacrot − Delchev/FRA−ch Port Barcares 2005 Black continued 11...£e5 (Both 11...£b6, and 11...£e7 are also playable and more popular than the text move) 12 ¥d3 (An immediate 12 f4!? deserves serious attention: 12...£c7 13 ¥d3 ¥xc3 14 bxc3 ¥c6 15 £e2 with certain advantage) 12...¤a6 13 f4! £d6 and here the more natural 14 £e2! (14 ¥c2?!) 14...¤c5 (14...¥xc3!? 15 bxc3 e5)

15 ¤xc5 £xc5 16 a3 ¥xc3 17 ¥xc3² was preferable, maintaining the advantage) 9...¥d7 (9...¤bd7?! is dubious as it transposes into a rather risky line for Black after 10 ¥xf6 ¥xc3+ (after 10...gxf6 11 0-0 Black has no compensation for the damage of his K−side) 11 bxc3 £xc3+ 12 ¢f1 gxf6, which usually arises after 8 ...Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Qa5 10. Bb5+ Nbd7 11.Bxf6 Qxc3+ 12.Kf1 gxf6) 10 ¥xf6 (Here 10 ¥d2? is a big mistake due to 10...¥xb5 11 ¤dxb5 ¤xe4!) 10...gxf6 (a surprising 10...¥xb5!? is interesting but it probably does not completely equalise: 11 ¤dxb5 (11 ¤b3!? was an interesting alternative: 11...£b6 (11...£c7?! 12 ¥xg7 ¦g8 could be strongly met by 13 £h5!) 12 ¥xg7 ¦g8 with extremely complicated play, which needs further analysis) 11...gxf6 12 0-0 (not 12 ¤d6+? ¢e7) 12...¤c6 13 a3 (13 £f3!? ¢e7 (13...a6?!

failed to 14 £xf6! ¦g8 15 ¤d4 ¥xc3 16 ¤xc6! and White escapes with extra pawn) 14 ¦ad1 is also worthy of consideration, keeping some edge) 13...¥xc3 14 ¤xc3² After some complications players have reached a rather typical for Vienna type of position. Thanks to his opponent's vulnerable king White's chances are preferable but Black's pieces are active enough and he keeps good control over the center, Kramnik − Anand/WCh (m/8) Bonn 2008) 11 0-0 ¥xc3 (11...¥xb5?! is dubious: 12 ¤cxb5 ¤c6 (or 12...a6 13 a3! ¥e7 14 b4 £b6 15 ¤c3 0-0 16 ¤a4 £d8 17 ¦c1±) 13 a3 ¥e7 14 ¦c1 (14 £h5!?) 14...¦g8 15 ¤xc6 bxc6 16 ¤d6+ ¢f8 17 ¤c4!±) 12 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 13 bxc3 − this main line is considered in D39 Vienna Variation/3.

9 bxc3 £a5 10 ¥xf6

178

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+pvL-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+LsNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays this line is supposed to be acceptable for Black but White would still try to

prove that his advantage in development can give him more than just a compensation for the pawn.

10...£xc3+ 11 ¢f1 gxf6

11...£xc4+?! seems too risky for Black. 12 ¢g1 ¤d7 a) Other continuations do not solve the problems: 12...¥d7 13 ¦c1 £b4 (13...£a6? 14

¤b5!+−) 14 ¥xg7 ¦g8 15 ¥f6± b) or 12...0-0 13 ¦c1 (13 £g4!? g6 14 £f4 ¤d7 15 e5 ¤xf6 16 exf6 ¢h8 17 ¦c1

e5!? (17...£b4 18 h4ƒ) 18 £h6 £xc1+ 19 £xc1 exd4 20 h4 ¥f5²) 13...£b4 (13...£a6 14

£g4 g6 15 e5 ¤d7 16 £g5 ¤xf6 17 exf6 e5 18 ¤c6! ¢h8 19 ¤e7!+−) 14 £g4 g6 15 e5 ¦e8 16 £f4ƒ with initiative.

13 ¥xg7 ¦g8 14 ¦c1 £a6 15 ¥h6 This position is clearly in White's favour. The game Stahlberg − Sefc/Trencianske Teplice 1949 continued 15...¤f6 16 e5! ¤d5 17 h4! ¥d7 18 £c2± and so on.

12 ¦c1 £a5

12...£b4?! can be strongly met by 13 ¥xe6! ¤c6!? (13...¥xe6 14 ¤xe6+−) 14 ¤xc6 bxc6 15 ¥xc8 ¦xc8 and Black has to defend his damaged position: 16 h4!? (16 £g4!?) 16...0-0 17 £g4+ ¢h8 18 ¦h3² with a certain advantage.

13 h4

13 ¥b5+ is known to be harmless for Black: 13...¢e7 (13...¤d7? loses to 14 ¦xc8+! ¦xc8 15 ¥xd7+ ¢e7 (15...¢xd7?? 16 ¤b3+) 16 ¥xc8 ¦xc8 17 h4!+− and White is in time to get his rook into play.) 14 e5

179

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-+-tr0 9zpp+-mkp+p0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9wqL+-zP-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQ+K+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pawn push does not promise White more than a draw. 14...fxe5 15 £h5 ¤d7 (In case

of 15...exd4?? White has a very important check 16 £g5+! f6 17 £c5+, winning the queen after 17...¢f7 18 ¥e8+! ¦xe8 19 £xa5+−, 15...f6 looks risky: 16 ¥c4 £a3 17 ¤f5+!

¢d8™ 18 ¦d1+ ¥d7 19 ¤d6 ¢c7 20 £f7ƒ with initiative) 16 £g5+ ¢f8 (16...¢d6 is too suspicious: 17 ¥e2 (17 ¥c4!? is also interesting) 17...a6 18 ¤f3 f6 19 £g7ƒ with a certain initiative) 17 ¦xc8+ (17 £h6+ does not promise much for White: 17...¢e8 18

£g7 ¦f8 19 £xe5 £d2! and the Black queen is disturbing White's development, Kaidanov − Ivanchuk/Lvov 1987) 17...¦xc8 18 ¥xd7 White's position looks promising but after 18...£d8! he does not have more than a draw by 19 ¤xe6+ fxe6 20 £h6+ ¢e7 (or 20...¢f7 21 £xe6+ ¢g7 22 £g4+ ¢f6 23 £h4+=) 21 £xe6+= with perpetual check.

13...¢e7

13...¥d7 is a bit slow: 14 ¦h3 ¤c6?! (14...a6!?) 15 ¤b5 ¤e5 16 ¤d6+ ¢e7 17 ¤xb7 £b6 18 ¦b3 ¥a4 19 ¦xb6 ¥xd1 20 ¦bb1± with a big advantage in the endgame.

14 ¦h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-+-tr0 9zpp+-mkp+p0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+LsNP+-zP0 9+-+-+-+R0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQ+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

180

14...¤c6

14...¦d8 15 ¦d3 ¤d7 is rare and probably dubious approach. Black is taking much risk, trying to get winning chances. (15...¤c6 16 ¤xc6+ bxc6 would be a transposition to the main line) 16 ¤b3 £b6 In the game Naumkin − Delchev/Reggio Emilia 2005 White played a strong−looking 17 f4!, taking e5−square under control: 17...¤f8 18 ¦xd8 (18 e5!? was also worthy of consideration) 18...£xd8 19 £e1!? ¢e8!? 20 ¤c5 £b6 and here 21 a4!ƒ seemed to be the right way to maintain the initiative although Black still have reasonable defensive resources.

15 ¤xc6+ bxc6 16 ¦d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+-tr0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-zP0 9+-+R+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQ+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position for this line is reached. White sacrificed a pawn but has got all his pieces

into play. An attempt to do the same usually costs Black his h7−pawn but in most cases he gets sufficient counter chances. Yet, White's chances still seem to be slightly better.

16 ¦hc3!? is a very rare but interesting option: 16...¦d8 17 £f3 ¥a6 (or 17...¦d4 18 ¥b3 ¥d7

19 ¦c5 £b4 20 ¦5c4 ¦xc4 21 ¦xc4 £b5 22 ¢g1 a5 23 £c3 a4 24 ¥c2 a3 25 ¥b3© and White has maintained his good compensation for the pawn) 18 ¥xa6 £xa6+ 19 £e2 (19

¢g1!? deserves attention) 19...£xe2+ 20 ¢xe2 ¦d4 21 ¢e3² with a slight pressure but the endgame is certainly drawish.

16...¦d8

16...¦b8 is a bit less popular alternative: 17 ¢g1 ¦d8 (Other options do not solve the problems: 17...¦b2?! 18 ¥b3 £b6 19 £f3 ¥a6 20 ¦dc3ƒ, or 17...¦b7?! 18 ¥b3 ¥d7 19 £g4ƒ

with initiative in both cases, 17...¦b4? is even worse: 18 £d2! ¦a4 19 £e3 ¦d8 20 ¥b3

¦xd3 21 £xd3 £a6 22 £e3 ¦a5 23 ¦d1± with a clear advantage as Black's pieces are badly placed) 18 ¦xd8 (18 e5

181

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trltr-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9wq-+-zP-+-0 9-+L+-+-zP0 9+-+R+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This pawn push is rather typical for such a pawn structure. Since Black cannot capture this

pawn with his queen his king becomes more vulnerable − however, White still cannot gain any real benefit: 18...fxe5 19 £h5 ¦xd3 20 £g5+ f6! Black has to force the matters. 21 £g7+ ¢d6! 22 ¥xd3 Of course, Black cannot be happy with his advanced king but the next move causes some problems for White and so distracts him from the main target. 22...£d2! 23 £f8+ ¢c7 24 £c5 ¥d7 with a good play, Bagaturov − Palac/Batumi 1999) 18...£xd8 19 £h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+Q0 9-+L+P+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...£d4 (19...¦b2!? is rather interesting. The game continued 20 £c5+ ¢e8 21 £xa7 £b6 22

£xb6 ¦xb6² with a slightly better for White but drawish endgame) 20 ¥b3 ¦b4!? Black has to play actively.

a) In case of 20...¥d7 White gets better chances by 21 £xh7 f5! 22 £h6 ¦h8 23 £g5+ £f6 24 exf5 ¦xh4 25 £xf6+ ¢xf6 26 fxe6 fxe6 27 ¦c5² but Black still keeps reasonable drawish chances thanks to the lack of pawns on the board.

b) 20...£xe4 does not solve the problems completely: 21 £c5+ ¢e8 22 £xa7 ¦b7 (or 22...¦b4 23 £a8 ¢d8 24 £a5+ ¢e8 25 £a8 ¢d8 26 g3!?²) 23 £a8 ¦c7 24 £b8!?ƒ and White maintains his initiative

21 £xh7 ¥d7 (21...£xe4!? is also worthy of consideration. After 22 £xe4 ¦xe4 23 ¦xc6 ¥d7 24

¦c4 f5 25 ¦xe4 fxe4 26 g4 f6 27 ¢g2 e5 28 ¥d1 ¢f7² Black can probably hold the endgame) 22 £h5 This position arose in the game Norri − Hjelm/Helsinki 2002. It seems that Black should have played 22...£e5! (22...£xe4?! 23 £c5+ ¢e8 24 £xa7± was

182

clearly better for White) 23 £xe5 fxe5² White's advantage in such endgame is beyond doubts but Black can probably neutralise the passed h−pawn with his king.

17 ¦xd8

17 e5 does not promise much: 17...fxe5 18 ¦xd8 £xd8 19 £f3 £d6 with acceptable play.

17...£xd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQ+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18 £b3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-zP0 9+Q+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The idea of Krishnan Sasikiran. White chooses a completely new direction for the queen −

White is not in a hurry to get the h7−pawn. At first he is going to stop Black's development and, of course, would not hesitate to disturb his king if such a possibility occurs.

Some 15−20 years ago the line 18 £h5 £d4 was rather popular but nowadays it's supposed to be okay for Black. White gets h7−pawn back but he moves his queen away from the center while its counterpart is very strong on d4. 19 £xh7 (19 ¢g1 can lead to the

183

line we considered in the game Norri − Hjelm/Helsinki 2002 after 19...¦b8 20 ¥b3 but Black can also think about other options on the move 19) 19...¦b8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+Q0 9-+p+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LwqP+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(19...c5 does not solve the problems since White can simply continue 20 £h5² following by

retreat of the bishop and attacking the c5−pawn) 20 ¥b3 ¥a6+ 21 ¢g1 ¥d3 22 £g7 ¥xe4 Black has already got all his pieces into play and he looks fine. However, the passed h−pawn still gives White sufficient compensation for the pawn. 23 £g3 (after 23 £g4?! ¦d8 24 ¦d1 £e5 25 ¦xd8 ¢xd8 26 h5 ¢e7 Black has got the better chances, Tunik − Vyzmanavin/RUS−ch Gorky 1989) 23...¦h8 24 ¦c4 £a1+ 25 ¢h2© with roughly equal play.

18...£b6

18...£d6 is also worthy of consideration. However, it does not fully equalise: 19 ¦d1 ¦b8 20 ¦xd6 (20 £f3!? also came to mind but Black seems fine after 20...£c5 21 £d3 ¢f8!

22 e5!? £xe5 23 £xh7 ¢e7÷) 20...¦xb3 21 ¦xc6 ¦b1+ 22 ¢e2 ¥d7 23 ¦c7 a5 24 ¦a7 ¦b2+ 25 ¢e3 a4 26 g4 ¢d6 27 f4² with a small advantage for White in this endgame.

19 £a3+ c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+-+0 9zp-+-mkp+p0 9-wq-+pzp-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+L+P+-zP0 9wQ-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

184

This position arose in the game Sasikiran − Gustafsson/playchess.com 2004, which continued

20 £e3!? ¥d7 21 e5

White is in a hurry to act. However, a prophylactic 21 ¢g1!?² deserved serious attention. Black couldn't defend

everything anyway but White could win a pawn in a better situation.

21...fxe5 22 £g5+ ¢f8 23 £xe5²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-mk-+0 9zp-+l+p+p0 9-wq-+p+-+0 9+-zp-wQ-+-0 9-+L+-+-zP0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

with the initiative but Black still has an extra pawn and reasonable defensive resources.

185

Vienna Variation/5 − 7. Bxc4 ... 10. Bb5+

Nbd7 [D39]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 dxc4 5 e4 ¥b4 6 ¥g5 c5 7 ¥xc4 cxd4 8 ¤xd4 ¥xc3+ 9 bxc3 £a5 10 ¥b5+

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9wqL+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Nowadays this line is one of the main White's attempts to gain some advantage. Here Black

faces a dilemma.

10...¤bd7

186

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9wqL+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the more risky approach. Black wins a pawn but White develops a rather annoying

initiative.

11 ¥xf6 £xc3+ 12 ¢f1 gxf6 13 h4 a6 14 ¦h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+p+n+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-wq-+-+R0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...£b4

14...£a5 15 ¥e2 is another line, which is known to be no less risky for Black but perhaps still defendable.

15 ¥e2

187

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+p+n+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-wq-sNP+-zP0 9+-+-+-+R0 9P+-+LzPP+0 9tR-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¤e5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+p+-+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9-wq-sNP+-zP0 9+-+-+-+R0 9P+-+LzPP+0 9tR-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This rare knight's jump was considered suspicious for Black but it is probably not so clear. 15...£d6 can be met with 16 £a4!? (16 ¦c1 is another possibility) 16...0-0 17 ¦d1© with

more than sufficient compensation for the pawn, according to the tournament practice.

One of the critical positions arises after a common 15...0-0 was supposed to be a common option: 16 ¦b1 £d6 17 ¦g3+ ¢h8 18 £d2 ¦g8 It is necessary to swap a pair of rooks. (18...b5? fails to 19 e5!‚ with decisive attack) 19 ¦bb3 ¦xg3 20 ¦xg3

188

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+-mk0 9+p+n+p+p0 9p+-wqpzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-+-+-tR-0 9P+-wQLzPP+0 9+-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position for the assessment of the whole line. It is clear that White has got

excellent compensation for the pawn but perhaps Black can still defend?! 20...b6 a) 20...b5 deserves attention as well. However, the more advanced push does not

bring Black real benefit: 21 ¥f3! ¦a7 (21...¥b7? 22 e5! ¤xe5 23 ¥xb7 ¦d8 24 £f4+−,

21...¦b8?! 22 e5! fxe5 23 £g5 £f8 24 ¤c6 f6 25 £g4ƒ) 22 e5! fxe5 23 £g5 £f8 24 ¤c6 f6 25 £g4 f5 and, despite the c4−square is not available, White can maintain his initiative by 26 £g5 h6 27 £g6 ¦c7 28 £xe6 and so on.

b) 20...£f8 can be well met with 21 ¥h5 b5 22 ¤c6ƒ with a strong pressure c) an attempt to swap queens by 20...e5?? loses on the spot: 21 £h6 £f8 22 ¤f5

£xh6 23 ¤xh6+− d) while 20...¤f8? is also bad for Black: 21 e5! £d8 (21...fxe5? 22 £g5+−) 22 £h6

¤g6 23 ¤f3! followed by h4−h5. 21 ¥f3! This strong manoeuvre poses serious problems for Black. (in the game Werle −

Wells/London 2008 White played weaker: 21 ¥h5?! ¥b7! 22 ¥xf7 ¦f8 23 e5!? (23

¥xe6 ¤c5 24 ¥f5 ¤xe4 25 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 promised nothing) and here 23...£xe5! was correct: 24 ¥xe6 (24 ¥g6 could be parried by 24...¥e4! 25 ¥xe4 £xe4 26 ¦e3 £xh4 27 ¤xe6 ¦c8 (27...£h1+ 28 ¢e2 £h5+ 29 f3 £b5+ 30 ¢f2 ¦g8 was also possible) 28 £xd7 ¦c1+ 29 ¢e2 £g4+ 30 ¦f3 £e4+ 31 ¦e3 £g4+ with perpetual check) 24...¤c5 25 ¥f5 ¤e4 (or 25...¥e4 26 £h6 ¦f7 27 £d2 ¦f8 28 £h6 ¦f7=) 26 £h6 ¤xg3+ 27 fxg3 ¦f7 28 ¥xh7 ¥d5 29 ¥g6+ ¢g8 30 ¥xf7+ ¥xf7 with a probable draw) 21...¦a7 (21...¥b7? 22 e5! ¤xe5 23 ¥xb7 ¦d8 24 £h6 ¤g6 25 ¤f3+−) 22 e5! fxe5 23 £g5 £f8 24 ¤c6 f6 (24...¦c7? 25 ¤e7+−) 25 £g4 (Not 25 £g8+? £xg8 26 ¦xg8+ ¢xg8 27

¤xa7 when Black escapes by 27...e4! 28 ¥xe4 ¤c5=) 25...f5 26 £c4± On the next move White captures on e6, securing a clear advantage.

16 ¦b1!?

16 h5 takes g6−square under control but the idea to push Black's knight back does not work well: 16...£d6! (16...¥d7 17 ¦b3 £d6 18 ¦xb7 ¦d8 19 ¤b3 gives White a certain advantage, as a rule, an early castling would only promote White's initiative in this line: 16...0-0 17 ¦b1 £d6 18 £d2‚ and so on) 17 £d2!? (17 ¢g1?! ¥d7 18 ¦b1 ¦d8 gave Black the better chances in the game Shulman − Naiditsch/Montreal 2009: 19 ¦c3 (the pawn on b7 was untouchable: 19 ¦xb7?? ¥c6!) 19...b5 20 ¦bc1 b4 and after

189

21 ¦g3? ¢e7 22 f4 ¥e8! 23 fxe5 fxe5∓ Black has got the piece back, securing material advantage) 17...¥d7 (17...¦g8?! 18 ¦d1 ¥d7 19 £b2ƒ, 17...¤c6?! 18 ¦d3 £h2! 19

f4²) 18 £b2 ¤c6!? 19 ¦d1!? ¤xd4 20 ¦xd4 £e5 with a good play for Black. 16 ¦c1!? deserved attention as well: 16...£d6 (16...0-0?! seems weaker: 17 ¦b3 £e7 18 £d2

¢h8 19 h5 with initiative) 17 ¦c2!? with active play for the pawn. 16 ¦b3 has been tried in the game Borovikov − Drozdovskij/TUR−chT Konya 2010, which

continued 16...£d6 17 ¦c1 a) In case of 17 £d2 Black could have solved his problems by 17...¤c6! 18 ¦d3 (the

ending after 18 ¦d1 ¤xd4 19 £xd4 £xd4 20 ¦xd4 b5 was harmless for Black) 18...£h2! 19 ¦h3 £e5 20 ¦d3 £h2= with a repetition of moves.

b) 17 a4!? deserved attention, stopping ...b7−b5. However, Black seemed to be fine after 17...0-0

17...b5 18 £d2 (18 ¦bc3 ¥b7 19 f4 ¤c4 was fine for Black. Then it would be a repetition again: 20 ¥xc4 bxc4 21 e5 fxe5 22 fxe5 £d5 23 £a4+ ¢f8 24 £b4+ ¢e8=) 18...¥b7 with good play for Black.

16...£d6 17 ¦b2!?

In case of 17 ¦c3 Black would have thought about 17...b5! with unclear play. (after 17...¢e7? 18 f4 ¤d7 19 £d2 ¦d8 20 ¦d1 he faces problems) For example, 18 £d2 (18

¤b3!? £xd1+ 19 ¦xd1©) 18...¥d7 19 £e3÷ and so on 17 h5?! b5 18 £d2 ¥b7 19 f4? ¦d8! is bad for White. White would also think about such options as 17 a4!? with compensation for the pawn but

it requires more analysis.

17...b5 18 ¦d2 £c7!?

in case of 18...£b6 19 ¦g3 ¥b7 20 f4 White's chances looks preferable: 20...¤g6!? 21 f5 ¦d8! (21...¤xh4? 22 ¦h3) 22 fxg6 hxg6 23 h5!? but Black still keeps reasonable counter chances.

19 a4

Here 19 ¦g3 ¥b7 20 f4? ¤g6 was simply bad for White

19...b4÷

190

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+-wq-+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-sn-+-0 9Pzp-sNP+-zP0 9+-+-+-+R0 9-+-tRLzPP+0 9+-+Q+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position is very complicated. White keeps sufficient compensation for the pawn but

Black has also got something to be satisfied with.

191

Vienna Variation/6 − 7. Bxc4 ... 10. Bb5+

Bd7 [D39]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 dxc4 5.e4 ¥b4 6.¥g5 c5 7.¥xc4 cxd4 8.¤xd4 ¥xc3+ 9.bxc3 £a5 10.¥b5+ ¥d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9zpp+l+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9wqL+-+-vL-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is known to be safer but Black's chances to outplay White are very limited in this line.

11.¥xf6 gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+k+-tr0 9zpp+l+p+p0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9wqL+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

192

11...£xc3+? just loses to 12.¢f1 gxf6 13.¦c1 followed by Rc1-c8.

12.¥xd7+

12.£b3 used to be the main continuation but recently Black is holding on. 12...0-0 The most popular approach.

a) 12...a6 13.¥e2 (Some 15−20 years ago an interesting sacrifice 13.¥xd7+ ¤xd7 14.¤xe6!? was rather dangerous for Black but now it is known to be drawish. 14...¦c8! This rather unexpected move is the most convincing way to solve the problems.

a1) In case of 14...£e5 White gets small advantage after 15.¤g7+ ¢f8 16.¤f5 £xe4+ 17.¤e3 ¤c5 18.£b4!²

a2) After 14...fxe6 the problems still remain: 15.£xe6+ ¢d8 16.¦d1 £b5! (16...£xc3+?! 17.¢e2 £b2+ is worse: 18.¢f3 £c3+ 19.¢g4! f5+!? 20.¢h5! and White gets material advantage: 20...£g7 21.¦xd7+ £xd7 22.£f6+ ¢c7 23.¦c1+ ¢b8 24.£xh8+ ¢a7

25.£e5!±) 17.£xf6+ (White can also repeat moves: 17.¦d5 £c6 18.¦d6 £a4 19.¦d4, 17.c4

£c6 18.¦d6 £a4 19.0-0© is worthy of consideration but Black can also defend)

17...¢c7 18.£d6+ ¢c8 19.c4 £a5+ 20.¦d2 ¦d8² and Black is under some pressure 15.0-0 ¦xc3 16.¤g7+ ¢f8 17.£d1 ¢xg7 18.£g4+ £g5 19.£xd7 Black's K−side pawn

structure is seriously damaged but White is late to get his rooks into play. 19...£b5! 20.£xb5 (Or 20.£g4+ £g5 21.£e2 ¦hc8= and White has no chances to bother Black's king) 20...axb5 21.f3 White is fortifying his K−side pawn structure. (21.¦fb1 ¦a8

22.¦xb5 is met by 22...¦xa2!=, 21.¦ab1 ¦a8 22.¦xb5 ¦xa2 23.¦xb7 ¦c4 is also drawish. White loses his e4−pawn since 24.f3 is met by 24...¦cc2) 21...¦hc8 (21...¦c2 22.¦f2 ¦hc8

23.¦xc2 ¦xc2 24.¦b1² is similar) 22.¦ab1 ¦c2 23.¦f2 ¦c1+ 24.¦xc1 ¦xc1+ 25.¦f1 ¦c4 (25...¦c2 26.¦b1²) 26.¦d1² Thanks to his better pawn structure White has got a slight edge in this endgame but it is certainly drawish. The maximum White can achieve is the endgame 4 vs 3 on the K−side but the doubled f−pawns make Black's defences easier in such kind of endgames, P.Cramling − Brunner/Biel 1994) 13...¤c6 14.0-0 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+pwql+p+p0 9p+n+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+QzP-+-+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This type of position is under test during many years and the overall assessment has not

been changing much. Black's damaged K−side pawn structure is a bit more important that White's weak c3−pawn. White usually maintains a small advantage by

193

trying to disturb the vulnerable Black king. 15.£a3 This seems to be the most promising continuation. (15.¦ab1 ¤a5 16.£a3 ¦c8 may also promise some edge but in many cases Black can simplify into worse but drawish positions. Here White has a choice. 17.¦fd1 (Here 17.c4!? might also promise a small advantage for White: 17...¤xc4!? (17...£c5 is also playable but not fully equalising: 18.£c3 ¢e7 (or 18...e5 19.¤b3 ¤xb3 20.axb3 a5 21.¦fd1 ¥e6 22.h3!?²) 19.¢h1 e5 White can secure a slight edge by 20.¤b3! ¤xb3 21.axb3 a5 22.¦bd1²) 18.¥xc4 £xc4 19.¦fd1 £c3 (in case of 19...£c5 White gets initiative: 20.£f3 b5 21.£xf6 ¦g8 22.¤f3 £e7 23.£d4ƒ) 20.£xc3!? The endgame gives better chances for White. (after 20.£d6 £c7 21.£b4 (21.£a3

£c3) 21...¦g8 22.£d2 (22.£xb7 £xb7 23.¦xb7 e5= is drawish) 22...¦g5!÷ Black gets his K−side rook into play with a good prospects) 20...¦xc3 21.¦xb7 ¥c8 22.¦b6!? (White does not achieve much after 22.¦a7 0-0 23.¤e2 ¦c2 24.¤f4 ¢g7=) 22...0-0 23.¦d6² with a certain advantage for White. ) 17...£xc3!? A principled and perhaps the most convincing way to get half a point. (17...£c5 18.£c1 A typical manoeuvre − White sends his queen to the center or the opposite flank trying to put problems for the Black king. 18...¢e7 19.c4!? ¦hd8 The game continued 20.¤f5+! exf5 21.¦d5 £c7 (An alternative 21...£c6!? did not solve the problems: 22.£a3+ ¢e8 23.£xa5! fxe4

24.¦bd1ƒ with a certain initiative) 22.£a3+ ¢e8 23.¦xa5 fxe4 24.¦h5 f5 25.¦xh7 with better chances for White, Burgess − Law/Birmingham 1999) 18.¤b3! (18.£d6 £c7 seems to be fine for Black. 19.¤f5?! This tempting sacrifice, which was successfully played by Garry Kasparov, can actually create problems only for White. (White would repeat the moves by 19.£b4 £c3 20.£d6=) 19...exf5 20.£xf6 ¦g8!

a1) 20...0-0? justifies White's strategy: 21.¦d3 f4 22.¦d5‚ with decisive attack a2) 20...£c3? is also bad: 21.e5!+− ¦f8 (or 21...¦g8 22.¦xd7! ¢xd7 23.£xf7+ ¢c6

24.£e6+ followed by 25. Qd6 checkmate) 22.¦xd7! ¢xd7 23.¦d1+ ¢e8 24.¥h5 £c6 25.e6+− with a quick checkmate.

21.exf5! (in the game Shulman − Yakovich/New York 1998 White went astray: 21.¥h5? ¥c6! 22.¦d4? (22.£xf5 ¦g7∓) 22...¥xe4 23.¦bd1 ¤c6 24.£e6+ ¢f8 25.£h6+ ¢e7! 26.¦d7+ £xd7 27.¦xd7+ ¢xd7-+ and Black has eventually converted his material advantage) 21...£c6!? (it is worth considering to include 21...£c3!? 22.¦d4 and only now 22...£c6! 23.£e5+ ¢f8÷ − perhaps this line may promise real advantage for Black) 22.£e5+ ¢f8 23.¥f3 £c7 24.£e3 ¥xf5 25.¦bc1 ¤c4!? (or 25...£e7 26.£h6+

¢e8 27.£xh7!? £g5 28.¦xc8+ ¥xc8÷ with roughly equal play) 26.£h6+ ¢e8!? (Black could already force a repetition of moves by 26...¦g7 27.¦xc4 £xc4 28.£d6+ ¢e8 (of course, not 28...¢g8?? 29.£d8+ ¦xd8 30.¦xd8# checkmate!) 29.£e5+ ¢f8 30.£d6+=) 27.¦e1+ ¥e6 28.¦xe6+ (28.£xh7 ¢d7 29.¦cd1+ ¤d6) 28...fxe6 29.£xe6+ ¢f8 30.¥d5 ¦g6 31.£f5+ ¢g7 32.¦xc4 £e7³ and Black's chances look somewhat better) 18...¤xb3 (18...¤c4? is losing to 19.¥xc4 £xc4 20.¦bc1 £b5 21.¦xc8+ ¥xc8 22.¦c1

£d7 23.£c5 £c6 24.£b4 £d7 25.¤a5+−) 19.¦xb3 £c7 (the endgame after 19...£c5

20.£xc5 ¦xc5 21.¦xb7 ¥c8 22.¦a7 0-0 23.a4± is difficult for Black) 20.£b2² White gets a pawn back and maintains the better chances. However, after 20...£e5! 21.¦xb7 ¥c6 22.£xe5 (or 22.¦b6 £xb2 23.¦xb2 ¥xe4 24.¥xa6 ¦a8²) 22...fxe5 23.¦a7 0-0 (23...¥xe4?!

24.¥xa6) 24.f3 ¥b5! 25.¥xb5 axb5 26.¦b7 ¦c2 27.¦xb5² and the endgame 4 vs 3 on the K−side is most likely to be drawish) 15...¦c8 16.¦fd1 This seems to be the most promising way − White first of all places his rook on the d−file. 16...¤a5 Black also tried some other options.

194

a1) 16...h5?! seems dubious: 17.¦d2 ¤e5 18.¦ad1 £xc3? and here 19.¤b3! with idea 20. Rxd7! Nxd7 21. Rc1 wins instantly: 19...£c7 20.f4+−

a2) 16...¦g8!? 17.¦ab1 ¦g5!?² deserves attention a3) while 16...¤e5 17.c4 (17.¦ab1!?) 17...£c5 18.£b3² gives White a typical small

advantage 17.c4 £c5 This position arose in the game Bocharov − Ovod/St. Petersburg 2002, which

continued 18.£c3 (18.£g3!? is also interesting) and here 18...¤xc4! should have been played: 19.¦ac1 b5 20.¥xc4 bxc4 (20...£xc4? 21.£d2+−) 21.¤c2!? £e5 22.¦d4² with idea Nc2−e3 and White maintains initiative but Black should not be too bad.

b) 12...¥xb5 13.¤xb5 0-0 14.0-0 ¤c6 can lead to the main line. 13.0-0 ¥xb5 (13...£b6 does not equalise: 14.¦fd1! ¤c6 15.¥xc6! ¥xc6 (15...£xb3 16.axb3

¥xc6 17.¤xc6 bxc6 18.¢f1±) 16.£c2 ¦ac8 17.£e2 £c5 18.¦ab1 (18.¦d3!?) 18...¢h8 19.¦d3 ¦g8 20.g3 ¦gd8 21.£f3 ¢g7 22.¦bd1² and Black's defence is not so easy) 14.¤xb5 ¤c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+n+pzp-+0 9wqN+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+QzP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(14...¤d7?! is dubious. White gets a big advantage by a simple 15.c4 a6 16.¤d6± followed by

Ra1-d1) 15.c4 White also tried to get his rook to the K−side first. a) 15.¦ad1 ¦ad8 16.¤d6 £e5 17.£a3 does not promise much: 17...b6 (17...¦d7!?

deserves attention as well) 18.¦d3 (18.f4 can be met by 18...£a5 19.£xa5 ¤xa5 20.¦f3

¤b7! with a drawish endgame: 21.¦g3+ ¢h8 22.¦gd3 ¤xd6 23.¦xd6 ¦xd6 24.¦xd6 ¦c8

25.¦d7 ¢g7= and so on) 18...£f4 19.¦fd1 ¤e5 20.¦g3+ ¢h8 and Black is okay b) 15.¦ae1 ¦fd8 16.¦e3 White transfers his rook to the K−side but it would be very

difficult to provide real support for it. 16...¦d2 17.¤d4!? (17.¦g3+!? ¢h8 18.c4 is also tempting but Black could defend: 18...¤e5! (18...¦g8 19.¤d6!) 19.£e3 (19.c5 ¦g8

20.¦xg8+ ¢xg8 21.£g3+ ¢f8 was okay for Black) 19...¦g8 20.£h6 ¦xg3 21.hxg3 ¢g8! 22.£xf6 ¤xc4 and Black is holding on) 17...¤xd4 18.cxd4 ¦xd4 19.£xb7 ¦e8! 20.£b2 ¦ed8 21.h3 £e5² Thanks to the weakened Black's king White's chances are preferable but Black's position is defendable, Malakhatko − Schenk/Deizisau 2004.

15...¦ad8 (An attempt to quickly bring the queen to defence by 15...£d2 16.¦ad1 £f4 17.¤d6ƒ

limits the prospects of Black's rooks very much.) 16.£g3+ White also tried some other options.

a) 16.¦ae1 does not promise much: 16...£d2 17.£g3+ (17.c5!? deserves attention)

17...¢h8 18.¦e3 ¦g8 19.£f4 ¦g6 and Black is doing well.

195

b) in case of 16.c5 it is better to exchange White's knight, which can be rather dangerous for Black on d6−square: 16...¤d4 (16...¦d2?! 17.£g3+ ¢h8 18.£f4 ¢g7

19.¤d6!ƒ) 17.¤xd4 ¦xd4 18.£g3+ ¢h8 19.£f4 ¢g7 The game Krasenkow − H.Olafsson/Reykjavik 2004 continued 20.¦ac1!? (20.¦ab1 is fine for Black: 20...£xc5

21.¦xb7 £g5 22.£c7 £e5 23.£e7 ¦xe4 24.¦xa7 ¦e1=) 20...¦c8 21.£g4+ ¢h8 (there is nothing wrong with 21...¢f8 ) 22.£h5 and here 22...¢g8! was correct and White could achieve nothing: 23.£g4+ (23.¦fe1 ¦c4!, 23.e5? ¦xc5) 23...¢f8² and so on.

16...¢h8 17.£h4 ¢g7 Black has no choice and now White can make a draw any time he wants. The question is whether he can provide real help for his queen. 18.f4 £d2! This novelty might become a heavy blow to all White's attempts to put real problems for Black in the whole 10. Bb5 approach. (In the game Mamedyarov − Bluvstein/Calvia de Mallorca (ol) 2004 White put real problems before Black after 18...¦d3 19.e5! £d8 20.£h5! White is playing energetically − now he is simply going to bring remaining pieces into action by Ra1-e1, Nb5−d6 and so on. 20...¢g8 (An interesting 20...a6!? 21.¤d6 fxe5 can be met by 22.c5! (in case of 22.fxe5 Black escapes into the drawish endgame by 22...¤xe5! 23.£xe5+ f6 24.¤xb7 fxe5 25.¤xd8

¦fxd8²) 22...f5 (or 22...£f6 23.f5ƒ) 23.fxe5ƒ and White maintains his initiative) 21.¦ae1 a6 22.¤d6 fxe5 23.c5! f5 (23...£f6 24.f5‚ couldn't extinguish White's initiative)

24.fxe5ƒ White has supported his knight on d6 very well so his chances should be preferred without any doubts.) 19.e5 (The logical 19.¦f3!? can be well met by 19...¦g8 20.f5

a) White must be careful − such actions as 20.¦g3+?! ¢f8 21.¦xg8+ ¢xg8 22.£xf6 may be fatal for his knight on b5 after 22...a6 For example, 23.¤c7 £e3+ 24.¢h1 £xe4∓

b) 20.e5 also clarifies position in Black's favour: 20...fxe5 21.fxe5 ¦d7! 22.¦g3+ (22.¦f2 £e3) 22...¢f8 23.¦xg8+ ¢xg8 24.£g3+ ¢h8³ xe5

20...¦d3!? An interesting option. (perhaps a simple 20...e5!? is more reliable: 21.¦af1 (21.¤c3!?) 21...¤d4 22.¦g3+ ¢f8 23.¦xg8+ ¢xg8 24.£xf6 ¤e2+ 25.¢h1 £d1! 26.£g5+ ¢f8 27.£h6+ ¢g8= and White must repeat the moves) 21.£g3+ ¢h8 22.¦xd3 £b2! 23.£f2 £xa1+ 24.£f1 £b2„ with reasonable counterplay: 25.fxe6 fxe6 26.¤d4 ¤e5! 27.£xf6+ ¦g7 28.£f8+ ¦g8 29.£f6+ ¦g7= with a repetition of moves which seems to be the most logical finish in this whole line.) 19...fxe5 20.£g5+ ¢h8 21.£f6+ ¢g8 22.£g5+ ¢h8 23.£f6+ ¢g8 24.¦ae1 White is trying to get any rook to the g−file but it does not seem to be possible. The game Mamedyarov − P.H.Nielsen/Wijk aan Zee B 2005 continued 24...a6 (It was also unclear how White would create mating threats in case of 24...exf4 For example, 25.¦e4 e5 26.g3 (26.c5 £xa2) 26...¦d3 27.gxf4 ¦h3=) 25.£g5+ ¢h8 26.£f6+ ¢g8 and after a few fruitless attempts White eventually played the perpetual check.

12...¤xd7 13.0-0

196

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+-+pzp-+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This simple approach has recently become popular.

13...a6

13...£xc3?! can be well met 14.£a4 0-0 15.¤xe6! fxe6 (15...¤b6?! 16.£d4 £xd4 17.¤xd4 ¦fd8

18.¤f5±) 16.£xd7ƒ 13...¦d8?! does not solve the problems: 14.¦b1 ¤c5 (14...¤e5?! 15.¦xb7 £xc3 16.£a4+ ¢f8

17.¦d1±) 15.£f3ƒ in case of 13...¤c5 White can secure the better chances by 14.£f3! ¢e7 15.¤b3!? ¤xb3

(15...£c7 16.¤xc5 £xc5 17.e5! fxe5 18.£xb7+ ¢f6 19.£f3+ ¢e7 20.¦ab1 ¦ab8 21.£h3ƒ)

16.axb3 £b6 17.c4² 13...£c7!? deserves attention: 14.£d2 ¤c5 15.¦ae1 (15.£e3 seems more precise) 15...0-0-

0!?÷ and Black has managed to move his king to the safer place.

14.¦b1 £c7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+pwqn+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's defence must be well thought out, such routine play as 14...¤c5?! 15.£f3 £d8

16.¦fe1 ¦c8 17.¦bd1 with the idea ¤d4−f5 gives White a strong initiative.

15.£f3!?

197

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9+pwqn+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-zP-+Q+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has tried many moves with his queen but this one, which has never been popular,

might be the most promising option. 15.£g4 does not promise much: 15...h5 16.£h3 ¢e7 17.f4 h4 18.£f3 ¦ac8 and after 19.e5

£xc3 20.exf6+ ¢xf6 21.£xc3 ¦xc3 and Black is fine 15.£e2 gives White nothing special: 15...0-0 16.¦fd1 ¢h8 17.¦d3 ¦g8÷ with acceptable

play. 15.£d2!? is one of the main options but Black is doing well: 15...h5! One of Black's main

problem in such type of position is that his K−rook is often lacks connection with other forces while it has no real work on the K−side. Thus Black is trying to get his rook on h8 into action, meanwhile preventing a possible White queen's jump to h6. Besides, Black is going to keep his king in center and pressurize over the c−file, trying to distract White's attention from the main target. Perhaps such approach is more risky but it would also promise more counter chances.

a) White's idea not to move his queen to the Q−side would be justified if Black still wants to castle − then it takes less time to transfer White's queen to the opposite flank: 15...0-0 16.¦fd1 ¦ad8 (16...¤e5?!, which has been played in the game Azmaiparashvili − Harikrishna/Dos Hermanas 2005, is even worse. Here White could have secured a tangible advantage by playing 17.f4! ¤c6!? Probably the best defence − Black exchanges one of the attacking pieces. 18.f5 (18.£f2!? ¢h8 19.£h4

£e7 20.¢h1±) 18...¢h8 19.£h6 £e7 20.¦b6!? ¤xd4 21.cxd4 exf5 22.exf5± and so on) 17.£h6 ¢h8 18.¦d3 ¦g8 19.¤e2!² and White has secured a slight edge, Akopian − Izoria/Aeroflot Open Moscow 2005.

b) 15...¦c8!? is worthy of consideration. A possible play is 16.¦fd1 (White could have thought about 16.£h6!? ¢e7² with slightly worse but playable position for Black) 16...b5 17.f4 ¤c5 18.£e3 with a complicated position, probably with somewhat better chances for White in the game P.Smirnov − V.Popov/Aeroflot Open Moscow 2005

16.f4 ¦c8 17.¦f3 b5 18.¦e1 ¤b6 19.£f2 h4! 20.¦h3 ¤a4„ This is a kind of position Black should try to achieve in this line − all his pieces are doing a good work and White cannot think about attacking actions against Black's centralized king, Gelfand − Topalov/Monte Carlo 2005.

15.£h5!? This queen's sortie keeps Black under some pressure. 15...¤c5 The most reliable defence.

198

a) 15...0-0? is too risky as after 16.¦bd1 ¤c5 17.f4± White launches a direct attack against Black's king

b) 15...¢e7 does not solve the problems due to 16.f4! (White also tried 16.¦fd1 b5 (Black has successfully tried other continuations, such as 16...¦ac8 17.£h4 b5÷, or 16...¦ad8 17.¦d3 ¤e5 18.¦g3 ¤g6 19.£d1 ¦d7 20.£b3 ¦c8÷ with acceptable play in both cases but perhaps White could have posed more problems for Black in these games)

17.¦b2! A good manoeuvre − White doubles his rooks along the d−file. 17...¦ac8 18.¦bd2 ¤c5 This position occurred in the game Avrukh − Grischuk/Biel 2007. Here 19.£h4!? seemed more to the point. Then in case of 19...£e5 White would think about 20.f4!? (a tempting 20.¤f3!? £xe4 21.¦d7+ ¢e8 22.£xf6 ¤xd7 23.£xh8+ ¤f8

was less promising) 20...£xe4 21.¦e2 £g6 22.f5 £g5 23.£h3 e5 24.¤f3 £g7 25.£h4ƒ with excellent attacking chances.) 16...£xc3

b1) Other continuations couldn't stop White's initiative, too: 16...¦ac8 17.e5 fxe5 18.fxe5 ¦cf8 and here a possible way would have been 19.£f3 ¤c5 (19...¤xe5?

20.£f6+ ¢e8 21.¤f5! ¦hg8 22.¦xb7! ¦xg2+! 23.¢xg2 £xb7+ 24.¢h3 £c7 25.¦e1!+−)

20.¦b4! with idea Nd4−b3 with decisive attack b2) or 16...¦hg8 17.e5 ¦ac8 18.¦be1ƒ with a strong initiative. 17.¦fd1‚ Black's position is hard to defend and he was quickly smashed in the game

Gustafsson − Naiditsch/Dortmund 2008. 16.¦b4! A strong manoeuvre − ¦b4−c4 followed by ¤d4xe6 is threatened. a) White also tried other options but most of them are rather harmless for Black:

16.¦be1 is rather harmless for Black: 16...0-0-0 17.¦e3 ¢b8 18.g3 ¢a8 19.¦b1 £e7 20.¤b3 ¦c8, equalising without serious problems

b) 16.¦fe1 0-0-0 17.¦e3 (17.£f3!?) 17...e5!? (17...£e5!? 18.£e2 ¦hg8÷) 18.¤b3 ¤xb3 19.axb3 £d7 20.g3 £e6 21.¦f3² and White has maintained a small advantage

c) 16.f4 0-0-0 17.£f3 ¦d7 18.£e3 ¢b8 19.¦b4 ¦c8 and Black has no problems. 16...£e5 17.£h6!? a) The endgame after 17.£xe5 fxe5 18.¤b3 ¤xb3 19.axb3 0-0-0 is certainly

drawish although White can still maintain a slight edge by 20.f4! exf4 21.¦c4+ ¢b8 22.¦xf4²

b) 17.£f3 does not impress too much. White puts his queen in the way of his f−pawn and so he cannot immediately push his opponent's queen from the strong e5−square. However, the main drawback of Black's position, his damaged K−side pawn structure, is still there so he has to defend carefully: 17...¦d8 18.¤b3 ¤xb3 19.axb3 b5 20.£e3 0-0 21.¦d4 White keeps some advantage thanks to opponent's vulnerable king. However, Black does not have any other problems so his position seems defendable with accurate play, Romanov − Sargissian/Moscow 2009.

c) 17.£h4 was White's common option but he can put his queen more actively. Here Black can think about 17...¦d8!? (17...£g5 18.£h3 has been played many times, but it is considered after 17. £h6 £g5 18. £h3) 18.¤f3!? £xc3 19.e5! ¦g8! Only the activity of all pieces can distract White from his general plan. (In the game Tkachiev − Balogh/World Cup Khanty−Mansiysk 2007, Black faced serious problems after the dubious 19...f5?! 20.¦c4 £a5 21.¤g5 ¤e4 22.¦xe4! fxe4) 20.£xh7 ¢e7 21.¦f4 f5 The game Gelfand − Aronian/FIDE GP Nalchik 2009, continued 22.£h4+ (22.¦d4!? might have been more promising. A possible play would be 22...¦xg2+!? (surely not 22...£xf3?? 23.£h4+, while 22...¦xd4 23.£xg8 did not seem fully equalising) 23.¢xg2

199

¦xd4 24.¤xd4 £xd4 with good compensation for the exchange. However, White could still try to play on: 25.£h5 £e4+ 26.£f3 £xe5 27.¦d1 f4 28.h4² keeping somewhat better chances) 22...¢e8 23.g3 ¤e4 24.¦xe4!? fxe4 25.£xe4 ¦d5 26.£f4 and White's initiative fully compensates the exchange but probably not more than that.

17...¦c8!? (17...£g5 18.£h3 is an alternative line: 18...h5!? a) In case of 18...¦g8 19.g3! would still promise the better chances for White: a1) 19.f4 gives nothing: 19...£g4 20.£xg4 ¦xg4 21.g3 ¦c8= with equal ending a2) while after 19.¦c4?! b5! White has to force a draw by 20.¦xc5 (here 20.f4?? fails

to 20...£xg2+! 21.£xg2 ¦xg2+ 22.¢xg2 bxc4 with extra pawn in the ending) 20...£xc5 21.¤xe6! fxe6 22.£xe6+ ¢f8 23.£xf6+ ¢e8 24.£e6+ 1/2 Khismatullin − P.H.Nielsen/EU−ch Plovdiv 2008

19...h5 a1) in case of 19...¦c8?! White would have captured the pawn: 20.£xh7 a2) while after 19...£g6!? 20.¦c4! b6 21.¦b1 £xe4 22.¦xb6 £e1+ (or 22...¦g5 23.£f1

£d3 24.£xd3 ¤xd3) 23.£f1 £xf1+ 24.¢xf1 ¦g5 25.¦c6 ¤d7 26.¤b3² Black has to defend the worse ending.

20.¦c4! b6 a1) 20...b5?? 21.f4+− a2) 20...¦c8? suddenly loses due to unfortunate position of some Black's pieces,

especially the rook on g8. A similar and playable for Black position without inclusion of the moves ...¦h8−g8 and g2−g3 is considered after the main 18 ...h5: 21.¤xe6!! (a typical 21.¤b3?, swapping Black's important knight, maintains the edge but it is certainly weaker than the deadly blow: 21...b6 22.¤xc5 ¦xc5 23.f4²) 21...fxe6 22.¦xc5! ¦xc5 (22...£xc5 wasn't better: 23.£xe6+ ¢f8 (with the rook on h8 Black could simply move his king to the Q−side) 24.£xf6+ ¢e8 25.£e6+ ¢f8 26.¦d1 ¦g7 (26...£c6 27.¦d6+−) 27.¦d5+− with decisive advantage) 23.£xe6+ ¢f8 24.¦d1 ¢g7 25.h4! Only this pawn push, which breaks coordination between opponent's pieces, justifies White's rook sacrifice! 25...£g6 (In case of 25...£g4 some precision was still required: 26.¦d7+! (26.£e7+? ¢h8!-+) 26...¢h8 (26...¢h6 27.£xf6+ £g6 28.£f4+!)

27.£xf6+ ¦g7 28.£f8+ ¢h7 29.¦xg7+ £xg7 30.£xc5+−) 26.£e7+ ¢h6 27.£xc5+− Two extra pawns and vulnerable Black's king make White's win easy, G.Meier − Acs/Paks 2009.

21.¦b1 (21.f4 £g4 22.£xg4 hxg4 23.¦b1², 21.a4!?²) 21...b5!? (21...h4 isn't better: 22.¦xb6 £c1+ 23.£f1 (23.¢g2?! ¤d3 24.¦xe6+ ¢f8 25.¦xf6 ¤e1+ 26.¢f1 ¤f3+ 27.¢g2 ¤e1+=)

23...£xf1+ 24.¢xf1 hxg3 25.hxg3 ¤xe4 26.¢g2ƒ with initiative ) 22.¤f3! (22.f4??

£xf4 23.¦xc5 £e3+-+) 22...£g4 23.£xg4 hxg4 24.¦xc5 gxf3 25.¦c7 and Black has to do a good work to hold balance in this ending.

b) In case of 18...£e5 19.¦e1 ¦d8 20.£e3 ¦g8 21.¤f3 (21.f4 £c7 22.¦c4 b6 23.¤b3

¦c8„) 21...£c7 22.¦d4 ¤d7 23.¦ed1 ¢e7 24.g3² White also keeps a small but stable advantage.

19.¦c4! (19.f4 £g4 20.£e3 ¦g8 21.¦b2 ¦c8 22.¦d2 h4 was the lesser evil for Black in the game Sasikiran − Macieja/Warsaw 2008 but here White would have also secured the edge by playing 23.¤b3!?, swapping important Black's knight, which defends the Q−side as well as prevents a possible invasion through the d−file. A possible play would have been 23...£h5 (both 23...¤xb3?! 24.axb3 ¦d8 25.¦ff2, and 23...b6?! 24.£d4 e5

200

25.fxe5 £xe4 26.exf6± were far from solving the problems) 24.e5!? (24.¢h1?! was strongly met by 24...¤xb3 25.axb3 ¦g3!, while 24.£d4 h3 25.g3 ¤xb3 26.axb3 £c5 should be drawish) 24...fxe5 25.fxe5 ¤xb3 26.axb3² with better chances for White since Black's king will never be absolutely safe.) 19...¦c8 (Or 19...b6 20.¤b3ƒ) 20.¤b3 b6 21.¤xc5 ¦xc5 22.£d3 0-0 23.f4 £g6² White keeps some edge but Black's position should be defendable) 18.¤f3 A typical attacking method. (18.a4 can be well met with 18...£xe4! 19.£xf6 ¦g8 20.£f3 (20.g3 ¤d7! 21.£h6 ¦xc3 is also good for Black)

20...¦g4!? (20...£xf3 21.¤xf3 ¢e7 could not be bad for Black) 21.£h3 h5!? with acceptable play for Black.) 18...£xc3 19.¦d4 ¢e7 20.e5! (20.¦c1 could be well met by 20...£b2! 21.e5 ¤d7 22.¦cd1 ¦hd8, after which White had to think about 23.¦xd7+

¦xd7 24.£xf6+= with perpetual check.) 20...¤d7! (Surely not 20...fxe5?? 21.£g5+ ¢e8

22.£xe5 ¦g8 23.¦d8+! ¦xd8 24.£xc3+−) 21.£h4 Black's position looks dangerous but he keeps sufficient defensive resources. 21...¦hg8 (Better than 21...¦hd8?! 22.¦f4! with initiative.) 22.¢h1 (In case of 22.¦fd1 ¦gd8! the more active position of White's rooks would only force him to give perpetual by 23.¦xd7+ ¦xd7 24.£xf6+ ¢e8 25.£h8+, 22.¦f4

¦g6 was fine for Black.) 22...b5 Intending to swap White's active rook by ...Rc8−c4. 23.h3 (Again, 23.¦fd1 ¦gd8 would lead to perpetual check soon.) 23...¦c4 24.¦xd7+! This sacrifice is not winning and it may even not give White any advantage. However, Black still must be very careful as his king is vulnerable. (Some simplifications after 24.¦fd1?! ¦xd4 25.exf6+ ¤xf6 26.¦xd4 ¦c8³ were favourable for Black, while 24.£xh7 ¦xd4 25.£xg8 ¦d5 26.exf6+ ¤xf6 was also good for him as White couldn't get his rook in action.) 24...¢xd7 25.£xf6 Here Black has a choice. 25...£d3!? Giving up a couple of pawns but keeping opponent's rook passive. (A natural alternative 25...¢e8!? 26.¦d1 (26.¤g5 does not promise much: 26...¦xg5

27.£xg5 £d3 28.¢g1 ¦c2 and White's rook can not be activated. However, Black still has to be careful as his king was not safe) 26...¦c8 27.¤g5 £c7 Black has secured his pawns but it allowed White to get all his pieces to very active positions. 28.¤e4 ¢f8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-mkr+0 9+-wq-+p+p0 9p+-+pwQ-+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-+R+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

29.¤d6! (White could force a draw by 29.¤g5 ¢e8 30.¤e4=) 29...¦b8! (A natural 29...¦d8?!

makes Black's task more difficult: 30.¦d4! and here he already had to be very precise in defence: 30...£c1+! (after 30...¦g6? 31.£h8+ ¦g8 32.£xh7 £c1+ 33.¢h2 ¦d7

34.g3+− Black found himself defenceless, Gupta − Naumann/Bad Wiessee 2009)

31.¢h2 ¦d7 32.¦g4!? £d2! 33.¤e4 £c1! etc.) 30.¦d4 ¦g7! and it's not easy, if

201

possible, for White to get real benefit from his powerful position. However, he would still try: 31.h4 (31.¦g4 ¦xg4 32.hxg4 would only secure the perpetual: 32...b4

33.£h8+ ¢e7 34.£f6+ ¢f8=) 31...¢g8 32.g3, slowly improving the position. However, it would still be not easy to make it harmful for Black. Perhaps then White would think about shifting the knight to f6 by £f6−f4 and ¤d6−e4, followed by h4−h5, £f4−h6 and ¦d4−g4...) 26.£xf7+ ¢c6 27.£xe6+ ¢b7 28.¦e1 The position is extremely complicated. White is at least not worse and a draw seems to be the most likely result as it is not so clear how he can play for a win since he cannot begin rolling his powerful K−side pawns, Kramnik − Naiditsch/Dortmund 2009.

Finally, after 15.f4 White has a wide choice and he usually developed his queen towards K−side. 15...h5 (In such type of position Black's main problem is the vulnerability of his king and he has a logical choice − to keep it in center or to move it to either flank. Every such action must be well thought − sometimes it might work, sometimes it is too risky. Here 15...0-0-0!? deserves attention: 16.£e2 (16.£f3!?

seems more energetic) 16...¤c5 17.¦b4 ¢b8 18.¦fb1 ¦d6 19.¦c4 ¦c8 20.£h5 ¦b6„ with reasonable counter chances as White's Q−side may be also rather vulnerable) 16.£f3 This position arose in the game Chatalbashev − J.Gustafsson/Calvia de Mallorca (ol) 2004, which continued by 16...¦c8!? 17.e5! b6 and here 18.f5! seemed more energetic although Black could still defend by: 18...£xc3 (18...¤xe5? 19.£g3ƒ)

19.£f2! fxe5 (19...¤xe5 20.fxe6 ¤g4 21.£f4ƒ) 20.fxe6 £xd4 21.exd7+ £xd7 22.¦be1!?ƒ ¦c6 23.¦xe5+ ¢f8 and so on.

15...¦c8

15...0-0-0 fails to solve the problems: 16.¦b4 ¤e5!? (16...¤c5 17.¦fb1 gives White annoying initiative) 17.£xf6 ¤g4! (17...¤d3 18.¦bb1 £xc3 19.£xf7! ¦d7 20.¤e2! secures extra pawn for White) 18.£h4 £xc3 19.¤c6!? (in case of 19.¤xe6 fxe6 20.¦b3 £g7 21.£g3!

b5! Black keeps drawish chances: 22.h3 h5 23.a4 £e5 24.hxg4 £xg3 25.¦xg3 hxg4 26.axb5

axb5 27.¦xg4 ¦d4 etc.) 19...£xc6 (19...bxc6? 20.¦b3 £g7 21.¦fb1‚) 20.£xg4 ¦d7!? (20...¢b8 21.£g7ƒ) 21.£g7 ¦hd8 22.£xh7 £c2² and Black gets counter chances.

16.¦fd1 0-0

In case of 16...b6!? White would think about 17.£g4!? with idea to meet 17...¢e7? by 18.¤xe6!

17.¤e2 ¦fd8

202

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rtr-+k+0 9+pwqn+p+p0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zP-+Q+-0 9P+-+NzPPzP0 9+R+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.¦d4!?

In the game Kazhgaleyev − Kulaots/Khanty−Mansyjsk (ol) 2010, White maintained somewhat the better chances after 18.¤g3 but perhaps it is less promising. After 18...¢f8 19.¤h5 Black should have played 19...£xc3! (while 19...£e5?! led him into problems after 20.¦d4! ¢e7 21.¦bd1)

18...¢f8 19.£h5 ¤e5! 20.f4

Or 20.£xh7 ¢e7! 21.¦xd8 (21.£h6 ¦xd4 22.cxd4 £c2) 21...¦xd8 22.£h6 b5 23.£c1 ¤d3 24.£e3 ¤c5 (24...£c5?! 25.¦d1 £xe3 26.fxe3) 25.¤d4 ¤a4 26.¦c1 £c5 planning ...b5−b4 with good counterplay.

20...¤d3 21.£xh7 ¦xd4 22.cxd4 £c2!?

After 22...b5 23.¦f1 £c2 24.¤g3 ¢e7 25.e5 f5 26.£h4+ ¢d7 27.£f6 White is better.

23.£h8+ ¢e7 24.¦xb7+ ¦c7

In case of 24...¢d6? White has a very narrow path to the win: 25.e5+ ¢d5 26.¦d7+ ¢e4 27.¤g3+! (27.£h7+? ¢e3-+) 27...¢e3 28.¤f1+! ¢e4 29.£h4! ¦g8 (29...f5? 30.£g3)

30.f5+! ¤f4 31.£e1+ £e2 (31...¤e2+? 32.¢f2) 32.£xe2+ ¤xe2+ 33.¢f2 ¤xd4 34.fxe6 ¤xe6 35.exf6+− with a technically winning endgame.

25.¦xc7+ £xc7 26.£h3 £c2 27.£f3 £b1+ 28.£f1 £xa2

203

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-mkp+-0 9p+-+pzp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPPzP-+0 9+-+n+-+-0 9q+-+N+PzP0 9+-+-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black keeps good drawing chances thanks to his active pieces and passed a−pawn.

204

Semi−Tarrasch − 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bc3 cd4

8.cd4 [D41]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 c5 5 cxd5 ¤xd5

This position can also be reached via other move orders, for example: 1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.¤c3 e6 4.d4 d5 5.cd5 ¤xd5 or 1.¤f3 ¤f6 2.c4 c5 3.¤c3 d5 4.cd5 ¤xd5 5.d4 e6 while here 5 ...g6 would lead to the Gruenfeld Defence.

6 e4 ¤xc3 7 bxc3 cxd4 8 cxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¥b4+

Sometimes Black tried 8...¤c6 9 ¥c4 b5 but it does not solve the problems. (9...¥b4+ 10 ¥d2

¥xd2+ 11 £xd2 would be a transposition to the main line) 10 ¥e2!? this seems to be the most reliable way to secure an edge, (10 ¥d3 ¥b4+ 11 ¢f1 is double−edged)

10...¥b4+ (10...a6 11 0-0 ¥e7 12 ¥b2 is certainly better for White) 11 ¥d2 ¥xd2+ 12 £xd2 Tournament practice promises a stable advantage for White. One example: 12...¦b8 13 d5 exd5 14 exd5 ¤e7 15 d6 ¤f5 16 ¦d1 0-0 (16...¦b6 17 ¥xb5+!) 17 d7 ¥b7 18 0-0 £f6 19 £f4 and Black faces serious problems.

9 ¥d2 ¥xd2+

205

More simplifications after 9...£a5?! are known to be in White's favour: 10 ¦b1 ¥xd2+ 11 £xd2 £xd2+ 12 ¢xd2 0-0 13 ¥b5! with a tangible advantage in the ending.

10 £xd2 0-0 11 ¥c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Some exchanges at the early stage help Black to complete his development and get a solid

position. His extra pawn on the Q−side might also give him some hopes. However, White has some trumps which could be really harmful for his opponent. His powerful pawn center should be more important in the middlegame as the d−passer might become strong and in many cases White combines play in the center with play on the K−side.

11...¤c6

Black usually prefers this more active development of the knight. However, in many cases he should be ready to move his knight to the edge of the board after White's thematic d−pawn push.

Black has also developed his knight in the other direction: 11...¤d7 12 0-0 b6 13 ¦fe1 Apart from this natural move White tried a lot of possibilities and most of them do not spoil the edge. However, he has to create some concrete plan and so a play in the center, keeping in mind possible K−side actions, is quite reasonable. 13...¥b7 14 ¦ad1 ¦c8 15 ¥b3

206

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpl+n+pzpp0 9-zp-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...£f6 a) in the game Kazhgaleyev − Eliet/Cannes 2009 Black preferred 15...¦e8 16 h3 a1) both 16 £f4 £f6 (16...h6!?) 17 £d6 ¦ed8 18 £a3 a2) and especially 16 d5!? exd5 17 exd5 ¦xe1+ 18 ¦xe1 ¤f6 19 d6 were worth

considering as well 16...¤f8?! (16...¤f6 seemed more to the point. White keeps only a slight edge, for example,

17 £f4 £c7 18 £h4 h6 with acceptable play for Black. Here it deserved attention to push d−pawn forward: 19 d5!? exd5 20 e5 ¤e4 21 ¥xd5 ¥xd5 22 ¦xd5, maintaining somewhat better chances) 17 d5! exd5 18 exd5 ¦xe1+ 19 ¦xe1 £f6 20 ¤g5! and White seized a strong initiative

b) 15...h6 is worth considering among other options. This pawn advance is often useful in such positions but it might also be weakening: 16 £b2 ¦c7 (16...£f6!?) 17 d5 exd5 18 exd5 ¤c5 (in case of 18...¤f6 White would have seized the initiative by 19

d6 ¦d7 20 ¤d4!ƒ, intending to meet 20...¦xd6?! by 21 ¤e6!) and here White should have played 19 ¤e5! ¤xb3 (19...£d6 20 ¤c4 £g6 21 ¦e3!?ƒ) 20 d6! ¦c5 21 £xb3± with a clear advantage thanks to his strong d−pawn.

16 £e3 (16 £b4!?) 16...¦fd8 17 h3 This position arose in the game Jakovenko − Naiditsch/Odessa (rapid) 2009, which continued 17...¤f8?! This knight retreat makes play in the center easier for White as he is not bothered about a possible ...¤d7−c5 anymore. (The accurate 17...h6!? seemed more reliable. However, it couldn't solve all the problems: 18 ¤h2 £e7 19 ¤f1 (19 £g3 ¤f6 20 d5!?) 19...b5 20 ¤g3!? a5 21 d5 exd5 22 ¤f5! £f6 23 ¥xd5 and White has secured the better chances) 18 d5 exd5 19 exd5 ¤g6 20 ¤g5! and this typical knight's manoeuvre posed serious problems for Black.

Other continuations seem to be weaker. For example, 11...a6 12 a4!? (12 0-0 b5 13 ¥b3 should be better for White as well) 12...b6 and here an immediate 13 d5!? is rather interesting: (a natural 13 0-0 ¥b7 14 ¦fe1 ¤d7 is also somewhat better for White but it is not so easy to increase the advantage) 13...exd5 14 ¥xd5 ¦a7 15 0-0 with a promising position.

12 0-0 b6

207

Apart from this natural developing move Black later tried to solve his opening problems by other means and usually failed.

12...e5?! can be strongly met by 13 d5 ¤a5 14 ¦ac1 (Black's idea justifies in case of 14

¤xe5?! ¦e8 15 £d4 ¦xe5! 16 £xe5 ¤xc4 17 £d4 b5!? 18 a4 ¤d6÷ with unclear play) 14...f6 (14...¤xc4 15 ¦xc4 f6 16 ¦fc1 is clearly better for White) 15 d6+! ¤xc4 16 £d5+! ¦f7 (or 16...¢h8 17 ¦xc4 ¥g4 18 ¦c7 ¥xf3 19 gxf3) 17 ¦xc4 with a huge advantage

After 12...£d6 White has many possibilities. One example: 13 ¦ad1 (13 ¦ac1, 13 ¦fd1, and even 13 e5 are also playable) 13...¦d8 14 ¦fe1 ¥d7 15 d5! exd5 16 exd5 ¤e7 17 ¤g5! and White launches a strong attack.

13 ¦ad1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+-+pzpp0 9-zpn+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Sometimes White begins with 13 ¦fe1, which might be a transposition to the main lines but

in some cases it is not. For example: 13...¥b7 14 d5 ¤a5 15 ¥d3 h6!? (15...exd5 16 e5

would be similar to the main line, 15...£d6 16 ¦ad1 e5 Keeping the center closed certainly gives more security to Black's king. However, his pieces are not working well for, as a rule, a queen is a bad blocker while White's central pawn chain keeps his opponent's minor pieces restricted, too. The game Pashikian − Naiditsch/Moscow 2009 continued 17 ¦c1! ¦fc8 18 g3 f6 19 ¤h4! g6 20 ¤g2 and White has secured a small but stable advantage.) 16 £f4 ¦c8 17 ¦ad1 and so on, Ponomariov − Vallejo Pons/Donostia 2009 − see the main line with 16...h6!?

13...¥b7 14 ¦fe1

An immediate 14 d5!? is worthy of consideration. Then in case of 14...¤a5 (or 14...exd5 15

¥xd5) 15 ¥d3 exd5 (15...£e7!?) 16 e5 it might be a transposition to the other main lines. It is rather unclear if any side can get benefit from the fact that there is no White's rook on e1 and Black's rook on c8...

In case of 14 £f4 Black can seriously think about 14...£f6!? with acceptable play, according to the tournament practice.

14...¦c8

208

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-zpn+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black tried some other options. 14...¤e7?! Black does not want to send his knight to the edge of the board. However, this

solid−looking retreat does not solve the problems as White's d−pawn becomes very strong. 15 d5! exd5 16 exd5 ¤f5 Moving the knight to the best blockading square. However, it does not help much as one good piece can hardly fight against a whole army when Black cannot quickly get his rooks into play. (Both 16...£d6 17 ¤g5ƒ, and 16...¤g6 17 d6!? ¥xf3 18 gxf3± are clearly better for White) 17 ¤e5 (17 d6!? ¥xf3 18 gxf3

deserved attention. White's strong d−pawn kept Black's rooks passive and so White's king was safe enough: 18...£h4 19 ¦e4 £f6 20 d7 g6 21 £f4 with a clear advantage)

17...¤d6 18 ¤c6! and White's advantage has become tangible, T.V.Petrosian − Korchnoi/Il Ciocco (m/6) 1977.

Another possible deviation is 14...£f6 but here White can play in similar style: 15 d5 (15

e5?! is much weaker as it can even been met with 15...£h6! going to the ending)

15...¤a5 16 ¥d3 and if 16...e5?! (16...exd5!? was preferable but then after 17 e5 White could win a tempo since 17...£h6?! was already not quite satisfactory for Black due to 18 ¤g5! g6 19 f4ƒ with a rather annoying initiative) then 17 £c3 ¦fe8 18 ¥b5 and Black faces serious problems.

14...¤a5 15 ¥d3 ¦c8 would be a transposition to the main line after 16 d5 and in many games this was actual order of moves.

15 d5

In many games White was not in a hurry to push his d−pawn and played something like 15 h4 h6

a) 15...£f6 could be already met with 16 d5 (but not 16 e5 £h6!)

b) 15...¤a5 is playable but after 16 ¥d3 Black should not be in a hurry with 16...¤c4?! (16...h6!?, 16...£e7!?) 17 £e2 b5 18 ¦c1 (perhaps it is a bit more precise to play 18 a4!? a6 19 ¦c1) 18...£f6 (18...£a5!?) 19 a4 and White wins a pawn

c) 15...£d6!? is worthy of consideration as well. 16 £f4 £f6 17 £g3, maintaining a small but stable advantage, Chuchelov −

Hoeksema/NED−chT 2009.

209

The natural 15 £f4 is often met by 15...£f6! and after 16 £e3 (the ending after 16 £xf6 gxf6

17 d5 ¤a5 is good for Black) 16...¦fd8 and 17 e5?! can be again met with 17...£h6! 18 £xh6 gxh6 and Black's chances might be already preferable in this ending.

15...¤a5

15...exd5 does not solve the problems: 16 ¥xd5 (16 exd5!? is also worth considering: 16...¤a5

17 ¥f1 £d6 18 ¤g5! and White's chances are preferable) 16...¤a5 a) Both 16...£e7 17 £f4 (or 17 e5 ¤d8 18 ¥xb7 ¤xb7 19 ¤d4 g6 20 f4 ¦c5 21 £e3²)

b) and 16...£c7 17 e5 (or 17 £g5!? promise better chances for White, according to tournament practice)

17 £f4 The game Spassky − T.V.Petrosian/WCh (m/5) Moscow 1969 continued 17...£c7 18 £f5 ¥xd5 19 exd5 and the strong and well−supported passed pawn combined with possible play on the K−side gave White a big advantage.

16 ¥d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-zp-+p+-+0 9sn-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16 dxe6 does not promise anything: 16...£xd2 (16...¤xc4? 17 exf7+ ¢h8 18 £xd8 ¦cxd8 19 ¦xd8

¦xd8 20 e5+−) 17 exf7+ ¢h8 18 ¤xd2 ¤xc4 19 ¤xc4 ¦xc4 with a drawish ending: 20 e5 g6!? (20...¥c8!? 21 e6 ¥xe6 22 ¦xe6 g6) 21 e6 ¥c6 22 ¦d8!? ¢g7 23 e7 ¦xf7 24 ¦c8 ¦ff4! 25 ¦xc6 ¦fe4! 26 ¢f1 ¦xe1+ 27 ¢xe1 ¦e4+ 28 ¢d2 ¦xe7=

16...exd5

In case of 16...¤c4?! White can win a pawn by 17 ¥xc4 ¦xc4 18 dxe6 £xd2 19 exf7+ ¦xf7 20 ¦xd2 with reasonable winning chances as 20...¦xe4? was impossible due to 21 ¦xe4 ¥xe4 22 ¤g5 ¦e7 23 ¦d8+

16...£d6!? is worth considering but it cannot completely solve the problems: 17 dxe6!? £xe6 (17...fxe6!? deserved attention) 18 ¤d4 £e5 19 ¤f5 g6 20 ¤h6+ ¢h8 21 ¤g4 £e6 22 £f4 f6 23 ¥b5! and White has obtained a clear advantage.

16...£e7 is also possible: 17 £f4 (17 dxe6!?) 17...¦fd8 18 h4 h6 19 h5 £f6 20 £g4 with better chances for White

Black should also pay more attention to 16...¦c5!?

210

However, perhaps the most reliable way is 16...h6!? 17 £f4 ¦c5 18 ¤d4 exd5 19 e5 ¥c8! The game Ponomariov − Vallejo Pons/Donostia 2009 continued 20 h4 and here Black should have seriously thought about 20...¤c6! attacking White's dangerous knight. (after 20...¤c4?! 21 ¥f5! ¦e8 22 ¦d3! Black faced problems) Then after 21 ¤b3 (21 ¤b5 £e7 22 ¤d6 ¥e6÷ was also far from clear) 21...¦c3 22 ¦e3 ¢h8 23 ¥b5 ¦xe3 24 £xe3 ¤e7÷ Black has kept a passive but quite solid and acceptable position.

17 e5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pzpp0 9-zp-+-+-+0 9sn-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9P+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This strong attacking concept, connected with the sacrifice of the central pawn, was

introduced by Lev Polugaevsky. White's army looks really powerful and Black's life is really not very easy, although he keeps defensive resources.

17...¤c4

A natural reply. Black has tried many possibilities. Let's briefly take a look at them: 17...d4 18 ¤g5!? h6 19

¤h7 ¤c4 20 £f4 ¤b2 21 ¤xf8 ¤xd1 22 e6! ¦c7 and here White should have played 23 ¤h7! fxe6 (23...¤c3? 24 e7 ¦xe7 25 ¦xe7 £xe7 26 £b8+) 24 ¦xd1 £e7 25 ¦e1 with decisive advantage

17...£e7 18 £f4 f5 19 ¤d4 g6 20 h4 ¤c6 21 ¤b5 with advantage 17...h6 18 £f4 ¤c6 19 £f5 g6 20 £g4 ¢g7 21 h4 (21 e6 f5²) 21...h5 22 £g3 £e7 23 ¤g5

¤b4 24 ¥f5! ¦c4 25 ¤e6+! and White wins the exchange.

18 £f4 h6

211

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pzp-0 9-zp-+-+-zp0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+n+-wQ-+0 9+-+L+N+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This cautious move seems to be the best defence. Here Black has also tried many possibilities: 18...f6?! 19 e6 £e7 20 ¤d4 g6 21 £g3 ¢h8

22 h4ƒ with the initiative, Toth − Gasthofer, Baden 2000. The provocative 18...¦c6!? could nevertheless be met by 19 ¤d4! (19 ¤g5?! h6 20 ¥h7+

¢h8 21 ¤xf7+ ¢xh7 (21...¦xf7 22 £xf7 ¢xh7 23 £xb7+− (23 e6 ¤d6 24 £d7+−) ) 22 ¤xd8 ¦xf4 23 ¤xb7 (23 e6? ¦f8 24 ¤xb7 ¦c7 25 e7 ¦e8∓) 23...¦e4÷) 19...¦c7 and here White can secure the better chances by 20 e6! ¤b2 (20...fxe6 21 ¤xe6! ¦xf4 22

¤xd8 ¤b2 23 ¦b1 ¦f8 24 ¥xh7+! ¢xh7 25 ¤e6) 21 ¦c1! ¦xc1 (21...¤xd3? 22 £xc7 £xc7 23

¦xc7 ¤xe1 24 e7 ¦e8 25 ¦xb7+−) 22 ¥xh7+! ¢xh7 23 £xc1 £f6 (23...¤d3 24 £b1) 24 £xb2 ¦e8 25 £b1+ ¢g8 26 exf7+ ¢xf7 27 ¦xe8 ¢xe8 28 £e1+ ¢f7 29 £e3 with stable advantage.

While in case of the immediate 18...¦c7 White would come up with thematic 19 ¥xh7+! (19

¤g5!?) 19...¢xh7 20 ¤g5+ ¢g6 21 h4! £c8 (21...¦h8 22 ¦d3+−) 22 h5+! ¢h6 23 ¤xf7+ ¢h7 24 e6 ¦cxf7 25 exf7 with a decisive advantage.

18...¤b2 is a principled way as Black is in a hurry to get rid of White's dangerous bishop. However, it does not bring the desired results... 19 ¥xh7+! the bishop strikes just in time! 19...¢xh7 20 ¤g5+ ¢g6 21 h4!! This cool pawn advance is the only way to maintain the initiative. Now Black has to parry a mating threat h4−h5. The game Polugaevsky − Tal/USSR−ch Moscow 1969 continued 21...¦c4! The best and probably the only defence! 22 h5+ (Perhaps 22 ¦d4!? is a more reliable way to secure a clear advantage: 22...¦xd4 (22...£e7 23 ¦e3 ∆ ¦e3−g3) 23 £xd4 ¥c8 (23...£d7

24 e6! fxe6 25 ¤xe6 ¦f5 26 £g4+ ¢f6 27 ¤f8!+− Kunath − Ruppe, corr. 1983) 24 £xb2 and Black's life is difficult) 22...¢h6 (22...¢xh5? 23 g4+! ¢h6 24 £h2+ ¢xg5 25 £h5+

¢f4 26 £f5#) 23 ¤xf7+ ¢h7 24 £f5+ ¢g8 25 e6! £f6! 26 £xf6 gxf6 27 ¦d2! ¦c6 28 ¦xb2 ¦e8 29 ¤h6+! ¢h7 30 ¤f5 ¦exe6 31 ¦xe6 ¦xe6 32 ¦c2! ¦c6 33 ¦e2 and White has secured the decisive invasion.

19 £f5!

White provokes weakening of Black's K−side. The tempting push 19 e6?! is less promising: 19...fxe6! (in the game Huzman −

Parligras/Turin (ol) 2006, White achieved the better chances in the ending after 19...£f6 20 £xf6 gxf6 21 ¥f5 ¦c7 22 ¤d4²) 20 £g4 ¤b2! 21 £xe6+ ¢h8 22 ¤e5 ¦f6 23

212

¤f7+ (23 ¤g6+ ¢h7 24 ¤f8+ ¢h8=) 23...¦xf7 24 £xf7 ¤xd1 25 ¥f5!? (or 25 ¦xd1 ¦c7

26 £f5 £g8) 25...¦b8 26 ¦e6!? (26 ¦xd1 £f6) 26...£g8 27 £h5 £f8! 28 £g6 £g8 with a repetition of moves.

19...g6 20 £h3

20 £g4!? is also worth considering: 20...¢g7 21 ¤d4 ¦e8 22 ¤f5+ ¢h7 23 e6! with initiative. However, Black could probably hold on by 23...¦xe6 24 ¦xe6 fxe6 25 ¤d6 ¤e5! 26 £xe6 ¦c6! 27 ¤xb7 ¦xe6 28 ¤xd8 ¦e8 29 ¥b5 (29 ¤b7? ¤xd3)

29...¦xd8 30 ¦e1 ¤f7 31 ¦e7 ¢g7 32 ¦xa7 ¢f6 with a drawish ending

20...¢g7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-tr-+0 9zpl+-+pmk-0 9-zp-+-+pzp0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+L+N+Q0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21 e6! £f6!

21...fxe6? 22 ¤d4+−

22 exf7 ¦c6!

22...£xf7?! could be met with 23 ¥xg6! (23 £g3!?) 23...£xg6 24 ¦e7+ ¦f7 25 ¦xb7! with advantage.

23 ¥xc4

23 £g3 ¤b2! 24 ¦d2 ¤xd3 25 ¦xd3 ¦xf7÷

23...¥c8!

23...dxc4 24 ¤e5 ¥c8! 25 £c3!

24 £g3 dxc4 25 ¤e5 ¦c5 26 ¦c1

26 f4 c3„

213

26...¥e6 27 h4²

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-tr-+0 9zp-+-+Pmk-0 9-zp-+lwqpzp0 9+-tr-sN-+-0 9-+p+-+-zP0 9+-+-+-wQ-0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White keeps the better chances thanks to the strong knight on e5 and Black's vulnerable

king.

214

Semi−Tarrasch − 6.e3 [D42]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 ¤f3 c5 5 cxd5 ¤xd5 6 e3 ¤c6 7 ¥d3 cxd4 8 exd4 ¥e7 9 0-0 0-0

The Semi Tarrasch is well worth study even if you do not play this line with either colour. It is an important way to learn about how to play, and defend, IQP positions and the games are rich in both strategy and tactics. Furthermore, this line can be reached through several different openings.

10 ¦e1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+n+p+-+0 9+-+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNL+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

These days the Caro−Kann, Panov Variation is the main way to reach this position (by 1 e4

c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 ¤f6 5 ¤c3 e6 6 ¤f3 ¥e7 7 cxd5 ¤xd5 8 ¥d3 ¤c6 9 O−O O−O 10 ¦e1)

10...¥f6!

It seems to me that the other main choice 10...¤f6 is far too generous towards White, allowing him to gain the sort of automatic attacking position that IQP players love. 11 a3 b6 12 ¥g5! this has become the critical move since it has been proven over time that (12 ¥c2 ¥a6!= preventing 13 £d3 works out well for Black.) 12...¥b7 13 ¥c2 ¦c8!? (13...¤d5 14 £d3 g6 15 ¥h6 ¦e8 16 ¦ad1 ¤xc3!? is Yemelin − Galkin/Tomsk RUS 2006) 14 £d3 g6 15 ¥h6 ¦e8 16 ¦ad1 a critical position where Black has a number of alternatives, 16...£d6! Hebden − Ciuksyte/Liverpool ENG 2006.

215

10...¤xc3 is a clear error, as after 11 bxc3 Black will be a whole tempo down on the 8 ¥c4 line where the bishop drops back to d3.

10...b6?! is also bad because of 11 ¤xd5 £xd5 12 ¥e4 £d6 13 ¤e5

11 ¥e4 ¤ce7! 12 ¤e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-snpzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+-+nsN-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main line. 12 £d3!? is a very interesting move, 12...h6! 13 ¥d2!? see Li Chao2 − Wang Hao/Yerevan

ARM 2006. 12 ¥c2 This move led to an attractive plan for White after: 12...¤xc3 13 bxc3 ¤g6 14 ¦b1

b6 15 ¦b5! ¥b7 16 ¤g5 £c7 17 ¤e4 ¥e7 18 ¦h5 and White had attacking chances but Black will have ways to improve on this line, Garcia, G−Shabalov Reykjavik 1994 1-0 40 moves.

12...¥d7!?

Yemelin − Ivanchuk/Tallinn EST 2006, when

13 £d3 is best.

216

Cambridge Springs System

1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 d5 4 ¤c3 c6 5 ¥g5 ¤bd7 6 e3 £a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Cambridge Springs was the original venue for the most important early games with

this defence. However twice US Champion Harry Pillsbury played it even earlier and so it

is sometimes called the Pillsbury Attack.

Black intends to attack the Knight on c3 by ...¤e4 followed by ...¥b4 (and vice−

versa). The Queen is also keeping an eye on the Bishop on g5 so it's not so easy for White

to develop his pieces to their most comfortable squares (for example, the Bishop to d3, due

to some tactical tricks connected with ...¤e4 or ...d5xc4).

A peak of its popularity was in the 1920−1930's when the defence was included in

the repertoire of many top players. It was thoroughly tested (and passed successfully!) in

such World Title matches as Capablanca − Alekhine, Alekhine − Bogoljubow, Alekhine −

Euwe. A lot of important ideas on which the modern theory of the system is based were

invented at that time.

Later the Defence lost much of its popularity not only because a dangerous line for

Black was found but also because White quite often opted for the Exchange Variation by

217

capturing on d5. Other reasons such as the growth of popularity in Indian systems should

also be taken into account.

A new wave of popularity was registered in the 1980's. The Cambridge Springs is

closely linked with the Exchange Variation which was always on the agenda when Black

discovered some new and interesting ideas.

In my opinion there is another good motive to include the opening in one's repertoire

nowadays: Black's life in the Moscow Variation 5...h6 and especially the Botvinnik System

5...dxc4 are not so easy.

Since the Cambridge Springs was in the repertoire of almost every respected player

in the 20's and 30's it's just impossible to name all the players whose great efforts

constructed the theory of the defence but such players as Harry Pillsbury, Alexander

Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubow, Jose Raul Capablanca, Rudolf Spielmann, Frank Marshall,

Gideon Stahlberg and Paul Keres should be mentioned.

Nowadays for the popularity of the system we have to thank such players as Sergey

Smagin, Alexander Panchenko, Lembit Oll, Vassily Ivanchuk, Arthur Yusupov, Jan

Timman, Sdrjan Cvetkovic and World Champion Vassily Smyslov who bravely defended

the Cambridge Springs in his Candidates Final match. Objectively speaking he was

suffering in the opening but his opponent was none other than Garry Kasparov who should

be also mentioned as one of White's adherents.

White has two main ways to fight for an advantage:

1) He prevents possible ...d5xc4 and gains a pawn majority in center by an early

exchange 7 cxd5.

This continuation often leads to very sharp and interesting play. In turn Black has

two main possibilities:

a)...¤7b6 followed by ...¤xc3 then ...¤a4 (...¤d5) attacking the pawn on c3. White

cannot defend it so he usually develops his kingside obtaining a long lasting initiative as

Black is getting seriously behind in development. This set−up has proved to be dangerous

for Black so ...

b) nowadays 8...¥b4 9 Rc1 is the main line and its popularity increases. White has

still failed to show a tangible advantage.

2) He prevents a possible ...¤e4 by means of 7 ¤d2.

218

This continuation more often leads to a rather quiet play but complications may

sometimes occur. Black has two possible plans:

a) to give up the center by 7...dxc4 after which White is forced to part with the

Bishop by capturing to f6. This leads to rather boring play where Black has a pair of

bishops in return for White's space advantage− the character of play reminds one of some

lines of the Moscow variation after 5...h6 6 ¥xf6 £xf6. This set−up is more reliable but

rather passive.

b) the classical 7...¥b4 intending to solve the problem of the light−squared Bishop

by the breaks ...c6−c5 or ...e6−e5 at some point − this leads to the usual complications.

Generally the Cambridge Springs Defence has a fairly solid reputation. White has

still failed to come up with anything really dangerous for Black but it must be said that

sometimes the nature of Black's play is not to everyone's taste.

219

QGD/24 Cambridge Springs − 9. Nd2 +

other moves [D52]


1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤f3 d5 4.¤c3 c6 5.¥g5 ¤bd7 6.e3 £a5


The Cambridge Springs variation. Black intends to attack the knight on c3 by ...¤f6−e4

followed by ...¥f8−b4 (and vice−versa). The queen is also keeping an eye on the bishop on g5 so it's not so easy for White to develop his pieces to their most comfortable squares, for example, the bishop to d3, due to some tactical tricks connected with ...¤f6−e4 or ...d5xc4.

7.¤d2

Radically preventing ...¤f6−e4. This continuation usually leads to a rather quiet play but complications may sometimes occur.

7.¥xf6

220

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+pvL-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...¤xf6 8.¥d3 can hardly be dangerous for Black: 8...¥b4 9.£b3 dxc4 10.¥xc4 c5 Black's

main problem is his bishop on c8 which has to be activated somehow. (10...0-0 is also good: 11.0-0 ¥xc3 12.bxc3 (12.£xc3!? deserves attention) 12...b6 13.¤e5 ¥b7 14.¥e2 c5! 15.¤c4 £a6 16.£b2 ¥d5! and White's initiative is slowing down: 17.¤e5 £c8 18.a4 ¤d7 19.c4 ¥e4 20.¤xd7 £xd7 21.dxc5 bxc5= with equality) 11.0-0 cxd4 12.¥b5+ ¥d7 13.¥xd7+ ¤xd7 14.exd4 0-0 and Black has nothing to worry about, Romanovsky − Smyslov/Leningrad 1939.

Problems for White may really start to occur after some thoughtless moves like 7.¥d3 ¤e4 7.£c2 ¤e4 7.£b3 ¤e4 followed by ...Bb4.

7...¥b4

The active approach − Black keeps in mind both the ...e6−e5 and ...c6−c5 options attempting to solve the problem of the light−squared bishop.

7...dxc4 is an important alternative. Black gives up the center, after which White is forced to part with the bishop by capturing to f6. This leads to rather boring play where Black has a pair of bishops in return for White's space advantage − the character of play reminds one of some lines of the Moscow variation after 5...h6 6. ¥xf6 £xf6. This set−up is more reliable than 7...¥b4 but rather passive. 8.¥xf6 ¤xf6 9.¤xc4 £c7

221

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zppwq-+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+NzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.¦c1 A good possibility in preventing an early ...c6−c5 and thus keeping Black passive. a) There are some other moves. 10.g3 The idea of developing the bishop to the long

diagonal looks promising but it seems Black can successfully realize his programmed advance ...c6−c5 here. 10...¥d7 (here 10...c5 11.¤b5 (11.¥g2 cxd4

12.£xd4 ¥d7 13.0-0 ¦c8 14.¤d2 ¥c5 15.£d3 0-0 is fine for Black) 11...£b8 is maybe not so bad for Black but there is no need to hurry with ...c6−c5 as after 10...Bd7 it follows anyway) 11.¥g2 c5! 12.d5 Looks strong but is in fact harmless for Black. Timman − Seirawan/Amsterdam 1983 continued 12...exd5 13.¤xd5 ¤xd5 14.¥xd5 (14.£xd5 can be parried by the simple 14...¦b8 and after 15.0-0-0 ¥e6 16.¤d6+! ¥xd6

17.£xd6 £xd6 18.¦xd6 ¢e7 19.¦hd1 b6 20.¦6d3 ¦hd8= Black has no problems) 14...0-0-0! An excellent decision. I don't remember any other game where the Black king was castled to the queenside in the Cambridge−Springs but in this situation it feels quite comfortable there. 15.a4 f5 16.£f3 ¢b8 17.0-0 h5 18.¦fd1 ¥c8÷ with a good play for Black.

b) After 10.¥e2 ¥d7!? (10...c5 is risky due to 11.¤b5ƒ with a strong initiative) White can prevent ...c6−c5 by 11.£b3!? Black should now switch to his typical plan: 11...¥e7 (11...c5 12.¤b5ƒ) 12.0-0 0-0 13.¦ac1 ¦fd8 and so on

c) 10.a3 is another possibility: 10...¥e7 11.b4 White has prevented ...c6−c5 but Black has got an opportunity to exchange the knights which is desirable in such positions. 11...¤d5!? 12.¦c1 (An attempt to avoid the exchange was too risky as after 12.¤e4?! ¤b6 followed by ...a5 or ...c5 Black could begin active operations while White still has not developed his kingside) 12...0-0 13.¥d3 ¤xc3! 14.¦xc3 ¦d8 Starting a quite typical regrouping plan for this kind of positions: ...Be7−f8, ...Bc8−d7−e8 and ...Qc7−e7. Then Black would play ...g7−g6 and use both the a3−f8 and a1-h8 diagonals for the bishop keeping in mind both the ...a7−a5 and ...e6−e5 breaks. The queen's rook can just stay on a8 but can also move to b8 or after ...b7−b6 to c8 to keep in mind ...c6−c5 as well but this is connected with risk. The game Khenkin − R.Scherbakov/Sochi 1989 continued 15.0-0 ¥f8 16.f4 £e7 17.¤e5 ¥d7 and here White should have better played something like 18.£b1!? g6 19.¦fc1², keeping a typical slight edge.

10...¥e7 a) 10...¥d7 deserves attention not only so as to advance ...c6−c5 but also not to

allow White to develop his bishop to the long diagonal immediately. After 11.¥e2

222

(11.g3 c5!) 11...¥e7 12.0-0 0-0 13.a3 both 13...¦fd8 (and 13...¤d5 are normal continuations)

b) Immediate 10...¤d5!? also springs to mind. After 11.a3 (in case of 11.¥d3 Black has got a possibility to close the c−file by 11...¤xc3 12.bxc3 and after 12...¥e7 followed by ...b6, Bb7, c5 he seems to be okay) 11...¤xc3 12.¦xc3 and so on we can probably reach the position, which is considered after 10...¥e7.

11.¥e2 ¤d5!? 12.0-0 ¤xc3! (In the case of 12...0-0 White could think about 13.¤e4) 13.¦xc3 0-0 14.a3 ¦d8 15.b4 ¥f8 16.£c2 ¥d7 17.¥f3 (17.¤e5 £d6 is nothing special) 17...g6 18.£b2 ¥e8 19.¦fc1 £e7 20.g3 ¦ab8² After logical play a typical position was arisen in the game Janjgava − R.Scherbakov/Odessa 1989. White has a small advantage as Black has no active plan but it is extremely difficult for White himself to make progress as he always should be careful about a possible ...e6−e5, ...c6−c5 or ...a7−a5 (after ...b6−b6) which may open the position and increase the power of the two bishops.

8.£c2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...0-0

8...e5 looks rather risky. Black usually advances this pawn only after the castling. In the game White tried to refute it by 9.dxe5!? (9.¤b3 is the alternative − it may lead to the main line 8 ...0-0 after 9...£c7 10.¥e2 dxc4 (10...¤e4!? deserves attention: 11.¥h4

exd4 12.¤xd4! £a5 13.0-0! ¥xc3 14.cxd5! cxd5 15.bxc3 £xc3 16.£d1© with good compensation for the pawn) 11.¥xc4 0-0 12.0-0 exd4 13.¤xd4 and so on) 9...¤e4 (9...¤g4?! is bad: 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.¦c1 ¤gxe5 and now White has the beautiful 12.¤xd5!,

in the ending after 9...¥xc3 10.£xc3 £xc3 11.bxc3 ¤xe5 12.¥xf6 gxf6 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.¤b3²

White has a small but stable advantage) 10.¤dxe4 dxe4 This position occurred in the game Lutz − M.Gurevich/Munich 1993, which continued 11.0-0-0! f6!? 12.exf6! £xg5 13.¤xe4ƒ and White has obtained not only a strong initiative but also enough pawns for the sacrificed piece.

The immediate 8...¤e4 is suspicious: 9.¤dxe4 dxe4 10.¥h4! e5 11.¥e2 0-0 12.0-0 exd4 (12...f5?! leads to troubles due to an old but still promising idea of Russian master

223

Solomon Gotthilf 13.¤xe4! (13.d5 cxd5 14.cxd5 was also better for White in the game Garcia Ilundain − Rojo Gomez/chT−ESP Cala Galdana 2001) 13...exd4 (13...fxe4?!

14.a3 ¥d6 15.b4 £c7 16.c5 exd4 17.cxd6 £xd6 18.£xe4+− gives White an almost decisive advantage) 14.a3 fxe4 (14...d3 15.axb4 £xa1 16.¥xd3 £a6 17.¤d6+−) 15.axb4 £xb4 16.exd4± with a huge advantage for White) 13.exd4 g5!? 14.¥g3 f5 15.f4² White's chances should be preferred without any doubts.

8...dxc4 is possible at this moment and leads to the same kind of position as was considered in the previous games. Generally speaking, this exchange is more reasonable on the previous move as here White gains an extra tempo for the move a2−a3 as the bishop will obviously retreat to e7.

9.¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.¥h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9wq-+p+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is an alternative. White intends to develop his another bishop to d3 which was impossible

straight away because of ...d5xc4. However this waste of time allows Black to achieve acceptable play without much problem. 9...c5 (The other standard advance 9...e5!? is also not bad. It may lead to complications after 10.dxe5 ¤e4 11.¤dxe4 dxe4 12.e6! ¤e5! 13.exf7+ (13.e7?! would lead to nothing but trouble: 13...¦e8 14.¥e2 (14.0-0-0 ¤g6 15.¦d8 ¥f5) 14...¥e6 with excellent play) 13...¦xf7 14.0-0-0

224

¥f5!© with good compensation for the pawn) 10.¤b3 £a4! Quite a typical retreat for these positions. Strangely enough this is not as bad a place for the queen as it looks.

a) Other moves seemed to be worse: 10...£c7?! 11.dxc5 (11.¥g3!?)

b) or 10...£b6?! 11.dxc5 11.¥xf6 (In the case of 11.dxc5 ¤e4ƒ Black would have gained real initiative on the

queenside. White had to be careful about his bishop on h4 − the 4th rank is closed at the moment but who knows what may happen...) 11...¤xf6 12.dxc5 A rather important position. 12...£c6!?

a) 12...¤e4?! is the wrong moment for this standard knight lunge due to 13.cxd5 ¥xc3+ 14.bxc3 ¤xc5 (14...exd5 did not solve the problems: 15.¦d1 ¥e6 16.¦d4 £c6

17.¥d3 f5 18.¦b4! with idea Nd4) 15.¦d1 exd5 16.¦xd5± and Black has not proved sufficient compensation for the pawn in the game Capablanca − Alekhine/WCh Buenos Aires (m/7) 1927.

b) 12...¥xc3+ leads to slightly better ending for White after 13.£xc3 ¤e4 14.£a5 £xa5+ 15.¤xa5 ¤xc5 16.cxd5 exd5²

13.cxd5 exd5 14.a3 ¥xc5 Black seems to be okay thanks to White's lack in development. Now 15.¤xd5?! looks risky for White because of 15...£xd5 16.¤xc5 ¥f5ƒ with an initiative.

9.a3 is a rare continuation. After 9...dxc4!? 10.¥xf6 ¤xf6 11.¤xc4 ¥xc3+ 12.bxc3 (the ending after 12.£xc3 £xc3+ 13.bxc3 c5 14.¥e2 promises nothing) 12...£d5!? is a rather interesting idea which leads to complicated play. (12...£c7 does not solve the problems completely: 13.e4 c5 14.e5 ¤d5 15.¥d3 cxd4 16.cxd4 g6 17.0-0²) 13.¥d3! A principled decision. White is going to advance e4−e5 so Black should accept the sacrifice otherwise he will be much worse. The game Timman − Kasparov/Prague (m/6) 1998 continued 13...b5!? 14.e4 £g5 15.¤e5 £xg2 16.0-0-0 £g5+ 17.£d2 £xd2+ 18.¢xd2© with a complicated endgame. White has a superior position but his chances are reduced to rough equality because he happens to be a pawn down.

9...e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9wq-+pzp-vL-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main continuation. This position was popular in 20-30's and still is one of most

important and critical lines in the whole Cambridge−Springs system.

225

9...c5!? XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9wq-zpp+-vL-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is the more recent alternative. 10.0-0 a) In case of 10.¤b3 Black can continue with a typical 10...£a4!? (10...£c7!? is also

worthy of consideration. After 11.0-0 dxc4 12.¥xc4 cxd4 13.¤b5 £b8 14.¤5xd4 ¥d6 15.f4

h6 16.¥h4 a6 17.¥e2 ¤d5 18.£d2² White has the slightly better chances) 11.¥xf6 (11.cxd5? suddenly loses a piece after 11...c4! 12.¥xc4 ¥xc3+ 13.£xc3 ¤e4 followed by ...ed5 and ...Ne4−g5) 11...¤xf6 12.dxc5 dxc4 13.¥xc4 £c6 14.0-0 ¥xc5 and here White can probably achieve a small edge by playing 15.¤xc5!? £xc5 16.¤e4 ¤xe4 17.£xe4 £b6 18.¥d3 g6 19.£e5² although Black should hold this position

b) A bit unexpected idea 10.¥f4!? is interesting: 10...cxd4 11.exd4 As a rule, in the Cambridge White used to retreat his bishop to h4 while its position on f4 looks much more active here. On the other side, we may notice that Black's pieces, such as the knight on d7 and the queen on a5, are not perfectly placed and it's not so easy to develop the light−squared bishop as it would be fatal for the queen. Thus we can conclude that Black's task is not so easy. The game Najer − Bareev/RUS−chT Sochi 2006 continued 11...dxc4 (11...¦e8!? with idea to open diagonal for the light−squared bishop by ...e6−e5 was the better continuation but White's chances were still preferable. ) 12.¤xc4 £d5 13.0-0 £xd4 14.¥g3 ¥xc3 15.bxc3 £e4 16.£b2 £c6 17.¤d6ƒ and thanks to his powerful pieces White has obtained more than sufficient compensation for the pawn.

10...cxd4 11.¤b3 (11.exd4 does not promise much but White's play is still easier: 11...dxc4 12.¥h4 ¤b6! (12...¥e7?! justifies White's approach: 13.¤xc4 £d8 The game Gunina − Ushenina/Bucharest 2011 continued 14.¥f3!? (14.¦ad1 ¤b6 15.¤e5 was natural, avoiding simplifications: 15...¤fd5 16.¥g3 However, after 16...¥d7 Black's position was very solid while it was not easy for White to get initiative.) 14...¤b6 15.¤xb6!? £xb6 16.¦fd1 As a rule, it is not recommended to exchange pieces, playing with isolated pawn. However, White's approach is rather concrete − the pawn push d4−d5 is secured and it always gives White the active play.) 13.¥xf6 (Black is not much afraid of 13.¤xc4 ¤xc4 14.¥xc4 ¥d7= 15.¥xf6 gxf6 16.d5™ ¥xc3

17.dxe6 ¥xe6! 18.¥xe6 fxe6 19.bxc3 ¦ac8 with a good play but White's play was still easier thanks to Black's vulnerable king. For example, 20.¦ac1 ¦fd8 21.¦fe1 £d5

22.£a4 a6 23.£g4+ ¢f7 though Black is still okay, 13.¥xc4!? is worth considering but Black can achieve a good play by 13...¥xc3!? 14.bxc3 ¤fd5 followed by ...Bc8−d7 and

226

...Ra8−c8) 13...gxf6 14.¥xc4!? and perhaps White can still obtain some edge.) 11...£b6 12.¤a4! This idea looks rather promising. (12.exd4 is not harmful for Black: 12...dxc4 13.¥xc4 The bishop on c8 is still at home and everything would be fine for White... if only his knight was on f3 instead of b3. 13...£c7! Winning a tempo for ...Nd7−b6, ...Bd7−c6 or ...b7−b6 and ...Bc8−b7. 14.£e2 (14.¤b5!? is worthy of consideration and would lead to complications after 14...£c6 15.a3 ¥e7

16.¤a5 £b6 17.b4 a6 18.¤c3 £xd4 19.¦ad1 £g4 20.f4÷ with unclear consequences)

14...¥xc3 15.bxc3 ¤e4! 16.£xe4 £xc4÷ This position is acceptable for Black. 17.¦ae1 (After 17.¦fe1 ¤b6 18.¥e7?! (18.¦e3 £d5! was fine for Black but perhaps it should have been preferred) 18...¦e8 19.¥c5 ¤d5 Black was completely okay in the game Azmaiparashvili − Ivanchuk/Tilburg 1994) 17...¦e8 (Here Black could have thought about 17...¤b6!?, too) 18.£f3 f6 19.¥f4 ¤b6÷ Black has achieved a good play, Sulypa − S.Atalik/Antalya 2006) 12...£c7 13.¤xd4 dxc4 14.¥xc4² and White's chances are preferable, Bacrot − Rabiega/GER−chT Bann 2006.

Other continuations are probably weaker: 9...b6 does not solve the problems: 10.0-0 ¥xc3 11.bxc3 ¥a6 12.¥h4!? ¦ac8 (12...dxc4 13.e4! b5 14.a4 £b6 15.¦fb1±) 13.a4! dxc4™ 14.¤xc4 ¥xc4 (14...£d5? 15.¤xb6±, 14...£f5!? 15.¥d3 £g4 16.¥g3 c5 17.¤d6²) 15.¥xc4 with a clear advantage

9...¦e8 looks too slow: 10.0-0 and now 10...e5 does not have desired effect: 11.dxe5 ¦xe5 12.¤b3 £d8 13.¥f4 ¥xc3 (13...¦e8 14.cxd5) 14.£xc3 ¦e8 15.¦fd1² with certain advantage

9...dxc4 is not without its points at this moment although White has got an extra tempo after 10.¥xf6 ¤xf6 11.¤xc4 £c7 12.a3 ¥e7 13.b4 and so on. The main reason to realize the exchange ...dxc4 at this particular moment is to deprive White with a possibility of fianchettoing his light−squared bishop.

10.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9wq-+pzp-vL-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQsNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.dxe5 leads to simplifications and does not bother Black too much: 10...¤e4 11.¤dxe4

dxe4 12.0-0 (12.e6 can be parried by 12...¤e5! and after 13.exf7+ ¦xf7 14.¥f4 (14.0-

0? ¤f3+!ƒ) 14...¤d3+! 15.¥xd3 exd3 16.£xd3 ¥f5 17.£d4 ¦e8 with the idea ...Rd7 Black gains excellent play) 12...¥xc3 13.bxc3 (the ending after 13.£xc3 £xc3 14.bxc3

¤xe5= is good for Black) 13...¦e8 (13...£xe5?! is weaker: 14.¥f4 £e6 15.¦fd1² with an

227

upper hand, in case of 13...¤xe5 White would think about 14.¥e7!? ¦e8 15.¥b4²)

14.¦fd1 (14.¥f4 ¤xe5 15.£xe4 can be met by a rather unexpected 15...¥f5! 16.£d4 ¦ad8 Luckily enough the position after 17.¥xe5 ¦xd4 (17...¦xe5 18.£h4 ¦d2 19.¦fd1)

18.cxd4 £d2 19.¥f3÷ is not so bad for White) 14...¤xe5!? (14...£xe5 15.¥f4 £a5²

does not seem to be fully equalizing) 15.£xe4 ¥e6 16.¥h4 (again, 16.¥f4 is met by 16...¥f5! 17.£d4 ¦ad8 18.¥xe5 ¦xd4 19.cxd4÷) 16...£xc3 17.¦ac1 £a5÷ The position seems to be roughly equal. White can hardly hope to realise his pair of bishops as he has to defend queenside weaknesses and Black's minor pieces are very good, Vaganian − Jussupow/Erevan 1982.

10.¥xf6 is also known to be not too dangerous for Black: 10...¤xf6 11.dxe5 ¤e4 12.¤dxe4 (after 12.cxd5 ¤xc3 13.bxc3 ¥xc3 14.¦c1 ¥xe5 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.0-0² White keeps only a symbolic edge) 12...dxe4 13.0-0 ¥xc3 14.£xc3 (14.bxc3?! £xe5) 14...£xc3 15.bxc3 ¦e8 16.¦fd1 ¢f8 and Black is okay.

10...exd4

10...¥d6?! does not look very good because of 11.cxd5 (11.¤b3 £c7 12.cxd5 cxd5! is okay for Black) 11...exd4 (11...cxd5 12.¤b5 ¥b8 13.dxe5 ¥xe5 14.¤f3 gives White a clear advantage) 12.¤c4 £c7 13.¤xd6 dxc3 14.dxc6 £xc6 15.¦ad1± with a big advantage.

11.¤b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9wq-+p+-vL-0 9-vlPzp-+-+0 9+NsN-zP-+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.exd4?! is dubious as after 11...dxc4 White has to part with the bishop: 12.¥xf6 ¤xf6

13.¤xc4 £c7³ with a slight edge for Black.

11...£c7

11...£b6!? is interesting. Yet, after some unsuccessful attempts White has probably found a good way to prove small advantage by playing 12.exd4 (12.¤xd4?! is weaker due to 12...¥xc3! 13.bxc3 dxc4 14.¥xf6 (14.¥xc4 £c5) 14...¤xf6 15.¥xc4= with equal play) 12...dxc4 13.¥xc4 £c7 14.¤d2! ¤g4 15.¤f3 ¥d6 16.g3 ¤b6 17.¥b3 ¢h8!?

228

18.¦fe1² with a certain advantage as Black has problems with some pieces, mainly the knight on g4 and the bishop on c8.

12.¤xd4 dxc4

The position after 12...¥xc3 13.bxc3 (not 13.¥f4? £xf4! 14.exf4 ¥xd4∓) 13...dxc4 14.¥xc4 will be considered in the notes to 13 ....Bd6.

13.¥xc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppwqn+pzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-vlLsN-+-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A rather important position is arisen. White probably has a small advantage thanks to his

easier development and the pawn majority in center. Nevertheless Black can be also satisfied with his position as he has no pawn weaknesses and not such bad pieces.

13...¥d6

Black has tried lots of possibilities here. 13...£e5 is unsuccessful: 14.¤f3 £e7 15.a3 ¥a5 16.¦ad1 ¥c7 17.¥a2 ¦e8?! 18.¥h4! h6 (18...¤f8 19.¤g5) 19.¦d4! £c5 (19...¤f8 20.¤e4)

20.¦fd1± and Black is in serious troubles 13...¥xc3 14.bxc3 £e5 is not without problems: 15.¤f3 (15.¥f4 £c5 16.¥d3 ¤e5 17.¤b3

£d5!? is good for Black: 18.¥e2 ¥f5 19.c4!? ¥xc2 20.cxd5 ¤g6 21.dxc6 ¤xf4 22.exf4 bxc6=

and White should already play carefully to equalise) 15...£c5 Here White has tried some possibilities, one of the most promising seems to be 16.£d3!? For example, 16...¦e8 17.£d4 ¤e4 18.¥f4 ¤b6 19.¥d3 £xd4 20.cxd4 f6 21.h3 ¤d5 22.¥h2 ¤b4 23.¥xe4 ¦xe4 24.¦fc1 ¦e8 25.a3 ¤d5 26.¦ab1 ¦e7 27.¤d2² with a small but stable advantage in the ending

13...¤e5 does not solve the problems: 14.¥b3! ¤eg4 15.¥f4 £e7 16.h3 ¤e5 17.¥g5² with advantage

13...¤g4?! is dubious due to 14.¥f4 and 14...¥d6 is impossible: 15.¤cb5! cxb5 16.¤xb5 ¥xf4 17.¤xc7 ¥xc7 18.¥xf7+ ¦xf7 19.£xc7+− and the Queen + pawns is much stronger than 3 minor pieces.

This position after 13 ...Bd6 occurred in the game P.Cramling − Smagin/Kopenhagen 1991. Here both

229

14.f4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppwqn+pzpp0 9-+pvl-sn-+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+LsN-zP-+0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9PzPQ+-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

and 14.h3 would promise a small advantage for White.

230

QGD/25 Cambridge Springs − 9. cd5

Nxd5 10. Qd2 ...e6−e5 [D52]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 ¤bd7 6.e3 £a5


7.cxd5

White prevents possible...d5xc4 and gains a pawn majority in the center. This continuation often leads to very sharp and interesting play.

7...¤xd5

231

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9wq-+n+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.£d2

8.£b3 is known to be in Black's favour after 8...¥b4 9.¦c1 e5! (this strong move was played first by Tartakower in 1925) 10.¥c4

a) White has a number of possibilities: 10.dxe5? is just bad due to 10...¤c5 11.£c2 ¤a4 (or 11...£xa2 )

b) 10.¤xe5 is fine for Black: 10...¤xe5 11.dxe5 ¥e6 12.a3 ¤xc3 13.axb4 £xe5 14.£xc3 £xg5 15.£c5 £xc5=

c) after 10.e4 ¤xc3 11.bxc3 ¥a3 12.¦d1 exd4 13.¦xd4 ¥c5 14.¦d2 0-0 15.¥d3 ¥b6! 16.0-0 ¤c5 17.£c2 ¥g4³ Black takes the initiative

10...¤7b6 11.¥xd5 ¤xd5 12.¤xe5 ¥e6 (of course not 12...f6? because of 13.¤c4 followed by Bh4) 13.¤c4 (13.a3? is bad for White: 13...¤xc3 14.£xb4 (14.axb4 ¥xb3 15.bxa5 ¤a2)

14...£xb4 15.axb4 ¤a2 followed by ...f7−f6) 13...¤xc3! 14.¤xa5 ¤xa2+ 15.£xb4 ¤xb4 16.¢d2 f6 17.¥f4 0-0-0= with at least equal ending for Black.

8.¦c1!? has recently appeared on stage. White's idea is fairly interesting, he wants to avoid the main line 8. £d2, which is known to be solid for Black. 8...¥b4 (8...¤xc3 9.bxc3

£xa2 10.¥d3 gives White more than sufficient compensation for the pawn) 9.a3! ¥xc3+ (9...¤xc3?! fails to 10.axb4! ¤xd1 11.bxa5 ¤xb2 12.¦c2 ¤a4 13.¦c4 b5 14.¦xc6 a6

15.¦c7 with a clear advantage) 10.bxc3 h6 a) after 10...0-0 11.e4 ¤5f6 12.¥d3 White builds a strong pawn center for free b) 10...b6!? is worth considering: 11.¥d3!? (White can still try to play something

other than one of the main lines, which may arise after 11.£d2 c5) 11...h6 12.¥h4 ¥a6 13.¥xa6 (13.0-0 ¥xd3 14.£xd3 £xa3 15.e4 ¤f4 16.£e3 ¤g6 17.¦a1 £d6 18.¥g3 £e7 seems acceptable for Black) 13...£xa6 14.c4 £a5+ 15.¤d2 ¤5f6 16.0-0 0-0 and here 17.c5!? looks promising.

11.¥h4 £xa3 A principled decision. Since Black can hardly prevent the appearance of White's strong pawn center he doesn't want to suffer for nothing. 12.£d2

232

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-vL0 9wq-zP-zPN+-0 9-+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Thus White has achieved his goal − he has forced Black to take the pawn on a3. 12...0-0 a) a typical 12...b6 does not bring desired effect: 13.¥d3 ¥b7 (In case of 13...¥a6

White keeps all his powerful pieces by 14.c4 ¤b4 15.¥b1) 14.0-0 and Black is in trouble, Cmilyte − Romanko/EU−ch Tbilisi 2011, since 14...0-0? loses a piece after 15.e4

b) After 12...¤e7 White can choose between some options, such as 13.e4 (or 13.¥g3!? ¤f5 14.¥f4)

c) 12...c5 transposes into the position, in which tournament practice promises better chances for White.

d) 12...b5, securing his knight on d5 from c3−c4, should not solve the problems: 13.¥d3 (13.e4!?) 13...0-0 14.0-0 (14.e4!?) 14...¥b7 and here I would prefer 15.e4

13.e4 − this position is considered below in the main line with 11. a3!?

8...¥b4

This is one of the main continuations in the whole Cambridge Springs system nowadays. White still fails to prove a tangible advantage.

8...¤7b6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-snp+p+-+0 9wq-+n+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

is an alternative, which was popular 15−20 years ago but recently has disappeared from

practice. Black wins a pawn almost by force but leaves White a strong initiative in

233

return. 9.¥d3 (In the case of 9.¦c1 ¤xc3 10.bxc3 ¤d5 11.¥d3 we transpose to the one of main lines which, however, seems not to be the most dangerous for Black. (11.¥c4 is good for Black: 11...¤xc3 12.0-0 b5! (12...¥b4? 13.a3 £xa3 14.¦a1 ¤e4

15.£e2 is bad for Black) 13.¥b3 (in the ending after 13.£xc3 £xc3 14.¦xc3 bxc4 Black has no problems: 15.¦b1 (15.¦xc4? ¥a6) 15...¥a6 16.¤d2 c5! 17.¤xc4 cxd4 18.exd4 f6 followed by ...Rc8) 13...b4 14.e4 h6 (14...¤xe4 15.£f4) 15.¥h4 ¥d6! (15...¥e7 16.¥xe7 ¢xe7 17.¤e5±) 16.¦fe1 ¥b7!∓ and White's compensation for the pawn is insufficient) ) 9...¤xc3 10.bxc3 (A rather unexpected 10.0-0!? deserves serious attention. 10...¤ba4 (The alternative 10...¥b4 does not solve the problems: 11.a3 ¤e4 12.axb4!? (12.£xb4 £xb4 13.axb4 ¤xg5 14.¤xg5²) 12...£xa1 (both 12...¤xd2

13.bxa5 ¤xf3+ 14.gxf3±, and 12...£xg5 13.¥xe4² are in White's favour) 13.¥xe4 £a4 14.¤e5!© with a strong initiative for the big material losses. For example, 14...f6? is bad because of 15.£e2! and after 15...fxe5 16.£h5+ ¢f8 17.f4! exd4 18.f5+− the attack is irresistible) 11.a3!? An interesting attempt. (By the simple 11.bxc3 White can transpose to the main line) 11...h6 12.¥h4 This position occurred in the game Vladimirov − Shabanov/Tashkent 1987. Black played unsuccessfully: 12...¥d6?! (12...¤xb2 13.£xb2 ¤d5 was better with a complicated position after 14.¤e5©) 13.e4! ¥f4? (13...¤xb2 had to be played again.) 14.£xf4 ¤xb2 15.£d2! (Of course not 15.£d6?? g5-+, 15.¤e5 0-0 was also nothing special.) 15...¤xd3 16.£xd3± and Black faces serious troubles) 10...¤a4 Strangely enough the knight seems to be safer on the edge of the board as White does not have a chance to advance e3−e4 with increased effect. It is also more useful there − it can allow Black to slightly disorganise White's pieces by some curious manoeuvres. (For a long time the main continuation was known to be 10...¤d5 11.0-0 £xc3 12.£e2 ¥d6 (12...¥e7?! is dubious: 13.¥xe7 ¤xe7 14.¤e5! ¤g6 15.¥xg6!? hxg6 16.£f3 0-0 17.h4ƒ and White's initiative is very strong) 13.¤d2 £a5 14.¤c4 (14.e4 can be parried by 14...¥f4! 15.¤c4

¤c3!) 14...£c7 with a very complicated position, in which White was supposed to have more than enough compensation for the pawn) 11.0-0 The main continuation. (The alternative 11.¦c1 is not without interest. 11...¤xc3 (11...¥a3?! is weak due to 12.¦b1! and now 12...¤xc3 is bad: 13.¦b3 ¥b4 14.a3! ¥xa3 15.£xc3 £xc3+ 16.¦xc3 ¥b4

17.¢d2± with a big advantage.) 12.0-0 ¥b4 13.£b2!? (13.a3 £xa3 14.¦a1 £b3 was tested several times. Here White has some possibilities, the most testing seems to be 15.¦fc1!? ¤a2 16.£xa2 £xd3 17.d5!? and now 17...0-0! is the most reliable way which promises better chances for Black: 18.¦d1 £f5 19.d6 f6!? 20.d7 ¥xd7 21.¦xd7 fxg5 and so on) 13...¤d5 (Black should probably not include 13...h6 14.¥h4 as it not only makes a square e5 available for the knight but weakens a kingside pawn structure − the main White plans are obviously connected with a center and kingside activity.) 14.¦c4 The position arose in the game Loginov − A.N.Panchenko/USSR 1986. After 14...¥e7 (An inclusion of 14...¥a3!? 15.£b1 ¥e7 dislodging the queen from the long diagonal might be an improvement) 15.¥xe7 ¤xe7 White came up with a powerful 16.d5! However, by playing a cool 16...0-0 17.¦g4 ¤g6 Black has parried direct threats and has achieved more or less acceptable play although White's initiative after 18.dxc6 bxc6 19.h4ƒ more than enough compensated a minor material loss) 11...£xc3 12.£e2 £b2! A highly unusual approach − Black's queen and knight invaded deeply into White's camp and are not in a hurry to go back! Actually they are trying to slightly disorganise White's pieces and slow down the development of

234

his initiative. 13.¥c2 £b5 14.£d1 (It seems that the queen on b2 makes the development of White's initiative more difficult: 14.¥d3 £b2 15.£d1 ¤c3 16.£e1 f6! (16...¥b4 17.e4©) 17.¥h4 (here White can force the draw by a curious 17.¤d2 fxg5

18.¤c4 £b4 19.a3 £b3 20.¤a5 £b2 21.¤c4 £b3= with repetition) 17...¥b4÷ with a good counterplay) 14...¤c3 15.£d2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9+q+-+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sn-zPN+-0 9P+LwQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¥b4 (15...¤e2+!? was unexpectedly played in the game Gauglitz −

Cvetkovic/Balatonbereny 1987. Where the knight is going to?! 16.¢h1 ¥b4 17.a4! A strong reply. (After 17.£d1 ¤c3 18.£c1 h6! 19.¥h4 (19.¥f4 ¤e2) 19...g5 20.¥g3 ¤e2³ Black has the better chances) 17...¥xd2 The only move otherwise the knight would just be lost. 18.axb5 ¥c3 19.¦ab1 (Surprisingly enough, the knight cannot be trapped by 19.¦a3?! due to 19...cxb5! 20.¥d3 b4 followed by ...h7−h6 and ...g7−g5 and the bishop has no other way than to go under the knight's attack!) 19...h6™ 20.bxc6 bxc6 (20...hxg5? 21.cxb7+− is bad for Black.) 21.¥e4!? ¥d7 and here White should have played 22.¥h4 (in the game White has fallen into a very beautiful trap: 22.¤e5?

hxg5 23.¦b7? 0-0-0!! 24.¦fb1 ¦xh2+! with a checkmate on the next move! ) 22...g5 23.¤e5!?© with a very good compensation for the pawn when Black has no chance to open the h−file.) 16.¥d3 £a4 (This is clearly not the best square for the queen but 16...£a5? was bad because of 17.a3 ¥xa3 18.¦fc1 ¥xc1 19.¦xc1± with a big advantage.) 17.a3 ¥a5 18.£b2 f6 19.¥h4 ¤d5 20.¦fc1ƒ This position arose in the game Magerramov − R.Scherbakov/Cheliabinsk 1991. White has a strong initiative which more than compensates for his minor material loss. Black has no time to develop the rest of his pieces as he has to take care of his stuck queen first of all.

9.¦c1

235

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzpp0 9-+p+p+-+0 9wq-+n+-vL-0 9-vl-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...h6

An immediate 9...e5 is suspicious. The game Kasparov − Smyslov/Vilnius (m/9) 1984 continued by 10.a3! and now the pawn should have been accepted: 10...¥xc3!? (10...¥d6?! gave White very pleasant play with no obstacle: 11.dxe5 ¤xe5 12.¤xe5 ¥xe5

13.b4! ¥xc3 14.£xc3! ¤xc3 15.bxa5 ¤e4 16.¥f4 0-0 17.f3 ¤f6 18.e4± with a big advantage in the ending) 11.bxc3 £xa3 (11...e4 12.c4!) 12.e4 ¤5b6 13.¥d3© with more than enough compensation.

In case of 9...0-0 White should probably continue his development by a natural 10.¥d3 (an old continuation 10.e4 promises nothing: 10...¤xc3 11.bxc3 ¥a3 12.¦b1 e5! 13.¥d3 exd4

14.cxd4 £xd2+ 15.¤xd2 ¤b6 with a very good counterplay in the ending) and after 10...h6 11.¥h4 e5 one of the main lines arises − see 9 ...h6 10. ¥h4 0-0.

10.¥h4 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9wq-+n+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A natural continuation. However, 10...c5 is maybe more reliable.

11.¥d3

236

The ending after 11.e4 ¤xc3 12.bxc3 ¥a3 13.¦b1 e5 14.¥g3 exd4 15.cxd4 £xd2+ 16.¤xd2 ¤b6 is good for Black

11.a3!? is rather interesting, clarifying situation on the Q−side as early as possible. 11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 £xa3 A principled continuation. Otherwise White will get a certain advantage thank to the strong pawn center and the pair of bishops. 13.e4 'leads to one of the main lines, in which White keeps excellent compensation for the pawn.' 13...¤e7 (13...¤5b6 was also tried: 14.¥d3 ¦e8 15.0-0 e5 16.¥g3 exd4 17.cxd4 ¤f8

18.¦fe1 ¥e6 19.¦a1 £e7 20.£b2 and White keeps the position under control) 14.¥d3 ¤g6 15.¥g3 This position arose in the game Khalifman − M.Gurevich/Lanzarote 2003, in which, despite of the good novelty 15...e5!? Black has failed to solve the problems completely: 16.h4! exd4 17.cxd4 ¦e8 18.h5 ¤gf8 19.0-0 ¤f6 20.¦a1 £e7 21.¥h4 £e6 22.¦a5!?ƒ with better chances for White.

11...e5

11...¦e8!? may lead to the main line as after 12.a3 ¥xc3 13.bxc3 £xa3 14.0-0 Black should probably play 14...e5 anyway. (14...£f8!? looks passive but quite possible − it has not been tested yet.) 15.¤xe5 ¤xe5 16.dxe5 and so on − see 11 ...e5

12.a3

12.0-0 ¦e8! is known to be good for Black. This strong move was first played by Efim Bogoljubow as long ago as 1929. (An inclusion of 12...exd4 13.exd4 ¦e8 gives White far more possibilities, perhaps one of the most promising is 14.a3!? ¥xc3 15.bxc3 for example, 15...¤f8 16.¤e5 ¥e6 17.f4 f6 18.¤c4 £d8 19.f5 ¥f7 20.¥g3ƒ with certain initiative) 13.£c2!? (13.e4 does not promise too much: 13...¤f4 14.¥c4 ¤g6 15.a3 ¤xh4

16.¤xh4 ¥e7 17.¤f5 ¥f8 18.b4 £d8 19.£a2 £f6 20.d5 ¤b6= and so on) 13...exd4 14.¤xd5 (14.exd4 ¤7b6 15.¤e5 ¥e6 looks quite good for Black) 14...£xd5 15.exd4 (15.¤xd4=

does not promise anything real) 15...¤b6 This position is good for Black. In the game Shirov − Piket, Aruba (m/6) White has tried to get the initiative by 16.¥g3!? (After the quiet 16.a3 ¥d6 followed by ...Bc8−g4 Black had nothing to worry about.) but after the brave 16...£xa2! 17.¤e5 ¥e6 18.f4 he could have achieved almost nothing for the pawn if Black had played 18...£d5 (the immediate 18...f6!? was also worthy of consideration.) 19.¢h1 f6! 20.f5 (20.¥h7+ ¢h8 21.¤g6+ does not work because of 21...¢xh7 22.¤e7+ ¥f5! 23.¤xf5 £e4) 20...¥f7 and so on.

12...¥xc3 13.bxc3

237

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9wq-+nzp-+-0 9-+-zP-+-vL0 9zP-zPLzPN+-0 9-+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...£xa3

13...exd4!? is an interesting option. The position after 14.cxd4 (14.exd4?! looks suspicious: 14...¦e8+ 15.¥e2 ¤7f6 and Black takes the initiative.) 14...£xa3 15.0-0 ¦e8 is rather important. White should probably play 16.e4!? (16.¥b1 £b4!? 17.£d3 ¤f8 was good for Black in the game Rogers − Smagin/Prague 1992) 16...¤5b6 (16...¤b4 17.¥c4 ¤b6

18.¤e5ƒ) 17.¦fe1© with good compensation for the pawn. 13...¦e8!? deserves attention although White's chances are preferable in the ending after

14.c4 £xd2+ 15.¤xd2 Yet, a strong 15...¤e7! (15...¤c7? is much weaker: 16.0-0 ¤e6

17.¦fe1 b6 18.¥f5 exd4 19.exd4± with a certain advantage ) 16.0-0 (16.¥xe7 ¦xe7 17.d5²

could promise a small edge for White) 16...exd4 17.exd4 ¤f8 18.¦fe1 ¥f5!„ gives Black reasonable chances to equalise.

14.0-0

in the case of 14.¤xe5 ¤xe5 15.dxe5 Black can try 15...¤e7!? (instead of 15...¦e8 16.0-0! − the main line) For example, 16.e4 ¤g6 17.¥g3 ¦d8 followed by ...Qa3−c5 and ...Ng6−e5

14...¦e8 15.¤xe5 ¤xe5 16.dxe5

238

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9+-+nzP-+-0 9-+-+-+-vL0 9wq-zPLzP-+-0 9-+-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This important position arose in the game Shirov − Piket/Amsterdam 1995.

16...£c5!?

After 16...¦xe5 17.e4 ¤b6 18.f4 followed by f4−f5 White would have achieved sufficient compensation for the pawn.

17.¢h1!

Still not defending the pawn − the bishop on h4 keeps under control the very important h4−d8 diagonal.

17...¥e6!?

Black ignores it too!

18.e4 ¤b6 19.f4 ¥c4 20.¦f3! ¥xd3 21.¦xd3

and here a prophylactic

21...¢h7²

239

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+-+0 9zpp+-+pzpk0 9-snp+-+-zp0 9+-wq-zP-+-0 9-+-+PzP-vL0 9+-zPR+-+-0 9-+-wQ-+PzP0 9+-tR-+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

was more to the point although White still had good attacking chances.

240

QGD/26 Cambridge Springs − 9. cd5

Nxd5 10. Qd2 ...c6−c5 [D52]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.¥g5 ¤bd7 6.e3 £a5 7.cxd5 ¤xd5 8.£d2 ¥b4 9.¦c1 h6

The immediate 9...c5 can lead to the same positions if Black plays ...h7−h6 on the next few moves.

10.¥h4 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9wq-zpn+-+-0 9-vl-zP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This was played by Mikhail Botvinnik as long ago as 1926. Now it is one of the main lines

in the whole Cambridge Springs system.

11.¥c4!?

241

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9wq-zpn+-+-0 9-vlLzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A fresh and interesting approach. White puts pressure on the d5−square to make the typical

...b7−b6 less attractive for Black. A natural 11.¥d3 is known to be not dangerous for Black: 11...cxd4 12.exd4 b6 (or 12...0-0

13.0-0 b6 with a good play for Black according to the tournament practice) 13.0-0 (13.a3 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 ¥b7 is also good for Black. Then in case of 15.¥g3 he can think about 15...£xa3!? 16.¥b5 ¤5f6 17.¤e5 £e7 18.0-0 0-0 19.¥h4 £d6!) 13...0-0 (in case of 13...¥b7 White can try to exploit that Black hasn't castled yet: 14.¥b5!? £xb5 15.¤xb5

¥xd2 16.¤d6+ ¢f8 17.¤xd2 ¥a6 18.¦fe1 g5 19.¥g3 ¢g7 20.¤f3 ¦hd8 21.h4 g4 22.¤e5 ¤xe5

23.dxe5± with a certain advantage) 14.a3 (after 14.¥b1 ¥a6 15.£c2 f5 16.¤xd5 £xd5

17.¦fd1 ¥d6! 18.£d2 ¦ac8³ Black looks already slightly better) 14...¥xc3 15.bxc3 ¥b7 with a solid position.

11.a3 used to be a common option: 11...¥xc3 12.bxc3 b6! (12...£xa3?! is suspicious for Black: 13.e4 ¤5f6 14.¥d3 £a5 15.d5! c4!? (15...exd5?! leads to serious trouble for Black after 16.e5! ¤e4 17.¥xe4 dxe4 18.£d6 g5 19.¤xg5! £b6 20.¤xe4 £xd6 21.¤xd6+ ¢f8

22.f4±) 16.¥xc4 exd5 17.¥xd5!? ¤xd5 18.exd5 0-0 19.0-0 f6!? (19...¤b6 20.¥e7 ¦e8

21.d6²) 20.¦fe1 ¤b6 21.c4!? £xd2 22.¤xd2 ¥f5 23.f3! with a certain advantage in the endgame.) 13.c4!? Strangely enough, this pawn advance is not much popular but it may promise the better chances for White in the endgame thanks to his pair of bishops.

a) 13.e4 is a logical alternative: 13...¤5f6 14.¥d3 ¥b7 (14...¥a6 does not solve the problems completely: 15.¥xa6 £xa6 16.e5 ¤h7 17.d5 £c4 18.dxe6 £xe6 19.0-0 0-0 20.¦fe1

¦fe8 21.¦cd1² with a small edge for White thanks to his possession of the d−file and in particular the possibility to place his rook on d6) 15.d5 Otherwise it seems impossible to pose problems for Black. This position arose in the game Kramnik − Ivanchuk/Novgorod 1995 which continued 15...c4! 16.dxe6 cxd3 17.exd7+ ¤xd7 18.£xd3 g5 19.¥g3 ¤c5 20.£d6 and in this complicated position a draw was agreed.

b) A common option is 13.¥d3 but Black recently gets acceptable play after 13...¥a6!? (13...¥b7 has also been tried: 14.0-0 ¤5f6 (in case of 14...cxd4 15.cxd4 £xa3 (15...£xd2 16.¤xd2±) 16.¥b5© White has good compensation for the pawn) 15.£e2 0-0 16.¤d2 (16.e4 ¦fc8 17.e5 ¤d5 18.£e4 ¤f8 looks acceptable for Black)

16...cxd4 17.cxd4 ¦ac8 (17...£xa3!? deserves attention although the invasion 18.¦c7ƒ

gives White the initiative) 18.¤c4 £a4 19.f3!² and White secures a small advantage)

242

14.0-0 (After 14.c4 £xd2+ 15.¤xd2 ¤5f6 16.¢e2² White can hope for a small advantage although Black's position is quite solid) 14...cxd4!? (14...¤5f6 does not promise a full equality: 15.e4 ¥xd3 16.£xd3 cxd4 17.cxd4 0-0²) 15.¥xa6 (15.exd4 ¦c8 is very good for Black) 15...£xa6 16.£xd4 0-0! The only way. (16...¤5f6?! is suspicious for Black due to 17.¤e5ƒ with the initiative) 17.e4 (17.c4 does not promise much: 17...¤5f6 18.e4 e5! 19.¤xe5 (or 19.£e3 ¤g4 20.£c3 ¦fe8 with a good play) 19...¤xe5 20.£xe5 ¦fe8 21.£b5 £xb5 22.cxb5 ¤xe4 23.f3 ¤c5= with a drawish endgame) 17...¤f4 18.£xd7 ¤e2+ 19.¢h1 ¤xc1 20.¦xc1 £xa3 21.£d2 ¦ac8 22.¤d4 A rather important for the assessment of the whole line position is reached. With the queens on the board two minor pieces are often stronger than the rook but it is usually thanks to the attacking possibilities against the rival's king. Here it seems to be not easy as White has to take care about his c−pawn first of all. 22...a6 (22...£d6 is an alternative: 23.f4!? It is quite logical to use the pawns more actively − White's main plan should be connected with the K−side actions. (23.£e3 ¦c4 24.f3 ¦fc8 did not give White real chances to get advantage in the game Rogozenko − M.Gurevich/FIDE WCh KO Moscow 2001) 23...¦c4 24.e5 £d5 25.£e3 ¦fc8 26.¥e1 b5 27.¦b1 a6 28.h3² Quite natural play has led to this position, in which White's chances look preferable as he has managed to stop Black's Q−side pawns and to prevent other counter attempts. Yet, to do this White was forced to place his pieces rather passively so now it's not so easy for him to start active actions, Ruck − Grabarczyk/Griesheim 2003) 23.f4 b5 This position has been tested in the game Nyback − Fridman/Calvia (ol) 2004, which continued 24.¤e2 a5 25.¦b1 ¦c4 26.¦xb5 £a1+ 27.¥e1 ¦xe4 with acceptable play for Black.

13...£xd2+ 14.¤xd2 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-+n+pzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zpn+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9zP-+-zP-+-0 9-+-sN-zPPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...¤e7 (14...¤5f6 is a logical alternative: 15.¥e2 (15.f3 ¥a6 16.¥g3 0-0 17.¤b3 ¦fd8 18.¥e2²)

15...¥b7 16.0-0 0-0 17.f3 ¦fd8 (17...cxd4 18.exd4 e5 19.c5!±) 18.¦fd1 ¦ac8 19.a4² and White has got the better chances.) 15.f3 Securing the bishop on h4. 15...¥a6 (Or 15...¥b7 16.¥e2 ¤f5 17.¥f2 ¦c8 18.0-0² with a typical small advantage for White.) 16.¥e2 ¦c8 17.0-0 ¤f5 18.¥f2 ¢e7 19.¦fe1² White keeps a small but stable advantage, Grischuk − Dreev/Poikovsky 2005.

11...¤xc3

243

This decision is double−edged. Black allows White to build up a strong pawn center, hoping for Q−side counterplay.

11...cxd4!? 12.£xd4 ¥xc3+ 13.bxc3 0-0 14.0-0 b6!? (14...¤5b6 15.¥b3 ¦e8 16.¦fd1 is better for White) 15.e4 ¤5f6 deserves attention

In case of 11...¤7b6 White gets better chances by 12.¥xd5!? ¤xd5 13.a3 ¥xc3 14.bxc3 The simple 11...0-0 deserves attention.

12.bxc3 ¥a3 13.¦b1 a6 14.¥e2

White can also begin with 14.0-0 0-0 (while 14...b5? would have been met by the rather unexpected 15.d5! ¤f6 (15...bxc4? was simply bad: 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.£d6 ¢f7 18.£e7+ ¢g6

19.£xe6+ ¤f6 20.¤e5+ ¢h7 21.£c6 ¦a7 22.¥xf6 gxf6 23.£xf6 ¦g7 24.¦fd1+−, while 15...¤b6

wasn't quite sufficient: 16.dxe6 ¤xc4 17.£d5! 0-0 18.exf7+ ¦xf7 19.£xa8 with a big material advantage) 16.¥xf6 gxf6 17.dxe6 fxe6 18.£d6 £d8 19.£g3 with a strong attack) 15.¥e2

14...0-0 15.0-0 b5 16.c4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+n+pzp-0 9p+-+p+-zp0 9wqpzp-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9vl-+-zPN+-0 9P+-wQLzPPzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has maintained the advantage, Anand − Shirov/Wijk aan Zee 2011.

244

QGD/27 − 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Bxf6 [D57]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...h6 6 ¥xf6

6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 leads to other systems.

6...¥xf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pzp-0 9-+-+pvl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This system with an early capture on f6 was a frequent guest in the battles between Anatoly

Karpov and Garry Kasparov − both players tried it with either colour. White has

245

exchanged his bishop for the knight − it gives him better control over the center but may reduce his chances in the possible ending and in case the position becomes opened. The play is usually slow and players often share a point but it may also get sharp and complicated, with chances for both sides.

7 e3

A rare 7 £d2 does not promise much: 7...dxc4!? (7...0-0 8 e3 is a common option, which is considered after 7. e3 0-0 8. Qd2 (while after 8 e4 but Black gets sufficient counter chances: 8...dxe4 9 ¤xe4 b6 (or 9...¤d7 10 0-0-0 c5!? 11 £e3 (11 dxc5 ¥e7) 11...¥e7 12 ¥d3 cxd4 13 ¤xd4 ¤e5 14 ¥c2 £b6) 10 0-0-0 ¥b7 11 £e3 ¤d7 12 ¥d3 £e7 13 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 14 ¤e5 ¦ad8 15 ¥c2 c5 with a good play for Black in all cases) ) 8 e4 (8 e3 c5 is good for Black: 9 dxc5 £xd2+ 10 ¤xd2 ¥xc3 11 bxc3 ¤a6 and so on) 8...c5 9 d5 exd5 10 e5!? (10 ¤xd5 0-0 11 ¥xc4 ¤c6 12 0-0 ¥e6 is acceptable for Black) 10...¥g5 (A counter strike 10...d4!? was worthy of consideration: 11 exf6 dxc3 12 £e3+ ¢f8 13 £xc5+

¢g8 14 ¥xc4 cxb2 15 ¦b1 ¤c6 16 fxg7 ¢xg7 17 0-0 £f6 18 £a3 ¥g4 with acceptable play for Black) 11 £xd5 The game Karpov − Kasparov/WCh (m/21) Moscow 1984 continued 11...¤c6 (11...£xd5!? 12 ¤xd5 ¥d8 13 ¥xc4 0-0 seemed quite playable for Black and it would be a possible improvement) 12 ¥xc4 0-0 13 0-0 £xd5 14 ¥xd5 ¤b4 and Black held on this slightly worse ending.

7 £b3 can be met with an interesting counter strike 7...c5!?, which reminds Grunfeld Defence.

a) A bit passive 7...c6 is also quite playable. White might still hope for a slight edge after 8 e3 (while an ambitious 8 0-0-0 is probably too risky − Black has good counter chances on the Q−side after 8...dxc4 9 £xc4 b5 10 £b3 a5!? 11 e4 (11 ¤e4 is worthy of consideration, taking control over the important c5−square and moving the knight away from Black's b−pawn. A possible play would be 11...¥e7 12 ¤e5 0-0

13 e3 a4 14 £c2 b4 15 ¤c5 with a complicated play, in which both sides have their trumps) 11...a4 12 £c2 ¤d7 (12...¤a6!? is also interesting and possibly stronger − the knight is not going far from the center while its jump to b4 will gain time. For example, 13 ¢b1 0-0 14 h4 a3 15 b3 ¤b4 16 £d2 ¥b7 with excellent counterplay) 13 d5!? (A logical alternative is 13 e5 ¥e7 14 ¤e4 ¥b7 15 ¢b1, which seems more reliable but less ambitious) 13...cxd5 14 exd5 This complicated position arose in the game Timman − Jussupow/Candidates (m/6) Tilburg 1986, which continued 14...a3!? 15 dxe6 axb2+ 16 ¢b1 fxe6 17 £e4! ¥xc3! 18 £xa8 0-0 with excellent compensation for the exchange)

b) 7...dxc4 8 £xc4 0-0 is one of the common options 8 dxc5 (8 cxd5!? cxd4 9 ¤xd4 can be met by 9...¥xd4!? 10 £a4+ ¤c6! 11 dxc6 0-0 with

compensation for the pawn) 8...0-0!? (8...dxc4 9 £xc4 0-0 does not seem sufficient: 10 ¦c1!? (Both 10 e3, and 10 e4 are also worthy of consideration) 10...¥d7 11 e3 £e7 12 b4!? with better chances for White) 9 cxd5 (9 0-0-0?! is logical but dubious, White's king is unsafe on the Q−side. In the game Araslanov − Korneev/Badalona 1994 Black has grabbed the initiative by a series of energetic moves: 9...¤a6 (9...¤d7!?) 10 cxd5 ¤xc5 11 £b5 b6 12 dxe6 £e7! 13 ¤d4 ¥xe6 and so on) 9...£a5!? 10 0-0-0 ¤a6 11 ¤e4 ¥d8 12 d6 ¥d7 13 e3 ¤xc5 14 ¤xc5 £xc5+ 15

246

¢b1 ¦c8„ Black has a good play but this line should be checked more thoroughly and perhaps White might find the way to prove some edge.

7 £c2 can be also met with an early capture 7...dxc4!? A typical reaction for any White queen's move. (A routine 7...0-0 is certainly playable but White might still hope for some edge: 8 0-0-0 dxc4 (a typical 8...c5?! is insufficient: 9 dxc5 d4 (or 9...£a5 10

cxd5 ¥xc3 11 £xc3 £xa2 12 e4 exd5 13 exd5 ¥f5 14 ¥c4 £b1+ 15 ¢d2 £e4 16 ¦he1 £f4+ 17

¦e3 ¤d7 18 £d4 £c7 19 b4+−) 10 ¤xd4! ¥xd4 11 £e4! ¤c6 (other options do not solve Black's problems: 11...e5 12 e3 f5 13 £f3±, or 11...£g5+ 12 f4 £xc5 13 £xd4±) 12 e3 f5 (12...¥xe3+ 13 £xe3±) 13 £f3 £g5 14 h4! ¥xe3+ 15 £xe3 £xe3+ 16 fxe3± with extra pawn in the ending) 9 e4 (9 e3 is maybe more reliable) 9...¤c6!? 10 e5 ¤b4 11 £e4 ¥e7 12 ¥xc4 ¥d7 (12...c6!?) 13 d5 £c8 and here White would think about 14 dxe6!? (14 ¤d4 exd5 15 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 16 ¥xd5 c6 17 ¥c4 c5 18 ¤e2 ¥f5 is acceptable for Black) 14...¥xe6 15 ¥xe6 £xe6 16 ¢b1² with a small advantage) 8 ¤e4!? An interesting attempt.

a) White has tried other options but none of them promised much: 8 0-0-0 a6!? (8...c5

is also acceptable for Black: 9 e3 cxd4 10 ¤xd4 £e7 11 ¥xc4 0-0 12 ¥e2 ¥d7 13 ¥f3 ¤a6

with a good play) 9 e4 b5 10 e5 ¥g5+ 11 ¢b1 ¥b7 12 h4 ¥e7∓ with a clear advantage for Black

b) In case of 8 e3 Black can try an immediate 8...c5 A possible play is 9 dxc5 (9 ¥xc4

cxd4 10 exd4 ¤c6 11 0-0-0 0-0 is better for Black as White's king is more vulnerable)

9...£a5 10 ¥xc4 £xc5 and Black gets a good play: 11 ¤e4 £b4+ (or 11...£a5+ 12 ¢e2 ¥e7 13 £c3 (13 ¦hd1!?) 13...£xc3 14 ¤xc3 a6 15 ¦hd1 ¤d7 with acceptable play for Black) 12 ¤fd2 and here Black can simplify into drawish ending by 12...£xb2!? 13 ¤d6+ ¢e7 14 £xb2 ¥xb2 15 ¤xc8+ ¦xc8 16 ¦b1 ¥c3 17 ¦xb7+ ¤d7 18 ¢e2 ¥xd2 19 ¥b5 ¦d8 20 ¢xd2 ¦ab8 and so on.

8...b5 9 a4 (9 b3!? was worthy of consideration) 9...¥b7!? (After 9...c6 10 ¤xf6+ gxf6 11 g3©

White has sufficient compensation for the pawn) 10 axb5 The game Aronian − Ivanchuk/Morelia Linares 2008 continued 10...a6! Black prefers to give up the pawn in order to keep his strong bishop on the board! (In case of 10...¥xe4 11 £xe4 £d5 12

£c2 £xb5 13 e3² White could have achieved a small but comfortable edge) 11 ¤xf6+ £xf6 12 £xc4 (12 bxa6 could have been by 12...0-0!) 12...0-0! 13 £xc7 axb5 14 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 and White has found himself unable to complete development of the K−side without any concessions.

7...0-0

247

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pzp-0 9-+-+pvl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8 ¦c1

In case of 8 £d2 Black might also think about straightforward 8...dxc4!? 9 ¥xc4 ¤d7 10 0-0 (10 ¤e4 is a worthy alternative but Black keeps solid position after 10...¥e7 11 0-0 (or 11 ¦d1!? c5!? 12 dxc5 £c7 13 b4 and here Black could have thought about 13...b6!?

14 ¤d6 ¦d8 15 0-0 bxc5 16 ¤xc8 ¦axc8 17 b5 ¤b6 18 £c2 a6!? 19 a4 ¤xc4 20 £xc4 axb5 21

axb5 ¦xd1 22 ¦xd1 ¦b8 with a slightly worse but defendable position) 11...c5 12 ¦ac1 cxd4 13 ¤xd4 ¤f6 and Black has no problems) 10...c5 11 ¦fd1 cxd4 12 ¤xd4 (Here White did not have very active play to go to the position with isolated pawn by 12

exd4 After a possible 12...a6 13 a4 £c7 14 ¥d3 b6 Black is fine) 12...¤b6 13 ¥e2! Black's only problem is his light−squared bishop so White moves his bishop to the diagonal f3−b7 to maintain pressure over opponent's Q−side. 13...¥d7 14 ¥f3 This position has been tested in the game Karpov − Kasparov/WCh (m/6) Moscow 1985. It continued 14...¦b8 (14...£b8!? deserved serious attention. Black's idea to get the rook to d8 and then retreat the bishop to e8 looks rather solid) 15 ¤e4 ¥xd4!? 16 £xd4 ¥a4! 17 £xd8 ¦fxd8 18 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 19 ¤c5 ¦d2! 20 b3 ¥c6 21 ¤xb7 ¥xf3 22 gxf3 ¤d7! and thanks to his activity Black held this ending without problems.

White also tried 8 £c2, after which Black might think about 8...¤a6!? This side development of the knight is rather interesting as it not only supports ...c7−c5 but is ready to jump to b4 if needed. (8...c5 is known to be the main line) 9 ¦d1 (9 cxd5 ¤b4

10 £b3 ¤xd5= is harmless for Black) 9...c5 10 dxc5 (Again, 10 cxd5 could be well met by 10...¤b4 11 £b3 ¤xd5 12 ¤xd5 exd5= with a good play since the c5−pawn could not be captured for free: 13 dxc5 £a5+ 14 ¦d2 £xc5÷) 10...£a5 11 cxd5 ¤xc5 12 £d2

a) 12 a3?! was dubious because of 12...¤a4! b) 12 ¤d4 exd5 is harmless for Black. The game Piket − Sturua/Debrecen 1992

continued 13 a3?! (13 ¥e2 could be met with 13...¤e4 14 0-0 ¤xc3 15 bxc3 ¥d7=, while 13 ¥d3 ¤xd3+ 14 £xd3 ¥e6 15 0-0 ¦fd8 is acceptable for Black as well) 13...¤e6! 14 ¤db5? a6! 15 b4?! £d8 16 ¦xd5 ¥d7! 17 £d2 axb5 18 ¦xd7 £xd7!! 19 £xd7 ¥xc3+ 20 ¢e2 ¦fd8-+ and Black has launched decisive attack.

12...¦d8 13 ¤d4 exd5 14 ¥e2 £b6 (or 14...¤e6 15 ¤b3 ¥xc3 16 bxc3²) 15 0-0 ¤e4 16 £c2 ¤xc3 17 £xc3² White maintains a slight edge but Black's position is quite defendable. For example, 17...¥e6 18 £c2 ¦ac8 19 £b1 ¦c7 20 ¦d2 ¥xd4! (in case

248

of 20...¦dc8?! 21 ¤xe6! fxe6 (21...£xe6!? 22 ¦fd1²) 22 ¥g4 ¦c4 23 h3 £c6 24 £d3² White has got chances to exploit weakened light squares on the Black's K−side) 21 ¦xd4 ¦dc8 and so on.

8...c6 9 ¥d3

As a rule, Black follows ...d5xc4 with the c−pawn advance so now it will also come with a loss of time.

9...¤d7 10 0-0 dxc4 11 ¥xc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pzp-0 9-+p+pvl-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...e5

Black logically tries to solve his main problems − the passive light−squared bishop. 11...c5 does not solve all the problems: 12 £e2 (12 ¤e4 does not promise much, according

to the tournament practice: 12...cxd4 13 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 14 £xd4 £xd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥d7 and so on) 12...a6 (or 12...cxd4 13 exd4 ¤b6 14 ¥d3 g6 15 ¥e4!?²) 13 ¦fd1 cxd4 (Unfortunately for Black, an attempt to get his bishop to b7 by playing 13...b5?! could be strongly met by 14 dxc5! bxc4 15 c6 £e7 16 cxd7 ¥xd7 17 £xc4 with extra pawn for White) 14 ¤xd4 £e7 15 ¤e4 ¥e5 16 £h5! and White has maintained the pressure, Kasparov − H.Olafsson/Dubai (ol) 1986.

12 h3 exd4 13 exd4 ¤b6

13...c5 has been rarely tried. Black wants to swap central pawns but it does nothing to promote his development. White gets a small but stable advantage by playing 14 ¤e4!? (or 14 ¥b3!? cxd4 15 ¤e4 ¤e5 16 ¤xd4²) 14...cxd4 15 ¦e1 (15 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 16 £b3 £b6 (16...¤e4 17 ¦fd1 £f6 18 ¥d5 ¤g5 19 ¤xd4², 16...¥f5?! 17 ¤e5) 17 ¦fd1² Tukmakov − Abramovic, Bor 1983) 15...¤b6 16 ¥b3 ¥d7 17 ¤xf6+ £xf6 18 £xd4 £xd4 19 ¤xd4 ¦ac8 20 ¦xc8 ¤xc8 21 ¦c1² Dokhoian − Pigusov, Irkutsk 1986

249

13...¦e8 can be met with 14 £b3!, attacking the f7−pawn: 14...¦f8 (14...¦e7 15 ¦fe1) 15 £c2, gaining a tempo. Then after 15...¦e8 (15...¤b6 16 ¥b3) 16 ¦fe1 ¤f8 17 ¦xe8 £xe8 18 ¦e1 White maintained a stable advantage in the game Kosten − Stohl, Austria 2005.

14 ¥b3 ¥f5

14...¦e8 15 ¦e1 ¥f5 16 ¦xe8+ (16 g4 has been tried in the game Gelfand − Kramnik/Dortmund 1997, which continued 16...¥e6!? (both 16...¦xe1+ 17 £xe1 ¥d3,

and 16...¥g6 were playable for Black as well) 17 ¥xe6 ¦xe6 18 ¦xe6 fxe6 19 £e2 £e7 20 ¦e1 ¦e8 and Black defended his position.) 16...£xe8 17 £d2 may be just a transposition.

15 ¦e1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-snp+-vl-zp0 9+-+-+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LsN-+N+P0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9+-tRQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...a5

An attempt to solve Black's problems by 15...¥g5!? does not bring full equality: 16 ¦a1! (16

¤xg5 £xg5 17 ¤e4 ¥xe4 18 ¦xe4 ¦ae8!? is acceptable for Black) 16...£f6!? (16...¥f4 17

¤e5 ¥xe5 18 ¦xe5 £d7 19 £f3² followed by Ra1-e1 gives White a certain edge, while after a dubious 16...¤d7?! 17 d5! ¦c8?! 18 ¤d4! ¥g6 19 ¤e6! fxe6 20 dxe6 ¢h7! 21 £xd7!

£b6! 22 e7! ¦fe8 23 £g4!ƒ White developed a very strong initiative in the game Kasparov − Short/Bruxelles 1986) 17 ¤e4 ¥xe4 18 ¦xe4 ¦fe8 19 £e2 ¦xe4 20 £xe4 ¦d8 21 ¦e1 ¤d5 22 h4 ¥f4 23 h5 with better chances for White.

16 a3 ¦e8 17 ¦xe8+ £xe8 18 £d2

250

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+q+k+0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9-snp+-vl-zp0 9zp-+-+l+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zPLsN-+N+P0 9-zP-wQ-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

After the World Title matches between two K's this position became very popular. White's

active pieces, especially his strong bishop on b3 and central though isolated pawn on d4 give him active play but Black's position looks solid enough and quite defendable.

18...£d7

The most reliable continuation − Black simply resumes his development, preparing to get his rook to e8.

After 18...¤d7 19 £f4! ¥g6 20 h4! £d8 21 ¤a4 h5! 22 ¦e1 White has maintained a small advantage in the game Kasparov − Karpov/WCh (m/22) London/Leningrad 1986.

19 ¦e1 ¦e8

An inclusion of 19...a4 20 ¥a2 may increase Black's problems: 20...¦e8 (20...¦d8!? is worthy of consideration: 21 £f4 ¥g6 22 ¤e5 ¥xe5 23 £xe5 (23 dxe5 £d2=) 23...¥c2 (23...¢h7!?÷) 24 £e7 (24 £a5!?) 24...¥b3 25 ¥xb3 axb3 26 £b4 £xd4 27 £xb3 £c5 28 ¤e4 £b5 29 £xb5 cxb5 30 ¦e2² with a small advantage for White) 21 ¦xe8+ £xe8 22 £f4 and here Black cannot neutralise White's strong bishop by 22...¥e6?! due to 23 ¥xe6 £xe6 24 £b8+ £c8 (24...¢h7 25 £xb7 ¥xd4 26 ¤xd4 £e1+ 27 ¢h2 £e5+

28 ¢g1 £e1+ 29 ¢h2 £e5+ 30 g3 £xd4 31 £xf7± is also better for White) 25 £xc8+ ¤xc8 26 ¤xa4±

20 ¦xe8+ £xe8 21 £f4 ¥e6 22 ¥xe6 £xe6

251

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+p+-+pzp-0 9-snp+qvl-zp0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-wQ-+0 9zP-sN-+N+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The game Timman − Jussupow/Linares 1988 continued

23 £c7

An immediate 23 £b8+!? deserves attention but Black seems to be fine after 23...£c8 24 £a7 ¤c4

23 ¤e4 ¥e7 is also good for Black.

23...¤c4 24 £b8+ ¢h7 25 £xb7

and here Black has solved his problems by

25...¥xd4! 26 ¤xd4 £e1+ 27 ¢h2 ¤d2!

27...£e5+ 28 g3 £xd4 29 £xf7 ¤xb2 was also drawish.

28 £xf7

and here a draw was agreed in view of the perpetual check.

252

Lasker's Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 ¤e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-vlpzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main idea of this manoeuvre, which was introduced by Emanuel Lasker in his match

against Frank Marschall in 1907 is obvious − to force some exchanges. Black really obtains a solid position but is getting a bit late in development. The main drawback of the Lasker Defence is that Black's chances to take the initiative are very limited. But if a draw is an acceptable result then this system is quite playable and it gives Black very reasonable chances to achieve this aim although a good work still has to be done.

By the way, Lasker himself played this manoeuvre ...¤f6−e4, which is quite typical for some systems of the QGD, without the preliminary ...h7−h6 but this pawn advance is quite useful. Black prevents possible ¤f3−g5, removes this pawn from possible attack on the b1-h7 diagonal and creates a hole for the king in case of possible invasion on the 8th rank.

253

QGD/28 Lasker Defence − Various lines

[D57]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.¥h4 ¤e4 8.¥xe7 £xe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zppzp-wqpzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.cxd5

This option gives White a strong center and opened files on the Q−side. The drawback is obvious − it promotes Black's development.

9.¤xe4 dxe4 10.¤d2 does not give White any advantage: 10...f5 11.c5!? (11.¦c1 is passive: 11...¤d7 (11...c5!?) 12.£c2 c6 13.c5 e5 14.¥c4+ ¢h8 15.0-0 ¤f6 16.¦fe1 ¦d8 17.£c3 exd4 18.exd4 ¥e6 with excellent play) 11...e5 12.£b3+ ¢h8 13.¤c4 exd4 14.exd4 ¤c6 15.0-0-0 ¦d8!?„ (or 15...b6!?„ with good counter chances)

9.£c2 is rarely played: 9...¤xc3 10.£xc3 dxc4 11.£xc4 (11.¥xc4 allows the program advance 11...c5!? (in case of 11...b6 White might hope for a slight edge: 12.0-0 ¥b7

13.¥e2 ¦c8 14.b4 ¤d7 15.¦fc1 c5 16.dxc5 bxc5 17.b5 a6 18.a4²) 12.0-0 ¤c6 13.dxc5 (or 13.¦fd1 cxd4 14.¤xd4 ¥d7 15.¤b5 ¦fd8 16.¦ac1 ¥e8 and Black is fine) 13...£xc5 14.¦ac1 ¦d8 15.a3 ¥d7 16.b4 £b6 with only a symbolic edge for White) 11...b6 12.¦c1 White's pressure over the c−file looks irritating but Black can still continue his plan: 12...c5! 13.dxc5 ¥b7! The most precise way to solve all the problems. (13...¥a6 is known to be a good option: 14.£h4! (or 14.£e4 ¥b7 15.£f4 ¦c8) 14...£xh4 15.¤xh4

254

¦c8 16.¥e2 (16.b4 promises nothing: 16...¥xf1 17.¦xf1 bxc5 18.bxc5 ¤a6 19.c6 ¤b4 and Black wins the pawn back) 16...bxc5 17.¤f3² although here White keeps a slight edge thanks to his better pawn structure. Yet, in practice Black were able to hold the ending in most cases, as in the game Lputian − Pigusov/ECC Halkidiki 2002) 14.£a4 (14.£h4 does not promise anything: 14...£xh4 15.¤xh4 ¦c8 16.¥b5 ¤a6! 17.c6 (or 17.¥xa6 ¥xa6 18.c6 ¦c7 19.¤f3 ¦ac8 20.¤d4 e5 21.¤f5 ¢f8) 17...¤b4! with equality) 14...¦c8! 15.¥e2 ¦xc5 16.¦xc5 £xc5 17.0-0 ¤c6 18.¦d1 ¤e5 and Black equalised, Aronian − Jakovenko/FIDE GP Sochi 2008.

9...¤xc3 10.bxc3 exd5 11.£b3 ¦d8 12.c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnltr-+k+0 9zppzp-wqpzp-0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+Q+-zPN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now Black has a choice.

12...¥e6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-tr-+k+0 9zppzp-wqpzp-0 9-+-+l+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+Q+-zPN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This rare continuation is very interesting. Moreover, it is possibly the most promising

continuation. A rather unexpected 12...c5 was introduced in the game Kalin − Bezgodov/Russia 1999.

Black tries to open position by any cost before White completes his development. The idea looks interesting but White can probably prove his advantage by precise

255

play: 13.cxd5 (13.£a3 ¤a6 was fine for Black) 13...cxd4 14.¤xd4 ¤c6!? 15.¦d1 ¤a5 16.£b5 £c7 and here a simple 17.¥e2!? deserved serious attention since actually it was not so easy for Black to win the d5−pawn: 17...a6 18.£a4 £c3+ (18...¦xd5??

19.£e8+ ¢h7 20.£e4++−) 19.¦d2 £c1+ 20.¥d1 and Black still cannot capture the pawn.

An immediate 12...¤c6 seems worse: 13.cxd5 ¤a5 (or 13...£b4+ 14.¤d2 £xb3 15.¤xb3 ¤b4 16.¦c1 (16.¢d2 ¤xd5 17.g3 b6 18.¥g2²) 16...¤xd5 17.e4 ¦e8 18.f3 f5!? (18...c6

19.¢f2 ¤e7 20.g4! b6 21.h4 ¥e6 22.¥c4 ¥xc4 23.¦xc4 ¦ad8 24.a4±) 19.¥c4 c6 20.¤c5! fxe4 21.fxe4 ¥f5 22.0-0 ¥xe4 23.¤xb7 ¦ab8 24.¤d6 ¦e6 25.¤xe4 ¦xe4 26.¥b3 ¦xd4 27.¦xc6 ¦d8 28.¦c7±) 14.£b5 £a3 15.¥d3 ¥g4 16.0-0 with better chances for White, for example: 16...c6 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.£b1 ¥xf3 19.gxf3 ¦ab8 20.¥h7+! ¢h8 21.£d3 £e7 22.¥e4± and Black has not achieved sufficient compensation for the pawn.

12...dxc4 13.¥xc4 ¤c6 used to be a common option: 14.¥e2 (14.£c3 is an alternative: 14...¥g4 15.0-0 ¥xf3 16.gxf3 White has got pawn superiority in center and the bishop against the knight but on the other hand Black has no weaknesses and no problems with development so he should be more or less satisfied with the position. Now 16...£f6 seems to be the most precise continuation. (16...£h4?! did not prevented White's plans in the game Beliavsky − Vaganian/Reggio Emilia 1995: 17.¢h1 ¦d6 (17...£h3 18.¥e2 ¦d6 19.¦g1²) 18.¦g1! ¤e7 (It turned out that the f2−pawn was untouchable: 18...£xf2?? 19.¦af1 £h4 20.d5 £f6 21.£xf6 ¦xf6 22.dxc6+−)

19.¦g4 £h5 (19...£xf2? 20.¦f1 ¤d5 21.£b3 £xe3 22.¥xd5+−) 20.¦ag1ƒ with annoying initiative.) 17.¥e2 ¦ac8! and the idea ...¤c6−e7 and ...c7−c5 gives Black a good play. For example, 18.¦ab1 b6 19.¦fc1 (19.¥a6 £xf3 20.¥xc8 ¦xc8 21.¦fc1 ¤e7© with initiative on the K−side) 19...¤e7 20.¢h1 (20.¥a6 ¤d5!?ƒ) 20...¦d5!?„ with good counter chances) 14...b6 An old and very solid approach. 15.0-0 ¥b7 16.¦fc1 (16.¦ac1 is similar since White is going to double the rooks on the c−file: 16...¤a5

17.£b2 ¦ac8 18.h3 c5 and Black almost equalises) 16...¦ac8 (The immediate 16...¤a5

leads to similar play: 17.£b2 ¦ac8 18.¦c3 c5 19.¦ac1 cxd4 20.¤xd4 ¦xc3 21.¦xc3 £e5

22.£c2 ¦d5 with idea ...Rd5−c5 with good play for Black) 17.£a4 ¤a5 18.¦c3 c5 As a rule, this thematic advance gives Black good play − he has no more pawn weaknesses and no problems with development. Yet, White still keeps some pressure and so Black has to defend accurately − in fact, such a great player as Vladimir Kramnik failed to solve the problems completely in the game Deep Fritz − Kramnik/Bahrain (m/5) 2002.

13.£xb7

13.¦c1 is harmless for Black due to a simple 13...c5 13.cxd5?! ¥xd5 14.¥c4 can be well met by 14...¥xf3 15.gxf3 c5 13.c5 is harmless for Black as well: 13...b6! 14.¦c1 bxc5 (The capture is stronger than

14...¤d7 15.cxb6 (15.£a3?! ¥g4ƒ Koblencs − Ravinsky, Riga 1952, 15.c6!? ¤f6 16.¥d3

is worth considering) 15...axb6 16.¦xc7 ¦a3 17.£b1 £d6 18.¦c1 ¦da8 and Black wins the pawn back but White still keeps a slight edge thanks to his better pawn structure.) 15.¦xc5 (15.£a3?! was proved unsuccessful in the game Topalov − Anand/Nanjing 2010: 15...¤d7 16.¥b5 ¥g4! 17.¥xd7 ¦xd7! 18.£xc5?!

256

a) 18.¤e5 looked very strong but tactics worked in Black's favour: 18...cxd4! 19.£xe7 ¦xe7 20.¤c6 (after 20.¤xg4 h5! Black gets the piece back, securing the extra pawn in the ending) 20...¦e6 21.h3 ¥h5 22.¤xd4 ¦a6 23.¦xc7 ¦xa2 followed by an advance of the a−pawn.

b) Perhaps the best way to fight for equality was 18.¦xc5 £e4 19.¢e2 ¦e8 20.£c3 with reasonable chances to hold on.

18...£e4 and Black's initiative was unbearable.) 15...¤d7! 16.¦xc7 ¦ab8 17.£c2 £a3 and Black's activity fully compensates the pawn.

13...£a3! 14.¦b1 £xa2

This position arose in the game Jobava − Shengelia/Batumi 2002. Here White should have seriously thought about

15.£b2!?

but then Black can achieve good counter chances by

15...£xb2 16.¦xb2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-tr-+k+0 9zp-zp-+pzp-0 9-+-+l+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-zPN+-0 9-tR-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...c5!?

or 16...¤c6!? with a roughly balanced endgame.

257

QGD/29 Lasker Defence − Main line 9.

Rc1 [D56]


1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 ¥e7 4.¤f3 ¤f6 5.¥g5 0-0 6.e3 h6 7.¥h4 ¤e4 8.¥xe7 £xe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zppzp-wqpzp-0 9-+-+p+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.¦c1

Recently this is the most popular continuation. Since one of the main Black's option is the advance ...c7−c5 White is trying to create pressure over the c−file.

9...c6

258

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-wqpzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzPn+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤xc3 10.¦xc3 c6 11.¥e2!? is usually a transposition to the main line.

10.¥e2

This modest bishop development seems to be more accurate. After 10.¥d3 ¤xc3 11.¦xc3 ¤d7 may lead to the same position but it gives an important

extra option for Black. Here White can think about 12.cxd5!?, transposing into the Carlsbad pawn structure. Yet, it also helps Black to solve the problem of his bishop.

a) after 12.0-0 the immediate 12...e5!? deserves serious attention. (12...dxc4 13.¥xc4

leads to the main position − see 11...dc4) Then after 13.dxe5 (13.¥b1 does not seem too harmful for Black but it still worthy of consideration. After 13...exd4 (13...e4!?

14.¤d2 ¤f6 deserved attention) 14.¤xd4!? (14.exd4 dxc4= and ...¤d7−b6 is just equal) 14...¤b6 15.c5 ¤c4 16.b3 ¤e5 17.h3² White can obtain a small advantage) 13...dxc4 14.¥xc4 (14.¦xc4 ¤xe5 15.¦e4 does not promise too much: (15.¤xe5 £xe5)

15...¤xf3+ 16.£xf3 ¥e6 17.¥c4 ¦ad8 18.¥xe6 fxe6 19.£e2 (19.£g4 ¦d6) 19...¦d5² and White has very little chances to exploit the weakness on e6, as was tested in a number of games.) 14...¤xe5 15.¤xe5 £xe5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pzp-0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9+-+-wq-+-0 9-+L+-+-+0 9+-tR-zP-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position is well−known to theory. Thanks to the possibility to advance his e− and f−

pawns White's chances are preferable but it was usually not so easy for him to maintain the advantage in practice. 16.f4!? seems to be the most principled way −

259

White should try to advance his central pawns. The e3−pawn is temporarily detached but White is going to either soon take control of the e4−square, or to advance his f−pawn further, trying to create a direct K−side attack.

a1) 16.£c2 is harmless: 16...¥f5 17.¥d3 ¥xd3 18.¦xd3 ¦fd8 19.¦fd1 ¦xd3 20.¦xd3 £a5 21.£b1 ¦d8 22.¦xd8+ £xd8³ with slightly better chances for Black thanks to his Q−side pawn majority.

a2) 16.£e2 is also fine for Black: 16...¥e6 17.¥xe6 £xe6 18.b3 ¦ad8 19.¦d3 ¦d6 20.h3 ¦fd8 21.¦fd1 g6 22.¦xd6 ¦xd6 23.¦xd6 £xd6³

a3) 16.£b3!? can be met by an interesting 16...b5!? (a slow 16...b6 seems playable as well: 17.¦d1 ¥f5 18.¥d3 ¥e6 19.£a4 c5 wit acceptable play) 17.¥e2 ¥e6 18.£c2 ¥d5 and the strong bishop on d5 prevents White's active possibilities very well, Lautier − Kramnik/Monaco 1999.

16...£e4!? a1) Other moves were also tested. It seems that White keeps good attacking chances

on the K−side after 16...£f6 17.e4 (17.f5!?)

a2) or 16...£e7 17.f5ƒ 17.£e2 (17.¦e1 ¥e6 18.¥xe6 £xe6 should be OK for Black) 17...¦d8 18.¥b3 (18.¥d3 can be

strongly met by 18...¥g4!) 18...¥f5 19.¥c2 £d5 20.e4 £d4+ 21.¢h1 ¦e8 22.¦d1 £b4 23.¦b3 £e7 24.¦e3 ¥h7 25.e5² White has managed to advance his e− and f−pawns so his chances are preferable but it is very difficult to get something more substantial.

b) while the move 12.£c2 may not be the best in the forthcoming play: 12...dxc4 13.¥xc4 b6 (A plan with 13...e5 is also playable: 14.0-0 e4!? (14...¦e8?! is weaker: 15.d5 e4 16.¤d4 c5 17.¤b5 £e5 18.d6 with a big advantage) 15.¤d2 (15.¤e5 ¤xe5 16.£xe4

¦e8 17.dxe5 £xe5 18.£xe5 ¦xe5 19.¦d1 ¢f8 20.f3 ¥e6 21.¥xe6 ¦xe6 22.e4 ¦ae8² and Black should hold this position without serious problems) 15...¤f6 with acceptable play although here White can probably find something else than a transposition to the game Anastasian − Miladinovic/Moscow (ol) 1994 by 16.¥b3 ¥g4!?„ − see the line 11 ...dxc4 12. ¥xc4 ¤d7 13. 0-0 e5 14. ¥b3 e4!?) 14.¥d3 c5 15.¥e4 ¦b8 16.0-0 a5 − see the main line with 16. £c2 instead of 16. £a4.

12...exd5 13.0-0 ¤f6² White looks preferable but he should play very precisely to prove the advantage since Black can find good counter chances. For example: 14.¤e5 ¤e4!? 15.¦a3 (15.¥xe4!? dxe4 16.£b1 deserves attention) 15...¥f5 16.£c2 ¥h7 17.¢h1?! f6 18.¤f3 g5!? 19.¤e1 a6 20.¦b3 ¦ae8 21.£c1 h5 22.¥e2 ¥g6 23.¤d3 h4ƒ and Black has made certain progress on the K−side.

10...¤xc3 11.¦xc3

260

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-wqpzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-tR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9+-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...dxc4

Here 11...¤d7 12.0-0 dxc4 transposes (12...e5? is just bad because of 13.dxe5 dxc4 14.£d6 ¦e8

15.¦d1!)

12.¥xc4

12.¦xc4 is an old continuation, which is recently not popular. 12...¤d7 Since ...c6−c5 seems to be hardly possible Black is logically preparing the other way to get the c8−bishop into play − the advance ...e6−e5. 13.0-0 e5 14.£c2 Radjabov − Kramnik,V/Kazan RUS 2011.

12...¤d7 13.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+nwqpzp-0 9-+p+p+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-tR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main position of the Lasker Defence. By the way, it can be also reached in one of the

lines of the QGD − 6. ¥h4 0-0 7. e3 ¤bd7 8. ¦c1 c6 9. ¥d3 dc4 10. ¥xc4 ¤d5 11. ¥xe7 £xe7 12. 0-0 ¤xc3 13. ¦xc3. Now Black has two obvious ways to solve the problem of his bishop on c8 − ...c6−c5 and ...e6−e5. Usually Black chooses between the immediate 13 ...e5 and 13 ...b6, preparing for ...c6−c5.

261

13...b6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpzp-0 9-zpp+p+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzP-+-+0 9+-tR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...e5 is the main alternative. 14.¥b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+nwqpzp-0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LtR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A typical prophylactic move. Now it is not easy for Black to keep tension in center if he is

going to develop his bishop. 14...e4!? This active pawn advance is maybe the most promising continuation for Black.

a) The exchange 14...exd4 opens files for White's pieces: 15.exd4! Here the isolated d4−pawn helps White to develop the initiative very much. The opened e−file, the control over e5−square, the possibility to bring the rook to the K−side via the 3rd rank, the strong bishop on b3 − all these factors make White's position fairly attractive. 15...¤f6 (A different route of the knight 15...¤b6 does not affect White's play: 16.¦e1 £d6 17.¤e5 ¥e6 18.¥xe6 fxe6 19.¦g3 and Black has no compensation for the his weaknesses: 19...¦f5 20.¦g6± with annoying initiative) 16.¦e1 £d6 17.¤e5 Black has no pawn weaknesses but White's initiative looks rather annoying − all his pieces are very active. The main Black's problem is still his bishop, which cannot be developed without any concessions. 17...¤d5

a1) 17...¥f5?! is strongly met by 18.¤xf7! ¦xf7 19.¥xf7+ ¢xf7 20.£b3+ ¢f8 21.£xb7 ¦b8 22.£xa7 ¦xb2 23.¦xc6! ¦xa2 (23...£xc6 24.£a3+ ¢g8 25.£xb2+−) and here White can secure the decisive advantage by 24.£b6! £e7 (24...£d5 25.¦xf6+ gxf6

262

26.£xf6+ £f7 27.£h8+ £g8 28.¦e8++−) 25.¦xf6+! gxf6 (25...£xf6 26.£b8+ ¢f7 27.£e8#)

26.£b8+ followed by 27.¦xe7+− a2) 17...¥e6 does not solve the problems either: 18.¥xe6 fxe6 (a tricky 18...£xe6 it

should be in White's favour: 19.¤g6 ¤e4 (19...£xa2 20.¤xf8 ¦xf8 21.¦a3 £xb2 22.¦b3

£a2 23.¦xb7±) 20.¤xf8 ¤xc3 21.bxc3 £d5 The knight is trapped but Black cannot win it for free. For example, here White can simply gain a healthy extra pawn by 22.£b1!? ¦xf8 23.£xb7±) 19.¦g3 ¦ad8 20.£b3ƒ with initiative.

18.¦g3ƒ This position arose in the game Karpov − Yusupov/ London (m/8) 1989. Black was unable to extinguish White's initiative.

b) 14...¦e8 is not so bad but it still does not seem fully equalising: 15.£c2 b1) 15.d5 is harmless for Black: 15...cxd5 16.£xd5 ¤f6 17.£c5 ¤e4 18.£xe7 ¦xe7

with drawish endgame. b2) 15.£b1!? is an interesting alternative. In some cases the queen would be more

active on c2 but, on the other hand, the position of the queen on b1 would help White to avoid the exchange of the light−squared bishop: 15...exd4 (in case of 15...e4

16.¤d2 ¤f6 17.¦c5 ¥e6 18.¦e5 Black does not have the simplifying ...Be6xb3) 16.exd4 ¤f8 (16...¤f6 17.¦e3 ¥e6 18.¥xe6 fxe6 19.¦fe1 is clearly better for White) 17.¦e1 ¥e6 18.¦ce3 £d7 19.¥c2!² and White maintains a small advantage.

15...e4 (15...exd4 is an obvious alternative. White would continue by 16.¤xd4 (here in case of 16.exd4 ¤f8 17.¦e3 ¥e6 18.¦fe1 £d7 White could not secure his bishop from exchange!) 16...¤f8 (16...¤f6 17.f3 (with idea e3−e4) 17...c5!? 18.¦xc5 £xe3+ 19.£f2²

with advantage) 17.¦d1 g6 18.f3 ¥d7 19.e4² with a certain advantage) 16.¤d2 ¤f6 17.¦c5 A typical move − White is trying to prevent the comfortable development of the Black bishop. By the way, now Black should be careful with his e4−pawn − ¦c5−e5 is threatened. Now 17...¥e6! is a principled continuation: (17...£c7?! is dubious: 18.h3 ¥d7 19.f4! exf3 20.¦xf3 £d8 21.¦e5 ¥e6 22.¥xe6 ¦xe6 23.¦xe6 fxe6 24.¤c4

£e7 25.¤e5±, 17...£d8?! is too passive: 18.¦e5! ¦xe5 19.dxe5 ¤g4 20.¤xe4 ¤xe5 21.£c5!

and Black has found himself in trouble since he has no good defence against ¤e4−d6, Vyzhmanavin − Klovans/Bern 1993.) 18.¦e5 ¥xb3 19.axb3!? (19.£xb3 can give White a slight edge after 19...£d7 20.£c2 ¦xe5 21.dxe5 ¤g4 22.¤xe4 ¤xe5 23.¦d1 £e7

24.£c5!²) 19...£c7!? b1) 19...£d7?! can be met by 20.¤xe4 ¦xe5 21.dxe5 ¤g4 22.¤c5 £e7 23.e6! fxe6

24.£c4 with advantage b2) 19...£b4!? deserves attention: 20.¦a1 ¦xe5 (in case of 20...a6 21.¦a4 £b6 22.h3²

White keeps better chances) 21.dxe5 ¤d7 here White can try an interesting 22.e6!? 20.¤xe4 ¦xe5 21.¤xf6+ gxf6 22.dxe5 fxe5 and Black has almost nothing to worry about. c) 14...¦d8 was also tried. Black's plan is to play ...Nd7−f8 after exchange on d4.

15.¦e1 exd4 16.exd4 (16.£xd4 is harmless for Black: 16...¤f8 17.£e5 £xe5 18.¤xe5

¥e6= with equal endgame) 16...£d6 17.£e2! A strong idea − White finds the way to disturb Black's development!

c1) 17.¦ce3 is simply met by 17...¤f8 and after 18.¤e5 (18.¦e7? ¤e6-+) 18...¥e6 19.£h5 ¥xb3 20.¦xb3 £c7 21.£g4 ¤e6 22.¤xf7 £xf7 23.¦xe6 ¦xd4 24.£xd4 £xe6= and Black has no problems

c2) while 17.d5 gives White some initiative in the endgame after 17...cxd5 18.£xd5 £xd5 19.¥xd5 ¤f8 20.¥e4²

263

17...¤f8 Black is ready to neutralise White's strong bishop by ...Bc8−e6 so White should hurry up. 18.£e7! The only way to keep the bishop on c8 − now it's tied up with the b7−pawn. 18...¤e6 (The endgame after 18...£xe7 19.¦xe7 is difficult for Black: 19...¤e6 20.¤e5! ¦xd4 21.¦f3! ¦e4 (21...f6 22.¦e8+ ¢h7 23.¥c2++−) 22.¦e8+ ¢h7 23.¥c2+−) 19.£h4! Now the path for the Black bishop is closed so White can retreat his queen. This position arose in the game Zakharevich − Biriukov/St. Petersburg 2000. It seems that Black should have still moved his knight back: 19...¤f8!, resuming the idea to get the bishop into play. (19...£f4? was met by a brilliant 20.£xd8+!! ¤xd8 21.¦e8+ ¢h7 22.¦xd8‚ and Black found himself in trouble due to the very annoying 8th rank pin.) Then it was not easy for White to maintain the initiative since the direct 20.¦e7 could have been met by 20...¤g6! 21.¥xf7+ ¢f8! and Black wins the exchange.

15.¤d2 ¤f6 16.£c2 (The immediate 16.¦c5 looks interesting but Black can still play the same 16...¥g4!? 17.£b1 ¥e2 18.¦e1 ¥d3 19.¥c2 ¤d7 20.¦c3 ¥xc2 21.£xc2 ¦fe8 22.a3 ¤f6

23.¦c5 ¤d7 and Black is OK) 16...¥g4!? A strong idea − Black is going to play ...¥e2−d3. (if Black continued 16...¦e8 then the position from the game could have been reached.) 17.¦e1 ¤d5! Clarifying the situation. (17...¦ad8 18.¦c5!² seems to be better for White) 18.¥xd5 cxd5 This position arose in the game Anastasian − Miladinovic/Moscow (ol) 1994. Perhaps it was the time to simplify position by 19.¦c7 (19.¦c1?! gave Black the initiative after 19...£g5 20.¢f1 ¦ad8!? 21.¦c7 ¦d6ƒ)

19...¦fc8 20.¦c1 ¦xc7 21.£xc7 £xc7 22.¦xc7 ¦c8! 23.¦xc8+ ¥xc8 24.¤b1 ¥d7 25.¤c3 ¥c6= with a drawish endgame.

This immediate c−pawn advance 13...c5 is very rare and probably dubious. The c−pawn advance is usually played after the preliminary ...b7−b6 as otherwise Black reveals his plans earlier than he is really ready to get the bishop into play and so it would be easier for White to plan his actions: 14.£e2 (14.£c2!? is also quite interesting. After 14...b6 15.¥b5 Black cannot stand White's pressure over the c−file. An attempt to radically solve this problem by 15...¥b7 (15...cxd4 16.¤xd4±) 16.¥xd7 ¥xf3 17.gxf3 cxd4 (after 17...£xd7 18.dxc5 bxc5 19.¦xc5 White got a healthy extra pawn but it was maybe more stubborn) 18.¦c7 ¦ad8 fails to 19.£c6 £g5+ 20.¢h1 dxe3 21.fxe3 £xe3 22.£c3+− and Black does not get sufficient compensation for the bishop.) 14...cxd4 (14...¦d8 does not solve the problems: 15.¦fc1 cxd4 16.¤xd4 (16.exd4!? is maybe even stronger) 16...¤b6 17.¥b3 with a certain advantage.) 15.exd4 ¤f6 16.¥b3 This position was played in the game Chekhov − G.Schmidt/Dresden 1997. White's superiority is beyond doubt − Black still cannot develop his bishop as now he has got one more problem − the possible advance d4−d5.

13...¦d8 is not popular. It is not so clear if the rook is well placed on d8 in case of both ...e6−e5 and ...c6−c5. Besides, this move costs Black one tempo: 14.¥d3 (In case of 14.£c2 Black could think about 14...b5!? 15.¥d3 ¥b7 with idea ...b5−b4 with real chances to get his bishop into play) 14...c5 15.£c2 cxd4 (15...b6 16.¥b5²) 16.¤xd4 (16.exd4!? also came to mind, keeping the better chances.) 16...¤f6 17.¦c7 £d6 18.¦d1! White has already got all his pieces so there are small doubts about his superiority, I.Sokolov − Timoshchenko/Maribor 1990.

14.¥d3

264

After 14.£e2 Black should probably continue 14...¥b7 a) in case of 14...c5 White can think about 15.¥b5!?, increasing pressure over the

c5−pawn. (15.¥a6 can be well met by 15...¥xa6!? (in the game Zvjagintsev − Cherepkov/St.Petersburg 1994 White has got advantage thanks to the weakness of the c6−square in the typical endgame after 15...cxd4 16.¤xd4 ¥xa6 17.£xa6 ¤c5 18.£e2

£f6 19.£f3!? £xf3 20.gxf3²) 16.£xa6 e5! getting an extra tempo compare to the line 14 ...Bb7.)

b) 14...a5 was also tried: 15.¦fc1 ¥b7 16.h3!? (16.a3 ¦fd8 17.h3 a4 18.¦d1 c5= is good for Black) 16...c5 (16...¦fd8!? seems to be more accurate) 17.¥b5 e5 and here White can get the pawn superiority on the K−side, keeping Black's Q−side pawns blocked: 18.dxe5! (18.¥xd7? exd4³) 18...¤xe5 19.¤xe5 £xe5 20.¦d3² with advantage.

15.¥a6 (15.¦d1 does not seem to be necessary: 15...¦fd8 16.¥a6 ¥xa6 17.£xa6 c5 with similar play) 15...¥xa6 16.£xa6 c5 17.¦fc1 (17.£a3 does not promise much: 17...e5 18.dxc5

¤xc5 19.b4 ¤e4 20.¦c4 ¤g5 21.¤xg5 hxg5 22.£c3 with a very small advantage) 17...e5! This advance helps Black to clarify the position. White tried to get advantage many times but it did not seem to be an easy task. For example: 18.dxc5 ¤xc5 19.£b5 e4 20.¤d4 ¦fe8 21.a3 a6 22.£e2 a5= and Black is completely OK.

14...c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-tRLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.¥e4

15.¥b5 is the less promising alternative: 15...¦d8 a) 15...cxd4 gives White a slight edge after 16.¤xd4 ¤c5 17.¥c6 ¥b7 18.£f3 ¥xc6

19.¤xc6 £b7! 20.¤e5! (20.b4 ¦fc8=) 20...£xf3 21.gxf3² f6 22.¤c6 (22.¤g6 ¦f7=)

22...a5 23.¦d1 ¦f7 24.¦d6² − a similar position was considered in the game Zvjagintsev − Cherepkov/St.Petersburg 1994. The endgame looks drawish but Black should defend very precisely.

b) Other options are much worse: 15...¥b7?! 16.¥xd7±, winning the pawn c) or 15...¤f6 16.dxc5 ¤e4 17.¦c4 ¤xc5 18.b4± and Black is too late in

development of his Q−side.

265

16.¥c6 (here 16.£e2?! is dubious as after 16...¥b7 17.¥xd7?! Black has an important 17...cxd4!³

with better chances) 16...¦b8 17.£c2 cxd4 18.¤xd4 e5 19.¤f5 £f6 20.¦d1 ¤c5= and Black has successfully solved the problems.

15.¥b1 ¥b7 16.£c2 does not promise much: 16...g6 17.£e2 ¦ac8 18.¦fc1 ¦fd8 19.h3 e5 20.dxc5 ¦xc5 21.¦xc5 ¤xc5 22.b4 ¥xf3 and Black is OK.

15...¦b8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-zPL+-+0 9+-tR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...¥a6?! is dubious: 16.¥xa8 ¥xf1 17.¥c6 ¥a6 18.£a4 ¤b8 19.dxc5 bxc5 20.h3± with a

clear advantage.

16.£a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpzp-0 9-zp-+p+-zp0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9Q+-zPL+-+0 9+-tR-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.£c2 seems to be the less promising alternative: 16...¤f6!? A rare but rather interesting

continuation. Black allows the weakening of his Q−side pawn structure, playing for activity.

a) Black tried many options here, let's take a brief look at some of them. 16...¥a6 does not equalise: 17.¦c1 ¦fc8 18.dxc5 (18.£a4!?) 18...¦xc5 and here White would have thought about 19.¦xc5 ¤xc5 20.¤e5ƒ with some initiative

266

b) In case of 16...a5 17.¦c1 (17.¦d1 has also been tried: 17...¦d8 (17...¥b7 is maybe less precise: 18.¥xb7 ¦xb7 19.a3 ¦e8 20.h3 with a whole extra tempo compare to the game Karpov − Yussupow/Dortmund 1997 because White hasn't spent time for the move Qd1-a4. Yet, in the game Van Wely − Azmaiparashvili/Calvia (ol) 2004 White failed to achieve anything substantial after 20...e5 21.£e4 ¦bb8 22.dxe5 ¤xe5

23.£xe5 £xe5 24.¤xe5 ¦xe5² with only a slight edge in the endgame − a draw is obviously the most likely result, 17...¥a6 18.¥c6 cxd4 19.¤xd4 ¤c5 20.a3 also promises a small advantage for White) 18.¥c6 ¥b7 19.¥xb7 ¦xb7 20.¦cd3 ¦bb8 21.h3 ¦bc8 with good play for Black, for example: 22.d5 exd5 23.¦xd5 ¤f6 24.¦xd8+ ¦xd8 25.¦xd8+ £xd8 26.a4 £d5 27.¤d2 £e6 28.¤c4 ¤d5=) 17...¥b7 (17...¦d8!? deserves attention) 18.¥xb7 ¦xb7 19.dxc5 ¤xc5 20.¤e5 £f6 21.¤d3 ¦d8! A strong idea − Black is playing for activity, supposing it would compensate his Q−side pawn weaknesses. (The routine 21...¤xd3?! could lead to the problems as it gave White control over the important files after 22.£xd3 since 22...¦d8 is met by 23.¦c8) 22.¤xc5 bxc5 23.£e2 ¦bd7 24.¦3c2² Thanks to the better Q−side pawn structure White keeps small advantage but Black's activity over the d−file gives him reasonable chances to hold the position. In the game Khalifman − Yusupov/GER−chT 1993 he has successfully solved this task.

17.dxc5 ¤xe4 18.£xe4 bxc5 19.£c2 White removes his queen from the long diagonal and begins to pressurize Black's c5−pawn. However, it is going to be a rather difficult task! (he also tried 19.b3 ¥b7 20.£f4 (or 20.£e5 ¦bc8!? 21.¦fc1 ¦fd8 22.e4 £d6!=)

20...¥xf3 21.£xf3 ¦fd8 22.¦fc1 ¦d2 23.¦1c2 ¦bd8 24.g3 ¦xc2 25.¦xc2 ¦d5= with a slightly worse but acceptable position for Black) 19...¥b7 20.¤d2 ¦fd8 21.f3 (In case of 21.¤b3 Black had the typical 21...c4! with the idea to put pressure on the b2−pawn. Then after 22.¦xc4 (or 22.¤d4 £g5 23.f3 (23.f4 £d5) 23...e5 24.¤f5 ¥c8! 25.¤g3 ¥e6) 22...¥a6 23.¦c7 ¦bc8! 24.¦xe7 ¦xc2= he would solve all the problems) 21...¥a6!? and Black had no problems in the game Topalov − Anand/WCh (m/12) Sofia 2010.

16...¤f6

16...¥b7 is not completely equalising: 17.¥xb7 ¦xb7 18.£c2! This queen retreat seems to be the most annoying for Black.

a) 18.£c6 can be met by 18...¤b8 19.£e4 ¦c7 20.¦fc1 ¦fc8 and Black is more or less OK

b) In case of 18.¦d1 Black can think about 18...e5!? (18...b5 does not seem equalising: 19.£a5 (in case of 19.£b3 Black can probably solve the problems by 19...a5!? (19...c4?? 20.¦xc4+−) 20.dxc5 ¤xc5 21.£c2 ¤a6 22.a3 b4 23.¦c6 ¦c7! 24.¤d4 bxa3 25.bxa3 ¦fc8 26.¦xc7 £xc7 27.£e2 £c4 28.£f3 ¤c7 with equality) 19...c4 20.b3 ¤b6 21.¦c2 cxb3 22.axb3 ¤d5 23.¦c5 b4 24.¦a1 ¤c3 25.£a6 ¦a8 26.¤e5 ¦c7 27.¦xc7 £xc7 28.h3 ¤d5 29.¤c4 g6 30.¦a5± with a clear advantage) 19.d5 (19.£c6 ¤b8) 19...e4 20.¤d2 ¤f6„ with a complicated play.

18...a5!? (18...¦c8 is dubious because of 19.¦c1 ¦bc7 20.b4!± and Black faces serious problems) 19.a3 ¦e8!? Intending to advance the e−pawn. 20.¦d1! (A slow move like 20.h3?! allows Black to equalise comfortably by 20...e5 21.£e4 exd4! 22.£xb7 dxc3 23.bxc3

¤e5!=) 20...¦bb8 (Now 20...e5 can be met by 21.£e4 exd4 22.£xb7 dxc3 23.bxc3 ¤e5

267

24.£xb6 ¤xf3+ 25.gxf3 £g5+ 26.¢f1!?±) 21.h3² White keeps small advantage. Obviously Black has reasonable chances to hold this position but he must defend precisely. Yet, sometimes it is not so easy to choose between some good looking continuations and in the game Karpov − Yusupov/Dortmund 1997 Black failed to solve the problems.

17.¥c6

17.dxc5 is simply met by 17...bxc5 with two ideas − ...¦b8xb2 and ...¦b8−b4.

17...cxd4!

17...¤d5?! gives White real advantage after 18.¥xd5 exd5 19.dxc5 bxc5 20.£a3 ¥e6 21.¦fc1 ¦fc8 22.b3± with annoying pressure over the c5−pawn.

18.exd4

18.¤xd4 e5 looks fine for Black.

18...a6 19.¤e5 ¥b7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-trk+0 9+l+-wqpzp-0 9pzpL+psn-zp0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9Q+-zP-+-+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.¦fc1

20.¥xb7 £xb7 followed by ...¤f6−d5 is OK for Black.

20...¤d5

This position arose in the game Zvjagintsev − Bologan/Poikovsky 2003, which continued

21.¥xd5 ¥xd5 22.£xa6 ¦a8 23.£xb6 £g5 24.g3 ¦xa2©

268

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzp-0 9-wQ-+p+-zp0 9+-+lsN-wq-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-tR-+-zP-0 9rzP-+-zP-zP0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

With good play for Black. It is hard to believe White can promote his extra b−pawn here,

taking into account Black's dominating bishop on d5 and the weakness of the light squares around White's king.

269

Tartakower System

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zp-zp-vlpzp-0 9-zp-+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The fianchetto of the Queen's bishop in the Queen's Gambit Declined was played as

early as the end of the 19th century. It can be found in the games of giants like Emanuel

Lasker and Jose−Raul Capablanca, but they omitted the preliminary ...h7−h6.

It was Saviely Tartakower who introduced the modern treatment of the system in

1922 by combining ...h7−h6 and ...b7−b6. He played it regularly and successfully so the

system was named after him. Later Russian players such as Vladimir Makogonov and Igor

Bondarevsky made important contributions to the system, so in Russian the line is often

called the "Tartakower−Makogonov−Bondarevsky" or simply the TMB−system.

A lot of great players have polished their positional skills by playing the Tartakower

System (and, of course, all the connected QGD systems). It was really astonishing to see the

numerous Karpov − Kasparov games in their World Title matches when they played the

same positions with either colour. Many famous players, for example Alexander Beliavsky

and Rafael Vaganian, also do the same. Recently Vladimir Kramnik has joined their

company ... Other notable experts in this system are Nigel Short and Smbat Lputian.

270

The play is usually more quiet than sharp in this complex system. Playing with the

Black pieces you get a solid position but you may find yourself under a certain amount of

pressure throughout the whole game, while with White you may find it difficult to maintain

a small, often vanishing advantage. Both players need to have a good understanding of

some typical kinds of positions such as those with hanging pawns or an isolated pawn, so

studying books and articles concerning these strategical themes is a very useful way to

improve your play in the Tartakower system.

271

QGD/30 Tartakower − White develops Q−

side first [D58]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+PzPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Tartakower System can be also reached by 3...¤f6 4 ¥g5 (Of course, White can prefer

the Exchange variation: 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ¥g5 ¥e7 6 e3 However, it sometimes may also lead to the Tartakower but only to the favourable line for White: 6...h6 7 ¥h4 0-0 8 ¥d3

b6 and so on − this position will be considered in the line 8. cd5. If possible, Black usually takes on d5 with the knight, while here he has already recaptured with the pawn. 4 ¤f3 ¥e7 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 h6 7 ¥h4 b6 is another way) 4...¥e7 5 e3 0-0 6 ¤f3 h6 7 ¥h4 b6 and so on.

4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6

272

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zp-zp-vlpzp-0 9-zp-+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A starting position of the Tartakower System. White has a number of possibilities.

8 £b3

White is going to increase pressure over the d5−pawn and so make it difficult for Black to carry on his program advance ...c6−c5.

Let's take a look at the other options. 8 ¦c1 ¥b7 9 ¥e2 ¤bd7 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0 c5 12 dxc5 (12 ¤e5 ¤xe5 13 dxe5 ¤e4 is good for Black) 12...bxc5 A typical position with hanging pawns has arisen. These pawns definitely require attention as White can create pressure down the open "c" and "d" files. Black must defend carefully, but has reasonable chances of counterplay − he has the b− and e− files for his rooks, and his central pawns are not blockaded − sometimes they can move forward! 13 ¦c2!? Karpov's improvement. (In the game Korchnoi − Karpov/WCh Merano (m/1) 1981 White treated the position unsuccessfully: 13 £c2 ¦c8 14 ¦fd1 £b6 and Black eventually advanced his hanging pawns with great effect) 13...¦c8 14 ¦d2² White created some pressure over the hanging pawns but it seems that Black can hold the position with careful defence.

8 £c2 is often connected with a long castling. 8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 a) 11 0-0-0 c5 12 dxc5 (12 g4!? is a transposition to the main line) should be met by

12...¤d7! with an excellent counterplay for Black, as was shown in the game Kasparov − I.Zaitsev/Baku 1980. (12...bxc5 is weak due to 13 ¤xd5! ¥xd5 14 ¥c4 ¤d7 15

¦xd5 ¦b8 16 b3 and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the pawn)

b) 11 g4!? 11...c5 12 0-0-0

273

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zpl+-+pzp-0 9-zp-+-vl-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+P+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...cxd4 13 exd4 ¤c6 14 h4 b1) 14...¥c8!? is interesting but probably too risky. A possible play is 15 g5!? hxg5 16

hxg5 ¥xg5+ 17 ¢b1 g6 18 ¤xg5 £xg5 (18...¥f5? does not work due to the astonishing 19 £xf5!! gxf5 20 ¦g1 £d6 21 ¤e6+! ¢h7 22 ¤xf8+ ¦xf8 23 ¦d3 followed by Rh3+ winning) 19 f4!? £xf4 20 ¤xd5 £f5 (20...£d6?? 21 £xc6!) 21 ¥d3 £xd5 22 £h2 ¢g7 23 £h6+ ¢f6 24 £xf8 and now Black equalises with the spectacular 24...£xa2+!! 25 ¢xa2 (Not 25 ¢c1 £a1+ 26 ¥b1? £xb1+-+) 25...¥e6+ 26 ¢a3 ¦xf8= but perhaps White's play may be improved

b2) 14...g6 15 g5 hxg5 16 hxg5 b2a) 16...¥g7!? is an alternative which promises good play for Black, for example 17 ¦h4

¦e8 (17...¦c8 is also not bad: 18 ¢b1 ¦e8 19 ¥h3 ¦c7 20 £d2 ¦ce7) 18 ¥h3 b5 19 ¢b1 ¥c8 20 ¥xc8 ¦xc8 21 £d2 £d7 with good play for Black

b2b) 16...¥xg5+ A principled continuation. 17 ¢b1 ¥f6÷ The opened g− and h−files may promise good attacking chances for White but actually Black should be okay, Bellon Lopez − K.Georgiev/Tarrasa 1990.

8 cxd5 As a rule, White only takes on d5 when Black's bishop has already moved to b7 and only after the preliminary ¥h4xf6.

a) In the very first game in which this system was played, Tartakower preferred 8...exd5 which is definitely weaker. The position after 9 ¥d3 (9 £b3 ¥e6 10 ¦d1 was strongly met by Tartakower in 1923: 10...¤e4!? 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 ¥e2 and now 12...¤xc3 followed by 13 ...c5 would have led to a position in which Ra1-d1 looks odd.) 9...¥b7 10 0-0 would have been also arisen from the Exchange Variation but it would be too easy way to solve Black's problems there! In the World Championship quarter−final match between Kasparov and Beliavsky this position was tested four times!

a1) An attempt 10...¤e4 does not solve the problems completely: 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 ¤e5 ¤d7 13 f4 ¤xe5 14 fxe5 c5 15 £e1! ¦ad8 16 ¦d1! £g5 (the ending after 16...f6 17

¥xe4 dxe4 18 exf6 ¦xf6 19 ¦xf6 £xf6 20 dxc5 bxc5 21 ¦xd8+ £xd8 22 ¤a4 is no fun for Black) and now both 17 h4!? (and 17 £e2 ) 17...£h5 18 ¤e2! can prove White's advantage

a2) 10...c5 11 ¤e5 ¤bd7 (11...¤c6?! is weak because of 12 ¥a6! £c8 13 ¥xb7 £xb7 14 ¥xf6 ¥xf6

15 ¤g4 ¥d8 16 ¤xd5 ¤xd4! 17 ¤df6+! ¥xf6 18 ¤xf6+ gxf6 19 exd4 cxd4 20 £xd4± with a big advantage thanks to the weakened position of the Black king) 12 ¥f5! ¤xe5 (Now 12...cxd4 leads to a position which is not much fun to defend: 13 ¤xd7! ¤xd7 14 ¥xe7

274

£xe7 15 £xd4 with a clear advantage) 13 dxe5 ¤e8 (It is important that the typical 13...¤e4? is not possible due to 14 ¤xd5! 13...¤h7!? was maybe more to the point) 14 ¥g3 ¤c7 (14...g6 was a more precise defence, but of course after 15 ¥c2 White keeps a tangible advantage.) 15 £g4ƒ and White's superiority was proved in the game Kasparov − Beliavsky/Moscow (m/5) 1983

b) 8...¤xd5 The main line which was introduced by Savely Tartakower in 1926. The knight's recapture allows Black to reduce White's active possibilities by exchanging a couple of pieces. 9 ¥xe7 (9 ¤xd5 is less precise as Black has 9...¥xh4!? For example, 10 ¤xc7!? ¥xf2+! 11 ¢xf2 £xc7 12 ¦c1 £e7 with a roughly equal position. White has got pawn advantage in center but Black's pressure over the d−file does not let him to advance pawns with all conveniences. Besides, White's king is not quite safe. The game Mamedyarov − Lputian/WCh Tripoli 2004 continued 13 £c2 ¤d7 14 £c7 £b4 15

£c3!? £a4 16 £c4 £xc4 17 ¦xc4 ¤f6 18 ¦c7 ¤d5 19 ¦c1 ¥b7 20 a3 ¦ac8 21 ¥d3 ¤f6 with a good play for Black) 9...£xe7 10 ¤xd5 exd5 Now the bishop can be comfortably placed on e6, then Black can oppose White's pressure on the c−file with the typical advance ...c7−c5, being prepared to play a position with hanging pawns. 11 ¦c1 ¥e6 12 £a4 c5 13 £a3 A standard manoeuvre, White increases the pressure on the pawn on c5 and prevents the possible ...c5−c4. (13 dxc5 bxc5 14 £a3 is less popular. In the game Mamedyarov − Lputian/WCh Tripoli (m/2.5) 2004 Black has achieved very good play after 14...¦c8 15 ¥e2 a5 16 ¤d4 ¤a6! 17 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 18 0-0 ¥d7, freeing the 6th rank for the rook's transfer) 13...¦c8 14 ¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnr+-+k+0 9zp-+-wqpzp-0 9-zp-+l+-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9wQ-+-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An important and well−known position has arisen. 14...¢f8 In view of the possible ending

Black defends his queen with his king, also bringing it closer to the centre. This continuation is very logical, but possibly not best according to theory. (Black has a lot of alternatives: 14...£f8 14...a5 14...£b7 which promise him good play. However, the question is not which move is the best. You can choose any of them, but the move chosen should be part of your defensive plan) 15 dxc5 bxc5 16 0-0 a5!? (in case of 16...¤d7 17 ¦fd1 ¤f6 White is able to place his bishop on a6 by 18 ¥a6 ¦c7 19

¤d4 creating some pressure) 17 ¦c3 ¤d7 18 ¦fc1 ¦cb8 b1) in case of 19 b3 Black solves his problems instantly by playing 19...a4! (19...¦b4 20 ¤e1!

with a clear edge) 20 bxa4 c4! cutting off White's pieces from his a−pawns b2) 19 ¦b3 19...c4 A typical pawn advance. Of course, Black is worried about the d4 square

but not overly so − creating pressure on the b−file in order to obtain counterplay is

275

more important. The game, Winants − Kasparov/Bruxelles 1987 continued 20 ¦xb8+ ¦xb8 21 £xa5 ¦xb2 22 ¤d4 ¢g8 23 ¦a1 ¤c5= with a good play for Black.

A direct attempt to prevent ...c6−c5 8 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 9 cxd5 exd5 10 £d2 can be well met by 10...¥e6 11 ¦d1 £e7! 12 g3 c5! (12...¤d7 13 ¥g2 ¦fd8 14 0-0 ¦ac8 15 ¦c1 c5 is also good for Black)

a) 13 dxc5?! looks risky as White is behind in development: 13...¦d8! 14 cxb6? (14 ¥g2 bxc5

15 0-0 ¤c6³) 14...d4! 15 ¥g2 ¤c6 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 exd4 ¥h3+ 18 ¢f1 ¦xd4ƒ with a strong initiative

b) 13 ¥g2 13...¤c6 14 0-0 cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 16 exd4 £d7= with equal play.

8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 ¦d1

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zplzp-+pzp-0 9-zp-+-vl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+QsN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...c6

Black has some good alternatives, for example: 11...¦e8 12 ¥d3 c5 13 dxc5 ¤d7 14 c6 ¥xc6 15 0-0 ¤c5 16 £c2 ¦c8 and Black can be more or less satisfied with this position − he has a pair of bishops and good development to compensate for the isolated pawn on d5.

12 ¥d3 ¥c8!?

An interesting idea: Black improves the bishop on b7 first. Both 12...¦e8 13 0-0 ¤d7 and 12...¤a6 13 0-0 ¤c7 are usually played. In the game Karpov − Beliavsky/chT−JUG, Niksic 1996 White treated the position in a

rather unexpected way which did not seem to be very promising:

13 0-0!?

13 h3 ¥e6 14 ¥b1 ¦e8 15 ¤e2 £d6 16 0-0 ¤d7= gives Black acceptable play.

13...¥g4 14 ¤e2!?

276

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zp-+-+pzp-0 9-zpp+-vl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+Q+LzPN+-0 9PzP-+NzPPzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Consistent with his previous move − White is not worried about the doubling of the pawns

on the f−file.

14...£e7 15 ¥b1 ¦c8 16 h3 ¥xf3 17 gxf3 ¤d7 18 ¤f4 ¤f8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+-snk+0 9zp-+-wqpzp-0 9-zpp+-vl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-zP-sN-+0 9+Q+-zPP+P0 9PzP-+-zP-+0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position looks very good for Black and probably it is but the unbelievable Karpov

technique which allowed him to outplay his opponent.

277

QGD/31 Tartakower − White develops K−

side first [D58]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 h6 6 ¥h4 0-0 7 e3 b6 8 ¥e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zp-zp-vlpzp-0 9-zp-+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Anatoly Karpov's pet variation. It was thoroughly tested in several World Title matches

between him and Garry Kasparov, curiously enough with both players playing both colours at different times.

8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 0-0 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zplzp-vlpzp-0 9-zp-+psn-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-vL0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

278

is also a good method − White keeps the tension in the centre. (Another standard approach is 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 b4 c6 12 0-0 £d6 13 £b3 with a slight edge) 9...¤bd7 10 £e2 The main line. (Both 10 ¥g3

and 10 ¦c1 are less popular continuations) 10...c5 (10...dxc4 11 ¥xc4 ¤e4 is known to be a good alternative.) 11 ¥g3 ¤e4 (Both 11...cxd4 12 exd4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4

and 11...dxc4 12 ¥xc4 promise White a small advantage) 12 cxd5 exd5 13 ¦ad1 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpl+nvlpzp-0 9-zp-+-+-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9-+-zPn+-+0 9+-sNLzPNvL-0 9PzP-+QzPPzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...¤xg3 The most popular continuation. 14 hxg3 a6 (14...c4 15 ¥b1 seems to be in White's

favour 14...¤f6 looks natural although White can hope for a slight edge by playing 15

dxc5 bxc5 16 ¥a6 £b6 17 ¥xb7 £xb7 18 ¦d2 ¦fd8 19 ¦fd1²) 15 dxc5 bxc5 (15...¤xc5? is bad due to 16 ¥c4

while 15...¥xc5 does not solve Black's problems completely, as after 16 ¥c2 ¤f6 17 ¥b3 White creates rather annoying pressure on the isolated d−pawn) 16 ¥b1 An ambitious approach but it also gives Black more possibilities of active counterplay. (16 e4!? d4

17 ¤b1 would promise White a small but long−term advantage) 16...¤b6 (It is impossible to find a comfortable place for the knight 16...¤f6? would have been strongly met by 17 ¤xd5! ¤xd5 18 e4 with a clear advantage.) 17 a4!²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+l+-vlpzp-0 9psn-+-+-zp0 9+-zpp+-+-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-zPNzP-0 9-zP-+QzPP+0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It is useful to compare this position with the game Korchnoi − Karpov/WCh Merano (m/1)

1981 − the material and the pawn structure is the same, but here White has managed to place his pieces much more successfully and so has secured better chances, Kramnik − Jussupow/Dortmund 1998.

279

8...¥b7 9 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zplzp-+pzp-0 9-zp-+-vl-zp0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-zP-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9P+-+LzPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11 0-0 is an alternative which can lead to the same positions: 11...¤d7 (there are a lot of

alternatives: 11...¦e8 12 b4 c6 11...£e7 12 £b3 ¦d8 11...c5 12 dxc5 ¥xc3 13 bxc3 bxc5) 12 b4 c5 (12...c6) 13 bxc5 bxc5 14 ¦b1 (14 £b3 can be met by 14...cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥xd4! 16 exd4

¤b6 17 a4 ¦b8 18 a5 ¤c4 19 ¥xc4 dxc4 20 £xc4 £d6© with a good play) 14...¥c6 and so on.

11...c5

Black often postpones ...c7−c5 and plays 11...c6, concentrating on development first of all. He hopes either to advance the c−pawn later in a more favourable situation, or to find counterplay elsewhere − maybe with ...a7−a5 or ...b6−b5 followed by ...¤b6−c4 or some kind of kingside activity. 12 0-0

a) There are some alternatives: 12...¦e8 13 £b3 a5!? 14 bxa5 (14 a3 ¤d7 15 b5 can be strongly met by 15...c5! 16 ¤xd5 ¥xd4! 17 ¦ad1 ¤e5! 18 ¤xe5 ¥xd5 19 ¤c4 £g5 20 g3 £f5

with initiative: 21 ¦fe1 £e4 22 f3 £xe3+! 23 £xe3 ¦xe3 24 ¤xe3 ¥xe3+ 25 ¢f1 ¥d4 with excellent ending) 14...¦xa5 15 ¦fe1 ¤d7 16 a4 and here 16...£a8!? looks interesting: 17 ¦ab1 ¥a6 18 ¥xa6 £xa6 19 h3 ¦e6 20 e4 dxe4 21 ¦xe4 ¦xe4 22 ¤xe4 ¥e7= and Black has no problems

b) 12...£d6 13 £b3 ¤d7 14 ¦fe1 ¥e7 (The following idea deserves attention: 14...a5!? 15

bxa5 ¦xa5 16 a4 ¥d8! 17 ¥f1 ¤f6 18 g3 ¥c7= and Black seems to be fine) 15 ¦ab1 a5 16 bxa5 (16 b5 c5 is good for Black) 16...¦xa5 17 a4 This typical position arose in the game Karpov − Kir.Georgiev/Tilburg 1994. White keeps a small pressure but generally Black should be satisfied with his position.

c) 12...a5 13 b5 (13 bxa5 ¦xa5 14 a4 does not bother Black too much: 14...c5 (with the idea ...Nc6−b4) 15 £b3 ¤a6 16 ¦fb1 ¤b4 17 ¤a2 ¤xa2 18 ¦xa2 ¥a6! 19 ¥xa6 ¦xa6= with an equal game) 13...c5 14 ¤e5!? This continuation has recently become popular − White tries to make Black's development more difficult. (Slow play does not bother Black very much. For example, 14 ¦e1 ¦e8 15 ¦c1 ¤d7 16 g3 ¤f8 17 ¤a4 c4 with good play.)

c1) 14...¥xe5!? is a principled alternative. After 15 dxe5 d4 16 exd4 cxd4 17 ¤a4 Black should probably continue by 17...£g5!? (the ugly move 17...¦a7?! creates the threat

280

...Qd7−d5. However, it can be easily parried while the rook will feel uncomfortable on a7. In the game Khalifman − Beliavsky/FIDE GP Moscow 2002 White has achieved a big advantage after 18 f4 £d5 19 ¦f2 ¤d7 20 ¦c1±) 18 ¥g4 £xe5 19 ¤xb6 ¦a7 20 ¦b1 ¥e4 (20...¦d8!?) 21 ¦e1 f5 22 ¥f3 ¢h8 23 ¤c4² White has achieved better chances but Black was able to hold balance

c2) 14...£c7 15 ¤g4 ¥e7 This attempt to secure the bishop is logical but risky − Black postpones the development of his Q−side. (15...¤d7!? looks safer. A possible play would be 16 ¥f3 ¦ad8! 17 ¤xd5 ¥xd5 18 ¥xd5 cxd4„ with a good counterplay.) 16 ¥f3 ¦d8 17 ¦c1 c4 (17...¦a7 was also tried but without much success: 18 ¤e5!? £d6 19

¥g4! Locking up the knight b8. 19...¥a8 20 ¤a4 ¦c7 21 £c2 ¥b7 22 f4 c4 23 ¤c3± with a certain advantage) 18 ¤e5 ¥b4 Black is going to decrease the pressure on d5 by exchanging one of the attackers, after then exchanging the knight e5 by ...Nb8−d7. In the game Onischuk − Rychagov/Moscow Aeroflot 2002 White came up with a very interesting idea: 19 ¤xd5! ¥xd5 20 ¥xd5 ¦xd5 21 ¦xc4 £d8 22 £f3ƒ with annoying initiative for the piece although everything is still far from clear.

d) 12...¤d7 13 £b3 b5!? This is not the most popular but also quite a typical method of playing this type of position. Of course, it creates some weaknesses and the bishop on b7 is not the Black's proud but, on the other hand, he is going to move his knight to c4, after which White would hardly find much play on the Q−side. 14 a4 a6 15 a5 White prevents the Black knight's manoeuvre but, on the other hand, it completely closes the Q−side − the now the only way to open the position is the advance e3−e4. (The idea to keep tension is also worthy of consideration: 15 ¥d3 ¦e8 16 ¦fe1 ¤b6 17 e4

dxe4 18 ¥xe4 ¤c4 19 ¦ad1 £c7 20 ¥b1² followed by Qb3−c2 and White's chances are preferable) 15...¦e8 This position arose in the game Sturua − Lputian/Bled (ol) 2002 which continued 16 ¤a2 White begins to exploit the Black weaknesses − the knight is going to d3, then maybe to c5. However, he can hardly pose problems without e3−e4. (At least, White should keep Black in tension by the possibility to advance e3−e4 so it seems more logical to move another knight to d3: 16 ¤e1!? followed by Ne1-d3 would be an improvement) 16...¥e7 17 ¤c1 ¥d6 18 ¤d3 ¦e6 19 ¦ad1 £f6 and Black began his K−side manoeuvres although White's position is still not so bad.

12 bxc5 bxc5 13 ¦b1 ¥c6

13...£a5 does not solve Black's problems completely: 14 £d2 cxd4 15 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 16 exd4 ¥c6 (16...¥a6 17 ¤b5 £d8 18 0-0) 17 ¤b5 £d8 18 0-0² with a small but stable advantage.

14 0-0 ¤d7 15 ¥b5 £c7

281

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zp-wqn+pzp-0 9-+l+-vl-zp0 9+Lzpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position was tested many times in the games between Karpov and Kasparov. As usual

Black managed to hold the balance, but only after very careful defence.

16 £d3

White has also tried other possibilities, but it is not so easy to put serious problems for Black. The idea of Karpov's second Vladimir Epishin deserves attention: 16 £d2 ¦fd8 17 ¦fc1 ¦ab8 18 a4!? The game Epishin − Lugovoi/St.Petersburg 1996 continued by 18...£d6 19 h3 cxd4 (19...¦b6!? 20 a5 ¦bb8 deserves serious attention) 20 exd4! (the play against the isolated pawn does not promise much: 20 ¤xd4 ¥a8 21 ¥f1

¤e5 with good counterplay) and now Black should have preferred 20...¦dc8 21 ¥f1 (21 £d3 g6 21 ¥xc6 ¦xb1 22 ¦xb1 £xc6=) 21...¤f8= moving the knight to e6 and Black seems to be fine.

16...¦fd8 17 ¦fd1

17 ¦fc1 is another possibility.

17...¦ab8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-tr-+k+0 9zp-wqn+pzp-0 9-+l+-vl-zp0 9+Lzpp+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sNQzPN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+R+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

282

18 ¥xc6 £xc6

The preliminary 18...¦xb1 19 £xb1 £xc6 allows White to create some pressure on the queenside by 20 £b5 ¤b8 21 £a5 £b6 22 £xb6 axb6 23 ¦b1

19 ¦xb8 ¦xb8 20 dxc5 ¥xc3 21 £xc3 £xc5 22 £xc5 ¤xc5 23 h3²

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-+k+0 9zp-+-+pzp-0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-snp+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zPN+P0 9P+-+-zPP+0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position has simplified to the endgame which is drawn but not completely equal −

Black still has to play precisely to achieve his desired result, Karpov − Kasparov/WCh Moscow (m/8) 1985.

283

QGD/32 − Classical Approach ...Nb8−d7

[D60-66]


1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤c3 ¥e7 4 ¤f3 ¤f6 5 ¥g5 0-0 6 e3 ¤bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpnvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A classical approach. Black is going to play ...c7−c5 immediately or to capture on c4

followed by ...¤f6−d5, to exchange the dark−squared bishops and then the knight on d7 would be helpful to advance either ...c5 or ...e5, opening the way for the light−squared bishop.

Black may also include 6...h6 7 ¥h4 ¤bd7 (7...b6 leads to the Tartakower Defence., while 7...¤e4 to the Lasker Defence) 8 ¦c1 As a rule, the inclusion of moves ...h7−h6 and Bg5−h4 is useful for Black in most of the QGD variations. However, here it almost forces him to play a rather unusual set−up: 8...c6 9 ¥d3 dxc4 10 ¥xc4 b5 (here the normal simplifying strategy 10...¤d5 does not bring the desired effect because of the simple retreat 11 ¥g3) 11 ¥d3 a6

284

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+nvlpzp-0 9p+p+psn-zp0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-vL0 9+-sNLzPN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

So Black is playing a strange mixture of the Queen's Gambit on the K−side and Meran on

the opposite flank! (Recently Black sometimes tries to realize a typical ...c6−c5 without advancing his b5−pawn rather than supporting it: 11...¥b7 12 0-0 ¦c8) 12 a4 White attacks the pawn on b5 and so makes it more difficult for Black to advance ...c6−c5 and open diagonal for his light−squared bishop.

a) 12 e4?! can be strongly met by 12...¤xe4! 13 ¥xe4 (13 ¥xe7? ¤xc3) 13...¥xh4 14 ¥xc6 ¦a7 with excellent play for Black:

b) 12 0-0 c5 is fine for Black c) In case of 12 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 13 ¤e4 ¥e7 14 0-0 Black gets acceptable play by 14...f5!

15 ¤g3 (15 ¤c3 c5„) 15...c5„ d) 12 ¥b1!? with idea to build a battery over the diagonal b1-h7 is rather interesting:

12...¥b7 (In case of 12...c5?! 13 dxc5 ¤xc5 (13...¥xc5 seems more accurate but here White can also hope for advantage after the same 14 £c2 and Black must be very careful. For example, 14...£b6 may lead to the problems after 15 ¥xf6! ¤xf6 16 ¤e5!

and it is not so easy to meet Ne5−g4! without any concessions) 14 £c2 Black faced real problems) 13 £c2 c5 14 dxc5 b4! (14...¥xc5 could be met with a direct 15 ¦d1! g5

16 ¥g3² with a certain advantage) 15 ¦d1! g5! 16 ¤xg5! hxg5! (In case of 16...bxc3 White should probably play 17 ¤xe6! £a5 (17...¥e4?! 18 ¤xd8 ¥xc2 19 ¤c6! ¥xc5 20

¥xc2 cxb2 21 ¥f5 ¦fc8 22 ¤e5!±) 18 b4! £xb4 19 ¦d4 £b2 20 £f5 with better chances although the position remains extremely complicated and requires serious analysis) 17 ¥xg5 This position arose in the game Vladimirov − Ubilava/USR−ch FL Volgodonsk 1981, which continued 17...bxc3 (Perhaps 17...¦e8!? was stronger. White's attack looked very powerful after 18 ¦d4!? (in case of 18 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 19 £h7+

¢f8 20 ¤e4 Black keeps defending by 20...¥g7 21 ¤d6 £c7 22 0-0 ¤xc5 23 ¤xe8 ¦xe8÷)

18...bxc3 19 ¦g4 but in fact HIARCS 12 finds no win for White, giving only repetition of moves after 19...¢h8 20 ¦h4+ ¢g7 21 ¥h6+ ¢h8 22 c6!? (22 ¥g5+ ¢g7

23 ¥h6+ ¢h8) 22...¥xc6 23 £xc3 e5 24 £xc6 £a5+ 25 ¢e2 ¦ec8 26 £f3 £b5+ 27 ¢d1 £d5+ 28 ¢e2 £b5+! (28...£xf3+?? 29 gxf3!+−) 29 ¢d1 £d5+=) 18 ¥xf6 (Surely not 18 ¦xd7?? £xd7 19 ¥xf6 £d2+!-+) 18...¤xf6 19 ¦xd8 ¦fxd8 20 £xc3 a5! 21 0-0 ¦ac8 22 £xa5 ¦xc5 23 £a7² and White has got material advantage. However, Black's pieces are very active and it should give him sufficient counter chances.

12...bxa4 (12...b4 should be met with 13 ¥xf6! gxf6! (13...¤xf6 14 ¤e4 allows White to take control over the key c5−square) 14 ¤e4 f5 15 ¤g3 c5 16 e4! cxd4 17 exf5 e5

285

(17...¤c5? 18 ¦xc5!! ¥xc5 19 £c1!+−) 18 ¦c6!? (a simple 18 0-0 was also good enough)

18...¤f6 19 £c1! with a strong attack) 13 ¤xa4 (13 £xa4 allowed 13...c5) 13...£a5+ 14 ¤d2 ¥b4 (here 14...c5?! can be simply met by 15 ¥xf6) 15 ¤c3 c5 16 ¤b3 (In case of 16 ¤c4 £c7 17 ¥g3 Black achieved a good play by 17...£c6! 18 0-0 ¥b7 19 f3 cxd4 20

exd4 ¤h5!=) 16...£d8 (16...£b6 does not equalise: 17 dxc5 (17 0-0 cxd4 18 ¤a4!?

deserves attention as well) 17...¥xc5 18 ¤xc5 ¤xc5 19 ¥xf6 ¤xd3+ 20 £xd3 gxf6 21 0-0² and so on.) 17 0-0 cxd4 (17...¥b7?! failed to 18 ¥xf6!? ¤xf6 (18...£xf6 19

¥e4!) 19 ¤xc5 ¥xc5 20 dxc5 ¦c8 21 ¤a4 £d5 22 f3 with extra pawn) 18 ¤xd4 ¥b7 19 ¥e4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+l+n+pzp-0 9p+-+psn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vl-sNL+-vL0 9+-sN-zP-+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Exchange of the light−squared bishops increases White's control over c6−square, where he

is heading his knight to. 19...£b8 (19...£b6?! is more risky: 20 ¤a4 £a7 21 ¦c7 ¤xe4 22 ¦xd7 a5 23 £g4 g5! (23...£a6? does not prevent 24 ¤xe6!) 24 ¥xg5 and Black's defence wasn't easy in the game A.Kharitonov − Nenashev/Omsk 1985) 20 ¤c6! (20 ¥g3 £a7 21 ¤c6 ¥xc6 22 ¥xc6 ¦ac8 23 ¤a4 ¦fd8 24 ¥f3 a5 Black has got a solid position, Fischer − Spassky/Reykjavik (m/12) 1972) 20...¥xc6 21 ¥xc6 ¦a7 22 ¥g3 ¤e5 This position has been tested in some games. Perhaps the most promising continuation is 23 £d4!? ¥d6 (not 23...¤xc6? 24 ¥xb8 ¤xd4 25 ¥xa7 ¥xc3 26 ¥xd4+−) 24 ¤e4² and White maintained a small advantage, Kamsky − Salov/Candidates (m/3) 1995.

7 £c2

The most popular set−up. White keeps in mind an aggressive Q−side castling but he may also castle short, simply placing his rook on d1 in order to make Black's typical play in the center more problematic.

7 £b3 is less to the point. Sometimes this position after 7...c6 may be reached with a different order of moves, when White met Black's Meran set−up with an early Qd1-b3. Then a possible play is 8 ¥d3 b6 9 0-0 ¥b7 10 ¦fd1 dxc4 11 ¥xc4 ¤d5 with acceptable play for Black, Agrest − Movsesian/Mallorca (ol) 2004.

7...c5

286

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-zpp+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here 7...h6 is also possible. 8 ¥h4 ( In his turn, White might consider a very unexpected 8

cxd5!?, ignoring the threat to his bishop. After a principled 8...hxg5!? (8...exd5 gives White a chance to get a good version of the Carlsbad by 9 ¥f4!? The game Kasparov − Portisch/Brussels 1986 continued 9...c5!? 10 ¥e2 b6 11 0-0 ¥b7 12 ¦fd1 ¦c8 13 dxc5 bxc5

14 a4!² and White has maintained a small but comfortable edge) 9 dxe6 fxe6 10 ¤xg5 ¤b6 11 h4 White gets a certain initiative. However, the position remains very unclear, for example: 11...¥b4 (11...c5 deserves attention among other continuations: 12 h5 cxd4 13 h6 dxc3 14 ¦d1 £e8 15 hxg7 ¢xg7 16 ¦h7+ ¢g8 17 ¦d4! White's attack looks very strong but it seems that Black holds on: 17...cxb2 18 ¦dh4 ¤bd5 19 f4!? b1£+ 20 £xb1 ¥b4+ 21 ¢f2 ¤c3! 22 ¦h8+ (22 £c2? ¤ce4+! 23

¤xe4 ¤xh7!-+) 22...¢g7 23 ¦4h7+ ¤xh7 24 ¦xh7+ (24 £xh7+?? ¢f6-+) 24...¢g8 25 ¦h8+=) 12 h5 £e7 13 h6 e5 14 dxe5 £xe5 15 hxg7 ¢xg7 16 ¦h7+ ¤xh7 17 £xh7+ ¢f6 18 ¤ge4+ ¢e6 19 0-0-0 ¥xc3 20 bxc3 and White's initiative is sufficient only for equality: 20...¦f7 21 £h6+ ¢e7 22 £h4+ ¦f6 23 £h7+ ¦f7 24 £h4+= with repetition of moves. Yet, these variations should be checked more thoroughly...) 8...c6 (8...c5 is a logical alternative) 9 0-0-0!? With inclusion of moves ...h7−h6 and Bg5−h4 the long castling seems more promising as it will be easier for White to get to the Black's king. 9...a5 This is one of many Black's possibilities.

a) 9...dxc4 10 ¥xc4 b5 is playable: 11 ¥d3 ¥b7 12 ¢b1 ¦c8 and so on b) 9...b6 seems a bit slow: 10 ¦g1 ¥b7 11 g4 c5 12 g5 hxg5 13 ¤xg5 and so on. c) 9...a6!? deserves attention. Here a straightforward 10 e4 does not bother Black

much: 10...dxc4 11 e5 (11 ¥xc4!?) 11...¤d5 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 ¥xc4 ¤xc3 14 £xc3 c5„ with counterplay

10 ¦g1 (10 cxd5 exd5 11 ¥d3 a4!? gives Black excellent counterplay) 10...dxc4 11 g4!? (White does not want to waste time for the bishop's retreat after 11 ¥xc4 b5 12 ¥d3 a4 and Black advances his Q−side pawns first) 11...b5 12 g5 hxg5 13 ¤xg5 This position arose in the game Mikhalevski − Speelman/Gibraltar 2008. Here something like 13...a4!? should have been played, intending to open White's king by ...a4−a3 and keeping support of the knight on f6. The position was extremely complicated and it certainly required thorough analysis. (while after 13...¤b6? White could have launched a powerful attack by 14 ¥g3!, intending to disturb the knight on f6 by Bg3−e5. Black faced real problems: 14...£e8

287

a) 14...b4? was losing by force: 15 ¥e5! g6 (or 15...b3 16 axb3 cxb3 17 £b1 ¤bd7 18 ¥c4

£e8 19 ¤ce4‚) 16 ¤xe6!! ¥xe6 17 ¦xg6+! fxg6 18 £xg6+ ¢h8 19 ¥d3! cxd3 20 £h5+! ¢g8 21 ¦g1+ ¥g4 22 ¦xg4+ ¤xg4 23 £g6# checkmate!

b) 14...¤bd7 15 ¥e5 would probably lead to the line 14. .Qe8 after 15...£e8 16 ¤ce4 etc.

15 ¥e5 ¤bd7 16 ¤ce4 'etc.' 16...g6 (16...¤xe4? 17 ¤xe6!+−) 17 ¤xf7!! ¢xf7 (17...¦xf7 18 ¤d6!

£f8 19 ¦xg6+ ¦g7 20 ¥h3! ¤xe5 21 dxe5+−) 18 ¦xg6!! ¦g8 (18...¢xg6? 19 ¤xf6+) 19 ¤g5+ ¢f8 20 ¤xe6+ ¢f7 21 ¤f4! ¤f8 22 ¦xg8 ¢xg8 23 ¥e2‚ with decisive attack.)

In case of the slow 7...c6 White may continue 8 ¦d1 with a slight edge: (8 cxd5 looks a bit premature: 8...¤xd5!? (8...exd5 leads to the Carlsbad, in which White keeps a small advantage) 9 ¥xe7 £xe7 10 ¥e2 ¦e8 11 0-0 ¤xc3 12 bxc3 e5 13 a4! e4 14 ¤d2 ¤f6 15 ¦fb1 ¥g4! and Black has achieved acceptable play, Volkov − Zvjagintsev/Moscow 2005) 8...b6 9 ¥d3 ¥b7 10 0-0 h6 (A typical 10...dxc4 11 ¥xc4

¤d5 does not fully equalise: 12 ¥xe7 £xe7 13 e4², but 10...¦c8!? seems quite playable)

11 ¥f4!? a) 11 ¥h4 ¦c8 is acceptable for Black. A possible play would be 12 cxd5 (or 12 ¥g3

dxc4 13 ¥xc4 b5 14 ¥e2 b4 followed by ...c6−c5) 12...cxd5 13 £b3 ¤e4 14 ¥xe7 £xe7 15 ¦c1 ¤df6 with slightly worse but very solid position

b) White also tried 11 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 12 e4 dxe4 (12...dxc4 13 ¥xc4 a6!? was worthy of consideration) 13 ¤xe4 £c7 14 c5 and here Black can think about 14...¦fd8 15 ¦fe1 ¤xe4 16 ¥xe4 bxc5 17 dxc5 ¥f6 with a good play.

11...dxc4 a) 11...a6 is a bit slow: 12 e4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4 b5 14 ¥e2 ¦c8 15 e5 ¤d5 16 ¤xd5 cxd5

17 £d2 with advantage b) 11...¤h5 does not solve the problems: 12 ¥e5 ¤xe5 (12...f5?! was well met by 13

cxd5 cxd5 14 ¤b5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xe5 ¥d6 16 ¦c1 ¦c8 17 £e2 ¦xc1 18 ¦xc1 ¤f6 19 ¤xd6 £xd6 20

¥a6 with a clear advantage, while in case of 12...f6?! White can exploit weaknesses of light squares around Black's king by playing 13 ¤h4! fxe5 14 ¥h7+ ¢h8 15 ¤g6+ ¢xh7

16 ¤xf8+ ¢g8 17 ¤xe6ƒ with initiative) 13 dxe5 with better chances c) A typical 11...¦c8!? seems quite playable for Black. 12 ¥xc4 b5 13 ¥d3 £b6!? (13...a6 is quite playable as well) 14 e4 c5! This clever pawn

sacrifice gives Black excellent counter chances, Tkachiev − Graf/FIDE WCh Tripoli 2004.

8 ¦d1

288

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-zpp+-vL-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In case of 8 cxd5 Black might think about 8...cxd4!?, which helps him to avoid a position

with an isolated pawn on d5. However, his pieces remains a bit passive. (after 8...¤xd5 9 ¥xe7 £xe7 10 ¤xd5 exd5 11 ¥d3 (White also tried 11 dxc5 ¤xc5 12 ¥e2,

hoping to maintain a small advantage in a typical position with the opponent's isolated pawn. A possible line is 12...¥g4 13 0-0 ¦ac8 14 ¦ac1 Here Black played a number of moves, keeping a slightly worse but defendable position. For example, 14...£f6!? 15 £d2 ¤e4 16 £d4 ¥xf3 17 £xf6 ¤xf6 18 ¥xf3 ¦fd8 19 ¦fd1 ¢f8 20 ¢f1 ¢e7 with a drawish endgame) 11...g6 (11...h6 12 dxc5 ¤xc5 13 ¦c1 ¤xd3+ 14 £xd3 ¥g4 15 ¤d4 £g5

16 £d2 ¦ac8 17 0-0 gives White a stable advantage) 12 dxc5 (An attempt to slow down Black's development by 12 0-0?! fails to 12...c4! 13 ¥e2 b5 followed by ...a7−a5, ...b5−b4 with strong play on the Q−side) 12...¤xc5 13 0-0 (13 ¦c1 allows Black to solve the problems by a concrete 13...¤xd3+ 14 £xd3 ¥f5 followed by ...¥f5−e4) 13...¥g4!? Black should be more active if he does not want to keep defending during next 40 or so moves with only two possible results. 14 ¤d4 This position has been tested many times. White is usually able to maintain a small edge thanks to his opponent's isolated pawn but Black can usually hold on with accurate defence. Yet, such kind of play is not to everyone's taste. The game Pr.Nikolic − Kir.Georgiev/FIDE GP 2002 continued 14...¤e6!? (Both 14...¦fc8 15 ¦ac1 ¥d7 16 £d2², and 14...¦ac8 15 ¦ac1² does not change much − both lines have been played many times) 15 ¤b3 ¦ac8 16 £d2 ¤c5 17 £b4 ¥e6 18 ¦ac1 b6 19 ¥e2 ¦c7 20 ¤d4 ¦fc8 21 ¦c2 ¥d7 22 ¦fc1 and White maintained a slight edge) 9 ¤xd4 ¤xd5 10 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 11 ¥e2 ¤f6 12 0-0 ¥d7 13 ¦fd1 £b6 In the game Moiseenko − Iordachescu/EU−ch Warsaw 2005 White came up with 14 ¤a4!? (14 ¥f3 can be met with 14...e5!? 15 ¤b3 ¦ac8 16 ¦d2 a5!?

with a good play, while the ending after 14 £b3 £xb3 15 ¤xb3 is certainly defendable for Black. For example, 15...¦ac8 16 ¤e4 ¥a4 17 ¤xf6+ gxf6 and so on) 14...£a5?! (14...¥xa4! 15 £xa4 ¦fd8 was better with a slightly worse but quite acceptable play) 15 £c5! £xa4 (In the endgame after 15...£xc5 16 ¤xc5 White kept annoying pressure over Black's Q−side) 16 b3! b6! 17 £xe7 £a5 18 a4² and White kept the better chances thanks to his more active pieces.

8...cxd4

289

8...£a5 is an alternative: 9 cxd5 ¤xd5 10 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 11 ¥d3 (11 ¥e2 is less active: 11...¤f6 (11...¤d5!? deserves attention, for example: 12 0-0 ¤xc3 13 bxc3 b6 with acceptable play for Black, 11...cxd4 is not completely satisfactory for Black: 12 ¦xd4

¤f6 13 0-0 ¥d7 14 ¦fd1 ¥c6 15 b4²) 12 0-0 ¥d7 13 ¤e5 cxd4 (13...¦fd8 14 ¤xd7 ¦xd7 15

dxc5 £xc5 16 ¦xd7 ¤xd7 17 ¦d1² is somewhat better for White) 14 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 15 ¦xd4 ¤f6 16 ¥f3 ¦ab8 White retains some pressure but Black's position is very solid. ) 11...¤f6 12 0-0 cxd4 (An attempt to develop the bishop to the long diagonal by 12...b6? fails to 13 ¤e4!) 13 ¤xd4 This position has been tested many times. 13...e5 Black also tried a few other options.

a) 13...¥d7 does not solve all the problems: 14 ¤e4 ¤ed5 15 ¤b3 £d8 (15...£a4?! is worse: 16 ¤ec5 £h4 17 ¤xb7 ¦ac8 18 ¤7c5 (or 18 £e2 ¥c6 19 ¤7a5 ¥a8 20 ¥a6±)

18...¥c6 19 £e2 ¤b4 20 ¥b5± with extra pawn) 16 ¤bc5 (16 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 17 ¤c5!? is interesting: 17...¦c8 (17...£e7? 18 ¥xh7++−) 18 ¤xd7! ¦xc2 19 ¤xf8! but Black is still doing well after 19...¦c8 20 ¥xh7+ ¢xf8 (or 20...¤xh7 21 ¦xd8 ¦xd8 22

¤xh7 ¢xh7 followed by ...Rd8−d2) 21 ¦xd8+ ¦xd8 22 ¥c2 ¦d2 23 ¦c1 ¤g4 with a drawish ending) 16...¦c8 17 £b3 ¤xe4 18 ¤xd7 £xd7 19 ¥xe4² with a slight but comfortable edge.

b) 13...h6!? is rather solid: 14 ¤e4 (or 14 ¥e2 ¥d7 15 ¥f3 ¦ab8 16 ¦d3 ¦fc8 17 £d2 ¥e8

and so on) 14...¤ed5 15 a3 ¥d7 16 ¤b3 (16 £c5!? deserved attention: 16...£xc5 17

¤xc5² with a slight edge in the endgame) 16...£b6 17 ¤bc5 ¥c6 18 b4 ¤xe4 19 ¥xe4 ¤f6 and Black has no problems.

14 ¤b3 £b6 (Other retreats are not better: 14...£c7 15 ¤e4 £xc2 16 ¤xf6+ gxf6 17 ¥xc2², or 14...£b4 15 ¤e4 ¤ed5 16 ¥c4² and White keeps the better chances.) 15 ¤e4² Black's position is solid enough but White still keeps pressure thanks to his more active pieces, Benjamin − Morovic Fernandez/New York 1987.

9 ¦xd4!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nvlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+p+-vL-0 9-+PtR-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+-zPPzP0 9+-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¤xd4 has also been tried but it does not bother Black very much. He can react by 9...dxc4

(9...¤b6 is also playable: 10 ¥e2 ¥d7 11 ¥xf6 ¥xf6 12 cxd5 ¤xd5 13 ¤xd5 exd5 14 £c5 (14 0-0 £b6 15 ¦d2 ¦ac8 16 £b1 g6 17 ¦fd1 ¦fd8 18 g3²) 14...£b6 (14...¥e7 15 £xd5

¥b4+ 16 ¢f1², 14...¥a4!? 15 b3 ¥e7 16 £c3 ¦c8 17 £d2 ¥d7 18 0-0²) 15 £xb6 axb6 16 a3² with a slight edge) 10 ¥xc4 £a5 (10...£c7 11 ¥e2 a6 12 0-0²) 11 ¥h4 (11 ¥b5?! a6 12

290

¤b3 £c7 13 ¥d3 ¤e5³) 11...¤e5 12 ¥e2 ¥d7 (12...¤g6 is worthy of consideration: 13 ¥g3 e5!? (13...¥d7!?) 14 ¤b3 £b6 but here White would have got the better chances by playing 15 h4!? (15 0-0 ¥e6 16 ¥d3 ¥d6 is okay for Black in the game C.Hansen − Kveinys, Groningen 1990) 15...h5 16 0-0!? (16 ¥d3 ¥g4„) 16...¥g4 (16...¥e6 17 ¥d3²)

17 ¥xg4 hxg4 18 £f5²) 13 0-0 ¦fc8 14 £b1 ¥e8 and Black is doing well. 9 exd4 b6 is fine for Black.

9...h6 10 cxd5!? ¤xd5

10...hxg5?! was unnecessary: 11 dxe6! (or 11 d6 ¥xd6 12 ¦xd6²) 11...fxe6 12 ¤xg5 £b6 13 ¤xe6! with annoying initiative.

11 ¥xe7 ¤xe7 12 ¥e2

12 ¥b5 can be met by the same 12...£c7 (12...a6?? 13 ¥xd7 ¥xd7 14 £d2+−) 13 0-0 ¤b6 and so on.

12...£c7 13 0-0 ¤b6 14 ¦fd1²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppwq-snpzp-0 9-sn-+p+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-tR-+-+0 9+-sN-zPN+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Thanks to his slight lead in development White is more active but it is not so easy to gain

real benefit, Carlsen − Jussupow/Solingen 2008.

291

queen's gambit declined [d30 39] [d50 59] [e01 09]d31 qgd/2 exchange variation − 3...be7...

Documents