Nigel Davies - The Veresov

surprise your opponents with the tricky 2 Nc3!

theveresov

by Nigel Davies EVERYMAN CHESS Gloucester Publishers pic www.everymanchess.com

First published in 2003 by Gloucester Publishers plc (fonnerly Everyman Publishers plc), Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2003 Nigel Davies The right of Nigel Davies to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 857443357 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. All other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Publishers plc, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: [email protected] website: www.everymanchess.com Everyman is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc. and is used in this work under license from Random House Inc.

To Louise & Sam

EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess)

Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Cover design by Horatio Monteverde. Production by Navigator Guides. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddles Ltd.

CONTENTS

I

Bibliography Introduction

4 5

1 d4lbf6 2lbc3 d5 3.tg5

7 26 43 62 76 89

1

3... tLlbd74 f3

2

3... tLlbd7 4 'it'd2 and 4 'it'd3

3

3... tLlbd7 4 tLlf3, 4 e3 and Others

4

3... c5

5

3... c6

6

3... i.f5

7

3... h6, 3... tLlc6, 3... g6 and Others

105

8

3... e6 (including French Transpositions)

118

Other Variations

9 10

1...tLlf6 2 tLlc3 c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ...g6 and 2 ... e6

131 144

Index of Complete Games

159

1... d5 2 tLlc3 e6, 2.. .£5 & Others

BIBllIOGRAPHY

I

Books

The Chameleon Chess Repertoire, Gufeld & Stetsko (Thinkers Press 1999) Richter Veresov System, Adams (The Chess Player 1987) Queen's Pawn: Veresov~stem, Bellin (Bats ford 1983) ECO D, 2nd Edition (Sahovski Informator 1977) ECO Busted, Hays & Hall (Hays Publishing 1993) Meeting 1 d4, Aagaard & Lund (Everyman Chess 2002) Beating the Anti-King's Indians, Gallagher (Bats ford 1996) Periodicals, Magazines and Websites Chess Informators 1-86 MegaBase 2003 TWIC 1-446 Chesspublishing.com web site Tigerchess Yahoo Group

4

I INTRODUCTION I

The Veresov is a little played opening that is ideal for creative, aggressive players. As early as the second move White dares to be different by developing his knight to c3, and in so doing he contravenes the conventional wisdom about Queen's Pawn Openings which states that you must never obstruct your c-pawn. In fact White has a far more ambitious idea in mind; he wants to play for e2-e4. The first Grandmaster to use this opening regularly in tournaments was Saviely Tartakower, but he was certainly not to be the last. Over the years many great players have enriched it with their games and ideas, including David Bronstein, Mikhail Tal, Boris Spassky, Bent Larsen, Lev Alburt and Kurt Richter. Yet it is Gavril Veresov who has contributed most to the theory of this opening, having played it week in and week out during his heyday in the 1950s and 60s. It is therefore fitting that it carries his name. My first contact with the Veresov Opening came when I was a teenager and read a 1975 article in the magazine Chess. The author, Robert Bellin, wrote 'The Veresov is young and still molten, the crust of definite variations has yet to form. You can participate in the making of a new opening - if you try.' Being young and still molten myself, this sounded pretty good, and during my teenage years I played the Veresov regularly. It turned out that many other British amateurs had the same idea and this opening experienced an explosion of popularity in club and county games. Since that time interest dwindled away with many of the Veresov specialists moving on to pastures new or disappearing from the chess scene altogether. Books have been written showing what are supposed to be effective answers for Black. Yet the Veresov is alive and well with the supposed 'antidotes' having been directed only at the traditional lines such as 3...tt:lbd7 4 f3 or 3...tt:lbd7 4 tt:lf3. Having examined the evidence I believe that 3...tt:lbd7 is by no means as good as some books have made out, with 4 'ifd2!? (the ultra-violent approach), 4 ttJf3 (Veresov's own favourite) and 4 e3 (my personal recommendation) being quite dangerous for Black. It's not just in the 3...ttJbd7 lines that I've found myself disagreeing with the experts; it seems to me that just about every variation of the Veresov has been misanalysed and/or misassessed. This presents a wonderful opportunity for practical players to surprise and outfox their opponents. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the Veresov has recently attracted the

5

The Veresov

attention of the Swedish GM J onny Hector and the up-and-coming Russian superstar Alexander Morozevich. Morozevich in particular seems to revel in the complex and original positions that the Veresov offers. Because of the uncharted nature of the Veresov I haven't attempted to pin down the 'theory' and 'main lines' on the basis of a handful of obscure games. Instead I've written this book as an exploratory guide, saying what I think is happening and what White's most promising plans are. Accordingly you will fmd a lot of my own suggestions and ideas which I've worked out in conjunction with Fritz 8 as an analysis partner. Fritz has been very good at checking tactics and some of the sharp variations, though I have frequently had to lead it by the hand in positions where strategy predominates or a material imbalance exists. In order to provide a complete repertoire I have suggested an option for White against moves which transpose into other openings. Thus in Chapter 8 you'll find my suggested method of dealing with 3...e6, which normally transposes to a French Defence. In Chapter 9 I've given some lines against 1 d4 d5 2 ltJc3 e6, 2... f5 and 2...c6, whilst in Chapter 10 I'll show you some things you can play against 1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 c5, 2...d6, 2...g6 and 2...e6. In these three chapters I've 'doctored' the early move order of games to show how they arise from a Veresov. My aim was to lend greater clarity to the material. Learning a new opening should be a gradual process through which you get used to the positions before using them in serious games. The way I suggest you do this is by following the steps below: 1) Famih'arise yourself with the basic pattern of play by playing through the games at speed. At this stage you should ignore the notes and sub-variations. 2) PIqy these lines in quick games at your local club or on the internet (www.freechess.org or www.chessclub.com). 3) Look up the lines that occurred in your games and cross-check your play against my own thoughts on these variations. 4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 for a month or two. 5) Stu4J the book more carefully, working from cover to cover and making notes about any points of interest. Analyse the points of interest. 6) Adopt your new weapon in competitive games and matches. 7) AnalYse your competitive games to establish what was happened and whether either side could improve. I hope you enjoy this voyage through the uncharted waters of the Veresov Opening. I have certainly found this to be a fascinating subject to think and write about and after a 30 year hiatus I have started playing the Veresov again in a few games on the internet. If you have any suggestions, comments or recommendations you might like to discuss them with me at the Tigerchess Yahoo Group. To enrol for this discussion group please go to my home page at http://www.tigerchess.com and enter your email address in the form provided. I look forward to meeting you and hearing about your Veresov triumphs!

Nigel Davies, Southport, July 2003 6

CHAPTER ONE

I

3 ... ltJbd7 4 f3

1 d4 ~f6 2 iDe3 d5 3 .i.g5 ~bd7 4 f3 The move 3....!Dbd7 has been almost universally recommended as the most solid option for Black. He develops a piece, avoids the doubling of the f-pawns with 4 iLxf6 and prepares ...c7-c5. On the other hand the knight is not as actively placed on d7 as it would be on c6. It also blocks in the lightsquared bishop, which might be well placed on fS. White's main line against 3....!Dbd7 has traditionally been 4 f3 which has the clear aim of building a broad pawn centre with e2-e4. Yet this move has a somewhat extravagant look about it as White is doing very little for his development and is weakening dark squares such as e3. And in fact Black can exploit these factors by launching an energetic counter-attack in the centre. Games 1-3 show Black's traditional strategy of ... c7-c6 followed by bringing the queen out to as or b6. The 6...e5!? of Rossetto-Gufeld already looked quite attractive for Black and 1O...JLa3! will send White scurrying for earlier improvements. He should probably investigate the speculative 7 .!Df3, but I, for one, don't trust it for White. Nor am I too convinced by Morozevich's pawn sac in Game 2 (6 ...'iib6 7 .!Df3) and even the 6...'iWa5 of Adam-Muller leaves me sceptical.

If I had to play 4 f3 then I would certainly meet 4...c6 with 5 'iWdZ, transposing to Chapter 2. Besides 4...c6, Black has another promising line in 4... c5, which is covered in Games 4-8. White's most popular reply to this has been 5 e4!?, after which I suggest that White meets 5...dxe4 with 6 d5!? (Kuijf-Hoeksma) rather than 6 fxe4 (Rajna-Vogt). This looks quite dangerous for Black, so he's probably well advised to play 5...cxd4 instead. I can't say that I'm particularly attracted by either of White's options in that position, 6 'iWxd4 e5 7 'iWa4 d4 looking preferable for Black (though complex) in Bellon Lopez-Keene, whilst 6 iLxf6 looks distincdy dodgy after 6....!Dxf6 (Ranniku-Bulinova; see the note to Black's 6th move). The 5 dxc5 of WockenfussTimman is an attempt to cast doubt on 4...c5, but several authors have had a lot of fun showing the strength of Black's position after 5...'ii'a5. They're not wrong about this being quite good for Black, although the simple 5... e6 might be even betrer. If Black has a more nervous disposition he might be disinclined to enter the complexities of 4...c6 or 4...c5, even though these seem favourable for him. However, the slow 4...e6 of Alburt-Kapengut and 4...h6 of Czerniak-Hamann do not seem as logical 7

The Veresov

because White manages to erect his pawn centre. Nonetheless, these don't seem too bad for Black either.

Gamel Rossetto-Gufeld Camagury 1974 1 d4 tLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 ~g5 lLlbd7 4 f3

A very logical move which has the clear aim of expanding in the centre with e2-e4.

The drawback is that this costs some time, which Black can try to exploit by reacting energetically. 4 ... c6 Protecting the d-pawn and freeing a path for Black's queen to come out to b6 or as. The alternatives are 4...c5, 4...e6 and 4... h6. 5 e4

The sharpest continuation, but Black seems to obtain excellent counterplay. 5 'ii'd2 transposes to the line 4 'iWd2 c6 5 f3, which is examined in the next chapter (De Souza Haro-Vescovi). 5 ... dxe4 6 fxe4

White has also tried the Blackrnar-Diemer style 6 'iWd2, after which 6.. .'ii'a5 7 fxe4 e5 transposes to the note to White's 7th move in the Chapter 2 game, De Souza HaroVescovi. Black can also simply take the pawn - for example 6...exf3 7 iDxf3 'iWa5 8 O-O-O?! e6 was the continuation of David-Ribeiro, Lnares 1995, when White could fmd nothing 8

better than 9 a3 iDd5 10 iDe4, entering an endgame a pawn down. 8 i.d3 is probably better, but White will be struggling to fmd compensation against an accurate defence. 6 ... e5!? Black, in tum, plays the most trenchant continuation, counter-attacking on the central dark squares. But this is not the only move... For 6...'iWb6 see Morozevich-Lazarev, whilst 6...'iWa5 is examined in Adam-Muller. 7 dxe5 White has also tried swift development with 7 iDf3, though this doesn't look like anything special after 7... exd4 (7 ... h6 8 i.h4 'iWb6 9 'ii'd2 exd4 10 ttJxd4 i.b4 11 0-0-00-0 was quite promising for Black in the game Zhang Pengxiang-Shipov, Internet Chess Club 2002) 8 'iixd4 (8 ttJxd4 i.b4 9 iDfS 0-0 10 i.d3 ttJe5 11 i.xf6 'i¥xf6 12 0-0 i.xfS 13 ':'xf5 'ilVe7 was good for Black in SchillerLgterink, Reykjavik 1986) 8...'iWb6 9 'iVd2 (9 'iWxb6 axb6 10 e5 iDg4 11 i.f4 was played in Berges-Delaunay, Angers 2001 and now 11 ...:a5 renders e5 indefensible, rather than 11...i.b4 as played in the game) 9...'ii'xb2 10 l:tb1 'iia3 11 e5 iDd5 (11...iDg4) 12 iDxd5 cxd5 13 i.b5!? (White is attempting to tie Black down but the simple 13 'it'xd5 seems good; after 13 ... i.b4+ 14 'iii>f2 i.c5+ 15 ~g3 White's king reaches a safe position and his pieces are very active) 13...i.c5 (13 ... a6 14 i.xd7+ i.xd7 15 l:txb7 i.e6 was the more solid option, with a fairly equal game) 14 'ii'xd5 O-O!? (sacrificing a piece to get his king safe and obtain a dangerous passed a-pawn) 15 i.xd7 i.xd7 16 'ii'xd7 'ii'xa2 17 'i¥d1 h6 18 i.h4 as 19 l:ta1 'iib2 20 l:tb1 'ii'a2 21 'iii>e2?? (White should probably take a draw with 21 l:.al) 21...g5 22 i.f2 l:.ad8 0-1, Zhang Pengxiang-Benjamin, Cap d'Agde 2000. White's resignation seems somewhat overly prompt as after 22...l:tad8 23 ttJd2 (23 iDd4 l:tfe8) 23 ... i.b4 24 l:txb4 he can still fight on. 7 ..."85!? This is the standard move, although Black

3 ... li:Jbd7 4 (3

can also play 7... liJxe5. The game De Souza Haro-Tsuboi, Brasilia 2000 continued 8 'Wxd8+ ~d8 9 liJf3 .i.d6 10 .i.e2 xd2 liJc5 12 i.d3 .i.e6 13 liJf3 (13 liJge2 0-0-0 14 .l:[hfl seems more solid to me) 13...0-0-0 14 rJ:;e2 b5 (another good move was 14...l:ihe8) 15 a3 as 16 h3 (16 ':hdl .l:!.heS 17 'it>f2 .i.g4 looks good for Black) 16....l:r.he8 17 l:thdl f5 18 e5 (18 exf5 .i.xf5+ 19 rJ:;f2 .i.xd3 20 cxd3 liJxd3+ wins the b2pawn) 18...liJd7 19 .l:[el .i.xe5 (19 ...liJxe5 was equally good) 20 rJ:;f2 .i.f6 21 .l:[e3 liJc5 22 .l:[ael rJ:;d7 (and not 22... f4? in view of 23 .l:[xe6! liJxe6 24 .i.f5 ~d7 25 liJe4, winning material) 23 liJxbS f4 24 .l:[e5 (24 .l:[xe6 liJxd3+ 25 cxd3 .l:[xe6 is no improvement) 24... liJxd3+ 25 cxd3 cxb5 26 ':xb5 nbS 27

Trying to contest the initiative. After 9 exf6 Black's best may be the simple 9...liJxf6 (9 ...'ii'b6 10 l1bl .i.c5 11 liJh3 liJeS 12 'ii'd2 .i.xh3 13 liJa4 'ii'b4 14 liJxc5 'ii'xc5 15 b4 'ii'b6 16 'Wc3 turned out to be better for \Vhite in Kohout-Koenig, Bayern 1995; after 9...i.a3 \Vhite defends with 10 'it'c1 liJxf6 11 liJge2, and 9....i.b4 is well met by 10 'Wd4) 10 'it'd4 i.g7 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 'ii'd2 (12 liJge2 i.e6, while 12 'it'a4? 'ii'xa4 13 liJxa4 liJxe4 was just very bad for \Vhite in PhilippeKennefick, Haifa Olympiad 1976) and now Gallagher suggests that 12...liJxe4!? should be considered as after 13 liJxe4 'ii'xaZ 14 'iff4 'ii'a1+ 15 d7

The only move. Black loses his queen after either 16...exd6 17 lIael or 16...'it'xd6 17 'iff7+ 'iii>d8 18l:Iadl. 17ltJb5?!

Once again choosing the spectacular move. 17 ltJxb 7 looks more effective as 17...xf6 32 i..xeS+ xeS 33 l:txg7 with a drawish rook endgame. 31 a4 l:txg7 32 l:txg7+ ~xg7 33 l:th3 f4 34 ~c1 '>fi'g6 35 ~d1 ~5 36 '>fi'e2 .i.g5 37 l:th7 84 38 h4

A move in the style of the BlackmarDiemer Gambit! White offers a pawn to accelerate his development and drive a wedge into Black's position. 6 dxcS is well met by 6...WaS. 6 ... exf3

Accepting the gambit. There are also a couple of ways to decline White's offer: a) 6...WaS 7 Wd2 i.xf6 exf6!) 7...a6 In the event of 38 lIxb7 there follows exB 8 4:JxB a6 9 0-0-0 bS 10 ~b1 i.b7 38... £3+ 39 ~f2 ~g4 etc. 11 i.xf6 4:Jxf6 12 We3 gave White good 38 ... .i.87 39 h5 f3+ 40 'it;f2 .i.c5+ 41 compensation in Mertanen-Seppanen, Finland 1992, and after 7...e3 8 i.xe3 g6 9 \1>g3 .i.d6+ 42 ~h4 After 42 ~f2 Black wins with 42...i.c5+ 0-0-0 i.g7 10 i.h6 0-0 11 h4 White's attack looked the more dangerous in Johnsen43 g3 l:tg8+ 44 :g7 l:[xg7+ 4S i.xg7 f2 46 Volodin, Prague 1996) 8 fxe4 bS 9 i.xf6 ..t>g2 e3 47 ~f1 ~g4 etc. 42 ....te5! 43 ':'xb7 .i.xc3 44 bxc3 e3 45 4:Jxf6 10 eS 4:Jg4 11 4:JB (11 Wf4 is strongly met by 11...1i'b4! as in Ehrke-W.Hartmann, ~g3 82 46 l:tf7 + ~e6 0-1 Bad Neuenahr 1984) 11...g612 d6 i.e6 was Game 5 approximately equal in Keller-Hartmann, H.Kuijf-Hoeksema Krumbach 1981. The Netherlands 1987 b) 6...e3 7 'ir'd3!? (7 i.xe3 4:Jb6 8 i.xcs ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 4:JbxdS was approximately equal in Stawski1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 .i.g5 liJbd7 4 f3 Alien, Gold Coast Open, Australia 1999) 7...g6 8 'ii'xe3 i.g7 9 0-0-0 0-0 10 h4 hS 11 c5!? 5 e4!? The most logical response, stepping up g4 gave White a promising attack in the intensity of the battle for the centre. S Duckworth-Stein, USA 1996. c) 6...a6 seems well met by 7 Wd2, intenddxcS is featured in Wockenfuss-Timman. ingO-O-O. 5 ... dxe4 7liJxf3 S...cxd4 is a popular alternative which is White can also play 7 'iWxB, after which examined within the game Bellon Lopez7...g6 h6 8 i.h4 gS 9 i.g3 a6 10 0-0-0 Keene. i..g7 11 d6 gave White a dangerous initiative 6 d5!?

r

r ...

r-----------------.

r ...

15

The Veresov

in Pasman-Lau, Skien 1979) 8 0-0-0 ~g7 9 d6!? (I think this looks stronger than 9 .i.bs, e.g. 9...0-0 10 d6lLles 11 dxe7 "xe7 12lLlds lLlxds 13 .i.xe7 - Keller-Till, Bayem 1999 and now 13....i.h6+ 14 ~bl lLlxf3 15 .i.xf8 lLld2+ would be at least equal) 9... 0-0 10 dxe7 'iWxe7 IllLlds gives a dangerous attack. I also think that 7 'iWd2!? is worth considering as after 7... fxg2 8 'iWxg2 White has very rapid development and open lines. 7 ... g6 After 7...a6 I suggest that White plays 8 'iWe2!? intending 0-0-0, supporting the e4square for his knight and preparing ds-d6 in some circumstances. 8'ilfd2

White's idea is simple: castle queenside and launch a devastating attack on the enemy king. Another interesting possibility is 8 a4 ~g7 9 as which prevents Black's two main tries for counterplay with ...lLld7-b6 or ... a7a6 and ... b7-bs. Heyken-Sosnicki, Pardubice 1996 continued 9...0-0 10 ~c4 h6 11 .i.h4 lLle8 12 'iWe2 gs 13 .i.g3 lLld6 14 0-0 when it's not easy for Black to free his position. 8 ...iLg7 9 0-0-0 The immediate 9 ~h6 is also possible. 9 ... 0-0 9... h6 10 i.f4 menaces ds-d6 and leaves Black temporarily unable to castle in view of the weakness of the h6-pawn. 10 i.h6 It is always a key idea to eliminate Black's 16

dark-squared fianchettoed bishop as a prelude to a kingside pawn storm. Another possibility is 10 d6!? exd6 (1O... e6!?) 11 1i'xd6 'iVb6 12 .ibs which left White with some pressure for the pawn in Mateuta-Istrate, Tusnad 1997. 10 ...J:e8 11 i.xg7 \t>xg7 12 h4 Threatening to rip Black's kingside apart with 13 hs. Black's next move prevents this, but by doing so he creates a new weakness ong6. 12... h5 13 'ifg5 a6 14 i.d3 b5 15 liJe2 :th8 Black should have played lS ...c4, after which White would continue his attack with 16 .if5 (the immediate 16 .i.xg6 does not work because of 16... fxg6 17 lLlf4 lLlfS) and after 16...lLlb6 play 17 .ie6 with strong threats. 16liJf4 J:h6 The point of Black's previous move. Unfortunately he missed something... 17 i.xg6! J:xg6 18 'ifxg6+! 1-0

Black probably missed this when he played his 15th move. After 18... fxg6 19 lLle6+ White wins material.

Game 6 Bellon Lopez-Keene Dortmund 1980 1 liJc3 d5 2 d4 liJf6 3 i.g5 liJbd7 4 f3 c5 5 e4 cxd4

3 .. .ti'Jbd7 4 '3 8 liJd5

This is a major alternative to 5... dxe4, which was dealt with in previous games. 6 'if'xd4

And this is another parting of the ways. For 6 .ltxf6 see Ranniku-Bulinova. 6 ... e5 7 'ifa4 It's now too late to interpose the capture on f6. 7 .ltxf6 leaves White much worse after 7...exd4 8 .ltxd8 dxc3 9 .lta5 cxb2 10 1:[b 1 dxe4 thanks to his weak pawns. 7 ... d4

The immediate 8 .ltxf6 is interesting, for example 8...'ii'xf6! (8 ...gxf6 9 ttJd5 .lth6 10 'ii'a3 left Black in trouble because of his pawn weaknesses in Steinberg-Stummer, Budapest 1993) 9 tLld5 'ii'd8 10 f4!? ~c5 11 tLlf3 0-0 12 0-0-0 and now 12...exf4 (rather than 12...a6 13 fxeS ttJxeS 14 tLlxd4 .ltg4, as played in Shteinberg-Anka, Balatonbereny 1993) 13 tLlxd4 tLlb6 is probably Black's best, when he has a clear advantage. 8 ... i.e7 9 liJxe7 Securing the 'advantage' of the two bishops, although in this position they are not very effective. Once again White has tried capturing on f6, though once again with relatively little effect: Moreno Ruiz-Kolev, Vilanova 1993 went 9 ~xf6 .ltxf6 10 "a3 (10 tLle2 0-0 11 tLlc1 ttJb6 12 tLlxb6 'ii'xb6 was better for Black in Alekseev-Akimov, Togliatty 2001, due to the potential pressure Black has on the c-file against the c2-pawn) 1O... .lte7 11 tLlxe7'ii'xe7 12'ii'xe7+ rJ/;xe7 13 ~c4 tLlb6 14 .ltb3 as and the pressure on the c-fIle left Black better in Moreno RuizKolev, Vilanova 1993. 9 ... 'ifxe7 10 liJe2

White has also played 10 ~d2 0-0 11 .ltb4 but this favours Black after 11...tLlc5 12 "a3 b6 13 .ltxcs bxcS 14 .ltd3 'ii'c7 15 b3 .lte6 (intending ... c5-c4), as in Zappas-Carvajal, Tel Aviv 1964. 10... h6 11 i.d20-0 12 g4!?

Black can also play 7... dxe4 but he would certainly have to be careful after 8 O-O-O!? (8 ttJxe4 .lte7 9 .ltxf6 gxf6 brought about a complex position in Nieminen-Issakainen, Finland 1999) 8...~e 7 (8... exf3 9 tLlxf3, threatening 10 .ltb5, would be far too risky for Black) 9 .ltb5 a6 10 ~xf6 hf6 11 tLlxe4 iLe7 12 tLle2 l:tb8 13 iLxd7+ iLxd7 14 'ifb3 intending 15 ttJ2c3 and 16 ttJd5.

17

The Veresov

A risky but entetpnsmg continuation which invites complications. After the sensible 12 It)g3 Black is probably slighdy better, for example H.Kuijf-Hoeksema, Holland 1996 continued 12...lt)cs 13 'ifa3 Jte6 14 .te2 .l:.fc8 15 0-0 'i'd7 16 .l:Hdl 'ifa4 with some pressure on the queenside. 12 ...lOb6?! In his notes to the game GM Raymond Keene suggested 12...lt)cs! 13 'iVa3 .i.xg4!? 14 fxg4lt)fxe4, but this is far from clear after 15 .tb4, for example Is ...lt)d3+ 16 cxd3 "'4+ 17 It)g3 It)xg3 18 .i.e7 with complex play. 13.b4 'WIe7 141Og31Oe8 15 e4 i.e6 16 .a5 lOd7 17 'ilfa3 lOd6!? 18:e 1 ?

White should accept the exchange sacrifice offered by Black's previous move by playing 18 .tb4! It)c8 (not 18...lt)xc4 19 llc1!) 19 .txf8 It)xf8 although, admittedly, Black gets good compensation in the form of his passed d-pawn and the fact that his knight on f8 is en route for f4. Now Black gets his positional superiority at zero cost. 18 ... b6 19 h4 f6 20 lOf5 lOxf5 21 gxf5 i.f7 22 b3 i.h5 23 ..ti2 a5 24 i.e2 lOe5 25 :eg1 'ith7 26 :g2 'ifb7 27 :hg1 :g8 28 :e1 :ad8 29 'iVe1? i.xf3! This neat tactic finishes matters quickly. 30 'itxf3 Not 30 .txf3 in view of 30...lt)d3+ etc. 30 ...lDxe4 31 i.xh6 gxh6 32 :g6 :xg6 33 fxg6+ 'itg7 34 i.d1 lLle5+ 0-1 18

Game 7 Ranniku-Bulinova USSR Women's Ch., Sochi 1971 1 lOe3 d5 2 d4 lOf6 3 i.g5 lObd7 4 f3 e5 5 e4 exd4 6 i.xf6

This zwischenzug aims to improve White's chances in comparison with 6 'iVxd4 es by denying Black the possibility of ... e7-es. 6 ... gxf6?! A controversial if not downright dubious decision. Black compromises his pawn strucrure for no particularly good reason and he should probably give preference to one of the alternatives: a) 6...lt)xf6 seems to be fine for Black after 7 'iixd4 dxe4 8 Jtb5+ (after 8 'ii'xd8+ ~d8 9 0-0-0+ ~c7 10 Jtc4 e6 Black's king is safe and his bishop pair might become significant) 8... .td7 9 O-O-O? (9 'iVes might be relatively best, after which Black played it safe with 9...'iib8 10 Jtxd7+ It)xd7 11 'iVxe4 'iVes in G.Portisch-Szeberenyi, Hungary 2000, while 9... e6!? and 9... exf3 could be considered in this line) 9....txbs 10 It)xbs 'iVxd4 11 .l:.xd4 es (after 11....l:.c8 12 It)xa7 es White should play 13 It)xc8 exd4 14 fxe4 It)xe4 15 It)f3 with approximate equality) 12 ':c4 (12 It)c7+ ~e7 13 It)d5+ is equal according to Alburt, presumably on the basis that the game is about to end in a draw by repetition, but I don't see why Black shouldn't take a

3 .. .liJbd7 4 (3

pawn with 13...'iti'd6 14 :dl exH etc.) 12...l:r.d8 13 fxe4 a6 14lUc7+ (14lUc3 b5 15 :'c6 b4 16 lUa4 lUxe4 17 lUf3 was VoglerMuench, Germany 1996, and now 17.. .f6 18 llxa6 lUc5 19 lUxc5 ~xc5 would have left Black with an edge because of his superior pawn structure) 14.. .'~d7 15 lUH ~d6 and White was struggling to rescue his errant knight in Vogler-Friedrich, Wiesbaden 1993. b) 6...dxc3 7 ~xc3 dxe4 8 fxe4 e6 also seems to be quite playable for Black, for example 9 lUH (White has nothing special after other moves: 9 'ii'H 'i'h4+ 10 g3 'i'h6 was played in G.Portisch-Tunik, Budapest 1992, and 9 'i'h5 'Wb6 10 0-0-0 'ii'c5 11 'ifg4 h5 appeared in Heyken-Chernyshov, Pardubice 1996, with good play for Black in both cases) 9... f6! 10 ~c4 (10 'ii'd2 is an alternative) 10...'iib6 l1lUd4lUe5 12 ~b5+ 'iti'fl 13 'iie2 a6 14 ~a4 ~b4! 15 0-0 ~c5 16 l:lad1 ':'d8 17 'iid2lUc4 18 'ifd3 ':'xd4! 19 ~xd4lUxb2! 20 ~e8+ (20 ~xc5 'ii'xc5+ 21 'ii'd4 lUxa4!) 20...'iti'xe8 21 .i.xc5 'ii'xc5+ 22 'iid4lUa4 and Black had a decisive material advantage in D.McDonald-Gallagher, Hastings 1991/92. c) 6...exf6 7 lUxd5 ~c5 (Vogler-Doery, Wiesbaden 1990) might also be playable despite the weak d-pawn. Black has quick development and may be able to cause \Vhite some problems in view of the weaknesses on the dark squares. 7 "xd4 dxe4 S 0-0-0

the pawn. White's huge lead in development is becoming a serious problem. S .....b6 Hoping in vain for the exchange of queens. Treppner-Kyas, Bundesliga 1995 varied at this point with 8... a6, but then \Vhite still had massive pressure after 9 ~c4 ~h6+ 10 Wbl 0-0 11 'ii'xe4 e6 12 g4, threatening 13 ~d3. I think that Black should develop his kingside with 8...~g7, albeit with an unappealing position. 9 'iVxe4 lUe5 10 'ilh4 Further hindering Black's development by preventing him from moving the e-pawn. 10 ... .i.d7 11 .i.c4 lUa4 12 lUxa4 .i.xa4 13lUh3 Still pursuing his policy of fast development. 13 ~xfl+ Wxfl 14 'iixa4 wins a pawn but allows Black to develop after 14... ~h6+. 13 ... .i.b5 14 .i.b3 .i.g7 1511he1 lldS

This loses, but it's hard to suggest a move for Black. 16 llxdS+ "xdS After 16...'Wti>xd8 17 ~xfl White threatens lUh3-f4-e6. 17 'ilh5 1-0 White is hitting f5 and b5.

Game 8

Wockenfuss-Timman Bad Lauterberg 1977 There is no particular hurry to recapture

1 d4 lUf6 2 lUe3 d5 3 .i.g5 lUbd7 4 f3 e5

19

The Veresov

5 dxc5!?

Black meets 7 e4 with 7...e6, once again emphasising rapid development. 7 ... e5!?

Less thematic than 5 e4 but not necessarily weaker. White wants to win a pawn. 5 .. jIVa5

It could be that the simple 5... e6 1S stronger, for example: a) 6 b4 is met by 6... h6! 7 i..M b6 8 c6 (8 e4 bxc5 9 exd5 cxb4 10 lDe4 'iVa5 11 dxe6 fxe6 12 i..d3 ttJd5 was complex but better for Black in Heyken-Chernikov, Ceske Budejovice 1995) 8...lDe5 9 a3 (after 9 b5 i..b4 10 "fid4 ttJc4 11 .:fobl ~c5 we see the point of driving White's bishop back to M - the e3 square is very weak) 9...ttJxc6 10 e4 g5 11 i..b5 i..d7 12 exd5 lDxd5 13 ttJxd5 gxh4 14 lDe3 'lWf6 and Black had the initiative in Chiricuta-Kupreichik, Dresden 1969. b) 6 e4 i..xc5 7 exd5 (7 ttJh3 d4 8 lDa4 "fia5+ 9 c3 dxc3 10 ttJxc3 0-0 11 "ii'a4 "ii'xa4 12 lDxa4 i..d4 13 0-0-0 e5 left White struggling for equality in Heyken-Stripunsh.-y, Ceske Budejovice 1995) 7..."iVb6 8 ttJa4 (8 dxe6 ~f2+ 9 ~e2 ~xgl 10 exd7+ i..xd7 0-1 was Meijer-Vajda, Groningen 1997) 8...'iVa5+ 9 c3 ~xgl 10.:foxgl and now 1O... b5 is a very risky way to win a piece, but the alternative 10... ttJxd5 is much safer. Perhaps the critical line is 6 b4 b6 7 e4. 6 i.xf6 ttJxf6

6... exf6 7 a3 "fixc5 8 "ii'xd5 left Black with inadequate compensation for his pawn in Rossetto-Reshevsky, Mar del Plata 1966. 7 'iVd4

20

A very sharp move, giving up a pawn to gain more time for development and to prevent White from supporting his c5-pawn with b2-b4. A couple of alternatives have been tried: a) 7... e6 8 b4 'iVd8 9 e4 i..e7 10 i..b5+ i..d7 was played in Mestrovic-Janosevic, Sarajevo 1967, and now best is 11 i..xd7+ (in the game White's 11 e5 was met by the nonchalant 11...0-0, after which 12 exf6 ~xf6 13 "ii'd2 i..xb5 would have won back the piece with an immensely powerful pair of bishops) 11...'iVxd7 12 l1dl and it's not easy for Black to find compensation for the pawn. b) 7... i.d7 8 e3 (8 b4 'iVc7 9 lDxd5 ttJxd5 10 'it'xd5 as gave Black very strong play in 1996) Rabinowitz-Shapiro, Philadelphia 8...:c8 9 b4 'iVa3 10 l:tbl b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 ~d2 e6 13 J::l.b3 'iHa7 and Black had excellent compensation for the pawn in Espig-Vogt, Weimar 1968. 8 'iVxe5+ i.e6 9 e4

White steps up the tension in the centre and threatens 10 i..b5+ but his development isn't good enough for him to launch an attack. It might be better to play the quiet 9 e3, which gives White much more control of the dark squares. Khachian-Minasian, Yerevan 1994 continued 9...0-0-0 10 lDge2 i..xc5 11 lDd4 i..d6 12 ii'g5 h6 13 "ii'M g5 14 'lWf2

3 .. .lobd7 4 (3

i.a3 15 ltJb3 and now in my view Black should have sacrificed his queen with 15... i.xb2, after which 16 ltJxa5 i.xc3+ followed by 17...i.xa1 leaves him with good compensation for the queen. In the game he played 15...'iib4 and was worse after 16 bxa3 'ili'xc3+ 17 'iWd2 'ii'xd2+ 18 ~xd2 followed by ltJb3-d4. Also good is 9...i.xc5 as in Przewoznik-Tomaszewski, Polish Ch. 1980, which saw Black recover his pawn after 10 i.b5+ ~f8 11 ltJge2 a6 12 i.d311e8 13 0-0 i.d7 14 'i!kg3 i.xe3+ 15 ~hl g6 and now White's best is probably 16ltJd1. 9 ... i.xc5!? Another possibility is 9... 0-0-0 but Timman's move is much crisper.

doesn't mention 16 i.d3 but Black's a-pawn will be dangerous after 16.. Jhe5 17 :xe5 "xb2) 16 .. :iVxfl and Black has a continuing attack for the piece while White still can't develop his king's knight. 10...~f8!

After 10... ~e7 Black's king is much more vulnerable and the bishop on e6 pinned.

11 0-0-0

10 i.b5+?!

This turns out badly but White's position looks unenviable in any case. The alternative is 10 0-0-0, when Gallagher gives some long and complex variations which look good for Black: 10...0-0 (in N.Cummings-Dive, New Zealand 1996 Black played the simpler 10...0-0-0 and after 11 i.b5 a6 12 exd5 ltJxd5 13 ltJxd5 i.xd5 14 c4 axb5 15 cxd5 'ii'xa2 had strong threats such as 16...11he8 and 16... b4) 11 exd5 i.xd5 12 ltJxd5 (12 :Xd5 ltJxd5 13 "xd5 l:tad8 14 'iib3 is answered by 14...i.xgl! 15 ':'xgl 'ii'g5+ 16 ~b1 "e3, winning on the spot) 12...ltJxd5 13 ':'xd5 (13 'ili'xd5 i.e3+ 14 ~bl l:lad8! etc.) 13.....xa2 14 ':'xc5 'ii'a1+ (after 14...':'fe8 White has 15 l:ta5) 15 'iti>d2 ltfe8 16 'ii'g3 (Gallagher

After 11 ltJge2 a6 12 i.d3 (or 12 i.a4 dxe4) 12... dxe4 Black threatens 13...1£.£2+. Black is also better after 11 exd5 ltJxd5 12 ltJge2 a6 13 0-0-0 i.e3+ 14 c;!;>bl axb5 (and not 14...ltJxc3+? 15 ltJxc3 axb5 16 "xe3 b4 17 ltJe4 'ili'xa2+ 18 'it'd because White's king runs away) 15 llxd5 i.xd5 16 'i!kxd5 b4 with an extra exchange. 11 ... i.e3+! 12 ~b1 d4 13 "ii'd6+

13 'ii'c5+ is no better after 13. ..'iitg8 14 ltJd5 i.xd5 15 exd5 a6 etc. 21

The Veresov

13 ... litg8 14 b4 "ii'a3 15lL1d5

thanks to his space and better bishop.

White cannot play the alternative 15 ~xd4 because of 15 ..."ii'c1 mate, and after 15lLlge2 there follows 15 ... dxc3! 16 lLlxc3 ii'xc3 17 "itd8+ lLle8 18 "ir'xa8 ifxb4+ 19 d6 25 'ii'f4+ 1-0 After 2s ... es there follows 26 ':xf6+ exf6 27 'iVxf6 mate.

3 .. Jijbd7 4 f3 Summary

The fact that 4 f3 has been White's main line has done much to damage the reputation of the Veresov. The play is tricky and intricate but if Black knows what he's doing his chances are rather promising. After 4... c6 White could and should escape into Chapter 2 with 5 'iVd2, but 4 ... c5(!) deprives him of this option. I suppose that against a nervous opponent 4 f3 might be worth a try for its psychological value alone. But even Black's quiet options (4...e6 and 4... h6) don't look too bad. 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 lLlbd7 4 f3 (D) c5 4... c6 5 'ii'd2 - Game 12 5 e4 dxe4 6 fxe4 (D) 6 ...eS - Game 1; 6 ...'iWb6 - Game 2; 6 ...'iVaS - Game 3 4... e6 - Game 9 4...h6 - Game 10 5 e4 (D) 5 dxcS - Game 8

5 ... dxe4 5... cxd4 6 'iVxd4 - Game 6; 6 SL.xf6 - Game 7 6 d5 - Game 5 6 fxe4 - Game 4

4 f3

6 fxe4

5e4

25

CHAPTER TWO

I

3 ... ltJbd7: 4 "iVd2 and 4 iVd3

1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 i.g5 liJbd7

By moving his queen to d2 or d3 White prepares to castle queenside. Meanwhile he hasn't forgotten about playing for e2-e4, the usual follow up to 4 'iVd2 being £2-f3 and e2e4. On d3 White's queen supports the e2-e4 advance directly and he might play this either with or without a preliminary tt'lgl-f3. This means that the lines here can also be reached by transposition from 4lLlf3. In Game 11 Black meets White's 4 'iVd2 with 4...cS, which is well worth comparing with 4 f3 cS. As the position arising from the moves 4 f3 c6 5 'ifd2 can also be reached via 4 'iVd2 c6 5 f3 the choice between these two orders of moves is largely dependent on this comparison. I suspect that 4 'Wd2 is the more promising of the two, although my 'seat of the pants' judgement may not last the test of time.

Game 12 does in fact feature 4 'iVd2 c6 5 f3, but White plays the innocuous 7 ttJxe4. It looks more interesting to play 5 O-O-O!? or 6 O-O-O!?, although these can involve a sacrifice of White's a2-pawn. Khachian seems quite happy doing this and White does obtain attacking chances, but whether this is totally sound is another question entirely... As usual 4... e6 is a sound reply and White can easily get into trouble if he doesn't react

26

energetically. In Game 13 (SmimovYagupov) White was in trouble until his opponent lost the plot and finally produced an astonishing blunder. But 7 lLlf3 is a definite improvement for White. 4 'Wd3 makes a lot of sense, but White might be well advised to first play 4 tt'lf3 and see Black's fourth move before deciding whether or not to commit his queen to this square. The reason is that this doesn't look very promising for White after either 4... h6 (Rossetto-Darga) or 4... e6 (Smyslov-Geller) but causes Black some problems after 4...g6 (Donev-Zlatilov) and 4...c6 (AlburtZilberstein, Miles-Watson and Ben Menachem-Boric).

Game 11 Reprintsev-Evelev

Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 i.g5 liJbd7 4 'ifd2

An interesting move. Rather than play the immediate 4 f3 and get hit by a central counter-attack, White first develops his queen and prepares to castle long. 4 ... c5!? A sharp response which steers the game into unknown territory. For 4... c6 see De Souza Haro-Vescovi, and for 4... e6 see Smir-

3 .. Ji:Jbd7 4 'Wd2 and 4 'iid3

nov-Yagupov.

5 dxc5 e6 6 e4!? It's worth noting that White has achieved this thematic breakthrough without having to prepare it with f2-f3. 6 ... dxe4 7 0-0-0

It was also worth considering 7 i.bs!?, after which an independent possibility is 7...a6 (7 ...i.xcs 8 0-0-0 would lead us back to the game) 8 .i.xd7+ i.xd7 9 0-0-0 .i.c6! 10 'iff4 'i!ib8 and White may have trouble equalising due to the strength of Black's light-squared bishop. Alternatively, after 9 .i.xf6 Wxf6 10 0-0-0 Black can also play 10... .i.c6, when 11 l2Jxe4 'iffS 12 lLld6+?! i.xd6 13 iVxd6 loses material after 13...Wg5+ followed by capturingong2. 7 ... i.xc5 8 i.b5 O-O! An excellent counter, temporarily parting with a piece for development.

9 i.xf6 'iixf6 10 tiJxe4 After 10 i.xd7?! l::td8 11 lLlxe4 'i'es 12 lLlxcs 'ii'xcs Black recovers the piece with a slight edge. His bishop will be marginally stronger than White's knight. 10 .. :.e5! 11 'iie2 tiJf6 12 tiJxc5 'iVxc5 13 tiJf3 b6 Black can also play 13...a6 14 .i.d3 .i.d7, which looks more or less equal. 14 We5 tiJd5?! This attempt to obtain dynamic play seems somewhat misguided. Black can equalise with either 14...'i'xes 15 lLlxes i.b7 16 i.c6 l!ab8 17 l::td4 :fc8 18 l:thdl ~f8 or 14....i.b7 15 .xcs bxcs 16 i.e2 l:tfd8 followed by .. .'~g8-f8-e7. 15 i.d3 Wxf2?! With Black already behind in development it's very dangerous to grab pawns like this. He can still go solid with ls ....i.b7 and meet 16lLlgs with 16...lLlf6 etc. 16 :the1 'Wc5 Not 16...Wxg2?? 17 l::tgl f6 18 'iihs etc. 17 i.e4! i.b7 Both 17... f6? 18 l:txds! exds 19 'ii'xd5+ and 17...l1d8? 18 i.xds exds 19 l::txds!! l::txd5 20 'i'xd5! would win quickly for White, but Black could have considered 17... a6 and 17...h6. 18 tiJg5! 'it>h8?

In a difficult position Black makes a mistake. Both 18...g6 and 18...h6 are refuted by 19 lLlxe6, but there's nothing dear after the 27

The Veresov

cool 18. ...l:lac8. 19 lbxh7 .l:!.fb8 20 .i.xd5 ..txh7

After 20....ixdS there follows 21 'ifhs ~g8 22 ctJgS 'ii'f2 23 %l£1 with a winning

attack. 21 'We4+! f5 22 'ii'h4+ 1-0

Black is mated after 22... ~g6 (or 22...g8 23 .ixe6+) 23 %lxe6+ etc.

Gamef2

De Souza Haro-Vescovi Sao Paulo Zonal200f 1 d4 lbf6 2 lbc3 d5 3 .i.g5 lbbd7 4 'ifd2 c6 5 f3

This position could also have arisen via 4 f3 c6 S 'il'd2. In Khachian-Vlad, Bucharest 1993, White tried S O-O-O!? which amounts to a gambit after S...bS! 6 f3 'iNaS. The game reeled on with 7 e4 b4 8 ctJb 1 dxe4 (after 8...'iNxaZ the idea is 9 eS when Black's knight has to go back to g8) 9 .ic4 e6 and now White's best line may be 10 .ixf6!? ctJxf6 11 'ii'e2! exf3 12 ctJxf3 with an improved version of the Blackmar-Diemer gambit as his king is safe and he can take pot-shots at Black's king on the e- and f-files. In the game he played 10 %lel and after 1O ....ie7 11 h4 Black could have obtained a clear advantage with 11 ...cS!' 5 ...'ifa5

Black can also interpose S... h6, which is quite similar to 4 f3 h6. The differences are

28

that Black will now lose a tempo should he play ... c6-cS, and 6 SLf4 will not threaten 7 ctJbS. Complex play resulted in KoneruPataki, Eger 2002 after 6 .i.f4ctJhS 7 .ie3 eS 8 g4 ctJhf6 9 SLf2 exd4 10 .ixd4 bS 11 0-0-0 b4 12ctJbl .ie7, and 6 .i.xf6ctJxf6 7 e4 e6 8 eS ctJd7 9 f4 cS 10 ctJf3 brought about an unusual kind of French Defence in MaidlaPuranen, Vantaa 1993. Consequently 6 SLh4 is more attractive now, e.g. 6... e6 7 0-0-0 bS 8 'it'e1: a) 8... b4 9 ctJbl 'iNaS ended in a draw in Khachian-Milu, Bucharest 1995. I don't know what's happening in this position. Fritz likes Black, especially after a sacrifice of the aZ-pawn, but computers tend to assess positions with a material imbalance quite poorly. Certainly Khachian was willing to repeat this in a later game so he evidently considers the position playable for White. And judging from his encounter with Vlad, he would probably sacrifice a pawn at this point with 10 e4 'ifxa2 11 eS etc. b) 8...'iWaS 9 ~bl ctJb6 10 e4ctJa4? (Khachian-Groszpeter, Cannes 1996) and \x-'hite can win a pawn with 11 ctJxdS!, so Black should play 10... ~b4 11 ctJge2 ctJc4 12 i.xf6 gxf6 13 %ld3 with a double-edged situation. 6 e4 I imagine that Khachian would play 6 O-O-O!? here with a murky position after 6... bS 7 'iNel b4 8ctJbl 'iNxa2 9 e4 etc. 6 ...dxe4

3 .. .tlJbd7 4 'iid2 and 4 fld3 Here this is a good idea because Black can hit back in the centre with ...e7-e5. After the solid 6...e6 White can hope for an edge with 7 e5 tLlg8 8 ~e3 thanks to his extra space. 7liJxe4 Playing for a draw. The thematic move is 7 fxe4 which can also arise after 4 f3 c6. Black should act in the centre with 7...e5!, e.g. 8 dxe5 tLlxe5 9 0-0-0 ~e6 10 lZ:\f3 lZ:\fd7 11 a3 h6 12 ~h4 ~c5 13 tLld4 0-0, VooremaaBronstein, Tallinn 1981, and now 14 tLlxe6 (in the game 14 ~e2 was played when 14...J:r.fe8 would have left Black with an edge) 14... fxe6 15 ..ie2 would have been fairly even. 8 ~xf6 tLlxf6 9 dxe5 tLlg4 10 lZ:\f3 was played in Chernyshov-Rogic, Ohrid 2001 and now simply 1O ...lZ:\xe5 is slighdy better for Black in view of his two bishops and White's isolated e-pawn. 7 ...flxd2+ 8 itJxd2 e6

Black has a solid game and might even think about how to generate some winning chances. With this in mind he could consider 8...g6, when 9 J.c4 J.g7 10 lZ:\e2 0-0 11 0--0 c5 12 l:.fel a6 13 a4 b6 produced slighdy less balanced play in Treppner-Dydyshko, Bundesliga 1994. 9 i.d3 i.e7 10 liJe2 b6 11 0-0 i.b7 12 c30-0 13liJe4 J:l.fd8 14 J:l.ad1 14 l:.fd 1 looks slighdy safer to me, freeing f1 for White's king. 14.. .'~)f8 15 liJxf6 liJxf6 16 liJg3?!

Almost imperceptibly White is giving his opponent chances. Here he should probably play 16 :lfe1 with a likely draw. 16... c5 17 i.xf6?! White gets flustered and gives up his important dark-squared bishop but, in fairness, the position is no longer easy for him. After 17 dxc5 J.xc5+ his king is forced into the corner; and 17 ~e4 tLlxe4 18 J.xe7+ 9:txe7 19 fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 llac8 also leaves Black with some pressure. 17 ... gxf6 18 dxc5 White would like to initiate further exchanges with 18 ~e4 but after 18 ... i.xe4 19 fxe4 cxd4 20 cxd4 lIxd4! 21 lhd4 i.c5 22 tLle2 e5 he loses a pawn. 18...i.xc5+ 19 h1 f5 20 i.e2 g2 i.e1 31 b3 i.d2 32 c4 'it>d6 33 ~2 'it>c5 Another good move was 33 ...e5, e.g. 34 f4 (or 34 J.d3 e4) 34...e4 35 g4 J.c8 36 gxfS i.xfS 37 9:tg3 'iii>c5 etc.

29

The Veresov 34 g4 fxg4 35 fxg4 ~e4 36 ~f3 ~d3 37 tLlg1 ~b1 38 .td1 ~xa2 39 tLlf3 .tf4 40 tLle1 'it>d4 41 'it>f3 ~d2 42 tLlc2+ 'it>c3 43 tLla3 a6 44 'it>e2 ~c1 0-1

Game 13 Smirnov-Yagupov Alushta 2002

gave Black a good game in SmirnovZubarev, Alushta 2002. c) 5 e3 seems inconsistent when combined with 4 ~d2. It may be sound enough (especially if White castles shon) but will certainly lack bite. 5 ... h6 6 ~h4

I suggest that 6 ~f4!? is worth consider-

...- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... ing, with the idea of 7lt:lb5. 6 ... c5 7 e3?! 1 d4 d5 2 tLlc3 tLlf6 3 ~g5 tLlbd7 4 ~d2 e6

This sensible-looking move is a good answer. 5 0-0-0

In keeping with 4 'ii'd2, White hoists the pirate flag. There are a number of alternatives, for example: a) 5 e4!? dxe4 6 0-0-0 but in the game Sagalchik-Albun, Parsipanny 2002 he found himself somewhat worse when he fmally regained his pawn: 6... h6 7 ~h4 ~b4 8 It:lge2 b6 9 a3 ~e7 10 .ixf6lt:lxf6 11 It:lg3Sl.b7 12 ~e1 0-0 13 It:lgxe4 It:lxe4 14 It:lxe4 'ilt'd5 15 It:lc3 'ii'g5+ and Black had a useful pair of bishops. Instead 6 f3 is interesting, with Loboda-Suetin, USSR Team Ch. 1975 seeing Black decline the sacrifice with 6 ... e3!? but having slightly the worse of it after 7 .i.xe3 .i.b4 8 a3 .ixc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 .id3 c5 11 It:lh3. b) White can prepare e2-e4 with 5 f3 but after 5... c5 6 dxc5 ~xc5 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 h6 9 ..te3 0-0 10 0-0-0 'ii'a5 11 .id3 .ib4 this

30

Abandoning the idea of e2-e4 in these lines seems like an admission of defeat. I suggest 7 It:lf3!? as being more promising after 7... a6 White can play 8 e4! g5 (or 8 ... dxe4 9 It:le5) 9 .ig3 dxe4 10 It:le5!? "'1th the initiative. 7 .. .a6 8 'it>b1 b5! Black can get away with a delayed development as long as White cannot open up the position. Meanwhile he's taking a lot of space. 9 dxc5 ~xc5 10 ~d3 ~b7 11 tLlf3.u.c8

Black has a good game but 11 ... .i.b4! looks even better. White will not find it easy to break the pin on his knight and it's very difficult for him to achieve the critical e2-e4 advance. 12 tLle2

Evading 12.....tb4. 12 ... ~e7 13 ~g3 tLlc5 14 tLled4 tLlfe4 15 ~e1 tLlxg3 16 hxg3 ~f6 17 tLld2 ~b6 18 tLl2b3 b4

Black should eliminate White's remaining

3 .. .li:Jbd7 4 "ilJd2 and 4 'iid3

bishop with 18...lDxd3 with what must be an edge. Now things get very messy... 19 t2Jxc5 l:xc5 20 f4 a5 21 g4 a4 22 g5 hxg5??

A truly horrific blunder by such a high rated player. It's difficult to imagine what was going through Black's mind. 22...i.e7 23 gxh6 gxh6 leaves a complex position in which both sides have chances. 23 l:xh8+ 1-0

r---------------__ Game 14 Rossetto-Darga Lugano OlYmpiad 1968

1 d4 t2Jf6 2 t2Jc3 d5 3 i.g5 t2Jbd7 4 'ii'd3

Once again preparing to castle long, the queen also supporting the critical e2-e4 advance. There are some additional advantages of this move in that White's bishop might

drop back to d2 in some circumstances, while his queen may fmd useful employment along the third rank. 4 ... h6 GM Joe Gallagher has experimented with 4... c5!?, for example 5lDB cxd4 6 'ii'xd4 e5 7 lDxe5 i.c5 8 'ii'a4 'ilb6 9 0-0-0 d4 10 lDc4 'ife6 11 lDb5 0-0 was P.Moore-Galiagher, Jersey 1984 and now 12 lDxd4 i.xd4 13 l:txd4 and Black still has to demonstrate that he has enough for his pawns. In the game the greedy 12 lDc7 'iff5 13 i.xf6 was played, giving Black excellent compensation for his small material investment after 13 ... b5! 14 lDxb5 lDxf6 etc. 5 e4 cxd4 6 'ii'xd4 e5 7 'iVa4 d4 8 lDd5 i.e7 9 i.xf6 i.xf6 10 i.b5 0-0 11 i.xd7 i.xd7 12 lDxf6+ gxf6 13 1i'a3 l:tc8 140-0-0 l:tc6 gave Black an attack down the c-flie in Richmond-Gallagher, Nottingham 1987. 5 i.h4 White has also played 5 i.f4 but then 5... c6 looks like a good reply there, too. 6 e4 leaves White with nothing after 6...dxe4 7 lDxe4 lDxe4 8 'iVxe4 lDf6 9 'iVd3 'ii'a5+ 10 i.d2 "f5 etc. Thus Porper-Smirin, Tel Aviv 1991 continued 6 lDB e6 and now White played the passive 7 a3 (1 e4 is admittedly well met by 7...i.b4) which allowed Black to assume the initiative after 7... b5 8 lDe5lDxe5 9 i.xe5 b4 10 axb4 i.xb4 11 'iVg3 lDe4 12 'ifxg7l:tfS 13 i.f4 'iib6 etc. 5...c5!? was tried in Bellin-J.Nikolac, Eerbeek 1978, when I think White should have played the immediate 6 lDb5, after which 6... c4 7 'iVd2 lDe4 8 lDc7+ 'iVxc7 9 i..xc7 lDxd2 10 xd7 or give up a pawn) 8 ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 9 i.xf6 gxf6 10 0-0-0 e6 which was fIne for Black in Khachian-Stripunsky, Pardubice 1996.

6... e6 7 e4 'ii'a5 8 l'Lld2 i.b4 was played in Panagiotopoulou-Kaza, Athens 2000 and now 9 e5 looks nice for White. After 6...g6 White must once again be careful to avoid 7 e4?!, e.g. 7...dxe4 8 l'Llxe4 lilie4 9 'ii'xe4 g5 10 i.g3 'ii'a5+ 11 c3 f5 12 ii'e6 f4 although, admittedly, White gets more compensation than with 6 e4. Karayannis-Tsichlis, Panormo 1998 continued 13 'ii'g6+ ~d8 14 h4 fxg3 15 hxg5 with some chances.

60-0-0?!

6 ... b5! 7 f3 b4 8 tiJb1

After 8 ltJa4 there follows 8...'ii'a5 9 'iVb3 to...i.c4. 8 ..•Wb6 9 e4 e6 10 e5 tiJh5 11 tiJh3 g5!

~a6!, threatening

12 i.f2 c5! 13 g4?

White should prevent Black's next with 13 dxc5, when 13. ..i.xc5 14 i.xc5 l'Llxc5 15 'ii'd4leaves White worse but still fighting. 13... c4 14"e3 liJf4!

White's position is not very easy to playas two of his most natural moves leave him in trouble. Castling long turns out to be risky because of the speed of Black's counterplay on the queenside. He should be even more careful to avoid 6 e4??, which lost a piece after 6...lilie4 7 l'Llxe4 dxe4 8 'iVxe4 g5! 9 i.g3 \l'a5+ to c3 f5! 11 'iVe2 f4 12 1i'h5+ c,i;>d8 13 i.xf4 ltJf6 in Doljanin-Arsovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1999. Relatively best is 6 ltJ£3, e.g. 6...'ii'a5 7 ltJd2 e5 (Giannakoulopoulos-Dvoirys, Ano Liosia 2000 saw the preliminary 7...'iVb6!?, but after 8 0-0-0 e5 9 dxe5 ltJxe5 to 'ii'g3 ltJg6 11 i.xf6 gxf6 12 e4 d4 13 ltJc4 ii'c5 White should have played 14 'ii'd3 i.g4 15 £3 with the better chances) 8 dxe5?! (I think White should take a look at 8 i.xf6 lilif6 9 dxe5 ltJg4 to \l'g3 with complex play) 8... l'Llxe5 9 ii'e3 ltJfg4 10 \l'd4 i.c5 and White had serious problems in PonomarevGranda Zuniga, Kissimmee 1997.

32

Not losing any time. 15 tiJxf4 gxf4 16 1!fxf4 i.e 7

Threatening 17...~g5. 17 h4 "a5 18 i.e1 "ifxa2 19 c3 b3 20 l:th2 a5 21 l:tdd2 a4 22 g5 hxg5 23 hxg5 lbh2 24 1i'xh2 tiJf8 25 f4"a1 26 f5 a3 0-1

Came 15

Smyslov-Geller USSR Ch., Leningrad 1977 1 d4 tiJf6 2 tiJc3 d5 3 i.g5 tiJbd7 4 1i'd3 e6 5 e4

3 .. Jl'lbd7 4 "WId2 and 4 "WId3

playing it, trying to retain a modest space advantage) 9... c5 (9 ... b6 is quite possible here too) 10 dxc5 ~a5 11 'it>b1. In Rodriguez Vargas-Cacho Reigadas, Spain 1993, White played 11 'ib5 with the idea that 11 ...'iixa2 would be met by 12 i.c4. But this looks quite good for Black after 12... a6 13 i.xa2 axb5 etc. 8 i..xf6 lLlxf6

It does not make much sense delaying this move in favour of 5 tDf3 but this position is significant because it can arise after 3... tDbd7 4 tDf3 e6 5 'iUd3. One example is D.Trifunovic-Scherr, Frohnleiten 1999 which went 5... i.e7 6 0-0-0 tDg4 7 i.e3 tDxe3 8 'i!fxe3 c5 9 'iid2 and now Black should have played 9... cxd4, when 10 tDxd4 0-0 11 e4 can be met by l1...e5 12 tDf3 (12 tDf5?? i.g5) 12... d4 with a tertitorial advantage. In the game he released the central tension with 9... c4, after which 10 e4 looked better for White. 5 ... dxe4 An interesting alternative is 5... i.b4!? 6 e5 h6, which steers play along the lines of the McCutcheon Variation of the French. Tests required!

Black does not fmd it easy to equalise after 8... ~xf6 9 tDf3, for example 9... c5 10 0-0-0 cxd4 11 'jl'xd4 'iixd4 12 tDxd4 a6 (12 ... tDf6 looks better as after 13 i.b5+ Black can play the cold-blooded 13. .. i.d7 14 i.xd7+ 'iitxd7) 13 g3 b6 14 i.g2 and Black was under pressure in Tolnai-Balogh, Budapest 2000. Hector-Koneru, Wijk aan Zee 2003 went 9... 0-0 10 ~e3 c5 11 0-0-0 b6 12 i.b5 cxd4 13 1:txd4 with an edge for White. 9 lLlf3 0-0 10 i..e2 b6 11 0-0

11 O-O-O!? would be an altogether sharper interpretation of the position. Smyslov prefers to keep it simple and safe. 11 ... i..b7 12 nfd1 i..e4 13 ikb3 "WIb8!? 14lLld2 i..d5 15 c4 i..b7 16lLlf1 J:td8 17 lLle3 i..e4

After 17... c5 18 d5 \Xihite gets a passed pawn. 18 f3 i..b7 19 d5!?

6 lLlxe4 i..e7 7 lLlxf6+

This looks like the only genuine attempt to eke something out of the position. After 7 Si.xf6 tDxf6 8 0-0-0 tDxe4 9 'iWxe4 'iWd5 Black had equalised in MyagmarsurenJ.Roose, Lugano 1968, and 7 tDc3 0-0 8 tDf3 c5 9 0-0-0 'iWa5 gave Black active counterplay in the game Ponomarev-Shipman, Los Angeles 2001. 7 ... i..xf6

The alternative is 7... tDxf6, which leads to much sharper play after 8 tDf3 (8 0-0-0 'iVd5 forces White to exchange queens with 9 "iib5+, which is quite hannless) 8... 0-0 9 O-O-O!? (9 i.e2 b6 10 0-0 is a quieter way of

Perhaps ~'hite should continue to build with 19 1:td2 followed by .l:tad 1. 19 ... exd5 20 cxd5 c6 21 dxc6 i..xc6 22 i..c4 i..e8 23 lLld5 'iVe5 24 "WIc3 Y, - Y,

33

The Veresov

On 24.l:lel Black intended 24...'iVd4+ 25 hl b5 (25 ...lbxd5? 26 il.xd5 - threatening 27 .i.xf7+ and 27 il.xa8 - is unpleasant and the attempt to meet this with 26...lIxd5 is answered by 27 .J:tadl il.a4 28 'ii"xd5, winning material) 26 lbxf6+ 'ii"xf6 27 il.d5 (27 il.xb5?! is met by 27 ...lIab8!) 27 ...l:tac8 with equality.

r-----------------. Game 16 Donev-Zlatilov Elenite Open 1986

g4 lbg3 9 lIh2 was very messy in LaenglG.Timoscenko, Seefeld 1999) is similar to 5 0, but the extra developing move enjoyed by both sides may help Black's defence more than White's attack. Laengl-M.Ivanov, Bad Worishofen 2000 continued 6...0-0 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 c5 9 d5 (9 e5!? lbg4 10 lbd5 is certainly worth considering) 9... b5!? 10 lbxb5 il.a6 and Black had good counterplay. c) 5lbo il.g7 6 e4 transposes back to the main line. 5 ... dxe4 6 lbxe4 .tg7 7 lbf3 0-0 8 0-0-0

, d4 lbf6 2 .!Dc3 d5 3 .tg5 lbbd7 4 'ii'd3 g6

5e4

A logical follow-up, though White has tried a number of alternatives: a) 50!? attempts to build a broad pawn centre but only after Black has 'wasted' time with ...g7-g6, and appears to be more promising than other f2-0 lines as Black finds it difficult to counter-attack in the centre. Play might continue 5...SLg7 6 e4 dxe4 (6 ...c6 7 e5 lbg8 8 h4 was also promising for White in Chernyshov-Szekely, Pardubice 2002) 7 fxe4 0-0 8 e5 lbe8 9 h4 c5 10 lbd5 f6 11 'ikb3 e6 (after l1...fxg5 there follows 12 lbxe7+ h8 13lbxg6+ hxg6 14 hxg5+) 12lbxf6+ lbdxf6 13 0-0-0 'iVb6 14 exf6 lbxf6 15 dxc5 'ii'xc5 16 il.c4 and White had a large advantage in Hector-Moberg, Sweden 2001. b) 50-0-0 il.g7 6 0 (6 h4!? c6 7 Olbh5 8

34

The sharp approach. White can also proceed quietly with 8 il.e2, when a draw was agreed in Negulescu-G.Timoscenko, Cappelle la Grande 1993 after 8...c5 9 lbxf6+ lbxf6 10 dxc5 'iWa5+ 11 c3 'iVxc5 12 0-0 b6 13 'ii'd4. 8 ... b6 Playing for solid development, although with White having castled long this may be rather too rneek. A number of alternatives have been tried: a) 8...c5!? is Black's sharpest response. In Poteas-Grivas, Nikea 2002 White played 9 lbxf6+ lbxf6 10 'iVa3, when 1O...cxd4 11 I:txd4 'it'b6 was probably best, with approximate equality. The critical line is 9 lbxc5 lbxc5 10 dxc5 'iIVas 11 'ilVb5! 'ii"xa2 12 il.c4 il.d7! (both 12...'ii"a1+ 13 'iitd2 and 12...a6 13 'iib4 as 14 'iib5 .i.d7 15 SLxa2 .i.xb5 16 lIhel give White some pressure) 13 il.xa2 il.xb5 14 lIhe 1 e6 15 lbd4 .ltd7 was Zhang

3 .. .ti:Jbd7 4 ~d2 and 4 ~d3

Pengxiang-Pigusov, FIDE World Ch. Knock-Out, Moscow 2001, and now 16 liJf5!? was best, after which 16...gxfS 17 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 18 l:txd7 would have been equal according to FinkeL In the game White played 16 t3?! and got the worst of it after 16...:fc8 17 ..ie3 i.£8 18 i.gS i.e7 19 liJf5 gxf5 20 i.xf6 ..ixf6 21 .uxd7 nab8. b) 8...c6 9 ~bl (9 h4!?) 9... bS expands on the queenside but it's difficult to see how Black intends to transform this into an actual attack. Khachian-Casella, Costa Mesa 2002 continued 10 h3 as 11 g4 b4 12liJxf6+ liJxf6 13 ..ixf6 i.xf6 14 ..ig2 'ifc7 15 l:.he1 with a slight edge for White, with more space and a grip on the centre. c) 8...liJxe4 9 'ifxe4 liJf6 10 .ixf6 (to 'ilh4!?) 10....ixf6 11 i.c4 cS 12 dxcS 'fIc7 13 'ike3 ..ig4 14 h3 ..ixt3 15 'ikxt3 'ikxcs equalised for Black in Freisler-Voloshin, Nymburk 1997. d) 8... h6 9 .ih4 (9 i.xf6liJxf6 10 liJxf6+ ..ixf6 11 'fIe3 i.g7 12 .ic4) 9... c6 10 i.e2 'ffaS 11 'it>b1 liJxe4 12 'ffxe4 liJf6 13 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 14 ..ic4 i.f5 was about equal in Ljubicic-Leventic, Pula 1994.

come to eS or gS but blocking in the bishop on g7 and giving White a queenside pawn majority. The cold-blooded 11....ixf6 might be better but requires nerves of steeL Play could continue 12 h5 'ili'd5 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 'fIe3 ..ig7, when 15 .id3!? (to prevent lS ...'fIe4) IS ...'fIxa2 16 c3 'ffa1+ 17 .ibl cS 18liJg5 is very complicated. 12 h5 ~d6 13 hxg6 hxg6 14 ~b3 a5 15 i.c4 a4 16 'ifd3 "f4+ 17 'iPb1 i..e4 18 'ilVa3 "d6

Leading to an inferior endgame. Black's pawns are rather weak, a factor which White exploits with great ingenuity. 19 'ii'xd6 cxd6 20 :the1 f5 It might be better to support the bishop

with 20 ... dS 21 i.d3 and only then 21...f5 as White's bishop is no longer on the critical a2g8 diagonal. 21 tDg5 i..c6

After 21 ....ixg2 there comes 22 t3! .if6 23 ':d2 ..ixgS 24 :txg2 followed by %Leg6+ when the bishop moves. 22 :te6!?

9 h4!?

Taking the bull by the horns. 9 .ie2 ..ib7 10 liJxf6+ liJxf6 11 'iitb1 'fId6 12 i.h4 cS was very comfortable for Black in Kaganovski-Kagan,IsraeI1988. 9 ....i.b7 10 tDxf6+ tDxf6 11 .i.xf6 exf6

An interesting exchange sacrifice. Black has to accept as both d6 and g6 are under fire. 22 ...fxe6 23 i.xe6+ 'iPh8 24 :th1 + i..h6 25 :txh6+ ~g7 26 :th7+ ~f6 27 f4

The point. Black's king is very poorly placed on f6. 27 ...:tae8 28 :tc7 i.d5 29 c,tc1 i.xg2

Making sure that a white knight can't

Not 29 ...i.xe6 in view of 30 liJh7 mate.

35

The Veresov

30 d5 .l:.e7 31 l2Jh7+

White should take this opportunity to cash in as the careless 31 llc6?? meets with 31 ...1he6 32 ltJxe6 i.xd5, completely turning the tables.

Gamet7 Alburt-Zilberstein USSR Ch., Baku 1972

31 .. Jbh7 32 l:I.xh7 g5 33 ':h6+ ~g7 34 l:I.h5 g4 35 l:I.g5+ 'ith6

1 d4 l2Jf6 2 l2Jc3 d5 3 i..g5 c6 4 'iVd3 l2Jbd7 5 e4

36 c4

With the moves ... h6 and i.g5-h4 interposed this is simply bad, for reasons which were explained in the note to White's 6th move in Rossetto-Darga. Here it is quite playable. 5 ltJf3 is a good alternative and features in Miles-Watson (Game 18).

Around here White loses the plot. He should break up Black's kingside pawns with 36 i.xf5, when 36 ...i.xd5 37 i.xg4 .i.e4 38 llb5 llxf4 39 .i.dl leaves him with excellent winning chances. 36 ...i.e4 37 b4 axb3 38 axb3 l:I.f6 39 b4 i.d3

This gives White some chances. Black can draw with 39 ...:g6, for example 40 lhg6+ ~xg6 41 ~d2 g3 42 ~e3 i.d3 43 'it>f3 i.xc4 44 ~xg3 when neither side can make progress.

5 ... l2Jxe4

5...dxe4 6 ltJxe4 g6 7ltJxf6+ ltJxf6 8 i.xf6 exf6 was Mestrovic-S.Martinovic, Sarajevo 1973, and now 9 'iWe3+ i.e7 10 .i.c4 looks slighdy favourable for White. 6 l2Jxe4 dxe4 7 'iVxe4 l2Jf6

40 ~d2 i.xc4 41 i.xf5 g3 42 ~e3 i.xd5 43 i.h3 i.c6?

After this Black encounters unexpectedly serious difficulties in the shape of White's passed f-pawn. Black should exchange bishops with 43 ... .i.e6 when a draw is still likely. 44 l:I.xg3 :g6 45 i.g4 J::!.g8 46 :h3+ ~g6 47 i.e6 .l:.a8 48 f5+ 'ittg7 49 .l:.g3+ 'it16 50 ~f4 :a1 51 :g6+ 'itte7 52 :g7+ ~f8 53 :f7+ ~e8 54 J:!.c7 i..b5 55 f6 ~8 56 .l:.c8+ i.e8 57 f7 .:n + 58 ~e4 l:I.xf7 59 i.xf7 ~xf7 60 'itd5 ~e7 61 l:I.c7+ i.d7 62l:1.a7 b5 63l:!.b7 1-0

36

Black is willing to accept doubled pawns

3 ... tiJbd7 4 'ild2 and 4 "fId3

after i.xf6, but the positions which then arise are far from comfortable for the defender. He would do well to check out one of the alternatives: a) 7...h6 8 i.d2 ltJf6 9 'fif4 (9 'ii'd3 'fids 10 ltJe2 i.fS 11 ltJf4 'fie4+ gave Black complete equality in Mestrovic-Knezevic, Zagreb 1977) 9...gs 10 'fie3 i.fS 11 i.d3 (11 O-O-O!?) 11...-txd3 12 'Wxd3 'Wds 13 ltJ£3 'iVe4+ 14 'ii'xe4 ltJxe4 brought about an equal endgame in Alburt-Furman, USSR Ch., Baku 1972. b) 7...'Wa5+ 8 -td2 'Wds (8. ..'Wb6 9 0-0-0 tLlf6 10 'Wf4 i.g4 11 £3 i.d7 was also okay in Wockenfuss-Lombardy, Amsterdam 1985) 9 'iVe3 (exchanging queens on ds gives White nothing - Goldin-Karpov, Moscow 1993 went 9 'Wxds cxds 10 tLlf3 e6 11 i.d3 -td6 120-0 b6 with equality) 9...ltJf6 10 tLl£3 i.fS 11 c4 'We4 12 tLles l:.d8 13 'it'xe4 tLlxe4 (maybe 13. .. i.xe4 14 i.e3ltJd7 is more solid, when Segal-Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo 1978 continued 15 £3 i.fS 16 i.e2 e6 17 ~f2 i.e7 with a solid position for Black) 14 i.e3 f6 (14... e6 can be met by 15 g4 -tg6 16 i.g2, when 'J(;'hite has some pressure) 15 ltJ£3 e6 16 0-0-0 ri;f1 17 tLlh4 tLld6 18 cs gs 19 tLlxfS tLlxfS 20 i.c4 and White's pressure on e6 was enough for an advantage in KhachianKoniushkov, Moscow 1996. c) 7...'Wb6!? is an interesting move as Black intends to meet 8 0-0-0 with ...'Was, forking gs and a2. Negulescu-Kr.Georgiev, Cappelle la Grande 1992 continued 9 ds tLlb6 10 dxc6 'Wxgs+ 11 f4 'iWfS 12 'fixfS i.xfS 13 i.bs a6 14 cxb7+ axbs 15 bxa8'W+ tLlxa8 when Black's two minor pieces should outweigh the rook and pawn. 8 b3 might be White's best but there is no advantage. S .i.xf6 "85+

After the immediate 8...gxf6 White should similarly play 9 -tc4!. Instead 9 0-0-0 'iWds! 10 'Wxds cxds was equal in Klaman-Ilivitzki, Thilisi 1949. has

more

11 tiJe2 'it'f5 12 'it'xf5 i.xf5 13 0-0 .i.d7

This looks like a necessary precaution. After 13. ..e6 there follows 14 tLlg3 -tg6 15 f4 when Black is obliged to play Is... fS, entombing the bishop on g6. 14 l:.8e1 %:te8?!

Aiming for ... c6-cs but Black should probably settle for defensive moves for the time being. 14...e6 is better, although I still prefer White. 15 tiJg3 \ti8 16 :'e4 e6 17 l:.h4 .i.g5 18 :'h5 .i.f4 19 tiJe4 f5 20 tiJf6!? d2 with inb6 35 ~e3 J:.h2 36 J:.g1 J:l.8h6 37 g4 adequate compensation for Black, while J:!.6h3+ 38 J:.f3 fxg4 39 .:!.xg4 llxf3+ 40 L.Karlsson-Jonsson, Sweden 1994 saw the Wxf3 J:Xh3+ 41 J:lg3 1:1h1 42 'ite4 J:.e1 + solid 8 c3 but White had nothing after 43 Wd3 c5 44 Wd2 1:[e4 45 Wd3 %:tel 46 8...'i'b6 9lbxf6+ lbxf6 10 'ii'c2 ~fs 11 'iib3 dxe5+ bxe5 47 b5 e5 48 ':'g6+ We7 49 .ie6 etc.) 8... 0-0 9 h4?! (White should probaJ:!.a6 Wb8 50 a4 ~f5+ 51 Wd2 %:tb1 52 bly settle for the quiet 9 :e1 'ifas 10 Wb 1 J:.f6 llb2+ 53 We3 l:le2 54 J:.xf5 J:.xe3+ lbxe4 11 "iVxe4.i:!.e8 12 .ic4, which was a bit 55 ~d3 e4 56 l:txe5 llxd3+ 57 'itte4 .!:!.a3 more comfortable for White in Bellin-Toth, Torino 1983) 9... lbxe4 10 ifxe4 lbf6 11 58 Wd5 J:.f3 59 ~e2 rJite7 60 ~xe4 Wb6 61 lle6+ Wb7 62 lle7+ Wb6 63 a5+ .i.xf6 (11 'ii'e3 .ie6 12 ~bl cs gave Black 'itxa5 64 J:.xa7+ Wb6 65 %:ta2 J:.f4+ 66 strong couoterplay in Martinez-Magem ~d5 J::tf8 67 J:.b2 lld8+ 68 We6 :f8 69 Badals, Alicaote 1989) 11....i.xf6 12 hs ifds 'ite5 lle8+ 70 Wf6 llf8+ 71 ~g6 J:.g8+ 13 'iVxds cxds and Black's bishops gave him 72 Wf7 J:.g4 1-0 the better of it in Alburt-Savon, USSR 1970. b) s ... bs 6 a3 as discourages White from Game 18 castling long, but leaves Black's queenside Miles-W. Watson pawns weak. Donev-Weindl, Bad Ragaz 1993 British Ch., Torquqy 1982 continued 7 e4 b4 8 axb4 .ia6 9 bs cxbs 10 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... lbxds lbxds 11 exds b4 12 'iVxa6l:txa6 13 1 d4 lLIf6 2 lLIe3 d5 3 ~g5 lLIbd7 4 lLIf3 i.xa6 with more than enough for the queen.

38

3 ... Ci:Jbd7 4 '*id2 and 4 "ild3

c) s ...'iVb6 pushes White into castling long, but he probably wants to do that anyway. After 6 0-0-0 e6 7 e4 i.b4 8 tLld2 WaS 9 es i.xc3 10 'fixc3 'ii'xc3 11 bxc3 tLlg4 12 i.h4 White had an edge in Van Mil-Bosch, Wijk aan Zee 1995. d) s ...e6 is a solid move which hasn't been tried much. Comas-De la Villa, Palencia 1999 continued 6 e4 dxe4 7 tLlxe4 i.e7 8 tLlxf6+ i.xf6 and now 9 h4 looks promising (rather than the anemic 9 i.xf6, as played in the game). For s ... h6 see the next main game. 6.i..d2

One of the ideas behind Black's last move is that 6 0-0-0 can be met by 6 ... tLle4!? 7 tLlxe4 dxe4 8 ~xe4 Wxa2 when White has problems with his king. Besides the move played in the game White has two alternative ways of handling the position: a) The exotic 6 tLld2 e6 7 h4 was played in Shirazi-Lazic, Le Touquet 1998, after which Black should probably play 7...'iVb6 8 0-0-0 es with a good game for Black. Instead 7...i.d6 8 e4 tLlxe4 9 tLlcxe4 dxe4 10 'ii'xe4 was quite promising for White. b) 6 a3 e6 7 llbl was played in SchweberBravo, Ville de Parque 1998, but this is hardly going to harm Black if he plays sensibly with 7...i.d6, for example. 6 ...•b6 The solid 6... e6 is possible here although it looks rather passive for Black after 7 e4 dxe4

8 tLlxe4. Black has also played 6...Wc7, when 7 e4 dxe4 8 tLlxe4 tLlxe4 9 ~xe4 tLlf6 10 'it'e3 i.f5 11 0-0-0 e6 12 tLlh4 i.g6 13 'ii'h3 was played in Van Mil-Markus, Antwerp 1995. Black met the threat of 14 tLlxg6 with 13...l:tg8 but stood slightly worse after 14 tLlxg6 hxg6 15 i.e2 0-0-0 16 c3. Here the e3square seems best for the queen, as 10 'it'd3 saw Black generate counterplay in NeukirchCsulits, Gera 1962 after 10...g6 11 0-0-0 i.f5 etc. 70-0-0 e5?!

After White's reply this starts to look suspicious as it looks as if Black has opened the centre prematurely. A solid move is 7...e6, transposing to Opocensky-Schubert, Prague 1919 after 8 e4 dxe4 9 tLlxe4. This garne went 9...as 10 tLles tLlxe4 11 tLlxd7 i.xd7 12 Wxe4 i.e7 13 i.e3 Wd8 14 g4 with attacking chances for White. 8 e4! Not 8 dxes? tLlg4. 8 ... exd4 9 Ci:Jxd4 In his notes Miles also suggested 9 tLla4!?, and after 9...tLlcs! (both 9...'ii'c7 10 exds and 9...'iVbs 10 Wxd4! are good for White) 10 tLlxb6 tLlxd3+ 11 i.xd3 axb6 12 exds tLlxds 13 l:the1+ claimed an edge for White. 9 ...Ci:Jc5 After 9... tLles Miles suggested that 10 'ii'g3 'ii'xd4 11 i.f4 tLlxe4 12 tLlxe4 Wxe4 13 i.xes would give White adequate compensation for the pawn but it seems to me that he

39

The Veresav is struggling to do so after 13 .. :ii'g4 (or 13..:~g6). 10 'ifg3 tLlcxe4 11 tLlxe4 tLlxe4

In this position 11..:iixd4 gives White more for his pawn than in the previous note after 12 It'lxf6+ 'ii'xf6 13 ..tc3 etc. 12 'ife5+ i..e7 13 i..e3! f6

The attempt to bail out with 13 ...'ii'dB 14 'iixg7 .lif6 15 'i!Vh6 .ligS leaves Black with the worse endgame after 16 .lixgS 'ii'xgS+ 17 'ii'xgS It'lxgS due to his split pawns. 14 'iVh5+ g6 15 'ii'h6 i..f8 16 'ii'h4 c5?!

White wins back his pawn with a large advantage. Black had to try 19 ....l:!.cB, meeting 20 .lixgS fxgS 21 'ii'eS with 21...'iitf7 22 'ii'xhB .lig7 23 'ii'xh7 ~hB 24 'ii'xhB i.xhB when Black has attacking chances on the queenside. 20 i..xg5! fxg5 21 'ili'e5 :g8 22 J:!.e1! J:!.g7 Or 22 ... 'iitf7 23 'ii'xe6+ 'iixe6 24 ~xe6

h7 20 c3 .i.xc3 21 liJxc3 'ita3 etc. 15....lte6 16 'ii'e4 .ltxb3 17 axb3

11 i.xf6?!

After 17 iLd3 there follows 17....i.xc3+ 18 ..ti>n 5! 19 'iixf5 e4 20 iLxe4 .i.c4+ 21 ..ti>gl nfd8 etc.

Unpinning the knight on c3 with 11 ~dl runs into 11...1:1c8 12liJbl iLa4 with a powerful attack for the sacrificed piece. On the

17 ....ltxc3+ 18 ~e2 f5 19 'ii'xf5 .l:[fd8 20 'ii'e4 'ii'd6 21 'ii'd3 'ii'c5 22 'ii'c4 'ii'xc4+ 23 bxc4 e4 24 ttJd4 a5 25 f3 a4 0-1

54

3 ... li:Jbd7: 4 li:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

r----------------... Black has 6...~b4+ 7 c3 .i.aS) 6...a6 7 a3 cS 8 Game 25 Kupreichik-Gutman USSR 1976

e3 bS, which gave him quite a good game in Galinsky-Grabinsky, Alushta 2002. 6 e4!?

1 d4 li:Jf6 2 li:Jc3 dS 3 i..gS li:Jbd7 4 li:Jf3 h6 S i..f4!?

An unstereotyped move. \1V'hite threatens 6 liJbS, though there are a number of ways for Black to meet this idea. S ... a6 Black can also defend the bS-square with S...c6, when \1V'hite should play 6 'iVd3, preparing e2-e4 and 0-0-0. This transposes to the note to \1V'hite's 6th move in the game Ben Menachem-Boric in Chapter 2. Aiming for nothing more than quiet development with 6 e3 will not trouble Black. A good way to meet this is with 6...liJhS (6 ...e6 is also quite solid) 7 ~eS liJxeS 8 liJxeS liJf6 9 .i.d3 e6 10 0-0 .i.d6 11 f4 'iVe7 12 'It>h1 ~d7 13 e4 dxe4 14 liJxe4 liJxe4 15 ~xe4 0-0-0 which was fine for Black in Bairachny-Tolnai, Zalakaros 1996. The immediate S... cS can lead to interesting complications after 6 dxcS liJxcs 7 e4 liJcxe4 8 liJbS eSt? (8...liJd6 9 liJxd6+ exd6 10 ~b5+ .i.d7 11 ~xd7+ 'iVxd7 120-0 .i.e7 13 liJd4 0-0 14 'iVd3 gave \1V'hite compensation for the pawn in Bairachny-] .Horvath, Budapest 1996) 9 ~xeS ~cS 10 liJc7+ 'iti>f8 11 liJxa8 liJxf2 etc. Black can also prepare this lever with S...e6 6 "d2 (after 6 liJbS

An ambitious idea from Kupreichik. It is also possible to prepare this thrust with 6 'it'd3, when 6 ... e6 (or 6 ... c5 7 e4) 7 e4 dxe4 (7 ....i.b4!?) 8 liJxe4 liJxe4 9 'ii'xe4 liJf6 10 'it'd3 .i.d6 11 liJeS was slightly better for \1V'hite in Biyiasas-Vranesic, Toronto 1972. Quiet development with 6 e3 leaves \1V'hite's knight on c3 somewhat misplaced. In L.Karlsson-Dive, Wrexham 1994 Black had a good game after 6... e6 7 ~e2 .i.e7 8 0-0 cS 9 h3 0-0 10 liJeS liJxeS 11 dxeS lLld7 12 ~g3 bS 13 f4 b4 14 liJb 1 f5 thanks to the extra space on the queenside space and \1V'hite's lack of kingside counterplay. 6 ... dxe4 7 li:Jd2 e3 8 fxe3 g6 9 i..e2 i..g7 10 e4 0-0 11 eS?!

55

The Veresov

White's pawn centre briefly looks quite impressive but over the next few moves Black effectively undermines it. Here it seems better to play instead the line 11 0-0 cS 12 dS with a complex position which needs some tests. 11 ...lZleS 12 lZlde4 c5! 13 dxc5 lZlc7 14 ltJa4?!

Probably overlooking or underestimating Black's 16th. Both 14 'iYd2 and 14 'iYc1 look better. 14... lZle6 15 .ig3 "a5+ 16 c3 b5! 17 cxb6 lZlxb6 1S lZlxb6

After 18 ttJacS Black has 18... .l:!.d8 with a continuing initiative. 1S ...'ii'xb6 19 'ii'c2 .ib7 20 .if3 llabS 21 O-O-O?!

This looks rather harmless but there are some subtle effects compared with 4 ttJf3. For one thing White keeps open the option of advancing his f-pawn; in some positions he might also bring his queen out to f3 ... 4 ... g6 After 4... e6 I suggest S 'ii'f3!? which prepares queenside castling but also supports a pawn storm with a later g2-g4. Meanwhile White's queen is relatively safe from harassment because the e6-pawn restricts the activity of Black's light-squared bishop. A sample variation is S...!i..e7 6 0-0-0 0-0 7 g4 cS 8 h4 with what I think is quite a promising position for White. Tests are required! For 4...c6 see Bricard-Todorov. 5.id3

An incredibly risky decision, castling straight into open files. 21 ...l:tfcS

Black's open flies on the queenside give him more than enough compensation for the pawn. 22 Iii'b1 .a5 23 ~a1 l:tc4 24 lZld2 lZld4 25 'irc1 :a4 26 a3 .ixf3 27 gxf3 lZle2! 2S lZlc4 llxc4 29 'ii'e3 llxc3 30 'ii'xe2 llxa3+ 31 'it>b1 lla1 + 0-1

For the immediate S f4 see the next game. It's not clear why Ermenkov delays this advance for so long; perhaps he wanted Black to castle first. 5 ....ig7 6 "d2!?

White can still transpose to MilesAndersson with 6 ttJf3. The text lends the game an independent flavour. 6 ... 0-0 7 f4 c5!

Grivas felt that 7...c6?! would have been , . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , poor in view of 80-0-0 when White has danGame 26 gerous attacking chances. While I'm not sure Ermenkov-Grivas that Black is without resources in this posiSofia 1986 tion, the idea of castling long is certainly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... worth noting. 1 d4 d5 2 lZlc3 lZlf6 3 .ig5 lZlbd7 4 e3!?

56

slZlf3 b6 9ltJe5 .ib7 10 nd1!

3 .. .lbbd7: 4 !i:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

15 'ii'xdS 'ifaS+ 16 c3 tLlc7 17 'ifxcs lDxbS 18 J.xe7 .:tfe8, when the piece is worth far more than the three (weak) pawns. 11 ...!i:Jd6 12 ~h4 ':c8! 13 !i:Jb5 !i:Jxb5 14 i.xb5 !i:Jxe5 15 fxe5 c4!?

Almost always a controversial decision because it presents White with an e3-e4 pawn lever. 16 c3 ~c6 17 ~xc6lbc6 18 e4! f6

After 18. ..dxe4? 19 'ii'e2 White wins the e4-pawn. 19 exf6 i.xf6 20 'iVe1! i.xh4! 21 Wxh4

According to Grivas 10 O-O? is punished by 1O...lDe4! 11 J.xe4 dxe4 12 lDxd7 1i'xd7 13 lDe2 cxd4 14 exd4 (or 14 lDxd4 eS) 14...J.a6. Certainly White's position has no great appeal here. 10...!i:Je8!?

In this position 1O...lDe4 fails to 11 i..xe4 dxe4 12 tLlxd7 'ii'xd7 13 dxcS etc. Gallagher mentions the possibility of 1O...cxd4 11 exd4 tLle4 but this seems better for White after 12 tLlxe4 dxe4 13 J.bS (rather than Gallagher's 13 J.c4, which is well met by 13...tLlxeS followed by 14...'iWc7) 13...tLlxeS 14 fxeS '¥Ic7 15 0-0 with more space and the better pawn structure.

White can also interpose 21 l1xf8+ 'tIixffi before playing 22 'ifxh4 but then Black can hang on with 22...dxe4! 23 Wxe4 .l:!.f6 24 'ii"d5+"iVf7 2S'ifa8+~g7 26 Wxa7 'ii'e6 with adequate counterplay. 21 ....:cf6 22 ':xf6 ':xf6 23 exd5

After 23 J:1el Black has 23...e6!, gaining time with the threat of 24...:f1+. 23 .. :i!i'xd5 24 Wg3 .d6! 25 ""'e3 'iilf7! 26 l:te1 We6 27 ""'g3

In the pawn endgame Black can draw by eliminating his e-pawn: 27 'ifxe6+ .l:.xe6 28 ~xe6 ~xe6 29 ~f2 ~dS 30 ~e3 eS! with equality. 27 .. :.f5 28 h3 'iff4 29 h2 h5

Another possibility was 29 ...gS. 11 0-0

30 h4 'iff2! 31 l:te4 .f5

The attempt to win the dS-pawn with 11 tLlxd7 .xd7 12 dxcS bxcS 13 J.bS falls flat after 13...'ii'c7! 14 tLlxdS (or 14 J.xe8 l:!fxe8 15 tLlxdS J.xdS 16 'ifxdS .l:.ad8) 14...J.xdS

Better than 31...'ifxb2 32 'ii'c7 'iVa3 33 'ii'xc4+ when \x-'hite retains some chances. 32 ""'e3 l:te6 33 l:txe6 Wxe6 34 'iff4+ Or 34 'ifxe6+ ~xe6 35 g3 f5 36 ~f3

57

The Veresov

b5 etc. 34.Ai'g7 %-%

but after 8 0-0 'iWb6 White can calmly play 9 :b1. 80-0 i..b7 9 f5

Game 27 Brandner-Miniboeck St Poelten 2002 1 d4 .!tJf6 2 .!tJc3 d5 3 i..g5 .!tJbd7 4 e3

The immediate 4 f4 looks premature to me. Gueneau-Lane, Parthenay 1992 went 4...e6 5 a3 c5 6 e3 'ifa5! 7 ttJf3?! (White should unpin with 7 Wd2 but then 7...cxd4 8 exd4 Ji.b4 looks better for Black, while 7 i.d3 doesn't help White after 7... c4 8 i.e2 ttJe4 etc.) 7...ttJe4 8 c1xc5 .i.xc5 9 i.d3 ttJxc3 10 Wd2 Wb6 11 Wxc3 f6 120-0 i.xe3+ 13 ~h 1 0-0 14 i.h4 i.xf4 0-1. 4 ... g6 5 f4!?

The standard move is 9 ttJe5 but White approaches the situation far more imaginatively. Breaking open lines on the kingside like this illustrates a further disadvantage of Black's 3...ttJbd7. The light-squared bishop no longer covers f5. 9 ... c5 10 fxg6

White could also think about delaying this exchange as after 10 Wel!? c4 11 Ji.e2 gxf5 he has attacking chances against Black's weakened kingside. 10... hxg6

It's probably better to play lO... fxg6, leaving Black's king somewhat better protected. 11 'iVe1 ~e4 12 'i'h4 f6?

With Black having played ...ttJbd7 and ...g7-g6 this becomes very interesting. Had he been able to play ...c7-c5 and ...ttJb8-c6 he would put far more pressure on White's centre. And had he not played ...g7-g6 he could put pressure on the knight on c3 as in the note above.

The decisive error. Black had to play 12...ttJdf6 when White would probably bring his queen's knight over, starting with 13 ttJe2.

5 ... i..g7

14... i..xe4 15 1i'xe4 'ii'e8

5...c6 transposes to Bricard-Todorov. 6 ~f3 0-0 7 i..d3

White might also consider the modest 7 .i.e2 which reduces Black's opportunities for counterplay by leaving d4 better protected. 7 ... b6 Black should play the more active 7...c5

58

13 .!tJxe4 dxe4 14 i..xe4

14 i.c4+ was even better as after 14...Ilf7 15 ttJd2 White wins the exchange for zero compensation. Black prefers to decline the piece and stay a pawn down in a hopeless position. Admittedly it's very dangerous to take as after 15... fxg5 16 'i'e6+~h817 ttJxg5 ttJf6 White with powerful threats. has the nasty 18 16 i..f4 e6 17 i..d6 f5 18 'i'h4 :f7 19

:f3

.g3

3 .. .li:Jbd7: 4 ti:Jf3, 4 e3 and Others

time the justification being the somewhat passive ...c7-c6. This pawn will lose a tempo in advancing to cS. White can also develop some pieces before switching to the tDf3-eS and f2-f4 plan, for example VyzhmanavinBronstein, Moscow Ch. 1981 went S tDf3 e6 6 jLd3 jLe7 7 0-0 0-0 8 tDe5 tDxeS 9 dxeS tDd7 10 jLxe7 'iVxe7 11 f4 f6 12 "'hS! g6 13 exf6 'fixf6?! (13 ...tDxf6 14 'iVh4 eS was better with complex play) 14 'fih6 and White had a slight edge. 5 ... g6 Black doesn't generate much counterplay after this move so he would do well to conAfter 19 lLlg5 Black can delay resignation sider the alternatives: with 19...jLf6. 19 ..•J:l.f6 20 ti:Jg5 .th6 21 .tf4 ~g7 22 a) After S......aS 6 jLd3 e6 I suggest that :ae1 J:l.c8 23 c3 '6'g8 24 e4 J:l.e8 25 ti:Jh3 White gambits a pawn with 7 tDf3 (7 a3 c5 was awkward for White in Ratolistkacxd4 26 cxd4 .txf4 27 ti:Jxf4 1-0 Altschul, Kosice 1961 as 8 tDf3 could be Besides 28 lLlh5+ White threatens 28 eS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . " answered by 8...c4 9 jLe2lLle4) 7...jLb4 8 0-0 Game 28 jLxc3 9 bxc3 'ii'xc3 10 lilbl!? (10 tDeS?! cS Bricard-Todorov favoured Black in Stulik-Hannak, Olomouc 5t Aifrique Open 2000 1944) 1O...lLle4 11 .l:.b3 'iVaS 12 jLxe4 dxe4 13lLld2. b) S... bS 6 jLd3lLlb6 was played in Atana1 d4 d5 2 ti:Jc3 sov-Sydor, Ruse 1984 and now 7 b3 makes The move order was actually 2 jLgS c6 3 sense, simply depriving Black's knight of the lLlc3 lLld7 4 e3 tDgf6 S f4. I've used a c4-square. In the game White played 7 lLlf3 Veresov move order for the sake of clarity. after which 7...lLlc4 8 'it'c1 'ii'b6 9 0-0 e6 10 2 ..•ti:Jf6 3 ~g5 ti:Jbd7 4 e3 c6 f5 jLe7 11 e4 eSled to a complex game. This position can also arise via 3...c6 4 e3 c) S..."ifb6 6 %:tb1 e67 jLd3 cS 8lLlf3 cxd4 lLlbd7. 9 exd4 a6 10 0-0 jLe7 11 ~h1 gave White 5 f4 good attacking chances in Wade-Shah, Hampstead 1998. d) 5... h6 6 jLh4 g5!? (sacrificing a pawn for a dangerous initiative; 6...'it'aS 7 jLd3 lLle4 8 .i.xe4 dxe4 9 'it'd2 'fihs 10 .i.f2 lLlf6 11 tDge2 'ilg6 12 lIg1 .i.g413 0-0-0 e6 14 h3 left White with the superior pawn structure in R.Pert-Taksrud, Copenhagen 2002) 7 fxgS (I think that White should decline the offer with 7 .i.g3, when there are some weaknesses in Black's camp) 7... hxgS 8 .i.xgS eS 9 lLlf3 'ii'b6 10 lIb1 lLlh7 11 jLh4 e4 12 lLld2lLldf6 13 jLe2 .i.h6 and Black had plenty for the pawn in Francisco-Leite, Odivelas 2001. Once again this becomes interesting, this

59

The Veresov

6 .lid3 .lig 7 7 lLlf3

13f5!g5

White can also consider 7 'ii'd2!? with the idea of meeting 7...0-0 with 8 0-0-0 and then launching some sort of attack on the kingside. The passive nature of ...c7-c6 makes such things possible.

After 13...ttJxe5 14 dxe5 'ii'xe5 White can trap his opponent's queen with 15 ~g3.

7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 c5

14 ~g3 lLlh5 15 lLlxd7 lLlxg3 16 'ii'xg3 'iVxd7 17 dxc5 bxc5 18 h4?

A good move at the wrong time. White should first win the d5-pawn with 18 Sl.b5 'ii'c8 19 ttJxd5 .ltxd5 20 ':'xd5 and only after 20... ~xb2 play 21 h4. 18....lif6?

8... b6 9 'ii'd2 (White would do better to play 9 ttJe5 at once or even 9 fS!? - in either case the position looks promising for him) 9... ~b7 10 l:.ae1 c5 11 ttJe5 a6 12 fS ttJe4 13 Sl.xe4 dxe4 14 ttJxd7 'ii'xd7 was WadeD'Costa, British League, Birmingham 20Ot, and now 15 f6 (rather than 15 fxg6 as played in the game) looks promising after 15...exf6 16 i.xf6 i.xf6?! 17 ':'xf6, attacking b6. 9 'i'e1 h6 10.lih4 b6 11 ltJe5.lib7 12 .l:td1 'Wic7 Black should probably try the move

12...e6 in order to cover the fS-square. But even then I don't like his position after 13 g4, for instance. White's next move is very strong and inflicts pennanent damage on Black's kingside.

60

Giving White a second bite of the cherry. Black should play 18...i.xc3 19 bxc3 'ifd6 20 'ifg4 'ii'f6, holding his position together. 19 .lib5 ii'c8 20 lLlxd5 .lixd5 21 l:!.xd5 nb8 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 .lid7 'ila6 24 b3 b1 exf3 '/2-'/2, Bellin-Schellhorn, Hamburg 1980 doesn't tell us much except that both players could have been worried. b) With 10 a3 \'{'hite intends to hold the c5-pawn by capturing on c6 and then playing b2-b4, although this might not be sharp enough to be in tune with the position. After 10... f5 11 0-0 fic7 12 b4 i.e6 13 l:tad1 .l::!.ad8 14 ..ta4 as Black had a very active game in Mestrovic-Gligoric, Hastings 1970/71. c) 10 0-0 f5 11 'iig5 e6 was played in Schneider-Mehler, Bundesliga Germany 1983. Then the simple 12 a3 was interesting, trying to maintain the c5-pawn. In the game White played 12 f3 exf3 13 ~xf3 but his 'attack' was unconvincing after 13 ... 'iWd8 14 'i¥h5 tiJe5 15 l:th3 h6 16 ~g3 Wh 7 etc.

critical in my opinion, as Black wants to play 13 ...'iVb4. 1 2 ttJd4 f5 13 g4 l:!.ab8

After 13.....txaZ \'{'hite can simply get on with it by playing 14 gxfS ..tc4 15 l:thg1 as 15 .. .'iii'h8 leads to mate after 16 l:txg7 cJixg7 17 f6+ exf6 18 .l:tg1+ 'iti>h8 19 'iVh6 etc. 14 gxf5l:!.xb2

What does \'{'hite do after 14...'iVb4 here? It seems to me that 15 tiJb3 is forced (15 .l:!.hg1 'iVxb2+ 16 cJid2 l:tbd8), after which 15 ...i.xb3 16 axb3 i.xc3 17 bxc3 fixc3 18 'tig4+ 'it>h8 19 'ii'xe4 ~xb3 20 'iVd4+ might escape with a draw in the rook endgame. 15 fxe6 'ii'xc3 16 l:!.hg 1 lixa2?

10 ..• bxc6 11 0-0-0

In my view it's only here that Black makes the decisive mistake. He still seems to be okay after 16... ~xc2+ 17 tiJxc2 'ifb2+ 18 'it>d2 'iVc3+. 17 :'xg7+ 'it>xg7 18 it'e5+ 1-0

Black will either lose his queen (if he allows tiJf5 with check) or get mated.

Probably necessary, as 11 0-0 f5 leaves White with little compensation. 11 ... ~e6

Too slow? In my view Black should be attacking b2 as quickly as possible. The position after 11...fS 12 g4!? 1!i'xc5 13 gxf5 'iixfS 14 'ii'h4 has been evaluated as 'unclear' by Boleslavsky and Kapengut. Here 12....llb8 is

Came 30 Miladinovic-Smagin Montreal 2000 1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 ~g5 c5 4 ~xf6 gxf6 5 e4 dxe4 6 dxc5 f5

A serious alternative to the more popular 6 ...'iVa5. If Black manages to complete his development unscathed he'll have an extra pawn and the two bishops.

65

The Veresov

71&.b5+ 1bis fails to cause Black much trouble and we soon reach a position in which \Vhi.te has zero compensation. Therefore White should probably look for improvements at this point: a) 7 1ihs is a standard move in these lines but then 7...e6 (l ... iJ.g7 8 iJ.b5+ tLlc6 9 tLlge2 is given as 'unclear' by V.Kovacevic) 8 g4 i.xcs 9 gxfS 'ii'd4 10 'iih4 (after lO 'ile2?! exfS 11 tLlbS 'ii'eS Black has a massive position) lO... e3 11 'ikxd4 iJ.xd4 12 fxe3 iJ.xc3+! 13 bxc3 exfS brought about complete equality in Mestrovic-Popov, Banjaluka 1974. Popov gave the line 8 l:.dl 'iff6! 9 iJ.b5+ iJ.d7 10 iJ.xd7+ tLlxd7 11 tLlbS O-O-O! 12 tLlxa 7+ ~b8 13 tLlbS iJ.xcs, when Black is clearly better. b) 7 g4!? is an attempt to break up Black's pawn centre but seems well answered by 7...'iiaS 8 'ii'd4! J::.g8 9 b4!, when Florian claimed a clear advantage for White. The exact opposite seems to be the case after 9 ...ltJc6! 10 iJ.bS "xbS 11 tLlxbS tLlxd4 etc. Alternatively 7 ...'iixd1+ 8 :Xd1 fxg4 9 tLldS! is obviously good for White, but Black can consider 7...tLld7 8 gxfS iJ.g7 with a lead in development and a strong dark-squared bishop. 7... iJ.g7 8 'iixd8+ 'ittxd8 9 0-0-0+ iJ.d7 10 tLlge2 fxg4 11 tLlxe4 was about even in Bellin-Duncan, Gausdal1996. c) 7 'iixd8+ attempts to cause problems by displacing Black's king but in fact looks

66

rather good for Black according to Gufeld and Stetsko after 7...~xd8 8 0-0-0+ iJ.d7 9 i.c4 e6 10 b4 (10 g4?! fxg4 11 tLlxe4 ~e 7! 12 f3 i.c6 favoured Black in Floreen-Alburt, New York 1993) 1O... aS 11 a3 b6 12 ltJa4 bxcS 13 tLlxcs iJ.xcs 14 bxcS ~c7 followed by 1S...tLla6. Lipski-Lorenc, Wisla 1998 went 8...tLld7 9 g4, and now 9... fxg410 tLlxe4 fS 11 tLlgS .i.h6 12 h4 'it>c7 looks good for Black. 7 ... j.,d7 8 ~ge2 After 8 iJ.xd7+ tLlxd7 9 'ii'dS e6 10 'ikxb7 .l:.b8 11 'ii'xa7 iJ.xcs 12 'ii'a4 J:tg8 Black's pieces start to generate demonic activity. 8 ... ~c6 9 'i6d2 e6 100-0 l:I.g8! lO...i.xcS? runs into 11 tLlxe4! fxe4 12 'ikc3, forking cS and h8, though even this might be only equal. 111:1.ad1 1&.xc512~a4 1bis position is distinctly unappealing for White. Both 12 tLlg3 .l:.g6 and 12 'ii'h6 'ii'gS repulse White's pressure. 12...1&.b4 13 c3 1&.f8 14 b4 ~e5 1bis leads to massive exchanges and an easy win for Black. All by move 14! 15 j.,xd7 + 'Wxd7 16 'iVxd7 + ~xd7 17 f3 ~f6

17...exf3 18 .l:.xf3 tLlf6 is also good. 18 ~d4 11d8 19 11fe1 exf3 20 ~xf3 l:I.xd1 21 l:I.xd1 ~d5 22 ~d4 a6! 23 ~xf5 b5 24 ~c5 1:I.g5!

Ejecting the knight. 25 ~d4 ~xc3 26 l:I.d3 1&.xc5 27 bxc5 :'xc5 28 ~b3 :'c7 29 :'d6 :a7 30 a3

3 ... c5

ltJb 1 31 ltJe5 ltJxa3 32 ltJxa6 ltJc4 33 ne6 ltJe5 34 l:tb6 ltJd7 35 l:te6 ltJe5 36 l:tb6 ltJd7 37 l:tc6 ':b7 38 ':c7 l:[xe7

edge. 5 ... exd4

After 5...l'Llc6 White could play 6 'iWh5!, making life rather awkward for Black. An alternative is 5... e6 6 l'Llge2 l'Llc6 7 g3 iVb6 8 dxc5 ~xc5 9 ~g2 'it'xb2 10 0-0 'it'a3?! (1O...iVb4 is better, intending 11 litb1 'it'c4 39ltJxc7+ 0-1 etc.) 11 e4 dxe4 12 l'Llxe4 ~e7 13 l'Lld4 and Game 31 White had compensation for his pawn in Mihajlovskij-Gershon Mensch-Gofstein, Paris Ch. 2000. Here after (5 ... e6) 6 'iVh5 Black can try 6...l'Lld7 with the World U16 Ch., Menorca 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... aim of playing ... f7-f5 and ...l'Llf6 in order to displace White's queen and secure Black's 1 d4 ltJf6 2 tOe3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 i.xf6 kingside. White can also vary his move order with 4 6 exd4 e3, when 4...l'Llc6 5 ~xf6 gxf6 6 'iWh5 transNot the only move, and possibly not the poses back to the game but having cut out best. White can also play 6 'ii'xd4 6...h5!? Knaak-V.Georgiev, Germany 1999 continued 6...e6 7 0-0-0 fS 8 f4 c4 (8...cxd4!? 9 exd4 ~b4) 9 g4?! fxg4 10 e4 l'Lle7 11 fS exfS 12 exd5 "d6 13 .l:.e1 a6 and White had inadequate compensation. 'This looks like mutual time trouble with White's flag falling after his next move. 38....:tb6 is easier.

4 ... gxf6 5 e3

A quiet alternative to the aggressive 5 e4, the text leads to complex middlegames in which Black has the bishop pair and central pawns but his pawn weaknesses make his structure rather unwieldy and immobile. Another possibility is 5 l'Llf3, when an interesting line is 5...l'Llc6 6 e4!? (quiet moves such as 6 e3 and 6 g3 fail to trouble Black) 6... dxe4 7 d5 exf3 8 dxc6 fxg2 9 ~xg2 iVb6 10 'ii'f3 .l:.b8 (1O.....xb2? 11 lIb1) 11 0-0-0 ~h6+ 12 'iit?b 1 bxc6 13 l'Lla4 with what looks like an

Then 6...e6 7 0-0-0 l'Llc6 8 ~b5 ~d7 9 j,xc6 (9 'iWh4 is possible here too, as is 9 'ii'f4!?) 9... bxc6 10 l'Llge2 i.e7 11 f4 \ib6 12 'it'd3 nb8 13 b3 Itg8 14 e4 ~hg2 15 fS gave White attacking chances for his pawn in DayDlugy, Toronto 1989. 8 'i'h4 is very similar to an analogous variation of the Chigorin Defence, for example 8... fS 9 'ii'g3 i.d6 10 'iWh3 ~e5 11 l'Llb5 'iVf6 12 c3 a6 13 l'Lld4 j,d7 14 l'Llgf3 produced a fairly balanced knights versus bishops and weak pawns contest in Nikolic-Karpatchev, Leutersdorf2001. 6 ...tOc6?!

Surprisingly this natural move might actually be a mistake. White's most dangerous idea in this position is to play 7 'iWh5, which 67

The Veresov

Black can prevent with 6... h5!? MaksimovicTatai, Vrnjacka Banja 1979 continued 7 i.e2 h4 8 i.f3 e6 9 tLlge2 (9 'ii'e2 tLlc6 10 i.xd5 tLlxd4 11 'ili'e4 e5 12 i.xb7 i.xb7 13 'ii'xb7 .l:!.b8 14 'ii'e4 l:Ixb2 was good for Black in Navinsek-B.Avrukh, Ljubljana 1998) 9... i.h6 10 0-0 tLlc6 11 .l:!.e 1 i.d7 12 tLlc1 Wf8! 13 tLl3e2 'ii'b6 with a good game for Black thanks to the bishop pair and centre pawns. Tatai gave 7 h4 i.g4! 8 i.e2 .l:!.g8 as being favourable to Black, although it doesn't look like very much. Perhaps White should play 7 'ii'f3, when 7... e6 8 0-0-0 tLlc6 9 tLlge2 f5 10 'iitbl i.g7 11 h4 'ii'b6 12 'ii'e3 was about equal in West-Ahn, Elista Olympiad 1998. 7 'WIi'h5

tLlb4 13 tLlg3 tLlxd3+ saw him win the exchange after 14 cxd3 l:!.g7 15 'ii'h5 i.g4 etc. 8 0-0-0 .i.b4 Not the only square for the bishop. In B.Maksimovic-A.Rodriguez, Belgrade 1980 Black played 8... i.g7, the game continuing 9 g4 i.d7 10 i.g2 'ii'b6 11 tLlge2 O-O-O! (11...0-0 12 Itd3 gives White a very strong attack) 12 'iifxf7 .l:!.dg8 13 'ii'h5 ~b8 14 f4! fS! 15 gxf5 tLlxd4 16 tLlxd4 i.xd4 17 fxe6 i.xe6 18 i.f3 l:!.c8 19 :the 1 llxc3! 20 Itxd4 'ii'xd4 21 bxc3 'iVxf4+ 22 ~b2 and the complications had burned out to equality. After the alternative 13 tLla4!? 'ii'c7 14 tLlc5 Black can play 14... tLle5! 15 dxe5 'iVxc5 16 tLld4 'iiff8 17 'ii'xf8+ l:!.xf8 18 exf6 l:!.xf6 with compensation for the sacrificed pawn (Rodriguez). Another idea is 8... i.d7, keeping Black's options open with his king's bishop whilst getting nearer castling long. 9ll'lge2

Tsesarsky suggested an interesting plan for White in 9 tLlce2! - after 9...'iia5 10 c:tbl White threatens to win the h-pawn with 11 'ii'h6 and 12 'iii'g7, which would cause Black to play 1O ... h6 (or possibly the retrograde 10... i.f8). 9 ... .i.d7 10 g4!?

7 ... e6 7... tLlxd4? is poor in view of 8 0-0-0 e5 9 tLlf3 i.c5 (or 9... tLlxf3 10 i.b5+ i.d7 11 '::'xd5 etc.) 10 tLlxe5 with a winning attack. Kravtsov-Lubansky, Vladivostok 1994 continued in interesting fashion: 7...i.e6 8 0-0-0 'iid7 9 h3 i.f5 10 g4 i.g6 11 'iixd5 i.h6+ 12 ~bl i.xc2+! 13 ~xc2 tLlb4+ 14 ~b3 tLlxd5 15 i.b5 0-0-0 16 i.xd7+ .l:!.xd7 with approximate equality. And in ShrentzelHodgson, Tel Aviv 1988 Black chose to sacrifice a pawn for active play with 7...l:Ig8, when 8 'iixh7 (8 'ii'xd5 is also possible) 8... :tg6 9 0-0-0 i.fS 10 i.d3 'iid7!? (1O ... i.xd3 11 .l::.xd3 Iixg2 looks playable and recovers White's pawn) 11 tLlge2 (11 i.xfS 'ii'xfS 12 .l:td2 is better) 11...0-0-0 12 'iixf7

68

A thematic advance, preventing .. .£6-f5 and preparing to tackle the enemy pawn centre with a subsequent f4-fS. After the immediate 10 f4 Black has 10... f5 11 g4 fxg4 12 'iixg4 'ii'f6 with a good game.

3 ... c5

10... lLla5 11 a3 i.d6 12 i.g2?!

Both here and on the next move White can also consider 12 f4. 12...i.c6 13 .::the1 'iVd7 14 .bd5!? Sacrificing a piece in order to try to catch

keeping Black on his toes, the drawback being that the option of doubling Black's pawns can be lost, depending on the response.

Black's king in the centre. White can cause problems for Black with the simple 14 'it'h6. 14... exd5 15 lLlf4+ ~d8 16 lLlfxd5 i.xd5 17 lLlxd5 lLlc4 18 liJxf6 .c6 19 ~g5?

Allowing Black's king to slip away to safety. White should play 19 ttJd5 with good compensation. 19.. /.tc7 20 lDd5+ ..ti>b8 21 ~g7?

Carried away with thoughts of the attack, White forgets to take care of his own monarch. He should challenge Black's knight with the immediate 21 ttJe3. 21 ....::tc8! 22lLle7?

4 ...lLlc6

Both 4...e6 5 ttJf3 ttJc6 and 4...ttJc6 5 ttJf3 (5 ~xf6!?) 5... e6 transpose to MestrovicZivkovic. 5lLlf3

Either missing or rejecting 5 .txf6 gxf6 6 'iVh5, when 6...cxd4 7 exd4 ttJxd4? leads to a strong attack for White after 8 0-0-0 e5 9 ttJf3 ~c5 10 ttJxe5 etc. 5 ... i.g4!? 6 dxc5!?

This loses quickly. The best chance is 22 "iVxf1 ttJxa3 23 c3 24 'ii'h5 and the game goes on.

:£8

22...•b5 22...~f4+ 23 ~b 1 'ii'bs is also good. 23 b3 i.f4+ 24 .::te3 i.xe3+ 25 fxe3 ~a5 0-1

Game 32 Hort-Van der Wiel Amsterdam 1982

The last two moves have lent the game a sharp and independent flavour. Quieter al- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... tematives give White nothing, for example: a) 6 ~xf6 gxf6 7 .te2 e6 8 0-0 f5 9 lie 1 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c5 4 e3 cxd4 (Black could also consider 9...l:.g8, or More flexible than the immediate capture on even 9...1!i'f6 followed by castling queenside) f6. White maintains this as a possibility, thus 69

The Veresov

10 ttJxd4 .i.xe2 11 1i'xe2 .i.g7 12 :adl 0-0 13 'fIh5 with a dynamically equal position in Zilbennan-Rotman, Rishon Le Ziyyon 1993. 9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 ttJd4 h5 11 1i'd3 1i'g5 12 f4 1i'e7 13 ttJxc6 bxc6 14 ttJa4 .i.d6 15 c4 'iib7 16 ':ac1 .l:lg8 17 ~hl h4 18 c5 .i.xe2 19 'ifxe2 .i.e7 20 'ifd2 was about equal in HoiKristiansen, Naestved 1985. b) 6 .i.e2 e6 7 0-0 .i.e7 8 h3 Si.h5 9 ttJe5 .i.xe2 10 ttJxe2 was Richter-Rohacek, Munich 1941, and now (instead of lO...ttJd7) 10...ltJxe5 11 dxe5 ttJd7 would have been at least equal.

tfd7 20 ft2 0-0 21 'l'f6 'l'xd6 22 'l'g5+ ~h8 23 'iff6+ ~g8 24 'iVg5+ %-%

6 ... e6 7 h3

5 ... e6 6.id3

Game 33 Mestrovic-Zivkovic Croatia Cup, Pula 1997 1 d4 tLJf6 2 tLJe3 d5 3 .ig5 e5 4 e3 tLJe6 It is probably more accurate to play 4...e6

5 ttJf3 ttJc6 in order to avoid White's capture onf6. 5 tLJf3

As previously noted,S .i.xf6 is interesting.

This peters out to rather dull equality. In his notes to the game Hort pointed out that 7 ttJa4!? is critical, for example 7....i.xc5 8 ttJxc5 'ii'a5+ 9 c3 1i'xc5 10 .i.xf6 gxf6 11 ~e2 with slightly the better pawn structure for White. Alternatively 7...'ii'a5+ 8 c3 ttJe4 9 'iib3! is good for White - 9...ttJxc5 10 ttJxc5 'ii'xcs 1t ttJeS! ttJxeS 12 1i'xb7, threatening 13 'ifxa8+ and 13 .i.b5+. The quiet 7 .i.e2 leads to stone cold equality after 7...~xc5 8 0-0 0-0 9 ttJd4 .i.xd4 10 exd4 .i.f5, as in Skembris-Vander Wiel, Groningen 1977. 7 ...Jixf3! 8 'ii'xf3 'iVa5 9 Jixf6 gxf6 10 .ib5

A logical developing move which intends either to open the game up with a later e3-e4 (probably preceded by d4xc5) or establish a knight in the centre with ttJf3-e5 followed by f2-f4. There are a couple of alternatives which make sense, though they are not as strong: 6 ttJe5 seems to be well met by 6...'iVb6 7 .i.b5 a6, and 6 .i.b5 .i.e7 7 0-00-0 8 dxc5 ~xc5 91i'e2 ~e7 10 :fd1 a6 11 .i.d3 ttJd7 12 ~xe71Wxe7 13 e4 d4 14 ttJbl e5 15 ttJbd2 ttJc5 gave Black a nice position in Kogan-Savchenko, Cappelle la Grande 1995. 6 ... Jie7

After 10 1i'xf6 .:tg8 Black gets excellent compensation for the pawn. 10 ... f5 11 0-0 .ixe5 12 a3 .id6 13 b4 'iVb6 14 tfe2l::te8 15 tLJa4 tfc7 16 c4 a6 17 .ixe6+ 'ifxe6 18 e5 'ifxa4 19 exd6

70

Black can also prevent dxc5 by playing 6... cxd4 first. Burnazovic-Jelen, Ljubljana 1993 continued 7 exd4 .i.d7 8 0-0 ~e7 9 :el 0-0 10 a3 :c8 11 ttJe2 ttJh5 12 i..xe7 1i'xe7 13 c3 1i'f6, and now an improvement on 14 ttJe5 is 14 ttJg3 ttJf4 15 iLf1, which

3 ... c5 looks slightly better for White. 7 dxc5 'Wa5

After 7...SLxc5 play might continue 8 e4 d4 9lbe2 e5 100-00-0 11lbg3, when White has some attacking chances on the kingside. 8 0-0 'iWxcs 9 e4 dxe4 10 itJxe4 itJxe4 11 i.xe7 'Wxe7 12 i.xe4 0-0 13 c3 i.d7 14 'iVe2 l:tfd8 15 :fe1 i.e8 16 'iVe3 l:tac8

This position is almost equal, not to mention dull. Nevertheless the players manage to fight on for another 50 moves before peace is agreed. 17 i.c2 l:tc7 18 itJg5 h6 19 itJf3 'iff6 20 :tad1 l:tcd7 21 l:txd7 l:txd7 22 h3 l:td8 23 itJh2 h5 24lbf3 b6 25 itJg5itJe7 26itJe4 'iWe5 27 'ifc1 itJg6 28itJg3 'Wf4 29 itJxh5

This pawn snatch doesn't help White as Black gets a rook to the 7th rank with adequate compensation. 29 ..•'Wxc1 30 l:txc1 l:td2 31 itJg3 itJf4 32

b4 i.c6 33 i.e4 i.xe4 34 itJxe4 itJe2+ 35 ~1 itJxc1 36 itJxd2 itJxa2 37 itJb1 itJc1 38 ~e1 itJd3+ 39 ~e2itJeS 40 itJa3 ~f8 41 f4lbc6 42 g4 f6 43 ~d3 f3 a4 48 .i.e5 a3 49 ':f8 a2 50 :d8 b5 51 h4!

Suddenly it becomes clear that Black is in a mating net. 51 ...tbb6 52 h5 >t>h6 53 hxg6 :xg6 54 l:th8+ 1-0

J .•. CO

Summary

The sharp 3...c5 is one of Black's best options in the Veresov and leads to double-edged, challenging play. 4 i.xf6 gxf6 5 e4 is under a cloud but 5 e3 is playable. The play looks rather quiet after 4 e3, although Black has to play carefully to maintain the balance. It can also be used to transpose to the 4 i.xf6 line whilst avoiding 4 ...gxf6 5 e3 cxd4 6 exd4 h5.

1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 d5 3 .i.g5 c5 (D) 4 .i.xf6 4e3lDc6 5lLlf3 (D) 5... i.g4 - Game 32 5...e6 6 i.d3 - Game 33 5 a3 e6 5 lLlf3 - Game 34 4 e4 lLlxe4 5 lLlxe4 dxe4 6 d5 - Game 35 4 ... gxf6 5 e4 5 e3 - Game 31 5 ... dxe4 6 dxc5 (D) 6...'ii'a5 - Game 29; 6.. .f5 - Game 30

3 ... c5

5tbf3

6dxc5

75

CHAPTER FIVE

I

3 ... c6

, d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6

This is one of Black's most flexible options, protecting the dS-pawn, allowing his queen to come out to b6 or as and leaving open the possibility of playing ...ius. Black also avoids placing his queen's knight on the passive d7-square. The most aggressive answer is 4 f3, trying to construct a pawn centre with S e4. Black can transpose to the 3... ttJbd7 4 f3 c6 lines by playing 4... ttJbd7, and possibly this should be his preferred course of action. He has also played 4 ...'iNb6 but this looked quite promising for White in Games 36 & 37 (Richter-Rogmann and Pasman-Georgiev). One of the objections to 3... c6 (by comparison with 3... ttJbd7) is that White can double Black's f-pawns with 4 .ltxf6 and, after 4 ... exf6, play S e3 followed by .ltd3, ~f3, ttJge2, 0-0-0 followed by g2-g4 etc. Unfortunately I'm completely unconvinced by this plan as Black can play ... f6-f5 (as in Gurgenidze-Stein) and position his pieces so that White cannot lever open the game with either e3-e4 or g2-g4. I think White should really be playing for c2-c4 with a kingside fianchetto, bringing the knight from c3 to e2, but all this takes time. Besides 4... exf6 Black has also played the extravagant 4...gxf6, but I think that White had a good position in 76

Kohlhage-Langheinrich before he misplayed the early middlegame. Morozevich played 4 '*i'd3 in his game against Malaniuk, though I'm not sure he'd be that eager to repeat the experience. This move didn't work out too well in MarkovicCvitan either and, although White's play can be improved in both cases, it doesn't seem as if Black is under any pressure here. I'm similarly unimpressed with 4 'iWd2, though it's not clear that this move should be the unmitigated disaster suggested by StryjeckiVokac. Last but not least there is the modest 4 e3. This was Veresov's own choice again Krogius and, despite looking quiet, it contains a drop of poison. Once again White has the Stonewall £1-f4 plan (especially if Black plays ... ttJb8-d7), and after developing his pieces he can sometimes playa later e3-e4.

Game 36 Richter-Rogmann Berlin 1937 , d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6

Bronstein liked this move, reinforcing dS and giving Black's queen access to the queenside. It must always be remembered that 3 .ltgs leaves b2 unprotected.

3 ... c6

4f3

As in most Veresov lines, this is White's most ambitious plan. 4 ..."b6 Hitting the b2-pawn, which White is really obliged to sacrifice. Of the alternatives, 4 ...1.fS makes sense. White can offer a pawn with 5 e4 dxe4 6 1.c4, when 6... exf3 7 lDxf3 creates Blackmar-Diemer style compensation. After 4...'ifa5 White can play 5 'ifd2, preparing e2-e4, although this transposes to de Souza-Vescovi from Chapter 2 after 5...ltJbd7 (which, by the way, is not mandatory). 4 ...lDbd7 transposes to 3...lDbd7 4 f3 c6, which is covered in Chapter 1. 5e4 For 5 'ifd2 see Pasman-Georgiev. 5 ...'ii'xb2 6 ltJga2 a6 7 e5 ltJfd7 8 ':'b1 'iWa3 9 ':b3 .a5 10 i.d2 'iWc7 11 ltJf4 White can also consider 11 f4, intending to lever open Black's kingside with f4-f5. Richter returns to this idea later, but after first bringing his knight to h5. 11 ... a6 12 i.d3 i.e7 With regard to ... c6-c5 Black probably feared a sacrifice on d5, but he certainly should have tried this, as passive play allows White to engineer an impressive attacking position. After 12...c5 I'm sure that the 'executioner of Berlin' would have played 13 lDcxd5!?, when White obtains a dangerous attack for the sacrificed piece after, for example, 13...exd5 14 O-O!? But this would

probably have been better than the mildly suicidal plan of putting his king on the kingside. Over the following moves we see Richter prepare, then execute, a massive kingside onslaught. 130-00-0 14 'iVa1 ':'e8 15 'iVg31tJf8 16 ltJh5 ltJg6 17 f4 i.d8 18 'ifh3 b5 19 g4 .e7 20 g5 Black's last move prepared to meet 20 f5 with 20...'iih4, so Richter changes tack. 20 ...i.b6 21 ltJe2 c5

22 ltJf6+! gxf6 23 gxf6 "f8 24 'it'h1 cxd4 24... c4 25 i.b4 and Black loses his queen. 25 ':'g1 ltJd7 26 'iVh5 White finally has a concrete threat to sacrifice on g6. With the storm about to break Black desperately tries to disperse some of the gathering enemy forces. 26 ... ltJxf6 27 exf6 ':'a7 28 i.b4 i.c5 29 i.xc5 'iVxe5 30 i.xg6 fxg6 31 ':'xg6+ ~h8

In the event of 31...hxg6 there follows 32 'ifxg6+ ~f8 33l::tg3 etc. 32 f7 1-0 White's two threats of fxe8'if and 'ife5+ cannot be dealt with.

Game 37 Pasman-Kr .Georgiev EU U20 Ch., Groningen 1977 1 d4 ltJf6 2 ltJc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 f3 .b6 77

The Veresov

5 'iVd2!? ~xb2 6 .l:l.b1 'iVa3 7 84

with the threat of £3-f4-f5, and his bishop on e7 will want to make room for the knight on g8. Sokolov's 13 .ixe7 is relatively harmless after 13...ltJxe7. 12 fxe4.i.b4 13 a3!?

An ingenious second pawn sacrifice which, if accepted, sets up an awkward pin on Black's bishop. 13 .l:[b3 is a reasonable alternative. 13 ... .ixa3 14 :a1 'ii'b4 15 e5!?

7 ... e6

In a later game Stean played 7...ltJbd7, and 8 .id3?! dxe4 9 fxe4 e5! 10 ltJ£3 .ib4 11 l:I.b3 'ii'a5 12 dxe5 ltJg4 13 e6 ltJde5 14 exfl+ ltJxfl left White with inadequate compensation for the pawn in Pasman-Stean, Beer Sheeva 1980. Instead White should have driven Black's knight away with 8 e5, when I think that 8...ltJg8 9 f4 e6 10 .id3 "as 11 ltJge2 gives White a dangerous looking attacking position. This, as with many Veresov lines, 'requires tests'!

Already planning the following exchange sacrifice, although this might be getting a bit carried away! 15 l:tfb1 looks very strong to me as after 15...'ii'fS there follows 16 e5ltJd5 17 ltJe4 with tremendous pressure for the two pawns. 15 ... lOd5 16 .l:l.xa3! 'iVxa3 17 lOa4 0-0 18 lOf6+! lO7xf6

18...gxf6? 19 'i'xh6 f5 20 .:1.£3 is decisive, and after 18. ..'it>h8 White has 19ltJxd5 exd5 20 "f4, intending 21 ltJg3 with terrible threats on the kingside. 19 exf6 e5! 20 fxg7 ~xg7 21 dxe5 'ii'c5+ 22 ~h1 f5

8 .i.d3 'iWa5 9lOge2 h6?!

Weakening Black's kingside. Black should play 9...ltJbd7!?, when 10 e5ltJg8 11 f4 leads to similar play to the line given above. 10 .ih4lObd7 11 0-0 dxe4?!

Black can exchange queens with 22......e3 but then 23 "xe3 ltJxe3 24 .if6+ 'it>g8 25 .l:[£3 ltJg4 26 .l:[g3 as 27 ltJd4! followed by ltJf5 will leave his king in a mating net. 23 exf6+ lLlxf6 24 ~f4 lLld5 25 'ifg3+ ~h8 26 'ii'a5+ ~g8 27 'ifg3+ ~h8 %-%

V.Sokolov suggested 11.. ..te7!? 12 e5 ltJg8 but then 13 .iel!? leaves Black to deal

78

At the board White evidently saw nothing better than this repetition, but he can in fact win with 28 ,Uxf8+ (not 28 'ile5+ 'it>g8 29

3 ... c6 lU6 :xf6 30 ~xf6 due to 30...'i!tt7!) 28...ihf8 29 c4 "iKg7 30 'iff2 when Black must give up his knight Gust the beginning).

Game 38 Gurgenidze-Stein Kislovodsk 1972 1 d4 lDf6 2 lDc3 d5 3 .1g5 c6 4 .1xf6 exf6

ltJ4c3 was slightly better for White in LarsenWesterinen, Hastings 1972/73. 5... ~f5 leads to similar play to 3... ~f5, with White's best being 6 ~d3. 6 .1d3

An alternative plan is 6 g3 ltJd7 7 ~g2 ltJf6 8 ltJce2, intending ltJf3, 0-0, b2-b3 and c2-c4. If Black were then to capture on c4 White would retake with the b-pawn. This plan is known in the Trompovsky (1 d4ltJf6 2 ~g5) but I cannot find any examples of it in the Veresov. 6 ... g6 7 lDce2 lDd7 8 lLIf3 i.d6 9 c4 lDf6 10 lDc3 dxc4!?

Black can also hold the centre with 10... ~e6 with what is undoubtedly a good position. 1 1 .1xc4 b5 12 .1b3 0-0 13 0-0 a6 14 lDe2?

According to Suetin White should play 14 a4 in an attempt to inhibit the thrust with ... c6-c5. 14....1b7 15 l:c1 "fie7 161Df4 c5

The most natural move, aiming for quick kingside development. For 4...gxf6 see Kohlhage-Langheinrich. 5 e3

There's defInitely an argument for 5 e4, which at least gives White a queenside pawn majority after 5...dxe4 6 ltJxe4. But 6...'ifb6!? looks quite awkward. In Klinger-Wetscherek, Oberwart 1991 White continued 7 b3, but then 7...~b4+ 8 c3 f5 looks quite strong. 5 ...f5

Immediately addressing the critical e4square, and preventing pawn levers such as e3-e4 or g2-g4. Black has also tried simple development with 5....i.d6 6 .i.d3 0-0 but this does little to stop White on the kingside. Miles-Tisdall, England 1982 continued 7 Vf3 ne8 8 ltJge2ltJd7 9 0-0-0 "iVa5 10 ~b1 ltJf8 11 g4 b5 12ltJg3 ~e6 13ltJf5 ~a3 14ltJe2 'ifb4 15 b3 c5 16 dxc5 "iVxc5 17 h4 with good attacking chances on the kingside. 9 a3 'ifc7 10 e4 dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ~e7 120-0 b6 13 llad1 ~b7 14 c4 ]';lad8 15 b4 g6 16 c5 f5 17

Opening the position for Black's bishop pair. Black is already better. 17 dxc5 i.xc5 18 'iVe2 .1d6 19 lDd4 :'fe8 20 "iVd3 l:ad8 21 l:fd1 lDg4! 22 ~d2 .1b8 23 h3 lDe5 24 "iVe2 'iVg5

Suddenly Black has some very unpleasant threats against both g2 and the insecurely placed knights on d4 and f4. 25 ~n 'iff6 26 ~g 1 1Dc4 27 'iVn? .1xf4 0-1

79

The Veresov

Game 39 Kohlhage-Langheinrich Schloss Open, Werther 2000 1 d4 itJf6 2 itJc3 dS 3 ~gS c6 4 ~xf6 gxf6 S e3

5 e4 dxe4 6 ttJxe4 resembles a BronsteinLarsen Variation of the Caro-Kann Defence (1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 ttJc3 dxe4 4 ttJxe4 ttJf6 5 ttJxf6-+- gxf6) except that White has parted with his dark-squared bishop. This has the effect of making 6...1!fb6!? look interesting, although after 7 ttJB Black curiously decided to decline the b-pawn in Hoi-Hansen, Copenhagen 1982, which went 7....i.5 8 .i.d3 ttJd7 9 0-0 e6 10 c3 0-0-0 11 b4 !:tg8 12 ttJg3 with mutual attacks in the offing and White's chances looking the more promising. Here 6... 57 ttJgS e6 8 'ifhs 'fIe7 9 ttJIB ttJd7 10 0-0-0 ttJf6 11 'ifh4 h6 12 ttJh3 ttJg4 was fine for Black in ShagaIovich-Osnos, Leningrad 1967. White has an interesting alternative in 5 .d2, when Miladinovic-Mantovani, Saint Vincent 1998 continued S...iL5 6 e3 ttJd7 7 ttJge2 e6 8 ttJg3 ~g6 9 ~d3 i.d6 10 ttJce2 fIIc7 11 c4 dxc4 12 ~xc4 with a nice game for White.

S... eS

A very ambitious move which deserves to be taken seriously. After the relatively meek S...iL5 White gets a good game with 6 ttJge2

80

ttJd7 7 ttJg3 .i.g6 8 h4 h6 9 .i.d3, which was very promising in R.Watson-Klappert, Oberjoch 2001. Wade-Kieninger, Reykjavik 1966 was less dangerous for Black after 6 i.d3 .i.g6 7 h4 ttJd7 8 hS ~xd3 9 'ii'xd3 eS 10 . 5 'ike7 11 ttJge2 'ike6 12 'ii'xe6-+- fxe6. 6 'iIIhS

6 ... il.d6

In Wade-Kinzel, Varna 1962 Black made a quick exit after 6...e4? 7 B 5? 8 fxe4 fxe4? 9 .e5+ 1-0. In the main game Black also pushes ...eS-e4, which looks strategically dubious to me. But at least he doesn't lose a rook! 7 0-0-0 e4 8 f3

My first thought in this position was to play 8 g3 (intending 9 iLh3) but then Black could answer with 8... 5 9 .i.h3 'it'f6 and 1O...'ikg6. I therefore suggest 8 g4!? in order to prevent ... f6-5, after which White will continue undermining operations with 9 B. 8 ...fS 9 g4 il.b4 10 gxfS?!

A very risky move due to the weakening of White's queenside. 10 ttJce2 would have been a good idea as after 1O... exB (1O.. :ii'f6 looks better) 11 ttJxB fxg4 White has 12 ttJeS with good play. 10...il.xc3 11 bxc3 itJd7 12 il.h3

Removing the defence of the c4-square is not a clever idea. 12 fxe4 ttJf6 13 'ii'h6 ttJxe4 is also quite good for Black, but 12 'ifh6 offers reasonable counterplay. 12... 'iVe7 13 f4?

3 ... c6

For 4...g6 see Morozevich-Malaniuk, while 4...11Jbd7 leads to lines covered in Chapter 2. 5 J.xf6

White seems oblivious to the danger facing his king. He had to try for some counterplay with 13 'iih6. 13...liJb6 14 'ifg5?!

nus loses in short order. White could have tried defending the c4-square with 14 ~f1 but after 14.. :iia3+ 15 ~d2 llJa4 16 llJe2 llJb2 Black's knight will get there anyway. 14.. :.a3+ 15 'itd2liJc4+ 16 'ite2 'ii'xc3 17 J.g4 "x83+ 18 ~1 h6 19 "g7 'iii'xf4+ 20 ~82 lU8 21 liJh3 "83+ 22 1t>f1 h5 0-1

Retreating the bishop with 5 .id2 is well met by 5...11Ja6 611Jdl 'ifb6 7 f3 (J 1lJf3l1Je4 8 e3 1lJb4 is less than nothing for White) 7...c5 8 c3 e6 9 e3 .id7 10 llJh3 .id6, and Black had the better game in PimenovMoisieev, Yerevan 1955. In the event of 5.. :iia6!? White should consider 6 'iVg3 because 6 e4 'ii'xd3 7 .ixd3 dxe4 8 llJxe411Jxe4 9 .ixe4 llJd7 was equal in VokacVesselovsky, Czech Republic 1999. If Black plays 5...g6 6 f3 and only then 6.. :ii'a6 White doesn't have this option, and HectorGdanski, Gothenborg 1997 was about equal after 7 e4 'ii'xd3 8 .txd3 b6 9 .tgS .tg7 10 llJge2 e6 11 b411Jbd7 12 0-0 .tb7. On the other hand the immediate 5 f3 is worth considering, and after 5... bS 6 .td2 b4 711Jdl 'ilfb6 8 e4 .ia6 9 'ife3 .txfl 10 ~xfl e6 11 llJe2 c5 12 c3 llJc6 a double-edged game arose in Sobolevsky-Kosikov, Kiev 1998. 5 ... 8Xf6 6 84 ~b4 7 exd5 O-O!

Game 40 Markovic-Cvitan Bosnian Team Ch., Neum 2002 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJc3 d5 3 J.g5 c6 4 'iWd3 'iia5

An interesting pawn sacrifice. After the immediate 7...cxd5 White plays 8 'iib5+ as the isolated pawn on d5 might be more of a factor after the exchange of queens. Recapturing with the queen is good enough for equality, Leonidov-Sanakoev, Voronezh 1997 going 7.. :iixd5 8 0-0-0 .txc3 9 'ifxc3 0-0 10 1lJf3 .ie6 11 b3 'ti'd6 12 .tc4 .ixc4 81

The Veresov

13 'ii'xc4 lLld7 14 l:the1 l:tfe8 15 g3 as when the slight weakness of White's king position is sufficient compensation for the inferior quality of his pawn majority. 8 tiJge2 exd5

1bis seems like the sensible move but the weakness of the d5-pawn is now a permanent factor. In Mestrovic-Bronstein, Sarajevo 1971 the famous Russian Grandmaster continued to offer a pawn sacrifice with 8...lLla6!? 9 0-0-0 l:td8 10 l:tg1 .tfB and had dynamic compensation after 11 g4 ~b8 (l1...lLlb4!? is also worth considering) 12lLlf4 lLlb4 13 Wc4 b5 14 'i¥b3 'ifc7. 1bis seems like the best way for Black to treat the position.

'uxe3 31 'uxe3 f5

With the disappearance of the doubled pawn Black is no longer worse. 32 tiJb3 fxg4 33 hxg4 lIf6 34 ~e1 i.f4 35 'ue2

35 l:th3 ~g7 36lLlc5. 35 ...i.d6 36 'ue3 i.f4 37 'uh3 ~g7 38 ltJe5 h6 39 i.d3 tiJe8 40 ~1 i.d2 41 i.e2 tiJe7?!

9 0-0-0 tiJe6 10 'ifb5

Even better might be 10 a3 .td6 11 'i!ib5 as Black can't tuck his bishop away on fB. 10...'ii'xb5 11 tiJxb5 .t:!.d8 12 tiJf4 i.a5 13 e3 a6 14 tiJa3 i.e7 15 tiJd3 'ue8 16 tiJe2 i.g4 17 'ud2 i.f5 18 tiJe3 i.xd3 19 i.xd3

A rather passive move which renews Black's difficulties. He should play 41...lLld6!?, when 42 l:td3 lLlc4 43 l:IxO 44 .i.xf3 .txc3 45 .txd5 lLla3 leads to a draw.

:0

42 'ud3 i.f4 43 i.d1 g5 44 a4 bxa4 45 i.xa4 'ud6 46 'ud 1 tiJg6 47 i.e2 tiJh4 48 i.d3 :f6 49 ~e2

Possibly showing undue concern over Black's idea of 49 ....i.e3. White should play the cold-blooded 49 .i.xa6, after which 49 ....i.e3 50 ~e2 .txf2 51 .tb7lLlg6 52lLld3 offers excellent winning chances. White has a nice advantage here because of the weakness of the d5-pawn. The problem, of course, is how to actually win! 19...i.f4 20 'ue2 g6 21 g4?!

A rash looking move which throws away White's advantage. After the natural 21 l:the1 Black is under some pressure. 21 ...'ue6 22 ~d1 lId8 23 h3 b5 24 'uhe1 i.c7 25 tiJe2 'udd6 26 'ue3 >itf8 27 i.f1 tiJa5!? 28 b3 tiJe6 29 b4 tiJe7 30 tiJa1

82

49 ...i.d6 50 tiJxa6 tiJg2 51 tiJe5 tiJf4+ 52 ~1 h5 53 gxh5 g4 54 i.e2?!

After this Black gets enough counterplay to draw. White can retain some winning chances with 54 .te2, when 54...lLlh3 55 lLld3 lLlxf2 56 lLlxf2 g3 57 l:ld3 ':'xf2+ 58 'it>e1 .li!.h2 59 .to, threatening the d5-pawn, leaves Black with some problems left to solve. 54 ... l:.h6 55 tiJd3 l:!.xh5 56 tiJxf4 i.xf4 57 b5 i.e7 58 ~g1 l:!.h3 59 i.f5 l:.xe3

3 ... c6

Finally a draw is on the cards. 60 i.xg4 i.b6 61 i.e2 l:.b3 62 ~g2 ~f6 63 l:.h1 i.xd4 64l:th4 ~e5 65l:!.h1 %-%

r----------------. Game 41 Morozevich-Malaniuk Alushta 1994

1 liJc3 liJf6 2 d4 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 'iVd3 g6 5 f3

It is well worth considering S i.xf6, securing a higher quality pawn majority at the cost of the bishop pair after S...exf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 Vi'xe4+. In theory, at least, it makes more sense for Black to keep the queens on with 7...~e7 as 7...'ife7 8 0-0-0 'iWxe4 9 li.Jxe4 f5 10 liJdZ ~e6 11 J.c4 ~xc4 12 liJxc4 liJd7 13 liJf3 left White with an edge in SchmidtRasmussen, Aarhus 1984. However, in AIburt-Polugaevsky, Moscow 1966 White was anyway better after (1... ~e7) 8 0-0-0 f5 9 Vi' e3 0-0 10 ~c4 li.Jd7 11 h4 liJf6 12 li.Jf3 ctJg4 13 Vi'e2 ~b4 14l:tde1.

5 .. :ifa5 Designed to inhibit White's e2-e4 plan. Favouring White is S....i.g7 6 e4, for example 6...0-0 (or 6...liJa6 7 eSli.Jd7 8 'ifd2 h6 9 J.e3 with a space advantage) 70-0-0 bS 8 eS b4 9 li.Jce2 liJe8 10 i.d2 (the immediate 10 h4 also looks interesting, so as to meet 1O... f6 with 11 exf6 exf6 12 ~dZ) 1O... aS 11 h4 cS 12 dxcS liJd7 13 Vi'xdS liJc7 14 'ife4 liJxcs 15 'i!r'c6 left Black with only nebulous com-

pensation for the pawn in MuratovAirapetian, Yerevan 1981. White can also keep open the option of castling short with 7 eS, for example 7...liJe8 8 J.e3 f6 9 f4 J.fS 10 'ii'd2 'ifb6 11 l:tb1 and the central pawn wedge remains intact. Black can try 5... ~f5 in this position because 6 e4? meets with 6...dxe4 7 fxe4 liJxe4! 8 liJxe4 "d5 9 liJc3 ~xd3 10 liJxdS ~xf1 11liJc7+ c;,t>d8 12li.Jxa8 .i.xg2 etc. The problem is that after 6 'ifd2 it isn't clear whether 5... ~f5 has achieved much. White might gain time on the bishop with a later g2-g4. Finally there is S... h6, when 6 i.xf6 (6 ~h4 is possible) 6...exf6 7 e4 brings about a position akin to those arising after 5 i.xf6 but with ...h7-h6 and f2-f3 included. It's not clear who this will favour, practical tests being required. 6 h4?!

Morozevich is an interesting and creative player but occasionally his ideas walk on the wild side. The reasoning behind this move is that an immediate 6 e4 dxe4 sees Black threatening the bishop on gS with his queen. Another way to try to solve this problem is with 6 i.xf6, although after 6...exf6 7 e4 i.b4 8 exdS Black can sacrifice a pawn with 8...0-0! 9 0-0-0 liJa6! along the lines of the Mestrovic-Bronstein game, given as a note within Markovic-Cvitan. There is also 6 ~d2, but this seems okay for Black after 6... ~g7 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 e5! (rather than 8... 0-0 9 eS

83

The Veresov

with a space advantage for White). 6 ... b5 7 e4 b4 8 liJee2 .ta6 9 'ii'e3 dxe4! 10 fxe4 liJbd7 11 liJf3.tg7

Intending to break open the centre with 12... e5. White's reply prevents this but runs into other problems. 12 .txf6 exf6!

A good alternative is 32 ... lDxe4, when 33 .l:!.xf7 lDxd6 34 .l:!.xd7+ lDxc4 35 .l::txd8+ i.f8 also gives Black excellent winning chances. 33 "Wi'xe6 fxe6 34 :g3 liJxe4 35 liJxe4 e4 36 %:.xg6 'itf7 37 .l:l.g3 .td4?!

An excellent and unstereotyped idea with which Black aims to exert pressure on the efile. 13 h5 0-0 14 hxg6 hxg6 15 liJe1 .txf1 16 'itxf1 ':fe8

Threatening to demolish White's centre with 17 ... f5 18 e5 c5 etc.

37 ... .ltb2 stops the rook corning to a3 and leaves White in serious trouble, although even now he's not out of the woods. 38 J:!.a3 'ite7 39 .l:l.a4! .l:l.e8?! Black should try 39 ... c3 since after 40 ':c4

(40 c;t;d 1 e5, planning 41....l:tg8, is also good for Black) 40 ....l:!.b8 41lDxc3 (41 l:.xd4.l:.bH 42 'itte2 c2) he has the stunning 41 ....l:th4!. 40 liJd2 .te3 41 'ite2 1f.,-1f.,

17 'iVd3 e5 18 e3

Trying to keep hold of the central dark squares. After 18 d54:'le5 194:'lxe5 l:.xe5 the threat is 20... f5, putting White in all sorts of trouble. 18 ... bxe3 19 bxe3 .l:!.ae8

Black has an interesting alternative in 19 ...l:.ab8, when Malaniuk suggested White should play 20 'iitf2 (20 lDd2 cxd4 21 cxd4 f5! is very dangerous) 20 ....l:!.b2+ 21 c;t;g3 not that this looks very comfortable for White! 20 liJb3 'ifa4 21 liJbd2 'iVa3! 22 liJe4 "tWa6 23 d5 liJb6 24 liJfd2 .l:!.ed8

Threatening ... f6-f5. 25 ne1 f5 26 exf5 .u.xe1 + 27 'itxe1 liJxd5 28 li!.h3 "tWf6 29 liJe4 'ii'xf5 30 %:.f3 "Wi'd7 31 liJed6 liJxe3! 32 'iVe4 'ii'e6

84

Game 42 Stryjecki-Vokac Czech Extra League 2001 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJe3 d5 3 .tg5 e6 4 "tWd2

3 ... c6

As with 4 'it'd3 White prepares queenside castling and keeps the option of playing £2-f3 and e3-e4. The queen is slightly less exposed on d2 but does not support the e4-square. 4 ... i..f5

A natural developing move, but possibly not the best. 4... b5 is an attempt to launch an attack on the queenside even before White's king has gone there. White can consider changing plans with 5 iLxf6 (5 f3 is also possible and leads to positions from Chapter 2 after 5...lt'lbd7) 5...gxf6 6 e4!? b4 7 It'lce2 dxe4 8 "'xb4 'ii'b6, and now 9 "'c3 looks interesting, rather than 9 "'xb6? axb6 which gave Black the bishop pair and a clear advantage in Johnsen-Akesson, Gausdal 1996. Summerscale-Lalic, Coulsden 1999 saw 4... h6, and after 5 iLxf6 exf6 6 e4 i.b4 7 exd5 i.xc3 8 "iWxc3 "'xd5 9 "'e3+ i.e6 10 It'le2lt'ld7 11 It'lf4 "'a5+ 12 "'d2 "'xd2+ 13 ~d2 the resulting ending was only slightly worse for Black. 4...lt'lbd7 transposes to Chapter 2.

6 0-0-0

The immediate 6 e4 is rather dubious after 6...dxe4 7 "'f4 "'a5 8 0-0-0 e6 9 i.xf6 It'lxf6 10 fxe4 i.g6 11 i.d3 i.b4 12 It'lge2, and now according to Bogolyubov Black's best is 12...e5! with a clear advantage. 12...0-0-0 13 e5lt'ld5 14lt'lxd5 'it'xd5 15 i.xg6 fxg6 16 a3 "'xg2 was also better for Black in SpielmannBogoljubov, Moscow 1925. A better way of enforcing e2-e4 is with 6 "iWf4 i.g6 7 e4 'ii'b6 8 0-0-0 e6 as in KulaotsVeingold, Pamu 1996. Then the immediate 9 e5 is best, with an interesting struggle in prospect, rather than the game's 91i'e3. The quiet 6 e3 is inconsistent - in Rubinetti-Sunye Neto, Moron 1982 Black emerged with a good game after 6...h6 7 i.h4 e6 8 g4 i.g6 9 i.g3 h5 10 g5 h411 i.£2 ttJg8 12 e4 i.b4 as his king's knight was reemerging neatly to e7. 6 ... h6

5 f3liJbd7

Black can prevent White from playing e2e4 on his next move with 5...i.g6, which also means not having to worry about White attacking the bishop with a later "'f4. White should probably play 6 It'lh3 with the idea of It'lf4xg6. Instead 6 h4 h6 7 iLxf6 exf6 8 h5 iLh7 9 e4 dxe4 10 It'lxe4 i.e7 11 lLlh3 It'ld7 was very solid for Black in Sliwa-Doda, Polanica Zdroj 1966. Black must be careful not to play 6......a5, when 7 e4 dxe4 8 fxe4 iLg4 (8 ...ttJxe4? 9 ttJxe4) 9 iLe2 i.xe2 10 ttJgxe2 0-0-0 11 l:!.hfl gave White the better chances in DemenyBach, Odorheiu Secuiesc 1993. The natural 6...e6 also appears to allow 7 e4, although after 7...dxe4 8 fxe4 Black can play 8...iLxe4. Filchev-Pelitov, Bulgaria 1956 continued 9 :LeI (9 It'lxe4? ttJxe4 exchanges queens) 9....tb4 10 a3 iLxc3 11 "'xc3 'ii'b6 12 It'lf3 h6 13 i.h4 iLh7 14lt'le5 with healthy compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 85

The Veresov

7 i.h4

Perhaps White should avoid any loss of time and opt for the immediate 7 ~xf6 It:\xf6 8 e4. Then 8... dxe4 allows White to recover his pawn with 9 'tWf4 with a broad pawn centre, so Sandipan-Yurtaev, Guntur 2000 went 8... ~d7 9 eslt:\g810 f4 e6, and now 11 b1 would have been relatively best, with a complex game in prospect. In the game Black was doing very well after 11 It:\f3?! 'tWaS 12 b1 ~b4. 7 ...i.h7

A useful waiting move. Black is in no hurry to push the e-pawn since doing so would only encourage White to make his central break. On 7...e6 White could play 8 e4 thanks to the pin on the knight. Hence the text. In Smirnov-Zavgorodniy, Lvov 2002 Black's attempt to start an attack on the queenside with 7... bs was met with the razor sharp 8 e4!?, when there followed 8...dxe4 9 dS cxd5 10 ~xf6 It:\xf6 11 fxe4 ~d7 12 es It:\h7? (12... b4 seems best, with Black reaching a solid position after 13 It:\xds It:\xds 14 'tWxds e6). Smirnov chose the interesting 13 e6, but White's simplest is 13 1i'xds, when 13... e6 14 'ii'xd7+ 'ii'xd7 15 ~xbS earns a good pawn and a huge lead in development. 8 e4

It:\xf3 e6 11 ~c4, with pressure on the e- and f-ftles akin to the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. Declining the gambit is not bad, and is certainly less dangerous. 10 'iYxe3 e6 11 i.c4?!

Perhaps White should have played 11 ~d3, but then 11...~xd3 12'ii'xd3'ii'aS is no

worse for Black. 11...i.e7 12 i.b3 0-0 13 tLlh3 c5

Initiating counterplay on the queenside, Black being helped by the fact that the rook is no longer on d 1. 14 i.xf6?

A somewhat careless pawn grab which gives Black an uninhibited dark-squared bishop. 14 b 1 is safer. 14...i.xf6 15 dxc5 Wc7 16 tLla4 %:tac8 17 :td1 b5! 18tLlc3

White has no good move. After 18 cxb6 there follows the spectacular 18...'ii'xc2+! 19 .i.xc2 l:txc2+ 20 b 1 lhb2+ 21 c1 (21 ~al lIbl mate - Black's bishops call all the shots!) 21...':c8+ etc. 18...tLlxc5 19 %:td2 tLlxb3+ 20 axb3 Wa5 0-1

White has no satisfactory defence to the threats of 21...'ifa1+ and 21...':'xc3.

Anyway! 8 ... dxe4 9 %:te1 e3

Black is evidendy worried about the compensation White would have after 9...exf3 10

86

Game 43 Veresov-Krogius USSR Team Ch. 1953 1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 4 e3

3 ... c6

b4!? etc. 7 cxd3 ltJbd7 8 ltJf3 e6 9 0-0 h6 10 ~h4 .i.e7 11 b4 0-0 12 ltJa4 "d8 13 'iVb3 b5 14 lbc5 ltJxc5 15 bxc5 a5 16 :fe 1 ltJd7 17 ~g3 .:tc8 18 e4 ~f6 19 ~d6 :e8 20 l:!.e2

Black's main problem is that he is very passive, enabling White to improve at leisure. 20 ...ltJf8 21 :be1 'iVd7 22 ltJe5 .i.xe5 23 dxe5 ltJg6 24 g3 'iVd8 25 f4 dxe4

Once again we see that Veresov himself prefers this quiet and unassuming move. 4 tbf3 seems less precise in view of 4.. :iib6!, e.g. 5 l1b 1 tbbd7 6 e3 g6 7 i.d3 i.g7 8 0-0 0-0 9 h3 (9 e4 dxe4 10 liJxe4 liJxe4 11 i.xe4 liJf6 12 i.d3 i.g4 13 c3 'tWaS! was quite promising for Black in Potterat-Cvitan, Bad Ragaz 1992) 9.. .l:le8 10 liJe2 e5 11 dxe5 ttJxe5 12 liJxe5 lIxe5 13 i.f4 ne8 with equality. Here 9...c5 invites 10 i.xf6! liJxf6 11 liJa4, when trying to avoid losing a pawn with 11...'ii'a5 12 tbxc5 'i'xa2 runs into 13 'ifd2! etc.

With the position being so unpleasant for Black this exchange is understandable. But now the problem is that White can penetrate on the d-file. 26 dxe4 f6 27 exf6

27 a4 looks very strong as after 27 ... b4 White can play 28 fSltJxeS 29 .l:ldl, threatening 30 i.xeS, and in response to 29...ltJf1 there comes 30 fXe6liJxd6 31 e7+ etc. 27 ..."xf6 28 'it'd3 e5!

4 ...'iVb6 5 J:tb1

White has also tried the gambit of the bpawn with the variation 5 i.d3 'iVxb2 6 tbge2, an idea which would not be possible if the knight were already committed to f3. White had some compensation for the pawn in the game Gardner-Levit, Chicago 1989 after 6... liJbd7 (the alternative try 6...1ib6 7 0-0 liJbd7 8 e4 leads to similar play) 7 0-0 g6 8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 liJxe4 10 i.xe4 i.g7 11 'i'd3. 5 ... ~f5 6 ~d3 .i.xd3

nus leaves White with a nice positional edge. His doubled pawns cover key squares and he has the makings of a 'minority attack' on the queenside with an advance of the bpawn. Preferable is 6...i.g6 but this still looks nice for White after 7 liJf3 e6 8 0-0 i.e7 9

Suddenly the Black pieces start to cooperate. 29 f5 ltJh8 30 'iVc3 ltJf7 31 :d1 a4 32 'iitg2 l:!.cd8 33 J:ted2 :d7 34 h4 :ed8 35 'iVb4 ~h7 36 l:!.d3 g6 37 fxg6+ 'iVxg6 38 J:tf1 'iVe6 39 'iVd2 ltJxd6 40 :d 1 'iVg4 41 .l:[xd6 'iVxe4+ 42 'iith2 .l:[xd6 43 cxd6 :d7 %-%

Black must have been relieved to get away with a draw, but in the final position he could and should continue.

87

The Veresov

Summary

3... c6 is a solid move against which I think there are two good choices for White. The ftrst is to play 4 £3, making a gambit of the b-pawn after 4 .. :ifb6 and transposing to Chapter 2 after 4...lLlbd7 5 'ii'd2!? The second is to play 4 e3, when Black's position is not as comfortable as it might appear. , d4lLlf6 2lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 c6 (D) 4 f3 4 i.xf6 (D)

4 ... exf6 - Game 38; 4 ...gxf6 - Game 39 4 ifd3 4.. :ii'aS - Game 40; 4 ...g6 - Game 41 4 'ii'd2 - Game 42 4 e3 - Game 43 4 •.• 'W!Vb6 (D) 4... lLlbd7 5 1i'd2 - Game 12 5 e4 - Game 36 5 'ii'd2 - Game 37

3 ... c6

BB

4 i.xf6

4 ... 'W!Vb6

CHAPTER SIX

I

3 ... ..tf5

1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 .i.f5

TIlls simple developing move is seen quite often, Black developing the bishop to its most natural square and hoping to inhibit e2e4. The drawback is that the bishop can be exposed on fS, either to lDxd5 combinations, a g2-g4 thrust or by having to retreat or exchange after a challenge with .td3. Despite the sound appearance of 3....tfS Black certainly needs to know what he's doing against 4 f3. The complications arising from 4...lDbd7 5 lDxd5!? (Bairamov-Smagin) appear to bum out to approximate equality but only after considerable excitement. The best answer may well be 4...c5, though the accuracy with which this must be played is shown by the fact that Black lasted only 15 moves in Jagielsky-Pytlakowski! And even after the sound 4....tg6 International Master Strikovic also managed just 15 moves against Khachian. Generally speaking I don't like 4 f3 lines, but here it is genuinely interesting and there are many pitfalls for Black. Another reasonable treatment for White is 4 i.xf6. I don't usually like this move either but in this position it's not too bad; Black's light-squared bishop is not on the best square and may later lose time retreating. After 4...gxf6 5 e3 e6 6 .td3 .tg6 White tried to take advantage of the bishop's location with

7 f4 in Maryasin-Tyomkin, and Black seemed to be okay in this game, although it wasn't as good as Tyomkin thought. In KupreichikWesterinen White adopted a different approach, with 6 lDge2 followed by lDg3 and h2-h4, but I thought that his e3-e4 was a bit rash. If Black plays 4... exf6 he has to follow up very carefully; he can improve on GufeldUjtumen by dropping the bishop back to e6 on move five, as by move six it is already a bit too late. 4lDf3 isn't very good because of 4...lDe4 (Bochkarev-Vinokurov) but 4 e3 seems interesting. I would not be too enthusiastic about following the game Ciocaltea-Tabor as the game was distincdy dubious for White. The simple 5 ~d3 is quite promising.

Game 44 Bairamov-Smagin USSR 1982 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 .i.g5 .i.f5 4 f3

As usual in the Veresov, this is White's sharpest response. 4 ... lLlbd7

TIlls seems like a very solid move, developing a piece and supporting the knight on f6. But White has a tactical trick which throws the game into wild complications.

89

The Veresov

The alternatives are as follows: a) 4... e6? is very bad in view of S e4!. b) 4...h6 S ~xf6 (after S ~h4 Black might play S...e6, when 6 e4 iLh7 7 ~xf6 'ifxf6 8 exdS iLb4 is an interesting pawn sac) S...gxf6 (5...exf6 is more solid) 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 ~h7 8 tUf3 ~g7 9 iLd3 0-0 10 0-0 ttJd7 11 'ii'd2 left Black's bishops looking rather miserable in Schumacher-Tack, Antwerp 2000. c) 4...c6 S 'ifd2 ttJbd7 transposes to Stryjecki-Vokac from Chapter 5. White has alternatives here. S g4!? ~g6 6 h4 h6 7 ~f4 e6 8 e3 iLd6 9 ttJh3 gave White a space advantage on the kingside in Long-Sholl, Moline 1992, while Ciocaltea gave 5 e4 dxe4 6 i.xf6 exf6 7 fxe4 iLg6 8 ttJf3 ttJd7 with an 'unclear' assessment. For 4... c5 see Jagielsky-Pytlakowski, and for 4... ~g6 see Khachian-Strikovic. 5lDxd5

After Summerscale's suggestion of 5 g4 ~g6 6 h4 I think that Black can play 6... h5 7 ~xf6 exf6! (7...ttJxf6 looks quite good for

White after 8 gS ttJg8 9 ttJh3, intending 10 ttJf4) 8 ttJxd5 hxg4 with a strong position because 9 fxg4? loses a piece after 9... iLe4!. 5 •..lDxd5 6 e4 h6 6... f6 is a little played continuation which has the benefit of allowing the bishop a retreat square on fT. 7 ~h4 ~e6 8 exd5 iLxd5 9 c4 i.fT 10 f4 (trying to dissuade Black from carrying out thematic pawn break but...) 10... e5 (Black plays it anyway!) 11 fxe5 iLb4+

90

12 'it>f2 g5 (and continues to play very energetically) 13 e6 (13 ~g3 fxeS makes White's king feel very uncomfortable) 13...i.xe6 14 a3 iLe7 15 i.g3 0-0 16 ~d3 f5

Matters are delicately balanced. White has better control of the centre but Black has the superior development and good kingside attacking prospects. Tallova-Babula, Czech Extra League 2000 continued 17 'ife2 iLfT 18 'it>f1 (18 ~xc7!? 'iKxc7 19 'ifxe7 - pawn grabbing is not always advisable, but this may have been preferable to the game) 18...iLg6 19 tUf3 (19 ~xc7!?) 19 ... iLf6 20 'ife6+ 11n 21 h4 (a double-edged decision; it is extremely dangerous for White to open the kingside with his own king still stuck there) 21...tUf8 (21...ttJc5!?) 22 'ife2 f4 23 hxg5 fxg3 24 ~xg6 tUxg6 25 %ld1?? (what a shame - a stupid blunder in an otherwise well contested game, where the sensible 25 gxf6 'ifxf6 would have left all to play for) 25 ...iLxg5 0-1 (based on notes by Aaron Summerscale). Black should avoid 6...iLxe4 7 fxe4 ttJ5b6 as after 8 ttJf3 White has the bishop pair and control of the centre. D.MacDonald-Rix, Hastings 1991/92 continued 8...g6 9 a4 a6 10 as tUc8 11 ~c4 iLg7 12 e5 c5 13 c3 'iVc7 14 'ifb3 and Black was in serious trouble. 7 ~h4

After 7 iLc1 Black can develop at top speed with 7...e5! 8 tUe2 (both 8 exd5 and 8 exf5 can be answered by 8...'ilib4+, when Black recovers his pawn with an excellent

3 ... ~f5

game) 8...ioxe4 9 fxe4 ii'h4+ 10 ~g3 ~sf6 11 'ilfd3 0-0-0 and White was under serious pressure in Herz-Bree, Wuerttemberg 2000. 7 ... tLle3

7... ~7b6 is also interesting for after 8 exf5 ~e3 9 "d3 Black has 9.....xd4. 8 'ii'd3 White has also tried 8 'iVe2 at this point, but the current theoretical verdict is that this is favourable for Black after 8...tDxfl 9 exfs ~b6 10 0-0-0 'ilfds! (l0.....d6 11 g4! was played in Khachian-Elkin, USSR 1986, and now Khachian gave 11...~c4! 12 'ii'xc4'iif4+ 13 'it>bl ~d2+ 14 :!.xd2 'ii'xd2 15 ~e2 with compensation for the exchange) 11 ~bl (or 11 b3 "xf5 12 i.f2 ~xh2 etc.) l1...tDc4! 12 l:lxfl (12 "xfl? "bs) 12.....xd4! 13 c3 'ii'xh4 14 g3 "gs 15 'iixc4 "xf5+ and Black was a good pawn up in Khachian-Obukhov, USSR 1986. 8 ...tLlxf1 9 exfS tLlcS!

1O... ~a4 11 'iVd3 ~xb2 12 'iVb5+ 'iid7 13 'ilfxb7 :!.d8 14 ~xfl tDc4 gives Black excellent counterplay, but 11 'iWb3 is better, e.g. 11...~b6 12 ~e2 (Black meets 12 0-0-0 with 12...'iids, and 12 i.f2 with 12...'iid7) 12.....ds 13 :!'xfl 'iVxf5 140-0-0 with White having a shade the better of it thanks to his extra space, or 11...'ii'xd4 12 'ii'b5+ 'iVd7 13 'ii'xd7+ ~xd7 14 0-0-0+ ~c6 15 :!.xfl, which is slightly better for White because the cramping pawn on f5 will leave Black with some weak pawns whether he liberates his kingside with ...e7-e6 or ...g7-g6. 10 ... c6 11 'ii'xc5 tLle3 12 'iPe2 Not 12 iog3 "xd4!, or 12 ~f2 ~xf5 13 'iVxf5 "xd4+ 14 ~g3 gs. 12...tLlxg2 13 ~g3 e6 14 'ire5 .i.e7! 15 fxe6

After 15 'ii'xg7 Black gets the better endgame with 15...i.f6 16 'i'g4 'l'xd4 17 'i'xd4 ioxd4, and 15 ~fl can be met with 15... ~h4 16 fxe60-0. 15 ... 0-0 16 c3 i.f6 17 'ii'h5

A better defence might have been 171i'c7, e.g. 17...'iVxc7 18 ioxc7 fxe6, which is equal, or 17......ds 18 ~f2 ~h4 19 'ii'xb7, which is far from clear. 17 ... fxe6 18 ~f2 tLlh4 19 'ii'g4 tLlfS 20 tLle2 'ii'b6 21 b4 :ae8 22 :hd1 .i.gS 23 'ii'e4 e5! 24 i.xe5 .i.f6!

The start of some pyrotechnics with the knights which should lead to an equal game with best play. After 9... ~xh2 10 l:.xh2 the cramping effect of the pawn on f5 will make life difficult for Black. 10 'ii'bS+?!

In this complex and difficult posltton White goes astray. Capturing the knight gives Black the better endgame after 10 dxcs 'iVxd3 11 cxd3 ~e3 12 'it>e2 ~xf5 in the form of the weak squares in front of White's d-pawn. He had to play 10 "c3!, when

The most important defender is the bishop on es, so Black sets about removing it from office. Doing this 'combinatively' with

91

The Veresov

24... ltJd6 25 'iVg6 1:.xeS is not clear after 26 it'xd6 because Black has had to part with his superb knight. 25 'it>e1 ltJd6 26 'iVg4 ltJc4 27 f4 ~xe5 28 dxe5

After 28 fxeS 1:.£1 +! the queen goes.

ltJe3 .ig6 19 ltJc4 would have maintained the pressure. 6 'tIi'xd4 ltJc6 7 .ibS seems natural but favoured Black after 7... dxe4 8 ii.xc6+ bxc6 9 'iVcs 'iVc8 10 ii.xf6 exf6 in Klemp-Lindemann, Spree 1997. 6~b5+

28 ....l:I.xe5! 29 l:[d7

And here 29 fxeS?? allows mate in one. 29 ... l:!.xe2+ 30 ~xe2 "ii'e3+ 31 ..ti>d1 "ii'xc3 32 l:I.c1 ltJb2+ 33 ~e2 J:!.e8+ 34 ..ti>f2ltJd3+ 35 J:l.xd3 "ii'xd3 36 :g1 "ii'd2+ 37 ~g3 J:l.e3+ 0-1

Game 45 Jagielsky-Pytlakowski Poland 2000 1 d4ltJf6 2ltJc3 d5 3 ~g5 ~f5 4 f3 c5

White can also playa kind of reversed Albin Counter Gambit with 6 dS, for example 6... 'iVaS 7 .ixf6 exf6 8 fxe4 ii.d7 9 ltJf3 i..d6 10 .ie2 0-0 11 0-0 bS 12 a4 b4 13 ltJbS ii.f4 14 ltJd2 and White had an edge in D.Farrand-Harari, Eastman Plate Final 1999. 7 'iVd2 makes sense as White's threat to recapture the e4-pawn with 8 fxe4 t"Dxe4? 9 ltJxe4 almost forces Black to accept the gambit pawn with 7... exf3, when 8 ltJxf3 leaves White with compensation. 6 ... ~d7 7 i.xd7 +

As in many lines this is the most incisive response to 4 f3. Black immediately counterattacks by challenging the d4-pawn and makes room for his queen to come out to b6 or as. White now responds with an equally sharp reply. 5 e4 dxe4 The alternative is S... cxd4, when 6 ii.xf6 dxc3 7 ii.xc3 dxe4 8 'iVxd8+ 'i.ti>xd8 9 0-0-0+ gives White more than enough initiative for the pawn in the endgame, for example Krogius-Aronin, USSR Ch Semi Final 1952 went 9.. /:;c7 10 ii.c4 e6 11 fxe4 iLxe4 12 ltJe2 ltJc6 13 1:.h£1 .ig6 14 ltJf4 .irs 15 h3 hS, and now 16 ii.e2 h4 17 ltJd5+ 'it>c8 18 92

White has an interesting alternative in 7 dxcS, for example 7... 'iVaS 8 ii.xf6 ii.xbS 9 b4 'iVxb4? (9 ...'iia3 is forced) 10 1:.bl won a piece and the game in Peperle-Ertelt, correspondence 1974. 7 ...ltJbxd7 8 d5 exf3 9 "ii'xf3 g6 10 0-0-0 "ii'b6 11 ltJh3 ltJe5?!

A flimsy looking manoeuvre which leads to Black's pieces becoming uncoordinated. After 11...ii.g7 12 l:!.hel Wbite has sufficient pressure to force Black to return the e-pawn if he wants to castle. Black's best might be l1...h6, after which 12 ii.xf6 t"Dxf6 13 d6 0-0-0 leaves me wondering if White has sufficient compensation for the pawn.

3 ... ~f5

12 'ii'e2 ttJfd7 13 d6! exd6 14 liJd5 'ii'a5??

Black has to play 14...'fic6 when the position still looks unclear. 15 'ii'b5! 1-0

15 1i'el would have been equally effective. In either case Black must lose his queen as capturing White's allows mate with 16liJc7.

with 6 e5 liJfd7 7 liJge2 f6 8 i.e3!?, for example 8... fxe5 9 dxe5 liJxe5 10 liJd4 with compensation) 6 'fid2 e6 7 fxe4 i.b4 8 'fie3 liJg4 9 'ii'd2 liJf6 10 'iWe3 liJg4 11 'iIV f4?! (White should have allowed the repetition with 11 "ii'd2) 11...'iWxd4 12 liJge2 i.xc3+ 13 liJxc3 h6 14 "ii'xg4 hxg5 15 'Wxg5 and White stood worse in Spas sky-Filip, Amsterdam (Candidates) 1956, although he did eventually manage to draw. The immediate 5 liJh3 is also worth considering, for example 5... e6 6 liJf4 R.d6 (6 ...R.e7 7 'iWd2 liJbd7 8 0-0-0 would lead back to the game) 7 'iVd2 c6 8 h4 (a preliminary 8 0-0-0 is more circumspect) 8... h6 9 liJxg6 i.g3+ 10 'iitd1 fxg6 11 R.f4 liJh5 12 .txg3 ttJxg3 13 l::1h3 ttJxf1 14 'i'd3 0-0 15 'iite1 ttJg3 16 ~xg3 'ii'xh4 17 'ii'xg6 ':£7 18 l:td 1 liJd7 19 e3 e5 and Black had freed himself and taken over the initiative in IipskiKholmov, Warsaw 1989.

, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 5 ... ttJbd7

Game 46 Khachian-Strikovic Candas Open 1996

Khachian has played this position several times and showed that it is deceptively dangerous for Black. Khachian-Goletiani, Ere- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.... van Open 1996 went S...e6 6 0-0-0 i.b4 7 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 ~g5 ~f5 4 f3 ~g6 liJh3 liJbd7 8 a3 i.e7 9 liJf4 cS 10 dxcS A prophylactic move, anticipating White's liJxc5 11 e4 dxe4 and now 12 1i'e3!? looks central pawn expansion with e2-e4. interesting. 12 i.b5+ 'ittfS 13 "ii'e2 'WaS 14 5 'ii'd2 liJxg6+ hxg6 15 fxe4 a6 was the game continuation, when 16 e5 axb5 left Black somewhat better. 60-0-0 e6 7 ttJh3 ~e7 8 ttJf4 liJg8!?

White can also offer a gambit with 5 e4, for example S... dxe4 (if Black declines the pawn with 5... c6 White can offer another one

93

The Veresov

Black had no doubt been relying on this to free his game, but he comes under considerable pressure anyway. The problem with the natural 8...0-0 is that White can play 9 h4, when 9... h6 10 liJxg6 causes serious damage to Black's pawn structure. 9 iLxe7 liJxe7 10 e4 c6 11 h4 h6 12 .1d3 dxe4

This turns out to be a surprisingly serious mistake. Black should keep his outpost on d5 intact and play 12...i.h7. 13 liJxg6liJxg6 14liJxe4 'iic7?

main problem with Black's setup is that it is not very active. 6.1d3

The standard continuation, but not a very threatening one. For the more dangerous 6 lLlge2 see Kupreichik-Westerinen. 6 ...iLg6

Black can also play 6...it.xd3 when the game Schweber-Szmetan, Buenos Aires 2001 continued 7 cxd3 lLlc6 8 lLlge2 5, and now 9 0-0 followed by a minority attack on the queenside (a2-a3, b2-b4, l:tct, lLlc3-a4-c5) would have been best. In the game White played 9 lLlg3?! but 9.. .f4 10 lLlh5 fxe3 11 fxe3 'i6'g5 12 'i6'f3 St.h6 handed Black the initiative. 7 f4!?

Missing White's reply? Actually this position is far from easy for Black as after 14...lLlb6 White has 15 lLlc5, and 14...0-0 walks into an attack after 15 h5 lLle7 16 g4,

threatening 17 gS. 15 'iib4 1-0

Game 47 Maryasin-Tyomkin Israeli Open Ch., TelAviv 1999 1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 .1g5 .1f5 4 .1xf6 gxf6

Recapturing towards the centre like this is Black's most ambitious line. For 4... exf6 see Gufeld-Ujtumen. 5 e3 e6

5.. :ifd7 also seems quite reasonable, intending ...lLlc6 and ...0-0-0. White's best is probably 6 lLlge2 lLlc6 7 lLlg3 i.g6 8 h4 h6 9 h5 i.h7 10 St.d3 St.xd3 11 'i6'xd3 when the

94

An interesting approach which threatens to ruin Black's pawn structure with 8 5. The standard 7 lLlge2 is innocuous after 7...c5 (or 7...lLld7 8 h4 c6 9 h5 it.xd3 10 cxd3 5 11 lLlf4 ~d6 12 g3 'ii'b6 with equality in Speelman-Ledger, England 1997) 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 dxc5 (9 f4 5 10 dxc5 it.xc5 was good for Black due to the weakness of e3 in IppolittiPanno, Buenos Aires 1998) 9...it.xc5 10 e4 d4 11 lLlb1 'i6'd7 12 lLld2 0-0-0 13 f4 f5 and Black stood well in Ostapenko-Bocharov, Novosibirsk 1998. 7 ... f5!?

A simple yet radical way to prevent f4-5. The other way to take the sting out of this plan is by exchanging bishops on d3, but

3 ... JJ..f5

after 7...~xd3 8 cxd3 cs 9 dxcs ~xcs 10 d4 ~b4 11 lLlf3 lLlc6 there was equality in ~bryasin-Cherepkov, Minsk 1981. Perhaps 8 .-xd3lLld7 9 fS is worth investigating. Allowing White to play f4-fS turns out rather badly for Black, for example 7...lLlc6?! 8 fS ~xfS (8 ... exfS 9 .-f3) 9 ~xfs exfS 10 .-f3; or 7... cs?! 8 fS! exfS 9 "f3 lLlc6 10 lLlge2 'it'd7 11 0-0 and White stood better in Chernyshov-Ovetchkin, Smolensk 2000.

8liJf3.th5

With his position starting to creak from a strategic point of view, White launches an interesting attack involving the sacrifice of his knight. Quiet moves leave Black better thanks to his superior pawn structure. 14....txc3 15 exd5 .tb4 16 dxe6

Bringing the bishop back into play. Another possibility is 8... cs, when 9 0-0 (or 9 i..b5+ lLlc6 10 lLles 'it'c7 intending 11...f6) 9...lLlc6 10 lLles cxd4 11 lLlxc6 bxc6 12 exd4 'i!Vb6 was good for Black in BuhmannKomljenovic, St.lngbert 1987. 9 .te2 liJd7 10 liJe5 .txe2 11 "ifxe2 liJxe5 12 dxe5

Perhaps 12 fxes (threatening 13 1Wbs+) would have been better, although this still looks at least equal for Black after 12...a6 (12 ...c6 and 12...i..h6 look like good alternatives) 13 0-0-0 "gs, preventing White's positional threat of 14 g4 and securing a good

game. 12... a6?!

I would prefer the solid 12... c6. Black evidently wanted to retain the option of playing ...c7-cs but he's playing with fire while his king is in the centre. 130-0-0.tb4 14 e4!?

This seems to leave White with slightly inadequate compensation. After 16 'it'c4 Black would be forced to return the piece with 16 ... 'ii'e7 (16 ...i..f8 17 dxe6 'ii'e7 18 exf7+ 'it'xf7 19 e6 is very dangerous for Black) 17 d6 ~xd6 18 exd6 cxd6 but, although this leaves him a pawn up, the situation is far from clear after 19 ];the1. 16..."ife7 17 exf7+ "ifxf7 18 e6 'ii'f6 19 :d7 .td6 20 g3 0-0 21 :e1 :lae8 22 :f7 'iVg6 23 'ii'c4 b5 24 "ifd5 :e7 25 :lxe7 .txe7 26 'ii'c6 .l:I.d8 27 'ii'xc7?!

27 1i'xa6 is preferable. Tyomkin then gave 27 ...'it'f6 28 'it'xbs 'it'd4 but White can defend with 29 'it'd3 'it'b4 30 c3 'it'as 31 "c4 with everything left to play for. 27 ...W'f6 28 c3 b4 29 'iitc2

After 29 :es Black has 29 ...bxc3 (not 29...i..d6? 30 litxfS!) 30 bxc3 'ii'f8 when White's king has serious problems, not to mention the immediate threat of 31 ...i..d6. 29 ... bxc3 30 bxc3 :d6 31 "ifc8+ g7 32 :e5 "ifh6 33 h4 'ii'h5- + 34 :le1 'ii'f3 35 "ifc4 "iff2+

There was nothing wrong with the coldblooded 3s...'it'xg3, though Black was understandably nervous about opening the g-fIle

95

The Veresov

when short of time. The text is good enough.

In Miles-Hort, Amsterdam 1982 Black played 6....id6 in order to meet 7 ~g3 .ig6 8 h4 with 8... .ixg3. Miles, in turn, used the position of Black's bishop on d6 to play 7 ~bs .ie7 8 ~g3 .ig6 9 c4, and after 9... c6 10 ~c3 hs could have secured a slight edge with 11 .id3 according to Hort. Another playable move is 6...'iWd7 though this seems slighdy better for White after 7 ~g3 .ig6 8 h4 h6 (8 ...hs? 9 .ie2) 9 hs .ih7 10 .id3 .ixd3 11 'iVxd3 .id6 12 ~ce2, intending a later c2-c4. 7ibg3

36 tie2 'iVxe2+ 37 .l:.xe2 ~6 38 h5 .l:.xe6 39 :g2 ~7 40 ..ti>d3 %1h6 41 .l:.h2 ltd6+ 42 ~e3 .l:.e6+ 43 ~d3 .l:.e1 44 .l:.b2

There are too many weak white pawns, and with the following move White brings out the rook, hoping to generate counterplay. 44 ....l:.g1 45 .l:.b6 .l:.xg3+ 46 ~c4 .l:.g4 47 .l:.xa6 .l:.xf4+ 48 d5 l:[f1 !

White can no longer stop the f-pawn. 49 c4 f4 50 e4 f3 51 .l:.a5 f2 52 d6 24 'Vi'd1! d7, and 20 l:tc8+ .l:txc8 21 bxc8'ii+ 'iixc8 22 lOxd4 0-0 gives

Game 49 Gufeld-Ujtumen Tbilisi 1971 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 i.g5 i.f5 4 i.xf6 exf6

A solid reply, keeping a nice row of pawns on the kingside and preparing to develop his king's bishop. Black's problems stem from his pawn structure; his lack of central pawns means that he has to control the centre with pieces and may find himself with a qualitatively inferior pawn majority should White 97

The Veresov

playa later e2-e4.

5 e3 c6 Black's best plan is to retreat his bishop from f5 to e6, play ... f6-f5 and then bring his knight from b8 to e4 via d7 and f6. With this in mind, 5... c6 makes perfect sense, though there are a number of alternatives: a) 5...i.e6 also looks logical. The standard 6 i.d3 doesn't get anywhere after 6... f5 7 'ii'£3 g6 8 4Jge2 c6 9 4Jf4 4Jd7 10 h4 4Jf6, which gave Black an excellent game in Tiberkov-Spassov, Sofia 1988. Consequently I suggest 6 4J£3 f5 7 4Je2!? (1 i.d3 4Jd7 8 4Je2 i.d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 4Jd2 4Jf6 11 l:tc1 c6 12 c4 dxc4 13 i.xc4 was a bit better for White in Maljutin-Tiviakov, Forti 1992, but in my view White is even better off putting his bishop on g2) with a possible sequel being 7 ...i.d6 8 g3 c6 9 i.g2 4Jd7 10 0-0 4Jf6 11 c3 0-0 12 it'c2, intending b2-b3 and c3-c4 with some pressure. This slow plan is known from the Trompovsky. b) 5...4Jc6 looks considerably less logical because it moves the knight to a square which is four moves from e4. TattakowerSpielmann, Copenhagen 1923 continued 6 i.d3 'iVd7 7 4Jge24Jb4 (1 ...i.b4 8 0-0 0-0 9 a3 i.xc3 10 4Jxc3 4Je7 11 4Je2 c6 12 c4 favoured White in Christiansen-Biyiasas, Hastings 1979/80) 8 hfS 'ii'xfS 9 0-0 i.d6 10 a34Ja6 (10...4Jc6 11 4Jb5 "e6 12 c4 was also better for White in Tanakower-Pokorny, Maehrisch Ostrau 1923) and now instead of 98

11 4Jg3 i.xg3 12 fxg3, as in the game, 11 4Jb5 i.e7 124Jg3 'ii'd7 13 "d3 c6 144Jc3 looks better for White. c) 5...i.b4 doesn't seem quite right either after 6 i.d3 (6 4Jge2 c6 7 4Jg3 i.g6 8 i.d3 i.xd3 9 it'xd3 g6 10 e4 was also an edge for White in Tartakower-Colle, Budapest 1929) 6...i.xd3 7 "xd34Jc6 (1 ...i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 c6 9 4Je2 0-0 10 0-0 4Jd7 11 4Jg3 b5 12 £3 4Jb6 13 e4 gave White the more promising game in Tal-Vladimirov, USSR Ch., Baku 1961) 8 4Jge2 'ii'd7 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 10 g3 i.xc3 11 "xc3 4Je7 124Jf4 and White stood slightly better in Veresov-Bronstein, Moscow 1959. Stein-Lazarev, Kiev 1960 went 6...i.g6 7 4Jge2 c6 8 a3 i.a5 9 h4 4Jd7 10 h5 i.xd3 11 'ii'xd3 'ii'e7 12 0-0-0 i.xc3 13 4Jxc3 0-0 14 4Je2, planning 4Jg3, with an edge for White, while 6.....d7 7 'ii'£3 i.xd3 8 cxd3 c6 94Jge2 0-0 10 0-0 lle8 11 e4 dxe4 12 dxe4 i.xc3 13 bxc3 was seen in Veresov-Lapienis, Novgorod 1961. Black's most logical move is 6... i.e6, when White should probably try 7 4Jge2 0-0 8 a3, for example 8...i.d6 9 4Jb5 i.e7 10 4Jf4 c6 11 4Jc3 i.d6 12 'ii'h5 g6 13 'ii'£3 f5 14 h4 with the more promising position. 6 i..d3

White has also tried 6 4Jge2, after which 6...g6 7 4Jf4 i.d6 8 i.d3 i.xd3 9 4Jxd3 fS 10 "£3 4Jd7 was equal in SpeelmanPopovic, Groningen 1976. 6 ... i..xd3

3 ... i.f5

I chose this game as the main line because it is a good illustration of White's strategy rather than a model of defence by Black. The exchange on d3 is very helpful for White as it becomes difficult for Black to control the e4square. The most 'logical' move is 6 ... ~e6 but then 7 'ilkf3 lDge2 fS S 'it'd2lDd7 was fine for Black in Tartakower-Griinfeld, Vienna 1921) 7...i.h4 S lDge2 0-0 9 a3 seems to prevent Black from setting up his ... f6-fS blockade. Gufeld and Stetsko give 6...i.g6 but don't mention White's most promising looking move which is 7 'it'f3!?, intending lDle2 and perhaps a later g2-g4. They also give 6.. :iVd7, when an interesting plan for White is 7 i.xfS 'ilkxfS S 'it'd3 'it'g4 (S .. :iVxd3 9 cxd3 leaves White with the better endgame) 9 ~f1 followed by lDge2. White would then have a variety of interesting middlegame plans, including h2-h3 and g2-g4 or just e3-e4. Black doesn't have any compensation for his weakened pawn structure.

r

Soderborg, Vama 1962. Another possibility is 7...i.d6 S e4 0-0 9 exd5 cxd5 10 lDge2 'it'a5 11 0-0 lDc6 12 a3, leaving Black with some concerns regarding his isolated d-pawn in Wade-Garcia, Cienfuegos 1975. 8lbge20-0

Bronstein-Vasiukov, Moscow 1959 went S...lDd7 9 e4 (after 9 0-0-0 Black can contemplate 9...lDb6 10 g4 'it'e7 followed by 11...0-0-0 as his king is relatively safe on the queenside) 9...lDb6 10 exd5 lDxd5 11 0-0 lDxc3 12 lDxc3 0-0, and now 13 a3 (rather than 13lDdl as played in the game) 13... ~d6 14 lDe4 would have given White a slight but persistent advantage. 9 0-0-0

7'ifxd3

7 ... i.b4 Black's position is sound enough but he is on the negative side of the board, defending against White's aggression rather than instituting his own ideas. The alternatives also see White pressing, for example 7...lDa6 SlDge2 ~d6 9 e4 0-0 10 0-0 dxe4 11 lDxe4 l:1eS 12 'it'f3 'it'd7 13 l:1ad1 and White an edge because of his healthier pawn majority in Tal-

The dynamic treatment, and quite promising now that Black has committed his king to the kingside. An alternative plan is to play for e3-e4, for example Tartakower-Norman, Hastings 1926/27 went 9 0-0 l:1eS 10 e4 i.xc3 11 lDxc3 dxe4 12lDxe4lDd7 13 l:1fe1 with a typical edge thanks to White's queenside pawn majority - not that it is easy to win this kind of position ... 9 ... lLld7 10 g4! :l.e8 11 h4 b5 12 ~b1 lLlb6 13 itJg3 :l.b8

An optimistic move. Perhaps Black should play 13... ~xc3 while he still has the chance, reducing the attacking chances of both sides. After 14 'it'xc3 lDc4 15 h5 followed by 16 lDfS White has the more comfortable game. 14 lbce2 itJc4 15 itJf5 :l.b6?

99

The Veresov

The attack against a2 will not get anywhere as White can simply defend with lOe2c1. lS...aS is a better try, followed by ...as-a4. 16 g5 :a6 17 ltJc1 'ifa5?

by coming to c5) 25 bxa3 'ii'xa3 26 'iVh6+ 'it>e8 27 :tg8+ 'it'd7 28 ~c5+ 'it'c7 29 lOxe6+ fxe6 (or 29 ...'it>b6 30 .nb8+ ~a5 31 .nd3 etc.) 30 'iixh7+ ~b6 31 ltb8+ ~aS 32 ltd3 1i'b4+ 33 .l::[b3 'ii'eH 34 ~b2 lOc4+ 3S 'it>a2 'ili'xf2 36 f1 followed by the crowning of another queen.

'This attempt to attack falls woefully short. Black should defend the kingside with either 17 ...g6 or 17 .....i.f8. 18 gxf6 gS

After 18.....i.d2 White sets in motion a mating attack with 19 lOh6+ gxh6 20 :hgH etc. 19 h5! gxf5

Had Black played 19...lOxb2 he would have allowed White to crown the game with a queen sacrifice: 20 hxg6 lOxd3 (20... hxg6 21 lOh6+ ~f8 22lOg4, or 20 ... fxg6 21 %lxh7 tiJxd3 22 I:.g7+ ~f8 23 liJh6 followed by mate) 21lOh6+~f8 22 g7 mate. 20 'ifxf5 l:eS 21 'iff4!

White must preserve the f4-pawn, for after 21 l:thgH ~f8 22 'ili'xh7? Black can escape with 22....l:txf6. 21 ...f8

After 21...'ifd8 White's most effective line is 22 lOd3, when 22 ... i.d6 23 'iVgS+ ~f8 24 'ili'g7+ ~e8 2S 'ili'g8+ ..i.f8 26 ~c5 gets very ugly for Black. 22 l:hg1 .idS

On 22 ...lOd6 White decides the game most easily with 23 a3 (23 c3 should also be good), for example 23 ... i.xa3 24 ~b3 'iia4 (24...'iVb6 25 bxa3 is hopeless for Black because White's knight will reinforce the attack 100

23 'ifhS+ ~e8 24 l:g8+ d7 25 'if97 .ie7

2S ...'iVb4 26lOb3 'iVa4 27 a3 is decisive. 26 fxe7 l:xe7 27 'ifxh7 ltJd6 28 h6 b4 29 'ifd3 f5 30 l:97 c5 31 dxc5 1-0

Came 50

Bochkarev-Vinokurov Voronezh Open 2001 1 d4ltJt6 2lbc3 d5 3 .ig5 .it5 4ltJt3

Black's reply is the most direct argument against this move, the other disadvantage is that it obstructs the f-pawn. If White wants to play quietly then the immediate 4 e3, as in Ciocaltea-Tabor, is the best course. 4 ...ltJe4

Clearly Black has a number of choices here, of which 4... e6 is probably the most solid. Rodchenkov-Gorbunova, Togliatty 2001 continued S e3 ..i.b4 (S ...i.e7 is very sound) 6 .i.d3 i.g4!? (ambitiously playing for ... e7-eS; 6...i.xd3 7 cxd3 strengthens White's centre, but 6... i.g6 looks very solid) 7 0-0 lOc6!? 8 h3 i.hS 9 a3 ..i.d6 (9 ... i.xc3 10 bxc3 eS favours White after 11 dxeS lOxeS 12 g4)

3 ... ~f5

10 liJbS h6 11 liJxd6+ 'it'xd6 12 .tf4 'ike7 13 c4 with White holding the advantage due to his bishop pair and potential pressure on the c-file.

advance when the game is totally lost.

14... dxe4 1S ~a6 exf4 16 0-0 :g8 17 Iith1 .\th6 18 :e1 f3 19 'i'a1 fxg2+ 20 Iitg1 .ixd2 21 .\te2 lLlxe2+ 0-1 5~h4

Perhaps S liJxe4 dxe4 6 liJgl is better, although this hardly inspires much confidence in White's position.

One could hardly say that White's resignation was premature!

Game 51 Ciocaltea-Tabor Baja 1971

S... eS 6 dxcS

Not very desirable but the threat of 6...'ii'aS left White little choice in the matter. 6 ...lLlxe3 7 bxe3 .as 8 :b1 lLle6 9.11xb7

1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLle3 dS 3 .igS .ifS 4 e3

A rather desperate looking attempt to hit back which results in disaster. White should either set about developing his kingside with 9 e3 or play 9 'ikxdS 'ii'xc3+ 10 'i'd2. 9 .. :ii'xe3+ 10 tiJd2?

Probably missing Black's reply. White had to play 10 'ikd2, when 10...'it'aH 11 'it'dl 'ii'xa2 leaves him much worse but still fighting. 10 ...lLld4! 11 'ire1

After 11 e3 there follows l1...liJxc2+ 12 xb2 Black is still struggling to demonstrate equality. 17 lLle2 dxe3 18 95! 'ifb5 19 gxh6 "xe2 20 h7?! With the benefit of hindsight it appears that the alternative 20 fXe3 might have been better. 20 ... exf2??

In this complex and tricky position Black loses the plot, sacrificing a rook for totally

inadequate compensation. Ciocaltea gave 20...'ii'h5 as Black's best and claimed a clear advantage for White after 21 'ii'c3+ 'it>b8 22 l:!d7. But Black can defend with 22 ...:c8 23 'ii'b3 'iVf3, covering b7. Two other moves seem playable: 20...:de8 and 20...l:tdfS. 21 l:xd8+ l:xd8 22 'ifxd8+ ~xd8 23 h8'if+ r3;e7 Both 23 ...'it>c7 24 'ii'c3+ and 23 ...'iti>d7 24 'iVd4+ lose on the spot. 24 'iVh4+ f6 25 'ii'b4+ 'it>e8 26 "a4+ 'it>f8 27 ii'a3+ ~g7 28 'ifd3 'iVe1 + 29 "d1 'ifxa5 30 ~b1 "e5 31 ii'd2! 'iVxh2 32 'ifd7 + 1-0

Black is losing his entire queenside after 32...'it>fS 33 'ii'c8+ 'iti>g7 34 'iVxb7+ 'it>g8 35 'iVa8+ 'iti>g7 36 'ii'xa7+, when White can win easily by capturing on h2.

103

The Veresov Summary

The natural 3...1'-£5 leaves White with several attractive options and requires accuracy from Black if he wants a playable game. Once again I like the simple 4 e3 followed by 5 ~d3, but 1'd also be tempted to play 4 f3 or 4 ~xf6. , d4 l'Llf6 2l'Llc3 d5 3 .ig5 .if5 (D) 4 f3

4 i.xf6 exf6 - Game 49 4...gxf6 5 e3 e6 (D) 6 i.d3 - Game 47; 6liJge2 - Game 48 4liJf3 - Game 50; 4 e3 - Game 51 4 ... l'Llbd7

4...c5 - Game 45; 4... ~g6 - Game 46 5 l'Llxd5 l'Llxd5 6 84 (D) - Game 44

3 ... .if5

104

5 ... e6

6e4

CHAPTER SEVEN

I

3 ... h6, 3 .. .ltJc6, 3 ... g6 and Others

1 d4 tLlf6 2 tLlc3 d5 3 ~g5

In this chapter we'll consider four of Black's less usual options, namely 3...g6, 3... h6, 3...lLle4 and 3...lLlc6. The first two seem perfecdy sound but I have my doubts about options three and four. I've played 3...g6 myself in one game as I guessed that my opponent would play for a Stonewall set-up with 4 e3 and 5 f4, and I wanted my queen's knight on the more active c6-square rather than d7 (compare Chapter 3). One of the reasons it has not been popular is the old myth that White should be prevented from doubling Black's pawns with 4 ~xf6 (Miles-Spassov). Yet Black has a good plan starting with 6... f5 and followed by bringing the queen's knight to f6 via d7. The pawn on g6 supports this advance and produces a position which looks quite good for Black. If there is an objection to 3...g6 then it lies in 4 'ii'd2 (Reprintsev-Kachar). Here White prepares to exchange Black's dark-squared bishop with ~h6, casding long. He can also think about building a broad pawn centre with f2-f3 and e2-e4 and levering open the hftle with h2-h4-h5. Comparing with the 4 'ii'd2 lines from Chapter 2 it is clear that playing this move after ...g7-g6 is a clear improvement.

3... h6 has been similarly dismissed because of 4 ~xf6, yet once again the assessment of this plan as being good for White is premature to say the least. In Bellin-Penrose Black could have played 6... £5 with quite a good game, which casts doubt over the whole plan with ~d3, lLlge2 etc. I think that White is much better off adopting a kingside fianchetto, repositioning the knight on c3 (probably to e2) and playing b2-b3 followed by c2-c4. This is quite a heavy positional treatment but I think it is White's best way to play. White's main alternative to 5 e3 is (4 ~xf6 exf6) 5 e4, the aim being to get a pawn majority on the queenside which is healthier than Black's on the kingside. The problem is that the two bishops become considerably more active after 5 e4 than had the position remained closed. Spassky-Korchnoi was fine for Black, but perhaps White can improve with 7 'ii'd2. I can't say that I like 4 ~h4 after 3...h6 as Black gets an improved version of just about every Veresov line if these two moves are inserted. Bellon-Spassky was just one example of what Black can do, and he also has moves such as 4...lLlbd7 and 4... e6. 3...lLle4 was well met by 4lLlxe4 dxe4 5 e3 in Maryasin-Manor, and 3...lLlc6 4 f3 also looked promising for White in Sammalvuo105

The Veresov

Ronman. These offbeat attempts to take White 'out of the book' appear to be a little misplaced against Veresov practitioners as the opening tends to appeal to individuals who like to improvise.

Game 52 Miles-Spassov Surakarta-Denpasar 1982

There's a strong argument for establishing a qualitatively superior pawn majority with 5 e4 dxe4 6 li:Jxe4, even though this hasn't done terribly well in practice. After 6...i..g7 7 li:Je 0-0 8 i.e2 f5 9 li:Jc5 b6 10 li:Jb3 .tb7 11 0-0 li:Jd7 12 c3li:Jf6 13l:!.e1 a6 14 a4 lte8 15 as li:Jd5 16 i.f1 White had a slight edge in Alburt-Marjanovic, Bucharest 1978. 5 ... i.g7 6 i.d3 O-O?

1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 d5 3 i.g5 g6 4 i.xf6

I can't say that I particularly like this capture here. After ... exf6 Black can easily adopt the plan with .. .f6-f5, ... c7-c6 and a transfer of his knight to f6 via d7. In fact 3...g6 is quite useful for this. 4 ... exf6 5 e3 Because it tends to steer the game away from the main lines the Veresov attracts more than its fair share of oddball practitioners. In Chemyshov-Beliavsky, Ohrid 2001 the interesting course was 5 'iVd3!? f5 6 'iig3 i..g7 (6 ...i.d6?! 7 'iVe3+ i.e7 8 'iVe5 wins a pawn for what is probably inadequate compensation) 7 li:Jb5!? li:Ja6 8 'iVa3 c5?! (Black could equalise with 8...'iVe7 but he wants more) 9 dxc5 0-0 10 e3 'ike7 11 li:Jd6 li:Jxc5 12 "xc5 l:!d8 13 0-0-0 and White had the better game thanks to the isolated d-pawn. After 5...i..g7 White can play 6 e4 dxe4 7 'i'xe4+ 'i'e7 8 'i'xe7+ b1 li:Jb6 14 li:Jc5, keeping the queenside closed while continuing to prepare the assault on the opposite side of the board. Consequently Black first advances his a-pawn in order to rule out the possibility of White putting his knight on a4. 10 tbge2 a4 11 a3! White can construct a queenside blockade and his next two moves make it diffIcult for Black to make progress there. After 11 h4 b5 12 h5 b413li:Jb1 b3 Black forces open some lines and gets counterplay. 11 ... b5 12 tba2 tba6 13 c3 tbc7 14 h4 tbe6 15 e4! Switching play to the centre. Black's queenside pawn advances have noticeably weakened his structure (especially c6) and

3 ... h6, 3 .. .luc6, 3 ... g6 and Others this central action by White brings these weaknesses to light.

axb4 a3 25 .ixe4 fxe4 26 'iiie2 .1i.a6 etc. 24 .be4 fxe4 25 'ifg3 .1f5 26 ~a1 litc8 27 ttJg2 .1e6 28 ttJe3

Now there's no more doubt as White's king is securely protected and his knight is well placed to come to g4 and f6. 28 ... 'iVd7

After 28 ... b4 29 cxb4 'i'b6 White wins with 30 tbg4! ~xd4 (30 ... ~xg4 31 ~xg4) 31 l:txd4! 'ii'xd4 32 tbf6+ followed by mate. 29 l:th4! 'ife7 30 l:!.dh1 'fic7 31 'ifxc7 IJ.xc7 32 ttJg4 ~f8 33 ttJf6 ~e7 34 .l:!.f4 .l:!.c8 35 .l:!.h7 .1xf6 36 I:.xf6 l:!.b8 37 ~b1 l:tc8 38 ~c1 l:tb8 39 ~d2 nc8 40 Jaxg6 .1f5 41 ':xf7+ 1-0 15 ... ttJc7 16 ttJb4 .....d6 17 exd5 ttJxd5 18 ttJxd5 cxd5 19 h5 .....c6 20 ~b1 l:ie4

Offering the exchange like this looks like the only chance. If Black waits any longer he will be crushed on the kingside. 20 ... ~f8 is answered by 21 hxg6 fxg6 22 g5 fxg5 23 .!:lxh7! ~xh7 24 'ikf7+ followed by mate, whilst 20 ... .i.e6 21 tbf4 leaves Black wondering what to do next.

Game 53 Reprintsev-Kachar Geller Memoria~ Moscow 1999 1 d4 ttJf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 .195 96 4 'i!Vd2

21 hxg6

White could also capture the rook immediately with 21 ~xe4, for example 21...dxe4 22 d5!? 'iic4 (22...exf3 23 dxc6 fxe2 24 :d8+ ~f8 25 c7 and Black is completely tied up) 23 'ii'e3 .i.xg4 24 %ld2 with Black having inadequate compensation. 21 ... hxg6 22ttJf4 f5 23 g5 .1d7?

Black had to play 23... b4, for example 24

I take the view that this is White's most logical move. I don't like the plan with 4 e3 i.g7 5 f4?! in this position as Black's queen's knight can come to c6 rather than d7. Walton-Davies, Lancaster Rapidplay 2002 went 5... 0-0 6 tbf3 c5 7 .id3 tbc6 8 O-O? tbg4! 9 "it'e1 tl'lxe3! etc. 4 tbf3 is also rather questionable in view of 4...tbe4!. 4 ....tg7 After 4... h6 the arguments are stronger than ever that White should capture on f6, for example 5 i..xf6 exf6 6 O-O-O!? (6 e4 dxe4 107

The Veresov

7 ttJxe4 JLg7 8 0-0-0 0-0 9 .i.c4 is the 'normal' way to play) 6.. .£5 (6 ...JLg7 7 'iVe3+ JLe6 8 ttJh3 intending 9 liJf4 looks better for White) 7 'iVe3+ JLe6 8 'iVeS l::tg8 9liJh3 ttJd7 10 'ii'e3 (followed by 11 ttJf4) with chances for an edge. A more aggressive idea for White is 5 JLf4 .i.g7 6 liJf3 c6 7 e3 ttJbd7 8 JLe2 0-0 9 liJeS followed by attacking on the kingside with the g- and h-pawns, although Black could also react more actively with S...cS!?, for instance. As usual there are very few practical examples. 5 i..h6

options: 6... ~xg7 7 e3 (70-0-0 c6 8 f3 leads to the Begun-Smimov example, quoted below) 7... ttJbd7 8 f4 b6 9 ttJf3 JLb7 10 .i.e2 produced an unusual kind of Stonewall set up in Spal-Prandstetter, Ceske Budejovice 1992, as White was the one with the better bishop. Mestrovic-Grosar, Portoroz 1996 featured the wild 6 h4!?, when 6...liJc6 7 hS (7 JLxg7 ~xg7 8 hS looks quite good) 7...JLxh6 8 ii'xh6liJxd4 90-0-0 ttJg410 'ii'd2 ttJxf2 11 'ii'xd4 ttJxh t 12 'Wh4 eS! was double-edged. 6 ... c6 7 f3 b5 8 h4!

Not just an attacking move - Black's king's bishop is the 'good' one, without which he has a certain vulnerability on the

This natural attacking move seems very unpleasant for Black, although it's not the only way to treat the position. 8 JLxg7 ~xg7 9 e4 b4 10 eS bxc3 11 exf6+ exf6 12 'ii'xc3 was slightly better for White in BegunSmirnov, Belorus Ch., Minsk 1966. 8 ... ttJh5! Ducking rather than punching seems appropriate in this position. The attempt to create something on the queenside appears to fall short, for after 8... b4 9 ttJb1 'iVaS 10 h5 JLxh6 11 'ii'xh6 'iVxa2 White's attack proves to be the stronger: 12 e4 b3 13 c3 dxe4 (13 ... cS 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 eS .i.fS 16 JLd3) 14 hxg6 fxg6 15 JLc4+ e6 16 fxe4, threatening 17 eS. 9 g4 ttJg3 10 llh3 ttJxf1 11 ':xf1 f5? Not what you would call 'cold-blooded defence'. Black should aim to keep the kingside closed with 11...f6!, when 12 JLxg7

dark squares ... 5 ... 0-0 With the disappearance of his fianchettoed bishop Black is well advised to put his king on the queenside. For example he might play S...JLxh6 6 .xh6 cS (6 ...'iVd6 7 ttJf3 liJc6 8 e3 JLfS 9 0-0-0 0-0-0 was fine for Black in Muratov-Reprintsev, Moscow 1991) 7 e3 cxd4 (7 ... ttJc6 8 0-0-0 "as 9 dxcS "xeS 10 ttJge2 JLe6 11 ttJd4 0-0-0 was defensible for Black in Prins-Petrosian, Leipzig Olympiad 1960) 8 exd4 liJc6 9 JLbS .i.d7 10 ttJf3 'ii'b6 11 0-0 0-0-0 12 "ii'e3 e6 13 a4! and White had promising attacking chances on the queenside in Sulava-Duda, Metz 2000. 6 0-0-0 The immediate 6 .i.xg7 gives White extra 108

3 ... h6, 3 ... 0.c6, 3 ... g6 and Others

g7? loses to 16 hxg6 fxg6 17 .ltxg6! 'it>xg6 18 'iih5+ etc. 16 l:xg4 g5 17 J:tgg1 'i'a5? Superficially this looks strong, but Black is leaving his kingside up for grabs. Black

3 ... h6, 3 . .. !Dc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others should probably try 17...i.fS. 18 b3 !Df6

Black may have been intending to play 1s...lbb6 here, only now realising that 19 lbc5 'ii'xa2 20 'it>d2 is very good for White in view of the threat to win Black's queen with 21l:h1. The fantastic 19 ii.g6!? fxg6 20 hxg6 is worth considering.

Yanofsky, Havana 1966) with what looks like a slight edge due to the queenside pawn majority (Black's kingside majority cannot produce a passed pawn). These positions closely resemble those arising from the Exchange RuyLopez. 6 exd5 'tixd5

19 !Dg3 j.g4 20 'itg2 'it>h8 21 ~f5 j.xf5 22 !Dxf5 .li.f8 23 f4 !De4 24 fxg5 !Dxg5

Black's best defence is 24 ... hxg5. Now White finds a way through. 25 l:th4 Ite4 26 llf4! :ae8 27 lLlxh6! j.xh6 28 l1f6 'ili'd8

After 2S...l:!.4e6 there follows 29 .l:txh6+ l:txh6 30 'iHxg5 etc. 29 J:txh6+ ci;;g7 30 l:lxc6 f6 31 'itf1 l:txe3

In the event of 31...1l4e6 White has 32 .l:!.xe6 .l:Ixe6 331Wf5 'ij'eS 34lbc5. 32l:!.xg5+! fxg5 33 Itg6+ 1-0

It is sensible to regain the pawn immediately. In Wade-Perez, Havana 1965 Black tried to play in gambit style with 6...0-0 7 lbf3l:.eS+ S i.e2li'e7 but after 9 'iHd2lbd7 10 0-0 lbb6 11 .:rfel i.d7 12 a3 i.xc3 13 bxc3lbxd5 14 c4 White had a clear edge. 7 lLlf3

Perhaps White should play 7 'iVd2, which led to the better game after 7.. :~a5 S ii.c4 i.xc39 bxc3 0-0 10 lbe2 in Vogler-Wegener, Wiesbaden 1994. 7 ... 0-0 8 .li.e2 'iVa5 9 'iVd2 !Dd7! 10 a3 lLlb6 11 :b1!?

Black finds himself in a mating net after 33 ... ~hS 34 'iVf7.

Game 55 Spassky-Korchnoi Candidates Match, Belgrade 1977 1 d4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 d5 3 ~g5 h6 4 j.xf6 exf6 5 e4.1i.b4

After the simple 5... dxe4 6 lbxe4 i.e7 White should play 7 lbf3 0-0 S i.e2 lbd7 9 0-0 f5 10 lbed2 (10 lbg3 lbf6 11 i.d3 g6 left the knight on g3 looking strange in Kleopas111

The Veresov

After 11 0-0 i..xc3 12 "xc3 "xc3 13 bxc3 lDd5 14 c4 lDc3 Black gets slightly the better endgame, so Spassky tries to improve his chances by leaving his king in the middle.

should play 29 ...a5! either now or on the next move. 30 ttJb2 bxc4 31 ttJxc4 .u.cS 32 ~b4 nfS 33 f4 gxf4 34 .l:I.xf4

11 ....txc3 12 'ii'xc3 'ii'xc3+ 13 bxc3 ttJdS 14 ~d2 ttJf4 1S.in b6 16 g3 ttJh3

Korchnoi prefers to get bishop for knight rather than damage White's pawn structure. Stean claimed that Black was also slightly better after 16...i..b 7 17 gxf4 i..xf3 18 klg1 g5 but this seems to be patently untrue after 19 .l:tg3 g4 (or 19...i..h5 20 h4) 20 h3 etc. 17 .ixh3 .ixh3 18 ttJe1 llfd8 19 ttJd3 J:!.ac8 20 J:!.he1 ~f8 21 l:!.bS c6 22 .l:I.b4 cS?!

In view of White's reply Black should prepare this with 22....l:r.c7!. 23 J:!.a4! cxd4

Black's pawns become targets after either 23 ...llc7 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 c4, intending lla5, or alternatively 23... a5 24 dxc5 bxc5 25 'it;c1. Therefore Korchnoi is forced to seek simplification. 24 J:txd4!

The game has seen quite a turnaround, with White now standing clearly better. Black's kingside majority is useless whereas White has a passed c-pawn. 34 ...nhS 3S IU2 .l:!.dS 36 ttJaS l:[d6 37 a4?!

The wrong pawn move as it is vulnerable on this square. White should push his cpawn. 37 ....:tb6+ 38 ~cS .id7 39 .l:l.f4 %:le6 40 c3 fS! 41 ttJb3 J:!.eS+?

Missing an immediate draw with 41...l1e2!, after which 42 llh4 can be met by 42...Ite4! etc. 42 ~b4 ne2 43 ttJcS! .ie6!?

After 43 ...llb2+ 44 ~c4 I:!xh2 White can play 45 lDxd7 ~xd7 46 llxfS with some practical chances in the rook endgame. 44 l:I.h4l1b2+ 4S ~aSl:tc2 46 'iii>b4?!

White has to be careful about the safety of his rook, for example 24 cxd4 is answered by 24... a5! (threatening 25 ...i..d7), and after 25 lDb2 there follows 25 ...l:.a8 (threatening 26... b5) 26 l:tc4 i..e6 winning the pawn on d4. 24 ...nd7 2S l:txd7 .txd7 26 1:[e4 gS 27 c4 .ie6 28 ~C32 b4

After the sequence 48 'it;a6 llxc3 49lDb7 llc4! 50 llxc4 i.xc4+ 51 e4 .l:.xd5 etc. 31 ... bxc30-1 'ii'c5 with a good game) 6 fxe4 .ltxe4 7 lbf3 . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . lbd7?! (7 ... lbc6! 8 c3 'ii'd5 followed by Game 57 9 ... 0-0-0 is better) 8 e3 c6 9 i.f4 (not 9 Maryasin-Manor ..td3?? ..txf3 10 'it'xf3 'iVa5+ winning the Israeli Team Ch. 2002 bishop on g5) 9... e6 10 ~d3lbf6 11 0-0.id6 12 .i.g5 .i.xd3 13 ~xd3 ~e7 14lbe5 0-0 15 1 d4 lLlf6 2 ttJc3 d5 3 !Lg5 ttJe4 .l:.f3 'iVd5 16 .l:.a£1 with massive pressure. 25 ... a5 26 li.td3 b4 27 l:td4 a4 28 ~d3 c5 29 J:tf4 !Lb2 30 !Ld5 J:td8 31 c4

114

3 ... h6, 3 .. .tiJc6, 3 .. . g6 and Others

Another possibility is 5 'ifd2, for example 5... c5!? 6 dxc5 'iixd2+ 7 i.xd2 e5 8 b4 ttJc6 9 e3 .i.e6 10 a3 g6 11 ttJe2 and Black was struggling to find adequate compensation in Schneider-Langeweg, Porz Open 1991. 5...ttJc6 might be better, e.g. 6 d5 h6 7 i.f4 e5 with a good game for Black, or 7 i.h4 ttJe5. S ... cS

on d6 at any time. 17 d5 is also promising here. 6...g6 is not sufficiendy energetic. In Bukal-Jelen, Zagreb 1997 \X'hite gained a decisive advantage after 7 f3 (7 dxc5 also looks good) 7....tg7 8 c3 exf3 9 ttJxf3 0-0 10 .i.c4 ttJc6 11 0-0 b6 12 'iWe1 h6 13 'ii'h4! etc. 7 dS

7 c3, intending 8 f3, is playable but lacks the energy of the text.

Black has also played 5...c6 but this seems rather too quiet to offset Black's structural problems. C.Bauer-L.Adams, Mainz 1997 continued 6 'it'd2 ttJd7 7 ttJe2 h6 8 i.h4 it'b6 9 0-0-0 (9 c4 also looks quite good) 9... e6 10 a3 as, and now (instead of 11 g4) 11 ttJc3 f5 12 f3 looks very good for White.

A hammer blow, cutting right across Black's plans to peacefully casde.

6'ir'd2

12... f6

The more I look at this position the less appealing it seems for Black. In ECO D Bagirov gave 6 dxc5 'iWa5+ 7 'ii'd2 as being an edge for White, although this doesn't seem at all true after 7......xc5 8 .i.h4 ttJc6, with healthy development and the danger for White that his dark-squared bishop will be shut out of the game (by ... f7-f6 and ... e7-e5).

After 12...'iWxd6 there follows 13 .tb5+! f8 (13. .. i.d7 14 i.xd7+ xd7 15 WaS wins the queen) 14 'iWa5 etc.

6 ... tDc6

14... j.e6 15 'i!Vc3 f5

Black has also played 6...'ifd5, when Fomina-Iimberg, Tallinn 2000 continued 7 i.f4 cxd4 8 c4! 'it'd7 9 exd4 e6 10 a3 i.d6 11 'ud1 0-0 12 ttJe2 'fIc7 13 .i.xd6 Wxd6 14 ttJc3 f5 15 .te2 ttJc6 16 ttJb5 'ii'e7 17 c5 with a clear advantage to White due to the pawn structure and the fact that a knight can land

In the event of 15...it'b6 there follows 16 .tc4 i.xc4 17 'iWxc4+ e6 18 d7, threatening 19l:td6.

7 ...tDe5 8 0-0-0 g6 9 f4! exf3

More or less forced, but this leads to the acceleration of White's development. 10 tDxf3 tDxf3 11 gxf3 j.g7 12 d6!

13 .tb5+ ~f7 14 j.f4

14 d7 is even more deadly because 14... fxg5 15 'iWd5+ e6 16 dxc8'iW Wxc8 17 'ife4leaves Black facing the unpleasant threat of 18 i.d7.

16..te5

It might have been better to play 16 'iWxc5, picking up another pawn. 16....txe5 17 "'xe5 'ifb6?

115

The Veresov

by 6 f4, 7 Ji.d3 and 8 ltJf3 because Black cannot advance his c-pawn in order to counter-attack the d4-pawn. 5 ltJf3 i..e7 6 Ji.d3 h6 7 Ji.h4 b6 8 0-0 Ji.b7 9 Ji.bS 0-0 was rather innocuous in Tartakower-Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1923. 4 ....lif5 5 .lixfS gxfS?

It is much better to recapture with the epawn as after S... exf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 Black can play 7...'fIe7, hitting the e4-pawn and preparing ...0-0-0. After 8 Ji.bS, 8...Ji.xe4 9 ltJxe4 'ii'xe4+ 10 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ 11 ltJxe20-0-0 can follow with an advantage for Black. Cracking under the pressure. Black had to play 17...a6, when 18 Ji.e2 exd6 19 l::txd6 "fIe7 20 l:thd1 is very unpleasant but far from over.

S e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 .ligS 8 lLlf3

18.lid7 1-0

Probably overlooking White's brilliant 10th move. Black should probably play 8...a6 followed by ...'fId6 and ...0-0-0, or perhaps ...Ji.hS. With the bS-square protected Black's chances are far superior.

Game 58 Sammalvuo-Ronnman Vantaa 1991

There's a strong argument for the immediate 8 .ilbS. 8 ....lih5

9 d5lLle5?? 1 d4 tLlfS 2 tLlc3 d5 3 .lig5 tLlcS

Black hopes to discourage the advance of White's e-pawn by putting pressure on the d4-pawn but, in this game at least, it has the opposite effect. However, Black's play can be improved...

9...ltJb8 is mandatory, when Black has a playable (if somewhat inferior) game. 10 tLlxe5!

This spectacular queen sacrifice wins by force. It is surprising that Black missed it as the theme is well known.

4f3

10....lixd1 11 .lib5+ cS 12 dxcS

The most ambitious move, preparing e2e4. The quiet 4 e3 seems quite good to me, for example after 4...e6 I like 5 a3!? followed

12... bxcS 13 .lixcS+ 'it'd7 14 i.xd7+ 'itfd8 15 tLlxf7 + 1-0

116

Threatening both 13 cxb7+ and 13 c7+.

3 ... h6, 3 ... t'i:Jc6, 3 ... g6 and Others Summary

White's most dangerous response to 3...g6 is 4 'ii'd2, aiming for a vigorous attack against Black's king. 4 .i.xf6 is playable against both this and 3... h6, but here White should adopt a slow plan based on a kingside fianchetto and playing for c2-c4. Both 3...tZ'le4 and 3...tZ'lc6look dubious and White can apply pressure in rather simple fashion. I wouldn't recommend either of them. 1 d4 t'i:Jf6 2 t'i:Jc3 d5 3 .\ig5 h6 (D) 3...g6 (D) 4 .i.xf6 - Game 52; 4 'ii'd2 - Game 53 3...tZ'le4 - Game 57 3...tZ'lc6 - Game 58 4.\ixf6 4 .i.h4 - Game 56 4 ... exf6 (D) 5 e3 - Game 54; 5 e4 - Game 55

3 ... h6

3 ... g6

4 ... exf6

117

CHAPTER fiGHT

I

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

1 d4 tt:lf6 2 tt:lc3 d5 3 i.g5 86

3... e6 is one of Black's most natural moves, the drawback being that Black should know something about the French Defence before playing it. The point is that 4 e4 lands Black straight into a Classical French (usually reached via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 lLIc3 lLIf6 4 .i.gS) and is White's usual option. Aware of the fact that Veresov players are likely to want to stay off the beaten track I suggest that White therefore avoids transposing to the French for just one more move in order to cut out options such as the MacCutcheon Variation (4 e4 .i.b4!?) and some variations of the Burn (4 e4 dxe4 S lLIxe4 lLIbd7). He can do this by playing 4lL1f3. After 4 4Jf3 i..e7 White can enforce the e2-e4 advance by first capturing on f6, S i..xf6 i.xf6 6 e4 transposing to the French but possibly not the version that Black is hoping for. We have in fact reached the old Anderssen Attack (normally it comes via 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 i..gS i.e7 S i.xf6!? i.xf6 6 4Jf3), which has been virtually ignored by modem masters but seems to me to be very dangerous (see Tartakower-Lilienthal and Norman-Hanlon). Black can transpose to one form of the Burn Variation by playing 6... dxe4 and here I suggest the trendy 8 i.c4 (see Shirov-Akopian). Black can also meet S 118

i.xf6 with S... gxf6!? in order to reach another form of Burn but my antidotes are contained within Almasi-Andersson and Shirov-Topalov. There are a couple of other possibilities after 44Jf3, namely 4...cS and 4... .i.b4. These are covered within Lobron-Murei and Hector-Berg respectively.

Game 59 T artakower-Lilienthal Paris (match) 1933 1 d4 d5 2 tt:lc3 lLlf6 3 i.g5 e6 4 lbf3 i.e 7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 84

The game has transposed to a supposedly harmless variation of the French Defence,

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

the so-called Anderssen Attack. Yet a closer look at this position has convinced me that Black's task is by no means easy. He can also fall victim to a sharp and devastating attack on his king... Lev Psakhis states in The Complete French (Batsford, 1992): 'Black shouldn't be in a hurry to castle' and Alexander Alekhine played this line extensively in simultaneous displays, no doubt attracted by White's attacking chances ... 6 ... b6

A cautious move, delaying castling while continuing development. Here are some examples of the alternatives: a) 6...cS is the theoretically approved move but White might gain an edge with 7 exdS exdS 8 dxcS (Black must also be careful after 8 .ltbS+ ltJc6 9 0-0 0-0 10 dxcS .ltxc3 11 bxc3 i.g4 12 :tel etc.) 8...0-0 9 'iid2 l:te8+ (9 .....e7+ 10 'iie3 i.xc3+ 11 bxc3 'iVxe3+ 12 fxe3 i.e6 13 ltJd4 gave White a slight pull in Ljubojevic-Messing, Zagreb 1977) 10 i.e2 i.xc3 11 'iVxc3 'iie7 12 'iie3 'ii'xe3 13 fxe3 ltJd7 140-0-0 and White had an edge in Negulescu-Schneider, Washington 1998. b) 6...ltJc6 puts pressure on d4 and effectively forces White to close the centre with 7 e5 but, meanwhile, Black has obstructed the c-pawn. The game might continue 7....lte7 8 a3 (after the immediate 8 i.d3 Black can free his position with 8. ..ltJb4 followed by ...c7c5) 8. ..i.d7 (8... f5 9 h4 0-0 10 ltJe2 'iVe8 11 ltJf4 ltJd8 12 c4 c6 13 ':c1 favoured White, with pressure and more space, in SpeelmanKnox, Morecambe 1975) 9 .ltd3 as 10 h4 h6 (after 10... 0-0 Black falls victim to 11 i.xh7+ ~xh7 12ltJgs+ etc.) 11 'iVe2ltJa7 12 ':h3 cS 13 dxcS i.xcs 14 ':g3 'ii'b6 lSltJd1 g6 16 c3 0-0-0 17 b4 and White had a promising position in Alekhine-Williams, Bridgeport 1932. c) 6...a6 7 i.d3 0-0 8 eS i.e7 9 h4 h6 10 ltJe2 cS 11 c3 ltJc6 12 a3 was pleasant for White in Alekhine-Macias, Alicante 1935. d) 6...g6 7 h4 hS 8 i.d3 c6 was played in Alekhine-Fuentes, Madrid 1935, and now 9 e5.ltg7 10 ltJe2looks very comfortable.

e) 6... c6 7 i.d3 ltJd7 8 'iie2 0-0 9 0-0-0 .lte7 10 e5 .l:.e8 11 h4 ltJf8 12 ltJg5 f6 13 f4 f5 14 g4ltJg6 15 ':dfl with a powerful attack for White in Alekhine-Linares, Panama 1939. 7.td3

If White first closes the centre with 7 eS i.e7 8 .ltd3 Black can counter-attack with 8... cS! etc. 7 ....tb 7 8 'li'e2 dxe4 Tartakower suggested that 8...0-0 might be an improvement in order to meet 9 eS .lte7 10 h4 with 10... h6. Nevertheless this looks quite promising for White after 11 ltJd1 followed by c2-c3 and ltJe3. 9 .txe4 c6 100-0-0 'fic7

Preparing to complete development with 11...ltJd7 and 12...0-0-0. White decides to strike fIrst... 11 ttJe5 ~xe5

After 11...4Jd7 White reinforces the knight with 12 f4. 12 dxe5 'i!fxe5 13 'i!fd3! 0-0

In reply to 13...'I'c7 White has 14 ltJbS, e.g. 14...'fif4+ 1S -Ji>b1 0-0 16 g3 'fieS 17 f4 'ii'f6 18ltJc7 or 14...cxb5 15 .ltxb7 'ii'xb7 16 .d8 mate. 14.txh7+

14... ~h8 15 .te4 f5

After 1S...g6 White continues the attack with 16 h4. 16 .tf3 ttJa6 17 'li'c4 '¥if6 18 l:.d6 l:.fe8 19 l:.e1 b5 20 'li'f4 e5

After 20...b4 White plays 21 ltJb5! with 119

The Veresov

lots of horrible threats. 21 J:[xf6 exf4 22 l:txeS+ l:txeS 23 J:[xf5 1-0

After 23 ... b4 24 lDe2 Black will lose more of his pawns.

Game 60

Norman-O'Hanlon Hastings 1921/22 1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 i.g5 e6 4 liJf3 i.e7 5 i.xf6 i.xf6 6 e4 0-0 7 i.d3

9...cxd4 to ii.xh7+ is dangerous for Black, for example to ...xh7 11 lDg5+ Wh6 12 'ilfd3 g6 13 h5 ii.xg5 14 hxg6+ ii.h4 15 'iVg3 fxg6 16 .l:txh4+ Wg7 17 O-O-O! (after Euwe's old recommendation of 17 .l:tg4 Black can defend with 17...f7) 17...dxc3 18 l:ldhl cxb2+ 19 Wbl'iP"xh4 20 'iP"xh4 Wfl 21 'iVf6+ e8 22 'iVxg6+ etc. A much tougher defence is offered by 9... h6, but again Black comes under fire: to dxc5 (to g4 looks inadequate after to... cxd4 11 lDe2 f6) to ...ii.xc5 (10 ...lDd7 11 'ilfe2 lDxc5 12 0-0-0 iLd7 13 g4 led to sporting play in Napierala-liedtke, Kassel 1998) 11 g4!? 'iVb6 12 'iVd2 St.xf2+?? (12 ...lDc6 is somewhat better for White after 13 lDa4 'ifb4 14lDxc5, so the critical line appears to be 12...iLd7 13 0-0-0 iLxf2 14 'it>bl with attacking chances for the pawn) 13 'i!i'xf2 'ii'xb2 14 Wd2 with an extra piece for White in Charousek-Maroczy, Budapest 1895. 10 liJg5!

Now that Black has castled White can push with 7 eS, when 7...i..e7 8 iLd3 cS will transpose back to the game. If he wants to maintain the tension a better way of doing so might be 7 'i!i'd2, when B.Ivanovic-Franke, Berlin 1988 continued 7... b6 8 0-0-0 as?! 9 h4 i..a6 to iLxa6 lDxa6 11 Wbl c6 12lDg5 b5 (White meets 12... h6 with 13 f4 as the opening of the h-fl1e would be fatal) 13 e5 iLe7 14 f4 b4 15 lDa4 c5 16 dxc5 lDxc5 17 lDxc5 ii.xc5 18 'iP"d3 g6 19 h5 1-0. An instructive demolition job. Instead 7...dxe4 8 lDxe4 transposes to a line of the Bum Variation in which White has committed his queen to d2 - see Shirov-Akopian for details. 7 ... c5

After 7...:e8 8 e5 ii.e7 9 h4 c5 to ii.xh7+

'ithh7 11 lDg5+ 'it>g8 12 ifh5 White obtained a strong attack in the game AlekhineAsgeirsson, Reykjavik 1931. S e5 i.e7 9 h4 f6

120

In Pillsbury-Maroczy, London 1899 White played relatively quietly with 10 dxc5, after which to ...lDc6 11 exf6 gxf6 12 'iWd2 .l:tfl 13 0-0-0 iLxc5 14 g4 produced a double-edged game. However, the text is much stronger if followed up correctly. 10 ...fxg5 11 'iVh5 h6 12 .g6 .llf5 13 g4 i.d7 14 hxg5?

A far more effective continuation is 14 lDxd5!, which seems to be winning for White after 14....i.e8 (14...exd5 15 iLxfS) 15 'iVxe6+

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

:£7 16 'ii'g6 etc.

Mark Hebden.

14... ~xg5?

8 ... lLlc6!?

Returning the favour, after which White is on top again. Black can weather the stonn with 14.. J:hg5, for example 15 'ii'h7+ W£7 16 ~xh6 'ii'g8 and Black's king manages to slip away.

Black varies from the usual piece fonnation of ...liJd7, ... b7-b6 and ....1b7. This is in fact quite difficult for Black after 8... liJd7 9 'fie2 iLe7 lO O-O-O!?, when TopalovKramnik, Monte Carlo 1997 went lO ... c6 11 h4 b5 12 .1d3 flc7 13 ~b1liJf6 (13. .. c5!? 14 dxc5 liJxc5 is interesting, giving up a pawn in an attempt to gain couoterplay) 14 liJxf6+ .1xf6 15 '*I¥e4 g6 16 h5 iLb7 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 liJe5 l:!.fd8 19 'fig4 (the immediate 19 liJxg6 is met by 19 ....l:!.xd4, but now this is a genuine threat) 19 ... i.xe5 20 dxe5 'iVxe5 21 iLxg6! with a very dangerous attack.

15 gxf5 ~e8 16 ~xe6+ .i.f7 17 'ii'd6 'it'xd6 18 exd6 cxd4 19 lLle2 lLlc6 20 f4 .i.f6 21 a3 l:!.d8 22 ~2 l:!.xd6 23 l:!.ag1 'itf8 24 lLlg3 lLla5 25 b3 lLlc6 26 J:l.e1 a6 27 lLlh5 ~xh5 28 ':'xh5 ~f7 29 l1h2 lLld8 30 .i.e2 ~f8 31 ~h5 lLlf7 32 ~f3 %:I.d8 33 ~xf7 ~xf7 34 l:!.e6 J:!.c8 35 J:!.d6 l:!.e3+ 36 'itg4 d3 37 cxd3 lixb3 38 l:.xd5 .li!.xa3 39 l:tc2 litb3 40 .!:te8 Itb2 41 J:!.c7+ ~e7 42 J:ldd7 lie2 43 ~3 1-0

9 e3 e5 10 d5

Gaining space in the centre. 10 dxe5 is at

r---------------__. best harmless. Game 61 10 ... lLle7

Shirov-Akopian European Club Ch., Halkidiki 2002 1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 lLlf6 3 .i.g5 e6 4 lLlf3 .i.e 7 5 ~xf6 .i.xf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 lLlxe4 0-0 8.i.c4

Envisaging a piece set-up in which White's queen comes to e2. An alternative approach is 8 '*I¥d2 (White's queen would have to be on this square had he answered 6...0-0 with 7 'fid2) 8... b6 9 0-0-0 .1b7 10 iLd3liJd7 11 h4 i.e 7 and now an aggressive try for White is 12 liJfg5!? h6 13 Ith3!?, as played in a few games by England's aggressive Grandmaster

This is looking like Black's main line, despite the doubling of his kingside pawns. Two alternatives have been tried: a) lO ...liJb8 should be met with 11 'i'e2 because 11 0-0 iLg4 12 h3 .1xf3 13 'fixf3 i.e7 14 .1b5 a6 15 .1a4liJd7 16 :'ad1 .1d6 17 b4 liJf6 18 liJxf6+ 'ii'xf6 19 'iVxf6 gxf6 20 .1c2 favoured White but was nevertheless rather drawish in Ivanchuk-Ehlvest, Reggio Emilia 1989. Therefore the only way White can really trouble his opponent is by castling long. Leko-Khalifman, Budapest (match) 2000 continued (11 'iVe2) 11....1f5 12 0-0-0 liJd7 13 liJg3 iLg6 14 iLd3! (preventing 121

The Veresov

14... e4, this is a big improvement on Bologan-M.Gurevich, Belfort 1999 which saw Black obtain excellent counterplay after 14 h4 e4! 15 tOxe4 :e8 16 tOxf6+ 'l'xf6 17 'l'd2 tOb6 etc.) 14....i.xd3 15 'l'xd3 ~c5 16 'ii'e3 b6 17 h4!? (17 ~e4 was also better for White but Leko decides to play it much more sharply) 17...:e8 (this was Black's last chance to play 17...e4!?, when 18 tOxe4 l:te8 would have given Black some compensation for his pawn; now he winds up very passively placed) 18 tOe4 ~xe4 19 'ii'xe4 g6 20 g4 .i.g7 21 h5 and Black had serious problems, stemming from the fact that his bishop has been made 'bad' by the inhibiting effect of the e4-pawn. White has a promising alternative in 12 .i.d3 here, when 12....i.xe4 13 .i.xe4 ~d7 14 0-0-0.i.e7 15 g4 .i.d6 16 ~bl l:.b8 17 h4 set in motion a powerful kingside attack in Short-M.Gurevich, Shenyang 2000. b) 1O...liJa5!? is dangerous for Black, Baklan-Goloshchapov, Ordzhonikidze Zonal 2000 continuing 11 .i.d3 b6 12 h4!? (12 'ilc2 g6 13 tOxf6+ 'iVxf6 140-0 .i.g4 15 ~d2 tOb7 was fairly even in Levenfish-Bondarevsky, Leningrad 1939) 12...g6 (12...ltJb7 is better) 13 h5 .tg4 14 'ii'd2 .i.g7 15 hxg6 hxg6 16 ~fgS with dangerous attacking chances. 11 liJxfS+ gxfS 12liJh4

White has a major alternative in 12 'ifd2, which worked out well after 12...'iVd6 13 0-0-0 .i.g4?! 14 'l'e3 ~h8 15 h3 .i.d7 16 g4 122

in Tischbierek-Izoria, Ohrid 2001. However, after 12.. .'~h8 13 0-0-0 .i.g4 14 .i.e2 'l'd6 15 ~h4 1Ig8 16 g3 :ad8 Black stood well in Anand-Shirov, Sydney (Olympic Exhibition) 2000. 12...tOg6 13 'iFh5 In Bezgodov-Akopian, Ohrid 2001, White tried to improve with 13 g3!? bS (13...tOxh4 14 gxh4 ~h8 15 :gl l:tg8 16 :g3 is slightly better for White according to Bologan) 14 .tb3 as 15 'fid2 fS 16 0-0-0 ':a6 17 ltJg2 a4 18 .i.c2 a3 19 b4 :d6 and now 20 f4 would have been slightly better for White according to Bologan. In the game White played 20 ~e3, when Bologan suggests 20.. .f4 21 tOf5 .i.xfS 22 .i.xfS c6 with a good game for Black. 13.....d7 An interesting alternative is 13... ~h8!?, when 14 0-0-0 (Finkel has suggested 14 .i.d3!?) 14... fS 15 tOeltJf4 16 'ifh6 'ii'd6 17 'ii'xd6 cxd6 18 g3 led to an edge for White in the endgame in Bologan-Kacheishvili, Ohrid 2001. Here 15 ~xf5?! is better for Black after 15... ~f4 16 'fie .i.xfS 17 g3 'ifd7 18 gxf4 .i.g4 19 'ife4 Sl.xd1 20 :xd1 exf4, and 15 g3 is ineffective after 15...tOxh4 16 gxh4 'ii'f6 17 l:.hg1.td7. 14 h3 'iVa4

The game Short-M.Gurevich, England (British League) 2000 went 14... ~xh4 15 'ifxh4 'ii'f5 16 0-0-0 .i.d7 17 f4 'l'xf4+ 18 'l'xf4 exf4 19 l:thfl with an edge for White,

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French) although in his notes to the game Gurevich indicated that his 14th move was dubious. What does he have in mind as an improvement? Perhaps 14... b5, when 15 JL.d3 can be met by 15... e4! 16 ~xe4? ':'e8, winning. 15 b3 'it'a5 16 0-0

Perhaps White should play simply 16 :tel to protect the c3-pawn. 16.. :iVxc3 17 d6 rt;g7?

Preferable is 17...ll)f4, when 18 'ii'h6 'ii'd2 191i'xf6 'ii'xd6 is excellent for Black. 18 dxc7 'it'd4 19 g3 'it'd7 20 :ac1 'it'xh3

After 20 ...'ii'xc7 there follows 21 JL.e6 'iWd8 22 ll)f5+ h8 23 ];Xfdl and Black must part with the queen. 21 i.d3 We6 22 i.e4 'it'b6 23 :fd1 1-0

sharp positions. White should probably respond with 8 ll)c3, supporting the d4-d5 pawn push, when Pavlovic-Sakaev, Vrnjacka Banja 1998 continued 8... ~f6 (8... a6 9 'ii'e2 b5 is an interesting plan, 10 0-0-0 b4 11 ll)a4 "d5 12 c4leading to sharp play in GrischukSakaev, Moscow 2002) 9 "d2 cS (9 ...ll)c6 10 ~b5 is good for White but 9...0-0!? is an interesting alternative, Gipslis-Chemin, St. John 1988 becoming rather complicated after 10 g4 fxg4 11 ':gl e5! 12 ~d3 JL.g7 13 dxeS 'iti>h8 14 0-0-0 f5!) 10 dS 0-0 (1O ...exd5 11 'ii'e3+ wins back the pawn with an edge, for example 11...~e6 12 "xcS ll)d7 13 i.b5 :1c8 14 'ii'e3 0-0150-0 a6 16 JL.xd71i'xd7 17 ll)d4 'ii'd6 18ll)ce2 'it>h8 19litadl .:tg8 20 f4,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Arnason-Bjarnason, Reykjavik 1989) 11 0-0-0 Game 62 eS

Almasi-Andersson Ubeda 1997 1 d4 d5 2 lLlc3 ~f6 3 i.g5 e6 4 lLlf3 i.e 7 5 i.xf6 gxf6 6 e4

White has to play this before Black plays 6... f5. 6 ... dxe4 7 lLlxe4 b6

The game has transposed into the Burn Variation of the French with 5...gxf6. The fianchetto of Black's queen's bishop is the solid line, which aims first of all to tuck Black's king away on the queenside. Of Black's alternatives, 7... f5!? is the most energetic and direct treatment, leading to ultra-

12 h4 (preparing to put the knight on g5, while 12 bl ll)d7 13 g4!? e4 14 ll)gl fxg4 15 ll)xe4 ~g7 16 h3 1i'b6 17 c3 ll)e5 18 hxg4.i.xg4 19 .:tell:i.fe8 also led to a razorsharp struggle in Saulin-Kiriakov, Moscow 1999) 12...ll)d7 13 .:tgl (13 d6ll)b6 141i'e3 e4 15 ll)g5 JL.d7 16 g4! JL.d4 17 ':'xd4 cxd4 18 'ii'xd4 f6 was very messy in Lau-Sakaev, Dortmund 1991) 13 ... e4 14 ll)g5 ll)eS 15 JL.e2 (Sakaev gave 15 f3 h6 16ll)h3 ~g7 17 fxe4 'ii'xh4 as an alternative - which is also very complicated) 15... h6 16 ll)h3 JL.g7 17 ll)f4 bS!? (certainly consistent but possibly not the best; Black can also play 17...'ii'xh4, when the attempt to smash through the king123

The Veresov

side with 18 g4 is insufficient after 18... fxg4 19 tDxe4 i.fS 20 l::th1 'ii'd8 21 tDg3 i.g6 according to Sakaev) 18 g4 b4 19 tDa4 fxg4 20 tDh5 with a complex and double-edged game. Returning to the position after 12 h4, Black has also played 12...i.g7, but after 13 d6 i.e6 14 tDg5 tDc6 the position of the knight on c6 did not prove that helpful in Klovans-Dizdar, Groningen 1991. That game continued 15 g4 tDd4 16 gxfS i.xfS 17 i.d3 'ii'd7 18 i.xfS 'i¥xfS 19 tDd5 Wh8 20 c3 tDc6 21 tDe3 'it'd7 22 'iVd5, when White was taking control. 12... a6?! is another try, but in such a sharp position this kind of relaxed build-up looks too slow. For the trendy 7... a6!? see Shirov-Topalov. 8i.c4 8 i.b5+ c6 9 i.c4 is a common inaccuracy, giving Black the useful ...c7-c6 for nothing. 8 ... ~b7 9 "e2 c6 10 0-0-0 fic7 11 l:he1 tt:Jd7 12 ~b1 0-0-0

Castling immediately is not mandatory, Black can also keep his options open with 12... h5 13 tDc3 tDfS, as in GoloshchapovVolkov, Novgorod 1999. 13 i.a6 i.xa6 Black has tinkered with a number of different moves in this position but the respective strategies are basically the same. White exchanges light-squared bishops and then tries to engineer a central breakthrough with 124

c2-c4 and d4-d5. Black, on the other hand, will try to restrain d4-d5 and perhaps even attack the d4-pawn with a subsequent ... f6-fS and ...i.f6. Another plan for Black is to generate play on the half-open g-flle. One thing he should be quite wary of, however, is playing ... f6-fS prematurely. 1bis lessens control of the centre and invites a white knight to step in to e5. Here are some examples of the alternatives in action: a) 13...l::the8 14 i.xb7+ Wxb7 15 c4 (the passive 15 c3 has also been played but should hardly trouble Black after 15... tDfS followed by ...tDg6) 1S... tDfS 16 'iHc2 fS 17 tDc3 i.f6 18 l::te3 (18 dS!?) 18...l:le7 19 I!ed3 tDg6 20 dS (20 g3 is interesting, keeping the tension a little longer) 20...:ed7 21 'iVa4 tDe7 22 dxc6+ tDxc6 23 tDbS l::txd3 24 l:lxd3 'itb8 25 'iHd1 1/2_1/2, Korchnoi-Andersson, Reykjavik 1988. b) 13...:hg8 14 g3 fS 15 tDed2 h5 16 i.xb 7+ Wxb 7 17 tDc4 is similar to the game. c) 13 ...tDfS 14 g3 tDg6 15 h4 h5 16 i.xb7+ Wxb 7 17 l:.d3 fS 18 tDegS i.d6 (18 ... i.f6 19 c4 l:td7 20 l::ted1 l::thd8 21 a3 was also better for White in Izeta-Alvarez, Ueida 1991) 19 tDd2 i.fS 20 f4 i.g7 21 tDb3 i.f6 22 tDf3 tDe 7 23 c4 ~hg8 24 tDg5 and White had an advantage in Guliev-Radjabov, Baku 1998. d) 13... fS? is poor due to 14 i.xb7+ Wxb7 15 tDegS :dfS 16 dS!, when White had achieved his breakthrough very easily in Timman-Andersson, Yerevan Olympiad 1996. d) Last but not least Black played 13...b5!? in Neelakantan-Speelman, Calcutta 1998. Black's idea is that White will not be able to achieve his thematic c2-c4 and d4-d5 breakthrough. The game went 14 i.xb7+ ..t>xb7 15 c4 bxc4 16 'ii'xc4 tDb6 17 'i6b3 ~a8 18 l:I.c1 l:.b8 19 'iHc2 I!hc8, defending everything. 14 'ii'xa6+ Wb8 1bis is probably slightly stronger than 14...'itb7, which forces White's queen back to its best square after 15 'ii'e2. 15 9 3

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

The queen is optically impressive on a6 but nothing more. 15 'ii'eZ may be White's best after which 15...:he8 16 c3 liJf8 17 g3 f5 18 liJedZ liJg6 19 liJc4 was marginally better for White in Leko-Andersson, Ubeda 1997. 15...liJf8!? and 15...:hg8 are also possible and lead to similar play. 15... f5 16liJed2 h5

The thematic means of gaining counterplay after White's gZ-g3. 16....1f6 17 'ii'eZ was slightly better for White in ASokolovAndersson, Bar 1997, when White's knights homed in on e5. 17 ~e2 h4 18 tLlc4 hxg3 19 hxg3 .i.f6 20 :d3 b5?!

42 :c7+ 'ot'b6 43 tLle8 :h8 44 ':'xf7 .i.xd4 45 liJxd4 :xe8 46 :f6 liJc5 47 f4 ~b7 48 b4 :d8 49 liJxe6 :d2+ 50 'Ot>b1 liJe4 51 l:th6 lU2 52 c1 ~a7 53 Ilh3 'Ot>b6 54 'it>d1 a5 55 bxa5+ 'ot'xa5 56 'ot'e1 :a2 57 :e3 tUf6 58 liJd4! tUg4 59 :g3 liJf2 60 f5 tUe4 61 :e3 liJg5 62 f6 tbb6 63 :c3 :92 64 :c6+ 'ot'b7 65 :c5 liJf7 66liJe6 ~b6 67 a4 :94 68 a5+ 'ot'a6 69 tUc7+ r:3;a7 70 tUd5 ~a6 71 'Ot>d2 :a4 72 tUc7+ r:3;b7 73 'ot'e3 'Ot>a7 74liJe6liJh6 75 'ot'd3 ~a6 76 :h5 :a3+ 77 'ot'c4 liJf7 78 liJc7+ ~b7 79 :h7 tLle5+ 80 rjo>b5 l:r.b3+ 81 c5 :d3 82 liJd5+ 1-0

This is often a good idea, although here White rapidly generates pressure against c6. Black should settle for 20...11he8 with a solid enough position.

Game 63 Shirov-Topalov Sarajevo 2000

21 liJcd2 liJb6 22 :c1 :d5 23 c4 bxc4 24 liJxc4 ~a8

1 d4 d5 2 liJc3 liJf6 3 .i.g5 e6 4 tLlf3 .i.e 7 5 .i.xf6 gxf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 liJxe4 a6

A further mistake since Black receives inadequate compensation for the pawn. He should eliminate White's knight before it comes to e5.

A relatively recent idea which is designed to push ... b7-b5 before fianchettoing the queen's bishop. The aim is to give Black more of a grip on the central light squares but it costs time and creates some weaknesses.

25 tLlce5 'ifb7 26 liJxc6 :c8 27 :dc3 liJa4 28 :c4 liJb6 29 :4c2 ':d7 30 llJa5 l:txc2 31 :xc2 'ii'e4 32 liJb3 'iVxe2 33 l:txe2 :d8 34 l:tc2 liJd5 35 liJa5 Ah8 36 a3 a6 37 'Ot>a2 bl .i.g7 14 h4 e5 15 l:tel ltJd7?! 16 i.d3! White found a way to use the position of Black's queen, 16 ... e4? being refuted by 17 ltJxe4. 13 h4!? Obtaining the g5-square for the knight whilst in some positions the rook might come into play via h3. 13 ... b5 After 13... e4 14 ltJg5 White is ready to challenge e4 with 15 f3. 14 d6

good counterplay in Prasad-Barua, Raipur 2002. 120-0-085

According to Ftacnik White is clearly better after lZ ... exdS 13 ltJxdS, yet Morozevich certainly felt that the capture on d5 had potential in order to bring his knight from b8 to

126

14 ...11Jc6?! Allowing the d-pawn to march on to d7 is probably a mistake, although after 14...ltJd7 15 ltJd5 the position still looks very good for White. 15 d7! .ib7 16 .d6 e4 After 16...i.e7 White has 17 'ii'h6 (intending ltJf3-g5), and after 16.. :iVe7 there is 17 "iJc7, threatening the bishop on b7 and 18 ltJdS. 17 llJd5 .i.g7 After 17....i.xb2+ 18 ~xb2 exf3 19 gxf3

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

White also has the g-file for an attack. 18 liJg5 liJd4?!

The attempt to drive away the knight from g5 with 18... h6 is beautifully refuted by 19 cxb5 axb5 20 i.xb5 lbd4 21 lbe7+ 'iii>h8 22 'it'g6!! fxg6 23lbxg6+ 'it>g8 24 i.c4+ etc. 19 liJe7+! Ii>h8 20 l:th3!

After 27 ...'iWf6 (27 ...h6 28 gxf7) there follows 28 l:lxh 7+ ~g8 29 gxf7+ l:lxf7 30 d8'iW+ :xd8 31 :xd8+ 'iWxd8 32 'ii'xf7 mate.

Gamc64 Lobron-Murey Randcrs Zonal 1982 1 d4 liJf6 2 liJe3 d5 3 .ig5 e6 4 liJf3 c5

A logical move, hitting White's d4-pawn. Unless White wants to play the solid but somewhat dull 5 e3 he has no choice but to play the next move. 5 e4 dxe4 6 liJxe4 cxd4 7 .ixf6?!

Threatening to bring the rook to g3. Black prevents this but at the same time weakens his pawn structure. 20 ... f4 21 'i.tb1 b4 22 .ie2!

White also wants his bishop in the attack, this piece being en route to h5. 22 ...f3

After 22...lbxe2 White plays 23 'it'xc5, threatening 24 'ji'fS, while after 22...e3 or even 22...h6 there follows 23 iLh5! - in short it seems that White has a winning attack. 23 gxf3 liJxe2 24 "xe5 liJf4 25 'iif5 liJg6 26 h5! "xe7 27 hxg6 1-0

I don't think that White should make this exchange because Black now has nice centre pawns and the two bishops. Another interesting possibility is 7 ~b5+, when 7...lbc6 8 lbxd4 i.d7 9 lbxc6 bxc6 10 i.e2 'ji'a5+ 11 i.d2 'ii'e5 12lbxf6+ 'iWxf6 13 .ltc3 'iWg5 14 0-0 left White with the superior pawn structure in Kotronias-Tseshkovsky, Niksic 1997. Alternatively 7...i.d7 8 .ltxd7+ lbbxd7 9 'iixd4 ~e7 10 0-0-0 lbxe4 11 ~xe7 'ii'xe7 12 'iixe4 lbc5 13 'iWe5 0-0 14 l:Id6 :fd8 15 l:thd1 .l:txd6 16 'ili'xd6 'iixd6 17 :'xd6 gave White a nagging edge in Janowski-Teichmann, Ostende 1905 thanks to the queenside pawn majority and more active pieces. 7 ... gxf6 8 'ilfxd4

With White having exchanged on g6 already, 8 .ltb5+ seems to be quite well met by 127

The Veresav 8... ttJc6 rather than 8... .i.d7 9 .i.xd7+ ttJxd7 10 ir'xd4, which looked dangerous for Black in Landenbergue-Bouaziz, Cannes 1997. TIlls probably explains why Bouaziz avoids repeating the second time around, for 8... ttJc6 was played in Fontaine-Bouaziz, Cannes 1998, and this time, after 9 ttJxd4 i.d7 10 ttJxc6 bxc6 11 .i.e2 'iia5+ 12 c3 'iie5 13 ttJg3 h5, Black had the initiative. 8 .. :~xd4 9 tt'lxd4 f5 10 tt'lf6+

17 l::!.h8 tt'lf6 18 .ic4 .if8 19 ':'e1 + .ie6 20 .id3 'ittd7 21 lIe5 'ittc7 22 .ixf5 tt'ld7 23 .ixe6 tt'lxe5 24 .!':!.xh7 'iitb6 25 .id5! .l:!.d8 26.ie4

Having built up a large advantage, White plays indecisively. Both 26 iLxf7 and 26 c4 seem to ensure the capture of the f7-pawn, when White should be winning. 26 ....ic5 27 a3 tt'lc4 28 .id3 .ie3+ 29 'iitb1 tt'ld6

Thus Black succeeds in protecting f7 and lives to tell the tale. White still has what chances are going, but the winning moment has passed. 30 .l:Z.h5 'iitc6 31 c3 b5 32 'iitc2 .ig1 33 J:.h6 'iitc7 34 J:.h5 l:!.e8 35 .ixb5 tt'lxb5 36 .l:!.xb5 .l:l.e2+ 37 'iitb3 .l:!.xh2 38 .l:!.f5 .l:!.h7 39 g4 'iitd6 40 g5 .ie3 41 'iitc2 .l:!:h4 42 l::!.xf7 ::'xf4 43 l::!.xf4 .i.xf4 44 g6 'iite6 45 b4 'iitf6 46 'iitd3 'iitxg6 47 'iitc4 .ie5 48 a4 'ittf6 49 b5 'iite6 50 a5 'ittd7 51 'iitc5 .ig3 52 'ittd5 .ie 1 53 c4 Y.z - Y.z

An adventurous continuation - will White's knight be well placed on h5 or not? It could be that the only way to justify 7 .ixf6 is to indulge in such adventures. After the simple 10 ttJd2 Paavilainen-Kiltti, Finland 1998 continued 1O ....i.d7 11 ttJc4 ttJc6 12 0-0-0 ttJxd4 13 ':xd4 .i.c5 with an excellent game for Black. 10 ... 'itte7 11 tt'lh5 .ih6 12 f4 .l:!.d8

12... ttJc6 looks much simpler to me, evicting the knight on d4 without further ado. If Black wants to keep his queenside pawns together then 12....i.d7 followed by ... ttJc6 is a good idea. 13 0-0-0 tt'ld7 14 g3 tt'lf6

Black might have seen the following combination coming but assessed the resultant position as being satisfactory for him. However, by now it's rather too late to do much about it; 14... ttJb6 is met by 15 .i.g2, with masslve pressure.

53 ... .i.xa5 54 c5 'i&>c8 55 'i&>c4 'i&>b 7 56 'i&>b3 iLd8 57 'i&>a4 is a positional draw. White keeps his king on b4, c4 and a4, and if Black's king comes around towards d5 he exchanges the a-pawn with b5-b6.

Game 65 Hector-Berg S olett Open, S kelleftea 200 1

15 tt'lxf5 + exf5 16 .!':!.xd8 tt'lxh5

16... 'it>xd8 17 ttJxf6 wins the h7-pawn. 128

1 tt'lc3 d5 2 d4 tt'lf6

3 ... e6 (Including Transpositions to the French)

The move order in the game was actually 2...e6 3 lDB lDf6 4 ~g5 ..tb4 etc. For the sake of clarity I am getting into a cyeresov' position as quickly as possible. 3 .i.g5 e6 4 liJf3 i.b4 The 'MacCutcheon' move, against which I see only one interesting option for White ... To complete the round-up of Black's possibilities, 4... h6 is possible, when 5 ..txf6 'ii'xf6 6 e4 ..tb4 transposes to Akopian-Antonio in Chapter 10. 5 'iWd3!?

was played in Huerta-Rodriguez Cespedes, Havana 1986, and now 7 0-0-0 looks preferable to 7 f4 (as played in the game), which seems rather exotic to me. Here 6... c5 can be met by 7 a3. c) 5... 0-0 6 a3 ..txc3+ 7 "xc3 lDbd7 was Opitz-Seifert, Dresden 1999, and now 8lDd2 looks interesting for White, who has a useful bishop pair, and an improvement on 8 e3 h6 9 ..txf6 lDxf6, which was utterly harmless. 6.i.xf6 This looks quite nice for White so I'm not that bothered about fmding an alternative. But perhaps White can also play 6 ..th4 c5 7 a3 here. 7 dxcS lDbd7 favoured Black in Kagas-Mamedova, Chania 1997. 6 ......xf6 7 a3 .i.d6 After 7.....txc3+ 8 'ii'xc3 c6 9 e3, intending 10 ..td3, White has more freedom. 8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 "fiIe7 10 g3 0-0 11 .i.g2 liJd7 12 c4 % -%

5 ... h6

This position has appeared in only a few games so it is difficult to know for sure what is best. Black has several very reasonable looking alternatives: a) 5...c5 6 a3 (6 dxc5lDbd7 7lDd2 .ixc5 8 e4? ~xf2+ won a pawn for Black in Van der Lijn-Ward, Guernsey 1991) 6....ixc3+ 7 'ii'xc3 cxd4 8 'ii'xd4 lDc6 was played in Kivisto-Manninen, Espoo 1990, and now I like 9 'ilVh4. In the game 9 'ii'f4 "ile7 10 lDe5 h6 11 ..txf6 gxf6 12lDxc6 bxc6 looked quite good for Black. b) 5...lDbd7 6 lDd2 (6 0-0-0 c5) 6....ie7

I don't know if there was any special reason why Hector agreed a draw here. Objectively speaking his position looks very attractive, with a nice space advantage and well placed forces.

129

The Veresov Summary

After 3...e6 White really has to go e2-e4 if he wants any kind of initiative, and this inevitably means transposing to a French Defence. Yet by delaying this for a move with the cunning 4 lLlf3 White can cut out several of Black's options and keep the element of surprise on his side. 1 d4 ~f6 2 ~c3 d5 3 ~g5 e6 4 ~f3 (D) ~e7

4...c5 5 e4 - Game 64 4...i.b4 5 'it'd3 - Game 65 5 i..xf6 ~xf6 5...gxf6 6 e4 dxe4 7 lLlxe4 (D) 7... b6 - Game 62; 7...a6 - Game 63 6 e4 (D) 6...b6 - Game 59 6...0-0 7 i.d3 c5 - Game 60 6... dxe4 7lLlxe4 0-0 - Game 61

4~f3

130

7 t'Dxe4

6e4

CHAPTER NINE

I

1 ... dS 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .fS and Others

, d4 d5 2 lbc3 After White plays 1 d4 dS 2 It'lc3 Black can attempt to steer the game onto his own turf with a variety of second moves apart from 2...lt'lf6. Thus 2... e6 and 2...c6 lead to the French and Caro-Kann respectively after 3 e4, while 2... fS transposes directly to a Dutch Defence (normally this position is reached after 1 d4 fS 2 ~c3 dS) and 2...~c6 3 e4 is a Nimzowitsch. Fortunately White can cut down the amount of work involved by side-stepping most of these openings. Veresov himself used to transpose to a French after 1 d4 dS 2 It'lc3 e6 3 e4, but White can also play 3 It'lf3, as in TaegerTessars. Should Black answer this with 3... ~f6 we'd get a transposition to Chapter 8 after 4 .llgS. In the game he played 3....llb4, when White surprised him with 4 'it'd3!? and soon obtained a nice two bishop advantage. There's no way around the transposition to a Dutch after 1 d4 dS 2 ~c3 fS, but White can stick to the Veresov pattern with 3 .llgS. After the further 3...lt'lf6 my recommended line for White is the Veresovian 4 f3 (see Sokolov-Illescas and Macieja-Bartel) which offers interesting and dynamic play. My own view is that 3...lt'lf6 4 .llxf6 is rather harmless for Black, yet many exponents of the Dutch choose to avoid these somewhat stodgy posi-

tions by selecting different third moves. Thus 3...g6 features in Khalifman-Lerner, 3... c6 in Sokolov-Nikolic (White should improve here with 4 e4!) whilst the very dodgy looking 3...lt'lc6 was played in Romero HolmesVallejo Pons. Hort-Polgar illustrates how White can avoid transposition to a Caro-Kann by meeting 2...c6 with 3 .llgS. This is also interesting news for Trompovsky specialists as after 1 d4 dS 2 .llgS they can meet the feared 2...c6 with 3 ~c3 to reach the same position. White's development is somewhat easier and Black can soon find himself in trouble if he plays inaccurately.

Game 66 Taeger-Tessars Bundesliga 1983/84 , d4 d5 2 lbc3 e6 3 tbf3 .i.b4 4 ~d3 A similar idea to the 2...lt'lf6 3 i.gS e6 4 ~f3 i.b4 5 'it'd3 variation which we saw in the Hector-Berg game from the previous chapter. White supports the knight on c3 and prepares both e2-e4 and queenside castling. In Igoatiev-Khavsky, St Petersburg 1996, White tried 4 .llgS f6 5 i.d2 fS 6 e3 It'lf6 and now instead of 7 i.d3 an interesting treatment is 7 It'le2 i.d6 8 It'lf4, achieving the 131

The Veresov

ideal anti-Stonewall position for White's knights.

4 ...liJe7

The only other example of this position I could fmd was Kunath-Erpel, Weilburg 1998 in which Black played 4...tDc6, when 5 i.f4 tDf6 6 0-0-0 i.xc3 7 "xc3 tDe4 8 'iVe3 f6 9 tDd2 tDd6 10 g4 'fie7 11 iog2 was promising for White. Black's most natural move seems to be 4...tDf6, transposing to Hector-Berg after 5 i.g5.

White soon steps up a gear... 12 "a5 0-0 13 a4 "b8 14 "c3 .i.a6 15 axb5 i.xb5 16 ':'e 1 'ifb6 17 e4 .l:!.fe8 18 tbg5 liJf6 19 e5 liJg4 20 .i.a3 a5 21 'iff3 liJh6 22 i.c5 'fic7 23 'ifxh5 a4 24 c4 dxc4 25 bxc4 i.xc4 26 i.e4 liJf8 27 ':'e3 i.d5 28 ':'f3 .i.xe4 29 liJxe4 liJg6 30 liJd6 .l:!.f8 31 'ifg5 'ifd8 32 'ifd2 liJe7 33 l:lfa3 tbhf5 34 liJxf5 exf5 35 l::txa4 l:txa4 36 ':'xa4 ':'e8 37 'fig5 liJg6 38 "xf5 'fid5 39 .l:!.a7 "e6 40 'fixe6 l:txe6 41 f4 f5 42 h5 liJh8 43 l:!.a8+ ~h7 1-0

Game 67 I.Sokolov-lIIescas Cordoba Hoogovens, Wijk aan Zee 1997 1 d4 d5 2liJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 liJf6 4 f3!?

5 a3 i.xc3+ 6 "xc3 "d6 7 g3liJg6 8 h4 h5 9 .i.g2 liJd7 10 0-0 c6 11 b3

White is clearly better here due to Black's weaknesses on the dark squares and awkward piece placements. Clearly it is far too soon to

make any deflIlitive assessment of 4 'i'd3, although it certainly looks interesting. 11 ... b5?!

The move which is most in the spirit of the Veresov. White wants to play e2-e4. 4 ...liJc6

Yet another pawn goes to a light square. 132

Trying to prevent e2-e4 by putting pressure on the d4-pawn. There are a number of alternatives: a) 4... e6 5 e4 i.e7 is a solid nut against which it is difficult for White to achieve very much. The best is probably 6 exf5 (6 e5 tDfd7 7 i.xe7 'iWxe7 looks like a super-solid version of the French) 6... exES 7 'iVd2 0-0 8 0-0-0 c6 9 i.d3 (the immediate 9 tDh3!? is worth considering) 9... tDh5 10 i.xe7 'i'xe7 11 l::tel 'i'd6 12 tDh3 tDd7 13 'i'g5 g6 14 tDe2 'ii'f6 15 g4 fxg4 16 fxg4 'ii'xg5+ 17

1 ... d5 2 tiJc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

liJxgS liJg7 and Black maintained the balance in Sakaev-Malaniuk, Elista 1998. b) 4...cS is a sharper alternative, when there can follow 5 e4 (5 e3 e6 6 Wd2liJc6 7 0-0-0 cxd4?! 8 exd4 .i.b4 9 a3 .i.aS 10 g4 was promising for White in Thorhallsson-Bern, Arnhem 1987) S...liJc6 (S ...dxe4 6 dxcS 'ii'aS 7 'iWd2 'ii'xcs 8 0-0-0 .i.e6 9 liJh3 Wc8 10 itJf4 gave White a strong initiative in Malaniuk-Kamenets, Polanica Zdroj 2000, whilst S... cxd4 is probably best met by 6 'ii'xd4 liJc6 7 .i.bS) 6 .i.bS (6 .i.xf6 exf6 7 exdS cxd4 8 dxc6 dxc3 9 .i.bS bxc6 10 i.xc6+ .i.d7 11 .i.xd7+ 'ii'xd7 12 'ii'xd7+ c;t>xd7 13 bxc3 .i.cs was no worse for Black in Vaisman-Santo Roman, France 2000) 6... a6 7 .i.xc6+ bxc6 8 ~xf6 gxf6 9 exdS cxdS 10 dxcS e6 11 'ii'd4 'ii'c7 12 liJa4 c;t>f7 13 b4, producing a complex and messy game in which Black had compensation for the pawn in Antonsen-Malaniuk, Lyngby Open 1991. c) 4...liJbd7 5 'iVd3 e6 (S ...g6 6 e4 itJb6 7 eS liJhS 8 .i.e2 h6 9 .i.c1 c6 10 f4 itJg7 11 'iWg3 put Black in all sorts of trouble in Klaric-Sinka, Caorle 1982) 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7 liJh3 0-0 8 e4 liJb6 9 exfS exfS 10 liJf4 h6 11 .i.xf6 l:txf6 12 h4 with an edge for White in Stefanova-Montell Lorenzo, Salou 2000. For 4...c6 see Macieja-Bartel. S "ilfd2

Preparing to castle long before proceeding with any central action. After the impetuous 5 e4?! Black plays S... fxe4 6 fxe4 itJxe4! 7 itJxe4 dxe4 8 dS itJb4! 9 .i.c4 c6 with an excellent game. S ... g6 The alternative way for Black to develop is with S... e6 6 0-0-0 .i.e7 7 e4 dxe4 (7 ... 0-0!? is not unthinkable) 8 fxe4 fxe4 (8...itJxe4 9 itJxe4 fxe4 10 h4 gives White compensation for the pawn) 9 .i.bS! .i.d7 10 ~xf6 .i.xf6 11 itJxe4, which favours White thanks to his superior development and the weak e6-pawn. Bronstein-Magergut, Moscow 1947 saw the interesting 6 e4!? dxe4 7 0-0-0 .i.b4 8 a3 ~aS

9 .i.c4 0-0 10 liJge2 exf3 11 gxf3 and White had a promising initiative for the pawn. 60-0-0 i.g7 7 i.h6

Not so much an attacking move as a positional one. The bishop on g7 is Black's 'good' bishop and without it his dark squares look rather weak. 7 ... 0-0 8 tiJh3 a6 9 i.xg7 xg7 10 tiJf4 "ilfd6 11 e3

After 11 h4? Black can equalise with 11...liJxd4! 12 liJfxdS (after 12 hS or 12 'ii'xd4 Black plays 12...eS) 12...ti:)xdS 13 'ii'xd4+ liJf6 etc. 11 ...i.e6 12 h4 i.f7 13 hS gS 14 h6+ h8 1S ltJh3 g4

Not 1S....:g8? 16 e4. 16 tiJgS i.g6 17 tiJe2 eS 18 dxeS 'ii'xeS 19 tiJf4 l':.ae8 20 i.d3 'ifxe3 21 'ifxe3 l':.xe3 22 tiJfe6 l':.e8

If Black protects the c-pawn with 22...l::tc8 White has 23 ~d2 d4 (or 23 .. J:teS 24 f4) 24 liJxd4 winning material. 23 fxg41! It might have been better to try 23 itJg7

':'8e7 (23 ...lI8eS 24 f4 :e7 25 ~xfS) 24 .i.xfS although 24...:e2 continues to be uncomfortable for White. 23 ...tiJxg4 24 tiJxc7 l':.8eS1!

According to Illescas Black should have played 24...l:tc8 25 liJxdS l1g3. 2S tiJf3! tiJf2 26 tiJxeS l':.xeS 27 J:Lhe1 tiJxd1 28 xd1 l':.xe1 + 1!

Probably the losing move. Black has to try 133

The Veresov

28 ... f4.

can, for example 6... fxe4 (6 ... h6 might be met by 7 i.xf6 1i'xf6 8 exfS exfs 9 f4, intending lL'lgl-f3-es) 7 fxe4 i.b4 8 es lL'le4 9 i.xd8 lL'lxd2 10 ~xd2 ~xd8 11 a3 ~e7 12lL'lf3 cs 13 dxcs ~xcs 14 ~d3 lL'lc6 15 :hfl gives White the initiative in the endgame.

29 ~xe1 ttJe7 30 c;i;>f2 ttJg8

Trying to keep White's king at bay with 30...d410ses to 31 'iii>g3lL'lg8 (or 31...~g8 32 lL'le6) 32 ~f4 lL'lxh6 33 lL'le6, threatening both the pawn on d4 and 34lL'lcs. 31 ttJxd5 ttJxh6 32 c;i;>g3 i.f7 33 ttJe3 i.xa2 Or 33 ...~g7 34 'it>f4 rt;f6 3slL'lxfS etc. 34 b3 ttJg4 35 ttJd5 ttJe5 36 i.xf5 ttJc6 37 ttJe3 ttJb4 38 c;i;>t4 ~g7 39 c;i;>e3 h6 40 ~d21iff6 41 i.e8 b5 42 life 1 1-0

6 0-0-0

'iVd2

6 ...ttJbd7 7 e3

White should seriously consider the immediate 5 e4, for example s ...'iVb6 (s ... fxe4 6 fxe4 lL'lxe4 7 lL'lxe4 dxe4 8 .i.c4 gives White excellent compensation for the pawn) 6 es lL'lfd7 7 a3 e6 (7...Wxb2?? 8 lL'la4) 8 b4 as 9 lL'la4 'iic7 10 c3 b6 11 lL'lh3 and Black was cramped in Doroshkievich-Rotshtein, Lvov 1986.

Another possibility is 7 lL'lh3, although after 7...h6 8 .i.xf6 lL'lxf6 9 lL'lf4 ~f7 Black seems to be doing fine.

After 6 e4 dxe4 7 fxe4 fxe4 White can't bring his bishop to c4. If he recovers his pawn with 8 .i.xf6 exf6 9 lL'lxe4 Black is at least equal after 9... 'ifb6 (followed by castling long). In Bukal-Beim, Austria 2002 White played the indecisive 6 lL'lh3 lL'lbd7 7 Wd3?! Game 68 (7 0-0-0 is better) with Black gradually Macieja-Bartel assuming the initiative after 7...g6 8 0-0-0 Polish Ch., Warsaw 2002 ~g7 9 We3 .i.f7 10 ~h6 0-0 11 .i.xg7 rt;xg7 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 12 lL'lf4 Wc7 13 lL'le6+ ~xe6 14 Wxe6 lL'lg8 1 d4 d5 2 ttJc3 f5 3 .i.g5 ttJf6 4 f3 c6 5 15 g3 :f616 .e3 es etc.

5 ....i.e6!?

Directed against 6 e4, although White can also delay this move. After s ... e6 6 0-0-0 ~b4 7 e3 lL'le4 8 fxe4?! Wxgs Black had an edge in Nestorovic-Orlov, Belgrade 2001. With this in mind White should play 6 e4 while he still 134

7 ... h6 8 i.xf6

Here Tyomkin suggested 8 .i.f4!? and assessed the position as slightly better for White after 8...gs 9 i.g3 i.g7 10 h4. This may well be true, but 8...gs certainly isn't forced. Black could, for example, consider 8... bs which both commences queenside action and prepares to undermine the knight on c3, one of the main supporters of the crucial e3-e4 advance. 8 ...ttJxf6 9 i.d3 'ifd7 10 h3 0-0-0 11 g4

1 ... d5 2 tDc3: 2 ... e6, 2 .. .f5 and Others

g5 12 h4

"xe6 26 'iWxg7, winning a pawn.

Had White tried 12 tL\ge2 (planning 13 tL\g3) Black could take the initiative on the kingside with 12... h5.

24~f5+

12.••~g7 13 gxf5 ~xf5 14 hxg5 hxg5 15 tDge2 g4! 16 e4

In his notes Tyomkin suggested 16 i..xfS and assessed the position after 16...'iWxf5 17 f4 l:.h3 18 l:.hg1 as equal. It seems to me that Black is better after 18...l:.dh8 19 ltJg3 'iVd7 due to his domination of the h-ille and passed pawn. Of course it's not easy to break through in this position.

White could also play 24 'iWg3, when 24...ltJf3 25 ltJe4 'iWf7 (25 ...'iWxd426 c3 wins a piece) 26 ':'£1 leaves Black's knight in all sorts of trouble. 24 ... '1t>d8

24...e6 meets with 25 i..xe6+, and after 24... ~b8 White has 25 'iWg3+ 'iii>a8 26 i..e4, keeping Black's knight locked away in the corner. 25 "f4 'ifd6 26 "e3 ~h6 27 'ii'e2 ':'f8

16 ... ~e6 17 exd5? .i.xd5?

28~e4?

Missing the opportunity to win a pawn with 17.. .lhh1 18 l:txh1 i.xd5 19 ltJxdS Wxd5, picking up f3. White could have avoided this by exchanging rooks on h8 before capturing on d5.

White had an even stronger possibility in 28 ltJe4, when the knight heads for e6. The tactical point is that 28 ...'iVf4 29 tL\c5 'i'xfS 30 ltJe6+ followed by ltJxfS and 'iWxh2 wins the exchange. 28 ...'ii'g3

Around here Black's pieces start to lose their coordination. Instead 21...'iWd7 22 ~b1 i.h6 is equal.

After 28 ...e6 (to prevent 29 dS) White can choose between 29 ltJa4 (intending 30 ltJc5), 29 i.h 1 (intending 30 ltJe4 followed by ltJcS) and 29 'iWhs followed by 30 'iVa5+-, picking up the a7-pawn.

22 ~b1 lLlh2?

29 d5 c5 30 'ifb5

Black could still hold the balance with the precise 22 ...ltJf2, after which 23 1:.£1 i.xd4 24 i.f5+- 'iWxfS 25 'iWxd4 e5 26 'iWxa7 l:th 1 simplifies the position and makes a draw likely.

White also has the immediate 30 d6, after which 30... exd6 31 "iWbs leaves Black defenceless.

18 ':'xh8 ':'xh8 19 fxg4 tDxg4 20 tDxd5 "ii'xd5 21 tDc3 "ii'f7?!

23 "ii'g5 -.f6

The attempt to evacuate the knight with 23 ...ltJf3 runs into 24 i.f5+ e6 2S i.xe6+

30 ...'ifc7

30.....d6 would have been a more stubborn defence as the reply 31 'iVxb7 can be answered by 31...'iib6. Nevertheless, this looks very promising for White after 32 135

The Veresov

'iVa8+ 'it>d7 (32...~c7 33 d6+) 33 'iic6+ 'iVxc6 34 dxc6+ as all his pieces are superbly placed and the passed pawn on c6 is particularly dangerous. 31 d6! exd6 32 'iVe2 i.f4 33 lOd5 'ilf7 34 lOxf4?

Game 69

Khalifman-Lerner Knjbyshev 1986 1 d4 d5 2 lOe3 f5 3 i.g5 g6

Letting Black off the hook. White could conclude matters with 34 .tg6!, when 34...'iig7 35 tDxf4 nxf4 36 ltxd6+ ~c7 37 'ii'xh2 wins a piece. 34 ...'iVxf4 35 i.xb7 lOf1?? It looks as if both players were short of

time. Black can force a draw which forces the exchange pieces after 36 'i'd2 'i'xdH etc. Now his king proves to posed.

with 35 ...'ii'fl! of the major 37 'iVxdl :%f1 be far too ex-

36 a3 lOe3 37 ll81 lleS 3S 'ila6 lOe4 39 l:txeS+ 'it>xeS 40 i.d5 lOb6 41 'ifxa7! lOxd5 42 'ii"aS+ 'iifd7 43 'iVxd5

The queen endgame is winning for White thanks largely to the superb position of his queen. She later comes to b3 to support the advance of the a-pawn. 43 .. .'~e7 44 'iifa2 'iitb6 45 'ii"b3+ 'iite7 46 c4 'iVe4 47 a4 WaS 48 'ifb5 Wa7 49 a5 WaS 50 'ii"b6+ 'iitd7 51 a6 'ile6 52 Wa5 'iVaS 53 a7 'iite6 54 'ii'b5+ 'iite7 55 Wa6 1-0 After 55 ... ~d7 56 'it>a3 rj;;c7 (or 56 ...'iVf3+

57 'iii>a4 'iWdH 58 c;f;ta5) the simplest is probably 57 b3 'ifh8 58 a8tD+ ~b8 59 'iVxd6+ ~xa8 60 'iVxc5 with an easy win. 136

Black chooses not to commit his knight to f6 for the time being, avoiding the doubled pawns that result from 3...tDf6 4 .txf6 and, with ....tg7 to now follow, ruling out plans based on li'd2 and .th6. For 3... c6 see Sokolov-Nikolic, while 3... tDc6 is covered in Romero Holmes-Vallejo Pons. 4 e3 i.g7 5 h4 i.e6

Black has a major alternative in 5... c6, when 6 .tf4!? (intending 7 h5) is quite promising (the immediate 6 h5 is answered by 6...h6 7 .tf4 g5). After 6...tDd7 or 6...tDh6 White should open the h-ftle with 7 h5, so play might instead continue 6...tDf6 7 h5

1 ... d5 2 li:Jc3: 2 ... e6, 2 ... f5 and Others

ttJx:h5 8 .l:!.x:h5 gxh5 9 1ifx:h5+ ~f8 10 ~d3 'lIVe8 11 'iih2, as in Gelfand-Kontic, European U20 Ch., Arnhem 1988, when White had good compensation for the exchange.

and White gets his first pawn for the exchange whilst maintaining a powerful bind.

6 li:Jf3 c6 7 .i.f4

Once again the immediate 7 h5 is answered by 7... h6 8 ~f4 g5 so (again) White first retreats the bishop. 7 ..•li:Jf6 8 h5 li:Jxh5?

12 .i.d3 e6 13 g4 h6 14 li:Jf3 .i.f7 1S 'ii'h3 fxg4 16 'ifxg4 li:Jd7 17 .i.d6+ ~g8 18 0-0-0 li:Jf6 19 'iff4 .i.hS 20 .i.eS .i.xf3 21 'ii'xf3 "ile7 22 :'g1 :'f8 23 'ilfg3

White can also bring his knight into the attack with 23 ttJe2, when 23 ...ttJd7 24 ttJf4 ttJxe5 25 dxe5 h5 26 'iVg2 is deadly. Allowing the following exchange sacrifice in the mistaken belief that he can weather the storm. But White's positional compensation will persist for a long time. Black should keep developing with 8...ttJbd7!?, when IonovMalaniuk, Budapest 1989 continued 9 hxg6 hxg6 10 :xh8+ ~x:h8 11 ttJe5 (KalinitschevLegky, Thilisi 1985 went 11 ~d3 ttJe4 12 ttJg5!? and Black should have played the immediate 12...~g8 rather than 12...ttJxc3 13 bxc3 i.g8, allowing 14 i.xf5!) 11...~f7 12 ~e2 "as 13 'iVd2 ttJxe5 14 ~xe5 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 and White was marginally better. Black was fine in Khalifman-Legky, USSR 1987 after 9 h6 ~f8 10 'iVd2 ~f7 11 ttJe5 e6 12 f3 ~e 7 13 g4 ttJxe5 14 i.xe5 fxg4 15 fxg4 0-0.

23 •.• hS 24 .i.d6 h4 25 'ii'a5

Also possible are 25 'ii'h2 and 25 'iVg5, both of which look very strong. 2S ...'ifd7 26 .i.xf8 ~xf8 27 li:Je2 li:Jh5 28 'ifb8+ ~f7

After 28 .. .'it'e7? there is 29 J::txg7+ ttJxg7 30 'iVxh8 and White emerges a piece up. 29 .i.g6+ ~e7 30 .i.xhS l':.xb8 31 ltxg7+ ~d6 32 :'xd7 + ~xd7

9 :'xh5! gxh5 10 li:JgS .i.g8

After 1O...'iVd7 there follows 11 'iVx:h5+ ~d8 12 i.d3 with considerable pressure for

the sacrificed exchange. 11 'ifxhS+ ~f8 If Black heads for the hills with 11...~d7

there follows 12 ttJf7 ~xf7 (or 12...'iVe8 13 'tIixf5+ e6 14 ttJe5+) 13 'ii'xf7 ~f6 14 ~d3

The endgame is winning for White but he needs to make sure that Black's h-pawn is 137

The Veresov

finnly blockaded. Khalifman handles any technical difficulties very well. 33 ~g4 'ifi'd6 34 Wd2 l:g8 35 f3 e5 36 dxe5+ ~xe5 37 ~e1 l:h8 38 ~h3 c5 39 ~f2 b5 40 itJf4 l:h6 41 itJd3+ 'ifi'd6 42 f4 b4 43 f5 c4 44 itJf4 Wa5 45 Wf3 l:d6 46 itJh5

White also has 46 liJe6 as after 46 ...l:la6 there follows 47liJcS ':xa2 4SliJd7+ ~d6 49 f6 etc. 46 ... d4 47 exd4+ l:xd4 48 f6 l:d8 49 ~f1 ~f5 50 ~xc4 c,t>g5 51 itJf4 ~xf6 52 itJd5+ ~g5 53 itJxb4 l:d2 54 We3 J:[d1 55 itJd3 h3 56 itJf2 h2 57 b3 h1"if 58 itJxh1 l:xh1 59 ~d4 l:h4+?

Black's last chance was S9 ...~f6, when 60 WcS We7 61 Wc6 .l:th2 62 .i.d3 h1 'ii'xb2 18 1:1g3 ..ti>h8 19 i.h6 g6 (19 ...gxh6? 20 'iixh6 ttJe8 allows 21 'ifxf8+ ~x£8 22 ttJx£7 mate) 20 Ji.gS ~g7 21 'ii'h6+ ~g8 22 i.xf6 1-0, since 22...i.xf6 23 :h3 leads to forced mate. 7 ... d6 The main argument against 7 f4 is that Black can use the fact that White hasn't castled to play an immediate 7... bS!?, NeiTaimanov, USSR 1981 continuing 8 eS b4!? 9 ttJbS (9 exf6 gxf6 is better for Black) 9...a6 10 ttJd6+ (10 exf6 gxf6 11 ttJd6+ Ji.xd6 12 ~xf6 Ji.e7 13 ~xe7 l6xe7 also leaves Black with the more compact structure) 1O ... ~xd6 11 146

exd6 ttJd4!? and now, according to Taimanov, White should play 12 Ji.d3 when 12...i.b7 13 'ikf2 h6 14 ~h4 ttJbS 15 i.xbS axbS 16 ttJf3 is complex. In the game 12 0-0-0 ttJf5 13 i.xf6 ttJxh4 14 ~xd8 'S\i>xd8 15 ttJe2 ~b7 16 JIgl f6!? gave Black the better endgame due to the pressure against White's kingside. Note that here (7 ... bS) 8 ttJxbS 'ii'a5+ 9 ttJc3 ttJxe4 is just bad for White, and 8 Ji.xbS 'iVb6 gives Black compensation for the pawn. Another attempt to reveal the dark side of 7 f4 is with 7..."ikb6, when Ochoa-Browne, New York 1989 went 8 0-0-0 l6e3+ 9 'S\i>bl ttJxe4 10 ttJxe4 'ifxe4 11 Ji.d3 Ji.xgS 12 'iixgS 'ii'd4 13 ttJf3 l6f6 14 "ikhs 'ifxf4 15 ttJgS ttJeS 16 lthfl l6g4 17 'ii'xg4 ttJxg4 18 ttJx£7 1:1£8 19 ttJd6+ ~e7 20 .l:!.x£8 'ittx£8 21 Ji.xh7 ~e7 22 h3 ttJe3 23 :d2 ttJdS 24 ttJxc8+ :xc8 25 ~e4 and White had the better endgame, though it's not clear what was happening en route. S 0-0-0 "a5 9 tlJf3

9 ... h6 1bis has been applauded as being Black's best option, although it seems that there are other possibilities: a) 9 ... ~d7 looks like a natural developing move, when 10 'ifel, 10 ~bS and 10 ~d3 all seem reasonable for Black after 10... h6. However, 10 ttJd2 with the idea of 11 ttJc4 is problematic for Black, Sell-Berger, Gennany 1999 continuing 10...:c8 11 ttJc4 16cS 12

1 .. .tcd6 2 tiJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

ttJa4 'ii'b4, and now 13 a3 'iixa4 14 b3 'iia6 15 ttJxd6+ wins Black's queen for what appears to be inadequate compensation. b) 9...a6 protects bS (when 10 ttJd2 can be met by 10... bS) but Black needs a good answer to 10 'iiel, as 10... bS 11 eS b4 12 exf6 gxf6 13 .ltxf6 .ltxf6 14 ttJe4 was good for \X'hite in Mensch-Nicoara, France 1999. c) 9...0-0 seems to 'castle into it' but I don't see any concrete objection.

ficult to assess. White clearly has compensation for the pawn thanks to his superior development and Black's loss of castling rights. But is it enough?

14 ...'irc5 15 We1 a6 16 .i.d3 Probably the best square for the bishop as after 16 i.a4 bS 17 i.b3 i.b7 Black gains time for development.

16 ... .i.d7 17 l:[n

10 e5

TIlls seems to be most in the spirit of the opening, but White has also played a preliminary 10 i.bS. Rabinovich-Gershon, Israel 1996 went 10...i.d7 11 eS dxeS 12 ttJxeS ttJxeS 13 £XeS i.xbS 14 ttJxbS (14 exf6 i.c6 was good for Black in Sjodahl-Akesson, Sundsvall 1989) 14...'iixbS 15 exf6 'iVxgS+ and Black had a large advantage in the endgame. According to Serper White should play 12 .ltxc6! .ltxc6 13 ttJxeS, after which 13. ..:c8 is equal in his view but nice for Black in mine. White should avoid 12 £XeS? ttJxeS.

10 ... dxe5 11 fxe5 lbxe5 12 tiJxe5 In luldachev-Serper, Tashkent 1993 White played 12 i.b5+ i.d7 13 ttJxeS i.xbS 14 ttJxf7!? but after 14...'it>xf7 15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 1Wh5+ 'it>g817'iixbS i.xc3 18 'iixb7 i.xb2+! 19 Wxb2 (19 'it>xb2? We5+!) 19...~h7 White's king was the more exposed.

12 ...'irxe5 13 .i.b5+

~8

14 .i.f4

TIlls position is very complicated and dif-

A logical move, eyeing Black's king down the f-file. In San Emeterio-Lalic, Madrid 2001, White allowed exchanges before playing this move, but after 17 ttJe4 ttJxe4 18 i.xe4 i.c6 19 :c8 20 .ltg6 i.e8 21 i.d6 'iVgS+ 22 ~b1 'ii'xg6 23 i.xe7+ 'it>g8 his compensation disappeared. KalinitschewGustafsson, Dresden 2002 varied with 17 lIgl i.c6 18 g4 l:[d8 19 h4 i.f3 20 gS hxgS 21 hxgS ttJdS 22 ttJxdS WxdS but here White saw nothing better than going into an endgame a pawn down after 23 i.e2 'iixd1+ 24 i.xd1 ':xd1+ etc. 17 ... .i.c6 18 g4 ':'d8 Can Black get away with 18... ttJxg4 here? It is cerrainly not for the faint-hearted, but I don't see a clear attacking line for White. Practical trials would be helpful...

:£1

19 .i.e3 'ire5 20 .f2 .i.b4!? 21 lLle2 :td7! 22 h3 ~e8 23.i.d4 White could also consider safeguarding his king with 23 'it>b 1 before undertaking positive action.

23 ...'ird5 147

The Veresov

7 ~xf6 gxf6 8 lLle4 ~e7 9 lLld6+ ~xd6 10 .u.xd6 ~e7 11 .l:.dl was quite good for White in Puranen-Shishkov, Paide 1999. 6 ... a6 7 lbf3?!

23 ...'ii'g5+ 24 ~bllLle4 25 ~xe4 ~xe4 26 lLlf4 is quite promising for White, who threatens 27 lLlhS, while 26 ...eS can be answered with 27 "e2. 24 i.xf6 gxf6 25 ~b1 Snatching back the pawn with 25 'iVxf6? leaves Black with much the better endgame after 2S ...'ilfg5+ 26 ~bl 'ilfxf6 27 .l:.xf6 ~e7 and 28... hS. 25 ... i.e7 26 lbf4 'ire5! Offering to return the pawn in order to exchange queens. Stubbornly hanging on to the booty with 26 ...'iVgS puts Black under considerable pressure after 27 .l:.de1 (or perhaps 27lLlhS!?). 27 'ifxe5 %-% Black might have considered playing on as after 27...~xcS 28 lLlh5 ~e7 29 lLlxf6+ Sl.xf6 30 .u.xf6 f8 his passed e-pawn might become dangerous.

The critical line seems to be 7 0-0-0 "as (7 ... h6 8lLldS ~b7 9 Sl.xf6 gxf6 10 lLle2 'ii'aS 11 ~bl was good for White in Nei-Diesen, Helsinki 1990) 8 ~bl d6 9lLlge2 ~e6 (9 ... b4 10 ~xf6 gxf6 11 lLldS looks better for White), and now instead of 10 lLlct, as in AJackson-Gladyszev, Isle of Man 2000, 10 ~xf6 gxf6 11 lLlf4 looks better for White. 7 ... d6 8 i.e2?! White's plan of castling kingside is quite out of the spirit of the position. Here too I prefer 8 0-0-0; White's king seems safe enough on the queenside. 8 ...e6 9 i.xf6?! 'iVxf6 10 'ilxf6 gxf6 11 0-0-0 i.b 7 12 lbd4 ne8 This endgame is better for Black's two bishops. Game 74 13lbxe6 i.xe6 14 a4 ':g8 15 .l:[hg1 bxa4 Grimm-Mi.Tseitlin 16 i.xa6 nb8 17 .l:!.d4? .l:!.g5 Passau 1998 Missing an opportunity presented by - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. . White's last move. Black can play even more 1 d4 lbf6 2 lbe3 e5 3 i.g5 exd4 4 'irxd4 strongly with 17...~h6+ 18 Wbl ~f4, when the bishop is coming to eS with great effect. lbe6 5 'ifh4 b5!? 6 e4 18 i.d3? Not 6 lLlxbS? in view of 6...'ilfb6!, when White should play 18 g3 in order to meet the b2-pawn falls. White has an alternative in 18. ...l:.cS 19 .l:.c4 .l:.xc4 20 ~xc4 ~h6+ with 6 0-0-0, after which 6... b4 7 lLldS 'ilfaS 8 e4 'ilfxa2 9 lLlc7+ ~d8 10 lLlxa8 'ilfa1+ 11 Wd2 21 f4. The entry of Black's dark-squared bishop will decide matters. 'ilfxb2 produces a wild position which is difficult to assess with any accuracy, while 6...e6 18 ....:e5 19 .l:!.c4?!

r-----------------.

148

1.. .ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

19 liJaZ is more tenacious. 19 ....i.h6+ 20 ~b1 ':xc4 21 .i.xc4.i.d2 22 ~a2 .i.xc3 23 bxc3 .i.xe4 24 .i.d3 .i.xd3 25 cxd3 ':b3 26 ':c1 d5 27 d4 f5 28 g3 h5 29 h4 ~e7 30 c4 dxc4 31 lbc4 ':f3 0-1 A bit of a lame performance from White. ~--------------.

rial pressure on the e-file. After s ... e6 White played 6 iibs in Uobel Cottell-Zapata, Andorra ZOOZ, and after 6...ds 7 0-0-0 cxd4 S exd4 liJc6 9 ~b 1 i.d7 10 liJgeZ %:.cS he should have played 11 f4, intending f4-fS with promising play. In the game 11 Wf3 was rather pointless. 6 ds .i.g7 7liJgeZliJa6 S g3liJc7 9 .i.gZliJbs 100-0 Game 75 liJxc3 11 liJxc3 fs wasn't clear in De la VillaDe la Villa-Glavina Rossi Wiersma, Berlin 1997. Zaragoza Open 1995 If Black plays a preliminary s ...cxd4 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. exd4 and then 6 ...e6 White can't put his 1 d4 ti:Jf6 2 ti:Jc3 c5 3 .i.g5 'i'a5 4 .i.xf6 queen on hs. 7 ds .i.a3 8 'i'c1 'iWb4 9 :bl gxf6 5 e3 'it'xc3+ 10 bxc3 i.xc1 11 l:txc1 b6 was fme for Black in Mi.Tseitlin-Pokojowczyk, Slupsk 1978, but 7 'i'f3 fS 8 0-0-0 looks quite good to me. 6...d6 7 i.b5+ i.d7 8 .i.xd7+ liJxd7 9 Wf3 e6 10 liJgeZ was good for White in De la Villa-Glavina Rossi, Aceimar 1995.

6 'ill5 lOc6 7 .lc4 a6 The only other way to defend f7 is with 7...liJdS but then S i.b5+ is very unpleasant. 8 d5!

White can also gain space with 5 dS, though s ... fS clears a nice diagonal for Black's dark-squared bishop and gives him greater potential for counterplay. PlachetkaFtacnik, Frenstat 1982 continued 6 e3 i.g7 7 'iWdZ d6 S liJge2 liJd7 9 liJf4liJb6 10 i.b5+ ~f8 11 i.e2 'i!Vb4 12liJd3 'iWas 13liJf4 i.d7 and White's queenside came under fire. 5 ... d6?! This natural looking move has surprisingly serious consequences due to the weakening of Black's light squares. In this position s ... fS has nothing like the same effect as the a I-h8 diagonal is blocked by the pawn on d4. Shereshevsky-Veremeichik, Minsk 1978 continued 6 'iWhs cxd4 7 exd4 'i'b6 8 0-0-0 'iWh6+ 9 'it'xh6 i.xh6+ 10 ~bl d6 11 g3 i.d7 12 i.g2 i.c6 13 ds .i.d7 14 f4 and White had a significant space advantage and poten-

8 ...ti:Je5 8... exds 9 i.xds is horrible for Black in view of his pawn weaknesses, but the text is not much better. 9 dxe6 ~d8 10 e7+ .i.xe7 11 .i.e2 b5 12 liJf3 .i.b7 13 ti:Jxe5 fxa5 14 0-0-0 f6 Ugly, but by now there is little choice. After 14... b4 there follows 15 "xeS l:tgS 16 nxd6+ i.xd6 17 'it'xd6+ ~c8 ISliJds etc. 15 .i.xb5 a6 16 .i.a4 'i'c7 17 ti:Jd5 .i.xd5

149

The Veresov

18l:!.xd5 The opposite coloured bishops favour White in this position due to Black's appalling weaknesses on the light squares. There's litde he can do to repair the damage. 18 ... J:!.b8 19 l:I.hd 1 l:I.b6 20 'ikf7 ~c8 21 l:I.5d3 'it>b7 22 i.b3 d2 'ikxc4? Returning the favour. 33 ...e4! poses White unexpectedly difficult problems as it takes escape squares from the king and leaves the rook stuck on b3. 34 'ilxe7+ l:I.c7 35 'ifd6 f5 36 l:txb4 .c1 + 37 It>e2 'ikc2+ 38 'ifd2 'ifc6 39 f3 f440 exf4 'ifa6+ 41 1t>f2 1-0

Game 76 Mestrovic-Medic Pula Open 1996 1 d4 ibf6 2 ibc3 c5 3 dxc5 150

Mestrovic has shown a preference for capture, which leads to Sicilian type structures. 3 ••. e6

After 3...'iVa5 Mestrovic has most recendy played 4 a3!?, when 4 ...'ii'xcs S e4 d6 6 .te3 'ii'a5 7 .td3 g6 8 'ii'd2 lLlc6 9 lLlb5!? 'ifd8 10 0-0-0 a6 11 lLlc3 bS 12 lLldS lLlxd5 13 exd5 left him with a significant space advantage in Mestrovic-Termeulen, Gent 1999. This is an improvement on 4lLlf3 e6 5 lLld2 'ii'xcs 6 e4 d5 7 lLlb3 'ii'c7 8 exdS .tb4 9 i.bS+ i.d7 10 i.xd7+ "xd7 11 0-0 i.xc3 12 bxc3 'ii'xdS, which left him with the inferior position in Mestrovic-Fercec, Zadar 1997. 4 e4 ibc6 5 .te3 Making Black agree to the exchange of dark-squared bishops before returning the pawn. In Mestrovic-G.Horvath, Keszthely 1981 White played 5 lLlf3 but after S....txcS 6 i.d3 'ii'c7 7 0-0 a6 S 'ii'e2lLlg4 Black had a thoroughly satisfactory position. 5 .. :l'a5 6 .td3 .txc5 7 .txc5 .xc5 8 ibf3 0-0 9 0-0 a6 This position contains just a dash of poison. In order to cover his dark squares Black should put a pawn on d6 but this pawn can then become a target. A sample is 9... d6 10 a3 eS 11 h3.te6 12lLla4 'ii'aS 13 c4 with the better game for White. Mestrovic-Tomasic, Opatija 1995 varied with 9... h6, when 10 a3 dS 11 'ii'e2 a6 12 .l:.ad1 b5 13 .l:.fe1 b4 14 axb4 'ii'xb4 1511b1 .tb7 16 exdS exdS gave White an edge thanks to the isolated d-pawn.

1 .. .ti:Jf6 2 4Jc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

10 a3 ttJg4 11 ttJa4 'ika7 This allows a clever reply, but in any case White has something. 11..."ii"a5 12 c4 gives White a space advantage. 12 e5! f5 The point behind White's last move is that 12...lt'Jcxe5 is answered by 13 ltJxe5ltJxe5 14 i.xh7+ ~xh7 15 'iWh5+ followed by 16 'iixe5, when Black has serious weaknesses on the dark squares. In the game Black is also left with pawn weaknesses. 13 exf6 tDxf6 14 c4 d5 15 "'e2 .i.d7 16 b4 ':ae8 17 ttJc5 .i.c8 18 'iWc2 dxc4 19 'ifxc4 ~h8 20 ttJe4 e5 21 ttJfg5

Switching from positional play to a direct attack. The threat is 22lt'Jf7+. 21 ... ttJxe4 22 .i.xe4 ':f4 After 22...g6 there follows 23 i.xg6 hxg6 24 'iWh4+ f1 and then plays 31...~f8 there follows 32 ..ti>e2! :!xc7 33 ':'xc7 :f5 34 'ilxf5! gxf5 35 :ccS with a winning position for White. 30 h4 J:l.xc7 31 'ii'a8 J:l.a5 31...:xc1 introduces a mate: 32 l:hf8+ 'it>g7 33 :gS+ 'it>h6 34 'iWffi. 32 J:l.xc7 'iVxc7 33 J:l.xf8+ 'iPg7 34 J:g8+ ~h6 35 .f3 f5 36 e4 'it'c1 37 g4 fxg4 38 'ii'xf7 J:a3 39 'ii'g7+ Iith5 40 .xh7+ 'it'h6 41 J:h8 1-0

Game 78

Fahnenschmidt-Eis Rheda-Wiedenbrueck 2001 1 d4 It'lf6 2 It'lc3 d6 3 ..tg5 It'lbd7

Besides 3... g6 (as in Klinger-Maxion)

1 .. .r:iJf6 2 liJc3: 2 ... c5, 2 .. . d6, 2 . .. g6 and Others

Black can try 3... c6, when I suggest waiting for a move with 4 tiJf3. Then 4... b5 (4...tiJbd7 5 e4 e5 6 Ji.c4 transposes to the note to Black's 5th move, below) 5 .txf6 exf6 6 e3 favours White due to Black's compromised pawn structure. 4 e4 eS S liJf3 iLe 7 After 5... c6 6 .tc4 b5 7 .tb3 a6 S a4 b4 (S ....tb 7 9 d5 b4 10 dxc6 ~xc6 11 tiJd5 also looks like an edge for White) 9 tiJe2 h6 10 i.xf6 1Ii'xf6 11 0-0 Black's weak pawns on the queenside are a target. White can also play 6 a4, when 6... h6 7 i.e3 tiJg4 S .tel exd4 911i'xd4 tiJde5 10 i.e2 i.e7 11 0-0 i.f6 12 ~d1 tiJxf3+ 13 .txf3 tiJe5 14 .te2 0-015 f4 tiJg6 16 1Ii'd3 was slightly better for White in Vaganian-Kasparov, USSR Ch., Minsk 1979. 6 iLc4 0-070-0 c6 8 a4 ~c7

9 h3

I prefer this calm waiting move to the 9 "ii'e2 of Rausis-Areklett, Pelaro 2002, though there too White had a little something after 9...IteS 10 ..ih4 tiJb6 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 ..ib3 ..ig4 13 h3 iLxf3 14 "ilixf3 l:tadS 15 tiJe2 tiJcs 16 tiJg3 thanks to the latent pressure against £1. 9 ... ne8 10 .I1e1 ttJf8

The most typical 'Philidor' move is 10... b6, but here the position of White's bishop on g5 has an interesting effect. After 11 d5 ..ib7 (11...c5 12 as leaves Black very cramped) 12 ..ixf6! tiJxf6 13 dxc6 .ltxc6 14 it'd3 White has control over the dS-square. 11 ~d2 a6?!

We have reached a Philidor Defence in which conventional wisdom states that White's bishop is not too effectively placed on g5. I'm not at all sure about this, as you shall see. In Bronstein-Summerscale, Hastings 1995, Black varied with S... b6, when 9 lIe1 a6 10 1Ii'd3 i.b7 11 l:iad1 "ilic7 12 tiJh4 g6 would have left White with a pull after 13 tiJf3, intending .th6 and tiJg5. In the game Bronstein played 13 tiJe2, but then 13... exd4 14 tiJxd4 tiJe5 15 1Ii'b3 tiJxc4 16 'ii'xc4 tiJxe4! 17 tiJe6! fxe6 1S 'ii'xe6+.l:!£1 19 .txe7 d5 20 ..ia3 'iVcs 21 "ilixcS+ l:txcS left him slightly worse in the endgame.

Allowing White to mark the b6-square down as a weakness. A more consistent follow-up to Black's previous move would have been 11...tiJg6 but then 12 as still leaves White with a slight plus. 12 as iLe6 13 iLf1l:1.ad8 14 iLe3 cS?! White was menacing the b6-square but the cure is worse than the disease. Black should probably hang tough with 14...ifbS. 1S dxeS dxeS 16 ~c1 iLd7 It looks wrong to retreat the bishop like

this - 16 ... h6 must surely be a better move. However, White would have an edge after 17 tiJd2 followed by 1S tiJc4 with insidious pressure mounting due to Black's weak squares. 17 iLc4 iLe6 18 l:I.a4 iLd7? 19 ttJgS! ttJe6 153

The Veresov

20 tbxe6 .i.xe6 21 .i.xe6 fxe6 22 'it'a1 .i.d6 23 ':c4 'it'e7 24 tba4 Concentrating further on the c5-pawn. Black's position goes rapidly downhill. 24 ... ':c8 25 'ii'a3 tbd7 26 ':d1 ':c6 27 'ilfd3 b5 28 axb6 tbxb6 29 tbxb6 ':xb6 30 b4 ':c8 31 bxc5 .i.xc5 32 ':xc5 1-0 32....l:txc5 33 'ifd8+ wins a piece. ,...--------------Game 79

Anand-Karpov

FIDE World Ch., LAusanne 1998 1 d4 tbf6 2 tbc3 a6 3 .i.g5 h6 Black has another independent try in 3...c5, when 4 d5 'iib6 5 i.xf6 gxf6 6 ':'bl f5 7 e3 i.g7 8 lLlge2 d6 9 g3 iDd7 was the continuation of Riedel-Ksieski, Germany 1998, and now 10 i.g2 would have left White with an attractive position due to the difficulties Black will have in resolving the pawn position in the centre (in the game White solved the problem for Black with 10 dxe6?!). White can meet 4... h6 quite effectively with 5 i.xf6 'i!fxf6 6 e4, when his permanent space advantage and better development more than compensate for Black's possession of the bishop pair. 3...i.b4 4 'ii'd3 d5 5 ltJf3 transposes to Hector-Berg in Chapter 8, and 3...d5 is also covered in Chapter 8. 4 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 5 e4

Reaching a position which is well known 154

from the Trompovsky. 5 ... d6 Black can also play 5...g6, although this gives up the option of an extended fianchetto with ...g7-g5, which prevents White's dangerous and expansive plan based on 'ii'd2 and £2-f4. After 6 'ii'd2 i.g7 7 0-0-00-0 8 f4 d6 9 iDf3 b6 10 h4 h5 11 e5 'ii'e7 12 i.d3 i.b7 13 iDe4iDd7 14iDfg5 dxe5 15 fxe5 c5 16 c3 cxd4 17 cxd4 ':'ad8 18 ~bl iDb8 19 iDd6 White was more comfortable in Gelfand-Rozentalis, Tilburg (rapid) 1992, while he was also better in Benjamin-Yermolinsky, US Ch. Playoff 1994 after 6... d6 7 f4 'ife7 8 lLlf3 i.g7 9 0-0-0 a6 10 i.d3 lLld7 11 f5 eS 12iDd5 'ifd8 13 dxe5 lLlxe5 14 ':'hfl c6 15 lLle3 0-0 16iDxe5 i.xe5 17iDg4. 6 'i'd2 g5 Preventing White's £2-f4 idea. 6...g6 7 f4 transposes to the 5...g6 lines above. 7.i.c4!?

An interesting and quite dangerous idea. White intends to put his knight on e2, castle kingside and then possibly open up the f-file with £2-f4. Another idea is to bring his knight to h5 via g3. Several other moves have been tried, for example: a) 7 0-0-0 i.g7 8 g3 lLlc6 9 i.b5 (9 ltJb5 'ii'd8 10 ltJe2 a6 11 lLlbc3 b5!? gave Black cOlUlterplay in Adams-Topalov, Madrid 1996) 9...i.d7 10 iDge2 a6 11 i.xc6 i.xc6 12 f4 0-0-0 13 .l:r.hfl 1-0 was Hodgson-Gabriel, Horgen 1995. Alternatively 8 e5 dxe5 9 dxe5

1 .. .1'1)(6 2 0,c3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others ~e7 10 f4ltJc6 11 ltJf3 j.d7 12 h4 gxf4 13 .xf4 0-0-0 14 ltJe4 ltJb8!, intending ... ~c6 and ...ltJd7, gave Black a good game in Adams-Karpov, Las Palmas 1994, while 8 'ifi>b1 ltJc6 9 i..bs ~d7 10 es?! dxes 11 ds exds 12 lLlxds 'ii'd6 left White with inadequate compensation in Gunter-Britton, Hastings 1995. b) 7 h4!? j.g7 (7...g4!? 8 f4 gxf3 9 gxf3 hs 10 f4 ~h6 11 lLlge2 lLlc6 12 0-0-0 ~d7 13 ~b 1 0-0-0 14 ~e3 es was double-edged in Forchert-Brenke, Bundesliga, Germany 1996) 8 hxgs hxgs 9 l:lxh8+ i..xh8 10 0-0-0 lLlc6 11 lLlf3 .f4 (according to Tsesarsky 11 ...g4 would have been good for White after 12 lLlbs ~d8 13 es! 'ii'g7 14 lLlg1) 12 "xf4 gxf4 13 j.bs j.d7 14 lLle2! es 15 l:lh 1 and White had the berter endgame in TyomkinTsesarsky, Ramat Aviv 2000.

l:tfg8 22 d5

7 ...0,e6 8 0,ge2 .tg7 9 l:td 1 .td7 10 0-0 0-0-0

29 0,xh8 .txf3 30 0,f7 'i'h4

22 lLlxhs is strongly met with 22... £5. 22 ....te8

After 22 ... ~xf4 White plays 23 dxc6! es 24 cxb7 in order to weaken Black's queenside. 23 'ikf2

23 lLlxhs? is still a dubious proposition after 23 .....gs! 24 lLlg3 'ii'h4 with dangerous threats. 23 ....tg7 24 0,d4! .td7 25 dxe6 .txd4 26 exd4 fxe6 27 e5 .te6 28 0,g6 'ifd8?? An oversight which costs Black the game.

He should play 28..Jhg6, when 29 j.xg6 (29 30 'ii'xfB+ lLlc8 31 i..xg6 ~gs wins for Black) 29 ... j.xf3 30 'ii'xf3 dxes 31 dxe5 lLlc6 (or 31.....xb4 32 "f6) 32 "f6 offers White slightly preferable prospects.

:£8+ l:lxfB

According to Anand White would meet 10...0-0 with 11 "e3, intending £1-f4. 11 0,b5!

Forcing White to be careful. After 30 ...i..xg2 White wins with 31 lLlxd8 ~e4+ 32 'iVg3 ':'xg3+ 33 hxg3 j.xd3 34 l:[fB! etc. 31 'ikxf3

The immediate 11 b4 is less effective due to 11...g4 12 bs lLlas, when the knight does a good job in holding up White's attack. 11 ... a6 12 0,a3

Threatening to launch a queenside pawn storm with 13 c3 and 14 h4. Black must react quickly before his position becomes critical. 12... g4! 13 f4 gxf3 14 l:txf3 'ike7 15 e3 h5 16 l:tdf1 l:tdf8 17 b4 0,87 18 0,e2 .th6 19 'ike1 ~b8 20 .td3 .te6! 21 0,f4

Not 31 "xh4?? :Xg2+ 32 'Oith111£1+with a draw. 31 ...'ifxd4+ 32 'it>h1 d5 33 l:td1! 'ikxb4 34 l:tb1 'ifa4 35 'ifxh5 0,e6 36 .e2 'it>a7 37 'iff2+ b6 38 l:te1! 'it>b7 39 h3! l:te8 40.f6

Having secured his defences White can finally go after the e6-pawn. 40 ... 0,d441 0,d8+!

Anand pointed out that White could also 155

The Veresov

play 41 ttJd6+, when 41...cxd6 42 'ii'e7+ ~b8 43 l:!xc8+ ~xc8 44 exd6 'ii'c6 45 'ii'f8+ (45 .txa6+ is probably also good) 4s .. .'ittd7 46 'ii'g7+ 'ittxd6 47 'it'xd4 wins without too much trouble. 41 ... 'it>b8 42 tLixe6 1-0

After 42 ...'iia3 43 ':dl White is simply a pIece up.

Game 80

Hall-De Firmian Malmo 1999 1 d4 tLif6 2 tLic3 e6 3 ~g5 h6 4 ~xf6 "ii'xf6 5 e4 ~b4

According to Trompovs\...1' guru Julian Hodgson this is the most testing continuation. Black proceeds with his development and after exchanging his dark-squared bishop will put his central pawns on dark squares.

Tchoubar-Solozhenkin, New York 1994 continued 8...dxes 9 lLlxes ttJd7 10 i.bs c6 11 lLlxd7 ~xd7 12 .td3 0-0 13 'it'g4 .:I.ac8 14 ':bl b6 15 0-0 cs 16 i.a6 ':c7 17 'iig3 'ii'd8 18 ':fdl and White had the initiative. Another possibility is 6... d6 but after 7 "ii'd2 lLld7 8 a3 i.as I think that 9 b4 i.b6 10 lLla4 followed by 11 c4 gives White a space advantage that will not be easy to combat. 6 ... c5 Black's main alternative is the solid 6...d6. Gallagher has suggested the immediate 7 f4 but this seems to be well answered by 7... es. Instead there is 7 a3, e.g. 7... .txc3 (7 ... .tas 8 lLlge2 c6?! 9 b4 .tc7 10 a4 a-a?! 11 as left Black very cramped in Knaak-Enders, Bundesliga 1998) 8 'ili'xc3 lLlc6 (Black has also tried 8...0-0 9lLlB "iie7 but then 10 .td3 b6 11 0-0 i..b7 12 .u.ael cs 13 d5 still leaves White with a useful space advantage) 9 lLlB 0-0 10 .td3 'iie7 11 es (White has to do this before Black equalises with his own ...e6-e5) 11...f6 (11....l::!.d8 120-0 .td7 13 ':fel dxes 14 dxe5 left Black with little breathing space in Szymanski-Balogh, Artek 1999) 12 exd6 cxd6 13 0-0 f5 14 .u.ael 'i+'f6 15 b4 a6 16 a4 ~d8 17 b5 axb5 18 axb5 lLle7 19 ':al lLlds 20 'it'b3 i.d7 21 :tfel and the tension was building in White's favour in GelfandRozentalis, Tilburg 1994. 7 a3 i.xc3 8 bxc3 d6 9 f4!?

6 "ii'd2

The sharpest continuation, but not the only one. White has also tried simple development with 6 lLlB, when 6... ds 7 es 'ii'd8 8 a3 .te7 9 .td3 cs 10 dxcS .ltxcs 11 0-0 lLlc6 12 b4 ~e7 13 lLlbs a6 14lLlbd4 'ii'b6 15 c3 i.d7 16 'iid2 lIc8 17 %:tact gave White a clear advantage in the form of his nicely centralised pieces in Akopian-Antonio, Las Vegas 1999. Igor Stohl's suggestion of 6....txc3+ 7 bxc3 d6 should be met with 8 es before Black plays that move himself and fIxes the central pawns on dark squares. 156

This enterprising continuation is the most dangerous for Black, and it might also be

1 .. .tbf6 2 {jjc3: 2 ... c5, 2 ... d6, 2 ... g6 and Others

dangerous for White. After his brilliant win against Yudasin (see below), Hodgson curiously switched to 9 lbf3, when HodgsonRowson, York 2000 continued 9... 0-0 10 jLe2 lbc6 11 0-0 e5 12 dxc5 dxc5 13 ~e3 .i.g4 (13 ... b6 14 .i.c4 .i.g4 was equal in Hodgson-De Finnian, Amsterdam 1996) 14 'iWxc5 .l:!.fc8 15 ~e3 'iYf4 16 ~xf4 exf4 17 ~abl i.xf3 18 gxf3 b6 when White's extra pawn was quite immaterial. The suspicion must be that he does not like 9 f4 e5!?, although the consequences do not seem terribly clear. 9 ... e5!?

Taking some dark squares before White gets in 10 e5. In Hodgson-Yudasin, New York 1994 White stood better after 9... 0-010 lbf3 lbc6 11 ~b5 lba5 12 ~d3 b6 13 0-0 .i.b7 14 ltael :lac8 15 e5 'iIIe7 16 f5 etc.

.l:tfe8 is about equal. 12lLle2 g5 13 ~xd7+ {jjxd7 14l:lxb7

Now Black has serious problems because the powerful posting of White's rook on the seventh rank causes a certain amount of inconvenience; Black must lose time castling. 14... lLlb6 15 'iWd3 'i'e6

\x-'hite meets 15... 0-0 with 16 h4, when all his pieces are converging on Black's king. 16 h4 'iVc8

Black could win the exchange with 16...c4 17 'if'f3 'tlVc8 but after 18 l;1xb6 axb6 19 hxg5 .l:Ixa3 20 'it>d2 White threatens both 21 hxgG and 21 lbf4 and gets excellent positional compensation. 17 'iWa6 0-0 18 hxg5 hxg5 19 e5!

'0~b5+ ~d711l:tb'!

Maintaining the initiative. 11 .i.xd7+ lbxd7 leaves Black excellently placed. 11 ... exf4?

McShane gave 19 'iIYd3 as winning for White after 19 ...'it'xb7 20 'iVh3 f6 21 'i:tb8+