A Practical White Repertoire With 1.d4 and 2.c4 v.2

� ·s

Clles

eva

n

Technical Editor:

IM Sergei Soloviov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Cover design by:

Kalojan Nachev

Copyright ©Alexei Kornev 2013

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13 : 978 954 8782 95-1

Alexei Kornev

A Practical White Repertoire with l.d4 and 2.c4 Volume 2: The King's Fianchetto Defences

Chess Stars

Bibliography Books

The Safest Grunfeld A Complete Repertoire for black by Delchev and Agrest, Chess Stars 2011 The Modern Philidor Defence by Barsky, Chess Stars 2010 The King's Indian A Complete Black Repertoire by Bologan, Chess Stars 2009 Opening for White According to Anand l.e4, val. 4 by Khalifman, Chess Stars 2005 Playing l.d4. The Indian Defences by Schandorff, Quality Chess 2012 A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White by Watson, Gambit 2012 The Grunfeld Defense volume two by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011 l.d4 volume 2 by Avrukh, Quality Chess 2011 Revolution in the 70's by Kasparov, Everyman Chess 2007 King's Indian Defense: Averbakh variation by Petursson, Cadogan 1996 King's Indian Defence by Geller, Moscow 1980

Electronic/Periodicals 64-Chess Review (Moscow) Chess Informant New in chess Yearbook Correspondence Database 2013 Mega Database 2013

4

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part 1. The Gruenfeld Defence

l.d4 tt:lf6 2 .c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 dS 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 tt:Jxc3 6.bc .ig7 7.tt:lf3 1 2 3 4

7 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7... c5 8 ..ie3 tt:lc6; 8 ... 0-0; 8 ...�g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7 . . . c5 8 . .ie3 �a5 9.�d2 w/o 9 . . . 0-0 . 35 7 . . . c5 8.�e3 �aS 9.�d2 0-0 . 53 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 2. The King's Indian Defence l.d4 tt:lf6 2.c4 g6 3.tt:lc3 .ig7 4.e4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

4 . . . 0-0 . . 76 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 tt:Jc6; 5 . . . c5; 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:lc6; 6 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4 . . . d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 tt:la6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 h6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 4 ... d6 5 ..ie2 0-0 6 . .ig5 cS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Part 3. The Modern Defence l.d4 g6 2 .c4 12 13

2 ... d6; 2 ....ig7 3.e4 w/o 3 ... d6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 2 ... .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tt:lc3 eS; 4 ... tt:Jc6; 4 ... tt:ld7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Part 4. The Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2.e4 tt:Jf6 3.tt:lc3 g6 4 . .ie3 14 15 16

4 . . . a6 200 4 . . . .ig7 .. 206 4 ... c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

5

Part 5. Black avoids the Pirc-Ufimtsev Defence l.d4 d6 2 .e4 l2Jf6 3.l2Jc3

17 18 19

The Modem Philidor. 3 ... e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 The Lion Defence. 3 . . . l2Jbd7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 The Czech Defence. 3 . . . c6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Index of Variations

6

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

284

PREFACE The first volume has been published not so long ago and I would like to present to the readers the second volume of out three-volume work, devoted to the building of a practical repertoire for White after the move l.d2-d4. In the first volume, we have analysed the openings for White af­ ter Black's classical response - l.. .d7-d5. In the second volume, we deal with systems for Black connected with fianchettoing of his dark­ squared bishop. These openings are very complicated and as a rule, there arises after them a complex multi-pieces middle game in which White must know thoroughly numerous typical resources. In this book, we pay most attention to the Gruenfeld Defence (part 1) and to the King's Indian Defence (part 2). In the process of choosing systems against these opening, the author has emphasized on the prin­ ciple of reliability. Against the Gruenfeld Defence, we analyse the Mod­ ern Exchange variation with i.e3 and �d2 , in which there often arises a transfer into an endgame, slightly preferable for White. Against the King's Indian Defence, our main opening weapon is the Averbakh sys­ tem, which has been thoroughly analysed. Black can hardly begin there any active actions on the kingside. It is also worth mentioning that is reply to the move l . . .d6 (parts 3 and 4 of the book), we analyse 2 .e4, therefore this book will be use­ ful also to the readers who like beginning their games with the move l.e2-e4. In our third and last volume, which will be published at the begin­ ning of the year 2014, we will analyse thoroughly the Budapest Gambit, the Benko Gambit, the Benoni Defence, the Dutch Defence and some rarely played lines for Black on moves 1 and 2 as well as one of the most popular defences for him against White's move one with his queen's pawn - the Nimzowitsch Defence. The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to Margarita Schepetkova and Ekaterina Smirnova for their invaluable help in the creation of this book.

Alexei Kornev 7

Part l The Gruenfeld Defence l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5

After this move there arises the Gruenfeld Defence. It was in­ troduced to the tournament prac­ tice by the Austrian grandmaster E.Gruenfeld back in the year 192 2 . I t was a revolutionary opening at the time. Instead of occupying the centre with his pawns, Black presents it completely to his op­ ponent. Still, after a while, it turned out that White's task was not simple at all. Yes, he can oc­ cupy the centre with his pawns without any problem, but then Black's pieces exert powerful pressure against it (ig7, cS, lt:Jc6 and eventually !g4). A single im­ precision by White may lead not only to the loss of the opening ad­ vantage, but Black may seize the 8

initiative altogether. The Gruenfeld Defence was in­ cluded in the repertoire of many world champions. M.M.Botvinnik contributed greatly to the devel­ opment of its theory and he not only played it in the most impor­ tant games, including the match­ es for the world championship, but in 1979 he, together with Y. Estrin, wrote a book devoted to this opening. We must also mention that the Gruenfeld Defence was played by R.Fischer and G.Kaspa­ rov. The contribution of Kasparov should be particularly empha­ sized, because he played it for many years and not only in tour­ nament games, but also in his nu­ merous match-games against A. Karpov. Presently, during the comput­ er era in chess, the Gruenfeld De­ fence has become a part of the opening repertoire of many play­ ers and this is not surprising at all. The centre is usually opened and the game is almost forced, so all this can be analysed extensive­ ly and very precisely by comput­ ers.

Among the contemporary grandmasters we should mention P.Svidler who was champion of Russia many times and used this opening during his entire chess career as well as M.Carlsen. It is also worth noting that in the last world championship match be­ tween V.Anand and B.Gelfand, the last one chose the Gruenfeld Defence as his main opening weapon against l.d4 and Anand was so unsuccessful in this opening with White that at the end of the match he began to play l.e4. As a main opening weapon for White, we will analyse a line in

which after the exchange on dS, White at first occupies the centre with e2-e4 and then fortifies his d4-pawn with the moves lt:\f3 and ie3 . In the first and second chap­ ters, we will analyse variations, which are not so popular in the contemporary tournament prac­ tice. The third chapter will be de­ voted to the variation with 8 . . 1M/aS, which is considered to be the best for Black by the modern the­ ory. In this chapter we will see all the responses for him with the ex­ ception of 9 . . . 0-0. This move will be analysed in Chapter 4. .

9

Chapter 1

l.d4 lL!f6 2.c4 g6 3.lL!c3 d5 4.cxd5

This is the most logical move for White. He exchanges on dS and forces the enemy knight to occupy this square in order to at­ tack it with the move e2-e4, occu­ pying the centre with his pawns.

4

•••

c!Llxd5 5.e4 c!Llxc3

Naturally, it is better for Black to exchange the knight; other­ wise, he will lose a tempo to re­ treat is away from the centre. . Still, sometimes h e plays 5 . . . tt:lb6? ! too. The best for White would be to play immediately 6.h3 ! This move prepares tt:lf3 and prevents .ig4. 6 . . . .ig7 7.tt:lf3 0-0 8 . .ie3 c6 (It is not preferable for Black to advance his flank pawns: 8 ... a5 9 ..ie2 a4 10.0-0 a3 ll.bxa3 10

E:xa3 12.'?t/c1 E:aS 13.E:d1 c6 14 . .ih6 .ixh6 15.\WxhM and in the game T.Petrosian - Smyslov, Gagra 1953, White maintained a slight edge due to his powerful pawn­ centre. After the trade of the dark­ squared bishops, he will have chances of attacking on the king­ side. The potential weakness of the a2-pawn cannot be sufficient compensation for Black.) 9 . .ie2 .ie6. Black is preparing the ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops. 10.0-0 .ic4 ll.E:cl tt:l8d7 12.a4 aS 13.b3 he2 14.\Wxe2 e6 15.E:fd1 E:c8 16.-igS 1We8 17.e5± and in the game A.Petrosian Taimanov, Tallinn 1980, White obtained a great advantage. Black is practically helpless against the manoeuvre tt:lc3-e4-d6. These two examples are quite sufficient to understand the main defect of the move 5 . . . tt:lb6, since after it Black is incapable of exerting pressure against his opponent's pawns on d4 and e4. White completes ef­ fortlessly his development and maintains an advantage in the middle game thanks to his power­ ful pawn-centre.

2.c4 g6 3. lD c3 d5 4.cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. ltJ.f3 0 - 0 B. i.e2 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.0,£3 This natural move (What can be more natural than developing the knight to f3 in the opening . . . ?) did not become so popular imme­ diately. It remained in the shadow of the plan with .ic4, ltJe2, be­ cause it was considered that it was not good for White to allow the pin of his knight after .ig4. Later however, it became clear that the pin was not so dangerous for White after all and the move 7. ltJf3 began to be played more and more often in tournaments and became popular.

7 ... 0-0?! This natural move is definitely imprecise, because it enables White to obtain an advantage ef­ fortlessly.

must exert pressure against White's pawn on d4 as quickly as possible. 8 . .ib5 + . This resource is well familiar from some other openings. White forces the move c7-c6, so that Black's bishop on b7 does not exert pressure against the e4-pawn. 8 . . . c6 9 . .ic4 0-0 10.0-0 .ia6 ll.ha6 ltJxa6 12 .'1Wa4 '1Wc8 13 . .ig5 ;1;. White has a slight edge thanks to his pawn-domi­ nance in the centre. In addition, Black's pieces are a bit cramped. He obviously lacks space. Later, in the game Kasparov - Pribyl, Skara 1980, White obtained a very promising position with a pawn-sacrifice. 13 . . . '1Wb7 14J''!:fe1 e6 15.E:ab1 cS 16.d5 ! hc3 17. l"i:e d1 exd5 18.exd5 ig7 19.d6 !� Despite the missing pawn, White had very powerful initiative. G.Kasparov demonstrated in this game one of the main ideas in this variation. White should ignore the possible material sacrifices and advance his d-pawn as quickly as possible in order to squeeze the enemy pieces.

8 . .ie 2 !

The strongest move for Black - 7... c5! will be analysed in Chap­ ters 2-4. It is also worth mentioning the possibility 7 . . . b6? ! White should not be afraid of it, because it is not in the spirit of the main idea of the Gruenfeld Defence. Black 11

Chapter 1 This is the point. White ex­ ploits Black's imprecision and completes immediately the devel­ opment of his kingside. Later, the readers will see that in response to 7 . . . c5, we will ana­ lyse 8.�e3. Now, after 7 . . . 0-0, White does not need this move at the moment.

As a rule, there do not arise original positions following 8 . . . b6 9.0-0 ib7 (9 . . . liJc6 10.ie3 - see 8 . . . liJc6; 9 . . . c5 lO .i.gS - see varia­ tion B) 10.Wfd3

8 . . . c5 Black's main idea is to create pressure against his opponent's centre. He plays only seldom 8 .. .lt:lc6 9.0-0 b6 (following 9 . . . e5 10.d5 liJe7 ll.ia3±, White has more space and his bishop exerts pow­ erful pressure on the a3-f8 diago­ nal, Leon Oquendo - Calzadilla de Ia Cruz, Camaguey 2010) 10. �e3 eS. Undermining the centre with the e-pawn is not so effective for Black as the same with the c­ pawn. ll.:Bc1 Wfe7 12.Wfa4 �b7 13.:Bfd1 h6 (He cannot win a pawn, because after 13 . . . exd4 14. cxd4 Wfxe4?, White has the re­ source 15. liJg5 Wfe7 16.:Bxc6± and in the middle game his two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawn.) 14.d5 liJd8 15. Wfb4 Wff6 16.a4 �c8, J. Graf - Marinkovic, Germany 1991, 17.c4t - There has arisen a position of the King's Indian type and it is more favourable for White, since he has a clear-cut plan for queenside actions: a4-a5 or c4-c5. 12

About 10 . . . c5 ll.i.gS - see var­ iation B. 10 . . .Wfd7 1l.�g5 liJc6 12.Wfe3 see 10 . . . liJc6. Following 10 ... liJd7 ll.i.gS :Be8, Bravo - Le Quang, Istanbul 2012, White can maintain a slight edge after the typical pawn-ad­ vance for similar positions - 12. eS! ?t. Now, Black's bishop on g7 and his knight on d7 are severely restricted in their movements. It is worth mentioning this resource works only when Black's knight has been developed to d7; other­ wise, with a knight on b8, Black will play liJc6-a5 and the weaken­ ing of the light squares may be unpleasant for White. 10 . . . liJc6 ll.igS Wfd7 12 .Wfe3 :Bfe8, Kreiman - Ehlvest, New York 2003. Here, White obtains a slight but stable advantage after 13.:Bad1 liJa5 14.h4t - he is domi­ nant in the centre and can devel­ op his initiative on the kingside with i.h6 and hS.

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:JxdS 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jj3 0 - 0 8. i.e2 \WaS 14.4Je5±, Black has won a pawn indeed, but his position is very difficult because his bishop is misplaced on b4 and he lags in development.) 12 .\Wc2 b6 13.gac1 4Jf6, Timman - Roos, Amsterdam 1978, 14.h3 ! ?;!; White has the ad­ vantage thanks to his dominance in the centre.

9.0-0

A) 9 Black has two main replies in this position: A) 9 cxd4 and B) •••

9 b6. .••

About 9 ... 4Jc6 10.i.e3, or 9 . . . .ig4 10 . .ie3 - see Chapter 2 , vari­ ation B. 9 . . . \WaS. This move seems much stronger before White has castled. Here, he can simply con­ tinue with lO.i.gS ! ? , for example: 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 i.g4, Sorm Nepomniachtchi, Biel 2007 and now, he can simply capture a pawn: 12 .he7!? ges 13.i.h4 gxe4 14.\Wb1 ges 15.\Wxb7 4Jd7 16.\Wbs;�; - The activity of Black's pieces does not compensate adequately his material deficit.

•••

cxd4

This move leads to a difficult position for Black. He continues with the standard plan for the Gruenfeld Defence - pressure against the d4-pawn. Here, it does not work well however. The point is that after White has castled kingside, he can sacrifice the ex­ change on a1 in many variations with the move d4-d5 and regains it easily, while Black's knight on c6 will be forced to occupy a very bad position at the edge of the board.

10.cxd4 lbc6 About 10 . . .ig4 ll.i.e3 4Jc6 12 .d5 - see 10 . . . 4Jc6 10 . . . b6 ll.igS .ib7 12 .\Wd3 see variation B.

ll.ie3 i.g4 12.d5 !

His position is solid but very passive after 9 . . . \Wc7 - Black has no weaknesses, but he does not exert pressure against his oppo­ nent's centre and cannot equalise. 10 .i.e3 gds ll.dS ! ? 4Jd7 (It would be extremely risky for him to opt for ll . . . .bc3 12.gc1 i.b4 13.\Wb3 13

Chapter 1 This is the main idea in this variation for White. Now, Black has a choice: Al) 12 hf3 or •••

A2) 12

•••

ltle5.

12 ... tt:la5. The retreat of the knight to the edge of the board leads to a difficult position for Black. 13.:1k1 b6. This move weak­ ens the c6-square and White's knight is immediately headed there. 14.tt:ld4 !xe2 15.\l;lfxe2 \l;lfd7 16.\l;l!bS l:!fd8 17.tt:lc6 tt:lxc6 18. dxc6± His prospects are clearly preferable thank to the powerful passed c6-pawn, Van Wely - Ari­ el, New York 1994. The move 12 ... ixa1, as a rule, transposes to variation Al, since later Black captures hf3 anyway. Otherwise, if White's knight re­ mains on the board, Black may have great difficulties, for exam­ ple: 13.\l;lfxa1 tt:laS 14 . .ih6 f6 15. M8 \l;lfxf8 16.tt:ld4 ! ? This is the point. White's knight will go to the weakened e6-square, very close to the enemy monarch. 16 . . . !xe2 17.tt:lxe2 l:!c8, D e Boer - Den Boer, Dieren 1989, 18.tt:ld4!±, fol­ lowed by tt:le6 and White's attack­ ing tandem {queen and knight) seems very threatening.

Al) 12

hf3

•••

This is a natural move, but is not the best for Black, because he will have problems with his knight on c6.

13.hf3 14

13

•••

ltla5

After this, Black will have great difficulties, because his knight is terribly misplaced on aS. It is not preferable for him to opt for 13 . . . tt:le5. The point is that Black will fail to preserve his knight in the centre. 14 . .ie2 l:!c8 (It would be too risky for him to choose 14 .. .f5 - White has the two-bishop advantage and open­ ing of the position would be in his favour. 15.f4 tt:lg4 16.!xg4 ixa1 17.exf5 ! Black's position begins to crumble. 17 . . . gxf5 18.MS l:!xfS 19.\l;lfg4+ .ig7 2 0 .\l;lfxfS± - He has no compensation for the pawn and his king is vulnerable. Xu Jun - Razmyslov, Seville 2003.) 15. \l;lfa4 b6 16.l:!acl± White maintains an overwhelming advantage, since he has an excellent centre and two bishops, while Black's knight will be ousted from the centre at any moment with the move f2-f4, Malaniuk - Bednar­ ska, Poznan 2012. It is evidently bad for Black to try 13 . . . ixa1 in view of 14.\l;lfxa1

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 d5 4.cd lt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :llg7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 B.:ll e2 lt:JaS 1S . .ih6 f6 16.ig4 ! This is the best for White. He is not in a hur­ ry to regain the exchange and re­ lies on the power of his bishops. 16 . . . '?;l/d6 (It is not preferable for Black to choose 16 . . . lt:Jc4 17 . .ie6+ i>hS 18.l:!bl± White's pieces are tremendously active and Black's defence is very difficult. Later, in the game Khalifman - Roos, Vil­ nius 199S, Black failed to cope with the intricacies of the defence and made immediately a decisive blunder. 18 . . . '?;l/c7? 19 . .hf8 l:!xf8 20.'?;l/c3+- and the pin on the c­ file is decisive.) 17.:lle 6+ i>hS 18. f4 ! Once again White does not capture on f8, considering quite deservedly that his bishop on h6 is not weaker than Black's rook in this position. White's main task is to advance f4 and eS as quickly as possible, trying to checkmate the enemy king on the a1-h8 diago­ nal. 18 . . . l:!fc8 19.eS '?;lieS+ 20.i>h1 '?;l/c3 21.'?;l/xc3 l:!xc3 22 .d6. Black has traded the queens indeed, but this is small consolation for him, because White's central pawns, with the support of his bishops, will promote irrevocably. 22 . . . lt:Jc6 23.dxe7 l:!e3 24.-ifS fxeS 2S. fS ! gxfS 26 . .bfS+-, he has a win­ ning position, because Black will have to give up his knight for the enemy e7-pawn, Kolanek - Buj­ dak, Internet 2011.

14.l:!cl

This move deserves great at­ tention. White deprives the ene­ my knight of the c4-square.

14 b6 15.�a4 '?;lid6 16.g3± •••

It is also good for White to play 16 . .ig4 ! ?±, taking control over the c8-square and maintaining a great advantage, since he not only dominates in the centre and has two powerful bishops, but Black's knight on aS is terribly misplaced.

In this position, which is very difficult for Black, he made a mis­ take in the game Yermolinsky Kreiman, Philadelphia 1996 16 e6? and this enabled White to sacrifice exquisitely a pawn with 17.e5 ! and to obtain a decisive advantage following 17 '?;l/xe5 •••

•• • .

18.dxe6 l:!ad8 19.ext7+ l:!xt7 20.l:!fdl l:!xdl+ 21.'?;l/xdl l:!f8 22.i>g2 i>h8 23.'?;l/d7+- The 1S

Chapter 1 material is equal indeed, but Black's position is hopeless, be­ cause White's powerful bishops control the entire board, while Black's pawns on a7 and b6 are very weak and his king and the knight on aS do not take part in the fight at all (White's rook on c1 deprives Black's knight of the c4square).

A2) 12

.••

Meanwhile, it is also possible for him to play 1S.!'i:acl ! ?;!;, or even 1S.!'i:ab1 ! ?;!; and he preserves an edge in both cases.

li)e5

15 . . . ti'a5 This is an active move. Black's queen attacks the enemy pawn on a2 and eventually (after ti'a4) will exert pressure against the e4-pawn.

This move is no doubt more reliable, since Black succeeds in trading advantageously the knights. White still preserves a slight edge thanks to his domi­ nance in the centre, but must work very hard in order to obtain a real advantage, since there are just a few pieces left on the board as a result of the numerous ex­ changes.

13.li)xe5 .ixe2 .ixeS ts.gadl

14.ti'xe2

With this move White not only protects his dS-pawn in case of the pawn-advance e4-eS, but also prepares the inclusion of his rook into the attack (!'i:d1-d3-h3). 16

He has tried many other pos­ sibilities in this position, but they do not promise him equality. 1S . . . ig7 16.id4 hd4 17.E:xd4 ti'b6 18.!'i:d3 E:fd8 19.!'i:b3 ti'c7 20. ti'e3 e6 21.dxe6 fxe6 22 .h4--+ White has an edge in the arising endgame with major pieces, since Black's king is obviously weaker, R.Bagirov - Najer, Cappelle la Grande 2000. Following 1S . . . ti'd7, White ad­ vances with tempo f4 and eS and obtains an advantage. 16.f4 (It is also interesting for him to try 16.ih6 ! ? !g7 17.hg7 xg7 20 .h4;t. We see here the usual situation fEWhite has a 18

strong centre and possibilities for active actions on the kingside, Sakhabeev - Mik, Email 2006. Following 12 . . . ia6 13.We3 ixe2 14.'?9xe2 E:e8 (14 . . . lt:Jc6 15. E:ad1 W/d7 16.d5 lt:Ja5 17.e5 e6 18.d6±, White obtains a great ad­ vantage, since his powerful d6pawn, supported by the pawn on e5, cramps considerably Black's position, Komev - Vastrukhin, Vo­ ronezh 2012) 15.E:ac1 (It is also good for White to try here 15. E:ad1! ?;!; and Black cannot play 15 ... lt:Jc6? ! , since after 16.d5±, White's advantage would increase.) 15 . . . lt:Jd7, Browne - Van Riemsdijk, Santiago de Chile 1981. Here, the simplest decision for White would be 16.E:c4;!; and this move not only prepares the doubling of the rooks, but also protects the d4-pawn. After 12 . . . lt:Jc6 13.E:ad1 Wfd7 14.d5 lt:Je5 15.lt:Jxe5 .be5 16.f4;!;, White will advance e4-e5 without any problems, ending up with a slight edge, Gladyszev - Szabo, Gyongyos 1995.

13 . .ih4 Wfd7 14.:gadU

2.c4 g6 3. lt:J c3 dS 4.cd lt:Jxd.S 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc :fig7 7. lt:Jf.3 0 - 0 8. i.e2 In this variation, White's queen rook often goes to d1, not only to prepare d4-d5, but also running away from the strike of the enemy bishop on g7. In gen­ eral, one of the main ideas for White in this variation is to re­ move as quickly as possible his pieces and pawns away from the a1-h8 diagonal, so that Black's ac­ tive bishop on g7 "shoots" in vac­ uum.

14 ... e6 15.�e3

We are already familiar with this placement of White's queen.

15 ... �a4 This is an active move for Black. He is trying to organise counterplay against White's weak pawn on a2 . Black cannot equalise with 15 . . . lt:Jc6 16.ib5;!;, because he can get rid of the pin of his knight only by playing a6 and bS, but this would lead to the weakening of the cS-square, Vercammen Rivest, Email 2002.

This move is obviously strong­ er than 17.id1? ! , as it was played in the game Gelfand - Tseshko­ vsky, Ulcinj 1997. White does not need to attack the enemy queen on a4, since it is misplaced there.

17 . . . a6 18.i.e7 He transfers his knight to the b4-square and there it will be much more active than on h4.

18 . . . gfe8 19.i.b4i White has a slight advantage, because he has a powerful pawn­ centre and after the transfer of his bishop from h4 to b4, the place­ ment of Black's queen on a4 may become precarious.

Conclusion We have just analysed the variation with 7 . . . 0-0 in the Gruenfeld Defence. As a rule, White obtains an advantage effortlessly. It looks like the most dangerous plan for Black is to play b7-b6 and to develop his bishop on b7. White counters this with �d3, i.gS, gad1, combining active actions in the centre and on the queenside.

19

Chapter 2

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 d5 4.cxd5 �xd5 5.e4 �xc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.�f3 c5

We have already mentioned this is Black's most precise move.

8 .ie3 •

This is one of the most popular moves for White in this position. He fortifies the key d4-pawn for the Gruenfeld Defence and pre­ pares to evacuate his rook away from the al-h8 diagonal. This move became popular after Kar­ pov's game against Kasparov in their match for the world champi­ onship in the year 1990, as well as after Kramnik's win against Kasparov in their match for the world championship in London in the year 2000 ro.zzy . V.Kramnik plays this variation quite success­ fully until today. We have to mention that the 20

move 8.ie2? ! is not so good here, since after 8 . . . tLlc6 9.ie3 ig4?, Black obtains a very good game creating pressure against the d4square. White plays often 8.:Bbl ! ? , but this move has two essential draw­ backs : - in many variations he will have to sacrifice his a2-pawn, - the theory of numerous vari­ ations goes deep into the middle game. We will devote to the analysis of Black's main line 8 \!faS our next two chapters. Now, we will deal with some other not so popu­ lar moves for him: A) 8 �c6, B) 8 0-0 and C) 8 .ig4. •••

••.

•••

•••

About 8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �aS+ 10.�d2 - see Chapter 3, variation

A.

A) 8

•••

�c6? !

This move is considered to be somewhat premature, because af­ ter

9.gcl!

Black is incapable of counter­ ing the move d4-d5.

2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 d5 4.cd tt:Jxd5 5.e4 lt:Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. lt:Jf3 c5 B. i.e3 �e2:t White's pawn-centre is very powerful and Black will have to defend long and hard despite the fact that he has no weaknesses in his camp, Grischuk - Ganguly, Dresden 2008.

10.cxd4

9 ... cxd4 He cannot equalise with 9 . . . �aS, since following 10 .d5, Black is forced to continue with 10 . . . lt:JeS (It i s bad for him to opt for 10 . . . .bc3+? ll.l:!xc3 �xc3+ 12. id2 �f6 13.dxc6 �xc6 14.�c2± and in the arising position White's two minor pieces are obviously stronger than Black's rook and two pawns. The point is that in the middle game he can hardly promote his pawns, while the danger of being checkmated on the weakened dark squares is quite real.) ll.lt:JxeS heS 12 .�d2 0-0 13.f4 ig7 14.c4 �xd2 + . This is the best for Black - to transfer the game into a slightly inferior endgame. (It is worse for him to choose 14 . . . �a3, because Black's queen is misplaced there. 15.e5 �f5 16.l:!c3 �a5 17.l:!b3 �c7 18.i.d3 hd3 19.l:!xd3 l:!fd8 2 0 . 0-0± Ko­ tanjian - Tutisani, Tbilisi 2010. White has completed his develop­ ment and is ready to advance his pawn-mass in the centre at any moment. Black's defence will be very difficult.) 15.'i!?xd2 b6 16.

10 . . . 0-0 It would be too dangerous for Black to opt for 10 . . . �a5+? ! , be­ cause after ll.i.d2! �xa2 12 .d5, White has very powerful initiative for the sacrificed pawn. For exam­ ple: 12 . . . lt:Je5 13.lt:Jxe5 heS 14. .ibS+ .id7 15.�g4! e6. Black is forced to weaken his position in this way and comply with the fact that his king will remain stranded in the centre for long (He will be checkmated following 15 . . . hbS?? 16.l:!c8+ l:!xc8 17.�xc8#; 15 . . . l:!d8?? 16.�xd7! ) 16.hd7+ 'i!?xd7 17.�g5 f6 18.�h6 l:!he8 19.0-0 l:!ac8 20 .�xh7+ l:!e7 21.�xg6+­ Black's position is hopeles�. He is not only a pawn down, but his king is very weak. He cannot save the day with 21.. .�xd2, since after 21

Chapter 2 22.dxe6+ , Black either loses his rook on c8, or his queen due to the pin.

ll.d5 �e5 This is a logical move, because Black's knight is better placed in the centre than at the edge of the board. Following ll . . . tt:laS? ! 12 .i.e2 e6 13.d6 ! , White maintains a great advantage (It is also good for him to choose 13. 0-0 ! ? exdS 14.exdS i.fS 1S.�d2± and the powerful pawn on dS and the misplaced black knight on aS provide White with a considerable advantage, Hort - Safarli, Hoogeveen 2008.) 13 . . . eS. Later in the game Miles Rodriguez, Riga 1979, White ob­ tained a great advantage with an energetic play. 14J'k7 i.e6 1S. tt:lgS± Now, Black has nothing better than to allow the exchange on e6 after which his pawn-struc­ ture will be hopelessly compro­ mised. 1S . . . 1"k8 16.tt:lxe6 fxe6 17. Ei:xc8 �xeS 18.0-0 tt:lc6 19.d7 �c7 20.i.g4+- Black will fail to hold his e6-pawn, so his position is hopeless. White will have not only an extra pawn, but a powerful passed pawn on d7.

12.�xe5 he5

(diagram)

13 .ic4 •

With this move White pre­ vents his opponent's pawn-ad­ vance e7-e6. Still, this bishop­ move has the drawback that Black 22

gains time to organise counter­ play on the queenside by attack­ ing the enemy bishop with his pawns. It may be interesting for White to try 13.f4 ! ? , forcing his oppo­ nent to clarify the situation with his bishop. After every possible retreat of the bishop, White main­ tains a slight edge.

13 . . . .id6 ! ? 14.i.e2!;t; It is best for him to go immediately with the bishop to e2, because the in­ clusion of the moves i.c4 and bS is much rather in favour of Black, as it was demonstrated in the game Cerniauskas - Roberts, Email 2012: 14 . .ic4 bS? 1S.i.e2 �aS+ 16.'it>f2 i.d7 17.�d2 �xd2 18 ..ixd2 f6 19.i.e3 Ei:ac8 20 .'it>f3 a6 21.i.d3

2.c4 g6 3. ltJ c3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJ.f3 c5 B . .ie3 e6 - White's passed pawn has been reliably blocked by Black's bishop, so White does not have any advantage in this endgame. After 13 . . ..ic7, Black's bishop prevents the appearance of his queen on the aS-square. There­ fore, White can develop his bish­ op to c4, without being afraid of 14 . . . bS. 14 . .ic4 .ib6 (Black cannot equalise with 14 . . . bS 1S.i.xbS i.xf4 16.i.xf4 W/aS+ 17.�f2 W/xbS 18. W/d4t and in this position with bishops of opposite colours White has powerful initiative, because the dark squares in the vicinity of Black's king are vulnerable.) 1S. '!Mfb3 i.xe3 16.W/xe3t White has a slight advantage thanks to the dominance of his pawns in the centre. 13 . . . .ig7. This is the most natu­ ral retreat of Black's bishop, but even then White obtains an edge effortlessly. 14 . .ic4 (Here, it seems anti-positional for Black to advance bS, because this would lead to the weakening of the cS­ square.) 14 . . . bS (14 . . . b6 1S.O-Ot Sambuev - Zhang, Montreal 2010; 14 . . . .id7 1S.O-O a6 16.W/b3 bS 17 . .id3 �c8 18.W/a3 �xc1 19. �xcl aS 20 .W/cS± Khenkin - Fer­ nandez Fernandez, Tromsoe 2009) 1S . .ie2 a6 16.0-0 .ib7 17. if3;!; Black has problems creating counterplay, since his bishop on b7 is restricted by his own pawn on dS and its colleague will share the same destiny after White ad­ vances eS. The pawn on eS will restrict its mobility considerably.

13 b5 14 .ib3 a5 15.0-0 a4 16 .ic2 •••

•

•

Black has advanced his queen­ side pawns by attacking White's bishop, Presently, it is rather un­ clear whether this is good or bad for him. Now, Black must play very energetically.

16

• . •

e6 17.f4 ic7

It is evidently worse for Black to choose 17 . . . .ig7? ! , since follow­ ing 18.-icS �e8 19.d6 eS 20.fS .id7 21.'1MfdS �f8 22 .id3±, White's powerful passed d6-pawn and the vulnerability of Black's bS-pawn provide White with an edge, Miles - Gligoric, Bled 1979.

18 .ic5 .ib6 19.�9'd4 .ixc5! •

This is stronger than 19 . . . �a6? ! , because after 20 ..id3± Kor­ chnoi - Miles, Vienna 1979, Black's rook on a6 is misplaced.

20.'fbc5 exd5 21.ex�5 .ib7 22.d6 t The powerful passed

pawn on d6 provides White with a slight edge. Still, we have to admit 23

Chapter 2 this advantage is not so great and the move 8 . . . lDc6 is obviously stronger than its reputation.

B) 8

•••

0-0

This move, just like castling for Black on move seven, is con­ sidered by theory as not so pre­ cise, because his slowing down the pressure against the key d4square enables White to complete without any problems the devel­ opment of his kingside pieces.

9 .ie2 .

after 10.0-0 'ffc7 ll.'ffd 2 lDf6 12. .id3 �d8 13.h3;!;, Black can hardly create any pressure against his opponent's centre, Walker Grams, Detroit 1994. Following 9 ... ig4 10.0-0 'ffc7 (about 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 lDc6 12. dS - see Chapter 1. variation A), the simplest way for White to ob­ tain an advantage is the line: 11. h3 ixf3 12 . .ixf3 �d8 13.'1Wa4 lDc6 14.d5 lLJeS 15 ..ie2;!;. He has occu­ pied the centre and has two pow­ erful bishops and will oust the en­ emy knight from its active posi­ tion with the move f2-f4, Lautier - Van Wely, Dordrecht 2001. Besides this, Black has tried in practice 9 ... lDc6. This is not a good move however, because he fails to exert pressure against his oppo­ nent's centre and his knight will be attacked by White with d4-d5. 10.0-0

9 b6 •••

After this move there arise po­ sitions similar to the variation with 7 . . . 0-0, except that White's bishop has already been devel­ oped on e3. This is, no doubt, in favour of Black, since the bishop would have been more active on the gS-square. Despite this, Black cannot equalise, because he does not exert sufficient pressure against White's centre. It seems a bit passive for Black to continue with 9 . . . lDd7, because 24

About 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 .ig4 12 .d5 - see variation A, Chapter 1. 10 . . . 'ffc7 ll.�c1 �d8 12 .d5 b6 13.lDd2 lDa5 14.c4;!; White has bet­ ter prospects in the middle game,

2.c4 g6 3Jijc3 d5 4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc .ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 8 . .ie3 since he has more space, A.Graf - Braun, Deizisau 2001. 10 . . . .ig4 ll.dS hf3 (ll ... liJaS. This retreat of the knight to the edge of the board cannot be good for Black at all. 12 .hcS .ixc3 13.l':k1 .ig7 14.'1Wd2 b6 1S . .ia3± White is dominant in the centre and Black's knight is horribly misplaced. It is also bad for him to opt for ll . . . liJeS 12 .hcS 0.xf3+ 13 . .ixf3 .ixf3 14.�xf3 �c8 1S. .ixa7± and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient, Do­ britsa - Chester, IECG 2002.) 12 . .ixf3 0.eS (but not 12 . . . 0.aS 13 . .ixcS .ixc3 14 .�cl± and again Black's knight is not placed well at the edge of the board and White has the two-bishop advantage, Nielsen - Jessen, Copenhagen 2002) 13 . .ie2 0.d7 14.�b1 b6 1S. �c2 �c7 16.f4 .ih6 17.�bdl± He has two powerful bishops and ex­ tra space, while Black's pieces are cramped, M.Carlsen - Hammer, Oslo 2009. It may be interesting for him but still insufficient for equality to try here: 9 . . . cxd4 10.cxd4 �aS+ (10 . . . 0.c6 11.0-0 .ig4 12 .dS - see Chapter 1, variation A)

Now, White has a pleasant choice. He can maintain an edge in two different ways. He can interpose against the check with his bishop. ll . .id2 ! ? �a3 (Naturally, Black cannot equalise by retreating his queen to its initial position. ll . . . �d8 12. �cl .ig4 13.dS e6 14 . .ib4 �e8 1S. 0-0 exdS 16.exdS aS 17 ..ia3 0.a6 18.h3;1; White has a slight edge. He has a powerful passed pawn on dS and more active pieces, while Black's knight on a6 is obviously misplaced, R.Sherbakov - Vakhi­ dov, Raipur 2002) 12.0-0 .ig4 (Following 12 . . .b6, Eljanov Zubov, Dnipropetrovsk 2000, the simplest reaction for White would be 13.�b1 .ia6 14 . .ibS .ixbS 1S. �xbS;!; and Black can hardly cre­ ate any pressure against White's centre, because his knight cannot go to the c6-square.) 13.�bl. White will have to play this move, since he wishes to advance d4-dS. Now, there will be an exchange of the a2-pawn for Black's b7-pawn. 13 . . . �xa2 14.dS 0.d7 1S.�xb7 �fc8 16 . .ie3;1; Cramling - Caruana, Vil­ lafranca 2010. White maintains a slight advantage, since Black's pawn on a7 is much rather a lia­ bility than strength, despite its being a passed pawn. Meanwhile, White's rook on b7 is very active and Black may have problems with the protection of his e7-pawn in numerous variations. White can interpose with his knight too - 11.0.d2 ! ? , but this move is played seldom in practice 2S

Chapter 2 in comparison to 11 . .id2 . He has an edge after it as well. White's main idea is to win a tempo, after castling, by attacking the enemy queen with his knight - lLlc4. 11 . . . Ei:d8 12.0-0 e 6 13.Ei:cU I n this po­ sition, White has a slight edge. 13 . . . lLlc6 14.lLlc4 Wfc7 15.e5. This move is forced. Now, you can see the drawback of lLld2 : the control over the d4-square is diminished. On the other hand, White's knight, with the support of the pawn on eS is headed for the d6outpost. 15 . . . Wfe7 16.lLld6 Ei:xd6. This is an interesting exchange­ sacrifice, but still insufficient for equality. 17.exd6 W!xd6 18.Wfa4 lLlxd4 19.Wfe8+ Wff8 2 0 .Wfxf8+ 'tt>xf8 2l..ig4 fS 22 . .id1 hS 23.f4 Ei:b8 24.Ei:f2 eS 2S.Ei:d2 .ie6 26.fxe5 lLlc6 27 . .if4 a6 28.Ei:bl± Galanov ­ Craciunescu, Email 2011. In this position Black has a pawn for the exchange and White's eS-pawn is weak. Still, the position should be evaluated in his favour, because his rooks will remain very active in this open position. It seems very risky for Black to try to win a pawn with 9 . . . Wfa5 10.0-0

26

10 ... W!xc3. If Black has to suf­ fer, then he wishes to be subjected to this at least for a pawn. 11.Ei:cl Wfa3 12.Ei:xc5 W!xa2 (It is obviously weaker for him to choose 12 . . . lLla6? ! , which after 13.Ei:c2 lLlb4 14 . .ic1 WfaS 1S . .id2 Wfb6 16.Ei:b2, led to the loss of a knight in the game Jussupow - Sax, Vrbas 1980.) 13 . .ic4. White has very powerful initiative for the sacri­ ficed pawn and Black must be very careful not to lose his queen, which is seriously endangered in­ side White's camp. 13 .. .'�a3. This is the only move. (It is obviously weaker for Black to play 13 . . . Wfb2?, i n view of 14.lLlg5 ! and on top of all the problems for him, he must worry about the protection of his t7-pawn. 14 . . . e6 15.lLlxt7 'tt>xt7 16.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 17 . .ixe6 'tt> xe6 18.Wfg4+ 'tt> t7 19.Wfxc8+-; 14 . . . lLla6 15.Ei:b5 Wfc3 16.Wfe2 Wfa3 17. .ic1 ! ? Wfd6 18.Wfa2 e6 19.d5 lLlc7 20 . .ia3 WfeS 21.lLlxt7! ; 17.Wff3 e6 18.e5 Wfe7 19.Wfh3 h6 20.lLle4± Black has succeeded in the evacu­ ation his queen from the enemy camp and has protected reliably his e7-pawn, having preserved his extra pawn, but his kingside is terribly weakened. It is quite un­ clear what he must do with his h6-pawn, because the move h6h5 will compromise hopelessly the dark squares and White's at­ tack will become decisive after .igS and lLlf6.) 14 . .icl. White be­ gins a chase after the enemy queen. 14 . . . Wfb4 1S . .id2 Wfa3 (It is obviously worse for Black to

2.c4 g6 3. 4Jc3 d5 4.cd 4Jxd5 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc i.g7 7. 4Jj3 c5 B. i.e3 choose here 15 . . . 1M/b6?, since fol­ lowing 16.i.a5, his queen will not go back to d8 and will need to go to the f6-square under the attack of White's pieces and pawns. 16 . . . �f6 17.e5 �f5 18.e6+-) 16.E1e1 i.g4

This position is in favour of White but he must play accurate­ ly. He is only slightly better following 17.E1e3 �b2 18.E1d3 (Or 18 . .ic3 1M/b6 19.E1b5 �d8 20.E1xb7 4Jc6;!; and although he has re­ gained the sacrificed pawn, Black has solved the problem with his queen on a2 and his pieces exert rather unpleasant pressure against the d4-pawn.) 18 . . . �b6 19.E1b3 1M/d6 20.E1xb7 4Jc6 21.E1d5 �e6 2 2 .e5 �f5;t White has re­ gained the sacrificed pawn, but Black's queen has surprisingly found a very good square on f5. White maintains a slight edge but the position remains very compli­ cated. 17.�b1! This not so obvious move is evidently stronger than E1e3. It enables White to obtain a great advantage. 17 . . . hd4 (It is bad for Black to try 17. . . 4Ja6?, be­ cause of 18.E1e3 �a4 19 . .ib5± and

he loses his queen.) 18.E1d5 hf3 (18 . . . i.g7 19. �xb7±) 19.E1xd4. The arising complications end up in favour of White, for example: 19 . . . �c5 20. �d3 i.g4 21.E1d5 �c7 22 . .ih6. This is the point. Now, Black must give up the exchange. 22 . . . 4Jc6 23.�c3 e5 24 . .ixf8 E1xf8 25 . .ib5 i.e6 26.E1c5± - He has for the moment two pawns for the ex­ change, but his position is very difficult. Black will lose one of his pawns and will have only miracu­ lous chances for a draw.

Meanwhile, Black's situation will not be any easier even if he refrains from capturing the c3pawn: 10 . . . 4Jc6 11.�b3 ! ? This is the simplest for White. Now, his pawn on c3 is reliably protected. ll . . . cxd4 12.cxd4 .ig4 13.E1ad1 �b4 14.h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 E1fc8 16. �xb4 4Jxb4 17.e5;!;. White is clear­ ly better in this endgame thanks to his two powerful bishops, Kar­ pov - Ljubojevic, Montreal 1979 ; 10 . . . E1d8 11.�b3 cxd4 12.cxd4± - He has protected . reliably his pawn on d4 and his advantage is doubtless due to his dominance in 27

Chapter 2 the centre, E.Atalik - Fritzsche, Ottawa 2007; It seems rather passive for Black to opt for 10 . . . ltld7 11.�b3 e6 12 .a4 �c7 13.a5±. White has a wonderful centre and initiative on the queenside, Shimanov - Rakh­ manov, Irkutsk 2010.

10.0-0

ltlc6 (Or 13 . . . �d6, Hort - Hueb­ ner, Hamburg 1979, 14.ltld2 ! ? ltlc6 15.e5 �e7 16.ltlc4;!;, followed by ltld6 and White's prospects are preferable thanks to the powerful placement of his knight.) 14 . .ig5. He has lost a tempo indeed, but White realises the best set-up of his pieces in this variation: i.g5, �e3, 1!ad1, followed either by d4d5, or by h2-h4-h5. 14 . . . �d6 15. �e3 1!fe8 16.h4 1!ac8 17.h5;!;. White won later quite convinc­ ingly this position in the game, Gligoric - Popovic, Yugoslavia 1979.

12.cxd4

10

•••

.tb7

10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 e6 (ll . . . i.b7 12 .�d3 - see 10 . . . ib7) 12 .!g5 �d6 13.�d2 .ib7 14.�e3 1!c8 15 . .ih6 .ih8 16.1!adU White has ac­ complished the standard set-up for similar positions and has seized completely the initiative, Fedorowicz - Henley, New York 1981.

ll.�d3 cxd4 Following ll . . . e6, White's best reaction would be 12 .1!ad1 ! (It is also possible for him to try 12. 1!fd1 ltld7 13.a4;!; San Segundo Carrillo - Ponomariov, San Sebastian 2009.) 12 . . . cxd4 13.cxd4 28

12

. • •

ltlc6

About 12 . . . e6 13.1!ad1 - see ll . . . e6. It is possible for Black to choose here 12 . . . �d7 13.1!ac1 e6 (after 13 . . . i.a6 14.�d2 he2 15. �xe2 e6, Arencibia Rodriguez Matamoros Franco, Bayamo 1989, White can maintain a slight but stable edge by simply dou-

2.c4 g6 3. 4J c3 d5 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 4Jxc3 6.bc ig7 7. ltJfJ cS 8. ie3 bling his rooks on the c-file: 16. l'!c4 4Jc6 17.l'!fcU) 14.l'!fd1 4Jc6 15. �bS l'!fd8 16.ig5 f6. He preserves his advantage after the energetic move 17.if4 ! (It is not so clear af­ ter 17.ie3, because following the variation 17 . . . 4Ja5 18.�d3 l'!ac8 19.h4 l'!xcl 2 0.l'!xcl l'!c8 21.l'!xc8, the opponents agreed to a draw in the game Babula - Ftacnik, Czech Republic 2011. It is true that White can hardly seize the initia­ tive after the exchange of the rooks. In addition, Black can cre­ ate a passed pawn on the queen­ side in the endgame.) 17 . . . tt'la5 18.�xd7 l'!xd7 19.d5 exdS 2 0.ib5 l'!f7 21.exd5;!; White maintains the initiative in this endgame, be­ cause his dS-pawn is very power­ ful being supported by his bish­ ops.

nent's temporary activity with precise play, maintaining a slight edge. For example : 15.�bl .!bc2

16 .tf4 �d7 17.gcl .!bd4 18. .!bxd4 .ixd4 19.�b4 gxcl 20. gxcl ic5 21.�b3;!; White has •

parried his opponent's activity and can look optimistically in the future. He has a stable advantage thanks to his more active minor pieces (Black's bishop on b7 is re­ stricted by White's pawn on dS.).

C) 8

•••

.tg4

13.gadl gcs 13 . . . e6 14.ig5 - see ll . . . e6.

14.d5 4Jb4

This is an active move. Black wishes to penetrate with his knight to the c2-square. Still, White can neutralise his oppo-

This is an active move. Black does not lose time for castling and exerts immediate pressure against White's centre. Now however, contrary to the variation with 8 . . . 4Jc6, Black i s not i n a hurry t o de­ velop his knight to c6 ; otherwise, it will come under attack after d4d5. We must also mention that we will analyse later other variations with the development of Black's bishop on g4, but with the inclu­ sion of the moves �aS and �d2 . Here, we will analyse only varia­ tions which lead to original posi­ tions. 29

Chapter 2 9J�cl

White cannot continue the game without this move. His plan includes the move d4-d5, so he must protect his c3-pawn.

Now, Black has a choice. He may capture on d4 - Cl) 9 cxd4, or include beforehand the trade on f3 - C2) 9 .bf3.

cated. White should be better, at least because of his material ad­ vantage.) 11.lLlxd4. Black has problems with the protection of his queenside pawns. He can pro­ tect the pawn on b7, but his a7pawn may become a cause for worries. 11 . . . �c7 (11 . . . .ic8 12. �bS+ �xbS 13.tt:lxb5 tt:la6 14. tt:lxa7± The vulnerability of the pawns on a2 and c3 is not suffi­ cient to compensate Black's lost pawn, Khalifman - A.Evdokimov, Taganrog 2011.) 12.tt:lb5 �d8 13. i.c4 0-0 14.tt:lxa7 �c7 15. 0-0± His compensation for the pawn is not good enough, Khairullin Svidler, Dagomys 2010.

.••

•••

About 9 . . . 0-0 10 .d5 �aS 11. �d2 - see variation C in Chapter 4. Following 9 . . . �a5, White has a very powerful argument at his disposal - 10.�b3 ! (this is strong­ er than the routine move 10.�d2). 10 . . . cxd4 (It may be interesting for Black to try, but still insuffi­ cient for equality 10 . . . .b:f3 11. �xb7 0-0 12 .�xa8, for example: 12 . . . cxd4 13.�d5 �xdS 14.exd5 hdS 15.hd4± and Black does not have sufficient compensation for the exchange in this endgame, or 12 .. J:!d8 13.�b7 cxd4 14.�b4 �xb4 15.cxb4 .ixe4 16 . .ig5t and despite the fact that it is an end­ game, the position is very compli30

Cl) 9

• • •

cxd4

The idea of this exchange is to open the game a bit more.

10.cxd4 0-0 About lO ... .ix£3 11.gxf3 - see variation C2.

ll . .ie2

Now, Black has a choice be­ tween three possibilities: Cla)

2.c4 g6 3. lbc3 dS 4.cd ltJxdS 5.e4 lbxc3 6.bc ig7 7. lbj3 cS B. i.e3 ll ... ltJc6, Clb) ll ... e6 and Clc) ll .. :tva5. Cla) ll . . . ltJ c6 We have already analysed a similar position (see variation A in Chapter 1), but with the differ­ ence that here, instead of 0-0 White has played �cl. This is in favour of Black indeed, but is not sufficient for equality.

12.d5 h:f3

This is the point. Now, White is practically forced to accept the knight-sacrifice if he wishes to fight for the opening advantage. 16.f4! Vxe4 (16 . . . ltJd7 17.�c4±) 17.fxe5 Vxg2 18J�gU In the ansmg complicated position, White maintains a slight advan­ tage, because his bishop is strong­ er than Black's pawns. Naturally, he must play very carefully, since with his king in the centre a single imprecision might have very grave consequences for him.

13.h:f3

After this move, he has an in­ teresting possibility to complicate the fight with a piece-sacrifice.

Clb) ll ... e6

If White wishes to avoid tacti­ cal complications, he can choose 13.gxf3 ! ? ltJeS 14.f4 ltJd7 1S.�b3 �c8 16.0-0;!; and despite the fact that his castling position has been weakened a bit, White has an edge, since he has two bishops and a powerful pawn-centre, Hra­ cek - Uaneza Vega, Warsaw 2009.

13 ltJe5 14.i.e2 �aS+ 15. �d2 ti'a4 •••

Before playing ltJc6, Black is preparing to exchange the pawns. 31

Chapter 2 12.0-0 lilc6 13.d5 exdS 14. exdS

15.d6 If White is afraid for the future of his d-pawn, he can play simply 15.h3 ! ? .bf3 16.hf3;t;, preserving a slight but stable edge thanks to his bishop-pair and his passed d-pawn.

15 lilc6 16.h3 .id7 17.'ti'b3 gbs 18.gfdU White's d6-pawn, •••

supported by his pieces, is very powerful. Black will have great problems neutralising his oppo­ nent's pressure, Knaak - Heinig, Plauen 1980.

14

.•.

lile7

C1c) ll ti'a5+ •••

He attacks immediately the enemy dS-pawn. 14 . . . .bf3. This move looks very dubious, because it presents White with the two-bishop advan­ tage. The game Petursson Shamkovich, Lone Pine 1980 is a very instructive example of the dangers that Black might face: 15 ..bf3 lLleS 16 . .ie2 b6 17.d6 '!Wh4 18.1Mfd5 :!! adS 19.:!!c7+-, White's position is already winning, be­ cause Black can hardly protect his queenside pawns. 14 ... lLle5. One of the doubtless pluses of this move is that Black succeeds in exchanging two cou­ ples of minor pieces and this fa­ cilitates his defence. Still, after 15.lLlxe5 .be2 16.'1Wxe2 .beS 17. '!Wb5;t;, White preserves a slight edge, because his pieces are more active and his passed dS-pawn is very powerful, despite the numer­ ous exchanges of pieces. 32

After this move there arises an endgame.

12.'ti'd2 'exd2 + .ixe2 14.e2� He has an obvious edge in this endgame, because Black is practically helpless against the penetration of White's rooks to the penultimate rank and the pressure of White's bishop against the f7-square. 17 . . . e6 18. E:d1 i.e5 19.E:dd7 0-0 2 0.f4 ! This is an important tactical resource. Now, White advances f5 and Black will fail to hold the f7square. 20 . . . ih8 (It is not prefer­ able for him to defend with 20 . . . i.xf4, i n view of 2l.i.xe6± and White's bishop is untouchable due to the checkmate.) 2l.f5 ! gxf5 2 2 .exf5 E:ac8 23.ib3± He main­ tains a great advantage, Slugin Danin, Lipetsk 2006. Black tried to rehabilitate this variation with the move 10 . . . tt:ld7 in the game Giri - Nijboer, Eind­ hoven 2010. Here, White has to capture the pawn - 11.E:xb7!?, for example: 11 . . . E:b8 12.E:xb8+ tt:lxb8 13.ic4 ix£3 14.gxf3 0-0 15. 0-0 cxd4 16.cxd4 '\Wxd2 17.i.xd2 i.xd4

4.cd l:iJxdS 5.e4 l:iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. l:iJ.f3 c5 B. ie3 'f!a5 9. 'f!d2 cd 1 0 .cd 18.ib5;!; and despite the fact that Black has succeeded in regaining his pawn, the game has entered an endgame which is in White's favour, because his bishops are evidently more powerful than Black's minor pieces. In order to understand this, it would be suf­ ficient to compare the bishop on bS with Black's knight on b8.

A) 9

•••

cxd4

Secondly, he can organise pres­ sure against White's pawn on d4 and his bishop on g7 will play an important role in this process.

10.cxd4 ti'xd2+ ll.�xd2 As a rule, White captures on

d2 with his king, since in the end­ game, contrary to the other stages of the chess game, the king feels quite comfortable in the centre of the board. Naturally, White must be very careful about the possibil­ ity of Black exploiting the juxta­ position of his rook and White's king on the d-file.

11

•••

0-0

About ll ... l:iJc6 12.gb1 - see variation 83.

12.gbl

After this move there arises immediately on the board a quite typical endgame for this opening variation. As in the majority of the endgames of the similar type, White has a slight edge, because thanks to his pawn-centre his pieces can occupy more active po­ sitions than Black's pieces. In ad­ dition, White's rooks can exert rather unpleasant pressure on the c-file. In this variation Black must be constantly on the alert about the possible penetration of White's rook to the c7-square. Black has his pluses as well. At first, he has no pawn-weaknesses.

This is an important move. White takes under control the b4square, so that after Black's knight comes to c6 and White's pawn on dS ousts it from there, Black's knight is deprived of the b4square.

t2

•••

gds

About 12 . . . 1:iJc6 13.id3 - see variation 83. 37

Chapter 3 Black has also tried in practice the move 12 . . . b6 with the idea to trade the light-squared bishops and thus to facilitate his defence. This cannot equalise for him how­ ever, since it takes too much time. For example: 13 . .id3 .ia6 (The move 13 . . ..tb7 has been tested in the game Rashkovsky - Certek, Pila 1992 . Following 14J!hc1 lLlc6 15.d5 lLlaS 16.l'!c7±, Black failed to defend against the penetration of the enemy rook to the penulti­ mate rank.) 14.l'!hc1 .b:d3 15. 'ihd3 lLla6 16.l'!c4;!; White has a slight edge in this endgame. This is not only due to his pawn-centre, but also thanks to the fact that his king is very active, while Black's knight on a6 is horribly mis­ placed. In addition, he can hardly neutralise the pressure of White's rooks on the c-file. Later, in the game Gruenberg - Trettin, Ger­ many 1991, there followed: 16 . . . l'!fd8 17.'it>e2 l'!d7 18.l'!bc1 ifS?? This is a terrible blunder. As it often happens, Black fails to cope with the difficulties of defending an in­ ferior position and makes a deci­ sive mistake. 19.l'!a4 lLlb8 20 .l'!c8. This penetration of the rook wins for White. 20 ... 'it>g7 21.l'!ac4 bS 22. !!4c5 and Black cannot get rid of this pin without material losses.

15.e5 With this move White solves radically the problem with the protection of his d4-pawn and prepares .te4. Naturally, he must consider the weakening of the dS­ square as well. He can fight for the advantage in another way too - 15.l'!c4 ! ? , protecting the d4-pawn and pre­ paring doubling of his rooks on the c-file. 15 . . . .id7 (or 15 . . . lLla5 16.l'!cn Epishin - Santos, Oviedo 1991) 16.We2;!; and Black will have to fight long and hard for a draw without any chances of organising counterplay.

13 . .id3 e6 About 13 . . . lLlc6 14.d5 - see variation B3.

15 . . h6! .

38

4.cd liJxd5 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8 . :i e3 Wfa5 9. Wfd2 cd J O .cd This is the best for Black since he must take the gS-square under control. After 15 .. .f6, White can obtain powerful initiative with a pawn­ sacrifice - 16.'it>e2 ! ? fxeS 17.dxe5 liJxeS 18.liJxe5 .b:eS 19.:ie4. Black has an extra pawn indeed, but he must fight laboriously for a draw, because his e6-pawn is weak and his queenside pieces are not de­ veloped. 19 . . . :Bb8 20.:Bc5 i.d6 21. :BaS a6 22 .i.b6 :Bd7 23 .h4 :ic7 24. 'it>e3 .b:b6+ 25.:Bxb6� Kozul - Po­ lajzer, Ptuj 1989. The activity of White's pieces compensate with an interest his minimal material deficit. Black's defence is very dif­ ficult. His only chance is to give back the extra pawn at some mo­ ment in order to develop his bish­ op on c8 and after that to defend in the endgame having an inferior pawn-structure. Black cannot equalise with 15 . . .fS, because after 16.h4 h6 17.'it>e2 i.f8 18.g3 liJb4 19.i.c4 b6, White's knight on d3 is restricted in its movements by his own pawns, but he can transfer it ad­ vantageously to the d3-square. 20.liJe1! liJdS 21.liJd3 i.b7 22.a4;!; - He has solved the problem with his knight and despite the fact that Black's knight is also perfect­ ly placed on dS, White's position is preferable due to the chronic weakness of Black's e6-pawn, Damljanovic - Kozul, Belgrade 1989.

16.a4 White failed to obtain an ad­ vantage in the game Gelfand - Ivan­ chuk, Astrakhan 2010: 16.'it>e1 i.f8 17.i.e4 liJb4 18 ..id2 liJd5 19.a4 b6 2 0.a5 .ib7 21.axb6 axb6 22 . .b:dS .b:dS 23.:Bxb6 .ixf3 24.gxf3 :Bxd4 25.f4 :Bdd8 26 . .ie3 :Bab8. The game ended in a draw after the almost complete annihilation of the material on the board.

16 .lbe7 17.:ie4 tbd5 18.a5 ••

White's only chance of obtain­ ing an advantage in this variation is to impede Black's pawn-ad­ vance b7-b6.

18 .if8 19.:ixd5 l!!xd5 20. l!! c7 b6 •••

This pawn-sacrifice is forced.

21.axb6

axb6

22.l!!xb6;!;

White has an extra pawn in the endgame and despite the fact that Black has two powerful bishops (His light-squared bishop is par­ ticularly strong, since it has no opponent.), White can torment his opponent for long .in this end­ game, Perikov - Nenciulescu, Email 2010. 39

Chapter 3 B) 9 .lbc6 ••

games played after this, but White failed to create problems for his opponent in the opening. In fact, in some games Black even tried to complicate the game trying for more than just a draw in the end­ game. After to.gbl Black has a choice between the following possibilities: Bl) 10 . . . b6, 82) 10 ... 0-0, 83) 10 . . . cxd4 and

84) 10 ... a6. to.gbt! This is the only move with which White preserves hopes of obtaining an edge. The point is that after the exchange on d4, it is essential for White to control the b4-square in the endgame. After 10.E1cl, Black equalises as it was showed in the game Kramnik - Kasparov, Astana 2001. 10 . . . cxd4 ll.cxd4 \Wxd2+ 12.g3 .id7 21.lLlf3

e6 22.d6 .ic6 23 .ig5 lLlb7 24.ghel lLlcS 25 .ic2 gf7 26. gbdU White has a powerful •

•

passed pawn on d6, moreover that Black's e6-pawn is very weak, so in the game Hudak - Reeky, Email 2010, White scored a con­ vincing victory.

B4) 10

•••

a6

Black parries radically the threat �bS, but weakens the b6square.

n.gcl After having provoked the weakening of the b6-square, White's rook protects the pawn on c3. Now, Black must be con­ stantly on the alert about the po­ sitional threat d4-d5. (diagram) In this position he has the choice between the following possibilities: B4a) ll . . . f5, B4b) ll ... .ig4 and B4c) ll . . . cxd4.

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. ie3 Y!! aS 9. 1lff d2 liJ c6 1 0 J�!.bl

11 . . . 0-0 12 .d5 E:d8 13.i.e2 e6 14.0-0 exdS 1S.exd5 liJe7 16.c4 1Jffxd2 17.liJxd2;!; Karpov - Galli, Bastia 1998. The majority of the endgames of this type, as a rule, are close to equality, but in this situation White has an edge. The point is that Black's pawn is not on a7, but on a6. The moment he plays b7-b6, White will man­ age to exert pressure against that pawn.

B4a) ll

•..

f5

Having undermined White's centre with the move c7-c5, Black inflicts a strike against it from the other side of the board.

12.e5 This move is seemingly illogi­ cal (White presents his opponent with the control over the dS­ square.), but is one of the typical resources for him in this varia­ tion. Its idea is to restrict maxi­ mally Black's bishop on g7. This "good" bishop will be restricted by White's pawn on eS and will have problems entering the ac­ tions.

12

•••

f4

Black sacrifices a pawn for ini­ tiative. It is possible for him to opt for 12 . . . b5, occupying space on the queenside, 13.ie2 ib7 (after 13 . . . 0-0 14.0-0 E:d8 15.a4 i.e6 16.axb5 axb5 17.'1Wb2;!;, White suc­ ceeds in keeping the enemy bish­ op on g7 inside the cage of pawns on eS, d4 and c3, Fridman - Kra­ senkow, Jurmala 2012) 14.0-0 cxd4 1S.liJxd4 liJxd4 (following 15 . . . liJxe5 16.liJe6 if6 17.1i.d4�, thanks to the powerful position of the knight on e6, which prevents Black from castling, White has more than sufficient compensa­ tion for the sacrificed pawn) 16. ixd4 0-0 17.id1 idS 18.ib3 ixb3 19.axb3;!; White's bishop on d4, supported by the pawn on c3, is obviously more active than its counterpart on g7, so the position is clearly in favour of White, Ry­ chagov - Nikolenko, Moscow 2010.

13 .ixf4 ig4 14.ie2 gds 15.liJg5 •

47

Chapter 3 White does not insist on keep­ ing the extra material and tries to deploy his knight on the weak­ ened e6-square. 15 .ixe2 16. •••

1rxe2 �US 17 .td2 cxd4 18.tt:le6 d3 19.�e3;!; - Now, despite Black's •

powerful passed pawn on d3, White wins the exchange, since three of Black's pieces are under the attack of White's knight and cannot run away simultaneously, Salem - Daulyte, Dubai 2011.

13.gxf3 0-0-0 14.i.d3 (After the careless move 14.f4, Black can un­ dermine White's centre with the move 14 . . . e6? and organise coun­ terplay, Bosman - Ni Hua, Plov­ div 2010.) 14 . . . tt:le5 15.i.e2 f5 16.f4 tt:lg4 17.i.xg4 fxg4 18.c4 �c7 19.h3 gxh3 2 0J'!xh3;!; White's pawn­ mass in the centre looks very im­ pressive and Black is incapable of exploiting the placement of White's king in the centre, Mengual Bolo - Perez Marco, Email 2009.

B4b) u . . . .tg4 This seemingly active move (Black increases his pressure against White's centre.) has a def­ inite drawback. With his previous move White has protected his pawn on c3, so he can occupy ad­ ditional space in the centre.

12.d5

12 ... �M8

Black intends to undermine White's centre with the move e6. Black can also compromise his opponent's pawn-structure, but must part with his powerful bish­ op in order to do that. 12 . . . .ixf3 48

13 .te2 0-0 14.0-0 .txf3 •

Black can also try to under­ mine immediately his opponent's centre without the preliminary exchange. 14 . . . e6 15.!g5. White's is attacking the enemy rook on d8 and frees the way of his queen to the f4-square. 15 .. J'!d7 (following 15 . . .£6 16.i.f4;!;, White preserves an edge, because after Black has played f7-f6, his bishop on g7 has turned immediately from active into very passive, Standaer Nogga, Email 2009) 16.�f4 ! Now, there arise tactical complications, which turn out to be in favour of White. 16 . . . .txf3 17.dxc6 .ixe2 18. cxd7 f6 19.�d6 fxgS 20 .�xe6+ gf7 21.e5. This is the key idea of this variation. White's e-pawn is com­ ing to the assistance of his d7pawn. Black can hardly hold this position. 21.. .i.b5 (His situation is horrible after 21.. . .txf1 2 2 .�d5 �dB 23.e6 ge7 24.�xf1 i.f6 25.c4 �g7 26.gb1+-. He has kept his extra piece and has blocked tern-

4.cd !iJxd5 5.e4 !iJxc3 6.bc ig7 7. 0,j3 c5 8. i.e3 VIi aS 9. Vfid2 !iJ c6 1 0 . 'gbJ porarily White's central passed pawns, but Black is incapable of countering the penetration of his opponent's rook inside his camp.) 22 .Vfid5 hd7 23.e6 .be6 24.Vfixe6 .bc3 25.f4 i.d4+ 26.'tt>h 1 Vfid8 27.fxg5± Black's position is diffi­ cult and White's rook is more powerful than Black's bishop and pawn in this open position. ter this strong move, Black is faced with a rather unpleasant choice. 19 :Se8 (but not 19 .. .f6 20.i.f4±; 19 . . . 'gxd5 2 0 . .bd8 'gxd2 21..b:a5 'gxe2 2 2 .i.b6± and in the endgame White has all the chanc­ es of realising his material advan­ tage) 20.:Selt White has seized completely the initiative and his bishops begin to be very active in this open position, while Black can hardly manage to block the enemy dS-pawn.

15.hf3 e6

•••

16 .ie2 ! •

This i s a very accurate move. White removes prudently his bishop away from the possible strike CiJeS. After the routine response 16. 'gfd1, Black obtains a very good position following 16 . . . exd5 17. exdS CiJeS? Ding - Li, Olongapo City 2010.

16

•••

B4c) ll . . . cxd4 This is Black's most popular move. He enters an endgame hop­ ing later to equalise a slightly in­ ferior position.

12.cxd4 ti'xd2+ 13.'tt>xd2

:Sd7 17.:SfdU

(diagram) White's position is preferable thanks to his two powerful bish­ ops and the passed d-pawn. 17 exd5 18.exd5 :Sfd8 1 9 .ig5! Af•••

•

49

Chapter 3 13

...

e6

This is a precise and reliable move. Black is trying to build a solid defensive line. It is also possible for Black to play 13 . . .f5 - a counter strike which we are already familiar with. 14.e5 !

With this move White begins a plan to restrict the enemy bishop on g7. 14 . . . i.e6 (A quite typical for this variation exchange-sacrifice was tried in the game Sakaev Smikovski, Novokuznetsk 2008: 14 . . . h6 15.i.c4 ttla5 16.id5 e6 17. 1'!xc8+ ! 1'!xc8 18.he6 1'!c6 19.i.d5± White's bishop and his two cen­ tral pawns are stronger than Black's rook and b7-pawn.) 15. i.c4 hc4 16.1'!xc4 0-0 (16 . . . 1'!d8 17.'it>e2 e6 18.1'!b1 1'!d7, Prasad Ganguly, Nagpur 2008. Here, White has a very powerful argu­ ment at his disposal - 19.ttlg5 ! ?, attacking immediately Black's Achilles heel - his weak e6-pawn. 19 . . . 'it>e7 20.i.cl ! White's bishop is transferred to the a3-square where it will be much more active. 20 . . . ttlxd4+ 21.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 2 2 . 1'!xb7+ 1'!d7 23.ia3+ lt>e8 24.1'!b8+ 50

1'!d8 25.1'!b6± - He has more than sufficient compensation for the exchange. Black's a6 and e6pawns are very weak and what is even more important - his king is seriously endangered in the cen­ tre of the board despite the fact that it is an endgame.) 17.'it>e2

17. . . e6 18.1'!b1 1'!f7. Here, White's best chance of obtaining an advantage is the move 19. ttlg5 ! ? (following 19.g3 1'!d7 20. 1'!b6 h6 21.h4 1'!c8 2 2 .ttlel 1'!cd8 23.ttld3 tt:Jxd4+ 24.1'!xd4 1'!xd4 25. hd4 1'!xd4 26.1'!xe6;J;, he again maintains an edge, but there is still plenty of material left on the board and in actions on both flanks Black's bishop may turn out to be stronger than White's knight, Kuljasevic - Safarli, Par­ dubice 2010) 19 . . . 1'!e7 20.h4;J;, fol­ lowed by the subsequent transfer of the knight to f4 via the h3square. White maintains unpleas­ ant pressure. The evaluation of the position remains more or less the same after 17 . . . h6 18.1'!bU. Later, in the game Z.Schneider - Neubau­ er, Oberpullendorf 2002, Black played carelessly - 18 . . . e6? and

4.cd 0.xd5 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. 0.j3 c5 B. fie3 Wia5 9. Wld2 0.c6 1 0 . 'i'J.bl this enabled White to continue with a simple winning combina­ tion: 19.'i'J.xb7 0.a5 20.'i'J.xg7+ 'it>xg7 2l.'Sc7+ 'it>h8 22 .id2 +17 . . . 'i'J.ad8 18.'i'J.bl 'iJ.dS (Follow­ ing 18 . . . 'i'J.d7 19.g3 e6 20.'iJ.bM, White has again a slight edge, Ol­ szewski - Kanarek, Warsaw 2011. His pieces are active and Black must be constantly on the alert about the possible exchange-sac­ rifice on c6 - which is one of the main resources for White in this position.) 19.a4 'Sfd8 20 .g3 h6 21.h4t He has the initiative in this endgame. 21.. .0.a5 22.'i'J.c7 'i'J.Sd7 23.'i'J.c5 'iJ.dS 24.'i'J.xd5 'iJ.xdS 2S.'i'J.b6 'it>t7 26.:id2 if8 27.ic3 e6 28. 0.el! ± White redeploys his knight to a more active position. 28 . . . i.e7 29.0.c2 idS 30.ha5. Having im­ proved maximally the placement of his pieces, White finally trades his bishop for the enemy knight on aS and wins the b7-pawn. Black's position crumbles. 30 . . . 'fJ.xaS 31.'i'J.xb7+ 'it>e8 32.'i'J.b4 'iJ.dS 33.'i'J.c4 'i'J.d7 34.'i'J.c6 'it>t7 35.'i'J.xa6 'i'J.b7 36.a5 'i'J.b2 37.'it>d3 'i'J.a2 38. 'i'J.a7+ 1-0 Giri - Sutovsky, Wijk aan Zee 2010.

Besides this, he has also tested in practice 13 . . . 0-0 14.d5

Now, it is bad for him to opt for 14 . . . 'i'J.d8, due to lS.'it>el 0.b4 (15 . . . 0.a5?? 16.:ib6+-) 16.id2 ! , Brunner - Marzolo, Metz 2010, 16 . . . a5 17.a3 0.a6 18.ixa5± and Black's compensation for the pawn is insufficient. Still, even af­ ter 14 . . . 0.e5, White develops ef­ fortlessly his initiative in the end­ game. 15.0.xe5 !xeS 16.f4 ib8 17.e5 'i'J.d8 18.i.d3 if5 19.i.xf5 gxfS 20.'it>e2t - He has a better pawn­ structure, while Black's bishop on b8 is very passive restricted by White's pawn on eS, Akobian Khachiyan, Wheeling 2010.

14.i.d3 This is a reliable move. White is not in a hurry to force the issue. He has also tried in practice the riskier line: 14.d5 exdS 15. exdS. Still, after Black's solid re­ ply 15 . . . 0.e5 16.0.xe5 ixeS 17.g3 :ifS 18.ig2 'it>d7= , White can hardly fight for the advantage, be­ cause his passed pawn has been reliably blocked and the exchange of the rooks on the c-file will elim51

Chapter 3 inate the conflict in this position, Ftacnik - Jansa, Bratislava 1983.

14

•••

0-0

About 14 ... .id7 15.!k4 0-0 see 14 . . . 0-0.

15.gc4 .id7 Black cannot equalise if he tries to organise counterplay with 15 . . .f5 16.g3 .id7 17J1hc1 E:fc8 18. dS exdS 19.exd5;!;. White's pros­ pects are preferable thanks to his powerful passed dS-pawn, Khen­ kin - Seel, Bad Wiessee 2003. The character of the fight re­ mains the same following 15 . . . E:d8 16.h4 (16.E:b1 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . .id7 17.h5;!; Epishin - Polovodin, Podolsk 1992 . (diagram)

16.h4!? The endgame i s slightly better for White, but it would not be easy for him to break Black's defence. With his last move White plans to advance his pawn up to the h6-

square in order to fix the enemy h7-pawn.

16 gfc8 17.h5 .!lJa5 18. gxc8+ gxc8 19.h6 .ih8 20.gc1 gxc1 21. c.!?xcl .!lJc6 22. i>d2 .if6 23.i>c3;!; White's king is more ac­ •••

tive and he will play for a win lat­ er, combining his threat to break with his king towards Black's queenside pawns with the pawn­ advance in the centre d4-d5, as well as with an attack against Black's h7-pawn, Epishin - Fer­ nandez Aguado, Logrono 1991.

Conclusion We have just analysed variations of the Gruenfeld Defence in which Black develops his queen to aS. In these lines, as a rule, there arises a slightly better endgame for White, because his pieces occupy more ac­ tive positions thanks to his wonderful pawn-centre. Black will need to work hard to neutralise his opponent's pressure on the c-file and to prevent the penetration to the c7-square. If he tries to undermine his opponent's centre with the move f7-f5, then White has the unpleasant plan with the move e4-e5, after which Black's bishop on g7 becomes severely restricted in its movements and White seizes completely the initiative on the queenside. With a black bishop remaining on g7, White will have an extra piece in his queenside actions.

52

Chapter 4

l.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 g6 3.ttJc3 d5 4.cxd5 ttJxd5 5.e4 ttJxc3 6.bxc3 .ig7 7.ttJf3 c5 8 .ie3 Vas 9.Vd2 0-0 •

cxd4 and finally the move which is considered to be the best in this variation - F) lO gds. •••

About 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ll.d5 lt:Je5 (11 . . . gds - see lO . . . gds) 12.lt:Jxe5 .ixeS 13.f4 - see Chapter 2, 8 . . . lt:Jc6, 9 . . . �as.

A) 10 This move was considered to be imprecise for many years and was not in the focus of the con­ temporary theory. In the 21st cen­ tury however, new ideas were found for Black and they led to a very complicated and double­ edged game. Therefore, this vari­ ation became a frequent guest in the tournament practice even at the super top level. It was tested in the games of L. Aronian, A. Grischuk, P. Leko, P. Svidler, V. Topalov and many other grand­ masters.

Black has a great choice of moves in this position:

A) 10 b6, B) 10 c!bd7, C) Ag4, D) 10 e6, E) 10 •••

• • •

b6

n.Ah6

to.gcl

10

•••

This move is only seldom played in the tournament prac­ tice. White obtains effortlessly an opening advantage.

•••

•••

•••

This is a typical reso�rce in this variation. White wishes to trade the enemy bishop in order to weaken the shelter of the ene53

Chapter 4 my king. By playing like this, he is not planning so much to attack, but is trying to force his opponent to exchange on d4, which would lead to the trade of queens and a transfer to an endgame advanta­ geous for White. It may be interesting for him to choose the move ll.h4 ! ? , which has not been analysed thoroughly yet. It has been tried by I.Sokolov. Later, Black did not defend in the best possible way and White scored a quick victory following ll . . . l'!e8?! 12 .h5 i.a6 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.i.h6 i.h8 1S.i.xa6 ltlxa6 16.d5 1Wa4 17.1Wf4 1Wc4 18.ltle5 1-0 I. So­ kolov - Berghagen, Sweden 2001. Ivan Sokolov's idea requires fur­ ther practical tests.

ll

. . •

cxd4

This exchange is forced. After 11.. .l'!d8, White can play 12 .h4! and will force his opponent to trade pawns in the centre any­ way. Still, contrary to the majority of similar positions, after the exchange, White is not obliged to enter an endgame but can play for an attack. 12 . . . cxd4 13.i.xg7 �xg7 14.h5± with a very powerful attack, Daly - Isaev, Moscow 1994. We have to mention the fact that Black's rook on d8 is not pro­ tected, so he cannot exchange on c3.

12.hg7 �xg7 13.cxd4 tfxd2+ 14.�xd2 i.b7 15.i.d3;!; 54

There has arisen a typical end­ game for the Gruenfeld Defence with a slight edge for White due to his dominance in the centre. Later, in the game Yermolinsky ­ Khachiyan, Las Vegas 2004, Black made a grave positional blunder 15 .. Jic8? and after 16.

gxc8 hc8 17.gcl i.a6 18.gc7± White's rook penetrated to the c7square. In addition, Black's knight on b8 has not been developed yet.

18 . . . �f8 19.e5 hd3 2o.gc8+ �g7 21.�xd3+-, White has a de­

cisive advantage in this endgame, because Black cannot get rid of the pin of his knight on b8 with­ out material losses.

B) 10

•••

�d7

4.cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8 . fi. e3 Wfa5 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '£cl Jan Nepomniachtchi liked to play this move.

ll . .id3 This is a natural developing move for White. He not only pre­ pares to castle kingside, but also protects prudently his central e4pawn, because Black can attack it later (11Jf6, or fi.b7 after b7-b5).

n ... e5 This is Black's best move. It seems premature for him to begin active actions on the queen­ side with ll . . . b5 12.0-0 c4. This move is strategically risky. Black occupies space on the queenside indeed, but reduces his pressure against White's centre. 13.ic2 fi.b7 14.'£b1 11Jb6 15.h4 ! This is the beginning of an attack against the enemy king. 15 . . . '£ad8 16.h5 '£fe8 17.'£fcl fi.c6 18.fi.h6± White has powerful initiative on the king­ side and a wonderful pawn-cen­ tre, which can hardly be attacked by Black, Santos Etxepare Sanchez Carol, Email 2010. 11 ... 11Jb6.

After

this

move

White preserves an edge. 12 .�6 i.d7 (or 12 . . . '£d8 13 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 14. d5;!;, followed by 0-0 and White's prospects are preferable thanks to his dominance in the centre, Ba­ nikas - Rowson, Tallinn 1997) 13.d5 .ib5 14 . .ixg7 \t>xg7 15.c4 (15. h4 ! ?;!;) 15 ... Wfxd2+ 16.\t>xd2 .ia6 17.h4;!; White has extra space (his pawns have occupied the centre), while Black's minor pieces are very passive, Bosiocic - Vorobiov, Trieste 2012. 11 . . . 11Jf6. With this move Black attacks the enemy e4-pawn and prepares c5-c4. We have already mentioned before that the pawn­ advance c5-c4 is not dangerous for White. 12.0-0 c4 (after 12 . . . e6 13.Wie2;!;, his beautiful pawn-cen­ tre provides him with an advan­ tage, Bronstein - Tukmakov, Wijk aan Zee 1992) 13.ib1 b5 14 . .ih6 .ib7 15.'£feU and again White's pawn-centre guarantees his edge, Rodrigues - Mundstock, Brazil 1993.

12.d5 This is the only way for him to fight for the opening advantage. Following 12 .h4 cxd4 13.cxd4 Wfxd2+ 14.\t>xd2, White maintains a slight edge in the endgame, but Black can rely on equalising grad­ ually with an accurate defence, as it was shown in the game Aronian - Nepomniachtchi, Khanty-Man­ siysk 2010: 14 . . . exd4 15 ..ixd4 '£d8 16.\t>e3 11Jf6 17 . .ixf6 .ix£6 18.i.c4 55

Chapter 4 h6 19 . .ib3 :!'!d7 2 0.g4 :!'!e7 2 1.g5 i.g7 2Vt:ld4 ixd4+ 23.r;!;>xd4 ie6 24 . .be6 :!'!xe6 25.gxh6 :!'!d8+ 26. r;!;>e3 :!! d eS 27.f3 r;!;>h7= and the op­ ponents agreed soon to a draw.

.idS :!'!b8 25.Wle7+-; 23 ... lt:Jf6? 24. Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.Wlf8+ r;t>gs 26.i.f7) 24.Wle7+ r;!;>h6 25.:!'!fe1 lt:Jf6 26. WlfB+ r;!;>hS 27.:!'!e3 :!'!b7 28 ..if7 :!'!xf7 29.Wlxf7t In this complicated po­ sition White has a rook and a pawn for Black's two minor piec­ es. White's position is preferable, since he has a very strong pawn on d6, while Black's king is obvi­ ously endangered on the hS­ square.

13.0-0 c4 tSJ!bl gbs

14 . .ic2

�a3

12 . . .b5 Black is preparing active ac­ tions on the queenside. He can also try something on the kingside as well. 12 .. .f5 13.ig5 c4 (after 13 .. .tbf6 14 ..bf6 .bf6 15.0-0;!;, White's extra space and his passed dS-pawn are more im­ portant than Black's two-bishop advantage, Pavlovic - Sedlak, Valjevo 2011) 14.ixc4 fxe4 15.d6+ r;!;>h8 16.lt:Jh4. This move is forced. Now, the position becomes very complicated. White has a power­ ful and far-advanced pawn on d6, but his knight on h4 is misplaced. 16 ... i.f6 17.Wle3 ! (threatening 18. lt:Jxg6) 17 ... .bg5 18.Wlxg5 :!'!f6 19. 0-0 WlcS 20 . .ib3 b6 21.lt:Jxg6+ ! He solves radically the problem with his bad knight. White organ­ izes a powerful attack for the sac­ rificed knight. 21.. .:!'!xg6 22 .Wld8+ r;!;>g7 23.:!'!cd1 :!'!b8 (23 . . . :!'!f6? 24. 56

16.�cl Black's queen is perfectly placed on a3, so White should better exchange it immediately.

16 . . . �xc1 17.gfxcl aS The game has entered a com­ plicated endgame in which each side has its chances.

18.a4 White undermines immedi­ ately Black's queenside pawns. It is possible that White's most reliable move is 18.lt:Jd2 ! ? , for ex­ ample: 18 . . . .ia6 19 . .idU and he is

4. cd ltJxd5 5.e4 ltJxc3 6.bc :ig7 7. ltJj3 c5 8. :ie3 Vff a5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O .'ikl p reparing to transfer his bishop to e2, followed by undermining Black's pawn on c4 with the move a2 -a4.

18

•••

b4

prospects are better, since his dominance in the centre is a more important factor than his slightly compromised pawn-structure (af­ ter the possibility - .ixf3).

ll.d5 White occupies space. This is the reason he has played :1kl, so that his pawn on c3 is protected.

19 .ldl! ? •

White will redeploy his bishop to e2.

ll It would be too risky for him to present Black with two connected passed pawns. 19.cxb4 axb4 20. idl c3 21.:ie2 fS+t Pashikian Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 2010. Black has a very good position. His queenside pawns are very dangerous and his task is much easier than White's game.

19

. • •

b3 20.lbd2 .la6 21 .le2;!; •

Black has a protected passed pawn on b3, but his c4-pawn is very weak, so the position should be evaluated in favour of White.

C) 10

•••

.lg4

This active move leads to a complicated fight in which White's

. . .

.txf3

This is Black's basic and most logical move. He compromises his opponent's pawn-structure. About ll .. J:!d8 12.ltJg5 - see variation F. ll . . . ltJd7. This move leads to a clearly inferior position for Black. 12 .c4 W:fb6 (After 12 . . . W:fa3 13 . .le2 ltJf6 14.Vfic2 WiaS+ 15.:id2 W:fc7 16. 0-0;!;, White has completed his development and now Black will have a hard time fighting against his opponent's centre, Davidavi­ cius - Boreika, Email 2005. Fol­ lowing 12 . . . W:la4, White can. avoid the doubling of his pawns with 13.ltJg5 h6 14.h3 ihS 15.g4 hxgS, Kotanjian - Kviriashvili, Tbilisi 57

Chapter 4 2009, 16.i.xg5;!;, he regains his bishop and preserves his posi­ tional advantage.) 13.ie2 �b4 14. h3 i.xf3 15 . .ixf3 a6 16.ie2 �xd2+ 17.'it>xd2t In this endgame, natu­ rally Black has some counterplay on the dark squares, but White's prospects are preferable thanks to his superior pawn-structure and the two-bishop advantage, Cebalo - Tseshkovsky, Banja Luka 1981. It would be too risky for Black to opt for ll . . . lLla6, since he not only loses a tempo, but removes his knight to the edge of the board. The best way for White to empha­ size the drawbacks of this move is 12.h4 ! ? , beginning an attack on the kingside. 12 . . . f5 13.exf5 ixfS 14.h5 :!':ladS, Kramnik - Svidler, Moscow 2009, 15.ih6 ! ?± and af­ ter the trade of the dark-squared bishops, White's kingside attack becomes very powerful.

12.gxf3 lLld7 Black cannot equalise with 12 . . . c4. Following 13.h4 h5 14.ih6 Elc8 15.ixg7 'it>xg7 16.f4 lLld7 17. Elg1 �b6 18.f5t, White obtained a better position in the game Khen­ kin - Schandorff, Helsingor 2011. It is worth paying attention to White's previous actions. At first, he provoked the move hS, weak­ ening the g6-square and then be­ gan an attack against it with the pawn-advance f3-f4-f5. After the exchange on g6, White's f2-pawn may join into the attack (f4-f5). 58

13.c4 �c7 There arises an inferior end­ game for Black in which he has no counterplay at all after 13 . . . �xd2+ 14.'it>xd2 fS 15.exf5 gxfS 16.f4 lLlf6 17.id3t, his pawns on fS and e7 are very weak, Kuljasevic - Ashi­ ku, Trieste 2012.

14.f4

White is fighting for the key square in this position - eS. The subsequent play of both adversar­ ies is focused on this square.

14

•••

e5

Black corrects his opponent's pawn-structure indeed, but cre­ ates some counterplay.

15.fxe5 lilxe5 16.i.e2 This is the key position of this variation. (diagram)

16

•••

lild7

16 . . . �e7. Black's position is difficult after this move. 17.f4 lLld7 18.if3 gS. This pawn-sacrifice is forced, since the control over the eS-square is vital for Black. 19.

4.cd 0.xd.S 5.e4 0.xc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. 0.j3 c5 8. ie3 V!faS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'i'!.cl Email 2010. White has two pow­ erful bishops and a passed dS­ pawn. Black's king shelter has been weakened and he must be on the alert about White's possible attack on the g-file, or against the h7-square.

D) 10 ... e6 fxgS 0.e5 20 . .ie2 fS 21.d6! After this strong move there arises an endgame which is better for White (Things are not so clear after 21. exfS 'SxfS+!. Black has counterplay due to the unsafe enemy monarch in the centre of the board, Khen­ kin - Romanishin, Ohrid 2001.). 21.. .V!fe6 2 2 .V!fd5. This is the es­ sence of White's previous move. After the trade of queens, Black is incapable of exploiting the pre­ carious placement of White's king in the centre of the board. 22 . . . V!fxdS 23.exd5 'Sae8 24.\t>d2 b6 25.'Scf1 'Sd8 26.h4 'Sxd6 27.h5± ­ He has a great advantage in this endgame with two powerful bish­ ops and a strong passed pawn on dS, while Black's pawns on fS and h7 are vulnerable.

17.f4 gae8 18.e5 g5. This is a timely undermining move. 19. 0-0 White must sacrifice a pawn if he wishes to fight for the open­ ing advantage. 19 gxf4 20.

This is a passive move. Black prevents d4-d5, but loses time in the process. As a rule, in this vari­ ation, there arises an endgame which is better for White in which Black can hardly organise any counterplay.

n . .th6 This is an already familiar re­ source. White wishes to advance h2-h4, threatening an attack against the enemy king, in order to force Black to exchange on d4.

ll ... tlJc6 This is his most natural move.

•••

ix£4 ttJxe5 21 .tg4 ti'b6 22. .tf5� - He has more than suffi­ •

cient compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn, Romanov - Shulman,

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same fol­ lowing ll . . . 'Sd8 12 .h4 cxd4 13. .ixg7 \t>xg7 14.cxd4 0.c6 1S,ti'xa5 59

Chapter 4 lt:lxaS 16.�d2 .id7 (after 16 . . . h5, Grischuk - Mamedyarov, Mos­ cow 2009, 17 . .id3, White main­ tains a slight but stable edge in the endgame) 17.id3 E:ac8 18.g4 h6 19.�e3 ia4 2 0.g5 hS 21.lt:le5 lt:lc6 22 .lt:lxc6 E:xc6 23.E:xc6 hc6 24.E:cl �f8 25.f4;!; and White pre­ serves a slight advantage in the endgame, because Black's king­ side pawns, placed on light squares, may turn into good tar­ gets for White's bishop, Najer Rakhmanov, Irkutsk 2010. It is not preferable for Black to opt for ll . . . cxd4 12 .hg7 �xg7 13.cxd4 lt:lc6 (13 .. .'�xd2 14.�xd2 lt:lc6 15.h4 E:d8 16.�e3 - see 11 . . . lt:lc6) 14.E:c5 �xd2+ 15.�xd2. There has arisen again on the board an already familiar end­ game. Later, in the game Jako­ venko - Rakhmanov, Dagomys 2010, there followed: 15 . . . a6 16. id3 .id7 17.E:hc1 (17.E:b1! ?;!;) 17 . . . E:fd8 18.�e3 ie8 19.E:b1 E:d7 2 0 . E:b6;!;. White's rooks have occu­ pied active positions, while Black has no counterplay and is forced to adhere to a passive de­ fence.

12.h4 cxd4 13 .ixg7 �xg7 14.cxd4 �xd2+

15 . . . h6 16 ..id3 E:d8 17.�e3 .id7 18.E:b1 lt:la5 19.lt:le5 E:ac8. Later, in the game Sherbakov - S.Ivanov, USSR 1991, White accomplished the standard plan for similar po­ sitions, by advancing his king­ side pawns with the idea to fix the enemy pawns on light squares: 20 .f4 ie8 2l.E:hc1 a6 2 2 . g4 ! b S 23.g5 ! hxgS 24.hxg5;!; - the endgame is very difficult for Black.

16.c.!le3 .id7 17.gbl It is also good for White to play immediately 17.h5;!;, preparing eventual actions on the h-file, Yermolinsky - Benjamin, Phila­ delphia 1992.

•

About 14 ... E:d8 15.'�xa5 - see ll . . . E:d8.

15.c.!lxd2 (diagram)

15 J!d8 • •

60

Following 17 . . . b6 18.iaM, Black will have problems fighting for the c-file, since the c8-square is controlled by White's bishop, Koepcke - Henao, Los Angeles 1991.

18.J.d3 lt:le7 19.h5;t;

4.cd tjj xd5 5.e4 tjj xc3 6.bc :ig7 7. tjjj3 c5 8. :ie3 Wia5 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!cl rule, enters a typical "Gruenfeld Defence' endgame.

This position was reached in the World Championship match in the game Karpov - Kasparov, Lyon/New York 1990. Thanks to his pawn-centre, White can com­ bine threats both on the queen­ side and on the kingside, while Black must only defend passively.

19 f6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.gh2 b6 22.g4 e5 23.dxe5 .ixg4 24. exf6+ �xf6 25.lild4± White's •••

kingside activity has brought some results. There has appeared a weak pawn on g6 in Black's camp. His position is difficult. Kasparov exploited some impre­ cise moves by White and man­ aged to save the draw, but this variation became a very rare guest in the contemporary tournament practice and quite deservedly so. There will not be so many players willing to obtain right after the opening an endgame without any active prospects and to lead a pas­ sive defence to the end of the game.

ll.cxd4 Wixd2+ 12.lilxd2 Here, contrary to some other situations, White can capture on d2 not with his king but with his knight, since his d4-pawn is pro­ tected. The idea behind this cap­ turing is to transfer the knight to b3 in order to protect his d4pawn. The placement of the knight on b3 has the plus that af­ ter f7-f5, White will be able to de­ fend his central e4-pawn with the move f2-f3.

12

E) 10

•••

cxd4

After this move, the game, as a

•..

e6

This move is solid but somewhat passive. 61

Chapter 4 About 12 . . . tt:\c6 13.tt:\b3 gds (13 .. .fS 14.f3 - see 12 .. .fS; 13 . . . e6 14.ibS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS - see 12 . . . gd8. Following 12 ... b6 13.ie2 tt:\a6 14.0-0 i.b7 1S.gc4;!;, Black's knight is horribly misplaced at the edge ofthe board, Kovacs - Apro, Hun­ gary 2003. 12 ...f5. This undermining move is not dangerous for White's cen­ tre due to the possibility 13.f3, for example: 13 . . . fxe4 14.fxe4 tt:\c6 1S.tt:lb3 id7 (Black's situation is even worse after 1S . . .c.!h8 16.i.bS aS 17.a4 tt:\a7 18.i.e2± and in the endgame White has a stable ad­ vantage thanks to his superior pawn-structure and more harmo­ niously developed pieces, Khen­ kin - Hort, Bad Homburg 2007.) 16.i.c4+ cJ;>hs 17.gfa 12 . . . gds. The idea of this move is to exert pressure against White's d4-pawn. 13.tt:\b3 tt:\c6 (13 . . . e6 14.!gS - see 12 . . . e6) 14.dS

It may be interesting, but still insufficient for Black to equalise with 14 . . . tt:leS 1S.ie2 fS 16.£3 fxe4 17.fxe4 e6, Schmied - Fuhrmann, Wuerzburg 1994, 18.igS ! ? gfs 19.d6;!; - he has great problems fighting against White's passed pawn. 14 . . . tt:\b4. This move is seem­ ingly active, but after 1S.id2 ! , Black's knight i s suddenly endan­ gered. 1S . . . tt:\a6. He cannot equal­ ise with this move, because he has lost too much time for manoeu­ vres with his knight. (1S . . . aS 16.a3 a4 17.tt:laS ! tt:\a6 18.tt:\c4;!; Black has solved the problems with his knight indeed, but his pawn on a4 is misplaced and his pawn-major­ ity on the queenside has been de­ evaluated. He must fight for a draw in an inferior endgame. It is also good for White to choose here 18.gc2;!;, preventing Black's counterplay, connected with the move ib2 and maintaining a slight edge.) 16.i.gS i.f8 17.i.bS h6 18.i.h4 gS 19.ig3 e6 2 0.ixa6 bxa6 2 l.i.c7 gd7 22.dxe6 fxe6 23.f3 ib4+ 24.cJ;>f2;!; Black's two­ bishop advantage cannot com­ pensate the numerous weakness­ es of his pawn-structure, S.Atalik - Laciner, Marmaris 2006.

13.tt:lb3

This is the right move ! Now, Black's knight does not have a good square to retreat to. 62

White has accomplished the planned transfer of his knight to the b3-square. (diagram)

13

•••

l!!t d8

This is a reliable move for

4. cd 11Jxd5 5.e4 11Jxc3 6.bc �g7 7. 11Jj3 c5 8. �e3 Wia5 9. ffd2 0 - 0 J O . 'l!cl have remained bishops of oppo­ site colours on the board, but Black's position is difficult, since his c6-pawn is weak and the dark squares on his kingside are terri­ bly weakened, Olesen - Marti­ novsky, Chicago 1993.

Black. He increases the pressure against White's d4-pawn and con­ ceals for the moment his further plans.

The endgame is slightly pref­ erable for White following 13 . . . b6 14.f3 .ia6 15 . .ie2 (15.'it>f2 ! ?;!;) 15 . . . '8d8 16.'it>f2 'it>f8 17.h4 ixe2 18. 'it>xe2;!; Gajewski - Greenfeld, Za­ greb 2011.

14 .ig5 •

13 . . . a5. The advance of Black's rook-pawn cannot cause any trouble for White. 14.�b5 �d7 15. ixd7 11Jxd7 16.'8c7 11Jf6 17.f3 b5 18. 'it>e2;!; Anikaev - Tseshkovsky, Severodonetsk 1982. White's cen­ tral pawns restrict considerably Black's minor pieces. In addition, White dominates on the c-file. All this leads to the evaluation that Black is faced with a difficult fight for a draw in this endgame. The natural move 13 . . . 11Jc6 has the drawback that White can at­ tack immediately this knight with his bishop. 14.�b5 '8d8. Black ig­ nores the possible weakening of his pawn-structure and begins ac­ tive actions (it is just bad for him to opt for 14 . . . �d7, in view of 15.11Jc5 ie8 16.e5;!; Schachinger ­ Andersen, Triesen 2010). 15.ixc6 bxc6 16.0-0 �a6 17.:1l:fd1 �e2 18.'8d2 �b5 19.11Jc5 .if8 2 0.�g5 ixc5 21.'8xc5 '8d7 2 2 .if6;!; - There

With this move White pro­ vokes the pawn-advance f7-f6, af­ ter which the scope of action of the bishop on g7 is reduced. The loss of time for this bishop-ma­ noeuvre for White is not impor­ tant, since Black is incapable of exploiting this.

14 f6 15 .ie3 ...

•

15 .lbc6 • •

Black cannot equalise with 15 . . .f5. He contributes to the ac­ tivity of his bishop on g7 indeed, 63

Chapter 4 but weakens his pawn-structure. 16.exf5 gxfS 17.i.g5 l'l:£8 18.i.b5:t Kobalia - Najer, Sochi 2 0 05. Black obtains a solid, but a bit passive position, if he transfers his bishop to another diagonal. 15 . . . i.f8 16.i.c4 lt:lc6 17. 0-0 i.d7 18.f4:t - His pieces can hardly at­ tack White's powerful pawn-cen­ tre, Galanov - Schwenck, Email 2010.

16.i.b5 �b4 The position is inferior for Black following 16 . . . i.f8, because after 17.i.xc6 bxc6 18.f3, his c6pawn is weak and he will have to part sooner or later with his two­ bishop advantage, because he will have to give his bishop on f8 for the enemy knight on cS. 18 . . . i.b7 19.'i!lf2 aS 20.lt:lc5 i.xcS 21.l'!xc5 @f7 22 .l'!b1 l'!d7 23.a4± Black's pawns on aS and c6 are weak and his bishop on b7 is very passive, P. Nielsen - Ruck, Panormo 2002.

.id7

22.d5

exd5

23.hd5:t

White's pieces are much more ac­ tive than their counterparts, Grischuk - Kamsky, Mainz 2010.

F) 10 ... l3d8 This move is considered to be Black's main response at the mo­ ment. After it, there arise very complicated positions in which White must know very well the concrete variations and for exam­ ple, in the main line he will have to sacrifice his queen.

ll.d5 He occupies space.

Now, we will analyse thor­ oughly the moves: Fl) ll . . . �c6 and F2) ll . . . e6. It would be too dangerous for Black to try here ll . . .fS, Tunik Ovchinnikov, Kazan 2013, be­ cause after 12 .i.c4!±, the weaken­ ing of the a2-g8 diagonal will hurt him badly.

17.a3 a6 18 . .ic4 �c6 19. 0-0 .if8 20.a4 g;,g7 21.lUdl 64

Black should better refrain from ll . . . b6, since this move may

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJ.f3 c5 8. !e3 WfaS 9. Wf d2 0 - 0 1 0 . '8cl j ust turn out to be a loss of a tem­ po. 12 .:!h6 :!h8 13.h4 liJd7 14.h5 liJf6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.id3;!; White's centre is solid enough, he has op ened the h-file and can begin an attack against Black's mon­ arch, Orsag - Korschner, Czech Republic 2011. The endgame is worse for Black and he has no active coun­ terplay after ll . . . liJd7 12 .c4 Wfxd2+ 13.mxd2 b6 14.!d3;!; Hillarp Pers­ son - Jensson, Reykjavik 1997. White should not be afraid of

ll. . . :!g4, because he can avoid the

exchange of this knight with the move 12 .liJg5, for example: 12 . . . h6 13.h3 id7 14.liJf3;!; Khenkin Lutz, Recklinghausen 2001. Black has lost time on moves with his bishop and now, he can hardly at­ tack effectively his opponent's centre.

Fl) ll

•••

liJc6

12.h4!? This i s White's most princi­ pled and energetic move. He does not lose time and prepares an im­ mediate attack against the enemy king. He cannot obtain an edge with 12 .:!e2 e6 13.:!g5 f6 14.ie3 exdS 15.exd5 liJe7 16.c4 Wfxd2+ 17.liJxd2 b6 18.g4 fSoo Bacrot - Timofeev, Moscow 2010. There has arisen a complicated endgame with mutu­ al chances. Black has good coun­ terplay on the dark squares and must only transfer his knight on e7 to d6, via the c8-square.

12

•••

e6

Following 12 . . . h5 13.:!e2 ig4 14.ig5;!;, White has a slight but stable advantage thanks to the weakening of the gS-square, Zaja - Cvitkovic, Hum na Sutli 2012.

13.h5 exd5 14.hxg6

This move is played by such great experts of the Gruenfeld De­ fence as P.Svidler and A.Timo­ feev.

14 fxg6 •••

This capture seems quite reli­ able. Now, Black is not threatened 65

Chapter 4 to be checkmated on the h-file, but he will lose his dS-pawn due to the weakening of the a2-g8 di­ agonal. 14 . . . hxg6. Capturing with the h7-pawn would lead to the open­ ing of the h-file and Black would have problems parrying White's attack. 15.�h6. The position is very complicated with mutual chances. White must play the strongest moves; otherwise, he may not only lose his advantage, but may even lose quickly. (For example in the game Zakhartsov - Kurnosov, Irkutsk 2010, it took only two moves for him to turn his slightly better position into a hopeless one : 15.exd5?! ig4 16. tt:JgS?? Now, with a series of ex­ quisite tactical strikes, Black ob­ tained a winning position. 16 . . . :!'!xdS ! 17.'�xd5 ixc3+ 18.:!'!xc3 �xc3+ 19.�d2 :!'!d8 !-+ and his queen is untouchable due to the checkmate.)

file and Black is helpless against the sacrifice on h8. His most re­ silient defence is to give up the exchange. In the game Kozul Brkic, Zagreb 2012, he played 16 . . . :!'!d6 and after 17.:!'!xh8+ �xh8 18. �f4+-, White's attack was vic­ torious. Following 15 . . . :!'!e8, White ob­ tains a great advantage with a rather non-obvious manoeuvre with his knight to the h7-square. 16.hg7 :!'!xe4+ 17.�e2 �xg7 18. tt:JgS ! His knight goes in the vicin­ ity of the enemy king. 18 . . . :!'!eS

19.tt:Jh7! ! Now, Black's position crumbles. 19 . . . �d8 20 .�h6+ �g8 2l.f4 :!'!e8 22.�f2 +- and White's attack on the h-file is impossible for Black to parry.

15.exd5 �e6 16.�c4! ? This move i s stronger than 16.c4 ifSoo Giri - Svidler, Gu­ ingamp 2010. 15 . . . ih8 16.ig5± After this move, Black's position becomes nearly hopeless. White's bishop is removed with tempo from the h-

66

16 ... ll:le7 17.�h6 .ixd5 It is not preferable for Black to choose 17 . . .if6 due to 18.�e2±

18 . .ixd5+ :!'!xd5 19."f!re3

4.cd CiJxdS 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc :Jlg7 7. CiJ.f3 c5 8. :fle3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 J O . 'Bcl This is Black's basic reply. He undermines White's centre.

12 .ig5 •

This is the only move for White to fight for an advantage in the opening.

He has regained his d5-pawn indeed, but this is small consolation for Black since his king is very weak. Later, he will have great problems to parry the threats against his king and to maintain the material equality at the same time. 19 fM8 20.ti'e6+ �h8 21. •••

.bg7+ �xg7 22.c4 !td6 !txh7+ �xh7 24J«f7+ �h6 �e2 !te6+ 26.Wixe6 lL!c6 'f«e3+ �g7 28. W!xc5;t; White

Following 12.c4? ! , it is only Black who can play for a win, as it was shown in the game Tunik Timofeev, St Petersburg 2002: 12 ... W!xd2+ 13.CiJxd2 b6 14 . .ie2 CiJa6 15. 0-0 CiJb4 16.a3 CiJa2 17.'8c2 CiJc3+. His knight is perfectly placed on c3 (It is worth remembering the long purposeful manoeuvre CiJb6a6-b4-a2-c3 . . . ) and the arising position should be evaluated much rather in favour of Black.

23. 25. 27.

has an extra pawn. His queenside pawns on a2 and c4 are weak, but there is just a few material left on the board and he has all the chances of realising his slight ma­ terial advantage.

F2) u ... e6 12

•••

f6

This is his most popular move. Black ousts with tempo the enemy bishop. Still, this leads to some weakening of Black's king shelter and to the closing of the long di­ agonal for his dark-squared bish­ op on g7. It deserves attention for him to try 12 . . . '8d6 !?, as it was played 67

Chapter 4 in the game Khenkin - Grischuk, Istanbul 2012. 13.if4 E:d8. Now White, if he wishes to avoid the repetition of moves after 14.ig5, must continue with 14.ie2 exdS 15.exd5 bS 16.ig5 ! ? (It would not be so energetic for him to enter an endgame with 16.c4, because in the game Khenkin - Sevdimaliev, Baku 2012, White failed to prove the advantages of his position.). Now, no matter how Black reacts, White maintains a slight initia­ tive, for example: 16 . . . E:e8 17. 0-0 tt:\d7 18.d6 ib7 19J�fe1 E:e4 20. ien. He has seized completely the initiative. His passed d6-pawn squeezes the enemy pieces, while Black's rook is awkwardly placed on e4. If he tries to capture the pawn on a2 with 20 . . . E:a4, then he may pay dearly, since with the move 21.tt:\g5±, White will exert powerful pressure against the f7square. 12 . . . E:e8. This move has a seri­ ous drawback. Now, Black's rook is incapable of fighting against White's passed d-pawn. 13.d6. Of course - this is the right move !

Now, Black has a great choice 68

of possibilities, but neither of them promises him an easy game. Following 13 . . . b5, White can play the energetic move 14.h4 be­ ginning an attack on the kingside. 14 . . .ib7 15.id3 tt:\d7 16.h5;!; - His kingside activity is likely to create great problems for Black, Pashi­ kian - Vachier Lagrave, Moscow 2010. It seems too passive for Black to opt for 13 . . . tt:\d7. After 14.h4 hS 15.ih6 ih8 16.ie2;!;, his position is without good prospects. He is cramped by the enemy d6-pawn and White's game is much easier, Rombaldoni - Avrukh, Alghero 2011. 13 ... id7. Black blocks reliably the enemy d6-pawn. 14.ih6 if6. He is trying to preserve his dark­ squared bishop, since without it the dark-squares in his position would be defenceless. (Following 14 . . . '1Mld8 15.h4±, Black's position becomes very difficult as it hap­ pened in the game Anand - Leko, Miskolc 2009. He will not be checkmated, but his dark squares will be an easy prey for White. 15 .. .f6 16.e5 ic6 17.h5 gS 18.ixg7 c.!txg7 19.exf6+ 'IM!xf6 2 0 .h6+ c.!ih8 21.'1Mlxg5 E:f8 2 2 .'1Mlxf6+ E:xf6 23. tt:\e5+- and White has an extra pawn and a better position.) 15. h4. Once again, he is preparing the typical opening of the h-file for this variation. White is not afraid that his king will remain in the centre of the board, since Black can hardly exploit this with his undeveloped queenside piec-

4.cd CiJxd5 5.e4 CiJxc3 6.bc �g7 7. CiJj3 c5 8. �e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 J O . 'Scl es. 15 . . . ic6 16.h5 CiJd7 17.CiJgS c4. He is forced to sacrifice a pawn in order to neutralise White's king­ side initiative. Later, in the game Palo - Ivanchuk, Skanderborg 2003, there followed: 18 . .bc4 'Sad8 19.'Sh3 �eS 20.�e2 ixe4 21. CiJ xe4 �xe4 22.\t>fU and White had two powerful bishops, while Black had to parry the enemy threats in the centre (against the d6-pawn) and on the h-file.

13 .te3 •

13

...

ltlc6

As a rule, there arises transpo­ sition of moves following 13 . . . exdS 14.exd5. I n the game Kram­ nik - Howell, London 2010, Black chose the rather extravagant move 14 . . . CiJa6? ! , placing his knight at the edge of the board (It was still not too late for him to opt instead for 14 . . . CiJc6 1S.�d3 c4 16. hc4 �e6 and there would have arisen by transposition the varia­ tion with 13 . . . CiJc6.). 1S.�e2 ie6 16.c4. Now, an endgame advanta­ geous for White is reached. 16 . . .

�xd2+ 17.CiJxd2. H e captures with his knight in order to transfer it later to the e4-square, where it would be perfectly placed in the centre of the board. 17 . . . �d7 18. CiJe4 b6 19.h4 ifS 2 0 .CiJc3 CiJb4 21.\t>d2. Despite all Black's tricks, his position remains very diffi­ cult. He can improve somehow the placement of his knight on a6, but the deployment of his bishops is definitely unsatisfactory. 21... CiJc6 22 .h5 \t>f7 23.g4. White ousts the enemy bishop to its initial po­ sition. 23 . . . ic8 24.hxg6+ hxg6 2S.CiJe4± White's position is clear­ ly better thanks to his powerful dS-pawn and the superiorly placed minor pieces in this end­ game. He should not be afraid of the possibility 13 . . . �a4. White main­ tains a slight but stable advantage with quite simple moves. 14.c4 CiJa6 15.�e2 exdS 16.exd5 b6 17. id1 �a3 18.'Sc3 �aS 19. 0-0;!;. Black's minor pieces are mis­ placed. His knight remains at the edge of the board and the dark­ squared bishop is restricted by his own pawn on f6, Kosic - Gupta, Kavala 2 011.

14 .td3 •

White develops his bishop with tempo. Now, Black's knight is hang­ ing. It is understandable that he cannot capture twice on dS, since he will lose his rook because of the pin. 69

Chapter 4

14 . . . exd5 Black plays sometimes 14 . . . b6 with the idea to trade the light­ squared bishops. 15.0-0 ia6 16. ie2 :Bd7 17.:Bfd1 :Be8 18.'1Wc2 exdS 19 . .ixa6 �xa6 20.exd5 0,e7 2l.c4 0,f5 2 2 .if4;!; White has a powerful protected passed pawn in the cen­ tre, while Black's kingside is con­ siderably weakened by the pawn­ advance f7-f6, Dolgov - Tisch­ bierek, Email 2011.

If he refrains from the sacri­ fice, there arises an approximate­ ly equal position. 17. 0-0 hdS 18. hdS+ �xdS 19.�c2 if8 20.:Bfd1 �f7 2l.�a4 :Bac8 22 .h3 :Bxd1+ 23. :Bxd1 b6 24.c4= Kornev - Sakaev, Taganrog 2011. The chances are balanced. Black's king is a bit weakened by the move f7-f6 and his queenside pawns are placed on squares with the same colour as his bishop. This is all compen­ sated by the vulnerability of White's isolated c4-pawn.

15.exd5 c4 This is an important tactical nu­ ance. Black sacrifices temporarily a pawn with the idea to entice the enemy bishop to the c4-square, so that White cannot support his dS­ pawn with the move c3-c4.

16 ..ixc4 .ie6 Now, White must make a posi­ tional sacrifice of his queen in or­ der to fight for the opening ad­ vantage. (diagram) This is the last preparation for the sacrifice. 70

17... �e7 18.dxe6 White must sacrifice; otherwise, he would simply lose his dS-pawn.

4.cd liJxdS 5.e4 liJxc3 6.bc :!g7 7. liJj3 c5 8. fi.e3 �aS 9. �d2 0 - 0 l O . 'Bcl 19 Jbc3 ••

This is Black's most popular move. It may be also interesting for to try here 19 . . . liJfS ! ? , as it im h was played in the game Yazgeldi­ ev - Tleptsok, Email 2012. At first, Black wishes to exchange the powerful enemy bishop. 20 .'8d3 liJxe3 21.'8xe3 �c7 22 ..ib3 'i!ih8 23.0-0 .if8 24.'8d3 '8d8. Unfortu­ nately White cannot avoid the trade of a couple of rooks and this is, no doubt, in Black's favour. Still, even after this, White can continue to play for a win without any risk mostly thanks to his strong e6-pawn. 2S.'Bfd1 'Bxd3 26. E:xd3 .id6 27.g3 ! ? (This is strong­ er than what was played in the above mentioned game - 27.liJd2 .icS 28.E:dS .id6 and despite all his efforts, White has failed to prove any advantage.). He has an edge in the arising position. Black is doomed to a long and laborious defence, while White can gradu­ ally improve his position. His main task is to eliminate the enemy blockade of the e6-pawn. 27 . . . bS 28.liJd4. White's knight is trying to go to the c6-square. 28 . . . a6 29 . .idS 'i!ig7 30.liJc6 hS 3l.E:e3 .ie7 32. liJxe7 �xe7 33.c4 bxc4 34 . .ixc4 aS 3S.h4;!; The position has been sim­ plified, but remains difficult for Black. He must watch very care­ fully about the possibility of White's rook coming to the d7-square. Then, his e6-pawn will advance and Black will have to resign.

20.ib3 �cl+

He must play very carefully. The check from another square would be a mistake. 20 . . . �a1+ ? ! 2l..id1 liJfS 2 2 . 0-0 �c3 23.ib3 'i!ih8 24.'8d7 E:e8 2S . .id2± and due to Black's imprecise move 20, White has succeeded in bringing his king to safety and seizing com­ pletely the initiative, Lupulescu Bukavshin, Aix-les-Bains 2011. Black's position is tremendously difficult. All his pieces must be on the alert about his opponent's pawn on e6 and he is helpless against White's piece-activity.

21.'8dl �c3+ 22.'i!ie2 Unfortunately this move is forced. In order to play for a win, White has forfeited his castling rights and left his king in the cen­ tre of the board .

22

•••

a5

If he coordinates his pieces and ensures the safety of his king, White's advantage would be doubtless. Therefore, Black must organise queenside counterplay as quickly as possible. It is with the same purpose (to create counterplay) that he may ·

.

71

Chapter 4 try the interesting move 22 . . . �b4. Now, White's only chance of fight­ ing for the advantage is 23J!d4 ! This is the move which justifies White's queen-sacrifice. He must coordinate immediately his rooks (The game Pashikian - Cornette, Aix-les-Bains 2011 ended in a draw after a repetition of moves following: 23J'!d3 aS 24J�cl a4 2S. :1'k4 �bs 26.:1'kS �b4 27.:tk4 �bs 28J'!cS �b4= ). There might fol­ low 23 . . . �bS+ 24 . .ic4 �a4 2S. ghdl ges (After 2S . . .fs 26.gd8+ .if8 27..ib3 �bS+ 28.\t>el �aS+ 29. gsd2 �bs 3o .gcu, White man­ ages to stabilise the position and may hope to maintain an advan­ tage in the future fight. His main task would be to evacuate his king away from the centre after which his pieces may assist the pawn on e6. Black's position will become very difficult after that.) 26.gld3. White's king rook has entered the actions and Black is forced to de­ fend passively. This variation is very difficult to analyse even with a computer. At first it likes Black's situation, but the more it grabs the intricacies of the position, the more it likes White's prospects. See an exemplary variation 26 .. .fS 27.gds i>f8 28 . .ib3 �a6 29.g8d7 h6 30.h4 lt:Jc6 31.hS gS 32 . .icS+ lt:Je7 33.lt:Jd4 .ixd4 34 . .ixd4 f4 3S. .icS �c6 36.g3dS �xe6+ 37.'it>d3+­ Black has failed to save the game by a perpetual check and White's king is perfectly placed in the cen­ tre of the board. The pin of the knight on e7 is decisive. 72

23.gd7

In this variation, it is useful for White to force the opponent to protect the knight on e7 as quickly as possible.

23

•••

a4

Black is trying to organise counterplay. Unfortunately, his attempts are doomed to fail. White regains his queen and maintains a clear advantage in the endgame.

24 ti'b2 + •••

I t i s possible that Black's most resilient defence may be the move 24 . . . �b4, although even then, af­ ter the almost forced line : 2S . .ic4 gcs 26.lt:ld2 .if8 27 . .id4 fS 2s.gb1 �xbl 29.lt:Jxbl gxc4 30.lt:Jc3 gc6 31.gxb7 gxe6+ 32.\t>fl lt:Jc6 33. .ie3t, there arises on the board an endgame which is better for White, because Black's a-pawn is weak and his king is cut off on the penultimate rank.

2s.gc2 ti'bl 26.c!ild2 axb3 27.c!ilxbl bxc2 28.c!ilc3 c!ilf5 29. .id2

4.cd ti.JxdS 5.e4 ti.Jxc3 6.bc fi.g7 7. ti.Jj3 c5 B. i e3 WiaS 9. Wid2 0 - 0 l O . 'i!.cl It is understandable that Black's c2-pawn is harmless. Af­ ter the exchange of the pawns on e6 and b7, White's outside passed pawn on a2 will turn into power­ ful force.

29

•••

ges

It is even worse for Black to opt for 29 . . . h5, because after 30. \!fd3 bS 3l.e7 'i!.e8 32.ti.Jd5 wt7 33.Wxc2±, White has a great ad­ vantage in this endgame having preserved his e-pawn. Black's at­ tempt to regain it in the game Leko - Topalov, Porto Carras 2011 only speeded up his demise - his pieces came under a deadly pin. 33 . . . 'i!.c8+ 34.ti.Jc7 ti.Jxe7 35. ib4 if8 36.Wb3 'i!.b8 37.ti.Jd5 we6 38.'i!.d6+ WeS. Black managed to get rid of the pin with a heroic march of his king to the centre of the board, but there was no mira­ cle destined to happen. After the move 39.f4+, his resistance lasted only a few more moves.

30.gxb7 This move is obviously strong­ er that what was played in the game Potkin - Svidler, Moscow 2010, 30.Wd3? ! and after 30 . . . b6, Black managed to save a draw.

30 .l!Jd4+ 32.Wxc2± ••

3U�d3

ti.Jxe6

The tactical complications, started with the queen-sacrifice, have ended up in an endgame with an extra pawn for White. De­ spite the possible technical diffi­ culties, he has all the chances of realising it.

Conclusion We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 9 . . . 0-0. As a rule, if Black refrains from 10 . . .'i!.d8, he is forced to defend pas­ sively the slightly worst endgame arising after cxd4 and the trade of the queens. The character of the fight is entirely different following 10 ... 'i!.d8. In this line there arise very sharp positions in which if White wishes to fight for the opening advantage - he must enter a position with a queen-sacrifice. He has only a rook and a bishop for the queen in this endgame, but his powerful pawn on e6 provides him with good chances of maintaining an advantage after a correct play. Naturally, he must have studied thoroughly the theoretical material, because to find the right way over the board in all the intricacies of the numerous possible variations is tremendously difficult.

73

Part 2 The King's Indian Defence l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7

After this move, there arises on the board the King's Indian Defence (Naturally, with the ex­ ception of the cases when White does not play e2-e4 and Black ad­ vances d7-d5. Then, there arise variations from the Gruenfeld De­ fence, which we have already ana­ lysed.). Now, contrary to the Gruen­ feld Defence, Black does not mind White building up his centre the way he pleases. He is trying to de­ velop quickly his kingside pieces and to attack his enemy castling position with his pawns (f7-f5-f4, g6-g5, h7-h5 and g5-g4). This plan has ended up with numerous crushing attacks for Black. We have to mention that at the dawn 74

of the development of this open­ ing, the chess world was very sceptical towards it, since it was rather unusual for these times. The critical moment, after which the King's Indian Defence began to be considered as a quite correct opening, was the Candidates tour­ nament in the year 1953, about which D.Bronstein wrote his re­ markable book. We must also mention that I.Boleslavsky and E. Geller contributed greatly to the development of the theory of this opening and it was because of them that the King's Indian Defence be­ came very fashionable. It was quite deservedly that M.Botvinnik said once "We did not understand, the way we needed, the King's Indian set-ups before E.Geller". Years later, the World Cham­ pions number eleven and thirteen - R.Fischer and G.Kasparov con­ tributed greatly to the develop­ ment of this opening. Nowadays, it is played sometimes by H .Na­ kamura, T.Radjabov and A.Gri­ schuk, but it has lost its populari­ ty at the top level. The point is that Black has no real chances of

equ alising in it and White can ob­ tain an advantage in several ways. It is however another story in the tournaments of one level below the Swiss system events. What is very specific in these tournaments is that the players who are striv­ ing to occupy a top place in the fi­ nal standings must play for a win irrelevant of the colour of the piec­ es. You can encounter the King's Indian Defence there quite often. We will analyse as our main weapon against this defence the Averbakh system - 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2 0-0 6.ig5, in which White's ad­ vantage may not be so great, as for example in the Classical sys­ tem, but he is relatively safe from being checkmated in the middle game. We will devote to this open­ ing seven of our chapters - from 5 to 11.

In the fifth and the sixth chap­ ter, we will deal with some seldom played lines for Black in which he avoids the natural move for this opening d7-d6 (Chapter 5) and later schemes in which he plays d7-d6 indeed, but postpones cas­ tling (Chapter 6). Our chapter seven will be de­ voted to some not so principled responses for Black among which the most dangerous for White is the move - 6 . . . c6. Black's plans, connected with 6 . . . tt:ibd7, will be dealt with in chapter eight. In chapter nine, we will ana­ lyse the most popular move in the contemporary tournament prac­ tice - 6 . . . tt:ia6, while the moves 6 . . . h6 and 6 . . . c5 will be analysed in chapters ten and eleven ac­ cordingly.

75

Chapter S

l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7

4.e4 This is a natural move. White should occupy the centre with his pawns if Black does not mind.

ingly threatening. In fact, after 5 . . . ll:\e8, White's achievements are only temporary. His impressive pawn-centre is much rather a lia­ bility and Black will undermine it with the moves d6 and c5, forcing his opponent to solve very diffi­ cult problems. The classical ex­ ample of a perfect play for Black can be the game Letelier - Fis­ cher, Leipzig 1960 : 6.f4 d6 7.i.e3 c5

4 ... 0-0 As a rule, this move transposes

to the main line, if Black plays 5 . . . d7-d6 later. Now, we will analyse variations in which he avoids playing this move. About 4 . . . d6 - see Chapters 6-11.

5 .ie2 •

With this move White allows his opponent to reconsider and after 5 . . . d6 6 . .ig5, to transpose to the Averbakh system, which we will analyse later. The move 5.e5 is only seem76

8.dxc5 ll:\c6 9.cxd6 exd6 10. ll:\e4 i.f5 ll.ll:\g3 i.e6 12.ll:\f3 Yfic7 13.\&b1 dxe5 14.f5 e4 15.fxe6 exf3 16.gxf3 f5 17.f4 ll:\f6 18.i.e2 E!:fe8 19.'>t>f2 E!:xe6 20 .E!:e1 E!:ae8 21.i.f3. There follows a spectacular com­ bination, which has been quoted in almost all textbooks on tactics. 21...E!:xe3 22.E!:xe3 E!:xe3 ! 23. 'it>xe3

l.d4 {jjj6 2.c4 g 6 3. {jj c3 :1;.g7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. ie2 1;Wxf4+ ! ! Black wins, since his queen is untouchable because of the checkmate.

s . . c6 .

We have already mentioned that here we will analyse varia­ tions in which Black does not play d7-d6. Following S ... cS 6.d5, he should better transpose to the main lines with the move 6 . . . d6 and we will analyse them in chap­ ter eight, since after 6 . . . e6? ! (about 6 . . . e5 7 . .ie3 d6 8.h4 - see Chapter 6, variation B), White can already occupy the centre with 7.e5 {jj e 8 S.{jj f3 d6 9.0-0 {jj a 6 lO . .igSt Uhlmann - Keene, Hastings 1976. He maintains a considerable advantage, his mi­ nor pieces are very active, while their black counterparts are terri­ bly passive. White's centre, con­ trary to the game of Bobby Fis­ cher, which we have analysed at the beginning of the chapter, is very powerful.

6.e5!

After Black has played c6, White can already occupy the cen­ tre, since Black's undermining move cS will have to be played with a loss of a tempo.

6

•••

lile8 7.f4! ?

This is an interesting move. White is fortifying his centre in anticipation of the move d7-d6 and wishes to protect his eS-pawn as reliably as possible.

7 d6 •••

Black accomplishes the main idea of the variation chosen by him. Following 7 . . . d5, he abandons the idea of undermining his oppo­ nent's centre and ends up in a passive position. 8.cxd5 cxdS 9. {jj f3 {jj c 6 10.0-0 {jj c7 ll. .ie3 id7 12Jk1 E:c8 13.1l;Vd2 a6 14.h3 bS 15.b3 E:e8 16.id3 eM There has arisen a position of a French type, except that Black's dark-squared bishop has been fianchettoed. This difference is in favour of White, because he can try to ex­ ploit the weakening of Black's 77

Chapter S kingside. 17.lild1 ! White's knight is transferred to the g4-square and the vulnerability of the f6 and h6-squares in Black's camp may hurt him later. 17 . . ..if8 18.lilf2 .ib4 19.1!;!lb2 ie7 2 0 .lilg4± Black's king is seriously endangered, Bars - Barr, Email 2011. There do not arise original po­ sitions after 7 .. .f6 8.lilf3:t, since Black will have to play d7-d6 sooner or later, Yakovich - Sav­ chenko, St Petersburg 2011.

8

...

dxe5

Black has some other possibil­ ities besides this move. It seems principled for him to try 8 . . . c5, despite the loss of a tempo. Now, White must react very precisely in order to preserve his pawn-centre. 9.dxc5 lilc6 10. 0-0 .ig4, Van Wely - Heberla, Warsaw 2005. Black has sacri­ ficed a pawn but seized the initia­ tive. Now, White's best move is 11.cxd6 ! , for example : 11 . . . exd6 78

12 . .ie3 dxe5 13.i.c5 exf4 14.i.xf8 i>xf8 15.1!;!lxd8 :Bxd8 16.:BadU In the arising endgame Black has a pawn for the exchange and initia­ tive on the dark squares. Still, White's prospects are preferable, because the position is quite open. The power of his rooks should be a telling factor. The endgame is better for White following 8 . . .f6 9.i.e3 dxe5 10.dxe5 1!;!lxd1 + 11.:Bxd1 fxe5 12.lilxe5:t Korotylev - Koeller, Passau 1995. Now, Black can ex­ change on e5, or refrain from that. He maintains an advantage in both cases. In the first line he will have the two-bishop advantage, while in the second variation, his pawn-structure will be preferable (Black's e7-pawn is very weak.). After 8 ... .ig4, White should better preserve the knight, since contrary to his light-squared bishop, it can protect the pawns on d4 and e5. 9.lilg5! i.xe2 10. 1!;!lxe2 lilc7 (Following 10 ... h6 11. lilf3:t, the pawns on e5 and d4 are safe, so White has an edge thanks to his dominance in the centre, Vaisser - Bernardino, New York 1998.) 11 . .ie3 lild7 12 .:Bd1 ! :t This is a very solid move, which leads to a slight but stable advantage for White. Black can hardly create any active counterplay and is forced to defend passively. It is also possible for White to choose the sharper line: 12.0-0- 0 ! ? lilb6 13.h4-+ - he begins an attack on

l.d4 tiJj6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJ c3 ll..g 7 4.e4 0 - 0 5. 11..e2 th e kingside and Black will have great problems parrying it, Moskalenko - Gutman, play­ chess.com 2006.

9.fxe5 i.g4 He increases the against White's centre.

pressure

In the game Drozdovskij Gutman, Dresden 2007, Black tried 9 . . . c5 lO.dS ig4 ll.if4 .txf3 12. .bf3 tiJd7 13.�e2 f6 14.e6 tiJeS 15. 0-0;!;. White's pawn-wedge c4, dS, e6 looks very impressive and Black is faced with a difficult defence.

10.c5 ! ? This i s a prophylactic move. White wishes to prevent for good Black's possibility to advance c6c5. Following 10.0-0 c5 11.dxc5 tiJc6+!, there arises a very compli­ cated position in which Black has good compensation for the sacri­ ficed pawn thanks to the vulnera­ bility of White's pawns on eS and cS, Bock - Gutman, Kleve 1999.

10 ... b6 ll.cxb6 axb6 12. 0-0;!; Chuchelov - Gutman,

Wiesbaden 1991. In order to de­ fend against the possible under­ mining move c6-c5, White has weakened the dS-square; never­ theless, he maintains a slight edge. He dominates in the centre and after Black exchanges his bishop on f3, White's two bishops will be obviously stronger than any two minor pieces left for Black.

Conclusion We have just analysed Black's seldom played moves in the King's Indian Defence, with which he avoids playing the natural move 4 . . . d6. White must obtain an advantage effortlessly, by advancing e4-e5 at the right moment, but he needs to play accurately. He should not forget the game Letelier - Fischer, Leipzig 1960 and must have in mind that after imprecise moves his beautiful centre may turn quickly into ruins.

79

Chapter 6

l.d4 lilf6 2.c4 g6 3.ll:lc3 J.g7 4.e4 d6

5 .Ae2 ! ? •

One of the peculiarities of the Averbakh system is that White is not in a hurry to develop his king's knight. It is possible that from the point of view of absolute strength of the move, White should prefer 5.lLJf3, followed by 5 . . . 0-0 6.i.e2 eS 7.0-0 and there arises on the board the basic position of the Classical system. Still, from the point of view of the practical chess player, the Classical system is hardly the best choice, since the adherents to the King's Indian Defence for Black enjoy the pos­ sibility to be able to attack the en­ emy king. He has many possibili80

ties to do this in the Classical sys­ tem. I can provide you with nu­ merous examples in which the players with White have failed to parry Black's attacks and have lost their games. I will give you just one example, but the player, losing with White, was the pre­ sent World Champion himself ­ V.Anand. 7 . . . tZlc6 8.d5 tZle7 9.b4 lLJeB lO.cS fS ll.tZld2 lZJf6 12.a4 gS 13.lZlc4 h6 14.f3 f4 15.i.a3 lZJg6 16.b5 dxcS 17 . .bc5 E1f7 18.a5 hS 19.b6 g4. It is possible that the evaluation of the position is in fa­ vour of White, but Black attacks on the kingside and this is much more dangerous than White's at­ tack on the opposite side of the board. The moment he makes a mistake, this may set the game on the verge of disaster. Black played more precisely than his opponent in the subsequent struggle and reached a winning position. 20. lZlbS cxb6 2l.axb6 g3 2 2 .@hl i.f8 23.d6 a6 24.lZJc7 E1b8 25.lZJa5 @h8 26.ic4 E1g7 27.tZle6 he6 28 . .ixe6 gxh2 29.tZlc4 '?9e8 30 .id5 h4 31. E1f2 h3 32.gxh3 E1c8 33.E1a5 lZJh4-+ and Black's offensive became de-

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 fi.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2 cisive, Anand - Nakamura, Lon­ don 2011.

Now, we will analyse A) 5

c!L!c6, B) 5 c 5 and C ) 5 •••

•••

•••

e5.

Black's most popular move 5 . . . 0-0 will be dealt with in Chap­ ters 7-11. About 5 ... a6 6.1J..g5 0-0 7.�d2 - see Chapter 7.

It is just bad for Black to choose 5 . . . !iJfd7, since he can ad­ vance c5 or e5 even without the retreat of his knight from the f6square. 6.!iJf3 c5 7.0-0 (7.d5 ! ? 0 - 0 8.0-0 !iJf6 9.h3 e 6 10.dxe6 fxe6 11.e5 dxe5 12.!iJxe5;!; White's position is preferable due to the vulnerability of Black's pawn on e6, Averbakh - Byrne, New York 1954) 7 . . . !iJc6 8.d5 !iJd4 9.!iJxd4 .bd4 10.fi.h6;t Yrjola - Westeri­ nen, Gjovik 1985. White main­ tains a considerable advantage. He has more space, while Black has problems castling. White has a very simple plan for his further actions : c;!;>h1, f2-f4, followed by the preparation of the pawn­ breaks e4-e5 or f4-f5.

A) 5 . . . c!Llc6 6.d5

5 . . . !iJa6 6.ig5 0-0 7.f4 - see Chapter 9. 5 . . . c6 6.ig5 !iJbd7 (6 . . . 0-0 7. �d2 or 6 . . . a6 7.�d2 0-0 8.�d1 see Chapter 7, variation B) 7.�d2 0-0 8.!iJf3 - see Chapter 8, varia­ tion B.

As a rule, there d o not arise original positions following 5 . . . !iJbd7 6./i.g5 (It may b e also inter..; esting for White to try 6.f4 ! ? 0-0 7 .!iJf3;t) 6 ... 0-0 7.�d2 and after transposition, there arise situa­ tions which will be analysed in Chapter 8.

When White's knight is still on g1, it would be very bad for . Black to play 6 . . . !iJe5, because White can oust it immediately from the

81

Chapter 6 centre with 7.f4 ttJed7 (7 . . . ttJeg4 8.e5 dxeS 9.h3±) 8.ltJf3 0-0 (8 . . . ltJcS 9.e5 ttJfe4 10.ttJxe4 ttJxe4 11. �d4 fS 12. 0-0;t - He dominates in the centre and Black's knight will be forced to retreat from there after the move id3, Dlugolecki Leroy, Email 2008.) 9.0-0 ttJcS 10.e5;t White's position is prefer­ able, because his pawns on dS and eS are very strong, Chernyshov Chuprov, Voronezh 2002. 10 . . . ttJe8? Black's pieces were cramped anyway, so he had to find a more active placement for his knight. Now, White's advantage increas­ es. 11.ie3 ttJd7 12 .e6 fxe6 13.dxe6 ttJdf6 14.ttJg5 c6 1S.id3± Black's position is very difficult. White's e6-pawn impedes the coordina­ tion of Black's pieces and if White manages to advance f4-f5, then Black's position will become hopeless, since he will be helpless to counter White's offensive against his king. 7.f4 0-0 8.ltJf3 c6 (8 . . . ttJbd7 9.0-0 - see 6 . . . ttJeS) 9.�e3 ttJa6

c5 13.h.xg4 cxd4 14.ttJxd4 �g7 15.�d2 �d7 16.l3adH Raetsky ­

Podzielny, Schwaebisch Gmuend 2001. It may seem that Black's counterplay on the dark squares is good compensation for his sac­ rificed pawn, but this is not true at all. White has an easy plan to improve his position. He must re­ move his king from the g1-a7 di­ agonal and after that he can begin an attack on the h-file. The game followed with 16 .. .!k8 17.g5 �b6 18.g3 ltJc5 19.'it>g2 a6 20.1!hl± and White not only had an extra pawn and a space advantage, but also excellent attacking prospects on the h-file.

B) 5

•••

c5 6.d5

10.0-0

6

10 82

•.•

�g4 ll.�d4 ih6 12.h3

• . •

e5

This is the only move which leads to original positions. About 6 . . . 0-0 7.ig5, or 6 . . . ttJbd7 7.ig5 0 - 0 8.�d2 - see Chapter 11. 6 ... ttJa6 7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see Chapter 9. 6 . . . e6 7.ig5 0-0 8.�d2 - see Chapter 11, variation D.

l.d4 CiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. CiJ c3 ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 Following 6 . . . b5 7.cxb5 a6 (7 . . . 0-0 8.ig5 - see Chapter 11, variation B), there arises a ver­ sion of the Benko Gambit which is favourable for White and we will deal with it in our volume 3.

7.ie3

CiJhf2 CiJ h 7 21.CiJd3 fS 22 .b4± Ghe­ orghiu - Brood, Mar del Plata 1971. Black has finally managed to advance f7-f5, but has lost too much time preparing it. After White has advanced b2-b4, his queenside initiative has become very powerful.

It is also possible for White to play here 7.ig5 h6 8.id2 a6 9.h4.

7 We will encounter this move still numerous time while study­ ing the Averbakh system. Now, Black is faced with a rather un­ pleasant choice. He may allow h4h5, or play h6-h5 himself. In the first case, he will have no counter­ play on the kingside (As a rule, in order not to lose his h6-pawn, af­ ter h4-h5, Black will have to reply with g6-g5 and after White ad­ vances g2-g4, the move f7-f5 will become impossible.), while in the second case (as it happened in the above mentioned game), the gS­ square is seriously weakened and White's knight will head there im­ mediately. 9 . . . h5 lO.CiJf3 CiJbd7 11. g3 :B:b8 12.�c2 CiJf8 13.CiJg5 CiJg4 14.f3 CiJh6 15.a4 b6 16.a5 f6 17.CiJh3 bxaS 18.CiJdl id7 19 ..ba5 �c8 2 0 .

•••

0-0

The character of the fight re­ mains more or less the same fol­ lowing 7 . . . a6 8.:B:bl CiJbd7 9.h4 hS lO.CiJh3 CiJf8, Chiburdanidze H.Koneru, Krasnoturinsk 2005, 11.CiJg5± White's advantage is doubtless. He has much more space and a clear-cut plan, con­ nected with the pawn-advance b2-b4. Black's possible kingside counterplay is rather difficult to organise. Following 7 . . . CiJa6 8.g4 hS 9.g5 CiJh7 10.h4 CiJc7 11.a3 b6 12 .�d2 id7 13.CiJf3 0-0 14.:B:gU, Black's attempt to create counterplay on the kingside with f7-f5 leads to the weakening of the g6-pawn af­ ter capturing en passant, there83

Chapter 6 fore White's position is prefera­ ble, Gretarsson - Rashkovsky, Reykjavik 1994.

8.h4

We are already familiar with this plan of a pawn-offensive on the kingside. Here however, con­ trary to some other variations, this is not aggression but prophy­ lactic. Now, you can see the ad­ vantages of White's postpone­ ment of the development of the knight on gl. It does not cover the diagonal of the bishop on e2, which controls the important g4 and hS-squares.

8 . . . a6 After 8 . . . b5, there arises a fa­ vourable version for White of the Benko Gambit, since Black's bish­ op is restricted by his own eS­ pawn. There might follow: 9.cxb5 a6 10.a4 �a5 1l.�d2 axb5 12 ..ixb5 ia6 13.tt:lge2 .ixbS 14.tt:lxb5 �b6, Ruckschloss - Kaniansky, Slova­ kia 1999, 15.tt:lec3± His compen­ sation for the pawn is insufficient, 84

because White's knight on bS and his pawn on a4, supported by the knight on c3, parry reliably Black's counterplay on the a and b-files.

9.g4 tt:lbd7 10.h5 gb8 11.a4±

He has no counterplay at all and cannot advance f7-f5 and af­ ter White's last move, Black can­ not push b7-b5 either. Now, White can improve calmly his po­ sition, preparing gradually a deci­ sive pawn-break on one of the flanks. Later, in the game Sakaev - Bachin, Krasnoyarsk 2003, there followed: ll . . . �aS 12.f3 tt:le8 13.�d3 f6 14.h6 .ih8 15.tt:lge2 gf7 16.id2 tt:lf8 17.tt:lg3 �d8 18.a5 b6 19. axb6 �xb6 20 .ga2 gfb7 2 1.ic2 �d8 2 2 .b3 tt:lc7 23.tt:lce2 �e7 24. '>t>f2 tt:le8 25.tt:lcl. Black's position is difficult (He has no space, has a weakness on a6 and his bishop on h8 has no moves.). He had to ad­ here to passive tactics and could have resisted for long. Still, as it often happens in similar posi­ tions, Black failed to solve his de­ fensive problems and after 25 . . . fS? 26.exf5+-, his position be­ came hopeless.

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 ilg7 4.e4 d6 5. 1le2 C) 5 . . . e5 After this move, there arises an endgame which is clearly bet­ ter for White.

6.dxe5 dxe5 7. 'ilrxd8+ mxd8 8.f4

Following 8 ...ie6, White main­ tains a slight edge, as it happened in the game Polugaevsky - Stein, Tbilisi 1966: 9.liJf3 liJc6 10.0-0 exf4 ll. .bf4 liJd7 12 .:1!ad1 mc8 13. liJd5 liJce5 14.liJd4 c6 15.liJe7+ mc7 16.liJef5 hf5 17.exf5:t He has the two-bishop advantage and af­ ter White's pawn on e4 went to the f5-square, Black's counterplay on the dark squares became harmless for White.

The main fight in similar end­ games is centred on the d4 and e5-squares. As a rule, Black's knight is trying to reach the d4square and with his last move White attacks its base in anticipa­ tion of this.

8

•••

c!Llbd7

About 8 . . . c6 9.liJf3 liJbd7 10. 0-0 - see 8 . . . liJbd7. It seems rather dubious for Black to try 8 . . . liJfd7. He lags in development anyway and with his last move he impedes the devel­ opment of his bishop on c8. 9.liJf3 c6 10.0-0 me8 11.f5 f6 12 .ie3± Black's position is cramped and he lags considerably in develop­ ment, Bertok - Udovcic, Novi Sad 1955.

9 ... c6 It seems too risky for Black to choose 9 . . . exf4, because after 10.hf4, White's minor pieces are very active. 10 . . . c6 11.0-0 We7, Cvetkovic - Mirkovic, Belgrade 1980. Here, he could have in­ creased his advantage with 12 .e5! liJg4 13.ig5+ We8 14.e6 ! fxe6 15. liJe4± and despite the extra pawn, Black's position is not to be en­ vied. The game is opened and the majority of his pieces are not de­ veloped and are absolutely unpre-

85

Chapter 6 pared for the fight.

10.0-0 me8 ll.g3 ! ?

it White i s not afraid o f the ex­ change on f4, since he will recap­ ture with the pawn and will not give access to the e5-square for Black's pieces. The weakening of the light squares is not a problem, because White's king will protect them. ll h6 12. mg2;!; In order to complete the development of his queenside pieces Black must play lt:\d7, but before that he will have to exchange on f4, which after gxf4 will lead to dominance of White in the centre, Sadler - Api­ cella, Cappelle la Grande 1992. ••.

This is a very solid move. After

-

Conclusion We have just analysed some seldom played moves for Black in the King's Indian Defence. As a rule, White obtains easily an advantage after them and this is not surprising, because even the beginners know how dangerous it is to ignore castling. In the majority of the variations, analysed in this chapter, Black can castle in a period of a few moves, after which there will arise transposition to situations analysed by us in Chapters from 7 to 11. If he does not do that he will be faced with a dif­ ficult defence.

86

Chapter 7

l.d4 ltlf6 2.c4 g6 3.ltlc3 .ig7 4.e4 d6 5 . .ie2 0-0

A.Alexandrov and Y.Yakovich. After 6 . .ig5, Black has a great choice of possibilities. We will de­ vote to its main lines our next four chapters, while in this chapter we will deal only with the moves A) 6 ... �c6 and B) 6 . . . c6.

This is Black's most natural and popular move. He completes the development of his kingside.

6.ig5 After this move, there arises the Averbakh system on the board. It was named after the So­ viet grandmaster Yury Averbakh, who made considerable contribu­ tion to the development of its the­ ory. It is also worth mentioning the endeavours of L.Polugajevsky, who played regularly this system during a certain period of his chess career. I believe that this variation has been shadowed by the Classical system rather non­ deservedly. Among the contem­ porary grandmasters its most ar­ dent and regular exponents are

It does not work for Black to play 6 . . . e5?, because of 7.dxe5 dxeS 8.'xf8 22.1'!dc1 ih3 23. l'!xb7± and he does not have suffi­ cient compensation for the ex­ change.

15.tt:\xd6! This move is stronger than 15 . .ie2 Wib3oo Tukmakov - Mes­ tel, Las Palmas 1982.

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3.tiJc3 :!g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1J.e2 0 - 0 6. ig5 tiJ bd7 7. � d2 15 . . . �e6 16J�adl!

8

•••

e5

About 8 . . . �c7 9.0-0 eS 10. l'!ad1 - see 8 . . . eS. 8 . . . �aS 9.0-0 a6 10.a3 l'!e8 ll.b4 �c7 12.l'!acU White has gained time for his queenside pawn-offensive by attacking the enemy queen, Babula - Markin, Pardubice 2009.

White has more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. There might follow 16 l0e5 17.ie2 c 5 (17 . . .f6 18 .ih4 l'!d8 19.f4 tiJf7 2 0.i.c4 l'!xd6 21. ixe6 l'!xd2 2 2 .ixf7+ h7 27.h3 �d5 28.f5 S:ac8 29.e6± - with a very

dangerous attack for White.

Conclusion We have just analysed the variation with 6 . . . ttJbd7. White obtains effortlessly an advantage in the opening exploiting the basic drawback of Black's sixth move. His knight on d7 does not exert any pressure against White's centre. This leads to the fact that Black will have to exchange on d4 sooner or later and there will arise a position with a long lasting positional advantage for White. He will dominate in the centre and will have the possibility to exert pressure against Black's weak d6-pawn. We will have to mention that a similar type of position arises in the variation of the King's Indian Defence in which White fi­ anchettoes his bishop on g2 and Black plays tiJbd7. There, as a rule, he is doomed to a passive defence after White parries all his opponent's tactical tricks.

103

Chapter 9

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5.i.e2 0-0 6.i.g5 �a6

combinational play as G.Kaspa­ rov, V.Topalov, A.Grischuk, T. Radjabov, P.Svidler, B.Gelfand, J.Polgar and many others.

7.f4!?

This move is more flexible than the one we have analysed in our previous chapter - 6 . . . lt:lbd7. Black prepares the typical pawn­ advance e7-e5 for the King's Indi­ an Defence and also the knight on a6 will not stand in the way of the development of his bishop on c8. If White, in answer to e7-e5, re­ plies with d4-d5, then Black's knight on a6 will have the possi­ bility to go to the cS-outpost, ex­ erting pressure against the e4pawn. Following 6 . . . lt:la6, as a rule, there arise very complicated posi­ tions with plenty of tactical possi­ bilities, so it is not surprising that it was tested by such masters of 104

With this move White wishes to emphasize the drawbacks of Black's sixth move. Now, there arise positions similar to the Four Pawns Attack, except that Black's knight is on a6 and White's bish­ op is on gS. I believe this inclusion is in favour of White, since he had made a developing move, while the placement of Black's knight on a6 may turn out to be disad­ vantageous. The move 7.f4 be­ came popular after V.Potkin's win against A.Grischuk in the year 2011. After 7.V9d2, naturally Black advances 7 . . . e5 and as a rule, there arise positions, which are more typical for the Saemisch sys­ tem. For example: 8.d5 V9e8 9. idl id7 10.lt:lge2 lt:lcS ll.ic2 aS 12.f3 hSoo and both sides have their pluses, Grischuk - Rad­ jabov, Biel 2007.

l.d4 0.f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0.c3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 5. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0.a6 7:f4 from there will support the pawn­ break e4-e5.) 13.e5± - The defects of the placement of Black's knight on a6 have become quite obvious. In fact, White has an extra piece in the fight for the centre, Ser­ gienko - Cherniaev, Tula 1998.

A) 7 ti'e8 •••

Now, Black has two main lines at his disposal: A) 7 ti'e8 and •••

B) 7 c6. .••

It seems rather dubious for him to opt for 7 . . . c5? ! . Following 8.d5, there arise positions in which Black's knight is better placed on d7 in order to prevent White's possible central pawn­ break e4-e5. It is understandable that from the a6-square it can go only to c7, from where it cannot control at all the eS-square. The pawn-advance b7-b5, which the knight on c7 can support, is abso­ lutely harmless for White, be­ cause he can parry it with the move a2-a4, or eventually with a4-a5. 8 . . . Wa5 (After 8 . . . We8 9. 0.f3 e6 10.e5 ! ?t ; 10 . .bf6 .ixf6 11. eS dxeS 12 .fxe5 :ig7 13.d6;t;, White's powerful d6-pawn is a more important factor in this po­ sition than Black's bishop-pair.) 9.ti'd2 e6 10.0.f3 exdS 11.cxd5 E:e8 12. 0-0 :ig4 (The move 12 . . . c4 weakens the d4-square. 13.�h1 bS 14.0.d4± Black's position is very difficult. White's knight on d4 will go to the c6-square and

With this move Black prepares the pawn-advance e7-e5, after which White will be forced to push dS and Black's knight, at the edge of the board on a6, will gain access to the cS-square. This plan is not so good if Black includes the preliminary move 7 . . . h6, because after 8.:ih4 WeB, White has a powerful addi­ tional possibility - 9.e5 ! Later, in the game R.Bagirov - Mareck, Batumi 2002, there followed 9 . . . 0.h7 10.0.f3 f6 11.0-0 c S 12.exd6 exd6 13.0.b5± The vulnerability of the d6-pawn will be a cause of permanent worries for Black.

8.e5 ! ? Now, this move i s not a s effec­ tive as after the inclusion of the 105

Chapter 9 moves h6 and i.h4, because White's bishop on g5 may come under at­ tack in some variations with the move f7-f6; nevertheless, it leads again to an advantage for White.

8 ... .!Dd7 9 . .!Df3 c5 Black must be in a hurry to at­ tack his opponent's centre as quickly as possible; otherwise, his position will be horribly cramped.

10.0-0 cxd4 11 . .!Dd5 dxe5 White maintains a stable ad­ vantage following ll .. .f6 12.exf6 tt:Jxf6 13 . .bf6 ixf6 14.lt:Jxf6+ gxf6 15.lt:Jxd4;t - he has a superior pawn-structure: two pawn-is­ lands against three, moreover that Black's king is vulnerable, Yakovich - Trygstad, Bergen 2000.

Sanchez, Madrid 2005, since White has the energetic resource 13. fxe5! , for example: 13 ...gf7 (Black's situation becomes even worse following 13 . . . fxe5 14.c5 ! White sacrifices a pawn and brings his bishop into the attack. 14 . . . tt:Jdxc5 15 ..bf8 \1;lfxf8 16.ic4 hS 17.lt:Jg5 if5 18.lt:Jb6 axb6 19.lt:Jf7+ gS 20.lt:Jxe5+ hS 21.gxf5 gxf5 2 2 . lt:Jf7+ gS 23 .\1;l/h5+- and i n order to save his king, Black must part with his queen.) 14.exf6 tt:Jxf6 15 . .b£6 .ixf6 16.tt:Jxf6+ gxf6 17. \1;l/xd4± - he has succeeded in sav­ ing the exchange, but this is a small consolation for him, since he has no compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

13 . .!Dxd4 .!Db6

12 . .he7

14 . .!Df6 + ! 12 ... exf4 This move has been played in the game Meins - Reh, Baunatal 2001 and it is the best for Black. His position is terrible after 12 .. .f6, Herraiz Hidalgo - Paredes 106

White should not go after ma­ terial, because after 14.ixf8 \1;lfxf8 15.gxf4 tt:Jxd5 16.cxd5oo, despite the extra exchange, his play will be much more difficult, since the dark squares in his camp are con­ siderably weakened.

l.d4 0,f6 2.c4 g6 3. 0, c3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 0,a6 7/4 14 hf6 15.hf6 'ti'e3+ 16. •.•

g{2 lDc5 17.lbc2 'ti'e8 18.gxf4;t

He has regained the sacrificed pawn and his advantage is doubt­ less, due to his two powerful bish­ ops. Black must be on a perma­ nent alert how not to be check­ mated on the compromised dark squares. -

B) 7 c6 •••

With this patient move Black prepares the evacuation of his knight from the a6-square. It is going to c7 from where it not only supports the pawn-breaks b7-b5 and d7-d5, but can also go to e6 at an opportune moment, exerting pressure against White's centre (the d4-square) and attacking rather unpleasantly the bishop in gS.

8 . . . b5. This is an interesting pawn-sacrifice, but insufficient for equality. 9.cxb5 (But not 9.e5, since after 9 ... b4�. there arise complications on the board and they are much rather in favour of Black, since his pieces are better mobilised, Moskalenko - Nadyr­ hanov, Alushta 1994.) 9 . . . cxb5 10.hb5 gbs 1l.ic4;t Black has some compensation for the pawn, but it is still insufficient to main­ tain the equality. White does not have pawn-weaknesses in his po­ sition and he needs just two more moves to complete his develop­ ment.

(diagram)

Black cannot equalise with 8 . . . gbs, with the idea to sacrifice a pawn in another fashion - 9.0,f3 bS 10.hf6 exf6 (Or 10 . . .hf6 11. cxbS cxb5 12.0,xb5;t and Black has two powerful bishops, but White is still better thanks to his extra pawn and domination in the cen­ tre.) ll.cxbS cxbS 12.0,xb5;t

This is the main response for Black.

It may be very interesting for Black to try 8 . . . d5 ! ? Now, White is

8.'ti'd2 8

•••

lbc7

107

Chapter 9 forced to capture the pawn and after 9.i.xf6 exf6 10.exd5 cxdS 11.lt:Jxd5, there arises a very com­ plicated position in which he must play very precisely.

He has an extra pawn indeed, but lags in development and Black has two very powerful bishops. His dark-squared bishop is par­ ticularly strong, since it has no opponent. ll . . . E:e8 (after ll . . . bS 12.lt:Je3 bxc4 13.if3 E:b8 14.lt:Je2;!;, White is close to the completion of his development and Black's c4-pawn is not dangerous at all) 12.lt:Jf3 ie6 13.lt:Je3 Vlie7 (He can also try here 13 . . . VJid6. There may arise the following developments: 14.g3 ih3 15.'i!lf2 E:ad8 16.E:he1 lt:JcS 17.id3;!;. Black's pieces are tremendously active, but White's prospects are preferable. Black has doubled pawns on the f-file, so White has in the centre and on the queenside not one but two ex­ tra pawns.) 14.0-0 id7 (The move 14 . . . .b:c4 leads to multiple exchanges and a transfer into a slightly better endgame for White. 15.hc4 VJixe3+ 16.VJixe3 E:xe3 17. E:fe1 E:xe1 + 18.!\xeU Black has re­ gained his pawn indeed, but the 108

endgame is better for White thanks to his superior pawn­ structure.) 15.'i!lf2 ic6 16.E:ae1

This is the key position for the variation with 8 . . . d5. Now, Black has a choice. He can push 16 . . .f5 and White's best reaction against this would be 17.g3;!;, preserving a slight edge. (Following 17.lt:Je5, Black has at his disposal a forced variation leading to a draw: 17 . . . E:ad8 18.'i!lg1 heS 19.fxe5 VJixeS 20.lt:lc2 VJif6 21.id3 E:xe1 22.E:xe1 E:xd4 ! 23.lt:Jxd4 VJixd4+ 24.'it>h1 lt:JcS 25.E:d1 lt:Jxd3 26.VJixd3 VJixb2 27.VJid8+ 'it>g7 28.Vlid4+ VJixd4 29. E:xd4 'it>f6=) Or 16 . . . E:ad8 and later in the game V.Potkin - Grischuk, Khan­ ty-Mansiysk 2011, there followed: 17.d5 lt:JcS 18.id3 VJic7 19.g3;!; There has arisen a very compli­ cated position in which the play is rather difficult for both sides. White must be very careful about his opponent's tactical possibili­ ties. If he succeeds in parrying them and simplifies the position by exchanging pieces, then his two extra pawns on the queen­ side should gradually settle the issue.

l.d4 tiJf6 2.c4 g6 3. tiJc3 :ig7 4.e4 d6 S. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 tiJa6 7.f4 9.�f3

Naturally, you cannot see of­ ten the bishop here at the begin­ ning of the game, since God has created the f3-square for the knight, but now, this move is necessary, because White must protect very carefully his e4square.

9

•••

c!iJe6

Besides this move, Black has an interesting pawn-sacrifice here - 9 . . . d5 10.cxd5 cxdS 11.e5 4Je4 12.4Jxe4 dxe4 13 . .be4. White has an extra pawn, but his play is not easy at all, since he lags in devel­ opment. 13 .. .£6 (following 13 . . . 4Je6, White should better give back the pawn immediately, be­ ing happy with a slight edge in the endgame thanks to his better pawn-structure after 14.:ih4 �xd4 15.�xd4 4Jxd4 16.�d1 4Je6 17.4Je2 g5 18.fxg5 .be5 19.b3 tiJcS 20.:if3 :ifS 21. 0-0;!;) 14 . .ih4 fxeS (In the game Hernandez Carmenates Libiszewski, Montcada 2011, Black tried some active actions on the

kingside, but they backfired fol­ lowing 14 . . . g5? ! , which after 15. fxgS fxeS 16.4Jf3 exd4 17. 0-0±, led to a position with a consider­ able advantage for White. Black's pawn-majority in the centre is im­ material, because his pawns are easily blocked, while the vulnera­ bility of his castling position provides White with excellent attacking prospects.) 1S.fxe5 .beS 16.4Jf3 :if4 17.�d3 �d6 18.0-0 .ie6 19.�aeU - His pieces are very harmoniously deployed and Black's e7-pawn is much weaker than White's d4-pawn. Black's plan to advance the undermining move f7-f5 is not dangerous for White, since it is too slow and also weakens Black's position. 9 . . . 4Jd7 10.4Jge2 fS 11. exfS gxfS 12.0-0. There may fol­ low 12 . . . 4Jf6 13.d5 eS 14.fxe5 dxeS 15.4Jg3 cxdS 16.4Jxd5 :ie6, Miton - B.Socko, Germany 2011. Here, White could have increased his advantage with the move 17.�ae1! Black will have problems with the protection of his e and f-pawns. For example: 17 . . .£4 18.4Jh5 :ixdS 19.cxd5 �d6 20.4Jxg7 c;!;>xg7 21. �xeS ! After this exchange-sacri­ fice Black's position crumbles. 2l.. .�xe5 22 .:ixf4 �fS 23 . .bc7± White has two pawns for the ex­ change, a couple of powerful bish­ ops and a dangerous passed d­ pawn, while Black's king has practically no pawn-shelter.

10.�h4 109

Chapter 9 Unfortunately for White, he must lose a tempo for the retreat of his bishop.

10

•••

c5

Black succeeds in creating counterplay in the centre.

thenburg 2011, there followed: 14.lt:Jge2 a6 15.0-0 \t>h8 16.lt:Jd4 !!ac8. White has completed his development and after the central pawn-break 17.e5± seized com­ pletely the initiative.

ll.dxc5 �xeS 12.!3:dl 14.�ge2

There has arisen a position similar in its pawn-structure to the Maroczy system in the Sicilian Defence. Now, it all depends on whether White will manage to complete his development. If he does, then he will have a great ad­ vantage in the forthcoming mid­ dle game; otherwise, Black may seize the initiative.

12

•••

�e6

White's c4-pawn is Black's main target for attack.

13.b3 aS Now, he switches to attacking the b3-pawn. Black only loses time with the move 13 .. .'�a5, because he cannot break his opponent's position with piece-sorties. Later, in the game Hammer - Bejtovic, Go110

14 a4 •••

The obviously bad move 14 . . . �c7? ! was played i n the game Ivanchuk - Radjabov, Medias 2011. Black not only loses a tem­ po, but his queen is misplaced on the c7-square, because in many variations, after the preliminary exchange .ixf6, it will come under attack with lt:Jd5. The game con­ tinued with 15.0-0 a4 16.f5 ! This is a positional pawn-sacrifice with the idea to deflect Black's bishop from the protection of the d5square. 16 . . . gxf5 17.exf5 hf5 18. �6 exf6 (It would be a disaster for Black to opt for 18 . . . .bf6?, since following 19.lt:Jd5 �c8 2 0 . lt:Jxf6+ exf6 21.b4 lt:J e 6 2 2 .lt:Jc3+-, he has temporarily an extra pawn indeed, but his position is al most

l.d4 l!:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. l!:Jc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. 1i.e2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 l!:Ja6 7.f4 hopeless, because he cannot de­ fend all the numerous pawn­ weaknesses in his camp.) 19.b4 lf:Je6 20.lf:Jb5 119b6+ 21.'it>hl± Al­ most all Black's pawns are terribly weak.

edge of the board 15 . . . lf:Ja6? ! is ob­ viously weaker due to 16.a3 ! and Black cannot play 16 . . . hc4 in view of 17.e5± and White's bishop on f3 becomes tremendously ac­ tive.

16.1rd3 ! ?

15.b4! ? This i s an interesting move. White weakens his c4-pawn, but deprives his opponent of the pos­ sible counterplay against the pawn on b3. Following 15.l!:Jd4, White can hardly hold on to his b3-pawn. For example: 15 . . . axb3 16.axb3 119a5 17. 0-0 119b6 18.119f2 tt:Jxb3 19. l!:Jxe6 119xf2 + 20Jl:xf2 fxe6 21.e5 dxeS 22 .fxe5 lf:Je8 23 . .ig3� and al­ though he has the initiative in this endgame, which compen­ sates fully his minimal material deficit, but White can hardly rely on anything more than a draw; because there remains just too lit­ tle material on the board, Levin Wiersma, Netherlands 2011.

15 . . . l0cd7

The retreat of the knight to the

This simple move, protecting the pawn, seems to me to be more promising to White in his fight for the opening advantage than the pawn-sacrifice after 16.c5, for ex­ ample: 16 . . . dxc5 17.bxc5 (It is also interesting for Black to try 17.b5 ! ? and after 1 7. . . 119c7 18.e5 l!:JxeS 19. fxeS E:fd8 20.119g5 E:xd1+ 21.'it>xd1 h6 22 .119e3 l!:Jg4 23.ixg4 hg4 24 . .ig3, there arises a very com­ plicated position. White has a knight for two pawns, but his king is vulnerable and Black's pieces are rather active.) 17 . . . tt:Jxc5 18.e5 lf:Jfd7 (It is weaker for him to con­ tinue with 18 . . . 119xd2 +, because of 19 J!:xd2 lf:Jfd7 20 . .ixe7 E:fe8 21. .id6i. White has regained his pawn and maintains a slight edge thanks to his more actively de­ ployed minor pieces.) 19.0-0� ­ No doubt, he has compensation for the sacrificed pawn, since his pieces are active, but it is unclear whether he can achieve anything meaningful.

16 . . . 119b6 16 . . . 119c7 17.lf:Jd5 .ixd5 18.cxd5i White has extra space, a bishop­ pair and only needs to castle in order to complete his develop111

Chapter 9 ment. There may arise the follow­ ing variation: 18 ... E1fc8 19.E1cl '1Wb6 2 0.E1bl '1Wc7 21.0-0 '1Wc4 22 .'1Wxc4 E1xc4 23.E1fcl E1ac8 24.iel lLlb6 25. E1xc4 lLlxc4 26.E1cl lLle8 27 . .ig4 E1c7 28.id7 ib2 29.E1xc4 E1xc4 30.ixe8 ia3 31.ixa4 ixb4 32. ixb4 E1xb4 33 . .ib3 E1xe4 34.'it>f2;!; - In this endgame, White's two minor pieces are stronger than Black's rook and pawns.

17.a3 lUeS 18.lbd5 hd5 19.cxd5 \Wa6 The inclusion of the moves 19 . . . h5 20 .h3;!; does not change the evaluation of the position.

20.\Wxa6 )3xa6 21 .if2 •

(diagram) White has an advantage in the arising endgame, because he can parry easily Black's temporary ac­ tivity.

21

•••

)3c4

He wishes to create counter­ play against White's e4-pawn.

Black's position is horrible af­ ter 2l.. .E1aa8?! 2 2 .'it>d2± Following 21.. .lLle8 2 2 .lLld4;!;, he has not achieved anything real and will have to begin to defend passively in a few moves.

22.)3cl

)3xcl +

23.tLlxcl;!;

White has traded a pair of rooks and succeeded in decreasing his opponent's initiative. Now, if Black fails to organise pressure against the pawns on a3 or e4, White will coordinate his pieces and Black's position will become very difficult, since he has less space and his queenside pawns are seriously weakened.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of the variation with 6 . . . lLla6. It is quite deservedly one of the most popular responses for Black in the Averbakh system in the contemporary tournament practice. He is try­ ing to obtain a sharp and complicated position and is ready to sacrifice pawns in his fight for the initiative. Still, after a precise play, White has chances of obtaining an advantage after the opening. As a rule, in this variation he acquires some long term pluses - a space advantage and a powerful pawn-centre. His main task is to overcome the temporary lag in development. After he completes it successfully, Black will be forced to begin defending.

112

Chapter 10

l.d4 �f6 2.c4 g6 3.�c3 J.g7 4.e4 d6 5 .ie2 0-0 6.J.g5 h6 •

main lines, we will analyse three moves : A) 7. . .ltlbd7, B) 7 . . . e5,

C) 7 . . c5. .

Before that however, we will deal with some not so popular lines.

This move is one of the most popular responses for Black against the Averbakh system, chosen by White. Black ousts im­ mediately his opponent's bishop from its active position. Still, this move has a serious drawback Black's pawn on h6 is not suffi­ ciently protected. In the majority of the variations White can win a tempo by attacking it with the move 1Wd2 .

7 . .ie3 This is the right decision. In the Averbakh system, contrary for example to the Petrosian system, White's bishop retreats as a rule to this square. Now, Black can choose be­ tween numerous possibilities. As

White should not be afraid of the rather slow move 7 . . . a6. After 8.\Wd2 'kt>h7 9.h3 lL:\c6 lO.lLlf3 eS ll.dS lL:\e7, he can follow with the standard resource 12 .g4 ! imped­ ing Black's kingside counterplay and developing effortlessly his initiative on the other side of the board. Later, in the game Kovacs - Mesaros, Trencianske Teplice 2005, there followed 12 . . . lL:\fg8 13.0-0-0 .id7 14.c5 lL:\c8 15.'kt>bl±. White's initiative is very power­ ful. Black is incapable of counter­ ing White's actions on the c-file and his kingside counterplay is obviously too slow. It seems rather dubious for Black to try here 7 . . . b6. In g�ner­ al, in the King's Indian Defence, Black fianchettoes his light­ squared bishop only very seldom, 113

Chapter 1 0 since it can hardly find a better place for actions than the c8-h3 diagonal. 8.h3 ll'lfd7 (8 . . ..tb7 9. �c2;!;) 9.�d2 'it>h7 10.g4 eS ll.ds aS 12 .h4. This is the beginning of a standard plan for similar posi­ tions. White advances his pawn to the hS-square, forcing his oppo­ nent to play g6-gS and after that Black will have no counterplay whatsoever and will remain in the role of a spectator to the rest of the game. White will prepare pa­ tiently a breakthrough on the queenside. You can see a very good example on this subject the game Panno - Camara, Sao Paulo 1972 . 12 . . . ll'lcS 13.hS gS 14. ll'lh3 ll'lbd7 1S.f3 .tf6 16.0-0 ie7 17.ll'lf2 ll'lb7 18J!fb1 ll'ldcS 19.b3 id7 20.id1 !!e8 21.a3 if8 22 .b4 ll'la6 23 ..ta4± After the trade of the light-squared bishops, Black's position became even worse due to the catastrophic vulnerability of his light squares. The game continued until move 69 and end­ ed in a victory for White, but there was never a real struggle. It looked like the fight between two wres­ tlers in which one of them is on top and is trying to break his op­ ponent's neck. The only problem is whether the neck will withstand the pressure or not. Black's position is obviously inferior after 7 . . . c6 8.�d2 'it>h7 9.h3, for example : 9 . . . a6, as it was played by V. Ragozin against the author of this system. He did not manage to reap any dividends at 114

all. 10.ll'lf3 dS ll.id3 dxe4 12. ll'lxe4 ll'lxe4 13.he4;!; White's po­ sition is clearly preferable and his pieces are much more active, Averbakh - Ragozin, Leningrad 19S6. Now, just like in the majority of similar variations, Black can­ not equalise with the move 7 . . . ll'lc6, because h e provokes some weakening of White's centre after the move 8.dS indeed, but Black loses too much time on moves with his knight. 8 . . . ll'leS (It is not preferable for him to retreat with his knight to its initial position 8 . . . ll'lb8, since after 9.�d2 'it>h7 10 .h3 aS ll.ll'lf3 eS, in the game Polovodin - Stotika, Leningrad 1983, White could have begun im­ mediately active actions on the queenside with the move: 12.cS ! ± and Black would have great prob­ lems to neutralise White's activity on the c-file.) 9.h3 c6 10.ll'lf3 ll'lxf3+ ll.hf3 cxdS 12.cxdS;!; Le­ rner - Gufeld, Ivano-Frankovsk 1982 . He has a slight edge thanks to having extra space. After Gufeld played 12 . . . bS? ! , there appeared a gaping weakness on the c6-square in his position and White's knight was headed there immediately along the route c3-e2-d4-c6. 13. 0-0 id7 14.�d2 'it>h7 1S.ll'le2 �b8 16.!'1ac1 �b7 17.ll'ld4± 7 . . . ll'la6. Now, contrary to the previous chapter, this move is not so good, because White wins a tempo by attacking the h6-pawn

l.d4 ll:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. ll:Jc3 �g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3 with the move 8.�d2 , for example 8 . . . �h7. Here, his simplest reac­ tion would be 9.f3 ! ?, after which there arises a favourable version for White of the Saemisch sys­ tem.

It is not so good for Black to play 9 . . . e5, since following lO.dS, his counterplay can only be con­ nected with the pawn-advance f7f5, but White is already very well prepared to counter it with his ninth move. Later, in the game Gurieli - Grabics, Komotini 1993, there followed 10 ... ll:Jg8 ll.h4 fS 12 .h5 f4 13.hxg6+ �xg6 14.if2±. Black's kingside activity has back­ fired, because his king is vulnera­ ble, as well as his h6-pawn. After castling queenside, White can combine active actions on the kingside (g2-g3) with queenside activity ( c4-c5). 9 ... c5 10 .d5 ll:Jc7 ll.g4 ll:Jg8 12. h4 eS 13.0-0-0;!; Sapi - Havasi, Hungary 1992 . He has much more space and in actions on both sides of the board, has excellent possi­ bilities to transfer his pieces to the different flanks. It was Napoleon who used to say "War - this is communications ! " .

A) 7

•••

ll:Jbd7

This move was popular at the beginning of the 90ies of the past century mostly thanks to the ef­ forts of grandmasters Z.Lanka. A.Shirov and V.Bologan. Black's main idea is to prepare the pawn­ advance c7-c5 and to sacrifice a pawn with the move b7-b5, after which there arise positions which resemble the Benko Gambit. Nowadays, this move is played only seldom, because White has found rather convincing ways of neutralising his opponent's initia­ tive. He can obtain in this varia­ tion a slight but stable advantage.

8.�d2 c5 It is better for Black to play this move immediately, without losing time for the protection of his h6-pawn. The rather slow re­ action - 8 . . . �h7 would enable White to play the actively-pro­ phylactic move 9.h4 ! , obtaining a clearly better position . . (diagram) Now, Black will have a very 115

Chapter 1 0

difficult position, without any chances of creating active coun­ terplay after 9 . . . eS? ! lO .hS gS 11. dS tt:lcS (11 . . . tt:le8 12 .g4 �f6 13.tt:lf3 fi..e 7 14.tt:lh2 cS 1S.O-O tt:lc7 16.E:fb1 tt:lb8 17.a3 b6 18 .b4 tt:lba6 19.f3 f6 2 0 .tt:lf1 E:t7 21.tt:lg3 �f8 22 .�d1 �d7 23.�a4 .ba4 24.tt:lxa4± Po­ lugaevsky - Noerby, Lugano 1968. Black has no counterplay at all and must only wait for his de­ mise. Later, White combined threats on the queenside with ex­ ploiting the vulnerability of the fS-square and scored a full point after SO moves.) 12.f3 g4 (It does not look better for Black to adhere only to a passive defence with the move 12 . . . aS, because after 13.�d1 tt:lg8 14.�c2 'it>h8 1S.g4 �f6 16. tt:lge2 �e7 17.tt:lg3 f6 18. 0-0±, White can deprive completely his opponent of chances of organis­ ing any counterplay on the king­ side. Later, after a difficult fight, he won the game by combining the threat of a breakthrough on the queenside with exploiting the weakness of the fS-square, Ra­ etsky - Pletanek, Pardubice 1992.) 13.b4 tt:la6 14.tt:lbS E:g8 1S.tt:lxa7± After Black has lost his a7-pawn, his queenside position crumbles 116

and his kingside counterplay is nowhere in sight, Aleksandrov Bastian, Germany 1998. It may be possible that Black's best decision here might be 9 . . . cS, but following 10.E:d1 ! ? '!WaS 11.hS gS 12.tt:lf3 cxd4 13.tt:lxd4t, there arises a position which is more typical for the Maroczy system of the Sicilian Defence, except that as a result of the pawn-advance g6-gS, Black has a weakness on the fS-square in his position. This is, no doubt, in favour of White.

9.d5

9

•••

'it>h7

Now, Black will have to play this move; otherwise, after 9 . . . '!WaS, White can make a surprising exchange of his central pawn for the enemy rook pawn and obtain good attacking prospects. The analysis shows that if both sides play correctly, White's achieve­ ments are not so great, but his play is much easier in a practical game. 10 . .bh6 hl6 11.'1Wxh6 tt:lxe4 12 .E:c1 tt:ldf6 (It is bad for

J.d4 lt:Jf6 2.c4 g6 3. lt:Jc3 !g7 4.e4 d6 S. ie2 0 - 0 6. ig5 h6 7. i.e3 Black to play here 12 . . . e6?, be­ cause he eliminates the risk to be checkmated indeed, but loses a pawn and has no compensation for it. 13.dxe6 lt:Jdf6 14.exf7+ E:xf7 15.lt:Jf3 i.fS 16.0-0± Oral - Rasik, Czech Republik 1995.) 13.h4 1Mfb4 (Black loses immediately follow­ ing 13 . . . lt:Jxc3? 14.bxc3 lt:Je4 15.h5 g5 16.f3 lt:Jxc3 17.1M/xg5+- and af­ ter White's queen comes back to d2, Black loses surprisingly his knight on c3, Petursson - De­ mire}, Katerini 1993. His position is not to envied too after 13 . . . i.f5 14.h5 g5 15.f3 lt:Jxc3 16.1Mfxg5+ h8 17.E:xc3± White is much bet­ ter not only because he has an ex­ tra pawn, but also due to the ab­ sence of a pawn-shelter in front of Black's monarch.)

side (h6, g4-g5). His king has not castled yet, but will have an excel­ lent safe haven on the fl-square. White's advantage is doubtless in this variation, but it may be even stronger for him to play the energetic move 14.h5 ! , begin­ ning an immediate offensive against Black's king. 14 . . . g5 15. E:c2 if5 16. lt:Jh3 lt:Jh7 17.i.d3 lt:Jg3. White should not be afraid of this tactical strike. 18.lt:Jxg5 lt:Jf6 (18 . . . i.xd3? 19.E:h3 lt:Jxg5 20.E:xg3 f6 21.f4 ixc2 22 .fxg5 h7 11.h4 liJa6 12.0-0-0;!;, Black's piec­ es evidently lack space, Alster Hofman, Bratislava 1959). 10. cxbS a6 ll.bxa6 \Wa5

12.f3 liJxa6 13.\Wd2 E:b8 14.h4 hS 15.g5 liJd7 16.liJh3 E:b4 17.liJf2 f6 18.gxf6 i.xf6 19.a3! (19.E:c1 \Wd8?, Black has succeeded in or­ ganising counterplay against the enemy f4-pawn, Vitiugov - In­ arkiev, Moscow 2007) 19 . . . E:b8 2 0.E:a2 '!Wd8 21.liJbS E:b6 22.liJa7± White's knight has reached the a7-square and quite purposefully at that. It can go to c6 from there, or capture Black's powerful light­ squared bishop. White's pawn on h4 is untouchable. After 22 . . . i.xh4? ! , h e obtains a decisive ad­ vantage with the line: 23.liJxc8 i.x£2 + 24.i.xf2 \Wxc8 25.\Wh6 E:f6 26.E:g1 liJf8 27.b4+- White's two powerful bishops control almost the entire board. Black is incapa­ ble of exploiting the placement of his opponent's king is the centre, while White is not only attacking on the kingside, but is threatening 121

Chapter 1 0 to advance his connected passed pawns with b4-bS, a3-a4-aS. It may be interesting for Black to try the move 8 . . . c6, although it is insufficient for equality. This is a standard position of this type (for example in some variations of the Saemisch system) and Black's attempts to organise active ac­ tions on the queenside are not so effective, because White can ex­ ploit the weaknesses on his oppo­ nent's kingside (h7-h6) with the move 9.h4 ! ?

The position i s rather passive for Black after 9 . . . cxdS 10.cxdS. His is faced with an unpleasant choice to either allow h4-hS, or to weaken the gS-square after h6hS. 10 . . . lt::J bd7 (It is possible that the least of evils for Black may be to continue with 10 . . . hS 11.f3 lt::J a 6 12.lt::J h3 �d7 13.lt::J f2 'it>h7 14.g4 �aS 1S.gS lt::J g 8 16.a3;!; A.Petrosian - Morozevich, Moscow 1992, but even then White is better, because he can play with the idea to re­ strict the enemy knight on a6 with (b2-b4), followed by exerting pressure on the c-file. Black's counterplay on the f-file is not 122

dangerous for White, because Black cannot attack effectively the f3-pawn.) ll.hS gS. Now, White can obtain an advantage, choos­ ing between lines suggested by some of the great masters of posi­ tional play. 12.f3. This move was the favourite of T.Petrosian. (It is as least as good for White to try 12 .g4, preferred by V.Hort. Later, White exploited the fact that his opponent had no counterplay and organized pressure on the c-file and transferred his knight to g3 in order to make use of the weaken­ ing of the fS-square. 12 . . . lt::J cS 13.f3 aS 14.a4 lt::J e 8 1S.ic4 �f6 16.lt::J h3 lt::J c7 17. 0-0 id7 18.�e2 l'l:fc8 19. lt::J f2 .if8 20.:Ei fc1 ie7 2l.'it>g2 lt::J 7a6 22 .b3 idS 23.lt::J h 1 ib6 24.lt::J g3± Black is doomed to a long and passive defence, Hort - Vogt, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1977.) 12 . . . a6 13.g4 bS 14.a4 b4 1S.lt::J b 1 aS 16.lt::J d 2 lt::J cS 17.hc5 ! This is a non-standard exchange and as a rule it is bad for White due to the weakening of the dark squares. Here however, Black cannot exploit this, because his minor pieces are very passive. 17 . . . dxcS 18.ibS ib7 19.lt::J e 2 lt::J e 8 20 . .he8 l'l:xe8 2l.lt::J c4± T.Petro­ sian - Schweber, Stockholm 1962. The position is closed and White's knights have excellent outposts on c4 and fS, so they are more powerful than Black's bishops. It is possible that his best chance is the active move 9 . . . bS. It does not equalise either, but promises Black active prospects. 10.cxbS cxdS (Following 10 . . .

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3.li:J c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. :ie2 0 - 0 6. :ig5 h6 7. :ie3 cxbS, the play becomes much calmer. White still maintains an edge thanks to the vulnerability of the c6-square in Black's camp. Af­ ter White completes his develop­ ment he can transfer his knight there along the route c3-a2-b4c6, as for example that happened in the game Meduna - Barczay, Trnava 198 2 : ll.a3 h5 12 .liJh3 :ig4 13.liJg5 .b:e2 14.�xe2 a6 15.f3 liJbd7 16.liJa2 ! E:c8 17.liJb4 liJb8 18.0-0;!;;) ll.liJxdS ! This is the only move with which White can fight for the advantage (after ll.exdS, in the game Zaichik - Zaitsev, Moscow 1988, Black obtained good compensation after the move ll . . . a6�, due to his oppo­ nent's lag in development.) 11 . . . :ib7 ( l l. . . liJxe4 12.h5 ! g S 13.:if3 fS 14.:ixe4 fxe4 15.E:cl± White's knight on dS is very powerful, while Black's bishop on g7 is se­ verely restricted by his own pawns on h6, gS, eS, d6.) 12.liJxf6+ �xf6 13.:if3 liJd7 (following 13 . . . d5 14. exdS e4 15 ..b:e4 �xb2 16.E:b1 �xa2 17.h5 gS 18.liJe2;!;; , there arises a very complicated position in which the activity of Black's pieces (E:e8, liJd7-f6) is not suffi­ cient to compensate the sacrificed pawn.) 14.E:cU His compensation is not good enough. Black's posi­ tion is inferior and if White man­ ages to play liJe2-c3, establishing complete control over the dS­ square, Black's position would be­ come nearly hopeless.

9.h4

The readers may have already noticed this is White's basic plan in similar positions.

9 .c!L!c5 10.ti'c2 • •

10 . . . c6 Black is trying to organise counterplay on the queenside. Following 10 . . . a5, as a rule it all comes to transposition of moves. ll.hS gS (It is bad for Black to play ll . . . liJxhS, since after 12. .b:hS gxhS 13.E:xh5 �f6 14.f3 b6 15.g4±, his position becomes very difficult in view of the vulnerabil­ ity of his h6-pawn, Alburt - Pla­ chetka, Decin 1977.) 12.f3 c6 13.g4 - see 10 . . . c6 ll.hS gS. Black cannot equalise with 10 . . . liJg4. He obtains the two­ bishop advantage indeed, but los­ es too much time and has no chances of creating active coun­ terplay. ll . .b:g4 .b:g4 12 .h5 gS (It is too risky for Black to accept the pawn-sacrifice 12 . . . .b:h5 13.f3 fS 14.0-0-0 f4 15.:ixc5 dxcS 16. liJge2 . His bishop on hS is horri123

Chapter 1 0 bly isolated and his attempt to free it with the move 16 . . . 1Mfe8, af­ ter 17.'it>b1 gS 18.lLlbS 1Mff7, pro­ vides White with the chance to follow with a very promising ex­ change-sacrifice : 19.E!:xhS ! 'c2 c4 2 2 .f4± White's knight enters the actions and Black has no compensation for the piece, Lputian - Yurtaev, Volgograd 1985. 13 ... h6. This is an interesting move, but is not so popular. 14. hh6 .ixh6 15.�xh6 �xb2 16.0-0 ic2 17.1'!acl :B:e8 (17. . . ia4 18.f4 �g7 19.�g5;!; Black's king shelter has been weakened due to the ab­ sence of his h-pawn, so White's attack may become very powerful, Boehm - Hartung, Email 2002) 18.�d2 �f6, Dolinski - Niewiad­ omski, ICCF 2007, 19.g3 ! ? This is the only way for White to fight for the advantage. 19 . . . ia4 20 .f4;!; His prospects in the middle game will be preferable, because his king is much safer (3 pawns against 2 for Black's king). After the exchange of the queens (for example after �f6-e7-e3), White can exploit the vulnerability of his enemy d6-pawn, after ttlh4-f3-g5, if3 and ttle4.

10.ltlf3

154

10

...

.ig4

About 10 . . . a6 ll.a4 ig4 12. 0-0 ttlbd7 13.h3 ixf3 14.hf3 see 10 . . . ig4. 10 . . .if5 11.0-0 �b6 12.1'!ae1 see 10 . . . �b6. 10 . . . �b6 11.0-0 if5 (1l.. .ig4 12 .h3 - see 10 . . . ig4) 12.1'!ae1 ttlbd7 (Unfortunately for Black, he cannot accomplish the favour­ able trade of the knights, because after 12 . . . ttle4? ! 13.ttlxe4 ixe4 14. id3, he must comply with an ir­ revocable weakening of his pawn­ structure in order to save his bish­ op: 14 .. .f5 15.ixe4 fxe4 16.if4 ttld7 17.ttlg5±) 13.ttlh4

13 . . . ttle4 14. ttlxe4 ixe4 15.f3. The knights have been exchanged but Black has difficulties, because of the unfavourable position of his bishop in the centre of the board. 15 . . . .id4+ (after 15 . . . h6 16.hh6 .ixh6 17.�xh6 .ic2 18. �cl±, Black has no compensation for the pawn, Spacek - Gross, Prague 1992.) 16.\t>h1 f6, Genta ­ Izquierdo, Montevideo 1992, 17 . .if4!± Black can choose between

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJ c3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 sacrificing his bishop for the pawns on d5 and b2, or retreating it to the f5-square, which after liJxf5 would lead to a horrible weakening of his pawn-structure. In both cases White's great ad­ vantage is doubtless. It is possible for Black to choose the plan with the exchange of the knights although it would not equalise for him either. 10 . . . liJbd7 11.0-0 liJe5 (He lacks space, so he should not avoid the ex­ change of pieces. Following 11 . . . a 6 12.E!:fe1 b 6 13.'?;1/f4:t, White's pieces are obviously more active, Farago - Teufl, Austria 1999.) 12.liJxe5 E!:xe5 13.id3 E!:e8 14.E!:feU Black's position is solid but very passive and he can hardly organ­ ise any active actions, Nikolaidis - Shavtvaladze, Korinthos 2002. It seems rather dubious for him to transfer his queen to f8 with the idea to advance his king­ side pawns. 10 .. .'!We7 11.0-0 �f8 12. h3 liJa6 13.i.d3 id7 14.a3 h6 15. i.f4 liJh5 16.ih2 f5 17.liJb5 ixb5 18.cxb5 liJc7 19.E!:ae1 a6 20.b6 liJb5 21.E!:e6 E!:xe6 22 .dxe6 liJd4 23.liJxd4 ixd4 24.E!:e1 E!:e8, Bareev - Dy­ achkov, Azov 1996 and after 25. g4 ! +-, Black's position crumbles.

liJc7 12 .h3 �e7 13.E!:ae1 �f8 14. i.d3:t, his pieces are terribly cramped, Raetsky - Slizhevsky, So­ chi 2006) 12.id3 id7 13.h3 liJb4 14. i.b1 h5 15.a3 liJa6 16.id3± White's extra space guarantees a great ad­ vantage for him since Black has no squares to deploy his pieces.

11.0-0 liJbd7 11 . . . a6 12.a4 liJbd7 13.h3 hf3 14.ixf3 - see 14 . . . liJbd7. 11 . . . �b6 12 .h3 ix£3 13.ixf3 liJbd7 14.�c2 - see 11.. .liJbd7.

12.h3 hf3 13.hf3

There has arisen a typical po­ sition for this variation. White has extra space and two bishops and Black has no counterplay. It is be­ cause of these prospectless posi­ tions that Black ceased to be in­ terested in this variation.

13 . . . a6 In the game Bareev - I.Soko­ lov, Biel 1993, Black accomplished an unfavourable manoeuvre with his knight and it turned out to be just a loss of time for him. 10 . . . liJa6 11.0-0 �b6 (following 11 . . .

He cannot equalise with 13 . . . h 5 14.E!:ae1 �b6 1 5 . .id1 a6, . Tre­ velyan - Glek, Clichy 1995 and here, White's simplest reaction would be - 16.ib3:t and despite 155

Chapter 11 all the tricks, Black has failed to complicate the game and to or­ ganise counterplay. 13 . . . �b6 14.'�c2 a6 (After 14 . . . h6 15.i.d2 a 6 16.b3 :Be7 17.:Bae1 :Bae8 18.:Bxe7 :Bxe7 19.id1 W/d8 20.a4t, Black did not manage to hold the position in the game Langeweg - Najdorf, Wijk aan Zee 1971. The character of the game remains more or less the same following 14 . . . l!th8 15.id2 a6 16.:Baelt and later, White trad­ ed the major pieces and realised his advantage in an endgame with only minor pieces, S.Atalik - Pap, Vrnjacka Banja 2012.) 15.id2. In similar position, White often re­ treats his bishop to d2 and from there it supports the advance of his queenside pawns with a4-a5 and b4. 15 . . . :Be7 16.:Baelt Polu­ gaevsky - Gligoric, Skopje 1968. Later, Black was reluctant to ad­ here to a passive defence and sac­ rificed a pawn. His compensation for it was insufficient and he lost the game.

14 . . . �e7 Black is clearly worse after 14 . . . W/c7 15.�c2 h5 16 . .id2 tt:lh7 17.:Bae1 i.d4 18.id1 tt:Jdf8 19.�d3 tt:Jd7 2 0.'1Wg3 l!th8 2l.b3 tt:ldf6 22 .ic2 :Bxe1 23.:Bxe1 :Be8 24. :Bxe8+ tt:Jxe8 25.tt:le2t - he has no counterplay and White can play for a win without any risk, trying to exploit his two-bishop advan­ tage and extra space, Brandberg Soeder - Bennborn, ICCF 2007. Black's activity is only tempo­ rary after 14 . . . tt:le5, because later, White will oust the enemy knight away from the centre. 15.ie2 �aS 16.'1Wc2 h6 17.i.d2 W/c7 18.f4 tt:Jed7 19.:Baelt and once again he main­ tains the standard advantage for this variation, Gulko - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2001. Following 14 . . . W/a5, S.Atalik demonstrated a good example of how to play this position with White.

14.a4

At first, he deprived his oppo­ nent of any counterplay by trad­ ing the major pieces and then, in the endgame with minor pieces, 156

l.d4 liJf6 2.c4 g6 3. liJc3 i.g7 4.e4 d6 5. .ie2 0 - 0 6. i.g5 c5 7.d5 he began advancing his pawns on the flanks in order to acquire more space. 15.Wfc2 h6 16.i.d2 Wfc7 17.!1ae1 !1xe1 18.!1xe1 �e8 19. i.d1 �xe1+ 20 ..ixe1 Wfd8 21.WI'e2 \t>f8 22 .g3 Wfe7 23.Wfxe7+ \t>xe7 24.a5 liJe5 25.i.e2 liJe8 26.f4 liJd7 27.\t>g2 i.d4 28.\t>f3 f5 29.i.d3 liJg7 30.b3 h5 31.liJe2 i.f6 32 .ic2 \t>f7 33.i.d2i Atalik - Kilicaslan, Ankara 2008. This is the end­ game White should strive for in this variation. Black does not have any counterplay, while White can manoeuvre for long preparing breaks both on the queenside (b3b4 ), as well as on the kingside (g3g4). Even if Black can hold this position, then in a practical game this is a very difficult task indeed.

15.S:ael Wff8 16.il.dl

Wfxe8 19 . .ic2 liJb6 20 .b3 liJbd7 21. .if4 fffe 7 22 .WI'e2 \t>f8 23.Wfxe7+ \t>xe7 24.a5i,

There has arisen again a very favourable endgame for White, Polugaevsky - Uhlmann, Amster­ dam 1970. Later, L.Polugaevsky realised his advantage. This was one of the first games which showed the great difficulties Black had to suffer in similar endgames. Our book is devoted to the opening however, so we will not analyse thoroughly the endgame. The readers who would like to en­ large their knowledge and under­ stating of similar situations, I can recommend the wonderful book of M.Shereshevsky "Endgame Strategy" : in which he has ana­ lysed several examples on this subject.

17 .tf4 liJh7 18.ic2 .!DeS 19.b3 f5 20.ig3 Wff6 21.liJe2 .!bf8 22.f4i Black's knight on e5 •

16

h6

•••

It does not seem logical for Black to opt for 16 . . . !1xe1, because in this variation, White is trying to trade the heavy pieces himself. Following 17.!1xe1 !1e8 18.!1xe8

has been ousted from the centre and he will have to defend for long a cramped and passive . Posi­ tion, Jussupow - Zapata, Saint John 1988.

157

Chapter 11 Conclusion We have just completed the analysis of the variation with 6 . . . c5 in the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence. Black has many different possibilities in it, but only the ousting of the enemy bishop from its active position with the move 7 . . . h6 provides him with some chances of obtaining an acceptable game. Still, in this variation White maintains an edge due to the vulnerability of the ene­ my pawn on d6. After the move 7 . . . b5, there arise variations of the Ben­ ko Gambit which are unfavourable for Black. White has already ad­ vanced e2-e4 and contrary to the variations of the Benko Gambit, he will not lose his castling rights after i.a6-fl. Following 7 . . . e6, there arises a standard position with a space ad­ vantage for White, who has a clear-cut plan for further actions. He needs to exchange the major pieces and transfer the game into an end­ game with minor pieces in which he will have excellent winning chanc­ es thanks to his extra space and two powerful bishops. His plan to play for a win is connected with occupying space with his queenside pawns (a4-a5), followed by a preparation of breaks - either with b3-b4, or with g2-g4.

158

Part 3 The Modern Defence l.d4 g6

In the third part of volume 2, we will analyse the move l g6. It has been played even back in the h 19 t century, but in the contem­ porary theory it has been named the Modern Defence and quite de­ servedly so. The point is that at first it did not lead to original po­ sitions and usually transposed to the King's Indian Defence. It was during the 60ies of the past cen­ tury when the move l.. .g6 was played sometimes by M.Botvinnik and a bit later by L.Ljuboevic and they began to use plans connected with pressure against White's centre (the d4-square) with ig7, tLlc6, or if White protects his d4pawn with the move tLlf3, then ig4. Black wishes to exploit the delay of development of his knight on g8, since in that case the diago•••

nal for his dark-squared bishop is opened and if White closes the position in the centre, Black can play f7-f5 immediately and not af­ ter the preliminary retreat of his knight from the f6-square as it happens in the King's Indian De­ fence. In Chapter 13, we will analyse the basic position of this varia­ tion, which arises after l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 d6 4.tLlc3. There, we will pay most attention to Black's three main responses : 4 e5, 4 lLlc6 and 4 lLld7. In Chapter 12 we will deal with the different possibilities for Black to avoid the main lines on moves 2 and 3. I would like to mention that White should not be in a hurry to develop his knight to the f3square, because then Black can transpose to the King's Indian Defence, having avoided the Averbakh system. In the contemporary tourna­ ment practice this move is played by numerous strong grandmas­ ters (indeed, mostly in games with a shorter time-control) : Sh. Mamedyarov, H.Nakamura, P. Svidler, A.Morozevich . . . ••

•••

•••

159

Chapter 12

l.d4 g6 2.c4

A) 2

•••

d6

Black wishes to advance e7-e5 as quickly as possible. It seems bad for him to try to transpose to the Dutch Defence with 2 . . .f5? ! , because of 3.h4 ! --t We will analyse this variation in our volume 3 in the chapters de­ voted to the Dutch Defence. Now, contrary to the move 1 . . . d 6 , Black i s not threatening to ad­ vance e7-e5, so White can make this quite natural move for the closed openings. Now, Black has a choice. His main line 2 .ig7 will be analysed in variation B), but before that we will deal with A) 2 d6. •••

3.e4

White continues to occupy the centre with his pawn s .

3

•••

e5

This interesting move leads to a complicated positional fight. About 3 . . . ig7 4 . tLl c3 - see Chapter 13.

•••

About 2 . . . ltlf6 3.tLlc3 - see parts 1 and 2. 2 ... c6 3.e4 dS 4.e5 ig7 S.ltlc3 - see variation Bl. 2 ... c5 3.d5 .ig7 (3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3 .ig7 S.e4 d6 6.ie2 0-0 7 . .ig5 see Chapter 11) 4.e4 - see varia­ tion B2. 160

3 ... ltlf6 4.ltlc3 .ig7 S . .ie2 - see Chapters 6-11.

(diagram) Now, contrary to the positions which we will analyse in the next chapter (with the inclusion of the moves tLlc3 and .ig7), it is not so good for White to enter an end­ game after the exchange on eS,

l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lb c3

because Black's bishop on f8 can go to more active positions (than on g7) - to cS or b4. Here, he has a choice - to open the position with Al) 4 exd4, or to try a move, which is more typical for similar set-ups A2) •••

4

•••

c!Dd7.

About 4 . . .ig7 S.dxeS - see Chapter 13, variation A. 4 .. .tbc6 S.dS lbce7 (S . . . lbd4 6. ie3 ig7 7.lbge2 - see Chapter 13, variation 82) 6.g4 ig7 7.ie3 see Chapter 13, variation 81.

The routine move 6 . . . ig7? los­ es immediately after 7.e5 Ve7 (7 . . . dxeS 8.'�xd8+ 'it>xd8 9.lbd5 lbbd7 10.0-0-0+- and Black suffers huge material losses) 8.lbd5 dxeS 9.Vh4 lbxdS 10 .he7 lbxe7, Ste­ fansson - C.Hansen, Moscow 1989, ll.id3+- and Black's two minor pieces and a pawn are obvi­ ously insufficient to compensate the missing queen.

7.f4 White has created the threat e4-e5.

7 h6 •••

The inclusion of this move is useful.

8 .th4 •

Al) 4

•••

exd4 5.Vxd4

Black cannot exploit now his opponent's early queen-sortie due to the vulnerability of the a1-h8 diagonal.

s

•••

.!Df6 6 .tgs •

(diagram)

6

•••

c!Dbd7

This move is forced and Black cannot win a tempo attacking White's queen with the move lbc6.

8 . . . .tg7 161

Chapter 12 It is also possible for Black to try 8 . . . c5, in order to get rid of the unpleasant pin. At first, he weak­ ens his pawn-structure and after 9.,�M3, he sacrifices a pawn in the spirit of the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defence. 9 . . . g5. Black will soon regain the sacrificed pawn, but the weaknesses in his position will remain for long. 10 .fxg5 lt:Jg4 (following 10 . . . lt:Je5 11.Wid2 tt:Jh7 12.lt:Jf3 tt:Jxg5, White can simplify advantageously the position with 13.lt:Jxe5 dxe5 14. W!xd8+ 'tt>xd8 15.0-0-0+ 'tt> c7 16. ig3 ig7 17.EM5± and Black loses one of his pawns, Bente - Sulskis, Warsaw 2005) ll.lt:Jf3 tt:Jde5 12. Wld2 ie7 13.0-0-0 ie6 14.lt:Jb5 hxg5 15.�g3 f6 16.b3 tt:Jt7 17.�e2 Wlb6 18.h3 tt:Jge5 19.lt:Jxe5 dxe5, Hort - Hickl, Bad Neuenahr 1991. Now, White must exploit one of the main drawbacks of the move 8 . . . c5 and transfer his knight to the d5-outpost: 20 .lt:Jc3 ! W!a5 21. Wfe3 lt:Jd6 2 2 .�g4 !± - Here, no matter whether Black exchanges on g4, or retreats with his bishop to t7, the vulnerability of the light squares in his camp will be hurt­ ing him. The point is that White's knight can always go to d5, while Black's knight can hardly occupy the d4-square, because White's pawns on c4 and e4 are covering its way towards that key outpost. It would be too slow for Black to try 8 . . . c6? ! , because after 9.00-0 ie7 10.e5 dxe5 ll.fxe5 lt:Jh7, his forces are discoordinated and 162

White can begin decisive actions. 12 .e6 lt:Jdf6, Alburt - D.Gurevich, Newark 1995, 13.\We5 ! This is a good example of centralization ! 13 . . . \Wb6 14.lt:Jf3 0-0 15.ext7+ Ei:xt7 16.�d3 g5 17.�g3± Black's castling position is horribly weak­ ened and White's pieces have oc­ cupied much more active posi­ tions.

9.lilf3 0-0 10.0-0-0

10 Yfe8 ll.e5 dxe5 12.fxe5 c!Llh7 13.i.g3 c!Llg5 14.c!Llxg5 hxg5 15.gel ti'e7 16.h4-+ followed by •••

h4-h5. White develops powerful initi­ ative on the h-fi.le and Black will fail to exploit the vulnerability of the e5-pawn.

A2) 4

•••

c!Lld7

This move, no doubt, leads to much more interesting positions than 4 . . . exd4.

5.d5 White is occupying space. (diagram) After the closing of the centre the fight is focused on the flanks.

5

•••

i.g7

l.d4 g6 2.c4 d6 3.e4 eS 4. lt:l c3

About S . . . lt:lgf6 - see volume 3 - l.d4 lt:lf6 2 .c4 d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7 4.e4 es s.ds g6. There arises an interesting fight, but still in favour of White, after S . . . aS 6.i.d3 hS, Speelman McNab, London 1992 (6 . . . .ig7 7 . .ie3 - see S . . . .ig7 6 . .ie3 aS) 7. .ic2 i.h6 8.lt:lf3 �cl 9.�xc1 lt:lc5 10.0-0t, followed by b3, a3, seiz­ ing the initiative on the queen­ side. About S . . . .ih6 6 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6 7.�d2 - see S . . .i.g7 6 . .ie3 i.h6 7.i.h6 lt:lh6 8.�d2 (Naturally, the number of the moves will be with one more, because White has lost a tempo for i.e3 and Black for .ig7.).

6 .ie3 •

He is planning to castle queen­ side, moreover that White's bish­ op will be very useful in the prep­ aration of c4-cS. (diagram)

6

•••

c!lJe7

After this move, Black pre­ serves the possibility to advance

f7-fS, but his knight will not be so active on e7 as on the f6-square. Following 6 . . . lt:lgf6 7.f3, there arises a position which will be an­ alysed in the next volume, with the move-order - l.d4 c!lJf6 2 .c4 d6 3.lt:lc3 lt:lbd7 4.e4 eS S.dS g6 6. i.e3 i.g7 7.f3 . In this position, the principled plans for Black include the trade of his "bad" dark-squared bishop. 6 . . . hS 7.�d2 .ih6 (7 . . . aS 8.i.d3 lt:lcS 9.i.c2 i.d7 10.lt:lge2 i.h6 11. 0-0 �e3 12 .�xe3 lt:lf6 13.f3 'it>f8 14.b3 'it>g7 1S.a3 lt:la6 16.!i:fb1 �b8 17.b4;!; Kraidman - Suttles, Sko­ pje 1972 . There has arisen a typi­ cal position for this variation in which White's space advantage and the possibilities for active ac­ tions on the queenside are much more important positional factors than the fact that he has a "bad" light-squared bishop, moreover that he can always get rid of it with i.a4.) 8 . .ixh6 lt:lxh6 9 . 0...,. 0 -0 aS 10 .i.d3 lt:lcS 11 . .ic2 .id7 12.f3 'it>f8 13.lt:lge2 'i!lg7 14.'it>bl;!; Olafs­ son - Haik, Thessaloniki 1988. 163

Chapter 12 White's extra space guarantees for him a slight edge. In the mid­ dle game, he can organise active actions on the kingside after h3 (depriving Black's knight of the g4-square) and f4, while follow­ ing the trade of the queens, on the queenside as well with b3, a3 and b4. 6 . . .�h6 7.ixh6 ltJxh6 8.W/d2 ltJg4 (The character of the posi­ tion would not change much after 8 . . . ltJg8 9.�d3 ltJgf6 10.ltJge2:l; and there arises the same position as after 8 . . . ttJg4, except that instead of h3, White had played the more useful move - ltJge2, Bachtiar Ciocaltea, Wijk aan Zee 1974.) 9.h3 ltJgf6 10 .�d3 hS 1l.�c2 h4 12.0-0-0 ltJhS 13.ltJge2:l;. White not only has more space, but leads in development too, so he must strive to open the position as quickly as possible, for example to play g2-g4 and after the exchange on g3 to double his rooks on the f-file, Bykhovsky - Neiman, Tel Aviv 2002. 6 . . . ltJh6. The plan with the transfer of the knight to f7 seems to be too slow for Black. 7.h3 f6 8.W/d2 ltJf7 9.�d3 ltJcS 10.�c2 aS ll.ltJge2 �d7 12.0-0-0 a4. It is possible that he had to refrain from this important pawn-ad­ vance, but even then, White's prospects would have been pref­ erable. 13.�b1 W/b8 14.ltJb5 0-0 15.ltJec3± - He only needs now to choose the right moment to ex164

change on c5 and to win the ene­ my a4-pawn, Sakaev - Chigvint­ sev, Smolensk 2000. Following 6 . . .a5, there arise positions which are more typical for the Saemisch system of the King's Indian Defence and in a very favourable version for White. 7.�d3 ltJcS 8.�c2 ltJf6 9.f3 0-0 10.ltJge2 �d7 11.W/d2 h5 12. 0-0-0 ltJh7 13.�b1 b6 14.g3 fS 15.exf5 gxfS. Now, he must prepare the pawn-break g3-g4 with 16.h3 ! , followed by E!dg1 and g4, after which the position is opened and almost all White's pieces join in the attack against the enemy king (He maintains an edge too follow­ ing 16.f4 ltJf6:l;, but Black has some counterplay due to the vul­ nerability of the e4 and g4squares Spraggett - Lacroix, Montreal 1978.).

7.g4

This is a standard strategical resource for White, which here is justified tactically as well.

7. . . 0-0

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 It does not seem logical for Black to choose 7 . . . lLlf6, because then, he will be able to advance f7-f5 only after the retreat of his knight. 8 . .te2 0-0 (Following 8 . . . h S 9.g5 lLlh7 lO.lLlf3 0 - 0 11.'1Wd2 .td7 12. 0-0-0±, White has obvi­ ously much more space and the pawn-advance f7-f5 and captur­ ing en passant will lead to the weakening of the g6-pawn for Black, Finegold - Calton, East­ pointe 1994.) 9.h4 lLle8, Gruen­ berg - Uhlmann, Leipzig 1973, lO.hS± White has seized com­ pletely the initiative on the king­ side. After the premature operation 7 .. .f5 8.gxf5 gxfS 9.'1Wh5+, Black will have to play 9 . . . mf8 (since af­ ter 9 . . . lLlg6 10.exf5 '!Wh4 ll.'!WgS .tf6 12.'1Wg3±, he will hardly man­ age to regain his sacrificed pawn, Huebner - Mohr, Germany 1990) 10.lLlh3 ! White's knight is headed immediately for the gS-square and from there it will control the super-important e4 and e6squares. 10 . . . lLlf6 ll.'!We2 lLlxe4 12. lLlxe4 fxe4 13.lLlg5;!; Black's extra pawn on e4 is absolutely immate­ rial, because White can regain it the moment he pleases. The placement of Black's monarch however, seems to be precarious, since there are still too many piec­ es left on the board.

9

•••

a5

After 9 . . . c6 10 .h4 cxdS ll.cxdS, in the game Velimirovic - Todor­ cevic, Bjelovar 1979, Black decid­ ed to sacrifice a pawn - 1l.. .b5. White refrained in vain from the move 12 . .txb5;!;, because in that case, Black's compensation would have been insufficient.

10.h4 .!Llc5 ll.'!Wd2 .td7 12 0-0-0 .!Llc8 13.h5-+ followed by •

'!Wh2 and actions on the h-file, La­ hner - Nehybka, Brno 2004. If Black decides at some moment to play f5-f4, then White will simply exchange on cS and follow that with .ih3, achieving the favoura­ ble trade of the light-squared bishops and preserving all the pluses of his position.

B) 2 .tg7 3.e4 •••

(diagram) Now, Black has a great choice of possibilities. His most popular move is 3 d6 and we will. ana­ lyse it in our next chapter. Here, we will deal with: Bl) 3 c6, B2) 3 c5 and B3) 3 .!Llc6. •••

8.£3 f5 9.g5

This move deprives Black's knight of the f6-square.

•••

.••

•••

165

Chapter 12 transfer his bishop to its initial c8-square. ll . . . e5, Petrosian Spassky, Moscow 1966. Here, White had to begin active actions on the queenside with 12.tt:ld2 f5 13.f3 f4 14.i.f2 g5 15.b4 a5 16.a3±, followed by c4-c5. His queenside initiative develops much faster than Black's counterplay on the opposite side of the board.

2.

About 3 . . . tt:Jf6 4.tt:lc3 - see part

I t i s just bad for Black t o play 3 . . . e5, because after 4.dxe5 .ixe5 5.tt:lf3, he must lose a tempo for the retreat of his bishop. 5 . . . .ig7 6.tt:lc3 tt:Je7 7.h4 ! ? h6 8.if4 d6 9.c5 ! t Yurtaev - Dzhumaev, Tashkent 2007. This is an ener­ getic and strong move. Black is faced with difficult problems, since following 9 . . . dxc5 10.�xd8+ 'it>xd8 11.0-0-0+ .id7 12.tt:lb5 tt:J a6 13.tt:le5 ixe5 14 ..ixe5 E!:e8 15 . .if4 h5 16 . .ic4±, White has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn. He has two powerful bishop and Black's pieces are dis­ coordinated. On top of this, his king is endangered, despite the fact that it is an endgame. Black would not equalise if he fianchettoes his second bishop: 3 . . . b6 4.tt:lc3 .ib7 5.tt:lf3 d6 6.i.e2 tt:ld7 7. 0-0 e6 8.i.e3 tt:Je7 9.�c2 h6 10.E!:ad1 0-0 ll.d5 ! This is the point! Now, Black's bishop on b7 will be restricted by White's pawn and the best that Black can do is 166

Bl) 3

•••

c6

Black plays this move only very seldom. He wishes to ad­ vance d7-d5.

4.c!Oc3 d5 About 4 . . . d6 5.i.e2 - see Chap­ ter 13, 4 . . . c6.

5.e5 ! ? I t i s worse for White to play e4-e5 after a preliminary ex­ change on d5, because then Black's knight will gain access to the c6-square. There arises transposition to the Panov attack of the Caro­ Kann Defence following 5.exd5

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 cxd5 6.cxd5 (It would be too risky for White to accept the pawn-sac­ rifice after 6.'Llxd5, since in the variation 6 . . . e6 7.Vf/e2 'Llc6�, he will have problems to protect his pawn on d4 and his queen on e2 would impede the development of his kingside pieces.) 6 . . . 'Llf6.

5

. • •

.!L!h6

Black prepares to castle and to create counterplay against White's centre with the move t7f6. The position is difficult for Black following 5 . . . dxc4 6 . .bc4 'Llh6 7.h3 'Llf5 8.'Llf3 b5 9 . .ib3 h5, Hart - Cardoso, Las Palmas 1975, 10. 0-0± - he can hardly exploit the weakness of White's d4-pawn. The pawn-advance has only led to the weakening of Black's c6-pawn and the c5-square and White's knight can go there along the route 'Llc3-e4-c5. Black cannot equalise with 5 . . . .ie6. After 6.cxd5 hd5 7.'Llge2 'Llh6, the best for White is 8.'Llf4 ! ? (although even after 8.'Llxd5 Vf/xd5 9.'Llc3 Vf/d7 10 . .ic4;t, his two bish­ ops and the more actively devel­ oped pieces compensate with an interest the vulnerability of White's d4-pawn, Olafsson - Car­ doso, Las Palmas 1975) 8 . . . 0-0 9 ..id3 e6 10. 0-0± Black's pieces are cramped and his knight on h6 is misplaced, moreover that the dark squares are very weak in his camp.

6.h3 With this move White pre­ pares the development of his knight on f3 preventing the pos­ sibility .ig4. Black's position is cramped and the exchanges of pieces are in his favour.

6

• . .

0-0 7 .!L!f3 f6 .

This move must be played im­ mediately. It would be too slow for Black to choose 7 . . . i>h8. After 8 . .ie2 dxc4 9.hc4 'Lld7 10.0-0 lt:Jb6 11. �b3 f6 12.�f4 'Lld5 13.lt:Jxd5 cxd5 14.exf6 exf6 15.Vf/d2 lt:Jf5 16J'Uel±, he will have problems with the development of his bishop on c8 and his other bishop is severely restricted by his own pawn on f6, Wojtaszek - Kuzmicz, Warsaw 2008.

8.exf6 exf6 9.�e2

9 .ie6 10.�b3 �d7 11.0-0 dxc4 • . •

This is the best for Black. The exchanges do not equal�se for him completely, but facilitate his de­ fence for sure. 167

Chapter 12 Following ll .. .lt:lf7 12 J�e1 tt:ld6 13.c5 tt:lfS 14.�f4 gS 15.�h2±, White has occupied space on the queenside and Black's kingside activity is much rather in favour of White, because the pawn-ad­ vances have only weakened Black's king shelter, Short Spassky, Zuerich 2001.

which will be analysed in our vol­ ume 3. In the majority of the cases White can transpose to favoura­ ble variations of the King's Indian Defence, for example: 5 . . . d6 6. tt:lc3 tt:lf6 7.�e2 0-0 S.igS.

5.c!lJc3

12 . .ixc4 .ixc4 13.ti'xc4+ 'fi!f7, Pinter - Okhotnik, Hungary 1999, 14.d5 ! ?;t White's pieces are much better prepared for the opening of the centre and the move f7-f6 has not only restricted the mobility of Black's bishop on g7, but has also weakened the shelter of his king.

B2) 3 ... c5

s ... es This is an attempt to keep the position closed. Besides this, Black has a great choice of possibilities. About 5 . . . tt:lf6 6.ie2 0-0 7. igS - see the Averbakh system (Chapter 11).

This move is in the spirit of the Indian Defence. Now, White's main task is to transpose, if pos­ sible, to the Averbakh system of the King's Indian Defence.

4.d5 d6 After 4 . . . b5 S.cxbS, there arise positions from the Benko Gambit (in a very good version for White), 168

Following 5 ... tt:la6, the best for White is to simply transpose to a favourable variation of the King's Indian Defence after 6.ie2 tt:lf6 7.ig5 0-0 8.f4 - see Chapter 9. 5 . . . e6 6.�e2 . Once again White is trying to transpose to the Aver­ bakh system. 6 . . . exd5 7.exd5 tt:le7. After this move, there arise origi­ nal positions (following 7 . . . tt:lf6, White achieves what he wants af-

l.d4 g6 2.c4 i.g7 3.e4 ter 8.ig5 0-0 9.Wfd2 - see Chap­ ter 11, variation D) 8.tt:lf3 ig4 9.0-0 0-0 10.if4 tt:lfS ll.h3 .ixf3 12 . .ixf3 . He has the two-bishop advantage and extra space. Later, in the game Iljushin - Moroze­ vich, Krasnoyarsk 2003, there fol­ lowed: 12 . . . tt:Jd7 13.i.e4 tt:leS 14. i.xfS gxfS 15.b3 a6 16.!k1 tt:lg6 17.id2 f4 18.Wfh5;!; and White maintained a stable advantage thanks to his superior pawn­ structure. It seems a bit dubious for Black to try the move S . . . .ixc3+ . Naturally, the trade o f the bishop for the knight with the idea to compromise White's pawn-struc­ ture is well familiar. But here, contrary to the Nimzowitch De­ fence, the dark squares on Black's kingside have been weakened and this may become a telling factor in the future. 6.bxc3

About 6 . . . tt:lf6 7.id3 WfaS 8. Wfb3 - see 6 . . . Wfa5. 6 . . . e5 7.i.d3 WfaS 8.Wfb3. Now, Black should better refrain from active actions and try to complete his development as quickly as possible. He will preserve then a

slightly inferior, but still defensi­ ble position. His attempt to con­ tinue in an active fashion with 8 . . . fS? ! Duppel - V.Georgiev, Ger­ many 2001, could have led to a very difficult position for him fol­ lowing 9.exf5 ! White has two bishops, so he should strive to open the game. 9 . . .gxf5 10.tt:lh3 tt:Jf6 11.0-0 h6 12 .Wfc2 . Now, Black is forced to play 12 . . . e4, after which White's knight gains access to the wonderful f4-square. 13. .ie2 tt:lbd7 14.tt:lf4 tt:le5 15.tt:lh5! Af­ ter this move Black's monarch will not be able to castle and will remain for long in the centre of the board. 15 . . . tt:Jxh5 16 . .ixh5+ 'k!;>d8 17.i.f4± White's two bishops are powerful force. It is under­ standable that without having completed his development and with a king stranded in the centre, Black should not be greedy to win material. After 17 . . . tt:Jxc4? 18.Wfb3 tt:leS (18 . . . b5 19.a4+-) 19 ..ixe5 dxeS 20 .d6+-, despite the extra pawn, Black's position seems to be completely hopeless. He is in­ capable of parrying White's threats Wff7, or WfdS and WfeS. 6 . . . Wfa5 7.Wfb3 tt:lf6 (It seems too dangerous for Black to opt for 7 . . .f5? ! 8.exf5 .ixfS 9.tt:le2 tt:la6 10. tt:lg3 i.d7 ll.id3 0-0-0 12.0-0 tt:Jc7 13.E:e1 Wfa6 14.E:bl± and his e7-pawn is weak, while White's pieces are very active, Yermolin­ sky - Tate, Chicago 2008.) 8.id3 tt:Jbd7 9.tt:lf3 0-0 10.0-0;!; White has doubled pawns indeed, but his two bishops (particularly the 169

Chapter 12 dark-squared bishop, which has no opponent and is very power­ ful) make us evaluate the position in his favour, Zeller - Kekelidze, Germany 1997.

6.h4!?

This i s a n already familiar idea in the King's Indian Defence. Now, Black must either play hS, which would weaken the gS­ square, or allow h4-h5, but after g6-g5 and g2-g4, he would not be able to advance f7-f5.

7.J.e2 h6 Following 7 . . . h5, White ob­ tains an advantage after 8.�g5 'Llbd7 9.'1Wd2 a6 10.f3 'Llf8. His bishop on e2 and the pawn on f3 deprive his knight on g1 from its usual squares for development. Therefore, White transfers it to f2 , via the h3-square, and from there it can support the kingside pawn-break (g2-g4). ll.'Llh3 'Ll8h7 12 .�e3 �d7 13.'Llf2;!; Dorfman Spielmann, Gonfreville 2006. The threat g2-g4 is very unpleasant for Black. If he decides to advance b7-b5, White should better re­ frain from active actions on the kingside and begin the realisation of his extra pawn.

8.h5 g5 9.g4

6 ... tl:lf6 6 . . . h5 7.'Llf3. White's knight is headed for the gS-square. 7 . . . 'Llf6 8.tt:lg5 'Llh7 9.'Llxh7 Ei:xh7 10.�e2;!; Karpov - Kober, Germany (simul) 2004. Black has managed to get rid of the enemy knight on gS, but has lost plenty of time doing this. White has extra space and after castling queenside will have the possibility to attack on the queen­ side (a2-a3, b2-b4), as well as on the kingside (g2-g3, f2-f4). Black is doomed to a long and passive defence. 170

Now, f7-f5 has become impos­ sible for Black and he will have to defend passively to the end of the game.

9 . . . tl:la6 10.a3 tl:lc7 ll.b4 b6 12.f3 tl:lh7 13.gb1 0-0 14.J.e3 J.d7 15.tl:lh3 ti'c8 16.tl:lf2 ti'a6 17.gb3 gfbs 18.0-0 ti'cs 19.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 'led2 i.f6 20.gfbl i.d8 21.'leb2 ltla6 22.ltld3 ltlf8 23.ltlb5± and

in the game S.Atalik - Schorr, Boston 2001, White succeeded in realising his great advantage.

B3) 3

•••

ltlc6

This is an active move. Black is trying to create immediate coun­ terplay against the enemy d4pawn. Now, White must play very precisely.

4.ltlf3

This move seems more prom­ ising than the retreat of the knight to its initial position. S . . . lt:Jb8. The pawn-advance d4-d5 has forced Black to lose two tempi on moves with his knight. 6.ie2 lt:Jf6 (After 6 . . . e5, the sim­ plest reaction for White would be 7.dxe6 .ixe6 8.0-0 lt:Jc6 9.lt:Jc3 lt:Jf6 10 ..if4 0-0 ll.'lec2 :Be8 12. :Bad1 id7 13.:Bfe1 h6 14.h3t and the extra space guarantees his ad­ vantage, Solozhenkin - Tusa, Helsinki 2002.) 7.lt:Jc3 0-0 8.0-0

This is the rare case when in this variation White must play lt:Jf3 so early in the game. The rea­ son is that Black has not played d7-d6 yet and cannot play .ig4. We will analyse now: B3a) 4 d6 and B3b) 4 e5. •••

•••

B3a) 4

•••

d6 5.d5

Otherwise, Black would have pinned the enemy knight on his next move with .ig4. (diagram)

5

•••

ltle5

Following 8 . . .e5, White main­ tains a stable edge with 9.dxe6 ! ? .ixe6 10.lt:Jd4, for example: . 1 0 . . . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0 . . . .id7 1l . .ie3 . :Be8 12.f3 lt:Jc6 13.'\Wd2 lt:JhS, Rozum - Fedo­ seev, St Petersburg 2010, 14. 171

Chapter 12 ltlc2 ! ?;!;, he avoids the trade of pieces and preserves an opening advantage, because Black's posi­ tion is cramped) ll.i.e3 ltld7, Gleizerov - Rossi, Padova 1999. Here, after the simple move 12. f4 ! ?;!;, White would have seized the initiative. 8 . . . ltlbd7 9.i.e3 ltlcS 10 .�c2 aS ll.!!ad1 ltlg4 12 .i.d4 f6 13.h3 ltleS 14.ltlxe5 fxeS 15.i.e3 i.d7 16.i.g4± Black's bishop on g7 is severely restricted by his own pawn on eS. White has much more space and his minor pieces are more active than their black counterparts, Gritsak - G.Kuzmin, Swidnica 1999. 8 ... i.g4 9.i.e3 ltlbd7 10 .h3 i.x£3 ll.i.xf3 c6 12.�b3 Vfic7 13J%acU White has a slight but stable ad­ vantage thanks to his extra space and two powerful bishops, Jansa - Nikolic, Vrnjacka Banja 1978. Following 8 . . . ltla6 9.i.e3 i.d7 10.!!c1 !!e8 ll.a3 e6, Kiriakov Nisipeanu, Santo Domingo 2003, White can open advantageously the position in the centre with the line : 12.e5 ! ? dxeS 13.ltlxe5 exdS 14.ltlxd7 d4 15.�xd4 ltlxd7 16. �d2;!; - his two bishops are pow­ erful force in this open position. 8 . . . c6 9.h3 ! It is useful to re­ strict with this move the enemy bishop on c8. 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . ltlbd7 10. i.e3 ltle8 ll.!!c1 a6 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.c5 dxcS 14.i.xc5 ltlc7, Yegiazar172

ian - Kalantarian, Yerevan 1995 . White maintains a stable advan­ tage thanks to his superior pawn­ structure. He only needs to play precisely, for example: 15.i.e3 ! ? ltlbS 16.ltla4± and the pawn o n c6 will remain a cause of permanent worries for Black.) 10.i.e3 bS 11. cxbS

Now, it seems rather dubious for him to opt for ll . . . axbS 12. dxc6 b4 (following 12 . . . ltlxc6 13. i.xbS±, Black has no compen­ sation for the sacrificed pawn, Mokriy - Bezgodov, Minsk 2007.) 13.ltld5 ltlxc6 14.i.b6 Vfid7 15. i.bS !± He can hardly get rid of the pin of his knight without material losses. In the game Moranda Bartnicki, Gorzow Wielkopolski 2008, Black reacted rather care­ lessly 15 . . . i.b7? and this enabled White to inflict a tactical strike 16.ltle5 ! ltlxeS 17.ltlxf6+ i.xf6 18. i.xd7+-, Black's compensation for the queen is obviously insuffi­ cient. It is possible that instead of creating counterplay, Black had to continue with the solid move 1l. .. cxb5, but even then after 12. Vfib3;!;, White would have main-

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .ig7 3.e4 tained his space advantage, the possibility to exploit the weakness on c6 ( ltlf3-d4-c6) and to play against the vulnerable enemy bS­ pawn - a2-a4.

6.�xe5 .txe5 Following 6 . . . dxe5, Black's pawn-structure will be compro­ mised. 7.ltlc3 ltlf6 8.ie2 0-0 9. ie3 e6 10.0-0 exdS ll.cxdS. He has got rid of his doubled pawn, but after the opening of the c-file, Black's weak c7-pawn will be at­ tacked by White. 1l.. .ltle8 12.!k1 ltld6 13.Wfd2 id7 14J��c 2 fS 15.f3;t, followed by the doubling of the rooks, Gause} - Kraidman, Gaus­ dal 1994. White has a clear-cut plan for his further actions - this is exerting pressure on the semi­ open c-file.

Or lO . . . eS ll . .igS h6 12 . .ie3 b6 13.1Mfd2 'it>h7 14.b4;!;, followed by c4-c5 and queenside initiative for White, S.lvanov - A.Eliseev, St Petersburg 2013.

ll . .ig5 exd5 12.cxd5 It is also good for White to choose here 12.exd5 ! ?;!; - the pin of the knight is very unpleasant for Black and he can get rid of it only by compromising his king's shelter with h6 and gS.

12 h6 13 .ie3 c6 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Wfd2 'it>h7 16.lUdl Wfe7 17J3acU White has an easy game •••

•

against Black's weak c6 and d6pawns, Gelfand - Svidler, Astana 2012.

B3b) 4 ... e5 7 .id3 .ig7 8.0-0 �f6 9.�c3 0-0 10.h3 •

It is useful for White to take the g4-square under control in or­ der to deprive Black of the possi­ bility to play ltlf6-g4-e5.

10

•••

e6

He does not lose time for the move d6 and advances e7-e5.

5 .ig5! ? •

(diagram) The purpose of this move is to provoke f7-f6, after which Black's pressure against the d4-pawn will be decreased considerably. 173

Chapter 12 13.0-0t Danner - Tabernig, Austria 2001. White has more space (pawns on c4 and e4 against a black pawn on d6) and has com­ pleted the development of his pieces. In addition, due to the placement of his pawn on h6, Black cannot castle kingside with­ out weakening it even further (hS or gS).

5 f6 ...

S . . . .if6. The bishop is mis­ placed here and the best that Black can do is to exchange it for White's bishop on the d4-square. 6.ie3 exd4 7.ltlxd4 ltlxd4 8 . .ixd4 d6 9.ltlc3t Kutzner - Lorenz, Ber­ lin 2012. White has occupied more space and in order to com­ plete his development Black will need to exchange on d4, after which his position will be prospectless. It is possible for him to opt for S . . . ltlge7 6.dxe5 ltlxeS 7.ltlxe5 .ixeS 8.ltlc3 h6. Unfortunately for Black, he cannot continue the game without this move. (It is bad for him to choose 8 . . . c6? ! , since this weakens the d6-square and White's queen is immediately headed there. 9.f4 ig7 10.'1Wd6 h6 ll.if6 h£6 12.\Wx£6 0-0, V.Ge­ orgiev - Appel, Germany 2001, 13.\Wd6± Black's position is cramped and he can hardly com­ plete the development of his queenside pieces.) 9.ie3 d6 10. '!Wd2 ig7 ll.!!d1 ie6 12 .ie2 a6 174

6 .Ae3 d6 •

Black is trying to obtain a com­ plicated position with his last move. It is also possible for him to opt for 6 . . . exd4 7.ltlxd4 d6 (Slow­ ing down the advance of the d­ pawn cannot be good for Black at all, for example: 7 . . . ltlge7 8.ltlc3 0-0 9.c5 ! ? b6 10.h4 ! This is an energetic and strong move White begins an attack. 10 . . . ltlxd4 ll.Wxd4 bxc5 12.\Wxc5 d6 13.\Wc4+ �h8 14.h5± - He has excellent at­ tacking prospects in a position with material equality, Lesiege Cazelais, Montreal 2003.) 8.ltlc3 ltlge7. Now, White can enter a slightly better endgame with a temporary pawn-sacrifice. 9.c5 dxcS 10.ltlxc6 ltlxc6 11.\Wxd8+ ltlxd8 12 .hc5t White has re­ gained his pawn and has the ini­ tiative in this endgame. He can complete quickly the develop­ ment of his pieces with 0-0-0 and .ic4. Black must still prepare castling queenside and solve the problem with his bishop on g7 which is restricted by his own pawn on f6.

l.d4 g6 2.c4 .tg7 3.e4 7 .lL!h6 ••

Black's f6-pawn has deprived his knight of the natural square for development, so he wishes to transfer it to the f7-square. About 7 . . . exd4 8.ti:Jxd4 ti:Jge7 9.c5 - see 6 . . . exd4.

White should better not be in a hurry with his standard queen­ side play 7.d5 ti:Jce7 8.c5, because Black will trade advantageously the dark-squared bishops with 8 . . . .th6 ! 9.'1Wc1 he3 10.\Wxe3 fS 11.cxd6 cxd6 12 .-tbS+ , and can avoid the favourable for White ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops with the move 12 . . . c.!if8. The position is closed and the loss of Black's castling rights is not so important. 13.ti:Jc3 fxe4 14.\Wxe4 ti:Jf6 15.\We3 c.!ig7 16.!!d1 h6 17. 0-0 a6, Gligoric - Keene, Teeside 1972 . The opponents agreed to a draw in this double-edged posi­ tion.

It is bad for Black to opt for 7 . . . fS, since following 8.exf5 ixfS 9.d5 ti:Jce7, White maintains a considerable advantage by ex­ changing at first the light-squared bishops and then transferring his knight to the weakened e6-square. 10 . .td3 ti:Jf6 ll . .txfS ti:JxfS 12.ti:Jg5± Anreiter - Chouraqui, Email 2009. It is not good for Black to continue with 7 . . . .tg4, because af­ ter 8.d5 ti:Jce7 9.c5 .th6, White should not exchange on h6, be­ cause this will only help Black to develop his kingside pieces. It is much stronger for White to choose the energetic line: 10.\Wb3 ! he3 ll.fxe3± and Black will have problems with the protection of his queenside pawns. White is threatening to complete quickly his development: .tbS, 0-0 and depending on circumstances to begin active actions on the c and f-files. It seems purposeful for Black to try 7 . . . .th6. He exchanges fa­ vourably the bishops, . but lags considerably in development. 8.\Wd2 he3 175

Chapter 12

9.1Mlxe3 (It may be interesting for White to opt for 9.fxe3 ! ?;!; Do­ lenc - Malakhatko, Latschach 2012, he ends up voluntarily with doubled pawns, but has good prospects on the f-file and the pawn on e3 covers reliably the dark squares in his camp.) 9 . . . ig4 10.d5 lt:Jce7 (or 10 . . . lt:Jb4, Cram­ ling - Rustemov, Germany 2011 and after 1UkU, Black's knight on b4 will only help White to or­ ganise his queenside offensive: a3, b4, c5 and eventually �a6) 11.lt:Jd2. He is preparing f2-f4. This move is possible, since after the exchange on f4, Black's knight will hardly come to the e5-square.

on the f-file.) 13.ie2 he2 14. lt:Jxe2 �g7, Epishin - Zaichik, New York 1990. Now, White had simply to double his rooks : 15. 0-0 !k8 16.E!:f2 lt:Jh6 17.h3 E!:f8 18.E!:afl±. Black has no counter­ play. He cannot exchange on f4, because this will lead to the pene­ tration of White's knight to the e6-square. He can improve his position combining his kingside actions with the preparation of a breakthrough on the opposite side of the board: a3, b4. 11 . . . id7 12 .ie2 h5, Grigorov Azmaiparashvili, Kallithea 2009 (Black loses a pawn without suffi­ cient compensation following 12 . . .f5 13.f4 lt:lf6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15. exf5 lt:Jxf5 16.1Mlxe5± Banikas - Az­ maiparashvili, Beijing 2008.) 13. 0-0 lt:Jh6 14.f4 lt:Jf7 15.fxe5. This is the point. 15 . . . fxe5. Black cannot capture on e5 with his knight since he loses his f6-pawn. 16.c5±, followed by lt:Jc4 and the doubling of the rooks on the f-file. Black's defence will be very difficult.

8.dxe5! ? This i s a very practical deci­ sion. White is happy with a slight edge, depriving his opponent of any active counterplay on the kingside. (diagram)

8 . . . dxe5 11 . . . c5 12.f4 �f8 (The charac­ ter of the fight remains more or less the same after 12 . . . b6, Lerner - Zilberman, Azov 1991, 13.�d3±, followed by doubling of the rooks 176

8 . . . lt:Jxe5 9.lt:Jxe5 fxe5 10.�e2 �e6 11.c5 ! White is eyeing the weakness of Black's d6-pawn. 11 . . . lt:Jf7 12 .ig4. W e have already

l.d4 g6 2.c4 !g7 3.e4 side pawns with b2-b4 and c4-c5.

9.�xd8+ �xd8 The careless move 9 . . . tt'lxd8 leads to the loss of a pawn for Black after 10.tt'ld5 tt'le6 ll . .bh6± Friberg - Norberg, Sweden 2007.

10.0-0-0+ .id7 ll.h3 mentioned numerous times in this book that the trade of the light-squared bishops in positions of the King's Indian type is almost always in favour of White. 12 . . . .bg4 13.�xg4 0-0, Riegler Mehlhorn, Saarbruecken 2009, 14.0-0t He has remained with a "good" bishop and prospects to attack the vulnerable enemy d6pawn. In addition, after the ex­ change on d6, White's knight will gain permanent access to the wonderful dS-outpost. Following 8 . . . fxe5, Black will have problems creating counter­ play on the f-file. 9.h3 tt'lf7 10.�d2 (It is also possible for White to try here 10.c5, beginning an attack against the enemy d6-pawn.) 10 . . . �e6 1l.�e2 �d7 12.tt'ld5t Korch­ noi Avrukh, Beersheba 1997. Black's knight on f7 and his bish­ op on g7 are very passive. White has much more space and his knight on dS is very powerful in the centre of the board, moreover that he has a clear-cut plan for further actions: 0-0, l'!fd1, l'!ac1 followed by advancing his queen-

It is essential to deprive Black's knight of the g4-square.

ll

• . •

c!LJf7

In the variation ll . . . 'it>c8 12 .c5 �e6 13.tt'ld5 tt'lf7 14.�c4t, followed by the advance of White's queen­ side pawns, he exerts rather un­ pleasant pressure in this end­ game. His centralised knight on d5 is very powerful and Black can hardly connect his rooks, Dziuba - Berger, Deizisau 2009.

12.c5 White frees the c4-square for his bishop.

12 �c8 13 .ic4 c!LJcd8 14. b4 .ie6 15.c!lJd2 c6 16. �c2 .ixc4 •••

•

177

Chapter 12 17.loxc4;!; - his position is much easier to play, Roiz - Hauchard, Biel 2010. Later, White can ad-

vance his a and b-pawns, or pre­ pare the penetration of his rook to d7 and the knight to d6.

Conclusion We have just completed our analysis of Black's attempts to avoid entering the Modern Defence on his moves 2 and 3. White obtains an advantage in all the variations, but his play is not so simple at all. There are many intricacies in these positions and there may arise transposi­ tions to numerous other openings. In general, we have to mention that is is not advantageous for White to develop early his knight to the f3-square, because this will enable Black to exert pressure against the d4-square with the move ig4, or to transpose to the King's Indian Defence, avoiding the Averbakh system. The only exception is the move 3 . . . 'Llc6, because in this variation White plays 4.'Llf3, but after 4 . . . d6, he must advance immediately S.dS, with­ out waiting for Black to pin his knight with the move S . . . ig4.

178

Chapter 13

l.d4 g6 2.c4 ig7 3.e4 d6

About 4 . . . c5 S.dS - see Chap­ ter 12, variation 82.

In this chapter we will analyse this elastic move with which Black preserves many possibilities. There arise various, some even rather unusual positions after it between complicated King's Indi­ an middle games up to various endgames.

4.�c3 After this natural move (White is again not in a hurry to develop his knight to f3.), we will analyse three basic moves for Black: A) 4 . . . e5, B) 4 . . . �c6 and C) 4 . . . �d7, but before that we will deal with some other possibilities for him. After 4 . . . tt'lf6 S.ie2 , there aris­ es the King's Indian Defence.

4 . . .f5. Without the move e7-e5, played beforehand, this pawn-ad­ vance does not seem good for Black. S.exfS i.x£5 6.tt'lf3 (This move is more reliable than the pawn-sacrifice 6 . .id3, although even then, White obtains a better game following 6 . . . .hd4 7.-hfS .hc3+ 8.bxc3 gxfS 9.'\WhS+ '>!b1 ! ?±, White's pros-

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lLJf6 3. lLJ c3 lLJ bd7 4/4 pects are evidently preferable, be­ cause Black's queenside counter­ play (b7-b5-b4), is evidently not so effective as White's actions with g4, fS etc.

10.Wd2 .ixgl lU�xgl Wb6 12.0-0-0 It is also good for him to con­ tinue with 12.lL:la4 ! ? We3+ 13. �xe3 lLJxe3 14.�d3 lL:Jb6 (14 ... b5 15.lL:Jc3 lL:Jb6 16.a3t Dreev - Kvei­ nys, Vienna 1996) 15.lL:Jc5t. The arising position resembles an endgame in the French Defence, except that Black's pawn is on c6 and not on e6. This difference is much rather in favour of White, because now, Black cannot organ­ ise counterplay on the c-file, while White can simply advance his kingside pawns. Black's bishop on c8, just like in the French De­ fence, is not so active as his oppo­ nent's bishop on d3, because it is severely restricted by his own pawns on b7, c6 and dS. When White advances g4 and fS, Black's bishop will have only one remain­ ing d7-square.

12 . . . .!l:\c5

There arises an already famil­ iar endgame with an advantage for White following 12 . . . �e3 13.h3 �xd2+ 14.'t!lxd2 lL:Jh6 15.g4t Black lags in development and it would be too risky for him to win a pawn with the line : 12 . . . lL:Jxh2, because after 13.lL:Jd4 lL:Jg4 (Following 13 ... lL:Jxf1 14.E!dxf1:;; Pa­ lac - Schmidt Schaeffer, Munich 1992, White's initiative compen­ sates his minimal material deficit with an interest. Black lags in de­ velopment, his king is stranded in the centre and castling kingside would be very risky for him, be­ cause in that case White will or­ ganise a powerful attack against the enemy king with the move f5f6.) 14.�e2 lL:JcS 15�£3 hS, Niehaus - Schmidt Schaeffer, Berlin 2006. Here, with the move 16.E!h1 !±, White could have created great problems for his opponent. His initiative is very powerful and Black's extra pawn is absolutely immaterial, moreover that he lags considerably in development.

13 . .!l:\d4 .!l:\e6 14.h3

263

Chapter 18 14 .tbxd4 ••

White has a better endgame after 14 . . . '?9xd4, for example: 15. '?9xd4 lLlxd4 16J'!xd4 lLle3 17.id3. Now, he should not be afraid of 17 . . . c5, because of 18.ib5+ xd8 7.fxe5 lLig4 8.lLif3 lLid7 (Fol­ lowing 8 . . . .ic5 9.h3 lLie3 10 . .id3± Ivanisevic - Markovic, Kraguje­ vac 2012, the g2-pawn is untouch­ able, because if Black captures it, his knight will not run away from the g2-square: 10 . . . lLixg2 + ?? 11. 'it>f1 lLie3+ 12.'it>e2 lLig2 13J:!h2 +­ and he loses his knight. So, Black cannot restore the material bal­ ance and White will play the rest of the game with an extra pawn, despite its being doubled. He has all the chances of realising it.) 9. .if4 .icS 10 .h3 lLie3 ll.'it>d2 lLixfl+ 12.:!!hxf1 h6 13.:!! a dl± Asauskas ­ Jankauskas, Vilnius 2000. White is ahead in development and his rooks are very well placed on the d- and f-files. His e-pawns are iso­ lated and doubled, but we should not forget that one of them is extra. Black cannot facilitate his de­ fence with the move 4 . . . .ig4, be­ cause after S . .ie2 .ixe2 6.\Mfxe2, due to his lag in development he cannot prevent the pawn-advance 266

e4-e5. 6 ... e6 (The situation be­ comes even worse for Black fol­ lowing 6 . . . \Mfb6. He is behind in development anyway, so going after the enemy pawn on d4 is bound to end in a disaster. 7.e5 dxeS 8.fxe5 lLidS 9.lLie4 \Mfxd4 10. lLif3 \M!b4+ 1l.c3 'h1 ig4, White should better reply with the prophylactic move 9 .a3 ! ?, tak­ ing the b4-square under control. Now, Black cannot exchange on f3 and capture with his queen on d4, because after ie3 the queen has no square to retreat to. 9 . . . lt:Jbd7 ( 9 . . . lt:Jfd7 10 .e5 c S 11.lt:Jd5

l.d4 d6 2.e4 lbf6 3. lb c3 c6 4/4 '!Wd8 12.exd6 exd6 13.lbe3 .b:f3 14.'1Wxf3 lbc6 15.dxc5 dxcS 16.ic4 �h8 17.c3;!; White has the two­ bishop advantage, Filipenko Gavrikov, Severodonetsk 1982. You have to pay attention to his last move - 17.c3, after which Black's knight on c6 and his bish­ op on g7 are severely restricted in their movements.) 10.h3 .b:f3 11.'?;Vxf3 eS 12.dxe5 dxeS 13.f5 '?;Vc7 14.g4--+ A.Muzychuk - Vardi, Eilat 2012, White has a very powerful attack on the kingside and can play gS, followed by f6 at an op­ portune moment, sending Black's bishop into exile on the h8square. So, White will have prac­ tically an extra piece.

8.h3 hf3 9.'?;Vxf3

d4-pawn. White has more space, a powerful pawn-centre and two strong bishops, Pourkashiyan Hemmatizadeh, Teheran 2008.

10.lbe2 ctlfd7 Black increases the pressure against the d4-pawn. Besides his last move, he can attack the d4-square with his c- or e-pawns, for example : 10 . . . e5 ll.c3 lbbd7 12 .�hU and it is not clear how Black can increase his pressure against the centre, Janik - Kaminski, Pszczyna 2007. Or 10 ... c5 ll.eS ! ? (after ll.c3 cxd4 12.cxd4 lbc6fZ Black can cre­ ate good counterplay against White's pawn-centre, Cabrilo Titov, Vrnjacka Banja 1992) 11 . . . lbfd7 12 .ie3 - see 10 . . . lbfd7.

ll.ie3

Now, he has at least the two­ bishop advantage.

9 ... ti'b6 ll It would be too slow for Black to play 9 . . . lbbd7, since after lO .eS lOeB ll.ie3±, Black fails to organ­ ise counterplay against the enemy

•••

c5

It is understandable that it is not good for Black to capture on b2, since following 12 J:iab1, White not only regains his pawn, but ac275

Chapter 19 tivates noticeably his rook. The a2-pawn is untouchable - 12 . . . �xa2? 13J''!: a 1 �e6 14.f5+-

12.e5! This is the right move ! It is es­ sential for White to neutralise the pressure of Black's fianchettoed bishop.

12 ... ttlc6 Following 12 . . . cxd4 13.ttlxd4 lDcS 14.ttlb3 ttlbd7 15.c3 �c7 16. lDxcS ttlxcS 17.exd6 �xd6 18 . .ic2 E:ac8 19.f5 �a6 20.E:f2 , White's two bishops are powerful force in this open position. In order to parry his initiative, Black, in the game Barnsley - Grafen, Email 2008, decided to sacrifice a pawn, but after 20 . . . ttld3 21..ixd3 �xd3 22 . .ixa7 �xf3 23.E:xf3 E:fd8 24. .ie3±, White succeeded in realis­ ing his material advantage in the endgame.

Skulener, Moscow 1981, 14.c3 ! The best defence for Black is 14 . . . �xb2, after which there arises al­ most by force a slightly better endgame for White. 15.-ixcS dxcS 16.E:fb1 �d2 17.E:d1 �b2 18.E:ab1 �xa2 19.E:xb7 E:ac8 20 . .ie4 �a4 21.E:dd7 e6 22 . .ixc6 �xc6 23. �xc6 E:xc6 24.E:xa7 gS 25.g3;!; His rooks have been doubled on the penultimate rank, but there is just a few material left on the board, so Black has some chances for a draw.

13 ... cxd4 14.ttlxd4!? White must capture with the knight, because in the variation 14.cxd4 dxeS 15.fxe5, Black can already capture the pawn 15 . . . �xb2+!. There arises a very com­ plicated position. He has an extra pawn and can even sacrifice his knight on eS obtaining three pawns for it and very actively de­ ployed pieces.

13.c3 ! ? 14 . . . ttlxd4 H e maintains a slight edge fol­ lowing 13.dxc5 ttlxcS, Vitolinsh 276

Naturally, it is bad for Black to

l.d4 d6 2.e4 liJf6 3. liJ c3 c6 4.f4 opt for 14 . . .'�xb2? 15.liJb5+- and his queen is doomed on the b2square. There arise interesting com­ plications following 14 . . . dxe5 15. liJe6 W/xb2 (15 ... liJd4 16.cxd4 e4 17 . .he4 W/xe6 18 .f5 ! \Wb6 19.E:adl E:ab8 20.�c2 ! E:bd8 21.�b3tWhite has managed to transfer his bish­ op to a very powerful position and from there it exerts pressure against the f7-square, while the weakness of the isolated pawn on d4 is not felt at all.) 16.liJxf8 E:xf8 17.E:abU and due to the open character of the position, White's rook is more powerful than Black's minor piece and his two pawns.

ble his opponent's pawns after the exchange on c3 .

Still, White can play

5.e5!? His main task i s t o seize the initiative as quickly as possible. It is also possible for White to choose 5.id3 e5 6.liJf3;!;

15.cxd4 W/xb2 16.gfbl �c3 17 .!e4 liJb6 18.hb7 gabS 19. gel •

It deserves attention for White to try 19.if2 ! ? W/xf3 20 . .hf3;!; and thanks to his two powerful bish­ ops in the endgame his prospects are preferable.

19 ... �b2 20 .!£2;!; - Now, his two bishops are obviously strong­ er than Black's bishop and knight, moreover that White's e5-pawn restricts considerably Black's bishop. •

E) 4 ... �a5 This is Black's most popular move in this position. Now, after 5.e5 , he can play 5 . . . liJe4 and dou-

5 . . . liJe4 This is Black's most natural and strongest move. His knight not only attacks on c3, but also takes the d2-square under con­ trol, impeding the development of White's bishop. The inclusion of the moves 5 . . . dxe5 6.fxe5 i s i n favour o f White 277

Chapter 19 6 . . . tt:\e4 (6 . . . tt:\d5 7 . .id2 .if5 8 . .ic4 \1;'/d8 9.\1;'/f3 e6 10. 0-0-0;!; Cicak ­ Dinh Due Trong, Turin 2006. The exchange of the f-pawn for the central d-pawn was obviously ad­ vantageous for White. Meanwhile he is ahead of Black in develop­ ment and can begin a pawn-offen­ sive on the kingside (g4, h4).) 7. tt:\f3 .ig4 8 . .ie2 tt:\xc3 9.\1;'/d2 tt:\d7 10.bxc3 e6 11.0-0t Black lags in development and will have to ex­ change sooner or later on f3, after which White's two-bishop advan­ tage and his active possibilities on the semi-open f-file (eventual­ ly on the b-file as well), compen­ sate with an interest the compro­ mised pawn-structure on his queenside. 5 . . . tt:\d5. This move does not seem logical, because after 6 . .id2, White gets rid of the pin.

lowing 9 . . . Wxf4 10. 0-0� - White has completed his development, while only Black's queen is in ac­ tion, so his position seems to be beyond salvation.). 10.0-0 Wxc2 11.We1� and despite the loss of a pawn, White's prospects are obvi­ ously preferable due to his great lead in development, Goldin Young, Minneapolis 2005. He should not be afraid of the double-attack - 6 . . . Wb6, since it will be suicidal for Black to cap­ ture on b2 being so much behind in development. 7.tt:lf3 .ig4 (7 . . . \1;lfxb2?? 8.tt:\xd5 cxd5 9.E!:b1 Wa3, Izeta Txabarri - Rausis, Bordeaux 1990, 10.E!:b3 \1;lfxa2 11.Wc1+- and Black's queen gets trapped) 8. exd6 tt:\xc3 9 . .ixc3 e6 10.h3 .ixf3 11.Wxf3 .ixd6 12 .f5t White is fol­ lowing the classical principle "You should strive to open the po­ sition if you have the two-bishop advantage.", Liberzon - Hodg­ son, Palma de Mallorca 1989.

6.J.d3 White must get rid of his op­ ponent's centralised knight as soon as possible.

About 6 . . .dxe5 7.fxe5 - see 5 . . . dxe5. 6 . . . tt:\xc3 7 . .ixc3 Wd5 8.tt:lf3 We4+ 9 . .ie2 .if5. Running after the c-pawn seems very risky for Black's pieces. He lags considera­ bly in development (The situation would be even worse for Black fol278

l.d4 d6 2.e4 tiJf6 3. tiJ c3 c6 4.f4 6 .tbxc3 • .

The alternatives are clearly worse for Black.

White will regain his knight on the next move.

6 .. .f5 7.exf6 4Jxf6 (following 7 . . . 4Jxc3, White has at his dispos­ al a powerful intermediate move - 8.f7+ ! '.t>xf7 9.�d2;t - and Black loses his castling rights) 8.id2 tiJa6 9.a3;!; The e6 and f7-squares are terribly weak in Black's camp, Szieberth - Francsics, Budapest 1996. 6 ... d5 7.ixe4 dxe4 8.id2 �b6 9.4Jge2 . Now, he must defend very precisely in order to save his e4-pawn. 9 . . . if5 (In the game Glek - Scekic, Rethymnon 2003, Black solved radically the prob­ lem with his e4-pawn - he simply sacrificed it: 9 .. .f5 10.exf6 exf6 ll.tiJxe4;t, but it was understand­ able that his compensation was insufficient.) 10.tiJg3 e6 ll.ic1 ! ? After this paradoxical retreat of the bishop both White's pawns (b2 and d4) are protected. There may follow this exemplary varia­ tion: ll . . . ib4 12.0-0 hc3 13. bxc3 tiJd7 14.�e1 0-0 15.4Jxe4 c5 16.4Jd6 cxd4 17.cxd4 �xd4+ 18. ie3 �a4 19.c4 b6 20.:B:d1 ig6 21. �e2 and then 22 .g4t and al­ though Black has preserved the material balance, but this is just a small consolation for him, be­ cause White's pawn-offensive, with the support of the knight on d6, seems very dangerous.

Black must make up his mind now about his future plans and his main replies are El) 7. . . d5 and E2) 7 c5. •••

Following 7 . . . dxe5, White maintains a slight edge after 8. fxe5 cS (8 . . .g6 9.4Jf3 ifS 10.�xc3 �xc3+ ll.bxc3 ixd3 12.cxd3 ig7 13.0-0 tiJa6 14.a4 b6 15. ia3;!; Black's bishop is restricted by the pawn on eS, while White's bishop exerts powerful pressure on the a3-f8 diagonal.) 9.bxc3 tiJc6 10. tiJf3 cxd4 ll.cxd4 �xd2+ 12 .ixd2 e6 13.0-0;!; - He is much better developed and Black will hardly parry the threat of the break­ through in the centre: c2-c4 and d4-d5, Ahmad - Amjad, Bagdad 2010. After 7 . . .g6, White's best reac­ tion would be 8.4Jf3 ! (following 8.bxc3 dxeS 9.fxe5, Black can pro­ voke complications with 9 . . . ih6 10.�xh6 �xc3+ n.'.t>e2 �xa 1 12. tiJf3� and it is possible that White is better even then, but playing 279

Chapter 19 this position over the board would be too complicated, Finkel - Ora­ tovsky, Israel 1994) 8 . . . ig7 (8 . . . ih6 9.0-0 dxeS 10.lLlxe5 lL\d7 ll.lLlc4 Wic7 12.Wixc3 lLlf6 13.Wie1 lLldS 14.£5 i.g7 15.c3;!; White has succeeded in advancing the the­ matic move f4-f5 and seized the initiative, so Black must defend passively in a slightly worse posi­ tion.) 9.0-0 0-0 10 .bxc3 (It is also good for White to transfer into an endgame with 10.Wixc3 ! ? Wixc3 11.bxc3 lLla6 12 .i.a3;!; and his bishop exerts powerful pressure against Black's position.) 10 . . . lL\a6 ll.Wie1 cS 12 .id2 Wia4 13.Wih4;!; Novak - Dziadykiewcz, Trinec 1998. Now, White's queen has oc­ cupied the standard attacking placement for this variation. He is threatening f4-f5, ih6 followed by lLlgS with a crushing attack. After 7 . . . e6 8.bxc3 cS (there arises transposition of moves with 8 . . . d5 9.lLlf3 cS) 9.lLlf3, Black should better take the e4-square under control by playing 9 . . . d5 (in the variation 9 . . . dxe5 10.dxe5 ! ? lL\c6 ll.lLlgSt, White's knight is headed for the e4-outpost and his initiative becomes very danger­ ous).

10.c4. This transfer into an endgame is typical for this line and we will encounter it numer­ ous times. 10 . . . Wixd2+ ll.i.xd2 dxc4 12 .i.xc4 a6 13.c3 ! ? (This move is more precise than 13.a4 cxd4 14.lL\xd4= and White has no chances of obtaining an advan­ tage in the endgame in view of the vulnerability of his a and c­ pawns., AI Sayed - Akobian, Gi­ braltar 2009.) 13 . . . lLlc6 14. 0-0 bS 1S.id3 ib7 16.a4;!; - He is better developed and can exerts pres­ sure against Black's position on the queenside, as well as on the kingside with f4-f5.

El) 7 d5 8.lLle2 Now, White can capture on c3 with his knight is some variations. •••

8 ... e6 Black cannot equalise with 8 . . . cS. One of the defects o f this move is that White can capture on c3 with his knight, avoiding the dis­ rupting of his pawn-structure. 9. lL\xc3 e6. The arising position re280

l.d4 d6 2.e4 ltJf6 3. ltJ c3 c6 4.f4 sembles the French Defence. 10. dxc5 (10.ltJbS ! ?;t;) 10 . . . �xc5 (10 ... .ixcS? ! ll.ttJbS �b6 12 .b4 �e7 13. �b2 ttJc6 14.a3 aS 1S.lLld6+ hd6 16.exd6 f6 17.b5 ttJd8 18.�d4 �xd6 19.�e3 ttJf7 2 0 . 0-0 �d7 21. �cS �c7, Ivakhinova - Petrova, Taganrog 2011 and here, White overlooked the possibility 2 2 . c4 !±, after which the position would have been opened in his fa­ vour.) ll.a3 �d7 12 .b4 �b6 13.�b2 ttJc6 14.ltJa4 �c7 15.0-0;!; Nepom­ niachtchi - A.Ivanov, Dagomys 2010. Black cannot find a safe shelter for his king, because if he castles queenside, White will open the c-file with the move c2c4, while if Black castles kingside, White will organise a crushing at­ tack after f4-f5.

9.bxc3

The arising position is of a "French" type, except that White has doubled pawns on the c-file.

9

•••

c5

9 . . . �a4. This is not the best move for Black. 10.0-0 g6, Nem-

cova - Michna, Dresden 2007. Here, White could have obtained a great advantage with the line: ll.c4 ! dxc4 12.lLlc3± Black's extra pawn is of no importance. White's knight will go via e4 to d6 or f6 and his attack will be crushing. After 9 . . .ie7, White can try a very promising pawn-sacrifice 10.f5 ! ? (It is also possible for him to choose the more prudent line: 10.c4 �xd2+ ll . .ixd2;!;, maintain­ ing a slight edge in the endgame.) 10 . . . exf5 11.0-0 g6 12 .�h6 �f8 13. �h4 �e7 14.�g5 hgS 15.�xg5� ­ After the exchange of the bishops, White has an excellent play on the dark squares and Black's extra pawn is absolutely immaterial.

10.c4 Now, there arises an endgame.

10 ... �xd2+ ll . .txd2 12. cxd5 exd5 13.c3;!;

ttJc6

White has a cleat-cut plan in this endgame, connected with the preparation of the pawn-advance f4-f5. Later, in the game Sutovsky - Altounian, ICC 2002, there fol­ lowed 13 .tg4 14J'�bl 0-0-0 •••

281

Chapter 19 15 .le3. Black made a mistake here 15 cxd4 (He had better follow with 15 . . . c4 16 . .ic2;!;, main­ taining a slightly worse but still defensible position.) 16.tLlxd4± and it turned out that White's pieces are much better prepared than their counterparts for the opening of the position in the cen­ tre. •

•••

the weak pawn on d6. 12 ... exd6 13.tLlf3 .ie7 14.0-0 t2Ja6 (Follow­ ing 14 . . . 0-0 15 . .lb4 ! , Black will have great problems with the pro­ tection of his d6-pawn. 15 . . . t2Ja6 16.ixa6 bxa6 17.!Uel±) 15.:Bael;!; In the endgame Black will hardly complete his development due to the pin along the e-file.

9.tLlf3 c4 E2) 7 c5 8.bxc3 •••

8

•••

d5

8 . . . cxd4 9.cxd4 �xd2+ 10. ixd2. In the endgame White's prospects are preferable, since his pawns on d4 and eS cramp con­ siderably Black's pieces. 10 . . . tLlc6 (10 . . . dxe5 ll.fxeS tLlc6 12 .c3 f6 13.tLlf3 ig4 14.0-0 0-0-0, Man­ ik - Rumpl, Austria 2003, White had to take care here of the safety of his eS-pawn with the move 15. .lf4 ! preserving the advantage.) ll.dS tLlb8, Balogh - Beim, Aus­ tria 2005, 12.exd6 ! He parts with his pawn-centre, but obtains good prospects on the e-file and against 282

He blocks the queenside, be­ cause it will be more difficult for White to exploit his lead in devel­ opment in a closed position. It seems too risky for Black to choose 9 . . . ig4, since White can open advantageously the position with the line : 10.c4 ! , for example: 10 . . . �xd2 + ll.tLlxd2 dxc4 12 . .ie4 t2Jc6 13.d5 t2Jd4 (The retreat of Black's knight to the edge of the board is clearly worse. 13 . . . t2Ja5 14 . .ib2 bS 15.a3 0-0-0 16 . .ic3 t2Jb7 17.h3 .id7 18.:Bb1 .ie8 19.0-0 hS 20.tLlf3 aS 21.f5 b4 2 2 .axb4 cxb4 23 . .id4