chess

The Easiest Sicilian A Black Repertoire with 1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 GM Atanas Kolev GM Trajko Nedev

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Current Theory and Practice Series The Easiest Sicilian

Translation and editing by Semko Semkov Cover design by Kaloj an Nachev Copyright© 20 0 8 by Atanas Kolev and Trajko Nedev

Printed in Bulgaria ISBN: 978-954 8782 66-1

Contents 1 e4 c5 2 �t'3 �c6

Foreword by Atanas Kolev

s

Part 1

The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS

8

Part 2

The Positional Variation 3 d4 cxd4 4 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jc3 eS 6 lt:JdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 lt:Ja 3 bS 9 lt:JdS �e7

44

Part 3

10 �xf6 �xf6 11 c3 0 -0

64

Part 4

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

Part S

Alternatives to the Main Line after 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS fS

llS

Part 6

9 hf6 gxf6 10 lt:Jd S fS 11 exfS MS

129

Part ?

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

140

Part 8

12 0-0

160

Part 9

6 lt:JdbS d6 7 lt:Jd S

178

Part 10 Unusual Seventh Moves 6 lt:JdbS d6

193

Part 11 Unusual Sixth Moves

20 1

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

216

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

223

Bibliography Books Opening for White According to Anand, vol. 10 by Alexander Khalifman, Chess Stars 2007 The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005 The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005 The Sicilian Defence. The 5 . . . es System (in Russian) by Sveshnikov, Fizkultura i Sport 1988 The B bS Sicilian by Richard Palliser, Eve ryman Chess 2005 Periodicals Informator New in Chess Chess Today Internet resources Databases The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com) 10 Days (Chessmix.com) Inte rnet Chess Club (chessclub.com) ChessPublishing.com forum Chesspro . ru

4

Foreword

About the Title

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

The book was already finished, but I still had doubts how to entitle it. At first I thought about "The Most Controversial Sicilian. " It seemed a proper name for a repertoire, based on the Sveshnikov. Indeed, for only 30 years, this brainchild of sever­ al players from Chelyabinsk has passed through the phases of total denial, angry attempts of refuting this defiance to the classical laws of positional chess, suspicious accept­ ance, to be finally adopted by most leading grandmasters as Kasparov, Topalov, Kramnik, Leko, Khalif­ man, to name a few. Then a series of internet blitz games struck me with another char­ acteristic feature of the modern Sveshnikov. I realised how easy it was to include it in one's repertoire? Most of my games reached in seconds the position on the follow­ ing diagram. 1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 tlJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tlJxd4 tlJf6 S tlJc3 eS 6 tlJdbS d6 7 i.gS a6 8 tlJa3 bS 9 tlJdS i.e7 10 hf6 hf6

!!xa4 as lS i.c4 !!b8 16 b3 xc2 V!JxeS+. 9 . . . h5 ! ? The thematic break 9 . . .f6 1 0 es c4 11 dxc4 i s not so clear, be­ cause White controls firmly eS , e.g. 11 ... V!ib6 12 �bl ! oo The text is more consistent.

.

1 0 g5 Alternatively: 10 llJh4 �h7 11

19

Part 1 gxhS (or 11 �d2 eS 12 �gS �e7 13 J,xe7 �xe7 14 l!JfS hfS lS gxfS 0-0-0 16 0-0-0 gS=) 11 . . . eS 12 �g3 �b6 13 �d2 �g8 recapturing the h­ pa wn. 1 o .. h4! 1 1 Y«e2 i.h5 This is a fine setup for Black. .

84. 7 i.f4 c4 !

We see here a typical method of puting pressure on White's centre. This approach to solving the open­ ing problems has been introduced in the rapid game Grischuk-Kolev, M ainz 20 0S. The idea is to attack the enemy pawn-centre with our long-range pieces rather than re­ stricting its mobility by clamping on d4. 8 ti) c3 Following 8 0-0 Black could choose 8 . . . cxd3 as in the main line , or the more risky 8 . . . e6 9 l!Jc3 �b6 . I (A. K.) have reached i n m y analysis a lot of funy positions after 10 E:bl E:d8 11 d4 �b4 12 g4 �g6 13 Wffe 2 �as 14 �gs hS ! ? , for example lS es hxg4 16 hxg4 l!JdS 17 �d8 Wxd8 18 l!JxdS �xdS 19 Wg2 fS 20 exf6 gxf6 2 1 E:hl E:g8co. In short, we coun20

terattack all over the board , trying to unleash the power of our light­ sq uared bishop. 8 . . . cxd3 A solid move which offers Black good chances. Besides , we could speed up play with 8 . . . Wffb 6? ! , but we are undeveloped for such ac­ tions. White could sacrifice the b 2pawn, as 9 0-0 Wffxb2? (9 . . . e6 i s bet­ ter) 10 �d2 hf3 11 E:abl Wff a 3 12 E:xb7! would be disastrous for him, and even 9 E:bl E:d8 10 d4 e6 11 g4 �g6 12 Wffe2 �b4 13 0-0 �as 14 �gs looks good enough . 9 cxd 3 ti) d7 The move order is not too im­ portant. Degraeve-Zhao Jun, Paris 2006 saw 9 . . . e6 10 0-0 �e7 11 Wff e2 when 1 1. . . 0-0 12 E:adl l!Jd7 would have transposed to our main line . 1 O d4 e6 1 1 Y«e2 i.e7 11. . . �f6 is risky. Such a devel­ opment of the queen is typical for some lines of the QGA , but here the knight is too passive on d7. White should fallow with 12 �e3 hf3 13 gxf3 �b4 14 E:gl h6 lS eS ! �fS 16 E:xg7 l!JxeS 17 dxeS WffxeS 18 E:g4 J,xc3 + 19 Wfl �as when 20 �d4 �xe2 + 21 Wxe2 E:f8 22 �cs E:h8 is equal, but 20 E:dl ! ? poses concrete problems. 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 �ad 1 �e8 1 4 Y«e3 'Mias 1 5 �fe 1 Both sides completed develop­ ment so it is time to strike a balance . Superficially, White's pawn centre should ensure him an edge. O n the other hand , Black has no weakness­ es , and all his pieces are well placed. The queen has a fine retreat to a6 ,

1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs the knight could head for c4 via b6 . White's problem i s that his only ac­ tive plan is linked with a kingside pawn storm, but it could easily turn against him.

hf3 20 gxf3 �b4oo) 18 l2Jxa4 V9xa4 19 b3 V9aS. 1 7 . . . .ig6 1 8 �es .if6 1 9 b3 c 5=. (19 . . . �e7 ! ? f!)

C. 4 e5 � d5

Now I had lS .. . �a6 ! ? (control­ ling c4) 16 a3 l2Jb6 17 g4 �g6 18 ltJeS (18 h4? l2Jc4 19 V9e2 fS) 18 . . . l2Jc4=, but the move I have played i s not bad either. 1 5 . . . �ac8 1 6 .ih2 Basically, White i s waiting. Anal­ ysis shows that he has no advan­ tage, for instance : 16 a3 l2Jb6 (or 16 . . . V9a6 17 g4 �g6 18 h4 hS 19 gS l2Jb6 2 0 ltJeS l2Jc4 2 1 V9h3 ltJxeS 2 2 �xeS V9c4) 1 7 g4 �g6 18 ltJe S V9a6 19 V9g3 l2Jc4 20 h4 ltJxeS 21 hes f6 22 hS �f7 23 �c7 V9c4 ; 16 V9d3 f6. 1 6...�b6! This simple move would have completely levelled the game. In­ stead I preferred 16 . . . h6? ! 17 a3 �g6 (17. . . l2Jb6 ! ? 18 g4 � g6 19 ltJeS �h7oo) 18 V9e2 �hS 19 V9d3 with a small edge for White in Grischuk­ Kolev, M ainz 200S. 1 7 g4 Or: 17 b3 �b4 18 �d3 cS ! + ; 17 �d3 l2J a4 (17 ... cs 18 dS c4 19 �d2

Pushing e4-eS is commonly good if it repels the knight to a passive position. In the current situation it arrives at a central square, when further advancing by S c4 fails to S . . . l2Jc7. Now White has to decide where to develop the queen's knight so he chooses, without success : Cl: S l2Jc3 C2 : S 0-0 C 1 . 5 � c3 �c7 6 �xc 6 dxc6 7 h3 �f5 ! ? This development fits best into our repertoire. The standard setup is to fianchetto the bishop with 7 . . . g6, e.g. 8 d 3 �g7 9 �e3 b6 10 �d2 h6! White would happily trade his bishop so we should not oblige him. 11 0-0 �e6 12 �fdl (or 12 l2Je2? �dS ! 13 d4 .ixf3 14 gxf3 cxd4 lS V9xd4 V9xd4 16 hd4 cS 17 �c3 ltJ dS+

21

Part 1 Nanu-Andonov , Belgarde 20 04) 12 .. . �d7= preparing ltJdS with a good position.

8 0-0 We answer 8 d3 with 8 . . . h6 ! in order to deprive the opponent of 8 . . . e 6 9 .igS ! .ie7 1 0 he7 V!ixe7 1 1 Wid2 0-0 12 0-0-0 + . Typically for this line , White's dark-squared bishop is less useful, than ours. 9 Wie2 l2Je 6 ! Black has less space for manoeu­ vering, therefore it is important to exchange his last short-range piece through d4. 9 . . . e6 10 ltJe4 ltJbS does not fulfil that aim due to 11 c3 + . 10 l2Je4 l2Jd4 11 l2Jxd4 Wixd4 12 l2Jg 3 .ie6 13 0-0 c4 ! 14 dxc4 Wixc4 1S Wixc4 hc4 with a better endgame for Black in Yu Shaoteng-Zhao Jun, Wuxi 200 6 . (16 E!dl g6+) 8...e 6 9 d3 .ie7 10 Y«e2 lll b 5 ! �

C 2: 5 0-0 � c7 6 .ixc6 dxc6 7 h3

7 d 3 i s seldom seen, probably because the pin 7 . . . .ig4 is quite an­ noying: 8 h3 .ihS (We had already learnt fram line B to keep the bi22

shop ! ) 9 l2Jc3 l2Je6 10 .ie3 l2Jd4. Now 11 g4 removes the pin, but badly compromises the king's position, 11. . . .ig6 12 hd4 cxd4 13 l2Je2 hS+t.

7 . ...if5 ! ? 7 . . . g 6 i s also good enough : 8 d3 .ig7 9 .ie3 (9 l2Jc3 b6 10 l2Je4 0-0 1 1 .id2 fS ! 12 exf6 exf6 13 Wicl gS 14 l2Jh2 ifs+ was fine for Black in game 3 De la Paz-Handke, Ha­ vana 20 03) 9 . . . b6 10 Wicl h 6 !

The idea i s not only to preserve the bishop from exchange, but also to attack the enemy king with gS­ g4. In that scheme we castle long , if at all ! We offer our analysis of that novelty: 11 a4 aS 12 E!dl (12 l2Ja3 ltJdS 13 l2Jc4 gS ! ?+t; 12 d4? ! cxd4 13 l2Jxd4 cS 14 l2Jf3 .ib7 lS E!dl Wic8+) 12 . . . ltJdS 13 .id2 (13 c4 l2Jxe3 14 Wixe3 0-0 lS

1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS l2Jc3 Wic7 16 d4 cxd4 17 �xd4 �e6 18 �adl �ad8=) 13 ... gS ! ? 14 c4 g4 lS hxg4 l2Jc7 (lS . . .hg4 16 cxdS hf3 17 gxf3 �xdS is interesting, but not quite sound .) 16 �c3 hg4 17 Wie3 (17 �f4 hS 18 Wie4 Wid7 19 d4 0-0-0) 17 . . . l2Je6 18 l2Jbd2 �d7f!. 8 d3 8 l2Jh4? ! �e6 9 f4 runs into 9 . . . gS ! whereas 9 d 3 g6 underlines the clumsy position of White's knight, which has deprived of support the es-outpost. 8 . . h 6 ! 9 li:) bd 2 9 l2Jc3 e 6 10 Wie2 ltJbS ! transpos­ es to Cl. S l2Jc3. 9 e 6 1 O YMe2 li:) b S ! .

•••

Commonly, i n the Rossolimo Black's knight heads for d4 via e6, but it has another route, too ! 1 1 li:) e4 li:) d4 1 2 li:)xd4 YMxd4 1 3 li:) g 3 .ig6 14 h 2 h 5 ! See for more details game 2 Movsesian-Chuchelov , Bundes­ liga 2 0 0S, where Black had the in­ itiative.

D. 4 Y«e2 g6 This is the most challenging ap-

proach. Black does not hinder eS, on the contrary, he is provoking it.

01 . S eS 0 2 . s 0-0 S c3 transposes to 0 2, while S l2Jc3 �g7 6 eS l2Jg4 is covered in line E. 0 1 . s e s li:) d S 6 o-o Occasionally, White attempts to grab a pawn by6 �c4, but H ausrath's move 6 . . . l2Jcb4 ! is quite awkward : a) 7 Wib3 a6 8 �c4 e6 9 a3 (9 a4 d6 10 0-0 dxeS 11 ltJxeS �g7+ Orabke­ Hausrath, Bundesliga 2 0 04) 10 . . . bxc4 11 dxc4 �g7 12 axb4 l2Jxb4= ; b ) 7 a3 a 6 8 �a4 b S 9 �e4 bxa4 10 axb4 l2Jxb4 11 0-0 , Jens-H ausrath, Belgium 2003, when best is 11 . . . dS ! ? 1 2 exd6 �fS 13 �es f6 14 �xcS Wixd6 lS Wixd6 exd6+. 6 l2Jc3 seems already late. Apart from 6 . . . l2Jf4 7 �e4 l2Je6 8 �c4 �g7 9 he6 dxe6 10 0-0 0-0 11 �el ltJd 4= Aronin-Shamkovich, Moscow 1961, Black has 6 ... l2Jc7 ! ? 7 �c4 � g7 8 l2Je4? ! 0-0 9 ltJxcS d6t. 6 . . . li:)c7! 7 .ixc6 dxc6 8 h 3 .ig7 9 d3 0-0

23

Part 1

A typical position. Black should aim to push f7-f6. The game Mina­ sian-Gagunashvili, Dubai 2003 saw further: 1 o ll:) bd 2 li:) e 6 1 1 li:) b 3 as 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 '%Ye4 �a7 1 4 '%Yh4 f6 ! 1 5 �e1 '%Yd5 1 6 ie3 g 5 17 '%Yg3 Here, instead of 17 ... hS, Black should have chosen 17 . . . h6 18 h4 g4 19 ltJfd2 fSt.

�c6 dxc6 8 d3 ltJh6 9 �f4 ltJfS ! ? 10 c3 h6f!, which h a s never been tes­ ted. 6 . . . 0-0 7 � d 1 A fashionable move, which aims to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS ! ? (This i s slightly more precise than 7 . . . cxd4 8 cxd4 dS 9 eS ltJe4 when White has the option of 10 ltJc3 . In that line White's dark-squared bishop goes to gS whereas the text practically forces it to e3 .) 8 eS (8 exdS �xdS 9 dxcS �xcS=) 8 . . . ltJe4 9 �e3 (9 ttJbd2? ! is dubious du to 9 . . . cxd4 1 0 cxd4 ttJxd2 1 1 �xd2 �b6+ or 10 . . . Wb6 ! ? 11 ttJxe4 dxe4 12 �xc6 �xc6 13 ltJgS �fSt Utemov-Smirin, Podolsk 1990) 9 . . .cxd4 10 cxd4 �d7 with a fine game for Black:

0 2. 5 0-0 i g7

11 ltJc3 (ll �d3 8:c8 12 ttJbd2 ttJxd2 13 �xd2 �aS 14 a3 �xd2 lS ttJxd2 f6 = Svidler-Leko, Monte Carlo 20 04) 11 . . . ltJxc3 12 bxc3 ltJ aS ! 13 �d3 8:c8 = Svidler-Shirov, Leon 2004. 6 c3 After 6 eS Black chooses between the promising pawn sac 6 . . . ltJdS 7 �c4 ltJc7 8 �xc6 (8 �xcS b6 9 �c4 ttJxeS 10 ttJxeS �xeS 11 E'!:el �g7+) 8 . . . dxc6 9 �xcS �g4 10 ltJd4 �d7 with good compensation, or 6 . . . ltJg4 7

24

7 . . . e5 The point of White's setup is that 7. . . ds 8 es ltJe4?? is no longer possi­ ble, so we have to adjust our plan ac­ cordingly. The MegaBase shows Tse­ shkovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976 as the source of the text move.

1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS

8 � a3 8 hc6 dxc6 9 d4 (9 ltJxeS �e8 10 d4 cxd4 11 cxd4 l2Jxe4 ! favours Black) 9 . . . exd4 10 cxd4 cxd4 11 l2Jxd4 leaves White's pieces some­ what hanging. We can exploit that by 11 . . . l2Jxe4 !?+ 12 ltJfS MS 13 �xd8 �axd8+ with overwhelming advan­ tage in development. 8 d3 is innocuous . Black achieves a good game with natural moves: 8 ... �c7 ! ? (o r 8 ... � e7 9 �gS h6 10 hf6 �xf6 11 l2Jbd2 a6 12 �c4 bS 13 �dS �b7 14 l2Jfl �ab8 1S l2Je3 l2Je7=) 9 l2Jbd2 a6 10 hc6 bxc6 11 l2Jc4 �e8 12 �gS dS 13 l2Je3 (13 exdS cxdS+) 13 . . . �e6+; Finally, 8 d4? ! exd4 9 cxd4 cxd4 (9 . . . �e8 ! ?+) 10 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 11 �xd4 �b6 gives Black the upper hand. 8 .. . �e8 9 d 3 a6 1 0 .ixc6 bxc 6 !

Note this capturing. In an earli­ er stage of the opening, when White was better developed, we used to take with the d-pawn, in order to keep control of the centre. In the di­ agram position d4 is not a threat, so we follow the basic rule to "capture by pawns towards the centre" . 1 1 .ie3 d 6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4 d5 Or 13 . . . l2J g4 ! ? 14 �d2 fS = . 1 4 gac1 .i d 7 1 5 .i d 2 V!J e 7 1 6 � b1 � h 5 1 7 a3 �f4 1 8 .ixf4 exf4 1 9 V!i d2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh­ kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976 .

E. 4 �c3 g6

El. S hc6 E2. S h3 E3 . S eS S 0-0 �g7 6 eS ltJg4 7 hc6 trans­ poses to El. E 1 . 5 .ixc6 d x c 6 6 h 3 6 d 3 does not really save a tem­ po, for after 6 . . . �g7 7 �e3 b6 8 �d2 l2Jg4 White has to move the bishop twice: 9 �f4 (9 �gS f6 10 �h4 0-0 11 h3 l2Jh6 12 g4 l2Jf7 13 �g3 es 14 l2Jh4

2S

P art 1 �e6+ Van Mil-Kuijf, Antwerp 1997) 9 . . . es 10 �g3 f6 11 h3 lt:Jh6 12 lt:Jh2 lt:Jf7 13 f4 0-0= Abreu-Hernandez, Havana 1998. 6 . . �g7 7 d3 0-0 .

8i e3 8 �f4 should be attacked with 8 . . . lt:JhS! (8 . . . lt:Je8 is too passive and passes the initiative to the enemy: 9 Vfffd 2 f6 is the most interesting al­ ternative: 10 �e3 b6 11 h4! �g4 12 lt:J h2 ! �e6 13 h S.) 9 �e3 Vfffd6 10 Vfffd2 eS 11 0-0-0 bS 12 lt:Je2 lt:Jf6 13 �h6 aS with counterplay in Grischuk-Leko, Dubai 200 2 ; 8 0 - 0 i s less testing. After 8 . . . b6 9 �f4 (�e3 eS 10 Vfid2 lt:J hS 11 �h6 Vfff d6 =) 9 . . . lt:Je8 10 Vfffd 2 f6 1 1 eS Black can force play with:

11 . . .fxeS ! (Played in Shirov­ Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2 004. There 26

i s n o alternative t o this move . If White consolidates, he will main­ tain an edge due to his forepost on eS) 12 hes (12 lt:JxeS Vfffd4 is equal : 13 lt:Je2 V!ffdS 14 c4 Vfffd6 lS lt:Jf7 Vffff6 16 lt:Jh6 + c;t>h8 17 �gs Vfffxb2 18 Vfffxb2 hb2 19 he7 hal=) 12 . . . �f3 ! ? (This exchange sacri­ fice poses problems to White. The source game saw 12 . . . hh3 13 hg7 lt:Jxg7 14 �fel=) 13 hg7 lt:Jxg7 14 gxf3 hh3 lS �fel Vffff8 with good compensation, e.g. 16 Vfffe 3 lt:Je6 17 f4 Vffffs 18 Vfff g 3 �f8 19 �es Vfffxf4 2 0 Vfffxf4 �f� o r 1 6 f4 lt:JfS 17 lt:Je4 lt:Jd4 18 lt:JgS h6 19 c3 V!fffS 20 Vfffe 3 hxgS 2 1 cxd4 gxf4- + . 8 . . . b6 9 '%Yd2 e 5 !

Depending on where White cas­ tles, the game could take rather dif­ ferent courses. 1 0 i h6 The plan with short castling is linked with the breakthrough f2-f4, but it could be effectively opposed by 10 0-0 lt:JhS ! Black has good counterplay in the centre. He only has to find the right timing for cS­ c4: 11 �h6 Vfffd6 12 lt:Je2 f6 13 hg7 (as usual, the interpolation of 13 a3

1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:J c6 3 �bs aS is in Black's favour, 14 lt:Jh2 :§a7 lS :§adl �e6 16 hg7 :§xg7 17 lt:Jg4 :§d7= , Vachier Lagrave-Lautier, Val d'Isere 20 04) 13 . . . lt:Jxg7 14 :§adl aS 1S lt:Jh2 gS ! ? 16 lt:Jg4 hg4 17 hxg4 hS 18 gxhS lt:JxhS 19 g3 Wffe6 20 @g2 @f7 21 :§hl :§h8 22 b3 :§h7 23 Wffe3 :§ah8 24 Wfff3 lt:Jg7= , Vogt-Shirov, rapid, Mainz 2 0 0S. Another implementation of the same idea is 10 a3 aS 11 0-0 a4 12 :§ael :§e8 13 lt:Jh2 when 13 ... c4 ! ? splits the enemy pawn chain (13 . . . lt:Jd7 14 f4 exf4 lS :§xf4 lt:Jf8 ! 16 :§efl :§a7 17 @hl lt:Je6 18 :§4f2 lt:Jd 4= Pridorozh­ ni-Smirnov, Nefteyugansk 20 0 2) 14 dxc4 Wixd2 lS hd2 �e6= . 10

...

Wd 6

that he could conduct a success­ ful attack without connecting the rooks . His intention is to wait till the last moment and even castle short at an opportunity. 11 ie6 12 Wfe3 ! ? Anticipating Black's main threat of cS-c4. This idea of Ponomariov has not caught up, but the alterna­ tives are not any better: a) 12 lt:Je2 :§ad8 13 hg7 (13 lt:Jg3 lt:Je8 14 hg7 lt:Jxg7 1S lt:Jfl f6 16 lt:Je3 bS 17 Wic3 �f7 18 gS b4 19 Wid2 fSf!) 13 ... @xg7 14 Wffc3 lt:Jd7 1S lt:JgS h6! 16 lt:Jxe6+ fxe6 ! = , Bologan-Leko, Dort­ mund 20 0 3 ; b ) 1 2 hg7 @xg7 1 3 lt:J h 4 ( o r 13 :§gl :§ad8 14 0-0-0 as lS lt:Jh4 c4 ! 16 f4 cxd3 17 cxd3 Wies 18 @b l �c4 19 :§g3 bSt Nevednichy-Gladyszev, La Fere 2003. White should better come to his senses and develop his pieces with 13 0-0-0 :§ad8 14 :§hfl bS lS lt:JgS h6 16 lt:Jxe6 + Wixe6 17 @bl c4= , Shirov-Leko, Monaco 2 0 0 2) 13 . . . :§ad8 14 0-0-0 c4 lS f4 exf4 16 d4 Wic7 17 gS lt:JhS 18 dS cxdS 19 Wid4+ @g8 20 exdS :§fe8+. 12 a5 13 llle2 a4 14 a3 b5 ..•

•••

The plot is more or less clear now. We'll witness opposite attacks where every tempo counts. (White still could switch to the calmer 11 0-0 lt:JhS ! which was discussed o n the previous turn.) I n the diagram position White chooses between 11 g 4 and 11 0-0-0, while 11 hg7 i s not of independent significance. Ela. 11 g4 Naturally White hardly believes

Black gained a lot of space on the queenside which would give him the 27

Part 1 upper hand in an endgame. White's chances are down the g-file. 15hg7 I n Ponomariov-Leko, Linares 20 0 3 was 15 llJg3 llJe8 ! 16 0-0 f6 17 llJ d2? ! :gas 18 hg7 ttJxg7 19 f4 exf4 2 0 �xf4 �xf4 2 1 �f4 c4 with ini­ tiative. 15 . . . ©xg716 �g3 ©h8 White should think how to keep the balance. The key point of Black's counterplay in this line is to push c5-c4 at a moment when the opponent is unable to re­ spond with d4 .

Several games at top level show that the setup with 13 g4, fallowed by llJc3-e2-g3, is way too slow. Black can attack in different manners . Leko prefers the pawn storm with b and a-pawn, while Ivanchuk fa­ vours piece play: 13 g4 a4 14 llJe2 (or 14 llJh4 bS 15 f4 exf4 16 llJf3 llJ d7 17 ttJe2 a3 18 b3 �f6 19 d4 cxd4 20 gS �e7 21 �xd4+ �g8 2 2 llJxf4 llJcSf±) 14 .. bS 15 llJg3 b4 16 �gs :ges 17 llJd2? ! (17 ttJ hs+ llJxhS 18 gxhS b3 19 cxb3 axb3 20 a3 i.a6f!) 17. . . a3t Shirov-Leko, Dort­ mund 200 2 ; 1 3 g 4 i.e6 ! ? 1 4 llJgS llJd7 15 ttJxe6 + fxe6 ! t , see game 4 Shirov­ Ivanchuk, Edmonton 2005.

Eth. 11 0 - 0 - 0 a5 13 ... a4 14 �g4 14 llJ e2 leaves the e4-pawn with­ out protection so Black has 14 . . . c4 ! 15 llJg4 a3 ! with an initiative. 14 �gS ? •••

The black pawns run faster so White tries to create threats with his pieces. 12hg7 Perhaps 12 llJ h2 ! ? at once is more precise: 12 . . . a4 13 llJg4 llJ hS 14 llJe2 bS ! 15 hg7 �xg7 16 �h6 + �g8 17 f4 a3 18 b3 f6 19 :gdfl exf4 20 llJxf4 llJxf4 2 1 �xf4 �xf4+ 2 2 M4 hg4= . After the text move Black gets the g8-square for his knight. 12 . . . ©xg713 �h2 28

Subsequent play is not forced. Bot sides have a wide choice on eve­ ry turn, but current practice is fa­ voura ble to Black, who could stay solid or try to grab a pawn on the kingside : 15 llJe2 f6 (Grischuk-Ponoma-

1 e4 cS 2 ttJf3 tlJc6 3 � bS riov, Moscow 2002 saw lS . . . hg4 16 hxg4 �e6 17 @bl �xg4 when White has only partial compensation for the pawn.) 16 @bl �a7 17 tlJe3 �e6 18 g3 bS 19 f4 �d8 20 fxeS fxeS+ was fine for Black in Fridman-Lanka, Bochum 20 05. lS i>bl a3 16 b 3 �d4 17 tlJh2 bS 18 tlJf3 �d6 19 l2J e2 �e6 20 g3 �ad 8 2 1 tlJgS c4 2 2 f4 cxd3 23 cxd3 f6 = , Gris­ chuk-Leko, Russia (rapid) 20 0 2 . E2. 5 h3 White i s following the restrict­ ing strategy, started on the previ­ ous move. 5 .ig7 ! Ever since our first steps i n chess we have been taught that it is a ter­ rible sin to lose tempi in the open­ ing, moreover to return a developed knight to the initial square . On the other hand, it is a question of con­ crete calculations. If White proves unable to make good use of his tem­ porary initiative, we'll complete de­ velopment with fair counterchanc­ es. Our plan consists of tlJg8-h6, fal­ lowed up by f7-fS (or f6) . Notice that S . . . tlJd4? ! 6 eS tlJxbS 7 tlJxbS tlJdS 8 0-0 �g7 9 d4 ! cxd4 10 �xd4 is real­ ly dangerous for Black.

6 es White h a s no reason to delay eS anymore, after all the preparations he had made . After 6 0-0 0-0 Black's knight gets the e8-retreat square: 7 es (7 �el d6 8 d3 �d7=) 7 . . . ttJe 8 8 hc6 dxc6 9 d3 tlJc7 10 tlJe4 (10 �e3 tlJe6 11 tlJe4 tlJd4 ! 12 ttJxcS ttJxf3 + 13 �xf3 heS=) 10 . . . ttJe6 11 �el

. . .

Black has a good game. He can realise his main plan at once : 11. . . fS 12 exf6 exf6 1 3 �bl b6 1 4 b 3 aS 15 a4 �a7 16 �b2 �e7 17 �d2 tlJd4 18 ttJxd4 cxd4=, Adams-Kramnik, FIDE-Web k.o . g/lS +lO Las Vegas 1999, or simply trade some pieces first: 11 . . . b6 12 tlJegS (or 12 a4 aS 13 �e3 fS 14 exf6 exf6=, planning �a8a7-e7 and h6, fS) 12 . . . tlJxgS 13 hgS h6 14 �f4 �e6 15 �d2 @h7 16 h4 �dS=. 6 ... �g8 7 .A xc6 It is time to kill the knight or it will jump to d4: 7 �e2 tlJ d4 ! ? 8 ttJxd4 cxd4 9 tlJe4 heS 10 0-0 a6 when White does not get enough compensation for his central pawn. 7 dxc6 8 d3 8 �e2 tlJh6 9 tlJe4 leads by trans­ position to a critical position, which is analysed in line E3a. . ..

29

Part 1 8 ll.) h 6 9 .ie 3 Another version of this idea is: 9 g4 0-0 10 ie3 . White's idea is deeper than it seems at first sight. He is not just trying to win a tem­ po for his development. More im­ portantly, he hopes to provoke the move 10 . . . b6? which would deprive our queen of a pa th to the queenside. As we will see later, that would con­ siderably restrict our counter-chan­ ces. Luckyly, we have the nice pawn sac: ...

10 . . . fS!

11 exf6 Following 11 gS? llJf7 12 if4 Black has an extra tempo for 12 . . .�aS! (12 . . . �b6! ? is also playable as in game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov, Krasnoyarsk OS . 0 9 . 20 07) 13 V9e2 V9b4! (or 13 . . . llJdS ! ? 14 0-0-0 bS lS a3 b4 16 llJbl gbs 17 llJfd2 ie6 lS '!9e3 idS 19 gh2 llJ e6 20 h4, Menki­ novski-N edev, Struga 2 0 0S, when 20 . . . llJd4! 21 hS bxa3 22 llJxa3 gxb2 23 c;t>xb2 gbs + - + would have won faster) 14 �e3 V9xb2 Black has an at­ tack, for example, lS c;t>d2 �a3 16 h4 gas 17 hS ttJd6 ! - + . 1 1 . . . exf6 1 2 �d2 The greedy 12 hcS? unleashes our bishop pair: 12 . . . ge s+ 13 ie3 (in the blitz game Guseinov-Nedev, 30

2 0 07 was 1 3 cj{fl fS 14 gS llJ f7 1S ie3 cS ! and the bishop takes the other long diagonal, e .g. 16 h4 b6 17 hS ib7 l S hxg6 hxg6 19 gh3 �d6 ! + 2 0 V9d2 hf3 2 1 gxf3 �h2 2 2 c;t>e2 llJxgS 23 gg3 f4 24 gxgS fxe3 -+) 13 .. .fS 14 gS f4 lS gxh6 hh6 16 �e2 fxe3 17 llJe4 exf2 + lS c;t>xf2 ifS+ with full compensation for the pawn. 12 . . . llJf7 13 hes ges+ 14 ie3 bS ! lS 0-0-0 b4! ? The game Feygin-Nedev, Iz­ mir 2 0 04 saw lS . . . VNaS 16 a3 b4 17 llJ e4 gbs lS llJd4 �dS 19 axb4 fS ! and eventually I won, but the text is even better. 16 llJ a4 VNdS 17 llJd4 fS ! lS c4 ! (or lS �xb4 f4 19 c4 V9d7 2 0 hf4 �xd4 2 1 ie3 �f6+) 1 S . . . bxc3 19 llJxc3 �d6 20 llJb3 fxg4+. Having seen this analysis, we might decide that: 9 g4 0-0 10 if4 is more con­ sistent, but then 10 .. .f6 ! offers fair counterplay due to the hanging state of White's pieces on the f­ file. The point is that 11 V9e2 fails to 11 . . . llJxg4 ! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cubas­ Nedev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he has to choose 11 V9d2 fxeS 1 2 hh 6 hh6 13 V9xh6 gxf3 14 0-0-0 �fS lS �xfS + c;t>xfS 16 gh2 ! The endgame looks better for White, but the thematic sacrifice cS-c4 should balance the game, for instance 16 . . . h6 17 gel c4 ! ? lS dxc4 i e6 19 llJe4 hc4 20 ttJcs gas 2 1 ttJxb7 gas 22 b3 gbs 2 3 llJdS ids 24 c4 gbs 2S cxdS gxdS 26 dxc6 gc3+ 27 c;t>b2 gxc6 2S f3 ga3 29 gxeS gxf3 = . 9 Y«a 5 ! This novelty i s a result o f my ...

1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bS (T.N .) long evolution in understand­ ing these structures. (which cost me a couple of painful losses) I had played here: 9 . . . b6 10 g4 fS, when 11 exf6? exf6 12 �e2 (Or 12 �d2 tlJf7 13 0-0-0 0-0) led to this position in Maciej a­ Nedev, Istanbul 20 0 3:

Instead of 12 . . . Wfe7, after the game I found an improvement: 12 . . . 0-0 ! 13 0-0-0 fS ! and Black takes over the initiative: 14 gS (14 d4 fxg4 15 dxcS Wfc7 16 tlJgS gxh3+) 14 . . . ttJf7 15 d4 �e8 16 dxcS WfeToo . The threat of 17 . . . f4 forces White t o move the queen and we get a tempo to activate the second bishop on e6 . Unfortunately, instead of open­ ing the centre by 11 exf6?, White has 11 gS ! ttJf7 12 �f4. White has lost a tempo with this bishop, but the extra move . . . b6 only hampers our counterplay on the queenside. The game Stoj anovic-Majeric, Tuz­ la, 2006 saw a similar development and White had some edge. Perhaps 10 .. .f6 ! ? would have been a better option, when 11 Wf e2 ! ? would b e similar t ogame 5 David­ Nedev, Kerner, 05.10 . 2007. Anyway, Black is not farced yet to push the f-pawn. It is better to ac­ tivate the queen first.

1 0 g4 Alternatively: 10 tlJd 2 tlJfS 11 ttJc4 ttJxe3 12 fxe3 Wfc7+; 10 Wfd2 tlJfS 11 �f4 ttJd4=. 1 0 ...f 5 1 1 g 5 It turns out that White i s behind in development so opening up the centre is hardly advisable: 11 exf6 exf6 12 Wfd2 (12 tlJd2 ? ! 0-0 13 ttJc4 �c7 14 ixcS �e8 + 15 �e3 bS 16 tlJd 2 fSt) 12 ... ttJf7 13 0-0-0 0-0 14 d4 fS ! 15 gS �e6 16 a3 bS when our attack is running very fast. 1 1 . . . li:)f7 1 2 .if4 .ie6 12 . . . Wfb6 ! ? to impede White's castling is playable, too. 1 3 '%Yd2 0-0-0 ! ?

We are already the active side, so there is no reason to trade queens : 13 . . . �dS 14 ttJxdS Wfxd2 + 15 Wxd2 31

P art 1 cxdS 16 c3 l2Jd 8 17 d4 l2Je6 18 cj{e3 :!%c8 19 :!%acl h6oo. 1 4 a3 Preparing a long castle. 14 h4 c4 15 d4 bS 16 hS b4 17 l2Je 2 �dSt or 14 �e3? ! �dS 15 0-0-0 .ixf3 16 �xf3 ltJxeS+ favour Black. 1 4 . . . c4 1 5 d4 c5 1 6 0-0-0 b5t. E3. 5 e5 � g 4

E3a. 6 �e 2 E3b. 6 �xc6

assess correctly. White's main positional aim is to bolster the e5-outpost with �f4, :!%el, but it is not too efficient if we man­ age to trade our last knight through d4. Therefore White tries first to dis­ suade us from this idea. The point is that 9 . . . 4.JfS could be met by 10 c3 b6 11 g4 4.Jh6 12 0-0 0-0 13 d4 cxd4 14 �f4 ! ? dxc3 15 bxc3 with an over­ whelming position for the pawn. 9 g4 0-0 is considered in E3b. 9 ... b6 1 0 d3 10 l2Jf6 + only helps Black deve­ loping: 10 . . . exf6 ! 11 exf6+ cj{f8 12 fxg7+ cj{xg7 13 0-0 :!%e8= . 1 0 ... � f5 1 0 . . . 0 - 0 1 1 �f4 f6 1 2 0 - 0 ltj f7 13 :!%fel is an example of what Black should avoid. He is very passive and has too many minor pieces to acco­ modate in a little space. 11 .ig5

E3a. 6 Wfe2 .ig7 7 hc6 dxc6 8 h3 tll h6

9 tlle4! ? A consistent and logical varia­ tion against Black's setup. It com­ bines strategical with tactical mo­ tives which the engines often fail to 32

Black must make a crucial choice. He can fulfil his positional aim by trading the knight, which could however bring about a rath­ er complicated position, or reduce risk, and winning chances, too ! 1 1... �d4

1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 ibS The solid alternative is 11 . . . 0-0 12 c 3 f6 13 if4 fxeS 14 �xeS tLlh4 ! The point. Black gains the bishop pair, but his pawn structure is cripppled: 15 tLlxh4 �xeS 16 0-0 WdS . Black should be OK here . (A.K.) 12 �xd4 �xd4 13 �f6+ �f8 14 c3 �dS 15 �g4 These moves were farced and again Black must choose between the sharper and the calmer options. The game Tseshkovsky-Nataf, Her­ ceg Novi 2005 saw 15 . . . hS 16 tLlh2 Wds 17 tLlf3 �fs 18 �dl Wxa2 19 0-0 We6 20 �fel when Black is un­ der bind. 19 .. .f 6 is better, but Kolev does not like Black's position. The engines like 15 . . . WdS be­ cause it grabs a pawn, but 16 f4 �xg4 17 hxg4 �d8 (17 . . . h6 18 ih4 gS 19 i.g3 �d8 20 0-0 t) 18 0-0- 0 ! h 6 1 9 �h4 g S 2 0 if2 Wxa2 2 1 f� is awful for Black who is unable to connect his heavy pieces. Perhaps best is : 15 ... f6 16 M4 g5 17 exf6 exf6 18 .ih2 hg4 19 hxg4 �d5 2 0 0 - 0 E:e8 2 1 �c2 �f7 2 2 E:fel=.

8 g4 This is the most topical option. The alternatives are: 8 d3 �g7 (8 . . . tLlfS heading for d4 is playable, too) 9 �e3 (9 tLle4 b6 10 �f4 tLlfS 11 c 3 ia6) 9 ... WaS and we have reached the position fram the main line E2 . 8 tLle4 b6 9 We2 tLlfS 10 c3 aS ! ? (In Rytshagov-Spasov, Yerevan 1996, was 10 ... �g7 11 g4 tLlh6 12 tLlf6+ when 12 . . . exf6 13 exf6+ cM°8 14 fxg7 + �xg7 would have been unclear) 11 d3 ia6 12 c4 i.g7 (12 . . . tLld4? ! 13 tLlxd4 Wxd4 14 f4 0-0-0 15 tLld6 + �xd6 16 exd6;t Lilov-Spasov, Plovdiv 19 . 0 3 . 2008) 13 tLlf6 + exf6 14 exf6 + cM°8 15 fxg7+ �xg7 16 0-0 �e8. Black completed development and has a good game. 8 ...i.g7 8 .. .fS is imprecise. It reveals Black's plans too early, thus allow­ ing the opponent to choose the best setup : 9 gS tLlf7 10 d3 �e6 11 We2 �g7 12 h4 �ds 13 tLlxdS WxdS 14 c4 We6 15 �f4 h6 16 0-0-0;t, Khalif­ man-Lautier, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 2 .

E3b. 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 �h6

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

33

Part 1 9 . . .f5, intending to block the cen­ tre and castle long, is unclear.

1 0 �e2 (For 10 ie3 f5 ! or 10 if4 f6 ! see E 2) This move is flexible to excess ! The reason behind it is seen in the line 10 .. .f6 11.�d2 ! ? It turns out that Black's threat to the e5-pawn can be ignored. White simply de­ velops, counting on his better pawn structure. While not ensuring him a big advantage, such an approach is quite awkward for Black. You can see a detailed analysis of the plan with 10 .. .f6 in the "Complete Games" section, game 5 David­ Nedev, ECC 2 007. The other major plan of Black is linked with 10 .. . f5 ! ? 11 g5 ttJ f7 12 �f4 Vfff aS ! See game 6 Landa-Mir. Markovic, Belgrade 1991. However, we can outsmartthe en­ emy by attacking the b2-pawn with :

34

10

•••

Wfb6 ! ?

Now, the bishop i s pinned t o cl and White is suddenly faced with a difficult problem: how to disentan­ gle his pieces. All plausible choices do not look encouraging: a) 11 �d2 V9xb2 12 0-0 Vfff a3 13 llJe4 b6 14 if4 f5 15 exf6 exf6 16 �d6 8:f7 with a dubious compensation b) 11 b3 f5 12 llJa4 (12 g5 llJf7 13 �d2 llJd8 14 0-0-0 llJe6 15 E!:del llJd4 16 ttJxd4 cxd4 17 llJ a4 Wa6 18 �bl b5�) 12 .. . �c7 13 hh6 , Wen,Yang­ Zhao Jun, Wch U2 0 Yerevan, 2006, 13 . . . fxg4 ! 14 hg7 gxf3+. c) 11 �l (or 11 0-0) We can take a relieved breath here, as the long castle would have been a much more dangerous plan. 11 .. .f5 12 g5 (or 12 exf6 exf6 13 �g2 llJf7 14 E!:el f5 15 g5 �d7) 12 . . . ttJf7 13 �g2 llJd8 14 b3 llJe6 with initiative. You can see also game 7 Iv .Popov-Tregubov, Krasnoyarsk 0 8 .0 9. 2 007.

Part 1

1 .e4 c5 2. lllf 3 e6 3.d4 cd4 4.lll d 4 lll c 6 5. lll b 5 d6 6.c4 COM PLETE G AMES

1 . M ortensen-Erm en kov Riga 1 981 1 e 4 cs 2 li:) f3 li:)c6 3 ibS li:)f6 4 li:)c3 g6 s o-o .ig7 6 es li:) g4 7 ixc6 dxc 6 8 �e1 0-0 9 d 3

9 . . . li:) h 6 ! Black's main plan is t o advance his kingside pawns, but first he should manoeuvre his knight to d4. Then he could think about activat­ ing the a8-rook with . . . as, . . . b6, . . . E:a8-a7, and only then turn t o the kingside. The breakthrough . . .f7-f6 (or fS) will not run away. 1 0 if4 li:)fS 1 1 %Yd2 b6 1 2 li:) e4 li:)d4 1 3 li:) xd4 cxd4 If White's king had castled long, It would have been better to take on

d4 by queen. With opposite attacks, it is imperative to have more open files while the pawn structure falls into the background. In our case Er­ menkov prefers to install his bishop on the long diagonal, fram where it will be hitting the enemy king. 1 4 ih6 cs 1 S li:) g 3 ib7 1 6 ixg 7 © x g 7 1 7 f4 fS !

Black has realised the main ide­ as of this opening and took over the initiative. The tide is soon going to turn and it will be Black who will be attacking. 1 8 exf6+ exf6 1 9 fS %Yd7 20 h4 �ae8 21 fx g 6 hxg6 22 h S %Yg4 2 3 'l;Yf2 Y;Yg s ! Mortensen was reluctant t o ad35

Part 1 mit his opening strategy was a fail­ ure, and only deteriorated his posi­ tio n. Black methodically went on to build up pressure. 24 �xea �xea 2S hxg6 xg6 26 ti:) e2 �e3 27 ti:) f4+ f7 2a q;h2 �f3 29 ti) h 3 \Wes+ 30 h 1 \Wh S 31 g 1 �xg2 32 \Wxg2 \Wxh 3 3 2 . . . �xh3 ! 33 �b7+ �g6 34 �g2 + � h 6 3 5 �fl f5- + was winning, wbile now White can still resist. 33 \Wxh3 � xh3 34 a4 e6 3S as d S 36 axb6 axb6 37 �a6 q;c6 3a �aa �e3 39 f2 q; b s 40 �ta �e6 41 �da q;b4 42 �ca �es 43 �c 6 �f s+ 44 e2 bS 4S �d6 �f4 46 �c6 c4 4 7 dxc4 bxc4 4a �ca �h4 49 c3+ b3 SO �ba+ q;c2 S1 cxd4 �xd4 S2 e3? (52 �b4 fS 53 �3 �d2 54 �a4=) S2 .. �d3+ S3 q;e4 ts+ S4 @ e s � b 3 ss � c a q; d 3 S6 �da+ e 3 S7 �ca �bS+ sa f6 f 4 S9 �xc4 f3 60 �c3+ f4 0-1

2. M ovsesian-Chuch elov B u nde s l ig a 200 S 1 e4 c s 2 ti:)f3 ti:)c6 3 �bS ti:) f6 4 eS ti:) d S S 0 -0 ti:) c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 h3 �ts a d3 h 6 !

squared bishop fram exchange as after 8 . . . e6? ! 9 �gs �e7 10 �xe7 �xe7 11 ttJbd2 White would have been slightly better. The point is that White has not a good place for his bishop. 9 ti:) bd 2 After 9 ttJc3 e 6 1 0 �e2 Black should not miss the moment for 10 . . . ttJbS ! = since one move later White would be able to cover the d4-square: 10 . . . �e7 11 ttJe4 ttJbS 12 c3 . 9 . . . e6 1 O '%Ye2 ti) b S ! A key point i n Black's setup ! White was threatening with 10 . . . �e7 11 ttJe4 when 11. . . ltJbS would stum­ ble into 12 c3 . 1 1 ti:) e4 ti:)d4 1 2 ti:) xd4 \Wxd4 Black has completely equal­ ised. Later on he could disturb his opponent with . . . c5-c4 or . . . h5-h4 while the only active idea of White is f4-f5. 1 3 ti:) g 3 �g 6 1 4 q; h 2 ? After this move White is deprived of any counterplay. His chance to was 14 �e3 0-0-0 15 f4, maintain­ ing the balance. 1 4 . . . h S ! 1 S f4 h4 1 6 ti) h 1 ?

Thus Black preserves his dark-

A terrible move, which allows

36

1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS Black to place a strong blow. Natu­ rally, 16 l!Je4 would have been bet­ ter. Black would have indeed the same breakthrough as in the game, but with White's knight in the cen­ tre, it would not be so decisive due to 17 �e3 . 1 6 . . . c4! 1 7 dxc4 �hS ! Regaining the pawn with a n ad­ vantage in view of the variation 18 �d3 �xd3 19 cxd3 �e2 20 �f2 �xd3+. 1 8 '%Yf2 '%Yxc4 1 9 fS? Apparently White cannot be­ lieve that he could be worse so early in the game with White and makes "active" moves instead of develop­ ing . 19 �e3 would have made Black to choose between many appealing options. He might want to sacrifice a pawn with 19 . . . �e7, when 20 �xa7 cS 21 �b6 �a6 22 �c7 �g6 23 c3 �c6 24 �d6 �xd6 2S exd6 �xd6 26 �adl �hS is only slightly better to him. After the text White should not be able to level the game any more. 1 9 . . . ext s 20 �gs �cs ! 21 '%YxfS The endgame is rather gloom af­ ter 2 1 �xh4 �xh4 2 2 hh4 �e2 2 3 �fel �xh4 2 4 �xe2 �d8+ 21 . . . �g6 22 Y;Yf 3 �hS 23 �f4 o-o-o+ 24 � t2?? �ts-+ 2s � d 3 � h S 26 b3 '%Yxc2 2 7 � a c 1 '%Yxd 328 '%Yxd 3 �xd3 29 �xcS g S 0-1

3 . De l a Paz- H a nd ke H av an a 200 3 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 �b S � f6 4 es � d S s 0-0 � c7 6 �xc6 dxc6 7 h 3 g6 We recommend 7 . . .�fS , but this

structure is also important for our repertoire, since it could arise from other move orders. 8 d3 � g7 9 � c3 b6 1 0 �e4 0-0 1 1 �d 2 fS ! ?

Handke conducts the game very consistently, without subtleties and fancy move orders. He knows what he is aiming for, and does not beat about the bush. Black is set for a kingside pawn storm. We prefer first to activate the c7knight with . . . l!Jc7-bS-d4, but the text is by no means bad. Black has solved the opening problems. 1 2 exf6 White is unable to blockade the kingside with 12 l!Jc3 h6 13 h4 l!Je6 14 �el due to 14 .. .f4. 1 2 . . . exf6 1 3 '%Yc1 g S ! This i s the right way t o handle the pawns. Black should bolster up the gS square before proceeding with .. .fS. 1 4 � h 2 �ts 1 S � g 3 �g6 1 6 f4 fS This is already too straightfor­ ward. Black would have kept the in­ itiative with 16 . . . �d6t. The text al­ lows White to escape into an end­ ing with 17 fxgS �d4+ 18 � hl �xb2 37

P art 1 19 1!9xb2 �xb2 2 0 �ael ltJbS with un­ clear play, but White misses this op­ portunity. 1 7 ic3?! ixc3 1 8 bxc3 � d S 1 9 � f3 ? White cracks under the pres­ sure. 19 l2Je2 was more stubborn. 1 9 ... g xf4+ 20 �e2 Y«d6 21 � h4 gae8 22 Y«d2 Y«f6 23 � f3 ge7 24 � a e 1 �fe8 2S d4 Y«d6 26 gf2 ge3 2 7 Y«c1 ihS The rest is clear. 28 � e s ixe2 29 �xf4 �8xeS 30 dxeS Y«xe S 31 �f2 f4 32 Y«d2 ic4 3 3 � d 1 Y«xc3 34 Y«c1 a s 3 S h 2 � x h 3 + 36 gxh3 Y« g 3+ 3 7 h 1 Y«xf2 38 � g 1 + f7 39 Y«b2 � f6 0-1 4. S h i rov- lvanchuk Edmonton 200 S 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c 6 3 i b S g 6 4 ixc6 d x c 6 S d 3 i g 7 6 h 3 � f6 7 � c3 0-0 8 ie3 b6 9 Y«d2 es 1 0 .i h 6 Y«d6 1 1 o-o-o a s 1 2 ixg7 x g7

1 3 g4 Without any advantage in the centre, White's attack should not be lethal. Black's play is even easier. He entrenches himself with l2Jg8, f6

38

whereas on the queenside his pro­ gram includes . . . a4, bS, a3, and eventually the thematic . . . c5-c4 . In the diagram position White has tried to organise play down the h­ file, but it has proved quite harm­ less ; 13 l2Jh2 a4 14 l2J g4 l2Jg8 15 �bl (or 15 l2Je2 �xg4 16 hxg4 Wff e6 17 �bl 1!9xg4 18 f3 1!9e6 19 g4 f6 20 f4 a3 21 fS 1!9d7oo, Grischuk-Ponomariov, Moscow 2002) 15 . . . a3 16 b3 1!9d4 17 l2Jh2 bS 18 l2Jf3 Wffd6 19 l2Je 2 .ie6oo Grischuk-Leko, Moscow 2002 1 3 . . . ie6 Karjakin-Topalov, Blindfold, Bil­ bao 19 . 10 . 2007, saw 13 . . . a4 14 l2Je 2 � a7 15 l2Jg3 �e7 16 gS l2Je8 17 Wff c3 l2Jc7 18 �dfl ltJbS 19 Wffd 2 a3 20 b3 f6+ and Black had a strong pressure in the centre. Ivanchuk wants to bind the c3-knigt with the defence of the a2-pawn. Now, 14 l2Je2 ixa2 15 l2Jg3 �fe8 16 Wigs Wffe6 would fa­ vour Black, so Shirov has to think up another attacking plan. 14 l2Jh4 a4 ! 15 W1 gS (or 15 l2Je2 �xa2 16 l2Jg3 �h8) 15 . . . a3 16 b3 Wffd4 is unappeal­ ing, therefore White decides to kill the awkward bishop . 1 4 � g s � d 7 1 S � xe6+ The attempt of pushing f4 is too slow: 15 �dfl bS 16 f4 b4 17 l2Je2 �xa2 18 l2Jf3 f6+. Time and again we see that without a good centre, a flank attack has little chances to succeed. 1 S . . . fxe 6 ! I t took t o Ivanchuk only 1 5 moves t o get the edge with Black! H i s attack will run very fast while Shirov will need a lot of tempi to

1 e4 cs 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bs create even the smallest threat. 1 6 gS a4 1 7 h4 '%Yd4 1 8 gdf1 ?

After this passive move White is lost. He would have had more chances to resist after 18 l2Je2 ! Wffxf2 19 hS �f3 20 hxg6 hxg6 2 1 �h6 �h8+ (Finkel). 1 8 ... a3! 1 9 hS Following 19 b 3 b S 20 �dl �f3 White would be tied up and down. 1 9 . . . c4 Instead of this thematic break, Black was winning by brute force : 19 . . . axb2 + ! 20 �bl �a3 21 f4 �c3 22 hxg6 hxg6 23 Wff h2 �f7 24 Wffh 7 + �e8 25 Wffxg6+ �d8 - + . (Finkel) 20 f4 cxd 3 ! 21 gf3 til e s 2 2 hxg6 h x g 6 2 3 Wh2 axb2+ 2 4 @b1 dxc2+? ! Starting fram here, Ivanchuk gradually begins to lose control of the game and eventually draws. In the next few moves he misses sever­ al killers, e.g. 24 . . . �h8 ! 25 �h3 �xh3 26 Wffxh3 Wffxc3- + . 2S Wxc2 exf4 ? ! (25 . . . �xf4 2 6 �fh3 �af8 - +) 2 6 Wxb2 g h 8? ! 2 7 g d 1 Wes 2 8 gxf4 ! + g h 3 2 9 tll a4 Wxb2+ 30 tll xb2 gf8 ? ! 31 gxf8 @xf8 32 gd6 gh433 @c2 gh2+ 34 @c1 @e7 3S gxc6 tll xe4 36 gxb6

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

S. Dav id- N ed ev European C l u b C u p O S .1 0.2007 1 e4 cs 2 tll f 3 tll c6 3 .ibS tll f6 4 tll c3 g6 s es tll g 4 6 .ixc6 d xc6 7 h 3 tll h 6 8 g4 .i g 7 9 d 3 o - o 1 0 We2

1 o . .. t6 During the game I could not break away from the stereotypi­ cal thinking that made me consider only 10 .. .f6 and 10 . . .f 5. Only after the game I got the insight to shift my at­ tention to the other wing, and try to punish the opponent for his delay of development. Then I came up with the move 1 0 Wb6 ! ? which I ana­ lyse in the "Step by Step" chapter. The text is not that bad, of course, but David's next move was a sort of surprise to me. 1 1 .id2 ! I had pleasant experience after . . .

39

Part 1 11 .if4 lt:Jxg4 ! 12 hxg4 (12 e6 lt:Jh6 13 0-0-0 lt:JfS+) 12 . . .fxeS 13 heS? ! (13 lt:JgS gxf4 14 gxh7!? .if6 ! ? 15 gh6 ! Wes 16 lt:J ce4 hg4 17 f3 .ihS 1 8 0-0-0 Wf8 ! 19 fuhS gxhS 2 0 ggl Wh6 21 ®bl gfs+) 13 . . .hg4+, as in the game Cubas-Nedev, Mallor­ ca 2 004, so I expected 11 ie3 . Then

gxg4 gxg4 20 lt:JfgS \Wd7 21 f3 gxgS ! 2 2 lt:JxgS \WfS 23 lt:Je4 gfs+) and now 18 . . . hxg6 (or 18 . . . hS 19 .ie3 hf3 2 0 VM fl Wd7 2 1 lt:JxcS \WfS 2 2 ggloo) 19 gd gl fuf4 20 �xg4 fug4 21 lt:Jh4� VMc8 22 f3 fuh4 2 3 fuh4 \WfS 24 l&g2 gfg 2 5 gh 3 b6 26 gg3 ®f7oo is about balanced. After my positional blun­

11 . . . b6 12 0-0-0 lt:Jf7 13 d 4t o r 11. . . fxeS 1 2 lt:JgS ! b6 1 3 0-0-0oo would fa­ vour White . I had in mind 11 . . . lt:Jf7 !

der the game is over as Black has nothing to oppose to the enemy at­ tack on the h-file.

12 hc5 fxeS 13 0-0-0 b6 14 .ie3 cS 15 lt:J gS lt:JxgS 16 hg5 .ib7 17 lt:J e4 h6 18 .ih4 Wd7 with a strong bish­ op pair and good prospects for a queenside attack.

1 8 hxg6 hxg6 1 9 �h4 e5 20 &iJfg5 f3 21 Y!if1 gf4 22 Y!ih3 gxe4 23 dxe4 Y!ie7 24 gh8+! ixh8 25 g d8+! 1 -0

1 1 . . . &iJ f7 1 2 0-0-0 Y!ic7 1 3 i> b 1 &iJ d 8 1 4 &iJ e4 &iJ e 6 1 5 h4

6. Land a-M ir. M arkov ic, Belgrade 1 99 1 1 e 4 c 5 2 &iJc3 &iJ c 6 3 &iJf3 &iJ f6 4 cib5 g6 5 Y!ie2 ig7 6 e5 &iJ g 4 7 ic6 dc 6 8 h3 &iJ h 6 9 g4 0-0 1 0 d 3 f 5 1 1 g5 &iJ f7 1 2 if4 (or 1 2 h 4 f4 ! 13 e6 lt:Jd6 14 hS lt:JfSf±) 1 2 . . . Y!ia5 !

Both sides are realising their plans and now it is evident, that White started first his attack. That finally made me take on eS, in or­ der to organise counterplay down the f-file.

1 5 . . .fxe5 1 6 h5 &iJf4 1 7 ixf4

1 7 . . . exf4? It is difficult to explain this awful move. I only had to employ the tac­ tical motive from my game against Cubas to get a satisfactory game: 17 . . . hg4 ! 18 hxg6 (18 gd gl fuf4 19 40

This i s another important posi­ tion for our repertoire. White has fixed the kingside in his favour, but Black has a free hand on the oppo­ site wing. His idle minor pieces ca n easily take a more active role follow­ ing the routes .ic8-e6-d5 and lt:Jf7d8-e6. Only the g7-bishop is like-

1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 !bS ly to remain stuck on g7, but it is at least a good defender. After the text, long castling is risky due to 13 . . . bS, (or the more solid 13 0-0-0 !e6 14 h4 l2Jd 8 lS hS !xa2 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 l2Jh4 !f7 18 �e3 l2Je6) so White's king will re­ main in the centre for a while. Curiously, I had this position with an extra tempo as White has played 10 !e3 f5 11 gS l2Jf7 12 !f4 �as 13 �e2, and following 13 . . . l2Jd 8 14 0-0-0 bS---+ White's resistance did not last long, Menkinovski-Nedev, Struga 20 0S. 13 Y¥e3 I have also analysed 13 a3 !? , pre­ paring the castle. Then 13 . . . !e6 14 h4 !dS lS hS ltJd8 (Do not be greedy, lS . . .!xf3 16 �xf3 ltJxeS 17 �e3t is in White's favour.) 16 0-0-0 l2Je6 17 !d2 �c7 18 ltJxdS cxdS 19 �h4 cj{f7oo leads to complex play with mutual chances. 1 3 . . . .ie6 1 4 h4 Still keeping the castling op­ tions open. In Kindermann-Hoel­ zl, Chalkidiki 20 0 2 White chose 14 cj{fl, when 14 . . . �fd8 lS h4 �b4 16 �bl �d4 17 a3 � b6 was not too ef­ ficient. It would have been better to acti­ vate the knight with 14 . . . l2Jd8 lS h4 !dS (or lS . . . !f7 16 hS gxhS 17 l2Je 2 l2Je6 18 cj{g2 �ad8 19 a 3 l2Jd4oo) 16 ltJxdS (16 hS l2Je6) 16 . . . cxdS with a roughly level game, for example, 17 e6 �b6 18 �el d4 19 �e2 �c8 20 ltJeS �xe6 21 �f3 l2Jc6 22 l2Jxc6 �xc6 23 �xc6 �xc6 24 �xe7 �f7 2S �e8+ �f8 = . 1 4 . . . .idS

1 5 �h3 White should consider sacrific­ ing the eS-pawn as lS hS .txf3 16 �xf3 ltJxeS 17 �h3 cj{f7 18 0-0-0oo or lS ... �b4 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 0-0-0 M3 18 �xf3 ltJxeSoo would give him time to complete development. In my opinion (T.N .) it is bet­ ter to maintain the tension with 1S . . . l2Jd 8 , eyeing the a2-pawn. Then 16 a3 (16 hxg6 hxg6 17 a3 l2Je6 18 0-0-0 bS�) 16 . . . l2Je6 17 0-0-0 �ad8 (to recapture on dS by rook) 18 �h4 bS 19 ltJxdS �xdS 20 �dhl b4 21 hxg6 hxg6� would be interesting to test. 1 5 . . . � ad8 ? ! The first critical moment in this game. Markovich is obvious­ ly unable to decide what he wants to do and hands the initiative to the opponent. Black has to real­ ise that he must free the f7-square for his king, and that he needs to bring his knight into play. Both tasks could be achieved with one move : 1S . . . l2Jd 8 ! If then White sac­ rifices the a2-pawn, he will hardly have enough compensation after 16 0-0-0 !xa2 17 hS l2Je6 18 �d hl bS. Still, Black is not obliged to take the gift. Instead he can play in the cen-

41

Part

1

tre with 16 . . . ttJe6 ! ? 17 �bl �ad8 18 h5 hf3 19 �f3 �d4 20 hxg6 hxg6 2 1 �hl �fd8 2 2 tlJe2 �a4 23 tlJc3 �b4 24 tlJe 2 c4 25 d4 c5f!. Let's consider 16 a3 tlJe6 17 0-0-0 (or 17 h5 ixf3 18 W'xf3 tlJd4 19 W'dl c4t) 17 . . . b5 18 h5 b4 19 tlJbl �ab8t. Black h a s a perfect setup. His pieces are clearly more dangerous. 1 6 tl) d 2 �e6 1 7 tl) f3 �d 5 1 8 .tl)d2 'l«b4? ! 1 9 0-0-0 'l«d4 ? ! 20 ge1 b5? ! Black firstly misplaced his queen, and now he misses the chance to trade it. Of course the endgame would be not too pleasant, but leav­ ing the enemy queen alive in this position is suicidal. But now it is White's turn to err. He should have kept the queen with 21 W'g3 ! with nice attacking prospects. 2 1 .b1 ? ! �e6 22 tl) f3? Y«xe3 23 gxe3 Now Black is not afraid of being mated, and his game is preferable . He must immediately redeploy his pieces so that the knight reaches e6, (or g6, should White play h5) for in­ stance, 23 . . . �d7 24 h5 gxh5 ! 25 tlJe 2 tlJh8 2 6 tlJg3 h4 27 ttJxh4 tlJg6 2 8 tlJ h 5 !h8 . 2 3 . . J;d4? ! Black is obsessed with the d4square. I n a moment when the bat­ tle for the key dark squares f4 and g3 is going at full throttle, he presents the enemy with a clear tempo . 24 tl) e 2 gd7 White should have opened the kingside with 2 5 h5 gxh5 ! (25 . . . ttJd 8? does not work due to 2 6 hxg6 hxg6 27 tlJh4 �f7 2 8 !h 2 ! 42

�g 8 2 9 tlJf4 !f8 30 tlJf3 +) 26 �xh5 tlJd 8 27 !h2 !f7 28 �h4 tlJe6 . Black may be a little better, but White's pieces are not so useless as in the game. Instead he decides to defend passively.

25 g h 2 tl) d 8 26 �g3 �d 5 2 7 tl) d 2 tl) e 6 28 f4 c4i This breakthrough is possibly a bit premature, but we can hardly blame Markovic for it. It is normal, thematic move, which fixes a the clear edge of Black. The only ques­ tion is could he press home his ad­ vantage. 29 dxc4 �xc4 30 tl) xc4 g d 1 + 31 tl) c 1 bxc4 32 g h e 2 gfd 8 33 c3 tl) c 5 34 c 2 tl) e4 3 5 �e 1 �f8 36 b 3 e 6 3 7 bxc4 � a 3 3 8 tl) b3 c 5? Black's bishop apparently had a bad day. After having been stuck on g7 for many moves, it finally broke free, only to get locked again, this time on a3. 38 . . . a5+ would have maintained the edge. The rest of the game is tragicomic and is irrelevant for our purposes. 39 �d2 g h 1 40 gd3 gxd3 41 xd3 g xh4 42 c2 g h 1 43 �e 1 h5 44 g xh6 h 7 45 tl) d 2 tl)xd2 46

1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 �bs Axd2 g a1 47 © b 3 Ac 1 48 g e1 Axd2 4 9 gxa1 Axf4i SO © c 2 ©xh6 (SO . . . gS ! ) s 1 g h1 + © g 7 S2 g b 1 Axes S 3 gb7+ i>f6 S 4 gxa7 g S SS a 4 g 4 S6 a s g 3 S 7 g b 7 g 2 S 8 gb1 f4 S9 @ d3?? (S9 a6 f3 60 a7+-) S9 ... @fS 60 a6 f3 61 ©e3 \t>g4 62 a 7 Af4+ 63 ©f2 A g3+ 64 ©e3 f2 6S a8YM f1 YM 66 YMg8+ ©h3 67 YMxe6+ © h 2 6 8 YM h 6+ © g 1 6 9 YMb 6 Ae 1 7 0 YMb2 @h1 71 YMb7 YMf2+ 72 ©d3 YMd 2+ 73 ©e4 g 1 YM 74 © es+ VMgg2 0-1 This game saw a lot of positional m istakes, but they were quite in­ structive, and allowed us to explain the typical plans in the position with a closed centre.

7. lv. Po pov-Tre gu bov K ra snoyarsk 08.0 9.200 7 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 � c3 � f6 4 Abs g6 S es � g4 6 Axc6 dxc6 7 h 3 � h 6 8 g 4 A g 7 9 d 3 o-o 1 0 Ae3? ! ts ! 1 1 g s �f7 1 2 At4

Whte has lost a tempo on 10 ie3 ? ! We prefer in such a setup to develop the queen to as, in or­ der to have . . . bS as an option, but Tregubov's move is also consistent. It controls d4 and wins a tempo by

attacking b 2 . 1 2 . . .YM b 6 1 3 b3 Ae6 Our recommendation is first to activate the knight with 13 . . . lt:Jd8e6-d 4, and then to put the bishop to e6 where it would support ... cS-c4. 1 4 o-o Ads 1 s g e 1 � d 8 Black would have more chances to break through following lS . . . hf3 16 '1Mxf3 '1MaS 17 lt:J a4 lt:Jd8+. Now Po­ pov succeeds in entrenching him­ self: 1 6 � h2 16 lt:JxdS cxdS 17 d4 opens up play in Black's favour: 17 . . . lt:Je6 18 dxcS '&xcS 19 ie3 '&as 2 0 lt:Jd4 lt:Jxd4 21 hd4 f4 ! 1 6 . . . � e 6 1 7 Ad2 YMc7 1 8 f4 h 6 (or 1 8 . . . hS) 1 9 h 4 h x g S 20 h x g S ©f7 21 �xd S cxdS 22 �f3 gh8 23 © g 2 d 4 2 4 a4 YM c 6 2 S © g3 � c7 1/2-1/2

8. D ra b ke-Zhi g alko Kerner 08. 1 0 . 2007

14 ... c4 ! ? 1 S bxc4 A b4+ 1 6 ©f1 Ac3 1 7 Ae3 cS 1 8 gd 1 YMc6 1 9 © g 2 Axes 2 0 g h e 1 f S 2 1 A g s gde8 2 2 gh1 Ac7 23 'tt> g 1 fxg4 24 � h4 g h s 2 S YMxg4 � e s 2 6 YM g 3 g x h 4 2 7 f4 0 -1 � f3+ 28 ©f2 � x g S

43

Part 2

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

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

We start our survey on the Open Si­ cilian with the so-called Positional variation against the Sveshnikov. In this part we consider rare continu­ ations, which are used as surprise lines fram White. A. 1 0 lll x e7 lll x e7 1 1 ixf6 Black meets almost all other moves with . . . dS. Only 11 \Wf3 re­ quires another approach: 11. . . lt:Jd7 12 0-0-0 lt:JcS 13 .ie3 lt:Je6. 1 1 gxf6 1 2 c4 White tries to clamp on dS, but his pieces are undeveloped. 12 .id3 .ib7 13 \WhS ! ? is a modern attempt which should be countered with 13 . . . lt:J g6 ! . The knight is eyeing f4, the h8-rook can occupy the g-file, while our king would be safe on e7. 1 2 fS!?

1 3 exfS lllx fS 1 4 cxbS 0-0 1 S bxa6 15 .id3 e4 16 he4 V!ie7 gives Black fantastic attack. 1 S ixa6 1 6 ixa6 �as+ 1 7 �d2 �xa6 •••

•••

Perhaps White can hold the bal­ ance by 18 Wie2 , intending to repeat moves after 18 . . . V!iaS + 19 \Wd2 = .

•••

B. 1 0 ixf6 ixf6

Black already has the initiative. 44

7 ig5 a6 8 � a3 b5 9 tlJd5 The main move here is 11 c3. It is considered in Part 3 and 4. Lately White discovered that Black apparently neglects good preparation against: 1 1 c4 It deprives Black of immediate counterplay on the queenside and clamps on d5 "for good ". However, Black has an active plan, connect­ ed with . . . a4, but he must play con­ crete chess. We propose a new idea, con­ nected with a pawn sacrifice. The most topical position aris­ es after 1 1 ... b4 1 2 lllc 2 aS 1 3 g 3 0-0 1 4 h4!? Apart fram restraining Black's bishop, this move prepares an ex­ change of the light-squared bishops through h3. The more conventional 14 ig2 ig5 15 0-0 �e7 16 �ce3 ie6 17 �d3 he3 18 �xe3 leads to an equal po­ sition.

White has more active rooks, but they can attack only one we ak­ ness, o n d6, which is easily defend­ ed. A logical continuation would be: 18 . . . �c7 ! ? = . White can open up the queenside by a3, but then Black

takes on a3 and obtains typical Si­ cilian counterplay along the b-file. Play might become interesting only in case when White attempts a kingside attack. However, Black can then invade White's rear through the c-file with . . . a4, . . . b3, . . . � c6d 4-c2 ! . We analyse this plan in the "Complete Games" section, see 1 0 Korneev-P. Horvath, Porto San Giorgio 2007. After 14 h4, we propose: 1 4... a4!?

The known alternatives 14 . . . g6 and 14 ... ie6 15 ih3 �d4 are play­ able, but the text is more enterpris­ ing. Now 15 ih3 fails to 15 . . . b3, so White must take the pawn: 1 5 lll c xb4 lll x b4 1 6 lll x b4 YNb6 1 7 a3 .id8

The immediate threat is . . . �cs and . . . ia5, regaining the pawn. 45

Part 2 If White prevented it by castling quickly, the bishop goes to b6 to un­ derline the vulnerability of the ene­ my kingside. We would not like to be in his shoes after 18 i.d3 �b7 19 0-0 i. b6 20 tLldS i.d 4 21 �bl i.h3 22 �el �d7. Perhaps he should play 18 �d3 i.e6 19 i.h3 �cs 2 0 i.xe6 fxe6 2 1 0-0 i.aS 22 �adl �fd8 with equal­ ity. We can realise the same idea fol­ lowing the modern 1 3 Y«f3 i.e6 1 4 gd1

tLlxb4 17 tLlxb4 (17 �xb4 i.d8 ! = ) 1 7 . . . �cS !

18 �d2 (or 18 �e2 i.d8 19 0-0 i.aS 2 0 a 3 0-0) 18 ... 0-0 19 a 3 �tb8 20 i.e2 i.d8 21 �xd6 �xd6 22 �xd6 i.e7. 1 6 i.dS 1 7 i.e2 �d4 1 8 %Yd3 o-o 1 9 o-o gcs 20 gc1 •••

1 4 a4!? White hoped to put pressure on d6 as in the game Nepomniachtchi­ Andriasian, Moscow 14.0 2 . 20 0 8 : 1 3 . . . i.e6 14 � d l i.e7 l S c S 0 - 0 1 6 i.bS tLl a7 17 i.a4. Kolev's idea rad­ ically disturbs his plans. 1 5 �cxb4 Now lS cS? ! does not work in view of lS . . . �aS ! . l S tLlxf6+ does not seem too test­ ing either: 1S . . . gxf6 ! ? 16 �e2 b3 17 axb3 �b8 1 5 Y«a5 ! 1 6 a3 Another critical line is 16 �c3 •••

•••

46

The fine point of this position is that the opposite coloured bish­ ops work in Black's favour, as after 20 tLlc2 i.xdS 21 exdS i.b6oo. After the text we continue setting up our pieces on dark squares : 20 Y«a7 2 1 h3 i.a5 22 i.g4 gbs All our pieces are well placed, the a4-pawn petrifies White's queenside and renders his extra pawn useless. •••

Part 2

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

STEP BY ST EP

I n this part we examine rare lines of the Positional system: A. 10 CDxe7 B . 10 M6, fallowed by 11 CDbl or ll c4. 10 CDxf6? ! + M6 11 �e3 loses yet another tempo and Black should become even better after 11 . . . �e6 12 c4 0-0 ! 13 cxbS (13 �e2 CDd4+) 13 . . . axbS 1 4 �xbS (14 CDxbS d S i s excel­ lent for Black, for example: 15 exdS ixdS 16 CDc3 CDd4t) 14 . . . CDd4 15 �d3 �b6+. A. 1 0 � xe7 White tries either to split the enemy pawn formation, or obtain a small strategic edge in case of 10 . . . �xe7. This approach is quite logical, but it fails the test of practice. It turns out that in the first case the ri­ diculous position of White's knight on a3 is a more weighty factor than Black's structural defects, and even in the latter case, Black retains fair chances to equalise. Let us shortly examine 10 .. . �xe7 11 c4 0-0 (11. . . b4? ! proved bad i n Carlsen-Radja-

bov, 20 07 rapid 12 CDc2 0-0 13 f3 h6 14 �h4 as 15 �e2 �e6 16 0-0 �fd8 17 c2 S8 �b7 �as S9 tll g S �d 1 + 60 i> g 2 �e1 61 tll e 6 �c3 62 �c 7 d3 63 tll d4+ b2 64 �b7+ a2 6S � a7+ i>b1 66 tll b S b2 67 tll x c3 xc3 68 �c7+ b3 69 �d7 c2 70 �c7+ d1 71 g4 hxg4 72 hS i>e2 73 h6 �f1 74 � e7 �xf2+ 7S rbg3 e3 0-1

1 0 . Ko rneev-P. Horvath Porto San G iorgio 2 6.08.200 7 1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c 3 es 6 tll d b S d6 7 �gs a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 tll d S �e7 1 0 �xf6 �xf6 1 1 c4 b4 1 2 tll c 2 a s 1 3 g 3 0-0 1 4 �g2 �gS 1 S 0-0 tll e7 1 6

Perhaps 18 ... Wffc7 i s slightly more precise, in order to avoid the oppo­ sition of White's rook from dl. In­ terestingly, two months earlier Kor­ neev faced the same 18 . . . Wffd 7, and chose 19 �adl �fd8 2 0 �d2 Wffc7. The game went 2 1 h4 a4 2 2 @h2 l2Jc6 23 f4 f6 24 ltJdS �b7 2S fS ixdS 26 WffxdS + @£8 27 �fdl �as, 112-112, Ko­ rneev-Nataf, Ourense, lS. 0 6 . 20 07. The only reason to refrain from �c7 could be 19 ltJdS, but then Black would be fine after capturing by knight. In the diagram position White cannot win by tripling his major pieces against d6. The game Balogh­ Moiseenko, Moscow 2006 saw 19 �fdl �fd8 20 �acl �ac8 2 1 ltJdS Wff a7 22 l2Jxe7+ Wfxe7 23 b3 �a7 24 �c2 Wies 2S �cd2 cj/f8 26 �f3 @g8 and a draw was agreed. The only active plan is a kingside pawn storm, but it is double-edged. 1 9 f4 f6 20 ts �f7 21 g4 tll c 6 22 �f3 tll d4 23 �g3 a4 Of course Black should not help the enemy open files on the kingside by playing . . . h6 . 61

Part 2 24 h 1 b3 25 a3 gac8

White starts attacking first, but Black has also fixed a target on c4 and might penetrate along the c-file. Only calculations can help assess correctly such positions. It seems that Black's counterplay against c4 and e4 is just enough to balance White's pressure along the g-file. 26 g5 fxg 5 27 gxg5 ®h8 28 gg1 I f we see the game course , we'll note that two moves later White had to return his rook to cl. On the other hand, it is not clear what he should have played. 28 ih3 , intending f6, turns out to be not so dangerous. Black can even ignore the threat by 28 . . . �c6 2 9 �g3 (29 �cl �c7 30 �g2 Wff a6) 29 . . . �c4 30 ttJxc4 �xc4 31 f6 �xf6 3 2 �c8 Wffxc8 with two pawns for the exchange. 28 �g3 has also drawbacks, as it allows 28 . . . ihS 29 �el �cs. 28 . . . Wc6 This a good setup, but 28 . . . �e8 deserves consideration as well. It prepares . . . ihS . 29 Wd2 gc7 The first critical moment of the game. Horvath could have ex62

changed the knights here with 2 9 . . . llJc2 ! ? Then 30 if3 �c7 31 �xg7? would fail to 31. . . ihS ! where­ as 30 ttJxc2 bxc2 31 Wffxc2 �c4 3 2 Wffc3 ib3 3 3 �g3 �c7 34 if3 Wffb7 3 S Wff h4 �b6 3 6 �hS ig8 = would create a fortress on the kingside. 30 g c 1 Wa6 This is an imprecision. Black should hit e4 in order to prevent White from manoeuvring the bish­ op to d3. So: 30 . . . Wffb7 31 �g3 �fc8 32 Wffd3 ihS with active pieces. 3 1 gg3 gfc8 32 .if1 Y*lb7 33 Y*f g2 .i g8 34 .id3

34 . . . gfa ? During the last moves White has improved his position. Still, he cannot win without the help of his knight. Therefore, Black should have grasped the chance to trade it by 34 . . . llJc2 ! with unclear com­ plications : 3S ttJxc2 bxc2 36 �xc2 dS 37 exdS �dS ; 3S �c2 bxc2 36 �xc2 �c4oo; 3S llJdS �dS 36 exdS �f8oo. 35 gg1 gf6 36 h4 ! ? Korneev includes his last re­ source in the assault. Computers like noncommittal continuations like 36 �h3 �a8 37 �gS Wff e8 38 llJ g4

7 !gS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS �f8, but Black is holding there. 36 .. . �h 6 37 �h3

37 ... �f6?

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

63

Part 3

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

Q U I C K REPERTO I RE

The fallowing two parts are closely related with the name of the book. After reading them, you'll be ready to start playing the system with con­ fidence. Nowadays everybody follows in the footsteps of the elite, and most Sveshnikovs reach in seconds the position after: 1 2 �c2 i.gS 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 a s 1 S i.c4 (lS !bS is rare­ ly seen : 1S . . . llJe7 16 llJxe7+ Wixe7 17 llJb4 17 . . . !h3 or 17 . . . !g4) 1 s ...gba 1 6 b3 ©h8

to defend successfully against direct attacks. White's targets are obvious - the pawns on d6 and aS . There is enough evidence that even if Black trades the aS-pawn for b3, his posi­ tion is not completely immune. De­ cisive factor is the piece activity. All our hopes are connected with . . . f5. This move serves multiple pur­ poses. First of all, it opens a file against the enemy king and the f2 pawn. Secondly, the c8-bishop ob­ tains a new operating diagonal fram fS. And finally, with the disappear­ ance of the e4-pa wn, Black can hope to move forward his central pawns. Should that happen, he can stop worrying about the aS-pawn, since his initiative would amply compen­ sate it. We must also be prepared for negative scenarios.

This is the basic position of the modern Sveshnikov. It is extreme­ ly popular, because White can try to win it without much risk. He has no weaknesses and should be able 64

If we fail to develop an initiative on the kingside, we should switch to a restraining tactic. In that case Black usually seeks exchanges, in order to remove the clamp on dS, and balances the hit on aS by pres­ sure on the b-pawn .

9 ltJdS ie7 10 hf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0 In the diagram position White has two major options : 17 0-0 fS and 17 ltJce3 g6 . The latter leads to different pawn structures and is the subject of the next part of the book. 1 7 0-0 f5 1 8 exf5 i.xf5 1 9 lll c e3 i.g6!

Black is playing "around" White's pieces . He does not aim to neutralise them, but rather build his own play with . . . e4 and . . . ltJeS. In a number of lines the b3-pawn proves to be weak. This position has a very good reputation for Black. In fact, sta­ tistically he scores over 50 percent. That is easy to understand, because the most natural move: 2 0 �d3 leads to mass exchanges, so White often experiments (unsuc­ cessfully! ) with new ideas . 20 . . . hd3 21 �xd3 he3 22 fxe3 rucfl+ 23 �xfl rucb3 24 �c4 �bS ! (only move) 25 e4 (or 25 ltJc7 �b6 26 ltJdS �bS=) 25 . . . �cS= . Another common move is: 2 0 �e2?! It aims t o double the rooks on the a-file, but this setup encourages Black's attack with : 20 . . . e4 21 �fal (or 2 1 ibS ltJeS 22 �fal ih4 23 g3 �cs�) 2L . .ih4 !

A typical way to provoke some holes in the enemy's castling posi­ tion. 22 g3 igS 23 ltJg2 (23 i bS ltJeS 24 �xa5 �c8-+) 23 ... ltJe5 24 ltJel �c8 25 meas �h3 26 �fl �h6 . White's extra pawn is a small consolation here, Anhchimeg-Rybenko, Ulaan­ baatar 20 0 2 . 2 0 b4? ! axb4 2 1 cxb4 i s prema­ ture if Black's knight can occupy d4: 21. . . ltJd4. 2 0 f3 prevents ... e4, but leaves the e3-knight without support. Usu­ ally Black uses that to gain control of dS: 20 . . . if7 21 �hl he3 22 ltJxe3 hc4 23 �xc4 ltJe7=. White can get a similar position with the pawn on b2 if on move 16 he defended the pawn with his rook: 1 6 �a2 h8 1 7 0-0 f5 1 8 exf5 i.xf5 1 9 lll c e3 .ig6

65

Part 3 White's rook is more passive here as it is charged with the de­ fence of the b2-pawn. On the other hand, White has the possibility of: 20 'Wa4 'Wc8 21 gd1 (21 �bS .ie8) We follow our general plan with 2 1 e4 22 b3 �f7 23 'Wa3 'Wd7 24 lll f 1 lll e5

18 h4 hh4, here the rook i s already on the second rank and White can open a passage to the critical h-file with a tempo (b2-b4 ! ) at the right moment. 1 8 lll x e3 lll e7

•••

Black has a strong initiative. See game 16 Socko-Krasenkow, Plock 20 0 0 . I n these examples White allowed .. .f5 and Black obtained counterplay on the kingside. Now we are going to examine the restrictive approach with l2Jc2e3. One small detail will define our reaction - the position of White's b­ p awn. If White plays 16 b3, we pre­ p are .. .f5 with 16 . . . g6. It is analysed in the next part. Now let us focus on 1 6 ga2 @ h 8 1 7 lll c e 3 �xe3! When the rook is o n a2 and White has not castled, we must forget about ... g6. The reason is that 17 . . . g6 18 h4 ! is very unpleasant. In comparison to the line 16 b3 ci>h8 17 l2Jce3 g6 ! 66

Black solved the problem of the bad bishop on gS, now he only has to activate his f8-rook by pushing .. .f5. Basically, the game is balanced. In the ensuing middlegame White can choose to stay either with two minor pieces, or trade knights. Wh ite keeps 1 m in or piece

Th is position arises after 19 0-0 fS 20 exfS ltJxf5 2 1 l2Jd5 l2Je7 2 2 l2Jxe7 V!ixe7. Black has sufficient counterplay in the centre : a) 23 b3 V!ic7 24 �d2 (24 �dS �b7) 24 . . . �b7 or 24 . . . .id7= ; b) 23 �dS a4 ! ? 24 �xa4 ! (24 �dl Wih4 could be dangerous for White:

9 l2Jd5 �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 25 g3 �h3 26 �fl? ! �f5 27 �d2 �d7+) 24 .. . �xb2 25 �b4 �c2 = . You can see another version of the same typical position in game 15 Carlsen-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 20 06 . It also shows that Black easily holds the balance with only heavy pieces left on the board.

This position arises after 19 b3 ! ? f5 2 0 exf5 l2Jxf5 2 1 l2Jd5 �b7. With his 19th move White de­ fended his b-pawn, thus render­ ing 21. . . l2Je7 impossible. Still, Black has sufficient counterplay on the kingside, see game 14 Karjakin­ Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 20 0 6 .

Wh ite keeps 2 m i nor pieces

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

67

Part 3

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

STEP BY STEP

Note the move order! W e first cas­ tle, to follow up with . . . igS . In the other lines Wh ite enjoys a small, but persistent advantage. Howev­ er, 1 1 . . . �gS 12 lt:Jc2 lt:Je7 is a very so­ lid continuation where Black has all the chances to level the game. We recommend it as a backup line in case something goes wrong with our main repertoire. It is aimed at avoiding the sharpest lines that are the subject of the next part of the book. That comes at a price, though. Black's winning chances are virtual­ ly nonexistent. See game 17 Leko­ Carlsen, Linares 0 3 . 0 3 .2008 which provides enough up-to-date theory on this topic.

1 2 �c2 This is the most flexible and con­ sistent variation. White bolsters up the dS-square and delays castling. Thus he keeps open sharp options like h4 . Occasionally, White's bi­ shop goes to h 3 . W e c a n better understand the importance of precise move order on the example of the natural-look­ ing 12 ie2 �gS 1 3 lt:Jc2 ie6 14 0-0 68

lt:Je7 and White is unable to hold dS, for instance, 15 lt:Jcb4 aS! 16 lt:Jxe7+ V!Jxe7 1 7 lt:J dS (17 lt:Jc6? Wb7 18 V!Jxd6 ga6 1 9 �xeS �f6 2 0 V!JxbS gb6 2 1 lt:JxaS fubS 22 lt:Jxb7 gxb7+) 17 . . . �b7+. 1 2 �d 3 is another innocuous move. Black can choose a typical Sveshnikov setup : 12 . . . �e6 13 0-0 g b8 14 lt:Jc2 as 15 V!Je2 b4 16 �c4 �gS= , a s in game 11 Ivanchuk-El­ janov, Moscow 2 0 05 , where Black keeps the rook on f8 in order to help .. .f 5. Or he might prefer more all-Si­ cilian methods like pure queenside play: 12 . . . �gS 13 ic2 (13 h4? ! �h6 14 g4 �f4 15 lt:Jxf4 exf4 16 lt:Jc2 dS ! 17 exdS ge8+ 1 8 Ml lt:JeS 19 ie2 ib7 20 lt:Jb4 aS+) 13 . . . gb8 14 �d3 �e6 15 gd1 �d7 16 0-0 gfc8 17 b4 Arnason-Vukic, Bela Crkva 1 98 3 , a n d here 17 . . . lt:Je7! 18 lt:Jxe7+ �xe7 19 �b3 gc6+ would have been excel­ lent for Black.

12

•••

.igS

In the 1970s, Sveshnikov played both the text and 12 . . . gb8 , which is meant to prevent a2 -a4. In the lat­ ter case, however, White can an-

9 tlJ dS �e7 10 ixf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0 swer 13 h4, restricting Black's bish­ op. We prefer to have active pieces, even at a price.

1 3 a4 The most principled move. We'll also mention: a) 13 4Jce3 ixe3 14 4Jxe3 4Je7 lS �e2 (lS a4 �b7 16 axbS axbS 17 gxa8 ixa8 18 f3 �b6 19 �d2 fS ! +) 1S . . . �b7 16 �f3 . Black is able to hold this po­ sition with natural moves, but the temporary pawn sacrifice 16 . . . dS ! seems best: 17 exdS (17 ttJxdS? ! ttJxdS 18 exdS e4 19 �e2 �gs 2 0 0-0 ixdS - is fine for Black) 17 ... �d6 18 g4 (18 �b3 fS ! ) 18 . . . �ad8 19 �d3 �d7! 20 0-0-0 gfd8 21 ttJfs (21 �d2 ? ! �f6 ! 22 �e4 ttJxdS 23 ttJxdS ixdS 24 ixdS �ds 2S �xdS gxdS 26 gxdS hS 27 gxhS �xf2+) 21. . .�f6 22 4Jxe7+ �xe7= , Gaprindashvili­ Timoshchenko, USSR 1977; b) 13 �d3 is inconsistent as White loses his grip on dS: 13 . . . �e6 (13 . . . 4Je7 14 4Jcb4 aS lS 4Jxe7+ �xe7 16 ttJds �b7 17 �hs �d8 18 gd1 �e6 19 �c2 b4 20 0-0 bxc3 21 bxc3 was played in Gouliev-Shirov, rapid, Venaco 200S, when 21. . . �c8 ! 2 2 h 3 gb8 would have been great for Black) 14 4Jce3 4Je7= ;

c) 13 �e2 i s too humble a nd can­ not aspire to the advantage. Black fightsfor dS with 13 . . . �e6 14 0-0 4Je7 lS 4Jcb4 aS 16 4Jxe7+ �xe7 17 tlJdS �b7, 13 Dervishi-Krasenkow, Ohrid 2001 or: 13 . . . ttJe 7 14 ttJc b4 as lS ttJxe 7 + �xe7 16 ttJds �b7 17 �d3 gb8 18 0-0 �e6 19 gfdl gfc8

White has no active plan, see the model game 12 Almasi-Topalov, rapid, Monte Carlo 2001; d ) 13 g 3 This i s a purely defen­ sive setup. Black easily gets a com­ fortable game by following the same development scheme as in the pre­ vious examples : 13 . . . 4Je7 14 4Jce3 (Or 14 h4 �h6 ; 14 4Jcb4? ! �e6 lS �g2 a s 16 4Jxe7+ �xe7 17 tlJdS �b7+ Xie Jun-Ga­ liamova, Kazan/Shenyang 1999) 14 ... gb8 (14 ... ixe3 lS 4Jxe3 �b7 16 �g2 fS is an interesting choice for courageous players: 17 exfS ixg2 18 tlJxg2 ttJxfS 19 �dS + cj{h8 20 0-0 b4 ! ? 2 1 cxb4 �b6 2 2 a 3 aS 23 bxaS gxaS 24 �e4 tlJd4oo) lS �g2 aS 16 0-0 (16 a3 �e6 17 4Jxe7+? ! �xe7 18 tlJfS �d7! 19 h4 �f6 20 4Je3 b4 21 cxb4 axb4 2 2 a 4 �d8 ! t Bartel-Rad­ j abov, FIDE-Web k.o . Tripoli, 2 0 04) 16 . . . ixe3 17 4Jxe3 �e6 18 �d3 �b6 69

Part 3 19 �fdl �fd8 2 0 �d2

In such positions Black expands on the queenside by 20 . . . b4 21 c4 ttJc6 with a good game . e) 13 h4 .ih6 14 g4 An agressive plan, successfuly used lately by GM Andrei Volokitin. However, Black has no weakness­ es on the kingside, so he should not fear a direct attack. 14 . . .�f4 15 �f3 15 gS �b7! ? 16 �f3 tlJe7 17 tlJxf4 exf4 1 8 0-0-0 tlJg6 19 hS tlJeS 2 0 �xf4 fS gave Black strong counterplay in Safar Zadeh-Agamaliev, Fajr 1997. 15 . . .�e6

wins a pawn, but White's numer­ ous weaknesses assure Black of a good game, for instance: 18 . . . b4 (18 . . . �c7 ! ?) 19 c4 (19 cxb4 �b8 2 0 a 3 dS ! ; 1 9 .ie2 bxc3 2 0 bxc3 �as 2 1 0 - 0 �xc3+, Bierwisch-Siegmund , Obertsdorf 2 0 03) 19 . . . �aS ! 20 b3 �a3 21 hS �b2 22 �dl f6 ! f! with rich counterplay for Black. 16 . . . �b8 17 gS �e8 Black also has other appealing options , like 17. . . �d7. 18 ttJxf4 exf4 19 �xf4 b4 White can still maintain the bal­ ance here: 2 0 0-0 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 ttJes 2 2 ha6 �as 23 .ie2 �xc3 24 ttJe3 �b2 25 tlJd l �d2 = or: 20 cxb4 ttJxb4 21 ttJxb4 �b4 22 b3 (22 �d 2 �b6 23 b3 dSt) 2 2 ... dS= . 1 3 ... bxa4 This capture is a must in the Positional variation. Black uses the b-file for counterplay while our a­ pawn could be defended by the standard manoeuvre .id8 . In, con­ trast , after 13 . . . �b8 the bS-pawn would have been an easy target. 1 4 gxa4 as

16 .id3 Alternatively: 16 tlJxf4 exf4 (16 . . . �f6 17 gS �xf4 18 �xf4 exf4 19 0-0-0 �fd8= leads to an equal endgame , but the text move is more ambitious .) 17 �xf4 tlJeS 18 ttJe3 70

9 l'i:JdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c 3 0-0 Main branches are: A. 15 �bS page 71 B. 15 �c4 page 73 15 b4 is also seen, but it neglects development and can only make us happy: lS . . . �e6 and then White can close the queenside or maintain tensio n: a) 16 bS Now Black has at least three good options: 16 ... l'i:Je7 is proposed by Svesh­ nikov: 17 l'i:Jce3 �xe3 18 l'i:Jxe3 V!ic7 19 c4 l'i:Jc8 ! 20 �al l'i:Jb6 21 �e2 �fc8 2 2 Wid2 WicS ! + and Black is fine; 16 . . . �xdS ! ? is a concrete way to use White's lag in development: 17 WixdS (or 17 exdS l'i:Jb8 18 l'i:Jb4 l'i:Jd7 19 l'i:Jc6 �b6 and the a-pawn will soon be marching forward) 17 . . . l'i:Je7 18 V!ib3 (18 Widl dSt, Wittke-Hoyer, Germany 1988) 18 . . . dS 19 �e2 dxe4 20 0-0 V!idS ! 2 l �c4 �cs 22 �el l'i:Jc8 ! with a fine game ; 16 . . . l'i:Jb8 is recommended by Yakovich and seems very logical. The knight is relocated to an ex­ cellent outpost on cS : 17 l'i:Jcb4 (17 �e2 l'i:Jd7) 17 . . . Wic8 ! 18 �e2 axb4 ! 19 �a8 bxc3 . Black had more than enough compensation in Yudasin­ Semeniuk, Saratov 1981. b) 16 �c4 axb4 17 l'i:Jcxb4 17 �xa8 runs into nice tactical blows after 17 . . . Wixa8 18 l'i:Jcxb4? l'i:Jxb4 19 cxb4 �c8 - + ; 18 l'i:Jc7 bxc3 ! 19 l'i:Jxa8 (19 �xe6 �d2 + 20 �fl �aS - + ; 19 0-0 �b8 2 0 l'i:Jxe6 fxe6 21 he6 + �h8+) 19 . . . �d2 + 2 0 Wixd2 ( 2 0 � fl �xc4+ 21 �gl �xa8+; 20 �e2 �xc4+ 21 �f3 �b3 ! 22

�g3 l'i:Jd4- +) 2 0 . . . cxd 2 + 21 �xd2 �xa8+; 18 h4 �d8 ! 19 cxb4 l'i:Jxb4 ! 20 l'i:Jcxb4 �as with an advantage; 18 cxb4 l'i:Jxb4 ! 19 l'i:J cxb4 �c8 20 h4 (20 0-0 �xc4 21 l'i:Jb6 �b7 22 l'i:Jxc4 �xc4 23 l'i:JdS hfl 24 �xfl+) 2 0 h4 �xc4 21 hxgS �xb4 22 l'i:Jxb4 V!ixe4 + 23 �l �xb4+. 17 . . . l'i:Jxb4 18 cxb4 �xa4 19 �xa4 Wic8 2 0 �b3 �xdS 2 1 exdS �g4 2 2 0 - 0 �c8 Black has the more active pieces.

A. 1 5 .ib5 This move could be explained only with White's wish to avoid the line 15 �c4 �d7, which is however quite passive, as demonstrated by the recent game 18 Shirov-Topa­ lov, Morelia/Linares, 19.02.2008. 1 5 �e7 •••

16 �x e7+ White's only hope to gain some advantage is connected with intro­ ducing a knight on dS. However, this is impossible: a) 16 l'i:Jce3 �xe3 17 l'i:Jxe3 �b6 18 �d3 �b8 19 c4 fS 20 0-0 fxe4 21 �xe4 �fS ! 22 l'i:JxfS l'i:JxfS 23 �c6 l'i:Jd4 24 Wixb6 �xb6= ;

71

Part 3 b) 16 l2Jcb4 also does not work in view of 16 . . . ih3 . 16 . . . id7 is a well known way to equalise immediately: 17 l2Jxe7 + (17 hd7? ! axb4 18 �xa8 �xa8 19 0-0 ltJxdS+) 17 ... he7 18 l2Jc6 (18 hd7 axb4 19 ic6 �xa4 20 �xa4 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 �b8 2 2 0 - 0 id8 = , Svidler­ Ivanchuk, Polanica Zdroj 2000) 18 . . . �e 8 19 �ds ie6 2 0 �d3 id7= . The text is more straightforward. 17 l2Jxe7+ 17 gxh3 axb4 18 l2Jxb4 �xa4 19 ha4 fS ! (Leko) is dubious since the white king is rather shaky. 17 . . . �xe7 and play transposes to 16 l2J e7 �e7 17 l2Jb4 ih3 = . c ) 1 6 0 - 0 ltJxdS 1 7 �xdS ie6 18 �d3 �b6 = prepares counterplay down the f-file with .. .f5, for in­ stance, 19 c4? ! f5 20 l2Je3 fxe4 21 �xe4 �a7 2 2 ltJdS (22 �fal? �af7 ! ) 2 2 . . . �cS. Perhaps White should prefer 19 l2Je 3 , but it is clear that the position after 19 . . .he3 2 0 fxe3 can­ not be a problem for Black. d) Finally, 16 �c4 �d7 17 �a2 �c8 18 �d3 ltJxdS 19 hdS a4= leaves Black well developed and with good prospects. 1 6 ...Wfxe7 1 7 � b4 After 17 0-0 �b7 18 �d3 (18 �e2 ie6 19 c4 fS is fine for Black) 18 . . . ie6 19 c4 �d8 Black successful­ ly redeployed his pieces in Smyslov­ Sveshnikov, Leningrad 1977. 1 7 ... i.h3 17 . . .�g4 leaves Black fewer winning chances: 18 �al (18 ltJdS hdl 19 l2Jxe7 + he7 20 @xdl �ab8 21 c4 �d8 =) 18 . . . �b7 (1 8 . . . �c7 is also

72

enough to keep the balance) 19 �c6 �b6 2 0 h3 (20 ha8 �bS ! 21 f3 axb4 22 fxg4 �d3 23 �dl �e3 + 24 �e2 �cl+ leads to a draw by perpetual check) 20 . . . �ab8 (Rogozenko gives 2 0 . . . axb4 2 1 �xa8 �xc6 22 �f8 + @xf8 23 hxg4 �xe4+ 24 Ml b3, but the text move is more enterprising) 21 �xaS ih4 2 2 0-0 (22 hxg4 �xf2 + 23 @dl igS 24 �ds �fc8t looks dangerous for White) 22 . . . �e2 23 g3 hfl 24 @xfl �d8oo. We have reached an unbalanced position, which needs further analysis. We have even explored 24 . . . hg3 ! ? 2 5 fxg3 fS 2 6 exfS �fS + 27 @e2 �f2 + 2 8 @d3 e4+ 29 he4 �xg3+ 30 @c2 �f2 + 31 @b3 �xb4+ 32 cxb4 �e3 + with equality.

1 8 �d5 Aft e r 1 8 gxh3 axb4 19 �b4 g6 White's king will never find a safe haven. 18 �c6 �ac8 19 �xaS hg2 2 0 �gl ih3 21 �hS looks i n White's fa­ vour, but 21. . . �h4 2 2 ltJdS �d8 2 3 �h6 g 6 2 4 �a6 �e6 allows Black t o consolidate. 1 8 %Yb7 1 9 .ic4 19 gxh3? ! �xbS 20 �gl id8 ! is better for Black: 21 b3 (21 c4? ! •••

9 ltJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 �xb2+ , Gouliev-Cheparinov, Lina­ res 2002) 21. . . �b8 22 b4 c±>h8 ; 19 �d3 ? ! �e6 20 0-0 hdS leads to a typical Sveshnikov position with opposite coloured bishops. With a white pawn on dS Black does not have any problems. In Luj an-Spas­ ov, Santa Cruz de la Palma 2005, he even was better after 21 exdS �ab8 22 �xaS �d8 23 �c6 �xb2 24 �bs �xbS 25 hbS �b6+; 19 c4 cuts off White's bishop from the kingside: 19 . . . �e6 20 0-0 fS 21 exfS �fS=. 19

•••

J.d7 20 ga2

In this position Black has tried so far 20 . . . a4 21 0-0 �e6 2 2 �d3 c±>h8 23 ltJb4 ! t and 20 . . . c±>h8 21 0-0 fS 2 2 exfS, when 2 2 . . . �fS ! ? i s worth consideration. (22 . . .MS 23 ltJe3 he3 24 �dS hf2 + 25 c±>hl is an intro­ duction to a long farced variation which is slightly better for White) We propose: 20 ... gfcS! 21 �d3 �c6 Now White is farced to compro­ mise his pawn structure: 22 b3 a4 23 0-0 axb3 24 gxa8 gxa8 25 ixb3 � c5=.

a.

1 5 .ic4 gba

We'll focus mostly o n: Bl . 16 �a2 B 2 . 16 b3 16 b4 is a premature advance which does not disturb Black: 16 . . . �d7 17 �a3 axb4 18 cxb4 !e6= ; 1 6 �al shifts the queen away fram the centre and the kingside. Then the thematic counterplay with 16 . . . c±>h8 17 0-0 fS is even more ef­ ficient: 18 exf5 hf5 19 ttJce3 �g6 . Black is accumulating striking force against the enemy king by the help of the standard e5-e4, ltJc6-e5 with good prospects, for example : 2 0 �dl e 4 2 1 �fl �e8 2 2 �d2 !f7 ! and Black is fine. 8 1 . 1 6 ga2 @h8 It i s clear that Black must open the f-file by .. .f5. The big question is whether to prepare it with . . . g6, or push it right away. We prefer to refrain from weakening the king and the seventh rank with ... g6. It is better to stake on dynamical factors and put pressure on f2 . No­ tice that . . . g6 is riskier while White

73

Part 3 had not castled, since he could at­ tack it with h4 ! ? Bla . 1 7 lt:J ce3 Blb . 17 0-0 Without ... g6, 17 h4 would only weaken White's kingside. The game Asrian-Khalifman, Bled ol. 200 2 went 17 . . . �h6 18 lt:Jce3 he3 19 lt:Jxe3 lt:J e7 20 b3 f S 21 exfS ltJxfS 2 2 lt:JxfS hfS 2 3 0 - 0 �e4 2 4 �ds hdS 2S �xdS �xh4 26 �xaS �f6 = . Bla. 17 �ce3 he3 ! 1 8 �xe3 �e7

Black solved the problem of the bad bishop on gS, now he only has to activate his f8-rook. Basical­ ly, the game is balanced, but some small nuances could be able to em­ bitter his life. 19 b3 Practice has shown that Black has an easy game if he exchang­ es any of his minor pieces. After 19 0-0 fS 2 0 exfS ltJxfS (20 . . . MS 21 b3 maintains the tension in White's fa­ vour) White cannot prevent the ex­ change of the knights due to 21 ltJdS ltJe7 22 ltJxe7 �xe7 74

Black has sufficient counterplay against White's king and in the cen­ tre: a) 23 b3 �c7 24 �d2 (24 �ds �b7) 24 . . .�b7 (24 . . .�d7 !?) 2S �fal 2S . . . �c6 (2S . . . dS leads to a drawn rook endgame: 26 hdS hdS 27 �xdS �xc3 2 8 �xaS �b3 2 9 �xeS �xeS 30 �xeS �b2) 26 �fl �f4 ! , in­ tending . . . �g4. b) 2 3 �ds a4 ! ? (or 23 . . .�b7 24 �d2 �d7 2s �dS hdS 26 �xds �bs 27 �d3 �c6 =) 24 �xa4 ! (24 �dl �h4 could be dangerous for White : 2 S g 3 �h3 26 �fl? ! �fS 2 7 �d2 �d7+) 24 . . . �xb2 2S �b4 �c2 = . Another version o f the same typical position arises after 2 1 ltJxfS MS . See game 15 Carlsen-Van W ely, Wijk aan Zee 20 0 6 . 19 . . .f5 20 exf5 �xf5 2 1 � d5 With his 19th move White de­ fended his b-pawn, thus rendering 2 1 . . . lt:Je7 impossible. Still, 21 ... ib7 should ensure Black counterplay, see game 14 Karjakin-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 200 6 . Note that the placement of White's pawn on b3 has its draw­ backs, too, as it allows the break . . . a4 at an opportunity.

9 ll:JdS ii.e7 10 hf6 ii.xf6 11 c3 0-0 Blb. 17 0 - 0 f5 18 exf5 .hf5 19 ltJce3 19 �e2 �d7 20 �dl e4 21 ttJde3 ll:JeS ! is good for Black. 19 i.g6 . . .

�xe4+) 24 ... axb4 25 ll:Jxb4= . 22 ii.a6 ! (22 cxb4 ii.xe3 23 fxe3 �1 + 24 ix:fl W 25 �d2 ii.xdS 26 �xdS ll:Jxb4 27 �bs �bs 2 8 �xbS ll:Jc2+) 22 . . . �d7 23 ii.bS (23 ll:Jxb4 ii.e8=) 23 . . . ii.e8 24 ll:Jxb4 (24 cxb4 �b7) 24 . . . �t7 25 ll:JbdS �b7= . 21 e4 •••

2 0 �a4 20 f3 hinders the plan with 20 . . . e 4 (in view o f 2 1 f4), but it weakens the gl-a7 diagonal. Black uses that immediately by attacking the cen­ tre: 20 . . . ll:Je7 21 �e2 �c8 22 b3 ii.t7 23 �dl ii.xe3+ 24 ll:Jxe3 (24 �xe3 ii.xdS 25 hdS ll:Jf5, fallowed by �b6 and ll:Je3, is completely equal) 24 . . . �b6 25 @hl dS= , Dominguez­ Ramirez, Guayaquil 2003. 20 �c S 21 gd1 It is easy to understand White's wish to reinforce his control over dS . For example, after 21 ii.e2 ii.xe3 ! ? 2 2 ll:Jxe3 (22 fxe3 �xfl+ 2 3 hfl ii.bl ! 24 � a l �xb2) 22 . . . �f4 23 �a3 ii.t7 24 �aal dS+ Black's centre becomes mobile . Instead, Papadopoulos played against Kolev in Kavala 2 007 the novelty 2 1 b4, which leads to a bar­ ren position: 21. .. axb4 Or 21. . . ii.xe3 22 fxe3 �xfl + 23 ii.xfl ii. t7 24 �d2 (24 e4? ! axb4 25 ii. a6 �d7 26 ii.bS �g4 ! 27 ii.xc6 •••

The essence of Black's plan is to put the knight to eS, even at the cost of the aS-pawn. The threats against the enemy king should compensate the small material deficit. 22 b3 .if7 23 �a3 �d7 24 ltJfl ltJe5 Black has a strong initiative, 16 Socko-Krasenkow, Plock 20 0 0 .

8 2 . 1 6 b 3 h 8

75

Part 3 In the diagram position White has two major options: 17 0-0 and 17 l2J ce3 (it is the subject of the next part of the book) . They result in different pawn structures since in the latter case Black has to prepare . . .fS by . . . g6 . Minor alternatives are: a) 17 V9e2 White takes control of e4 and prepares to expand on the kingside. Black obtains good play by simple and logical moves: 17 .. .fS 18 h4 !f6 The fine point of White's 17th move is that 18 . . . !h6 is bad in view of 19 exfS hf5 2 0 g4 hc2 2 1 V9xc2 !f4 2 2 V9e4 V9d7 23 !d3+ with a ter­ rible battery on the b l-h7 diagonal, Morais-Rodrigues, Gaia 2004. 19 exfS MS 20 l2Jce3 !d7

21 V9c2 21 !d3 l2J e7 22 l2Jxe7 V9xe7 23 ltJdS V9f7 24 V9e4? ! is purposeful, but 24 . . . g6 25 hS !gS underlines the fact that White's king is helpless in the centre . The best White can do is to play a pa wnless endgame after 26 f4 !fS 27 hxg6 V9xg6 2 8 fxgS V9xgS 2 9 V9h4 V9xh4+ 3 0 �hxh4 !xd3. That's why Polgar preferred 24 �xaS !d8 25 �a7 V9xdS 26 �xd7 �xb3 with to76

tal elimination in Polgar-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 20 05. 2 1 . .. e4 ! ? 22 V9xe4 ltJeS 23 �al (23 � a3 �e8oo Rogozenko) 23 ... �e8 24 l2Jxf6 V9xf6 2 5 V9d4 (25 0-0? l2Jxc4 26 V9xc4 !bS+) 2S . . . !c6 . Black has full compensation for the pawn. Now 26 0-0 leads to a farced draw after 26 . . . l2Jf3 + 27 gxf3 V9xf3 28 !dS hdS 29 V9xdS �xe3 30 V9xf3 �xf3 = . Charbonneau-Radjabov, Calvia ol. 20 04 saw 26 !dS �b4 ! 27 V9d2 hdS 28 V9xdS, when 28 . .. �xb3 ! would have leveled the game, for in­ stance, 29 0-0 �xc3 30 �xaS l2Jc6= (Rogozenko). b) 17 h4 only provides Black with a lever on the kingside after 17 . . . !h6 . Now 18 g4 !f4 1 9 V9f3 ! e 6 20 l2Jce3 he3 ! 21 l2Jxe3 (21 fxe3 l2Je7! t) 2 1 . . . !xc4 22 �xc4 l2Je7+ favours Black. 18 l2Jce3 allows Black to get rid of his bad bishop with 18 . . . he3 19 l2Jxe3 l2Je7 (20 hS h6 21 0-0 fS 2 2 exfS ltJxfS 23 fufS MS 24 V9dS !d7 2S �a2 !g4=) 20 0-0 fS 21 exfS ltJxfS 2 2 ltJxfS hfS 23 V9dS !g6= , Onis­ chuk-Filippov, Batumi 1999. Finally, the tricky 18 V9e2 (hop­ ing for 18 .. .fS? ! 19 exfS MS 20 g4) should probably be answered care­ fully with 18 . . . !d7 19 �al a4 20 b4 (20 bxa4 �b2 ! ?) 20 . . . l2Je7. In these lines the pawn on h4 is only a cause for concern to White. 1 7 0-0 f5 1 8 exf5 In 2005 Ivanchuk introduced the manoeuvre 18 �el fxe4 19 �xe4 !fS 20 �e2 with the obvious inten-

9 ltJd5 ie7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 tion to transfer it to a2 . However, 20 . . . ig4 would provoke a weakness in White' s castling position, which could be attacked later, for exam­ ple, 21 f3 ih5 22 @hl ltJe7 23 ltJxe7 he7 24 Wal M3 . 18 f3 fxe4 19 fxe4 �xfl+ 2 0 Wxfl ltJe7! is completely equal because the weak pawns of both sides, b3 and e4 versus aS and d6, counter­ balance each other. In Inarkiev­ Yakovich, Krasnodar 20 0 2 , Black managed to exchange light-squared bishops and even had a slightly bet­ ter game: 21 Wd3 ltJxd5 22 hd5 ib7 ! . 1 8 �xfS

d4: 21 ltJd4 ltJxd4 22 �xd4 � b7 23 Wel �bf7 24 �a2 h5? ! 25 ltJ e3 �f4 2 6 �d5+, Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Mos­ cow 20 07. 21 ltJce3 e4 22 ib5, Ivanchuk­ Kramnik, rapid, Monte Carlo 2005. Here 2 2 . . . he3 ! 2 3 fxe3 (23 ltJxe3 ltJe5=) 23 . . . Wf5 ! would have been good for Black. 1 9 ig 6 ! Black i s playing "around" White's pieces. He does not aim to neutral­ ise them, but rather build his own play with . . . e4 and . . . ltJe5. . . .

. . .

1 9 � ce3 19 We2 i g6 does not change the plans of the sides . 20 �dl White's game is not so uncloudy as it may seem at first sight. In Pol­ gar-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 2003 Black got the initiative after 20 id3 ie8 2 1 �a3 ltJe7 22 ie4 ltJxd5 23 hd5 Wb6+. 20 . . . Wc8 We see here an example where 20 . . . e4 turned premature since White's knight was able to jump to

This position has a very good reputation for Black. The point is that the most natural move 2 0 �d3 brings about mass exchan­ ges : 2 0 . . . hd3 21 Wxd3 he3 2 2 fxe3 (22 ltJxe3? �b3 23 Wc4 Wb6+) 22 . . . �fl+ 23 Wxfl �xb3 24 �c4 �b5D 25 e4 (or 25 ltJc7 �b6 26 ltJ d5 �b5=) 25 . . . �c5 2 6 �xc5 dxcS 27 Wa6 (27 Wb5 Wd6 = ; 27 Wf7 h6=) 27 ... ltJb8 2 8 Wa8 h6= . White may attempt to retain his king's rook by 2 0 E:el, but it weakens the f2-square. Black un­ derlines that by 20 . . . �b7, intend­ ing 21 . . . �bf7. Then 21 ltJfl �bf7 2 2 77

Part 3 �a2 would be too passive as Black gets time for 2 2 . . . e4 23 ltJg3 ih4 24 ttJe3 �f4 2S �d2 ttJeS 26 �xd6 �gs with good compensation. So Anand fallowed up with 21 !d3 hd3 2 2 �xd3 he3 2 3 fxe3 ( 2 3 ttJxe3? �b3 24 �c4 �b6+) 23 . . . �xb3 24 �c4 to draw after 24 . . . �b2 ! 2S �xc6 �gS 26 ttJf4 exf4 27 �xf4 �fb8 = , Anand­ Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 200S. 2 0 f3 !f7 21 @hl he3 2 2 ttJxe3 hc4 23 �xc4 ttJe7 is also equal. 2 0 b4? ! axb4 21 cxb4 is prema­ ture if Black's knight can occupy d 4: 2 1 . . . ltJd4 . 20 �e2 ? ! aims t o win the aS­ pawn, but this setup encourages Black's attack with : 20 . . . e4 21 �fal (or 2 1 �bs ttJ eS 2 2 �fal !h4 23 g3 �c8-+) 2 1 . . . �4 (loosening White's castling position) 22 g3 !gS 23 ltJg2 (23 !bS ttJeS 24 �xaS �c8-+) 23 . . . ttJeS 24 ttJel �c8 2S �xaS �h3 26 �fl �h6 . White's extra pawn is a small consolation here, Anhchimeg­ Rybenko, Ulaanbaatar 20 0 2 . Now we are going t o consider yet another redeployment of White's pieces: 2 0 �e2 The bishop shifts to f3, while the a4-rook prevents . . . e4. Black must reconsider his plans for attack in fa-

78

vour of pressure against b3 : 2 0 . . . !f7 ! 2 1 !f3 We know that 2 1 b4? ! should be dubious because our knight will land on d4. More interesting is 21 ttJc4, when we must take the chance to play 2 1 . . . e4 ! , depriving ttJdS of sup­ port through !f3 . Then: 22 f4 exf3 23 M3 ttJeS 24 ttJxeS (24 ttJxaS? �bS- +) 24 . . . dxeS= ; 2 2 b4 axb4 2 3 cxb4 ttJe7 (23 . . . hdS 24 �xdS ttJxb4=) 24 ttJce3 ttJxdS 2S ttJxdS �e8 ! ? 26 bS �eSf!; 22 @hl �g8 23 �a3. The han­ ging b3-pawn is restricting White's options. 23 . . . ttJe7! 24 ttJce3 (24 ttJxe7 he7 2S ttJxaS �c7 26 b4 dSoo) 24 . . . ttJxdS 2S ltJxdS �fS ! 26 c4 hdS 27 cxdS �b6 t Leko-Gelfand, Po­ lanica Zdroj 1998 .

2 1 . . . he3 2 2 fxe3 �g8=, Stefans­ son-Filippov, Chalkidiki 20 0 2 .

Part 3

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

COMPLETE GAMES

1 1 lvanchuk - E ljanov M oscow 200S 1 e4 cs 2 li:)f3 li:)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:)c3 es 6 li:) d bS d6 7 ig S a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 li:) d S ie7 1 O ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 id 3 ie6 1 3 0-0 �b8 1 4 li:)c2 a5

White refrained fram a4 and did not pose any problems to Black who is able to choose different set­ ups. His last move is consistent, but probably a bit early against id3 , for it helps White start play on the queenside. Instead . . . ig5, followed by . . . �d7 and .. . �fc8, is preferable. 1 S YMe2 ! After 1 5 a4 b4 1 6 cxb4 (16 ib5 hd5 17 exd5 ttJ a7 18 c4 e4) 16 . . . hd5 17 b5 ie6 18 bxc6 �xb2 19

llJe3 White would be better, but15 . . . bxa4 ! leads t o better versions o f the main lines . 1 S . . . b4 We prefer 15 . . . hd5 16 exd5 llJe7=, favourably changing the pawn structure. 1 6 ic4 igS 1 7 cxb4 axb4 17 . . . llJxb4 18 llJcxb4 axb4 is so­ lid, but dull. The worse Black could face, is a position with opposite col­ oured bishops. It is true that it is generally more pleasant for White, but Black's dark-squared bishop can easily be transferred to b6 to hold the draw. Compare such posi­ tion with game 17 Leko-Carlsen, where Black's bishop is idle on h6, and still he was not lost at all . 1 8 �fd 1 YMaS? ! Elj anov follows a wrong strate­ gy, playing on the queenside, where White is stronger. He should have remembered that in the Sveshni­ kov Black's play is connected with . . .f5. Instead of the queen's sortie, 18 . . . cj/h8 19 ib5 hd5 20 �xd5 llJe7 21 �ddl f5 seems fine. 1 9 a3! bx a3 20 b4 YMd8 21 bS li:)aS 2 2 ia2 79

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

2 2 ... @h8 White has considerably im­ proved his position during the last few moves. He has made a passer and needs only 2-3 tempi to con­ solidate and rearange his minor pieces . Black realised that and de­ cided to switch to the tested plan with . . .fS. Perhaps he could main­ tain the balance attacking the ex­ tended White pawn, for example, 22 . . . \Wd7 23 llJxa3 �fc8 24 b6 !d8 25 tt:Jbs c±>h8 26 llJbc7 !xdS 27 llJxdS hb6 28 llJxb6 �xb6 29 ht/ \Wxf7 3 0 �xaS= , or 2 2 . . . Wc8 2 3 llJxa3 �g4 24 f3 �d7 25 c±>hl \Wes 26 b6 �d8 , but here 2 7 �dcl \Wxa3 2 8 llJf6 + gxf6 2 9 hf?+ �f7 30 �xa3 might turn in White's favour. 23 tll x a3 t5 24 ext5 Axt5 Now 25 llJbl ! \Wd7 26 llJbc3 �d8 would be pleasant for White in view of the clumsy position of the aS­ knigh t. I nstead Ivanchuk thrusts his passed pawn forward. . . to lose it in few moves. 25 b6? ! tll c6 2 6 tll b5 tll e7 27 tll bc7 tll c 8 28 �b1 tll x b6 29 Axt5 tll x d5 30 g xd5 VNxc7 %-% The extra pawn is worthless.

80

This is a model position for Black in the cases when White refrains from a4. The dS-knight looks glori­ ous, but in fact it is rather useless as it has no targets. White's bishop is not any better. Black has active plans on the queenside, connect­ ed with . . . b4, or in the centre. ( . . .fS) They ensure him good counterplay. 1 1 VNd3 gb8 17 . . .b4 is a fair alternative, but it allows White to close the centre with 18 c4. (18 cxb4 axb4 leaves Black more chances. In practice Black of­ ten emerged with some initiative, for example : 19 \Wb3 �e6 20 �c4 �ac8+ Anand-Kramnik, Dortmund 1997 or 19 \Wg3 h6 20 0-0 c±>h8 2 1 �b3 �b8 2 2 �adl fSf± Almasi-Shi­ rov, Cannes 2005) 18 . . . �e6 19 �dl a4 20 0-0 �aS= . 1 8 0 - 0 �e6 1 9 gtd 1 I n a later game Almasi tested

9 llJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 �adl, but soon discovered, that the best setup of his rooks is on cl and dl. 1 9 . . . �fc8 20 a3 White must be careful not to give up the c-file as in the game Tivia­ kov-Van Wely, Leeuwarden 2003 which went 20 �g3 h6 2 1 b3 �cs 2 2 c 4 hdS 23 rocdS �xdS 2 4 cxdS �c8 2s �d3 �cs+. 20 . . . h6 21 g3 .id8

This move anticipates possi­ ble b4 in case Black played . . . �cs, when Black should not capture, but retreat to c8 or c6. It also re­ locates the dark-squared bishop to its best place, b6. Almasi regularly plays this position, although with­ out great success. Against Peter Heine Nielsen in 20 04, he preferred 22 h4 to restrict Black' bishop . We think that the same 2 2 . . . �a7, as in the current game, would be the best answer, for instance, 23 �d2 �b6=. 22 g d 2 V!fa7 23 g 2 gc5 Now Black seizes the initiative, because b4 is impossible and the positional threat of 24 . . . hdS forc­ es White to retreat the knight to e3 under a pin fram gS. 24 � e 3 .ig5 2 5 h4 .ixe3 26

V!fxe3 V!f c7 27 g ad1 gc6 28 ® h 2 .i b 3 29 g g 1 .ic4 3 0 g g d 1 .ixe2 3 1 V!fxe2 b 4 Finally we can talk about a slight edge for Black, because he has two target pawns against only one in his camp . 32 axb4 axb4 33 gd3 White would have had more chances to survive after 33 cxb4. Now his rooks are too passive. 33 . . . bxc3 34 bxc3 gb3 35 V!f d2 V!fb6 36 @ g 2 gb2 37 V!f e3 V!f xe3 38 gxe3 @ta 39 ged3 @e7 40 g9 3 gc2 41 gdd3 Ironically, in Linares 2008 To­ palov lost the same pawn struc­ ture, but this time he had the pas­ sive rooks . Obviously, humans face great difficulties defending 4 rooks endings with passive pieces. 41 . . . h5 42 @f3 g6 43 @ g 2 e 6 4 4 @f 1 gc4 45 e 1 f5

46 f3 g g 2 4 7 exf5+ gxf5 48 f4 e4 49 gd2 g g 1 + 50 @f2 g c 1 5 1 ga2 g4 xc3 52 gxc3 gxc3 53 gas d 5 54 gea+ ®d 6 5 5 g95 d4 56 gxf5 gc2+ 57 e 1 e 3 58 g9 5 g g 2 59 @f1 gxg3 60 @e2 g g 2+ 6 1 @f3 gd2 62 gea d 5 63 g95+ c4 64 f 5 gf2+ 65 @g3 ®d3 0-1

81

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

In general, this structure is i n Black's favour. His plan i s simple: to neutralise possible White's at­ tempts on the queenside, (meeting a4 with . . . b4) and centralising the king. The usually bad dark-square bishop, here is clearly superior to its enemy counterpart. 21 g3 fS 22 a3 g6 23 © g 2 gfcS 24 gfd 1 ©g7 2S h4 if6 26 g d 2 e4 27 f3 exf3 + 2S ©xf3 hS 29 ©g2 ieS 30 gf1 ©f6 3 1 gf3 ©e7 32 if1 © d 7 33 ie2 ©c7 Krasenkow decided to use the king as a defender of the bS-pawn. At the same time it is close to the centre and can enter into play through cS. 34 b3 ©b6 3S c4 bxc4 36 ixc4 a4 37 gc2 a xb 3 3S gxb3+ ©as 39 gxbS gxbS 40 ie2 gb3 41 if3 82

White is lost, because his bishop is tragically passive and g3 is an eter­ nal weakness. It is not so important whether Black can win against best defence, or not. In practice, White can withstand 20 or 30 moves, but eventually he is likely to miss some tactic and lose. For his part, Black could be squeezing as long as he likes, waiting for a mistake. 41 . . .g xa3 42 ge2 ©b4 43 gc2 g d 3 44 ©f2 ©b3 4S ge2 gc3 46 ©g2 ©c4 47 ga2 ©d3 4S ©f2 id4+ 49 © g 2 ie3 SO ge2 ©d4 S 1 g a 2 © e s S 2 g b 2 g c 1 S 3 ga2 g g 1 + S4 © h 2 f4 S S gxf4+ ©xf4 S6 ig2 g d 1 S7 g a4+ id4 SS ga3 ieS S9 ©h3 ©t S 60 gf3 + if4 6 1 ga3 ©t6 62 gb3 g d 4 63 if3 gci2 64 ig2 i eS 6S g f3+ ©g7 66 ge3 ©h7 67 ga3 if6 6 S i e 4 g d 4 69 ge3 g b4 70 © g 3 ©g7 7 1 © h 3 © h 6 72 © g 3 i d 4 73 ge2 i e S + 7 4 © g 2 if6 7 S © g 3 g b 3 + 7 6 if3 ixh4+ 7 7 © x h 4 gxf3 7 S ge6 g f4+ 7 9 ©h3 © g s SO gxd6 g d 4 s1 g d s h4 s2 d6 g d 3 + S3 © h 2 ©g4 S 4 d 7 g S SS ©g2 h3+ S6 ©t2 h2 S7 ghs gd2+ ss © e 1 g x d 7 S9 g x h2 ©g3 90 ga2 gf7 9 1 g a s g 4 9 2 g a 3 + ©h2 93 g a 2 + © h 3 94 g a s g 3 9 S g h s+ © g 2 96 © e 2 © g 1 97 g a s g h 7 0-1

9 ld dS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 1 4 Karjakin - Topalov W ij k aan Zee 24. 0 1 . 200 6 1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c3 es 6 tll db S d6 7 .igS a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 tll d S �e7 1 O .ixf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 .igS 1 2 tll c2 00 1 3 a4 bxa4 14 gxa4 as 1 S �c4 gba 1 6 ga2 q; h 8 1 7 tll ce3 i.xe3 1 8 tll xe 3 tll e 7 1 9 b3 ! ? fS 20 exfS tll xfS 2 1 tll d S

2 1 . . .�b7 This is our model game how to treat the position when each side has two minor pieces. We would like to exchange one of them, but that would have cost a pawn. ( 21 . . . lde7 22 ldxe7 Wixe7 2 3 E:xaS) So we should switch to kingside play where the b7-bishop would be well placed on the main diagonal, eyeing g2 . 22 o-o gca 23 'Mfd3 tll h4 Topalov sets a nice trap - 24 b4? axb4 2 S cxb4 ldxg2 26 cj/xg2 e4 27 Wixe4 Wigs + 2 8 cj/hl E:xc4, but his move is not best. Black takes his knight awayfram the centre too ear­ ly. 23 . . . E:cS ! is better. Then, if White continues as in the game with 24 E:dl, Black answers 24 ... WigS ! and White cannot repel the queen with 2S Wffg3 , whereas 2S b4 axb4 26 cxb4

E:cc8 27 E: a7 E:b8 i s also fine, since f ram fS the knight goes to the terrif­ ic outpost d4. The same happens af­ ter 24 b4 axb4 2 S cxb4 E:c8. 24 gd1 h6 Another strange, waiting move of Topalov. He hardly counted on 2S E:ad2? ! a4 ! 26 bxa4 Wigs. More likely, he decided that a luft would be useful when White finally push­ es b4. However, 24 . . . h6 also weak­ ens the light squares around Black's king. Later in the game Topalov had to resort to tactical tricks to cover the critical diagonal bl-h7. 24 . . . E:cS seems more consistent. Then after 2S Wig3 ldfS 26 Wig4 Black can return to his initial plan to seek exchanges with 26 . . . lde7 27 ldxe7 Wixe7 28 Wffe6 Wixe6=. Or 2S b4 axb4 26 cxb4 E:c8 27 �b3 ldfS or 27 . . . WigS . 2s Y«g3 CiJts 26 Y«g4 gcs 27 g ad 2 27 b4 axb4 2 8 cxb4 E:c8 29 E:a7 E:b8 is slightly better for White, mostly due to the weakened light squares around Black's king. Still, 30 �d3 hdS 31 MS Wigs 32 WixgS hxgS 33 E:xdS E:xfS 34 bS E:f4 is a draw. 27 . . . �ca 28 Y«e4 .ib7 Topalov underlines the fact that White lacks an active plan. 29 h3 tll h4 30 .id3 gfs ! 3 1 .ib1 ? White stays seemingly well, but Black's pieces are constantly attack­ ing something, thus hindering the enemy to reset his forces in the cen­ tre. Now 31 �c4= would have been equal, but Karjakin overestimates his position. 83

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

3 1 . . J�xc 3 ! 32 YMg4 All Black pieces are hanging, but at the same time they dominate the board. The queen has no retreat square. Even the relatively best 33 Wffa4D �c6 34 liJxc3 ha4 3S MS tlJxfS 36 bxa4+ would favour Black. 32 . . . h5 33 Y;Y e2 Y;Y g 5-+ 34 f4 34 �e4 would cover the criti­ cal square g2 for only one move: 34 .. �cf3 ! 3S M3 M3 36 g3 �xb3. 34 . . J�xf4 35 i> h 1 0 r 3 S ttJxf4 tlJf3 . 35 . . . tll x g 2 Only the b7-bishop is n o t direct­ ly hitting White's king, but in fact it makes possible all the nice varia­ tions that remain behind the scene. 36 YMxg 2 gg3 37 tll xf4 ixg 2+ 38 tll x g 2 gxh3+ 39 i> g 1 g g 3 40 gf2 g 8 I n such positions with a bare king, the queen generally triumphs over a rook and two pieces. 41 gxd6 h4 43 if5 Or 43 �d6 e4 44 �d4 h3. 43 . . . gxg 2+ ! 44 g xg2 YMxf5 45 gcg6 YMt7 46 g sg4 YMf6 4 7 i>h2 i>t7 48 i> h 3 e4 49 gg5 e3 50 i> xh4 g 6 0-1 .

84

This is one of the most boring positions. Black has no problems, neither with bishops, nor without them. The mutual weaknesses bal­ ance themselves - the aS and d6pa wns versus b3, c3 and f2 . 22 0-0 ie4 23 id5 ixd5 24 YMxd5 YMc7 25 gxa5 (or 2S �cl Wffb 6=) 25 ... gxb3 26 c4 h6 27 gas gb6 28 gfa1 YMb8 29 h3 gxa6 30 gxa6 YMb2

9 ltJdS :lle7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 A typical situation for this line. Black does not protect his pawns, but instead attacks the enemy's ones. 31 f3 'Mfc 1 + 32 @t2 gba 33 gas 'Mfc2+ 34 @g3 'Mfg 6+ 3S @h2 gxa8 36 'Mfxa8+ @ h 7 37 'Mf dS 'Mff6 38 @ g 3 'Mf g6+ 3 9 @f2 'Mfc2+ 40 @ g 3 % - %

1 6 B . Socko - Krasen kow P lock 03.0S .2000 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 � f6 s � c 3 es 6 � d bS d6 7 .i g S a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS .ie7 1 O .ixf6 .ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .ig S 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gba 16 ga2 h8 17 0-0 f S 18 exfS .ixfS 1 9 � ce 3 .ig6 20 'Mf a4 'Mfc8 2 1 g d 1 e4

This position best illustrates the aims of both sides in the Positional variation. Black stakes on dynami­ cal factors like piece activity, while White trusts the classical principles, according to which he should be better in view of the weaknesses on aS and d6 . Modern understanding of chess tends to take into consider­ ation all possible nuances. Practice shows that both sides must find the

right balance between attack and defence. For instance, Black cannot simply give up his pawns and thrust all his forces against the enemy king. White has no weaknesses, his pieces are well coordinated in the centre, so he should be able to with­ stand a direct assault. Therefore, Black must try first to break this co­ ordination by exerting pressure in the centre. Only when White dis­ connects his knights, can he think about sacrificing the aS-pawn. 22 b3 .if7 ! ? Both knights are under attack and White must be constantly con­ sidering possible exchanges on e3 or dS. 23 'Mf a3 'Mf d7 24 � f1 White is unable to improve his position without redeploying the knights. For example, 24 b4? would have failed to 24 . . . axb4 25 cxb4 ltJxb4 26 ltJxb4 he3 27 hf7 :Iles . Computers like 24 h3, which radically prevents . . . \Wg4. Howev­ er, this is a permanent weakening and White will probably regret it at some moment. Black could main­ tain the tension with 24 . . . :/ld8, re­ suming the idea of . . . ltJeS. The text intends ltJd5-e3 and requires fram Black crucial decisions. 24 . . . � e S ! 2S 'Mfxa S 'Mf g4 26 � de 3 .ixe3 27 � xe 3 � f3+ 28 h 1 'Mff4 It is White's turn to make a dif­ ficult choice. 29 g3? ! is obviously out of question. After 29 . . . \Wh6 3 0 ltJfl flhS ! the bishop will replace the knight on f3 with a devastating ef­ fect. 85

Part 3

2 9 tlJfl looks safe, but innocu­ ous. Black can simply capture on b3 (29 .. . �xb3=) or maintain the initia­ tive with 29 . . ..ixc4!? 30 bxc4 tlJeS. Socko grabs the knight, butthattums to be at least impractical. White's de­ fence is difficult and requires a lot of calculations. No wonder Socko end­ ed up in a time trouble. 29 g xf3 \Wxf3+ 30 @ g 1 ixc4 3 1 bxc4 gf6 Albeit being a piece up and no mate on the horizon, White's de­ fence proves to be amazingly diffi­ cult. His problem is not only that Black can win the h2-pawn and ad­ vance his own passer. Black has im­ minent threats on the f2-square. Let us consider: a) 32 �dS. Then Black wins by force with 3 2 . . . �g6 + 33 �fl �f8 34 �d4 �h3 + 3S �e2 �hS+ 36 �el �gl + 37 tlJfl �h3 38 �e2 �f3 + 3 9 cj{el e3 ! - + . Apparently White must pro­ tect with his queen the e3 and f2squares: b) 32 �a7 �bf8 33 �c2 hS ! Not so much to advance a future passer, but rather to make a retreat square to the king. 34 �d4 h4 3S c5 dxcS 36 �xcS cj{h7! ! 86

Most surprisingly, White i s i n a some sort of zugzwang. 37 �d6 weakens the first rank: 37 . . . �b8 38 �dl h3 39 �d4 �bf8 and next Black captures the h 2 pawn. 37 �e7 loses to 37 . . . �g6+ 3 8 �fl �hl + 3 9 �e 2 �f2 + 40 �xf2 �f3 + 41 cj{el �xe3 + ; 37 �d4 �g6 + 3 8 �fl �hl + 3 9 �e2 �xh2 4 0 � fl �f4 i s also hap­ less . Nevertheless White can still save the game by building an interesting fortress. Krasenkow shows the cor­ rect variation: c) 32 �gS ! �g6 33 �xg6 hxg6 . In such positions the knight is a very good defender. The same idea was possible in the game: 32 g e1 ggs+ 33 t1 gfa 34 gd2 h 6 35 Wf d 5 gf4 36 \Wa8+? In the time trouble White miss­ es 36 cS ! dxcS 37 �xcS �h7 3 8 �es �gs 39 �xgS hxgS 40 cj{gl+. 36 . . . h 7 37 \Wd8 \Wh3+ 38 @e2 \Wh5+ 39 @f1 Wfxh 2 40 �d1 \Wh 1 + 4 1 @e2 \Wf3+ 42 @f1 gfg4 0-1 The exemplary attack of Krasen­ kow displays the rich attacking pos­ sibilities of Black when his pawn reaches e4. The fine point is when to drop the aS-pawn. We should await some discoordination of White's pieces . .

9 ltJdS �e7 10 hf6 hf6 11 c3 0-0 1 7 Leko - C arlsen L in a re s 0 3.03. 2008 Comments b y Kolev 1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d b S d 6 7 .ig S a 6 8 � a3 bS 9 � d S .ie 7 1 0 .ixf6 ixf6 1 1 c3 .ig S 1 2 �c2 �e 7

Black uses this move order to evade the much sharper variations that arise after 11. . . 0-0. Its only drawback is that instead oftrying to overtake the initiative and attack on the kingside, Black aims first of all to neutralise the enemy pieces. It is evident, that without knights Black cannot hope for active play. On the other hand, play is easy and clear, and the importance of home prepa­ ration is not so considerable. 1 3 h4 Two days earlier Anand did not obtain even the slightest edge with 13 a4 bxa4 14 ltJcb4 0-0 lS Wxa4 lt:JxdS 16 ltJxdS �d7 17 Wa2 aS 18 �d3 ic6 19 0-0 Wb8 20 �c4 @h8 21 b3 t5= Anand-Carlsen, Linares 200 8 . 1 3 h 4 aims t o displace the bishop to h6, f ram where it would be difficult to activate it . 1 3 . . ..ih6 1 4 a4 bxa4 1 S � cb4 0-0 1 6 \Wxa4 � xdS 1 7 �xdS a s 1 8

.ibS .ie6 18 . . . @h8 ? ! loses a pawn to 19 b4 fS 20 �c6 E:a 7 21 exfS MS 22 bxaS �d3 23 �bs hbS 24 WxbS+ Karj a­ kin-Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2007 while 18 .. .fS? ! 19 exfS MS stumbles into 20 g4 �e6 21 �c4 g6 22 gS �g7 2 3 ltJf6 + E:xf6 24 gxf6 Wxf6 2 S Wc6+. 1 9 .ic6 gb8 20 b4!

This i s the only way to fight for an opening advantage. Khalifman recommends 2 0 b3 @h8 21 E:a2 but after the simple 21. .. g6 (21. . .fS 2 2 exfS E:xfS 23 0- 0t) 2 2 b4 (22 hS WgS ! ; 2 2 g3 fS) 2 2 . . . axb4 23 cxb4 fS 24 h5 fxe4 2 S Wxe4 E:f4 Black was fine in Kolev-Gladyszev, Villa de Navalmoral 20 07. 20 . . . ixd S 21 ixd S axb4 22 cxb4 \Wb6 23 g b 1 Only ten years of global internet and computerisation were sufficient to turn modern chess theory into an information swamp which threat­ ens to suck dry any creativity in the opening stage. The engines help players avoid obvious blunders in their preparation so most novelties present some little improvements which rarely change significantly the previous assessments. The cur87

Part 3 rent game is a typical example of such approach . \Ve have reached move 23, but I' m sure that both op­ ponents looked thoroughly at this position at home. Perhaps Leko had discovered that the position was still not completely exhaust­ ed and tries to test his young rival, without running any risks himself. Let us note that Dominguez-Jako­ venko, Faros 2 0 07 had seen 23 0-0 �xb4, when even the ingenious 24 �d7 would have given \Vhite just a tiny edge after 24 . . . �hS 25 g3. 23 . . . h S ! ? I n the recent game Felgaer­ \Vang Hao, Gibraltar 200S was 23 . . . �d4 24 0-0 �d2 25 :gfdl :gxb4, when \Vhite could have got an an­ noying initiative by 26 �d7 ! , for ex­ ample: 26 . . . g6 ( 26 . . . �b6 27 :gal �h6 2s :gas :gxaS 29 has g6 30 �as� ; 26 . . . �bl 27 :gxbl�) 27 :gal �g7 2S g3 ! ? (2S :ga7 �f4 ! 29 :gfl �g3 30 hf7 �xa7 3 1 �xa7 :gxfroo) 2 S . . . :gb2 29 :ga7 �b6 30 :gb7! �d4 31 :gc7! �b6 32 hf7 �hS (32 . . . �h6? 33 �e7 ! ; 3 2 ... �xc7 33 �xc7 �f7 34 �xd6 �c3 3 5 :ga3 :gb1 + 36 �g2 �d4 37 :gd2+) 33 :gc6 �b7 34 �xb7 :gxb7 3 5 hg6 with a difficult ending for Black. Most probably Leko has no­ ticed this option, but Carlsen de­ viates first, anticipating any play against f7. 24 o-o ts 25 VNa5 In my opinion, with queens \Vhite has more chances: 25 bS fxe4 26 he4 �dS 27 g3 dS 2 S :gbdl d4 29 �c4 with a small, but lasting edge; 25 exfS ? ! :gxfSf! would only help Black, for example: 26 �c6 (26 g3? SS

:gbfS 27 �c2 �f2 !) 26 . . .�xc6 27 hc6 �d2 2S bS �aS=. 2 5 ... fxe4 26 VNxb6 � xb 6 27 gb3 gca 28 ga1 g 6 2 S . . . g 5 i s also possible, intend­ ing to meet 29 hS with 29 . . . g4.

It is incredible that a top grand­ master could lose this position, but Black still has a few obstacles on his way to the draw. On the other hand, Black should not play the Sveshni­ kov at all, if he is afraid of this end­ game. 29 gas \Vith four rooks Black could ac­ tivate his pawn centre, for example: 29 he4 :gcb S ! (29 . . . :gc4? ! 30 :gas + �g7 31 :ga7 + �hS 32 �ds :gcxb4 33 :gc3�) 30 :ga bl :gcs 31 bS :gc4f! . 29 .. . �xa8 30 ixa8 if8? ! I t looks like Carlsen thought that the worse part is over and he needs only to put the bishop on b6 to fix the draw. It might be so, but still it is always better to stay active. At this moment 30 . . . �d2 ! 31 bS e3 32 fxe3 �el ! (hitting h4) would have level­ led the game. 31 b5 ie7 32 g 3 id8 33 ixe4 d5? Perhaps Black panicked here.

9 ttJd5 �e7 10 �xf6 ixf6 11 c3 0-0 The sacrifice would have been good enough , but the bad pawn structure on the kingside aggravates Black's defence. 33 . . . 8:b8 with the typical placing of the bishop on the gl-a7 diagonal would have been rather drawish. 34 .ixd S �d6 3S ic6 ib6 36 gb2 �d3 37 @g2 @g7 38 .ie4± ga3 (38 . . . �d4 ! ) 39 g4! id4 40 �c2 gb 3 4 1 �c7+ @h8 42 �c8+ @ g 7 43 gc1+ @h8 44 �b7 �b 2 4S h S !

Black managed t o stop the b­ pawn, but now the attack on the other side is decisive. Later on both opponents made some mistakes, but the final result is quite logical. 4S . . . �xt2+ 46 @ g3 46 @ h 3 i s even stronger, e . g. 46 . . . E!f4 47 �d5 E!:f8 ( 47 . . . gxh5 48 g5 ! 8:f8 49 @h4 + -) 48 g5. 46 . . . �t4 47 h 6 �ta 48 �c7 it2+ 49 @ g 2 ie3 SO gS? A mistake, which questions the victory. The best way was: 50 8:c6 ! and White's passed pawn is ready for a triumphant march. so . . . �b8 It i s highly probable that Leko missed this move, when playing 50 .g5? Now Black grabs the g5-

pawn, while stopping the passer. S1 �c3 id4 S2 �c6 @ g8? 52 . . . �e3 would have been enough for a lucky draw: 53 @f3 �xg5 54 �d5 (54 b6 �d8) 54 . . . hh6 55 b6 �f8 ; 53 8:e6 ixg5 54 b6 hh6 55 b7 �f8 and Black seems to hold on. S3 idS+ @ta S4 ic4+- @e7 SS �c7+ @d6 S6 �xh7 e4 S7 � g 7 ! @ c s s a �c7+ @d 6 S 9 �c6+ @ e s 6 0 �x g 6 @ts 61 � d 6 .i e 3 62 h 7 1 -0

1 8 S h i rov - To palov More l i a 1 9 .02.2008 Comments by Kolev 1 e4 cs 2 li:) t3 li:) c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:) xd4 li:) t6 s li:) c3 e s 6 li:) d b S d6 7 igS a 6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 li:)dS ie7 1 O ixt6 ixt6 1 1 c3 igS 1 2 li:) c2 0-0 1 3 a4 b x a4 14 �xa4 as 1 S ic4 id7 We recommend 15 . . . 8:b8 . 1 6 0-0 li:) e 7 1 7 �a3 li:) xd S 1 8 ixd S �b8 1 9 b4 Khalifman advocates 19 8:a2 with the idea of sacrificing the ex­ change : 19 . . . a4 20 ttJb4 g6 2 1 8:xa4 ixa4 22 �xa4oo. 1 9 . . . axb4 20 li:) xb4 Although White hasnot created a passed b-pawn, the other positional factors ensure him a lasting edge. The excellent control of d5 and the a-file make possible the occupation of the seventh rank. 20 . . . '%Yb6 21 %Ye2 ibS Topalov made this move quick­ ly and he was obviously confident about his position. 22 ic4 �tc8 23 ixb S %Yx b S 24 %YxbS �xbS 2S �d1

89

Part 3

I think that Black should avoid such positions. This game, and the previous one, clearly show that when Black is passive in the Svesh­ nikov, his prognosis is not positive. 25 . . . g6 26 g3 @ g 7 27 til d 5 O f course White should not re­ lease his grip with 27 E!xd6? ibe7 2 8 E!dS ibxb4 2 9 cxb4 E!xb4 30 E!xeS �f6 31 E!aaS E!cc4 = . 27 . . . �c4 27 . . . E!b2 with the intention of bringing �gS to �d2 is met by the logical 28 E!d3 . Play might continue 28 . . . E!bl + ( 2 8 . . . E!e2? ! 29 �fl E!xe4? 30 f3 E!ec4 31 l2Jb6) 29 �g2 E!el 30 h 4 i.h6 31 E!a7 E!xe4 3 2 E! f3 E!f8 33 E!f6 E!e2 34 E!xd6 E!d2 35 E!dd7 and White's pieces dominate on the board. 28 ga7 id8 Topalov tries to solve the prob­ lem of his bishop . 28 . . . E!xe4 29 CiJc7 E!b8 30 E!xd6t would only under­ line the different energetic level of the two armies. 29 g d 7 ! Shirov prepares t o double his rooks on the sevent rank. 2 9 . . . iaS 2 9 . . .ibb6 3 0 E!d3 E!xe4 3 1 CiJxb6 90

E!xb6 3 2 E!f3+ illustrates the poten­ tial of White's rooks . 30 g e 1 ! The sharp lines would let Black escape: 30 E!d3 E!xe4 31 E!f3 E!xdS 3 2 E!fxf7+ �h6 3 3 � g 2 E!d3 34 h 4 �hS 35 f3 h6 36 fxe4 �g4oo 37 �fl (37 E!f6 E!xg3+ 38 �fl gS 39 E!xh6 gxh4 40 E!g7+ �f3 41 E!xg3 + hxg3 42 E!xd6 �xe4 43 c4 �b4 44 E!dS ibc3 45 E!d8 ibd4 46 �g2 �f2 =) 37 . . . gS 38 �e2 E!xc3 39 E!xd6 E!xg3 40 E!fS E!g2 + 4 1 �fl E!c2 = . 3 0 . . . ib6 3 1 lll xb6 g xb6 32 g93

We have seen a textbook case of transformation of the advantage. White gave up his knight, but he forces Black into a terrible bind. 32 . . . gca 33 gf3 gfa 34 t1 The march of the king will fur­ hermore improve White's position, so Black must try to break-through on the kingside. 34 . . . g S Perhaps the setup with 34 . . . hS gave more chances for survival. It would have retained the thematic Sveshnikov break f7-f5, for exam­ ple: 3 5 �e2 E!b2 + 36 �d3 E!bl 37 h4 E!el 3 8 E!c7 E!dl+ 3 9 �c4 �g8 40

9 4J d5 fJ.e7 10 ii.xf6 ii.xf6 11 c3 0-0 �b5 f5 41 exf5 e4f! and suddenly Black is breathing again. 3S h4 g4? ! This weakness will prove to be fatal for Topalov. 3 5 . . . gxh4 36 gxh4 �g6 37 !!f5 !!c6 was somewhat bet­ ter. 36 �ts h6 37 �e2 �c6 38 � d 2 � g 6 3 9 h S + � g7 4 0 �d3 gb6 4 1 gc7 ! g b 1 4 2 � c4 g d 1 43 � b S �g8? Only this move irreversibly ru­ ins Black's game . It is unclear how White's king could cross the c-file after 43 . . . !!cl, for example: 44 �b6

!!b8 + 45 �a7 !!f8 46 �b7 !!c2 47 c4 !!c3 48 !!c6 !!d3 49 �c7 !!d4. 44 gf6 ! The rest is agony. 44 . . J�d2 4S �c6 � g 7 (45 . . . !!d3 46 !!e7 !!xc3 + 47 �xd6 �c2 48 �xe5 +-) 46 g g 6+ � h7 47 gxg4 gxf2 48 � xd6 gea 49 c4 gd2+ so �c6 gfa s1 cs gd4 s2 gb7 �ha S3 � b S gd1 S4 c6 gc1 SS � b 6 gca S6 c7 gea S7 ga7! (57 !!b8? !!bl + 58 �a7 !!al+ 59 � b7 !!bl +=) S7 .. gb1 + sa � c s gc1 + S9 � d S gc2 60 g a s � h 7 61 g c s g d 2 + 6 2 � c s g a s 1 -0 53gh4

91

Part 4

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

We examine this position in a separate part, for it offers sharp

Pay

special

attention

to

this variation! It is a frequent

play of a quite different character in comparison with the previous part of the book. The knight on e3

guest in Internet and club-level

forces Black to prepare .. .fS with g6. This little pawn move significantly

Alternatively: a) 2 0 'We2 ! ? is a new idea ofKarj a­ kin. (You can see a detailed anal­ ysis of game 19 Karjakin-Shi­ rov, Khanty-Mansiysk 1 1 .12 . 2 0 0 7 i n the "Co mplete Games" sectio n.) In short, avoid Shirov's 20 .. .fS ? ! We prefer the thematic 20 . . . l'i.Je7 2 1 f4 l'i.JxdS 2 2 l'i.JxdS exf4 2 3 gxf4 �f6

changes the pawn structure with all the ensuing long-term consequenc­ es. A lot of positions that were as­ sessed as drawish in the previous part, might turn quite unpleasant to defend , due to the weakness of the seventh rank and Black's castling position as a whole. Another particu­ larity is White's option to push h4, intending to further compromise Black's kingside. You should also have in mind that two great players and theoreticians, Anand and Kha­ lifman, have recently chosen this system as a main weapon against the Sveshnikov. We shall present clear recommendations (and novel­ ties) against their approaches.

A. 1 8 h4 This variation is critical for our repertoire. Its current status is fa­ vourable for Black, but you must watch out for new discoveries. 92

games.

18

•••

i.xh4 1 9 g3 .ig S 20 f4

Black has a reliable position. b) 20 ga2 is too sophisticated. We can simplytake on e3 : 2 0 . . . �xe3 21 l'i.Jxe3 �e6 = .

2 o. ef4 2 1 gxf4 ih4+ 22 @d2 •.

On fl the king is X-rayed by the

12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6 f 8-rook. The variation 22 Ml f5 23 �a2 fxe4 24 �ah2 g S 25 l2Jg2 �b7 demonstrates two important defen­ sive resources of Black: . . . �b7 pro­ tects h7, while . . . gS often cements our bishop on h4. 22 �e7! •••

Black repels the initial attack and the game enters the stage of balanced manoeuvring. In the next few moves Black seeks to destroy both white knights, while the enemy tries to swing the a4-rook onto the kingside. The latter is not so easy, because the king on d2 is barring the second rank. Therefore White often moves it to cl. Note that 23 �xh4? ! ltJxdS 24 �hl l2Jf6 25 ltJdS hS ! is pleasant for Black, so we'll focus on: 23 ©c1 23 �c2 leads to similar posi­ tions: 23 ... ltJxdS 24 ltJxdS �e6 25 �al �f6 26 �h2 �g7 27 �d2 a4 ! ?

Here White should b e able to make a draw with ingenious play, but we clearly do not risk much. The fine point is that �xh7 is not such a dangerous threat as long as we control the h8-square . It is only one check! 23 @c1 �xd5 24 �xd5 .ie6 From the comment on the pre­ vious move we know that Black is safe if he rules over the main diag­ onal (25 �a2 �xdS 26 �xdS �f6) so White chooses: 25 Y9d4+ ©g8

We'll soo n reach a position with bishops of opposite colour. Our king will be safer behind the pawns, but White compensates that with more active rooks. The remedy is to sac­ rifice a pawn to open files, for in­ stance: 26 �a2 �xdS 27 �xdS �f6 2 8 �d2 �g3 29 �fl dS ! ? ( 2 9 . . . hSoo)

93

Part 4 30 �xdS would leave the fl-rook hanging to 30 . . . gS, while 30 exdS �fe8 hints that the tide is turning and Black is already the active side. The latest top level game in this variation s aw: 26 e6? 26 ltJxfS ! , but 2 5 . . . ltJf6 ! is enough for equal­ ity. If the other knight goes to e3 - 25 ltJde3, then 25 . . . ltJgS+ avoids the trap. White's attempt to break through the queenside is logical. 2S . . . e6 26 � ce 3 gba The mobile pawn centre offers Black many possibilities for devel­ oping the initiative, for instance : 26 . . . ltJgS+ ! 27 cj/g2 �b8 28 ltJ b4 (28 axbS �xbS) 28 . . . aS 29 ltJc6 �b6 30 axbS �xbS 31 �a2 �cs 32 ltJd8+ cj/f6 33 �fl f4 34 gxf4 ltJe6+ 35 cj/ hl ltJxf4. Johannessen prefers to keep the knight in the centre, but now White had 27 ltJxfS ! and White is at least not worse, e.g. 27 . . . cj/xfS 2 8 ltJ e 3 + cj/e6 29 cj/xe4 bxa4 3 0 �hfl, maintaining the clamp on dS. 27 � b4? ! � cs 28 as? Mastrovasilis commits a terri­ ble positional mistake. Instead of seeking to reduce the material with 28 ltJc6 �c8 29 axbS axbS 30 ltJ a7, he seals the queenside. That leaves him without any counterplay. 28 . . JU7 29 � e d S .ih6 30 g h e 1 gga 3 1 g ad 1 f4 32 g 4

3 2 . . ..ig S ! O f course, Black should not de­ stroy his pawn chain with 32 . . . e4+? 33 �xe4+ ltJxe4 34 �el ! After the text White is unable to prevent a killing check fram the h-file. 3 3 � c6 gha 34 b4 � a4? 34 . . . ltJb3 would have finished the game. Now White is kicking again. 3S � d4+ xdS 36 �fS+ c6 37 gxd6+ b7 38 gg6 gfh7 39 h4? The final mistake. 39 �xgS �h3 + 40 cj/g2 �xh 2 + 41 cj/f3 �2h 3+ 42 cj/g2 ltJxc3 43 �hS �3xh5 44 gxhS �xhS 45 �xeS looks close to the draw. 39 . . . ixh4 40 gxeS .id8 4 1 � d 6+ @ as 4 2 � e a g h 3+ 4 3 xf4 gfa+ 44 e4 � xc3+ 4 S d4 gf4+ 4 6 @cs gc4+ 47 d 6 gd3+ 48 e 6 g c 6 + 49 t 7 gd7+ 0-1

159

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

Part 8

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

For a quarter of a century White had been linking his hopes to refute the Sveshnikov with this very line. Practice experience has found that 12 . . . i.g7 13 �hS favours White, so 1 2 �xdS! is the only decent choice here. Lately all the top guys prefer this capture. 1 3 exd5 lll e7 When the players from Chelya­ binsk elaborated the whole system in the 1970s, they linked it with a direct attack on the kingside where the open g-file seems to offer Black good tactical prospects. He push­ es f4 in order to gain space advan­ tage on the flank, and tries to bring his heavy pieces closer to the ene­ my king . This unsophisticated tactic is easy to follow and it often reaps good results, but objectively it is hardly the right way to treat the po­ sition. Look at the game M azi Nedev Antalya, E U - c h . 2004 14 c3 .tg7 lS l!Jc2 0-0 16 �el f4 17 a4 bxa4 18 �xa4 as 19 l!Ja3 �c8 20 l!JbS �cs 21 c4 fS 22 �d2 l!Jg6 23 f3 l!Jh4 •••

-

160

24 �xaS? e4 2S b4 �gs 26 �fl �bS 27 cxbS .td4+ and Nedev soon won. If it were so simple to cr.ush White's army, everyone would have played nothing other. In fact, White lost because he neglected his defence . One more prophylac­ tic move in the diagram position, 24 �hl ! , a nd the tide could turn against Black. In blitz such ap­ proach could be rewarding, it even proved good at an European cham­ pionship, but still it counts on poor defence. We will advocate another ap­ proach , which is more reliable. Instead of gaining space on the kingside, we should expand in the centre with . . . e4:

7 �g5 a6 8 llJ a3 b5 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 llJdS f5 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0 any weaknesses. For his part, Black

Accordingly, our target will not be the g 2-pawn, but that on d5 . It could be assaulted by :ga8-c8-c5. When we capture on d5, our f5pawn is likely to perish, so we must be sure to protect in advance our outpost on e4. Therefore, we put the other rook on e8, having in mind the manoeuvre 1. .. li:Jxd5 2 VNxfS :ges. In general, our setup should be the fol­ lowing:

1 4 :ge1 After 14 V!fh5 e4 15 �e2 �g7 16 c3 0-0 17 llJc2 f4 White must take into account the threat of . . .f3 and par­ ry it with 18 f3, when 18 .. .fS main­ tains tension.

is eyeing the d5-pawn: 18 llJc2 llJxdS 19 V!fxf5 :gest or 18 :gadl :gc8 19 :ge3 :gcs with a balanced game . The proposed setup is good enough when Wh ite keeps his bish­ op on the fl-a6 diagonal, planning to open up the queenside. However, in the 1990 s White invented a veno­ mous plan. He retreated the bishop to c2 and broke open the kingside with f3 or g4 after several prepara­ tory moves: 1 4 c3 (be sure to meet 14 llJxbS by 14 . . .�g7! with compensation)

1 4 ... �g7 1 5 �h5 e4 1 6 .ic2 0-0 1 7 gae1 �ca The change of White' s plan re­ quires modifications of our ac­ tions, too. We must stay passive­ ly in the centre and aim for quick counterplay with b4. Note that the move order is vital here !

1 8 c;t> h1

1 4 ... Ag7 1 5 c3 o-o 1 6 �h5 e4 1 7 �f1 gea

Both sides have defined their plans . White counts on his better pawn formation which is without

This position may have been critical for Black until 20 0 2 , but it is fun to play it nowadays. Perhaps the following novelty of Leko, (in­ troduced in Dortmund 200 2) was the last major discovery in this line. White failed to produce any serious 16 1

Part 8 idea ever since. That game ran: 1 8 gb8! This sneaky move waits for f3, while preparing . . . b4. The fi ne point is that immediate 18 . . . b4 loses due to the possibility of a rook lift along the empty third rank: 18 . . . b4? 19 cxb4 hb2 2 0 �e3 ! 1 9 f3 b4 2 0 ltJbl? ! bxc3 2 1 bxc3 hc3 2 2 l2Jxc3 (22 �e2 �es 23 fxe4 f4oo) 2 2 . . .9*Vxc3 23 fxe4 f4 ! , Shirov­ Leko, Dortmund 200 2 . Black easi­ ly repels the attack. White attempted improvements, but in vain. Black is holding firmly, for instance : 20 fxe4 bxa3 21 exf5 �g6! •••

Thus Leko drew the sting of the most dangerous plan in White's possess1on. We would also like to draw your attention to White's attempt to gain an advantage with 1 4 c4 White had castled already, and now he opens up the queenside where he has a pawn majority. On .

16 2

the other wing, he intends to restrain Black's counterattack with f3 .

14 ..i g 7 1 5 gb1 e 4 16 i.e2 bxc4 1 7 �xc4 0-0 1 8 f3 ••

We see a typical position for this pawn structure. White can also pre­ vent 18 .. .f4 by 18 f4, but it would give Black a free hand in the centre where the dS-pawn is a juicy tar­ get . After f3 the weakness of the dS­ pa wn also ensures full equality: 1 8 gb8 1 9 @h1 gbs 20 Y!!c2 �xd5 21 fxe4 � b4 22 Y!! a4 fxe4=. See game 3 0 Efimenko-Moi­ seenko, Zlatibor 20 0 6 . •••

Part 8

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

STEP BY STE P

12

i.xd S! 1 3 exd S � e7

•••

1 6 .ic4 White aims to cover his queen­ side by the bishop while leaving the dl-hS diagonal open for the queen. 16 �e2 0-0 17 �d2 tlJg6 gives Black ample compensation, for example: 18 E!:fel ieS 19 �fl �h8 with ... 8:g8 and ... �f6 to fallow. 1 6 �g6 1 7 �hS 17 �d2 would retain White's pawn formation flexible, but at the cost of letting the strongest black piece come to a striking position: 17 ... 0-0 18 E!:ael (o r 18 E!:fel �es with a standard kingside attack) 18 . . . �h4 19 g3 (19 �b3? ! �h6 20 �e2 ttJeS-+ ; 1 9 tlJ d l f4 20 8:xe4 fS 2 1 E!:eel f3-+) 19 . . . �h3 2 0 f4 exf3 2 1 8:xf3 ttJeS when White has t o sac­ rifice the exchange in search for salvatio n: 22 E!:xeS (22 E!:f4 �h6+) 2 2 . . . �xeS+. 1 7 �xc3 1 8 bxc3 �f6 1 9 �h6 It seems sensible to deprive Black of castling. Alternatively: a) 19 f4 0-0 2 0 �b3 Or 2 0 E!:ael E!:fc8 21 �b3 (21 �e2 �xc3 2 2 �b3 as 2 3 a4 8:ab8t) •••

A. 14 ttJxbS B . 14 �hS C. 14 c4 D . 14 E!:el E. 14 c3

page 163 page 164 page 166 page 167 page 170

A. 1 4 �xbS .ig7 1 S �c3 e4

•••

163

Part 8 2 1. . . �xc3 22 cj{hl cj{h8 ! ? 2 3 �gs (23 g4 e3 ! 24 WffxfS WfxfS 2S gxfS l2Jh4 26 f6 �gs+) 23 Wigs cj{g7 24 h3 (24 g4 Wffx gS 2S fxgS ltJh4 2 6 gxfS ltJf3t) 24 . . . �g8 2S cj{h2 h6 26 Wff h S l2Jh4+ M anion- Shaked, USA 199 2 . 2 0 . . . �fc8 2 1 g4 �xc3 ! 2 2 gxf5 l2Jh4 2 3 Wff g5 + Wffx g5+ 24 fxg5 l2Jf3+ 25 cj{f2 f6+ ; b) 19 �ael �g8 20 f4 Ms 2 1 �e3 (21 Wffh 6 + �g7 22 �e3 �c8 23 ixa6 �xc3 24 �xc3 Wffxc3 25 �bl �e3 + 26 cj{ h l Wffxf4+) 2 1 . . . �c8 2 2 �b3 (22 �e2 aS; 22 ixa6 �xc3 2 3 �xc3 Wffx c3 24 �bl cj{g7+) 2 2 ... �xc3 23 �xc3 �xc3 24 g3 (24 �xf5 l2Jh4) 24 . . . a5 ! 25 a4 Wff6 2 6 cj{hl cj{g7 27 �e2 �c8 28 �dl Wffc3 29 �fl h5 ! + Ehlvest-Van Welly, Moscow 2004. 1 9 . g9a

�b5+ cj{e7 23 Wffxg7 �xg7 24 a4 l2Jh4 White would be already worse. 2 0 �ael i s a better option, intending to undermine the centre by f3. Then it would be interesting to try 2 1 . . . �g7 22 f3 cj{f8 23 fxe4 �e8 24 cj{hl �xe4 . It seems that the game would be balanced, e.g. 25 �xe4 fxe4 26 Wffg5 f6 27 Wffxf6 + Wffxf6 28 M6 + �f7 2 9 �xf7 + cj{xf7 3 0 cj{ g l cj{f6 3 1 cj{f2 cj{e5 32 cj{e3 l2Jh4 33 g3 l2Jf5 + = .

B . 1 4 '1M h 5 e 4 1 5 �e2 �g7 1 6 c3 0-0 1 7 lll c2 f4

..

Black has compensation for the pawn thanks to his more active pieces . However, we should not un­ derestimate White's possibilities. As poor as his bishop may look, it is a long range piece, and Black still has to find a safe haven for his king. Therefore, trading queens is usual­ ly in his favour, because his king can be quickly centralised. For instance, after 20 �abl Wffxc3 21 ixa6 �g7! 2 2 164

The mere fact that Black is able to play this move without any sacri­ fices shows that he solved the open­ ing problems. 1 8 f3 White might want to capture the saucy pawn by 18 Wffg5 f5 19 Wffxf4, but then 19 . . . l2Jxd5 2 0 Wffd2 l2Jb6 2 1 �adl d 5 levels the game accord­ ing to Gorelov, as 22 l2Jb4 Wffd6 ! 23 l2Jxd5 �ad8 (23 . . . �fd8 24 c4 l2Jxd5 25 cxd5 �ac8oo is also possible) 24 c4 l2Jxd5 2S cxdS �c8 gives him suf­ ficient compensation. In Smirnov-Nijboer, Istanbul 2003, instead of taking on f4, White

7 �gs a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0 chose 19 �fdl, when 19 .. .f3 leads to a balanced position: (the alternative 19 . . . ttJg6 2 0 \Wxd8 �fxd8 2 1 a4t is in­ ferior, but 19 . . . @h 8 ! ? 20 �xf4 ttJg6 deserves consideration) 20 gxf3

to gain an advantage, but 18 . . .fS ! 19 �fel (19 axbS f3 2 0 �c4 axbS 2 l hbS �b8 2 2 �c6 fxg2 23 @xg2 �f6 with an attack) 19 . . .f3 2 0 gxf3 ttJxdS 2 1 fxe4 ttJf4 2 2 \Wf3 fxe4 2 3 \Wg3 @h8 + leaves the White king unprotected. 1 8 ...fS 1 9 fxe4 Black intends to play . . . �es fal­ lowed up by . . . �f6 so White has no time for moves like 19 @hl. On the other hand, 19 a4? ! is dubious due to 19 . . . �b6 + . 1 9 . . .fxe4 20 .ig4 V!fc7

2 0 . . . @h8 20 . . . �f6 ! ? is another good option: 21 W hl �g6 22 �e3 �h6 23 �d4 (23 f4 �f8 ! 24 f3 �f6 2S fxe4 \Wh4 26 �fl fxe4 27 �xe4 �f8f! Ro­ gozenko) 23 . . .�f4f! 24 �gl �f8 2S �xg6+ ttJxg6f!, Nijboer-Avrukh, Plovdiv 200 3 . 2 l @hl �eS ! ? Grischuk-Krasenkow, Bundesli­ ga 2003 saw 2 1 . . .�g8 22 �e3 ttJg6 23 ttJd4 ! �es 24 ttJxfS (24 ttJc6 �h4 2S ttJxeS ttJxeS 26 f4 ttJg6 27 �gl h6 ! f!) 24 . . . exf3 with compensation. 22 f4 Or 2 2 ttJd4 �g8 23 �h4 �f8 24 ttJe6 ttJg6 2S �hS �f6f!. 2 2 ... �g8 (22 ... �f6 23 \WhSt) 23 �h4 �g7 24 �hS Or 24 ttJd4? �xd4 2S �d4 ttJg6+; 24 ttJe3 ! ? ttJg6 2S \Wxd8 �axd8 26 ttJxfS �gf8 ! 27 ttJxg7 �xg7 28 a4 �4 29 �fl �df8 30 axbS axbS 31 f3 exf3 32 �xbS ttJeSf!. 24. . . \Wf8 2S ttJe3 �f6 26 �h3 �h6 27 ttJxfS ttJxfS=. 18 a4? i s another logical attempt

21 gad 1 This is the latest attempt of Shabalov to shake the assessment of the diagram position as pleasant for Black. White prepares ttJd4 . In­ stead, 21 �ael �c4 22 �e6 + @h8 23 a3 �b3 is double-edged. 21 ... e2 i.cS 14 i.e3 i.b6 1S gacl c;t>b7 1 6 gc4 gd6 = .

8 �fe3 ie6 9 .ie2 Wa5+ ! Other good options are 9 . . . i.cS 10 0-0 0-0+ or 9 ... ll.Jd4 ! ? 10 c4 W! a S + 11 i.d2 ll.Jxd 2 12 \Wxd2 W!xd2 + 13 c;t>xd2 gcs 14 gacl i.d6 lS b4 Mitzka-Per­ ov, Budejovice 1996, when 1S . . . b6 16 ghdl 0-0 17 c;t>el gfdB+ would have underlined Black's advantage in the endgame.

1 0 ©f1 Or 10 i.d2 ll.Jxd2 11 \Wxd2 W!xd2 + 12 c;t>xd2 0-0-0+.

1 0 .. 0-0-0 1 1 c4 .ic5+ .

E2. 7 exd5 .ixf5 8 dxc6 bxc6!

9 i.d3 is also imprecise as it gives Black a tempo and spatial advan­ tage: 9 . . . e4 10 i.e2 (10 i.c4 i.d6 11 h3 0-0 12 i.e3 Wle7 13 Wf e2 i.eS 14 0-0 gfe8 lS gf dl h6 16 i.b3 gac8 17 ll.Ja4 i.b8 ! with attack in Galego­ Antunes, Portugal 1 993) 10 . . .i.d6 11 igS h6 12 i.h4 0-0 (12 . . . i.f4 ! ? , Sveshnikov; 1 2 . . . Wfe7 ! ? intending to cramp the opponent even more with . . . gds) 13 Wfcl gS 14 i.g3 ll.Jds lS i.xd6 W!xd6 16 \Wd2 Lutikov­ Sveshnikov, 1976. Here 16 . . . \WeS+ reatains a slight edge . Hence White's best is:

9 Wf3 Wd7 1 0 ig5 10 ia6 scatters White's pieces all over the board and in the game Garbarino-Cifuentes, Casilda 1984 Black used it with 10 . . . i.e7 11 0-0 e4 1 2 \Wg3 0-0 13 i.gS (13 i.h6?? ll.JhS­ +) 13 . . .i.d6 14 Wlh4 ll.Jg4 lS gfdl (lS h3 ll.JeS 16 gfdl \Wc7) 1S . . . W!c7+ 16 ll.Jxe4? ! i.xh 2 + 17 c;t>hl when 17 . . .i.eS 18 c3 gae8t would have been clearly better for him.

1 0 . . . e4

Black leaves the choice to the op­ ponent. Now the endgame would be level: 9 \Wxd8+ gxd8 10 i.e3 when the most aggressive is 10 . . . i.b4! 11 ixa7 (11 a3 i.xc3+ 12 bxc3 gd7+) 11. .. gd7 12 i.e3 ll.JdS 13 i.d2 ll.Jxc3 14 hc3 (14 bxc3 i.cS lS i.e3 i.xe3 16 fxe3 hc2+) 14 . . . i.xc3+ lS bxc3 i.xc2 16 a4 c;t>d8 ! + . Black's pieces activi­ ty should prevail over White's extra pawn.

1 1 We2 White has also tried: a) 11 Wlg3 i.d6 12 \Wh4 i.eS 13 ic4 0-0 14 0-0 h6+; 211

Part 11 b) ll �e3 ? ! ltJg4 12 �d2 (12 �g3 ? ! �cS 1 3 ltJ d l h 6 14 �f4 g S l S �es o-o 16 �e2 ltJxeS 17 �xeS �d4+, Serp­ er-Kasparov, Internet blitz, 1998) 12 . . .�xd2 + 13 hd2 �cs 14 ltJdl ttJxf2 lS ltJxf2 e3 16 he3 he 3 17 �d 3 �e6 18 @e2 �d4 19 c3 � b6 20 �hdl 0-0-0 21 b3 Teske- Krasenkow, Bundesliga 2 00 3 , when 2 1 . . . �he8 22 @fl fS+ highlights the power of the bishop pair. c) 11 �dl is a rare move which re­ centlywas successfullyused byVolo­ kitin at the Aeroflot Open. Follow­ ing the logical: 11 . .. �d6 ! Black aims at a complex middlegame with a bishop pair, har­ monious development and prob­ lematic dark squares in the enemy camp. (Instead Volokitin-Kuzubov, Moscow 2007 saw 11 . . . �c7? ! 12 �xf6 gxf6 13 �d4 �eS? ! 14 �a4 �c8 lS �a6 �c7 16 �dl �d6 17 ltJdS+.) 12 �xf6 Or l2 �d4 �e7 13 �dl �eS 14 �a4 0-0 and Black is 0 K, for instance, lS �xc6? ! �b4 ! 16 �bs �xbS 17 hbS �ab8t or l3 �c4 0-0 14 �xc6? ! �ac8 1S �a4 �b4+) 12 . . . gxf6 13 �d4 �e7! with excel­ lent prospects: 14 0-0-0 �es lS �a4 0-0t; 14 �a4 0-0 lS g4 (lS �xc6? �ac8 16 �a4 �b4+) 1S . . . �g6 16 h4 h6 17 0-0-0 �ab8t; 14 �bS �c8 (14 . . . 0-0 ! ? deserves attention: lS hc6 �es 16 �e3 �ac8 17 �dS �fd8oo) lS �a4 0-0 with a preferable game. 1 1 . . ..i e7 1 2 � d 1 I t i s risky t o give Black a strong

212

initiative for merely one pawn: 12 �xf6 ? ! hf6 13 ttJxe4 0-0 14 ttJxf6+ gxf6 . White does not manage to cas­ tle : lS �d2 �fe8 + 16 �e2 16 dl is hardly any better, as 16 . . .�c7 17 �d3 �ad8 18 @cl (18 b4 cs 19 bxcS �xcS 20 �bl �ds 2 1 �b3 �d4 22 �c3 �b8+ Mellado-Cam­ pos Moreno, Hostafrancs 2002 also gave Black a deadly attack.) 18 . . . cS 19 b3 (19 �el �xel+ 20 �xel hd3 21 cxd3 c4 ! 22 d4 �xh2+ Faisst­ Hohm, corr. 1993) 19 . . . �eS 20 �bl c4 ! 21 bxc4 �b8+. Black's attack is irresistible, Rogers-Volzhin, Aosta 2002. 16 . . . �e7 17 @fl �ad8 (17 . . . �eS !?) 18 �d3 �es 19 �bl �bs ! � 1 2 . . . '%Yb7 This suggestion of Sveshnikov looks the most consistent continu­ ation. The alternative 12 . . . �e6 ! ? leads t o balanced play after 1 3 �c4 �b8 , see game 36 Akopian-Yak­ ovich, Rostov on Don, 1993. 1 3 '%Ya6 The greedy 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 ttJxe4 0-0 ! (14 . . . �b4 + lS ltJd2+ �e6 16 �e4 ! ) lS ttJxf6+ gxf6 is similar to the game Mellado-Campos Moreno, but the difference favours Black. 1 3 . . . �b8 1 4 '%Yx b7 � xb7 1 5 �c1 =

1 e4 cs 2 lt:Jf3 lt:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:Jxd4 lt:Jf6 S lt:Jc3 es 1 5 .ib4 The diagram position is satisfac­ tory for Black. His piece activity and space advantage amply compensate the split queenside pawn structure . Instead of the text, lS . . . 0-0 also re­ tains a slight initiative in more or less balanced endgame: 16 �a6 (16 �c4 e3 ! 17 �d3 exf2 + 18 �xf2 �cs+ 19 �fl Dusper-Thurmer, Harkany 2001, 19 . . . .bd3 + 20 �xd3 �e8 and White should be careful as 21 lt:J a4 would walk into 2 1 . . . �be7! 22 �d2 . . .

lt:J e4+) 16 . . . �b6 17 �c4= . 1 6 .id2 @e7 1 7 .ic4 After 17 �a6 �d7 Black is more active although the draw is the most probable result. Play could continue with 18 tt:Jxe4 .bd2 + 19 lt:Jxd2 �hd8 20 �d3 .bd3 21 cxd3 �xd3 22 �e2 lt:Jg4 23 � h el �f8 24 lt:Je4 �xdl 2 S �xdl � e 8 26 f3 fS 2 7 fxg4 �xe4+ 2 8 �f3 �xg4+ with a material advan­ tage in a drawish ending. 1 7 J�� d8 The game is level. ..

213

PART 1 1

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

COMPLETE GAM ES

3S M u kh i n - M in a s ian Len in g rad 1 990 1 e4 cs 2 ti:)f3 ti:) c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti:) xd4 es s ti:) f3 ti:) f6 6 ti:) c 3 ib4 7 ic4 0-0 8 0-0 ixc3 9 bxc3

9 . . ti) xe4 In line B3 we recommend in nearly the same position, except for the knight being on b3 , to play 9 . . . d 6 , threatening with . . . t2Jxe4. Here Black levels the game by capturing the pawn immediately. 1 O ia3 d6 1 1 �e1 ti:) g S 1 2 ti:) x g S YMxg S 1 3 ixd 6 ig4 14 YMc 1 YMxc1 1S �axc1 �fe8 16 id S White has the bishop pair so he should be trying to open more oper­ ating space for it. 16 f4 exf4 17 hf4 ie6 18 ib3 would have preserved .

2 14

some tension in a balanced posi­ tion. 1 6 . . . ie6 1 7 ixc6 bxc6 1 8 a3 18 E'!:xeS �xa2 19 E'!:cS aS 20 8:xc6 a4 2 1 ia3 8:ec8 = is a dead draw, but in the game White is gradually be­ coming worse. Tournament prac­ tice has seen many examples when the opposite coloured bishops do not guarantee a draw. In combina­ tion with rooks, one extra pawn or even just a passer, commonly brings a full point. 1 8 . . . f6 1 9 f3 � ed8+ 20 �ed 1 ic4 21 f2 f7 22 icS a6 23 � b 1 e 6 2 4 e1 �dS 2 S �xdS xd S 2 6 ie3 i b S 2 7 � b 4 g S 2 8 c4+ .ixc4 29 �b7 � h 8 30 ia7 hS 31 �b8 �h7 32 �d8+ e6 33 i c S i d S 34 c4 ixc4 3S �d 6+ f S 36 �xc6 ibS+ Black is already much better, but 37 8:d6 would have offered chances for salvation. Instead White loses in a couple of moves. 37 �b6 �c7 38 ib4 �c1 + 39 f2 �c2+ 40 g 1 g4 41 �d6 gxf3 42 gxf3 ic6 43 �d3 h4 44 ie 1 h 3 4S .i d 2 .i b S 0-1 White resigned because h e has no useful moves, e.g. 46 8:d6 8:a2 .

1 e4 cs 2 ll:Jf3 ll:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll:Jxd4 ll:Jf6 S ll:Jc3 es 36 Ako p i an - Yakovich Rostov on Don, 1 993 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 � f6 s � c3 e s 6 � ts dS 7 exdS ixfS 8 dxc6 bxc6 9 \Wf3 \Wd7 1 0 igS e4 1 1 Y«e2 ie7 1 2 g d 1 \We6 ! ? I n 1993 this move was a novel­ ty. We chose as a main line 12 . . . �b7 13 �a6 �b8 , but the text is a good alternative. White will trade queens anyway, the question is what square Black should prefer. Yakovich has an original idea in mind . . . 1 3 \Wc4 g b a 1 4 Y«xe6

1 4 . . . fxe6 ! I n such positions one should not think about pawn weaknesses. By capturing with pawn, Black en­ ables the move . . . ll:JdS which will underline how vulnerable White's queenside is. There are two oth­ er points in favour of 14 . . . fxe6: the light-squared bishop remains on

active position, thus rendering lS ll:J a4? ! dubious due to 1S . . . e3 ! ; the e6-pawn will be a good shield of the king in the centre . 14 . . . .ixe6 lS ll:J a4 would have been roughly equal. 1 S b3 The computer contemplates a dumb defence with lS icl ll:JdS 16 ll:Je2, which is, of course, the last thing a human would choose. Then 16 . . . e3 ! would be as good as ever. 1 S. . . � d S ! 1 S . . . ib4 16 id2 �d8 17 ll:Jbl defends everything. 1 6 ixe7 @xe7 1 7 � a4 e3 1 8 c4 18 id3 exf2 + 19 @xf2 E:hf8 would allow Black to activate his second rook. 1 8 . . . exf2+ 1 9 @xf2 � b4 20 ie2 White has finally completed de­ velopment and the imminent elimi­ nation of the queenside pawns pre­ determine the draw. 20 . . . � xa2 21 ga1 � b4 Yakovich could have posed more practical problems with 21 . . . �hf8, but 22 if3 (22 ll:JcS @d6+) 22 . . . ll:Jb4 23 ll:JcS a6 24 E:hdl ! eS 2S El:aS= would avoid any danger. 22 � c s a6 23 ghd 1 ! ghd8 24 gxd8 gxd8 2S g a4 ! = Draw, in view of 2 S . . . �b8 2 6 ll:Jxa6 ll:Jxa6 27 �xa6 �xb3 28 �xc6=.

21S

Part 1 2

1 e4 cs 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 c3 3 lll c3 lll c 6 4 es

Rare Li nes

QUIC K REP E RTO I RE

The repertoire with 2 . . . l!Jc6 is per­ fect against anti-Sicilians. You do not need to learn anything specific, as, for instance, is the case with 2 . . . e6. Perhaps the only variation of in­ dependent significance is: 3 lll c 3 lll f 6 4 es lll g 4 s �e2 d6 6 exd6 e6

Black ensures normal develop­ ment of his army. This allows him to fight for the initiative while White tries to disentangle his pieces. Now 7 g3 seems a realistic approach, al­ though Black would be fine after 7 . . . �xd6 8 i.g2 0-0 9 0-0 es 10 h3 l!Jf6 11 d3 h6. Should White attempt to snatch a pawn with 7 \Wc4 eS ! 8 h3 l!Jh6 9 \WxcS? ! , he will have a diffi­ cult time neutralizing Black's initia­ tive following 9 . . . �xd6 10 \Wc4 0-0 . 2 16

Against 3 c3, we recommend a very well tested system: 3 ... lll t6 4 es lll dS

Now 5 d 4 cxd4 6 cxd4 d6 7 i.c4 dxeS 8 dxeS l!Jb6 9 \Wxd8+ l!Jxd8 10 i.bS+ i.d7 11 l!Jc3 e6 is level, so White usually prefers: S .ic4 lll b 6 6 .ib3 dS 7 exd6 �xd6

White is at a juncture here . He

1 e4 cS 2 tlJf3 tlJ c6 rare lines: 3 c3 ; 3 tlJc3 can sacrifice a pawn, trying to ex­ ploit his lead in development, or castle. Sometimes he plays 8 tlJ a3 as well, but the fact that White has not castled yet makes possible 8 . . .�e6 , when 9 0-0 hb3 1 0 axb3 �d3 ! gives Black an easy game. a) 8 d4 cxd4 9 0 - 0 �e6 1 0 �a3 dxc3 1 1 V:Ve2 hb3 1 2 �b5 \Wb8 13 axb3 g6 and Black was slightly better in the game Matsuu­ ra-Leitao, Santos 2006. b) 8 0 - 0 i.e6 9 he6 11Mxe6

1 0 d4 cxd4 11 �xd4 �xd4 12 11Mxd4 E:d8 13 11Mh4 11Me2 The latest occurrence of this var­ iation was in Sveshnikov-Kobalya, Dagomys, 0 2 . 04 . 200 8 , where Black preferred 13 . . . g6 14 !e3 �g7 15 tlJ a3 0-0 16 :§:fel and here simplest would have been 16 . . . �f6 = . The text is ex­ tensively tested and practice has proved that Black is not worse at all. We should not be afraid of tak­ ing the two minor pieces after: 14 �d2 8:xd2 15 ttJxd2 �xd2 16 :§:fdl ifMh6 ! 17 �g3 ifMc6 and gradual­ ly Black completes development af­ ter 18 b4 e6 19 8:d.3 f6 2 0 8:adl tlJdS 21 �b8 + �f7, Ossa-Marin, Sebas­ tian, 2006. Another variation on this theme is: 14 �e3 ifMxb2 15 tlJd 2 8:xd2 16 8:abl �xc3 17 hd2 ifMxd2 18 :§:fdl ifMaS 19 ifMe4 f6 ! 20 �xb7 �f7, Lintchevski­ Kuzubov, Kirishi 2004. The onus is on White in this line.

2 17

Part 1 2

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 lll c 6 3 c3 3 lll c 3 lll c 6 4 es

Rare Lines

STEP BY STEP

A. 3 c3 page 2 18 B. 3 l2Jc3 l2Jf6 4 eS page 2 2 2 A . 3 c3 Black has not committed him­ self with any pawn moves like 2 . . . e 6 o r 2 . . .d 6 , s o h e keeps all options open. Whatever you play against 2 c3 should be also good on move 3 . We'll restrict t o some brief recom­ mendations about one of the main lines against 2 c3 . It has been very well tested and White seems unable to demonstrate new ideas here : 3 lllt6 4 es lll d S

A1 . 5 ic4 � b6 6 .ib3 d 5 7 exd6 7 d4 cxd4 8 cxd4 is pointless as Black's bishop can land on fS or g4 . 7 . Y«xd 6 . .

•••

Ala. 8 d4 Alb. 8 l2J a3 Ale. 8 0-0 Ala. 8 d4 cxd4 9 0 - 0 9 ltJ a3 �e6 1 0 ltJ bS V!id7 transpos­ es to Alb ; 9 cxd4 �e6 10 l2Jc3 hb3 11 �xb3 e6=. 9 .te6 10 lLla3 dxc3 11 �e2 After 11 ltJbS V!ixdl 12 �xdl �c8 13 he6 fxe6 Black's extra pawn is doubled, but it controls the impor­ tant dS-square: 14 l2Jxc3 (14 bxc3 l2Jc4 lS �bl es 16 �el b6 17 �e4 l2Jd6+ Morozevich-Topalov, rapid Monte •••

Al. S �c4 A2 . S d4 218

1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!J c6 rare lines: 3 c3; 3 l!Jc3 Carlo 20 02) 14 . . . g6 15 �el l!JdS+. ll hb3 12 tllb 5 11Mb8 13 axb3 White plays a risky gambit. In practice Black obtains good results with normal development: 13 g6 14 ie3 tll c 8 15 ga4 15 bxc3 �g7 16 l!Jbd4 0-0 17 l!Jxc6 bxc6 18 �c2 as 19 �d4 l!Jd6 20 hg7 �xg7 21 �a4 cS+, Manca-Kotronias, Cork 2 0 05. 15 ... �g7 16 bxc3 Or 16 �f4 eS 17 l!JxeS l!JxeS 18 hes hes 19 f4 0-0 20 fxeS cxb2 21 �e4 a6 22 l!Jd4 l!Je7+. 16 0 - 0 17 gh4 tlld 6 18 if4 e5 19 tllxe5 We have been following the game Matsuura-Leitao, Santos 2006 , when 19 . . . l!JxeS 20 heS �e8 21 l!Jxd6 \Wxd6 22 hd6 �xe2+ would have been in Black's favour. . . .

.•.

White has tried here: 16 �e3 �c8 17 l!JbS �cS= , 16 l!JbS \Wc6 17 ie3 �cs 18 hcS \WxcS= and 16 l!JfS Wic7 17 l!J xe7+ \Wxe7 18 �e3 l!JdS=, Han­ sen-Timofeev, Skanderborg 200 5 . 9 hb3 1 0 axb3 Black should meet 10 \Wxb3 with 10 . . . \Wd3 ! 11 �el e6 12 �e3 \Wd7 13 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4 14 �xc4 !ie7= . 1 0 . . . %Yd3 ! .•.

.•.

Alb. 8 tll a3 ie6 8 . . . a6 is the other popular op­ tion. It also brings Black good re­ sults. 9 0-0 9 d4 cxd4 1 0 l!JbS �d7 ll l!Jbxd4 hb3 12 �xb3 l!Jxd4 13 l!Jxd4 e6 14 0-0 ie7 1S �dl 0-0 leads to an equal position:

11 E:el In Sveshnikov-Gallagher, Calvia 2004 White failed to remove the blockade on the d3-square after 11 �c2 �d8 12 �xd3 �xd3 13 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4 14 bxc4 e6 15 �el �e7 16 l!JeS l!JxeS 17 �xeS a6 = . 11 e6 1 2 E:e3 \Wd7 13 tll c4 tllxc4 14 bxc4 E:d8 Black deployed his pieces on good squares and does not have any problems. .•.

Ale. 8 0 - 0 ie6 8 . . . c4 ! ? 9 ic2 g6 10 b3 ig7 11 l!J a3 cxb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 d4 ig4 leads to a very solid position for Black, for instance, 14 h3 hf3 15 �xf3 es 16 llJ bS (16 l!Jc4 l!Jxc4 17 bxc4 exd4 18 ia3 \Wc7 19 hf8 �xf8 with ex219

Part 12 cellent compensation) 16 ... �dS 17 �xdS (17 �e2 exd4 18 llJc7 �d7 19 ttJxa8 �xa8oo) 17 . . . llJxdS 18 !e4 a6 19 hdS axbS= . 9 he6 Or 9 a4 hb3 10 �xb3 e6 (10 . . . c 4 1 1 �bs �ds 1 2 llJ a3 0-0-0oo) 11 llJ a3 (1 1 aS? ! �dS 12 �bS c4 ! 13 llJd4 llJd7+) 11 . . . !e7 12 llJbS �b8 = . 9 Wfxe6 •••

1 0 d4 10 a4 �d7 11 aS llJdS 12 d4 cxd4 13 ttJxd4 e6 14 a6 b6 leads to an un­ explored position, which looks ac­ ceptable for Black, for example: lS c4 ttJdb4 16 llJxc6 �xc6 17 llJc3 �e7f:± . 1 0 cxd4 11 lllx d4 Or 11 cxd4 �d7 12 llJc3 = . 1 1 lllxd4 1 2 Wfxd4 12 cxd4 �d7 13 ttJc3 e6 14 �g4 ttJdS ! was excellent for Black in Ofek-Gruenfeld, Ramat Aviv 1998. 12 gds 13 Wfh4 Wfe2 The latest occurrence ofthis vari­ ation was in Sveshnikov-Kobalya, Dagomys, 0 2 . 04 . 20 0 8 , where Black preferred 13 . . . g6 14 �e3 !g7 lS llJ a3 0-0 16 �fel and here simplest would have been 16 . . . �f6 = . The text is ex­ tensively tested and practice has

proved that Black i s not worse at all: a) 14 �d2 �xd2 lS llJxd2 �xd2 16 �fdl �h6 17 �g3 �c6 18 b4 e6 19 �d3 f6 2 0 �adl tlJ dS 2 1 �b8 + @f7 2 2 a 3 (22 �xa7 �e7- +) 2 2 . . . � g 8 (22 . . . bS- +) 2 3 �xa7 �e7 24 �d4 �c8 2 S �el fS- + Ossa-Marin, Sebastian, 2006 ; b) 14 �e3 �xb2 l S tlJ d 2 �xd2 16 �abl �xc3 17 hd2 �xd2 18 �fdl �as 19 �e4 f6 ! 20 �xb7 @f7 2 1 �el gS 2 2 �e2 hS 23 �bel h4 24 h3 (24 �xe7+ he7 2S �xe7+ @g6 26 �e4+ @h6 - +) 24 . . . tlJdS 2S �b3 @g7 26 �e4 llJf4 27 �d l �fs 28 f3 �cs+ 29 �e3 �xe 3+ 30 �xe3 e6-+ Lintchevs­ ki-Kuzubov, Kirishi 2 004.

A2. 5 d4 cxd4 6 cxd4 6 �c4 llJb6 7 � b3 d6 8 exd6 �xd6 9 0-0 �e6 transposes to line Al. 6. . .d 6

•••

•••

•••

220

7 �c4 7 exd6 �xd6 8 llJc3 �fS= is trivi­

al . 7 llJc3 is an old move which leads to an equal endgame. In principle, when playing against an eS-pawn, Black benefits f ram exchanges, es-

1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 rare lines: 3 c3 ; 3 l!Jc3 pecially those of knights. Throwing queens in the deal is even better. 7 . . . dxeS 8 dxeS l!Jxc3 9 �xd 8+ l!Jxd8 10 bxc3 �d7

Black has many good plans here. We'll note a fresh idea, co 6 nected with an attack on the eS-pawn. It involves g6, �g7 to provoke f4, and then .. .f6 . ll �e3 Or 11 l!Jd4 �c8 12 �e3 g6 13 �cl �g7 14 f4 �f8 ! ? lS �e2 f6 16 exf6 �xf6 17 0-0 �h6+ IKARUS-ZAPPA, 20 06 . 11. . . g6 ! ? 11. . . e6 i s solid and good : 1 2 l!Jd4 �c8 13 @d2 �cs 14 �d3 l!Jc6= Svesh­ nikov-Korneev, Sochi 2006 . 12 l!Jd4 Alternatives: 12 0-0-0 �g7 13 �c4 �c8 14 �dS �xc3+ lS @b2 �c8 16 ha7 l!Jc6 17 �b6 �g4 18 hc6 + bxc6t Afek-Gruenfeld, Tel Aviv 199 2 ; 12 h4 h6 13 �e2 �g7 14 0-0 l!Jc6 lS �f4 0-0 16 �abl b6 17 �bs �ac8 18 �fel l!Jb8 19 hd7 l!Jxd7 20 �bdl l!JcS+ Pomar-Polugaevsky, Palma de Mallorca 1972 . 12 . . . �c8 13 @d2 �g7 14 f4 �f8 ! ? planning f7-f6. 7 .ic4 dxe5

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

a) 9 h3 �fS 10 l!Jc3 �c8 11 0-0 e6 12 �gs �e7 13 he7 �xe7 14 l!Jd2? ! 0 - 0 l S l!Jb3 l!Jc4t Bryant-Nakamu­ ra, Las Vegas 2007; b) 9 l!Jc3 �g4 10 h3 �xf3 11 �xf3 e6 12 0-0 �c8 13 �dl (13 �e3 a6 14 �e2 �h4 lS �fdl �e7=) 13 . . . a6 14 �fl �e7 lS �g4 g6 16 �h6 �f8oo ; c) 9 l!Jh4? ! �d7 (setting the trap . .. l!JeS) 10 �e2 e6 11 g3 �e7 12 l!Jg2 f6 13 f4 �c8 (hindering White's cas­ tling, in view of . . . l!Jxd 4) 14 l!Jc3 0-0 lS �e3 @h8 16 exf6 �xf6 17 b3 l!Jxd4 ! 18 hd4 �xc3+ Cherniaev­ Zhigalko, Moscow 200 8 ; d ) 9 0-0 �g4 10 �e3 e 6 1 1 l!Jbd2 �e7 12 Wfe2 �c8 13 �fcl 0-0 14 a3 �d7 lS h3 �fS 16 l!Jb3 l!Jc4 ! 17 hc4 dxc4 18 �xc4 b6oo, Tiviakov-Topa­ lov, Wijk aan Zee 200 6 ; 8 dxe5 8 �xdS? ! WfxdS 9 l!J c3 �d6 10

221

Part 12 d S ttJd4 11 ttJxd4 exd4 12 �xd4 es 13 �d3 �d7 14 0-0 fS has long been found to be good for Black. 8 dxe5

8. . .� b6 8 . . . ttJdb4 9 �b3 e6 can be used to complicate things. 9 \Wxd8+ � xd8 1 0 .ib 5+ .id7 1 1 lll c 3 e6 This endgame is rather drawish, but, amazingly, White often mana­ ges to lose it. a) 12 �xd7+ ttJxd7 13 tlJbS �c8 (13 . . . �b4+ 14 �e2 �e7 lS a3 �cs 16 b4 a6 17 bxcS axbS 18 �e3 ttJc6 19 �hbl b4 20 axb4 �xal 21 �xal ttJxb4 22 �bl ttJa6 23 �xb7 �c8 24 �a7 ttJ axcS 2S tlJgS h6 26 ttJxf7 �xf7 27 �xcS �xcS 28 �xd 7 + �g6 29 f4 cM°S with a draw in the rook end­ game, Pavasovic-Sveshnikov,Ljublja­ na 1996) 14 tlJxa7 �c2oo; b) 12 0-0 a6 13 �xd7+ (13 �e3 �xbS 14 tlJxbS tlJdS lS tlJbd4 h6=) 13 . . . ttJxd7 14 �f4 ttJc6 lS �fdl ttJb6 16 �acl �b4 17 ttJe4 tlJdS=.

Black ensures normal develop­ ment for his pieces . In this pawn structure he might gradually gain some spatial advantage thanks to his control of d4 . 7 �c4 7 ttJe4 �xd6 8 ttJxd6+ �xd6 9 g3 es 10 h3 ttJf6 11 �g2 0-0 12 d3 �fs 13 0-0 �fe8= ; 7 d4? cxd4 8 tlJbS �xd6 9 ttJfxd4 ttJxd4 10 ttJxd4 �b4+ 11 �d2 �xd4 12 c3 (12 �bS + �d7 13 �xb4 �xf2 + 14 �dl ttJe 3 + lS �xe3 �xe3 16 �xb7 0-0 - +) 12 . . . �xf2 + 13 �xf2 ttJxf2 14 �xf2 �cs++; 7 g 3 �xd6 8 �g2 0-0 9 0-0 es 10 h3 tlJf6 11 d 3 h6= . 7 e5! 8 h 3 8 ttJe4 �xd6 9 ttJxd6 + �xd6 1 0 tlJgS 0 - 0 11 ttJe4 �g6t 1 2 ttJxcS? ttJd4 13 �d3 �fS+. 8 lll h6 9 d3 Or 9 �xcS? ! �xd6 10 �c4 0- 0t; 9 ttJe4 �xd6 10 �ds (10 ttJxd6 + ? ! �xd6 1 1 tlJgS 0 - 0 12 ttJe4 �g6t) 10 . . . �e7 11 �xd 8 + �xd8 12 �bs ttJb4+. 9 lll f 5 1 0 i.g 5 �xd6 1 1 0-0-0 i.e6 1 2 �a4 f6 1 3 lll e4 �c7t Vachier Lagrave-Spasov, Tu­ rin 200 6 . •••

•••

•••

3 lll c 3 lllt6 4 es lll g 4 5 �e2 d6 6 exd6 e6 a.

222

Part 1 3

1 e4 c 5 2 �f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 � db5 d6 7 .ig 5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 .ixf6 gxf6 1 0 �d5 .ig7 The Novosibirsk Variation QU IC K R EPERTO I RE

This variation offers a different ap­ proach to the Sveshnikov. Instead of immediately attacking the cen­ tre, Black wants to kill first White's knight on d5 with CiJc7-e7, and only then to think about activating the poor g7-bishop . White cannot ef­ fectively prevent it, since 11 CiJe3 CiJe7 12 �d3 f5 ! 13 exf5 d5 or 11 �h5 CiJe7 12 CiJ e3 f5 13 exf5 e4 14 0-0-0 0-0 opens play favourably to Black's bishop pair. Other attempts like 11 g4 CiJe7 12 CiJe3 do not deserve atten­ tion either, because Black will com­ plete development, e.g. 12 . . . �b7 13 �g2 0-0 14 0-0 cj{h8 15 c3 �g8 16 �d 3 CiJg6 when the whole White kingside will be weak. In practice White often tries to refute Black's construction by the sharp c4, but then Black's bish­ op pair comes to life and his piec­ es are like unwinding spring. The most unpleasant approach is when White calmly develops, reinfarcing the key point e4 by f3 , and prepar­ ing to produce a passed pawn on the queenside by c4 at an opportunity. Note that in the latter case, it is very difficult for Black to obtain counterplay.

That is why we do not recom­ mend the Novosibirsk variation as a main line. 1 1 .id3 �e7 1 2 �x e7 V!fxe7

A. 1 3 c4 (or 13 0-0 0-0 14 c4) 1 3 fS 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 V!fh5 The other major option is 15 �f3 and then Radjabov's 15 . . . d5 ! ? works fine: 16 cxd5 fxe4 17 he4 �b8 •••

223

Part 13 Black has a good game : 18 �fdl fS 19 d6 Wfff6 20 �c6 ie6 . 1 S WhS gb8 ! Intending to take on e4 a nd push . . .fS. 1 6 exfS e4 1 7 gae1 i.b7

game 37 Bologan-Nedev, Panormo 20 0 1 .

Currently we are unable to show a clear-cut plan for equality here. 1 4 Wb7 14 . . . Wff g S 15 0-0 ! ib7 is yet an­ other critical line . 1 S f3 ! 15 V9f3 0-0 16 ttJe3 f4 17 tlJdS ie6 18 g4 b4 ! is a typical break­ trough, which ensures just enough counterplay. 1 S f4 1 6 lll b4 Move order is not critical. White can play first 16 0-0. 16 0-0 1 7 0-0 ie6 •••

This position is very sharp and both sides have plenty of possibil­ ities, but Black's play is easier. The key position arises after: 1 8 f3 dS! 1 9 fxe4 dxc4!

•••

•••

White's attack looks ominous, but he has nothing decisive. 20 t6 ixt6 21 es Wes+ 22 @ h1 cxd3 23 gxf6 Wb4! 24 gef1 i.e4 We prefer Black's game, although the position remains complex.

1 3 c3! ts 1 4 lll c 2! 14 0-0 0-0 15 tlJc2 �b8 ! , prevent­ ing a4, is satisfactory for Black. See a.

224

1 8 @ h 1 !? White prepares to play on the queenside where he will make a passed pawn. 18 �f2 is also logical , because the d6-pawn seems an accessible tar­ get, but Black manages to activate

7 igS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS ig7 the dark-squared bishop and obtain counterplay: 18 . . . if6 ! 19 �d2 id8 20 ic2 ib6 + 21 �hl icS 22 ltJdS hdS ! 23 �xdS b4 24 cxb4 �xb4 25 �bl aS 26 a3 (or 26 g3 �h8 ! ? 27 gxf4 �g8 28 �d2 �xd2 29 �xd2 exf4 30 ib3 �g7) 2 6 . . . �b6 = . 1 8 ... as 1 9 �d5 ts 2 0 c4 The most purposeful move. It ensures a pawn majority 2 : 1 on the queenside since 20 . . . b4 is strategi­ cally bad due to 21 exfS. 20 ... bxc4 21 i.xc4 fxe4 22 fxe4 ©h8 This type of positions is crucial for the assessment of the Novosi­ birsk variation.

Although it seems that Black does not experience difficulties, his game is not very pleasant. In fact, he can hardly hope to win at all . White will soon make a passed b-pawn and he will try to convert it by combin­ ing play against the more exposed Black king.

225

Part 1 3

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 'Llxd4 'Llf6 s �c3 es 6 � db S d6 7 igS a6 8 'Lla3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 �dS ig7 The Novos ibirsk Va riation STEP BY STEP

With this move order, Black aims to sidestep some sharp variations, for instance, the piece sacrifice on bS, which is possible after 10 .. .fS. One of the authors, Nedev, often plays it, so we shall examine it in de­ tail as a backup line. However, our main repertoire is more active, and it is currently in a better theoreti­ cal shape . There is one specific line in the Novosibirsk variation (B2b) , where Black's game is rather boring and not suitable for playing for win. The situation might change though. If Kasparov chose it twice not so long ago, Black certainly hides some trumps up his sleeve. 1 1 i.d 3 a) 11 c3 fS transposes to other parts of the book, for example, 12 exfS is covered in Part S while 12 �d 3 �e6 is considered in Part 7. b) 11 l2Je3 l2Je7 12 �d3 fS ! 13 exfS dS 14 �g4 �g8 lS �h4 �d6 16 00-0 �h6 ! t, Fernandez Aguado,EM. Kuijf, Sitges 199 2 ; c) 11 �hS l2J e 7 12 l2J e 3 fS 1 3 exfS e4 13 . . . dS? ! brought Black a victory in Papaioannou-Spasov, Korinthos 226

2001, 14 �gS 0-0 1S f6 ! would have been rather unclear: 1S . . . l2Jg6 16 llJxdS �xdS (16 . . . h6 17 l2Je7+ �h7 18 h4 ! +) 17 fxg7 �xg7 18 �d3 f6 19 �g3 e4 20 �e2 �e6 21 0-0 �d4oo. 14 0-0-0 0-0 (14 . . . �aS ! ?)

Black's bishop pair and mobile central pawns should prevaili n the ensuing sharp clash . lS g4 lS f3? ! �b6 16 �gs dS ( or 17 llJxdS? llJxdS 18 �xdS �h 8 ! Klinger­ Vaisser, Szirak 1985) 17 f6 �xf6 18 �xf6 �xf6 19 llJxdS llJxdS 20 �xdS �e6 with the bishop pair advantage and better development. lS . . . dS 16 �g2 (16 c3 b4 ! 17 cxb4 �c7+ 18 �bl �es 19 �d2 �b8 ! ) 16 . . . �c7 ! 1 7 �xdS ! Alternatives are : 17 llJxdS? tlJxdS

7 !gS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS !g7 18 �xdS !b7 ! 19 �d2 �es 20 c3 e3 ! 2 1 fxe3 �xg2 2 2 �xg2 �xe3+ 2 3 �d2 �ad8 24 �hdl �xd2 2S �xd2 �d8 26 ltJbl �h6- + ; 17 f6? ! �xf6 18 ltJxdS ltJxdS 19 �xdS �xg4 20 �dgl �ad8 21 �xe4 �d4 22 �e3 b4 23 �e4 hS 24 h3 �eS ! 2S hxg4 �xe4 26 gxhS+ �h7- + . 1 7. . . ltJxdS 1 8 ltJxdS �es 1 9 f6 �xf6 20 �xeS (20 �xe4? fails to 20 . . . �xb 2 + 21 �d2 �d8 22 �e2 !g7! +) 20 . . .�xeS 21 l2Je7+ �g7 2 2 �xe4 �b8 23 l2Jxc8 �bx98+, Emeli­ anov-Tolstov, corr 200 2 ; d) 11 g4 l2Je7! Trading off White's most power­ ful piece is certainly a good reaction to White's flank strategy. 11. . . hS is also worth considering: 12 gxhS fS 13 �gl (13 !d3 l2Je7 14 l2Jxe7 �xe7 lS c3 !b7 16 �f3 �gS+, Johnsen­ Royset, Tromsoe 1999) 13 . . . !h6 !oo. 12 !e2 White has also tried: 12 l2Jxe7 �xe7 13 c3 hS ! ? or 13 . . .!b7 14 �g2 !h6 lS l2Jc2 fS ! 16 l2Jb4 ! fxg4 17 ltJdS �xdS 18 �xdS �c8f! are both pleasant for Black; 12 l2Je3 !b7 (12 . . . hSf!) 13 !g2 0-0 14 0-0 �h8 lS c3 �g8 16 �d3 l2Jg6 17 ltJdS �d7 with an edge . 12 . . . ltJxdS 13 �xdS !e6

14 �c6 + Or 14 �d2 dS+; 14 �b7 �aS + ! ? l S c3 �c8+. 14 . . . �e7 lS �b7+ (lS 0-0-0 �b8 ! - + ) 1S ... �d7 16 �xd7+ hd7 17 c4 h S ! 18 cxbS White cannot maintain the grip on the centre: 18 f3 hxg4 l 9 fxg4 �h4 20 h3 !c6 21 !f3 fS 22 gxfS he4+; 18 gxhS �c6 19 �gl !h6 20 cxbS axbS 2 1 ltJxbS �hb8 2 2 l2Jc7 �a4+. 18 . . . hxg4 19 bxa6 This position has been reached in Sulskis-Nedev, Gothenburg 2 0 0S. Black has the initiative a nd the best way to develop it would have been 19 . . .fS ! 20 exfS (20 !d3 fxe4 2 1 he4 d S 22 hdS �xa6 2 3 l2Jc4 e4+) 20 . . . e4 2 1 l2Jc2 (21 0-0-0 �xfS+; 21 l2Jc4 �xa6 2 2 �xg4 d S 2 3 l2Je 3 !c6+) 2 1 . . .�xb2 22 �bl !c3 + 23 �fl .ixf5 24 l2Je 3 !e6 2S �b7+ �f6+. e) 11 c4 fS 12 cxbS 12 !d3 l2Je7 13 l2Jxe7 (13 cxbS ltJxdS 14 exdS e4 lS �e2 �as+ 16 Ml 0-0 17 !c4 axbS 18 ltJxbS �d7 19 l2Jxd6 �b4 ! 2 0 ltJbS �fc8-+) 13 . . . V9xe7 transposes to 11 �d3 . 12 . . . l2Jd4

13 !d3 Alternatives are: 13 bxa6 0-0 14 !c4 fxe4 lS 0-0 2 27

Part 13 ha6+; 13 exfS �b7 ! ? (13 . . .hfS 14 �c4 0-0 lS bxa6 �gS ! ? 16 0-0 �h3 17 ttJe3 dS 18 hdS �xa6 19 c±>hl �d7�) 14 ttJe3 (14 �c4 axbS lS ttJxbS hdS 16 hdS ttJxbS 17 ha8 �xa8 18 0-0 ttJd4f!) 14 ... axbS lS hbS+ c±>e7 16 �d 3 e4 17 �c4 �as + 18 �d2 dS + ; 13 b6? 0-0 14 �d3 �b7 lS ttJ c4 (lS ttJc7? fxe4+) lS . . . �b8 ! 16 ttJce3 (16 0-0? fxe4 17 �xe4 fS-+) 16 ... fxe4 17 he4 fS 18 �d3 f4 ! 19 �hS h6 2 0 �g6 �f7! 21 �e4 fxe3 22 fxe3 ttJc2 + - + . 13 . . . 0-0 13 ... �e6 was played in the famous game Anand-Lautier, 1997 and it is supposed to be good for Black. We do not share this opinion, since after: 14 0-0 0-0 lS ttJc2 ttJxc2 16 hc2 fxe4 17 bxa6 �xa6 White is somewhat better with both 18 a4 ! ? fS 1 9 b 4 o r 1 8 he4 fS 1 9 �c2 ! c±>h8 20 �b3 e4 21 �d2 �a7! 22 �acl �es 23 g3 �g7 24 f4 ! ? exf3 2S �xf3 �h4 26 ttJf4 hb3 27 axb3;t. 14 ltJc2 (14 �d2 fxe4 1S he4 �e6 ! 16 ttJc2 �h4 gives Black a strong in­ itiative, for example: 17 ttJc3 dS 18 hdS �ad8 19 ttJe3 axbS) 14 . . . fxe4 lS �xe4 �b8 16 0-0 16 b6 �h4 17 �f3 e4 !oo is excel­ lent for Black; 16 ttJxd4 exd4 17 0-0 �xbS 18 b4 (18 �cl �b7 ! 19 �f3 �e 8 20 a4 �cS=) 18 ... �b7 19 �b3 is balanced after 19 . . . �e8 ! ? or 19 . . . �gS. 16 . . .�xbS 17 b3 �b7 18 ttJc3 dS ! ? This exchange sacrifice i s more enterprising than 18 . . .he4 19 ttJxe4 ttJxc2 20 �xc2 dS 21 �adl �d7= . 19 ttJxbS dxe4 2 0 ltJc3 �gSoo. Black has an obvious compensa­ tion. He could also try 20 . . . �c7 with tempo . 228

11

..•

� e 7 1 2 �xe7 VHxe7

Now White chooses plans with 13 c4 or 13 c3 . Only the latter pos­ es problems to Black.

A. 1 3 c4 White often starts with 13 0-0 0-0 a nd then 14 c4. Only 13 0-0 0-0 14 �f3 is of independent signifi­ cance: 14 .. .fS lS exfS dS 16 �xdS �b7 17 �b3 e4 18 �fe l ! ? (18 �e2 �gs 19 �adl e3 2 0 f3 �es 21 ttJc4 �f4 22 �d4 �ad8 = Anand-Kramnik, 1998) 18 . . . �ad8 Black has very ac­ tive pieces and he quickly regains one of the pawns, retaining the in­ itiative, e.g. 19 �fl (19 c4? b4; 19 �adl �f6 ! 20 �fl �xb2 21 c4 b4 22 ltJbl aS+) 19 . . . �h4 ( 1 9 . . . �dS ! ?) 20 �adl �d4 2 l �d 2 �fe8 ! 2 2 g3 �f6 23 �de2 �xfS 24 �g2 e3 ! . 1 3 fS 1 4 0-0 Black has a fine game after 14 cxbS dS lS 0-0 fxe4 16 �c2 �e6 17 bxa6 0-0 18 ttJbS �xa6, Jobava-Ya­ kovich, Moscow 2 007. 14 �hS fails to 14 . . . dS ! lS cxdS fxe4+ due to the check on b4. Or 14 exfS e4 lS 0-0 exd3 16 �el �es 17 f4 MS 18 fxeS 0-0oo. ...

7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 !xf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS �g7 14

...

0-0

Al. 15 �hS A2 . 15 �f3 15 cxbS is thematically met by 15 . . . dS ! . 15 �e2 is also bad, because it cannot stop .. .fS: �b7 16 f3 fxe4 17 fxe4 f5 18 exf5 e4 19 cxbS axbS 20 !xbS dS+. A1 . 1 5 \Wh5 g b8 ! Black intends to take o n e4 and push .. .f5 so White has not a big choice : 1 6 exf5 e4 1 7 g a e1 ib7

White has tried here nearly all legal moves, but Black always re­ tains good chances .

1 8 f3 Alternative s: a) 18 l!Jc2 WeS ! + ; b) 18 b 3 bxc4 19 bxc4 Or 19 l!Jxc4 dS 2 0 l!Je3 (20 �e 3 �f6 ; 20 l!J aS �a8) 2 0 . . . exd3 (20 . . . �c3 ! ? 2 1 l!Jg4 f6) 2 1 l!Jg4 Wd6 2 2 f6 .ixf6 23 �h6 �e7 24 �xe7 �xh6 25 l!Jxh6+ ®g7 26 l!Jf5+ @f6 27 g4 �c8+ 19 . . . ®h8 ! with strong counter­ play, for example: 20 l!Jbl �eS ! 21 f6 �xf6 22 !xe4 !xe4 23 �xe4 �b2 24 �e2 �fb8 25 l!Jd 2 (25 �xb2 �xb2+) 25 ... �g6 ! + ; 2 0 �e3 �eS ! 2 1 �h3 f6 2 2 �e2 �c6 23 l!Jc2 �b2+; 2 0 l!Jc2 �g8 21 f3 dS ! 2 2 fxe4 dxc4, when 23 �e3? loses to 23 . . . cxd3 24 �h3 �h6 ! 25 �xh6 �g 2+ 26 ®hl �g7- + ; c ) 1 8 cxbS dS ! 1 9 bxa6 �c6 2 0 �bl ( 2 0 �e3 �xb2 2 1 �h3 h 6 2 2 �bl �a8 23 �g3 Wf6+) 20 . . . �xb2 21 �e3 f6 22 l!Jc2 d4+, T. Horvath-Nedev, Fuegen 2006 ; d ) 18 !xe4 !xe4 1 9 �g4 ( 1 9 f3?? W a7+ 20 ®hl �d3-+) 19 ... �fe8 20 f6 �xf6 21 �xe4 Wxb2+; e) 18 �e3 bxc4 19 �h3 (19 �xc4 WeS ! 2 0 �h3 h6 2 1 �g4 �c8 ! 2 2 �hS �xb2 23 �b3 e3 ! 24 fxe3 �xe3+ 25 ® hl �f2 !+) 19 . . . h6 20 !xc4 �gS ! 2 1 WxgS hxgS. White has to defend a grim endgame: 22 �dl (22 �g3 dS 23 �xgS f6+) 22 . . . dS 23 !xdS !xdS 24 �xdS �xb2+; f) 18 Wg4 (18 ... �fe8 ! ? is also a good choice) 18 . . . ®h8 ! ? 19 !xe4 (19 cxbS dS) 19 . . . �fe8 2 0 �e3 (20 f6 i.xf6 2 1 �d3 �g8 !) 2 0 . . . !xe4 21 �fel �f6 2 2 �xe4 �xe4 23 Wxe4 �xb2+.

229

Part 13 1 8 . . . dS 1 9 fxe4 dxc4 !

In Gouliev-Nedev, Illkirch 2004 was 19 . . . �cS+ ! ? 20 �hl dxc4, when the best 2 l eS ! cxd3 2 2 f6 �xf6 would have transposed to the main line. 20 f6 Or 20 �bl? �d4 + 21 �hl f6+. 20 . . . ixf6 21 es Wes+ 22 @ h 1 cxd3 2 3 �xf6 Wb4 ! 2 4 �ef1 ie4 We prefer Black's game, al­ though the position remains very complex. For instance : 2S l!Jbl (2S �6f4? ! �g6 ! ; 2S e6 �xb2 26 exf7+ �h8t) 2S . . . �xb2 26 �gs + ( 26 �6f2? �g6 ! 27 �gs �d4 28 l!Jd 2 �be8 29 l!Jf3 �b6 30 h4 f6 3 1 exf6 �xf6 - +) 26 ... �g6 27 h4! �e2 ! 28 �6fS hS 2 9 �xf7 (29 l!Jd2 �b6 !) 29 ... �xf7 3 0 �xf7 �g4 31 �xg4 hxg4+.

A2. 1 S Wf3 d S ! ? This plan has been developed by Radj abov. It consolidates the queenside and shifts the focus onto the centre where Black has an initi­ ative. The bishop pair compensates the sacrificed pawn. 1 6 cxdS fxe4 1 7 .ixe4 �b8

230

18 �fd 1 White assigns the queen's rook to the c-file. Alternatives are : a) 18 �adl �b6 19 �d3 ! (19 �e3 �d6+; 19 �fS �f6 2 0 d6 �xd6 2 1 �xd6 �xd6 22 l!Jc2 �xfS 23 �xfS �g6 =) 19 . . . �d7 20 hh7+ (20 g3? ! fS 2 1 �g2 � h 6 2 2 f4 exf4 23 gxf4 hb2 24 l!Jc2 �g7 2S l!J b4 �d6+ Leko-Rad­ j abov, Linares 2 0 04) 2 0 . . . �h8 21 d 6 ( 2 1 �e3 �h6 2 2 �c2 �d6oo, Smir­ nov-Radjabov, FIDE-Web, Tripo­ li 20 04) 21 . . . �d8 22 �e4 ( 2 2 �e3 �xd6 23 �xd6 �xd6 24 �bl fS 2S l!Jc2 e4 26 b4 �es 27 g3 �f6 2 8 �e2 �g'Too Lutz-Radjabov, Plovdiv 2003) 22 . . . �h6 ! 23 �fel (23 f4? ! �b7!+ ) 23 . . .fS 24 �xeS+ ( 2 4 �b4 aS ! 2S �xaS �xd6 is risky for White) 24 . . . �xh7 2S �f6 (2S �e7+ �g8 ! +) 2S . . . �b70 26 l!Jc2 �e8 ! 27 l!Jd4 �e4 ! 2 8 l!Jf3 �g7+; b) 18 �acl fS ! 19 �xc8 �bxc8 20 Ms �gs 21 �e6 + �h8 22 �dl. Black has the initiative after either 22 . . . �cs, Ganguly-Venkatesh, Rajendran 2004, or 22 . . . �c7, Reinaldo Castineira-Yakovich, Paris 2 0 0S; c) 18 �fS �f6 19 hc8 �xf3 20 gxf3 �fxc8 2 1 �acl e4 22 �xc8 + �xc8 23 fxe4 h b2 2 4 l!J b l and now

7 �gs a6 8 tt:J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tt:Jds � g7 24 . . . E:c2 ! 2S E:dl Af� gives Black enough activity for the pawn : 26 �g2 �f6 27 E:d2 E:c4 28 f3 b4. 1 8 . . . fS 1 9 d 6 Wff6 20 �c6 �e6 21 �d5 Or 21 E:d2 e4 22 �hS E:fd8 23 E:adl E:b6 24 �ds E:bxd6+. 21 .. J�bd8 22 Wfb3 The endgame after 22 he6 + �xe6 23 �dS (23 �b3 �xb3 24 axb3 E:f6+) 23 . . . E:f6 24 d7 �xdS 2S E:xdS E:c6 26 E:adl ( 26 f4?? b4 ! ) 26 . . . �f7 is equal: 27 E:d6 (27 tt:Jbl E:c7 2 8 tt:Jc3 �e7=) 27 . . . E:xd6 2 8 E:xd6 �f8 29 E:xa6 E:xd7= . 22 . . . �f7 ! 23 li:) c2 Otherwise White would be worse: 23 E:acl E:xd6 24 hf7 + E:xf7 2S E:c8 + �f8 26 E:xd6 �xd6+; 23 �b4 e4 24 E:abl �h8 ! (threate­ ning . . . �xd6) 2S �b7 (2S �b3 hb3 26 axb3 E:f7 27 tt:Jc2 E:fd7 28 tt:Je3 f4 29 tt:Jfl �g6) 2 S . . .ha2 26 E:al �g8 27 ha6 �xb2+; 2 3 ... e4 ! 24 g ab1 After 24 tt:Je3 f4 2S hf7+ (2S tt:Jg4 �g6) 2S . . . E:xf7 26 tt:Jds �xb2 27 �xb2 (27 E:acl �xb3 28 axb3 E:fd7 29 E:c6 �es 30 E:xa6 �f7 !t) 27 ... hb2 28 E:abl �a3 and Black is at least equal. Or 24 a4 �xb2=. 2 4 ... �xd6 2 5 �xf7+ gxf7 26 li:) e 3 f4 27 li:) g 4 gxd 1 + 2 8 gxd 1 Wfe 7. Black has sufficient counter­ chances .

B. 1 3 c3! f5

Bl. 14 0-0 B 2. 14 tt:Jc2 !

8 1 . 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5 li:) c2 g b 8 !

A useful move, which prevents a4 and threatens to take on e4, fol­ lowed up with .. .fS . 1 6 exf5 White cannot hold e4 because of 16 E:el fxe4 ! 17 he4 fS 18 �dS+ �h8 19 tt:Jb4 Wfc7, when 2 0 a4 bxa4 ! 2 1 �xa4 �cs 22 �a2 (22 E:edl? ! e4) 22 . . . e4 ensures counterplay, where­ as 2 0 �b3 as 21 tt:Jds �b7 22 a3 �e6 23 tt:Je3 hb3 24 �xb3 f4 2 S tt:JdS E:bc8 26 E:adl E:cS was level in Anand-Radj abov, rpaid, M ainz 2006 . 1 6 . . . e 4 1 7 ge1 �xf5 1 8 li:) b4 Practice has also seen: a) 18 tt:Je3 �g6 19 tt:Jds Wies 2 0 �c2 ( 2 0 �fl? ! i s a positional mis­ take, since White needs this bishop on b3 in order to protect dS. 20 . . .fS 2 1 f4 �e6+ and Black is fine: 2 2 tt:Je3 �f7 23 g3 �h8 24 �h3 �g8 2S �hS �g6+) 20 �c2 as 21 f4 �e6 22 a3 ( 2 2 tt:Je3 i s well countered with 2 2 . . . b4 ! and White i s worse despite that he can win a piece with 23 g4 bxc3 24 b4 E:xb4 2s fS �es 26 �ds E:d4 27 W!xeS heS+) 2 2 a 3 �h8 2 3 �b3 Wfc8 24 �d2 �cs + 2S �hl E:fe8 26 E:adl �hS 27 E:cl fS+ ; 23 1

Part 13 b) 18 ttJd4 hd4 19 cxd4 dS 20 �d2 �b6 ! 2 1 �acl �g6 2 2 �fl �h4 23 �e3 �gS ! 24 �el ! (Or 24 g3 hS 2S �cs �e6 , Short-Illescas Cordo­ ba, M adrid 1997 and Black had a dangerous attack; 24 �cs �h3 2S �c3 hg2 2 6 �g3 �f3 !oo) 24 ... �f6 ! ? ( 24 . . .�g4 2 S �g3) 2S �b4 �g4 26 �g3 hS 27 h3 �e6 2 8 �d6 �xg3 29 �xg3 + @h7 30 �e3 �c 8 3 1 �xc8 hc8 = ; c) 1 8 �fl as 1 9 a3 �g6 2 0 �ds �fc8 21 �adl �es 22 �d2 �cSf!. 1 8 . . . aS! 1 9 �d5 �es 20 ic2 ig 6 Black has a bishop pair and good centre . See for further detail game 37 Bologan-Nedev, Panor­ mo 2 0 01.

82. 1 4 � c2 !

Currently we are unable to show a clear-cut plan for equality here. We shall focus on the problem po­ sitions, and you could be checking for improvements for Black. 1 4 . . �b7 14 ... 0-0 lS �hS and 14 ... �b7 lS exfS are not appealing, so the only .

232

alternative is: 14 ... �gs, when lS 0-0 ! is t he crit­ ical line. The other options are un­ der control: a) lS exfS �xg2 16 �fl �h6 ! 17 a4 �g8 18 axbS axbS 19 hbS+ �d7 2 0 �xa 8 + �xa8oo for example : 2 1 hd7+ (21 �xd6 �e4+ 2 2 �e2 �xc2 23 �b8 + @e7 24 �xeS+=) 2 1 . . . @xd7 22 �d3 �a4 23 ttJb4 e4 24 �dl �xdl + 2S @xdl �gS = ; b ) l S �f3 f4 1 6 h 3 0 - 0 1 7 0-0 �b7! 18 a4 (18 ttJ b4 aS) 18 .. .fSt; c) lS ttJ e3 is a continuation that has not been tested in practice. lS . . . f4 16 h 4 �g6 1 7 h S �gS 1 8 tlJdS �xg2 19 �fl leads to a complicat­ ed position, but the following end­ game seems equal: 19 . . . �g4 20 f3 �e6 2 1 �e2 (21 ttJc7+ @e7 2 2 l!Jxa8 �xb2 23 �cl �xcl+ 24 �xcl �xa8oo) 2 1 . . . �xe2 + 22 @xe2 hdS 23 exdS �b8 = · d ) l S �e2 dS ! 16 exfS (16 exdS e4 17 l!Jb4 0-0 18 �c2 as 19 l!Jc6 b4f!) 16 . . . e4 ! 17 f3 (17 l!Jb4 0-0 18 �c2 �b7 19 0-0 �ad8 20 f3 d4) 17 . . . 0-0 18 fxe4 hfS 19 �e3 (19 0-0 dxe4 20 �e3 �xe3 + 2 1 l!Jxe3 �g6 22 �c2 b4+) 19 .. �h4 + 20 g3 �h3 21 �fl �g4 2 2 �g2 he4 2 3 he4 dxe4 24 0-0 �g6 = . Now let u s return t o l S 0 - 0 �b7 '

7 �gS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS .ig7 Our analysis suggests that White is able to retain control over the criti­ cal square e4. Thus his chances re­ main preferable, as he has a clear plan of attacking the queenside by a4. Perhaps most challenging is 16 �f3 ! ? , but 16 f3 0-0 17 exfS dS 18 f4 ! also looks unpleasant: 18 . . . exf4 19 �f3 �eS 2 0 a4 (20 �ael �fe8 2 1 ttJd4 �f6=) 2 0 . . . �fe8 2 1 axbS axbS 22 hbS �xal 23 �xal �b8 24 tlJd4 hd4+ 25 cxd4 �xfS� ; On the con­ trary, 16 �e2 0-0 (or even 16 . . .fxe4 17 he4 d5 18 f4 �f6 ! ) 17 f3 d5 looks fine for Black; After 16 �f3 Black tested 16 .. .f4 17 a4 0-0 18 axbS axbS, when Acs recommends 19 �xa8 �xa8 20 �al fS 2 1 �xa8 ! �xa8 2 2 exfS �d8 23 ttJb4�. The problem with this po­ sition is that Black plays for only two results since White is in total command over the light squares. We tried to improve his play with 19 . . . �xa 8, when 20 ttJa3 fS ensures Black an initiative: 21 ttJxbS dS 2 2 ttJd6 fxe4 2 3 he4 dxe4 2 4 �dl �f8 25 ttJxb7 f3 . However, White has a better option: 2 0 ttJb4 f5 2 1 �e2 dS 22 �c2 and our b7-bishop is hang­ ing in some variations. As a whole, Black's pawn cluster in the centre looks awesome, but the exposed diagonal a2-g8 tips the balance in White's favour. After 15 . . .�b7 the main line branches to : B2a. 15 �f3 B2b. 15 f3 !

White can also defend the e4pa wn by 15 �e2 fxe4 16 �xe4 dS 17 �b4 �f8 1 8 �h4 e4 19 �e2 �g7+, or take on fS: 15 exf5 �xg2 16 �fl �b7 17 ttJe3 �c6 18 �g4 �f6 19 0-0-0 hS!+, but in these cases Black is on top.

B2a. 15 'ti'f3 0 - 0 16 ltJe3 The mundane 16 0-0 would face 16 . . . dS ! 17 exfS e4 18 �g3 hf5 ! ? 19 �e2 b4 ! 20 ttJxb4 as 2 1 tlJc2 �xb2 2 2 ttJd4 �g6 ft . 16 ... f4 17 � d5 �e6 18 g4 b4!

This thrust ensures just enough counterplay. 19 c4 Or 19 @fl ! ? bxc3 20 bxc3 �ab8 21 @g2 �d7 22 h3 �b2 23 �hbl �tb8 233

Part 13 (23 . . . E1d2 ! ? 24 �dl ! �b2=) 24 �b2 �xb2 2S �bl �xbl 26 .bbl �d8 27 �d3 hS 2 8 ha6 (28 gxhS �gs + 29 cM"1 �h4 30 �g2 �gs+) 28 ... �gs 29 �e2 hxg4 30 hxg4 hdS 31 exdS fS 32 �h3 e4 33 f3 fxg4 34 �xg4 �xg4+ 3S fxg4 hc3 !+. 19 ... hd5 2 0 exd5 2 0 cxdS �f6 ! occurred ion Dol­ matov-Topalov, Groningen 1993 21 gS �d8 22 �fl ! , when 22 . . . �c8 ! ? ( 2 2 . . . �h8) 23 .th 3 �c2 2 4 �fS �b6 2S �hS f6 is double-edged. 2 0 . . . e4 ! 2 1 he4 hb2 22 :Sbl ie5. Black is going to produce a passed pawn on the queenside while he will defend the kingside along the sev­ enth rank after a possible . . .f6 .

B2b. 1 5 f3 ! f4 This is a typical position which requires a good understanding of the main plans and manoeuvres.

Black has two active plans: 1. He launches a pawn storm on the queenside with . . . . as, . . . . b4, and, hopefully, . . . b3. 2. He activates his dark-squared bishop. That could be achieved by 234

manoeuvring it to b6 via f6-d8, or with the help of the pawn sacrifice . . . . eS-e4 after an exchange on dS . Unfortunately, with precise pro­ phylactic play, White is able to re­ strict both of them : 16 �b4 16 0-0 should later transpose to the main line . 16 �e2 0-0 17 g4 unnecessari­ ly weakens the kingside and loses a tempo without achieving obvious benefits : 17 . . . �e6 18 ltJb4 �fc8 ! The a8rook is needed to support the a-pawn, whilst the f8-square might prove useful for the g7-bishop. Now, 19 0-0 aS 20 ltJdS loses a pawn to 20 ... hdS 2 1 exdS �xdS 2 2 �e4 (22 �e4 �xe4 23 he4 �ab8+) 22 . . . �cS++, where­ as long castling is even worse: 19 0-0-0 aS 20 ltJdS a4 ! 21 �bl (21 a3 hdS 22 exdS b4 ! �) 2 1 . . . a3 22 b3 hdS 23 exdS f%xc3 24 �e4 �c7+. It remains to examine : 19 gS aS 20 ltJd S b4 2 1 c4

2 1 . . . b3 ! ? Fixing a target on b2. 2 2 a 3 �xdS 23 exdS e4 ! This sacri­ fice is a must in such positions ! 24 fxe4 (Or 24 he4 �a6 2S �cl �b6 26 �fl �d4 27 �c3 �b6 28 �cl �d4=) 24 . . . �e7 2S 0-0-0 (2S h4 f3 !)

7 igS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS :Ag7 2S .. .�xgS 26 �hgl �es 27 �g4 (27 �g2 �h8 28 �dgl �g8=) 27 ... �h8 28 �bl fS 29 exfS �xe2 30 he2 �eS= . 16 ... 0 - 0 Black can also start relocat­ ing the bishop with 16 . . . !f6 17 0-0 ie6 18 !c2 0-0 19 ib3 (19 �xd6? �a7+ !+) 19 . . . as 2 0 l!JdS �d8 . 17 0 - 0 17 ic2 is rather pointless, since after 17 . . . aS 18 l!JdS ie6 White's bishop is at least not better than it had been on d3 : 19 0-0 fS 2 0 W'd2 hdS 21 �xdS+ W'xdS 22 exdS b4 ! f! 23 cxb4 axb4= . There i s more reason i n 1 9 g4, hoping to organise an attack with­ out castling. We answer 19 . . . �fc8 ! (threatening . . . b4) 20 �e2 (or 20 �d3 b 4 2 1 c4 hdS 2 2 exdS e4 ! t) 2 0 . . . b4 2 1 c4 hdS 22 exdS a4 ! 23 0-0 (23 �e4? ! b3 ! t) 23 ... �b6+ 24 �hl �e3f!. 17 ... i.e6

the dark-squared bishop and obtain counterplay: 18 . . . if6 ! 19 �d2 �d8 20 ic2 �b6 + 21 �hl icS 22 l!JdS hdS ! 23 �xdS b4 24 cxb4 �xb4 2S �bl aS 26 a3 (or 26 g3 �h8 ! ? 27 gxf4 �g8 28 W'd2 W'xd2 29 �xd2 exf4 30 !b3 �g7) 26 . . . W'b6= . 1 8 . . .a 5 19 � d5 f5 Apparently 19 . . . �fc8 is not enough for complete equality. 2 0 �d2 (after 2 0 �b3 �ab8 White can­ not organize a passed pawn: 21 a4 b4 22 c4 �a7f! ; 2 0 �f2 ! ? however deserves attentio n. It defends b2 a nd prepares a4) 2 0 . . . �ab8 21 a3 ! ? hdS ( 2 1 . . �cs 2 2 b4) 2 2 exdS �cs 23 b4:t and the position is similar to the main line. 2 0 c4 The most purposeful move. It ensures a pawn majority 2 : 1 on the queenside since 20 . . . b4 is strategi­ cally bad after 21 exfS . 2 0 W'b3 allows 2 0 . . . a4 21 W'b4 (21 W'xbS �xbS 22 hbS hdS 23 exdS e4 24 ic6 �ab8 2 S �abl a3 =) 2 1 . .. hdS 2 2 exdS �xdS 23 hbS W'cS 24 W'xcS dxcS= 2 0 .. . bxc4 21 hc4 fxe4 22 fxe4 cbh8

18 cbhl! ? White prepares to play o n the queenside where he will make a passed pawn. 18 �f2 is also logical, because the d6-pawn seems an accessible tar­ get, but Black manages to activate 23S

Part 13 This type of positions is crucial for the assessment of the Novosi­ birsk variation. Although it seems that Black does not experience dif­ ficulties, his game is not very pleas­ ant. In fact, he can hardly hope to win at all. White will soon make a passed b-pawn and he will try to convert it by combining play against the more exposed Black king. Play maight continue: 23 b3 �f7 24 \We2 \Wa7 ! ? 25 �acl White should not exchange his light-squared bishop . After 25 l2Jc3 hc4 26 bxc4 ( 26 �xc4 �ac8 27 �d3 �d4f±) 26 . . . �e3 27 �c2 f3 f± Black is

236

back into play again. 25 ... �ac8 26 �c2 �cs 27 �fcl �fc8 28 a3;t.

White is ready to push b4, with some pull .

Part 1 3

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 � db S d6 7 .igS a 6 8 �a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 1 0 � d S �g 7 T h e Novosibirsk Variation COMPLETE GAMES

37 Bologan - N ed ev E U - C u p P anorm o 28.0 9.2001 Comments by Nedev 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d bS d6 7 �g s a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 1 0 � d S �g7 1 1 �d3 � e 7 1 2 � xe7 V!Jxe7 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 c3 f S 1 S � c2 gb8 1 6 exfS e4 1 7 ge1 �xfS 1 8 � b4 a s 1 9 � d S V!JeS 20 �c2 � g6

21 f4 No one has tried to maintain the tension in the centre with 22 a3 cj{h8 23 �d2 �fc8 24 cj{hl . 21 �d2 , apart from 2 1 . . .fS, al­ lows 2 1 . . . b4 ! ? 22 �adl bxc3 23 bxc3 �b2 24 �cl �bSoo. 21 . . . V!Je6 ! The queen must defend the d6-

pawn. In case of 2 1 . . . �e8, 22 ttJe3 ! hits immediately this sensitive point. 22 V!Jd2 22 a4 ! ? would have made a passed pawn since 2 2 . . . bxa4? ! 2 3 �xa4 f5 ( 2 3 . . . �xb2 24 �xe4) 24 �b3 ! favours White. So Black should go on with 22 . . . b4 ! 23 cxb4 axb4 24 �bl (24 g4 fS 25 �b3 cj{h8 26 gS �xb2 27 �a2 �g7 28 ttJxb4 �c8+) 24 .. .f 5 (24 . . .�fc8 25 �b3 �d7 2 6 g4 ! ) with a tangled position: 25 �b3 �f7 26 �e3 �d7oo . 22 . . . @ h 8 23 g a d 1 I n Anand-Radj abov, Mainz 2006 was 23 a3 fS 24 �b3 �c8+ and Black was already better. The queen finds a perfect place on cS. 23 a4 �fc8 ! ? would also leave Black with very active major pieces. 23 . . . fS 24 V!Je2 V!Jf7 2S gd2 Bologan put all h i s pieces in the centre, but they come under the sway of Black's bishop s. Now 2 5 h 3 would have parried the threat of . . .�hS , but at the cost of exposing the king : 25 . . . b4 26 cxb4 axb4 27 �b3 �hS 28 g 4 fxg4 29 hxg4 �g6 30 :§d2 ! (30 ttJe3 �f4) 30 . . . �be 8t 237

Part 13

25 . .. :gfc8 In this structure, it is vital to ob­ tain counterplay on the queenside before White redeployed his pieces to attack d6. The only way to display activity is 25 . . . b4 ! ? and I could have pushed it right away. Stayed White's king on hl, Black's task would have been much more complicated, but in the current situation Black's in­ itiative develops smoothly, for ex­ ample: 26 \Wa6 bxc3 27 bxc3 �b2 ! f± 2 6 !b3 ! ? a4 ! (thanks t o the check from a7 !) 27 !c4 bxc3 2 8 bxc3 W'a7+ 29 @hl \Wes+; 2 6 cxb4 axb4 27 !b3 W'a7+ 2 8 @hl !f7cc . Anyway, White is unable to pre­ vent it: 26 a3 b4 ! 27 axb4 axb4 28 tll xb4 d5 ! Black's pieces are too discoor­ dinated for the otherwise thematic exchange sacrifice : 28 . . . �xb4? 29 cxb4 dS 30 \Wa6 ! + . 29 tll xd5 The position of White's king on gl rescues Black in many variations. For instance, 29 !b3 W'a7+ 30 hl d4 31 !e6 dxc3 32 bxc3 fuc3+. 29 .. J�xb2

23 8

Finally Black's bishop p a ir is unleashed a nd the enemy's extra pawn does not play significant role . Even without queens White's de­ fence would be difficult: 30 !bl ! ? �hS ! (30 . . . W'a7+ 3 1 @hl �xd2 3 2 \Wxd2 \WcSf±) 31 W'f2 (31 \Wa6 �xd2 32 W'xc8 + W'f8 33 W'xf8 + �xf8+) 31. . . �xd2 3 2 W'xd2 \Wd7 !+. Bologan decides to keep them on: 30 1Mf a 6 \Wf8 ! My idea is to kill the dS-knight with . . . !g6-f7xd5 and conduct the attack with opposite coloured bish­ ops. It is unclear how White could save the game. For instance, 31 W'a7 !f7 32 �cl �xdS 33 �xdS fuc3 34 W'aS !f6+. Bologan tries to simpli­ fy with : 31 tll e7? ! Now the obvious 3 1 . . . �xc3 wins easily, because of the cross-pin of the c2-bishop : 32 W'xg6 hxg6 33 llJxg6+ @g8 34 l!Jxf8 �xf8 35 �cl !cS+ 36 @fl !e3 - + . Instead I made a terrible move, which also effec­ tively finished the game, but with another result . . . 3 1 . . J; d a ? 3 2 tll x g 6+ hxg6 3 3 g xd8 \Wxd8 3 4 \Wx g 6 �xc2 3 5 \Wxf5 ixc 3. Draw, due to 36 . . . �xel 37 W'xc2 \Wd4 + .

Index of va ri ations 1 e4 c5 2 ll:)f"3 tll c 6 Part 1 The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4 d3 16 4 hc6 dxc6 5 d3 �g4 6 h3 �hS ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7 ttJbd2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7 ttJc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7 �{4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4 eS ttJdS S ttJc3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4 'We2 g6 S e S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 ttJc3 g6 S hc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 5 h 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5 e S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Part 2 The Positional Variation 7 �gS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ttJ dS �e7 . . . . . . . . . . . 46 10 ttJxe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 10 hf6 hf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 1 1 ttJbl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 11 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 Part 3 7 �gS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ttJdS �e7 10 hf6 �xf6 11 c 3 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8 12 ttJc2 �gS 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 1 5 �bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 1 5 �c4 �b8 1 6 �a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 16 b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Part 4 12 ttJc2 �gS 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 . . . . . . . . . 96 17 ttJce3 g6 18 h4 hh4 19 g3 �gs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 20 �a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 20 {4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2 0 'W'e2 ! ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1 18 0-0 fS 1 9 -ex.fS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 2 1 9 V!ffd3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 18 'We2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 Part 5 Alternatives to the Main Line after 9 hf6 gxf6 1 0 ttJdS fS . . . . . . . 1 1 7 1 1 'Wd3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9 1 1 ttJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 ll h bS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 ll g 3 122 11 -ex.fS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 11 c 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Part 6 11 exfS MS 12 c3 �g7 13 l2Jc2 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 14 l2Jce3 �e6 15 �d3 fS 16 a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 16 'WhS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 16 �c2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 16 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Part 7 The M ain Line 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 12 c3 �g7 13 ltJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 13 �hS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 12 'WhS �g8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 13 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 13 f4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 13 g3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Part 8 12 0-0 hdS 13 exdS l2Je7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 14 ltJxbS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 14 'WhS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 14 c4 166 14 �el 167 14 . . .�g7 lS �bl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 15 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 14 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 14 . . . �g7 1S 'WhS e4 16 �c2 0-0 17 �ael 'Wc8 18 f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 18 g4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 18 �bl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 18 �b3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 18 �hl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Part 9 6 ltJdbS d6 7 ltJdS ltJxdS 8 exdS ltJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 9 c4 � e7 10 �d3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 10 �e2 0-0 11 0-0 a6 12 l2Jc3 f5 13 a 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 13 f3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 13 {4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Part 10 Unusual Seventh Moves 6 ltJdbS d6 7 l2J a3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 7 �e3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 7 a4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Part 11 Unusual Sixth Moves 6 l2Jxc6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 6 l2Jb3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 6 l2Jf3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8 6 l2Jde2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9 6 ltJfS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Part 12 Rare Lines 3 c 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 3 l2Jc3 ltJf6 4 e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Part 1 3 The Novosibirsk Variation 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ltJ dS �g7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 11 �d3 l2Je7 12 l2Jxe7 'Wxe7 13 c4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 1 3 c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

240

ISBN 978-9-548782�6-1

9 7 8 9 5 4 8 7 8 2 6 6 1 •••