chess

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

Chess Stars www.chess-stars.com

Current Theory and Practice Series The Easiest Sicilian

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

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

Contents 1 e4 c5 2 �t'3 �c6

Foreword by Atanas Kolev

s

Part 1

The Rossolimo Variation 3 �bS

8

Part 2

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

44

Part 3

10 �xf6 �xf6 11 c3 0 -0

64

Part 4

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

Part S

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

llS

Part 6

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

129

Part ?

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

140

Part 8

12 0-0

160

Part 9

6 lt:JdbS d6 7 lt:Jd S

178

Part 10 Unusual Seventh Moves 6 lt:JdbS d6

193

Part 11 Unusual Sixth Moves

20 1

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

216

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

223

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

4

Foreword

About the Title

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

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

!!xa4 as lS i.c4 !!b8 16 b3
We are already in the middle­ game, but independent play is still far ahead. Furthermore, Black's plan is obvious. He wants to push f S right away or after . . . g6 in case White plays 17 tlJe 3 . Strategical­ ly, the Sveshnikov is a rather sim­ ple opening. You read part 3 and 4, leaf through the "Quick Reper­ toire" chapters of the other parts of the book, and you are ready to test a whole new Sicilian! The so-called Positional varia­ tion against the Sveshnikov has be­ come lately the first choice of White s

Foreword players of all levels. A quick check in my database shows that in 200 6 - 200 8 it occurred two times more often than the lines with 9 .ixf6 . Apparently fashion, but also fear of the sharper variations, have a strong impact on White's prefer­ ences. Otherwise it is difficult to ex­ plain this fondness of a line which is too well explored, aspires to a small positional edge at best, and is of­ ten rather boring . Of course Anand or Shirov may have every reason to like it, provided it brings them full points sometimes, but they have su­ per technique and deep analyses of the a rising positions and even end­ games . Thelowerthe level, theworse are White's statistics. Below 2400, first players scored only about SO percent in the last two years . Currently I do not see any serious theoretical problems for Black . I worked hard to neutralise two fresh ideas of Khalifman and Anand, and hope that our improve­ ments will withstand practical test. I show that Black's bishop pair is a fair match to the "magical " control of the centre, that attracts so many white players. Most importantly, I propose an ambitious repertoire, where White must take considera­ ble risks if he wants to aspire even to the slightest advantage . My aim was not so much to offer a survival guide for Black, but rather pick out variations that lead to rich and dou­ ble-edged play, with decent winning chances for him. I rejected from the repertoire all the lines where Black 6

would be playing for only two re­ sults . For instance, in the Positional variation I recommend 11. . . 0-0 , while 1 1 . . . �gS, followed b y 12 ... CiJe 7, is left for a backup line. I follow the same approach after 1 e4 cs 2 CiJf3 CiJc6 3 �bs. White of­ ten tries to ki l any life in the posi­ tion, hoping to squeeze us without any risk thanks to his flexible pawn formation. I devoted 36 pages to ad­ vocate 3 . . . CiJf6 ! in this popular sys­ tem. You will find important new plans, developed by me or Nedev, which bring about double-edged unbalanced play. The fine point of this provocative move is that White must pick up the gauntlet and push eS at some moment, or he should forget about opening advantage. Af­ ter eS, however, Black obtains clear counterplay. In some lines he can even castle long. About the Authorship I have been analysing the Svesh­ nikov for years with my friend GM Vasil Spasov. It is his main reper­ toire as Black, while I was more in­ terested for the White side. Gradu­ ally I discovered that Black was in perfect shape and I started playing it for both colours. When I finished war king on "The Sharpest Sicilian", I decided to go on with this series and write about the Sveshnikov. As a coach of the Bulgarian wom­ en's team, I had enough experience with explaining the most topical lines of that system. Still, I felt that I needed an outside critical view on my analyses. Thus I contacted GM

Foreword Nedev, who is one of the most de­ voted protagonist of the Sveshnik­ ov and has ample practical expe­ rience. We went together through all my files to synchronise our as­ sessments . During the last year, we had to repair some variations in the Rossolimo, (3 �bS) analyse the new ideas, developed by Khalifman, and fight the sneaky novelty of Anand against Shirov in Linares 20 0 8 . W e also dropped some lines o f the Novosibirsk variation, which turned to be unfit for playing for win. The result is a repertoire book for Black which deals with positions arising after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 . It covers the Rossolimo (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS) and the Sveshnikov, (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 eS) as well as some rare lines after 1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6. The wide range of other Anti-Sicilians are beyond the scope of this book. We have not aimed to offer a his­ torical survey or complete study on the Sveshnikov. We have endeav­ oured to provide a sound, yet ag­ gressive repertoire, with a focus on the most topical lines . About the Structure This book is above all a practical guide, so I have arranged the ma­ terial in an order of importance. The Rosso limo variation is a fre­ quent guest in tournaments and it is useful to know it even if you are

not a Sveshnikov fan. Then comes the Positional variation, which is the centre of our repertoire. Thus you'll be able to start playing the Sveshnikov even before finishing the book. The closing Part 13 considers the Novosibirsk variation. (1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ltJdbS d6 7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS �g7) It is a stand-alone system which is out­ side our repertoire. We included it to provide you with a backup line. You might also want to employ it as a surprise weapon. The presentation fallows the Chess Stars trademark structure, introduced by "The Safest Sicil­ ian" . Every system is examined in a separate part which contains three chapters: "Quick Repertoire"; " Step by Step " ; "Complete Games" . You start with the "Quick Re­ pertoire" . You'll find there all the vital information that you need to start playing the variation. These chapters contain more explanation and try to extract the essence of the numerous variations, analysed branch by branch in the "Step by Step" chapters. Finally, the "Complete Games" sections give practical examples and sometimes cover backup lines of the main repertoire. I suppose that players above Ela 1900 will benefit most of this book. .

Atanas Kolev April 2008

7

Part 1

1 e4 c5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 ibS QU IC K REPERTO I RE

The most frequent move you are go­ ing to face after 2 . . . l!Jc6, is 3 �bS. The lower your opponent's rating is, the higher the probability of get­ ting some Anti-Sicilian with �bS. The so-called Rossolimo Variation is often seen nowadays even at high­ est level. It is a fine choice if White wants to play "on understanding", or simply has not done his home­ work in the open main lines . Do not neglect this system in your preparation as it is deceptively innocuous. We often defend this po­ sition with both colours and we are well aware of how rich and interest­ ing variation the Rossolimo is. 3 ... lllf6 3 . . . g6 is a solid alternative, but our choice goes for the text due to several reasons: 1. 3 . . . l!Jf6 allows to build up a repertoire which is independent of tricky move orders. For instance, if White tries 3 l!Jc3, we are happy to answer it with 3 . . . l!Jf6, not being afraid of 4 �bS . Otherwise 3 l!Jc3 would have been awkward, since 3 . . . g6 could be met by 4 d4 . 2 . By attacking the e4-pawn, we 8

restrict White's choice, because he has not castled yet so he is unable to protect it with E'!:el. 3. Should White attempt to slow torturing us by damaging our pawn chain with 4 hc6 dxc6 fallowed by 5 d3, we succeed in leading out our light-squared bishop to g4. This is an unexplored plan, which leads to original positions. It has been de­ veloped and tested by Kolev and we are going to arm you with our analy­ sis, to ensure you some competitive advantage over your opponents. 4. The 3 �bS adepts usually pre­ fer to a void sharp opening lines and unbalanced positions. That might make them uncomfortable in the most challenging lines which in­ volve e4-e5. After our attack on the e4-pawn, as early as on the fourth move, White has to settle for a plan. A. 4 d3 B . 4 hc6 C. 4 e5 D. 4 We2 E. 4 l!Jc3

1 e4 cS 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 �bS A. 4 d 3

We propose to unbalance abrupt­ ly the game by 4 �a5+!? S li)c3 li)d4 6 .b4 b5 7 .ib3 li)xb3 8 cxb3 .ib7 9 0-0 d6 1 0 .ig S e6 with totally un­ explored play. •••

B. 4 .ixc6 dxc6 We do not capture with the b­ pawn, for White gains the initiative after c3 and d4. However, such a cap­ ture becomes a plausible option at a later stage of the opening, especially if White had already played d3 . 5 d 3 .ig4!? A lot of players refrain from 3 . . . l!Jf 6 in favour of 3 . . . g6 . They be­ lieve that the knight is misplaced on f6 because Black seems unable to prevent e4-eS, with White's spa­ tial advantage. Nedev even made this system his weapon of choice as White. We have a fresh idea in mind, which leads to very interest­ ing and complex positions. 6 h3 .ihS! The key point ! In the overhelm­ ing majority of games Black cap­ tures on f3 to struggle in a passive position. Kolev offers another plan:

1. Black wants to play l!Jd7, f6, eS. I n many cases he castles long: 7 l!Jbd2 l!Jd7 8 l!Jc4 f6 ! ? 9 0-0 es 10 l!Je3 Vlfc7 11 a4 as 12 l!JfS �f7+±

2 . Should White attempt to pre­ vent e7-eS by playing �f4, we get rid of our doubled pawn with . . . c4 ! , even at the cost of a pawn in some lines : 7 �f4 c4 !

The idea is to attack the enemy 9

Part 1 pawn-centre with our long-range pieces, rather than restricting its mobility by clamping on d4. 8 lLJc3 cxd3 9 cxd3 lLJd7 10 d4 e6 11 �e2 lie? 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 �adl �e8 14 �e3 �as 15 �fel

Superficially, White's _pawn cen­ tre should ensure him an edge. On the other hand, Black has no weak­ nesses, and all his pieces are well placed. The queen has a fine retreat to a6 , the knight could head for c4 via b6 . The game Grischuk-Kolev, rapid Mainz 2 005 followed with 15 . . . �ac8 16 /ih 2 , when 16 . . . lLJb6 ! would have completely levelled the game .

9 .. .f6 10 0-0 �d6 11 �el 0-0 -0 12 lLJc3 hSt. White is overextended, with many weaknesses, while being una­ ble to attack anything for his part. The thematic thrust . . . c4 also gains in strength after 7 g4 .ig6, for instance: 8 lLJc3 c4 !

9 gS lLJd7 10 dxc4 ihS ! 11 �d3 �croo . Black is enjoying the bishop pair advantage and very active pieces. c. 4 es lll dS s o-o lll c7 6 .axc6 dxc6 7 h3 (7 d3 .ig4) its

3. If White advances h is g-pawn, we get fine counterplay by . . . h7-h5 ! followed up with . . . h4, .ig6-h5: 7 g4 �g6 8 eS? ! lLJdS 9 e6

Black solves the opening prob­ lems as in the previous line, by lead­ ing out the light-squared bishop to g4 or f5. The c7-knight is longing to reach d4 via e6 or bS. In case of ex­ change on d4 we typically recapture

10

1 e4 cS 2 4J f3 4Jc6 3 ibS by queen, in order to retain coun­ terchances along the d-file with the breakthrough c5-c4. Note howev­ er, that if our bishop were stuck on c8, we should t ake by pawn in order to open up the long diagonal - see game 1 Mortensen-Ermenkov, Riga 198 1. In this line Black does not hurry with castling! His first task is to activate the c7-knight. Then he could decide to advance his kingside pawns or attack in the cen­ tre with . . . c5-c4. 5 0-0 4Jc7 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 ifS ! ? 8 d 3 h 6 ! 9 l:iJ bd2 e 6 1 0 V!!e2 l:iJ bS !

Now we are going to exam­ ine positions where White defends the e4-pawn by queen and castles short. That significantly changes our plans, for we are unable to de­ velop the light-squared bishop as comfortably as in the previous lines. Accordingly, we must seek another place for our dark-squared bishop, too. In all subsequent lines which we consider, it goes to g7. Dl. White gains space with 5 eS; 0 2. White builds up a pawn cen­ tre with c3 and d4. 0 1 . s e s �ds 6 o-o Occasionally, White attempts to grab a pawn by 6 �c4, but then 6 . . . 4Jcb4 ! is quite awkward for him. 6 ... li:) c 7 ! 7 �xc6 dxc6 8 h3 .ig7 9 d3 0-0

11 4Je4 4Jd4 12 4Jxd4 W!xd4 13 4Jg3 ig6 14 @h2 hS ! See for more details game 2 Movsesian-Chuchelov, Bundesliga 2005, where Black had the initiative. D. 4 'Mfe2 g6

A typical position. Black should aim for a kingside attack with the help of .. .f6, gS, h6, intending .. .f5. He activates the a8-rook with the manoeuvre . . . b6 , . . . a7-a5, .. . �a7. The game Minasian-Gagunashvili, Dubai 200 3 saw further: 10 li:) bd 2 li:) e6 1 1 li:) b3 as 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 'Mfe4 ga1 1 4 'Mfh4 f6 ! 1 S g e 1 'Mf d S 1 6 �e3 g S 1 7 'Mf g 3 11

Part

1

Here, instead of 17 . . . hS, Black should have chosen 17 . . . h6 18 h4 g4 19 llJfd2 fSt . You can see another ex­ ample of this plan in game 3 De la Paz-Handke, Havana 20 0 3 . 0 2 . 5 0 - 0i g7 6 c3 0-0 7 � d 1 A fashionable move, which aims to avoid the old main line 7 d4 dS ! ? 8 e s tlJ e 4 9 .ie3 cxd4 1 0 cxd4 id? with a fine game for Black. 7. . .e5

I n a n earlier stage of the open­ ing, when White was better devel­ oped, we used to take with the d­ pa wn, in order to keep control of the centre. In the diagram position, d4 is not a threat, so we follow the basic rule to "capture by pawns to­ wards the centre". 1 1 i e3 d6 1 2 b4 cxb4 1 3 cxb4 d 5 1 4 �ac1 .id7 1 5 .id2 f! e7 1 6 ll:) b 1 ll:) h 5 1 7 a3 ll:) f4 1 8 i xf4 ext4 1 9 f! d 2 g5 with initiative in Tsesh­ kovsky-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1976.

E. 4 li:)c3 In the previous lines we have seen that Black is fine if he achieves the manoeuvre tlJf6-dS-c7-e6(bS)­ d4. Therefore White's most testing options are connected with limiting the scope of the f6-knight. The most fashionable response is 4 . . . Wfc7 aim­ ing to prevent e4-eS. The point ofmy(T N ) reper­ toire is not to prevent this ad­ vance, but rather to provoke it! This approach may be risky, but it does offer more chances to win the game as the resulting positions are highly unbalanced strategically. So we play: 4 g6 White can vary the move or­ der, but basically he has two major plans: 1. White plays .ie3 , Wfd 2, il.h6 and eventually castles long, hoping for a kingside attack. Black's de­ fence is based on . . . es. 2. White restricts o ur knight with h3, es, g4. .

8 li:) a 3 � ea 9 d 3 a6 10 i xc6 bxc6 !

12

•••

.

1 e4 cs 2 tlJf3 ttJc6 3 �bs 1 . 5 �xc6 dxc6 6 h3 �g7 7 d 3 0 - 0 8 � e 3 b6 9 'Mf d 2 e5 !

1 0 �h6 Or 10 0-0 tlJhS ! Black h a s good counterplay in the centre. He only has to find the right timing for cS-c4. 1 o . . . 'Mfd6 1 1 o-o-o as 1 2 �xg 7 @ x g7 1 3 � h 2 a4 1 4 � g 4 � g 8 !

Current practice i s favourable to Black, who stays solidly on the kingside, while maintaining fair chances for progress on the other wing.

g4, the move order of the latter vari­ ation is not too precise, since after 8 d3 Black can use the difference with the main line (where the bishop is on g7, but the knight is still on g8) by playing 8 . . . tlJfS ! ? 5 . . .� g 7 6 e 5 � g8 7 �xc6 dxc6

8 d3 8 �e2 tlJh6 9 ttJe4 b6 10 d 3 tlJfS 11 �gS ttJd4= is analysed in the " Step by Step" chapter, line E3a. 8 . . . � h 6 9 g4 Be sure to meet 9 �e3 with 9 . . . �aS ! , but not with the com­ mon 9 . . . b6? ! which would leave our strongest piece without prospects. The key point of our treatment of these positions is to activate the queen. We further examine 10 g4 fS 11 gS tlJf7 12 �f4 �e6 13 �d2 0-0- 0 ! ? see "Step by Step" line E2 . 9 . . 0-0 .

.

2. 5 h 3 White is following the restrict­ ing strategy, started on the previ­ ous move. In fact, S eS tlJg4 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 tlJh6 often leads to the same positions. However, if White does not intend to follow up with

13

Part 1 This is the basic position for line E. White's primary task is to deprive the opponent of counterplay. At the same time he should notforget about development. For his part, Black must activate the h6-knight and find targets in the enemy camp. He cannot survive without pushing the f-pawn, but the question is which move is best, f6 or fS? Initially we thought that we must open up the kingside at all cost, so the answer of that question depend­ ed on the placement of White's bish­ op: if it went to f4, we would play .. .f6, while .ie3 would be attacked by . . .fS . Let us show examples: a) 1 0 j.f4 f6

�b4 ! 14 �e3 �xb2 with an attack.) 1 1 . . . exf6 12 �d2 l2Jf7

Black is well coordinated and has the bishop pair in an open po­ sition. Should White grab a pawn, we'd get tempi to overrun him on the queenside: 13 hes �e8+ 14 .ie3 bS ! 15 0-0-0 b4! ? I t remains t o examine White's third plausible option on move 10: c) 10 Wfe2

White is unable to keep control of the es-outpost with 11 �e2 , due to the hit 11 . . . l2Jxg4 ! 12 hxg4 fxeS, Cu­ bas-Nedev, Calvia, ol 2004, so he should prefer 11 �d2 fxeS 12 hh6 hh6 13 �xh6 �f3 14 0-0-0 �f8 15 �xf8 + @xf8 16 �h2 ! The endgame looks better for White, but the the­ matic sacrifice c5-c4 balances the game, for instance 16 . . . h6 17 �el c4 ! ? 18 dxc4 .ie6 . b) 1 0 �e3 f5 ! 1 1 exf6 (Follow­ ing 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if4 Black has an extra tempo for 12 . . . �aS ! 13 �e2 14

While preparing to castle, White is waiting for us to reveal our plans. Thus, he will meet 10 . . .f5 with 11 gS l2Jf7 12 .if4! Although this posi­ tion is far from clear, we prefer to reach better versions of it, for in­ stance, with an extra tempo as af­ ter 10 .ie3 fS ! 11 gS? l2Jf7 12 .if4. The real venom of 10 �e2 is concealed in the variation 10 .. .f6 11 .id2 ! ? It turns out that Black's threat to the

1 e 4 c s 2 tlJf3 tlJ c6 3 �bs eS-pawn can be ignored. White sim­ ply develops, counting on his bet­ ter pawn structure as in game 5 David-Nedev, ECC 20 07. However, we can outsmart the enemy by attacking the b2-pawn with: 1 0 . . . %Yb6 ! ?

Now, the bishop is pinned to cl and White is suddenly faced with a difficult problem: how to disentan­ gle his pieces. 11 b3 f 5 12 tlJ a4 (12 gS tlJf7 13 �d 2 tlJd8 14 0 -0 -0 tlJe6 15 �del tlJd4 16 tlJxd4 cxd4 17 tlJ a4 �a6 18 ©bl bS-+) 12 . . . �c7 13 hh6 , Wen,Yang-Zhao Jun, Wch U20 Yerevan, 2006, 13 . . . fxg4 ! 14 hg7 gxf3+. Remember! When White restrains our knight by g4, we must look for counterplay by attacking the queenside with our queen. Therefore, we play b6 only against �e4.

15

1 e4 c5 2 llif3 lll c6 3 .ibS

Part 1

STE P BY STE P

3

•••

lll f6

A. 4 d3 B. 4 .bc6 c. 4 es D. 4 Wie2 E. 4 lZJc3

page page page page page

17 18 22 23 25

itiative b y opening the centre with d2-d4. In our case this break would be with a loss of tempo, so nothing can stop us fram completing devel­ opment. Besides, we have the daring al­ ternative: 4 'Wa5+!? 5 lll c 3 lll d4 6 .ia4 6 ic4 only gives Black the extra possibility of 6 . . . dS ! ? 7 .bdS lZJxdS 8 exdS ig4. 6 bS 7 i.b3 Or 7 idS lZJxdS 8 exdS ib7 9 0-0 b4. 7 lll x b3 8 cxb3 i.b7 There is no need to hurry with 8 . . . b4, because 9 lZJa4 ! unpleasant­ ly targets the cS-pawn. (9 lZJe2 g6! is OK for Black.) •••

A. 4 d3

•••

•••

This modest move poses some move order problems. In case of 4 . . . g6 5 .bc6 dxc6 6 h3 White will throw us out of the proposed reper­ toire. Not that the position is diffi­ cult for Black, but it is too static for our taste . Perhaps 5 . . . bxc6 is more precise. Usually this recapture is risky , because White gains the in16

1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 �bS 9 0-0 9 �gS dS opens up play in Black's favour due to his bishop pair: 10 0-0 ( 10 hf6 dxe4 11 dxe4 gxf6 12 0-0 e6oo) 10 . . .dxe4 11 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 12 dxe4 f6oo . 9 d6 1 0 .igS e6. This analysis is , of course, just a starting point for further investiga­ tion. •••

B. 4 �xc6 dxc6 5 d3 .ig4!?

Bl. 7 g4 B 2 . 7 llJbd2 B 3 . 7 llJc3 B4. 7 �f4 81. 7

A key point in our repertoire. We catch the chance to lead out our problem bishop . This possibil­ ity is one of the major advantages of 3 . . . llJf6 over 3 . . . g6. Note howev­ er, that our idea is not just to get rid of our light-squared bishop by trad­ ing it for the f3-knight! 6 h3 Hoping for 6 . . . hf3 7 Wxf3 with a slight edge . In case of 6 ttJbd2 Black fallows his main idea to clamp on d4 by 6 . . . llJd7 7 h3 �hS 8 g4 �g6 9 9 ltJc4 f6 ! when 10 eS? does not work: 10 . . . bS 11 llJcd2 hSt. 6 J.h 5! We should not part light-heart­ edly with the bishop pair. •••

g4 .ig6

Bla. 8 eS? ! Blb. 8 llJc3 8 ltJeS ltJd7 9 ltJxg6 hxg6 is not appealing , for the stranded pawn on h3 is a serious drawback of White's structure: 10 �e3 es 11 llJd 2 �d6 12 We2 ltJf8 13 0-0-0 ltJe 6=. Bla. 8 e5? ! �d5 9 e6

This looks like a n overoptimis­ tic way of treating the position. White neglects development, seek17

Part 1 ing structural benefits. His prob­ lem is that he is overextended. After . . . h7-hS he will have to worry about many weaknesses, while being una­ ble to attack anything for his part. The first interesting option in the diagram position is 9 . . . hS ! ? 10 ltJeS Wf d6 11 exf7+ hf7 12 l2Jxf7 (12 Wfe2 hxg4 13 l2Jxf7 �xf7 14 �xg4 Wies+ 15 Wfe4 Wff6t) 12 . . . �e6+ 13 Wfe2 Wfxf7= and Black's lead in de­ velopment gives him good chances. We'll consider also: 9 . . .f6 1 0 0 - 0 10 l2Jh4? ! loses a pawn to 10 . . . Wfd6 11 Wf e2 l2Jc7 12 f4 l2Jxe6 13 fS ltJd4+. 10 Wf e2 �d6 11 0 - 0 0-0-0 12 l2J c3 (12 l2J a3 hS 13 l2Jc4 �c7 14 l2Jh4 �e8t) 12 . . . hS 13 l2Jh4 �e8 14 l2Jf5 Wf c7t is quite good for Black, but adventurous players may try also 10 . . . l2Jb4 ! ? with the idea of 11 0-0 (11 a3? hd3 ! ) 1 1 . .. c4 ! . Still we pre­ fer to develop our pieces. 10 Wfd6 10 . . . �c7 ! ? is another attrac­ tive optio n: 11 l2Jh4 0-0-0 12 f4 �e8 planning hS. Black's bishops enter play through the kingside. 11 gel 0 - 0 - 0 12 �c3 h5 t. •••

Blb. 8 �c3 c4!

18

9 g5 9 ltJeS cxd3 10 cxd3 ltJd 7 11 l2Jxg6 hxg6 12 �e3 eS ! = 9 � d7 1 0 dxc4 �h5 ! 11 Wfd3 Wfc7oo. Black is enjoying the bishop pair advantage and very active pieces. •••

8 2. 7 ll) bd 2 tl)d7 8 tl) c4 White is trying to prevent . . . es. 8 ltJfl is a plausible alternative. We can fallow up with 8 . . . es 9 l2J g3 (9 g4 � g6 10 l2Jg3 is risky, for it could be attacked with the thematic sacri­ fice 10 . . . hS 11 gS h4 12 ltJfS ih5 13 b3 Wfc7 14 ltJSxh4 0-0-0 with com­ pensation) 9 . . . �g6 10 0-0 �d6 . (10 . . .f6 11 l2Jh2 �f7 12 f4 c4 is un­ clear , but Black is somewhat unde­ veloped for such a committing ac­ tion) We refrain from .. .f6 in order to discourage 11 ltJf S, which would stumble into 1 1 . . .hfS 12 exfS �f6 . Thus we win a tempo for the ma­ noeuvre l2Jd7-f8-e6. Play could con­ tinue with 11 �gS (or 11 �d2 l2Jf8 12 ltJfS l2Je6 13 �c3 f6) 11. . .f6 12 �e3 l2Jf8 13 ltJf5 l2Je6 14 ltJ 3h4 �f8 15 a4 �f7 with a solid position. Black con­ trols firmly f4 and will gradually re­ pel the enemy knight fram f5.

1 e4 cS 2 llJf3 llJ c6 3 �bS 8 g4? ! �g6 only gives us more chances for counterplay: 9 h4 hS 10 gS Wic7 with a possi­ ble break f7-f6 . 9 eS e6 10 Wie2 hS 11 gS Wic7 12 b3 0-0-0 13 �b2 h4 14 0-0-0 �e7 f!-. In this line Black could aslo try ll . . . h4 ! ? 1 2 llJe4 (12 b3 WiaS 1 3 �b2 0-0-0+!) 12 . . . c4 13 dxc4 llJc5 14 llJxcS �xcSoo. 9 llJc4 f6 10 0-0 es 11 llJe3 V!ic7 12 a3 Alekseev-Eljanov, 2 004 , 12 . . . 0-0-0 . 8 . . f6 ! ? M y (A. K.) treatment of this po­ sition is to protect the light-squared bishop whenever possible. The game B aklan-Nedev, 2 007 saw in­ stead 8 . . . V!ic7 9 �d2 eS 10 a4 aS 11 g4 �g6 12 llJh4 f6, when 13 llJxg6 hxg6 14 gSt would have been in White's favour. 9 o-o e5 1 0 �e3 Vlf c7 1 1 a4 as 1 2 �f5i f7� Black has a satisfactory game, for instance , 13 b3 g6 14 llJ h6 �e6 . .

83. 7 �c3 �d7 8 g4 O r 8 �e3 e S 9 g 4 �g6 1 0 Wid2 �e7 11 0-0-0 Wic7 12 llJxeS llJxeS 13 f4 0-0-0 (13 . . . llJf3 ? ! 14 Vlif2 llJ d4 lS fS 0-0-0 16 fxg6 fxg6t) 14 fxeS V!JxeS= . 8. i . g 6 9if4 It is very instructive to observe how Black could take over the ini­ tiative if White attempts to display an activity: 9 es e6 10 �gS (10 Wie2 c4 ! Remember this sac ! It proves especially effective when White has weakened his centre. 11 dxc4 Wib6

12 a3 hS 13 gS h4+!) 10 . . . V!JaS 11 V!id2 h6 12 �h4 c4 !

Killing two birds with one shot. Said in chess terms, Black opens up diagonals to both bishops. 13 dxc4 �b4 14 0-0-0 llJcS f!- lS �hel 0-0 16 �e7 llJb3 + 17 cxb3 he7oo . If you do not believe in the bishop pair's power, look at the following varia­ tion: 18 llJd4 �ad8 19 V!ie3 �d7 2 0 �d2 �fd8 2 1 �edl �b4 ! 2 2 llJ c 2 ( 2 2 a4 �cSt) 2 2 . . . �xd2 23 �xd2 �xd2 24 V!Jxd2 hc2 2S i>xc2 V!JxeS+. 9 . . . h5 ! ? The thematic break 9 . . .f6 1 0 es c4 11 dxc4 i s not so clear, be­ cause White controls firmly eS , e.g. 11 ... V!ib6 12 �bl ! oo The text is more consistent.

.

1 0 g5 Alternatively: 10 llJh4 �h7 11

19

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

84. 7 i.f4 c4 !

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

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

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

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

C. 4 e5 � d5

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

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

21

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

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

C 2: 5 0-0 � c7 6 .ixc6 dxc6 7 h3

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

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

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

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

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

•••

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

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

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

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

23

Part 1

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

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

0 2. 5 0-0 i g7

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

24

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

1 e4 cS 2 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 3 �bS

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

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

E. 4 �c3 g6

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

2S

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

Wd 6

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

•••

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

29

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

10 . . . fS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E3a. 6 �e 2 E3b. 6 �xc6

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

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

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

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

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

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

E3b. 6 hc6 dxc6 7 h3 �h6

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

33

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

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

34

10

•••

Wfb6 ! ?

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

Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus Black preserves his dark-

A terrible move, which allows

36

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

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

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

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

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

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

38

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

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

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

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

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

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

39

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41

Part

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43

Part 2

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

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

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

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

•••

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

•••

B. 1 0 ixf6 ixf6

Black already has the initiative. 44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••

46

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

Part 2

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

STEP BY ST EP

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

bov, 20 07 rapid 12 CDc2 0-0 13 f3 h6 14 �h4 as 15 �e2 �e6 16 0-0 �fd8 17
It is unclear how White could achieve an advantage here: a) 17 f3 dS ! ; b) 1 7 �d3 dS (17. . . �e6 !?) 1 8 exdS �d6 19 �c2 �xdSoo; c) 17 �e2 �g6 18 f3 dS 19 exdS hd5 20 0-0 (2 0 a4 �fc8 !oo) 2 0 . . . �b6 + 21 @hl �xa2 2 2 �xeS �aS = . 47

Part 2 1 o �xe7 1 1 ixf6 We'll describe here a number of unpopular alternatives for White: ...

a) 1 1 9We2 has not been seen in practice, but it is an interesting at­ tempt to use the bishop pair. We suggest 11 . . . !b7 12 f3 dS 13 0-0-0 Vfic7 14 @bl 0-0 lS exdS ttJexdS 16 c4 bxc4 17 9Wxc4 9We7 ! f± ; b) 1 1 f3 d S As i n most Sicilians, Black solves the opening problems if he achieved this break. 12 exdS ttJfxdS 13 c4 bxc4 14 ttJxc4 f6 lS !d2 0-0 16 !d3 (16 �e2 ? ! !e6 17 0-0 ttJb6 18 ttJe3 9Wd4 19 !cl ttJfS ! 20 9Wxd4 ttJxd4 2 1 !dl �fd8+ Petrov­ Dobrov, Athens 20 03) 16 . . . !fS 17 !as 9Wd7 18 0-0 (18 hfS? ttJxfS 19 0-0 VfibS ! 2 0 9Wb3 �fb8 ! + ) 18 . . . VfibS 19 b3 hd3 20 Vfixd3 ttJc6 = ; c ) 1 1 9Wd3 dS ll . . . !b7 is a well known old line which is equal: 12 !xf6 gxf6 13 0-0-0 dS 14 exdS VfixdS lS VfixdS ttJxdS 16 c4 ttJb4! 17 cxbS ttJxa2 + 18 @c2 (18 @bl ttJb4 19 bxa6 !e4+ 20 @al @e7 21 f3 jJS= , Sveshnikov) 18 . . . �dS ! 19 �c4 (19 bxa6 @e7) 19 . . . hc4 20 ttJxc4 axbS 2 1 ttJd6+ @e7 2 2 ttJfS+ ( 2 2 ttJxbS? ! �hb8 23 ttJ c3 ttJxc3 24 @xc3 �a6+) 22 . . . @e6 2 3 t2Jg7+ @e7 24 ttJfS+ @e6= Charbonneau-Nataf, Montreal 2003 . 1 2 exdS Or 12 hf6 gxf6 13 0-0-0 d4 14 c3 9Wc7 1S ttJc2 dxc3 16 Vfixc3 9Wxc3 17 bxc3 �g8 1 8 ttJe3 (18 g3 !b7; 18 f3 fS ; 1 8 t2Jb4 �b7 19 �d6 �g6) 18 . . . �e6 19 @b2 fS = . 48

1 2 exdS ifs 1 3 9Wb3 9WxdS 14 VfixdS ttJ exdS lS c4 bxc4 16 hc4 0-0 17 0-0 ttJ b4 18 �fel �fe 8 = , Anand­ Leko, Linares 200S; d) 11 !d3 dS 1 2 exdS 9WxdS (after 13 f3 Black equalises with 13 . . . e4 or 13 . . . j,fS) 13 9Wd2 ttJ e4 ! 14 Vfie3 ttJxgS lS VfixgS VficS 16 0-0-0 0-0 17 �hel f6 1 8 9We3 9Wxe3 + 19 �xe3 !e6 = . e ) 1 1 Vfif3 ttJ d 7

Black intends to castle and open the f-file. White has tested: 1 2 c4 b4 13 ttJc2 aS 14 !d3 0-0 lS 0-0 tlJcS = · 1 2 0-0-0 ttJcS 13 !e3 ttJe6 14 @bl (Or 14 9Wg3 !b7 1S f4? ! he4 16 fxeS dS+, Sitnikov-Krapivin, Serpukhov 2 0 03 ; 14 c4 Vfic7 lS @bl b4 16 ttJc2 aS 17 h4 !b7 1 8 !d3 Vitolinsh-Lig­ terink, 1978 18 .. .fS ! 1 9 Vfih3 f4 2 0 !cl ttJcS with excellent play) 14 . . . !b7 lS c4 0-0 (16 cxbS? ! axbS 17 ttJxbS dS ! ) 1 6 !d3 ttJc6 ! � Vitolinsh-Chekhov, Daugavpils 1 978 ; 12 b4 f6 1 3 !d2 !b7 14 c4 fS lS cxbS fxe4 16 Vfig4 0-0 17 bxa6 (17 ttJ c4 !dS ! ) 17 . . .h a6 18 ttJc4 dS ! 19 9We6 + @h8 20 !gS Vfic7! with an ex­ cellent game, e.g. 21 he7? hc4 2 2 !xf8 ttJxf8 2 3 Vfih3 !d3 ! -+ . '

7 �gs a6 8 ltJa3 bS 9 ltJdS 11

...

gxf6

1 2 c4 Alternatives: 12 � f3 fS 1 3 exfS hf5 14 �d3 �e6 15 0-0 dS 16 :gadl V!Jc7 17 V!Jf6 0-0- 0 ! shows that Black can castle long in some lines . The more con­ ventional 15 . . . 0-0 16 c4 f5 17 :gfdl e4 18 V!Je3 bxc4 19 hc4 dS 20 ltJc2 (20 � h6 V!Jd6) 20 . . .f4 ! ? oo is another good option; 12 V!Jd2 �b7 13 0-0-0 he4 ! 14 V!Jxd6 V!Jxd6 15 :gxd6 ltJc6 16 �f6 (16 f3 �e7 17 :gd2 �fS+) 16 ... ltJb4 gives Black a fine game; 12 �d3 �b7 13 �hS ! ? is a modern attempt. It requires precision from Black. The other continuations are less testing: 13 V!Je2 dS 14 exdS (14 c3? ! fS ! ) 14 . . . ttJxdS 15 0-0-0 �e7 16 �e4 ltJf4 17 V!Jf3 he4 18 V!Jxe4 :gc8 19 g3 ltJe6 20 f4 ltJcS 21 V!JfS V!J e6 22 �xe6 + fxe6 23 fxeS fxeS= , Zatonskih-Cmilyte, rapid, Tallinn 20 0 0 ; 13 c4 transpo­ ses to 12 .c4 �b7 13 .�d3 . 13 . . . ltJg6 ! Black does not renounce his common plan with .. .f5. He only improves first the position of his knight.

Nowthe careless 14 �g4? ! would run into 14 .. .fS ! when 15 exfS (or 15 �xfS ltJf4 16 �g4 V!JaS + ! 17 �fl �b4 18 :gbl V!Jd4 19 V!Jdl dS ! +) 15 . . . �h4 (15 . . . ltJf4 ! ?) 16 h3 hS is in his favour. Therefore, White should choose ei­ ther: a) 14 0-0-0 ltJf4 15 V!J h6 (15 �g4 hS 16 �g7? �e7!+; 15 V!Jf3 f5 16 �bl V!Jd7=) 15 . . . :gg8 16 g3 (16 �xh7? �e7!) 16 ... ttJxd3 + 17 cxd3 f5 18 V!Jxh7 (18 :ghel V!JgS + 19 V!Jxg5 :gxgS=) 18 . . . �gS+ 19 f4 (19 �bl fxe4) 19 . . . exf4 2 0 gxf4 V!Jxf4+ 21 �bl :gg2 ! � or: b) 14 g3 dS 15 0-0-0 b4 16 ltJbl V!JaS (16 ... V!Jb6 ! ? 17 ltJd2 0-0 oo) 17 �fS ! ? (17 a3 bxa3 18 ttJxa3 0-0 19 f4 :gac8 was good for Black in Arn­ grimsson-Deepan, Belfort 2005; or 17 exdS hdS 18 :ghel 0-0 19 f4 :gfe 8 =) 17 . . . 0-0 18 h 4 (18 exdS hdS 19 :ghel �g7 20 h4 �e6 2 1 �f3 l2Je7=) 18 . . . dxe4 19 he4 he4 2 0 V!Jxe4 :gac8 with a complex, unbal­ anced game. 1 2 fS !? 12 ... �b7 is also a very good option. It is better tested, but the effect of surprise would be lesser as well. 13 �d3 It is quite risky to grab the pawn by 13 cxbS? ! he4 (Practical experi...

49

Part 2 ence confirmed Sveshnikov's evalu­ ation of the line 14 �a4 dS lS bxa6+ @f8 . He thought that the dynamic factors are more important, and they favour Black, for example: 16 � b4 �g8 ! ? 17 f3 �fS 18 g4 �c8 ! t) 14 bxa6 (14 . . . dS ! ? 15 �bS + @£8 is a very interesting alternative, which also gives Black a good game : 16 0-0 �g8 17 f3 �b6 + 18 @hl �f5 or 16 �d2 �g8 17 f3 i.f5 18 0-0 �b6 + 19 �f2 d4 with fair compensation in both lines) 14 . . . 0-0 15 �e2 l2Jg6 ! ? 16 0-0 ltJf4 17 f3 (17 �f3 ixf3 18 �xf3 �xa6 19 ltJbS dS 20 a4 d4f!) 17 . . .�f Sf! with enough counterchances. 13 . . . �g8

14 cxbS White can hardly delay this cap­ ture, since Black is ready to take on c4 and push . . . dS: 14 0-0? ! bxc4 1S l2Jxc4 dS 16 exdS �xdS 17 f3 (17 �e4 �xg2 + 18 @hl �f2 ! - + Andriasian-Harika, Yer­ evan 2 0 0 6) 17 . . . �d8+ Kupreichik­ Chekhov, Minsk 1976. 14 �gl bxc4 (14 .. .fS ! ? 15 exfS e4 16 �c2 ltJxfS 17 �d2 dS 18 0-0-0 ! oo with a very complicated position) 15 l2Jxc4 (15 �a4+? ! �c6 16 �xc4 dS ! +) lS . . . dS 16 exdS �xdS 17 l2Jd6+ (17 �a4+ @£8 18 0-0-0 was played in 50

Motylev-Shirov, rapid, Bastia 2 0 04, and here after 18 ... �xg2 19 �xg2 �xg2 20 l2Jd6 �dS White's compen­ sation seems insufficient) 17 . . . @f8 18 �e4 (18 l2Jxb7 �xb7 19 �b3 �c6+) 1 8 . . . �aS+ 19 �d2 �xd2 + 20 @xd2 �d8 21 �b7 �xd6 + 22 @c3 �b6 2 3 � f3 l2JfS and Black has a tiny edge. 14 . . . �xg2 15 bxa6 �a6 16 �a6 �xa6 This position is very unbalanced, but Black's game is easier, because his king is well hidden behind the pawns. Even the endgame could be in his favour, as the g2-rook be­ comes extremely active along the fourth rank after .. .fS, e.g. 17 �d3 �b6 ! 18 �bS+ �xbS 19 ltJxbS @d7 20 a4 fS 21 exfS �g4 22 b3 �b4 2 3 �bl l2Jxf5t. 17 l2Jc4 fS 18 exfS ltJxfS 19 �dS �h4 ! 20 �xg2 �xc4� White's defence is difficult. 12 .. .fS represents another ap­ proach . Black plans to castle and activate the knight. It was recom­ mended by Kasparov. 1 3 exf5 In case of 13 cxbS? ! fxe4 White risks to be overrun by Black's cen­ tral pawn cluster. The endgame af­ ter 14 l2J c4 (Or 14 bxa6 0-0; 14 �a4? 0-0 15 �xe4 �as + 16 @dl �fS+) 14 . . . ltJfS 15 �dS �e6 16 �c6 + @f8 17 �dl (17 �xe4 axbS 18 l2Je3 l2Jd4+) 17 . . . l2Jd4 18 �xd6 + �xd6 19 l2Jxd6 �d8 is much better for Black. 1 3 tll x fS 1 4 cxb5 Or 14 �d3 l2Jd4 15 0-0 �b7. 1 4 0-0 1 5 bxa6 lS �d3 e4 16 �e4 �e7 gives Black fantastic attack: 17 f3 (17 �dS �e8 ...

...

7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 ttJdS 18 f3 �e6 19 �d2 dS 20 MS MS+ 21 @fl �f6oo) 17 . . . �h4 + ! 18 @e2 (18 @d2 dS 19 MS MSt) 18 . . . �e8

Perhaps White can survive here, but he must defend very precisely: 19 g3? �xe4+ 20 @f2 �gs 2 1 fxe4 �e3 + 2 2 @ g 2 tlJh4+ ! ! 2 3 gxh4 �h3 # ; 1 9 V!JdS �e6 2 0 Wid2 d S 21 MS MS+ 2 2 @fl axbSt; 19 �d3 dS 20 �xdS �gS ! 2 1 @elD ( 2 1 �adl �e6 ; 21 g4? tlJg3 +) 21. .. �b7+ 2 2 Wixb7? �xg2- + ; 19 �el dS (19 . . . �xh2 should lead to a perpetual) 20 �xdS �e6 21 �cs �ac8 22 V!Jb6 �xh2 23 @£2 tlJh4 24 �gl, when 24 . . . �cd8 or 24 . . . �fS maintain pressure . 1 5 ixa6 1S . . . V!Jh4 ! ? is also interesting. 1 6 ixa6 Was+ 1 7 Wd2 Wxa6 •••

Black has nice compensation . White should look for equality by 18 �e 2 , intending to repeat moves after 18 . . . �aS + 19 Wid2 = . The other option i s dubious: 18 h4? ! @h8 (18 .. .f6 ! ? 19 �h3 �bToo) 19 V!JgS [19 . . . tlJd4 20 V!if6 + @g8 2 1 �gS += (21 0-0-0? ? �fc8 + 22 @bl Wixa3 23 bxa3 �ab 8 + 24 @al tlJc2 #)] 19 . . . tlJg7 (avoiding the draw!) 20 �h3 f6 !oo.

B. 1 0 �xf6 ..txf6

In this part we'll consider only the rare continuations: Bl. 11 tlJbl B 2 . ll c4 Other minor alternatives are: a) 11 ttJxf6+ Wixf6 (12 �e2 �b7 13 0-0 0-0 14 c3 �fd8 15 tlJc2 (15 �f3 ttJe7 16 c4 ttJc6 ! ? 17 cxbS ttJ d4t) lS . . . ttJe7 16 �f3 dS+) 12 c4 0-0 13 cxbS ttJd4 14 tlJc2 (14 bxa6 �g6 15 f3 �xa6t) and here after 14 . . . dS ! ? (14 . . . axbS lS ttJxd4 exd4 16 �d3 �gS 17 0-0=) 15 exdS �g4 16 �d2 axbS Black has the initiative; b) 11 h4? ! ttJe7 (Sveshnikov's re51

Part 2 commendation 11 . . . .ixh4 leads to a very unclear position after 12 �xh4 �xh4 13 ttJc7+ �e7 14 ttJxa8 �xe4+ lS �e2 �b4 + 16 c3 �as 17 0-0-0 .ie6oo) 12 c4 ttJxdS 13 �xdS 0-0 ! 14 cxbS (14 �xa8? �aS+ - +) 14 ... .ie6 lS �d2 axbSt. c) 11 .ie2 This move is seldom seen because White loses control over dS after 11. . . 0-0 12 0-0 .igS 13 c3 (13 c4 b4 14 ttJc2 aS lS b3 .ie6 16 a3 bxa3 17 �xa3 �b8 18 �d 3 �b7 19 �c3 �b8 20 �g3 .id8= Vladimirov­ Panchenko, Tbilisi 1973) 13 . . . ttJe7! Perhaps at this point White realis­ es that his a3-knight is too far fram the centre. 14 c4 ttJxdS lS �xdS .ie6 16 �d3 b4 17 ttJc2 �b6 18 b3 aS= , game 9 Janosevic-Jussupow, Amsterdam 1978 . d) ll .id3 .ie6 (11 . . ..i gS is also an option: 12 0-0 0-0 13 c4 b4 14 ttJc2 aS lS ttJce3 .ixe3 16 fxe3 .ie6 17 �hS ttJb8 18 �f3 ttJd7 19 �afl �a7 2 0 g4 f6+ Black's position is difficult to attack and White's pawn weakness­ es will soon become a problem) 12 c3 .ixdS 13 exdS ttJe7 14 ttJc2 0-0 lS a4 bxa4 16 �xa4 �b6 17 �b4 �cs 18 ttJ e3 .igS+ Bogaerts-Krasenkow, Os­ tend 1990 .

8 1 . 1 1 � b 1 gb8! Directed against 12 a4 . If White persists with it, he will be worse af­ ter 12 a4 bxa4 13 �xa4 (13 ttJd2? ! �xb2 14 ttJc4 �b8 lS ttJxf6+ �xf6 16 ttJxd6+ �e7 17 ttJxc8 + �hxc8 18 .ixa6 �d8 19 .id3 �a8+) 13 ... �xb2 14 .ixa6 (14 �cl �b8 lS .ixa6 .igS 16 �dl .id7+) 14 . . . .ig4 ! ? lS �cl (lS

S2

f3 �d7 16 0-0 ttJb4 17 �b4 �xb4 18 ttJxb4 �b6+ 19 �hl �xb4+) 1S . . . �b8 16 0-0 0-0+. So he must prepare the wing break with: 1 2 �d2 Motylev-Rogozenko, Bucharest 1998 saw the bizarre: a) 12 b4, which aims to secure the position of White's knight on c3 and prepare a4. The game went on 12 . . . .ie6 13 ttJ bc3 13 ttJxf6 + ? ! �xf6 14 �xd6 �c8 lS .id3 offers Black at least two ways to develop the initiative: lS . . . �gS 16 ttJd 2 �xg2 17 �fl .ih3 18 a4 �g6 19 �xg6 (19 �cs �xfl 20 ttJxfl �e6 2 1 axbS ttJd4+) 1 9 . . . hxg6 20 axbS �xfl 2 1 �xfl axbS 2 2 hbS �e7 where White's compensation is clearly not enough, and 1S . . . �e7 ! ? 16 �xe7+ �xe7 17 a3 ttJd4 18 �d2 ttJxc2 19 hc2 �hd8 + 20 .id3 .ic4t. 13 a4 hdS 14 exdS e4 lS c3 ttJxb4 16 axbS axbS 17 �a3 ttJd3 + 18 hd3 exd3 19 0-0 0-0 20 �xd3 b4 is about equal. Now let us return to 13 ttJbc3 :

Rogozenko chose 13 . . . 0-0 14 a4 ttJxb4 ! lS ttJxb4 (lS axbS ttJxdS 16 exdS e4 ! ) lS . . . �aS with the better game, for instance, 16 ttJ ca2D (16 �xd6? �fd8 17 �cs �bc8 18 ttJc6 �xc6 19

7 igS a 6 8 llJ a 3 b S 9 llJdS �xc6 �c8 - +) 16 . . . ha2 17 c3 ie6 18 axbS �c7 19 �cl (19 c4 axbS 20 ttJ a6 �c6 2 1 ttJxb8 �xb8 gives Black more than enough compensation for the exchange, Rogozenko) 19 . . . �b7 (20 llJxa6 �bc8 21 �e3 id8 !oo) 20 bxa6 �xe4+ 21 �e3 �a8 ! t . I n the diagram position Black can also play the logical 13 . . . �c8 ! ? 1 4 a4 (14 id3? ttJxb4 lS ttJxb4 �xc3+; 14 ttJxf6 +? ! �xf6 lS �d2 ttJd4 16 a4 0-0+) 14 . . . ttJxb4 ! lS ttJxb4 �as with similar ideas as in the above-men­ tioned game, but in an even better version: 16 �bl (Or 16 �bl �c3 17 axbS �b3 ! 18 cxb3 �xb4+ 19 @e2 axbs� ; 16 ttJca2? ha2 - +) 16 . . . �xc3 17 axbS (17 �xd6? �c2 18 axbS? ie7- +) 17 ... ib3 ! 18 id3 (18 �xd6 hc2 19 �d2 hbl 2 0 �xc3 he4+) 18 . . . �xb4 19 0-0 axbS 20 �b3 �xb3 21 cxb3 0-0 and Black is a pawn up. b) 12 g3 0-0 13 ig2 ie6 14 0-0 hdS lS exdS (lS �xdS? ! ttJd4 16 ttJa3 b4 17 ttJc4 �c7 ! 18 ttJe3 �bS 19 �c4 �xc4 20 ttJxc4 �cS+) lS ... ttJ aS was equal in Hoffmann-Yakovich , Munich 1993 ; 1 2 ... �g 5 1 3 a4 White must hurry with this break, or he will lose the battle in the centre : 13 id3 ttJe7 14 ttJxe7 �xe7+, Stefansson-Schandorff, Co­ penhagen 1994. 1 3 . . . bxa4 ! ? 1 4 liJ c4 0-0 lS h4 ih6 16 g4 if4only weak­ ens White's kingside: 17 �xa4 ie6 18 �a6 hdS 19 exdS ttJb4 20 �a3 �bS and Black seizes the initiative. 1 5 gxa4 liJ e 7 !

White is behind in development and should think about maintain­ ing the balance.

B 2. 1 1 c4 b4 1 2 liJ c2 12 �a4? is totally inconsistent: 12 . . . �d7 13 ttJxb4 ttJd4 14 �dl �b8 lS ttJd3 (lS ttJ ac2 ttJxc2 + 16 ttJxc2 �xb2+) lS . . .igS 16 b4 fS 17 exfS 0-0 with attack. 1 2...as

We'll examine i n detail: B2a. 13 ie2 B2b. 13 g3 B2c. 13 �f3 White has also tried in practice: a) 13 cS was played only once S3

Part 2 and although White gets obvious positional compensation, it can hardly be dangerous: 13 . . . dxcS 14 �bS ib7 lS ttJce3 0-0 16 .ixc6 ixc6 17 E!cl igS 18 E!xcS E!c8 19 0-0 ixe3= 20 ttJxe3 Following 20 fxe3 Black can equalise with 20 . . . .ixdS 21 E!xc8 ( 2 1 E!xdS �b6) 2 1. . . �xc8 2 2 exdS �cs 23 �d2 (23 �d3 f5 24 d6 f4 2S d7 E!d 8=) 23 .. .�d8 24 E!cl (24 E!dl f5) 24 . . . �d6 2S e4 fS= . 2 0 . . . �e7 2 1 E!xaS ( 2 1 �cl id7 2 2 E!xc8 E!xc8 23 ltJdS �d6 24 �d2 fS 2S exfS?? ic6 26 E!cl E!d8 27 f6 �xdS- +) 2 1. . . ixe4 2 2 E!el E!fd8 23 �g4 �c7+ Vachier Lagrave-Ni Hua, Turin ol . 20 0 6 ; b ) 1 3 �d3 igS 14 E!dl? ! i s asking for trouble: 14 . . . 0-0 lS ttJde3 ? ! a4 ! 16 �xd6? b3 ! when 17 �xc6 loses to 17 . . .�aS+ 18 We2 (18 E!d2 bxc2- +) 18 . . .bxc2 19 ttJxc2 ig4+ 20 f3 ie6+ 2 1 ltJe3 E!ab8 22 E!d2 �b6 23 �c7 �c8. 17 axb3 axb3 18 ltJ a3 is only a little more stubborn: 18 . . . �aS+ 19 �d2 �cS+;

B2 a. 13 J.e2 is something like a worse version of line B2b. The bi­ shop does not protect e4 and White lacks the plan with f4. Black pos­ sesses two promising setups: the manoeuvre ltJ c6-b8-d7-cS when the light-squared bishop goes to b7, and . . . ie6xdS. Play continues with : 13 . . . 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 14 �d3 commonly transposes to the main line after 14 . . . �gS. Black might also try to lure the opponent S4

in to a seemingly active position with 14 . . .�e6 lS 0-0-0? ! (lS ltJxf6+? �xf6 16 �xd6 E!ac8 17 ltJe3 �fd8 1 8 �cs ltJ d4 19 �xaS ttJxe2 2 0 Wxe2 ixc4+ 21 Wel �d2 ! - + Sveshnikov) lS . . . ixdS 16 �xdS �b6 17 E!hfl �ac8 18 �d3 a4 19 ltJe3 �gs 20 @bl ixe3 2 1 fxe3 ltJ aS+, Sveshnikov. 14 �g5 . ••

15 Wfd3 The game Frolov-Kramnik, So­ c hi 1990 presents a good exam­ ple of the ltJb8-d7 manoeuvre: lS b3 ib7 16 �d3 ltJb8 17 E!fdl ltJd7 18 ltJel ltJcS+. Black keeps options to play on both wings. 15 �b7 lS . . . �e6 is the favourite plan of several Chinese GMs. They proved that Black has sufficient resources: 16 �adl ixdS ! 17 cxdS (or 17 �xdS �b6 18 �bS �c7 ! = . White farced play in Li Shilong-Wang Yue, 20 0 6 and got into serious problems af­ ter: 19 cS? ! dxcS 20 �xcS E!ac8 2 1 ig4 ltJe7 2 2 �xc7 E!xc7 2 3 ltJe3 g6 24 E!d7? ! E!xd7 2S ixd7 E!d8 26 E!dl ixe3 27 fxe3 ltJc8 ! ) 17 . . . ltJb8 18 ig4 ltJa6 19 g3 ltJcS 2 0 �f3 ltJ a4 21 �b3 ltJcS 2 2 �f3 �b6 23 h4 �h6 24 ltJe3 ixe3 2S �xe3 �bS=, Asrian-Ni •••

7 �gs a 6 8 tlJ a3 b S 9 tlJdS Hua, Taiyuan 200 6 . 1 6 E:adl ll) b 8 1 7 a3 Instead of winning a pawn, White prefers to deprive the op­ ponent of his spatial advantage on the queenside. 17 ttJde3 tlJa6 18 tlJfS tlJcS 19 �xd6 is quite risky in­ deed. Black has strong compensa­ tion after 19 . . . �xd6 20 ttJxd6 �c6 or 19 . . . ttJxe4 ! ? 20 �xeS �f6 21 �f4 �b8 .

:gd1 fxe4 23 �xe4 �a7! 24 f3 a4f! 2S �g2 axb3 26 axb3 �a2 27 :gxd6 �xb3 28 :gxh6, draw, Khairullin­ Tregubov, Sochi 2 007. b) lS �hS 0-0 16 :gdl (16 �h3 �xh3 17 fuh3 a4 ! ? f!) 16 . . . a4 !

1 7 bxa3 18 li)xa3 li)a6 1 9 li)b5 li)c5 20 �c2 a4, Malakhov Carlsen, Sarajevo 2006, Black has a satisfactory game. •••

B2b. 13 g3 0 - 0 You can play 13 . . .�gS ! ? if you do not like the positions after 13 . . . 0-0 14 h4. Then 14 �g2 0-0 transposes to the main line, so we'll consider here 14 h4 �h6 . Now the plan with f4 is no longer possible, so White bases his play on the clumsy posi­ tion of our bishop on h6. It is practi­ cally out of play and the fewer piec­ es on the board, the more noticeable that would be. a) lS �h3 �xh3 (lS . . .�b7 !? to avoid exchanges is an interest­ ing alternative: 16 �hS tlJe7 17 0-0 ltJxdS 18 exdS �c8 19 �xc8 �xc8 20 b3 0-0 21 �g2 �d2 22 :gadl �c3 23 f4 �cs 24 fxeS �xeS 2S tlJel �c3 26 tlJd3 �c7+, Berg-Eljanov, Kern­ er 2007) 16 :gxh3 tlJe7 looks equal, which was confirmed by the fallow­ ing game: 17 :ghl (17 �fl? ! �c8 ! ) 17. . . 0-0 1 8 �fl :gc8 1 9 ltJxe7+ �xe7 20 b3 �h8 ( 20 .. .fS ! ?) 2 1 �d3 fS 2 2

In this system, if Black achieves to push the a-pawn that far, he usu­ ally obtains good counterplay. The trick is that 17 ltJxb4 is bad due to ttJxb4 18 ttJxb4 a3 ! , so White must finally remember about develop­ ment: 17 �d3 b3 18 axb3 axb3 19 tlJ a3 Nepomniachtchi-Pavlovic, Biel 2007 and here after the natural exchange sacrifice 19 . . . :gxa3 ! 20 bxa3 �as + 2 1 � fl �h8 Black would have enjoyed rich compensation and a pleasant game. Note that 22 tlJf6? ! would be bad due to 2 2 . . . tlJd4 23 g4 tlJe6 ! + . 14 �g2 14 tlJxf6+ �xf6 lS �g2 ie6 16 b3 (16 �xd6? :gac8 17 tlJe3 :gfd8 18 �cs tlJd4+) 16 . . . �d8 ! 17 0-0 �b6 18 �d3 a4= ; 1 4 h 4 has been popular lately. However, pawns do not move back­ wards, and such moves are quite double-edged. We propose an en­ terprising pawn sacrifice which has SS

Part 2 similar ideas as the novelty in line B 2c: 14 . . . a4 ! ? lS ltJcxb4 (l S �h3 b3) 1S . . . ltJxb4 16 ltJxb4 �b6 17 a3 �d8

White might be sorry to have weakened his kingside. We would not like to be in his shoes after 18 �d3 �b7 19 0-0 � b6 20 ltJdS �d4 2 1 �bl i.h3 22 �el �d7. Perhaps he should play 18 �d3 �e6 19 �h3 �cs 2 0 he6 fxe6 21 0-0 �as 22 �adl �fd8 with equality. Let us note that Black can also choose on the 14th move: a) 14 . . . g6, which occurred in the game Govorykh-Zhigalko, Ki­ rishi 20 07: lS hS (lS �h3 �b7 16 0-0 ltJ d4f!; lS �f3 �g7 16 hS fSoo) lS . . .�gS 16 �h3 �b7 (do not trade this bishop on h3!) when instead of 17 @fl? ! ltJe7 18 @g2? ltJxdS 19 cxdS @g7 2 0 ltJel fS+ White should have played 17 0-0 ltJe7 18 ltJce3 he3 ! with a possible draw after 19 ltJf6 + @g7 2 0 fxe3 ltJfS 2 1 ixfS (21 exfS �xf6 2 2 �g4 gS=) 21. . . �xf6 2 2 �c8 �gs 23 hb7 �xg3 + = and : b) 14 . . . �e6 lS i.h3 ltJd4 16 ltJxd4 16 ltJce3 can be attacked by the surprising move 16 . . . �c8 !? , when 17 ltJb6 �b7 1 8 ltJxa8 hc4 19 ltJxc4 (19 !fl !e6 ! ) 19 . . . �xe4 + 2 0 @d2 S6

ltJ f3 + 21 @cl �xc4+ 22 �c2 �xc2 + 23 cjfxc2 �a8 is unclear, as well as 17 he6 fxe6 18 ltJb6 �c6 19 ltJxa8 �xe4t or 17 ltJxf6+ gxf6 18 �g2 �a7) 16 . . . exd4 17 he6 ! White wants t o get a good block­ ading knight against a poor bishop. Previously White had tried 17 �d3 �c8 18 @fl (18 �dl �cs 19 ltJxf6+ �xf6 20 he6 fxe6 21 �xd4 �xc4 ! ) 1 8 . . . �cS 19 @g2 hdS 20 exdS �c7= , Svidler-Elj anov, Bundesliga 2006 . 17 . . . fxe6 18 ltJf4

Here in both known games Black played 18 . . . �e7? ! and was worse af­ ter 19 �g4 �ae8 20 0-0. Instead, we propose: 18 . . . �c8 ! The hit on c4 discoordinates White's pieces. All defences have their drawbacks: 19 �cl Or 19 �d3 �a7 2 0 0-0 eS 21 ltJ dS �g4f!; 19 �e2 �es ; 19 b3 d3 . After the text Black free himself using the hanging state of the cl-rook: 19 . . . �c6 20 �e2 ! 2 0 0-0 �ae8 21 �d3 (21 �el hh4) 21. . . hh4 = . 2 0 . . . d s 21 exdS Or 2 1 eS dxc4 22 0-0 d3 23 ltJxd3 (23 �xd3 heS=) 23 . . .hh4 with a

7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 ltJdS drawish position, for example: 24 �g4 �e7 2S rocc4 (2S �xc4 �xc4 26 �xc4 �ac8 27 �fcl rocc4 28 �xc4 �d 8f!) 2s . . . �ds 26 �c7 �f7 27 ltJf4 �xeS 28 ltJxe6 �e8 29 �c4 �cs 3 0 �xcS �xe6 31 �xe6 �xe6 32 �xaS �e2 = . 21. . .exdS 2 2 0-0 dxc4 2 3 �xc4 (23 �xc4+ �xc4 24 rocc4 E!:ac8 2S �fcl �xc4 2 6 �xc4 �xh4=) 23 ... �d7! 24 ltJd3 �ae8=. 1 4. .igS 15 0 -0 li)e7 16 li)ce3 16 f4 is positionally dubious as it opens up play in favour of Black's bishop pair: 16 . . . exf4 17 gxf4 �h4 and now: a) 18 �hS ltJxdS 19 �xdS (19 cxdS? ! �a6+) 19 . . . �e6 20 �d3 �c7 21 b3 �a6+; b) 18 ltJce3 �e6 19 �d4 (19 eS dxeS 20 ltJxe7+ �xe7 21 �xa8 �cS ! oo with excellent compensa­ tion.) 19 . . . �c8 20 �acl �e8 f!; c) 18 ltJde3 �a6 19 �d 3 �f6 2 0 ltJd4 �b6 21 �adl a4oo ; Black can ma­ noeuvre on the dark squares, main­ taining the balance. White should be constantly watching out for . . . b3. If he decides to prevent this possibili­ ty by playing b3 himself, then Black will get the a-file in his possession. White can also try to attack the d6-pawn: 16 ltJde3 �b6 17 �d3 (Or 17 �hS h6 18 h4 �xe3 19 ltJxe3 �e6= ; 18 f4 �f6 19 fS �gs is risky for White) 17 . . . �e6 18 �fdl �fd8 19 ltJfS, but it does not achieve the aim since the d6-pawn is immune and Black is able to repel the awkward knight by . . . g6. In a blitz game Kolev con. .

tinued 19 . . .�c7 20 b3 g6 21 ltJxe7+ �xe7 22 ltJe3 �gs 23 ltJdS �cs and Black's chances are already pref­ erable in view of his imminent counterplay down the a-file: 24 h4 �h6 2S �f3 a4 26 @g2 axb3 27 axb3 hdS 28 cxdS �a3 29 �abl �c3 3 0 �e 2 �c8 31 Ml � a 2 3 2 �g4 �xd3+ 33 �xd3 �cc2 34 �f3 fS 3S exfS e4 0-1. O ne of the latest game in this line featured the dubious 16 b3? ! ltJxdS 17 �xdS �e6 18 �d3 �b6 19 @hl a4 and Black already had some initiative in Movsesian-Tregubov, Dagomys 0 2 . 04 . 200 8 : 2 0 f4 axb3 21 axb3 �xal 22 ltJxal exf4 23 gxf4 �f6. 16 ... ie6 17 �d3 Or 17 f4? ! exf4 18 gxf4 �h4 19 �d4 (19 �hS ltJxdS 2 0 cxdS �d7 2 1 e S g 6 2 2 �f3 �c8 and we prefer the bishop pair.) 19 �d4 �c8 20 �acl �e8 with good chances. 17...he3 18 li)xe3

This position is about equal, and quite boring at that. White has more active rooks , but they can attack only one weakness, on d6, which is easily defended. A logical continua­ tion of the game would be: S7

Part 2 18 . . . V9d7 (In fact 18 . . . V9c7 !? looks more consistent as on the d-file the queen is X-rayed by the enemy rook. Anyway, its placement does not change significantly the char­ acter of the position. In contrast, 18 . . . %Vb6 ? ! is weaker on account of 19 tlJfS!;!;:.) 19 �fdl �fd8 2 0 �acl �ac8= , Balogh-Moiseenko, Moscow 200 6 . White can open u p the queenside by a3, but then Black takes on a3 and obtains typical Sicilian counterplay along the b-file . Play might become interesting only in case when White attempts a kingside attack. However, Black can then invade White's rear through the c-file with . . . a4, . . . b3, . . . tlJ c6-d4-c2 ! . We analyse this plan in the "Com­ plete Games" section, see g ame 1 0 Korneev-P. Horvath, Porto San Giorgio 2007.

B2c. 13 1Yf3 This is a relatively new idea. White aims to put his rook on dl and build pressure on d6 as in the game N epomniachtchi-Andriasian, Moscow 14. 0 2 . 200 8 : 13 . . . �e6 14 �dl �e7 lS cs 0-0 16 �bs tlJa7 17 .ta4, o r organize a kingside offen­ sive: 13 . . .�gS 14 h4 �h6 lS g4 f6 16 �gl 0-0 17 V9g3 Morozevich-Carlsen, Blitz Moscow 2 2 . 1 1 . 20 07. We propose a new approach, connected with a pawn sacrifice: 13 �e6 14 gdl a4! ? Kolev's idea i s t o anticipate the enemy's activity and radically dis­ turb his plans. •••

S8

15 lll cxb4 Now lS cS? ! does not work in view of lS . . . WaS ! . lS tlJxf6 + does not seem too test­ ing either: 1S . . . gxf6 ! ? (We believe that lS . . . V9xf6 16 V9xf6 gxf6 17 �xd6 �c8 18 f3 @e7 also ensure sufficient compensation, e.g. 19 �d2 �hd8co) 16 �e2 b3 17 axb3 �b8 18 b4 tlJxb4 19 tlJ a3 tlJc6 20 tlJ bS Wi as + 21 �d2 @e7 22 V9d3 tlJd4 23 tlJxd4 exd4 24 V9xd4 Wies . Black has full compen­ sation for the pawn, for example: 2S WxcS dxcS 2 6 0-0 �b4 27 �cl �hb8 28 �cc2 fS 29 f3 (29 eS f4 !) 29 . . . fxe4 30 fxe4 @f6 31 @f2 @es. 15 1Ya5! 1S . . . tlJxb4 is an inferior option: 16 tlJxb4 %Vb8 ( 1 7 a 3 �d8 18 V9d3 0-0 19 �e2 �as 2 0 V9xd6 V9xd6 21 �xd6 �tb8co) 17 V9a3 0-0 18 �d3 �c8 19 0-0 (19 tlJdS hdS 20 cxdS �gs 2 1 0 - 0 V9b6co) 1 9 . . . hc4 2 0 hc4 �xc4 21 tlJdS;!;:. Computers underestimate White's advantage in such posi­ tions, but practice shows that it is a very difficult task to defend them. 16 a3 Another critical line is 16 Wffc3 tlJxb4 17 tlJxb4 (17 Wixb4 .td8 ! =) 17. . . WcS ! •••

7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS 17... �d4 18 �d3 0 - 0 19 0 - 0 E:c8 2 0 E:cl

17 . . . 0-0 is less precise, as it gives White a chance to escape from the pin along the el-a6 diagonal: 18 �e2 �tb8 19 a3 Wies 20 0-0 �d8 ! 21 Wff c2 ! (21 Wffd2 iaS) It is true that even then Black has probably sufficient com­ pensation, e.g. 21 . . . �b6 22 ltJd S (22 �d3 Wffc7 23 �fdl �cS=) 2 2 . . . hdS 2 3 �xdS Wffc6 = , but we have no reason to give White extra possibilities. 18 Wffd 2 (or 18 �e2 �d8 19 0-0 �as 2 0 a3 0-0) 18 ... 0-0 19 a 3 �tb8 20 �e2 �d8 21 Wffxd6 Wffxd6 22 �xd6 �e7. 16 ... i.d8 17 i.e2 Or 17 Wffc3 l2Jd4 18 �d3 0-0 19 0-0 Wff c Soo followed by . . . �as .

The fine point of this position is that the opposite coloured bish­ ops work in Black's favour, as after 20 l2Jc2 hdS 21 exdS �b6oo. After the text we continue setting up our pieces on dark square s: 2 0 �a7 21 h3 �a5 Our play is on the queenside . 21. . .fS 22 exfS hfS 23 Wffdl does not help us at all. 22 �g4 E:b8 All our pieces are well placed, the a4-pawn petrifies White's queenside and renders his extra pawn useless. •••

S9

Part 2

1 e4 cS 2 li)f 3 li)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li)xd4 li)f6 s li)c3 es 6 li) d bS d6 7 .igS a6 8 li)a3 bS 9 li)dS .ie7

COMPLETE GAM ES

9. D. J ano sevic - J us supow Am sterdam 1 978 1 e4 cs 2 ti:) t3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti) xd4 ti:) t6 S ti:) c 3 ti:) c6 6 ti:) db S d6 7 .it4 es 8 .igS a6 9 ti:) a3 bS 1 o ti:) d S .i e 7 1 1 .ixt6 .ixt6 1 2 .ie2 0-0 1 3 0-0 .igS 1 4 c3 ti:) e7

We se e a typical scenario when White simply develops his pieces without some clear active plan. Now he must part with his only good piece, the dS-knight, and Black gets a free hand on the queenside. 1 S c4 ti:) x d S 1 6 '%Yxd S .ie6 1 7 '%Y d3 b4 1 8 ti) c2 '%Yb6 1 9 b3 as 20 a3 White hurries to undermine b4, since otherwise Black will play . . . a4 and a3 will be no more possible. 20 ... bxa3 21 �xa3 �ab8 22 ti:) e 3 60

'%Yes 23 �ta 1 .id8 ! 24 .ig4 .ib6 2 S �3a2 g 6 Jussupow could have drawn the game by trading everything with 25 . . . Wfd4 2 6 �dl Wfxd3 27 �xd3 he3 28 he6 hf2 + = , but he prefers to maintain the tension. After the ac­ tivation of his dark-squared bish­ op, he now embarks on the second stage of his plan - opening of the f-file. 26 � d 1 �bd8 27 ti:) d S White could have provoked first . . . hS. That could be achieved by 27 h4 hS 2 8 he6 fxe6, but then h4 would also be weak. Therefore 27 h 3 looks better: 2 7. . . @ g7 28 �ad2 hS= . 2 7. . ..ixg4 2 8 ti:)t6+ @g7 2 9 ti:) x g4 t S 30 ext S �xt S Black seized the initiative. Jano­ sevic tries to simplify play, but the bishop is too strong in the end­ game. 31 '%YdS �dt8 32 '%YxcS .ixcS 33 �e1 � St7 34 ti:) e 3 hS 3S g3 �b8 Now Black's rook penetrates into White's camp. 36 � b 1 �tb7 37 �xaS �xb3 38 �xb3 �xb3 39 �bS �d3 40 �b7+ @t6 4 1 ti:) d S+ @ts

7 .igS a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 ltJdS tll ce3 .ixe3 1 7 tll xe3 �e6 1 8 V!f d3 '\Mf d7

White is beyond salvation, be­ cause he cannot parry the march of the Black king. It is very difficult to point out the exact moment when White made the decisive mistake. Jussupow conducted the game con­ sistently, realised all typical plans in this structure, while White seemed clearly helpless. 42 g2 �d2 43 �f7+ i> e4 44 h4 d3 4S tll e7 e4 46 f1 �d 1 + 47 i>g2 �d2 48 f1 xc4 49 tll x g 6 � d 4 S O tll f8 d S S1 tll e 6 � b 6 S 2 �f4 c 3 S3 �ts c 2 S4 tll g S d 1 S S tll h 3 d 4 S 6 �bS �c7 S 7 � b 1 + i>c2 S8 �b7 �as S9 tll g S �d 1 + 60 i> g 2 �e1 61 tll e 6 �c3 62 �c 7 d3 63 tll d4+ b2 64 �b7+ a2 6S � a7+ i>b1 66 tll b S b2 67 tll x c3 xc3 68 �c7+ b3 69 �d7 c2 70 �c7+ d1 71 g4 hxg4 72 hS i>e2 73 h6 �f1 74 � e7 �xf2+ 7S rbg3 e3 0-1

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

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

Part 2 24 h 1 b3 25 a3 gac8

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

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

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

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

37 ... �f6?

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

63

Part 3

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

Q U I C K REPERTO I RE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65

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

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

•••

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

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

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

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

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

Wh ite keeps 2 m i nor pieces

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

67

Part 3

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

STEP BY STEP

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

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

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

12

•••

.igS

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

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

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

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

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

Part 3 19 �fdl �fd8 2 0 �d2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71

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

72

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

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

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

•••

J.d7 20 ga2

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

a.

1 5 .ic4 gba

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

73

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 2 . 1 6 b 3 h 8

75

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

78

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

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

Part 3

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

COMPLETE GAMES

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

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

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

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

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

80

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

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

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

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

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

81

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

84

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

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

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

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

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

Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

89

Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

91

Part 4

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

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

Pay

special

attention

to

this variation! It is a frequent

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

guest in Internet and club-level

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

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

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

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

games.

18

•••

i.xh4 1 9 g3 .ig S 20 f4

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

2 o. ef4 2 1 gxf4 ih4+ 22 @d2 •.

On fl the king is X-rayed by the

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

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

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

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

93

Part 4 30 �xdS would leave the fl-rook hanging to 30 . . . gS, while 30 exdS �fe8 hints that the tide is turning and Black is already the active side. The latest top level game in this variation s aw: 26
94

In this structure White would be happy to exchange pieces. That would only underline Black's nu­ merous weaknesses and especially his poorly protected king. Kolev has however completely different inten­ tions ! He wants to launch a kingside pawn storm with the f and g-pawns. For that, Black needs his queen on the right wing. It is also very important to set up correctly the bishop pair. The best places are d7 and d8. Then we can maintain the ten­ sion in the centre, or close it and ad­ vance the g-pawn. Let us see some examples: a) 2 2 ttJfl �d7 23 �a2 �d8

24 ttJde3 �b6, when it would be risky for White to take on d6 and open the file to our rook: 25 �xd6 �fd 8 . b) If White chooses to stay with his knights on dS and e3: 2 2
12 lOC2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 ll:Jce3 g6

Play might continue with 27 ll:Jdc7 �f6 28 �ad2 g4oo .

C. 1 8 1Mfe2 !? This was a novelty in game 21 Anand-Shirov, Linares 20 0 8 . 1 8 ...fS 1 9 h 4 ixe3 2 0 1Mfxe3 f4! And the last move is our im­ provement. Shirov opened the cen­ tre, but his king proved to be vul­ nerable.

After 20 .. .f4 White's future plan is not clear. He had already com­ mitted himself with 19 h4, so short castling will hardly be good. White will have to leave his king in the centre, but then he will be unable to advance the b-pawn. For his part, Black will fallow up with 21 . . . h5 to fix the weakness on h4 . The game might continue with 21 Wf d3 h5oo or 21 Wfd2 h5 22 f3 �h7 23 Wfff2 �g8 24 �e 2 �g7 25 �hal �e6. We are eager to see more tests of Anand's idea.

95

Part 4

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 �db5 d6 7 .ig5 a6 8 � a 3 b5 9 �d5 .ie7 1 O ixt6 ixf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .ig5 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 a 5 1 5 .ic4 gb8 1 6 b3 h8 1 7 � ce3 g6 STEP BY STE P

page 96 A . 18 h4 page 102 B . 18 0-0 page 105 C. 18 We2 Khalifman also mentions as risky 18 Wffd3 f5 19 f3 i.h4+ 20 @e2 f4 21 tlJfl Wd7 22 @dl Wa7 with un­ clear consequences. Line A. 1 8 h4 considers the shar­ pest attempt of White to refute Black's setup . There is enough prac­ tical evidence that Black should be able to survive the first attacking wave. Then commonly arise posi­ tions with bishops of opposite col­ our where Black seeks to open files for his rooks by sacrificing a pawn with either . . . a4 or . . . e4. In no way should he defend passively as in such positions even without a pawn White would have winning chances. At top level Black achieves good re­ sults and during the last year the popularity of 18 h4 has waned con­ siderably. 18 0-0 has long been assessed as innocuous, but Khaifman advocat­ ed it in"Opening for White Accord­ ing to Anand 1.e4", vol . 10. He con­ nects it with the new idea of hold­ ing firmly the centre by Wffd3 . At our turn, we also propose a new setup for 96

Black, which i s fairly aggressive. 18 We2 earned Anand a point in Linares 20 0 8 , but it is still early to panic. We recommend a new ap­ proach which needs further tests . A. 1 8 h4 This aggressive continuation is critical for o ur repertoire. It brings about sharp forced variation which might refute the whole setup with early castling. Fortunately, the cur­ rent status of this sacrifice is favour­ able for Black, but you must watch out for new discoveries. 1 8 . . . .ixh4 1 9 g3 .ig5

20 El:a2 A2 . 2 0 f4 A3 . 2 0 We2 ! ? Al.

12 ttJc2 o-o 13 a4 bxa4 14 roca4 as lS !c4 �b8 16 b3 wh8 17 ttJce3 g6 A 1 . 20 �a2 �xe3 2 1 � xe 3 ie6 From a theoretical standpoint, this is the main move, as it gives Black a comfortable game. On the other hand, 21 . . .fS is significantly more hazy, but that could be a prac­ tical plus if one is well prepared:

22 �d2 22 f4 exf4 23 �ah 2 (23 gxf4 �b6oo) displays the reason behind White's 20th move, but Black holds firmly after 23 . . . �b7 24 gxf4 �g7 ! f! . 2 2 . . .f4 2 3 gxf4 exf4 2 4 �xd6 �c7 2S ltJg2 The alternatives are: 2S �dS? fxe3 26 �xc6 �g7 27 �d4 �xd4 2 8 cxd4 exf2 + 2 9 W fl a4 ! ; 2S ttJc2 !g4 26 f3 �bd8 27 �xd8 �xd8 28 ttJd4 !hS 29 !dS ltJeS = ; 2S ttJfS gxfS 26 �dh6 �b7 27 �xh7+ �xh7 2 8 �xh7+ �xh7 29 �d6 ttJe7 30 �es+ �g7 31 �xf4 ltJg8= . 2S . . . !g4 26 �xc6 (26 f3 �bd8) 26 ... �xc6 27 �xg4 �xe4+ 2 8 @d2 (28 Wfl �bl+ 29 ttJel �be8 30 �xh7 + wxh7 31 �d7 + @h6 32 �h3 + Wg7 33 �d7+ @f6 34 �c6 +=) 28 . . . �bd8 + 29 Wcl a4 ! with a double-edged po­ sition according to Rogozenko. 22 g d 2 I n Sandipan-Spasov, Turin oL

20 06 , White chose the tricky 2 2 �d2 , intending t o meet 2 2 . . .hc4? with 2 3 ttJfS ! gS 24 �dl� . Spasov answered 2 2 . . . �g8 ! 23 �al hc4 24 ttJxc4, when he should have tak­ en the pawn: 24 . . . �xb3 ! 2S �dS (2S ttJxd6? ! �f6 26 �dS �gb8 ! 27 �xc6 �3b6 28 �c7 �xd6 29 �xf7 �bl+ 3 0 We 2D �lb 2 + 31 W f3 hS+) 2S . . . ttJe7 26 �xf7 (26 �xd6? ! �xd6 27 ttJxd6 Wg7+) 26 . . . �g7 27 �e6 (27 �f3 ttJc6 ! 2 8 ttJd 2 �bS+) 27 �e6 �c7! ( 2 7. . . �c8 28 �xc8 + ttJxc8 29 @d2 �f7=) 2 8 0-0 (28 � c l ltJ g 8 29 ttJxeS �xc3 3 0 @ d 2 �xcl 31 �xcl �e7+) 2 8 . . . �c8+.

22 . . . '%Ye7 ! 23 gxd6 �d4 24 g d s 2 4 �xd4? i s insufficient: 2 4 . . . exd4 2 S �xd4+ f6 2 6 ttJdS hdS 27 hdS �fd8+. 24 . . . �c6 2 5 gd2 ixc4 26 � xc4 26 bxc4 �cs is also roughly equal : 27 �d7 �fd8 28 0-0 Wg7 29 �dS �a3 30 � f3 �e7= . 26 . . . gfd 8 Black can maintain the balance with other moves as well: 26 . . . 1!9b7!? 27 �b2 (27 �dS �xb3 28 �xb3 �xb3 29 Wd2 �c8 30 �cs �bb8 31 �al Wg7=) 27 . . . �fd8 28 �e2 �d7! 29 �d2 (29 0-0 1!9d3=) 29 . . . �b7= . 21 gds=

97

Part 4 We would have stopped here, as­ suming that the position is clearly equal, hadn't Rogozenko claimed "some advantage" for White. More likely, there is none. 27 . . . @ga 28 o-o Y«b7 2 9 � xe5 (29 �d6 �bS) 29 .. J�xd5 30 Y«xd 5 � x e5 3 1 Y«xe5 Y«xb 3 3 2 Y«xa5 gca 33 gc1 Y«b2 34 Y«g5 g ea 35 c4 gxe4 36 c5 g es=.

A2. 20 f4 exf4 2 1 gxf4 .ih4+

llJe3 �g6 30 �ds tt:Jes 3 1 �e2 . Here Kolev likes the move 3 1 . . . tt:Jd3 32 fS �hS+ ! 3 3 �d2 �f3 34 �lh2 tt:JeSf! with a good position for Black. 23 . . .hfS 24 llJxfS fufS 2S �g4 �gs 26 �d3 26 �g2 ? fails to 26 . . . hf4 27 �h4 (27 tt:Jxf4 �gs 28 llJxg6 + �g7 0-1, Delchev-Kotanjian, Kusadasi 2 006) 27 . . . �gS + 28 �xgS �xgS+ 29 � f3 �es- + . After the text, the game ends up with mass elimination: 26 �d3 �xdS 27 �xg6 �f6 28 �xh7+ � g 8 29 �f7+ �xh7 30 �xdS tt:Je7 31 �e4+ �g7 32 �xgS+ �xgS 33 fxgS �xb3 34 �xaS �xc3 = . 2 2 . . . � e7 Now the main line branches to: A2 a. 23 �c2 A2b . 23 �cl A2c. 23 �gl ! ?

Black's defence is based on . . .fS, followed by �b7. In some lines White proves unable even to shift the bish­ op fram h4, if we get the chance to support it with . . . gs. 22 i>d2 O n fl the king i s X-rayed by the f8-rook: 22 �fl f S 23 exfS 23 �a2 fxe4 24 �ah2 looks very purposeful, but 24 . . . gS 2S tt:Jg2 �b7 26 llJxh4 gxh4 27 �xh4 �g7 28 �hS �fS defends everything. Stangl-Kindermann, Altensteig 1987 saw fur­ ther 29 �h6 , when Black counter­ attacked with 29 . . . a4 ! ? 30 bxa4 �b8 31 �bS tt:Je7= . Hracek-Mis­ ta, Czechia 2006 improved with 29 98

2 3 �h4? ! allows Black t o re­ pel White's attack with 23 . . . ttJxdS 24 �hl tt:Jf6 , for instance, 2S �c2 �b7t or 2S llJdS hS ! 26 tt:Jxf6 �xf6 27 �xaS �g7+. (Rogozenko)

A2a. 23 �c2 N owthe c3-pawn is well defend­ ed by the king, but the a4-rook can­ not reach the h-file via the second rank. Anyway, we'll see later that even if White takes on h7, he is still far from winning . 23 lllxd5 24 lllxd5 �e6 25 E:al 2S �d4+ �g8 26 �aal hdS 27 �xdS �b6 is unclear. 25 �f6 26 E:h2 ig7 27 Wfd2 a4! ? •••

•••

12 4Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS lS �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 4Jce3 g6

Remember this thematic break! It is the only way to open files and obtain counterplay. The game Ko­ rneev-Solak, Vrsac 200S shows that White still has a draw: 28 E:ahl (28 �xa4 �a8f!) 28 axb3+ 29 hb3 hd5 29 . . . hS also leads to a draw: 30 fS �xdS 31 �xdS \Wb6 3 2 \Wcl �bc8 33 f6 ! hf6 34 �xhS+ gxhS 3S �xhS+ �g8 36 �gS + hgS 37 \WxgS+ �h7 3 8 \WhS + �g7 39 \WgS +=. 30 E:xh7+ <;f;>g8 31 hd5 �f6 32 %Yd4= \Wxd4 33 cxd4 �xd4 34 eS dxeS 3S hf7 + �f7 36 �h8 + �g7 37 �lh7+ �f6 38 �xf7+ �xf7 39 �xb8 exf4, draw. •••

A2b. 23 @cl �xd5 24 �xd5 .ie6

In this variation Black main­ tains the balance by counterattack­ ing c3. Here is a typical example: 2S �a2 �xdS 2 6 �xdS \Wf6 27 \W f3 �fc8 28 �h3 hS 29 �xaS �el 3 0 �c4 �xb3 31 �axhS+ gxhS 32 \WxhS+ �g7 =. That's why i n practice White choos­ es: 25 %Yd4+ <;f;>g8 26 <;f;>bl We chose this as a main line be­ cause it occurred in the latest top level game, Jakovenko-Shirov, Fa­ ros 20 07. Alternatives are : a) 26 �c2 is rather inconsistent. Balck is able to choose whether to play with opposite coloured bishops after 26 . . .�xdS 27 �xdS �f6 28 \We3 �g7oo or maintain the tension with 26 . . . �c8 ! ? . b ) 2 6 fS �xdS 27 �xdS ( 2 7 \WxdS \WgS + 28 �bl \We3 ! ) 27 . . . \Wf6 2 8 fxg6 hxg6= . c ) 2 6 �a2 After this move Black gets good play on the dark squares, thanks to the position of the white king and the pawns c3 and f4 . It would have been better for the white king to be on a light square, thus preventing possible checks. 26 . . . �xdS 27 \WxdS 27 �xdS? ! �f6 28 \We3 \Wc7 fa­ vours Black, for instance 2 9 �ah2 a4 ! ; 29 �c4 �fc8 30 �ah2 dS ! ; 29 �h3 �fc8 30 �c4 \Wes . (o r 30 . . . a4 ! ? 3 1 �xa4 �a8) 27 . . . \Wf6 (27 . . .�g3 28 \Wd2 \Wf6 transposes to 27 . . . \Wf6) 2 8 \Wd2 �g3 29 �fl dS ! ? Topalov-Leko, Linares 200S, went on with 29 ... hS and the game was very tangled, but White grad­ ually outplayed his opponent. The 99

Part 4 text was proposed by Rogozenko and passed the test in Korneev- De­ vereaux, Port Erin 2006.

34 b4 (34 E:a6? E:xc3 ! ) 34 . . . E:fc8 35 E:a3 h5 (Rogozenko) would have been quite promising for Black. 26 hd5 27 11Mxd5 (27 hd5 �f6 28 �d3 �c7) 27 �f6 •••

•••

Black needs open files for his rooks . We had seen before the sac­ rifice . . . a4 with similar aims . Now, 30 e5? ! Wf5 31 hd5 g5 ! would be slightly better for Black. Perhaps the most testing answer is 30 exd5 E:fe8 (Rogozenko suggests 30 . . . h5, but after 31 :gxa5 E:a8 32 E:xa8 E:xa8 3 3 @b2 Black's compen­ sation is not too clear, e.g. 33 . . . Wd6 34 b4 ih4oo) 31 E:f3 (or 31 E:xa5 E:el + 32 @c2 E:xfl 33 hfl hf4) 3 1 . . .'Wh4 32 d6 Wg4 (32 . . . E:e4 33 E:a4 @g7 34 �e2;t) 3 3 E:fl (33 �e2? ! E:e4 34 E:a4 :gxa4 35 bxa4 g5 ! ) 33 . . . E:e4 34 d7 E:d8 35 Wd3 E:xf4 36 ib5 E:xfl+ 37 Wxfl �e5oo . In these lines White has a strong passed d-pawn, which is balanced by constant threats by Black. In the source game Korneev preferred to keep the e-file closed : 30 �xd5 g5 31 @b2 hf4 32 E:xa5 Now 32 . . .hd2 33 E:xf6 E:fc8 leads to a drawish endgame, e.g. 34 hfl+ @g7 35 E:f3 g4 36 E:d3 hc3 + 37 E:xc3 @xf7 Devereaux retained the tension with: 32 . . . E:bc8 33 Wd3 , when 33 . . . E:c7 =.

100

Black has neutralized the direct threats and his king is well protect­ ed, which is an important factor in positions with bishops of opposite colour. On the other hand, White's rooks are more active and restrict Black's play. We would say that the game is level. See 2 0 Jakovenko­ Shirov, Faros 20 0 7 in the "Com­ plete Games" section.

A2c. 23 VMgl! ? I n the previous lines we have seen White trying to find the per­ fect balance between attack and de­ fence . Now we'll examine the most straightforward approach, which is frequently met in my (Kolev) ICC blitz games. 23 �xd5 24 �xd5 �e6 24 . . . h5 25 �a7 (25 �d4+ @h7 26 E:aal �e6oo) gives White a slight­ ly better ending, thanks to his cen­ tralised king: 25 . . . ie6 26 ifMxa5 (26 •••

12 ltJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 17 ltJce3 g6 �xaS �f2 27 rfxf2 �xaS 28 rfd4 + f6 29 ltJxf6 rfb6 ! ) 26 . . . �g3 ( 26 . . . @g7 27 rfxd8 hd8 28 �a6t) 27 �xd8 �fxd8 28 fSt. 25 �h2 25 rfd4 + @g8 26 @c2 hdS brings about already familiar posi­ tions : 27 �xdS �g3 ! ? (27 . . . Wb6 2 8 rfd 2 �f6 29 rfh2 h S 30 rfgl rfxgl 3 1 �xgl @g7 3 2 �xaSt) 2 8 fS (28 �fl �f6) 2 8 . . .�eS+! 29 fxg6 (29 �d3 @g7) 2 9 . . . hxg6 30 �d2 rff6 ! 31 �xaS �a8= or 27 hdS �f6 28 rfd3 �b6 +!; 25 @c2 �f6 26 fS (26 �h 2 hS) 26 . . . hdS 27 hdS �e7 28 fxg6 fxg6 29 �xg6 looks dangerous, but 29 . . .�eS= reminds that White's king is not safe, too. 25 g5

example: 3 1 . . .hc4 32 ltJf5+ @g6 33 bxc4 rfb6 34 �gS + ! fxgS 35 ltJe7+ @g7 36 rff5 dS 37 ltJxdS with at­ tack. 26 rbc2 26 @d3? fS ! earned me the point in a ICC blitz game . More hazy is 2 6 �gl ! ? f6 27 rfd4 �b7oo. 26 f6 ! ?oo With this move we prepare a de­ fence along the seventh rank with �b7. 26 . . . h6 is also playable and needs tests. •••

A 3. 20 yge2 ! ?

•••

Black's defence hangs by a thread, but it is a very strong one ! White had saved a tempo by leaving the king on d2, and now we are able to survive thanks to the check: 26 fxgS hgS+ 27 @c2 h6 28 �aal �g8 !?oo, intending �g7. Note that the setup with 28 . . . @g7 29 �agl �h8 offers more chances to White: 30 �f2 f6 (30 . . . hdS 31 hdSoo) 31 ltJe3 ! , for

This is a new idea of Karjakin which he used against Shirov in the World Cup. The white queen is eye­ ing the h 2-square while freeing dl for the king. The source game saw 2 0 . . .fS? ! and Black got a winning po­ sition . I (Kolev) was also impressed by Shirov's play and fallowed in his footsteps in a later game, but a more thorough analysis convinced me that Black should look for bet­ ter options. See my detailed analy­ sis of game 19 Karjakin-Shirov, Khanty-Mansiysk 11 .12.2007 in the 101

Part 4 "Complete Games" section. My con­ clusion is that White can continue with 21 exf5 ! hf5 22 l2Jxf5 gxf5 23 f4 exf4 24 �h2 �b7 25 gxf4 �f6 26 @dl, fallowed by �a2, with a very unpleasant attack. Therefore, I pro­ pose to refrain from 20 .. .f5 in fa­ vour of: 20 . . . tll e 7 O u r knight i s not very efficient on c6 and it is better to trade it for the l2Jd5. Thus we will reduce White's attacking potential. 21 f4 Or 21 l2Jxe7 he7 22 f4 exf4 2 3 gxf4 (23 �h2 h5 24 gxf4 �f6) 2 3 . . . �f6 24 l2Jd5 �e8f!. 2 1 . . . tll x d S 22 tll xd5 exf4 23 gxf4 if6

Black has a reliable position. Now 24 �h 2 h5 25 �a2 �e8 or 24 �f3 �e6 25 �a2 @g7 26 �ah2 �h8 leave White struggling to prove that he has enough compensation for the missing pawn and bare king.

B. 1 8 0-0 f5

B l . 19 exf5 B 2 . 19 �d3 10 2

exf5 gxf5 20 f4 White can delay f4, but that would only help us improve our piece s: 2 0 �h5 �d7 ! ( 20 .. .f4? ! 2 1 �d3 �b7 2 2 l2Jc4) and now: 21 f4? ! exf4 22 l2Jxf4 l2Je5 23 �a2 a4 ! ; 2 1 ®hl e4 ! ? (21. . .�e8 2 2 �h3 f4 2 3 �d3 �d7! 24 �xd7 hd7 25 l2Jc4 �b3 26 l2Jxa5 l2Je7 27 �aal �bb8 2 8 l2Jxe7 he7=) 2 2 f4 exf3 23 gxf3 ( 2 3 �xf3? l2Je5 24 �h3 h6 - +) 23 . . . l2Je5 24 �a2 he3 ! 25 l2Jxe3 f4+. 21 �fal e4 2 2 �dl (22 ltJfl �g8 ! 23 �e2 �g6 24 @hl �f8 25 �4a3 �h6 26 ®gl �g7 27 l2Jg3 �e5t) 22 . . . f4 2 3 l2J c 2 �e8 24 �xa5 ( 2 4 l2Jd4 l2Je5 25 �xa5 f3 26 g3 e3 27 �5a2 e2 28 l2Jxe2 l2Jxc4 29 bxc4 fxe2 30 �xe2 �g6+) 24 . . . l2Jxa5 25 �xa5 f3 26 g3 . Khalifman claims that "White has a sufficient compensation for the ex­ change, but not more than that . " 81 . 1 9

2 0 ... exf4 2 1 tll c2 21 ltJxf4? loses due to the pin 2 1 . . . �b6 22 �f3 (22 �el �e8 23 ltJfd5 �a7 24 ®hl he3 25 �f3 f4 26 �f4 �a6 - +) 2 2 . . . l2Je5 23 �h3 ( 2 3 �f2 M4 24 �xf4 l2Jg4 25 �el �8- +)

12 tlJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �a4 as 15 ic4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 ttJce3 g6 2 3 ... id7 24 �aal tlJg4- + . 2 1 � c2 � e s

2 1 . . . id7 ! ? 2 2 �a3 ttJ e 5 also de­ serves attention: 23 ttJxf4 ttJxc4 24 bxc4 �b2 = . (Khalifman) 22 \Wd4 White's bishop on c4 is unsta­ ble and should be supported. 2 2 ttJd4 id7 23 �a2 runs into 2 3 . . . a4 ! 24 ttJxf4 �c8+ while 22 ttJxf4 id7 23 �al �b6 ++ is also in Black's fa­ vour. After the text White's prob­ lems come from the other wing: 22 . . . f3 ! ? 23 gxf3 gga 24 @ h 1 g g 7 2 5 f4 ( 2 5 ttJce3 f4 ! 2 6 ttJxf4 ttJc6t) 2 5 . . . � xc4 26 gxc4 (26 �xc4 if6 !) 26 . . . ib7�.

B2. 1 9 \Wd3 This has been recommended by Khalifman as a main repertoire against the Sveshnikov in the Chess Stars book "Opening for White Ac­ cording to Anand 1.e4", vol. 10 . His main line runs as: 19 .. .f4 20 tlJc2 f3 21 g3 �d7 (21. . . h5 22 �fal h4 23 tlJel hxg3 24 hxg3 ig4 25 ib5i) 22 �fal �h3 23 ttJde3i. We propose a new arrangement of Black's pieces : 1 9 . . . ie6 20 gd 1

White might start with 2 0 f3 . We propose to fallow up with the same setup as in the main line: 20 . . . �d7 ! ? 2 1 �hl f4 ! ( 21. . . �g7 i s inferior: 2 2 exf5 gxf5 23 f4) 2 2 tlJ c 2 id8 23 �fal g5 24 b4 g4 with counterplay. 20 gd 1 \Wd7 2 1 f3 \Wg 7 !

Khalifman considers only 21 . . . �a7 2 2 �hl he3 23 ttJxe3 hc4 24 �c4 with a slight advantage. Of course, in this structure White would be happy to exchange pieces. That would only underline Black's nu­ merous weaknesses and especially his poorly protected king. Kolev has however completely different inten­ tions ! He wants to launch a kingside pawn storm with the f and g-pawns. For that, Black needs his queen on the right wing. It is also very impor­ tant to set up correctly the bishop pair. The best places are on d7 (to avoid tactics based on the hanging state of the bishop on e6) and d8. We shall examine: B2a. 22 tlJfl B2b. 2 2 �hl These moves keep hold of the centre and are in the spirit of Kha10 3

Part 4 lifman's strategical approach. The computers also like total­ ly inconsistent moves like 22 exfS gxfS 2 3 �hl, but there is no reason to pay them much attention. Black can get a strong initiative with 23 . . . e4 ! 2 4 fxe4 fxe4 ( 2 4. . . ltJeS 2S �d4 fxe4 26 E'!:xaS is likely to be drawn after 2 6 . . . fuc4 27 �xg7+ �xg7 28 l2Jxc4 h6 ! intending ... e3) 2S �xe4 8:be 8 .

in view of ltJxdS 29 exdS e4oo. 25 exf5 2S �xd6 is risky: 2S . . . 8:fd8 2 6 � hl fxe4 27 fxe4 he3 2 8 l2Jxe3 �g4 2 9 l2Jxg4 (29 �xc6 hdl=) 29 . . . 8:xd6 30 8:xd6 �e7 31 8:xc6 �d7 32 �dS �xg4 33 h3 �d l+ 34 �h2 8:f8 . 25 ... hfS ! 26 Y«d5 26 �d2 would let through 26 . . . e4 ! 2 7 �dS ltJeS 2 8 fxe4 �d'Too. 26 ... .id7 27 Wfxd6 (or 27 �hl �cS) gbd8

B2a. 2 2 � fl i.d7 23 ga2 .id8

All Black pieces went to their op­ timal places . It is not easy for White to create threats. 24 �de3 24 l2Jfe3 goes halfway to Black's plan: 24 . . .f4 2S l2Jc2 gS 26 l2J a3 g4t . 24 ... i.b6 The dark-squared bishop is very active and that allows Black to sacri­ fice the d6-pawn in order to open the d-file. However, the position is dy­ namically balanced and both sides have different options of rough­ ly equal worth. For instance, now 24 . . . �c7 ! ? is a good alternative : 2S �dS �b6 26 �hl l2J e7 27 l2J c4 ic7oo, when 2 8 ltJxaS? ! is hardly advisable 104

White is unable to prevent 27 . . . e4, which will activate the "fian­ chettoed" queen. Our analysis indi­ cates that the game is still balanced. We'll show its main line: 2 8 i.d5 Or 28 �hl e4 29 �dS �xe3 30 hc6 �f4 3 1 �cs hc6 3 2 8:xd8 8:xd8 33 �xc6 E'!:dl 34 g3 E'!:xf1 + 3S �g2 8:xf3 = . 2 8 . . .e4! 29 hc6 i.c8 29 . . . ifS ! ? also appears to be equal: 30 �d7 he3 + 3 1 l2Jxe3 8:xd7 3 2 �cs E'!:xdl+ 33 ltJxdl exf3 34 gxf3 �e6 35 E'!:xaS hb3 36 l2Je3 8:xf3 = . 30 .id7 gf6 31 Y«e5 e xf3 3 2 gd6 gxd6 3 3 Y«xd6 he3+ 3 4 �xe3 gxd7= . The game is level. White can

12 CZJc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 cjfh8 17 l2Jce3 g6 force a draw with 35 �f4 �f7 36 �c4 �c7 37 �d4 �xc3 38 �d8 + �g8 39 �f6 + �g7.

30 . . . ttJxdS 31 exdS �fSt. Our recommendation however goes to: 23 . . .f4! ? 24 �c2 �d8 25 �a3 g5 26 �b5 l¥h6a:>

B2b. 22 @ht This prophylaxis seems best. Black proceeds with the same setup as in the previous line: 22 i.d7 23 E:a2 .•.

Now the familiar 23 . . . �d 8 , maintaining the tension, i s playable and leads to a double-edged game: 24 exf5 gxf5 25 f4 exf4 26 ttJxf4 �b6 27 ttJedS (27 �e2 �cs ; 27 �e6 �xe3 28 �xe3 �fe8 29 �xd6 �xb3 30 �gl �xe6 3 1 l2Jxe6 �f6 32 �c6 �xe6 33 �c8 + ©g7 34 �xaS �xc3 =) 27 . . . CZJe S 2 8 �fl �d 8oo . The diagram position is very rich and needs practical tests . We'll show another interesting option for Black: 23 . . . �h6 24 CZJfl �d8 (you can also try 24 . . .fxe4 25 �xe4 �fS 2 6 �e2 e 4 27 fxe4 �dToo) 25 ttJde3 �c7 26 �ds (26 l2Jd2 !?) 26 . . . ttJe7 27 l2Jd2 �gSoo 28 CZJ dc4 (28 CZJec4 �bS) 28 . . . f4 2 9 l2J c 2 (29 ltJfl CZJxdS 30 �xdS �bS) 29 . . . �f6 with counterplay. 30 CZJxaS? ! would be risky due to

We think that such a position, with a clear-cut attack against the enemy king, should appeal to any Sveshnikov fan. Play might conti­ nue with : 27 �dc7 E:f6 28 E:ad2 g4oo.

C. 1 8 Y!! e 2 !?

This innovation of Anand is the latest hit against Black's setup . At first it seems like a simple transpo­ sition. We answer "thematically": 1 8 ...fS 1 9 h4 105

Part 4 Now we realise that in case of 19 . . . !xh4? ! 2 o exfs Jbns 21 g3 �gs 22 lt:JxfS we are out of our proposed repertoire, and even worse, play did transpose, but to a variation which is known to be dubious for Black. (18 h4 �h4 19 g3 � gs 20 V9e2 fS? !) So it turns out, that we have to deal with a completely new system where we cannot rely on the usual bishop pair to plug up the gaps in our castling position . 19

...

.ixe3 20 �xe3 f4!

It was not easy to reach this de-

106

cision. We spent a lot o f time ana­ lysing the course of the stem game 20 . . . fxe4 21 hS! gS 22 V9xe4. Finally we decided that White retains some ad vantage. You can see more details in the "Complete Games" section game 21 Anand-Shirov, Linares 20 0 8 . Commonly, i n this line Black aims to take on e4 in order to open the f-file and organise some play on the kingside. In the current sit­ uation, however, White had already committed himself with 19 h4, so short castling will hardly be good. White will have to leave his king in the centre, but then he will lack an active plan such as advancing the b­ pawn. We like Black's position after 20 . . . f4 . He will follow up with 21 . . . hS to fix the weakness on h4. The game might continue with 21 V9d3 hSoo or 21 V9d2 hS 22 f3 cj{h7 23 V9f2 �g8 24 cj{e2 �g7 2S �hal �e6 . We are eager to see more tests ofAnand's idea. Or was it a one-game novelty? ! -

Part 4

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 � xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 � d bS d6 7 .igS a6 8 �a3 bS 9 �dS .ie7 1 O .bf& .bf6 1 1 c3 0-0 1 2 �c2 .igS 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gx a4 as 1 S .ic4 gb8 1 6 b3 @hS 1 7 �ce3 g6 COMPLETE GAM ES

1 9 K arjak in - S h i rov Kha nty-M a ns iysk 1 1 . 1 2. 2007 Comments by Kolev 1 e4 cs 2 liJ f3 liJ c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 liJ xd4 liJ f6 s liJ c3 es 6 liJ d bS d 6 7 .i g S a 6 8 liJ a 3 b S 9 liJ d S .ie7 1 O .ixf6 .ixf6 1 1 c3 .igS 1 2 liJ c2 0-0 13 a4 b x a4 14 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gba 16 b3 @ h 8 1 7 liJ ce3 g6 18 h4 .ixh4 1 9 g3 .i g S 20 YMe2

20 . . . fS ? ! We recommend 2 0 . . . li.J e 7 2 1 f4 li.JxdS 2 2 li.JxdS exf4 2 3 gxf4 �f6 . I must confess that Shirov's play in this game had impressed me and I fallowed in his steps in a game of mine. Analysing it, however, made me change my mind . The prob-

lem is that 2 1 exfS ! is rather awk­ ward. Then 2 1 . . . gxfS 2 2 \WhS �b7 23 f4 exf4 24 gxf4 �f6 2 5 @d2, plan­ ning �a4-al-gl, would give White a clear edge since the coordination of the black pieces is rather poor. Re­ mains: 2 1 . ..ixf5 2 2 li.Jxf5

2 2 . . .gxfS Or 2 2 . . . �xfS 23 �d3 �xb3 (23 . . . e 4 24 �xe4; 2 3 . . .� f7 2 4 �xg6 �g7 2 5 �e4 + - �xb3 2 6 �xh7! ; 23 . . . \Wg8 2 4 MS gxfS 25 \Wc4+-) 2 4 hfS gxfS 25 \Wc2 \Wb8 2 6 0-0 +- . Now 2 3 f4 i s already good and gives White an advantage: 23 . . . exf4 24 \Wh2 �b7 25 gxf4 �f6 2 6 @dl, fol­ lowed by �a2, with a strong attack. In the game White chooses a wrong move order: 107

Part 4 2 1 t4 ext4 22 gxt4 .ih4+ 23 ©d1 E!b7 A typical defence o f the seventh rank and particularly the sensitive h7-square. 24 �h2 It is already late for 24 exfS due to 24 . . . ixfS 25 tt.Jxfs gxfS 2 6 gxh4 1Mixh4 27 1Mie8+ �g7 28 1Mixc6 1Mihl+ 29 �c2 1Mig2+ and the best White can hope for is a draw after 3 0 �d3 , because 3 0 �bl? would fail to 30 . . . ghs ! 31 1Mixb7+ �h6 32 1Mixh7+ �xh7 3 3 tt.Jf6 + �h6+. 24 . . . g S 2S .i a6 2 5 exfS, as in the game Chirli­ an-Kolev, 2 00 8 , is more testing: 25 . . . his 26 tt.Jxf5 �f5 27 ga2 tt.Je7 I was sure this move was best, but playing a last round I tried some­ thing more complicated: 27 . . . gg7? ! 2 8 1Mih3 gft7 29 ge2 tt.J e7 30 tt.Jxe7 gxe7 31 gxe7 gxe7 32 1Mif5 gg7 33 fxgS and White has good compen­ sation. The game eventually ended in a draw. 28 tt.Jxe7 (28 gd2 tt.JxdS 29 .ixdS gc7 30 fxgS .ixgS 31 il.e4 gf4+) 2 8 . . . gxe7 2 9 fxgS .ixgS with a lev­ el game: 3 0 gf2 gf6 = . 30 gg2 a4! is also equal after the correct 31 Wfh3 ! gfeS 32 ggh2 h6 33 1Mixh6+ .ixh6 34 gxh6+ ! �g7 35 gh7+ �6 36 g7h6+ = with a pretty perpetual check. 2S . . . E!xb3 26 ©c2 .ixa 6 1 I n such totally unbalanced posi­ tions only piece activity matters. 27 ©xb3 txe4 28 txg S Or 28 gxe4? ! il.d3 29 ga4 Wfd7 and Black is ahead with his attack. 28 . . . �b8+

10 8

First critical moment in the game. White still has a draw, but he had to demonstrate nerves of steel and play 29 tt.Jb4 ! , for example: 29 ... axb4 30 1Mixh4 bxc3+ 31 �xc3. It turns out that Black has noth­ ing decisive: 3 1 . . . gf7 32 g6 tt.J aS 33 gbl Wxbl 34 g7 + ! with perpetual, or 3 1 . . . 1Mia7 32 Wfxh7+ Wfxh7 33 �xh7+ �xh7 34 gxa6 gcs 35 g a4 = . Instead, Karjakin panicked and landed in dire straits after: 30 YMxh4 bxc3+ 31 ©xc3 YMa7-+ 32 YM xe4 tiles 33 g 6 .id3 34 E! x h7+ YMxh 7 3S YMxeS+ dxeS 36 g xh7 ixh7 Incredibly, Shirov failed t o win this . . . . 3 7 ttl g4 E!c8+ 3 8 © b 4 e 4 3 9 ttl g t6 .its 4 0 lil h s .ig4 4 1 ttl g 3 it3 (41 . . . .ie6 42 tt.Je3 gel- +) 42 lil ts E!c1 43 ttl c 3 © h 7 44 ©c4 E!c2?? Second a nd last critical moment. 44 . . . �g6 was easily winning. Now, despite his big material advantage, Black is unable to break the block­ ade of the enemy's knights. It seems to be a funny positional fortress in the middle of the board. 4 S ©d4 ©g6 46 ttle3 E!d2+ 47 ©es E!d3 48 ttl ed S

12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 aS 15 �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6 1 6 b3 ®h8 1 7 llJ ce3 g6 18 h4 �xh4 1 9 g3 �g s 20 f4 exf4 21 gxf4 �h4+ 22 d2 llJ e7 23 ®c1

48 . . J�d 2 49 llJ xe4 ga2 SO liJ f4+ h6 S1 llJe6 gas+ S2 ®t4 �d 1 S3 liJ d4 ®g6 S4 llJc3 �h S ss llJe4 gd s S6 ® e3 gda S7 llJc6 gea sa d4 gas S9 llJ es+ @ g7 60 liJd6 ®t6 61 llJ e4+ ® e 6 62 llJ cS+ @ts 63 llJ c6 gea 64 liJ b4 gda+ 6S e3 �ea 66 liJ bd 3 �bs 67 liJ b4 gha 68 liJ bd 3 g h 3 + 69 d 4 g h 4 + 7 0 e 3 gc4 71 liJ b3 ge4+ 72 ®d2 gh4 73 c3 e4 74 liJd2+ d S 7S liJ b4+ ®d6 76 llJc2 gh 3+ 77 ®b2 ®dS 78 llJ a 3 �a4 79 llJ c 2 @ c s 8 0 ® c1 g d 3 8 1 llJ e 1 gc3+ 82 b 2 ®b4 8 3 liJ b 1 gb3+ 8 4 ® c 1 g h 3 8S liJ c2+ ®c4 8 6 llJ e 1 g h 1 8 7 d 2 gh2+ 8 8 ®e3 �d 1 89 liJd2+ d S 90 llJ ef3 ge2+ 91 f4 gea 92 ® g3 gfa 93 ® g 2 �xf3+ 94 llJxf3 ®e4 9S liJ d 2+ d3 96 liJf1 gf6 97 liJ g 3 gf4 98 liJ h s gfa 99 liJ g 3 e 3 1 00 liJf1 + e 2 1 0 1 llJ g 3+ ® e1 1 02 llJ e4 gf7 1 0 3 liJ g 3 %-%

20 J akoven ko- S h i rov Foro s 27.06. 2007 1 e4 cs 2 liJf3 llJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 llJxd4 liJ f6 s llJc3 es 6 liJ d bS d6 7 �gs a6 8 llJ a3 bS 9 liJdS �e7 1 0 �xf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 �g s 1 2 llJ c2 0-0 1 3 a4 bxa4 1 4 gxa4 a S 1 S �c4 gba

White's last move clears t he se­ cond rank for the manoeuvre �a4a2-h2 . Meanwhile the rook stays on a4 in order to prevent a possible sacrifice . . . a5-a4, which would dis­ tract White fram the king side and open the a-file for invasion. 23 . . . llJ xd S 24 llJ xd S �e6 2S \Wd4+ ®g8 26 b1 26 �a2 looks more critical, but current practice is favourable to Black. Jakovenko intends to make all the useful prophylactic moves first, before committing himself to a concrete plan. However, this game shows that Black is not deprived of counterplay and is also able to gene­ rate threats. 26 . . .�xd S 27 \Wxd S �f6 27 . . . �f6 ! ? is more active. Then 28 �d2 �g3 29 �fl hS would over­ take the initiative, so White should try 28 es �xf4 29 exd6 �e3 ! with double-edged play. For instance, 30 b2 ? ! �el ! is better for Black. The text is more restrained. 28 ®c2 In Lahno-Voiska, Turin oL 2006 10 9

Part 4 White chose 2 8 E:xaS which is rather inconsistent. White suddenly allows play to o pen, in case of 28 . . . .ixc3 ! 29 E: a 6 ( 2 9 E: a 7 Wf6) 2 9 . . . E:a8 ! 3 0 E:xd6 Wb8 . In the game Voiska preferred 28 . . . Wc7 and subsequently lost.

28 . . .�b6 29 fif1 29 E:xaS would have given Black a ple asant choice between (29 . . . �e3 30 Wd3 Wxf4 31 Wh3 hS and 29 . . .Wf2 + 30 Wd2 Wf3 31 E:el E:a8.

29 . . . '5e3 30 '5d3

gds '\Wc7 Black i s sticking t o h i s war of nerves. If now White repeated with 36 E:fS, Black might deviate by 36 . . . �g7 37 eS dxeS 38 fxeS ih4 39 Wg4 f6 with sharp play. Still, his king looks slightly safer in this line . White, however, seems lulled by Shi­ rovs repetitions and he soon misses the oppo rtunity to force play.

36 '5h3 g a7 37 '5e3 gba 38 '5d3 I n the time trouble White mi ss­ es 38 E:xd6 \Wxd6 39 Wxa7 �xf4 40 �xf7+ �h8 4 1 ie2 ! with a likely draw.

38 . . . gda 39 '5d2 @g7 40 gd3 h5

It is time for recapitulation. Black won the theoretical dispute. Now he must trade queens, but his chances for converting the ex­ tra pawn would be minimal. Shirov steps back, probably to underline that he is the moral winner of the battle so far. Of course, he cannot avoid the endgame after 30 . . . WcS 3 1 �dS, but his psycho trick sudden­ ly "succeed s" . The truth is that with queens White has enough threats to

We see a typical position for this line. Black still has an ex­ tra pawn, but his rooks cannot en­

tactical skills . The result of the game proves that he was right.

ter play. At this moment, however, the 40-moves control has passed, and Jakovenko takes an important (and wrong ! ) decision. He willing­ ly opens up a file . . . Instead, a wait­ ing game like 41 E:dS (but not 41 E:al a4 ! ) would have offered a stubborn defence.

30 . . . \WcS 31 g d 1 gb6 32 '5g3 gas 33 g d s '\Wc7 34 gfs '5d8 35

41 e5? dxe5 42 fxe5 ie7 43 '\Wf4 gxd 31 44 '\Wxf7+ @ h 6

keep the balance, but Shirov has al­ ways been very confident of his own

110

12 '2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 roca4 as 15 ic4 �b8 16 b3 @h8 17 '2Jce3 g6 1 8 . . .fS 1 9 h4 .ixe3 20 Y:Yxe3

White's position amazinglycrum­ bles down in a flash . 45 @xd3 1!9xe5 is rather hopeless. Perhaps Jako­ venko simply missed the following queen "sacrifice". It often happens after a time trouble, when the con­ trol is over and the player feels re­ lieved. The mind takes a little nap and stops functioning for a while. Now White is beyond salvation. Even the ingenious attempt 45 1!9f4+ gS 46 1!9f5 does not help, in view of 46 . . . �xc3 + ! 47 @xc3 1!9d7! 48 �xd7 ib4 + - + . 4 S �xd3 Y:Yxc3+! 4 6
21 Anand - S h i rov L i n are s 28.02.2008 Comments by Kolev 1 e4 cs 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c 3 es 6 tll d b S d6 7 .ig S a 6 8 tll a 3 b S 9 tll d S .i e7 1 0 �xf6 �xf6 1 1 c3 �gs 1 2 tll c2 o-o 1 3 a4 b xa4 14 gxa4 as 1 S .ic4 gb8 1 6 b3
20 . . .fxe4? ! We recommend 2 0 . . .f4 ! keeping the centre closed and eyeing the h4pa wn. In the following commentaries I'll try to shed more light on Shi­ rov's approach. I watched the game online and I must admit that at first I admired his decision to open play and stakes on attack. 21 hS! The point o f Anand's idea. Now most exchanges are in White's fa­ vour as all endings are much bet­ ter for him. Positions with only ma­ jor pieces are also difficult for Black. Thus his only hope is to get some­ how to the enemy's king. 21 . . . gS 22 Y:Yxe4 .ib7 2 2 . . . ttJe 7 is a strategical mistake: 2 3 '2Jxe7 1!9xe7 24 0-0 (24 �xaS gf4) 24 . . . ib7 25 �d3 �f4 and now sim­ plest is 26 idS ! + �xa4 27 bxa4. Black's castling positions is hope­ lessly loosened. 23 Y:Ye3 e4! Played in typical Sveshnikov fa­ sh ion - Black seeks maximum piece activity on the kingside. 24 o-o til e s

111

Part 4

At the surface Black's position looks appealing. He needs only one move ( . . . V«e8) to hit the hS-pawn. Should that pawn fail, Black will have a strong attack, connected with . . . g4 and . . . ct:Jf3, or a rook lift to the h-file. Let us consider: a) 2S 'M/xe4? ! puts the queen un­ der pin and encourages 2S . . . ic6 26 ga3 Or 26 gaal (26 ga2 a4) 26 . . . a4! (26 . . . gf4 27 'M/e3 gh4 2 8 f4 f4 2 9 ct:Jxf4�) 27 'M/d4 axb3 2 8 gfb1 e8 with counterplay, e.g. 29 b3 gxb3 30 .ixb3 'M/xhS 31 ct:Jb4 hg2 (31 . . . gf4 ! ? 32 'M/xd6? ct:Jg4- +) 32 ©xg2 'M/f3+ 33 ©gl gf4�; 26 . . . gf4 27 e 3 (27 'M/ e 2 gh4oo 28 f4? gxf4 29 ct:Jxf4 'M/b6 + - +) 27 . . . gh4� 2 8 f4 (28 gfal a4 2 9 ct:Jb4 id7�) 28 . . . gxf4 29 ct:Jxf4 ct:Jxc4 3 0 bxc4 gb2 3 1 ct:J g 6 + hxg6 3 2 V«h 6 + ©g8 3 3 xg6+ ©h8 3 4 'M/h6 + = . I suppose that Anand has not even considered 2S 'M/xe4 ?! serious­ ly. At the same time, the move he ac­ tually played without much think­ ing, is hardly very good, too! I had to abandon Shirov's idea in view of another p ossibility: b) 2S 'M/d4! 112

I was not able to fi nd acceptable ideas for Black. White does not ac­ tually need the e4-pawn. He symply puts his pieces on the best places, having in mind something like gfal, ct:Je3, possibly ie2 . The p in along the main dark-squared diagonal is extremely awkward for Black. Main options now are : 2S . . . g4 2 6 ct:J e3 and Black has no time for capturing on hS as his centre quickly falls appart: 26 . . . 'M/gS 27 gxaS gf6 2 8 ie2, while 2 6 ... gf6 27 ie2 ! ic6 28 ga3� leaves him disco­ ordinated; 2S . . . e3 26 fxe3 �fl+ 27 hfl ic6 28 ga3 hdS 29 'M/xdS 'M/f6 30 'M/d2 g4 31 'M/f2 with an edge; 2S . . . ic6 At first this move inspired some hopes as it brings about interest­ ing tactical possibilities after 2 6 ga2? ! I n some critical variations the rook is hanging there! 26 . . . g4 27 ct:J e3 gf6 28 gel (28 ids hdS 2 9 'M/xdS gh6�) 2 8 . . . a4 ! ( 2 8 . . . 'M/e8 29 idS hdS 30 ct:JxdS i s also possible, but inclusion of the 28 . . . a4-break is better: 29 bxa4 (29 b4 'M/e8 30 idS ibS 31 c4 id7 32 bS 'M/xhS 33 .ixe4 gbf8 34 ct:Jfl gh6 3S g3 ©g8 36 gxa4 ct:Jf3 + 37 ixf3 gxf3 38 'M/dS+ 'M/xdS 39 cxdS .ixbS=) 29 . . . 'Ml e8 30 ie2 'M/g8 ! oo and the queen not only de­ fends g4, but is also hitting the a2rook. This tempo proves to be vi­ tal. Without it, Black cannot organ­ ise decent counterplay. Therefore, White should retreat to a3 : 2 6 ga3! g4 (26 . . . ©g7, intending ©h6 , is too slow due to 27 ct:Je3) 27 ct:Je3 and I lack good advice about what to do with Black.

12 l2Jc2 0-0 13 a4 bxa4 14 �xa4 as lS �c4 �b8 16 b3 �h8 17 l2Jce3 g6

27 . . . �f6

28 �e2 binds Black to the defence of the g4-pawn, while 27 . . . a4 (this is necessary, to prevent �xaSxeS ! ) 28 bxa4 �gs 29 �b3 is clearly better for White, for instance 29 . . . �xb3 30 hb3 �f6 31 �bl �g7 32 �ds or 31. . . g3 32 fxg3 �xg3 33 �fl. 25 gfa 1 ? ! Perhaps Anand correctly as­ sessed the position in White's fa­ vour, and thought it was time to collect the fruits of his opening sur­ prise. His impatience, however, al­ lows Shirov to fulfil his dream and swing the queen to the kingside. 25 .. .'%Yea 26 gxa5 Wxh 5 27 Wxe4 gbe8 28 .ie2

28 ... Wh4? ! An incredible move! Being short of time, Shirov willingly trades

queens, using the doubled h-pawn as a ram to shatter White's pawn shelter. This is an original and in­ teresting idea, but the obvious 28 . . . g4 ! would have been the better choice. Then 29 �d4 �gS ! , threat­ ening . . . �e6 and g3, would be rather unpleasant: 30 l2Je3 (30 g3? ! �e6 3 1 �fl �ef6 ! -+ ; 30 � fl �e6 3 1 �a7 �c6 32 �a6 �h6 ! -+ ; 30 b4 �e6t) 30 . . . g 3 ( 3 0 . . . �f4 3 1 �xd6 �f2 i s about equal : 32 �xf2 �f4 + 3 3 �f3 g3 + 34 �e2 hf3+ 3S gxf3 �xf3+ 36 �d2 W'f2 + 37 �dl W'xe3 38 �d4 �xd4 + 39 cxd4 g2=) 31 f3 �f4. Perhaps this position is balanced or at least I could not find anything decisive for either side :

32 W'b6 (32 �xd6 �f6 33 W'd4 W'h6 34 ltJfl l2Jc6 3S W'd7 �xe2 3 6 W'xb7 ltJxaS=) 32 . . . �h4 ( 3 2 . . . .ixf3 ! ? leads t o perpetual check: 3 3 hf3 W'h6 34 ltJfl �f3 3S gxf3 l2Jxf3 + 36 �g2 l2Jh4+ 37 �gl l2Jf3 + 38 �g2 =) 33 ltJfl �h6 (3 3 . . . �c6 ! ?oo) 34 W'xb7 W'h4 3S l2Jxg3 �xg3 36 �a8 W'h2 + with perpetual check: 37 �fl W'hl + 38 �2 l2Jd 3 + 39 hd3 W'h4 + 40 �l W'hl + 41 �f2= . 29 Wx h4 g xh4 30 � e 3 h 3 3 1 gxh3 � f3+ 32 �xf3 gxf3 33 g h 5 g g a + 34 t1 ggfa 113

Part 4 Black has a very strong initia­ tive, but Anand plays up to the end like a machine . . . in the good sense. Finally it turns out that White's ex­ tra pawn survives to bring him a full point. 35 tl) d 1 g d 3 36 gh4 if3 37 gd4 g xd4 38 cxd4 gf4 3 9 tl) e 3 gxd4 40 g a4 gd3 41 gf4

114

41 . . . .ih5? Perhaps on c6 the bishop would have been more useful. After the text White succeeds in trading the powerful bishop. 42 b4 d5 43 g2 .ig6 44 tl) f5 @gs This loses easily, but 44 . . . MS 45 �f5 �b3 46 �f4 �g7 47 h4+ is also difficult. We know about the rook endgames being drawish, but . . . except the lost ones. Black's prob­ lem is that his king is cut offfar from the b-passer. 45 tl) e7+ @g7 46 tl)xg6 x g6 47 gf3 gd1 48 gb3 d4 49 f3 d 3 50 e3 g h 1 51 b5 g xh3+ 52 f3 g h 1 53 b6 ge1 + 54 xd3 gea 55 b7 gba 56 e4 h 5 57 f4 1 -0

Part 5

1 e4 c5 2 Eilf3 Eilc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Eilxd4 Eilf6 5 Eilc3 es 6 Eildb5 d6 7 ig 5 a6 QU IC K R EPERTO I RE

In this part we deal with tricky al­ ternatives to the Main line. At least, they were tricky in the early days of the Sveshnikov, and used to take a heavy toll of points. In modern com­ puter times, tactical gambling does not war k, but one has to know some basic lines. 8 Eila3 8 hf6 gxf6 9 l2Ja3 b5 ! transpo­ ses to the main line. 8 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 Eild5 . f5 •••

12 . . . �g7 ! 13 l2Jf6 + hf6 14 �xc6 + �d7 15 �xd6 �e7 16 0-0-0 �xd6. Black has full compensation, Mu­ ratov-Timoscenko, Beltsy 1977. b) 11 g3 �g7 12 �g2 fxe4 13 he4 �e6 14 l!Jf6 +? (14 �h5 is wiser, but then Black gets a fine game with simple methods: 14 .. . El!c8 15 0-0 l2Je7= .) 14 ... hf6 1 5 hc6 + @e7 16 ha8 �xa8

1 1 �xb5 White has also tried to use the weakening of the a8-hl diagonal. In these cases we should not be afraid to part with some material for a strong initiative : a) 11 �d3 ? ! fxe4 12 �xe4

115

Part s The raving bishops are ready to tear White's position apart. Ad­ ditional resources are the h and b­ pa wn s: 17 f3 h5 ! 18 'M'e2 h4 19 0-0-0 Wc6 ! + ; 1 7 � g l e4 ! ? 1 8 c 3 b4+ c) 11 ttJxb5 axb5 12 hb5 !b7 13 exf5

13 . . . !g7 14 f6 ! ? hf6 15 �f3 !e7! 16 ttJb4 White regains the piece remain­ ing a pawn up, but in return Black gets a very active rook: 16 . . . �c8 17 ttJxc6 Wb6 18 ttJ a7+ �xb5 19 ttJxb5 hf3 20 gxf3 �xc2oo. d) 11 exf5 hf5 12 �d3 �e6 13 �e4 !g7 14 'M'h5 �c8 15 �dl ttJe7 and Black shakes off the blockade on d5. 1 1 axbS 1 2 �xb 5 ga4! ...

116

You can stop here as the result­ ing positions are thoroughly cha­ otic and it is impossible to memo­ rize everything. It is important how­ ever to understand the principles of Black's play: 1. We grab everything along the fourth line: 13 ttJbc7+ @d7 14 0-0 �xe4, or 13 b4 (intending to open files on the queenside in case Black attempts to hide his king there) 13 . . .�xb4 14 ttJbc7+ @d7 15 c4 �xc4. 2 . We hide our king on the queenside if the b-file is closed : 13 ttJbc7+ @d7 14 0-0 �xe4 15 'M'h5 ttJd4 16 c3 ttJe 2 + 17 @hl cj[c6 18 g3 @b7. Conversely, after: 13 b4 �b4 14 ttJbc7+ @d7 15 0-0 �g8 !

Black leaves the king in the cen­ tre and adopts the principle that at­ tack is the best defence: 16 ttJx b4 ttJx b4 17 ttJd5 ttJxd5 18 �xd5 @e7+. You can find a detailed analy­ sis of this position in the "Com­ plete Games" chapter, 22 Cres­ po-San Segundo, San Sebastian 0 1 . 04.2007.

Part 5

1 e4 c5 2 tll f3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 tllf 6 5 tll c 3 es 6 tll d b 5 d6 7 ig5 a6 STE P BY STEP

8 tll a 3 8 hf6 gxf6 9 lt:J a3 b5 ! transpo­ ses to the main line. The move or­ der with 8 hf6 gives Black the ex­ tra option of playing 9 .. .f 5, which is highly praised by many authors, but there are certain positions we do not like : 10 lt:J c4 ! ? 1 0 !d3 i s another good choice, when it would be wiser to return to familiar waters by 10 . . . b5 (10 .. J�g8 is considered attractive, but the po­ sition after 11 g3 lt:Jd4 12 lt:Jd5 fxe4 13 he4 !g4 14 �d3 f5 15 !g2 !h6 16 f4 does not seem satisfactory for Black) 11 lt:Jd5 !e6 . 1 0 . . . b5 11 lt:J e 3 b4 Or 11. . . fxe4 12 lt:Jxe4 !e6 13 a4 ! lt:Jd4 14 c3 lt:Jb3 15 �bl bxa4 (15 . . . d5? 16 lt:Jxd5) 16 !c4t. 12 lt:J cd5 fxe4 13 a3 ! bxa3 14 �xa3 !g7 15 !b5 !;t and Black has to de­ fend a slightly worse position with no winning chances whatsoever. This is certainly not our intention when choosing the Sveshnikov. For such cases they invented the Rus­ sian game ! 8

•••

b5 9 .bf6

We examined 9 lt:Jd5 in the pre­ vious parts. There is a third option though, which we'll mention here: 9 lt:J abl? ! A time consuming manoeuvre, which does not pose any problems to Black. 9 . . . !e7 10 hf6 Or 10 a4? ! b4 11 hf6 bxc3 ! 12 he7 cxb2 13 �a2 lt:Jxe7 (13 . . . �xe7 14 �xb2 0-0+) 14 �xb2 !e6+ (Ka­ linitschew) 10 . . .hf6 11 a4 b4 12 lt:Jd5 !g5 13 !c4 The setup with 13 lt:Jd2 0-0 14 lt:Jc4 (14 lt:Jf3 !h6 15 !c4 �h8 in­ tending f7-f5) 14 . . . !e6 15 !e2 fa­ vours Black: 15 . . . lt:Jd4+. 13 . . . 0-0 14 lt:Jd2 �h8 15 0-0 f5

16 f3 Perhaps White should seek equ117

Part s ality with 16 exf5 MS 17 f3, as 17 ltJb3 aS 18 V9e2 ltJe7! gives Black the initiative. 16 . . . ltJe7! 17 �hl as 18 ltJxe7 V!Jxe7 19 �ds �b8 2 0 ltJc4 V9c7 21 exf5 MS 22 b3, Fillipenko-Gore­ lov, 198 3 , when 2 2 . . . �bd8 would have been better for Black due to his bishop pair. 9 gxf6 1 0 lll d 5 With this move White prepares c3, ltJ a3-c2 . He can also relocate the a3-knight via bl-d2 , but this ma­ noeuvre does not really activate the knight, as it is rather useless on d2 . On the other hand, Black gets the d4-square: 10 ltJ abl Rogozenko called it "the move for Sunday morning" as he had to face it at 9 a . m. in a Bundesliga game. But then, every move is good/bad enough at this time of the day. 10 . . . fS! 11 ltJd 2 Alternatively: 11 a4 b4 12 ltJ dS �g7 13 ltJd2 0-0 14 �c4 �h8 15 V!ff h S (15 0-0 fxe4 16 ltJxe4 fS+) 15 ... ltJd4 16 0-0-0 fxe4 17 ltJxe4 �fS with initiative, Motylev­ Gre bionkin, Internet 2 0 04; 11 g3 �g7 (11 . .. ltJd4 ! ? is also ap­ pealing) 12 �g2 ltJe7 13 0-0 (13 exf5 MS ! 14 0-0 �c8+) 13 . . . 0-0 14 exfS (14 V!ffh S? ! b4 15 ltJdS ltJxdS 16 exdS e4 17 c3 �b8+) 14 . . . MS ! ? 15 ha8 V9xa8oo. 11. .. �g7 12 V!ff h S (12 g3 �b7 13 �g2 ltJd4 14 0-0 0-0 15 ltJb3 �e8 16 ltJdS hdS 17 exdS ltJxb3 18 axb3 e4+ Gufeld-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1973) 12 . . . fxe4 13 ltJdxe4 ltJd4 and Black

has the initiative: 14 �d3 (14 0 -0-0 dS 15 ltJg3 0-0t) 14 . . . ds 15 ltJgS �a7 16 0-0-0 b4 17 ltJe 2 h6 18 ltJh3 (18 ltJxd4 hxgS 19 V9e2 V9f6 20 �hel �e7+) 18 . . . ltJxe2 + 19 he2 V9f6+. 10

...

fS

...

11 8

In this chapter we shall examine some rare moves, while 11 exfS and 11 �d3 will be a subject of the next parts. A. 11 V9d3 ? ! page 119 B . 1 1 ltJxbS page 119 C. ll hbS p age 120 D. 11 g3 page 122 E. 11 exfS page 123 F . 1 1 c3 page 125 We should also mention 11 g4? ! This move looks more like a "mouse slip ". It attempts to take control over the central light squares, but in fact it only achieves to weaken White's positio n: 11 . . . fxe4 (11 . . . fxg4 is good enough, too: 12 c3 �g7 13 �e2 hS 14 h3 gxh3 15 ltJc2 ltJ e7 16 ltJxe7 V!Jxe7 17 ltJe3 �e6 18 �xhS was played in Velimirovic-Vukic, Cetinje 1990, when 18 ... V!JgS+ would have earned Black a small edge.) 12 �g2 hS ! ? (Sveshnikov's suggestion 1 2 . . . �g8

6 ltJdbS d6 7 �gS a6 is not so clear due to 13 l2Je3 ! oo) 13 h3 (13 gxhS fSt) 13 . . . hxg4 14 he4 (14 hxg4 �xhl + 15 �xhl fS 16 gxfS �h4 17 �g2 �a7!t) 14 . . . �bB 15 hxg4 �xhl + 16 hhl �h4+.

A. 1 1 �d 3?! fxe4 1 2 �xe4

1 3 .J.xf6 1 4 �xc6+ �d7 1 5 �xd6 �e7 1 6 0-0-0 16 �xe7 + @xe'Too is at least equal . (16 . . . he7! ?oo is also appealing. Here is just one, though not oblig­ atory, line: 17 �d3 fS 1 8 f3 0-0 19 00-0 �c6 2 0 �hfl �ac8 21 �del? ! e4 2 2 fxe4 fxe4 23 �f8 + �f8 24 he4 �h4 ! 25 g3 �gS+ 26 \t>dl �d8 + 2 7 �d3 �f3 ++) 1 6 �xd6 1 7 gxd6 � e7 (17 . . . @e7! ?oo) 1 8 gds f6 1 9 gd2 .ie6. Black has fu ll compensation , Muratov-Timoscenko, Beltsy 1977. ••

•••

B. 1 1 �xb5 axb5 1 2 �xb 5 ib7 1 3 exf5

Due to the threat of 13 l2J f6 + White wins a pawn, but i t turns out that Black's bishop pair and superi­ or development more than com pen­ sate for it. 1 2 .ig7 12 . . . �d7 is less energetic, but playable : 13 f4 (13 g4? ! �c8 14 h4 � g7 15 0-0-0 l2Je7! 16 l2Jxe7 �xe7 17 �h3 �c6 18 �fS 0-0+ Muratov Deev, 1978) 13 . . .fS ! ? 14 �f3 �g7 15 �hS+ f8 with initiative, according to Sveshnikov. •••

White has grabbed 3 pawns for the piece, occupied the light squares, and now he hopes to promote his queenside pawns in an endgame. However, Black's piece activity proves to be a weightier factor. 1 3 .ig7 13 . . . �aS is a very natural con­ tinuation and White needs precise play to hold the balance : 14 �d3 (14 a4? ! �xbS 15 axbS l2Jd4 gave Black a strong initiative in a blitz game •••

119

Part s Chiburdanidze-Sveshnikov, 16 l!Je3 �h6 17 0-0 �gs lS l!Jg4 �f4 ! -+ ; 14 c4? is warse, due to 14 . . .�xbS lS cxbS l!J d4 16 l!Je3 hg2 ! 17 l!Jxg2 \Was + lS cj/fl WxbS+ 19 cj/el Wc6 2 0 f3 l!Jc2 + 2 1 cj/f2 l!Jxal- +) 1 4 . . . �g7 1S b4 (An only move, as lS Wc4? ! cj/fS ! 16 b4 l!Jd4 17 bxaS \WxaS+ lS cj/fl WaS ! 19 l!Je3 l!JxbS favours Black) 1S . . . e4 16 Wxe4+ MS 17 bxaS \WxaS+ lS cj/d l (lS cj/fl? hal 19 hc6 hc6 2 0 We7+ cj/gS 2 1 WgS+ �g7 2 2 l!Je7+ cj/fS 23 l!Jxc6 \WbS+-+) lS . . .hal 19 \We7+ cj/gS 20 WgS+ cj/f8= leads to a curious draw. 1 4 f6!? 14 0-0? ! is too slow a nd White's compensation seems inadequate after 14 . . . 0-0 lS �c4 (lS a4 l!Jd4+) lS . . . WgS 16 a4 cj/hS 17 �a3 WxfS (17 . . . e4 ! ?) l S l!Jb6 (lS l!Je3 was bad for White in Sulskis-V an Wely, Mos­ cow 20 04) lS . . . �adS 19 as l!Je7 2 0 a 6 �c6 2 1 a 7 dSt ; The tricky 14 Wf3? ! i s tactically refuted by 14 . . . cj/fS ! 1S f6 (lS c3 l!Jd4 16 cxd4 \Was + - +) 1S . . . l!J d4 16 fxg7+ cj/xg7 17 Wg4+ Ms lS �c4 l!Jxc2 + 19 cj/e 2 l!Jxal+. 1 4 .bt6 1 5 Wt3 ire 7! 1 6 � b4 16 l!Jxe7? loses to \Was+ . After the text White regains the piece re­ maining a pawn up, but in return Black gets a very active rook: 1 6 gc8 1 7 �xc6 17 hc6+? �c6 1S l!Jxc6 Wb6+. 1 7 Wb6 1 8 �a7+ Alternatively: lS l!JxeS +? WxbS 19 Wxf7+ cj/dS ; lS l!Jxe7+ cj/xeroo . (lS . . . \WxbS?? 19 l!JxcS hf3 20 l!Jxd6 ++-) •••

•••

•••

120

1 8 Wxb5 1 9 �xb5 i.xf3 20 gxf3 gxc2iii To be fair, White has all the chances to draw the game. •••

C. 1 1 ixb5 axb5 1 2 �xb 5 ga4

In the early days of this varia­ tion Black used to play 13 . . . �a7, but later the focus of interest shifted to the text move. It not only evades the knight fark, but also attacks e4. In the diagram position majo r continuations are: Cl. 13 llJ bc7 C2 . 13 b4 13 c4? is much weaker: 13 . . . �xc4 (13 . . . WaS + ! ? 14 b4 �b4 is not too clear: lS 0-0 �xbS 16 cxbS l!Jd4 17 WhS �e6oo or lS l!Jf6 + cj/dS 16 0-0 �bs 17 cxbS l!Jd4-+) 14 0-0 �g7 lS l!Je3 (1S l!Jf6 + MS ! 16 \Wxd6 + \Wxd6 17 l!Jxd6 �d4 lS l!JxcS hf6 19 �fcl l!Jb4-+) 1S . . . �d4 16 \Wc2 l!Je7 17 l!Jxd4 exd4 1S l!JxfS l!JxfS 19 exfS 0-0 2 0 a4 (2 0 �acl WgS ! +) 2 0 ... WgS 21 a S .bfS+. C 1 . 1 3 tll bc7+ d7 1 4 0-0 White has also tried:

6 tLJdbS d6 7 �gs a6 a) 14 b4 �xb4, when lS 0-0 trans­ poses to 13 b4, whereas lS WhS? loses to 1S . . . �xe4+ 16 cj/fl Wh4 17 Wxf7+ (17 WxfS+ cj/d8 18 Wxf7 �e7) 17 . . . �e7- + ; b ) 1 4 WhS? �xe4+ l S cj/ fl lLJe7 16 Wxf7 cj/c6+; c) 14 c4? ! �xc4 lS 0-0 lLJ d4 ! 16 lLJb6+ ( 16 WhS �xc7 17 Wxf7+ �e7+) 16 . . . cj/xc7 17 lLJxc4 �b7 18 �cl cj/b8 19 �c3 �g8 - + ; d ) 14 exfS? ! lLJe7 l S 0 - 0 ? �d4- + . 1 4 . . J�xe4 1 5 \Wh 5

1 5 . . . tl) d4 lS . . . lLJe7 16 Wxf7 cj/c6 17 c4 Wd7 18 lLJa8 ! lLJg6 19 lLJb4+ cj/b7 20 WdS+ cj/b8 21 liJc6 + ! cj/xa8 22 Wbs Wb7 2 3 Was+ Wa6 2 4 Wc7 Wb7 2S WaS += is a well known farced drawing line. 1 6 c3 16 Wxf7 + is a consistent alterna­ tive, which could be answered by: 16 . . .�e7 !? 16 . . . cj/c6 17 lLJb4+ cj/b7 18 lLJbS + Wd7 19 WdS + cj/b6 2 0 a4 ( 20 lLJxd4 �xd4 21 Wb3 cj/a7-+) 20 . . . lLJxbS 2 1 axbS �b4 2 2 c4 leads t o a highly un­ balanced position, where 22 . . . �h6 appears to be in Black's favour, but the game remains messy. 17 liJbS

Or: 17 f3 �e2 18 c3 �f8 19 Wxh7 llJe6 2 0 lLJxe6 cj/xe6 21 �adl �b7+; 17 c3? ! Wf8 18 WhS (18 lLJf6 + cj/xc7 19 Wc4+ cj/b8 20 lLJxe4 lLJ f3 + ! 2 1 gxf3 fxe4-+) 1 8 . . . �h4 ! 1 9 Wdl Wh6 20 h3 �xh3 ! - + . 17 . . . Wf8 1 8 lLJf6 + ( 1 8 liJb6 + cj/d8 19 WdS lLJxbS 20 WxbS We8 ! 21 Was Wc6+) 18 . . . cj/d8 19 Wxf8 + �f8 20 lLJxe4 lLJxbSt or 2 0 . . . fxe4!? t with Black's advantage in the sharp end­ game. 1 6 . . . tl) e 2+ 1 7 h 1 c6 1 8 g 3 18 Wxf7 Wd7 1 9 Wh S lLJf4+; 1 8 �ael? ! lLJf4 - + . 1 8 ... b7 1 9 gae1 gc4 20 tl) a 6 ! 2 0 Wxe2 �xc7 2 1 WbS+ cj/ a 8 2 2 Was + ( 2 2 lLJxc7+ Wxc7+) 2 2 . . . cj/b8 23 Wxc7+ Wxc7 24 lLJxc7 cj/xc7 is rather grim for White. 20 . . . ie6 ! I n the game Mastrovasilis-Illes­ cas, Calvia 20 04, Black went on to win after 20 . . . cj/a8 21 b3 �xc3 2 2 Wxe2 �b7 2 3 cj/gl �xdS 24 �cl �c8 (24 . . .�xcl 2S �xcl Was 26 b4 ! ) 2S Wbs �b7 26 Wa4 Wb6 , but White missed his chance to draw with 27 lLJb4+ Wa7 (27 . . . cj/b8 28 �xc8 + hc8 29 �cl) 28 :§!xc8 + hc8 29 Wc6+ Wb7 3 0 Wa4+= . 2 1 tl) ab4 g c s 22 \Wxe2 Now Black eliminates to a slight­ ly better ending, but other moves are worse: 2 2 Wf3 e4 23 Wxe2 �xdS 24 lLJxdS �xdS 2S f3 e3 ! 26 Wxe3 hS+; 22 lLJe3 f4 23 Wxe2 fxe3 24 Wa6+ cj/b8 2 S liJc6 + �xc6 26 Wxc6 �d7+. 22 . . . ixd S + 23 tl)xd5 gxd5 24 \Wf3 Perhaps White should try 24 Wc4 ! ? �d 2 2S Wxf7+ where Black 121

Part s faces serious technical problems. 24 . . . e4 25 !8xe4 fxe4 26 Wxe4 Wb6 27 Wxd 5+ Wc6i. Black has so me winning chances in this endgame. C 2 . 1 3 b4 White wants to open files on the queenside in case Black attempts to hide his king there . 1 3 . . . gxb4 1 4 tl) bc7+ d7 1 5 0-0 Or 15 c4 �xc4 16 0-0 ltJd4 ! 17 ttJb6+ �xc7 18 ttJxc4 !b7 19 �cl (19 �d2 �g8 ! 20 �as + �d7 21 �a7 (21 ttJb6+ �e6) 2 1 . .. �c7- +) 19 . . . �d7! (19 . . . �b8 20 �bl ! oo) 20 f3 (20 �a4+ �c6 2 1 �a7+ �e6 22 exfS+ �f6 - +) 20 . . . �g8+. 1 5 . . . gg a !

1 6 tl) xb4 ! ? 16 g 3 was practically refuted in the game Luther-Leko, Essen 20 0 2: 16 . . . �b7 1 7 �hS �gs 1 8 �xf7+ �e7 19 ttJxe7 ttJxe7 2 0 ttJe6 �g6 2 1 llJf8 + �xf8 2 2 �xf8 fxe4 23 �tbl (23 a4 �c7 24 as �a6- +) 23 . . . �c7 24 a4 e3 ! 25 fxe3 �e4 0- 1. 1 6 ... tl) xb4 1 7 tl) d 5 1 7 c 3 �xc7 18 cxb4 �b7 19 �a4+ �e7+. 1 7 . . . tl) x d 5 1 8 Wxd 5 e7+

122

You can find a detailed analy­ sis of this position in the "Com­ plete Games" chapter, 22 Cres­ po-San Segundo, San Sebastian 0 1 . 0 4 . 20 07.

D. 1 1 g3 .ig7 White hurries to take a firm grip over the light squares, but leaves his a3-knight out of play for a long time. Black must remember to not clutch onto the e4-pawn with 11 . . . fxe4 and 12 . . . !fS, but continue developing. We shall see that White's threat of winning the exchange turns against him. 1 2 .ig2 12 exfS hfS 13 �g2 �e6 usual­ ly transposes to other lines. For in­ stance, 14 llJf6 + ? ! �xf6 1S hc6 + �e7 16 �xa8 �xa8 is the game Solomon­ Spasov, Novi Sad (ol) 1990, (see the sub-line to move 14) where Black's compensation for the exchange is very strong, or 14 0-0 0-0 15 c3 �b8 16 llJc2 as, which is the main line 11 c3. Finally, 14 �hS �c8 15 0-0 ttJe7 16 �adl ttJxdS 17 �xdS 0-0= leads to the same position as in the current main line with 12 �g2 . 1 2 fxe4 1 3 �xe4 .ie6 •••

6 tlJdbS d6 7 �gS a6 1 4 YMh5 Here is the first critical moment. It is important to examine 14 tlJf6+? �f6 15 hc6 + ®e7 16 �xa8 �xa8

tlJc2 dS 20 �f5 �gS) 18 tlJbl h6 19 c3 aS 20 cxb4 axb4 21 a3 bxa3 22 ttJxa3 �d7 23 �d2 0-0+; 16 �fdl ttJxdS 17 hdS 0-0 18 c3 �cs 19 �f3 �d7! 20 �d2 �h6 !+, Za­ pata-Illescas Cordoba, Linares 1994 1997; 16 �gS? ! ttJxdS 17 �xg7 �f6 ! 18 �xf6 ttJxf6 19 �b7 �c7 20 h a6 b4 21 ttJbS �xc2 22 ttJxd6+ ®e7+.

17 �gl 17 0-0 is obviously bad after 17 . . . b4 18 tlJbl �h3 1 9 f3 hfl+; 17 f3 looks playable, but 17 . . . hS ! proves the opposite: 18 �e2 h4 19 0-0-0 (Or 19 ®£2 dS ! 2 0 �ael �a7+ 21 ®g2 h3 + 22 ®fl �g7 !? 23 tlJbl fS 24 tlJd2 d4+, intending . . .�dS .) 19 . . . �c6 ! 20 �e3 ( 20 �d2? ! hxg3 21 hxg3 �xhl 22 �xhl �xf3+ a nd Black went on to win in Solomon-Spasov, Novi Sad (ol) 1990) 2 0 . . . �c8 2 1 �d2 b4 ! 22 tlJbl ha2+. 17 ... e4 ! ? 18 c 3 b4 The raving bishops tear White's position apart. 19 cxb4 hb2 20 �bl �c3 + 21 ®fl �h3 + 22 �g2 e3 23 f3 dS 24 tlJc2 d4+.

1 6 �xdS This exchange allows Black to castle. 16 . . . �cS? ! is premature and hands the initiative to White after 17 ttJxe7 ! ? �xe7 18 b4 �c7 (or 18 . . . �c3 19 tlJbl �c7 20 f4-+) 19 c4 (19 �d2 dS ! 20 hdS �xb4=) 19 . . . bxc4 2 0 tlJ c 2 with compensation. 1 7 i.x d5 0-0 1 8 c3 gcs 1 9 i. b 3 YMd7=.

1 4 gca 1 5 o-o 15 �dl ttJe7 is similar to the main line . 1 5 �e7 1 6 gad 1 White is struggling to maintain the game level. Worse alternatives are: 16 ttJxe7 �xe7 17 �adl b4 (17 . . . h6 ! ? i s very interesting: 1 8 c3 �cs 19

E. 1 1 exf5 ixf5 1 2 i.d 3 12 c3 �g7 is the subject of the next part. 12 �f3? ttJd4 13 ttJ c7+ �xc7 14 �xa8 + ®e7 is yet another exam­ ple where White wins the exchange only to discover that it was a Greek gift.

•••

•••

•••

123

Part 5 cj{f6 21 g4 was the only way to pro­ long the agony: 2 1 . . . i.e3 22 fxe3 i.d3 + 23 hd3 VNxd3 + 24 cj{g2 VNe2 + 25 cj{g3 VNxe3+ 2 6 cj{g2 VN e2 + 27 cj{gl e4 ! -+ ) 20 . . . id3 + 21 hd3 VNxd3 + 22 cj{ gl !Lle2 + 23 ci>fl !Llg3+ 24 cj{gl i.f4 ! !

15 c3 Alternatively: a) 15 i.d3 VNa5 + 16 ci>fl hd3 + 17 cxd3 VNd2 18 VNe4 fS 19 VNe3 VNxb2 20 g e l cj{f7 ! + ; b) 1 5 gdl !Llxc2 + 1 6 !Llxc2 hc2 17 VNd5 (17 gd2 i.h6 ; 17 gd5 VNa5+ 18 cj(e2 VNxa2+) 17 . . . hdl 18 VNxdl i.h6 - + 15 . . . b4 ! 16 cxb4 VNb6 ( 1 6 . . .i.h6 !? i s an interesting option as well: 17 VNxa6 gb8 ! 18 i.c4 i.e4 ! t with a strong initiative, e.g. 19 VN a5? VNxa5 20 bxa5 hg2 21 ggl gxb 2-+) 17 ha6 (17 i.c4 VNxb4+ 18 cj{fl VNxb2 19 gel VNxa3 2 0 VNa7+ cj(d8 21 VNb8 + i.c8 2 2 VNb6 + cj{ d 7 2 3 VNa7+ cj(c6 24 VNa 8 + i.b7 25 i.d5+ ( 2 5 VNe8 + cj(b6) 25 . . . cj(c5 ! (threatening mate VNd 3) 26 VNa7+ cj(xd5 27 VNxb7+ cj(e6 2 8 VNc8 + cj{f6 - +) 17 . . . VNxb4+ 18 cj{fl (18 cj(d l VNa4 +) 18 ... VN d 2 ! t . Amazingly, this position is still ocurring in tournaments, so we shall give more details. To be franc, we could not resist the temp­ tation to show the exquisite mate on the next diagram: a) 19 gel?? id3 + 20 hd3 VNxd3+ 21 cj{gl !Lle 2 + 2 2 ci>fl !Llg3+ 23 cj{gl VNfl+ 24 fufl !Lle2 # ; b ) 1 9 h 3 i.h6 2 0 VNxh8 ( 2 0 VNb7+ 124

White has n o defence against the mating threat of 25 . . . VNfl ! ! c) 19 h4 ! ih6 20 VNxh8 (20 VNb7+ cj{f6 21 g3 gc8 - + , intending . . . gc6 and i.e4, for instance, 22 cj{ gl gc6) 20 . . . VNxb2 21 gdl VNxa3 22 ic4 VNa4 ! 23 gxd4 (23 ib3 VNb5+ - +) 23 . . . exd4 24 ib3 VNb4 . Black has full compen­ sation for the exchange.

12

...

ie6 1 3 ie4

13 VNf3 counts on the "trap" 13 . . .i.g7 14 !Llf4, (14 !Llf6 + ?! i.xf6 15 VNxc6 + cj{e7+) but it turns out to be in Black's favour after 14 . . . exf4 15 VNxc6 + ci>f8 ! 16 0-0-0 gc8t. Per­ haps simpler is 13 . . . hd5 ! ? 14 VNxd5 !Lle7 15 VNb7 (15 VNf3 d5 16 VNf6 ? ! gg8 17 !Llxb5 i.g7 18 !Lld6+ cj{d7 19 VNxf7 cj(xd6+) 15 . . . i.g7 16 0-0 d5 with a considerable space advantage: 17 gadl VNb 8 18 VNxb8 + gxb8 19 c3 b4 20 cxb4 gxb4 21 b3 gb6+.

13

...

ig7

6 llJdbS d6 7 �gS a6 1 6 gcs 1 7 lll x e7 Alternatives: 17 tLJb4? ! �b6 18 �gs �f8 19 �e3 fS with an edge since White's bishop cannot retreat to g2 ; 17 �gS? ! llJxdS 18 �xg7 �f6 19 �xf6 llJxf6. The ending favours Black, for 2 0 �b7? ! �e7 21 ha6 loses material after 22 . . . �b8 22 �d3 �b6 23 b4 �xa6 24 bxcS �xa3 - + . 1 7 �xe7 18 lll c 2 After 18 0-0 dS 19 ifs hfS 20 �xfS �e6 21 �hS 0-0 2 2 �d3 fS 2 3 �fdl d4 ! ? 24 cxd4 exd4+ the only use of the a3-knight is to protect the c2- square. 1 8 d S 1 9 i.f5 d4!? Black has successfully passed the fifth rank with his pawn and does not risk to be cramped any longer. 20 0-0 dxc3 21 bxc3 i.xf5 22 �xf5 0-0 23 lll e 3 e4=. •••

•••

1 4 �h5 More th an once we observed White struggling with the extra ex­ change : 14 llJf6 + M6 1S hc6 + �e7 16 ha8 (or 16 c3 �c8 17 ids b4 ! ? 18 cxb4 � b6 19 0-0 �xb4+) 16 ... �xa8 17 0-0 �g8 18 f3 (18 g3 b4 19 llJbl �h3 20 f3 hfl 2 1 �xfl e4t) 18 . . . ih3 19 �f2 �a7 20 g3 igS+. 14 llJe3 is more reasonable, but still Black obtains active play, for ex­ ample, 14 . . . �d7 (14 . . . �c8 15 c3 llJe7 16 ib7 �b8 17 ha6 �d7 !oo is also worth considering) 15 0-0 0-0 16 �dS �ad8 17 c3 llJe7 18 llJ ac2 fSf± . 14 gc8 1 5 gd1 15 c3 runs into a forced line: 15 . . . b4 ! 16 llJc2 ( 1 6 cxb4 llJxb4 ! 17 llJxb4 �as 18 llJ ac2 �xc2 19 hc2 �xb4+ 20 �fl �xb2 21 �dl 0-0 2 2 a4 �c8+) 16 . . .bxc3 17 bxc3 �as 18 llJce3 llJe7 19 �d l llJxdS 20 llJxdS �c4 ! 21 �e2 (21 �f3 fS ! 22 MS �f8 23 g4 e4+) 2 1 . . . �xdS 22 hdS �xc3+ 23 �fl �d4+. 1 5 lll e7 1 6 c3 Similar is 16 llJxe7 �xe7 17 0-0 ( 17 c3 b4 ! +) 17 ... �cS ! , when 18 b4 �c 3 19 llJbl �c4 20 llJd2 �xb4 21 ic6 + �f8 2 2 llJe4 loses to 2 2 ... dS 23 hdS hdS 24 �dS �xe4.

•••

F. 1 1 c3 i.g7

•••

•••

White commonly uses this move order to avoid 11 exfS MS 12 c3 ie6 13 llJc2 �h6 , which is (albeit playa­ ble) outside our repertoire anyway. 1 2 .id3 In most games you will face here 125

Part s 12 exfS which we analyse in the next part of the book. 12 l!Jc2? ! is an ambitious attempt to seize control over the kingside light squares after 12 . . . fxe4 13 l!Jce3 �e6 14 g4. Black should refrain from castling and cut across the enemy plan with 14 . . . l!Je7 15 ig2 l!JxdS 16 l!JxdS hS with the better game, Ya­ kovich. 12 l!JxbS? is a dubious sacri­ fice: 12 . . . axbS 13 .txbs �b7 14 l!Jb4 (14 exfS �f8 15 0-0 l!J e7+) 14 . . . �d7

126

1 5 exfS �f8 ! 16 0-0 �g8 17 g3 �as 18 hc6 hc6 19 l!Jxc6 �xc6+ A. Sokolov-Lautier, Val d'Isere 2 0 04. 12 exfS transposes to the next part of the book. 1 2 .ie6 After this move play transposes to line A of Part 7. Black can also choose as a back­ up line 12 . . . l!Je7, which leads to the Novosibirsk variation. It is the sub­ ject of Part 13. ...

Part S

1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lll f 6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll dbS d6 7 .igS a6 COMP LETE GAM ES

22 C re spo - S an Seg u ndo San Seba stian 0 1 .04.2007 1 e4 cs 2 li:)f3 li:)c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:)xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c3 e s 6 li:) d b S d6 7 .igS a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 ixf6 g xf6 1 0 li:) d S fS 1 1 .ixbS axb S 1 2 li:) xb S g a4 ! 1 3 b4 g x b4 14 li:) bc7+ d 7 1 s o-o g ga !

Black seeks t o weaken the enemy castling position. In the future that might be important, as in Luther­ Leko, Essen 200 2: 16 g3 �b7 17 �hS �gS 18 �xf7+ ie7 19 Cfjxe7 ljj xe7 2 0 ljj e 6 (Following 2 0 ljj dS Black has a pleasant choice between 20 . . . �d8 or 20 . . . �g7 with a nearly winning position.) 20 . . . �g6 2 1 ljj f8 + :B:xf8 2 2 �xf8 fxe4 2 3 �tbl ( 2 3 a 4 �c7 2 4 as ia6 - +) 23 . . . �c7 24 a4 e3 ! 25 fxe3

�e4 0-1 Luther-Leko, Essen 200 2 . 1 6 li:) x b4 li:) x b 4 1 7 li:) d S O r 1 7 c 3 �xc7 1 8 cxb4 �b7 1 9 �a4+ �e7+ . 1 7 ... li:) xd S 1 8 'Wxd S e7

1 9 g a b1 White hopes t o generate some threats using the open b-file, but the course of the game shows that Black manages to consolidate and his advantage soon becomes deci­ sive. Let us examine: 19 a4 f4 Like in the game, Black stakes on the attack. 19 . . . �c7!?, threaten­ ing to put the bishop on the long diagonal, is another appealing op­ tion . Then 20 aS? would lose to 20 . . . ib7- + , so White should con-

127

Part s tinue with 2 0 E:fbl (or 2 0 E:abl fxe4 2 1 as �h6 ! 22 �xe4 E:g4 23 �xh7 �c6+) 2 0 . . . fxe4 ! 21 as (2 1 �xe4 E:g4 22 �a8 �d7+) 21 . . . e3 22 a6 �a7!+ a nd Black arrives just in time to stop the passer. 20 �hl (20 E:a3 �e6 21 �b7+ �f6 2 2 aS dS-+) 2 0 . . . �d7 21 f3 (21 as E:xg2 ! ) 21. .. �a7!

The queen blockades the a-pawn and restricts the fl-rook in view of the threat �f2, followed by �h3 . It is important to keep this possibili­ ty because the line 2 1 . . .�a6 22 E:fbl �a7 23 �c6 �f2 24 E:gl �e2 25 as M3 26 �c7+ �6 27 �d8 + = leads only to a draw. 22 as �f6 23 a6 (23 �b3 �a6 24 E:gl �e7 25 �b6 �xb6 26 axb6 �b7 27 E:a7 E:b8 28 E:bl �e6-+) 23 . . .�e7 It seems that Black is unable to make any further progress . . . 2 4 �c6 �e6 2 5 �b7, ( 2 5 E:abl E:c8 2 6 �b7 E:c7- +) but h e possess­ es a study-like solution: 2S . . . �e3 ! 2 6 E:gl 26 a7 loses again to 26 . . . �e2 27 E:gl �h3 .

128

26 . . . �f2 ! (threatening �h3) 2 7 �bS (intending �fl) 2 7 . . . E:g6 ! 2 8 a 7 �g3 ! - + .

A very amusing positio n ! Black abandoned the whole queenside, but his rook is enough to finish the game. The conclusion of this anal­ ysis is that Black has the edge after his move 18. 1 9 . . . f4 19 . . �f6 ! ? favours Black as well: 20 exfS �c7 21 f4 �h6+. 20 gb3 �f6 20 . . . �e6 21 �b7+ �f6 22 E:c3 �aS-+ was also posible. 2 1 gc3 ie6 22 �c6 ie7 23 a4 �as-+ The a-pawn is stopped and White is helpless . The rest of the game is irrelevant. 24 gb3 .ix b3 2S cxb3 �cs 2 6 gc1 �xc6 27 gxc6 g b 8 2 8 g c 3 g b4 29 f3 id8 30 �f2 ib6+ 31 �f1 id4 32 gd3 � e 6 33 g 3 fS 34 � g2 fxg 3 3 S � x g 3 fxe4 36 fxe4 d S 37 exdS+ � xd S 38 � g 2 gb7 39 �f1 � e4 40 � e2 gg7 41 gh3 gg2+ 42 �f1 gf2+ 43 � e1 gb2 44 gxh7 �d3 4S gh3+ ie3 46 �f 1 g b 1 + 0-1

Part 6

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 tll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 �f6 5 tll c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 7 i.g5 a6 8 �a3 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 �d5 f5 1 1 exf5 i.xf5

QUICK REPERTO I RE

This part is devoted to one of the three most important pawn struc­ tures in the Sveshnikov. The moves

obtains the d4-square and his ini­ tiative shapes up in a direct attack:

1 2 c3 .ig7 1 3.tll c 2 0-0 1 4 tll c e3 i.e6 lead to an open position with a mobile pawn centre and a bishop pair for Black.

19 . . .fS ! 2 0 gxfS �xdS 21 llJxdS

White hopes to seize control of the light squares and put pressure on d6. However, the tour of his knight around the board cost six ( ! ) tempi, and even one more undevel­ oping move sets up the ground for tactical blows: 15 g4 b4 ! Remember this pawn thrust ! It is a thematic way of shattering White's position. In case of 16 cxb4 gb8 17 a3 as 18 bS llJ d4 19 a4 Black

gxfSt, Rodriguez-Jussupow, Am­ sterdam 1978 . 15 a4? ! also encounters 15 . . . b4 ! 16 cxb4 fS, whilst 15 g3 provides a lever on the kingside, which can be used by 15 .. .fS 16 ig2 f4 !? 17 llJc2 ifS ! ? These examples suggest that White must develop without allow­ ing any pawn weakness :

1 5 .id3 f5 1 6 0-0 16 WfhS, intending long castling or g4, is certainly appealing, but again the lack of development tells : 16 . . . e4 17 ic2 llJe7! 129

Part 6

White's queen deprived the dS­ knight of support. Accordingly, we seize the chance to break the block­ ade and set our central pawn cluster moving. The b4-break is an impor­ tant additional resource: 18 ib3 f4 19 ltJxe7+ W!xe7 2 0 ltJfS 'Wf6 2 1 g 4 �h8 2 2 ltJxg7 hb3 23 axb3 'Wxg7 24 0-0-0 b4 !+, Ljubo­ jevic-Shirov, Monte Carlo blindfold, 20 0 3 . 1 8 ltJf4 i f7 1 9 ib3 dS, Anand­ Kramnik, Frankfurt 2000, 1 8 �dl b4 ! 19 ltJxb4 a S 2 0 ltJbdS ltJxdS 21 ltJxdS �b8 22 ib3 a4 Black has sufficient counterplay, see a detailed analysis of the stem game 23 Fressinet-Gelfand, En­ ghien les Bains 2 003 in the "Com­ plete Games" chapter. 1 6
130

It seems that Black's pawns will shortly overrun the enemy army, but it is not so simple to achieve that. 16 . . .f4 stumbles into 17 'WhS and 16 . . . e4 into 17 ltJf4. After the text move, White has to redeploy his pieces in order to op­ pose the enemy threats. 17 f4? ! ltJe7 18 ic2 ltJxdS 19 ltJxdS �c8 20 ib3 aS only helped Black developing an initiative in K. Geor­ giev-Van Wely, Bled ol. 20 0 2 ; 1 7 ic2 i s well met with 1 7. . . ltJe7 18 ib3 ltJg6 ! 19 f4 exf4 20 ltJc2 ieS = . Most popular is: 1 7 �h5 e4 1 8 i.c2 �e7! 1 9 gad 1 i.f7 !? 2 0 �h3 �xd 5 2 1 �xd 5 �g 5 ! Black's active pieces assure him of a good game, 24 Olsson-Spa­ sov, EU-chT Gothenburg 200S.

Part 6

1 e4 c5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 es 6 lll db5 d6 7 .ig 5 a6 8 lll a 3 b5 9 ixt6 gxf6 1 O lll d 5 f5 1 1 exf5 ixf5

STE P BY STEP

1 2 c3 ig7 1 3 lll c 2 Alternatives: 13 �f3? ! �e6 ; 13 �d3 e4, followed up by . . . 0-0 a nd ... b4; 13 g3? ! �e4 ! (14 �g4 �xdS 15 Wfxg7 �f8 16 �gl b4 17 ltJc4 bxc3 18 bxc3 �c7 19 Wff6 ie6+) 14 f3 �xdS 15 WfxdS ltJe7 16 Wfd2 dS 17 ltJc2 0-0 18 i g 2 Wfb6 ! + . 1 3 0-0 13 . . .�e6 could be a good backup line. This move anticipates 14 ltJce3 �e6 15 id3, which is a major possi­ bility after 13 . . . 0-0 . The fine point is that 13 ... i.e6 14 �ce3 does not simply transpose to our repertoire following 14 . . . 0-0, since Black has the interesting option 14 . . . ltJe7. •••

Now 15 g3 is not so good, as White's knight is already commit­ ted to e3. This enhances the effect of . . .f5-f4. In practice White has also tried: 15 a4 ltJxdS 16 ltJxdS 0-0 17 ie2 bxa4 18 �xa4 as 19 0-0 �b8 20 b4 axb4 21 cxb4 e4 22 bS Wf gS ! which is satisfactory for Black; 15 ltJxe7 �xe7 16 �d3 dS 17 0-0 0-0 18 WfhS, when Black occupies the centre and succeeds in defend­ ing it by tactical means: 18 . . . e4 19 �c2 fS 2 0 �b3 �ad8 2 1 �adl Wies 2 2 �d2 @h 8 23 �fdl f4 2 4 ltJxdS e3 !+. White can also attack 13 . . . �e6 with 14 a4. This is a minor op­ tion, which has been occasional­ ly tried by Kasparov, Anand, Topa­ lov, Leko. The best answer is: 14 . . . 0-0 ! 15 axbS (Or 15 ltJce3 ltJe7! 16 g3 fS ! 17 �g2 f4 18 ltJxe7+ �xe7 19 ltJdS �f7 20 gxf4 exf4 2 1 �f3 �h3 ! 2 2 axbS �ae8+ 2 3 Wd2 axbS 24 �as �est, Ding Yixin-Zhao Jun, Shandong 20 0 7.) lS ... axbS 16 �xa8 Wfxa8 131

Part 6

17 ltJce3 The tactical background of Black's idea is seen in the variation 17 hbS? ltJd4 18 ltJe7+ �h8 19 cxd4 �xg2 2 0 �c6 e4 2 1 :gfl �gs . A Domi­ nation theme. The e7-knight is trap­ ped. White can attempt a counter­ strike with 22 ltJdS hdS 23 h4, but Black's queen completes his full tour around the board, to arrive vic­ toriously in the centre: 23 . . . �d8 24 hdS �as+ 2S �d2 �xdS+. 17 ltJc7 �a2 18 �xbS is not satisfactory ei­ ther: 18 . . . ltJ a7! ? 19 ltJxe6 fxe6 2 0 �d3 �xb2 2 1 �hS ( 2 1 0 - 0 �xc3+) 2 1 . . .�xc3 + 22 �e2 h6. White's at­ tack is not impressive, for example, 23 �g6 �f6 24 �e 8+ �f8 2S �d7! e4 26 he4 �c4 + 27 �d3 �g4+ 28 �fl �f7 2 9 �e8 �f4+. 17 . . . ltJd4! 18 ltJc7 Or 18 ltJe7+ �h8 19 cxd4 exd4 20 ltJ3fS �e4+ 2 1 �e2 MS 22 lLJxfS �xfS = . 18 . . . �a2 1 9 ltJxe6 fxe6 !

This important novelty brings about a sharp endgame with fine compensation for Black. The game Azarov-Nedev, Turin (ol) 2006 saw further 2 0 cxd4 �xb2 ! 2 1 �d2 (White must seek to trade queens before the f8-rook came into play, as in the variation 21 ltJc2 e4 ! 22 �d2 b4 23 ltJxb4 �bl+ 24 �e2 �b8 -+) 2 1 . .. �xd 2+ 2 2 �xd2 �f2 + 2 3 �el �a2 24 dxeS (24 hbS exd4 2S �c4 �al+ 26 ltJdl dS 27 �e2 eSco; or 24 d S �h6 !) 24 . . . heS 2S �e2 �al+co. The only drawback of the move order with 13 ... i.e6 is that it enables the fianchetto 14 g3 , which leads to a balanced positional game. By lea ving the bishop on fS, Black prevents 14 g3 in view of 14 . . . �e4. 1 4 lll c e3 14 a4 is seldom seen: 14 ... ltJe7 (14 . . . �e6 is also known to lead to equality) lS �d3 (lS ltJxe7+ ? ! �xe7 16 ttJb4 �e4 ! 17 f3 �b7 18 axbS axbS 19 �xa8 �xa8 2 0 hbS dS ! +) 1S . . . �e6 16 �e4 (16 �hS fS 17 ltJxe7 + �xe7 18 axbS e4 19 �e2 f4 was better for Black in Santo Roman-San Segun­ do, Moscow ol. 1994) 16 . . . �c8= , Anand-Khalifman, Belgrade 1999; 14 .ie6 1 5 .id 3 The alternatives are clearly infenor: a) lS g3 is quite popular, but White's knight on e3 is begging to be attacked with lS .. .fS 16 �g2 Or 16 �h3 b4 17 0-0 (17 cxb4 �b8 18 a3 ltJd4 assures Black of the initiative: 19 0-0 e4 or 19 . . . aS ! ? 20 bxaS? ! �xb2) 17 0-0 bxc3 18 bxc3 �as 19 �bl �h8+. •••

.

13 2

7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 exfS hfS 16 . . .f4 ! ? 17 ltJc2 �fS ! ?

This pawn sacrifice was intro­ duced in the game Dragiev-Chepa­ rinov, Sofia 2003. After 18 ltJxf4 exf4 19 hc6 �e7+ 20 cj{fl �h3 + 2 1 �g2 (or 2 1 @gl �ac8 2 2 !f3 �cs 2 3 ltJd4 �gSoo, Hunt-Berkvens, Esbjerg 2 003) 2 1 . . . �e4 22 f3 Black should have opted for 22 . . . �c4+ 23 @f2 �e6 24 �el �cs + 2S ltJd4 �es 26 a3 aSoo with good control of the board. b) lS a4? ! encounters 1S . . . b4 ! 16 cxb4 fS 17 �cl (17 �c4 is hardly bet­ ter: 17 .. .f4 18 ltJc2 18 ltJb6 �xb6 19 he6 + @h8 20 ltJdS �b7+) 17 . . . ltJd4 18 ltJc7 �fl

Afunnyposition. White's king got stuck in the centre and Black's mo­ bile pawns will soon sweep away his last defenders . Look at the instruc­ tive game Franchini-Timoshenko , Thessalo niki 26 . 0 8 . 2 007:

19 ltJedS (19 ltJxa8 �xa8 2 0 �c4 hc4 2 1 fuc4 f4) 19 . . . @h8 20 g3 e4 21 �e2 �a7 22 0-0 f4 23 �hS hdS 24 ltJxdS f3 2S �c4 ltJe2+ 26 @hl �gs 27 g4 �h4 2 8 �xe4 !eS 2 9 �xeS dxeS 30 �d2 �g7 3 1 ltJe3 �d8 32 �c2 ltJf4 33 �d l �dg8 34 ltJfl �xhS 0-1. c) lS g4 White is undeveloped for such ambitious moves. Of course, Black must organize an attack very quickly before the enemy consoli­ dated : lS . . . b4 ! 16 �g2 16 cxb4 �b8 17 a3 aS occured in the game Rodriguez-Jussupow, Amsterdam 1978 : 18 bS ltJd4 19 a4 fS 2 0 gxfS hdS 21 ltJxdS �xfSt. 16 ... bxc3 17 bxc3 �c8 18 �d3 e4 ! ? 19 he4 ltJeS, J. Polgar-Gel­ fand, Pacs 2003, when 20 �xa6 would have been the only move . Even then, Black has strong com­ pensation after 20 . . . ltJxg4 21 ltJxg4 hg4oo. (Rogozenko) 15

...

fS

Our main line branches here to : A. 16 a4 page 134 B. 16 �hS page 134 C. 16 �c2 page 13S page 136 D. 16 0-0 133

Part 6 A. 1 6 a4 White is unnecessaryly provok­ ing the following sacrifice: 1 6 ... b4! 1 7 0-0 17 l!Jxb4? is very bad due to 17 . . . l!Jxb4 18 cxb4 e4 19 �c4 hc4 20 l!Jxc4 dS+. 17 cxb4? ! e4 is not any better either. 1 7 ... @ h8!? 1 8 ic2 Or 18 cxb4 e4 19 l!Jf4 (or 19 !c2 hb2 19 !c4 f4t) 19 . . .�d7 20 !c4 hb2 intending . . .�es with unclear play. 1 8 ... bxc3 1 9 bxc3 lll e7 Black has a fine game, Barua­ Sermek, Calcutta 2 0 0 2 . It went 2 0 �bl l!JxdS 21 l!JxdS �c8 22 �b7 �cs 23 !b3 Wa8 24 llJc7 l&xb7 2S l!Jxe6 �xc3 2 6 �dS (26 l!Jxf8? l&xb3 27 Wxd6 Wa3 2 8 Wxa3 �xa3 2 9 l!Je6 �xa4 3 0 �bl ctt g 8 3 1 h 3 !f6+) 2 6 . . . 1We7 2 7 l!Jxf8 Wxf8 2 8 l&hS �cS 29 �dl e4+.

B. 1 6 V9h5 A logical attempt to highlight the weaknesses in Black's castling position. An imminent threat is g4. Black has no choice, but to strike first. 1 6 ... e4 1 7 ic2 lll e7! 1 8 E!d1 Other continuations do not pose any problems to Black: 1 8 l!Jxe7? ! + l&xe7 1 9 �b3 f4 ! 2 0 l!Jds Wb7 2 1 0-0-0 as� ; 1 8 !b3 f4 19 l!Jxe7+ Wxe7 2 0 l!JfS (2 0 l!JdS l&b7!) 2 0 . . . Wf6 2 1 g4 ctt h 8 22 he6 (22 l!Jxg7 hb3 23 axb3 l&xg7 24 0-0-0 b4! 2S c4 aS+, Ljubo­ jevic-Shirov, Monte Carlo blind­ fold, 200 3 . ) 22 . . . Wxe6 23 0-0-0 b4 !

1 34

24 l!Jxg7 Wxa2 ! 2S WdSD WxdS 2 6 �xdS cttx g7 2 7 �xd6 bxc3 2 8 bxc3= ; 1 8 l!Jf4 �f7 1 9 �b3 dS 2 0 �gS l!Jg6 ! 21 Wxd8 �axd8 22 l!JexdS l!Jxf4 23 l!Jxf4 b4 24 l!Je6 he6 2 S he6 + , Anand-Kramnik, Frankfurt 2 0 0 0 , 2 S . . . ctt h 8 = . 1 8. . . b4!

We often meet this thematic thrust in the Sveshnikov. It allows Black to escape the bind by opening files on the queenside. 1 9 lll x b4 In the first game where White encountered 18 . . . b4, he chose 19 cxb4? ! l!JxdS 2 0 l!JxdS hb2 21 0-0 �es 22 ctt h l ctt h 8 23 f3 �c8t , Go­ loshchapov-Volzhin, Moscow 1999. 1 9 0-0 bxc3 20 bxc3 ctt h8 is level since the weakness of c3 balances the defects of Black's pawn forma­ tio n: 2 1 f3 l!JxdS 22 l!JxdS hdS 2 3 �xdS Wb6 + 2 4 ctt h l Wb2 2S �b3 e3 26 �xd6 e2 27 �el �ae8= . 1 9 ... a s 2 0 lll bd5 lll x d5 2 1 lll x d5 E! b 8 2 2 i b 3 a 4 2 3 ixa4 gxb2 24 ib3 @h8! Black has sufficient counterplay,

7 igS a6 8 l2Ja3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 llJdS f5 11 exf5 hfS see a detailed analysis of the stem game 23 Fressinet-Gelfand, En­ ghien les Bains 2003 in the "Com­ plete Games" chapter. C. 1 6 i.c2 White intends to redeploy the bishop to the a2-g8 diagonal. We should energetically oppose this or we risk to end up with a slight­ ly worse position, as in the case of 16 . . . �h8 17 �hS e4 18 l2Jf4 �f6 19 0-0 l2Je7 20 ib3 . 1 6 ...f4 This should lead to a more or less farced draw. Black can deviate at his own risk by 16 . . . E!a7 ! ? 17 �hS E!af7

18 g4 18 0-0 l2Je7 19 ib3 l2Jg6f! is OK for Black. 18 . . .hdS 19 llJxdS e4 20 0-0-0 ! The most persistent continua­ tion. 20 l2Je3 b4 ! ; 20 l2Jf4 �aSoo or 2 0 f4 b4 2 1 ib3 bxc3 22 l2Jxc3 d5 ! 23 0-0-0 (23 llJxdS �aS+---+) 23 . . .ixc3 24 bxc3 l2Je7+ are in Black's favour, but the text is a sterner test . The only sensible answer is: 20 . . . b4oo with a very complicat­ ed position: 21 E!hgl bxc3 (21. .. llJeS 22 l2Jxb4)

22 gxfS. Black's king looks more vulnerable. 16 .. . h8 is another way to es­ cape the draw. Then 17 �hS e4 18 E!dl would transpose to game 24 Olsson-Spasov, EU-chT Gothen­ burg 2 0 05 after 18 . . . l2Je7 19 0-0 if7 2 0 �h3 llJxdS 2 1 llJxdS �gS, but 18 l2Jf4 ! ? �f6 19 0-0 l2Je7 20 ib3 is more unpleasant. 1 7 V;YhS 17 llJfl? ! is too timid and hands the initiative to Black: 17 . . . l2J e7 18 ie4 (18 ib3 �h8+) 18 . . . E!c8 19 �d3 E!cSt. (or 19 . . . �h8 !?) 1 7 gf7 •••

1 8 bh7+ Alternatively: a) 18 l2Jg4? hdS 19 �xh7 + �f8 20 ig6 (2 0 l2Jh6 E!c7 2 1 llJfS �f6 - +) 20 . . . E!c7- + ; b) 18 �xh7+ �f8 19 �g6 (19 ifS �e8 ; 19 ig6 fxe3 2 0 hf7 exf2 + 2 1 �xf2 hf7 2 2 E!hfl hdS 2 3 �gl+ if7 24 E!xf7+ �xf7 25 E!fl+ �e6 26 �xg7 l2Je7- +) 19 . . . �e8 20 ie4 fxe3 21 fxe3 (21 l2Jxe3 E!c8+) 2 1 . . . b4 ! ? 2 2 c4 ( 2 2 h 4 bxc3 2 3 bxc3 �b8 24 hS �c8 25 h6 ih8 26 h7 l2Je7 27 �h6 + � e 8 2 8 �xe6 �xe6 29 l2J c7+ �d7 30 l2Jxe6 �xe6+) 22 . . . E!b8 23 h4 (23

135

Part 6 0-0-0 b3 24 a3 ttJ aS !) 23 . . . �d7 24 hS ttJe7 2S ttJxe7 cj{xe7 26 h6 if6+.

1a

• ••

©ta 1 9 .tts

Thus White rescues his hanging knights. The other moves lose: 19 �g6? �e8 20 ttJ b6 ( 20 ttJg4 hdS 21 �xd6+ ttJ e7- +) 20 . . . fxe3 21 ttJx a8 exf2 + 22 ©d2 �e7 ! - + ; 1 9 ltJg4? hdS 20 ltJ h 6 �f6 2 1 ttJg4 if7-+ .

1 7 YN h S Black's last move drew the sting of 17 f4? ! in view of 17 . . . ttJe7 18 ic2 (18 ttJxe7 �xe7 19 fxeS? �a7 ! ) 1 8 . . . ttJxdS 1 9 ltJxdS �c8 2 0 ib3 aS 21 a3? ! �e8 22 ttJe3 exf4 23 ttJdS

22 ttJb6 �dB 23 ttJfS (23 ttJedS e4 24 0-0-0? ttJeS) 23 . . . �e6 24 ttJ e3 �h6 = is similar to the main line, but Black might also try 22 . . . fxe3

�fl+, K. Georgiev-Van Wely, Bled ol . 2 0 0 2 ; 1 7 ic2 i s also well met by 17 . . . ttJe7 18 ib3 ltJg6 ! 19 f4 exf4 2 0 ttJc2 ieS= . 1 7a 4 b4 i s already familiar. Black has good co mpensation following 18 cxb4 e4 19 ttJf4 ig8 20 ha6 ttJxb4 ! 21 ic4 hc4 2 2 ttJxc4 dS 23 ttJe3 d4 24 ttJe6 �b6 2S ttJxf8 dxe3t .

23 ttJxa8 exf2 + 24 ©e2 dSoo . Now the tactical clash ends up with a repetition:

1 7 e4 1 8 .tc2 � e 7 ! 1 9 gad 1 .tf7 !?

1 9 YN eS 2 0 .txe6 YNxe6 2 1 YNg4 YN h6 2 2 �ts • • •

22

•••

YN e6 23 �fe3 YN h6=.

D. 1 6 0-0 ©h8

•••

Black commonly equalises here with 19 . . . �cB, followed up by a dou­ ble exchange on dS, but we prefer active play on the kingside. Accor­ digly, we want to place the queen's rook on e8. The text is meant to en­ able . . . �gs .

20

3 �xd5 21 �xd5 YN gS!

Black's active pieces assure h im of a good game . You can find a de­ tailed analysis of this position in the "Complete Games" section, 24 Ols­ son-Spasov, EU-chT Gothenburg 2 0 0S .

136

Part 6

1 e4 cS 2 tllf3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 s �c3 es 6 �dbS d6 7 ctgs a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 i.xf6 gxf6 1 0 �d S fS 1 1 exfS i.xfS

COMPLETE GAMES

23 Fress inet - G elfand , E n g h ien les B a in s 20 0 3 1 e4 c s 2 tll f3 tll c 6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 tll f6 s tll c3 es 6 tll d b S d6 7 .ig S a6 8 tll a 3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 1 0 tll d S fS 1 1 c3 ig7 1 2 exfS �xfS 1 3 tLl c2 0-0 1 4 tLl ce3 �e6 1 S �d3 ts 1 6 YMhS Lately White prefers a more re­ strained approach as 16 0-0 , but obviously Fressinet was aiming for a big advantage in the opening. Thus the idea of castling long and crash the opponent by a direct at­ tack seems the most logical choice. 1 6 . . . e4 1 7 �c2 tll e7 1 8 gd1 b4 ! 19 tll x b4 as 20 tll bd S tll xd S 2 1 tll x dS gba 22 � b 3 a4 23 �xa4 gxb2 24 ib3 h8

Only this move was a novelty. 24 . . . j,xdS practically farced a draw: 25 hdS+ @h8 26 0-0 hc3 27 ie6 Wie8 28 Wixe8 8:xe8 29 MS E'!:eS 30 E'!:cl E!:xfS 3 1 8:xc3 8:xa2 3 2 f3 exf3 33 8:cxf3 112- 112 Van de r Wiel-Cmilyte, Wijk aan Zee 200 3 . 2 S 0-0 It was high time to castle. The attempt to defend c3 with 25 Wffh 3 would be punished with 25 . . . e3 ! 26 fxe3 f4 ! 27 Wixe6 Wih4 + . 2 S f4 2 6 gfe 1 ? This is the critical moment of the game. White's move is a deci­ sive mistake. We shall examine the other options: 26 l2Jxf4? hb3 27 l2Jg6 + @g8 2 8 l2Jxf8 hdl - + ; 2 6 c4 ! ? 8: f5 ( 26 . . . ieS? 27 cS) 2 7 Wffg4 ic8 ! ? (27 . . . e 3 i s only equal after 28 ltJxf4 E'!:xf4 29 Wffxf4 e2 3 0 Wixd6 exdl Wi 3 1 E'!:xdl=) 2 8 ltJ b4 ( 2 8 l2Jxf4? Wfff8 2 9 g 3 ih6) 2 8 . . . Wfff8 with compensation; Perhaps best is 26 l2Jb4, when 26 . . .j,xb3 27 axb3 8:xb3 (27 . . .f3 2 8 g3) 2 8 WidS i s i n White's favour, so Black should continue with 26 . . . E!:fS 27 Wffg4 �c8 with an interesting double-edged game. . . .

137

Part 6 26 . . JU5 27 1M/g4 e 3 !-+ Prolonging the second rank up to the sensitive point g2 . The greedy 27 . . . �eS? would have let White back into the game : 2 8 �xf4 �xb3 2 9 axb3 hdS 3 0 c4 !b7 3 1 cS ! f! . 28 gxe3 Fressinet tries a last trick since the rest was hopeless: 28 fxe3 �gs 29 �f3 !g4 ; 2 8 @hl �f2 29 ltJxe3 fxe3 30 he6 �Sf4; 28 �e2 �b3 29 ltJxf4 �ds 30 �xg7+ @xg7 3 1 ltJxe6+ @ g 8 32 �del �f6 3 3 axb3 �d2 2 8 ...fxe 3 29 � xe3 H oping for 29 ... hb3 30 ltJxfS . 2 9 . . . h5! 30 '%Yg 6 gf6 31 1Mfxh5+ gh6 32 1M/f3 1Mf h4 0-1

24 Ols son-S p asov E U -chT Gothenburg 200 5 1 e4 c5 2 � f3 � c 6 3 d 4 c xd4 4 � xd4 � f6 5 � c 3 e5 6 � d b5 d6 7 ig 5 a6 8 � a 3 b5 9 �xf6 g xf6 1 O � d 5 f5 1 1 c3 ig7 1 2 exf5 ixf5 1 3 � c2 0-0 1 4 � ce 3 ie6 1 5 id 3 f5 1 6 ic2 h 8 We consider 1 6 . . .f4 more relia­ ble, but it is known to lead to a draw. Spasov wants to keep on fighting, but his move has positional draw­ backs. 1 7 1Mfh5 e4 1 8 g d 1 After this move the game trans­ poses into our main line D, which is double-edged. 18 ltJf4 ! ? �f6 19 0-0 ltJe 7 20 !b3 is more unpleasant as White retains his grip on the centre while keeping the queen on the ac­ tive hS-square.

138

1 8 ... � e 7 1 9 0-0 if7 20 1Mfh 3 � xd 5 21 � xd5 1M/ g5

22 h 1 The diagram position is crucial for line D so we shall examine it in depth. a) 22 f4 only opens play in Black's favour: 22 . . . exf3 23 MS (23 �f3 hdS 24 �xdS �cl+ 2S !dl �xb2+; 23 �xf3? !hS+) 23 . . . �xg2 + 24 �xg2 fxg2 2S �xg2 �ae8 with an initiative thanks to the bishop pair, for instance : 26 �f2 !hS 27 �dd2 (27 �dfl? !e2 - +) 27 . . . �es+ (27 . . . �f7 ! ?) , o r 26 !g4 �es+; b) 22 �e3 is an attempt to orga­ nize a piece blockade on f4, but it proves inefficient: 22 . . . �h4 ! 23 g3 Or 23 f3 exf3 24 �f3 (24 �xf3? JihS) 24 . . . hdS 2S �xdS �ae8 26 �d3 �e l+ 27 �fl !eS ! t . 23 . . . �h3 24 f4 ( 2 4 f3 hdS 2 S �xdS f4 ! t) 2 4 . . . exf3 2S �f3 �ae8 (2S . . . !hS? 26 ltJf4) 26 �f2 hdS 27 �xdS f4 28 gxf4 (28 �f4 �f4 2 9 gxf4 �g4+ 3 0 @hl �e2 31 !dl �f2 32 hg4 !h6=) 28 . . . �g4+ 29 @fl (29 �g3 �el+ 30 @f2 �e6f!) 2 9 . . . !eS with counterplay. c) 22 ltJe3 ha2 23 �xd6

7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 exfS MS 23 b3? ! �ac8 24 ltJdS (24 �al hb3 2 S hb3 �xc3 26 �dS f4 27 he4 h6 +) 24 ... �cS favours Black. 23 . . . �g8 24 f4 (24 �fdl aSf!) 24 . . .exf3 2S '!!fxf3 (2S �xf3 �ae8f!) 2S . . .�es 26 �ddl (26 �d2 �ae 8 ; 2 6 �c6 �ae8 2 7 ltJxfS '!!fd2oo) 2 6 . . .b 4 2 7 ltJxfS bxc3 2 8 bxc3 �ac8 = . 2 2 . . . � ae8 ! Bringing the last piece into play. 2 2 . . . �hS? ! is premature: 23 f4 exf3 24 gxf3t

23 t4 23 �b3 �hS 24 f4 exf3 2S gxf3 �e2 26 �gl Wh6t, for example one amusing line : 27 �g2 �xg2 28 cj{xg2 �es 29 cj{f2 (29 ltJc7 dS ! 30 ttJxdS i.xf3+ 31 Wxf3 Wxh 2+ 32 cj{fl �g8+) 29 . . . '!!fgS 30 ltJc7 �f6 31 ltJe6 '!!fg4 ! ! t

Black's pieces are better coordi-

nated and are able to create various tactical threats. White cannot contest the e-file, since 23 �fel �hS 24 f4 (24 �al? f4 2S he4 �xe4 26 �xe4 WxdS+) 24 . . . exf3 2S gxf3 (2S �xe8 is rath­ er hapless after both 2S . . . �xe8 ! ? 2 6 gxf3 �e2 27 MS �xb2 2 8 �e4 Wh6 29 Wc8+ �f8 30 h3 :gxa2+ or 2S . . . '!!fx g2 + 26 Wxg2 fxg2 + 27 cj{xg2 �xe8 28 �d2 28 . . . �es 29 ttJ b4 �h6 30 �xd6 �e 2+ 31 cj{g3 f4 + 32 cj{h3 �gS---+ ) 2S . . . �xel+ 26 �xel Wd2t en­ sures Black the initiative. 23 ext3 24 gxt3 ge2 2S ixt S '%Yh 6 26 Wxh 6 ixh 6 With the bishop pair and a rook on the second rank, Black is clear­ ly on top . 27 g g 1 g xb2 28 g g 2 g x g 2 2 9 ©xg2 i g7 3 0 ie4 i e S 3 1 a 4 bxa4 32 ga1 ie8 33 ga3 ibS 34 c4 Axc4 The intermezzo 34 . . . �g8+ was more precise : 3S cj{hl �d7- + . 3 S gxa4 i b S 3 6 g a 3 g g 8 + 37 ©h3 Ad4 38 t4 gg1 39 Ad3 Acs 40 gb3 Axd 3 From practical point o f view, 40 . . . �c6, keeping the bishop p air, was better. 41 gxd3 as 42 li:) c3 g e 1 ? The decision to trade rooks is wrong. 42 . . . �al should be winning. 43 li:) a4 g93+ 44 gxe3 Axe3 4S ©g4 ©g7 46 ©ts ©t7 47 © e4 Acs 48 ©ts ©e7 49 h 3 it2 so li:) c3 ©d7 S 1 ©e4 ©c6 S 2 t S i. h 4 S3 li:)dS ig S S4 ©d4 ©bS SS t6 a4 S6 li:) c3+ © b4 S7 li:) xa4 ©xa4 S8 ©d S ixt6 S9 ©xd 6 © b4 60 ©e6 Ad8 61 ©ts ©c3 62 © g4 ©d 2 63 © h S %-% 139

Part 7

1 e4 cS 2 lll f 3 lll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 tll d bS d6 7 i.g S a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 i.xf6 gxf6 1 O lll d S fS 1 1 i.d3 i.e6

Q U I C K REPERTO I RE

This is one of the most aggressive systems against the Sveshnikov. We could call it ''The Optimistic Ap­ proach". White should deeply be­ lieve that Black's setup is outright dubious and could be crushed by a direct assault. Otherwise it is dif­ ficult to understand why he would willingly accept to play against a powerful pawn cluster in the centre rather than use the gaping hole on dS for putting pressure on the back­ ward d6-pawn. In fact, we face here a different approach. White concen­ trates on the split kingside pawn structure. It offers him only tempo­ rary ad vantages as Black needs two­ three tempi to castle and consoli­ date, after which he would become himself the active side on that very wing. Therefore, White must strive to obtain immediate benefits and he is ready to even shed in a piece. No wonder that the main lines of this part are critical for the ex­ istence of the Sveshnikov. There were times when line B. 12 �hS seemed to be a possible refutation of it, and lately 12 c3 ig7 13 l!JxbS proves a stern test of Black's open140

ing strategy. We must however re­ assure our readers, that Black is in good theoretical shape in these cri­ tical lines, provided that our origi­ nal analysis of the piece sac on bS holds true. Let us start with it: A. 1 2 c3 i.g 7 1 3 lll x b S

Capturing is not obligatory and in blitz, or at lower level, 13 . . . ixdS ! ? 14 exdS l!Je7 15 l!J a3 e4 16 ic2 0-0 looks quite appealing for Black. In practice he achieves good results even though his compensation for the pawn is not that clear. The most principal answer is undoubtedly: 1 3 axbS 1 4 i.xbS i.d7 1 S exfS 0-0 •••

7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 that Black had tried it before, but it got negative commentaries and failed to gain popularity. 1 7 a4 gea

This position has only recently become topical and is rather unex­ plored. We had really hard time find­ ing a decent plan for Black. Having analysed the available games, we have reached to the conclusion that Black needs major improvements of his play. We shall present a new, ac­ tive approach, in order to rehabili­ tate this line. 1 6 0-0 White may try to blockade the e-pawn from e4 by 16 �g4, but the rash sortie of the enemy queen al­ lows us to activate the f8-rook fram g8 instead of the usual place e 8 : 1 6 . . . @ h 8 17 0-0 (17 �e4? ! �as 1 8 a4 ltJe7 !) 17 . . . �g8 1 8 �e4 �h6 . 1 6 e4! Only this move gives counter­ play. Practice has seen Black strug­ gling after 16 . . . �b8 ? ! 17 a4 �e8 18 �g4 @h8 19 �e4. The whole idea of contest­ ing the d5-square by trading pieces is wrong. Instead, we must seek ways for activating our pieces . Firstly we make room for our f8-rook on eS. The other one could be brought into play from g8 . Of course, 16 ... e4 is so logical,

1 8 Wg4 (18 �el �es) ©h8 1 9 gad 1 19 �fel �es 20 ltJe3 �f6 2 1 �adl �g8 22 �hS �h6 demonstrates our best setup .

•••

Black's pieces are so active and close to the enemy king, that we can part with some material, but still re­ tain a strong attack: 23 ltJg4 �xg4 24 �xg4 hfS 2 S �g3 ltJe7 26 c 4 e 3 2 7 fxe3 �e4-+ . 19 g e s ! 20 � e 3 Wf6 2 1 We2 Or 21 �hS �a7! 22 ltJg4 �xfS 2 3 �xfS rocfS 2 4 �xd6 �cS ! when Black even has some initiative. 21 gga! 22 �c4 Wxf5 2 3 �xe5 £xe5 •••

•••

141

Part 7 14 exfS hdS 15 f6 h6 ! ? 16 fxg7 @xg7 17 l!Jc2 �e6oo, or 14 0-0 fxe4 ! 15 he4 fS 16 l!Jf4 exf4 17 hc6 �c8 18 �e2 �es 19 i!Mf3

Black has good chances. We pro­ vide further analysis in the " Step by Step" chapter. In such a complex positions it is impossible to foresee everything, but the essence of Black's play is clear: He attacks the fS-pawn with . . . �es hoping to place the other rook on g8. Meanwhile he protects the d6pa wn with . . . �f6 . In many cases the knight fork on g4 is not very dan­ gerous as White's knight is the most unpleasant enemy piece which is se­ verely cramping Black's position. Besides the piece sacrifice, on move 13 White often chooses 13 �hS 0-0

19 . . . b4 ! This thematic break prolongs the diagonal to our dark-squared bishop and balances the game. See game 27 Kramnik-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005.

B. 1 2 �h5 This version o f the queen's lunge is significantly more venomous . White hopes to see 12 . . .�g7? ! when 13 0-0 would give him some stable edge, not to mention that it would throw us out of the proposed rep­ ertoire which is based on 12 0-0 hdS ! 1 2 g9s 1 •••

The combination of moves c3 and �hS is rather inconsistent and looks like mixing two different plans . Black has no particular prob­ lems, for instance: 142

7 �gs a6 8 l2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJ dS f5 11 �d3 �e6 This counter-strike saves the day! Black remains the active side in otherwise extremely chaotic po­ sition. His king is stuck in the cen­ tre, but at least it is well hidden be­ hind pawns. In contrast, White's king "escapes" with a long castle, only to discover that it is not a safe haven at all. White has tried so many op­ tions in answer to 12 .. . :Bg8 ! , that it would be unreasonable to remem­ ber them. The keypoint is to take on g2 and then play in the centre: 13 c3 �xg2 14 �f3 �g4

15 exf5 �xdS 16 �xdS l2Je7 17 �b7 �c8 18 �xc8 + .

The endgame i s preferable for Black. Usually White prefers to take care of the g2-pawn: 1 3 g3 �d4 1 4 c3 fxe4 1 5 �xe4 �g4 1 6 �xh 7 gg7 1 7 �h6 �f3 +

White i s o n the defensive. H e has a narrow path to equality. See game 28 Mastrovasilis-Johan­ nessen, Athens 200 3 Typically for the Sveshnikov, Black has strong counterplay in the sharpest lines. Perhaps even more important is that play is rich and in­ teresting, and both sides have room for creativity.

143

1 e4 cS 2 lll f3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll d bS d6 7 igS a6 8 lll a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O lll d S fS 1 1 id3 ie6

Part 7

STEP BY STE P

In the diagram position White chooses between 12 .c3 , 12 �h5 or 12 0-0. 12 c4? ! is clearly weaker due to 12 .. . �a5 + ! 13 @fl (13 �d2 �xd2 + 14 @xd2 �h6 + t) 1 3 . . . fxe4 14 he4 �c8 . Black's pieces are much more active: 15 ltJf6 + @d8 16 cxb5 ltJd4 17 bxa6 �e7! 18 ltJh5 �xa6 + 19 �d3 �b7 ! + or 15 cxb5 ltJd4 16 :gel :gxcl 17 �xcl axb5 18 b4 �a4 ! 19 g3 �e7+. A. 12 c3 B. 12 �h5

page 144 page 150

We'll examine the most popu­ lar continuation 12 0-0 in the next chapter. A. 1 2 c3 ig7

Black can also reach this posi­ tion via the move order 11 c3 �g7 12 �d3 �e6 . Al. 13 ltJxb5 A2 . 13 �h5 Other options transpose to line A2 or to variations that are covered in the next part of the book: 13 0-0 hd5 (13 . . . 0-0) 14 exd5 ltJe7 15 �h5 e4; 13 lDc2 0-0 14 0-0 14 lDcb4? ltJxb4 15 lDxb4 fxe4 ! 16 he4 a5 ! overtakes the initiative, as 17 ha8 �xa8 18 lDc2 �xg2 19 :gfl �h6+ would be bad for White; 14 lDce3 fxe4 15 he4 f5 16 �c2 f4 17 �h5 transposes to lines with early ltJce3 . 14 . . . hd5 (14 . . . fxe4 15 he4 f5 16 lDf4 ! exf4 17 hc6t) 15 exd5 ltJe7 16 :gel �d7.

A 1 . 1 3 lll xb5 ! ? The fine point of this sacrifice is that Black's bishop is already com­ mitted to e6 and cannot defend the c6-knight from b7. We are uncer­ tain what answer to recommend.

144

7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!J dS f5 11 �d3 �e6 Capturing the piece leads to po­ sitions where White has enough compensation and significant space advantage. Black is able to trade all minor pieces and stop the ene­ my queenside pawns, but then he would not be able to display any ac­ tivity, as White's passers would be too advanced. Still, White's game is easier and his mistakes usually have no fatal consequences. That's why we propose another plan, con­ nected with counterplay in the cen­ tre and on the kingside. On the other hand, 13 . . . hdS ! ? 14 exd5 l!Je7 15 l!J a3 e4 16 �c2 0-0 17 0-0 looks quite appealing for Black. In practice he achieves good results even though his compensation for the pawn is not that clear.

Aggressive players will certainly like Black's side. Perhaps 17 . . . �b6 ! ? 1 8 �bl (18 �b3 aS) 1 8 . . . �cS 1 9 �b3 (19 �d2 l!JxdS 20 �fdl l!Jxc3 2 1 bxc3 �xa3 2 2 �b3=) 19 . . . aS is the most interesting approach. Unfortunate­ ly, the only game that featured this line, Lupulescu-Stamenkov, EU­ chT, Gothenburg 2 005, lasted only one more move and the opponents signed a draw. 1 3 . . .axb5 14 ixb5 �d7 1 5 exf5 0-0

This position has only recently become topical and is rather unex­ plored . We shall present a new, ac­ tive approach, in order to rehabili­ tate this line. 1 6 0-0 White may try to blockade the e-pawn fram e4, but he is undevel­ oped for shuch moves. After 16 �g4 in the game Vallejo Pons-Topal­ ov, Linares 20 04, Black equalised with 16 . . . l!Jb8 17 0-0 hS 18 �f3 , and here 18 . . .hbS 19 f6 c±>h7 leads to a draw: 2 0 �fS+ (20 �xhS+ �h6 2 1 �fS+ ci>h8 2 2 �hS ci>h7=) 20 . . . ci>h6 21 f4 (21 h4 �g80 22 �gS+ ci>h7 2 3 �fS + ci>h6=) 2 1 . . . �g80 2 2 �gS + c±>h7 23 �xhS+ �h6 24 �xf7+ c±>h8 (25 l!Je7 hfl 26 �fl l!Jc6 27 l!J g6 + �xg6 2 8 �xg6 �f8 29 �f3 �a7) 25 �hS c±>h7= . He might, however, pre­ fer 16 . . . c±>h8. Usually he plays this move after . . . �e8 first, but here he can use the premature arrival of the queen at g4 and activate the rook from g8, as in the case of 17 0-0 (17 �e4? ! �aS 18 a4 l!Je7! or 18 �c4 �gS) 17 . . . �g8 18 �e4 �h6 . 1 6 . . . e4 ! Only this move gives counter-

145

Part 7 play. Practice has seen Black strug­ gling after 16 . . . �b8? ! (16 . . .E�e8 17 �g4 @h8 18 �e4 f6 19 a4 is similar) 17 a4 �e8 18 �g4 @h8 19 �e4

- Rogozenko. Alas, the simple 32 a6 wins immediately, 3 2 . . .�xb6 33 a7 �a6 34 g3 ! + - . The moral o f this analysis i s that Black should not wait passively. We can also see that the rook is more useful on a8, from where it stops the a-pawn. 1 7 a4 17 �el 8:e8 18 a4 E'!:eS transposes to the sub-line on move 18. 1 7 . �ea .

Black's idea is to gradually break the clamp on dS and include the dark-squared bishop into play. It is too slow and gives the enemy time to advance the a and b-pawns: 19 . . . f6 ( 1 9 . . . l!J e7? 2 0 f6 + -) 2 0 b 4 l!Je7 (20 . . . �c8, hoping to get a lever on the kingside after 21 g4? ! , is well countered by 2 1 �c4 ! with a clear edge) 21 hd7 �xd7 22 l!Jxe7 �xe7 23 aS ! �ec8 24 �tbl ! Almasi-Wang Yue, Paks 20 06 .

Here, instead of 24 . . . �d7, Rogo­ zenko suggests 24 . . . �f7, but it does not help either: 25 bS dS 26 �d3 �f8 27 b6 �cs 28 �bS ! d4 (28 . . . e4 29 �bl ! ) 29 c4 e4 ! 30 �xe4 �xc4 31 �bbl �b4 "This position is very likely to end in some sort of draw" 146

.

1 8 YMg4 18 �el �es 19 l!Je3 l!Je7 brings about an equal endgame: 20 hd7 �xd7 21 f6 hf6 22 �g4+ �xg4 23 l!Jxg4 �e6 24 l!Jxf6+ �f6 2 5 �xe4 @f8 = . 1 8 . . . � h8 1 9 gad 1 19 �fel �es 2 0 l!Je3 �f6 2 1 E'!:ad l �g8 22 �hS �h6 demonstrates Black's best setup .

7 !gS a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 !d3 �e6 His pieces are so active and close to the enemy king, that we can part with some material, but still retain a strong attack: 23 ltJg4 �xg4 24 �xg4 MS 2 S �g3 ltJe7 2 6 c 4 e 3 2 7 fxe3 �e4-+ . 1 9 .. J� e S ! Aiming to reach the position o f the last diagram. 19 . . . ltJb8 ? ! 20 �fel �es 21 ltJe3;t; is rather gloom. 20 ll) e3 Y«f 6 21 Y« e2 21 �hS �a7! is another critical line. The reason behind our last move is seen in the variation 22 ltJg4 �xfS 23 �xfS �S 24 �xd6 �cS ! when Black even has some initiative: 2S ltJe3 !es 2 6 �ds �ds 27 ttJxdS ltJe7 28 hd7 ttJxdS 29 !c6 ltJf4. White might try 22 �fel. Then 2 2 ... hfS? is bad d ue to 23 ltJdS �xdS 24 �xdS ltJe7 2 S �fS �xfS 26 �xfS ltJxfS 27 �e4 !es 2 8 f4 !f6 2 9 g4 ltJh4 30 M2 d S 3 1 �e2 h6 3 2 �d2 ttJg6 33 �ds llJxf4 34 �fs !gS 3S b4 ltJe6 36 cj/e2 �e7+ . Black should prefer 22 . . . ltJe7 23 hd7 �xd7 with sufficient counterplay: 24 b4 (24 llJg4 �xfS 2 S �xfs �fs 2 6 �e4 �aS=) 24 . . . d s 2 S b S ( 2 S g4 � c 6 26 b S �c8oo) 2S . . . �a7 26 �bl �b6oo . Let u s return to 2 1 �e2 :

It seems that White is better in view of the threat 21 ltJg4, but now we complete the redeployment star­ ted with 19 . . . �eS : 2 1 .. _ g ga ! 22 tl) c4 Y«xf5 23 tl) x e 5 .ixe5 Black has good chances. We shall provide further analysis, in order to help you in practice: 24 g3 Y«g6 2 5 f4 White cannot survive without this move: 2S �e3 fS 26 f4 exf3 27 �xf3 f4-+ . 2 5 . . . exf3 2 6 gxf3 f5

27 gdf1 The other way to take control of f4 is worse: 27 �d2 hS-+ . The text prevents this option in view of the threat 2 8 hc6 . 27 �c4 �c8 28 �d3 !e6oo is dou­ ble-edged. 27 ...f4 28 gxf 4 .ixf 4 29 gxf 4 The weakness of White's first rank and light squares balances the game . 29 ... g ea 30 'l«d2 .ih3 3 1 q;t2 Or 31 if1 hfl 32 �xf1 ltJeS 33 �d4 (33 b4 �e4 34 �d4 �xd4+ 3S cxd4 ltJc6=) 33 . . . cj/g7 34 aS �f8 = . 3 1 . . .d S ! 3 2 b 4 'l«b1 3 3 g 4 ge6

147

Part 7 34 g5 1Mfh 1 35 © g 3 1Mfg 1 + 36 © xh3 g e3+ 37 ©h4 tiles 38 i e8 g94 39 ih5 tll c4 40 g x e4 tll xd2 41 g e a+=. Draw b y repetition. In such complex positions it is impossible to fore see everything, but the idea is clear: Black attacks the f5-pawn with . . . 8:e5 hoping to place the other rook on g8. Meanwhile he protects the d6-pawn with . . . Wfff6. In many cases the knight fork on g4 is not very dangerous as White's knight is the most unpleasant enemy piece which is severely cramping Black's position.

A2 . 1 3 1Mfh5 0-0

A2 a. 14 exf5? ! A2b. 14 0-0 White also tries occasion ally: a) 14 l2J e3 f4 15 l2Jf5 Wfff6 16 g4. The knight stays nicely on f5, but the to­ tal lack of coordination ruins White: 16 . . . b4 ! 17 l2Jc4 bxc3 18 bxc3 8:fd8 19 E'!:bl h6 2 0 8:b6 ti:Je7 2 1 h4 l2Jxf5 2 2 exf5 e4 ! - +(Movsisian-Smirnov, Yerevan 2004 saw 22 . . .hc4? 23 g5 Wfe7 24 hc4 Wffc7, when 25 gxh 6 ! + 148

would have favoured White ; b) 14 g4? fxg4 15 h3 g3 ! 16 E'!:gl ! (Trying to open up files. 1 6 fxg3 f5 is grim for White: 17 0-0 �f7 18 Wff d l ixd5 19 exd5 Wffg5 ! + or 17 00-0 �f7 ! 18 Wff e 2 hd5 19 exd5 l2Je7+) 16 . . . gxf2 + 17 @xf2 8:a7! and the tide turns desively: 18 ti:Je 3 f5 ! 19 exf5 @h8 ! 2 0 �e4 d5 2 1 E'!:adl if7 2 2 Wffg4 ih6 - + ; c) 14 l2Jc2? ! fxe4 15 he4 f5 16 ti:Jf4 exf4 17 hc6 8:c8 18 Wfff3 d5 19 l2Jb4 aS 20 hd5 Wffd 6 21 ti:Jc6 @h8 ! - + ; d ) 1 4 0-0-0? fxe4 1 5 he4 f5 16 ic2 b4 ! 17 l2Jc4 bxc3 18 bxc3 l2Jd4 ! + ; e ) 14 l2Jc7 Wffxc7 15 exf5 d 5 16 f6 h6 17 fxg7 @xg7 18 ti:Jc2 b4 19 c4 e4 20 cxd5 exd3 2 1 l2Je3 d2 + !+.

A2a. 14 exf5?! hd5 15 f6 h6 This move allows Black to play for win. 15 . . . e4 should lead to a draw in a rather forced way, see 25 Naiditsch-Chuchelov, Belgium 20 0 3 . 16 fxg7 16 Wfff5 hands Black the initia­ tive: 16 . . . e4 17 fxg7 8:e8 18 ie2 18 hb5 �e6 19 Wfff4 looks ap­ pealing, but we can take the piece by 19 . . . axb5 ! 20 Wffxh6 f5 and White cannot prove even equality: 2 1 l2Jxb5 (21 0-0 l2Je5 22 f4 ti:Jg4+; 21 h4 l2Je5) 2 1 . . . l2Je5 22 l2Jd4 Wffd7+. 18 . . . 8:e5 19 Wfff4 (19 Wff h3 Wffg5+) 19 . . . Wffg5 20 Wffxg5 8:xg5 20 . . . hxg5 ! ? is a good alterna­ tive: 2 1 l2Jc2 @xg7 (22 h4 ie6 23 E'!:dl 8:d8=) 2 2 l2Je3 �e6 23 E'!:dl 8:d8 = . 2 1 l2Jc2 ie6 2 2 l2Je3 b4 ! ? Break-

7 �gs a6 8 ltJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 ing White's pawn chain. 23 f4 exf3 24 hf3 bxc3 2S bxc3 (2S hc6 cxb2 26 �bl �b8 27 @d2 ha2+) 2S . . . �c8 = . 1 6 ©xg7 17 �c2 17 �fS? ! is inefficient, as Black can ignore the "threat" by 17 . . . �gS ! when 18 �h7 +? @f6 would favour Black. Remains 18 �xgS+ hxgS 19 ltJc2 �e6 20 a4 bxa4 2 1 �xa4 as 2 2 @d2 fS 23 �hal �ab8+, Tokmachev­ Samojlov, Serpukhov 1999 (39) ; 17 h4 ! ? is more consistent since �h3 would be decisive. 17 . . . �e6 18 g4 b4 ! and again we see White un­ developed for a killing blow: 19 gS hxgS 20 hxgS �h8 2 1 �h7 @f8 �. Perhaps he should prefer 19 ltJ c4 bxc3 2 0 bxc3 ltJe7 21 gS (21 ltJe3 ltJg6 ! +) 2 1 . .. �h8 22 �f3 ltJdS 23 gxh6+ @xh6 24 �e4 ltJf4 2S ha8 �xc4� with complications. 17 .ie6 .••

23 �h3 �g6 24 �xg6+ fxg6 2S ltJ e3 d4+ 26 ltJc2 �f4 27 �d2 hS 2 8 b3 @g7! (28 . . . �dS 112- 112 Anand-Ivan­ chuk, Linares 2002) 29 @dl aS 30 @el b4 3 1 cxd4 exd4 32 @dl ltJeS 33 ltJel @f6 (33 . . . �c8 34 ltJd3 ltJxd3 3S �hxd3 �xh4 36 �xd4 �hl + 37 rJ/e2=) 34 rJ/e 2 �c8+ /+ e . g . 3S ltJd3 ? �e4+ 36 @dl �c3 with a big advantage.

A2b . 14 0 - 0 fxe4! This farced variation solves the opening problems. The older line 14 .. .f4 leads to very complex play with mutual chances . We cover it in considerable detail in the "Com­ plete Games" section - see game 26 Svidler-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2004. 15 he4 f5 16 �f4 exf4 17 hc6 gc8

•••

Now: 18 a4 fS ! ?oo (18 . . . bxa4? ! 19 �xa4 aS 20 ltJe3t) 19 axbS axbS 20 �xa8 �xa8 21 0-0 �b7oo ; 18 �e3 dS 19 h4 (19 �fS �gS) 19 . . . �f6oo 2 0 �fS MS 21 fufS+ @h7 2 2 �dl ( 2 2 �h3 �g6) 22 . . . �ad8

18 �e2 It is risky to capture the a6pawn: 18 �b7 �cS ! = or 18 �f3 dS 19 � b7 �cS 20 ha6 �b6 2 1 .bbS �xbS 22 ltJxbS �xbS�. 18 .te5 19 �f3 19 �b7 is still dubious, but due to different reasons than on the previ­ ous turn. This time Black aims for •••

149

Part 7 a direct kingside attack, using the retreat of White's queen: 19 .. .:gc7! (19 .. .:gb8 20 ha6 + ; 19 .. . :gcs 20 �f3 ! �h4 2 1 E!fdl �h8 2 2 lDc2 E!c7 23 ltJd4 �c4 24 Wffd2 E!g7 25 b3 �g8 26 Wffd3 Wff6 27 a4+) 2 0 ha6 Wffa8 ( 20 . . . b4 21 cxb4 f3 22 Wffxf3 Wffh4 23 h3 Wffxb4 24 �d3 hb2 25 ltJb5) 2 1 hb5 f3 ! 2 2 gxf3 ( 2 2 Wffxf3 �dS 2 3 Wffh 3 hg2 2 4 Wffxg 2 + E!g7+) 2 2 . . . E!f6-+ ; 19 � f3 Wffh4 2 0 E!fdl E!f6 also looks like fun for Black. 19 b4! Black must try to prolong the dia­ gonal of his dark-squared bishop. Consolidation would mean advan­ tage to White, who has a much bet­ ter pawn formation, for example, 19 . . . �h8 2 0 �dS �d7 21 ltJc2 Wffh4 22 E!adl ie8 23 Wff d3 E!c7 24 ltJd4i. 2 0 cxb4 White would be worse if he ac­ cepted a weakness on c3 : 20 ltJc2 bxc3 21 bxc3 �b6 22 �dS hdS 23 WffxdS+ � h8+. 2 0 . . .i.xb2

is the a3-knight, which h a s not any stable square. d5 would be a terrific outpost for it, but both approaches to it, c3 and e3, are firmly control­ led. See game 27 Kramnik-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2005.

a.

1 2 Y«hs ggs

• • •

The game is balanced. Black's pawns are split and look easy to collect, but in fact White cannot at­ tack them efficiently. His problem 1 50

Bl. 13 c3 B 2 . 13 f4 B3. 13 g3 Minor alternatives are: a) 13 0-0? ! f4 14 h3 (Or: 14 c3 �g4 15 Wffxh7 E!g6+; 14 c4 b4 15 ltJc2 �g4 16 Wffxh7 E!g6 17 f3 �e6 18 �hl E!h6 19 Wff g8 f5- + ; 14 Wffdl �h3 ; 14 Wffxh7 E!g6 15 Wffh 5 E!h6 16 Wffd l Wff h4+) 14 . . . E!g6 15 c3 ltJe7f! with excel­ lent prospects for Black; b) 13 0-0-0 E!xg2 ! 14 Wfff3 (14 f4 ltJd4 ! transposes to line B - 13.f4 E!xg2 14 0-0-0) 14 . . . E!g4 15 exf5 (15 h3 E!h4) 15 . . .hd5 16 Wffxd5 ltJb4 17 Wffb7 (17 Wffb3 E!f4 18 �c4 bxc4 19 Wffxb4 Wffc7t ; 17 Wfff3 E!f4 18 Wff g2 ltJxd3 + 19 E!xd3 E!c8 20 ltJbl Wffc7+) 17 . . . d5+ ; c) 13 c4? ! hd5 (14 cxd5 ltJb4 15 �e2 fxe4 16 Wffxh7 E!g6+) 14 exd5

7 �gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 l!J dS fS 11 �d3 �e6 �as + (14 . . . l!Jd4 ! ? 15 o-o �g4 ! ) 15 w fl l!Jd4t; d) 13 Wfl h6 14 h3 hdS lS exdS l!J e7+. 8 1 . 1 3 c3 gxg2 1 4 \Wf3 Queenside play with a4 is insuf­ ficient: 14 l!Jc2 f4 1S a4 bxa4 16 �xa4 �g7 17 l!Jcb4 l!Jxb4 (18 �bS+ axbS 19 �xa8 l!Jd3 + 20 Wfl �xa8 2 1 l!Jc7+ Wd8 22 l!Jxa8 wins Black's queen, but it will be retaliated by the raving rook on the second rank: 22 . . . �f2 + 23 Wgl �xb2) 18 l!Jxb4 aS 19 l!JdS �b8 2 0 b4 axb4 2 1 cxb4 �c8+. 1 4 \Wf3 gg4

17 � f3 is passive: 17 ... �f4 18 �e2 �c7 (18 ... b4 ! ? 19 cxb4 �b6f±) 19 l!Jc2 �b7! ? (19 ... dS 20 l!Je3) 2 0 f3 �h6+. 1 7 . . . \Wc8 1 8 Y«xc8+ The endgame is preferable for Black, but keeping queens on is even worse: 18 �b6? l!JdS 19 �as (19 �xbS+ axbS 20 �xbS+ We7 21 �xdS �xa3 ! - +) 19 . . . �c6 ! ?+ (19 . . . l!Jf4 2 0 �e4 dS+) 2 0 0-0-0 l!Jb4 2 1 �c4 ( 2 1 �c2 l!Jxc2 2 2 l!Jxc2 �a4- + ; 2 1 �bl �h6+ - +) 2 1 . . .�h6+ 22 W bl �xc4 23 cxb4 �d4+. 1 8 . . . &fJ x c8 1 9 &iJ c2 &iJ b 6i.

82 . 1 3 f4 g x g 2 1 4 0-0-0

Typically for the Sveshnikov, Black has strong counterplay in the sharpest lines. 1 5 exf5 15 h3 is of little use: lS . . . �g8 It is also interesting to keep the rook on the 4th rank: 1S . . . �h4 ! ? 16 exfS �xdS 17 �xdS l!Je7 18 �g2 (18 �b7 �c8 !) 18 ... dSf±, Boudre-Kouat­ ly, Ales 1984. 16 exfS �xdS 17 �xdS l!Je7 18 �e4 � g7 19 0-0-0 dS 20 �h4 �b6 ! 2 1 w bl �f6 ! 22 �h6 0-0-0 f!. 1 5 . . . ixd 5 1 6 \Wxd 5 &fJe7 1 7 \Wb7

This attempt to crush Black in the centre fails because of the stranded knight on a3 . Without it White lacks resources to complete the attack. The possibility of the c6knight to jump to d4 tips the bal­ ance in Black's favour. Note that the double attack 14 l!Je3 is bad due to 16 . . . �as+ 15 Wfl �d2 ! 16 l!Jbl (16 l!JxfS �b4 ! + ; 16 exfS �b4 ! 17 �f3 �d7 18 �bl 0-0-0 19 l!J dS �cs 20 b4 �d4+) 16 ... �xd3 17 cxd3 �b4 18 exfS (18 �e2 fxe4 151

Part 7 19 dxe4 �xe4 - +) 18 . . .hfS 19 WffxfS Wffxb2+. 1 4 ... �d4! 1 5 � e 3 Aft e r lS c3 �xdS 1 6 exdS, the thematic 16 . . . b4 ! + comes at rescue; Other options: lS �hgl fxe4 16 �xg2 exd3+ ; lS �bl �xdS 16 exdS �g4 ! threatening to trap the white queen with �h4. 1 5 . . JU2 1 6 exf5 According to Kramnik, Black is on top after 16 �hfl �fl 17 �xfl �c8 . 1 6 . . . .ixa2 1 7 fxe5 dxe5 17 . . . �c8 18 �xbS+ ttJxbS 19 ttJxbS axbS 20 exd6 is unclear. 1 8 � xb50 .ih 6 ! ! This surprising move underlines how vulnerable White's king is. The stem game Brodsky-Kramnik, Her­ son 1991 saw further 19 �hel (19 �xh6 �xc2 + ! mating) 19 �hel axbS! 2 0 �xbS+ �e7 21 �h4 + f6 2 2 �xf2 .if7 with an overwhelming attack.

�d2 (16 c3 �gs 17 Wff h4 ttJf3 - +) 16 . . . fxe4 1 7 �xe4 b 4 ! 1 8 ttJxb4 �gs 19 �dl dS+; b) 14 �xh7 �g6 lS �hS fxe4 16 �xe4 ttJd4 ! t ; c ) 1 4 c 3 �g6 ! l S Wfff3 (lS tlJ c 2 fxe4 16 he4 .ig4 17 Wffh4 Wffx h4 18 gxh4 fS 19 hS �g7! 20 h3 �xh3 2 1 .if3 .ig4 22 tlJf6 + �d8+) lS . . .�xdS 16 exdS e4 17 WffxfS �gs 18 Wfff4 exd3 19 dxc6 �es+ 20 �fl �b6 21 Wfff3= . 14 c3 14 0-0-0? ! �c8 l S f4 (lS c 3 h6 ! ; lS �bl h6 !) lS . . . �g6f!; 14 ttJe3? �gs lS �xh7 fxe4 16 �xe4 dS 17 .ig2 �as++; 14 h3? �xdS lS exdS e4 16 0-0-0 �f6 ! + . 1 4 . . . fxe4 1 5 .ixe4 .ig4 1 6 1Mfxh 7 gg7 1 7 \W h 6 � f3+

83. 1 3 g3

Black checked first and that puts White on the defensive. He has a narrow path to equality. B3a. 18 �fl? ! B3b. 18 �e2 1 3 . . . � d4 13 . . . �c8 is a decent alternative. Main lines are: a) 14 0-0-0? ttJd4 lS �bl h6 16

1S2

Practice has also seen 18 �dl, but after 18 . . . tlJgS+ 19 f3 �g6 20 Wffh4 ttJxe4 21 fxg4 l!Jf2 + Wffc8 ! 2 2 gS

7 �gs a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 hf6 gxf6 10 ttJ dS fS 11 �d3 �e6 ttJxgS 23 ttJc2 WfffS Black is slightly better.

B3a. 18 @fl? ! E:g5! Threatening 19 . . . ttJd2 . 18 . . . �g6 19 Wffcl + is worse. 19 �f6+ Or 19 Wffh7? ! ttJd2 + 20 �el �g7+. 19 ©e7 2 0 �h8 After 2 0 ttJdS+ �d7 2 1 ttJf6 + �c7+ the king slips to the queenside. 2 0 �d2+ 21 ©g2 �xe4 22 �xe4 E:g6 23 �h4+ 23 �hel Wffd7 ! allows Black to con­ solidate : 24 f3? hf3 + 2S �xf3 �h6 26 Wff g8 Wff fS+ 27 �e3 �xh2 28 Wigs+ WffxgS+ 29 tiJxgS �h6- + ; 24 Wffh4+ f6 2S Wffh7+ �g7 2 6 Wff h6 �f3 + ! 27 �xf3 �g3 + 2 8 hxg3 hh6 29 �adl dS 3 0 @ g 2 Wffc6- + ; 2 4 ttJc2 Wff b7t. 23 �h4+ ©e6 ! 24 1l;Yxd8 E:xd8 •••

b4! (28 . . . �h6 29 ttJ d3 as 30 �hel;t) 29 E:hel bbl 3 0 E:xbl bxc3 31 bxc3 (The source game A. Sokolov­ Skripchenko, France (ch) 20 03 saw 31 ttJd3? c2+) 31 E:xc3 32 E:b6+ .id6 33 E:e2 (33 �xa6 �c2) 33 E:a3+. •••

•••

B3b. 18 ©e2 � g5+ 19 fJ �xe4 2 0 fxg4 �c8 !

•••

21 1l;Ye3 Or 2 1 h3? �xg4 2 2 Wffh7 Wies 2 3 hxg4 Wfff2 + - + ; 2 1 �d3 Wffxg4 2 2 �ael ttJf2 + 2 3 �d2 Wfff3 t ; 21 ttJe3? �g6 22 Wffh 3 dS+. 21 1l;Yxg4+ 22 VffJ �xt'3+ 23 ©xfJ f5 24 �c2 24 ttJe3 �f7 2S ttJxfS? fails to 2S . . . dS ! + . 24 @f7 Practice has shown that the end­ game is balanced, but Black's game is a bit easier. See game 28 Mas­ trovasilis-Johannessen, Athens 2003 •••

•••

Black's central pawns threaten to overrun the enemy: 25 fJ (2S ltJc2? �fS+) 25 .tf5 26 E:adl d5 27 �b l gc8 28 �f2 •••

1S3

Part 7

1 e4 c5 2 lll f3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 es 6 lll d b5 d6 7 ig5 a6 8 lll a 3 b5 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O lll d 5 f5 1 1 .id 3 .ie6

COMPLETE GAMES

2S N a id itsch - C h uch elov B el g iu m 20 0 3 1 e 4 c s 2 li:) f3 li:) c 6 3 d4 c xd4 4 li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c 3 es 6 li:) d b S d6 7 ig S a6 8 li:) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 li:) d S ts 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 c3 ig 7 1 3 Y«hS 0-0 1 4 exfS ixd S 1 S f6 e4 We suggest 1S . . . h6 ! ? , which leads to complicate play. The text is known as a reliable equaliser. 1 6 fx g7 gea 1 7 ie2 ges 1 8 Y«h6 b4!

�d l �cs 24 ids �e8) 23 ... �cs 24 ids �e8 ! (Chuchelov assesses the position after 24 . . . �xc3 + 2S �b2 �cs 26 he4 �b8 + 27 �al ltJb4 2 8 �d2 a s slightly better for White) 2 S ib3 ( 2 S �hel ltJb4 2 6 he4 ltJxa 2 + 2 7 �d 2 �ec8 =) 2 S . . . ltJ aS 2 6 �b2 �b8 27 �hel dS with some initia­ tive for Black. 22 Y«xd 6 g d 8 ! 23 Y«xc6 ge6 ! ? 23 . . . �cs also leads t o a draw: 2 4 �xa6 �d2 + 2S �fl �fS 26 hf7+ ! �f7 27 �e2 �xc3 (27 . . . e3 2 8 �xd2 �xd2 29 f3=) 28 �dl �xdl + 29 �xdl e3 30 �d8 + with perpetual check. 24 ixe 6 White cannot avoid the perpe­ tual check, since 24 �c7 �d2 + 2 S �l e 3 o r 2 4 �b7 �d2 + 2S �l e3 are hopeless for him. 24 . . . Y«d 2+ 2S @f1 'l«d3+ %-%

1 9 li:) c4 After 19 lDc2 bxc3 2 0 bxc3 ie6 2 1 0 - 0 Black equalises like i n the game: 21. . . �gS 22 �xgS �xgS 23 �fdl �cS= 24 �xd6 �xc3 2S ltJe3 ltJb4 ! = . 1 9 . . ..ixc4 20 ixc4 bxc3 2 1 bxc3 Y«g S ! 2 2 Y«xd 6 Or 2 2 �xgS �xgS 23 0-0-0 (23

2 6 Sv idl er - Van Wel y W ij k aan Zee 2004 Comments by Nedev 1 e4 cs 2 ll:) f3 ll:) c 6 3 ll:) c3 ll:) f6 4 d4 cxd4 s li:) xd4 es 6 li:) d bS d 6 7 i g S a6 8 li:) a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 0 li:) d S ts 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 c3 ig7 1 3 Y«hS 0-0 1 4 0-0 f4

1S4

7 .igS a6 8 lt:J a3 bS 9 .ixf6 gxf6 10 lt:JdS fS 11 .id3 .ie6

Our

main

recommendation

is 1S . . . fxe4 ! because it is a forced equaliser. However, the text is a fair alternative which offeres both sides a lot of interesting possibilities.

1 5 gad 1 White has also tried: a) lS g 3 fS 16 gxf4 © h 8 It is al­ ways risky to open up play against a bishop pair. For the pawn Black seizes the initiative and White must quickly return the material: 17 lt:Jc2 .if7 18 %Vh3 exf4 19 lt:Jxf4 �gs+ 2 0 lt:Jg2 f4 2 1 %VfS %VxfS 2 2 exfS lt:JeS 23 gfdl .ihS 24 .ie4 ixdl 2S gxdl gae 8 f! ; b ) lS gfdl I t is not evident which rook should go to dl. Still, the game focus is on the king side and White might need a rook on fl later. 1S . . . ©h8 ! ? 16 lt:Jc2 fS 17 a4 (17 exfS ? ! ixdS 18 f6 .ih6 ! 1 9 �xh6 ga7t In­ arkiev-Filippov, Sochi 20 0S) 17 . . . .if7 18 �h3 .ixdS 19 exdS lt:Je7oo ; c) l S g4 White closes the kingside, but in an open Sicilian this is not an

nov, Sochi 2 0 0 6 , or regroup first on the kingside: lS. . . h8 16 ©hl gg8 17 gS lt:Je7! 18 f3 .if8 19 gadl gg7 2 0 .ic2 gc8 2 1 ggl gcs 2 2 .ib3 lt:JxdS 2 3 ixdS ixdS 2 4 gxdS gxdS 2 S exdS �a8+ Gonzalez de l a Torre-San Se­ gundo, Lugo 20 07; d) lS lt:Jc2 fS ! 16 lt:Jcb4 lt:Jxb4 17 lt:Jxb4 aS 18 exfS .if7 19 %Vh3 �f6 ! 2 0 lt:Jc2 Anand-McShane, Bundesliga 2 0 0 3 and now 2 0 . . . b4! 21 cxb4 dSoo would have been fine for Black. 1 5. . . @ h S Black anticipates g 3 and shifts his king from the open (in future) file. Topalov preferred 1S . . . ga7 ! ? when 16 lt:J c2 © h 8 1 7 lt:Jcb4 lt:Jxb4 1 8 lt:Jxb4 �d7 1 9 .ie2 fS 2 0 exfS �fS was double-edged in Svidler-Topa­ lov, Cap d'Agde rapid 20 0 3 . More testing is 16 g3 fS 17 gxf4 exf4 1 8 lt:Jxf4 .if7 1 9 �h3 %VgS + 2 0 �g3 ( 2 0 lt:Jg2 f4 2 1 e s .ihS ! ) 2 0 . . . �h6 ! with compensation. 1 6 g3 If White refrains fram under­ mining the f4-pawn, Black activates his rook: 16 lt:Jc2 gg8 17 Whl .if8 18 .ie2 ggs+±. 1 6 ... ggs 1 7 @h1 �ts 1 8 �e2 g g 5 1 9 '1Mf3 (19 �h4 gc8) 1 9 . . . f5

achievement as Black retains his typical queenside play. He can start with lS .. . gb8 ! ? 16 lt:Jc2 as 17 a3 lt:Je7 18 gadl �d 7 19 h3? ! ixdS 20 exdS fS 21 f3 gf6t, as in Amonatov-SmirlSS

Part 7 20 exf 5 Anand-Topalov, Monte Car­ lo rapid 20 0 1 saw 2 0 gxf4 exf4 2 1 ttJxf4 �a2

ficult for both sides since it requires a lot of calculation without clear cri­ teria for evaluation. 21 . . . ext4 22 Wf xc6 gca

22 exfS �xfS 23 �e4 �f7 24 ihS? ! (24 ttJe6 �e6 2 5 �xe6 �e7=) 24 . . .�f6 2 5 c4? ! tlJeSt a nd Black's pieces showed better coordination. In the diagram position White should probably try to keep the main diagonal closed by playing immediately : 2 2 c4 tlJ eS 23 �e3 �g8 24 cxbS (24 exfS ih6f±) 24 . . . i.h6 25 exfS, but 25 . . . axbS is level. (Rogozenko proposes the sharper line 25 . . . �h4 26 �d4 .bf4 27 �xf4 �dS+ 28 f3 �gs 29 �gl �h6 30 �d4 �ac8 ! 3 1 �xg 8 + �xg8 3 2 bxa6 �h3 33 �f2 �h6 34 �d4 �h3=) 20 ... ixfS 21 li:) xf4 2 1 gxf4 exf4 ( 2 1 . . . e4 2 2 �e3 �g6 23 �gl t) 22 �gl is also balanced. (22 ttJxf4 is extremely risky, for in­ stance, 22 . . . �e8 23 �e3 tlJeS 24 tlJdS �g6oo when 25 ttJc7? would lose to 25 . . . �c8 26 ttJxa6 ie4+ 27 f3 ib7 28 ttJ b4 ih6 29 �f2 �g8 ; 2 2 �xf4? ! ih6) 2 2 . . . ih6 23 �xgS �xgS 24 �gl �d8 25 �hS �f8 26 �f3 �c8 (26 . . . �g6 27 �h3 tlJeS 28 ttJe7!) 27 ig4 �g4 28 �xg4 �e8oo. Play is dif-

2 3 Wff3 Of course White cannot capture on a6 due to 23 �xa6 �e4+ 24 f3 �a8- + , but 2 3 �b7 is possible, al­ though White's queen risks to be trapped in some variations: a) 23 . . . �b8? ! 24 �f7 (24 �xa6 �e4+ 25 f3 �a8) 24 . . . ie4 + 25 �gl �f5 26 �a7 is probably in his fa­ vour; b) 23 . . . �g7 24 �xa6 (24 �f3 ig4; 24 � g 2 �e8 ! 25 if3 �d7) 24 ... ie4 + 25 �gl �b7 2 6 ttJxbS �a8 27 ttJxd6 �xa6 28 ttJf7+ �xf7 29 �xd8 �af6t; c) 2 3 . . . dS ! ? 24 id3 (O r 24 gxf4 �g7 25 �xa6 �g6 ! 2 6 �xbS �h6 - + ; 2 4 g 4 �d7 2 5 tlJc2 �c6+) 2 4 . . . �g7 !? (24 . . . ixa3 ! ? 2 5 .bf"S �fS 26 bxa3 �xc3 27 �fel fxg3 28 fxg3 �f8 2 9 � g l �c2t) 2 5 �xa6 ig4 26 f3 ih3 27 �gl b4 28 cxb4 fxg3 29 �g3 �h4 30 �dgl �xg3 31 hxg3 �hS+ . 23 . . .fxg 3 Van Welly could have main­ tained the tension with 23 . . . �e7 ! ? (threatening . . . ig4) White can take up the gauntlet by 24 �d4 (24 id3?

156

7 !gS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 tlJdS fS 11 !d3 !e6 fxg3 2S fxg3 !g4 ; 24 gxf4 !e4 2 S fxgS �cs 2 6 �gl �xgS+) 24 . . . !g4 2 S �xg4 �xg4 26 !xg4, when 26 . . . �b8 ! ensures counterplay. Black's idea is to meet 27 �f4 by 27 . . . b4 28 cxb4 !h6 2 9 �c4 dS 30 �c2 d4 with a tan­ gled game. 24 fx g 3 d S ! This tactical trick allows Black to level the game. The point is 2S �xdS? !e4 ! 2S Wfg2 Or 2S �e3 ! ? !e4 + (2S . .. �e7 26 �xe7 he7 27 �fS MS 2 8 !g4 �cf8 29 fixfs �fs 30 �g2 !cs 31 �d2 + ) 26 !f3 !cs 27 1!Me2 !xa3 28 bxa3 �e7 29 �d4 �eSoo. 2S . . . .ixa3 26 bxa3 26 �dS ! ? should be met by 26 . . . !d7! 27 fu:gS �xgS 28 bxa3 fu:c3 29 m �cs 30 �d2 !c6 31 !xc6 (31 !g2 i.xg2 + 3 2 �xg2 �c6= )31 . . .�xc6+ 32 �gl 1!McS+ 33 �f2 �f3= . 2 6 . . . Wf e7 27 .if3 .ie4 28 Wf d2 Wfg7 28 . . . fixf3 + ! 29 M3 �e4 30 1!Md4 + �e s leads to a n equal rook ending: 31 �gl (31 1!Mxe4 dxe4 3 2 � e 3 �c4) 3 1 . . . 1!Mxd4+ 3 2 �d4 �el+ 33 M2 �cl= . 29 .ixe4 dxe4 3 0 Wfe3 Black's strong passed pawn in the centre balances the game. 30 .. . �es 31 @ g 1 (31 �d6 ! ? �f8 ! ) gf8 ! 3 2 gxf8+ Wfxf8 33 Wfd4 Wfe7 33 . . . �cS ! was more precise: 34 M2 �g8 3S �e3 �dS 36 �xcS �xcS= . 3 4 @ f2 Wff6+ 3 S @e2 Wff3+ 3 6 @d2 e3+ 37 @c1 Wff6 38 Wfd8+ Wfxd8 39 gxd8+ @g7 40 @d1 gfs 41 gas gf2 42 h4 gd2+ 43 @e1 gxa2 44 gxa6 gc2 4S gc6 hS 46 gcs @g6 %-%

27 K ra m n i k - Va n We ly W ij k aan Zee 2 S. 0 1 .200S 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 � c6 3 d4 c xd4 4 � xd4 �f6 s � c 3 es 6 � d b S d6 7 .igS a6 8 � a 3 bS 9 .ixf6 gxf6 1 0 � d S ts 1 1 .id3 .ie6 1 2 c3 .ig7 1 3 Wf h S 0-0 1 4 0-0 fxe4 1 S i.xe4 fS 1 6 � f4 exf4 1 7 .ixc6 gca 1 8 Wf e2 i.eS 1 9 Wff3

1 9 . . . b4! Perhaps this is the most impor­ tant tactical resource in the Svesh­ nikov. Sometimes it is used to gain control of d4, or open the b-file. Here it prolongs the diagonal to Black's dark-squared bishop and deprives White's knight of a central outpost. 20 cxb4 .ixb2 21 .id S 2 1 �adl ! ? counts on 2 1 . . . !xa3 2 2 ids hdS 2 3 �xdS hb4 24 �b 3 re­ gaining the piece. Perhaps simplest is 2 1 . . . !es 22 ids 1!Mf6 23 �d3 !xdS 24 �xdS + 1!Mf7= . 2 1 . . . Wff6 White retains some initiative after 2 1 . . .hdS 22 1!MxdS+ �h8 2 3 �adl ha3 24 �b3 f3 2S 1!Mxa3 (2S g 3 f4 26 �xa3 1!Md7 27 �b2 + �g8 28 �dSt) 2 S ... fxg2 2 6 �fel. 2 2 gad1 gc3 !

1S7

Part 7 22 . . .hd5 23 �xd5 Wffc3 24 �d3 Wffx b4 25 �b3 Wffd4 26 �b7 clearly fa­ vours White, but 2 2 . . . �h8 was play­ able . 2 3 gd3 23 �fe l !? is an interesting op­ tio n: 23 . . . �xf3 24 �xe6 . However, Black has 24 . . . Wffc3 25 ltJbl Wffd 3 26 �xd6+ � h 8 27 hf3 Wffb5 and h e is not worse, at least. 23 ....ixd S 24 Y«xd S+ Y«f7 2S 'l«f3 gfc8

The activity of Black's pieces and the clumsy position of ltJ a3 level the game. 26 � b 1 gc1 27 �d2 gxf1 + It was worth retaining the ten­ sion by 27 . . . ie5 ! ? with the following variations: 28 �a3 Wff a7 29 Wffd 3 Wffb 7=; 2 8 a3 �fl+ 2 9 l!Jxfl Wffc4oo ; 2 8 ltJb3 �xfl+ 29 �xfl Wffc4f!. 28 � xf1 .ieS The bishop cements very well the split pawns, building a strong Black cluster in the centre. 2 9 ga3 Or 2 9 g3 Wff c4 30 a3 Wff e4 3 1
so it is good to trade queens. On the other hand, Black should keep rooks on. In short, the good combination is rook+bishop vs . rook+knight, in­ stead of a queen +bishop vs . queen + knight The latter might arise after 30 . . . Wffxb4 31 Wffxf5 Wffxa3 32 Wffxc8 + �g7 33 Wie6 with some edge. 31 'l«f3 Y«c4 32 'l«b7 gc7 33 Y«a8+ gc8 34 Y«xa6 Y«xa6 3S g x a6 gc2= White is unable to keep both passed pawns o n the queenside. 36 ga3 gb2 37 gb3 gxa2 38 g3 fxg 3 39 h x g 3 .id4 40 �e3 @f7 41 bS .ib6 42 @f1 @e6 43 � c4 .ixf2 44 b6 dS 4S b7 .ia7 46 gb6+ @d7 47 gd6+ @c7 %-%

28 M astrovas il i s - Johannes sen Ath ens 20 0 3 1 e 4 cs 2 �f3 � c6 3 d 4 c x d4 4 � xd4 � f6 s �c3 es 6 � d b S d6 7 .igS a6 8 � a3 bS 9 .ixf6 g xf6 1 0 � d s ts 1 1 .id3 .ie6 1 2 'l«hS gg8 1 3 g 3 �d4 14 c3 fxe4 1 S .ixe4 .ig4 1 6 Y«x h7 gg7 1 7 'l«h6 �f3+ 1 8 @e2 � g s+ 1 9 f3 � xe4 20 fxg4 Y«c8 2 1 Y«e3 Y«xg4+ 22 'l«f3 Y«xf3+ 23 @xf3 ts 24 � c2 @f7

2S a4

7 !gS a6 8 ltJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 ltJdS f5 11 !d3 !e6 The previous moves are com­ mented in the "Step by Step" chap­ ter. White has also tried 25 ltJce3 setting the trap 25 .. . i>e6? 26 ltJxfS ! , but 2 5 . . . ltJf6 ! is enough for equal­ ity. If the other knight goes to e3 - 25 ltJde3, then 25 . . . ltJgS+ avoids the trap. White's attempt to break through the queenside is logical. 2S . . . e6 26 � ce 3 gba The mobile pawn centre offers Black many possibilities for devel­ oping the initiative, for instance : 26 . . . ltJgS+ ! 27 cj/g2 �b8 28 ltJ b4 (28 axbS �xbS) 28 . . . aS 29 ltJc6 �b6 30 axbS �xbS 31 �a2 �cs 32 ltJd8+ cj/f6 33 �fl f4 34 gxf4 ltJe6+ 35 cj/ hl ltJxf4. Johannessen prefers to keep the knight in the centre, but now White had 27 ltJxfS ! and White is at least not worse, e.g. 27 . . . cj/xfS 2 8 ltJ e 3 + cj/e6 29 cj/xe4 bxa4 3 0 �hfl, maintaining the clamp on dS. 27 � b4? ! � cs 28 as? Mastrovasilis commits a terri­ ble positional mistake. Instead of seeking to reduce the material with 28 ltJc6 �c8 29 axbS axbS 30 ltJ a7, he seals the queenside. That leaves him without any counterplay. 28 . . JU7 29 � e d S .ih6 30 g h e 1 gga 3 1 g ad 1 f4 32 g 4

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

159

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

Part 8

QU IC K REPERTO I RE

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

-

160

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 8 c;t> h1

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

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

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

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

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

16 2

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

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

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

Part 8

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

STEP BY STE P

12

i.xd S! 1 3 exd S � e7

•••

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

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

page 163 page 164 page 166 page 167 page 170

A. 1 4 �xbS .ig7 1 S �c3 e4

•••

163

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

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

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

..

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

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

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

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

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

21 gad 1 This is the latest attempt of Shabalov to shake the assessment of the diagram position as pleasant for Black. White prepares ttJd4 . In­ stead, 21 �ael �c4 22 �e6 + @h8 23 a3 �b3 is double-edged. 21 ...
16S

Part 8 30 �xhS �c8 = . 2 2. . .%Yc5 23 � h 1 'Wxd 5 24 llJts 'Wes 25 l2Jxe7 Wixe7 26 �fS �h6 ! is also level: 27 he4 (27 �d4 'WeS) 27 .. .'Wxe4 28 Wixh6 f3= . 2 5 llJxd6 'Wx h 5 2 6 i.xh 5 e3 27 g3 i.e5 28 � e4 fxg3 29 hxg3 gf5 30 i.e2 gaf8!=. The last finesse. In the stem game Krasenkow played 30 . . . �g8, which eventually also led to a draw.

C. 1 4 c4 i.g7

Perhaps this is the most consis­ tent attempt to gain an advantage. White had castled already, and now he opens up the queenside where he has a pawn majority. On the other wing, he intends to restrain Black's counterattack with f3 . 1 5 gb1 a) 1 5 cxbS? ! e 4 16 �e2 hb2 17 l2J c4 hal 18 'Wxal 0-0 19 b6 llJxdS 20 �dl llJf4 2 1 �fl dS+; b) 15 l2Jc2? ! e4 ! (15 . . . 0-0 16 cxbS e4 17 �e2 axbS 18 hbS hb2 19 �bl �eS�) 16 �e2 bxc4 17 hc4 0-0+; c) 15 Wff b 3 hides more venom. It brought White success in Vescovi166

M atsuura, Sao Paulo 2006 after 15 . . . 0-0 16 cxbS e4 17 �e2 f4 18 f3 e3 19 �acl l2Jf5 20 �c4 l2Jd4 21 Wffd 3 'Wf6 2 2 b6 . We think that Black should­ take up the gauntlet by: 15 . . . bxc4 ! ? 16 'Wa4+ 16 l2Jxc4 has no much sense as the queen on b3 will only help us activate the rook, for instance: 16 ... 0-0 17 f3 �b8 18 'Wa3 llJxdS 19 hfS llJf4+. 16 . . . Wffd7 ! ? 1 6 . . . M8 contradicts the principles of quick and harmonious de­ velopment which Black typically embraces in the Sveshnikov. Still, play is unclear after 17 l2Jxc4 e4 18 �c2 Wffc7 19 �b3 �d4 20 @hl �cs�. 17 �c2 c3 18 l2Jc4 �d8oo . Now both 19 Wixd7+ @xd7 or 19 Wixa6 0-0 would be fi ne for Black. d) 15 Wid2 e4 16 �e2 has prac­ tically disappeared due to the the­ matic positional sacrifice 16 . . . b4 ! ?

Black keeps the enemy bish­ op passive and gains time to cas­ tle and start his kingside offensive. That will enable him to control the game. As to White's extra pawn, Tal had put it nicely long ago : Black has an extra open file in exchange ! 17 Wfxb4 �b8

7 �gs a6 8 liJa3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 liJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0 17 ... 0-0 ! ? needs more tests : 18 �d 2 (18 �abl f4 19 cS ! ? is worth considering) 18 . . . liJg6 19 �abl (19 cS dxcS 20 liJc4 f4 21 cj{hl �d4 2 2 d 6 �f6 i s good for Black) 1 9 . . .f4 2 0 f3 (or 20 liJc2 f3 2 1 gxf3 1!Mh4--+) 2 0 . . . e 3 2 1 W!el W! gS--+ gave Black a tre­ mendous position in Koch-Hor­ vath, Bischwiller 1999. 18 W!a4+ Ms 19 �abl hb2 . Black has good chances for a kingside attack, see game 29 Kot­ ronias-Shirov, Calvia, ol. 2 004. 1 5 e4 1 6 i.e2 bxc4 This is much more topical then 16 . . . 0-0 . White often fails to defend his king. 1 7 ti:)xc4 0-0 •••

W!d2 �bS ! ? 20 liJ e3 W!b6 ! , when even the best answer 2 1 hbS would not have saved White from trouble, e.g. 2 1 . .. �d4 2 2 �fel liJxdS 2 3 cj{hl �xe3 24 �e2 dS 2S b3 aSoo or 2S . . . �cS ! ? 2 6 b 4 �d6 2 7 g 3 d4oo. 19 . . . �bs 20 liJe3 �xb2 21 �xb2 hb2 22 �d2 �g7 23 �bl W!c7 24 ha6 �b8 2S �cl W!a7 26 �fl �b2 27 � e l �xa 2+ Ivanchuk-Lautier, Odes­ sa rapid, 2006 ; b ) 1 8 W!d2 �b8 ! Threatening t o grab the dS­ pa wn. 18 . . . liJg6 is less concrete and leaves White a tiny edge follow­ ing 19 f4 exf3 2 0 �xf3 f4 2 1 b4 liJeS 22 �h3 liJxc4 2 3 hc4 �es 24 cj{hl Areshchenko-Wang Yue, Lausanne 200 6 . 1 9 b4 �bs 2 0 liJe 3 f4 2 1 �xbS fxe3 22 W!xe3 axbS 23 W!xe4 liJg6 ! Black has the better game, since White's pawns are weak, for instance, 24 �bcl �a8. Instead, Dworakowska­ Aksiuczyc, Brzeg Dolny 1996 saw 23 .. .fS? which only compromises Black's position. 1 8 gb& 1 9 ® h1 E!b5 20 �c2 Or 2 0 liJe3 �b4. 20 ti:)xd S 21 fxe4 ti:) b4 22 �a4 fxe4=. This position was reached in game 3 0 Efimenko-Moiseenko, Zlatibor 200 6 . It is rather equal. •••

1 8 f3 White must prevent 18 .. .f4. He can also do that by: a) 18 f4. This move does put a radical stop to Black's kingside ac­ tivities, but now we get a free hand in the centre. The dS-pawn is a juicy target. 18 . . . �b8 19 cj{hl One can appreciate such prophy­ laxis after seeing the game Stefans­ son-Krasenkow, Gausdal 1991: 19

•••

D. 1 4 E!e1 With this move White starts a typical middlegame redeploying of his forces. It enables the �d3 to re­ treat to fl which significantly hin-

167

Part 8 ders Black's counterplay. The fine point is that . . .f4-f3 will be a strike at thin air without the bishop being o n e 2 . Although we can find a game dated of 1994, this plan attracted at­ tention after the convincing victory of Yurtaev: 14 E!el ig7 15 E!bl 0-0 16 c4 bxc4 17 llJxc4 aS 18 'WhS e4 19 i.fl E!c8 20 llJ e3 f4 21 llJfS e3 22 id3 llJg6 23 fxe3 E!e8 24 E!fl fxe3 25 llJxg7 e2 26 he2 cj{xg7 2 7 E!xf7+ cj{xf7 2 8 '\Wxh7+ cj{f6 29 E!fl + cj{es 30 V!ixg6 V!ib6 + 3 1 cj{ h l V!ie 3 3 2 i.bS 1-0 , Yurtaev-Gre­ bionkin, Samara 2 0 0 2 . Lately 14 E!el tends t o displace 14 c3 as most popular line.

14

•••

ig7

1 8 cxb5 In Lutz-Moiseenko, Plovdiv 2 0 0 3 , White preferred 18 b4, but it does not affect Black's plans: 18 . . . i.eS . (18 . . . \WgS 19 \&cl ! ?) Here Lutz went wrong with 19 V!ihS? ! V!if6 2 0 E!e3 h6 2 1 llJc2 ? ! llJf4 2 2 'Wdl cj{h7+. Rogozenko suggests 19 g3 V!igS 20 cj{h l with double-edged play. 18 'WhS? ! only loses time : 18 . . . V!if6 19 cxbS axbS 20 hbS llJf4 2 1 V!idl V!ig6 t .

18 c x b 5 axb5 1 9 i.xb 5 The most testing continuation. Now 19 . . . hb2 20 llJc4 (20 E!xb2 E!xa3 =) 20 . . . i.eS 21 a4 cj{h8 22 g3 E!g8 23 i.c6 E!a7 24 E!b3 , Czarnota­ Dl. 15 E!bl 0 2 . 15 c3

01 . 1 5 gb1 White intends t o advance his queenside pawns and create a pas­ ser.

1 5 . . 0-0 1 6 c4 e4 1 7 �f1 �g6 .

Like i n most Sveshnikov lines with opposite coloured bishops, the initiative, especially on the kingside, is more important than the pawns. 16 8

Felgaer, 2 0 07, is equal, but Black should have went on with 24 . . . 'Wf6 ! 25 cj{hl i.d4 26 V!id2 (26 llJxd6 hf2 2 7 E!fl V!ixd6 2 8 �f2 f6 2 9 V!id4 E!c7 30 E!c2 llJeS 31 E!bc3 E!b 8 ! f!) 26 . . . icS 27 aS llJeS = . Another de­ cent option is 19 . . . i.eS 20 i.c6 E!a7 21 ctJc4 E!xa2 22 V!ihS V!if6 2 3 i.d7 f4 24 E!xe4 hb2 = , Oleksienko-Kulj as­ evic, Pardubice 20 07. However, we recommend :

1 9 . . .'%Yg5

7 igS a6 8 ttJ a3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS fS 11 id3 ie6 12 0-0

Black's attack is very danger­ ous and even the exchange sacrifice slows it down only tern porary: 2 0 E:e3 ieS 21 ic6 �a7 22 ttJc4 ttJh4 23 �g3 hg3 24 hxg3 ltJg6 2S a4 f4 26 ttJxd6 �e7t, Murariu-Gen­ gler, Crete GRE 29.10. 20 07. White can also trade queens, with some drawing chances: 2 0 �cl �xcl 21 �excl ixb2 2 2 �xb2 �a3 2 3 �cc2 ttJeS+, Kalash­ nikov-Oleksienko, Moscow 20 07. 0 2 . 1 5 c3 0-0 1 6 \Wh 5 White can open up the a-file by 16 ttJc2 �e8 (16 . . . �d7! ?) 17 a4, but that does not ensure him an edge: 17 . . . �b6 18 axbS axbS 19 ttJb4 �xal 20 �xal e4 21 ifl �cs 22 ttJa6 �b6 , Negi-Alekseev, Kirishi 200 S 1 6 . . . e4 1 7 �f1 g e 8

1 8 g ad 1 The dS-pawn needs protection. 18 ttJc2 ttJxdS 19 �xfS �es gives Black an initiative: 2 0 �g4 (No one wished to copy White's play from the game Inarkiev-Babula, Pardu­ bice 20 03 which saw 20 �h3 ttJf4 2 1 �g4 ttJ e 6 2 2 f4 exf3 2 3 �xf3 ltJgS 24 �b7 ttJ e4 2S ttJ b4 �e7 2 6 �c6 dSf!) 20 . . . hS 21 �dl �gs 22 a4 �ae8 (Or 22 . . . b4 23 cxb4 e3 24 fxe3 ttJxe3 2S ttJxe3 �xe3 26 �xd6 �ae8.) 2 3 axbS axbS 24 ttJe3 ttJf4f! planning b4 and dS with a satisfactory game. 1 8 . . . gc8 18 ... ttJg6 is a popular, but not very convincing gambit: 19 �xfS �es 2 0 �g4 fS 2 1 �g3 ! ? f4 2 2 �g4 �f6 23 ttJc2 �ae8 24 ttJd4 (24 f3 !?) 24 . . . :gxdS 2S a4t, Zude-Srienz, Dres­ den 07. 04 . 2007 19 g93 Apart from this move, White tried 19 ttJc2, but the freestyle (what a term for practically a computer chess ! ) game Valori, New_Rybka 1. 1 32 - Heff alump, playchess.com INT 20 06 , showed an easy equalis­ er: 19 . . . �cS 20 ttJe3 (20 �d2 �c8 ! 2 1 �edl ltJg6f!) 2 0 . . .f4 2 1 ltJfS ( 2 1 ltJg4 fS 22 ttJh6+ �xh6 2 3 �xh6 ltJg6+) 2 1 . . . ltJxfS 22 �xfS �f6 ! = . 1 9 . . . g c s 20 c 4 bxc4 2 1 g h 3 h 6 2 2 lll xc4 lll xd 5 ! 2 3 \Wxf5 e 3 ! This break leads to mass elimi­ nation and equality. 24 g xd5 The alternatives leave Black more winning options: a) 24 fxe3 ttJxe3 2S �xcS ttJxdl

169

Part 8 2 6 ltJxd6 (26 �ds �elt) 26 . . . �eS ! 27 �c80 (27 �c6 �dS ! 28 ltJe4 �cS ! 29 �a4 �cl-+) 27 . . . �xc8 28 ltJxc8 �e8+ 29 �d3 ! ltJxb2 30 ltJd60 ltJxd3 (30 . . . �d8 31 �ds !f8 32 ltJe4=) 31 ltJxe8 !d4+ 32 �hl ltJf2 + 33 �gl ltJe4+ 34 �hl = ; b ) 2 4 � f3 e2 ! ( 24 . . . exf2 + 2 S �xf2�) 2 S he2 �xe2 26 �xe2 ltJf4 27 �e4 ltJxh3+ 28 gxh3 �gs+ fol­ lowed by . . . dS+ ; c) 24 !d3 ltJf6 2S �f4 exf2 + 2 6 �xf2 ltJe4 ! ? ( 2 6 . . . �c7oo) 27 he4 �xe4 28 b3 (28 ltJxd6 !d4 ! - + ; 2 8 �xcS �e l+ 29 M2 �xdl+ ) 2 8 . . . �e7 29 �hd3 �e2 30 �f3 �gs 31 g3 ds 32 �xdS �xdS 33 �xdS �xa2 = . 24 . . . e 2 ! 2 5 �xe2 2S �xcS? dxcS ! (2S . . . el� 26 �dS �e6oo) 26 he2 �xe2 27 �bl (27 g4 �el+ 28 �g2 �dl 29 �d3 �gl+ 30 �h3 �fl + 3 1 �h4 !f6 ++) 27 . . . �d4 28 ltJe3 �d2 29 ltJfl �el 30 �d3 �xd3 31 �xd3 hb2+ . 2 5 .. . �xe2 2 6 f1 Y«e8 ! 27 g93 gxe3 28 li:) xe 3 'l«b5+ 29 e1 =.

E. 1 4 c 3 .ig7 1 5 V9h5 lS �el 0-0 16 �hS e4 17 !fl transposes to line 0 2 . l S llJc2 i s a n introduction t o ano­ ther plan, connected with a4. Black can meet it with either . . . bxa4 or . . . �b6, for instance: lS . . . 0-0 16 a4 e4 17 !e2 bxa4 (or 17 ... �b6 18 axbS axbS=) 18 �xa4 �b6 19 �b4 �cs 2 0 ltJe3 �ab8 21 �b3 �xb4 2 2 cxb4 Sadvakasov-Khalifman, So­ chi 200S, when 22 . . . �d4 ! ? 23 �dl (23 ha6 f4) 23 . . . �f6 (23 . . . �xb2 24

170

�xb2 hb2 2 S ha6 �b8=) 24 h a6 f4 2S ltJc4 �g6 would have offered Black rich play.

1 5 ... e4 1 6 .ic2 16 !e2 transposes to line B . 1 6. . . 0-0 1 7 g ae1 In this line White is planning to crush Black's centre with f3 or even g4. Then the c2-bishop would be­ come extremely awkward, hitting h7. Therefore, 17 �adl? ! is incon­ sistent: 17 . . . �c8 and then : a) 18 f3? b4 19 llJbl bxc3 2 0 ltJxc3 �b6 + 21 �f2 �xb 2 - + ; b) 18 !bl �cs 1 9 llJc2 ttJxdS 2 0 f4 ( 20 �xfS llJxc3 2 1 �xcS ttJe2+ 2 2 �hl dxcS 23 �xd8 �xd8 - +) 20 . . . �b6 2 1 �hl a S 2 2 a 3 b 4 2 3 axb4 axb4 24 cxb4 ltJxb4 2S ltJxb4 �xb4 26 �xd6 �bs 27 �fdl �xb2 28 h3 �b3+· c) 18 !b3 f4 19 ltJc2 fS 20 ltJd4 hd4 2 1 �xd4 (21 cxd4 ltJg6+) 2 1 . . . llJg6 22 �el �c7! 23 f3 e3 24 !c2 �f6 2S �d3 �g7, Pucher-Lau­ tier, Montpellier, 2 007. White is in a difficult position without plan, while Black is building up pressure along the g-file . '

1 7 ... Y«c8

7 !gS a6 8 l!J a3 bS 9 !xf6 gxf6 10 l!JdS fS 11 !d3 !e6 12 0 -0

The queen defends the fS­ pawn, thus enabling the e7-knight to move. It is also eyeing the bish­ op on c2 . White is unable to achieve any advantage, so he keeps on try­ ing new ideas: El. 18 f3 E 2 . 18 g4 E3. 18 !bl E4. 18 !b3 ES. 18 ©hl

E 1 . 1 8 f3 A risky continuation, which may turn insufficient even for a draw. 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 cxb4 19 l!Jbl bxc3 20 l!Jxc3 hc3 2 1 bxc3 �xc3 2 2 !bl l!Jg6 (23 fxe4 f4f!) 23 �xfS exf3 24 �xf3 �xf3 2S :9:xf3 :9:ae8 was equal in Asrian­ Wang Yue, Khanty Mansiysk 2 00S. Perhaps Black could shape better this idea by starting with 20 . . . l!Jg6 21 fxe4 and only then 21 . . .hc3 2 2 bxc3 �xc3 23 :9:e2 f4 with dark­ squared strategy. 1 9 . . . i xb2 20 fxe4 .ixa3 2 1 � e 3 'Mfxc2 2 2 � g3+ tiJ g 6 23 �h 3 �fd 80

24 'Mfxh 7 + 24 exfS l!J e S 2 S �gS+ ©£8 2 6 :9:xh7 ©e8 ! - + 24 . . . t8 2 s � h S ! O r 2 S exfS l!JeS 2 6 :9:xa3 ©e8+. 25 . . .f4 ! ? This move was suggested by Ro­ gozenko in CBM 104. Black is not satisfied with a draw in the varia­ tion 2S . . . l!JeS 26 E!:hxfS :9:a7 27 �h8 + ©e7 2 8 E!:xeS+ dxeS 2 9 �xeS+ ©f8= 3 0 �h 8 + ©e7 3 1 �es+ ©f8 . After the text, 2 6 :§:fs llJ es (26 . . . :9:a7 ! ? 27 �xg6 !cl 28 ©hl �c4 Rogozenko) 27 :9:5xf4 :9:a7 28 �h8 + ©e7 2 9 �h4+ ©d7 30 �h3 + ©c7 31 �xa3 ©b8 favours Black. (Rogozenko)

E 2 . 1 8 g4 A very aggressive approach, but Black easily achieves good play thanks to his more active piece s: 1 8 . . . b4 1 9 cxb4 tiJxd5 19 . . . hb2 h a s been known to be equal ever since the game Sax-Je­ len, Medulin 1997: 20 �gS + l!Jg6 21 gxfS ha3 22 fxg6 fxg6 23 he4 :9:f7 24 !d3 �c3 2S :9:e3 �xb4 26 :9:g3 !b2 27 :9:g4 lf2- l/2.

171

Part 8 Now Black is threatening with 18 . . . tt:JxdS. 1 9 f3 Wes+ 20 h 1 e 3

20 Wxf5 An attempt to improve on the game Nunn-Reinderman, Leeu­ warden 199S, which saw 20 gxfS tl:Jf6 2 1 �h3 dS 2 2 @hl �h8 23 �gl �g8 24 �b3 �b7 (24 . . . �b8 ! ) 2S tl:Jc2 �ad8 26 tt:Jd4 tt:Jd7 with good com­ pensation. 20 ... \WxfS 2 1 g xf5 � xb4 22 gxe4 g ab8 23 .i b 3 23 @hl? ! hb2 ! 2 4 �gl+ @h8 2 S f6 hf6+ would leave White won­ dering why did he so generously gave out his pawns. After the text the position looks drawish. 23 . . . dS 24 ge2 gfe8 25 gfe 1 gxe2 26 gxe2 � d 3 27 .ixd 5 � f4 28 gd2 gxb2 29 gxb2 .ixb2 30 � c4 � x d 5 31 � xb 2 @ g7=.

E3. 1 8 .ib1 White enables the manoeuvre tt:J a3-c2-e3 which would enhance the efficiency of pawn breaks like f3 or g4. Black must hurry with his counterplay before it became too late. As the dS-pawn is still immune in view of 18 . . tt:JxdS? 19 he4, he chooses : 1 8 . . . ge8

172

No w 2 1 hfS? tl:JxfS 2 2 �xfS e2 would be sad for White, so he might want to blockade the passer with 2 1 �e2 . However, Black has good play then after either 2 1 . . . h6 ! ?oo 22 tl:Jc2 tt:JxdS 23 �xfS �es or 21. .. tt:JxdS 22 �xfS h6. That's why we'll focus o n: 2 1 f 4 � x d 5 22 Wxf5 �f6 23 .id3 Black has a comfortable game. He can choose between: a) 23 . . . �xfS ! ? 24 hfS b4 !oo 2S cxb4 �ab 8 ; b) 23 . . . e2 2 4 �xe2 �xfS ! ? 2 S �xe 8+ �xe8 26 MS �e2 2 7 tl:J c 2 �d2oo, (A. Sokolov) 28 �gl dS ; c) 23 . . . b4 ! ? 24 cxb4 �xfS 2S hfS �ab8 26 �f3 dS 27 tl:Jc2 (27 �fxe3 �xe3 2 8 �xe3 �xb4+) 27 . . . d4 28 tt:Jxd4 �xb4 29 tl:Jc2 �xb2=.

E4. 1 8 .ib3 White's idea is similar to the pre­ vious line, but White protects the dS-pawn. Its downside is that Black can hinder 19 tl:Jc2 by: 1 8 . . . as

7 �gs a6 8 '2J a3 bS 9 �xf6 gxf6 10 'tJ dS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0 23 . . . �f6 24 g4 d S Here Nunn erred with 2 S a3? ! and would have been worse fallow­ ing 2S . . . �xgS ! 26 fxgS �xd4+ 27 cxd4 '2Jc6+.

The fine point is that after 19 ttJxbS a4 (20 '2Jxd6? loses to 20 . . . �d7) 20 �dl �cs 21 '2Jd4 (Or 2 1 �e2 ttJxdS 22 �gs h6 ! 23 �g3 f4 24 �h4 a3 ! 2S b4 �c8 26 �cl �b8 27 '2Jxd6 �e6 28 'tJbS �xbS 29 �xbS '2Jxc3 30 �xc3 �xc3 31 �xf4 �xa 2=) 2 1 . .. �xdS Black regains the pawn with strong centralisation. Since the game Nunn-McShane, Hastings 1997, White has not find improve­ ments: 2 2 �gS The alternatives are in Black's favour: 22 �e3 �fb8 ! 23 �h3 (23 �g3 �xb2 24 �gs �es 2S f4 exf3 26 M3 �c8+; 23 b3 f4 ! 24 �xdS ttJxdS 2S �xe4 '2Jxc3 26 �f4 �b4 !+) 23 . . . h 6 ( 2 3 . . . �xb2 ! ? 24 �xh7+ cj{f8f!) 24 b3 f4 2 S �xdS ttJxdS 26 'tJfS axb3 27 axb3 (27 �xb3 '2Jxc3 2 8 '2Jxd6 �b6+) 27 . . .�xc3 28 �c2 (28 '2Jxd6 e3f!; 2 8 '2Jxh6+ Ms 29 'tJfS �eS+) 2 8 . . . �e8 29 '2Jxd6 e3 ! 30 fxe3 �e6+. 22 . . . �es 22 . . . �fe8 !? deserves attention: 23 f3 �xa2 24 fxe4 �xb2 2S 'tJxfS ctJxfS 2 6 �xfS a3 ! ? with initiative. 2 3 f4 Or 2 3 f3 f4 24 �h4 '2Jg6 ! 2S �h3 e3 26 �c2 �cS !+.

1 9 \Wg5 \Wb7 20 f3 Or 2 0 ttJxbS �xbS 2 1 �xe7 a4 22 �c2 (22 �dl �xdS+; 22 c4 �e8 23 �xe8 �fxe8 24 �c2 hb2+) 22 . . . �xb2+. 20 f 3 h6! 2 1 \Wg 3 ! White has also tried: a) 2 1 �d2 a4 2 2 �c2 b4 23 cxb4 �xdS 24 �xdS ttJxdS 2S fxe4 '2Jxb4 26 �bl �xb2 27 '2Jc4 �c3=, M . Hoff­ mann-Dub, Budapest 20 0 3 ; b) 2 1 �hS a4 2 2 �c2 b4 23 '2Jc4 bxc3 24 fxe4 fxe4 2S �xe4 (2S bxc3 fS 26 '2Je3 �b2 27 �h4 �f7+) 2S . . . cxb2 2 6 �g4 �xdS 2 7 �xh6 '2Jg6+; c) 21 �f4 a4 22 �c2 b4 23 cxb4 (23 '2Jc4 �xdS 24 '2Je3 �xa2 2S fxe4 '2Jg6 26 �xd6 f4-+) 23 . . . �xb4 24 fxe4 '2Jg6 ! 2S � f3 (2S �xfS �xb2 26 eS ! �xeS 27 'tJ b 1 �ac8 ! 2 8 �e4 �ce8 ! 29 cj{hl �g7t) 2S . . .f4 26 �e2 �xb2 27 '2Jc4 �xa2 28 '2Jxd6 a3oo . 21

. . .

a4 22 ic2 b4

Now Black has sufficient play. 173

Part s

ES. 1 8 h 1 The reason behind this move is, besides prophylaxis, to prepare the opening of the g-file with g4, while keeping the third rank free for a rook lift via e3. 1 8 . . . �b8!

years ago . White won a great number of games by pushing f3 or g4 and destroying the helpless black king. You can see a good example of White's play in game 31 Kolev­ Echavarria, Istanbul ol. 20 0 0 . Then Leko introduced the strong rook move and ever since White has often been even struggling to main­ tain the balance. It turned out that White is unable to bring his knight into play: 19 i.bl b4 20 cxb4 �b4 21 f3 �xb2 22 fxe4 �c3 = ; 1 9 i.b3 aS 2 0 f3 b 4 (Rogozenko suggests 20 . . . a4 !? 2 1 i.c2 b4 22 fxe4 bxa3 23 exfS l!Jg6 !) 21 cxb4 �b4 2 2 fxe4 fxe4= . Thus White began trying t o un­ dermine the centre: 19 g4 b4 2 0 cxb4 l!JxdS 21 gxf5, but the simple 2 1 . . . @h8 ! neutralises allWhite's attacking chances: 22 i.b3 l!Jf6 23 �gs ds 24 l!Jc2 �bToo ; 22 he4 l!Jf6 23 � f3 �xb4= ; 2 2 �gl hb2 23 �h6 �c3 ! 24 �e4 �f6 2S �h3 �g8t Topalov-Le­ ko, Dortmund 20 0 2 . A little more complicate is:

This line was very topical ten

1 9 f3 b4 20 fxe4 The inclusion of moves @hl �b8 makes the capture 20 cxb4? bad due to the long variation 20 . . . hb2 21 fxe4 ha3 22 �e3 (22 exfS? �xc2) 22 . . . �xc2 23 �g3+ (23 �h3? �fc8 24 �xh7+ @f8) 23 ... l!Jg6 24 �h3 �fd8 2S �xh7+ @f8 26 �hS l!JeS 27 �xfS �b7 28 �xeS dxeS 2 9 �h8 + We7 30 �xeS+ @d7 3 1 �xf7+ Wc8 32 �e6 + @b8 when White loses since he has

He only should keep the kingside close, even at the cost of a few pawns : 2 3 cxb4 �xb4 (23 . . . l!JxdS 24 fxe4 f4oo) 24 fxe4 f4 2S gn4 l!Jg6 26 �ffl hb 2= 27 l!Jbl �ac8 28 �e2 i.eS. Usually White prefers to bring his knight into play: 23 � c4 Wxd 5 24 fxe4 24 l!Jxd6 bxc3 ! favours Black: 2S fxe4 (2S bxc3 �fd8+ 26 �dl �cs+ 27 @ h l �xc3) 2 S . . . �d4+ 26 @ h l f4 27 �xf4 l!Jg6 2 8 bxc3 �cs+. 24 f xe4 Wxc4 25 exf5 This position arose in the game Shirov- Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 20 0 3 . Shirov suggests: 25 . . . � xfS ! 26 �xf5 �ae8! (26 . . . bxc3? 2 7 �e4; 2 6 . . . �xa2? ! 27 �d3 �fe8 28 �efl �e6 29 �Sf2) 27 �ef1 bxc3 28 bxc3 Wxc3 (28 . . . dS ! ? oo) 29 Wxc3 .ixc3 30 .ixa4 �e5=.

174

7 �gs a6 8 l2Ja3 bS 9 �f6 gxf6 10 ltJdS fS 11 �d3 �e6 12 0-0 no check on b6 . (Rogozenko) The game Shirov-Leko, Dort­ mund 20 0 2 saw 20 ltJbl? ! bxc3 2 1 bxc3 hc3 2 2 l2Jxc3 ( 2 2 E: e 2 �es 23 fxe4 f4oo) 22 . . . \Wxc3 23 fxe4 f4 ! , when even the best 2 4 �bl (24 �b3? l2Jg6 2S E:cl \Wf6 26 \WfS \We7t turned well for Black in the game) 24 . . . l2Jg6 2S eS ! is just about equal. 20 . . . bxa3 21 exf5 � g 6 !

2 1 . . .�f6 ! ? might b e good enough, but it gives White much more chan­ ces to put Black under pressure af­ ter 2 2 E:f3 ! E:e8 (22 . . . axb2 23 E:g3 + �g7 24 E:xg7+ ! �xg7 2S f6 + ! �xf6 26 �h4 + + -) 23 E:g3 + l2Jg6 24 E:fl (24 E:gl E:b7 2S fxg6 fxg6) 24 . . . \Wc4 2S �d3 ! ? (2S \Wdl ! ? is also rather unclear) We could not find an ad­ vantage for White here, but the var­ iations are so long and complicat-

ed, that we cannot exclude possible mistakes. 2 1 . . . l2Jg6 is more clear and well tested. 22 f6 22 E:f3 E:xb2 23 �e4 E:e8 24 fxg6 hxg6 2S �h4 �c4- + ; 22 fxg6 ? ! fxg6-+ o r 2 2 b3? ! �xc3 2 3 fxg6 fxg6 24 \We2 �eS-+ are clearly worse. 2 2 bxa3 ! ? \Wxc3 2 3 fxg6 hxg6 24 \Wdl E:b2 is playable, with a possible draw ahead. 22 . . J� xb2 2 2 ... �f6 is equal, 2 3 E:xf6 E:xb2 24 hg6 fxg6 2S E:xg6 + = , Musil­ Leiner, Czechia, 2004. 2 3 fxg7 23 E:e3 ? ! looks appealing, but 23 . . . E:xc2 24 E:h3 �xh3 2S �xh3 E:xa2 ! 26 fxg7 E:b8+ is able to cool down White's enthusiasm. 23 . . . xg7 24 .id3 Or 24 �bl \Wxc3 2S \WfS (2S E:cl �eS-+) 2 S . . . E:xg2 !+. 24 ... '%Yxc3 2 5 g93 g 8! If Black i s willing t o take risks, he might prefer 2S . . . �d2 26 �gS ! f6 27 �g3 with unclear position. After the text, the source game Dominguez­ Schandorff, Esbjerg 2 0 03 quickly steered to a draw: 26 hg6 hxg6 27 E:xc3 gxhS 2 8 E:xa3 E:e 8 29 E:xa6 E:ee2 30 E:xd6 E:xg2 31 E:gl E:xgl+ 3 2 �xgl E:xa2 = .

17S

Part 8

1 e4 cs 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 S lll c 3 es 6 �db S d6 7 ig S a6 8 lll a3 bS 9 1xf6 gxf6 1 0 lll d S fS 1 1 id3 i e6 1 2 0-0

COMPLETE GAMES

29 Kotron ias - S h irov Calvia ol. 2 S . 1 O .2004 1 e4 cs 2 ll:) f3 ll:) c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 li:) xd4 li:) f6 s li:) c3 es 6 li:) db S d6 7 i gS a6 8 li:) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O li:) d S fS 1 1 id3 ie6 1 2 0-0 ixdS 13 exdS li:) e 7 1 4 c4 e4 1 S ie 2 ig 7 1 6 'l;Yd2 b4 1 7 'l;Yxb4 gba 1 8 'l;Ya4+ @ta 1 9 g ab1 ix b2

of the bishop o n h5 by 23 . . . h5 ! ? 24 ©hl ©g7 25 Wffxa6 g as 2 6 Wff b5 .ia3 , obtaining a slightly better version of the stem game .

2 1 . . .f4 22 'l;Yc2 Or 22 ll:Jf5 ll:Je7!

22 . . . 'l;Yf6 23 li:) d 1 f3

White is at a juncture. In all the

20 li:) c2 Or 2 0 Wffc2 .ie5 2 1 Wff d2 gg8 = .

2 0 . . . li:) g & 2 1 li:) e 3 In Leko-Kramnik, Linares 2003 White chose the more testing 21 ll:J b4 Wfff6 22 ll:Jc6 ge8 ! 23 f4 (23 Wffx a6? ll:Jf4 24 .idl ll:Jxg2 ! �) 23 . . . .id4+ 24 © hl ©g7 25 .ih5 .ic5f2 with un­ clear position. We think that Black should have a voided the appearance 176

lines he would be a pawn up in an endgame, but the activity of Black's rook should compensate it. Most obvious is 24 bf3 exf3 25 g3 (or 25 gxb2 gxb2 26 Wffx b2 ©g7 27 '!9xf6 + ©xf6 28 ll:Je 3 gb8oo) 25 . . . ©g7 2 6 gxb2 gxb2 2 7 Wffx b2 Wffx b2 2 8 ll:Jxb2 ll:Je5 29 gel gbs with sufficient com­ pensation. In this variation the f3pawn is quite awkward, so Kotroni­ as chose:

7 igS a6 8 ttJa3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 10 ttJdS f5 11 id3 ie6 12 0-0 24 gxb2 g xb 2 2S Y«xb2 Y«xb 2 26 � xb 2 fxe 2 2 7 ge1 g7 2 8 gxe2 gb8 Again the control over the b-file balances the game. 29 f3 ti)f4 30 gxe4 gxb2 31 gxf4 gxa2 32 gg4+ %-%

30 Efim e n ko - M o iseenko Zl at ibo r 200 6 1 e 4 cs 2 ti)f3 ti) c 6 3 d 4 c x d 4 4 ti)xd4 ti)f6 s ti)c3 e s 6 ti) d bS d6 7 igS a6 8 ti) a 3 bS 9 ixf6 gxf6 1 O ti) d S fS 1 1 �d 3 ie6 1 2 0-0 �xd S 1 3 exd S ti) e 7 14 c4 e 4 1 S � e 2 �g7 1 6 g b 1 bxc4 1 7 ti)xc4 0-0 1 8 f3 gb8 1 9 h 1 gbs

The principal aim of Black i n this structure is to roll his central pawn pair as further as possible. With his 18th move White stopped f4, so Black turned to the next step of his to-do list. Now he wins the dS-pawn while White captures e4. In result of the clash in the centre most pieces disappear f ram the board. 20 Y«c2 ti) xd S 21 fxe4 ti) b4 22 Y«a4 fxe4 2 3 ti)e3 ti)d S 24 ti)xdS gxdS 2 S Y«xe4 ges 26 Y«f3 as 27 ic4 Y«e7 28 b3 h8 29 g b d 1 ts

30 gd s t4 31 id3 ge3 32 Y«hs �es 33 �c4 a4 Play is equal. Simplest for Black is to seek exchanges or disturb White's pieces. 34 gbs axb3 3S axb3 'l«d7 36 Y«h6 � g7 37 Y«h4 �es 38 Y«h6 � g7 39 'Mfh4 �es %- %

3 1 Kolev - Echavarria Ista n b u l ol. 2000 1 e4 cs 2 ti)f3 ti) c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ti) xd4 ti)f6 S ti) c3 e6 6 ti) d b S d6 7 �f4 es 8 igS a6 9 ti) a 3 bS 1 o �xf6 g xf6 1 1 � d S fS 1 2 �d 3 �e6 1 3 0-0 �xd S 14 exdS ti) e 7 1 S c3 i g7 1 6 Y«hS e4 1 7 �c2 Y«c8 1 8 g ae 1 0-0 1 9 h 1 ge8 Black discovered the right move 19 . . . �b8 ! three years later. 20 f3 b4 21 cxb4 �xb2

22 fxe4 ! �xa3 23 �a4 ! (White's attack is decisive) 23 . . .f 4 24 gxf4 �b2 2s gh4 �g7 26 Y«xh7+ f8 27 gf1 ti) g 8 28 ixe8 Y«xe8 29 Y«g6 �es 30 gh7 ga1 31 a4 gc1 3 2 g 3 Y« e 7 33 bS a x b S 34 axbS �f6 3 S Y«ts 'Mi e s 36 'Mixes ixe S 3 7 b 6 g b 7 3 8 gfxf7+ gxf7 39 gxf7+ xf7 4 0 b 7 ti)f6 4 1 b81l« ti) xe4 4 2 Y«c8 1 -0

177

Part 9

1 e4 c5 2 lll f3 lll c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 e s 6 lll db5 d6 7 lll d 5

QUICK R EPERTO I RE

This move looks shocking at first. White plugs himself the hole on dS, which is the only major drawback of the Sveshnikov in general . At the same time, 7 ltJdS is the first choice of ALL the engines? ! Where is the trick? ! First of all, White gains space in the centre. Second, he accomplish­ es it with tempo, repelling the c6knight fram its good stand. Third, he makes room for the bS-knight on c3. In short, White gets a few immediate benefits, which pleas­ es computers . However, in the long run, Black gets an easy and pleas­ ant game, based on the full control of the es-square . It allows him to play all over the board, and every too often to collect some queenside white pawn. 7 . . . lll xd5 8 exd5 lll b 8 9 c4 Piece pressure on the queenside is inefficient and might submit White to a direct attack: 9 a4 ie7 10 ie2 0-0 11 0-0 tt:Jd7 12 ie3 a6 13 l2J a3 fS 14 f3 f4 15 if2 �f6f!. 9 ... ie7 Now White must define his set­ up. He chooses plans with f3 or f4 .

178

We'll examine them separately, since the difference in the position of White's f-pawn implies different Black approaches . A . f3-setup. There are several key positions we should remember:

1. 10 �d3 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12 �c3 f5 13 f3 �d7

3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 S ttJc3 es 6 ttJ dbS d6 7 ttJdS In this structure Black will be happy to trade dark-squared bish­ ops. That would secure the gS-h6 squares for his heavy pieces and also would reduce the threat of cS . White can avoid the exchange by 14 ie3 igS lS if2 , but from f2 White's bishop only hampers the de­ fence . The thematic break . . . e4 be­ comes especially efficient: lS . . . Wf6 16 We2 e4 !

tive, but Black still has a chance to balance the game :

18 ... a4! 19 li)xa4 Or 19 b4 ttJb3 2 0 �bl �c8� . 1 9 ... .ixa4 20 bxa4 b6 =. This position arose in Kotroni­ as-Eljanov, Warsaw 200S. White's queenside pawn structure is static and he is unable to make any prog­ ress. 17 fxe4 f4 18 �hl ttJeS 19 id4 We7. Black has full compensation. Hence White usually chooses : 14 cbhl, (preparing a retreat square for the bishop on gl) but 14 ... ig5 15 b4 a5 ! opens up the a-file and gives Black counterplay against the extended queenside pawns. 16 a3 axb4 17 .ixg5 V«xg5 18 axb4 �al 19 �xal Wfe3 2 0 ie2 li)b8 ! = The knight is heading for a6. 2. 10 .ie2 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12 li)c3 f5 13 f3 li)d7 14 cbhl (14 ie3 igS lS Wd2 he3 + 16 Wxe3 aS=) 14 ... a5 ! ? 15 .ie3 ig5 16 igl li)c5 17 b3 id7 18 a3 This is a model setup for both sides . White is looking forward to b4 which would earn him the initia-

f4-setup. 1 0 ie2 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 a6 12 li)c3 f5 13 f4 if6 14 cbhl li)d7 a.

Black's plan is to take on f4 and use the es-square as a strong out­ post. (If White plays g3 and recap­ tures on f4 by pawn, Black's knight goes to cS and eventually to e4, even at the cost of a pawn. That will un­ derline the weaknesses in White's 179

Part 9 castling position.) The fine point is when to trade the dark-squared bishops. It should be done only if White's queen is unable to occupy some of the central dark squares, especially d4. For instance, 15 �c2 exf4 16 ixf4 .ieS ! shows an excellent timing for that exchange because the queen is on c2 . Play can go on with 17 !!adl (17 g3 ltJf6 ! ) 17 . . . ixf4 18 !!xf4 ltJeS 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 2 1 axb4 .id7! 2 2 �d2 �b6= , see game 32 Spraggett-Yakovich, Santo Antonio 200 1. 15 .ie 3 exf4 16 .hf4 �e 5! 17 gel �d7 18 b4 a5 19 a3 axb4 2 0 axb4 \Wb6 !

White has trouble defending his pawns.

180

Important! 1. Black's primary aim is to com­ plete development and try to ex­ pand in the centre . 2 . Despite his pawn majority on the kingside, Black rarely wins by direct attack. You should aim first to activate all your pieces. The previous diagram shows one good setup. 3. Do not be too afraid of the thrust c4-c5. It is dangerous only if White dominates in the centre, as in the fallowing example: 33 Yud a s in- K h a rlov M oscow 1 99 1

Black i s deprived o f counterplay and can only watch the opponent preparing c5-c6. See the "Complete Games" chapter.

Part 9

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 es 6 �db5 d6 7 �d5

STEP BY ST EP

7 . . . �xd5 8 exd5 � b8 8 . . . ltJce7 is a decent option, but it is not in our repertoire. 9 c4 Unusual alternatives are: a) 9 !e2 a6 10 ltJc3 !e7 11 0-0 fS 12 f4 !f6 13 !e3 0-0 14 ltJa4 exf4 ! 15 hf4 bS 16 ltJc3 ltJd7t Lilj a-Schan­ dorff, Copenhagen 1996. b) 9 �f3 a6 10 �a3 !e7

This original manoeuvre of the White queen aims to hamper Black's normal development by hit­ ting d6. We'll soon see that it does not achieve its goal. Besides, Black can also respond with 10 . . . b6, taking the sting of 11 !d2 due to 11. . . !b7. ll !gS 11 f4? ! ignores development and should backfire badly after 11. . . 0-0

12 fxeS axbS 13 �xa8 dxeS ! with a very strong initiative, for example: 14 d6 hd6 15 �a7 b6 !? 16 �a8 ltJa6 (16 . . . e4 !?); 1 1 !d2 i s similar t o the main line : 11. . . 0-0 12 !as b6 13 !b4 �d7 ! This standard motive neutralises White's threats. Then 14 ltJc3 (14 hd6? axbS; 14 ltJxd6? aS) 14 . . . !b7 15 �b3 �c7 16 !e2 ltJd7 turned well for Black in Gullaksen-Cherniaev, Gibraltar 200 3 . 1 1 . . .f6 ! 12 !d2 0-0

13 !b4 (0 r 1 3 !a5 b6 14 !b4 �d7 15 0-0-0 �d8, Eisenbeiser-Nedev, Mulhouse 2004.) 13 . . . �d7! 14 c4 b6 15 ltJxd6 ( 15 ltJc3 f5 16 !e2 !b7 17 �b3 �c7 18 0-0 ltJd7 19 f4 exf4 2 0 M4 !gS is very comfortable for Black, Solleveld-Alekseev, Santo 181

Part 9 Domingo 20 03) lS . . . aS 16 cS hd6 17 cxd6 ib7 18 ic3 �d8 19 0-0-0 l!J a6+; c) 9 a4 In contrast with 9.c4, here White plans a piece attack on the queenside . He wants to fix weak­ nesses and gain outposts for his pieces with the help of the a-pawn. However this pawn has no impact on the centre and Black gets a free hand there and on the kingside: 9 . . . �e7 10 ie2 10 ie3 l!Jd7 11 �d2 (11 l!Jxa7?? �xa7 12 ha7 �as +) 11. . . a6 12 l!J a3 fS 13 f3 0-0 14 l!Jc4 b6 lS aS bS 16 l!Jb6 l!Jxb6 17 axb6 Thus White opens the a-file and generates some threats. 17 hb6 �e8 18 c4 (18 �e2 �g6 19 0-0 igS 2 0 �b4 �f4 2 1 c4 �h6 2 2 h3 �f6--+) 18 . . . �d7 would be fine for Black: 19 ie2 (19 b3 ih4+ 20 �f2 (20 g3 if6) 2 0 . . . �e7 2 1 ixh4 �xh4+ 2 2 �f2 �e7t) 19 . . . bxc4 20 hc4 �bs+. 17 . . . �b8 18 c4 (18 !d3 �b6 !oo)

It looks like White has seized the initiative, but it is Black's turn and he hits first : 18 . . . �h4 + ! ? (18 . . . bxc4 19 hc4 �b6 was also good for Black in Borisek-Wang Yue, Calvia ol 2004 . 182

Black can also shape the exchange sacrifice as follows: 19 . . . �h4 + ! ? 20 g3 f4 2 1 �f2 �gs 2 2 �c2 �xb6 ! ) 19 g3 f4 20 �f2 �gSt. White's setup is a failure . Let's return now to the more sound 10 ie2 : 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 l!Jd7

12 @hl White has also tried: 12 aS? ! a6 13 l!Jc3 fS 14 f3 �gS lS @hl ixcl 16 �xcl l!Jf6 17 f4 �e8 18 �d2 id7 19 fxeS �xeS 20 if3 �c7 2 1 l!Je 2 �ae8 22 b3 �cS+ Grigorov­ Vyzmana vin, Tbilisi 1986; 12 f4 a6 13 l!J a3 bS ! 14 @hl bxa4 1S l!Jc4 exf4 16 id2 Rowson-Adams, London 1998 , when 16 . . . l!JcS seems equal. Instead, the game went 16 . . . l!JeS 17 �as �e8 18 l!Jb6 f3 19 hf3 �b8 with unclear position. 12 ie3 a6 13 l!Ja3 fS 14 f3 (14 f4 exf4 lS ixf4 l!JeS is good for Black. Compare it to the 12 .@hl line) 14 .. .f4 lS �f2 �f6f! . Black has good chanc­ es to build up a dangerous attack. 12 .. .fS 13 f4 a6 14 l!Ja3 exf4 ! lS ixf4 l!JeS 16 l!J c4 l!Jxc4 17 hc4 if6 18 c3 gS ! 19 ie3 f4 2 0 id4 �fS . Black's attack is running faster, for example: 2 1 hf6 ? ! �xf6 22 �b3 �h6 ! ? 23 �xb7 g4-+. 9 .ie7 ...

3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 ltJf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ltJdbS d6 7 ltJdS It is possible to start with 9 . . . a 6 . Then 10 l2Jc3 �e7 transposes to the main line. Only 10 .�a4 is of independent significance, but in our opinion it is not dangerous for Black: 10 . . . l2Jd7 11 cs

Now Black can pick up the gauntlet by sacrificing the exchange with 11. . . dxcS ! ? or prefer the solid 11. . . �b8 : a ) 11. . .dxcS ! ? 12 d6 axbS 13 �xa8 c4 In this highly unbalanced posi­ tion Black has interesting active play: 14 �e3 14 �d2? ! hd6 lS �as �xaS 16 has ®e7 lead to a better endgame for Black in Pavlovski-Spasov, Sofia 1996 . Black has compensation also after 14 �a3 �b6 lS �e3 hd6 . 14 . . . hd6 lS 0-0-0 l2Jb8 16 a4 The fine point of Black's idea is that he has good prospects even without queens, e.g. 16 �a7 l2Jc6 17 �b6 �xb6 18 hb6 ®eroo . The other option, 16 �a7, is bad due to 16 . . . �gS+ ! 17 �e3 �e7 ! ? 18 �a7 (18 �a7? 0-0 19 !xb8 �gs+ 20 ®bl hb8+) 18 . . . l2Jc6 19 �b6 0-0 20 �xbS �fSt. 16 . . . bxa4 17 �xa4+ l2Jc6 18 hc4 (18 �xc4 0-0 19 �d3 l2Jd4!oo) 18 . . . 0-0

with compensation d ue to the vul­ nerable position of White's king. b) n .. . gb8 12 l2Jxd6+ hd6 13 cxd6 0-0 14 �d2 (14 .ie3 ? ! l2Jf6 lS �a7 �a8 16 �cS b6 17 �a3 �b7t, Wes­ terinen-Kramnik, Gausdal 1992 ; or 14 �d3 ltJf6 lS �gs �xd6 16 hf6 �xf6 =) 14 . . . b6= .

We'll examine here two princi­ pal plans: A. 10 .id3 (intending f3) p. 184 B. 10 �e2 (intending f4) p. 18S a) 10 �e3 0-0 11 �d2 (thus White aims to prevent the exchange of the dark-squared bishops with �e7gS) spends too much time and en­ ables Black to launch a kingside of­ fensive: 11. . . a6 12 l2Jc3 fS 13 f3 l2J d7 14 �e2 �f6 ! ? lS �cl l2Jf8 16 b4 as 17 a3 axb4 18 axb4 �g6 19 g3 (or 19 0-0 f4 2 0 .if2 �h3 winning mate­ rial) 19 .. .f4, Perez Candelario-Moi­ seenko, Sanxenxo 20 04, with a nas­ ty attack; b) 10 cS is seldom seen because Black is not oblige to take it. Af­ ter 10 . . . 0-0 11 �e2 l2Ja6 only White might have problems in view of the weakness of his dS-pawn. 183

Part 9 A. 1 0 .id 3 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 � c 3 f5

1 3 f3 13 f4 does not fit into White's set­ up. When a black knight appears on eS, the bishop will have to retreat, as in the game Benhadi-Amin, Cai­ ro 1999: 13 . . . ttJ d7 14 �c2 g6 lS ie3 (Or lS �bl if6 16 b4 �c7 17 �b3 bS ! t Vink-Harikrishna, Wijk aan Zee 200 1 ; lS ctthl if6 16 a4 llJcS 17 i.e3 id7 18 as �c8 19 b3 �e8+, Stanojoski-Nijboer, Plovdiv 2 00 3 .) 1S ... if6 16 �adl �e8 17 ctt h l exf4 1 8 M4 llJeS 19 ie2 id7 2 0 b3 �c8 = . 1 3 �d7 ! There is no reason to give White extra options with 13 . . . igS 14 ixgS �xgS lS f4 ! ? exf4 16 �e2 . 1 4 @ h1 White can preserve his dark­ squared bishop, but after 14 ie3 i.gS lS if2 it only hampers the de­ fence. In most cases its black coun­ terpart turns to be more dangerous : 1S . . . �f6 16 �e2 Alternatively: 16 �c2 llJcS 17 i.e2 as 18 a3 a4 19 ixcS (19 �ael i.d7 20 ixcS dxcS 21 i.d3 �h6 22 llJdl �ae8 23 �e2 ie7 ! . Black relocates •••

184

the bishop to d6 , with a strong at­ tack in Rahman-Spasov, Novi Sad ol. 1990) 1 9 . . .dxcS 20 ttJxa4 id7 2 1 ttJc3 ie3 + 2 2 ctt h l �a6t with a bish­ op pair and bright prospects. 16 . . . e4 !

This thematic break is especial­ ly efficient with the bishop on f2 , since it disrupts the coordination of White's pieces . 17 fxe4 f4 1 8 ctt h l ttJeS 19 id4 �e7. Black has full com­ pensation, for example: 20 �dl f3 2 1 gxf3 ih3 2 2 ixeS �xeS 2 3 �gl if4. 1 4 .igS 1 5 b4 a5 1 6 a3 axb4 1 7 �xg5 Y;Yxg5 1 8 axb4 gxa1 1 9 Y;Yxa 1 Y;Ye3 20 .ie2 lll b8! We can strike a balance here. Black has almost forced draw with 2 0 . . . bS 21 �cl (21 ttJxbS? �xe2 22 ttJxd6 ttJf6+; 2 1 cxbS? ! ib7 22 �dl �c8 23 �d3 �f2 24 �gl �h4oo) 2 1 . . . �xcl 22 �xcl bxc4 23 ttJbS i.b7 24 llJxd6 (24 ixc4 �f6 2S ttJc7 ttJb6=) 24 . . . ixdS 2S ixc4 ixc4 26 �c4 e4 27 fxe4 fxe4 28 ctt g l e3 29 �e4 ttJf6 30 �xe3 �d8 31 �e6 (31 llJe4?? �dl + 3 2 M2 tlJg4+) 3 1 . . . �b8 32 b S �b6 3 3 g 3 h6=. White is unable to unpin his d6-knight. However, the novelty of •••

3 d4 cxd4 4 l2Jxd4 l2Jf6 S l2Jc3 es 6 ttJdbS d6 7 ttJ ds Valerij Filippov 20 . . . ttJbS keeps the fight on:

21 Y;\fb2 White has also tried 21 W!cl �b6 22 �a3 . 22 l2Ja2 l2Ja6 23 �c3 is passive, 23 . . . �d7 24 g3 (24 gel gas 2S �dl �d4 ! ) 24 . . . gas 2S ©g2 \Wd4 (it would be interesting to try 2S . . . �a7 ! ? 26 ltJcl bS 27 l2Jb3 E:cS 2 S ltJaSoo) 26 �xd4 exd4 27 gd1 l2Jc7 2 S ltJcl ga4 29 bS gb4 30 ©f2 ltJaS 3 l gxd4 .ixbS 32 l2Ja2 gb2 =, Xu Yuhua-Stefanova, Krasnoturinsk 200 S . 2 2 . . . l2Ja6 23 gbl \Wf2 2 4 �b2 �d7 2S �fl �d4. Black had good counterplay in the source game Be­ lozerov-Filippov, Tomsk 2004. 21 lll a & 22 gb1 id 7 2 3 lll d 1 Y;\fd4!? (23 . . . �b6oo) 2 4 g3! The endgame was difficult for White in Svidler- Timofeev, Mos­ cow 2004: 24 �xd4? exd4 2S ©gl gbs !+. 24 gba 25 Y;\fc3. The game is balanced. •••

•••

B. 1 0 .ie2 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 lll c 3 f5

Bl. 13 a3 (preparing b4) B 2 . 13 f3 B3. 13 f4 13 ©hl l2Jd7 is not of independ­ ent significance, since after f3 or f4 play transposes to other lines. 13 b4 could be similar to line Bl, but Black also has 13 . . . as which de­ stroys the plan with c4-cS . Note that 13 . . . l2Jd7 is another good option: 14 �b2 b6 (Sveshnikov recommends 14 . . . l2Jf6 ! ? lS \Wb3 ©hS 16 gadl f4 17 cS �fSoo) lS \Wb3 ©hS 16 gadl �f6 17 l2Ja4 (17 gfel e4) 17 . . . \Wc7f! with sufficient counterplay; 13 a4? ! in conjunction with c4 is slow: 13 . . . l2Jd7 14 as �f6 lS �d2 ? ! e4 16 l2Ja4 �eS 17 f4 exf3 lS gxf3 gbS 19 �e3 l2Jf6 20 h3 l2Je4---+ Kagan-E . Gel­ ler, Skara 19SO .

8 1 . 1 3 a3 lll d 7 1 4 b4 if6 ! If White adopts here a waiting strategy with lS ©hl e4 16 \Wc2, Black builds on with 16 . . . �eS . Then White should anticipate the attack with f4, when Black takes on f3 and brings all his forces on the kingside: 17 f4 exf3 lS gxf3 l2Jf6 19 �gs \Wes

lSS

Part 9 2 0 �afl tlJg4 2 1 �h3 Wg6t Adla­ Kharlov, Maringa 1991 .

1 S �e3 e4 with mutual chances . Black should keep his dark-squared bishop on. See the very instruc­ tive game 32 Yudasin-Kharlov, Moscow 1991 for detailed explana­ tion of the ideas of both sides.

Black, but retreating to f2 would not be any better due to the power­ ful position of the g5-bishop: 15 !f2 Wf6 ! 16 ttJ a4 (Or 16 b4 Wh6 17 Wb3 !e3 18 ttJ a4 hf2 + 19 filf2 b6 2 0 �dl �b8 21 Wc3 �b7! ?�. Black manoeu­ vres the rook to c7, using that 2 2 c5? fails t o 2 2 . . . bxc5 23 bxc5 ttJxc5 24 ttJxc5 �c7 !) 16 . . . Wh6 17 Wb3 �f6 18 ttJb6 !f4 ! 19 !g3 (19 g3? Wh3 ! -+) 19 . . . !e3 + 2 0 !f2 !f4= . 1 4 . . . a S ! ? 1 S �e3 �g s 1 6 �g 1 � c s 1 7 b3 �d7 1 8 a 3

8 2 . 1 3 f3 � d 7

Black plans t o play . . . !g5, but he wants to do it when White had al­ ready moved his dark-squared bish­ op. 13 . . . !g5 is less precise in view of 14 hg5 Wxg5 15 Wcl. 1 4 @h1 The point i s that 1 4 !e3 !g5 15 Wd2 he3 + 16 Wxe3 a5= is fine for 186

This i s a model setup for both sides. White is looking forward to b4 which would earn him the initi­ ative, but Black still has a chance to balance the game: 18 . . . a4 ! 1 9 � xa4 (19 b4 tt:Jb3 20 �bl �c8�) 1 9 . . .�xa4 20 bxa4 b6= Kotronias-Eljanov, Warsaw 200 5 . White's queenside pawn structure is static and he is unable to make any progress. On the other hand, his bishop pair should be able to par­ ry an eventual Black attack on the kingside . 8 3. 1 3 f4 �f6 1 4 @ h 1

3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ttJf6 S ttJc3 eS 6 ttJdbS d6 7 ttJ dS White might prefer to control the es-square by 14 g3 ttJd7 1S �c2 exf4 16 gxf4, but then Black would have active play after 16 . . . ttJcS 17 if3 bS ! 18 b4 ttJe4t as in Erwich-Kulj asevic, Stork 20 0 2 . Another option i s 1 4 �c2 ttJd7 when lS @hl transposes to 14 @hl. Instead, lS �xfS? ! would be ex­ tremely risky: lS . . . exf4 16 �e6 + E:f7 17 �xd6 (17 hf4 ?? ttJeS 18 heS dxeS- + ; 17 �xf4?? ttJeS 18 �f6 gxf6 -+) 17 . . . ieS 18 �b4 (18 �e6?? id4+ 19 @hl ttJeS-+) 18 . . . as 19 �a4 � 6 1 ?c=:.a •

•

oo .

14

. . .

!i) d 7

bishops, because White would get full control of the centre: 16 . . . ieS? 17 hes ttJxeS 18 �d4t.

17 E:cl �d7 17. . . tlJg6 ! ? 18 ie3 ieS is a decent alternative, e.g. 19 id4 if4 20 �c2 �h4 2 1 igl id7=. 1 8 b4 a5 19 a 3 axb4 2 0 axb4 �b6 ! 2 1 �b3 :gfc8 2 2 �g3 �a7+. White has trouble defending his pawns.

B3b. 15 �c2 exf4 16 chf4 �e5 B3a. lS ie3 ; B3b. lS �c2 Rare moves: lS g3 ttJcS 16 �c2 a5 17 E:bl id7 18 b3 �c7 19 a3 g6 is good for Black; lS a4 exf4 16 !xf4 ttJeS 17 ie3 tlJg6 18cS? ! ieS+, Bologan-Hamdou­ chi, 20 0 2 .

B3a. 1 5 �e3 exf4 16 chf4 lll e 5! Note that after the exchange ofthe eS-pawn, Black should avoid trading

A good timing for this exchange ! Compare this position with the pre­ vious diagram. Here White's queen cannot occupy d4. 187

Part 9 Still, 16 . . . l!JeS is a decent alter­ native. It gives good attacking pros­ pects, e.g. 17 b4 l!Jg6 18 !g3 f4 19 �f2 as. 17 g3 With this move White aims to deprive Black's knight of the eS­ square . It also restricts the light­ squared bishop, although it is not so bad on d7 either. Other moves show White often losing the initiative: 17 �adl hf4 18 �f4 l!JeS is simi­ lar to the main line, 19 b4 as 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 !d7 ! = , see game 33 Spraggett-Yakovich, Santo An­ tonio 20 0 1 ; 1 7 !d3 g6 18 �ae1 M4 ( 1 8 . . . b6 ! ? 1 9 l!J e 2 Wfff6 2 0 Wffd 2 M4 2 1 Wffxf4 l!JeS 2 2 l!Jd4 �d7=) 19 �f4 l!JeS is fine for Black as 2 0 cS? ! stumbles into 2 0 . . . �e8 +; 17 hes l!JxeS 18 b4 �d7 19 c5 Wffh 4t Sarthou-Nataf, France 2003.

188

Perhaps the most challenging answer is: 17 W1d2 M4 18 Wffxf4 Wfff6 19 �acl b6 20 b4. Apicella-Wagner, Clichy 20 07 saw further 20 . . . �b8 21 l!J a4 !b7 2 2 cS bxcS 23 bxcS l!JxcS 24 l!JxcS dxcS 2S �xcS, when 2S ... Wfe7 26 Wffc4 Wffd6 27 !f3oo would have been roughly equal . We suppose that Black should include . . . as at some moment, (maybe 20 . . . aS) to get rid of the weak a-pawn. After the text we like: 17 �f6 ! Black i s planning t o complete development with . . . !d7 and . . . �c8, hoping to get to the weakened white king in the future. Instead, 17 . . . gS? ! is bad, since af­ ter 18 !d2 Black faces development problems. Conversely, 17 . . .Wfff6 is a reasonable alternative and should lead to a balanced game. .

. . .

Part 9

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 lll f6 s lll c3 es 6 lll dbS d6 7 � d S

COMPLETE GAM ES

32 Yudas in - K harlov M oscow 1 99 1 1 e4 c 5 2 tll f3 tll c6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 tll f6 5 tll c 3 e5 6 tll d b 5 d6 7 tll d 5 tll x d 5 8 exd 5 tll b 8 9 c4 ie7 10 �e2 a6 1 1 tll c3 f5 1 2 0-0 0-0 13 a3 Usually White prefers to re­ strict the mobility of Black's pawns by f3 or f4. However, that weakens the gl-a7 diagonal end especially the e3-square. In this game Yuda­ sin embraces the most straightfor­ ward approach. He wants to push c4-cS while staying passive on the kingside . Since 13 b4 could be met by 13 . . . aS, White starts with a3 . . . 1 3 . . . tll d 7 1 4 b4

1 4 . . . e4 ? ! This looks imprecise i n view of

lS �f4 ! ? Then 1S . . . �f6 16 gel �es (Blatny) 17 .beS ltJxeS 18 �d4 wins a clear temp o, compared to the stem game. This variation explains why it is better to play first 14 . . . �f6 ! . We have also analysed 14 . . . ltJf6, when lS �e3 f4 16 �d2 �fS or lS f3 �b6 + 16 ©hl �d7 would be fine for Black. However, lS f4 ! poses prob­ lems . White retains an edge after lS . . . aS 16 �e3 exf4 17 E1xf4 ltJg4 18 .bg4 fxg4 19 �xf8 + . 1 5 ie3 if6 lS . . .f4 is dubious, because 16 �d2 e4 17 ltJxe4 ! ? .bal 18 �xal ltJf6 19 ltJxf6+ �xf6 2 0 �xf6 �xf6 2 1 cS gives White an edge. 1 6 .id4 We have noted in the previ­ ous chapters that White does not mind exchanging bishops, provid­ ed his queen could occupy d4. 16 �cl ! ? would cost a piece after 16 . . .f4 17 .bf4 .bc3 18 .bd6 �e8 19 �xc3 �f6 20 �d2 �xd6 21 cS �eSoo, but White would have been the active side . 1 6 . . . ieS ? ! This i s a positional mistake. 189

Part 9 Black needs all his pieces in order to retain more tension. We propose 16 . . . ltJeS ! 17 cS �d7oo . The exchange of the dark-squa­ red bishops gives White a free hand in the centre, but he immediately stumbles into a tactical trap . 1 7 i.xe 5?! Best was 17 cS ! with a n edge, e.g. 17 . . . �f6 (or 17 . . . �f6 18 c6 �h6 19 g3�) 18 �xeS ltJxeS 19 Wff d2�. 1 7 . . . li:) xeS 1 8 '%Yd4

1 8 . . . .id7 ? ! Kharlov misses the chance to complicate things by 18 . . .f4 ! 19 ltJxe4 f3 20 gxf3 �xf3 with perfect compensation for the pawn. 1 9 cs� The opening is over and White should be happy with his position. Black is passive and lacks a clear plan. He can only stay and wait, for only one good piece is insufficient to build an attack, especially when the centre is so mobile. 1 9 . . .'%Yf6 It is difficult to resist such a move . (seemingly winning a tempo on the threat of 20 . . . ltJf3+) Follow­ ing 19 . . . Wie7 2 0 �fdl �ac8 21 �acl (21 c6? bxc6 22 �xa6 cS+) 2 1 . . . �c7

190

22 a4 White can prepare c6 or fol­ low up with as first. 20 gfd 1 gfc8 21 gac1 gc7 22 h3 '%Ye7 Probably Kharlov already real­ ised that something with his setup went wrong, and he begins to rede­ ploy his pieces for defence . Alterna­ tives do not change the character of play: 22 . . . �ac8 23 �e3 �f8 24 a4t; 22 ... �f8 23 a4 �e8 24 c6 bxc6 2S dxc6 �xc6 26 bS axbS 27 ltJxbSt. 23 @f1 This move is not a mistake, but it looks artificial. White had more en­ ergetic options, as 23 a4 �b8 24 c6 bxc6 2S dxc6 �xc6 26 bS�. The bad news for Black is that if White does not like this variation, he can keep on manoeuvring, seeking the best timing for the breakthrough cS-c6. 23 .. . ge8 24 c6 Black was already threatening to take on cS, so White must go for­ ward. 24 . . . bxc6 25 dxc6 gxc6 26 li:) d S '%Yf7 2 7 gxc6 li:) xc6 (or 2 7 . . . �xc6 2 8 �xa6)

28 '%Yb 6? The critical moment ofthe game. Yudasin apparently underestimated

3 d4 cxd4 4 l!Jxd4 l!Jf6 S l!Jc3 es 6 l!JdbS d6 7 l!JdS Black's counterattack and his posi­ tion quickly falls appart. He should have prevented .. .f4 with 28 �c3 ! (or 2 8 �d2) keeping the edge, for 28 . . .f4?? would lose to 29 4.Jc7+ - . 2 8 ...f 4 2 9 .ixa6 Y«hS! White's game is hopelessly com­ promised . Ironically, the prophy­ lactic move cj{fl only helps Black's offensive. 30 gc1 f3 31 tllf4 fxg 2+ 32 @ g 1 Y« g S 3 3 gxc6 Y«xf4 3 4 g c 3 'l«d2 ? ! ( 2 4. . . �eS ! was better, intending to push . . . dS) 3S g g 3? (3S �e3 !) 3 S . . . e 3 ! 3 6 gxe3 Y«c 1 + 37 @xg2 .ic6+ 38 f3 gxe3 0-1 We have seen a very instructive game ! In this example we have seen most of the ideas of the 7 4.JdS varia­ tion, together with typical positional mistakes.

33 S p ragg ett - Yakov ich Santo Antonio 2001 1 e4 cs 2 tll f 3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll xd4 tll f6 s tll c3 e s 6 tll dbS d6 7 tll d S tll xdS 8 exdS tll b 8 9 c4 .ie7 1 O .ie2 0-0 1 1 0-0 a6 1 2 tll c 3 f S 1 3 @ h 1 tll d 7 1 4 f4 .if6 1 S Y«c2 exf4 1 6 i.xf4 i.eS

Unlike the previous game, here this move makes sense, since White's queen is misplaced on c2 . Keeping the dark-squared bishops on leads to interesting and sharp­ er play, for instance : 16 . . . 4.JeS 17 b4 l!Jg6 18 �g3 f4 19 �f2 as, followed by . . . �es, �fs, l!Jh4. 1 7 g ad 1 ? ! With several common moves White loses the initiative and his queenside pawns become from a major asset, a weakness. Spragget should have directed all his efforts to execute cS, even at the cost of a pawn. In the game Apicella-Wagner, Clichy 20 0 7 White's play was more consistent: 17 �d2 ! �xf4 18 �xf4 �f6 19 E:acl b6 2 0 b4. Here, 2 0 . . . as deserves attention, aiming to elimi­ nate the weak a-pawn. Instead, the game saw 2 0 . . . E:b8 21 l!J a4 �b7 2 2 cS ! bxcS 23 bxcS tt.JxcS 24 tt.JxcS dxcS 2S E:xcS, when 2S . . . �e7 2 6 �c4 �d6 27 �f3oo would have been roughly equal . 1 7 . . . .ixf4 1 8 gxf4 til e s 1 9 b4 aS! A thematic move i n this pawn structure. Black aims to activate his rook, but he also exchanges his po­ tentially (after cS-c6) weak pawn. 20 a3 axb4 21 axb4 i.d7 22 'l«d2 Apicella-Saric, Cannes 2007 saw 22 cS ! ? dxcS 23 bxcS �as 24 c6 bxc6 2S E:a4 �cs 26 �a2 8:xa4 27 tt.Jxa4= with a level game. After the text Black has a good game. 22 . . . Y«b6 23 g b 1 gfe8 24 h 3 @h8 Black must be constantly on the 191

Part 9 watch for the pawn sacrifice c4-cS, followed up by d6. Yakovich decides to anticipate an eventual check from dS . 24 .. . E:a3 was also possible, for 2S cS dxcS 26 ttJbS does not work due to 2 6 . . . E:g3. 2 5 if1 g a3? Now this is a tactical mistake. 2S . . . h6 was a much better option.

2 6 c5! dxc5 27 � b 5 Suddenly the board turns to be too small for the rook. 27 . . . 8:g3 al­ ready loses to 2 8 Wfff2 , whereas 27 .. . E:aa8 28 d6t threatens with a fork. 27 . . . ixb 5 28 bxc5 '%Yxc5 29 ixb 5 gfa 30 d 6

192

Black i s i n a very difficult situa­ tion . His extra pawn does not help at all, because the advanced d-pawn effectively breaks the coordination of his heavy pieces. Spraggett confi­ dently leads the game to a deserved victory until move 38, when his usu­ al terrible time trouble causes a fa­ tal mistake: 30 . . . gaa8 31 d7 g ad8 32 gd4 � c 6 33 gd s '%Ya3 34 gf1 � e 7 3 5 g95 h 6 36 '%Y d 4 � c6 3 7 ixc6 bxc6 38 gexf5?? White blunders his d-pawn. Any other was winning, e.g. 38 8:fel + ­ c S 39 WffdS �a4 4 0 8:e7. 38 . . .gxfS 39 gxf5 '%Ye7 40 g h s '%Y e 6 41 h 2 @ gs 4 2 g e s '%Yxd7 4 3 1Mfc4+ 1Mff7 4 4 g e 6 c s 45 h 4 gfa 4 6 g 3 h8 4 7 '%Ye4 1Mff2+ 4 8 h 3 '%Yd4 49 g4 c4 so gc 6 '%Yd 1 + 51 h 3 '%Yd7+ 5 2 @ g 2 c 3 5 3 '%Yc4 1Mff5 54 h 2 1Mff2+ 55 h 3 1Mff3 56 h 2 g ea 57 gca gxc8 58 '%Yxc8+ h7 59 g4 1Mff2+ 0-1 The moral ofthis game is that with such a pawn structure Black should be calculating the consequences of the cS-break on every move!

Part 1 0

1 e4 cs 2 tt::lf 3 tt:Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tt:Jxd4 tt::lf6 s tt:Jc3 es 6 tt::l dbS d6 Unusual seventh moves

QU IC K R EPERTO IRE

It has been long established that rare moves do not work against the Sveshnikov. White's knight's long walk wastes too many tempi and could be justified only by gain­ ing stable control of dS with 7 �gS . Perhaps we should remember only a few variations to get out of the opening with a pleasant position:

manoeuvre of Black's bishop to the queenside :

1 1 J.d3 11 c4 b4 1 2 tt:Jbl as 13 tt:Jd2 Wg6 14 h4 �e7 1S g3 0-0 16 �g2 �dB !

1 1 J.e7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 tt::l b1 J.d8!?= •••

C. 7 a4 a6 8 tt:J a 3 J.g4!

A. 7 tt:Ja3 J.e7 8 J.gS (8 tt:Jc4 tt:Jxe4!) 8 tt:Jxe4!?=. •••

B.

7 J.e3 a6 8 tt:Ja3 bS

This i s meant a s a surprise. 8 . . J;bs 9 tt:JdS tt:JxdS 10 exdS tt:Je7 is good enough.

9 tt::l d S gbs 1 o tt:Jxt6+ Y*lxf6

An important fine point ! Now 9 �e2 .ixe2 10 Wxe2 dS 11 �gS tt:Jd4 12 Wd3 �b4 ! is easy to play as Black, so:

9 t3 J.e6

White is playing an obvious­ ly worse version of the main line Sveshnikov. Note the important

Black provoked a weakening of the e3-square and his next task is to push dS . In many lines he sac­ rifices a pawn for the initiative, for instance, 10 �gS �e7 11 tt:Jc4 dS 12 kxf6 dxc4 13 Wxd8 + z;xd8 14 .ixg7 193

Part 10 �g8 15 �h6 �cSoo

These examples showthat White cannot efficiently clamp on dS, so he usually continues developing by: 1 0 i.c4 gca 1 1 o-o tll b4 1 2 �d5 � bxd5 1 3 exd 5 i.d7 1 4 c3 i.e7

Or 10 �c4 �c8 11 l!JdS �xdS 12 �xdS l!JxdS 13 �xdS �h4 + 14 g3 �h3oo. In this typical structure White's pieces are awkwardly deployed. The game Xie Jun-Kramnik, ra­ pid Monte Carlo 1996 saw further 15 �hl 0-0 16 �e3 l!Jh5 17 �d3 �gs+. White should better divert the black queen fram the kingside by 15 �b3 �c7= .

194

Part 1 0

1 e4 cS 2 �f3 �c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 �xd4 lllf6 s lll c 3 es 6 lll d bS d6 Unusual seven th moves

STEP BY STE P

A. 7 tlJa3 B. 7 ie3 C. 7 a4

page 195 page 195 page 196

A. 7 lll a3 i e7 8 igS Otherwise White loses control of d5 : 8 ttJc4 ttJxe4 ! 9 ttJxe4 d5 10 ttJc3 dxc4 11 �xd8+ hd8 12 hc4 ttJb4+; 8 id3? ! d5. 8 �xe4!? •••

14 ttJ e 3 ie7! 15 a 3 ig5 16 �d3 ttJb3 17 cxb3 E:xd3 18 �c2 �d8+ B auer­ Lautier, France 2 0 05 . Instead, 13 ttJd5 is more challenging. 9 lll x e4 Or 9 he7 ttJxc3 10 hd8 ttJxdl 11 E:xdl @xd8 12 ttJb5 @e7+. 9 ixgS 1 0 lll x d6+ 10 ttJxg5 �xg5 11 �xd6 a6 ! ? 12 ttJc4 ie6 13 �cs 0-0-0 14 ttJe3 @c7 15 id3 f5 ! t was good for Black in Gusev-Timoshenko, Odessa 1975. 1 o ... @e7 1 1 lll ac4 ie6 !m Black has good counterchances, for example, 12 ttJxb7? ! �xdl+ 13 E:xdl ttJd4 ! 14 ttJ a3 E:ab8t. •••

7 ie3 a6 8 lll a3 bS All the books consider only 8 . . . E:b8 9 ttJd5 ttJxd5 10 exd5 ttJe7= . It is a good line indeed, but most likely White knows it better than you. Let us surprise him ! 9 lll d S gba 1 o lllx t6+ 10 ie2 ie7 is innocuous ; 10 c4 b4 11 tlJc2? ! (it is better to transpose to the main line by 11 ttJ xf6+) 11. .. tlJxe4 12 � f3 tlJcS brings about a position with dubious com­ pensation for the pawn; a.

Simple and good. It is possi­ ble that 8 . . . 0-0 9 hf6 hf6 10 ttJc4 ie6 11 �xd6 (11 ttJxd6 ?! ttJd4 12 ttJc4 E:c8+) 11 . . . �c8 offers suffi­ cient compensation, but there is not enough practical evidence: 12 �d2 (12 �dl E:d8 13 �cl ttJd4 14 ttJe3 ig5oo) 12 . . . E:d8 when the only game in our database saw 13 �cl? ! ttJd4

195

Part 10 10 g3 ttJxdS 11 exdS tlJe7 12 �g2 tlJfS 13 �d2 �e7 14 0-0 hS ! 15 c4 h4 16 �cl hxg3 17 hxg3 �d7f! gives Black active play. 1 o ... \Wxf6

White plays an obviously worse version of the main line Sveshnikov. 1 1 id3 Alternatively: 11 tlJbl �e7 12 tlJc3 �g6 13 �d2 0-0 14 0-0-0 �e6f! ; ll c4 b4 12 tlJbl a S 13 tlJd2 �g6 14 h4 �e7 15 g3 0-0 16 �g2 �d8 ! 17 0-0 �b6+ Szalanczy-Dokhoian, Cattoli­ ca 1993 . 1 1 ie7 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 �b1 id8 !? 14 �c3 �e7 1 5 \Wd2 h 6 1 6 a 4 b 4 1 7 � e2 a s 1 8 ic4 �c 7 White is unable to prevent ... dS, e.g. 19 �adl �b7 20 tlJg3 �bd8 21 f4 dS= , Hort-Andersson, Amsterdam 1978 . •••

C. 7 a4 White restrains Black's queen­ side expansion and aims to bind the opponent with a defence of the dS and b6-squares. This logical plan of Schlechter requires precise

196

play. Black must oppose something to White's unpleasant positional threat of �gS, �c4 (or tlJc4-e3 first) with a total control of dS . Black should use the fact that the enemy is lagging behind in development to break this unfourable pattern. 7 . . . a6 8 � a 3 ig4

An important fine point ! Now: Cl. 9 �e2 C2. 9 1Wd2 C3 . 9 f3 C 1 . 9 ie2 ixe2 1 0 \Wxe2 d 5 1 1 i g 5 (11 exdS ltJxdS 12 ltJxdS �xdS=) 1 1 ... liJ d4 12 \W d 3 O r 1 2 !xf6? ltJ x e 2 13 !xd8 ltJxc3 14 �c7 ltJxa4 15 exdS @d7 16 !xeS �e8 17 0-0 �xeS 18 ltJc4 �xdS 19 �xa4 �c5+. 1 2 . . .ib4 !

6 ltJdbS d6, rare seventh moves Black wins the battle for the centre: 1 3 0-0 Or: 13 exdS Ek8 14 ixf6 (14 ttJ abl �xdS 15 0-0 �c4t) 14 ... �xf6 15 ltJ abl (15 0-0? ! �xc3 16 bxc3 E!xc3 ! ) l S . . . �gS 1 6 0-0 �g6 ! 17 �xg6 (17 E!el �xd3 18 E!xeS+ �d7 19 cxd3 l2Jb3 2 0 E!a2 tll cl 2 1 E!al l2Jxd3 2 2 �e3 E!he8 ! + ) 1 7. . . hxg6 18 E!cl b6!oo. White is tied u p and down. 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 exdS E!c8 - see 13 eds. 1 3 . . . .ixc3 14 .ixf6 'Mfxf6 1 5 bxc3 dxe4 1 6 'Mfxe4 tll c 6 1 7 g ab1 'Mf e7 1 8 tll c4 0-0=.

exdS (14 �xdS? �xdS 15 exdS �c7+) 14 . . .�fS with good play. 1 2 . .. 0-0 Black had a pleasant choice be­ tween the text and 12 . . . l2Jxe4 13 �xe6 (13 l2Jxe4 dS 14 � b3 dxe4 15 �xe6 �xdl 16 E!xdl fxe6+) 13 . . . ltJxc3 14 hf7+ (14 �hS g6 15 hf7+ �xf7 16 �f3 + �f6 17 �xc3 dSt) 14 . . . �xf7 lS bxc3 dS+. 1 3 .ig5 tll xe4 1 4 tll xe4 14 �xe7? l2Jxc3 15 �xd8 ltJxdl+ ; 14 �xe6? l2Jxc3. 1 4 . . . d5 1 5 .ixe7 tll xe7 1 6 ib3 dxe4 1 7 ixe6 fxe6 1 8 'Mf g4 'Mfb6i.

C 3. 9 f3 ie6 C2. 9 'Mf d2 .ie6 10 ic4 10 l2J c4? ! does not achieve the aim to take control of dS in view of 10 . . . ttJ b4 11 tll e 3 (11 as E!c8 12 ltJ b6 l2Jxe4+) 11. . . dS+. 1 o . . . gc8 1 1 o-o

Black provoked a weakening of the e3-square and h is next task is to p ush dS. White has tried to contest that plan by:

White's pieces are ridiculously placed. 1 1 . . . ie7 11. . . l2Jd4 12 �d3 �c7 13 �a2 was equal in Fedorchuk-Kolev, 20 05. 1 2 'Mfd 1 12 E!el l2Jd4 13 ltJdS ltJxdS 14

C3a. 10 l2Jc4 ; C3b . 10 �gS; C3c. 10 �c4 He can also ignore the enemy plan, but then he faces problems: 10 �e3 ltJ b4 11 l2Jc4 (11 �gS �c8) 11. . . dS ! 1 2 �b6 �e7 ! , see game 3 4 De Firmian-Vallejo, Selfoss 20 0 3 . 197

Part 10 C 3a. 10 lll c4 lLl b4 11 i.g5 (11 �e3 dS!) 11 E:cS 12 chf6 %Yxf6 13 lll b6 E:c5 14 a5 (14 ttJbdS? hdS lS exdS \Wg6) 14 d5! 15 lll bxd5 (lS exdS ifs 16 �d3 ttJ xd3 + 17 cxd3 �xaS 18 �xaS \Wxb6 19 �a2 �b4oo) 15 hd5 16 exd5 (16 ltJxdS ttJxdS 17 exdS \Wh4 + 18 g3 \Wb4+ 19 �f2 \Wxb2+) 16 %Yg6oo. •••

•••

•••

11 d5 12 chf6 Black has the edge after 12 exdS ttJxdS 13 he7 (or 13 ttJxdS hgS 14 l2Jdb6 �b8) 13 . . . l2J cxe7 14 ttJxdS ttJxdS in view of lS ttJxeS? ! \Wh4+ 16 g3 \Wb4+ . 12 dxc4 •••

•••

•••

C3b. 1 0 i.g5 i.e7 11 lll c4 11 �c4 could be countered with 11 . . . \Wb6 ! ? and the n:

a) 12 he6 fxe6 13 l2Jc4 \Wb4 14 \Wd3 dS ! ; b) 1 2 hf6 hf6 13 he6 fxe6 14 l2J c4 \WcS ! lS \Wd3 (lS l2Jxd6+? �e7 16 l2J xb7 ifMb4-+) 1S . . . l2Jb4 16 \We2 �c8+; c) 12 b3 dS ! ? (12 . . . l2Jg4 13 fxg4 hgS 14 he6 fxe6 lS l2Jc4 \Wb4 16 0-0 0-0-0 ! is a good alternative) 13 exdS 0-0-0 looks excellent for Black; d) 12 \Wd2 l2Jd4 13 �e3 (13 b3 0-0 14 he6? ! fxe6 lS l2J c4 \Wes 16 aS dS ! 17 exdS exdS 18 ttJxeS �ac8+) 13 . . . \Wxb2 14 �f2 (14 0-0?? hc4 lS l2J xc4 \Wxc3 - +) 14 . . . ifMb6 lS l2Je2 \Wc6 16 l2J xd4 exd4 17 \Wxd4 0-0 and Black is at least equal . 198

13 %Yxd8 + In all cases Black gets full com­ pensation for the g7-pawn, but with queens White's defence would be more difficult: 13 hg7 (13 he7 \Wxe7 14 ltJd S hdS lS exdS �d8+) �g8 14 �h6 ltJd4 lS �e3 (lS \Wd2 �h4 + ! 16 �dl \Wf6t) 1S . . . \Wb6t. 13 E:xdS 14 hg7 (14 he7 �xe7+) 14 E:gS 15 .ih6 i.c5 Black's pieces are very active, so he has a lot of attractive ways to develop his initiative, for instance, 1S . . . l2Jd4 ! ? 16 0-0-0 (16 �cl fSoo) 16 . . . bSoo. 16 .id2 After 16 ltJdS hdS 17 exdS �xdS 18 �dl (18 hc4? �d6 19 �d2 �xg2+) 18 . . . �xdl + 19 �xdl bS Black retains the initiative with equal material. 16 .if2 + 17 @e2 i.h4oo. •••

•••

•••

C3c. 1 0 i.c4 gcs 11 0 - 0 An interesting position arises af-

6 tl:JdbS d6, rare seventh moves ter 11 tl:JdS �xdS 12 �xdS tl:JxdS 13 �xdS (13 exdS �as+ 14 �d2 tl:Jb4 lS �bl �cs 16 c4 �e7+)

Once again the weakness of the kingside causes White trou­ ble : 13 . . . �h4 + 14 g3 �h3 lS @f2 (lS �d2? tl:Jd4) 1S . . . tl:Jb4 16 �b3 dS ! 17 exdS �fS 18 g4 �g6 . White's king has not a safe haven. 11 �gS leaves Black a strong in­ itiative on the queenside, as in De Jong-Kolev, Hoogeveen 20 0S: 11. .. tl:Jb4 12 �e2 �e7 1 3 hf6 �xf6

14 0-0 0-0 lS �adl �c7 16 �b3 �fd8 17 @hl �cs+. 11 ltJb4 12 ltJd5 ltJbxd5 13 exd5 �d7 14 c3 �e7 •••

In this typical structure White's pieces are awkwardly deployed. The game Xie Jun-Kramnik, ra­ pid Monte Carlo 1996 saw further 1s @hl o-o 16 �e3 tl:JhS 17 �d3 �gs+. White should better divert the black queen from the kingside by 15 �b3 �c7=.

199

P art 1 0

1 e4 c5 2 �f3 �c6 3 d 4 cxd4 4 �xd4 �f6 5 �c3 e5 6 �db5 d6 Unu sual seventh moves

COMPLETE GAM ES

34 D e F irm i a n - Va l l ejo Pons Selfoss 2003 1 e4 cs 2 � f3 �c6 3 d4 c xd4 4 � xd4 � f6 S � c 3 eS 6 � d bS d6 7 a4 a6 8 � a 3 ig4 9 f3 ie6 1 0 ie3 � b4 1 1 � c4

1 3 exdS � bxdS 1 4 � xdS �xdS 1 s At2 gda 1 6 1Mfd2 In a bad position all moves are bad. Mueller preferred 16 Wcl to lose quickly after 16 . . . Wfc7 17 c3 i.cS 18 b4 hf2 + 19 ct;xf2 0-0 20 as e4 21 '2Je3 exf3 22 tlJxdS hdS 2 3 g3 i%fe8 24 i.d3 i.c4 0-1. White's prob­ lem is that he is not only lagging behind in development, but the b4 and e 3 squares are weak. The use of these factors is the favourite mo­ tif of Black's play in the 7 a4 line. He must however be venturesome since these advantages are dynam­ ic and he could land in a dull posi­ tion with a chronic hole on dS .

1 6 . . . � b4 1 7 1Mfc3 YMgS 1 1 . . .d S ! I n this variation Black often sac­ rifices a pawn on dS for an initia­ tive. Here he achieves this break­ through even for free. It is possible because 1 2 ttJb6 stumbles into 12 . . . d4 1 3 ttJxa8 Wxa8+.

1 2 ib6 1Mfe7 ! De Firmian i s not the first victim of this surprising retrea, as Mueller had already lost to Babula in 1998. Now 13 tlJxeS Wfd6 14 i.d4 dxe4+ would be quite sad, so White chose: 200

17 . . . i%c8 ! ? 18 aS 4Jxc2 + 19 Wfxc2 Wb4+ was winning a pawn, but Valejo was playing for the brlillian­ cy prize that evening.

1 8 g d 1 � x c2+! Beautiful and best !

1 9 1Mfxc2 ib4+ 20 �d2 ifS 21 1Mfc 1 gca 22 1Mf a1 Or 2 2 i.c4 i.d3 23 i.bS + ct;e7 24 Wxc8 i%xc8 25 hd3 i%cl- + .

2 2 . . . ic2 2 3 h 4 1Mff4 2 4 g3 1Mfxf3 2S gh2 1Mfe4+ 26 .ie2 ixd 1 27 0-1 1Mfxd 1 gda

PART 1 1

1 e4 c 5 2 lll f 3 tll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 tll x d4 tllf6 5 tllc 3 e5 unusu al lines -

QUIC K R EPERTO I RE

In 1976, Bronshtein called into doubt the move 6 ltJdbS and sug­ gested that White might be overes­ timating his position. His reasoning was that the manoeuvre l2Jf3-d4-b5a3 costs four tempi and the knight is still very bad on a3, requiring more time investments. However, mo­ dern theory has proved that the al­ ternatives are quite innocuous and might even lead White to trouble. In this chapter we examine: 6 l2Jxc6, 6 ltJ b3, 6 ltJf3, 6 l2Jde2 , 6 ltJf5. Only the last of these options poses some problems to Black and requires some knowledge: 6 tllf 5 d5!

7 exd5

7 ltJxdS l2Jxe4 ! 8 ltJfe3 !e6 9 !e2 �aS+ ! 10 @fl 0-0-0 earns the ini­ tiative. 7 .ixf 5 8 dxc6 bxc6! 9 \Wf3 \Wd7 1 O .ig 5 e4 ••

1 1 \We2 You might want to pay more at­ tention to 11 �dl since it was suc­ cessfullyused in Volokitin-Kuzubov, Moscow 2 007. We recommend an improvement: 11. . . !d6 ! aiming at a complex middlegame with a bishop pair, harmonious development and problematic dark squares in the enemy camp : 12 !xf6 gxf6 13 �d4 �e7! with excellent prospects. 1 1 ... .ie7 1 2 gd1 Next, White will trade queens

201

Part 11 and the endgame should be rough­ ly equal. Black must play energeti­ cally and attack White's queenside pawns. Possible continuations are 12 . . . �b7 13 �a6 �b8 14 �xb7 �xb7 15 �cl �b4= ; 1 2 . . . �e6 ! ? leads t o calmer, ba­ lanced play after 13 �c4 �b8 , see game 36 Akopian-Yakovich, Rostov on Don, 1993. 6 llJ b 3 and 6 l!Jf3 do not create threats, thus giving Black time to develop his bishop to b4. (6 l!Jde2 � b4 is also a fair option, but we re­ commend 6 . . . �cS as main line to this knight retreat.) We'll consid­ er two main plans of Black: He cap­ tures the e4-pawn, hoping to ex­ change pieces and get a better end­ game, or bolster up his pawn cen­ tre, trying to win the crippled White pawns on the c-file. Let's see some examples: 6 �f3 �b4 7 i.c4 0-0

O r 8 �gS hc3 + 9 bxc3 d6= . �xc3 9 bxc3 �xe4 1 0 i.a3 d6 1 1 ge1 11 Wel �fS is in Black's favour. 1 1 �gS 1 2 �xg 5 9xg 5 1 3 i.xd6 �g4 1 4 9c1 9xc 1 1 5 gaxc 1 gfe8=. See game 35 Mukhin-Mina­ sian, Leningrad 1990 . •••

6 � b3 i.b4 7 �c4 0-0 8 0-0 �xc3 9 bxc3

The placement of White's knight on b3 gives Black a good game with simple development. 9 d6! 1 0 9d3 1 1 g d1 i.xc4 1 2 9xc4 gca 1 3 9d3 �as. It is fun to play this as Black. •••

a whole, Black has good and easy play. We cannot think of some particular traps which must be avoided. It is important to lead out the dark-squared bishop and com­ plete development with . . . d6 and . . . �e6 . As

8 0-0

20 2

Part 1 1

1 e4 c 5 2 lll f 3 lll c 6 3 d4 cxd4 4 lll x d4 lll f6 5 lll c 3 e5 un usual lines -

ST EP BY STEP

A. 6 l2Jxc6 B. 6 l2Jb3 c. 6 l2Jf3 D. 6 l2Jde2 E. 6 ltJfS

page page page page page

203 20 S 20 8 20 9 210

A. 6 lll x c6 Such a n exchange is surprisingly popular in the Sicilian lately, but in the current situation it is rather in­ consistent. White deprives himself of his only trump - the command over the dS-square. 6 bxc6 Capturing towards the centre is a basic strategical rule. However, we suppose that 6 . . . dxc6 is also suf­ ficient for equality. 7 ic4 White has also tried: a) 7 �gS? ! This aggressive move weakens the dark squares and that could be immediately exploited with 7 . . . �b8 ! 8 �xf6 . Or 8 �bl �aS ! 9 �d3? �xb2 ! 10 �d2 �xbl 11 �xbl �b4- + ; 8 �c4 �xb2 ! 9 �b3 �b4 10 �d2 �aS 11 �f3 �a6 ! 12 a3 0-0 13 �a2 �e7 with a fine game, for example: 14 �b3 (Or 14 tt:Jdl �xa2 ! lS �as �aloe; 14 ltJdS •••

�cs lS tt:Jxe7 Y9xe7 16 �b3 �b8 ! t) 14 . . . �c7 1S. l2J a4 �xb3 16 cxb3 dSoo. 8 . . . �f6 9.�c4 �xb2 10 .�b3 �b4 ll.�d2 dS- + , Mellgren-Alekhine, Oerebro 193 S. b) 7 f4 offers Black a choice : 7 . . . �b4 8 �d3 d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 fxeS l2Jg4 with typical Sicilian play, or: 7 . . . �c7 ! ? 8 �f3 �d6 ! 9 �c4 (9 fS �b4 ! followed up by . . . d7-dS) 9 . . . exf4 1 0 0-0 g S (in the King's gambit style) 11 g3 g4 12 '!9f2 f3 and White's compensation is dubious. c) 7 �d3 �b4 Black has no difficulties after the solid 7 . . . d6 8 0-0 �e7 9 '!9e2 �e6 10 c±>hl 0-0 11 f4 exf4 12 hf4 l2Jg4 ! = , Kofidis-Andrianov, Athens 199 2 . 8 0-0 0-0 8 ... dS? ! is b ad d ue to 9 exdS cxdS 10 �el ! t (10 �gs �xc3 11 �bS + �d7 12 �xf6 gxf6 13 Y9xdS �b8 ! 14 Y9xd7+ �xd7 lS �xd7+ c±>xd7 16 bxc3 �b2+) 9 c±>hl Or 9 f4 d6 10 fxeS dxeS (10 . . . l2Jg4 ! ?) 11 �gs (Black was in­ tending . . . tt:Jd7-cS and f7-f6) 11 . . . �e7 with a good game . 20 3

Part 11 9 . . . d6 9 . . . dS ! ? 10 exdS cxdS ll �gS hc3 12 bxc3 h6 13 �h4 Wffd6 is worth con­ sidering, but we prefer the well test­ ed pawn structures after 9 . . . d6. 10 f4 ltJg4 11 Wi el Or 11 h3 exf4 12 �f4 Wih4 13 Wfff3 ltJe S=

ll . .. exf4 12 hf4 ltJ eS 13 Wffg3 Wie7 14 ltJe 2 �cS= Black's position has a sound stra­ tegical foundatio n. He controls the centre and has no weaknesses on the kingside. 7

...

.ib4

8 0-0 It was still early for 8 �gS , for White has no good answer to 8 . . . h6: 9 �xf6 Alternatives are :

20 4

9 �d 2 d S (9 . . . hc3 10 hc3 ltJxe4 levels the game as 11 heS?? loos­ es to 11. . . WiaS + , whereas 11 Wffg4 0-0 12 Wixe4 dS 13 Wie2 dxc4= reduces the tension) 10 exdS cxdS 11 �bS+ �d7+; 9 �h4? gS 10 �g3 ltJxe4 11 hes [11 Wfff3 hc3 + 12 bxc3 dS 13 hes 0-0 14 �d3 (14 �e2 �e8 1S �d4 cS 16 �e3 ltJxc3 -+) 14 . . . �e8 (14 . . . Wffe7 !? l S �d4 ltJg3+ 16 @d 2 ltJxhl 17 �el Wffd6 when Wh ite's initiative is in­ sufficient because of the shaky po­ sition of his king in the centre) lS he4 �xeS+, Cherkasov-Shariya­ zdanov, Swidnica 1997] 11. . . Wffe7 12 Wid4 f6 13 Wixe4 WixeS+. 9 . . . Wffxf6 10 Wffd 3 0-0 11 0-0 d6 12 a3 �cs 13 ltJ a4 �d4 14 c3 �b6= . 8 h6!? Sveshnikov decorates this move with an exclamation mark. He un­ der lines its prophylactic function as White is deprived of the �gS pin. Instead, 8 . . . dS 9 exdS hc3 10 bxc3 cxdS 11 �bS + �d7 12 ixd7+ Wixd7 13 �a3 ! or 8 . . .hc3 9 bxc3 ltJxe4 10 �a3 ! dS 11 �d3oo favours White. More interesting is 8 . . . 0-0 9 �gS ! The alternatives are worse: 9 @hl? ! �c3 10 bxc3 dS+; 9 f4 Wffb 6 + (9 . . . Wffe7? ! 10 fxeS ! WixeS 11 Wff d3 ltJ g4 12 �f4 Wies+ 13 @hl ltJf2 + 14 �xf2 Wffxf2 lS �floe) 10 @hl �c3 11 bxc3 ltJxe4 12 Wfff3 dS 13 fxeS (13 �d3 exf4 14 hf4 fS+) 13 .. .fS 14 �d3 �e6+. 9 . . . h6 10 �h4 �e7 Yakovich claims that Black has no problems, ...

1 e4 cs 2 l!Jf3 l!Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 l!Jxd4 l!Jf6 S l!J c3 es but we think that White's game af­ ter 11 Wff d3, E:adl and solid central play should be easier. 9 f4 Another possible setup is 9 Wff d3 0-0 10 E:dl d6 (10 . . . �b7 11 a3 �xc3 12 Wffxc3) 11 l!Ja4 (11 �e3 l!Jg4 ; 11 a3 �xc3 12 bxc3) 11. . . dS, when 12 exdS is well countered by 12 . . . e4. 9 %Ye7 1 0 fxe5 V9x e5 1 1 ®h1 Or 11 �b3? ! 0-0 1 2 @hl �xc3 13 bxc3 l!Jxe4+. 1 1 ixc3 1 2 bxc3 0-0

6 tll b3 Tarrasch condemns this move, calling the placement of the knight lamentable. But, then, he claims that a knight on b3 is nearly always bad . . . 6 .ib4 a.

•••

•••

•••

Bl. 7 �d3 B 2 . 7 �gS B3. 7 �c4 8 1 . 7 .id3 d5 8 exd 5 8 0-0? �xc3 9 bxc3 dxe4 1 0 �e2 Wffxdl 11 E:xdl 0-0+. 8 . �xd5 9 .id2 White can sacrifice the exchange with 9 0-0 l!Jxc3 10 bxc3 �xc3 11 �a3 , but his compensation is insuf­ ficient, for Black can castle long. (He h ad not a better choice though as 11 E:bl 0-0 12 Wfff3 �b4 or 12 ... Wfff6 ! ? favours Black) 11. . . �xal (There is no need to shy away fram the chal­ lenge. In that case 11. . . �b4 12 �xb4 l!Jxb4 13 �bS + l!Jc6 would be only equal) 12 Wffxal Wffc7 13 f4 (13 E:bl b6 14 Wff c3 �b7 lS �fS g6 16 �h3 fS ! + ; 1 3 l!JcS? 0-0 !) 13 . . . �e6 ! (Enables the queenside castling, making it clear that the extra material should prevail. This is not the only move . .

1 3 if4 13 Wffd4 E:e8 14 �xh6 (14 WffxeS E:xeS lS �xh6 E:xe4=) 14 . . . Wffxd4 lS cxd4 E:xe4= leads to a roughly equal ending, e .g: 16 �d3 ! ? (16 c3 dS 17 �d3 E:e8 (17 . . . gxh6 !? 18 E:xf6 E:e3 19 E:f3 E:xf3 20 gxf3 E:b8=) 18 �f4 l!Je4=) 16 . . . E:xd4 17 E:ael d6 18 E:xf6 E:xd3 19 cxd3 gxf6 20 E:e8+ Wh7= . 1 3 V9xc3 1 4 es This position arose in the game Paiva-Van Riemsdijk, Sao Paulo zt 1972 , when 14 . . . l!JdS lS �xdS cxdS 16 WffxdS (16 E:f3 Wffc6 17 E:g3 Wffe6 18 Wffd 2 Wh7=) 16 ... �a6 17 E:fdl �e2 = would have been totally equal. •••

20 S

Part 11 though. 13 .. .f6 ! ? 14 fxeS l!JxeS lS �d4 l!J xd3 16 cxd3 � f7 ! is not bad either) 14 l!Jc5 (14 fS hb3 lS axb3 0-0 - 0+) 14 . . .exf4 lS V9xg7 0-0-0+. 9 . . . �xc3 1 0 bxc3 .id6

1 1 0-0 White has also tried to deprive Black of castling by 11 �hS V!fc7 12 0-0 �e6 13 �gS ! ? 1 3 �e3 0-0-0 i s good for Black since 14 l!JcS?? loses to 14 . . .hcS lS hcS �dS- + 13 . . . h6 14 f4 14 �adl is too slow: 14 . . . g6 lS �h4 �e7 (lS .. .fS ! ? 16 f4 e4 17 �f6 0-0 18 �e2 �f7 is also interesting) 16 he7 V!f xe7+. 14 . . . exf4 lS �ael �d7 16 �fS (or 16 �xe6? ! fxe6 17 V!ff7+ �c8 18 �xe6 + V!fd7 19 V!f dS �es-+)

This is the famous game Schlech206

ter-Lasker, World Ch. 1 910 . Now the best move is 16 . . . V!fb6 + ! 17 �hl g6 18 he6 + (18 �xe6 gxhS 19 �e7+ �d8 20 �d7+ �e 8 21 �f6 �es - +) 18 ... fxe6 19 V9xg6 hxgS 2 0 �xe6+ �c7 2 1 �f7+ �b8 with a big advan­ tage. (Lasker) 1 1 . . . 0 -0 1 2 f4 f5 (12 . . . �e8 ! ?) 1 3 fxe5 .ixe5 1 4 VNf3 .ie6 1 5 �ae1 Perhaps White could maintain the balance with lS l!JcS �dS 16 l!Jxb7 V!fb6 + (16 . . . V!fd7 17 l!JcS �d6 18 l!Jb7 hh2 + is unclear: 19 �hl �es 20 V!fh3 �g3 2 1 l!JcSoo) 17 �e3 hf3 18 hb6 axb6 19 �xf3 albeit Black still has some threats. 1 5...g6 This i s better than l S . . . �dS, which was played in Br kic-Shariyaz­ danov, Zadar 1999. After the text Black's game is to be preferred, for instance : 16 �h3 �d6+; 16 �f4 �dS ; 16 c4 V!fd6 (16 . . . V!fc7 ! ? 17 l!JcS?? �d4+ 18 �e3 l!JeS-+) 17 �f4 (17 �h3 �ae8+) 17 ... hf4 18 �xf4 �xf4 19 �xf4 �ae8+; 16 �xeS? l!JxeS 17 V!fe2 �e8 - +. 82. 7 .i g 5 h 6 8 .ixf6

1 e4 cS 2 tLlf3 tLlc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 tLlf6 S tlJc3 es 8 . . ..ixc3+ ! The split queenside pawns are the future targets in Black's war plan. 9 bxc3 1Mfxf6 1 O .ic4 Alternatively: 10 �e2 d6 11 0-0 0-0 12 �d3 �d8 13 �fdl �e6 14 �f3 �ac8+; 10 �d3 tLle7 11 tLld2 0-0 12 c4 d6 13 tLlfl �e6 14 tLle3 �ac8+. Accord­ ing to Sveshnikov, Black will dou­ ble his rooks on the c-file, gaining an edge. 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1 0-0 White's pressure along the d-file is inefficient, due to the weakness of the g2-pawn: 11 �d2 d6 (11. . . �g6 ! ? 12 f3 tLl e 7 1 3 0-0-0? ! bS ! 14 hbS �b8 15 �c4 �b6t with powerful ini­ tiative in Andrade-Vallejo , Menorca 1996) 12 �dl �g6 13 f3 (13 0-0 �xe4 14 �dS �a4+) 13 . . . �e6 . Black is al­ ready better: 14 �d3 ? ! �gS ! ? lS 0-0 (lS �xgS hxgS+) lS ... �xd2 16 �xd2 �ac8 17 �e2 tLle7+, Butt-Ochoa, The­ ssaloniki 1984; 14 �dS hdS lS exdS tLle7+; 14 he6 fxe6 lS 0-0 �ad8 16 c4 b6+. 1 1 . . . d 6 1 2 1Mf d3 .ie6 1 3 gad 1 gfd 8 1 4 .id5 gac8 1 5 gd2 1 Or 15 �bs �c7 16 �d3 hds 17 �xdS tLle7 18 �d2 b6 and White's game is difficult. 1 5 . . . 1Mfe7 1 6 gfd 1 .ixd5 1 7 1Mfxd 5 1Mf c7i , Andreas-Tsermiadia­ nos, Singapore 1990 . White has too many weaknesses to defend. 83. 7 .ic4 White is ready to part with a pawn for initiative, but Black should not oblige him by grabbing it . He

can follow a clear strategical line, based on a better pawn structure. 7 . . . 0-0

8 0-0 White can also protect the e4pa wn by: 8 �gs h6 9 h4 d6 ! (Suggested by Sveshnikov. 9 . . . hc3 + 10 bxc3 d6 is also appealing, e.g. 11 �f3 �e6 12 �dS �c8+) 10 �f3 (10 �xf6 hc3 + 11 bxc3 �xf6 or 10 a3 hc3 + 11 bxc3 �e6 12 �dS hdS 13 exdS tLlb8 14 tLld2 tLlbd7 15 tLle4 �e7 16 �bl b6 17 �b3 �fc8 give Black a clear positional edge .) 10 . . . �e6+; 8 �d3 dS ! ? (8 . . . d6 9 �gS h6 10 �h4 �e6 11 0-0 hc4 12 �xc4 hc3 ! 13 �xf6 �xf6 14 �xc3=) 9 exdS (9 �xdS tLlxdS 10 exdS tLle7 11 0-0 �fS 12 �g3 f6+) 9 . . . e4 10 �g3 tLle7 ll 0-0 tLlfSoo. (Rogozenko) 8 . . . .ixc3 9 bxc3 d 6 ! 1 O 1Mf d3 White's compensation for the central pawn is not so clear after 10 �a3 tLlxe4 11 �d3 (or 11 �el tLlf6 12 �dl tLl e8 13 f4 �b6 + 14 � h l exf4 1S �xf4 tLle S) ll ... tLlf6 12 �adl (12 �xd6 regains the pawn, but loses the in­ itiative: 12 . . . �xd6 13 hd6 �d8 14 �adl �fS+, or 12 hd6 �fS 13 �xf5 �xd6 14 �adl �c7+) 12 . . . tLle8 13

20 7

Part 11 �dS (13 �xd6 l!Jxd6 14 �xd6 �fS+) 13 . . . �g4 . 1 o . . . i.e6

1 1 gd1 After 11 �xe6 fxe6 1 2 �a3 E:f7 ! 13 c4 (13 �xd6? ! �xd6 14 �xd6 l!Jxe4+; 13 hd6?? E:d7 14 E:adl l!Je 8 - +) 13 ... E:d7 14 E:adl b6 ! lS E:d 2 �e8 16 E:fdl (16 hd6?? E:ad8-+) 16 . . . E:ad8 17 �e2 �e7 18 f4 l!Je 8 ! 19 �hS �f7 ! + White's pawn weaknesses become tangible, Forgach-Luther, Zwesten 1999; Or 11 �a3 �xc4 12 �xc4 �c7 13 E:fdl E:fd8 14 E:d2 bS ! lS �e2 (lS �xbS l!Jxe4 16 E:d3 �b6 17 �xb6 axb6 18 �cl (18 f3 E:xa3 19 fxe4 @f8+) 18 . . . dS+) l S . . . aS ! 1 6 E:adl b 4 1 7 �b2 (17 cxb4 axb4 18 �cl l!J e7+) 17 . . . bxc3 18 �xc3 l!Jb4+ and White was worse in Crepan-Dobrov, Garica 2004. 1 1 . . .i.xc4 1 2 '%Y xc4 gca 1 3 Wf d3 �as 14 g b 1 White could fight for the draw with 14 l!JxaS �xaS lS c4 �a6 16 �gS �xc4 17 �xf6 �xd3 18 E:xd3 gxf6+; or 14 �xd6 �xd6 lS E:xd6 l!Jxe4+. 1 4 . . . � c4 1 5 .ig5 h6 1 6 .ih4 16 hf6 �xf6 17 �d 2 �b6 ! 18 l!Jfl � a4 19 c4 l!JcS 20 �e3 (20 �xd6 �xd6 21 E:xd6 �xe4 22 E:d3 (22 E:d7

20 8

l!JcS) 2 2 . . . b6+) 2 0 . . . b6 2 1 �g3 l!Je6 ! with an edge, Crepan-Grosar, Celje 20 0 3 . 1 6 . . . b 6 1 7 � d 2 � xd 2 1 8 gxd2 Wfe 7i. Black is a little better thanks to his superior pawn structure. C. 6 �f3 i.b4 7 .Ac4 Alternatively: 7 �gS h6 8 �xf6 �xc3 + ! 9 bxc3 �xf6 10 �c4 0-0 11 0-0 d6 This po­ sition is dangerous for White who has no compensation for his split queenside. 7 �d3 dS 8 exdS Here Black can choose between 8 . . . �xdS ! ? 9 0-0 (9 �d2? �xc3 10 �xc3 e4 11 hf6 exd3 12 �xg7 �e4+ 13 �fl E:g8 14 �c3 (14 cxd3 � g6- +) 14 . . .dxc2 lS �el �fS+) 9 . . .�xc3 10 bxc3 0-0 1 1 l!J gS E:d8 12 �e2 �e6 ! = and the natural 8 . . . �xdS 9 �d2 l!Jxc3 10 bxc3 �e7 11 0-0 0-0 12 E:el f6 with a good game. 7 . . . 0-0 With White's knight on f3, it would be risky to capture on e4: 7 . . . l!Jxe4 8 �dS l!Jd6 9 �b3 �as 10 0-0 0-0 11 �d3 ! �a6 (ll . . . �xc3 12 l!JgS ! e4 13 �xc3 �xc3 14 bxc3 h6 1S E:dlt) 12 �xa6 ! bxa6 13 l!JdS �as 14 E:dlt with clear compensation.

1 e4 cS 2 ltJf3 ltJc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ttJxd4 ltJf6 S ltJc3 eS 8 0-0 We are already familiar with the pawn structure after 8 �gS �xc3+ 9 bxc3 d6= . Black follows up with �c8-e6, enjoying a good game. 8 Wffd 3 ? ! allows the central break 8 . . . dS ! After the farced sequence 9 �xdS ttJxdS 10 WffxdS WffxdS 11 exdS ltJd4 12 ttJxd4 exd4 13 a3 �aS ! 14 b4 �e8 + lS ltJe2 (lS @dl dxc3 16 bxaS �g4 + 17 f3 �ad8 18 M4 �xdS+ 19 @cl �fS+ Gligoric) 1S . . .�b6 16 @d2 (16 �b2 �fS 17 @d2 �xc2 18 �hel �b3 ! 19 ttJxd4 �xdS+) 16 . . . �d8+ Black is in command. 8 .ixc3 9 bxc3 ttJxe4 Black might try to followthe same plan as in the 6. ltJb3 variation, but the knight is actually much more ac­ tive on f3 so the effect is rather dif­ ferent: 9 . . . d6 10 Wffd3 �e6 11 �xe6 fxe6 12 �a3 ltJe8 (12 . . . WffaS 13 �xd6 ! �ad8 14 c4 ! ttJxe4 lS Wffxe4 �xd6 16 cS ! t) 13 �fdl �f7 (13 . . . WffaS 14 c4t) 14 Wffc4 Wie7 lS �abl �d8 16 �d3oo . 1 0 i.a3 10 �el gives another pawn without clear compensation after 10 . . . ttJxc3 11 Wffd6 (Or 11 Wffd3 dS 12 �b3 d4 13 ttJxeS ttJxeS 14 �xeS Wfff6 1S f4 �g4 ! 16 h3 �e6+) ll . . . Wfff6 12 �a3 �e8 13 �e3 bS 14 �b3 aS ! lS �xc3 (lS ttJxeS ttJxeS 16 Wffxf6 gxf6 17 �xc3 �b7! 18 �g3 + ltJg6 19 c3 �e2 ! t) lS . . . b 4 1 6 Wffxf6 gxf6 1 7 �xc6 (17 ttJxeS fxeS 18 �g3+ @f8 19 �b2 a4 20 �dS �as 21 c4 ltJe7! 22 �xeS ttJxdS 23 �g7 + @e7 24 cxdS d6+ leaves White a pawn down) 17 . . . dxc6 18 �cl a4 19 �c4 �e6 . Commonly, a rook and 2 pawns are quite stronger than a knight and bishop in an endgame. •••

1 0 d6 1 1 ge1 11 �e l �fS is in Black's favour. 1 1 lll g S 1 2 lll x g5 %Yxg 5 1 3 �xd6 .ig4 1 4 %Yc1 %Yxc1 1 5 gaxc1 gfe8= See game 35 Mukhin-Mina­ sian, Leningrad 1990 . •••

•••

D. 6 lll d e2 .ic5 The e2-knight takes the sting of 6 . . .�b4, but nevertheless that is a good and popular alternative. 7 ti)g 3 7 �e3? ! covers the d4-square at a high price . Black obtains a good game, playing in the spirit of the Si­ cilian: 7 . . �xe3 8 fxe3 0-0 (8 . . . dS ! ? 9 exdS ltJb 4 when 1 0 e4? fails to 10 . . . ltJg4 ! 1 1 Wff d2 ltJe3 12 �cl ltJc4 13 V!ff dl ttJxb2 14 Wffd 2 ltJc4 lS V9dl �g4+) 9 ltJg3 d6 10 V9d2 Wff b6 11 0-0-0 �e6 , Rodriguez-Spasov, Tunj a 1989. 7 d6 7 . . . Wffb 6 is too hasty in view of 8 Wffd 2 ! ltJ g4 9 Wff gS ! �xf2 + 10 @dl ltJe3 + 11 �xe3 V9xe3 12 Wffxe3 �xe3 13 ltJdS � b6 14 ltJfSoo. •••

8 i.e2 8 �gS is a consistent attempt to occupy dS: 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . Wffb6 9 Wff d2

20 9

Part 11 l2Jg4 is very sharp, but White is po­ sitionally better after 10 0-0-0 �d4 11 l2J a4 ! 13 f3 ! l2Je3 14 �xe3 �xe 3+ lS �bl±) 9 �xf6 Wffxf6 10 Wffd 2 �b4 ! (10 . . . 0-0 11 ltJdS Wffd8 12 �c4t) 11 a3 �xc3 12 Wffxc3 0-0 13 �c4 (13 �dl l2Jd4 14 Wffd 3 �d8) 13 . . .�e6 14 �dl l2Jd4 lS �xe6 fxe6 16 Wffd2 �ad8= . 8 �c4? ! can b e attacked by 8 . . . l2Jg4 ! 9 �fl (9 0-0? Wffh4 10 h3 l2Jxf2 11 hf?+ �d 8- + ; 9 �e3? ! l2Jxe3 10 fxe3 0-0+) 9 . . . 0 - 0 10 h 3 (10 l2J a4 Wff aS+ 11 c3 bS 12 ltJxcS bxc4 13 l2J a4 �d7! t) 10 . . . �e6 !

the bishop pair and good develop­ ment, he should be confident about the future : 1 0 i.b5+ 10 �xf6 Wffxf6 11 �bS + �8 12 0-0 l2Jf4 is similar to the main line . 1 0 ... @fS 1 1 �xf6 �xf6 1 2 0-0 lllf4 1 3 lll d 5 lll x d5 1 4 �xd5 g6 1 5 lll e 2 @g7 1 6 @ h 1 .ie6 Black seizes the initiative as 17 Wffxb7? is bad due to 17 . . . a6 ! 18 �d3 (18 �xa6 �hb8 19 Wffc7 �xb 2 - + ; 18 �a4?? �a7- +) 18 . . . �hc8 + . 1 7 �d2 ghd8 1 8 lllc 3 .id4!t Nikac-Komarov, Niksic 2000.

E . 6 lllf 5 d5!

11 ltJd S (1 1 �xe6? �xf2 + ! 12 �xf2 l2Jxf2 13 �xf2 Wffb 6 + 14 �e2 fxe6 lS Wffel dSt White's king is vurnerable in the centre, e .g. 16 exdS exdS 17 ltJxdS? WffbS +- +) 11. . . l2Jf6 12 c3 (12 �gS? walks into an amazing queen sac: 12 . . . ltJxdS ! ! 13 �xd8 �b4+ 14 �e2 l2Jd4 + lS Wff xd40 ltJf4+ 16 �3 exd4 17 �b3 l2Jg6 18 �gs h6+) 12 . . . h 6 . Black has fair chances i n this complex position, for example, 13 b4 �b6 14 a4 aS lS bS �xdS 16 �xdS (16 exdS? ! l2Je7+) 16 . . . l2Je7 17 �xb7 �b8 18 �dS ltJexdS 19 exdS Wffc7oo with nice compensation. 8 ... lll d 4 9 .ig 5 lll e 6 With this manoeuvre Black un­ pins the f6-knight. He loses the right to castle indeed, but having 210

El. 7 li:}xdS E2 . 7 exdS E 1 . 7 � xd 5 � x e4 ! The best decision. Play is rather dull after 7 . . . ltJxdS 8 WffxdS Or 8 exdS? ! �xfS 9 dxc6 Wffxdl+ (9 ... bxc6 10 Wfff3 Wffd7 11 �c4 �d6 12 0-0 e4 13 �el 0-0+, Sveshnikov) 10 �xdl 0-0-0 + ll �d 2 bxc6 12 �c4 (12 �a6 + �b8 13 �e l f6 14 �e2 �cs+) 12 . . .f6t 8 . . . Wff xdS 9 exdS hfS 10 dxc6

1 e4 cs 2 ll.Jf3 ll.Jc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 ll.Jxd4 ll.Jf6 S ll.Jc3 es bxc6 11 i.d3 i.xd3 12 cxd3 0-0-0 13 c;t>e2 i.cS 14 i.e3 i.b6 1S gacl c;t>b7 1 6 gc4 gd6 = .

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

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

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

E2. 7 exd5 .ixf5 8 dxc6 bxc6!

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

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

1 0 . . . e4

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

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

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

212

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

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

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

213

PART 1 1

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

COMPLETE GAM ES

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

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

2 14

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

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

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

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

21S

Part 1 2

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

Rare Li nes

QUIC K REP E RTO I RE

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

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

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

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

White is at a juncture here . He

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

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

2 17

Part 1 2

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

Rare Lines

STEP BY STEP

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

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

•••

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

Al. S �c4 A2 . S d4 218

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

.•.

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

.•.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••

•••

•••

220

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

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

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

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

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

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

221

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

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

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

•••

•••

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

222

Part 1 3

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

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

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

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

223

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

game 37 Bologan-Nedev, Panormo 20 0 1 .

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

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

•••

•••

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

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

224

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

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

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

225

Part 1 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11

..•

� e 7 1 2 �xe7 VHxe7

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

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

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

...

0-0

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

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

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

229

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

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

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

230

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

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

B. 1 3 c3! f5

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

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

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

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

82. 1 4 � c2 !

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

232

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

236

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

White is ready to push b4, with some pull .

Part 1 3

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

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

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

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

Part 13

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

23 8

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

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

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

240

ISBN 978-9-548782�6-1

9 7 8 9 5 4 8 7 8 2 6 6 1 •••