Dmitry Svetushkin - The Ultimate anti-Grunfeld_A Saemisch Repertoire - Chess Stars (2013).pdf

The Ultimate Anti-Grünfeld

A White repertoire with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Dmitry Svetushkin

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Current Theory and Practice Series The Ultimate Anti-Grünfeld. A White repertoire with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3



Translation and editing by Semko Semkov Cover design by Kalojan Nachev Copyright © 2013 by Dmitry Svetushkin and Chess Stars

Printed in Bulgaria ISBN: 978-954-8782-94-4

Contents

Foreword 5 Introduction 6 Part 1. Anti-Grünfeld I 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 10 Part 2. Anti-Grünfeld II 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6, rare lines 64 Part 3. Benoni/Volga Deviations 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 86 Part 4. King’s Indian with ...c5 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 110 Part 5. The Panno Variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 146 Part 6. Main Line Panno Variation 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 166 Part 7. Extended Black Fianchetto 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 a6 184 Part 8. The Classical Main Line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 202 Part 9. Alternative Move Orders 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2 226 Index of Variations

231

Part 1

Bibliography

Books Understanding the King’s Indian, M. Golubev, Gambit 2006 The King’s Indian, Victor Bologan, Chess Stars 2009 Playing 1.d4 - The Indian Defences, Lars Schandorff, Quality Chess 2012 Chess Evolution - January 2012, Arkadij Naiditsch, Chess Evolution 2012

Electronic/Periodicals Mega Database, Chess Base Chess Informant, Sahovsky Informator New in Chess Yearbook, Interchess Chess Today Internet resources The Week In Chess (chesscenter.com) 10 Days (Chessmix.com) Internet Chess Club (chessclub.com) ChessPublishing.com forum Chesspro.ru

4

Introduction

Foreword

I started playing the King’s Indian in my childhood. Bronstein’s classic, Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, had a strong impact on me so I adopted this sharp opening for the Black side. I remember to have suffered many horrible debacles against the Sämish, especially by the hands of my first coach Boris Nevednichy (GM V. Nevednichy’s father). Only when I turned 20 did I finally decide to master 1.d4 for White. Dreev’s exemplary wins inspired me to test the Sämish. It seemed to suit my active positional style. At first I had not a full grasp of this system. I thought White was obliged to mate the opponent. One of the most important principles of the Sämish dawned on me much later when I understood that White had to play all over the board! The next stage was to try 3.f3 against the Grünfeld. I’d like to remind you that in 2000 the Grünfeld was far behind its current popularity while 3.f3 was still a fairly young system. The computers were not so powerful in those times so it was very interesting to analyse all those extremely complex lines over the board. It was a sea of opportunities for both sides.

Nowadays the 3.f3 system has grown tremendously to become one of the most popular weapons against the Grünfeld. Like any fashionable opening, it has become utmost concrete, with tons of bran­ ches going deep into the endgame. The Sämish itself is more positional. One can play it on understanding. You should learn plans rather than moves. I have supplied enough annotated games in the “Complete Games” sections, and typical examples of the main motifs in the “Main Ideas” chapters. Nearly in most main lines I have developed new plans (rather than novelties) which should put you ahead of your opponents in the OTB battles. The book includes games played before July 31, 2013. I would like to express my deep gratitude to: My grandfather who taught me to play chess; My first and main coaches Raisa and Boris Nevednichy; My editor Semko Semkov for his help and valuable ideas. Dmitry Svetushkin July 31, 2013 5

Introduction

Introduction

By playing 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3, White kills three birds with one shot.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

First of all, this is a natural way of seizing space. Opening theory knows a similar approach – 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 when 3.Bb2 is consi­ dered inaccurate due to 3...f6!. The second merit of 3.f3 is that it throws the Grünfeld fans out of their main repertoire. The third fine point is that it allows White to delay the development of his queen’s knight. While in most systems its natural stand is on c3, against ...c5 plans it may go to d2 or a3, leaving c3 free for the other knight. 3.f3 has debuted at top level with the game Nimzowitsch-Tartakower, Karlsbad 26.08.1929, where Black simply ignored it by following classical King’s Indian 6

deve­lopment with ...Bg7 and ...e5. Seve­ral months later world champion Alekhine promoted 3.f3 as a weapon of choice in the match for the title against Bogoljubow. In the first encounter the challenger opted for 3...Bg7, but later in the match he took up the gauntlet with 3...d5 and got a cramped position after 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Bd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Psn-+-0 9-+-vLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...f6?! 10.f4 Nf7 11.a4 e5 12.dxe6 Bxe6 13.a5 Nd7 14.a6 b6 15.Bb5 Qe7 16.Nge2. In the following decades, the mainline Grünfeld had been under strong pressure and it made no sense to avoid it. Only in the 80ies was the interest in 3.f3 revived, but White was not too successful in the variation: 3...d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0

Introduction

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Most games featured 8.f4 Nc6 9.d5 Na5 or 9...Nb8 with sharp, but balanced play. Alekhine’s intuition hinted to him the best continuation: 8.Qd2! against the same Bogoljubow in Bled 1931, but he drew this game and the move had not caught up. Another world champion, Kram­ nik, put his faith in 8.Qd2 against Shirov in the candidates match for the world title in 1998: 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 c6 10.h4 h5, but then his play was hesitant and he went on to lose. Thus the burst of popularity of the f3-system was delayed for another decade. Eventually, White has developed completely new schemes and has fine-tuned the move orders. This turned 3.f3 in the last 5-6 years from a side line into the most challenging way of combatting the Indian defences. After Anand has adopted it and used in a number of games, including the world title match against Gelfand in 2012, 3.f3 has become one of the hottest systems, the ultimate anti-Grünfeld. I have been playing 3.f3 for ten years so I can claim to be one of the

veterans of this modern line. Look at the following game: Svetushkin-Lupulescu Bucharest 2003 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 f5 10.h4 fxe4 11.h5 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.fxe4 c6 15.Nf3 Nxf3 16.gxf3 cxd5 17.exd5 Rxf3 18.Kb1 Bf5+ 19.Ka1 Qd7 20.d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zpp+q+-vl-0 9-sn-zP-+p+0 9+-+-zpl+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLr+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9mK-+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

I combine play on the kingside with the power of the passed dpawn. White is on top and I went on to win after 20...e4 21.Be2 Rg3 22.Bd4 e3 23.Qe1 Rg2 24.Qh4 Rc8 25.Bb5 Rc6 26.Bxc6 bxc6 27.Bxg7 Qxg7 28.Qd8+ Kf7 29.Qe7+ 1-0. This game reveals the main features of the f3-system: a clear plan for a kingside attack with h4-h5, backed by a strong centre. Try it and you’ll not risk to fall asleep during the game. The opposite castles are always a herald of sharp fight. Of course, Black can choose the King’s Indian. Then the Sämish is probably the most straightforward and natural answer. White’s result in this particular branch (without 3.Nc3) is above 60%! Higher than any other system against the K.I.D. 7

Introduction

8

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

Part 1

Anti-Grünfeld I 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9

Part 1

Part 1

Main Ideas 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Apart from 3...Bg7, 3...d5 is by far the most popular retort to 3.f3. True Grünfeld fans have no compelling reasons to avoid opening of the centre although the arising positions are closer to the Sämish System. I consider 3...e5 and 3...Nc6 in the next part of the book while 3... c5 leads to Modern Benoni structures with one important difference – the c3-square is free for the king’s knight. It is discussed in Part 3. 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.f4! Ng4 12.Bb5+! leaves White with a considerable space advantage, see Game 1 Svetushkin-Puntier, Istanbul 2012. 8.Qd2! 10

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is faced with a major choice here. The typical King’s Indian approach is 8...e5. While it is in no way refuted, we see it only rarely lately. It might be a twist of fashion, but undoubtedly the Grünfeld treatment with 8...Nc6, followed by ...Qd6 is all the rage now. A. 8...e5 9.d5 c6 10.Rd1!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move should be a great surprise for your opponents. 10.h4 is the main line. Then 10...cxd5

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 11.exd5 N8d7 12.h5 Nf6 13.hxg6 fxg6 14.0‑0‑0 Bd7 has been analysed up to a draw. See the annotations to Game 4 Grischuk-Do­mi­n­ guez, Thessaloniki 2013. It taught me that White’s king is too vulnerable on the queenside. In fact, White’s strongest trump is not the possibility for an attack on the h-file, but the central passed pawn. The text focusses on its strength while eliminating Black’s counterplay. 10...cxd5 11.exd5 Na6 12.h4! h5 13.Nh3! Nc4 14.Bxc4 Qxh4+ 15.Nf2 Qxc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9n+-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+q+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-sNP+0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.g4!

White owns the initiative and his pieces are well co-ordinated. B. 8...Nc6 9.0-0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-snn+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...Qd6! All Black’s hopes for equality are connected with this move. Let me briefly mention the old lines: a) 9...e5 10.d5 Nd4 11.f4 c5 12.fxe5 Bg4 13.Re1 Bxe5 14.h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-zpPvl-+-0 9-+-snP+l+0 9+-sN-vL-+P0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-mK-tRLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now Black can admit that he has lost the strategic battle with 14... Bd7 15.Nf3 Nxf3 16.gxf3, or show a character with 14...Qh4. The latter may lead to dire consequences since the queen can easily be entrapped on the kingside. It is important that White keeps his poise. He should initially ignore the queen by 15.Bd3 Rac8 16.Kb1!, waiting for the consistent attack 16...f5. Only here he should switch to concrete play and sac the exchange with 17.Bg5 Qh5 18.hxg4 Qxh1 19.exf5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-trk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-zpPvlPvL-0 9-+-sn-+P+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+K+-tR-sNq0 xiiiiiiiiy 11

Part 1 White’s bishop pair, pointed at the enemy’s king, is in full control. This scenario is possible in various settings. b) 9...f5 10.e5! A modern treatment of this line. White postpones the race of the hpawn in favour of piece development. Practical experience suggests that if White is careful enough to protect his centre, Black is doomed to struggle in a passive position. But do not play f4!. This would be a strategic mistake as White will no longer have the options of Bh6 or Bg5. Also the king’s knight is much stronger on f4 than on f3. 10...Nb4 (10...a5 11.h4! Nb4 12.h5 Be6 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.Bh6) 11.Nh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-zPp+-0 9-sn-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+N0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s next moves are Nf4, Kb1, h4. At a later stage, he may throw in the attack g4, too. He is willing to trade any two or three minor pieces because the remaining ones will be significantly stronger than its black counterparts. Even opposite coloured bishops (Bc4 vs. Bg7) favour White who will have an attack. Here are some examples: 12

11...N4d5 12.Nf4 Nxf4 13.Bxf4 c6 14.Bh6 Be6 15.h4; 11...a5 12.Kb1!? c6 13.Be2 (13. Nf4 g5) 13...N4d5 14.Nf4 Nxc3+ 15.Qxc3; 11...Be6 12.Kb1 Qd7 13.Nf4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zppzpqzp-vlp0 9-sn-+l+p+0 9+-+-zPp+-0 9-sn-zP-sN-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...Nc4 14.Qe1!;

13...Bf7 14.a3 a5 15.Bb5! c6 16.d5! with a strong initiative; 13...Rfd8 14.a3 N4d5 (14...a5 15.d5) 15.Ncxd5 Bxd5 (15...Nxd5 16.Nxe6 Qxe6 17.Bc4 c6 18.h4 h5 19.g4) 16.Nxd5 Qxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+qzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Qc1!±.

It is important to discourage 17... c5 thus leaving the enemy without counterplay. See the model Game 5 Lupulescu-Stella, Skopje 2013. Here is another example:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 Ivanchuk-Gabrielian Russian tCh 013

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-+-+q+p+0 9+-+nzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Bc4 c6 18.h4 b5 19.Bb3 a5 20.h5 a4 21.Ba2 Rab8 22.Rc1 Rb6 23.Rc5 Bf8 24.Qc2 Kh8 25.Bd2±. 10.Nb5 Grischuk’s pawn sacrifice 10.h4!? Rd8 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.h5 a6 13.Nc3 is insufficient for an edge due to 13... Bxd4!. See Game 6 Grischuk-Mamedyarov, Moscow 2010. 10.f4!? might be the future of this line. Look at Game 9 Karjakin-Giri, Wijk aan Zee 2013. 10...Qd7 11.Kb1 Rd8 12.d5 a6 13.Nc3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzpqzppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the most topical position of the 3.f3 system. It is extremely dynamic and only concrete calcu-

lation should define the next few moves. In general, White’s attack down the h-file should prevail, but he is behind in development and his own king is under the fire of all the enemy pieces. If Black manages to open the two diagonals g7-b2 and f5-b1 even at the cost of a whole rook, he might get a winning attack. His tactical blows are often not obvious at all. Let me show you some examples which will help you better understand the nature of Black’s threats. Thus you should be able to dodge them in advance. Typical tactical motifs for Black Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9sn-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Bxb6?! cxb6 16.b4? e6! 17.bxa5 exd5 with a horrible attack. Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+p+-+p+p0 9pzp-+p+pvl0 9+-+Psn-+-0 9-+-+PzPP+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+L+-zP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 13

Part 1 18...exd5! 19.g5 Bxg5 20.fxg5 d4 21.Nd5 Rxd5 22.exd5 Bf5+ 23.Ka1 Rc8 24.Qf4 d3 25.Bf3 Nc4 26.Nh3 Ne3. The threat of ...Nc2+ compensates for a whole rook. You see that leaving Black’s g7-bishop without an opponent is risky, to say the least. White should take on b6 only if he gets immediate, very substantial benefits. Here is yet another example where the raging black bishops neutralise a whole rook: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+p+lzppvlp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9wq-+PzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sn-+-+-0 9P+-wQ-+PzP0 9mK-+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

24...f6 25.Rc1 fxe5 26.Rxc3 exf4 27.Kb2 Ba4 28.a3 b5 29.Qe1 b4 30.Qe6+ and White is happy to find a perpetual check. Thorfinnsson-Gordon Hinckley 2013

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+p+P+-+P0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+K+RwQLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 14

17...Nxd5! (actually, Gordon missed this opportunity and went on to lose after 17...Nc4) 18.exd5 Bf5+ 19.Bd3 b4 20.Ne2 Rxa2!–+. Another sensitive point in White’s position is b2. Black might give a knight for it to obtain a longterm initiative. A computer may be able to hold on, but my advice is to avoid giving the opponent such chances: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+p+qzppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9+-vLP+-+-0 9-+n+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Nxb2!? 17.Bxb6 Nxd1 18.Nxd1 e6 19.Bxd8 (19.Qc7!=) 19... Qxd8 20.Bc4 Bd7 21.dxe6 (21.Ne2 Rc8 22.Bb3 Rxc1+) 21...fxe6 22.Qe3 Qc7; 19.Nc3 exd5 20.Bxd8 (20. Nxd5 Qxd5!!) 20...Qxd8 21.Nxd5 Be6µ. Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9sN-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+K+RwQLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 14...Na4!? 15.dxc6 Rxd1+ 16.Qxd1 Nxb2 17.Qd2 bxc6 18.Ne2 Rb8 19.Kc1 Na4 20.Nc4 c5 with perfect compensation for the piece (Miton).

White has preserved his pawn centre and finally he launches the h-pawn. His game is preferable.

These examples suggest that before thinking about an attack, White should first consolidate and neutralise the beast on g7. He should also avoid opening any lines. The best place for its queen is on c1 while ...e6 could be met by Bf4 or Bg5, trying to provoke ...e5 or ...f6. Let us return now to our main line.

Areshchenko won a nice game with this strange-looking sacrifice. 14...Nbc4 15.Qc1 b5 16.f4 Ng4 17.Nf3 is rather hopeless.

a) 13...Na5 14.Qc1!?N

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzpqzppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9sn-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

The first step of my plan. We prepare Bd4 and prevent ...e6. 14...Nbc4 15.Bd4 16.Rxd4 b5 17.h4

Bxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-zpqzpp+p0 9p+-+-+p+0 9snp+P+-+-0 9-+ntRP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+KwQ-+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

b) 13...Ne5 14.Bd4 c5

15.Bxc5 Nec4 16.Bxc4! Nxc4 17.Qc1 Qc7 18.Bd4 e5! 19.Bf2 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-wq-+pvlp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+n+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-vLPzP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been reached in Eljanov-Areshchenko, Kiev 2012. Instead of 20.b3 which gave Black a lever on the queenside, I propose the solid: 20.Nge2!N, aiming for Nc1-d3-c5!?. c) 13...Qe8 14.Qc1!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the best place for the queen in this variation. White will 15

Part 1 be developing with Bd3, Nge2, avoiding to open files, for instance: 14...Na7 15.Bd3! e6 16.Bg5 Rd6 17.Bf4 Rd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+q+k+0 9snpzpr+pvlp0 9psn-+p+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sNL+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now that the bishop is stuck on c8, we can take on e6: 18.dxe6 Qxe6 19.Bh6 Nc6 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Nge2². Everything is ready for h4. 14...Na5 14...Ne5 15.Be2 Nec4 16.Bd4 e5 is what White is trying to achieve in

16

this line. The centre has stabilised in his favour, the frightful main diagonal is closed. 15.h4 e6 16.Bg5!?N We know this idea from the previous paragraph. 16...f6 (16...Rd7 17.h5) 17.Bd2 Nac4 18.Bf4! Qf7 19.h5 exd5 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.exd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzp-+qvl-0 9psn-+-zpp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+n+-vL-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better prospects.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

Part 1

Step by Step

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 4...Nxd5

4...c6 is untrodden territory. Since 5.dxc6 Nxc6 6.e3 e5 7.dxe5 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Qxe5© is obviously dangerous, we continue: 5.e4 cxd5 6.e5 Nfd7 6...Nh5 7.Nc3 Nc6 8.Bb5 e6 9.Nge2 was pleasant for White in Edouard-Picard, Haguenau 2013. After the text, the position is similar to the variation 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 c5 4.c3 d5 5.e5 Nfd7, only Black has the extra move g6. It is arguable how useful it could be. In such pawn structures, Black’s natural counterplay is connected with

the break ...f6, but then g6 would be a mere weakness. If Black tries to justify it by developing its bishop on g7, he will have to live with a very passive piece. 7.Bd3 7.f4 Nc6 8.Nf3 is another possible set-up. 7...Nc6 8.Ne2 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+n+p+p0 9-+n+p+p+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+L+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.h4

Perhaps this is the only way to defend against the threat of 9... Nxd4 because 9.Be3 Qb6 10.Qd2 Nb4 would cost us the light-squared bishop. 9...h5 10.a3 Be7 11.g3 a6 12.Be3 b5 13.Nd2 Qb6 14.Kf2 Bb7 15.Qb1. White has consolidated and his space advantage assures him of the easier game. 17

Part 1 5.e4 Nb6 5...Nf6?! does not make any sense as Black is left without counterplay. It is true that his kingside is better protected, but he has little to oppose to quiet plans with short castling: 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 It is indicative that after 8.Bd3!? Nc6 9.Nge2 the engines advocate the reverse manoeuvre 9...Nd7 10.0-0 Nb6! 8...Nbd7 9.Nh3. 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 The text gives White time to complete development and castle long. Therefore, 7...Nc6 is a logical attempt to immediately define the centre. Then 8.d5 Ne5 9.f4! Ng4 12.Bb5+! gives White a small edge in a safe position. I analyse this approach in detail in Game 1 Svetushkin-Puntier, Istanbul 2012. White may prefer to keep the centre flexible by: 8.Bb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-snn+-+p+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...0-0 18

8...Bd7 9.Nge2 a6 (9...0-0 does not even gain the bishop pair after 10.0-0 Na5 11.b3 Bxb5 12.Nxb5 Qd7 13.Nbc3², Navara-Ftacnik, Ostrava 2013) 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 is passive. White controls the centre and that allows him to launch a kingside attack with 11.d5 Bd7 12.Bd4 0-0 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qd4+ Kg8 15.h4!? c6 16.h5 cxd5 17.Rd1 dxe4 18.Qxe4±. 9.Nge2 Na5 9...a6 10.Bxc6 bxc6 renders the whole Black’s pawn formation very static. After 11.Qc1 (or 11.0-0 Nc4 12.Qc1² a5 13.Rd1 Ba6 14.e5²) 11... Nc4 12.0-0 he has not any prospects before his bishops while the weaknesses along the c-file will remain for long. 10.b3 e5 11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.0-0 Qe7 13.Qe1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppzp-wqp+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9snL+-vl-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-+N+PzP0 9tR-+-wQRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has retained firm control of the centre. He will prepare f3-f4, grabbing even more space. At the same time Black is unable to trade minor pieces to unload the position. You can see more detail on this pawn structure in the annotations to Game 2 Bocharov-Timofeev, Khanty-Mansiisk, 2012.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 Let me add that 7...f5 would be premature in view of 8.a4!? (8.e5, transposing to the main line, is also possible) 8...a5 9.Qb3 and Black cannot castle, e.g. 9...e6 10.d5! exd5 11.Bxb6 cxb6 12.Bb5+ Bd7 13.Nxd5 Bxb5 14.axb5 Nd7 15.Nh3 Nc5 16.Qc4 Qd6 17.0-0 0-0-0 18.Ng5±. 8.Qd2 8.f4!? has faded out of fashion. Black answers 8...Nc6 9.d5 Na5 (9...Nb8 is less explored. It also leads to a complex game with mutual chances.) 10.Bd4 e5 11.Bxe5 Bxe5 12.fxe5 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qe7 14.Qd4 Rd8 15.b4 Nac4 16.Bxc4 17.Bxc4 17.Rc1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9zppzp-+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+PzP-+-0 9-wqLwQP+-+0 9+-sN-+-zP-0 9P+-+-+-zP0 9+-tR-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Postny-Rodshtein, Acre 2013, saw 17...c5 18.dxc6 Qxc4 19.Qxc4 Nxc4 20.Nd5 Nxe5 21.Nf6+ Kf8 22.Nxe8 Kxe8 23.Kd2 Nxc6 24.Nf3. White has a material advantage although Black has held this endgame. 17...Qxc4?! 18.Qxc4 Nxc4 19.Nb5 Nxe5 20.Nxc7 Nd3+ 21.Kd2 Nxc1 22.Nxe8 Nxa2 23.Nc7 Rb8 24.Nf3 Nb4 25.Ra1 also favours White. Perhaps the best defence is : 17...Rb8 18.Nf3 Qxc4 19.Ne2 Qxd4 20.Nexd4 f5 21.exf5 Bxf5

22.Nxf5 gxf5 23.Rxc7 Nxd5 24.Rc5 with only a slight initiative for White due to the advanced e-pawn.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy A. 8...e5; B. 8...Nc6 A. 8...e5 9.d5 c6 9...f5 only weakens the a2-g8 diagonal and the f5-pawn, without generating real counterplay: 10.0‑00 f4 (10...fxe4 11.fxe4) 11.Bc5 Re8 12.Kb1 N8d7 13.Bf2 c6 14.g3±.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 10.Rd1!?

10.h4 is the main line. Then 10... h5?! 11.g4! gives White a strong 19

Part 1 attack – see Game 3 IvanchukAkesson, Antalya 2004. However, 10...cxd5 11.exd5 N8d7 12.h5 Nf6 13.hxg6 fxg6 14.0‑0‑0 Bd7 has been analysed up to a draw. See a detailed analysis of this line in the annotations to Game 4 GrischukDominguez, Thessaloniki 2013. You’ll notice that Black’s attack on the c-file is very powerful. It would be logical to keep this file closed with: 10.d6 Then mundane development is contra-indicated to Black as White’s attack is unfolding very quickly: 10...Be6?! 11.0-0-0! Nc8 (This is an attempt to win the d6pawn. 11...f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.Nh3 or 12.Bg5!? Bf6 13.Bh6 Bg7 14.h4 is clearly better for White.) 12.h4! Qa5 13.h5 Rd8 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.g4 with a tremendous attack. A sterner test of 10.d6 is the direct attack on the pawn with: 10...Re8!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqr+k+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-snpzP-+p+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is threatening with ...Re6, ...Bf8. The only way to disturb this plan is to play Bg5 at some moment. Since 11.0-0-0 Re6 12.Bg5 f6 13.Be3 20

Bf8 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Bc4 b5! would make White’s king an easy prey to the enemy’s long-range pieces, I focused on two options: a) 11.Rd1 Re6! The manoeuvre 11...Nd7 (heading for f8-e6-d4) is too slow: 11... N8d7 12.h4 Nf8 (12...Bf8 13.Bh6; 12...Re6 13.a4! a5 14.h5 Bf8 15.hxg6. White has an overwhelming position: 15...Rxg6 (15...fxg6 16.Qf2 Rxd6 17.Rxd6 Bxd6 18.Nh3 Be7 19.Be2 and Black is unable to disentangle his queenside.) 16.g4 Bxd6 17.Qf2 Bf8 18.Be2±.)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-snpzP-+p+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-+RmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.h5! Ne6 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.g4 Bd7 16.a4 a5 17.Qh2 f6 18.b3² [18. g5 is premature owing to 17...fxg5! (18...Nxg5 19.Qf2 Nc8 20.Qg3‚) 19.Nh3 g4 20.fxg4 Rf8 21.Be2 Qh4+ 22.Bf2 Rxf2 23.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 24.Nxf2=] 18...Kf7 19.Qd2 Rh8 20.Rxh8 Bxh8 21.Nh3. White has the more active pieces. 12.Bg5 f6 The exchange sacrifice 12...Qd7 13.Be7 Rxe7 14.dxe7 Qxe7 should not solve all Black’s problems: 15.Qd8+ Bf8 16.Qxe7 Bxe7 17.g3 Kg7 18.Bh3.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 13.Be3 Kh8! (13...Bf8 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Bc4²)

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-+-mk0 9zpp+-+-vlp0 9-snpzPrzpp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

I could not find any advantage after this cunning retreat which revives the threat of ...Bf8: a1) 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Bc4 Re8 16.Bf7 Rf8 17.Bb3 Nd7 18.Nge2 Nc5 19.Bc2 Be6. a2) 14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4 Nd5 16.Nge2 Nxf4 17.Nxf4 Re8 18.Bc4 (18.h4 Nd7 19.Be2 Ne5) 18...Bg4 (18...b5 19.Bf7‚) 19.Rc1 b5 20.Bf7 b4÷ 21.Bxe8 bxc3 22.Qxc3 Qxe8 23.0-0 a5. a3) 14.a4 Bf8 15.Bc5 N6d7 16.Ba3 c5 17.h4 Nc6. a4) 14.h4 Bf8 15.Bc5 N8d7 16.Ba3 c5 17.h5 Rxd6 18.Bd3 g5³. b) 11.Bg5 (This is more flexible as White keeps the option of castling long.) 11...f6 (11...Bf6 12.h4) 12.Be3 Bf8 12...Re6 13.Bxb6 axb6 14.Bc4 is already good as White’s king is not on the queenside; 12...Kh8, hoping to transpose to line a) after 13.Rd1 Re6, is dubious owing to 13.0-0-0 13...Re6 14.f4 Bf8 15.fxe5 fxe5 16.Bg5 Qe8 17.Qf2ƒ. 12...Be6 13.0-0-0 (13.Rd1 Bf8 14.h4 Bf7 15.h5 gxh5) 13...Nc4

14.Bxc4 Bxc4 15.h4 Re6 16.h5 Bf8 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Qf2 (18.g4 Rxd6 19.Qh2) 18...Rxd6 19.Rxd6 Qxd6 20.Qh4 is also better for White. 13.Rd1 Be6 (13...Re6 14.Bxb6 axb6 15.Bc4 b5 should be slightly better for White, e.g. 16.Bb3 Kg7 17.d7 Qxd7 18.Qxd7+ Bxd7 19.Rxd7+ Nxd7 20.Bxe6 Nc5 21.Bb3) 14.h4 (14.Bh6 does not save the d6-pawn: 14...Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Bf7 followed up by ...Re6.) 14...Nc8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnnwqrvlk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-+pzPlzpp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-+RmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has some attack here, but it is probably only good for keeping the balance. For instance: 15.h5 Qxd6 16.Qf2 Qe7 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Nge2 Nd7 19.f4 Nd6 20.Qg3 exf4 21.Nxf4 Qg7 22.Qxg6 (22.Nxe6 Rxe6 23.Bh6 Qf7 24.Bxf8 Nxe4 25.Nxe4 Rxe4+ 26.Kf2 Nxf8 27.Bd3 Rb4 28.Qh2 Qg7÷; 22.Nxg6 Nf7 23.Bc4 Nde5 24.Bxe6 Rxe6 25.Qh3 Qxg6 26.Qxe6 Qxg2 27.Rf1 Nf3+ 28.Rxf3 Qxf3 29.Bf2=) 22... Qxg6 23.Nxg6 Nf7 24.Be2 Nde5=. Summing up, 10.d6 is an inte­ resting move, but Black should keep the balance by immediately attacking the pawn. 10...cxd5 11.exd5 21

Part 1

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...Na6

Alternatives lead to a quiet play with a small edge for White who will hope to take advantage of his central passed pawn: 11...Nc4 12.Bxc4 Qh4+ 13.Bf2 Qxc4 14.Nge2 Nd7 15.0-0 b6 16.Ne4 Nf6 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Nc3 Bg7 19.d6²; 11...N8d7 12.Nh3 Nf6 13.Nf2. 11...Bf5 provokes 12.g4 Bc8 13.h4, but the counterblow 13...e4 14.Nxe4 Re8 is insufficient: 15.Bh6 Be5 16.Kf2 N8d7 17.Bg5². 12.h4! There is no other way to lead out the king’s knight. 12...h5 13.Nh3! 13.b3 Bf5 14.Bxa6 bxa6 15.Nge2 Rc8 16.Ne4 Bxe4 17.fxe4 Nd7 is unclear, but I see no trace of any White’s advantage. 13...Nc4 22

14.Bxc4

Qxh4+

15.Nf2 Qxc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9n+-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+q+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-sNP+0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 16.g4!

16.Bh6 allows Black to trade queens with 16...Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Qf4 18.Qxf4 exf4 19.Rh4 (19.Nd3 Bf5 20.Nxf4 Rfd8 21.Kf2 Rac8 22.Rd2=) 19...Re8+ 20.Kf1 f5 21.Rxf4 Bd7. 16...f5 16...e4 loses to 17.fxe4 Nc5 18.gxh5 b6 19.Bd4. 17.b3 Qb4 18.Nd3 Qd6 19.gxh5 f4 (19...gxh5 20.f4 exf4 21.Bxf4±)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+-vl-0 9n+-wq-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+P0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+PsNNvLP+-0 9P+-wQ-+-+0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 20.Bg1!² The point of our strategy! Now we install a knight on e4 which rules over the board. Black is holding after 20.Bf2 Bf5 (20...gxh5? 21.Ne4 Qxd5 22.Qc3±) 21.Nb2 (21.h6 Bf6 22.Qe2 Nb4 23.Ne4 Bxe4 24.Qxe4 Nxd3+ 25.Rxd3 Kh7=) 21...g5 22.Nc4 Qh6÷ 23.Qe2 (23.d6) 23...Rad8 24.Ne4 Rf7. B. 8...Nc6 9.0-0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-snn+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

B1. 9...e5; B2. 9...f5; B3. 9...Qd6

B1. 9...e5 10.d5 Nd4 11.f4 c5 11...Bg4 12.Re1 c5 transposes to the main line. The only independent variation is 12...Qe7 (the pawn sac 12...f6 is dubious: 13.h3 Bd7 14.Bxd4, Laznicka-Bakalarz, Plov­ div 2008) 13.h3 Bd7 14.fxe5 Qxe5, but the queen is misplaced on e5 as it helps White’s pawn avalanche in the centre to advance with tempi:

15.Rd1 c5 16.Nf3 Nxf3 17.gxf3 Na4 18.f4 Qe8 19.e5². 12.fxe5 Bg4 12...Bxe5 13.Nf3 Nxf3 14.gxf3 c4 15.h4 h5 16.Bd4 is difficult for Black. 13.Re1 Bxe5 14.h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-zpPvl-+-0 9-+-snP+l+0 9+-sN-vL-+P0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-mK-tRLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 14...Qh4

Black’s only compensation for the enemy centre is the d4-knight. Should it disappear from there, as after 14...Bd7 15.Nf3 Nxf3 16.gxf3, White’s edge would become undisputable. Black did try to defend this position, but with the meager score of only 20%: a) 16...Qe7 17.h4 h5 (or 17... c4 18.Bd4±, I. Sokolov-Krasenkow, Wijk aan Zee 2002) 18.Kb1 f5 19.Rg1 Kh7 20.Bd3 f4 21.Bf2 Rac8 22.Rg5. It turns out that Black cannot maintain the blockade on the dark squares as he must also defend g6, h5 and his queenside pawns, e.g. 23

Part 1 22...Na4 23.Nxa4 Bxa4 24.Qa5 c4 25.Bf1 Bd7 26.d6 Bxd6 27.Rxh5+. b) 16...Na4 17.Nxa4 Bxa4 18.Kb1 (18.f4 Bc7 19.Qf2²) 18...Rc8 19.f4 Bg7 20.Rc1 b6 21.h4±, PostnyAtakisi, Litohoto 1999. c) 16...f5 17.Bg5 Qc7 18.f4 Bxc3 19.Qxc3 fxe4 20.Rxe4 Rf7 21.Re5 c4, Postny-Mekhitarian, Barcelona 2008, 22.h4 with attack. d) 16...Re8 17.h4 Rc8 18.h5‚ Qf6 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.Be2 Rf8 21.Ref1 Rce8 22.Bg5 Qxg5 23.Qxg5 Bf4+ 24.Qxf4 Rxf4 25.Rh6± and Black cannot hold too long the blockade on the dark squares: 25...a6 26.Rfh1 Re7 27.R1h4 Rxh4 28.Rxh4 Kg7 29.f4, Kozul-Rogulj, Zagreb 2012. 15.Bd3 Rac8 Naturally, 15...Bd7 is not an option. It is even worse than on the previous move: 16.Nf3 Nxf3 17.gxf3 f5 18.Bg5 Qg3 19.f4 Bxc3 20.bxc3 fxe4 21.Re3±. 15...Bg3 16.Rf1 f5 stumbles into 17.hxg4 Qxh1 18.Nh3 Qxf1+ 19.Bxf1 fxg4 20.Nf2 Bxf2 21.Bxf2 g3 22.Bxd4 Rxf1+ 23.Kc2 (23. Nd1±) 23...cxd4 24.Qxd4 Rf2+ 25.Kb3 Rxg2 26.e5 Rf2, SandipanLaylo, Manila 2010, 27.e6±!. The counter-attack 15...f5 16.Bg5 Qh5 17.exf5 Bg3 loses to the thematic hit 18.hxg4! Qxh1 19.Rd1 Rae8, Kozul-Jelen, Lasko 2011, 20.Nb5+–. 16.Kb1! 24

The equilibrium on the kingside is fragile. Black should calculate on every move variations with hxg4 where his queen might be trapped. Therefore he must break first with ...f5, before White has consolidated. In this scenario White’s rook stays better on e1 in order to hit the e5-bishop. 16.Rf1 f5 17.Bg5 Qh5 18.hxg4 Qxh1 19.exf5 Qh2 20.Nh3 Qg3 was tested in Khismatullin-Timofeev, Tomsk 2004 and two other games. It was found to be rather hazy. 16...Rfe8 On his turn, Black also tries to make a useful move. 16...f5 17.Bg5 Qh5 18.hxg4 Qxh1 19.exf5 gives White a clear edge, thanks to his powerful bishops:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-trk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-zpPvlPvL-0 9-+-sn-+P+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+K+-tR-sNq0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Qh2 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Nh3 Qg3 22.d6 Rf7 (BennewitzGappel, email 2008 saw 22... Rc6 when 23.Ne4 Qxg4 24.Nef2 Qxg2 25.Rxe5 Nf3 26.Bc4+ Nxc4 27.Qd5+ Rf7 28.d7 is winning.) 23.Bxg6 Rd7 24.Ne4 Qxg4 25.Nhf2 Qxg2 26.Bh5±. 16...Bd7 17.Nf3 Nxf3 18.gxf3 f5, Pitkaenen-Selin, email, 2009,

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 should be met by 19.Bg5 Qg3 20.Bh6 Rf7 21.h4 with attack. 17.Bf2! This is more convincing than Ref1 Bh5! 17...Qh5 18.Nb5! White suddenly wins material since 18...Nxb5 19.Bxb5 Rd8 leaves the e5-bishop undefended: 20.hxg4! Qxh1 21.Nf3. B2. 9...f5 This counter-attack had been very popular until White realised that the thematic plan with h2-h4h5 was not the only option and turned his attention to the centre. 10.e5! 10.h4 fxe4 11.h5 faces the paradoxical retort 11...gxh5! 12.Rxh5 Bf5 with strong counterplay. Although White has been trying to revive this line recently, his attempts look more like fishing in muddy waters than a thoroughly researched approach: 13.fxe4?!N Bg4 14.Rg5 Bxd1 15.Qxd1, Kovalenko-Krasenkow, Trzcianka 2013; 12.d5 Ne5 13.Bh6 Nec4 14.Qg5 Rf7 15.Bxc4 Nxc4 16.Rd4 Qd6 17.Bxg7 Rxg7 18.Qxh5 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Bf5µ, Mamedyarov-Kurnosov, Mos­ cow 2009.

10...Nb4 10...a5 looses a valuable tempo. White’s attack develops impetuously after 11.h4! (11.f4 e6 12.g4÷ M. Nikolov-Bartel, Kavala 2011) 11...Nb4 12.h5 Be6 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.Bh6 f4 15.g4 when 15...Nxa2+ 16.Nxa2 Bxa2 looses by force, e.g. 17.Qh2 Rf7 18.Bxg7 Rxg7 19.d5+–. 11.Nh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+-zPp+-0 9-sn-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+N0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has neutralised the g7bishop and kept the centre closed. This should allow him to develop a long-term initiative on the kingside. by opening the h-file. But first he must complete development and tame Black’s attacking attempts. 11...Be6 It makes sense to develop with tempo by hitting a2. Alternatively: a) 11...N4d5 is too slow: 12.Nf4 Nxf4 13.Bxf4 c6 14.Bh6 Be6 15.h4 and Black did not find anything better than to slow down the attack at 25

Part 1 the cost of a pawn: 15...f4 16.Bxf4±, Gustafsson-Gopal, Caleta 2010. b) 11...a5 12.Kb1!? We should be very careful when making weaknesses with 12.a3. We should resort to this move only if we gain clear benefits. Otherwise it might serve as a target in the long run. The game Ding-Li Chao, Ningbo 2011, went on 12...N4d5 13.Nf4 Nxf4 14.Bxf4 c6 15.h4 Be6 16.h5 Nd5 17.hxg6 hxg6 18.Bh6 Nxc3 19.bxc3 Qb6 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 and although White can win the g6-pawn, his weak king does not leave him serious winning chances. 12...c6 13.Be2 (13.Nf4 g5) 13... N4d5 (13...Be6 14.Nf4 Qd7 15.h4) 14.Nf4 Nxc3+ 15.Qxc3, keeping everything under control. c) 11...c6. Now 12.Kb1, transposing to other lines, looks best, but 12.Nf4 g5 (12...N4d5 13.Ncxd5 Nxd5 14.Bc4 e6 15.h4) 13.Nh5 f4 14.Bf2 is also possible. 12.Kb1 There is no reason to allow 12.a3 Na2+. 12...Qd7 In the game Ding Liren-Zhou Jianchao, Guangzhou 2010, was 12... N6d5 13.Nf4 (perhaps 13.Ng5!? is better: 13...Qd7 14.Nxe6 Qxe6 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bc4²) when Black, instead of taking on f4 with a typical position, chose 13...Nxc3+. This loses immediately to 14.bxc3!+–. 26

In Ivanisevic-Gabrielian, Plovdiv 2012, the other knight went to d5: 12...N4d5 13.Ng5 Nxc3+ 14.Qxc3 Bd5 (14...Qd7 15.Nxe6 Qxe6 16.Qxc7) 15.h4 Qd7 16.Bd3 Rac8. I propose here 17.Nh3!?, planning h5-h5. It is important not to allow ...g5. After Ivanisevic’s hasty 17.Bc2 Nc4 18.h5 h6 19.Nh3 g5, White had no other choice but to sacrifice a piece with hazy complications: 20.Nxg5 hxg5 21.h6 Bh8 22.h7+ Kf7 23.Bxg5. 13.Nf4 Bf7 Svidler’s choice. Black is not interested in exchanging his knights, because eventually he will be left with a pretty much useless darksquared bishop. For instance: 13...Nc4 14.Qe1 (There is no reason to give counterplay with 14.Bxc4 Bxc4 15.h4 a5 16.b3 Bf7 17.h5 g5 18.e6 Bxe6 19.Nxe6 Qxe6 20.Bxg5 Rad8) 14...Nxe3 15.Qxe3 c6 (16...Bh6 17.d5) 16.h4 Bh6 17.h5 g5 18.Nxe6 Qxe6 19.a3 Nd5 20.Nxd5. Black is doomed to a long struggle for two results only. I happened to face 13...Rfd8 a few months ago. I answered 14.a3! N4d5 14...a5 15.d5 N4xd5 16.Ncxd5 Nxd5 17.Bc4 c6 18.Bb6 Rdc8 19.Nxe6 Qxe6 20.f4 offers White a stable advantage: 20...a4 21.h4 (21.g3 Qf7 22.Bxd5 cxd5 23.Qxd5²) 21...h5 22.Bxd5 cxd5 23.Qxd5 Kf7 24.Rd4 Rc6 25.Qxe6+ Kxe6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 26.Rb4², Zhou Jianchao-Mu Ke, Beijing 2012.

14.h4 Rfd8 and again 15.a3 is best.

15.Ncxd5 Bxd5 (15...Nxd5 16.Nxe6 Qxe6 17.Bc4 c6 18.h4 h5 19.g4) 16.Nxd5 Qxd5, SvetushkinStella, A Capelle la grande Open 2013.

The rest is too slow: 15.Bb5 c6 16.Be2 a5 or 16...c5; 15.Qe1 Na4! 16.b3 Nxc3+ 17.Qxc3 a5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+qzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

So far, so good. I have reached the position I was aiming for. White’s prospects are clearly better because of the stable space advantage and an easy attack down the h-file. This claim would have held true had I made a single prophylactic move: 17.Qc1!±. Instead, I rushed with 17.h4?, missing 17...c5. The pride of my position, the pawn centre, crumbled down and Black obtained strong counterplay. Curiously, my opponent was obviously satisfied with his opening achievement because two weeks later he repeated all this up to the diagram position. See Game 5 LupulescuStella, Skopje 2013 for a nice lecture on how to treat this pawn structure. 14.a3 White should take some safety measures. He cannot leave the enemy develop his own play:

15...a5 16.Qc1 Bb3 17.Rd2 e6 18.Nd3 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 Nc4 20.Bxc4 Bxc4 21.h5 b5 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Bg5 Rf8 24.Na4 Qd5 25.Nc5±, VitiugovOstenstad, Rogaska Slatina 2011. The text is even more accurate. 14...a5 A typical piece sacrifice, which should not be accepted. Trading pieces with 14...N4d5 15.Ncxd5 Nxd5 16.Bc4 Nxf4 17.Bxf7+ Rxf7 18.Bxf4 e6 spells trouble after 19.h4‚.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+pzpqzplvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9zp-+-zPp+-0 9-sn-zP-sN-+0 9zP-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 15.Bb5!

In Motylev-Svidler, Wijk aan Zee 2007, White had the unfortunate idea to accept the greek gift: 15.d5? Bxe5 16.axb4 axb4 17.Nb5 Ra5 18.Bxb6 cxb6 19.Qxb4 Rfa8 and 27

Part 1 the game did not last long: 20.Rd4 Bxd4 21.Qxd4 Ra1+ 22.Kc2 Rxf1 23.Rxf1 Qxb5 24.Rc1 Rd8 25.Qe5 Bxd5 26.Nxd5 Rxd5 27.Qe6+ Kf8 28.Qc8+ Kf7 0-1. 15...c6 16.d5! The possibility of this move defines White’s advantage. 16...Bxe5 16...N6xd5 17.axb4 axb4 (17... e6 18.Ncxd5 exd5 19.Be2 axb4 20.Bd4) 18.Ncxd5; and 16...N4xd5 17.Bxb6 Nxb6 18.Qxd7 Nxd7 19.e6 cxb5 20.exf7+ Rxf7 21.Rxd7 are hopeless. 17.Bxb6 cxb5 18.Rhe1 White rules in the centre and he has a strong initiative. The game Bitan-Vokarev, Bhubaneswar 2010, went further 18...Bf6 (18...Bxc3 19.Qxc3 Nxd5 20.Qe5) 19.Bd4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 Na6 21.d6 Qxd6 22.Ncd5 (22.Nfd5 Bxd5 23.Qxd5+) 22...Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Qc5 24.Qe5 (24. Qf4 b4 25.Qxd6 bxa3 26.Qxa3) 24...Rad8 25.Nxe7+ Kf7 26.Nd5 Qd6 27.Qe7+ Qxe7 28.Rxe7+ Kg8 29.Nf6+ 1-0. B3. 9...Qd6! 10.Nb5 Grischuk tried the interesting pawn sacrifice 10.h4!? Rd8 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.h5 a6 13.Nc3 when Black should capture on d4 by bishop. See 28

Game 6 Grischuk-Mamedyarov, Moscow 2010, for details. 10.Kb1 Rd8 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.d5 transposes to the main line. I chose the move order with 10.Nb5, because it enables additional interesting options as 11.Bh6. 10...Qd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppzpqzppvlp0 9-snn+-+p+0 9+N+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 11.Kb1

a) 11.f4 is a rare bird. It occurs only in the games of ...2700+ grandmasters, scoring +1=2. Obviously, we should not discard this move apriori. Stay tuned to this line! Best answer is 11...Qe6! when 12.d5 loses to 12...Qxe4 13.dxc6 Bf5 14.Bd3 Qxc6+. Therefore, 12.Nc3 is the only move.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-snn+q+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPPzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 Look at Game 9 Karjakin-Giri, Wijk aan Zee 2013, for further details. b) 11.Bh6 also deserves attention, but Black has found a satis­ factory defence – see Game 7 Svid­ ler-Caruana, Thessaloniki, 2013, which is the latest word of theory so far. c) 11.Na3 is a strange move which lets the black knight on d4 after 11...e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.Kb1 c6 14.dxc6 bxc6 15.Qa5 Qb7 16.Ne2 Rb8 17.Rd2, Ivanchuk-Sutovsky, Ningbo 2011, 17...c5 – there is no way to be worse with such a piece in the centre. 11...Rd8 11...a6 should probably transpose to the main line after 12.Nc3. Only 12...e5 13.d5 Nd4 would be of independent significance. Typical answer would be 14.f4, but perhaps White should try first to provoke weaknesses with 14.h4 having in mind 14...h5 15.f4. However, White can also try 12.Na3!? as in Rodshtein-Popilski, Skopje 2013, when 12...Rd8 could be met by 13.Ne2 since the a3knight controls c4. Black continued with 12...e5 13.d5 Nd4 14.h4 c6 when the thematic break-through 15.f4 would have been the most consistent continuation. 12.d5 a6

No one has followed in Mame­ dyarov’s footsteps (against Anand, Bastia 2011) – 12...Ne5 13.Qc2 c6 14.Nxa7. 13.Nc3 Kamil Miton analyses in depth: a) 13.Na3, but I would not like to to waste much time on such a move. 13...Qe8 13...Ne5 14.h3 Na4 is also interesting – 15.f4 Nxb2 16.Qxb2 Nc4 17.Qc1 Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Qa4 19.Nc2 Rd6 20.Rd3 Qb5+ 21.Kc1 Rb6 22.Ne2 Qb1+ with hazy complications. 14.Qe1 14.Bxb6 cxb6 15.Nc4 e6 16.Nxb6 exd5 17.Nxa8? loses to 17...dxe4 18.Qc1 exf3 19.Nxf3 Bf5+ 20.Ka1 Nb4–+; 14.Qc1 might provoke 14... Na4!? 15.dxc6 Bxb2 16.Rxd8 Qxd8 17.Qc2 b5 18.Bc1 Bg7 19.Ne2 Be6 with compensation. b) 13.dxc6 13.dxc6 Qxd2 14.Rxd2 Rxd2 15.Bxd2 axb5 16.cxb7 Bxb7 17.Bxb5 f5 18.exf5 Bd5, Vitiugov-Giri, Reggio Emilia 2011. This endgame is roughly equal. Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn, for example, 19.b3 gxf5 20.Bb4 (the g1-knight cannot leave the first rank due to ...Bxb3) 20... Kf7 21.Bd3 Be6, followed up by ...Nd5.

29

Part 1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzpqzppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

B31. 13...Na5; B32. 13...Ne5; B33. 13...Qe8 B31. 13...Na5 14.Qc1!?N White has tested 14.Bd4 e5 15.Bc5 Nbc4 16.Qc1 b6 17.Bf2 Qd6 18.h4 Qb4 19.g4, Ma­ me­ dyarovVolokitin, Istanbul 2012. Although he got an edge after 19...f5 20.g5 fxe4 21.Nxe4 Bf5 22.Bd3 Rxd5 23.Bxc4 Nxc4 24.Rxd5 Bxe4+ 25.fxe4 Na3+ 26.Ka1 Qxe4 27.Rd2!, it is better to limit Black’s options. 14...Nbc4 Alternatively: a) 14...Nac4 15.Bd4 We better keep the bishop for now. 15.Bxc4 Nxc4 16.Bd4 Bxd4 (16...e5 17.dxe6) 17.Rxd4 b5 18.Nge2 Qd6 (18...Bb7 19.Rhd1 Qd6 20.f4) is unclear. Although White retains his space advantage, it is not easy to transform it into something substantial: 19.h4 h5 20.Rhd1 [20. Nd1 Qb6 21.Ne3 c6 22.Nxc4 bxc4 30

23.Rhd1 (23.Qxc4 Rb8 24.b3 cxd5 25.Rxd5 Bb7©) 23...cxd5 24.Nc3 Be6] 20...Bd7 21.Ka1 Rac8 (21... Qf6 22.d6) 22.b3 (22.f4 Bg4) 22... Ne5 23.f4 Ng4 24.e5 Qb6 25.Ne4 Nh6 26.e6 Be8. 15...Bxd4 16.Rxd4 Ne5 17.h4 h5 (17...e6 18.h5 Qe7 19.hxg6 fxg6 20.Nh3 exd5 21.Ng5 h5 22.f4 Nf7 23.Nxf7 Qxf7 24.f5‚) 18.g4 hxg4 19.f4±. b) 14...Qd6 15.Nge2 Nbc4 16.Bd4 Bf8 (Engines like this move, but it does look suspicious.) 17.h4 e5 18.Bf2 h5 19.g4! hxg4 20.h5 gxf3 21.Ng1! with an imminent destruction of Black’s kingside. Finally, 14...Qe8 transposes to 13...Qe8. 15.Bd4 Bxd4 16.Rxd4 b5 17.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-zpqzpp+p0 9p+-+-+p+0 9snp+P+-+-0 9-+ntRP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+KwQ-+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 17...c5

After the trade of bishops, White’s attack is very strong. The attempt to stop it by 17...h5 is put-

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 ting out fire with gasoline: 18.g4! hxg4 19.h5 Qd6 20.hxg6 Qxg6 21.fxg4‚. 18.Rd1 f6 Again 18...h5 is dubious: 19.g4 hxg4 20.h5 Qd6 21.hxg6 Qxg6 22.Bxc4 Nxc4 23.Nge2‚. 19.g4! White wants to fix the g6-pawn first with g5, and then open the hfile. 19...Qd6 Or 19...b4 20.Bxc4 Nxc4 21.Nce2 Qb5 22.g5 f5 23.h5 fxe4 24.fxe4 Rf8 (24...Bg4 25.hxg6 hxg6 26.Rh6 Bh5 27.b3) 25.hxg6 hxg6 26.Rh6. 20.g5 Rf8 21.h5 fxg5 22.Qxg5 Qf6 23.Qc1 g5 24.h6. White is clearly ahead in the race. B32. 13...Ne5 14.Bd4 14.Qc1 Qd6!? 15.h4 h5 16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Qf6 was unclear in Wojtaszek-Areshchenko, Wroclaw 2013. 14...c5 An interesting pawn sacrifice, brainchild of Areshchenko. Other options are:

a) 14...Nec4. Now 15.Qc1 transposes to a side line of variation B31. However, White can also opt for 15.Qf2 e5 (15...Bxd4 16.Rxd4 Ne5 17.Nge2²) 16.Bc5 Bf8 17.Bxf8 Rxf8 18.h4!‚ h5 (18...f5 19.h5 g5 20.exf5 Qxf5+) 19.g4 hxg4 20.h5 with a typical attack along the h-file. b) 14...Nbc4 15.Qc1 b5 16.f4 Ng4 17.Nf3±. 15.Bxc5 Nec4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+p+qzppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9+-vLP+-+-0 9-+n+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 16.Bxc4!

Mikhalchisin considers 16.Qc1, but then 16...Nxb2!? might be unpleasant to face over the board. 17.Bxb6 (17.Qxb2!? Na4 18.Nxa4 Bxb2 19.Nxb2 Qc7 20.Rc1 gives White enough compensation, just to maintain the balance) 17...Nxd1 18.Nxd1 e6 19.Qc7! It is rather risky to keep the queens: 19.Bxd8 Qxd8 20.Bc4 Bd7 21.dxe6 (21.Ne2 Rc8 22.Bb3 Rxc1+) 21...fxe6 22.Qe3 Qc7; 19.Ne3 Qd6 20.Bxd8 Qb4+ 31

Part 1 21.Kc2 Bd7 22.Kd1 Rxd8; 19.Nc3 exd5 20.Bxd8 (20.Nxd5 Qxd5!!) 20...Qxd8 21.Nxd5 Be6µ. 19...Qxc7 20.Bxc7 Rd7 21.d6 Be5 22.Ne3 Bxd6 23.Bb6 Bc7. Such endgames are roughly equal if the rooks have open files while the minor pieces have not strong outposts. However, White has a forced way to seize the initiative although Black should be able to hold on: 24.Nc4 Rd1+ 25.Kb2 Rxf1 26.Bxc7 b5 27.Ne3 Rf2+ 28.Kb1 e5 29.Bxe5 Be6 30.Nh3 Bxh3 31.gxh3 Rxf3 32.Nd5 Rxh3 33.Rf1. 16...Nxc4 17.Qc1 Qc7 17...b5 18.b3 b4 19.Bxb4 Rb8 20.Bc5 a5 21.Ka1±. 18.Bd4 e5! 19.Bf2 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-wq-+pvlp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+n+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-vLPzP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position has been reached in Eljanov-Areshchenko, Kiev 2012. White was incautious to weaken the pawn shelter of his king and got punished in an exemplary way: 20.b3 Nd6 21.Qe3 f5 32

22.Rc1 Qe7 23.Qb6 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bf5 25.Qe3 a5 26.g4 Nxe4 27.fxe4 Bh6 28.Qxh6 Bxe4+ 29.Kb2 Bxh1 30.Bh4 Qa7 31.Ne2 a4 32.b4 a3+ 33.Ka1 Bf3 34.Nc3 Qd4 35.Bxd8 Rxd8 0-1. I doubt that Black has sufficient compensation after the solid: 20.Nge2!N We simply complete development aiming at Nc1-d3-c5!?. My analysis runs: 20...Nd6 Planning ...a6-a5-a4. Alternatives are: 20...Bd7 21.d6!; 20...Qd6 21.b3 Na3+ 22.Ka1 a5 23.Nb1 Nxb1 24.Kxb1 Ba6 25.Qc5 Qd7 26.Qc6 Qxc6 27.dxc6 b4 (27... Rdc8 28.Nc3) 28.Rxd8+ Rxd8 29.c7 Rc8 30.Rd1 Rxc7 31.Bb6 Rc6 32.Bxa5 Bf8 33.Nc1; 20...f5 21.Rhe1 Nd6 22.Ng3 (staying compact in the centre!); 20...Bf8 21.h4‚ h5 22.g4!? hxg4 23.h5 gxf3 24.hxg6 fxg6 25.Ng1 Qf7 26.Rd3. 21.Qe3 Qe7 22.Nc1 Bd7 22...Nc4 23.Qe2; 22...a5 23.Nd3 Bd7 24.Nc5. 23.Nd3 White has the better centre and a sound extra pawn:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9+-+lwqpvlp0 9p+-sn-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNNwQP+-0 9PzP-+-vLPzP0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

a) 23...Rdc8 24.Nc5 Nc4 25.Qe1 intending to meet 25...Rxc5? by 26.d6!; b) 23...Nc4 24.Qe2 Rac8 (24...b4 25.Bc5) 25.h4 (25.Nc5) 25...b4 26.d6! Qxd6 (26...Nxd6 27.Nd5) 27.Nc5 Qb8 28.Qxc4 bxc3 29.Qxc3±; c) 23...a5 24.Nc5 Rac8 (24...a4 25.Rc1 Rdc8 26.Nxd7 Qxd7 27.a3 b4 28.axb4 a3 29.b3 a2+ 30.Nxa2) 25.Nxd7 Rxd7 (25...Qxd7 26.Qa7; 25...Nc4 26.d6! – a standard push in this structure, freeing the d5square for the knight – 26...Qxd7 27.Qe2²) 26.Qb6 Nc4 27.Qa6. The queen causes havoc in Black’s lines. B33. 13...Qe8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.Qc1! This retreat keeps the queen on the c1-h6 diagonal and avoids the opposition of Black’s queen along the e-file. Thus the typical break ...e7-e6 is not efficient anymore as the open file will be in White’s favour. From c1 the queen also keeps an eye on c4. After 14.Qe1, Black has at least two decent retreats: 14...Na5!? which is a novelty, and 14...Na7. See my analysis of Game 8 Gelfand-Caruana, Zuerich 2013. 14...Na5 Let us check: a) 14...Na7 15.Bd3! The correct approach for White is to complete development as fast as possible. 15.Bf4?! looks attractive, but White is desperately behind in development which enables the sharp counter-attack 15...Bd7! 16.Bxc7 Na4 17.Bxd8 (17.Nxa4 Bxa4 18.Bxd8 Qxd8‚) 17...Nxc3+ 18.bxc3 Qxd8 19.f4 Rc8 20.e5 Qa5. Black has nice compensation for the missing material. After 21.Qd2 Rxc3 22.Ne2, he can force a draw with 22...Nb5 23.Nxc3 Nxc3+ 24.Ka1 f6 25.Rc1 fxe5 26.Rxc3 exf4 27.Kb2 Ba4 28.a3 b5 29.Qe1 b4 30.Qe6+= or maintain the tension with 22...Qb6+ 23.Ka1 Rc5 24.Rb1 Qc7 25.Rc1 f6. 15...e6 Black cannot develop serious counter­play without this move, for 33

Part 1 instance: 15...Nb5 16.Nge2 Bd7 17.h4 e6 18.Bg5 Rdc8 19.h5 (19. Bh6² Bh8 20.h5 exd5 21.hxg6 fxg6 22.Nxd5 Nxd5 23.exd5 c5 24.Be4²) 19...exd5 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.Nxd5 Nxd5 22.exd5². 16.Bg5 Rd6 17.Bf4 Rd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+q+k+0 9snpzpr+pvlp0 9psn-+p+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sNL+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.dxe6 Qxe6 19.Bh6 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Nge2²

16.Bd4 e5 (16...Bxd4 17.Rxd4 Nd6 18.h4) Nc6

White has a space advantage and his pieces are perfectly coordinated. The pawn advance h4-h5 is looming. b) 14...Ne5 15.Be2 – Aronian’s idea introduced against Caruana in Moscow 21012. To be sure, the queen was on e1 in that game, but I do not see a substantial difference. The play may continue: 15...Nec4 Alternatively: 15...Nbc4 16.Bd4 b5 17.f4²; 15...e6 16.Bxb6 cxb6 17.f4 Bh6 After 17...Nd7 18.dxe6 Qxe6, the simple 19.Bf3 assures White of the better centre and a beautiful stand for the knight on d5. I do not see any rush to speed up play with 19.Nf3 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Qxe4+ 21.Bd3 Qxf4 34

22.Rhf1 although the commentators of the above-mentioned game Aronian-Caruana unanimously claimed that White had excellent compensation. In fact, Caruana did not dare to take the gift and was soon to face a dire predicament. 18.d6! Combining standard kingside attack with central play. The d6-pawn binds Black’s forces, e.g. 18...b5 19.a3 f6 20.h4 Nf7 21.h5 Qf8 (or 21...g5 22.e5 fxe5 23.Ne4) 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Nf3 Rxd6 24.Rxd6 Nxd6 25.g4 with a strong initiative.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-+pvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+nvLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9+KwQR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Bc5

White concedes to trade his better bishop hoping to exploit the weakness of the kingside dark squares. 17.Bf2!? also deserves attention. Caruana assesses a similar position (with Qe1) as somewhat better for White. 17...Qf8 (17...Qe7 18.h4‚ h5 19.g4) 18.g4! followed by h4.) 17... Bf8 18.Bxf8 Qxf8 19.h4 with a clear plan on the right wing. 15.h4 e6 16.Bg5!?N

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 Rodshtein-Bok, Biel 2012, saw 16.Bf4 Qe7 17.Bg5 f6 18.Be3 exd5 19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.Nxd5 Qf7 21.h5 Be6 with a roughly equal position. The idea of exchanging the bishop in order to plant a knight on d5 is good only when White is ahead in development and can quickly create threats. I propose a novel plan which sets Black more problems. My idea is to keep the pawn on d5 and even sacrifice it while focusing on the kingside.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-+pvlp0 9psn-+p+p+0 9sn-+P+-vL-0 9-+-+P+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 16...f6

16...Rd6 17.Bf4 e5 18.Be3 fixes the centre in White’s favour. 16...Rd7 is more challenging, but then White can use the lack of coordination between Black’s pieces to open the h-file: 17.h5 (17.dxe6 Qxe6 18.Nge2 Rxd1 19.Qxd1 Qd7 helps Black’s defence.) 17...exd5 18.Bh6 Bxh6 (18...Bh8 19.exd5²) 19.Qxh6 Qf8 (19...c6 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.exd5 Nxd5 22.Nxd5 cxd5 23.Nh3²) 20.Qxf8+ Kxf8 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.exd5 Nac4 23.Bxc4 Nxc4 24.Nh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-mk-+0 9+pzpr+p+-0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-sN-+P+N0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The attack is going on despite the exchanges: 24...Ne3 25.Rd2 c6 26.Ng5 Nxd5 27.Rh8+ Kg7 28.Rh7+ Kg8 29.Nxd5 Rxd5 (29... cxd5 30.Re2) 30.Rxd5 cxd5 31.Rxf7 Bf5+ 32.Kc1 Rc8+ 33.Kd1±. 17.Bd2 Dragging a knight to c4 where it will be hanging in some lines. 17...Nac4 17...exd5 is dubious in view of 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Bxa5 Qa4 20.Bc4± while 17...Nbc4 loses a piec e to 18.b4. 17...c6 is too slow: 18.h5 cxd5 19.hxg6 Qxg6 20.Nge2 Nac4 21.Nf4 with attack. 18.Bf4! I analyzed a lot 18.Bxc4 Nxc4 19.h5, but could not make White’s attack work: 19...Nxd2+ (19...b5 20.Bh6) 20.Qxd2 b5! 20...exd5 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Nge2!? leads to interesting play where the knights dominate the enemy bishops: 22...c6 (22...d4 23.Nd5 35

Part 1 Qf7 24.Nxd4) 23.exd5 cxd5 24.Nf4 Qf7 (24...d4 25.Ncd5 g5 26.Rhe1) 25.g4 g5 26.Nh5 Be6 27.Ne2 d4 28.Nxg7 Kxg7 29.Nxd4‚. 21.hxg6 hxg6 22.Nh3 c6. It seems that Black is holding here. 18...Qf7 The queen defends g6 and hits d5. I do not see much sense in 18... Qe7 19.h5 g5. White has the intermediate move 20.h6 Bh8 21.Bg3 with a clear edge. 18...e5 19.Bh6 gives White a small, but stable advantage due to his solid centre. More importantly, Black lacks counterplay. I would also mention: 18...Ne5 19.h5 exd5 (19...gxh5 20.Bxe5 fxe5 21.Bd3 Qf7 22.Nge2! pinpoints the weaknesses of Black’s kingside.) 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.exd5 c6 22.d6 Bf8 (22...Nd5 23.Bxe5 Qxe5 24.Nxd5 cxd5 25.Rxd5) 23.g4 Bxd6 24.Qc2. White’s attack is unfolding by itself.

36

19.h5 exd5 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.exd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzp-+qvl-0 9psn-+-zpp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+n+-vL-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+KwQR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better prospects because his castling position is safer. The play may continue: 21...Na5 22.Bh6 Bh8 23.Qd2 Bf5+ (23...Bd7 24.Nge2 c6 25.Nd4! Nxd5 26.Nxd5 Qxd5 27.Be2+–) 24.Ka1 g5 25.g4 Bh7 26.f4 Nbc4 27.Qc1 b5 28.f5 Re8 Black cannot prevent a sacrifice on g5. It is possible either without any further preparation (29.Bxg5! fxg5 30.Nh3) or after 29.Nf3 b4 (29...Re3 30.Nd4) 30.Na4 Ne3 31.Rd4.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

Part 1

Complete Games 1. Svetushkin-Puntier Istanbul 2012

13.Qxg4 c6 14.Qe2 cxb5 15.fxe5) 11...Nxe5 12.Nf3 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Qh4+ 14.Bf2 Qh5.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.d5 (8.Bb5!) 8... Ne5

11...Bd7 11.Bd4 (11.Qxg4 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Bxb5 13.Bd4 Rf8 14.a4 Nxa4 15.Qd1 Nb6 16.Nf3 Qd6 17.Be5 Qd7÷ was really messy, Gupta-Zhu, Caleta 2012) 11...Bxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Psn-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.Bd4

Later I came to the conclusion that White’s most accurate move order is: 9.f4! Ng4 10.Bb5+! White has a considerable space advantage so in theory he should try to preserve more pieces. However, he has gained this space at the cost of falling behind in development. The position is very dynamic and time is a critical factor. Note that 10.Bd4 stumbles into 10...e5! 11.fxe5 (11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Bxb6 axb6

11...0-0 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Qd4+ Kg8 reaches the same position as 11...Bxd4. 11...Nf6 12.Bxd7+ Qxd7 13.Nf3 transposes to the game GelfandTimofeev, Eilat 2012, which went 13...0-0 14.0-0 c6 15.dxc6 (15. Ne5!? Qc7 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.Rc1²) 15...Qxc6 16.Qe1 Rfd8 17.Rc1 Rac8 18.e5ƒ. 12.Qxd4 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zppzplzpp+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+L+P+-+-0 9-+-wQPzPn+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

I think that White has an edge here, but it can be stabilised only with the novelty: 37

Part 1 13.Bxd7! White had tried before 13.Nf3 Bxb5 14.Nxb5 c6=, G.Flear-Ni Hua, Calvi 2007, and 13.Be2 Nf6 14.a4 a5 15.Bf3 c6 with sufficient counterplay: 16.Nge2 cxd5 17.e5 Ne4 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Qxd5 Bc6, Khismatullin-Yandemirov, Sochi 2006. 13...Qxd7 14.h3 Nf6 15.Nge2 c6 16.a4² Rad8 17.a5 Nc8 18.Rd1. White has repelled the enemy’s knights to passive stands while retaining his spatial advantage, e.g. 18...cxd5 19. e5 Nh5 20.g4 Ng7 21.Nxd5. 9.Bd4 keeps more pieces on the board, but it also gives Black fair counter-chances. 9...0-0 10.f4 Ng4 10...Bg4 11.Be2 Bxe2 12.Ngxe2 Ng4 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qd4+ Nf6 15.Rd1 (or 15.0-0-0) 15...c6 is also roughly equal. 11.Bxg7 11.h3?! e5! 12.Bxb6 Qh4+ favours Black. 11.Nf3 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 transposes to the game. Alternatively: 11...c5?! is a strategic mistake because Black needed his c-pawn to undermine the centre with ...c6. Following 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Qd2 e6 14.d6, White is on top. 11...Nf6 has occurred in AnandCaruana, Sao Paulo/Bilbao 2012: 38

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-vLPzP-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Anand chose the seemingly active 12.Qd2 e6 13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.0-0-0 when the surprising 14... c5! allowed Black to trade queens and equalise: 15.Bxc5 Qxd2+ 16.Nxd2 (or 16.Kxd2 Rfc8 17.Bxb6 axb6 18.e5 Nd5 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.a3 Bxf3 21.gxf3 Bh6ƒ) 16...Rfc8 17.Bd4 Nh5 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.f5 Bxa2=. Apparently, White should opt for a short castling with 12.Be2 e6 13.dxe6 Bxe6 14.0-0 or the same idea in an improved setting: 12.a4!? a5 13.Be2. In some lines the b6-square is weak, the a5-pawn can be a target in an endgame. Krasenkow gives the following variations: 13...Nh5 (13...e6 14.Bxb6 cxb6 15.d6±) 14.Bxg7! Or 14.Qd2 f5 15.Bxg7 (15.Bxb6 fxe4 16.Be3 exf3 17.Bxf3 e5 18.fxe5 Bg4„) 15...Nxg7 16.e5 c6 17.dxc6 Qxd2+ 18.Kxd2 bxc6=. 14...Nxg7 15.Rc1 e6 (15...Bg4 16.0-0 e6 17.Ne5 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 exd5 19.Nxd5 c6 20.Nc3²) 16.Nb5 Ne8 17.dxe6 Bxe6 18.0-0 Qxd1 19.Bxd1 c6 20.Nbd4². 11...Kxg7 12.Qd4+

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 12.Be2 gives a tempo for 12... e5!? 13.Bxg4 Qh4+ 14.g3 Qxg4. This complex endgame is satisfactory for Black. A.Bykhovsky-Tyomkin, Tel Aviv 2002, continued 15.fxe5?! Qxd1+ 16.Nxd1 Re8 17.Nf3 Bg4 18.0-0 Bxf3 19.Rxf3 Rxe5³. Tyom­ kin proposes 15.Qxg4 Bxg4 16.h3 Bd7 17.Nf3 exf4 18.gxf4 Rae8 19.0-0-0 f6 with a balanced game. White does stay nicely in the centre, but his e4-pawn can be assaulted by ...Nb6-c8-d6, ...Re7, ...Rfe8.

development and cannot support his overextended pawn centre. For instance:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-tr-+0 9zppzp-+pmkp0 9-sn-+psnp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-wQPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

a) 14.h4 exd5 15.h5 c5; 12...Kg8 In Svetushkin-D.Ionescu, Bucharest 2005, my opponent decided to build a dark-squared blockade in the centre with 12...f6 13.h3! e5 14.Qd2 Nh6 15.fxe5 fxe5 16.Nf3 Nf7 17.Be2 Bd7 18.0-0 Qe7. Here, instead of doubling rooks on the ffile with 19.Rf2 c6 20.Raf1, I should have shifted the focus of the game to the queenside by 19.Qe3 c6 20.a4, with an initiative. Perhaps critical is 12...Nf6!. Then 13.Nf3 e6 (or 13...c6 14.dxc6 Qxd4 15.Nxd4 bxc6 16.Be2 c5 17.Nb3 c4 18.Na5 Be6 19.0-0-0 Rac8 20.Bf3 Nfd7 21.f5, draw, Dreev-Smirin, Biel 2002) 14.dxe6 Bxe6 is roughly equal, but: 13.0-0-0 is risky due to 13...e6! when White is faced with a difficult choice. An exchange of queens is completely innocuous so the only way to aspire to the advantage is to sacrifice a pawn. However, it is unclear whether White’s compensation is enough. He is behind in

b) 14.Nf3 exd5 15.e5 Ne8 16.h4 h5 (or even 16...Bg4 17.h5 Kg8 18.hxg6 fxg6 19.Be2 Bxf3 20.Bxf3 c6÷); c) 14.g4 Kg8! (Stohl recommends 14...c5 15.Qxc5 Nxg4 16.dxe6 Qf6, but White is on top after 17.e7 Qxf4+ 18.Kb1 Rg8 19.Bb5 Be6 20.Nge2²) 15.h3 exd5 16.e5 (16. Nge2 Qe7 17.e5) 16...Ne8 and the knight is heading for g7-e6. Further sacrifices do not give White anything substantial: 17.f5 gxf5 18.Nf3 f6 19.Bd3 Ng7 20.gxf5 Bxf5 21.Rhg1 Bxd3 22.Qxd3 Kh8. Summing up, the onus is on White in this line. 13.Nf3 c6 13...e6! 14.h3 (after 14.0-0-0 exd5 15.exd5 Qe7 Black exchanges the queens via e3) 14...Nf6 15.dxe6 Bxe6 16.0-0-0 Qxd4 17.Nxd4 Nh5 18.Nde2 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Rg1 gives White only a tiny edge in a complex endgame. 39

Part 1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zpp+p0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-wQPzPn+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.0-0-0?!

14.dxc6 Qxd4 15.Nxd4 Rd8 16.Nb3 bxc6 17.Be2² is safe and solid while after the text move Black could take on d5 and the position after 14...cxd5 15.h3 Nf6 16.e5 Nh5 17.g4 (17.Bd3 Ng7) 17...Ng3 18.Rg1 Nxf1 19.Rgxf1 e6 20.h4 Bd7 is rather unclear. My opponent apparently could not make his mind and decided to keep his options open: 14...Qc7 15.d6 Qxd6 16.Qxd6 exd6 17.Rxd6 The endgame is level. Simplest would be 17...Be6, but Puntier wrongly assessed the position and traded his active knight on my useless bishop. 17...Ne3 18.Rd3 Nxf1 19.Rxf1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sNR+N+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mK-+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 40

This pawn structure is difficult for Black as he is deprived of counterplay. Meanwhile I have a clear plan of pushing my kingside pawns and grabbing even more space. The rest is a positional agony. 19...Nd7 20.Rd6 Nc5 21.h3 a5 22.Rfd1 Re8 23.g4 b6 24.e5 Bb7 25.Ng5 Kg7 26.Nce4 Nxe4 27.Nxe4 Ba6 28.Nf6 Rab8 29.Rxc6 Rbc8 30.Rdd6 Bc4 31.b3 Be6 32.Rxc8 Rxc8+ 33.Kd2 Rb8 34.Ke3 b5 35.Ra6 a4 36.bxa4 b4 37.a5 h5 38.Rb6 Ra8 39.a6 hxg4 40.hxg4 Bxa2 41.a7 g5 42.Rb8 1-0 2. Bocharov-Timofeev Khanty-Mansiisk 05.12.2012 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Bb5 0-0 9.Nge2 Na5 10.b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9snL+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...e5

Black will be too cramped without this breakthrough. For instance: 10...a6 11.Bd3 Nc6 12.Bc2 e6 (or 12...Nb4 13.0-0 c6 14.Rc1 Nxc2

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 15.Rxc2 a5, Borwell-Muellner, corr, 1990, 16.a4 Be6 17.Rd2²) 13.0-0 Qe7 14.Qc1 a5 15.a3 Bd7 16.Rd1 a4 17.b4 Nc4 18.Bf4±. He could try in this line 14...e5, but then White would have, besides 15.dxe5, 15.d5 Nd4 16.Rd1 c5 17.dxc6 Rd8 18.cxb7± (18.Bg5 Qc5 19.Kh1±) 18...Bxb7 19.Bd3±, KhismatullinYandemirov, Voronezh 2006. After the text, 11.d5 could be attacked by 11...c6.

Nc6 17.Rc1 Nd4. Now 18.Qf2 Nxe2+ 19.Ncxe2 Bg4 20.Bc5 Qe8 21.h3 Bxe2 22.Qxe2 Qe6 23.Qf3 Rd7 24.Rfd1 Rad8 would be playable for Black, but a clever positional player would maintain more tension by 18.Bd1! Nb5 19.Nce2! and Black has not made much progress in his quest for simplification.

11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.0-0 Qe7 13.Qe1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+pzp-wqn+p0 9psn-vllzpp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+PsN-vL-+P0 9P+-+NwQP+0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppzp-wqp+p0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9snL+-vl-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-+N+PzP0 9tR-+-wQRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...a6

White’s pieces are not well coordinated (yet!), but his flexible mobile pawn centre assures him of the better prospects. The more minor pieces remain on the board, the more difficult Black’s defence will be. Of course, Timofeev knew very well that he should aim to exchange pieces when he had less space. However, it is unclear how to fulfil it. In the diagram position, White’s most awkward piece is the b5-bishop. 13...Rd8 sets the unambiguous threat of ...a6 so White must continue 14.f4 Bg7 15.Ng3 a6 16.Be2

14.Bd3 Nc6 15.Rd1 Bd6 16.Qf2 Ne5 17.Bb1 Be6 18.h3 f6 19.f4 Ned7²

The opening stage is over. White has achieved all his goals, having seized space while keeping all the pieces on the board. Next, he will be seeking gaps in the enemy defence line. In such situations we often observe the side having the advantage avoid taking major decisions. White can be manoeuvring for many moves, admiring his position and waiting the opponent to err decisively. While it is easy to understand such a strategy, it is often unproductive and can decrease the edge. For instance, Black might trade a couple of rooks on the d-file or advance his queenside pawns to generate some counter41

Part 1 play. In my opinion, White should devise a clear plan and embark on its execution without delay. In the diagram position, the target should obviously be the black king. Since e4-e5 looks impossible, the only other breakthrough is f4-f5. It can be executed immediately: 20.f5 Bf7 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.Nf4, hoping to open up the centre, e.g. 22...Rad8?! 23.e5! Nxe5 24.Ne4±. A better defence is 22...g5 23.Nd3 Bh5 24.Rde1 Bg6 although White’s initiative is beyond doubt. Instead, Bocharov begins some enigmatic redeployment of his knights. 20.Nd4 Bf7 21.Nce2 c5 This is a natural idea, but Black’s pieces become shaky on the d-file. Perhaps the preparatory 21...Rad8 was to be preferred. 22.Nf3 c4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+p+nwql+p0 9psn-vl-zpp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+p+PzP-+0 9+P+-vLN+P0 9P+-+NwQP+0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.Nfd4?!

What is this for?! Black’s impatient pawn march enabled additional tactical motifs so both thrusts in the centre are strong: 23.e5 fxe5 24.fxe5 Bc5 25.Nf4 42

Rae8 26.Rfe1² or 23.f5! when 23... cxb3 24.axb3 Bxb3? 25.fxg6 Bxd1 26.Rxd1 would leave Black hopeless against the horde of white pieces on the kingside (for instance, 26... hxg6 27.Nh4). 23...Bc5 23...Rfe8, aiming for ...Nd5, was better. 24.Ng3?! Clearly, White had not any clue what to do in this position. 24.f5 Rfe8 25.Nf4 retained an initiative. Instead, he put all his knights on defensive positions. Black can breathe easier now. 24...Rfe8 25.Kh1 Nd5? This is a blunder. 25...Rac8! (planning to defend the f6-pawn by ...Rc6) kept things more or less under control: 26.b4 Bxd4 (or 26... Bxb4 27.Ndf5 gxf5 28.Nxf5 Qe6 29.Qg3+ Bg6 30.Nh6+ Kh8 31.f5 Bxf5 32.Nxf5 Rg8 33.Qh4 Rg6 34.Bd4) 27.Bxd4 Qxb4 28.e5 (28.f5 Rc6) 28...Nd5. 26.Bd2 Why not 26.Ngf5! gxf5 27.Nxf5 Nxe3 28.Qg3+ Bg6 29.Nxe7+ Rxe7 30.f5 Nxf1 31.Rxf1 Kg7 32.fxg6 hxg6±. 26...Nc7 27.Ngf5 Qf8 28.Qg3 (28.Qh4!) 28...Rad8 (28...Kh8) 29.Ba5 Bb6 30.Bc3 Nc5?

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trrwqk+0 9+psn-+l+p0 9pvl-+-zpp+0 9+-sn-+N+-0 9-+psNPzP-+0 9+PvL-+-wQP0 9P+-+-+P+0 9+L+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

31.e5

It is funny, White has been avoiding any thrust in the centre and he eventually executes it in the wrong moment, allowing Black to stay in the game with 31...Nd5. Instead, 31.Qh4 was winning. 31...cxb3 32.axb3 Nxb3 33.Nxb3 Rxd1 34.Rxd1 Bxb3 35.Rd6 Bc5 36.Rxf6 Bf7 37.Qg5 1-0 3. Ivanchuk-Akesson Antalya 17.05.2004 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 c6 10.h4 h5 Black commonly plays this move after 10...cxd5 11.exd5 h5:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black’s kingside looks very vulnerable without any knight around, but White is behind in development and the centre is dynamic. Therefore, it seems logical to postpone the direct attack and complete development first. However, Black quickly generates serious counterplay on the c-file. The arising positions are very sharp, but Black somehow seems to maintain the balance: a) 12.Rd1 N8d7 13.Nh3? turned out to be a tactical mistake due to 13...Nc4!, Hillarp Persson-Greenfeld, Jersey 2004. b) 12.Be2 N8d7 12...Na6 leaves the black king unprotected. White’s attack has fair chances to prevail after 13.Rd1 Re8 (13...Bd7 14.g4 hxg4 15.h5ƒ) 14.g4 e4 (14...hxg4 15.h5 gxh5 16.Rxh5 e4 17.fxe4²) 15.gxh5². 13.d6 Nf6 14.Bg5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-sn-zP-snp+0 9+-+-zp-vLp0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+P+0 9tR-+-mK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Be6 (Kramnik-Shirov, Cazorla 1998 saw 14...Re8 and Black even went on to win, but the rook move might prove superfluous.) 15.Nh3 Rc8 16.Nf2 Nc4 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.Nfe4 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 f6 43

Part 1 20.Be3, Ward-Knott, Torquay 1998, when simplest is 20...Rf7 21.0-0 Rd7=. It looks logical to save 12.Be2 in favour of a more useful move as: c) 12.0-0-0. Then 12...Bf5 13.g4 hxg4 14.h5 transposes to the game. However, it is unclear what to do after: 12...N8d7 (which has not been tested yet). I do not like 13.Nh3 Nf6 14.Ng5 Bf5 15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Rc8 17.Kb1 Nc4 so let us try: 13.g4 Nf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-sn-+-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

It is unclear how to break trough on the kingside. 14.g5 Ne8 15.Bc5 (15.d6 Bd7 16.Nh3 Rc8) is ineffective: 15...Nd6 16.Ne4 Qc7 17.Qc2 Nxe4 18.fxe4 Bg4=. These examples suggest that White should take up the gauntlet and break through before Black’s knight arrived at f6. Ivanchuk’s bold attack was a novelty at that time and apparently took Akesson unawares. 11.g4! cxd5 12.exd5 N8d7?! This is dubious. Black should capture the pawn, of course: 44

12...hxg4 12...Na6!? is an attempt to intercept the initiative by an attack on the d5-pawn. It works quite well in the event of 13.gxh5 gxh5 14.Bd3?! Nb4 15.0-0-0 N6xd5 or 14.Bh6 Nb4 15.Bxg7 Kxg7. It seems logical, therefore, to kill the nasty knight with 14.Bxa6 bxa6, but this weakens the c4-square. After 15.Bh6 Nc4 16.Qg2 Qf6 17.Bxg7 Qxg7 18.Qxg7+ Kxg7 19.b3 (19.0-0-0 Bf5 20.Nge2 f6 21.Ng3 Bg6=) 19...Nb6 20.Nge2 Rd8 21.Rg1+ Kf8 22.Rd1 Bb7 the endgame is equal. Perhaps White should anticipate the threat of ...Nb4 by 14.d6! Bf5 (14... Be6 15.Nh3) 15.Ne4 Rc8 16.Nh3. The a6-knight has remained cut off from the kingside and Black’s king is in a precarious situation: 16...Nc4 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.b3 Rc6 19.Rd1±. 13.h5 Bf5 13...gxf3?! 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.Qh2 Bg4 16.Qh7+ Kf7 17.Bd3 f2+ 18.Bxf2 e4 loses to 19.Bd4!+–. More stubborn is 16...Bf5 17.Qh7+ Kf7 18.Nf3 N8d7, KochemasovGlembek, email, 2005, 19.Nb5! Qf6 20.Bh4 Rh8 21.Ng5+ Ke7 22.d6+ Kf8 23.Qxh8+ Bxh8 24.Nh7+ Kf7 25.Nxf6 Bxf6 26.Bxf6 Kxf6 27.Rc1±. 14.Bh6!? Keeping all the options open. Alternatively: a) 14.fxg4 Bxg4 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Qg2 is too risky. Black can even sacrifice the exchange to intercept the initiative with 16...Rxf1+!?©.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 b) 14.hxg6 Bxg6 It was vital to control the h7square so 14...Bxg6 was called for. Then 15.fxg4 N8d7 16.Bh6 Qf6 is totally unclear. I would say that play is dynamically balanced. 14...fxg6?! as in MoiseenkoTimofeev, Saint Vincent 2005, is dubious due to 15.Qh2! (the game saw 15.d6? N8d7 16.Nd5 Rf7 17.Bg5 Nf6 18.Nxb6 Qxb6 19.Bc4, when 19...gxf3 would have given Black full control.) 15...g3 16.Qh7+ Kf7 17.Nh3 Rh8 18.Ng5+±. After 14.Bh6!?, White keeps the initiative and only practical tests can show whether Black can neutralise it. Top line of the engines is:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-sn-+-+pvL0 9+-+Pzpl+P0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Qd6

Black prepares to recapture on g6 by queen from where it would threaten our king. Other moves allow White to castle without any problems: 14...N8d7 15.fxg4 Bxg4 16.hxg6 Qf6 17.Bxg7 Qxg7 18.Be2 f5 19.0-0-0ƒ. 15.fxg4 Bxg4 16.Bxg7 16.Be2 Bxe2 (16...gxh5? 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bxg4 hxg4 19.Rh5!+–) 17.Bxg7

17.hxg6 Qxg6 18.Ngxe2 is inaccurate owing to 18...Nc4 19.Qc1 Nxb2 20.Qxb2 Bxh6 21.Rg1 Bg5 22.Qxb7 Na6 23.Ne4 Rab8 24.Qc6 (24.Qd7 f6 25.Qe6+ Kh7 26.Nxg5+ fxg5 27.Qe7+ Qg7=) 24...Qxc6 25.dxc6 f6 26.Rd1 Kh8 27.Nxg5 fxg5 28.Rxg5 Rf6 29.Rd3 Rh6=. 17...Kxg7 18.Ngxe2! Amazingly, 18.hxg6 Rh8 19.Rxh8 does not win:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-+-tR0 9zpp+-+pmk-0 9-sn-wq-+P+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-wQl+-+0 9tR-+-mK-sN-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Qxg6 20.Ngxe2 (20.Rh4 Qg3+ 21.Kxe2 Qxh4 22.Nf3 Qc4+ 23.Kf2 Qf4 24.Rg1+ Kf8=; 20.Qxe2 Qxg1+ 21.Kd2 Qxa1 22.Qxe5+ f6 23.Qh5 Nc4+ 24.Kd3 Qf1+ 25.Ne2 Qf3+ 26.Kxc4 Qxh5 27.Rxh5 Nd7=) 20...Kxh8 21.0-0-0 (21. b3÷) 21...Nc4 22.Rh1+ Kg7 23.Qe1 Qg5+ 24.Kb1 Qg6+ 25.Ka1 Ne3=. 18...N8d7 19.hxg6 Rh8 20.Rg1 fxg6 21.0-0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-tr0 9zpp+n+-mk-0 9-sn-wq-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9+-mKR+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy 45

Part 1 White has castled at last and now he can enjoy a long-term initiative. Black can defend his bare king, but only at the price of weakening his queenside. Thus the d5-pawn can become White’s main trump. Here are a few illustrative variations: 21...Nc4 22.Qg5 Rh2 23.Ng3 Qb6 24.Nf5+ Kh8 25.Rg2 Rh5 26.Qe7 (26.Qg4 Nf6 27.Qg3 Rh7 28.Na4 Qc7 29.Qxg6 Ne3+ 30.Kb1 Nexd5 31.Rdg1 Qf7) 26...Qf6 27.Qxd7 Qxf5 28.Qxb7 Rf8 29.Re2 Qf4+ 30.Kb1 Ne3 31.Rde1 Qf5+ 32.Kc1 Ng4 33.Ne4 Rh7 (33...Rc8+ 34.Kb1 Nf6 35.a3 Rh7 36.Qa6 Nxd5 37.Rd2 Nf4 38.Ka1ƒ) 34.Qb3². 13.gxh5 Nf6 14.hxg6 fxg6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+-vl-0 9-sn-+-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Nh3!?

The other options give Black time for consolidation, e.g. 15.Rd1 Bf5 (15...e4 16.h5 gxh5 17.fxe4 Bg4 18.d6!) 16.Bd3 Rc8. 15...Nfxd5 16.Nxd5 White may be objectively better after 16.Bc5 Nxc3 17.Bxf8 Qxf8 18.Qxc3, but the position is chaotic.

46

16...Qxd5?! 16...Nxd5 was the only chance to survive. After 17.Bc5 Bxh3 18.Bxh3 Re8 19.0-0-0 Nf4 20.Bd7 Qc7 21.Qc2 Red8 22.Ba4 b6 23.Bb3+ Kh8 24.Be3, White will win a pawn, but his chances for converting it would be slim in view of the opposite coloured bishops. Perhaps Ivanchuk would keep the tension with 17.Ng5!? Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Rf4 19.Bd3. The game course is much worse. 17.Qxd5+ Nxd5 18.Bc4 Be6 19.Ng5 Nxe3 20.Bxe6+ Kh8 21.Kf2!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-mk0 9zpp+-+-vl-0 9-+-+L+p+0 9+-+-zp-sN-0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-+-snP+-0 9PzP-+-mK-+0 9tR-+-+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Even without queens White has a crushing attack. 21...Nf5 22.h5 Bh6 23.hxg6 Kg7 24.Nf7 24.Rag1! was clearly better for White. 24...Be3+ 25.Ke2 Ng3+? After 25...Kxg6 26.Nxe5+ Kg5 27.Nf7+ Kf6 28.Bxf5 White has a sound extra pawn, but rook endgames with so little pawns are often drawn.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 26.Kxe3 Nxh1 27.Rxh1 Kxg6 28.Nd6 Rf6 29.Rg1+ Kh7 30.Ne4 Rh6 31.Rg4 Rh2 32.b4 Rf8 33.Bb3 Kh6 34.Nd6 Kh5 35.Re4 b6 36.Rxe5+ Kh4 37.Re7 1-0

14.0-0-0 exf3 15.Nxf3 N8d7 did not give Black any counterplay in Khismatullin-Gasanov, Serpu­khov 2004. The game went 16.d6! Nf6 17.Ng5 h6 18.Bxb6+–. 12.h5 Nf6 13.hxg6 fxg6

4. Grischuk-Dominguez Perez Thessaloniki 02.06.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 e5 9.d5 c6 10.h4 cxd5 11.exd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...N8d7

11...e4 has not caught up: 12.fxe4 f5 (12...Bg4 13.Nh3 N8d7 14.Nf2 Ne5 15.Bd4± leaves White on top as 15...Nec4 loses a piece to 16.Bxb6.) 13.h5! fxe4 14.hxg6 and White’s attack is very strong. After 14...h5, White went on to win in GolodVydeslaver, Beer Sheva 2002, with 15.d6 Qf6 16.Nge2 Be6 17.Nf4 Nc4? (17...Nc6) 18.Ncd5 Nxd2 19.Ne7+! Qxe7 20.dxe7. Golod suggests 14... Qf6, but Black’s position is pretty hopeless following 15.gxh7+ Kh8 16.0-0-0 Bf5 17.Nh3. 11...Re8 12.h5 e4 13.hxg6 fxg6

13...hxg6?! is not so easy to refute, but White is somewhat better after 14.Bh6 Nfxd5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qh6+ Kf6 17.Rd1 Be6 18.Ne4+ Ke7 19.Qg5+ f6 20.Rh7+ Rf7 21.Nxf6². 14.0-0-0 Bd7 In Gretarsson-Wei Yi, Reykjavik 2013, Black tried to eat the d5pawn: 14...Qd6. His idea would be justified in the event of 15.Nh3 Bxh3 16.Rxh3 Rac8 17.Kb1 Rfd8!, but instead of helping Black’s development, White should make the useful moves 15.Kb1 Rd8 16.Ka1 (16.Bg5 Qb4) when 16...Nbxd5 would be bad owing to 17.Nxd5 Nxd5 18.Bg5 Bf6 19.Bc4 Bxg5 20.Qxg5 Be6 21.Qh4 Qc7 22.Nh3 Nf4 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Nxf4 Bxc4 25.Nxg6 Re8 26.Qg4±.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+l+-vlp0 9-sn-+-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.d6

47

Part 1 The most challenging move. Anand chose in the match for the world title against Gelfand in 2012 the safer 16.Ka1 e4 17.Bd4 (17.d6 Na4 18.Nge2 Qa5 19.Bd4, FellerSalgado Lopez, Belfort 2012, 19... Nxc3! 20.Nxc3 Be6 is unclear) 17... Na4 (Sutovsky proposed 17...e3 18.Bxe3 Nh5 with some compensation for the pawn. Of course, it is more pleasant to play as White here. Another try is 17...exf3 18.Nxf3 Bf5 19.Bd3 Bg4 20.Qf2.) 18.Nge2 Qa5 19.Nxe4 Qxd2 20.Nxf6+ (or 20.Rxd2 Nxe4 21.fxe4 Bxd4 22.Rxd4, Bocharov-Zakhartsov, Tomsk 2013, 22...Rf2! 23.e5 Bb5=) 20...Rxf6 21.Rxd2 Rf5 (21...Rd6?! 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.b3 Nb6 24.Nf4!, Vitiugov-Timofeev, Russian tch. 2013) 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.d6 when 23...Nb6! 24.Nc3 Rd5! is a dead draw. 15...Rc8 16.Kb1 e4! Opening the main diagonal. Black has also tried: a) 16...Nc4 17.Bxc4+ Rxc4 18.Nge2 Bf5+ 19.Ka1 Be6 20.Bg5 (A positional approach. White enforces domination of his knights. An alternative is 20.Bh6.) 20...Qd7 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.Ne4 Bd8 23.N2c3 Rf7 24.Qe3 Qc6 25.Rc1 Qa6 26.b3 Rc8 27.Na4 b6 28.Ng5 Bxg5 29.Qxg5 b5 30.Qxe5 bxa4 31.Qxe6 Rxc1+ 32.Rxc1 Qb6 33.Rc7 1-0, P. Nielsen-Tazbir, Helsingor 2009. b) 16...Be6 17.Nh3 Nbd5 48

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+-vlp0 9-+-zPlsnp+0 9+-+nzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+N0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.Ng5!

The game Hillarp PerssonWojciechowski, Jersey 2004, saw 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.Bg5 Be6 20.Nf2 when Black should have prevented the appearance of the blockading knight on e4 by the thematic 20... e4! 21.Bxf6 Qxf6 22.Nxe4 Qe5 with excellent compensation for the pawn. Black is threatening with the rook lift ...Rc8-c6-b6 as pointed out by Ruslan Scherbakov at www. chesstoday.net. 18...Qxd6 (18...Nxc3+ 19.bxc3 Bf5+ 20.Bd3²) 19.Nce4 Qc6 White owns the initiative. He can choose between a better endgame and an opposite coloured bishops attack: 20.Rc1 Qxc1+ (20...Nxe4 21.fxe4 Qxc1+ 22.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 23.Bxc1 Nc7 24.Nxe6 Nxe6 25.Bc4 Re8 26.Rd1 Kf7 27.Bg5²) 21.Qxc1 Rxc1+ 22.Bxc1 Nxe4 23.Nxe6 Ng3 24.Nxf8 Bxf8 25.Bc4 Nxh1 26.Bxd5+ Kg7 27.Bxb7². 20.Nxe6 Nxe3 21.Nxf8 (21.Bb5 Nxe4 22.Qxe3 Nc3+ 23.Qxc3 Qxb5 24.Qe3 Rf7=) 21...Nxe4 22.fxe4 Nxd1 23.Nxg6 hxg6 24.Qxd1 Bf6 25.Bd3 Bg5 26.a3².

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 c) 16...Bf5+ 17.Ka1 e4 18.Rh4!? (Postny chose twice 18.Bh6 when Korchnoi likes 18...Bh8. 18...Bxh6 19.Qxh6 Rf7 20.Nh3 exf3 21.gxf3 Rd7!? 22.Ng5 Rxc3 is unclear.) 18... Ne8 19.Rf4 Qxd6 20.Qxd6 Nxd6 21.Rxd6 Be5 22.Rd1 exf3 23.Rxf5 Rxf5 24.Nxf3 Bxc3 25.bxc3 Rxc3 is unpleasant for Black despite the limited material. 17.fxe4 Or: 17.Bh6 Na4 18.Nd5 (18. Nge2 Bxh6 19.Rxh6 Rf7=) 18... Nxd5 19.Qxd5+ Kh8 20.Bxg7+ Kxg7 21.Bb5 Nxb2 22.Qd4+ Qf6 23.Qxf6+ Kxf6 24.Kxb2 Bxb5 25.fxe4 Bc6=. 17.Ka1 Na4 18.Nge2 Qa5 19.Nxa4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 Bxa4=. 17...Ng4 18.Bg5 Qe8 19.Nf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+qtrk+0 9zpp+l+-vlp0 9-sn-zP-+p+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-+P+n+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Rf7!

A very important novelty. 19... Bxc3 20.bxc3 Qxe4+ 21.Bd3 Qc6 22.Bc2 Nc4 23.Bb3 b5 24.Rde1 leaves Black without counterplay, but: 19...Rxc3 looks attractive: 20.bxc3 Qxe4+ 21.Bd3 Qc6 22.Bc2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9zpp+l+-vlp0 9-snqzP-+p+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-+-+n+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+LwQ-+P+0 9+K+R+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

22...Bf5

White’s king looks shaky, but his pieces are extremely active and generate more substantial threats. Let us analyse, for instance: 22...Bxc3 23.Qe2 Bf5 (23...Re8 24.Be7) 24.Nd4 Bxd4 25.Rxd4 Nd5. Now 26.Qc4 Bxc2+ 27.Kxc2 Nge3+ 28.Bxe3 Qxc4+ 29.Rxc4 Nxe3+ 30.Kb3 Nxc4 31.Kxc4 Rf4+ 32.Kd5 seems attractive, but you know those notorious rook endgames... They are really drawish: 32...Kf7! 33.Rxh7+ Ke8 34.Rxb7 Ra4 35.Kc6 (35.Ke6 Re4+) 35... Rc4+. Instead, White should retain the initiative: 26.Rc4! 26...Qxd6 27.Bxf5 gxf5 28.Qd2± Re8 29.Rhc1. White’s raging rooks make the difference. After 22...Bf5, the stem game Rodshtein-Navara, Eilat 2012, continued 23.Bxf5?? Rxf5 24.Nd4 Bxd4 25.Qxd4 Rxg5 26.Rhe1 Rb5+ 27.Kc2 Nd5µ although White managed to win eventually. Instead, White gains the edge with: 23.Nd4± Bxd4

49

Part 1 Or 23...Bxc2+ 24.Qxc2 Qd5 25.Qb3 Nf2 26.Ne6 Qxb3+ 27.axb3 Nxd1 28.Rxd1 Rf7 29.c4±, advan­ cing the c-pawn. 24.Qxd4 Bxc2+ 24...Qb5+ 25.Ka1 Bxc2 loses to 26.Rxh7! Qe5 27.Rdh1 Qxd4 28.cxd4. 25.Kxc2 27.Rdf1

Nc4

26.Kc1

Qa6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9q+-zP-+p+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+nwQ-+n+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-+P+0 9+-mK-+R+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A triumph of White’s centralisation! His pieces are dominating the board. 20.Be7 20.Bd3 Ne5! (20...Rxc3 21.bxc3 Qc8 22.Rc1 Na4 23.Rc2 Qc5 24.Rhc1 b5 25.Be2²) 21.Nxe5 Qxe5 22.Rhf1 (22.Rdf1 Rxf1+ 23.Bxf1 Qe6÷) 22... Rxf1 23.Bxf1 Rxc3 24.bxc3 Na4 is a draw. Perhaps White should investigate 20.Qe1 Bxc3 (20...Rxc3 21.bxc3 Qc8 22.Rd4) 21.bxc3 Na4 22.Rc1 Be6 23.Ka1 Nc5 24.Rc2, but I doubt that he has anything substantial here. 20...Rxc3! 21.bxc3 Qc8

50

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+q+-+k+0 9zpp+lvLrvlp0 9-sn-zP-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+n+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+-wQ-+P+0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has just enough counterplay to keep him safe. 22.Rc1 24.Nxf7

Na4

23.Ng5

Qc5

Or 24.Qd5 Qxd5 25.exd5 Rf2 26.Rh3 Nxc3+ 27.Rcxc3 Rxf1+ 28.Kc2 Bxc3 29.Rxc3 h6 30.Ne4 Bf5 31.Kd2 Rf4 32.Rc4 g5 33.g3 Ne5 34.gxf4 Nxc4+=. 24...Nxc3+ 25.Rxc3 26.Nh6+ Kg7 27.Qd5 28.Qb3 Qxe4+ 29.Qc2 30.Qc1 Qe4+ 31.Qc2 32.Qc1 Qe4+ 33.Qc2

Bxc3 Qb4+ Qe1+ Qe1+ Draw

5. Lupulescu-Stella Skopje 11.03.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 f5 10.e5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-snn+-+p+0 9+-+-zPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 White achieves several goals with this move: he keeps the centre closed which is important as his kingside is still undeveloped; he reduces the pressure on d4; he seizes space. You might think that White also wants to cut off the g7-bishop, but that is not true. In positions with opposite castles, every too often the faster attack wins. Thus, White should aim to exchange the g7-bishop because it is the only defender of the black king. The attacking scheme is Bh6, h4-h5xg6 and penetration through the h-file. Of course, White should firstly develop his g1-knight and the ideal place for it is f4. In general, White does not mind trading 2 or even 3 of his minor pieces via d5 provided that he can open the h-file. It would be strategically wrong to push the f-pawn to f4. Then h4 h5 would seal the kingside while the direct attack is easy to deflect: 10...a5 11.f4?! (11.Kb1) 11...e6 12.g4?! fxg4 13.h3 g3! 14.h4 Ne7, M.Nikolov-Bartel, Kavala 2011.

a5, White can even change plans with 19.Rc1.

10...Nb4 11.Nh3 Be6 12.Kb1 Qd7 13.Nf4 Rfd8 14.a3 N4d5 15.Ncxd5 Bxd5 16.Nxd5 Qxd5

21...Rdc7 22.h5 Qd7 23.hxg6 hxg6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppzp-zp-vlp0 9-sn-+-+p+0 9+-+qzPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 16...Nxd5 17.Bc4 b5 18.Bb3

17.Qc1! White’s main plan with h4-h5 cannot be prevented, but the position does require some precautions. Lupulescu neutralises firstly the threat of ...c5. 17...Rac8 18.Be2 The slogan of White’s campaign in this game is: prophylaxis. To be fair, the position was ripe already for 19.h4 since 19...c5 (19... h5 20.g4!) 20.dxc5 Qxe5 21.Rxd7 Nxd7 22.Rd1 would give White a clear edge. 18...Rd7 19.Qc3 e6 20.Rd2 c6 21.h4 After having demonstrated how helpless and passive is Black, Lupulescu finally turns to the kingside.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-+k+0 9zpptrq+-vl-0 9-snp+p+p+0 9+-+-zPp+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9zP-wQ-vLP+-0 9-zP-tRL+P+0 9+K+-+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The next step is to open new files with g4. It was possible right away: 51

Part 1 24.g4! Nd5 25.Qd3, because the opposite coloured bishops would not help the defence here. 24.Bg5 Nd5 It was high time for 24...c5 although White retains an edge after 25.dxc5 Nd5 26.Qb3 Rxc5 27.f4. 25.Qb3 a6 26.f4 b5 27.g4 c5 28.dxc5 Rxc5 29.gxf5 gxf5 30.Bf3 a5 Simplest would have been now 31.Bf6!+– to finish the game with an attack. 31.Bxd5

1-0

31...Rxd5 32.Rxd5 Qxd5 33.Qxd5 exd5 34.Rd1 Rc5 35.e6 Kf8 36.b4 axb4 37.axb4 Rc6 38.Rxd5 wins 2 pawns.

13...Nxd4 13...Bxd4! looks like a solid equaliser against Grischuk’s idea. 14.hxg6 [White should not postpone this exchange or Black will get additional possibilities: 14.Bxd4 Qxd4 15.Qf4 Qf2 16.hxg6 (16. Bd3 Qc5 17.hxg6 hxg6) 16...Rxd1+ 17.Nxd1 Qc5+ 18.Nc3 hxg6 19.Qh6 Qe5, Pitkaenen-Gyger, ICCF webserver, 2007.] 14...fxg6 15.Bxd4 (15.Nd5?! Nxd5 16.Bc4 e6 17.Bxd4 Nb6 18.Bxb6, Gonda-Gledura, Zalakaros 2013, 18...Qe7³) 15...Qxd4 16.Qf4 Qf6 17.Rxd8+ Nxd8 18.Qxc7 (18.Qh2 h5 19.Bd3 Nf7) 18...Bd7 19.Qh2 Qg7 (19...h5 20.Bd3 Nc6 21.Nge2 Ne5 22.Bc2 Bb5=) 20.Kb1 Rc8÷ (20...Nf7 21.f4 e5 22.Nf3 exf4 23.Qxf4 Rc8 24.Be2²) 21.Bd3 (21. f4 Nf7 22.Nf3 Rxc3 23.bxc3 Qxc3) 21...Nc6 22.Nge2 Nb4 23.Rd1 Qf6=. 14.hxg6 fxg6 15.g4 Qc6

6. Grischuk-Mamedyarov Moscow 10.11.2010 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qd6 10.h4 Rd8 11.Nb5 Qd7 12.h5 a6 13.Nc3

52

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzpqzppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 15...e5 (15...c5 16.Qh2 Kf7 17.e5‚) 16.Qh2 h6 (16...Bf6 17.f4 exf4 18.g5 Be5 19.Bxd4 Bxd4 20.Nd5 Bxb2+ 21.Qxb2 Nxd5 22.Bc4±; 16...Kf7 17.f4 Qe7 18.f5±, Postny-Mikhalevski, Buellingen 2013.) 17.Bxh6 Bxh6+ 18.Qxh6 Qg7, White is clearly better.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+pzp-+-wq-0 9psn-+-+pwQ0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-snP+P+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+-+0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 Miton evaluates this position as unclear, but 19.Qe3! prevents the blockading ...g5 and ensures the g5square for White’s knight. Instead, 19.Qh4 g5! (19...Rd6 20.f4; 19...Bd7 20.Nh3‚) 20.Qe1 Be6 is fine for Black, indeed. 19...Be6 (19...Rf8 20.Be2 Bd7 21.Nh3‚) 20.Nh3 Rd7 (in the event of 20...Bc4 21.Ng5 Qf6 22.Kb1 Ne6 23.Nxe6 Rxd1+ 24.Nxd1 Bxe6 25.Be2², Black’s pawns are much weaker than White’s ones.) 21.Ng5 Rad8 22.Kb1 Qf6 23.Bd3ƒ. White has a clear plan of doubling on the h-file. He could also exploit the numerous weaknesses in the enemy position. The computer suggests here the strange 23...a5 when a possible continuation is 24.Rc1 aiming to prevent exchanges of rooks: 24... Nc4 25.Bxc4 Bxc4 26.b3 Bd3+ (26... Ne6 27.Nxe6 Bxe6 28.Rh6 Kg7 29.g5±) 27.Qxd3 Qxg5 28.Nd5 Ne6 29.Qc2 c6 30.Qh2 Rg7 31.Nb6². Black’s king and the e5-pawn are vulnerable. 16.Qf2 16.Qh2! is much stronger. Miton claims that Black equalises after 16...h5 17.gxh5 (17.Qf2 e5 18.Kb1 hxg4 19.Qh4 Be6 20.Qh7+ Kf8 21.Bh6 Qd7) 17...Na4 18.Bxd4! (18. Rd3 Be6 19.h6 Bf6 20.e5 (20.Qd2 Qc5 21.f4 (21.Kb1 Nxc3+ 22.bxc3 Qb5+ 23.Ka1 Nb3+ 24.axb3 Qxb3 25.Bd4 Rd6 26.h7+ Kf7=) 21...Bxa2 22.Bxd4 Rxd4 23.e5 Rad8 24.exf6 Nxc3 25.bxc3 Qa3+ 26.Qb2 Qxb2+ 27.Kxb2 Rxd3 28.h7+ Kh8 29.Bxd3

Rxd3=) 20...Nxc3 21.Rxc3 Qd7 22.Rd3 Qc6+ 23.Rc3=) 18...Rxd4 19.Rxd4 Bxd4 20.Nge2 (20.hxg6 Bg7 21.Qd2 Be6 22.Nge2 Nxc3 23.Nxc3 Rf8=) 20...Bxc3 21.bxc3 Nxc3 22.Kd2 Nxe2 23.hxg6 Qc1+ 24.Kxe2 Qc2+ 25.Ke3 Qc5+

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+pzp-zp-+-0 9p+-+-+P+0 9+-wq-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-mKP+-0 9P+-+-+-wQ0 9+-+-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy In fact, White can escape from the perpetual check with clever manoeuvring. The most important factor is that an exchange of queens gives White a big advantage because of his active rook. It easily reaches the 7th rank and strongly supports the advanced kingside pawns. White’s king needs only 2-3 moves to reach g5. White’s co-ordination is so efficient that this evaluation remains true even without the a2-pawn! White can improve even further his chances if he inserts f3-f4. Here are some variations: 26.Kd2 Qb4+ 26...Qa5+ 27.Kd1 Qa4+ 28.Ke1 Qb4+ 29.Qd2 Qxd2+ 30.Kxd2 Be6 31.f4± is in White’s favour, but he can also follow the route from the main line to achieve f3-f4. 27.Ke2 [similar is 27.Kc2 Qc5+ 28.Kd1 Qd4+ 29.Qd2 (29. 53

Part 1 Ke1 Qa1+ 30.Kf2 Qd4+ 31.Kg3) 29...Qa1+ 30.Ke2 Be6 31.a3 c5 32.Bg2²] 27...Qb2+ 28.Ke1 Qa1+ 29.Kf2 Qd4+ 30.Kg3 Qe5+ 31.f4 Qc3+ 32.Kf2 Qd4+ 33.Kf3 Qc3+ 34.Ke2 Be6 35.f5 Bxa2 36.Qh7+ Kf8 37.Qh6+ Kg8 38.Rh3 Qd4 39.Kf3±) 27...Qc3+ 28.Kb1 Qb4+ 29.Kc2 Qc5+ 30.Kd1 Qd4+ 31.Ke1 Qa1+ 32.Kf2 Qd4+ 33.Kg3 Qe5+ 34.f4 Qc3+ 35.Kf2 Qd4+ 36.Kf3 Qc3+ 37.Ke2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+pzp-zp-+-0 9p+-+-+P+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-wq-+-+-0 9P+-+K+-wQ0 9+-+-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black cannot avoid this position no matter how he checks. Now 37...Be6 38.f5 Bxa2 39.Qh7+ Kf8 40.Qh6+ Kg8 41.Rh3 Qd4 42.Kf3 Rd8 43.Be2 Rd6 44.Qh7+ Kf8 45.Qh8+ Qxh8 46.Rxh8+ Kg7 47.Rc8± is a typical example of the power of White’s pieces. Further checks lead to the same development: 37...Qc2+ 38.Ke3 Qc5+ 39.Kd3 Qb5+ 40.Kc2 Qc5+ 41.Kb1 Qb4+ 42.Kc1 Qc3+ 43.Qc2 Qa1+ 44.Kd2 Be6 45.Ke3 Rf8 46.Bg2±. All this remained behind the curtains. Grischuk continuation misses the advantage and leads only to equality: 16...Ne6 17.Rxd8+ Nxd8 18.Nge2 Nf7 19.Qh4 h6 20.Qxe7 Qd7= 54

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+pzpqwQnvl-0 9psn-+-+pzp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+-+0 9+-mK-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.Qxd7 Bxd7 22.Bg2 Nc4 23.Bf2 Bb5 24.Nd4 Nce5 25.Be3 Bd7 26.Rd1 Rf8 27.Nd5 Kh7 28.Kb1 Nc4 29.Bc1 c6 30.Nc3 Bc8 31.Bf1 Nce5 32.Be2 c5 33.Nc2 b5 34.Nd5 c4 35.Nce3 Nd3 36.Bxd3 cxd3 37.f4 Nd6 38.f5 gxf5 39.exf5 Ne4 40.Nf4 Nf6 41.Nxd3 Re8 42.Rg1 Bf8 43.g5 hxg5 44.Rxg5 Bh6 45.Rg6 Bxe3 46.Rxf6 Kg7 47.Rd6 Bxf5 48.Bxe3 Rxe3 49.Kc2 Draw 7. Svidler-Caruana Thessaloniki, 24.05.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qd6 10.Nb5 Qd7 11.Bh6 Bxh6 12.Qxh6 a6 13.Nc3 Nxd4 14.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pzpqzpp+p0 9psn-+-+pwQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-snPzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 14...f6! Previously Black had automatically played 14...c5 with two possibilities for White: a) 15.h4 Qc6! This is the shortest way to g7. 15...f6 is slow: 16.h5 Qe8 (16... Qg4?! 17.Nf3 transposes to line b) and now simplest is 17.Rd3±. 16.Nf3 Qf6 17.h5 (17.e5 Qg7 18.Qxg7+ Kxg7 19.Nxd4 cxd4 20.Rxd4 Be6=, Mamedyarov-Petrosian, Antalya 2004) 17...Ne6! (by hitting f4, Black gains a tempo to trade queens. 17...Qg7 18.Qg5 offers White the better prospects.) 18.hxg6 (18.f5 gxf5 19.Qxf6 exf6 20.exf5=) 18...Qxf4+ 19.Qxf4 Nxf4 20.gxh7+ Kh8=. In priciple, If Black exchanges the queens in this line, he cannot be worse. b) 15.Nf3! f6 16.h4 Qe8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+qtrk+0 9+p+-zp-+p0 9psn-+-zppwQ0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-snPzP-zP0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 16...Qg4 17.h5 g5 18.fxg5 Nxf3, Hammer won a very nice game against Erdos in Achaea 2012, sacrificing a piece: 19.gxf6!! Qg5+ 20.Qxg5+ Nxg5 21.fxe7 Re8 22.Rd6 Nd7 23.Nd5 and it turned out that Black was unable to disentangle his

pieces: 23...Nxe4 (23...Nf7 24.Rf6) 24.Re6 Ng5 25.Re3 b5 26.h6 Bb7 27.Rh5 Nf7 28.Nc7 c4 29.Be2 Rac8 30.Nxe8 Rxe8 31.Rf5 Nxh6 32.Rf4 Kg7 33.Bh5 Nf6 34.Rg3+ 1-0. 17.Nxd4! 17.h5 does not achieve its goal due to 17...Bg4 and in most lines Black successfully trades queens: 18.Nxd4 (18.hxg6 Qxg6 19.Qh2 Rfd8 20.f5 Qg7 21.Qc7 Rd6 22.Kb1 Kh8 23.Rc1÷) 18...cxd4 19.hxg6 (19.Rxd4 gxh5 20.Be2 Bxe2 21.Nxe2 Rc8+ 22.Kb1 Qg6=) 19... Qxg6 20.Rxd4= Rac8 21.f5 Qxh6+ 22.Rxh6 Rfd8 23.Rxd8+ Rxd8 24.Rh4 h5 25.Be2 Bxe2 26.Nxe2 Rc8+ 27.Kb1 Nc4 28.Kc2 Ne3+ with a draw. 17...cxd4 18.Rxd4 Bg4 19.f5 Rc8 White has retained the queens on the board and the initiative is in his hands. In many variations he can attack Black’s weak queenside, for instance: 20.Rb4 Rc6 (20...gxf5 21.exf5 Bxf5 22.g4 Rxc3+ 23.bxc3 Qc6 24.Rh3 Be6 25.Rd4ƒ) 21.Bd3 (21. Qf4) 21...a5 22.Rb3 gxf5 23.Bb5 Nc4 24.Re1 (24.Bxc6 Qxc6 25.Nd5) 24...Ne5 (24...Qd7 25.Bxc6 Qxc6 26.Kb1) 25.Bxc6 bxc6 (25...Qxc6 26.Kb1 Rd8 27.Nd5 Qd7 28.Rg3) 26.Nd1. However, this position is dangerous as White’s king is permanently weak. It is better to opt for: 20.Bd3! Kh8 21.Kb1 Nd7 22.Bc4 e5 23.Rd6! (23.fxe6 Ne5 55

Part 1 24.Bd5 Bxe6 25.Qe3 Nc4 26.Qd3 Ne5÷) 23...Rxc4 24.Rxd7 Rf7 25.Rxf7 Qxf7 26.fxg6 Qg7 27.Qxg7+ Kxg7 28.gxh7 Kxh7 29.Re1² with a sound extra pawn. Caruana’s move allows him to open up the centre and obtain counterplay. Black should be out of danger. 15.Nf3 Perhaps White should opt for a safe albeit equal position after 15.h4 e5 16.Nf3 Qg7 17.Qxg7+ Kxg7 18.Nxd4 exd4 19.Rxd4=, Jones-Erdos, Bratto 2013. 15...e5! 16.fxe5 fxe5 17.Nxe5 Qd6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pzp-+-+p0 9psn-wq-+pwQ0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9-+-snP+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.Nf3

18.Qg5 Qc5 19.h4 cannot aspire for an advantage because 19... Nb5 20.Bxb5 axb5 puts White on the defensive: 21.Rd8 (21.h5 Rxa2 22.hxg6 Ra1+ 23.Kc2 Rf2+ 24.Kd3 h6=) 21...Be6 22.Rxa8 Rxa8 23.Qf6 Bxa2 24.Nxg6=. 18...c5 19.Ng5 Qe7 20.Nd5 Nxd5 21.Bc4 56

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-wq-+p0 9p+-+-+pwQ0 9+-zpn+-sN-0 9-+LsnP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

21...Kh8!

A critical moment. The game Sa­ ni­kidze-Negi, Baden-Baden 2013, which introduced the important novelty 14...f6!, went: 21...Qg7 22.Qh4 Kh8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-mk0 9+p+-+-wqp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+-zpn+-sN-0 9-+LsnP+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.Rhf1!

Perhaps Negi missed this intermezzo. White wins an important tempo. 23...Be6 24.Bxd5 24.Rxf8+ Rxf8 25.Rxd4 Nf4 26.Nxe6 Nxe6 27.Rd6 is unclear, but 24.Nxe6! Nxe6 25.Bxd5 Nd4 26.Kb1² would be obviously in White’s favour. Undoubtedly, in this open position with an e-passer the bishop is stronger than the knight. Sanikidze preferred to keep the knight instead, hoping to use the e6-square as an outpost. How-

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 ever, Black is not obliged to take on d5! The surprising retreat 24...Bg8! would have left White in a balanced position without clear targets. Instead, Negi activates the e-pawn, shifting it to d5. 24...Bxd5? 25.exd5 Rxf1 26.Rxf1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-mk0 9+p+-+-wqp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+-zpP+-sN-0 9-+-sn-+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mK-+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position is very unpleasant to defend with Black. The newly born d-pawn turns to be unstoppable. White went on to win after 26...Nf5 27.Qf4 Qd4 28.g4 Qxf4+ 29.Rxf4 h6 30.Ne4 Ne3 31.d6 Rd8 32.Rf7 Nxg4 33.Re7 Kg8 34.h3 Ne3 35.Nf6+ Kf8 36.Nh7+ Kg8 37.d7. 22.exd5!? £g7 ¢xg7 24.d6 Bf5?!

23.£xg7+

Golubev suggests 24...b5! 25.¥d5 ¦a7 26.¦he1 Rf5=. 25.b4 b6 26.Rhe1 ¦fe8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+-+0 9+-+-+-mkp0 9pzp-zP-+p+0 9+-zp-+lsN-0 9-zPLsn-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-+PzP0 9+-mKRtR-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

27.¦e7+?! 27.a4! maintained some pressure. Then 27...a5 28.bxc5 bxc5 29.Bb5! Nxb5 30.axb5 would be better for White so perhaps Black should answer with 27...h6 28.Rxe8 Rxe8 29.a5 (29.bxc5 bxc5 30.Nf3 Nxf3 31.gxf3 a5=) 29...Rb8 30.Nf3 b5 31.Nxd4 cxd4 32.Bd3 Be6 33.Re1 Kf6 34.Bxg6 Rd8 35.Be4 Rxd6 with a slight pull for White due to the weak a6-pawn. 27...¦xe7 28.dxe7 ¦e8 29.bxc5 bxc5 30.¦e1 ¤c2!= 31.¦e2 ¤d4 32.¦e3 ¤c2 33.¦e2 ¤d4 34.¦e3 ¤c2 35.¦e2 Draw 8. Gelfand-Caruana Zuerich 24.02.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qd6 10.Nb5 Qd7 11.Kb1 Rd8 12.d5 a6 13.Nc3 Qe8 14.Qe1 (14. Qc1!)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psnn+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+K+RwQLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Na7

Previous games have only seen 14...Ne5 15.Be2!?. This insidious 57

Part 1 move is aimed against counterpaly in the centre with 15...e6. However, the position after 16.Bxb6 cxb6 17.f4 exd5!?, Zhao Xue-Lahno, Jermuk 2012, 18.fxe5 dxe4 is quite messy and certainly not easy to defend as White over the board. The bishop pair will be a cause for constant concern. I have analysed the more thematic 15.Bd4 e6 16.f4 when 16... Nec4 17.Bxc4 Nxc4 18.Nf3 b5 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.h4 b4 21.h5 offers White an attack, but Black can keep the knight on the kingside: 16...Ng4 17.h3 Bxd4 18.Rxd4 Nf6 19.Qh4 Kg7. Everything is covered while the d5-pawn is hanging. To top it all, I could not find any edge for White after the still untes­ ted 14...Na5!?. Then 15.Bf4? Nac4 16.Bxc4 Nxc4 17.Bxc7 Rd7 18.Bf4 b5 would completely pass the initiative to Black. 15.Bd4 Bxd4 16.Rxd4 e6 17.h4 Nc6 is not enticing either. Remains: 15.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9sn-+P+-+-0 9-+-+P+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+K+RwQLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...e6

The most principled retort to White’s flank attack. 15...Nbc4 to 58

free the lane to the b-pawn also looks promising: 16.Bd4 (16.Bf4 b5! takes over the initiative) 16... e5 17.Bf2 b5 18.b3 b4 19.Na4 Na3+ 20.Kb2 N5c4+ 21.Bxc4 Nxc4+ 22.Ka1 a5÷. 16.h5 exd5 17.hxg6 (This might be the last chance for White to open the h-file. 17.Qh4 Nac4 18.Bc1 g5! would prevent any further white activity.) 17...fxg6 18.Qh4 h5 19.Bxb6 cxb6 20.Nge2 Be6 21.exd5 Bf5+ 22.Ka1 Qe3 23.Nd4 when Black can force a draw, if he wants, with 23...Rdc8 24.Nxf5 gxf5 25.Qxh5 Rxc3. 15.h4 At first glance, 15.Bf4 disturbs Black’s development. This would be true if he had to defend the c7-pawn, e.g. 15...Rd7 16.h4 Nb5 17.Nxb5 axb5 18.h5, although my analysis reached an impasse after 18...e6! 19.Qh4 (19.d6 e5 20.Be3 Nc4 21.Bxc4 bxc4 22.hxg6 fxg6 23.dxc7 Rxc7 24.Ne2 Be6 25.Nc3÷) 19...exd5 20.hxg6 dxe4!. The most likely result should be a draw – 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Bh6 Rxd1+ 23.Kc2 Bxh6 24.Qxh6+ Ke7 25.Kxd1 Bf5 26.Qg5+ Ke6 27.gxf7 Qd8+ 28.Qxd8 Rxd8+ 29.Ke1=. However, Black can ignore the threat altogether by 15...Bd7 16.Bxc7 Na4 17.Bxd8 Nxc3+ 18.bxc3 Qxd8 with nice compensation for the exchange, for instance, 19.f4 Rc8 20.e5 Qa5. Then Black can begin rasping at the centre by

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 ...f6, e.g. 21.c4 Qa3 22.Rc1 Nb5 23.Nf3 Bf5+ 24.Ka1 f6. 15...Nb5 16.Nge2 Opening the a-file by 16.Nxb5? axb5 17.h5 is the easiest way to coauthor a miniature (although two 2500 players missed it over the board) – 17...Nxd5! 18.exd5 Bf5+ 19.Bd3 b4 20.Ne2 Rxa2!. 16...Nc4 17.Bd4 18.Nxd4 Nb6

strong attack: 23...Bf5+ 24.Bd3 d4 25.Ne2 Bxd3+ 26.Rxd3 c5 27.f5 or 23...c6 24.Bd3 Nc4 25.Ng5. Black’s timely counter-sac discharges the tension. 24.Nxd4 c5 25.Nf3 Bf5+ 26.Ka1 Rxd1+ 27.Qxd1 Rd8 28.Qe1 28.Qc1! would have been equal, intending Rd1.

Nxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltrq+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9psn-+-+p+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+K+RwQL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

28...Qd7 29.Be2 Nd5 30.Nxd5 Qxd5 31.Qc1 Be6 32.b3 Qc6 33.Rd1?! It was much more important to exchange the bishops: 33.Bc4=. Now Black is clearly on top. 33...Rxd1 34.Qxd1 Qe4 35.g3 Bf5?

It is obvious that Black has won the opening battle. He has traded his knight for the most dangerous enemy piece while keeping the centre flexible. Gelfand decides to sacrifice a pawn only to close the centre and prevent a quick destruction of his position.

A tactical mistake. 35...Bg4! was called for.

19.h5 e6 20.hxg6 hxg6 21.f4! Qe7 22.Nf3 exd5 23.e5 d4!

9. Karjakin-Giri Wijk aan Zee 17.01.2013

A critical moment of the game. Caruana takes a very good practical decision. In positions with castles on opposite flanks, activity is of paramount importance. One mundane move, and White could develop a

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nb6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Be3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.0-0-0 Qd6 10.Nb5 Qd7 11.f4!? Qe6 12.Nc3

36.Bc4!= Bh6 37.Bd5 Qe3 38.Qd2 Qxd2 39.Nxd2 g5 40.Bxb7 gxf4 Draw

59

Part 1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-snn+q+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPPzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...Nc4

The source game of the 11.f4 line was Mamedyarov-Negi, Gibraltar 2012. Black chose 12...Rd8 13.Nf3 Nc4 14.Qe2 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Nb4 Krasenkow recommends 15... Qd6 16.e5 Qb4 17.d5 Nb8 18.a3 Qb6÷, but the cunning 18.Bb5! (aimed at provoking ...a6, or 18.Be2 Na6) 18...a6 (18...Na6 19.a3 Qa5 20.Nd2 Qb6 21.Qf3 Bd7 22.Bxd7 Rxd7 23.Nc4 Qb3 24.Qe2±) 19.Be2 Nd7 20.h4 offers White a strong initiative.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-+q+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-sn-zPPzP-+0 9+-sN-wQN+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.Kb1!

Mamedyarov played 16.b3? Qb6 17.a3 Nc6 18.Na4 Qa5 19.d5 Nb8 20.Qc5 Qxc5+ 21.Nxc5 c6³. 16...a5 17.Rd2² 17.Be2 is also better for White: 17...Qb6 18.a3 Be6 (18...Bg4 60

19.axb4 axb4 20.Nd5 Qa5 21.Kc2 e6 22.Ra1±) 19.Rd2 Nc6 20.Na4 Qa7 21.Rhd1 Bg4 22.e5. 17...Qb6 18.Bc4 Bg4 19.Ne5. 13.Qe2 N6a5! Several months later Svidler “improved” with 13...Nxe3?! 14.Qxe3 Nb4 The attack on d4 is insufficient: 14...Qd6 15.Nf3 Bg4 16.Be2 Na5 (16...Rad8 17.e5 Qb4 18.d5 Nb8 19.h3²; 16...Bxf3 17.e5²)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-wq-+p+0 9sn-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPPzPl+0 9+-sN-wQN+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has slightly the better game due to his tangible space advantage and safe king. He can trade light-squared bishops by 17.e5 Qb6 18.Ng5 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Rad8 20.Kb1 Qb4 21.Nf3². 15.Kb1 Rd8 15...Qb6 seems more reasonable because it practically drags White’s knight to the passive square e2: 16.Bc4 Bg4 17.Nge2 Nc6 [17...Rad8 18.h3 Bxe2 19.Nxe2 e6 (19...Rd7 20.a3) 20.a3 Nc6 21.e5 Rd7 22.Rd2 Rfd8 23.Rhd1²] 18.h3 Na5 19.Qc1! Bxe2 20.Bxe2 Rfd8 21.e5². White retains his strong centre.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 d5 16.Nf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-+q+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-sn-zPPzP-+0 9+-sN-wQN+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+K+R+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

It is obvious that Svidler improvised over the board. His opening strategy is a failure. The attempt to obtain counterplay down the b-file only precipitates the catastrophe: 16...b5 17.a3 Na6 18.Bxb5 Qb6 19.Ne5± Bxe5 20.fxe5 Rb8 21.Rd2 Qa5, Wang Hao-Svidler, Sandnes 2013. Here 22.h4! h5 23.Bc4 was winning quickly: 23...Qxa3 24.Rf1 e6 25.d5+–. 14.Nf3 c5! An excellent idea! Black attacks the centre before thinking of flank activity. 14...b5 15.b3 Nxe3 16.Qxe3 a6 17.h4 h5 18.e5 would be pleasant for White. 15.e5 cxd4 16.Nxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-+q+p+0 9sn-+-zP-+-0 9-+nsN-zP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In my opinion, this is a critical position for the 11.f4 line. I do not see any advantage for White after 16...Qa6!, for instance: 17.Bf2 b5 18.b3 Nxb3+ 19.axb3 Qa3+ 20.Kc2 Qb2+ 21.Kd3 Rd8 22.Qxb2 Nxb2+ 23.Ke3 b4 24.Rc1 bxc3 25.Be2 f6 26.Nc6 fxe5 27.Nxd8 exf4+ 28.Kf3 h5 29.h3 Bd7©. White may even fall under attack in other lines. 16...Qb6 17.Nf5 Nxe3 18.Nxe3 Nc6 19.Ned5 It is not too clear which knight (if any!) should go to d5. Therefore, 19.Kb1 deserves attention. White is undoubtedly slightly better there. 19...Qd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+-+NzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.g3

Again, 20.Kb1, or 20.h4 h5 21.Qf2 are preferable. 20...Be6 21.Bg2 Rc8 22.Kb1 Qa5 23.Rd2 Rfd8 24.Rhd1 Kf8= 25.h4 Rd7 26.h5 Rcd8 27.a3 a6 28.hxg6 hxg6 29.Bf3 b5 30.Qf2 b4 31.axb4 Nxb4 32.Nxb4 Qxb4 33.Rxd7 Rxd7 34.Rxd7 Bxd7 35.Be4 Bh6 36.Qa7 Bb5 37.Bc2 Bc4 38.Kc1 a5 Draw 61

Part 1

62

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6

Part 2

Anti-Grünfeld II 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6, rare lines

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzpp+p0 9-+n+-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

63

Part 2

Part 2

Main Ideas

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppzpp+p0 9-+n+-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This development does look weird. It was virtually unknown until 2000. Only in the last few years did it gather more followers. At first White players were obviously perplexed and could not find the best retort. Indicatively, they score only 50% according to big databases. However, Grischuk’s innovative approach based on d4-d5 and Nh3 seems fit to turn the tide in White’s favour. Before discussing this line in more detail, I would like to point out two other rare, but challenging moves: a) 3...e6!? 4.e4 d5 5.cxd5! exd5 6.Nc3. 64

b) 3...e5!? 4.dxe5 Nh5 5.Nh3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Qxe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zppzppwqp+p0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+-+-zP-+n0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+-+P+N0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.g4 Ng7 9.f4 d6 10.exd6 Qh4+ 11.Nf2 Bxg4 12.dxc7 Be6. I propose here short castling: 13.e3! Rc8 14.Nc3 Rxc7 15.Qf3 0-0 16.Be2! Nf5 17.0-0 with a nice piece co-ordination. 4.d5! (4.Nc3 d5) 4...Ne5 5.e4 d6 6.Nc3 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzpnzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 You will better understand this move after you have studied the rest of this chapter. From f3, the knight would support e4-e5, but practice has proved that this advance is inefficient. White is overextended and behind in development so he cannot keep his fantastic broad centre for long. Instead, he should trade his d5-pawn on c6 or e6 and bolster the new flagman on e4. In most set-ups, he will be preparing f4-f5. Thus the h3-knight will be very useful on f2 or g5. Black has a much wider choice. He is very flexible and may opt for plans ranging from ...b5 to ...e5, executed in different move orders. I’ll try to systematize all this variety by boiling it down to several pawn structures: 1. 8...0-0 9.Be2 e5 10.dxe6 fxe6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpn+-vlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Such a position can also before White has committed his bishop to e2. Then he should take the opportunity to send it to d3. Black’s only active idea is ...e6e5 which White should be ready to counter with f4-f5. Therefore, the best move is 11.0-0!² (or 11.Qc2!?)

for instance: 11...b6 12.Qc2 Bb7 13.Be3 Qe7 14.Bf3 Rab8 15.Rae1². See Game 10 Svetushkin-Torrecillas, Leon 2012. Note that the same structure would be good for Black if he were able to insert 9...Nc5 10.Nf2 e5. Then 11.dxe6 is no longer attractive because the f2-knight cuts off the f1-rook’s support for f4-f5. However, White would have another good option: 11.fxe5 Ne8 12.Bf4 Qe7 13.exd6 Nxd6 14.0-0 Ndxe4 15.Nfxe4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Qxe4 17.Bxc7. 2. 8...c6 Black discards plans with ...e6 and aims for an initiative on the queenside with ...Qb6 or ...b5. This makes sense only before castling or White will get a tempo to hide his king, too: 8...0-0 9.Be2 c6 10.Nf2! Qb6 11.0-0 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9zp-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.Qc2 Nc5 13.Be3 Qb4 14.e5! Note that the option of ...b5 becomes effective if White moves his light-squared bishop before having played Nh3-f2: 65

Part 2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-snP+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+N0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...c6

11...b5!÷ 12.a3 (12.Bxb5 Nxe4) 12...Nb6 13.Bxb5 Bxh3 14.gxh3 Qc8 15.0-0 Nc4. The best move order is to occupy the g1-a7 diagonal, bolster the e4pawn by Nf2, and eventually repel the black queen to a passive place: 9.Be3! Nc5 11.Bd2! Qb6

10.Nf2

Qa5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9+-snP+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-vL-sNPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.b4 Ncd7 13.Rc1 0-0 14.Na4 Qc7 15.Be2 White has a significant spatial advantage. 3. 8...0-0 9.Be2 Nc5 10.Nf2 e6 11.0-0 exd5 12.cxd5

66

The waiting game 12...Re8 13.Bf3 h5 14.h3 a5 15.Re1 Nfd7 16.Be3 b6 17.Qc2 Ba6 is punished by 18.Rad1! followed by 19.e5 and 20.f5!. 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Bf3 Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+-wqpvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-sn-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+L+-0 9PzP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Be3 d5 16.e5 Nfd7 17.Re1! White’s game is much easier. He has good places for his pieces – Na4, Ra1-c1-c2, Bg4 while Black has no counterplay. See Game 12 Hammer-A.Smith, Norway 2012. I would like to acquaint you with two typical tactical tricks based on the open e-file. They become possible when instead of Bf3 or Re1, White plays Be3. Beware of the setup with Be2+Be3:

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 Analysis

Ganguly-Gupta Kavala 2012

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+-+pvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-sn-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Ncxe4! 15.Nfxe4 16.Nxe4 Re8 17.Bf3 d5=.

Nxe4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-zp-+pvlp0 9-zp-zp-snp+0 9+-snP+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...Ncxe4! 14.Ncxe4 15.Nxe4 Re8 16.Bd3 f5.

Nxe4

67

Part 2

Part 2

Step by Step

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 I would like to mention also two curious side lines which are nearly uncharted territory. a) 3...e6!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpp+p+p0 9-+-+psnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Do not laugh at this move! Va­ chier Lagrave recently tested it twice at highest level. It is rather cunning and I feel that we’ll see more of it. Black’s idea is that 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Bg7 leads to an extremely rare variation of the Grünfeld where e6 looks more useful than f3. 5.e4 is not impressive either, e.g. 5...dxe4 6.fxe4 e5 7.Bg5 h6 8.dxe5 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 hxg5 10.exf6 c6 11.Nf3 Nd7 12.Nxg5 Nxf6 with a good compensation for the pawn. That does not leave us much choice, does it. 68

4.e4 d5 5.cxd5! Vitiugov opted for 5.e5 Nh5 6.f4 (Golubev is not too fond of 6.Be3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nc3 Nc6 9.Nge2 Ng7 10.Qd2 Be6 11.dxc5 Nf5 12.Bg5 Be7÷) 6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.hxg3, but I do not see myself recommending to sacrifice an exchange and a pawn without any concrete variations in mind. The text is no less principled while keeping a balanced material. 5...exd5 6.Nc3 dxe4 Or 6...c5 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 9.e5 Nh5 10.Nge2 cxd4 11.Qxd4 Nb6 12.Be3². 7.fxe4 Bb4 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Bb5+ c6 12.Be2 Nd7 13.0-0 Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zpp+nwqp+-0 9-+p+-+pzp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vl-zPP+l+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has a nice pawn centre and his knights have solid stands.

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 Perhaps 14.Qc2!? is good enough. In Svidler-Vachier-Lagrave, Paris 2013, White activated the queen with 14.Qc1 0-0-0 15.Qf4 f5÷ and emerged somewhat better from the complications after 16.Nb5 cxb5 17.Rac1+ Nc5 18.exf5 Qxe2 19.Qxg4 gxf5 20.Qxf5+². b) 3...e5 4.dxe5 Nh5 5.Nh3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Qxe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zppzppwqp+p0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+-+-zP-+n0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+-+P+N0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.g4

13.e3! Enabling the set-up with Qf3, Be2, 0-0. The game HammerYankovsky, Las Vegas 2012, went 13.Qd2 0-0 14.Nc3 Bxc4 15.e4 Bxf1 16.Rxf1 Rac8 17.Nd5 whereas 17... Ne7! would have been unclear. 13...Rc8 14.Nc3 Rxc7 15.Qf3 0-0 (or 15...Rd7 16.Be2 0-0 17.0-0) 16.Be2! Long castling is too risky: 16.0-0-0 Na5 17.b3 (17.Nb5 Rd7 18.Rxd7 Bxd7 19.Nxa7 Qe7©) 17... Qe7 18.Nb5, A.Kuzmin-Krasenkow, Amsterdam 2004, 18...Qb4 19.Nxc7 Nxb3+=. 16...Nf5 17.0-0 White has everything protected and he is still a pawn up. The play may continue with:

It is not easy to obtain an edge with simple developing moves: 8.Nc3 Qxe5 9.g4 Ng7 10.f4 Qc5! (10...Qe7 11.Nd5 Qd8 12.Qd2 0-0 13.Qc3 Ne8 14.Nf2 Ne7, Hillarp Persson-Carlsen, Malmo/Copenhagen 2004, 15.Ne3²) 11.Qd5 Qb4 12.Qd2 Ne7÷.

17...Qe7 18.b3 Nh4 (18...Qc5 19.Ng4±) 19.Qg3 Nf5 20.Qh3 Qc5 21.Bg4! (21.Ng4 h5 22.Nf6+ Kg7 23.Ncd5 Bxd5 24.Nxd5 Re8 25.Kh1 Rxe3©) 21...Nxe3 22.Nce4 Qd4 23.Ng5 h5 24.Bxe6±;

8...Ng7 9.f4 d6 10.exd6 Qh4+ 11.Nf2 Bxg4 12.dxc7 Be6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9n+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+n+-0 9-+r+-zPNwq0 9zP-sN-zPQ+-0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zppzP-+psnp0 9-+n+l+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+P+-zP-wq0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+PsN-zP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...Nb4 18.Rac1 Bxc4 19.Bxc4 Rxc4 20.a3 Na6 21.Ng4

White’s pieces are very active 69

Part 2 and co-ordinated. 21...Rcc8 22.Nd5 Nc5 23.Ngf6+ Kh8 24.e4 Nd4 25.Qe3 Nce6 26.Kh1². 4.d5 Ne5 5.e4 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzp-zpp+p0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Psn-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 6.Nc3

White’s centre is unstable because it can be attacked with both ...c6 and ...e6. Every tempo counts so he cannot indulge in lengthy manoeuvres as ¤e2-c3 (g3), for instance: 6.¤e2 c6!? (opening the route to b6) 7.¤ec3 (7.¤g3 £b6!) 7...£b6 hampering White’s development, or: 6...¥g7!? 7.¤ec3 0-0 8.¥e2 e6 9.0‑0 9...exd5 10.cxd5 c6 11.dxc6 bxc6„, Mamedyarov-Carlsen, Wch. blitz, Moscow 2009.

against Navara in Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, 8.Be3, but it is not clear how to meet 8...Qa5 9.Qd2 Nc5 10.Rb1 Qb6 – Delchev) 8...cxd5 9.cxd5 Qb6 10.Nf2 Bg7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 Nc5 13.Qc2². 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3! A Grischuk’s idea. This is prophylactic play. White’s knight may look passive on f2, but it will limit the scope of the enemy minor pieces on the kingside. The natural 8.¤f3 0-0 9.¥d3 c6 is equal as proved by a number of games. For example: 10.0-0 ¤c5 11.¥c2 cxd5 (or 11...Qb6 12.Kh1 Bg4 13.Rb1 a5 14.Be3 Nfd7 15.Qe2 Qc7, draw, Vitiugov-Tomashevsky, Moscow 2011) 12.cxd5 e6! 13.dxe6 ¥xe6 14.¥e3=, DonchevErmenkov, Sofia 1984.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzpnzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A. 8...e5; B. 8...c6; C. 8...0-0

6...Bg7 A. 8...e5 6...c6 is rather committal. We should ignore the “threat” of ...Qb6 and follow our main scheme with 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3 (Kramnik chose 70

if Black wants to play ...e5, it is better to do it on the next move in order to await Be2.

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 9.dxe6 9.f5? is a mistake if Black has not castled yet: 9...Nc5 10.Qf3 (10. Nf2 gxf5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Be2 Nfe4³) 10...gxf5 11.exf5 e4ƒ, ShimanovTikkanen, Stockholm 2011. 9...fxe6 10.Be2 White’s plan in this pawn structure is to break through with f4-f5 so it makes sense to put the bishop on the b1-h7 diagonal: 10.Bd3!? 0-0 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Bc2 Nfd7 13.f5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpn+-vlp0 9-+-zpp+p+0 9+-sn-+P+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzPL+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...exf5 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Bg5 Nf6 16.Nd5 c6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Nxf6+ Rxf6 19.Qh5 with attack. 10...0-0 11.0-0 11.Qc2 is logical, but a bit inaccurate as it allows the knight’s redeployment 11...Nd7-b8-c6: 11...Nb8 (11...e5 12.f5 Nc5 13.0-0 a5 14.g4 h6 15.Be3 b6 16.Nf2 Bb7 17.Rad1 Qe8 18.h4‚, B.Socko-Zakhartsov, Leiden 2012) 12.0-0 Nc6; 11.Nf2 is also possible, but the knight may be more active on g5 so we should not retreat it to a passive square without any urgent reason.

See Game 10 Svetushkin-Torrecillas, Leon 2012.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpn+-vlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...b6

Alternatively, 11...Nc5 12.Qc2 a5 13.Be3 b6 14.Bf3 Bb7 (14...Rb8 15.a3) 15.Bxc5 bxc5 16.e5 or 11...e5 12.f5. 12.Qc2 Bb7 13.Be3 14.Bf3 Rab8 15.Rae1²

Qe7

B. 8...c6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zpp+nzppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An interesting attempt to take over the initiative before White has 71

Part 2 consolidated. Black aims to either disturb our development by ...Qb6 or sacrifice a pawn with...b5. White should cut across these plans. 9.Be3!

b) 9.Nf2!? Qb6! The point of Black’s eighth move. 9...0-0 10.Be3 does not put any obstacles to White’s development. 10.Be2

a) 9.Be2 is possible, but making a move with the bishop provokes ideas with ...b5!?, for instance: 9...0-0 10.Nf2 10.Be3?! could face 10...cxd5 (10...Qa5?! 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Nf2 cxd5 13.cxd5 Qb4 14.Qd2²) 11.cxd5 b5!? 12.a3 Nb6 13.Nf2 (13.Bxb5 Bxh3 14.gxh3 Qc8 15.Qf3 Nc4©) 13...Nc4. 10...cxd5 11.cxd5 b5!?. Passive stand does not offer Black good chances as shown by Game 11 Kurnosov-Vokarev, Ol­ gin­ ka 2011: 11...Nb6 12.a4 Bd7 13.a5 Nc8 14.0-0 e6 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Qb3 b6 17.Bf3 Rb8 18.Be3 Kh8 19.Rfd1 Ne8 20.a6 b5 21.e5 dxe5 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Nd3+–.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+nzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+p+P+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.Bxb5 Rb8 13.0-0 Nc5 14.Be2 Qb6 (14...Nfd7 15.Nb5 Qb6 16.Be3², Wen-Gopal, Ho Chi Minh City 2012) 15.Kh1 Nfd7 16.Qc2 Bd4©. 72

10.Na4 Qc7 11.Be2 (or 11.Be3 b5) 11...b5 gave Black an initiative in Goganov-Timofeev, Samara 2012. 10...0-0 11.0-0 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9zp-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.Qc2

Or 12.Na4 Qa7 13.Qd3 cxd5 14.cxd5 b6 15.Be3 Nc5=. 12.Qc2 Nc5 13.Be3 Qb4 14.Rab1. White has retained his strong centre. 9...Nc5 9...0-0 gives an important tempo for 10.Nf2! (but not 10.Be2 cxd5 11.cxd5 b5!). 10.Nf2 Qa5 Black should attempt to rip some dividends from its better development before White has con-

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 solidated. 10...0-0 11.Be2 cxd5 12.cxd5 e6 Lupulescu-Safarli, UAE 2012, saw the passive 12...b6 13.0-0 a5 14.Qd2 Bb7 15.Rad1 (15.Rfd1 Rc8 16.Bd4 Rc7 17.Qe3 Qa8 18.g4 Rcc8 19.g5 Ne8 20.Ng4 is also a logical plan.) 15...Rc8 16.b3 (I like the idea of g4, for instance: 16.Bd4 Rc7 17.Qe3 Qa8 18.g4 Ba6 19.g5 Nh5 20.Bxg7 Nxg7 21.Bxa6 Qxa6 22.Ng4 b5 23.f5 with attack.) 16...e6 17.dxe6 Nxe6 18.Bc4 Nc5 19.Bxc5 bxc5 20.Qxd6±. 13.dxe6² 11.Bd2! Only this retreat allows White to neutralise the enemy’s tactical threats. 11.Qd2?? drops the exchange after 11...Nb3. 11.Bd4 fails to 11...e5 12.fxe5 Nfxe4 13.exd6 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Bxd4 15.Qxd4 0-0‚.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9wq-snP+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-vL-sNPzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...Qb6

Black cannot stay long under the threat of discovery jump of the c3-

knight: 11...0-0 12.Be2 Qb6 13.Rb1 a5 14.Be3² a4 (14...Qb4 15.a3 Qb3 16.Bxc5) 15.0-0 Qb4 16.Bd4 Nfd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd4+ f6 19.Ng4. 12.b4 This move is tactically well justified, but quiet development with 12.Rb1!? a5 13.Be2² is also possible, of course. 12...Ncd7 12...Na6 does not threaten b4 at all so White can continue with 13.Rc1, followed up by Na4. I like even more the pawn sac 13.c5! dxc5 14.b5 cxb5 15.Bxb5+ with excellent compensation. 13.Rc1 This is more aspiring than 13.Be2!? 0-0 14.Rb1 a5 15.b5 cxd5 16.cxd5 Nc5, but 13.Rb1!? was a good alternative: 13...a5 14.c5 dxc5 15.bxa5 Qxa5 16.e5 Nh5 17.g3. The knight on h5 is out of play. 13...0-0 After 13...a5 14.Na4 Qd8 15.b5, Black should either close the queenside, yielding White an overwhelming advantage at the other part of the board, or allow an intolerable white rook on c6: 15...cxb5 16.cxb5 b6 17.Rc6!? Bb7 18.Be3 Bxc6 19.dxc6 Nc5 20.e5±. 14.Na4 Qc7 15.Be2 73

Part 2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zppwqnzppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9NzPP+PzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-vLLsNPzP0 9+-tRQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is only one move shy of castling and it becomes evident that Black has failed to generate counterplay. C. 8...0-0 9.Be2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpnzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black can start undermining the centre with ...c6 or ...e6. The third option: 9...Nc5 10.Nf2 Re8 11.0-0 e5? was refuted in the game Ding Liren-Areshchenko, Ningbo 2011 which saw the strong pawn sacrifice 12.f5! gxf5 13.exf5 Bxf5 (13...e4 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 e3 16.Ng4 h5 17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.Bxf6 Qxf6 19.Bxh5±) 14.Ng4 74

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-sn-+0 9+-snPzpl+-0 9-+P+-+N+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It turns out that Black’s king is in a precarious situation. The game went 14...Bxg4 15.Bxg4 Nxg4 Alternatively: a) 15...e4 16.Bg5© a6 17.Qe2 b5 18.Rf5 b4 19.Raf1 bxc3 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Rxf6 cxb2 22.Qxb2 Rb8 23.Qc2±. b) 15...h6 16.b4 Nce4 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Bf5 Nf6 19.Be3±. c) 15...c6 16.Be3 a5 (16...e4 17.Bf5) 17.Bf5 e4 18.Qe1 Nd3 19.Qg3 Kh8 20.Qh4+–. 16.Qxg4 Qd7 17.Rf5 e4 18.Bh6 f6 19.b4 Na6 20.Bxg7 Qxg7 21.Qf4 Nxb4 22.Nxe4 Kh8 23.Rf1 Nd3 24.Qh4 Re5 25.R5f3 f5 26.Nf6 Nc5 27.Rh3 Re7 28.Nxh7 1-0. Our main line branches now to C1. 9...c6; C2. 9...Nc5 9...e6 can transpose to line C2 after 10.0-0 exd5 11.cxd5 Nc5 12.Nf2, but White can also take on e6. See Game 10 Svetushkin-Torrecillas, Leon 2012. The latter option also applies to: 9...e5 (10.dxe6!) as 10.f5?! is altogether dubious due to 10...Nc5

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 11.Qc2 Nfxe4! 12.Nxe4 Bxf5 13.Bf3 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Bxh3 15.gxh3 Qh4+ 16.Kd1 f5 17.Bg2 e4‚. C1. 9...c6 10.Nf2 10.Be3 is inaccurate due to 10... cxd5 10...Qa5 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Nf2 cxd5 (12...Qb4 13.Rb1 Nfd7 14.Bd2 Qb6 15.b4±) 13.cxd5 Qb4 14.Qd2 is in White’s favour, e.g. 14...a5 15.a3 Qb3 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.e5±. 11.cxd5 b5!÷ 12.a3 The pawn is immune due to 12.Bxb5 Nxe4. 12.Nf2 b4 13.Na4 (13.Nb5 Bb7 14.0-0 Nc5) 13...Qa5 is roughly equal as Black succeeds in trading his light-squared bishop after 14.a3 Ba6 15.axb4 Qxb4+ 16.Qd2 Qxd2+ 17.Kxd2 Bxe2 18.Kxe2 Rfb8 19.Rhc1 Ne8 or 14.0-0 Ba6 15.Bxa6 Qxa6 16.b3 Rfc8. 12...Nb6 13.Nf2 (13.Bxb5 is dubious again: 13...Bxh3 14.gxh3 Qc8 15.0-0 Nc4) 13...Nc4 14.Bd4 Nxb2 [14...Nh5 15.Bxg7 Nxg7 16.Qd4) 15.Qb3 Na4 16.Bxb5 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 Bf5! 18.Bd3 Nxd5 19.exd5 Rc8 20.Qb4 Rb8=. 10...Qb6 10...cxd5 11.cxd5 Nb6 12.a4! leads Black to a cramped position. Game 11 Kurnosov-Vokarev, Olginka 2011, is a good example of White’s plan in this structure.

11...b5 12.Bxb5 Rb8 13.0-0 (13. Qe2 Nc5 14.Bc4 Rb4) 13...Nc5 is a real pawn sacrifice. White can always transform the material in a positional advantage:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9zp-+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+LsnP+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.Bc6!? Qa5 15.Qc2 Qb4 16.Be3 Qxb2 17.Qxb2 Rxb2 18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.e5 Ng4 20.Nxg4 Bxg4 21.Na4² Rc2 22.Rfc1 Re2 23.Nxc5 Rb8 24.Rab1; 14.Be2 Nfd7 (14...Qa5 15.a3 Nb3 16.Rb1 Nxc1 17.Qxc1 Qb6 18.Kh1 Nd7 19.Qc2) 15.Nb5 Qb6 16.Be3 Ba6 (16...Qa5 17.a4 a6 18.Na7!) 17.a4 Bxb2 18.Rb1 Bg7 19.Qd2 Bxb5 20.Bxb5, Wen Yang-Gopal, Ho Chi Minh City 2012. White’s long-range pieces control the queenside. 11.0-0 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9zp-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

75

Part 2 12.Qc2 Black is trying to be flexible and retain control over b5. In response, we defend b2, preparing to meet ...Nc5 by Be3. There is no reason to displace our knight to a4: 12.Na4 Qa7 13.Qd3 (13.Bf3 b5 14.dxc6 bxa4 15.cxd7 Nxd7) 13...cxd5 (13...Nc5 14.Nxc5 Qxc5 15.Be3 Qb4 16.a3 Qxb2 17.Bd4+–) 14.cxd5 b6 (14...b5 15.Be3) 15.Nc3 Nc5 16.Qd1 Ba6 17.Be3 Rfc8 18.Rc1 Bxe2 (18...Nfd7 19.Qd2²) 19.Qxe2 Qa6 20.Qxa6 (20.Qd2 Nfd7) 20... Rxa6 21.Rfe1 Nfd7 22.Re2. White still has a space advantage, but the enemy is well entrenched. 12...Nc5 12...Re8 threatens to open the centre with ...e6. We can ignore this idea with 13.Rb1 because 13... e6 14.dxe6 Rxe6 15.Rd1 would lead to a good version of a typical King’s Indian position. Instead of defining the situation in the centre, Black can follow up with 13...a4 14.Bf3 Nc5 (14...Qb4 15.Qe2 cxd5 16.cxd5 b6 17.Rd1; 14... Qa6 15.b3) 15.Be3 Qb4, but then 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.e5!± would be grim for him.

(17...Bxe5 18.Ng4 Bg7 19.Nh6+‚) 18.Rac1 Bxe5 19.Rfe1. White has a strong compensation for the pawn since the queen is out of play on b3. The main line pursues similar ideas. 14...dxe5 Or 14...Bf5 15.Qc1 Ne8 16.a3 Qb3 17.Bxc5. 15.fxe5 Nfd7 16.e6 17.Ng4 exd5 18.cxd5 19.Rad1

fxe6 Kh8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-mk0 9+p+nzp-vlp0 9-+p+-+p+0 9zp-snP+-+-0 9-wq-+-+N+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPQ+L+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

All the white pieces are fully mobilised and targeted onto the enemy king. It is unclear how Black can complete development. A possible continuation is 19...Rxf1+ 20.Rxf1 a4 (20...Bd4 21.Qc1) 21.a3 Qa5 22.Qd1!± threatening d6 or Bd4.

13.Be3 Qb4 14.e5!? I have also analysed 14.a3!? Qb3, because this queen may easily lose his way back home, for instance, 15.Qd2 Nfd7 (15...a4 16.Bxc5) 16.e5! dxe5 17.fxe5 h5 76

C2. 9...Nc5 10.Nf2 e6 No one has tried 10...e5. Perhaps we should answer it with 11.fxe5 Ne8 12.Bf4 Qe7 13.exd6

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 Nxd6 14.0-0 Ndxe4 15.Nfxe4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Qxe4 17.Bxc7 with a strong passed pawn in the centre. 11.0-0 It is a bad idea to put the bishop on e3 when Black unambiguously demonstrated his intention to open the e-file. After 11.Be3 b6! I do not see how to fight for an edge. The alternatives are worse: 11...Re8 12.Bxc5 dxc5 13.e5; 11... Nfd7 12.0-0 f5 (12...Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qe7 14.dxe6 Qxe6 15.Bf3! Qxc4 16.Bd4© b6 17.Ng4 h5 18.Ne3 Qd3 19.Qe1) 13.dxe6 Nxe6 14.exf5 gxf5 15.Qd2², Zhao Xue-Cmilyte, Nalchik 2011. This structure is better for White because of the split kingside pawns and the possession of the d5-square. 12.0-0 (12.Qd2 exd5 13.cxd5 Re8) 12...exd5 13.exd5 (13.cxd5 Ncxe4!) 13...Re8=. 11...exd5 12.cxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-snP+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...c6

Black can try to build up a defence line along the fifth rank with: 12...Re8 13.Bf3 h5 (13...b5 14.Be3 b4 15.Bxc5 bxc3 16.Bd4 cxb2 17.Rb1 Rb8 18.Qd2²) 14.h3 a5 15.Re1 Nfd7 16.Be3 b6. White has a thematic plan here. He should open up the centre with e4-e5, followed by f4-f5. It would be in his favour to remove one of the black defenders with 17.Bd4!?. Of course Black can keep the bishop with 17...Bh6, but it would be useless there since 18.g3 h4 would fail to 19.Ng4). In Jones-M.Andersen, Reykjavik 2012, White chose: 17.Qc2 Ba6 when the most consistent way of preparing e4-e5 is: 18.Rad1! The stem game saw 18.a4?! Qf6 19.Rab1 Kh7? (19...Rac8÷) 20.e5 dxe5 21.Nce4 Qd8 22.f5‚ Nxe4 23.fxg6+ fxg6 24.Nxe4 Bh6 25.Bxh5+–. After the text, Black is unable to prevent e4-e5:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+-zpn+pvl-0 9lzp-zp-+p+0 9zp-snP+-+p0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vLL+P0 9PzPQ+-sNP+0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...Qe7 19.e5 dxe5 20.f5±;

18...Rc8 19.e5 dxe5 20.f5 Qf6 21.fxg6 Qxg6 22.Qxg6 fxg6 23.d6 c6 24.Bxc5 bxc5 25.Nfe4© Red8 26.g4!, opening a second front 77

Part 2 on the kingside. (26.Na4 Bb5 27.Naxc5 Nxc5 28.Nxc5 Bf8 29.a4 Rxd6 30.Rc1 Bd3 31.Rxe5 is also in White’s favour). 18...b5 19.e5 dxe5 20.f5 b4 21.Nce4 (21.fxg6 bxc3 22.gxf7+ Kxf7 23.Bxc5 Nxc5 24.Bxh5+ Kg8 25.Bxe8 Qxe8 26.Qxc3±) 21...Nxe4 22.Bxe4±. 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Bf3 Avoid piling minor pieces on an open e-file: 14.Be3 Ncxe4! 15.Nfxe4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Re8 17.Bf3 d5=. 14...Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+-wqpvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-sn-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+L+-0 9PzP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 15.Be3

It is tempting to discourage ...d6-d5 by 15.Re1!?. Then 15...Rd8?! 16.Be3 d5 17.e5 Nfd7 18.Rc1 Ne6 19.Na4 Bb7 20.Nd3² gave White a good version of the main line, see Game 12 Hammer-A.Smith, Norway 2012. However, 15...Rb8! would practically force 16.Be3 Rxb2 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.e5. White’s posi78

tion does look overwhelming, but the engines offer the dogged defence 18...Ne8 19.Qc1 Rb8 20.Bxc6 Nc7 21.Nce4 Rb6! 22.Ba4 Ne6 23.Ng4 Bb7 24.Ngf6+ Bxf6 25.Nxf6+ Kg7 and any attempt to win the exchange, for instance, by 26.f5 Nd4 27.Nd5, gives Black a strong initiative (27...Qh4 28.Nxb6 Qg5). 15...d5 16.e5 Nfd7 This position has been reached in Grischuk-Giri, Wijk aan Zee 2011. The precipitate 17.b4 Ne6 18.b5 Nb6 19.f5 (or 19.Rc1 d4 20.Bxd4 Rd8 21.Ne2 c5 22.Bxa8 Nxa8 23.Bxc5 Nxc5 24.Qc2 Bf8 25.Rfd1 Nb6„) 19...gxf5 20.Bxb6 axb6 21.bxc6 Bxe5 turned out to be unclear. Instead of destroying Black’s centre, White should surround it, following the example of Game 12 Hammer-A.Smith. Perhaps the best way to achieve it is:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+nwqpvlp0 9-+p+-+p+0 9+-snpzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sN-vLL+-0 9PzP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 17.Re1!

17.Rc1 Ne6 18.Re1 transposes while 18.Na4 gives Black counter-

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 play against the f4-pawn after 18... Bh6 (18...Ba6 19.Re1 Rac8 20.Bg4²) 19.Nd3 (19.Qd2 d4 20.Ng4 Bg7 21.Bxd4 Rd8) 19...Ba6 20.g3 g5÷. 17...Ne6 (17...Rb8 18.Na4) 18.Rc1 Ba6 (18...Bb7 19.Na4²) 19.Ne2 Rfc8 20.b3 Black has a bad version of hanging pawns. The pair c6-d5 is notoriously passive. Even if the pawns moved one line further – on d4 and c5, they would still be well blockaded, but the withe minor pieces would widen their scope.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+-+k+0 9zp-+nwqpvlp0 9l+p+n+p+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+P+-vLL+-0 9P+-+NsNPzP0 9+-tRQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Possible continuations are 20... Rc7 21.Ng3 (21.Qd2 Bf8 22.Qa5 Qa3) 21...Qf8 22.Qd2 or 20...Rab8 21.Rc2 Qb4 22.Qc1².

79

Part 2

Part 2

Complete Games 10. Svetushkin-Torrecillas Leon 09.11.2012 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 4.d5 Ne5 5.e4 d6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3 0-0 9.Be2 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpn+pvlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.dxe6

I could ignore this move with 10.0-0 when 10...exd5 11.cxd5 Nc5 12.Nf2 c6 would transpose to known positions. However, taking on e6 may be even better while my knight is still on h3 and not on f2. 10...fxe6 11.Nf2 White’s plan is connected with a kingside attack. In such a scenario, the knight may be more useful on g5. It is also important to be ready to counter ...e5 by f4-f5. Therefore, the best move is 11.0-0!² (or 11.Qc2!?) keeping all the options open. For 80

instance: 11...b6 (or 11...Nc5 12.Qc2 a5 13.Be3 b6) 12.Qc2 Bb7 13.Be3 Qe7 14.Bf3 Rab8 15.Rae1². 11...Ne8 Black aims to meet 12.0-0 by 12...e5. However, after 13.f5! gxf5 14.exf5 Rxf5 15.Be3 my compensation for the pawn would be very strong. Unfortunately, I did not understand it during the game. 12.Qc2 Nb6 13.g4 At least consistent. Here 13.0-0 e5 14.f5 would be already dubious because Black can capture the pawn by bishop: 14...gxf5 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Nfe4 Bg6 13...Bd4 14.Qd3 Qf6 15.0-0 Bd7 16.Bd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ntrk+0 9zppzpl+-+p0 9-sn-zppwqp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PvlPzPP+0 9+-sNQ+-+-0 9PzP-vLLsN-zP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Bc6?

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 Now Black gets a cramped position without any counterplay. He should have bolstered the centre with 16...c5!?÷. 17.g5 Qg7 18.Be3 Bxe3 19.Qxe3 Kh8 20.Ng4± Rd8 21.Rad1 Qe7 22.Nh6 Ng7 I have a tangible advantage all over the board. I could prepare h4-h5 or grab more space on the queenside. But before all, I should be careful to avoid tricks with ...e5 or ...d5. 23.b3 a6 24.h4 Nd7 25.Kh2 b6 26.Kg3 Rde8 27.Rde1 a5 28.Bg4 Qd8 29.Qd2 Re7 30.Rf2 Qe8 31.a3 Qa8 32.Qc2 Qe8 33.b4 axb4 34.axb4 Qa8 35.Qb2 Qe8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+qtr-mk0 9+-zpntr-snp0 9-zplzpp+psN0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9-zPP+PzPLzP0 9+-sN-+-mK-0 9-wQ-+-tR-+0 9+-+-tR-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 36.Rh2 It would have been wise to leave the opposition along the e-file in order to prevent tactical blows with ...d5. For instance, 36.Ra1± d5 does not work due to 37.cxd5 exd5 38.exd5 Re3+ 39.Kh2. 36...Bb7 37.Ra1?

I was in a time trouble and missed Black’s retort. 37.Rd2± would have preserved the clear edge as 37...d5 loses to 38.cxd5 exd5 39.Nxd5 Bxd5 40.Rxd5 Rxe4? 41.Bxd7. 37.Rf2± also deserved attention. Now the centre opens up and Black obtains counterplay. The rest of the game was a mess of mistakes, mostly mine. 37...d5÷ 38.e5 Or 38.cxd5 exd5 39.e5 (39.Rd1 dxe4 40.Rhd2) 39...Nxe5–+. 38...dxc4 39.Qe2 (39.Rd2=) 39...b5 40.Nxb5 Nb6 41.Nc3 Nd5 42.Nxd5 Bxd5 43.h5 gxh5 44.Bxh5 Qb5 45.Bg6 Qxb4 46.Ng4? I was so upset to have let my edge slip away that I missed the opportunity to make at least a draw with 46.Bxh7= Qc3+ 47.Bd3 cxd3 48.Nf5+ Kg8 49.Nh6+ Kh8= (49... Kh7 50.g6+). The text is a sheer blunder. 46...Qc3+ 47.Qe3 Nf5!+ 48.Bxf5 Qxa1 49.Nf6 exf5 50.Nxd5 Rd7 51.Rd2 c6 52.Nc3 Rxd2 53.Qxd2 Qg1+ 54.Kf3 Qf1+ 55.Ke3 Qh3+ 56.Ke2 Qg2+ 57.Ke3 Qxd2+ 0-1 11. Kurnosov-Vokarev Olginka 15.04.2011 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 4.d5 Ne5 5.e4 d6 6.Nc3 Bg7 81

Part 2 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3 0-0 9.Be2 c6 10.Nf2 cxd5 11.cxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+nzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...Nb6?!

Black follows too literally the rule that one should fight for the centre in the opening. He obviously planned ...e6 so he decided to protect the d6-pawn. However, he neglects another rule which takes precedence in the current position: activate the pieces. The square c8 is hardly a good stand for a knight so Black should have devised a better way of development. A typical solid set-up is 11...a6 12.0-0 b5 13.Be3 Bb7 14.Qd2 where White should brew something on the kingside, probably with g4-g5, Ng4.

Black has fulfilled his (wrong!) plan, only to discover that he has to worry now about 3 weak pawns – b7, d6,e6. 16...b6 17.Bf3 Rb8 18.Be3 Kh8 19.Rfd1 Ne8 20.a6 This is a bit hasty. White had no urge to close the queenside. It might be helpful to open the a-file in some variations so 20.Nd3 was preferable. After the text, Black should stay passively with 20...Nc7, but he loses patience and his position crumbles down quickly: 20...b5 21.e5 dxe5 22.fxe5 Bxe5 23.Nd3 Bg7 24.Nc5 Ned6 25.N3e4 Be5 26.Bd4 Bxd4+ 27.Rxd4 Qb6 28.Qc3 e5 29.Rxd6 Nxd6 30.Qxe5+ Kg8 31.Nxd6 Bc6 32.Bd1 1-0 12. Hammer-A.Smith Norway 14.01.2012

12.a4 Bd7?! 13.a5 Nc8 14.0-0 e6 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Qb3

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 4.d5 Ne5 5.e4 d6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.f4 Ned7 8.Nh3 0-0 9.Be2 Nc5 10.Nf2 e6 11.0-0 exd5 12.cxd5 c6 13.dxc6 bxc6 14.Bf3 Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+nwq-trk+0 9zpp+l+-vlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9zP-+-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9-zP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zp-+-wqpvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-sn-+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+L+-0 9PzP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

82

1.d4Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Nc6 15.Re1 This is a good natural move, but what should we do after 15...Rb8!? The b2-pawn cannot be protected by 16.Rb1 due to 16...Ng4 17.Nxg4 Bxc3. 16.Qc2 is not good either owing to 16...Nd5!. Remains 16.Be3 Rxb2 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.e5 Ne8, but it is not easy to prove a substantial advantage there. Therefore, I recommend the move order with 15.Be3. 15...Rd8?! 16.Be3 d5 17.e5 Nfd7 18.Rc1 White’s play against such pawns is very easy. Any exchange of minor pieces favours him so he can follow up with Na4 even if Black’s knight remained on c5.

considerations completely justify Black’s decision to undermine the stronghold on e5. Now the outcome will depend on concrete variations and better calculation. Still, White’s pieces are better placed for the clash. I think that the waiting strategy was not a better alternative: 20...a5 21.Bg4 (21.Rc2 h5) 21... Re8 22.Rc2 would limit even more Black’s active options. It is evident that White’s bishop would be strong on g4, but Black is unable to control g4 since 20...h5?! could be attacked by 21.Bxh5 gxh5 22.f5. 21.Qb3 Rdb8 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Bg4 Nd4 It is better to stay in the centre than retreat to the last rank with 23...Nef8 24.Qa3 Ba6 25.Bf3 Kh8 26.Ne5.

18...Ne6 19.Na4 Bb7 20.Nd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zpl+nwqpvlp0 9-+p+n+p+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9N+-+-zP-+0 9+-+NvLL+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-tRQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...f6

A critical moment of the game. Black is cramped and all his pieces are passive. His hanging pawns in the centre theoretically have some dynamic potential, but it could be discovered only if the pawns were supported by active pieces. These

24.Qd1 Nf5 25.Bf2 26.Rc2 Rfe8 27.Rxe8+

Rf8

It is difficult to understand why Hammer decided to trade both rooks. He could have imposed a total domination of his pieces by 27.Nac5 Nxc5 28.Nxc5 Qf7 29.Bxf5 gxf5 30.Rce2 Rxe2 31.Rxe2 Rf8 32.Bd4:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9zpl+-+qvlp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-sNp+p+-0 9-+-vL-zP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+R+PzP0 9+-+Q+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 83

Part 2 Having a rook which rules over the open e-file is certainly in White’s favour here. 27...Rxe8 28.Re2 Ra8? An incredible decision. Black assigns its rook the role of a defender of the a7-pawn! 28...Rxe2 29.Qxe2 Qf7 would have held on. Then 30.Bxa7?! Ba6 would even turn the tables! 29.Qe1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zpl+n+-vlp0 9-+p+-wqp+0 9+-+p+n+-0 9N+-+-zPL+0 9+-+N+-+-0 9PzP-+RvLPzP0 9+-+-wQ-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

84

29...d4? This loses the unfortunate bishop on b7. 29...Ba6 kept Black in the game. 30.Re8+ Nf8 31.Rxa8 Bxa8 32.Qe8 Ne3 33.Bf3? 33.Be2 was winning much faster. 33...Bb7 34.Nac5 Qf5 35.Be4 Qc8 36.Qe7 Ba6 37.h3 Bxd3 38.Bxd3 Nd5 39.Qxa7 Nxf4 40.Bc4+ Nd5 41.Ne4 Ne6 42.Nd6 Qc7 43.Qa8+ Bf8 44.Ne8 Qb6 45.Qc8 Nef4 46.Qd7 Kh8 47.Qf7 Bh6 48.Nf6 Nxf6 49.Qxf6+ Bg7 50.Qxf4 Qxb2 51.Bg3 d3 52.Qb8+ Qxb8 53.Bxb8 d2 54.Bb3 c5 55.Kf1 c4 56.Bc2 c3 57.a4 1-0

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5

Part 3

Benoni/Volga Deviations 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+pzpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

85

Part 3

Part 3

Main Ideas Although 3...c5 formally leads to Volga/Benoni pawn structures, the particular move order with 3.f3 brings about independent variations which have their own opening theory. Let us start with the Volga hybrid:

have both! If Black tries now the standard Volga plan with:

A. 3.f3 c5 4.d5 b5 5.cxb5 a6 6.e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+PzpP+-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+N0 9-zP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9+-+pzpp+p0 9p+-+-snp+0 9+PzpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

In the pure Volga, it is impossible for White to win the b5-pawn while also accomplishing e2-e4 in one step. There is a quite modern variation which features 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.f3 whereas Black’s best answers are 5...axb5 6.e4 Qa5+ or the immediate attack in the centre 5...e6. Another version is 4.f3 bxc4. In these lines White achieves to play e4, but he has not a tempo for winning a pawn. In the diagram position, we 86

6...d6 (otherwise we play Nh3!) 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.a4 0-0 9.Be3 Nbd7 10.Nh3! Ne8 11.Be2, he will land in a passive position without a centre and a pawn.

White will proceed with a kingside attack: Nf2, h4-h5. In practice Black prefers 9...e6 10.dxe6 Bxe6 and I propose here 11.Nh3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9p+-zplsnp+0 9+Pzp-+-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+N0 9-zP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 The standard 11.Nge2 is also good, but let Black take on h3 and struggle without a pawn, lightsquared bishop and a centre! You should remember two things about this variation: Put the bishop on e3, from where it restricts Black’s counterplay, and the knight on h3, even under the hit of the c8-bishop (if Black has already opened the centre by ...e6). B. Benoni Structures In practice, Black commonly plays ...c5 after he has castled. Let us investigate the pros and cons of the early 3...c5. Pros: 1. After 3...c5, White has not a choice, but play 4.d5 while in the event of 3...Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5, his most popular answer is 7.Ne2 keeping the tension in the centre. Black still can get a Benoni structure with 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne5, but then White will have f4 with a tempo. 2. 3...c5 4.d5 e6 5.e4 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 offers him the option of choosing sharp set-up with an early ...Nh5 as in Game 14 Giri-Ivanchuk: 7.Ne2 Nh5. 3. Black sidesteps the pawn sacrifice 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.dxc5 which may be not dangerous, but still might be unpleasant to materialistic players.

Cons: Having seen 3...c5 played, White can abandon the typical set-up altogether and opt for Na3 or Nd2, leaving c3 for the king’s knight. That solves the inherent drawback of the Sämish set-up where the knight has to tread on a long path (commonly Ne2-g3-h1-f2 or Ne2-f1-d2) before finding a decent stand. Note that the attempt to employ the same manoeuvre after 3...Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2 0-0 6.Be3 (instead of 6.Nbc3) 6... c5 7.d5 stumbles into 7...Qb6!?. But 7.Qd2 is possible - see Part 9! 2. White can develop his bishop to g5 instead of e3. In the standard move order that would be an arguable idea as Black could try to exploit the weakness of d4. Finally, if White likes the variation 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.d5, the early 3...c5 should lead to a simple transposition. White’s basic set-up against the Benoni structure can be illustrated with the following diagram:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqntrk+0 9+p+-+-vlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+l+-0 9Psn-+-+-+0 9sN-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.g4! Bd7 18.Nc4 b6 (18...b5 19.Nxd6) 19.Ne4 with total domi87

Part 3 nation. In order to escape this scenario, Black tries after: 3.f3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.e4 the following main plans:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zpp+p0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 1. 5...e6 6.Bg5!? I also consider in detail 6.Ne2, but the text is more straightforward as it cuts off a number of options for Black. 6...exd5 7.cxd5 Bg7 8.Qd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tRN+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

In such positions Black cannot stand the pin for long as his most active plans are based on ...f7-f5. 8...h6 9.Be3 0-0 10.Ne2! Do not play a4 until you have to. 10...Re8 11.Nec3 Nbd7 12.Be2 88

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+n+pvl-0 9-+-zp-snpzp0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tRN+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White will complete development with 0-0, a4, Na3 and he will think about Rb1, followed up by b4 (or Nc2 first). Black can never accomplish ...b5 so his natural counterplay should be connected with ...f5. In my opinion, he should defend the h6-pawn with 12...Kh7 (we see here the merit of Bg5!) 13.0-0 Nh5 14.a4 f5 15.Na3. White’s space advantage assures him of some initiative. In practice, however, he weakens his kingside with 12...h5 13.0-0 Nh7 14.a4 f5 15.Na3² or 12...a6 13.a4 h5 14.0-0 Nh7 when 15.h3!? (to meet 15...Ne5?! by 16.f4 Nf7 17.Bf3²) 15...f5 16.Na3 fxe4 17.Nxe4 Ndf6 18.Bd3 Nxe4 19.fxe4². It is easy to play with a space advantage provided that the opponent has not serious threats. 2. A refined version of the previous plan is when Black aims for ...f5, but delays taking on d5. Thus he’ll be able to recapture on f5 by the e6-pawn, reaching a symmetric pawn structure. Although this approach is somewhat passive and not characteristic for Benoni adepts, we should know how to cope with it.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 5...Bg7 6.Ne2 0-0 7.Nec3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most principled set-up. White tries to extract the maximum from the particular move order. From the diagram position Black chooses plans with ...f5 or with ...b5. In the former case we develop our bishop to g5 to provoke the weakening ...h6. In the latter case Be3, keeping an eye on the c5-pawn, is preferable. 7...e6 Gelfand’s 7...Nh5 8.Bg5! Bf6 would be difficult to understand after 9.Be3.

12.exf5 exf5÷. The point of Black’s set-up is the possibility of recapturing on f5 by the e-pawn. I think that we must hamper his design. 8...h6 9.Be3 Nh5 10.Qd2 Kh7 11.g4! Nf6 12.Be2 a6 13.a4 exd5 14.cxd5 Nbd7 15.Na3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-tr-+0 9+p+n+pvlk0 9p+-zp-snpzp0 9+-zpPs+-+-0 9P+-+P+P+0 9sN-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has accomplished his aim. He has full control over the board. Black can also get a similar position with a knight on e8 (accordingly, White has not g4), but then he would not be threatening with ...f5-f4.

8.Bg5! We must make Black pay to get ...Nh5. 8.Be3 Nh5 9.g4 Nf6 is unclear or 9.Qd2 f5 10.Bg5 Bf6 11.Bxf6 Nxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tRN+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3. Black aims for ...b5 5...Bg7 6.Ne2 0-0 7.Nec3 Na6 8.Be2 Nc7 9.Be3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppsn-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tRN+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 89

Part 3 Black’s knight on c7 makes a possible attack with ...f5 ineffective so we have not any compelling reason to put our bishop on g5. On the contrary – we need it on e3. It can support a future b2-b4 and it also enables tactical blows like e4-e5, based on the hanging c5-pawn. 9...a6 10.a4 Rb8 11.0-0 Bd7 12.Na3 Nfe8 13.Qd2 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqntrk+0 9+psnl+pvlp0 9p+-zpp+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+P+P+-+0 9sN-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is threatening to open the b-file with Rab1 and b2-b4 so Black has not much of a choice. On the other hand, we are better prepared for play in the centre. 14.a5! b5 15.axb6 Rxb6 16.f4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqntrk+0 9+-snl+pvlp0 9ptr-zpp+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9sN-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The bishop on e3 is now the leading character in Black’s drama. e4-e5 can be prevented only by 16... e5 which is a strategically horrible concession due to 17.f5. 90

Important strategic motifs I would like to show you another example where e4-e5 could be a valuable resource for White: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+-zP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.e5!? dxe5 12.Ng3 h5 13.g5 Nfd7 14.Nge4. The d5-pawn is extremely powerful while the g7-bishop is safely neutralised. The thrust e4-e5 is good mostly when Black’s pieces are passive. Sadler-Tkachiev Enghien les Bain 1999

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppsn-+-vlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9P+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tRN+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here 13.e5?! (13.exf5) 13...dxe5 14.Bxc5 Rf7 does not disturb Black at all. White should also be acquainted with the symmetric pawn structure with an open e-file.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 W.Arencibia-Ivanovic Manila 1990

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9zppsn-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tRN+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position is extremely solid, but not too promising for White. He has a stable space advantage which should keep him out of trouble no matter how he manoeuvres. But he has not any lever on the kingside so it would be nearly impossible to develop an attack. See this instructive Game 13 in the “Complete Games” chapter.

Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+ntrk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9n+-zp-+p+0 9wq-zpPvlpvL-0 9P+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zPNwQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here the pawn on f5 weakens Black’s kingside so we have more chances to shatter his defence: 16...f4 17.g4 (17.g3!?) 17...fxg3 18.hxg3 Bh3 19.Rfc1 Bxg3 20.f4 Ng7 21.Qd3²; 16...Bd7 17.Bd3 Nb4 18.Nxb4 Qxb4 19.g3 Nf6 20.Kg2 a6 21.a5 b5 22.axb6 Qxb6 23.Rfe1². The e7square is vulnerable to invasion.

91

Part 3

Part 3

Step by Step

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+pzpp+p0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+P+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy A. 4...b5; B. 4...d6 (4...Bg7)

4...e5?! is too passive. The closed centre suggests plans with long castling and a kingside pawn storm. I like the flexible 5.Nh3!? d6 6.Nf2 Bg7 (Romanishin played 6...Nh5, but it only provokes 7.g4!) 7.Nc3 0-0 8.g4 Ne8 9.h4 f5 10.h5. Of course, the natural development 5.e4 d6 6.Bd3 is also possible – 6...Nh5 7.Ne2 Be7 8.Be3 Bg5 9.Qd2 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 0-0 11.Nbc3 Na6 12.0-0-0. 4...e6 should transpose to line B. 92

A. 4...b5 5.cxb5 a6 6.e4 d6 6...Bg7 7.Nc3 0-0 gives White the option of 8.Nh3! d6 9.Nf2 9.Nf4 Nbd7 10.a4 should also be in White’s favour after 10...Ne8 (or 10...Qa5 11.Bd2) 11.Be3 Nc7 (11... Qa5 12.Ra3) 12.Be2 axb5 13.axb5 Bd4 14.Bf2. 9...Nbd7 10.a4 Ne8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+PzpP+-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zP-+-sNPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The knight on f2 combines attacking and defending functions. It covers checks along the a7-g1 diagonal, controls the important squares d3 and g4 (in the event of f4). At the same time, it supports a direct attack with h4 and g4. White can choose between piece play with 11.Bg5!? axb5 (11...Bd4 12.Be2 Nc7

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 13.0-0±) 12.Bxb5 or the sharper approach 11.Bd2 Nc7 12.h4!, intending to meet 12...h5 by 13.g4‚. 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.a4 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+PzpP+-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zP-+-+PzP0 9tR-vLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Main position for the 4...b5 line. Black is planning to attack the centre with ...e6 so we better hurry up to complete development. 9.Be3 Note that White needs the bishop here and not on g5. From e3, the bishop restricts Black’s most dangerous counterplay, based on ...e6 and ...d5, because of the hanging state of the c5-pawn (after e4-e5). 9...e6 Black should watch out for Nh3: Young Topalov played in 1992 9...Nbd7 10.Nh3 Ne5 11.Nf2 e6, but 12.f4 Neg4 13.Nxg4 Nxg4 14.Qxg4 exd5 15.Qg5 Qxg5 16.fxg5 d4 17.Bd2 dxc3 18.Bxc3 gives White the better endgame. Both drawbacks of White’s position, the b5-pawn and

uncastled king, suddenly turn into his biggest advantages, e.g. 18...Re8 19.Kd2 Rxe4 20.Be2 d5 21.Bf3 Re6 22.Rhd1 Rd6 23.b4². 9...Nfd7?! abandons the centre: 10.Nh3 axb5 11.Bxb5 Ba6 12.0-0 Bxb5 13.axb5±. 9...Qa5 10.Ra3 Nbd7 11.Nh3². 10.dxe6 Bxe6 11.Nge2 I think that the novelty: 11.Nh3! is even more challenging. The idea behind it is to meet 11...axb5 12.Bxb5 Na6 13.Nf4±. 11...Bxh3 Alternatively, 11...d5 (or 11... Nbd7 12.Qxd6) 12.Bxc5 Re8 13.Ng5 Nbd7 14.Be3 dxe4 15.Nxe6 Rxe6 16.Bc4 Re7 17.f4±. 12.gxh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+Pzp-+-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+P0 9-zP-+-+-zP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s pawns may be split, but he has the bishop pair advantage in an open position. 11...axb5 After 11...d5 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Nf4 Bxb2 15.Rb1 Bc3+ 16.Kf2 Ba2 17.Qxd8 Rxd8 93

Part 3 18.Rc1² Bd2 (18...Bd4 19.b6 a5 20.Bxd4 cxd4 21.Bb5) 19.Rxc5, White is a pawn up in the endgame. 12.Nxb5 14.Be2

Na6

13.Nf4

d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9n+-+lsnp+0 9+Nzpp+-+-0 9P+-+PsN-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is yet to prove that he can equalise here. Most endgames would be worse for him due to the distant passed pawn on a4. The game Goganov-Rakhmanov, Voronezh 2012, went 14...Qe7 (Another option is 14...Qa5+ 15.Bd2 Qb6 16.0-0 dxe4 17.Bc3 Rad8 18.Qe1².) when instead of 15.e5, White should have played 15.0-0 dxe4 16.Qd6 Qxd6 17.Nxd6 exf3 18.Bxf3, e.g. 18...Rab8 19.Be2 Nc7 20.Bxc5 Rxb2 21.Nc4 Rxe2 22.Nxe2 Bxc4 23.Bxf8 Kxf8 24.Rac1 Bxe2 25.Rfe1±.

5...d6. I do not see any reason behind 5...0-0. White can continue with the standard 6.Ne2 when play should transpose to the main line. However, he can also opt for the more challenging 6.Nh3 d6 7.Nf2. As a rule, it is a good idea to develop the knight here in the Benoni structures. Instead of following the route of Ng1-e2-g3-h1-f2, or Ng1e2-g3-f1-e3, it is better to save a tempo if the opponent allows it. The game Korchnoi-Miles, Buenos Aires 1978, went further with 7... e6 8.Nc3 Na6 9.Be2 Nc7 10.0-0 a6 11.Bg5 h6 12.Be3 exd5 13.cxd5 b5 14.Qd2 Kh7 15.e5!². 4...e6 5.e4 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 transposes to line B1. 5.e4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zpp+p0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy B1. 5...e6; B2. 5...Bg7

B. 4...d6 Black can also play first 4...Bg7 5.e4 (5.Nh3 is premature due to 5... b5 6.cxb5 a6 when 7.e4 does not work: 7...axb5 8.Bxb5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 Nxe4 10.fxe4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxb5) 94

B1. 5...e6 6.Ne2 I would like to recommend 6.Bg5!?. I suppose that when ...c5 has been played, this active de-

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 velopment is always a worthy option. By some reason, it has never caught on, maybe because White got crushed in the first two and only games where it was tested. Unfortunately, I cannot back my proposition with enough practical examples so I’ll have to offer only a short analysis: 6...exd5 7.cxd5 Bg7

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRN+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.Qd2 (8.Ne2!? is also possible) 8...h6 9.Be3 0-0 10.Ne2! (beware the trap 10.Bxh6? Nxe4! 11.fxe4 Qh4+µ) The stem game Rogers-Wang Zili, Sydney 1991, saw 10.a4. I would hesitate to invite the enemy knight to b4. After 10...Na6 11.Ne2 Nb4, all the black pieces take good stands, e.g. 12.Nec3 Nh5 13.g4 Nf6 14.Na3 Nd7 15.Be2 Qh4+ 16.Bf2 Qe7 17.0-0 Ne5 18.h3 g5. 10...Re8 11.Nec3 Nbd7 12.Be2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9zpp+n+pvl-0 9-+-zp-snpzp0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tRN+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...a6 Black can refrain from this move thus saving a tempo, because it only provokes the useful a4. I suppose that Black’s best set-up here is: 12...Kh7 (instead of the weakening ...h5) 13.0-0 Nh5 14.a4 f5 15.Na3. White’s space advantage assures him of some initiative, but Black’s position is quite solid. In practice, however, we witness only the plan with ...h5, ...Nh7. It is typical against the set-up with Ng1-e2-g3, but it looks ineffective in the current circumstances: 12...h5 13.0-0 Nh7 14.a4 (Liar­ det-Mrdja, Geneve 1990, went 14.h3 f5 15.Na3 Re8 16.Rab1! Nf7 17.b4 b6 18.bxc5 bxc5 19.Bb5 Bd7 when 20.Nc4² would have completed White’s plan for a queenside activity. Still, I do not see a compelling reason to weaken our kingside.) 14...f5 15.Na3². Black does have a nice outpost on e5, but his castling position is compromised and his queenside is rather cramped. 13.a4 h5 (13...Kh7!?) 14.0-0 Nh7 15.Kh1 15.h3!? is also possible: 15... f5 (15...Ne5?! 16.f4 Nf7 17.Bf3²) 16.Na3 fxe4 (16...g5?! is enticing, but it fails tactically: 17.f4! g4 18.hxg4 hxg4 19.Nc4 g3 20.Nxd6 Qh4 21.Rf3 Qh2+ 22.Kf1 Qh1+ 23.Bg1 Bd4 24.Rxg3+.) 17.Nxe4 Ndf6 18.Bd3 Nxe4 19.fxe4². 15...Ne5 16.h3 f5 17.Na3 Nf6 This position has occurred in Rogers-Wang Zili, Sydney 1991. 95

Part 3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+-+-vl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsnp+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9sN-sN-vLP+P0 9-zP-wQL+P+0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

White chose 18.f4?! Nf7 19.e5?! dxe5 20.Bxc5 which is a typical mistake in this structure. Instead, he should keep the tension in the centre by 18.Bf4 or 18.Rae1, planning eventually Nc2 and b2-b4. It is always easier to play with more space in the centre. 6...exd5 6...b5 7.dxe6 Bxe6 8.cxb5 d5 9.Nf4 gets the most of 6.Ne2. 7.cxd5 Nh5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-+n0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

An Ivanchuk’s brainchild, obviously aimed against Bg5. The possibility for this move made me recommend 6.Bg5 – not because 7...Nh5 is that dangerous, but to save you 96

some studying of additional variations. From h5, the knight supports the advance ...f7-f5-f4. This would be a great positional achievement for Black which we cannot afford to allow. Our standard plan with Ng1-e2-c3 must go to the trash can. Instead, we’ll take the provocation and launch a pawn storm against Black’s king. 7...b5 is a strategic mistake. After 8.Ng3 a6 9.a4 b4 (9...bxa4 10.Qxa4+ Bd7 11.Qb3 Qc7 12.Bd2 Bg7 13.Ba5±) 10.Nd2, Black’s queenside will be totally paralysed. That would leave White’s pawn majority on the other flank undisputed. (Note that 10.a5 before Black has played ...Nbd7 is slightly inaccurate in view of the manoeuvre Bc8-d7-b5 although White still gets some edge: 10...h5 11.Be2 h4 12.Nf1 Bd7 13.Nbd2 Bb5 14.Nc4 Bxc4 15.Bxc4 Nbd7 16.Ne3²) 10...Nbd7 (10...a5 11.Bb5+) 11.a5, intending to meet 11...Ne5 by 12.f4. 8.Be3 In the source Game 14 GiriIvanchuk, blindfold, Beijing 2012, White prevented ...Qh4+ by 8.g3?!, but after 8...Bg7 9.Nbc3 0-0 10.Be3 Nd7 11.g4 it turned out that he has lost a clear tempo. The game is nevertheless very interesting as it is a model of the plans of both sides. 8...Bg7 8...f5 is premature as White can castle long and play for a direct

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 attack after 9.exf5 gxf5 10.Nbc3 Bg7 11.Qd2 0-0 12.0-0-0!?, for example: 12...a6 13.Ng3; 12...b5 13.Ng3 (13.Nxb5±) 13... Nxg3 14.hxg3 b4 15.Ne2 b3 16.axb3 Na6 17.Bh6 Rf7 18.Bxg7 Rxg7 19.Re1 Nb4 20.Nf4 Qa5 21.Kd1. White’s king can always run away to the other flank while Black would not be able to set up co-ordination between his pieces. 9.Nbc3 0-0 Black must complete development or he might face: 9...a6?! 10.g4 Nf6 11.e5!? dxe5 12.Ng3. This pawn structure is usually difficult for Black. His extra pawn on e5 only deprives him of any counterplay. At the same time, White has full control over the centre and a tremendous pawn on d5. The following variation illustrates that White has lasting pressure with simple natural moves: 12...h5 (or Black risks to be run over on the kingside) 13.g5 Nfd7 14.Nge4 (14.Qd2 0-0 15.0-0-0 b5) 14...0-0 15.Qd2 b5 16.Be2 c4 17.0-0 Nb6 (17...f5 18.gxf6 Nxf6 19.a4±) 18.b4 cxb3 19.axb3 N8d7 20.Rfd1 f5 21.gxf6 Nxf6 22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 23.Bd3 Ra7 24.Kh1 Rg7 25.Be4±. 9...Nd7 deprives the other knight of its natural retreat square: 10.g4! (10.Ng3 Nxg3 11.hxg3 h5 12.Be2 Ne5 13.g4 hxg4 14.Rxh8+ Bxh8 15.f4 Nd7 16.Bxg4 was unclear in Parligras-Kadric, Skopje 2013.) 10...Nhf6 11.g5

11.Ng3 h5 12.g5 h4! 13.gxf6 Qxf6 14.e5 Qxe5 15.Nge4 f5 16.Rg1 fxe4 17.Rxg6 0-0 18.Nxe4 Qxb2 19.Bh6 Rf7 is a total mess. 11...Nh5 12.Ng3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qe7 14.Qd2 a6 15.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9+p+nwqpvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-zP-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-zP-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s pawns rule over the board. For example: 15...0-0 (15... b5 16.e5 dxe5 17.d6±) 16.0-0-0 Re8 17.Bd3 b5 18.Rde1 Nf8 19.f5 Be5 20.Bf4±. 10.g4 Nf6 11.Qd2 12.Ng3 Ne8 13.Be2

Nbd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9zpp+n+pvlp0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQL+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s play on the kingside is crystal clear and straightforward while Black is far from generating any threat on the opposite wing. The game may continue with 13... 97

Part 3 Nc7 14.a4 b6 [14...a6 15.Bh6 (or the thematic 15.f4!? Rb8 16.e5 dxe5 17.f5) 15...Qe7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.h4‚; 14...Ne5 15.h3 Re8 (15... c4 16.0-0 b6 17.Kg2±) 16.f4] 15.h4 Ba6 16.Nb5². B2. 5...Bg7 6.Ne2 0-0 Black does not get benefits from delaying castling. The game LeroyConquest, Hastings 2008, went 6... Nbd7 7.Nec3 a6 8.a4 Qa5 9.Na3 h5 10.Be2 h4 11.0-0 Nh5 12.Nc2 f5 13.exf5 gxf5 14.f4 Ndf6 when 15.Bd2 Qc7 16.a5± or 16.Ne3± is quite good for White.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 7.Nec3!?

This move is less explored, but more principled than 7.Nbc3. Anand put his faith in it in the world title match against Gelfand (and won!). Indeed, it is very tempting to find a good place for the most unfortunate white piece in the Sämish. On the other hand, now the queen’s knight becomes a “problem child” no matter whether 98

it goes to d2 (the reserved place for the queen) or a3 – where it has only restrictive functions. Another drawback is the weakening of the kingside. Now I’ll consider 3 different approaches of Black: an immediate attack on the kingside with ...f5: B21. 7...Nh5; the standard undermining of the centre with B22. 7...e6 and finally, the plan with B23. 7...Na6-c7. B21. 7...Nh5 8.Bg5! a) 8.g4 is tempting, but risky because White lacks piece support for his advanced pawns. After 8...Nf6 he probably should opt for a basically defensive move like: 9.Be2!? since 9.h4 is dubious: 9...h5 (9...e6 10.h5 a6 11.a4 exd5 12.cxd5 Nbd7 13.Be2 Ne5 14.Be3 Rb8 15.Na3 Qe7 16.Kf2 Re8 17.h6 Bh8 18.g5 was unclear in Ivanisevic-Aliyev, Wheeling 2012. Black should have retreated: 18...Nh5 when 19.f4 Ng4+! 20.Bxg4 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Qxe4 gives him decent compensation.) 10.Be2 (or 10.g5 Ne8) 10...e6 11.g5 Ne8 12.Be3 Nc7 13.a4 exd5 14.cxd5 Nd7 15.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppsnn+pvl-0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-zPp0 9P+-+PzP-zP0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-+L+-+0 9tRN+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 15...f5!. Black can even sacrifice the exchange on f5 in the event of 16.exf5 Rxf5, leaving White with a bunch of useless pieces. 9...e6 (9...h5 10.h3!?) 10.Be3 a6 11.a4 Ne8 12.h4 f5. Black takes over the initiative. b) 8.Be3 f5 would be similar to the line 8.Bg5 h6 9.Be3, only Black has not weakened the square g6.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-vLn0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 8...h6

Gelfand played in the stem game 8...Bf6 9.Bxf6 exf6?! and after 10.Qd2 f5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.g4! Re8?!+ 13.Kd1!, it turned out that White’s king is safer than its black counterpart. The game and the commentaries were very interesting, but it is of no theoretical interest since 9...Nxf6 would have preserved a more flexible pawn structure. Besides, I do not believe that Gelfand’s eighth move will attract many followers simply because the natural retort 9.Be3!? would leave Black rather unco-ordinated and without a clear plan. Anand sug-

gested 8...h6 so I have spent a lot of time to analyse it. 9.Be3 f5 10.exf5 gxf5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zp-vl-0 9-+-zp-+-zp0 9+-zpP+p+n0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position. At a cursory glance it looks clearly in White’s favour. Engines also like it. However, they cannot assess correctly the fact that White can easily find himself without any active plan. Let’s investigate the most natural development: 11.Qd2 f4 12.Bf2 Nd7 13.g4 Ne5 14.Be2 Nf6. It is obvious that White’s set-up is wrong – he must waste a tempo on 15.Qc2 a6 16.Nd2 b5 and the initiative is entirely in Black’s possession. 13.Ne4 Ne5 14.Be2 Bf5 15.Nbc3 would solve the development problem of the white knight, but 15... Qe8 heading to g6 offers Black an easy game. In this line, White might never be able to push g4 and Black’s bishop feels fine on f5 anyway. So I tried to restrict it by early g4: 11.Be2 f4 12.Bf2 Nd7 13.g4 Nhf6 99

Part 3 14.Nd2 (14.Rg1 a6 15.Nd2 b5) 14... Ne5 15.Qc2 a6 16.0-0-0 (16.Rg1 Qe8 17.h4 h5 18.gxh5 Qxh5÷) 16... b5 17.Rhg1 Qe8!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+qtrk+0 9+-+-zp-vl-0 9p+-zp-sn-zp0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+P+-zpP+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzPQsNLvL-zP0 9+-mKR+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The queen threatens to go to g6 so 18.g5 hxg5 19.Rxg5 looks indispensable, but then 19...Nh7 20.Rgg1 Qh5 questions White’s future plan. In most variations he quickly runs short of useful moves and lacks any target. If White inserts h4 at an earlier stage, Black can even answer ...h5!. He has other resources, too, as ...e6. Eventually, I understood that White needs a completely different approach. He needs to discard any ideas with g4 (until he fixes the queenside!) and focus on the left wing. Naturally, we do not need the bishop on e2 for this scenario so we can activate it on the important diagonal b1-h7 (and deprive the enemy queen of g6!). 11.Bd3! f4 12.Bf2 Nd7 13.Bg6! Nhf6 14.Qe2 Ne5 15.Bc2 a6 16.a4! This move not only restricts ...b5, but it also enables a4-a5 with an imminent b2-b4. 100

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-zp-vl-0 9p+-zp-sn-zp0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9P+P+-zp-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zPL+QvLPzP0 9tRN+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Qe8 17.Nd2 Qh5 18.0-0

a5 Aimed against 19.a5. Black hopes that his blockade on the e5 will save him from trouble, but, slowly, White should be able to invade the enemy camp through the e-file. 18...b6 does not change significantly White’s play. Here is an example how we can redeploy our pieces to target the critical black outpost: 19.Kh1 Bf5 20.Bxf5 Qxf5 21.Nde4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 a5 23.Be1 Kh8 24.Bc3 Rf7 25.Nf2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-mk0 9+-+-zprvl-0 9-zp-zp-+-zp0 9zp-zpPsnq+-0 9P+P+-zp-+0 9+-vL-+P+-0 9-zP-+QsNPzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy Now Black should reckon with Ng4, Nd3 and even Bxe5, followed by Nd3. His proud f4-pawn would be a serious weakness in an endgame. The b6-pawn is also very

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 sensitive. For example: 25...Rg8 26.Rae1 Qg6 27.Qe4 Qh5 28.Nd3². 19.Ra3 Bd7 20.Rb3 Rab8 21.Kh1 b6 22.Rg1 At last White returns to the plan with g4 (g3) which was possible, but not best, ten moves ago. He is aiming to shift his bishop to c3 or open the g-file at an opportunity, e.g. 22...Nh7 23.Be1 Kh8 24.Ra3 Bf6 25.Nce4 Bh4 26.g3². B22. 7...e6 8.Bg5! If Black has already committed himself with ...c5, we should always consider the option of developing our bishop to g5! Black did not play ...Nh5 on the previous move, but that does not mean he discarded this challenging plan altogether. 8.Be2 would be met by 8...Nh5! when 9.g4? Qh4+ 10.Kd2 Nf4 was grim, Ko­tanjianNalbandian, Yerevan 2007. 8.Be3 Nh5 9.g4 Nf6 is unclear. I discussed this sharp position in line B1 – see 8.g4. If White tries 9.Qd2, then Black has 9...f5 and I do not see a clear plan for White. 10.Bg5 Bf6 11.Bxf6 Nxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tRN+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.exf5 exf5 13.Be2 Nbd7 14.Na3 Ne5 15.f4 Nf7÷. The bottom line is that if Black achieves ...Nh5 and ...f5 without any concessions, he would obtain an easy game. Note that the above is true if Black had not exchanged earlier on d5 and kept the option of taking on f5 by the e6-pawn. 8...h6 I do not believe that Black can avoid this move. Naturally, he can try some passive set-up like 8... exd5 9.cxd5 a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.Be2 Qc7 12.Na3 Re8 13.0-0 Ne5, but White has the upper hand, e.g. 14.f4 Ned7 15.Qc2². 9.Be3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-+-zppsnpzp0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black should now make a critical choice. He can opt for the more passive plan with ...Na6, or take a more challenging approach with... f5. 9...Nh5 101

Part 3 9...Ne8 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 f5 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.Qd2 looks passive for Black who has constantly to worry about possible g4:

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqntrk+0 9zpp+-+-vl-0 9-+-zp-+pzp0 9+-zpP+l+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tRN+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...Nc7 14.Na3 a6 15.g4 Bd7 16.0-0 b5 17.Nc2 Kh7 18.Bf4 Be8 19.Rae1² with active pieces. 10.Qd2 Kh7 A sad necessity for Black. He practically resigns the opening battle, but the principled 10...f5 11.Bxh6! (11.dxe6?! f4 12.Bf2 Bxe6) 11...Qh4+ 12.Kd1! would leave him not only a pawn down, but , more importantly, with a weak castling position! Indeed, White’s king often feels fine on the queenside in this Sämish-Benoni hybrid (remember the game Anand-Gelfand where we witnessed a similar concrete approach!). White is threatening with Bg5 so: 12...Ng3 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qe1 Rh8 15.hxg3 Qxh1 16.Nb5 fxe4 17.Nd2 exf3 18.gxf3 Na6 19.Nxd6±. Black’s kingside is in ruins. 11.g4! (11.Be2 f5) 11...Nf6 12.Be2 a6 13.a4 exd5 14.cxd5 Nbd7 15.Na3 Ne5 16.h3 102

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-tr-+0 9+p+-+pvlk0 9p+-zp-snpzp0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9P+-+P+P+0 9sN-sN-vLP+P0 9-zP-wQL+-+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is in command all over the board. Black will never be able to do anything on the queenside while on the other wing clouds are slowly, but implacably gathering over Black’s king. The game may conti­ nue with 16...Re8 17.Kf1 b6 18.Kg2 Ra7 19.f4 Ned7 20.Bf3±. B23. 7...Na6 8.Be2 Nc7 8...Nh5 does not fit in with Black’s previous move. White should probably meet it by the thematic 9.Bg5 as in the other lines. A fresh independent variation is 9.Be3 e6 (planning ...f5) 10.g4 Bd4 11.Bxd4 cxd4 12.gxh5 dxc3 13.Nxc3 Qh4+ 14.Kd2 Qxh5 15.h4 Qe5 16.Qg1 Bd7 17.h5. White has kept his strong centre while his king is ready to accomplish an artificial castling by Rc1, Kd2-c2-b1. 9.Be3 9.Bg5 is also possible, but with a black knight on c7, it is better to prepare for queenside play. Our

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 bishop will be more useful on e3 to keep an eye on c5 and support plans with b2-b4 or e4-e5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppsn-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tRN+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9...a6

9...e6 mixes up two plans, but it is a natural move, of course, provided that Black does not rush to take on d5 (which would offer our queen’s knight a dream stand on c4). 10.a4 (Otherwise Black has ...b5 – 10.0-0 exd5 11.cxd5 b5 12.Nxb5 Nxb5 13.Bxb5 Rb8 14.Nc3 a6 15.Bc6 Rxb2=) 10...Nfe8 Aiming for ...f5 and preserving the option to recapture on f5 by the epawn. 10...exd5 11.cxd5 Nfe8 12.0-0 f5 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.Na3 Na6 15.Qd2 Nb4 16.Kh1 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqntrk+0 9+p+-+-vlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+l+-0 9Psn-+-+-+0 9sN-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black’s pieces lack coordination. White seizes the initiative with 17.g4! Bd7 18.Nc4 b6 (18... b5 19.Nxd6) 19.Ne4 Qc7 and here he can bring another hit on d6 by 20.Bf2 Rd8 21.Bh4 Bf6 22.Bg3 Bc8 23.Rac1 a5 (23...Bb7 24.Ncxd6 Nxd6 25.Qxb4) 24.Rce1 with total domination. 11.Qd2 f5 12.exf5! exf5 13.Na3 Na6 14.Nc2 Be5 15.Bg5 Qa5 16.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+ntrk+0 9zpp+-+-+p0 9n+-zp-+p+0 9wq-zpPvlpvL-0 9P+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zPNwQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s space advantage makes his chances slightly preferable. He should aim to open the kingside. Here are some illustrative variations: 16...f4 17.g4 (17.g3!?) 17...fxg3 18.hxg3 Bh3 19.Rfc1 Bxg3 (19...Nf6 20.Kh2 Bf5 21.Re1 Nb4 22.Nxb4 Qxb4 23.Kg2 Rf7 24.g4²) 20.f4 Ng7 21.Qd3 Nf5 22.Ne4 h6 23.Bxh6 Nxh6 24.Qxg3 Bf5 25.Nxd6 Rf6 26.Nxf5 Nxf5 27.Qg2²; 16...Bd7 17.Bd3 Nb4 18.Nxb4 Qxb4 19.g3 Nf6 20.Kg2 a6 21.a5 b5 22.axb6 Qxb6 23.Rfe1 Rab8 24.Re2 Rfe8 25.Rae1 Nh5 26.Nd1 a5 27.Qc2 Qb3 28.Qxb3 Rxb3 29.Bc2 Rbb8 30.b3². 10.a4 Rb8 11.0-0 Bd7 12.Na3 103

Part 3 Black has not any other idea but to start chipping at White’s centre with ...e6 and ...f5. However, he should defend first the d6-pawn. 12...Nfe8 13.Qd2 e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqntrk+0 9+psnl+pvlp0 9p+-zpp+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+P+P+-+0 9sN-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 14.a5

We have a space advantage which allows us to quickly transfer pieces to zones of conflict. Thus we can kill any counterplay with ...b5 and turn our attention to the centre. On the other hand, all our pieces are targeted on the left wing so in general we should be happy to open the b-file. The plan with b2-b4 is inherent to White’s set-up. You should be familiar with it as it is often White’s best approach against Black’s waiting tactics. In the current position, it is not too effective though: 14.Rab1!? exd5 15.cxd5 b5 (15...f5?! 16.a5 b5 17.axb6 Rxb6

104

18.Nc4± Rb7 19.e5) 16.b4 f5! (16... cxb4 17.Rxb4 a5 18.Rxb5!? Nxb5 19.Naxb5 is easier to play as White) 17.axb5 axb5 18.Nc2. White’s pieces are compact in the centre, but not too active. 14...b5 15.axb6 Rxb6 This position has occurred in Laznicka-Polzin, Germany 2007 which went 16.Rfb1 Qb8 17.Ra2 Rb4 when 18.dxe6 would still be in White’s favour. White should have focused, however, on undermining the base of the c5-pawn by: 16.f4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqntrk+0 9+-snl+pvlp0 9ptr-zpp+p+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9sN-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now 16...e5? 17.f5± would be horrible for Black but after 16... Qe7 (16...Qb8 17.Ra2) 17.e5 dxe5 18.Ne4 Nd6 19.Nxd6 Qxd6 (19... Rxd6 20.Bxc5 exd5 21.Qb4±) 20.Qa5 White wins material.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5

Part 3

Complete Games 13. W.Arencibia-Ivanovic Manila 1990 This game is a good example of play in a symmetric pawn structure where Black has not any weaknesses on the kingside. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Ne2 e6 7.Nec3 Na6 8.Be2 Nc7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bg5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppsn-+pvlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tRN+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position of Black’s knight on c7 does not ensure control over c5 and e5. That may be exploited by the break-through e4-e5, but for this aim White’s bishop should be on e3. 10...Rb8 11.Qd2?!

11...exd5 12.exd5 Re8 A computer may assess this structure as slightly better for White due to his spatial advantage, but over the board humans are usually guided by plans. The problem here is that White has no active plan at all! He can only manoeuvre with his pieces, but he lacks targets. Any exchange favours Black. A heavy pieces endgame may even be pleasant for Black because the d6pawn is more easy to protect than c4 and a2. 13.Na3 a6 14.Rab1 Bf5 15.Rbe1 Bd7 16.Nc2 b5 17.b3 bxc4 18.bxc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-snl+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9P+NwQL+PzP0 9+-+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...Qe7 More consistent is 11.a4, but apparently White had set already his mind about taking on d5 by the epawn.

18...Na8!= heading for b6-a4 fitted better in Black’s general strate­ gy for exchanges. The text leaves 105

Part 3 the queenside a bit vulnerable to invasion from a5. 19.Bd3 Qf8 20.Rb1 Rxb1 21.Nxb1 Rb8 22.Qa5 Qc8 23.Nd2 Nfe8 24.Re1 Bf5 25.Ne4 Rb2 26.Bc1 Rb7 27.Bf4 Qd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+n+k+0 9+rsnq+pvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9wQ-zpP+l+-0 9-+P+NvL-+0 9+-+L+P+-0 9P+N+-+PzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has reached the maximum for this structure, but it is still unclear how he could make progress from here. In such situations, where you have not a clear plan, you should find a way to manoeuvre without spoiling your position. It is good to define some short-term goals, like making more room for the king with g3, Kg2, exchanging the light-squared bishops with Nd3-f2, improving the placement of the c2knight with Nc2-e3-f1-d2 etc. The most important thing, however, is to understand which piece would be favourable to exchange and which one to keep. In the diagram position, White obviously should guard his dark-squared bishop for at least two reasons – it attacks one of the two Black’s weaknesses, and it also controls the pene­tration square b2. The next moves, however, show that Arencibia did not understand the importance of that piece. 106

28.Kh1 Bxe4 29.Bxe4 Qd8 30.Qa4?! Bc3 31.Rf1 Rb6 32.Bd3 Qe7 33.Bg3 Ng7 34.Be1?! Bxe1 35.Rxe1 Qd8 36.Ne3 h5 37.Qa5 Nce8 38.Nd1 Kh7 39.Qc3 Nf6 40.Nf2 Nd7 The position is about equal, but it is already Black who has a clear strategic goal – he would like to trade queens and invade the second rank with his rook. White gradually gives up under the pressure and loses the endgame. 41.f4 Kg8 42.g3 Qf6 43.Qxf6 Nxf6 44.Re2 Nf5³ 45.Kg2 Nd4 46.Rd2 Kf8 47.Nd1 Rb4 48.h3 Nd7 49.Kf2 Ke7 50.g4 hxg4 51.hxg4 g5 52.fxg5 Ne5 53.Bf1 Nxg4+ 54.Kg3 Ne5 55.Ne3 Rb1 56.Rf2 a5 57.Ng4 Nxg4 58.Kxg4 a4 59.Bd3 Rg1+ 60.Kf4 a3 61.Rh2 Rd1 62.Ke3 Ra1 63.Rf2 (63.Rh7=) 63...Rh1 64.Bf1 Rh4 65.Rg2 Rh3+ 66.Ke4 Rh1 67.Rf2 Rh4+ 68.Kd3 Rh5 69.Rg2 Kf8 70.Ke3 Kg7 71.Bd3 Rh3+ 72.Ke4 Nf3 0-1 14. Giri-Ivanchuk blindfold, Beijing 2012 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 e6 5.e4 exd5 6.cxd5 d6 7.Ne2 Nh5 This move prevents the unpleasant pin from g5 and prepares ...f7-f5-f4. White can avoid it by 7.Bg5. After the text, 8.Be3 is the

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 most consistent retort. I completely fail to understand the reason behind Giri’s eighth move. It practically presents the opponent with a tempo.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+-+n0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.g3?! Bg7 9.Nbc3 0-0 10.Be3 Nd7 11.g4 Nhf6 12.Ng3 a6 13.a4 Rb8 14.Be2 Ne8 15.Qd2 Nc7 16.h4 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+-snn+pvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+pzpP+-+-0 9P+-+P+PzP0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9-zP-wQL+-+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.axb5

Naturally, White wants to keep the b-file closed, but he neglects the tempi, time and again in this game. It is better to play immediately 17.h5. Then 17...bxa4 18.Bg5 Qe8 (18...f6 19.Bf4) 19.Rxa4 Nb5 20.Nxb5 axb5 21.Ra7 would be a better version of the game course. 17...Nxb5 18.Nxb5 19.h5 Ne5 20.Bg5

axb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+pzpPsn-vLP0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-+-+PsN-0 9-zP-wQL+-+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

20...f6

In principle, Black should be happy to trade his bishop and build up a dark-squared blockade. However, 20...Bf6 21.Bxf6 Qxf6 22.Qh6 Qe7 (threatening with 22... g5) 23.g5! c4 24.f4 Ng4 25.Bxg4 Bxg4 26.Kf2 looks like a close call for Black. The threat of e5, followed up by Ne4, forces 26...Qc7 27.Rae1 and Black may be able to save the mate by 27...Qa5 28.hxg6 Qa7+ 29.Kg2 fxg6, but 30.Ref1 and then f4-f5 would be clearly in White’s favour. Ivanchuk correctly decides to entrench himself. 21.Bf4 Bd7 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Ra7 Ra8 24.Rxa8 Qxa8 25.Bh6 Rf7 26.Bxg7 Rxg7 27.g5 Qd8 28.f4 Nf7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wq-+k+0 9+-+l+ntr-0 9-+-zp-zpp+0 9+pzpP+-zP-0 9-+-+PzP-+0 9+-+-+-sN-0 9-zP-wQL+-+0 9+-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 107

Part 3 Black is only a move away from equality – he is hoping for ...Rh7, but White throws more oil into the fire with:

instance, 34...Ne5 35.Qh4 and the knight must beat in retreat. 31.Nf6+ Qxf6 32.gxf6 Rxh1+ 33.Kf2 exf4??

29.e5! fxe5 30.Ne4 Rh7! 30...exf4 31.Nf6+ Kf8 32.Qxf4 Bf5 33.Kf2 c4 34.Ra1 would have been difficult to hold. The rook on g7 is not only out of play, but it is also hampering its own king. For

108

Alas, Ivanchuk was literally blindfold and he blunders the point. 33...Rh4! was a fortress. 34.Qa5! Rh2+ 35.Ke1 Rh8 36.Qc7 Bf5 37.Qe7 1-0

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

Part 4

King’s Indian with ...c5 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

109

Part 4

Part 4

Main Ideas 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is the forth most popular answer according to my database. However, it has been Black’s weapon of choice lately. He has developed the aggressive plan with ...h5h4 which effectively neutralised the old main line 7.d5. I see two possible ways of opposing this idea. The one is to delay Nbc3 in favour of Ne2, Be3, Qd2, then push d5 and compete development by Ne2-c3 to reach positions from the previous chapter. I discuss it in Part 9. The other one is to provoke 7...Nc6 with the hope of gaining a tempo later with f4. 7.Nge2 Nc6 Most alternatives lead to different versions of the Maróczy Bind where the fianchettoed bishop on g7 is not the best set-up for Black 110

because his main active plan with ...e6 and ...d5 becomes problematic. White exploits the weakness of d5 and waits for an opportunity to pop a knight there. Then he takes by the e-pawn and enjoys a pull on the kingside. a) 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Be2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.0-0 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9-+lzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now simplest is to trade darksquared bishops and push f4: 13.Kh1 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 Qb6 16.Rae1² Rae8 17.Rf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-+0 9+p+nzppmkp0 9-wqlzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+R+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 See Game 21 Moiseenko-Guseinov, Ningbo 2011.

see my Game 23 Svetushkin-Dochev, Kirykos 2004.

b) 7...Qa5 8.Nc1 cxd4 9.Nb3

10.Nc1 cxd4 11.Bxd4 Bb7 12.Be2 Rc8 13.0-0 Qc7 14.Nb3 e6 We see a typical hedgehog with perhaps 2 extra tempi for White. Postny-Czarnota, Germany 2010, is a model example. White plays b4, Nb3 with a4-a5 in mind. If Black attempts Fischer’s manoeuver Be7-d8-c7, White attacks the d6pawn by Bf4 and takes on e5 (note that this idea is not effective until the black bishop remains on the f8a3 diagonal). 15.Be3 Ne8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Nd4 Nf6 18.b4 Ncd7 19.Nb3 Rfe8 20.Rfd1 Bf8 21.a3 Qb8 22.Bf1 Be7 23.Kh1 Bd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+PzpP+-+0 9+NsN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...Qe5!?

See the annotated Game 20 Dreev-Laksana, Jakarta 2011 for 9...Qc7. 10.Bxd4 Qf4 11.g3 Qg5 12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Be3 Qh5 14.Bg2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+q0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+NsN-vLPzP-0 9PzP-+Q+LzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The stem game Moiseenko-Morozevich, Saratov 2011, went 14... Nd7 15.Nd5! e6 when the computer finds a big advantage after 16.Nc7!! Rb8 17.Rd1. Shtohl re­ com­ mends 14...Bh3 15.0-0 Bxg2 16.Kxg2, but White’s game is better. c) 7...Nbd7 8.Qd2 a6 9.Rd1 b6 The symmetric pawn structure after 9...Qc7 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.Nf4 e6 12.Nd3 is very pleasant for White,

XIIIIIIIIY 9-wqrvlr+k+0 9+l+n+p+p0 9pzp-zppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zPP+P+-+0 9zPNsN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQ-+PzP0 9+-tRR+L+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.Bf4! 26.c5±.

Ne5

25.Bxe5!

dxe5

9.Ng3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 111

Part 4 The hottest branch here is 9...h5 while 9...e6 is the older treatment.

18...Nd3 (18...Ng3 19.fxe5²) 19.Bxh5 gxh5 20.Qxh5

A. 9...h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6 12.Nd2!

Black’s king has not any pawns around it. That makes its defence a difficult task.

Keep out of 12.f4 Nxc4!! 13.Bxc4 b5!! – Game 16 Svidler-Grischuk, FIDE ct. London 2013.

a6

12...exd5 13.cxd5 a6 14.0-0 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-sNL+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has accepted ...b5. That would promise Black a fair game stayed his h-pawn on h7. On h4, it is doomed to perish and the whole Black’s kingside is compromised. I propose to immobilise the pawn and eat it by Bg5. The following move is a novelty: 15.h3!? c4 16.Bg5 Qb6+(16... Bd7 17.a3!) 17.Kh2 Nh5 18.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9pwq-zp-+p+0 9+p+Psn-vLn0 9-+p+PzP-zp0 9+-sN-+-+P0 9PzP-sNL+PmK0 9tR-+Q+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

112

B. 9...e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 We follow the same developing scheme if Black refrains from ...a6. 12.a4 h5 12...Bd7 is a solid and somewhat passive alternative. I consider seve­ ral possible answers in the “Step by Step” chapter. Perhaps the following line would be most unpleasant for Black: 13.0-0 b5 14.h3 Rb8 15.f4!? Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Qd2!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+p+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-sNP0 9-zP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...Rb3 (Bologan)

Or 17...Re8 18.f5! Qe7 19.Rae1 Qe5 20.Qf2 h5 21.Bg5‚; 17...Ne8 18.f5! Be5 19.Nge2 Qe7 20.Rf2!? gxf5 21.exf5 Kh8 22.Bf4 Rg8 23.Bxe5+ Qxe5 24.Re1 Bxf5 25.Nf4 Qg7 26.Re7ƒ. 18.e5 Ne8 (18...dxe5 19.fxe5±) 19.Nge4 (Bologan considers only 19.Rae1)

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqntrk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzP-+-0 9P+p+NzP-+0 9+rsN-vL-+P0 9-zP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...f5 20.Nxc5! dxc5 21.Bxc5 Rf7 22.Qe2. White has a fantastic game. 13.0-0 Nh7 14.Qd2 h4 15.Nh1 f5 16.Nf2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+-vln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9P+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better game. He will take on f5, the king’s knight will go to h3, the bishop to f2. Then White can attack along the g-file with Kh1, Rg1, g3. See my Game 18 Svetushkin-Pavlidis, Porto Rio 2013. Important strategic motifs White often hesitates whether he should play h3. The answer depends on Black’s plan. If he refrains from ...h5, as in the event of 12... Bd7, we have to activate our f-pawn so we need h3 to control g4. If Black

chooses ...h5-h4, followed up by ...f5, we need the h3-square for our knight. Which pieces to change and which to keep? White can change one or even both rooks, but he usually needs one to open the g- or the b-file. He can also change a pair of knights through f4. White’s main plan in line B is to open the g-file by Rg1, g3. Rogozenco-Sharavdorj Moscow 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+p+ltr-vln0 9p+-zp-wq-+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9P+-+-vL-zp0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.Rg1 Rfe8 24.Bd3 Kh8 25.g3ƒ. Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+p+ltr-+n0 9p+-zp-wqnvl0 9+-zpP+p+L0 9P+-+-zP-zp0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9-zP-wQ-vLPzP0 9tR-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can win the h4-pawn by 24.Bxg6?!, but it is much better to 113

Part 4 preserve the active long-range pieces with 24.Rg1! Rg7 25.a5, awaiting the best timing for g3. Another good plan is to open the b-file (if Black transfers his pieces on the kingside). Dreev-Ramnath Bhuvanesh Delhi 2010

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-sn-mk0 9+p+ltr-+-0 9p+-zp-wqnvl0 9zP-zpP+p+L0 9-+-+-zP-zp0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9-zP-wQ-vLPzP0 9+R+-+-tRK0 xiiiiiiiiy

27.b4! Bg7 28.Ne2 and Black loses control of the critical square d4. Note the rook lift in the following example: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+p+l+nvln0 9p+-zp-wqp+0 9zP-zpP+p+-0 9-+-+PzP-zp0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.Ra3! (intending Rb1, b4) 19... fxe4 20.Rb3 Rab8 21.Nfxe4 Qe7 22.Bf3² gives White the upper hand.

114

It is always a good idea to fix the pawn structure on the queenside by a5. Otherwise ...b5 can give Black an initiative which can compensate even a pawn: Vyzmanavin-Kiril Georgiev Elenite 1993

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+p+l+-+n0 9p+-zp-+qvl0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9P+-+-zP-vL0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

26...b5 27.axb5 axb5© 28.Re7 Rxe7 29.Bxe7 b4 30.Nd1 Nf6!© The following position arises often in practice under different move orders.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+p+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-sNP0 9-zP-+-+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Do not overestimate 17.e5! White might be a bit better, but not winning due to 17...Re8! 18.Qf3 Rxb2! 19.exf6 Qxf6 with significant counterplay.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

Part 4

Step by Step 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 7.Nge2

We want to provoke 7...Nc6 with the hope of gaining a tempo later with f4. 7.d5 is often met in practice. It leads to the same pawn structure, but in that line Black may find more useful moves than ...Nd7-e5. White is currently in crisis of ideas in this line. 7...Nc6 a) 7...b6 is not in the spirit of the position. White can enter a Benoni pawn structure with: 8.d5 e6 9.Ng3

Vitiugov-Ding Liren, St. Petersburg 2012, saw another approach: 9.Nf4 exd5 10.Nfxd5 Nc6 11.Qd2 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 Be6 13.Bd3 Bxd5 14.cxd5 Nd4 15.0-0 b5 16.Kh1 Qd7 17.Rae1 b4 18.f4 h5 19.f5 Be5 20.Bxd4 Bxd4 21.e5! and White went on to win. 9...exd5 9...a6 10.a4 exd5 11.cxd5 h5 12.Be2 Nh7 13.0-0 h4 14.Nh1 f5 15.Qd2 Nd7 16.Nf2 is similar to the main line, but ...b6 is a superfluous move which only weakens the a6-pawn. Michalik-Saric, Eppingen 2012, went 16...Ndf6 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Bd3 Qd7 19.Rae1 Bxd3 20.Qxd3±. 10.cxd5 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.0-0 Qd7 13.Qd2 b5 14.Bh6 Ne8 15.Bxg7 Nxg7 16.f4 b4 17.Nd1 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zp-+q+-snp0 9n+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9-zp-+PzP-+0 9+-+-+-sN-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+N+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

I have been following the game 115

Part 4 Bu Xiangzhi-Areshchenko, Dagomys 2008. White can obtain a super centre by 18.e5 dxe5 19.fxe5 Rad8 20.Qe2 Nc7 21.d6. b) 7...Qa5 8.Nc1 cxd4 (8...Nc6 9.Nb3 Qc7 10.d5 Ne5 11.Be2) 9.Nb3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+PzpP+-+0 9+NsN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now 9...Qd8 or 9...Qc7 lead to a typical Maróczy Bind structure. White aims for f4-f5, with an initiative on the kingside. See the annotated Game 20 Dreev-Laksana, Jakarta 2011. Independent variations arise after: b1) 9...Qe5!? A Morozevich’s brainchild which aims to provoke g3. 10.Bxd4 10.Qxd4 (hoping for 11.Qd2) 10...Qxd4 11.Nxd4 Nc6 12.0-0-0 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Be6 14.b3 Nd7 15.Be2² gives White the slightly better game without any risk. The text is more principled, of course. 10...Qf4 10...Qg5 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Be3 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qh5 transposes.

116

11.g3 Qg5 12.Qe2 Nc6 13.Be3 Qh5 14.Bg2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+q0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+NsN-vLPzP-0 9PzP-+Q+LzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position for 9...Qe5!?. The stem game Moiseenko-Morozevich, Saratov 2011, went 14... Nd7 15.Nd5! e6 when the computer finds a big advantage after 16.Nc7!! Rb8 17.Rd1. Shtohl re­com­mends: 14...Bh3 15.0-0 Bxg2 16.Kxg2, but White’s game is better. He has a superior centre and tactical tricks based on the precarious stand of the black queen on h5. b2) 9...Qh5 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Qd2 Discouraging the check from h4. 11.Be2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Qh4+ 13.g3 Qg5 (13...Qh3 only temporary hinders the short castle: 14.Qd2 Be6 15.Nd1 Bd7 16.Nf2 Qe6 17.0-0 Bc6 18.Rfe1², Ganguly-Lukey, Queens­ town 2012) 14.Kf2 Be6 15.Rc1 Qa5 16.Kg2 Rfc8 17.b3 a6 18.a4 Nd7 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.f4 was pleasant for White in Caruana-Rodshtein, Porto Carras 2011, but it is better to restrict the opponent’s choice. 11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Be6 13.Be2 Qa5 14.b3 Rac8 15.Rd1 Rfe8 16.0-0 Nd7

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+r+k+0 9zpp+nzppvlp0 9-+-zpl+p+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+PsN-+P+-0 9P+-wQL+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position occurred in Khenkin-Ohme, Germany 2011. White took over the initiative by the thematic advance 17.f4 Bxd4+ 18.Qxd4 Nf6 19.f5 Bd7 20.fxg6 hxg6 21.Rxf6! exf6 22.Nd5 Re6 when 23.Rf1² would have given him a sound extra pawn. c) 7...cxd4 is 10 times less popular than the main line. The arising Maróczy Bind with ...g6 is consi­ dered to be pleasant for White. Practice confirms this assessment with nearly 63% for the first player. 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Be2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zpp+lzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...Bc6

The hedgehog is commonly connected with the plan of breaking through with ...b5, but this plan is dubious in the diagram position,

because White can gain space with b2-b4. See for yourself: 11...a6 12.0-0 Qa5 (12...Rb8 13.Rfd1 b5 14.e5±) 13.Rfd1 Rfc8. Topalov played here 14.Rab1 Be6 15.b4 Qd8 16.c5². The computer advocates 14.b4!? Qxb4 15.Rab1 Qa5 16.f4 b5 17.e5ƒ. Even 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 Qc5+ 16.Kh1 Be6 17.Nxf6+ exf6 18.Rac1 gives White a small, but stable edge. It is evident that Black should prevent b2-b4 so in practice he chooses a passive, but solid stand, based on ...a5, ...Nd7. 12.0-0 a5 Black’s set-up works well against queenside play, but it is rather passive. White should not rush with an attack on the opposite flank. He should aim to alter the pawn structure by Nd5 followed up by exd5. In the event of inaccurate defence, he can even push e4-e5 to open the dfile. White has two main approaches: 1. To trade dark-squared bishops and push f4: 13.Kh1 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 Qb6 16.Rae1² Rae8 17.Rf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rtr-+0 9+p+nzppmkp0 9-wqlzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+R+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

See Game 21 MoiseenkoGuseinov, Ningbo 2011. 117

Part 4 2. To keep the bishop and play in the centre: 13.b3 Nd7 14.Be3 Nc5 15.Rab1 Qb6 16.Rfc1 Rfc8 17.Rc2 h5 18.Bf1 Kh7 19.g3 Qd8 20.Bh3², see Game 22 Navara-Svidler, Prague 2012. d) 7...Nbd7 8.Qd2 a6 9.Rd1 brings about two pawn structures, depending on Black’s choice: d1) A good version of the Maróczy Bind. For example: 9...b6 10.Nc1 I prefer to have the white knight on b3, but 10.Ng3 cxd4 11.Bxd4 e6 12.Be2², Ponomariov-V.Spasov, Baile Herculane 2010, is also possible. 10...cxd4 11.Bxd4 Bb7 12.Be2 Rc8 13.0-0 Qc7 14.Nb3 e6 15.Be3 Ne8 16.Rc1 Nc5 17.Nd4 Nf6 18.b4 Ncd7 19.Nb3 Rfe8 20.Rfd1 Bf8 21.a3 Qb8 22.Bf1 Be7 23.Kh1 Bd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-wqrvlr+k+0 9+l+n+p+p0 9pzp-zppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zPP+P+-+0 9zPNsN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQ-+PzP0 9+-tRR+L+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

In Postny-Czarnota, Germany 2010, White carried on probably the most fearsome strategic plan against the hedgehog: 24.Bf4! Ne5 25.Bxe5! dxe5 26.c5±. 9...cxd4 10.Nxd4 Qc7 (10...e6 11.Be2 d5 12.cxd5 exd5 13.exd5 Nb6 14.Nb3±) 11.Be2 Ne5 12.b3 Nc6 13.0-0 Bd7 118

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+pwqlzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQL+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.Rc1 (Another option is 14.Nc2 Rb8 15.Nd5.) 14...Rac8 15.Rfd1 Rfd8 16.Nd5+–, Dreev-Galaszewski, War­ saw 2011. d2) Symmetric pawn structure: 9...Qc7 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.Nf4 e6 12.Nd3², see my Game 23 Svetushkin-Dochev, Kirykos 2004. Similar is 9...Qa5 10.dxc5 11.Nf4!? e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9p+-+psnp+0 9wq-zp-+-+-0 9-+P+PsN-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.Nd3! b5 13.cxb5 c4 14.b4 cxb3 15.axb3 Ng4 (15...axb5 16.b4) 16.Ne2 Qxd2+ 17.Bxd2 Nge5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Nc1±. 8.d5 Ne5 8...Na5 9.Ng3 a6 is seldom seen. Perhaps this accounts for the total lack of established receipts for White. The latest top level game, Svidler-Radjabov, London 2013, featured:

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 10.Be2 Nd7 11.Rc1 b5 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Bxb5 Ne5 14.0-0 Nac4 15.Bg5 Bd7 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Qe2². It would be convenient for me to recommend Svidler’s move 10.Be2, but the above-mentioned game does not answer the question how to meet 10...Bd7. In FedoseevKurnosov, Vladivostok 2012, White chose to sacrifice the c4-pawn by 11.0-0 Rb8 12.Qd2 b5 13.Bh6 Nxc4 14.Bxc4 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 bxc4 16.Rf2 e6 17.Rd1 exd5 18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Rxd5². White has some pull, but I think that Black can hold the endgame after 19...Qe7 20.Qf4 Rb6 21.Rfd2 Rfb8 22.Rxd6 Rxd6 23.Qxd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6 Be6 25.Rd2 c3 26.bxc3 Rb1+. Another high-rated player, Wang Hao, opted for: 10.Qd2 b5 11.Bh6 e6 12.h4 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 to get an edge after 13...bxc4?! 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.dxe6 Bxe6 16.0-0-0 Rb8 17.h5 Qb6 when 18.Nf5+ would have been clearly better for White. Critical is, however, 13...Bxh6 14.Qxh6 bxc4 15.00-0 exd5 16.Nxd5 Ra7÷. I would like to propose a solid and logical set-up: 10.Rc1 Bd7 Or 10...e6 11.b3 exd5 12.cxd5 b5 13.Qd2. 11.Bd3 b5 12.b3 bxc4 13.bxc4 White has good chances on the kingside while on the other flank the two weak points c4 and b2 are easily defended:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+lzppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9sn-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sNLvLPsN-0 9P+-+-+PzP0 9+-tRQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 13...Rb8 (13...e6 14.0-0 exd5 15.cxd5²) 14.0-0 Rb4 15.Qe2 Qc7 16.Nd1 Rfb8 (16...e6 17.Bd2 Ra4 18.Bc3 Re8 19.Qc2 Rb8 20.f4²) 17.Bd2 Ra4 18.Bc3 e5 19.dxe6 Bxe6 (19...fxe6 20.e5) 20.f4 Qe7 21.f5 Bd7 22.Ne3ƒ. 9.Ng3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Main branches here are: A. 9...h5; B. 9...e6

9...a6 should transpose to the main lines after 10.a4. Only 10.Be2 b5 is of independent significance, but one must be a die hard fan of the Benko to like Black’s game after 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 Ba6 13.0-0. 119

Part 4 A. 9...h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6 The game Lalic-Berg, Germany 2004, did not last long after 11...h3 12.g4 Qa5 13.Nd2 Nfxg4?!. White took the piece and went on to destroy the enemy’s kingside after 14.fxg4 Bxg4 15.0-0 Bd7 16.Qe1 a6 17.Qh4 f6 18.Nf3 g5 19.Qg3 Ng6 20.Kh1 b5 21.Rg1 bxc4 22.Bxg5 fxg5 23.Qxg5 Be8 24.Nh4 Bf6 25.Qh5 1-0. The inclusion of 11...a6 12.a4 is only in White’s favour. 12.Nd2! This line had been assessed as clearly better for White on the ground of 12.f4 Neg4?! 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Qxg4 exd5 15.f5 d4 16.Nd5 dxe3 17.Nfxe3 Bxb2 (17...Bh6 18.0-0 Qg5 19.Qh3 Kg7 20.Rf4 Rh8 21.Ng4 Qd8 22.Qc3+ f6 23.Nxh6 Rxh6 24.fxg6 Rxg6 25.Nxf6 1-0 Cheparinov-Vavric, Varna 2012) 18.0-0 with a strong initiative. Tomashevsky-Ponomariov, Rogaska Slatina 2011, went 18...Bxa1 19.Rxa1 Kg7 20.Rf1 Rh8 21.Qf4 g5 22.Qf3 f6 23.Ng4 Rf8 24.Qe3 Bd7 25.Ndxf6 Rxf6 26.Qxg5+ Kf7 27.e5 dxe5 28.Rd1 Rxf5 29.Nh6+ Kf8 30.Qg8+ Ke7 31.Qh7+ 1-0. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, Grischuk dealt a terrible blow on the whole line against Svidler, London 2013: 12...Nxc4!! 13.Bxc4 b5!!. Look at this important theoretical Game 16 in the “Complete Games” chapter. 12...exd5 13.cxd5 a6 120

Black has not any compensation for the pawn after 13...Bd7 14.0-0 b5 15.Nxb5 Bxb5 16.Bxb5 Rb8 17.a4, Ponomariov-Carlsen, Medias 2010. 14.0-0 14.a4 Bd7 15.a5 b5 16.axb6 Qxb6 17.Ra2 is innocuous because Black has the strong manoeuvre 17...Qb4 18.0-0 Bb5 with active pieces. I do not believe that giving up the dark-squared bishop with 19.f4 Bxe2 20.Qxe2 Neg4 21.Kh1 Nxe3 22.Qxe3 Nh5 23.f5÷ can be dangerous for Black. 19.Qc2 Nfd7 20.Nxb5 is equal, Kanep-Yrjola, Jyvaskyla 2011. 14...b5 14...h3 15.g4 b5 is dubious: 16.g5 Ne8 17.f4 Nd7 18.Bg4 Nb6 19.Qf3 Bxg4 20.Qxg4 Qd7 21.f5. 15...Re8 is a little better, but still insufficient attempt. We should prevent a dark-squared blockade with 16.g5! (but not 16.a4 Nh7 17.Kh1 g5 18.Rg1 Nf8! 19.Rg3 Nfg6) 15...Nh7 16.f4 Nd7 17.Rf3 b5 18.Qc2. White has nice attacking prospects.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-sNL+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 A critical position. White will try to advance on the kingside, winning the h-pawn on the way. 15.h3!? I propose this novelty as 15.a3 could be met by 15...h3! with unclear consequences. Look at the detailed analysis of Game 15 BruzonSoto, Havana 2013. 15...c4 The threat of 16.Bg5 calls for concrete action. The passive defence 15...Nh7 16.f4 Nd7 saves the pawn at a high price: 17.Qe1 Re8 18.Bf2 Bd4 19.Kh1 Bxf2 20.Qxf2 and White dominates on the kingside, e.g. 20...Nhf6 21.Bf3². 16.Bg5 Qb6+ The only decent alternative to the text is 16...Bd7 when we should resort to the prophylactic move 17.a3!. I have also analysed: a) 17.f4 Nd3 18.Qc2 Re8 (18... Qa5 19.Bxd3 cxd3 20.Qxd3 b4 21.e5 Nh7 22.Nce4 Nxg5 23.Nc4 Bb5 24.Nexd6ƒ) 19.Bxh4 (19.a3 Qb6+ 20.Kh2 Nxb2©) 19...Rc8 20.a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqr+k+0 9+-+l+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+P+-+-0 9-+p+PzP-vL0 9zP-sNn+-+P0 9-zPQsNL+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20...Nxb2! 21.Qxb2 (21.e5 Nd3 22.exf6 Bxf6 23.Bxf6 Qxf6÷) 21... Nxe4 22.Bxd8 Nxc3 23.Qb4 Nxe2+ 24.Kh2 Rcxd8 when Black has full compensation, for instance: 25.Rae1 Bf5 26.Qa5 Bc3 27.Qb6 Bxd2 28.Rxe2 Rxe2 29.Qxd8+ Kg7 30.h4 c3 31.h5 gxh5 32.Qxd6 c2 33.Qc5 Be4 34.d6 Bxg2 35.Qg5+=; b) 17.Bxh4 b4 18.Ncb1 Qc7 19.a3 Rab8 (19...a5) 20.axb4 Rxb4 21.Rxa6 (21.Na3 Ba4 22.Qe1 Nd3) 21...Rxb2 22.Qc1 Rfb8. White’s pieces are alarmingly passive. 17...Qb6+ 18.Kh2 Nd3 19.Bxd3 cxd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+l+pvl-0 9pwq-zp-snp+0 9+p+P+-vL-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9zP-sNp+P+P0 9-zP-sN-+PmK0 9tR-+Q+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.Bxh4!

It is tempting to kill the d3-pawn promptly, but 20.Qb1 Qd4 21.Bxh4 fails to accomplish the job: 21...Nh5 Or 21...Qe3 22.Qe1 Qxe1 23.Bxe1 Nh5 24.f4 Rae8 25.Nf3 (25.g4 Bxc3 26.bxc3 Nf6 27.Rf3 Nxe4 28.Nxe4 Rxe4 29.Kg3 f5 30.Bd2 Re2 31.Rxd3 Rfe8©; 25.Rc1 f5) 25...Bxc3 26.Bxc3 Rxe4 27.f5 gxf5 28.Rfd1 Re3 29.Ne1 Rfe8 30.Rxd3 f4=. 22.Bf2 Qe5+ 23.g3 Nf4 24.h4 f5 25.Rd1 Ne2 26.Qxd3 Nxc3 27.bxc3 Qxc3 28.Qxc3 Bxc3©.

121

Part 4 20...Nh5 21.Bf2 Qd8 (21...Qc7 22.Be3 f5 23.exf5 Bxf5 24.Nde4 Be5+ 25.Kg1) 22.Be3 f5 23.exf5 Re8 24.Nde4 Be5+ 25.Kg1 gxf5 26.f4 Nxf4 27.Bxf4 fxe4 28.Qh5 Bd4+ 29.Kh1 Qe7 30.Bh6². 17.Kh2 Nh5 18.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9pwq-zp-+p+0 9+p+Psn-vLn0 9-+p+PzP-zp0 9+-sN-+-+P0 9PzP-sNL+PmK0 9tR-+Q+R+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 18...Nd3

Or 18...Ng3 19.fxe5 Bxe5 20.Bf4 Nxf1+ 21.Qxf1². 19.Bxh5 gxh5 20.Qxh5 f6 21.Bxh4 Qe3 22.Qd1 The endgame after 22.Rad1 Nxf4 23.Rxf4 Qxf4+ 24.Bg3 Qg5 25.Qxg5 fxg5 26.Bxd6 Re8 27.Re1 looks better for White, but the computer manages to hold it. 22...Nxb2 23.Qc2 Nd3 24.Rf3 Qd4 25.Rb1 f5 26.Ne2 Qa7 27.Rg3 Kh8 28.Rxd3! cxd3 29.Qxd3 Black’s king has not any pawns around it. That makes its defence a difficult task. 122

B. 9...e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 a6 Sometimes Black refrains from ...a6 in order to avoid making a hole on b6. We’ll see in the main line that the rook’s lift Ra1-a3-b3-b6 could be rather unpleasant so this approach is not without reason. However, by discarding queenside play, Black considerably limits his active options. After: 11...h5 12.0-0 Nh7 13.Qd2 h4 14.Nh1 f5 15.Nf2 Bd7, White has a pleasant choice:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+-vln0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

a) 16.a4 Qf6 17.exf5 gxf5 18.Nh3 Ng6 (18...Rae8 19.Rae1 Rf7 20.Kh1) 19.f4 a6 20.Bf2 Rae8 21.Kh1 Rf7 22.a5 Rfe7 23.Bh5 Nhf8 24.Rg1 Bh6 25.g3±, Tomashevsky-Khairullin, Rijeka 2010. b) 16.Kh1 a6 17.a4 – see the annotated Game 19 TomashevskyShomoev, EU-ch. Budva 2009. 12.a4 h5 This plan has been very topical lately. Black often chooses the typical plan with ...b5, but it has the drawback of leaving White’s central pawn chain undisturbed:

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 12...Bd7 13.0-0 The most principled and forced continuation is 13.h3!? b5 14.f4 Nc4 15.Bxc4 bxc4 16.0-0 Re8 17.Qf3 Rb8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+p+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vLQsNP0 9-zP-+-+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.e5 Rxb2! 19.exf6 Qxf6 20.Rac1. This position was reached in the game Ponomariov-Gallagher, Porto Carras 2011 where the opponents signed a draw only two moves later. It was assessed as balanced, but I see indications that it might become topical again. In Zhou Jianchao-Fedoseev, Mos­cow 2011, White won convincingly the same position without the a-pawns. In Parligras-Miron, Baile Olanesti 2013, Black opted for 20...Rb3 and was clearly worse after 21.Nge4 Qe7 22.Bf2 Bxa4 23.Nd2±. Perhaps 20...Qd8 is better, but in my opinion, Black is struggling for the draw anyway. Bologan suggests 21.Rfe1 f5 22.Bf2 Rb3 23.Rxe8+ Qxe8 (23...Bxe8 24.Nf1²), but Black is still to prove that he can hold on after 24.Nf1² Bd4 25.Kh2. His c4-pawn is rather weak. 13...b5 14.h3 I have also checked 14.Qd2. This is a typical approach – White is not

afraid of ...b4 since it only weakens the c4-square. 14...Rb8 15.axb5 axb5 16.Bg5 is also pleasant for him. Black should opt for 14...bxa4 15.Nxa4 Bb5 16.Rfc1 Qb8 17.Nc3 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 a5 with a tenable position.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPsNP0 9-zP-+L+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Rb8

The threat of f4 can also be parried by 14...Re8!?. Then 15.Qd2!? Rb8 16.f4 transposes to 14...Rb8. 15.f4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Qf3 Rb8 18.e5 Rxb2 19.exf6 Qxf6 transposes to 13.h3. An independent line is: 15.Qc1!? aiming for Bg5 and f4. Black cannot take on a4 since he would lose his knight on e5. Possible continuations are: 15...b4 16.Nd1 h5 17.b3 (17.f4 h4 18.fxe5 Rxe5÷); 15...Rb8 16.axb5 axb5 (16...Bxb5 17.Nxb5 axb5 18.Ra6² or 18.b3²) 17.f4 Nc4 18.Bxc4 bxc4 19.f5ƒ. The threat of Bg5 is very awkward for Black because the natural retreat square of the knight – d7, is taken by the bishop. 14...Nc4 is well known to be slightly better for White after 15.Bxc4 bxc4 16.Qe2 Rb8 17.Qxc4! Rxb2 18.Rab1, Aripov-Balacek, Olomouc 2011. 15.f4!? 123

Part 4 I think that the text is more challenging than 15.axb5 Bxb5 15...axb5 16.f4 Nc4 17.Bxc4 bxc4 18.e5 Re8 19.Qf3 Rxb2 20.exf6 Qxf6 21.Rac1 Qd8 occurred in the game Zhou Jianchao-Fedoseev, Mos­cow 2011. Black was struggling for the draw after 22.Bf2 f5 23.Rfe1 Qa5 24.Rxe8+ Bxe8 25.Nd1². Bologan assesses the position after 16.Nxb5 axb5 17.b3² as acceptable for Black.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+P+-vLPsNP0 9-+-+L+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In practice, the second players managed to draw only two games out of six. Nothing astonishing if we take into account that White has the bishop pair advantage and an active rook on the a-file. Bologan’s line runs 17...Ned7 18.Ra6 Qe7 19.Qd2 Rfc8 20.Rc1 Ne8 when 21.f4 b4 22.e5 is only equal. His manoeuvre does not work, however, after 18.Qd2, for instance, 18...Qe7 19.Ra7! Ne8 20.Qa5. At all events, Black will be forced to play ...b4 and lose the mobility of his queenside pawns. White’s game would be somewhat better, although his only active plan is f4-e5 which is doubleedged. In Schandorff-Matthiesen, Helsingor 2011, Black even opted for 17...b4 immediately. Schandorff 124

claims a small edge after 18.Ra6 Rb6 19.Ra7. 15...Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Qd2!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9P+p+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-sNP0 9-zP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

I have already mentioned that 17.e5 Re8 18.Qf3 is also being hectically ana­lysed in many GM’s laboratories. My recommendation has the advantage of being much more clear and easy to play. We intend to push e5 or f5. In all the lines White develops a strong initiative on the kingside while Black is deprived of any counterplay since the b2-pawn is easy to protect. 17...Rb3 Bologan decorates this move with an exclamation mark. I have also studied: a) 17...Re8 18.f5! Qe7 19.Rae1 Qe5 (19...Rb3 20.e5 dxe5 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.Bg5; 19...Nh5 20.Nxh5 gxh5 21.Qf2) 20.Qf2 h5 21.Bg5‚. b) 17...Qe7 18.e5 (18.Qf2!?) 18... dxe5 19.d6 Qe6 20.f5 Qe8 21.fxg6 fxg6 22.Nce4 Bf5 23.Nxc5±. c) 17...Qb6 18.Rb1 Ne8 19.f5! Be5 20.Bf4 Bd4+ 21.Kh1 f6 22. fxg6 hxg6 23.Nge2². d) 17...Ne8 18.f5! (it is important to anticipate ...f7-f5) 18...Be5

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 19.Nge2 (A multipurpose move. It takes d4 under control, enables g4 and White can even think of redeploying the knight to f3 via g1.) 19... Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+ntrk+0 9+-+lwqp+p0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPvlP+-0 9P+p+P+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+P0 9-zP-wQN+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black can only stay and wait. An exchange on f5 would give White the e4-square and open the e-file. The d7-bishop has not any prospects. We can double the rooks on the f-file. I suppose that both Rf3 and Rf2 are good. For instance: 20.Rf3 Kh8 (20...gxf5 21.exf5 Kh8 22.Bg5) 21.Bg5 f6 (21...Nf6 22.Kh1) 22.Bf4²; 20.Rf2!? gxf5 21.exf5 Kh8 22.Bf4 Rg8 23.Bxe5+ Qxe5 24.Re1 Bxf5 25.Nf4 Qg7 26.Re7ƒ. 18.e5 Ne8 (18...dxe5 19.fxe5±) 19.Nge4 (Bologan considers only 19.Rae1)

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqntrk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzP-+-0 9P+p+NzP-+0 9+rsN-vL-+P0 9-zP-wQ-+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...f5

Or 19...Qb6 20.a5 Qb4 21.Rf2 when 21...f5 loses to 22.exf6 Bxf6 23.Nxf6+ Rxf6 24.Re1+–; 19...Bf5 20.Rad1 Qb8 21.Rf2 Qb4 22.Qe2±, threatening with 23.Bxc5 dxc5 24.d6. 20.Nxc5! dxc5 21.Bxc5 Rf7 22.Qe2. White has a fantastic game. 13.0-0 Nh7 Alternatively: a) 13...Qa5 14.h3!? h4 (14...Qb4 15.f4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Qxc4 17.e5 Ne8 18.a5 Bd7 19.Na4 Bxa4 20.Rxa4 Qb5 21.Ne4²) 15.f4! when 15... hxg3? was crushed by 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.Bg5 Ne8 18.d6 Be6 19.d7, Riazantsev-Savchenko, Rogaska Slatina 2011. b) 13...Bd7 should be met by 14.Qd2 b5 (14...h4 15.Nh1 h3 16.g3 b5 17.Nf2) 16.axb5 axb5 17.Nxb5 – see Game 17 Antipov-Matlakov, St. Petersburg 2012. 13...Re8 14.Qd2 Nh7 and 13... h4 14.Nh1 Nh7 15.Nf2 f5 16.Qd2 transpose to 13...Nh7.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+pvln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsn-+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9-zP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 125

Part 4 14.Qd2 I do not like 14.h3 – not only due to the hole on g3, but because the pawn takes the best square of our unfortunate knight after 14... h4 15.Nh1 f5 16.exf5 gxf5 17.f4 Ng6 18.Bh5 Qf6. 14...h4 14...Re8 is seldom seen, because it is arguable that Black’s rook stands better on the e-file. White can fix the queenside: 15.a5 h4 16.Nh1 f5 17.Nf2 Bd7 18.Na4 Bb5 19.Nb6 Bxe2 20.Qxe2 Rb8 21.Ra4 Rajkovic-Prelevic, Belgrade 2005, when simplest is 21.Rab1± aiming for b4. 15.Nh1 f5 15...g5 is passive. White can build up play on the queenside by either 16.a5 or 16.Nf2 Bd7 17.a5

126

Rb8 18.Na4 and b4 is looming. 16.Nf2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+-vln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9P+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better game. He will take on f5, the king’s knight will go to h3, the bishop to f2. Then White will choose between either queenside play with a5, b4 (or Ra1a3-b3-b6), or an attack along the g-file with Kh1, Rg1, g3. See my Game 18 Svetushkin-Pavlidis, Porto Rio 2013, for detailed explanations of these plans.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

Part 4

Complete Games 15. Bruzon-Soto Havana, 29.04.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0 5.Be3 d6 6.f3 c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6 12.Nd2 exd5 13.cxd5 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-sNL+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.0-0!?

A good novelty by Bruzon, which will probably shift the focus of investigations in this line. 14...b5 15.a3 This is a logical move. White prepares b4 to halt the enemy’s expansion on the queenside. I like Bruzon’s idea, but the possibility of 15...h3! mars the otherwise nice picture. (That’s why I propose 15.h3! for a main line.) Then the at-

tempt to win the h3-pawn by 16.g4 Re8 17.Qe1 (17.g5 Nh5 18.f4 Nc4 19.Nxc4 bxc4) 17...Nfd7 18.Qg3 (18.Rc1 g5) 18...Nb6 (18...g5 19.f4) 19.Qxh3 Nbc4 gives Black strong counterplay down the b-file so White should chose the more restrained: 16.g3 Re8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9zP-sN-vLPzPp0 9-zP-sNL+-zP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Aimed against White’s main idea of pushing f3-f4 at an opportunity. Now White can play on the queenside or transfer the c3-knight to f2: a) 17.Rc1 Qe7 (17...c4 18.b3) 18.Rf2 Bd7 19.b3 Rab8 20.Bg5 Bc8 (20...Qf8 21.Bxf6 Bxf6 22.f4±) 21.Qf1 Qf8 The queen should stay near its king. 21...Qb7 provokes 22.g4 Nh7 23.Be3 g5 (23...f5 24.gxf5 gxf5 25.f4 Ng4 26.Bxg4 fxg4 27.e5 dxe5 28.f5 127

Part 4 Nf6 29.Nde4ƒ) 24.Qxh3 although the extra pawn does not guarantee White a substantial advantage: 24...Ng6 25.Bd1 Nf4 26.Bxf4 gxf4 27.Ne2 Be5 28.Qh6 Qe7 29.Kh1 Qf6 30.Qxf6 Nxf6 31.h4². 22.a4 bxa4 23.Nxa4 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+rwqk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9zp-zpPsn-vL-0 9N+-+P+-+0 9+P+-+PzPp0 9-+-sNLtR-zP0 9+-tR-+QmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

We have reached a complex position with mutual chances: 24.Bf4 Nh7 25.Nc3 Bd7÷ (25... f5?! 26.Nb5 g5 27.Bxe5 Bxe5 28.Nc4 Rxb5 29.Nxe5 Rxb3 30.Nc6 a4 31.Ra1²). b) 17.Re1 Bd7 18.Qc2 Rb8 19.Nd1 Nh5 20.Nf2. Now a timely break in the centre balances the game: 20... f5 21.f4 Nf7 22.Bf3 Nf6. c) 17.Qc2 Bd7 18.a4 (18.Rae1 Nh7; 18.Kh1 Rb8 19.Rg1 Nh7 20.g4 g5 21.Rg3 Nf8 22.Rxh3 Nfg6; 18.Nd1 Rc8 19.Kh1 c4 20.Rg1 Nh7) 18...c4 19.Rfc1 Qe7 20.axb5 axb5 21.Nd1 Nh5 22.Rxa8 Rxa8 23.b3 c3!. Black equalises easily: 24.Nxc3 Rc8 25.Qd1 Nxf3+ 26.Bxf3 Rxc3 27.Rxc3 Bxc3 28.Bxh5 gxh5 29.Qxh5 Bxd2 30.Bxd2 Qxe4 31.Qg5+ Kh7=. 15...Rb8?! 16.b4 128

It is not clear how Black should answer 16.h3!.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9zP-sN-vLP+P0 9-zP-sNL+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It leads to a better version of my main line from the “Step by Step” chapter because Black’s last move was not too useful: a) 16...b4? 17.axb4 Rxb4 18.Bg5 Rxb2? 19.f4 Ned7 20.Nc4; b) 16...Nh7 17.f4 Nd7 18.Qe1 Re8 19.Bf2! (19.Rc1 Nhf6) 19...Bf6 20.Rc1; c) 16...c4 17.Bg5 (17.f4 Nd3 18.Bxd3 cxd3 19.Qb1 b4 20.axb4 Rxb4 21.Qxd3 Re8! is roughly equal: 22.b3 Nxe4 23.Ncxe4 Bf5 24.Rxa6 Bxe4 25.Nxe4 Rbxe4 26.Bb6 Qf6=) 17...Qb6+ 18.Kh2 Nfd7 19.f4±; d) 16...Nh5 17.f4 Nc4 18.Nxc4 bxc4 19.Bxh5 Rxb2 20.e5 Rb3 21.Rc1 gxh5 22.Qxh5 f5 23.Rfd1ƒ. 16...Nfd7 I do not know what Bruzon had in mind after 16...c4!. I have ana­ lysed the manoeuvre Nd2-f1, for instance: 17.Rc1 Re8 18.Rf2 Qe7 19.Nf1 Ned7 20.Qd2 Nh7 (20...h3 21.g4) 21.a4 h3 (21...f5) 22.g4 Ne5 23.axb5

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 axb5 24.Ng3 Bd7 25.Rff1 with unclear consequences. Black obviously wanted to preserve the queenside fluid. That would be a decent idea if he could follow up by ...a5, but White easily prevents it and gains an edge. 17.Rc1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+-+n+pvl-0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9-zP-+P+-zp0 9zP-sN-vLP+-0 9-+-sNL+PzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...g5?!

Passive stands are rarely good in the Modern Benoni. Black should have weaken White’s kingside by 17...h3 18.g3 and now 18...Re8 would exert pressure on the centre. In the future, Black may consider ...f5. After the text, White emerges from the opening with a clear edge. 18.Nb3 Nc4? (18...cxb4 19.axb4 Nb6 20.Bd4 Nbc4 21.Kh1²) 19.Bxc4 bxc4 20.Na5± Ne5 21.Nc6 Nxc6 22.dxc6 Be6 23.Nd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9p+Pzpl+-+0 9+-zpN+-zp-0 9-zPp+P+-zp0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23...Bxd5 24.Qxd5 cxb4 25.Qxc4 Qc7 26.axb4 Rb5 27.Rfd1 Rfb8 28.h3 Be5 29.Kh1 Rxb4 30.Qxa6 f6 31.Qa2+ Qf7 32.Qa5 Qb3 33.Bg1 Ra4 34.Qe1 Qe6 35.Bh2 Rc8 36.Bxe5 dxe5 37.c7 Rd4 38.Qa5 Qd6 39.Rxd4 exd4 40.Qf5 Rxc7 41.Qg6+ Kf8 42.Rxc7 Qxc7 43.Qxf6+ Ke8 44.Qh8+ Ke7 45.Qg7+ Kd8 46.Qxg5+ Kc8 47.Qg8+ Kb7 48.Qd5+ Kc8 49.Qxd4 Qc1+ 50.Qg1 Qg5 51.Qd1 Kc7 52.Qc2+ Kd6 53.Qd3+ Ke7 54.Qa3+ Kd7 55.Qf8 Qg3 56.Qf5+ Kc6 57.Qc8+ Kb5 58.Qg4 1-0 16. Svidler-Grischuk FIDE ct. London 25.03.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 h5 10.Be2 h4 11.Nf1 e6 12.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvl-0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9-+P+PzP-zp0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+QmKN+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...Nxc4!!

I remember Kasparov mentioning in an interview that he had analysed this sacrifice, but the credit to introduce it in practice belongs to Grischuk. He put his fate in it at the 129

Part 4 most important competition of the year – the Candidates tournament. I suspect that we should burry the whole line with 12.f4. 13.Bxc4 b5!! 14.Bxb5 exd5 15.e5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zp-+-+pvl-0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+LzppzP-+-0 9-+-+-zP-zp0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKN+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

A good try as it threw Grischuk out of his preparation. He has mostly analysed 15.exd5 Rb8! with many threats. For instance, after ...h3, White’s king will never find a safe haven. In the diagram position, best would be 15...Bg4!. Then 16.exf6, as in the game, does not work because the c5-pawn is protected. Therefore, White should consider 16.Be2 Bxe2 17.Nxe2 dxe5 18.Bxc5, but 18...h3 gives Black a strong attack. Another option is 16.Qa4 dxe5 17.fxe5 d4 18.exf6 Qxf6. It is horrible to defend such position over the board. So the onus is on White after 12.f4. 15...dxe5?! 16.fxe5 Bg4 16...h3 is not an improvement as 17.exf6 hxg2 18.Rg1 gxf1Q+ 19.Rxf1 Bxf6 20.Rxf6 Qxf6 21.Qxd5 Bf5 22.0-0-0 is better for White. 130

Golubev also analyses 16...d4 17.Bg5 Re8 (17...Bg4 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Qxg4 dxc3 20.exf6 cxb2 21.Rb1 Qa5+ 22.Kf2 Qxb5 23.Ne3 c4 24.Qxc4 Qg5 25.Rhd1 Rac8 26.Qd5 Qxf6+ 27.Qf3 Qe5 28.Kg1 Rc3 29.Ng4 Qc5+ 30.Qf2 f5 31.Qxc5 Rxc5 32.Ne3²) 18.Bxe8 Qxe8 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Ne4 Bxe5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+q+k+0 9zp-+-+p+-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-zp-vl-+-0 9-+-zpN+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKN+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

He assesses this position as “nice for Black, with lots of practical chances”. However, I think that White is better after 21.Qf3! (21. Qd3 c4 22.Qxc4 Bf4 23.Qxd4 Bf5 24.Kf2 Qxe4 25.Qxe4 Bxe4©) 21... c4 22.Nfd2 c3 23.0-0 (23.bxc3 dxc3 24.Nb3 Bb7 25.Nbc5 Bxe4 26.Nxe4 f5 27.Nf2 Bf6+ 28.Kf1 Qb5+ 29.Qe2 Qc6©) 23...cxd2 24.Nxd2 Be6 25.Rae1 Bg7 26.Ne4². Black should seek to trade queens, but the endgame after 26...Qd8 27.Nf6+ Bxf6 28.Qxf6 Qxf6 29.Rxf6 Bxa2 is unpleasant for him as he loses one of his two pawns: 30.Rd1 Rb8 31.Rf2 Rb4 32.Rdd2 Be6 33.Rf4 h3 34.g3². 17.exf6! Bxd1 18.fxg7 Kxg7 19.Bxc5 h3 20.Rxd1 hxg2 21.Rg1 gxf1Q+ 22.Kxf1 Qh4 23.Rg2 Rfd8

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zp-+-+pmk-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+LvLp+-+-0 9-+-+-+-wq0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-+RzP0 9+-+R+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.Rd4

After the game, Svidler said that White was slightly better following 24.Bd4+!. Indeed, he has chances for an attack: 24...Kg8 25.Kg1 Rab8 26.a3 (Preventing ...Rb4. 26.Bf1 Rb4 27.Rgd2 Rdb8 28.b3 Re8 29.Nxd5 Qg5+ 30.Bg2 Rxd4 31.Rxd4 Re2 32.Rg4 Qf5 33.h3 Kg7 is balanced.) 26...a5 (26...Rb7 27.Bf1 Re7 28.Rg3) 27.Bf1 Rb7 28.Rgd2 Re7 29.Bb6 Rc8 30.Bf2². The rest of the game is very interesting, but it is irrelevant to the opening. 24...Qh5 25.Rf4 d4 26.Bxd4+ Rxd4 27.Rxd4 Rb8 28.a4 a6 29.Bxa6 Qf3+ 30.Rf2 Qh1+ 31.Ke2 Rxb2+ 32.Rd2 Qc1 33.Kd3 Rb6 34.Bc4 Rd6+ 35.Bd5 Rd7 36.Rf4 f5 37.Rd4 Kh6 38.h4 Rc7 39.Bc4 Qf1+ 40.Re2 f4 41.Kc2 f3 Draw

17. Antipov-Matlakov St. Petersburg, 31.10.2012 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.f3 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2

Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 h5 12.0-0 a6 13.a4 Bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+l+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9-zP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

At a cursory glance, this looks like Black is mixing up two plans. 12...h5 started an assault on the kingside, now he suddenly aims for ...b5. The bishop move takes away the natural retreat square of the e5-knight. Therefore, f4 looks most principled and in my recent game against Mamedov, Moscow rapid, 2013, I cocked the trigger by: a) 14.h3 h4 14...b5 15.f4 Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.e5 dxe5 18.fxe5 Nh7 19.Bxc5± is difficult for Black: 19...Re8 20.Bd4 Bxe5 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Qd4. 15.Nh1 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPsn-+-0 9P+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+P0 9-zP-+L+P+0 9tR-+Q+RmKN0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.Qd2

131

Part 4 16.Bg5 b4 17.Nb1 c4 18.Bxh4 (18.f4? Qb6+ 19.Nf2 Nxe4 20.Bxh4 Nd3 was awful for White in Gu­n­ davaa-Guseinov, Moscow 2012) 18...Re8 19.f4 Nd3 20.Bxd3 cxd3 21.Qxd3 Rxe4 22.Nd2 Re8 gave Black fair compensation for the pawn, Giri-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2012. 16...b4 17.Nd1 a5 18.Bg5 c4 19.Nhf2 Qe8 20.Bxh4±. So I have obtained a clear edge against a high-rated grandmaster. Home analysis, however, showed that after 16.Qd2 Black could have played stronger: 16...Nh5!? 17.axb5 (17.Bg5 Bf6 18.Bh6 Re8) 17...axb5 18.Rxa8 Qxa8 19.Bg5 b4 20.Nd1 f5. White will eat the h4-pawn, but all his pieces are alarmingly passive. Thus I came to the conclusion that White should not weaken the dark-squared complex around his king. A decent alternative seems to be: b) 14.Nh1 b5 15.Nf2 b4?! (principled, but dubious) 16.Nb1 c4 17.Bd4 Rc8 18.Nd2 c3 19.bxc3 bxc3 20.Nb3². Black is overextended and his c-pawn is doomed, Vitiugov-Cheparinov, Plovdiv 2012. In this game, Topalov’s assistant lost the opening battle, despite his enormous erudition. Six moths later, however, in Moiseenko-Mamedov, Istanbul 2012, Black improved with: 15...Nh7! 132

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+pzpPsn-+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-+LsNPzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now 16.axb5 axb5 17.Rxa8 (17. Nxb5 Qb6) 17...Qxa8 18.Bxb5 Bxb5 19.Nxb5 Qa6 would give Black an excellent compensation: 20.Na3 (20.Nc3 Rb8 21.Bc1 Nc4 22.Qd3 Bd4 23.Kh1 Rb4 24.Nfd1 Qa1 25.Qc2 Nf6 26.Re1 Nd7 27.f4 Ndb6) 20...Rb8 21.Bc1 c4 22.Qc2 (22.h3 Nf8=) 22...Rb4 23.Rd1 Nf8 24.f4 Nd3 25.Nxd3 cxd3 26.Qxd3 Qxd3 27.Rxd3 Nd7 28.Rd1 Nc5= so Moiseenko chose 16.Qd2 b4 17.Ncd1 f5 18.f4 Ng4 19.Nxg4 hxg4 when Black is even slightly better. 14.Qd2! b5 In the event of 14...h4 15.Nh1 h3 16.g3 b5, White cannot win the b5-pawn because of the hanging f3, but he gets an easy target on h3: 17.Nf2 Re8 (17...Nh7 18.Bh6²) 18.Rfc1 bxa4 19.Qd1² (19.Nxa4²), Karavade-Shyam, Kolkata 2012.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+-+l+pvl-0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9p+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPzPp0 9-zP-+LsN-zP0 9tR-tRQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 White’s pieces are very compact and well co-ordinated. The h3-pawn looks doomed while the weakness on b2 is balanced by the weakness of the a6-pawn. Meanwhile, White is threatening to trap the knight with f4. 15.axb5 axb5 16.Nxb5! Compared to the game Moiseenko-Mamedov, the b2-pawn is protected and White can capture the pawn by knight. 16...h4 17.Nh1 Bxb5 18.Bxb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvl-0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+LzpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-zp0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmKN0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...h3

Black had not any compensation for the pawn after 18...Rb8 19.Be2 Rb4 20.Nf2 Qb6 21.Rfb1, Kaszow­ ski-Sammalvuo, Logumkloster 1994. 19.Be2 hxg2 20.Kxg2 Rb8 21.Nf2 Rb4 The outcome of the opening battle is in White’s favour. He is a healthy pawn up and the bishop pair should ensure sufficient protection to his king. Black should probably try to put pressure on the b2-pawn

by doubling rooks on the b-file while keeping the queen on the kingside. White can use the a-file for counterplay. Therefore, 22.Ra2, followed up by Rfa1, deserves attention. 22.Rfc1 Qe7 23.Ra7 White is counting on his extra pawn and trades pieces, but this allows Black to activate his queen. 23.Ra2 was better. 23...Qxa7 24.Qxb4 25.Qd2 Bxe3 26.Qxe3

Bh6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9wq-+-+p+-0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-wQP+-0 9-zP-+LsNKzP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

It is difficult to convert the extra pawn. White can make some progress only by advancing on the kingside, but this plan is double-edged. 26...Qe7 27.f4 Ned7 28.Qd3 Rb8 29.b3 Qf8 30.h4 The computer prefers the solid 30.Ra1! Rb7 31.Qc3 Qb8 32.Ra3 Qe8 33.Bf3, but humans build up their play according to a plan. Antipov wants to shift the focus of the battle to the kingside where he has superior forces. 30...Qh6 31.Kg3?! 133

Part 4 This move leaves White’s queen passive. 31.Qg3 Nh5 32.Bxh5 Qxh5 33.Ra1 Nf6 34.f5 keeps a small edge. 31...Ra8 (31...Nh5+!=) 32.Qc3 Qh8 33.Kh3 Kh7 34.Ra1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-wq0 9+-+n+p+k0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+PzP-zP0 9+PwQ-+-+K0 9-+-+LsN-+0 9tR-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is back in control. Perhaps Matlakov was in time trouble as he produces a series of secondrate moves. 34...Rb8 35.Ra7 Kg8 36.Bf3 Qh6 37.Kg3 Rb4 38.Ra8+ Kh7 39.Rd8 Rd4 40.Nh3 Kg7 41.Ng5 Nf8 42.b4 Kg8 43.bxc5 dxc5 44.Qxc5 Rd3 45.Kg2 Rd2+ 46.Kf1 N6d7 47.Qe7 Qg7 48.e5 Rd4 49.Qxd7 Rxf4 50.Qe7 1-0 18. Svetushkin-Pavlidis Porto Rio 2013

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+-vln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9P+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

a) 16...Bd7 17.a5

17.exf5 gxf5 18.Nh3 is also possible: 18...Ng6 19.Nf4 Nxf4 20.Bxf4 Qf6 21.Kh1², Tomashevsky-Khai­ rullin, Moscow 2009. 17...b5 17...Qf6 (17...Rb8 18.exf5) 18.f4 (or 18.exf5 gxf5 19.Nh3) 18...Nf7 when 19.Rae1² or 19.Ra3 (intending Rb1, b4) 19...fxe4 20.Rb3 Rab8 21.Nfxe4 Qe7 22.Bf3² gives White the upper hand. 18.axb6 Qxb6 19.Na4!? White must play energetically. 19.Rab1 was too slow: 19.a5 20.f4 Nf7 21.Bd3 Nf6 22.exf5 gxf5 23.Kh1÷, Zhou Jianchao-Reinderman, Beijing 2008. 19...Qb7 20.b4± (or 20.f4 Nf7 21.e5 Bxa4 22.Rxa4 dxe5 23.fxe5±).

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 h5 12.0-0 h4 13.Nh1 Nh7 14.Qd2 a6 15.a4 f5 16.Nf2

b) 16...Re8. Bologan recommends it in his book. Actually, this is a defensive move. It anticipates exf5, but leaves Black without his main strategic threat of ...f4. That allows White to choose between a number of plans:

This is the starting tabia for this line. Main continuation are:

b1) 17.Kh1 Rb8 18.Rg1 Kh8 (18...fxe4 19.Ncxe4 Bf5 20.b4 c4

134

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 21.a5) 19.g4 hxg3 (19...f4 20.Bxf4 g5 21.Be3 Qf6 22.f4 gxf4 23.Bxf4 Rf8 24.Nh3²)

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+-mk0 9+p+-+-vln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPzp-0 9-zP-wQLsN-zP0 9tR-+-+-tRK0 xiiiiiiiiy 20.hxg3! Naturally, White is happy to open the h-file in his favour. Bologan considers only 20.Rxg3. 20...Bd7 21.Kg2 Kg8 22.Rh1 Nf6 23.Bh6 and White’s game is obviously better, because his king is safer, e.g. 23...Nf7 24.Bxg7 Kxg7 25.exf5±. b2) 17.Rfe1 (Dreev opted for 17.Rae1 with similar ideas, but I do not think that we need a rook on f1.) 17...Rb8 (17...Bd7 18.exf5 gxf5 19.a5) 18.exf5². 16...Qf6 According to my database, this move has been played in 13 games., despite the fact that White is clearly better after the most principled 17.f4 Nf7 (17...Ng4 18.Nxg4 fxg4 19.e5) 18.e5 dxe5 19.Bxc5. How­ ever, Black can sacrifice the exchange with 19...e4 or 19...exf4 to obtain some counter-chances. I decided to play it safe and take a stable edge with the help of the thematic plan:

17.exf5 gxf5 18.Nh3 Ng6 19.f4 Re8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+p+-+-vln0 9p+-zp-wqn+0 9+-zpP+p+-0 9P+-+-zP-zp0 9+-sN-vL-+N0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better pieces. Only the e3-bishop has not clear prospects so far, but an eventual break b2-b4 would prolong his working diagonal. In addition, White has more space in the centre. This provides him with active possibilities on both flanks. 20.Bf2 A bit over-prophylactic move. The bishop was not in danger on e3 yet. Dreev chose against Nataf, Calvia 2004, 20.Bh5 which is perhaps more accurate. The game went 20... Bd7 21.a5 Re7 22.Bf2 Rae8 In the event of 22...Rb8, White chooses between 23.Rae1 Rxe1 24.Rxe1 b5 25.axb6 Rxb6 26.Bxg6 Qxg6 27.Bxh4 Nf6 28.Bxf6 Qxf6 29.Kh1 Qh4 30.Rf1± intending Ng5, Rf3, or the plan from my game: 23.Kh1 b5 24.axb6 Rxb6 25.Rg1 Bc8 26.g3 with an initiative. 23.Ra3! Modern engines like this lift very much. White’s rook enters play through b3-b6, but it is also secretly eyeing the g3-square. 135

Part 4 23...Nhf8 24.Rb3 Bc8 25.Na4 Bd7 26.Nxc5!± when 26...dxc5 loses to 27.Rb6!+–. 20...Bd7 21.a5 Rab8 22.Kh1 Bh6 Black has not any compensation for the pawn after 22...b5 23.axb6 Rxb6 24.Rxa6 Rxa6 25.Bxa6±, Khen­ kin-Nijboer, Netherlands 2010. 23.Bh5 Nhf8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+rsnk+0 9+p+l+-+-0 9p+-zp-wqnvl0 9zP-zpP+p+L0 9-+-+-zP-zp0 9+-sN-+-+N0 9-zP-wQ-vLPzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.Rg1!?

An important resource in this structure. 24.Rab1 with the idea of b2-b4 is also possible, but I wanted to open the g-file first. 24...Re7 25.g3 hxg3 26.Rxg3 Rg7 27.Rag1 Be8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+lsnk+0 9+p+-+-tr-0 9p+-zp-wqnvl0 9zP-zpP+p+L0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-sN-+-tRN0 9-zP-wQ-vL-zP0 9+-+-+-tRK0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.b4!± 136

I accomplished all the strategic ideas of this line! 28...cxb4 is hopeless because my dozing darksquared bishop will pop on d4. 28...Rc8 29.bxc5 dxc5 30.Bf3 (30.Ng5 wins faster) 30...Qd6 31.Be3 Rcc7 32.Be2 Rge7 33.Bc4 Bg7 34.Ng5 Bb5 35.Nxb5 axb5 36.Bxb5 c4 37.Ne6 c3 38.Qd3 Nxe6 39.Rxg6 c2 40.Rxe6 Rxe6 41.dxe6 Qxd3 42.Bxd3 Rc3 43.e7 1-0 19. Tomashevsky-Shomoev EU-ch. Budva 14.03.2009 1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 Nc6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Ng3 e6 10.Be2 exd5 11.cxd5 h5 12.0-0 Nh7 13.Qd2 h4 14.Nh1 f5 15.Nf2 Bd7 16.Kh1!? a6 17.a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+l+-vln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPsnp+-0 9P+-+P+-zp0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQLsNPzP0 9tR-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

In my opinion, Black is worse in this pawn structure. He has not clear counterplay, the h4-pawn and the whole kingside is weak. 17...Re8 17...Qf6 18.exf5 gxf5 19.Nh3 Ng6 is similar to my game against

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 Pavlidis. Khenkin-Nijboer, Netherlands 2010, went further 20.f4 Rfe8 21.Bf2 Rab8 22.a5±. After 17...Qe7, 18.exf5 is the standard plan, but 18.Rae1 also deserves attention. The computer likes 17...Qa5, but it is a risky idea to leave the king without the protection of its strongest piece. White can open the h-file with 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.g4 hxg3 20.hxg3 Rae8 21.Kg2 Re7 21...Nf6 22.Rh1 Re7 23.Rae1 Bd7 24.Bh6² 22.g4 Bc8 23.Nfe4 Nf7 24.Bf4 Qd8 25.Rh1±, Kanep-Sepp, Tallinn 2010. 18.Rg1 In principle, this is a good plan, but in the concrete position White has more useful moves to start with, for instance, 18.a5, or 18.exf5, or 18.Rae1. The thematic plan is, of course, 18.exf5 gxf5 19.Nh3² or 18.Rfe1 Kh8 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Nh3 Ng6 21.f4 Qf6 22.Bf2 Nhf8 23.a5 Re7 24.Rg1 Bh6 25.Rab1± when White is fully prepared for either b4 or g3. 18...g5?! This move weakens the light squares in Black’s camp. It also fails to restrict White’s play on the kingside since the g3-break remains effective. Khairullin-Shomoev, Ulan Ude 2009, saw instead 18...Nf7! 19.Rge1

(19.a5!) 19...g5 20.f4 when 20...g4! 21.g3 would have been unclear. 19.exf5 Bxf5 20.Rae1 Rc8 21.Nce4 Nf7 22.Bd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwqr+k+0 9+p+-+nvln0 9p+-zp-+-+0 9+-zpP+lzp-0 9P+-+N+-zp0 9+-+LvLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-sNPzP0 9+-+-tR-tRK0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the upper hand. He is dominating in the centre which allows him to prepare an offensive on the kingside. 22...Re5 (22...Qd7 23.Bc2 Qd7 24.g3

23.a5)

24.f4! gxf4 23.Bxf4 Re7 24.Nxd6 was winning a pawn. After the text, Black could have stayed in the game with 24...hxg3. 24...Kh8? 25.gxh4 gxh4 26.Rxg7 Kxg7 27.Rg1+ Kh8 (27...Kf8 28.Bh6+ Ke7 29.Bg7 Rg8 30.Qf4) 28.f4 Rxe4 29.Bxe4 Bxe4+ 30.Nxe4 Qf5 31.Qc3+ 1-0

20. Dreev-Laksana Jakarta 13.10.2011 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 c5 7.Be3 Qa5 8.Nc1 cxd4 9.Nb3 137

Part 4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9wq-+-+-+-0 9-+PzpP+-+0 9+NsN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...Qd8

Dreev’s treatment of these positions is remarkably straightforword and easy to understand. He holds the queenside and advances the f-pawn to f5. In Dreev-Hughes, Richardson 2010, his opponent put a halt to this plan, but without success: 9...Qc7 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Be2 a6 12.Rc1 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Be6 14.b3 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.0-0 Qa5 17.f4 f5?!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+p+nzp-mkp0 9p+-zpl+p+0 9wq-+-+p+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+PsN-+-+-0 9P+-+L+PzP0 9+-tRQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black’s king is weak, his e7pawn is also a cause of concern. After 18.exf5 Qxf5, simplest is 19.Qd4+ Kg8 20.Rce1 with a huge advantage. 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Be2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Be6 13.0-0 Qd7 14.Qd2 Rfc8 15.b3 Qd8 16.f4 138

White has played nearly the same moves as in Dreev-Hughes and again, he is clearly on top. Exchanges do not help Black since he is cramped to the last ranks of the board: 16...Bg4 17.Bxg4 Nxg4 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.h3 Nf6 20.Rae1, with e4-e5 to follow. 16...Bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+rwq-+k+0 9zpp+lzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLPzP-+0 9+PsN-+-+-0 9P+-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.e5 Ne8 18.Rad1 Bc6 19.Bg4 e6 20.Qe3 dxe5 21.fxe5 Qa5? This misses a beautiful combination, but Black’s position was difficult anyway.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+n+k+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+l+p+p+0 9wq-+-zP-+-0 9-+PvL-+L+0 9+PsN-wQ-+-0 9P+-+-+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22.Rxf7! Kxf7 23.Qh3 Rd8 24.b4 Qxb4 25.Bxe6+ Ke7 26.Nd5+ Bxd5 27.cxd5 Nc7 28.a3 Qxd4+ 29.Rxd4 Bxe5 30.Qxh7+ Kd6 31.Rd1 1-0

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 21. Moiseenko-Guseinov Ningbo 21.07.2011 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Qd2 Bd7 10.Be2 a5 11.0-0 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9-+lzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.Kh1

White chooses a minimalistic approach. He aims to trade darksquared bishops, then to play Nd5, recapture on d5 by the e-pawn. This transformation of the pawn structure gives him pressure on the kingside due to his active rooks. Another good plan is to retreat the bishop to e3 and keep the tension all over the board. 13...Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 Qb6 Black often chooses 15...a4 16.Rf3 Qa5. It does not change the character of play, but it discourages 17.Rh3 Kg8 18.f5 due to 18... Qe5 and the queen is powerful in the centre. White should follow the main plan with 17.Re3 Qc5 18.Rf1 f6 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.exd5².

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+p+nzp-mkp0 9-+-zp-zpp+0 9+-wqP+-+-0 9p+P+-zP-+0 9+-+-tR-+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

The game Epishin-Vassallo Barroche, Albacete 2004 went 20...Rf7 21.h3 Qa5 22.Rc3 (22.Qc1) 22...a3 23.b3 Rc8 24.Qd4 Kg8 25.Re3 b6 26.Bf3 Qb4 27.Rfe1 Re8 28.Kh2 Nc5 29.R1e2 (29.f5!+–) 29...b5 30.Rc3±. Open files are in White’s favour due to his mobile rooks. 16.Rae1 The queen’s rook takes its place on the potentially open file. 16.Rf3 also deserves consideration since in some lines White’s best set-up is Re3+Rf1 as after 16...Nf6 17.Re3 Qc5 18.Rf1. In that event, Rae1 might be a loss of a tempo. On the other hand, 16.Rae1 is more flexible as it also supports e4-e5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+p+nzppmkp0 9-wqlzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+-tRR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Rae8

Dolmatov-Gufeld, Soviet Union 1985, saw 16...Qb4 17.Rf3 Rad8 139

Part 4 when 18.a3 Qc5 19.Nd5² would have forced the exchange on d5: 19...Bxd5 20.exd5 Rfe8 21.f5±. Or 16...Nf6 17.Bf3 Rad8 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5². The only drawback of our target set-up with exd5 is that our lightsquared bishop has not any prospects. Therefore, it is a good idea to trade it at an opportunity: 16...a4 17.Bg4 Rad8?! 18.Bxd7 Rxd7 19.f5 Qc5 20.Qd3 Qe5 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3 Kg8 23.Nd5±, Eljanov-Zhi­galko, Artek 1999. 17.Rf3 f5 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.Rb3 Qd8 20.exd5 Nc5 21.Re3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqrtr-+0 9+p+-zp-mkp0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9zp-snP+p+-0 9-+P+-zP-+0 9+-+-tR-+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9+-+-tR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has accomplished his strategic aim. If he gets time for Bf3, he would be in total control. Then he could break on the kingside. Of course, Guseinov is well aware of that so he takes the chance to transform the pawn structure. It does not save him from trouble though: 21...Ne4 22.Qd4+ e5 23.dxe6+ Qf6 24.Qxf6+ Rxf6 25.Bf3 Rfxe6 26.Bxe4 Rxe4 27.Rxe4² fxe4 White is better because his king reaches a perfect blockading posi140

tion. He went on to win after some mutual inaccuracies: 28.Kg1 b5 29.cxb5 d5 30.Kf2 Rc8 31.Ke3 Kf6 32.b4 a4 33.b6 Rc6 34.b7 Rb6 35.a3 Rxb7 36.Rc1 g5 37.g3 gxf4+ 38.gxf4 Ke6 39.Rc6+ Kd7 40.Rc5 Ke6 41.Rc6+ Kd7 42.Rh6 Rb8 43.Rxh7+ Kc6 44.Kd4 Rf8 45.Rh4 Re8 46.Rh6+ Kb7 47.Rh3 Rf8 48.Kxd5 Rxf4 49.Re3 Rh4 50.h3 Kb6 51.Rc3 Rf4 52.Ke5 Rf3 53.Kd4 Rf4 54.Re3 Rh4 55.Ke5 Kc6 56.Rc3+ Kd7 57.Kd5 Rf4 58.Re3 Rh4 59.Kc5 Rh5+ 60.Kb6 Rd5 61.Rxe4 Rd3 62.b5 Rxa3 63.h4 Ra2 64.h5 a3 65.Ra4 Rh2 66.Rxa3 Rxh5 67.Ra7+ Kc8 68.Ra8+ Kd7 69.Rg8 Rf5 70.Ka6 Rf2 71.b6 Ra2+ 72.Kb7 Rb2 73.Rg6 Ra2 74.Kb8 Rb2 75.b7 Ra2 76.Rg1 Rh2 77.Ra1 1-0 22. Navara-Svidler Prague 20.06.2012 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 c5 3.c4 Bg7 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 d6 9.0-0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bd7 11.Qd2 Bc6 12.f3 a5 13.b3 Nd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9-+lzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+PsN-+P+-0 9P+-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 14.Be3 The logic of this retreat is simple – White’s bishop fires in two directions while its counterpart on g7 has only one working diagonal. If we extend this logic on White’s future plan, he should leave the pawn on f3 and focus his attention on the centre and the queenside. Many players prefer to retreat the bishop to f2, but from this square it does not control g5. For instance, GiriCuenca Jimenez, Leon 2012, went 14.Bf2 Nc5 15.Rab1 Be5 16.Rfd1 e6 17.Bf1 Qf6 18.Be1 g5=.

28.Re2 Rac8 29.Kg2 a4 30.Bc2 axb3 31.axb3 Nd7 32.Bg5 Nf6 33.Rce1 Qf8 34.Bb1 Bg7 35.f4 b5 36.f5± Sadvakasov-Nguyen, Guangzhou 2010. 18.Bf1 The thematic 18.Nd5 is also possible. Black cannot ignore the knight for too long: 18...Qd8 19.Bg5 Bxd5 20.exd5 Bf6 21.Be3!. Instead, he shifts the bishop to an active position on h3. This is another typical manoeuvre. 18...Kh7 19.g3 Qd8 20.Bh3

14...Nc5 15.Rab1 Qb6 16.Rfc1 Rfc8 17.Rc2 h5 White can easily tame any Black’s activity on the queenside: 17...Qb4 18.Qc1 Qb6 19.Bf1 Qd8 20.Qd2 Qf8 21.Re1 h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+-wqk+0 9+p+-zppvl-0 9-+lzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+p0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+RwQ-+PzP0 9+-+-tRLmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.exd5 Rc7. We see the same pawn structure as in the previous game. Black is deprived of counterplay and can only stay and watch the opponent building up an attack: 24.Rcc1 b6 25.g3 Kh7 26.Bd3 Bh8 27.Bb1 Qg7

e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+rwq-+-+0 9+p+-+pvlk0 9-+lzpp+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+p0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLPzPL0 9P+RwQ-+-zP0 9+R+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has emerged from the opening with a slight plus. He has pressure in the centre, but most importantly, the opponent has no counterplay. That is a serious drawback of the set-up with ...a5. In the normal hedgehog, Black is also passive, but he is always threatening to break through by ...b5 or ...d5. In the diagram position, his only active option is ...f5, but Black’s king had been already weakened by the advance of the h-pawn.

141

Part 4 21.Rd1 Be5 22.Nb5 Qf8 23.Qe2 Rd8 24.Bg5 Rd7 25.Nd4 f5 26.Nxc6 bxc6 27.Be3 Qe7 Black has to worry about multiple weaknesses – the c6-, d6- and the a5-pawn, the knight on c5 is hanging. An alternative was 27... Rdd8 28.f4 Bg7 29.exf5 exf5 30.Bg2 Rac8 31.Bf2 a4 32.b4 Re8 33.Qd2. Black can alter the pawn structure in the centre by 33...Ne4 34.Bxe4 fxe4 35.Bd4², but we know from the previous game that White retains an edge in it. 28.Bg2 28.Rcd2 Rad8 29.exf5 exf5 30.Bf2 Nb7 31.f4 allows the manoeuvre 31...Bc3! 32.Qxe7+ Rxe7 33.Rd3 Bb4! and Black has everything defended: 34.Bg2 Rc8 35.Bf3 Kg8 36.Kf1 Kf7=. 28...Bg7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-+0 9+-+rwq-vlk0 9-+pzpp+p+0 9zp-sn-+p+p0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+P+-vLPzP-0 9P+R+Q+LzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

29.Rcd2?!

White misses his chance here. He should have opened the kingside, for instance: 29.exf5! exf5 30.Bf2 Qf7 31.Qe1 Re7 32.Re2 Rxe2 142

33.Qxe2 Qc7 34.Qd2 Bf8 35.Re1 Rc8 36.g4±. Now the game is drawn. 29...Rad830.Bxc5dxc531.exf5 Bd4+ 32.Kf1 exf5 33.Qxe7+ Rxe7 34.f4 Rd6 35.Re2 Rxe2 Draw.

23. Svetushkin-Dochev Aghios Kirykos 16.07.2004 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 c5 9.dxc5 dxc5 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.Nf4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+pwqnzppvlp0 9p+-+-snp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+P+PsN-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...e6

The game Shen-Lahno, Beijing 2012, saw 11...b6 12.Nfd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qd8 when I like 14.h4. This is mostly a positional move. Its idea is to provoke 14...h5 which weakens g6. Then we should complete development by 15.Be2 (15.g4 and 15.Bf4 Bd4 are unclear.) 15...e6 16.Bg5 f6 17.Bf4 (17.Be3 Ne5) 17... Ne5 18.Nc3². White has space advantage. He can play Kf2 and double the rooks on the open file. 12.Nd3² Ne8 13.h4

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 Black is so passive that I decided to grab space on the kingside. 13...b6 14.h5 Ne5 15.Nxe5 Bxe5 16.f4 Bg7 17.e5± Bb7 18.Bd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+ntrk+0 9+lwq-+pvlp0 9pzp-+p+p+0 9+-zp-zP-+P0 9-+P+-zP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+P+0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

in fact Black retains some counterchances. The computer finds here a very strong idea: 21.Bc2!? and the threat of Qd6 forces Black to trade a pair of rooks on the d-file. That reduces his activity. Instead I went for a quick kill. Objectively, it may be the best choice, but it demands accurate play. 21.Qe2 Rae8 22.Rxh5 Nxh5 23.Qxh5 Bf6 24.Ke2 24.Ne4!± was very strong. 24...Qg7 25.Rh1?!

18...f5

It is evident that Black would not survive without pushing the fpawn, but he could shape this idea a little better: 18...Rd8, hoping for 19.Qf2 f6 with some counterplay. I would have answered 19.hxg6 fxg6 to stabilise my centre, and switch to positional play by 20.Qe2. 19.exf6 Nxf6 20.hxg6 h5 This position is somewhat deceiving. It looks like easily won, but

25.Ne4 was winning: 25...Bxb2 26.Nd6 Re7 27.Nxb7 Rxb7 28.Be4 Re7 29.Qh7+ Qxh7 30.gxh7+ Kh8 31.Rb1+–. 25...Bxg2 And I had to start over again. 26.Rh2 Bc6 27.Qg4 Qb7 28.Nd1 Re7 29.Nf2 Rd8 30.Qh3 b5 31.Ng4 Bg7 32.Qh7+ Kf8 33.Nh6 Ke8 34.Nf7 Be4 35.Qxg7 Bxd3+ 36.Kf2 Kd7 37.Nxd8 1-0

143

Part 4

144

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2

Part 5

The Panno Variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

145

Part 5

Part 5

Main Ideas

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...Nc6 is a natural retort to the Sämish set-up. Black discourages 7.Bd3 or kingside attacks with the threat of 7...e5 and 8...Nd4. Thus White has to bar his own bishop on f1 and its future is the main plot of the next few moves. We’ll be trying to develop our problem piece somehow while Black will be setting counterplay on the queenside. One might think that after thousands of games in this system the main lines are well established and researched. In fact, I’m observing a constant reevaluation of many variations. Both sides seem to shift their investigations towards rare plans lately. I will also try to boost this trend by recommending some nearly unexplored lines. 146

I divided the theoretical material into two parts, but I will consider the main ideas in one survey to make them stand out more clearly. From the diagram position, Black has two main plans: kingside play with ...e5, ...Ne7, ...Ne8, and queenside offensive with ...a6, ...b5. The first one is rather ineffective. White easily advances his queenside pawns while on the other wing he fianchettoes his lightsquared bishop which allows him to remain rock-solid against any attacking attempts: 7...Rb8 8.Qd2 Re8 9.Rb1 a5 10.g3 Nd7 11.Bg2 e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.0-0 b6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+-zpnsnpvlp0 9-zp-zp-+p+0 9zp-+Pzp-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLPzP-0 9PzP-wQN+LzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.a3 Ba6 15.b3 f5 16.Nb5 Nf6 17.Kh1 Rf8 18.Nec3 Nh5 19.Bf2 Kh8 20.b4±. See Game 24 Timman-Marovic, Amsterdam 1973.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Here is another example of passive play: 7...a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 Re8 11.Nf2 h5 12.g3 e6 13.Bg2 Qe7 14.0-0 Qf8 15.f4±

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+rwqk+0 9+pzpl+pvl-0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+PzPPzP-+0 9+-+-vL-zP-0 9PzP-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

See Game 25 Svetushkin-Golu­ bev. It is clear that the typical King’s Indian plan with ...e5 and ...f5 bites on granite against the fianchetto. Sometimes Black tries to stop White’s expansion by playing ...c5 himself. Then White opens the bfile to his favour: 7...a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.g3 Ne8 13.Bg2 c5 14.b4 b6 15.Nf2 f5 16.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqntrk+0 9+-+lsn-vlp0 9pzp-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzpp+-0 9-zPP+P+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9P+-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position looks complex, but in fact its strategic background is rather simple. On the kingside, Black will have to exchange on e4

at some point to prevent possible exf5 from White. Thus he will remain without any counterplay and will have to passively wait and defend his weak pawns on a6 and d6. White will play Rb3 and open the bfile. Then ...Rxb3 would allow axb3 and further b3-b4 so Black’s only way to force exchanges would be to push a5-a4. However, the closer the a-pawn is to White’s forces, the weaker it is. Even without rooks and queens, Black’s defence is not easy. He will be playing for two results only. Look at Game 27 Genov-Praznik, Feffernitz 2012, and Game 26 Gupta-Nolte, Kolkata 2012 to see the implementation of those plans in practice. Now let us deal with: 7...a6 8.Qd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The next four moves of Black can be ...Rb8, ...Bd7, ...Re8, ...e6 in any order. It could be frustrating to trying to remember all the right moves in any possible permutation. You can choose to study them from the “Step by Step” chapters. I will offer you here a universal setup which is applicable to all move 147

Part 5 orders. It has other merits, too – it is simple to learn and not popular so you have a fair chance to surprise your opponent. In short, it consists of playing 9.Rc1 followed up by b3: 8...Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 In the event of 9...Re8 10.b3 e6, White completes development and preserves his space advantage: 11.g3 Bd7 12.Bg2 b5 13.Nd1 bxc4 14.bxc4 Rb4 (14...Bc8 15.0-0 Nd7 16.f4 Ne7 17.Nf2 f5 18.e5 Nb6 19.Nd3²) 15.Nb2², Khairullin-Sebenik, Plov­div 2012. 10.b3!? (Part 6, line A) This position may also occur after the move order 8...Bd7 9.b3 Rb8 10.Rc1.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+pzplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+PzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move protects the c4square and threatens with d5, e.g. 10...Re8 11.d5 Ne5 (11...Na5 12.c5) 12.h3 Bc8 13.f4 Ned7 14.g4 c5 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Bg2², ZaltsmanSpraggett, New York 1983. 10...b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 Ne5 13.Nd4 Qe8 14.a3 e6 15.Be2 exd5 16.exd5² 148

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+qtrk+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Psn-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9zPPsN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQL+PzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s pieces are better coordinated. The game Van der SterrenBarlov, Dieren 1986, went further 16...b4 17.axb4 Rxb4 18.0-0 c5 19.dxc6 Nxc6 when 20.Nxc6 Bxc6 21.Bc4 will probably transform sooner or later into a technical position with opposite coloured bishops and an extra pawn for White.

Advanced Reading If you want to learn more about the Panno Variation and get acquainted with other plans for White, the following lines will provide you with important conclusions you should know. In his book Playing 1.d4, Lars Schandorff advocates 7...a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 e6 11.Nf2 Re8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQNsNPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 12.g3?! b5 13.cxb5 (13.c5 dxc5! 14.Rxc5 Bf8 15.Rc1 e5 16.d5 Bb4! is unclear) 13...axb5 14.Bg2. In my opinion, Black equalises easily here. Instead, I recommend in the diagram position 12.Bg5 – see Game 28 Dreev-Koka­rev, Mumbai 2010. Against the move order 7...a6 8.Qd2 Bd7, Schandorff’s receipt is: 9.g4 b5 10.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+PzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

However, he does not even mention the thematic: 10...h5! with sharp unclear play. My proposition is 9.b3, as I have mentioned before. White has another valuable alternative: 9.Rb1!? Rb8 10.b4 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 Ne5 13.Nd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-zplzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Psn-+-0 9-zP-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQ-+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...e6 14.Be2 exd5 15.exd5 Re8 16.0-0 Nc4 17.Bxc4. White’s

queenside pawns are rolling very fast. The only variation where I approve of a kingside attack is when Black plays 7...a6 8.Qd2 Re8. Here 9.Rb1 is solid and good (Part 5, line B24), but 9.0-0-0!? (or even immediately 9.g4 as I tried in a game) is very interesting (line B22). After 9...b5 10.g4 Rb8 11.h4, White’s attack is strong:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+PzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...h5 12.gxh5! Nxh5 13.Rg1! e5 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.Ng3 or 11...Na5 12.Ng3 bxc4 13.h5. Typical tactical motifs In practice, White often misses to exploit the hanging state of the bishop on d7: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+PsN-vLPzP-0 9P+-wQN+LzP0 9+-+RmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 149

Part 5 13.e5! 15.Bd4±.

dxe5

14.dxe5

Nxe5

Svetushkin-Golubev blitz playchess.com 2004

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+rwqk+0 9+pzpl+pvl-0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9PzP-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In blitz, I chose the consistent move 15.f4, which did ensure me an edge, but 15.e5! dxe5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Bd4± would have been even stronger. In the Panno Variation, White occupies the centre at the expense of development. You should pay special attention to possible piece sacrifices which unleash the enemy pieces: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqr+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9r+PzP-+-+0 9+-+NvLPzP-0 9P+-wQN+-zP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The hanging f3-pawn enables: 16...Na5! 17.exf6 Qxf6 18.Nef4 c5 19.dxc5 Nxc4 20.Rxc4 Rxc4÷. 150

Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9zpP+-+-+-0 9PsnPzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQN+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.e5 dxe5 14.dxe5 Nh5 15.g4 Bxe5 16.gxh5 Qh4+ 17.Bf2 Qxh5 and Black develops a strong initiative. There is no reason to give the opponent such possibilities because over the board initiative means advantage (even when the engine says that chances are equal). Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+pzp-+pvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9zpP+Pzp-+-0 9Psn-+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9-+-wQL+PzP0 9+RsN-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the bishop pair. One tempo for castling would assure him of a serious advantage, but 17... Nxe4! 18.fxe4 Qh4+ 19.Bf2 Qxe4÷ changes completely the character of the game. Sometimes White can overestimate his attack an miss the strong defence ...g5 which keeps the kingside closed:

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Lautier-Golubev Odessa 2006

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zpp+-0 9p+nzp-vlp+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+pzPP+p+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...g5! The outcome of the game depends on the tempi while pawns do not count. It is more important to stall White’s attack. 15.Bxg5 e5 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.fxg4 exd4 18.g5 Qf3 19.g6 Bg4!=.

Solozhenkin-Riera Sola Manresa 1993

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+r+k+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9pwqpzp-snp+0 9sn-+-+-+P0 9-+pzPP+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-tR-+-wQ0 9+-mK-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s last move 15.Rd2? missed a win with 15.hxg6! and allowed 15...g5! which would have stopped White’s attack. Instead, Black lost after 15...e5? 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.g5 Nd7 18.Qxh7+ Kf7 19.Nf5 gxf5 20.g6+ 1-0.

151

Part 5

Part 5

Step by Step 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A. 7...Re8; B. 7...a6

7...Rb8 transposes to the main lines after 8.Qd2 a6 or 8...Re8. A. 7...Re8 The reason behind this move is to meet 8.Nc1 by 8...e5 9.d5 Nd4. Then 10.N1e2 Nxe2 is playable. He can even try 10...c5 11.dxc6 Nxc6 and follow up with ...Be6, ...Rc8 with comfortable piece play. In the event of 10.Nb3 Nxb3 (The sacrifice 10...c5 11.dxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bxd4 is in White’s favour. He can always return the pawn, but gain a strategic advantage, for instance: 13...d5 14.cxd5 152

cxd5 15.Bb5 Re6 16.e5 Nd7 17.f4 f6 18.Bxd7 Bxd7 19.0-0 fxe5 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Bxe5 Rxe5 22.Qd4 Qb6 23.Qxb6 axb6 24.Rad1 Be6 25.Rf4², Spassky-Jansa, Tel Aviv 1964) 11.axb3 c5, Black benefits from having refrained from ...a6. 8.Qd2 Rb8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Again, aimed against 9.Nc1 and hoping for 9...e5 10.d5 Nd4 11.Nb3 c5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Nxd4 exd4 14.Bxd4 d5 (14...c5!?) 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.e5 Nh5 with mutual chances. Note that in these lines Rb8 is much more useful than the common a6. 9.h4!? It is strange that nobody has tested in practice 9.Rc1 aiming to

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 transpose to the main line after 9... a6. Perhaps Black can continue the waiting game with 9...Bd7 which is uncharted territory, but 10.b3 a6 would transpose. 9.a3 will mostly likely transpose to the main line after 9...a6. An independent line is 9...Nd7 10.Rd1! (10.h4 Na5 11.Nc1 c5) 10...a6 11.h4 h5 12.Bh6 with attack. 9.Rb1!? a6 (9...a5 abandons the only active plan with ...b5 and dooms Black to a passive defence. See Game 24 Timman-Maro­ vic, Amsterdam 1973.) 10.b4² also transposes to the main line. The text has not any serious advantages over the above-mentioned alternatives except that it could steer the game into a quiet endgame with a lasting initiative for White. Such a scenario may be very unpleasant for sharp, loving to gamble players. 9...h5 It is dangerous to allow h4-h5. White has the initiative after: 9...a6 10.h5 b5 10...Nxh5 11.Bh6 e5 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.g4 exd4 14.Nd5 Ne5 15.Bg2 (After 15.Nxd4 Nxg4 16.fxg4 Rxe4+ 17.Be2 Bxg4 18.0-0-0 Bxe2 19.Nxe2 c6 20.Rdg1 Rxc4+ 21.Kd1 Rh4 22.Qc3+ Kg8 23.Nf6+ Qxf6 24.Qxf6 Nxf6 25.Rxh4, White has an extra rook, but for the whole lot of 5 pawns.) 15...Nf6 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.Nef4 c6 18.g5±. 11.hxg6 fxg6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zp-vlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+P+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has the better centre. He only should not castle long because that would give Black certain counterplay: 12.Bh6 (12.Nd5 e6 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Rc1²) 12... Bh8 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Rc1 b4 (14... Bd7 15.d5 Ne5 16.Nd4 Nc4 17.Qf2) 15.Nd5 Bd7 16.Nef4±. 10.0-0-0 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+pzp-zppvl-0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+PzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+P+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

It may seem that now the headon attack with 12.Bh6 should be decisive. Indeed, over the board it is easier to attack. However, detailed analysis shows unclear positions after 12...b5! 12...Bh8? 13.g4 is crushing, for example: 12...b5 13.gxh5 Nxh5 14.Nf4 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 b4 16.Ne2 e5 17.Bg5 Bf6 18.d5±; 12...e5 153

Part 5 13.Bg5 exd4 14.Nd5 Ne5 15.gxh5± Nxf3 16.Bxf6 Nxd2 17.Bxd8 Nxf1 18.Bxc7+– Miniboeck-F.Portisch, Vienna 1986. 12.g4 e5 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.g5 Nd7 15.f4 (15.cxb5 axb5 16.f4 Nb6) 15...Nb6 16.cxb5 axb5÷, Knaak-F. Portisch, Trnava 1981. I prefer to trust Karpov’s intuition and recommend a solid positional approach: 11.Nf4 e5 The fine point of White’s set-up is that 11...b5 fails to 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Bxb5 Bd7 14.Bxc6 Bxc6 15.e5±. Therefore, Black has to concede a small, but stable edge in the endgame after:

White has a space advantage on the queenside and his king can also support a pawn storm at this part of the board. All his pieces are active. 16...Bd8 Or 16...Bg7 17.c5 Rd8 (17...c6 18.Nb6 Nd4 19.Bc4 Be6 20.Bxe6 Rxe6 21.Nc4²) 18.g3 Kf8 19.Bh3². 17.c5 Kg7 18.g3² White’s rook enters the play via h2. Stayed the pawn on a7, Black’s position would have been very solid. As it is, the b6-square is weak, the push c5-c6 is always in the air, for instance, 18...Nf8 19.Rh2 Be6 20.a3!? intending to meet 20...Nd7 by 21.c6! bxc6 22.Nb4.

12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Qxd8 Nxd8 Similar is 13...Rxd8 14.Nfd5 Rd7 (14...Ne8 15.Ne7+ Kf8 16.Nxc6 Rxd1+ 17.Nxd1 bxc6 18.g3±) 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Nd5 Bd8 17.g3. 14.Nfd5 Ne6 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Nd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+r+k+0 9+pzp-+p+-0 9p+-+nvlp+0 9+-+Nzp-+p0 9-+P+P+-zP0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+P+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

154

B. 7...a6 8.Qd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

B1. 8...Na5; B2. 8...Re8; B3. 8... Bd7!? The most popular option 8...Rb8 is the subject of the next part of the book.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 B1. 8...Na5 This rare move brings Black over 50%, probably because of the effect of surprise. It immediately starts queenside activity, thus distracting White from an attack on the opposite wing. Now 9.b3 would enable 9...b5 due to the pin along the a-file, so we have not much of a choice: 9.Nc1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9sn-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-sN-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9...Nd7

Black has also tried the speculative pawn sacrifices: a) 9...c5? 10.dxc5 Nd7 11.cxd6 Ne5 12.dxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd5 Qd8 14.Nb6+–, Cheparinov-Perez Candelario, Villafranca 2010. b) 9...b5?! 10.cxb5 axb5 11.Bxb5 c6 12.Be2 Ba6 13.0-0 Nd7 14.b3 c5 15.Bxa6 Rxa6 16.N1e2 Qa8 17.Rab1 Rc8 18.Rfc1±, Lenic-Srebrnic, Ljub­ ljana 2010. c) 9...Bd7

This novelty has been introduced in the game Kanarek-Guseinov, Legnica 2013. White chose 10.Rb1, but 10...Nc6 11.N1e2 Na5 apparently surprised him. Indeed, 11.b4 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.N1e2 Nh5 would be unclear. We are still to see Guseinov’s idea against the natural: 10.Be2!?. Then 10...Rb8 11.0-0 b5 12.Nxb5 should be good for White due to his better pawn structure. 10.Be2! The most accurate move order. It confines Black’s options to symmetric pawn structures only, which are clearly better for White. However, 10.Nb3 right away also leads to a White’s edge: 10...Nxb3 (10...c5 11.dxc5 Nxb3 transposes) 11.axb3 c5 12.dxc5! Nxc5 13.Ra3 Be6 14.Be2 (14.b4 Nd7 15.b3²) 14...a5 15.0-0 b6 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.cxd5 f5 18.exf5 Rxf5 19.Bb5², Dreev-Vorobiov, Loo 2013. 10...c5 11.dxc5 dxc5 12.Nb3 Nxb3 (12...b5?! 13.Rd1!) 13.axb3²

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9p+-+-+p+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

155

Part 5 White has a space advantage and his pieces are positioned harmoniously. He can develop activity on either flank or even open the hfile and leave his king in the centre. For example: 13...b6 14.Rd1 Re8 15.h4!? (15.b4) 15...e6 16.h5 Qc7 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.f4±. B2. 8...Re8 B21. 9.h4; B22. 9.0-0-0!?; B23. 9.a3; B24. 9.Rb1 I have recently played here 9.g4!?. This move is thoroughly sound and should transpose to line B22 after 9...Rb8 10.0-0-0 or 10.h4 h5 11.gxh5! (The kingside should be opened up. 11.g5 Nd7 12.f4 b5 13.f5 is not too effective.) 11...Nxh5 12.0-0-0! b5 13.Rg1. 9...e5 would be an independent variation: 10.d5 Nd4 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Bxd4 Bxg4 13.Bxf6! and White should neutralise the attack. If you feel awkwardly with a shaky king, then you should sidestep this option by 9.0-0-0. B21. 9.h4 h5! This move makes the difference, compared to line B22, where White attacks with 9.0-0-0 b5 10.g4!?. 9...Rb8 is worse: 10.h5 b5 10...Nxh5 gives White a self-rolling attack: 11.Bh6 b5 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.g4 exd4 14.Nd5 Ne5 15.Bg2 Nf6 16.Qh6+ Kg8 17.Nef4 c6 18.g5±. 156

11.hxg6 fxg6 12.Bh6 Bh8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+kvl0 9+-zp-zp-+p0 9p+nzp-snpvL0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQN+P+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has an obvious advantage in the centre and on the kingside so there is no reason to castle long under attack. It is safer to leave the king in the centre: 13.cxb5 White can try to achieve an improved version of the same plan with 13.Bg5!?. Then 13...Na5 14.Qf4 Nxc4 loses to 15.Qh4+–. In practice Black chooses 13...Rf8, but 14.cxb5 axb5 15.d5 Ne5 16.Nd4 is clearly better for White. Perhaps best defence would be the passive 13...e6 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Rc1 Bd7 16.b4 Rf8 17.Nf4². 13...axb5 14.Rc1 It is risky to play 14.d5 Ne5 15.Nd4 e6 (15...b4 16.Ncb5 Bd7 17.Rc1 Rb7 18.Nc6) 16.dxe6 Bxe6 17.Nxe6 Rxe6 18.Bxb5 d5 19.0-0-0, although, objectively, White remains better: 19...Reb6 20.Qe2 c6 21.exd5 Nxd5 22.a4 Nf7 (22... Qc8 23.Nxd5 cxb5+ 24.Kb1 Re6 25.a5) 23.Nxd5 cxd5 24.Bf4 Rxb5 25.axb5 Ra8 26.g3 Qa5 27.Qc2 Qxb5 28.Kb1 Bg7 29.Rd3 Bxb2 30.Rb3 Bf6 31.Qc8+ Rxc8 32.Rxb5 Rc3 33.Rf1 Be5².

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 14...Bd7 15.d5 Ne5 16.Nd4 b4 17.Ncb5 Rb7 18.Nc6 Bxc6 19.dxc6 Rb8 20.Bg5 e6 21.Qxb4 d5 22.a4 dxe4 23.Rd1±.

20.Rg1 fxg6 21.Re1 c3 22.bxc3 Bxh5 23.Ng3 Kh7=.

10.0-0-0 b5 11.Nd5 11.Nf4 bxc4 12.Bxc4 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Be2 Rb8 leads to a complex position with mutual chances. 11...bxc4 12.Nxf6+ 13.g4 hxg4 14.h5

Bxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zpp+-0 9p+nzp-vlp+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+pzPP+p+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 14...g5!

An important defensive resource. 14...e5 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.fxg4! Bxg4 17.Nc3! gives a strong attack, for example, 17...exd4 18.Bxc4+ Be6 19.Qg2 Ne5 20.Qh3‚. 15.Bxg5 e5 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.fxg4 exd4 18.g5 18.Nxd4 Nxd4 19.Qxd4 Qf4+! 20.Qd2 Qxd2+ 21.Rxd2 Rb8 is equal. 18...Qf3 19.g6 Bg4!

Black is holding on magic, but Houdini 3 (and Golubev in 2006!) claims that he is no worse here.

B22. 9.0-0-0!? b5 The only way to use the move order with 9.0-0-0 instead of 9.g4 is 9...Na5, but 10.Nf4 b5 11.e5! is rather grim for Black: 11...Nd7 12.e6 Nb6 13.exf7+ Kxf7 14.b3 bxc4 15.Ne4 Nc6 16.d5 Ne5 17.h4. 12...Bd7 looks a bit strange here. We can follow the receipt from the main line with 13.h4 h5 14.gxh5 Nxh5 15.Rg1. 10.g4 Rb8 11.h4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+PzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...Na5

11...h5 should be met by 12.gxh5! 12.Ng3 hxg4 13.h5 (13.Bh6 e5) 13...e5! 14.hxg6 fxg6 is unclear. 157

Part 5 12...Nxh5 13.Rg1!. White gets a strong attack with natural straightforward moves, for instance, 13...e5 14.Bg5 Qd7 15.Ng3 Nxg3 16.Rxg3 Nxd4 17.h5 c6 18.Bh6 Qe7 19.hxg6 f5 20.Bg5 Qe6 21.Qh2±. 12.Ng3 Nxc4 12...bxc4 is very difficult as Black does not get any counterplay after 13.h5!, e.g. 13...c6 when 14.hxg6 is simplest – to avoid ...g5. 12...c5 may pay off if White continues with 13.h5 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Nc6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Be3 and now 16... Qa5! leads to very sharp positions: 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.Nf5 Bxf5 19.gxf5 b4 20.Nb1 Qxa2 21.Qg2 Ne5 22.fxg6 fxg6 23.f4 Neg4 24.e5 dxe5 25.fxe5 Nxe5 26.Bf4 Nxc4 27.Bxb8=. However, 13.dxc5 Nxc4 (13... Nxg4 14.fxg4±) 14.Bxc4 bxc4 15.h5 Qa5 16.c6± is crushing. 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+-zp-zppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+pzPP+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9+-mKR+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s attack is running unimpeded: 14...Nd7 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Qh2 Nf8 17.Bh6±; 14...c5 15.dxc5±; 14... 158

c6 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Qh2 Kf7 17.e5 Nd5 18.Nge4±. B23. 9.a3 This set-up is similar to 9.Rb1, but White hopes that he could find a better place for his queen’s rook, for example, on d1. However, it is a bit slow and should not give White an advantage. 9...Bd7 10.b4 e6!? A useful waiting move. The direct 10...b5 is very sharp indeed, but White should be somewhat better after 11.cxb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 e5 13.d5 Nd4 14.Nbxd4 exd4 15.Bxd4 Nxe4 16.fxe4 Qh4+ 17.g3 Qxe4 18.Bxg7 Qxh1 19.Qh6 Bg4 20.0-0-0. 11.Rd1 11.g3 Qb8 12.Bg2 b5 13.cxb5 (13.c5 a5) 13...axb5 14.0-0 e5 15.d5 Ne7 is roughly equal due to the imminent break ...c7-c6. 11...b5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-zPPzPP+-+0 9zP-sN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQN+PzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 12.cxb5 12.c5 Qb8 13.Ng3 a5 balances the game: 14.cxd6 cxd6 15.Bxb5 axb4 16.axb4 Rc8 17.Rb1 Nxd4 18.Bxd7 Rxc3 19.Bxd4 Rc4=. 12...axb5 13.Nxb5 Na7!© This novelty assures Black of the initiative. It should be enough to equalise the material. Dlugy-Fransson, London 1987 saw 13...Qb8 14.Nec3 Nd8 15.Be2±. I have also analysed 13...e5 14.d5 Nd4 15.Nec3!? and White develops queenside activity: 15...Nh5 16.Bc4 (16.a4 f5 17.Bd3 fxe4 18.Bxe4 Nf6 19.Bd3 Nxb5 20.axb5 e4) 16...Nxb5 17.Nxb5 Qb8 18.Nc3 Rxa3 19.Qb2 Ra8 20.0-0 Nf4 21.b5² or:15...Nxb5 16.Bxb5 Rxa3 17.0-0². After the text, 14.Nxa7 Rxa7 15.Ra1 Qa8 would be dangerous for White, so White should continue with: 14.Nbc3 Nb5 15.a4 Na3! 16.Qa2 Bxa4 17.Nxa4 Rxa4 18.Nc3 Ra8=. B24. 9.Rb1 White keeps the grip over the centre and prepares to seize more space on the queenside. 9...Bd7 My game Sve­tushkin-Shav­tva­ lad­ze, Ikaros 2002, continued 9...

Rb8 10.b4 b5? 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 Ne5 13.Nd4 Bd7 14.Bxb5 (14.Ncxb5 e6 15.dxe6 fxe6 16.Be2±, Polugaevsky-Gufeld, Riga 1975) 14...Bxb5 15.Ncxb5 e6 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.Rc1±. 10...e5?! 11.d5 Ne7 12.Ng3 or 12.c5 also favours White. Black should have embraced a waiting tactic with 10...Bd7 which transposes to the main line. 9...Nd7 10.b4 Nb6 11.Nc1 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nb3 f5 14.Bd3 (14. Bf2!?) was pleasant for White in Po­ lu­gaevsky-Pinter, Budapest 1975. 9...Nh5 provokes 10.g4 Nf6 11.h4 h5 12.g5 Nd7. White does have more space, but Black’s set-up is quite flexible, the knight is comfortable on d7. Perhaps we should opt for the thematic 10.g3!? and let the opponent seek counterplay. 10.b4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+pzplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-zPPzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 10...Rb8

10...e6 is a flexible alternative. Black’s position is like a compressed spring ready to bounce. 159

Part 5 Here is an instructive example: 11.a4 a5! 12.b5 Nb4 13.e5 (13.Nc1 is innocuous here, because the rook is still on a8 to protect the a5-pawn after 13...e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Nb3 Be6=.) 13...dxe5 14.dxe5 Nh5! 15.g4 Bxe5 16.gxh5 Qh4+ 17.Bf2 Qxh5 and suddenly Black develops a strong initiative. White can castle, but 18.Bg2 Rad8 19.Ng3 Qh4 20.0-0 Bxb5 21.Qe2 Bxc3 22.cxb5 Nd3 23.Qe4 Qh6 24.Be3 Qxe3+ 25.Qxe3 Bd4 26.Qxd4 Rxd4 27.Rfd1 Red8 28.Bf1 Nf4 is roughly equal. The best reply is: 11.g3!, covering the check from h4 and intending to meet 11...Rb8 by 12.a4 a5 13.b5 Nb4 14.e5 dxe5 15.dxe5 Nh5 16.f4². 11.a4! 11.Nc1 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nb3 c6! (or 13...Nxb3?! 14.Rxb3 c6 15.Be2² with a clear plan for pressure along the b-file in Knaak-Csulits, Strausberg 1971.) 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bxd4 cxd5 16.cxd5 Nxe4 17.fxe4 Rxe4+ 18.Nxe4 Qh4+ 19.Ng3 Bxd4 is dangerous for White. Black has a lasting initiative for the exchange. 11.g3 gives the enemy time for 11...b5 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Bg2 e5 14.d5 Ne7 with sufficient counterplay in the centre, e.g. 15.g4 c6 16.dxc6 Bxc6 17.g5 Nh5 18.Rd1 Nc8, heading for c4. 11...a5 12.b5 Nb4 13.Nc1 The blitz game Dreev-Golubev, 2004, saw 13.Ng3 e5 14.d5 b6 160

15.Be2. White retains a space advantage, but it is useless since the position is too closed. 13...e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Nb3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9zpP+-zp-+-0 9PsnP+P+-+0 9+NsN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQ-+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The hit on a5 allows White to complete development and enjoy a stable edge: 15...b6 16.Be2 Be6 (16... Nh5 17.0-0 Nf4 18.Nd5) 17.Nd5².

B3. 8...Bd7!? This most flexible move is coming into fashion again. A few decades ago, Black put his hopes mainly in the break on the queenside with ...Rb8, b7-b5. In modern times, he is often experimenting with the manoeuvre ...Qb8, leaving the rook on a8, or with kingside plans. For instance, after the old-fashioned: a) 9.Nc1, Smirin played against Bocharov in Moscow 2010 9...Nh5 10.d5 Ne5 11.Be2 f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.Bh6 when 13...Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Qe8 would have lead to a balanced

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 game with mutual chances. Here is another example: 9.Nc1 Qb8 10.Nb3 Re8 11.Rc1 (11.Be2 b5) 11... b5 12.c5 e6 13.Be2 b4 14.Nd1 a5 and the queen is well stationed on b8, S.Maksimovic-Kr.Georgiev Sunny Beach 2006. It was widely believed that 8... Bd7 should be punished with a head-on attack on the kingside, using the fact that the bishop move did not prepare immediate counterplay with ...b5. However, White’s attack is not running as smoothly as I would like. The fine point of Black’s defence is the counter-attack with ...h5. Let us check: b) 9.h4 h5 10.Bh6 (or 10.0-0-0 b5 11.Bh6 e5!)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+pzplzppvl-0 9p+nzp-snpvL0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+PzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQN+P+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...e5!

The pawn sacrifice 10...b5 is premature: 11.Bxg7 Kxg7 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Nxb5 Na5 14.Na3 e5 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Qc3 Qe7 17.Nc1 c5 18.Nd3±, Rodshtein-Smirin, Acre 2013. 11.0-0-0 b5 12.Nd5 Re8!. It is unclear how White can unfold his attack. In the game Bu Xiangzhi-

Zvjaginsev, Dagomys 2008, he tried the most persistent 13.g4?! hxg4 14.h5 gxf3 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Nec3 when 16...Ng4µ should stop the assault. Lars Schandorff bases his recommended repertoire on: c) 9.g4 b5 10.h4 10.0-0-0 puts the king under attack: 10...Na5! (but not 10...e5 11.d5 Na5 12.Ng3 Nxc4 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.h4 Rb8 15.h5 Qe7 16.g5 Ne8 17.Qh2 Bh8 and Black is stalemate – 18.Nf1±) 11.Ng3 b4! 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.cxd5 b3 14.a3 c6! 15.dxc6 Rc8ƒ.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+PzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

In this position, Schandorff does not even mention the thematic: 10...h5! The alternatives are clearly in White’s favour: 1. 10...Re8 11.h5 Rb8 [11...b4 12.Nd5 e5 13.0-0-0!‚ (13.Bh6 Bh8 14.Bg5 exd4 15.Ng1 Re5 16.Bf4 Bg7 17.Bxe5 Nxe5 was unclear in San­dipan-Moradiabadi, Chalkis 2010) 13...a5 (13...exd4 14.Nxd4 Ne5 15.Bh6 Bh8 16.Bg5) 14.Kb1±] 12.hxg6 fxg6 13.0-0-0 bxc4 14.Nf4‚. 161

Part 5 2. 10...Na5 11.Nf4! It is important to take e6 under control in order to prevent 11... c5 12.dxc5 Be6. Instead, 11.Ng3 c5 12.g5 Nh5 13.Nxh5 gxh5 14.dxc5 Be6 15.cxd6 Nxc4 16.Bxc4 Bxc4 17.Rd1 was also better for White, Vitiu­gov-Novikov, Dagomys 2010.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zplzppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9snp+-+-+-0 9-+PzPPsNPzP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...c5 (11...b4 12.Ncd5 e5 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Nd5 Bxh4+ 16.Kd1‚; 11...Nxc4 12.Bxc4 bxc4 13.h5‚ g5 14.h6) 12.dxc5 dxc5 13.Rd1±. 3. 10...Rb8 11.h5 e6 12.Bh6 bxc4 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Ng3 e5 15.hxg6 fxg6 16.Qh6+ Kf7 17.Bxc4+. 4. 10...e5 11.d5 Na5 12.Ng3 Nxc4 (it is impossible to hold the h7-square after 12...c6 13.g5 Ne8 14.h5) 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.h5 Qe7 15.00-0 Rfb8 16.hxg6 fxg6 17.g5 Ne8 18.Qh2 Bf8 19.Nf1². The knight goes to d2, the break f3-f4 is also on the agenda. 11.g5 I analysed a similar position with 0-0-0 Re8 inserted. Then it was good to open the kingside by 12.gxh5 Nxh5 13.Rg1, hoping for Ng3. In

162

the current situation, however, this idea fails to 12...e5 13.Bg5 Qb8 14.d5 Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Ne2 d3! 17.Qxd3 bxc4 and Black’s queen enters the play decisively. 11...Ne8 12.cxb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqntrk+0 9+-zplzppvl-0 9p+nzp-+p+0 9+P+-+-zPp0 9-+-zPP+-zP0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

At a cursory glance, White is a pawn up and he has a space advantage. However, it is not easy to play this position over the board. His king will never find a safe haven and he practically lacks an active plan. Black obtains certain compensation for the pawns after 12...axb5 13.Nxb5 d5 14.exd5 Na5 15.Na3 c6 16.dxc6 Bxc6 17.Bg2 Nd6. As a whole, 8...Bd7!? is rather unexplored and it offers plenty of ground for investigation. I propose to choose a solid, safe approach, based on short castling and play in the centre: 9.Rb1!? Another interesting option is 9.b3!? e6 9...Rb8 10.Rc1 transposes to 8... Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.b3 – see the next part of the book.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 10.Rd1 Dreev chose against Fier in Jur­ mala 2013 10.g3 Rb8 11.Bg2. This is a standard way of development, but Black got sufficient counterplay after 11...b5 12.cxb5 axb5 13.0-0 b4 14.Nd1 Na5 15.Nf2 Bb5 16.Rfd1 Nd7 17.Rac1 c5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+PzP0 9+-+RmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...Rb8

10...Re8 gives a tempo for 11.g3 when the receipt from the previous comment does not work anymore because the bishop on d7 is hanging: 11...Rb8 12.Bg2 b5 13.e5! dxe5 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Bd4±. 11.Ng3 h5 12.Bd3² Now 12...h4 13.Nge2 leaves White in control of the centre while 12...e5 13.d5 Nd4 does trade a knight after 14.Nge2 Nxe2 15.Nxe2, but the counterplay with 15...c5 16.dxc6 bxc6 is easily tamed by 17.Bb1².

9...Rb8 9...Re8 transposes to line B24. 10.b4 b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 Ne5 13.Nd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-zplzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Psn-+-0 9-zP-sNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQ-+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 13...e6

13...Qe8 does not make sense due to 14.Be2 e6 15.0-0 Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Rfe1². 14.Be2 exd5 15.exd5 Re8 16.0-0 Nc4 17.Bxc4 bxc4 White’s has destroyed the enemy queenside. Now 18.b5² is natural and good. Morozevich took a more straightforward course against Illescas, Porto Carras 2011: 18.Nc6 Bxc6 19.dxc6 Ra8 20.a4 Nh5 21.Bd4±.

163

Part 5

Part 5

Complete Games 24. Timman-Marovic Amsterdam 1973 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Rb8 8.Qd2 Re8 9.Rb1 a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwqr+k+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9+R+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.g3

I do not like too much the fianchetto because the bishop is passive on g2 and it does not control the important diagonal f1-a6. However, Black has renounced any ideas with ...b5 and he obviously has in mind ...e5 followed up by ...f5. Against this set-up, g3 is a perfect choice. 10...Nd7 11.Bg2 e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.0-0 b6 14.a3 Ba6 15.b3 f5 16.Nb5 Nf6 This game is a good example of how impotent is the typical King’s Indian attack against the Sämish fianchetto. The only way to find some employment to the e7-knight 164

is to redeploy it via g8. However, then White may open a second front in the centre by exf5 and f3-f4.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-zp-sn-vlp0 9lzp-zp-snp+0 9zpN+Pzpp+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9zPP+-vLPzP-0 9-+-wQN+LzP0 9+R+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Kh1 Rf8 18.Nec3 Nh5 19.Bf2 Kh8 20.b4 axb4 21.axb4 Ng8 22.Ra1 Bh6 23.Qe2 Bxb5 24.Nxb5 Nhf6 Admitting the failure of the whole plan. 24...Ngf6 25.exf5 gxf5 26.Ra7 Rf7 27.Bh3 Ng7 would add two new weaknesses – on f5 and e5. After the text, 25.exf5 gxf5 26.Ra7 Ne8 27.f4 would be decisive, too. Timman shows that he can win only by pressure on the queenside. 25.c5 bxc5 26.bxc5 Ne8 27.c6 f4 28.Ra7 fxg3 29.hxg3 Ngf6 (29...Rf7 30.Bh3 Bg5 31.Rfa1 h5 32.Rb7 was also hopeless.) 30.Bh3 Nh5 31.Bg4 Rf7 32.Kg2 Qg5 33.Rb7 Ra8 34.Rh1 Rd8 35.Bb6 Nef6 36.Rxc7 Nxg4 37.Rxf7 1-0

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8

Part 6

The Main Line Panno Variation 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

165

Part 6

Part 6

Step by Step

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+pzp-zppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9.Rc1

White aims to redeploy the knight via the route Nc3-Nd1-f2-d3 to take under control the key square c5. Meanwhile, he is keeping an eye on d4 and on the c6-knight which will hang in the event of 9...b5? 10.cxb5 axb5 11.Nxb5. 9.Nc1 has faded out of fashion because Black obtains sufficient compensation for the pawn after 9...e5 10.d5 Nd4 11.Nb3 c5 12.dxc6 bxc6 13.Nxd4 exd4 14.Bxd4 Re8 15.Be2 d5 16.cxd5 cxd5. Here is a 166

recent example: 17.e5 Nd7 18.f4 Bh6 19.Qe3 (19.Be3 Nxe5) 19...f6 20.Qf3 fxe5 21.Qxd5+ Kh8 22.fxe5 Bg7 23.e6 Qh4+ 24.Bf2 Qe7 25.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trl+r+-mk0 9+-+nwq-vlp0 9p+-+P+p+0 9+-+Q+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LvLPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position has occurred in Yang-Kiewra, Richardson 2013. Instead of 25...Qxe6 26.Qxe6 Rxe6, when 27.Bc4 would be better for White, Black had to centralise the knight: 25...Ne5! and White cannot find active stands for his bishops, for example: 26.b3 Bb7 27.Qd2 Qxe6 28.Qf4 Rbc8 29.Rac1 Qc6 30.Qg3 Kg8 31.Be1 h5©. As a whole, it is practically unrewarding to defend an extra pawn with little chances of converting it even with best play, but with a considerable risk to land into a lost position with only one inaccurate move. 9...Bd7

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 Alternatives often transpose to the main line:

Bd7! would throw us out of our re­ pertoire.

a) 9...e6 10.Nd1 (10.b3) 10...Ne7 11.g3 (completing the development) 11...b5 12.c5 Nd7 13.b4 f5 14.Nf2 d5 15.e5±, Postny-Matta, New Delhi 2011. This structure is playable for Black if White has castled already. In the current position, White can open the h-file and finish off the opponent with a kingside attack.

11...d5 (11...Bd7 transposes to line B3) 12.e5 Nd7 13.cxd5 exd5 14.f4 Nb6 15.b3 f6 16.g3².

b) 9...Re8 10.Nd1 10.b3 is a good alternative. Then 10...Bd7 11.d5! takes advantage of the fact that c4 is protected. 10...b5 is impossible because of the hanging knight on c6. Remains: 10... e6 11.g3 Bd7 (11...Ne7 12.Bg2 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.0-0 Ba6 15.Rc2 Qd7 16.Rfc1 Rec8 17.Nd1 Ne8 18.Nf2 f5 19.Nf4², Gupta-Das, London 2011) 12.Bg2 b5 13.Nd1 bxc4 14.bxc4 Rb4 (14...Bc8 15.0-0 Nd7 16.f4 Ne7 17.Nf2 f5 18.e5 Nb6 19.Nd3²) 15.Nb2², Khairullin-Sebenik, Plov­ div 2012. 10...e6 (10...Bd7 11.Nf2 is co­ vered in Game 25 SvetushkinGolu­bev) 11.Nf2 The game Vitiugov-Ganguly, Khanty-Mansiysk 2010, saw 11.g3 Ne7 12.Bg2 b5 13.c5 b4 (13...dxc5 14.Rxc5 e5 15.d5 Bb7 16.Qc1) 14.Nf2 a5 15.0-0 Ba6 16.Rfd1 Nd7 when 17.Nd3!, providing a retreat square for the e3-bishop after 17...d5 (17... dxc5 18.Nxc5 or 17...Bxd3 18.Qxd3 dxc5 19.f4! cxd4 20.Nxd4± are inferior alternatives) 18.e5, would be better for White. However, 11...

c) 9...e5 10.d5 Ne7 As a rule, Black is clearly worse in the Panno Variation if he has to retreat his knight to e7 instead of d4. 11.Ng3 11.g3 Nd7, transposing to line d, is a solid alternative. 11...Ne8 11...h5 only weakens the g6pawn. The game Erdos-Grimberg, Deizisau 2011 went on 12.Bd3 c5 13.Nge2 Bd7 14.a3 Nh7 15.b4 b6 16.0-0². White then opened the kingside with f3-f4. 12.Be2 f5 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Nxf5 gxf5 15.f4², Gupta-Akash, New Delhi 2011. d) 9...Nd7 10.g3 It is not too consistent to start a kingside attack with 10.h4 because White’s last move deprived him of long castling so his queen’s rook cannot join in the offensive. Khenkin-Dahlheimer, Germany 2009 went on 10...e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.h5 f5 13.hxg6 hxg6 14.Bh6 f4 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.g3 g5= when the lack of the option of 0-0-0 is clearly seen. 10...e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.Bg2 f5 13.0-0 Nf6 14.b4 fxe4 15.Nxe4 Nf5 16.Bg5 Bd7 167

Part 6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+pzpl+-vlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+PzpnvL-0 9-zPP+N+-+0 9+-+-+PzP-0 9P+-wQN+LzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This typical position occurred in Spassov-Martinez Duany, Torredembarra 2010. White’s space advantage allows him to quickly bring superior forces to the critical parts of the board. He can follow with c4-c5, but it would be more effective to open files in the centre with f3-f4, e.g. 17.N2c3! b6 18.Rce1 Rf7 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Ne4 Bxg5 21.Nxg5 Rf8 22.f4.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+pzplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

I will deal here with two main options: A. 10.b3; B. 10.Nd1 A. 10.b3 This line may also occur after the move order with 8...Bd7 9.b3 Rb8 168

10.Rc1. It usually leads to a clash on the queenside where White has some advantage. 10...b5 a) 10...Re8 11.d5 Ne5 12.h3 (b3 turned well here – Black must beat in retreat) 12...Bc8 13.f4 Ned7 is very passive. Practice has seen Black struggling after 14.g4 c5 15.dxc6 bxc6 16.Bg2², ZaltsmanSpraggett, New York 1983. b) 10...e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.Ng3 Ne8. Black’s pieces are stuck to the back ranks. That should encourages us to open play by either 13.Bd3!? f5 14.exf5 or 13.Be2 f5 14.exf5 Nxf5 15.Nxf5 gxf5 16.0-0², KrumpacnikBoros, Budapest 1995, planning f3f4. c) 10...e6 11.Ng3 e5 12.d5 Nd4 13.Nce2 Nxe2 14.Bxe2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+P+-vLPsN-0 9P+-wQL+PzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White is ready to open the queenside with c4-c5 while Black’s counterplay is not even looming yet. Even more, White can attack on the kingside himself, as in the game Tomashevsky-Petenyi, Legnica 2013: 14...Ne8 15.0-0 h5 16.Rce1 (16. c5!?) 16...Qe7 17.Bd3 b6 18.b4 h4

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 19.Ne2 f5 20.Bg5 Bf6 21.Bxf6 Qxf6 22.f4 exf4 23.Nxf4 g5 24.Ne6 Bxe6 25.dxe6 Qd4+ (25...f4 26.e5 dxe5 27.Qe2©) 26.Kh1 f4 27.e5 dxe5 28.Re4 Qd6 29.Qe2±. At the Russian championship, Demchenko attempted to improve with 14...h5, but he obviously was not satisfied with his position after 15.Bg5 Qe8 16.0-0 Nh7 17.Be3 h4 18.Nh1 f5 19.c5 h3 (19...f4 20.Bf2 h3 21.g4) 20.g3², Matlakov-Demchenko, Yekaterinburg 2013, as two days later he deviated first against Khairullin, opting for 10...b5. 11.cxb5 axb5 12.d5 12.Ng3 b4 13.Nd1 e5 14.d5 Ne7 (14...Nd4 15.Nf2) 15.Nf2 c5 16.dxc6 Bxc6 17.Be2 h5 is balanced. 12...Ne5 13.Nd4 Qe8 14.a3 e6 15.Be2 exd5 16.exd5²

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+qtrk+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Psn-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9zPPsN-vLP+-0 9-+-wQL+PzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s pieces are better co-ordinated. The game Khairullin-Demchenko, Yekaterinburg 2013, went further 16...b4 17.axb4 Rxb4 18.0-0

c5 19.dxc6 Nxc6 20.Nxc6 Bxc6 21.Bc4 Qb8 when White could have maintained his initiative with 22.Bf4 Rd8 23.Rfd1 Qa8 24.Bg5 Rbb8 25.Qf4 Qa7+ 26.Kh1 Nh5 27.Qh4 Rd7 28.Nd5 Bxd5 29.Bxd5 h6 30.Bd2 Nf6 31.Bc6 Re7 32.b4². Alternatives will probably transform sooner or later into a technical position with opposite coloured bishops and an extra pawn for White, e.g. 21...Rb7 22.Rfe1 Qd7 23.Bd4 d5 (23...Rd8 24.Rcd1) 24.Bxf6 Bxf6 25.Nxd5. B. 10.Nd1 This manoeuvre enables c4-c5 in answer to ...b5. I would like to focus your attention to the following replies: B1. 10...e5; B2. 10...b5; B3. 10... e6! Minor alternatives are: a) 10...a5 Black is entrenching his queen­ side before playing ...e5, ...Nh5(e8), ...f5. White should decide where to develop his light-squared bishop – on e2 or g2. Both set-ups are good enough. The latter is a bit passive, but safer: 11.Ndc3 e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.Nb5 b6 14.Nec3 Nh5 15.Be2 f5 16.0-0². White’s assault on the queenside is obviously faster: 16...f4 17.Bf2 g5 18.a3 Nf6 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 g4 21.Ra1. 169

Part 6 11.g3 b6 12.Bg2 e5 13.d5 Ne7 14.0-0 Nh5 (14...h5 15.Nf2 Nh7 16.f4 f5 17.fxe5 dxe5 18.Bh6±, Blanco Gramajo-Aldrete Lobo, ICCF email 2006) 15.g4 Nf6 16.Ng3 Ne8 17.Nc3² c6 (or 17...f5 18.gxf5 gxf5 19.f4). b) 10...Re8 11.Nf2 is covered in my Game 25 Svetushkin-Golu­bev, blitz, Canarias en Red 2004. c) 10...Ne8 11.Nf2 e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.g3 transposes to line B1. B1. 10...e5 11.d5 Ne7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+pzplsnpvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9+-tRNmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 12.g3

In no way should we give Black counterplay with the premature 12.c5?! dxc5 13.Bxc5 Re8 followed up by 14...c6. 12.Nf2 is very similar to the main line, but it is not too accurate because Black can answer 12...c5 without having to defend the d6pawn first. That may inspire him to take on b4 in the event of 12.Nf2 170

c5 13.b4 b6 14.g3 cxb4. Later his knight can go to d7. This approach would be dubious with a knight on e8. 12...Ne8 13.Bg2 c5 Black may play this move later, but after 13...f5 14.0-0 c5, White gets an additional decent option – 15.dxc6, although I think it is better to transpose to the main line with 15.b4. 13...f5 14.Nf2 Nf6 15.0-0 Kh8 looks in the spirit of the King’s Indian, but White’s set-up on the kingside is extremely safe and can easily endure any attacking attempts. Furthermore, we can even shift the direction of our offensive to the centre with 16.b3 Neg8 (16... b6 17.b4!) 17.exf5!? gxf5 18.f4. 14.b4 b6 15.Nf2 f5 16.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqntrk+0 9+-+lsn-vlp0 9pzp-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzpp+-0 9-zPP+P+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9P+-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is playing for two results only. Look at Game 27 GenovPraz­nik, Feffernitz 2012, and Game 26 Gupta-Nolte, Kolkata 2012.

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 B2. 10...b5 11.c5 e6 11...dxc5 is premature. After 12.Rxc5, Black lacks a sensible plan: 12...Re8 is bad due to 13.e5±. 12...e6 is well met by 13.Nf2! [Do not play 13.g3 here. Practice has shown that Black gets good counterplay with 13...Re8 14.Bg2 Bf8 15.Rc1 e5 16.d5 Bb4÷ 17.Ndc3 (17. Nec3 Nd4) 17...Na5 18.b3 c6] 13... Re8 14.Nd3! Bf8 15.Rc1 e5 16.d5 Nd4 17.Nc5 with a significant edge. 12.Nf2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+pzP-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQNsNPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...b4

a) 12...Ne7. This move renounces the threat of ...e5 so our knight is not needed on e2 any longer. Instead of modern, but artificial ideas with g3, it is reasonable to unplug the f1-bishop with 13.Ng3!?, for example, 13...h5 (13...d5 14.e5 Ne8 15.Bd3±; 13...Be8 14.Bd3) 14.Bd3 h4 15.Ne2±. b) 12...Re8. This aims to reach

the above-mentioned position after 13.g3 dxc5 14.Rxc5 Bf8. We can prevent it by 13.Nd3 b4 14.b3, but 13.Bg5!? looks more restrictive. White’s strategic idea is seen in the line: 13...a5 (13...Ne7 14.Nd3) 14.Ng4 e5 15.d5 Nb4 16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.c6 Bc8 19.a3±. 13.Ng3!? Nearly all the players develop the king’s bishop to g2. This is a safe approach as it allows quick castling, but at the same time the fianchettoed bishop is too passive. Typical examples are: 13.g3 Ne7 14.Bg2 Bb5 15.0-0 Nd7 16.Rfd1 a5 17.b3 (17.Qc2 Qc8 18.f4 Qa6, Stanoev-Berbatov, Plovdiv 2010) 17...Nc6 18.cxd6 cxd6 19.Nf4 Ne7 20.N4d3, Palachev-Solovjov, St. Petersburg 2010:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+nsnpvlp0 9-+-zpp+p+0 9zpl+-+-+-0 9-zp-zPP+-+0 9+P+NvLPzP-0 9P+-wQ-sNLzP0 9+-tRR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White stands pretty, but that’s all. He has not any target and his minor pieces have not clear prospects. The b5-bishop is clearly superior to the g2-one. Black can simply trade heavy pieces along the c-file with 20...Rc8 with a balanced game.

171

Part 6 13.Nd3 a5 14.g3 Ne7 15.Bg2 Bb5 16.0-0 Nd7 17.Rfd1, KhairullinGorovykh, St. Petersburg 2010. Sometimes White inserts 13.h4 h5, but it does not change significantly the set-up. The plan of the Bulgarian GM M.Nikolov is more natural. 13...a5 14.Bd3 Ne7 15.0-0 Bb5 16.Ne2 Nd7 17.cxd6 cxd6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-+nsnpvlp0 9-+-zpp+p+0 9zpl+-+-+-0 9-zp-zPP+-+0 9+-+LvLP+-0 9PzP-wQNsNPzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This position occurred in M.Nikolov-Berbatov, Blagoevgrad 2010. It compares favorably to the previous diagram as White can now gain full control over the c-file with 18.Bxb5! Rxb5 19.b3 Nf6 20.Rc2 Qd7 21.Rfc1 Rc8 22.Rxc8+ Nxc8 23.Qc2 Ne7 24.Qc7². B3. 10...e6 11.Nf2 Re8! 12...b5 13.c5 transposes to line B2. 11...d5 12.e5 Ne8 13.cxd5 exd5 14.f4 f6 15.g3 Ne7 16.Bg2 c6, Zhou Jianchao-Sandipan, Beijing 2008, 172

gives White a better pawn structure. After 17.Nd3 Nf5 18.Bf2 Nc7 19.0-0 fxe5 20.dxe5 b6 21.b4, Black’s central pawns would be immobilised.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+pzpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQNsNPzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The fine point of Black’s move order is to lure the opponent into the line 12.g3 b5 13.c5 dxc5! 14.Rxc5 Bf8÷. It also discourages 12.Ng3 or 12.Nd3 in view of 12...e5 13.d5 Nd4. 12.Bg5!? I do not see any future in the most popular plan of White so far: a) 12.g3 b5 13.cxb5 13.b3 looks reasonable, but concrete analysis shows that Black gets strong counterplay against the c4pawn by: 13...bxc4 14.bxc4 Rb4! The idea of doubling the rooks on the b-file gave White a strong centre in Galopoulos-Fier, Korinthia 2012 after 14...Qe7 15.Bg2 Rb7 16.0-0 Reb8 17.Nd3 Nb4 (17...e5 18.d5 Nd4 19.c5 Bb5 20.c6) 18.e5 Ne8 19.f4². 14...Qc8 15.Bg2 Qb7 16.0-0 is also pleasant for White.

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 15.Bg2 Black takes over the initiative after 15.Nd3 Ra4 16.e5 Na5! 17.exf6 Qxf6, for example: 18.Nef4 c5 19.dxc5 Nxc4 20.Rxc4 Rxc4 21.Kf2 Rb8÷.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqr+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-trPzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9P+-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...Ra4! A purely computer move! Sriram-Adhiban, Mangalore 2008, saw the more logical 15...Qb8, but then White could have attacked in the centre by 16.Nd3 Ra4 17.e5². After the text, White is unable to hold the c4-square. For instance: 16.Rc3 (16.0-0 Na5) 16...Na5 17.Qc2 d5 18.e5 Nxc4 19.exf6 Qxf6 20.0-0 Qe7 21.Bc1 e5 with strong pressure for the piece. 13.c5 enters a known variation which assures Black of sufficient counterplay: 13...dxc5 14.Rxc5 Bf8 15.Rc1 e5 16.d5 Bb4 17.Nc3 Nd4÷. 13...axb5 14.Bg2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9-+nzppsnp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9PzP-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black generates sufficient counterplay down the a-file which compensates for White’s supremacy in the centre. 14...Ra8! (14...Qc8?! 15.0-0 Qa6 16.b3 Rec8 17.Nd3 b4 18.Rc2 e5 19.dxe5 Nxe5 20.Nxb4 Qb5 21.Nd5± B.Socko-Koepke, St. Veit 2012) 15.b3 Ra3 16.0-0 Qa8 17.Rc2 Qa6 This position occurred in Grigoriants-Sale, Abu Dhabi 2005. White chose 18.f4 when 18...Ra8 19.Nc3 b4 20.Na4 Rb8 21.Rfc1 Ne8 would have been nice for Black in view of the threat of ...Ne7. Schandorff puts his hope in the move: 18.Nd3, giving the line 18...Ra8 19.Nc3 (19.Nec1 Qa5 20.Qf2 Rd8 21.Rd1 Re8=) 19...b4 20.Na4,

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9q+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Nzp-zPP+-+0 9trP+NvLPzP-0 9P+RwQ-+LzP0 9+-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

but it is totally equal after 20... Qb7 21.Rfc1 Ne8. The threat of ...Ne7 forces White into action: 22.Ndc5 (22.e5 Ne7 23.Nxb4 Rb8 24.Nd3 Bxa4=) 22...dxc5 23.Nxc5 Qa7 24.Nxd7 Bxd4 25.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 26.Qxd4 Nxd4 27.Rd2 Nb5 28.Rc4 Nc3 29.Rxb4 Nxa2 30.Rb7 Nc3 31.h4 Kg7=. It makes sense to improve White’s set-up with the sharper: 173

Part 6 b) 12.g4!? If Black follows the scheme with 12.g3, White has more options for developing an initiative: 12...b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bg2 Ra8 15.b3 Ra3 16.0-0 Qa8 17.Rc2 Qa6 18.g5! Nh5 19.Rfc1 Ra8 20.f4².

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9q+nzpp+p+0 9+p+-+-zPn0 9-+-zPPzP-+0 9trP+-vL-+-0 9P+RwQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The other thematic break 12... h5 13.g5 Nh7 14.h4 f6 15.gxf6 Qxf6 also gives White the more active pieces: 16.f4 Qf7 17.Bg2. This line needs practical tests. Dreev’s move 12.Bg5 is a decent alternative to the fianchetto. It prevents 12...b5 13.c5 dxc5? owing to 14.e5. 12...Qe7 At first sight, it seems that the thematic 12...e5 13.d5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 exd4 equalises, but it is not that simple because White’s pawn structure is more flexible: 15.Be2 c5 (or 15... Qe7 16.0-0 c5 17.dxc6 bxc6 18.Nd3 c5 19.b4²) 16.dxc6 bxc6 17.Bf4 and White wins material. 17...Rb7 (17... Re6 18.c5) does not help because of 18.Bxd6 Bh3 19.c5 Bxg2 20.Rg1

174

Bxf3 21.Bxf3 Nxe4 22.Bxe4 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wqr+k+0 9+r+-+-vlp0 9p+pvL-+p+0 9+-zP-+p+-0 9-+-zpL+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzP-wQ-sN-zP0 9+-tR-mK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Any human would stop the analysis here as it looks that Black gets terrific compensation, but the engine finds the amazing 23.Rg4!! Qc8 24.Kf1± where the minor pieces rule over the board. After the text, White can try to develop the bishop to e2 with 13.d5 Na7 14.Nc3, but 14...b5 generates sufficient counterplay: 15.a3 (15. Be2 bxc4 16.Bxc4 Nb5 17.0-0 Nxc3 18.dxe6 Bxe6 19.Rxc3 h6 20.Bxh6 Bxh6 21.Qxh6 Bxc4 22.Rxc4 Rxb2=) 15...bxc4 16.Bxc4 Nb5 17.0-0 Nxc3 18.dxe6 Bxe6 19.Rxc3 c5. Black’s pawns may be vulnerable, but his pieces are quite active to compensate it. So Dreev returns to the plan with g3. 13.g3 e5 14.d5 Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Bg2 White has a small, but durable strategic ad­van­tage due to his more flexible pawn structure. See Game 28 Dreev-Koka­rev, Mumbai 2010.

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8

Part 6

Complete Games

25. Svetushkin-Golubev blitz, Canarias en Red 2004 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nge2 0-0 6.f3 a6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 Re8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+pzplzppvlp0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9+-tRNmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move reveals Black’s plan. Obviously, he discards kingside activity with ...f5 and turns his attention to the centre. In some lines with c4-c5 he will widen the scope of his dark-squared bishop by shifting it to another diagonal – ...Bf8. 11.Nf2 11.g3 b5 12.c5 dxc5 13.Rxc5 e5 14.d5 Ne7 (15...Nd4 16.Nxd4) 15.Qc1 leads to a similar position where in my opinion Nf2 is more useful than g3.

11...h5?! Golubev opts for a waiting game, but it allows White to complete development at leisure and secure a clear edge. The most consistent continuation is: 11...b5 12.c5 Black’s tenth move will be rewarded in the event of 12.cxb5 axb5 13.Ng3 (13.Nc3 e5 14.d5 Nd4) 13... e5 14.d5 Nd4 15.Bd3 c5 16.dxc6 Nxc6 or 12.b3 bxc4 13.bxc4 Rb7 14.g3 Qb8 15.Nd3 e5 16.d5 Nd4. 12...dxc5 (or 12...e6 13.Nd3² Qe7 14.g3) 13.Rxc5 e5 (13...e6 14.Nd3²) 14.d5 Ne7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqr+k+0 9+-zplsnpvlp0 9p+-+-snp+0 9+ptRPzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQNsNPzP0 9+-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Qc1!

In another blitz game against Golubev I played 15.Nd3 c6 16.d6 175

Part 6 Nc8 17.Nb4 and got an advantage after 17...Bf8? 18.Nxa6 Ra8 19.Nc7. The idea of sacrificing the exchange is very good, but it should be shaped differently: 17...Rb6! 18.Rc1 Bf8 with excellent compensation. 15...Bf8 15...Rb7 is too passive: 16.Rc2! (Vacating c5 for the f2-knight. We see here the merit of 15.Qc1 compared to 15.Qc2.) 16...Qa8 17.g4! (17.Nd3 c6 18.dxc6 Nxc6 19.Rxc6 Bxc6 20.Qxc6 Rc8 21.Qd6 was rather messy in Khenkin-Sebenik, Plov­div 2012. Black should have played here 21...Rd7! 22.Qa3 Bf8.) 17...b4 18.Ng3±. 16.Bg5 White is undeveloped so he should try to keep the centre closed: 16.Rxc7 Nexd5 17.exd5 Bb4+ 18.Rc3 Nxd5; 16.Rc2 c6 17.Bg5 Kg7 18.Bh6+ Kg8 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.dxc6 Qa5+; 16.Nd3 Nexd5 17.exd5 Bxc5 18.Nxc5 Nxd5 19.Bg5 f6 20.Bd2 Qe7. 16...Nc8 17.Rc2 Bb4+

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trnwqr+k+0 9+-zpl+p+p0 9p+-+-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-vL-0 9-vl-+P+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzPR+NsNPzP0 9+-wQ-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.Nc3!

176

This secures White a stable edge. The knight would be more useful on the queenside. Besides, White is interested in keeping more pieces on the board. HambletonKiewra, Saint Louis 2012 saw instead 18.Bd2 Bxd2+ 19.Qxd2 Nd6 20.Ng3 Rc8 21.Be2 c6 22.dxc6 Bxc6. 18...Be7 (18...c6 19.dxc6 Bxc6 20.Rd2+–) 19.Be3 c6 20.dxc6 Bxc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trnwqr+k+0 9+-+-vlp+p0 9p+l+-snp+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzPR+-sNPzP0 9+-wQ-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Black has succeeded in trading the d5-pawn at last, but that does not bring him equality. All his minor pieces are unstable, the e5-pawn is weak, the a6-pawn can also become a target after a possible a2-a4. Exchanges do not help since they only leave the weak pawns without defence. Here are two possible scenarios for the further course of the game: 21.Be2 Nb6 (21...Nd6 22.0-0 b4 23.Nb1 Ba4 24.b3 Bb5 25.Bxb5 Nxb5 26.Rd1 Qa5 27.Qb2 Bf8 28.Rc6±) 22.0-0 Bd7 23.Nb1 Rc8 24.Rxc8 Bxc8 25.Rd1 Nbd7 26.Nd3 Bd6 27.a4 bxa4 28.Nd2 Bb8 29.Qc6 Qc7 30.Qxa4 Ba7 31.Bxa7 Qxa7+ 32.Kf1±;

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 21.Bd3 Nd6 22.0-0 (or 22.b3 b4 23.Ne2) 22...Nc4 23.Bg5 Rc8 24.Rd1 Qa5 25.a4 Qb4 26.axb5 axb5 27.Na2 Qa4 28.Bxc4 bxc4 29.Rxc4 Qb5 30.b4±.

Ne7 18.c5 Bb5 19.Rfd1 Red8 20.Nc3 Be8 21.b4 c6 22.d6+– The rest of this blitz game is irrelevant to the opening. It finished in a draw on move 68.

12.g3 e6 Golubev is playing without any plan. He could have tried 12...e5 13.d5 Ne7 when 14.c5 would be premature due to 14...dxc5 (14... Bb5 15.Nc3 Bxf1 16.Kxf1 Nd7 17.b4 Rf8 18.Kg2±, Riazantsev-Moskvin, blitz 2004) 15.Bxc5 c6 16.d6 Nc8÷. It is better to develop with 14.Bg2!² when 14...c5 15.b4 b6 16.0-0 Kh7 17.h3 (17.a4!?) 17...Nfg8 18.f4 gave White an initiative in Bitoon-Nguyen, Kuala Lumpur 2011. 13.Bg2 Qe7 14.0-0 Qf8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+rwqk+0 9+pzpl+pvl-0 9p+nzppsnp+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9PzP-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has failed completely in his waiting game. Here I chose the most logical way of expanding in the centre, but the concrete approach 15.e5 dxe5 16.dxe5 would have been also possible as 16... Nxe5? loses a piece to 17.Bd4±. 15.f4 e5 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.d5

26. Gupta-Nolte Kolkata 05.12.2012 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 a6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.Nf2 b6 13.b4 c5 14.g3 Ne8 15.Bg2 f5 16.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wqntrk+0 9+-+lsn-vlp0 9pzp-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzpp+-0 9-zPP+P+-+0 9+-+-vLPzP-0 9P+-wQNsNLzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Nf6

In Dreev-Ye Jiangchuan, Taiyuan 2004, Black decided to leave the knight on e8 to protect the d6pawn. Instead, he sent to f6 the knight from e7 which was useless anyway. Dreev followed the standard plan with pressure along the b-file and quickly gained the upper hand: 16...Kh8 17.Rb1 Ng8 18.Rb3 Ngf6 19.bxc5 bxc5 20.Rfb1. Here Black discarded the idea of changing on b3 because it would give White after 20...Rxb3 21.axb3 the 177

Part 6 option of b3-b4. However, 20...Ra8 offered White full control of the b-file. Dreev used it to penetrate eventuto b8:

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+nwq-mk0 9+Rsnl+rvlp0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9wQ-zpPzp-vL-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-+-zP-0 9P+-+-sNLzP0 9+R+N+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

29.Rb8 Nf6 30.Rxc8 Qxc8 31.Qb6 Nce8 when 32.Bxf6! Bxf6 33.Qa7 was winning quickly. 17.Rb1 Qc7 18.Rb3 a5 It is understandable that Black wants to deviate from the course of the above-mentioned game of Dreev. However, on a5 the pawn enters the scope of White’s minor pieces (a bishop on d2) and on a4 it could be attacked by 3 pieces (Nc3, Bc2, Nb2). This means that White does not need rooks to keep the initiative. Any endgame would be in his favour. Play through the next annotated game to see an illustration of that. 19.bxa5 bxa5 20.Rfb1 a4 20...Rxb3 21.Rxb3 would be si­ milar to the game, but White could also recapture by pawn: 21.axb3 Qb6 22.Nc3, fixing the pawn on a5. Later he will transfer his bishop to d2. 178

21.R3b2 fxe4 22.fxe4 h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-trk+0 9+-wqlsn-vl-0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPzp-+p0 9p+P+P+-+0 9+-+-vL-zP-0 9PtR-wQNsNLzP0 9+R+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.h4

The a4-pawn looks doomed after 23.a3 because White can pile 3 hits on it as I pointed out before. Gupta obviously decided that on a3 it will be no less a prey and spent a tempo to block any ideas with ...h4, followed up by ...Nh5. 23...a3 24.Rb3 Ba4 25.Rxb8 Rxb8 26.Nc3 Bd7 27.Qc1 The pawn is going to fall. Black’s attempt to seduce White into grabbing the exchange should have been punished quickly, but Gupta missed a forced win and prolonged Nolte’s agony. 27...Rb4 28.Qxa3 Rxc4 29.Bf1 Rd4 30.Qa8+ Bc8 31.Ba6? (31.Nb5+–) 31...Rb4 32.Bxc8 Rxb1+ 33.Nxb1 Nxc8 34.a4 Nd7 35.a5 Qb8 36.Qxb8 Nxb8 37.Na3 Bf6 38.Nc4 Bd8 39.Nd1 Bc7 40.Nc3 Na7 41.Kf2 Kf7 42.Ke2 Na6 43.Kd2 Nb4 44.Kc1 Ke8 45.Kb2 Na6 46.Kb3 Kd7 47.Ka4 Kc8 48.Nb5 Nxb5 49.Kxb5 Kb7 50.Bg5 Bb8 51.Bd8

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 Nc7+ 52.Bxc7 Bxc7 53.a6+ Ka7 54.Kc6 Bb8 55.Nxd6 Bxd6 56.Kxd6 c4 57.Kxe5 c3 58.d6 c2 59.d7 c1Q 60.d8Q Qc5+ 61.Qd5 Qe7+ 62.Qe6 Qg7+ 63.Qf6 Qc7+ 64.Qd6 Qg7+ 65.Kd5 g5 66.hxg5 Qxg5+ 67.Kc6 Kxa6 68.Qa3+ 1-0 27. Petar Genov-Praznik Feffernitz 20.08.2012 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.Be3 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 9.Rc1 Bd7 10.Nd1 e5 11.d5 Ne7 12.g3 Ne8 13.Bg2 f5 14.0-0 c5 15.b4 b6 16.Nf2 Qc7 17.Rb1 Nf6 18.Rb3 fxe4 19.fxe4 a5 20.bxc5 bxc5 21.Rfb1 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-trk+0 9+-wqlsn-vlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPzp-+-0 9p+P+P+-+0 9+R+-vL-zP-0 9P+-wQNsNLzP0 9+R+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22.Rxb8

Gupta played R3b2, but Genov’s decision to trade all the rooks also leaves White on top. He can grind down the opponent even in a simple position because of Black’s numerous weak pawns. 22...Rxb8 23.Qc1 Nc8 24.Nc3 Rxb1 25.Qxb1 Qb6 26.Bf1 Qxb1

27.Nxb1 Nb6 28.Na3 28.Nc3 was also good, but White keeps the c3-square free for the other knight He is also planning Be3-d2-a5, increasing the pressure on the a4-pawn. 28...Kf7 29.h3 h6 30.Kg2 Ng8 31.Bd2 Ne7 32.Nd1 Nec8 33.Nc3 Bf8 34.Kf3 Kg7 35.Ke3 Be7 36.Kd3 h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+n+-+-+0 9+-+lvl-mk-0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9+-zpPzp-+p0 9p+P+P+-+0 9sN-sNK+-zPP0 9P+-vL-+-+0 9+-+-+L+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is completely tied down, but tactical tricks still allow him to hold the doomed pawn on a4. For instance, 37.Kc2 Kf6 38.Nab5 Bf8 39.Kb2 g5 40.Ka3? stumbles into 40...Bxh3. If he removes the bishop from d2: 40.Be1 g4 41.h4 Bh6 42.Ka3?? will be a curious mate after 42...Bc1#. Therefore, he must choose 40.Bc1 Be8 41.Ka3 Bg6 42.Bd3 and finally the pawn is ripe to be eaten. Genov’s next move allows the opponent to activate his passive bishop. 37.h4 g5 38.hxg5 Kg6 39.Be2 Bxg5 40.Be1 Be7?! 40...Bc1 aiming for ...Bb2 was obviously a better try. 179

Part 6 41.Nab5 Bg4? 42.Bxg4 hxg4 43.Nd1 Bg5 44.Ba5 Bd8 45.Ne3 Kg5 46.Nf5 1-0 28. Dreev-Kokarev Mumbai 09.06.2010

A fine strategic treatment of the position. Dreev remains with a better knight against the bishop which only task will be to defend the d4pawn. 19...Bxh3 20.Nxh3 c6

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0 5.f3 d6 6.Nge2 a6 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Rc1 Bd7 9.Qd2 Rb8 10.Nd1 e6 11.Nf2 Re8 12.Bg5 Qe7 13.g3 e5 14.d5 Nd4 15.Nxd4 exd4 16.Bg2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+r+k+0 9+pzplwqpvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+P+-vL-0 9-+PzpP+-+0 9+-+-+PzP-0 9PzP-wQ-sNLzP0 9+-tR-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Qf8!?

20...c5 might offer White a target. His plan is to install a blockading knight on d3 and push e5 anyway. He can also opt for b2b4: 21.Nf2 b5 (21...Bg7 22.Rfe1 f5 23.Kg2 b5 24.b3 g5 25.exf5) 22.Nd3 a5 23.Rfe1 Qe7 24.b3 Bg7 25.f4². 21.Nf4 h5 22.Nd3 cxd5 23.cxd5 Rbc8 24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rc1 h4 26.Kg2 Qd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rwq-+k+0 9+p+-+p+-0 9p+-zp-vlp+0 9+-+P+-+-0 9-+-zpP+-zp0 9+-+N+PzP-0 9PzP-wQ-+KzP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is very cautious! 16...c5 17.dxc6 bxc6 is not aspiring due to 18.c5! dxc5 (18...d5 19.0-0 dxe4 20.fxe4²) 19.Nd3 h6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.0-0 and White regains the pawn with interest, for example: 21...Be6 22.Rxc5 Rec8 23.Rfc1 Bxa2 24.Ra5 Be6 25.Rxa6 Bf8 26.Raxc6 Rxc6 27.Rxc6. Black does have some compensation, but a pawn is a pawn: 27...Rb3 28.Qc2 Qg5 29.Bf1 Qe3+ 30.Kg2 Rb8².

It is clear that Black will be struggling for a draw. He cannot contest the c-file, because without queens White easily wins the d4pawn. Besides, the combination of Q+N is generally better than Q+B. Still, with a good defence Black can probably hold on.

17.0-0 19.Bh3!?

27.f4 Rxc1 29.Qd1?!

180

h6

18.Bxf6

Bxf6

28.Qxc1

Qd7

6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 a6 8.Qd2 Rb8 White retreats to a passive square. Perhaps Dreev was afraid to let the enemy queen into his camp, but he should have tried 29.Qc4 when 29...Qg4 30.Nf2 h3+ 31.Nxh3 Qd1 is clearly better for him after 32.Nf2±. So Black should stay passive with 29...Bg7. Then 30.Nf2 hxg3 31.hxg3 f5 is probably a draw although it looks that White is “nearly” winning: 32.Kf3 fxe4+ 33.Nxe4 Qh3 34.Nf2 Qf5 35.g4 Qb1 36.Qc8+ Kh7 37.Qxb7 (37.f5 gxf5 38.Qxf5+ Qxf5+ 39.gxf5 Kh6

40.Ne4 Be5=) 37...d3 38.Qxa6 d2 39.Qe2 Qe1 40.Qd3 Bxb2 41.g5 Bc3 42.Kg2 Bb2 43.a4 Bc3 44.f5 gxf5 45.Qxf5+ Kg7=. Therefore, White must leave the knight on d3 to have e4-e5 and push firstly 30.a4 to see Black’s answer. After 30...Kh7, 31.Nf2 would be already promising, to force the exchange on g3. 29...Qc8 30.Qe2 Qd7 31.g4 Be7 32.g5 Qc8 33.Qd1 Qc4 34.a3 Qc8 35.Nf2 Qc4 36.Nd3 Qc8 37.Nf2 Qc4 38.Nd3 Draw

181

Part 6

182

5...c6 6.Be3 a6

Part 7

Extended Black Fianchetto 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

183

Part 7

Part 7

Main Ideas 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

not enough tempi to achieve our main set-up: after 7...a5 8.Bd3 (8.Qd2 Na6 9.Rd1 Nb4) 8...Na6 9.Nge2 Nb4, Black’s knight arrives at b4 before we had time for Rd1. It is true that even if Black traded his knight for our light-squared bishop White still could aspire to a small edge after 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qd2 e5 12.Rad1 Nxd3 13.Qxd3, but we should attempt to avoid exchanges with a space advantage.

7.Bd3

7.c5 has been in vogue lately, but I do not think that it is objectively better than 7.a4. I consider this line in Part 9 because it is an indispensable part of a repertoire, based on the move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2!? where White postpones Nbc3. For a main weapon, however, I would like to advocate a solid approach with a clear plan for White. Our goal will be to hinder Black’s extended fianchetto on the queenside by a4. We are ready to abandon the dark-squares, but in return we’ll keep a stable advantage in the centre which is a good foundation for a kingside attack with f3-f4-f5. It may seem logical to start our plan with 7.a4, but then we have 184

We should aim for the following set-up: 7...0-0 8.a4 a5 9.Qd2 Na6 10.Rd1 e5 11.Nge2 Nd7 12.0-0 exd4 13.Nxd4 Ndc5 14.Bb1 Qb6 15.f4 Qb4 16.f5!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+P+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

See Game 31 Davies-Grivas, Tel Aviv 1991, for more details. We can employ this scheme against virtually any Black set-up: 12...Re8 13.f4! exd4 14.Nxd4 Nf6

5...c6 6.Be3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9n+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PsNPzP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Nf3 Ng4 16.Bd4 Bxd4+ 17.Nxd4 Nc5 18.Bc2 Nf6 19.f5;

White’s strong grip on the centre and on the queenside denies Black any counterplay. Thus he is able to chose different move orders or make some prophylactics before pushing f4, for example, h3 or Kh1 first. Here are some strategic considerations to guide you when making important decisions:

11...exd4 12.Nxd4 Qe7 13.0-0 Nd7 14.f4! Nac5 15.Bc2 Nf6 16.f5.

Retreat the d3-bishop to c2 and not to e2, in order to support e4 and a future attack.

Analysis

If your opponent has no immediate threats and you are hesitating among different options, consider plans with f4 at the first place.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9-+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+PsN-+P+P0 9-+LwQ-vLP+0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.f4! Re8 21.f5 with a bind. Khairullin-Hungaski Biel 2012

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9+p+l+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+P0 9-+LwQ-+P+0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

The game went 18.Bf2 Be6 19.f4 f5? 20.exf5±. More straightforward was 18.f4! Rad8 19.f5.

Trading a pair of knights generally does not help Black much: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9-+pzpnsnp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+P0 9-+LwQ-+P+0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...Nxd4 19.Bxd4 Be6 20.Qf2 d5 21.Ne2 Qe7 22.cxd5 cxd5 23.e5 Nd7 24.f4 Rac8 25.Bb1 Nc5 26.f5 gxf5 27.Ng3². When to trade dark-squared bishops? In principal, White’s bishop on e3 is more useful than its opponent on g7 as it threatens both flanks. 185

Part 7 With all our pawns on light squares, it is our “good” bishop. That would become even more evident when we play f3-f4-f5 and Black will probably have to entrench himself with ...f6. Of course, these strategic considerations should fall into the background when we have fair chances for a direct attack. In that event we should treat the g7-bishop as a defender and kill it. Zhou Jianchao-Ding Liren Shandong 2007

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+p+-wqpvlp0 9nsnpzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PzpPzP-+0 9+PsN-vL-+-0 9-+-wQN+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black’s knights are far from the king so we can recapture by bishop: 16.Bxd4 Nc5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 and now 18.f5! with an overwhelming position. Do not overestimate the weakness of the d6-pawn! Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+-+0 9+p+nwqpmkp0 9-+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9P+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9-zP-wQN+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 186

White commonly wins the game on the kingside. He should not trade queens in order to snatch a pawn since Black may obtain enough counterplay against the weak pawns c4 and a4: 17.Qxd6? (17.Ng3!) 17...Qxd6 18.Rxd6 Nb6 turns the tables in Black’s favour. Finally, some notes on Black’s defence against the f4-plan. He can anticipate f4-f5 by playing ...f5 himself. It does not hinder White’s attack though: Reshevsky-Stein Sousse 1967

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-+-vlp0 9nwqpzp-+-+0 9zp-sn-+p+-0 9P+PsN-zP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Here 17.g4! gave White a decisive attack, e.g. 17...Nb3 18.Nxb3 Qxb3 19.Kh1. Zhou Jianchao-Ding,Liren Shandong 2007

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ntr-tr-+0 9+pwq-+-mkp0 9-+pzp-zpp+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9P+P+PzP-+0 9+P+-+QsNP0 9-+L+-+P+0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 More often Black defends with... f6. Then we need to thrust the hpawn. Here, the thematic 27.f5 could be met by 27...g5 28.h4 h6² so best is: 27.h4! Rde8 28.h5 (28.f5! Re5 29.fxg6 hxg6 30.h5 is more accurate.) 28...Qd7 29.Kh2 Rf7 30.Rd2 Rff8 31.Rh1 b6 32.Kg1± and White is all set for a decisive assault. Razuvaev-Anand Kolkata, 1986

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-wq-snp0 9n+pzp-zpp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PsNPzP-+0 9+-sNL+-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Instead of the mundane 17.Bb1, White had 17.f5!± g5 (17...Nc5 18.Qh6) 18.h4 h6 19.Rf3 Rf7 20.Rh3. Black cannot contend the h-file: 20...Nc5 21.Bc2 Ne8 22.g3 g4 (22... Rh7 23.Kg2 Nd7 24.hxg5 hxg5 25.Rxh7 Qxh7 26.Rh1) 23.Rh2 h5 24.Nde2 Rh7 25.Nf4 Bd7 26.Ng6±. We have dealt so far only with 7...0-0. What about: 7...b5 The fine point of our move order is that we can grab space with: 8.e5!? Nfd7 9.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9p+pzp-+p+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+PzP-zP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has one good outpost on d5, but his whole kingside is weak. Note that I mention only the kingside! Do not distract your attention with the c6-pawn. We can put some pressure on it only to bind Black with its defence. The main strike, however, is usually towards the black king. 9...bxc4 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bd3! Another important moment! We should always retreat the bishop to this square as 11.Bb3 only provokes 11...a5! 12.Nf3 a4. 11...Be6 12.Qe2 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Nf3!²

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqk+-tr0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-+p+0 9+-+lzP-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-+LvLN+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has more space and the better pawn structure. See Game 29 Knaak-Grivas, Athens 1992.

187

Part 7

Part 7

Step by Step 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 c6 6.Be3 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black prefers to enter this system before castling in order to cut off some sharp White’s options as g4. 7.Bd3 Main options are: A. 7...0-0; B. 7...Nbd7; C. 7...b5 A. 7...0-0 8.a4 a5 9.Qd2 Na6 9...e5 10.Nge2 Nbd7 transposes to line B. 10.Rd1 188

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9n+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PzPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+RmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...e5

10...Nb4 11.Bb1 d5 offers White an attack after 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.e5 Ne8 14.h4 Bf5 15.Bxf5 gxf5 16.h5², Psakhis-Gipslis, Jurmala 1987. In Knaak-Zueger, Altensteig 1993, Black opted for a waiting game with 11...b6 12.Nge2 Qc7 13.0-0 Ba6 14.b3 e5. Here 15.Qe1 Rfe8 16.Qf2 d5!? reduced the tension in the centre although White’s game is still easier: 17.dxe5 Qxe5 18.Bxb6 dxc4 19.bxc4 Bxc4 20.Rd2. Perhaps he should have carried on his main plan: 15.h3!? Rad8 16.f4 or take a small edge with 15.Na2!?² Nxa2 16.Qxa2 Rfe8 17.d5 cxd5 18.cxd5 Bd3. 11.Nge2 Nd7 a) 11...exd4 12.Nxd4

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 12.Bxd4 Be6 13.b3 Nd7 trades dark-squared bishops which is not necessarily in White’s favour. 12...Nc5 Salem-Movsesian, rapid Khanty-Mansiysk 2013, saw 12...Qe7 13.0-0 Nd7 when the best plan is to push 14.f4! (or 14.Bb1 Re8 15.h3 Nb4 16.f4) 14...Nac5 15.Bc2 Nf6 16.f5. Now 16...Nfxe4 would be hopeless after 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Bxe4 Qxe4 19.f6. 12...Nb4 13.Bb1 Re8 14.0-0 d5? eliminates the centre, but gives White the commanding square b5: 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Ndb5±, RazuvaevZarnicki, Palma de Mallorca 1991. 13.Bc2 Qb6 14.b3 Re8 15.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9-wqpzp-snp+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9P+PsNP+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9-+LwQ-+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...Be6

15...Qb4, pinning the c3-knight, is more consistent. White can make room for his queen on e3 by 16.Bf4 Rd8 17.h3 (this is always useful, with f4 in mind) 17...Ne6 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Bf2 Nfd7 20.f4 Re8 21.f5. Black lacks sensible moves. 16.Qf2 Qc7, Sakaev-Grigore, Is­ tanbul 2000, 17.e5! dxe5 18.Ndb5 cxb5 19.Nxb5 Qc6 20.Bxc5. White is clearly better.

b) 11...Nb4 defines the future of Black’s knight too early. After 12.Bb1 exd4, White can transpose to line a by 13.Nxd4, or consider 13.Bxd4 when the inclusion of ...Nb4 made impossible 13...Nd7 since the d6-pawn is hanging. Delaying the exchange by 12...Qe7 13.0-0 Be6 is no good either due to 14.d5! with a stable edge. c) 11...Qe7 12.0-0 Re8 is a flexible approach. White can close the centre or stay true to his attacking plans:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+p+-wqpvlp0 9n+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+PzPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLP+-0 9-zP-wQN+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy c1) 13.d5?! Nd7 (13...Bd7 14.b3² Rec8 15.Bb1 cxd5 16.Nxd5) 14.Nc1! Nb4 15.Bb1 cxd5 16.Nxd5². c2) 13.Rde1 I think that 13.Bb1!? is more accurate as we do not need the rook on e1, at least for now. Nevertheless, Edouard’s straightforward play is quite instructive: 13...Nd7 14.f4! exd4 15.Nxd4 Nac5 16.Bc2 Ra6!? 17.b3 Rb6 I have been following the game Edouard-Akshayraj, Dubai 2013. Now, instead of 18.Qf2 which leaves the queenside vulnerable to tactical 189

Part 7 hits, e.g. 18...Qf8 19.h3 Rb4 20.Kh2 Nxb3! 21.Bxb3 c5, White should play simply 18.Rb1 Nf8 19.h3 with possible Nf3. 12.0-0 exd4 12...Re8 is an ambitious move. It assumes that the pawn structure in the centre has reached some sort of a equilibrium and the first to break it will make a concession. I’m not sure this reasoning holds true. First of all, I recommend that White plays f4 anyway and the rook’s move is no hindrance to it. Second, Black omits the option of sending our bishop to e2 instead of the more active place c2 as in the line 12...exd4 13.Nxd4 Ne5 14.Be2. Third, after 12...Re8 13.Bb1 exd4, White can also recapture on d4 by bishop due to the weakness of the d6-pawn. White has three decent answers, but I vote for the most straightforward: 13.f4!? Let us consider the other two options: a) 13.Kh1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+PzPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLP+-0 9-zP-wQN+PzP0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

According to my understanding, White does not need this pro190

phylactic move, or at least he has more urgent items on his agenda. In practice, he did get an advantage after 13...Nf8 14.f4 Ne6 15.Bb1², see Game 32 Kiril Georgiev-Krum Georgiev, Sofia 1989, and 13... Nb4 14.Bb1 Qe7 15.f4², see Game 30 Rubinetti-Partos, Nice ol. 1974. However, his task would be more difficult following 13...exd4 14.Nxd4 Ne5. We should retreat to e2. b) 13.Bb1!?. This is a really useful move, but in most variations the bishop would stay better on c2. Still, it is a consistent continuation which should ensure White an edge: 13...Qc7 14.f4 14.d5 would leave White without a clear plan. It is possible to conti­ nue with the tactic of improvements although we do not need the following prophylactic moves: 14.Kh1 Bf8 15.h3 exd4 16.Nxd4 Nac5 17.Bc2 Qb6 18.b3 Nf6 19.Rfe1 Qc7 20.Bh6 Be7 21.Bg5², Ivkov-Panno, Palma de Mallorca 1970. 14...exd4 15.Nxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+pwqn+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PsNPzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy All is set for a kingside attack. The game Petursson-Kr.Georgiev,

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 Dubai ol. 1986, went 15...Nb6 16.b3 Nc5 17.Qf2 Nd7 when best is 18.f5². It is better to keep the knight on d7: 15...Nac5 16.f5 Ne5 17.Qe2 White’s pieces are not on their best places, but his three central pawns ensure a firm grip on the centre. Black lacks any counterplay: 17...Qe7 18.h3 Qf8 19.Bc2 Bh6 20.Bxh6 Qxh6 21.Nf3 Qf8 22.b3². Around here, the engines already understand that all the fun is for White who will soon thrust the hpawn forward. Black can only stay and wait. 13...exd4 14.Nxd4 Nf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9n+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9P+PsNPzP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White needs a little regrouping here, but eventually he should consolidate and emerge with a pull: 15.Nf3 Ng4 16.Bd4 Bxd4+ 17.Nxd4 Nc5 18.Bc2 Nf6 19.f5 19.Rde1² is also good, but we should not be afraid of losing the central pawn: 19...Nfxe4 20.Nxe4 Nxe4 21.Qf4 g5 (21...d5 22.fxg6 fxg6 23.cxd5 cxd5 24.Bxe4 Rxe4 25.Qf7+ Kh8 26.h3²) 22.Qg4 d5 23.cxd5 cxd5 24.Ne6 Rxe6 (24...fxe6 25.f6) 25.fxe6 Bxe6 26.Qf3 Qb6+ 27.Kh1 Qxb2 28.Bxe4 dxe4 29.Qxe4². The b7-pawn is doomed.

13.Nxd4 Nc5 After 13...Ne5 14.Be2 Qe7, White can follow with his main plan: 15.h3 [15.Bg5!? f6 (15...Qc7 16.f4ƒ) 16.Bh4 Nc5 17.f4 Bh6 18.Bg3² is a decent alternative. Remember that trade of dark-squared bishops, e.g. 15.Bh6?!, is strategically good for Black!] 15...Rfe8 16.f4 Nd7 and now we redeploy the bishop to support the attack: 17.Bd3! Nac5 18.Bc2. 13...Nac5 14.Bc2 Qb6 15.b3 Qb4 is a standard set-up which may occur after different move orders. It does not hamper our standard plan: 16.h3 Re8 17.Bf2 Na6 (17... Nf6 18.Qe3 Be6 19.f4) 18.f4 Ndc5 19.f5. 14.Bb1 There is no reason to give Black a tempo with 14.Bc2 Nb4 15.Bb1 b6. 14...Qb6 Or 14...Re8 15.f4 followed up by f5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9nwqpzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9P+PsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

191

Part 7 15.f4 Qb4 In Reshevsky-Stein, Sousse 1967, Black attempted 15...f5?! 16.exf5 gxf5, but 17.g4! gave White a decisive attack, e.g. 17...Nb3 18.Nxb3 Qxb3 19.Kh1. 16.f5! White’s attack is very strong. See Game 31 Davies-Grivas, Tel Aviv 1991. B. 7...Nbd7 8.a4 e5 9.Nge2 0-0 10.0-0 10.a5 is more principled, but I do not see a reason to delay our development although White retains his space advantage and stands slightly better after 10...exd4 11.Bxd4 Ne5 12.0-0.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9P+PzPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLP+-0 9-zP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy 10...a5

10...exd4 should be met by 11.Bxd4 in order to discourage ...d5 (11.Nxd4 d5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.exd5 192

Nb6 14.Bf2 Nbxd5 15.Qb3 Nf4 16.Bc4 Bd7 is only equal). Then 11...d5 is bad due to 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.exd5 Nb6 14.Be4± so White remains in control: 11...Ne5 12.b3². 11.Qd2 exd4 Krum Georgiev chose against Knaak to keep the tension in the centre by 11...Re8 12.Qd2 Nf8 and when White pushed d5, he answered ...c5 with the obvious intention to build a fortress. However, this is play for two results only where White’s advantage is consi­ derable. Simplest is 13.d5 c5 14.g4 N6d7 15.h4 or 15.Kg2. 12.Nxd4 Nc5 12...d5 does not fit in with ...a5 because the b5-square is an excellent outpost for White’s knight: 13.cxd5 cxd5 14.exd5 Nb6 15.d6 Qxd6 16.Ndb5±. 13.Bc2² White has consolidated and can proceed to the next stage of his plan – building up pressure on the kingside. C. 7...b5 8.e5!? White exploits the particular move order to grab more space in the centre. If Black had played the standard 5...0-0 6.Be3 c6 7.Qd2 a6, then 8.Bd3 b5 9.e5 would be

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 unconvincing due to 9...Nfd7 10.f4 Nb6 11.c5 dxc5 12.dxc5 Nc4÷ while in the current set-up such an approach would cost Black a pawn. 8...Nfd7 8...dxe5 has been known as dubious since the game Spassky-Kavalek San Juan 1970: 9.dxe5 Ng8 10.f4 Nh6 11.Nf3 Bf5 12.Be2!±. 9.f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9p+pzp-+p+0 9+p+-zP-+-0 9-+PzP-zP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black will obtain the d5-square for his pieces, but the bishop on g7 is likely to remain passive for good. White can also switch to a direct attack with f4-f5 if the opponent distracts his forces to the other flank. 9...bxc4 This exchange anticipates possible b3 or c4-c5 which would cement White’s superiority all over the board. Alternatives are: a) 9...0-0 10.Nf3 Nb6 11.b3 (11. c5! also fixes a solid advantage: 11...

dxc5 12.dxc5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Qc2±) 11...N8d7 After 11...bxc4? 12.bxc4 Be6 (12...d5 13.c5 Nc4 14.Qe2 Qa5 15.Rc1 Ra7 16.Bxc4 dxc4 17.Nd2±) 13.Qe2 d5 14.c5 Nc4 15.Ng5±, the bishop on g7 is a catastrophe. 12.a4! bxc4 13.bxc4 c5 (13... a5 14.c5) 14.a5 cxd4 15.Nxd4 dxe5 16.Nc6 Qe8 17.axb6 exf4! 18.Nd5 fxe3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+qtrk+0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9pzPN+-+p+0 9+-+N+-+-0 9-+P+-+-+0 9+-+Lvzp-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The position is very sharp, but difficult for Black. The game Portisch-Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee 1975, went further 19.Nc7 Bc3+ 20.Kf1 Bb7 21.Nxe8 Bxc6 22.Nc7 Rad8 23.Rc1±. b) 9...Bb7 10.c5 dxc5 11.dxc5 a5 12.Ne4 Na6 13.Qe2 Nb4 14.Rd1 Nd5 15.Nf3±. c) 9...b4 10.Na4 Qa5 11.Nf3 c5 12.dxc5 Nxc5 13.Nxc5 dxc5 14.Be4 Ra7 15.0-0±, Piket-Sutovsky, Tilburg 1996. 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bd3 We should always retreat the bishop to this square. 11.Bb3 only provokes 11...a5! 12.Nf3 a4 when 193

Part 7 White has to capture by 13.Bxa4, giving up the bishop pair and the initiative.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9psnpzp-+p+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...Be6

194

11...a5 is ineffective here: 12.Nf3 Na6 13.a3! (restricting the knight’s scope.) 13...Nc7 14.0-0 Ncd5 15.Bd2 0-0. White is better due to the weakness of c6. He can follow up with either 16.Qc2 Ba6 17.Bxa6 Rxa6 18.Ne4 Qd7 19.Rac1 Na8 20.Ng3 f5 21.exf6 Rxf6 22.Ng5 e6 23.h4 or 16.Qe2 Nxc3 17.bxc3 c5 18.dxc5! dxc5 19.c4±. 12.Qe2 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Nf3!² White has more space and the better pawn structure. See Game 29 Knaak-Grivas, Athens 1992.

5...c6 6.Be3 a6

Part 7

Complete Games

29. Knaak-Grivas Athens 19.05.1992 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 a6 6.Be3 c6 7.Bd3 b5 8.e5 Nfd7 9.f4 bxc4 10.Bxc4 Nb6 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qe2 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Bxd5 14.Nf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqk+-tr0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-+p+0 9+-+lzP-+-0 9-+-zP-zP-+0 9+-+LvLN+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Bxf3

Grivas accepts the pawn sac. This is by any means the most testing continuation, but it eventually lead him to an opening catastrophe. Let us dwell on the more restrained: a) 14...Nd7 (preparing to meet Bc4 by Nb6) 15.0-0 a5 The bishop on d5 is very strong. It pierces both flanks and defends Black’s main weakness – the c6pawn. White can try to kill it by

16.Ng5 0-0 17.Ne4 f5 (17...Rb8 18.Nc3 Nb6 19.Rac1 Qc7 20.h4) 18.Nc3 Nb6 19.Nxd5 Nxd5 20.Bc4 Qd7 21.Rfc1, with only a small edge. Another way is 16.Rac1 0-0 (16...Bxa2 17.exd6 exd6 18.Bd2+) 17.Bc4, but 17...Nb6 is still possible: 18.Bxd5 Nxd5 19.Rxc6 Nb4 20.Rc4 Nxa2 21.b3 Nb4 22.Bd2 (22.Rfc1 Nd5) 22...Nd5 when 23.f5 dxe5 (23...gxf5 24.e6‚) 24.Nxe5 leads to a drawish position after 24... Nb6 25.Nc6 Nxc4 26.Nxd8 Bxd4+ 27.Kh1 Nxd2 28.Qxd2 Rfxd8 29.fxg6 hxg6=. My analysis convinced me that Black’s pawn weaknesses on the queenside are easy to defend. They should not distract us from a more juicy target – the enemy’s king. White needs fresh forces to throw in the battle: 16.h4!? 0-0 17.Ng5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9-+pzp-+p+0 9zp-+lzP-sN-0 9-+-zP-zP-zP0 9+-+LvL-+-0 9PzP-+Q+P+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

195

Part 7 Black cannot wait to get overrun by our superior forces so he must break through the centre: 17...c5 (17...Bh6 18.Ne4 dxe5 19.dxe5 f6 20.Nc3 fxe5 21.f5ƒ) 18.dxc5 Nxc5 (18...dxe5 19.f5) 19.Bxc5 dxc5 20.Rad1 e6 21.Be4². Black has neutralised the attack, but he has lost the battle in the centre. b) 14...0-0 15.0-0 a5 By delaying ...Nd7, Black retains the option of choosing a set-up with ...Na6, ...Qb6. White can launch an attack with 16.f5 dxe5 17.dxe5 Nd7 18.Bd4, but the computer claims that Black can hold after 18...e6 19.f6 Bxf3 20.Qe3 Bd5 21.fxg7 Kxg7©. Perhaps it is better to prepare the attack more carefully with: 16.Bc4 Qb6 17.Rac1 Na6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9nwqpzp-+p+0 9zp-+lzP-+-0 9-+LzP-zP-+0 9+-+-vLN+-0 9PzP-+Q+PzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has various ways of developing his initiative: b1) 18.Bxd5 cxd5 19.Rc3 a4 (19... Rac8 20.Rfc1 Rxc3 21.Rxc3 Nc7 22.Qc2 Ne6 23.Qb3²) 20.f5 Nb4 (or 20...gxf5 21.Qd2 f6 22.exd6 Qxd6 23.Bh6 Rf7 24.Nh4 e6 25.Rfc1² where the e6-pawn and the a6-knight are very weak.) 21.a3 Nc6 22.Rfc1 Na5 23.e6 Nc4 24.Bf2 with an attack. 196

b2) 18.f5 Nb4 and now: b21) 19.fxg6 hxg6 (19...fxg6 20.b3) 20.Qe1 Bxc4 21.Rxc4 Nd5 22.Qh4 f6 23.Bf2 Qxb2 24.exd6 exd6 25.Rxc6 Qxa2 26.Rxd6². b22) 19.b3 Bxf3 20.Rxf3 d5 21.Bd3 Nxd3 22.Qxd3 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9-wqp+-+p+0 9+-+pzPP+-0 9p+-zP-+-+0 9+P+QvLR+-0 9P+-+-+PzP0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.h4².

b23) 19.a3 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Nd5 21.Bc1 gxf5 22.exd6 exd6 23.Qc2 Ne7 24.Bf4 Rfd8 25.Re1©. 15.Qxf3 dxe5 16.fxe5 Bxe5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-wqk+-tr0 9+-+-zpp+p0 9p+p+-+p+0 9+-+-vl-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+LvLQ+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Be4

17.0-0!± is better. Then 17...Bf6 transposes to the game as 17...0-0 18.dxe5 Qxd3 19.Rad1± wins material after Bh6. This finesse is important since after the text move, Black could have retreated the

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 bishop to g7: 17...Bg7! 18.Bxc6+ Nxc6 19.Qxc6+ Kf8 20.Rd1 (20.0-0 Bxd4) 20...Rc8 21.Qxa6 Ra8 22.Qb5 Rb8 where White’s edge is minimal. 17...Bf6?! 18.0-0 0-0 19.Rad1 This quiet move is even stronger than 19.d5 Nd7. 19...Qd6 20.Kh1! a5 Perhaps it is late for a good advice. White’s bishop pair is tearing the board, for instance: 20...Ra7 21.Bf4 Qd8 22.d5 cxd5 23.Bxd5 Rd7 24.Bh6! Re8 25.g4, winning.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c6 7.Bd3 a6 8.a4 a5 9.Qd2 Na6 10.Rd1 e5 11.Nge2 Nd7 12.0-0 Re8 13.Kh1 Nb4 14.Bb1 Qe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+p+nwqpvlp0 9-+pzp-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9PsnPzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQN+PzP0 9+L+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.f4

21.Bf4 Qb4 22.d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9+-+-zpp+p0 9-+p+-vlp+0 9zp-+P+-+-0 9-wq-+LvL-+0 9+-+-+Q+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

It would be a strategic mistake to close the centre with 15.d5 since our bishop on b1 is set for action on the kingside, and the a4-pawn has only restrictive functions. Of course, White’s space advantage would assure him of a pleasant game, but it would not be easy to break through on any flank.

22...c5?

Loses promptly. Black could stay in the game with 22...cxd5 23.Bxd5 Ra7 24.Bh6 Nd7! (24...Re8 fails to 25.Bxf7+! Kxf7 26.Qd5+ e6 27.Rxf6+ Kxf6 28.Rf1+ Ke7 29.Bg5#) giving up the exchange. Perhaps White should improve this line by repelling the queen with 24.a3! Qb6 25.Be3 Qa6 26.Bh6. 23.d6 Ra6 24.Bh6 25.dxe7 Qb6 26.Bd3

30. Rubinetti-Partos Nice ol., 18.06.1974

Re8 1-0

15...exd4 16.Bxd4 As a rule, taking by knight is never wrong in this structure. White is clearly better after 16.Nxd4 Nc5 17.f5. 16...Bf8 Black should always consider the trade of dark-squared bishops. If he does not lose something by force, 16...Bxd4 should be his first 197

Part 7 choice, because White’s bishop is a very strong piece. However, in this particular position, the d6-pawn is very weak. The straightforward approach 17.Qxd4?! Nc5 18.Qxd6 does not work due to 18...Qxd6 19.Rxd6 Be6, but 17.Nxd4 would be awkward. For instance, 17... b6 18.Nc2 already wins a healthy pawn: 18...Nc5 19.Qxd6 Be6 20.Ne3. Therefore, Partos’ move looks reasonable. 17.Rde1 The standard plan is 17.f5². Rubinetti has another idea in mind which is typical for the Modern Benoni pawn structure. 17...Na6 18.Ng3 Nac5 19.Bc2 Ne6 20.Be3 Nec5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+rvlk+0 9+p+nwqp+p0 9-+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+-+-0 9P+P+PzP-+0 9+-sN-vL-sN-0 9-zPLwQ-+PzP0 9+-+-tRR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.e5! dxe5 22.f5 Bg7

Black’s pieces have no prospects. He should only stay and wait, but that is not an easy task. An alternative to the text was 22...Qh4 23.Qf2 Kh8 24.b3 Be7 25.Qf3 Rg8 26.Nge4 Nxe4 27.Nxe4 f6 28.Rd1². 23.Qf2 b6 24.Nce4 Nxe4 25.Nxe4± 198

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+r+k+0 9+-+nwqpvlp0 9-zpp+-+p+0 9zp-+-zpP+-0 9P+P+N+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9-zPL+-wQPzP0 9+-+-tRR+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is strategically lost.

25...gxf5 26.Qxf5 Nf8 27.Qh5 f5 28.Bg5+– Qe6 29.Rxf5 Qxf5 30.Nf6+ Bxf6 31.Bxf5 Bxf5 32.Bxf6 Bg6 33.Qh6 Ra7 34.Rxe5 Rxe5 35.Bxe5 Re7 36.Bc3 Ne6 37.h4 Kf7 38.h5 Be4 39.Qf6+ Ke8 40.Qe5 Nc5 41.Qb8+ Kf7 42.Qxb6 Nd3 43.Kh2 c5 44.Qf6+ Ke8 45.Bxa5 Ne5 46.Qh8+ Kf7 47.Bc3 Re8 48.Qxe8+ Kxe8 49.Bxe5 Ke7 50.g4 Bd3 51.Kg3 Bxc4 52.g5 Kf7 53.g6+ hxg6 54.h6 Kg8 55.Kf4 Kh7 56.Kg5 Bd3 57.Bf4 1-0

31. Davies-Grivas Tel Aviv 1991 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 a6 7.Qd2 c6 8.a4 a5 9.Bd3 Na6 10.Rd1 e5 11.Nge2 Nd7 12.0-0 exd4 13.Nxd4 Ndc5 14.Bb1 Qb6 15.f4 Qb4 16.f5! This set-up is White’s ultimate goal in this opening. Davies has achieved it in its extreme, most unbalanced version – all the ene­

5...c6 6.Be3 a6 my’s pieces are on the queenside. If the attack fails, White will probably end up with a material deficit. However, analysis proves that he must be winning.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-sn-+P+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Nd7 17.Bh6 Qc5

17...Qxc4? loses to 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rf4. The game Razuvaev-Iskusnyh, Elista 1995, saw 17...Nac5 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rf3 f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-+0 9+p+n+-mkp0 9-+pzp-zpp+0 9zp-sn-+P+-0 9PwqPsNP+-+0 9+-sN-+R+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Razuvaev opted for 20.fxg6 (White could have preferred the prosaic solution 20.Rg3 g5 21.Qe2 Rf7 22.Ne6+ winning a pawn after 22...Kh8 23.Nc7 Rb8 24.Ne8.) 20...hxg6 21.Rh3 Ne5 22.Qh6+ Kf7 23.Qh7+ Ke8 when 23.Ndb5! Nf7 24.Re3 cxb5 25.e5! fxe5 26.Bxg6 Be6 27.Re3 cxb5 28.Nxb5 Rd8 29.b3!! would have put Black into a study-like zugzwang (Black would

be still in the game after 29.Nxd6+ Rxd6 30.Rxd6 Qxc4).

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trktr-+0 9+p+-+n+Q0 9-+-zpl+L+0 9zpNsn-zp-+-0 9PwqP+-+-+0 9+P+-tR-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Now 29...Nxb3 30.Nc7+ Ke7 31.Nxe6 Kxe6 32.Qh3 is hopeless so it remains 29...Na6 30.Bxf7+ Bxf7 31.Qh6 and Black’s position is crumbling down: 31...Qc5 32.Nxd6+ Rxd6 33.Rxd6 Nb4 34.Kh1 Bxc4 35.h4. 18.Kh1 Nf6 19.b3 A strange move. It is true that Black is tied up and down, but the c4-pawn is completely irrelevant in the current position. White is winning easily after 19.Nf3! Qxc4? 20.fxg6 when 20...fxg6 drops the queen due to 21.Ba2. More stubborn is 19...Nc7 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Qf4 Nce8, but 22.e5 unleashes the still drowsing bishop on b1. 19...Nc7 20.Rf3 Nce8 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Rh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+ntr-+0 9+p+-+pmkp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9zp-wq-+P+-0 9P+PsNP+-+0 9+PsN-+-+R0 9-+-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

199

Part 7 The attack is running smoothly. 22...Ng4 23.Rf1 Nef6 24.Rh4 h5 25.h3 Ne5 26.Nce2 Bd7 27.Ng3 27.Qg5 also wins as Black has no defence against the threat of 28.Ng3, e.g. 27...Nh7 28.f6+ Kh8 29.Qh6 Rg8 30.Nf5!+–. 27...Rh8 28.fxg6 Nxg6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+-tr0 9+p+l+pmk-0 9-+pzp-snn+0 9zp-wq-+-+p0 9P+PsNP+-tR0 9+P+-+-sNP0 9-+-wQ-+P+0 9+L+-+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

29.Ngf5+ Bxf5 30.Rxf5 Qb4 31.Qf2 Ne8 32.Rxf7+ Kg8 33.e5 dxe5 34.Bxg6 exd4 35.Bh7+ Rxh7 36.Rxh7 Ng7 37.R4xh5 1-0 32 Kiril Georgiev-Krum Georgiev BUL-ch. Sofia 1989 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 a6 7.Qd2 c6 8.a4 a5 9.Bd3 e5 10.Nge2 Na6 11.Rd1 Nd7 12.0-0 Re8 13.Kh1 Nf8 Krum Georgiev is the most ardent fan of the c6-a6 system. Up to this game, he had more than 10 years of experience in it. His ap-

200

proach to the centre is rather untypical. He does not take on d4 putting his hopes on the e5-pawn to keep him safe.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9n+pzp-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+PzPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLP+-0 9-zP-wQN+PzP0 9+-+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.f4! Ne6 15.Bb1 c5?!

Black overestimates the power of his knight on d4. 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Nd5 Nac7 18.f5 Nd4 19.Nec3 Nxd5 20.Nxd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+p+-+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-zpNzpP+-0 9P+PsnP+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9-zP-wQ-+PzP0 9+L+R+R+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

The rest is a good illustration of White’s attacking possibilities. 20...Bd7 21.Bh6 Ra6 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.f6+ Kh8 24.Qh6 Rg8 25.Rd3 (25.Qg5! Rd6 26.Rd3) 25...g5 26.Rg3? (26.Qh5! Rg6 27.Rf2) 26...Rg6 27.Qh5 Qf8?? (27...Raxf6!=) 28.Rxg5 1-0

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

Part 8

The Classical Main Line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

201

Part 8

Part 8

Main Ideas 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7.d5 has been more popular for years, but the trend is changing. This move offers White more ways of fighting the plans with 7... c6 as he has Bd3, Nge2, but 7... Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 9.0-0-0 is too committal and the price of every move is higher. I chose to advocate 7.Nge2 because its main lines are not so forced. All you need to get started is to learn a few typical set-ups and positional principles which I will explain in this chapter. White’s king is usually safer than after 7.d5 because it does not go so early to the queenside and may choose to stay in the centre or escape to the kingside, depending on circumstances. Practical experience seems to support my choice. In my database, 7.Nge2 scores 61% vs. 56% for 7.d5. 202

The first thing you should learn is how to treat the position on the following diagram: 7...c6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.g4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This advance is the gist of our plan. In the first place, it aims to gain space and discourage Black’s counterplay on the kingside. We want to complete development with Ng3, h4-h5. The clamp on f5 prevents Black’s natural breakthrough against the foundation of our central pawn chain. Note that I said nothing about mating the opponent with a direct attack along the h-file. In fact, Be3h6 is not on our agenda, at least for the next 10 moves. The nature of our set-up is mostly restrictive. We may consider g4-g5 rather than Bh6. Our positional dream is to keep the bind on the kingside and

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 invade the enemy camp through the opposite part of the board. The d5-pawn ensures us of a spatial advantage so it is easy to transfer pieces back and forth between the two flanks. We should play complexly, on a wide front, and pick the most vulnerable spot for a target. Look at the following example: 11...b5 12.Ng3 Bb7 13.h4 Qe7 14.h5 Rfc8

However, his knights are passive and practice has seen him struggling after 12.0-0-0 f4 13.Bf2 Nf6 14.Kb1 Ng6 15.c5±. White’s offensive on the queenside is easy to develop. This Black approach has not caught up. Perhaps thanks to Kas­pa­rov’s efforts, the modern main line is:

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+-+k+0 9+l+nwqpvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-+P0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move stalls White’s natural development with Ng3. We may try to maintain flexibility by 12.h3, but it wastes a tempo. I think that we should quickly finish our development by:

If you have read carefully the previous note, you should be able to reject 15.Bh6?! Bxh6 16.Qxh6 Ne8 17.g5 Nf8 in favour of 15.Kf2!? Rc7 16.Be2 Rac8 17.Rac1² planning b4, a4, g5. Obviously, Black should not enter such positions. He must seek counterplay on the kingside. His most straightforward attempt is 7... Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.g4 Ne8 10.Qd2 f5 11.gxf5 gxf5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9zppzp-sn-vlp0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+-+Pzpp+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...h5

12.g5! Nh7 (12...Ne8 13.Nc1! f5 14.gxf6 Bxf6 15.Be2)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+pvln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-zPp0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.Nc1!

This move is practically unknown at high level. Compared to the common 13.Rg1, it has two advantages: the h2-pawn remains protected in the event of ...Qh4+, and the bishop can protect the f3pawn from e2 after ...f6. The latter is a striking difference with the game Karpov-Kotronias, Athens 1997: 13.Rg1 f6 14.gxf6 Rxf6 15.0-0-0 Qe8?! 16.Bg2 b5 17.Kb1 Rb8 18.Rc1 203

Part 8 Nb6 19.b3 Bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+q+k+0 9+-+l+-vln0 9psn-zp-trp+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+LzP0 9+KtR-+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.Nd1 Kh8 21.Qa5 Nc8 22.Nb2 g5 23.Nd3 Ne7 24.Nb4 Ng6 25.Nxa6 Rc8 26.Rxc8 Bxc8 27.Nc7 Qe7 28.Nxb5+–. The only drawback of 13.Nc1 is the potential loss of castling rights, but it is arguable that our king would be better off on the queenside. It is safe enough in the centre and it can also hide to b1 via the route d1-c2-b1. 13...f6 14.gxf6 Bxf6 15.Be2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+-+n0 9p+-zp-vlp+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQL+-zP0 9tR-sN-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has consolidated and his strong centre assures him of the better game. Any ending is in his favour due to his clear plan on the queenside. The following trade of dark-squared bishops is positionally justified, but it weakens Black’s 204

king. In many lines the break f3-f4 gains in strength: 15...Bg5 16.Rg1 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Kg7 18.Nd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-tr-+0 9+p+n+-mkn0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNNwQP+-0 9PzP-+L+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...b5 19.Kd2! Ndf6 (19...Qb6 20.a4 bxa4 21.Nxa4 Qb7 22.Rac1±) 20.Raf1 Qe7 21.a3 Qa7 22.Qxa7+ Rxa7 23.f4±. On the seventh move, Black can choose the solid, but passive: 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can castle on either flank. I consider in the “Step by Step” chapter the plan with a short castle: 9.Qd2 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Be2 Nd7 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.0-0 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Rae1 Nb6 16.f4±. White can expand on the kingside with g4.

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 Typical tactical motifs In the early opening stages, White is often undeveloped and that is a fertile soil for destructive tactical blows. We should not underestimate Black’s counterplay. It is better to anticipate it: Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-wq-trk+0 9+l+-+pvlp0 9psn-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-zp-+P+PzP0 9+P+-vLPsN-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+-wQNmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...Nbxd5 18.exd5 Nxd5©. Black’s mobile central pawns provide adequate compensation for the piece. Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9psn-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-snp0 9-+-+P+-vl0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+L+QzP0 9tR-sNK+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White’s pieces are awkward. Even with an extra exchange, it would be difficult to win: 18...Rf4! 19.h3 Kh7. It is often preferable to part with material, but keep the pressure.

Analysis

XIIIIIIIIY 9rwq-+ltr-mk0 9+-+-+-vl-0 9-sn-zp-snp+0 9zp-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9sNP+-vLP+-0 9-mK-wQLsN-zP0 9+-tR-+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

26.Rc6!? with an initiative.

Early in the opening, after 7...c6 8.Qd2 exd4 9.Nxd4, Black may try to open the centre with 9...d5.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+p+-snp+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.cxd5 cxd5 11.e5 Ne8 12.f4 f6 when I advocate 13.e6! Nc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9zpp+-+-vlp0 9-+n+Pzpp+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9-+-sN-zP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.f5! gxf5 15.Rd1! Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxe6 17.Bc4! Nc7 18.Bd3 Rf7 19.0-0. Black’s pieces will stay passive for long, his castling position is compromised. 205

Part 8

Part 8

Step by Step 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7.d5 has been more popular for decades, but the modern trend is to avoid this line due to 7...Nh5 8.Qd2 f5 which is not to everybody’s taste. After the text, 7...Nh5 is dubious. White can choose between the quiet 8.Qd2 f5 9.exf5 gxf5 10.0-0-0 and more challenging 8.g4 Nf4 9.Nxf4 exf4 10.Bxf4 f5 11.gxf5 gxf5 12.Qd2 Nc6 13.0-0-0!. I will focus on: A. 7...exd4; B. 7...Nc6; C. 7...c6 Minor alternatives are: a) 7...Nbd7 8.Qd2 Nb6 (8...c6 transposes to the main line) 9.b3 exd4 10.Nxd4 a5 11.Be2 a4 12.0-0², Istratescu-Bates, Hastings 2009. 206

b) 7...Nfd7 8.Qd2 a5 9.h4! It is good to keep the king in the centre. In Gerzhoy-Ivanisevic, Sarajevo 2010, White castled, but after 9.0-0-0 Nb6 10.b3 a4 Black obtained counterplay. 9...h5 (9...Nb6 10.b3 a4 11.Rd1 h5 12.dxe5 Bxe5 13.c5±) 10.Bg5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9+pzpn+pvl-0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-vLp0 9-+PzPP+-zP0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQN+P+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...f6

Or 10...Bf6 11.0-0-0 Bxg5 (11... Nb6 12.Kb1 Nxc4 13.Qd3 b5 14.Nxb5 d5 15.Bxf6) 12.hxg5 Nb6 13.Kb1 Nxc4 14.Qd3 Nb6 15.dxe5±. 11.Be3 Nb6 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Bxb6 cxb6 15.Nd5 with the better endgame. c) 7...Nh5. This thematic idea is dubious here. White can take a pawn with 8.g4 Nf4 9.Nxf4 exf4 10.Bxf4 f5 11.gxf5 gxf5 12.Qd2 Nc6 13.0-0-0 or play for attack with 8.Qd2 f5 9.exf5 gxf5 10.0-0-0.

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 A. 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 (8... c6 is considered in line D)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PsNP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

From a computer’s point of view, this line may be objectively better than 7...c6. Black does not cede any more space as in the variation 7...c6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.d5, and he gets easy piece play. However, with an open centre, he has not much of play of his own. He is bound to defend a slightly worse position for many moves ahead. In practice, this translates into only 40% and rare wins. No wonder that this approach is 7 times less popular than 7...c6. 9.Qd2 9.Nc2 is too slow. Black gets an initiative after 9...Be6!÷, for example: 10.Be2 Ne5 11.b3 Nh5 12.Qd2 Qh4+ 13.Bf2 Qf6. 9.Be2 is a natural developing move, but it commits White to a short castling: 9...Nh5 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.0-0. I prefer to keep both castling options open for a while. 9...Nxd4

a) 9...a6 10.Be2! Ne5 is best met by 11.Rd1!² which anticipates the idea of 11...c5? (11...Re8 12.0-0²) due to 12.Nb3! Be6 13.Qxd6 Qxd6 14.Rxd6 Nxc4 (14...Bxc4 15.Na5 Bxe2 16.Kxe2±) 15.Bxc4 Bxc4 16.Nxc5!±. b) 9...Nh5 could encourage White to castle long: 10.0-0-0 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 Be6 13.g3². c) 9...Re8 might prove to be a superfluous move. White continues 10.Be2 Nh5 11.Nc2!? f5 (11...Be6 12.0-0²) 12.0-0 when 12...f4 would be positionally bad because White has clear play in the centre with c4c5. 12...fxe4 13.fxe4 opens the f-file in White’s favour: 13...Nf6 14.Bg5 Rf8 15.Rf2. Remains: 12...Nf6 13.Bg5 Ne5 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Ne3 Be6 16.f4! Nf7 17.Bh4 c6 18.f5 with an initiative. 10.Bxd4 Be6 11.Be2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+-zplsnp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PvLP+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 11...Nd7

It is only in White’s interest to keep more pieces on the board: 207

Part 8 11...c6 12.0-0 Qa5 13.a3 a6 14.Rfd1 Rfd8, Shinkevich-Enders, Budapest 1996, 15.b4!². In Lautier-Piket, Dos Hermanas 1995, Black chose to trade bishops with 11...Nh5 12.Bxg7 Nxg7 13.0-0 (13.0-0-0 deserves attention: 13... f5 14.exf5 Nxf5 15.Bd3.) 13...c6. This position is similar to the main line, but the fianchetto knight on g7 is a bit passive. The game went further with 14.Kh1 Qc7 15.Rad1 Rad8 16.Qd4 a6 17.Rd2 f5 18.Rfd1 Rd7 when 19.b3 b5 20.Bd3 Rdd8 21.Ne2 would have kept the tension. 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.0-0 13.h4 h5 14.0-0-0 is also promi­ sing. 13...f5 (13...f6²) 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Rae1 Nb6 16.f4± Later in the game Rellstab-Carls, Bad Aachen 1933, White carried on g4 and went on to win. B. 7...Nc6 8.d5 Ne7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-snpvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 208

At a5, the unfortunate knight is worse: 8...Na5 9.Ng3 c5 10.Bd3± or 10.Qd2 h5 11.Bg5 Qb6 12.Bd3 Nh7 13.Be3 h4 14.Nge2 Qd8 15.0-0±. 9.g4 Karpov treats this position differently. He castles long and prepares the standard queenside play without opening the g-file: 9.Qd2 Ne8 10.0-0-0 f5 11.Kb1. I guess it is a matter of taste what to choose. Also interesting is the move order with 9.Qd2!? Ne8 10.g4. 9...Ne8 Black has no real counterplay on the queenside. The game RowsonPons Servera, Palma de Mallorca 2008, saw: 9...c6 10.Ng3 cxd5 11.cxd5 a6 12.h4 b5 13.h5 b4 14.Na4 Nd7 15.Qd2 f5 16.gxf5 gxf5 17.h6 Bh8 18.Rg1±. In general, if White achieves the g4, Ng3,h5, his edge is beyond doubt. 9...Nd7 is similar to the main line: 10.h4 f5 11.gxf5 gxf5 12.h5, followed up by Qd3, 0-0-0. 9...Ne8 10.Qd2 10.Ng3 f5 11.gxf5 gxf5 12.Nh5 is also possible. 10...f5 11.gxf5 gxf5 12.0-0-0 f4 13.Bf2 Nf6 14.Kb1 Ng6 15.c5±.

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 C. 7...c6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 a) 8...a6?! opens a hole on b6 which can be exploited in the endgame after 9.dxe5! dxe5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8 11.Na4 Nbd7 12.0-0-0!. Black cannot contest the d-file because of the weakness of the b7-pawn: 12... Re8 (12...b5?! 13.Nb6 Rb8 14.g4±, Schlosser-Werner, Germany 1991) 13.c5 Nf8 14.Nb6 Rb8 15.Nc3 Ne6 16.Bc4 Nd4 17.Ne2 Nxe2+ 18.Bxe2 Be6 19.Bc4± when 19... Bxc4 20.Nxc4 Red8 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Rd1 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Kf8 loses to 24.Na5. b) 8...Qc7?!. This move practically presents White with two extra tempi: 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.Ng3 Nbd7 12.Rc1 Qd8 13.b4 h5 14.Bd3 Nh7 15.0-0±, Doric-Kozul, Rijeka 2011. c) 8...exd4 9.Nxd4 d5 9...Re8 10.0-0-0 d5 is too slow: 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.exd5 a6 (12...Nxd5 13.Nc2+–) 13.Bc4 b5 14.Bb3 Bb7 15.Rhe1 (powerful development towards the centre) 15...Nbd7 16.Ne6! and White won in Istratescu-Gallagher, Swit­zerland 2010. 10.cxd5 (10.exd5 cxd5 11.0-0-0 hardly promises much, e.g. 11... Nc6 12.Nc2 dxc4 13.Qxd8 Rxd8 14.Rxd8+ Nxd8 15.Bxc4 Be6 16.Bxe6 Nxe6 17.Rd1 a6=) 10...cxd5 11.e5 Ne8 11...Nfd7 postpones the break ...f6 so White can comfortably complete development with 12.f4

Nb6 13.Be2 f6 14.exf6 (14.0-0 fxe5 15.fxe5 Nc6 16.Rxf8+ Qxf8 17.Rf1 Qe8) 14...Qxf6 15.0-0 Nc6 16.Rad1². 12.f4 f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqntrk+0 9zpp+-+-vlp0 9-+-+-zpp+0 9+-+pzP-+-0 9-+-sN-zP-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.e6!

In my opinion, only this move, based on the positional sacrifice of two pawns, assures White of the better game. 13...Nc6 14.f5! gxf5 15.Rd1! I came to this novelty after having analysed two old, but very important games: Portisch-Bouaziz, Sousse 1967: 15.0-0-0 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxe6 17.Kb1 Nc7 (Portisch found the right set-up, but Black has here the equalising manoeuvre 17...Nd6! 18.Nxd5 Re8 19.Bf4 Bf7 20.Bd3 Qa5=) 18.Bd3 Qd7 19.Qh4. White is already clearly better: 19...a6 20.Na4 Qf7 21.Nc5 Bc8 22.g4 (22. Rhf1 Rd8 23.Rf3 d4 24.Bh6‚) 22... Re8, when best is 23.Rhe1‚ Re4 24.Bxe4 fxe4 25.Re2. I borrowed from this game the set-up with Bd3 which is more aggressive than Bf3 like in the next game; Marsalek-M.Roos, Budapest 209

Part 8 1959: 15.Be2!? Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxe6 17.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqntrk+0 9zpp+-+-vlp0 9-+-+lzp-+0 9+-+p+p+-0 9-+-wQ-+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzP-+L+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Short castling is stronger than Portisch’s 0-0-0. Piece attack with Rf3-h3 is unpleasant for Black who is completely deprived of counterplay. However, he gets a tempo for the manoeuvre ...Rf8-f7-d7 which allows him to hold on: 17... Rf7 18.Bf3 (18.Rad1! Nd6 19.Nxd5 Rd7 20.Nf4 Bxa2 21.Bf3 Kh8 22.Nh5 keeps the initiative) 18... Rd7 19.Rad1 Kh8 20.Qh4 Rc8 when 21.Bd4!ƒ still maintains a pull. My proposition aims to discourage the e8-knight from going to d6. Once it takes the passive square c7, White will have a free hand on the kingside: 15...Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxe6 17.Bc4! Nc7 18.Bd3 Rf7 19.0-0 Qd7 20.Qh4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9zppsnq+rvlp0 9-+-+lzp-+0 9+-+p+p+-0 9-+-+-+-wQ0 9+-sNLvL-+-0 9PzP-+-+PzP0 9+-+R+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20...Bf8 21.Ne2©. White’s pres210

sure is based on the split pawns of Black’s castling position. It is quite stable and does not depend on forcing continuations. Here is one illustrative variation: 21...Bd6 22.Nd4 Be5 23.Nxe6 Qxe6 24.Rf3 f4 25.Bxf4 Bxf4 26.Rxf4 Re8 27.Kh1. d) 8...Na6 has a major drawback – it impedes ...a6. Therefore, Karpov’s approach looks very consistent: 9.d5! (White often plays 9.0-0-0 Be6 10.d5 cxd5 11.cxd5 Bd7 12.Kb1, but Black’s queenside pieces are much more potent here than in the main line. Besides, he saves a clear tempo on ...a6, for example: 12... b5 13.Nc1 Nc7 14.Nd3 a5.) 9...cxd5 10.cxd5 Bd7 11.Ng3 h5 12.Bb5!? Bxb5 13.Nxb5 Qd7 14.Nc3 Nc5 15.0-0 a5 16.Rfc1 Nh7 17.Nh1 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+p+q+-vln0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9zp-snPzpp+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9tR-tR-+-mKN0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.Nf2 (18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.Nf2²) 18...b6 19.Qe2 Nf6 20.Rab1 Qe7 21.Bg5 Kh7, Karpov-Topalov, Varna rapid 1995. White has preserved his space advantage and stands better. He can display activity on the queenside with 22.b4², or in the centre with 22.exf5². 9.d5

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 9...cxd5 a) 9...Nb6 is best met by 10.Ng3!? 10.b3 cxd5 11.cxd5 Nh5 gives Black certain counterplay, e.g. 12.g4 Nf4 13.Nxf4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Qh4+ 15.Bg3 Qf6 16.Rc1 Qxf3 17.Bg2 Qf6 18.g5 Qe7 19.Nb5 Be5 20.0-0 Bxg3 21.hxg3 Bd7=. 10...cxd5 11.cxd5 Bd7 (11...h5 12.Bd3 h4 13.Nge2) 12.a4 Be8 13.a5 Nbd7 14.b4±. b) 9...c5?! is a strategic mistake because it is very passive and offers White an advantage on both flanks after 10.g4. See my Game 35 Svetushkin-Ciobanu, Eforie Nord 2009. I discuss in the annotations important positional principles you should keep in mind when playing the Sämish. 10.cxd5 a6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 11.g4!

I have devoted a lot of time on

set-ups with 0-0, but they give Black a free hand on the kingside: 11.Nc1 Nh5 12.Nd3 f5 13.Be2 Ndf6 Psakhis-Kasparov, Murcia 1990, saw 13...fxe4 14.fxe4 Qh4+ 15.Bf2 Qe7 16.Bxh5 gxh5 when 17.0-0! would have given White a stable edge due to Black’s split castling position. 13...Qh4+ 14.Bf2 Qe7 15.exf5 gxf5 16.0-0-0 and 13...f4 14.Bf2 Bf6 15.0-0-0 are pleasant for White. 14.0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+-+-vlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-+Pzpp+n0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNNvLP+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has two approaches here. a) 14...f4 15.Bf2 g5. White may be able to defend here, but Black’s attack is rather dangerous over the board. The game Gevondian-Ulko, Moscow 2011, continued 16.h3 Bd7 17.b4 (17.Rfc1! Kh8 18.a4 Rg8 19.Bd1 Ng3 20.a5÷ whereas Black can try 20...g4 21.Bb6 Qe8 22.hxg4 Bf8) 17...Kh8 18.Nb2? Ng3! 19.Rfc1 g4!. It looks that White should refrain from h3, but play is unclear, for example: 16.Qd1 Bd7 17.a4 (17. Na4 g4!? 18.fxg4 Ng3) 17...Qe8 18.Ra3 Qg6 19.Rb3 Bc8 20.Be1 g4 21.a5 Rf7 22.Na4 gxf3 23.Bxf3 Bg4 211

Part 8 24.Nb6 Bxf3 25.Qxf3 Rd8 26.Rb4 Kh8÷. b) 14...fxe4 15.fxe4 Ng4 Black plays for a draw here, with fair chances to achieve it: 16.Rxf8+ Bxf8 17.Bg5 Qb6+(17...Be7 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.h3 Ngf6 20.g4²) 18.Kh1 Bg7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+p+-+-vlp0 9pwq-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-vLn0 9-+-+P+n+0 9+-sNN+-+-0 9PzP-wQL+PzP0 9tR-+-+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.Rf1 (19.Qd1 h6 20.Bd2 Nf2+ 21.Nxf2 Qxf2=) 19...Bd7 20.g3 Rf8! 20...Qd4 is active, but insufficient: 21.Kg2 Nhf6 22.h3 h6 (22... Nxe4 23.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 24.Bf3 Qd4 25.Bxg4 Qxd5+ 26.Kh2) 23.hxg4 hxg5 24.Qxg5 Rf8 25.Rf3 Kh7 (25... Nxe4 26.Rxf8+ Kxf8 27.Qxg6; 25... b5 26.Nf2 b4 27.Ncd1) 26.Nf2² Bh6 27.Qh4 g5 28.Qh1 Kg6 (28... Kg7 29.a3 b5 30.Qe1) 29.a3 Bg7 30.Qe1 Rc8 31.Rd3 Qc5 32.Ncd1 – the f5-square is weak. 21.Rxf8+ Kxf8 22.Kg2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+p+l+-vlp0 9pwq-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-vLn0 9-+-+P+n+0 9+-sNN+-zP-0 9PzP-wQL+KzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy 212

The engines think that White is slightly better, but the material is too reduced. Black should make a draw after the correct positional exchange: 22...Bf6! 23.h3 (23.Bxg4 Bxg4 24.Be3 Qc7 25.h3 Bc8 26.g4 Ng7 27.Qf2 Qf7 28.Na4 Bd8 29.Qxf7+ Kxf7 30.Nb6 Bxb6 31.Bxb6=) 23... Bxg5 24.Qxg5 Ne3+ 25.Kf3 25.Kh2 Be8 26.g4 Ng7= 27.Ne1 Bf7 28.Kg3 Nf1+ 29.Bxf1 Qg1+ 30.Ng2 Qxf1 31.Qe3 h5. 25...Nc4! 26.b3 Or 26.Qc1 Qd4 27.b3 Nb6 28.g4 Nf6 29.Nf2 h5=. 26...Qg1!? 27.bxc4 Bxh3 28.Bd1 Qd4 29.Qd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+p+-+-+p0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+n0 9-+PwqP+-+0 9+-sNN+KzPl0 9P+-wQ-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black’s queen is amazingly powerful. After 29...Nf6! (29...g5 30.Bc2 Bf1 31.c5) 30.Qh6+ Kg8 31.Qxh3 Qxd3+, the game should be drawn. 11...h5 11...b5 is the second most popular move, but only Nevednichy is still playing it regularly. Black’s set-up is extremely passive be-

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 cause White gains even more space by Ng3, h4-h5. The only hope of the second players is to counterattack with some sacrifices in the event White burns the bridges behind him. We must remember that no matter how fearsome our kingside pawn formation may look, we should not overestimate our attack. The source of our advantage is the d5-pawn and the space it ensures. Basically, our main battle plan is to invade the queenside while restricting the enemy at the other part of the board. Of course, that does not rule out an attack on Black’s king, but it should be well prepared and our pieces must be co-ordinated. We start with: 12.Ng3 Nb6 Alternatively: a) 12...Bb7 13.h4 Qe7 (13...b4 14.Nd1) 14.h5 Rfc8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+-+k+0 9+l+nwqpvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-+P0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has secured his suprema­ cy on the kingside and now he should complete development, for example, with 15.Kf2!? Rc7 16.Be2 Rac8 17.Rac1² planning b4, a4, g5. A great part of his advantage consists in his better mobility. He can

swiftly transfer pieces from one flank to the other trying to create weaknesses in the enemy lines. The game Karavade-Maze, Caleta 2013, demonstrated a totally wrong approach. Mesmerised by the perfect attacking formation on the kingside, White quickly compromised his position with premature activity: 15.Bh6?! Bxh6 16.Qxh6 Ne8 17.g5 Nf8 18.Nd1 Qc7 (18...Rc2÷) 19.Ne3 Qa5+ 20.Kf2 Qb6 21.Bd3 Rc7 22.Rae1 Qd4÷. b) 12...Nc5 13.b4 Na4 14.Nxa4 bxa4 15.Rc1 Bb7 16.h4 Rc8 17.Rxc8 Qxc8 18.h5±. Black has not any counterplay on the queenside. 13.h4! This is the most accurate move order. In many games White plays firstly 13.b3, but then Black may try to take over the initiative with 13...Bb7 14.h4 Rc8 when 15.h5? stumbles into 15...Rxc3! 16.Qxc3 Nfxd5. So White should continue 15.Rc1, but then 15...b4 16.Nd1 Rxc1 17.Qxc1 Nbxd5!? 18.exd5 Nxd5© would offer Black exactly what he strives for in the King’s Indian – a lasting initiative even at the cost of a small material deficit.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9psn-zp-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+PzP0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 213

Part 8 13...Nfd7 13...Bb7 14.h5 b4 15.Nd1 Nfxd5? 16.exd5 Nxd5 is already losing due to 17.hxg6. The only reasonable way to escape the strategic bind is 13... Bxg4!? 14.fxg4 Nxg4, but in this line White keeps the central pawns. The game Paschall-Ilincic, Budapest 2008, went 15.Be2 (15.h5!?²) 15...Nxe3 16.Qxe3 Bf6 17.Qh6 Rc8 18.a3 Rc5 19.Rd1 Qe7 20.Rd3±. 14.h5 Re8 (14...b4 15.Nd1 a5 16.Qh2+–) 15.Rc1 Nf8 16.b3².

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqrsnk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9psn-zp-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-+P0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+PsN-vLPsN-0 9P+-wQ-+-+0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

See the further course of Game 33 Bomans-Nevednichy, Malinska 2013. 12.g5! Schandorff advocates 12.h3, but while holding the bind on the kingside, this move presents Black with a valuable tempo: 12...b5 13.Bg5 Qa5 14.Nd1 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 Nc5. This line had been assessed as fine for Black since the wonderful game Piket-Kasparov, Amsterdam 1996, and the following attempt to improve on it is not convin­ cing: 16.Ng3 hxg4! 17.hxg4 Bd7 18.Nf2 Rfc8 19.Be3 Nh7 20.g5 Bf8! 214

(Schandorff considers only 20...f6), I do not see any reason why Black should be worse at all, e.g. 21.Rg1 Be7 22.Ne2 Bd8. 12...Nh7 12...Ne8 might be better than its reputation if Black connects it with a passive stand on the queenside with ...b6, ...a5. But King’s Indian adepts are, as a rule, enterprising guys so they usually try to build up activity at all cost. This greatly facilitates White’s task in practice: 13.Nc1! f5 (13...b5?! Nd3±) 14.gxf6 Bxf6 (14...Qxf6 15.Be2 Qh4+ 16.Kd1) 15.Be2 I’m following the game AtalikKotronias, Ankara 1995. 15.Qg2! would have pinpointed much better the drawbacks of 12...Ne8. The knight is missing from the kingside so 15...Bh4+ 16.Kd2 would be a clearly worse version of the position I consider in the main line. 15...Bh4+ 16.Kd1 b5 17.Nd3! (with a broad hint for Nb4-c6) 17... Nb6 18.b3±

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqntrk+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9psn-zp-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-vl0 9+PsNNvLP+-0 9P+-wQL+-zP0 9tR-+K+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has accomplished his strategic goal. 18...Bd7 19.Nb4 Nc8 would be very pleasant for him.

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 He could choose between 20.Kc1, 20.Rg1 or 20.Nc6. Kotronias’ sacrifice just adds material advantage to White’s positional pressure: 18...a5?! 19.Nxb5 Ba6 20.a4 Bxb5 21.axb5 a4 22.Kc2 Nf6 23.Nb4!+–. 13.Nc1! This move is practically unknown at high level. Only Atalik mentioned it in 1996, but it assessed the variation as unclear. Back in 1993 Karpov created a strategic masterpiece after 13.Rg1 f6 14.gxf6 Qxf6 15.0-0-0 and everybody wanted to follow into his steps ever since. See Game 34 Karpov-Dolmatov, Dortmund 1993. All the more, Karpov beat subsequently Kotronias and Topalov with the same receipt – quick castling, occupation of the c-file and eventually some white pieces penetrates the enemy camp. Look at the following games: Karpov-Kotronias, Athens 1997: 13.Rg1 f6 14.gxf6 Rxf6 15.0-0-0 Qe8?! 16.Bg2 b5 17.Kb1 Rb8 18.Rc1 Nb6 19.b3 Bd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+q+k+0 9+-+l+-vln0 9psn-zp-trp+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+LzP0 9+KtR-+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.Nd1 Kh8 21.Qa5 Nc8 22.Nb2 g5 23.Nd3 Ne7 24.Nb4

Ng6 25.Nxa6 Rc8 26.Rxc8 Bxc8 27.Nc7 Qe7 28.Nxb5+–; Karpov-Topalov, Varna 1995: 13.Rg1 f6 14.gxf6 Rxf6 15.0-0-0 b5 16.b3 Nb6 17.Kb2 Bd7 18.Nc1 Be8 19.Be2 b4 20.Nb1 a5 21.Nd3 Rf8 22.Nf2 Nf6 23.Rc1 Rb8 (The game Molo-Rain, zt20 email, 2006, improved with 23...Qb8! when criti­ cal would be 24.a4! bxa3+ 25.Nxa3 intending to sac the exchange: Rc6) 24.Rc2 Qe7 25.Nh3 Nh7 26.Qd3 a4 27.Kc1 axb3 28.axb3 Na8

XIIIIIIIIY 9ntr-+ltrk+0 9+-+-wq-vln0 9-+-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-zp-+P+-+0 9+P+QvLP+N0 9-+R+L+-zP0 9+NmK-+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

29.Qa6 Qd7 30.Nf2 Nc7 31.Qa7 Rc8 32.Qb7±. However, I cannot understand why nobody has tried the most natural development ...Nc5 (instead of ...Nb6). It is often played in similar positions, but never after: 13.Rg1 f6 14.gxf6 Rxf6 15.0-0-0 b5 16.b3 (16.Re1 Qe8! 17.Bg2 Nc5)

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-+k+0 9+-+n+-vln0 9p+-zp-trp+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsN-vLP+-0 9P+-wQN+-zP0 9+-mKR+LtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

215

Part 8 In my opinion, here 16...Nc5! equalises in the forced line 17.f4 exf4 18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.e5 f3 20.exf6 fxe2 21.f7+ Kh8 22.Bxe2 Qf6= while both 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.d6 Nf8 19.Nd5 Rxf3 20.Ne7+ Kh7 21.Qd5 Be6 22.Qxc5 Nd7³ and 17.Kb2 b4 18.Nb1 Qb6 even give Black an initiative. I tried to fiddle with the move order, for instance: 15.Nc1 instead of 15.0-0-0, but 15...Rxf3 16.Rxg6 Qh4+ 17.Bf2 Qxh2 is unpleasant. Galkin continues with 18.Nd3 claiming a clear advantage for White, but in fact Black has the initiative and an extra pawn to keep him safe in an endgame, e.g.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-+0 9+p+-+-mkn0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9zp-+Pzp-+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+P+NsNP+-0 9-+-+L+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...Nc5 19.Nxc5 dxc5 20.Rg2 Qf4 21.Be2 Rh3 22.0-0-0 Nf6 23.Bxc5 Bg4÷. If we firstly defend the f3-pawn, Black gets tempi for a redeployment: 15.Bg2 b5 16.Nc1 Nc5 17.b4 Na4 18.Nxa4 bxa4 19.Nd3 Bd7 20.Rc1 Rf7=. In these lines, the hanging pawn on h2 impedes our plans. Thus the solution finally dawned on me: we are better off with the rook on h1! I reached the next level of understanding of this position during the analysis of the variation: 216

13.Rg1 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+n+pvln0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-zPp0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

We are tempo behind here so 14.0-0-0 does not work: 14...Qc7 and we have no time for b3, Kb2 – after 15.Kb1 Nb6, the thematic 16.b3 from Karpov’s games fails to b4 whereas the c3-knight is deprived of the b1-square. Therefore, White should postpone the castle and it turns out that his king is totally at ease in the centre: 14.Nc1! Nb6 14...f6 15.gxf6 Rxf6 is not a problem here because we can defend f3 by 16.Be2 Nb6 (16...Nc5 17.b4 Na4 18.Nxa4 bxa4 19.a3 Nf8 20.Na2 Rf7 21.Nc3 Bd7 22.0-0-0² Qc8 23.Kb1 Qb7 24.Rc1 Rc8 25.Rc2) 17.b3², and we are ready for Karpov’s plan. 14...Nc5 15.Nd3 Nxd3+ 16.Bxd3 is pleasant for White: 16...Qc7 17.a4 Bd7 (17...bxa4 18.Nxa4±) 18.axb5 axb5 19.Ke2²; 17.gxf6 Rxf6 18.0-0-0 Bd7 19.Kb1 b4 20.Ne2 a5 21.f4±. 15.b3 Bd7 15...b4 16.Nd1 a5 practically looses a pawn after 17.a3 bxa3 18.Rxa3 Bd7 (18...f6 19.gxf6 Rxf6 20.Be2!±) 19.Rxa5±, Shishkin-W. Schmidt, Koszalin 2008.

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 16.Nd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-+l+pvln0 9psn-zp-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-zPp0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PsNNvLP+-0 9P+-wQ-+-zP0 9tR-+-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has achieved a good version of Karpov’s set-up. 16...a5 17.Be2 b4 will cost Black a pawn: 18.Nd1 Rc8 19.N3b2 Be8 20.a3 while 16...Nc8 17.Be2 f6 18.gxf6 Rxf6 19.0-0-0 (19.Nb4 Ne7 20.a4²) 19...a5 20.Kb1± is not any better. The bottom line of my analysis was that 0-0-0 and Rg1 were not obligatory. On the contrary, Nc1d3 is the key of White’s set-up and it should be played without delay. This is essential against ...f6 because we will be able to protect the f3-pawn by Be2 instead of the awkward Bg2 Karpov had to play against Kotronias. Let us return now to 13.Nc1: 13...f6 14.gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+-vln0 9p+-zp-zPp+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+-zP0 9tR-sN-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Bxf6 14...Rxf6 makes no sense here as the g6-pawn is not attacked: 15.Be2 b5 16.Nd3. 15.Be2! I would love to keep the strong dark-squared bishop away from exchange (15...Bg5), but it does not work too well: 15.Rg1 is roughly equal after 15...Bh4+ 16.Kd1 Rxf3 17.Be2 Rxe3 18.Rxg6+ Kf7 19.Bxh5 Ndf6 20.Rxf6+ Kxf6 21.Qxe3 Kg7 22.Kc2 Qg5 23.Qe2 Nf6 24.Bf3 Bd7 25.Nd3 Kf8. Black’s active pieces compensate for the missing pawn. The engines and Atalik recommend 15.Qg2 Bh4+ Black should oppose something substantial to Karpov’s plan. Mundane redeploying is gloom: 15...Rf7 16.Rg1 Nhf8 17.Nd3 b5 18.0-0-0² Nb6 19.b3 Bd7 20.Nb4. 16.Kd1 Ng5! Atalik gives 16...Qf6 17.Be2 as “unclear”, but I do not see any decent continuation for Black. 16...g5 is aggressive, but unconvincing: 17.Kc2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+-+n0 9p+-zp-+-+0 9+-+Pzp-zpp0 9-+-+P+-vl0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzPK+-+QzP0 9tR-sN-+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

217

Part 8 17...Nc5 (or 17...b5 18.Nd3 Nb6 19.b3 Bd7 20.Nb4±) 18.Nd3 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 Kh8 (19...b5 20.Rac1² completes the artificial castling. Black’s only active resource seems to be ...g4 so it is logical to remove the king from the g-file.) 20.Raf1 Bd7 21.Kb1². White is well prepared to neutralise any counterplay with ...g4. For example: 21... g4 22.f4! exf4 23.Bxf4 Qe7 24.e5 dxe5 25.d6 Qg7 26.Bg3 Bc6 27.Be4 Rxf1+ 28.Rxf1 Bxg3 29.hxg3² or 21...b5 22.Rhg1 g4 23.Ne2 Ng5 24.fxg4±. On the other hand, if Black stays passively, White will return to his main plan of attacking the queenside pawns: 21...b5 22.Rhg1 Rc8 23.Ne2 Qe7 24.Ng3 Qf7 25.Qd2 Bh3 26.Rf2 Qe8 27.Qa5±. 17.Be2 Nb6 18.Rg1 Rf4!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-+k+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9psn-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-snp0 9-+-+Ptr-vl0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-+L+QzP0 9tR-sNK+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An original way to hold the position. We are not obliged to take the rook right away: 19.h3!? White secures the strong position of his queen on g2 since the h3-pawn is immune. 19.a4 Bh3 20.Qh1 Rc8 21.a5 Nc4 22.Bxc4

218

Rxc4 23.Bxf4 exf4 24.Nd3 b5 is unclear. 19...Kh7 20.Nb3². The problem with this variation is that sooner or later White will have to take the exchange, but it will be practically impossible to win this position with passive pieces. 15...Bg5 The insertion of 15...Bh4+ 16.Kd1 only favours White: 16...Bg5 (16...b5 17.Rg1 g5 18.Nd3) 17.Bxg5 Qxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxg5 19.Rg1 Nxf3 20.Rxg6+ Kh7 21.Rxd6. 16.Rg1 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Kg7 17...Qh4+ 18.Kd2 g5 (18...Rf6 19.Nd3) 19.Nd3 b6 20.Qf2!±. 18.Nd3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-tr-+0 9+p+n+-mkn0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sNNwQP+-0 9PzP-+L+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has a stable advantage. The exchange of dark-squared bishops has allowed Black to get rid of his passive piece, but now his king

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 is less protected and he lacks an active plan. Furthermore, in many variations the break f3-f4 gains in strength. For example: a) 18...b5 19.Kd2! Ndf6 (19... Qb6 20.a4 bxa4 21.Nxa4 Qb7 22.Rac1±) 20.Raf1 Qe7 21.a3 Qa7 22.Qxa7+ Rxa7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+l+-tr-+0 9tr-+-+-mkn0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9zP-sNN+P+-0 9-zP-mKL+-zP0 9+-+-+RtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.f4±.

b) 18...Qb6 19.Nd1 Qxe3 20.Nxe3 Nb6 21.a4 a5 22.b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-tr-+0 9+p+-+-mkn0 9-sn-zp-+p+0 9zp-+Pzp-+p0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+P+NsNP+-0 9-+-+L+-zP0 9tR-+-mK-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22...Kh6 (22...Bh3 23.Rc1 Rac8 24.Rb1) 23.Nc4 Nxc4 24.bxc4 Ng5 25.c5 Nxf3+ 26.Bxf3 Rxf3 27.Kd2 dxc5 28.Nxe5±. I expect practical testing of my analysis of 13.Nc1.

219

Part 8

Part 8

Complete Games

33. Bomans-Nevednichy Krk Malinska 07.04.2013 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 g6 4.e4 Bg7 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 c6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.g4 b5 12.Ng3 Nb6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9psn-zp-snp+0 9+p+Pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.h4! Nfd7 14.h5 Re8 15.Rc1 Nf8 16.b3 Bd7± It is now clear that Nevednichy, an ardent fan of the 11...b5 line, has nothing to oppose to the natural straightforward plan of his opponent. White can keep the tension with 17.Kf2 Rc8 18.Bd3, combining play on a wide front. Boman decides to focus on the kingside 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.Nd1 Rc8 19.Rxc8 Nxc8 20.Be2 Bf6 220

Provoking g5 which is useful any­way. White was going to play Nd3, Kf2, Nb4. Perhaps Black should have set a small trap with 20...Qc7 21.Nf2 Ne7 hoping for 22.Nd3?! Nxd5 23.exd5 e4. However, the clever 22.Kf1 Rc8 23.Kg2 would keep all the advantage as 23...Qc2 simply loses material to 24.Qa5. 21.g5 Be7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+nwqrsnk+0 9+-+lvl-+p0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9+p+Pzp-zP-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+P+-vLPsN-0 9P+-wQL+-+0 9+-+NmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is badly cramped on the last two ranks and his pieces are horribly placed. The redeployment of the g7-bishop to e7 has only weakened the main diagonal and has revived the threat of f3-f4. This break is possible immediately or at any moment later in the game. 22.Nf2 Qc7 23.Kf1

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 After the imminent f3-f4, the fline will open in White’s favour so 23.0-0!? was a good option, too. 23...Bd8 24.Kg2 Qb7 25.f4 exf4 26.Bxf4 Black is strategically lost. His diagonals h8-a1 and c8-h3 are gaping. 26...Bb6 27.Ng4 Bxg4 28.Bxg4 Qe7 29.Rc1 Na7 30.b4+–

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+rsnk+0 9sn-+-wq-+p0 9pvl-zp-+p+0 9+p+P+-zP-0 9-zP-+PvLL+0 9+-+-+-sN-0 9P+-wQ-+K+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is virtually stalemated. The rest of the game is irrelevant to the opening, but it is noteworthy that the trade of queens did not alleviate Black’s problems. 30...Rd8 31.Qc3 Qf7 32.Rf1 Qe7 33.Bc1 Qg7 34.Qxg7+ Kxg7 35.Bb2+ Kg8 36.Bf6 Re8 37.Rc1 (37.e5+–) 37...h5 38.gxh6 Nh7 39.Bb2 Ng5 40.Rc2 (40.h7+!; 40.Bf6+–) 40...Kh7 41.Bc1 Nf7 42.Be6 Ne5 43.Rc3 a5 44.a3 Rf8 45.Bg5 Rf2+ 46.Kh3 Nf3 47.Be7 Bd4 48.Rxf3? Rxf3 49.Bxd6 a4 50.Kg4 Rxa3 51.Ne2 Bb6 and Black won on move 88 after mutual mistakes, 0-1

34. Karpov-Dolmatov Dortmund 1993 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 c6 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.d5 cxd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.g4 h5 12.g5 Nh7 13.Rg1 (I propose 13.Nc1! in “Step by Step”) 13...f6 14.gxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+n+-vln0 9p+-zp-zPp+0 9+-+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKLtR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Qxf6?!

Wrong judgment. Black should seek counterplay on the other flank, with ...b5, ...Nc5 and eventually ...b4, ...Qb6. Therefore, 14...Rxf6 was called for. 15.0-0-0 Rf7 Or 15...b5 16.Kb1 (16.a3²) 16...b4 17.Na4 Qxf3 18.Bg2 Qf6 19.Qxb4². 16.Kb1 b5 17.Nc1 Ndf8?! Again, 17...b4 18.Na4 Qxf3 was bad due to 19.Be2 Qh3 (19...Qxe4+ 20.Bd3; 19...Qf6 20.Rdf1 Qh4 21.Rxg6±) 20.Rxg6, but it would have been reasonable to exchange a knight with 17...Nc5 18.Nd3 Nxd3 19.Bxd3 Nf8 when simplest is 20.Be2±. 221

Part 8 18.Be2 Bd7 19.a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-snk+0 9+-+l+rvln0 9p+-zp-wqp+0 9+p+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9zP-sN-vLP+-0 9-zP-wQL+-zP0 9+KsNR+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Qd8

Black is redeploying his pieces for a passive defence, but his cause is doomed. He is unable to control both b4- and a5-squares. Therefore, one of Karpov’s knights will reach the critical outpost c6. I think that 19...Qh4 20.N3a2 g5 could give Black more practical chances. Of course, it would be senseless to take the greek gift on g5. At first sight it seems that Black will push ...g4 with some counterplay, but 21.h3! throws a spanner into the works. After 21...Bxh3 22.Rh1 g4 23.fxg4 hxg4 24.Nd3, White demonstrates the main advantage of his set-up – the ability to quickly change the direction of his attack. Black is lost after either 24...Ng6 25.Rdg1 or 24... Nf6 25.Nc3 a5 26.Nf2 b4 27.axb4 axb4 28.Nb5+–. 20.N1a2 Qb8 21.Nb4 Qb7 22.Rc1 22.Nc6 Bxc6 23.dxc6 Qxc6 24.Qxd6 is clearly better for White, but Karpov remains true to his “boa-constrictor” style and avoids forcing lines if possible. 222

22...Be8 23.Nca2 24.Rxc8 Qxc8 25.Rc1 Qa8

Rc8

25...Qh3 26.Nxa6 Qxh2 27.Nc7 Bd7 28.Nc3+–. 26.Nc6 Bf6 27.Qa5

XIIIIIIIIY 9q+-+lsnk+0 9+-+-+r+n0 9p+Nzp-vlp+0 9wQp+Pzp-+p0 9-+-+P+-+0 9zP-+-vLP+-0 9NzP-+L+-zP0 9+KtR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A triumph of White’s plan! Do not forget that Dolmatov was one of world’s best players, a candidate for the world title! 27...Bg5 28.Bxg5 Nxg5 29.Nab4 Nxf3 30.Bxf3 Rxf3 31.Ne7+ Kf7 32.Nc8 Bd7 33.Nxd6+ Kg8 34.Nc6 Rf6 35.Qc7 Bxc6 36.Rxc6 1-0 35. Svetushkin-Ciobanu Eforie Nord 26.09.2009 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 Nbd7 7.Be3 e5 8.Qd2 c6 9.d5 c5 10.g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+n+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPzp-+-0 9-+P+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+-zP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2 10...a6 Black aims for the pawn sacrifice ...b5 in the Benko style, but in the current position it is much less effective because his g7-bishop is shut by the e5-pawn. Black also lacks the break ...e7-e6. In my opinion, Black should fight for breathing space by 10...h5 although White has the upper hand after 11.h3 Nh7 12.0-0-0. For instance: 12...h4 13.g5 a6 14.Kb1 b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Nxb5 Nb6 17.Nec3±. 11.Ng3 b5 12.h4 If you trust your technique, 12.cxb5! is the best choice. 12...Nb6 Perhaps 12...bxc4 gives more tangible counterplay. 13.h5 Qe7 After 13...Nxc4 14.Bxc4 bxc4 15.Qh2±, White wins the battle on the kingside.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-wqpvlp0 9psn-zp-snp+0 9+pzpPzp-+P0 9-+P+P+P+0 9+-sN-vLPsN-0 9PzP-wQ-+-+0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.b3?

This move is a result of schema­ tic thinking. I was convinced that it

suffices to trade dark-squared bishops with Bh6 and the enemy king will be defenseless. This is a common mistake so I want to elaborate a little on the subject. In the diagram position, White has a significant edge. However, it is due not so much on the attack on the h-file, but rather on his great spatial advantage and the more active pieces. Time and again, detailed analysis proves that Black’s castling position is extremely resilient. As a rule, it cannot be conquered by mere pressure down the h-file. It takes much more to invade his camp. We should prepare for complex play along the whole battlefront. We should be gaining more and more space, step by step, throwing back the enemy pieces and preventing any counterplay. When Black’s pieces get stuck to the last ranks, we can even think about opening the centre and the f-file with f3-f4. Translated into concrete moves, that would mean to drop the idea of Bh6? in favour of 14.g5! (sending the knight to e8 and cancelling any ideas with ...Bxg4) 14... Ne8 15.Qh2 Bh8 (only move). Now Black is paralysed on the right wing and we can simply eat the b5-pawn. 14...b4 15.Nd1 a5 16.Rb1?! A horrible move, based on the wrong conception that the kingside attack is enough for winning the game. That might be true, but only if Black had not any counterplay. If we think globally, we should prefer 16.a4 or perhaps 16.a3!? keeping the queenside open. 223

Part 8 16...Bd7 16...a4! was essential even though 17.a3! bxa3 18.b4 would be still pleasant for White.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+lwqpvlp0 9-sn-zp-snp+0 9zp-zpPzp-+P0 9-zpP+P+P+0 9+P+-vLPsN-0 9P+-wQ-+-+0 9+R+NmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

17.Bh6?

Consistent and bad! 17.g5! Ne8 18.Nf2, followed by Nd3, Bh3, was much better. 17...a4 18.Rb2 axb3 19.axb3 Ra3 20.Qg5 Bxh6 21.Qxh6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+lwqp+p0 9-sn-zp-snpwQ0 9+-zpPzp-+P0 9-zpP+P+P+0 9trP+-+PsN-0 9-tR-+-+-+0 9+-+NmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

224

21...Na4? 21...Rfa8! 22.Rg2 (22.g5! Ne8 23.Rbh2 Rxb3 24.Qxh7+ is a perpe­ tual.) 22...Qf8 23.Qe3 Qg7 and Black has already the better pieces, 24.Nf5 Bxf5 25.gxf5 Nbd7. For my luck, Ciobanu forgot to free the f8square and co-authored a nice mi­ ni­atuare: 22.Rg2 Ne8? This looses immediately. 22... Nc3 23.Nf5 Bxf5 24.gxf5 Ra1 25.Be2 Nxe2 26.Rxe2 g5! would have kept Black in the game. 23.Nf5 Bxf5 24.gxf5 Rxb3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+ntrk+0 9+-+-wqp+p0 9-+-zp-+pwQ0 9+-zpPzpP+P0 9nzpP+P+-+0 9+r+-+P+-0 9-+-+-+R+0 9+-+NmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

25.Qxh7+! Kxh7 26.hxg6+ Kg7 27.gxf7+ 1-0

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

Part 9

Alternative Move Orders 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

225

Part 9

Part 9

Step by Step

In this chapter, I propose an interesting alternative to our main re­ pertoire. It is aimed against Black’s plan with ...c5. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRNvLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The idea behind this move order is to solve the inherent problem of the awkward Sämish knight by shifting it to c3. You should have noted already that we play Ne2 against most major Black’s system, like The Panno Variation with ...Nc6 and the Classical Variation with ...e5. Then we simply transpose to our main repertoire. Independent significance have: A. 5...0-0 6.Be3 c5 and B. 5...c6 226

Note that the other tricky move order 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Nge2 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Bg5 is not very promising.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+-zppsnp+0 9+-zpP+-vL-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-sN-+P+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tR-+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White practically forces the opponent to “weaken” his kingside, but in fact 8...h6 9.Be3 exd5 10.cxd5 a6 11.a4 Nbd7 12.Ng3 h5! 13.Be2 h4 14.Nf1 Ne5 15.Nd2 transposes to a position which I assess as roughly equal. A. 5...0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Qd2 White aims to play d5, followed up by Ne2-c3. However, 7.d5 could face 7...Qb6!? when 8.Bc1 is totally unexplored. It is not obvious that Black has anything better than returning to d8. In that event, the play should transpose to familiar positions.

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2 7...Nc6 8.d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-zppvlp0 9-+nzp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+P+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tRN+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 8...Ne5 8...Na5!? exploits the fact that White has committed his queen to d2 so a2-a4 is impossible due to the fork on b3. That calls for a change of plans: 9.Na3 The game Rowson-Hebden, Hinckley 2013, saw 9.Nec3 a6 10.Bh6 [10.Na3 e6 11.e5 (11.Nc2 exd5 12.cxd5 b5 13.b4 cxb4 14.Nxb4 Nd7) 11...Ne8] 10...b5!? with serious counterplay. The text has not been tested in practice yet. 9...a6 9...e6 10.dxe6 Bxe6 11.Nf4 gives White a pull. 10.Nf4!? 10.Nc3 e6 11.dxe6 Bxe6 12.Rd1 Nd7 offers Black significant counterplay which should be enough for him to keep the balance: 13.Qxd6 Nc6 (13...Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Nc6 15.Qd2 Qa5 16.Qc1 Rad8 17.Bh6 Rfe8 18.Kf2²) 14.Qd2 f5 15.Be2 fxe4

16.Nxe4 Qb6 17.0-0 Rad8 18.Bd3 Qxb2 19.Qxb2 Bxb2 20.Nc2 Nd4 21.Bg5 Nxc2 22.Bxc2 Bd4+ 23.Kh1 Bxc4 24.Bxd8 Bxf1 25.Nxc5 Nxc5 26.Rxd4 b5=. 10...Rb8 11.Rc1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9sn-zpP+-+-0 9-+P+PsN-+0 9sN-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQ-+PzP0 9+-tR-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has discouraged both breaks in the centre (11...Bd7 12.b4 cxb4 13.Qxb4 b5 14.cxb5 wins a pawn) and he is going to play b2b4: 11...Nd7 12.Be2 Ne5 13.b4 cxb4 14.Qxb4, with a stable space advantage. 9.Nec3 e6 11.cxd5 Ne8

10.Be2

exd5

11...h5 12.0-0 Nh7 weakens the kingside. Therefore, it would be logical to remove one of its defenders by 13.Bh6 f5 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 Nf7 16.Qc2 Nf6 17.Nd2. Instead, Laznicka chose against Mamedov, Pardubice 2007, 13.a4 f5 when 14.Na3 Nf6 15.Bf4 would have been in White’s favour. 12.0-0 f5 13.a4 Nf6 14.exf5 Bxf5 15.Na3. This position has occurred in the game Bischoff-Stellwagen, Germany 227

Part 9 2004. It looks a bit more pleasant for White. The play may continue with 15...a6 16.g4 (Bischoff chose 16.Rae1, but I think that e1 should be taken by the king’s rook to free the f1-square for the bishop.) 16...Bd7 17.h3 Re8 18.Bf4 Rb8 19.Kg2 Re7 20.Rfe1!?.

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-+k+0 9+p+ltr-vlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpPsn-+-0 9P+-+-vLP+0 9sN-sN-+P+P0 9-zP-wQL+K+0 9tR-+-tR-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has some pull. For instance, 20...Qc7 21.Bf1 Rbe8 stumbles into 22.Rxe5±! while 20...Nf7 faces 21.Nc4 Qc7 22.a5. B. 5...c6 5...a6 is even more interesting. Then 6.Nec3 weakens d4 so 6... Nc6 seems a logical retort. Perhaps White should try 6.Be3 when 6...b5 7.Nf4 is a blank page in theory. 6.Be3 a6 6...0-0 7.Nbc3 a6 8.c5 transposes to a topical variation which

228

has gathered a lot of followers. See Game XX Dreev-Khismatullin, Ramenskoe 2006.

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9+p+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-+-vLP+-0 9PzP-+N+PzP0 9tRN+QmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 7.Nec3

Erdos-Jobava, Warsaw 2011, saw 7.a4 a5 8.Nec3, but I do not understand White’s plan of giving up the queenside dark squares. It would have been well grounded if he had prospects for an attack on the opposite flank. In the current position, however, Black should be fine after 8...Na6 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 e5 (or 10...Qc7 11.Nd2 e5) 11.d5 Nh5÷, Cacho Reigadas-Dimitrov,V Vendrell 1996. 7...b5 8.Nd2 Nbd7 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Bb7 11.b4² The bad news about this approach with 5.Ne2 is that it is practically uncharted territory. It may also be a good news, if you feel like experimenting!

3.f3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Ne2

Part 9

Complete Games 36. Dreev-Khismatullin RUS Cup Ramenskoe 2006

9...b5 10.cxd6 exd6 11.Nf4 Bb7

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Nge2 a6 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.Qd2 c6 9.c5

11...Nb6 should be met by 12.b3. I played once 12.Be2? Nc4 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.0-0 with a complex position. Svetushkin-Saravanan, Athens 2008.

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+p+nzppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vLP+-0 9PzP-wQN+PzP0 9tR-+-mKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

More often, Black follows another move order: 6...c6 7.Be3 a6 8.c5 when 8...b5 9.cxd6 exd6 10.Qd2 Nbd7 11.Nf4 transposes. In the event of 8...Nbd7 it is best to take on d6 immediately because 9.Nf4 dxc5 10.dxc5 Qc7 11.Qc1 Ne5 is too symmetric. I tried in one of my games 12.h4 Rd8 13.Be2 and was slightly better after 13...Nh5 14.Nxh5, but still 9.cxd6 is more principled. After 8...b6 9.cxd6 exd6 10.Nf4 c5, it is a good idea to trade queens with 11.dxc5 dxc5 12.Qxd8². These endgames are generally in White’s favour.

12.Be2 c5 In my game against Brenjo, Vrnjacka Banja 2010, I faced 12... Rc8 13.0-0 c5 14.Rad1 Re8 when simplest is to open the d-file with 15.dxc5, as Dreev did in the main game. 13.0-0 Re8 14.dxc5! dxc5 15.Rad1 White has the better chances. He should not rush with Nd5 though. Instead he can improve firstly his position with b3, then maybe a4. 15...Bc6 16.Ncd5 Rc8 17.b3 h6 18.Rfe1 (18.Nxf6!+ Qxf6 19.Qc1) 18...Nh7?! (18...Nxd5! was called for) 19.Rc1 Nhf8 20.Bf1 Kh7 21.Red1 Ne6 22.Nxe6 Rxe6 23.Nf4 Re8 24.Nd3 f5 25.Nxc5 fxe4 26.Nxd7 exf3 27.Nf8+ 1-0 229

Part 9

230

6.Be3 e5 7.Nge2

Index of Variations Part 1. Anti-QGA 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 3...c5 (3...b5 14; 3...Nc6 14; 3...Bg4 15; 3...Be6 15) 4.¥xc4 Nf6 5.0-0 e6 6.Qe2 a6 7.Rd1! 19 6...Nc6 7.Rd1 Be7 (7...a6 8.d4 19) 8.Nc3 0-0 9.d4 cxd4 (9...Qc7 17) 10.exd4 17 10.Nxd4 18 Part 2. Reversed Benoni 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.g3 Nc6 29 3.e3 Nc6 (3...c5 42) 4.exd4 30 4. b4 dxe3 (4...Bg4 32) 5.fxe3 Nxb4 6.d4 e5 32 6...c5 34 6...e6 38 3.b4 f6 (3...g6 40; 3...a5 41; 3...c5 42) 4.e3 e5 (4...dxe3 42; 4...c5 42) 5.c5 5...a5 6.Nxe5 44 6.Bc4 44 6.Bb5+ 46 Part 3. Anti-Slav; Anti-Chebanenko 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 3...Nd7 59 3...g6 60 3...Bf5 60 3...Nf6 (3...Bg4 61) 4.Nc3 Bg4 61 3...e6 4.b3 f5 63 3...Nf6 4.Nc3 a6 5.Qc2 65 (5.b3 65) 5...Bg4 65 5...e6 6.d4 66 6.b3 68 5...b5 69 5...g6 70 Part 4. Anti-meran I 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.b3 (5.Qc2 87) Nbd7 (5...Bd6 88; 5...b6 89) 6.Qc2 Be7 90 6...b6 91 231

Part 8 Part 5. Anti-meran II 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.b3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.Bb2 7...0-0 (7...a6 101;7...Qe7 102) 8.Rg1!? (8.Be2 – Part 6) Qe7 103 8...a6 104 8...e5 107 Part 6. Anti-meran III 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.b3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.Bb2 0-0 8.Be2 8...Re8 9.0-0 dxc4 120 9...e5 121 9...b6 122 8...Qe7 9.0-0 b6 125 9...e5 125 9...Re8 126 9...a6 127 9...dxc4 128 8...a6 9.d4 b5 130 9...e5 131 8...dxc4 131 8...b6 132 Part 7. Anti-Queen’s Gambit I 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 3...c6 4.Bg2 dxc4 153 (4...Bd6 153) 4...Nf6 154 3...g6 155 3...dxc4 4.Qa4+ (4.Na3 156) 4...Bd7 5.Qxc4 Bc6 156 5...c5 157 4...c6 159 4...Nd7 5.Bg2 Nf6 6.Qxc4 a6 165 6...c5 167 Part 8. Anti-Queen’s Gambit II 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 6...c5 7.Bb2 Nc6 8.e3 b6 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Qxd5 12.d4 Rad8 185; 12...Na5 186; 12...Nb4 186 9...dxc4 10.bxc4 Bb7 11.Qe2 Rc8 187; 11...a6 190; 11...Qc7 193; 11...Qd7 193; 11...Nb4 194 9...Ba6 195 6...b6 7.Bb2 Bb7 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Nc3 (9.Qe2 a5 196) 9...Ne4 197 9...c5 199 232