Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 Vol.10

�

CllessStilrs

',('jill/PI'

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Editorial Panel:

GM K.Landa, GM M.Makarov GM R.Ovetchkin 1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov

Technical Editor:

1M Semko Semkov

Translation by:

GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © Alexander Khalifman 2007

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia ISBN13: 978954878264-7

Opening for White According to Anandl.e4

Book X 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 Chelyabinsk Variation

Alexander Khalifman

14th World Chess Champion

Bibliography

The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005 The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books: Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006 Volume 2 : Anti-Nirnzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango Volume 3 : Maroczy, English (1 . . . c5), Modern, Dutch Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A. Khalifman Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 . . . a6 Volume 2 : Ruy Lopez with 3 . . . a6 Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1 . . . c6, 2 . . . g6 Volume 4: 1. . . d6, 1.. .g6 . . . and others Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 . . .b6 and other rare lines Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 . . . Nf6, 2006 Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006 Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines Volume 9: Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Paulsen and others Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti

Current theory and practice series: The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006 Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3 ! by Bezgodov The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2006 The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007

Games collections More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part 1. Rare Lines l.e4 c5 VM3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 1 2 3 4

various without 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 various; 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 without 8 . . . ie6 and 8 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 various; 9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Part 2. Chelyabinsk Variation 1.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 ie7 1O.hf6 ixf6 11.c3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

various without 11...lLle7, 11 . . . ig5 and 11 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 11. . . lLle7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 11 . . . ig5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 various without 12 .. J�b8 and 12 . . . ig5 . . . . . . 1 0 6 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 �b8 ; 13 . . . bxa4 14.�xa4 without 14 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 various . . . 149 11 . . . 0-0 12. lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 id7 . . . . . . 158 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 �b8 . . . . . . . 175 .

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8

5

Preface Dear readers, You are holding in your hands book ten of the series "Opening for White According to Anand - l.e4". It is devoted mostly to the Sveshnikov system, which is also popularly named as the Chelyabinsk variation. Naturally, it is worth remembering that the move 5 . . . e7-e5 was played for the first time back in the year 1910 by great Lasker and this opening system changed its name numerous times throughout the years. The theory of that variation started developing rapidly during the 70ies of the last century, thanks to the efforts of Evgeny Svesh­ nikov, Gennadij Timoscenko and Alexander Panchenko (They all lived in the city of Chelyabinsk during those years.) and it seemed that the contemporary name should be most appropriate and logical. In fact, starting from the seventies of the 20th century, the Chelyab­ insk variation has never lost its popularity. The evaluation of that open­ ing system has fluctuated between "100% reliable" to "almost refuted"; nevertheless, its theory has been developing intensely. Recently, the "anti-Chelyabinsk" systems - 3.ib5 and 3.lt:lc3 are becoming top fash­ ion and that only proves that the Chelyabinsk variation should be taken quite seriously. Practically all the best chess players of the world have contributed to the theory of that variation and the majority of them for both sides at that. Well, if we follow strictly the classical principles, it would hardly be possible to classify Black's set-up as positionally correct. It looks like White's undisputed dominance over the d5-outpost should pro­ vide him with a stable advantage. Still, things are much more complex in practice. Amazingly enough, Black always finds resources for ac­ tive counterplay based on some already typical strategical maneuvers around White's basic outpost on d5. 6

My work with this book was a rather complicated task by itself. My colleagues asked me often (sometimes ironically, sometimes with gen­ uine interest) whether I had managed to refute the Chelyabinsk varia­ tion and when that refutation would be published? Here, I must admit: no, I have not refuted the Chelyabinsk variation. Frankly speaking, I have not even tried to do that. As far as my experience and my under­ standing of chess are concerned, Black's opening set-up has a sound strategical basis and it can never be refuted outright. Having that in mind, I decided to try something different and that was to systematize the amassed material and knowledge and to point out the most un­ pleasant lines for Black. In the first part of our book, we have analyzed some lines, which do not belong exactly to the Chelyabinsk variation (That is some rare tries for Black on move five after l.e4 c5 ViJf3 llJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4 llJf6 5.llJc3.), as well as some not so popular sidelines of the Sveshnikov variation. All these opening systems have long been outside of the fa­ vourable recommendations of theory and quite deservedly so. We did not need to add anything principally new, but still White should play very precisely. I hope that we have pointed out clear-cut and logical ways of obtaining the advantage for White in the opening. The second part of the book comprises in fact its focus in the aspect of common sense. It deals with positions, which are being tested prac­ tically every month at all possible levels of competition. I agree com­ pletely with the majority of the grandmasters, who consider that the greatest problems which Black must face nowadays in the Chelyabinsk variation are in the system 5 . . . e5 6.llJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.llJa3 b5 9.llJd5 ie7 1O.hf6 hf6 1l.c3. I have not tried to change radically any theo­ retical evaluations, but I have managed to discover some new ideas and I have to tell you that Black will need to solve difficult problems after them.

AKhalifman 14th World Chess Champion

7

Part! 1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3 rare 5th moves for Black

S . . . eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.igS rare o;th moves for Black

7. . . a6 8.tLla3 ie6; 8 . . . bS 9.tLldS rare 9th moves for Black

9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6

Black has not made up his mind yet what system of develop­ ment he will choose. He can still play the Dragon variation or the Scheveningen, but usually he opts for that move order if he plans to continue with the system S . . . d 6 (We will analyze i t i n our next volumes.), or with S . . . eS and that is the system this book is devot8

ed to. We deal with some rarely played original lines in chapter 1 and several of them are quite ac­ ceptable for Black, despite looking a bit extravagant, like for example S . . J�!b8 ! ? Following S . . .e S 6.llJdbS d6 7. .!gS, there arises the thematic position of the Chelyabinsk varia­ tion, which can also be reached via other move orders (for ex­ ample S . . . e6 6.llJdbS d6 7 . .!f4 eS 8 . .!gS). White obtains the dS-out­ post at a very early stage of the game, but one of his knights after 7 ... a6 8.llJa3, remains temporarily out of action. The awkward placement of White's pieces makes the Black

player reach almost automatically for his b-pawn in that position. He has some other possibilities too and we analyze them in Chap­ ters 2 and 3. They are playable too; nevertheless, White does not have too many problems counter­ ing them.

In fact, only the move B . . . 1e6 requires certain precision from White. After 9.tLlc4 l3cB 1O.1xf6 , following 1O . . .YlYxf6 1l.tLlb6, as

well as after lO . . .gxf6 1l.1d3 and tLle3, Black comes under a long­ term positional bind. In Chapter 4, we deal with Black's last attempts to avoid the main "tabia". The variation B . . . b5 9.tLld5 YNa5+ 1O.1d2 YlYdB, often leads to a draw by a repetition of moves (1l.1g5), but that does not correspond to the objective evaluation of the position. In case of 1l.c4 ! , White seizes the initia­ tive and Black must play very precisely in order to avoid the worst. As for the variation 9 . . . 1e7 1O.1xf6 gxf6, it has been practi­ cally closed. Black's bishop on e7 is deployed much worse than on the long diagonal, so that move order has disappeared from tour­ nament practice lately.

9

l.e4 c5 2.tl)f3 tl)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tl)xd4 tl)f6 5.tl)c3

Chapter l

In this chapter, we will discuss some rarely played lines like: a)

5

•••

tOxd4, b) 5

•••

�c7, c) 5 .l:�b8 ••

and d) 5 a6 . The other possibilities for Black usually transpose to po­ sitions we have already stud­ ied, for example: S . . . dS? ! 6.ibS id7 7.exdS tOxd4 B.,hd7+ �xd7 9.�xd4 - see 4 . . . dS, Book 9, Chapter 1; S . . .'IWaS 6.tOb3 �c7 7.f4 and S . . . 1&b6 6.ttJb3 lead to 4 . . . 1&b6 - Book 9, Chapter 2 . .••

a) 5

••.

tOxd4

This exchange is somewhat premature and White centralizes immediately his queen after it, forcing his opponent to consider the threat e4-eS.

6.�xd4�6 That move is not so aesthetic 10

and it has not been tested in prac­ tice. Still, it is quite consistent in a way with Black's idea to seek sim­ plifications. The other possibilities for Black are at least not worse: 6 . . . d6 7.ig5 leads t o the Rauzer sys­ tem, in a favourable situation for White, because his queen has come to the d4-square without losing a tempo for the move �d2 - see 2 . . . d6 ; It is not good for Black to play 6 . . . e6? 7.eS± Burke - Calton, Flint 1992; after 6 . . . g6? ! White can follow with 7.eS tOh5 B.e6 ig7 9.ext7+ mxt7 10 .ic4+ e6 1l.�d3;!; Drbohlav - Krupkova, Czech Republic 1999, but it is even stronger for him to continue with 7.ic4 ! and if 7 . . . ig7, then B.eS ttJgB, Kraft - Roesner, Germany 1994 (B . . . tOhS? 9.g4+-) 9. 0-0± White ends up with a great lead in development.

7.�xb6 9.f4±

axb6

8.e5

tOg4

(diagram) White has a great space ad­ vantage in the centre, while Black has long-term weaknesses on the queenside and that provides

l.e4 c5 2. CiJj3 CiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. CiJxd4 CiJf6 5. CiJc3

White with a clear edge in the endgame.

b) 5

Vfc7

•••

After 8 . . . lLle5, besides 9.ie2 a6 10.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6, White has the resource 9.d6 ! ? exd6 1 O .f4 lLlc6 11. ,ic4 ie7 12. 0-0t Lisitsyn - Troit­ sky, Leningrad 1938. There arises an analogous situation after 8 . . . lLld8 - White has the pleasant choice between 9.,ie3 a6 1O.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6 and the more aggres­ sive line: 9.d6 ! ? lLle6, Petrosian - Bakhtadze, Tbilisi 1945, 10.ie3 a6 1l.lLlc3 1];Yxd6 12.1];Yxd6 exd6 13.a4±

9.lLlc3 lLle5

Black might have planned to transpose to the Paulsen varia­ tion in that fashion, but it turns out that the absence of the move e7-e6 would not remain unpun­ ished.

Black can hardly be happy af­ ter the passive move 9 . . . CiJd8, Or­ venyi - Steiner, Budapest 193 2 , in view of 1O.ie3 e6 11.Wfd2±, while after 9 . . . CiJe5, there arises a posi­ tion played for the first time in the game Malmdin - Andersson, Stockholm 1970 . White did not act so convincingly later and the same thing happened in some other games subsequently. It is quite easy to find an improvement for White.

6. tOdb5 ! White seizes the initiative.

6 ,..Vfb8 In case of 6 . . . Vfd8 7.tOd5 lLlxd5 8.exd5 a6 9.CiJc3 lLle5, White can afford to continue with 10.f4 lLlg6 11.,ie3 d6 12.Vfd2 id7 13. O-O-O± Berger - Badilles, Ma­ nila 1968.

7.tOd5 tOxd5 8.exd5 a6 That move restricts White's possibilities a bit.

lO .ie2 ! This flexible move is definitely the best here. White continues the mobilization of his forces, paying 11

Chapter 1 attention to the actions of his op­ ponent.

10

•••

e6

The line 10 . . . g6? 1l.f4+- loses a piece for Black. In case of lO . . . d6 11.f4 lLld7 (11 . . . lLlg6 12 . .te3±) 12. .!e3 g6 (12 ... lLlf6 13.lLla4±) 13 . .td4 lLlf6 14.lLla4± the weakness of the b6-square is considerable, while after 10 . . . %l'c7, White has the pow­ erful response 11.%l'd4 ! ±, after which Black has problems with his development.

nent's knight on g6; meanwhile Black has not completed the de­ velopment of his pieces yet and he risks coming under attack.

c) 5 . . . gb8

11. Vd4! lLlg6 Black's defence is difficult too after 1l . . . b5 12.0-0 .!b7 13.l3dl±

12 .te3 e5 •

If 12 . . . %l'e5, then White should better avoid the exchange with 13.%l'd2±, because Black's queen is misplaced in the centre and it will soon come under attack by White with tempi.

13.Vd3 b5 Or 13 . . . .!e7 14.lLla4±

14. 0 - 0 - 0 d6 15.h4±

It is not easy to understand that move, but it cannot be refut­ ed either. White's task is to con­ tinue in a way Black's fifth move might become useless.

6 .!e3 •

Black would not mind the lines : 6 . .te2 e5 7.lLldb5 d6oo, or 6.lLlxc6 bxc6 7.e5 lLl d5 ! 8.lLlxd5 cxd5 9.%l'xd5 .tb'Too

6 . . . a6

White has excellent middle game prospects. The advance of his h-pawn will emphasize the unstable placement of his oppo-

12

If 6 . . . e5? ! , then 7.lLldb5± and White is threatening to capture on a7 as well as to penetrate with the knight to the d6-square. In the game Apicella - Murey, Paris 1992, Black played 6 . . . e6, but White should have countered that with 7.lLldb5 ! .tb4 (In case of 7 . . . %l'a5 8.f3 d5, White has the powerful maneuver 9 . .tf4 ! e5 10 . .td2±, with a great advantage.) 8.a3 hc3+ 9.lLlxc3± White has an excellent couple of bishops.

l.e4 c5 2. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Ci:Jxd4 Ci:Jf6 5. Ci:Jc3 After 6 . . . d6 7 . .te2 g6 8.0-0 .tg7 9.f4t Raetsch - Fronczek, Bad Segeberg 2002, there arises a position similar to the Dragon variation, in which Black has lost a tempo for the not so useful move gb8.

7 .ie2 e5 •

Black lags in development, so he should better refrain from the line: 7 . . . d5 8.exd5 Ci:Jxd5 9.Ci:Jxd5 \Wxd5 1O.0-0±

S. Ci:Jb3 d6 White should be more than happy after 8 . . . .ib4 9.,if3t

9. 0 - 0 In the game Borocz - Meszaros, Szekszard 1995, White played 9.a4, but he did not need to be afraid of the move b7-b5 .

9

• . •

.te7 1 0 .\Wd2t

6. Ci:Jxc6! We will analyze both possible captures: dl) 6 dxc6 and d2) •••

6 bxc6. •••

dl) 6

•••

dxc6

In this line, the opponents enter an endgame right after the opening. White is better, because Black's king impedes the develop­ ment of his pieces, meanwhile his queenside pawn structure is not without defects.

7.\WxdS + c.txdS S .tf4 •

That is a typical Sicilian posi­ tion, but the purposefulness of the move gb8 is rather questionable. White's prospects are better.

d) 5

•••

a6

The drawback of that move is that Black does not control the central e5-square and White can exploit that immediately.

S . . . e6 It is only a transposition of moves after 8 . . . c.te8 9.0-0-0 and there might follow: 9 . . . e6 - see 8 . . . e6; 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jh5; 9 . . . b5 - see 8 . . . b5; 9 . . . !e6 - see 8 . . . ,ie6 ; 9 . . . Ci:Jd7 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jd7. It is too risky for Black to play: 13

Chapter 1 B . . . ll:\hS 9.0-0-0+ .td7, Seibold Neuquen 1992, 13 . .te3±. It is - Neukum, Nuernberg 19BB (If more precise for Black to opt for 9 . . . 'i!?eB, then 10 . .tc7 ie6 1l.ll:\a4 9 . . . 'i!?eB, but then again lO.eS and �cB 12 .iaS± German - Bertoni, if 10 . . . gS ! ? (or lO . . . e6 11 . .te2 .te7 Buenos Aires 1994), because of 12.ll:\e4 ll:\fB 13.h4 ll:\g6 14 . .tg3± lO .ll:\a4! bS (or lO . . . ll:\xf4 11.ll:\b6±; Molnar - Kovacev, Kecskemet 10 . . . 'i!?eB 1l.ll:\b6 ig4 12.f3 �dB 1990) 11.hgS ll:\xeS, Krebs 13.�xdB + 'i!?xdB 14.ie3 .te6 15. Kluss, Germany 19B7, then White can maintain his initiative with ic4±) 11.ll:\b6 �a7 12 . .te3± the help of 12.ll:\a4 ! ? if5 (or 12 . . . Black would not solve his ll:\d7 13.ie3 b S 14.ll:\c3;!;) 13.h3 problems if he fianchettoes his king's bishop: B . . . ie6 9. 0-0-0+ �gB 14.ie3;!; 'i!?eB lO ..te2 g6 11.a4 hS 12.aS ih6 9. 0 - 0 - 0 + 'i!?e8 It is not logical for Black to 13.hh6 �xh6 14.f3 �dB IS.ll:\a4± play: 9 . . . id7 lO.ll:\a4 bS l1.ll:\b6 �a7 Socko - Lazar, Bastia 2 0 05. White is clearly better af­ 12.f3 icS 13.ll:\xd7 �xd7 14.id3± ter B . . . bS 9.0-0-0+ ll:\d7 (If 9 . . . R.Fischer - Kuberczyk, Cleveland 'i!?eB, a s i t was played i n the game 1964 - World Champion obtained Kononen - Vuorimies, Finland the two-bishop advantage and he 2003, then White could have won the game subsequently. chosen lO.eS ! ? ll:\g4 1l.ll:\e4 .tfS In the game Kurenkov 12 .id3 �dB 13 . .tg3±) lO.eS e6 Jemelka, Olomouc 2 0 03, Black 11.ll:\e4 h6 12.ie2 'i!?c7 13.ll:\d6 tried 9 . . . ll:\d7 lO .ie2 .tcS 11 . .tg3 ixd6 14.�xd6± Navara - Dalecky, bS. Here White should have con­ Czech Republic 1997. tinued with 12.eS ! ? 'i!?c7 13.ll:\e4 ie7 The best alternative for Black 14.ll:\d6± with a clear advantage. to the main line B . . . e6 is the move 1 0 .ie2;!; B . . . ll:\d7, which is aimed at the preparation of the pawn-advance e7-eS. White can refute that plan with the move 9.0-0-0 with the idea to follow with e4-eS. Now after 9 .. .f6, White has lO.eS and it would be in his favour if Black plays lO . . . e6 1l . .tc4 'i!?e7 12.exf6+ gxf6, Semeniuk - Danielian, Vla­ divostok 1994, 13.�hel eS (or 13 . . . ll:\b6? 14.he6 ! he6 IS.�d6+-) The endgame is better for 14.ie3±, as well as 10 . . . 'i!?eB 11. White. After lO . . . bS (otherwise exf6 gxf6 (or 1l ... exf6 12 . .tc4±) Black must consider the possibil­ 12 . .te2 eS, Mavrich - Litovicius, ity ll:\a4) 11.�d3 (The third rank is 14

l.e4 cS 2. liJj3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 S. liJ c3 an additional field of activity for White's rook.) 1l . . .E!a7 (or 11.. .1c5 . 12 .E:hd1.1b7 13.e5 liJd5 14.1g5;t . and Black has great problems) in the game Janssen - van der Wiel, Netherlands 1978, White chose 12.1f3 . E:d7 13.E:hd1 .1e7 14.1d6, . but Black could have countered that with 14 . . . hd6 15.E:xd6 E:xd6 16.E:xd6 e5 ! = , taking into account the fact that the c6-pawn was pro­ tected indirectly (17.E:xc6 @d7). It is more precise for White to play 12.e5! liJd5 13.1d2 . ! and despite the fact that the position seems to be relatively simple, Black has difficult problems to solve, for example: 13 . . . liJxc3 (otherwise White deploys his knight to the e4-outpost and he prepares gradually c2-c4) 14.E:xc3 c5 (or 14 .. . .1b4 15.E:xc6 @d7 16 .1e3±; . 14 . . . E:d7 15.E:xc6.1b7 16.1f3 . !±) 15 .1e3 . E:c7 16.1f3 . b4 (Black has no other counterplay left - you should not forget that he has lost his castling right already.) 17.E:d3 c4 18.1b6 . ! cxd3 19.hc7 dxc2 20.@xc2± White has good winning chances in that endgame.

Black captures with his pawn towards the centre, but he un­ avoidably loses tempi and that leads him to a considerable lag in development.

7.e5 tLJg8 In the variation 7 . . . liJd5? ! 8.liJxd5 cxd5 9.'lMfxd5 E:b8 1O .1c4 . e6 11.'lMfd4± Black has no compen­ sation for the pawn whatsoever, Yahkind - Frawley, Plymouth 1984.

8 :i�'f3 ! ? White plays more often here 8.1c4, . but the move 8.�f3 ! ? is also very interesting. In essence, it is a prophylactic move. White is eyeing the c6-pawn in order to prevent the pawn-advance d7d5.

8 . . . e6 d2) 6 . . . bxc6

Black has nothing better. It is good for him to opt neither for 8 . . . d5? ! 9.exd6 'lMfxd6 10 .1f4 . e 5 (or 1O . . . 'lMfd7 1l.1c4± . A.Potapov - Ka­ zantzis, Korinthos 2 0 00) 1l.'lMfe4 f6 12 .1c4±, . nor for 8 . . . 'lMfc7? ! 9.1f4 . e6 1O.liJe4± Recklingloh - Hisker, Passau 1997.

9 .1d3 �c7 •

Following 9 . . . liJe7 1O.0-0 liJg6 15

Chapter 1 1l.VNhS;!; White maintains a stable advantage.

1 0 . VNg3 tOe7 White is clearly better after 10 . . . dS 1l.exd6 VNxd6 12 . .tf4± Martins - Andre, Internet 2001 and he can counter 1O . . .f6 with the simple move 1l.f4±

11. 0 - 0 tOg6 12.f4;t; (diagram) White's eS-pawn cramps Black and if he pushes d7-d6, he would only create new weaknesses in

his camp, therefore the position should be evaluated in favour of White.

Conclusion The possibilities for Black, which we analyze in this chapter, are played rather seldom in practice; therefore, White manages to obtain a lasting opening advantage almost effortlessly. Black plays a bit more often the move 5. . . a6, but after his oppo­ nent's concrete reaction 6.ltJxc6! dxc6 7.VNxd8+ �xd8 8. if4 or 6 . . . bxc6 7.e5, w e have convinced you that White seizes the initiative for long.

16

Chapter 2

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5

This move was discovered by the second World Champion Emmanuel Lasker, who tried it back in the year 1910 against Karl Schlechter in game nine of their match for the world crown. White did not react in the most princi­ pled fashion indeed - he played 6.lDb3, but it was a very interest­ ing game and after a lively fight, it ended in a draw. The new idea did not gain popularity outright and for a period of several decades, the variation was out of the tour­ nament practice. It came back triumphantly during the 70ies of the past century, when the system with 5 . . . e5, was often and what is even more important quite suc­ cessfully played by the grandmas­ ters from Chelyabinsk Evgenij

Sveshnikov and Gennady Timo­ scenko. Nowadays, this is one of the most reliable systems in the Sicilian Defence and its popular­ ity is surpassed only by the Naj­ dorf system. The move 5 . . . e5 has a solid positional basis - it wins a tempo for development and it does not let White obtain an advantage in the centre. Black weakens the d5square indeed and that becomes the key-point of the developing fight.

6 . tLl db5 d6 The other possibilities for Black - 6 . . . ib4+, 6 . . . ic5, 6 . h6 and 6 . . . a6 - are clearly worse. In that case, after transposition of moves, it all comes down to varia­ tions, which we have analyzed in Chapter 3 of the previous volume (the system with the early 4 . . . e5) - see the notes to Black's moves 5 and 7. .

.

7.ig5 We will analyze now a) 7 ie6 and b) 7 a6. The alternatives are evidently weaker: •••

•••

17

Chapter 2 It is bad for Black to play 7 . . . h6? 8.,bf6 gxf6 9.tLJd5+­ Helmreich - Leibold, Germany 1986; He loses a pawn without any compensation after 7. . . i.e7? 8. !xf6 gxf6 (8 ... i.xf6 9.tLJxd6+ @f8 1O.i.c4± Krumova - Villar, Buenos Aires 1978) 9.tLJd5 0-0 (9 ... VNa5+ 1O.c3± Frank - Gertz, Hessen 1990 ; 9 . . . @f8 1O.VNh5± Hartl - Resch, Niederbayern 1995; 9 . . . l:3b8 1O.tLJbc7+ @f8 11. VNh5± Gresser - Loeffler, Split 1963) 10.tLJxe7+ VNxe7 (1O . . . tLJxe7 11.\1;!fxd6 i.e6 12.\1;!fxd8 l:3fxd8 13. tLJc7± Rigolot - Delivre, France 1999) I1.VNxd6. After 11 . . . VNxd6 (or 11 . . . l:3d8 12.VNxe7 tLJxe7 13.i.d3± Schmidt - Baier, Strelasund 1997; 11 . . . .ie6 12 .\1;!fxe7 tLJxe7 13.0-0-0± Arakhamia-Grant - Paraskevai­ dis, Lansing 1995) 12.tLJxd6 Black fails to create any counterplay, for example: 12 . . . J.e6 13.0-0-0± Kosmac - Ristov, Kranj 2004; 12 ... l:3d8 13.0-0-0 tLJd4 14.tLJb5± Diaz Joaquin - Strube, Hessen 1988; 12 . . . tLJd4 13. 0-0-0 .ig4 (about 13 . . . l:3d8 - see 12 . . . l:3d8) 14.l:3d3± Zaksaite - Zebelys, Rad­ viliskis 1995; 12 . . . tLJb4 13. 0-0-0 ! (White regains his extra pawn quite favourably.) 13 . . . tLJxa2+ 14.@bl tLJb4 (14 ... .ie6 15.c3±) 15. J.c4 @g7, Papp - Nagy, Szeged 1998 (15 . . . tLJc6 16J3d3± Korniyuk - Brozhik, Kiev 2 0 05) 16.c3 tLJc6 17.l:3d3± - and White maintains a great advantage in all these varia­ tions. 18

a) 7 i.e6 •••

This move is a sensible alter­ native to the main line 7. . . a6. The Moldavian master O.Chebanenko practiced it about half a century ago.

S.tLJd5 gcS After the hasty 8 . . . ,bd5 9.exd5 tLJe7 (9 . . . tLJb8, Orozco - Cespedes, Barranquilla 1995, 1O.,bf6 gxf6 11.i.d3 a6 12.tLJc3±) White has the powerful resource 10 .c3 ! In view of the threats along the a4e8 diagonal, Black loses his cas­ tling rights. In case of 1O . . . tLJexd5, White follows with 11.\1;!fa4 @e7 (It is a disaster for Black to try 11 . . . \1;!fd7? 12.tLJxd6+ @e7 13.\1;!fxd7+ @xd7 14.tLJxf7+-, while if 11 . . . @d7, then 12. 0-0-0 tLJb6 13.\1;!fb3-+ and White has a dangerous initiative.) 12.0-0-0 a6 (12 ... tLJb6 13.VNb4±) 13.l:3xd5 axb5, Dutreeuw - Ovezov, Istanbul 2000, 14.VNb4 ! @e6 15. l:3xb5±, White is attacking in a position with equal material. If Black refrains from capturing his opponent's central pawn, he does not solve his problems either, for example: 1O . . . VNb8 11.!xf6 gxf6 12.\1;!fa4 @d8 13.VNa5+ ! (This is an

5. lLl c3 e5 6. lLl db5 d6 7. i.g5 important intermediate move.) 13 . . . Wd7 (13 ... b6 14.'1Wb4 lLlg6 15. g3 a6 16.lLla3 Ylfc7 17.lLlc4 l'!b8 18. lLle3±) 14.c4a6 15.lLlc3W1c716.Wla4+ Wd8 17.iLd3±; lO . . . lLlg6 1l.Wla4 We7 12. 0-0-0 a6 13.lLld4 ! (White has new tactical motives at his disposal with a black king on e7.) 13 . . . Wld7 (Black's position is not to be envied after 13 . . . exd4? 14. l'!e1+ lLle5 15.f4 Wld7 16.Ylfxd4+-) 14.iLb5 ! Ylfc8 15.id3± Jansa Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1981; lO . . . a 6 (This i s Black's relatively best chance.) 1l.hf6 gxf6 12 .Ylfa4 ! Wd7! (There is nothing else left.) 13.lLla3 + b5, Raszka - Mrozek, Katowice 1995 (After 13 . . . Wc7, it is interesting for White to try 14. O-O- O ! ?;!;) 14.Ylfg4+ f5 15.Ylfh5;!;

9.c3 ! White i s not in a hurry to ex­ change on f6 in order not to allow counterplay on the g-file.

with 13.lLlxe7!? Wxe7 14.lLle3;!; Si­ pos - Angyalosi, Hungary 2 0 0 0) 13 . . . l'!b8 and there arises by trans­ position a situation, which we will analyze later in the variation 7 . . . a 6 8.lLla3 ie6.

1l.ixf6! That is the right time for that exchange, because White needs to capture the enemy bishop on d5 with his queen.

1l . . . Wlxf6 It would not work for Black to try 1l . . . Wlb6? 12.exd5 Wlxb2 13.Wlc1+- (Jansa), and he loses a piece. In the game Jansa - Danek, Czechoslovakia 1982, Black chose 1l . . . gxf6 12 .Ylfxd5 Ylfa5 (or 12 . . . b5 13.l'!d1 i.e7 14.lLlc2± Kosanski Hibner, Velika Gorica 2005; 12 . . . Wld7 13.lLlc4 l'!d8 14.l'!dl± Ranieri - Guglielmi, Eporediese 2 0 01) 13.i.c4 l'!c7 14.Ylfxa5 lLlxa5 15.i.d5 l'!g8 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 l'!g5 18.f6 ! l'!f5 19.b4 ! lLlc6 (White would have countered 19 . . . l'!xc3? with 20.lLlb1+-) 2 0.b5±, and White started decisive actions in that fa­ vourable endgame.

12. Wlxd5 ie7 13.ie2 0 - 0 14. 0 - 0 ;1;

9 . . . a6 1 0 .lLla3 hd5 It deserves attention for Black to opt for lO . . . iLe7!?, but then af­ ter 1l.hf6 hi6 12.lLlc4 ie7 (or 12 . . . hd5 13.Ylfxd5± Krajcovic Kysel, Slovakia 1994) 13.lLlcb6 (It is also good for White to continue 19

Chapter 2 White has a clear positional advantage, thanks to his reli­ able control over the d5-outpost. It was tried later: 14 . . . g6 15.lLlc4 lMfe6 16.lLlb6 :gc7 17.lMfd2± Mote - Strenzwilk, USA 198 2 ; 14 . . . lMfg6 15.lLlc4 lLld8 16.lLle3 :gc5 17.�d3 lLle6 18.lLlf5 �f6 19.93± Suetin - Sobura, Warsaw 1989; 14 . . . lLld8 (The transfer of the knight from c6 to f4 is Black's main idea.) 15.lLlc4 lLle6, Bors - Heiligermann, Hun­ gary 2002, 16.lLle3 lLlf4 17.lMfd1 ! �g6 18.!f3;J; and White keeps the edge in all the variations.

b) 7 a6 8.lLla3 •••

9.c!LJxdS ha3 1 0 .bxa3IMfaS+ 1l.'flYd2 ! The exchange of queens is un­ avoidable, White remains with a bishop pair and an extra pawn, and he has a great advantage in that endgame.

1l 'flYxd2+ 12.hd2 c!LJxdS •••

Or 12 . . . 0-0 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6, Galdunts - Knoll, Vienna 2 0 06, 14.0-0-0 !e6 15.'it>b2 :gfd8 16. !d3±

13.exdS

c!LJd4

14. 0 - 0 - 0

.if5 lS.c3 :gc8

Black would not change much with 15 . . . lLlb5 16.:ge1 f6, as it was played in the game Ghinda - T.Horvath, Rimavska Sobota 1975. White should have played the simple line: 17.f4 0-0-0 (or 17 . . . e4 18.g4 ! .ixg4 19.:ggl±) 18 .fxe5 :gxd5 19.c4 :gc5 20.'it>b2±, and Black's position would re­ main too difficult.

16.@b2 18.f4±

c!LJbS

17.:ge1!

f6

Besides 8 . . . ie6 (Chapter 3) and the main line 8 ... b5, Black has also tried in practice bl) 8 dS?! , •••

b2) 8

•••

.ie7? ! , b3) 8

b1) 8

•••

•••

h6? !

dS? !

Black plays analogously to the so-called Pelican variation, which arises after the hasty exchange 8 . .ixf6?! gxf6 9.lLla3 d5 ! ?+t and presents Black with sufficient counter chances. Here however, White is not obliged to exchange on f6. 20

White's considerable advan­ tage is doubtless. That evaluation was confirmed in the game Sax Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979, which followed with 18 . . . 0-0?

5. ttJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. iLg5 19.c4 gfe8 (19 . . . exf4 2 0 . .tb4+-; 19 . . . ttJd6 20 . .tb4+-) 20.g4 ! +-, and White won a piece. It would have been more resilient for Black to defend with 18 . . . e4 19.c4 ttJd6 2 0.gc1 b6, Preuss - Koch, Moron 2004, 21..ie3±, but even then, he would have no reasons to be too optimistic.

b2) 8 . . . .te7? !

That is hardly the best decision for Black. He does not prevent the centralization of White's knight on a3 and that contradicts one of the main strategical ideas of the Chelyabinsk variation.

9.ttJc4! ttJd4 About 9 . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . .ie6. It would not work for Black to opt for 9 . . . ttJxe4? 1O.lLlxe4 hg5 11.ttJcxd6+ 'it>f8 12.%Vh5+The move 1O.hf6 is now a po­ sitional threat for Black, because after the capture on f6 with the pawn, his bishop is misplaced on the e7-square and that can be il­ lustrated in the following varia­ tions: 9 . . . b5 1O . .ixf6 gxf6 1l.ttJe3 0-0 (About 1l . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . iLe6 ; a s for 1l . . . ttJd4 - see 9 . . . ttJd4;

11 . . . %Va5 12 .iLd3 iLe6 13.0-0± Hir­ schhorn - van Rooy, Perth 1994.) 12.ttJcd5 'it>h8 13.iLe2 gg8 14.c3 .tf8 15 . .tg4!± Gabran - Ryzhkov, corr. 1974. In case of 9 . . . iLg4 (with the idea to provoke f2-f3), as it was played in the game Hofrichter - Dawid, Freiberg 1999, White's best line seems to be 1O.%Vd2 ! ttJd4 11.iLd3 h6 12.hf6 .ixf6 13.ttJd5 iLg5 14.ttJce3± with an advantage for him. It might be interesting for Black to try the gambit line 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1O.hf6 hf6 ! (about 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJd5 b5 12.ttJce3 - see 9 . . . b5), but that would not solve his problems either: after 11. %Vxd6 %Vxd6 (If 11 . . . ttJd4, then 12 . .td3 .id7 13.ttJd5± Korneev - Maze, Elgoibar 2 005. It is in favour of White if Black tries 11 . . . .ie6 12. 0-0-0 %Vxd6, Popovic - Todo­ rovic, Novi Sad 2000, 13.gxd6±, or 12 . . . %Ve8 13.ttJd5±; 11 . . .iLe7 12.%Vxd8 gxd8 13.ttJd5± Escott - Ellison, COIT. 1993.) 12.ttJxd6 .ie6 (or 12 . . . gd8 13.ttJxc8 gaxc8 14.iLd3± Tucci - Calgaro, COIT. 1998), as it was played in the game Dueball - Roeder, Germany 1981, White can continue with 13 . .td3 ttJb4 (or 13 . . . g6 14.ttJd5±; 13 . . . iLe7 14.ttJf5 .ic5 15.gf1 gfd8 16.0-0-0 g6 17. ttJ e3±) 14. 0-0-0 b5 (or 14 . . . .te7 15.ttJxb7 ttJxa2+ 16.ttJxa2 ha2 17.b3±) 15.'it>bl± - and Black has no compensation for the sac­ rificed pawn.

10 .bf6 ixf6 •

21

Chapter 2 It is not logical for Black to try 10 . . . gxf6, in view of 1Vt'JdS. Now, it is too dubious for him to opt for 11 .. .fS? ! 12.c3 tLlbS 13.tLlcb6 l3b8 14.�a4± Kopylov Kuzminykh, Leningrad 19S1, while White obtains a clear ad­ vantage after 11 . . . ie6 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 (or 12 . . .,bdS 13.tLlxdS l3c8 14.c3 tLle6 1S.ie2 0-0 16.ig4± Se­ gebarth - Szewczyk, DDR 1988) 13.c3 tLlc6 14. �hS± Zapata - Pa­ redes, Merida 1991, the move 11 . . . b S creates a target for attack on the queenside and the under­ mining move a2-a4 becomes quite effective: 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 13.tLlxc8 l3xc8 14.c3 tLlc6 (or 14 . . . tLle6 1S.a4± Kolendo - Weber, Poland 1992) lS.a4± Armas - Horvath, Buda­ pest 1973.

1l.tLld5 ie6 It is unsatisfactory for Black to follow with 11.. .ig4? 12.�xg4 tLlxc2 + 13.�d2 tLlxal 14.tLlcb6 �b8 lS.i.c4 i.gS+ 16.�c3 +- Coleman - Behrmann, corr. 1996 - be­ cause White captures two pieces for a rook and he has a winning position. Black loses a pawn after 11 . . . 0-0? ! 12.c3 tLlc6 (or 12 . . . tLle6 13.tLldb6 �b8 14.Wxd6± Korneev - Fabregas, Badalona 1995; 12 . . . i.g4 13.�xg4 tLl c 2 + 14.�d2 tLlxa1 lS.iLd3+- Bejaoui - Villanueva, Istanbul 2 0 00) 13.tLldb6 �b8 14. Wxd6± Zuidema - Calvo, The Hague 1961. If 11 ... bS? ! , then 12.tLlcb6 �b8 (or 12 . . . l3a7 13.tLlxc8 Wxc8 14.c3 22

tLl e 6 lS.a4± Ortega Magallanes Ottenweller, corr. 1999) 13.tLlxc8 �xc8 14.c3, and later 14 . . . tLlc6 lS.a4 �b8 (lS . . . 0-0 16.axbS axbS 17.,bbS± Durao - Hasan, Skopje 1972) 16.axbS axbS 17.tLlxf6+ gxf6 (17. . . �xf6 18.l3a6± Pierrot - Mi­ nervino, Argentina 1996) 18.WdS tLle7 19.,bbS+ �f8 2 0 .Wd3± Kun - Heiligermann, Hungary 1993, or 14 . . . tLle6 lS.a4 ! 0-0 (lS . . . �b8 16.axbS axbS 17.i.e2 tLlcS 18.�c2 0-0 19. 0-0± Klenk - Tudosa, Germany 1998) 16.axbS axbS 17. ,bbS l3b8 18.c4 tLld4 (18 . . . tLlf4 19. 0-0 tLlxdS 20.�xdS± Morovic - Sisniega, Santa Catalina 1987) 19. 0-0± Averbakh - Korchnoi, Tula 19S0. The undermining move a2-a4 is White's standard resource to break Black's defence on the queenside in similar situ­ ations.

12.tLlxf6 + ! This i s simple and strong. Black is in a lot of trouble after ev­ ery possible capture.

12

•••

�xf6

Or 12 . . . gxf6 13.c3 ,bc4 (13 . . . �c8 14.tLle3 tLlc6 lS.i.c4 tLl e 7 16. Wd3± Raivio - Jensen, corr. 1997)

S. tDc3 eS 6 . tD dbS d6 7. �gS 14.hc4± with a clear positional advantage for White, T.Horvath - Gladischev, Zalakaros 1995.

13.c3 It is also good for White to try 13.tDxd6+ �e7 14.c3 �xd6 15.cxd4 exd4 16.'lWa4± Santiago Ruiz Luis, Asturias 1993, because Black's too extravagant play can hardly be justified.

13 .hc4 14 .hc4 tDc6 15. O -O ± - White has a long-lasting •••

•

advantage, thanks to his reliable control over the d5-outpost and Black's backward d6-pawn, Zei - Scuderi, corr. 1999. Meanwhile, White can increase his pressure against the f7-square bringing his heavy pieces. Black's defence will be difficult and possibly fruitless.

b3) 8 . . . h6? !

1998 (After 1O . . . b5 11.c3, it is too risky for Black to continue with 11 . . .f5 12.exf5 hf5, in view of 13.Wff3± Farah - Serafim, Mar del Plata 1992, while if 11 . . . i.e6, then simply 12.tDc2± Chiburdanidze - Merlini, Buenos Aires 1978 - and the move h7-h6 turns out to be just a loss of time.), 11.exf5 �5 12.tDc4 i.e6 13.c3 ! (Black can counter 13.tDcb6 with 13 . . . tDb4 ! oo) 1 3 . . . i.g7 14.tDcb6 �b8 15. �e2± and 1O.tDc4 f5 (or 1O . . . ,te6 11.tDe3±) 1l.exf5 i.xf5 12.tDe3 �e6 13.i.c4 ! ?± Kozakov - Garcia Ro­ man, La Roda 2007 and White has a much superior game in both variations.

1 0 .tDd5 Wfd8 U.tDc4 i.e6 The game Alexopoulos - Ka­ tranas, Kallithea 1978 , followed with 1l . . . b5 12.tDcb6 �b8 13.tDxc8 �xc8 , and here White could have played 14.a4±

12.c3 i.e7 After 12 . . . b5 13.tDce3 �e7, White has again the powerful re­ source 14.a4±

13.ie2±

That is a rarely played line, af­ ter which there arise typical situ­ ations in which the move h7-h6 is not so useful for Black.

9 .hf6 'lWxf6 •

In case of 9 . . . gxf6, White can choose between 10.tDd5 f5, Her­ rmann - Gusseinow, Sebnitz

White has a stable edge. In case of 13 . . . 0-0 14. tDxe7+ Wfxe7 15.Wfxd6 'lWh4 16.'lWd3 �ad8 17. 'lWe3± Black has no compensa­ tion for the pawn. In the game Moiseev - Backwinkel, Germa­ ny 1995, Black tried 13 . . . b5, but White could have countered that with 14.tDxe7!? �xe7 15.tDe3±, and Black would have lost his cas­ tling rights.

23

Chapter 3

1.e4 c5 2.li)f3 li)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.li)xd4 e6 5.li)c3 e5 6.li)db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.li)a3 ie6

The English master H. Bird first played this ancient line in the 19th century and later, during the sixties of the past century, it was a regular opening weapon of GM B.Larsen. Sometimes the name of that line is connected with these two players.

9.tLlc4 ! White activates his knight, in­ creasing the pressure against the d6-pawn and he thus emphasizes the effect of the possible exchange on f6. Black has a choice here be­ tween the outdated move a) 9 . . . tLld4 and the contemporary line

b) 9 . . . gc8 ! At first, we will convince you that White's task is much easier after Black's other possibilities:

24

White has a clear advantage after the anti-positional move 9 . . . !xc4? ! 1O.!xc4 �e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.!xf6 ixf6 13.tLld5± Unzicker - Dunphy, Madrid 1957. The line 9 .. .'I&c7? ! can hardly be recommended (Black's queen is misplaced here.) 10.h:f6 gxf6 11.tLle3 tLle7 12 .�d3 h5 (or 12 . . . �h6 13.0-0 !xe3 14.fxe3± Kosmac - Varga, Bled 1996) 13.'lWf3± Byv­ shev - Reshko, Leningrad 1957. The move 9 . . . b5? ! looks seem­ ingly active, but it only creates weaknesses for Black, since White can undermine his opponent's queenside pawns with a2-a4 at an opportune moment. There might follow: 1O.!xf6 gxf6 (In case of 10 . . . 'lWxf6, White should not play 11.tLlxd6+ !xd6 12 .'i&xd6 tLld4 13.i.d3 'lWg5;;, since it is much stronger for him to follow with 11.tLle3 ! tLld4 12.tLlcd5 !xd5 13.tLlxd5 'lWg6, Podlesnik - Starc, Bled 1994, 14.f3± or 1l . . . 'lWd8 12.tDcd5± with an advantage for White, Bednarski - Kavalek, Kra­ kow 1984.) 11.tLle3.

S.liJc3 e5 6 . tiJdbS d6 7.�gS a6 B. ttJ a3 �e6 9. ttJ c4 After 9 . . . �e7? ! White plays 10. �6 gxf6 11.ttJe3. That position has been tested numerous times in practice, but the results were terrible for Black.

Black has tried numerous possibilities here, but he fails to equalize in any of them: About 11 . . . �e7 - see 9 . . . ie7; The line 11 . . . ttJd4 12.ttJcd5 f5, loses the exchange for Black after 13.exf5 ttJxf5 14.ttJxf5 M5 15.'1Wf3 ! hc2 16.ttJc7+ V!ixc7 17. 'lWxa8+ �e7 18.'lWxa6± Casella Simpson, Long Island 1995; It is too passive for Black to play 11 . . . �g7 12.id3 0-0 13.0-0 :E!c8 14.ttJcd5± Melnikov - Vik. Ivanov, St Petersburg 2006; If 11 . . . ttJe7, as it was played in the game Brondum - Andersen, Copenhagen 1979, then 12 .'lWf3 ig7 (12 ... ttJg6 13.ttJcd5±) 13.�d3±; Finally, in case of 11 . . . �h6 12.ttJcd5 he3 13.ttJxe3 ttJe7 (It is too risky for Black to opt for 13 . . . 'lWa5+ 14.c3 0 - 0 - 0 15.,te2 ttJe7, Opychaneyj - Jarmoluk, Ar­ gentina 1993, 16.a4 b4 17.:E!cl±) White counters with the the­ matic line 14.a4! b4 (Black would not solve his problems with 14 . . . bxa4 15.:E!xa4 d5, Ellison - Nichol­ son, Port Erin 2000, because of 16.V!if3±) 15.'lWf3± Honfi - Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1970 and he obtains a clear advantage.

Here are some of the possible developments: About 11 . . . 'lWd7 12.ttJcd5 �d8 13.'lWh5 hd5 14.ttJxd5 ttJd4 15.�d3 - see 11 . . . ttJd4; 11 . . . 'lWb6 ? ! (That is a loss of time.) 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 ... 'lWxb2 13.:E!bl V!ixa2 14.ttJc7+ �d7 15.ttJxa8 :gxa8 16.:E!xb7±) 13.c3± Esplana - Alosilla, Peru 1999; 11 . . . 0-0 12.ttJcd5 �h8 13.�e2 :E!g8 14.0-0± Leiros Vila - Lucas, corr. 1985; 11 .. .l�k8 12.ttJcd5 hd5, Suetin - Olbrich, Moscow 1991 (about 12 . . . b5 - see 11 . . . b5; 12 . . .f5 13.exf5 hd5, Nunn - Cox, Norway 1972, 14.ttJxd5±) 13.exd5 ttJb8 14. �d3±; 11 ... b5 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 . . . :E!c8 13.c3 ttJa5 14.a4± Wasnetsky - Nosal, Mannheim 1990 ; 12 . . . :E!b8 13.,te2 'lWd7 14.�g4± Maucci - Plazaola, Buenos Aires 2 0 02) 13.c3± Dolgener - Gierden, Dort­ mund 1988; 25

Chapter 3 1l . . . lDd4 12 .!d3 �d7 (or 12 . . . h S 13.lDcdS± Kotronias - Tak­ srud, Gausdal 1991; 12 . . . �aS 13. 0-0± Westermeier - Hacker, Germany 1979 ; 12 . . . l:kS 13.lDcdS 0-0 14.c3± Melnikov - Spanoche, Eforie Nord 1999) 13.lDcdS .hdS (or 13 . . . !dS 14.c3 lDc6 IS.�f3± Pitkanen - Rantanen, Naantali 1997) 14.lDxdS .idS (or 14 . . . �c6 IS.c3 lDe6 16.'iNf3 lDcS 17.!c2 lDd7 IS . .ib3± Muslic - Segovic, Pula 2002) IS.�hS EkS (or 15 . . . 0-0 16.c3 lDc6 17 ..ie2± Gazik - Mate­ jov, Slovakia 2001) 16.c3 lDe6 17. !e2± Blau - Plater, Hilversum 1947; ll . . . �aS 12 ..id3 lDb4 (12 . . . 0-0-0 13.0-0 hS I4.lDcdS± Wang - Mai, Wuxi 2 0 05) 13.a3 lDxd3+ 14.�xd3 (White's control over the dS and fS-outposts emphasizes the superiority of his couple of knights over Black's bishop pair.) 14 . . . EkS (14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.0-0± Ferreira - Romao, Portugal 1993) 15.0-0 �gS 16.lDcdS �cS 17.c3± Winterstein - Schwarz, Giessen 1991. All these variations confirm that after Black captures on f6 with a pawn, his bishop is mis­ placed on e7. The game Hove - Graham, Minnesota 1996, followed with the move 9 . . . �bS with the idea to remove the rook from an eventual threat on the b6-square. In that case, White's best line seems to be 10.lDdS! .hdS 1l ..hf6 'iNxf6 (or 1l . . . gxf6 12.�xdS±) 12.�xdS± and he occupies the central outpost. 26

Meanwhile, Black's rook is mis­ placed on bS. After the not so well analyzed variation 9 . . . h6 10 ..bf6 �xf6 (It is illogical for Black to play 10 . . . gxf6?! 1l.lDe3± Tarnowski - Fa­ bian, Glucholazy 1963 and White remains with a clear advantage.) l1.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS;t Ribli - Zinn, Zalaegerszeg 1969, there arises a situation quite similar to the one we will analyze later after 9 . . . �cS 1O . .hf6 'iNxf6 11.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS - see variation hI. The difference is only that Black's pawn is on h6 and that is much rather in favour of White, because Black's counter­ play is connected with the pawn­ advance f'7-fS and it would lead to an additional weakening of his light squares on the kingside.

a) 9

•••

�d4

This move used to be popu­ lar. Presently it has almost dis­ appeared from practice and the reason is that Black's centralized knight will be repelled later with the move c2-c3 and he can hardly prevent that.

1 0 .hf6 �xf6

5JiJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJ a3 ie6 9. ttJ c4 Black has problems after 10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJe3 f5 (about 1l . . Jk8 12 .id3 - see 9 . . Jk8 ; 1l . . . !h6 12 .id3 .b:e3 13.fxe3 ttJc6 14.§'f3± Wolff - Shtern, USA 1986) 12.exfS ttJxfS 13.ttJxfS ixfS, because of 14.§'f3 §'c8, Trautz - Adamczyk, COIT. 2 0 03 (Black loses immedi­ ately after 14 . . . §'d7? lS.ttJdS+-, White is clearly better too follow­ ing 14 . . . .b:c2 15J3c1 ig6 16.§'xb7t) 15.ie2 ! ? ie7 (It is too dangerous for Black to try lS . . . hc2 16J!c1 ia4 17. 0-0 ic6 18.ttJdS±, or 16 . . . J.g6 17. 0-0±) 16.0-0-0;1; with initiative for White.

1l.ttJb6 �b8 It is insufficient for Black to try the active line: 1l . . . �d8 12.ttJcdS ixdS 13.ttJxdS §'g6 14.f3 ie7 (or 14 . . . ttJc6 lS.ttJc7+ �d7 16.ttJdS± Eiben - Kovari, Slovakia 1997) lS.c3 ih4+ (It is not advisable for Black to opt for lS . . . ttJe6 16.§'a4+ �d7 17.b4±) 16.g3 hg3+ 17.hxg3 §'xg3+ 18.�d2 ttJxf3+ 19.�c2± Husted - F.Hansen, Denmark 1991 and Black's threats have been neutralized.

12. ttJcd5 §'d8 Black would lose his castling rights after 12 . . . §'g6 13.ttJc7+ �d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.§'d3± Daurelle - Fanghui Feng, corr. 1998, or 12 . . . §'h4 13.ttJc7+ �d8 14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.§'d3± Kraujunas - Lind­ berg, COIT. 1997.

13.c3 .txd5 White can counter 13 . . . ttJc6 with the powerful argument

14.§'a4 ! , while in case of 14 . . . i.e7? (about 14 . . . .b:d5 lS.l2JxdS - see 13 . . .ixdS) he has the strong re­ sponse 15.ixa6 ! ixdS 16.ttJxdS �a8 17.§'bS+- Mueller - Zunker, Oberursel 1972.

14.ttJxd5 �e6 The endgame is worse for Black after 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.§'a4 §'as (or IS . . . ie7 16.g3 ! ? 0 - 0 17.ih3± Cygon - Budt, Detmold 1976; lS . .E!:c 8 16.ie2 ie7 17.ig4 �b8 18.0-0± Cravero - Grosse Kloenne, corr. 2000) 16.§'xaS ttJxaS 17.ie2 ie7 18 . 0-0 �c8 19J!fdl± Telleria Braso, Uruguay 1988. .

15.g3 ie7 16.a4!? 0-0 17. i.h3 �e8 18.0-0;l;

This position was reached in the game Tal - Wade, Reykjavik 1964. The eighth World Cham­ pion obtained a great positional advantage and he won the game promptly, with some assistance from his opponent, indeed - 18 . . . M8 19.aS ttJgS 20.ifS g6? (Black blundered the exchange here.) 2 1.id7! �e6 2 2 ..b:e6 fxe6 23.ttJb6 hS 24.§'e2 ie7 2S.f4 ttJf7 26.fS 1-0.

27

Chapter 3 b) 9

•••

gc8 !

This is an idea of GM Larsen. Black completes the development of his queenside and he takes the c-file under control.

IO .txf6 •

We will analyze bl) IO and b2) IO gxf6.

•••

'i'xf6

••

bl) IO

•••

'i'xf6

Black does not allow doubling of his pawns, but he enables his opponent to deploy his knights on the important b6 and d5-outposts with tempo.

1l.tLlb6 White should better refrain from winning a pawn, because af­ ter 1V�xd6+ hd6 12.'i'xd6 :1'ld8�, followed by lLld4, Black obtains an excellent counterplay.

1l

•••

gb8

Black should better keep the d8-square for his queen, there­ fore it is dubious for him to try 1l . . . :1'ld8 ? ! 12.lLlcd5 %Yg6 13.lLlc7+ We7 14.lLlcd5+ We8 15.%Yd3 ie7 16.0- 0-0± Eitel - Ennenbach, Goch 1997.

12.tLlcd5 Y!Yd8 If 12 .. .'�g6? ! , then 13.Y«d3 ie7 28

(or 13 ... hd5 14.lLlxd5 !i.e7, Jabot - Felber, corr. 1995, 15.lLlc7+ wd7 16.lLld5±) 14.lLlc7+ ! wd8 15.lLlcd5 and Black loses his castling rights. White is better after 15 . . . We8 16.g3 h5 17. 0-0-0± Bindrich - Rovid, Budapest 2 0 04, as well as follow­ ing 15 . . . f5 16.0-0-0 fxe4 17.Y«c3 ! ixd5 (or 17 ...:1'lf8 18.ha6 ! :1'lxf2 19.ixb7 l:bcb7 20.%Yxc6 :1'la7 21.a4 ig4 2 2 .lLlc4±) 18.lLlxd5 :1'lc8 19. wb1 :1'lf8 20.Y«b3 ! b5 21 .%Ya3 lLlb8 (It is even worse for Black to play 21 ... :1'lxf2 22.%Yxa6 :1'lxc2 23 .%Yb6+ We8 24.Wxc2 lLlb4+ 25.Wb1 e3+ 26.!i.d3 lLlxd3 27.%Yxb5+-) 2 2 .%Ya5+ We8 23.Y«b6± - and Black had great problems in the game Herrera - Merino Garcia, Spain 1996.

13.c3 White takes control over the d4-square and he is threatening Y«a4 in some variations.

13 ie7 •••

After the careless line 13 ... g6? ! 14.Y«a4 ! , the temporary weaken­ ing of the f6-square does not allow Black to retreat with his bishop to d7, otherwise White has a tacti­ cal strike on the a6-square: 14 . . . ig7 15.ha6 ! hd5 16.lLlxd5 :1'la8 17.Y«b5 :1'lxa6 18.Y«xb7+- Cifuen­ tes Parada; 14 . . . !i.h6 15.ha6 ! 0-0 16.ib5 f5 17.0-0 wh8 18.:1'ladl± Joecks - Chekhov, Germany 1997. It is not so popular for Black to play 13 . . . lLle7, because White can choose between the calm line: 14.ic4 lLlxd5 15.Y«a4+ id7 16. lLlxd7 %Yxd7 17.Y«xd7+ Wxd7 18.

S.ciJc3 e5 6JiJdbS d6 7. !gS a6 8.tiJa3 ie6 9. &iJc4 ixd5;!; and the more ambitious 14. \Wa4+ .!d7, Zesch - Priebe, Berlin 2002, 15.\Wb4! ? &iJxd5 16.&iJxd5;!; with superior prospects.

14 . .tc40-0 About 14 . . . !g5 15.0-0 - see 14 . . . 0-0.

15.0-0.!g5 About 15 . . .hB 16.\We2 .tg5 (or 16 . . . g6, Salm - Henri, corr. 19B5, 17.a4 f5 1B.exf5 gxf5 19.f4;!;) 17.a4 - see 15 . . . .!g5. White is clearly better after 15 . . . ixd5 16.&iJxd5 b5 17. .tb3 !g5 1B.\Wd3 @hB 19J3ad1 &iJa5 2 0.&iJb4 �b6 2 1..!d5± Palevich - Schlos­ ser, corr. 19B6.

It is insufficient for Black to try 16 . . . .txd5 17.&iJxd5 &iJe7 1B.\Wb3 &iJxd5 19.ixd5 b6 2 0 .�fd1 g6 21. l3d3± Schmidt Schaeffer - Bra­ meyer, Germany 2 0 0 2 . After 16 . . . &iJe7, Ciolac - San Marco, Bethune 1992, White can play simply 17.a5;!; It deserves attention for Black to opt for 16 . . . YlYeB ! ? White's most principled reaction seems to be 17.&iJc7 YlYe7 1B.&iJxe6 fxe6 19.YlYg4, threatening Black's e6-pawn. The move 19 . . . l3beB can be countered by White with the line 20 . .!xe6+ YlYxe6 2 1.\Wxg5±, while in case of 19 ... &iJdB, White maintains his initiative with 2 0.g3 !h6 21.l3ad1 �f6 22.l3d3;!; Tong - Lim, Singa­ pore 1990.

17.ti'e2 g6

16.a4! White has completed his de­ velopment and he consolidates his achievements on the queen­ side.

16

•••

@h8

Black has no other counter­ play except the pawn-advance t7-f5, but he has tried some other lines too. It is only a transposition of moves after 16 . . . a5 17.YlYe2 g6 lB. �ad1 @hB - see 16 ... @hB, or 16 . . . g6 17.\We2 @hB - see 16 . . . @hB.

Black has numerous possibili­ ties here, but neither of them is sufficient for equality. He can try to redeploy his knight to the kingside with 17 . . . &iJe7 1B.a5 &iJg6, but that enables White to attack successfully his opponent's backward d6-pawn 19.13fd1 ih6 2 0.&iJe3 &iJf4 2 1.\Wf3 g6 22 ..txe6 fxe6 23.&iJec4± Wise - Leveille, corr. 1992. The prophylactic move 17. . . as has its drawbacks a s well. In case of 1B.l3ad1, White is better after 1B . . . g6 19 . .ta2 ! f5 (or 19 . . . &iJe7 2 0 .\Wb5±; 1 9. . . .th6 20.&iJc4 f5 21.exfS gxf5 2 2 .&iJdb6±) 20.exf5 gxf5, Friedman - Hausrath, Gro­ ningen 1996, 21.&iJc4 f4 22 .f3;!;, as well as following 1B . . . .th6 19.@h1 29

Chapter 3 g6 (if 19 . . . lLle7? ! , then 20.lLlxe7 'Wxe7 21.he6 fxe6 2 2 .lLlc4± or 20 . . .Wxb6 21.lLlfS± Nunn - Ma­ nor, London 19B7) 2 0.ia2;:!; and White's queenside initiative in­ creases. The move 17 'WeB ! ? is inter­ esting here, just like on the pre­ vious move, and it was played in the game Janovsky - Sveshnikov, Moscow 19B7. White can increase the pressure against the d6square with 1B.ia2 ! ? idB 19.1Llc4 'Wd7 20.�adl;!; If Black plays 17 .. .fS without preparation, then after 1B.exfS i.xfS 19.aS e4, White has the pow­ erful maneuver 2 0 .ib3 ! �eB (It is not any better for Black to try 20 . . . lLleS 21.ic2 lLld3 22 .f4 exf3 23. fuf3±, or 2 0 ... lLle7 21.lLle3 ig6 2 2 .ie6 ! �f6 23.Wg4;:!;, while in case of 2 0 . . . WeB 21.ic2 idB, it is good for White to continue with 22.�ae1 lLlxaS 23.ixe4 he4 24. Wxe4 hb6 2S.lLlxb6 'WbS 26. 'Wb4 ! ;:!; Perz - Necula, corr. 2001, or 2 2J'!a4 ! ?;:!;) 21.ia4 ! - It be­ comes clear that Black is incapa­ ble of protecting his queenside. There might follow 21.. .ih6 22. ixc6 bxc6 23. lLlb4±, or 21...�eS 2 2 .hc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4 'WeB 24.lLlc4 �e6 2S. lLlxa6 �b7 26.lLlb4;:!; and Black has no compensation for his material losses. .•.

18.l3adl i.h6 About 1B . . . aS - see 17. . . aS. In case of the immediate move 1B . . .fS, Travi - Henri, corr. 1979, 19.exfS gxfS (After 19 . . . ixfS ! ? 30

2 0.id3 ie6 21.ie4 lLle7 22.aS;:!; White has a slight, but long-last­ ing pressure.) White has the re­ source 20 .lLle3 ! he3 (or 20 . . . 'We7 2 1.he6 Wxe6 2 2 .lLlec4 �bdB 23.f4 ! .tf6 24.'Wd2 ! ?;:!;) 21.fxe3 hc4 (This exchange is in favour of White: 21.. .'Wxb6 2 2 .ixe6 lLle7 23.aS ! WcS 24.'Wd3 f4 2S.Wxd6±, or 22 .. .f4 23.�xd6 fxe3 24.�d7! �xf1+ 2S. Wxfl �fB + 26.We1! lLlbB 27.�f7 �xf7 2B.ixf7 lLld7 29.Wg4 lLlf6 30.WgS e4 31.h3±) 2 2 .lLlxc4 �f6 23.'Wd3 'Wg8 24.'WdS;:!; - and White is better, because of his dominance over the dS-outpost and Black's pawn-weaknesses on d6 and fS.

19.Whl f5 20.exfS gxf5 In case of 2 0 . . . ixfS, Reinaldo - M.Garcia, Nigran 1997, White can follow with 21.id3 ie6 2 2 . ie4;:!;

21.f4 ig7 In the game Isupov - Che­ khov, Orel 1996, Black chose the less precise response 21... �gB. White could have put that move under doubt with the line: 22 .fxeS ! dxeS (after 2 2 . . . lLlxeS, it is very good for White to follow with 23.id3 !±) 23.lLlb4 ! Wxb6 (23 . . .ixc4 24.lLlxc4±) 24.he6 lLld4 2S.cxd4 Wxe6 26.dxeS± with a great advantage for White.

2 2 .b4!;!; (diagram) That position was reached in the game Herrera - Cifuentes Parada, Cienfuegos 1996. After 22 . . . lLle7 23. lLlxe7 'Wxe7 24.he6

5.tiJc3 e5 6.l1:J db5 d6 7.fig5 a6 B. ttJa3 fie6 9. ttJ c4 knight on e3, because Black can counter that with 11. ..fih6. After 1l . .td3, we will analyze b2a) 11 gg8 and b2b) 11 ttJe7. About 1l . . .fig7 12.0-0 0-0 13.ttJe3 ttJe7 - see 1l ... ttJe7. It is premature for Black to play 1l . . . .th6? ! in view of 12 .YMh5. The game Stevanovic - Schinis, Yerevan 1996, followed with 12 . . . .tg7 13.0-0 ttJe7 14.ttJe3 'lNb6 15. ttJcd5 hd5 16.exd5±. It would be interesting for Black, but still not quite correct if he tries 12 . . . fif4 ! ? 13.g3 ttJd4 14.gxf4 fixc4 15. 0-0-0 YMa5 (or 15 ... b5 16.�b1 b4 17.hc4 :B:xc4 18.ttJd5±) 16.hc4 :B:xc4 17. :B:d3± with an advantage for White. The move 1l . . . ttJd4? ! is not justifiable for Black, just like on move 9. The position after White's natural move 12.ttJe3 has been tested numerous times. His plan is simple - he must complete his development and then occupy the d5-outpost and push c2-c3. Black has nothing real to counter that plan with, for example : 12 . . . 1ih6 13.0-0 0-0 (about 13 . . J:1g8, see 12 . . . :B:g8) 14.ttJcd5± Dely - Flesch, Hungary 1965; 12 ... h5 13.0-0 h4 (or 13 . . . fie7 14.ttJcd5± Guerrero - Regue, Catalunia 1997) 14.ttJcd5 fig7 15.c3 ttJc6 16.'lNf3 ! :B:h6 17.ttJf5 hf5 18.exf5 ttJe7 19.ie4± Bron­ stein - Pilnik, Moscow 1956 ; 12 . . . YMb6 13.ttJcd5 'lNxb2 14. ttJxf6+ �d8 15. 0-0± Hjartarson - Friojonsson, Iceland 198 0 ; ...

•••

'lNxe6 25.a5 :B:be8 26.ttJd5t White obtained a stable positional edge. Black would not have solved his problems with 22 . . .hd5 23.ttJxd5 e4. White has the undermining move 24.g4! and after 24 . . . fxg4 25.'lNxg4 YMc8 (or 25 . . . :B:g8 26.:B:gl±; 25 . . . b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.fib3±; 25 . . . ttJe7 26.:B:g1 ttJf5 27J!de1 b5 28.axb5 axb5 29.fib3±) 26.'lNe2 YMf5 27.:B:g1 fih6 28.:B:g4t - Black has problems in all the varia­ tions.

b2) lO

gxf6

...

This move is much more pop­ ular. Black opens the g-file and he plans to deploy his king's bishop to h6.

11 .td3 ! .

That is the precise move order. White is not in a hurry to place his

31

Chapter 3 12 . . . i.g7 13.0-0 0-0 (or 13 . . . bS - see 12 . . . �b6; 13 . . . he3 14.fxe3 14.tLlcdS fS lS.exfS hdS 16.tLlxdS :B:g8 lS.:B:f2 �b6 16.�d2± Blosze �gS, Hessmer - Eiselt, DDR - Oechslein, corr. 1996; 13 . . . tLlxd3 1974, 17.f4±) 14.tLlcdS @h8 (or 14.�xd3 i.xe3 lS.' e 2 �h4 17.tLlc7+ 'tt> e 7 18.tLlxe6 �xe4+ 19.tLle3+-, therefore, he is forced to continue with 1S . . . tLlcS 16.f3± - but White remains with a solid extra pawn; 13 . . J�b8 14.tLlcb4 tLlxb4 (In case of 14 . . . ixdS 1S.tLlxdS 0-0 16.axbS axbS, it looks very good for White to play 17.h4, repel­ ling Black's bishop from its ac­ tive position - after 17 . . . .tf6 18.,id3 13e8 19.Wie2 b4 2 0.ibS± Black has great problems on the light squares, Lyew - Vetter, Email 2 0 0 2 . It is not preferable for Black to try 17 . . . ,th6 18 J3a6

tLle7, Schenning - Schenning, Veldhoven 1991, after White's natural reaction 19.,ie2 tLlxdS 2 0.WixdS± Black loses one of his weak pawns.) 1S.tLlxb4 bxa4?, Korneev - Puigdemont, Badalona 1995 (Black should better play 1S . . . �b6 16.axbS axbS 17.13a6 �b7 18 .,td3t preserving some chances for successful defence), and now after 16.tLlc6 Wfb6 17.tLlxb8+ ­ White's material advantage i s de­ cisive.

14.gxa4 a5 After Black's other moves, he loses his a6-pawn without any compensation: 14 . . . ixdS? ! 1S.exdS tLle7 16. ixa6 0-0 17. 0-0 fS 18.tLlb4 f4, Trabert - Opacic, Lido Estensi 2003, and here after 19.�f3 ih4 20.13fa1 Wib6 2 1.,id3± White par­ ries easily his opponent's kingside activity and he remains with a solid extra pawn; 14 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.ixa6 tLle7 16. tLlcb4 ixdS, Pioch - Weider, Tar­ now 1979, 17.exdS tLlg6 18.0-0 f5 19.,ic4 �d7 20.tLlc6±

15 .tb5 Ad7 •

About 1S . . . 13c8 16J3C4 ,td7 17.h4 - see 1S . . . !d7 16.13c4 13c8 17.h4.

16.gc4 gcS l7.h4 .te7 After 17 . . .!h6 18.tLla3 0-0 19. Wia4 tLlb8 2 0.ixd7 13xc4 21.tLlxc4 tLlxd7 22 .�c6+- White occupies all the key-squares in the centre and he obtains a material advan­ tage too.

IS.tLlce3 g6 19.ti'a4 tLlbS 93

Chapter 7

Diaz - Lares, Mexico 1991. The most energetic line for White in the diagrammed position is:

2 0 . c!Llb6! llxc4 21.c!Llexc4 ixb5 22.Vxb5+ �f8 23.h5+- Black's queenside has been crushed and he has not completed his devel­ opment yet. His knight is under arrest; therefore, he has no coun­ terplay at all.

This move is thematic. Black wishes to remove White's knight from its excellent placement in the centre.

13.h4 White, in his stead, repels Black's bishop to a less active po­ sition.

13 . . . .th6

94

other

14.a4 bxa4 Black has not tried in prac­ tice yet the move 14 . . . E!b8, since after 15.lLlxe7 Wlxe7 16.axb5 axb5 17.lLlb4;!; he would have great problems with the protection of his b5 and d6-pawns, without any counterplay whatsoever.

15.c!Llcb4! White would not achieve much with 15.E!xa4? ! lLlxd5 16.Wlxd5 i.e6 17.Wld1, and here after 17. . . as 18 .i.b5+ @e7 19.0-0 Wfb6 20.c4 E!hf8 21.b4t he had a very powerful initiative in the game T.Airapetian - V.Tarasova, St. Petersburg 2 0 07, but in the line: 17 ... Wfb6 ! 18.lLlb4 a5 19.lLld5 Wlxb2 20.i.b5+ �d8+ Black not only ends up with an extra pawn, but his pieces are much more active.

b) 12 . . . c!Lle7

The

Black are doubtlessly worse: 13 . . . i.xh4? - this move loses b y force. 14.E!xh4 lLlxd5, Suarez Pousa - Soto, Los Barrios 1995, and here after 15.Wfxd5 i.e6 16.Wl'b7 E!b8 17.Wlc6+ �f8 18.0-0-0 E!b6 19.WlcS+- White ends up with an extra knight; 13 . . . lLlxd5? 14.Wfxd5 i.e6 15.Wlc6+ i.d7 16.Wfxd6± White has a solid extra pawn.

possibilities

for

11.c3 ,tgS 12. lLl c2 Black has tried to solve his problems in the diagrammed po­ sition with bl) 15 .td7, or with the help of b2) 15 0 - 0 . •••

•••

bl) 15 .td7 This logical move forces White to take extreme measures. •••

16-'�xa4 ! ? That positional sacrifice is quite typical. It is absolutely cor­ rect, because Black's bishop on h6 is out of play. In answer to the other principled line for White - 16.g4 - Black has at his disposal the interesting exchange sacrifice - 16 . . . a5 ! ? 17.lLla6 lLlxd5 1B.Wfxd5 .tf4 19.WfxaB �xaB 20.lLlc7+ We7 21.lLlxaB E!:xaB�, and he not only obtains a pawn for it, but his queenside pressure is quite un­ pleasant for White.

16

•••

kin. (After 20 . . . .tc6 21 . .tc4 .txd5 22 . .txd5 �a6 23J�h3 !± White has an extra passed pawn and his king is much safer in the cen­ tre than Black's castled king is. It is not preferable for Black to try the seemingly active move 2 0 . . .f5 21..ic4 WhB 22.exf5 hiS 23. 0-0±, since White has occupied reliably the light squares in the centre and Black has no compensation for the pawn.) 21.lLle7+ WhB 22.lLlxcB Wfxe4+ 23 . .ie2 Wfxb4+ 24.Wf1 .txcB 25.Wfd5 !;!; It is not easy for White to win with his extra ex­ change; nevertheless, Black is doomed to a long and very unre­ warding defence.

17.ti)xd5 .ixa4 In case Black declines accept­ ing the sacrifice, there arise stan­ dard positions with a slight initia­ tive for White: 17 . . . a5 1B.E!:a1 ! 0-0 19 . .ic4!i; in answer to 1B ... E!:bB, White can follow with the natural line: 19.b3 0-0 20 . .tc4i, as well as with the much sharper variation: 19.94 ! ? .if4 20.lLlxf4 exf4 21.�xd6 E!:xb2 2 2.Wfe5+ .ie6 23 . .tb5+ WfB 24.0-0i

18.ti'xa4+ WfS 19.b4�

lLlxd5

Black can reach much calmer positions with the line: 16 . . . a5 17.lLlxe7 axb4 (About 17 . . . Wfxe7 1B.lLld5 WfdB 19.E!:a1 ! - see 16 . . . lLlxd5 17.lLlxd5 a5 1B.E!:al.) 1B.E!:xaB WfxaB 19.1Lld5 0-0 20.cxb4 E!:cB ! This line is the best for Black, according to GM Sergey Karja95

Chapter 7 White has a powerful knight in the centre and he has good chanc­ es to win Black's a6-pawn, so all that more than compensates his exchange sacrifice. The run-up of the game and the variations of the analysis confirm that evaluation:

19

•••

27.ti'c7 ti'f7 Black loses now after 27 . . . l:!c8 ? ! 28.Wixd6 l:!xc4 29.exfS WixbS 30.l:!a7+-, but even after 27 . . . l:!t7 28.Wixd6 .if8 2 9.Wic6 Wixc6 30.bxc6± a satisfactory outcome of his defence is highly unlikely.

a5

It is logical for Black to try to save his a-pawn, otherwise White's compensation for the ex­ change is more than obvious: 19 . . . g 6 2 0.,ba6 fS 2 1.bS�, o r 1 9 . . .'l1;lfc8 2 0 .ie2 g6 21.0-0 �g7 22J!al�

2 0 .b5 gb8 It is not better for Black to de­ fend with 20 . . . g6 21.b6 �g7 2 2 . g 3 fS 23.ttJc7! Wie7 24.ttJxa8 l:!xa8 2S.Wic6 l:!b8 26.ia6± and he would have problems fighting against his opponent's b6-pawn in a position with material equality.

21.g3 ! g6 22 .th3 �g7 23. 0 - 0 gf8 24.l:!al �h8?! •

Black's only chance of sav­ ing the game is to try to activate his pieces - 24 . . .fS 2S.exfS gxf5 26.WixaSt

28.exf5! Wixc7 29.ttJxc7 gxf5 3 0 .ga6 l:!f7 31.tlJd5 + - Black's d6 and fS-pawns are very weak, while White enjoys a practically complete control over the light squares. This makes us evaluate Black's position as lost, Karjakin - Radjabov, Warsaw 2 0 0S.

b2) 15

•••

0-0

25.Wixa5 Wie8 26.c4 f5 The alternatives are not any better for Black: 26 . . J�a8?! 27.Wixa8 Wixa8 28.l:!xa8 l:!xa8 29. b6+- and he would have to give up a rook for the b6-pawn; 26 . . . l:!b7 27.Wib4± Black must stop somehow White's passed pawn; meanwhile he must protect his weakness on d6 and his bishop is incapable of coming to the queen­ side, which makes his defence tre­ mendously difficult. 96

That is the calmest line for Black. He completes his develop­ ment and although he would have problems obtaining counterplay,

1l.c3 ig5 12. I1J c2 he relies on the solidity of his po­ sition. It is far from easy for White to win against such an approach.

16.1ltxa4 a5 About 16 . . . lDxd5 17.lDxd5 a5 18.ib5 - see 17.ib5 lDxd5 18.lDxd5 - see 16 . . . a5 17. ib5 lDxd5 18. lDxd5. The move 16 . . . ib7 - leads to a quiet game with a slight edge for Whjite. 17.1lta5 1ltd7, Tairova - Kovalevskaja, Bad Homburg 2007 (After 17 . . . lDxd5 18.lDxd5 h8 19.1ltxd8 l:!fxd8 2 0.ic4t White's prospects are superior thanks to his domination over the d5-outpost and the possible pressure against Black's a and d­ pawns.), and now White obtains a slight, but stable advantage af­ ter 18.ic4 l:!fc8 19.1Dxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.id5t. The main drawback of Black's position is his bishop on h6, which can hardly enter the ac­ tions anytime soon.

17.ib5 tOxd5 The move 17 . . . ib7? ! - enables White to force advantageous simplifications. 18.tOc6 hc6 19. lDxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.ixc6 l:!ab8 21. l:!a2± - Black's dark-squared bishop is very passive and it will not be activated in the nearest fu­ ture, while his d6 and a5-pawns are weak. Instead, White's light­ squared bishop is very powerful. 21...l:!fc8 2 2 .id5 l:!c5 23.g3 h8 24.0-0 f5? ! That attempt by Black to organize some counterplay leads to his swift demise, but he is reluctant to stay completely pas-

sive. 25.b4 ! l:!xc3 26.bxa5 f4 27. a6 V!1a7, Pushkarev - Gladyszev, Sochi 2 006, and here White ex­ ploits the vulnerability of Black's last rank, winning by force with the line: 28.l:!b2 ! l:!f8 29.l:!b7 V!1c5 30.a7+-

18.tOxd5 ie6 18 .. .f5? ! - This move only compromises the light squares in the centre and on the king­ side, while Black's counterplay is non-existent after it. 19.exf5 hf5, Aliavdin - Holmsgaard, Pardu­ bice 2 007, and here White can develop his initiative in the most energetic fashion with the aggres­ sive line: 20.g4 ! ie6 21.ic4 g6 (It is not preferable for Black to opt for 21.. .g5 2 2 .l1Je3 V!1f6 23.he6+ V!1xe6 24.11Jf5±, since his bishop is bound to remain passive on h6.) 2 2 .g5 ig7 23.tOf6+ l:!xf6 24.gxf6 wrxf6 25.V!1c6± White's king is not so safe indeed, but Black's com­ pensation for the pawn is insuf­ ficient anyway, because there is only too little material left on the board. 18 . . . h8? ! - This move is con­ nected with the idea to obtain counterplay on the f-file, but it would weaken the light squares in the centre. 19.b4 f5 2 0 .ic6 l:!a7 21.exf5 hf5 22 .bxa5 id3 23.ib5 ixb5 (It is not better for Black to try 23 . . . if5 24.0-0 ie6 25.ic6±) 24.V!1xb5± White has an extra out­ side passed pawn and a magnifi­ cently deployed knight in the cen­ tre, so his position is quite close to 97

Chapter 7 winning, Karjakin - Shirov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07.

19.J.c6 E:bS

tion with material equality, Gan­ guly - Khader, Abu Dhabi 2007)

22 .txd5 Wfb6 23. 0 - 0 Wfxb4, •

Dominguez Perez - Jakoven­ ko, Foros 2007, and here after 24.%Yd7 'it>hS 25.E:a6t White has a powerful initiative. Black's bish­ op is out of action and he either loses his f-pawn, or he must push it forward, which compromises ir­ revocably the light squares on his kingside. White has a forcing line in the diagrammed position: 2 0 .b4 (He can also continue in a calmer fash­ ion: 2 0 .b3 'it>h8, An.Volokitin Ar.Timofeev, Spain 2 006, because after 2U�a2;t Black has no active prospects and that is confirmed by the following exemplary varia­ tion : 21.. .fS 22.exfS gnS 23.0-0 gf4 24.lLlxf4 hb3 2S.YMxaS ha2 26.Wfxa2 hf4 27.g3± The light­ squared complex is very weak in Black's camp. His bishop is out of action and his d6-pawn is vulner­ able.) 2 0 axb4 21.cxb4 .txd5 (Black must capture the b4-pawn; therefore it is worse for him to follow with 21. . . 'it>h8 2 2 .bS hdS 23.hdS Wfd7 24.ic6 YMg4 25.0-0 Wfxh4 26.Wfb3± - and despite the extra pawn, Black's position is al­ most beyond salvation. His rooks are very passive and his bishop can hardly come back to the g1a7 diagonal. 26 .. .fS 2 7.g3 Wfd8 28. exfS id2 29.YMa3 ! igs 30 .YMd3 Wfc7 31.ga6+- White's pieces are tremendously active in a posi•••

98

c) 12

•••

gbS !?

Black understands perfectly that White's plan is connected with the pawn-advance a2-a4, so he tries to organize some counter­ play along the b-file.

13.a4 Black is well-prepared for this operation indeed, but it is neces­ sary for White in his fight for the advantage.

13 bxa4 •••

The other possibilities for Black lead to a transposition of moves: about 13 . . . ie6 14.lLlcb4 - see 12 . . . ie6 13.a4 gb8 14.lLlcb4, variation a; as for 13 . . . 0-0 - see 11 ... 0-0.

1l.c3 i gS 12 . lLl c2 14.tLlcb4

14 . . .td7 .

It is essential for Black to pre­ serve his a4-pawn in order to create some counterplay. There­ fore, it is worse for him to play 14 . . . tLlxb4 15.cxb4 ! - this move is much stronger than capturing with the knight, since now the rook on b8 does not attack the vulnerable b2-pawn, but instead it is restricted by the well-pro­ tected b4-pawn. 15 . . . 0-0 (about 15 . . . id7 16.ha6 - see 14 . . . id7 15.ha6 lLlxb4 16.cxb4! ) 16.l3xa4 and here: 16 . . . Wfd7? ! - This is a strange move. Black loses a pawn as well as his main trump - the two­ bishop advantage. 17.ha6 ha6 18.l3xa6 l3fc8 19. 0-0± White has an extra pawn and his omnipo­ tent knight on d5 makes his posi­ tion almost winning, Damjanovic - Svicevic, Kladovo 1994; 16 . . . ie6 ? ! - This move looks more natural, but after 17.ic4 Wfd7 18.b3 �h8 19.0-0;1; Black loses unavoidably his a6-pawn and his active prospects are no­ where to be seen. 19 .. .f5 (Black's

only possible counterplay can be connected with opening of the f-file.) 20.exf5 l3xf5 21.l3xa6 e4 2 2.lLle3 ! he3 23.fxe3 hc4? (It is much better for Black to play here 23 . . . l3xf1+ 24.lMfxf1 d5 25.lMff4 l3d8 26.if1±, and although he has no compensation for the pawn in that variation either, he maintains some chances of successful de­ fence.) 24.bxc4 l3xf1+ 25.lMfxf1+­ Jakovenko - Wang Yue, Ergun 2006; After 16 . . . ib7 17.ixa6 ixd5 (It is evidently worse for Black to try 17 . . . ic6 18.b5 hb5 19.ixb5 l3xb5 20.b4 lMfc8 21. 0-0± and the dom­ inance of the centralized knight over the bishop makes White's advantage obvious, Edelstein Rinaldi, corr. 1992.) 18.lMfxd5 lMfd7 19.b3 id8 20.0-0 ib6 21.�h1 �h8 22.f3;1; White has an extra passed pawn, despite its being doubled, and he has neutralized Black's possible kingside coun­ terplay with his last move. Black failed to cope with the problems of his defence 22 . . . id4 23.id3 lMfe6 24.lMfxe6 fxe6 25.ic4 l3fe8 26.l3a6± and despite the oppo­ site-coloured bishops, Black was doomed to a long and very diffi­ cult defence, Palac - Gagarin, Za­ dar 2005; 16 . . .f5 - This is an interesting pawn-sacrifice with the idea to ob­ tain counterplay on the kingside. 17.exf5 hf5 18.ha6 id7 19.13a3 �h8 20. 0-0;1; The vulnerability of the light squares in the centre 99

Chapter 7 makes Black's compensation for the pawn insufficient and after 20 . . . i.h6? ! , Getz - B.Christensen, Copenhagen 2 007, it deserves at­ tention for White to continue with the prophylactic move 2 U�c3, preventing the sortie ofthe Black's queen to the kingside - 21 . . . '!Wh4 2 2 . �c4±; 16 . . . aS 17.bS i.b7 (After 17. . . i.d7 1B.iWb3 '!WcB 19.1Dc3 i.dB 2 0.i.c4 i.b6 21. 0-0t Black has something to brag about indeed: his dark­ squared bishop is on the perfect diagonal, but White has already a passed pawn on the queenside and he can start a kingside of­ fensive pushing f2-f4 after some preparation, Duijn - Lemmers, Leeuwarden 1995. 17 .. .fS - This move looks more aggressive, but it weakens considerably the light squares in the centre and on the kingside. 1B .h4 i.f6 19.i.c4 whB 2 0 .'!We2 i.d7 21.exfS �cB 2 2 . 0-0 h:h4 23.i.d3± White dominates in the centre and his dangerous passed bS-pawn provides him with superior prospects, RYBKA - THE BARON, Leiden 2006.) 1B.i.c4 whB 19.0-0 fS 20.exfS �xfS, P.Cramling - Tisdall, Glad­ saxe 19B3, and here after 2 1.'!We2 �cB 2 2 .i.d3 �fB 23.i.e4 �c5 24. �dU Black is helpless against White's dominance over the light squares in the centre and there­ fore his position is without any good prospects.

15.ha6 lLlxb4 1S . . . lDaS? ! - This move leads 100

to material losses. 16.�xa4 ha4 17.'!Wxa4+ wfB 1B.0-0 �aB, Sanz Barrionuevo - Sanchez Cuchillo, Burriana 1990, White wins easily here with the line: 19.�a1 ! lDb7 (It is not better for Black to defend with 19 . . . lDc4 2 0.iWbS lDd2 21.lLlc6 '!Wd7 2 2 .lDb6 +- and after White captures his opponent's rook on aB, he will remain with an extra piece.) 20.h:b7! �xa4 21.�xa4+­ Black has no satisfactory defence against 22.�aB, therefore White will end up with two light pieces and a pawn against a rook. 1S . . . 0-0? ! - This move los­ es a pawn. 16.�xa4 lLlxb4 (The pawn-advance 16 . . .fS? ! - com­ promises the light squares in the centre. 17.exfS e4 1B.h4 ! ih6 19.1Dxc6 hc6 20.�c4 i.aB 2UlcB '!WaS 22.�xbB �xbB 23.i.c4 �xb2 24. 0-0± White not only has an extra pawn, but he has excellent attacking prospects thanks to his centralized pieces and Black's vulnerable kingside, M.Sorokin - Gutman, USSR 197B.) 17.�xb4 'l&aS 1B.i.c4 '!WcS 19.�xbB �xbB 20.b3t White has won a pawn, but he lags a bit in development, so in answer to 20 . . . i.bS, it is very good for him to opt for 2 1 . 0 - 0 ! hc4 22.bxc4 'l&xc4 23.'I&g4 h6 24.h4 i.dB 2S.g3 i.b6 26.wg2t White has powerful positional pressure, thanks to his centralized knight and Black should play very care­ fully. The imprecise move 26 . . . i.cS?, enabled White t o activate his rook with 27.�b1 �fB 2B.�b7±

1l.c3 !g5 12. tiJ c2 Golubev - Gubajdullin, Moscow 2006. Following 15 . . . tiJe7, Droess­ ler - Hauschild, Germany 2004, it is sensible for White to at­ tack his opponent's weak pawn with 16.tiJe3 ! ? he3 17.fxe3 'ilVb6 18JWd3 f5 19.0-0 0-0 (It is hardly better for Black to try here 19 . . .f4 20.@h1 0-0 21.exf4 exf4 22 .!c4+ @h8 23.eS±) 2 0 .exf5 ixfS 21.%Vd2;!; - and White has somewhat better chances, due to the vulnerability of Black's d6 and a4-pawns.

can continue without sacrifices, though: 18.b3 ! ? axb3 (or 18 . . . ic6 19J1xa4 ha4 2 0.bxa4 'ilVd7 2 1.id3±) 19.%Vxb3 ie6 2 0.ic4;!; - White has somewhat better chances, because of his active pieces and the dominance over the central d5-outpost. 17. . . 'ilVe8 - This move prevents the exchange sacrifice indeed, but it dooms Black to a long defence without any bright prospects. 18 .b3 axb3 (After 18 . . . ic6 ? ! White's exchange sacrifice is very effective. 19J%xa4 ha4 2 0 .bxa4±) 19.%Vxb3 ie6, Corrales - Gon­ gora, Santa Clara 2 0 07, and now after 20.E1fdU White controls the centre and his queenside passed pawn is ready to advance at any moment. Black's only possible counterplay is connected with t7f5, but that compromises the light squares on the kingside.

16.cxb4! This i s a n important moment. Now, the placement of Black's rook on b8 is pointless, because his attack against the b4-pawn is not as effective as that against the b2-pawn. Meanwhile, the b4pawn is passed and it is ready to advance at an opportune mo­ ment.

16 . . . 0 - 0 17. 0 - 0 !c6 17. . . g6, Bilen - Chasovnikova, Moscow 2006, This is a useful move, because if White decides to sacrifice the exchange analo­ gously to the main line, his initia­ tive would not be so effective. He

18.gxa4! This is no doubt the best line for White. He obtains an excellent compensation for the exchange thanks to his powerful knight in the centre and his queenside passed pawn. 101

Chapter 7 lS . . . J.xa4 Black is forced to accept the sacrifice, because after 1B . . . �d7 19.b5 .b:b5 2 0 . .txb5 �xb5 2U!b4± the superiority of the knight over the bishop is obvious and Black's attempt to change the course of actions with a queen-sacrifice led to a lost position for him after 21 . . . �xb4 22.iLlxb4 gxb4 23.�xd6 gb5 24.g3+- Perunovic - Milanovic, Belgrade 2006.

19.tba4

19 ... VHeS Black's defence is not any eas­ ier if he enters an endgame. His position is difficult too after the alternatives: 19 ... ih6? ! - This move is con­ nected with the idea to transfer the queen to the kingside, but Black does not obtain any coun­ terplay with it. Instead, White's passed pawn advances to the pen­ ultimate rank. 20.b5 �h4 21.b6 gfdB 2 2 .b7± Mr335 - crafty, In­ ternet 1999; 19 ... whB ? ! - That is a loss of time. 2 0 .�c6 .td2 21.b5 i.a5 2 2 .i.b7 �h4 (In case of 22 . . . �eB - the exchange o f queens 102

is in favour of White. 23.ga1 .tdB 24.VHxeB gxeB 25.i.c6 gfB 26.ga6± Black's extra exchange is absolutely immaterial and his pieces are so cramped that he has no active prospects. 26 . . . g6 27.b6 f5 2B.exf5 e4 29.b7+- Abn - Bewersdorff, Germany 2001.) 23.b4 .tdB 24.�xd6 i.g5, Zapata - C.Lopez, Cali 2 0 01, Black's position is nearly hopeless after White's active move 25.ttJb6 ! , for example: 25 . . . gbdB (Black would not fare any better after his oth­ er possibilities 25 . . . gfdB 26.�c7 �g4 27.ttJc4 �d7 28.�xd7 gxd7 29.i.c6 gd4 30.ttJxe5±; or 25 . . . gfeB 26.g3 �g4 27.i.d5± and in both cases his pieces remain to­ tally passive.) 26.ttJd7 gfeB (Or 26 .. .f5 27.VHcS gfl - after 27 . . . .te7? 28.�c7+- Black loses plenty of material. - 2B . .tc6 fxe4 29.g3 �h5 30.ttJxe5± White obtains unavoidably a third pawn for the exchange.) 27.i.c6 i.e7 2B.�xe5 .b:b4 29.�d4± Black's defence will be very difficult, because his rooks are stuck to the last rank and White has two pawns for the exchange, one of them being a dangerous passed pawn; 19 . . .f5 - This move weakens the light squares on the kingside. 20.exf5 gxf5 2 1.i.d3 gfB (Follow­ ing 21.. .gfl 2 2 .b5i - Black has problems fighting against his opponent's active pieces. 22 . . . �fB 23.h4 i.f4 24.h5± White dominates in the centre and he can create threats on both sides

11.c3 !g5 12. ltJ c2 of the board, Toth - Pechy, Tri­ este 2 0 04.) 2 2 .bS VNd7 23.Wle4 g6, L'Arni - Moser, Augsburg 2002, White controls the centre and he can prepare the development of his initiative at leisure, after 24J:1a1 VNfS 2S.Wle2 VNfl 26.!e4;!; Black must consider the possible advance of his opponent's passed pawn as well as his eventual king­ side offensive with g2-g3, followed by the advance of his h-pawn; 19 . . . g6 - It was considered for a long time that Black could equal­ ize after that move. 20.Wlc6 id2 21.bS iaS 2 2.ib7 f6 ! - This is the only move, because Black brings his rook on f8 to the defence of his queenside. 23Jk1! (In the game Barua - B.Lalic, Ubeda 1998, White continued with 23.b4? ! ib6 ! 24.ltJxb6 l::!fl 2S.l::! d1 l::!fxb7 26.l::!xd6 Wlxd6 27.VNxd6 l::!xb6= and the position was already look­ ing rather drawish.) 23 . . . l::!fl (It is worse for Black to play 23 . . . id2? ! 24.l::! c 2 WlaS 2S.g3 ib4 26.VNa6 ! h8 27.l::! c4 id2 28.b4 VNd8 29. b6+-, since his pieces are help­ less against White's queenside onslaught.) 24.ic8 l::! a7 2S.h4;!; Black has prevented the advance of White's b-pawn indeed, but he has no active prospects. Mean­ while, White has excellent attack­ ing chances on the kingside.

2 0 .Wlxe8 gfxe8 2l.b5 f5

The diagrammed position was reached in the game Anand - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2006. In his comments, Anand recommended how White should develop his initiative in the most energetic fashion: 22.h4! - White must obtain the control over the c-file.

22 ixh4 23.gc1 fxe4 24.b6 gfS 25.g3 ig5 26.gc6 id2 27.b7 iel 28.gc2 ! ? chf7 (It is •••

not better for Black to opt for 28 . . . e 3 29.fxe3 fl 30Jk8 e6 31.e4 if2 + 32 .h1 ia7 33.ltJb4 d7 34.!bS+ che6 3S.l::! c7±, since he cannot maintain the material bal­ ance anymore and in addition he cannot capture White's danger­ ous b7-pawn.) 29.chfl ia5 3 0 . b4 che6 (Black loses too after 30 . . . id8 31.l::! c8 igS 32.ltJb6+-) 3l.bxa5 chxd5 32 .ib5! + - Black is completely helpless against White's two connected far-ad­ vanced passed pawns.

103

Conclusion In this chapter, we analyze on of the modern lines of the Chely­ abinsk variation 11. . . �g5 - Black ensures the two-bishop advantage, with the idea that it would compensate the defects of his pawn-struc­ ture. In answer to the strongest move for White 12.ti:J c2, (White central­ izes his knight and prepares the crucial pawn-advance a2-a4, which is aimed at exploiting the weakness of the light squares on the queen­ side.) Black has tried in practice different moves and in this chapter we analyze thoroughly: a) 12 . . . �e6?!, b) 12 . . .tiJe7, c) 12 . . . '8bB. It is worth mentioning that Black does not lose after some other rarely played lines, but they all lead to positions without any good prospects for him, while White's game is very easy on the weak squares on both sides of the board. The development of Black's bishop to the e6-square in variation a, is no doubt premature, because at first, that square is not always the best for that bishop - it must be deployed sometimes to b7, or d7 and secondly, Black thus weakens his a6-pawn and White develops his initiative effortlessly with quite natural moves. The logical move 12 .. . tiJe7 (Black fights immediately against White's powerful centralized knight.) is analyzed in variation b. The basic drawback of that move however is that White can play 13.h4! repelling Black's bishop to the edge of the board and it cannot join in the actions easily from there. After the practicallyforced line 13 . . . �h6 14.a4 bxa4 15. lD cb4! Black has to make up his mind between several possibilities: In variation bl, he forces his opponent to sacrifice the exchange on a4. White obtains numerous advantages as compensation - he has complete control over the light squares in the centre and on the queen­ side. His knight on as is all-powerful and he can create a passed pawn on the queenside after he captures Black's weak a6-pawn. Then, it would be practically material equality on the board. Accordingly, Black's extra exchange cannot compensate completely all the defects of his position. In variation b2, Black obtains a more solid, but rather passive position, practically without counterplay, but in a position with ma­ terial equality. He tries to complete his development and he tries to make a draw by simplifications. The disadvantageous placement of 104

his bishop on h6 is especially emphasized in that variation. In the critical position, arising after Black's move 19, White has the pleasant choice between the move, whichforces the issue immediately - 20 .b2b4 and the calmer line - 2 0 .b2-b3. Thefirst line leads to considerable simplifications - there are only kingside pawns left on the board, but the presence of heavy piece emphasizes the different power of the op­ posite-coloured bishops and that dooms Black to a fight for a draw without any active prospects. In the second case, White is not in a hur­ ry to create a passed pawn on the queenside and because of that, there remain many more pawns on the board. In that case, Black must con­ sider the possible advance of his opponent's b-pawn at any moment and he must take care about the protection of his weak as-pawn too. In variation c) 12. . . '!i.bB, Black tries to save a tempo by postponing his castling, with the idea to create some counterplay on the b-file. He plans to counter White's thematic break a2-a4, by exchanging bSxa4 and exerting pressure against the b2-pawn. Despite that, White, in his fightfor the opening advantage, is forced to sacrifice temporar­ ily a pawn with 13.a4,followed by 13 . . . bxa4 14. &iJcb4! - he covers the b-file in that fashion and he gobbles unavoidably Black's a6-pawn. The key moment in that variation is the possibility for White to cap­ ture c3xb4! in answer to c3xb4!. After that, Black's rook is restricted in its movements by his opponent's b4-pawn and it is much easier for White to protect that pawn than the b2-pawn. Later, after White captures Black's a6-pawn, he creates a passed pawn along the b-file. It is essential for White to control the dS-outpost, since he needs to have a piece there. Just like in variation bl, it is a classical resource, in his fightfor the advantage, to exchange at an opportune moment his rookfor Black's light-squared bishop.

105

Chapter 8

1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9. �d5 J.e7 1 0 .ixf6 J.xf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 •

You can see on the diagram one of the critical positions of the Chelyabinsk variation. White cen­ tralizes his knight; he increases the pressure in the centre, plan­ ning to advance the undermining move a2-a4. He will thus create weaknesses on Black's queen­ side, freeing the c4-square for his pieces (it would be used most probably by White's light-squared bishop). How can Black counter that plan? In this chapter, we will ana­ lyze some rarely played lines like a) 12 .ie6, b) 12 .ib7 and c) 12 �b8, while the next chap­ ter will be devoted to the popular move 12 . . .l'(bB . •.•

••.

106

•.•

We have to mention that there will arise numerous transposi­ tions of moves, leading to the variation 12 . . . .igS, which is in fact the main line. We will study it at the end. At first, we will pay some at­ tention to several quite unusual possibilities for Black: About 12 . . J!a7 13.a4 bxa4 14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . i.gS; About 12 ... �hB 13.a4 bxa4 14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . .igS; It is too passive for Black to play 12 . . . .ie7? ! 13.a4 bxa4 (If 13 . . . E:bB 14.axbS axbS, a s i t was played in the game Rossato - Belotti, Pellestrina 1979, then 1S.i.d3, and it would be too risky for Black to opt for 1S .. .fS 16.exfS hfS 17.i.xfS E:xfS in view of 1B.E:a6±) 14.E:xa4 i.b7 (or 14 . . . aS 1s.ibS ! ? ib7 16. O-O± Gara - Moshina, Balaton­ lelle 2000) 1S.i.c4± Neiksans Gvatua, Rimavska Sobota 1996 and White has accomplished his plan and he is clearly better; It is not so good for Black to continue with 12 . . . .id7, A Panov

11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2 - Kuznetsov, Krasnodar 2004, 13.a4 bxa4 14J'ixa4;!;; While after 12 . . . lDe7, White should better provoke the appear­ ance of weaknesses with the help of the line: 13.lDxf6+ gxf6 14.id3 (We will mention here that we will analyze later a line, which looks rather similar: 12 . . J'ibB 13.h4 lDe7 14.lDxf6+ gxf6 lS.id3 - our read­ ers will be easily convinced that the absence of the pawn on h4 can be advantageous for White as well.). After the rather indifferent move 14 . . . ie6 lS.lDe3± White's advantage is doubtless and Black's active attempts prove to be insuf­ ficient for equality: 14 . . . dS 1S.exdS �xdS (It is not correct for Black to try lS . . . lDxdS? ! 16.�hS fS 17.hfS ixfS 18.�xfS lDf4 19.0-0±) 16. lDe3 �e6, Jurasek - Svab, Plzen 1996, 17.�hS ! fS (White is evi­ dently better after 17 . . . e4 1B.ic2 fS 19.ib3 �g6 20.�h4 �eB 21. O-O-O±) 1B.g4! That is a very strong move now, since Black has problems irrelevant of his choice on the next move. 1B . . . �g6 19.�h4±, or 14 . . . fS lS.exfS !xiS, Janz - Lampe, Hamburg 1997 (but not lS . . . lDxfS? 16.�f3+-) 16.ixfS lDxfS 17.�g4+ lDg7 lB. 0-0-0 �f6 (in case of 1B . . .fS, it is good for White to play 19.�b4;!;) 19.�hf1 as (19 . . .�fdB 20.lDb4;!;) 2 0.lDe3 b4 21.c4;!; and White has some positional edge; Finally, in case of 12 . . . g6 13.a4 bxa4 (or 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS lS.id3 ig7 16.�e2 �gS 17. 0-0

i.h3 1B .f3± Chase - Mason, Las Vegas 1996) 14.�xa4 !J.g7 (or 14 . . . �bB?! lS.ha6±; about 1 4. . . aS lS.!J.c4 !J.gS - see 12 . . . !J.gS; as for 14 . . . igS - see 12 . . . igS) lS.ic4 as (In the game Sluka - Vaculik, Litomysl 1996, Black chose 15 . . . !J.b7, and White's simplest reac­ tion would have been 16.0-0 lDe7 17.lDce3;!;) 16.0-0 �bB 17.b3;!; Sol­ leveld - Rijnaarts, Hengelo 1999. There arises a standard situa­ tion, quite favourable for White, because Black's bishop on g7 is bound to remain very passive.

a) 12

•••

ie6

Black determines the place­ ment of his bishop a bit prema­ turely and he does not prevent the move a2-a4. Considering the immediate exchange on dS, it has certain drawbacks too and we will prove that.

13.a4 bxa4 About 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS lS.!J.d3 igS - see 12 . . . !J.gS. In the line : 13 . . . lDaS 14.axbS igS, Black relies mainly on 15. bxa6? lDb3, but after lS.lDcb4 axbS 16.hbS �bB 17.!J.d3± Roth 107

Chapter 8 - Konik, Chemnitz 1995, White simply remains with an extra pawn. We must deal thoroughly with the principled move 13 . . . !xdS. White should play 14.exdS ! , and later there might follow: 14 . . . ttJa7 (planning to capture on bS with the knight) lS.ie2 \1;Yb6 16.axbS ttJxbS 17. 0-0 ttJc7 lS.l3a2 as (The endgame is very difficult for Black after lS . . . \1;Yb3? ! 19.ttJb4 \1;Yxd1 20.l3xdl±) 19.ttJe3 �cS, Lafond - Simon, Bischwiller 1999 (In case of 19 . . . igS 2 0 .ttJc4 \1;YcS, White has the tactical re­ source 21.l3xaS ! l3xaS 2 2 .b4 �xdS 23.bxaS l3dS 24.�a4;:1;) 2 0.l3a4! l3tbS (or 2 0 ... igS? ! 21.l3c4 �a7 2 2 .ttJfS±) 2 1.l3c4 \1;Ya7 2 2.�c2;:1; White has a very promising game on the light squares; After 14 . . . ttJe7 lS.axbS, Black has tried in practice lS . . . axbS 16.l3xaS �xaS 17.ttJb4 (That is an ideal square for the knight.) 17. . . m 7 (The line : 1 7. . . \1;Ya4 lS.id3 �xd1+ 19.�xd1 l3aS 20.�c2 l3aS 21.ttJc6 ttJxc6 22.dxc6 idS 23. b4+-, led to a lost endgame for Black in the game Gligoric Riego, Asuncion 1960.) lS .ie2 g6 19.0-0 igS 2 0 .\1;Yd3 l3bS 2 1.l3al± Chiburdanidze - Grigic, Vinkovci 19S2 and White has a clear ad­ vantage, as well as lS . . . �b6, Yt­ teborg - Polenske, Hamburg 1999, 16.id3 axbS 17.l3xaS l3xaS lS.0-0;:1;, followed by ttJb4 with pressure against the weak pawn on bS. lOS

14.gxa4 a5 15.ic4 �e7 Here, objectively Black's best move is lS . . . igS, and we will study it later - see 12 . . . igS. White's task is much easier after lS . . . !xdS? ! 16.!XdS m6 17.ttJe3 l3abS (In case of 17 . . . .ie7?, as it was played in the game Kre­ jcova - Kopecky, Klatovy 2003, White could have punished Black with lS.l3c4! l3acS 19.!xc6 l3xc6 20.ttJdS+- winning a piece. It can hardly be recommended to Black to opt for 17. . . �xb2? ! lS.l3c4±) lS.0-0± In case of IS ... l3bS, Klundt Benko, Germany 1992, White can follow with 16.l3a2;:1;, and after 16 . . . igS, there arises a position from the variation 12 . . . igS.

16.�xf6+ gxf6

17.ixe6! ? White does not need to exchange there right now, but he must try to provoke an immediate crisis. 17 fxe6 18.�g4+ �f7 19. 0 - 0 ;j; Simacek - Choleva, Czech Republic 1997. The defects of Black's pawn­ structure are quite evident and his king is rather unsafe. White's advantage is doubtless. •••

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJ c2 b) 12

•••

J.b7

Germany 19S6, 16.0-0;!;) 16.0-0 tiJd7 17.YNe2 - see 14 ... tiJbS.

IS.J.c4 tOd7 16.YNe2 White has deployed his forces harmoniously and he has forti­ fied his central pawn with his last move. Now, if Black places his knight on c5, White's rook would retreat to a2 and then he would advance b2-b4 with tempo.

16 The development of this bish­ op to b7 is usually connected with the maneuver of Black's knight along the route c6-bS-d7-cS(b6). That interesting plan was suggest­ ed and introduced into practice, at the beginning of the 70ies of the past century, by GM Bukhuti Gurgenidze.

•••

aS

About 16 . . . .tgS - see 12 . . . .tgS. White obtains a very good position after 16 . . . tiJb6 17.tiJxb6 YNxb6 1S.tiJb4 as 19.tiJdS ixdS 2 0.ixdS;!;

17. 0 - 0

13.a4 bxa4 It seems too artificial for Black to play 13 . . . tiJa7? ! 14.axbS tiJxbS 1S . .tc4 tiJc7 16.tiJce3± Tau­ fratshofer - Ludwig, BRD 19S9, while in case of 13 ... tiJe7, White follows with the typical reaction 14.tiJxf6+ gxf6 1s.id3 dS (It is not logical for Black to opt for 15 . . . g2 Y«b7 27.Y«c2 ie3 2B.f3;!; It is much stronger for Black to play 19 . . . 'i1.cS ! (He leaves his pawn on as, controlling the b4square and he prevents the ex­ change-sacrifice.) 2 0 .b4 (After 2 0.b3 'i1.xc3 21.'i1.xaS ie6 2 2 . lLlb4 'i1.fcB+, as it was played in the game Anand - Radjabov, Mainz 2006, Black's position was even slightly preferable. White has no advan­ tage after 20.Y«d3 ibS 21.c4 id7 22.'i1.fal a4=) 20 . . . 'i1.xc3 2 1.bxaS ibS 22.'i1.el (or 22.a6 Y«a7oo) 22 . . . 'i1.fcB 23.lLle3 Y«a7 24.Y«f3 'i1.Bc7 2S.'i1.aaloo. This position is with mutual chances, since White's dominance over the dS-outpost and his passed a-pawn is balanced by Black's active pieces. 163

Chapter 12 18

•••

ttJxd5 19.hd5 a4

In case of 19 . . . �b6, as it was played in the game Magyar Ponnath, Germany 1999, White had the powerful counter mea­ sure 2 0 .ttJa3 ! (threatening 21. lDc4, and both Black's as and d6-pawns would be hanging) 20 . . . �c5 (In case of 20 . . . �c7, it is very strong for White to play 21.lDb5 ! hb5 22.�xb5±, and his bishop is much stronger than Black's dark-squared bishop in the arising position.) 2U:ifa1 �h8 22.lDc4 a4 23.�xa4 ! ha4 24.�xa4;!; - White's queenside pawns are ready to advance with tempo.

So, we are convinced now that the move 16.�a2 should not worry Black too much because of 16 . . . a4 ! , while after 16.0-0, White has a slight po­ sitional pressure, but in order to maintain it he must be ready to sacrifice the exchange. That sacri­ fice is promising indeed, but it is still not so well analyzed. After 16.lDce3, Black has tried:

a) 16 ... h:e3, b) 16 . . . �h8, c) 16 ... �b8, d) 16 . . . ttJe7 and e) 16 . . . g6. a) 16 . . . h:e3

2 0 .�a6! ? Now, capturing o n a4 i s again on the agenda.

2 0 ... �c7 21.ttJb4 �h8 22. �xa4! ha4 23.�xa4;!;

That is a principled move, but it is a too straightforward attempt at solving the problems in the opening.

17.ttJxe3 ttJe7 18.�a2 ic6 19.�d3 ! There might follow 23 . . . �b6 24.�a1 f5 25.�a6 ! �xa6 26.�xa6 fxe4 27.he4;!; - and after the ex­ change of queens, White can cen­ tralize his king and advance his queenside passed pawn. It looks like Black has great difficulties to cope with his problems. 164

In the game Hamid - Mu­ ralidharan, Chennai 2 0 04, White played 19.1Dd5 hd5 2 0.hd5, and Black could have solved his problems with the line: 20 . . . �c8 21.0-0 �c5 ! = ' White should not have provoked exchanges on d5.

19 ... a4

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 �g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. �c4 �d7 It is much worse for Black to play 19 . . . liJg6 2 0 .g3 a4, Kasperek - Nikel, Internet 2005. It is es­ sential that Black has lost his control over the d5-square and he has failed to activate his knight. After 21.id5 ixd5 22.�xd5 liJe7 23.�d3 �b6 24.0-0 'SfdB 25.'Sfa1 �3 26.�c4± Black's pawns on a4 and d6 remain very weak, while White can easily protect his back­ ward b2-pawn.

2 0 . 0 - 0 �c7 21.'Sdl :afdS

be noted that White should not be in a hurry to play 17.h4? ! , because of 17 . . . he3 1B.liJxe3 liJe7 19.'Sa2 �c6 2 0.�g4 d5 ! oo Volokitin - Ra­ djabov, Cap d'Agde 2006.

17 liJe7 •••

22.ib5! , and here it is in fa­ vour of White if Black plays 22 . . . �b6 23.hc6 �xc6 24.�c4;1;, as well as 22 . . . d5 23.ixc6 dxe4 24. 1Wxe4 'Sxd1+ 25.liJxd1 1Wxc6 26. �xe5;1;. This last variation leads to a position in which White has an extra pawn indeed, but his pieces are placed a bit awkwardly. Black can hardly exploit that, though. b) 16

•••

�bS (diagram)

17. 0 - 0 I will have to remind you that position might be reached after a different move-order too - 16. 0-0 �hB 17.liJce3, and it should

In case of 17 . . . ixe3 1B.liJxe3 liJe7 19.'Sa2 �c6 2 0.�d3, Black still has problems. It is bad for him to try 20 . . . 'Sa7? ! , Garcia Martinez - Almeida, Mexico 1991, 2 1.b4 ! f5 22.exf5 d5 23.�b5 e4 24.�e2±, it is too passive for him to opt for 20 . . . �c7 21.'Sd1 'SadB (Black's oth­ er rook must take care about the V-pawn.), March - Saez, Oropesa 199B, 22.'Sda1 ! ? �7 23.liJd5 ixd5 24.exd5 'SaB 25.b3± - Black has great problems protecting his a5pawn. If 20 .. .f5 21.exf5 d5, then White can counter Black's active strategy with the line : 2 2 .ib5 ! d4 23.hc6 liJxc6 24.liJc4 �d5, and here 25.'Sa4 e4 26.�d1 �c5 27.cxd4 liJxd4 2B. liJe3;1; Kravt­ siv - Kolesov, Alushta 2 0 07, or 25.f3 ! ?;1; - and White has an extra pawn in both variations with ex­ cellent winning chances. Black cannot solve his prob­ lems with the move 17 . . . g6, Stano­ joski - Dinev, Stip 2002, 1B.g3 f5 165

Chapter 12 19.exfS gxfS 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4 i.h4 22.g"hU and White has a slight advantage. The move 17 .. J3bS has not been tested in practice yet. It is interesting here to try for White the original idea 18.Y«a1 ! ? After 1S . . . llJe7 19.13xaS, it is not good for Black to enter the variation 19 . . . llJxdS 2 0.hdS l3xb2 21.llJc4± with a clear advantage for White. It is stronger for Black to play 19 . . . l3xb2 ! ? , but then White main­ tains his initiative with the line: 20.llJxe7 he7 21.l3a7 l3bS 22.l3b1 i!xb1+ 23.Y«xb1 .!gS 24.llJdS;!;. In case of 1S . . . g6 (instead of 1S . . . llJe7), White would follow with 19.Y«a3 ! fS 2 0 . .!d3 !;!;, planning 21.llJc4 with powerful pressure against the d6-pawn.

In the game Zawadzka - Zhi­ galko, Warsaw 2 0 0S, there fol­ lowed 1S . . . g6 19.b3 he3 (It is insufficient for Black to try here 19 . . . a4 2 0 .bxa4 Y«aS 21.llJxe7 he7 2 2.Y«d2;!;) 20.llJxe3 i.c6 21.l3d2 (It would be interesting to test 21.VUd3 ! ?, so that after 21.. .fS 22.l3d1 f4 23.llJc2 f3, White can exploit the tactical nuances of the position by playing 24.llJd4 ! t) 21.. .llJcS (After 21.. .he4 2 2 . l3xd6 Y«c7 23.l3d7 Y«cS 24.Y«d2;!;, fol­ lowed by l3d1, White occupies re­ liably the central d-file.) 2 2 .'!dS VUc7. In this position, White can increase his pressure in the centre with 23.VUf3 f6 24.l3fdU; After 1S . . . llJg6, Fragakis - Pa­ padopoulos, Greece 2 00S, White should better play 19.1lJfS hfS 20.exfS llJe7 21.Y«d3;!;

19.tilxe7 Y«xe7 2 0 . tilfS

18.l3a2 ! That is usually the best square for White's rook in that system.

18

•••

a4! ?

This i s a purposeful line for Black. He has several alternatives, though: The line 1S . . . he3 19.1lJxe3, leads to a transposition of moves - see 17 . . . he3 ; 166

This move leads to a position with opposite-coloured bishops and Black's attempt to seize the initiative backfires, as we are go­ ing to see.

20

•••

.ixf5 21.exfS e4

It is even weaker for Black to play 21...Y«d7? ! 22 .VUg4 h6 23.Y«e4±

11.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 22 .id5 e3! ? •

That i s the best chance for Black, because after 2 2 . . . 'Sa5, then White plays 23.'Se1 e3 24.b4 'Sa7 25.fxe3 a3 26.Wd3±, and Black's position is very difficult.

23.fxe3 Wxe3+ 24.hl gab8 25.Wxa4 Wd2 26.gdl gfe8 27.Wd4 gel+ 28.gxel Wxel+ 29.Wgl;t

White has parried the threats along the first rank and he has a material advantage. Naturally, it would be far from easy for him to win with his extra pawn in that position.

c) 16

•••

gb8 17.b3 h8

18.ga2 ! ? After that move, Black must consider the possibility of White

advancing his h-pawn. Mean­ while, White maintains his edge even after castling short, for example: 18.0-0 g6 19.Wd3 f5 20J�a2 ih6 21.'Sd1 Wh4 2 2 .f3. In the first game, in which that variation was played Topalov - Kasparov, Leon 1998, there followed 22 . . . ie6 23.liJf1 fxe4 24.Wfxe4 (It is also possible for White to play 24.fxe4, Wiersma ­ Goeldi, Triesen 2006, but it seems to me that in this case keeping the queens on the board should rather be in favour of Black.) 24 . . . Wxe4 25.fxe4 'S t7 26J�f2 (White can preserve an additional couple of rooks with 26.h4 ! ? Wg7 27.'Sd3, with the idea to follow with liJh2f3, or liJd2-f3, but the move in the game is simpler.) 26 . . . Wg7 27J�xt7+ ixt7 28.wf2 liJd8 29.'Sa1 liJe6 30.gxa5 liJc5, and here White maintains a clear advantage after 31.'Sa7! (Instead, he played in the game 31.liJg3 liJxb3, and Black avoided the worst.) 31...liJxe4+ 32.Wf3 liJg5+ 33.We2± After 22 ... Wfg5, Black is not out of the woods : 23.liJf1 Wfd8 24.wh1 f4 25.liJd2 ig5 26.ib5 liJb4 27.liJxb4 hb5 28.c4 hc4 29.liJxc4 'Sxb4 3 0.Wd5;t;. He man­ aged later to save the game in­ deed, but the character of the fight would hardly satisfy Black: 30 . . . Wfc7 31.liJxd6 if6 32.'Sxa5 'Sxb3 33.gc5 Wfb8 34J'kc1 'Sb2 35.We6 Wfb3, and here it deserves atten­ tion for White to continue with 36.liJc4 ! ? (or 36.Wd7 'Sc2 37.liJe8 167

Chapter 12 �xc1 38.�xc1 'lWa3 39.�b1 'lWa2 40.�d1 'lWfl 41.tilxf6 'lWxf6 42.'lWc7 �fl 1/2 Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2007) 36 . . . �a2 37.�b1 'lWc2 38.�gl - White has the ini­ tiative thanks to the threat to pen­ etrate with his rook to the penul­ timate rank and the vulnerability of Black's eS-pawn.

IS

•••

tile7

This is the most logical solu­ tion. It is too dangerous for Black to play 18 . . . g6? ! , because White can counter that with 19.h4 ! hh4 2 0 .g3. That resource of seiz­ ing the initiative is often used in similar positions. Here, the cir­ cumstances are especially favour­ able for White. The second rank is free and it can be exploited to bring the rook on a2 into the at­ tack. Black's problems can be il­ lustrated by the following exem­ plary variations: 20 . . .�f6 2 1.f4 exf4 2 2 .gxf4 .ih4+?! 23.@f1 fS 24.�ah2 + - ; 2 0 . . . �e7 21.f4 �g8 2 2 .�ah2 �g7 23.fS �gS 24.'lWf3+-; 2 0 ... �gS 2 1.f4 exf4 22.�ah2 h6 23.gxf4+- and White's threats are decisive in all the variations. 168

It is premature for Black to play 18 . . . fS 19.tilxfS �S 20.exfS �xfS 21.h4 ! ? �e7 (In case of 21... .ih6? 2 2 .g4 ! +-, followed by 23.gS, Black loses a piece.) 2 2 .�d3 e4 (The light squares are already very weak and Black is reluctant to en­ ter the variation 22 . . . �fl 23.�e4±) 23.he4 �eS 24.�e2± Skok - Bol­ sunovsky, Evpatoria 2006. White is clearly better after 18 . . . �h6 19.tilg4 'lWh4 2 0 .h3 fS 21.exfS hfS 2 2 .tilde3 .ie4 23.0-0 if4 24 . .idS;!; Nisipeanu - Apel, Germany 1995. In the game Krokay - Ba­ ran, Krynica 2 0 0 1, after 18 ... �a8 (In fact, Black admits his mis­ take on move 16 with that deci­ sion.) 19.0-0 tile7, the opponents agreed to a draw, but White's po­ sition was obviously better. He could have tried the line: 2 0 . tilxe7 he7 21.tilfS;!; The move 18 . . . ie6 - seems rather strange, because then Black did not need to develop his bishop to d7, since he could have put it on e6 in one move. 19.0-0 'lWd7 (It is not better for Black to opt for 19 . . . g6 20 .g3 'lWd7 2 1.'lWd3 fS 22.exfS gxfS 23 .f4 e4 24.'lWe2 .id8 , Grazinys - Halwick, corr. 2000, because after 2S.@g2 tile7 26.�b1 tilxdS 27.ixdS �c8 28.'lWd2 �cS 29.c4;!; the exchange of the light­ squared bishops is unavoidable and White will fortify his knight in the centre of the board.) 20.'lWe2 g6, Schreber - Halwick, corr. 2001, and no doubt, White must

1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 iLg5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. iLc4 iLd7 be well prepared to counter the advance f7-f5, for example with 21.g3 f5 (That is the most prin­ cipled decision for Black.) 22.exf5 gxf5 23.f4 idB (After 23 . . . exf4 24.gxf4 ie7 25.Wh1 'SgB 26.%Vh5;!; - Black cannot obtain any effec­ tive counterplay, because of his new weakness on f5.) 24.'Sd1 'SgB 25.§'h5;!; and Black's position looks solid indeed, but he has no counterplay. Therefore, White's prospects are superior.

outpost. These factors guarantee his advantage.

d) 16 ... �e7 17.'Sa2

19.�xe7 he7 If 19 . . . §'xe7, then not 2 0 . 'Sxa5? ! iLxe3 2 1.fxe3 %Vh4+, but 20.�f5 iLxf5 21.exf5 e4 22. 0-0;!; and White maintains his posi­ tional advantage.

2 0 . 0 - 0 g6 In the game Pavlov - Kole­ sov, Alushta 2 0 06, there followed 2 0 . . .f5 ? ! 21.exf5 iLxf5 22.%Vd5 ig6 23.§'xa5 §'xa5 24.'Sxa5±, and White reached an endgame with an extra pawn.

21.§'d3 a4 22.b4;!;

Black's pawns on a4 and d6 are weak. White has deployed his forces quite harmoniously and he controls reliably the central d5-

17. . . �xd5 About 17 . . . iLxe3 18.�xe3 - see 16 . . . iLxe3 ; as for 17 . . . WhB 1B.0-0 - see 16 . . . WhB. In a game played between computers some time ago, the move 17 . . . a4 was tested, but after 1B.0-0 �xd5 19.iLxd5 'SbB , Voy­ ager 2.29 - The Crazy Bishop 37, 1999, White had the typical re­ source 20.�c4 iLb5 21.'Sxa4 iLxa4 22.%Vxa4;;, with an excellent com­ pensation for the exchange due to his dominance in the centre, his control over the light squares and his potentially dangerous passed b-pawn. About 17. . . 'SbB, Schwierzy Neumann, Germany 1991, 1B.b3 �xd5 19.�xd5 - see 17 . . . �xd5. In case of 17 . . . 'ScB ! ? , with the idea to increase the pressure along the c-file, White should re­ frain from 1B.b3 ? ! a4 ! +t Ortiz Fer­ nandez - Wendt, Calvia 2 0 04, but he should play instead 1B.§'d3 ! �xd5 19.�xd5, and later 19 . . . a4 169

Chapter 12 20 . .tb5 !;!;; , or 19 . . . �b8 20.b3 ! a4 21.b4;!;;

18.�xd5 g6 Black is preparing the pawn­ advance f7-f5. He has tested in practice some other moves too, besides 18 . . . g6: The original move 18 ... Wlc8? ! , was tried i n the game Prathamesh - Ganguly, Mumbai 2003, but it proved to be incorrect, because of 19.ttJb6 Wlc6 20.ttJxd7 �xc4 (Black loses a piece in the line 20 . . . �xe4+ 21..te2 �fd8 2 2 .ttJb6 �ab8 23.f3+-) 21.�a4±, and White wins the exchange. It is more solid for Black to opt for 18 . . . �8 19.0-0 �h8 (It is too risky to lose the control over the f7-square: 19 . . . �c8 20.b3 a4, Than­ nhausser - Cvetnic, corr. 2000, 2 1.�h5 ! - Black loses after 21... axb3? 2 2 . �xa8 Wlxa8 23.ttJb6+-, while in case of 2 1. . .h6, White fol­ lows with 22.ttJf6+ ! hi6 23.Wlxf7+ �h7 24.�xd7 axb3 25.�a8 Wlxa8 26.ixb3 �xc3 27 . .te6 Wld8 28. Wlf7 �c7 29 . .tf5+ �h8 30.�g6 �g8 31..te6+ �h8 32.�bl± and he has a powerful attack in a posi­ tion with opposite-coloured bish­ ops.) 2 0.�e2 f5 21.exf5 �xf5, as it was played in the game Loskutov - Iskusnyh, Arkhangelsk 1996. At that moment, White had better continue with 22 . .td3 �f8 23.h4 .th6 24.!e4;!;; with a slight but sta­ ble advantage. In case of 18 . . . �b8, White can play 19.b3 g6 2 0 . 0- 0 �h8 21.Wle2;!;; , and later 2 2 . �fa1. 170

Following 18 . . . �h8, as it was played in the game Miciak - Skar­ ba, Slovakia 1996, it would be good for White to try 19.b3 ! , af­ ter which 19 . . . g6 would lead to a transposition of moves - see 18 . . . g6, while i n case o f the immedi­ ate 19 .. .f5 20.exf5 hi5 21.0-0;!;; - White would preserve a slight but stable advantage, despite the fact that Black had managed to push f7-f5, without preparing it first with g7-g6. White's plan in­ cludes the transfer of his bishop to the e4-square and Black has problems countering that. The ex­ change of the light-squared bish­ ops will make the presence of the knight on d5 even more effective and if Black counters the move !d3 with the advance e5-e4, then his light-squared bishop will be forced to protect later that new weakness.

19.b3 �h8 If 19 . . . a4, then 2 0 .b4;!;;

20.0-0 This is a reliable move indeed, but it is worth having a look at the aggressive line 2 0 .h4 ! ? This the­ matic pawn-sacrifice is attractive

11.c3 0 - 0 12Ji'Jc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Bxa4 a5 15. i.c4 i.d7 in this situation (without a black knight on the c6-square), because after White pushes f2-f4 in some variations, Black cannot capture exf4, since he loses his control over the d4-square. The drawback of the situation for White is that the exchange of the knights has diminished his attacking poten­ tial. After 2 0 . . . hh4 21.g3, it is too risky for Black to play 21.. .i.e7 2 2 .f4 'Bg8 23.'Bah2 'Bg7, in view of 24.f5 ! Here, Black is helpless after 24 . . . gxf5 25.exf5 .!c6 (25 . . . .!xf5 26.'Wf3+-) 26.'Wf3 ! f6 27.tLlxf6 ! +-, or 24 . . . .!g5 25.'Wf3 ! gxf5 26.exfS e4 (if 26 . . .f6, then 27.tLlxf6 ! i.xf6 28.'Bxh7+ ! 'Bxh7 29.'Bxh7+ Wxh7 3 0.'Wh5+ Wg7 3 1.'Wg6+-) 27.'Wf1 ! (This surprising maneuver settles the issue.) 27 . . .i.f6 28.'Bh6 ! .!g5 29.'B6h5 a4 30 .b4 a3 31.i.a2 +-. Black's relatively best defence is 24 . . . i.c6 25.'Wg4 .!g5 (or 25 . . . a4 26.fxg6 fxg6 27.'Wxg6 ! +-), but then 26.tLlc7! 'Wf6 (or 26 . . . 'Wxc7 27.'Wxg5 gxf5 28.'Wf6 Wg8 29.'Wxf5+-) 27.tLlxa8 gxf5 28.'Wxf5 'Wxf5 29.exf5 has 30.f6 ! i.xf6 31.'B£1 i.g5 32.'Bxt7 'Bxt7 33.i.xt7±, and White wins the exchange. In the game Arnaudov - Yor­ danov, Pleven 2 006, Black de­ fended more precisely - 21.. . .!f6 ! 2 2 .f4 'Bg8 ! (Black loses after 22 . . . exf4? 23.'Bah2 fxg3 24.'Bxh7+ Wg8 25.'Wd2 +-, as well as follow­ ing 2 2 . . . i.g7? 23J�ah2 h6 24.f5 ! 'Wg5 25.f6 'Wxg3+ 26.wd2 'Wg5+ 27.Wc2 .!xf6 28.'8xh6+ Wg7 29.

'Bh7+ Wg8 30 .'Wd2 +-; White is clearly better too after 22 . . . h5 23.f5 Wg7 24.'Bf2 ! �) 23.'Bah2 'Bg7co. White has compensation for the sacrificed pawn for sure, but it would be far from easy for him to break Black's defence. In this particular game, he failed to do that, though.

20

•••

f5 21.exf5 i.xf5

In case of 21. . .gxf5, White follows with the thematic move 2 2.f4;1;;

22. 'We2;1;; - and White ends up with a slight positional ad­ vantage. Black has pushed t7-f5 indeed, but he has not equalized completely yet. e) 16

•••

g6

Black begins the immediate 171

Chapter 12 preparation of the advance of his f-pawn.

17.b3 !? This i s the most ambitious de­ cision for White. The idea should be well familiar to our readers. White postpones his castling short, planning to push h2-h4 at some moment. Meanwhile, White has a calm­ er alternative. It is good for him to opt for 17. 0-0 E1b8 (about 17 . . . 'it>h8 18.g3 - see 16 . . . 'it>h8) 18.E1a2 ! In the game Wallace - Kalini­ tschew, Budapest 1995, Black chose 18 . . . 'it>h8, but White could have obtained the advantage with the line: 19.93 f5 20.exfS gxfS (or 20 . . . .hfS 21.tLlxfS E1xf5 2 2.id3 E1t7 23.lMfg4;l;) 2l.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 ih6 23.'it>h1 tLle7 24.b3 tLlxd5 25.tLlxd5 ic6 26.lMfd3;!;; . It would be insuf­ ficient for Black to equalize with 18 . . . tLle7 19.tLlxe7+ lMfxe7 2 0 .tLld5 lMfd8 21.g3;!;;

17 ... 'it>hS

lS.h4 ! This move i s played just at the right moment, since the advance of the h-pawn is even more effec­ tive with a black king on h8. 172

lS . . . hh4 In case Black declines the gift and he plays 18 . . . ih6? ! , then af­ ter 19.E1a2 (It is also possible for White to play 19.hS if4 2 0 .lMfd3;!;;) 19 ... tLle7 20.tLlf6 ! it becomes obvi­ ous that he in a big trouble. M­ ter 2 0 . . . .he3, White's simplest reaction is 21.fxe3 ! ie6 (or 21... tLlg8 22.tLlxg8 'it>xg8 23.lMfxd6±) 22.hS ! g5 (In case of 22 . . . tLlg8, White wins with 23.tLlxh7! 'it>xh7 24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.hxg6+ 'it>xg6 26. lMfh5+ 'it>f6 27.lMfh7+- with an un­ avoidable checkmate.) 23 . .he6 fxe6 24. 0-0 tLlg8 (or 24 . . . tLlc6 25.E1af2±) 2S.tLlg4 E1xfl + 26.lMfxf1 lMfc7 27.c4 lMfb7 28 .lMfd1 lMfb4 (or 28 .. :�xe4 29.lMfxd6+-) 29.h6± - and Black is left with numerous weaknesses all over the board. He lost quickly after 20 . . . ie6, which was played in the game Timofeev - Smirnov, Tomsk 2 0 06. There followed 2 1.h5 .hc4 22. tLlxc4 ig5? (That move loses outright, but Black's chances of saving the game are not much greater after 22 ... 'it>g7 23.tLlg4±, or 2 2 . . . tLlc6 23.tLldS±) 23.hxg6 ! .hf6 24.lMfh5 1-0. U is more logical for Black to play 18 . . . .he3 ! ? 19.tLlxe3 tLl e7, but then White obtains an advantage with the help of an exchange sacri­ fice: 2 0.lMfxd6 ! .ha4 2 1.lMff6+ 'it>g8 22 .bxa4 E1c8 ! (The alternatives for Black are even worse: 2 2 . . . tLlc8? 23 . .hf7! +-; 22 . . . hS 23.lMfxe5±; 22 ... E1b8 23.0-0±) 23. tLlg4 (This move forces Black to give back

11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '!l.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7 some material. It is also good for White to play 23. WlxeS lLIc6 24.'lWf4 Wlc7 2S.Wlxc7 '!l.xc7 26.ibS;i;;) 23 . . . lLIfS (that i s a n only move) 24.exfS Wlxf6 2S.lLIxf6+ 'it>g7 26.lLId7 '!l.xc4 27.f6+ 'it>g8 28.lLIxf8 'it>xf8 29.'it>e2 ! '!l.e4+ (or 29 . . . '!l.xa4 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8 31.'!l.bS !±; 29 . . . '!l.xc3 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8 31.'!l.bS !±) 30.'it>d3 '!l.f4 31.'!l.eU and White has good chances of win­ ning that rook and pawn ending.

19.93 ig5 White maintains a long lasting initiative in a position with mate­ rial equality if Black retreats his bishop to other squares : 19 . . . if6 20.lLIf5 ig7 (About 2 0 . . . ig5 - see 19 . . . ie7 20.lLIfS ig5; after 2 0 . . . ie6 21.lLIxd6 igS 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcS;i;; Black has no active prospects whatsoever.) 21.lLIxd6 1L1d4 2 2 . '!l.a2 ic6 (It is not any better for Black to play 22 . . . ie6 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4 2S.Wld3;i;;) 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4 2S.f4t White's position is su­ perior, because of his dominance in the centre and Black's passive bishop on g7. 19 . . . ie7 2 0 .lLIf5 igS (It seems too dangerous for Black to try 2 0 . . . hfS 21.exfS igS 22.'lWg4� and he has great problems to fight against White's centralized and well-coordinated forces.) 21. lLIxd6 ie6 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcSt The material is equal and White's pieces are more active and much more harmoniously placed.

2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4 ih4+ 22.i>f1�

We have already seen similar pawn-sacrifices. This position has not been tested in practice yet. The analysis shows that White's prospects are excellent. Black's d6-pawn is hanging in some lines and his queen's rook cannot assist in the defence of his king (his own bishop stands in the way). There may arise the following developments: 22 . . . if6? ! 23.'!l.a2 i>g7 (After 23 . . . ig7 24.'!l.ah2 h6 2S.'lWe2± White is threatening 26.'!l.xh6 + ! followed by 27.'lWh2.) 24.eS ! lLIxeS (It is hopeless for Black to opt for 24 . . . dxeS 2S.lLIxf6 Wlxf6 26.Wlxd7+-, or 2S . . . i>xf6 26.'!l.xh7 +-) 2S.fxeSixeS 26.'!l.g2±; 2 2 . . .fS 23.exfS ixfs 24.lLIxfS '!l.xfS 2S.ie2 ! (White's bishop is re­ deployed to another diagonal in order to free the fourth rank for maneuvers of the rook.) 2 S . . . gS (or 2S . . . '!l.a7 26.ig4 '!l.f8 27.'!l.c4±) 26.if3;i;; - Here, it is too bad for Black to play 26 . . . gxf4? because of 27.ie4 '!l.eS 28.Wlg4+-; 2 2 ... '!l.g8 (That is the most te­ nacious defence for Black.) 23.'!l.a2 '!l.g7 24.'!l.ah2 ie7 (In case of 24 . . . if6?! White plays again 2S.e5 !±) 173

Chapter 12 25.Wfc2 ! ?;; - and White has more than sufficient compensation for the sacrificed pawn. He can increase the pressure by trebling his

heavy pieces along the h-file, or by advancing his f4-pawn, plac­ ing his queen on the f2-square in advance.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have dealt with one of the mostfashionable and not so well analyzed lines of the Chelyabinsk variation, which was introduced into the high-level tournament practice by GM Teimour Radjabov. Presently, after 15. . . j,d7!? White often encounters problems in his attempts to obtain an advantage in the opening. Therefore, we have analyzed in this chapter three possibilities for White and the most in­ teresting are 16. 0 - 0 and 16.ti:Jce3!? In the first case, White must be ready to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, positional compensation and long-lasting initiative. The second possibility looks quite promis­ ing too. White can continue with an aggressive gambit plan advanc­ ing his h-pawn. That idea is particularly effective when Black's bishop is on d7.

174

Chapter 13

l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4 e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9 . � d5 J.e7 1 0 . .bf6 J.xf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 ig5 13. a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 �b8

In this chapter, we will analyze the main and the most popular line of the Chelyabinsk variation. Black's last move looks the most natural, since he has improved the placement of his rook and he has avoided the pin along the a­ file with tempo. The next idea on his agenda is to prepare and ac­ complish the thematic pawn-ad­ vance fl-f5.

16.b3 This move fortifies the light­ squared bishop and it defends the hanging pawn. Now, Black has a choice. Sometimes he chooses a) 16 .te6, but still he plays much more often b) 16 lt>h8. Before beginning our analysis of these lines, we will pay some attention to Black's alternatives. •••

•••

The position arising after 16 . . . .td7 17.t2)ce3 ! ? was analyzed thor­ oughly in our previous chapter - see 15 . . . .td7. In case of 16 . . . .tb7 17.ltJce3 It>h8 18.0-0 ltJe7 19.'lWd3 he3 20.ltJxe3, there arises again a transposition to other lines - see 16 . . . lt>h8 17.ltJce3 he3. After 16 . . . g6 17. 0-0, original positions can be reached only af­ ter 17 . . . lt>g7 (The move 17 . . . lt>h8 leads to the main line - see 16 . . . It>h8 .), but it i s not easy t o rec­ ommend such a move, because Black's king is not comfortable on the g7 -square after standard developments in the game. There might follow 18.'lWe2 .te6 19.1t>h1 'lWd7, and here in the game Jan­ turin - Kamenets, Decin 1998, White had to play 2 0 .ltJce3, and then to counter 20 .. .f5 with the standard reaction 21.exfS gxf5 2 2.f4 exf4 23.ltJxf4 hf4 24.lM'4 hc4 25.'lWxc4;!;, creating a maxi­ mal number of pawn-islands for the opponent. Black cannot equalize with the move 16 . . . ltJe7, which was 175

Chapter 13 played in the game Brener - Kos­ tic, Internet 2 0 05, in view of 17.lLlxe7+ ! ? and Black is forced to capture on e7 with his bishop and after 17. . . he7 IB.O-O id7 19J:!a2 a4 (That is an attempt by Black to get rid of his weakness.) 2 0.bxa4 Vfic7 21.lLle3 ig5 22 .Vfid3 EifcB 23.id5 Vfixc3 24. 'l;![xc3 Eixc3 25.a5;!; and the endgame is better for White, because of his passed a-pawn. Black cannot play 25 . . . he3? 26.fxe3 ie6 27.a6 hd5 2B.exd5 EiaB 29.Eibl+-, since the rook and pawn ending is winning for White.

a) 16 . . . ie6

This move is not flexible, be­ cause the e6-square is not always optimal for Black's bishop.

17. 0 - 0 cj;>h8 In case of17. . . lLle7, White's most principled reaction is IB.lLlxe7+ ! , a s it was played i n the game Nij­ boer - van Kooten, Dieren 19B4, and after IB . . . he7 19.lLle3;!; White obtained a stable advantage. Black would not change the evaluation of the position with IB . . . Vfixe7, in view of 19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight 176

is headed for the c4-square in or­ der to attack both Black's weak pawns.) 19 . . . Vfic7 2 0.he6 fxe6 21.lLlc4 ie7 22.Eixa5 Vfib7 23.Vfid3 Vfixb3 24.Eia7t. Black has man­ aged to regain his pawn indeed, but White maintains the initiative as before. Inthevariation 17. . . Vfid7 1B.Vfie2 (It is also interesting for White to try IB.'l;![h5 h6 19.Vfie2;!; Carvajal Mieles Palau, Cali 2001, provok­ ing weakening of the light squares in Black's camp in case he goes for the standard pawn-advance fl­ f5.) IB . . . cj;>hB 19.1Llce3 g6 2 0 .cj;>hl f5 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .f4 ih6 23 .Vfih5 .txf4 24.lLlxf4 exf4 25.lLld5 lLle5, it looks like Black has come very close to equality, but following 26.Eixa5 lLlxc4 27.bxc4;!; Acher Lazar, Mureck 199B, White main­ tains a slight advantage, because Black's king is rather unsafe. After 17. . . g6 IB.lLlce3, it is more reasonable for Black to opt for IB . . . cj;>hB - see 17 . . . cj;>hB, while the premature activity lB . . . f5? ! when Black's king i s under X-ray is not so good for him. White follows with 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4 exf4 21.lLlxf4 hc4 2 2 .lLlxc4 .hf4 23.'l;![d5 + ! cj;>g7 24.Eixf4 Eif6 25.Eif3;!;, and he obtains good at­ tacking chances. White is better too after IB . . . .ih6, Zaslavsky Dragicevic, Budva 2 003, 19.'l;![f3 ! ? cj;>hB (but not 1 9 . . .f5? 20.exf5 gxf5, because of 21.lLlb4! +-) 2 0 .EidU - and the game develops in the spirit of the main line 17. . . cj;>hB.

11.c3 0 - 0 12. &Dc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '1l.xa4 a5 15. i.c4 '1l. b8 16.b3 18.&Dce3 That is a natural move, pre­ venting the advance f7-f5.

18" .g6 About 18 . . . �d7 19.�e2 - see 17 . . . �d7. Naturally, White is clearly better after 18 . . .f5? 19.exf5 hf5 20. &Dxf5 E1xf5 2 1.i.d3 E1f8, Incedi - Strelicka, Svetla nad Sazavou 1998, 2 2 .h4! i.f4 (or 22 . . . hh4? 23.�h5+-) 23.g3 i.h6 24.�c2 g6 2 5.h5± and Black's kingside ends up in ruins. If 18 . . . he3 19.&Dxe3 &De7, then 20.he6 fxe6 21.&Dc4t Comp ZChess - Jaulin, Aubervilliers 1999.

after correct play from both sides, there arise simplifications after which White has a symbolic extra pawn, but the position is evident­ ly quite drawish : 21.. .e4 2 2 . &Dxc6 exf3 23.&Dxd8 hc4 24. &Dxc4 fxg2 25.E1dl hd8 26.b4 axb4 27J�xb4 E1c8 28.&Dxd6 E1xc3 29.E1b8 Wg7 30.'1l.xd8 E1xd8 31.&Dxf5+ wf6 3 2 . E1xd8 Wxf5=

2 0 " .'iNd7 2 1.h3 It is necessary for White to take the g4-square under con­ trol. He should not be in a hurry and he should test his opponent how he is going to solve the prob­ lem with the juxtaposition of the pawns on f5 and e4. The line: 21.'iNg3 id8 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 23.f400 leads to an unclear position with mutual chances.

21" .ih4 White would have a comfort­ able blocking game after the ex­ change on e4.

22.E1d2 f4 19.�f3 ! ? This interesting idea was successfully tried in the game Radulski - Nataf, Vrnjacka Banja 2005. It is very difficult for Black to prove that the advance of his f-pawn is good for him when White's queen is on the f3-square. On the contrary, Black only cre­ ates new weaknesses after that.

Black closes the kingside with the idea to organize a direct attack there.

23.&Dg4 'iNn

19" .f5 2 0 .l':tdl No doubt, it deserves atten­ tion to analyze the tactical possi­ bility: 2 0 . exfS gxf5 21.&Db4!?, but

24.&Dh2 ! 177

Chapter 13 This is a very powerful maneu­ ver. White transfers his knight along the route g4-h2-f3; mean­ while the queen goes back to the queenside in order to exert pres­ sure against Black's weaknesses there.

.txg5 31.hxg5 '&xg5 32.l2lc7 '&e7 33.f'!aa2 ! .teB 34.tLlb5 f'!f6 35.'&dl f'!dB 36.f'!d3;!;. Black's attack is not so dangerous anymore; mean­ while White has prepared to triple his heavy pieces along the d-file in a classical fashion.

24 ....td8 25.�dl h5 26.tLlf3;!; b) 16

White has created a concealed tactical threat, which was realized in the abovementioned game. After Black's mistake 26 .. J�gB? 27.tLlxf4 ! (This is beautiful and strong.) 27. . . exf4 (The position is hopeless for Black after 27. .. .txc4 2B.f'!xc4 '&xf4 29.f'!xc6+-) 2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29.f'!xc4 tLle7 30. tLlg5 '&fB 31.'&d4+ '&g7 32.tLlf7+ �h7 33.tLlxdB+- and Black should better resign. After 26 . . . �h7, it works again for White to continue with 27.l2lxf4 ! exf4 2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29. f'!xc4+It is better for Black to play 26 . . :lWeB, but White can coun­ ter that with 27:�'a1 (with the idea '&a3) and later for example: 27. . . g5 2B.l2lxg5 ! .td7 (or 2B . . . .txg5 29.tLlc7±; 2B . . . .txd5 29.exd5 .txg5 30.dxc6±) 29.h4 '&g6 30.f3 17B

..•

�h8

This is the most popular and logical move for Black. He re­ moves his king away from the a2-gB diagonal and that is neces­ sary for the preparation of f7-f5. Meanwhile he has not made up his mind yet whether he would push immediately his bishop pawn, or he would precede that with the move g7-g6.

17.tLlce3! ? The move 17. 0 - 0 has been played in numerous games, but lately White encounters real problems to obtain any opening advantage. After Black's most energetic reaction 17 .. .f5 ! 1B.exf5 .txf5 19.tLlce3 .tg6oo he has excel­ lent prospects and that evaluation was confirmed by a lot of games played at the highest possible level.

1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3 I advise my readers to avoid the main lines just at that mo­ ment and to try to reach not so well analyzed positions, which are quite interesting and with good prospects for White. The move 17.lOce3 ! ? restricts Black's pos­ sibilities, since it does not allow the immediate move O-fS. The drawback of that move is that Black can get rid of his potentially bad dark-squared bishop, but as we are going to see, things are far from easy for him after similar de­ velopments. We will analyze here bl) 17 .txe3 and b2) 17 g6. About 17. . .ie6 18.0-0 g6 19.Y;Yf3 - see 16 . . . ie6. If17 ... lOe7, then 18.lOxe7. Here, it will not work for Black to play 18 . . .he3? 19.1Oxc8 ic5 20.lOxd6 hd6 21. 0-0± Mijovic - Gavric, Sutomore 2 0 04, since White ends up with a solid extra pawn. Black's position remains difficult even if he captures on e7: 18 . . . Y;Yxe7 19.lOd5 Y;Yd8 2 0 . 0-0 id7 (or 20 . . .f5 21.exfS ixf5 2 2.Y;Ye2 id7 23.'8a2 ic6 24.'8d1 '8a8 25.Y;Yd3 Y;Yd7, Arzumanian - V.Kuznetsov, Pardubice 2006, 26.lOb6 Y;Yg4 27. idS e4 2 8.Y;Ye2 and White main­ tains his advantage, because of the numerous pawn-weakness­ es in Black's camp.) 21.'8a2 f5 2 2 .exf5 ixf5 23.Y;Ye2 '8c8 24.'8fa1 �k5 2 5.b4;!; Bakr - Mamedov, Ad­ ana 2006, and White has a pow­ erful passed b-pawn, or 18 . . .he7 19.0-0 ig5 2 0 .lOfS! (The position with bishops of opposite colours •••

is clearly in favour of White.) 20 . . . id7 2 1.'8a2 (It deserves attention for White to play 21.'8a1 ! ? , in or­ der to place later his rook on d1.) 2 1 ... hf5 22.exf5 '8c8 23.Y;Yf3 '8c5 24.'8d1 Y;Yc7 25.g3;l; Wang Hao - Iv.Popov, Yerevan 2 0 07 - and Black must be prepared for a long and laborious defence.

bl) 17 .txe3 •••

•••

This is a straightforward at­ tempt by Black to solve his open­ ing problems. He forces White's knight to abandon the central d5outpost and then Black advances 0-f5 without the preparatory move of his knight-pawn.

18.lOxe3 lOe7 19. 0 - 0 f5 The other possibility for Black here is 19 . . . ib7 2 0.Y;Yd3 f5 (but not 20 . . . Wd7? 21.'8d1 '8bd8 22.'8xa5 Y;Yc6 23.lOd5+- Schoene - Helm­ bold, Willingen 2 0 0 1), but White has at his disposal the powerful argument 21.'8d1 ! It becomes clear now that after 21.. .1xe4 2 2 .Y;Yxd6 Y;Yxd6 23.'8xd6, Black has great problems in the endgame, for ex­ ample 23 .. .f4 24.lOfl lOc8 25.'8d2 lOb6 26.'8xa5 lOxc4 27.bxc4 '8bc8 179

Chapter 13 28.c5 ! ? (The alternative for White is - 28J3xe5 l'!xc4 29.l'!d4 l'!xd4 30.cxd4 i.d3 31.g4 fxg3 32 .hxg3;!; and he has considerable chances of materializing his extra pawn.) 28 ... i.c6 29.l'!d6 e4 30.g3 g5 31.l'!a7;!; - White's rooks are very active and Black's defence is difficult. In the game Obukhovski - Ka­ legin, Kaluga 1981, Black refrained from capturing on e4 and he pre­ ferred the aggressive move 2 1 . . . f4. There followed 2 2 .ttJf1 l'!f6 2 3 . ttJ d 2 g 5 24.l'!da1 g4 25.l'!xa5 l'!h6 26.l'!b5 l'!a8 27.l'!xa8 �xa8 28.l'!b6 ttJc8 29.l'!b4;!;. White won a pawn, while Black's pieces were incapa­ ble of supporting effectively the pawn-offensive on the kingside.

2 0 .exfS i.xf5 The move 2 0 . . . ttJxf5 may seem attractive for Black, but White can counter it with 2 1.ttJxf5 i.xf5 (2 1 . . . l'!xf5 2 2 .�d5 i.b7 23.�xa5 Wlg5 24.i.d5± Bindrich - Jefic, Obre­ novac 2 0 04) 22.�d5± Maidla - Puittinen, Helsinki 1993, and Black fails to keep the material equality.

White must attack both his oppo­ nent's pawn, one after another, in order to break his defence. In the game Santo-Roman - Blaskowsk, Sudlohn 1981, White did not play in the best possible fashion and he could have become even worse if after 21.�a1 d5 2 2 .l'!d1 i.d7 23.l'!xa5 dxc4 24.l'!a7, Black had played 24 . . . cxb3 ! 25.�b2 (25. l'!dxd7 b2 26.�b1 Wlb6 27.l'!xe7? �g6-+) 25 . . . ttJc6 26. l'!axd7 �e8 27.l'!7d6 e4+

21

22J!d2 l'!b6 The move 2 2 . . . l'!f6?, Vombek - Pavlidou, Sibenik 2 007, can be countered by White with 23.ttJg4 ! l'!g6 24.i.f7±

23.�al White exploits his heavy pieces with maximal effectiveness. It is also interesting for him to try 23.l'!e1 ! ? �c7 24.i.f1 ! , freeing the c4-square for his knight.

23

21.l'!a2 ! This is an important moment. 180

i.e4

•••

In case of 21.. .Wlb6 2 2 . ttJd5 ttJxd5 23 .�xd5 i.d7? ! (The passive defence is also hopeless for Black.) 24.Wlxa5± Pokazanjev - Malina, Kemerovo 2 0 07, Black remains a pawn down.

�c7 24.l'!fdU

•••

11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3 White exerts powerful long­ term positional pressure. That position was reached in the game Buczinski - Surin, Email 2000, and it followed with 24 ... '8c6 2S.'�h1(It is also good for White to play immediately 2S.¥;Va3 ! ?) 2S . . . ¥;Vb6 (It is more resilient for Black to defend with 2S . . . lLlfS 26.lLlxfS ixfS 27.¥;Va3 '8dB 28.h3;l; and White has only a slight advan­ tage.) 26.¥;Va3 lLlfS 27.lLlxfS '8xfS 2 B .'8e2 '8f4 29.f3 i.g6 30.'8ed2 '8f6 31.'8dS±, and Black's situation was absolutely critical.

b2) 17 g6 •••

¥;VgS 24.g3 ¥;Vg7 2S.'8eU) 21.lLlf1 ¥;Vd7 2 2 . @d1 ¥;Va7oo It has become very fashion­ able lately for White to play ag­ gressive lines with h2-h4. He can try 1B.h4 ! ? right now, but the consequences of that move are absolutely unpredictable. We will have to remind our readers that we recommend that method of seizing the initiative only con­ sidering some concrete features of the position. For example, in the Radjabov variation, which we analyzed in out previous chapter, Black's bishop was on the d7square and it was covering the seventh rank for Black's queen rook. That circumstance was quite advantageous for White's attacking chances; therefore, we recommended h2-h4 in numer­ ous lines. After 1B.0-0, Black usually chooses between b2a) 18 . . . f5 and b2b) 18 i.h6. About 1B ... ie6 19.¥;Vf3 - see 16 . . . ie6. ...

Black usually plays like that, preparing the pawn-advance fl­ fS, being reluctant to part with his bishop pair.

18. 0 - 0

b2a) 18

f5

•••

Black is playing quite system­ atically according to his plan.

White can try to fortify his po­ sition in the centre without cas­ tling with 1B .¥;Vd3 fS 19.f3, but that is far from being safe, for exam­ ple: 19 . . . ih4+ 2 0 . '�e2 ! ? (Black is better after 2 0.g3 f4 21.lLlf1 igS+) 2 0 . . .f4 (It is not so effective for Black to continue with 2 0 . . . fxe4 2 1.¥;Vxe4 i.fS 2 2 .lLlxfS gxfS 23.¥;Vc2 181

Chapter 13 19.Y6d3 ! ? This i s a n original decision. White should not be in a hurry to clarify the situation in the centre. It is much more popular for him to play the move 19.exfS. Let us see what might happen later. It is not good for Black to play here 19 . . . MS 20.lZlxfS gxfS (or 2 0 . . J!xfS 21.g3 i.h6 22 .i.d3 �f7 23.!e4± Sott - Novotny, Klatovy 1998) 2 1.Y6hS e4 2 2 . �fa1 !f6 23.g3 !g7 24.f4;!; It is stronger for Black to opt for 19 . . . gxfS, after which White has two possibilities. He obtains no advantage with 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.lZlc2 (but not 21.lZlxf4? '!Wb6 2 2 .Wfd3 �e8-+ Ma­ karova - Sterliagova, Serpukhov 2 0 03), because of 21 . . . id7! (That is an important inclusion for Black, since the usual move 21 . . . lZleS i s not s o convincing.) 2 2 . �a3 lZleS 23.lZlxf4 lZlxc4 24.bxc4 �b2, and White has nothing better than to maintain the balance with the line: 2S.lZld3 �b8 26.�f4= It is more promising for White to play 2 0 .WfhS ! i.d7 21.�fal ! (In the first game, i n which that variation was played, White tried 2V�h1? ! , but after 21.. .ie8 22.'!Wh3 f4 23.i.d3 '!Wd7FF Ham­ douchi - Cherniaev, Cannes 1997, he had nothing to brag about. It is not advantageous for White to continue with 21.�a3 e4! 22 .f4? ! exf3 23.�xf3 lZleS 24.�g3 h6 2S.h4 ie8 26.'!Wd1 f4 27.�h3 id7!+, as well as 21.�a2 ie8 22. '!Wh3 f4 182

23.i.d3 Wfd7 24.!fS Wff7 2S.i.e6 WfhS 26.WfxhS ixhS 27.lZlc4 lZld8 28.i.d7 i.f7 29.�d1 ixdS 30.�xdS �xb3 31.g3 lZlb7=) He attacks Black's as-pawn and the fl-square is free for White's knight. What should Black do? He loses after 2 1 . . .f4? because of 22 .i.d3 ! +-. In case of 21 . . . i.e8, White regroups his forces com­ fortably with 2 2 .'!Wd1 ! f4 23.lZlfl e4 (This move weakens the a1-h8 diagonal, but White is clearly better after 23 . . .f3 24.gxf3 ! !hS 2S.!e2 �g8 26.wh1 if7 27.lZlg3;!;) 24.lZld2 ig6 2S.i.fl e3 (In case of 2S . . . �e8, it is completely safe for White to play 26.lZlc4 e3 27. lZlxaS lZlxaS 28.�xaS exf2 + 29.wxf2 i.e4 30 .Wfd4+ �eS 31.b4±) 26.lZlf3;!;, and he neutralizes his opponent's activity and he obtains the advan­ tage. We must also analyze the move 21...e4 ! , since it poses the greatest problems for White. If 22 .Wfd1, then 22 . . .f4, and later it is possible to play 23.�c2 '!We8 ! (This is more precise than 23 . . . f3 24.g3 '!We8 , since then White has the resource 2S.�de3 ! ? with the idea after 2S . . . '!WeS, to re­ group his forces with the help of 26.i.dS ! , combining his threats with the indirect protection of the c3-pawn: 26 . . . '!Wxc3? 27.�c4+-; 26 ... �bc8 27.ixc6 ixc6 28.�xaS '!Wg7 29.c4±) 24.�xaS (White is practically forced to sacrifice the exchange, because after 24.�d4 lZleS 2S.�xaS f3 2 6.g3 e3 27.�Sa2

11.c3 0 - 0 12.ti:Jc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 'Sb8 16.b3 e2 28.lLlxe2 lLlxc4 29.bxc4 fxe2 30.'Sxe2 �g6+ Black is even bet­ ter.) 24 . . . lLlxa5 25.'Sxa5 f3 26.g3;; - and White has a sufficient compensation for the exchange, but not more than that. Besides 2 2 .�d1, White can play passively 2 2.lLlfl 'Sg8 ! 23.�e2 'Sg6 24.h 1 �f8 25.'S4a3 'Sh6 26. g l �g7 2 7.lLlg3 �e5oo and although the position remains unclear, Black has the initiative. So, all these lines show that after 19.exf5, Black manages somehow to solve his problems, although not effortlessly, there­ fore I consider the move 19.�d3 ! ? more precise.

19

...

f4

About 19 . . . ih6 - see 18 . . . ih6. In case of 19 . . . fxe4 2 0 .�xe4, White achieves what he is after. The computer game The King - The Baron, Leiden 2006, con­ tinued with: 20 . . . ie6 21.�d3 �d7 2 2 .ibS! he3 23.lLlxe3 hb3 24.'Sxa5 �b7 2 S.hc6 �xc6 26.'Sa6 �b6 27.�xb6 �xb6 28.�b1 - and Black came under a deadly pin and following 28 . . . �a8 29.c4 �a3 3 0.c5 ! dxc5 31.�c3 g8 32 .�xe5

�e6 33.�xc5± White gradually realized his extra pawn. If 20 . . . ifS, then 21.lLlxf5 gxf5 2 2 .�e2 �d7 23 .�h5 �g7 24.�d1;!; with su­ perior prospects for White. Black's attempt to advance the f-pawn as quickly as possible should not worry White too much - 19 . . . he3 20.�xe3 f4 2 1.�d3 f3, because after 2 2 .g3, he maintains the advantage after the straight­ forward line 22 . . . h5 23.�d1 h4 24. lLle3 ! with the following eventual developments 24 . . . hxg3 25.hxg3 �f6 26.lLld5 �f8 27.b4 ! g 7 28.b5 lLla7 (It would not work for Black to play 28 . . . �g5 29.bxc6 �h8, be­ cause of 30.lLlf6 ! �xf6 31.�xa5+-) 29.�da1 ib7 30.�xa5 lLlc8 31..lb3 �d7 3 2.id1 hd5 33.exd5 �g4 34.�la4±, or 22 . . . .le6 23.�e1 �d7 24.�e3 .lg4 25.�d1 ! ? g7 26.�d3 h5 27.lLle3 �f6 28.�a2:t It would be interesting for Black to try 19 . . . .le6 ! ? Here, in comparison to the variations we have analyzed before with a black bishop on e6, White's queen is on d3 and not on the f3-square. Now, White can fight for the advantage with the help of the move 2 0.�d1 ! ? (not weakening the shelter o f his king) 20 . . . �d7 21.f3 �a7 22.h 1 he3 23. lLlxe3 hc4 24.�xc4 f4 25.�xc6 fxe3 26.c4:t, or with the help of the already well tested line 20.f3 ! ? ih6 21.�d1 fxe4 22.�xe4 if5 23.lLlxf5 gxf5 24.�e2 �b7 25. h 1 lLle7, Aginian - Kucypera, Mureck 1998, and later 26.�d3 ! lLlg6 27.�da1± 183

Chapter 13 2 0 .tZlc2 f3 After 20 . . . �h4, White can be­ gin to concentrate cold-bloodedly his forces against Black's a6-pawn, since it is evident that Black's at­ tacking resources are insufficient, for example: 2U'!fa1 illfg5 22 .�b5 Elxb5 23.illfxb5 �h3 24.tZle1 hg2 25. ttJxg2 f3 26.illffl±

It also deserves attention for White to test here 2 2.Eld1 ! ? �d8 (or 22 . . . illfh 3 23.tZlde3 �e7 24.b4 axb4 25.cxb4±) 23. ttJe1 illfg7 24. Eld2 (threatening 25.ttJxf3) 24 . . . �g5 (It i s bad for Black t o play im­ mediately 24 . . . �g4, because of 25. ttJe3.) 25.Elda2 �g4 26.h4 �h6 27. ttJe3, and here after 27 ... he3 28. illfxe3 illfd7 29.El2a3 (freeing the bishop from the protection of the b3-pawn), as well as following 27... �h3 28.ttJf1 and then ttJh2, Black's defence would be very difficult.

22 ... illfh3 23.tZlde3±

21.g3 Black's f3-pawn is a potential weakness.

21. illfd7 ••

White is better after 21.. .h5, Szilagyi - Balogh, Hungary 2 001, 22.Elfa1 h4 23.ttJe1 hxg3 24.hxg3 �g4 25.�b5± In the game Brundisch - Il­ inca, ICCF 2 0 03, Black played 21.. .�h3 22.Elfa1 illfc8 23.ttJe1 �g4 (White can counter 23 . . . illfg4, with the line: 24.ttJc7! illfd7 25.ttJxf3 Elxf3 26.illfxf3, and he wins the ex­ change: 26 . . . illfxc7 27.g4±, or 26 . . . �g4 27.illft7±), and here White could have combined his threats against the pawns on d6 and f3 with the variation: 24.ttJe3 ! ? �h3 (or 24 . . . he3 25.illfx e3±) 25.ttJ3c2 �g4 26.illfxd6 Elf6 27.illfd 3±

22.�fal 184

It is not so hard to understand here that Black will fail to check­ mate White's king, so that means that his aggressive play will back­ fire and the key-role in the evalu­ ation of the position will be de­ cided by other factors. After 23 . . . Elf4? ! White plays 24.illfd5 ! �a6 (It is bad for Black to opt for 24 . . . �d7 25. �f1 illfh 6 26.illfx d6+-) 25.1lNd1 (Black was hoping for 25.ha6? Elh4! 26.gxh4 �f4-+) 25 . . . Elh4 (or 25 . . . Elbf8 26.illffl±) 26.illfxf3 �b7 27.illfh 1 Elh6 28.illfg 2± and White ends up with a clear advantage. It is more reliable for Black to play

11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'gxa4 a5 15. ic4 'gb8 16.b3 23 . . . 'gf6, but then 24.lLlel !xe3 (24 . . . 'iffh S 2 S.b4! axb4 26.'ga8±) 2S.'iffx e3 ig4 26.'iffgS i>g7 27.idS id7 2 8 .'iffe 3;!;, and once again Black is faced with a difficult and laborious defence.

b2b) 18

•••

ih6

That is a logical preparatory move. Black is not in a hurry to advance his f-pawn and he re­ treats his bishop to a safer square. At least, there it would not come under attack with tempo after f2f4. The drawback of that move is that it is a bit too slow.

19.'iffd3 If White plans to exchange on fS, then he should better choose the prophylactic move 19. i>hl and that is a good alternative for him. After 19 . . .fS 20.exfS gxf5 21.f4, Black must make up his mind. There might follow: 21 . . . 'iffh 4? ! (This is a dubi­ ous decision.) 2 2 .ie2 e4, Ding - Rybenko, man Bator 2002, 23.'gc4! id7 24.'ggl and amaz­ ingly enough, Black is in a zugz­ wang in a board full of pieces! His position is very bad too after 24 . . .

'gg8?! 2S.'f3.xc6 ixc6 26.lLlxfS+- , as well as following 24 . . . 'gbc8 2S.g3 'iffd8 26.g4 fxg4 27.ixg4±, or 24 . . .ixf4 2S.g3 !xg3 26.'gxg3 lLleS (or 26 .. .f4 27.'gxe4+-) 27.'gc7 'gg8 28.'gxd7 'gxg3 29.lLlxfS %Vh3 30.lLlxg3 'iffxd7 31.lLlxe4± - and White has a winning position in all the variations. After 21.. .id7, Fomichenko Mamjan, Krasnodar 2 0 0 2 , 22.'gal ig7 23.'iffd 2;!; White has a slight edge. 21.. .lLle7 22.'iffh S lLlxdS 23.lLlxdS ixf4 (It is even more dangerous for Black to play 23 . . . ig7 24.'gfal ! - since 24 . . . 'ga8 will b e countered by White with 2S.b4, while if 24 . . . exf4, then 2S.'gxaS ieS 26.'ga7 l3b7 27.'ga8± Ibragimov - An­ dreev, Tomsk 1997, and again Black is faced with big problems.) 24.lLlxf4 exf4 2S.'ifff3 ib7 26.%Vxf4 ie4 27.'gdU - Black has so many pawn-islands that he must com­ ply with passive defence. Finally, in case of 21...'iffe 8, as it was played in the game Saunina - Savushkina, Orsk 2000, White has at his disposal a tactical re­ source - 2 2 .ibS! and following 22 . . . id7 (The exchange-sacrifice 22 . . . 'gxbS? 23.lLlc7 'iffg 6 24.lLlxbS ixf4 is not convincing in view of 2S.'gaxf4 ! exf4 26.lLld5 with a variation like 26 . . . ia6 27.lLlxf4 'ifff6 28.c4 ixb5 29.cxb5 lLld4 30.b6 'gb8 31.lLlh5 'iffe5 3 2.'gel 'iffc5 33.'ge7+-, which illustrates Black's difficulties. If 22 . . . exf4, then 23.lLlc4 ig7 24.'geU) 23.lLlc4 ! 185

Chapter 13 (The bishop on bS is untouchable as before. ) 23 . . . %!Ig6 24.llJcb6 gg8 2S.ga2 (The g2-square has been fortified just in time.) 2S . . . .te8 26 . .!a4 gg7 27.llJc4 'lWe6 28.gaf2;l; with a positional advantage for White.

19 f5 •••

Black can play 19 . . . .td7, forc­ ing White's rook to abandon the fourth rank. In that case after 2 0 .ga2 fS, the game transposes to the Radjabov variation - see 1S . . . .td7 16.llJce3 gb8 17.b3 �h8 18.0-0 g6 19.%!Id3 fS 20J�a2 .th6.

2 0 .gdl ! ? A similar position (only with the inclusion of the moves .td7 and ga2) was played in the game Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 007, and we analyzed it in out previous chapter. White should better follow the plan, which was realized successfully by the Indi­ an grandmaster, in this position as well.

20

•••

21.llJc2 fJ 22.g3 M7 23.�2;l;

f4

It is not so good for Black to play 2 0 . . . 'lWh4, when his rook is on a4 (analogously to the above­ mentioned game), because of 21.exfS e4 (or 21.. .hfS 2 2 .llJxfS gxfS 23.%!Ie2, and Black cannot play 23 . . . gbf8? due to 24 . .!b5+-) 2 2.'lWfl gxfS 23 . .tbS. If 23 ... llJa7, then 24 . .ta6 ! .!d7 25.gxaS f4 26. llJc4 f3 27.g3 %!Ig4 28.llJde3±, and White ends up with extra materi­ al. It is also insufficient for Black to opt for 23 . . . llJeS? ! 24.f4 gxbS 2S.'lWxbS .!d7 (In case of 2S . . . hf4 186

26.llJxf4 'lWxf4 27.'lWe2 gg8 28.�h1 %!Ih6 29.llJdS llJg4 30.h3 e3 31.gfl± Black's attack reaches its dead end.) 26.'lWfl ha4 27.bxa4 llJd3 28.g3 %!Id8 29.gb1 'lWd7 3 0 .gbS;l; - White has managed to occupy important key-squares. Whenever Black is not in a hurry to clarify the situation in the centre, then as I have already mentioned, the White players should follow the example of the games Topalov - Kasparov, Leon 1998 and Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 007. At first, White must take care of some prophylactic - ga4-a2 and f2-f3 with the idea to stabilize the centre and to pro­ tect his second rank in case Black plays actively on the kingside. Af­ ter that, he should start attacking Black's weaknesses and mostly his pawns on as and d6.

A similar situation arose in variation b2a. Black has no real attacking prospects, White will soon exert pressure against Black's weaknesses, and his f3pawn has just become one more of them.

Conclusion In our final chapter, we have dealt with practically the main line of the Chelyabinsk variation, which is frequently played more than a quarter of a century. Tournament practice has shown that White's natural way of developing his initiative - 16 . . . rJJ h 8 17. 0 - 0 , does not promise him much after 17.. .j5, because Black thus manages to activate his forces. White's attempts to neutralize his opponent's counterplay by exchanges often lead to an almost complete exhaustion ofavailable resources. Therefore, I believe that at the contemporary stage of de­ velopment of that variation, White's hope of obtaining an advantage should befocused on a relatively new plan, based on keeping the posi­ tion relatively closed. That is the idea behind the move 17. &iJce3! - it not only prevents the immediate advance 17.. .j5, but what is tremen­ dously important is that Blackfails to accomplish the typicalfreeing maneuver with the line: 17. . . ,he3 18. &iJxe3 &iJe7 19. 0 - 0 j5 2 0 .exj5 &iJxj5 21. &iJxj5 ixf5 22. V!JdS, since he thus loses his as-pawn. Later, White must hold on to his blocking construction on the cen­ tral outposts e4 and dS. That plan might seem a bit slow; neverthe­ less, it is very unpleasantfor Black, because he cannot coordinate his pieces in that situation. The connection between his two flanks has been disrupted. The variations we have analyzed show that Black's counterplay on the kingside is not so dangerous for White if he plays carefully, while Black will have problem with his compromised pawn­ structure to the end of the game. He will need to find improvements in this variation!

187

Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3

.

•

.

.

.

.

. . . .

. . . .

.

8

Chapter 1 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 a) b) c) d)

5 . . . llJxd4 . . . . . . . . 5 .. :Wc7 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . E:b8 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 11 12 13

Chapter 2 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 . .tg5 a) b)

various . . . . . . 7 . . . .te6 . . . . . . . 7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . b1) 8.llJa3 d5 . b2) 8.llJa3 .te7 b3) 8 .llJa3 h6 .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 .te6 9.�c4 a) b)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ... llJd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . E:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 1O.ixf6 �xf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 10 . .txf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7..tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 a)

b)

188

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . .te6 1O .,hf6 gxf6 1l.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a1) 1l.c3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a2) 1l.c3 .tg7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . �a5 1O . .ld2 �d8 1l.c4 various. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 1l.c4 llJxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 1l.c4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

38 39 42 43 47 49 56

Index o/ Variations Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 ..txf6 .txf6 11.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 •

Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 . .txf6 .txf6 11.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 11 . . . ib7 12.ttJc2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.ttJdb5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 ttJe7 12.�xf6 gxf6 13.�c2

a) b)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 13 . . . .tb7 14 . .td3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 14 ..td3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 14 . .td3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0

Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 J.g5 12.�c2 •

a) b)

c)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . ttJe7 13.h4 ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.ttJcb4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bl) 15.ttJcb4 J.d7 . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 15.ttJcb4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

88 93 94 95 96 98

Chapter 8 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7 12 ... ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9 12 . . . ttJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0

Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 l::tb8 13.h4 •

a) b)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 13 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3 13 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5 189

Index o/ Variations c) d) e)

13 . . . c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6 13 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1 13 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2

Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7 .igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS .ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 .igS 13.a4 •

a) b)

•

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . .bxa4 14.l3xa4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 14.l3xa4 c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 14.l3xa4 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.l3xa4 ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b3)

. . . . . .

128 128 135 137 138 140

Chapter 1 1 1.e4 cS 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.i.gS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.i.c4 •

a) b) c)

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

149 150 152 155

Chapter 1 2 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.gxa4 as lS.i.c4 id7 •

a) b) c) d) e)

16.l3a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8 16.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0 16.c!tJce3 .txe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4 16.c!tJce3 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5 16.c!tJce3 l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7 16.c!tJce3 c!tJe7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 9 16.c!tJce3 g 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1

Chapter 13 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS 6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3 0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.ic4 gbS 16.b3 a) b)

190

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . 'lth8 17.c!tJce3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b1) 17. c!tJce3 i.xe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b2) 17.c!tJce3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175 176 1 79 1 79 181

Games collections

My One Hundred Best Games by Alexey Dreev 300 pages, biography, colour photos

Bogoljubow. The Fate of a Chess Player by S. Soloviov, 280 pages Detailed biography and 200 commented wins

Capablanca. Games 19 0 1 - 1224 Second Revised Edition, 368 pages

Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939 Second Revised Edition, 360 pages

A Chess Library for Practical Players.

The Endgame by GM Marat Makarov 2007 180 pages

The Sharpest Sicilian A Black Repertoire with l.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 by Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev, 2007,

272 pages

Opening for White According to Kramnik, Vol.1a by Alexander Khalifman 2006, 308 pages

For contacts : E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Published by Chess Stars Printed in Bulgaria