The Easiest Sicilian

A Black Repertoire with 1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 tlJc6

GM Atanas Kolev
GM Trajko Nedev

Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Current Theory and Practice Series

The Easiest Sicilian

Translation and editing by Semko Semkov

Cover design by Kaloj an Nachev

Copyright© 20 0 8 by Atanas Kolev and Trajko Nedev

Printed in Bulgaria
ISBN: 978-954 8782 66-1
 Contents
1 e4 c5 2 �t'3 �c6

Foreword by Atanas Kolev s

Part 1 The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS 8

Part 2 The Positional Variation 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jc3 eS

6 lt:JdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 lt:Ja 3 bS 9 lt:JdS �e7 44
Part 3 10 �xf6 �xf6 11 c3 0 -0 64

Part 4 12 lt:Jc 2 �gs 13 a4 bxa4 14 ruca4 as lS !c 4 !gb8 16 b3 c±>h8 17 lt:Jce3 92

Part S Alternatives to the Main Line after 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS fS llS
Part 6 9 hf6 gxf6 10 lt:Jd S fS 11 exfS MS 129

Part ? The Main Line 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 140

Part 8 12 0-0 160

Part 9 6 lt:JdbS d6 7 lt:Jd S 178

Part 10 Unusual Seventh Moves 6 lt:JdbS d6 193

Part 11 Unusual Sixth Moves 20 1

Part 12 Rare Lines 3 c3 ; 3 lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 4 eS 216

Part 13 The Novosibirsk Variation 9 hf6 gxf6 10 lt:Jd S �g7 223

Bibliography

Books
Opening for White According to Anand, vol. 10 by Alexander Khalifman,
Chess Stars 2007
The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005
The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005
The Sicilian Defence. The 5 . . . es System (in Russian) by Sveshnikov,
Fizkultura i Sport 1988
The B bS Sicilian by Richard Palliser, Eve ryman Chess 2005

Periodicals
Informator
New in Chess
Chess Today

Internet resources
Databases
The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com)
10 Days (Chessmix.com)
Inte rnet Chess Club (chessclub.com)
ChessPublishing.com forum
Chesspro . ru

4
 Foreword

About the Title 11 c3 i.gS 12 tlJc2 0 - 0 13 a4 bxa4 14

The book was already finished, but !!xa4 as lS i.c4 !!b8 16 b3 <jf h8
I still had doubts how to entitle it.
At first I thought about "The Most
Controversial Sicilian. " It seemed a
proper name for a repertoire, based
on the Sveshnikov. Indeed, for only
30 years, this brainchild of sever­
al players from Chelyabinsk has
passed through the phases of total
denial, angry attempts of refuting
this defiance to the classical laws of
positional chess, suspicious accept­
ance, to be finally adopted by most
leading grandmasters as Kasparov, We are already in the middle­
Topalov, Kramnik, Leko, Khalif­ game, but independent play is still
man, to name a few. far ahead. Furthermore, Black's
Then a series of internet blitz plan is obvious. He wants to push
games struck me with another char­ f S right away or after . . . g6 in case
acteristic feature of the modern White plays 17 tlJe 3 . Strategical­
Sveshnikov. ly, the Sveshnikov is a rather sim­
I realised how easy it was to ple opening. You read part 3 and
include it in one's repertoire? 4, leaf through the "Quick Reper­
Most of my games reached in toire" chapters of the other parts of
seconds the position on the follow­ the book, and you are ready to test
ing diagram. a whole new Sicilian!
1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 The so-called Positional varia­
tlJxd4 tlJf6 S tlJc3 eS 6 tlJdbS d6 7 i.gS tion against the Sveshnikov has be­
a6 8 tlJa3 bS 9 tlJdS i.e7 10 hf6 hf6 come lately the first choice of White

s
Foreword

players of all levels. A quick check would be playing for only two re­
in my database shows that in sults . For instance, in the Positional
200 6 - 200 8 it occurred two times variation I recommend 11. . . 0-0 ,
more often than the lines with 9 while 1 1 . . . �gS, followed b y 12 ... CiJe 7,
.ixf6 . Apparently fashion, but also is left for a backup line.
fear of the sharper variations, have I follow the same approach after
a strong impact on White's prefer­ 1 e4 cs 2 CiJf3 CiJc6 3 �bs. White of­
ences. Otherwise it is difficult to ex­ ten tries to ki l any life in the posi­
plain this fondness of a line which is tion, hoping to squeeze us without
too well explored, aspires to a small any risk thanks to his flexible pawn
positional edge at best, and is of­ formation. I devoted 36 pages to ad­
ten rather boring . Of course Anand vocate 3 . . . CiJf6 ! in this popular sys­
or Shirov may have every reason to tem. You will find important new
like it, provided it brings them full plans, developed by me or Nedev,
points sometimes, but they have su­ which bring about double-edged
per technique and deep analyses of unbalanced play. The fine point of
the a rising positions and even end­ this provocative move is that White
games . Thelowerthe level, theworse must pick up the gauntlet and push
are White's statistics. Below 2400, eS at some moment, or he should
first players scored only about SO forget about opening advantage. Af­
percent in the last two years . ter eS, however, Black obtains clear
Currently I do not see any counterplay. In some lines he can
serious theoretical problems even castle long.
for Black .
I worked hard to neutralise About the Authorship
two fresh ideas of Khalifman and I have been analysing the Svesh­
Anand, and hope that our improve­ nikov for years with my friend GM
ments will withstand practical test. Vasil Spasov. It is his main reper­
I show that Black's bishop pair is a toire as Black, while I was more in­
fair match to the "magical " control terested for the White side. Gradu­
of the centre, that attracts so many ally I discovered that Black was in
white players. Most importantly, I perfect shape and I started playing
propose an ambitious repertoire, it for both colours. When I finished
where White must take considera­ war king on "The Sharpest Sicilian",
ble risks if he wants to aspire even I decided to go on with this series
to the slightest advantage . My aim and write about the Sveshnikov.
was not so much to offer a survival As a coach of the Bulgarian wom­
guide for Black, but rather pick out en's team, I had enough experience
variations that lead to rich and dou­ with explaining the most topical
ble-edged play, with decent winning lines of that system. Still, I felt that
chances for him. I rejected from the I needed an outside critical view on
repertoire all the lines where Black my analyses. Thus I contacted GM

6
 Foreword

Nedev, who is one of the most de­ not a Sveshnikov fan. Then comes
voted protagonist of the Sveshnik­ the Positional variation, which is
ov and has ample practical expe­ the centre of our repertoire. Thus
rience. We went together through you'll be able to start playing the
all my files to synchronise our as­ Sveshnikov even before finishing
sessments . During the last year, we the book.
had to repair some variations in the The closing Part 13 considers
Rossolimo, (3 �bS) analyse the new the Novosibirsk variation. (1 e4 cS
ideas, developed by Khalifman, and 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S
fight the sneaky novelty of Anand l2Jc3 es 6 ltJdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3
against Shirov in Linares 20 0 8 . bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS �g7) It is a
W e also dropped some lines o f the stand-alone system which is out­
Novosibirsk variation, which turned side our repertoire. We included it
to be unfit for playing for win. to provide you with a backup line.
The result is a repertoire book You might also want to employ it as
for Black which deals with positions a surprise weapon.
.

arising after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 . It The presentation fallows the

covers the Rossolimo (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 Chess Stars trademark structure,
l2Jc6 3 �bS) and the Sveshnikov, (1 introduced by "The Safest Sicil­
e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 ian" . Every system is examined in a
l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 eS) as well as some rare separate part which contains three
lines after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6. The chapters: "Quick Repertoire"; " Step
wide range of other Anti-Sicilians by Step " ; "Complete Games" .
are beyond the scope of this book. You start with the "Quick Re­
We have not aimed to offer a his­ pertoire" . You'll find there all the
torical survey or complete study on vital information that you need to
the Sveshnikov. We have endeav­ start playing the variation. These
oured to provide a sound, yet ag­ chapters contain more explanation
gressive repertoire, with a focus on and try to extract the essence of
the most topical lines . the numerous variations, analysed
branch by branch in the "Step by
About the Structure Step" chapters.
This book is above all a practical Finally, the "Complete Games"
guide, so I have arranged the ma­ sections give practical examples
terial in an order of importance. and sometimes cover backup lines
The Rosso limo variation is a fre­ of the main repertoire.
quent guest in tournaments and it I suppose that players above Ela
is useful to know it even if you are 1900 will benefit most of this book.

Atanas Kolev
April 2008

7
Part 1 1 e4 c5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 ibS

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

The most frequent move you are go­ restrict White's choice, because he
ing to face after 2 . . . l!Jc6, is 3 �bS. has not castled yet so he is unable
The lower your opponent's rating to protect it with E'!:el.
is, the higher the probability of get­ 3. Should White attempt to slow
ting some Anti-Sicilian with �bS. torturing us by damaging our pawn
The so-called Rossolimo Variation is chain with 4 hc6 dxc6 fallowed by
often seen nowadays even at high­ 5 d3, we succeed in leading out our
est level. It is a fine choice if White light-squared bishop to g4. This is
wants to play "on understanding", an unexplored plan, which leads to
or simply has not done his home­ original positions. It has been de­
work in the open main lines . veloped and tested by Kolev and we
Do not neglect this system in are going to arm you with our analy­
your preparation as it is deceptively sis, to ensure you some competitive
innocuous. We often defend this po­ advantage over your opponents.
sition with both colours and we are 4. The 3 �bS adepts usually pre­
well aware of how rich and interest­ fer to a void sharp opening lines and
ing variation the Rossolimo is. unbalanced positions. That might
3 ... lllf6 make them uncomfortable in the
3 . . . g6 is a solid alternative, but most challenging lines which in­
our choice goes for the text due to volve e4-e5.
several reasons:
1. 3 . . . l!Jf6 allows to build up a After our attack on the e4-pawn,
repertoire which is independent of as early as on the fourth move,
tricky move orders. For instance, White has to settle for a plan.
if White tries 3 l!Jc3, we are happy
to answer it with 3 . . . l!Jf6, not being A. 4 d3
afraid of 4 �bS . Otherwise 3 l!Jc3 B . 4 hc6
would have been awkward, since C. 4 e5
3 . . . g6 could be met by 4 d4 . D. 4 We2
2 . By attacking the e4-pawn, we E. 4 l!Jc3

8
 1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS

A. 4 d 3

1. Black wants to play l!Jd7, f6,

We propose to unbalance abrupt­ eS. I n many cases he castles long:
ly the game by 7 l!Jbd2 l!Jd7 8 l!Jc4 f6 ! ? 9 0-0 es
4 �a5+!? S li)c3 li)d4 6 .b4
••• 10 l!Je3 Vlfc7 11 a4 as 12 l!JfS �f7+±
b5 7 .ib3 li)xb3 8 cxb3 .ib7 9
0-0 d6 1 0 .ig S e6 with totally un­
explored play.

B. 4 .ixc6 dxc6
We do not capture with the b­
pawn, for White gains the initiative
after c3 and d4. However, such a cap­
ture becomes a plausible option at a
later stage of the opening, especially
if White had already played d3 . 2 . Should White attempt to pre­
5 d 3 .ig4!? vent e7-eS by playing �f4, we get
A lot of players refrain from rid of our doubled pawn with . . . c4 ! ,
3 . . . l!Jf 6 in favour of 3 . . . g6 . They be­ even at the cost of a pawn in some
lieve that the knight is misplaced lines :
on f6 because Black seems unable 7 �f4 c4 !
to prevent e4-eS, with White's spa­
tial advantage. Nedev even made
this system his weapon of choice
as White. We have a fresh idea in
mind, which leads to very interest­
ing and complex positions.
6 h3 .ihS!
The key point ! In the overhelm­
ing majority of games Black cap­
tures on f3 to struggle in a passive
position. Kolev offers another plan: The idea is to attack the enemy

9
Part 1

pawn-centre with our long-range 9 .. .f6 10 0-0 �d6 11 �el 0-0 -0 12

pieces, rather than restricting its lLJc3 hSt.
mobility by clamping on d4. White is overextended, with
8 lLJc3 cxd3 9 cxd3 lLJd7 10 d4 e6 many weaknesses, while being una­
11 �e2 lie? 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 �adl �e8 ble to attack anything for his part.
14 �e3 �as 15 �fel The thematic thrust . . . c4 also
gains in strength after 7 g4 .ig6, for
instance: 8 lLJc3 c4 !

Superficially, White's _pawn cen­

tre should ensure him an edge. On
the other hand, Black has no weak­ 9 gS lLJd7 10 dxc4 ihS ! 11 �d3
nesses, and all his pieces are well �croo .
placed. The queen has a fine retreat Black is enjoying the bishop pair
to a6 , the knight could head for c4 advantage and very active pieces.
via b6 .
The game Grischuk-Kolev, rapid c. 4 es lll dS s o-o lll c7 6
Mainz 2 005 followed with 15 . . . �ac8 .axc6 dxc6 7 h3 (7 d3 .ig4) its
16 /ih 2 , when 16 . . . lLJb6 ! would have
completely levelled the game .

3. If White advances h is g-pawn,

we get fine counterplay by . . . h7-h5 !
followed up with . . . h4, .ig6-h5:
7 g4 �g6 8 eS? ! lLJdS 9 e6

Black solves the opening prob­

lems as in the previous line, by lead­
ing out the light-squared bishop to
g4 or f5. The c7-knight is longing to
reach d4 via e6 or bS. In case of ex­
change on d4 we typically recapture

10
 1 e4 cS 2 4J f3 4Jc6 3 ibS

by queen, in order to retain coun­ Now we are going to exam­

terchances along the d-file with the ine positions where White defends
breakthrough c5-c4. Note howev­ the e4-pawn by queen and castles
er, that if our bishop were stuck on short. That significantly changes
c8, we should t ake by pawn in order our plans, for we are unable to de­
to open up the long diagonal - see velop the light-squared bishop as
game 1 Mortensen-Ermenkov, comfortably as in the previous lines.
Riga 198 1. Accordingly, we must seek another
In this line Black does not place for our dark-squared bishop,
hurry with castling! His first too. In all subsequent lines which
task is to activate the c7-knight. we consider, it goes to g7.
Then he could decide to advance his
kingside pawns or attack in the cen­ Dl. White gains space with 5 eS;
tre with . . . c5-c4. 0 2. White builds up a pawn cen­
5 0-0 4Jc7 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 ifS ! ? tre with c3 and d4.
8 d 3 h 6 ! 9 l:iJ bd2 e 6 1 0 V!!e2 l:iJ bS !
0 1 . s e s �ds 6 o-o
Occasionally, White attempts
to grab a pawn by 6 �c4, but then
6 . . . 4Jcb4 ! is quite awkward for him.
6 ... li:) c 7 ! 7 �xc6 dxc6 8 h3 .ig7
9 d3 0-0

11 4Je4 4Jd4 12 4Jxd4 W!xd4 13 4Jg3

ig6 14 @h2 hS ! See for more details
game 2 Movsesian-Chuchelov,
Bundesliga 2005, where Black had
the initiative.

D. 4 'Mfe2 g6 A typical position. Black should

aim for a kingside attack with the
help of .. .f6, gS, h6, intending .. .f5.
He activates the a8-rook with the
manoeuvre . . . b6 , . . . a7-a5, .. . �a7.
The game Minasian-Gagunashvili,
Dubai 200 3 saw further:
10 li:) bd 2 li:) e6 1 1 li:) b3 as 1 2 a4
b6 1 3 'Mfe4 ga1 1 4 'Mfh4 f6 ! 1 S g e 1
'Mf d S 1 6 �e3 g S 1 7 'Mf g 3

11
Part 1

I n a n earlier stage of the open­

ing, when White was better devel­
oped, we used to take with the d­
pa wn, in order to keep control of
the centre. In the diagram position,
d4 is not a threat, so we follow the
basic rule to "capture by pawns to­
wards the centre".
1 1 i e3 d6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4
Here, instead of 17 . . . hS, Black d 5 1 4 �ac1 .id7 1 5 .id2 f! e7 1 6
should have chosen 17 . . . h6 18 h4 g4 ll:) b 1 ll:) h 5 1 7 a3 ll:) f4 1 8 i xf4 ext4
19 llJfd2 fSt . You can see another ex­ 1 9 f! d 2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh­
ample of this plan in game 3 De la kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976.
Paz-Handke, Havana 20 0 3 .

0 2 . 5 0 - 0i g7 6 c3 0-0 7 � d 1 E. 4 li:)c3
A fashionable move, which aims In the previous lines we have
to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS ! ? seen that Black is fine if he achieves
8 e s tlJ e 4 9 .ie3 cxd4 1 0 cxd4 id? the manoeuvre tlJf6-dS-c7-e6(bS)­
with a fine game for Black. d4. Therefore White's most testing
7. . .e5 options are connected with limiting
the scope of the f6-knight. The most
fashionable response is 4 . . . Wfc7 aim­
ing to prevent e4-eS.
The point ofmy(T N ) reper­
. .

toire is not to prevent this ad­

vance, but rather to provoke it!
This approach may be risky, but
it does offer more chances to win
the game as the resulting positions
are highly unbalanced strategically.
8 li:) a 3 � ea 9 d 3 a6 10 i xc6 So we play:
bxc6 ! 4 g6
•••

White can vary the move or­

der, but basically he has two major
plans:
1. White plays .ie3 , Wfd 2, il.h6
and eventually castles long, hoping
for a kingside attack. Black's de­
fence is based on . . . es.
2. White restricts o ur knight
with h3, es, g4.

12
 1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bs

1 . 5 �xc6 dxc6 6 h3 �g7 7 d 3 g4, the move order of the latter vari­
0 - 0 8 � e 3 b6 9 'Mf d 2 e5 ! ation is not too precise, since after 8
d3 Black can use the difference with
the main line (where the bishop is
on g7, but the knight is still on g8)
by playing 8 . . . tlJfS ! ?
5 . . .� g 7 6 e 5 � g8 7 �xc6 dxc6

1 0 �h6
Or 10 0-0 tlJhS ! Black h a s good
counterplay in the centre. He only
has to find the right timing for
cS-c4.
1 o . . . 'Mfd6 1 1 o-o-o as 1 2 �xg 7 8 d3
@ x g7 1 3 � h 2 a4 1 4 � g 4 � g 8 ! 8 �e2 tlJh6 9 ttJe4 b6 10 d 3 tlJfS
11 �gS ttJd4= is analysed in the " Step
by Step" chapter, line E3a.
8 . . . � h 6 9 g4
Be sure to meet 9 �e3 with
9 . . . �aS ! , but not with the com­
mon 9 . . . b6? ! which would leave our
strongest piece without prospects.
The key point of our treatment
of these positions is to activate
the queen.
Current practice i s favourable We further examine 10 g4 fS 11
to Black, who stays solidly on the gS tlJf7 12 �f4 �e6 13 �d2 0-0- 0 ! ? -
kingside, while maintaining fair see "Step by Step" line E2 .
chances for progress on the other . 9 . . 0-0
wing.
.

2. 5 h 3
White is following the restrict­
ing strategy, started on the previ­
ous move. In fact, S eS tlJg4 6 hc6
dxc6 7 h3 tlJh6 often leads to the
same positions. However, if White
does not intend to follow up with

13
Part 1

This is the basic position for line �b4 ! 14 �e3 �xb2 with an attack.)
E. White's primary task is to deprive 1 1 . . . exf6 12 �d2 l2Jf7
the opponent of counterplay. At the
same time he should notforget about
development.
For his part, Black must activate
the h6-knight and find targets in
the enemy camp. He cannot survive
without pushing the f-pawn, but the
question is which move is best, f6 or
fS? Initially we thought that we must
open up the kingside at all cost, so
the answer of that question depend­ Black is well coordinated and
ed on the placement of White's bish­ has the bishop pair in an open po­
op: if it went to f4, we would play sition. Should White grab a pawn,
.. .f6, while .ie3 would be attacked we'd get tempi to overrun him on
by . . .fS . Let us show examples: the queenside: 13 hes �e8+ 14 .ie3
a) 1 0 j.f4 f6 bS ! 15 0-0-0 b4! ?
I t remains t o examine White's
third plausible option on move 10:

c) 10 Wfe2

White is unable to keep control

of the es-outpost with 11 �e2 , due to
the hit 11 . . . l2Jxg4 ! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cu­
bas-Nedev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he
should prefer 11 �d2 fxeS 12 hh6 While preparing to castle, White
hh6 13 �xh6 �f3 14 0-0-0 �f8 15 is waiting for us to reveal our plans.
�xf8 + @xf8 16 �h2 ! The endgame Thus, he will meet 10 . . .f5 with 11
looks better for White, but the the­ gS l2Jf7 12 .if4! Although this posi­
matic sacrifice c5-c4 balances the tion is far from clear, we prefer to
game, for instance 16 . . . h6 17 �el reach better versions of it, for in­
c4 ! ? 18 dxc4 .ie6 . stance, with an extra tempo as af­
ter 10 .ie3 fS ! 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if4. The
b) 1 0 �e3 f5 ! 1 1 exf6 (Follow­ real venom of 10 �e2 is concealed
ing 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if4 Black has an in the variation 10 .. .f6 11 .id2 ! ? It
extra tempo for 12 . . . �aS ! 13 �e2 turns out that Black's threat to the

14
 1 e 4 c s 2 tlJf3 tlJ c6 3 �bs

eS-pawn can be ignored. White sim­ Now, the bishop is pinned to cl

ply develops, counting on his bet­ and White is suddenly faced with a
ter pawn structure as in game 5 difficult problem: how to disentan­
David-Nedev, ECC 20 07. gle his pieces. 11 b3 f 5 12 tlJ a4 (12
However, we can outsmart the gS tlJf7 13 �d 2 tlJd8 14 0 -0 -0 tlJe6
enemy by attacking the b2-pawn 15 �del tlJd4 16 tlJxd4 cxd4 17 tlJ a4
with: �a6 18 ©bl bS-+) 12 . . . �c7 13 hh6 ,
1 0 . . . %Yb6 ! ? Wen,Yang-Zhao Jun, Wch U20
Yerevan, 2006, 13 . . . fxg4 ! 14 hg7
gxf3+.

Remember! When White

restrains our knight by g4, we
must look for counterplay by
attacking the queenside with
our queen. Therefore, we play
b6 only against �e4.

15
Part 1 1 e4 c5 2 llif3 lll c6 3 .ibS

STE P BY STE P

3 ••• lll f6 itiative b y opening the centre with

d2-d4. In our case this break would
A. 4 d3 page 17 be with a loss of tempo, so nothing
B. 4 .bc6 page 18 can stop us fram completing devel­
c. 4 es page 22 opment.
D. 4 Wie2 page 23 Besides, we have the daring al­
E. 4 lZJc3 page 25 ternative:
•••4 'Wa5+!? 5 lll c 3 lll d4 6 .ia4
A. 4 d3 6 ic4 only gives Black the extra
possibility of 6 . . . dS ! ? 7 .bdS lZJxdS
8 exdS ig4.
•••6 bS 7 i.b3
Or 7 idS lZJxdS 8 exdS ib7 9 0-0
b4.
•••7 lll x b3 8 cxb3 i.b7
There is no need to hurry with
8 . . . b4, because 9 lZJa4 ! unpleasant­
ly targets the cS-pawn. (9 lZJe2 g6!
is OK for Black.)

This modest move poses some

move order problems. In case of
4 . . . g6 5 .bc6 dxc6 6 h3 White will
throw us out of the proposed reper­
toire. Not that the position is diffi­
cult for Black, but it is too static for
our taste . Perhaps 5 . . . bxc6 is more
precise. Usually this recapture is
risky , because White gains the in-

16
 1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 �bS

9 0-0
9 �gS dS opens up play in Black's
favour due to his bishop pair: 10 0-0
( 10 hf6 dxe4 11 dxe4 gxf6 12 0-0
e6oo) 10 . . .dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 12
dxe4 f6oo .
9 d6 1 0 .igS e6.
•••

This analysis is , of course, just a

starting point for further investiga­
tion.

B. 4 �xc6 dxc6 5 d3 .ig4!? Bl. 7 g4

B 2 . 7 llJbd2
B 3 . 7 llJc3
B4. 7 �f4

81. 7 g4 .ig6

Bla. 8 eS? !
Blb. 8 llJc3
8 ltJeS ltJd7 9 ltJxg6 hxg6 is not
appealing , for the stranded pawn on
h3 is a serious drawback of White's
structure: 10 �e3 es 11 llJd 2 �d6 12
A key point in our repertoire.
We2 ltJf8 13 0-0-0 ltJe 6=.
We catch the chance to lead out
our problem bishop . This possibil­
Bla. 8 e5? ! �d5 9 e6
ity is one of the major advantages
of 3 . . . llJf6 over 3 . . . g6. Note howev­
er, that our idea is not just to get rid
of our light-squared bishop by trad­
ing it for the f3-knight!
6 h3
Hoping for 6 . . . hf3 7 Wxf3 with a
slight edge . In case of 6 ttJbd2 Black
fallows his main idea to clamp on
d4 by 6 . . . llJd7 7 h3 �hS 8 g4 �g6 9 9
ltJc4 f6 ! when 10 eS? does not work:
10 . . . bS 11 llJcd2 hSt.
6 J.h 5!
••• This looks like a n overoptimis­
We should not part light-heart­ tic way of treating the position.
edly with the bishop pair. White neglects development, seek-

17
Part 1

ing structural benefits. His prob­ 9 g5

lem is that he is overextended. After 9 ltJeS cxd3 10 cxd3 ltJd 7 11 l2Jxg6
. . . h7-hS he will have to worry about hxg6 12 �e3 eS ! =
many weaknesses, while being una­ 9 � d7 1 0 dxc4 �h5 ! 11 Wfd3
•••

ble to attack anything for his part. Wfc7oo.

The first interesting option in Black is enjoying the bishop pair
the diagram position is 9 . . . hS ! ? 10 advantage and very active pieces.
ltJeS Wf d6 11 exf7+ hf7 12 l2Jxf7 (12
Wfe2 hxg4 13 l2Jxf7 �xf7 14 �xg4
Wies+ 15 Wfe4 Wff6t) 12 . . . �e6+ 13 8 2. 7 ll) bd 2 tl)d7 8 tl) c4
Wfe2 Wfxf7= and Black's lead in de­ White is trying to prevent . . . es.
velopment gives him good chances. 8 ltJfl is a plausible alternative. We
We'll consider also: can fallow up with 8 . . . es 9 l2J g3 (9
9 . . .f6 1 0 0 - 0 g4 � g6 10 l2Jg3 is risky, for it could
10 l2Jh4? ! loses a pawn to 10 . . . Wfd6 be attacked with the thematic sacri­
11 Wf e2 l2Jc7 12 f4 l2Jxe6 13 fS ltJd4+. fice 10 . . . hS 11 gS h4 12 ltJfS ih5 13
10 Wf e2 �d6 11 0 - 0 0-0-0 12 b3 Wfc7 14 ltJSxh4 0-0-0 with com­
l2J c3 (12 l2J a3 hS 13 l2Jc4 �c7 14 l2Jh4 pensation) 9 . . . �g6 10 0-0 �d6 .
�e8t) 12 . . . hS 13 l2Jh4 �e8 14 l2Jf5 (10 . . .f6 11 l2Jh2 �f7 12 f4 c4 is un­
Wf c7t is quite good for Black, but clear , but Black is somewhat unde­
adventurous players may try also veloped for such a committing ac­
10 . . . l2Jb4 ! ? with the idea of 11 0-0 tion) We refrain from .. .f6 in order
(11 a3? hd3 ! ) 1 1 . .. c4 ! . Still we pre­ to discourage 11 ltJf S, which would
fer to develop our pieces. stumble into 1 1 . . .hfS 12 exfS �f6 .
10 Wfd6
••• Thus we win a tempo for the ma­
10 . . . �c7 ! ? is another attrac­ noeuvre l2Jd7-f8-e6. Play could con­
tive optio n: 11 l2Jh4 0-0-0 12 f4 �e8 tinue with 11 �gS (or 11 �d2 l2Jf8 12
planning hS. Black's bishops enter ltJfS l2Je6 13 �c3 f6) 11. . .f6 12 �e3
play through the kingside. l2Jf8 13 ltJf5 l2Je6 14 ltJ 3h4 �f8 15 a4
11 gel 0 - 0 - 0 12 �c3 h5 t. �f7 with a solid position. Black con­
trols firmly f4 and will gradually re­
Blb. 8 �c3 c4! pel the enemy knight fram f5.

18
 1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJ c6 3 �bS

8 g4? ! �g6 only gives us more 12 a3 hS 13 gS h4+!) 10 . . . V!JaS 11 V!id2

chances for counterplay: h6 12 �h4 c4 !
9 h4 hS 10 gS Wic7 with a possi­
ble break f7-f6 .
9 eS e6 10 Wie2 hS 11 gS Wic7 12 b3
0-0-0 13 �b2 h4 14 0-0-0 �e7 f!-. In
this line Black could aslo try ll . . . h4 ! ?
1 2 llJe4 (12 b3 WiaS 1 3 �b2 0-0-0+!)
12 . . . c4 13 dxc4 llJc5 14 llJxcS �xcSoo.
9 llJc4 f6 10 0-0 es 11 llJe3 V!ic7
12 a3 Alekseev-Eljanov, 2 004 ,
12 . . . 0-0-0 .
Killing two birds with one shot.
8 . . f6 ! ?
. Said in chess terms, Black opens up
M y (A. K.) treatment of this po­ diagonals to both bishops. 13 dxc4
sition is to protect the light-squared �b4 14 0-0-0 llJcS f!- lS �hel 0-0 16
bishop whenever possible. The �e7 llJb3 + 17 cxb3 he7oo . If you
game B aklan-Nedev, 2 007 saw in­ do not believe in the bishop pair's
stead 8 . . . V!ic7 9 �d2 eS 10 a4 aS 11 g4 power, look at the following varia­
�g6 12 llJh4 f6, when 13 llJxg6 hxg6 tion: 18 llJd4 �ad8 19 V!ie3 �d7 2 0
14 gSt would have been in White's �d2 �fd8 2 1 �edl �b4 ! 2 2 llJ c 2 ( 2 2
favour. a4 �cSt) 2 2 . . . �xd2 23 �xd2 �xd2 24
9 o-o e5 1 0 �e3 Vlf c7 1 1 a4 as V!Jxd2 hc2 2S i>xc2 V!JxeS+.
1 2 �f5i f7� 9 . . . h5 ! ?
Black has a satisfactory game, The thematic break 9 . . .f6 1 0
for instance , 13 b3 g6 14 llJ h6 �e6 . es c4 11 dxc4 i s not so clear, be­
cause White controls firmly eS , e.g.
11 ... V!ib6 12 �bl ! oo The text is more
83. 7 �c3 �d7 8 g4 consistent.
O r 8 �e3 e S 9 g 4 �g6 1 0 Wid2
�e7 11 0-0-0 Wic7 12 llJxeS llJxeS
13 f4 0-0-0 (13 . . . llJf3 ? ! 14 Vlif2 llJ d4
lS fS 0-0-0 16 fxg6 fxg6t) 14 fxeS
V!JxeS= .
8. i
. g 6 9if4
.

It is very instructive to observe

how Black could take over the ini­
tiative if White attempts to display
an activity: 9 es e6 10 �gS (10 Wie2
c4 ! Remember this sac ! It proves
especially effective when White has 1 0 g5
weakened his centre. 11 dxc4 Wib6 Alternatively: 10 llJh4 �h7 11

19
Part 1

gxhS (or 11 �d2 eS 12 �gS �e7 13 terattack all over the board , trying
J,xe7 �xe7 14 l!JfS hfS lS gxfS to unleash the power of our light­
0-0-0 16 0-0-0 gS=) 11 . . . eS 12 �g3 sq uared bishop.
�b6 13 �d2 �g8 recapturing the h­ 8 . . . cxd3
pa wn. A solid move which offers Black
1 o .. h4! 1 1 Y«e2 i.h5
. good chances. Besides , we could
This is a fine setup for Black. speed up play with 8 . . . Wffb 6? ! , but
we are undeveloped for such ac­
tions. White could sacrifice the b 2-
84. 7 i.f4 c4 ! pawn, as 9 0-0 Wffxb2? (9 . . . e6 i s bet­
ter) 10 �d2 hf3 11 E:abl Wff a 3 12
E:xb7! would be disastrous for him,
and even 9 E:bl E:d8 10 d4 e6 11 g4
�g6 12 Wffe2 �b4 13 0-0 �as 14 �gs
looks good enough .
9 cxd 3 ti) d7
The move order is not too im­
portant. Degraeve-Zhao Jun, Paris
2006 saw 9 . . . e6 10 0-0 �e7 11 Wff e2
when 1 1. . . 0-0 12 E:adl l!Jd7 would
have transposed to our main line .
We see here a typical method of 1 O d4 e6 1 1 Y«e2 i.e7
puting pressure on White's centre. 11. . . �f6 is risky. Such a devel­
This approach to solving the open­ opment of the queen is typical for
ing problems has been introduced some lines of the QGA , but here the
in the rapid game Grischuk-Kolev, knight is too passive on d7. White
M ainz 20 0S. The idea is to attack should fallow with 12 �e3 hf3 13
the enemy pawn-centre with our gxf3 �b4 14 E:gl h6 lS eS ! �fS 16
long-range pieces rather than re­ E:xg7 l!JxeS 17 dxeS WffxeS 18 E:g4
stricting its mobility by clamping J,xc3 + 19 Wfl �as when 20 �d4
on d4. �xe2 + 21 Wxe2 E:f8 22 �cs E:h8 is
8 ti) c3 equal, but 20 E:dl ! ? poses concrete
Following 8 0-0 Black could problems.
choose 8 . . . cxd3 as in the main line , 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 �ad 1 �e8 1 4 Y«e3
or the more risky 8 . . . e6 9 l!Jc3 �b6 . 'Mias 1 5 �fe 1
I (A. K.) have reached i n m y analysis Both sides completed develop­
a lot of funy positions after 10 E:bl ment so it is time to strike a balance .
E:d8 11 d4 �b4 12 g4 �g6 13 Wffe 2 Superficially, White's pawn centre
�as 14 �gs hS ! ? , for example lS es should ensure him an edge. O n the
hxg4 16 hxg4 l!JdS 17 �d8 Wxd8 18 other hand , Black has no weakness­
l!JxdS �xdS 19 Wg2 fS 20 exf6 gxf6 es , and all his pieces are well placed.
2 1 E:hl E:g8co. In short, we coun- The queen has a fine retreat to a6 ,

20
 1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs

the knight could head for c4 via b6 . hf3 20 gxf3 �b4oo) 18 l2Jxa4 V9xa4
White's problem i s that his only ac­ 19 b3 V9aS.
tive plan is linked with a kingside 1 7 . . . .ig6 1 8 �es .if6 1 9 b3 c 5=.
pawn storm, but it could easily turn (19 . . . �e7 ! ? f!)
against him.

C. 4 e5 � d5

Now I had lS .. . �a6 ! ? (control­

ling c4) 16 a3 l2Jb6 17 g4 �g6 18 ltJeS
(18 h4? l2Jc4 19 V9e2 fS) 18 . . . l2Jc4=, Pushing e4-eS is commonly good
but the move I have played i s not if it repels the knight to a passive
bad either. position. In the current situation
1 5 . . . �ac8 1 6 .ih2 it arrives at a central square, when
Basically, White i s waiting. Anal­ further advancing by S c4 fails to S . . .
ysis shows that he has no advan­ l2Jc7.
tage, for instance : Now White has to decide where
16 a3 l2Jb6 (or 16 . . . V9a6 17 g4 �g6 to develop the queen's knight so he
18 h4 hS 19 gS l2Jb6 2 0 ltJeS l2Jc4 2 1 chooses, without success :
V9h3 ltJxeS 2 2 �xeS V9c4) 1 7 g4 �g6
18 ltJe S V9a6 19 V9g3 l2Jc4 20 h4 ltJxeS Cl: S l2Jc3
21 hes f6 22 hS �f7 23 �c7 V9c4 ; C2 : S 0-0
16 V9d3 f6.
1 6...�b6! C 1 . 5 � c3 �c7 6 �xc 6 dxc6 7
This simple move would have h3 �f5 ! ?
completely levelled the game. In­ This development fits best into
stead I preferred 16 . . . h6? ! 17 a3 our repertoire. The standard setup
�g6 (17. . . l2Jb6 ! ? 18 g4 � g6 19 ltJeS is to fianchetto the bishop with 7 . . .
�h7oo) 18 V9e2 �hS 19 V9d3 with a g6, e.g. 8 d 3 �g7 9 �e3 b6 10 �d2
small edge for White in Grischuk­ h6! White would happily trade his
Kolev, M ainz 200S. bishop so we should not oblige him.
1 7 g4 11 0-0 �e6 12 �fdl (or 12 l2Je2? �dS !
Or: 17 b3 �b4 18 �d3 cS ! + ; 17 13 d4 .ixf3 14 gxf3 cxd4 lS V9xd4
�d3 l2J a4 (17 ... cs 18 dS c4 19 �d2 V9xd4 16 hd4 cS 17 �c3 ltJ dS+

21
Part 1

Nanu-Andonov , Belgarde 20 04) shop ! ) 9 l2Jc3 l2Je6 10 .ie3 l2Jd4. Now

12 .. . �d7= preparing ltJdS with a 11 g4 removes the pin, but badly
good position. compromises the king's position,
11. . . .ig6 12 hd4 cxd4 13 l2Je2 hS+t.

8 0-0
We answer 8 d3 with 8 . . . h6 ! in 7 . ...if5 ! ?
order to deprive the opponent of 8 . . . 7 . . . g 6 i s also good enough : 8 d3
e 6 9 .igS ! .ie7 1 0 he7 V!ixe7 1 1 Wid2 .ig7 9 .ie3 (9 l2Jc3 b6 10 l2Je4 0-0
0-0 12 0-0-0 + . Typically for this 1 1 .id2 fS ! 12 exf6 exf6 13 Wicl gS
line , White's dark-squared bishop 14 l2Jh2 ifs+ was fine for Black in
is less useful, than ours. game 3 De la Paz-Handke, Ha­
9 Wie2 l2Je 6 ! vana 20 03) 9 . . . b6 10 Wicl h 6 !
Black has less space for manoeu­
vering, therefore it is important to
exchange his last short-range piece
through d4. 9 . . . e6 10 ltJe4 ltJbS does
not fulfil that aim due to 11 c3 + .
10 l2Je4 l2Jd4 11 l2Jxd4 Wixd4 12
l2Jg 3 .ie6 13 0-0 c4 ! 14 dxc4 Wixc4 1S
Wixc4 hc4 with a better endgame
for Black in Yu Shaoteng-Zhao Jun,
Wuxi 200 6 . (16 E!dl g6+)
The idea i s not only to preserve
8...e 6 9 d3 .ie7 10 Y«e2 lll b 5 ! � the bishop from exchange, but also
to attack the enemy king with gS­
g4. In that scheme we castle long , if
C 2: 5 0-0 � c7 6 .ixc6 dxc6 7 at all ! We offer our analysis of that
h3 novelty:
7 d 3 i s seldom seen, probably 11 a4 aS 12 E!dl (12 l2Ja3 ltJdS 13
because the pin 7 . . . .ig4 is quite an­ l2Jc4 gS ! ?+t; 12 d4? ! cxd4 13 l2Jxd4 cS
noying: 8 h3 .ihS (We had already 14 l2Jf3 .ib7 lS E!dl Wic8+) 12 . . . ltJdS
learnt fram line B to keep the bi- 13 .id2 (13 c4 l2Jxe3 14 Wixe3 0-0 lS

22
 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS

l2Jc3 Wic7 16 d4 cxd4 17 �xd4 �e6 18 proach. Black does not hinder eS,
�adl �ad8=) 13 ... gS ! ? 14 c4 g4 lS on the contrary, he is provoking it.
hxg4 l2Jc7 (lS . . .hg4 16 cxdS hf3
17 gxf3 �xdS is interesting, but not
quite sound .) 16 �c3 hg4 17 Wie3
(17 �f4 hS 18 Wie4 Wid7 19 d4 0-0-0)
17 . . . l2Je6 18 l2Jbd2 �d7f!.

8 d3
8 l2Jh4? ! �e6 9 f4 runs into 9 . . .
gS ! whereas 9 d 3 g6 underlines the
clumsy position of White's knight,
which has deprived of support the
es-outpost.
8 . . h 6 ! 9 li:) bd 2
.
01 . S eS
9 l2Jc3 e 6 10 Wie2 ltJbS ! transpos­ 0 2 . s 0-0
es to Cl. S l2Jc3.
9 e 6 1 O YMe2 li:) b S !
•••
S c3 transposes to 0 2, while S
l2Jc3 �g7 6 eS l2Jg4 is covered in line
E.

0 1 . s e s li:) d S 6 o-o
Occasionally, White attempts to
grab a pawn by6 �c4, but H ausrath's
move 6 . . . l2Jcb4 ! is quite awkward :
a) 7 Wib3 a6 8 �c4 e6 9 a3 (9 a4 d6
10 0-0 dxeS 11 ltJxeS �g7+ Orabke­
Hausrath, Bundesliga 2 0 04) 10 . . .
bxc4 11 dxc4 �g7 12 axb4 l2Jxb4= ;
b ) 7 a3 a 6 8 �a4 b S 9 �e4 bxa4 10
Commonly, i n the Rossolimo axb4 l2Jxb4 11 0-0 , Jens-H ausrath,
Black's knight heads for d4 via e6, Belgium 2003, when best is 11 . . .
but it has another route, too ! dS ! ? 1 2 exd6 �fS 13 �es f6 14 �xcS
1 1 li:) e4 li:) d4 1 2 li:)xd4 YMxd4 1 3 Wixd6 lS Wixd6 exd6+.
li:) g 3 .ig6 14 <i> h 2 h 5 ! 6 l2Jc3 seems already late. Apart
See for more details game 2 from 6 . . . l2Jf4 7 �e4 l2Je6 8 �c4 �g7 9
Movsesian-Chuchelov , Bundes­ he6 dxe6 10 0-0 0-0 11 �el ltJd 4=
liga 2 0 0S, where Black had the in­ Aronin-Shamkovich, Moscow 1961,
itiative. Black has 6 ... l2Jc7 ! ? 7 �c4 � g7 8
l2Je4? ! 0-0 9 ltJxcS d6t.

D. 4 Y«e2 g6 6 . . . li:)c7! 7 .ixc6 dxc6 8 h 3 .ig7

This is the most challenging ap- 9 d3 0-0

23
Part 1

�c6 dxc6 8 d3 ltJh6 9 �f4 ltJfS ! ? 10

c3 h6f!, which h a s never been tes­
ted.
6 . . . 0-0 7 � d 1
A fashionable move, which aims
to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS ! ?
(This i s slightly more precise than
7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 dS 9 eS ltJe4 when
White has the option of 10 ltJc3 .
In that line White's dark-squared
bishop goes to gS whereas the text
A typical position. Black should
aim to push f7-f6. The game Mina­ practically forces it to e3 .) 8 eS (8
sian-Gagunashvili, Dubai 2003 saw exdS �xdS 9 dxcS �xcS=) 8 . . . ltJe4 9
further: �e3 (9 ttJbd2? ! is dubious du to 9 . . .
1 o ll:) bd 2 li:) e 6 1 1 li:) b 3 as 1 2 a4 cxd4 1 0 cxd4 ttJxd2 1 1 �xd2 �b6+
b6 1 3 '%Ye4 �a7 1 4 '%Yh4 f6 ! 1 5 �e1 or 10 . . . Wb6 ! ? 11 ttJxe4 dxe4 12 �xc6
'%Yd5 1 6 ie3 g 5 17 '%Yg3 �xc6 13 ltJgS �fSt Utemov-Smirin,
Here, instead of 17 ... hS, Black Podolsk 1990) 9 . . .cxd4 10 cxd4 �d7
should have chosen 17 . . . h6 18 h4 g4 with a fine game for Black:
19 ltJfd2 fSt.

0 2. 5 0-0 i g7

11 ltJc3 (ll �d3 8:c8 12 ttJbd2 ttJxd2

13 �xd2 �aS 14 a3 �xd2 lS ttJxd2 f6
= Svidler-Leko, Monte Carlo 20 04)
11 . . . ltJxc3 12 bxc3 ltJ aS ! 13 �d3 8:c8 =
Svidler-Shirov, Leon 2004.

6 c3 7 . . . e5
After 6 eS Black chooses between The point of White's setup is that
the promising pawn sac 6 . . . ltJdS 7 7. . . ds 8 es ltJe4?? is no longer possi­
�c4 ltJc7 8 �xc6 (8 �xcS b6 9 �c4 ble, so we have to adjust our plan ac­
ttJxeS 10 ttJxeS �xeS 11 E'!:el �g7+) 8 . . . cordingly. The MegaBase shows Tse­
dxc6 9 �xcS �g4 10 ltJd4 �d7 with shkovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976
good compensation, or 6 . . . ltJg4 7 as the source of the text move.

24
 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS

Note this capturing. In an earli­

er stage of the opening, when White
was better developed, we used to
take with the d-pawn, in order to
keep control of the centre. In the di­
agram position d4 is not a threat, so
we follow the basic rule to "capture
by pawns towards the centre" .
1 1 .ie3 d 6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4
d5
Or 13 . . . l2J g4 ! ? 14 �d2 fS = .
8 � a3 1 4 gac1 .i d 7 1 5 .i d 2 V!J e 7 1 6
8 hc6 dxc6 9 d4 (9 ltJxeS �e8 � b1 � h 5 1 7 a3 �f4 1 8 .ixf4 exf4
10 d4 cxd4 11 cxd4 l2Jxe4 ! favours 1 9 V!i d2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh­
Black) 9 . . . exd4 10 cxd4 cxd4 11 kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976 .
l2Jxd4 leaves White's pieces some­
what hanging. We can exploit that
by 11 . . . l2Jxe4 !?+ 12 ltJfS MS 13 �xd8 E. 4 �c3 g6
�axd8+ with overwhelming advan­
tage in development.
8 d3 is innocuous . Black achieves
a good game with natural moves:
8 ... �c7 ! ? (o r 8 ... � e7 9 �gS h6 10
hf6 �xf6 11 l2Jbd2 a6 12 �c4 bS 13
�dS �b7 14 l2Jfl �ab8 1S l2Je3 l2Je7=)
9 l2Jbd2 a6 10 hc6 bxc6 11 l2Jc4 �e8
12 �gS dS 13 l2Je3 (13 exdS cxdS+)
13 . . . �e6+;
Finally, 8 d4? ! exd4 9 cxd4 cxd4
(9 . . . �e8 ! ?+) 10 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 11 �xd4
�b6 gives Black the upper hand. El. S hc6
8 .. . �e8 9 d 3 a6 1 0 .ixc6 bxc 6 ! E2. S h3
E3 . S eS

S 0-0 �g7 6 eS ltJg4 7 hc6 trans­

poses to El.

E 1 . 5 .ixc6 d x c 6 6 h 3
6 d 3 does not really save a tem­
po, for after 6 . . . �g7 7 �e3 b6 8 �d2
l2Jg4 White has to move the bishop
twice: 9 �f4 (9 �gS f6 10 �h4 0-0 11
h3 l2Jh6 12 g4 l2Jf7 13 �g3 es 14 l2Jh4

2S
P art 1

�e6+ Van Mil-Kuijf, Antwerp 1997) i s n o alternative t o this move . If

9 . . . es 10 �g3 f6 11 h3 lt:Jh6 12 lt:Jh2 White consolidates, he will main­
lt:Jf7 13 f4 0-0= Abreu-Hernandez, tain an edge due to his forepost on
Havana 1998. eS) 12 hes (12 lt:JxeS Vfffd4 is equal :
6 . . �g7 7 d3 0-0
. 13 lt:Je2 V!ffdS 14 c4 Vfffd6 lS lt:Jf7 Vffff6
16 lt:Jh6 + c;t>h8 17 �gs Vfffxb2 18 Vfffxb2
hb2 19 he7 hal=)
12 . . . �f3 ! ? (This exchange sacri­
fice poses problems to White. The
source game saw 12 . . . hh3 13 hg7
lt:Jxg7 14 �fel=) 13 hg7 lt:Jxg7 14
gxf3 hh3 lS �fel Vffff8 with good
compensation, e.g. 16 Vfffe 3 lt:Je6 17
f4 Vffffs 18 Vfff g 3 �f8 19 �es Vfffxf4 2 0
Vfffxf4 �f� o r 1 6 f4 lt:JfS 17 lt:Je4 lt:Jd4
18 lt:JgS h6 19 c3 V!fffS 20 Vfffe 3 hxgS 2 1
cxd4 gxf4- + .
8i e3
8 �f4 should be attacked with 8 . . . b6 9 '%Yd2 e 5 !
8 . . . lt:JhS! (8 . . . lt:Je8 is too passive and
passes the initiative to the enemy:
9 Vfffd 2 f6 is the most interesting al­
ternative: 10 �e3 b6 11 h4! �g4 12
lt:J h2 ! �e6 13 h S.) 9 �e3 Vfffd6 10 Vfffd2
eS 11 0-0-0 bS 12 lt:Je2 lt:Jf6 13 �h6 aS
with counterplay in Grischuk-Leko,
Dubai 200 2 ;
8 0 - 0 i s less testing. After 8 . . . b6
9 �f4 (�e3 eS 10 Vfid2 lt:J hS 11 �h6
Vfff d6 =) 9 . . . lt:Je8 10 Vfffd 2 f6 1 1 eS Black
can force play with:
Depending on where White cas­
tles, the game could take rather dif­
ferent courses.
1 0 i h6
The plan with short castling is
linked with the breakthrough f2-f4,
but it could be effectively opposed
by 10 0-0 lt:JhS ! Black has good
counterplay in the centre. He only
has to find the right timing for cS­
11 . . .fxeS ! (Played in Shirov­ c4: 11 �h6 Vfffd6 12 lt:Je2 f6 13 hg7
Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2 004. There (as usual, the interpolation of 13 a3

26
 1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:J c6 3 �bs

aS is in Black's favour, 14 lt:Jh2 :§a7 that he could conduct a success­

lS :§adl �e6 16 hg7 :§xg7 17 lt:Jg4 ful attack without connecting the
:§d7= , Vachier Lagrave-Lautier, Val rooks . His intention is to wait till
d'Isere 20 04) 13 . . . lt:Jxg7 14 :§adl aS the last moment and even castle
1S lt:Jh2 gS ! ? 16 lt:Jg4 hg4 17 hxg4 hS short at an opportunity.
18 gxhS lt:JxhS 19 g3 Wffe6 20 @g2 @f7 11 ie6 12 Wfe3 ! ?
..•

21 :§hl :§h8 22 b3 :§h7 23 Wffe3 :§ah8 Anticipating Black's main threat

24 Wfff3 lt:Jg7= , Vogt-Shirov, rapid, of cS-c4. This idea of Ponomariov
Mainz 2 0 0S. has not caught up, but the alterna­
Another implementation of the tives are not any better:
same idea is 10 a3 aS 11 0-0 a4 12 a) 12 lt:Je2 :§ad8 13 hg7 (13 lt:Jg3
:§ael :§e8 13 lt:Jh2 when 13 ... c4 ! ? splits lt:Je8 14 hg7 lt:Jxg7 1S lt:Jfl f6 16 lt:Je3
the enemy pawn chain (13 . . . lt:Jd7 14 bS 17 Wic3 �f7 18 gS b4 19 Wid2 fSf!)
f4 exf4 lS :§xf4 lt:Jf8 ! 16 :§efl :§a7 17 13 ... @xg7 14 Wffc3 lt:Jd7 1S lt:JgS h6! 16
@hl lt:Je6 18 :§4f2 lt:Jd 4= Pridorozh­ lt:Jxe6+ fxe6 ! = , Bologan-Leko, Dort­
ni-Smirnov, Nefteyugansk 20 0 2) 14 mund 20 0 3 ;
dxc4 Wixd2 lS hd2 �e6= . b ) 1 2 hg7 @xg7 1 3 lt:J h 4 ( o r 13
:§gl :§ad8 14 0-0-0 as lS lt:Jh4 c4 !
10 ... Wd 6 16 f4 cxd3 17 cxd3 Wies 18 @b l �c4
19 :§g3 bSt Nevednichy-Gladyszev,
La Fere 2003. White should better
come to his senses and develop his
pieces with 13 0-0-0 :§ad8 14 :§hfl
bS lS lt:JgS h6 16 lt:Jxe6 + Wixe6 17 @bl
c4= , Shirov-Leko, Monaco 2 0 0 2)
13 . . . :§ad8 14 0-0-0 c4 lS f4 exf4
16 d4 Wic7 17 gS lt:JhS 18 dS cxdS 19
Wid4+ @g8 20 exdS :§fe8+.
12 a5 13 llle2 a4 14 a3 b5
•••

The plot is more or less clear

now. We'll witness opposite attacks
where every tempo counts. (White
still could switch to the calmer 11
0-0 lt:JhS ! which was discussed o n
the previous turn.) I n the diagram
position White chooses between 11
g 4 and 11 0-0-0, while 11 hg7 i s not
of independent significance.

Ela. 11 g4 Black gained a lot of space on the

Naturally White hardly believes queenside which would give him the

27
Part 1

upper hand in an endgame. White's Several games at top level show

chances are down the g-file. that the setup with 13 g4, fallowed
15hg7 by llJc3-e2-g3, is way too slow. Black
I n Ponomariov-Leko, Linares can attack in different manners .
20 0 3 was 15 llJg3 llJe8 ! 16 0-0 f6 17 Leko prefers the pawn storm with
llJ d2? ! :gas 18 hg7 ttJxg7 19 f4 exf4 b and a-pawn, while Ivanchuk fa­
2 0 �xf4 �xf4 2 1 �f4 c4 with ini­ vours piece play:
tiative. 13 g4 a4 14 llJe2 (or 14 llJh4 bS 15
15 . . . ©xg716 �g3 ©h8 f4 exf4 16 llJf3 llJ d7 17 ttJe2 a3 18 b3
White should think how to keep �f6 19 d4 cxd4 20 gS �e7 21 �xd4+
the balance. �g8 2 2 llJxf4 llJcSf±) 14 .. bS 15 llJg3
The key point of Black's b4 16 �gs :ges 17 llJd2? ! (17 ttJ hs+
counterplay in this line is to llJxhS 18 gxhS b3 19 cxb3 axb3 20 a3
push c5-c4 at a moment when i.a6f!) 17. . . a3t Shirov-Leko, Dort­
the opponent is unable to re­ mund 200 2 ;
spond with d4 . 1 3 g 4 i.e6 ! ? 1 4 llJgS llJd7 15
ttJxe6 + fxe6 ! t , see game 4 Shirov­
Ivanchuk, Edmonton 2005.
Eth. 11 0 - 0 - 0 a5
13 ... a4 14 �g4
14 llJ e2 leaves the e4-pawn with­
out protection so Black has 14 . . . c4 !
15 llJg4 a3 ! with an initiative.
14 �gS ?
•••

The black pawns run faster so

White tries to create threats with
his pieces.
12hg7
Perhaps 12 llJ h2 ! ? at once is
more precise: 12 . . . a4 13 llJg4 llJ hS Subsequent play is not forced.
14 llJe2 bS ! 15 hg7 �xg7 16 �h6 + Bot sides have a wide choice on eve­
�g8 17 f4 a3 18 b3 f6 19 :gdfl exf4 20 ry turn, but current practice is fa­
llJxf4 llJxf4 2 1 �xf4 �xf4+ 2 2 M4 voura ble to Black, who could stay
hg4= . After the text move Black solid or try to grab a pawn on the
gets the g8-square for his knight. kingside :
12 . . . ©xg713 �h2 15 llJe2 f6 (Grischuk-Ponoma-

28
 1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 tlJc6 3 � bS

riov, Moscow 2002 saw lS . . . hg4 16 6 es

hxg4 �e6 17 @bl �xg4 when White White h a s no reason to delay eS
has only partial compensation for anymore, after all the preparations
the pawn.) 16 @bl �a7 17 tlJe3 �e6 he had made . After 6 0-0 0-0 Black's
18 g3 bS 19 f4 �d8 20 fxeS fxeS+ was knight gets the e8-retreat square:
fine for Black in Fridman-Lanka, 7 es (7 �el d6 8 d3 �d7=) 7 . . . ttJe 8
Bochum 20 05. 8 hc6 dxc6 9 d3 tlJc7 10 tlJe4 (10 �e3
lS i>bl a3 16 b 3 �d4 17 tlJh2 bS 18 tlJe6 11 tlJe4 tlJd4 ! 12 ttJxcS ttJxf3 + 13
tlJf3 �d6 19 l2J e2 �e6 20 g3 �ad 8 2 1 �xf3 heS=) 10 . . . ttJe6 11 �el
tlJgS c4 2 2 f4 cxd3 23 cxd3 f6 = , Gris­
chuk-Leko, Russia (rapid) 20 0 2 .

E2. 5 h3
White i s following the restrict­
ing strategy, started on the previ­
ous move.
5 .ig7 !
. . .

Ever since our first steps i n chess

we have been taught that it is a ter­
rible sin to lose tempi in the open­ Black has a good game. He can
ing, moreover to return a developed realise his main plan at once : 11. . .
knight to the initial square . On the fS 12 exf6 exf6 1 3 �bl b6 1 4 b 3 aS
other hand, it is a question of con­ 15 a4 �a7 16 �b2 �e7 17 �d2 tlJd4
crete calculations. If White proves 18 ttJxd4 cxd4=, Adams-Kramnik,
unable to make good use of his tem­ FIDE-Web k.o . g/lS +lO Las Vegas
porary initiative, we'll complete de­ 1999, or simply trade some pieces
velopment with fair counterchanc­ first:
es. Our plan consists of tlJg8-h6, fal­ 11 . . . b6 12 tlJegS (or 12 a4 aS 13
lowed up by f7-fS (or f6) . Notice that �e3 fS 14 exf6 exf6=, planning �a8-
S . . . tlJd4? ! 6 eS tlJxbS 7 tlJxbS tlJdS 8 a7-e7 and h6, fS) 12 . . . tlJxgS 13 hgS
0-0 �g7 9 d4 ! cxd4 10 �xd4 is real­ h6 14 �f4 �e6 15 �d2 @h7 16 h4
ly dangerous for Black. �dS=.

6 ... �g8 7 .A xc6

It is time to kill the knight or
it will jump to d4: 7 �e2 tlJ d4 ! ? 8
ttJxd4 cxd4 9 tlJe4 heS 10 0-0 a6
when White does not get enough
compensation for his central pawn.
7 dxc6 8 d3
. ..

8 �e2 tlJh6 9 tlJe4 leads by trans­

position to a critical position, which
is analysed in line E3a.

29
Part 1

8 ll.) h 6 9 .ie 3
... 2 0 07 was 1 3 cj{fl fS 14 gS llJ f7 1S ie3
Another version of this idea is: cS ! and the bishop takes the other
9 g4 0-0 10 ie3 . White's idea is long diagonal, e .g. 16 h4 b6 17 hS
deeper than it seems at first sight. ib7 l S hxg6 hxg6 19 gh3 �d6 ! + 2 0
He is not just trying to win a tem­ V9d2 hf3 2 1 gxf3 �h2 2 2 c;t>e2 llJxgS
po for his development. More im­ 23 gg3 f4 24 gxgS fxe3 -+) 13 .. .fS 14
portantly, he hopes to provoke the gS f4 lS gxh6 hh6 16 �e2 fxe3 17
move 10 . . . b6? which would deprive llJe4 exf2 + lS c;t>xf2 ifS+ with full
our queen of a pa th to the queenside. compensation for the pawn.
As we will see later, that would con­ 12 . . . llJf7 13 hes ges+ 14 ie3 bS !
siderably restrict our counter-chan­ lS 0-0-0 b4! ?
ces. Luckyly, we have the nice pawn The game Feygin-Nedev, Iz­
sac: mir 2 0 04 saw lS . . . VNaS 16 a3 b4 17
llJ e4 gbs lS llJd4 �dS 19 axb4 fS !
and eventually I won, but the text is
even better. 16 llJ a4 VNdS 17 llJd4 fS !
lS c4 ! (or lS �xb4 f4 19 c4 V9d7 2 0
hf4 �xd4 2 1 ie3 �f6+) 1 S . . . bxc3
19 llJxc3 �d6 20 llJb3 fxg4+.
Having seen this analysis, we
might decide that:
9 g4 0-0 10 if4 is more con­
sistent, but then 10 .. .f6 ! offers fair
10 . . . fS! 11 exf6 counterplay due to the hanging
Following 11 gS? llJf7 12 if4 state of White's pieces on the f­
Black has an extra tempo for file. The point is that 11 V9e2 fails
12 . . .�aS! (12 . . . �b6! ? is also playable to 11 . . . llJxg4 ! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cubas­
as in game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov, Nedev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he has to
Krasnoyarsk OS . 0 9 . 20 07) 13 V9e2 choose 11 V9d2 fxeS 1 2 hh 6 hh6 13
V9b4! (or 13 . . . llJdS ! ? 14 0-0-0 bS lS V9xh6 gxf3 14 0-0-0 �fS lS �xfS +
a3 b4 16 llJbl gbs 17 llJfd2 ie6 lS c;t>xfS 16 gh2 ! The endgame looks
'!9e3 idS 19 gh2 llJ e6 20 h4, Menki­ better for White, but the thematic
novski-N edev, Struga 2 0 0S, when sacrifice cS-c4 should balance the
20 . . . llJd4! 21 hS bxa3 22 llJxa3 gxb2 game, for instance 16 . . . h6 17 gel
23 c;t>xb2 gbs + - + would have won c4 ! ? lS dxc4 i e6 19 llJe4 hc4 20
faster) 14 �e3 V9xb2 Black has an at­ ttJcs gas 2 1 ttJxb7 gas 22 b3 gbs 2 3
tack, for example, lS c;t>d2 �a3 16 h4 llJdS ids 24 c4 gbs 2S cxdS gxdS 26
gas 17 hS ttJd6 ! - + . dxc6 gc3+ 27 c;t>b2 gxc6 2S f3 ga3
1 1 . . . exf6 1 2 �d2 29 gxeS gxf3 = .
The greedy 12 hcS? unleashes
our bishop pair: 12 . . . ge s+ 13 ie3 9 Y«a 5 !
...

(in the blitz game Guseinov-Nedev, This novelty i s a result o f my

30
 1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bS

(T.N .) long evolution in understand­

ing these structures. (which cost me
a couple of painful losses)
I had played here:
9 . . . b6 10 g4 fS, when 11 exf6?
exf6 12 �e2 (Or 12 �d2 tlJf7 13 0-0-0
0-0) led to this position in Maciej a­
Nedev, Istanbul 20 0 3:

1 0 g4
Alternatively: 10 tlJd 2 tlJfS 11 ttJc4
ttJxe3 12 fxe3 Wfc7+; 10 Wfd2 tlJfS 11
�f4 ttJd4=.
1 0 ...f 5 1 1 g 5
It turns out that White i s behind
in development so opening up the
Instead of 12 . . . Wfe7, after the game centre is hardly advisable: 11 exf6
I found an improvement: 12 . . . 0-0 ! 13 exf6 12 Wfd2 (12 tlJd2 ? ! 0-0 13 ttJc4
0-0-0 fS ! and Black takes over the �c7 14 ixcS �e8 + 15 �e3 bS 16 tlJd 2
initiative: 14 gS (14 d4 fxg4 15 dxcS fSt) 12 ... ttJf7 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 d4 fS !
Wfc7 16 tlJgS gxh3+) 14 . . . ttJf7 15 d4 15 gS �e6 16 a3 bS when our attack
�e8 16 dxcS WfeToo . The threat of 17 . . . is running very fast.
f4 forces White t o move the queen 1 1 . . . li:)f7 1 2 .if4 .ie6
and we get a tempo to activate the 12 . . . Wfb6 ! ? to impede White's
second bishop on e6 . castling is playable, too.
Unfortunately, instead of open­ 1 3 '%Yd2 0-0-0 ! ?
ing the centre by 11 exf6?, White
has 11 gS ! ttJf7 12 �f4. White has
lost a tempo with this bishop, but
the extra move . . . b6 only hampers
our counterplay on the queenside.
The game Stoj anovic-Majeric, Tuz­
la, 2006 saw a similar development
and White had some edge.
Perhaps 10 .. .f6 ! ? would have
been a better option, when 11 Wf e2 ! ?
would b e similar t ogame 5 David­
Nedev, Kerner, 05.10 . 2007.
Anyway, Black is not farced yet We are already the active side, so
to push the f-pawn. It is better to ac­ there is no reason to trade queens :
tivate the queen first. 13 . . . �dS 14 ttJxdS Wfxd2 + 15 Wxd2

31
P art 1

cxdS 16 c3 l2Jd 8 17 d4 l2Je6 18 cj{e3 assess correctly.

:!%c8 19 :!%acl h6oo. White's main positional aim is to
1 4 a3 bolster the e5-outpost with �f4, :!%el,
Preparing a long castle. 14 h4 c4 but it is not too efficient if we man­
15 d4 bS 16 hS b4 17 l2Je 2 �dSt or age to trade our last knight through
14 �e3? ! �dS 15 0-0-0 .ixf3 16 �xf3 d4. Therefore White tries first to dis­
ltJxeS+ favour Black. suade us from this idea. The point is
1 4 . . . c4 1 5 d4 c5 1 6 0-0-0 b5t. that 9 . . . 4.JfS could be met by 10 c3
b6 11 g4 4.Jh6 12 0-0 0-0 13 d4 cxd4
E3. 5 e5 � g 4 14 �f4 ! ? dxc3 15 bxc3 with an over­
whelming position for the pawn.
9 g4 0-0 is considered in E3b.

9 ... b6 1 0 d3
10 l2Jf6 + only helps Black deve­
loping: 10 . . . exf6 ! 11 exf6+ cj{f8 12
fxg7+ cj{xg7 13 0-0 :!%e8= .
1 0 ... � f5
1 0 . . . 0 - 0 1 1 �f4 f6 1 2 0 - 0 ltj f7 13
:!%fel is an example of what Black
should avoid. He is very passive and
E3a. 6 �e 2 has too many minor pieces to acco­
E3b. 6 �xc6 modate in a little space.
11 .ig5
E3a. 6 Wfe2 .ig7 7 hc6 dxc6
8 h3 tll h6

Black must make a crucial

choice. He can fulfil his positional
9 tlle4! ? aim by trading the knight, which
A consistent and logical varia­ could however bring about a rath­
tion against Black's setup. It com­ er complicated position, or reduce
bines strategical with tactical mo­ risk, and winning chances, too !
tives which the engines often fail to 1 1... �d4

32
 1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 ibS

The solid alternative is 11 . . . 0-0 12 8 g4

c 3 f6 13 if4 fxeS 14 �xeS tLlh4 ! The This is the most topical option.
point. Black gains the bishop pair, The alternatives are:
but his pawn structure is cripppled: 8 d3 �g7 (8 . . . tLlfS heading for d4
15 tLlxh4 �xeS 16 0-0 WdS . Black is playable, too) 9 �e3 (9 tLle4 b6 10
should be OK here . (A.K.) �f4 tLlfS 11 c 3 ia6) 9 ... WaS and we
12 �xd4 �xd4 13 �f6+ �f8 have reached the position fram the
14 c3 �dS 15 �g4 main line E2 .
These moves were farced and 8 tLle4 b6 9 We2 tLlfS 10 c3 aS ! ?
again Black must choose between (In Rytshagov-Spasov, Yerevan 1996,
the sharper and the calmer options. was 10 ... �g7 11 g4 tLlh6 12 tLlf6+ when
The game Tseshkovsky-Nataf, Her­ 12 . . . exf6 13 exf6+ cM°8 14 fxg7 + �xg7
ceg Novi 2005 saw 15 . . . hS 16 tLlh2 would have been unclear) 11 d3 ia6
Wds 17 tLlf3 �fs 18 �dl Wxa2 19 12 c4 i.g7 (12 . . . tLld4? ! 13 tLlxd4 Wxd4
0-0 We6 20 �fel when Black is un­ 14 f4 0-0-0 15 tLld6 + �xd6 16 exd6;t
der bind. 19 .. .f 6 is better, but Kolev Lilov-Spasov, Plovdiv 19 . 0 3 . 2008)
does not like Black's position. 13 tLlf6 + exf6 14 exf6 + cM°8 15 fxg7+
The engines like 15 . . . WdS be­ �xg7 16 0-0 �e8. Black completed
cause it grabs a pawn, but 16 f4 development and has a good game.
�xg4 17 hxg4 �d8 (17 . . . h6 18 ih4
gS 19 i.g3 �d8 20 0-0 t) 18 0-0- 0 ! 8 ...i.g7
h 6 1 9 �h4 g S 2 0 if2 Wxa2 2 1 f� 8 .. .fS is imprecise. It reveals
is awful for Black who is unable to Black's plans too early, thus allow­
connect his heavy pieces. Perhaps ing the opponent to choose the best
best is : setup : 9 gS tLlf7 10 d3 �e6 11 We2
15 ... f6 16 M4 g5 17 exf6 exf6 �g7 12 h4 �ds 13 tLlxdS WxdS 14 c4
18 .ih2 hg4 19 hxg4 �d5 2 0 We6 15 �f4 h6 16 0-0-0;t, Khalif­
0 - 0 E:e8 2 1 �c2 �f7 2 2 E:fel=. man-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 2 .

E3b. 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 �h6

9 d3
9 We2 0-0 10 d3 Wb6 ! ? transpos­
es to the main line.
9 0 -0
•••

33
Part 1

9 . . .f5, intending to block the cen­ 10 ••• Wfb6 ! ?

tre and castle long, is unclear.

Now, the bishop i s pinned t o cl

1 0 �e2 and White is suddenly faced with a
(For 10 ie3 f5 ! or 10 if4 f6 ! - difficult problem: how to disentan­
see E 2) gle his pieces. All plausible choices
This move is flexible to excess ! do not look encouraging:
The reason behind it is seen in the a) 11 �d2 V9xb2 12 0-0 Vfff a3 13
line 10 .. .f6 11.�d2 ! ? It turns out llJe4 b6 14 if4 f5 15 exf6 exf6 16 �d6
that Black's threat to the e5-pawn 8:f7 with a dubious compensation
can be ignored. White simply de­ b) 11 b3 f5 12 llJa4 (12 g5 llJf7 13
velops, counting on his better pawn �d2 llJd8 14 0-0-0 llJe6 15 E!:del llJd4
structure. While not ensuring him 16 ttJxd4 cxd4 17 llJ a4 Wa6 18 �bl
a big advantage, such an approach b5�) 12 .. . �c7 13 hh6 , Wen,Yang­
is quite awkward for Black. You Zhao Jun, Wch U2 0 Yerevan, 2006,
can see a detailed analysis of the 13 . . . fxg4 ! 14 hg7 gxf3+.
plan with 10 .. .f6 in the "Complete c) 11 �l (or 11 0-0) We can
Games" section, game 5 David­ take a relieved breath here, as the
Nedev, ECC 2 007. long castle would have been a much
The other major plan of Black more dangerous plan. 11 .. .f5 12 g5
is linked with 10 .. . f5 ! ? 11 g5 ttJ f7 12 (or 12 exf6 exf6 13 �g2 llJf7 14 E!:el f5
�f4 Vfff aS ! See game 6 Landa-Mir. 15 g5 �d7) 12 . . . ttJf7 13 �g2 llJd8 14
Markovic, Belgrade 1991. b3 llJe6 with initiative. You can see
However, we can outsmartthe en­ also game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov,
emy by attacking the b2-pawn with : Krasnoyarsk 0 8 .0 9. 2 007.

34
Part 1 1 .e4 c5 2. lllf 3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.lll d 4
lll c 6 5. lll b 5 d6 6.c4

COM PLETE G AMES

1 . M ortensen-Erm en kov d4 by queen. With opposite attacks,

Riga 1 981 it is imperative to have more open
1 e 4 cs 2 li:) f3 li:)c6 3 ibS li:)f6 files while the pawn structure falls
4 li:)c3 g6 s o-o .ig7 6 es li:) g4 7 into the background. In our case Er­
ixc6 dxc 6 8 �e1 0-0 9 d 3 menkov prefers to install his bishop
on the long diagonal, fram where it
will be hitting the enemy king.
1 4 ih6 cs 1 S li:) g 3 ib7 1 6 ixg 7
© x g 7 1 7 f4 fS !

9 . . . li:) h 6 !
Black's main plan is t o advance
his kingside pawns, but first he
should manoeuvre his knight to d4.
Then he could think about activat­ Black has realised the main ide­
ing the a8-rook with . . . as, . . . b6, . . . as of this opening and took over the
E:a8-a7, and only then turn t o the initiative. The tide is soon going to
kingside. The breakthrough . . .f7-f6 turn and it will be Black who will be
(or fS) will not run away. attacking.
1 0 if4 li:)fS 1 1 %Yd2 b6 1 2 li:) e4 1 8 exf6+ exf6 1 9 fS %Yd7 20 h4
li:)d4 1 3 li:) xd4 cxd4 �ae8 21 fx g 6 hxg6 22 h S %Yg4 2 3
If White's king had castled long, 'l;Yf2 Y;Yg s !
It would have been better to take on Mortensen was reluctant t o ad-

35
Part 1

mit his opening strategy was a fail­ squared bishop fram exchange as
ure, and only deteriorated his posi­ after 8 . . . e6? ! 9 �gs �e7 10 �xe7
tio n. Black methodically went on to �xe7 11 ttJbd2 White would have
build up pressure. been slightly better. The point is
24 �xea �xea 2S hxg6 <i>xg6 26 that White has not a good place for
ti:) e2 �e3 27 ti:) f4+ <i>f7 2a q;h2 �f3 his bishop.
29 ti) h 3 \Wes+ 30 <i> h 1 \Wh S 31 <i> g 1 9 ti:) bd 2
�xg2 32 \Wxg2 \Wxh 3 After 9 ttJc3 e 6 1 0 �e2 Black
3 2 . . . �xh3 ! 33 �b7+ �g6 34 �g2 + should not miss the moment for
� h 6 3 5 �fl f5- + was winning, wbile 10 . . . ttJbS ! = since one move later
now White can still resist. White would be able to cover the
33 \Wxh3 � xh3 34 a4 <i>e6 3S as d4-square: 10 . . . �e7 11 ttJe4 ttJbS 12
<i> d S 36 axb6 axb6 37 �a6 q;c6 3a c3 .
�aa �e3 39 <i>f2 q; b s 40 �ta �e6 41 9 . . . e6 1 O '%Ye2 ti) b S !
�da q;b4 42 �ca �es 43 �c 6 �f s+ A key point i n Black's setup !
44 <i>e2 bS 4S �d6 �f4 46 �c6 c4 White was threatening with 10 . . . �e7
4 7 dxc4 bxc4 4a �ca �h4 49 c3+ 11 ttJe4 when 11. . . ltJbS would stum­
<i>b3 SO �ba+ q;c2 S1 cxd4 �xd4 ble into 12 c3 .
S2 <i>e3? (52 �b4 fS 53 �3 �d2 54 1 1 ti:) e4 ti:)d4 1 2 ti:) xd4 \Wxd4
�a4=) S2 .. �d3+ S3 q;e4 ts+ S4 @ e s Black has completely equal­
� b 3 ss � c a q; d 3 S6 �da+ <i> e 3 S7 ised. Later on he could disturb his
�ca �bS+ sa <i>f6 f 4 S9 �xc4 f3 60 opponent with . . . c5-c4 or . . . h5-h4
�c3+ <i>f4 0-1 while the only active idea of White
is f4-f5.
1 3 ti:) g 3 �g 6 1 4 q; h 2 ?
2. M ovsesian-Chuch elov After this move White is deprived
B u nde s l ig a 200 S of any counterplay. His chance to
1 e4 c s 2 ti:)f3 ti:)c6 3 �bS ti:) f6 4 was 14 �e3 0-0-0 15 f4, maintain­
eS ti:) d S S 0 -0 ti:) c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 ing the balance.
h3 �ts a d3 h 6 ! 1 4 . . . h S ! 1 S f4 h4 1 6 ti) h 1 ?

Thus Black preserves his dark- A terrible move, which allows

36
 1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS

Black to place a strong blow. Natu­ structure is also important for our
rally, 16 l!Je4 would have been bet­ repertoire, since it could arise from
ter. Black would have indeed the other move orders.
same breakthrough as in the game, 8 d3 � g7 9 � c3 b6 1 0 �e4 0-0
but with White's knight in the cen­ 1 1 �d 2 fS ! ?
tre, it would not be so decisive due
to 17 �e3 .
1 6 . . . c4! 1 7 dxc4 �hS !
Regaining the pawn with a n ad­
vantage in view of the variation
18 �d3 �xd3 19 cxd3 �e2 20 �f2
�xd3+.
1 8 '%Yf2 '%Yxc4 1 9 fS?
Apparently White cannot be­
lieve that he could be worse so early
in the game with White and makes
"active" moves instead of develop­ Handke conducts the game very
ing . 19 �e3 would have made Black consistently, without subtleties and
to choose between many appealing fancy move orders. He knows what
options. He might want to sacrifice he is aiming for, and does not beat
a pawn with 19 . . . �e7, when 20 �xa7 about the bush. Black is set for a
cS 21 �b6 �a6 22 �c7 �g6 23 c3 �c6 kingside pawn storm.
24 �d6 �xd6 2S exd6 �xd6 26 �adl We prefer first to activate the c7-
�hS is only slightly better to him. knight with . . . l!Jc7-bS-d4, but the
After the text White should not be text is by no means bad. Black has
able to level the game any more. solved the opening problems.
1 9 . . . ext s 20 �gs �cs ! 21 '%YxfS 1 2 exf6
The endgame is rather gloom af­ White is unable to blockade the
ter 2 1 �xh4 �xh4 2 2 hh4 �e2 2 3 kingside with 12 l!Jc3 h6 13 h4 l!Je6
�fel �xh4 2 4 �xe2 �d8+ 14 �el due to 14 .. .f4.
21 . . . �g6 22 Y;Yf 3 �hS 23 �f4 1 2 . . . exf6 1 3 '%Yc1 g S !
o-o-o+ 24 � t2?? �ts-+ 2s � d 3 This i s the right way t o handle
� h S 26 b3 '%Yxc2 2 7 � a c 1 '%Yxd 328 the pawns. Black should bolster up
'%Yxd 3 �xd3 29 �xcS g S 0-1 the gS square before proceeding
with .. .fS.
1 4 � h 2 �ts 1 S � g 3 �g6 1 6 f4
3 . De l a Paz- H a nd ke fS
H av an a 200 3 This is already too straightfor­
1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 �b S � f6 ward. Black would have kept the in­
4 es � d S s 0-0 � c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 itiative with 16 . . . �d6t. The text al­
7 h 3 g6 lows White to escape into an end­
We recommend 7 . . .�fS , but this ing with 17 fxgS �d4+ 18 � hl �xb2

37
P art 1

19 1!9xb2 �xb2 2 0 �ael ltJbS with un­ whereas on the queenside his pro­
clear play, but White misses this op­ gram includes . . . a4, bS, a3, and
portunity. eventually the thematic . . . c5-c4 .
1 7 ic3?! ixc3 1 8 bxc3 � d S 1 9 In the diagram position White has
� f3 ? tried to organise play down the h­
White cracks under the pres­ file, but it has proved quite harm­
sure. 19 l2Je2 was more stubborn. less ;
1 9 ... g xf4+ 20 �e2 Y«d6 21 � h4 13 l2Jh2 a4 14 l2J g4 l2Jg8 15 �bl
gae8 22 Y«d2 Y«f6 23 � f3 ge7 24 (or 15 l2Je2 �xg4 16 hxg4 Wff e6 17 �bl
� a e 1 �fe8 2S d4 Y«d6 26 gf2 ge3 1!9xg4 18 f3 1!9e6 19 g4 f6 20 f4 a3
2 7 Y«c1 ihS 21 fS 1!9d7oo, Grischuk-Ponomariov,
The rest is clear. Moscow 2002) 15 . . . a3 16 b3 1!9d4 17
28 � e s ixe2 29 �xf4 �8xeS 30 l2Jh2 bS 18 l2Jf3 Wffd6 19 l2Je 2 .ie6oo
dxeS Y«xe S 31 �f2 f4 32 Y«d2 ic4 Grischuk-Leko, Moscow 2002
3 3 � d 1 Y«xc3 34 Y«c1 a s 3 S <i> h 2 1 3 . . . ie6
� x h 3 + 36 gxh3 Y« g 3+ 3 7 <i> h 1 Y«xf2 Karjakin-Topalov, Blindfold, Bil­
38 � g 1 + <i>f7 39 Y«b2 � f6 0-1 bao 19 . 10 . 2007, saw 13 . . . a4 14 l2Je 2
� a7 15 l2Jg3 �e7 16 gS l2Je8 17 Wff c3
4. S h i rov- lvanchuk l2Jc7 18 �dfl ltJbS 19 Wffd 2 a3 20 b3
Edmonton 200 S f6+ and Black had a strong pressure
in the centre. Ivanchuk wants to
1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c 6 3 i b S g 6
4 ixc6 d x c 6 S d 3 i g 7 6 h 3 � f6 bind the c3-knigt with the defence
7 � c3 0-0 8 ie3 b6 9 Y«d2 es 1 0 of the a2-pawn. Now, 14 l2Je2 ixa2
.i h 6 Y«d6 1 1 o-o-o a s 1 2 ixg7 15 l2Jg3 �fe8 16 Wigs Wffe6 would fa­
<i> x g7 vour Black, so Shirov has to think
up another attacking plan. 14 l2Jh4
a4 ! 15 W1 gS (or 15 l2Je2 �xa2 16 l2Jg3
�h8) 15 . . . a3 16 b3 Wffd4 is unappeal­
ing, therefore White decides to kill
the awkward bishop .
1 4 � g s � d 7 1 S � xe6+
The attempt of pushing f4 is too
slow: 15 �dfl bS 16 f4 b4 17 l2Je2
�xa2 18 l2Jf3 f6+. Time and again
we see that without a good centre,
a flank attack has little chances to
succeed.
1 3 g4 1 S . . . fxe 6 !
Without any advantage in the I t took t o Ivanchuk only 1 5
centre, White's attack should not moves t o get the edge with Black!
be lethal. Black's play is even easier. H i s attack will run very fast while
He entrenches himself with l2Jg8, f6 Shirov will need a lot of tempi to

38
 1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs

create even the smallest threat. gh4 37 @c2 gh2+ 38 @d3 tll x g S
1 6 gS a4 1 7 h4 '%Yd4 1 8 gdf1 ? 3 9 a 4 tll f3 4 0 tll c4 g S 4 1 a s g 4 4 2
@e3 gc2 4 3 tll d 6 tll d 2 4 4 @f4 ga2
4 S a6 ga4+ 46 @ g 3 tll c4 47 tll xc4
g x c4 48 gba ga4 49 g as @f6 so a7
@es S1 @h4 @e4 S2 @ x g4 e s S3
@g3 ga2 S4 @h4 @e3 SS @hS e4
S6 @ g s gas+ S7 @ g 6 %-%

S. Dav id- N ed ev
European C l u b C u p O S .1 0.2007
1 e4 cs 2 tll f 3 tll c6 3 .ibS tll f6 4
tll c3 g6 s es tll g 4 6 .ixc6 d xc6 7 h 3
After this passive move White tll h 6 8 g4 .i g 7 9 d 3 o - o 1 0 We2
is lost. He would have had more
chances to resist after 18 l2Je2 ! Wffxf2
19 hS �f3 20 hxg6 hxg6 2 1 �h6 �h8+
(Finkel).
1 8 ... a3! 1 9 hS
Following 19 b 3 b S 20 �dl �f3
White would be tied up and down.
1 9 . . . c4
Instead of this thematic break,
Black was winning by brute force :
19 . . . axb2 + ! 20 �bl �a3 21 f4 �c3
22 hxg6 hxg6 23 Wff h2 �f7 24 Wffh 7 +
�e8 25 Wffxg6+ �d8 - + . (Finkel) 1 o . .. t6
20 f4 cxd 3 ! 21 gf3 til e s 2 2 During the game I could not
hxg6 h x g 6 2 3 Wh2 axb2+ 2 4 @b1 break away from the stereotypi­
dxc2+? ! cal thinking that made me consider
Starting fram here, Ivanchuk only 10 .. .f6 and 10 . . .f 5. Only after the
gradually begins to lose control of game I got the insight to shift my at­
the game and eventually draws. In tention to the other wing, and try to
the next few moves he misses sever­ punish the opponent for his delay of
al killers, e.g. 24 . . . �h8 ! 25 �h3 �xh3 development. Then I came up with
26 Wffxh3 Wffxc3- + . the move 1 0 Wb6 ! ? which I ana­
. . .

2S Wxc2 exf4 ? ! (25 . . . �xf4 2 6 lyse in the "Step by Step" chapter.

�fh3 �af8 - +) 2 6 Wxb2 g h 8? ! 2 7 The text is not that bad, of course,
g d 1 Wes 2 8 gxf4 ! + g h 3 2 9 tll a4 but David's next move was a sort of
Wxb2+ 30 tll xb2 gf8 ? ! 31 gxf8 surprise to me.
@xf8 32 gd6 gh433 @c2 gh2+ 34 1 1 .id2 !
@c1 @e7 3S gxc6 tll xe4 36 gxb6 I had pleasant experience after

39
Part 1

11 .if4 lt:Jxg4 ! 12 hxg4 (12 e6 lt:Jh6 gxg4 gxg4 20 lt:JfgS \Wd7 21 f3 gxgS !
13 0-0-0 lt:JfS+) 12 . . .fxeS 13 heS? ! 2 2 lt:JxgS \WfS 23 lt:Je4 gfs+) and now
(13 lt:JgS gxf4 14 gxh7!? .if6 ! ? 15 18 . . . hxg6 (or 18 . . . hS 19 .ie3 hf3 2 0
gh6 ! Wes 16 lt:J ce4 hg4 17 f3 .ihS VM fl Wd7 2 1 lt:JxcS \WfS 2 2 ggloo) 19
1 8 0-0-0 Wf8 ! 19 fuhS gxhS 2 0 ggl gd gl fuf4 20 �xg4 fug4 21 lt:Jh4�
Wh6 21 ®bl gfs+) 13 . . .hg4+, as VMc8 22 f3 fuh4 2 3 fuh4 \WfS 24 l&g2
in the game Cubas-Nedev, Mallor­ gfg 2 5 gh 3 b6 26 gg3 ®f7oo is about
ca 2 004, so I expected 11 ie3 . Then balanced. After my positional blun­
11 . . . b6 12 0-0-0 lt:Jf7 13 d 4t o r 11. . . der the game is over as Black has
fxeS 1 2 lt:JgS ! b6 1 3 0-0-0oo would fa­ nothing to oppose to the enemy at­
vour White . I had in mind 11 . . . lt:Jf7 ! tack on the h-file.
12 hc5 fxeS 13 0-0-0 b6 14 .ie3 cS 1 8 hxg6 hxg6 1 9 �h4 e5 20 &iJfg5
15 lt:J gS lt:JxgS 16 hg5 .ib7 17 lt:J e4 f3 21 Y!if1 gf4 22 Y!ih3 gxe4 23 dxe4
h6 18 .ih4 Wd7 with a strong bish­ Y!ie7 24 gh8+! ixh8 25 g d8+! 1 -0
op pair and good prospects for a
queenside attack.
1 1 . . . &iJ f7 1 2 0-0-0 Y!ic7 1 3 i> b 1 6. Land a-M ir. M arkov ic,
&iJ d 8 1 4 &iJ e4 &iJ e 6 1 5 h4 Belgrade 1 99 1
Both sides are realising their 1 e 4 c 5 2 &iJc3 &iJ c 6 3 &iJf3 &iJ f6
plans and now it is evident, that 4 cib5 g6 5 Y!ie2 ig7 6 e5 &iJ g 4 7
White started first his attack. That ic6 dc 6 8 h3 &iJ h 6 9 g4 0-0 1 0 d 3
finally made me take on eS, in or­ f 5 1 1 g5 &iJ f7 1 2 if4 (or 1 2 h 4 f4 ! 13
der to organise counterplay down e6 lt:Jd6 14 hS lt:JfSf±) 1 2 . . . Y!ia5 !
the f-file.
1 5 . . .fxe5 1 6 h5 &iJf4 1 7 ixf4

This i s another important posi­

tion for our repertoire. White has
1 7 . . . exf4? fixed the kingside in his favour, but
It is difficult to explain this awful Black has a free hand on the oppo­
move. I only had to employ the tac­ site wing. His idle minor pieces ca n
tical motive from my game against easily take a more active role follow­
Cubas to get a satisfactory game: ing the routes .ic8-e6-d5 and lt:Jf7-
17 . . . hg4 ! 18 hxg6 (18 gd gl fuf4 19 d8-e6. Only the g7-bishop is like-

40
 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 !bS

ly to remain stuck on g7, but it is at

least a good defender.
After the text, long castling is
risky due to 13 . . . bS, (or the more
solid 13 0-0-0 !e6 14 h4 l2Jd 8 lS hS
!xa2 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 l2Jh4 !f7 18
�e3 l2Je6) so White's king will re­
main in the centre for a while.
Curiously, I had this position
with an extra tempo as White has
played 10 !e3 f5 11 gS l2Jf7 12 !f4
�as 13 �e2, and following 13 . . . l2Jd 8 1 5 �h3
14 0-0-0 bS---+ White's resistance did White should consider sacrific­
not last long, Menkinovski-Nedev, ing the eS-pawn as lS hS .txf3 16
Struga 20 0S. �xf3 ltJxeS 17 �h3 cj{f7 18 0-0-0oo
13 Y¥e3 or lS ... �b4 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 0-0-0
I have also analysed 13 a3 !? , pre­ M3 18 �xf3 ltJxeSoo would give him
paring the castle. Then 13 . . . !e6 14 time to complete development.
h4 !dS lS hS ltJd8 (Do not be greedy, In my opinion (T.N .) it is bet­
lS . . .!xf3 16 �xf3 ltJxeS 17 �e3t is ter to maintain the tension with
in White's favour.) 16 0-0-0 l2Je6 17 1S . . . l2Jd 8 , eyeing the a2-pawn. Then
!d2 �c7 18 ltJxdS cxdS 19 �h4 cj{f7oo 16 a3 (16 hxg6 hxg6 17 a3 l2Je6 18
leads to complex play with mutual 0-0-0 bS�) 16 . . . l2Je6 17 0-0-0 �ad8
chances. (to recapture on dS by rook) 18 �h4
1 3 . . . .ie6 1 4 h4 bS 19 ltJxdS �xdS 20 �dhl b4 21 hxg6
Still keeping the castling op­ hxg6� would be interesting to test.
tions open. In Kindermann-Hoel­ 1 5 . . . � ad8 ? !
zl, Chalkidiki 20 0 2 White chose 14 The first critical moment in
cj{fl, when 14 . . . �fd8 lS h4 �b4 16 this game. Markovich is obvious­
�bl �d4 17 a3 � b6 was not too ef­ ly unable to decide what he wants
ficient. to do and hands the initiative to
It would have been better to acti­ the opponent. Black has to real­
vate the knight with 14 . . . l2Jd8 lS h4 ise that he must free the f7-square
!dS (or lS . . . !f7 16 hS gxhS 17 l2Je 2 for his king, and that he needs to
l2Je6 18 cj{g2 �ad8 19 a 3 l2Jd4oo) 16 bring his knight into play. Both
ltJxdS (16 hS l2Je6) 16 . . . cxdS with a tasks could be achieved with one
roughly level game, for example, move : 1S . . . l2Jd 8 ! If then White sac­
17 e6 �b6 18 �el d4 19 �e2 �c8 rifices the a2-pawn, he will hardly
20 ltJeS �xe6 21 �f3 l2Jc6 22 l2Jxc6 have enough compensation after 16
�xc6 23 �xc6 �xc6 24 �xe7 �f7 2S 0-0-0 !xa2 17 hS l2Je6 18 �d hl bS.
�e8+ �f8 = . Still, Black is not obliged to take the
1 4 . . . .idS gift. Instead he can play in the cen-

41
Part 1

tre with 16 . . . ttJe6 ! ? 17 �bl �ad8 18 �g 8 2 9 tlJf4 !f8 30 tlJf3 +) 26 �xh5

h5 hf3 19 �f3 �d4 20 hxg6 hxg6 tlJd 8 27 !h2 !f7 28 �h4 tlJe6 . Black
2 1 �hl �fd8 2 2 tlJe2 �a4 23 tlJc3 �b4 may be a little better, but White's
24 tlJe 2 c4 25 d4 c5f!. pieces are not so useless as in the
Let's consider 16 a3 tlJe6 17 0-0-0 game. Instead he decides to defend
(or 17 h5 ixf3 18 W'xf3 tlJd4 19 W'dl passively.
c4t) 17 . . . b5 18 h5 b4 19 tlJbl �ab8t.
Black h a s a perfect setup. His pieces
are clearly more dangerous.
1 6 tl) d 2 �e6 1 7 tl) f3 �d 5 1 8 .tl)d2
'l«b4? ! 1 9 0-0-0 'l«d4 ? ! 20 ge1
b5? !
Black firstly misplaced his queen,
and now he misses the chance to
trade it. Of course the endgame
would be not too pleasant, but leav­
ing the enemy queen alive in this
position is suicidal. But now it is
White's turn to err. He should have 25 g h 2 tl) d 8 26 �g3 �d 5 2 7
kept the queen with 21 W'g3 ! with tl) d 2 tl) e 6 28 f4 c4i
nice attacking prospects. This breakthrough is possibly a
2 1 .<i>b1 ? ! �e6 22 tl) f3? Y«xe3 bit premature, but we can hardly
23 gxe3 blame Markovic for it. It is normal,
Now Black is not afraid of being thematic move, which fixes a the
mated, and his game is preferable . clear edge of Black. The only ques­
He must immediately redeploy his tion is could he press home his ad­
pieces so that the knight reaches e6, vantage.
(or g6, should White play h5) for in­ 29 dxc4 �xc4 30 tl) xc4 g d 1 + 31
stance, 23 . . . �d7 24 h5 gxh5 ! 25 tlJe 2 tl) c 1 bxc4 32 g h e 2 gfd 8 33 c3 tl) c 5
tlJh8 2 6 tlJg3 h4 27 ttJxh4 tlJg6 2 8 34 <i> c 2 tl) e4 3 5 �e 1 �f8 36 b 3 e 6
tlJ h 5 !h8 . 3 7 bxc4 � a 3 3 8 tl) b3 c 5?
2 3 . . J;d4? ! Black's bishop apparently had a
Black is obsessed with the d4- bad day. After having been stuck on
square. I n a moment when the bat­ g7 for many moves, it finally broke
tle for the key dark squares f4 and g3 free, only to get locked again, this
is going at full throttle, he presents time on a3. 38 . . . a5+ would have
the enemy with a clear tempo . maintained the edge. The rest of the
24 tl) e 2 gd7 game is tragicomic and is irrelevant
White should have opened for our purposes.
the kingside with 2 5 h5 gxh5 ! 39 �d2 g h 1 40 gd3 gxd3 41
(25 . . . ttJd 8? does not work due to <i>xd3 g xh4 42 <i>c2 g h 1 43 �e 1
2 6 hxg6 hxg6 27 tlJh4 �f7 2 8 !h 2 ! h5 44 g xh6 <i> h 7 45 tl) d 2 tl)xd2 46

42
 1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �bs

Axd2 g a1 47 © b 3 Ac 1 48 g e1 Axd2 attacking b 2 .

4 9 gxa1 Axf4i SO © c 2 ©xh6 (SO . . . 1 2 . . .YM b 6 1 3 b3 Ae6
gS ! ) s 1 g h1 + © g 7 S2 g b 1 Axes S 3 Our recommendation is first to
gb7+ i>f6 S 4 gxa7 g S SS a 4 g 4 activate the knight with 13 . . . lt:Jd8-
S6 a s g 3 S 7 g b 7 g 2 S 8 gb1 f4 S9 e6-d 4, and then to put the bishop to
@ d3?? (S9 a6 f3 60 a7+-) S9 ... @fS e6 where it would support ... cS-c4.
60 a6 f3 61 ©e3 \t>g4 62 a 7 Af4+ 1 4 o-o Ads 1 s g e 1 � d 8
63 ©f2 A g3+ 64 ©e3 f2 6S a8YM Black would have more chances
f1 YM 66 YMg8+ ©h3 67 YMxe6+ © h 2 to break through following lS . . . hf3
6 8 YM h 6+ © g 1 6 9 YMb 6 Ae 1 7 0 YMb2 16 '1Mxf3 '1MaS 17 lt:J a4 lt:Jd8+. Now Po­
@h1 71 YMb7 YMf2+ 72 ©d3 YMd 2+ pov succeeds in entrenching him­
73 ©e4 g 1 YM 74 © es+ VMgg2 0-1 self:
This game saw a lot of positional 1 6 � h2
m istakes, but they were quite in­ 16 lt:JxdS cxdS 17 d4 opens up play
structive, and allowed us to explain in Black's favour: 17 . . . lt:Je6 18 dxcS
the typical plans in the position with '&xcS 19 ie3 '&as 2 0 lt:Jd4 lt:Jxd4 21
a closed centre. hd4 f4 !
1 6 . . . � e 6 1 7 Ad2 YMc7 1 8 f4 h 6
(or 1 8 . . . hS) 1 9 h 4 h x g S 20 h x g S ©f7
7. lv. Po pov-Tre gu bov 21 �xd S cxdS 22 �f3 gh8 23 © g 2
K ra snoyarsk 08.0 9.200 7 d 4 2 4 a4 YM c 6 2 S © g3 � c7 1/2-1/2
1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 � c3 � f6 4
Abs g6 S es � g4 6 Axc6 dxc6 7 h 3
� h 6 8 g 4 A g 7 9 d 3 o-o 1 0 Ae3? ! 8. D ra b ke-Zhi g alko
ts ! 1 1 g s �f7 1 2 At4 Kerner 08. 1 0 . 2007

Whte has lost a tempo on 10 14 ... c4 ! ? 1 S bxc4 A b4+ 1 6 ©f1

ie3 ? ! We prefer in such a setup Ac3 1 7 Ae3 cS 1 8 gd 1 YMc6 1 9 © g 2
to develop the queen to as, in or­ Axes 2 0 g h e 1 f S 2 1 A g s gde8 2 2
der to have . . . bS as an option, but gh1 Ac7 23 'tt> g 1 fxg4 24 � h4 g h s
Tregubov's move is also consistent. 2 S YMxg4 � e s 2 6 YM g 3 g x h 4 2 7 f4
It controls d4 and wins a tempo by � f3+ 28 ©f2 � x g S 0 -1

43
Part 2 1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lllf6 s lllc 3 es 6 lll dbS d6
7 igS a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 lll d S ie7

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

We start our survey on the Open Si­ 1 3 exfS lllx fS 1 4 cxbS 0-0
cilian with the so-called Positional 1 S bxa6
variation against the Sveshnikov. In 15 .id3 e4 16 he4 V!ie7 gives
this part we consider rare continu­ Black fantastic attack.
ations, which are used as surprise 1 S ixa6 1 6 ixa6 �as+ 1 7
•••

lines fram White. �d2 �xa6

A. 1 0 lll x e7 lll x e7 1 1 ixf6
Black meets almost all other
moves with . . . dS. Only 11 \Wf3 re­
quires another approach: 11. . . lt:Jd7
12 0-0-0 lt:JcS 13 .ie3 lt:Je6.
1 1 gxf6 1 2 c4
•••

White tries to clamp on dS, but

his pieces are undeveloped. 12 .id3
.ib7 13 \WhS ! ? is a modern attempt
which should be countered with
13 . . . lt:J g6 ! . The knight is eyeing f4, Perhaps White can hold the bal­
the h8-rook can occupy the g-file, ance by 18 Wie2 , intending to repeat
while our king would be safe on e7. moves after 18 . . . V!iaS + 19 \Wd2 = .
1 2 fS!?
•••

B. 1 0 ixf6 ixf6

Black already has the initiative.

44
 7 ig5 a6 8 � a3 b5 9 tlJd5

The main move here is 11 c3. It is takes on a3 and obtains typical Si­
considered in Part 3 and 4. cilian counterplay along the b-file.
Lately White discovered that Play might become interesting
Black apparently neglects good only in case when White attempts a
preparation against: kingside attack. However, Black can
1 1 c4 then invade White's rear through
It deprives Black of immediate the c-file with . . . a4, . . . b3, . . . � c6-
counterplay on the queenside and d 4-c2 ! . We analyse this plan in the
clamps on d5 "for good ". However, "Complete Games" section, see 1 0
Black has an active plan, connect­ Korneev-P. Horvath, Porto San
ed with . . . a4, but he must play con­ Giorgio 2007.
crete chess. After 14 h4, we propose:
We propose a new idea, con­ 1 4... a4!?
nected with a pawn sacrifice.
The most topical position aris­
es after
1 1 ... b4 1 2 lllc 2 aS 1 3 g 3 0-0
1 4 h4!?
Apart fram restraining Black's
bishop, this move prepares an ex­
change of the light-squared bishops
through h3.
The more conventional 14 ig2
ig5 15 0-0 �e7 16 �ce3 ie6 17 �d3 The known alternatives 14 . . . g6
he3 18 �xe3 leads to an equal po­ and 14 ... ie6 15 ih3 �d4 are play­
sition. able, but the text is more enterpris­
ing. Now 15 ih3 fails to 15 . . . b3, so
White must take the pawn:
1 5 lll c xb4 lll x b4 1 6 lll x b4
YNb6 1 7 a3 .id8

White has more active rooks,

but they can attack only one we ak­
ness, o n d6, which is easily defend­
ed. A logical continuation would
be: 18 . . . �c7 ! ? = . White can open up The immediate threat is . . . �cs
the queenside by a3, but then Black and . . . ia5, regaining the pawn.

45
Part 2

If White prevented it by castling tLlxb4 17 tLlxb4 (17 �xb4 i.d8 ! = )

quickly, the bishop goes to b6 to un­ 1 7 . . . �cS !
derline the vulnerability of the ene­
my kingside. We would not like to
be in his shoes after 18 i.d3 �b7 19
0-0 i. b6 20 tLldS i.d 4 21 �bl i.h3 22
�el �d7. Perhaps he should play 18
�d3 i.e6 19 i.h3 �cs 2 0 i.xe6 fxe6
2 1 0-0 i.aS 22 �adl �fd8 with equal­
ity.

We can realise the same idea fol­

lowing the modern 18 �d2 (or 18 �e2 i.d8 19 0-0
1 3 Y«f3 i.e6 1 4 gd1 i.aS 2 0 a 3 0-0) 18 ... 0-0 19 a 3 �tb8
20 i.e2 i.d8 21 �xd6 �xd6 22 �xd6
i.e7.
1 6 i.dS 1 7 i.e2 �d4 1 8
•••

%Yd3 o-o 1 9 o-o gcs 20 gc1

1 4 a4!?
•••

White hoped to put pressure on

d6 as in the game Nepomniachtchi­
Andriasian, Moscow 14.0 2 . 20 0 8 :
1 3 . . . i.e6 14 � d l i.e7 l S c S 0 - 0 1 6 The fine point of this position
i.bS tLl a7 17 i.a4. Kolev's idea rad­ is that the opposite coloured bish­
ically disturbs his plans. ops work in Black's favour, as after
1 5 �cxb4 20 tLlc2 i.xdS 21 exdS i.b6oo. After
Now lS cS? ! does not work in the text we continue setting up our
view of lS . . . �aS ! . pieces on dark squares :
l S tLlxf6+ does not seem too test­ 20 Y«a7 2 1 h3 i.a5 22 i.g4
•••

ing either: 1S . . . gxf6 ! ? 16 �e2 b3 17 gbs

axb3 �b8 All our pieces are well placed, the
1 5 Y«a5 ! 1 6 a3
••• a4-pawn petrifies White's queenside
Another critical line is 16 �c3 and renders his extra pawn useless.

46
Part 2 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 s �c 3 es 6 � db S d6
7 i.gS a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS ie7

STEP BY ST EP

I n this part we examine rare lines of bov, 20 07 rapid 12 CDc2 0-0 13 f3 h6

the Positional system: 14 �h4 as 15 �e2 �e6 16 0-0 �fd8
A. 10 CDxe7 17 <j{hl gS 18 �f2 CiJhS 19 �el CDf4 2 0
B . 10 M6, fallowed by 11 CDbl or �fl Wffc7 21 �d2 <j{g7 2 2 �acl Wffb7 2 3
ll c4. CDe3+) 1 2 cxbS CDd4 1 3 �d3 axbS 14
CDxbS CDxbS 15 hf6 �xf6 16 �xbS
10 CDxf6? ! + M6 11 �e3 loses yet �b7! (Following 16 . . . Wff g6 17 0-0
another tempo and Black should Wffxe4 18 �xd6 �b7 19 f3 Wff e3+ 2 0
become even better after 11 . . . �e6 12 <j{hl e 4 21 �es �ac8, Perez Cande­
c4 0-0 ! 13 cxbS (13 �e2 CDd4+) 13 . . . lario-Illescas, Leon 200 6 , Black
axbS 1 4 �xbS (14 CDxbS d S i s excel­ must struggle for a draw after 2 2
lent for Black, for example: 15 exdS a4.)
ixdS 16 CDc3 CDd4t) 14 . . . CDd4 15 �d3
�b6+.

A. 1 0 � xe7
White tries either to split the
enemy pawn formation, or obtain
a small strategic edge in case of

10 . . . �xe7.
This approach is quite logical,
but it fails the test of practice. It
turns out that in the first case the ri­ It is unclear how White could
diculous position of White's knight achieve an advantage here:
on a3 is a more weighty factor than a) 17 f3 dS ! ;
Black's structural defects, and even b) 1 7 �d3 dS (17. . . �e6 !?) 1 8 exdS
in the latter case, Black retains fair �d6 19 �c2 �xdSoo;
chances to equalise. Let us shortly c) 17 �e2 �g6 18 f3 dS 19 exdS
examine 10 .. . �xe7 11 c4 0-0 (11. . . hd5 20 0-0 (2 0 a4 �fc8 !oo) 2 0 . . . �b6 +
b4? ! proved bad i n Carlsen-Radja- 21 @hl �xa2 2 2 �xeS �aS = .

47
Part 2

1 o �xe7 1 1 ixf6
... 1 2 exdS ifs 1 3 9Wb3 9WxdS 14
We'll describe here a number of VfixdS ttJ exdS lS c4 bxc4 16 hc4 0-0
unpopular alternatives for White: 17 0-0 ttJ b4 18 �fel �fe 8 = , Anand­
Leko, Linares 200S;
a) 1 1 9We2 has not been seen in
practice, but it is an interesting at­ d) 11 !d3 dS 1 2 exdS 9WxdS (after
tempt to use the bishop pair. We 13 f3 Black equalises with 13 . . . e4 or
suggest 11 . . . !b7 12 f3 dS 13 0-0-0 13 . . . j,fS) 13 9Wd2 ttJ e4 ! 14 Vfie3 ttJxgS
Vfic7 14 @bl 0-0 lS exdS ttJexdS 16 lS VfixgS VficS 16 0-0-0 0-0 17 �hel f6
c4 bxc4 17 9Wxc4 9We7 ! f± ; 1 8 9We3 9Wxe3 + 19 �xe3 !e6 = .

b) 1 1 f3 d S As i n most Sicilians, e ) 1 1 Vfif3 ttJ d 7

Black solves the opening problems
if he achieved this break. 12 exdS
ttJfxdS 13 c4 bxc4 14 ttJxc4 f6 lS !d2
0-0 16 !d3 (16 �e2 ? ! !e6 17 0-0
ttJb6 18 ttJe3 9Wd4 19 !cl ttJfS ! 20
9Wxd4 ttJxd4 2 1 !dl �fd8+ Petrov­
Dobrov, Athens 20 03) 16 . . . !fS 17
!as 9Wd7 18 0-0 (18 hfS? ttJxfS 19
0-0 VfibS ! 2 0 9Wb3 �fb8 ! + ) 18 . . . VfibS
19 b3 hd3 20 Vfixd3 ttJc6 = ;
Black intends to castle and open
c ) 1 1 9Wd3 dS the f-file. White has tested:
ll . . . !b7 is a well known old line 1 2 c4 b4 13 ttJc2 aS 14 !d3 0-0 lS
which is equal: 12 !xf6 gxf6 13 0-0-0 0-0 tlJcS = · '

dS 14 exdS VfixdS lS VfixdS ttJxdS 16 1 2 0-0-0 ttJcS 13 !e3 ttJe6 14 @bl

c4 ttJb4! 17 cxbS ttJxa2 + 18 @c2 (18 (Or 14 9Wg3 !b7 1S f4? ! he4 16 fxeS
@bl ttJb4 19 bxa6 !e4+ 20 @al @e7 dS+, Sitnikov-Krapivin, Serpukhov
21 f3 jJS= , Sveshnikov) 18 . . . �dS ! 2 0 03 ; 14 c4 Vfic7 lS @bl b4 16 ttJc2
19 �c4 (19 bxa6 @e7) 19 . . . hc4 20 aS 17 h4 !b7 1 8 !d3 Vitolinsh-Lig­
ttJxc4 axbS 2 1 ttJd6+ @e7 2 2 ttJfS+ terink, 1978 18 .. .fS ! 1 9 Vfih3 f4 2 0 !cl
( 2 2 ttJxbS? ! �hb8 23 ttJ c3 ttJxc3 24 ttJcS with excellent play) 14 . . . !b7 lS
@xc3 �a6+) 22 . . . @e6 2 3 t2Jg7+ @e7 c4 0-0 (16 cxbS? ! axbS 17 ttJxbS dS ! )
24 ttJfS+ @e6= Charbonneau-Nataf, 1 6 !d3 ttJc6 ! � Vitolinsh-Chekhov,
Montreal 2003 . Daugavpils 1 978 ;
1 2 exdS 12 b4 f6 1 3 !d2 !b7 14 c4 fS lS
Or 12 hf6 gxf6 13 0-0-0 d4 14 cxbS fxe4 16 Vfig4 0-0 17 bxa6 (17
c3 9Wc7 1S ttJc2 dxc3 16 Vfixc3 9Wxc3 17 ttJ c4 !dS ! ) 17 . . .h a6 18 ttJc4 dS ! 19
bxc3 �g8 1 8 ttJe3 (18 g3 !b7; 18 f3 9We6 + @h8 20 !gS Vfic7! with an ex­
fS ; 1 8 t2Jb4 �b7 19 �d6 �g6) 18 . . . �e6 cellent game, e.g. 21 he7? hc4 2 2
19 @b2 fS = . !xf8 ttJxf8 2 3 Vfih3 !d3 ! -+ .

48
 7 �gs a6 8 ltJa3 bS 9 ltJdS

11 ... gxf6

Nowthe careless 14 �g4? ! would

run into 14 .. .fS ! when 15 exfS (or 15
�xfS ltJf4 16 �g4 V!JaS + ! 17 �fl �b4
1 2 c4 18 :gbl V!Jd4 19 V!Jdl dS ! +) 15 . . . �h4
Alternatives: (15 . . . ltJf4 ! ?) 16 h3 hS is in his favour.
12 � f3 fS 1 3 exfS hf5 14 �d3 Therefore, White should choose ei­
�e6 15 0-0 dS 16 :gadl V!Jc7 17 V!Jf6 ther:
0-0- 0 ! shows that Black can castle a) 14 0-0-0 ltJf4 15 V!J h6 (15 �g4
long in some lines . The more con­ hS 16 �g7? �e7!+; 15 V!Jf3 f5 16 �bl
ventional 15 . . . 0-0 16 c4 f5 17 :gfdl V!Jd7=) 15 . . . :gg8 16 g3 (16 �xh7? �e7!)
e4 18 V!Je3 bxc4 19 hc4 dS 20 ltJc2 16 ... ttJxd3 + 17 cxd3 f5 18 V!Jxh7 (18
(20 � h6 V!Jd6) 20 . . .f4 ! ? oo is another :ghel V!JgS + 19 V!Jxg5 :gxgS=) 18 . . . �gS+
good option; 19 f4 (19 �bl fxe4) 19 . . . exf4 2 0 gxf4
12 V!Jd2 �b7 13 0-0-0 he4 ! 14 V!Jxf4+ 21 �bl :gg2 ! � or:
V!Jxd6 V!Jxd6 15 :gxd6 ltJc6 16 �f6 (16 b) 14 g3 dS 15 0-0-0 b4 16 ltJbl
f3 �e7 17 :gd2 �fS+) 16 ... ltJb4 gives V!JaS (16 ... V!Jb6 ! ? 17 ltJd2 0-0 oo) 17
Black a fine game; �fS ! ? (17 a3 bxa3 18 ttJxa3 0-0 19
12 �d3 �b7 13 �hS ! ? is a modern f4 :gac8 was good for Black in Arn­
attempt. It requires precision from grimsson-Deepan, Belfort 2005;
Black. The other continuations are or 17 exdS hdS 18 :ghel 0-0 19
less testing: f4 :gfe 8 =) 17 . . . 0-0 18 h 4 (18 exdS
13 V!Je2 dS 14 exdS (14 c3? ! fS ! ) hdS 19 :ghel �g7 20 h4 �e6 2 1 �f3
14 . . . ttJxdS 15 0-0-0 �e7 16 �e4 ltJf4 l2Je7=) 18 . . . dxe4 19 he4 he4 2 0
17 V!Jf3 he4 18 V!Jxe4 :gc8 19 g3 ltJe6 V!Jxe4 :gac8 with a complex, unbal­
20 f4 ltJcS 21 V!JfS V!J e6 22 �xe6 + fxe6 anced game.
23 fxeS fxeS= , Zatonskih-Cmilyte,
rapid, Tallinn 20 0 0 ; 13 c4 transpo­ 1 2 fS !?
...

ses to 12 .c4 �b7 13 .�d3 . 12 ... �b7 is also a very good op-
13 . . . ltJg6 ! tion. It is better tested, but the effect
Black does not renounce his of surprise would be lesser as well.
common plan with .. .f5. He only 13 �d3
improves first the position of his It is quite risky to grab the pawn
knight. by 13 cxbS? ! he4 (Practical experi-

49
Part 2

ence confirmed Sveshnikov's evalu­ Motylev-Shirov, rapid, Bastia 2 0 04,

ation of the line 14 �a4 dS lS bxa6+ and here after 18 ... �xg2 19 �xg2
@f8 . He thought that the dynamic �xg2 20 l2Jd6 �dS White's compen­
factors are more important, and sation seems insufficient) 17 . . . @f8
they favour Black, for example: 16 18 �e4 (18 l2Jxb7 �xb7 19 �b3 �c6+)
� b4 �g8 ! ? 17 f3 �fS 18 g4 �c8 ! t) 14 1 8 . . . �aS+ 19 �d2 �xd2 + 20 @xd2
bxa6 (14 . . . dS ! ? 15 �bS + @£8 is a very �d8 21 �b7 �xd6 + 22 @c3 �b6 2 3
interesting alternative, which also � f3 l2JfS and Black has a tiny edge.
gives Black a good game : 16 0-0 �g8 14 . . . �xg2 15 bxa6 �a6 16 �a6
17 f3 �b6 + 18 @hl �f5 or 16 �d2 �xa6
�g8 17 f3 i.f5 18 0-0 �b6 + 19 �f2 This position is very unbalanced,
d4 with fair compensation in both but Black's game is easier, because
lines) 14 . . . 0-0 15 �e2 l2Jg6 ! ? 16 0-0 his king is well hidden behind the
ltJf4 17 f3 (17 �f3 ixf3 18 �xf3 �xa6 pawns. Even the endgame could
19 ltJbS dS 20 a4 d4f!) 17 . . .�f Sf! be in his favour, as the g2-rook be­
with enough counterchances. comes extremely active along the
13 . . . �g8 fourth rank after .. .fS, e.g. 17 �d3
�b6 ! 18 �bS+ �xbS 19 ltJxbS @d7
20 a4 fS 21 exfS �g4 22 b3 �b4 2 3
�bl l2Jxf5t.
17 l2Jc4 fS 18 exfS ltJxfS 19 �dS
�h4 ! 20 �xg2 �xc4�
White's defence is difficult.
12 .. .fS represents another ap­
proach . Black plans to castle and
activate the knight. It was recom­
mended by Kasparov.
14 cxbS 1 3 exf5
White can hardly delay this cap­ In case of 13 cxbS? ! fxe4 White
ture, since Black is ready to take on risks to be overrun by Black's cen­
c4 and push . . . dS: tral pawn cluster. The endgame af­
14 0-0? ! bxc4 1S l2Jxc4 dS 16 exdS ter 14 l2J c4 (Or 14 bxa6 0-0; 14 �a4?
�xdS 17 f3 (17 �e4 �xg2 + 18 @hl 0-0 15 �xe4 �as + 16 @dl �fS+)
�f2 ! - + Andriasian-Harika, Yer­ 14 . . . ltJfS 15 �dS �e6 16 �c6 + @f8
evan 2 0 0 6) 17 . . . �d8+ Kupreichik­ 17 �dl (17 �xe4 axbS 18 l2Je3 l2Jd4+)
Chekhov, Minsk 1976. 17 . . . l2Jd4 18 �xd6 + �xd6 19 l2Jxd6
14 �gl bxc4 (14 .. .fS ! ? 15 exfS e4 �d8 is much better for Black.
16 �c2 ltJxfS 17 �d2 dS 18 0-0-0 ! oo 1 3 tll x fS 1 4 cxb5
...

with a very complicated position) 15 Or 14 �d3 l2Jd4 15 0-0 �b7.

l2Jxc4 (15 �a4+? ! �c6 16 �xc4 dS ! +) 1 4 0-0 1 5 bxa6
...

lS . . . dS 16 exdS �xdS 17 l2Jd6+ (17 lS �d3 e4 16 �e4 �e7 gives Black

�a4+ @£8 18 0-0-0 was played in fantastic attack: 17 f3 (17 �dS �e8

50
 7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 ttJdS

18 f3 �e6 19 �d2 dS 20 MS MS+ Black has nice compensation .

21 @fl �f6oo) 17 . . . �h4 + ! 18 @e2 (18 White should look for equality by
@d2 dS 19 MS MSt) 18 . . . �e8 18 �e 2 , intending to repeat moves
after 18 . . . �aS + 19 Wid2 = .
The other option i s dubious:
18 h4? ! @h8 (18 .. .f6 ! ? 19 �h3
�bToo) 19 V!JgS [19 . . . tlJd4 20 V!if6 +
@g8 2 1 �gS += (21 0-0-0? ? �fc8 +
22 @bl Wixa3 23 bxa3 �ab 8 + 24
@al tlJc2 #)] 19 . . . tlJg7 (avoiding the
draw!) 20 �h3 f6 !oo.

Perhaps White can survive here, B. 1 0 �xf6 ..txf6

but he must defend very precisely:
19 g3? �xe4+ 20 @f2 �gs 2 1
fxe4 �e3 + 2 2 @ g 2 tlJh4+ ! ! 2 3 gxh4
�h3 # ;
1 9 V!JdS �e6 2 0 Wid2 d S 21 MS
MS+ 2 2 @fl axbSt;
19 �d3 dS 20 �xdS �gS ! 2 1
@elD ( 2 1 �adl �e6 ; 21 g4? tlJg3 +)
21. .. �b7+ 2 2 Wixb7? �xg2- + ;
19 �el dS (19 . . . �xh2 should lead
to a perpetual) 20 �xdS �e6 21 �cs
�ac8 22 V!Jb6 �xh2 23 @£2 tlJh4
In this part we'll consider only
24 �gl, when 24 . . . �cd8 or 24 . . . �fS
the rare continuations:
maintain pressure .

Bl. 11 tlJbl
1 5 ixa6
•••

B 2 . ll c4
1S . . . V!Jh4 ! ? is also interesting.
1 6 ixa6 Was+ 1 7 Wd2 Wxa6
Other minor alternatives are:
a) 11 ttJxf6+ Wixf6 (12 �e2 �b7
13 0-0 0-0 14 c3 �fd8 15 tlJc2 (15
�f3 ttJe7 16 c4 ttJc6 ! ? 17 cxbS ttJ d4t)
lS . . . ttJe7 16 �f3 dS+) 12 c4 0-0 13
cxbS ttJd4 14 tlJc2 (14 bxa6 �g6 15
f3 �xa6t) and here after 14 . . . dS ! ?
(14 . . . axbS lS ttJxd4 exd4 16 �d3 �gS
17 0-0=) 15 exdS �g4 16 �d2 axbS
Black has the initiative;
b) 11 h4? ! ttJe7 (Sveshnikov's re-

51
Part 2

commendation 11 . . . .ixh4 leads to a f3 �d7 16 0-0 ttJb4 17 �b4 �xb4 18

very unclear position after 12 �xh4 ttJxb4 �b6+ 19 �hl �xb4+) 1S . . . �b8
�xh4 13 ttJc7+ �e7 14 ttJxa8 �xe4+ 16 0-0 0-0+. So he must prepare the
lS �e2 �b4 + 16 c3 �as 17 0-0-0 wing break with:
.ie6oo) 12 c4 ttJxdS 13 �xdS 0-0 ! 14 1 2 �d2
cxbS (14 �xa8? �aS+ - +) 14 ... .ie6 Motylev-Rogozenko, Bucharest
lS �d2 axbSt. 1998 saw the bizarre:
c) 11 .ie2 This move is seldom a) 12 b4, which aims to secure
seen because White loses control the position of White's knight on c3
over dS after 11. . . 0-0 12 0-0 .igS 13 and prepare a4. The game went on
c3 (13 c4 b4 14 ttJc2 aS lS b3 .ie6 16 12 . . . .ie6 13 ttJ bc3
a3 bxa3 17 �xa3 �b8 18 �d 3 �b7 19 13 ttJxf6 + ? ! �xf6 14 �xd6 �c8 lS
�c3 �b8 20 �g3 .id8= Vladimirov­ .id3 offers Black at least two ways
Panchenko, Tbilisi 1973) 13 . . . ttJe7! to develop the initiative: lS . . . �gS 16
Perhaps at this point White realis­ ttJd 2 �xg2 17 �fl .ih3 18 a4 �g6 19
es that his a3-knight is too far fram �xg6 (19 �cs �xfl 20 ttJxfl �e6 2 1
the centre. 14 c4 ttJxdS lS �xdS .ie6 axbS ttJd4+) 1 9 . . . hxg6 20 axbS �xfl
16 �d3 b4 17 ttJc2 �b6 18 b3 aS= , 2 1 �xfl axbS 2 2 hbS �e7 where
game 9 Janosevic-Jussupow, White's compensation is clearly not
Amsterdam 1978 . enough, and 1S . . . �e7 ! ? 16 �xe7+
d) ll .id3 .ie6 (11 . . ..i gS is also an �xe7 17 a3 ttJd4 18 �d2 ttJxc2 19
option: 12 0-0 0-0 13 c4 b4 14 ttJc2 hc2 �hd8 + 20 .id3 .ic4t.
aS lS ttJce3 .ixe3 16 fxe3 .ie6 17 �hS 13 a4 hdS 14 exdS e4 lS c3
ttJb8 18 �f3 ttJd7 19 �afl �a7 2 0 g4 ttJxb4 16 axbS axbS 17 �a3 ttJd3 + 18
f6+ Black's position is difficult to hd3 exd3 19 0-0 0-0 20 �xd3 b4
attack and White's pawn weakness­ is about equal.
es will soon become a problem) 12 Now let us return to 13 ttJbc3 :
c3 .ixdS 13 exdS ttJe7 14 ttJc2 0-0 lS
a4 bxa4 16 �xa4 �b6 17 �b4 �cs 18
ttJ e3 .igS+ Bogaerts-Krasenkow, Os­
tend 1990 .

8 1 . 1 1 � b 1 gb8!
Directed against 12 a4 . If White
persists with it, he will be worse af­
ter 12 a4 bxa4 13 �xa4 (13 ttJd2? !
�xb2 14 ttJc4 �b8 lS ttJxf6+ �xf6 Rogozenko chose 13 . . . 0-0 14 a4
16 ttJxd6+ �e7 17 ttJxc8 + �hxc8 18 ttJxb4 ! lS ttJxb4 (lS axbS ttJxdS 16 exdS
.ixa6 �d8 19 .id3 �a8+) 13 ... �xb2 e4 ! ) lS . . . �aS with the better game,
14 .ixa6 (14 �cl �b8 lS .ixa6 .igS for instance, 16 ttJ ca2D (16 �xd6?
16 �dl .id7+) 14 . . . .ig4 ! ? lS �cl (lS �fd8 17 �cs �bc8 18 ttJc6 �xc6 19

S2
 7 igS a 6 8 llJ a 3 b S 9 llJdS

�xc6 �c8 - +) 16 . . . ha2 17 c3 ie6 18

axbS �c7 19 �cl (19 c4 axbS 20 ttJ a6
�c6 2 1 ttJxb8 �xb8 gives Black more
than enough compensation for the
exchange, Rogozenko) 19 . . . �b7 (20
llJxa6 �bc8 21 �e3 id8 !oo) 20 bxa6
�xe4+ 21 �e3 �a8 ! t .
I n the diagram position Black
can also play the logical 13 . . . �c8 ! ?
1 4 a4 (14 id3? ttJxb4 lS ttJxb4 �xc3+;
14 ttJxf6 +? ! �xf6 lS �d2 ttJd4 16 a4
0-0+) 14 . . . ttJxb4 ! lS ttJxb4 �as with
similar ideas as in the above-men­ White is behind in development
tioned game, but in an even better and should think about maintain­
version: ing the balance.
16 �bl (Or 16 �bl �c3 17 axbS
�b3 ! 18 cxb3 �xb4+ 19 @e2 axbs� ;
16 ttJca2? ha2 - +) 16 . . . �xc3 17 axbS B 2. 1 1 c4 b4 1 2 liJ c2
(17 �xd6? �c2 18 axbS? ie7- +) 12 �a4? is totally inconsistent:
17 ... ib3 ! 18 id3 (18 �xd6 hc2 19 12 . . . �d7 13 ttJxb4 ttJd4 14 �dl �b8
�d2 hbl 2 0 �xc3 he4+) 18 . . . �xb4 lS ttJd3 (lS ttJ ac2 ttJxc2 + 16 ttJxc2
19 0-0 axbS 20 �b3 �xb3 21 cxb3 �xb2+) lS . . .igS 16 b4 fS 17 exfS 0-0
0-0 and Black is a pawn up. with attack.
b) 12 g3 0-0 13 ig2 ie6 14 0-0 1 2...as
hdS lS exdS (lS �xdS? ! ttJd4 16
ttJa3 b4 17 ttJc4 �c7 ! 18 ttJe3 �bS 19
�c4 �xc4 20 ttJxc4 �cS+) lS ... ttJ aS
was equal in Hoffmann-Yakovich ,
Munich 1993 ;

1 2 ... �g 5 1 3 a4
White must hurry with this
break, or he will lose the battle in
the centre : 13 id3 ttJe7 14 ttJxe7
�xe7+, Stefansson-Schandorff, Co­
penhagen 1994. We'll examine i n detail:
1 3 . . . bxa4 ! ? 1 4 liJ c4 0-0 B2a. 13 ie2
lS h4 ih6 16 g4 if4only weak­ B2b. 13 g3
ens White's kingside: 17 �xa4 ie6 B2c. 13 �f3
18 �a6 hdS 19 exdS ttJb4 20 �a3
�bS and Black seizes the initiative. White has also tried in practice:
1 5 gxa4 liJ e 7 ! a) 13 cS was played only once

S3
Part 2

and although White gets obvious in to a seemingly active position

positional compensation, it can with 14 . . .�e6 lS 0-0-0? ! (lS ltJxf6+?
hardly be dangerous: 13 . . . dxcS 14 �xf6 16 �xd6 E!ac8 17 ltJe3 �fd8 1 8
�bS ib7 lS ttJce3 0-0 16 .ixc6 ixc6 �cs ltJ d4 19 �xaS ttJxe2 2 0 Wxe2
17 E!cl igS 18 E!xcS E!c8 19 0-0 ixe3= ixc4+ 21 Wel �d2 ! - + Sveshnikov)
20 ttJxe3 lS . . . ixdS 16 �xdS �b6 17 E!hfl �ac8
Following 20 fxe3 Black can 18 �d3 a4 19 ltJe3 �gs 20 @bl ixe3
equalise with 20 . . . .ixdS 21 E!xc8 ( 2 1 2 1 fxe3 ltJ aS+, Sveshnikov.
E!xdS �b6) 2 1. . . �xc8 2 2 exdS �cs 14 �g5
. ••

23 �d2 (23 �d3 f5 24 d6 f4 2S d7

E!d 8=) 23 .. .�d8 24 E!cl (24 E!dl f5)
24 . . . �d6 2S e4 fS= .
2 0 . . . �e7 2 1 E!xaS ( 2 1 �cl id7
2 2 E!xc8 E!xc8 23 ltJdS �d6 24 �d2
fS 2S exfS?? ic6 26 E!cl E!d8 27 f6
�xdS- +) 2 1. . . ixe4 2 2 E!el E!fd8 23
�g4 �c7+ Vachier Lagrave-Ni Hua,
Turin ol . 20 0 6 ;
b ) 1 3 �d3 igS 14 E!dl? ! i s asking
for trouble: 14 . . . 0-0 lS ttJde3 ? ! a4 !
16 �xd6? b3 ! when 17 �xc6 loses to 15 Wfd3
17 . . .�aS+ 18 We2 (18 E!d2 bxc2- +) The game Frolov-Kramnik, So­
18 . . .bxc2 19 ttJxc2 ig4+ 20 f3 ie6- c hi 1990 presents a good exam­
+ 2 1 ltJe3 E!ab8 22 E!d2 �b6 23 �c7 ple of the ltJb8-d7 manoeuvre: lS
�c8. b3 ib7 16 �d3 ltJb8 17 E!fdl ltJd7 18
17 axb3 axb3 18 ltJ a3 is only a ltJel ltJcS+. Black keeps options to
little more stubborn: 18 . . . �aS+ 19 play on both wings.
�d2 �cS+; 15 �b7
•••

lS . . . �e6 is the favourite plan of

several Chinese GMs. They proved
B2 a. 13 J.e2 is something like that Black has sufficient resources:
a worse version of line B2b. The bi­ 16 �adl ixdS ! 17 cxdS (or 17 �xdS
shop does not protect e4 and White �b6 18 �bS �c7 ! = . White farced
lacks the plan with f4. Black pos­ play in Li Shilong-Wang Yue, 20 0 6
sesses two promising setups: the and got into serious problems af­
manoeuvre ltJ c6-b8-d7-cS when the ter: 19 cS? ! dxcS 20 �xcS E!ac8 2 1
light-squared bishop goes to b7, and ig4 ltJe7 2 2 �xc7 E!xc7 2 3 ltJe3 g6
. . . ie6xdS. Play continues with : 24 E!d7? ! E!xd7 2S ixd7 E!d8 26 E!dl
13 . . . 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 ixe3 27 fxe3 ltJc8 ! ) 17 . . . ltJb8 18 ig4
14 �d3 commonly transposes to ltJa6 19 g3 ltJcS 2 0 �f3 ltJ a4 21 �b3
the main line after 14 . . . �gS. Black ltJcS 2 2 �f3 �b6 23 h4 �h6 24 ltJe3
might also try to lure the opponent ixe3 2S �xe3 �bS=, Asrian-Ni

S4
 7 �gs a 6 8 tlJ a3 b S 9 tlJdS

Hua, Taiyuan 200 6 . :gd1 fxe4 23 �xe4 �a7! 24 f3 a4f!

1 6 E:adl ll) b 8 1 7 a3 2S �g2 axb3 26 axb3 �a2 27 :gxd6
Instead of winning a pawn, �xb3 28 :gxh6, draw, Khairullin­
White prefers to deprive the op­ Tregubov, Sochi 2 007.
ponent of his spatial advantage b) lS �hS 0-0 16 :gdl (16 �h3
on the queenside. 17 ttJde3 tlJa6 18 �xh3 17 fuh3 a4 ! ? f!) 16 . . . a4 !
tlJfS tlJcS 19 �xd6 is quite risky in­
deed. Black has strong compensa­
tion after 19 . . . �xd6 20 ttJxd6 �c6
or 19 . . . ttJxe4 ! ? 20 �xeS �f6 21 �f4
�b8 .

1 7 bxa3 18 li)xa3 li)a6 1 9

•••

li)b5 li)c5 20 �c2 a4, Malakhov -

Carlsen, Sarajevo 2006, Black has a
satisfactory game.
In this system, if Black achieves
to push the a-pawn that far, he usu­
B2b. 13 g3 0 - 0 ally obtains good counterplay. The
You can play 13 . . .�gS ! ? if you do trick is that 17 ltJxb4 is bad due to
not like the positions after 13 . . . 0-0 ttJxb4 18 ttJxb4 a3 ! , so White must
14 h4. Then 14 �g2 0-0 transposes finally remember about develop­
to the main line, so we'll consider ment:
here 14 h4 �h6 . Now the plan with 17 �d3 b3 18 axb3 axb3 19 tlJ a3
f4 is no longer possible, so White Nepomniachtchi-Pavlovic, Biel 2007
bases his play on the clumsy posi­ and here after the natural exchange
tion of our bishop on h6. It is practi­ sacrifice 19 . . . :gxa3 ! 20 bxa3 �as + 2 1
cally out of play and the fewer piec­ � fl �h8 Black would have enjoyed
es on the board, the more noticeable rich compensation and a pleasant
that would be. game. Note that 22 tlJf6? ! would be
a) lS �h3 �xh3 (lS . . .�b7 !? to bad due to 2 2 . . . tlJd4 23 g4 tlJe6 ! + .
avoid exchanges is an interest­
ing alternative: 16 �hS tlJe7 17 0-0 14 �g2
ltJxdS 18 exdS �c8 19 �xc8 �xc8 14 tlJxf6+ �xf6 lS �g2 ie6 16 b3
20 b3 0-0 21 �g2 �d2 22 :gadl �c3 (16 �xd6? :gac8 17 tlJe3 :gfd8 18 �cs
23 f4 �cs 24 fxeS �xeS 2S tlJel �c3 tlJd4+) 16 . . . �d8 ! 17 0-0 �b6 18 �d3
26 tlJd3 �c7+, Berg-Eljanov, Kern­ a4= ;
er 2007) 16 :gxh3 tlJe7 looks equal, 1 4 h 4 has been popular lately.
which was confirmed by the fallow­ However, pawns do not move back­
ing game: 17 :ghl (17 �fl? ! �c8 ! ) wards, and such moves are quite
17. . . 0-0 1 8 �fl :gc8 1 9 ltJxe7+ �xe7 double-edged. We propose an en­
20 b3 �h8 ( 20 .. .fS ! ?) 2 1 �d3 fS 2 2 terprising pawn sacrifice which has

SS
Part 2

similar ideas as the novelty in line ltJ f3 + 21 @cl �xc4+ 22 �c2 �xc2 +
B 2c: 23 cjfxc2 �a8 is unclear, as well as
14 . . . a4 ! ? lS ltJcxb4 (l S �h3 b3) 17 he6 fxe6 18 ltJb6 �c6 19 ltJxa8
1S . . . ltJxb4 16 ltJxb4 �b6 17 a3 �d8 �xe4t or 17 ltJxf6+ gxf6 18 �g2 �a7)
16 . . . exd4 17 he6 !
White wants t o get a good block­
ading knight against a poor bishop.
Previously White had tried 17 �d3
�c8 18 @fl (18 �dl �cs 19 ltJxf6+
�xf6 20 he6 fxe6 21 �xd4 �xc4 ! )
1 8 . . . �cS 19 @g2 hdS 20 exdS �c7= ,
Svidler-Elj anov, Bundesliga 2006 .
17 . . . fxe6 18 ltJf4

White might be sorry to have

weakened his kingside. We would
not like to be in his shoes after 18
�d3 �b7 19 0-0 � b6 20 ltJdS �d4
2 1 �bl i.h3 22 �el �d7. Perhaps he
should play 18 �d3 �e6 19 �h3 �cs
2 0 he6 fxe6 21 0-0 �as 22 �adl
�fd8 with equality.
Let us note that Black can also
choose on the 14th move: Here in both known games Black
a) 14 . . . g6, which occurred in played 18 . . . �e7? ! and was worse af­
the game Govorykh-Zhigalko, Ki­ ter 19 �g4 �ae8 20 0-0. Instead, we
rishi 20 07: lS hS (lS �h3 �b7 16 propose:
0-0 ltJ d4f!; lS �f3 �g7 16 hS fSoo) 18 . . . �c8 !
lS . . .�gS 16 �h3 �b7 (do not trade The hit on c4 discoordinates
this bishop on h3!) when instead of White's pieces. All defences have
17 @fl? ! ltJe7 18 @g2? ltJxdS 19 cxdS their drawbacks:
@g7 2 0 ltJel fS+ White should have 19 �cl
played 17 0-0 ltJe7 18 ltJce3 he3 ! Or 19 �d3 �a7 2 0 0-0 eS 21 ltJ dS
with a possible draw after 19 ltJf6 + �g4f!; 19 �e2 �es ; 19 b3 d3 . After
@g7 2 0 fxe3 ltJfS 2 1 ixfS (21 exfS the text Black free himself using the
�xf6 2 2 �g4 gS=) 21. . . �xf6 2 2 �c8 hanging state of the cl-rook:
�gs 23 hb7 �xg3 + = and : 19 . . . �c6 20 �e2 !
b) 14 . . . �e6 lS i.h3 ltJd4 16 ltJxd4 2 0 0-0 �ae8 21 �d3 (21 �el
16 ltJce3 can be attacked by the hh4) 21. . . hh4 = .
surprising move 16 . . . �c8 !? , when 2 0 . . . d s 21 exdS
17 ltJb6 �b7 1 8 ltJxa8 hc4 19 ltJxc4 Or 2 1 eS dxc4 22 0-0 d3 23 ltJxd3
(19 !fl !e6 ! ) 19 . . . �xe4 + 2 0 @d2 (23 �xd3 heS=) 23 . . .hh4 with a

S6
 7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 ltJdS

drawish position, for example: 24 tinued 19 . . .�c7 20 b3 g6 21 ltJxe7+

�g4 �e7 2S rocc4 (2S �xc4 �xc4 �xe7 22 ltJe3 �gs 23 ltJdS �cs and
26 �xc4 �ac8 27 �fcl rocc4 28 �xc4 Black's chances are already pref­
�d 8f!) 2s . . . �ds 26 �c7 �f7 27 ltJf4 erable in view of his imminent
�xeS 28 ltJxe6 �e8 29 �c4 �cs 3 0 counterplay down the a-file: 24 h4
�xcS �xe6 31 �xe6 �xe6 32 �xaS �h6 2S �f3 a4 26 @g2 axb3 27 axb3
�e2 = . hdS 28 cxdS �a3 29 �abl �c3 3 0
21. . .exdS 2 2 0-0 dxc4 2 3 �xc4 �e 2 �c8 31 Ml � a 2 3 2 �g4 �xd3+
(23 �xc4+ �xc4 24 rocc4 E!:ac8 2S 33 �xd3 �cc2 34 �f3 fS 3S exfS e4
�fcl �xc4 2 6 �xc4 �xh4=) 23 ... �d7! 0-1.
24 ltJd3 �ae8=. O ne of the latest game in this
line featured the dubious 16 b3? !
1 4. .igS 15 0 -0 li)e7 16 li)ce3
. . ltJxdS 17 �xdS �e6 18 �d3 �b6 19
16 f4 is positionally dubious as @hl a4 and Black already had some
it opens up play in favour of Black's initiative in Movsesian-Tregubov,
bishop pair: 16 . . . exf4 17 gxf4 �h4 Dagomys 0 2 . 04 . 200 8 : 2 0 f4 axb3
and now: 21 axb3 �xal 22 ltJxal exf4 23 gxf4
a) 18 �hS ltJxdS 19 �xdS (19 �f6.
cxdS? ! �a6+) 19 . . . �e6 20 �d3 �c7 16 ... ie6 17 �d3
21 b3 �a6+; Or 17 f4? ! exf4 18 gxf4 �h4 19
b) 18 ltJce3 �e6 19 �d4 (19 �d4 (19 �hS ltJxdS 2 0 cxdS �d7 2 1
eS dxeS 20 ltJxe7+ �xe7 21 �xa8 e S g 6 2 2 �f3 �c8 and we prefer the
�cS ! oo with excellent compensa­ bishop pair.) 19 �d4 �c8 20 �acl
tion.) 19 . . . �c8 20 �acl �e8 f!; �e8 with good chances.
c) 18 ltJde3 �a6 19 �d 3 �f6 2 0 17...he3 18 li)xe3
ltJd4 �b6 21 �adl a4oo ; Black can ma­
noeuvre on the dark squares, main­
taining the balance. White should be
constantly watching out for . . . b3. If
he decides to prevent this possibili­
ty by playing b3 himself, then Black
will get the a-file in his possession.
White can also try to attack the
d6-pawn:
16 ltJde3 �b6 17 �d3 (Or 17 �hS
h6 18 h4 �xe3 19 ltJxe3 �e6= ; 18
f4 �f6 19 fS �gs is risky for White) This position is about equal, and
17 . . . �e6 18 �fdl �fd8 19 ltJfS, but it quite boring at that. White has more
does not achieve the aim since the active rooks , but they can attack
d6-pawn is immune and Black is only one weakness, on d6, which is
able to repel the awkward knight easily defended. A logical continua­
by . . . g6. In a blitz game Kolev con- tion of the game would be:

S7
Part 2

18 . . . V9d7 (In fact 18 . . . V9c7 !? looks

more consistent as on the d-file the
queen is X-rayed by the enemy
rook. Anyway, its placement does
not change significantly the char­
acter of the position. In contrast,
18 . . . %Vb6 ? ! is weaker on account
of 19 tlJfS!;!;:.) 19 �fdl �fd8 2 0 �acl
�ac8= , Balogh-Moiseenko, Moscow
200 6 .
White can open u p the queenside
by a3, but then Black takes on a3 and 15 lll cxb4
obtains typical Sicilian counterplay Now lS cS? ! does not work in
along the b-file . view of lS . . . WaS ! .
Play might become interesting lS tlJxf6 + does not seem too test­
only in case when White attempts a ing either: 1S . . . gxf6 ! ? (We believe
kingside attack. However, Black can that lS . . . V9xf6 16 V9xf6 gxf6 17 �xd6
then invade White's rear through the �c8 18 f3 @e7 also ensure sufficient
c-file with . . . a4, . . . b3, . . . tlJ c6-d4-c2 ! . compensation, e.g. 19 �d2 �hd8co)
We analyse this plan in the "Com­ 16 �e2 b3 17 axb3 �b8 18 b4 tlJxb4
plete Games" section, see g ame 1 0 19 tlJ a3 tlJc6 20 tlJ bS Wi as + 21 �d2
Korneev-P. Horvath, Porto San @e7 22 V9d3 tlJd4 23 tlJxd4 exd4 24
Giorgio 2007. V9xd4 Wies . Black has full compen­
sation for the pawn, for example: 2S
WxcS dxcS 2 6 0-0 �b4 27 �cl �hb8
B2c. 13 1Yf3 28 �cc2 fS 29 f3 (29 eS f4 !) 29 . . . fxe4
This is a relatively new idea. 30 fxe4 @f6 31 @f2 @es.
White aims to put his rook on dl 15 1Ya5!
•••

and build pressure on d6 as in the 1S . . . tlJxb4 is an inferior option:

game N epomniachtchi-Andriasian, 16 tlJxb4 %Vb8 ( 1 7 a 3 �d8 18 V9d3 0-0
Moscow 14. 0 2 . 200 8 : 13 . . . �e6 14 19 �e2 �as 2 0 V9xd6 V9xd6 21 �xd6
�dl �e7 lS cs 0-0 16 �bs tlJa7 17 �tb8co) 17 V9a3 0-0 18 �d3 �c8 19
.ta4, o r organize a kingside offen­ 0-0 (19 tlJdS hdS 20 cxdS �gs 2 1
sive: 13 . . .�gS 14 h4 �h6 lS g4 f6 16 0 - 0 V9b6co) 1 9 . . . hc4 2 0 hc4 �xc4
�gl 0-0 17 V9g3 Morozevich-Carlsen, 21 tlJdS;!;:. Computers underestimate
Blitz Moscow 2 2 . 1 1 . 20 07. White's advantage in such posi­
We propose a new approach, tions, but practice shows that it is
connected with a pawn sacrifice: a very difficult task to defend them.
13 �e6 14 gdl a4! ?
••• 16 a3
Kolev's idea i s t o anticipate the Another critical line is 16 Wffc3
enemy's activity and radically dis­ tlJxb4 17 tlJxb4 (17 Wixb4 .td8 ! =)
turb his plans. 17. . . WcS !

S8
 7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS

17... �d4 18 �d3 0 - 0 19 0 - 0

E:c8 2 0 E:cl

17 . . . 0-0 is less precise, as it gives

White a chance to escape from the
pin along the el-a6 diagonal: 18 �e2
�tb8 19 a3 Wies 20 0-0 �d8 ! 21 Wff c2 ! The fine point of this position
(21 Wffd2 iaS) It is true that even then is that the opposite coloured bish­
Black has probably sufficient com­ ops work in Black's favour, as after
pensation, e.g. 21 . . . �b6 22 ltJd S (22 20 l2Jc2 hdS 21 exdS �b6oo. After
�d3 Wffc7 23 �fdl �cS=) 2 2 . . . hdS 2 3 the text we continue setting up our
�xdS Wffc6 = , but we have no reason pieces on dark square s:
to give White extra possibilities. 2 0 �a7 21 h3 �a5
•••

18 Wffd 2 (or 18 �e2 �d8 19 0-0 Our play is on the queenside .

�as 2 0 a3 0-0) 18 ... 0-0 19 a 3 �tb8 21. . .fS 22 exfS hfS 23 Wffdl does not
20 �e2 �d8 21 Wffxd6 Wffxd6 22 �xd6 help us at all.
�e7. 22 �g4 E:b8
16 ... i.d8 17 i.e2 All our pieces are well placed, the
Or 17 Wffc3 l2Jd4 18 �d3 0-0 19 a4-pawn petrifies White's queenside
0-0 Wff c Soo followed by . . . �as . and renders his extra pawn useless.

S9
Part 2 1 e4 cS 2 li)f 3 li)c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 li)xd4 li)f6 s li)c3 es 6 li) d bS d6
7 .igS a6 8 li)a3 bS 9 li)dS .ie7

COMPLETE GAM ES

9. D. J ano sevic - J us supow '%Yes 23 �ta 1 .id8 ! 24 .ig4 .ib6 2 S

Am sterdam 1 978 �3a2 g 6
1 e4 cs 2 ti:) t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Jussupow could have drawn the
ti) xd4 ti:) t6 S ti:) c 3 ti:) c6 6 ti:) db S d6 7 game by trading everything with
.it4 es 8 .igS a6 9 ti:) a3 bS 1 o ti:) d S 25 . . . Wfd4 2 6 �dl Wfxd3 27 �xd3 he3
.i e 7 1 1 .ixt6 .ixt6 1 2 .ie2 0-0 1 3 28 he6 hf2 + = , but he prefers to
0-0 .igS 1 4 c3 ti:) e7 maintain the tension. After the ac­
tivation of his dark-squared bish­
op, he now embarks on the second
stage of his plan - opening of the
f-file.
26 � d 1 �bd8 27 ti:) d S
White could have provoked first
. . . hS. That could be achieved by 27
h4 hS 2 8 he6 fxe6, but then h4
would also be weak. Therefore 27 h 3
looks better: 2 7. . . @ g7 28 �ad2 hS= .
2 7. . ..ixg4 2 8 ti:)t6+ @g7 2 9 ti:) x g4
We se e a typical scenario when t S 30 ext S �xt S
White simply develops his pieces Black seized the initiative. Jano­
without some clear active plan. Now sevic tries to simplify play, but the
he must part with his only good bishop is too strong in the end­
piece, the dS-knight, and Black gets game.
a free hand on the queenside. 31 '%YdS �dt8 32 '%YxcS .ixcS 33
1 S c4 ti:) x d S 1 6 '%Yxd S .ie6 1 7 �e1 � St7 34 ti:) e 3 hS 3S g3 �b8
'%Y d3 b4 1 8 ti) c2 '%Yb6 1 9 b3 as 20 a3 Now Black's rook penetrates
White hurries to undermine b4, into White's camp.
since otherwise Black will play . . . a4 36 � b 1 �tb7 37 �xaS �xb3 38
and a3 will be no more possible. �xb3 �xb3 39 �bS �d3 40 �b7+
20 ... bxa3 21 �xa3 �ab8 22 ti:) e 3 @t6 4 1 ti:) d S+ @ts

60
 7 .igS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS

tll ce3 .ixe3 1 7 tll xe3 �e6 1 8 V!f d3

'\Mf d7

White is beyond salvation, be­

cause he cannot parry the march of
the Black king. It is very difficult to Perhaps 18 ... Wffc7 i s slightly more
point out the exact moment when precise, in order to avoid the oppo­
White made the decisive mistake. sition of White's rook from dl. In­
Jussupow conducted the game con­ terestingly, two months earlier Kor­
sistently, realised all typical plans in neev faced the same 18 . . . Wffd 7, and
this structure, while White seemed chose 19 �adl �fd8 2 0 �d2 Wffc7. The
clearly helpless. game went 2 1 h4 a4 2 2 @h2 l2Jc6 23
42 <i>g2 �d2 43 �f7+ i> e4 44 h4 f4 f6 24 ltJdS �b7 2S fS ixdS 26
<i>d3 4S tll e7 e4 46 <i>f1 �d 1 + 47 WffxdS + @£8 27 �fdl �as, 112-112, Ko­
i>g2 �d2 48 <i>f1 <i>xc4 49 tll x g 6 rneev-Nataf, Ourense, lS. 0 6 . 20 07.
� d 4 S O tll f8 d S S1 tll e 6 � b 6 S 2 The only reason to refrain from �c7
�f4 <i> c 3 S3 �ts <i> c 2 S4 tll g S <i> d 1 could be 19 ltJdS, but then Black
S S tll h 3 d 4 S 6 �bS �c7 S 7 � b 1 + would be fine after capturing by
i>c2 S8 �b7 �as S9 tll g S �d 1 + 60 knight.
i> g 2 �e1 61 tll e 6 �c3 62 �c 7 d3 63 In the diagram position White
tll d4+ <i>b2 64 �b7+ <i>a2 6S � a7+ cannot win by tripling his major
i>b1 66 tll b S <i>b2 67 tll x c3 <i> xc3 pieces against d6. The game Balogh­
68 �c7+ <i>b3 69 �d7 <i>c2 70 �c7+ Moiseenko, Moscow 2006 saw 19
<i>d1 71 g4 hxg4 72 hS i>e2 73 h6 �fdl �fd8 20 �acl �ac8 2 1 ltJdS Wff a7
�f1 74 � e7 �xf2+ 7S rbg3 e3 0-1 22 l2Jxe7+ Wfxe7 23 b3 �a7 24 �c2
Wies 2S �cd2 cj/f8 26 �f3 @g8 and
a draw was agreed. The only active
1 0 . Ko rneev-P. Horvath plan is a kingside pawn storm, but it
Porto San G iorgio 2 6.08.200 7 is double-edged.
1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 1 9 f4 f6 20 ts �f7 21 g4 tll c 6 22
4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c 3 es 6 tll d b S d6 �f3 tll d4 23 �g3 a4
7 �gs a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 tll d S �e7 1 0 Of course Black should not help
�xf6 �xf6 1 1 c4 b4 1 2 tll c 2 a s 1 3 the enemy open files on the kingside
g 3 0-0 1 4 �g2 �gS 1 S 0-0 tll e7 1 6 by playing . . . h6 .

61
Part 2

24 <i> h 1 b3 25 a3 gac8 changed the knights here with

2 9 . . . llJc2 ! ? Then 30 if3 �c7 31
�xg7? would fail to 31. . . ihS ! where­
as 30 ttJxc2 bxc2 31 Wffxc2 �c4 3 2
Wffc3 ib3 3 3 �g3 �c7 34 if3 Wffb7 3 S
Wff h4 �b6 3 6 �hS ig8 = would create
a fortress on the kingside.
30 g c 1 Wa6
This is an imprecision. Black
should hit e4 in order to prevent
White from manoeuvring the bish­
op to d3. So: 30 . . . Wffb7 31 �g3 �fc8
White starts attacking first, but 32 Wffd3 ihS with active pieces.
Black has also fixed a target on c4 3 1 gg3 gfc8 32 .if1 Y*lb7 33
and might penetrate along the c-file. Y*f g2 .i g8 34 .id3
Only calculations can help assess
correctly such positions. It seems
that Black's counterplay against
c4 and e4 is just enough to balance
White's pressure along the g-file.
26 g5 fxg 5 27 gxg5 ®h8 28
gg1
I f we see the game course , we'll
note that two moves later White had
to return his rook to cl. On the other
hand, it is not clear what he should
have played. 28 ih3 , intending f6, 34 . . . gfa ?
turns out to be not so dangerous. During the last moves White
Black can even ignore the threat by has improved his position. Still,
28 . . . �c6 2 9 �g3 (29 �cl �c7 30 �g2 he cannot win without the help of
Wff a6) 29 . . . �c4 30 ttJxc4 �xc4 31 f6 his knight. Therefore, Black should
�xf6 3 2 �c8 Wffxc8 with two pawns have grasped the chance to trade
for the exchange. 28 �g3 has also it by 34 . . . llJc2 ! with unclear com­
drawbacks, as it allows 28 . . . ihS 29 plications : 3S ttJxc2 bxc2 36 �xc2
�el �cs. dS 37 exdS �dS ; 3S �c2 bxc2 36
28 . . . Wc6 �xc2 �c4oo; 3S llJdS �dS 36 exdS
This a good setup, but 28 . . . �e8 �f8oo.
deserves consideration as well. It 35 gg1 gf6 36 h4 ! ?
prepares . . . ihS . Korneev includes his last re­
29 Wd2 gc7 source in the assault. Computers
The first critical moment of like noncommittal continuations
the game. Horvath could have ex- like 36 �h3 �a8 37 �gS Wff e8 38 llJ g4

62
 7 !gS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS

�f8, but Black is holding there. After this mistake Black is lost.
36 .. . �h 6 37 �h3 He should have prevented White's
pawn from reaching hS. The only
move was 37 .. . �c8, having in mind
38 hS \We8 ! 39 \Wg4 l2Jc2 ! 40 hc2
bxc2 41 gel !f7 42 �xc2 �xhS .
38 h 5 h6 39 � g 3 �f8
It was already late for 39 . . . l2J c2
due to 40 l2Jg4 �f8 41 l2Jxh6+.
40 �g6 .ih7 41 �xd6 �d7 42
�xd7 '%Yxd 7 43 �d5 '%Yf7 44 '%Yg4
�d8 45 �f1 �d6 46 <i>g2 .ig 8 47
'%Yg3 � c6 48 c5 �d7 49 f6 '%Yxh 5 50
37 ... �f6? .ib5 .ih7 51 fx g7+ 1 -0

63
Part 3 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 S �c3 eS 6 � db S d6
7 i.g S a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS i.e7
1 0 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 1 c3 0-0

Q U I C K REPERTO I RE

The fallowing two parts are closely to defend successfully against direct
related with the name of the book. attacks. White's targets are obvious
After reading them, you'll be ready - the pawns on d6 and aS . There is
to start playing the system with con­ enough evidence that even if Black
fidence. trades the aS-pawn for b3, his posi­
Nowadays everybody follows in tion is not completely immune. De­
the footsteps of the elite, and most cisive factor is the piece activity.
Sveshnikovs reach in seconds the All our hopes are connected
position after: with . . . f5.
1 2 �c2 i.gS 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 This move serves multiple pur­
gxa4 a s 1 S i.c4 (lS !bS is rare­ poses. First of all, it opens a file
ly seen : 1S . . . llJe7 16 llJxe7+ Wixe7 17 against the enemy king and the f2 -
llJb4 17 . . . !h3 or 17 . . . !g4) 1 s ...gba pawn. Secondly, the c8-bishop ob­
1 6 b3 ©h8
tains a new operating diagonal fram
fS. And finally, with the disappear­
ance of the e4-pa wn, Black can hope
to move forward his central pawns.
Should that happen, he can stop
worrying about the aS-pawn, since
his initiative would amply compen­
sate it.
We must also be prepared
for negative scenarios.
If we fail to develop an initiative
on the kingside, we should switch
This is the basic position of the to a restraining tactic. In that case
modern Sveshnikov. It is extreme­ Black usually seeks exchanges, in
ly popular, because White can try order to remove the clamp on dS,
to win it without much risk. He has and balances the hit on aS by pres­
no weaknesses and should be able sure on the b-pawn .

64
 9 ltJdS ie7 10 hf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0

In the diagram position White

has two major options : 17 0-0 fS
and 17 ltJce3 g6 . The latter leads to
different pawn structures and is the
subject of the next part of the book.
1 7 0-0 f5 1 8 exf5 i.xf5 1 9
lll c e3 i.g6!

A typical way to provoke some

holes in the enemy's castling posi­
tion.
22 g3 igS 23 ltJg2 (23 i bS ltJeS
24 �xa5 �c8-+) 23 ... ltJe5 24 ltJel �c8
25 meas �h3 26 �fl �h6 . White's
extra pawn is a small consolation
Black is playing "around" White's here, Anhchimeg-Rybenko, Ulaan­
pieces . He does not aim to neutralise baatar 20 0 2 .
them, but rather build his own play 2 0 b4? ! axb4 2 1 cxb4 i s prema­
with . . . e4 and . . . ltJeS. In a number of ture if Black's knight can occupy d4:
lines the b3-pawn proves to be weak. 21. . . ltJd4.
This position has a very good 2 0 f3 prevents ... e4, but leaves
reputation for Black. In fact, sta­ the e3-knight without support. Usu­
tistically he scores over 50 percent. ally Black uses that to gain control
That is easy to understand, because of dS: 20 . . . if7 21 �hl he3 22 ltJxe3
the most natural move: hc4 23 �xc4 ltJe7=.
2 0 �d3
leads to mass exchanges, so White can get a similar position
White often experiments (unsuc­ with the pawn on b2 if on move 16 he
cessfully! ) with new ideas . defended the pawn with his rook:
20 . . . hd3 21 �xd3 he3 22 fxe3 1 6 �a2 <i>h8 1 7 0-0 f5 1 8
rucfl+ 23 �xfl rucb3 24 �c4 �bS ! exf5 i.xf5 1 9 lll c e3 .ig6
(only move) 25 e4 (or 25 ltJc7 �b6
26 ltJdS �bS=) 25 . . . �cS= .
Another common move is:
2 0 �e2?!
It aims t o double the rooks on
the a-file, but this setup encourages
Black's attack with : 20 . . . e4 21 �fal
(or 2 1 ibS ltJeS 22 �fal ih4 23 g3
�cs�) 2L . .ih4 !

65
Part 3

White's rook is more passive 18 h4 hh4, here the rook i s already

here as it is charged with the de­ on the second rank and White can
fence of the b2-pawn. On the other open a passage to the critical h-file
hand, White has the possibility of: with a tempo (b2-b4 ! ) at the right
20 'Wa4 'Wc8 21 gd1 (21 �bS moment.
.ie8) 1 8 lll x e3 lll e7
We follow our general plan with
2 1 e4 22 b3 �f7 23 'Wa3
•••

'Wd7 24 lll f 1 lll e5

Black solved the problem of the

bad bishop on gS, now he only has to
activate his f8-rook by pushing .. .f5.
Black has a strong initiative. See Basically, the game is balanced. In
game 16 Socko-Krasenkow, the ensuing middlegame White can
Plock 20 0 0 . choose to stay either with two minor
I n these examples White allowed pieces, or trade knights.
.. .f5 and Black obtained counterplay Wh ite keeps 1 m in or piece
on the kingside.
Now we are going to examine
the restrictive approach with l2Jc2-
e3. One small detail will define our
reaction - the position of White's b­
p awn. If White plays 16 b3, we pre­
p are .. .f5 with 16 . . . g6. It is analysed
in the next part. Now let us focus
on
1 6 ga2 @ h 8 1 7 lll c e 3 �xe3! Th is position arises after 19 0-0
fS 20 exfS ltJxf5 2 1 l2Jd5 l2Je7 2 2 l2Jxe7
When the rook is o n a2 and V!ixe7.
White has not castled, we must Black has sufficient counterplay
forget about ... g6. in the centre :
a) 23 b3 V!ic7 24 �d2 (24 �dS
The reason is that 17 . . . g6 18 h4 ! �b7) 24 . . . �b7 or 24 . . . .id7= ;
is very unpleasant. In comparison b) 23 �dS a4 ! ? 24 �xa4 ! (24 �dl
to the line 16 b3 ci>h8 17 l2Jce3 g6 ! Wih4 could be dangerous for White:

66
 9 l2Jd5 �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

25 g3 �h3 26 �fl? ! �f5 27 �d2 This position arises after 19 b3 ! ?

�d7+) 24 .. . �xb2 25 �b4 �c2 = . f5 2 0 exf5 l2Jxf5 2 1 l2Jd5 �b7.
You can see another version of With his 19th move White de­
the same typical position in game fended his b-pawn, thus render­
15 Carlsen-Van Wely, Wijk aan ing 21. . . l2Je7 impossible. Still, Black
Zee 20 06 . It also shows that Black has sufficient counterplay on the
easily holds the balance with only kingside, see game 14 Karjakin­
heavy pieces left on the board. Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 20 0 6 .

Wh ite keeps 2 m i nor pieces

Practical advice:
In the Positional variation Black
should try to keep all his three mi­
nor pieces, in order to retain chan­
ces for attack. If that is not possi­
ble, he must seek further exchanges
and play for equalising. Commonly,
he has no problems with 1 or 0 mi­
nor pieces.

67
Part 3 1 e4 c5 2 tilf3 tilc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tilxd4 �f6 5 tilc3 e5 6 tildb5 d6
7 .ig5 a6 8 tila 3 b5 9 tild5 .ie7
1 0 ,lxt6 .b.f6 1 1 c3 0-0

STEP BY STEP

Note the move order! W e first cas­ lt:Je7 and White is unable to hold
tle, to follow up with . . . igS . In the dS, for instance, 15 lt:Jcb4 aS! 16
other lines Wh ite enjoys a small, lt:Jxe7+ V!Jxe7 1 7 lt:J dS (17 lt:Jc6? Wb7
but persistent advantage. Howev­ 18 V!Jxd6 ga6 1 9 �xeS �f6 2 0 V!JxbS
er, 1 1 . . . �gS 12 lt:Jc2 lt:Je7 is a very so­ gb6 2 1 lt:JxaS fubS 22 lt:Jxb7 gxb7+)
lid continuation where Black has 17 . . . �b7+.
all the chances to level the game. 1 2 �d 3 is another innocuous
We recommend it as a backup line move. Black can choose a typical
in case something goes wrong with Sveshnikov setup : 12 . . . �e6 13 0-0
our main repertoire. It is aimed at g b8 14 lt:Jc2 as 15 V!Je2 b4 16 �c4
avoiding the sharpest lines that are �gS= , a s in game 11 Ivanchuk-El­
the subject of the next part of the janov, Moscow 2 0 05 , where Black
book. That comes at a price, though. keeps the rook on f8 in order to help
Black's winning chances are virtual­ .. .f 5. Or he might prefer more all-Si­
ly nonexistent. See game 17 Leko­ cilian methods like pure queenside
Carlsen, Linares 0 3 . 0 3 .2008 which play: 12 . . . �gS 13 ic2 (13 h4? ! �h6
provides enough up-to-date theory 14 g4 �f4 15 lt:Jxf4 exf4 16 lt:Jc2 dS !
on this topic. 17 exdS ge8+ 1 8 Ml lt:JeS 19 ie2
ib7 20 lt:Jb4 aS+) 13 . . . gb8 14 �d3
1 2 �c2 �e6 15 gd1 �d7 16 0-0 gfc8 17 b4
This is the most flexible and con­ Arnason-Vukic, Bela Crkva 1 98 3 ,
sistent variation. White bolsters up a n d here 17 . . . lt:Je7! 18 lt:Jxe7+ �xe7
the dS-square and delays castling. 19 �b3 gc6+ would have been excel­
Thus he keeps open sharp options lent for Black.
like h4 . Occasionally, White's bi­
shop goes to h 3 . 12 ••• .igS
W e c a n better understand the In the 1970s, Sveshnikov played
importance of precise move order both the text and 12 . . . gb8 , which is
on the example of the natural-look­ meant to prevent a2 -a4. In the lat­
ing 12 ie2 �gS 1 3 lt:Jc2 ie6 14 0-0 ter case, however, White can an-

68
 9 tlJ dS �e7 10 ixf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0

swer 13 h4, restricting Black's bish­ c) 13 �e2 i s too humble a nd can­

op. We prefer to have active pieces, not aspire to the advantage. Black
even at a price. fightsfor dS with 13 . . . �e6 14 0-0 4Je7
lS 4Jcb4 aS 16 4Jxe7+ �xe7 17 tlJdS
�b7, 13 Dervishi-Krasenkow,
Ohrid 2001 or:
13 . . . ttJe 7 14 ttJc b4 as lS ttJxe 7 +
�xe7 16 ttJds �b7 17 �d3 gb8 18
0-0 �e6 19 gfdl gfc8

1 3 a4
The most principled move. We'll
also mention:
a) 13 4Jce3 ixe3 14 4Jxe3 4Je7 lS
�e2 (lS a4 �b7 16 axbS axbS 17 gxa8
ixa8 18 f3 �b6 19 �d2 fS ! +) 1S . . . �b7 White has no active plan, see the
16 �f3 . Black is able to hold this po­ model game 12 Almasi-Topalov,
sition with natural moves, but the rapid, Monte Carlo 2001;
temporary pawn sacrifice 16 . . . dS ! d ) 13 g 3 This i s a purely defen­
seems best: 17 exdS (17 ttJxdS? ! sive setup. Black easily gets a com­
ttJxdS 18 exdS e4 19 �e2 �gs 2 0 0-0 fortable game by following the same
ixdS - is fine for Black) 17 ... �d6 18 development scheme as in the pre­
g4 (18 �b3 fS ! ) 18 . . . �ad8 19 �d3 vious examples :
�d7! 20 0-0-0 gfd8 21 ttJfs (21 13 . . . 4Je7 14 4Jce3 (Or 14 h4 �h6 ;
�d2 ? ! �f6 ! 22 �e4 ttJxdS 23 ttJxdS 14 4Jcb4? ! �e6 lS �g2 a s 16 4Jxe7+
ixdS 24 ixdS �ds 2S �xdS gxdS �xe7 17 tlJdS �b7+ Xie Jun-Ga­
26 gxdS hS 27 gxhS �xf2+) 21. . .�f6 liamova, Kazan/Shenyang 1999)
22 4Jxe7+ �xe7= , Gaprindashvili­ 14 ... gb8 (14 ... ixe3 lS 4Jxe3 �b7 16
Timoshchenko, USSR 1977; �g2 fS is an interesting choice for
b) 13 �d3 is inconsistent as courageous players: 17 exfS ixg2
White loses his grip on dS: 13 . . . �e6 18 tlJxg2 ttJxfS 19 �dS + cj{h8 20 0-0
(13 . . . 4Je7 14 4Jcb4 aS lS 4Jxe7+ �xe7 b4 ! ? 2 1 cxb4 �b6 2 2 a 3 aS 23 bxaS
16 ttJds �b7 17 �hs �d8 18 gd1 �e6 gxaS 24 �e4 tlJd4oo) lS �g2 aS 16
19 �c2 b4 20 0-0 bxc3 21 bxc3 was 0-0 (16 a3 �e6 17 4Jxe7+? ! �xe7 18
played in Gouliev-Shirov, rapid, tlJfS �d7! 19 h4 �f6 20 4Je3 b4 21
Venaco 200S, when 21. . . �c8 ! 2 2 cxb4 axb4 2 2 a 4 �d8 ! t Bartel-Rad­
h 3 gb8 would have been great for j abov, FIDE-Web k.o . Tripoli, 2 0 04)
Black) 14 4Jce3 4Je7= ; 16 . . . ixe3 17 4Jxe3 �e6 18 �d3 �b6

69
Part 3

19 �fdl �fd8 2 0 �d2 wins a pawn, but White's numer­

ous weaknesses assure Black of a
good game, for instance: 18 . . . b4
(18 . . . �c7 ! ?) 19 c4 (19 cxb4 �b8 2 0
a 3 dS ! ; 1 9 .ie2 bxc3 2 0 bxc3 �as 2 1
0 - 0 �xc3+, Bierwisch-Siegmund ,
Obertsdorf 2 0 03) 19 . . . �aS ! 20 b3
�a3 21 hS �b2 22 �dl f6 ! f! with
rich counterplay for Black.
16 . . . �b8 17 gS �e8
Black also has other appealing
In such positions Black expands options , like 17. . . �d7.
on the queenside by 20 . . . b4 21 c4 18 ttJxf4 exf4 19 �xf4 b4
ttJc6 with a good game . White can still maintain the bal­
e) 13 h4 .ih6 14 g4 ance here:
An agressive plan, successfuly 2 0 0-0 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 ttJes 2 2
used lately by GM Andrei Volokitin. ha6 �as 23 .ie2 �xc3 24 ttJe3 �b2
However, Black has no weakness­ 25 tlJd l �d2 = or:
es on the kingside, so he should not 20 cxb4 ttJxb4 21 ttJxb4 �b4 22
fear a direct attack. b3 (22 �d 2 �b6 23 b3 dSt) 2 2 ... dS= .
14 . . .�f4 15 �f3
15 gS �b7! ? 16 �f3 tlJe7 17 tlJxf4 1 3 ... bxa4
exf4 1 8 0-0-0 tlJg6 19 hS tlJeS 2 0 �xf4 This capture is a must in the
fS gave Black strong counterplay in Positional variation. Black uses the
Safar Zadeh-Agamaliev, Fajr 1997. b-file for counterplay while our a­
15 . . .�e6 pawn could be defended by the
standard manoeuvre .id8 . In, con­
trast , after 13 . . . �b8 the bS-pawn
would have been an easy target.

1 4 gxa4 as

16 .id3
Alternatively: 16 tlJxf4 exf4
(16 . . . �f6 17 gS �xf4 18 �xf4 exf4
19 0-0-0 �fd8= leads to an equal
endgame , but the text move is more
ambitious .) 17 �xf4 tlJeS 18 ttJe3

70
 9 l'i:JdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c 3 0-0

Main branches are: �g3 l'i:Jd4- +) 2 0 . . . cxd 2 + 21 �xd2

A. 15 �bS page 71 �xa8+; 18 h4 �d8 ! 19 cxb4 l'i:Jxb4 !
B. 15 �c4 page 73 20 l'i:Jcxb4 �as with an advantage;
18 cxb4 l'i:Jxb4 ! 19 l'i:J cxb4 �c8 20 h4
15 b4 is also seen, but it neglects (20 0-0 �xc4 21 l'i:Jb6 �b7 22 l'i:Jxc4
development and can only make �xc4 23 l'i:JdS hfl 24 �xfl+) 2 0 h4
us happy: lS . . . �e6 and then White �xc4 21 hxgS �xb4 22 l'i:Jxb4 V!ixe4 +
can close the queenside or maintain 23 �l �xb4+.
tensio n: 17 . . . l'i:Jxb4 18 cxb4 �xa4 19 �xa4
a) 16 bS Wic8 2 0 �b3 �xdS 2 1 exdS �g4 2 2
Now Black has at least three 0 - 0 �c8 Black has the more active
good options: pieces.
16 ... l'i:Je7 is proposed by Svesh­
nikov: 17 l'i:Jce3 �xe3 18 l'i:Jxe3 V!ic7
19 c4 l'i:Jc8 ! 20 �al l'i:Jb6 21 �e2 �fc8 A. 1 5 .ib5
2 2 Wid2 WicS ! + and Black is fine; This move could be explained
16 . . . �xdS ! ? is a concrete way to only with White's wish to avoid the
use White's lag in development: 17 line 15 �c4 �d7, which is however
WixdS (or 17 exdS l'i:Jb8 18 l'i:Jb4 l'i:Jd7 quite passive, as demonstrated by
19 l'i:Jc6 �b6 and the a-pawn will the recent game 18 Shirov-Topa­
soon be marching forward) 17 . . . l'i:Je7 lov, Morelia/Linares, 19.02.2008.
18 V!ib3 (18 Widl dSt, Wittke-Hoyer, 1 5 �e7
•••

Germany 1988) 18 . . . dS 19 �e2 dxe4

20 0-0 V!idS ! 2 l �c4 �cs 22 �el l'i:Jc8 !
with a fine game ;
16 . . . l'i:Jb8 is recommended by
Yakovich and seems very logical.
The knight is relocated to an ex­
cellent outpost on cS : 17 l'i:Jcb4 (17
�e2 l'i:Jd7) 17 . . . Wic8 ! 18 �e2 axb4 !
19 �a8 bxc3 . Black had more than
enough compensation in Yudasin­
Semeniuk, Saratov 1981.
b) 16 �c4 axb4 17 l'i:Jcxb4 16 �x e7+
17 �xa8 runs into nice tactical White's only hope to gain some
blows after 17 . . . Wixa8 18 l'i:Jcxb4? advantage is connected with intro­
l'i:Jxb4 19 cxb4 �c8 - + ; 18 l'i:Jc7 bxc3 ! ducing a knight on dS. However,
19 l'i:Jxa8 (19 �xe6 �d2 + 20 �fl this is impossible:
�aS - + ; 19 0-0 �b8 2 0 l'i:Jxe6 fxe6 a) 16 l'i:Jce3 �xe3 17 l'i:Jxe3 �b6
21 he6 + �h8+) 19 . . . �d2 + 2 0 18 �d3 �b8 19 c4 fS 20 0-0 fxe4
Wixd2 ( 2 0 � fl �xc4+ 21 �gl �xa8- 21 �xe4 �fS ! 22 l'i:JxfS l'i:JxfS 23 �c6
+; 20 �e2 �xc4+ 21 �f3 �b3 ! 22 l'i:Jd4 24 Wixb6 �xb6= ;

71
Part 3

b) 16 l2Jcb4 also does not work in enough to keep the balance) 19 �c6
view of 16 . . . ih3 . �b6 2 0 h3 (20 ha8 �bS ! 21 f3 axb4
16 . . . id7 is a well known way to 22 fxg4 �d3 23 �dl �e3 + 24 �e2
equalise immediately: 17 l2Jxe7 + (17 �cl+ leads to a draw by perpetual
hd7? ! axb4 18 �xa8 �xa8 19 0-0 check) 20 . . . �ab8 (Rogozenko gives
ltJxdS+) 17 ... he7 18 l2Jc6 (18 hd7 2 0 . . . axb4 2 1 �xa8 �xc6 22 �f8 +
axb4 19 ic6 �xa4 20 �xa4 bxc3 2 1 @xf8 23 hxg4 �xe4+ 24 Ml b3, but
bxc3 �b8 2 2 0 - 0 id8 = , Svidler­ the text move is more enterprising)
Ivanchuk, Polanica Zdroj 2000) 21 �xaS ih4 2 2 0-0 (22 hxg4 �xf2 +
18 . . . �e 8 19 �ds ie6 2 0 �d3 id7= . 23 @dl igS 24 �ds �fc8t looks
The text is more straightforward. dangerous for White) 22 . . . �e2 23
17 l2Jxe7+ g3 hfl 24 @xfl �d8oo. We have
17 gxh3 axb4 18 l2Jxb4 �xa4 19 reached an unbalanced position,
ha4 fS ! (Leko) is dubious since the which needs further analysis. We
white king is rather shaky. have even explored 24 . . . hg3 ! ? 2 5
17 . . . �xe7 and play transposes to fxg3 fS 2 6 exfS �fS + 27 @e2 �f2 +
16 l2J e7 �e7 17 l2Jb4 ih3 = . 2 8 @d3 e4+ 29 he4 �xg3+ 30 @c2
c ) 1 6 0 - 0 ltJxdS 1 7 �xdS ie6 18 �f2 + 31 @b3 �xb4+ 32 cxb4 �e3 +
�d3 �b6 = prepares counterplay with equality.
down the f-file with .. .f5, for in­
stance, 19 c4? ! f5 20 l2Je3 fxe4 21
�xe4 �a7 2 2 ltJdS (22 �fal? �af7 ! )
2 2 . . . �cS. Perhaps White should
prefer 19 l2Je 3 , but it is clear that the
position after 19 . . .he3 2 0 fxe3 can­
not be a problem for Black.
d) Finally, 16 �c4 �d7 17 �a2 �c8
18 �d3 ltJxdS 19 hdS a4= leaves
Black well developed and with good
prospects.
1 8 �d5
1 6 ...Wfxe7 1 7 � b4 Aft e r 1 8 gxh3 axb4 19 �b4 g6
After 17 0-0 �b7 18 �d3 (18 White's king will never find a safe
�e2 ie6 19 c4 fS is fine for Black) haven.
18 . . . ie6 19 c4 �d8 Black successful­ 18 �c6 �ac8 19 �xaS hg2 2 0
ly redeployed his pieces in Smyslov­ �gl ih3 21 �hS looks i n White's fa­
Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1977. vour, but 21. . . �h4 2 2 ltJdS �d8 2 3
1 7 ... i.h3 �h6 g 6 2 4 �a6 �e6 allows Black t o
17 . . .�g4 leaves Black fewer win- consolidate.
ning chances: 18 �al (18 ltJdS hdl 1 8 %Yb7 1 9 .ic4
•••

19 l2Jxe7 + he7 20 @xdl �ab8 21 19 gxh3? ! �xbS 20 �gl id8 !

c4 �d8 =) 18 . . . �b7 (1 8 . . . �c7 is also is better for Black: 21 b3 (21 c4? !

72
 9 ltJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

�xb2+ , Gouliev-Cheparinov, Lina­ a. 1 5 .ic4 gba

res 2002) 21. . . �b8 22 b4 c±>h8 ;
19 �d3 ? ! �e6 20 0-0 hdS leads
to a typical Sveshnikov position with
opposite coloured bishops. With a
white pawn on dS Black does not
have any problems. In Luj an-Spas­
ov, Santa Cruz de la Palma 2005, he
even was better after 21 exdS �ab8
22 �xaS �d8 23 �c6 �xb2 24 �bs
�xbS 25 hbS �b6+;
19 c4 cuts off White's bishop
from the kingside: 19 . . . �e6 20 0-0 We'll focus mostly o n:
fS 21 exfS �fS=. Bl . 16 �a2
B 2 . 16 b3
19 ••• J.d7 20 ga2
16 b4 is a premature advance
which does not disturb Black:
16 . . . �d7 17 �a3 axb4 18 cxb4 !e6= ;
1 6 �al shifts the queen away
fram the centre and the kingside.
Then the thematic counterplay with
16 . . . c±>h8 17 0-0 fS is even more ef­
ficient: 18 exf5 hf5 19 ttJce3 �g6 .
Black is accumulating striking force
against the enemy king by the help
of the standard e5-e4, ltJc6-e5 with
good prospects, for example : 2 0
In this position Black has tried so �dl e 4 2 1 �fl �e8 2 2 �d2 !f7 ! and
far 20 . . . a4 21 0-0 �e6 2 2 �d3 c±>h8 Black is fine.
23 ltJb4 ! t and 20 . . . c±>h8 21 0-0 fS 2 2
exfS, when 2 2 . . . �fS ! ? i s worth con- 8 1 . 1 6 ga2 @h8
sideration. (22 . . .MS 23 ltJe3 he3 It i s clear that Black must open
24 �dS hf2 + 25 c±>hl is an intro­ the f-file by .. .f5. The big question is
duction to a long farced variation whether to prepare it with . . . g6, or
which is slightly better for White) push it right away.
We propose: We prefer to refrain from
20 ... gfcS! 21 �d3 �c6 weakening the king and the
Now White is farced to compro­ seventh rank with ... g6.
mise his pawn structure: It is better to stake on dynamical
22 b3 a4 23 0-0 axb3 24 factors and put pressure on f2 . No­
gxa8 gxa8 25 ixb3 � c5=. tice that . . . g6 is riskier while White

73
Part 3

had not castled, since he could at­

tack it with h4 ! ?

Bla . 1 7 lt:J ce3

Blb . 17 0-0

Without ... g6, 17 h4 would only

weaken White's kingside. The game
Asrian-Khalifman, Bled ol. 200 2
went 17 . . . �h6 18 lt:Jce3 he3 19
lt:Jxe3 lt:J e7 20 b3 f S 21 exfS ltJxfS 2 2 Black has sufficient counterplay
lt:JxfS hfS 2 3 0 - 0 �e4 2 4 �ds hdS against White's king and in the cen­
2S �xdS �xh4 26 �xaS �f6 = . tre:
a) 23 b3 �c7 24 �d2 (24 �ds
Bla. 17 �ce3 he3 ! 1 8 �xe3 �b7) 24 . . .�b7 (24 . . .�d7 !?) 2S �fal
�e7 2S . . . �c6 (2S . . . dS leads to a drawn
rook endgame: 26 hdS hdS 27
�xdS �xc3 2 8 �xaS �b3 2 9 �xeS
�xeS 30 �xeS �b2) 26 �fl �f4 ! , in­
tending . . . �g4.
b) 2 3 �ds a4 ! ? (or 23 . . .�b7 24
�d2 �d7 2s �dS hdS 26 �xds �bs
27 �d3 �c6 =) 24 �xa4 ! (24 �dl �h4
could be dangerous for White : 2 S
g 3 �h3 26 �fl? ! �fS 2 7 �d2 �d7+)
24 . . . �xb2 2S �b4 �c2 = .
Another version o f the same
Black solved the problem of the typical position arises after 2 1 ltJxfS
bad bishop on gS, now he only has MS . See game 15 Carlsen-Van
to activate his f8-rook. Basical­ W ely, Wijk aan Zee 20 0 6 .
ly, the game is balanced, but some
small nuances could be able to em­ 19 . . .f5 20 exf5 �xf5 2 1 � d5
bitter his life. With his 19th move White de­
19 b3 fended his b-pawn, thus rendering
Practice has shown that Black 2 1 . . . lt:Je7 impossible. Still, 21 ... ib7
has an easy game if he exchang­ should ensure Black counterplay,
es any of his minor pieces. After 19 see game 14 Karjakin-Topalov,
0-0 fS 2 0 exfS ltJxfS (20 . . . MS 21 b3 Wijk aan Zee 200 6 .
maintains the tension in White's fa­ Note that the placement of
vour) White cannot prevent the ex­ White's pawn on b3 has its draw­
change of the knights due to 21 ltJdS backs, too, as it allows the break
ltJe7 22 ltJxe7 �xe7 . . . a4 at an opportunity.

74
 9 ll:JdS ii.e7 10 hf6 ii.xf6 11 c3 0-0

Blb. 17 0 - 0 f5 18 exf5 .hf5 �xe4+) 24 ... axb4 25 ll:Jxb4= .

19 ltJce3 22 ii.a6 ! (22 cxb4 ii.xe3 23 fxe3
19 �e2 �d7 20 �dl e4 21 ttJde3 �1 + 24 ix:fl W 25 �d2 ii.xdS 26
ll:JeS ! is good for Black. �xdS ll:Jxb4 27 �bs �bs 2 8 �xbS
19 i.g6
. . . ll:Jc2+) 22 . . . �d7 23 ii.bS (23 ll:Jxb4
ii.e8=) 23 . . . ii.e8 24 ll:Jxb4 (24 cxb4
�b7) 24 . . . �t7 25 ll:JbdS �b7= .
21 e4
•••

2 0 �a4
20 f3 hinders the plan with 20 . . .
e 4 (in view o f 2 1 f4), but it weakens
the gl-a7 diagonal. Black uses that The essence of Black's plan is to
immediately by attacking the cen­ put the knight to eS, even at the cost
tre: 20 . . . ll:Je7 21 �e2 �c8 22 b3 ii.t7 of the aS-pawn. The threats against
23 �dl ii.xe3+ 24 ll:Jxe3 (24 �xe3 the enemy king should compensate
ii.xdS 25 hdS ll:Jf5, fallowed by the small material deficit.
�b6 and ll:Je3, is completely equal) 22 b3 .if7 23 �a3 �d7 24 ltJfl
24 . . . �b6 25 @hl dS= , Dominguez­ ltJe5
Ramirez, Guayaquil 2003. Black has a strong initiative, 16
20 �c S 21 gd1
••• Socko-Krasenkow, Plock 20 0 0 .
It is easy to understand White's
wish to reinforce his control over dS .
For example, after 21 ii.e2 ii.xe3 ! ? 2 2 8 2 . 1 6 b 3 <i> h 8
ll:Jxe3 (22 fxe3 �xfl+ 2 3 hfl ii.bl !
24 � a l �xb2) 22 . . . �f4 23 �a3 ii.t7
24 �aal dS+ Black's centre becomes
mobile .
Instead, Papadopoulos played
against Kolev in Kavala 2 007 the
novelty 2 1 b4, which leads to a bar­
ren position: 21. .. axb4
Or 21. . . ii.xe3 22 fxe3 �xfl + 23
ii.xfl ii. t7 24 �d2 (24 e4? ! axb4 25
ii. a6 �d7 26 ii.bS �g4 ! 27 ii.xc6

75
Part 3

In the diagram position White tal elimination in Polgar-Kramnik,

has two major options: 17 0-0 and Wijk aan Zee 20 05.
17 l2J ce3 (it is the subject of the next 2 1 . .. e4 ! ? 22 V9xe4 ltJeS 23 �al (23
part of the book) . � a3 �e8oo Rogozenko) 23 ... �e8 24
They result in different pawn l2Jxf6 V9xf6 2 5 V9d4 (25 0-0? l2Jxc4
structures since in the latter case 26 V9xc4 !bS+) 2S . . . !c6 . Black has
Black has to prepare . . .fS by . . . g6 . full compensation for the pawn.
Minor alternatives are: Now 26 0-0 leads to a farced draw
a) 17 V9e2 after 26 . . . l2Jf3 + 27 gxf3 V9xf3 28 !dS
White takes control of e4 and hdS 29 V9xdS �xe3 30 V9xf3 �xf3 = .
prepares to expand on the kingside. Charbonneau-Radjabov, Calvia
Black obtains good play by simple ol. 20 04 saw 26 !dS �b4 ! 27 V9d2
and logical moves: hdS 28 V9xdS, when 28 . .. �xb3 !
17 .. .fS 18 h4 !f6 would have leveled the game, for in­
The fine point of White's 17th stance, 29 0-0 �xc3 30 �xaS l2Jc6=
move is that 18 . . . !h6 is bad in view (Rogozenko).
of 19 exfS hf5 2 0 g4 hc2 2 1 V9xc2 b) 17 h4 only provides Black
!f4 2 2 V9e4 V9d7 23 !d3+ with a ter­ with a lever on the kingside after
rible battery on the b l-h7 diagonal, 17 . . . !h6 .
Morais-Rodrigues, Gaia 2004. Now 18 g4 !f4 1 9 V9f3 ! e 6 20
19 exfS MS 20 l2Jce3 !d7 l2Jce3 he3 ! 21 l2Jxe3 (21 fxe3 l2Je7! t)
2 1 . . . !xc4 22 �xc4 l2Je7+ favours
Black.
18 l2Jce3 allows Black to get rid
of his bad bishop with 18 . . . he3 19
l2Jxe3 l2Je7 (20 hS h6 21 0-0 fS 2 2
exfS ltJxfS 23 fufS MS 24 V9dS !d7
2S �a2 !g4=) 20 0-0 fS 21 exfS ltJxfS
2 2 ltJxfS hfS 23 V9dS !g6= , Onis­
chuk-Filippov, Batumi 1999.
Finally, the tricky 18 V9e2 (hop­
21 V9c2 ing for 18 .. .fS? ! 19 exfS MS 20 g4)
21 !d3 l2J e7 22 l2Jxe7 V9xe7 23 should probably be answered care­
ltJdS V9f7 24 V9e4? ! is purposeful, but fully with 18 . . . !d7 19 �al a4 20 b4
24 . . . g6 25 hS !gS underlines the fact (20 bxa4 �b2 ! ?) 20 . . . l2Je7. In these
that White's king is helpless in the lines the pawn on h4 is only a cause
centre . The best White can do is to for concern to White.
play a pa wnless endgame after 26 f4
!fS 27 hxg6 V9xg6 2 8 fxgS V9xgS 2 9 1 7 0-0 f5 1 8 exf5
V9h4 V9xh4+ 3 0 �hxh4 !xd3. That's In 2005 Ivanchuk introduced
why Polgar preferred 24 �xaS !d8 the manoeuvre 18 �el fxe4 19 �xe4
25 �a7 V9xdS 26 �xd7 �xb3 with to- !fS 20 �e2 with the obvious inten-

76
 9 ltJd5 ie7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

tion to transfer it to a2 . However, d4: 21 ltJd4 ltJxd4 22 �xd4 � b7 23

20 . . . ig4 would provoke a weakness Wel �bf7 24 �a2 h5? ! 25 ltJ e3 �f4
in White' s castling position, which 2 6 �d5+, Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Mos­
could be attacked later, for exam­ cow 20 07.
ple, 21 f3 ih5 22 @hl ltJe7 23 ltJxe7 21 ltJce3 e4 22 ib5, Ivanchuk­
he7 24 Wal M3 . Kramnik, rapid, Monte Carlo 2005.
18 f3 fxe4 19 fxe4 �xfl+ 2 0 Wxfl Here 2 2 . . . he3 ! 2 3 fxe3 (23 ltJxe3
ltJe7! is completely equal because ltJe5=) 23 . . . Wf5 ! would have been
the weak pawns of both sides, b3 good for Black.
and e4 versus aS and d6, counter­
balance each other. In Inarkiev­ 1 9 ig 6 !
. . .

Yakovich, Krasnodar 20 0 2 , Black Black i s playing "around" White's

managed to exchange light-squared pieces. He does not aim to neutral­
bishops and even had a slightly bet­ ise them, but rather build his own
ter game: 21 Wd3 ltJxd5 22 hd5 play with . . . e4 and . . . ltJe5.
ib7 ! .
1 8 �xfS
. . .

This position has a very good

reputation for Black. The point is
1 9 � ce3 that the most natural move 2 0
19 We2 i g6 does not change the �d3 brings about mass exchan­
plans of the sides . ges : 2 0 . . . hd3 21 Wxd3 he3 2 2
20 �dl fxe3 (22 ltJxe3? �b3 23 Wc4 Wb6+)
White's game is not so uncloudy 22 . . . �fl+ 23 Wxfl �xb3 24 �c4
as it may seem at first sight. In Pol­ �b5D 25 e4 (or 25 ltJc7 �b6 26 ltJ d5
gar-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2003 �b5=) 25 . . . �c5 2 6 �xc5 dxcS 27
Black got the initiative after 20 id3 Wa6 (27 Wb5 Wd6 = ; 27 Wf7 h6=)
ie8 2 1 �a3 ltJe7 22 ie4 ltJxd5 23 27 ... ltJb8 2 8 Wa8 h6= .
hd5 Wb6+. White may attempt to retain
20 . . . Wc8 his king's rook by 2 0 E:el, but it
We see here an example where weakens the f2-square. Black un­
20 . . . e4 turned premature since derlines that by 20 . . . �b7, intend­
White's knight was able to jump to ing 21 . . . �bf7. Then 21 ltJfl �bf7 2 2

77
Part 3

�a2 would be too passive as Black vour of pressure against b3 :

gets time for 2 2 . . . e4 23 ltJg3 ih4 24 2 0 . . . !f7 ! 2 1 !f3
ttJe3 �f4 2S �d2 ttJeS 26 �xd6 �gs We know that 2 1 b4? ! should
with good compensation. So Anand be dubious because our knight will
fallowed up with 21 !d3 hd3 2 2 land on d4.
�xd3 he3 2 3 fxe3 ( 2 3 ttJxe3? �b3 More interesting is 21 ttJc4,
24 �c4 �b6+) 23 . . . �xb3 24 �c4 to when we must take the chance to
draw after 24 . . . �b2 ! 2S �xc6 �gS play 2 1 . . . e4 ! , depriving ttJdS of sup­
26 ttJf4 exf4 27 �xf4 �fb8 = , Anand­ port through !f3 . Then:
Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 200S. 22 f4 exf3 23 M3 ttJeS 24 ttJxeS
2 0 f3 !f7 21 @hl he3 2 2 ttJxe3 (24 ttJxaS? �bS- +) 24 . . . dxeS= ;
hc4 23 �xc4 ttJe7 is also equal. 2 2 b4 axb4 2 3 cxb4 ttJe7 (23 . . . hdS
2 0 b4? ! axb4 21 cxb4 is prema­ 24 �xdS ttJxb4=) 24 ttJce3 ttJxdS 2S
ture if Black's knight can occupy d 4: ttJxdS �e8 ! ? 26 bS �eSf!;
2 1 . . . ltJd4 . 22 @hl �g8 23 �a3. The han­
20 �e2 ? ! aims t o win the aS­ ging b3-pawn is restricting White's
pawn, but this setup encourages options. 23 . . . ttJe7! 24 ttJce3 (24
Black's attack with : 20 . . . e4 21 �fal ttJxe7 he7 2S ttJxaS �c7 26 b4 dSoo)
(or 2 1 �bs ttJ eS 2 2 �fal !h4 23 g3 24 . . . ttJxdS 2S ltJxdS �fS ! 26 c4 hdS
�c8-+) 2 1 . . . �4 (loosening White's 27 cxdS �b6 t Leko-Gelfand, Po­
castling position) 22 g3 !gS 23 lanica Zdroj 1998 .
ltJg2 (23 !bS ttJeS 24 �xaS �c8-+)
23 . . . ttJeS 24 ttJel �c8 2S �xaS �h3
26 �fl �h6 . White's extra pawn is a
small consolation here, Anhchimeg­
Rybenko, Ulaanbaatar 20 0 2 .
Now we are going t o consider yet
another redeployment of White's
pieces:
2 0 �e2
The bishop shifts to f3, while the
a4-rook prevents . . . e4. Black must 2 1 . . . he3 2 2 fxe3 �g8=, Stefans­
reconsider his plans for attack in fa- son-Filippov, Chalkidiki 20 0 2 .

78
Part 3 1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f 6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll dbS d6
7 igS a6 8 lll a3 bS 9 lll d S ie7
1 0 hf6 hf6 1 1 c3 0-0

COMPLETE GAMES

1 1 lvanchuk - E ljanov llJe3 White would be better, but15 . . .

M oscow 200S bxa4 ! leads t o better versions o f the
1 e4 cs 2 li:)f3 li:)c6 3 d4 cxd4 main lines .
4 li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:)c3 es 6 li:) d bS d6 1 S . . . b4
7 ig S a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 li:) d S ie7 1 O We prefer 15 . . . hd5 16 exd5
ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 id 3 ie6 llJe7=, favourably changing the
1 3 0-0 �b8 1 4 li:)c2 a5 pawn structure.
1 6 ic4 igS 1 7 cxb4 axb4
17 . . . llJxb4 18 llJcxb4 axb4 is so­
lid, but dull. The worse Black could
face, is a position with opposite col­
oured bishops. It is true that it is
generally more pleasant for White,
but Black's dark-squared bishop
can easily be transferred to b6 to
hold the draw. Compare such posi­
tion with game 17 Leko-Carlsen,
where Black's bishop is idle on h6,
White refrained fram a4 and and still he was not lost at all .
did not pose any problems to Black 1 8 �fd 1 YMaS? !
who is able to choose different set­ Elj anov follows a wrong strate­
ups. His last move is consistent, but gy, playing on the queenside, where
probably a bit early against id3 , White is stronger. He should have
for it helps White start play on the remembered that in the Sveshni­
queenside. Instead . . . ig5, followed kov Black's play is connected with
by . . . �d7 and .. . �fc8, is preferable. . . .f5. Instead of the queen's sortie,
1 S YMe2 ! 18 . . . cj/h8 19 ib5 hd5 20 �xd5 llJe7
After 1 5 a4 b4 1 6 cxb4 (16 21 �ddl f5 seems fine.
ib5 hd5 17 exd5 ttJ a7 18 c4 e4) 1 9 a3! bx a3 20 b4 YMd8 21 bS
16 . . . hd5 17 b5 ie6 18 bxc6 �xb2 19 li:)aS 2 2 ia2

79
Part 3

1 2 Alm a s i - To p alov
M o nte C a rlo, ra p id, 2001
1 e4 c5 2 tll t3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tll x d4 tll t6 5 tll c3 e5 6 tll db5 d6
7 i g5 a6 8 tll a 3 b5 9 tll d 5 ie7 1 O
ixt6 ixt6 1 1 c3 ig5 1 2 tll c2 0-0
1 3 ie2 tll e 7 1 4 tll cb4 a5 1 5 tll x e7+
VNxe7 1 6 tll d 5 '!Nb7

2 2 ... @h8
White has considerably im­
proved his position during the last
few moves. He has made a passer
and needs only 2-3 tempi to con­
solidate and rearange his minor
pieces . Black realised that and de­
cided to switch to the tested plan This is a model position for Black
with . . .fS. Perhaps he could main­ in the cases when White refrains
tain the balance attacking the ex­ from a4. The dS-knight looks glori­
tended White pawn, for example, ous, but in fact it is rather useless
22 . . . \Wd7 23 llJxa3 �fc8 24 b6 !d8 as it has no targets. White's bishop
25 tt:Jbs c±>h8 26 llJbc7 !xdS 27 llJxdS is not any better. Black has active
hb6 28 llJxb6 �xb6 29 ht/ \Wxf7 plans on the queenside, connect­
3 0 �xaS= , or 2 2 . . . Wc8 2 3 llJxa3 �g4 ed with . . . b4, or in the centre. ( . . .fS)
24 f3 �d7 25 c±>hl \Wes 26 b6 �d8 , They ensure him good counterplay.
but here 2 7 �dcl \Wxa3 2 8 llJf6 + gxf6 1 1 VNd3 gb8
2 9 hf?+ �f7 30 �xa3 might turn 17 . . .b4 is a fair alternative, but it
in White's favour. allows White to close the centre with
23 tll x a3 t5 24 ext5 Axt5 18 c4. (18 cxb4 axb4 leaves Black
Now 25 llJbl ! \Wd7 26 llJbc3 �d8 more chances. In practice Black of­
would be pleasant for White in view ten emerged with some initiative,
of the clumsy position of the aS­ for example : 19 \Wb3 �e6 20 �c4
knigh t. I nstead Ivanchuk thrusts �ac8+ Anand-Kramnik, Dortmund
his passed pawn forward. . . to lose it 1997 or 19 \Wg3 h6 20 0-0 c±>h8 2 1
in few moves. �b3 �b8 2 2 �adl fSf± Almasi-Shi­
25 b6? ! tll c6 2 6 tll b5 tll e7 27 rov, Cannes 2005) 18 . . . �e6 19 �dl
tll bc7 tll c 8 28 �b1 tll x b6 29 Axt5 a4 20 0-0 �aS= .
tll x d5 30 g xd5 VNxc7 %-% 1 8 0 - 0 �e6 1 9 gtd 1
The extra pawn is worthless. I n a later game Almasi tested

80
 9 llJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

�adl, but soon discovered, that the V!fxe3 V!f c7 27 g ad1 gc6 28 ® h 2
best setup of his rooks is on cl and .i b 3 29 g g 1 .ic4 3 0 g g d 1 .ixe2 3 1
dl. V!fxe2 b 4
1 9 . . . �fc8 20 a3 Finally we can talk about a slight
White must be careful not to give edge for Black, because he has two
up the c-file as in the game Tivia­ target pawns against only one in his
kov-Van Wely, Leeuwarden 2003 camp .
which went 20 �g3 h6 2 1 b3 �cs 2 2 32 axb4 axb4 33 gd3
c 4 hdS 23 rocdS �xdS 2 4 cxdS �c8 White would have had more
2s �d3 �cs+. chances to survive after 33 cxb4.
20 . . . h6 21 g3 .id8 Now his rooks are too passive.
33 . . . bxc3 34 bxc3 gb3 35 V!f d2
V!fb6 36 @ g 2 gb2 37 V!f e3 V!f xe3 38
gxe3 @ta 39 ged3 @e7 40 g9 3
gc2 41 gdd3
Ironically, in Linares 2008 To­
palov lost the same pawn struc­
ture, but this time he had the pas­
sive rooks . Obviously, humans face
great difficulties defending 4 rooks
endings with passive pieces.
41 . . . h5 42 @f3 g6 43 @ g 2 <i> e 6
4 4 @f 1 gc4 45 <i> e 1 f5
This move anticipates possi­
ble b4 in case Black played . . . �cs,
when Black should not capture,
but retreat to c8 or c6. It also re­
locates the dark-squared bishop to
its best place, b6. Almasi regularly
plays this position, although with­
out great success. Against Peter
Heine Nielsen in 20 04, he preferred
22 h4 to restrict Black' bishop . We
think that the same 2 2 . . . �a7, as in
the current game, would be the best
answer, for instance, 23 �d2 �b6=. 46 f3 g g 2 4 7 exf5+ gxf5 48 f4
22 g d 2 V!fa7 23 <i> g 2 gc5 e4 49 gd2 g g 1 + 50 @f2 g c 1 5 1 ga2
Now Black seizes the initiative, g4 xc3 52 gxc3 gxc3 53 gas d 5 54
because b4 is impossible and the gea+ ®d 6 5 5 g95 d4 56 gxf5 gc2+
positional threat of 24 . . . hdS forc­ 57 <i> e 1 e 3 58 g9 5 g g 2 59 @f1 gxg3
es White to retreat the knight to e3 60 @e2 g g 2+ 6 1 @f3 gd2 62 gea
under a pin fram gS. <i>d 5 63 g95+ <i>c4 64 f 5 gf2+ 65
24 � e 3 .ig5 2 5 h4 .ixe3 26 @g3 ®d3 0-1

81
Part 3

1 3 D erv i sh i - Krasen kow

E U - ch Ohrid 2 0 0 1
1 e 4 c s 2 � f3 � c6 3 d 4 cxd4
4 � xd4 � f6 S � c3 e s 6 � d b S d6
7 ig S a 6 S �a3 b S 9 �dS ie7 1 0
ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c 3 0-0 1 2 � c2 i gS
1 3 ie2 ie6 1 4 0-0 �e7 1 S � cb4
as 1 6 � xe7+ \Wxe7 1 7 �dS \Wb7 1 S
\Wd3 ixd S 1 9 \Wxd S \Wxd S 20 exdS
g abs

White is lost, because his bishop is

tragically passive and g3 is an eter­
nal weakness. It is not so important
whether Black can win against best
defence, or not. In practice, White
can withstand 20 or 30 moves, but
eventually he is likely to miss some
tactic and lose. For his part, Black
could be squeezing as long as he
likes, waiting for a mistake.
41 . . .g xa3 42 ge2 ©b4 43 gc2
In general, this structure is i n g d 3 44 ©f2 ©b3 4S ge2 gc3 46
Black's favour. His plan i s simple: ©g2 ©c4 47 ga2 ©d3 4S ©f2
to neutralise possible White's at­ id4+ 49 © g 2 ie3 SO ge2 ©d4 S 1
tempts on the queenside, (meeting g a 2 © e s S 2 g b 2 g c 1 S 3 ga2 g g 1 +
a4 with . . . b4) and centralising the S4 © h 2 f4 S S gxf4+ ©xf4 S6 ig2
king. The usually bad dark-square g d 1 S7 g a4+ id4 SS ga3 ieS S9
bishop, here is clearly superior to ©h3 ©t S 60 gf3 + if4 6 1 ga3 ©t6
its enemy counterpart. 62 gb3 g d 4 63 if3 gci2 64 ig2
21 g3 fS 22 a3 g6 23 © g 2 gfcS i eS 6S g f3+ ©g7 66 ge3 ©h7 67
24 gfd 1 ©g7 2S h4 if6 26 g d 2 e4 ga3 if6 6 S i e 4 g d 4 69 ge3 g b4
27 f3 exf3 + 2S ©xf3 hS 29 ©g2 70 © g 3 ©g7 7 1 © h 3 © h 6 72 © g 3
ieS 30 gf1 ©f6 3 1 gf3 ©e7 32 if1 i d 4 73 ge2 i e S + 7 4 © g 2 if6 7 S
© d 7 33 ie2 ©c7 © g 3 g b 3 + 7 6 if3 ixh4+ 7 7 © x h 4
Krasenkow decided to use the gxf3 7 S ge6 g f4+ 7 9 ©h3 © g s SO
king as a defender of the bS-pawn. gxd6 g d 4 s1 g d s h4 s2 d6 g d 3 +
At the same time it is close to the S3 © h 2 ©g4 S 4 d 7 g S SS ©g2 h3+
centre and can enter into play S6 ©t2 h2 S7 ghs gd2+ ss © e 1
through cS. g x d 7 S9 g x h2 ©g3 90 ga2 gf7 9 1
34 b3 ©b6 3S c4 bxc4 36 ixc4 g a s g 4 9 2 g a 3 + ©h2 93 g a 2 + © h 3
a4 37 gc2 a xb 3 3S gxb3+ ©as 39 94 g a s g 3 9 S g h s+ © g 2 96 © e 2
gxbS gxbS 40 ie2 gb3 41 if3 © g 1 97 g a s g h 7 0-1

82
 9 ld dS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

1 4 Karjakin - Topalov E:cc8 27 E: a7 E:b8 i s also fine, since

W ij k aan Zee 24. 0 1 . 200 6 f ram fS the knight goes to the terrif­
1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 ic outpost d4. The same happens af­
4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c3 es 6 tll db S d6 ter 24 b4 axb4 2 S cxb4 E:c8.
7 .igS a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 tll d S �e7 1 O 24 gd1 h6
.ixf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 .igS 1 2 tll c2 0- Another strange, waiting move
0 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 gxa4 as 1 S �c4 of Topalov. He hardly counted on
gba 1 6 ga2 q; h 8 1 7 tll ce3 i.xe3 1 8 2S E:ad2? ! a4 ! 26 bxa4 Wigs. More
tll xe 3 tll e 7 1 9 b3 ! ? fS 20 exfS tll xfS likely, he decided that a luft would
2 1 tll d S be useful when White finally push­
es b4. However, 24 . . . h6 also weak­
ens the light squares around Black's
king. Later in the game Topalov had
to resort to tactical tricks to cover
the critical diagonal bl-h7. 24 . . . E:cS
seems more consistent. Then after
2S Wig3 ldfS 26 Wig4 Black can return
to his initial plan to seek exchanges
with 26 . . . lde7 27 ldxe7 Wixe7 28 Wffe6
Wixe6=. Or 2S b4 axb4 26 cxb4 E:c8
27 �b3 ldfS or 27 . . . WigS .
2 1 . . .�b7 2s Y«g3 CiJts 26 Y«g4 gcs 27
This is our model game how to g ad 2
treat the position when each side 27 b4 axb4 2 8 cxb4 E:c8 29 E:a7
has two minor pieces. We would like E:b8 is slightly better for White,
to exchange one of them, but that mostly due to the weakened light
would have cost a pawn. ( 21 . . . lde7 squares around Black's king. Still,
22 ldxe7 Wixe7 2 3 E:xaS) So we should 30 �d3 hdS 31 MS Wigs 32 WixgS
switch to kingside play where the hxgS 33 E:xdS E:xfS 34 bS E:f4 is a
b7-bishop would be well placed on draw.
the main diagonal, eyeing g2 . 27 . . . �ca 28 Y«e4 .ib7
22 o-o gca 23 'Mfd3 tll h4 Topalov underlines the fact that
Topalov sets a nice trap - 24 b4? White lacks an active plan.
axb4 2 S cxb4 ldxg2 26 cj/xg2 e4 27 29 h3 tll h4 30 .id3 gfs ! 3 1
Wixe4 Wigs + 2 8 cj/hl E:xc4, but his .ib1 ?
move is not best. Black takes his White stays seemingly well, but
knight awayfram the centre too ear­ Black's pieces are constantly attack­
ly. 23 . . . E:cS ! is better. Then, if White ing something, thus hindering the
continues as in the game with 24 enemy to reset his forces in the cen­
E:dl, Black answers 24 ... WigS ! and tre. Now 31 �c4= would have been
White cannot repel the queen with equal, but Karjakin overestimates
2S Wffg3 , whereas 2S b4 axb4 26 cxb4 his position.

83
Part 3

1 5 C arlsen - Van Wely

Schagen 0 1 .05 . 20 0 6
1 e4 c 5 2 tll f3 tll c 6 3 d 4 cxd4
4 tll xd4 tll f6 5 tll c 3 e5 6 tll d b 5 d6
7 ig5 a6 8 tll a3 b5 9 tll d 5 ie7 1 O
ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c3 ig5 1 2 tll c2 0-0
1 3 a4 b x a4 14 g x a4 a5 1 5 ic4
gb8 1 6 ga2 i> h 8 1 7 tll ce3 ixe3 1 8
tll xe 3 tll e 7 1 9 b 3 f5 20 exf5 tll xf5
2 1 tll xf5 ixf5

3 1 . . J�xc 3 ! 32 YMg4
All Black pieces are hanging, but
at the same time they dominate the
board. The queen has no retreat
square. Even the relatively best 33
Wffa4D �c6 34 liJxc3 ha4 3S MS
tlJxfS 36 bxa4+ would favour Black.
32 . . . h5 33 Y;Y e2 Y;Y g 5-+ 34 f4
34 �e4 would cover the criti­
cal square g2 for only one move:
This is one of the most boring
34 .. �cf3 ! 3S M3 M3 36 g3 �xb3.
.

positions. Black has no problems,

34 . . J�xf4 35 i> h 1
neither with bishops, nor without
0 r 3 S ttJxf4 tlJf3 .
them. The mutual weaknesses bal­
35 . . . tll x g 2
ance themselves - the aS and d6-
Only the b7-bishop is n o t direct­
pa wns versus b3, c3 and f2 .
ly hitting White's king, but in fact
22 0-0 ie4 23 id5 ixd5 24
it makes possible all the nice varia­
YMxd5 YMc7 25 gxa5 (or 2S �cl Wffb 6=)
tions that remain behind the scene.
25 ... gxb3 26 c4 h6 27 gas gb6 28
36 YMxg 2 gg3 37 tll xf4 ixg 2+
gfa1 YMb8 29 h3 gxa6 30 gxa6 YMb2
38 tll x g 2 gxh3+ 39 i> g 1 g g 3 40
gf2 <it> g 8
I n such positions with a bare
king, the queen generally triumphs
over a rook and two pieces.
41 gxd6 h4 43 if5
Or 43 �d6 e4 44 �d4 h3.
43 . . . gxg 2+ ! 44 g xg2 YMxf5 45
gcg6 YMt7 46 g sg4 YMf6 4 7 i>h2 i>t7
48 i> h 3 e4 49 gg5 e3 50 i> xh4 g 6
0-1

84
 9 ltJdS :lle7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

A typical situation for this line. right balance between attack and
Black does not protect his pawns, defence. For instance, Black cannot
but instead attacks the enemy's simply give up his pawns and thrust
ones. all his forces against the enemy
31 f3 'Mfc 1 + 32 @t2 gba 33 gas king. White has no weaknesses, his
'Mfc2+ 34 @g3 'Mfg 6+ 3S @h2 gxa8 pieces are well coordinated in the
36 'Mfxa8+ @ h 7 37 'Mf dS 'Mff6 38 @ g 3 centre, so he should be able to with­
'Mf g6+ 3 9 @f2 'Mfc2+ 40 @ g 3 % - % stand a direct assault. Therefore,
Black must try first to break this co­
ordination by exerting pressure in
1 6 B . Socko - Krasen kow the centre. Only when White dis­
P lock 03.0S .2000 connects his knights, can he think
1 e4 cs 2 �f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 about sacrificing the aS-pawn.
4 � xd4 � f6 s � c 3 es 6 � d bS d6 22 b3 .if7 ! ?
7 .i g S a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS .ie7 1 O Both knights are under attack
.ixf6 .ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .ig S and White must be constantly con­
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gba sidering possible exchanges on e3
16 ga2 <i>h8 17 0-0 f S 18 exfS .ixfS or dS.
1 9 � ce 3 .ig6 20 'Mf a4 'Mfc8 2 1 g d 1 23 'Mf a3 'Mf d7 24 � f1
e4 White is unable to improve his
position without redeploying the
knights. For example, 24 b4? would
have failed to 24 . . . axb4 25 cxb4
ltJxb4 26 ltJxb4 he3 27 hf7 :Iles .
Computers like 24 h3, which
radically prevents . . . \Wg4. Howev­
er, this is a permanent weakening
and White will probably regret it at
some moment. Black could main­
tain the tension with 24 . . . :/ld8, re­
suming the idea of . . . ltJeS. The text
This position best illustrates the intends ltJd5-e3 and requires fram
aims of both sides in the Positional Black crucial decisions.
variation. Black stakes on dynami­ 24 . . . � e S ! 2S 'Mfxa S 'Mf g4 26
cal factors like piece activity, while � de 3 .ixe3 27 � xe 3 � f3+ 28 <i> h 1
White trusts the classical principles, 'Mff4
according to which he should be It is White's turn to make a dif­
better in view of the weaknesses on ficult choice. 29 g3? ! is obviously
aS and d6 . Modern understanding out of question. After 29 . . . \Wh6 3 0
of chess tends to take into consider­ ltJfl flhS ! the bishop will replace the
ation all possible nuances. Practice knight on f3 with a devastating ef­
shows that both sides must find the fect.

85
Part 3

Most surprisingly, White i s i n a

2 9 tlJfl looks safe, but innocu­ some sort of zugzwang.
ous. Black can simply capture on b3 37 �d6 weakens the first rank:
(29 .. . �xb3=) or maintain the initia­ 37 . . . �b8 38 �dl h3 39 �d4 �bf8 and
tive with 29 . . ..ixc4!? 30 bxc4 tlJeS. next Black captures the h 2 pawn. 37
Socko grabs the knight, butthattums �e7 loses to 37 . . . �g6+ 3 8 �fl �hl +
to be at least impractical. White's de­ 3 9 �e 2 �f2 + 40 �xf2 �f3 + 41 cj{el
fence is difficult and requires a lot of �xe3 + ; 37 �d4 �g6 + 3 8 �fl �hl +
calculations. No wonder Socko end­ 3 9 �e2 �xh2 4 0 � fl �f4 i s also hap­
ed up in a time trouble. less .
29 g xf3 \Wxf3+ 30 @ g 1 ixc4 3 1 Nevertheless White can still save
bxc4 gf6 the game by building an interesting
Albeit being a piece up and no fortress. Krasenkow shows the cor­
mate on the horizon, White's de­ rect variation:
fence proves to be amazingly diffi­ c) 32 �gS ! �g6 33 �xg6 hxg6 . In
cult. His problem is not only that such positions the knight is a very
Black can win the h2-pawn and ad­ good defender. The same idea was
vance his own passer. Black has im­ possible in the game:
minent threats on the f2-square. 32 g e1 ggs+ 33 <i>t1 gfa 34 gd2
Let us consider: h 6 35 Wf d 5 gf4 36 \Wa8+?
a) 32 �dS. Then Black wins by In the time trouble White miss­
force with 3 2 . . . �g6 + 33 �fl �f8 34 es 36 cS ! dxcS 37 �xcS �h7 3 8 �es
�d4 �h3 + 3S �e2 �hS+ 36 �el �gs 39 �xgS hxgS 40 cj{gl+.
�gl + 37 tlJfl �h3 38 �e2 �f3 + 3 9 36 . . . <i> h 7 37 \Wd8 \Wh3+ 38 @e2
cj{el e3 ! - + . \Wh5+ 39 @f1 Wfxh 2 40 �d1 \Wh 1 +
Apparently White must pro­ 4 1 @e2 \Wf3+ 42 @f1 gfg4 0-1
tect with his queen the e3 and f2- The exemplary attack of Krasen­
squares: kow displays the rich attacking pos­
b) 32 �a7 �bf8 33 �c2 hS ! Not sibilities of Black when his pawn
so much to advance a future passer, reaches e4. The fine point is when to
but rather to make a retreat square drop the aS-pawn. We should await
to the king. 34 �d4 h4 3S c5 dxcS 36 some discoordination of White's
pieces .
.

�xcS cj{h7! !

86
 9 ltJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0

1 7 Leko - C arlsen .ibS .ie6

L in a re s 0 3.03. 2008 18 . . . @h8 ? ! loses a pawn to 19 b4
Comments b y Kolev fS 20 �c6 E:a 7 21 exfS MS 22 bxaS
1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 �d3 23 �bs hbS 24 WxbS+ Karj a­
4 � xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d b S d 6 kin-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2007 while
7 .ig S a 6 8 � a3 bS 9 � d S .ie 7 1 0 18 .. .fS? ! 19 exfS MS stumbles into
.ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c3 .ig S 1 2 �c2 �e 7 20 g4 �e6 21 �c4 g6 22 gS �g7 2 3
ltJf6 + E:xf6 24 gxf6 Wxf6 2 S Wc6+.
1 9 .ic6 gb8 20 b4!

Black uses this move order to

evade the much sharper variations
that arise after 11. . . 0-0. Its only This i s the only way to fight for
drawback is that instead oftrying to an opening advantage. Khalifman
overtake the initiative and attack on recommends 2 0 b3 @h8 21 E:a2
the kingside, Black aims first of all but after the simple 21. .. g6 (21. . .fS
to neutralise the enemy pieces. It is 2 2 exfS E:xfS 23 0- 0t) 2 2 b4 (22 hS
evident, that without knights Black WgS ! ; 2 2 g3 fS) 2 2 . . . axb4 23 cxb4 fS
cannot hope for active play. On the 24 h5 fxe4 2 S Wxe4 E:f4 Black was
other hand, play is easy and clear, fine in Kolev-Gladyszev, Villa de
and the importance of home prepa­ Navalmoral 20 07.
ration is not so considerable. 20 . . . ixd S 21 ixd S axb4 22
1 3 h4 cxb4 \Wb6 23 g b 1
Two days earlier Anand did not Only ten years of global internet
obtain even the slightest edge with and computerisation were sufficient
13 a4 bxa4 14 ltJcb4 0-0 lS Wxa4 to turn modern chess theory into an
lt:JxdS 16 ltJxdS �d7 17 Wa2 aS 18 �d3 information swamp which threat­
ic6 19 0-0 Wb8 20 �c4 @h8 21 b3 ens to suck dry any creativity in the
t5= Anand-Carlsen, Linares 200 8 . opening stage. The engines help
1 3 h 4 aims t o displace the bishop to players avoid obvious blunders in
h6, f ram where it would be difficult their preparation so most novelties
to activate it . present some little improvements
1 3 . . ..ih6 1 4 a4 bxa4 1 S � cb4 which rarely change significantly
0-0 1 6 \Wxa4 � xdS 1 7 �xdS a s 1 8 the previous assessments. The cur-

87
Part 3

rent game is a typical example of :gbfS 27 �c2 �f2 !) 26 . . .�xc6 27

such approach . \Ve have reached hc6 �d2 2S bS �aS=.
move 23, but I' m sure that both op­ 2 5 ... fxe4 26 VNxb6 � xb 6 27 gb3
ponents looked thoroughly at this gca 28 ga1 g 6
position at home. Perhaps Leko 2 S . . . g 5 i s also possible, intend­
had discovered that the position ing to meet 29 hS with 29 . . . g4.
was still not completely exhaust­
ed and tries to test his young rival,
without running any risks himself.
Let us note that Dominguez-Jako­
venko, Faros 2 0 07 had seen 23 0-0
�xb4, when even the ingenious 24
�d7 would have given \Vhite just a
tiny edge after 24 . . . �hS 25 g3.
23 . . . <i> h S ! ?
I n the recent game Felgaer­
\Vang Hao, Gibraltar 200S was
23 . . . �d4 24 0-0 �d2 25 :gfdl :gxb4, It is incredible that a top grand­
when \Vhite could have got an an­ master could lose this position, but
noying initiative by 26 �d7 ! , for ex­ Black still has a few obstacles on his
ample: 26 . . . g6 ( 26 . . . �b6 27 :gal �h6 way to the draw. On the other hand,
2s :gas :gxaS 29 has g6 30 �as� ; Black should not play the Sveshni­
26 . . . �bl 27 :gxbl�) 27 :gal �g7 2S kov at all, if he is afraid of this end­
g3 ! ? (2S :ga7 �f4 ! 29 :gfl �g3 30 game.
hf7 �xa7 3 1 �xa7 :gxfroo) 2 S . . . :gb2 29 gas
29 :ga7 �b6 30 :gb7! �d4 31 :gc7! \Vith four rooks Black could ac­
�b6 32 hf7 �hS (32 . . . �h6? 33 tivate his pawn centre, for example:
�e7 ! ; 3 2 ... �xc7 33 �xc7 �f7 34 29 he4 :gcb S ! (29 . . . :gc4? ! 30 :gas +
�xd6 �c3 3 5 :ga3 :gb1 + 36 �g2 �d4 �g7 31 :ga7 + �hS 32 �ds :gcxb4 33
37 :gd2+) 33 :gc6 �b7 34 �xb7 :gxb7 :gc3�) 30 :ga bl :gcs 31 bS :gc4f! .
3 5 hg6 with a difficult ending for 29 .. . �xa8 30 ixa8 if8? !
Black. Most probably Leko has no­ I t looks like Carlsen thought that
ticed this option, but Carlsen de­ the worse part is over and he needs
viates first, anticipating any play only to put the bishop on b6 to fix
against f7. the draw. It might be so, but still it is
24 o-o ts 25 VNa5 always better to stay active. At this
In my opinion, with queens moment 30 . . . �d2 ! 31 bS e3 32 fxe3
\Vhite has more chances: 25 bS fxe4 �el ! (hitting h4) would have level­
26 he4 �dS 27 g3 dS 2 S :gbdl d4 29 led the game.
�c4 with a small, but lasting edge; 31 b5 ie7 32 g 3 id8 33 ixe4
25 exfS ? ! :gxfSf! would only help d5?
Black, for example: 26 �c6 (26 g3? Perhaps Black panicked here.

SS
 9 ttJd5 �e7 10 �xf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0

The sacrifice would have been good pawn, while stopping the passer.
enough , but the bad pawn structure S1 �c3 id4 S2 �c6 @ g8?
on the kingside aggravates Black's 52 . . . �e3 would have been enough
defence. 33 . . . 8:b8 with the typical for a lucky draw: 53 @f3 �xg5 54
placing of the bishop on the gl-a7 �d5 (54 b6 �d8) 54 . . . hh6 55 b6
diagonal would have been rather �f8 ; 53 8:e6 ixg5 54 b6 hh6 55 b7
drawish. �f8 and Black seems to hold on.
34 .ixd S �d6 3S ic6 ib6 36 S3 idS+ @ta S4 ic4+- @e7
gb2 �d3 37 @g2 @g7 38 .ie4± SS �c7+ @d6 S6 �xh7 e4 S7 � g 7 !
ga3 (38 . . . �d4 ! ) 39 g4! id4 40 �c2 @ c s s a �c7+ @d 6 S 9 �c6+ @ e s 6 0
gb 3 4 1 �c7+ @h8 42 �c8+ @ g 7 43 �x g 6 @ts 61 � d 6 .i e 3 62 h 7 1 -0
gc1+ @h8 44 �b7 �b 2 4S h S !

1 8 S h i rov - To palov
More l i a 1 9 .02.2008
Comments by Kolev
1 e4 cs 2 li:) t3 li:) c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 li:) xd4 li:) t6 s li:) c3 e s 6 li:) d b S d6
7 igS a 6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 li:)dS ie7 1 O
ixt6 ixt6 1 1 c3 igS 1 2 li:) c2 0-0
1 3 a4 b x a4 14 �xa4 as 1 S ic4
id7
We recommend 15 . . . 8:b8 .
Black managed t o stop the b­ 1 6 0-0 li:) e 7 1 7 �a3 li:) xd S 1 8
pawn, but now the attack on the ixd S �b8 1 9 b4
other side is decisive. Later on both Khalifman advocates 19 8:a2
opponents made some mistakes, with the idea of sacrificing the ex­
but the final result is quite logical. change : 19 . . . a4 20 ttJb4 g6 2 1 8:xa4
4S . . . �xt2+ 46 @ g3 ixa4 22 �xa4oo.
46 @ h 3 i s even stronger, e . g. 1 9 . . . axb4 20 li:) xb4
46 . . . E!f4 47 �d5 E!:f8 ( 47 . . . gxh5 48 Although White hasnot created a
g5 ! 8:f8 49 @h4 + -) 48 g5. passed b-pawn, the other positional
46 . . . �t4 47 h 6 �ta 48 �c7 it2+ factors ensure him a lasting edge.
49 @ g 2 ie3 SO gS? The excellent control of d5 and the
A mistake, which questions the a-file make possible the occupation
victory. The best way was: 50 8:c6 ! of the seventh rank.
and White's passed pawn is ready 20 . . . '%Yb6 21 %Ye2 ibS
for a triumphant march. Topalov made this move quick­
so . . . �b8 ly and he was obviously confident
It i s highly probable that Leko about his position.
missed this move, when playing 22 ic4 �tc8 23 ixb S %Yx b S 24
50 .g5? Now Black grabs the g5- %YxbS �xbS 2S �d1

89
Part 3

E!xb6 3 2 E!f3+ illustrates the poten­

tial of White's rooks .
30 g e 1 !
The sharp lines would let Black
escape: 30 E!d3 E!xe4 31 E!f3 E!xdS 3 2
E!fxf7+ �h6 3 3 � g 2 E!d3 34 h 4 �hS
35 f3 h6 36 fxe4 �g4oo 37 �fl (37
E!f6 E!xg3+ 38 �fl gS 39 E!xh6 gxh4
40 E!g7+ �f3 41 E!xg3 + hxg3 42 E!xd6
�xe4 43 c4 �b4 44 E!dS ibc3 45 E!d8
ibd4 46 �g2 �f2 =) 37 . . . gS 38 �e2
E!xc3 39 E!xd6 E!xg3 40 E!fS E!g2 + 4 1
I think that Black should avoid �fl E!c2 = .
such positions. This game, and the 3 0 . . . ib6 3 1 lll xb6 g xb6 32
previous one, clearly show that g93
when Black is passive in the Svesh­
nikov, his prognosis is not positive.
25 . . . g6 26 g3 @ g 7 27 til d 5
O f course White should not re­
lease his grip with 27 E!xd6? ibe7 2 8
E!dS ibxb4 2 9 cxb4 E!xb4 30 E!xeS
�f6 31 E!aaS E!cc4 = .
27 . . . �c4
27 . . . E!b2 with the intention of
bringing �gS to �d2 is met by the
logical 28 E!d3 . Play might continue
28 . . . E!bl + ( 2 8 . . . E!e2? ! 29 �fl E!xe4?
30 f3 E!ec4 31 l2Jb6) 29 �g2 E!el 30 We have seen a textbook case of
h 4 i.h6 31 E!a7 E!xe4 3 2 E! f3 E!f8 33 transformation of the advantage.
E!f6 E!e2 34 E!xd6 E!d2 35 E!dd7 and White gave up his knight, but he
White's pieces dominate on the forces Black into a terrible bind.
board. 32 . . . gca 33 gf3 gfa 34 <i>t1
28 ga7 id8 The march of the king will fur­
Topalov tries to solve the prob­ hermore improve White's position,
lem of his bishop . 28 . . . E!xe4 29 CiJc7 so Black must try to break-through
E!b8 30 E!xd6t would only under­ on the kingside.
line the different energetic level of 34 . . . g S
the two armies. Perhaps the setup with 34 . . . hS
29 g d 7 ! gave more chances for survival. It
Shirov prepares t o double his would have retained the thematic
rooks on the sevent rank. Sveshnikov break f7-f5, for exam­
2 9 . . . iaS ple: 3 5 �e2 E!b2 + 36 �d3 E!bl 37
2 9 . . .ibb6 3 0 E!d3 E!xe4 3 1 CiJxb6 h4 E!el 3 8 E!c7 E!dl+ 3 9 �c4 �g8 40

90
 9 4J d5 fJ.e7 10 ii.xf6 ii.xf6 11 c3 0-0

�b5 f5 41 exf5 e4f! and suddenly !!b8 + 45 �a7 !!f8 46 �b7 !!c2 47 c4
Black is breathing again. !!c3 48 !!c6 !!d3 49 �c7 !!d4.
3S h4 g4? ! 44 gf6 !
This weakness will prove to be The rest is agony.
fatal for Topalov. 3 5 . . . gxh4 36 gxh4 44 . . J�d2 4S �c6 � g 7 (45 . . . !!d3
�g6 37 !!f5 !!c6 was somewhat bet­ 46 !!e7 !!xc3 + 47 �xd6 �c2 48
ter. �xe5 +-) 46 g g 6+ � h7 47 gxg4
36 �ts h6 37 �e2 �c6 38 � d 2 gxf2 48 � xd6 gea 49 c4 gd2+ so
� g 6 3 9 h S + � g7 4 0 �d3 gb6 4 1 �c6 gfa s1 cs gd4 s2 gb7 �ha S3
gc7 ! g b 1 4 2 � c4 g d 1 43 � b S � b S gd1 S4 c6 gc1 SS � b 6 gca S6
�g8? c7 gea S7 ga7! (57 !!b8? !!bl + 58
Only this move irreversibly ru­ �a7 !!al+ 59 � b7 !!bl +=) S7 .. gb1 +
ins Black's game . It is unclear how sa � c s gc1 + S9 � d S gc2 60 g a s
White's king could cross the c-file � h 7 61 g c s g d 2 + 6 2 � c s g a s
after 43 . . . !!cl, for example: 44 �b6 53gh4 1 -0

91
Part 4 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 � dbS d6
7 .igS a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS .ie7 1 O
i.xf6 .bf6 1 1 c 3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .igS
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 aS 1 S .ic4
gb8 1 6 b3 @ h8 1 7 � ce3 g6

QUICK REPERTO IRE

We examine this position in a Pay special attention to

separate part, for it offers sharp this variation! It is a frequent
play of a quite different character guest in Internet and club-level
in comparison with the previous games.
part of the book. The knight on e3 18 ••• i.xh4 1 9 g3 .ig S 20 f4
forces Black to prepare .. .fS with g6. Alternatively:
This little pawn move significantly a) 2 0 'We2 ! ? is a new idea ofKarj a­
changes the pawn structure with all kin. (You can see a detailed anal­
the ensuing long-term consequenc­ ysis of game 19 Karjakin-Shi­
es. A lot of positions that were as­ rov, Khanty-Mansiysk 1 1 .12 . 2 0 0 7
sessed as drawish in the previous i n the "Co mplete Games" sectio n.)
part, might turn quite unpleasant to In short, avoid Shirov's 20 .. .fS ? ! We
defend , due to the weakness of the prefer the thematic 20 . . . l'i.Je7 2 1 f4
seventh rank and Black's castling l'i.JxdS 2 2 l'i.JxdS exf4 2 3 gxf4 �f6
position as a whole. Another particu­
larity is White's option to push h4,
intending to further compromise
Black's kingside. You should also
have in mind that two great players
and theoreticians, Anand and Kha­
lifman, have recently chosen this
system as a main weapon against
the Sveshnikov. We shall present
clear recommendations (and novel­
ties) against their approaches. Black has a reliable position.
A. 1 8 h4 b) 20 ga2 is too sophisticated.
This variation is critical for our We can simplytake on e3 : 2 0 . . . �xe3
repertoire. Its current status is fa­ 21 l'i.Jxe3 �e6 = .
vourable for Black, but you must 2 o. ef4 2 1 gxf4 ih4+ 22 @d2
•.

watch out for new discoveries. On fl the king is X-rayed by the

92
 12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6

f 8-rook. The variation 22 Ml f5 23 Here White should b e able to

�a2 fxe4 24 �ah2 g S 25 l2Jg2 �b7 make a draw with ingenious play,
demonstrates two important defen­ but we clearly do not risk much.
sive resources of Black: . . . �b7 pro­ The fine point is that �xh7 is not
tects h7, while . . . gS often cements such a dangerous threat as long as
our bishop on h4. we control the h8-square . It is only
22 �e7!
••• one check!
23 @c1 �xd5 24 �xd5 .ie6
From the comment on the pre­
vious move we know that Black is
safe if he rules over the main diag­
onal (25 �a2 �xdS 26 �xdS �f6) so
White chooses:
25 Y9d4+ ©g8

Black repels the initial attack

and the game enters the stage of
balanced manoeuvring. In the next
few moves Black seeks to destroy
both white knights, while the enemy
tries to swing the a4-rook onto the
kingside. The latter is not so easy,
because the king on d2 is barring the We'll soo n reach a position with
second rank. Therefore White often bishops of opposite colour. Our king
moves it to cl. Note that 23 �xh4? ! will be safer behind the pawns, but
ltJxdS 24 �hl l2Jf6 25 ltJdS hS ! is White compensates that with more
pleasant for Black, so we'll focus on: active rooks. The remedy is to sac­
23 ©c1 rifice a pawn to open files, for in­
23 �c2 leads to similar posi­ stance:
tions: 23 ... ltJxdS 24 ltJxdS �e6 25 �al 26 �a2 �xdS 27 �xdS �f6 2 8
�f6 26 �h2 �g7 27 �d2 a4 ! ? �d2 �g3 29 �fl dS ! ? ( 2 9 . . . hSoo)

93
Part 4

30 �xdS would leave the fl-rook In this structure White would

hanging to 30 . . . gS, while 30 exdS be happy to exchange pieces. That
�fe8 hints that the tide is turning would only underline Black's nu­
and Black is already the active side. merous weaknesses and especially
The latest top level game in this his poorly protected king. Kolev has
variation s aw: however completely different inten­
26 <t!?b l hdS 27 �xdS �f6 tions ! He wants to launch a kingside
We would say that the game is pawn storm with the f and g-pawns.
level. See 2 0 Jakovenko-Shi­ For that, Black needs his queen on
rov, Faros 20 07 in the "Complete the right wing.
Games" section. It is also very important to
set up correctly the bishop pair.
The best places are d7 and d8.
B. 1 8 0-0 f5 Then we can maintain the ten­
Our king may be weakened, but sion in the centre, or close it and ad­
we see already the first benefits of vance the g-pawn. Let us see some
. . . g6 - 19 exfS gxfS would give us examples:
a mobile pawn centre. Then 20 f4 a) 2 2 ttJfl �d7 23 �a2 �d8
would block it indeed, but at the
cost of providing an outpost on eS
for our knight and opening play in
favour of our bishop pair: 2 0 . . . exf4
2 1 tlJc2 2 1 tlJc2 ttJeS. (or 2 1 . . . �d7 !?)
1 9 Y;7d3
This has been recommended
by Khalifman as a main repertoire
against the Sveshnikov in the Chess
Stars book "Opening for White Ac­
cording to Anand 1.e4", vol. 10. 24 ttJde3 �b6, when it would be
W e propose a new arrangement of risky for White to take on d6 and
Black's pieces: open the file to our rook: 25 �xd6
1 9 .ie6 20 gd1 Y9d7 21 f3
•••
�fd 8 .
Y9g7 ! b) If White chooses to stay with
his knights on dS and e3: 2 2 <t!?h l
�d7 23 �a2 , we can follow up with
23 . . . �d8 or 2 3 . . . �h6, but 23 . . .f4 ! ?
i s more interesting: 24 tlJc2 �d8 2 5
tlJ a3 g S 2 6 tlJbS �h6oo
We think that such a position,
with a clear-cut attack against the
enemy king, should appeal to any
Sveshnikov fan.

94
 12 lOC2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 ll:Jce3 g6

Play might continue with 27 After 20 .. .f4 White's future plan

ll:Jdc7 �f6 28 �ad2 g4oo . is not clear. He had already com­
mitted himself with 19 h4, so short
castling will hardly be good. White
C. 1 8 1Mfe2 !? will have to leave his king in the
This was a novelty in game 21 centre, but then he will be unable to
Anand-Shirov, Linares 20 0 8 . advance the b-pawn. For his part,
1 8 ...fS 1 9 h 4 ixe3 2 0 1Mfxe3 Black will fallow up with 21 . . . h5 to
f4! fix the weakness on h4 . The game
And the last move is our im­ might continue with 21 Wf d3 h5oo or
provement. Shirov opened the cen­ 21 Wfd2 h5 22 f3 �h7 23 Wfff2 �g8 24
tre, but his king proved to be vul­ �e 2 �g7 25 �hal �e6. We are eager
nerable. to see more tests of Anand's idea.

95
Part 4 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 �db5 d6
7 .ig5 a6 8 � a 3 b5 9 �d5 .ie7 1 O
ixt6 ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .ig5
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 a 5 1 5 .ic4
gb8 1 6 b3 <it>h8 1 7 � ce3 g6

STEP BY STE P

A . 18 h4 page 96 Black, which i s fairly aggressive.

B . 18 0-0 page 102 18 We2 earned Anand a point in
C. 18 We2 page 105 Linares 20 0 8 , but it is still early to
Khalifman also mentions as panic. We recommend a new ap­
risky 18 Wffd3 f5 19 f3 i.h4+ 20 @e2 proach which needs further tests .
f4 21 tlJfl Wd7 22 @dl Wa7 with un­
clear consequences. A. 1 8 h4
Line A. 1 8 h4 considers the shar­ This aggressive continuation is
pest attempt of White to refute critical for o ur repertoire. It brings
Black's setup . There is enough prac­ about sharp forced variation which
tical evidence that Black should be might refute the whole setup with
able to survive the first attacking early castling. Fortunately, the cur­
wave. Then commonly arise posi­ rent status of this sacrifice is favour­
tions with bishops of opposite col­ able for Black, but you must watch
our where Black seeks to open files out for new discoveries.
for his rooks by sacrificing a pawn 1 8 . . . .ixh4 1 9 g3 .ig5
with either . . . a4 or . . . e4. In no way
should he defend passively as in
such positions even without a pawn
White would have winning chances.
At top level Black achieves good re­
sults and during the last year the
popularity of 18 h4 has waned con­
siderably.
18 0-0 has long been assessed as
innocuous, but Khaifman advocat­
ed it in"Opening for White Accord­
ing to Anand 1.e4", vol . 10. He con­
nects it with the new idea of hold­ Al. 20 El:a2
ing firmly the centre by Wffd3 . At our A2 . 2 0 f4
turn, we also propose a new setup for A3 . 2 0 We2 ! ?
96
 12 ttJc2 o-o 13 a4 bxa4 14 roca4 as lS !c4 �b8 16 b3 wh8 17 ttJce3 g6

A 1 . 20 �a2 �xe3 2 1 � xe 3 ie6 20 06 , White chose the tricky 2 2

From a theoretical standpoint, �d2 , intending t o meet 2 2 . . .hc4?
this is the main move, as it gives with 2 3 ttJfS ! gS 24 �dl� . Spasov
Black a comfortable game. On the answered 2 2 . . . �g8 ! 23 �al hc4
other hand, 21 . . .fS is significantly 24 ttJxc4, when he should have tak­
more hazy, but that could be a prac­ en the pawn: 24 . . . �xb3 ! 2S �dS (2S
tical plus if one is well prepared: ttJxd6? ! �f6 26 �dS �gb8 ! 27 �xc6
�3b6 28 �c7 �xd6 29 �xf7 �bl+ 3 0
We 2D �lb 2 + 31 W f3 hS+) 2S . . . ttJe7
26 �xf7 (26 �xd6? ! �xd6 27 ttJxd6
Wg7+) 26 . . . �g7 27 �e6 (27 �f3 ttJc6 !
2 8 ttJd 2 �bS+) 27 �e6 �c7! ( 2 7. . . �c8
28 �xc8 + ttJxc8 29 @d2 �f7=) 2 8
0-0 (28 � c l ltJ g 8 29 ttJxeS �xc3 3 0
@ d 2 �xcl 31 �xcl �e7+) 2 8 . . . �c8+.

22 �d2
22 f4 exf4 23 �ah 2 (23 gxf4
�b6oo) displays the reason behind
White's 20th move, but Black holds
firmly after 23 . . . �b7 24 gxf4 �g7 ! f! .
2 2 . . .f4 2 3 gxf4 exf4 2 4 �xd6 �c7
2S ltJg2
The alternatives are: 2S �dS?
fxe3 26 �xc6 �g7 27 �d4 �xd4 2 8
cxd4 exf2 + 2 9 W fl a4 ! ; 2S ttJc2 !g4 22 . . . '%Ye7 ! 23 gxd6 �d4 24 g d s
26 f3 �bd8 27 �xd8 �xd8 28 ttJd4 2 4 �xd4? i s insufficient: 2 4 . . .
!hS 29 !dS ltJeS = ; 2S ttJfS gxfS 26 exd4 2 S �xd4+ f6 2 6 ttJdS hdS 27
�dh6 �b7 27 �xh7+ �xh7 2 8 �xh7+ hdS �fd8+.
�xh7 29 �d6 ttJe7 30 �es+ �g7 31 24 . . . �c6 2 5 gd2 ixc4 26 � xc4
�xf4 ltJg8= . 26 bxc4 �cs is also roughly
2S . . . !g4 26 �xc6 (26 f3 �bd8) equal : 27 �d7 �fd8 28 0-0 Wg7 29
26 ... �xc6 27 �xg4 �xe4+ 2 8 @d2 �dS �a3 30 � f3 �e7= .
(28 Wfl �bl+ 29 ttJel �be8 30 �xh7 + 26 . . . gfd 8
wxh7 31 �d7 + @h6 32 �h3 + Wg7 33 Black can maintain the balance
�d7+ @f6 34 �c6 +=) 28 . . . �bd8 + with other moves as well: 26 . . . 1!9b7!?
29 Wcl a4 ! with a double-edged po­ 27 �b2 (27 �dS �xb3 28 �xb3 �xb3
sition according to Rogozenko. 29 Wd2 �c8 30 �cs �bb8 31 �al
Wg7=) 27 . . . �fd8 28 �e2 �d7! 29
22 g d 2 �d2 (29 0-0 1!9d3=) 29 . . . �b7= .
I n Sandipan-Spasov, Turin oL 21 gds=

97
Part 4

We would have stopped here, as­ llJe3 �g6 30 �ds tt:Jes 3 1 �e2 . Here
suming that the position is clearly Kolev likes the move 3 1 . . . tt:Jd3 32 fS
equal, hadn't Rogozenko claimed �hS+ ! 3 3 �d2 �f3 34 �lh2 tt:JeSf!
"some advantage" for White. More with a good position for Black.
likely, there is none. 23 . . .hfS 24 llJxfS fufS 2S �g4
27 . . . @ga 28 o-o Y«b7 2 9 � xe5 �gs 26 �d3
(29 �d6 �bS) 29 .. J�xd5 30 Y«xd 5 26 �g2 ? fails to 26 . . . hf4 27
� x e5 3 1 Y«xe5 Y«xb 3 3 2 Y«xa5 gca �h4 (27 tt:Jxf4 �gs 28 llJxg6 + �g7
33 gc1 Y«b2 34 Y«g5 g ea 35 c4 0-1, Delchev-Kotanjian, Kusadasi
gxe4 36 c5 g es=. 2 006) 27 . . . �gS + 28 �xgS �xgS+ 29
� f3 �es- + . After the text, the game
ends up with mass elimination:
A2. 20 f4 exf4 2 1 gxf4 .ih4+ 26 �d3 �xdS 27 �xg6 �f6 28
�xh7+ � g 8 29 �f7+ �xh7 30 �xdS
tt:Je7 31 �e4+ �g7 32 �xgS+ �xgS
33 fxgS �xb3 34 �xaS �xc3 = .

2 2 . . . � e7
Now the main line branches to:
A2 a. 23 �c2
A2b . 23 �cl
A2c. 23 �gl ! ?

2 3 �h4? ! allows Black t o re­

Black's defence is based on . . .fS, pel White's attack with 23 . . . ttJxdS
followed by �b7. In some lines White 24 �hl tt:Jf6 , for instance, 2S �c2
proves unable even to shift the bish­ �b7t or 2S llJdS hS ! 26 tt:Jxf6 �xf6
op fram h4, if we get the chance to 27 �xaS �g7+. (Rogozenko)
support it with . . . gs.
22 i>d2
O n fl the king i s X-rayed by the A2a. 23 �c2
f8-rook: N owthe c3-pawn is well defend­
22 �fl f S 23 exfS ed by the king, but the a4-rook can­
23 �a2 fxe4 24 �ah2 looks very not reach the h-file via the second
purposeful, but 24 . . . gS 2S tt:Jg2 �b7 rank. Anyway, we'll see later that
26 llJxh4 gxh4 27 �xh4 �g7 28 �hS even if White takes on h7, he is still
�fS defends everything. Stangl-Kin- far from winning .
dermann, Altensteig 1987 saw fur­ 23 lllxd5 24 lllxd5 �e6 25 E:al
•••

ther 29 �h6 , when Black counter­ 2S �d4+ �g8 26 �aal hdS 27

attacked with 29 . . . a4 ! ? 30 bxa4 �xdS �b6 is unclear.
�b8 31 �bS tt:Je7= . Hracek-Mis­ 25 �f6 26 E:h2 ig7 27 Wfd2
•••

ta, Czechia 2006 improved with 29 a4! ?

98
 12 4Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS lS �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 4Jce3 g6

In this variation Black main­

tains the balance by counterattack­
ing c3. Here is a typical example: 2S
�a2 �xdS 2 6 �xdS \Wf6 27 \W f3 �fc8
28 �h3 hS 29 �xaS �el 3 0 �c4 �xb3
31 �axhS+ gxhS 32 \WxhS+ �g7 =.
That's why i n practice White choos­
es:
25 %Yd4+ <;f;>g8 26 <;f;>bl
We chose this as a main line be­
cause it occurred in the latest top
Remember this thematic break!
level game, Jakovenko-Shirov, Fa­
It is the only way to open files and
ros 20 07. Alternatives are :
obtain counterplay. The game Ko­
a) 26 �c2 is rather inconsistent.
rneev-Solak, Vrsac 200S shows that
Balck is able to choose whether to
White still has a draw:
play with opposite coloured bishops
28 E:ahl (28 �xa4 �a8f!) 28
after 26 . . .�xdS 27 �xdS �f6 28 \We3
•••

axb3+ 29 hb3 hd5

�g7oo or maintain the tension with
29 . . . hS also leads to a draw: 30 fS
26 . . . �c8 ! ? .
�xdS 31 �xdS \Wb6 3 2 \Wcl �bc8 33
b ) 2 6 fS �xdS 27 �xdS ( 2 7 \WxdS
f6 ! hf6 34 �xhS+ gxhS 3S �xhS+
\WgS + 28 �bl \We3 ! ) 27 . . . \Wf6 2 8
�g8 36 �gS + hgS 37 \WxgS+ �h7
fxg6 hxg6= .
3 8 \WhS + �g7 39 \WgS +=.
c ) 2 6 �a2 After this move Black
30 E:xh7+ <;f;>g8 31 hd5 �f6
gets good play on the dark squares,
32 %Yd4= \Wxd4 33 cxd4 �xd4 34 eS
thanks to the position of the white
dxeS 3S hf7 + �f7 36 �h8 + �g7 37
king and the pawns c3 and f4 . It
�lh7+ �f6 38 �xf7+ �xf7 39 �xb8
would have been better for the
exf4, draw.
white king to be on a light square,
thus preventing possible checks.
26 . . . �xdS 27 \WxdS
A2b. 23 @cl �xd5 24 �xd5
27 �xdS? ! �f6 28 \We3 \Wc7 fa­
.ie6
vours Black, for instance 2 9 �ah2
a4 ! ; 29 �c4 �fc8 30 �ah2 dS ! ; 29
�h3 �fc8 30 �c4 \Wes . (o r 30 . . . a4 ! ?
3 1 �xa4 �a8)
27 . . . \Wf6 (27 . . .�g3 28 \Wd2 \Wf6
transposes to 27 . . . \Wf6) 2 8 \Wd2 �g3
29 �fl dS ! ?
Topalov-Leko, Linares 200S,
went on with 29 ... hS and the game
was very tangled, but White grad­
ually outplayed his opponent. The

99
Part 4

text was proposed by Rogozenko 34 b4 (34 E:a6? E:xc3 ! ) 34 . . . E:fc8 35

and passed the test in Korneev- De­ E:a3 h5 (Rogozenko) would have
vereaux, Port Erin 2006. been quite promising for Black.

26 hd5 27 11Mxd5 (27 hd5

•••

�f6 28 �d3 �c7) 27 �f6 •••

Black needs open files for his

rooks . We had seen before the sac­
rifice . . . a4 with similar aims .
Now, 30 e5? ! Wf5 31 hd5 g5 !
would be slightly better for Black. Black has neutralized the direct
Perhaps the most testing answer is threats and his king is well protect­
30 exd5 E:fe8 (Rogozenko suggests ed, which is an important factor in
30 . . . h5, but after 31 :gxa5 E:a8 32 positions with bishops of opposite
E:xa8 E:xa8 3 3 @b2 Black's compen­ colour. On the other hand, White's
sation is not too clear, e.g. 33 . . . Wd6 rooks are more active and restrict
34 b4 ih4oo) 31 E:f3 (or 31 E:xa5 E:el + Black's play. We would say that the
32 @c2 E:xfl 33 hfl hf4) 3 1 . . .'Wh4 game is level. See 2 0 Jakovenko­
32 d6 Wg4 (32 . . . E:e4 33 E:a4 @g7 Shirov, Faros 20 0 7 in the "Com­
34 �e2;t) 3 3 E:fl (33 �e2? ! E:e4 34 plete Games" section.
E:a4 :gxa4 35 bxa4 g5 ! ) 33 . . . E:e4 34
d7 E:d8 35 Wd3 E:xf4 36 ib5 E:xfl+
37 Wxfl �e5oo . In these lines White A2c. 23 VMgl! ?
has a strong passed d-pawn, which I n the previous lines we have
is balanced by constant threats by seen White trying to find the per­
Black. In the source game Korneev fect balance between attack and de­
preferred to keep the e-file closed : fence . Now we'll examine the most
30 �xd5 g5 31 @b2 hf4 32 straightforward approach, which is
E:xa5 frequently met in my (Kolev) ICC
Now 32 . . .hd2 33 E:xf6 E:fc8 blitz games.
leads to a drawish endgame, e.g. 34 23 �xd5 24 �xd5 �e6
•••

hfl+ @g7 35 E:f3 g4 36 E:d3 hc3 + 24 . . . h5 25 �a7 (25 �d4+ @h7

37 E:xc3 @xf7 Devereaux retained
=. 26 E:aal �e6oo) gives White a slight­
the tension with: ly better ending, thanks to his cen­
32 . . . E:bc8 33 Wd3 , when 33 . . . E:c7 tralised king: 25 . . . ie6 26 ifMxa5 (26

100
 12 ltJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 17 ltJce3 g6

�xaS �f2 27 rfxf2 �xaS 28 rfd4 + f6 example: 3 1 . . .hc4 32 ltJf5+ @g6 33

29 ltJxf6 rfb6 ! ) 26 . . . �g3 ( 26 . . . @g7 bxc4 rfb6 34 �gS + ! fxgS 35 ltJe7+
27 rfxd8 hd8 28 �a6t) 27 �xd8 @g7 36 rff5 dS 37 ltJxdS with at­
�fxd8 28 fSt. tack.
25 �h2 26 rbc2
25 rfd4 + @g8 26 @c2 hdS 26 @d3? fS ! earned me the point
brings about already familiar posi­ in a ICC blitz game . More hazy is 2 6
tions : 27 �xdS �g3 ! ? (27 . . . Wb6 2 8 �gl ! ? f6 27 rfd4 �b7oo.
rfd 2 �f6 29 rfh2 h S 30 rfgl rfxgl 3 1 26 f6 ! ?oo
•••

�xgl @g7 3 2 �xaSt) 2 8 fS (28 �fl With this move we prepare a de­
�f6) 2 8 . . .�eS+! 29 fxg6 (29 �d3 fence along the seventh rank with
@g7) 2 9 . . . hxg6 30 �d2 rff6 ! 31 �b7. 26 . . . h6 is also playable and
�xaS �a8= or 27 hdS �f6 28 rfd3 needs tests.
�b6 +!;
25 @c2 �f6 26 fS (26 �h 2 hS)
26 . . . hdS 27 hdS �e7 28 fxg6 A 3. 20 yge2 ! ?
fxg6 29 �xg6 looks dangerous, but
29 . . .�eS= reminds that White's king
is not safe, too.
25 g5
•••

This is a new idea of Karjakin

which he used against Shirov in the
World Cup. The white queen is eye­
ing the h 2-square while freeing dl
Black's defence hangs by a thread, for the king. The source game saw
but it is a very strong one ! White 2 0 . . .fS? ! and Black got a winning po­
had saved a tempo by leaving the sition . I (Kolev) was also impressed
king on d2, and now we are able to by Shirov's play and fallowed in
survive thanks to the check: 26 fxgS his footsteps in a later game, but a
hgS+ 27 @c2 h6 28 �aal �g8 !?oo, more thorough analysis convinced
intending �g7. Note that the setup me that Black should look for bet­
with 28 . . . @g7 29 �agl �h8 offers ter options. See my detailed analy­
more chances to White: 30 �f2 f6 sis of game 19 Karjakin-Shirov,
(30 . . . hdS 31 hdSoo) 31 ltJe3 ! , for Khanty-Mansiysk 11 .12.2007 in the

101
Part 4

"Complete Games" section. My con­

clusion is that White can continue
with 21 exf5 ! hf5 22 l2Jxf5 gxf5 23
f4 exf4 24 �h2 �b7 25 gxf4 �f6 26
@dl, fallowed by �a2, with a very
unpleasant attack. Therefore, I pro­
pose to refrain from 20 .. .f5 in fa­
vour of:
20 . . . tll e 7
O u r knight i s not very efficient
on c6 and it is better to trade it
for the l2Jd5. Thus we will reduce
White's attacking potential.
21 f4 81 . 1 9 exf5 gxf5 20 f4
Or 21 l2Jxe7 he7 22 f4 exf4 White can delay f4, but that
2 3 gxf4 (23 �h2 h5 24 gxf4 �f6) would only help us improve our
2 3 . . . �f6 24 l2Jd5 �e8f!. piece s: 2 0 �h5 �d7 ! ( 20 .. .f4? ! 2 1
2 1 . . . tll x d S 22 tll xd5 exf4 23 �d3 �b7 2 2 l2Jc4) and now:
gxf4 if6 21 f4? ! exf4 22 l2Jxf4 l2Je5 23 �a2
a4 ! ;
2 1 ®hl e4 ! ? (21. . .�e8 2 2 �h3 f4
2 3 �d3 �d7! 24 �xd7 hd7 25 l2Jc4
�b3 26 l2Jxa5 l2Je7 27 �aal �bb8 2 8
l2Jxe7 he7=) 2 2 f4 exf3 23 gxf3 ( 2 3
�xf3? l2Je5 24 �h3 h6 - +) 23 . . . l2Je5
24 �a2 he3 ! 25 l2Jxe3 f4+.
21 �fal e4 2 2 �dl (22 ltJfl �g8 !
23 �e2 �g6 24 @hl �f8 25 �4a3
�h6 26 ®gl �g7 27 l2Jg3 �e5t) 22 . . .
f4 2 3 l2J c 2 �e8 24 �xa5 ( 2 4 l2Jd4
l2Je5 25 �xa5 f3 26 g3 e3 27 �5a2 e2
Black has a reliable position. 28 l2Jxe2 l2Jxc4 29 bxc4 fxe2 30 �xe2
Now 24 �h 2 h5 25 �a2 �e8 or 24 �g6+) 24 . . . l2Jxa5 25 �xa5 f3 26 g3 .
�f3 �e6 25 �a2 @g7 26 �ah2 �h8 Khalifman claims that "White has a
leave White struggling to prove that sufficient compensation for the ex­
he has enough compensation for change, but not more than that . "
the missing pawn and bare king.
2 0 ... exf4 2 1 tll c2
21 ltJxf4? loses due to the pin
B. 1 8 0-0 f5 2 1 . . . �b6 22 �f3 (22 �el �e8 23
ltJfd5 �a7 24 ®hl he3 25 �f3 f4 26
B l . 19 exf5 �f4 �a6 - +) 2 2 . . . l2Je5 23 �h3 ( 2 3
B 2 . 19 �d3 �f2 M4 24 �xf4 l2Jg4 25 �el �8- +)

10 2
 12 tlJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �a4 as 15 ic4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 ttJce3 g6

2 3 ... id7 24 �aal tlJg4- + . White might start with 2 0 f3 . We

2 1 � c2 � e s propose to fallow up with the same
setup as in the main line: 20 . . . �d7 ! ?
2 1 �hl f4 ! ( 21. . . �g7 i s inferior: 2 2
exf5 gxf5 23 f4) 2 2 tlJ c 2 id8 23 �fal
g5 24 b4 g4 with counterplay.
20 gd 1 \Wd7 2 1 f3 \Wg 7 !

2 1 . . . id7 ! ? 2 2 �a3 ttJ e 5 also de­

serves attention: 23 ttJxf4 ttJxc4 24
bxc4 �b2 = . (Khalifman)
22 \Wd4
White's bishop on c4 is unsta­
ble and should be supported. 2 2 Khalifman considers only 21 . . . �a7
ttJd4 id7 23 �a2 runs into 2 3 . . . a4 ! 2 2 �hl he3 23 ttJxe3 hc4 24 �c4
24 ttJxf4 �c8+ while 22 ttJxf4 id7 with a slight advantage. Of course,
23 �al �b6 ++ is also in Black's fa­ in this structure White would be
vour. After the text White's prob­ happy to exchange pieces. That
lems come from the other wing: would only underline Black's nu­
22 . . . f3 ! ? 23 gxf3 gga 24 @ h 1 merous weaknesses and especially
g g 7 2 5 f4 ( 2 5 ttJce3 f4 ! 2 6 ttJxf4 his poorly protected king. Kolev has
ttJc6t) 2 5 . . . � xc4 26 gxc4 (26 �xc4 however completely different inten­
if6 !) 26 . . . ib7�. tions ! He wants to launch a kingside
pawn storm with the f and g-pawns.
For that, Black needs his queen on
B2. 1 9 \Wd3 the right wing. It is also very impor­
This has been recommended tant to set up correctly the bishop
by Khalifman as a main repertoire pair. The best places are on d7 (to
against the Sveshnikov in the Chess avoid tactics based on the hanging
Stars book "Opening for White Ac­ state of the bishop on e6) and d8.
cording to Anand 1.e4", vol. 10 . His
main line runs as: 19 .. .f4 20 tlJc2 f3 We shall examine:
21 g3 �d7 (21. . . h5 22 �fal h4 23 tlJel B2a. 22 tlJfl
hxg3 24 hxg3 ig4 25 ib5i) 22 �fal B2b. 2 2 �hl
�h3 23 ttJde3i. We propose a new
arrangement of Black's pieces : These moves keep hold of the
1 9 . . . ie6 20 gd 1 centre and are in the spirit of Kha-

10 3
Part 4

lifman's strategical approach. in view of ltJxdS 29 exdS e4oo.

The computers also like total­ 25 exf5
ly inconsistent moves like 22 exfS 2S �xd6 is risky: 2S . . . 8:fd8 2 6
gxfS 2 3 �hl, but there is no reason � hl fxe4 27 fxe4 he3 2 8 l2Jxe3 �g4
to pay them much attention. Black 2 9 l2Jxg4 (29 �xc6 hdl=) 29 . . . 8:xd6
can get a strong initiative with 23 . . . 30 8:xd6 �e7 31 8:xc6 �d7 32 �dS
e4 ! 2 4 fxe4 fxe4 ( 2 4. . . ltJeS 2S �d4 �xg4 33 h3 �d l+ 34 �h2 8:f8 .
fxe4 26 E'!:xaS is likely to be drawn 25 ... hfS ! 26 Y«d5
after 2 6 . . . fuc4 27 �xg7+ �xg7 28 26 �d2 would let through 26 . . .
l2Jxc4 h6 ! intending ... e3) 2S �xe4 e4 ! 2 7 �dS ltJeS 2 8 fxe4 �d'Too.
8:be 8 . 26 ... .id7 27 Wfxd6 (or 27 �hl
�cS) gbd8

B2a. 2 2 � fl i.d7 23 ga2 .id8

White is unable to prevent 27 . . .

e4, which will activate the "fian­
All Black pieces went to their op­ chettoed" queen. Our analysis indi­
timal places . It is not easy for White cates that the game is still balanced.
to create threats. We'll show its main line:
24 �de3 2 8 i.d5
24 l2Jfe3 goes halfway to Black's Or 28 �hl e4 29 �dS �xe3 30
plan: 24 . . .f4 2S l2Jc2 gS 26 l2J a3 g4t . hc6 �f4 3 1 �cs hc6 3 2 8:xd8
24 ... i.b6 8:xd8 33 �xc6 E'!:dl 34 g3 E'!:xf1 + 3S
The dark-squared bishop is very �g2 8:xf3 = .
active and that allows Black to sacri­ 2 8 . . .e4! 29 hc6 i.c8
fice the d6-pawn in order to open the 29 . . . ifS ! ? also appears to be
d-file. However, the position is dy­ equal: 30 �d7 he3 + 3 1 l2Jxe3 8:xd7
namically balanced and both sides 3 2 �cs E'!:xdl+ 33 ltJxdl exf3 34 gxf3
have different options of rough­ �e6 35 E'!:xaS hb3 36 l2Je3 8:xf3 = .
ly equal worth. For instance, now 30 .id7 gf6 31 Y«e5 e xf3 3 2
24 . . . �c7 ! ? is a good alternative : 2S gd6 gxd6 3 3 Y«xd6 he3+ 3 4
�dS �b6 26 �hl l2J e7 27 l2J c4 ic7oo, �xe3 gxd7= .
when 2 8 ltJxaS? ! is hardly advisable The game is level. White can

104
 12 CZJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 cjfh8 17 l2Jce3 g6

force a draw with 35 �f4 �f7 36 �c4 30 . . . ttJxdS 31 exdS �fSt.

�c7 37 �d4 �xc3 38 �d8 + �g8 39 Our recommendation however
�f6 + �g7. goes to:
23 . . .f4! ? 24 �c2 �d8 25 �a3
g5 26 �b5 l¥h6a:>
B2b. 22 @ht
This prophylaxis seems best.
Black proceeds with the same setup
as in the previous line:
22 i.d7 23 E:a2
.•.

We think that such a position,

with a clear-cut attack against the
enemy king, should appeal to any
Sveshnikov fan. Play might conti­
nue with :
Now the familiar 23 . . . �d 8 , 27 �dc7 E:f6 28 E:ad2 g4oo.
maintaining the tension, i s playable
and leads to a double-edged game:
24 exf5 gxf5 25 f4 exf4 26 ttJxf4 �b6 C. 1 8 Y!! e 2 !?
27 ttJedS (27 �e2 �cs ; 27 �e6 �xe3
28 �xe3 �fe8 29 �xd6 �xb3 30 �gl
�xe6 3 1 l2Jxe6 �f6 32 �c6 �xe6 33
�c8 + ©g7 34 �xaS �xc3 =) 27 . . . CZJe S
2 8 �fl �d 8oo .
The diagram position is very
rich and needs practical tests . We'll
show another interesting option for
Black:
23 . . . �h6 24 CZJfl �d8 (you can
also try 24 . . .fxe4 25 �xe4 �fS 2 6
�e2 e 4 27 fxe4 �dToo) 25 ttJde3 �c7
26 �ds (26 l2Jd2 !?) 26 . . . ttJe7 27 l2Jd2 This innovation of Anand is the
�gSoo 28 CZJ dc4 (28 CZJec4 �bS) 28 . . . latest hit against Black's setup . At
f4 2 9 l2J c 2 (29 ltJfl CZJxdS 30 �xdS first it seems like a simple transpo­
�bS) 29 . . . �f6 with counterplay. sition. We answer "thematically":
30 CZJxaS? ! would be risky due to 1 8 ...fS 1 9 h4

105
Part 4

Now we realise that in case of cision. We spent a lot o f time ana­

19 . . . !xh4? ! 2 o exfs Jbns 21 g3 �gs lysing the course of the stem game
22 lt:JxfS we are out of our proposed 20 . . . fxe4 21 hS! gS 22 V9xe4. Finally
repertoire, and even worse, play did we decided that White retains some
transpose, but to a variation which ad vantage. You can see more details
is known to be dubious for Black. (18 in the "Complete Games" section -

h4 �h4 19 g3 � gs 20 V9e2 fS? !) So it game 21 Anand-Shirov, Linares

turns out, that we have to deal with 20 0 8 .
a completely new system where we Commonly, i n this line Black
cannot rely on the usual bishop pair aims to take on e4 in order to open
to plug up the gaps in our castling the f-file and organise some play
position . on the kingside. In the current sit­
uation, however, White had already
19 ... .ixe3 20 �xe3 f4! committed himself with 19 h4, so
short castling will hardly be good.
White will have to leave his king in
the centre, but then he will lack an
active plan such as advancing the b­
pawn. We like Black's position after
20 . . . f4 . He will follow up with 21 . . . hS
to fix the weakness on h4. The game
might continue with 21 V9d3 hSoo or
21 V9d2 hS 22 f3 cj{h7 23 V9f2 �g8 24
cj{e2 �g7 2S �hal �e6 . We are eager
to see more tests ofAnand's idea. Or
It was not easy to reach this de- was it a one-game novelty? !

106
Part 4 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 � xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 � d bS d6
7 .igS a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS .ie7 1 O
.bf& .bf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .igS
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gx a4 as 1 S .ic4
gb8 1 6 b3 @hS 1 7 �ce3 g6

COMPLETE GAM ES

1 9 K arjak in - S h i rov lem is that 2 1 exfS ! is rather awk­

Kha nty-M a ns iysk 1 1 . 1 2. 2007 ward. Then 2 1 . . . gxfS 2 2 \WhS �b7 23
Comments by Kolev f4 exf4 24 gxf4 �f6 2 5 @d2, plan­
ning �a4-al-gl, would give White a
1 e4 cs 2 liJ f3 liJ c6 3 d4 cxd4 clear edge since the coordination of
4 liJ xd4 liJ f6 s liJ c3 es 6 liJ d bS d 6 the black pieces is rather poor. Re­
7 .i g S a 6 8 liJ a 3 b S 9 liJ d S .ie7 1 O mains:
.ixf6 .ixf6 1 1 c3 .igS 1 2 liJ c2 0-0 2 1 . ..ixf5 2 2 li.Jxf5
13 a4 b x a4 14 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gba
16 b3 @ h 8 1 7 liJ ce3 g6 18 h4 .ixh4
1 9 g3 .i g S 20 YMe2

2 2 . . .gxfS
Or 2 2 . . . �xfS 23 �d3 �xb3 (23 . . .
e 4 24 �xe4; 2 3 . . .� f7 2 4 �xg6 �g7 2 5
�e4 + - �xb3 2 6 �xh7! ; 23 . . . \Wg8 2 4
20 . . . fS ? ! MS gxfS 25 \Wc4+-) 2 4 hfS gxfS
We recommend 2 0 . . . li.J e 7 2 1 f4 25 \Wc2 \Wb8 2 6 0-0 +- .
li.JxdS 2 2 li.JxdS exf4 2 3 gxf4 �f6 . Now 2 3 f4 i s already good and
I must confess that Shirov's play gives White an advantage: 23 . . . exf4
in this game had impressed me and 24 \Wh2 �b7 25 gxf4 �f6 2 6 @dl, fol­
I fallowed in his steps in a game of lowed by �a2, with a strong attack.
mine. Analysing it, however, made In the game White chooses a
me change my mind . The prob- wrong move order:

107
Part 4

2 1 t4 ext4 22 gxt4 .ih4+ 23 ©d1

E!b7
A typical defence o f the seventh
rank and particularly the sensitive
h7-square.
24 �h2
It is already late for 24 exfS due
to 24 . . . ixfS 25 tt.Jxfs gxfS 2 6 gxh4
1Mixh4 27 1Mie8+ �g7 28 1Mixc6 1Mihl+
29 �c2 1Mig2+ and the best White
can hope for is a draw after 3 0
�d3 , because 3 0 �bl? would fail to First critical moment in the
30 . . . ghs ! 31 1Mixb7+ �h6 32 1Mixh7+ game. White still has a draw, but he
�xh7 3 3 tt.Jf6 + �h6+. had to demonstrate nerves of steel
24 . . . g S 2S .i a6 and play 29 tt.Jb4 ! , for example:
2 5 exfS, as in the game Chirli­ 29 ... axb4 30 1Mixh4 bxc3+ 31 �xc3.
an-Kolev, 2 00 8 , is more testing: It turns out that Black has noth­
25 . . . his 26 tt.Jxf5 �f5 27 ga2 tt.Je7 ing decisive: 3 1 . . . gf7 32 g6 tt.J aS 33
I was sure this move was best, gbl Wxbl 34 g7 + ! with perpetual, or
but playing a last round I tried some­ 3 1 . . . 1Mia7 32 Wfxh7+ Wfxh7 33 �xh7+
thing more complicated: 27 . . . gg7? ! �xh7 34 gxa6 gcs 35 g a4 = .
2 8 1Mih3 gft7 29 ge2 tt.J e7 30 tt.Jxe7 Instead, Karjakin panicked and
gxe7 31 gxe7 gxe7 32 1Mif5 gg7 33 landed in dire straits after:
fxgS and White has good compen­ 30 YMxh4 bxc3+ 31 ©xc3 YMa7-+
sation. The game eventually ended 32 YM xe4 tiles 33 g 6 .id3 34 E! x h7+
in a draw. YMxh 7 3S YMxeS+ dxeS 36 g xh7
28 tt.Jxe7 (28 gd2 tt.JxdS 29 .ixdS ixh7
gc7 30 fxgS .ixgS 31 il.e4 gf4+) Incredibly, Shirov failed t o win
2 8 . . . gxe7 2 9 fxgS .ixgS with a lev­ this . . . .
el game: 3 0 gf2 gf6 = . 30 gg2 a4! 3 7 ttl g4 E!c8+ 3 8 © b 4 e 4 3 9
is also equal after the correct 31 ttl g t6 .its 4 0 lil h s .ig4 4 1 ttl g 3 it3
Wfh3 ! gfeS 32 ggh2 h6 33 1Mixh6+ (41 . . . .ie6 42 tt.Je3 gel- +) 42 lil ts
.ixh6 34 gxh6+ ! �g7 35 gh7+ �6 E!c1 43 ttl c 3 © h 7 44 ©c4 E!c2??
36 g7h6+ = with a pretty perpetual Second a nd last critical moment.
check. 44 . . . �g6 was easily winning. Now,
2S . . . E!xb3 26 ©c2 .ixa 6 1 despite his big material advantage,
I n such totally unbalanced posi­ Black is unable to break the block­
tions only piece activity matters. ade of the enemy's knights. It seems
27 ©xb3 txe4 28 txg S to be a funny positional fortress in
Or 28 gxe4? ! il.d3 29 ga4 Wfd7 the middle of the board.
and Black is ahead with his attack. 4 S ©d4 ©g6 46 ttle3 E!d2+ 47
28 . . . �b8+ ©es E!d3 48 ttl ed S

10 8
 12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6

1 6 b3 ®h8 1 7 llJ ce3 g6 18 h4 �xh4

1 9 g3 �g s 20 f4 exf4 21 gxf4 �h4+
22 <i>d2 llJ e7 23 ®c1

48 . . J�d 2 49 llJ xe4 ga2 SO liJ f4+

<i>h6 S1 llJe6 gas+ S2 ®t4 �d 1 S3
liJ d4 ®g6 S4 llJc3 �h S ss llJe4 gd s
S6 ® e3 gda S7 llJc6 gea sa <i>d4 White's last move clears t he se­
gas S9 llJ es+ @ g7 60 liJd6 ®t6 61 cond rank for the manoeuvre �a4-
llJ e4+ ® e 6 62 llJ cS+ @ts 63 llJ c6 a2-h2 . Meanwhile the rook stays
gea 64 liJ b4 gda+ 6S <i>e3 �ea 66 on a4 in order to prevent a possible
liJ bd 3 �bs 67 liJ b4 gha 68 liJ bd 3 sacrifice . . . a5-a4, which would dis­
g h 3 + 69 <i> d 4 g h 4 + 7 0 <i> e 3 gc4 tract White fram the king side and
71 liJ b3 ge4+ 72 ®d2 gh4 73 <i>c3 open the a-file for invasion.
<i> e4 74 liJd2+ <i> d S 7S liJ b4+ ®d6 23 . . . llJ xd S 24 llJ xd S �e6 2S
76 llJc2 gh 3+ 77 ®b2 ®dS 78 llJ a 3 \Wd4+ ®g8 26 <i> b1
�a4 79 llJ c 2 @ c s 8 0 ® c1 g d 3 8 1 26 �a2 looks more critical, but
llJ e 1 gc3+ 82 <i> b 2 ®b4 8 3 liJ b 1 current practice is favourable to
gb3+ 8 4 ® c 1 g h 3 8S liJ c2+ ®c4 8 6 Black. Jakovenko intends to make
llJ e 1 g h 1 8 7 <i> d 2 gh2+ 8 8 ®e3 �d 1 all the useful prophylactic moves
89 liJd2+ <i> d S 90 llJ ef3 ge2+ 91 <i>f4 first, before committing himself to a
gea 92 ® g3 gfa 93 ® g 2 �xf3+ 94 concrete plan. However, this game
llJxf3 ®e4 9S liJ d 2+ <i>d3 96 liJf1 shows that Black is not deprived of
gf6 97 liJ g 3 gf4 98 liJ h s gfa 99 liJ g 3 counterplay and is also able to gene­
<i> e 3 1 00 liJf1 + <i> e 2 1 0 1 llJ g 3+ ® e1 rate threats.
1 02 llJ e4 gf7 1 0 3 liJ g 3 %-% 26 . . .�xd S 27 \Wxd S �f6
27 . . . �f6 ! ? is more active. Then
28 �d2 �g3 29 �fl hS would over­
20 J akoven ko- S h i rov take the initiative, so White should
Foro s 27.06. 2007 try 28 es �xf4 29 exd6 �e3 ! with
1 e4 cs 2 liJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 double-edged play. For instance, 30
4 llJxd4 liJ f6 s llJc3 es 6 liJ d bS d6 <i>b2 ? ! �el ! is better for Black. The
7 �gs a6 8 llJ a3 bS 9 liJdS �e7 1 0 text is more restrained.
�xf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 �g s 1 2 llJ c2 0-0 28 ®c2
1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 a S 1 S �c4 gba In Lahno-Voiska, Turin oL 2006

10 9
Part 4

White chose 2 8 E:xaS which is rather gds '\Wc7

inconsistent. White suddenly allows Black i s sticking t o h i s war of
play to o pen, in case of 28 . . . .ixc3 ! 29 nerves. If now White repeated
E: a 6 ( 2 9 E: a 7 Wf6) 2 9 . . . E:a8 ! 3 0 E:xd6 with 36 E:fS, Black might deviate
Wb8 . In the game Voiska preferred by 36 . . . �g7 37 eS dxeS 38 fxeS ih4
28 . . . Wc7 and subsequently lost. 39 Wg4 f6 with sharp play. Still, his
28 . . .�b6 29 fif1 king looks slightly safer in this line .
29 E:xaS would have given Black White, however, seems lulled by Shi­
a ple asant choice between (29 . . . �e3 rovs repetitions and he soon misses
30 Wd3 Wxf4 31 Wh3 hS and the oppo rtunity to force play.
29 . . .Wf2 + 30 Wd2 Wf3 31 E:el E:a8. 36 '5h3 g a7 37 '5e3 gba 38
29 . . . '5e3 30 '5d3 '5d3
I n the time trouble White mi ss­
es 38 E:xd6 \Wxd6 39 Wxa7 �xf4 40
�xf7+ �h8 4 1 ie2 ! with a likely
draw.
38 . . . gda 39 '5d2 @g7 40 gd3 h5

It is time for recapitulation.

Black won the theoretical dispute.
Now he must trade queens, but
his chances for converting the ex­
tra pawn would be minimal. Shirov
steps back, probably to underline We see a typical position for
that he is the moral winner of the this line. Black still has an ex­
battle so far. Of course, he cannot tra pawn, but his rooks cannot en­
avoid the endgame after 30 . . . WcS 3 1 ter play. At this moment, however,
�dS, but his psycho trick sudden­ the 40-moves control has passed,
ly "succeed s" . The truth is that with and Jakovenko takes an important
queens White has enough threats to (and wrong ! ) decision. He willing­
keep the balance, but Shirov has al­ ly opens up a file . . . Instead, a wait­
ways been very confident of his own ing game like 41 E:dS (but not 41 E:al
tactical skills . The result of the game a4 ! ) would have offered a stubborn
proves that he was right. defence.
30 . . . \WcS 31 g d 1 gb6 32 '5g3 41 e5? dxe5 42 fxe5 ie7 43
gas 33 g d s '\Wc7 34 gfs '5d8 35 '\Wf4 gxd 31 44 '\Wxf7+ @ h 6

110
 12 '2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 roca4 as 15 ic4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 17 '2Jce3 g6

1 8 . . .fS 1 9 h4 .ixe3 20 Y:Yxe3

White's position amazinglycrum­

bles down in a flash . 45 @xd3 1!9xe5 20 . . .fxe4? !
is rather hopeless. Perhaps Jako­ We recommend 2 0 . . .f4 ! keeping
venko simply missed the following the centre closed and eyeing the h4-
queen "sacrifice". It often happens pa wn.
after a time trouble, when the con­ In the following commentaries
trol is over and the player feels re­ I'll try to shed more light on Shi­
lieved. The mind takes a little nap rov's approach. I watched the game
and stops functioning for a while. online and I must admit that at first
Now White is beyond salvation. I admired his decision to open play
Even the ingenious attempt 45 1!9f4+ and stakes on attack.
gS 46 1!9f5 does not help, in view of 21 hS!
46 . . . �xc3 + ! 47 @xc3 1!9d7! 48 �xd7 The point o f Anand's idea. Now
ib4 + - + . most exchanges are in White's fa­
4 S �xd3 Y:Yxc3+! 4 6 <t!? xc3 �b4+ vour as all endings are much bet­
47 <t!? d4 �xf7 48 e6 g g7 49 ga1 gS ter for him. Positions with only ma­
SO gf1 g4 S1 <t!?e4 �e7 S2 .ie2 h4 jor pieces are also difficult for Black.
S3 �ts g3 0-1 Thus his only hope is to get some­
how to the enemy's king.
21 . . . gS 22 Y:Yxe4 .ib7
21 Anand - S h i rov 2 2 . . . ttJe 7 is a strategical mistake:
L i n are s 28.02.2008 2 3 '2Jxe7 1!9xe7 24 0-0 (24 �xaS gf4)
Comments by Kolev 24 . . . ib7 25 �d3 �f4 and now sim­
1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 plest is 26 idS ! + �xa4 27 bxa4.
4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c 3 es 6 tll d b S d6 Black's castling positions is hope­
7 .ig S a 6 8 tll a 3 b S 9 tll d S .i e7 1 0 lessly loosened.
�xf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 �gs 1 2 tll c2 o-o 23 Y:Ye3 e4!
1 3 a4 b xa4 14 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gb8 Played in typical Sveshnikov fa­
1 6 b3 <t!?h8 1 7 tll ce3 g 6 1 8 Y:Ye2 sh ion - Black seeks maximum piece
This is a novelty, which leads to activity on the kingside.
totally unexplored positions. 24 o-o til e s

111
Part 4

I was not able to fi nd acceptable

ideas for Black. White does not ac­
tually need the e4-pawn. He symply
puts his pieces on the best places,
having in mind something like gfal,
ct:Je3, possibly ie2 . The p in along
the main dark-squared diagonal is
extremely awkward for Black. Main
options now are :
2S . . . g4 2 6 ct:J e3 and Black has no
time for capturing on hS as his cen-
tre quickly falls appart: 26 . . . 'M/gS 27
At the surface Black's position gxaS gf6 2 8 ie2, while 2 6 ... gf6 27
looks appealing. He needs only one ie2 ! ic6 28 ga3� leaves him disco­
move ( . . . V«e8) to hit the hS-pawn. ordinated;
Should that pawn fail, Black will 2S . . . e3 26 fxe3 �fl+ 27 hfl ic6
have a strong attack, connected 28 ga3 hdS 29 'M/xdS 'M/f6 30 'M/d2
with . . . g4 and . . . ct:Jf3, or a rook lift to g4 31 'M/f2 with an edge;
the h-file. Let us consider: 2S . . . ic6
a) 2S 'M/xe4? ! puts the queen un­ At first this move inspired some
der pin and encourages 2S . . . ic6 26 hopes as it brings about interest­
ga3 ing tactical possibilities after 2 6
Or 26 gaal (26 ga2 a4) 26 . . . a4! ga2? ! I n some critical variations
(26 . . . gf4 27 'M/e3 gh4 2 8 f4 f4 2 9 the rook is hanging there! 26 . . . g4
ct:Jxf4�) 27 'M/d4 axb3 2 8 gfb1 e8 27 ct:J e3 gf6 28 gel (28 ids hdS 2 9
with counterplay, e.g. 29 b3 'M/xdS gh6�) 2 8 . . . a4 ! ( 2 8 . . . 'M/e8 29
gxb3 30 .ixb3 'M/xhS 31 ct:Jb4 hg2 idS hdS 30 ct:JxdS i s also possible,
(31 . . . gf4 ! ? 32 'M/xd6? ct:Jg4- +) 32 but inclusion of the 28 . . . a4-break is
©xg2 'M/f3+ 33 ©gl gf4�; better: 29 bxa4 (29 b4 'M/e8 30 idS
26 . . . gf4 27 e 3 (27 'M/ e 2 gh4oo ibS 31 c4 id7 32 bS 'M/xhS 33 .ixe4
28 f4? gxf4 29 ct:Jxf4 'M/b6 + - +) gbf8 34 ct:Jfl gh6 3S g3 ©g8 36 gxa4
27 . . . gh4� 2 8 f4 (28 gfal a4 2 9 ct:Jb4 ct:Jf3 + 37 ixf3 gxf3 38 'M/dS+ 'M/xdS
id7�) 28 . . . gxf4 29 ct:Jxf4 ct:Jxc4 3 0 39 cxdS .ixbS=) 29 . . . 'Ml e8 30 ie2
bxc4 gb2 3 1 ct:J g 6 + hxg6 3 2 V«h 6 + 'M/g8 ! oo and the queen not only de­
©g8 3 3 xg6+ ©h8 3 4 'M/h6 + = . fends g4, but is also hitting the a2-
I suppose that Anand has not rook. This tempo proves to be vi­
even considered 2S 'M/xe4 ?! serious­ tal. Without it, Black cannot organ­
ly. At the same time, the move he ac­ ise decent counterplay. Therefore,
tually played without much think­ White should retreat to a3 :
ing, is hardly very good, too! I had 2 6 ga3! g4 (26 . . . ©g7, intending
to abandon Shirov's idea in view of ©h6 , is too slow due to 27 ct:Je3) 27
another p ossibility: ct:Je3 and I lack good advice about
b) 2S 'M/d4! what to do with Black.
112
 12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as lS �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6

queens, using the doubled h-pawn

as a ram to shatter White's pawn
shelter. This is an original and in­
teresting idea, but the obvious 28 . . .
g4 ! would have been the better
choice. Then 29 �d4 �gS ! , threat­
ening . . . �e6 and g3, would be rather
unpleasant: 30 l2Je3 (30 g3? ! �e6 3 1
�fl �ef6 ! -+ ; 30 � fl �e6 3 1 �a7 �c6
32 �a6 �h6 ! -+ ; 30 b4 �e6t) 30 . . .
27 . . . �f6 28 �e2 binds Black to
g 3 ( 3 0 . . . �f4 3 1 �xd6 �f2 i s about
the defence of the g4-pawn, while
equal : 32 �xf2 �f4 + 3 3 �f3 g3 + 34
27 . . . a4 (this is necessary, to prevent
�e2 hf3+ 3S gxf3 �xf3+ 36 �d2
�xaSxeS ! ) 28 bxa4 �gs 29 �b3 is
W'f2 + 37 �dl W'xe3 38 �d4 �xd4 +
clearly better for White, for instance
39 cxd4 g2=) 31 f3 �f4. Perhaps
29 . . . �xb3 30 hb3 �f6 31 �bl �g7 32
this position is balanced or at least
�ds or 31. . . g3 32 fxg3 �xg3 33 �fl.
I could not find anything decisive
for either side :
25 gfa 1 ? !
Perhaps Anand correctly as­
sessed the position in White's fa­
vour, and thought it was time to
collect the fruits of his opening sur­
prise. His impatience, however, al­
lows Shirov to fulfil his dream and
swing the queen to the kingside.
25 .. .'%Yea 26 gxa5 Wxh 5 27
Wxe4 gbe8 28 .ie2

32 W'b6 (32 �xd6 �f6 33 W'd4

W'h6 34 ltJfl l2Jc6 3S W'd7 �xe2 3 6
W'xb7 ltJxaS=) 32 . . . �h4 ( 3 2 . . . .ixf3 ! ?
leads t o perpetual check: 3 3 hf3
W'h6 34 ltJfl �f3 3S gxf3 l2Jxf3 + 36
�g2 l2Jh4+ 37 �gl l2Jf3 + 38 �g2 =)
33 ltJfl �h6 (3 3 . . . �c6 ! ?oo) 34 W'xb7
W'h4 3S l2Jxg3 �xg3 36 �a8 W'h2 +
with perpetual check: 37 �fl W'hl +
38 �2 l2Jd 3 + 39 hd3 W'h4 + 40 �l
W'hl + 41 �f2= .
28 ... Wh4? ! 29 Wx h4 g xh4 30 � e 3 h 3 3 1
An incredible move! Being short gxh3 � f3+ 32 �xf3 gxf3 33 g h 5
of time, Shirov willingly trades g g a + 34 <i>t1 ggfa

113
Part 4

Black has a very strong initia­ 41 . . . .ih5?

tive, but Anand plays up to the end Perhaps on c6 the bishop would
like a machine . . . in the good sense. have been more useful. After the
Finally it turns out that White's ex­ text White succeeds in trading the
tra pawn survives to bring him a full powerful bishop.
point. 42 b4 d5 43 <i>g2 .ig6 44 tl) f5
35 tl) d 1 g d 3 36 gh4 if3 37 gd4 @gs
g xd4 38 cxd4 gf4 3 9 tl) e 3 gxd4 40 This loses easily, but 44 . . . MS
g a4 gd3 41 gf4 45 �f5 �b3 46 �f4 �g7 47 h4+ is
also difficult. We know about the
rook endgames being drawish, but
. . . except the lost ones. Black's prob­
lem is that his king is cut offfar from
the b-passer.
45 tl) e7+ @g7 46 tl)xg6 <i> x g6
47 gf3 gd1 48 gb3 d4 49 <i>f3 d 3 50
<i>e3 g h 1 51 b5 g xh3+ 52 f3 g h 1 53
b6 ge1 + 54 <i> xd3 gea 55 b7 gba
56 <i> e4 h 5 57 <i>f4 1 -0

114
Part 5 1 e4 c5 2 Eilf3 Eilc6 3 d4 cxd4
4 Eilxd4 Eilf6 5 Eilc3 es 6 Eildb5 d6
7 ig 5 a6

QU IC K R EPERTO I RE

In this part we deal with tricky al­

ternatives to the Main line. At least,
they were tricky in the early days of
the Sveshnikov, and used to take a
heavy toll of points. In modern com­
puter times, tactical gambling does
not war k, but one has to know some
basic lines.
8 Eila3
8 hf6 gxf6 9 l2Ja3 b5 ! transpo­
ses to the main line. 12 . . . �g7 ! 13 l2Jf6 + hf6 14 �xc6 +
8 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 Eild5 .
••• �d7 15 �xd6 �e7 16 0-0-0 �xd6.
f5 Black has full compensation, Mu­
ratov-Timoscenko, Beltsy 1977.
b) 11 g3 �g7 12 �g2 fxe4 13 he4
�e6 14 l!Jf6 +? (14 �h5 is wiser, but
then Black gets a fine game with
simple methods: 14 .. . El!c8 15 0-0
l2Je7= .) 14 ... hf6 1 5 hc6 + @e7 16
ha8 �xa8

1 1 �xb5
White has also tried to use the
weakening of the a8-hl diagonal. In
these cases we should not be afraid
to part with some material for a
strong initiative :
a) 11 �d3 ? ! fxe4 12 �xe4

115
Part s

The raving bishops are ready You can stop here as the result­
to tear White's position apart. Ad­ ing positions are thoroughly cha­
ditional resources are the h and b­ otic and it is impossible to memo­
pa wn s: rize everything. It is important how­
17 f3 h5 ! 18 'M'e2 h4 19 0-0-0 ever to understand the principles of
Wc6 ! + ; Black's play:
1 7 � g l e4 ! ? 1 8 c 3 b4+ 1. We grab everything along the
c) 11 ttJxb5 axb5 12 hb5 !b7 13 fourth line:
exf5 13 ttJbc7+ @d7 14 0-0 �xe4, or
13 b4 (intending to open files on
the queenside in case Black attempts
to hide his king there) 13 . . .�xb4 14
ttJbc7+ @d7 15 c4 �xc4.
2 . We hide our king on the
queenside if the b-file is closed : 13
ttJbc7+ @d7 14 0-0 �xe4 15 'M'h5
ttJd4 16 c3 ttJe 2 + 17 @hl cj[c6 18 g3
@b7. Conversely, after:
13 b4 �b4 14 ttJbc7+ @d7 15 0-0
13 . . . !g7 14 f6 ! ? hf6 15 �f3 !e7! �g8 !
16 ttJb4
White regains the piece remain­
ing a pawn up, but in return Black
gets a very active rook:
16 . . . �c8 17 ttJxc6 Wb6 18 ttJ a7+
�xb5 19 ttJxb5 hf3 20 gxf3 �xc2oo.
d) 11 exf5 hf5 12 �d3 �e6 13
�e4 !g7 14 'M'h5 �c8 15 �dl ttJe7
and Black shakes off the blockade
on d5.
1 1 axbS 1 2 �xb 5 ga4!
...
Black leaves the king in the cen­
tre and adopts the principle that at­
tack is the best defence:
16 ttJx b4 ttJx b4 17 ttJd5 ttJxd5 18
�xd5 @e7+.
You can find a detailed analy­
sis of this position in the "Com­
plete Games" chapter, 22 Cres­
po-San Segundo, San Sebastian
0 1 . 04.2007.

116
Part 5 1 e4 c5 2 tll f3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tll x d4 tllf 6 5 tll c 3 es 6 tll d b 5 d6
7 ig5 a6

STE P BY STEP

8 tll a 3 We examined 9 lt:Jd5 in the pre­

8 hf6 gxf6 9 lt:J a3 b5 ! transpo­ vious parts. There is a third option
ses to the main line. The move or­ though, which we'll mention here:
der with 8 hf6 gives Black the ex­ 9 lt:J abl? !
tra option of playing 9 .. .f 5, which A time consuming manoeuvre,
is highly praised by many authors, which does not pose any problems
but there are certain positions we to Black.
do not like : 9 . . . !e7 10 hf6
10 lt:J c4 ! ? Or 10 a4? ! b4 11 hf6 bxc3 ! 12
1 0 !d3 i s another good choice, he7 cxb2 13 �a2 lt:Jxe7 (13 . . . �xe7
when it would be wiser to return to 14 �xb2 0-0+) 14 �xb2 !e6+ (Ka­
familiar waters by 10 . . . b5 (10 .. J�g8 linitschew)
is considered attractive, but the po­ 10 . . .hf6 11 a4 b4 12 lt:Jd5 !g5
sition after 11 g3 lt:Jd4 12 lt:Jd5 fxe4 13 !c4
13 he4 !g4 14 �d3 f5 15 !g2 !h6 The setup with 13 lt:Jd2 0-0 14
16 f4 does not seem satisfactory for lt:Jc4 (14 lt:Jf3 !h6 15 !c4 �h8 in­
Black) 11 lt:Jd5 !e6 . tending f7-f5) 14 . . . !e6 15 !e2 fa­
1 0 . . . b5 11 lt:J e 3 b4 vours Black: 15 . . . lt:Jd4+.
Or 11. . . fxe4 12 lt:Jxe4 !e6 13 a4 ! 13 . . . 0-0 14 lt:Jd2 �h8 15 0-0 f5
lt:Jd4 14 c3 lt:Jb3 15 �bl bxa4 (15 . . . d5?
16 lt:Jxd5) 16 !c4t.
12 lt:J cd5 fxe4 13 a3 ! bxa3 14 �xa3
!g7 15 !b5 !;t and Black has to de­
fend a slightly worse position with
no winning chances whatsoever.
This is certainly not our intention
when choosing the Sveshnikov. For
such cases they invented the Rus­
sian game !
16 f3
8 ••• b5 9 .bf6 Perhaps White should seek equ-

117
Part s

ality with 16 exf5 MS 17 f3, as 17 has the initiative: 14 �d3 (14 0 -0-0
ltJb3 aS 18 V9e2 ltJe7! gives Black the dS 15 ltJg3 0-0t) 14 . . . ds 15 ltJgS �a7
initiative. 16 0-0-0 b4 17 ltJe 2 h6 18 ltJh3 (18
16 . . . ltJe7! 17 �hl as 18 ltJxe7 ltJxd4 hxgS 19 V9e2 V9f6 20 �hel
V!Jxe7 19 �ds �b8 2 0 ltJc4 V9c7 21 �e7+) 18 . . . ltJxe2 + 19 he2 V9f6+.
exf5 MS 22 b3, Fillipenko-Gore­
lov, 198 3 , when 2 2 . . . �bd8 would 10 ... fS
have been better for Black due to
his bishop pair.

9 gxf6 1 0 lll d 5
...

With this move White prepares

c3, ltJ a3-c2 . He can also relocate the
a3-knight via bl-d2 , but this ma­
noeuvre does not really activate the
knight, as it is rather useless on d2 .
On the other hand, Black gets the
d4-square:
10 ltJ abl In this chapter we shall examine
Rogozenko called it "the move for some rare moves, while 11 exfS and
Sunday morning" as he had to face 11 �d3 will be a subject of the next
it at 9 a . m. in a Bundesliga game. parts.
But then, every move is good/bad A. 11 V9d3 ? ! page 119
enough at this time of the day. B . 1 1 ltJxbS page 119
10 . . . fS! 11 ltJd 2 C. ll hbS p age 120
Alternatively: D. 11 g3 page 122
11 a4 b4 12 ltJ dS �g7 13 ltJd2 0-0 E. 11 exfS page 123
14 �c4 �h8 15 V!ff h S (15 0-0 fxe4 16 F . 1 1 c3 page 125
ltJxe4 fS+) 15 ... ltJd4 16 0-0-0 fxe4 17
ltJxe4 �fS with initiative, Motylev­ We should also mention 11 g4? !
Gre bionkin, Internet 2 0 04; This move looks more like a "mouse
11 g3 �g7 (11 . .. ltJd4 ! ? is also ap­ slip ". It attempts to take control over
pealing) 12 �g2 ltJe7 13 0-0 (13 exf5 the central light squares, but in fact
MS ! 14 0-0 �c8+) 13 . . . 0-0 14 exfS it only achieves to weaken White's
(14 V!ffh S? ! b4 15 ltJdS ltJxdS 16 exdS positio n: 11 . . . fxe4 (11 . . . fxg4 is good
e4 17 c3 �b8+) 14 . . . MS ! ? 15 ha8 enough, too: 12 c3 �g7 13 �e2 hS 14
V9xa8oo. h3 gxh3 15 ltJc2 ltJ e7 16 ltJxe7 V!Jxe7
11. .. �g7 12 V!ff h S (12 g3 �b7 13 17 ltJe3 �e6 18 �xhS was played in
�g2 ltJd4 14 0-0 0-0 15 ltJb3 �e8 16 Velimirovic-Vukic, Cetinje 1990,
ltJdS hdS 17 exdS ltJxb3 18 axb3 e4+ when 18 ... V!JgS+ would have earned
Gufeld-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1973) Black a small edge.) 12 �g2 hS ! ?
12 . . . fxe4 13 ltJdxe4 ltJd4 and Black (Sveshnikov's suggestion 1 2 . . . �g8

11 8
 6 ltJdbS d6 7 �gS a6

is not so clear due to 13 l2Je3 ! oo) 13 1 3 .J.xf6 1 4 �xc6+ �d7 1 5

••

h3 (13 gxhS fSt) 13 . . . hxg4 14 he4 �xd6 �e7 1 6 0-0-0

(14 hxg4 �xhl + 15 �xhl fS 16 gxfS 16 �xe7 + @xe'Too is at least equal .
�h4 17 �g2 �a7!t) 14 . . . �bB 15 hxg4 (16 . . . he7! ?oo is also appealing.
�xhl + 16 hhl �h4+. Here is just one, though not oblig­
atory, line: 17 �d3 fS 1 8 f3 0-0 19 0-
0-0 �c6 2 0 �hfl �ac8 21 �del? ! e4
A. 1 1 �d 3?! fxe4 1 2 �xe4 2 2 fxe4 fxe4 23 �f8 + �f8 24 he4
�h4 ! 25 g3 �gS+ 26 \t>dl �d8 + 2 7
�d3 �f3 ++)
1 6 �xd6 1 7 gxd6 � e7
•••

(17 . . . @e7! ?oo) 1 8 gds f6 1 9 gd2

.ie6.
Black has fu ll compensation ,
Muratov-Timoscenko, Beltsy 1977.

B. 1 1 �xb5 axb5 1 2 �xb 5

ib7 1 3 exf5

Due to the threat of 13 l2J f6 +

White wins a pawn, but i t turns out
that Black's bishop pair and superi­
or development more than com pen­
sate for it.
1 2 .ig7
•••

12 . . . �d7 is less energetic, but

playable : 13 f4 (13 g4? ! �c8 14 h4
� g7 15 0-0-0 l2Je7! 16 l2Jxe7 �xe7
17 �h3 �c6 18 �fS 0-0+ Muratov -
Deev, 1978) 13 . . .fS ! ? 14 �f3 �g7 15
�hS+ <M"S 16 0-0-0 �e6f± 17 fxeS? ! White has grabbed 3 pawns for
dxeS 18 l2Jf4 �f6 19 l2Jxe6+ �xe6t. the piece, occupied the light squares,
1 3 �f6+ and now he hopes to promote his
13 l2Je 3 dS is a well known pawn queenside pawns in an endgame.
sacrifice which gives Black enough However, Black's piece activity
compensation. (13 . . .�b7! ? also seems proves to be a weightier factor.
satisfactory, because of the delicate 1 3 .ig7
•••

position of the white queen: 14 ltJf5 13 . . . �aS is a very natural con­

�f8 15 0-0-0 �d7 and Black is fine.) tinuation and White needs precise
14 �xdS (14 ltJxdS fS 15 �f3 l2Jd4 16 play to hold the balance : 14 �d3 (14
�hS + \t>f8 with initiative, according a4? ! �xbS 15 axbS l2Jd4 gave Black
to Sveshnikov. a strong initiative in a blitz game

119
Part s

Chiburdanidze-Sveshnikov, 16 l!Je3 1 8 Wxb5 1 9 �xb5 i.xf3 20

•••

�h6 17 0-0 �gs lS l!Jg4 �f4 ! -+ ; 14 gxf3 gxc2iii

c4? is warse, due to 14 . . .�xbS lS To be fair, White has all the
cxbS l!J d4 16 l!Je3 hg2 ! 17 l!Jxg2 chances to draw the game.
\Was + lS cj/fl WxbS+ 19 cj/el Wc6 2 0
f3 l!Jc2 + 2 1 cj/f2 l!Jxal- +) 1 4 . . . �g7 1S
b4 (An only move, as lS Wc4? ! cj/fS ! C. 1 1 ixb5 axb5 1 2 �xb 5
16 b4 l!Jd4 17 bxaS \WxaS+ lS cj/fl ga4
WaS ! 19 l!Je3 l!JxbS favours Black)
1S . . . e4 16 Wxe4+ MS 17 bxaS \WxaS+
lS cj/d l (lS cj/fl? hal 19 hc6 hc6
2 0 We7+ cj/gS 2 1 WgS+ �g7 2 2 l!Je7+
cj/fS 23 l!Jxc6 \WbS+-+) lS . . .hal 19
\We7+ cj/gS 20 WgS+ cj/f8= leads to a
curious draw.
1 4 f6!?
14 0-0? ! is too slow a nd White's
compensation seems inadequate
after 14 . . . 0-0 lS �c4 (lS a4 l!Jd4+)
lS . . . WgS 16 a4 cj/hS 17 �a3 WxfS In the early days of this varia­
(17 . . . e4 ! ?) l S l!Jb6 (lS l!Je3 was bad tion Black used to play 13 . . . �a7, but
for White in Sulskis-V an Wely, Mos­ later the focus of interest shifted to
cow 20 04) lS . . . �adS 19 as l!Je7 2 0 the text move. It not only evades the
a 6 �c6 2 1 a 7 dSt ; knight fark, but also attacks e4.
The tricky 14 Wf3? ! i s tactically In the diagram position majo r
refuted by 14 . . . cj/fS ! 1S f6 (lS c3 l!Jd4 continuations are:
16 cxd4 \Was + - +) 1S . . . l!J d4 16 fxg7+ Cl. 13 llJ bc7
cj/xg7 17 Wg4+ Ms lS �c4 l!Jxc2 + 19 C2 . 13 b4
cj/e 2 l!Jxal+. 13 c4? is much weaker: 13 . . . �xc4
1 4 .bt6 1 5 Wt3 ire 7! 1 6
••• (13 . . . WaS + ! ? 14 b4 �b4 is not too
� b4 clear: lS 0-0 �xbS 16 cxbS l!Jd4 17
16 l!Jxe7? loses to \Was+ . After WhS �e6oo or lS l!Jf6 + cj/dS 16 0-0
the text White regains the piece re­ �bs 17 cxbS l!Jd4-+) 14 0-0 �g7 lS
maining a pawn up, but in return l!Je3 (1S l!Jf6 + MS ! 16 \Wxd6 + \Wxd6
Black gets a very active rook: 17 l!Jxd6 �d4 lS l!JxcS hf6 19 �fcl
1 6 gc8 1 7 �xc6
••• l!Jb4-+) 1S . . . �d4 16 \Wc2 l!Je7 17
17 hc6+? �c6 1S l!Jxc6 Wb6+. l!Jxd4 exd4 1S l!JxfS l!JxfS 19 exfS 0-0
1 7 Wb6 1 8 �a7+
••• 2 0 a4 (2 0 �acl WgS ! +) 2 0 ... WgS 21
Alternatively: a S .bfS+.
lS l!JxeS +? WxbS 19 Wxf7+ cj/dS ;
lS l!Jxe7+ cj/xeroo . (lS . . . \WxbS?? C 1 . 1 3 tll bc7+ <j;>d7 1 4 0-0
19 l!JxcS hf3 20 l!Jxd6 ++-) White has also tried:

120
 6 tLJdbS d6 7 �gs a6

a) 14 b4 �xb4, when lS 0-0 trans­ Or: 17 f3 �e2 18 c3 �f8 19 Wxh7

poses to 13 b4, whereas lS WhS? llJe6 2 0 lLJxe6 cj/xe6 21 �adl �b7+;
loses to 1S . . . �xe4+ 16 cj/fl Wh4 17 17 c3? ! Wf8 18 WhS (18 lLJf6 + cj/xc7
Wxf7+ (17 WxfS+ cj/d8 18 Wxf7 �e7) 19 Wc4+ cj/b8 20 lLJxe4 lLJ f3 + ! 2 1
17 . . . �e7- + ; gxf3 fxe4-+) 1 8 . . . �h4 ! 1 9 Wdl Wh6
b ) 1 4 WhS? �xe4+ l S cj/ fl lLJe7 16 20 h3 �xh3 ! - + .
Wxf7 cj/c6+; 17 . . . Wf8 1 8 lLJf6 + ( 1 8 liJb6 + cj/d8
c) 14 c4? ! �xc4 lS 0-0 lLJ d4 ! 16 19 WdS lLJxbS 20 WxbS We8 ! 21 Was
lLJb6+ ( 16 WhS �xc7 17 Wxf7+ �e7- Wc6+) 18 . . . cj/d8 19 Wxf8 + �f8 20
+) 16 . . . cj/xc7 17 lLJxc4 �b7 18 �cl lLJxe4 lLJxbSt or 2 0 . . . fxe4!? t with
cj/b8 19 �c3 �g8 - + ; Black's advantage in the sharp end­
d ) 14 exfS? ! lLJe7 l S 0 - 0 ? �d4- + . game.
1 4 . . J�xe4 1 5 \Wh 5 1 6 . . . tl) e 2+ 1 7 <i> h 1 <i>c6 1 8 g 3
18 Wxf7 Wd7 1 9 Wh S lLJf4+; 1 8
�ael? ! lLJf4 - + .
1 8 ... <i>b7 1 9 gae1 gc4 20 tl) a 6 !
2 0 Wxe2 �xc7 2 1 WbS+ cj/ a 8 2 2
Was + ( 2 2 lLJxc7+ Wxc7+) 2 2 . . . cj/b8
23 Wxc7+ Wxc7 24 lLJxc7 cj/xc7 is
rather grim for White.
20 . . . ie6 !
I n the game Mastrovasilis-Illes­
cas, Calvia 20 04, Black went on to
win after 20 . . . cj/a8 21 b3 �xc3 2 2
1 5 . . . tl) d4 Wxe2 �b7 2 3 cj/gl �xdS 24 �cl �c8
lS . . . lLJe7 16 Wxf7 cj/c6 17 c4 Wd7 (24 . . .�xcl 2S �xcl Was 26 b4 ! ) 2S
18 lLJa8 ! lLJg6 19 lLJb4+ cj/b7 20 WdS+ Wbs �b7 26 Wa4 Wb6 , but White
cj/b8 21 liJc6 + ! cj/xa8 22 Wbs Wb7 2 3 missed his chance to draw with
Was+ Wa6 2 4 Wc7 Wb7 2S WaS += is 27 lLJb4+ Wa7 (27 . . . cj/b8 28 �xc8 +
a well known farced drawing line. hc8 29 �cl) 28 :§!xc8 + hc8 29
1 6 c3 Wc6+ Wb7 3 0 Wa4+= .
16 Wxf7 + is a consistent alterna­ 2 1 tl) ab4 g c s 22 \Wxe2
tive, which could be answered by: Now Black eliminates to a slight­
16 . . .�e7 !? ly better ending, but other moves are
16 . . . cj/c6 17 lLJb4+ cj/b7 18 lLJbS + worse: 2 2 Wf3 e4 23 Wxe2 �xdS 24
Wd7 19 WdS + cj/b6 2 0 a4 ( 20 lLJxd4 lLJxdS �xdS 2S f3 e3 ! 26 Wxe3 hS+;
�xd4 21 Wb3 cj/a7-+) 20 . . . lLJxbS 2 1 22 lLJe3 f4 23 Wxe2 fxe3 24 Wa6+
axbS �b4 2 2 c4 leads t o a highly un­ cj/b8 2 S liJc6 + �xc6 26 Wxc6 �d7+.
balanced position, where 22 . . . �h6 22 . . . ixd S + 23 tl)xd5 gxd5 24
appears to be in Black's favour, but \Wf3
the game remains messy. Perhaps White should try 24
17 liJbS Wc4 ! ? �d 2 2S Wxf7+ where Black

121
Part s

faces serious technical problems. You can find a detailed analy­

24 . . . e4 25 !8xe4 fxe4 26 Wxe4 sis of this position in the "Com­
Wb6 27 Wxd 5+ Wc6i. plete Games" chapter, 22 Cres­
Black has so me winning chances po-San Segundo, San Sebastian
in this endgame. 0 1 . 0 4 . 20 07.

C 2 . 1 3 b4
White wants to open files on the D. 1 1 g3 .ig7
queenside in case Black attempts to White hurries to take a firm grip
hide his king there . over the light squares, but leaves his
1 3 . . . gxb4 1 4 tl) bc7+ <i>d7 1 5 0-0 a3-knight out of play for a long time.
Or 15 c4 �xc4 16 0-0 ltJd4 ! 17 Black must remember to not clutch
ttJb6+ �xc7 18 ttJxc4 !b7 19 �cl (19 onto the e4-pawn with 11 . . . fxe4 and
�d2 �g8 ! 20 �as + �d7 21 �a7 (21 12 . . . !fS, but continue developing.
ttJb6+ �e6) 2 1 . .. �c7- +) 19 . . . �d7! We shall see that White's threat of
(19 . . . �b8 20 �bl ! oo) 20 f3 (20 �a4+ winning the exchange turns against
�c6 2 1 �a7+ �e6 22 exfS+ �f6 - +) him.
20 . . . �g8+. 1 2 .ig2
1 5 . . . gg a ! 12 exfS hfS 13 �g2 �e6 usual­
ly transposes to other lines. For in­
stance, 14 llJf6 + ? ! �xf6 1S hc6 + �e7
16 �xa8 �xa8 is the game Solomon­
Spasov, Novi Sad (ol) 1990, (see the
sub-line to move 14) where Black's
compensation for the exchange is
very strong, or 14 0-0 0-0 15 c3 �b8
16 llJc2 as, which is the main line 11
c3. Finally, 14 �hS �c8 15 0-0 ttJe7
16 �adl ttJxdS 17 �xdS 0-0= leads to
the same position as in the current
main line with 12 �g2 .
1 6 tl) xb4 ! ? 1 2 fxe4 1 3 �xe4 .ie6
•••

16 g 3 was practically refuted in

the game Luther-Leko, Essen 20 0 2:
16 . . . �b7 1 7 �hS �gs 1 8 �xf7+ �e7
19 ttJxe7 ttJxe7 2 0 ttJe6 �g6 2 1 llJf8 +
�xf8 2 2 �xf8 fxe4 23 �tbl (23 a4
�c7 24 as �a6- +) 23 . . . �c7 24 a4 e3 !
25 fxe3 �e4 0- 1.
1 6 ... tl) xb4 1 7 tl) d 5
1 7 c 3 �xc7 18 cxb4 �b7 19 �a4+
�e7+.
1 7 . . . tl) x d 5 1 8 Wxd 5 <i> e7+

122
 6 tlJdbS d6 7 �gS a6

1 4 YMh5 tlJc2 dS 20 �f5 �gS) 18 tlJbl h6 19 c3

Here is the first critical moment. aS 20 cxb4 axb4 21 a3 bxa3 22 ttJxa3
It is important to examine 14 tlJf6+? �d7 23 �d2 0-0+;
�f6 15 hc6 + ®e7 16 �xa8 �xa8 16 �fdl ttJxdS 17 hdS 0-0 18 c3
�cs 19 �f3 �d7! 20 �d2 �h6 !+, Za­
pata-Illescas Cordoba, Linares 1994
1997;
16 �gS? ! ttJxdS 17 �xg7 �f6 ! 18
�xf6 ttJxf6 19 �b7 �c7 20 h a6 b4
21 ttJbS �xc2 22 ttJxd6+ ®e7+.

17 �gl
17 0-0 is obviously bad after 17 . . .
b4 18 tlJbl �h3 1 9 f3 hfl+;
17 f3 looks playable, but 17 . . . hS !
proves the opposite: 18 �e2 h4 19
0-0-0 (Or 19 ®£2 dS ! 2 0 �ael �a7+
21 ®g2 h3 + 22 ®fl �g7 !? 23 tlJbl
fS 24 tlJd2 d4+, intending . . .�dS .)
19 . . . �c6 ! 20 �e3 ( 20 �d2? ! hxg3 21 1 6 �xdS
•••

hxg3 �xhl 22 �xhl �xf3+ a nd Black This exchange allows Black to

went on to win in Solomon-Spasov, castle. 16 . . . �cS? ! is premature and
Novi Sad (ol) 1990) 2 0 . . . �c8 2 1 �d2 hands the initiative to White after 17
b4 ! 22 tlJbl ha2+. ttJxe7 ! ? �xe7 18 b4 �c7 (or 18 . . . �c3
17 ... e4 ! ? 18 c 3 b4 The raving 19 tlJbl �c7 20 f4-+) 19 c4 (19 �d2
bishops tear White's position apart. dS ! 20 hdS �xb4=) 19 . . . bxc4 2 0
19 cxb4 hb2 20 �bl �c3 + 21 ®fl tlJ c 2 with compensation.
�h3 + 22 �g2 e3 23 f3 dS 24 tlJc2 1 7 i.x d5 0-0 1 8 c3 gcs 1 9
d4+. i. b 3 YMd7=.

1 4 gca 1 5 o-o
•••

15 �dl ttJe7 is similar to the main E. 1 1 exf5 ixf5 1 2 i.d 3

line . 12 c3 �g7 is the subject of the
1 5 �e7 1 6 gad 1
••• next part.
White is struggling to maintain 12 �f3? ttJd4 13 ttJ c7+ �xc7 14
the game level. Worse alternatives �xa8 + ®e7 is yet another exam­
are: ple where White wins the exchange
16 ttJxe7 �xe7 17 �adl b4 (17 . . . only to discover that it was a Greek
h6 ! ? i s very interesting: 1 8 c3 �cs 19 gift.

123
Part 5

cj{f6 21 g4 was the only way to pro­

long the agony: 2 1 . . . i.e3 22 fxe3
i.d3 + 23 hd3 VNxd3 + 24 cj{g2 VNe2 +
25 cj{g3 VNxe3+ 2 6 cj{g2 VN e2 + 27 cj{gl
e4 ! -+ ) 20 . . . id3 + 21 hd3 VNxd3 +
22 cj{ gl !Lle2 + 23 ci>fl !Llg3+ 24 cj{gl
i.f4 ! !

15 c3
Alternatively:
a) 15 i.d3 VNa5 + 16 ci>fl hd3 + 17
cxd3 VNd2 18 VNe4 fS 19 VNe3 VNxb2 20
g e l cj{f7 ! + ;
b) 1 5 gdl !Llxc2 + 1 6 !Llxc2 hc2
17 VNd5 (17 gd2 i.h6 ; 17 gd5 VNa5+
18 cj(e2 VNxa2+) 17 . . . hdl 18 VNxdl White has n o defence against the
i.h6 - + mating threat of 25 . . . VNfl ! !
15 . . . b4 ! 16 cxb4 VNb6 ( 1 6 . . .i.h6 !? c) 19 h4 ! ih6 20 VNxh8 (20 VNb7+
i s an interesting option as well: 17 cj{f6 21 g3 gc8 - + , intending . . . gc6
VNxa6 gb8 ! 18 i.c4 i.e4 ! t with a and i.e4, for instance, 22 cj{ gl gc6)
strong initiative, e.g. 19 VN a5? VNxa5 20 . . . VNxb2 21 gdl VNxa3 22 ic4 VNa4 !
20 bxa5 hg2 21 ggl gxb 2-+) 17 23 gxd4 (23 ib3 VNb5+ - +) 23 . . . exd4
ha6 (17 i.c4 VNxb4+ 18 cj{fl VNxb2 24 ib3 VNb4 . Black has full compen­
19 gel VNxa3 2 0 VNa7+ cj(d8 21 VNb8 + sation for the exchange.
i.c8 2 2 VNb6 + cj{ d 7 2 3 VNa7+ cj(c6 24
VNa 8 + i.b7 25 i.d5+ ( 2 5 VNe8 + cj(b6) 12 ... ie6 1 3 ie4
25 . . . cj(c5 ! (threatening mate VNd 3) 13 VNf3 counts on the "trap"
26 VNa7+ cj(xd5 27 VNxb7+ cj(e6 2 8 13 . . .i.g7 14 !Llf4, (14 !Llf6 + ?! i.xf6
VNc8 + cj{f6 - +) 15 VNxc6 + cj{e7+) but it turns out to
17 . . . VNxb4+ 18 cj{fl (18 cj(d l VNa4 +) be in Black's favour after 14 . . . exf4
18 ... VN d 2 ! t . Amazingly, this position 15 VNxc6 + ci>f8 ! 16 0-0-0 gc8t. Per­
is still ocurring in tournaments, so haps simpler is 13 . . . hd5 ! ? 14 VNxd5
we shall give more details. To be !Lle7 15 VNb7 (15 VNf3 d5 16 VNf6 ? ! gg8
franc, we could not resist the temp­ 17 !Llxb5 i.g7 18 !Lld6+ cj{d7 19 VNxf7
tation to show the exquisite mate on cj(xd6+) 15 . . . i.g7 16 0-0 d5 with a
the next diagram: considerable space advantage: 17
a) 19 gel?? id3 + 20 hd3 VNxd3+ gadl VNb 8 18 VNxb8 + gxb8 19 c3 b4
21 cj{gl !Lle 2 + 2 2 ci>fl !Llg3+ 23 cj{gl 20 cxb4 gxb4 21 b3 gb6+.
VNfl+ 24 fufl !Lle2 # ;
b ) 1 9 h 3 i.h6 2 0 VNxh8 ( 2 0 VNb7+ 13 ... ig7

124
 6 llJdbS d6 7 �gS a6

1 6 gcs 1 7 lll x e7
•••

Alternatives:
17 tLJb4? ! �b6 18 �gs �f8 19
�e3 fS with an edge since White's
bishop cannot retreat to g2 ;
17 �gS? ! llJxdS 18 �xg7 �f6 19
�xf6 llJxf6. The ending favours
Black, for 2 0 �b7? ! �e7 21 ha6
loses material after 22 . . . �b8 22 �d3
�b6 23 b4 �xa6 24 bxcS �xa3 - + .
1 7 �xe7 18 lll c 2
•••

After 18 0-0 dS 19 ifs hfS 20

1 4 �h5 �xfS �e6 21 �hS 0-0 2 2 �d3 fS 2 3
More th an once we observed �fdl d4 ! ? 24 cxd4 exd4+ the only
White struggling with the extra ex­ use of the a3-knight is to protect the
change : 14 llJf6 + M6 1S hc6 + �e7 c2- square.
16 ha8 (or 16 c3 �c8 17 ids b4 ! ? 18 1 8 d S 1 9 i.f5 d4!?
•••

cxb4 � b6 19 0-0 �xb4+) 16 ... �xa8 Black has successfully passed the
17 0-0 �g8 18 f3 (18 g3 b4 19 llJbl fifth rank with his pawn and does
�h3 20 f3 hfl 2 1 �xfl e4t) 18 . . . ih3 not risk to be cramped any longer.
19 �f2 �a7 20 g3 igS+. 20 0-0 dxc3 21 bxc3 i.xf5
14 llJe3 is more reasonable, but 22 �xf5 0-0 23 lll e 3 e4=.
still Black obtains active play, for ex­
ample, 14 . . . �d7 (14 . . . �c8 15 c3 llJe7
16 ib7 �b8 17 ha6 �d7 !oo is also F. 1 1 c3 i.g7
worth considering) 15 0-0 0-0 16
�dS �ad8 17 c3 llJe7 18 llJ ac2 fSf± .
14 gc8 1 5 gd1
•••

15 c3 runs into a forced line: 15 . . .

b4 ! 16 llJc2 ( 1 6 cxb4 llJxb4 ! 17 llJxb4
�as 18 llJ ac2 �xc2 19 hc2 �xb4+
20 �fl �xb2 21 �dl 0-0 2 2 a4 �c8+)
16 . . .bxc3 17 bxc3 �as 18 llJce3 llJe7
19 �d l llJxdS 20 llJxdS �c4 ! 21 �e2
(21 �f3 fS ! 22 MS �f8 23 g4 e4-
+) 2 1 . . . �xdS 22 hdS �xc3+ 23 �fl
�d4+.
1 5 lll e7 1 6 c3
••• White commonly uses this move
Similar is 16 llJxe7 �xe7 17 0-0 order to avoid 11 exfS MS 12 c3 ie6
( 17 c3 b4 ! +) 17 ... �cS ! , when 18 b4 13 llJc2 �h6 , which is (albeit playa­
�c 3 19 llJbl �c4 20 llJd2 �xb4 21 ble) outside our repertoire anyway.
ic6 + �f8 2 2 llJe4 loses to 2 2 ... dS 1 2 .id3
23 hdS hdS 24 �dS �xe4. In most games you will face here

125
Part s

12 exfS which we analyse in the next 1 5 exfS �f8 ! 16 0-0 �g8 17 g3 �as
part of the book. 18 hc6 hc6 19 l!Jxc6 �xc6+ A.
12 l!Jc2? ! is an ambitious attempt Sokolov-Lautier, Val d'Isere 2 0 04.
to seize control over the kingside 12 exfS transposes to the next
light squares after 12 . . . fxe4 13 l!Jce3 part of the book.
�e6 14 g4. Black should refrain from
castling and cut across the enemy 1 2 .ie6
...

plan with 14 . . . l!Je7 15 ig2 l!JxdS 16 After this move play transposes
l!JxdS hS with the better game, Ya­ to line A of Part 7.
kovich. Black can also choose as a back­
12 l!JxbS? is a dubious sacri­ up line 12 . . . l!Je7, which leads to the
fice: 12 . . . axbS 13 .txbs �b7 14 l!Jb4 Novosibirsk variation. It is the sub­
(14 exfS �f8 15 0-0 l!J e7+) 14 . . . �d7 ject of Part 13.

126
Part S 1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f 6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll dbS d6
7 .igS a6

COMP LETE GAM ES

22 C re spo - S an Seg u ndo �e4 0-1 Luther-Leko, Essen 200 2 .

San Seba stian 0 1 .04.2007 1 6 li:) x b4 li:) x b 4 1 7 li:) d S
1 e4 cs 2 li:)f3 li:)c6 3 d4 cxd4 O r 1 7 c 3 �xc7 1 8 cxb4 �b7 1 9
4 li:)xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c3 e s 6 li:) d b S d6 �a4+ �e7+ .
7 .igS a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 ixf6 g xf6 1 7 ... li:) xd S 1 8 'Wxd S <i>e7
1 0 li:) d S fS 1 1 .ixbS axb S 1 2 li:) xb S
g a4 ! 1 3 b4 g x b4 14 li:) bc7+ <i> d 7
1 s o-o g ga !

1 9 g a b1
White hopes t o generate some
threats using the open b-file, but
Black seeks t o weaken the enemy the course of the game shows that
castling position. In the future that Black manages to consolidate and
might be important, as in Luther­ his advantage soon becomes deci­
Leko, Essen 200 2: 16 g3 �b7 17 �hS sive. Let us examine:
�gS 18 �xf7+ ie7 19 Cfjxe7 ljj xe7 2 0 19 a4 f4
ljj e 6 (Following 2 0 ljj dS Black has Like in the game, Black stakes
a pleasant choice between 20 . . . �d8 on the attack. 19 . . . �c7!?, threaten­
or 20 . . . �g7 with a nearly winning ing to put the bishop on the long
position.) 20 . . . �g6 2 1 ljj f8 + :B:xf8 2 2 diagonal, is another appealing op­
�xf8 fxe4 2 3 �tbl ( 2 3 a 4 �c7 2 4 as tion . Then 20 aS? would lose to
ia6 - +) 23 . . . �c7 24 a4 e3 ! 25 fxe3 20 . . . ib7- + , so White should con-

127
Part s

tinue with 2 0 E:fbl (or 2 0 E:abl fxe4 26 . . . �f2 ! (threatening �h3) 2 7

2 1 as �h6 ! 22 �xe4 E:g4 23 �xh7 �bS (intending �fl) 2 7 . . . E:g6 ! 2 8 a 7
�c6+) 2 0 . . . fxe4 ! 21 as (2 1 �xe4 E:g4 �g3 ! - + .
22 �a8 �d7+) 21 . . . e3 22 a6 �a7!+
a nd Black arrives just in time to
stop the passer.
20 �hl (20 E:a3 �e6 21 �b7+
�f6 2 2 aS dS-+) 2 0 . . . �d7 21 f3 (21
as E:xg2 ! ) 21. .. �a7!

A very amusing positio n ! Black

abandoned the whole queenside,
but his rook is enough to finish the
game. The conclusion of this anal­
ysis is that Black has the edge after
his move 18.
The queen blockades the a-pawn 1 9 . . . f4
and restricts the fl-rook in view of 19 . . �f6 ! ? favours Black as well:
the threat �f2, followed by �h3 . It 20 exfS �c7 21 f4 �h6+.
is important to keep this possibili­ 20 gb3 �f6
ty because the line 2 1 . . .�a6 22 E:fbl 20 . . . �e6 21 �b7+ �f6 22 E:c3
�a7 23 �c6 �f2 24 E:gl �e2 25 as �aS-+ was also posible.
M3 26 �c7+ �6 27 �d8 + = leads 2 1 gc3 ie6 22 �c6 ie7 23 a4
only to a draw. �as-+
22 as �f6 23 a6 (23 �b3 �a6 The a-pawn is stopped and White
24 E:gl �e7 25 �b6 �xb6 26 axb6 is helpless . The rest of the game is
�b7 27 E:a7 E:b8 28 E:bl �e6-+) irrelevant.
23 . . .�e7 24 gb3 .ix b3 2S cxb3 �cs 2 6
It seems that Black is unable to gc1 �xc6 27 gxc6 g b 8 2 8 g c 3 g b4
make any further progress . . . 29 f3 id8 30 �f2 ib6+ 31 �f1 id4
2 4 �c6 �e6 2 5 �b7, ( 2 5 E:abl 32 gd3 � e 6 33 g 3 fS 34 � g2 fxg 3
E:c8 2 6 �b7 E:c7- +) but h e possess­ 3 S � x g 3 fxe4 36 fxe4 d S 37 exdS+
es a study-like solution: � xd S 38 � g 2 gb7 39 �f1 � e4 40
2S . . . �e3 ! 2 6 E:gl � e2 gg7 41 gh3 gg2+ 42 �f1 gf2+
26 a7 loses again to 26 . . . �e2 27 43 � e1 gb2 44 gxh7 �d3 4S gh3+
E:gl �h3 . ie3 46 �f 1 g b 1 + 0-1

128
Part 6 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 tll x d4 �f6 5 tll c3 e5 6 �db5 d6
7 i.g5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6
1 0 �d5 f5 1 1 exf5 i.xf5

QUICK REPERTO I RE

This part is devoted to one of the obtains the d4-square and his ini­
three most important pawn struc­ tiative shapes up in a direct attack:
tures in the Sveshnikov. The moves
1 2 c3 .ig7 1 3.tll c 2 0-0 1 4
tll c e3 i.e6
lead to an open position with a
mobile pawn centre and a bishop
pair for Black.

19 . . .fS ! 2 0 gxfS �xdS 21 llJxdS

gxfSt, Rodriguez-Jussupow, Am­
sterdam 1978 .
15 a4? ! also encounters 15 . . . b4 !
16 cxb4 fS, whilst 15 g3 provides a
lever on the kingside, which can be
White hopes to seize control of used by 15 .. .fS 16 ig2 f4 !? 17 llJc2
the light squares and put pressure ifS ! ?
on d6. However, the tour of his These examples suggest that
knight around the board cost six ( ! ) White must develop without allow­
tempi, and even one more undevel­ ing any pawn weakness :
oping move sets up the ground for
tactical blows: 1 5 .id3 f5 1 6 0-0
15 g4 b4 ! 16 WfhS, intending long castling
Remember this pawn thrust ! or g4, is certainly appealing, but
It is a thematic way of shattering again the lack of development
White's position. In case of 16 cxb4 tells :
gb8 17 a3 as 18 bS llJ d4 19 a4 Black 16 . . . e4 17 ic2 llJe7!

129
Part 6

White's queen deprived the dS­ It seems that Black's pawns will
knight of support. Accordingly, we shortly overrun the enemy army,
seize the chance to break the block­ but it is not so simple to achieve
ade and set our central pawn cluster that. 16 . . .f4 stumbles into 17 'WhS
moving. The b4-break is an impor­ and 16 . . . e4 into 17 ltJf4.
tant additional resource: After the text move, White has to
18 ib3 f4 19 ltJxe7+ W!xe7 2 0 redeploy his pieces in order to op­
ltJfS 'Wf6 2 1 g 4 �h8 2 2 ltJxg7 hb3 pose the enemy threats.
23 axb3 'Wxg7 24 0-0-0 b4 !+, Ljubo­ 17 f4? ! ltJe7 18 ic2 ltJxdS 19 ltJxdS
jevic-Shirov, Monte Carlo blindfold, �c8 20 ib3 aS only helped Black
20 0 3 . developing an initiative in K. Geor­
1 8 ltJf4 i f7 1 9 ib3 dS, Anand­ giev-Van Wely, Bled ol. 20 0 2 ;
Kramnik, Frankfurt 2000, 1 7 ic2 i s well met with 1 7. . . ltJe7 18
1 8 �dl b4 ! 19 ltJxb4 a S 2 0 ltJbdS ib3 ltJg6 ! 19 f4 exf4 20 ltJc2 ieS = .
ltJxdS 21 ltJxdS �b8 22 ib3 a4 Most popular is:
Black has sufficient counterplay, 1 7 �h5 e4 1 8 i.c2 �e7! 1 9
see a detailed analysis of the stem gad 1 i.f7 !? 2 0 �h3 �xd 5 2 1
game 23 Fressinet-Gelfand, En­ �xd 5 �g 5 !
ghien les Bains 2 003 in the "Com­ Black's active pieces assure him
plete Games" chapter. of a good game, 24 Olsson-Spa­
1 6 <at?hS
••• sov, EU-chT Gothenburg 200S.

130
Part 6 1 e4 c5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 es 6 lll db5 d6
7 .ig 5 a6 8 lll a 3 b5 9 ixt6 gxf6
1 O lll d 5 f5 1 1 exf5 ixf5

STE P BY STEP

1 2 c3 ig7 1 3 lll c 2 Now 15 g3 is not so good, as

Alternatives: White's knight is already commit­
13 �f3? ! �e6 ; ted to e3. This enhances the effect
13 �d3 e4, followed up by . . . 0-0 of . . .f5-f4.
a nd ... b4; In practice White has also tried:
13 g3? ! �e4 ! (14 �g4 �xdS 15 15 a4 ltJxdS 16 ltJxdS 0-0 17 ie2
Wfxg7 �f8 16 �gl b4 17 ltJc4 bxc3 18 bxa4 18 �xa4 as 19 0-0 �b8 20 b4
bxc3 �c7 19 Wff6 ie6+) 14 f3 �xdS axb4 21 cxb4 e4 22 bS Wf gS ! which
15 WfxdS ltJe7 16 Wfd2 dS 17 ltJc2 0-0 is satisfactory for Black;
18 i g 2 Wfb6 ! + . 15 ltJxe7 �xe7 16 �d3 dS 17 0-0
1 3 0-0
••• 0-0 18 WfhS, when Black occupies
13 . . .�e6 could be a good backup the centre and succeeds in defend­
line. This move anticipates 14 ltJce3 ing it by tactical means: 18 . . . e4 19
�e6 15 id3, which is a major possi­ �c2 fS 2 0 �b3 �ad8 2 1 �adl Wies 2 2
bility after 13 . . . 0-0 . The fine point �d2 @h 8 23 �fdl f4 2 4 ltJxdS e3 !+.
is that 13 ... i.e6 14 �ce3 does not
simply transpose to our repertoire White can also attack 13 . . . �e6
following 14 . . . 0-0, since Black has with 14 a4. This is a minor op­
the interesting option 14 . . . ltJe7. tion, which has been occasional­
ly tried by Kasparov, Anand, Topa­
lov, Leko. The best answer is:
14 . . . 0-0 ! 15 axbS (Or 15 ltJce3
ltJe7! 16 g3 fS ! 17 �g2 f4 18 ltJxe7+
�xe7 19 ltJdS �f7 20 gxf4 exf4 2 1
�f3 �h3 ! 2 2 axbS �ae8+ 2 3 Wd2
axbS 24 �as �est, Ding Yixin-Zhao
Jun, Shandong 20 0 7.)
lS ... axbS 16 �xa8 Wfxa8

131
Part 6

This important novelty brings

about a sharp endgame with fine
compensation for Black. The game
Azarov-Nedev, Turin (ol) 2006
saw further 2 0 cxd4 �xb2 ! 2 1 �d2
(White must seek to trade queens
before the f8-rook came into play, as
in the variation 21 ltJc2 e4 ! 22 �d2
b4 23 ltJxb4 �bl+ 24 �e2 �b8 -+)
17 ltJce3 2 1 . .. �xd 2+ 2 2 �xd2 �f2 + 2 3 �el
The tactical background of Black's �a2 24 dxeS (24 hbS exd4 2S �c4
idea is seen in the variation 17 �al+ 26 ltJdl dS 27 �e2 eSco; or 24
hbS? ltJd4 18 ltJe7+ �h8 19 cxd4 d S �h6 !) 24 . . . heS 2S �e2 �al+co.
�xg2 2 0 �c6 e4 2 1 :gfl �gs . A Domi­ The only drawback of the
nation theme. The e7-knight is trap­ move order with 13 ... i.e6 is
ped. White can attempt a counter­ that it enables the fianchetto
strike with 22 ltJdS hdS 23 h4, but 14 g3 , which leads to a balanced
Black's queen completes his full positional game.
tour around the board, to arrive vic­ By lea ving the bishop on fS, Black
toriously in the centre: 23 . . . �d8 24 prevents 14 g3 in view of 14 . . . �e4.
hdS �as+ 2S �d2 �xdS+. 17 ltJc7
�a2 18 �xbS is not satisfactory ei­ 1 4 lll c e3
ther: 18 . . . ltJ a7! ? 19 ltJxe6 fxe6 2 0 14 a4 is seldom seen: 14 ... ltJe7
�d3 �xb2 2 1 �hS ( 2 1 0 - 0 �xc3+) (14 . . . �e6 is also known to lead to
2 1 . . .�xc3 + 22 �e2 h6. White's at­ equality) lS �d3 (lS ltJxe7+ ? ! �xe7
tack is not impressive, for example, 16 ttJb4 �e4 ! 17 f3 �b7 18 axbS axbS
23 �g6 �f6 24 �e 8+ �f8 2S �d7! e4 19 �xa8 �xa8 2 0 hbS dS ! +) 1S . . . �e6
26 he4 �c4 + 27 �d3 �g4+ 28 �fl 16 �e4 (16 �hS fS 17 ltJxe7 + �xe7
�f7 2 9 �e8 �f4+. 18 axbS e4 19 �e2 f4 was better for
17 . . . ltJd4! 18 ltJc7 Black in Santo Roman-San Segun­
Or 18 ltJe7+ �h8 19 cxd4 exd4 do, Moscow ol. 1994) 16 . . . �c8= ,
20 ltJ3fS �e4+ 2 1 �e2 MS 22 lLJxfS Anand-Khalifman, Belgrade 1999;
�xfS = . 14 .ie6 1 5 .id 3
•••

18 . . . �a2 1 9 ltJxe6 fxe6 ! The alternatives are clearly infe-

nor:
.

a) lS g3 is quite popular, but

White's knight on e3 is begging to
be attacked with lS .. .fS 16 �g2
Or 16 �h3 b4 17 0-0 (17 cxb4
�b8 18 a3 ltJd4 assures Black of the
initiative: 19 0-0 e4 or 19 . . . aS ! ? 20
bxaS? ! �xb2) 17 0-0 bxc3 18 bxc3
�as 19 �bl �h8+.
13 2
 7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 exfS hfS

16 . . .f4 ! ? 17 ltJc2 �fS ! ? 19 ltJedS (19 ltJxa8 �xa8 2 0 �c4

hc4 2 1 fuc4 f4) 19 . . . @h8 20 g3 e4
21 �e2 �a7 22 0-0 f4 23 �hS hdS
24 ltJxdS f3 2S �c4 ltJe2+ 26 @hl
�gs 27 g4 �h4 2 8 �xe4 !eS 2 9 �xeS
dxeS 30 �d2 �g7 3 1 ltJe3 �d8 32 �c2
ltJf4 33 �d l �dg8 34 ltJfl �xhS 0-1.
c) lS g4 White is undeveloped for
such ambitious moves. Of course,
Black must organize an attack very
quickly before the enemy consoli­
This pawn sacrifice was intro­ dated :
duced in the game Dragiev-Chepa­ lS . . . b4 ! 16 �g2
rinov, Sofia 2003. After 18 ltJxf4 16 cxb4 �b8 17 a3 aS occured
exf4 19 hc6 �e7+ 20 cj{fl �h3 + 2 1 in the game Rodriguez-Jussupow,
�g2 (or 2 1 @gl �ac8 2 2 !f3 �cs 2 3 Amsterdam 1978 : 18 bS ltJd4 19 a4
ltJd4 �gSoo, Hunt-Berkvens, Esbjerg fS 2 0 gxfS hdS 21 ltJxdS �xfSt.
2 003) 2 1 . . . �e4 22 f3 Black should 16 ... bxc3 17 bxc3 �c8 18 �d3
have opted for 22 . . . �c4+ 23 @f2 e4 ! ? 19 he4 ltJeS, J. Polgar-Gel­
�e6 24 �el �cs + 2S ltJd4 �es 26 a3 fand, Pacs 2003, when 20 �xa6
aSoo with good control of the board. would have been the only move .
b) lS a4? ! encounters 1S . . . b4 ! 16 Even then, Black has strong com­
cxb4 fS 17 �cl (17 �c4 is hardly bet­ pensation after 20 . . . ltJxg4 21 ltJxg4
ter: 17 .. .f4 18 ltJc2 18 ltJb6 �xb6 19 hg4oo. (Rogozenko)
he6 + @h8 20 ltJdS �b7+) 17 . . . ltJd4
18 ltJc7 �fl 15 ... fS

Afunnyposition. White's king got

stuck in the centre and Black's mo­ Our main line branches here to :
bile pawns will soon sweep away his A. 16 a4 page 134
last defenders . Look at the instruc­ B. 16 �hS page 134
tive game Franchini-Timoshenko , C. 16 �c2 page 13S
Thessalo niki 26 . 0 8 . 2 007: D. 16 0-0 page 136

133
Part 6

A. 1 6 a4 24 l!Jxg7 Wxa2 ! 2S WdSD WxdS 2 6

White is unnecessaryly provok­ �xdS cttx g7 2 7 �xd6 bxc3 2 8 bxc3= ;
ing the following sacrifice: 1 8 l!Jf4 �f7 1 9 �b3 dS 2 0 �gS
1 6 ... b4! 1 7 0-0 l!Jg6 ! 21 Wxd8 �axd8 22 l!JexdS
17 l!Jxb4? is very bad due to l!Jxf4 23 l!Jxf4 b4 24 l!Je6 he6 2 S
17 . . . l!Jxb4 18 cxb4 e4 19 �c4 hc4 he6 + , Anand-Kramnik, Frankfurt
20 l!Jxc4 dS+. 17 cxb4? ! e4 is not any 2 0 0 0 , 2 S . . . ctt h 8 = .
better either.
1 7 ... @ h8!? 1 8 ic2 1 8. . . b4!
Or 18 cxb4 e4 19 l!Jf4 (or 19 !c2
hb2 19 !c4 f4t) 19 . . .�d7 20 !c4
hb2 intending . . .�es with unclear
play.
1 8 ... bxc3 1 9 bxc3 lll e7
Black has a fine game, Barua­
Sermek, Calcutta 2 0 0 2 . It went
2 0 �bl l!JxdS 21 l!JxdS �c8 22 �b7
�cs 23 !b3 Wa8 24 llJc7 l&xb7 2S
l!Jxe6 �xc3 2 6 �dS (26 l!Jxf8? l&xb3
27 Wxd6 Wa3 2 8 Wxa3 �xa3 2 9
l!Je6 �xa4 3 0 �bl ctt g 8 3 1 h 3 !f6+)
2 6 . . . 1We7 2 7 l!Jxf8 Wxf8 2 8 l&hS �cS We often meet this thematic
29 �dl e4+. thrust in the Sveshnikov. It allows
Black to escape the bind by opening
files on the queenside.
B. 1 6 V9h5 1 9 lll x b4
A logical attempt to highlight In the first game where White
the weaknesses in Black's castling encountered 18 . . . b4, he chose 19
position. An imminent threat is g4. cxb4? ! l!JxdS 2 0 l!JxdS hb2 21 0-0
Black has no choice, but to strike �es 22 ctt h l ctt h 8 23 f3 �c8t , Go­
first. loshchapov-Volzhin, Moscow 1999.
1 6 ... e4 1 7 ic2 lll e7! 1 8 E!d1 1 9 0-0 bxc3 20 bxc3 ctt h8 is level
Other continuations do not pose since the weakness of c3 balances
any problems to Black: the defects of Black's pawn forma­
1 8 l!Jxe7? ! + l&xe7 1 9 �b3 f4 ! 2 0 tio n: 2 1 f3 l!JxdS 22 l!JxdS hdS 2 3
l!Jds Wb7 2 1 0-0-0 as� ; �xdS Wb6 + 2 4 ctt h l Wb2 2S �b3 e3
1 8 !b3 f4 19 l!Jxe7+ Wxe7 2 0 l!JfS 26 �xd6 e2 27 �el �ae8= .
(2 0 l!JdS l&b7!) 2 0 . . . Wf6 2 1 g4 ctt h 8
22 he6 (22 l!Jxg7 hb3 23 axb3 1 9 ... a s 2 0 lll bd5 lll x d5 2 1
l&xg7 24 0-0-0 b4! 2S c4 aS+, Ljubo­ lll x d5 E! b 8 2 2 i b 3 a 4 2 3 ixa4
jevic-Shirov, Monte Carlo blind­ gxb2 24 ib3 @h8!
fold, 200 3 . ) 22 . . . Wxe6 23 0-0-0 b4 ! Black has sufficient counterplay,

1 34
 7 igS a6 8 l2Ja3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 llJdS f5 11 exf5 hfS

see a detailed analysis of the stem 22 gxfS. Black's king looks more
game 23 Fressinet-Gelfand, En­ vulnerable.
ghien les Bains 2003 in the "Com­ 16 .. . <i>h8 is another way to es­
plete Games" chapter. cape the draw. Then 17 �hS e4 18
E!dl would transpose to game 24
Olsson-Spasov, EU-chT Gothen­
C. 1 6 i.c2 burg 2 0 05 after 18 . . . l2Je7 19 0-0 if7
White intends to redeploy the 2 0 �h3 llJxdS 2 1 llJxdS �gS, but 18
bishop to the a2-g8 diagonal. We l2Jf4 ! ? �f6 19 0-0 l2Je7 20 ib3 is
should energetically oppose this more unpleasant.
or we risk to end up with a slight­
ly worse position, as in the case of 1 7 V;YhS
16 . . . �h8 17 �hS e4 18 l2Jf4 �f6 19 17 llJfl? ! is too timid and hands
0-0 l2Je7 20 ib3 . the initiative to Black: 17 . . . l2J e7 18
1 6 ...f4 ie4 (18 ib3 �h8+) 18 . . . E!c8 19 �d3
This should lead to a more or E!cSt. (or 19 . . . �h8 !?)
less farced draw. Black can deviate 1 7 gf7
•••

at his own risk by 16 . . . E!a7 ! ? 17 �hS

E!af7

1 8 bh7+
18 g4 Alternatively:
18 0-0 l2Je7 19 ib3 l2Jg6f! is OK a) 18 l2Jg4? hdS 19 �xh7 + �f8
for Black. 20 ig6 (2 0 l2Jh6 E!c7 2 1 llJfS �f6 - +)
18 . . .hdS 19 llJxdS e4 20 0-0-0 ! 20 . . . E!c7- + ;
The most persistent continua­ b) 18 �xh7+ �f8 19 �g6 (19 ifS
tion. 20 l2Je3 b4 ! ; 20 l2Jf4 �aSoo or �e8 ; 19 ig6 fxe3 2 0 hf7 exf2 + 2 1
2 0 f4 b4 2 1 ib3 bxc3 22 l2Jxc3 d5 ! 23 �xf2 hf7 2 2 E!hfl hdS 2 3 �gl+
0-0-0 (23 llJxdS �aS+---+) 23 . . .ixc3 if7 24 E!xf7+ �xf7 25 E!fl+ �e6 26
24 bxc3 l2Je7+ are in Black's favour, �xg7 l2Je7- +) 19 . . . �e8 20 ie4 fxe3
but the text is a sterner test . The 21 fxe3 (21 l2Jxe3 E!c8+) 2 1 . . . b4 ! ? 2 2
only sensible answer is: c4 ( 2 2 h 4 bxc3 2 3 bxc3 �b8 24 hS
20 . . . b4oo with a very complicat­ �c8 25 h6 ih8 26 h7 l2Je7 27 �h6 +
ed position: � e 8 2 8 �xe6 �xe6 29 l2J c7+ �d7
21 E!hgl bxc3 (21. .. llJeS 22 l2Jxb4) 30 l2Jxe6 �xe6+) 22 . . . E!b8 23 h4 (23
135
Part 6

0-0-0 b3 24 a3 ttJ aS !) 23 . . . �d7 24 1 7 YN h S

hS ttJe7 2S ttJxe7 cj{xe7 26 h6 if6+. Black's last move drew the sting
1a • •• ©ta 1 9 .tts of 17 f4? ! in view of 17 . . . ttJe7 18
Thus White rescues his hanging ic2 (18 ttJxe7 �xe7 19 fxeS? �a7 ! )
knights. The other moves lose: 1 8 . . . ttJxdS 1 9 ltJxdS �c8 2 0 ib3 aS
19 �g6? �e8 20 ttJ b6 ( 20 ttJg4 21 a3? ! �e8 22 ttJe3 exf4 23 ttJdS
hdS 21 �xd6+ ttJ e7- +) 20 . . . fxe3 �fl+, K. Georgiev-Van Wely, Bled
21 ttJx a8 exf2 + 22 ©d2 �e7 ! - + ; ol . 2 0 0 2 ;
1 9 ltJg4? hdS 20 ltJ h 6 �f6 2 1 1 7 ic2 i s also well met by
ttJg4 if7-+ . 17 . . . ttJe7 18 ib3 ltJg6 ! 19 f4 exf4 2 0
1 9 YN eS 2 0 .txe6 YNxe6 2 1
• • • ttJc2 ieS= .
YNg4 YN h6 2 2 �ts 1 7a 4 b4 i s already familiar. Black
22 ttJb6 �dB 23 ttJfS (23 ttJedS has good co mpensation following 18
e4 24 0-0-0? ttJeS) 23 . . . �e6 24 ttJ e3 cxb4 e4 19 ttJf4 ig8 20 ha6 ttJxb4 !
�h6 = is similar to the main line, 21 ic4 hc4 2 2 ttJxc4 dS 23 ttJe3 d4
but Black might also try 22 . . . fxe3 24 ttJe6 �b6 2S ttJxf8 dxe3t .
23 ttJxa8 exf2 + 24 ©e2 dSoo .
Now the tactical clash ends up 1 7 e4 1 8 .tc2 � e 7 ! 1 9
•••

with a repetition: gad 1 .tf7 !?

22 ••• YN e6 23 �fe3 YN h6=. Black commonly equalises here
with 19 . . . �cB, followed up by a dou­
ble exchange on dS, but we prefer
D. 1 6 0-0 ©h8
active play on the kingside. Accor­
digly, we want to place the queen's
rook on e8. The text is meant to en­
able . . . �gs .
20 3 �xd5 21 �xd5 YN gS!
Black's active pieces assure h im
of a good game . You can find a de­
tailed analysis of this position in the
"Complete Games" section, 24 Ols­
son-Spasov, EU-chT Gothenburg
2 0 0S .

136
Part 6 1 e4 cS 2 tllf3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 �dbS d6
7 ctgs a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 i.xf6 gxf6
1 0 �d S fS 1 1 exfS i.xfS

COMPLETE GAMES

23 Fress inet - G elfand , Only this move was a novelty.

E n g h ien les B a in s 20 0 3 24 . . . j,xdS practically farced a draw:
1 e4 c s 2 tll f3 tll c 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 25 hdS+ @h8 26 0-0 hc3 27 ie6
tll x d4 tll f6 s tll c3 es 6 tll d b S d6 7 Wie8 28 Wixe8 8:xe8 29 MS E'!:eS 30
.ig S a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 1 0 E'!:cl E!:xfS 3 1 8:xc3 8:xa2 3 2 f3 exf3 33
tll d S fS 1 1 c3 ig7 1 2 exfS �xfS 1 3 8:cxf3 112- 112 Van de r Wiel-Cmilyte,
tLl c2 0-0 1 4 tLl ce3 �e6 1 S �d3 ts Wijk aan Zee 200 3 .
1 6 YMhS 2 S 0-0
Lately White prefers a more re­ It was high time to castle. The
strained approach as 16 0-0 , but attempt to defend c3 with 25 Wffh 3
obviously Fressinet was aiming for would be punished with 25 . . . e3 ! 26
a big advantage in the opening. fxe3 f4 ! 27 Wixe6 Wih4 + .
Thus the idea of castling long and 2 S f4 2 6 gfe 1 ?
. . .

crash the opponent by a direct at­ This is the critical moment of

tack seems the most logical choice. the game. White's move is a deci­
1 6 . . . e4 1 7 �c2 tll e7 1 8 gd1 sive mistake. We shall examine the
b4 ! 19 tll x b4 as 20 tll bd S tll xd S other options:
2 1 tll x dS gba 22 � b 3 a4 23 �xa4 26 l2Jxf4? hb3 27 l2Jg6 + @g8 2 8
gxb2 24 ib3 <i>h8 l2Jxf8 hdl - + ;
2 6 c4 ! ? 8: f5 ( 26 . . . ieS? 27 cS) 2 7
Wffg4 ic8 ! ? (27 . . . e 3 i s only equal
after 28 ltJxf4 E'!:xf4 29 Wffxf4 e2 3 0
Wixd6 exdl Wi 3 1 E'!:xdl=) 2 8 ltJ b4 ( 2 8
l2Jxf4? Wfff8 2 9 g 3 ih6) 2 8 . . . Wfff8
with compensation;
Perhaps best is 26 l2Jb4, when
26 . . .j,xb3 27 axb3 8:xb3 (27 . . .f3 2 8
g3) 2 8 WidS i s i n White's favour, so
Black should continue with 26 . . . E!:fS
27 Wffg4 �c8 with an interesting
double-edged game.
137
Part 6

26 . . JU5 27 1M/g4 e 3 !-+ 1 8 ... � e 7 1 9 0-0 if7 20 1Mfh 3

Prolonging the second rank up � xd 5 21 � xd5 1M/ g5
to the sensitive point g2 . The greedy
27 . . . �eS? would have let White back
into the game : 2 8 �xf4 �xb3 2 9
axb3 hdS 3 0 c4 !b7 3 1 cS ! f! .
28 gxe3
Fressinet tries a last trick since
the rest was hopeless:
28 fxe3 �gs 29 �f3 !g4 ;
2 8 @hl �f2 29 ltJxe3 fxe3 30
he6 �Sf4;
28 �e2 �b3 29 ltJxf4 �ds 30
�xg7+ @xg7 3 1 ltJxe6+ @ g 8 32 �del
�f6 3 3 axb3 �d2 22 <i> h 1
2 8 ...fxe 3 29 � xe3 The diagram position is crucial
H oping for 29 ... hb3 30 ltJxfS . for line D so we shall examine it in
2 9 . . . h5! 30 '%Yg 6 gf6 31 1Mfxh5+ depth.
gh6 32 1M/f3 1Mf h4 0-1 a) 22 f4 only opens play in
Black's favour: 22 . . . exf3 23 MS
(23 �f3 hdS 24 �xdS �cl+ 2S !dl
�xb2+; 23 �xf3? !hS+) 23 . . . �xg2 +
24 Ols son-S p asov 24 �xg2 fxg2 2S �xg2 �ae8 with an
E U -chT Gothenburg 200 5 initiative thanks to the bishop pair,
1 e4 c5 2 � f3 � c 6 3 d 4 c xd4 4 for instance : 26 �f2 !hS 27 �dd2 (27
� xd4 � f6 5 � c 3 e5 6 � d b5 d6 7 �dfl? !e2 - +) 27 . . . �es+ (27 . . . �f7 ! ?) ,
ig 5 a6 8 � a 3 b5 9 �xf6 g xf6 1 O o r 26 !g4 �es+;
� d 5 f5 1 1 c3 ig7 1 2 exf5 ixf5 1 3 b) 22 �e3 is an attempt to orga­
� c2 0-0 1 4 � ce 3 ie6 1 5 id 3 f5 nize a piece blockade on f4, but it
1 6 ic2 <i> h 8 proves inefficient:
We consider 1 6 . . .f4 more relia­ 22 . . . �h4 ! 23 g3
ble, but it is known to lead to a draw. Or 23 f3 exf3 24 �f3 (24 �xf3?
Spasov wants to keep on fighting, JihS) 24 . . . hdS 2S �xdS �ae8 26
but his move has positional draw­ �d3 �e l+ 27 �fl !eS ! t .
backs. 23 . . . �h3 24 f4 ( 2 4 f3 hdS 2 S
1 7 1Mfh5 e4 1 8 g d 1 �xdS f4 ! t) 2 4 . . . exf3 2S �f3 �ae8
After this move the game trans­ (2S . . . !hS? 26 ltJf4) 26 �f2 hdS
poses into our main line D, which is 27 �xdS f4 28 gxf4 (28 �f4 �f4
double-edged. 18 ltJf4 ! ? �f6 19 0-0 2 9 gxf4 �g4+ 3 0 @hl �e2 31 !dl
ltJe 7 20 !b3 is more unpleasant as �f2 32 hg4 !h6=) 28 . . . �g4+ 29
White retains his grip on the centre @fl (29 �g3 �el+ 30 @f2 �e6f!)
while keeping the queen on the ac­ 2 9 . . . !eS with counterplay.
tive hS-square. c) 22 ltJe3 ha2 23 �xd6

138
 7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 exfS MS

23 b3? ! �ac8 24 ltJdS (24 �al nated and are able to create various
hb3 2 S hb3 �xc3 26 �dS f4 27 tactical threats.
he4 h6 +) 24 ... �cS favours Black. White cannot contest the e-file,
23 . . . �g8 24 f4 (24 �fdl aSf!) since 23 �fel �hS 24 f4 (24 �al?
24 . . .exf3 2S '!!fxf3 (2S �xf3 �ae8f!) f4 2S he4 �xe4 26 �xe4 WxdS+)
2S . . .�es 26 �ddl (26 �d2 �ae 8 ; 2 6 24 . . . exf3 2S gxf3 (2S �xe8 is rath­
�c6 �ae8 2 7 ltJxfS '!!fd2oo) 2 6 . . .b 4 2 7 er hapless after both 2S . . . �xe8 ! ?
ltJxfS bxc3 2 8 bxc3 �ac8 = . 2 6 gxf3 �e2 27 MS �xb2 2 8 �e4
2 2 . . . � ae8 ! Wh6 29 Wc8+ �f8 30 h3 :gxa2+ or
Bringing the last piece into play. 2S . . . '!!fx g2 + 26 Wxg2 fxg2 + 27 cj{xg2
2 2 . . . �hS? ! is premature: 23 f4 exf3 �xe8 28 �d2 28 . . . �es 29 ttJ b4 �h6
24 gxf3t 30 �xd6 �e 2+ 31 cj{g3 f4 + 32 cj{h3
�gS---+ ) 2S . . . �xel+ 26 �xel Wd2t en­
sures Black the initiative.
23 ext3 24 gxt3 ge2 2S ixt S
'%Yh 6 26 Wxh 6 ixh 6
With the bishop pair and a rook
on the second rank, Black is clear­
ly on top .
27 g g 1 g xb2 28 g g 2 g x g 2 2 9
©xg2 i g7 3 0 ie4 i e S 3 1 a 4 bxa4
32 ga1 ie8 33 ga3 ibS 34 c4
Axc4
23 t4 The intermezzo 34 . . . �g8+ was
23 �b3 �hS 24 f4 exf3 2S gxf3 more precise : 3S cj{hl �d7- + .
�e2 26 �gl Wh6t, for example one 3 S gxa4 i b S 3 6 g a 3 g g 8 + 37
amusing line : 27 �g2 �xg2 28 cj{xg2 ©h3 Ad4 38 t4 gg1 39 Ad3 Acs
�es 29 cj{f2 (29 ltJc7 dS ! 30 ttJxdS 40 gb3 Axd 3
i.xf3+ 31 Wxf3 Wxh 2+ 32 cj{fl �g8- From practical point o f view,
+) 29 . . . '!!fgS 30 ltJc7 �f6 31 ltJe6 40 . . . �c6, keeping the bishop p air,
'!!fg4 ! ! t was better.
41 gxd3 as 42 li:) c3 g e 1 ?
The decision to trade rooks is
wrong. 42 . . . �al should be winning.
43 li:) a4 g93+ 44 gxe3 Axe3 4S
©g4 ©g7 46 ©ts ©t7 47 © e4 Acs
48 ©ts ©e7 49 h 3 it2 so li:) c3 ©d7
S 1 ©e4 ©c6 S 2 t S i. h 4 S3 li:)dS ig S
S4 ©d4 ©bS SS t6 a4 S6 li:) c3+
© b4 S7 li:) xa4 ©xa4 S8 ©d S ixt6
S9 ©xd 6 © b4 60 ©e6 Ad8 61 ©ts
Black's pieces are better coordi- ©c3 62 © g4 ©d 2 63 © h S %-%

139
Part 7 1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 tll d bS d6
7 i.g S a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 i.xf6 gxf6
1 O lll d S fS 1 1 i.d3 i.e6

Q U I C K REPERTO I RE

This is one of the most aggressive ing strategy. We must however re­
systems against the Sveshnikov. We assure our readers, that Black is in
could call it ''The Optimistic Ap­ good theoretical shape in these cri­
proach". White should deeply be­ tical lines, provided that our origi­
lieve that Black's setup is outright nal analysis of the piece sac on bS
dubious and could be crushed by holds true.
a direct assault. Otherwise it is dif­ Let us start with it:
ficult to understand why he would
willingly accept to play against a A. 1 2 c3 i.g 7 1 3 lll x b S
powerful pawn cluster in the centre
rather than use the gaping hole on
dS for putting pressure on the back­
ward d6-pawn. In fact, we face here
a different approach. White concen­
trates on the split kingside pawn
structure. It offers him only tempo­
rary ad vantages as Black needs two­
three tempi to castle and consoli­
date, after which he would become
himself the active side on that very Capturing is not obligatory and
wing. Therefore, White must strive in blitz, or at lower level, 13 . . . ixdS ! ?
to obtain immediate benefits and 14 exdS l!Je7 15 l!J a3 e4 16 ic2 0-0
he is ready to even shed in a piece. looks quite appealing for Black. In
No wonder that the main lines of practice he achieves good results
this part are critical for the ex­ even though his compensation for
istence of the Sveshnikov. There the pawn is not that clear.
were times when line B. 12 �hS The most principal answer is
seemed to be a possible refutation undoubtedly:
of it, and lately 12 c3 ig7 13 l!JxbS 1 3 axbS 1 4 i.xbS i.d7 1 S
•••

proves a stern test of Black's open- exfS 0-0

140
 7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6

that Black had tried it before, but

it got negative commentaries and
failed to gain popularity.
1 7 a4 gea

This position has only recently

become topical and is rather unex­
plored. We had really hard time find­
ing a decent plan for Black. Having
analysed the available games, we 1 8 Wg4 (18 �el �es) ©h8 1 9
have reached to the conclusion that gad 1
Black needs major improvements of 19 �fel �es 20 ltJe3 �f6 2 1 �adl
his play. We shall present a new, ac­ �g8 22 �hS �h6 demonstrates our
tive approach, in order to rehabili­ best setup .
tate this line.
1 6 0-0
White may try to blockade the
e-pawn from e4 by 16 �g4, but the
rash sortie of the enemy queen al­
lows us to activate the f8-rook fram
g8 instead of the usual place e 8 :
1 6 . . . @ h 8 17 0-0 (17 �e4? ! �as 1 8 a4
ltJe7 !) 17 . . . �g8 1 8 �e4 �h6 .
1 6 e4!
•••

Only this move gives counter­ Black's pieces are so active and
play. Practice has seen Black strug­ close to the enemy king, that we can
gling after 16 . . . �b8 ? ! 17 a4 �e8 18 part with some material, but still re­
�g4 @h8 19 �e4. tain a strong attack:
The whole idea of contest­ 23 ltJg4 �xg4 24 �xg4 hfS 2 S
ing the d5-square by trading �g3 ltJe7 26 c 4 e 3 2 7 fxe3 �e4-+ .
pieces is wrong. 19 g e s ! 20 � e 3 Wf6 2 1
•••

Instead, we must seek ways for We2

activating our pieces . Firstly we Or 21 �hS �a7! 22 ltJg4 �xfS 2 3
make room for our f8-rook on eS. �xfS rocfS 2 4 �xd6 �cS ! when Black
The other one could be brought into even has some initiative.
play from g8 . 21 gga! 22 �c4 Wxf5 2 3
•••

Of course, 16 ... e4 is so logical, �xe5 £xe5

141
Part 7

14 exfS hdS 15 f6 h6 ! ? 16 fxg7

@xg7 17 l!Jc2 �e6oo, or
14 0-0 fxe4 ! 15 he4 fS 16 l!Jf4
exf4 17 hc6 �c8 18 �e2 �es 19
i!Mf3

Black has good chances. We pro­

vide further analysis in the " Step by
Step" chapter.
In such a complex positions it is
impossible to foresee everything, but
the essence of Black's play is clear:
He attacks the fS-pawn with . . . �es 19 . . . b4 !
hoping to place the other rook on This thematic break prolongs
g8. Meanwhile he protects the d6- the diagonal to our dark-squared
pa wn with . . . �f6 . In many cases the bishop and balances the game. See
knight fork on g4 is not very dan­ game 27 Kramnik-Van Wely,
gerous as White's knight is the most Wijk aan Zee 2005.
unpleasant enemy piece which is se­
verely cramping Black's position.
B. 1 2 �h5
Besides the piece sacrifice, on This version o f the queen's lunge
move 13 White often chooses 13 is significantly more venomous .
�hS 0-0 White hopes to see 12 . . .�g7? ! when
13 0-0 would give him some stable
edge, not to mention that it would
throw us out of the proposed rep­
ertoire which is based on 12 0-0
hdS !
1 2 g9s 1
•••

The combination of moves c3

and �hS is rather inconsistent
and looks like mixing two different
plans . Black has no particular prob­
lems, for instance:

142
 7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJ dS f5 11 �d3 �e6

This counter-strike saves the The endgame i s preferable for

day! Black remains the active side Black.
in otherwise extremely chaotic po­ Usually White prefers to take
sition. His king is stuck in the cen­ care of the g2-pawn:
tre, but at least it is well hidden be­ 1 3 g3 �d4 1 4 c3 fxe4 1 5
hind pawns. In contrast, White's �xe4 �g4 1 6 �xh 7 gg7 1 7
king "escapes" with a long castle, �h6 �f3 +
only to discover that it is not a safe
haven at all.
White has tried so many op­
tions in answer to 12 .. . :Bg8 ! , that it
would be unreasonable to remem­
ber them. The keypoint is to take on
g2 and then play in the centre:
13 c3 �xg2 14 �f3 �g4

White i s o n the defensive. H e

has a narrow path to equality. See
game 28 Mastrovasilis-Johan­
nessen, Athens 200 3
Typically for the Sveshnikov,
Black has strong counterplay in the
sharpest lines. Perhaps even more
important is that play is rich and in­
15 exf5 �xdS 16 �xdS l2Je7 17 teresting, and both sides have room
�b7 �c8 18 �xc8 + . for creativity.

143
Part 7 1 e4 cS 2 lll f3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll d bS d6
7 igS a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6
1 O lll d S fS 1 1 id3 ie6

STEP BY STE P

In the diagram position White Black can also reach this posi­
chooses between 12 .c3 , 12 �h5 or tion via the move order 11 c3 �g7
12 0-0. 12 �d3 �e6 .
12 c4? ! is clearly weaker due to
12 .. . �a5 + ! 13 @fl (13 �d2 �xd2 + Al. 13 ltJxb5
14 @xd2 �h6 + t) 1 3 . . . fxe4 14 he4 A2 . 13 �h5
�c8 . Black's pieces are much more
active: 15 ltJf6 + @d8 16 cxb5 ltJd4 Other options transpose to line
17 bxa6 �e7! 18 ltJh5 �xa6 + 19 �d3 A2 or to variations that are covered
�b7 ! + or 15 cxb5 ltJd4 16 :gel :gxcl 17 in the next part of the book:
�xcl axb5 18 b4 �a4 ! 19 g3 �e7+. 13 0-0 hd5 (13 . . . 0-0) 14 exd5
ltJe7 15 �h5 e4;
A. 12 c3 page 144 13 lDc2 0-0 14 0-0
B. 12 �h5 page 150 14 lDcb4? ltJxb4 15 lDxb4 fxe4 ! 16
he4 a5 ! overtakes the initiative, as
We'll examine the most popu­ 17 ha8 �xa8 18 lDc2 �xg2 19 :gfl
lar continuation 12 0-0 in the next �h6+ would be bad for White;
chapter. 14 lDce3 fxe4 15 he4 f5 16 �c2
f4 17 �h5 transposes to lines with
A. 1 2 c3 ig7 early ltJce3 .
14 . . . hd5 (14 . . . fxe4 15 he4 f5
16 lDf4 ! exf4 17 hc6t) 15 exd5 ltJe7
16 :gel �d7.

A 1 . 1 3 lll xb5 ! ?
The fine point of this sacrifice is
that Black's bishop is already com­
mitted to e6 and cannot defend the
c6-knight from b7. We are uncer­
tain what answer to recommend.
144
 7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!J dS f5 11 �d3 �e6

Capturing the piece leads to po­

sitions where White has enough
compensation and significant space
advantage. Black is able to trade
all minor pieces and stop the ene­
my queenside pawns, but then he
would not be able to display any ac­
tivity, as White's passers would be
too advanced. Still, White's game
is easier and his mistakes usually
have no fatal consequences. That's
why we propose another plan, con­
nected with counterplay in the cen­ This position has only recently
tre and on the kingside. become topical and is rather unex­
On the other hand, 13 . . . hdS ! ? plored . We shall present a new, ac­
14 exd5 l!Je7 15 l!J a3 e4 16 �c2 0-0 17 tive approach, in order to rehabili­
0-0 looks quite appealing for Black. tate this line.
In practice he achieves good results 1 6 0-0
even though his compensation for White may try to blockade the
the pawn is not that clear. e-pawn fram e4, but he is undevel­
oped for shuch moves. After 16 �g4
in the game Vallejo Pons-Topal­
ov, Linares 20 04, Black equalised
with 16 . . . l!Jb8 17 0-0 hS 18 �f3 , and
here 18 . . .hbS 19 f6 c±>h7 leads to a
draw: 2 0 �fS+ (20 �xhS+ �h6 2 1
�fS+ ci>h8 2 2 �hS ci>h7=) 20 . . . ci>h6
21 f4 (21 h4 �g80 22 �gS+ ci>h7 2 3
�fS + ci>h6=) 2 1 . . . �g80 2 2 �gS +
c±>h7 23 �xhS+ �h6 24 �xf7+ c±>h8
Aggressive players will certainly (25 l!Je7 hfl 26 �fl l!Jc6 27 l!J g6 +
like Black's side. Perhaps 17 . . . �b6 ! ? �xg6 2 8 �xg6 �f8 29 �f3 �a7) 25
1 8 �bl (18 �b3 aS) 1 8 . . . �cS 1 9 �b3 �hS c±>h7= . He might, however, pre­
(19 �d2 l!JxdS 20 �fdl l!Jxc3 2 1 bxc3 fer 16 . . . c±>h8. Usually he plays this
�xa3 2 2 �b3=) 19 . . . aS is the most move after . . . �e8 first, but here he
interesting approach. Unfortunate­ can use the premature arrival of the
ly, the only game that featured this queen at g4 and activate the rook
line, Lupulescu-Stamenkov, EU­ from g8, as in the case of 17 0-0
chT, Gothenburg 2 005, lasted only (17 �e4? ! �aS 18 a4 l!Je7! or 18 �c4
one more move and the opponents �gS) 17 . . . �g8 18 �e4 �h6 .
signed a draw.
1 6 . . . e4 !
1 3 . . .axb5 14 ixb5 �d7 1 5 exf5 0-0 Only this move gives counter-

145
Part 7

play. Practice has seen Black strug­ - Rogozenko. Alas, the simple 32 a6
gling after 16 . . . �b8? ! (16 . . .E�e8 17 wins immediately, 3 2 . . .�xb6 33 a7
�g4 @h8 18 �e4 f6 19 a4 is similar) �a6 34 g3 ! + - .
17 a4 �e8 18 �g4 @h8 19 �e4 The moral o f this analysis i s that
Black should not wait passively.
We can also see that the rook is
more useful on a8, from where it
stops the a-pawn.
1 7 a4
17 �el 8:e8 18 a4 E'!:eS transposes
to the sub-line on move 18.
1 7 . �ea
. .

Black's idea is to gradually break

the clamp on dS and include the
dark-squared bishop into play. It is
too slow and gives the enemy time
to advance the a and b-pawns: 19 . . .
f6 ( 1 9 . . . l!J e7? 2 0 f6 + -) 2 0 b 4 l!Je7
(20 . . . �c8, hoping to get a lever on
the kingside after 21 g4? ! , is well
countered by 2 1 �c4 ! with a clear
edge) 21 hd7 �xd7 22 l!Jxe7 �xe7
23 aS ! �ec8 24 �tbl ! Almasi-Wang 1 8 YMg4
Yue, Paks 20 06 . 18 �el �es 19 l!Je3 l!Je7 brings
about an equal endgame: 20 hd7
�xd7 21 f6 hf6 22 �g4+ �xg4 23
l!Jxg4 �e6 24 l!Jxf6+ �f6 2 5 �xe4
@f8 = .
1 8 . . . � h8 1 9 gad 1
19 �fel �es 2 0 l!Je3 �f6 2 1 E'!:ad l
�g8 22 �hS �h6 demonstrates
Black's best setup .

Here, instead of 24 . . . �d7, Rogo­

zenko suggests 24 . . . �f7, but it does
not help either: 25 bS dS 26 �d3
�f8 27 b6 �cs 28 �bS ! d4 (28 . . . e4
29 �bl ! ) 29 c4 e4 ! 30 �xe4 �xc4
31 �bbl �b4 "This position is very
likely to end in some sort of draw"

146
 7 !gS a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 !d3 �e6

His pieces are so active and close It seems that White is better in
to the enemy king, that we can part view of the threat 21 ltJg4, but now
with some material, but still retain we complete the redeployment star­
a strong attack: ted with 19 . . . �eS :
23 ltJg4 �xg4 24 �xg4 MS 2 S 2 1 .. _ g ga ! 22 tl) c4 Y«xf5 23 tl) x e 5
�g3 ltJe7 2 6 c 4 e 3 2 7 fxe3 �e4-+ . .ixe5
1 9 .. J� e S ! Black has good chances. We shall
Aiming to reach the position o f provide further analysis, in order to
the last diagram. 19 . . . ltJb8 ? ! 20 �fel help you in practice:
�es 21 ltJe3;t; is rather gloom. 24 g3 Y«g6 2 5 f4
20 ll) e3 Y«f 6 21 Y« e2 White cannot survive without
21 �hS �a7! is another critical this move: 2S �e3 fS 26 f4 exf3 27
line. The reason behind our last move �xf3 f4-+ .
is seen in the variation 22 ltJg4 �xfS 2 5 . . . exf3 2 6 gxf3 f5
23 �xfS �S 24 �xd6 �cS ! when
Black even has some initiative: 2S
ltJe3 !es 2 6 �ds �ds 27 ttJxdS ltJe7
28 hd7 ttJxdS 29 !c6 ltJf4.
White might try 22 �fel.
Then 2 2 ... hfS? is bad d ue to
23 ltJdS �xdS 24 �xdS ltJe7 2 S �fS
�xfS 26 �xfS ltJxfS 27 �e4 !es 2 8
f4 !f6 2 9 g4 ltJh4 30 M2 d S 3 1 �e2
h6 3 2 �d2 ttJg6 33 �ds llJxf4 34 �fs
!gS 3S b4 ltJe6 36 cj/e2 �e7+ .
Black should prefer 22 . . . ltJe7
23 hd7 �xd7 with sufficient 27 gdf1
counterplay: 24 b4 (24 llJg4 �xfS 2 S The other way to take control of
�xfs �fs 2 6 �e4 �aS=) 24 . . . d s 2 S f4 is worse:
b S ( 2 S g4 � c 6 26 b S �c8oo) 2S . . . �a7 27 �d2 hS-+ . The text prevents
26 �bl �b6oo . this option in view of the threat 2 8
Let u s return to 2 1 �e2 : hc6 .
27 �c4 �c8 28 �d3 !e6oo is dou­
ble-edged.
27 ...f4 28 gxf 4 .ixf 4 29 gxf 4
The weakness of White's first
rank and light squares balances the
game .
29 ... g ea 30 'l«d2 .ih3 3 1 q;t2
Or 31 if1 hfl 32 �xf1 ltJeS 33
�d4 (33 b4 �e4 34 �d4 �xd4+ 3S
cxd4 ltJc6=) 33 . . . cj/g7 34 aS �f8 = .
3 1 . . .d S ! 3 2 b 4 'l«b1 3 3 g 4 ge6

147
Part 7

34 g5 1Mfh 1 35 © g 3 1Mfg 1 + 36 © xh3 would have favoured White ;

g e3+ 37 ©h4 tiles 38 i e8 g94 b) 14 g4? fxg4 15 h3 g3 ! 16 E'!:gl !
39 ih5 tll c4 40 g x e4 tll xd2 41 (Trying to open up files. 1 6 fxg3
g e a+=. f5 is grim for White: 17 0-0 �f7 18
Draw b y repetition. In such Wff d l ixd5 19 exd5 Wffg5 ! + or 17 0-
complex positions it is impossible 0-0 �f7 ! 18 Wff e 2 hd5 19 exd5 l2Je7+)
to fore see everything, but the idea 16 . . . gxf2 + 17 @xf2 8:a7! and the tide
is clear: Black attacks the f5-pawn turns desively: 18 ti:Je 3 f5 ! 19 exf5
with . . . 8:e5 hoping to place the other @h8 ! 2 0 �e4 d5 2 1 E'!:adl if7 2 2 Wffg4
rook on g8. Meanwhile he protects ih6 - + ;
the d6-pawn with . . . Wfff6. In many c) 14 l2Jc2? ! fxe4 15 he4 f5 16 ti:Jf4
cases the knight fork on g4 is not exf4 17 hc6 8:c8 18 Wfff3 d5 19 l2Jb4
very dangerous as White's knight aS 20 hd5 Wffd 6 21 ti:Jc6 @h8 ! - + ;
is the most unpleasant enemy piece d ) 1 4 0-0-0? fxe4 1 5 he4 f5
which is severely cramping Black's 16 ic2 b4 ! 17 l2Jc4 bxc3 18 bxc3
position. l2Jd4 ! + ;
e ) 14 l2Jc7 Wffxc7 15 exf5 d 5 16 f6
h6 17 fxg7 @xg7 18 ti:Jc2 b4 19 c4 e4
A2 . 1 3 1Mfh5 0-0 20 cxd5 exd3 2 1 l2Je3 d2 + !+.

A2a. 14 exf5?! hd5 15 f6 h6

This move allows Black to play
for win. 15 . . . e4 should lead to a
draw in a rather forced way, see 25
Naiditsch-Chuchelov, Belgium
20 0 3 .
16 fxg7
16 Wfff5 hands Black the initia­
tive: 16 . . . e4 17 fxg7 8:e8 18 ie2
A2 a. 14 exf5? ! 18 hb5 �e6 19 Wfff4 looks ap­
A2b. 14 0-0 pealing, but we can take the piece
by 19 . . . axb5 ! 20 Wffxh6 f5 and White
White also tries occasion ally: cannot prove even equality: 2 1 l2Jxb5
a) 14 l2J e3 f4 15 l2Jf5 Wfff6 16 g4. The (21 0-0 l2Je5 22 f4 ti:Jg4+; 21 h4 l2Je5)
knight stays nicely on f5, but the to­ 2 1 . . . l2Je5 22 l2Jd4 Wffd7+.
tal lack of coordination ruins White: 18 . . . 8:e5 19 Wfff4 (19 Wff h3 Wffg5+)
16 . . . b4 ! 17 l2Jc4 bxc3 18 bxc3 8:fd8 19 . . . Wffg5 20 Wffxg5 8:xg5
19 E'!:bl h6 2 0 8:b6 ti:Je7 2 1 h4 l2Jxf5 20 . . . hxg5 ! ? is a good alterna­
2 2 exf5 e4 ! - +(Movsisian-Smirnov, tive: 2 1 l2Jc2 @xg7 (22 h4 ie6 23 E'!:dl
Yerevan 2004 saw 22 . . .hc4? 23 g5 8:d8=) 2 2 l2Je3 �e6 23 E'!:dl 8:d8 = .
Wfe7 24 hc4 Wffc7, when 25 gxh 6 ! + 2 1 l2Jc2 ie6 2 2 l2Je3 b4 ! ? Break-

148
 7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6

ing White's pawn chain. 23 f4 exf3 23 �h3 �g6 24 �xg6+ fxg6 2S ltJ e3
24 hf3 bxc3 2S bxc3 (2S hc6 d4+ 26 ltJc2 �f4 27 �d2 hS 2 8 b3
cxb2 26 �bl �b8 27 @d2 ha2+) @g7! (28 . . . �dS 112- 112 Anand-Ivan­
2S . . . �c8 = . chuk, Linares 2002) 29 @dl aS 30
@el b4 3 1 cxd4 exd4 32 @dl ltJeS 33
1 6 ©xg7 17 �c2
.•• ltJel @f6 (33 . . . �c8 34 ltJd3 ltJxd3 3S
17 �fS? ! is inefficient, as Black �hxd3 �xh4 36 �xd4 �hl + 37 rJ/e2=)
can ignore the "threat" by 17 . . . �gS ! 34 rJ/e 2 �c8+ /+ e . g . 3S ltJd3 ? �e4+
when 18 �h7 +? @f6 would favour 36 @dl �c3 with a big advantage.
Black. Remains 18 �xgS+ hxgS 19
ltJc2 �e6 20 a4 bxa4 2 1 �xa4 as 2 2
@d2 fS 23 �hal �ab8+, Tokmachev­ A2b . 14 0 - 0 fxe4!
Samojlov, Serpukhov 1999 (39) ; This farced variation solves the
17 h4 ! ? is more consistent since opening problems. The older line
�h3 would be decisive. 17 . . . �e6 18 14 .. .f4 leads to very complex play
g4 b4 ! and again we see White un­ with mutual chances . We cover it
developed for a killing blow: 19 gS in considerable detail in the "Com­
hxgS 20 hxgS �h8 2 1 �h7 @f8 �. plete Games" section - see game
Perhaps he should prefer 19 ltJ c4 26 Svidler-Van Wely, Wijk aan
bxc3 2 0 bxc3 ltJe7 21 gS (21 ltJe3 Zee 2004.
ltJg6 ! +) 2 1 . .. �h8 22 �f3 ltJdS 23 15 he4 f5 16 �f4 exf4 17
gxh6+ @xh6 24 �e4 ltJf4 2S ha8 hc6 gc8
�xc4� with complications.
17 .ie6
•••

18 �e2
It is risky to capture the a6-
Now: pawn: 18 �b7 �cS ! = or 18 �f3 dS 19
18 a4 fS ! ?oo (18 . . . bxa4? ! 19 �xa4 � b7 �cS 20 ha6 �b6 2 1 .bbS �xbS
aS 20 ltJe3t) 19 axbS axbS 20 �xa8 22 ltJxbS �xbS�.
�xa8 21 0-0 �b7oo ; 18 .te5 19 �f3
•••

18 �e3 dS 19 h4 (19 �fS �gS) 19 �b7 is still dubious, but due to

19 . . . �f6oo 2 0 �fS MS 21 fufS+ different reasons than on the previ­
@h7 2 2 �dl ( 2 2 �h3 �g6) 22 . . . �ad8 ous turn. This time Black aims for

149
Part 7

a direct kingside attack, using the is the a3-knight, which h a s not any
retreat of White's queen: 19 .. .:gc7! stable square. d5 would be a terrific
(19 .. .:gb8 20 ha6 + ; 19 .. . :gcs 20 �f3 ! outpost for it, but both approaches
�h4 2 1 E!fdl �h8 2 2 lDc2 E!c7 23 ltJd4 to it, c3 and e3, are firmly control­
�c4 24 Wffd2 E!g7 25 b3 �g8 26 Wffd3 led. See game 27 Kramnik-Van
Wff6 27 a4+) 2 0 ha6 Wffa8 ( 20 . . . b4 Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005.
21 cxb4 f3 22 Wffxf3 Wffh4 23 h3 Wffxb4
24 �d3 hb2 25 ltJb5) 2 1 hb5 f3 ! 2 2
gxf3 ( 2 2 Wffxf3 �dS 2 3 Wffh 3 hg2 2 4 a. 1 2 Y«hs ggs
Wffxg 2 + E!g7+) 2 2 . . . E!f6-+ ;
19 � f3 Wffh4 2 0 E!fdl E!f6 also
looks like fun for Black.

19 b4!
• • •

Black must try to prolong the dia­

gonal of his dark-squared bishop.
Consolidation would mean advan­
tage to White, who has a much bet­
ter pawn formation, for example,
19 . . . �h8 2 0 �dS �d7 21 ltJc2 Wffh4
22 E!adl ie8 23 Wff d3 E!c7 24 ltJd4i.
2 0 cxb4 Bl. 13 c3
White would be worse if he ac­ B 2 . 13 f4
cepted a weakness on c3 : 20 ltJc2 B3. 13 g3
bxc3 21 bxc3 �b6 22 �dS hdS 23
WffxdS+ � h8+. Minor alternatives are:
2 0 . . .i.xb2 a) 13 0-0? ! f4 14 h3 (Or: 14 c3
�g4 15 Wffxh7 E!g6+; 14 c4 b4 15 ltJc2
�g4 16 Wffxh7 E!g6 17 f3 �e6 18 �hl
E!h6 19 Wff g8 f5- + ; 14 Wffdl �h3 ; 14
Wffxh7 E!g6 15 Wffh 5 E!h6 16 Wffd l Wff h4-
+) 14 . . . E!g6 15 c3 ltJe7f! with excel­
lent prospects for Black;
b) 13 0-0-0 E!xg2 ! 14 Wfff3 (14 f4
ltJd4 ! transposes to line B - 13.f4
E!xg2 14 0-0-0) 14 . . . E!g4 15 exf5 (15
h3 E!h4) 15 . . .hd5 16 Wffxd5 ltJb4
17 Wffb7 (17 Wffb3 E!f4 18 �c4 bxc4
19 Wffxb4 Wffc7t ; 17 Wfff3 E!f4 18 Wff g2
The game is balanced. Black's ltJxd3 + 19 E!xd3 E!c8 20 ltJbl Wffc7+)
pawns are split and look easy to 17 . . . d5+ ;
collect, but in fact White cannot at­ c) 13 c4? ! hd5 (14 cxd5 ltJb4
tack them efficiently. His problem 15 �e2 fxe4 16 Wffxh7 E!g6+) 14 exd5

1 50
 7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!J dS fS 11 �d3 �e6

�as + (14 . . . l!Jd4 ! ? 15 o-o �g4 ! ) 15 17 � f3 is passive: 17 ... �f4 18

w fl l!Jd4t; �e2 �c7 (18 ... b4 ! ? 19 cxb4 �b6f±)
d) 13 Wfl h6 14 h3 hdS lS exdS 19 l!Jc2 �b7! ? (19 ... dS 20 l!Je3) 2 0
l!J e7+. f3 �h6+.
1 7 . . . \Wc8 1 8 Y«xc8+
8 1 . 1 3 c3 gxg2 1 4 \Wf3 The endgame is preferable for
Queenside play with a4 is insuf­ Black, but keeping queens on is
ficient: 14 l!Jc2 f4 1S a4 bxa4 16 �xa4 even worse: 18 �b6? l!JdS 19 �as (19
�g7 17 l!Jcb4 l!Jxb4 (18 �bS+ axbS 19 �xbS+ axbS 20 �xbS+ We7 21 �xdS
�xa8 l!Jd3 + 20 Wfl �xa8 2 1 l!Jc7+ �xa3 ! - +) 19 . . . �c6 ! ?+ (19 . . . l!Jf4 2 0
Wd8 22 l!Jxa8 wins Black's queen, �e4 dS+) 2 0 0-0-0 l!Jb4 2 1 �c4 ( 2 1
but it will be retaliated by the raving �c2 l!Jxc2 2 2 l!Jxc2 �a4- + ; 2 1 �bl
rook on the second rank: 22 . . . �f2 + �h6+ - +) 2 1 . . .�h6+ 22 W bl �xc4
23 Wgl �xb2) 18 l!Jxb4 aS 19 l!JdS 23 cxb4 �d4+.
�b8 2 0 b4 axb4 2 1 cxb4 �c8+. 1 8 . . . &fJ x c8 1 9 &iJ c2 &iJ b 6i.
1 4 \Wf3 gg4

82 . 1 3 f4 g x g 2 1 4 0-0-0

Typically for the Sveshnikov,

Black has strong counterplay in the
sharpest lines. This attempt to crush Black
1 5 exf5 in the centre fails because of the
15 h3 is of little use: lS . . . �g8 stranded knight on a3 . Without it
It is also interesting to keep the White lacks resources to complete
rook on the 4th rank: 1S . . . �h4 ! ? 16 the attack. The possibility of the c6-
exfS �xdS 17 �xdS l!Je7 18 �g2 (18 knight to jump to d4 tips the bal­
�b7 �c8 !) 18 ... dSf±, Boudre-Kouat­ ance in Black's favour.
ly, Ales 1984. Note that the double attack 14
16 exfS �xdS 17 �xdS l!Je7 18 l!Je3 is bad due to 16 . . . �as+ 15 Wfl
�e4 � g7 19 0-0-0 dS 20 �h4 �b6 ! �d2 ! 16 l!Jbl (16 l!JxfS �b4 ! + ; 16
2 1 w bl �f6 ! 22 �h6 0-0-0 f!. exfS �b4 ! 17 �f3 �d7 18 �bl 0-0-0
1 5 . . . ixd 5 1 6 \Wxd 5 &fJe7 1 7 19 l!J dS �cs 20 b4 �d4+) 16 ... �xd3
\Wb7 17 cxd3 �b4 18 exfS (18 �e2 fxe4

151
Part 7

19 dxe4 �xe4 - +) 18 . . .hfS 19 WffxfS �d2 (16 c3 �gs 17 Wff h4 ttJf3 - +) 16 . . .

Wffxb2+. fxe4 1 7 �xe4 b 4 ! 1 8 ttJxb4 �gs 19
1 4 ... �d4! 1 5 � e 3 �dl dS+;
Aft e r lS c3 �xdS 1 6 exdS, the b) 14 �xh7 �g6 lS �hS fxe4 16
thematic 16 . . . b4 ! + comes at rescue; �xe4 ttJd4 ! t ;
Other options: lS �hgl fxe4 16 �xg2 c ) 1 4 c 3 �g6 ! l S Wfff3 (lS tlJ c 2 fxe4
exd3+ ; lS �bl �xdS 16 exdS �g4 ! 16 he4 .ig4 17 Wffh4 Wffx h4 18 gxh4
threatening to trap the white queen fS 19 hS �g7! 20 h3 �xh3 2 1 .if3 .ig4
with �h4. 22 tlJf6 + �d8+) lS . . .�xdS 16 exdS
1 5 . . JU2 1 6 exf5 e4 17 WffxfS �gs 18 Wfff4 exd3 19 dxc6
According to Kramnik, Black �es+ 20 �fl �b6 21 Wfff3= .
is on top after 16 �hfl �fl 17 �xfl
�c8 . 14 c3
1 6 . . . .ixa2 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 14 0-0-0? ! �c8 l S f4 (lS c 3 h6 ! ;
17 . . . �c8 18 �xbS+ ttJxbS 19 ttJxbS lS �bl h6 !) lS . . . �g6f!;
axbS 20 exd6 is unclear. 14 ttJe3? �gs lS �xh7 fxe4 16
1 8 � xb50 .ih 6 ! ! �xe4 dS 17 .ig2 �as++;
This surprising move underlines 14 h3? �xdS lS exdS e4 16 0-0-0
how vulnerable White's king is. The �f6 ! + .
stem game Brodsky-Kramnik, Her­ 1 4 . . . fxe4 1 5 .ixe4 .ig4 1 6 1Mfxh 7
son 1991 saw further 19 �hel (19 gg7 1 7 \W h 6 � f3+
�xh6 �xc2 + ! mating) 19 �hel axbS!
2 0 �xbS+ �e7 21 �h4 + f6 2 2 �xf2
.if7 with an overwhelming attack.

83. 1 3 g3

Black checked first and that puts

White on the defensive. He has a
narrow path to equality.

B3a. 18 �fl? !
B3b. 18 �e2
1 3 . . . � d4
13 . . . �c8 is a decent alternative. Practice has also seen 18 �dl,
Main lines are: but after 18 . . . tlJgS+ 19 f3 �g6 20
a) 14 0-0-0? ttJd4 lS �bl h6 16 Wffh4 ttJxe4 21 fxg4 l!Jf2 + Wffc8 ! 2 2 gS

1S2
 7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ttJ dS fS 11 �d3 �e6

ttJxgS 23 ttJc2 WfffS Black is slightly b4! (28 . . . �h6 29 ttJ d3 as 30 �hel;t)
better. 29 E:hel bbl 3 0 E:xbl bxc3 31
bxc3 (The source game A. Sokolov­
Skripchenko, France (ch) 20 03
B3a. 18 @fl? ! E:g5! saw 31 ttJd3? c2+) 31 E:xc3 32•••

Threatening 19 . . . ttJd2 . 18 . . . �g6 E:b6+ .id6 33 E:e2 (33 �xa6 �c2)

19 Wffcl + is worse. 33 E:a3+.
•••

19 �f6+
Or 19 Wffh7? ! ttJd2 + 20 �el �g7+.
19 ©e7 2 0 �h8
••• B3b. 18 ©e2 � g5+ 19 fJ �xe4
After 2 0 ttJdS+ �d7 2 1 ttJf6 + �c7+ 2 0 fxg4 �c8 !
the king slips to the queenside.
2 0 �d2+ 21 ©g2 �xe4 22
•••

�xe4 E:g6 23 �h4+

23 �hel Wffd7 ! allows Black to con­
solidate : 24 f3? hf3 + 2S �xf3 �h6
26 Wff g8 Wff fS+ 27 �e3 �xh2 28 Wigs+
WffxgS+ 29 tiJxgS �h6- + ; 24 Wffh4+ f6
2S Wffh7+ �g7 2 6 Wff h6 �f3 + ! 27 �xf3
�g3 + 2 8 hxg3 hh6 29 �adl dS 3 0
@ g 2 Wffc6- + ; 2 4 ttJc2 Wff b7t.
23 �h4+ ©e6 ! 24 1l;Yxd8 E:xd8

21 1l;Ye3
Or 2 1 h3? �xg4 2 2 Wffh7 Wies 2 3
hxg4 Wfff2 + - + ; 2 1 �d3 Wffxg4 2 2 �ael
ttJf2 + 2 3 �d2 Wfff3 t ; 21 ttJe3? �g6 22
Wffh 3 dS+.
21 1l;Yxg4+ 22 VffJ �xt'3+ 23
•••

©xfJ f5 24 �c2
24 ttJe3 �f7 2S ttJxfS? fails to 2S . . .
dS ! + .
24 @f7
•••

Practice has shown that the end­

Black's central pawns threaten game is balanced, but Black's game
to overrun the enemy: is a bit easier. See game 28 Mas­
25 fJ (2S ltJc2? �fS+) 25 .tf5 ••• trovasilis-Johannessen, Athens
26 E:adl d5 27 �b l gc8 28 �f2 2003

1S3
Part 7 1 e4 c5 2 lll f3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 es 6 lll d b5 d6
7 ig5 a6 8 lll a 3 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6
1 O lll d 5 f5 1 1 .id 3 .ie6

COMPLETE GAMES

2S N a id itsch - C h uch elov �d l �cs 24 ids �e8) 23 ... �cs 24

B el g iu m 20 0 3 ids �e8 ! (Chuchelov assesses the
1 e 4 c s 2 li:) f3 li:) c 6 3 d4 c xd4 4 position after 24 . . . �xc3 + 2S �b2
li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c 3 es 6 li:) d b S d6 7 �cs 26 he4 �b8 + 27 �al ltJb4 2 8
ig S a6 8 li:) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 �d2 a s slightly better for White) 2 S
li:) d S ts 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 c3 ig 7 1 3 ib3 ( 2 S �hel ltJb4 2 6 he4 ltJxa 2 +
Y«hS 0-0 1 4 exfS ixd S 1 S f6 e4 2 7 �d 2 �ec8 =) 2 S . . . ltJ aS 2 6 �b2
We suggest 1S . . . h6 ! ? , which leads �b8 27 �hel dS with some initia­
to complicate play. The text is known tive for Black.
as a reliable equaliser. 22 Y«xd 6 g d 8 ! 23 Y«xc6 ge6 ! ?
1 6 fx g7 gea 1 7 ie2 ges 1 8 Y«h6 23 . . . �cs also leads t o a draw: 2 4
b4! �xa6 �d2 + 2S �fl �fS 26 hf7+ !
�f7 27 �e2 �xc3 (27 . . . e3 2 8 �xd2
�xd2 29 f3=) 28 �dl �xdl + 29 �xdl
e3 30 �d8 + with perpetual check.
24 ixe 6
White cannot avoid the perpe­
tual check, since 24 �c7 �d2 + 2 S
�l e 3 o r 2 4 �b7 �d2 + 2S �l e3
are hopeless for him.
24 . . . Y«d 2+ 2S @f1 'l«d3+ %-%

1 9 li:) c4 2 6 Sv idl er - Van Wel y

After 19 lDc2 bxc3 2 0 bxc3 ie6 2 1 W ij k aan Zee 2004
0 - 0 Black equalises like i n the game: Comments by Nedev
21. . . �gS 22 �xgS �xgS 23 �fdl �cS= 1 e4 cs 2 ll:) f3 ll:) c 6 3 ll:) c3 ll:) f6
24 �xd6 �xc3 2S ltJe3 ltJb4 ! = . 4 d4 cxd4 s li:) xd4 es 6 li:) d bS d 6
1 9 . . ..ixc4 20 ixc4 bxc3 2 1 7 i g S a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0
bxc3 Y«g S ! 2 2 Y«xd 6 li:) d S ts 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 c3 ig7 1 3
Or 2 2 �xgS �xgS 23 0-0-0 (23 Y«hS 0-0 1 4 0-0 f4

1S4
 7 .igS a6 8 lt:J a3 bS 9 .ixf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS fS 11 .id3 .ie6

nov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 , or regroup first on

the kingside: lS. . . h8 16 ©hl gg8
17 gS lt:Je7! 18 f3 .if8 19 gadl gg7 2 0
.ic2 gc8 2 1 ggl gcs 2 2 .ib3 lt:JxdS 2 3
ixdS ixdS 2 4 gxdS gxdS 2 S exdS
�a8+ Gonzalez de l a Torre-San Se­
gundo, Lugo 20 07;
d) lS lt:Jc2 fS ! 16 lt:Jcb4 lt:Jxb4 17
lt:Jxb4 aS 18 exfS .if7 19 %Vh3 �f6 ! 2 0
lt:Jc2 Anand-McShane, Bundesliga
2 0 0 3 and now 2 0 . . . b4! 21 cxb4 dSoo
Our main recommendation would have been fine for Black.
is 1S . . . fxe4 ! because it is a forced 1 5. . . @ h S
equaliser. However, the text is a fair Black anticipates g 3 and shifts
alternative which offeres both sides his king from the open (in future)
a lot of interesting possibilities. file. Topalov preferred 1S . . . ga7 ! ?
1 5 gad 1 when 16 lt:J c2 © h 8 1 7 lt:Jcb4 lt:Jxb4 1 8
White has also tried: lt:Jxb4 �d7 1 9 .ie2 fS 2 0 exfS �fS
a) lS g 3 fS 16 gxf4 © h 8 It is al­ was double-edged in Svidler-Topa­
ways risky to open up play against lov, Cap d'Agde rapid 20 0 3 . More
a bishop pair. For the pawn Black testing is 16 g3 fS 17 gxf4 exf4 1 8
seizes the initiative and White must lt:Jxf4 .if7 1 9 �h3 %VgS + 2 0 �g3 ( 2 0
quickly return the material: 17 lt:Jc2 lt:Jg2 f4 2 1 e s .ihS ! ) 2 0 . . . �h6 ! with
.if7 18 %Vh3 exf4 19 lt:Jxf4 �gs+ 2 0 compensation.
lt:Jg2 f4 2 1 %VfS %VxfS 2 2 exfS lt:JeS 1 6 g3
23 gfdl .ihS 24 .ie4 ixdl 2S gxdl If White refrains fram under­
gae 8 f! ; mining the f4-pawn, Black activates
b ) lS gfdl I t is not evident which his rook: 16 lt:Jc2 gg8 17 Whl .if8 18
rook should go to dl. Still, the .ie2 ggs+±.
game focus is on the king side and 1 6 ... ggs 1 7 @h1 �ts 1 8 �e2
White might need a rook on fl later. g g 5 1 9 '1Mf3 (19 �h4 gc8) 1 9 . . . f5
1S . . . ©h8 ! ? 16 lt:Jc2 fS 17 a4 (17 exfS ? !
ixdS 18 f6 .ih6 ! 1 9 �xh6 ga7t In­
arkiev-Filippov, Sochi 20 0S) 17 . . . .if7
18 �h3 .ixdS 19 exdS lt:Je7oo ;
c) l S g4 White closes the kingside,
but in an open Sicilian this is not an
achievement as Black retains his
typical queenside play. He can start
with lS .. . gb8 ! ? 16 lt:Jc2 as 17 a3 lt:Je7
18 gadl �d 7 19 h3? ! ixdS 20 exdS
fS 21 f3 gf6t, as in Amonatov-Smir-

lSS
Part 7

20 exf 5 ficult for both sides since it requires

Anand-Topalov, Monte Car­ a lot of calculation without clear cri­
lo rapid 20 0 1 saw 2 0 gxf4 exf4 2 1 teria for evaluation.
ttJxf4 �a2 21 . . . ext4 22 Wf xc6 gca

22 exfS �xfS 23 �e4 �f7 24

ihS? ! (24 ttJe6 �e6 2 5 �xe6 �e7=) 2 3 Wff3
24 . . .�f6 2 5 c4? ! tlJeSt a nd Black's Of course White cannot capture
pieces showed better coordination. on a6 due to 23 �xa6 �e4+ 24 f3
In the diagram position White �a8- + , but 2 3 �b7 is possible, al­
should probably try to keep the though White's queen risks to be
main diagonal closed by playing trapped in some variations:
immediately : a) 23 . . . �b8? ! 24 �f7 (24 �xa6
2 2 c4 tlJ eS 23 �e3 �g8 24 cxbS �e4+ 25 f3 �a8) 24 . . . ie4 + 25 �gl
(24 exfS ih6f±) 24 . . . i.h6 25 exfS, �f5 26 �a7 is probably in his fa­
but 25 . . . axbS is level. (Rogozenko vour;
proposes the sharper line 25 . . . �h4 b) 23 . . . �g7 24 �xa6 (24 �f3 ig4;
26 �d4 .bf4 27 �xf4 �dS+ 28 f3 24 � g 2 �e8 ! 25 if3 �d7) 24 ... ie4 +
�gs 29 �gl �h6 30 �d4 �ac8 ! 3 1 25 �gl �b7 2 6 ttJxbS �a8 27 ttJxd6
�xg 8 + �xg8 3 2 bxa6 �h3 33 �f2 �xa6 28 ttJf7+ �xf7 29 �xd8 �af6t;
�h6 34 �d4 �h3=) c) 2 3 . . . dS ! ? 24 id3 (O r 24 gxf4
20 ... ixfS 21 li:) xf4 �g7 25 �xa6 �g6 ! 2 6 �xbS �h6 - + ;
2 1 gxf4 exf4 ( 2 1 . . . e4 2 2 �e3 �g6 2 4 g 4 �d7 2 5 tlJc2 �c6+) 2 4 . . . �g7 !?
23 �gl t) 22 �gl is also balanced. (24 . . . ixa3 ! ? 2 5 .bf"S �fS 26 bxa3
(22 ttJxf4 is extremely risky, for in­ �xc3 27 �fel fxg3 28 fxg3 �f8 2 9
stance, 22 . . . �e8 23 �e3 tlJeS 24 � g l �c2t) 2 5 �xa6 ig4 26 f3 ih3
tlJdS �g6oo when 25 ttJc7? would 27 �gl b4 28 cxb4 fxg3 29 �g3 �h4
lose to 25 . . . �c8 26 ttJxa6 ie4+ 27 30 �dgl �xg3 31 hxg3 �hS+ .
f3 ib7 28 ttJ b4 ih6 29 �f2 �g8 ; 2 2 23 . . .fxg 3
�xf4? ! ih6) 2 2 . . . ih6 23 �xgS �xgS Van Welly could have main­
24 �gl �d8 25 �hS �f8 26 �f3 �c8 tained the tension with 23 . . . �e7 ! ?
(26 . . . �g6 27 �h3 tlJeS 28 ttJe7!) 27 (threatening . . . ig4) White can take
ig4 �g4 28 �xg4 �e8oo. Play is dif- up the gauntlet by 24 �d4 (24 id3?

156
 7 !gS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tlJdS fS 11 !d3 !e6

fxg3 2S fxg3 !g4 ; 24 gxf4 !e4 2 S 27 K ra m n i k - Va n We ly

fxgS �cs 2 6 �gl �xgS+) 24 . . . !g4 2 S W ij k aan Zee 2 S. 0 1 .200S
�xg4 �xg4 26 !xg4, when 26 . . . �b8 ! 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c6 3 d4 c xd4 4
ensures counterplay. Black's idea is � xd4 �f6 s � c 3 es 6 � d b S d6 7
to meet 27 �f4 by 27 . . . b4 28 cxb4 .igS a6 8 � a 3 bS 9 .ixf6 gxf6 1 0
!h6 2 9 �c4 dS 30 �c2 d4 with a tan­ � d S ts 1 1 .id3 .ie6 1 2 c3 .ig7 1 3
gled game. Wf h S 0-0 1 4 0-0 fxe4 1 S i.xe4 fS
24 fx g 3 d S ! 1 6 � f4 exf4 1 7 .ixc6 gca 1 8 Wf e2
This tactical trick allows Black i.eS 1 9 Wff3
to level the game. The point is 2S
�xdS? !e4 !
2S Wfg2
Or 2S �e3 ! ? !e4 + (2S . .. �e7 26
�xe7 he7 27 �fS MS 2 8 !g4 �cf8
29 fixfs �fs 30 �g2 !cs 31 �d2 + )
26 !f3 !cs 27 1!Me2 !xa3 28 bxa3
�e7 29 �d4 �eSoo.
2S . . . .ixa3 26 bxa3
26 �dS ! ? should be met by
26 . . . !d7! 27 fu:gS �xgS 28 bxa3 fu:c3
29 m �cs 30 �d2 !c6 31 !xc6 (31 1 9 . . . b4!
!g2 i.xg2 + 3 2 �xg2 �c6= )31 . . .�xc6+ Perhaps this is the most impor­
32 �gl 1!McS+ 33 �f2 �f3= . tant tactical resource in the Svesh­
2 6 . . . Wf e7 27 .if3 .ie4 28 Wf d2 nikov. Sometimes it is used to gain
Wfg7 control of d4, or open the b-file.
28 . . . fixf3 + ! 29 M3 �e4 30 Here it prolongs the diagonal to
1!Md4 + �e s leads to a n equal rook Black's dark-squared bishop and
ending: 31 �gl (31 1!Mxe4 dxe4 3 2 deprives White's knight of a central
� e 3 �c4) 3 1 . . . 1!Mxd4+ 3 2 �d4 �el+ outpost.
33 M2 �cl= . 20 cxb4 .ixb2 21 .id S
29 .ixe4 dxe4 3 0 Wfe3 2 1 �adl ! ? counts on 2 1 . . . !xa3 2 2
Black's strong passed pawn in ids hdS 2 3 �xdS hb4 24 �b 3 re­
the centre balances the game. gaining the piece. Perhaps simplest
30 .. . �es 31 @ g 1 (31 �d6 ! ? �f8 ! ) is 2 1 . . . !es 22 ids 1!Mf6 23 �d3 !xdS
gf8 ! 3 2 gxf8+ Wfxf8 33 Wfd4 Wfe7 24 �xdS + 1!Mf7= .
33 . . . �cS ! was more precise: 34 M2 2 1 . . . Wff6
�g8 3S �e3 �dS 36 �xcS �xcS= . White retains some initiative
3 4 @ f2 Wff6+ 3 S @e2 Wff3+ 3 6 @d2 after 2 1 . . .hdS 22 1!MxdS+ �h8 2 3
e3+ 37 @c1 Wff6 38 Wfd8+ Wfxd8 39 �adl ha3 24 �b3 f3 2S 1!Mxa3 (2S
gxd8+ @g7 40 @d1 gfs 41 gas gf2 g 3 f4 26 �xa3 1!Md7 27 �b2 + �g8 28
42 h4 gd2+ 43 @e1 gxa2 44 gxa6 �dSt) 2 S ... fxg2 2 6 �fel.
gc2 4S gc6 hS 46 gcs @g6 %-% 2 2 gad1 gc3 !

1S7
Part 7

22 . . .hd5 23 �xd5 Wffc3 24 �d3 so it is good to trade queens. On the

Wffx b4 25 �b3 Wffd4 26 �b7 clearly fa­ other hand, Black should keep rooks
vours White, but 2 2 . . . �h8 was play­ on. In short, the good combination
able . is rook+bishop vs . rook+knight, in­
2 3 gd3 stead of a queen +bishop vs . queen +
23 �fe l !? is an interesting op­ knight The latter might arise after
tio n: 23 . . . �xf3 24 �xe6 . However, 30 . . . Wffxb4 31 Wffxf5 Wffxa3 32 Wffxc8 +
Black has 24 . . . Wffc3 25 ltJbl Wffd 3 26 �g7 33 Wie6 with some edge.
�xd6+ � h 8 27 hf3 Wffb5 and h e is 31 'l«f3 Y«c4 32 'l«b7 gc7 33 Y«a8+
not worse, at least. gc8 34 Y«xa6 Y«xa6 3S g x a6 gc2=
23 ....ixd S 24 Y«xd S+ Y«f7 2S 'l«f3 White is unable to keep both
gfc8 passed pawns o n the queenside.
36 ga3 gb2 37 gb3 gxa2 38 g3
fxg 3 39 h x g 3 .id4 40 �e3 @f7 41
bS .ib6 42 @f1 @e6 43 � c4 .ixf2
44 b6 dS 4S b7 .ia7 46 gb6+ @d7
47 gd6+ @c7 %-%

28 M astrovas il i s - Johannes sen

Ath ens 20 0 3
1 e 4 cs 2 �f3 � c6 3 d 4 c x d4 4
� xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d b S d6 7
.igS a6 8 � a3 bS 9 .ixf6 g xf6 1 0
The activity of Black's pieces and � d s ts 1 1 .id3 .ie6 1 2 'l«hS gg8
the clumsy position of ltJ a3 level the 1 3 g 3 �d4 14 c3 fxe4 1 S .ixe4 .ig4
game. 1 6 Y«x h7 gg7 1 7 'l«h6 �f3+ 1 8 @e2
26 � b 1 gc1 27 �d2 gxf1 + � g s+ 1 9 f3 � xe4 20 fxg4 Y«c8 2 1
It was worth retaining the ten­ Y«e3 Y«xg4+ 22 'l«f3 Y«xf3+ 23 @xf3
sion by 27 . . . ie5 ! ? with the follow- ts 24 � c2 @f7
ing variations:
28 �a3 Wff a7 29 Wffd 3 Wffb 7=;
2 8 a3 �fl+ 2 9 l!Jxfl Wffc4oo ;
2 8 ltJb3 �xfl+ 29 �xfl Wffc4f!.
28 � xf1 .ieS
The bishop cements very well
the split pawns, building a strong
Black cluster in the centre.
2 9 ga3
Or 2 9 g3 Wff c4 30 a3 Wff e4 3 1 <j)g2
fxg3 32 hxg3 �f7= .
29 ... Y«c4 30 'l«hS Y«f7 !
Black'skinghas notapawnshield, 2S a4

158
 7 !gS a6 8 ltJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS f5 11 !d3 !e6

The previous moves are com­

mented in the "Step by Step" chap­
ter. White has also tried 25 ltJce3
setting the trap 25 .. . i>e6? 26 ltJxfS ! ,
but 2 5 . . . ltJf6 ! is enough for equal­
ity. If the other knight goes to e3
- 25 ltJde3, then 25 . . . ltJgS+ avoids
the trap. White's attempt to break
through the queenside is logical.
2S . . . <i>e6 26 � ce 3 gba
The mobile pawn centre offers
Black many possibilities for devel­
oping the initiative, for instance : 3 2 . . ..ig S !
26 . . . ltJgS+ ! 27 cj/g2 �b8 28 ltJ b4 O f course, Black should not de­
(28 axbS �xbS) 28 . . . aS 29 ltJc6 �b6 stroy his pawn chain with 32 . . . e4+?
30 axbS �xbS 31 �a2 �cs 32 ltJd8+ 33 �xe4+ ltJxe4 34 �el ! After the
cj/f6 33 �fl f4 34 gxf4 ltJe6+ 35 cj/ hl text White is unable to prevent a
ltJxf4. Johannessen prefers to keep killing check fram the h-file.
the knight in the centre, but now 3 3 � c6 gha 34 b4 � a4?
White had 27 ltJxfS ! and White is 34 . . . ltJb3 would have finished the
at least not worse, e.g. 27 . . . cj/xfS 2 8 game. Now White is kicking again.
ltJ e 3 + cj/e6 29 cj/xe4 bxa4 3 0 �hfl, 3S � d4+ <i> xdS 36 �fS+ <i>c6 37
maintaining the clamp on dS. gxd6+ <i>b7 38 gg6 gfh7 39 h4?
27 � b4? ! � cs 28 as? The final mistake. 39 �xgS �h3 +
Mastrovasilis commits a terri­ 40 cj/g2 �xh 2 + 41 cj/f3 �2h 3+ 42 cj/g2
ble positional mistake. Instead of ltJxc3 43 �hS �3xh5 44 gxhS �xhS
seeking to reduce the material with 45 �xeS looks close to the draw.
28 ltJc6 �c8 29 axbS axbS 30 ltJ a7, 39 . . . ixh4 40 gxeS .id8 4 1
he seals the queenside. That leaves � d 6+ @ as 4 2 � e a g h 3+ 4 3 <i>xf4
him without any counterplay. gfa+ 44 <i>e4 � xc3+ 4 S <i>d4 gf4+
28 . . JU7 29 � e d S .ih6 30 g h e 1 4 6 @cs gc4+ 47 <i>d 6 gd3+ 48 <i> e 6
gga 3 1 g ad 1 f4 32 g 4 g c 6 + 49 <i> t 7 gd7+ 0-1

159
Part 8 1 e4 c5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 es 6 lll d b5 d6
7 i.g 5 a6 8 lll a 3 b5 9 �xf6 gxf6
1 O lll d 5 f5 1 1 i.d3 i.e6 1 2 0-0

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

For a quarter of a century White

had been linking his hopes to refute
the Sveshnikov with this very line.
Practice experience has found that
12 . . . i.g7 13 �hS favours White, so
1 2 �xdS!
•••

is the only decent choice here.

Lately all the top guys prefer this
capture.
1 3 exd5 lll e7
When the players from Chelya­ 24 �xaS? e4 2S b4 �gs 26 �fl
binsk elaborated the whole system �bS 27 cxbS .td4+ and Nedev
in the 1970s, they linked it with a soon won.
direct attack on the kingside where If it were so simple to cr.ush
the open g-file seems to offer Black White's army, everyone would
good tactical prospects. He push­ have played nothing other. In fact,
es f4 in order to gain space advan­ White lost because he neglected
tage on the flank, and tries to bring his defence . One more prophylac­
his heavy pieces closer to the ene­ tic move in the diagram position,
my king . This unsophisticated tactic 24 �hl ! , a nd the tide could turn
is easy to follow and it often reaps against Black. In blitz such ap­
good results, but objectively it is proach could be rewarding, it even
hardly the right way to treat the po­ proved good at an European cham­
sition. Look at the game pionship, but still it counts on poor
M azi Nedev
- defence.
Antalya, E U - c h . 2004 We will advocate another ap­
14 c3 .tg7 lS l!Jc2 0-0 16 �el f4 proach , which is more reliable.
17 a4 bxa4 18 �xa4 as 19 l!Ja3 �c8 Instead of gaining space on the
20 l!JbS �cs 21 c4 fS 22 �d2 l!Jg6 23 kingside, we should expand in the
f3 l!Jh4 centre with . . . e4:

160
 7 �g5 a6 8 llJ a3 b5 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 llJdS f5 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0

any weaknesses. For his part, Black

is eyeing the d5-pawn: 18 llJc2 llJxdS
19 V!fxf5 :gest or 18 :gadl :gc8 19 :ge3
:gcs with a balanced game .
The proposed setup is good
enough when Wh ite keeps his bish­
op on the fl-a6 diagonal, planning
to open up the queenside. However,
in the 1990 s White invented a veno­
mous plan. He retreated the bishop
Accordingly, our target will not to c2 and broke open the kingside
be the g 2-pawn, but that on d5 . It with f3 or g4 after several prepara­
could be assaulted by :ga8-c8-c5. tory moves:
When we capture on d5, our f5- 1 4 c3 (be sure to meet 14 llJxbS
pawn is likely to perish, so we must by 14 . . .�g7! with compensation)
be sure to protect in advance our 1 4 ... �g7 1 5 �h5 e4 1 6 .ic2 0-0
outpost on e4. Therefore, we put the 1 7 gae1 �ca
other rook on e8, having in mind the The change of White' s plan re­
manoeuvre 1. .. li:Jxd5 2 VNxfS :ges. In quires modifications of our ac­
general, our setup should be the fol­ tions, too. We must stay passive­
lowing: ly in the centre and aim for quick
1 4 :ge1 counterplay with b4.
After 14 V!fh5 e4 15 �e2 �g7 16 c3 Note that the move order is
0-0 17 llJc2 f4 White must take into vital here !
account the threat of . . .f3 and par­ 1 8 c;t> h1
ry it with 18 f3, when 18 .. .fS main­
tains tension.
1 4 ... Ag7 1 5 c3 o-o 1 6 �h5
e4 1 7 �f1 gea

This position may have been

critical for Black until 20 0 2 , but it
is fun to play it nowadays. Perhaps
the following novelty of Leko, (in­
Both sides have defined their troduced in Dortmund 200 2) was
plans . White counts on his better the last major discovery in this line.
pawn formation which is without White failed to produce any serious

16 1
Part 8

idea ever since. That game ran: the other wing, he intends to restrain
1 8 gb8!
••• Black's counterattack with f3 .
This sneaky move waits for f3,
while preparing . . . b4. The fi ne point
is that immediate 18 . . . b4 loses due
to the possibility of a rook lift along
the empty third rank: 18 . . . b4? 19
cxb4 hb2 2 0 �e3 !
1 9 f3 b4 2 0 ltJbl? ! bxc3 2 1 bxc3
hc3 2 2 l2Jxc3 (22 �e2 �es 23 fxe4
f4oo) 2 2 . . .9*Vxc3 23 fxe4 f4 ! , Shirov­
Leko, Dortmund 200 2 . Black easi­
ly repels the attack. 14 ..i g 7 1 5 gb1 e 4 16 i.e2
••

White attempted improvements, bxc4 1 7 �xc4 0-0 1 8 f3

but in vain. Black is holding firmly,
for instance :
20 fxe4 bxa3 21 exf5 �g6!

We see a typical position for this

pawn structure. White can also pre­
vent 18 .. .f4 by 18 f4, but it would
Thus Leko drew the sting of the give Black a free hand in the centre
most dangerous plan in White's po- where the dS-pawn is a juicy tar­
ssess1on. get . After f3 the weakness of the dS­
.

We would also like to draw your pa wn also ensures full equality:

attention to White's attempt to gain 1 8 gb8 1 9 @h1 gbs 20 Y!!c2
•••

an advantage with 1 4 c4 �xd5 21 fxe4 � b4 22 Y!! a4

White had castled already, and fxe4=.
now he opens up the queenside See game 3 0 Efimenko-Moi­
where he has a pawn majority. On seenko, Zlatibor 20 0 6 .

16 2
Part 8 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f 6 s �c3 es 6 �dbS d6
7 .igS a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6
1 0 � d S fS 1 1 .id3 cie6 1 2 0-0

STEP BY STE P

12 i.xd S! 1 3 exd S � e7
••• 1 6 .ic4
White aims to cover his queen­
side by the bishop while leaving the
dl-hS diagonal open for the queen.
16 �e2 0-0 17 �d2 tlJg6 gives Black
ample compensation, for example:
18 E!:fel ieS 19 �fl �h8 with ... 8:g8
and ... �f6 to fallow.
1 6 �g6 1 7 �hS
•••

17 �d2 would retain White's

pawn formation flexible, but at the
cost of letting the strongest black
piece come to a striking position:
A. 14 ttJxbS page 163 17 ... 0-0 18 E!:ael (o r 18 E!:fel �es
B . 14 �hS page 164 with a standard kingside attack)
C. 14 c4 page 166 18 . . . �h4 19 g3 (19 �b3? ! �h6 20
D . 14 E!:el page 167 �e2 ttJeS-+ ; 1 9 tlJ d l f4 20 8:xe4 fS
E. 14 c3 page 170 2 1 E!:eel f3-+) 19 . . . �h3 2 0 f4 exf3 2 1
8:xf3 ttJeS when White has t o sac­
A. 1 4 �xbS .ig7 1 S �c3 e4 rifice the exchange in search for
salvatio n: 22 E!:xeS (22 E!:f4 �h6+)
2 2 . . . �xeS+.
1 7 �xc3 1 8 bxc3 �f6 1 9
•••

�h6
It seems sensible to deprive
Black of castling.
Alternatively:
a) 19 f4 0-0 2 0 �b3
Or 2 0 E!:ael E!:fc8 21 �b3 (21
�e2 �xc3 2 2 �b3 as 2 3 a4 8:ab8t)

163
Part 8

2 1. . . �xc3 22 cj{hl cj{h8 ! ? 2 3 �gs (23 �b5+ cj{e7 23 Wffxg7 �xg7 24 a4 l2Jh4
g4 e3 ! 24 WffxfS WfxfS 2S gxfS l2Jh4 White would be already worse. 2 0
26 f6 �gs+) 23 Wigs cj{g7 24 h3 (24 �ael i s a better option, intending to
g4 Wffx gS 2S fxgS ltJh4 2 6 gxfS ltJf3t) undermine the centre by f3. Then it
24 . . . �g8 2S cj{h2 h6 26 Wff h S l2Jh4+ would be interesting to try 2 1 . . . �g7
M anion- Shaked, USA 199 2 . 22 f3 cj{f8 23 fxe4 �e8 24 cj{hl �xe4 .
2 0 . . . �fc8 2 1 g4 �xc3 ! 2 2 gxf5 It seems that the game would be
l2Jh4 2 3 Wff g5 + Wffx g5+ 24 fxg5 l2Jf3+ balanced, e.g. 25 �xe4 fxe4 26 Wffg5
25 cj{f2 f6+ ; f6 27 Wffxf6 + Wffxf6 28 M6 + �f7 2 9
b) 19 �ael �g8 20 f4 Ms 2 1 �e3 �xf7 + cj{xf7 3 0 cj{ g l cj{f6 3 1 cj{f2 cj{e5
(21 Wffh 6 + �g7 22 �e3 �c8 23 ixa6 32 cj{e3 l2Jh4 33 g3 l2Jf5 + = .
�xc3 24 �xc3 Wffxc3 25 �bl �e3 + 26
cj{ h l Wffxf4+) 2 1 . . . �c8 2 2 �b3 (22 �e2
aS; 22 ixa6 �xc3 2 3 �xc3 Wffx c3 24 B . 1 4 '1M h 5 e 4 1 5 �e2 �g7 1 6
�bl cj{g7+) 2 2 ... �xc3 23 �xc3 �xc3 c3 0-0 1 7 lll c2 f4
24 g3 (24 �xf5 l2Jh4) 24 . . . a5 ! 25 a4
Wff6 2 6 cj{hl cj{g7 27 �e2 �c8 28 �dl
Wffc3 29 �fl h5 ! + Ehlvest-Van Welly,
Moscow 2004.
1 9 . g9a
..

The mere fact that Black is able

to play this move without any sacri­
fices shows that he solved the open­
ing problems.
1 8 f3
Black has compensation for the White might want to capture the
pawn thanks to his more active saucy pawn by 18 Wffg5 f5 19 Wffxf4,
pieces . However, we should not un­ but then 19 . . . l2Jxd5 2 0 Wffd2 l2Jb6 2 1
derestimate White's possibilities. �adl d 5 levels the game accord­
As poor as his bishop may look, it ing to Gorelov, as 22 l2Jb4 Wffd6 ! 23
is a long range piece, and Black still l2Jxd5 �ad8 (23 . . . �fd8 24 c4 l2Jxd5
has to find a safe haven for his king. 25 cxd5 �ac8oo is also possible) 24
Therefore, trading queens is usual­ c4 l2Jxd5 2S cxdS �c8 gives him suf­
ly in his favour, because his king can ficient compensation.
be quickly centralised. For instance, In Smirnov-Nijboer, Istanbul
after 20 �abl Wffxc3 21 ixa6 �g7! 2 2 2003, instead of taking on f4, White

164
 7 �gs a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0

chose 19 �fdl, when 19 .. .f3 leads to to gain an advantage, but 18 . . .fS ! 19

a balanced position: (the alternative �fel (19 axbS f3 2 0 �c4 axbS 2 l hbS
19 . . . ttJg6 2 0 \Wxd8 �fxd8 2 1 a4t is in­ �b8 2 2 �c6 fxg2 23 @xg2 �f6 with
ferior, but 19 . . . @h 8 ! ? 20 �xf4 ttJg6 an attack) 19 . . .f3 2 0 gxf3 ttJxdS 2 1
deserves consideration) 20 gxf3 fxe4 ttJf4 2 2 \Wf3 fxe4 2 3 \Wg3 @h8 +
leaves the White king unprotected.

1 8 ...fS 1 9 fxe4
Black intends to play . . . �es fal­
lowed up by . . . �f6 so White has no
time for moves like 19 @hl. On the
other hand, 19 a4? ! is dubious due
to 19 . . . �b6 + .
1 9 . . .fxe4 20 .ig4 V!fc7

2 0 . . . @h8
20 . . . �f6 ! ? is another good op-
tion: 21 W hl �g6 22 �e3 �h6 23
�d4 (23 f4 �f8 ! 24 f3 �f6 2S fxe4
\Wh4 26 �fl fxe4 27 �xe4 �f8f! Ro­
gozenko) 23 . . .�f4f! 24 �gl �f8 2S
�xg6+ ttJxg6f!, Nijboer-Avrukh,
Plovdiv 200 3 .
2 l @hl �eS ! ?
Grischuk-Krasenkow, Bundesli­
ga 2003 saw 2 1 . . .�g8 22 �e3 ttJg6 23 21 gad 1
ttJd4 ! �es 24 ttJxfS (24 ttJc6 �h4 2S This is the latest attempt of
ttJxeS ttJxeS 26 f4 ttJg6 27 �gl h6 ! f!) Shabalov to shake the assessment
24 . . . exf3 with compensation. of the diagram position as pleasant
22 f4 for Black. White prepares ttJd4 . In­
Or 2 2 ttJd4 �g8 23 �h4 �f8 24 stead, 21 �ael �c4 22 �e6 + @h8 23
ttJe6 ttJg6 2S �hS �f6f!. a3 �b3 is double-edged.
2 2 ... �g8 (22 ... �f6 23 \WhSt) 23 21 ... <at?h8 22 lll d 4
�h4 �g7 24 �hS It is arguable that the fl-rook
Or 24 ttJd4? �xd4 2S �d4 ttJg6+; would stand better on el: 22 �fel ! ?
24 ttJe3 ! ? ttJg6 2S \Wxd8 �axd8 26 �cs+ 23 @hl f3 ! ? 2 4 gxf3 (24 �xe4?
ttJxfS �gf8 ! 27 ttJxg7 �xg7 28 a4 �f2 2 S �gl �xc2 26 �xe7? fxg2 + 27
�4 29 �fl �df8 30 axbS axbS 31 f3 �xg2 �fl + 2 8 �gl �f2 - +) 24 . . . \Wf2
exf3 32 �xbS ttJeSf!. 2S ttJd4 hd4 26 cxd4 exf3 2 7 M3
24. . . \Wf8 2S ttJe3 �f6 26 �h3 �h6 �fS 2 8 �e2 (28 �g4 �g8 2 9 �e2 \Wxe2
27 ttJxfS ttJxfS=. 30 \Wxg8 + @xg8 31 �xe2 ttJxdS 32
18 a4? i s another logical attempt �g4 ttJe3=) 28 . . . �xe2 29 �xe2 �xhS

16S
Part 8

30 �xhS �c8 = . M atsuura, Sao Paulo 2006 after

2 2. . .%Yc5 23 � h 1 'Wxd 5 24 15 . . . 0-0 16 cxbS e4 17 �e2 f4 18 f3 e3
llJts 'Wes 19 �acl l2Jf5 20 �c4 l2Jd4 21 Wffd 3 'Wf6
25 l2Jxe7 Wixe7 26 �fS �h6 ! is 2 2 b6 . We think that Black should­
also level: 27 he4 (27 �d4 'WeS) take up the gauntlet by:
27 .. .'Wxe4 28 Wixh6 f3= . 15 . . . bxc4 ! ? 16 'Wa4+
2 5 llJxd6 'Wx h 5 2 6 i.xh 5 e3 16 l2Jxc4 has no much sense
27 g3 i.e5 28 � e4 fxg3 29 as the queen on b3 will only help
hxg3 gf5 30 i.e2 gaf8!=. us activate the rook, for instance:
The last finesse. In the stem game 16 ... 0-0 17 f3 �b8 18 'Wa3 llJxdS 19
Krasenkow played 30 . . . �g8, which hfS llJf4+.
eventually also led to a draw. 16 . . . Wffd7 ! ?
1 6 . . . M8 contradicts the princi-
ples of quick and harmonious de­
C. 1 4 c4 i.g7 velopment which Black typically
embraces in the Sveshnikov. Still,
play is unclear after 17 l2Jxc4 e4 18
�c2 Wffc7 19 �b3 �d4 20 @hl �cs�.
17 �c2 c3 18 l2Jc4 �d8oo . Now
both 19 Wixd7+ @xd7 or 19 Wixa6 0-0
would be fi ne for Black.
d) 15 Wid2 e4 16 �e2 has prac­
tically disappeared due to the the­
matic positional sacrifice 16 . . . b4 ! ?

Perhaps this is the most consis­

tent attempt to gain an advantage.
White had castled already, and now
he opens up the queenside where he
has a pawn majority. On the other
wing, he intends to restrain Black's
counterattack with f3 .
1 5 gb1
a) 1 5 cxbS? ! e 4 16 �e2 hb2 17 Black keeps the enemy bish­
l2J c4 hal 18 'Wxal 0-0 19 b6 llJxdS op passive and gains time to cas­
20 �dl llJf4 2 1 �fl dS+; tle and start his kingside offensive.
b) 15 l2Jc2? ! e4 ! (15 . . . 0-0 16 cxbS That will enable him to control the
e4 17 �e2 axbS 18 hbS hb2 19 �bl game. As to White's extra pawn, Tal
�eS�) 16 �e2 bxc4 17 hc4 0-0+; had put it nicely long ago : Black has
c) 15 Wff b 3 hides more venom. It an extra open file in exchange !
brought White success in Vescovi- 17 Wfxb4 �b8

166
 7 �gs a6 8 liJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 liJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0

17 ... 0-0 ! ? needs more tests : 18 W!d2 �bS ! ? 20 liJ e3 W!b6 ! , when even
�d 2 (18 �abl f4 19 cS ! ? is worth the best answer 2 1 hbS would not
considering) 18 . . . liJg6 19 �abl (19 have saved White from trouble, e.g.
cS dxcS 20 liJc4 f4 21 cj{hl �d4 2 2 2 1 . .. �d4 2 2 �fel liJxdS 2 3 cj{hl �xe3
d 6 �f6 i s good for Black) 1 9 . . .f4 2 0 24 �e2 dS 2S b3 aSoo or 2S . . . �cS ! ? 2 6
f3 (or 20 liJc2 f3 2 1 gxf3 1!Mh4--+) 2 0 . . . b 4 �d6 2 7 g 3 d4oo.
e 3 2 1 W!el W! gS--+ gave Black a tre­ 19 . . . �bs 20 liJe3 �xb2 21 �xb2
mendous position in Koch-Hor­ hb2 22 �d2 �g7 23 �bl W!c7 24
vath, Bischwiller 1999. ha6 �b8 2S �cl W!a7 26 �fl �b2 27
18 W!a4+ Ms 19 �abl hb2 . � e l �xa 2+ Ivanchuk-Lautier, Odes­
Black has good chances for a sa rapid, 2006 ;
kingside attack, see game 29 Kot­ b ) 1 8 W!d2 �b8 !
ronias-Shirov, Calvia, ol. 2 004. Threatening t o grab the dS­
pa wn. 18 . . . liJg6 is less concrete and
1 5 e4 1 6 i.e2 bxc4
••• leaves White a tiny edge follow­
This is much more topical then ing 19 f4 exf3 2 0 �xf3 f4 2 1 b4 liJeS
16 . . . 0-0 . White often fails to defend 22 �h3 liJxc4 2 3 hc4 �es 24 cj{hl
his king. Areshchenko-Wang Yue, Lausanne
1 7 ti:)xc4 0-0 200 6 .
1 9 b4 �bs 2 0 liJe 3 f4 2 1 �xbS fxe3
22 W!xe3 axbS 23 W!xe4 liJg6 ! Black
has the better game, since White's
pawns are weak, for instance, 24
�bcl �a8. Instead, Dworakowska­
Aksiuczyc, Brzeg Dolny 1996 saw
23 .. .fS? which only compromises
Black's position.

1 8 gb& 1 9 ® h1 E!b5 20 �c2

•••

Or 2 0 liJe3 �b4.
1 8 f3 20 ti:)xd S 21 fxe4 ti:) b4 22
•••

White must prevent 18 .. .f4. He �a4 fxe4=.

can also do that by: This position was reached in
a) 18 f4. This move does put a game 3 0 Efimenko-Moiseenko,
radical stop to Black's kingside ac­ Zlatibor 200 6 . It is rather equal.
tivities, but now we get a free hand
in the centre. The dS-pawn is a juicy
target. D. 1 4 E!e1
18 . . . �b8 19 cj{hl With this move White starts a
One can appreciate such prophy­ typical middlegame redeploying of
laxis after seeing the game Stefans­ his forces. It enables the �d3 to re­
son-Krasenkow, Gausdal 1991: 19 treat to fl which significantly hin-

167
Part 8

ders Black's counterplay. The fine

point is that . . .f4-f3 will be a strike
at thin air without the bishop being
o n e 2 . Although we can find a game
dated of 1994, this plan attracted at­
tention after the convincing victory
of Yurtaev:
14 E!el ig7 15 E!bl 0-0 16 c4 bxc4
17 llJxc4 aS 18 'WhS e4 19 i.fl E!c8 20
llJ e3 f4 21 llJfS e3 22 id3 llJg6 23
fxe3 E!e8 24 E!fl fxe3 25 llJxg7 e2 26
1 8 cxb5
he2 cj{xg7 2 7 E!xf7+ cj{xf7 2 8 '\Wxh7+
In Lutz-Moiseenko, Plovdiv
cj{f6 29 E!fl + cj{es 30 V!ixg6 V!ib6 + 3 1
2 0 0 3 , White preferred 18 b4, but
cj{ h l V!ie 3 3 2 i.bS 1-0 , Yurtaev-Gre­
it does not affect Black's plans:
bionkin, Samara 2 0 0 2 .
18 . . . i.eS . (18 . . . \WgS 19 \&cl ! ?) Here
Lately 14 E!el tends t o displace 14
Lutz went wrong with 19 V!ihS? !
c3 as most popular line.
V!if6 2 0 E!e3 h6 2 1 llJc2 ? ! llJf4 2 2
'Wdl cj{h7+. Rogozenko suggests 19
14 ••• ig7
g3 V!igS 20 cj{h l with double-edged
play.
18 'WhS? ! only loses time :
18 . . . V!if6 19 cxbS axbS 20 hbS llJf4
2 1 V!idl V!ig6 t .

18 c x b 5 axb5 1 9 i.xb 5
The most testing continuation.
Now 19 . . . hb2 20 llJc4 (20 E!xb2
E!xa3 =) 20 . . . i.eS 21 a4 cj{h8 22 g3
E!g8 23 i.c6 E!a7 24 E!b3 , Czarnota­
Felgaer, 2 0 07, is equal, but Black
Dl. 15 E!bl should have went on with 24 . . . 'Wf6 !
0 2 . 15 c3 25 cj{hl i.d4 26 V!id2 (26 llJxd6 hf2
2 7 E!fl V!ixd6 2 8 �f2 f6 2 9 V!id4
01 . 1 5 gb1 E!c7 30 E!c2 llJeS 31 E!bc3 E!b 8 ! f!)
White intends t o advance his 26 . . . icS 27 aS llJeS = . Another de­
queenside pawns and create a pas­ cent option is 19 . . . i.eS 20 i.c6 E!a7
ser. 21 ctJc4 E!xa2 22 V!ihS V!if6 2 3 i.d7 f4
1 5 . . 0-0 1 6 c4 e4 1 7 �f1 �g6
.
24 E!xe4 hb2 = , Oleksienko-Kulj as­
Like i n most Sveshnikov lines evic, Pardubice 20 07. However, we
with opposite coloured bishops, the recommend :
initiative, especially on the kingside,
is more important than the pawns. 1 9 . . .'%Yg5

16 8
 7 igS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS fS 11 id3 ie6 12 0-0

1 8 g ad 1
The dS-pawn needs protection.
18 ttJc2 ttJxdS 19 �xfS �es gives
Black an initiative: 2 0 �g4 (No one
wished to copy White's play from
the game Inarkiev-Babula, Pardu­
bice 20 03 which saw 20 �h3 ttJf4 2 1
�g4 ttJ e 6 2 2 f4 exf3 2 3 �xf3 ltJgS 24
�b7 ttJ e4 2S ttJ b4 �e7 2 6 �c6 dSf!)
20 . . . hS 21 �dl �gs 22 a4 �ae8 (Or
Black's attack is very danger­ 22 . . . b4 23 cxb4 e3 24 fxe3 ttJxe3 2S
ous and even the exchange sacrifice ttJxe3 �xe3 26 �xd6 �ae8.) 2 3 axbS
slows it down only tern porary: axbS 24 ttJe3 ttJf4f! planning b4 and
2 0 E:e3 ieS 21 ic6 �a7 22 ttJc4 dS with a satisfactory game.
ttJh4 23 �g3 hg3 24 hxg3 ltJg6 2S
a4 f4 26 ttJxd6 �e7t, Murariu-Gen­ 1 8 . . . gc8
gler, Crete GRE 29.10. 20 07. 18 ... ttJg6 is a popular, but not
White can also trade queens, very convincing gambit: 19 �xfS
with some drawing chances: �es 2 0 �g4 fS 2 1 �g3 ! ? f4 2 2 �g4
2 0 �cl �xcl 21 �excl ixb2 2 2 �f6 23 ttJc2 �ae8 24 ttJd4 (24 f3 !?)
�xb2 �a3 2 3 �cc2 ttJeS+, Kalash­ 24 . . . :gxdS 2S a4t, Zude-Srienz, Dres­
nikov-Oleksienko, Moscow 20 07. den 07. 04 . 2007
19 g93
0 2 . 1 5 c3 0-0 1 6 \Wh 5 Apart from this move, White
White can open up the a-file by tried 19 ttJc2, but the freestyle (what
16 ttJc2 �e8 (16 . . . �d7! ?) 17 a4, but a term for practically a computer
that does not ensure him an edge: chess ! ) game Valori, New_Rybka
17 . . . �b6 18 axbS axbS 19 ttJb4 �xal 1. 1 32 - Heff alump, playchess.com
20 �xal e4 21 ifl �cs 22 ttJa6 �b6 , INT 20 06 , showed an easy equalis­
Negi-Alekseev, Kirishi 200 S er: 19 . . . �cS 20 ttJe3 (20 �d2 �c8 ! 2 1
1 6 . . . e4 1 7 �f1 g e 8 �edl ltJg6f!) 2 0 . . .f4 2 1 ltJfS ( 2 1 ltJg4
fS 22 ttJh6+ �xh6 2 3 �xh6 ltJg6+)
2 1 . . . ltJxfS 22 �xfS �f6 ! = .

1 9 . . . g c s 20 c 4 bxc4 2 1 g h 3 h 6
2 2 lll xc4 lll xd 5 ! 2 3 \Wxf5 e 3 !
This break leads to mass elimi­
nation and equality.
24 g xd5
The alternatives leave Black
more winning options:
a) 24 fxe3 ttJxe3 2S �xcS ttJxdl

169
Part 8

2 6 ltJxd6 (26 �ds �elt) 26 . . . �eS ! �xb2 hb2 2 S ha6 �b8=) 24 h a6

27 �c80 (27 �c6 �dS ! 28 ltJe4 �cS ! f4 2S ltJc4 �g6 would have offered
29 �a4 �cl-+) 27 . . . �xc8 28 ltJxc8 Black rich play.
�e8+ 29 �d3 ! ltJxb2 30 ltJd60 ltJxd3
(30 . . . �d8 31 �ds !f8 32 ltJe4=) 31
ltJxe8 !d4+ 32 �hl ltJf2 + 33 �gl
ltJe4+ 34 �hl = ;
b ) 2 4 � f3 e2 ! ( 24 . . . exf2 + 2 S
�xf2�) 2 S he2 �xe2 26 �xe2 ltJf4
27 �e4 ltJxh3+ 28 gxh3 �gs+ fol­
lowed by . . . dS+ ;
c) 24 !d3 ltJf6 2S �f4 exf2 + 2 6
�xf2 ltJe4 ! ? ( 2 6 . . . �c7oo) 27 he4
�xe4 28 b3 (28 ltJxd6 !d4 ! - + ; 2 8
�xcS �e l+ 29 M2 �xdl+ ) 2 8 . . . �e7
29 �hd3 �e2 30 �f3 �gs 31 g3 ds 32 1 5 ... e4 1 6 .ic2
�xdS �xdS 33 �xdS �xa2 = . 16 !e2 transposes to line B .
1 6. . . 0-0 1 7 g ae1
24 . . . e 2 ! 2 5 �xe2 In this line White is planning to
2S �xcS? dxcS ! (2S . . . el� 26 �dS crush Black's centre with f3 or even
�e6oo) 26 he2 �xe2 27 �bl (27 g4 g4. Then the c2-bishop would be­
�el+ 28 �g2 �dl 29 �d3 �gl+ 30 come extremely awkward, hitting
�h3 �fl + 3 1 �h4 !f6 ++) 27 . . . �d4 h7. Therefore, 17 �adl? ! is incon­
28 ltJe3 �d2 29 ltJfl �el 30 �d3 sistent: 17 . . . �c8 and then :
�xd3 31 �xd3 hb2+ . a) 18 f3? b4 19 llJbl bxc3 2 0 ltJxc3
2 5 .. . �xe2 2 6 <i>f1 Y«e8 ! 27 g93 �b6 + 21 �f2 �xb 2 - + ;
gxe3 28 li:) xe 3 'l«b5+ 29 <i>e1 =. b) 18 !bl �cs 1 9 llJc2 ttJxdS 2 0 f4
( 20 �xfS llJxc3 2 1 �xcS ttJe2+ 2 2 �hl
dxcS 23 �xd8 �xd8 - +) 20 . . . �b6 2 1
E. 1 4 c 3 .ig7 1 5 V9h5 �hl a S 2 2 a 3 b 4 2 3 axb4 axb4 24
lS �el 0-0 16 �hS e4 17 !fl cxb4 ltJxb4 2S ltJxb4 �xb4 26 �xd6
transposes to line 0 2 . �bs 27 �fdl �xb2 28 h3 �b3+· '

l S llJc2 i s a n introduction t o ano­ c) 18 !b3 f4 19 ltJc2 fS 20 ltJd4

ther plan, connected with a4. Black hd4 2 1 �xd4 (21 cxd4 ltJg6+)
can meet it with either . . . bxa4 or 2 1 . . . llJg6 22 �el �c7! 23 f3 e3 24
. . . �b6, for instance: lS . . . 0-0 16 !c2 �f6 2S �d3 �g7, Pucher-Lau­
a4 e4 17 !e2 bxa4 (or 17 ... �b6 18 tier, Montpellier, 2 007. White is
axbS axbS=) 18 �xa4 �b6 19 �b4 in a difficult position without plan,
�cs 2 0 ltJe3 �ab8 21 �b3 �xb4 2 2 while Black is building up pressure
cxb4 Sadvakasov-Khalifman, So­ along the g-file .
chi 200S, when 22 . . . �d4 ! ? 23 �dl
(23 ha6 f4) 23 . . . �f6 (23 . . . �xb2 24 1 7 ... Y«c8

170
 7 !gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 !xf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS fS 11 !d3 !e6 12 0 -0

The queen defends the fS­ 24 'Mfxh 7 +

pawn, thus enabling the e7-knight 24 exfS l!J e S 2 S �gS+ ©£8 2 6
to move. It is also eyeing the bish­ :9:xh7 ©e8 ! - +
op on c2 . White is unable to achieve 24 . . . <i>t8 2 s � h S !
any advantage, so he keeps on try­ O r 2 S exfS l!JeS 2 6 :9:xa3 ©e8+.
ing new ideas: 25 . . .f4 ! ?
This move was suggested by Ro­
El. 18 f3 gozenko in CBM 104. Black is not
E 2 . 18 g4 satisfied with a draw in the varia­
E3. 18 !bl tion 2S . . . l!JeS 26 E!:hxfS :9:a7 27 �h8 +
E4. 18 !b3 ©e7 2 8 E!:xeS+ dxeS 2 9 �xeS+ ©f8=
ES. 18 ©hl 3 0 �h 8 + ©e7 3 1 �es+ ©f8 .
After the text, 2 6 :§:fs llJ es
(26 . . . :9:a7 ! ? 27 �xg6 !cl 28 ©hl
E 1 . 1 8 f3 �c4 Rogozenko) 27 :9:5xf4 :9:a7 28
A risky continuation, which may �h8 + ©e7 2 9 �h4+ ©d7 30 �h3 +
turn insufficient even for a draw. ©c7 31 �xa3 ©b8 favours Black.
1 8 . . . b4 1 9 cxb4 (Rogozenko)
19 l!Jbl bxc3 20 l!Jxc3 hc3 2 1
bxc3 �xc3 2 2 !bl l!Jg6 (23 fxe4
f4f!) 23 �xfS exf3 24 �xf3 �xf3 E 2 . 1 8 g4
2S :9:xf3 :9:ae8 was equal in Asrian­ A very aggressive approach,
Wang Yue, Khanty Mansiysk 2 00S. but Black easily achieves good play
Perhaps Black could shape better thanks to his more active piece s:
this idea by starting with 20 . . . l!Jg6 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 cxb4 tiJxd5
21 fxe4 and only then 21 . . .hc3 2 2 19 . . . hb2 h a s been known to be
bxc3 �xc3 23 :9:e2 f4 with dark­ equal ever since the game Sax-Je­
squared strategy. len, Medulin 1997: 20 �gS + l!Jg6
1 9 . . . i xb2 20 fxe4 .ixa3 2 1 21 gxfS ha3 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 he4
� e 3 'Mfxc2 2 2 � g3+ tiJ g 6 23 �h 3 :9:f7 24 !d3 �c3 2S :9:e3 �xb4 26 :9:g3
�fd 80 !b2 27 :9:g4 lf2- l/2.

171
Part 8

Now Black is threatening with

18 . . . tt:JxdS.
1 9 f3 Wes+ 20 <i> h 1 e 3

20 Wxf5
An attempt to improve on the
game Nunn-Reinderman, Leeu­
warden 199S, which saw 20 gxfS No w 2 1 hfS? tl:JxfS 2 2 �xfS e2
tl:Jf6 2 1 �h3 dS 2 2 @hl �h8 23 �gl would be sad for White, so he might
�g8 24 �b3 �b7 (24 . . . �b8 ! ) 2S tl:Jc2 want to blockade the passer with 2 1
�ad8 26 tt:Jd4 tt:Jd7 with good com­ �e2 . However, Black has good play
pensation. then after either 2 1 . . . h6 ! ?oo 22 tl:Jc2
20 ... \WxfS 2 1 g xf5 � xb4 22 tt:JxdS 23 �xfS �es or 21. .. tt:JxdS 22
gxe4 g ab8 23 .i b 3 �xfS h6. That's why we'll focus o n:
23 @hl? ! hb2 ! 2 4 �gl+ @h8 2 S 2 1 f 4 � x d 5 22 Wxf5 �f6 23
f6 hf6+ would leave White won­ .id3
dering why did he so generously Black has a comfortable game.
gave out his pawns. After the text He can choose between:
the position looks drawish. a) 23 . . . �xfS ! ? 24 hfS b4 !oo 2S
23 . . . dS 24 ge2 gfe8 25 gfe 1 cxb4 �ab 8 ;
gxe2 26 gxe2 � d 3 27 .ixd 5 � f4 b) 23 . . . e2 2 4 �xe2 �xfS ! ? 2 S
28 gd2 gxb2 29 gxb2 .ixb2 30 �xe 8+ �xe8 26 MS �e2 2 7 tl:J c 2
� c4 � x d 5 31 � xb 2 @ g7=. �d2oo, (A. Sokolov) 28 �gl dS ;
c) 23 . . . b4 ! ? 24 cxb4 �xfS 2S
hfS �ab8 26 �f3 dS 27 tl:Jc2 (27
E3. 1 8 .ib1 �fxe3 �xe3 2 8 �xe3 �xb4+) 27 . . . d4
White enables the manoeuvre 28 tt:Jxd4 �xb4 29 tl:Jc2 �xb2=.
tt:J a3-c2-e3 which would enhance
the efficiency of pawn breaks like
f3 or g4. Black must hurry with his E4. 1 8 .ib3
counterplay before it became too White's idea is similar to the pre­
late. As the dS-pawn is still immune vious line, but White protects the
in view of 18 . . tt:JxdS? 19 he4, he dS-pawn. Its downside is that Black
chooses : can hinder 19 tl:Jc2 by:
1 8 . . . ge8 1 8 . . . as

172
 7 �gs a6 8 '2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 'tJ dS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0

23 . . . �f6 24 g4 d S
Here Nunn erred with 2 S a3? !
and would have been worse fallow­
ing 2S . . . �xgS ! 26 fxgS �xd4+ 27
cxd4 '2Jc6+.

1 9 \Wg5 \Wb7 20 f3
Or 2 0 ttJxbS �xbS 2 1 �xe7 a4
22 �c2 (22 �dl �xdS+; 22 c4 �e8
23 �xe8 �fxe8 24 �c2 hb2+)
22 . . . �xb2+.
20 f 3 h6! 2 1 \Wg 3 !
The fine point is that after White has also tried:
19 ttJxbS a4 (20 '2Jxd6? loses to a) 2 1 �d2 a4 2 2 �c2 b4 23 cxb4
20 . . . �d7) 20 �dl �cs 21 '2Jd4 (Or �xdS 24 �xdS ttJxdS 2S fxe4 '2Jxb4
2 1 �e2 ttJxdS 22 �gs h6 ! 23 �g3 f4 26 �bl �xb2 27 '2Jc4 �c3=, M . Hoff­
24 �h4 a3 ! 2S b4 �c8 26 �cl �b8 mann-Dub, Budapest 20 0 3 ;
27 '2Jxd6 �e6 28 'tJbS �xbS 29 �xbS b) 2 1 �hS a4 2 2 �c2 b4 23 '2Jc4
'2Jxc3 30 �xc3 �xc3 31 �xf4 �xa 2=) bxc3 24 fxe4 fxe4 2S �xe4 (2S bxc3
2 1 . .. �xdS Black regains the pawn fS 26 '2Je3 �b2 27 �h4 �f7+) 2S . . .
with strong centralisation. Since cxb2 2 6 �g4 �xdS 2 7 �xh6 '2Jg6+;
the game Nunn-McShane, Hastings c) 21 �f4 a4 22 �c2 b4 23 cxb4
1997, White has not find improve­ (23 '2Jc4 �xdS 24 '2Je3 �xa2 2S fxe4
ments: '2Jg6 26 �xd6 f4-+) 23 . . . �xb4 24
2 2 �gS fxe4 '2Jg6 ! 2S � f3 (2S �xfS �xb2 26
The alternatives are in Black's eS ! �xeS 27 'tJ b 1 �ac8 ! 2 8 �e4 �ce8 !
favour: 22 �e3 �fb8 ! 23 �h3 (23 29 cj{hl �g7t) 2S . . .f4 26 �e2 �xb2
�g3 �xb2 24 �gs �es 2S f4 exf3 26 27 '2Jc4 �xa2 28 '2Jxd6 a3oo .
M3 �c8+; 23 b3 f4 ! 24 �xdS ttJxdS
2S �xe4 '2Jxc3 26 �f4 �b4 !+) 23 . . . 21 . . . a4 22 ic2 b4
h 6 ( 2 3 . . . �xb2 ! ? 24 �xh7+ cj{f8f!) 24
b3 f4 2 S �xdS ttJxdS 26 'tJfS axb3 27
axb3 (27 �xb3 '2Jxc3 2 8 '2Jxd6 �b6+)
27 . . .�xc3 28 �c2 (28 '2Jxd6 e3f!; 2 8
'2Jxh6+ Ms 29 'tJfS �eS+) 2 8 . . . �e8
29 '2Jxd6 e3 ! 30 fxe3 �e6+.
22 . . . �es
22 . . . �fe8 !? deserves attention:
23 f3 �xa2 24 fxe4 �xb2 2S 'tJxfS
ctJxfS 2 6 �xfS a3 ! ? with initiative.
2 3 f4
Or 2 3 f3 f4 24 �h4 '2Jg6 ! 2S �h3
e3 26 �c2 �cS !+. Now Black has sufficient play.

173
Part s

He only should keep the kingside years ago . White won a great
close, even at the cost of a few number of games by pushing f3 or
pawns : 2 3 cxb4 �xb4 (23 . . . l!JxdS g4 and destroying the helpless black
24 fxe4 f4oo) 24 fxe4 f4 2S gn4 l!Jg6 king. You can see a good example
26 �ffl hb 2= 27 l!Jbl �ac8 28 �e2 of White's play in game 31 Kolev­
i.eS. Usually White prefers to bring Echavarria, Istanbul ol. 20 0 0 .
his knight into play: Then Leko introduced the strong
23 � c4 Wxd 5 24 fxe4 rook move and ever since White has
24 l!Jxd6 bxc3 ! favours Black: 2S often been even struggling to main­
fxe4 (2S bxc3 �fd8+ 26 �dl �cs+ 27 tain the balance. It turned out that
@ h l �xc3) 2 S . . . �d4+ 26 @ h l f4 27 White is unable to bring his knight
�xf4 l!Jg6 2 8 bxc3 �cs+. into play:
24 f xe4 Wxc4 25 exf5 19 i.bl b4 20 cxb4 �b4 21 f3
This position arose in the game �xb2 22 fxe4 �c3 = ;
Shirov- Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 1 9 i.b3 aS 2 0 f3 b 4 (Rogozenko
20 0 3 . Shirov suggests: suggests 20 . . . a4 !? 2 1 i.c2 b4 22 fxe4
25 . . . � xfS ! 26 �xf5 �ae8! (26 . . . bxa3 23 exfS l!Jg6 !) 21 cxb4 �b4 2 2
bxc3? 2 7 �e4; 2 6 . . . �xa2? ! 27 �d3 fxe4 fxe4= .
�fe8 28 �efl �e6 29 �Sf2) 27 �ef1 Thus White began trying t o un­
bxc3 28 bxc3 Wxc3 (28 . . . dS ! ? oo) 29 dermine the centre:
Wxc3 .ixc3 30 .ixa4 �e5=. 19 g4 b4 2 0 cxb4 l!JxdS 21 gxf5,
but the simple 2 1 . . . @h8 ! neutralises
allWhite's attacking chances:
ES. 1 8 <i> h 1 22 i.b3 l!Jf6 23 �gs ds 24 l!Jc2
The reason behind this move is, �bToo ;
besides prophylaxis, to prepare the 22 he4 l!Jf6 23 � f3 �xb4= ;
opening of the g-file with g4, while 2 2 �gl hb2 23 �h6 �c3 ! 24
keeping the third rank free for a �e4 �f6 2S �h3 �g8t Topalov-Le­
rook lift via e3. ko, Dortmund 20 0 2 .
1 8 . . . �b8! A little more complicate is:

1 9 f3 b4 20 fxe4
The inclusion of moves @hl -
�b8 makes the capture 20 cxb4? bad
due to the long variation 20 . . . hb2
21 fxe4 ha3 22 �e3 (22 exfS? �xc2)
22 . . . �xc2 23 �g3+ (23 �h3? �fc8 24
�xh7+ @f8) 23 ... l!Jg6 24 �h3 �fd8
2S �xh7+ @f8 26 �hS l!JeS 27 �xfS
�b7 28 �xeS dxeS 2 9 �h8 + We7 30
�xeS+ @d7 3 1 �xf7+ Wc8 32 �e6 +
This line was very topical ten @b8 when White loses since he has

174
 7 �gs a6 8 l2Ja3 bS 9 �f6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0

no check on b6 . (Rogozenko) ed, that we cannot exclude possible

The game Shirov-Leko, Dort­ mistakes. 2 1 . . . l2Jg6 is more clear and
mund 20 0 2 saw 20 ltJbl? ! bxc3 2 1 well tested.
bxc3 hc3 2 2 l2Jxc3 ( 2 2 E: e 2 �es
23 fxe4 f4oo) 22 . . . \Wxc3 23 fxe4 f4 ! , 22 f6
when even the best 2 4 �bl (24 �b3? 22 E:f3 E:xb2 23 �e4 E:e8 24 fxg6
l2Jg6 2S E:cl \Wf6 26 \WfS \We7t turned hxg6 2S �h4 �c4- + ; 22 fxg6 ? !
well for Black in the game) 24 . . . l2Jg6 fxg6-+ o r 2 2 b3? ! �xc3 2 3 fxg6 fxg6
2S eS ! is just about equal. 24 \We2 �eS-+ are clearly worse. 2 2
bxa3 ! ? \Wxc3 2 3 fxg6 hxg6 24 \Wdl
20 . . . bxa3 21 exf5 � g 6 ! E:b2 is playable, with a possible
draw ahead.
22 . . J� xb2
2 2 ... �f6 is equal, 2 3 E:xf6 E:xb2
24 hg6 fxg6 2S E:xg6 + = , Musil­
Leiner, Czechia, 2004.
2 3 fxg7
23 E:e3 ? ! looks appealing, but
23 . . . E:xc2 24 E:h3 �xh3 2S �xh3
E:xa2 ! 26 fxg7 E:b8+ is able to cool
down White's enthusiasm.
23 . . . <i> xg7 24 .id3
Or 24 �bl \Wxc3 2S \WfS (2S E:cl
2 1 . . .�f6 ! ? might b e good enough, �eS-+) 2 S . . . E:xg2 !+.
but it gives White much more chan­ 24 ... '%Yxc3 2 5 g93 <i> g 8!
ces to put Black under pressure af­ If Black i s willing t o take risks, he
ter 2 2 E:f3 ! E:e8 (22 . . . axb2 23 E:g3 + might prefer 2S . . . �d2 26 �gS ! f6 27
�g7 24 E:xg7+ ! �xg7 2S f6 + ! �xf6 �g3 with unclear position. After the
26 �h4 + + -) 23 E:g3 + l2Jg6 24 E:fl text, the source game Dominguez­
(24 E:gl E:b7 2S fxg6 fxg6) 24 . . . \Wc4 Schandorff, Esbjerg 2 0 03 quickly
2S �d3 ! ? (2S \Wdl ! ? is also rather steered to a draw:
unclear) We could not find an ad­ 26 hg6 hxg6 27 E:xc3 gxhS 2 8
vantage for White here, but the var­ E:xa3 E:e 8 29 E:xa6 E:ee2 30 E:xd6
iations are so long and complicat- E:xg2 31 E:gl E:xgl+ 3 2 �xgl E:xa2 = .

17S
Part 8 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 S lll c 3 es 6 �db S d6
7 ig S a6 8 lll a3 bS 9 1xf6 gxf6
1 0 lll d S fS 1 1 id3 i e6 1 2 0-0

COMPLETE GAMES

29 Kotron ias - S h irov of the bishop o n h5 by 23 . . . h5 ! ? 24

Calvia ol. 2 S . 1 O .2004 ©hl ©g7 25 Wffxa6 g as 2 6 Wff b5 .ia3 ,
1 e4 cs 2 ll:) f3 ll:) c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 obtaining a slightly better version of
li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c3 es 6 li:) db S d6 7 the stem game .
i gS a6 8 li:) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O 2 1 . . .f4 22 'l;Yc2
li:) d S fS 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 0-0 ixdS Or 22 ll:Jf5 ll:Je7!
13 exdS li:) e 7 1 4 c4 e4 1 S ie 2 ig 7 22 . . . 'l;Yf6 23 li:) d 1 f3
1 6 'l;Yd2 b4 1 7 'l;Yxb4 gba 1 8 'l;Ya4+
@ta 1 9 g ab1 ix b2

White is at a juncture. In all the

lines he would be a pawn up in an
20 li:) c2 endgame, but the activity of Black's
Or 2 0 Wffc2 .ie5 2 1 Wff d2 gg8 = . rook should compensate it. Most
2 0 . . . li:) g & 2 1 li:) e 3 obvious is 24 bf3 exf3 25 g3 (or 25
In Leko-Kramnik, Linares 2003 gxb2 gxb2 26 Wffx b2 ©g7 27 '!9xf6 +
White chose the more testing 21 ll:J b4 ©xf6 28 ll:Je 3 gb8oo) 25 . . . ©g7 2 6
Wfff6 22 ll:Jc6 ge8 ! 23 f4 (23 Wffx a6? gxb2 gxb2 2 7 Wffx b2 Wffx b2 2 8 ll:Jxb2
ll:Jf4 24 .idl ll:Jxg2 ! �) 23 . . . .id4+ 24 ll:Je5 29 gel gbs with sufficient com­
© hl ©g7 25 .ih5 .ic5f2 with un­ pensation. In this variation the f3-
clear position. We think that Black pawn is quite awkward, so Kotroni­
should have a voided the appearance as chose:

176
 7 igS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS f5 11 id3 ie6 12 0-0

24 gxb2 g xb 2 2S Y«xb2 Y«xb 2 30 gd s t4 31 id3 ge3 32 Y«hs �es

26 � xb 2 fxe 2 2 7 ge1 <j;>g7 2 8 gxe2 33 �c4 a4
gb8 Play is equal. Simplest for Black
Again the control over the b-file is to seek exchanges or disturb
balances the game. White's pieces.
29 f3 ti)f4 30 gxe4 gxb2 31 gxf4 34 gbs axb3 3S axb3 'l«d7 36
gxa2 32 gg4+ %-% Y«h6 � g7 37 Y«h4 �es 38 Y«h6 � g7
39 'Mfh4 �es %- %

30 Efim e n ko - M o iseenko
Zl at ibo r 200 6 3 1 Kolev - Echavarria
1 e 4 cs 2 ti)f3 ti) c 6 3 d 4 c x d 4 4 Ista n b u l ol. 2000
ti)xd4 ti)f6 s ti)c3 e s 6 ti) d bS d6 7 1 e4 cs 2 ti)f3 ti) c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
igS a6 8 ti) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O ti) xd4 ti)f6 S ti) c3 e6 6 ti) d b S d6 7
ti) d S fS 1 1 �d 3 ie6 1 2 0-0 �xd S �f4 es 8 igS a6 9 ti) a 3 bS 1 o �xf6
1 3 exd S ti) e 7 14 c4 e 4 1 S � e 2 �g7 g xf6 1 1 � d S fS 1 2 �d 3 �e6 1 3 0-0
1 6 g b 1 bxc4 1 7 ti)xc4 0-0 1 8 f3 �xd S 14 exdS ti) e 7 1 S c3 i g7 1 6
gb8 1 9 <j;> h 1 gbs Y«hS e4 1 7 �c2 Y«c8 1 8 g ae 1 0-0
1 9 <j;> h 1 ge8
Black discovered the right move
19 . . . �b8 ! three years later.
20 f3 b4 21 cxb4 �xb2

The principal aim of Black i n this

structure is to roll his central pawn
pair as further as possible. With
his 18th move White stopped f4, so
Black turned to the next step of his 22 fxe4 ! �xa3 23 �a4 ! (White's
to-do list. Now he wins the dS-pawn attack is decisive) 23 . . .f 4 24 gxf4
while White captures e4. In result of �b2 2s gh4 �g7 26 Y«xh7+ <j;>f8
the clash in the centre most pieces 27 gf1 ti) g 8 28 ixe8 Y«xe8 29 Y«g6
disappear f ram the board. �es 30 gh7 ga1 31 a4 gc1 3 2 g 3
20 Y«c2 ti) xd S 21 fxe4 ti) b4 22 Y« e 7 33 bS a x b S 34 axbS �f6 3 S
Y«a4 fxe4 2 3 ti)e3 ti)d S 24 ti)xdS Y«ts 'Mi e s 36 'Mixes ixe S 3 7 b 6 g b 7
gxdS 2 S Y«xe4 ges 26 Y«f3 as 27 3 8 gfxf7+ gxf7 39 gxf7+ <j;>xf7 4 0
ic4 Y«e7 28 b3 <j;>h8 29 g b d 1 ts b 7 ti)f6 4 1 b81l« ti) xe4 4 2 Y«c8 1 -0

177
Part 9 1 e4 c5 2 lll f3 lll c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 e s 6 lll db5
d6 7 lll d 5

QUICK R EPERTO I RE

This move looks shocking at first.

White plugs himself the hole on dS,
which is the only major drawback
of the Sveshnikov in general . At the
same time, 7 ltJdS is the first choice
of ALL the engines? ! Where is the
trick? !
First of all, White gains space in
the centre. Second, he accomplish­
es it with tempo, repelling the c6-
knight fram its good stand. Third, We'll examine them separately,
he makes room for the bS-knight since the difference in the position
on c3. In short, White gets a few of White's f-pawn implies different
immediate benefits, which pleas­ Black approaches .
es computers . However, in the long
run, Black gets an easy and pleas­
A . f3-setup.
ant game, based on the full control
There are several key positions
of the es-square . It allows him to
we should remember:
play all over the board, and every
too often to collect some queenside
1. 10 �d3 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12
white pawn.
�c3 f5 13 f3 �d7

7 . . . lll xd5 8 exd5 lll b 8 9 c4

Piece pressure on the queenside
is inefficient and might submit
White to a direct attack: 9 a4 ie7
10 ie2 0-0 11 0-0 tt:Jd7 12 ie3 a6 13
l2J a3 fS 14 f3 f4 15 if2 �f6f!.
9 ... ie7
Now White must define his set­
up. He chooses plans with f3 or f4 .
178
 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 S ttJc3 es 6 ttJ dbS d6 7 ttJdS

In this structure Black will be tive, but Black still has a chance to
happy to trade dark-squared bish­ balance the game :
ops. That would secure the gS-h6
squares for his heavy pieces and
also would reduce the threat of cS .
White can avoid the exchange
by 14 ie3 igS lS if2 , but from f2
White's bishop only hampers the de­
fence . The thematic break . . . e4 be­
comes especially efficient: lS . . . Wf6
16 We2 e4 !

18 ... a4! 19 li)xa4

Or 19 b4 ttJb3 2 0 �bl �c8� .
1 9 ... .ixa4 20 bxa4 b6 =.
This position arose in Kotroni­
as-Eljanov, Warsaw 200S. White's
queenside pawn structure is static
and he is unable to make any prog­
ress.

17 fxe4 f4 18 �hl ttJeS 19 id4

We7. Black has full compensation. a.f4-setup.
Hence White usually chooses : 1 0 ie2 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12 li)c3
14 cbhl, (preparing a retreat f5 13 f4 if6 14 cbhl li)d7
square for the bishop on gl) but
14 ... ig5 15 b4 a5 ! opens up the
a-file and gives Black counterplay
against the extended queenside
pawns. 16 a3 axb4 17 .ixg5 V«xg5
18 axb4 �al 19 �xal Wfe3 2 0
ie2 li)b8 ! = The knight is heading
for a6.

2. 10 .ie2 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12
li)c3 f5 13 f3 li)d7 14 cbhl (14 ie3 Black's plan is to take on f4 and
igS lS Wd2 he3 + 16 Wxe3 aS=) use the es-square as a strong out­
14 ... a5 ! ? 15 .ie3 ig5 16 igl post. (If White plays g3 and recap­
li)c5 17 b3 id7 18 a3 tures on f4 by pawn, Black's knight
This is a model setup for both goes to cS and eventually to e4, even
sides . White is looking forward to at the cost of a pawn. That will un­
b4 which would earn him the initia- derline the weaknesses in White's

179
Part 9

castling position.) The fine point Important!

is when to trade the dark-squared 1. Black's primary aim is to com­
bishops. It should be done only if plete development and try to ex­
White's queen is unable to occupy pand in the centre .
some of the central dark squares, 2 . Despite his pawn majority on
especially d4. For instance, 15 �c2 the kingside, Black rarely wins by
exf4 16 ixf4 .ieS ! shows an excellent direct attack. You should aim first to
timing for that exchange because activate all your pieces. The previous
the queen is on c2 . Play can go on diagram shows one good setup.
with 17 !!adl (17 g3 ltJf6 ! ) 17 . . . ixf4 3. Do not be too afraid of the
18 !!xf4 ltJeS 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 2 1 thrust c4-c5. It is dangerous only if
axb4 .id7! 2 2 �d2 �b6= , see game White dominates in the centre, as in
32 Spraggett-Yakovich, Santo the fallowing example:
Antonio 200 1. 33 Yud a s in- K h a rlov
15 .ie 3 exf4 16 .hf4 �e 5! 17 M oscow 1 99 1
gel �d7 18 b4 a5 19 a3 axb4 2 0
axb4 \Wb6 !

Black i s deprived o f counterplay

and can only watch the opponent
White has trouble defending his preparing c5-c6. See the "Complete
pawns. Games" chapter.

180
Part 9 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 �db5
d6 7 �d5

STEP BY ST EP

7 . . . �xd5 8 exd5 � b8 12 fxeS axbS 13 �xa8 dxeS ! with a

8 . . . ltJce7 is a decent option, but it very strong initiative, for example:
is not in our repertoire. 14 d6 hd6 15 �a7 b6 !? 16 �a8 ltJa6
9 c4 (16 . . . e4 !?);
Unusual alternatives are: 1 1 !d2 i s similar t o the main
a) 9 !e2 a6 10 ltJc3 !e7 11 0-0 fS line : 11. . . 0-0 12 !as b6 13 !b4 �d7 !
12 f4 !f6 13 !e3 0-0 14 ltJa4 exf4 ! 15 This standard motive neutralises
hf4 bS 16 ltJc3 ltJd7t Lilj a-Schan­ White's threats. Then 14 ltJc3 (14
dorff, Copenhagen 1996. hd6? axbS; 14 ltJxd6? aS) 14 . . . !b7
b) 9 �f3 a6 10 �a3 !e7 15 �b3 �c7 16 !e2 ltJd7 turned well
for Black in Gullaksen-Cherniaev,
Gibraltar 200 3 .
1 1 . . .f6 ! 12 !d2 0-0

This original manoeuvre of

the White queen aims to hamper
Black's normal development by hit­
ting d6. We'll soon see that it does 13 !b4 (0 r 1 3 !a5 b6 14 !b4 �d7
not achieve its goal. Besides, Black 15 0-0-0 �d8, Eisenbeiser-Nedev,
can also respond with 10 . . . b6, taking Mulhouse 2004.) 13 . . . �d7! 14 c4
the sting of 11 !d2 due to 11. . . !b7. b6 15 ltJxd6 ( 15 ltJc3 f5 16 !e2 !b7
ll !gS 17 �b3 �c7 18 0-0 ltJd7 19 f4 exf4
11 f4? ! ignores development and 2 0 M4 !gS is very comfortable for
should backfire badly after 11. . . 0-0 Black, Solleveld-Alekseev, Santo

181
Part 9

Domingo 20 03) lS . . . aS 16 cS hd6 Black can also shape the exchange

17 cxd6 ib7 18 ic3 �d8 19 0-0-0 sacrifice as follows: 19 . . . �h4 + ! ? 20
l!J a6+; g3 f4 2 1 �f2 �gs 2 2 �c2 �xb6 ! ) 19
c) 9 a4 g3 f4 20 �f2 �gSt. White's setup is a
In contrast with 9.c4, here failure . Let's return now to the more
White plans a piece attack on the sound 10 ie2 :
queenside . He wants to fix weak­ 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 l!Jd7
nesses and gain outposts for his
pieces with the help of the a-pawn.
However this pawn has no impact
on the centre and Black gets a free
hand there and on the kingside:
9 . . . �e7 10 ie2
10 ie3 l!Jd7 11 �d2 (11 l!Jxa7??
�xa7 12 ha7 �as +) 11. . . a6 12 l!J a3
fS 13 f3 0-0 14 l!Jc4 b6 lS aS bS 16
l!Jb6 l!Jxb6 17 axb6
Thus White opens the a-file and 12 @hl
generates some threats. 17 hb6 White has also tried:
�e8 18 c4 (18 �e2 �g6 19 0-0 igS 12 aS? ! a6 13 l!Jc3 fS 14 f3 �gS lS
2 0 �b4 �f4 2 1 c4 �h6 2 2 h3 �f6--+) @hl ixcl 16 �xcl l!Jf6 17 f4 �e8 18
18 . . . �d7 would be fine for Black: 19 �d2 id7 19 fxeS �xeS 20 if3 �c7
ie2 (19 b3 ih4+ 20 �f2 (20 g3 if6) 2 1 l!Je 2 �ae8 22 b3 �cS+ Grigorov­
2 0 . . . �e7 2 1 ixh4 �xh4+ 2 2 �f2 Vyzmana vin, Tbilisi 1986;
�e7t) 19 . . . bxc4 20 hc4 �bs+. 12 f4 a6 13 l!J a3 bS ! 14 @hl bxa4
17 . . . �b8 18 c4 (18 !d3 �b6 !oo) 1S l!Jc4 exf4 16 id2 Rowson-Adams,
London 1998 , when 16 . . . l!JcS seems
equal. Instead, the game went
16 . . . l!JeS 17 �as �e8 18 l!Jb6 f3 19
hf3 �b8 with unclear position.
12 ie3 a6 13 l!Ja3 fS 14 f3 (14 f4
exf4 lS ixf4 l!JeS is good for Black.
Compare it to the 12 .@hl line) 14 .. .f4
lS �f2 �f6f! . Black has good chanc­
es to build up a dangerous attack.
12 .. .fS 13 f4 a6 14 l!Ja3 exf4 ! lS
It looks like White has seized the ixf4 l!JeS 16 l!J c4 l!Jxc4 17 hc4 if6
initiative, but it is Black's turn and 18 c3 gS ! 19 ie3 f4 2 0 id4 �fS .
he hits first : Black's attack is running faster, for
18 . . . �h4 + ! ? (18 . . . bxc4 19 hc4 example: 2 1 hf6 ? ! �xf6 22 �b3
�b6 was also good for Black in �h6 ! ? 23 �xb7 g4-+.
Borisek-Wang Yue, Calvia ol 2004 . 9 .ie7
...

182
 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 ltJf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ltJdbS d6 7 ltJdS

It is possible to start with 9 . . . with compensation d ue to the vul­

a 6 . Then 10 l2Jc3 �e7 transposes nerable position of White's king.
to the main line. Only 10 .�a4 is of b) n .. . gb8 12 l2Jxd6+ hd6 13
independent significance, but in cxd6 0-0 14 �d2 (14 .ie3 ? ! l2Jf6 lS
our opinion it is not dangerous for �a7 �a8 16 �cS b6 17 �a3 �b7t, Wes­
Black: terinen-Kramnik, Gausdal 1992 ; or
10 . . . l2Jd7 11 cs 14 �d3 ltJf6 lS �gs �xd6 16 hf6
�xf6 =) 14 . . . b6= .

Now Black can pick up the

gauntlet by sacrificing the exchange
with 11. . . dxcS ! ? or prefer the solid
We'll examine here two princi­
11. . . �b8 :
pal plans:
a ) 11. . .dxcS ! ? 12 d6 axbS 13 �xa8
c4 In this highly unbalanced posi­ A. 10 .id3 (intending f3) p. 184
tion Black has interesting active B. 10 �e2 (intending f4) p. 18S
play: 14 �e3
14 �d2? ! hd6 lS �as �xaS 16 a) 10 �e3 0-0 11 �d2 (thus White
has ®e7 lead to a better endgame aims to prevent the exchange of the
for Black in Pavlovski-Spasov, Sofia dark-squared bishops with �e7-
1996 . Black has compensation also gS) spends too much time and en­
after 14 �a3 �b6 lS �e3 hd6 . ables Black to launch a kingside of­
14 . . . hd6 lS 0-0-0 l2Jb8 16 a4 fensive: 11. . . a6 12 l2Jc3 fS 13 f3 l2J d7
The fine point of Black's idea 14 �e2 �f6 ! ? lS �cl l2Jf8 16 b4 as 17
is that he has good prospects even a3 axb4 18 axb4 �g6 19 g3 (or 19
without queens, e.g. 16 �a7 l2Jc6 0-0 f4 2 0 .if2 �h3 winning mate­
17 �b6 �xb6 18 hb6 ®eroo . The rial) 19 .. .f4, Perez Candelario-Moi­
other option, 16 �a7, is bad due seenko, Sanxenxo 20 04, with a nas­
to 16 . . . �gS+ ! 17 �e3 �e7 ! ? 18 �a7 ty attack;
(18 �a7? 0-0 19 !xb8 �gs+ 20 ®bl b) 10 cS is seldom seen because
hb8+) 18 . . . l2Jc6 19 �b6 0-0 20 Black is not oblige to take it. Af­
�xbS �fSt. ter 10 . . . 0-0 11 �e2 l2Ja6 only White
16 . . . bxa4 17 �xa4+ l2Jc6 18 hc4 might have problems in view of the
(18 �xc4 0-0 19 �d3 l2Jd4!oo) 18 . . . 0-0 weakness of his dS-pawn.

183
Part 9

A. 1 0 .id 3 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 the bishop to d6 , with a strong at­

� c 3 f5 tack in Rahman-Spasov, Novi Sad
ol. 1990) 1 9 . . .dxcS 20 ttJxa4 id7 2 1
ttJc3 ie3 + 2 2 ctt h l �a6t with a bish­
op pair and bright prospects.
16 . . . e4 !

1 3 f3
13 f4 does not fit into White's set­
up. When a black knight appears on
eS, the bishop will have to retreat, This thematic break is especial­
as in the game Benhadi-Amin, Cai­ ly efficient with the bishop on f2 ,
ro 1999: 13 . . . ttJ d7 14 �c2 g6 lS ie3 since it disrupts the coordination
(Or lS �bl if6 16 b4 �c7 17 �b3 of White's pieces . 17 fxe4 f4 1 8 ctt h l
bS ! t Vink-Harikrishna, Wijk aan ttJeS 19 id4 �e7. Black has full com­
Zee 200 1 ; lS ctthl if6 16 a4 llJcS pensation, for example: 20 �dl f3
17 i.e3 id7 18 as �c8 19 b3 �e8+, 2 1 gxf3 ih3 2 2 ixeS �xeS 2 3 �gl
Stanojoski-Nijboer, Plovdiv 2 00 3 .) if4.
1S ... if6 16 �adl �e8 17 ctt h l exf4 1 8
M4 llJeS 19 ie2 id7 2 0 b3 �c8 = . 1 4 .igS 1 5 b4 a5 1 6 a3
•••

axb4 1 7 �xg5 Y;Yxg5 1 8 axb4

1 3 �d7 !
••• gxa1 1 9 Y;Yxa 1 Y;Ye3 20 .ie2
There is no reason to give White lll b8!
extra options with 13 . . . igS 14 ixgS We can strike a balance here.
�xgS lS f4 ! ? exf4 16 �e2 . Black has almost forced draw with
1 4 @ h1 2 0 . . . bS 21 �cl (21 ttJxbS? �xe2 22
White can preserve his dark­ ttJxd6 ttJf6+; 2 1 cxbS? ! ib7 22 �dl
squared bishop, but after 14 ie3 �c8 23 �d3 �f2 24 �gl �h4oo)
i.gS lS if2 it only hampers the de­ 2 1 . . . �xcl 22 �xcl bxc4 23 ttJbS i.b7
fence. In most cases its black coun­ 24 llJxd6 (24 ixc4 �f6 2S ttJc7 ttJb6=)
terpart turns to be more dangerous : 24 . . . ixdS 2S ixc4 ixc4 26 �c4 e4
1S . . . �f6 16 �e2 27 fxe4 fxe4 28 ctt g l e3 29 �e4 ttJf6
Alternatively: 16 �c2 llJcS 17 i.e2 30 �xe3 �d8 31 �e6 (31 llJe4?? �dl +
as 18 a3 a4 19 ixcS (19 �ael i.d7 3 2 M2 tlJg4+) 3 1 . . . �b8 32 b S �b6 3 3
20 ixcS dxcS 21 i.d3 �h6 22 llJdl g 3 h6=. White is unable to unpin his
�ae8 23 �e2 ie7 ! . Black relocates d6-knight. However, the novelty of

184
 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ttJdbS d6 7 ttJ ds

Valerij Filippov 20 . . . ttJbS keeps the

fight on:

Bl. 13 a3 (preparing b4)

B 2 . 13 f3
21 Y;\fb2 B3. 13 f4
White has also tried 21 W!cl �b6
22 �a3 . 13 ©hl l2Jd7 is not of independ­
22 l2Ja2 l2Ja6 23 �c3 is passive, ent significance, since after f3 or f4
23 . . . �d7 24 g3 (24 gel gas 2S �dl play transposes to other lines.
�d4 ! ) 24 . . . gas 2S ©g2 \Wd4 (it would 13 b4 could be similar to line Bl,
be interesting to try 2S . . . �a7 ! ? 26 but Black also has 13 . . . as which de­
ltJcl bS 27 l2Jb3 E:cS 2 S ltJaSoo) 26 stroys the plan with c4-cS . Note that
�xd4 exd4 27 gd1 l2Jc7 2 S ltJcl ga4 13 . . . l2Jd7 is another good option: 14
29 bS gb4 30 ©f2 ltJaS 3 l gxd4 .ixbS �b2 b6 (Sveshnikov recommends
32 l2Ja2 gb2 =, Xu Yuhua-Stefanova, 14 . . . l2Jf6 ! ? lS \Wb3 ©hS 16 gadl f4 17
Krasnoturinsk 200 S . cS �fSoo) lS \Wb3 ©hS 16 gadl �f6
2 2 . . . l2Ja6 23 gbl \Wf2 2 4 �b2 17 l2Ja4 (17 gfel e4) 17 . . . \Wc7f! with
�d7 2S �fl �d4. Black had good sufficient counterplay;
counterplay in the source game Be­ 13 a4? ! in conjunction with c4 is
lozerov-Filippov, Tomsk 2004. slow: 13 . . . l2Jd7 14 as �f6 lS �d2 ? ! e4
16 l2Ja4 �eS 17 f4 exf3 lS gxf3 gbS 19
21 lll a & 22 gb1 id 7 2 3
••• �e3 l2Jf6 20 h3 l2Je4---+ Kagan-E . Gel­
lll d 1 Y;\fd4!? (23 . . . �b6oo) 2 4 g3! ler, Skara 19SO .
The endgame was difficult for
White in Svidler- Timofeev, Mos­
cow 2004: 24 �xd4? exd4 2S ©gl 8 1 . 1 3 a3 lll d 7 1 4 b4 if6 !
gbs !+. If White adopts here a waiting
24 gba 25 Y;\fc3.
••• strategy with lS ©hl e4 16 \Wc2,
The game is balanced. Black builds on with 16 . . . �eS . Then
White should anticipate the attack
with f4, when Black takes on f3 and
B. 1 0 .ie2 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 brings all his forces on the kingside:
lll c 3 f5 17 f4 exf3 lS gxf3 l2Jf6 19 �gs \Wes

lSS
Part 9

2 0 �afl tlJg4 2 1 �h3 Wg6t Adla­ Black, but retreating to f2 would

Kharlov, Maringa 1991 . not be any better due to the power­
ful position of the g5-bishop: 15 !f2
Wf6 ! 16 ttJ a4 (Or 16 b4 Wh6 17 Wb3
!e3 18 ttJ a4 hf2 + 19 filf2 b6 2 0 �dl
�b8 21 Wc3 �b7! ?�. Black manoeu­
vres the rook to c7, using that 2 2
c5? fails t o 2 2 . . . bxc5 23 bxc5 ttJxc5
24 ttJxc5 �c7 !) 16 . . . Wh6 17 Wb3 �f6
18 ttJb6 !f4 ! 19 !g3 (19 g3? Wh3 ! -+)
19 . . . !e3 + 2 0 !f2 !f4= .

1 4 . . . a S ! ? 1 S �e3 �g s 1 6 �g 1
� c s 1 7 b3 �d7 1 8 a 3
1 S �e3 e4 with mutual chances .
Black should keep his dark-squared
bishop on. See the very instruc­
tive game 32 Yudasin-Kharlov,
Moscow 1991 for detailed explana­
tion of the ideas of both sides.

8 2 . 1 3 f3 � d 7

This i s a model setup for both

sides. White is looking forward to
b4 which would earn him the initi­
ative, but Black still has a chance to
balance the game:
18 . . . a4 ! 1 9 � xa4 (19 b4 tt:Jb3 20
�bl �c8�) 1 9 . . .�xa4 20 bxa4 b6=
Kotronias-Eljanov, Warsaw 200 5 .
White's queenside pawn structure
Black plans t o play . . . !g5, but he is static and he is unable to make
wants to do it when White had al­ any progress. On the other hand, his
ready moved his dark-squared bish­ bishop pair should be able to par­
op. 13 . . . !g5 is less precise in view of ry an eventual Black attack on the
14 hg5 Wxg5 15 Wcl. kingside .
1 4 @h1
The point i s that 1 4 !e3 !g5 15
Wd2 he3 + 16 Wxe3 a5= is fine for 8 3. 1 3 f4 �f6 1 4 @ h 1

186
 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 S ttJc3 eS 6 ttJdbS d6 7 ttJ dS

White might prefer to control the bishops, because White would get
es-square by 14 g3 ttJd7 1S �c2 exf4 full control of the centre: 16 . . . ieS?
16 gxf4, but then Black would have 17 hes ttJxeS 18 �d4t.
active play after 16 . . . ttJcS 17 if3 bS !
18 b4 ttJe4t as in Erwich-Kulj asevic,
Stork 20 0 2 .
Another option i s 1 4 �c2 ttJd7
when lS @hl transposes to 14 @hl.
Instead, lS �xfS? ! would be ex­
tremely risky: lS . . . exf4 16 �e6 + E:f7
17 �xd6 (17 hf4 ?? ttJeS 18 heS
dxeS- + ; 17 �xf4?? ttJeS 18 �f6
gxf6 -+) 17 . . . ieS 18 �b4 (18 �e6??
id4+ 19 @hl ttJeS-+) 18 . . . as 19 �a4
� 6 1 ?-
c=:.a• • oo .

17 E:cl �d7
14 . . . !i) d 7 17. . . tlJg6 ! ? 18 ie3 ieS is a decent
alternative, e.g. 19 id4 if4 20 �c2
�h4 2 1 igl id7=.
1 8 b4 a5 19 a 3 axb4 2 0 axb4
�b6 ! 2 1 �b3 :gfc8 2 2 �g3 �a7+.
White has trouble defending his
pawns.

B3b. 15 �c2 exf4 16 chf4

�e5

B3a. lS ie3 ; B3b. lS �c2

Rare moves:
lS g3 ttJcS 16 �c2 a5 17 E:bl id7 18
b3 �c7 19 a3 g6 is good for Black;
lS a4 exf4 16 !xf4 ttJeS 17 ie3
tlJg6 18cS? ! ieS+, Bologan-Hamdou­
chi, 20 0 2 .

B3a. 1 5 �e3 exf4 16 chf4 A good timing for this exchange !

lll e 5! Compare this position with the pre­
Note that after the exchange ofthe vious diagram. Here White's queen
eS-pawn, Black should avoid trading cannot occupy d4.

187
Part 9

Still, 16 . . . l!JeS is a decent alter­ Perhaps the most challenging

native. It gives good attacking pros­ answer is:
.

pects, e.g. 17 b4 l!Jg6 18 !g3 f4 19 17 W1d2 M4 18 Wffxf4 Wfff6 19 �acl

�f2 as. b6 20 b4. Apicella-Wagner, Clichy
17 g3 20 07 saw further 20 . . . �b8 21 l!J a4
With this move White aims to !b7 2 2 cS bxcS 23 bxcS l!JxcS 24
deprive Black's knight of the eS­ l!JxcS dxcS 2S �xcS, when 2S ... Wfe7
square . It also restricts the light­ 26 Wffc4 Wffd6 27 !f3oo would have
squared bishop, although it is not so been roughly equal . We suppose
bad on d7 either. Other moves show that Black should include . . . as at
White often losing the initiative: some moment, (maybe 20 . . . aS) to
17 �adl hf4 18 �f4 l!JeS is simi­ get rid of the weak a-pawn.
lar to the main line, 19 b4 as 20 a3 After the text we like:
axb4 21 axb4 !d7 ! = , see game 33 17 �f6 !
. . .

Spraggett-Yakovich, Santo An­ Black i s planning t o complete

tonio 20 0 1 ; development with . . . !d7 and . . . �c8,
1 7 !d3 g6 18 �ae1 M4 ( 1 8 . . . b6 ! ? hoping to get to the weakened white
1 9 l!J e 2 Wfff6 2 0 Wffd 2 M4 2 1 Wffxf4 king in the future.
l!JeS 2 2 l!Jd4 �d7=) 19 �f4 l!JeS is Instead, 17 . . . gS? ! is bad, since af­
fine for Black as 2 0 cS? ! stumbles ter 18 !d2 Black faces development
into 2 0 . . . �e8 +; problems. Conversely, 17 . . .Wfff6 is a
17 hes l!JxeS 18 b4 �d7 19 c5 reasonable alternative and should
Wffh 4t Sarthou-Nataf, France 2003. lead to a balanced game.

188
Part 9 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 lll f6 s lll c3 es 6 lll dbS
d6 7 � d S

COMPLETE GAM ES

32 Yudas in - K harlov lS �f4 ! ? Then 1S . . . �f6 16 gel �es

M oscow 1 99 1 (Blatny) 17 .beS ltJxeS 18 �d4 wins
1 e4 c 5 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 a clear temp o, compared to the stem
tll x d4 tll f6 5 tll c 3 e5 6 tll d b 5 d6 7 game.
tll d 5 tll x d 5 8 exd 5 tll b 8 9 c4 ie7 This variation explains why it is
10 �e2 a6 1 1 tll c3 f5 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 a3 better to play first 14 . . . �f6 ! .
Usually White prefers to re­ We have also analysed 14 . . . ltJf6,
strict the mobility of Black's pawns when lS �e3 f4 16 �d2 �fS or lS f3
by f3 or f4. However, that weakens �b6 + 16 ©hl �d7 would be fine for
the gl-a7 diagonal end especially Black. However, lS f4 ! poses prob­
the e3-square. In this game Yuda­ lems . White retains an edge after
sin embraces the most straightfor­ lS . . . aS 16 �e3 exf4 17 E1xf4 ltJg4 18
ward approach. He wants to push .bg4 fxg4 19 �xf8 + .
c4-cS while staying passive on the 1 5 ie3 if6
kingside . Since 13 b4 could be met lS . . .f4 is dubious, because 16
by 13 . . . aS, White starts with a3 . . . �d2 e4 17 ltJxe4 ! ? .bal 18 �xal ltJf6
1 3 . . . tll d 7 1 4 b4 19 ltJxf6+ �xf6 2 0 �xf6 �xf6 2 1 cS
gives White an edge.
1 6 .id4
We have noted in the previ­
ous chapters that White does not
mind exchanging bishops, provid­
ed his queen could occupy d4. 16
�cl ! ? would cost a piece after 16 . . .f4
17 .bf4 .bc3 18 .bd6 �e8 19 �xc3
�f6 20 �d2 �xd6 21 cS �eSoo, but
White would have been the active
side .
1 4 . . . e4 ? ! 1 6 . . . ieS ? !
This looks imprecise i n view of This i s a positional mistake.

189
Part 9

Black needs all his pieces in order 22 a4 White can prepare c6 or fol­
to retain more tension. We propose low up with as first.
16 . . . ltJeS ! 17 cS �d7oo . 20 gfd 1 gfc8 21 gac1 gc7 22
The exchange of the dark-squa­ h3 '%Ye7
red bishops gives White a free hand Probably Kharlov already real­
in the centre, but he immediately ised that something with his setup
stumbles into a tactical trap . went wrong, and he begins to rede­
1 7 i.xe 5?! ploy his pieces for defence . Alterna­
Best was 17 cS ! with a n edge, e.g. tives do not change the character of
17 . . . �f6 (or 17 . . . �f6 18 c6 �h6 19 play: 22 . . . �ac8 23 �e3 �f8 24 a4t;
g3�) 18 �xeS ltJxeS 19 Wff d2�. 22 ... �f8 23 a4 �e8 24 c6 bxc6 2S
1 7 . . . li:) xeS 1 8 '%Yd4 dxc6 �xc6 26 bS axbS 27 ltJxbSt.
23 @f1
This move is not a mistake, but it
looks artificial. White had more en­
ergetic options, as 23 a4 �b8 24 c6
bxc6 2S dxc6 �xc6 26 bS�. The bad
news for Black is that if White does
not like this variation, he can keep
on manoeuvring, seeking the best
timing for the breakthrough cS-c6.
23 .. . ge8 24 c6
Black was already threatening
to take on cS, so White must go for­
1 8 . . . .id7 ? ! ward.
Kharlov misses the chance to 24 . . . bxc6 25 dxc6 gxc6 26 li:) d S
complicate things by 18 . . .f4 ! 19 '%Yf7 2 7 gxc6 li:) xc6 (or 2 7 . . . �xc6 2 8
ltJxe4 f3 20 gxf3 �xf3 with perfect �xa6)
compensation for the pawn.
1 9 cs�
The opening is over and White
should be happy with his position.
Black is passive and lacks a clear
plan. He can only stay and wait, for
only one good piece is insufficient
to build an attack, especially when
the centre is so mobile.
1 9 . . .'%Yf6
It is difficult to resist such a
move . (seemingly winning a tempo
on the threat of 20 . . . ltJf3+) Follow­ 28 '%Yb 6?
ing 19 . . . Wie7 2 0 �fdl �ac8 21 �acl The critical moment ofthe game.
(21 c6? bxc6 22 �xa6 cS+) 2 1 . . . �c7 Yudasin apparently underestimated

190
 3 d4 cxd4 4 l!Jxd4 l!Jf6 S l!Jc3 es 6 l!JdbS d6 7 l!JdS

Black's counterattack and his posi­ Unlike the previous game,

tion quickly falls appart. He should here this move makes sense, since
have prevented .. .f4 with 28 �c3 ! White's queen is misplaced on c2 .
(or 2 8 �d2) keeping the edge, for Keeping the dark-squared bishops
28 . . .f4?? would lose to 29 4.Jc7+ - . on leads to interesting and sharp­
2 8 ...f 4 2 9 .ixa6 Y«hS! er play, for instance : 16 . . . 4.JeS 17 b4
White's game is hopelessly com­ l!Jg6 18 �g3 f4 19 �f2 as, followed
promised . Ironically, the prophy­ by . . . �es, �fs, l!Jh4.
lactic move cj{fl only helps Black's 1 7 g ad 1 ? !
offensive. With several common moves
30 gc1 f3 31 tllf4 fxg 2+ 32 @ g 1 White loses the initiative and his
Y« g S 3 3 gxc6 Y«xf4 3 4 g c 3 'l«d2 ? ! queenside pawns become from a
( 2 4. . . �eS ! was better, intending to major asset, a weakness. Spragget
push . . . dS) 3S g g 3? (3S �e3 !) 3 S . . . should have directed all his efforts
e 3 ! 3 6 gxe3 Y«c 1 + 37 @xg2 .ic6+ to execute cS, even at the cost of a
38 f3 gxe3 0-1 pawn. In the game Apicella-Wagner,
We have seen a very instructive Clichy 20 0 7 White's play was more
game ! In this example we have seen consistent: 17 �d2 ! �xf4 18 �xf4
most of the ideas of the 7 4.JdS varia­ �f6 19 E:acl b6 2 0 b4. Here, 2 0 . . . as
tion, together with typical positional deserves attention, aiming to elimi­
mistakes. nate the weak a-pawn. Instead, the
game saw 2 0 . . . E:b8 21 l!J a4 �b7 2 2
cS ! bxcS 23 bxcS tt.JxcS 24 tt.JxcS dxcS
33 S p ragg ett - Yakov ich 2S E:xcS, when 2S . . . �e7 2 6 �c4 �d6
Santo Antonio 2001 27 �f3oo would have been roughly
1 e4 cs 2 tll f 3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 equal .
tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c3 e s 6 tll dbS d6 7 1 7 . . . .ixf4 1 8 gxf4 til e s 1 9 b4
tll d S tll xdS 8 exdS tll b 8 9 c4 .ie7 aS!
1 O .ie2 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 tll c 3 f S A thematic move i n this pawn
1 3 @ h 1 tll d 7 1 4 f4 .if6 1 S Y«c2 exf4 structure. Black aims to activate his
1 6 i.xf4 i.eS rook, but he also exchanges his po­
tentially (after cS-c6) weak pawn.
20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 i.d7 22
'l«d2
Apicella-Saric, Cannes 2007 saw
22 cS ! ? dxcS 23 bxcS �as 24 c6 bxc6
2S E:a4 �cs 26 �a2 8:xa4 27 tt.Jxa4=
with a level game. After the text
Black has a good game.
22 . . . Y«b6 23 g b 1 gfe8 24 h 3
@h8
Black must be constantly on the

191
Part 9

watch for the pawn sacrifice c4-cS, Black i s i n a very difficult situa­
followed up by d6. Yakovich decides tion . His extra pawn does not help
to anticipate an eventual check from at all, because the advanced d-pawn
dS . 24 .. . E:a3 was also possible, for effectively breaks the coordination
2S cS dxcS 26 ttJbS does not work of his heavy pieces. Spraggett confi­
due to 2 6 . . . E:g3. dently leads the game to a deserved
2 5 if1 g a3? victory until move 38, when his usu­
Now this is a tactical mistake. al terrible time trouble causes a fa­
2S . . . h6 was a much better option. tal mistake:
30 . . . gaa8 31 d7 g ad8 32 gd4
� c 6 33 gd s '%Ya3 34 gf1 � e 7 3 5
g95 h 6 36 '%Y d 4 � c6 3 7 ixc6 bxc6
38 gexf5??
White blunders his d-pawn. Any
other was winning, e.g. 38 8:fel + ­
c S 39 WffdS �a4 4 0 8:e7.
38 . . .gxfS 39 gxf5 '%Ye7 40 g h s
'%Y e 6 41 <i> h 2 @ gs 4 2 g e s '%Yxd7 4 3
1Mfc4+ 1Mff7 4 4 g e 6 c s 45 h 4 gfa 4 6
g 3 <i>h8 4 7 '%Ye4 1Mff2+ 4 8 <i> h 3 '%Yd4
49 <i>g4 c4 so gc 6 '%Yd 1 + 51 <i> h 3
2 6 c5! dxc5 27 � b 5 '%Yd7+ 5 2 @ g 2 c 3 5 3 '%Yc4 1Mff5 54
Suddenly the board turns to be <i> h 2 1Mff2+ 55 <i> h 3 1Mff3 56 <i> h 2 g ea
too small for the rook. 27 . . . 8:g3 al­ 57 gca gxc8 58 '%Yxc8+ <i>h7 59 g4
ready loses to 2 8 Wfff2 , whereas 1Mff2+ 0-1
27 .. . E:aa8 28 d6t threatens with a The moral ofthis game is that with
fork. such a pawn structure Black should
27 . . . ixb 5 28 bxc5 '%Yxc5 29 be calculating the consequences of
ixb 5 gfa 30 d 6 the cS-break on every move!

192
Part 1 0 1 e4 cs 2 tt::lf 3 tt:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4
tt:Jxd4 tt::lf6 s tt:Jc3 es 6 tt::l dbS d6
Unusual seventh moves

QU IC K R EPERTO IRE

It has been long established that manoeuvre of Black's bishop to the

rare moves do not work against queenside :
the Sveshnikov. White's knight's 1 1 J.d3
long walk wastes too many tempi 11 c4 b4 1 2 tt:Jbl as 13 tt:Jd2 Wg6
and could be justified only by gain­ 14 h4 �e7 1S g3 0-0 16 �g2 �dB !
ing stable control of dS with 7 �gS . 1 1 J.e7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 tt::l b1
•••

Perhaps we should remember only J.d8!?=

a few variations to get out of the
opening with a pleasant position: C. 7 a4 a6 8 tt:J a 3 J.g4!
A. 7 tt:Ja3 J.e7 8 J.gS (8 tt:Jc4
tt:Jxe4!) 8 tt:Jxe4!?=.
•••

B. 7 J.e3 a6 8 tt:Ja3 bS
This i s meant a s a surprise.
8 . . J;bs 9 tt:JdS tt:JxdS 10 exdS tt:Je7 is
good enough.
9 tt::l d S gbs 1 o tt:Jxt6+ Y*lxf6

An important fine point ! Now 9

�e2 .ixe2 10 Wxe2 dS 11 �gS tt:Jd4 12
Wd3 �b4 ! is easy to play as Black,
so:
9 t3 J.e6
Black provoked a weakening of
the e3-square and his next task is
to push dS . In many lines he sac­
White is playing an obvious­ rifices a pawn for the initiative, for
ly worse version of the main line instance, 10 �gS �e7 11 tt:Jc4 dS 12
Sveshnikov. Note the important kxf6 dxc4 13 Wxd8 + z;xd8 14 .ixg7

193
Part 10

�g8 15 �h6 �cSoo These examples showthat White

cannot efficiently clamp on dS, so he
usually continues developing by:
1 0 i.c4 gca 1 1 o-o tll b4 1 2
�d5 � bxd5 1 3 exd 5 i.d7 1 4
c3 i.e7

Or 10 �c4 �c8 11 l!JdS �xdS 12

�xdS l!JxdS 13 �xdS �h4 + 14 g3
�h3oo.

In this typical structure White's

pieces are awkwardly deployed.
The game Xie Jun-Kramnik, ra­
pid Monte Carlo 1996 saw further
15 �hl 0-0 16 �e3 l!Jh5 17 �d3 �gs+.
White should better divert the black
queen fram the kingside by 15 �b3
�c7= .

194
Part 1 0 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4
�xd4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll d bS d6
Unusual seven th moves

STEP BY STE P

A. 7 tlJa3 page 195 14 ttJ e 3 ie7! 15 a 3 ig5 16 �d3 ttJb3

B. 7 ie3 page 195 17 cxb3 E:xd3 18 �c2 �d8+ B auer­
C. 7 a4 page 196 Lautier, France 2 0 05 . Instead, 13
ttJd5 is more challenging.
A. 7 lll a3 i e7 8 igS 9 lll x e4
Otherwise White loses control of Or 9 he7 ttJxc3 10 hd8 ttJxdl
d5 : 8 ttJc4 ttJxe4 ! 9 ttJxe4 d5 10 ttJc3 11 E:xdl @xd8 12 ttJb5 @e7+.
dxc4 11 �xd8+ hd8 12 hc4 ttJb4+; 9 ixgS 1 0 lll x d6+
•••

8 id3? ! d5. 10 ttJxg5 �xg5 11 �xd6 a6 ! ? 12

8 �xe4!?
••• ttJc4 ie6 13 �cs 0-0-0 14 ttJe3 @c7
15 id3 f5 ! t was good for Black in
Gusev-Timoshenko, Odessa 1975.
1 o ... @e7 1 1 lll ac4 ie6 !m
Black has good counterchances,
for example, 12 ttJxb7? ! �xdl+ 13
E:xdl ttJd4 ! 14 ttJ a3 E:ab8t.

a. 7 ie3 a6 8 lll a3 bS
All the books consider only
8 . . . E:b8 9 ttJd5 ttJxd5 10 exd5 ttJe7= .
It is a good line indeed, but most
Simple and good. It is possi­ likely White knows it better than
ble that 8 . . . 0-0 9 hf6 hf6 10 you. Let us surprise him !
ttJc4 ie6 11 �xd6 (11 ttJxd6 ?! ttJd4 9 lll d S gba 1 o lllx t6+
12 ttJc4 E:c8+) 11 . . . �c8 offers suffi­ 10 ie2 ie7 is innocuous ;
cient compensation, but there is not 10 c4 b4 11 tlJc2? ! (it is better
enough practical evidence: 12 �d2 to transpose to the main line by 11
(12 �dl E:d8 13 �cl ttJd4 14 ttJe3 ttJ xf6+) 11. .. tlJxe4 12 � f3 tlJcS brings
ig5oo) 12 . . . E:d8 when the only game about a position with dubious com­
in our database saw 13 �cl? ! ttJd4 pensation for the pawn;

195
Part 10

10 g3 ttJxdS 11 exdS tlJe7 12 �g2 play. Black must oppose something

tlJfS 13 �d2 �e7 14 0-0 hS ! 15 c4 to White's unpleasant positional
h4 16 �cl hxg3 17 hxg3 �d7f! gives threat of �gS, �c4 (or tlJc4-e3 first)
Black active play. with a total control of dS . Black
1 o ... \Wxf6 should use the fact that the enemy
is lagging behind in development to
break this unfourable pattern.
7 . . . a6 8 � a 3 ig4

White plays an obviously worse

version of the main line Sveshnikov.
1 1 id3 An important fine point ! Now:
Alternatively: Cl. 9 �e2
11 tlJbl �e7 12 tlJc3 �g6 13 �d2 C2. 9 1Wd2
0-0 14 0-0-0 �e6f! ; C3 . 9 f3
ll c4 b4 12 tlJbl a S 13 tlJd2 �g6 14
h4 �e7 15 g3 0-0 16 �g2 �d8 ! 17 0-0 C 1 . 9 ie2 ixe2 1 0 \Wxe2 d 5 1 1
�b6+ Szalanczy-Dokhoian, Cattoli­ i g 5 (11 exdS ltJxdS 12 ltJxdS �xdS=)
ca 1993 . 1 1 ... liJ d4 12 \W d 3
1 1 ie7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 �b1
•••
O r 1 2 !xf6? ltJ x e 2 13 !xd8 ltJxc3
id8 !? 14 �c3 �e7 1 5 \Wd2 h 6 14 �c7 ltJxa4 15 exdS @d7 16 !xeS
1 6 a 4 b 4 1 7 � e2 a s 1 8 ic4 �e8 17 0-0 �xeS 18 ltJc4 �xdS 19
�c 7 �xa4 �c5+.
White is unable to prevent ... dS, 1 2 . . .ib4 !
e.g. 19 �adl �b7 20 tlJg3 �bd8 21 f4
dS= , Hort-Andersson, Amsterdam
1978 .

C. 7 a4
White restrains Black's queen­
side expansion and aims to bind
the opponent with a defence of the
dS and b6-squares. This logical
plan of Schlechter requires precise

196
 6 ltJdbS d6, rare seventh moves

Black wins the battle for the cen- exdS (14 �xdS? �xdS 15 exdS �c7+)
tre: 14 . . .�fS with good play.
1 3 0-0 1 2 . .. 0-0
Or: 13 exdS Ek8 14 ixf6 (14 ttJ abl Black had a pleasant choice be­
�xdS 15 0-0 �c4t) 14 ... �xf6 15 tween the text and 12 . . . l2Jxe4 13
ltJ abl (15 0-0? ! �xc3 16 bxc3 E!xc3 ! ) �xe6 (13 l2Jxe4 dS 14 � b3 dxe4 15
l S . . . �gS 1 6 0-0 �g6 ! 17 �xg6 (17 �xe6 �xdl 16 E!xdl fxe6+) 13 . . . ltJxc3
E!el �xd3 18 E!xeS+ �d7 19 cxd3 14 hf7+ (14 �hS g6 15 hf7+ �xf7
l2Jb3 2 0 E!a2 tll cl 2 1 E!al l2Jxd3 2 2 16 �f3 + �f6 17 �xc3 dSt) 14 . . . �xf7
�e3 E!he8 ! + ) 1 7. . . hxg6 18 E!cl b6!oo. lS bxc3 dS+.
White is tied u p and down. 1 3 .ig5 tll xe4 1 4 tll xe4
13 �xf6 �xf6 14 exdS E!c8 - see 14 �xe7? l2Jxc3 15 �xd8 ltJxdl+ ;
13 eds. 14 �xe6? l2Jxc3.
1 3 . . . .ixc3 14 .ixf6 'Mfxf6 1 5 1 4 . . . d5 1 5 .ixe7 tll xe7 1 6 ib3
bxc3 dxe4 1 6 'Mfxe4 tll c 6 1 7 g ab1 dxe4 1 7 ixe6 fxe6 1 8 'Mf g4 'Mfb6i.
'Mf e7 1 8 tll c4 0-0=.

C 3. 9 f3 ie6
C2. 9 'Mf d2 .ie6 10 ic4
10 l2J c4? ! does not achieve the
aim to take control of dS in view of
10 . . . ttJ b4 11 tll e 3 (11 as E!c8 12 ltJ b6
l2Jxe4+) 11. . . dS+.
1 o . . . gc8 1 1 o-o

Black provoked a weakening of

the e3-square and h is next task is to
p ush dS. White has tried to contest
that plan by:

C3a. 10 l2Jc4 ; C3b . 10 �gS; C3c.

White's pieces are ridiculously 10 �c4
placed.
1 1 . . . ie7 He can also ignore the enemy
11. . . l2Jd4 12 �d3 �c7 13 �a2 was plan, but then he faces problems: 10
equal in Fedorchuk-Kolev, 20 05. �e3 ltJ b4 11 l2Jc4 (11 �gS �c8) 11. . .
1 2 'Mfd 1 dS ! 1 2 �b6 �e7 ! , see game 3 4 De
12 E!el l2Jd4 13 ltJdS ltJxdS 14 Firmian-Vallejo, Selfoss 20 0 3 .

197
Part 10

C 3a. 10 lll c4 lLl b4 11 i.g5 (11 11 d5 12 chf6

•••

�e3 dS!) 11 E:cS 12 chf6 %Yxf6 13

••• Black has the edge after 12 exdS
lll b6 E:c5 14 a5 (14 ttJbdS? hdS lS ttJxdS 13 he7 (or 13 ttJxdS hgS
exdS \Wg6) 14 d5! 15 lll bxd5 (lS
••• 14 l2Jdb6 �b8) 13 . . . l2J cxe7 14 ttJxdS
exdS ifs 16 �d3 ttJ xd3 + 17 cxd3 ttJxdS in view of lS ttJxeS? ! \Wh4+ 16
�xaS 18 �xaS \Wxb6 19 �a2 �b4oo) g3 \Wb4+ .
15 hd5 16 exd5 (16 ltJxdS ttJxdS
••• 12 dxc4
•••

17 exdS \Wh4 + 18 g3 \Wb4+ 19 �f2

\Wxb2+) 16 %Yg6oo.
•••

C3b. 1 0 i.g5 i.e7 11 lll c4

11 �c4 could be countered with
11 . . . \Wb6 ! ? and the n:

13 %Yxd8 +
In all cases Black gets full com­
pensation for the g7-pawn, but with
queens White's defence would be
more difficult: 13 hg7 (13 he7
\Wxe7 14 ltJd S hdS lS exdS �d8+)
a) 12 he6 fxe6 13 l2Jc4 \Wb4 14 �g8 14 �h6 ltJd4 lS �e3 (lS \Wd2
\Wd3 dS ! ; �h4 + ! 16 �dl \Wf6t) 1S . . . \Wb6t.
b) 1 2 hf6 hf6 13 he6 fxe6 14 13 E:xdS 14 hg7 (14 he7
•••

l2J c4 \WcS ! lS \Wd3 (lS l2Jxd6+? �e7 �xe7+) 14 E:gS 15 .ih6 i.c5
•••

16 l2J xb7 ifMb4-+) 1S . . . l2Jb4 16 \We2 Black's pieces are very active,
�c8+; so he has a lot of attractive ways to
c) 12 b3 dS ! ? (12 . . . l2Jg4 13 fxg4 develop his initiative, for instance,
hgS 14 he6 fxe6 lS l2Jc4 \Wb4 16 1S . . . l2Jd4 ! ? 16 0-0-0 (16 �cl fSoo)
0-0 0-0-0 ! is a good alternative) 16 . . . bSoo.
13 exdS 0-0-0 looks excellent for 16 .id2
Black; After 16 ltJdS hdS 17 exdS �xdS
d) 12 \Wd2 l2Jd4 13 �e3 (13 b3 18 �dl (18 hc4? �d6 19 �d2 �xg2+)
0-0 14 he6? ! fxe6 lS l2J c4 \Wes 16 18 . . . �xdl + 19 �xdl bS Black retains
aS dS ! 17 exdS exdS 18 ttJxeS �ac8+) the initiative with equal material.
13 . . . \Wxb2 14 �f2 (14 0-0?? hc4 16 .if2 + 17 @e2 i.h4oo.
•••

lS l2J xc4 \Wxc3 - +) 14 . . . ifMb6 lS l2Je2

\Wc6 16 l2J xd4 exd4 17 \Wxd4 0-0 and C3c. 1 0 i.c4 gcs 11 0 - 0
Black is at least equal . An interesting position arises af-

198
 6 tl:JdbS d6, rare seventh moves

ter 11 tl:JdS �xdS 12 �xdS tl:JxdS 13 14 0-0 0-0 lS �adl �c7 16 �b3 �fd8
�xdS (13 exdS �as+ 14 �d2 tl:Jb4 lS 17 @hl �cs+.
�bl �cs 16 c4 �e7+) 11 ltJb4 12 ltJd5 ltJbxd5 13
•••

exd5 �d7 14 c3 �e7

Once again the weakness of

the kingside causes White trou­
ble : 13 . . . �h4 + 14 g3 �h3 lS @f2 In this typical structure White's
(lS �d2? tl:Jd4) 1S . . . tl:Jb4 16 �b3 dS ! pieces are awkwardly deployed.
17 exdS �fS 18 g4 �g6 . White's king The game Xie Jun-Kramnik, ra­
has not a safe haven. pid Monte Carlo 1996 saw further
11 �gS leaves Black a strong in­ 1s @hl o-o 16 �e3 tl:JhS 17 �d3 �gs+.
itiative on the queenside, as in De White should better divert the black
Jong-Kolev, Hoogeveen 20 0S: queen from the kingside by 15 �b3
11. .. tl:Jb4 12 �e2 �e7 1 3 hf6 �xf6 �c7=.

199
P art 1 0 1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d 4 cxd4 4
�xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6
Unu sual seventh moves

COMPLETE GAM ES

34 D e F irm i a n - Va l l ejo Pons 1 3 exdS � bxdS 1 4 � xdS �xdS

Selfoss 2003 1 s At2 gda 1 6 1Mfd2
1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 d4 c xd4 4 In a bad position all moves are
� xd4 � f6 S � c 3 eS 6 � d bS d6 7 bad. Mueller preferred 16 Wcl to
a4 a6 8 � a 3 ig4 9 f3 ie6 1 0 ie3 lose quickly after 16 . . . Wfc7 17 c3 i.cS
� b4 1 1 � c4 18 b4 hf2 + 19 ct;xf2 0-0 20 as e4
21 '2Je3 exf3 22 tlJxdS hdS 2 3 g3
i%fe8 24 i.d3 i.c4 0-1. White's prob­
lem is that he is not only lagging
behind in development, but the b4
and e 3 squares are weak. The use
of these factors is the favourite mo­
tif of Black's play in the 7 a4 line.
He must however be venturesome
since these advantages are dynam­
ic and he could land in a dull posi­
tion with a chronic hole on dS .
1 6 . . . � b4 1 7 1Mfc3 YMgS
1 1 . . .d S ! 17 . . . i%c8 ! ? 18 aS 4Jxc2 + 19 Wfxc2
I n this variation Black often sac­ Wb4+ was winning a pawn, but
rifices a pawn on dS for an initia­ Valejo was playing for the brlillian­
tive. Here he achieves this break­ cy prize that evening.
through even for free. It is possible 1 8 g d 1 � x c2+!
because 1 2 ttJb6 stumbles into 12 . . . Beautiful and best !
d4 1 3 ttJxa8 Wxa8+. 1 9 1Mfxc2 ib4+ 20 �d2 ifS 21
1 2 ib6 1Mfe7 ! 1Mfc 1 gca 22 1Mf a1
De Firmian i s not the first victim Or 2 2 i.c4 i.d3 23 i.bS + ct;e7 24
of this surprising retrea, as Mueller Wxc8 i%xc8 25 hd3 i%cl- + .
had already lost to Babula in 1998. 2 2 . . . ic2 2 3 h 4 1Mff4 2 4 g3 1Mfxf3
Now 13 tlJxeS Wfd6 14 i.d4 dxe4+ 2S gh2 1Mfe4+ 26 .ie2 ixd 1 27
would be quite sad, so White chose: 1Mfxd 1 gda 0-1
200
PART 1 1 1 e4 c 5 2 lll f 3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll x d4
tllf6 5 tllc 3 e5 unusu al lines
-

QUIC K R EPERTO I RE

In 1976, Bronshtein called into 7 ltJxdS l2Jxe4 ! 8 ltJfe3 !e6 9 !e2

doubt the move 6 ltJdbS and sug­ �aS+ ! 10 @fl 0-0-0 earns the ini­
gested that White might be overes­ tiative.
timating his position. His reasoning 7 .ixf 5 8 dxc6 bxc6! 9 \Wf3
••

was that the manoeuvre l2Jf3-d4-b5- \Wd7 1 O .ig 5 e4

a3 costs four tempi and the knight is
still very bad on a3, requiring more
time investments. However, mo­
dern theory has proved that the al­
ternatives are quite innocuous and
might even lead White to trouble.
In this chapter we examine:
6 l2Jxc6, 6 ltJ b3, 6 ltJf3, 6 l2Jde2 , 6
ltJf5. Only the last of these options
poses some problems to Black and
requires some knowledge:
6 tllf 5 d5!
1 1 \We2
You might want to pay more at­
tention to 11 �dl since it was suc­
cessfullyused in Volokitin-Kuzubov,
Moscow 2 007. We recommend an
improvement: 11. . . !d6 ! aiming at a
complex middlegame with a bishop
pair, harmonious development and
problematic dark squares in the
enemy camp : 12 !xf6 gxf6 13 �d4
�e7! with excellent prospects.
1 1 ... .ie7 1 2 gd1
7 exd5 Next, White will trade queens

201
Part 11

and the endgame should be rough­ O r 8 �gS hc3 + 9 bxc3 d6= .

ly equal. Black must play energeti­ �xc3 9 bxc3 �xe4 1 0 i.a3
cally and attack White's queenside d6 1 1 ge1
pawns. Possible continuations are 11 Wel �fS is in Black's favour.
12 . . . �b7 13 �a6 �b8 14 �xb7 1 1 �gS 1 2 �xg 5 9xg 5 1 3
•••

�xb7 15 �cl �b4= ; i.xd6 �g4 1 4 9c1 9xc 1 1 5

1 2 . . . �e6 ! ? leads t o calmer, ba­ gaxc 1 gfe8=.
lanced play after 13 �c4 �b8 , see See game 35 Mukhin-Mina­
game 36 Akopian-Yakovich, sian, Leningrad 1990 .
Rostov on Don, 1993.
6 � b3 i.b4 7 �c4 0-0 8 0-0
6 llJ b 3 and 6 l!Jf3 do not create �xc3 9 bxc3
threats, thus giving Black time to
develop his bishop to b4. (6 l!Jde2
� b4 is also a fair option, but we re­
commend 6 . . . �cS as main line to
this knight retreat.) We'll consid­
er two main plans of Black: He cap­
tures the e4-pawn, hoping to ex­
change pieces and get a better end­
game, or bolster up his pawn cen­
tre, trying to win the crippled White
pawns on the c-file. Let's see some
examples:
6 �f3 �b4 7 i.c4 0-0 The placement of White's knight
on b3 gives Black a good game with
simple development.
9 d6! 1 0 9d3 1 1 g d1 i.xc4
•••

1 2 9xc4 gca 1 3 9d3 �as.

It is fun to play this as Black.

As a whole, Black has good and

easy play. We cannot think of some
particular traps which must be
avoided. It is important to lead out
the dark-squared bishop and com­
plete development with . . . d6 and
8 0-0 . . . �e6 .

20 2
Part 1 1 1 e4 c 5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4
lll f6 5 lll c 3 e5 un usual lines
-

ST EP BY STEP

A. 6 l2Jxc6 page 203 �cs lS tt:Jxe7 Y9xe7 16 �b3 �b8 ! t)

B. 6 l2Jb3 page 20 S 14 . . . �c7 1S. l2J a4 �xb3 16 cxb3 dSoo.
c. 6 l2Jf3 page 20 8 8 . . . �f6 9.�c4 �xb2 10 .�b3 �b4
D. 6 l2Jde2 page 20 9 ll.�d2 dS- + , Mellgren-Alekhine,
E. 6 ltJfS page 210 Oerebro 193 S.
b) 7 f4 offers Black a choice :
A. 6 lll x c6 7 . . . �b4 8 �d3 d6 9 0-0 0-0 10
Such a n exchange is surprisingly fxeS l2Jg4 with typical Sicilian play,
popular in the Sicilian lately, but in or:
the current situation it is rather in­ 7 . . . �c7 ! ? 8 �f3 �d6 ! 9 �c4 (9 fS
consistent. White deprives himself �b4 ! followed up by . . . d7-dS) 9 . . .
of his only trump - the command exf4 1 0 0-0 g S (in the King's gambit
over the dS-square. style) 11 g3 g4 12 '!9f2 f3 and White's
6 bxc6
••• compensation is dubious.
Capturing towards the centre is c) 7 �d3 �b4
a basic strategical rule. However, Black has no difficulties after the
we suppose that 6 . . . dxc6 is also suf­ solid 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 �e7 9 '!9e2 �e6 10
ficient for equality. c±>hl 0-0 11 f4 exf4 12 hf4 l2Jg4 ! = ,
7 ic4 Kofidis-Andrianov, Athens 199 2 .
White has also tried: 8 0-0 0-0
a) 7 �gS? ! This aggressive move 8 ... dS? ! is b ad d ue to 9 exdS
weakens the dark squares and that cxdS 10 �el ! t (10 �gs �xc3 11 �bS +
could be immediately exploited �d7 12 �xf6 gxf6 13 Y9xdS �b8 ! 14
with 7 . . . �b8 ! 8 �xf6 . Y9xd7+ �xd7 lS �xd7+ c±>xd7 16
Or 8 �bl �aS ! 9 �d3? �xb2 ! 10 bxc3 �b2+)
�d2 �xbl 11 �xbl �b4- + ; 8 �c4 9 c±>hl
�xb2 ! 9 �b3 �b4 10 �d2 �aS 11 �f3 Or 9 f4 d6 10 fxeS dxeS
�a6 ! 12 a3 0-0 13 �a2 �e7 with a (10 . . . l2Jg4 ! ?) 11 �gs (Black was in­
fine game, for example: 14 �b3 (Or tending . . . tt:Jd7-cS and f7-f6) 11 . . . �e7
14 tt:Jdl �xa2 ! lS �as �aloe; 14 ltJdS with a good game .

20 3
Part 11

9 . . . d6 9 �d 2 d S (9 . . . hc3 10 hc3 ltJxe4

9 . . . dS ! ? 10 exdS cxdS ll �gS hc3 levels the game as 11 heS?? loos­
12 bxc3 h6 13 �h4 Wffd6 is worth con­ es to 11. . . WiaS + , whereas 11 Wffg4 0-0
sidering, but we prefer the well test­ 12 Wixe4 dS 13 Wie2 dxc4= reduces
ed pawn structures after 9 . . . d6. the tension) 10 exdS cxdS 11 �bS+
10 f4 ltJg4 11 Wi el �d7+;
Or 11 h3 exf4 12 �f4 Wih4 13 Wfff3 9 �h4? gS 10 �g3 ltJxe4 11 hes
ltJe S= [11 Wfff3 hc3 + 12 bxc3 dS 13 hes
0-0 14 �d3 (14 �e2 �e8 1S �d4 cS 16
�e3 ltJxc3 -+) 14 . . . �e8 (14 . . . Wffe7 !?
l S �d4 ltJg3+ 16 @d 2 ltJxhl 17 �el
Wffd6 when Wh ite's initiative is in­
sufficient because of the shaky po­
sition of his king in the centre) lS
he4 �xeS+, Cherkasov-Shariya­
zdanov, Swidnica 1997] 11. . . Wffe7 12
Wid4 f6 13 Wixe4 WixeS+.
9 . . . Wffxf6 10 Wffd 3 0-0 11 0-0 d6 12
ll . .. exf4 12 hf4 ltJ eS 13 Wffg3 Wie7 a3 �cs 13 ltJ a4 �d4 14 c3 �b6= .
14 ltJe 2 �cS=
Black's position has a sound stra­ 8 h6!?
...

tegical foundatio n. He controls the Sveshnikov decorates this move

centre and has no weaknesses on with an exclamation mark. He un­
the kingside. der lines its prophylactic function as
White is deprived of the �gS pin.
7 ... .ib4 Instead, 8 . . . dS 9 exdS hc3 10
bxc3 cxdS 11 �bS + �d7 12 ixd7+
Wixd7 13 �a3 ! or 8 . . .hc3 9 bxc3
ltJxe4 10 �a3 ! dS 11 �d3oo favours
White.
More interesting is 8 . . . 0-0 9
�gS !
The alternatives are worse:
9 @hl? ! �c3 10 bxc3 dS+;
9 f4 Wffb 6 + (9 . . . Wffe7? ! 10 fxeS !
WixeS 11 Wff d3 ltJ g4 12 �f4 Wies+ 13
@hl ltJf2 + 14 �xf2 Wffxf2 lS �floe) 10
8 0-0 @hl �c3 11 bxc3 ltJxe4 12 Wfff3 dS 13
It was still early for 8 �gS , for fxeS (13 �d3 exf4 14 hf4 fS+) 13 .. .fS
White has no good answer to 8 . . . 14 �d3 �e6+.
h6: 9 �xf6 9 . . . h6 10 �h4 �e7 Yakovich
Alternatives are : claims that Black has no problems,

20 4
 1 e4 cs 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l!Jxd4 l!Jf6 S l!J c3 es

but we think that White's game af­ a. 6 tll b3

ter 11 Wff d3, E:adl and solid central Tarrasch condemns this move,
play should be easier. calling the placement of the knight
lamentable. But, then, he claims
9 f4 that a knight on b3 is nearly always
Another possible setup is 9 Wff d3 bad . . .
0-0 10 E:dl d6 (10 . . . �b7 11 a3 �xc3 6 .ib4
•••

12 Wffxc3) 11 l!Ja4 (11 �e3 l!Jg4 ; 11 a3

�xc3 12 bxc3) 11. . . dS, when 12 exdS
is well countered by 12 . . . e4.
9 %Ye7 1 0 fxe5 V9x e5 1 1
•••

®h1
Or 11 �b3? ! 0-0 1 2 @hl �xc3 13
bxc3 l!Jxe4+.
1 1 ixc3 1 2 bxc3 0-0
•••

Bl. 7 �d3
B 2 . 7 �gS
B3. 7 �c4

8 1 . 7 .id3 d5 8 exd 5
8 0-0? �xc3 9 bxc3 dxe4 1 0 �e2
Wffxdl 11 E:xdl 0-0+.
8 . �xd5 9 .id2
. .

1 3 if4 White can sacrifice the exchange

13 Wffd4 E:e8 14 �xh6 (14 WffxeS with 9 0-0 l!Jxc3 10 bxc3 �xc3 11
E:xeS lS �xh6 E:xe4=) 14 . . . Wffxd4 lS �a3 , but his compensation is insuf­
cxd4 E:xe4= leads to a roughly equal ficient, for Black can castle long. (He
ending, e .g: 16 �d3 ! ? (16 c3 dS 17 h ad not a better choice though as
�d3 E:e8 (17 . . . gxh6 !? 18 E:xf6 E:e3 11 E:bl 0-0 12 Wfff3 �b4 or 12 ... Wfff6 ! ?
19 E:f3 E:xf3 20 gxf3 E:b8=) 18 �f4 favours Black) 11. . . �xal (There is
l!Je4=) 16 . . . E:xd4 17 E:ael d6 18 E:xf6 no need to shy away fram the chal­
E:xd3 19 cxd3 gxf6 20 E:e8+ Wh7= . lenge. In that case 11. . . �b4 12 �xb4
1 3 V9xc3 1 4 es
••• l!Jxb4 13 �bS + l!Jc6 would be only
This position arose in the game equal) 12 Wffxal Wffc7 13 f4 (13 E:bl b6
Paiva-Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo zt 14 Wff c3 �b7 lS �fS g6 16 �h3 fS ! + ;
1972 , when 14 . . . l!JdS lS �xdS cxdS 1 3 l!JcS? 0-0 !) 13 . . . �e6 ! (Enables
16 WffxdS (16 E:f3 Wffc6 17 E:g3 Wffe6 18 the queenside castling, making it
Wffd 2 Wh7=) 16 ... �a6 17 E:fdl �e2 = clear that the extra material should
would have been totally equal. prevail. This is not the only move

20 S
Part 11

though. 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14 fxeS l!JxeS lS ter-Lasker, World Ch. 1 910 . Now

�d4 l!J xd3 16 cxd3 � f7 ! is not bad the best move is 16 . . . V!fb6 + ! 17 �hl
either) 14 l!Jc5 (14 fS hb3 lS axb3 g6 18 he6 + (18 �xe6 gxhS 19 �e7+
0-0 - 0+) 14 . . .exf4 lS V9xg7 0-0-0+. �d8 20 �d7+ �e 8 21 �f6 �es - +)
9 . . . �xc3 1 0 bxc3 .id6 18 ... fxe6 19 V9xg6 hxgS 2 0 �xe6+
�c7 2 1 �f7+ �b8 with a big advan­
tage. (Lasker)

1 1 . . . 0 -0 1 2 f4 f5 (12 . . . �e8 ! ?) 1 3
fxe5 .ixe5 1 4 VNf3 .ie6 1 5 �ae1
Perhaps White could maintain
the balance with lS l!JcS �dS 16
l!Jxb7 V!fb6 + (16 . . . V!fd7 17 l!JcS �d6
18 l!Jb7 hh2 + is unclear: 19 �hl
�es 20 V!fh3 �g3 2 1 l!JcSoo) 17 �e3
hf3 18 hb6 axb6 19 �xf3 albeit
Black still has some threats.
1 1 0-0
1 5...g6
White has also tried to deprive
This i s better than l S . . . �dS,
Black of castling by 11 �hS V!fc7 12
which was played in Br kic-Shariyaz­
0-0 �e6 13 �gS ! ?
danov, Zadar 1999. After the text
1 3 �e3 0-0-0 i s good for Black
Black's game is to be preferred, for
since 14 l!JcS?? loses to 14 . . .hcS lS
instance :
hcS �dS- +
16 �h3 �d6+;
13 . . . h6 14 f4
16 �f4 �dS ;
14 �adl is too slow: 14 . . . g6 lS
16 c4 V!fd6 (16 . . . V!fc7 ! ? 17 l!JcS??
�h4 �e7 (lS .. .fS ! ? 16 f4 e4 17 �f6
�d4+ 18 �e3 l!JeS-+) 17 �f4 (17
0-0 18 �e2 �f7 is also interesting)
�h3 �ae8+) 17 ... hf4 18 �xf4 �xf4
16 he7 V!f xe7+.
19 �xf4 �ae8+;
14 . . . exf4 lS �ael �d7 16 �fS
16 �xeS? l!JxeS 17 V!fe2 �e8 - +.
(or 16 �xe6? ! fxe6 17 V!ff7+ �c8 18
�xe6 + V!fd7 19 V!f dS �es-+)
82. 7 .i g 5 h 6 8 .ixf6

This is the famous game Schlech-

206
 1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 tLlf6 S tlJc3 es

8 . . ..ixc3+ ! can follow a clear strategical line,

The split queenside pawns are based on a better pawn structure.
the future targets in Black's war 7 . . . 0-0
plan.
9 bxc3 1Mfxf6 1 O .ic4
Alternatively:
10 �e2 d6 11 0-0 0-0 12 �d3 �d8
13 �fdl �e6 14 �f3 �ac8+;
10 �d3 tLle7 11 tLld2 0-0 12 c4 d6
13 tLlfl �e6 14 tLle3 �ac8+. Accord­
ing to Sveshnikov, Black will dou­
ble his rooks on the c-file, gaining
an edge.
1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0
White's pressure along the d-file
is inefficient, due to the weakness of 8 0-0
the g2-pawn: 11 �d2 d6 (11. . . �g6 ! ? White can also protect the e4-
12 f3 tLl e 7 1 3 0-0-0? ! bS ! 14 hbS pa wn by:
�b8 15 �c4 �b6t with powerful ini­ 8 �gs h6 9 h4 d6 ! (Suggested
tiative in Andrade-Vallejo , Menorca by Sveshnikov. 9 . . . hc3 + 10 bxc3
1996) 12 �dl �g6 13 f3 (13 0-0 �xe4 d6 is also appealing, e.g. 11 �f3
14 �dS �a4+) 13 . . . �e6 . Black is al­ �e6 12 �dS �c8+) 10 �f3 (10 �xf6
ready better: 14 �d3 ? ! �gS ! ? lS 0-0 hc3 + 11 bxc3 �xf6 or 10 a3 hc3 +
(lS �xgS hxgS+) lS ... �xd2 16 �xd2 11 bxc3 �e6 12 �dS hdS 13 exdS
�ac8 17 �e2 tLle7+, Butt-Ochoa, The­ tLlb8 14 tLld2 tLlbd7 15 tLle4 �e7 16
ssaloniki 1984; 14 �dS hdS lS exdS �bl b6 17 �b3 �fc8 give Black a clear
tLle7+; 14 he6 fxe6 lS 0-0 �ad8 16 positional edge .) 10 . . . �e6+;
c4 b6+. 8 �d3 dS ! ? (8 . . . d6 9 �gS h6 10
1 1 . . . d 6 1 2 1Mf d3 .ie6 1 3 gad 1 �h4 �e6 11 0-0 hc4 12 �xc4 hc3 !
gfd 8 1 4 .id5 gac8 1 5 gd2 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 �xc3=) 9 exdS (9
1 �xdS tLlxdS 10 exdS tLle7 11 0-0 �fS
Or 15 �bs �c7 16 �d3 hds 17
12 �g3 f6+) 9 . . . e4 10 �g3 tLle7 ll 0-0
�xdS tLle7 18 �d2 b6 and White's
game is difficult. tLlfSoo. (Rogozenko)
1 5 . . . 1Mfe7 1 6 gfd 1 .ixd5 1 7 8 . . . .ixc3 9 bxc3 d 6 ! 1 O 1Mf d3
1Mfxd 5 1Mf c7i , Andreas-Tsermiadia­ White's compensation for the
nos, Singapore 1990 . White has too central pawn is not so clear after 10
many weaknesses to defend. �a3 tLlxe4 11 �d3 (or 11 �el tLlf6 12
�dl tLl e8 13 f4 �b6 + 14 � h l exf4 1S
�xf4 tLle S) ll ... tLlf6 12 �adl (12 �xd6
83. 7 .ic4 regains the pawn, but loses the in­
White is ready to part with a itiative: 12 . . . �xd6 13 hd6 �d8 14
pawn for initiative, but Black should �adl �fS+, or 12 hd6 �fS 13 �xf5
not oblige him by grabbing it . He �xd6 14 �adl �c7+) 12 . . . tLle8 13

20 7
Part 11

�dS (13 �xd6 l!Jxd6 14 �xd6 �fS+) l!JcS) 2 2 . . . b6+) 2 0 . . . b6 2 1 �g3 l!Je6 !
13 . . . �g4 . with an edge, Crepan-Grosar, Celje
1 o . . . i.e6 20 0 3 .
1 6 . . . b 6 1 7 � d 2 � xd 2 1 8 gxd2
Wfe 7i.
Black is a little better thanks to
his superior pawn structure.

C. 6 �f3 i.b4 7 .Ac4

Alternatively:
7 �gS h6 8 �xf6 �xc3 + ! 9 bxc3
�xf6 10 �c4 0-0 11 0-0 d6 This po­
sition is dangerous for White who
has no compensation for his split
queenside.
1 1 gd1 7 �d3 dS 8 exdS Here Black can
After 11 �xe6 fxe6 1 2 �a3 E:f7 ! 13 choose between 8 . . . �xdS ! ? 9 0-0 (9
c4 (13 �xd6? ! �xd6 14 �xd6 l!Jxe4+; �d2? �xc3 10 �xc3 e4 11 hf6 exd3
13 hd6?? E:d7 14 E:adl l!Je 8 - +) 12 �xg7 �e4+ 13 �fl E:g8 14 �c3 (14
13 ... E:d7 14 E:adl b6 ! lS E:d 2 �e8 16 cxd3 � g6- +) 14 . . .dxc2 lS �el �fS+)
E:fdl (16 hd6?? E:ad8-+) 16 . . . E:ad8 9 . . .�xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 l!J gS E:d8 12
17 �e2 �e7 18 f4 l!Je 8 ! 19 �hS �f7 ! + �e2 �e6 ! = and the natural 8 . . . �xdS
White's pawn weaknesses become 9 �d2 l!Jxc3 10 bxc3 �e7 11 0-0 0-0
tangible, Forgach-Luther, Zwesten 12 E:el f6 with a good game.
1999; 7 . . . 0-0
Or 11 �a3 �xc4 12 �xc4 �c7 13 With White's knight on f3, it
E:fdl E:fd8 14 E:d2 bS ! lS �e2 (lS �xbS would be risky to capture on e4:
l!Jxe4 16 E:d3 �b6 17 �xb6 axb6 18 7 . . . l!Jxe4 8 �dS l!Jd6 9 �b3 �as 10
�cl (18 f3 E:xa3 19 fxe4 @f8+) 18 . . . 0-0 0-0 11 �d3 ! �a6 (ll . . . �xc3 12
dS+) l S . . . aS ! 1 6 E:adl b 4 1 7 �b2 (17 l!JgS ! e4 13 �xc3 �xc3 14 bxc3 h6 1S
cxb4 axb4 18 �cl l!J e7+) 17 . . . bxc3 18 E:dlt) 12 �xa6 ! bxa6 13 l!JdS �as 14
�xc3 l!Jb4+ and White was worse in E:dlt with clear compensation.
Crepan-Dobrov, Garica 2004.
1 1 . . .i.xc4 1 2 '%Y xc4 gca 1 3 Wf d3
�as 14 g b 1
White could fight for the draw
with 14 l!JxaS �xaS lS c4 �a6 16 �gS
�xc4 17 �xf6 �xd3 18 E:xd3 gxf6+;
or 14 �xd6 �xd6 lS E:xd6 l!Jxe4+.
1 4 . . . � c4 1 5 .ig5 h6 1 6 .ih4
16 hf6 �xf6 17 �d 2 �b6 ! 18 l!Jfl
� a4 19 c4 l!JcS 20 �e3 (20 �xd6
�xd6 21 E:xd6 �xe4 22 E:d3 (22 E:d7

20 8
 1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ltJf6 S ltJc3 eS

8 0-0 1 0 d6 1 1 ge1
•••

We are already familiar with the 11 �e l �fS is in Black's favour.

pawn structure after 8 �gS �xc3+ 1 1 lll g S 1 2 lll x g5 %Yxg 5 1 3
•••

9 bxc3 d6= . Black follows up with �xd6 .ig4 1 4 %Yc1 %Yxc1 1 5

�c8-e6, enjoying a good game. gaxc1 gfe8=
8 Wffd 3 ? ! allows the central break See game 35 Mukhin-Mina­
8 . . . dS ! After the farced sequence 9 sian, Leningrad 1990 .
�xdS ttJxdS 10 WffxdS WffxdS 11 exdS
ltJd4 12 ttJxd4 exd4 13 a3 �aS ! 14 b4
�e8 + lS ltJe2 (lS @dl dxc3 16 bxaS D. 6 lll d e2 .ic5
�g4 + 17 f3 �ad8 18 M4 �xdS+ 19 The e2-knight takes the sting of
@cl �fS+ Gligoric) 1S . . .�b6 16 @d2 6 . . .�b4, but nevertheless that is a
(16 �b2 �fS 17 @d2 �xc2 18 �hel good and popular alternative.
�b3 ! 19 ttJxd4 �xdS+) 16 . . . �d8+ 7 ti)g 3
Black is in command. 7 �e3? ! covers the d4-square at
8 .ixc3 9 bxc3 ttJxe4
••• a high price . Black obtains a good
Black might try to followthe same game, playing in the spirit of the Si­
plan as in the 6. ltJb3 variation, but cilian: 7 . . �xe3 8 fxe3 0-0 (8 . . . dS ! ?
the knight is actually much more ac­ 9 exdS ltJb 4 when 1 0 e4? fails to
tive on f3 so the effect is rather dif­ 10 . . . ltJg4 ! 1 1 Wff d2 ltJe3 12 �cl ltJc4 13
ferent: 9 . . . d6 10 Wffd3 �e6 11 �xe6 V!ff dl ttJxb2 14 Wffd 2 ltJc4 lS V9dl �g4+)
fxe6 12 �a3 ltJe8 (12 . . . WffaS 13 �xd6 ! 9 ltJg3 d6 10 V9d2 Wff b6 11 0-0-0 �e6 ,
�ad8 14 c4 ! ttJxe4 lS Wffxe4 �xd6 16 Rodriguez-Spasov, Tunj a 1989.
cS ! t) 13 �fdl �f7 (13 . . . WffaS 14 c4t) 14 7 d6
•••

Wffc4 Wie7 lS �abl �d8 16 �d3oo . 7 . . . Wffb 6 is too hasty in view of

1 0 i.a3 8 Wffd 2 ! ltJ g4 9 Wff gS ! �xf2 + 10 @dl
10 �el gives another pawn ltJe3 + 11 �xe3 V9xe3 12 Wffxe3 �xe3
without clear compensation after 13 ltJdS � b6 14 ltJfSoo.
10 . . . ttJxc3 11 Wffd6 (Or 11 Wffd3 dS 12
�b3 d4 13 ttJxeS ttJxeS 14 �xeS Wfff6 1S
f4 �g4 ! 16 h3 �e6+) ll . . . Wfff6 12 �a3
�e8 13 �e3 bS 14 �b3 aS ! lS �xc3
(lS ttJxeS ttJxeS 16 Wffxf6 gxf6 17 �xc3
�b7! 18 �g3 + ltJg6 19 c3 �e2 ! t) lS . . .
b 4 1 6 Wffxf6 gxf6 1 7 �xc6 (17 ttJxeS
fxeS 18 �g3+ @f8 19 �b2 a4 20 �dS
�as 21 c4 ltJe7! 22 �xeS ttJxdS 23
�g7 + @e7 24 cxdS d6+ leaves White
a pawn down) 17 . . . dxc6 18 �cl a4
19 �c4 �e6 . Commonly, a rook and 8 i.e2
2 pawns are quite stronger than a 8 �gS is a consistent attempt to
knight and bishop in an endgame. occupy dS: 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . Wffb6 9 Wff d2

20 9
Part 11

l2Jg4 is very sharp, but White is po­ the bishop pair and good develop­
sitionally better after 10 0-0-0 �d4 ment, he should be confident about
11 l2J a4 ! 13 f3 ! l2Je3 14 �xe3 �xe 3+ the future :
lS �bl±) 9 �xf6 Wffxf6 10 Wffd 2 �b4 ! 1 0 i.b5+
(10 . . . 0-0 11 ltJdS Wffd8 12 �c4t) 11 a3 10 �xf6 Wffxf6 11 �bS + �8 12 0-0
�xc3 12 Wffxc3 0-0 13 �c4 (13 �dl l2Jf4 is similar to the main line .
l2Jd4 14 Wffd 3 �d8) 13 . . .�e6 14 �dl 1 0 ... @fS 1 1 �xf6 �xf6 1 2
l2Jd4 lS �xe6 fxe6 16 Wffd2 �ad8= . 0-0 lllf4 1 3 lll d 5 lll x d5 1 4 �xd5
8 �c4? ! can b e attacked by g6 1 5 lll e 2 @g7 1 6 @ h 1 .ie6
8 . . . l2Jg4 ! 9 �fl (9 0-0? Wffh4 10 h3 Black seizes the initiative as 17
l2Jxf2 11 hf?+ �d 8- + ; 9 �e3? ! Wffxb7? is bad due to 17 . . . a6 ! 18 �d3
l2Jxe3 10 fxe3 0-0+) 9 . . . 0 - 0 10 h 3 (10 (18 �xa6 �hb8 19 Wffc7 �xb 2 - + ; 18
l2J a4 Wff aS+ 11 c3 bS 12 ltJxcS bxc4 13 �a4?? �a7- +) 18 . . . �hc8 + .
l2J a4 �d7! t) 10 . . . �e6 ! 1 7 �d2 ghd8 1 8 lllc 3 .id4!t
Nikac-Komarov, Niksic 2000.

E . 6 lllf 5 d5!

11 ltJd S (1 1 �xe6? �xf2 + ! 12 �xf2

l2Jxf2 13 �xf2 Wffb 6 + 14 �e2 fxe6 lS
Wffel dSt White's king is vurnerable
in the centre, e .g. 16 exdS exdS 17
ltJxdS? WffbS +- +) 11. . . l2Jf6 12 c3 (12
�gS? walks into an amazing queen
sac: 12 . . . ltJxdS ! ! 13 �xd8 �b4+ 14 El. 7 li:}xdS
�e2 l2Jd4 + lS Wff xd40 ltJf4+ 16 �3 E2 . 7 exdS
exd4 17 �b3 l2Jg6 18 �gs h6+) 12 . . .
h 6 . Black has fair chances i n this E 1 . 7 � xd 5 � x e4 !
complex position, for example, 13 The best decision. Play is rather
b4 �b6 14 a4 aS lS bS �xdS 16 �xdS dull after 7 . . . ltJxdS 8 WffxdS
(16 exdS? ! l2Je7+) 16 . . . l2Je7 17 �xb7 Or 8 exdS? ! �xfS 9 dxc6 Wffxdl+
�b8 18 �dS ltJexdS 19 exdS Wffc7oo (9 ... bxc6 10 Wfff3 Wffd7 11 �c4 �d6 12
with nice compensation. 0-0 e4 13 �el 0-0+, Sveshnikov) 10
8 ... lll d 4 9 .ig 5 lll e 6 �xdl 0-0-0 + ll �d 2 bxc6 12 �c4 (12
With this manoeuvre Black un­ �a6 + �b8 13 �e l f6 14 �e2 �cs+)
pins the f6-knight. He loses the 12 . . .f6t
right to castle indeed, but having 8 . . . Wff xdS 9 exdS hfS 10 dxc6

210
 1 e4 cs 2 ll.Jf3 ll.Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll.Jxd4 ll.Jf6 S ll.Jc3 es

bxc6 11 i.d3 i.xd3 12 cxd3 0-0-0 13 9 i.d3 is also imprecise as it gives

c;t>e2 i.cS 14 i.e3 i.b6 1S gacl c;t>b7 1 6 Black a tempo and spatial advan­
gc4 gd6 = . tage: 9 . . . e4 10 i.e2 (10 i.c4 i.d6 11
h3 0-0 12 i.e3 Wle7 13 Wf e2 i.eS 14
8 �fe3 ie6 9 .ie2 Wa5+ ! 0-0 gfe8 lS gf dl h6 16 i.b3 gac8
Other good options are 9 . . . i.cS 10 17 ll.Ja4 i.b8 ! with attack in Galego­
0-0 0-0+ or 9 ... ll.Jd4 ! ? 10 c4 W! a S + 11 Antunes, Portugal 1 993) 10 . . .i.d6
i.d2 ll.Jxd 2 12 \Wxd2 W!xd2 + 13 c;t>xd2 11 igS h6 12 i.h4 0-0 (12 . . . i.f4 ! ? ,
gcs 14 gacl i.d6 lS b4 Mitzka-Per­ Sveshnikov; 1 2 . . . Wfe7 ! ? intending
ov, Budejovice 1996, when 1S . . . b6 to cramp the opponent even more
16 ghdl 0-0 17 c;t>el gfdB+ would with . . . gds) 13 Wfcl gS 14 i.g3 ll.Jds
have underlined Black's advantage lS i.xd6 W!xd6 16 \Wd2 Lutikov­
in the endgame. Sveshnikov, 1976. Here 16 . . . \WeS+
1 0 ©f1 reatains a slight edge .
Or 10 i.d2 ll.Jxd2 11 \Wxd2 W!xd2 + Hence White's best is:
12 c;t>xd2 0-0-0+. 9 Wf3 Wd7 1 0 ig5
1 0 .. 0-0-0 1 1 c4 .ic5+
. 10 ia6 scatters White's pieces
all over the board and in the game
E2. 7 exd5 .ixf5 8 dxc6 bxc6! Garbarino-Cifuentes, Casilda 1984
Black used it with 10 . . . i.e7 11 0-0 e4
1 2 \Wg3 0-0 13 i.gS (13 i.h6?? ll.JhS­
+) 13 . . .i.d6 14 Wlh4 ll.Jg4 lS gfdl (lS
h3 ll.JeS 16 gfdl \Wc7) 1S . . . W!c7+ 16
ll.Jxe4? ! i.xh 2 + 17 c;t>hl when 17 . . .i.eS
18 c3 gae8t would have been clearly
better for him.
1 0 . . . e4

Black leaves the choice to the op­

ponent. Now the endgame would be
level:
9 \Wxd8+ gxd8 10 i.e3 when the
most aggressive is 10 . . . i.b4! 11 ixa7
(11 a3 i.xc3+ 12 bxc3 gd7+) 11. .. gd7
12 i.e3 ll.JdS 13 i.d2 ll.Jxc3 14 hc3
(14 bxc3 i.cS lS i.e3 i.xe3 16 fxe3
hc2+) 14 . . . i.xc3+ lS bxc3 i.xc2 1 1 We2
16 a4 c;t>d8 ! + . Black's pieces activi­ White has also tried:
ty should prevail over White's extra a) 11 Wlg3 i.d6 12 \Wh4 i.eS 13 ic4
pawn. 0-0 14 0-0 h6+;

211
Part 11

b) ll �e3 ? ! ltJg4 12 �d2 (12 �g3 ? ! initiative for merely one pawn: 12
�cS 1 3 ltJ d l h 6 14 �f4 g S l S �es o-o �xf6 ? ! hf6 13 ttJxe4 0-0 14 ttJxf6+
16 �e2 ltJxeS 17 �xeS �d4+, Serp­ gxf6 . White does not manage to cas­
er-Kasparov, Internet blitz, 1998) tle : lS �d2 �fe8 + 16 �e2
12 . . .�xd2 + 13 hd2 �cs 14 ltJdl 16 <i>dl is hardly any better, as
ttJxf2 lS ltJxf2 e3 16 he3 he 3 17 16 . . .�c7 17 �d3 �ad8 18 @cl (18 b4
�d 3 �e6 18 @e2 �d4 19 c3 � b6 20 cs 19 bxcS �xcS 20 �bl �ds 2 1 �b3
�hdl 0-0-0 21 b3 Teske- Krasenkow, �d4 22 �c3 �b8+ Mellado-Cam­
Bundesliga 2 00 3 , when 2 1 . . . �he8 pos Moreno, Hostafrancs 2002 also
22 @fl fS+ highlights the power of gave Black a deadly attack.) 18 . . . cS
the bishop pair. 19 b3 (19 �el �xel+ 20 �xel hd3
c) 11 �dl is a rare move which re­ 21 cxd3 c4 ! 22 d4 �xh2+ Faisst­
centlywas successfullyused byVolo­ Hohm, corr. 1993) 19 . . . �eS 20 �bl
kitin at the Aeroflot Open. Follow­ c4 ! 21 bxc4 �b8+. Black's attack is
ing the logical: irresistible, Rogers-Volzhin, Aosta
11 . .. �d6 ! Black aims at a complex 2002.
middlegame with a bishop pair, har­ 16 . . . �e7 17 @fl �ad8 (17 . . . �eS !?)
monious development and prob­ 18 �d3 �es 19 �bl �bs ! �
lematic dark squares in the enemy 1 2 . . . '%Yb7
camp. (Instead Volokitin-Kuzubov, This suggestion of Sveshnikov
Moscow 2007 saw 11 . . . �c7? ! 12 looks the most consistent continu­
�xf6 gxf6 13 �d4 �eS? ! 14 �a4 �c8 ation. The alternative 12 . . . �e6 ! ?
lS �a6 �c7 16 �dl �d6 17 ltJdS+.) leads t o balanced play after 1 3 �c4
12 �xf6 �b8 , see game 36 Akopian-Yak­
Or l2 �d4 �e7 13 �dl �eS 14 �a4 ovich, Rostov on Don, 1993.
0-0 and Black is 0 K, for instance, lS 1 3 '%Ya6
�xc6? ! �b4 ! 16 �bs �xbS 17 hbS The greedy 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 ttJxe4
�ab8t or l3 �c4 0-0 14 �xc6? ! �ac8 0-0 ! (14 . . . �b4 + lS ltJd2+ �e6 16
1S �a4 �b4+) �e4 ! ) lS ttJxf6+ gxf6 is similar to
=

12 . . . gxf6 13 �d4 �e7! with excel­ the game Mellado-Campos Moreno,

lent prospects: but the difference favours Black.
14 0-0-0 �es lS �a4 0-0t; 1 3 . . . �b8 1 4 '%Yx b7 � xb7 1 5 �c1
14 �a4 0-0 lS g4 (lS �xc6? �ac8
16 �a4 �b4+) 1S . . . �g6 16 h4 h6 17
0-0-0 �ab8t;
14 �bS �c8 (14 . . . 0-0 ! ? deserves
attention: lS hc6 �es 16 �e3 �ac8
17 �dS �fd8oo) lS �a4 0-0 with a
preferable game.

1 1 . . ..i e7 1 2 � d 1
I t i s risky t o give Black a strong

212
 1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jc3 es

1 5 .ib4
. . . lt:J e4+) 16 . . . �b6 17 �c4= .
The diagram position is satisfac­ 1 6 .id2 @e7 1 7 .ic4
tory for Black. His piece activity and After 17 �a6 �d7 Black is more
space advantage amply compensate active although the draw is the most
the split queenside pawn structure . probable result. Play could continue
Instead of the text, lS . . . 0-0 also re­ with 18 tt:Jxe4 .bd2 + 19 lt:Jxd2 �hd8
tains a slight initiative in more or 20 �d3 .bd3 21 cxd3 �xd3 22 �e2
less balanced endgame: 16 �a6 (16 lt:Jg4 23 � h el �f8 24 lt:Je4 �xdl 2 S
�c4 e3 ! 17 �d3 exf2 + 18 �xf2 �cs+ �xdl � e 8 26 f3 fS 2 7 fxg4 �xe4+ 2 8
19 �fl Dusper-Thurmer, Harkany �f3 �xg4+ with a material advan­
2001, 19 . . . .bd3 + 20 �xd3 �e8 and tage in a drawish ending.
White should be careful as 21 lt:J a4 1 7 J�� d8
..

would walk into 2 1 . . . �be7! 22 �d2 The game is level.

213
PART 1 1 1 e4 c5 2 li)f3 li)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4
li)f6 5 li)c3 e5 u nu sual l i n e s
-

COMPLETE GAM ES

3S M u kh i n - M in a s ian some tension in a balanced posi­

Len in g rad 1 990 tion.
1 e4 cs 2 ti:)f3 ti:) c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 1 6 . . . ie6 1 7 ixc6 bxc6 1 8 a3
ti:) xd4 es s ti:) f3 ti:) f6 6 ti:) c 3 ib4 7 18 E'!:xeS �xa2 19 E'!:cS aS 20 8:xc6
ic4 0-0 8 0-0 ixc3 9 bxc3 a4 2 1 ia3 8:ec8 = is a dead draw, but
in the game White is gradually be­
coming worse. Tournament prac­
tice has seen many examples when
the opposite coloured bishops do
not guarantee a draw. In combina­
tion with rooks, one extra pawn or
even just a passer, commonly brings
a full point.
1 8 . . . f6 1 9 f3 � ed8+ 20 �ed 1
ic4 21 <i>f2 <i>f7 22 icS a6 23 � b 1
<i> e 6 2 4 <i> e1 �dS 2 S �xdS <i>xd S 2 6
9 . . ti) xe4
.
ie3 i b S 2 7 � b 4 g S 2 8 c4+ .ixc4
In line B3 we recommend in 29 �b7 � h 8 30 ia7 hS 31 �b8 �h7
nearly the same position, except for 32 �d8+ <i>e6 33 i c S i d S 34 c4
the knight being on b3 , to play 9 . . . ixc4 3S �d 6+ <i>f S 36 �xc6 ibS+
d 6 , threatening with . . . t2Jxe4. Here Black is already much better, but
Black levels the game by capturing 37 8:d6 would have offered chances
the pawn immediately. for salvation. Instead White loses in
1 O ia3 d6 1 1 �e1 ti:) g S 1 2 ti:) x g S a couple of moves.
YMxg S 1 3 ixd 6 ig4 14 YMc 1 YMxc1 37 �b6 �c7 38 ib4 �c1 + 39
1S �axc1 �fe8 16 id S <i>f2 �c2+ 40 <i> g 1 g4 41 �d6 gxf3
White has the bishop pair so he 42 gxf3 ic6 43 �d3 h4 44 ie 1 h 3
should be trying to open more oper­ 4S .i d 2 .i b S 0-1
ating space for it. 16 f4 exf4 17 hf4 White resigned because h e has
ie6 18 ib3 would have preserved no useful moves, e.g. 46 8:d6 8:a2 .

2 14
 1 e4 cs 2 ll:Jf3 ll:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:Jxd4 ll:Jf6 S ll:Jc3 es

36 Ako p i an - Yakovich active position, thus rendering lS

Rostov on Don, 1 993 ll:J a4? ! dubious due to 1S . . . e3 ! ; the
1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 e6-pawn will be a good shield of the
4 � xd4 � f6 s � c3 e s 6 � ts dS 7 king in the centre . 14 . . . .ixe6 lS ll:J a4
exdS ixfS 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 \Wf3 \Wd7 would have been roughly equal.
1 0 igS e4 1 1 Y«e2 ie7 1 2 g d 1 1 S b3
\We6 ! ? The computer contemplates a
I n 1993 this move was a novel­ dumb defence with lS icl ll:JdS 16
ty. We chose as a main line 12 . . . �b7 ll:Je2, which is, of course, the last
13 �a6 �b8 , but the text is a good thing a human would choose. Then
alternative. White will trade queens 16 . . . e3 ! would be as good as ever.
anyway, the question is what square 1 S. . . � d S !
Black should prefer. Yakovich has 1 S . . . ib4 16 id2 �d8 17 ll:Jbl de-
an original idea in mind . . . fends everything.
1 3 \Wc4 g b a 1 4 Y«xe6 1 6 ixe7 @xe7 1 7 � a4 e3 1 8
c4
18 id3 exf2 + 19 @xf2 E:hf8
would allow Black to activate his
second rook.
1 8 . . . exf2+ 1 9 @xf2 � b4 20
ie2
White has finally completed de­
velopment and the imminent elimi­
nation of the queenside pawns pre­
determine the draw.
20 . . . � xa2 21 ga1 � b4
1 4 . . . fxe6 ! Yakovich could have posed more
I n such positions one should practical problems with 21 . . . �hf8,
not think about pawn weaknesses. but 22 if3 (22 ll:JcS @d6+) 22 . . . ll:Jb4
By capturing with pawn, Black en­ 23 ll:JcS a6 24 E:hdl ! eS 2S El:aS=
ables the move . . . ll:JdS which will would avoid any danger.
underline how vulnerable White's 22 � c s a6 23 ghd 1 ! ghd8 24
queenside is. There are two oth­ gxd8 gxd8 2S g a4 ! =
er points in favour of 14 . . . fxe6: the Draw, in view of 2 S . . . �b8 2 6 ll:Jxa6
light-squared bishop remains on ll:Jxa6 27 �xa6 �xb3 28 �xc6=.

21S
Part 1 2 1 e4 cs 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 Rare Li nes
3 c3
3 lll c3 lll c 6 4 es

QUIC K REP E RTO I RE

The repertoire with 2 . . . l!Jc6 is per­ Against 3 c3, we recommend a

fect against anti-Sicilians. You do very well tested system:
not need to learn anything specific, 3 ... lll t6 4 es lll dS
as, for instance, is the case with 2 . . .
e6. Perhaps the only variation of in­
dependent significance is:
3 lll c 3 lll f 6 4 es lll g 4 s �e2
d6 6 exd6 e6

Now 5 d 4 cxd4 6 cxd4 d6 7 i.c4

dxeS 8 dxeS l!Jb6 9 \Wxd8+ l!Jxd8
10 i.bS+ i.d7 11 l!Jc3 e6 is level, so
White usually prefers:
S .ic4 lll b 6 6 .ib3 dS 7 exd6
Black ensures normal develop­ �xd6
ment of his army. This allows him
to fight for the initiative while White
tries to disentangle his pieces. Now
7 g3 seems a realistic approach, al­
though Black would be fine after
7 . . . �xd6 8 i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 es 10 h3
l!Jf6 11 d3 h6. Should White attempt
to snatch a pawn with 7 \Wc4 eS ! 8 h3
l!Jh6 9 \WxcS? ! , he will have a diffi­
cult time neutralizing Black's initia­
tive following 9 . . . �xd6 10 \Wc4 0-0 . White is at a juncture here . He

2 16
 1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 tlJ c6 rare lines: 3 c3 ; 3 tlJc3

can sacrifice a pawn, trying to ex­ 1 0 d4 cxd4 11 �xd4 �xd4 12

ploit his lead in development, or 11Mxd4 E:d8 13 11Mh4 11Me2
castle. The latest occurrence of this var­
Sometimes he plays 8 tlJ a3 as iation was in Sveshnikov-Kobalya,
well, but the fact that White has not Dagomys, 0 2 . 04 . 200 8 , where Black
castled yet makes possible 8 . . .�e6 , preferred 13 . . . g6 14 !e3 �g7 15 tlJ a3
when 9 0-0 hb3 1 0 axb3 �d3 ! 0-0 16 :§:fel and here simplest would
gives Black an easy game. have been 16 . . . �f6 = . The text is ex­
a) 8 d4 cxd4 9 0 - 0 �e6 1 0 tensively tested and practice has
�a3 dxc3 1 1 V:Ve2 hb3 1 2 �b5 proved that Black is not worse at
\Wb8 13 axb3 g6 and Black was all. We should not be afraid of tak­
slightly better in the game Matsuu­ ing the two minor pieces after:
ra-Leitao, Santos 2006. 14 �d2 8:xd2 15 ttJxd2 �xd2 16
:§:fdl ifMh6 ! 17 �g3 ifMc6 and gradual­
ly Black completes development af­
b) 8 0 - 0 i.e6 9 he6 11Mxe6
ter 18 b4 e6 19 8:d.3 f6 2 0 8:adl tlJdS
21 �b8 + �f7, Ossa-Marin, Sebas­
tian, 2006. Another variation on
this theme is:
14 �e3 ifMxb2 15 tlJd 2 8:xd2 16 8:abl
�xc3 17 hd2 ifMxd2 18 :§:fdl ifMaS 19
ifMe4 f6 ! 20 �xb7 �f7, Lintchevski­
Kuzubov, Kirishi 2004.
The onus is on White in this
line.

2 17
Part 1 2 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 lll c 6 Rare Lines
3 c3
3 lll c 3 lll c 6 4 es

STEP BY STEP

A. 3 c3 page 2 18 A1 . 5 ic4 � b6 6 .ib3 d 5 7 exd6

B. 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 eS page 2 2 2 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 is pointless as
Black's bishop can land on fS or g4 .
A . 3 c3 7 . Y«xd 6
. .

Black has not committed him­

self with any pawn moves like 2 . . .
e 6 o r 2 . . .d 6 , s o h e keeps all options
open. Whatever you play against 2
c3 should be also good on move 3 .
We'll restrict t o some brief recom­
mendations about one of the main
lines against 2 c3 . It has been very
well tested and White seems unable
to demonstrate new ideas here :
3 lllt6 4 es lll d S
•••

Ala. 8 d4
Alb. 8 l2J a3
Ale. 8 0-0

Ala. 8 d4 cxd4 9 0 - 0
9 ltJ a3 �e6 1 0 ltJ bS V!id7 transpos­
es to Alb ; 9 cxd4 �e6 10 l2Jc3 hb3
11 �xb3 e6=.
9 .te6 10 lLla3 dxc3 11 �e2
•••

After 11 ltJbS V!ixdl 12 �xdl �c8

13 he6 fxe6 Black's extra pawn is
doubled, but it controls the impor­
tant dS-square: 14 l2Jxc3 (14 bxc3
Al. S �c4 l2Jc4 lS �bl es 16 �el b6 17 �e4 l2Jd6+
A2 . S d4 Morozevich-Topalov, rapid Monte

218
 1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!J c6 rare lines: 3 c3; 3 l!Jc3

Carlo 20 02) 14 . . . g6 15 �el l!JdS+. White has tried here: 16 �e3 �c8
ll hb3 12 tllb 5 11Mb8 13
. . . 17 l!JbS �cS= , 16 l!JbS \Wc6 17 ie3
axb3 �cs 18 hcS \WxcS= and 16 l!JfS Wic7
White plays a risky gambit. In 17 l!J xe7+ \Wxe7 18 �e3 l!JdS=, Han­
practice Black obtains good results sen-Timofeev, Skanderborg 200 5 .
with normal development: 9 hb3 1 0 axb3
.•.

13 g6 14 ie3 tll c 8 15 ga4

.•. Black should meet 10 \Wxb3 with
15 bxc3 �g7 16 l!Jbd4 0-0 17 l!Jxc6 10 . . . \Wd3 ! 11 �el e6 12 �e3 \Wd7 13
bxc6 18 �c2 as 19 �d4 l!Jd6 20 hg7 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4 14 �xc4 !ie7= .
�xg7 21 �a4 cS+, Manca-Kotronias, 1 0 . . . %Yd3 !
Cork 2 0 05.
15 ... �g7 16 bxc3
Or 16 �f4 eS 17 l!JxeS l!JxeS 18
hes hes 19 f4 0-0 20 fxeS cxb2
21 �e4 a6 22 l!Jd4 l!Je7+.
16 0 - 0 17 gh4 tlld 6 18 if4
.•.

e5 19 tllxe5
We have been following the game
Matsuura-Leitao, Santos 2006 , when
19 . . . l!JxeS 20 heS �e8 21 l!Jxd6
\Wxd6 22 hd6 �xe2+ would have
been in Black's favour.
11 E:el
In Sveshnikov-Gallagher, Calvia
Alb. 8 tll a3 ie6 2004 White failed to remove the
8 . . . a6 is the other popular op­ blockade on the d3-square after 11
tion. It also brings Black good re­ �c2 �d8 12 �xd3 �xd3 13 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4
sults. 14 bxc4 e6 15 �el �e7 16 l!JeS l!JxeS
9 0-0 17 �xeS a6 = .
9 d4 cxd4 1 0 l!JbS �d7 ll l!Jbxd4 11 e6 1 2 E:e3 \Wd7 13 tll c4
.•.

hb3 12 �xb3 l!Jxd4 13 l!Jxd4 e6 14 tllxc4 14 bxc4 E:d8

0-0 ie7 1S �dl 0-0 leads to an equal Black deployed his pieces on
position: good squares and does not have any
problems.

Ale. 8 0 - 0 ie6
8 . . . c4 ! ? 9 ic2 g6 10 b3 ig7 11 l!J a3
cxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 d4 ig4 leads to
a very solid position for Black, for
instance, 14 h3 hf3 15 �xf3 es 16
llJ bS (16 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4 17 bxc4 exd4
18 ia3 \Wc7 19 hf8 �xf8 with ex-

219
Part 12

cellent compensation) 16 ... �dS 17 proved that Black i s not worse at

�xdS (17 �e2 exd4 18 llJc7 �d7 19 all:
ttJxa8 �xa8oo) 17 . . . llJxdS 18 !e4 a6 19 a) 14 �d2 �xd2 lS llJxd2 �xd2 16
hdS axbS= . �fdl �h6 17 �g3 �c6 18 b4 e6 19
9 he6 �d3 f6 2 0 �adl tlJ dS 2 1 �b8 + @f7 2 2
Or 9 a4 hb3 10 �xb3 e6 (10 . . . a 3 (22 �xa7 �e7- +) 2 2 . . . � g 8 (22 . . .
c 4 1 1 �bs �ds 1 2 llJ a3 0-0-0oo) 11 bS- +) 2 3 �xa7 �e7 24 �d4 �c8 2 S
llJ a3 (1 1 aS? ! �dS 12 �bS c4 ! 13 llJd4 �el fS- + Ossa-Marin, Sebastian,
llJd7+) 11 . . . !e7 12 llJbS �b8 = . 2006 ;
9 Wfxe6
••• b) 14 �e3 �xb2 l S tlJ d 2 �xd2 16
�abl �xc3 17 hd2 �xd2 18 �fdl
�as 19 �e4 f6 ! 20 �xb7 @f7 2 1 �el
gS 2 2 �e2 hS 23 �bel h4 24 h3 (24
�xe7+ he7 2S �xe7+ @g6 26 �e4+
@h6 - +) 24 . . . tlJdS 2S �b3 @g7 26
�e4 llJf4 27 �d l �fs 28 f3 �cs+ 29
�e3 �xe 3+ 30 �xe3 e6-+ Lintchevs­
ki-Kuzubov, Kirishi 2 004.

A2. 5 d4 cxd4 6 cxd4

6 �c4 llJb6 7 � b3 d6 8 exd6 �xd6
1 0 d4 9 0-0 �e6 transposes to line Al.
10 a4 �d7 11 aS llJdS 12 d4 cxd4 6. . .d 6
13 ttJxd4 e6 14 a6 b6 leads to an un­
explored position, which looks ac­
ceptable for Black, for example:
lS c4 ttJdb4 16 llJxc6 �xc6 17 llJc3
�e7f:± .
1 0 cxd4 11 lllx d4
•••

Or 11 cxd4 �d7 12 llJc3 = .

1 1 lllxd4 1 2 Wfxd4
•••

12 cxd4 �d7 13 ttJc3 e6 14 �g4

ttJdS ! was excellent for Black in
Ofek-Gruenfeld, Ramat Aviv 1998.
12 gds 13 Wfh4 Wfe2
•••

The latest occurrence ofthis vari­ 7 �c4

ation was in Sveshnikov-Kobalya, 7 exd6 �xd6 8 llJc3 �fS= is trivi­
Dagomys, 0 2 . 04 . 20 0 8 , where Black al .
preferred 13 . . . g6 14 �e3 !g7 lS llJ a3 7 llJc3 is an old move which leads
0-0 16 �fel and here simplest would to an equal endgame. In principle,
have been 16 . . . �f6 = . The text is ex­ when playing against an eS-pawn,
tensively tested and practice has Black benefits f ram exchanges, es-

220
 1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 rare lines: 3 c3 ; 3 l!Jc3

pecially those of knights. Throwing Players who like the French De­
queens in the deal is even better. fence, might prefer 7 . . . l!Jb6 8 �b3
7 . . . dxeS 8 dxeS l!Jxc3 9 �xd 8+ dS, e.g. 9 l!Jh4 e6 10 g3 �d7 11 l!Jc3
l!Jxd8 10 bxc3 �d7 l!J c4 12 0-0 bS 13 a4 b4 14 l!Je2 �e7
lS l!Jg2 l!J4aS 16 �c2 b3 17 hb3
l!Jxb3 18 �xb3 0-0 with excellent
play, Rausis-Chomet, France 200 0 .
O r 8 �bS dS ! ? ( 8 . . . dxeS i s well
known from thousands of games)

Black has many good plans here.

We'll note a fresh idea, co 6 nected
with an attack on the eS-pawn. It
involves g6, �g7 to provoke f4, and
then .. .f6 .
ll �e3 a) 9 h3 �fS 10 l!Jc3 �c8 11 0-0 e6
Or 11 l!Jd4 �c8 12 �e3 g6 13 �cl 12 �gs �e7 13 he7 �xe7 14 l!Jd2? !
�g7 14 f4 �f8 ! ? lS �e2 f6 16 exf6 0 - 0 l S l!Jb3 l!Jc4t Bryant-Nakamu­
�xf6 17 0-0 �h6+ IKARUS-ZAPPA, ra, Las Vegas 2007;
20 06 . b) 9 l!Jc3 �g4 10 h3 �xf3 11 �xf3
11. . . g6 ! ? e6 12 0-0 �c8 13 �dl (13 �e3 a6 14
11. . . e6 i s solid and good : 1 2 l!Jd4 �e2 �h4 lS �fdl �e7=) 13 . . . a6 14
�c8 13 @d2 �cs 14 �d3 l!Jc6= Svesh­ �fl �e7 lS �g4 g6 16 �h6 �f8oo ;
nikov-Korneev, Sochi 2006 . c) 9 l!Jh4? ! �d7 (setting the trap
12 l!Jd4 . .. l!JeS) 10 �e2 e6 11 g3 �e7 12 l!Jg2
Alternatives: 12 0-0-0 �g7 13 f6 13 f4 �c8 (hindering White's cas­
�c4 �c8 14 �dS �xc3+ lS @b2 �c8 tling, in view of . . . l!Jxd 4) 14 l!Jc3
16 ha7 l!Jc6 17 �b6 �g4 18 hc6 + 0-0 lS �e3 @h8 16 exf6 �xf6 17 b3
bxc6t Afek-Gruenfeld, Tel Aviv l!Jxd4 ! 18 hd4 �xc3+ Cherniaev­
199 2 ; 12 h4 h6 13 �e2 �g7 14 0-0 Zhigalko, Moscow 200 8 ;
l!Jc6 lS �f4 0-0 16 �abl b6 17 �bs d ) 9 0-0 �g4 10 �e3 e 6 1 1 l!Jbd2
�ac8 18 �fel l!Jb8 19 hd7 l!Jxd7 �e7 12 Wfe2 �c8 13 �fcl 0-0 14 a3
20 �bdl l!JcS+ Pomar-Polugaevsky, �d7 lS h3 �fS 16 l!Jb3 l!Jc4 ! 17 hc4
Palma de Mallorca 1972 . dxc4 18 �xc4 b6oo, Tiviakov-Topa­
12 . . . �c8 13 @d2 �g7 14 f4 �f8 ! ? lov, Wijk aan Zee 200 6 ;
planning f7-f6.
8 dxe5
7 .ic4 dxe5 8 �xdS? ! WfxdS 9 l!J c3 �d6 10

221
Part 12

d S ttJd4 11 ttJxd4 exd4 12 �xd4 es

13 �d3 �d7 14 0-0 fS has long been
found to be good for Black.
8 dxe5

Black ensures normal develop­

ment for his pieces . In this pawn
structure he might gradually gain
some spatial advantage thanks to
his control of d4 .
8. . .� b6 7 �c4
8 . . . ttJdb4 9 �b3 e6 can be used to 7 ttJe4 �xd6 8 ttJxd6+ �xd6 9 g3
complicate things. es 10 h3 ttJf6 11 �g2 0-0 12 d3 �fs
9 \Wxd8+ � xd8 1 0 .ib 5+ .id7 1 1 13 0-0 �fe8= ;
lll c 3 e6 7 d4? cxd4 8 tlJbS �xd6 9 ttJfxd4
This endgame is rather drawish, ttJxd4 10 ttJxd4 �b4+ 11 �d2 �xd4
but, amazingly, White often mana­ 12 c3 (12 �bS + �d7 13 �xb4 �xf2 +
ges to lose it. 14 �dl ttJe 3 + lS �xe3 �xe3 16 �xb7
a) 12 �xd7+ ttJxd7 13 tlJbS �c8 0-0 - +) 12 . . . �xf2 + 13 �xf2 ttJxf2 14
(13 . . . �b4+ 14 �e2 �e7 lS a3 �cs �xf2 �cs++;
16 b4 a6 17 bxcS axbS 18 �e3 ttJc6 7 g 3 �xd6 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0 es 10
19 �hbl b4 20 axb4 �xal 21 �xal h3 tlJf6 11 d 3 h6= .
ttJxb4 22 �bl ttJa6 23 �xb7 �c8 24 7 e5! 8 h 3
•••

�a7 ttJ axcS 2S tlJgS h6 26 ttJxf7 �xf7 8 ttJe4 �xd6 9 ttJxd6 + �xd6 1 0
27 �xcS �xcS 28 �xd 7 + �g6 29 f4 tlJgS 0 - 0 11 ttJe4 �g6t 1 2 ttJxcS? ttJd4
cM°S with a draw in the rook end­ 13 �d3 �fS+.
game, Pavasovic-Sveshnikov,Ljublja­ 8 lll h6 9 d3
•••

na 1996) 14 tlJxa7 �c2oo; Or 9 �xcS? ! �xd6 10 �c4 0- 0t;

b) 12 0-0 a6 13 �xd7+ (13 �e3 9 ttJe4 �xd6 10 �ds (10 ttJxd6 + ? !
�xbS 14 tlJxbS tlJdS lS tlJbd4 h6=) �xd6 1 1 tlJgS 0 - 0 12 ttJe4 �g6t)
13 . . . ttJxd7 14 �f4 ttJc6 lS �fdl ttJb6 10 . . . �e7 11 �xd 8 + �xd8 12 �bs
16 �acl �b4 17 ttJe4 tlJdS=. ttJb4+.
9 lll f 5 1 0 i.g 5 �xd6 1 1
•••

0-0-0 i.e6 1 2 �a4 f6 1 3 lll e4

3 lll c 3 lllt6 4 es lll g 4 5
a. �c7t Vachier Lagrave-Spasov, Tu­
�e2 d6 6 exd6 e6 rin 200 6 .

222
Part 1 3 1 e4 c 5 2 �f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 � db5 d6
7 .ig 5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 .ixf6 gxf6
1 0 �d5 .ig7

The Novosibirsk Variation

QU IC K R EPERTO I RE

This variation offers a different ap­ That is why we do not recom­

proach to the Sveshnikov. Instead mend the Novosibirsk variation as
of immediately attacking the cen­ a main line.
tre, Black wants to kill first White's 1 1 .id3 �e7 1 2 �x e7
knight on d5 with CiJc7-e7, and only V!fxe7
then to think about activating the
poor g7-bishop . White cannot ef­
fectively prevent it, since 11 CiJe3
CiJe7 12 �d3 f5 ! 13 exf5 d5 or 11 �h5
CiJe7 12 CiJ e3 f5 13 exf5 e4 14 0-0-0
0-0 opens play favourably to Black's
bishop pair. Other attempts like 11
g4 CiJe7 12 CiJe3 do not deserve atten­
tion either, because Black will com­
plete development, e.g. 12 . . . �b7 13
�g2 0-0 14 0-0 cj{h8 15 c3 �g8 16 A. 1 3 c4 (or 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4)
�d 3 CiJg6 when the whole White 1 3 fS 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 V!fh5
•••

kingside will be weak. The other major option is 15

In practice White often tries to �f3 and then Radjabov's 15 . . . d5 ! ?
refute Black's construction by the works fine:
sharp c4, but then Black's bish­ 16 cxd5 fxe4 17 he4 �b8
op pair comes to life and his piec­
es are like unwinding spring. The
most unpleasant approach is when
White calmly develops, reinfarcing
the key point e4 by f3 , and prepar­
ing to produce a passed pawn on the
queenside by c4 at an opportunity.
Note that in the latter case,
it is very difficult for Black to
obtain counterplay.

223
Part 13

Black has a good game : 18 �fdl game 37 Bologan-Nedev, Panor-

fS 19 d6 Wfff6 20 �c6 ie6 . mo 20 0 1 .
1 S WhS gb8 !
Intending to take on e4 a nd push
. . .fS.
1 6 exfS e4 1 7 gae1 i.b7

Currently we are unable to show

a clear-cut plan for equality here.
1 4 Wb7
•••

14 . . . Wff g S 15 0-0 ! ib7 is yet an­

This position is very sharp and other critical line .
both sides have plenty of possibil­ 1 S f3 !
ities, but Black's play is easier. The 15 V9f3 0-0 16 ttJe3 f4 17 tlJdS
key position arises after: ie6 18 g4 b4 ! is a typical break­
1 8 f3 dS! 1 9 fxe4 dxc4! trough, which ensures just enough
counterplay.
1 S f4 1 6 lll b4
•••

Move order is not critical. White

can play first 16 0-0.
16 0-0 1 7 0-0 ie6
•••

White's attack looks ominous,

but he has nothing decisive.
20 t6 ixt6 21 es Wes+ 22
@ h1 cxd3 23 gxf6 Wb4! 24
gef1 i.e4
We prefer Black's game, although 1 8 @ h 1 !?
the position remains complex. White prepares to play on the
queenside where he will make a
passed pawn.
a. 1 3 c3! ts 1 4 lll c 2! 18 �f2 is also logical , because the
14 0-0 0-0 15 tlJc2 �b8 ! , prevent­ d6-pawn seems an accessible tar­
ing a4, is satisfactory for Black. See get, but Black manages to activate

224
 7 igS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS ig7

the dark-squared bishop and obtain

counterplay:
18 . . . if6 ! 19 �d2 id8 20 ic2
ib6 + 21 �hl icS 22 ltJdS hdS ! 23
�xdS b4 24 cxb4 �xb4 25 �bl aS
26 a3 (or 26 g3 �h8 ! ? 27 gxf4 �g8
28 �d2 �xd2 29 �xd2 exf4 30 ib3
�g7) 2 6 . . . �b6 = .
1 8 ... as 1 9 �d5 ts 2 0 c4
The most purposeful move. It
ensures a pawn majority 2 : 1 on the Although it seems that Black
queenside since 20 . . . b4 is strategi­ does not experience difficulties, his
cally bad due to 21 exfS. game is not very pleasant. In fact, he
20 ... bxc4 21 i.xc4 fxe4 22 can hardly hope to win at all . White
fxe4 ©h8 will soon make a passed b-pawn and
This type of positions is crucial he will try to convert it by combin­
for the assessment of the Novosi­ ing play against the more exposed
birsk variation. Black king.

225
Part 1 3 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 'Llxd4 'Llf6 s �c3 es 6 � db S d6
7 igS a6 8 'Lla3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6
1 0 �dS ig7

The Novos ibirsk Va riation

STEP BY STEP

With this move order, Black aims to 2001, 14 �gS 0-0 1S f6 ! would have
sidestep some sharp variations, for been rather unclear: 1S . . . l2Jg6 16
instance, the piece sacrifice on bS, llJxdS �xdS (16 . . . h6 17 l2Je7+ �h7
which is possible after 10 .. .fS. One 18 h4 ! +) 17 fxg7 �xg7 18 �d3 f6 19
of the authors, Nedev, often plays �g3 e4 20 �e2 �e6 21 0-0 �d4oo.
it, so we shall examine it in de­ 14 0-0-0 0-0 (14 . . . �aS ! ?)
tail as a backup line. However, our
main repertoire is more active, and
it is currently in a better theoreti­
cal shape . There is one specific line
in the Novosibirsk variation (B2b) ,
where Black's game is rather boring
and not suitable for playing for win.
The situation might change though.
If Kasparov chose it twice not so
long ago, Black certainly hides some
trumps up his sleeve. Black's bishop pair and mobile
1 1 i.d 3 central pawns should prevaili n the
a) 11 c3 fS transposes to other ensuing sharp clash .
parts of the book, for example, 12 lS g4
exfS is covered in Part S while 12 lS f3? ! �b6 16 �gs dS ( or 17
�d 3 �e6 is considered in Part 7. llJxdS? llJxdS 18 �xdS �h 8 ! Klinger­
b) 11 l2Je3 l2Je7 12 �d3 fS ! 13 exfS Vaisser, Szirak 1985) 17 f6 �xf6 18
dS 14 �g4 �g8 lS �h4 �d6 16 0- �xf6 �xf6 19 llJxdS llJxdS 20 �xdS
0-0 �h6 ! t, Fernandez Aguado,E- �e6 with the bishop pair advantage
M. Kuijf, Sitges 199 2 ; and better development.
c) 11 �hS l2J e 7 12 l2J e 3 fS 1 3 exfS lS . . . dS 16 �g2 (16 c3 b4 ! 17 cxb4
e4 �c7+ 18 �bl �es 19 �d2 �b8 ! )
13 . . . dS? ! brought Black a victory 16 . . . �c7 ! 1 7 �xdS !
in Papaioannou-Spasov, Korinthos Alternatives are : 17 llJxdS? tlJxdS

226
 7 !gS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS !g7

18 �xdS !b7 ! 19 �d2 �es 20 c3 e3 ! 14 �c6 +

2 1 fxe3 �xg2 2 2 �xg2 �xe3+ 2 3 �d2 Or 14 �d2 dS+; 14 �b7 �aS + ! ?
�ad8 24 �hdl �xd2 2S �xd2 �d8 26 l S c3 �c8+.
ltJbl �h6- + ; 17 f6? ! �xf6 18 ltJxdS 14 . . . �e7 lS �b7+ (lS 0-0-0
ltJxdS 19 �xdS �xg4 20 �dgl �ad8 �b8 ! - + ) 1S ... �d7 16 �xd7+ hd7
21 �xe4 �d4 22 �e3 b4 23 �e4 hS 17 c4 h S ! 18 cxbS
24 h3 �eS ! 2S hxg4 �xe4 26 gxhS+ White cannot maintain the grip
�h7- + . on the centre: 18 f3 hxg4 l 9 fxg4 �h4
1 7. . . ltJxdS 1 8 ltJxdS �es 1 9 f6 20 h3 !c6 21 !f3 fS 22 gxfS he4+;
�xf6 20 �xeS (20 �xe4? fails to 18 gxhS �c6 19 �gl !h6 20 cxbS
20 . . . �xb 2 + 21 �d2 �d8 22 �e2 axbS 2 1 ltJxbS �hb8 2 2 l2Jc7 �a4+.
!g7! +) 20 . . .�xeS 21 l2Je7+ �g7 2 2 18 . . . hxg4 19 bxa6
�xe4 �b8 23 l2Jxc8 �bx98+, Emeli­ This position has been reached in
anov-Tolstov, corr 200 2 ; Sulskis-Nedev, Gothenburg 2 0 0S.
d) 11 g4 l2Je7! Black has the initiative a nd the best
Trading off White's most power­ way to develop it would have been
ful piece is certainly a good reaction 19 . . .fS ! 20 exfS (20 !d3 fxe4 2 1
to White's flank strategy. 11. . . hS is he4 d S 22 hdS �xa6 2 3 l2Jc4 e4+)
also worth considering: 12 gxhS fS 20 . . . e4 2 1 l2Jc2 (21 0-0-0 �xfS+; 21
13 �gl (13 !d3 l2Je7 14 l2Jxe7 �xe7 l2Jc4 �xa6 2 2 �xg4 d S 2 3 l2Je 3 !c6+)
lS c3 !b7 16 �f3 �gS+, Johnsen­ 2 1 . . .�xb2 22 �bl !c3 + 23 �fl .ixf5
Royset, Tromsoe 1999) 13 . . . !h6 !oo. 24 l2Je 3 !e6 2S �b7+ �f6+.
12 !e2 e) 11 c4 fS 12 cxbS
White has also tried: 12 !d3 l2Je7 13 l2Jxe7 (13 cxbS
12 l2Jxe7 �xe7 13 c3 hS ! ? or ltJxdS 14 exdS e4 lS �e2 �as+ 16
13 . . .!b7 14 �g2 !h6 lS l2Jc2 fS ! 16 Ml 0-0 17 !c4 axbS 18 ltJxbS �d7
l2Jb4 ! fxg4 17 ltJdS �xdS 18 �xdS 19 l2Jxd6 �b4 ! 2 0 ltJbS �fc8-+)
�c8f! are both pleasant for Black; 13 . . . V9xe7 transposes to 11 �d3 .
12 l2Je3 !b7 (12 . . . hSf!) 13 !g2 12 . . . l2Jd4
0-0 14 0-0 �h8 lS c3 �g8 16 �d3
l2Jg6 17 ltJdS �d7 with an edge .
12 . . . ltJxdS 13 �xdS !e6

13 !d3
Alternatives are:
13 bxa6 0-0 14 !c4 fxe4 lS 0-0

2 27
Part 13

ha6+; 13 exfS �b7 ! ? (13 . . .hfS 14 11 ..• � e 7 1 2 �xe7 VHxe7

�c4 0-0 lS bxa6 �gS ! ? 16 0-0 �h3 17
ttJe3 dS 18 hdS �xa6 19 c±>hl �d7�)
14 ttJe3 (14 �c4 axbS lS ttJxbS hdS
16 hdS ttJxbS 17 ha8 �xa8 18 0-0
ttJd4f!) 14 ... axbS lS hbS+ c±>e7 16
�d 3 e4 17 �c4 �as + 18 �d2 dS + ; 13
b6? 0-0 14 �d3 �b7 lS ttJ c4 (lS ttJc7?
fxe4+) lS . . . �b8 ! 16 ttJce3 (16 0-0?
fxe4 17 �xe4 fS-+) 16 ... fxe4 17 he4
fS 18 �d3 f4 ! 19 �hS h6 2 0 �g6 �f7!
21 �e4 fxe3 22 fxe3 ttJc2 + - + .
13 . . . 0-0 Now White chooses plans with
13 ... �e6 was played in the fa- 13 c4 or 13 c3 . Only the latter pos­
mous game Anand-Lautier, 1997 es problems to Black.
and it is supposed to be good for
Black. We do not share this opinion,
since after: 14 0-0 0-0 lS ttJc2 ttJxc2 A. 1 3 c4
16 hc2 fxe4 17 bxa6 �xa6 White is White often starts with 13 0-0
somewhat better with both 18 a4 ! ? 0-0 a nd then 14 c4. Only 13 0-0
fS 1 9 b 4 o r 1 8 he4 fS 1 9 �c2 ! c±>h8 0-0 14 �f3 is of independent signifi­
20 �b3 e4 21 �d2 �a7! 22 �acl �es cance: 14 .. .fS lS exfS dS 16 �xdS
23 g3 �g7 24 f4 ! ? exf3 2S �xf3 �h4 �b7 17 �b3 e4 18 �fe l ! ? (18 �e2
26 ttJf4 hb3 27 axb3;t. �gs 19 �adl e3 2 0 f3 �es 21 ttJc4
14 ltJc2 (14 �d2 fxe4 1S he4 �e6 ! �f4 22 �d4 �ad8 = Anand-Kramnik,
16 ttJc2 �h4 gives Black a strong in­ 1998) 18 . . . �ad8 Black has very ac­
itiative, for example: 17 ttJc3 dS 18 tive pieces and he quickly regains
hdS �ad8 19 ttJe3 axbS) 14 . . . fxe4 lS one of the pawns, retaining the in­
�xe4 �b8 16 0-0 itiative, e.g. 19 �fl (19 c4? b4; 19
16 b6 �h4 17 �f3 e4 !oo is excel­ �adl �f6 ! 20 �fl �xb2 21 c4 b4 22
lent for Black; 16 ttJxd4 exd4 17 0-0 ltJbl aS+) 19 . . . �h4 ( 1 9 . . . �dS ! ?) 20
�xbS 18 b4 (18 �cl �b7 ! 19 �f3 �e 8 �adl �d4 2 l �d 2 �fe8 ! 2 2 g3 �f6 23
20 a4 �cS=) 18 ... �b7 19 �b3 is bal- �de2 �xfS 24 �g2 e3 ! .
anced after 19 . . . �e8 ! ? or 19 . . . �gS. 1 3 fS 1 4 0-0
...

16 . . .�xbS 17 b3 �b7 18 ttJc3 dS ! ? Black has a fine game after 14

This exchange sacrifice i s more cxbS dS lS 0-0 fxe4 16 �c2 �e6 17
enterprising than 18 . . .he4 19 ttJxe4 bxa6 0-0 18 ttJbS �xa6, Jobava-Ya­
ttJxc2 20 �xc2 dS 21 �adl �d7= . kovich, Moscow 2 007.
19 ttJxbS dxe4 2 0 ltJc3 �gSoo. 14 �hS fails to 14 . . . dS ! lS cxdS
Black has an obvious compensa­ fxe4+ due to the check on b4.
tion. He could also try 20 . . . �c7 with Or 14 exfS e4 lS 0-0 exd3 16 �el
tempo . �es 17 f4 MS 18 fxeS 0-0oo.

228
 7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 !xf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS �g7

14 ... 0-0 1 8 f3
Alternative s:
a) 18 l!Jc2 WeS ! + ;
b) 18 b 3 bxc4 19 bxc4
Or 19 l!Jxc4 dS 2 0 l!Je3 (20
�e 3 �f6 ; 20 l!J aS �a8) 2 0 . . . exd3
(20 . . . �c3 ! ? 2 1 l!Jg4 f6) 2 1 l!Jg4 Wd6
2 2 f6 .ixf6 23 �h6 �e7 24 �xe7
�xh6 25 l!Jxh6+ ®g7 26 l!Jf5+ @f6
27 g4 �c8+
19 . . . ®h8 ! with strong counter­
play, for example:
Al. 15 �hS 20 l!Jbl �eS ! 21 f6 �xf6 22 !xe4
A2 . 15 �f3 !xe4 23 �xe4 �b2 24 �e2 �fb8 25
l!Jd 2 (25 �xb2 �xb2+) 25 ... �g6 ! + ;
15 cxbS is thematically met by 2 0 �e3 �eS ! 2 1 �h3 f6 2 2 �e2
15 . . . dS ! . �c6 23 l!Jc2 �b2+;
15 �e2 is also bad, because it 2 0 l!Jc2 �g8 21 f3 dS ! 2 2 fxe4
cannot stop .. .fS: �b7 16 f3 fxe4 17 dxc4, when 23 �e3? loses to 23 . . .
fxe4 f5 18 exf5 e4 19 cxbS axbS 20 cxd3 24 �h3 �h6 ! 25 �xh6 �g 2+
!xbS dS+. 26 ®hl �g7- + ;
c ) 1 8 cxbS dS ! 1 9 bxa6 �c6 2 0
�bl ( 2 0 �e3 �xb2 2 1 �h3 h 6 2 2 �bl
A1 . 1 5 \Wh5 g b8 ! �a8 23 �g3 Wf6+) 20 . . . �xb2 21 �e3
Black intends to take o n e4 and f6 22 l!Jc2 d4+, T. Horvath-Nedev,
push .. .f5 so White has not a big Fuegen 2006 ;
choice : d ) 18 !xe4 !xe4 1 9 �g4 ( 1 9 f3??
1 6 exf5 e4 1 7 g a e1 ib7 W a7+ 20 ®hl �d3-+) 19 ... �fe8 20
f6 �xf6 21 �xe4 Wxb2+;
e) 18 �e3 bxc4 19 �h3 (19 �xc4
WeS ! 2 0 �h3 h6 2 1 �g4 �c8 ! 2 2 �hS
�xb2 23 �b3 e3 ! 24 fxe3 �xe3+ 25
® hl �f2 !+) 19 . . . h6 20 !xc4 �gS ! 2 1
WxgS hxgS. White has to defend a
grim endgame: 22 �dl (22 �g3 dS
23 �xgS f6+) 22 . . . dS 23 !xdS !xdS
24 �xdS �xb2+;
f) 18 Wg4 (18 ... �fe8 ! ? is also a
good choice) 18 . . . ®h8 ! ? 19 !xe4
White has tried here nearly all (19 cxbS dS) 19 . . . �fe8 2 0 �e3 (20 f6
legal moves, but Black always re­ i.xf6 2 1 �d3 �g8 !) 2 0 . . . !xe4 21 �fel
tains good chances . �f6 2 2 �xe4 �xe4 23 Wxe4 �xb2+.

229
Part 13

1 8 . . . dS 1 9 fxe4 dxc4 !

18 �fd 1
White assigns the queen's rook
In Gouliev-Nedev, Illkirch 2004 to the c-file. Alternatives are :
was 19 . . . �cS+ ! ? 20 �hl dxc4, when a) 18 �adl �b6 19 �d3 ! (19 �e3
the best 2 l eS ! cxd3 2 2 f6 �xf6 would �d6+; 19 �fS �f6 2 0 d6 �xd6 2 1 �xd6
have transposed to the main line. �xd6 22 l!Jc2 �xfS 23 �xfS �g6 =)
20 f6 19 . . . �d7 20 hh7+ (20 g3? ! fS 2 1
Or 20 �bl? �d4 + 21 �hl f6+. �g2 � h 6 2 2 f4 exf4 23 gxf4 hb2 24
20 . . . ixf6 21 es Wes+ 22 @ h 1 l!Jc2 �g7 2S l!J b4 �d6+ Leko-Rad­
cxd3 2 3 �xf6 Wb4 ! 2 4 �ef1 ie4 j abov, Linares 2 0 04) 2 0 . . . �h8 21
We prefer Black's game, al­ d 6 ( 2 1 �e3 �h6 2 2 �c2 �d6oo, Smir­
though the position remains very nov-Radjabov, FIDE-Web, Tripo­
complex. For instance : li 20 04) 21 . . . �d8 22 �e4 ( 2 2 �e3
2S l!Jbl (2S �6f4? ! �g6 ! ; 2S e6 �xd6 23 �xd6 �xd6 24 �bl fS 2S
�xb2 26 exf7+ �h8t) 2S . . . �xb2 l!Jc2 e4 26 b4 �es 27 g3 �f6 2 8
26 �gs + ( 26 �6f2? �g6 ! 27 �gs �e2 �g'Too Lutz-Radjabov, Plovdiv
�d4 28 l!Jd 2 �be8 29 l!Jf3 �b6 30 2003) 22 . . . �h6 ! 23 �fel (23 f4? !
h4 f6 3 1 exf6 �xf6 - +) 26 ... �g6 27 �b7!+ ) 23 . . .fS 24 �xeS+ ( 2 4 �b4
h4! �e2 ! 28 �6fS hS 2 9 �xf7 (29 aS ! 2S �xaS �xd6 is risky for White)
l!Jd2 �b6 !) 29 ... �xf7 3 0 �xf7 �g4 31 24 . . . �xh7 2S �f6 (2S �e7+ �g8 ! +)
�xg4 hxg4+. 2S . . . �b70 26 l!Jc2 �e8 ! 27 l!Jd4 �e4 !
2 8 l!Jf3 �g7+;
b) 18 �acl fS ! 19 �xc8 �bxc8
A2. 1 S Wf3 d S ! ? 20 Ms �gs 21 �e6 + �h8 22 �dl.
This plan has been developed Black has the initiative after either
by Radj abov. It consolidates the 22 . . . �cs, Ganguly-Venkatesh, Ra-
queenside and shifts the focus onto jendran 2004, or 22 . . . �c7, Reinaldo
the centre where Black has an initi­ Castineira-Yakovich, Paris 2 0 0S;
ative. The bishop pair compensates c) 18 �fS �f6 19 hc8 �xf3 20
the sacrificed pawn. gxf3 �fxc8 2 1 �acl e4 22 �xc8 +
1 6 cxdS fxe4 1 7 .ixe4 �b8 �xc8 23 fxe4 h b2 2 4 l!J b l and now

230
 7 �gs a6 8 tt:J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tt:Jds � g7

24 . . . E:c2 ! 2S E:dl Af� gives Black 8 1 . 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 li:) c2 g b 8 !

enough activity for the pawn : 26
�g2 �f6 27 E:d2 E:c4 28 f3 b4.
1 8 . . . fS 1 9 d 6 Wff6 20 �c6 �e6
21 �d5
Or 21 E:d2 e4 22 �hS E:fd8 23
E:adl E:b6 24 �ds E:bxd6+.
21 .. J�bd8 22 Wfb3
The endgame after 22 he6 +
�xe6 23 �dS (23 �b3 �xb3 24 axb3
E:f6+) 23 . . . E:f6 24 d7 �xdS 2S E:xdS
E:c6 26 E:adl ( 26 f4?? b4 ! ) 26 . . . �f7
is equal: 27 E:d6 (27 tt:Jbl E:c7 2 8 A useful move, which prevents
tt:Jc3 �e7=) 27 . . . E:xd6 2 8 E:xd6 �f8 a4 and threatens to take on e4, fol­
29 E:xa6 E:xd7= . lowed up with .. .fS .
22 . . . �f7 ! 23 li:) c2 1 6 exf5
Otherwise White would be White cannot hold e4 because
worse: of 16 E:el fxe4 ! 17 he4 fS 18 �dS+
23 E:acl E:xd6 24 hf7 + E:xf7 2S �h8 19 tt:Jb4 Wfc7, when 2 0 a4 bxa4 !
E:c8 + �f8 26 E:xd6 �xd6+; 2 1 �xa4 �cs 22 �a2 (22 E:edl? ! e4)
23 �b4 e4 24 E:abl �h8 ! (threate­ 22 . . . e4 ensures counterplay, where­
ning . . . �xd6) 2S �b7 (2S �b3 hb3 as 2 0 �b3 as 21 tt:Jds �b7 22 a3
26 axb3 E:f7 27 tt:Jc2 E:fd7 28 tt:Je3 f4 �e6 23 tt:Je3 hb3 24 �xb3 f4 2 S
29 tt:Jfl �g6) 2 S . . .ha2 26 E:al �g8 tt:JdS E:bc8 26 E:adl E:cS was level
27 ha6 �xb2+; in Anand-Radj abov, rpaid, M ainz
2 3 ... e4 ! 24 g ab1 2006 .
After 24 tt:Je3 f4 2S hf7+ (2S 1 6 . . . e 4 1 7 ge1 �xf5 1 8 li:) b4
tt:Jg4 �g6) 2S . . . E:xf7 26 tt:Jds �xb2 Practice has also seen:
27 �xb2 (27 E:acl �xb3 28 axb3 a) 18 tt:Je3 �g6 19 tt:Jds Wies 2 0
E:fd7 29 E:c6 �es 30 E:xa6 �f7 !t) �c2 ( 2 0 �fl? ! i s a positional mis­
27 ... hb2 28 E:abl �a3 and Black is take, since White needs this bishop
at least equal. Or 24 a4 �xb2=. on b3 in order to protect dS. 20 . . .fS
2 4 ... �xd6 2 5 �xf7+ gxf7 26 li:) e 3 2 1 f4 �e6+ and Black is fine: 2 2 tt:Je3
f4 27 li:) g 4 gxd 1 + 2 8 gxd 1 Wfe 7. �f7 23 g3 �h8 24 �h3 �g8 2S �hS
Black has sufficient counter­ �g6+) 20 �c2 as 21 f4 �e6 22 a3 ( 2 2
chances . tt:Je3 i s well countered with 2 2 . . . b4 !
and White i s worse despite that he
can win a piece with 23 g4 bxc3 24
B. 1 3 c3! f5 b4 E:xb4 2s fS �es 26 �ds E:d4 27
W!xeS heS+) 2 2 a 3 �h8 2 3 �b3 Wfc8
Bl. 14 0-0 24 �d2 �cs + 2S �hl E:fe8 26 E:adl
B 2. 14 tt:Jc2 ! �hS 27 E:cl fS+ ;

23 1
Part 13

b) 18 ttJd4 hd4 19 cxd4 dS 20 alternative is:

�d2 �b6 ! 2 1 �acl �g6 2 2 �fl �h4 14 ... �gs, when lS 0-0 ! is t he crit­
23 �e3 �gS ! 24 �el ! (Or 24 g3 hS ical line. The other options are un­
2S �cs �e6 , Short-Illescas Cordo­ der control:
ba, M adrid 1997 and Black had a a) lS exfS �xg2 16 �fl �h6 ! 17
dangerous attack; 24 �cs �h3 2S a4 �g8 18 axbS axbS 19 hbS+ �d7
�c3 hg2 2 6 �g3 �f3 !oo) 24 ... �f6 ! ? 2 0 �xa 8 + �xa8oo for example : 2 1
( 24 . . .�g4 2 S �g3) 2S �b4 �g4 26 hd7+ (21 �xd6 �e4+ 2 2 �e2 �xc2
�g3 hS 27 h3 �e6 2 8 �d6 �xg3 29 23 �b8 + @e7 24 �xeS+=) 2 1 . . . @xd7
�xg3 + @h7 30 �e3 �c 8 3 1 �xc8 22 �d3 �a4 23 ttJb4 e4 24 �dl
hc8 = ; �xdl + 2S @xdl �gS = ;
c) 1 8 �fl as 1 9 a3 �g6 2 0 �ds b ) l S �f3 f4 1 6 h 3 0 - 0 1 7 0-0
�fc8 21 �adl �es 22 �d2 �cSf!. �b7! 18 a4 (18 ttJ b4 aS) 18 .. .fSt;
c) lS ttJ e3 is a continuation that
1 8 . . . aS! 1 9 �d5 �es 20 ic2 has not been tested in practice. lS . . .
ig 6 f4 16 h 4 �g6 1 7 h S �gS 1 8 tlJdS
Black has a bishop pair and �xg2 19 �fl leads to a complicat­
good centre . See for further detail ed position, but the following end­
game 37 Bologan-Nedev, Panor­ game seems equal: 19 . . . �g4 20 f3
mo 2 0 01. �e6 2 1 �e2 (21 ttJc7+ @e7 2 2 l!Jxa8
�xb2 23 �cl �xcl+ 24 �xcl �xa8oo)
2 1 . . . �xe2 + 22 @xe2 hdS 23 exdS
82. 1 4 � c2 ! �b8 = ·'

d ) l S �e2 dS ! 16 exfS (16 exdS e4

17 l!Jb4 0-0 18 �c2 as 19 l!Jc6 b4f!)
16 . . . e4 ! 17 f3 (17 l!Jb4 0-0 18 �c2
�b7 19 0-0 �ad8 20 f3 d4) 17 . . . 0-0
18 fxe4 hfS 19 �e3 (19 0-0 dxe4
20 �e3 �xe3 + 2 1 l!Jxe3 �g6 22 �c2
b4+) 19 .. �h4 + 20 g3 �h3 21 �fl
�g4 2 2 �g2 he4 2 3 he4 dxe4 24
0-0 �g6 = .
Now let u s return t o l S 0 - 0 �b7

Currently we are unable to show

a clear-cut plan for equality here.
We shall focus on the problem po­
sitions, and you could be checking
for improvements for Black.
1 4 . . �b7
.

14 ... 0-0 lS �hS and 14 ... �b7 lS

exfS are not appealing, so the only

232
 7 �gS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS .ig7

Our analysis suggests that White

is able to retain control over the criti­
cal square e4. Thus his chances re­
main preferable, as he has a clear
plan of attacking the queenside by
a4.
Perhaps most challenging is 16
�f3 ! ? , but 16 f3 0-0 17 exfS dS 18
f4 ! also looks unpleasant: 18 . . . exf4
19 �f3 �eS 2 0 a4 (20 �ael �fe8 2 1
ttJd4 �f6=) 2 0 . . . �fe8 2 1 axbS axbS
22 hbS �xal 23 �xal �b8 24 tlJd4 White can also defend the e4-
hd4+ 25 cxd4 �xfS� ; On the con­ pa wn by 15 �e2 fxe4 16 �xe4 dS 17
trary, 16 �e2 0-0 (or even 16 . . .fxe4 �b4 �f8 1 8 �h4 e4 19 �e2 �g7+, or
17 he4 d5 18 f4 �f6 ! ) 17 f3 d5 looks take on fS: 15 exf5 �xg2 16 �fl �b7 17
fine for Black; ttJe3 �c6 18 �g4 �f6 19 0-0-0 hS!+,
After 16 �f3 Black tested 16 .. .f4 but in these cases Black is on top.
17 a4 0-0 18 axbS axbS, when Acs
recommends 19 �xa8 �xa8 20 �al
fS 2 1 �xa8 ! �xa8 2 2 exfS �d8 23 B2a. 15 'ti'f3 0 - 0 16 ltJe3
ttJb4�. The problem with this po­ The mundane 16 0-0 would face
sition is that Black plays for only 16 . . . dS ! 17 exfS e4 18 �g3 hf5 ! ? 19
two results since White is in total �e2 b4 ! 20 ttJxb4 as 2 1 tlJc2 �xb2 2 2
command over the light squares. ttJd4 �g6 ft .
We tried to improve his play with 16 ... f4 17 � d5 �e6 18 g4 b4!
19 . . . �xa 8, when 20 ttJa3 fS ensures
Black an initiative: 21 ttJxbS dS 2 2
ttJd6 fxe4 2 3 he4 dxe4 2 4 �dl �f8
25 ttJxb7 f3 . However, White has a
better option: 2 0 ttJb4 f5 2 1 �e2 dS
22 �c2 and our b7-bishop is hang­
ing in some variations. As a whole,
Black's pawn cluster in the centre
looks awesome, but the exposed
diagonal a2-g8 tips the balance in
White's favour.

After 15 . . .�b7 the main line This thrust ensures just enough
branches to : counterplay.
19 c4
B2a. 15 �f3 Or 19 @fl ! ? bxc3 20 bxc3 �ab8
B2b. 15 f3 ! 21 @g2 �d7 22 h3 �b2 23 �hbl �tb8

233
Part 13

(23 . . . E1d2 ! ? 24 �dl ! �b2=) 24 �b2 manoeuvring it to b6 via f6-d8, or

�xb2 2S �bl �xbl 26 .bbl �d8 27 with the help of the pawn sacrifice
�d3 hS 2 8 ha6 (28 gxhS �gs + 29 . . . . eS-e4 after an exchange on dS .
cM"1 �h4 30 �g2 �gs+) 28 ... �gs Unfortunately, with precise pro­
29 �e2 hxg4 30 hxg4 hdS 31 exdS phylactic play, White is able to re­
fS 32 �h3 e4 33 f3 fxg4 34 �xg4 strict both of them :
�xg4+ 3S fxg4 hc3 !+. 16 �b4
19 ... hd5 2 0 exd5 16 0-0 should later transpose to
2 0 cxdS �f6 ! occurred ion Dol­ the main line .
matov-Topalov, Groningen 1993 16 �e2 0-0 17 g4 unnecessari­
21 gS �d8 22 �fl ! , when 22 . . . �c8 ! ? ly weakens the kingside and loses
( 2 2 . . . �h8) 23 .th 3 �c2 2 4 �fS �b6 a tempo without achieving obvious
2S �hS f6 is double-edged. benefits :
2 0 . . . e4 ! 2 1 he4 hb2 22 :Sbl 17 . . . �e6 18 ltJb4 �fc8 ! The a8-
ie5. rook is needed to support the a-pawn,
Black is going to produce a passed whilst the f8-square might prove
pawn on the queenside while he will useful for the g7-bishop. Now, 19 0-0
defend the kingside along the sev­ aS 20 ltJdS loses a pawn to 20 ... hdS
enth rank after a possible . . .f6 . 2 1 exdS �xdS 2 2 �e4 (22 �e4 �xe4
23 he4 �ab8+) 22 . . . �cS++, where­
as long castling is even worse: 19
B2b. 1 5 f3 ! f4 0-0-0 aS 20 ltJdS a4 ! 21 �bl (21 a3
This is a typical position which hdS 22 exdS b4 ! �) 2 1 . . . a3 22 b3
requires a good understanding of hdS 23 exdS f%xc3 24 �e4 �c7+.
the main plans and manoeuvres. It remains to examine :
19 gS aS 20 ltJd S b4 2 1 c4

Black has two active plans: 2 1 . . . b3 ! ? Fixing a target on b2.

1. He launches a pawn storm on 2 2 a 3 �xdS 23 exdS e4 ! This sacri­
the queenside with . . . . as, . . . . b4, and, fice is a must in such positions ! 24
hopefully, . . . b3. fxe4 (Or 24 he4 �a6 2S �cl �b6
2. He activates his dark-squared 26 �fl �d4 27 �c3 �b6 28 �cl
bishop. That could be achieved by �d4=) 24 . . . �e7 2S 0-0-0 (2S h4 f3 !)

234
 7 igS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS :Ag7

2S .. .�xgS 26 �hgl �es 27 �g4 (27 the dark-squared bishop and obtain
�g2 �h8 28 �dgl �g8=) 27 ... �h8 28 counterplay:
�bl fS 29 exfS �xe2 30 he2 �eS= . 18 . . . if6 ! 19 �d2 �d8 20 ic2
16 ... 0 - 0 �b6 + 21 �hl icS 22 l!JdS hdS ! 23
Black can also start relocat­ �xdS b4 24 cxb4 �xb4 2S �bl aS
ing the bishop with 16 . . . !f6 17 0-0 26 a3 (or 26 g3 �h8 ! ? 27 gxf4 �g8
ie6 18 !c2 0-0 19 ib3 (19 �xd6? 28 W'd2 W'xd2 29 �xd2 exf4 30 !b3
�a7+ !+) 19 . . . as 2 0 l!JdS �d8 . �g7) 26 . . . W'b6= .
17 0 - 0 1 8 . . .a 5 19 � d5 f5
17 ic2 is rather pointless, since Apparently 19 . . . �fc8 is not
after 17 . . . aS 18 l!JdS ie6 White's enough for complete equality. 2 0
bishop is at least not better than it �d2 (after 2 0 �b3 �ab8 White can­
had been on d3 : not organize a passed pawn: 21 a4
19 0-0 fS 2 0 W'd2 hdS 21 �xdS+ b4 22 c4 �a7f! ; 2 0 �f2 ! ? however
W'xdS 22 exdS b4 ! f! 23 cxb4 axb4= . deserves attentio n. It defends b2
There i s more reason i n 1 9 g4, a nd prepares a4) 2 0 . . . �ab8 21 a3 ! ?
hoping to organise an attack with­ hdS ( 2 1 . . �cs 2 2 b4) 2 2 exdS �cs
out castling. We answer 19 . . . �fc8 ! 23 b4:t and the position is similar to
(threatening . . . b4) 20 �e2 (or 20 the main line.
�d3 b 4 2 1 c4 hdS 2 2 exdS e4 ! t) 2 0 c4
2 0 . . . b4 2 1 c4 hdS 22 exdS a4 ! 23 The most purposeful move. It
0-0 (23 �e4? ! b3 ! t) 23 ... �b6+ 24 ensures a pawn majority 2 : 1 on the
�hl �e3f!. queenside since 20 . . . b4 is strategi­
17 ... i.e6 cally bad after 21 exfS .
2 0 W'b3 allows 2 0 . . . a4 21 W'b4
(21 W'xbS �xbS 22 hbS hdS 23
exdS e4 24 ic6 �ab8 2 S �abl a3 =)
2 1 . .. hdS 2 2 exdS �xdS 23 hbS
W'cS 24 W'xcS dxcS=
2 0 .. . bxc4 21 hc4 fxe4 22
fxe4 cbh8

18 cbhl! ?
White prepares to play o n the
queenside where he will make a
passed pawn.
18 �f2 is also logical, because the
d6-pawn seems an accessible tar­
get, but Black manages to activate

23S
Part 13

This type of positions is crucial back into play again.

for the assessment of the Novosi­ 25 ... �ac8 26 �c2 �cs 27 �fcl
birsk variation. Although it seems �fc8 28 a3;t.
that Black does not experience dif­
ficulties, his game is not very pleas­
ant. In fact, he can hardly hope to
win at all. White will soon make a
passed b-pawn and he will try to
convert it by combining play against
the more exposed Black king. Play
maight continue:
23 b3 �f7 24 \We2 \Wa7 ! ? 25 �acl
White should not exchange his
light-squared bishop . After 25 l2Jc3
hc4 26 bxc4 ( 26 �xc4 �ac8 27 �d3 White is ready to push b4, with
�d4f±) 26 . . . �e3 27 �c2 f3 f± Black is some pull .

236
Part 1 3 1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4
4 �xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 � db S d6
7 .igS a 6 8 �a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6
1 0 � d S �g 7

T h e Novosibirsk Variation

COMPLETE GAMES

37 Bologan - N ed ev pawn. In case of 2 1 . . . �e8, 22 ttJe3 !

E U - C u p P anorm o 28.0 9.2001 hits immediately this sensitive
Comments by Nedev point.
1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 22 V!Jd2
4 � xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d bS d6 22 a4 ! ? would have made a
7 �g s a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 passed pawn since 2 2 . . . bxa4? ! 2 3
1 0 � d S �g7 1 1 �d3 � e 7 1 2 � xe7 �xa4 f5 ( 2 3 . . . �xb2 24 �xe4) 24 �b3 !
V!Jxe7 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 c3 f S 1 S � c2 favours White. So Black should go
gb8 1 6 exfS e4 1 7 ge1 �xfS 1 8 on with 22 . . . b4 ! 23 cxb4 axb4 24
� b4 a s 1 9 � d S V!JeS 20 �c2 � g6 �bl (24 g4 fS 25 �b3 cj{h8 26 gS
�xb2 27 �a2 �g7 28 ttJxb4 �c8+)
24 .. .f 5 (24 . . .�fc8 25 �b3 �d7 2 6
g4 ! ) with a tangled position: 25 �b3
�f7 26 �e3 �d7oo .
22 . . . @ h 8 23 g a d 1
I n Anand-Radj abov, Mainz
2006 was 23 a3 fS 24 �b3 �c8+
and Black was already better. The
queen finds a perfect place on cS.
23 a4 �fc8 ! ? would also leave Black
with very active major pieces.
23 . . . fS 24 V!Je2 V!Jf7 2S gd2
21 f4
Bologan put all h i s pieces in the
No one has tried to maintain centre, but they come under the
the tension in the centre with 22 a3
sway of Black's bishop s. Now 2 5
cj{h8 23 �d2 �fc8 24 cj{hl . h 3 would have parried the threat of
21 �d2 , apart from 2 1 . . .fS, al­ . . .�hS , but at the cost of exposing
lows 2 1 . . . b4 ! ? 22 �adl bxc3 23 bxc3
the king : 25 . . . b4 26 cxb4 axb4 27
�b2 24 �cl �bSoo. �b3 �hS 28 g 4 fxg4 29 hxg4 �g6
21 . . . V!Je6 ! 30 :§d2 ! (30 ttJe3 �f4) 30 . . . �be 8t
The queen must defend the d6-

237
Part 13

25 . .. :gfc8 Finally Black's bishop p a ir is

In this structure, it is vital to ob­ unleashed a nd the enemy's extra
tain counterplay on the queenside pawn does not play significant role .
before White redeployed his pieces Even without queens White's de­
to attack d6. The only way to display fence would be difficult: 30 !bl ! ?
activity is 25 . . . b4 ! ? and I could have �hS ! (30 . . . W'a7+ 3 1 @hl �xd2 3 2
pushed it right away. Stayed White's \Wxd2 \WcSf±) 31 W'f2 (31 \Wa6 �xd2
king on hl, Black's task would have 32 W'xc8 + W'f8 33 W'xf8 + �xf8+)
been much more complicated, but 31. . . �xd2 3 2 W'xd2 \Wd7 !+. Bologan
in the current situation Black's in­ decides to keep them on:
itiative develops smoothly, for ex­ 30 1Mf a 6 \Wf8 !
ample: My idea is to kill the dS-knight
26 \Wa6 bxc3 27 bxc3 �b2 ! f± with . . . !g6-f7xd5 and conduct the
2 6 !b3 ! ? a4 ! (thanks t o the check attack with opposite coloured bish­
from a7 !) 27 !c4 bxc3 2 8 bxc3 W'a7+ ops. It is unclear how White could
29 @hl \Wes+; save the game. For instance, 31 W'a7
2 6 cxb4 axb4 27 !b3 W'a7+ 2 8 !f7 32 �cl �xdS 33 �xdS fuc3 34
@hl !f7cc . W'aS !f6+. Bologan tries to simpli­
Anyway, White is unable to pre­ fy with :
vent it: 31 tll e7? !
26 a3 b4 ! 27 axb4 axb4 28 Now the obvious 3 1 . . . �xc3 wins
tll xb4 d5 ! easily, because of the cross-pin of
Black's pieces are too discoor­ the c2-bishop : 32 W'xg6 hxg6 33
dinated for the otherwise thematic llJxg6+ @g8 34 l!Jxf8 �xf8 35 �cl
exchange sacrifice : 28 . . . �xb4? 29 !cS+ 36 @fl !e3 - + . Instead I made
cxb4 dS 30 \Wa6 ! + . a terrible move, which also effec­
29 tll xd5 tively finished the game, but with
The position of White's king on another result . . .
gl rescues Black in many variations. 3 1 . . J; d a ? 3 2 tll x g 6+ hxg6 3 3
For instance, 29 !b3 W'a7+ 30 <i>hl g xd8 \Wxd8 3 4 \Wx g 6 �xc2 3 5 \Wxf5
d4 31 !e6 dxc3 32 bxc3 fuc3+. ixc 3. Draw, due to 36 . . . �xel 37
29 .. J�xb2 W'xc2 \Wd4 + .

23 8
 Index of va ri ations
1 e4 c5 2 ll:)f"3 tll c 6

Part 1 The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 d3 16
4 hc6 dxc6 5 d3 �g4 6 h3 �hS ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 ttJbd2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7 ttJc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7 �{4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 eS ttJdS S ttJc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
4 'We2 g6 S e S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
5 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
4 ttJc3 g6 S hc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
5 h 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5 e S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Part 2 The Positional Variation 7 �gS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ttJ dS �e7 . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10 ttJxe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
10 hf6 hf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
1 1 ttJbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2
11 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3
Part 3 7 �gS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ttJdS �e7 10 hf6 �xf6 11 c 3 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8
12 ttJc2 �gS 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 1 5 �bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1
1 5 �c4 �b8 1 6 �a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
16 b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Part 4 12 ttJc2 �gS 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 . . . . . . . . . 96
17 ttJce3 g6 18 h4 hh4 19 g3 �gs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
20 �a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
20 {4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2 0 'W'e2 ! ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1
18 0-0 fS 1 9 -ex.fS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2
1 9 V!ffd3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3
18 'We2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5
Part 5 Alternatives to the Main Line after 9 hf6 gxf6 1 0 ttJdS fS . . . . . . . 1 1 7
1 1 'Wd3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9
1 1 ttJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
ll h bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
ll g 3 122
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 -ex.fS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
11 c 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Part 6 11 exfS MS 12 c3 �g7 13 l2Jc2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
14 l2Jce3 �e6 15 �d3 fS 16 a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
16 'WhS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
16 �c2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
16 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Part 7 The M ain Line 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
12 c3 �g7 13 ltJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
13 �hS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
12 'WhS �g8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
13 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
13 f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
13 g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Part 8 12 0-0 hdS 13 exdS l2Je7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14 ltJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3
14 'WhS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
14 c4 166
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 �el 167
14 . . .�g7 lS �bl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
15 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
14 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
14 . . . �g7 1S 'WhS e4 16 �c2 0-0 17 �ael 'Wc8 18 f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
18 g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
18 �bl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
18 �b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
18 �hl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Part 9 6 ltJdbS d6 7 ltJdS ltJxdS 8 exdS ltJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
9 c4 � e7 10 �d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
10 �e2 0-0 11 0-0 a6 12 l2Jc3 f5 13 a 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
13 f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
13 {4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Part 10 Unusual Seventh Moves 6 ltJdbS d6 7 l2J a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7 �e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
7 a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Part 11 Unusual Sixth Moves 6 l2Jxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
6 l2Jb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2
6 l2Jf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8
6 l2Jde2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9
6 ltJfS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Part 12 Rare Lines 3 c 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
3 l2Jc3 ltJf6 4 e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Part 1 3 The Novosibirsk Variation 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ltJ dS �g7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
11 �d3 l2Je7 12 l2Jxe7 'Wxe7 13 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
1 3 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
240
 ISBN 978-9-548782�6-1

9 7 8 9 5 4 8 7 8 2 6 6 1
•••