The Moscow and Anti-Moscow Variations - Dreev, A - 2010

Alexey Dreev

The Moscow & Anti-Moscow Variations An Insider's View

Chess Stars

Contents

Pre f a c e .............................................. 8

Moscow Variation l.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tLlf3 tLlf6 4.tLlc3 e6 5.,ig5 h6 6..ixf6 �xf6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7.e4 dxe4 8.tLlxe4 ,ib4+ ............................... 15 7.a3 .............................................. 18 7.�3 .............................................. 24 7.� c2 ..............................................34 7.g3 tLld7 8.,ig2 dxc4 ................................ 42 7.e3 tLld7 8.a3 .................................... 46 7.e3 tLld7 8.,id3 dxc4 9.,ixc4 ,id6 ........................54 7.e3 tLld7 8.,id3 dxc4 9.,ixc4 g6 ..............................73 7.e3 g6 . . . . . . . ................................ 99

Anti-Moscow Variation 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tLlf3 tLlf6 4.tLlc3 e6 5.,ig5 h6 6..i h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.,ig3 b5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9.tLle5 103 9.,ie2 ib4; 9...b4; 9...tLlb d7 ..................................112 9.,ie2 ib710.e5 ... ......................................124 9.,ie2 ,ib7 1O.h4 b4 .......................................142 9.ie2 ,ib71O.h4 g4 11.tLle5 h5............................145 9.ie2 ,ib710.h4 g4 11.tLle5 gg8; 1l...tLlb d7.................173 9.ie2 ,ib71O.0-0 tLlbd7 11.tLle5 ............................185 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

PREFACE

Dear readers,

This book is devoted to one of the key-variations of the Semi-Slav De­ fence. If, after1.d4 d5, White wishes to enter the most principled schemes, then if we ignore some second-rate lines (for example like the exchange variation: 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5), the game usually continues with 2.c4

c6 3.ctl£J ctlf6 4.ctlc3 e6.

Here, White is facing a dilemma. He can play 5.e3, and Black's most fashionable response against it is the Meran variation (5...lLlbd7 6.�d3 dxc4 7.�c4 b5), which can be characterized by a sharp tactical fight in the majority of the variations. Its theory goes deep into the middle game and there are novelties found in it in every tournament. In case White wishes to avoid the Meran variation, but still enter theoretical disputes, he usually chooses 5.�g5.

Bl �ck can counter this in two ways - the Botvinnik system (5 . . . dxc4) and th e variations in it are tremendously complicated with plenty of tactical tricks (All of them however, are so well-analyzed that the top-Ie rel chess players are playing it only very rarely lately, because the danger of losing right in the opening stage is too great.), or the Mos�w variation - S h6. ...

So, Black creates a problem for White to choose between : - retreating his bishop 6.ih4, sacrificing a pawn, entering wild ir­ rational positions, in which the price of every mistake is very high and the game may end in all the three possible results; - or to enter positional schemes, choosing the calmer line - 6.ixf6, obtaining an advantage in space and development. He thus loses his bishop-pair, however. This is a serious positional risk for him, since if he does not play actively and hesitates - then Black's two bishops may prove to be the decisive factor. I have won numerous games with Black following exactly the same script. From the point of view of history, the Moscow variation, being an alternative to the Botvinnik system, is characterized by the move 5 . . h6 and the capturing 6.ixf6, because the retreat 6.ih4 was considered to be rather dubious. Its theory began to develop however, and this gambit retreat evolved as a method for White to prevent the Moscow variation. Accordingly, it was named the Anti-Moscow variation. So, this book consists of two parts - the Moscow variation and the Anti-Moscow variation. .

xe7 and Black's position was much better - his light-squared bishop is obviously superior to White's knight in this endgame.

B) 9.Va4+!?

This is a fashionable move, with which White is trying to fight for a slight opening advantage.

9.. A�d7!?

This reliable move has been tested in practice numerous times. It is also interesting for Black to try the seldom played move 9 . . . lLIc6 and here White cannot achieve much with lO.e3 (lO. lLIxc6 �d7=) lO ... cxd4 1l.exd4 �e7! and if 12.lLIxc6 �d7 13 .hc4 hc6 (13 ... bxc6 ! ? 14. 0-0 0-0 15. �ad1 �fd8=) 14.�bS 0-0 lS.hc6 bxc6=, while lO.lLIbS Vlid8 ! ? leads to a complicated and very unclear position, which has not been test­ ed in practice yet.

lO.e3

Black should not be afraid of lO.lLIbS, because he has a simple

22

Moscow Variation response - 10 ... Vlid8 ! ? (In case of lO ... cxd4 1l.lLIc7+ - 1l.lLIxc4 Vlid8 ! ? = - 1l . . . 'it>d8 12.lLIg4, or 12.lLIxf7+, the arising positions are tremendously complex and unclear.) 11.lLIxc4.

After 1l ... a6 12.lLIbd6+ hd6 13.lLIxd6+ 'it>e7, Black has no prob­ lems whatsoever. He is ahead of his opponent in development. He can also try 1l . . . cxd4 12 .lLIcd6+ (12 .0-0-0 �cS = ; 12 .�d1 �cS 13. b4 lLIb6 ! 14.Vlib3 lLIxc4 lS.bxcS a6 ! ? - lS ... VliaS+ 16.Vlib4 @e7= 16.lLIxd4 VliaS+ 17.Vlib4 Vlixa3 18. Vlixc4 VliaS+ 19.�d2 Vlia1+ 2 0 .�d1 VliaS = ; 14.lLIc7+ 'it>e7 lS.lLIxb6 hb6 16.lLIxa8 �d7 and after 17. Vlib3 Vlixa8, his compensation for the pawn is quite sufficient, while the sacrifice 17.lLIxb6 ha4 18. lLIxa4 would not be good for White, in view of 18 . . . VlidS.) 12 . . . hd6 13.lLIxd6+ 'it>e7 14.Vlixd4 (14. Vlib4 lLIcS ! = lS.lLIe4 b6 16.lLIxcS as ! ? 17.VlibS bxcS 18.VlixcS+ Vlid6 19.Vlixd6+ 'it>xd6't ; lS.lLIxf7 ! ? 'it>xf7 16.VlixcS Vlib6 17.Vlixb6 axb6=) 14 . . . VliaS+ lS.b4 VlieS=

10...cxd4 1l.exd4

6. hf6 'ti'xf6 7.a3

1l 'ti'd8! ••.

Black equalizes easily after this strong move. It is worse for him to play 11 ... id6? ! , because of 12.llJxc4 ! ic7 (12 . . . ie7 13.llJb6 ! ?:t) 13.llJbS;t

12.i.xc4.ie7!?

It deserves attention for Black to follow with 12 ... id6 ! ? 13 .ibS a6 ! ? 14.llJe4 ! ? (White should bet­ ter avoid 14. 0-0 l'!b8 ! ? lS.,bd7+ .txd7. 16.'ti'b3 ixeS 17.dxeS ic6 18.'ti' 4 'ti'e7 19.'ti'xe7+ �xe7+, be­ caus Black's bishop is clearly su­ peri to White's knight in this end me, Bigg - Zilka. Olomouc 2 0 0 .) 14 ... ic7=

�

16.llJb6+ (16.llJxe7+ �h7+) 16 ... �h7 17.llJxa8 llJcS ! ? provides Black with a powerful initiative after 18 .Wld1 id6 ! (The position remains only equal after: 18 ... id7 19.0-0 ! ? Wlxa8 2 0.b4 ie6 2 1.,be6 llJxe6 22 .'ti'd7 if6 23.'ti'xe6 ixa1 24.l'!xa1= ; or 18 . . . ie6 19.'ti'xd8 l'!xd8 2 0 .ixe6 llJxe6 2 1.0-0 �g8 ! 22.l'!fe1 �f7 23.l'!e2 ? ! if6+=; 23. l'!e3 ? ! icS+=; 23.l'!e4? ! id6+=; 23. l'!xe6 �xe6 24.llJc7+ �f7+=; 23. l'!eS ! if6 24.l'!bS b6 2S.llJxb6 llJd4 26.l'!dS axb6 27.l'!xd8 hd8 =) 19.0-0 if5 (19 . . .bS 2 0.idS ib7+) and Black is threatening 'ti'd8-f6, capturing White's knight on a8.

13...a614.0-0 gb8=

b t

1 .ib5

I case of 13.0-0 0-0, Black has 0 problems, because of the thre t llJd7-b6. e should not fear the imme­ diat pawn-break 13.dS, because after 13 . . . exdS 14.llJxdS 0-0= Blac 's chances are at least equal. Now the variation lS.llJg6?! fxg6

The game is equal. Here, in case of 1S.id3, or lS.ie2 (1S.ixd7+ ! ? hd7=), it deserves attention for Black to play 1S . . . 0-0 ! ? (lS . . . bS= , with the idea ic8-b7), planning llJd7xeS and ic8-b7 and his chances would not be worse at all.

23

Chapter 3

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3 . �f3 �f6 4. �c3 e6 5 .ig5 h6 6 . .bf6 frxf6 7. frb3 •

A) 7 B) 7 C) 7

•••

•••

••.

aS dx c4!? �d7!?

His most popular alternative is C) 7 �d7 ! ? , a move which is considered to be his most solid and reliable. Variations A and B are relatively seldom played. They are neither better, nor worse than 7 . . . �d7, but the positions arising after them are much more un­ clear. •••

White is trying to accomplish two things with this move : just like in Chapter 2 (7.a3) to push the thematic e4 in one move (without the preliminary e2-e3) and to prevent the possibility .ib4. Still, the move 7.�b3 has some drawbacks too : the queen is not so well placed on b3 in a similar pawn-structure (it resembles the structure of the Queen's Gambit) and as you will see later, Black can exploit this circumstance (partic­ ularly in the lines with 7 . . . aS and 7 ... dxc4 ! ?) and he obtains an ac­ tive counterplay, which is quite sufficient. Now, he is faced with a choice between several possibilities : 24

A) 7 aS 8.e4!? This is the most fashionable and energetic response . The alternatives for White are not so active, for example: 8.cxdS exdS 9 .e3 .id6 1O . .ie2 �e7 11.0-0 �d7 12J'!ac1 0-0 and Black is better, Ree - Tal, Wijk aan Zee 1982 . His plans are quite obvious - he wishes to deploy his knight on e4 and utilizing his bishop-pair aimed at White's kingside to organize gradually a kingside attack. It is rather dubious for White to try 8J'k1? ! , because of 8 . . . a4 9.�xa4 dxc4 1O .�c2 .ib4+ 11.@d1 •••

6. ixf6 �xf6 7. W1b3 (11. � c3 l3xa2+) 11 . . . b5+ Suba Sveshnikov, Sochi 19B3. 8 . � 3 lDd7 (It is interesting for BlacI< to opt for the not so well analyzed move B . . . a4 ! ? ; since now in c�se of 9.�c2 a3 his chances are nbt worse at all, while the line: 9.lDxfi4 dxc4 1O . .ixc4 - 1O .�c2 �dB � - 10 . . . b5 11 ..ixb5 cxb5 12 .lDb6 �dB ! 13.l3c1 ? ! �xb6 14. �xcB+ wd7 15.�c3 f6 16.0-0 .tb4 17J�xbB l'!hxbB 18.�xb4 �a5t; 13.lDxaB W1a5+ 14.lDd2 .td7, leads to a complicated position with mutual chances.) 9 . .td3 .td6

ble.) 11 . . . exd5 12 .e4 dxe4 13.lDxe4 �e7 14.l'!fel lDf6 - The position is approximately equal, but we should mention that White's game is much more difficult, since his isolated d4-pawn might become vulnerable in the future. B .a3 a4! ? 9.lDxa4 (9.�c2 dxc4 10.lDe4 �dB ll.�xc4 �a5+ 12 .�c3 lDd7 13.e3 ie7 14.id3 0-0 15.0-0 c5= T.Petrosian - Furman, USSR 1954 ; 9.�a2 lDd7 lO.e4 dxe4 11. lDxe4 �g6 ! ? 12 .lDg3 c5= ; 11 ... �f4 12 .id3 e5= M.Gomez - Tal, Se­ villa 1992) 9 . . . dxc4 10 .�c2 b5 ! ? ( 1 O . . . �dB ! ? 11.e3 b5 12 .lDc3 lDd7=) 11.lDb6 (11.lDc3 lDd7+) 11 ... l'!a6 12.lDxcB �dB=

8 ...dxe4 9.�xe4 .1b4+

10.0-0 (Black should not fear the line : 10.e4 dxc4 ! ? 11.hc4 e5+; 11.�xc4 e5+, or 10 .c5 i.c7 Il.e4 11.0-0 e5= - 11 . . . 0-0 12.e5 �e7 13.0-0 f6+ with the idea 14.lDh4 fxe5 15 .lDg6 �f6 16.lDxfB �xfB+, and if 14.exf6, then 14 ... l3xf6+ with the idea l3xf3 ; 12.0-0 b6 with a complicated and an approximate­ ly equal position.) 1O . . . 0 - 0 ! ? (It is also possible for Black to play 10 ... dxc4 11.,bc4 �e7= ; 11.�xc4 ! ? �e7 12.l3ac1 0 - 0 13.l3fdl=.) 11. cxd5 (In case of 11.e4 dxc4 ! ? 12. �xc4 e5+; 12.,bc4 e5, Black's chances are somewhat prefera-

10.wdl!?

White tries to obtain some ad­ vantage with this original move in this variation, but Black can ob­ tain a good counterplay while his opponent's king is in the centre. The endgame is equal after 1O.�xb4 axb4 11.lDxf6+ gxf6 12.c5 lDd7= with the idea b7-b6. Black has no problems in case 25

Chapter 3 of 10.�e2 �f4 (1O . . . Wfg6 ! ?) 1l.Wfd3 i.e7 1VLle5 ltJd7= Matlakov Yevseev, Peterhof 2007. After 1O.ltJc3 (or 10 .ltJed2) Black's counterplay is very effec­ tive following 10 . . . cS.

10...Bf4!

This is Black's strongest move and it provides him with good counter chances. Of course not 1O . . . Wfe7?, be­ cause of 1l.c5+- with the idea a2a3.

Moscow Variation In case of 12 .ltJc3 cS ! ? 13.d5 0-0 14.a3 hc3 15.Wfxc3 exd5 16.cxd5 ltJd7, Black is not worse at all.

12 c5!? 13.a3 •••

After 13.d5 a4 14.Wfc2 , it is good for Black to play 14 . . . a3 ! ? , recommended b y G M Jan Tim­ man, after which Black's pros­ pects seem even preferable.

13 a414.Bc2.ia5 ..•

1l .id3 •

This is the main theoretical line, which leads to double-edged position. It is safer for White to continue with 1l.Wfe3 ! ? Wfxe3 12 .fxe3, en­ tering an about equal endgame.

15.d5!?

1l...f5!?

This is Black's most popular and best move. The lines 11...0-0 12.c5 (with the idea a2-a3) and 1l . . .i.e7 12. ltJe5 ! ? (with the idea g2-g3) are a bit risky for Black and they are not so popular.

12.�g3

26

This is the best move for White and it leads to complicated and unclear positions. It is dubious for him to choose 15.Wfxa4+?! Later, in the game I. Novikov - Dreev, Lvov 1990, there followed 15 ... i.d7 16.Wfc2 cxd4

6 . .txj6 V;Yxf6 7.�b3 17 llJe2 ? ! (White had better play 7.�c1 �xc1+ ISJ�xc1 llJc6+) 17. . . g4 ! IS.llJexd4 llJc6 19.1lJb5 �xg2 2 0.We2 �g4 with an obvi­ ous dvantage for Black. The game continued with 2U3hgl �h5 2 2 . l"! 3 llJe5 23.llJbd4 llJxf3 24. llJxf3 .tc6 ! 25.b4 hb4 26.axb4 l"!xal 27.V;Yb2 l"!gl ! 2 8.�e5 l"!xg3 29.� e6+ wdS 30 .�d6+ WcS and Whit resigned. H should better avoid 15.llJe2. After 15 . . . �d6 (15 . . . �g4? ! 16.llJe5 ! �xg2 17.l"!gl �xf2 IS.�xa4+ llJd7 19.b ! cxd4? ! 2 0 .l"!xg7! �fl+ 21. Wc2 xal 2 2 .llJxd7 b5 23.�xb5 1-0 I Novikov - Strokov, Alikante 1992 16.�xa4+ .td7 17.�c2 llJc6

llJc6 2 0 .i.e4 llJd4+ 2 1 .llJxd4 cxd4 2 2 .haS hc4 (22 . . . l"!xaS 23. l"!xd4 ! ?;!;) 23.�f3 i.a2 24.�c6 �f4 25.l"!hf1 ! ? with a very sharp posi­ tion, in which White had an extra rook and better chances, despite the fact that the situation of his king was rather troublesome. Now, in case of 25 . . . l"!dS (with the idea d4-d3) White can follow with 26.l"!d3 i.c4 27.l"!fdl hd3+ 2S. l"!xd3 �xf2 + 29.bl f4 30.�e6+ ! whS 31..te4 fxg3 3 2 .�g6+-

17.cxd5 Ad718.�e5 Ac719. �xf4 .ixf4 20.gel (20 .llJh4

IS.dxc5 �xc5 19.1lJc1 i.c7 2 0 . llJb3 �e7 21 .g4 0 - 0 - 0 2 2 .gxf5 exf5 23 .Wc1 �d6 24.wbl �f4, Black obtained an excellent com­ pens �tion for the pawn and he seize� the initiative in the game Val.Pp pov - Lastin, Elista 2 0 0 0 .

15 0-0 16.�e2 exd5!?

i.g5 ! ? = , with the idea 2 1.llJhxf5 c4 2 2 .i.c2? ! l"!a5+; 22 .i.e4 llJa6=, or 21.llJg6 l"!eS ! ? = ) 20 b5 21.c�e5 c4 22.Ac2 gd8 - The position is rather complicated, but still, Black's prospects seem somewhat preferable, R.Bagirov - Val.Po­ pov, Vladimir 2 0 0S. .••

•••

This is the most reliable move for Black. In the game Lalic - S.Collins, Gastings 2007, he tried 16 . . . �d6 17.Wc2 b5 IS.dxe6 he6 19.1"!adl

B) 7 dxc4!? 8.�xc4 �d7 •••

This is an interesting move and Black has a sufficient coun­ terplay, because of the unstable position of White's queen on c4. 27

Moscow Variation

Chapter 3

preferable thanks to his bishop­ pair and control over the dS-out­ post. His dark-squared bishop will be tremendously powerful in this situation.

10 lDb611.'i!Yb3.ic5 •••

It is also good for him to play 1l . . . ig4 12 .ie2 (12 .dxc6 bxc6 13 .ie2 ic5=) 12 ... icS=

12..ie2 0-0 13.0-0 ,tg4

There may follow:

Bl) 9.e4 B2) 9.e3 B3) 9.g3 B4) 9.gdl In case of the not so well-stud­ ied move 9.0-0-0 ! ? , the simplest road to equality for Black is - 9 . . . id6 ! ? , for example: 1O .e4 eS ll.dS lDb6+; 10.g3 �e7= ; 10.lDe4 �f4+ 1l.lDfd2 ie7=

Bl) 9.e4

This move is completely harm­ less for Black.

9 e5

Black has a better game in this position, because of his two pow­ erful bishops and more active piec­ es, Luniov - Savon, Russia 1994.

B2) 9.e3

•••

That is his standard response and it provides him with a good game.

10.d5

This is the relatively best move for White. It would be too risky for him to play 10.0-0-0, because after the opening of the game 10 . . . exd4 ! ? ( 1 O . . .ie7 11.c;t>bl 0-0=) 1l.lDxd4 (11.�xd4 i.cS+) 1l . . . lDeS 12.�b3 icst Black's position would be 28

This move does not create any

6. ixf6 �xf67. 'fl!b3 dxc4 8. 'fl!xc4 ttJ d7 senous problems for Black. White's queen is not so well placed on c4 in this pawn-structure and it occupies the natural square of the ·ght-squared bishop. Black obta- ns easily a good game ex­ ploi ng this factor.

i

•••

ti'e7!?

is is a logical and reliable move. Black transfers his queen to a good position and threatens (in case of lO.ie2, or 1O .id3) with the maneuver �e7-b4, since the trade of queens is very favourable for him. He will not have any problems in the endgame with his powerful bishop-pair. He can de­ velop his light-squared bishop af­ ter b7-b6 on b7, and the dark­ squared bishop will be deployed depending on circumstances on e7, or even fianchettoed on g7 (af­ ter g7-g6). It would be also quite accepta­ ble for Black to try 9 . ..g6 1O.ie2 J.g7 11.0-0 0-0 12JUd l �e7 13. ttJ e4 (13J�ac1 ! ?) 13 .. JOl:d8= G. Sargissian - KaIjakin, Ordix 2 007.

10.ti'b3

In case of 1O.ie2 , or 10.id3, Black can continue with 10 . . . ti'b4 ?, forcing the exchange of que ns and entering an equal end arne.

improving his position. For exam­ ple, after IS.'fl!a4 (with the idea ie2-a6) Black can reply with 15 ... as, avoiding the trade of the light­ squared bishops, which is favour­ able for White. Black's plan for further actions is quite natural: 1'!fd8, 1'!ac8 and later c6-cS.

14 J.b7 •••

15.ia6! Black would continue otherwise with as and his position would be at least equal after this.

15 ttJf616 .ixb7 ti'xb717.gacl gfd8 18.b4 gac8 19.ti'b3 ti'e7= •••

•

W.Schoen - M .Gurevich, Germa­ ny 1995.

83) 9.g3

10 g6 1l.ie2 ig7 12.0-0 0- 13.gfdl b6!? 14.ti'a4! •••

ite must play carefully. For exa pIe, if he continues with the rout ne move 14J3ac1, then after 14. .. b7, he will have difficulties 29

Chapter 3 This is a quiet move and the position resembles the Catalan Opening, but Black has nothing to fear. He will manage to push the thematic pawn-break e6-eS quite easily as you will see later.

9 e5!? ..•

This is the most popular move for him and it provides him with an active counterplay. It is also acceptable for Black to play the calmer line : 9 .. YJie7 1O .ig2 (1O .�b3 g6 11.ig2 ig7 12.0-0 0-0=) 10 . . . �b4 ! ? 11.�xb4 (ll.lLld2 ? ! �xb2 ! 12 .�bl �a3 13. ixc6? bxc6 14.�xc6 �b8 ! IS.0-0? Wfa6- + ; IS.�xb8? �c1+ 16.lLldl Wfxc6- + ; IS.lLlbS �aS I6.0-0 ib7! 17.lLlc7+ �d8 18.�xb7 �xb7 19. �xb7 �xc7+ ; 13.0-0 13 ... lLlb6 14.�d3 ie7 IS.lLlc4 �a6 !+ Shirov - Anand, Linares 1994) 11 . . . ixb4, with an approximately equal end­ ing.

In the game Gulko - Chernin, New York 1998, there followed 12.0-0 0-0 (12 . . . b6 ! ? with the idea 13. �fcl ia6 ! ? 14.a3 ie7= ; 14.lLleS lLlxeS IS.dxeS �c8= ) 13. �ac1 �dB I4.a3 ie7=. Now, in case of IS.�fdl, the simplest reaction 30

Moscow Variation by Black would be IS . . . b6 ! ? = , planning icB-b7 and completing the development, but he can also try to regroup his forces, in a standard for these positions fash­ ion, by playing: IS . . . lLlf8 16.lLleS id7 17.lLle4 ieB IB.lLlcS �abB = reaching an about equal position. White has extra space, but Black has no evident weaknesses and a pair of bishops. He plays in practice only very seldom 9 . . . g6 1O .ig2 ig7 11.0-0 0-0, but that line is also accepta­ ble for him.

After 12 .�adl (In case of 12.e4 eS I3.dS lLlb6 14.�b3 �d8, Black is not worse at all. White achieves nothing much with 12.�acl, since in the game Kobylkin - Borovi­ kov, Simferopol 2003, Black after 12 . . . eS 13.dS lLlb6 14.�cS cxdS 15. lLlxdS lLlxQS 16.WfxdS e4 17.�xe4 �xb2 18 .�a4 ie6, obtained a very good position, because his bish­ op-pair was a formidable force.) 12 ... �e7 (Black can also opt for the riskier line : 12 . . . eS I3.lLle4 �e7 14.dS cxdS IS.�xdS lLlb6 16.�d6 �xd6 17.lLlxd6 e4= ; 16.WfcS WfxcS 17.lLlxc5 e4= ) 13.'�b3 (13 .e3 �dB =

6. hf6 \W46 7.\Wb3 dxc4 8.\Wxc4 �d7 with I the idea e6-eS) 13 . . . b6 ! ? 14. e3 itb 7 1S.�d2 �f6, with an equal position, Ivanchuk - Navara, Prague (m/4) 2009.

This is a simple and reliable move for him and Black solves all his problems easily. It is also possible for him to try 13 . . . exd4 14.�xd4, with a more complicated position. In the game Korchnoi - Dreev, Yalta 1995, there followed later 14 ... \Wa5 15. ih3 tt:lf6 16 .hc8 �axc8 17.tt:lxf6+ .txf6=

10.0-0-0

This is the main line for White. Black has no problems at all after 1O.ig2 exd4 11.�xd4 (11. �e4 \We7!? 12.\Wxd4 \Wb4+ 13 .�c3 �f6 14.0-0-0 ie6+ Korchnoi Kramnik, Amber (rapid) 1994) 11.. .�b6 12 .\Wd3 ie7 ! ? = , or 12 . . . icS= In case of lO.dxeS �xe5 11.Wfe4 id6 12. 0-0-0 ic7, Black's pros­ pects are not worse, because of his powerful bishop-pair.

14.�xf6+ .bf6 15.dxe5 ixe5 16.�xe5 \Wxe5 - Black's

centralized queen is very well placed and he is not worse to say the least, Mamedyarov - Svidler, Crete 2007.

10 ie711.c�� e4 \Wf5 12.trc2 •••

12.dxe5?! �xe5 13.\Wd4 �xf3 14. exf3 (14.Wfxg7? \We5+) 14 . . . 0-0+

12 0-0 13.wbl •••

Following 13 .h4 exd4 14.�xd4 \WaS 15.wb1 (15.�b3? \Wxa2 16.e3 - with the idea � e4-c3 - 16 . . . ib4 17J�d4 a5+) 15 . . . �f6, Black is at least equal, Timman - Gelfand, Belgrade 1995.

13 �f6!? .••

31

Moscow Variation

Chapter 3 This move is not sufficient to cause any worries for Black. Its idea is to counter the straightfor­ ward move 9 . . . eS?, which is bad at the moment, because of 1O.dxeS lLlxeS 11.�e4 id6 12J!xd6+ 9 . . . g6 This is a simple and reliable move and it is played very often in practice. It also deserves attention for him to try 9 . . .'�e7!? with the idea to follow with �e7-b4, or g7-g6. 1 0 .g3 White achieves nothing with the seemingly active move 10 .e4, because of 10 ... eS ! ? 11.dS lLlb6 12. '!Wb3 icS= 1 0 J.g7 11 .t.h3!? The idea behind this move is to prevent the pawn-break e6-eS. After 1l.i,g2 0-0 12.0-0 '!We7, or 12 . . . eS, there arise approxi­ mately equal positions, which we have analyzed in variation B3 (9.g3) after the move-order 9.g3 g6 1O .i.g2 i.g7 11. 0-0 0-0 12. gad1 '!We7 and 12 . . . eS. 11 0 - 0 12. 0 - 0 ti'e7= Tim­ man - I.Sokolov, Netherlands 1997. •••

.••

Now, in case of 13 .lLle4, it de­ serves attention for Black to fol­ low the recommendation of GM I.Sokolov: 13 . . . eS ! ? 14.ixd7 ixd7 1S.lLlxeS ih3 16.gfe1 ixeS 17.dxeS ti'xeS 18.f4 with a rather unclear position, or 13 . . . xf1 i!xd1+ 2B.'it>f2 i!dd2 = ) 19 . . . i!xt7 2 0 . i!xa7 i!cfB ! ? = and here after 21.'it>xg2 (21.i!xt7 i!xt7 2 2 .f4 V!1xe3+ 23.'it>xg2 .id6=) Black can hold the balance with 2 1 . . .!d6 2 2 .f4 V!1xe3 23.i!xt7 i!xt7= 15.gfc1 a5 The position is equal.

In the game Aronian - Anand, Wijk aan Zee 200B, there followed 36

Moscow Variation 16.ttJd2 16 . . . ttJb6 17.!f3 V!1e7 lB. hb7 V!1xb7= White did not achieve any­ thing much in the game Kramnik - Leko, Miskols (m/7) 2007 - af­ ter 16.ttJa4 i!abB 17.V!1d1 eSt? lB. i!xc4 i!xc4 19 . .txc4 .txf3 20.V!1xf3 V!1xf3 21.gxf3 exd4 2 2 .exd4 ttJb6 23. ttJxb6 �b6 24.i!d1 'it>fB, there arises an endgame in which White has a n extra pawn indeed, but he has no chances of realizing it, because his pawn-structure on the kingside is completely compro­ mised. The game continued with 2S.b3 i!g6+ 26.'it>f1 i!gS 27.i!d3 i!hS 2B.'it>g2 i!gS+ 29.'it>f1 i!hS 30. 'it>g2 i!gS+, draw.

B) 7 . . . �d7! ?

This is the most popular line for Black and he obtains a good counterplay after it. 8.e4 This is the fashionable move for White. It is also possible for him to continue with B.e3 and there aris­ es a position, which we analyze in

6.ixf6 �xf6 7. �c2 deta· s at the beginning of chapter is reached there after the mov -order 7.e3 lL\d7 8.�c2 .). I woul like to mention that after B . . . g ! ? 9.id3 dxc4 10 .ixc4 ig7 11.0 0 �e7, there arises by trans­ . posi on a situation, which will be deal with in details in chapter 7, after the move-order 7.e3 lL\d7 B. id3 c4 9.ixc4 g6 ! ? 10.0-0 �e7 11.� 2 ig7. ere arises an original posi­ tion nly after B.e3 g6 9.cxdS exdS 10.ia3 ig7, in which tournament practice has shown that Black does not have too many problems to worry about.

6 (I

The point is that the standard plan for White in similar situa­ tions (the minority-attack with b2-b4, followed by b4-bS) is not so dangerous for Black, because of iS powerful dark-squared bish p. In addition, White's queen is n t so well-placed on the c2squ re in this scheme. For exam­ ple: 1.0-0 (The immediate move 11.b4 would not change much and later in the game Harikrishna Dreev, Dos Hermanas 2 00S, there followed 11 . . . �d6 ! ? 12J'!b1 0-0

�

13 .0-0 lL\b6 14.lL\d2 ie6 lS.lL\e2 l3fcB 16.l3fc1 l3c7 17.lL\f4 id7 lB. �cS ifB 19.�xd6 hd6 and Black's prospects in this endgame were not worse at all, thanks to his powerful bishop-pair. The posi­ tion is equal after 14.l3fc1 ie6 lS .a4 lL\d7 16.lL\e2 l3fcB 17.lL\d2 lL\f6 1B .h3 l3c7 19.1L\f4 id7= So­ rokin - Dreev, Moscow 2004.) 11 ... 0-0 12 .b4 �d6 ! ? 13.l3ab1 (Black has no problems after 13 .�b3 lL\b6 14.a4 ie6 lS.lL\d2 lL\d7 16.l3ab1 as ! ? 17.bxaS l3xaS 18 .�c2 b6 19.lL\b3 l3aaB+ I .Sokolov - Dreev, Hastings 2000.) 13 . . . aS ! ? (13 . . . lL\b6=) 14.bxaS (14.a3 l3eB lS.lL\a4 bS= ; lS.l3fc1 axb4 16.axb4 lL\b6=) 14 . . . l3xaS lS.a4 l3eB 16.h3 lL\fB 17.lL\d2 l3a7 1B.lL\b3 lL\e6 19. l3fe1 ifB, with a complicated posi­ tion, which is not worse for Black, Kamsky - Aronian, Sochi 200B. White plays in practice only very seldom B.O-O-O, because af­ ter B . . . dxc4, he has hardly any compensation for the pawn. In the game Rausis - Khenkin, Haar­ lem 1997, White played 9.lL\e4 (9. e3 bS+; 9.e4? ! bS+ with the idea 1O.dS eS+) 9 . . . �fS 1O.l3g1 bS 11.g4 �f4+ 12 .e3 �c7 13.�c3 ib7 14. lL\eS lL\f6 lS.ig2 0-0-0 and Black was better, since White's compen­ sation for the pawn was evidently insufficient. 8 dxe4 This is the main line for Black and it is the most popular. He used to choose only rarely B . . . dxc4, but lately this move was .•.

37

Moscow Variation

Chapter 4 much more often played in the tournament practice of some im­ minent players and it was no doubt very interesting. After 9. hc4 (White would not achieve much with 9.eS �fS ! ? 10.�xfS exfS ll.,bc4 lLlb6 12 .i.b3 as ! ? 13. a3 - or 13.a4 i.e6 - 13 ... a4 14.ka2 i.e6 and Black has a good game.) 9 ... eS 10.0-0 (In case of lO.dxeS lLlxeS ll.lLlxeS �xeS 12 .�b3, Black equalizes simply with 12 . . . �f6 13.eS �xeS+ 14. f1 �f4 ISJ3el+ ie7+; 13.0-0 id6= . Following 12 . . . �c7, the variation 13J'!dl ! ? bS ! ? 14.lLlxbS ! ? - 14.id3 ie6 15. �c2 id6+ - 14 ... cxbS IS.�xbS+ ? ! e7 16.�dS ie6 17.�xa8 ixc4 18J'kl �f6+ with the idea if8b4+ ; IS.ixbS+ �e7 16.0-0, leads to a very complicated and unclear position.) lO . . . i.e7 ll.dS 0-0 12. dxc6 bxc6 with equality.

In the game Babula - Jakov­ enko, Crete 2 007, there followed 13.lLla4 (13.lLldl �b8 14.lLle3 lLlcS=) 13 ... lLlb6 14J'!acl �b8 1S.ib3 lLlxa4 16.ixa4 kg4= 17.lLld2 �gS 18.f3?! i.e6 and Black was better, because his two bishops and more active pieces were more than sufficient 38

compensation for his weak c6pawn. 9.ftxe4 White should better refrain from 9.lLlxe4? ! , because after 9 . . . ib4+ 10.lLlc3 cS, o r 10.lLled2 cS, Black's position is preferable.

9 g6 !? This is the most active and popular move for him and it is played very often nowadays. The alternatives 9 . . . .ib4 and 9 . . . i.d6, are only seldom played and they are too passive to be rec­ ommended. 1 0 .i.d3 This natural and attractive move is played most of all. White can also try some rarely played moves, but they are not dangerous for Black at all. lO .h4 ig7 ll.hS gS 12 .id3 (In case of 12.0-0-0, Black can con­ tinue with 12 . . . 0-0 13.kd3 �d8 with the idea c6-cS 14.�e3 b6 ! ? His dark-squared bishop is very powerful and he is not worse at all. 12 . . . �e7 13.id3 lLlf6oc) 12 . . . cS - This move leads to complicated ••.

6.hf6 �xf6 7. �c2 positions (White can play simpler 12 . . . �e7= with the idea ltJd7-f6.) 13.dS (In case of 13.ltJbS f8 23.13c7 ttJe8 24. tLlxd8 tLlxc7 25.ie2± Tukmakov, but it is interesting to try instead the not so well-analyzed move 13 . . . b6 ! ? , which seems quite logi­ cal. 14.if1 White's alternatives would not create any problems for Black ei­ ther, for example: 14.dxc5 hb2 15.13b1 ig7 (15 . . . ha3 !?) 16.if1 ti'c7! 17.ti'd6 Wixd6 18.cxd6 b6= , with the idea ia6 13a8-c8, Petursson - Serper, Oslo 1994, or 14.ttJxc5 ttJxc5 15.dxc5 hb2 16.13b1 ic3 17.ti'c1 ti'xc1 18.13exc1 if600 Cvitan - Chernin, Bern 1995.

14 exd4 (14 . . . b6 ! ? Belia­ vsky) 15.g3 ti'e7 16.tOxd4 a6 17.ti'd2 tOe5 18. tOxe5 ti'xe5 19.9adl e5 2 0 .tOb3 ti'b6 Black has two powerful bishops in this complicated position and his prospects are not worse at all, Be­ liavsky - Pavasovic, Krsko 1997. • • •

53

Chapter 7

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.lLlf3 lLlf6 4. lLl c3 e6 5 . .ig5 h6 6 . .bf6 tfxf6 7.e3 ll)d7 8 . .id3

and after 1O .'lWxc3 0-0 11.0-0 dxc4 12 .hc4 c5 13J'Uc1 ! ? b6 14 . .ib5 ! cxd4 15.exd4;!; Black came under a positional pressing, Bo­ goljubow - Becker, Mieses 1925; it is relatively best for him to play 9 . . . .ia5, or 9 . . . 'lWe7, but even then after 10.0-0, White maintains a slight, but stable positional ad­ vantage, thanks to his lead in de­ velopment.) 9 . . . 0-0 lOJkl. This is the most popular and fashionable move for White. 8 dxc4 That is the most logical re­ sponse for Black. His alternatives are not so reliable. For example: 8 ... J.b4 - This move is seldom played and it seems not to be in the spirit of the position, because it weakens the control over the important e5-square. In general, in the Moscow variation, Black's dark-squared bishop belongs to the d6, or g7-squares. 9.0-0 (White is slightly better too after 9.'lWb3 ! ? ; now 9 . . . hc3+ is abso­ lutely not in the spirit of the posi­ tion, since Black exchanges his main trump - the important dark­ squared bishop for White's knight •••

54

In this position, White enjoys again a minimal, but stable ad­ vantage. Black has problems acti­ vating his light-squared bishop. For example, in the game Van Wely - B .Schmidt, Germany 1993, Black after 1O ... dxc4 (It is useless for him to opt for 1O . . . hc3 11. E!xc3 dxc4 12.i.xc4;!;, since he lags behind considerably in develop-

6. !i..xj6 V!!xf6 7.e3 0, d7 B. id3 dxc4 9. !i..xc4 id6 ment. 11.0,e4 ! ? V!!e 7 12 .ixc4, tried 0 accomplish the standard pawn advance, for positions of this e - 12 . . . eS (with the idea to activ e later the light-squared bisho ), but after 13.dS! he en­ count red serious problems, whic he failed to solve - 13 . . . 0,f6 14.d6 V!!d S 1S.0,xf6+ gxf6 16.V!!d3 g7? ! 2 2 .Wlg5 f6 23.�g3 'it>xh6 24.Wle3+ 'it>g7 25. Wlxb6±; or 2 1 . . . 'it>h7? 2 2 . tDxf7+ ! gxh5 23.tDg5+ 'it>g6 24.tDxe6+-) 22 .Wlh4 and he has no compensa­ tion for the pawn. 21. Wlh4 gxdl 22.gxdl ti'b3 23.h3

Moscow Variation and 13d1-b1) , maintaining a slight edge.

B) 1l.�e4 ! ?

.••

Black's prospects in this posi­ tion seem preferable, Karpeshov - Filipenko, Dezh 1988. He should better continue with 23 . . . 'it>h7!? (but not 23 . . . �xb2?, because of 24.Wlg3 ! +-, threatening tDf5-h6 64

This i s a fashionable move in the Classical System and it ena­ bles White to fight for a slight opening advantage. He should try if possible to prevent the thematic pawn-breaks e6-e5 and c6-c5, with the idea to exploit his space advantage. 1l . . . .ic7 12J:'icl! This is the best move and White obtains a slight edge with it. The positions arising after 12. �c2 0-0 13.13ac1 13d8 14.ib3 ; 14. 13fd1 and 14.a3, will be dealt with in the main line of variation B, af­ ter another move-order - 11. tDe4 ! ? ic7 12 .13c1 ! 0-0 13.Wlc2 13d8 14.13fd1; 14.a4, or 13 .ib3 13d8 14.�c2. There arise original positions only after the rarely played varia­ tion 12.�c2 0-0 13.ib3 13d8 14. 13fdl.

6 . ixJ6 'fixJ6 7.e3 ttJ d7 8. �d3 dxc4 9. hc4 �d6 1 O . 0 - 0 'fie7 11. ttJ e4

�

w11ite is slightly better, thanks to his' extra space, but not more. BlaCk has no weaknesses and he can h pe for a successful defence. For e ample, in the game Shirov - Dr ev, Linares 1995, there fol­ lowed,: 14 . . . ttJfS (14 . . . !!bS !?) 15. �e5 �d7 16.f4 (The transfer into an e r¥game would not bring to White anything much after 16.'fic5 'i!Yxc5 ! 17.ttJxc5 and in the game F.Le n - Filipenko, Lvov 1995, following 17 ... !!abS lS.!!ac1 i.eS 19.f4 � d7 20.ttJexd7 hd7 2 1.g3 J.d6 2 2 .e4 fie7 23.e5 fieS 24.cj;>f2 c;t>f8 25.cj;>e3 as 26.!!c3 b6 27.ttJe4 c5 2S.dxc5 bxc5 29.!!xdS hdS 30.ttJxc5 ib6 31.cj;>e2 hc5 3 2 . Ilxc5 4 33.i.c2 !!xb2 34.a3 !!a2 35.!!c g5, Black equalized gradu­ ally.) 6 . . . fieS 17.ttJc5 i.d6 lS.!!ac1 with a reliable and solid position for Black. Here, instead of the move lS . . . cj;>hS, played in the game, he had better choose IS . . . gacS ! ?, after which White had to adhere to waiting strategy; other­ wise, after the straightforward move 19.f5, Black would have a good position, thanks to the line: 19 . . ..he5 20.dxe5 !!xd1+ 21.!!xd1 exfS 2 2 .'fixf5 !!c7= and he would

�

f,

not mind 23.e6, because of 23 . . . b 6 ! 24.ttJa6 !!b7= The positions arising after 12 JWe2 0-0 13.!!ac1 !!dS 14.i.b3 and 14.!!fd1, will be analyzed in the main line of variation B after the move-order - l1.ttJe4 ! ? i.c7 12 .!!c1 ! 0-0 13.'fie2 !!dS 14.fib3 and 14.!!fd1. The variation 12 .i.b3 0-0 13. !!c1, again transposes to the main line of variation B - 1l.ttJe4 ! ? i.c7 12.!!c1! 0-0 13.fib3. Still, instead of 12 . . . 0-0, it deserves attention for Black to play 12 . . . b6 ! ? with ex­ cellent chances of equalizing with­ out any problems, for example: 13 .!!c1 fib7 14.fia4 !!cS 15.'fic2 0-0 16.!!fd1 !!fdS and he is not worse, because White is incapable of preventing the thematic pawn­ break c6-c5. White plays very rarely 12.a3 and the easiest way for Black to equalize is to play 12 . . . b6 ! ? Now, if 13.'fie2, then 13 . . . a5; while Black can counter 13.!!c1 with 13 . . . i.b7= In case of 12 .ttJg3, it is also good for Black to play 12 . . . b6 ! ? 13.!!c1 fib7, equalizing easily. If now 14.�e2, then 14 . . . a5 15.e4 0-0 16.e5 c5= , or 15 . . . .hg3 16. hxg3 0-0 17.!!fd1 !!fdS= 12 0 - 0 Here, the move 1 2. . .b6? is bad because of 13.d5 ! exd5 (13 . . . cxd5 14.hd5 exd5 15.'fixd5+-) 14. .hd5 i.b7 (14 . . . ttJe5? 15.!!xc6+-) 15.ixc6 ixc6 16.!!xc6 ixh2+ 17.cj;>xh2 �xe4 lS.'fid6 'fie7 19. 'fig3 g6 20.!!d1 ttJc5 21.!!c7 and ...

65

Chapter 7

Moscow Variation

Black's position is very difficult and probably defenceless.

After 12 . . . 0-0, White must choose between three basic alter­ natives :

Bl) 13.1Ye2 B2) 13 .ib3 B3) 13.1Yc2 •

Bl) 13.1Ye2 �d8 The immediate move 13 . . . eS seems premature, because after 14.dS ! White has excellent pros­ pects thanks to his lead in devel­ opment. In the game Razuvaev Dolmatov, USSR 1980, there fol­ lowed 14 . . . ttJb6 (In case of 14 . . . ttJf6 lS.ttJxf6+ %Yxf6 16.dxc6 bxc6 17 . .id3 ! ? , White has a stable posi­ tional advantage, in view of the vulnerability of Black's c6-pawn ; after 14 . . . cxdS lS.hdS, White maintains his positional pressure, for example : lS . . . ttJb6 (lS . . ..ib6? ! 16J:ifd1 ttJf6 17.ttJxf6+ VNxf6 18. %YbS ! ?±) 16.ttJc3 (16.,ib3 ! ?;!;) 16 . . . l':id8 17.l':ifd1) lS.dxc6 bxc6 1 6 . .ia6 fS 17.ttJg3 c5 18 .hc8 l':iaxc8 19.e4! 66

with an obvious positional edge for him. 14 . .ib3 Black should not be afraid of 14.a3, because of 14 . . . eS ! ? and he has a good game and in case of 1S.dS, he has the resource 15 . . . cxdS 16.hdS ttJb6 17.,ia2 .if5 = , or 17 . .ib3 .if5 = White plays only very seldom in the tournament practice 14. l':ifd1 and it deserves attention for Black to counter that with 14 . . . as ! ? (In the game Razuvaev Dreev, Moscow 1989, Black react­ ed in the standard fashion - 14 . . . ttJf8 and after 1S.ttJeS .id7 16.f4 .ie8 17.a3 as 18.,ia2 , White's po­ sition was a bit better thanks to his lead in development. Still, Black had no weaknesses in his camp and he could rely on a suc­ cessful defence.). White cannot find an easy way to fight for the opening advantage, for example : lS.h3 b6 ! ? 16 . .ibS ttJb8 ! ? 17.,ia4 (17 . .id3 ib7=) 17 . . . ia6 ! ? 18.%Ye1 .ib7= ; 1S.a3 b6 ! ? 16 . .ibS hh2 + ! ? (16 . . . ttJb8 ! ? = ) 17.�xh2 cxbS 18. l':ic7 .ia6 = ; 1S.%Yc2 b6 ! ? 16.,ibS hl2+ 17.�xh2 cxbS 18.%Yc7 i>f8 ! ? 19.dS (19.ttJd6 ttJf6 20.ttJxbS ,id7=) 19 . . . .ia6 2 0 .dxe6 (20 .d6 %Ye8 =) 20 . . . %Yxe6 = (diagram) 14 �b8 ! ? This waiting move i s only very rarely played; nevertheless it seems quite reliable and logical. Its idea is to wait until White plays 1S.l':ifd1 (He has no other active .••

6. hf6 Y!!xf6 7.e3 4:Jd7 B.i.d3 dxc4 9. hc4 j.d6 1 O . 0 - 0 Y!! e7 11. 4:J e4

moves, though . . . ) and play 15 . . . 4:Jf8 only then, having i n mind the position after 16.4:JeS i.d7 17.f4 .le8 , which looks a bit more pleas­ ant for White indeed (He has a space advantage.), but not more than that. His rook on d1 is not so active as in the variation 14 . . . 4:Jf8 (instead of the waiting move 14 . . . gb8 ! ?) lS.4:JeS .id7 16.f4 .ie8, in which he is threatening to push f4-fS at an opportune moment. It looks like White has an useful move - lS.a3, but Black can coun­ ter it with lS . . . eS ! ? with a good counterplay for him and White W0 d not achieve anything with the tandard move 16.dS, because of 1 . . . 4:Jf6 17. 4:Jxf6 + �xf6 18.dxc6 (18. fd1 e4 ! ? 19.4:Jd4 Y!!eS+; 18.e4 kg4 ) 18 . . . bxc6 and Black has ex­ celle t prospects thanks to his pres ure along the b-file. Now, in

1

tion for him would be 19 . . . e4 ! ? 2 0 . d 4 cS ! 21.Y!!xcS (21.4:Je2? j.a6 2 2 . 1'! e1 .laS 23.4:Jc3 i.d3 24.y!!d 1 c4- t ) 21.. .j.b6 2 2 .Y!! c3 hd4 23. d4 Y!!b 6 and his position is eve preferable.

� I

I

It is also interesting for Black to try the seldom played move 14 . . . aS !?, which was tested for the first time in the game Bareev Anand, Linares 1992 and there after lS.a3 4:Jf6 16.4:Jxf6+ Y!!xf6 17. 1'!fd1, White ended up with a slight, but stable advantage and after 17 . . . kd7 18.1'!c5 j.e8 19.Y!!c 2 ! Y!!e 7 2 0 .ka2 kd6 21.1'!c3 1'!ac8 22 .h4 g6 23.e4 ! Y!!f8? ! 24.hS gxhS 2S.4:Jd2 ! ? h e seized the initiative. Instead of lS . . . 4:Jf6, Black had better play lS . . . eS ! ? and after 16.dS 4:Jf6 ! ? 17.4:Jxf6+ Y!!xf6 18.dxc6 bxc6, there would arise a complicated position, which had never been played in practice. Black has a bishop-pair and he exerts pres­ sure along the b-file after 1'!a8-b8 . All this should be sufficient to compensate the vulnerability of his c6-pawn. This position re­ quires a further analysis and a practical test. Black plays more often in tour­ naments the standard move 14 . . . 4:Jf8 and after lS.4:JeS j.d7 16.f4 j.e8, White's position seems pref­ erable (mostly because of his space advantage), but Black has no weaknesses and he may rely on equalizing, for example White's straightforward move 17.fS is not dangerous for Black. 17 .. .f6 ! 18. 4:Jg4 hS ! ? (diagram) White would not achieve any­ thing with 19.he6+ , because Black can counter that with 19 . . . 'it>h8 ! ? (In case of 1 9 . . . 4:Jxe6 he 67

Chapter 7

must consider 20 .fxe6 ! ? Wlxe6, but not 20 . . . hxg4?! 21.Wlxg4 �f8 2 2 J:U3± with a dangerous at­ tack for White - 21.lLlgxf6+ gxf6 22.liJ xf6+ and the position re­ mains quite unclear, although White has a powerful initiative for the sacrificed piece.) 20.lLlgf2 lLlxe6 2 1 .fxe6 Wlxe6 and Black is not worse at all. In case of 19.tlJgxf6+ gxf6 2 0 . fxe6 (20 .ixe6+ ? ! �g'T-F) 2 0 . . . lLlh7, there arises a complicated and unclear position, but Black can­ not be worse, having an extra piece for two pawns. 19.tlJgf2 �fl 2 0.Wlf3 (In the game Erykalov - Kozyrev, Gorkij 1988, White played 2 0.fxe6 tlJxe6 21.§'f3, but after 21...a5 ! ? 2 2 .tlJc5 a4 ! 23 .he6 - 23.0xa4?! tlJg5+ 23 . . . he6 24.Wlxh5 ixa2 25.tlJg4 .tfl, Black has clearly better pros­ pects and following 26.§'h4?! �d5, White's position became even critical.) 20 . . . �e8= Ruban - Fili­ penko, Gorkij 1988 ; 20 . . . exf5 ! ? 21.Wlxf5 hb3 2 2 . axb3 �d5 23.Wlf3 tlJe6= 15.gfdl In the game Ribli - Kuczynski, Tilburg (rapid) 1992, White de68

Moscow Variation cided to postpone 15.�fd1 and he played instead a prophylactic move 15.h3, but Black also de­ layed 15 . . . tlJf8 and continued with the prophylactic 15 . . . �h8 (plan­ ning to regroup his forces with lLld7-f8, ic8-d7-e8, fl-f6 and ie8-g6) and only after 16.�fd1, he played 16 . . . lLlf8, reaching after 17. tlJe5 id7 18.f4 ie8, a quite relia­ ble position. White had only a slight edge, thanks to his space advantage. 15 . . . tOf8 16.tOe5 He would not change much with 16.tlJc5 id7 17.tlJe5 ie8 18. f4t 16 . . . .td7 17.f4 .te8

White still maintains his space advantage, but Black has no weak­ nesses and his bishop-pair may turn into a powerful force in the future. The game is tremendously complex, from the point of view of strategy, and Black has good chances of defending successfully. This position has not been played in practice yet and it requires fur­ ther testing.

6 . i.xf6 Vlixf6 7.e3 ttJ d7 B. i.d3 dxc4 9. hc4 i.d6 1 O . 0 - 0 Vlie7 11. ttJ e4 B2) 13 .lb3 gd8 •

14.Wc2 We have analyzed 14.Vlie2 in variation Bl, after the move-order 13.VIi�2 gd8 14.i.b3 . 14 gb8 ! ? This i s a rarely played move and it prevents White's plan to begin with the immediate ttJf3-eS, followed by f2-f4. It is much more reliable for Black than the more popular move 14 . . . ttJf8, since in that case after lS.ttJeS ! ? (It is not so energetic for White to play lS.gfd1 i.d7 16.ttJcS gab8; later in the game Yuferov - Filipenko, Kiev 1988, there followed 17.Vlie4 .le8 18 .h3 i.d6 19.a3 b6 ! ? 2 0.ttJd3 ttJd7 2 1.ttJdeS - 2 1.gxc6? ttJf6-+ - 2 1 ... ttJf6 and Black equalized completely. In case of 17.ttJeS i.e8, or 17.a3 i.e8, his position is a bit cramped, but solid enough.) 15 . . . .ld7 16.f4 ! ? (White i s clearly bet­ ter after 16.ttJcS gab8 17.f4 ! i.e8 18.fS !xeS 19.dxeS exfS 20.VlixfS, or 2 0 . MS. Black should not be afraid of 17.ttJcxd7 ttJxd7 18.f4, in the game Dautov - Filipenko, Sta• . •

I

vropo1 1982, he played later 18 . . . gbc8 ! ? 19.Vlie4 ttJf6 2 0 .Vlif3 ttJ dS 2 l .fS ixeS 2 2 . dxeS exfS 23.VlixfS gc7= ; while in case of 17.a3 i.e8 18 .i.a2, it is good for Black to opt for 18 . . . b6 !? 19.ttJcd3 cS 2 0 . dxcS ixeS 2 1.ttJxeS VlixcS=) 16 . . . .te8 17.fS ! f6 (But not 17 . . . !xeS? ! 18.dxeS exfS 19.9xfS, with a very difficult position for Black. Now, following 19 . . . ttJg6, or 19 . . . ttJd7, it is possible for White to con­ tinue with 2 0 . gcf1 ttJxeS 2 1.Vlic3 ttJd3 2 2 .gxt7 ixf7 23.gxf7 Vlixf7 24.i.xt7+ �xt7 2S.Vlib3+ �g6 2S . . . �f8 26.Vlixb7± - 26.Vlixb7 ttJeS 27.h3 with an extra pawn and excellent winning chances for him.) 18.VlicS ! i.d6 (18 . . . VlixcS? 19.ttJxcS fxeS 2 0 .fxe6 +-) 19.ttJxd6 gxd6 (19 . . . Vlixd6? 2 0 .fxe6 ttJxe6 2 1.Vlixd6 gxd6 2 2 .ttJc4 gdd8 23.ttJaS tf7 24.ttJxb7+ -) 2 0 . ttJc4 gd7 2 1 .e4 ! and White has a great positional advantage, in view of the practically unavoidable threat e4-eS.

15.gfdl The alternatives for him here 69

Moscow Variation

Chapter 7 are almost never played in tour­ naments. We have to mention that if White tries to make some waiting moves of the type 15.a3, or 15.h3, leaving his rook on f1, hoping that Black would react in a routine fashion with 15 . . . lLlf8, leading to variations like: 15.a3 lLlf8 16.lLle5 �d7 17.f4! �eB 1B.f5 ! ? obe5 19. dxe5 exfS 2 0 J �xf5, or 15.h3 lLlfB 16.lLle5 �d7 17.f4! �eB 1B.f5 ! ? obe5 19.dxe5 e xfS 20J:ixfS, with a powerful initiative for White. In fact, Black is absolutely not obliged to play 15 . . . lLlfB . For example, i n case o f 15.a3, it deserves attention for him to try 15 . . . e5 ! ? and now, after the stand­ ard reply 16.d5, (16JUdl exd4 17.exd4 lLlf6 = ; 17.lLlxd4 lLlf6 = ; 17J'1xd4 lLlf6=) it i s possible for him to follow with 16 . . . lLlf6 ! ? 17. dxc6 bxc6 1B.lLlxf6+ vgxf6 19.vgxc6 �d6 with a quite sufficient com­ pensation for the pawn, having a bishop-pair and pressure along the b-file. After 15.h3, Black can also make a useful waiting move like 15 . . . hB, planning the regrouping of his forces - lLld7-fS, �cB-d7-eB.

70

Now, after the waiting move 16.a3, he can follow with 16 . . . lLlfB with a quite reliable position, be­ cause after 17.lLle5 �d7 1B.f4 �eB, the straightforward attempt 19.f5 is absolutely not dangerous for Black in view of 19 . . .f6 ! , after which his prospects are at least equal. In case of 16JUd1, Black has again the reply 16 . . . lLlfB and then following 17.lLle5 �d7 1B.f4 �eB, White's position is slightly better (He has a space advan­ tage.), but Black's set-up is quite reliable. He has no weaknesses and his bishop-pair would be po­ tentially very powerful. After 15.h3, it is interesting for Black to try the somewhat strange move for positions of this type - 15 . . . lLlb6 (The knight on d 7 usually goes to fB . . . ) with the idea to coun­ ter 16.lLle5 with 16 . . . lLld5 ! ? , pre­ venting the thematic pawn-ad­ vance f2-f4 and planning the maneuver �cB-d7-eB . For exam­ ple: 17.vge2 �d7 1B.f4 �eB and Black's position is reliable and quite acceptable. 15 lLlf8 This is the standard reply for him in similar situations and his position is a bit cramped, but sol­ id enough . It would be interesting for him to try a move, which has not been tested sufficiently in practice yet - 15 . . . lLlb6 with the idea to coun­ ter the seemingly attractive move for White 16.lLle5 with 16 . . . lLld5, preventing f2-f4 and planning • . .

V!!xf6 7.e3 CiJ d7 B. id3 dxc4 9. hc4 id6 1 O . 0 - 0 V!! e7 1l. CiJ e4 is a bit cramped, but solid and re­ liable enough, since he has no weaknesses. has never tried in practice move lS . . . �h8, (with to regroup his forces ac­ to the scheme tiJd7-f8, followed by fl-f6, UjJ";"�1" 6 the hS-e8 diagonal for bishop.) and it n p��p""lTPh2 �xh4+ 0-1) 16 . . . �aS 17.�fc1 �xa2 1B.,tc4 �aS 19. ttJxf7 �xf7 20.,txe6 ttJeS 2 1..txf7+ 'it>xf7 2 2 . ttJxeS+ heS 23.b4 �xb4 24.�xb4 �xb4 2S.�a2 + 'it>fB 26. �d1 �xcS 27.�d2 fS 16.§'b3 + - ; 14 . . . b4 15.�a2 as 16.§'d3 §'e7 17. 0-0-0 �bd7 1S.f3 .tg7 19.�xd7 �xd7 2 0 . cJ;>bl §'f6 2 1 . �c1 �b6 2 2 . .te5 §'g6 23 .ixg7 §'xg7 24.�b3 0-0-0 25.�xa5 �xa4 26 . .ta6 �c5 27.,hb7+ �xb7 2S .§'a6 1-0 Jobava - Nikoladze, Tbilisi 1997) 15.§'b3 §'e7 16 . .te2 �xe5 17.he5 b4 18.�bl± Jobava - Raceanu, Artek 1999, as well as 10 . . . gxh4 1l.ixh4 .te7 12 .§'f3 �bd7 (12 . . . b4 13.�a4 �bd7 14. hc4 �xe5 15.dxe5 �d7 16.§,h5 hh4 17J:'lxh4 §'e7 ISJ:'lg4 0-0-0 19.13g7 l3hfS 2 0 .l3dl �c5 21.l3xdS+ cJ;>xdS 2 2 J&dl + � d7 23.he6 §'xe6 24.�c5 Wie7 25.e6 .tcS 26.�xd7 hd7 27.§'xd7+ Wixd7 2S.exd7 cJ;>xd7 29.l3h7± Izoria - Korobov, Patras 2001) 13.�xf7! cJ;>xf7 14. e5± Jobava - Tkeshelashvili, Tbi­ lisi 1997. 11.c�xg4 ! ? In case o f 1l . .te2 h5 ! ? - there arises the Classical System (Chap­ ter 5).

B1) 1l . li:lbd7! ? B2) 1l .. A:lxg4 ••

B1) 1l fl:lbd7!? 12.fl:lxf6 + 12 . .te2 l3gS - see Chapter 6, line A2, better is 12 ... b4 - see Chapter 6, line B1. In case of 1 2 .e5 �xg4 (After 12 . . . �d5, it deserves attention for White to change the pawn-struc­ ture with 13.�xd5 cxd5 14 . .te2 §'a5+ 15. cJ;>f1 ; but not 13.a3? - this is a serious waste of a tempo 13 . . . §'a5 14.§'c1 c5 15.dxc5 �xc5 16.l3bl lLlb3 17.§'c2 ha3+ Uh­ mann - Navara, Hustopece 2009.) 13.§'xg4, it is interesting for Black to opt for 13 . . . §'a5 (13 . . . c 5 14.d5) 1 4 . .te2 c 5 15.d5 h5 ! 16.§'h3 hd5 17.0-0 .tc6 and the position remains unclear. 12 ftxf6 After 12 . . . �xf6, it is very good for White to play 13.§'f3 ! l3gS (13 . . . .ie7 14.l3d1 l3gS 1 5 ..te2 §'b6 16. 0-0 l3dS 17 ..te5 �d7 lS . .tf4 lLlf6 19.ixh6 l3xd4 20.l3xd4 Wixd4 21. l3dl §'b6 22 .ig5 l3g6 23.§'f4 .tcS 24.e5 lLld5 25.lLlxd5 exd5 26 . .txe7 cJ;>xe7 27.h5 l3g7 2S.§'f6+ cJ;>fS 29. h6 l3h7 30 ..tf3 cJ;>eS 31.§'g7 .ifS 32 .§'gS + cJ;>d7 33 . .tg4 1-0 Leitao - Zambrana, Rio de Janeiro 2 009) 14 ..te2 a6 15.l3d1 lLld7 16.0-0 §'f6 17.§'e3 0-0-0 IS.b3 cxb3 19.axb3 .ie7 2 0 . l3cl± Gelfand - E.Alekseev, Dagomys 200S. 13.§'d2 Following 13 . .te2 , the move 13 . . . l3gS leads to variations from chapter 6, while Black's attempts to obtain even more out of this position could have led him in the game Radjabov - Cheparinov, So•.•

.••

105

Chapter 1 chi 2008, to a very dubious posi­ tion: 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.e5 �f5 15.a4 b4 16 . .ixc4! llJc5 (16 . . . bxc3? 17. i.d3) 17.llJe2 �g8 18.0-0 i.e7 19. �c1 llJe4 2 0 .i.a6 �b8 2 1.hb7 �xb7 2 2 .a5 �c8 23.a6+ �b8 and here not like in the game 24. �xh6? ! llJg5 ! with an unclear po­ sition, but 24.�e3 �g4 25. �ac1 and White could have obtained a clear advantage.

Anti-Moscow Variation �xg2 24.�d1 �g5 25.f4 �xh5 26. �d7+ �b8 27.e5 �f3, draw, Gel­ fand - Najer, Odessa 2008) 23 . . . �xg2 24.�dl± 14 .if4 fi'g6 15.fi'e3 0 - 0 - 0 16.g3 •

16 .ib4! This is an interesting transfer of the bishop. 17.a3 .ia5 18 .ig2 e5 19. dxe5 .ib6 2 0 . fi'e2 tOe5 21. 0 - 0 tOd3 2 2 .ie3 After 2 2 .i.g5 ! ? �de8 (22 . . . llJxe5 23 .i.h3+ �b8 24.i.f5 �g7 25.ixd8 �xd8 26.�h1 llJd3 27. �ad1) 23.a4 �e5 24.a5 ic5 25.a6 i.a8 26.i.e3 �g4 the position re­ mains unclear. •••

•

13 h5 ! ? I believe this move i s the most interesting resource for Black. He has tried some other alter­ natives, but White usually obtains an advantage after them: 13 . . . �g8 14.0-0-0 llJb6 15.�e3 b4 16.e5 �f5 17.llJe4 0-0-0 18. i.e2 c5 19.dxc5 �xe4 20.�xd8+ �xd8 2 1.�xe4 he4 2 2 .cxb6 axb6 23 .�d1+ �c8 24.�d4 hg2 25. �xc4+ i.c5 26.�f4± Bocharov Vitiugov, Dagomys 2008; 13 . . . 0-0-0 14.h5 i.g7 15. 0-0-0 �e7 16.�e3 e5 17.dxe5 he5 18.he5 llJxe5 19.i.e2 llJd3+ 2 0.hd3 cxd3 21.�xd3 �d3 2 2 . �xd3 �g5+ 23.�b1 (23.�d2 ? ! •••

106

•

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. ig3 b5 9. llJe5 22 Y!Yg4! 23.Y!Yxg4+ bxg4 24 .ixb6 axb6 25.f3 gxf3 26. ixf3 1 tOxe5 27.fU'5 gde8 and Black had no problems in the gam e Grischuk - Cheparinov, Elista 2 008. •••

•

B�) Y!Yxd

1

1l

•••

tOxg4

12.Y!Yxg4

(IS . . . llJcS 16.ieS ! �xg2 17.if3 �g8 18.if6 llJd7 19.9xd7 rlixd7 20.rlie2+-) 16.�eS �g7 17.llJxbS (17.�hS=) 17 . . . �xeS I8.heS cxbS 19 .ixh8 he4 20.a4 (20.b3?? hg2 21.rlid2 0-0-0+ 22.rlie3 .icS+ 23. rlif4 hhl 0-1 Greenfeld - Gelfand, Beersheba 2007) 20 . . . ib4+ (20 ... hg2 21.gg1 .idS 22. axbS llJb4 23J!g8 ! ) 21.rlifl±; or 13 . . . hS? ! 14.�f4 llJa6 (14 . . .ih6? ! IS.�c7 �d7 16.�eS) IS.gdl �g7 16.0-0 and White has an excel­ lent compensation for the pawn. We will now analyze separate­ ly the move B2b) 13 Y!Yf6 ! ? , which has been introduced into the top tournament practice by Vladimir Kramnik and B2a) 13 Y!Yg7, as Black played before (in­ cluding the author of this book). •••

•••

13.gdl This is the most natural move for White. He has also tried 13 .ie2 ! ? and Black's best reply against it would be 13 . . . llJd7!? 14J'!dl �f6 (It is worse for him to opt for 14 ... �cS IS ' � gd8 16.eS ig7 17. 0-0 0-0 18.� 4 with initiative for White.). e alternatives are probably wors or Black, for example: 13 . . . llJ a 6 .gdl (White should refrain from 4.0-0 llJc5 IS.�hS gg8 16. ieS d7 17.gfdl ltJd3 18 .ixd3 cxd3 9.�f3 gd8 20.gd2 cS 21.a4 b4 2 llJbS fS 23.llJc7+ rlie7, with a great advantage for Black, Rod­ shtei - Nyback, Plovdiv 2008.) 14. . . 7 (14 ... �f6 IS.eS �fS 16. j,!d4 eS 17.b4 !±) IS.1flIS j,!g6

B2a) 13 . . . Y!Yg7 14.Y!Yf4 tOa6

i

� �

r

15.a4!? This immediate pawn-advance deserves very serious attention. In case of IS.ie2, it would be interesting for Black to continue with a pawn-sacrifice tried by 107

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter l GM A. Motilev - 15 . . . e5 ! ? , with the help of which he exchanges queens. After a correct play from both sides, Black enters an at­ tractive endgame with numerous pieces. 16.�xe5+ �xe5 17.he5 �g8 18.a4 b4N (but not 18 . . . ib4? ! 19.0-0 ttJc5 2 0 . axb5 hc3 2 1.hc3 cxb5 2 2 .f3± Pashikian - Motylev, Kallithea 2 008) 19.ttJbl ttJc5oo. The same endgame can also be reached with a black bishop on the c8-square : 16.�f5 ic8 17.�xe5+ (17.�h5 �g8) 17 . . .�xe5 18.he5 �g8 and the position is unclear. Black should not fear 19.a4, be­ cause of 19 . . . b4 2 0.ttJbl (20.ttJa2 ie6 ; 2 0 . . . c3 ! ?) 2 0 . . . ttJc5 21. ttJd2 ttJd3+ 2 2 .ixd3 cxd3 23.g3 �g6. Meanwhile, after 15.ie2, it is also good for him to play 15 . . .ie7, for example : 16.0-0 ! ? (16.e5 ttJb4 17.ttJe4 ttJd5 18 .�c1 ib4+ 19.'it>fl 0-0-0 20.h5 b8 21.�h4 a8 2 2 .b3 c3 23.a3 ie7 24.�g4 �f8 25.ttJxc3 ha3 2 6.�al ttJxc3 27. �xc3 �xdl+ 28.ixdl c5°o. The ex­ change of the rooks is evidently better than 27 . . . c5 28.�d6 ! and White has a good compensation for the pawn, Eljanov - Dreev, Sochi 2 0 05.)

108

16 . . . ttJc5 (In case of 16 . . . �f6, the correct line for White would be: 17.�e3 e5 18.a4 and he would have some edge. It is weaker for him to opt for 17.�c1 ttJc5 18.a4 ttJb3 ; 18.e5 �f5 Panelo - Shumia­ kina, Badalona 2009.) 17. e5 �g6 18.�d4 �d8 and Black's position was very attractive in the game Caruana - Nepomniachtchi, Pam­ plona 2008. 15 J.b4 15 . . . b4? 16.hc4 bxc3 17.ha6 ixa6 18.�c7 16.J.e2 0 - 0 The dark squares in Black's camp are vulnerable after 16 . . . ixc3+ 17.bxc3 �xc3 + 18.f1. 17. 0 - 0 ttJc5 18 .fYe3 •••

18 lOb3 (After 18 . . . ixc3 19. bxc3 ttJxa4, it is very good for White to follow with 20.�d7 ic8 21.�c7 ttJxc3 2 2 .ih5, with the idea to continue the attack with id6, f2-f4.) 19.axb5 J.c5 2 0 .fYf4 cxb5 21.lOxb5 IOd4 22. lOxd4 ixd4 23.ixc4 - White has a slight advantage, Sasikiran - Ste­ fanova, Zafra 2 007. •••

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9 . !iJ e5 13

•••

frf6 ! ?

move for ...1If·,,, ..o,� h ,,, ,,

move, which prac­ forces White to enter forced iltti()ns : 15.axb5 cxb5 16.VMh5 17J3xd7! (Otherwise, the may end in a draw: 17.VMxb5 18 .bxc3 VMxc3+ 19J!d2 l3d8 VMa1+ 21.l3d1 VMc3+ Matla- Salgado, Antalya 2 009.) .&.AIL.. ... ,.. 18.bxc3 �xd7 19 . .!e5 ! _� I" "' .L .!c6 20.VMxc4 l3hc8 21. �e8 2 2 . .ia6 VMg6 23.0-0 24.f3 VMd5=) 19 ... VMg6 20. �e8 2 1.hh8 VMxe4+ 22 .ie2 (22. VMb1+ 23.VMd1 VMe4+) 22 . . . l3d8 23.VMc1 VMxg2 24.l3f1 if3 25. VMf4 .ixe2 26.�xe2 VMg6 27.l3a1 VMd3 + 28.�e1 as 29.if6 a4 - It will hardly be easy for White to realize his extra piece, but still, one has to be convinced that Black can fight effectively with three •

pawns for the piece . . . He cannot equalize after 1 4. . . ib4 15.e5 VMfS 16.VMd4 (16.VMg7 VMh7) 16 . . . 0-0 17.VMe3± lOa6 18. ie2 lOc7 19.VMxh6 l3fd8 2 0 . 0-0 if8 2 1.VMc1 a6 2 2 .if3 .ig7 23.l3fe1 l3d5 24.h5 c5 25.h6 l3xd1 2 6.ixd1 ih8 27.ic2 1-0 Akobian - Rod­ shtein, Moscow 2009. 15.frg5 In case of 15.VMe2 ! ? , it is inter­ esting for Black to try 15 . . . ttJa6 ! ? with the idea 16.axb5 cxb5 17. lOxb5 ib4+. This line has not been tested in practice yet. He has played 15 . . .ib4, but after 16.e5 ! ? (The position remain unclear af­ ter 16.�Yd2 VMe7 17.ie2 lOd7 18. 0-0 a6 19:�c2 e5 2 0 .b3 Van Wely - Perunovic, Budva 2 009.) he must still solve some problems : 16 . . . VMg6 (It is weaker for Black to play 16 . . . �h6 17.VMf3 a6 18.ie2 ttJd7 19.0-0 0-0-0 2 0 .ttJe4, with a dangerous initiative for White, Rajkovic - Perunovic, Kragujevac 2009; or 16 . . . VMe7 17.if4 ttJd7 18. ig5 VMc5 19 .VMd2 VMxe5+ 20 .ie2 VMc7 21. 0-0�) 17.�d2 ia5 18. ie2t 15 frxg5 16.hxg5 There was only one game played in this position - Aronian - Leko, Moscow 2009 and White won it, but objectively the posi­ tion was absolutely unclear. I be­ lieve theory will evaluate it cor­ rectly only after an extensive practical testing. 16 a6 17.,ie5 gg8 17 . . . l3h7! ? .••

•••

109

Chapter 1

Anti-Moscow Variation

18.gxh5 �d7 19 .tf4 •

19, . . 0 - 0 - 0 ! ? This is just one of the possibili­ ties for Black. The position re­ mains completely unclear. In the above mentioned game, he played a bit too risky - 19 . . . b4 2 0 .tLlb1 cS 2 1.f3 fig7 ( 2 1 . . .fic6 ! ? 22 .hc4? ! ha4 23.b3 tLlb6 ! ; 2 2 . tLl d 2 ha4 23.i!a1 .tbS 24.tLlxc4 fig7 2SJ!a2�; 2 2 . . . c3 23.bxc3 bxc3 24.tLlc4 ha4 2S.i!a1 ibS 26. Wdlt) 22.i!h7 id4 (22 . . . ic6 ! ? 23.i!d6 ha4 24.g6 tLlf6) 23.,txc4 tLlf8 24. i!hS tLlg6 2S.ic1 0-0-0 26.b3 tLleS 27.ie2 i!d7 28.i!d2 i!gd8 29. i!c2 tLlg6 30.Wfl Wb8 31.g3 Wa7 32.tLld2 tLleS 33.tLlc4 tLlc6 34. i!d2 +B2b2) 14.e5 YlYf5 15.YlYd4 .te7 (diagram) 16.a4 ! 1 16.b3 cS 17.�e3 tLlc6 18.bxc4 tLlb4 19.�f4 tLlc2+ 20 .We2 �xf4 2 1.ixf4 bxc4 2 2 .f3 tLld4+ 23.wf2 idS - Black has a good position, Aronian - Kramnik, Dresden 110

2 008. It also deserves attention for him to opt for 20 . . . tLld4+ ! ? 21.i!xd4 cxd4 2 2 .�xf5 exfS 2 3 . tLlxbS 1'!c8 24.tLlxd4 (24.Wd2 1'!g8 2S.tLld6+ hd6 26.exd6 wd7 27. fid3 1'!cS ; 24.wd3 1'!g8 ! 2S.tLld6+ hd6 26.exd6 fia6) 24 ... i!xc4 2S.tLlxfS 1'!a4. 16, . . c5 The other interesting possibil­ ity for him is 16 . . . Wf8 ! ? and after 17.f3 ! ? (One of the ideas behind this multi-functional move is to free the f2-square for the king. The position is only equal after 17.fie2 b4 18.ig4 cS 19.�xc4 �c2 20.1'!d2 �c1+ 21.1'!d1 �c2 22 .1'!d2, draw, Onischuk - Nepomnia­ chtchi, Moscow 2009. White fails to obtain an advantage after 17. axbS cxbS 18. tLlxbS ib4+ 19.tLlc3 tLlc6 - 19 . . . fidS ! ? - 20.�xc4 �c2) 17 . . . tLla6 18.axbS cxbS 19.tLlxbS tLlb4 20.�f4 (20.�xc4 tLlc2 + ? ! 2 1 . wd2 1'!c8 22 .�f4; 20 . . . �g6 ! ? 21. fif2 �fS ; 2 0 . . . i!c8 ! ? 21.�f4 tLldS 22. �xfS ib4+ 23. Wf2 exfS 24. Wg1 tLle3 2S.1'!a1 1'!c2oo) 20 ... �xf4 2 1 . ixf4 idS 2 2 .tLld6 1'!b8 ! (22 . . . tLld3 + ? ! 23 .hd3 cxd3 24.1'!xd3

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B . ig3 b5 9 . tLl e5 �b8

s.o-o i.xh4 2 6.ie3 gxb2

27.g 1 ig3 28J�xdS exdS 29.tLlfS

�e8 0.tLlxg3 c3 gb4 nd Black saves the day. 1 .ti'd2 a6! It is dubious for him to choose 17. . . 4? ! 18.tLlbS ti'e4+ 19.ti'e3± ti'xe + 2 0.fxe3 c3 2 1 .tLlc7+ 'kt>f8 2 2 .b c3 bxc3 23.'kt>f2 c4 24.hc4 tLlc6 2S.tLlxa8 has 26J''kl ib4 27.g dl 'kt>e7 2 8.hS gc8 29.ih4+ g8 2 1.ic4+ (2U'�bl?! c2 ! 2 2 J!xb6 clWf+ 23.cj;>e2 Wfxhl) 2 1 . . . 'it>h7 2 2 .id3=

C) 9

•••

ctJbd7

The idea of this move (which I have played very often too) is that Black is not in a hurry to play ic8b7 and makes another useful move, hoping that in some of the habitual schemes (which White adheres to after the usual move 9 . . . .!b7) he will have some addi­ tional possibilities. For example, you can see the difference in the variation 10.0-0 b4 (1O ... ib7 Ieads to the usual po­ sitions) 11.ctJa4 ctJxe4 12 .ie5 lLlef6 (Now, if instead of ctJb8-d7, Black had played ic8-b7, then White would have the powerful resource 13.lLlc5! with an advantage for him.). (diagram) After 13 J''k l , the game might enter a very rare line of this varia­ tion. This is how one of my en­ counters developed: 13 . . .ib7 (13 . . . ia6 ! ? 14.ixc4 ixc4 - 1 4. . . ib5 ! ? 116

- 15J!xc4 g4oo) 14J!el and later in the game Inarkiev - Dreev, Mos­ cow 2007, Black made a mistake, playing 14 ... Wfe7 (He had better try instead 14 . . . lLlxe5 15.lLlxe5 lLld7 16.ih5 ctJxe5 17J'!xe5 Wff6.) and White could have countered that with 15.lLlc5!± In case of 13.ixc4, White has the powerful response 13 . . . g4 ! ,

for example : 14.lLld2 lLlxe5 15.dxe5 lLld7 16. f4 (After 16.Wfe2, it is very good for Black to play 16 . . . Wfa5 Dao Th­ ien Hai - Bui Vinh, Vietnam 2000; 16.Wfxg4 ctJxe5 17.Wfe2 ig7+ Tella - Rantanen, Jyvaskyla 1997; 17.Wfe4 ctJxc4 18.lLlxc4 Wfd5 19.Wff4 ia6 2 0 .lLle5 0-0-0 21.lLlxc6 id6 2 2 .Wfcl cj;>d7 23.ctJxd8 ixfl 24. Wfxfl �xd8 25.b3 cj;>e7 with a good position for him, Chiburdanidze

6 . .th4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B . .tg3 b5 9 . .te2 - Galliamova, Groningen 1997; 16J%e1 %Ya5 ! ?oo ; but not 16 . . .h5 17. f4 llJb6? - 17 . . . gxf3 1B.llJxf3 .tb7 - 1B.llJxb6 %Yxb6+ 19.c;t>hl± S. Savchenko - Iskusnyh, Maikop 199B.) 16 . . . gxf3 17.llJxf3 (17.%Yxf3 llJxe5 1B.%yf2 .tg7 19.1lJe4 0-0 20J%ad1 %Ye7+ Neurohr - Beikert, Germany 1992) 17 . . . .tg7 1BJ3e1 0-0 and White has better pros­ pects (It is too dangerous for Black to opt for 1B . . . %Ya5 19.%Yd6 %Yxa4 2 0.,txe6 fxe6 2 1.%Yxe6+ c;t>dB 2 2 . %Y fl Nikuljshin - Burmakin, Bu­ dapest 1993 .); 14.hf6 %Yxf6 15.llJe5 llJxe5 (This is evidently better than 15 . . . h 5 16.f4 llJxe5 17.fxe5 %Yg5 lB. %Yd3� Lputian - Smagin, Riga 19B5.) 16.dxe5 %Yxe5 17.%Yxg4 h5 ! ? (Black has also tried i n practice 17 . . . .tg7 1B.l3fe1 %Yg5 19.%Ye4 0-0 20.l3ad1 l3bB 21.l3d3 c;t>hB 2 2 . l!g3 %Yd2 23.l3d3 %Yg5 = ; 2 1.h4 %Ye7 2 2 .l3d3 c;t>hB 23.l3g3oo Ikonnikov - Chiburdanidze, Muenster 1995; 2 2 ... l3b5 ! ; it deserves attention for him to continue with 2 0 . . . l3dB ! ? , not letting White's rook t o come to the third rank: 2 1.%Yxc6 l3bB 2 2 .llJc5 %Ye7) 1B.%Yf3 .td7 19.13fe1 %Yg5 20.l3ad1 l3dBoo. S ill, the move 9 . . . llJbd7 has one, but very essential, drawback and t can be emphasized with the prin ipled response : I .dS! (diagram)

el) 1 0 b4 This is the most logical reply for Black. 1l.dxe6 bxc3 It is dubious for him to opt for 11 . . . fxe6? ! , since White can coun­ ter that with 12.llJa4 ! ? 1i.e7 (12 . . . llJxe4 13.llJd4 llJdf6 1 4. .th5+-) 13.hc4 llJb6 14.%Yc2 llJxc4 15. %Yxc4 0-0 16.llJe5 (this is even stronger than 16.0-0 Cramling Galliamova, Belgrade 1996), as well as with 12.llJe5 ! ? llJxe5 13. %YxdB+ c;t>xdB 14.,txe5 .te7 15.llJa4 l3fB 16.l3d1+ @eB 17.hc4 llJxe4 1B . .td3 llJd6 19 . .th7! and he wins the exchange; but not 12.llJd4? ! llJc5 (12 . . . bxc3? 13 .ih5 + - ; 12 . . . llJb6 13.ih5+ llJxh5 14.%Yxh5 + c;t>d7 15.0-0- 0 ! +-) 13 . .th5+ llJxh5 14.%Yxh5+ c;t>d7 15.0-0-0 llJd3+ 16.l3xd3 cxd3 17.l3d1 %YeB ! (17 . . . 1i.a6 1B.llJdb5 ! ) 1B.%Yf3 bxc3 19. l3xd3 cxb2+ 20.c;t>b1 (20.c;t>xb2 i.a6 2 1.l3d2 c;t>cB) 20 . . . i.a6 and White lacks the necessary re­ sources to finish his attack off 21.l3d1 c;t>cB. 12.exd7+ How should Black recapture •••

117

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 2 now? We will analyze Cia) 12 .txd7 and Clb) 12 tvxd7.

•••

•••

Cia) �xe4

12

• • •

.txd7

13.bxc3

14.tvd4! It looks attractive for White to play 14.�eS ! ? , but he will have problems proving his advantage, for example: 14 .. .f6 1S.�d2 ! (In the game, in which this variation was played for the first time, White continued with the seem­ ingly logical move 1S.\Wc2 , but Black soon seized the initiative with 1S . . . �fS 16.�d4 �g6 17.�f3?! 'llNdS ! 18.hf6 �g8 19.�d1 @t7 20. lLle2 'llNe 6- + ; 20 .g4 �e8 ; 19.0-0 @t7 2 0 .�fe1 �e8 2 1.�d8 g4 ! + S. Savchenko - Sveshnikov, Moscow 1991. It would be bad for White to choose 17.1L1e6? 'llNe 7 18.1L1c7+ @t7 19.hc4+ @g7 2 0 .1L1e6+ @h7 21. �d4 lLlg3+, or 18.1L1xf8 @xf8 with an advantage for Black. The cor­ rect line for White would be: 17. lLlxc6 ! 'llNdS 18.hf6 'llNxc6 19.hh8 lLlg3 2 0 . 'llNd 2 lLlxh1 21.�f3 'llNe 6+ 118

2 2 .@fl±; 20 .. .'�xg2 2 1 .'�e3+ .ie4 22 .�fl itJxf1 23.,ixfl 'llNf3 24.'�xf3 hf3 2S.hc4 �d6, with approxi­ mate equality; 2 2 .hxg3 'llNxh1 + 23.�fl .ie7, with the idea 24. 0-0-0 �b8 2 5 . �e1 �b1 + 26.@d2 �b2 + 27.@c1 �b1+ 2 8.@d2 �b2 = , o r 27 . . . �c2 + 2 8 . @d1 �xa2 2 9 . 'llNxe4 �a1+ 3 0 . @d2 'llNxe4 31.�xe4 �xf1 32.�d4 @t7 33 .,ixa7 hS=.) 1S . . . 1L1xd2 ! ? (In case of 1S . . . �fS, there may arise a transposition to the same situation after 16 . .ihS+ @e7 17.�d4 itJxd2.) 16 . .ihS+ @e7 17 ..id4 .ifS 18. @xd2 (18.%Yxd2 �d3 and the game remains un­ clear, for example: 19 .h4 @d6 2 0 . �e2 c S 2 1 .�e3 @c7) 18 . . . 'llNd S 1 9 . �e1+ @ d 7 2 0 .'llN a4 (20 . .if3? \'NbS) 20 . . . a6 ! ? (20 . . . g4 ! ? 2 1.�e8 + �xe8 2 2 .'llNx a7+ @d8 23.'llNa 8+ .ic8 24. �xe8+ @xe8 2S.'llNxc8+ @t7 26. �b1 hS 27.�b7+ @g6 28 .\'Ne8+ @fS 29.@c2 cS 30.�b5 'llNxg2 31 .hcS 'llNe 4+ 32.Wxe4+ @xe4 33.�b8 �g7=) 2 1.�ab1 (21..if3 %YbS) 2 1 . . . hb1 2 2 . �xb1 �cS ! ? (22 . . . .id6 2 3 . �b7+ �c7 24.�g4+ fS 2S .�f3 Wd6 26.'llNxc4 �hb8 27.Wt7+ @c8 28. �xb8+ �xb8 29.'llNxfS+ @b7; 23. �f3 ! .if4+ 24.@e2 'llNe 6+ 2S. @fl , with a dangerous initiative for the exchange.) 23 .�f3 'llNd 6. 14, . . lLlxg3 15.hxg3 It also seems attractive for White to continue with 1S.fxg3 ! ? �g8 16.'llNxc4 ! (16.hc4? ! �g7 17. 'llNe 3+ 'llNe 7; 16.0-0 .ie6) 16 . . . �g7 (16 . . . �g6? 17.1L1eS �e6 18.0-0+-) 17. 0-0 (17.0-0-0 'llNe 7; 17.1L1d4 hd4 18.Wxd4 �e6=) 17 . . . 'llNb 6+

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 gS B. i.g3 bS 9. i.e2 18.�h1! (18.lLld4 i.e6 19.�a4 .1xd4+ 20.cxd4 �d8 21.�adl;j;) 1B . . . ie6 19.�e4 �c5 2 0 .lLld4 and he has a clear advantage. IS gg8 16. �xc4 .tg7 .After 16 . . . �f6, the game Chemin - Cosma, Hungary 2000, continued in the following fash­ ion: 17.�d1 i.e7 1B.0-0 �dB 19. lLlh2 @f8 20 . .ig4 .ieB 2 1..ih5 �d5 2 2 J ixd5 cxd5 2 3 .�xd5 �xc3 24. lLlg �hB 25.�b1 �c5 2 6.�f3 �c4 27. e5 �xa2 28.�f5 @g7 29.�b7 �a 30 .lLlxf7 1-0. In case of 16 ... �g6,

�f6 2 1.c4±; 19 . . . �c8? 2 0 J �b7+ �f6 2 1.�c7+-) 2 0.�e4±

•••

:

18. c!Lld4! ? It is also possible for him to opt for 18.�ab 1 ! ? .ie6 (18 . . . �cB 19.1Dd4) 19.�xc6± Beliavsky Atalik, Vrnjacka Banja 1999. 18 J.xd4 (1B . . . @f8 19 .i.h5) 19.Ybd4 (19.cxd4 ! ? @fB 20.�ab1) 19 .ie6 2 0 .WcS Wb6 21.Wa3± .••

.••

Clb) 12 almost every move leads to an overwhelming advantage for Wh fte: F.�d1 i.d6 (17 . . . �d6 18.�xd6 ix�6 19.�xh6) 1B.lLld2±; 1 7.lLle5 �e6 (17 . . . �f6? 18. �d1+-) 18.lLlxd7 (1B.f4 ! ?) 18 ... �xd7 19.0-0±; 17.0-0 i.g7 (17 ... �d6 18.lLld4 .ig7 19 ..ih5 �f6 2 0 .lLlb5 cxb5 21. �e4+-; 17... .id6 1B . .id3) 18.�fe 1 ! ? (18.lDd4 @f8 19 .i.h5 �f6 20.�ad1 �c8 21.�fe1t) 18 . . . @f8 19.�adl± 17. 0 - 0 .tf6 If 17 . . . ie6, then 18.�xc6+ @e7 19.�ab1 �c8 (19 . . . �d5 20 .�c7+

•••

Wxd7

13.Wc2! It is rather dubious for White to play 13.�xd7+? ! , because of 13 . . . ixd7 14.bxc3 lLlxe4 15.i.e5 f6 119

Chapter 2 16.�d2 fxes 17.�xe4 ie6 18.�d2 .idS 19.0-0 0-0-0 2 0.�xc4 'ii> c7+ Solomon - Varga, Budapest 200B. 13 cxb2 Black should better avoid 13 . . . g4? ! , i n view o f 14J�d1 ! (14.�es? '\l;l[d2 + ! ls.'\l;l[xd2 cxd2+ 16.'ii>x d2 �xe4+ ) 14 . . . '\l;l[b7 ls.�es '\l;l[xb2 (ls . . . cxb2 16.0-0±) 16.%Ya4+­ '\l;l[bs 17J!dB+ ! Beliavsky - Bacrot, (m/2) France 1999, 17 .. .'.t>xdB lB. �xc6+ . 14.lYxb2 But not 14J!d1?! .ib4+ Is.'ii> f1 '\l;l[e7. .••

14 . . . .lg7 This is the best for Black. The alternatives are clearly in­ ferior: 14 ... '\l;l[e6? ! ls.�d4 (This is stronger than ls.�es, after which White again has the advantage: ls . . . c3 16.%Yc2 ! ; ls . . ..ta6 16Jk1 ie7 17J!xc4 l3cB IB.h4 g4 19.0-0 0-0 2 0 . l3fcl±; 16 ... .tg7 17.'\l;l[a3 .tbs 1B.Axc4) Is . . . '\l;l[xe4 16.0-0 (16.0-0-00 16 ... c3 (16 ... ,ic5 17. �xc6) 17.'\l;l[xc3 ,id7 1B.,if3 �ds 120

Anti-Moscow Variation 19.'\l;l[d2 ,ib4 2 0.'\l;l[xb4 '\l;l[xf3 21. l3fe1 + 1-0 S.Savchenko - Nikcevic, Paris 2000. Or 14 . . . ,ie7 1s.0-0 (1s.ixc4 ! ?) 15 . . . 0-0 16.�es c3 17.'\l;l[xc3 �xe4 IB.'\l;l[c4 '\l;l[fS 19.id3 �xg3 20 . .ixfS �xfS 21.�g6 1-0 Borovikov - Ro­ manchuk, Alushta 2007. lS.gdl It is weaker for White to play Is . .ies, due to Is . . . m7! 16.'\l;l[xb7 (16.'\l;l[c3 �xe4 17.'\l;l[xc4 �d2 lB. �xd2 AxeS 19.'\l;l[e4) 16 ... ixb7 17.hc4 (17.�d4? ! 0-0) 17 . . . cs ! , as well as Is.hc4, because of 15 . . . 0-0 16.0-0 �xe4 17 . .ieS AxeS IB.�xes '\l;l[d2 19.'\l;l[b3 '\l;l[d4 ! with the idea to counter 20.�xf7? with 20 . . . �d2 ! lS . . . lYh7 16.lYc2 lYB4+ 16 . . . 0-0 17.Axc4 17. �d2 0 - 0 Black should better avoid 17. . . ie6 1B.l3b1 '\l;l[aS 19.0-0 c 3 20.�c4 Axc4 2 1.Axc4 0-0 2 2 . .id6 l3fdB 23 . .tb4 with superior prospects for White, since in case of 23 . . . '\l;l[eS 24.hc3 '\l;l[xe4, h e has the tac­ tical strike 2S.ixf7 + ! Borovikov Solodovnichenko, Krakow 1999.

6. �h4 dxc4 7.e4 gS 8. �g3 bS 9. �e2 .After 17. . . 0-0, Black succeeds in consolidating, but White again has a better game, this time with a positional advantage. For exam­ ple: 18.0-0 �e8 19.hc4 ltJhS 2 0 . ltJb3 ltJxg3 2 1.hxg3 �e6 2 2 . beG �e6, with a minimal edge for him. Aecordingly, we can conclude that on move 12 capturing with the bishop is evidently weaker than with the queen. Taking with the queen however, leads to a I minimal advantage for White as well. I

C2) 1 0

•••

cxd5 1l.exd5

move practically forces a into an endgame. It was COIIS�(lerE!Q for a while that Black hope to equalize in it, but that evaluation was refut­ ed. It would be interesting to test P ItalctlC�e the move H . . . ltJcS ! ? was only one game played on this subject and White did not

achieve anything in it. : 12 .VNd4 exdS 13.ltJxdS VNxdS 14.VNxf6 �g8 1S.�d1 ltJd3+ 16.hd3 cxd3 17. 0-0 �g7 18.�xd3 hf6 19.�xdS �f8, with approximate equality, Valle­ jo Pons - Kundin, Oropesa del Mar 1999. Still, White has at his disposal numerous interesting al­ ternatives: 12 .�eS ! ? �g7 13.VNd4 ltJd3, or 12.0-0 ! ? , or 12 .ltJbS and as you can see there are many possibilities here for analysis and creative endeavour. Theory has not given the final evaluation yet and I believe that there will be more games testing this position soon. 12.dxe6 There was just one game - L. Gofshtein - Velikov, Saint Quen­ tin 1998, in which White did not capture here, but played instead 12 .d6, winning quickly, but Black's play could be improved: 12 . . . a6 13.ltJeS (13.0-0 �g7 14.ltJeS ib7 lS.i.f3 .ixf3 16.VNxf3 0-0 17.ltJc6 VNd7 18.ltJe7+ @h7 19.�eS ltJg8 2 0 .hg7 @xg7 21.ltJe4 fS 22.Wfc3+ ltJf6 23.ltJxf6 �xf6 24.�ad1�) 13 . . . VNxd6! (This move i s principled and correct! ) 14.Wfc2 (Of course not 14.Wfxd6 hd6 lS.ltJxf7 @xf7 16.hd6 ib7.) 14 . . .WfcS (14 . . . Wfe7!?) lS.�f3 ltJbdS 16.0-0-0 ig7? ! 17.ltJg6 ! fxg6?? (It would be better for Black to choose here 17 . . . �g8 18.�he1 ltJb4 19.Wfb1 ltJd3+ 20.�xd3 cxd3 2 1.ha8 b4 2 2 .Wfxd3 bxc3 23.ltJeS, with com­ pensation for White. Black could have sacrificed the exchange 17 . . . 121

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 2 ib7, in order to succeed in con­ solidating the position.) lB. �xg6+ c.t>f8 19.!!xdS? (19.lLlxdS exdS 2 0 . !!xdS+ - lLlxdS 21.id6+) 1 9 . . . �b6?? (19 . . . exdS 2 0 .lLlxdS g4 ! with chances of a successful de­ fence.) 2 0 .!!d6 �b7 2 1.!!dB+ xdB 23.�xf6+ 1-0. Besides the improvements, we have just seen, instead of 16 . . . ig7? ! , Black could have tried 16 . . . ib7, fortifying the dS-square and preserving the possibility to castle long if necessary. His next move will be ifB-g7. It would not be easy for White to prove that his compensation for the two missing pawns is sufficient, for example : 17. lLlxdS (17.lLlg6 !!gB 1B.lLlxfB �xfB 19.ixdS lLlxdS 2 0 .lLle4; 19 . . . ,ixdS 2 0 .ieS ie4 ! - + ) 17 . . . ,ixdS 1B.!!xdS lLlxdS 19.ihS lLlb4 (This is even stringer than the seem­ ingly attractive line : 19 . . . 0-0-0 20.lLlxf7 ig7.) 2 0 .�e4 �dS 21. �xdS lLlxdS 2 2 .lLlxf7 lLlf6 23.if3 c.t>xf7 24.ixaB lLld7 and Black is better in this endgame.

After 12 . . . ixe6, White's best line would be: 13.lLld4! a6 (13 . . . ib4 14.0-0 0-0 lS.lLlcxbS± lLle4? 16.lLlxe6 �xd1 17.!!fxd1 lLlxg3 lB. lLlxfB lLlxe2+ 19.c.t>fl lLlf4 2 0 .lLld7 lLld3 2 1 .lLlxb6 axb6 2 2 .b3+ - Kazh­ galeyev - Haimovich, Kerner 2 007; lS . . . idS 16.a4! lLle4 17.aS lLlxg3 1B.hxg3 a6 19.1Llc3 ixc3 2 0.bxc3 lLld7 21.lLlfS+- Beliavsky - Bacrot, Bugojno 1999) 14.0-0 ig7 lS.if3± lLlbdS 16.lLlxdS lLlxdS 17.lLlxe6 (17.�e1 ! ? 0-0 1B.lLlxe6 fxe6 19.!!xe6+-) 17 . . . fxe6 1B.!!e1 (It is a bit weaker for him to choose 18 .�e2 \!ff d 7 19.ig4 c.t>f7 2 0.!!fe1 !!heB 21.!!adl± Solozhen­ kin - Alavkin, St. Petersburg 1999. 13.gxdl he6 14.�d4 ! ? At first, White used t o play in another fashion - 14.ieS ig7 1S. lLlxbS 0-0 16.0-0 (16.lLlc7 �acB 16 . . . !!adB ! ? - 17.lLlxe6 fxe6) 16 . . . lLlfdS 17.,ixg7 f6 - it was slightly preferable for him to opt for 20 . . .�f6 - 21.!!fe1 eS 22.lLlf3 !!adB 23.ifl !!feB 24.lLld2 lLlb4 2S.ttJxc4 lLlxc4 2 6.hc4+-) with the idea 19.1Llxa7 !!aB 20.lLldbS !!fbB 21.a3 �b7 2 2 . lLlc6 lLla4= 14 . . a6 It is rather dubious for Black to play 14 . . . ib4? ! , because of IS. .

12 . . . Vxdl+ 122

6 . .th4 dxc4 7.e4 g 5 8. ,ig3 b5 9. ,ie2 ieS lLlbdS 16.lLldxbS (but not 16.�lxe6? ! fxe6 17J!xdS exdS IS. ixf6 0-0 19 .id4 �f4 2 0 .,ie3 d4 2 1 ..txf4 gxf4 2 2 .�d2 = �dS 23. g7 14.0-0 ie7, i n view of 1S.i.hS �fB 16 .�g4+ c;t>hB 17.�xfB+ �xfB IB.�f1 �gB 19.�f7) 14. 0-0 lLld7 ! ? (14 . . . lLla6? IS.lLle4 c S 16.,ixc4 ! + ­ i.xe4 17.�g4+ �gS IB .i.xe6+ c;t>h7 19.�xe4+ �g6 20 . .if5+ - ; 16 . . . �h7 17.lLlf6+ �hB IB.lLlxh7 c;t>xh7 19.�f7+ c;t>hB 20.i.xe6+ - ; IS . . .ig7 16 . .ihS �h7 17.ig6 �dS IB.i.xh7+ c;t>xh7 19.lLlf6+ i.xf6 2 0 .�c2 + �gB 21.�xf6 �xd4+ 2 2 . c;t>hl �d3 23. �f2 �dB 24.�f1 1-0 Gershon Shinkevich, Moscow 2 0 0 2 ; 16 . . . Yffe 7 17.�g4+-; 16 . . .c S 17.lLlf6+ .ixf6 IB.Yffg 4+ c;t>fB 19.�xf6 + - ; IB . . . .ig7 19.�xe6+ c;t>h7 2 0.ig6#) IS.hc4 and White forces a draw. This looks like his most prudent decision (After IS.a4, he fails to transpose into the variation 11.a4 a6 12.lLlxgS, because Black is not forced to respond after IS.a4 with IS . . . a6. It seems good for him to play here the thematic move IS . . . �h7.) IS . . . bxc4 16.�g4+ .ig7 17.Yffx e6+ �h7 18.�fS+ with a draw. He should not fear 11.0-0. Black has good chances of obtain­ ing an acceptable position, for ex126

ample, in the game Piket - Dreev, Groningen 1991, there followed later: 11 . . . lLld7 12.a4 a6 13.c;t>hl lLlg7 ! ? (It is also good for him to continue with the standard move 13 . . . �b6.) 14.lLle4 lLlfS IS.lLlfd2 �b6 16.i.hS �xd4 17.�g4oo lLlcS (17 . . . cS ! ?) 18.�ael lLld3 19.�e2 ie7 (19 . . . 0-0-0 ! ? 2 0 .hf1 �d7 21. ihS lLlxb2) 20.f4. White is com­ plicating maximally the position and he has no doubt good practi­ cal chances, but objectively the evaluation is in favour of Black. 20 . . . gxf4 2 1.i.xf4 �fB ! ? (The game continued: 2 1 . . .lLlxf4 2 2 .�xf4 with a very unclear position.) 22 . .ie3 �dS 23.fuf5 exfS 24.�xf5 �xeS 2S.�xeS lLlxeS 2 6.id4 0-0-0 27. heS fS 2B. lLlg3 if6 29.i.xf6 �xf6 30.lLlxfS c;t>c7 and Black was better in this endgame, thanks to his pawn-majority on the queenside.

11 a6 After 11 . . . b4 12.lLle4 cS, it is very good for White to play 13. lLlf6 + ! - it is because of this strong move that 11 . . . b4 cannot be rec­ ommended (Black should not fear •••

�

6. !ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. !ig3 b5 9. !ie2 .ib7 1 O .e5 !iJ h5

13.!iJ cS hcS 14.dxcS YMxdl+ 15. �dl !iJd7 16.i!d4 13cS 17.hc4 17. c 4 as ! - 17 . . . 13xcS I S . 0 - 0 ixf3 19.9xf3 !iJxg3 2 0 .fxg3 !iJxeS 2 1 .!ibS+ @e7 2 2 .i!xb4 13dS 23.f4 gxf4 24.13bxf4 fS 2S.134f2 13d4 26. ge2 @f6 27.i!ff2 a 6 2S .ha6 13xa4 29.ib7 13b4 3 0.!ig2 !iJd3 31.13f1 !iJxb2 32 .g4 f4 33.h4 eS 34.13d2 !iJc4 3S.13d7 13cbS 36.ie4 !iJb6 37.13h7 13xe4 3S.l3xh6+ @e7 39. 13al 13a4 40.13cl liJc4 0-1 V.Popov - Dreev, Kazan 1995.) 13 . . . liJxf6 14.exf6 !iJc6 (14 ... !idS IS.YMc2 !iJd7 16.hc4 hf3 17.gxf3 YMxf6 IS .YMe4 13dS 19 . .ieS 1-0 Fier - Larino Nieto, Barcelona 2 009) IS.hc4 a6 16.0-0 cxd4 17.liJeS YMxf6 IS.13el (Black's position is already defenceless.) IS . . . ig7 19.!iJxf1 0-0 2 0 . liJd6 @hS 2 1 . 13xe6 �dS 22 .YMhS 13f6 23.13eS+ 1-0 Ovsejevitsch Yagupov, Alushta 2 0 0 2 . It seems to me that his only possibility to try to hold the variation with 11... b4 is to go for the most principled move - 15 ... YMxf6 (following 13. . . liJxf6 14.exf6 !iJc6 IS.i.xc4), but that resource has not been tested in practice yet. Still, even then after 16.ibS ! ? (It is bad for White to play 16.0-0 .ie7 17.liJeS 0-0 IS.f4 13adS 19.YMhS YMg7, or 16.eS !iJxeS 17.dxeS �dS) Black's position be­ comes critical, for example : 16 . . . YM fS 17.liJeS YMe4+ IS.@f1! (After IS.YMe2 YMxe2+ 19.@xe2 13cS 2 0 . dxcS ig7 21.13hdl 0-0 2 2 .liJxc6 ixc6 23.hc6 i!xc6 24 ..id6 13dS 25. 13d2 ifS, Black is close to equality - 26.13adl 13dcS 27.@e3 as 2S.f4

hd6 29.cxd6 13dS.) IS ... .ig7 19.f3 YMdS 2 0 .dxc5 13cS (20 . . . YMxdl+ 2 1 . i!xdl 13cS 22.!iJxf1) 21.!iJc4± It is also interesting for him to opt for 11 . . . !iJxg3 12 .hxg3 ! a6 (Black might try here 12 . . . !iJd7 ! ? 13.axbS cxbS 14.!iJxbS YMb6) 13. !iJe4, with the idea 13 . . . !ie7 14. !iJfxgS±. In the only game played until now, White reacted wrongly and he soon became worse: 12. fxg3?! a6 13.0-0 liJd7 14.axbS cxbS (14 . . . axbS ! ?) IS.dS?! (15. !iJel!?) IS ... YMb6+ (It was even better for Black to continue with 15 . . . exdS 16.liJxdS liJxeS) 16.@hl 0-0-0 17.b3 cxb3 IS.YMxb3 @bS 19.13tbl !ig7? (He did not need to retreat his bishop to g7. After the correct reaction 19 ... g4 ! 20.liJd2 !iJxeS 2 1.�a2 b4, he would have a great advantage.) 2 0 .!iJxbS liJxeS 2 1.YMa4 !iJxf3 2 2 .liJc3 �a7 23.hf3 ixc3 24.13a3 exdS 2S.13xc3 13deS 2 6.hdS 13e7 27.i.xb7 13xb7 2S. 13cb3 13bS 29.13xb5 + axbS 30. 13xbS+ 1-0 Ovsejevitsch - Shali­ mov, St. Petersburg 2002. 12. !iJxg5 ! !iJxg3 13. !iJxf7 @xf7 14.fxg3

127

Chapter 3 14 cbg8 ! This is the best move for Black. He should refrain from: 14 . . . cbe8 15.0-0 �d7 16J%i7+ ke7 17.J.g4 @c7 18.he6 l!f8 19.1!g7 �b6 20. dS±; 14 . . . ttJd7? lS.khS+ ! We7 (15 ... Wg7 16.0-0 ! ; lS ... @g8?? 16. 'i;Yg4+ ) 16.0-0 ttJxeS 17.dxeS 'i;Yxdl 18. l!axd1 l!h7 19.ttJe4+15. 0 - 0 �d7 White is better in the compli­ cations, arising after lS . . . cS? ! 16. hc4 ! bxc4 17.'i;Yg4+ kg7 18. 'i;Yxe6+ @h7 19.�fS+ @g8 2 0 .'i;Yi7+ @h7 2 1.'i;Yxb7 'i;Yxd4+ 2 2 .�h1 ttJd7 23.l!ad1 (23.l!fd1 ! ? l!ab8 24.'i;Yxa6 'i;Yg4 2S.h3 'i;Yxg3 - 2S . . . 'i;YfS 26.g4 - 26J%xd7 l!xb2 27.l!gl) 23 . . . l!hf8 ! 24.l!fe1 (24.l!gl ! ? ttJxeS 2S.l!xd4 cxd4 26.ttJdl±; 24 ... l!ab8 2S.'i;Yxa6 'i;Yg4 26.h3 'i;Yxg3 27.l!xd7 :!!xb2 28.ttJe4 'i;YxeS 29.'i;Yxc4) 24 . . . ttJxeS (24 ... :!! ab8; 24 . . . :!! ab8 2S.'i;Yxd7 'i;Yxd7 26.:!!xd7 :!!xb2 27.h4 @g8 28.ttJdS) 2S.:!!xd4 cxd4 26.ttJd1 ttJd3 27.:!! gl �h8 28.h3± Instead, it deserves attention for Black to play lS . . . l!h7 ! ? , trying to bring the rook into the ac­ tions. •••

Anti-Moscow Variation We will analyze now Al) 16. Ag4 and A2) 16.�e4. After 16.i.hS :!! h 7 17.'i;Yg4 + , the position remains complicated, but Black's prospects are acceptable : 17 . . . 'i;YgS 18.axbS (18.'i;Yxe6+ �h8 19.:!!fS :!! e 7! ; 19.M? :!!d 8) 18 . . . 'i;Yxg4 19 .hg4 cxbS 2 0 .he6+ �h8. It ends in a draw by a perpetu­ al after 16.hc4 bxc4 17.'i;Yg4+ i.g7 18.'i;Yxe6 + �h7 19.'i;YfS+.

Al) 16.Ag4 YNe7 17.�e4 In case of 17.'i;Yc2 , Black has the resource 17. . . :!!h 7 18.'i;Yg6+ @h8 19.he6 'i;YgS. It deserves attention for White to play 17.axbS ! ? axbS (His initia­ tive for the piece is more than suf­ ficient after 17 . . . cxbS 18.i.f3 i.xf3 19.'i;Yxf3 :!!e 8 20.ttJe4 :!!h 7 2 1.ttJd6 :!! d 8 2 2 .:!!xa6.) 18.:!!xa8 has 19. �a1 i.b7 2 0.'i;Ya7 ttJxeS 21.dxeS �cS+ 2 2 .'i;Yxc5 hcS+ 23.�h1 �g7 24.ttJe4 (24.he6? ! :!!f8 2S.:!! d 1 i.d4 ! ) 24 ... i.d4 2S.ttJd6 i.c8 26. :!!i7 + �g6 27.:!! f6+ wg7=

Now, we will analyze separate­ ly Ala) 17 gh7, which was •••

128

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. i.e2 �b7 1 O .e5 lD h5 played in the game Kramnik Anand, Belgrade 1997 and the best move for Black Alb) 17 c5, which has not been tested in prac­ tice yet. .••

19.axb5 ! White should consider the possibility 19.�c2 ! ? 13g7 20 .i.hS �gS (20 . . . cS 2 1.lDf'7!?) 2 1.i.f'7+ @h8 . In the game Kramnik - Anand, Belgrade 1997, he made a mistake playing 19 .b4? ! and Black exploit­ ed it immediately to take a breath - 19 . . . hS ! 20 .�h3 (20.hhS �gS; 2 0 . .if3 h4 21.g4 .ih6+) 20 . . . i.h6 ! 2 1 . 'it>h1 AgS 2 2 .�c2 13g7 23 .�e2 i.a8? ! (It was obviously better for Bla to play 23 . . . 13h7! ? 24.�c2 'it>h ; 24.%Ye4 @h8 2S.axbS axbS 26. a7; 24 . . . lDf8 2S.13a3? c5 ! 26. lDxb �xb7 27.he6+ lDxe6 28. �g6 'it>h8 29.�xe6 cxd4+; 25. axbS cxbS 26.lDxb7 �xb7 27. he6+ lDxe6 2 8.�g6+ 'it>h8 29. �xe6 13d8) 24.�xhS 13f8 2S.lDe4 cS 26.lDxgS AdS (26 . . . 13xgS 27.

l

he6+ @g7 28 .�h4 cxd4 29.hd7 13xf1+ 30 .13xf1 13xeS 31.�xd4+-) 27.lDf3? ! (This exciting game could have ended in a draw after 27.ixe6+ ! ? he6 28.13xf8 + lDxf8 29.lDe4 13h7 30 .�d1 - 30 .�e2 cxd4+ - 30 . . . 13xh2+ ! 31.'it>xh2 �h7+ 32 .'it>g1 �xe4 33.dxcS c3 34.axbS axbS 3S.�f3 �xb4 36. �e3 c2 37.�gS+ 'it>h8 38.�f6+ @h7 39 .�e7= ; it was dubious for White to opt for 27.13xf8 + ? ! lDxf8 2 8.,be6+ lDxe6, but it deserved attention to choose 27.lDxe6 ! ? ixe6 28.bxcS with a n unclear po­ sition.) 27 . . .cxb4 28.axbS axbS 29.lDh4? (It was better for White to continue with 2 9.�h6 c3 30. 13a6.) 29 ... �gS ! 30.l3xf8+ lDxf8 31.�e8 13f'7 32.lDf3 �g6 ! (32 . . . �e3? 33.i.g4 ! ) 33.�xbS b 3 34.13£1 �d3 3S.'it>g1 �e3+ 36.'it>h1 c3 ! (36 . . . 13b7?? 37.,be6 ! +-) 37.he6! he6 38.dS 13xf3 ! 39.gxf3 (39.13xf3 c2-+ 40.�£1 �xf3 41.gxf3 b2) 39 ... i.h3 and White resigned. 19 cxb5 2 0 .�xb7 gxb7 21.gxa6 gb6 22.gxb6 (22 .13a8 13b8 23.13a7gg) 22 �xb6 23.gf6 23 'it>h8 (23 . . . �d8 24.ixe6+ @h8 2S.�g4 .ig7 26.13f'7+ - ; 25 . . . .ie7 26.13g6 AgS 2 7J�g8+ �xg8 28.ixg8 'it>xg8 29.h4+-) 24. he6 ! J.g7 25.gg6± ..•

•••

•••

Alb) 17

c5 ! (diagram)

•••

18.gf6 ! After 18.lDd6 AdS (18 . . . cxd4 19.1Dxb7 lDxeS ! oo ; 19.13f'7! �xf7 129

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 3

20.ll'lxf7 wxf7 2 1 ..if3 ! .idS 2 2 . hdS exdS 23.'lWf3+ We6 24. 1!fl+-) 19 ..if3 (19.1!f7 'lWgS 2 0 . 1!xd7+- ; 1 9 . . . 'lWdS ! 2 0.'lWc2 'lWgS 21.1!xd7 �xg4; 21.1!afl hd6 22 .exd6 'lWxg4 23.1!lf4 'lWgS 24. 1!xd7 cxd4) 19 ... 1!h7! - this is the only defence for Black, but it is quite sufficient (19 . . ..ig7 2 0 .ll'lfS± 'lWeS 2 1..ihS 'lWdS 2 2 .ll'lxg7 Wxg7 23.�g4+-; 19 . . . cxd4? 2 0.ixdS exdS 2 1.'lWg4+ .tg7 2 2 . 1!f7+ - with a very powerful attack for White.) 20 .ixdS exdS 2 1.'lWg4+ 1!g7 2 2 . �h3 - Black can make a draw by repetition: 22 . . . 1!h7 23 .'lWg4+ 1!g7=, or he can try to play for a win : 2 2 . . . 1!g6 23.1!f7 'lWe6+ 18 .id5 19.gg6 + wh7 •.•

White has two possibilities in this position: 20.'lWb1 Wxg6 21.ll'lf6+ Wg7 2 2 . .ihS 'lWxf6 23.exf6+ wxf6 24.'lWg6+ We7 2S.'lWf7+ wd6 26 . .if3 hf3 27.gxf3, with an approximately equal and rather complicated po­ sition; 20.ll'lf6 + ll'lxf6 21.exf6 'lWf7 (or 2 1 . . .'lWeS) 22 ..thS 'lWxg6 23.ixg6 + Wxg6 24.axbS axbS 2S.'lWg4+ wxf6 26.�f4+ Wg7 27.�g4=, with a draw.

A2) 16.ft:le4!

This theoretical novelty is the best move for Black. 16 c5 After 16 . . J'!h7 17.ig4 WhS ! ? (About 17 . . . 'lWe7 1S.ll'ld6 - see the variation, which is rather unfa­ vourable for Black Ala) 1S.he6 c5 19.M5 cxd4! ? 20.ixh7 ll'lxeS 21. axbS ! ? (21..if6 b4) 2 1 . . .axbS ! ? 22. haS haS 23.if3 d3 and White's prospects seem preferable. 17 .lxc4 bxc4 18.ti'g4+ .ig7 19.ti'xe6 + � h7 2 0 .ti'f5+ g;,g8 21.ti'f7+ wh7 •••

-

•

130

6. J.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. J.g3 b5 9. J.e2 J.b7 1 O .e5 liJ dS 11...liJxc3 ! ? 12 .bxc3 cS 13.J.f3 J.dS (13 . . . liJc6 !?) 14. liJe4 liJd7 lS.liJd6+ hd6 16.hdS, with better pros­ pects for White. Later, the game Wojtaszek - V.Georgiev, Dresden 2007 continued with: 16 . . . J.e7 17 . .ic6 (17.ha8 Wl'xa8 18. 0-0 Wl'e4 with compensation for the ex­ change) 17 . . J!b8 18.dS l'!b6 19.a4 b4 2 0 .J.bS hS 2 1.h3 h4 2 2 .J.h2±

liJxf6 23.exf6 2 2 .liJf6 + ftxd4+ 24.upnt.,.tt the appearance of white on the e4-outpost. He have accomplished that 14 . . . CiJxc3 1S.bxc3 cS (In the mentioned game, Black 14 . . . lDd7 1S.CiJce4 'Iml6 16. bxc4 17.lDxc4 %Ya6 18 .%Yd2 , had a good compensa­ but tion for the piece. Or 16 . . . %Yxd4 17. %Yb6 18.ixdS - 18.,id3 ! ? - 1 . . cxdS 19.1Dd6+ ixd6 2 0 . with a n excellent compensa­ him. CiJce4 cxd4 1S. 0 - 0 (diagram) lS CiJc6 ! This is considerably stronger than what was played in the game Kasparov - Tal, Moscow 1982 1S . . . hS? ! 16.a4 (It was also inter­ esting for White to sacrifice a piece immediately: 16.hc4 ! ? bxc4 17.CiJxc4 %Ya6 18.f3 ! CiJc6 19. fxg4 0-0-0 2 0 .lDcd6+ ixd6 21. •••

CiJxd6+ 'it>b8 2 2 J 3xi7 ia8 23.gS, with a compensation for the piece; 23J3CS ! ? ; it is obviously weaker for White to choose 18 .%Yxd4 lDc6 19.CiJcd6+ ixd6 2 0 . CiJxd6+ 'it>f8 21.%YcS CiJce7 2 2 .f3 13h7) 16 . . . a6 (It seemed attractive for Black to play 16 . . . d3, but then after 17.ixg4 hxg4 18.axbS %YxbS 19.1Dxc4, White's compensation would be excellent.). The game, we men­ tioned above, continued with 17. b4? %Yd8 ! 18.ixc4 bxc4 19.CiJxc4 lDc3 ! 2 0 .CiJxc3 dxc3 2 1.CiJd6+ ixd6 2 2 . exd6 Wff6 ! 23.%Yd3 0-0 24. 13xc3 idS and it ended in a draw in a sharp position, but White could have obtained an advantage with 17.ixc4! and if Black had de­ clined the piece-sacrifice, then White would be simply better, be­ cause Black's king would have no safe shelter. If he accepts the sac­ rifice - 17 . . .bxc4 18.CiJxc4 %Yb4, then after the standard, but still very beautiful move 19.f3 ! , in or­ der for White to open the f-file, Black will hardly survive. 16.hc4N It is dubious for White to play 133

Chapter 3 16.a4?! a6 17.axb5 (17.�al VNb4) 17 . . . axb5 18.hc4 bxc4 19.1Llxc4 VNb4 ! ? (This move is even stronger than what Black had played be­ fore - 19 . . . VNc7 20.lLlcd6+ hd6 2 1.lLlxd6+ �f8 2 2 .VNxg4 VNd7 and White's compensation for the sac­ rificed material is insufficient, L'Ami - Smeets, Schagen 2 005. Instead, it is better for him to con­ tinue with 21.exd6 VNd8 2 2 .VNxg4 �f8 23.lLlc5 .ic8 24.�c4.) 20.VNxg4 .ia6 2 1 .lLlcd6+ hd6 2 2 . lLlxd6+ �d7 - Black is clearly better.

The move 16 .hc4 is no doubt an interesting novelty. Black has numerous defensive resources and it is far from clear whether White's compensation for the piece is sufficient. For example: 16 . . . bxc4 17.lLlxc4 VNc7 18. lLlcd6+ (18.�xg4 O-O-O ! ) 18 . . .hd6 19. exd6 VNb6 20.VNxg4 0-0-0.

Bla2) 12.hxg5 (diagram) 12 . . . lLlxc3 13 . bxc3 VNxc3 + 14.�f1 lLla6 ! ? I t deserves serious attention 134

Anti-Moscow Variation

for Black to opt for a move, which has not been played yet - 14 . . . c5N 15.a4 a6 16.dxc5 lLlc6. It is not so precise for him, but still possible to try 14 . . . lLld7 15 . .if4 (15.g6 fxg6 16.lLlg5) . Later, Black has played in practice 15 . . . lLlb6 16.gxh6 lLld5 ? ! (It was obviously stronger for him to advance im­ mediately 16 . . . c5 ! ? , because after 16 . . . lLld5, it becomes easier for White to push a2-a4.) 17 . .ig5 c5 18.a4 cxd4 19.1Llxd4 (19.VNxd4 ! ?) 19 . . . .ic5 20.�h4 a6 2 Ukl (21. .ih5 ! ? hd4 2 2 . �xd4) 2 1 . . . VNa5 22 ..ih5 hd4 23J�xd4+- (23 . .bf7+? ! �xf7 24.VNh5+ �f8 25. �xd4 VNc7 26.�c3 VNfl 27.�f3 lLle3+ 28 .he3 hf3 29.VNg5 �e8 30. gxf3 �g8 31.VNh4 VNf5 32.�d6 c3 33.h7 �h8 34.VNh6 �xh7 35.�xe6+ �d7 36.�d6+ �e8 37.�e6+, draw, Li Shilong - Van Wely, Nether­ lands 2006.), as well as 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.gxh6 1i.e7 17.a4N (White had played until now only the me­ diocre line : 17 . .id2 VNb2 18.VNel lLlb6 19.a4? ! lLlxa4 20 .hc4? bxc4 21.�xa4 c3 and he resigned, since he would lose unavoidably either

6. Ah4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. Ag3 b5 9. Ae2 Ab7 1 0 .e5 tiJ dS

J �

his ishop, or the rook on a4 after Wlb b5+ , Knaak - Beikert, Germany 1999.) 17 . . . a6 18 J�h3.

15.g6 ! ? This i s the most principled and interesting move for White. The alternative ls.i.f4 ! ? seems a bit slow, although it is quite log­ ical : Is . . . tiJb4 16.gxh6 and now Black can exchange queens with 16 . . . �c2 17.Wlxc2 tiJxc2 18.l3bl i.e7 19.h7 l3d8, reaching a perfectly acceptable position, but he has some alternatives as well: 15 . . . l3d8 ! ? , Is . . . �b2 ! ? 15 0 - 0 - 0 It deserves very serious atten­ tion for Black to try Is . . . fxg6 ! ? , which has not been tested yet. White can counter it with 16.tiJgs ! - t is is obviously the best for him an if Black holds on to material, ite would deprive him of cas­ tli g rights with excellent attack­ in prospects. (The alternatives are weaker: 16.tiJh4 0-0-0 17. tiJxg6 l3xd4+ ; 16.�bl 0-0-0; 16.l3c1 �a3; 16.i.h4 tiJb4 17.Af6 l3g8 18.tiJel tiJdS 19.13h3 �as 2 0 . • • •

Ag4 Ac8) 16 . . . tiJc7 (Now, it looks like it is more prudent for Black to give back some material, but to bring his king t o safety. The thor­ ough analysis shows however, that he will have great problems anyway, for example: 16 . . . hxgs ! ? 17.l3xh8 0-0-0 18.a4°o 'it>b8 19. f3 ! ; 18 ... Ae7 19.13xd8 + hd8 20. axbs cxbs 21.ds ! ; 18 ... tiJc7 19.axbs cxbs 20.l3xa7 'it>b8 2 1.l3a1 and White's position is clearly better.) 17.tiJe4 Wlb2 18.tiJf6+ 'it>f7 19 . .bc4 ! ? (19 J':ih4 ! ?oo) 19 . . . l3d8 20. l3h4 and there arise absolutely wild complications, in which any­ thing can happen: 2 0 . . .bxc4 2 1 . l3bl c 3 2 2 . l3xb2 cxb2 23 .�b3 l3b8 (or 23 . . . i.a3 24.l3f4 gs 2s.l3f3 i.a6+ 26.'it>gl i.e2 27.tiJds+ i.xf3 28.�xf3 + 'it>e8 29.tiJf6+ 'it>f7 30. tiJhS+ 'it>e8 31. tiJf6 + 'it>f7=) 24.'it>gl ka3 2s.l3f4 gs 26.l3f3 cs 27.ds (27. tiJdS 'it>g7 28.tiJxc7 i.dS 29.lLlxe6+ he6 30 .�xe6 b1�+ 31.'it>h2 �g6 32 .�d7+ 'it>g8 33.�ds+ 'it>g7 34. �d7=) 27 ... hds ! (but not 27 . . . tiJxdS 28.tiJxds+ 'it>g7 29.tiJc3 i.xf3 30 .�xe6 i.hS 31.tiJbl±) 28.tiJxds+ 'it>g7 29.l3f7! @xf7 30 .�f3+ 'it>e8 31.tiJxc7 'it>d7 3 2 .�f7+ 'it>c8(c6) 33 .�xe6+ 'it>xc7 34.�f7+ with a perpetual check. 16.gxf7 Ag7 In case of 16 . . . l3d7, Black must consider the queen-sacrifice 17.tiJgs ! ? l3xd4 18.tiJxe6 l3xd1+ 19. l3xd1. (diagram) 17.gh3 ! ?N At this moment, it seems to me 135

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 3

this move is stronger than 17.a4, but the position is too complicat­ ed for definite evaluations. The move 17J:!h3 seems to be more precise, since it forces Black to play 17 . . . lLlc7. White has also tried in practice 17.a4 ! ? l'!hfB and here the game G.Timoscenko A. Bykhovsky, Irkutsk 19B3 ended in a draw. There remained behind the cur­ tains possible complications, which would be very difficult to evaluate correctly. See some ex­ emplary variations: 1B.l'!h3 ! lLlc5 ! 19 . .ih4 l'!d7! (White i s better after 19 . . . lLlb3 ? ! 2 0 .lLlg5 %Yxa1 2 1.%Yxa1 lLlxa1 2 2 .lLlxe6.) 20.axb5 cxb5 2 1 . lLl e 1 (21.l'!xa7 l'!fxf7) 2 1 . . .%Yxd4 (It would be interesting for Black to opt for 21.. .%Yb2 2 2 J'!b1 %Yxd4 23. %Yxd4 l'!xd4 24.l'!xb5 lLlb3) 22. %Yxd4 gxd4 23.ie7 lLle4 ! ? 24.ixfB i.xfB 25.l'!xa7 (25.lLlc2 ? ! l'!d7 26. ig4 lLlg5 27.l'!h5 rJJ c7 2B.l'!xg5 hxg5 29.J.xe6 l'!e7 30.lLld4 'it>b6) 25 . . . gd7 26.ig4 lLlg5 27.l'!a5 (Black was threatening 27 . . . hg2 ! ) . Now, the game may end in a beautiful draw after 27 . . . ic6

(27 . . . lLlxh3 2B.gxh3 'it>c7 29.l'!xb5 ic6 30.gb1 l'!xf7 31.ixe6 l'!f4, with approximate equality.) 2B.lLlf3 lLlxh3 29 .ixh3 idS 30.lLld4 c3 31.rJJ e 1! (31.'it>e2 ic4+ 32.'it>e3 ic5 33.l'!aB+ 'it>b7 34.fB%Y ixfB 35. l'!xfB l'!xd4) 3 1 . . .ic4 (31 . . .ib4 3 2 . lLlc2 ! ) 3 2 .l'!aB+ 'it>b7 33.l'!xfB l'!xd4 34.l'!bB+ 'it>a7 35.gaB+ (35.fB%Y?? l'!e4+ 36.'it>d1 ib3 + 37.'it>el l'!e1#) 35 . . . 'it>b7 36.l'!bB= . But it is better for Black to play here 27 . . . b4 ! , for example : 2B.l'!h5 b3 29.l'!xg5 hxg5 30.ixe6 'it>c7 3 1.hd7 'it>xd7 3 2 . e 6 + 'it>xe6 33.l'!b5 ic6 34.gb6 'it>d7 35.gbB id6-+ 17. . . llJc7 But not 17 . . . ghfB 1B.ih4 l'!d7 19.1Llg5!

-

136

This position needs additional practical tests. There may follow 1B.gel %Yb2 (lB . . . %Ya5?! 19 .%Yc2, with the idea %Yc2-g6) ; 1B.a4 ! ? l'!d7 ! ? We can conclude that i n varia­ tion 81a2 (11.h4 %Ya5 12.hxg5) both sides have many possibilities in reserve and it is too early for fi-

6. j"h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. ie2 �b7 1 O .e5 ttJ dS nal opinions. I t i s possible that if this variation becomes even more popuilar, tournament practice with clarify the situation. Pres­ ently, I will abstain from giving you definite evaluations.

Btb) 1l

•••

g4

12.ttJd2 h5 It would be interesting to test

into the serious tournament prac­ tice the line: 12 ... ttJxc3!? 13.bxc3 c5. 1=-S.�de4 The move 13.a4 should trans­ pose into the main line of this vari3ition after 13 . . . a6 14. ttJde4 ttJd7 (but not 14 . . . �e7? ! 15.0-0 ttJd7 16-'W d2 ttJxc3 17.bxc3 c5 1B.ttJ 6+ hd6 19.exd6± Li Shi10ng Nadera, Manila 2 00B). 1 ... �d7 14. 0 - 0 'l!Yb6 15. a4 White has also tried 15 .b3 ib4 ! 16J�c1 ttJxc3 17.ttJxc3 c5 lB. bxc4 , hc3 19J!xc3 cxd4 20J�d3 ttJ c5 2 U�xd4 ttJe4, but Black ob­ tain a good position, Bocharov Dree , ICC 2002. 1 a6

�

t

l

•••

I

16.�g5 In the game S.Ivanov - Dreev, Russia 19BB, White played 16.a5 'l!Ya7 17.%Yd2 and here Black's ob­ vious best move would be 17 . . . c5 ! N and it i s far from clear how White can develop his initiative, for example: 1B.ttJd6+ (lB.dxc5 ttJxc3 19.ttJxc3 'l!Yxc5 ; 1B.ttJxd5 hd5 19.ttJd6+ hd6 20.exd6 �gB 21.dxc5 %Yb7) 1B . . . .ixd6 19.exd6 cxd4 20.ttJxd5 hd5 21.'l!Yg5 f6 2 2 .'l!Yg6+ �dB. The above men­ tioned game continued with : 17 . . . �6 ! ? 1B.ttJd6+ �fB 19.'l!Yc2 c 5 2 0 . dxc5 ttJb4 2 1.'l!Ydl ttJxc5 2 2 .ttJdxb5 axb5 23.%Yd6+ �gB 24.ttJxb5 �fB . Now, after the correct move 25. ttJxa7 (The game followed with 25.'l!Yd4 'l!Ya6 and despite the fact that the position had remained rather complicated, White's com­ pensation for the pawn was objec­ tively insufficient.) 25 . . . hd6 26. exd6 �xa7 27.i.e5 ttJbd3 2B .hd3 ttJxd3 29.j"d4 �a6 30 .d7 �d6 31.hhB �xhB 32 .a6 hB, with approximate equality on the board. 16 c5! •••

137

Chapter 3

Anti-Moscow Variation

Black seizes the initiative with this move.

The game Forster - Dreev, Elista 1995 continued with 17. axb5 axb5 lSJ%xaS + haS 19. ttJxd5 .bd5-+ 20.dxc5 .bc5 21. W1d2 id4 2 2 .l:!d1 .be5 23.,be5 ttJxe5 24.W1f4 f6 25.b3 0-0 26. bxc4 bxc4 27.ttJe4 ixe4 2 8.�xe4 l:!cS 29.l:!b1 �c6 30 .�e3 c3 31.�h6 �e4 32 .l:!a1 c2 0-1. Accordingly, we should con­ clude that if Black plays correctly, the entire variation BI (U.h4) is not dangerous for him and he can rely on obtaining as a minimum a quite acceptable position.

B2) 11. 0 - 0 �d7 (diagram) 12. �d2 It would be interesting, if after the inclusion of the moves 12.a4 a6, White tries the non-standard move 13.ttJxd5 ! ? (It is now diffi­ cult for him to transpose to the variation with 12.ttJd2, because after the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and a7-a6 - in case of 13. 13S

ttJd2, besides the transposition with 13 . . . �b6, Black has the re­ source 13 . . . c5 ! ) 13 ... cxd5 14.ttJe1 (Or 14.axb5 axb5 15.l:!xaS haS 16.ttJe1 ig7; you can see how dan­ gerous this position may be for Black if you see the following game : 15 . . . �xaS ! ? 16.ttJe1 W1a4 17.ttJc2 �b3 lS.f4 �xb2 19 . .th5 l:!h7 20.f5 @dS 2 1.ig4 h5 2 2 .fxe6 hxg4 23.exd7 ie7 24.e6 fxe6 25. �e2 @xd7 2 6.�e5 �xc2 27.�c7+ @eS 28 .�xb7 if6 29.W1c6+ @e7 30 . .td6+ @dS 31.�b6+ 1-0 Ovod - Filippov, Omsk 1995.). I believe, Black should not fear this line, but still White's game is much easier in a practical game. His plan is very simple - he attacks and ex­ erts pressure against his oppo­ nent's king after f2-f4, but objec­ tively Black's position is better. 14 ... ig7 15.axb5 axb5 16.l:!xaS haS 17.f4 0-0 lS.fxg5 (lS . .tg4? ! f5 ! 19.exf6 �xf6 2 0 .ttJc2 gxf4 21. l:!xf4 �g6 2 2 .�e2 l:!xf4 23.ixf4 ttJfS 24 . .td6 �e4, with a better endgame for Black, Ovod - Yev­ seev, Gatchina 2 001.) lS . . . hxg5 19 .ig4 �b6 (19 . . . ib7! ? 2 0.ttJf3

6. j"h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. j"g3 b5 9. j"e2 j"b7 1 O .e5 CDd5 j"cB 2 1.h4 f5 2 2 .exf6 CDxf6 23. CDxg5 CDxg4 24.Wlxg4 l'!xfl+ 25. 'it>xfl WlfB+ 26. 'it>e2 Wlb4 and Black is not worse, Ovod - Galliamova, Elista 199B.) 2 0.CDf3 f5 21.exf6 CDxf6 2 2 . CDe5 j"b7 23.h4 gxh4 24 . .iel?! (It is better for White to play here 24.hh4.) 24 . . . j"cB (24 . . . CDh7!?) 25.'it>hl Wlc7 2 6 . .th3 and here after 26 . . . CDe4! Black would have the advantage. In the game Ovsejevitsch - Miroshnichenko, St. Petersburg 2001, there fol­ lowed 26 . . . b4 27.CDg6 l'!f7 2B.CDeS l'!fB 2 9.CDg6 l'!f7 30.CDeS and the opponents agreed to a draw.

12 'ffb 6 It would not be so precise for Black to play 12 . . . a6 13.CDde4 Wlb6, since after 14.a4, White can trans­ pO to the main line, but he can als try to save a tempo for the mo e a2-a4 and choose instead 14. f3 , or 14.ihS. 3.a4 In case of the immediate 13.CDde4, without the inclusion of the moves a2-a4 and a7-a6, Black has the powerful argument 13 . . . •••

I

cS ! , for example: 14.dxcS hcS 15. a4 CDxc3 16.CDxc3 a6 17.axbS axbS IB.l'!xaB+ haB 19.j"f3 j"c6 20. Wle2 'it>e7 21.h4 j"d4 2 2 .hc6 Wlxc6 23.bxgS bxgS 24.l'!dl hc3 25. bxc3 CDeS 26.Wle3 l'!hS 27.Wle2 l'!hB 2B.Wlg4 CDe4 29.l'!d4 WlaB 30.Wlf3 f5 31.exf6+ CDxf6 32 .j"d6+ 'it>f7 33. Wle2 l'!h4 34.l'!dl WlhB 3S.f3 l'!hl + 36.'it>f2 l'!xdI 37.Wlxdl CDdS 38.j"b4 Wlh4+ 39.'it>gl Wlf4 0-1 Lajthajm - Aleksandrov, Budva 2003. 13 a6 The move 13 ... aS ! ? is not in the spirit of the position, because it is essential for Black to advance c6cS. Now, after he has played a7as, this would be very difficult for him: 14.l'!c1 ! - this is a very useful move for White, preparing CDd2e4. (14.CDde4? ! b4 IS.CDa2 ! 0-0-0 16.,txc4?! - 16.Wld2 ! ? - 16 ... CDf4 ! 17.CDd6+ .txd6 IB.exd6 c5 19.j"xf4 gxf4 2 0.VNhS Wlxd6 21.l'!fdl l'!hgB 2 2 .f3 l'!gS 0-1 Nakamura - J.Gus­ tafsson, Ansfelden 2009) 14 . . .j"e7 IS.CDde4 CDxc3 (IS . . . b4 16.CDbl) 16.CDxc3 (16.bxc3 ! ? cS 17.f3) 16 . . . b4 17.CDe4 h S I B . .txhS cS 19.dxcS CDxcS 2 0.CDd6+ hd6 21.exd6 c3 2 2 .bxc3 b3 23.l'!el l'!dB 24.VNg4 Wlc6 2S.f3 l'!xd6 26.,txd6 Wlxd6 27.l'!cdl VNf4 2B.l'!xe6+ 'it>fB 29.Wlxf4 gxf4 30.l'!eS CDxa4 31.l'!d7 l'!xhS 32.l'!xhS h6 33.l'!xaS b2 34. l'!dB+ 1-0 Fier - Harikrishna, Montcada 2009. 14.�de4 (diagram) 14 0 - 0 - 0 It is rather dubious for Black •••

.•.

139

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 3

15 . .ih5 15.Wfd2 ! ? c5 16.axb5 axb5 17. lLlxd5 ixd5 18.lLlc3 lDb8 19.b3 cxb3 20.dxc5 ixc5 21.lLlxd5 E!xd5 2 2 .Wfc3 E!hd8 23.Wfxb3, draw, Hal­ kias - Motylev, Plovdiv 2008.

to choose 14 . . . ie7? ! 15.'i;Yd2 h5? 16.lLlxd5 exd5 (He should better defend here with 16 . . . cxd5 17. lLlxg5±) 17.lLlxg5 c5 18J!ae1! Rad­ jabov - Mastrovasilis, Warsaw 2005. It is interesting however for him to opt for 14 . . . c5 and after 15.lLlxd5 ixd5 16.lLlc3 ! cxd4 (16 . . . ib7? 17.d5) 17.lLlxd5 exd5 18.ih5 (18.axb5 ig7 19.if3 ! ?) . Black's situation seems to be perilous, since White's light-squared bish­ op is very powerful and he is threatening e5-e6, but all this is at the price of two sacrificed pawns . . . 18 . . . i.e7! (18 . . . i.g7? ! 19.e6 0-0 20.exd7 E!ad8 21.axb5 axb5 2 2 .f4t Del Rio Angelis - Korneev, Evora 2007; 18 . . . Wfe6? 19.ig4 Wfb6 2 0 . e6 lLlf6 2 1 .ie5 fig7 2 2 .ixd4 Wfd6 23.ixf6 ixf6 24.Wff3± Gormally - Tweedie, Edinburgh 2 006) 19. e6 (19.a5 Wfe6 2 0.fig4 Wfc6 21. Wlxd4 lLlc5) 19 ... Wfxe6 2 0 .E!e1 Wff6 2 1.i.g4 O-O! 2 2 .ixd7 id6 23.axb5 axb5 24.ixb5 ixg3 25.hxg3 E!xa1 26. Wfxa1 d3 and Black has a more than sufficient compensation for the piece. 140

15 . �f4 ! This is an important and pow­ erful resource for Black! It is dubious for him to play in­ stead 15 . . . E!h7? ! 16.axb5 cxb5 17. lLlxd5 exd5 18.lLld6+ ixd6 19.exd6 lLlf6 2 0 .ig4+ lLlxg4 21.Wfxg4+ @b8 2 2 .WffS E!hh8 23.E!fe1 @a8 24.E!e7 b4 25.E!xf7 E!hg8 26 .ie5 g4 27.d7 c3 28.bxc3 bxc3 29.Wfd3 E!g6 30.Wlxc3 E!c6 31.Wfa3 @a7 32 .g3 E!e6 33J%f8 1-0 Mamed­ yarov - KaIjakin, Moscow (blitz) 2008. It is again questionable for him to choose 15 . . . c5, because after 16.axb5 axb5 17.lLlxd5 ixd5 (17 . . . exd5 18.dxc5 lLlxc5 19.1Llxc5 ixc5 20 .ixf7) 18.lLlc3 ib7 19.d5, Black has difficulties, for example : 19 . . . exd5 2 0.Wff3 d 4 2 1.Wfxf7 dxc3 2 2 .bxc3 and White is totally dom­ inant and he is threatening e5-e6, ..

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. j,g3 b5 9. i.e2 i.b7 1 0 .e5 CiJd5 while Black's situation is critical. 16.1xf7 16.aS?! �c7 (16 . . . �a7? ! 17 . .ixf7 CiJxeS 18.i.xe6+ fl±) 16.hhS hxgS 17.gh7 (17. gab1 ! ? i.a6 lS.'it>f1; 17.!!hS ! ? g4 18.�gS) 17 . . . g4 (17 . . . cS lS.'it>f1 g4 19.�d2±; 17 . . . i.a6 ! ? lS.'it>fU) IS. ...

White fails to organize an ef­ fective attack against the enemy king, while Black's pawns are very powerful: 2 1.Wle2 (21.!!d3 b4? ! 2 2 .!!xb2 ! hcS 23.!!b3 ; 21.. .�c6 ! 2 2 .�b3 b4 23.dS !!xg3 ! ? 24.!!xg3 �eS-+) 21 . . . Wlb4 2 2 . �xe6 Wlc4!-+ 23.�c7+ 'it>dS 24.WlhS (24.Wlxc4 bxc4 2S.�xaS c2- + ; 24.Wlc2 !!xg3-+) 24 . . . !!gS 2S.Wlh3 !!xg3 26.Wlxg3 Wlxc7 27.WlgS �d7 2S. Wlxf7 Wlc4 29.dS Wlxe4 0-1 Atalik - Dreev, Sarajevo 2001. o, there was a moment in the de elopment of the variation with 10. 4 b4, in which White did not kn w what to do and therefore, he us d to enter the above mentioned line with 11.�a4. All that situation was changed dramatically by just one game, moreover - by just one very powerful move and we would

i

143

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 4 ltJe5 (18.ltJd2 ! ?) 18 . . . ltJxe5 19. he5 �d5 2 0 J�ah1! (20J�b1? c5°o Beliavsky - Sveshnikov, Ljubljana 2 002) 2 0 . . . c5 (20 . . .�xg2 21.l3xi7! �xh1 2 2 .�g6+-) 2 1.l3xi7 �e4+ 2 2 .�xe4 ixe4 23 .l3c7 (23.l3f4±) 23 . . .cxd4 24.l3h8+ - Stohl - Kuc­ zynski, Germany 2002. 14.1Yhl! If 14.�c2 ? ! , then 14 ... �a5 15.0-0 c5 16.l3ab1 ic6, with an unclear position (but not 16 . . . �xc3?? 17.�a4+ ic6 18.l3xb8+ 1-0 S.lvanov - Potkin, St. Peters­ burg 2 000). 14 1Ya5 •••

the entire variation (from "un­ clear" into "absolutely hopeless for Black") and White had failed to discover it until the appearance of the powerful computer pro­ grams. There were analyses only after the "human" line : 15.0-0 ltJxc3 16.�xb7 ltJxe2+ 17.�h1 bxg5+ 18.ltJh2 1tJd7 19.�xa8+ �e7 and Black obtained a good posi­ tion. Unfortunately, the first and the last victim of that marvelous novelty turned out to be my chess­ helper and friend for many years Alexander Filipenko and that move cost him qualifying for the World Championship (knock-out system) in Moscow. The game Rogozenko - Filipenko, FIDE. com 2001, continued with: 15 f5 (15 . . .�xc3 16.0-0 ! ; 15 . . . ltJxd2 16.�xb7 �xc3 17.�c8+ �e7 18 .,if6 + �d6 19 .�d8+ ltJd7 20 .ie5+ �d5 21.�xd7+ �e4 2 2 . �xc6+ �f5 23 .l3d1) 16.gxf6 c5 17. ctlxe4 he4 IS.J.h5+ ! � dS 19.1Yxe4 1Yxc3 + 2 0 . � e2 1Yd3 + 21.1Yxd3 cxd3 + 22. �xd3 ctlc6 23 .if3 gcS 24.hc6 gxc6 25. gahl+•••

15 .ctld2 ! ! + - - This powerful move changed the evaluation of

•

So, the variation with 10 ... b4, seemed to be promising for Blackfor a long time and I managed to win several beautifu l games in it, but it should beforgotten now. I think we have analyzed it quite extensively, so the readers who wish to play the Anti-Moscow variation with White should not encounter a surprise over the board.

144

Ch pter 5

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3 .�f3 �f6 4.�c3 e6 5 . .ig5 h6 6 . .ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8 .ig3 b5 9 . .ie2 .ib7 1 0 .h4 g4 11. �e5 h5 .

Classical System

After this move there arises a system, which I have named as "Classical". The possibilities for Black to avoid it have been ana­ lyzed in Chapter 6. Following 1l . . .h5, White has two alternatives : A) 12.f3 and B) 12. 0 - 0 .

A) 12.f3 This is an enterprising move, Sin White opens the position, with ut preliminary preparation, hopi g that Black will not be well­ pre ared for this abrupt change in t e developments. In practice however, this assumption turns out to be wrong . . . 1 2 �bd7 This is the best for Black. It is

l

• . •

dubious for him to opt for the seldom played move 12 . . ..ih6 13.fxg4 hxg4 (but not 13 . . . b4 14.ttJxc4 bxc3 15.ttJd6+ �fB 16.bxc3 1-0 Ernst - F .Andersson, Stockholm 2 0 05) 14.ttJxg4 ttJxg4 15.,bg4 �e3 16.'lWf3 hd4 17.0-0-0 'lWf6 IB.'lWxf6 .bf6 19 .e5 .ie7 2 0 . .if3 and the endgame is difficult for Black. The other rarely played move - 12 . . . gxf3 does not look promis­ ing for him either, since it contra­ dicts the main principle of this variation. He should not lose time (He needs it to consolidate his forces ! ) and a present for White of this type, to let him place his bish­ op on f3, plus opening of the f-file, led to a swift demise for Black, for example in the following games : 13 . .bf3 ih6 (13 . . . c5 14. 0-0 'lWxd4+ 15. 'lWxd4 cxd4 16. ttJxb5 ttJa6 17.ttJxc4 l'!gB IB . .ie5 ttJd7 19. hd4 .ic6 20.ttJxa7 1-0 Garmally - N.McDonald, Hampstead 199B ; after 13 . . . ttJbd7, it deserves atten­ tion for White to play 14. 0-0 ! ?) 14.0-0 ie3+ 15.if2 ixf2+ 16. l'!xf2 l'!h7 17.ttJxf7 l'!xf7 1B . .hh5 b4 19.e5 ttJbd7 20 . .ixf7+ �xf7 21. 145

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter S lLle4 1-0 Pliasunov - Yagupov, St. Petersburg 2002.

13.fxg4 This is the right decision! In­ stead, it would be wrong for White to opt for 13.0-0 lLlxe5 (It is not good for Black to play 13 .. J�g8? with the same idea: 14.fxg4 lLlxe5 15.ixe5 lLlxg4, in view of 14.lLlxf7! mxf7 15.fxg4 mg7 16.g5 lLlg4 17. ixg4 hxg4 18.�xg4 %Ve8 19JU2 ! ? and his position i s very bad.) 14. ixe5. It was considered for a long time that the move 14 . . . 1'!g8, which was tested in the game Khenkin Godena, Arco 1998, would solve Black's problems and that was in­ deed so : 15.fxg4 lLlxg4 16.hg4 hxg4 (It is also interesting for him to play 16 . . . 1'!xg4 17.%Vf3 %Vd7.) 17. %Vel?! (17.g3 ! ?) 17 . . . g3 ! 18.hg3 Wxd4+ 19.mh2 b4 2 0.1'!d1 %Vg7 21.lLle2 ie7 2 2 .�f2 ? ! (White had better choose 22 .�d2 1'!d8 23.�f4 e5, with an advantage for Black.) 22 . . . c5 23.%Vf4 e5? ! (It is even stronger for him to play 23 . . . %Vg6-+) 24.%Vf5 ic8 25.%Vxe5 %Vxe5 26.ixe5 ixh4 27.lLlg3 146

hg3+ 28 .hg3 1'!h8+ 29.mg1 ie6 30J�d6, but here Black made a mistake - 30 . . . 1'!d8 ! ? 31.1'!fd1 1'!xd6 32 .hd6 1'!h5 33.e5 and the game ended soon in a draw. Meanwhile, after the possibility 30 . . . c3 3l. bxc3 ha2 , Black would have maintained good winning chanc­ es. Still, I believe that 14 . . . lLld7 is a better move than 14 . . . 1'!g8 . 15.ig3 (In case of 15.ixh8, the move 15 . . . g3 ! wins immediately. I t i s amaz­ ing, but in a game between strong women chess-players Chasovni­ kova - Shumiakina, Russia 2008, Black overlooked this possibility. The move 15 . . . �h4 was played and the game transposed to the variation with 13 .fxg4.) 15 . . . ie7 16.%Ve1 %Vb6 17.1'!d1 e5 18.if2 g3 19 ..ie3 .if6 2 0.ixc4 (But not 2 0 . %Vd2 exd4 2l.ixd4 hd4+ 2 2 . %Vxd4 0 - 0 - 0 and White's posi­ tion is very difficult.) 20 . . . exd4 2l.e5 dxe3 2 2 . exf6 0-0-0, with a great advantage for Black. 13 hxg4 This is a very interesting mo­ ment. On one hand, this move seems to be more precise for Black than 13 . . . lLlxe5, since it prevents the additional possibility for White - 14.ixe5 hxg4 15.ixg4 (15.0-0 transposes to the main line), but on the other hand, this line is not dangerous for Black at all, for example: there were inter­ esting developments in the fol­ lowing game: 15 . . . 1'!g8 16.ih5 (It is better for White to play 16.if3.) 16 . . . ig7 (16 . . . lLlxh5? ! 17.�xh5 •••

. fLh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. �g3 b5 9. fLe2 �b7 1 O .h4 g4 1l. COe5 h5 12.j3 l:'txg2 B. O-O-O) 17. 0-0 (17.if3 ! ?) 17. . . xhS 18.�xhS �e7 19.1:'tad1 l:'thB 0 .�f3 heS 21.dxeS l:'ixh4 2 2 . l:'t 6 l:'th7 23.COe2 l:'tdB 24.�g3 l:'txd6 2S.exd6 �fB 26.COf4 �hB 27.CO 3 litd7 2B.eS c5 29.�gS �dB 30.l:'t fLdS 31.�e3 l:'tg7? ! (Black had etter continue with 31.. .�aS ! with possible draw after 32 .�gS �dB ; 32 .COf4 fLc6 ; 32.COgS l:'tg7) 32.CO 4 fLc6 (32 . . . fLb7 33.COhS l:'txg2 34.litfl l:'txb2 3S.l:'txt7+ IitcB 36.�xcS+ IitbB 37.COf4 ; 33.�xc5 �aS) 33 .�xcS? (White loses his advantage with this move. He had to play 33.COhS l:'txg2+ 34.litfl, or 33.�a3 ! ? with the idea 33 . . . �b6 34.�h3 ! + -) 33 . . . �aS ! 34.lith2 l:'th7+ 3S.ttJh3 l:'tg7= S.Ivanov Nielsen, Sweden 2005; lS ... l:'th6 ! 16.�f3 (16.hS?! �aS?! 17. 0-0 ttJd7 1B.fLf4 l:'th7 19.eS± Beliavsky - Kobalija, Tripoli 2 0 04; 16 . . . b4 17.COa4 COxe4 18.�e2 cS 19. 0-0-0 �gS+ 2 0.litb1 cxd4 2 1.hd4 ttJg3- + ; 19.if3 �dS and Black is better.) 17.�6 �xf6 1B.COe2 �g7 19.if3 eS) 16 . . . COd7 17.ig3 eS! 1B.dxeS �e7, with a good game for him. 14. 0 - 0 It is bad for White to continue with 14.COxg4?, because of 14 . . . b4 ! and he has problems with the pro­ tection of the e4-pawn. (diagram) 14 �xe5 This is the best for Black. In­ stead, it would be dubious for him to opt for 14 . . . fLh6? ! , in view of lS.COxt7 1itxt7 16.eS fLe3+ 17.lith2

and Black's position is critical, for example: 17 . . . lite7 (17 . . . liteB? ! lB. exf6 COxf6 19.hg4 �e7 - 19 . . . �xd4 2 0.he6 - 2 0 .�f3 l:'th6 2 1.l:'tae1 cS 22 .dS igs 23.l:'txe6 COxg4+ 24.�xg4 l:'txe6 2S.dxe6 ih6 26.l:'tt7 1-0 Malinin - Sestja­ kov, Tula 2001; 17 . . .igS 1B.COe4! ixh4 19.hh4 l:'txh4+ 20.litg3 l:'th6 2 1.�d2 l:'tg6 2 2 .exf6 �bB+ 23. �f4±; 2 2 ... COxf6 23.l:'ixf6+ l:'txf6 24.COxf6 'lWc7+ 2S. litxg4±) lB. exf6+ COxf6 19.1:'txf6 ! ? Iitxf6 20. hg4 and White's attack is very dangerous. 15 . .be5

•••

15 �d7! ? This move was played for the •••

147

Chapter S first time in the game Kasparov Dreev, Moscow 2 004. Until then, Black's main re­ source was considered to be 15 . . . l3h6 and White's best reaction was 16.if4 ! , for example: 16 . . . b4 17. ig5 bxc3 1B.bxc3 l3g6 19.13xf6 l3xf6 2 0.e5 ie7 2 1 .exf6 ixf6 2 2 . l3b1 ixg5 23.hxg5 Yffe 7 24.ixc4 0-0-0 25.Yffxg4 l3gB 26.l3fl c;tbB 27.Yfff4+ c;taB 2B.Yfff6 Yffxf6 29. l3xf6 l3xg5 30.l3xf1 c;tbB 31.ixe6 c5 32.l3fB+ c;tc7 33.l3gB l3h5 34. l3g7+ c;tb6 35.ig4 1-0 Erdos Baramidze, albia 200B. It is weaker for White to continue with 16.Yffd 2?! (He should better sacri­ fice the e4-pawn in another fash­ ion - 16.g3 b4 17.ltJa4 ltJxe4 lB. ixc4 f5, but even then the compli­ cations are advantageous for Black, for example: 19 .ixe6 l3xe6 20.l3xf5) 16 . . . b4 (16 . . . ltJh5 ! ? 17.g3 l3g6) 17.ltJa4 (White has some compensation for the piece after 17.Yfff4, but it is obviously insuffi­ cient: 17 . . .bxc3 1B.bxc3 ig7 19. l3ab1 Yffe 7! - 19 ... icB 2 0 .ixg4 20 .ixc4 icB 2 1.ixf6 Yffxf6? 2 2 . Yffc7+-; 2 1 . . .l3xf6 2 2 .Yffxg4 l3xfl + 23.l3xf1 ih6.) 17 . . . ltJxe4 1B.Yfff4 f5 19.93. The game Lukey - Chan­ dler, Auckland 2 00B, continued with 19 . . . l3g6 (The best for Black was 19 . . . c5 2 0 .ixc4 Yffd 7 2 1.ltJxc5 ltJxc5 2 2 .dxc5 ixc5+ 23.c;th2 Yffc 6 24.Yffd 2 ie3 25.Yffe 2 0-0-0-+ with the idea 26.l3fd1 2 6 . . . l3dhB 27.ixhB l3xh4+ 2B .gxh4 if4+ ; 26.l3ad1 l3dhB 27.ixhB l3xh4+ 2B.gxh4 Yffc7+) 20.Yffe 3? ! (It is 14B

Anti-Moscow Variation better for White to play 2 0 .ltJc5.) 20 . . . Yffd 5 (20 . . . c5 ! ? 21.ixc4 cxd4) 2 1.h5?! l3g5 2 2 . l3ac1 l3xh5 23.ixc4 Yffd7 24.id3 ltJg5- + But not 15 . . . ie7? 16.Yffd 2 l3xh4 17.Yfff4 ltJh7 1B.Yffxf1 + c;td7 19.ig3 l3h6 2 0.if4 l3h4 2 1.g3 l3h3 2 2 . d5 cxd5 23.ltJxd5 ixd5 24.exd5 Yffb 6+ 25.c;tg2 ltJf6 26.Yffx e6+ Yffx e6 27. dxe6+ c;tc6 2B.ixg4 l3hhB 29. if3+ ltJd5 30.ixd5+ c;txd5 31. l3ad1+ c;txe6 32.l3fe1+ 1-0 Ne­ chaev - Maksimenko, Alushta 1999. 17. .txg4 16 . .bh8 Vxh4 Vxh8 18.e5

Here, Black played imprecisely - 1B . . . ltJe5 19.dxe5 ic5 20.l3f2 Yffe 5 21.Yffe 2 ! Yffe 2 2 2 .ie2 l3dB 23.c;tfl if2 24.c;tf2 and although the position was about equal, his maximum seemed to be a draw. White tried later the move 1B.ih5?, but it proved to be un­ satisfactory for him: 1B . . . 0-0-0 19.hf7 c5? 2 0.ixe6 cxd4 2 1 .ltJxb5 d3 22.l3f5 a6, with an unclear po­ sition, Chasovnikova - Shumiaki­ na, Cheliabinsk 200B. Meanwhile,

(J. J.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. J.g3 b5 9. J.e2 J.b7 1 O .h4 g4 11. 0.e5 h5 12f3 after the simple reply 19 . . . e5 (It also seems good for Black to play 19 . . . Jtd6.) White will have prob­ lems. 1.8 0 - 0 - 0 ! I refrained from playing this natural move, because of 1 9.Ve2 (I thought for a while 1 that the move 19.�e1 was very dangerous for the opponent. Its idea is that in the important vari­ ation 19 . . . c5 2 0 .0.xb5 a6 21.0.a3 cxd4 2 2 .0.c4, Black cannot play with tempo 2 2 . . . d3, like in the variation with 19.�e2, and that changes the evaluation in favour of White. It has some drawbacks, though. Black should not be ob­ sessed with advancing c6-c5, he can change his course of action by playing 19 . . . �g7, attacking his op­ ponent's bishop and protecting the f7-pawn in the process. If Wh te replies in the most natural fas ion - 20 .J.f3, then Black can go ack to the plan with the occu­ pati n of the h-file with 20 . . . ie7, foll wed by gh8 and doubling the roo along the h-file.) 19 c5 2 0 . �xb5 (White put a lot of ef­ fort to make a draw after 2 0 .d5 0.x 5 21.dxe6 - 2 1.ih3 a6 ! ? - 21 . . . 0.x 4 2 2 .�xg4 %Yd4 + 23.�xd4 cxd 24.0.xb5 fxe6 25.gac1 ih6 (25 . . . id5 26J!xf8 gxf8 27.0.xd4 @d ) 26.gxc4+ @b8 27.ge1 ie3+ (27 ... d3 28.gxe6 d2 29.0.c3) 28. gxe dxe3 29.gd4 gf8 30 .gd1 a6 31. c3 gf2 32.gd6 e5 33 .ge6 gfS 34. g6 gf2 35.gg5 gxb2 36.gxe5 gxg + Bacrot - Dreev, Poikovsky •••

•••

2 005.), but as Kasparov pointed out quite deservedly after the game, it would be very strong for Black to play 2 0 a6 21.�a3 cxd4 22. �xc4 d3 ! , and White would have great problems, for example: 23. �xd3 ic5+ 24.0.e3 0.xe5 25.�c2 (25.�c3 0.d3) 25 . . . 0.d3 26.gad1 (26.b4 �d4 27.bxc5 �xe3+) 26 . . . �e5 27.gxd3 gxd3 28.�xd3 he3+ 29.gf2 (29.@h1 �h8+) 29 ... hf2 + 30.@xf2 �xb2+. •••

The best for him here is 2U�xf7 axb5 22 .he6 cxd4 23.hd7+ 'it>b8 (23 . . . gxd7 24. �g4 ic6 25.gxd7 hd7 26.e6 d3 27.exd7+ @d8 - White has extra material indeed, but in this inter­ esting position Black's prospects are not worse. The game should end in a draw by a perpetual, for example : 28.�g5+ /;.e7 29 .�xb5 �d4+ 30.@h1 �h4 = ; 29.�d5 �xb2 30.ge1 �f6? 31.�a8+ @xd7 32 .�d5+ @c8 33.ge6 �a1+ 34. @h2 �h8+ 35. @g3 �g7+ 36.@f3 �f7+ 37.'it>e4 �h7+ 38.@e3 + - ; 30 . . . �b4=) 24.hb5 J.c5 ! ( 2 4 . . . 149

Chapter S

Anti-Moscow Variation

ih6?! 25J�xb7+ wxb7 26.g3 ie3+ 27.@g2 V;!ixeS 2B.hc4 �fB 29JUl \!;Ye4+ 30 .�f3) 25.ftxc4 ftxe5 26. ftd3 ixg2 27.�U'5 (27.@xg2 �gB+ 2B.wfl V;!ih2 29.�f2 �gl+ 30.@e2 V;!ieS+ 31.Wd2 V;!ie3+ 32 .V;!ixe3 dxe3+ 33.We2 exf2 = ) 27 ftc7 28.ge1 (2B.@xg2 l'!gB+ 29.wfl \!;yh2 - see 27.Wxg2) 28 id5 29.ge2 ftg7+ 3 0 . �f1 gg8 31. ge8 + �e8 32.ixe8 ftg2 + 33. � e1 .ib4+ 34. � d1 .ic4 35.gb5 + � a8 36.ftxd4 fte2 + 37. � c1 fte1+ 38. � c2 fte2 + •••

•••

B) 12. 0 - 0 �bd7 13.ftc2 We have already mentioned before that 13.f3 is not good for White, because of 13 ... lLlxe5 14. !xe5 lLld7! etc.

This is the key-position of the Classical System. Its evaluation remains unclear, since the game s tremendously complicated. We will analyze the most fashionable lines for both sides. 13 . . . �xe5 The move 13 . . . ig7 has also 150

been played in some games of fa­ mous players. As a rule, it leads to transpositions after 14.�ad1 lLlxe5. Still, I will not recommend it to Black, because White then has an­ other interesting possibility and that is 14.lLlxd7 lLlxd7 (It is bad for Black to reply with 14 . . . \!;Yxd7, in view of 15.eS, followed by lLlc3e4.) lS.eS V;!ib6. This position has been tested in practice twice. One of the games continued with : 16.a4 c5 ! 17.lLlxb5 0-0 lB. hc4 (It was much more interest­ ing for White to play 1B.V;!ixc4 cxd4 19.a5 V;!ic6 2 0.V;!ixc6 hc6 21.lLlxd4 idS 22.f4 gxf3 23.lLlxf3 �abB 24. �ab1, with slightly better pros­ pects for him in this endgame; or 1B . . . id5 19.V;!ic1 cxd4 2 0.V;!igS and the position would remain un­ clear. Black can play 20 . . . a6 21 .lLld6 V;!ib2 , as well as immedi­ ately - 20 . . . lLleS.) 1B . . . cxd4 and he has a good game, Bobras Charnota, Poland 200B. It is however better for White to opt for 16.lLle4, which was played in the game Zakhartsov Mathenko, Voronezh 200B, which continued with 16 ... cS 17.lLld6+ We7 (I think it is a bit better for Black to play 17 . . . @fB, but even then after 1B.dxcS, White has a clear advantage.) 1B.dxcS lLlxc5 19.1'!ad1 l'!adB . He continued here with 20.V;!ic1 and maintained his advantage, but it was possibly even stronger for him to go for 2 0.if4, or 20.b3. Black's position would look then rather suspicious

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. i.g3 b5 9. i.e2 �b7 1 0 .h4 g4 11. &iJ e5 h5 12. 0 - 0 and we can assume that presently, the line 13 . . . i.g7, should not be considered as acceptable for him. Black tries very rarely a plan, connected with the move 13 . . . �e7, with the idea to continue without capturing on eS, with the idea to improve his position with 't-YdS­ b6, gaS-dS, but this is dubious and it would take a long time to accomplish and the following game emphasized that: 14.gad1 't-Yb6 lS.b3 cxb3 16.'t-Yxb3 gdS (Black should prefer here 16 . . . &iJxeS 17.heS 0 - 0 lS.hf6 hf6 19.eS hh4 2 0 .&iJe4.) 17.dS ! &iJcS 18.'t-Yb2 cxdS 19.hbS+ 'it>fS 20. exdS exdS 2 1.a4 a6 2 2 .aS 't-YxaS 23 .ic6 d4 24.&iJe2 d3 2S.&iJf4 gbS 26.&iJfxd3 'it>g7 27.&iJxcS hc6 2S. 't-Yel 't-YxcS 29.'t-YgS+ 'it>h7 30.gc1 't-YdS 31.&iJxc6 gbgS 32.'t-Yf4 �a3 .-..� _ lR A IIlJ hel 34.&iJe7 't-Yc4 3S.gd1 36.gdS gfS 37.'t-YfS+ 'it>g7 + 1-0 Bocharov - Svesh­ Krasnoyarsk 2003.

Black has also tried in practice 14 . . . i.h6 ! ? I played this move for the first time in the year 2005, but then I decided against it. Still, it attracted numerous followers (including some top-players). It seems to me that the move has def­ inite drawbacks. Alexander Gris­ chuk was White in the game (Gris­ chuk - KaIjakin, Odessa (rapid) 200S) and he emphasized them. In fact, Black won that game, but he did not solve the problems in the opening: lS.�g3 - we analyze a similar sacrifice in details, when Black's bishop is on g7 (variation B2a), while when the bishop is on g7, the situation on the board is naturally changed considerably lS . . . %!Ixd4 16.gfd1 't-Yb6 17.b3 cxb3 lS.axb3 a6 (but not lS . . . 0-0 19.eS &iJdS 20.&iJe4, threatening gd1xdS) 19.b4 ! ? (19 .ieS ig7 2 0.%!Id2 0-0 2 1.'t-YgS &iJeS 2 2 .hg7 &iJxg7 23.eS cS 24.id3 gfd8 2S.&iJe4 he4 2 6.he4 gabS 27.gxdS+ 't-Yxd8 2S .'t-Yh6 &iJfS 29.hfS exfS 30.e6; but not 19.eS? ! &iJdS 20.&iJe4 cS ! 21.&iJd6+ 'it>fS) 19 . . .ifS 2 0 .ieS ie7 2 1.'t-Yc1 ggS 2 2 .'t-Yf4 g3 ! ? 23.id4 eS 24.'t-YxeS &iJd7 2S.'t-YxhS (2S.'t-Yf5!?) 2S . . . gxf2 + 26.hf2 %!Ic7 and here White made a mistake - 27.'t-Yh7? ! , and after 2 7. . . &iJf6 2S .'t-Yh6 't-YeS+, Black seized the initiative. Mean­ while, after 27.eS ! ? with the idea to counter 27 . . . 0-0-0 with 2S.&iJdS ! cxdS 29.gdel, White would have maintained the advantage. If after 14 . . . i.h6 ! ? White plays lS.b3, then following lS . . . cxb3 16. 151

Chapter S axb3, he would have no doubt compensation for the pawn, but it would not be easy to prove that he has the advantage, for example: 16 . . . 0-0 17 . .ig3 (17.l3fd1 ! ? ; 17.g3?! llJe8 18.d5 cxd5 19.exd5 .ig7 2 0 . hg7 llJxg7 2 lohb5 l3c8 2 2 .�d2? - 2 2 . .ic4 - 2 2 ... l3xc3 0-1 Werle ­ Motylev, Plovdiv 2008; 17 . .id3 l3e8 18.llJe2 llJd7 19 . .ig3 e5 2 0 .f3 .ie3+ 2 loh2 exd4 22 .fxg4 llJ e5 23.g5 llJxd3 24.�xd3 c5 25.llJf4 he4 26.�xb5 Gonnally - Dreev, Gibraltar 2005; 22 . . . hxg4 23.llJf4 llJe5 24.llJh5 !!e6=+) 17 . . . c5 ! (In case of 17 . . . �xd4 ! ? , the game transposes to the variation 15 . .ig3 18.l3fd1) 18.dxc5 b4 19.13fd1 �c8 20.llJb5 llJxe4 2lollJd6 �xc5 2 2 . �xc5 llJxc5 23.llJxb7 llJxb7 24.l3d7 .ig7 25.l3a2 llJc5 26.!!dxa7 l3xa7 27.l3xa7 llJxb3 28 . .id6 l3c8 29. hb4 llJ d4 30 . .ifl llJf5 31.g3 llJxg3 0-1 Lopez Gracia - AI Sayed, Bar­ celona 2005. Following 15.d5 cxd5 16.exd5 hd5 17.l3ad1 0-0, it is interest­ ing for White to play 18.llJxb5 ! ?� (A.Onishchuk) and after 18 .hf6 �xf6 19.1lJxd5 exd5 20.l3xd5 �g6 2 1.�xg6+ fxg6 22.l3xb5 l3ac8, Black equalizes. White has also tried in practice 15.l3ad1 0-0 16 . .ig3 (16.f4? llJe8-+ Mohammad - Karjakin, AI Ain 2 008) 16 . . . �e7 17.e5 llJd5 18.llJe4 f5 (18 . . . c5 ! ? with the idea 19.dxc5 llJb4) 19.exf6 �h7! 2 0 . .ie5 c 5 2 lodxc5 �f5 and Black soon won, Mastrovasilis - Avrukh, Athens 2 005. 152

Anti-Moscow Variation

With this move Black avoids the variations arising after 14 . . . .ig7 (since his bishop remains on the f8-square) and he prepares llJf6-d7 and later, after .ie5-g3 , he can attack the h4-pawn with .if8e7 . This move has a certain draw­ back as well, because Black loses his castling rights on the kingside. It seems to me that White must put on d1 this rook and leave the other one on a1, since after the move a2-a4, it would be more useful on a1 than on flo In case of 15.l3ad1, there may arise the following developments : 15 . . . l3g6 ! 16 ..if4 - White preserves the possibility to play later g2-g3 . (16.J.g3 J.e7) 16 . . . J.e7 17.g3 �a5 ! - This is the best move for Black. White is better indeed, but Black is ready to counter the thematic move 18.b3, with 18 . . . .ib4 (After 17 . . . a6?, White can play the un­ dennining move b2-b3 under very favourable circumstances : 18. b3 ! ± b4 19.1lJa4 c3 2 0 .llJc5±; 18 . . .

i

6. h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. j.g3 b5 9. j.e2 j.b7 1 0 .h4 g4 1l. CiJ e5 h5 12. 0 - 0 cxb3 19.axb3 j.b4 2 0 .CiJa2 j.e7 21.CiJ 3 = ; 20.j.d3 ! �xd4 21.CiJa2 e5 2 2 .j.e3 �d6 23.,bb5 cxb5 24. �xd6 hd6oo; 23 .j.e2 ! �e7 24. CiJxb4 �xb4 25.j.c5 �a5 26.�b2 CiJd7 27.�xd7 xd7 28 .�d1+-; 26 . . . %Yc7 27.j.d6± Sakaev - Khenkin, Belgrade 1999) 18.j.d2 �c7 19.�f4 �a5. The alternatives for Black (after 1�5.�ad1) are weaker: 1!5 ... �e7 16.d5 ! and after the exchanges on d5, White's queen may end up on the h7-square ; 1 p . . . CiJd7 16 . .ig3 �b6 (16 . . . b4? ! 17.ttJa4 i.e7 18.hc4 hh4 19. d5+ - ; 16 . . . i.e7 17.d5 ! ; 16 ... e5 17. dxe5 - 17.d5 ! ? - 17 . . . �e7 18 .b3 ! ? cxb3 19.�xb3 CiJxe5? 2 0 .CiJxb5; 18 ... b4 19.CiJd5 cxd5 20.exd5 c3 2 1.e6 0-0-0 2 2 .exd7+ �xd7 23. i.d3 �d6 24.�fe1 �d8 25.i.b5 �f6 26.�e4 �g7 27.�xb4 �gd8 28. �c5+ @b8 29.�e8 1-0 Ehlvest Stripunsky, New York 2003) 17. d5! 0-0-0 18.dxe6 fxe6 19 .b3 cxb3 20.axb3 a 6 2 1.e5 ! ± lS CiJd7 15 ... .ie7 16.g3� 16.j.g3 •••

16 J.e7 Black is trying to accomplish his main plan - to attack the h4pawn. His alternatives are less logical and he has difficulties after them : After 16 . . . j.g7? ! , White has the powerful resource 17.e5, followed by CiJc3-e4. In the game Obodchuk Yagupov, St. Petersburg 2003, Black played 16 . . . e5? ! 17.dxe5 �e7 18 .a4 b4 19.CiJb1 CiJxe5 2 0 .CiJd2 �g6 21.CiJxc4±; 16 . . . �b6? ! 17.e5 ! ?N (I believe this move, which has not been tested in practice yet, is at least as promising for White as 17.b3, leading to an advantage for him.) 17 ... �g6 (threatening 18.�h7) 18. b3 cxb3 19.axb3 i.e7 2 0.i.d3 �g8 2 1.CiJe4 c5 2 2 . dxc5 CiJxc5 23.CiJf6+ .hi6 24.exf6 CiJxd3 25.�xd3 (25. �xd3? .ie4) 25 . . . �c6 26.�f1+17.eS 17.d5 ! ? 17 CiJf8 It would not work for Black to play 17 . . . J.xh4 18.�h7 �f8 19.CiJe4 .ie7 2 0.j.h4 ! (This beautiful move is evidently the best, but White can also maintain his advantage after the simple 20.�xh5±) 20 . . . ixh 4 21.CiJd6+ e7 22.�xh5 .txf2 + 23.xf2 �b8 24 . .txg4 d8 25.a4± 18.CiJe4 CiJg6 19.b3 cxb3 2 0 .axb3 (diagram) Black cannot capture the h4pawn now, because he loses mate•••

•.•

153

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter S

rial. Meanwhile, his position has been considerably compromised already. After 20 . . . 'i!?fS, White can play 2 1.j.d3 ! ? and if 2 1 . . .ltlxh4 then 2 2 . ltlf6+-

B2) 14

•••

.ig7

B2a) 15 .ig3 B2b) 15.b3 ! ? B2c) 15.gadl •

B2a) 15 .ig3 This relatively new move was introduced into practice by GM Konstantin Sakaev. Its idea is to save a tempo for the centralizing move �a1-dl and to free immedi•

IS4

ately the eS-square. Black would not have enough time in order to counter his opponent's plan, in­ cluding e4-eS, followed by a maneuver of the knight ltlc3-e4 (and later to d6, or gS) . White however, sacrifices another pawn in the process - the d4-pawn. Black has counter arguments and one of them is naturally - to ac­ cept the sacrifice of the d4-pawn B2a2) 15 •xd4!?, the second possibility is the immediate cas­ tling B2al) 15 0 - 0 ! ? In the game, in which this move was played for the first time, Black reacted wrongly and he was soon in a very difficult position: IS ... b4? 16.ltla4 �xd4 17.hc4 cS? (17 . . . �xe4 IS . .id3 �d4 19.1tlcS j.cS 20.�adl±; 17 . . . 0-0 18.eS; 17 . . . �dS ! ? ISJ�adl �aS I9 . .id6 0-0-0 20.ltlc5) 18.eS+- �e4 (IS ... ltld7 19.�fdl �e4 2 0 .�xe4 he4 2 1..ibS .idS 22.ltlxcS 0-0-0 23.ltlxd7 �xd7 24.hd7+ 'i!?xd7 2S.�ac1+-; 19.�fel ! ? - with the idea �adl 19 . . . i.c6 2 0.ixe6 fxe6 2 1.�adl ha4 2 2 .%Yxa4+-) 19.ibS+ 'i!?fS 2 0.�xcS+ 'i!?gS 21.f3 gxf3 2 2 .exf6 hf6 23.gxf3 �g6 24.'i!?h2 �cS 2S. �e3 �c2 + 26.�f2 1-0 Sakaev Borovikov, Chalkidiki 2002. In case of IS . . .ltlh7 16.eS �xd4 17.�adl �b6 IS.ltle4 0-0, it would be advisable for White to follow the recommendation of K. Sakaev - 19.b3 ! •••

••.

B2al) 15 0 - 0 ! ? 16.e5 After 16.�adl, the game trans•••

6. 1h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. 1g3 b5 9. 1e2 1b7 1 O . h4 g4 11 . ttJ e5 h5 12. 0 - 0 poses to variation B2c1 0-0 16.J.g3.

-

lSJ:!ad1

This is an original idea and it was played for the first time by the young Israeli grandmaster Maxim Rodshtein. I think this is the only worthy alternative for Black if he refrains from accept­ ing the pawn-sacrifice on d4. 18.�d6 �f5 19.�xfS After 19.ttJxb7 'lWxd4 2 0.Wh2 (20.1'!ad1 'lWb6=t) 20 . . . heS, Black is better. 19 exfS 2 0 .tfxfS tfd5 ! ? .•.

16 . . . �d5 In case of 16 . . . ttJd7! ?, it is very good for White to choose 17.ttJe4! fS lS.exf6 ttJxf6 19.ttJcS tcs 2 0 . J.eS, with excellent compensation, just like in the variation 16 . . . ttJh7 17.ttJe4 'lWxd4 lS.ttJd6 'lWb6 (IS . . . 1'!abS 19.1'!fd1 'lWb6 2 0.b3�) 19.b3 cxb3 20.axb3 1'!adS (20 .. .fS 21. exf6 ttJxf6 2 2 .'lWg6-+; 2 0 . . . 1'!fdS 21. ttJ xf7 wxf7 22.'lWxh7 1'!hS 23 .'lWc2 and he has a very powerful initia­ tive.) 2 1 .b4 ! ?� 17. �e4

His chances are at least equal in this non-standard position. The game Feller - Rodshtein, Moscow 200S, continued with: 2 1.f3 'lWxd4+ 2 2 .Wh1 1'!aeS 23.1'!ae1 .icS 24.'lWxhS 1'!e6 2S.'lWxg4 'lWxb2 26. hS 1'!h6 27.'lWgS 'lWxa2 2S.f4 f6 29. exf6 1'!hxf6 30 .j,g4 hg4 31.'lWxg4 'lWc2 32 .1'!e7 1'!St7 33.1'!eS+ 1'!fS 34. 1'!xfS + 1'!xfS 3S.h6 'lWh7 36.'lWxg7+ 'lWxg7 37.hxg7 Wxg7 3SJ'!a1 c3 39 . .if2 (If White had played correctly here - 39.j,e1, this exciting game would have ended in a draw: 39 . . . c 2 (39 . . . b4 40.hc3 + bxc3 41. 1'!xa7+ l'!t7 42 .l'!a3=) 40.l'!c1 l'!xf4 41.Wg1 1'!c4 42.wf2 b4 43.hb4 ISS

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter S l'i:xb4 44.l'i:xc2=) 39 . . . l'i:xf4-+ 40. .ba7 b4 41 . .te3 l'i:e4 42 ..tc1 b3 43 . If.>h2 b2 44 . .bb2 cxb2 4S.l'i:a7+ If.>f6 46.l'i:b7 l'i:e2 47.lf.>g3 cS 48.1f.>f3 l'i:c2 49.lf.>e3 c4 0-1

B2a2) 15

•••

can support at an opportune mo­ ment f2-f3 and this may turn out to be more important.

B2a2a) 16.gfdl B2a2b) 16.gadl

1Yxd4! ? B2a2a) 16.gfdl

I must tell you immediately that I do not like accepting this sacrifice for Black. Objectively speaking, Black's position is not worse, moreover it is better (His opponent is two pawns down after all . . . ), but White's initiative is very powerful and it is practically much more difficult to play it with Black than with White. I think that the final evaluation of the line with captur­ ing the second pawn will not be clear for a long time to come . . . I t i s not easy t o advise White which rook he must place on the dl-square. I think that the rook on al should go there. The logic is simple - White should prepare the pawn-advance b2-b3 and in that case the rook on al would hardly be useful. The rook on f1 IS6

16 "ti'b6 It is also possible for Black to retreat his queen to another square - 16 . . . '/NcS ! ? 17 . .td6 (Now, the move 17.'/Nd2 becomes sense­ less, in view of 17 . . . .th6 and White does not have access to the d6square ; 17.eS lLldS 18.lLle4 '/Ne7) 17 . . . '/Nb6 18.a4 a6 (18 . . . lLld7? ! 19. as '/Nd8 20.a6 .tc8 21.eSt) 19.eS (It is dubious for White to choose 19.'/Nd2 ? ! .th6 20 . .tf4 l'i:d8, as well as 19.aS? ! '/Na7 2 0 .'/Nd2 .th6 ! ? 2 1..tf4 .tg7; 2 0 . . . lLld7 2 1 . .tc7 .tc8 2 2 . .tf4? ! eS 23 . .tgS '/Nc7; 2 2 . .tb6 �b8 23.�gS .tf6 24.�xf6 llJxf6 2S.l'i:d8+ If.>e7 26.l'i:xh8 '/NeS 27. .td8+ If.>d7 2 8.l'i:dl+ lLldS 29.exdS '/Nxh8; 29 .l'i:g8 .tb'T+; 22 . .tg3 �cS 23 . .td6 .th6 24.�c2 �a7 2S.b3 cxb3 26.'/Nxb3 .tg7 27.eSt; 2 2 . . . •••

6

.

•

h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. j,g3 b5 9. j,e2 j,b7 1 O .h4 g4 11Ji'J e5 h5 12. 0 - 0

j,h 23.�d6 WlcS 24.Wlc7 j,f8 ! ? ; 23 . . j,f8 24.Wlxc6? Wlb7; 24.Wlf4 and here Black can force a draw wit 24 . . . j,h6 2S.Wld6 j,f8 = , but he an also try to play for a win 24 . . j,e7!? 2S.eS tiJcS.) 19 . . . tiJd7 2 0 . 5 (20.tiJe4? ! cS ! with the idea 2 1 . 5 Wlc6) 20 . . . Wla7 2 1 . tiJe4 cS 2 2 . gS tiJxeS 23.heS ixeS 24. bxc4 2S.Wla4+ i>f8 26J!d7 ix �d 27.)';dl ! id4 (27 . . . g3? 28. )';lx 5 exdS 29.Wlc6+-) 28.)';xa7. Thi capture simplifies the posi­ tio and it leads to an equal game. (M anwhile, White has at his dis­ po al a very interesting resource - 8.b3 ! �g7? 29.bxc4+-; 28 . . . Wlb 29.bxc4? hf2 + 30.Wxf2 Wlb + ; 29 .),;xf7+ Wg8 30 .bxc4 g3 31. xdS gxf2 + 32.i>f1 Wlh2 33 .Wld7 )';h ; 32.)';xf2 hf2 + 33.�xf2 Wlb4 34. c6 Wlxh4+ 3S.�gl ),;f8 36. Wlx 6+ Wg7 37.Wle3 and there ari es a position with dynamic bal nce, for example: 37 . . . �g6 38.tiJe6 )';f6 39.tiJxcS Wlg4 40.)';d4 WlfS 41.d6 wh7 42.)';d2 )';g8 43 .d7 Wlbl 44.Wh2 Wlb8+ 4S.g3 h4 46.Wld3+ ),;fg6 47.)';e2 Wlxg3+ 48. Wlxg3 hxg3 + 49.�g2 )';h6 SO.)';e8 )';h2 + S1.�f3 ),;d2 S2.tiJe4 )';xd7 S3 .tiJf6+ Wg7 S4.tiJxg8 ),;dS with a draw.) 28 . . . )';xa7 2 9.b3 Wg7 30. bxc4 ia8 31.Wlc2 g3 32.)';xd4 cxd4 33.Wle2 gxf2 + 34.Wlxf2 )';d8 35. Wlg3 i>f8 36.WleS �e8 37.tiJxe6 fxe6 38.Wlh8+ �e7 39 .Wlg7+ �e8 40.Wlh8+ (The position is draw­ ish, because even if White suc­ ceeds in capturing all his oppo­ nent's pawns, the result should be

a draw anyway, because Black's passed pawn is tremendously powerful, for example: 40.Wlxa7 d3 41.Wlxa6 d2 42.Wlxe6+ i>f8 43. Wlf5+ �e7 44.WlgS+ �e8 4S.WlxhS+ i>e7 46.Wle2 + i>f7 47.Wldl ie4=) 40 ... We7 41.Wlg7+ , draw, Grischuk - Svidler, Mexico 2007. 17.a4 a6 17 . . . aS !? 18.Yfd2 gh6 ! ? After 1 8 . . . �h6 19.Wld6 if8 20. WleS ie7 21.�f4 )';g8 ,

it is very good for White to play 2 2 .ie3 ! , for example : 2 2 . . . cS 23. b4 tiJd7 24.)';xd7 Wxd7 2S.bxcS Wlc6 26.)';bl and his initiative for the sacrificed exchange is tremen­ dously powerful. Instead, it is weaker for him to opt for 22 .j,gS tiJd7!?N (In the game Khalifman - Kobalia, Sochi 2005, Black made a mistake 22 . . . g3? ! 23.Wlxg3 tiJh7 24.aS Wla7 2S.hhS tiJxgS 26.hxgS )';xgS 27. Wlf3 )';g7 28.Wlf4 Wlb8 29.eS )';h7 30 .j,f3 fS 31.tiJe2 cS 32 .Wlg3 �f7 33.tiJf4 )';g7 34.Wlh3 hf3 3S.Wlxf3 WlxeS 36J%el Wlb8 37.)';xe6 )';g4 38. WldS l-0. After 22 . . . )';g6 23 .j,e3 cS 24.�fl )';c8 2S.axbS axbS 26. 157

Chapter 5 �e2 - 2 6.ig5 - 26 .. :�c7; 24.b4 ! �cB 25.axb5 axb5 26.�abl ! , White has a good compensation.) 23. �xd7 i>xd7 24JMl+ gS 2S.!3fe1 and the position is dangerous for Black.) 21.�g3 (21.ia3 �a5) 2 1 . . . 0-0 with a good game for him. 17 �dS 18.�e4 m,6 .•.

19.xg7 166

�

6. h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. �e2 �b7 1 0 .h4 g4 11.liJ e5 h5 12. 0 - 0

18.fxg4 Now, White has only one rea­ sonable possibility to avoid the main line and to continue the fight - IB .g3 ! ? Black must find the right move and be on the alert: IB .. .f5 - this is the correct deci­ sion (It is also very interesting for him to try Beliavsky's recommen­ dation IB . . . �b6 ! ? 19.wh2 gadB 2 0.fxg4 bxg4 2 1.hg4 gxd4 2 2 . �h5 e 5 23.�e2 Wffc 7 24.gf2 �cB 25.gdfl f6 26.g4 �e6 27.lLldl �d7 2 B.�f3 gd3 29.lLle3 whB 30 .i.g6 �g7 31.hh7 �xh7 32.Wgl ixg4 33.�xg4 ggB 34.gxf6 gxg4+ 0-1 Zhao Xue - Beliavsky, Gibraltar 2 0 0 B ; it would be imprecise for Black to play IB . . . �c7? ! 19.wh2 f5 20.fxg4 fxg4 2 1.b3 gxfl 2 2 .i.xfl cxb3 23.axb3 a6 24.e5 c5 25.dxc5 lLl£ 26. lLle4 �xe5 27.lLlg5 i.d5 2B �g2 gcB 29.hd5 exd5 30.gfl W B 31.gxfB + ! 1-0 Zhao Xue . Ka akin, Cap d'Agde 2006; it is ev n stronger for White to play im ediately 2 1.e5 and Black w uld not save the game with 21 . . . c5 , because o f 2 2 . lLlxb5 �c6 23 ixc4) 19.exf5 (19 .fxg4 fxg4

2 0 .e5 c5 ! 21.dxc5 �c7) 19 . . . exf5 2 0.fxg4 fxg4 21.�e4 �c7 2 2 .�e5+ �xe5 23.dxe5 gxf1+ 24.hfl lLlfB 25.lLle4 c5 ! 26.lLlxc5 �f3 27.gd6 gcB 2B.lLld7 b4 29.e6 lLlg6 30.gd2 c3 31.bxc3 bxc3 32 .gc2 �e4 33. gel �f5 34.�a6 gc7 0-1 Lopez Martinez - Rausis, Andorra 2001. 18 . . . Ybh4 19.9xh5 �g5 2 0 .ti'd2 It is weaker for White to opt for 2 0 .�f3?, in view of 20 .. .f5 ! 2 1 .d5? ! fxe4 22 .dxe6 exf3 23.e7 l'U6 24.gdB lLlh3 ! - + Halkias - As­ rian, Ohrid 2001.

20 . . . �h3 + 21.gxh3 �g3 + 2 2 . whl Ylxh3 + 23.Wgl �g3+ 24. � hl Ylh3 + More than ten games have ended like this, in a draw by a per­ petual check. B2c2) 16.�g3 has already protected his d4pawn with the rook and now he prepares a plan, including the ad­ vance e4-e5 and the maneuver lLlc3-e4. Black can prevent that 167

Chapter S with two approximately equally strong lines :

16 .Ft)d7 This move seems to me more interesting and flexible than the older line: 16 . . . ttJh7 17.e5 f5 lS. exf6 'IMlxf6 (The move lS ... ttJxf6 is not in the spirit of the position, because White can push b2-b3 quite advantageously and then he transfers his bishop to g6, via the d3-square, squeezing his oppo­ nent completely - 19.b3 cxb3 20. axb3 'IMle7 21.i.d3±; it is a disaster for Black to opt for 19 . . . b4 2 0 .ttJa4 c3 21.ttJc5 Wfe7 22 . .ic4 .icS 23.'IMlf5 'it>hS 24.'IMlg5 'IMlf7 25 . .id3) 19.f3 (In case of 19.b3 ! ?, it would be correct for him to respond with 19 . . . 'IMlf5 ! with the following possible varia­ tion: 2 0 .'IMlc1 1'!adS 2 1.bxc4 1'!xd4 22.cxb5 cxb5 23.ttJxb5 Wfd5 24.f3 gxf3 25.gxf3 1'!xd1 26.1'!xd1 'IMlxa2oo ; Black should not lose his control over the d3-square - 19 . . . cxb3? 20.axb3±) 19 . . . 'IMlf5 2 0 .'IMld2 'IMlg6 2 1.fxg4 hxg4 2 2 . Wfe3 1'!f5 23.ttJe4 c5 ! 24.ttJxc5 .idS 25.a4 1'!afS 26. axb5 1'!f3 ! 27.gxf3 gxf3 2S.'it>h2 ••

16S

Anti-Moscow Variation and here after the correct reply 2S . . . .ih6 ! (In the game Kramnik - Akopian, Dortmund 2000, after the routine reaction 2S . . . ttJf6? 29.hf3 hf3 30 .'IMlxe6+ 'it>hS, White continued with 31.1'!xf3 ! 'IMlc2 + 3 2 .1'!f2 'IMlxd1 33.'it>g2 'IMlxd4 34.'IMle5 'IMld5+ 35.'IMlxd5 ttJxd5 36. 1'!xfS+ i.xfS 37.ttJa4 and he soon won the game - 37 . . . .ig7 3S.'it>f3 ttJb6 39.ttJxb6 axb6 40.'it>e4 ixb2 41.�d5 1-0; 34 . . . ttJh7 35.1'!xfS + ttJxfS 36.'IMlxd4 ixd4 37.ttJa4 ttJd7 3S . .if2 i.xf2 39.'it>xf2 'it>h7 40. 'it>e3+-) 29.'IMle5 (29.'IMlf2 ttJf6 30. hf3 hf3 31.'IMlxf3 ttJg4+ 3 2 . 'it>h1 1'!xf3 33.1'!xf3 'IMlc2 34.1'!e1 'IMlxb2 ; 29.'IMlc3 .if4 30.1'!gl ttJg5 31.i.xf4 1'!xf4 32.�g3 1'!f5) 29 . . . .ig7 3 0.'IMle3 (30 .Wfc7 fxe2 31.1'!xfS+ ttJxfS 3 2 . 1'!e1 ixd4-+) 30 . . . .ih6 and the po­ sition was equal. It would be bad for Black to opt for 16 . . . a6? ! 17.f3 gxf3 lS.hf3 'IMle7 19.e5 ttJg4 2 0.ixg4 hxg4 2 1 . ttJe4 f5 22.exf6 i.xf6 23 . .id6+­ Van Wely - Thoms, Kuppenheim 2 005, as well as 16 . . . 'IMlb6? 17.e5 ttJd5 lS.ttJe4. 17.f3 In case of 17.e5 (This move has been played in practice only once.) 17. . .f5 1S.exf6 'IMlxf6, Black is clear­ ly better in comparison to the po­ sition in the variation 16 . . . ttJh7 17.e5 f5 lS.exf6 'IMlxf6 (We have analyzed it above.), since his knight is evidently better placed on d7 than on the h7-square. After 17.e5, it seems very at­ tractive for Black to play

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 0 .h4 g4 11.11J e5 h5 12. 0 - 0 seem to be preferable, for exam­ ple in case of: 2 1 . . .%Yb6 22 . .!iJxe6 �xe6 23.fS %Yc6 24.�d6, Black has problems to worry about.

1 7. . . cS ! ? , but following White's correct response 18..!iJxbS (In­ stead, it would be weaker for him to choose 18 . .!iJe4 ixe4 19.%Yxe4 %Yb6 2 0 .dS exdS 2 1.%YxdS �ad8 2 2 .%Ye4 .!iJxeS ! 2 3.heS %Ye6+ Gol­ din - Khenkin, New York 2000.) 18 ... cxd4 (18 ... %Yb6 19 .hc4 cxd4 20 . .!iJxd4 .!iJxeS? 2 1.ixeS ixeS 2 2 . .!iJxe6 Y!Yc6 23.f4 ! + - ; 20 . . . �ac8 21.%Ye2 �xc4 2 2 .%Yxc4 ia6 23.%Yc6 hf1 24.%Yxd7 �d8 2S.%Ya4 .h6 2 6.�d2 ib7 27.if4 if8 and Black has compensation for the pawn; 2 1..!iJxe6 ! %Yc6 2 2 . .!iJf4 .!iJxeS 23 .b3 .!iJxc4 24.%Yxc4 %Yb6 2S.%Ya4 l"kS with some compensation for him, be use of his bishop-pair, but ob ·ously insufficient.) 19 . .!iJxd4 (1 .�xd4 Y!Yb6 20.�xd7 %YxbS=) 19 . . �c8 (19 . . . �c7 2 0 .ixc4 .!iJxeS 21. eS Y!YxeS 2 2 . �fe1 �f4 23 . .!iJ e6 fxe6 24.�xe6 �h8 2S.�d7 �a 8 26.�xb7 �xe6 27.,be6 g3 28 fxg3 �e3+ 29.�h2 �xe6 30. � n; or 20.f4 �ac8 , which leads to he same variation as 19 . . . �c8) 20 f4 (20 . .!iJbS ! ? �c5 ! ?) 20 . . . �c7 21. f2 ! ? (21..!iJbS? �c6) with the id a .!iJd4-bS, but in this compli­ ca ed position White's prospects

�

B2c2a) 17 Vb6 B2c2b) 17 c5 ! ? •••

••.

B2c2a) 1 7 Vb6 IS.ebbl If 18.'kt>h2 , then 18 . . . �ad8 ! ? (18 . . . ixd4? 19.�xd4 �xd4 2 0.�d1; 18 . . . eS 19.dS) 19.fxg4 hxg4 20.�f4 (20 .eS cS; 2 0 .�c1 !?) 2 0 . . . c5 ! ? (20 . . . eS? ! 21.�xg4 exd4 2 2 .�c1 ! f6 23.hS �h7 24.�f4 ! + - ; 2 2 . . . cS ! ? 2 3 . .!iJxbS !± Onischuk - Lastin, So­ chi 200S) 21.�xg4 cxd4 2 2 .%Yd2 eS (Black wishes to bring his queen into the defence.) 23 . .!iJxbS (23 .�gS �f6) 23 . . . d3 with a prom­ ising position for him. IS e5 Black has tried in practice too 18 . . . cS ! ? 19.dS .!iJeS (This idea seems to me very risky for him.) 2 0 .fxg4 hxg4 2 1.�c1 .!iJd3 (It is obviously weaker for Black to opt for 21.. .exdS 22 . .!iJxdS ixdS 23. �xdS �ae8 24.�f5 ! f6 2S.�dl± Avrukh Novikov, Calvia 2004; •••

•••

-

169

Chapter S 24 . . . ltJg6 2S . .ixg4 l"Dce4 26.YffgS ! ) 22 . .ixd3 (22.YffgS? ! exdS 23.ltJxdS .ixdS 24.exdS Yffg 6) 22 . . . cxd3 23. l'!xd3 b4

and now: 24.ltJe2?! exdS 2S.exdS l'!ae8=t, Van Wely - Kobalia, Moscow 200S; 24.dxe6 bxc3 ! This is the best for Black. (White has a dangerous initiative after 24 . . . fxe6? ! 2S.l'!d7 l'!xfl+ 26.�xfl l'!f8 27.Yffd l and it would be bad for Black to choose 27 . . . bxc3, in view of 28 . .teS ! + - ; he is close to equality af­ ter 24 . . . Yffxe6 2S.l'!d6 Yffc4 26.ltJdS Yffxc1 27.l'!xc1) 2S.exf7+ l'!xf7 (2S . . . 'i!?h8? 26.l'!d6 cxb2 27.YffgS+-) 26.l'!xf7 'i!?xf7 27.l'!d7+ 'i!?g8 28. id6 (28.�gS Yffh 6- +) 28 . . . cxb2 29.l'!xg7+ 'i!?xg7 3 0 .Yffg S+ 'i!?f7 31. YfffS = ; 24.ltJa4! This i s a very power­ ful novelty, which has not been tested in practice yet. 24 . . . YffbS 2S.ltJxc5 l'!ac8 26.id6 l'!xcS (26 . . . l'!fd8 27.Yfff4 l'!xd6 28.�xf7+ 'i!?h8 29.Yffh S+ 'i!?g8 30.l'!f7! + - Yffxc5 3I.l'!xg7+ 'i!?xg7 3 2 .Yffxg4+ with a checkmate) 27 . .ixc5 Yffxd3 28. ixf8 .ixf8 29.Yfff4 fS. White does 170

Anti-Moscow Variation not have a forced win yet, but it would be very problematic to play with Black, for example: 3 0 .exfS .ixdS 3I.Yffxg4+ 'i!?h8 3 2 .l'!f4 Yffb l+ (32 ... ih6 33.l'!xb4 exfS 34.Yffd 4+ �xd4 3S.l"Dcd4 .ixa2 36.l'!a4 with a difficult endgame for him) 33. 'i!?h2 exfS 34.Yffh S+ 'i!?g7 3S.Yffg S+ 'i!?h7 36.Yffd 8 ih6 37.Yffd 7+ 'i!?h8 (37 . . . 'i!?g6 38.hS+) 38.l'!xfS .ixa2 39.Yffd 4+ 'i!?g8 40.l'!f3 and White's dangerous attack continues. It would be interesting for Black to test the move 18 . . . l'!ad8 with a white king on hI.

19.d5 White fails to obtain an advan­ tage after 19.dxeS ltJxeS 2 0.fxg4 bxg4 2 I..ixeS (It would be too risky for him to refrain from re­ gaining the pawn - 21.Yffc 1 YffcS 2 2 .YffgS f6 23.Yffh S .tc8 ; 2 I .l'!fS l'!ae8) 2 1 . . .heS 2 2 .�c1 ! , with ap­ proximate equality after this in­ termediate move (but not 2 2 .,txg4 Yffe 3 ! ) 2 2 . . .f6 (22 . . . ig7! ? 23 ..ixg4 l'!ad8 ; 23.�gS l'!ad8 24.hS l'!xdl 2S.l"Dcdl cS) 23 . .ixg4 (23.Yffh 6 ic8=) 23 . . . .tc8 24.Yffh 6 ,txg4

6. �h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. �e2 �b7 1 O .h4 g4 11'ciJe5 h5 12. 0 - 0 25.'9'g6+ wh8 26.'9'h6+ cJ;>g8 27. '9'g6+ . 1 9. . . cxd5 2 0 . �xd5 Jxd5 21.!xd5 gadS 22.fxg4 bxg4 23.b3 ! ? After 23.,bg4 tLlf6, Black has a good game, Vallejo Pons - Dreev, Bie1 2 0 0 2 . 23 ... cxb3 24.axb3

It has to be admitted that White's prospects are clearly bet­ ter in this position, because of his bishop-pair and Black's vulnera­ ble pawns. Still, he has chances of a favourable outcome, for exam­ ple : 24 . . . tLlf6 25J�xe5 :gc8 26.'9'd2 :gce8 27J�xb5 tLlxe4 28.'9'f4 tLlxg3 + 29.'9'xg3 '9'e3 30 .'9'xe3 :gxe3 31. hg4 :ge4 32.:gg5 :gb8 with a pos­ sible draw soon. We have seen that the position is ery complicated after 17 . . . '9'b6, bu still, it looks like White dic­ ta es the developments. Accord­ in ly, it would be essential to ev luate correctly the more fash­ io ble line, beginning with 17 . . . c5 which was played by V.Anand.

r1

B2c2b) 17 . . . cS ! ?

This i s a new and very inter­ esting idea, found by V.Anand and played for the first time in the game Aronian - Anand, Mexico 2 0 07. 1S.dxc5 If 18.d5, then 18 . . . .id4+ ! (White is better after 18 . . . ie5?! 19.f4? �d4+ 2 0 . wh1 a6; 19 . .ixe5 tLlxe5 2 0.fxg4 '9'xh4 2 1.gxb5 ; but not 2 0.f4? '9'xh4! 2 1.fxe5 g3 and suddenly White gets checkmat­ ed.) 19.wh1 �e5 2 0 .f4 hc3 2 1 . bxc3 exd5 22.e5 f5+ After 18.tLlxb5 cxd4 19.'9'xc4 (19.tLlxd4? '9'b6 2 0 .if2 g3 2 1..ie3 '9'd8 ! and it is very bad for White to play 22 . .ig5?, in view of 22 . . . hd4+ 23.:gxd4 '9'b6 24.ie3 e5) 19 . . . tLle5 20.'9'b3 gxf3 21.gxf3 tLlg6 with an unclear position. 1S . . . Be7 (diagram) It is difficult to tell how theory will develop, or possibly White will not be happy with this varia­ tion in general, but in the game we are following, he made a mis171

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter S

It deserves attention for White to play here 19.fxg4!? For exam­ ple, there may follow: 19 �xc5! ? (19 . . . hxg4 2 0 . .id6 �xh4 21.l:!f4 ttJf6 2 2 .l:!dfl �h6 23 .hg4) •••

take playing 19.�h1? ! - this is a serious loss of time and after 19 . . . a6! 2 0 .a4 .ic6 21.ttJd5? ! exd5 2 2 . exd5 .ie5 ! 23.f4 .ig7 24.dxc6 ttJxc5 25J!d5 ttJe4 26 . .ie1 �e6 ! 27J!xh5 fS, Black won soon: 28 .�h2 l:!ac8 29 ..ib4 l:!fe8 30.axb5 axb5 31.l:!e1 �f7 3 2 . l:!g5 ttJxg5 33.fxg5 l:!xc6 34 . .ifl l:!xe1 35.he1 l:!e6 36.�c3 �c7+ 37.g3 l:!e3 38.�g2 hc3 39. bxc3 f4 40.�a8+ �g7 41.�a6 fxg3+ 0-1. Naturally, it is bad for White to play 19.ttJxb5?, because of 19 . . . �xc5 + . I t i s rather dubious for him to play 19 . .id6?! in view of 19 . . . �xh4 2 0 .fxg4 .ie5 (20 . . . ttJxc5 ! ?oo 21. hc5? .ie5 2 2 . l:!f3 hxg4- + ) 21. .he5 ttJxe5 2 2 .gxh5 b4 23.ttJb5 he4 24.�c1 hg2 ! 25.�xg2 �h7 and Black has a powerful attack. After 19.1:!f2 a6 2 0.fxg4 (20. .id6?! �xh4 2 1.g3 �g5 2 2 .f4 �g6 23.hf8 ttJxf8�) 20 . . . hxg4 (20 . . . ttJe5 ! ?�) 21..id6 �xh4 h e has the again the initiative. In case of 19.1:!d6 a6, the posi­ tion remain unclear.

172

2 0 .id6 (20.gxh5? ! l:!ad8+; 2 0 .g5 l:!ad8 21.a3 ! ? hc3 2 2 .�xc3 ttJxe4 23.�e3 ttJxg3 24.�xg3 �c5+ 25.�h2oo; 2 1.l:!xd8 �xd8 22 .l:!d1 ttJd3 23.hd3 cxd3 24.l:!xd3 �b6+ 25.�h2 b4oo; 2 2 . . . �b6 23.�f2 �c6 24.hh5 b4 25.ttJe2 ttJd3 26 ..tf3 �c8 27.h5; 25 . . .�xe4 26.�xe4 ttJxe4 27.l:!d7 ttJxf2 28.l:!xb7 ttJd3 29.b3 c3+) 2 0 �xh4 21.g3 (21. hc5 .ie5 ; 21.e5 b4; 2 1.gxh5 ttJd3) 21 Yfg5 (21.. .�h3? 22 .l:!f2) 2 2 . .if4= (22.gxh5 ke5 23.he5 �xe5 24.l:!f4 l:!ad8) 2 2 Yfe7 (22 . . . �g6 23.gxh5 .he4 24.�d2) 23.gxh5 (23 .kd6 �g5 24.kf4 �e7=) 23 �d3 ( 2 3 . . . b4 24.h6t; 23 . . . l:!ad8 24.h6 .id4+ 25.l:!xd4 l:!xd4 26 . .ie5 �g5 = ; 23 . . . hc3 24.�xc3 ttJxe4 25.�e5 a6) 24.hd3 Yfc5+ 25. �f2 cxd3 26.Yfxd3 Yfxh5 27. �h2 Yfg6 28.Yfxb5 he4 29. �xe4 Yfxe4= •

•••

•••

•••

.••

Chapter 6

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.ctlf3 ctlf6 4.ctlc3 e6 5.J.g5 h6 6 . .ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.J.g3 b5 9.J.e2 J.b7 1 0 .h4 g4 11. ctle5

sion of the moves 1l . . . tLlbd7 1Voxg4 13g8) he can exclude the variation with 12 .tLlxd7 (variation B2).

I I

I

:

I

I After the move It . . . h5, there ari �es the Classical system, which

we i have analyzed in Chapter 5. i ln this chapter we will deal with Black's attempts to avoid en­ terling it: A) It . . . ggS and B) It . . . �l)d7.

I

I

A) It . . ggS This idea has been invented more than ten years ago. Its es­ sence is that Black does not pro­ tect his g4-pawn and on the con­ trary - he offers his opponent to capture it, hoping to exert pres­ sure along the g-file and to exploit White's loss of tempi, while cap­ turing it. The logic behind the move is also if Black begins with it outright (and not after the inclu.

Al) 12. 0 - 0 A2) 12. �xg4 It is rather dubious for White to play 12.hS? ! , in view of 12 . . . tLlbd7 13.tLlxd7 tLlxd7 14.hg4 VNb6 15.0-0 13d8i Timman - Vallejo Pons, Pamplona 1999.

Al) 12. 0 - 0 �bd7 13.�xg4 About 13.tLlxd7 VNxd7 14 . .teS V!Je7, see variation B2b. After this move-order, Black has the resource: 13 . . .b4! 173

Chapter 6 It is bad for him to opt for 13 . . . �h5 14.e5 �xg3 15.fg3 �b6 16. a4± Glek - Dreev, Essen 2000, 16 ... a6 (16 .. J!xg4? 17.hg4 �xe5 18.a5+-) 17.�h2 h5 18.�f6+ �xf6 19J!xf6 0-0-0 2 0.hh5 l:!xd4 21.�fl l:!h8 22 . .hf7 !i.g7 23.l:!el �b8 24.l:!g6 he5 25.l:!xe5 l:!dxh4+ 26.gxh4 �d4 1-0 Wang Vue Bhat, Shanghai 2 0 0 2 . I t i s possible for Black (but I think - not so good) to try the second-rate move 13 . . . �xg4 14. ixg4 �b6 15 .!i.h5 ! ? (15.a4 ! ?) 15 . . . �f6 16.!i.e5. 14. �a4 But not 14.�xf6 + ? ! �xf6 15. e5? ! bxc3 16.exf6 l:!xg3 ! 17.fxg3 cxb2 18.l:!bl c3 19 .�d3 �a5 20 .�h2 0-0-0-+ N.Kovalenko ­ Shalimov, Kharkov 2 003. 14 . . . �xe4 15.J.xc4

15".h5! Black has played here (includ­ ing the author of this book) nu­ merous other moves, mainly 15 . . . �a5 (but not 1 5 . . . �xg3 16.fxg3 �a5, because of 17. l:!xf7 ! �xf7 18,�f3, with a powerful attack for 174

Anti-Moscow Variation White) 16.l:!cl 0-0-0 with a com­ plicated position. I think it would be senseless to go deeper in these positions, because the move we analyze thoroughly - 15 . . . h5 is evidently stronger for Black. 16.�e3 ef6! It is dubious for him to play 16 . . . �df6? ! , because of 17.!i.e5. In the game Bocharov - Las­ tin, Tomsk 2 004, Black chose 16 . . . �a5 1 7. .ih2 �df6 18.!i.b3 l:!d8 19.�c2 l:!xd4 2 0 .l:!fdl l:!xdl+ 2 1 . l:!xdl and White had some com­ pensation.

17.exh5 ! This is the right move ! The al­ ternatives are clearly worse, for example : 17.!i.e2 0-0-0 18.!i.h2 �xh4 19.1:!cl !i.d6 2 0 .ixd6 �xd6 21 .!i.f3 �e4 2 2 .ixe4 �xe4 23.�c5 �xc5 24.l:!xc5 h4-+ Avrukh Akopian, Heraklio 2 007. 17. . . eh6 18.efJ �d2 19 .ee2 �e4!? Black can win the exchange, but White will have compensation for it: 19 . . . �xfl 2 0 .l:!xfl, with a very unclear position.

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 O .h4 g4 11. 0,e5 !!g8 is nothing better, for 20.id3 0,xg3 2 1.fxg3 2 2 .'fNf3 f5 ! ? and Black

'fNxd4 22 .'fNeS+ 'fNdS 23.'fNxe6+ i>bS 24.f1 (24.bxc4 !!d6) 24 . . . c3, with an advantage for him.

How should Black capture on f6? I have played many times 13 . . . %Yxf6 and I like this move more than 13 . . . 0,xf6, which is also pos­ sible (at least, because Black de­ velops another piece and speeds up his programmed castling) . the beginning of the ap­ of this variation, White to play here 13.e5, but that not dangerous for Black: 13 . . . 14.hg4 'fNb6 15.0-0 (15. - O ! ? 16.a5 %Ya6 17. 0-0 c5 b4 19.dxe6 fxe6 20.0,a4oo - Miton, Bermuda 15 . . . a6 16.axb5 ! ? cxb5 0-0-0+ Sambuev - Yev­ Tula 2001) 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.b3 (In the game Sakaev - Las­ Panormo 2001, Black over­ 'V"I'."'''U this beautiful possibility 16 . . . 0,bS and after 17.%Yf3 lS.ih3 ib4 19.!!ad1 ! he under a powerful attack.) 17.exf6 !!xd4 lS .he6+ fxe6 19. �h5 !!xg3 2 0.0,e2 !!gd3 21.0,xd4 "' 0 c6 21.l'!xd5 lLlxd5 2 2 .lLlf4 l'!dB 23. lLlxd5±) 1B.0-0 �d7 19.l'!c1 0-0-0 20.l'!xc4 wbB 2 1.�c1 lLlxd5 2 2 .l'!d1 �e6 23.l'!xc5+- Vitiugov - Czar­ nota, Herceg Novi 2005. 17. 0 - 0 0-0-0 18.Bel exd5 19.Bf4 Bc6

This is how the game Potkin Grischuk, Krasnoyarsk 2 003 de­ veloped, in which White made a mistake here, playing 20.exd5?! and he lost his big advantage. In­ stead, he should have chosen 2 0 . l'!fd1! (or 20.l'!ad1 ! lLld7 21.l'!xd5 ! ? ; 21.exd5 �b6 2 2 . l'!fe1+-; 2 0 . . . �b6 21.exd5 hd5 2 2 .hd5 l'!xd5 23. l'!xd5 lLlxd5 24.�xf7 ttJe7 25.lLlf4+-; 2 0 ... l'!xg3 21.lLlxg3 d4 22 .e5 ttJd5 23.Wlxt7±) 20 . . . l'!xg3 (20 . . . d4 2 1 . �bB+ wd7 2 2 .lLlxd4 ! l'!xbB 2 3 . ttJxc6+ Wxc6 24.hbB+-; 20 ... �b6 21.exd5 .bd5 2 2 .hd5 l'!xd5 23. l'!xd5 lLlxd5 24.�xt7+ -) 21.lLlxg3±

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 0 .h4 g4 11. ltJe5 'i!.g8 A2b) 13

.••

'ffxf6

White has some alternatives here: 14.if3 e5 15.d5 ic5 16.h5 id4 17.ih4 �d6 1B .dxc6 ixc6+ Kom­ ljenovic - Korneev, Seville 2003; 14.e5 �f5 15.if3 0-0-0 16. �e2 (He can force a draw with 16.ie4 �g4 17.if3) 16 . . . ltJb6 17. 'i!.d1 (It is hardly advisable for White to opt for 17.a4 bxa4 ! Van Wely - Dreev, Moscow 2 0 04, with the idea 1B.0-0 �d3.) 17 . . . ltJd5 1B.ltJe4 .ib4+ 19.'it>f1 ie7 20.cJ;>gl ltJf ' ? (20 ... c5? ! 21.dxc5 ltJf4 2 2 . 'i!. x B + 'i!.xdB 23.�e3 ltJd3 24. ltJd + hd6 25.ixb7+ cJ;>xb7 26. cx ± Onischuk - Dreev, Poiko­ vs 2 007) 2 1.ixf4 (21.�e3 ltJd3 2 2 . d6+ ixd6 23.exd6 ltJxb2) 21. .�xf4 22 .'i!.h3 cJ;>bBoo; 14.0-0 0-0-0 15.e5 �f5 16. �b (White's piece-sacrifice is not qu·te correct after 16.a4?! b4 17. ix 4 bxc3 1B.bxc3 c5 19.id3 ie4 20 ia6+ cJ;>c7+ Babuiian - Grigo­ ria ts, Istanbul 200B.) 16 . . . �xb1 (b t not 16 . . . ltJb6 17.'i!.d1 �xb1 1B.

*

�

'i!.axb1 c5? 19.1tJxb5 cxd4 20.'i!.bcl± Chow - Stripunsky, Minneapolis 2 0 05) 17.'i!.axb1 a6+ with the idea c6-c5. 14 . . .h4! This is a very important move. It would not work for Black to continue now with the thematic move 14 . . . e5? ! , because of 15.ixe5 ltJxe5 16.dxe5 �xe5 17.0-0-0 ! �e7 1B.e5! 'i!.dB 19.�e3 �c5 2 0 . 'i!.xdB+ cJ;>xdB 2 1.�f4+- Sakaev Dreev, chessastsistan club.com 2004. 15.�a4 c5 16.�xc5 The move 16.d5 ! ? was tested in a game between two computer programs, but Black's arguments proved to be stronger: 16 . . . exd5 17.exd5 0-0-0 1B.0-0-0 id6 19. ixd6 �xd6 2 0.g3 ltJe5 21.'i!.he1 cJ;>bB 2 2 .�e3 'i!.cB 23.f4 ltJd3+ 24. ixd3 cxd3 25.�xd3 c4 26 .�d4 ia6 27.cJ;>b1 'iJ.xg3 2 B.'i!.e4 ib5 29. b3 cJ;>aB 30.'i!.c1 'i!.g2 31.'i!.ce1 c3 3 2 . �e5 �a6 33.'i!.xb4 'i!.d2 34.'i!.c1 'i!.e2 35.�xe2 he2 0-1 THE BARON - HIARCS, Pamplona 2 009. 16 ... �xc5 17.dxc5 Axc5 18. 0 - 0 - 0 Axe4 19.'ffd7+ cj;lf8 2 0 .'ffc7

177

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 6 2 0 ie7! This is the right move ! In the game Sakaev - Gelfand, Kallithea 2008, in which this posi­ tion was played for the first time, both opponents were unprepared for it and made serious mistakes. At first Black played 20 . . .ixf2? 21.ixf2 V!!xf2 2 2 :�d6+ c,t>e8 (22 . . . c,t>g7 23.V!!e5+), while later White overlooked the winning move 23.V!!d 7+ ? ! (It was an immediate win for him after 23 J!hf1 ! V!!e 3+ 24J=!d2 �d5 25.�5 gg7 2 6:�c7 e5 27.gf5+-) 23 . . . c,t>f8 24.V!!d 6+ , draw. Naturally, it would have been a mistake for Black to opt for 20 . . . V!!f5 ?, due to 21.i.e5 i.e7 22.gd7. 21.ixc4 id8 ! This is again the only move and the best for him. 2 2 . 'ffcS+ ie7= 23. ft'c7 (23. V!!e 3 gg4 ! ) 23 id8 24.'ffc5+ ie7 2S.ft'c7. The game Eljanov Akopian, Elista 2008 ended in a draw here. •••

..•

ties for White: Bl) 12. lOxg4 and B2) 12.lOxd7.

B1) 12.lOxg4 Now, after 12 . . . gg8 , Black can transpose to variation A2 . Still, after these developments, he has another interesting possi­ bility, which I would like to rec­ ommend to you: 12 b4 13.lOxf6+ It is not advisable for White to play 13 .lDa4? ! lDxe4 14.ixc4 (14. �e5 gg8 15.�f3 gxg4 16.ixg4 lDxe5 17.dxe5 V!! a5 18.0-0 V!!xe5+ Tjoelsen - Tairova, Yerevan 2 0 07; 15 ... c5 ! ? 16.V!!e 2 gxg4 17.hg4 V!! a 5 18 .b3 lDxe5 19.dxe5 cxb3 20.axb3 c4) 14 . . . h5 ! 15.i.e5 gg8 16.lDe3 lDxe5 17.dxe5 ih6 18.V!!d 3 c5, with an excellent game for Black, Wer­ le - Van Wely, Hilversum 2006. 13 ... lOxf6 14.lOa4 IOxe4 IS.ieS gg8 •••

B) 1l . . . lObd7

We will analyze two possibili178

16.ixc4 In case of 16.V!!c 2 c5 17.0-0-0, the best for Black is 17 ... gc8 ! (It is somewhat weaker for him to opt for 17 . . . V!! a5 and in the game Bo-

J

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 O .h4 g4 11. 0,e5 0, bd7

ro kov - Shalimov, Kharkov 20 0, there followed : 1B .if3 �cB ! 19.ixe4 b3 20.%Vc3 %Vxa4 21.axb3 %Va1+ 2 2 .'� d2 %Va6 23.�a1 %Vb6 24.ixb7 %Vxb7 25.%Vxc4 !i.e7 26. %Va6 %VaB and his prospects were not worse; 26 . . . %Vxa6 ! ? 27.�xa6 �xg2) 1B.if3 b3 19.axb3 cxb3 20.%Vxb3 %Vd5. 16 .id6 17.YfhS Black should not b e afraid of 17. %!Ie2 ixe5 1B.dxe5 c 5 19 .id3 (l9.�d1? ! %VaS 2 0.ib5+ @fB 21. �d7 b3-+ Timoscenko - Pavasovic, Turin 2006) 19 . . . %Vd4. It is rather dubious for White to opt for 17.%Vc2? ! ixe5 1B.dxe5 %Vd4 ! 19.id3 c5=t • • •

i

,!!:iS is Black's most principled 17

•••

cS !

He should better avoid the li e: 17 . . . 0,f6 1B.%Ve2 ixe5 19.dxe5 d5 2 0 .0,c5 %Vb6 21.0,xb7 %Vxb7 2 .g3, with an obvious advantage for White (22 .ixd5 cxd5 23.0-0;1; Zhou Jianchao - Rodshtein, Yere­ van 2 006). It would be interesting for

Black to try 17 . . J'�g6, but this move is too slow, therefore White maintains the advantage. It is possible, for example : 1B.0-0-0 (lB.id3 c5 19 .%Ve2 ixe5 20.dxe5 %Vd4'+ Zhao Xue - Stefanova, Sochi 2 007; 19.f3 0,g3 2 0 .ixd6 0,xh5 2 1 .ib5+ %Vd7 2 2 .ixd7+ @xd7 23. ie5 �xg2 24.0,xc5+ @c6=) lB . . . %VaS (1B . . . 0,xf2 19 .ixe6 �xe6 2 0 . �hfl) 19 .%Ve2 ! ? (19.id3 ixe5 2 0 . %Vxe5 %Vxe5 21.dxe5 c5 ; 2 0 .dxe5 %Vxa4 21.ixe4 b3 ! 2 2 .ixg6 bxa2) 19 . . .ixe5 20.dxe5 0,c5 21. 0,xc5 %Vxc5 2 2 . @b1 �xg2 23.�d2± It is quite dubious for Black to continue with 17 . . . �xg2 1B.0-0-0 (lB.he6 ! ?) 1B . . . �xf2 (1B . . . 0,xf2 19.�hg1) 19.�he1 �f5 2 0.%Vxh6, with a very difficult position for him, Kravtsov - Gritsenko, Vladi­ vostok 2 007. 18.�dl After 1B.0-0-0 %Vc7! (It is weaker for Black to opt for lB . . . cxd4 19.�xd4 %Vc7 2 0.ixd6 0,xd6 2 1 .0,c5 0-0-0 2 2 . @bl±; 21 . . . id5 2 2 . �xd5 exd5 23.�e1 @fB 24.%Vh6 �g7 25.%VhB= ; 2 2 . �e1 ! ? hc4 23. �xc4 0,xc4 24.0,xe6 %VcB 25.0,c7+ @fB 26.%Vc5+ @g7 27.%Vd4+ @h7 2B .%Vxc4 �xg2 29.%Vc2 + @g7 3 0 . 0,xaB %VxaB, with approximate equality; 22 . . . �g5 23.0,xe6 %Vxc4+ 24.�xc4 �xh5 25.0,f4+ ie6 26. l:!c6 @d7 27.l:!xd6+ @xd6 2B.0,xh5 ixa2 = ; 23.hxg5 %Vxc5 24. gxh6 %Vxd4 25. ixd5 �cB+ 26.@b1 %Vd2 27. %Vh1 �c2 2 B.h7 l:!xb2+ 29.@a1 l:!xa2 + 30.ixa2 %Vc3+ 31.@b1 %Vd3=) 19.d5 (19 .!i.xd6 %Vxd6 2 0 . 179

Chapter 6 !bS+ �e7 2 1.ttlcS !dS=t) 19 . . . 0-0-0 20.dxe6 heS 21.exf7 l:!xd1+ 2 2 .l:!xd1 l:!f8 and White must still prove that his compen­ sation for the piece is sufficient. 18 exd4 19.:xd4 •••

Anti-Moscow Variation tion: 22 . . . l:!xg2 23.ttlxe6 ! + 2 0 .hd6 �xd6 21.he6 hg2 22.:g1 :g6 23.�eS (23. l:!xg2 l:!xg2 24.wfl l:!g6 2S.ttlcS l:!dB ! 2 6.hf7 �xf7 27.�eS+ �e7 28.�hB = ) 23 .if3 ! 24 .bf7+ �xf7 25.Bxg6 BxeS 26.:e4+ he4 27.Bxe4+ md7 28.ftb7+ Be7 29.Bxa8 Bc1+ 3 0 .me2 Bxgl 31.Bxa7+ me6 32.Be3+ �e5 33.Bxh6+ cifld5 34.Bd2 + me6 35.Bxb4 Bbl= •••

•

B2) 12.�xd7

19 :§e7! This move leads by force to a drawish endgame. It is also interesting for him to choose 19 .. .'�aS ! ? 20.he6 ttlgS ! (20 . . . l:!f8? 21."tdS ! b3+ 2 2 .ttlc3 bxa2? 23.0- 0 ! + - ; 22 . . . ttlxc3 23. O-O! hdS 24.hd6+-) 21.hf7+ (21."td7+ Wxd7 22.l:!xd6 �eB ! 23. hxgS �xeS+ 24.�e2 \&xe2+ 25. Wxe2 hxgS 26.f3 We7=) 2 1 . . .ttlxf7 2 2 .l:!xd6 b3+ 23.ttlc3 �xeS+ 24. �xe5+ ttlxeS 2S.l:!e6+ Wf1 26. l:!xe5 bxa2 27.ttlxa2 l:!xg2 2B.l:!h3 wf6 29.l:!he3 l:!gl+ 30.Wd2 l:!fl 3 1.l:!e6+ WfS, with a possible draw. In the game Pelletier - Kasim­ dzhanov, Spain 2 0 07, Black made a serious mistake by playing 19 . . . We7? and after 2 0.l:!h3 ! (20.!d3 ttlf6 ! ) 20 . . . \&c7 21.l:!f3 l:!afB (21.. .f6 2 2 .he6 ! +- ; 2 2 .�xh6+-) 2 2 . ttlc5 ! , White had a winning posi••

1BO

This is the most principled line for White. 12 . . . Bxd7 13 .i.e5 Be7 Black has also tried in practice 13 . . . "te7, but that move is not in the spirit of the position. He needs the d7-square for the regrouping of his forces and it is presently oc­ cupied. Accordingly, he is practi­ cally forced to castle long. 14.hg4 (It deserves attention for White to try 14.\&c1 ! ? with the idea �f4.) 14 . . . l:!gB lS."tf3 0-0-0 16.�e2 !a6 17. 0-0-0 (17.a3 ! ? ; 17.b3 ? ! b 4 1B.ttldl �b7 19.bxc4 ttld7 •

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 O .h4 g4 11. liJe5 liJ bd7 2 0.J'.h2 liJb600 Zhukova - Koste­ niuk, Krasnoturinsk 2 0 05).

I

We will analyze now White's mai n move B2b) 14. 0 - 0 as well as B2a) 14.,bg4. �n case of 14.b3, Black can play 14. , .cxb3 (14 .. J'!g8 ! ? lS.bxc4 b400 Krush - Stefanova, France 2 007) lS.axb3 a6 ! ? (lS . . . i.g7 ! ?) 16.0-0 hS ; 17.l:i:e1 i.g7 18.dS 0-0 19.d6 (19!.dxc6 hc6 2 0 ..id6 �b7 2l. hf8 l:i:xf8 and he has a more than sufficient compensation for the eXGhange.) 19 ... Wld8 20.b4 .th6 21. ig3 liJd7 22 .eS cS 23 . .id3? ! (23. bx�S liJxcS 24.i.d3oo) 23 ... cxb4 24.liJe4 l:i:c8 25. Wlb1 ixe4 26. he4 as 27.Wla2 a4 28.Wle2 Wlb6 29.i.b1 Wld4 (29 . . . liJcS?? 30 .Wlc2 1-0 Tre­ gubov - Motylev, Krasnoyarsk 2 007) 30.�xbS liJcS, with excel­ lent winning chances for Black.

B2a) 14.,bg4 White restores the material balance with this move, but he does not obtain an advantage, since Black gains time to develop his forces.

14

•••

gg8

15.if3 White has at his disposal a sel­ dom played move, which is quite logical, though - lS.i.h3 and Black should better counter it in a ag­ gressive fashion: lS . . . b4! , empha­ sizing the drawback of the move i.g4-h3 - the fact that the e4pawn is not sufficiently protected. (It is weaker for him to play 15 . . . 0-0-0 16.�f3 liJd7 17 . .ig3 Wlf6 18.�e3 liJb6 - 18 . . . hS ! ? - 19. i.eS Wle7 and here, after the pro­ phylactic move 20.a3 ! ? White maintains better chances. It is du­ bious for him to opt for 2 0 .dS? ! 20 . . . cxdS 21. 0-0-0 ic6 2 2 .Wlf4 l:i:d7 23J;he1 dxe4 24.i.f6 Wle8 25. l:i:xd7 Wlxd7 26.l:i:d1 liJdS+ Nechep­ urenko - Bocharov, Krasnoyarsk 2 007.) 16.liJe2 (16.liJa4 liJxe4 17. Wle2 cS) 16 ... liJxe4 17.Wlc2 cS 18. Wla4+ Wld7 19.Wlxd7+ �xd7 20.f3 liJd6. 15 liJd7 16 .lg3 It is hardly advisable for White to choose 16.i.h2? ! 16 . . . 0-0-0 17. 0-0 i.g7 18.dS - and in this .••

•

181

Chapter 6 position, in which Black has a great advantage (for example af­ ter 18 . . . .ie5) in the game Grischuk - Motylev, Saint Vincent 2005, the opponents agreed to a draw.

Anti-Moscow Variation 17.d5 In case of 17.a4 exd4 (17 . . . b4! ? 18.tLle2 J.g7 19Jk1 l:!d8) 18.V;Yxd4, Black should not be greedy: 18 . . . tLlc5? 19.axb5 tLlb3 2 0 .V;Yxc4 tLlxal 21.bxc6+- Dobrov - Potkin, play­ chess.com 2006. Instead, he should follow with 18 . . . J.g7, with a good game for him, for example : 19 .V;Ye3 b4; 19.V;Ydl J.e5 ! ? 17 �c5 18. 0 - 0 In the game A.Zaitsev Yagupov, Tula 2 0 04, White played 18.dxc6?! tLld3+ 19.r;tJf1 hc6+ 18 0 - 0 - 0 •••

•••

16 e5 It is possible for Black to con­ tinue with 16 . . . 0-0- 0 ! ? 17.V;Yc2 (White should better avoid 17. O-O?! ig7! and he will have prob­ lems with the protection of his d4-pawn, while in case of 18 .a4 b4 19.tLle2, it would be very good for Black to play 19 . . . tLle5+ Zontakh - Yevseev, Dagomys 2009. The variation 17.V;Ye2 e5 18.d5 tLlc5 19.0-0 tLld3 2 0 .b3 V;Yc5, leads to an unclear position; it is worse for White to continue with 19.0O-O?! tLld3+ Georgescu - M. Gurevich, Plovdiv 2 008.) 17 ... e5 (17 . . . tLlb6 ! ? 18.a4 b4 19.tLle2 a5oo ; 19.a5 bxc3 2 0 .bxc3 tLld700 Werle - Fridman, Liverpool 2008) 18. d5 tLlc5 19.0-0-0 (19.0-0 - CM. 16 . . . e5) 19 . . . tLld3+ 20.r;tJb1 r;tJb8 with a good position for Black, Tregubov - Godena, France 2 007. •••

182

19 .V;Yc2 After 19.V;Ye2 tLld3, it would be correct for him to continue with 20.b3 ! (20.r;tJh2 ? ! V;Yb4?! 21.a4 cxd5 2 2 . axb5 d4 23.tLld5 V;Yxb5 24.b3± Smirnov - Potkin, Sochi 2005; 20 . . . cxd5 ! 21.exd5 f5; 2 1 . ig4+ l:!xg4 ! ? 2 2 .V;Yxg4+ V;Yd7; 20.dxc6 ixc6 2 1.a4 b4 2 2 .tLld5 V;Yc5 23 .ih2 f5 !+ Lalith - Arun Prasad, Nagpur 2008) 2 0 . . . V;Yc5 21. r;tJh2 V;Yd4, with a rather unclear position, or 20 . . . V;Yb4 ! ? 21.dxc6 hc6 2 2 .tLld5 hd5 23.exd5 f5

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 O .h4 g4 11. liJe5 liJ bd7 24.bxc4 e4, once again with a double-edged game. 19 �d3 The move 19 . . .fS ! ? , leads to unclear complications, for exam­ ple: 20.exfS cxdS 2 1 .liJxbS liJd3, or 2 0.d6 %Yxd6 2 1 .exfS liJd3 2 2 .b3 1'!xg3 23.fxg3 %Yd4+ 24.'it>h2 liJb4 2S.�c1 liJd3= :! o .b3 "l'c5 (threatening 1'!g8�g3) 21.'it>hl cxd5 ..•

14 . . . �g8 The move 14 . . . hS? ! leads after 1S.b3 ! (Or 1S.%Yc2 ? ! ih6 16.b3 cxb3 17.axb3 0-0 18.ixf6 %Yxf6 19.eS %Yxh4 2 0 .liJe4 ig7 21.g3 %Yd8 22 .liJd6 %Yb6 with a good game for Black, Grischuk - Dreev, Mainz (rapid) 2 0 05) to an advan­ tage for White, since Black cannot play 1S . . . cxb3, because of 16. liJxbS ! cxbS 17.ixbS+ 'it>d8 18.%Ye1 as 19.axb3 +15.b3 b4 16.�a4 c3 It is essential for Black not to open the position. Therefore, it would be unacceptable for him to play 16 . . . liJxe4 17.%Yc2 cS 18.ixc4 (18.dxcS?! g3 ! ) 18 . . . ig7 19.ixg7 1'!xg7 20.1'!ae1 liJd6 21.liJxcS± Gup­ ta - Korneev, Benasque 2 007. 17."I'd3 �d7 18.ig3

i22.exd5 (22.liJxdS?! fS H Hof­ fm �nn - Gelfand, Ohrid 2 009) 22� . . f5 23.�xb5 e4 24.bxc4 �xd5! Black has excellent pros­ pe4ts. I

I

i B2b) 14. 0 - 0 I One of the greatest specialists of this variation for White - Alex­ ander Grischuk played this posi­ tion twice. In the first game (Gri­ schuk - Gelfand, Odessa 2 007) Black replied with 18 . . . eS 19.1'!ad1 ig7 2 0.dS %Yd6 2 1.hg4 cxdS 2 2 . exdS 0-0-0 23 .a3 ia6 24.�e3 hS 183

Chapter 6 2S.ifS @bB 26J�fel ih6 27.%Yf3 Ad2 2B.axb4 hel 29J!xel±, but at the end White won the game. In the second game (Grischuk - Aronian, Ohrid 2009) Black was perfectly prepared and Grischuk was definitely not on the alert: IB . . .hS ! 19.a3 as 20.axb4 axb4 2t.tLl c5 �xal 2 V tJxb7 lLleS 23.�al lLlxd3 24.�aB+ @d7 2S.hd3 %Yf6 (diagram) I was watching this game and I can tell you definitely that Black's computer analysis was just per­ fect. He spent until that moment only the time necessary to press the clock and record the moves. White was in a desperate time­ trouble and he overlooked a spec-

IB4

Anti-Moscow Variation

tacular, but rather simple draw and he lost quickly: 2 6.ieS? id6 ! 27.ixf6 �xaB 2B.i>f1 �al+ 29.@e2 �a2 + 0-1. The only correct line for him would have been: 26.eS! %Yh6 27J�a7 i>cB 2B.lLlaS c2 29 .�aB+ @c7 30.�a7+ @cB 31. �aB =

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.tLlf3 tLlf6 4.tLlc3 e6 5.i.g5 h6 6.i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.i.g3 b5 9 .i.e2 i.b7 1 0 . 0 - 0 tLlbd7 Modern System

11.�e5 White cannot harm his oppo­ nent with 11.dS cxdS 12.exdS (12. ltJxbS? ! ltJxe4 13 .ltJc7+ 'it> e7) 12 ... ltJxdS 13.ltJxbS a6 ! 14.ltJbd4 (14. ltJd6+ ixd6 IS.,bd6 �b6+ Bareev - Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1995) 14 . . . .lg7 (14 . . . c3 1S .�c2gg) IS . .b:c4 0 - 0 16J3el l3cB 17.l3c1 ltJSb6 ! ?+ The move 11.�c2 (This posi­ tion can be reached after another mo -order, for example : 9 . .le2 .lb7 1O.�c2 ltJbd7 11.0-0.) has a seri us drawback, since Black can exc ange his opponent's impor­ tant dark-squared bishop with l1 . . . ltJhS ! 12.dS ! ? (White's attempt to compensate the absence of his dark-squared bishop fails after: 12.a4 a6 13 .dS ltJxg3 14.hxg3 i.g7

�

IS.l3fdl 0-0 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.eS �e7 IB.l3d6 ltJxeS 19 .13adl l3adB 20.l3xdB ltJxf3+ 21.i.xf3 l3xdB+ Lugovoy - Sakaev, St. Petersburg 1996.) 12 . . . ltJxg3 13.hxg3 (13.fxg3 Jig7 14.dxe6 fxe6 IS.eS 0-0 16. l3adl �e7+ Grabuzova - Korneev, Linares 199B.) 13 . . . Jig7 - This is the best for Black (13 . . . exdS?! 14. exdS .lg7 1S.%Ve4+?! �e7 16.dxc6? �xe4 17.cxd7+ 'it>xd7-+ ; IS.dxc6 ixc6 16.a4! with an unclear posi­ tion, Filippov - Galkin, Sochi 1997; 13 . . . �f6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15. eS ! ?t) 14'dxe6 fxe6 IS.eS (15. l3adl?! %Ve7 16.ltJd4 0-0-0 17.a4 ltJcS 1B.ltJxc6 ixc6 19.axbS .lb7- + Bosboom - Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1999) IS . . . �e7! (15 . . . O - O ? ! 16.ltJd4! with the idea f2-f4, Chernin - M.Gurevich, Germany 1997) 16.%Vg6+ (16.ltJd4 O-O-O ! ) 16 . . . �f7 17.�e4 (17.�xf7+ 'it>xf7 IB.ltJe4 'it>e7) 17 . . . a6 (17 . . . �fS? ! IB. ltJxbS ! %Vxe4 19. ltJd6+ 'it>e7 2 0 . ltJxe4 c S 21.ltJd6= ; 1 7. . . 0-0- 0 ! ?) IB.ltJd4 ltJxeS ! (This is obviously stronger for Black than IB . . . ixeS 19.i.g4, Ivanov - Yagupov, St. Pe­ tersburg 1997; 19.1tJxc6 ! ?) 19 . .lhS (19.f4 cS ! ) 19 . . . �xhS 2 0 . ltJxe6 �f7 IBS

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 7 21.lLlxg7+ Y!fxg7, with a great ad­ vantage for Black.

After 11.lLleS (This move char­ acterizes White's choice of the Modern system.), Black has two alternatives - a move, which is becoming very popular lately - B) 1l .tg7 and A) 1l h5. •••

•••

A) 1l h5 You will be easily convinced here - this move leads to different positions in comparison to 11 . . . ig7. The theory of the line with 11 . . . hS has not been well devel­ oped yet, so there are plenty of op­ portunities for finding new ideas. 12. �xd7 fi'xd7 •••

186

Al) 13.Be1! ? A2 ) 13 .te5 •

Al) 13.1re1! ? White has a n interesting pos­ sibility here - 13.ieS and its au­ thor is Vladimir Kramnik. 13 . . . gg8 This is just one of Black's alter­ natives. There are some others : 13 . . . Wxd4 ! ? 14.WxgS lLld7 (14 . . . lLlxe4?! 1S.lLlxe4 Wxe4 16.if3 ! Wh7 17J�ad1 i.e7 18.WeS+-) with a complicated game, for example: 1SJ�ad1 Wf6 16.Wd2 0-0-0 17.eS WfS 18.ih4 ih6 19.Y!fd6 i.f4 ; in case of 1S.eS ! ? Black has an excel­ lent resource - 1S . . . ih6 ! ? (The situation is not so clear after 15 . . . lLlcS 16J�ad1 lLld3 17.ih4 b4 18.,bd3 cxd3 19.1Lle2 Wg4 2 0 . l'!xd3 WxgS 21.ixgS ia6 2 2 .l'!d2 .te7, with approximate equality; 19.1'!xd3 ! ? Y!fxd3 20.l'!d1) 16.'i;YxhS i.g7 17.Wg5 (17.l'!ad1 l'!xh5 - 17 . . . Wxd1!? - 18.l'!xd4 l'!xeS 19.,be5 heS and Black has an obvious compensation for the exchange.) 17 . . . .th6= ; 1 3 . . . l'!h6 ! ? 14.WxgS (14.l'!d1 ! ?) 14 . . . b4 1S.lLla4 lLlxe4 16.We3 h4 ! ? (16 . . . lLlxg3 17.hxg3 0-0-0 18.l'!fd1 h4 19.1Llc5 Wc7 2 0 .g4;!; Akobian Shabalov, Miami 2 007) 17 . .tf4 l'!g6 18 . .tf3 cS 19.1'!ad1 (19.he4 cxd4 2 0 .Wf3 ,be4 2 1.Wxe4 l'!d8 2 2 .b3 c3+, with a more than suf­ ficient compensation for the ex­ change.) 19 . . . Y!fxa4 2 0.he4 he4 21.Wxe4 l'!d8 2 2 .d5 i.e7oo 14.gdl .tb4! ?

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. i.g3 b5 9. i.e2 i.b7 1 0 . 0 - 0 &iJ bd7 11. &iJe5 h5 is also possible for Black to pIa 14 . . . 0-0-0 15.a4 b4 16.&iJb5 ! ? cxb 17.axb5 i.d6 (17 . . . �xb5? 18. ,bc �c6 19.i.b5+-; 17 ... c3 18. bxc b3 19 J:�a4 he4 2 0.�a1 i.d6 2 1 . xa7+- ; 19 .. J'!e8 2 0 J'!c4+ c;t>d8 2 1 . a1+-) 18.�xc4+ �c7 19.hd6 �x 4 2 0 .hc4 i!xd6 2 1.e5 - White has an extra pawn indeed, but his pa s are weak and doubled and Bla k can hope to equalize in this en game, for example: 2 1 . . .l3d7 2 2 . xf6 l3gd8 ! 23.i.e2 g4 24.l3ael + c;t>b 25.l3c4 b3. e has also tried in practice 14 . . l3g6 and the game Buhmann - 'Amore, Heraklio 2 007, con­ tin ed with 15.b3 b4 16.&iJa4 &iJxe4 17. xc4 �d5 18.�c2 &iJxg3 19. hx 3, draw.

16.h3 Black should not fear 16.e5 ! ? &iJd5 (16 . . . &iJg4 17.hg4 hxg4 18. &iJe4--+; 16 ... &iJd7 17.&iJe4 h4 18. a3 !±) 17.&iJxd5 cxd5 18 . .bh5 i.a5, because after he transfers his bishop to b6, he can advance his pawns. 16 h4 17.i.eS! ? I t would b e dubious for White to choose 17.i.h2?! and later in the game Kramnik Gelfand, Mex­ ico 2 007, there followed: 17 . . . hc3 (If 17 ...g4 immediately, then White replies with 18.e5 ! ) 18.bxc3 g4, with better prospects for Black. 17 a6 18.a4 &iJd7 19.i.h2 &iJf6 The threat g5-g4 is again on the agenda. 2 0 .ieS = In case White tries to play for a win - 20 .c;t>h1, Black can counter that with 20 . . . l3g6 (or 20 . . . ,bc3 ! ? 2 1.bxc3 g4 2 2 .hxg4 &iJxg4 23 .,bg4 l3xg4 24.f3 l3g6oo Kasimdzhanov - Motylev, Germany 2008) 21. l3ael l3d8 2 2 .i.e5 i.a5 (This is a very purposeful bishop-maneu­ ver, similar to the one we have seen before.) 23.i.f3 i.b6 and Black's position was better in the game Wojtaszek - Kasimdzha­ nov, Germany 2008. •••

-

.••

•

15.ti'e3 ! Or 15.i.e5 &iJg4. 15 . . . �e7 After 15 . . . &iJg4 16.,bg4 hxg4 17 a4 @f8 (17 . . . a6 18 .�e2 ! ?) 18. ax 5 cxb5 19 .d5 a6 2 0.�b6, White's initiative is very powerful, Goganov - Yevseev, st. Peters­ burg 2 009.

A2) 13 .ieS l3h6 (diagram) 14.�c1 It would be dubious for White to choose 14.�c2 ? ! , in view of 14 . . . &iJg4 15.i.g3 h4. •

187

Chapter 7

He plays only seldom 14.f3 Vf!e7 (It is also possible for Black to continue here with 14 . . . h4 ! ? lS.a4? ! b 4 16.lDb1 lDhS 17.lDd2 f6+, Khurtsidze - Galliamova, Ekaterinburg 2006; lS.b3 ! ? with a double-edged position.) lS.a4 (1S.f4 ! ? g4 16.f5 0-0-000) 15 . . . a 6 16.Vf!c2 !'!dS (16 . . . h4 ! ?) 17.!'!ad1 lDd7 lS .i.c7 (lS.f4 ! ?) lS . . . !'!cS 19.i.g3 eS 2 0 .dS b4 (20 . . . Vf!f6 ! ? ; 2 0 . . .h 4 2 1..if2 Vf!b4 !?) 2 1 .dxc6 hc6 (21.. .!,!hxc6? ! 22.lDdS± To­ palov - Vallejo Pons, MoreliaJ Linares 2 006) 2 2 . lDdS hdS 23.!'!xdS !'!d6, with a complicated game. 14.f4 ! ? g4 1S.Vf!c2 (If 1S.fS, then lS . . . exfS ! Black must exploit the fact that his opponent cannot cap­ ture on fS with his rook: 16.!'!xf5 lDxe4 ! ; 16.exfS lDdS and White has neither a powerful centre any more, nor any compensation for the pawn . . . ; it is weaker for Black to play lS . . . 0-0-0? ! 16.Vf!c2 , since White had a good compensation in the game Jovanovic - Kalezic, Bar 2007.)

lSS

Anti-Moscow Variation

lS . . . cS ! Black must try to ac­ complish that pawn-advance at the first opportune moment. 16. dS (In the game Schroer - Sandi­ pan, Leiden 200S, White played 16.!'!ad1 cxd4 17.hd4 %Vc6 1S.!,!fe1 .icS+) 16 . . . lDxe4 ! This is a fantas­ tic resource for Black! (It would be dubious for him to choose 16 . . . b4? ! , because o f 17.fS ! exdS lS. lDxdS hdS 19.exdS .id6 2 0 .hd6 Vf!xd6 2 1.hc4 h4 - 2 1 . . . iS ! ? 2 2 . .ibS+ wfS 2 3 . .ic6;!; Radjabov - Vallejo Pons, MoreliaJLinares 2 006. It deserves attention for Black to enter the rather unclear position after 16 . . . exdS ! ? 17.exdS lDxdS lS.!'!fd1 %Ve6, or 17.a4 ! ? d4 lS.lDxbS d3 19.Vf!xc4 dxe2 20. Vf!xe2 .ia6) 17.lDxe4 (If 17.Vf!xe4, then 17 . . . exdS, while after 17.dxe6 !'!xe6 lS.lDxe4 he4 19.Vf!xe4 Vf!d4 + ! 2 0.hd4 !'!xe4 21.!'!ae1 cxd4 22 . .if3 gxf3 23.!'!xe4 wd7 24. !'!xd4+ Wc6, he has an excellent compensation; 20.%Vxd4 cxd4 and Black has a good compensation for the sacrificed piece.) 17 . . .Vf!xdS lS.lDf6+ !'!xf6 19.hc4 Vf!xc4 20.%Vxc4 bxc4 21 . .ixf6 .ie7! ? (or

6. �h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. �e2 �b7 1 O . 0 - 0 CD bd7 11 . CD e5 h5 2 1 . . .�e4). There arose a very in­ teresting and approximately equal endgame.

After 14.�c1, we will analyze separately the solid move A2b) 14, ..gg6 as well as A2a) 14 . . . �g4, which leads t o interesting positions not so well-analyzed yet. It is just bad for Black to play 14 . . . g4, weakening the f4-square, but it would far from easy for White to refute it outright, for ex­ ample: Is.b3 ! ? (ls.�f4 ! ? ; 15. 1:!dl ! ? ; it is worse for him to opt for Is.f3 gxf3 16.hf"3 1:!g6) Is . . . b4 16.CDa4 CDxe4 17.f3 (17.ixc4 cs) 17 . . . gxf3 18.ixf3 cs 19.1:!el fs 2 0 . he4 he4 2 1.CDxcS hcS 2 2 .�xh6 ixd4+ 23.ixd4 �xd4+ 24.�hl ixg2+ 2s.�xg2 �g4= In case of 14 ... cs, it is very strong for White to choose Is.ds ! (He did not play so well in an earli­ er game: Is.dxcS ? ! b4 16.�xgs 1:!g6 17.�f4 CDg4 18.1:!adl �c6 19.CDds exds 20.exds �xcs 21.1:!fel i.h6=t Aronian - Gelfand, Monte Carlo 2 0 07; Is.a4 ! ?) Is . . . b4 16.hf6

(16.dxe6 ! ?) 16 . . . 1:!xf6 17.dxe6 �xe6 (The best for Black here was 17 .. J�xe6 18.1:!dl !!d6 19.CDds 0-0-0 2 0.hc4;!;) 18.CDds hds 19.exds �fs 2 0.�e3+ �e7 2 1.1:!ael �f8 2 2 .�g4 hxg4 23.�xe7+ �g7 24.1:!es �f4 2s.d6± Bareev - Las­ tin, Krasnoyarsk 2 0 07. It is also wrong for Black to opt for 14 . . . �e7? ! Is.�xgs CDd7 16.�f4 �xgs 17.hgS �h8 18.es �e7 19. f4± Akobian - Stripunsky, Phila­ delphia 2007. He should better refrain from going after the e4-pawn: 14 . . . b4? ! Is.CDa4 CDxe4 16.1:!dl (16.f3 ! ?) 16 . . . f6 ( 1 6 . . .c 3 17.bxc3 f6 18.CDcS CDxc3 19.ixhs+ !!xhs 2 0 .CDxd7 �xd7 2 1.�c2 fxesoo Relange - Homme­ les, France 2008; 17.CDcS! hcS 18.dxcs �e7 19.!!d4 ! ) 17.CDcS ! %Vh7 18.CDxb7 %Vxb7 19 .�f3± (19.�xc4 fxes 2 0.if3 �bS 2 1.�c2± Kunte - Ramesh, Visakhapatnam 2006; it is better for Black to defend with 2 0 . . . exd4 2 1.ixe4 es 2 2 .1:!d3, but White still has an excellent com­ pensation for the pawn.). We will analyze the move 14 ... CDh7! ? as well.

The idea behind this ugly (at 189

Chapter 7 least at first sight) maneuver is not so much to have the g5-pawn protected, but to create the threat f7-f6 and to prevent the exchange of White's dark-squared bishop for Black's knight, since that ex­ change might be very favourable for White in some cases. 15.h4 ! ? (White defends against the threat f7-f6 at the price of a pawn.) 15 . . . gxh4 16.�e3 tlJf6! 17. ixf6 l'!xf6 1B.e5 l'!f5 19.tlJe4 c5 ! ? (In case of 1 9 . . . 0-0-0 2 0 . l'!ad1 i.e7 21.f4, followed by b2-b3, he has compensation for his oppo­ nent's two extra pawns. Black's rook has remained in dire straits.) 20.dxc5?! (20.l'!ad1 ! ? 0-0-0 21. dxc5 i.d5 2 2 .f4 �c6 23 .i.f3 f6 24. tlJd6+ hd6 25.cxd6 ixf3 26.l'!xf3 �b6+) 20 . . . he4 (20 . . . �d5 ! ? 21. i.f3 l'!xf3 2 2 .gxf3 �xe5 23.l'!ad1 he4 24.�xe4 �xe4 25.fxe4 hc5) 21.�xe4 �d5 2 2 .i.f3 l'!xf3 23.gxf3 �xe4 24.fxe4 hc5 25.l'!ad1 a5+ Werle - Dreev, Dresden 2 0 07. 15.f4 ! ? - This is White's most aggressive and principled deci­ sion. 15 . . . i.e7 (It is dubious for Black to play 15 . . . g4 16.f5 exfS 17.l'!xf5 f6 1B.i.f4 l'!g6 19 .�e3 tlJg5 20 .d5± Schneider Zinner - Rau, Bad Wiessee 2 007.) 16.�e3 0-0-0 17.l'!ad1 (It would be pre­ mature for White to choose 17.d5 cxd5 18.�xa7 �c6) 17 .. .f6 1B.fxg5 fxe5 (Of course not 1B . . . fxg5? 19. b3+ - ; 19.d5 ! ? ; 19.1'!f7!?; Black should better avoid 1B . . . tlJxg5 ? ! 19.i.f4±) 19.9xh6 exd4 2 0 .�g3 (20.�h3 ! ? h4oo) 190

Anti-Moscow Variation

and now: 20 . . . �eB 2 1.�g7! d3 ! ? (but not 2 1 . . .dxc3? 22.l'!xdB + �xdB 23. bxc3+-) 2 2 .�xh7 i.c5+ 23.'i!,?h1 l'!d7 24.hh5 �xh5 25.�gB+ gB 2 2 .ih4 ie7 23.�h1; 2 2 .b3 ! ? cxb3 23. axb3) 19 .\We2 0-0-0 (Or 19 . . . \Wxd4 2 0 .�fd1 \Wc5 21.e5 f5 2 2 .ih4 if4 23.if6 �xf6 24.exf6 \We5 25. �e1 \Wxe2 26.llJxe2 id2 27.�ed1 �dB, with a good game for Black, Korobov - Zubov, Odessa 2 007; 2 1.id6 \Wb6 2 2 .b3 cxb3 23.axb3 as 24.b4 ! and White has a power­ ful initiative for the pawn, Zelbel - Fiebig, Dortmund 2009.) 20. �fd1 WJe7 21.a4 b4

Anti-Moscow Variation 2 V lJb5 ! ? (22.c�Ja2 ! ? ia6 23.b3 e5) 22 . . . cxb5 23.axb5 'it>d7 (Black has problems even after his rela­ tively best line: 23 . . . e5 24.\Wxc4+ \Wc7 25.\Wxb4) 24J�a7 'it>eB 25. \Wxc4 �cB 2 6.\Wb3± and White's attack is tremendously danger­ ous, P.Nielsen - Vallejo Pons, Monte Carlo 2006. 18.dxc5 b4 19.�e2 "fIc6 2 0 . �g3 "fixeS (20 . . . ixc5 ! ? 21.id4 Ad6; 2 1.\We2 !?) 2 1.J.d4 "fIc6 2 2 . �Udl ih6 23."fIel f5 24.ie5 f4 25. �h5 "fIxe4 26."fIxe4 ixe4 27.�f6 + gn'6 28.ixf6 'it>f7 29. gd4 id5 3 0 .ie5, but now not 30 . . . f3? 31.�xg4 fxg2 32 .a3 + ­ Sakaev - Cheparinov, Dresden 2007, but 3 0 �g6+, with the idea 31.ixf4 ig7 32 .�d2 c3 . •••

A2b) 14

.••

gg 6

15.gdl The move 15.f3 is not so good for White. On the one hand he prevents the maneuver llJf6-g4, but on the other hand he creates a target for Black to attack on the kingside and what is even more 192

i i

6. �h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. �g3 b5 9. �e2 �b7 1 O . 0 - 0 liJ bd7 1l . liJ e5 h5

important gives him additional tim e to regroup his forces. 15 . . . �e'il! (Black should better avoid 15 . . h4, because here 16.f4 ! , which , on the previous move, when his paWn had been on h5 was in fa­ vour of Black, now, when the pawn is on h4 turns out to be in favQur of White: 16 . . . gxf4 17.�xf4 .ih6 18.�xh4 �g5 19.�f2 �h6 2 0 .M3± L'Ami - Cheparinov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 0 B ; 16.�e3 ? ! liJh5 17.�ad1 liJf4 1B.M4 gxf4 19.�xf4 h3 2 0 .g3 �h6 2 1.�h4+ Daskevics - Gundavaa, Beijing 200B) 16.a4 a6 and Black has a good position. Later, in the game Le Quang Nepomniachtchi, Moscow 200B, which was won by Black and to­ gether with it, he won the tourna­ ment "Aeroflot-Open", there fol­ lowed: 17.�c2 h4 1B.f4 gxf4 19. M4 c5 20.d5 b4 2 1.e5 liJxd5 2 2 .liJxd5 hd5+ After 15 . .ixf6 �xf6 16.�xg5 �g6 17.�e3 0-0-0 (17 . . . �dB?! lB. .bh5 �h6 19.�f3± Shishkin Przybylski, Poznan 2 0 0B) 1B .�ad1 (lB.hh5?! �h6 19.�f3 f5 ! ) 1B ... h4 (lB . . . i.g7 19 . .txh5 �h6 2 0 .i.f3 �dhB 2 1.h3 �g6 2 2 .i.e2 �gB 23.g4 f5t Gozzoli - Henrichs, France 2007) Black has an excellent posi­ tion. It would be bad now for White to play 19.e5?, because of 19 . . . c5 ! In the game Porper - Korneev, Senden 2007, White played 15. �e3 liJg4 16.hg4 hxg4 17.�ad1 f6 1B.i.g3 c;t>t7 19.f3 gxf3 20.�xf3 c;t>gB 21.�f2 i.g7 2 2 .h4 �dB+

The game Guilleux - Le Quang, Vung Tau 200B, continued with 15.f4 gxf4 16.�xf4 i.h6 17.�f2 (17. �h4 �g5 1B.�h3 0-0-0) 17 ... �g7 18 .�h4 �e7 19 . .txh5 liJxh5 2 0 . �xh5 �g5+ 15 �g4 It is dubious for Black to choose 15 ... g4? ! 16.b3 cxb3 17 . axb3±, be he should consider seri­ ously - 15 ... �e7N. •••

16 .i.g3 That is evidently the best for White . After 16.hg4 hxg4 17.b3 cxb3 1B.axb3 f6 19.i.g3 c;t>t7 20 .�e3 a6, Black has nothing to worry about, Wang Hao - Predojevic, Sarajevo 2009. In the game L'Ami - Erenburg, Amsterdam 2006, White tried 16. a4 a6 17 . .txg4? ! (It was better for him to opt for 17.�g3.) 17 . . . hxg4 18.�e3 f6 19 .i.g3 c;t>f7+ 16 f5 ! ? 17.f3 Black can counter 17.h3 with the brilliant tactical possibility: 17 .. .f4! 1B.i.h2 �h6 19 .hxg4 hxg4 20 .hg4 �h7 21.�h3 g4 •

•••

193

Chapter 7

Anti-Moscow Variation

2 2 .hf4 gxh3 ! ? (It is weaker for him to play 2 2 .. .l::! hS 23.f3 ! gxh3 24.g4.) 23 .ixh6 ixh6 24.�c2 hxg2 and he has a powerful at­ tack.

B1) 12.�xf7 B2) 12.�xd7

17 . . . �h6 It seems interesting for Black to try 17 . . . lLle3 ! ? - he sacrifices two pawns, exchanging his knight for White's dark-squared bishop and opens files for his rooks on the kingside. Still, it may turn out that the price he pays for that two pawns, is too high. 18.�xe3 f4 19.hf4 gxf4 2 0 .�xf4 0-0-0 21. �h4 .ih6 2 2 . wh1 .ie3 23.eS �g7 24.,if1 �g8 2S.�h3 wb8 26.lLle4 and White maintains the advan­ tage, Iljin - Potkin, Dresden 2007. 18.b3 cxb3 19.axb3 �f7. Here, in the game Agrest - Gode­ na, Arvier 2 007, White played 2 0.if2 ! ? with some compensa­ tion and a slight edge. It also de­ serves attention for him to con­ sider 2 0.ieS ! ? B) 1l 194

••.

.ig7

Bl) 12.�xf7!? This sacrifice was tried for the first time quite recently, in the fa­ mous game Topalov - Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2008. Black did not defend precisely in it and White seized the initiative and he won spectacularly. Soon after that, Black's game was improved. The theory of this variation continues to develop, but White's enthusi­ asm began to diminish consider­ ably, since it seems that Black has more than sufficient counter ar­ guments. Meanwhile, as I have already mentioned in the intro­ duction to the book, the positions in the Anti-Moscow variation in general and this one in particular, are so complicated that I would not be surprised if that line be­ comes fashionable once again. The final evaluation will not be pronounced any time soon. 12 �xf7 13.e5 �d5 Black should not give back his extra piece - 13 .. .l:::!f8 14.exf6 lLlxf6 •.•

6. ih4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. ig3 b5 9. ie2 ib7 1 D . O - O liJ bd7 11 . liJ e5 fig7 ls. b 3 ! ? b4 (lS . . . liJdS 16.liJe4) 16. liJa4 c3 17.liJc5 ic8 18.a3± '14.liJe4 me7 15.liJd6 ti'b6 This is Black's most logical and natural move. : It seems weaker for him to opt for lS .. J''!b8 16.a4 ! ? (16 . .ig4 c5 ! ?) with initiative for White. 16.J.g4 It is not advisable for White to choose 16JMfc2 ? ! �xd4 17J!ad1 � 6 18 .�g6, because after the co d-blooded response 18 ... heS, hi attack turns out to be an illu­ si n: 19 ..ig4 liJf8 2 0 .�f7+ xf8 ! This move is logical, because it 200

emphasizes the drawback of the move 14.�el - White's plan with f2-f4 is now evidently too slow. After lS . . . �xf8? ! , as the game Radjabov - Anand, Weik aan Zee 2008, showed, Black may have problems. It continued with : 16.b3 (16.dS ! ?) 16 . . . b4 (16 . . . cxb3 17.�xb3 ! ? - 17.axb3 ! ? - 17 . . . �b6 18.dS 0-0-0 19.a4 ! ?gg; 18.�edl 0-0-0 19.a4 �b8 2 0 .eS f6 ! 21. exf6 lLlxf6 2 2 .�xe6 �c7 23.axbS cxbS 24.ixbS ! �xc3 2S.ixa6 �c6 26.�eS+ �d6 27.�dbl �f7 28. ixb7 �xb7 29.�aS �xb1+ 30. �xbl + �c8 31.�b6+-; 24 . . . �d6 2S.�h3±; in the game Citak - Fi­ rat, Ankara 2008, White hesitated and played 24.�dc1?! and after 24 . . . �d6, Black seized the initia­ tive.) 17.lLla4 c3 18.a3 as 19.dS ! ? - After this pawn-break i n the centre, Black's game becomes very difficult. The main drawback of his position is the unsafe situation of his king. 19 . . . �e7 (19 ... cxdS 20.exdS ixdS? 2 1.i.bS ; 19 . . . �f6 2 0.�d3) 20 .d6 �f6 2 1.eS ! �f4 (21.. .lLlxeS 2 2 .lLlcS; 2 1 . . . �xeS 2 2 . i.a6 �xel+ 23 .�xel ixa6 2 4 . axb4

6. J.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. J.g3 b5 9. J.e2 J.b7 1 O . 0 - 0 CiJ bd7 11. CiJ e5 J.g7 axb4 25:�e4 - attacking both the b4 and c6-pawns.) 2 2 .J.d3 bxa3 (22 . . . CiJxe5 23J'! e4 V«f6 24.axb4±; 2 2 . . . cS? 23.J.b5 ; 2 2 . . . J.a6 23.ha6 l'!x 24.axb4 axb4 25.V«e2 l'!a8 26. xc3 ! ; 25 . . . CiJb8 2 6.d7+ ! �d8 27. ad1) 23.V«e2 (In case of 23. l'!x 3!? CiJxe5 ! 24.CiJcS CiJg4 ! ; 24. l'!e V«d2 ! the position remains unclear.) 23 . . . V«d2 24.l'!xa3 V«xe2 25.l'!xe2± Black has succeeded in exchanging queens, but his queen­ side pawn-structure has been de­ stroyed, while White has a power­ ful passed pawn and a clear ad­ vantage. After 15 . . . �xf8 ! , naturally he has some compensation (Black's king is vulnerable.) but he can hardly prove that he has anything real and the tournament practice confirms this. 16.b3 cxb3 It is rather dubious for Black to play 16 . . . b4? ! , because of 17. CiJa4 c3 18.d5, followed by V«d1d4. 17.tbb3 17.axb3 �g7 17 . . . �g7 18.a4 ti'e7 19 .gadl In case of 19.d5 b4 2 0 .dxe6 fx 6 2 1.V«b2 @h7 2 2 .e5 l'!hf8 23. V« 2 + �h8 24.CiJe4 c5 25.CiJd6 � 5, Black has an advantage, Lo enzo de la Riva - Alsina Leal, B celona 2009. (diagram) 19 . . . b4 !? 2 0 .a5 bxc3 It deserves serious attention f0 him to choose 2 0 . . . e5. 21.ti'xb7 ghb8 22 .ti'xc6 gc8

�

1

23.ti'a4 �f6 and Black is not worse, Hillarp Persson - Wang Hao, Gibraltar 2008.

B2a2b) 15 .ig3 •

15 . . . .ig7 16.e5 ! ? 0 - 0 It is also interesting for him to opt for 16 . . . c5 ! ? 17.d5 0-0 18.�f3 V«b6, this is his most solid line (It is weaker for Black to opt for 18 . . . l'!a7? ! 19.d6 hf3 2 0.V«xf3 f5 21. exf6 V«xf6 2 2 .V«e2gg; 19.dxe6 fxe6 2 0 .�g4 V«e7 2 1 .V«d6 l'!e8 2 2 J!ad1 �a8 23.CiJe4gg; 19 . . . hf3 2 0 .V«xf3? fxe6 2 1.V«c6 V«b6 ; 20.exf7+ l'!xf7 21.gxf3± Radjabov - Aronian, So­ fia 2008; 18 . . . exd5 ! ? 19.CiJxd5 l'!e8 201

Chapter 7 20.e6 �e6 21.�xe6 fxe6 2 2 .�c7 .hf3 23 .Wfxf3 �a7 24.�xe6 Wff6

2S.WfdS Wff7+; 2 0 .�f6+ hf6 21. hb7 �xeS 2 2 .ha8 Wfxa8 and his position is acceptable; 19.hdS hdS 2 0 .%!fxdS Wfe8 21.e6 fxe6 2 2 .�xe6 Wffl; 21.�adl �d8, with a very unclear situation, for exam­ ple : 2 2 .Wfe4 �b6 23.�d8 Wfxd8 24.e6 fxe6 2S.Wfxe6+ �h7! - 2S . . . �h8? 2 6.i.eS - 26.i.d6 �f6 27. Wfe4+ �g6 28.hcS Wfd3, or 2 2 .e6 fxe6 23.�xe6 Wffl 24.�d6 WfxdS 2S.�lxdS �de8 ! ; 2S.�6xdS �fl, with the idea to cover the d-file with i.g7-d4.) 19.Wfc2 ! ?� (19.dxe6 hf3 20.exf7+ �xf7 2 1.gxf3 Wfe6't; 19.d6 b4 2 0 .�a4 WfbS 2 1..ixb7 Wfxb7 2 2 .%!fc2;!;; 19 . . . �ad8 2 0 .�c1 .ic6 ! ?oo) 19 . . . �fe8 2 0 .�adl �ad8, with a very complicated position. 17.J.f3

Anti-Moscow Variation 23.h4 ! ? gxh4? 24.�f6 ! �xf6 2S. hh4±; 23 ... �f4 24.hxgS hxgS 2S.hf4 gxf4 - this is how the game Inarkiev - Cheparinov, Baku 2008, proceeded, but here White chose a very risky line: 26. g4, he had better play 26.Wfcl, or 26.ttJcS with a clear advantage.) 19.�xgS ! hxgS (19 ... .hf3 2 0.�xf3 cxd4 2 1.Wfxd4 �c5 2 2 .i.h4 Wfa7 23.i.f6) 2 0.hb7 �ab8 2 1.i.e4 cxd4 22 .WfhS �fc8 23.i.h7+ �f8 24.h4 g4 2S.Wfxg4; 24 . . . gxh4 2S. hh4 WfcS 26.WfgS and the posi­ tion was very dangerous for Black, since White was threatening to bring his rook into the actions along the fourth rank. 18. �e4 e5 19.�xe5 �xc5 But not 19 ... .hf3 20.�xd7 Wfc6 21.Wfxf3 Wfxd7 22 .�e4, followed by h2-h4. 2 0 .dxc5 Be7 - If White's kingside attack fails, Black will win the c5-pawn and then his queenside pawn-majority should prove to be decisive.

B2b) 14.J.h5

17 frb6 ! ? It deserves attention for Black to consider 17 .. J�b8 ! ? H e should better avoid 1 7. . . %!fe7? ! 18.�e4 c5 ! ? ( 1 8 . . . ttJb6 19. Wfe2 - 19.b3 ! ? - 19 . . J'!ad8 2 0 . �adl ttJdS 2 1 .a3 �h8 2 2 .Wfc2 as 23.b3; •••

202

. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 B. i.g3 b5 9. i.e2 i.b7 1 O . 0 - 0 lO bd7 11 . 1O e5 i.g7 is is a very purposeful move Black must play very careful-

The move 14 . . . eS is considered e imprecise, because of lS.f4 ! ( 1 S. . . exd4?! 16.�g4 lOfB 16 . . lOf6? 17.�e6 - 17.fxgS �xd6 lB. xf1 c.t>dB 19.�xg7 i.cB 2 0 . � 4+- i.d7 2 1.eS �cS 2 2 .lOe4 � 5 23.g6+ 1-0 Pashikian De pan Chakkravarthy, Yerevan 2 0 6) 16.dxeS heS (16 . . . lOxeS ! ? 17. xf4 �d7 IB.heS heS 19. � 7+ c.t>xd7 20.�xf1+ c.t>cB 21.

to

ga e ; it is weaker for White to pI 19.1OdS �h7 - 19 . . . cxdS? 20. �xf1 - 20.lOf6+ i.xf6 21. �xf6 O-O-O?? 22 . .ig4; 2 1 . . .�xdl+ 2 2 . �xdl and Black has still problems to solve - 22 . . . c.t>e7 23.�fd6 .icB 24.�xc6; 21 . . . �g7! 2 2 .�d6 �e7 23.�d4 �gS ! 24.i.f3 cS ; 19.�xf1? ! �d4+ ! 2 0 .'t!lhl?! O-O-O ! ; 20.�f2 + c.t>e7! ; 18.�fS lOd3 IB .ht7+ c.t>dB 19.i.g3, with a strong attack for White.) 17.i.xf1+ c.t>xf1 18 .�hS+ c.t>g7 (but not IB . . . c.t>e6? 19.�adl! and his attack is so powerful that Black is possibly beyond salvation - 19 . . . hd6 20.�g4+ c.t>e7 2 1 . Y;Yg7+ c.t>e6 2 2 .lOe2 ! c S 23.lOxf4+ hf4 24.�xf4 �fB 2S.�B lOxfB 26.�xdB �xdB 27.�xb7 �dl+ 2B. c.t>f2 �d2 + 29.c.t>g3 1-0 Agrest Kulaots, Turin 2006; it would be even stronger for White to con­ tinue with 23.eS heS 24.lOxf4+ hf4 2S.�g4+ c.t>e7 26.�xf4+-),

but still his advantage is not deci­ sive yet, for example : 19.heS+ ! ? (19.�g4+ c.t>h7 20.�fS+ c.t>gB 2 1 . heS lOxeS 2 2 .�xeS �gS 23.�e6+ c.t>h7 24.�d7 �g7 2S.�fS+ �g6 26. �xf4 �hgB 27.g3;t;) 19 . . . lOxeS 20. �xeS+ �f6 2 1.�c7+ �t7 2 2 .�b6;t; 15.J.xf8 gxf8

16.e5 After 16.dS, it deserves atten­ tion for Black to opt for 16 . . . cxdS ! ? (It is also possible for him to play 16 . . . �e7, but that position is rath­ er difficult to play. I think that if his position after 16 . . . cxdS turns out to be acceptable, that is what he should play. In case of 16 . . . �e7 17.b3 cxb3 18.�xb3 1OeS (It would be interesting to test IB . . . lOf6 ! ? and if 19.d6 - then not 1 9 . . . Y;Yxd6, because of 2 0.eS �xeS 21.�ael, with an advantage for White, but 19 . . . �d7.) 19.�acl cS 20.dxe6 0-0-0 2 1.ext7 �d3?! - 21 . . . lOd3 ! oo - 2 2 .i.e2 �xf1 23.hd3 1Oxd3 and the game Gajewski - Dreev, Dres­ den 2 007, ended in a draw.) 17. exdS lOf6 !

203

Chapter 7

Anti-Moscow Variation 26.ltJhS (26.ltJe2 �cS+) 26 . . . c3 27. ltJxf6 'i!?xf6 2S.bxc3 bxc3 and Black was better in the game Rad­ jabov - Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 200S. 16 Bb6 It would be interesting to test more frequently in practice the move I6 . . . �e7! ?, which was played in the game Pavlidis - Kotanjian, Kavala 200S, which followed with 17.ltJe4 0-0-0 IS.ltJd6+ 'i!?bS 19. a4 (19.b3 !?) 19 ... ltJb6 20.axbS cxbS 2 1.if3 �xd6 22.exd6 �xd6 23.hb7 'i!?xb7 24.�f3 + ltJdS+ •••

and now: ISJ�el 'i!?e7! (This is stronger for Black than a line leading to ap­ proximate equality: IS . . . hdS 19. ltJxdS �xdS 20.�xdS ltJxdS 21. �xe6+ 'i!?d7 22 .�xh6 �hS ! 23.�xhS �xhS 24 . .txf7 ltJf4 2S .g3 ltJh3+ 26. 'i!?g2 ltJxf2) 19.M3 b4 2 0 .d6+ %Yxd6 2 1.%Yxd6+ @xd6 2 2 .hb7 bxc3=F and here White loses after 23.haS (He cannot change any­ thing with 23.�adl ltJdS.) 23 . . . cxb2 24.�adl+ ltJdS- + ; 2 0.ltJe2 hdS 2 1 .ltJd4 �gS and Black's king will find a safe haven on the g7square. IS.dxe6 �xdl 19 .hf7+ 'i!?e7 20 .�axdl - I thought about this positional pawn-sacrifice during my above mentioned game against Gajewski, but still I decided against it. An year later, this idea was used successfully by Van Wely: 20 . . . �fdS 2 1.ltJe2 .ie4 (pre­ venting the appearance of White's knight on the fS-square) 2 2 .f4 b4 23 .fxgS?! (White had better play 23.ltJg3 with approximate equali­ ty: 23 . . . gxf4 24.ltJxe4 ltJxe4 2SJkl �d4 26.�xf4 �adS 27.ihS �SdS 2S .if3 ltJd6 29 .hdS �xf4) 23 . . . hxgS 24.ltJg3 �xdl 2S.�xdl .ih7 204

17.b3 ! ? White has also tried here 17.ltJe4 0-0-0 IS.ltJd6+ 'i!?bS 19. ltJxt7 (19 .b3 c3 ! ? ; after 19 . . .f6 ! ? 20.bxc4 fxeS, the position i s un­ clear. The game Ernst - Van Wely, Netherlands 2006, continued with: 21.a4 - 21.cS ! ? - 21...exd4 2 2 . axbS cxbS 23.ltJxb7 @xb7 24. cxbS axbS 2S . .if3+ 'i!?c7 26.�c1 + ltJc5 27.�el �d6 28.�d2 'i!?d7 29.�b4 �cS 30.�cdl d3 31.�xbS+ 'i!?e7 and Black's position was at least equal.) 19 . . . �xt7 2 0 .hf7

6. i.h4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. i.g3 b5 9. i.e2 i.b7 1 O . 0 - 0 ttJ bd7 11. ttJ e5 i.g7 ttJxe5 2 1.�h5 �xd4 2 2 .he6 c5 with an excellent compensation for the exchange. Later, the game Radjabov - Anand, Mainz 2006, followed with 23 .�xh6 @a7 24. �ael ttJd3 25.�e3 !!d6 26.h4 ttJf4 27.hxg5 ttJxe6 28.f3 b4 29.@h2 �c7 30.f8 23.lLlxb7 'lWc7 24. hd7 'lWxd7 25.lLla5 if6f8) 2 1 . . . !'!c8 ! (21 . . . 'lWc8?! 2 2 .ic7 'lWxc7 23. lLlxc7+ !'!xc7 24.!'!ac1 lLlc5 25.'lWh3 ic8 26.'lWf3 g4 27.'lWe3 if8 28.f4 gxf3 29.'lWxf3 f5 30 .'lWg3 1-0 J.Gustafsson - Rodshtein, Khan­ ty-Mansiysk 2007) 2 2 .!'!ac1 if8 23.!'!xc8 'lWxc8 24.'lWe3 Wc2 ! (24 . . . lLlf6? 25.!'!c1 'lWd8 26.he5 ie7 27. d6 0-0 28.dxe7 'lWxe7 29.id6 'lWxe4 30.Wxe4 ixe4 31.ixf8 1-0 Zhao Jun - Harikrishna, Khanty­ Mansiysk 2 0 07) 25.!'!cl (25.'lWa7 .tc8 26.'lWxa5 f6h5 d>g7 47.kc4 cj,?h7 4S.§'d7+ §'e7 49.§'cS §'dS 50 .§'e6 §'fS 51.id3 cj,?g7 5 2 . ic4 cj,?h7, draw, Kramnik - KaIja­ kin, Nice 200S) 3 1 . . .e4 32 .h4 g4 33 .g3 VNc5 34.§'f6+ ig7 35.§'dS+ kfS 36.§'f6+ kg7 37.§'dS + §'fS 3S .§'c7 §'xfS 39.d6 kd4 40 .§'dS + cj,?g7, draw, Alekseev - Bareev, anty-ManSiYSk 2007.

i I

B2c2) 15.ge1 (diagram) This insidious move was in­ vented by Vladimir Kramnik, but he has played it until now only in games with a shorter time-con­ trol. It seems innocuous at first

sight, but in fact, Black must be tremendously careful after it. 15 . . . 'fff6 That is the most solid re­ sponse. Black avoids the trap - 15 . . . exd4? 16.e5! dxc3 17.ih5 tiJfS IS. §'f3 §'d7 (lS ... tiJg6 19.VNf5+-) 19. e6 tiJxe6 20.�xe6+ �xe6 2 1.kxt7+ �xf7 2 2 . �e1 + His position only gets worse after 15 . . . b4 16.tiJb1 (but not 16. ixb4? exd4 17.tiJd5 (17.ixc4 c5) 17 . . . c5 - this is the simplest) 16 . . . exd4 17.e5. The fans of sharper positions should consider here 15 . . . h5 (with the idea �hS-h6) 16.hh5 ! ? (16. axb5 axb5 17J:!xaS haS lS.d5 �h6) 16 . . . tiJf6 17.kxt7 d>xf7 IS. dxe5 tiJeS 19.e6 cj,?xe6 2 0 .e5 cj,?t7 21.tiJe4 and the game remains very unclear. 16 . .1a3 It is weaker for White to play 16.dxe5 tiJxe5 17.axb5 axb5 lS .ic5 ifS, but not lS . . . tiJd7? 19.e5+16 . . . .lf8 17. .1g4 gd8 18.axb5 axb5 lS . . . cxb5? 19.tiJd5 2 07

Anti-Moscow Variation

Chapter 7

19

.txf'8 wxf8 19 llJxfB 20J'!a7 2 0 .,bd7 �d7 21.dxe5 'I'e6 22 .'l'h5 •

•.•

The position seems to be very comfortable for Black. I believe this is objectively true. Still, he must be on the alert, because White preserves very dangerous attacking potential. I do not think that Black should capture now on e5. He should better continue more solidly, without entering unclear situations, since his posi­ tion is very solid from the posi­ tional point of view. 22 .t.cS ! ? This i s a n interesting move. Black brings his bishop into the actions without losing time for gobbling pawns. He should also consider 2 2 . . .