Chebanenko Chebanenko System Written by GM Ruslan Scherbakov Last updated Tuesday, Tuesday, December 12, 2006
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy The system we are talking about can arise when instead of playing the Botvinnik or Meran or another similar system with 4...e6, Black plays the unexpected 4...a6. This move looks obscure and has never been very popular till recently, when its theory has grown rapidly. It is still not clear how White, who has already tried every possible continuation, can get a tangible advantage. This system looks dubious probably because Black plays a non −developing move, which however is actually rather useful in all Slav formations, preparing both standard queenside play with ...dxc4 and ...b7− b5, and sometimes simply ...b7− b5, in the very very early stages of the game. We can also note that Black is still not deprived of the possibility of developing his light −squared Bishop to an active position on f5 or g4. Realistically
speaking this set −up breaks the principles of safety and centralization which are especially important for Black in the early stages of a game. But this is a modern approach to opening preparation − if you are much better prepared for some variation, you have real chances to outplay your opponent even if your position is objectively worse. The system should probably be named after the famous Moldavian coach Vyacheslav Chebanenko, who invented it long ago and popularized it among his numerous pupils starting with Victor Victor Gavrikov Gavrikov (who (who now lives in Switzerland). Switzerland). We can also also mention mention here that the most famous representatives of the Moldavian chess school like Victor Bologan, Victor Komliakov, Dorin Rogozenko and many others have this system in their opening repertoire. Some ten years ago when there was no information overload as nowadays, if you met a player from Moldavia you could predict that he would play some of Chebanenko's ideas. Other great experts with this system are Sergey Volkov, Julian Hodgson, Alexey Shirov (he probably started to use this system under the influence of his friend Victor Bologan), Ludger Keitlinghaus, Vladimir Burmakin, Jordi Magem. From time to time this system has been played by such top GMs as Nigel Short, Evgeny Bareev, Alexey Dreev and some others. I have a strong impression that White takes this system much more seriously these days so without any doubt we'll see a lot of exciting and spectacular encounters in the near future.
Contents
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv lnt lnt r0 r0 9z pp+ pp+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ + +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ + + + 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t RNv RNv LQm LQm KLs KLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy
3 ¤f3 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 e3 a6 D10 Chebanenko System/1 & 2 − early e2−e3
3...¤f6 4 ¤c3 XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9z pp+ pp+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R LQm L vQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
4...a6 5 ¥g5 5 cxd5 D15 Chebanenko System/3 −various ideas , 5 a4 D15 Chebanenko System/4 − 5 a4 , 5 c5
D15 Chebanenko System/5 − 5 c5
5...¤e4 D15 Chebanenko System/6 − 5. ¥g5
Press F5 to toggle the Navigation Pane, then click on the appropriate bookmark to go straight to that section. Ctrl + 2 resizes the page.
All rights reserved Chess Publishing Ltd
Chebanenko System/1 early e2 e3... 6. −
−
c5, 6. cxd5 [D10] Last updated: updated: 12/12/06 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 White can also begin with 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 e3 a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ + PN+ z PN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t RNv RNv LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
and here he might postpone the development of the knight b1 or develop it to the different place. 5 ¤bd2!? Compare to c3−square the knight on d2 cannot be pushed by ...b5− b4 and White does not have problems to protect the c4− pawn as well. well. On the other other hand, this approach is not so active and if the play is getting sharp then White may find a lack of resources in action. a) 5 ¥d3 is another possibility. White has prevented ...Bc8 −f5 so Black has got the only one sensible possibility to develop the bishop: 5...¥g4 5...¥g 4 ( Black Black can also transpose to the Queen's Gambit Accepted by 5...dxc4 6 ¥xc4 e6 Here White, if he wants, can go to the Furman system by 7 £e2!? c5 8 dxc5 and so on. ) ) 6 £b3 ¥xf3 (6...£c7 does not promise a full equality: 7 ¤e5 ¥h5 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 ¤c3 e6 10 ¥d2 ¤c6 11 ¦c1 ¥d6 12 ¤xc6 bxc6 13 ¤a4² with small but comfortable edge ) 7 gxf3 (A principled 7 £xb7!? has never been tested. GM Robert Huebner Huebn er gives the following variation: 7...¥xg2 8 ¦g1 dxc4 (8...¤bd7?! in case of 9 £xa8 ¥d5 10 (8...¤bd7?! 9 ¦xg2 £c8 10 £xc8+ ¦xc8 11 ¥d2±) 9 ¦xg2 ( in ¥c2 £c7 the queen is in danger on a8 ) 9...¤bd7 10 ¥xc4 c5 11 ¤c3 cxd4 12 exd4 g6 13 ¥xa6 ¦b8 (13...¥g7 14 ¥f4) 14 £c6 ¥g7÷ with unclear play. Inquisitive players may obviously find a lot of different possibilities in this very optional line.) 7...£c7 ( an an ugly−looking 7...¦a7 was also tried: 8 ¤c3 e6 9 £c2 ¥e7 10 ¥d2 0-0 and here 11 c5!?
might promise better chances for White ) 8 ¤c3 e6 The game Van Wely − Bacrot/Bled (ol) 2002 continued 9 ¥d2 dxc4!? 10 ¥xc4 c5!? 11 dxc5 ¥xc5 12 ¤e4 ¤xe4 13 fxe4 0-0 14 ¦c1 ¦d8„ with acceptable play for Black. b) 5 ¤c3 leads to the main line. 5...¥f5 A natural and probably the strongest continuation. a) 5...e6?! is not quite in the spirit of the variation as Black does not use the possibility to develop the bishop. After 6 ¥d3 White gets some benefit compare compare to the Meran variation. b) 5...b5?! does not look very very good as after 6 cxd5 cxd5 7 a4 Black faces problems problems with his Q−side. In case of 7...b4 the White knight goes to b3 −c5 directly while usually it gets these squares after some retreats Nc3 − b1-d2 or Nc3−a2−c1. c) The main alternative is 5...¥g4 White can simply play 6 h3 (6 £b3!? also comes into consideration ) 6...¥h5 ( or or 6...¥xf3 7 £xf3!? £xf 3!? e6 8 g4!? h6 9 h4² with better chances ) 7 g4!? ¥g6 8 ¤e5 ¤fd7 9 ¤xg6 hxg6 10 ¥g2 e6 11 e4² with advantage. 6 £b3 This set−up is regularly used by one of the main Chebanenko's heroes Sergei Volkov. a) A slow 6 ¥e2 does not promise too much: 6...e6 7 0-0 ¤bd7 8 ¤h4 ¥g6 9 c5 £c7 10 f4 b6 11 cxb6 £xb6 12 ¤xg6 hxg6 13 ¤f3 ¥e7 followed by ...0-0 and ...c6 −c5 with a very good play. b) 6 ¤h4!? is an important alternative: 6...¥e4!? The bishop's move is rather interesting as now White can exchange his awkwardly placed knight on h4 only after the double−edged advance f2 −f3. (6...¥g6 is also playable: 7 ¤xg6 (7 £b3 £c7 8 ¤xg6 hxg6 9 g3 e6 10 ¥g2 b5 11 cxd5 cxd5 12 a4 b4 13 a5 ¤c6 14 £a4 ¥e7 15 ¤b3 0-0 16 ¥d2 ¦fc8 17 0-0²) 7...hxg6 8 g3 e6 9 ¥g2 ¥d6 10 0-0 ¤bd7 11 b3 0-0 12 ¥b2² with small
advantage in both cases) 7 £b3 ¦a7!? (7...£c7 looks more natural but this move leaves the d5− pawn unprotected and White White can use this fact by playing playing a simple 8 ¤xe4 and 8...¤xe4? is bad (8...dxe4!?² should be played but it is probably not the move Black would like to play in this position ) due to 9 cxd5 £a5+ 10 ¢e2!± and White gets a healthy extra pawn) 8 a4 This is also quite a typical idea for this kind of position − White is going to play a4 −a5 and Qb3− b6. However, Black has good counter resources. 8...e6 9 a5 The game Bu Xiangzhi − Morozevich/Bled (ol) 2002 continued 9...c5!? ( A natural 9...¤bd7 comes into consideration as well ) ) 10 f3 ¥g6 11 cxd5 exd5 12 ¤xg6 hxg6 13 £b6 £xb6 14 axb6 ¦a8³ and Black's chances seem to be preferable thanks to the detached b6− pawn. 6...£c7 ( In In case of 6...¦a7 White could proceed in a similar way: 7 ¥d3 ¥xd3 8 £xd3 e6 9 0-0 ¤bd7 10 b3 ¥d6 11 ¥b2 0-0 12 ¦ad1² followed by e3 −e4 with a small advantage ) 7 ¥d3 ¥g6!? ( the the simple 7...¥xd3 8 £xd3 ¤bd7 9 0-0 e6 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¥e7 gives slightly worse but acceptable play for Black ) 8 0-0 e6 ( after after 8...¤bd7 9 ¦e1 e6 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 12 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 13 ¦xe4 ¤f6 14 ¦h4!? ¥e7 15 ¥f4 £c8 16 £d3² Black faces problems with a safe place for his king ) 9 ¦e1 ¥e7 10 e4 0-0 ( Simplifications Simplifications after 10...dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 12 ¥xe4 ¤d7² do not solve all the problems − White is still better thanks to his space advantage ) 11 e5 ¤fd7 ( Getting Getting the d5−square does not make Black's life easier: 11...¥xd3 12 £xd3 dxc4 dxc 4 13 ¤xc4 ¤d5 14 ¥g5 with clearly better chances ) 12 ¥xg6 hxg6 13 ¤f1² and White has achieved a certain advantage in the game Volkov − Kornev/EU−ch Warsaw 2005. 2005.
3...¤f6 4 e3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9z pp+ pp+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s P z + 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KLs KLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy This is not the most ambitious way to counter the Chebanenko System, but it is definitely one of the safest. White does not sacrifice a pawn on c4 as in some lines with g2 −g3 or Bc1-g5, he does not gain space immediately with c4 −c5 − he simply develops his pieces and and allows allows Black Black to carry out the thematic advance ...b7 − b5, and to solve solve the problem of his light−squared bishop. Yet, his advantage in development sometimes allows White to either get control of the c −file, or to force Black to clarify the Q − side pawn structure in unfavourable circumstances.
4...a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s P z + 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KLs KLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy 5 ¤f3 White has also tried other possibilities. 5 £c2!? is rather interesting. However, Black can try to find drawbacks in the early queen's sortie by 5...e6!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ +pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s P z + 0 9Pz PQ+ PQ+ PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v L KLs K mLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy We can hardly call it a transposition into the Anti −Meran as the early ...a7 −a6 is not common for it. (5...b5 (5.. .b5 6 b3 ¥g4 does not promise a full equality: 7 ¤ge2 ¤bd7 (7...e6 does not solve the problems completely: 8 ¤g3 ¥d6 9 h3 ¥h5 10 ¤xh5 ¤xh5 11 ¥e2 ¤f6 12 0-0 0-0 13 ¦d1 ¤bd7 14 ¥b2 ¦c8 15 ¦ac1² but it is, is, maybe, maybe, a more reliable approach ) 8 h3 ¥xe2 (8...¥h5 has also been tried: 9 ¤f4 ¥g6 10 ¤xg6 hxg6 hxg 6 11 ¥b2 e5 12 c5!? £c7 £c 7 13 00-0² and Black was unable to find good work for his restricted pieces in the game Milov − Volkov/EU−ch Ohrid 2001 ) 9 ¥xe2 e6 (9...e5 is more risky − Black's advanced pawns might become vulnerable: 10 dxe5 ¤xe5 11 0-0 dxc4 and here it seems more precise to secure White's advantage by 12 ¦d1 £c7 13 ¤e4 ¥e7 14 bxc4 0-0 15 ¥b2²) 10 0-0 ¥e7 11 e4 b4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ qk+ q wk+ r0 r t0 9+ +nv lpz lpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 pPz p zPz PP+ PP+ +0 9+Ps N + +P0 9P+Q+Lz PP+0 PP+0 9t R L v +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
A principled continuation. ( After After 11...dxe4 12 ¤xe4 0-0 13 ¦d1 bxc4 14 bxc4 £c7 15 ¦b1 ¦fb8 16 ¦b3 ¦xb3 17 axb3 ¦b8 18 ¥f3 a5 19 ¥e3² White's superiority is beyond doubts ) 12 exd5! This sacrifice seems to be the only way to fight for advantage. ( A natural alternative 12 e5 does not put problems for Black, who can continue by 12...bxc3 13 exf6 ¥xf6 14 ¥e3 dxc4 followed by ...c6−c5 ) 12...bxc3 13 dxc6 ¤f8 (13...¤b8 14 ¥f3 £c7 15 d5 0-0 16 ¦d1² is better for White ) 14 £xc3 ¤g6 This position arose in the game Mamedyarov − Volkov/RUS −chT Sochi 2006, 2006, which continued 15 b4 £b6 16 b5 axb5 17 cxb5 ¤d5 18 £c4 0-0 19 a4 and White has achieved better chances thanks to his strong passed pawns) 6 c5!? An interesting approach − White radically prevents the forthcoming ...c6−c5! (Black's idea was to meet a routine 6 ¤f3 by 6...c5!? At first
sight he just loses a tempo, playing this program pawn advance in two steps but this is not a whole truth. This position is already similar to the symmetrical Tarrasch and White's extra move Qd1-c2 does not give him much while Black can develop his knight to c6, pressurising White's center. a) The other moves do not seem completely completel y satisfactory for Black. A transposition transp osition to the Queen's Gambit Accepted without tempo is dubious: 6...dxc4?! 7 ¥xc4 c5 8 0-0 b5 9 ¥e2 ¤bd7 10 ¦d1 ¥b7 11 dxc5! ¥xc5 12 ¤e5 £b6 (12...£c8? 13 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 14 ¤xb5!±) 13 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 14 a4 b4 15 a5 £a7 16 £a4!?ƒ with initiative b) 6...¤bd7 7 b3!? ¥d6 8 ¥b2 0-0 9 ¥e2² is not the best best Black's set−up to counter the Anti−Meran. c) 6...b5 is similar: 7 b3 ¤bd7 8 ¥d3 ¥b7 9 0-0 ¥e7 10 ¥b2² with certain advantage 7 dxc5 (7 cxd5 was also tried: 7...exd5 8 ¥e2 ¤c6 9 0-0 ( a straightforward 9 ¤e5!? does not promise much: 9...£c7 10 ¤xc6 £xc6 11 dxc5 £xc5 12 0-0 ¥d6 13 ¦d1 0-0 14 ¥d2 ¥e5 15 £d3 ¥e6 and Black is OK as the White minor pieces are not well arranged ) 9...¥e6 10 ¦d1 cxd4 (10...¤b4!? seems to be an interesting alternative: 11 £d2 (11 £b1!?) 11...¤e4 12 ¤xe4 dxe4 13 a3 exf3 14 ¥xf3 ¤c6 15 d5 ¤e5 16 dxe6 ¤xf3+ 17 gxf3 fxe6= and Black is at least not worse) 11 ¤xd4 This position arose in the game Krasenkow − Bareev/Wijk aan Zee 2003. 2003 . It seems that Black could have achieved a good play by 11...¤xd4 (11...¦c8?! 12 ¤xe6 fxe6 13 e4! d4 14 £b3!ƒ gave White a very annoying initiative ) 12 exd4 (12 ¦xd4 ¥d6) 12...¥e7 13 ¥g5 0-0 and so on) 7...¥xc5 8 a3 dxc4 (8...0-0 is also not bad: 9 b4 ¥e7 10 ¥b2 dxc4 11 ¥xc4 ¤bd7 12 0-0 b5 13 ¥a2 ¥b7„) 9 ¥xc4 b5 10 ¥d3 ¤bd7 11 b4 (White also tried the immediate 11 ¤e4 but without much success: 11...¥e7 (11...£b6!? is also interesting: 12 ¥d2 ¥b7 13 ¦c1 ¥e7 14 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 15 ¢e2 0-0 16 £c7 £a7!ƒ and it was Black who has taken the initiative! ) 12 ¥d2 ¥b7 13 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 14 ¦d1 ¦c8 15 £b1 h6 16 ¥b4 £b6 17 0-0 ¤c5 and Black is OK) 11...¥e7 12 ¥b2 ¥b7 13 ¦d1 0-0 14 0-0 This position arose in the game Sakaev − Izoria/Moscow Aeroflot 2003. 2003 . Black is quite solid and comfortable and White's slight advantage in development does not look much promising. Here Black should have continued 14...¦c8„ with a good play.) 6...e5!? A principled reply − otherwise White would achieve a tangible space advantage after f2 −f4. 7 dxe5!? ( a slow 7 ¥d2 ¤bd7 8 ¥e2 g6 is fine for Black ) 7...¤fd7 8 f4 ¤xc5 9 ¤f3 g6!? the immediate 9...f6!? is also interesting: 10 b4 ¤cd7 with a sharp play ) 10 ¤d4 This ( the position arose in the game Krasenkow − Gustafsson/Berlin 2003 which continued 10...f6?! This sharp attempt should have been well thought. 11 exf6 £xf6 12 b4 ¤e6 13 ¤xd5! £h4+! ( In In case of 13...£d8? 14 ¤xe6 ¥xe6 White could have simply continued by 15 £b2) 14 g3 £d8 15 ¤xe6 ¥xe6 Now the rook on a1 will be hanging so White has no time to protect the b4 − pawn. However, However, here here he could have probably secured his advantage by a rather unexpected 16 ¤f6+! (16 ¤c3?! ¥xb4 17 ¥b2 ¤d7 18 0-0-0 £e7!? was quite acceptable for Black ) 16...£xf6 (16...¢f7 17 ¤e4) 17 ¥b2 £e7 ( or or 17...¥xb4+ 18 ¢f2 £f8 19 £e4! and White secures material advantage in all lines ) 18 ¥xh8 ¥d5 19 ¥g2 ¥xg2 20 £xg2 £xe3+ 21 ¢f1 ¥xb4 22 ¦d1± with an extra exchange. 5 ¥d2!? was also tried but it may just lead to the main lines after 5...b5 6 cxd5 cxd5 7 ¤f3 and so on. 5 ¥d3 b5 6 b3 ¥g4 7 ¤ge2 might promise a small advantage for White: 7...¥h5 ( In In case of 7...e6 8 £c2² Black will have to give up his light −squared bishop for the knight soon )
8 0-0 e6 9 f3 ¥d6 (An alternative 9...¥g6 is playable but Black is still slightly worse after 10 ¤f4 ¤bd7 (10...¥d6 11 ¤xg6 hxg6 12 f4 ¤bd7 13 £f3 ¦b8 14 c5 ¥c7 15 ¤e2 a5 16 ¥d2²) 11 ¤xg6 hxg6 12 f4 ¥b4 13 ¤e2²) 10 e4 This position arose in the game Korotylev − Volkov/RUS−ch sf Kazan 2005 which continued 10...dxe4 11 ¤xe4! (11 fxe4 was well met by 11...e5÷) 11...¤xe4 12 ¥xe4 ¥g6 13 c5 (13 ¥f4!?) 13...¥e7 14 a4 b4 15 ¥f4² and White has secured the better chances.
5...b5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ + ppz z ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+p+p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy In case of 5...¥f5 White has a pleasant choice. 6 cxd5!? An interesting attempt to clear drawbacks of the early bishop sortie. a) In the game Kramnik − Morozevich/Dortmund 2001 White preferred a simple looking but rather poisonous approach: 6 ¥d3 ¥xd3 7 £xd3 e6 8 0-0 ¥e7 9 e4 0-0 10 ¦d1 b5 Black has played the odd move ...a7 −a6 and it is almost forced for him to continue consistently. 11 c5! dxe4 12 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 13 £xe4 £d5 14 £xd5 cxd5 15 ¥f4 with a stable advantage in the ending b) 6 £b3 is another possibility: 6...¦a7 This ugly defence is quite quite typical move for for this type of position. (Yet, a risky looking 6...b5!? is rather interesting. The idea is to counter 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 a4 with a very unexpected 8...b4! 9 £xb4 ¤c6 with a good compensation for the pawn. Then possible is 10 £c5 ¤a5 11 £a3 (11 ¥xa6 is simply met by 11...¦xa6 12 £b5+ ¦c6 13 ¤e5 ¥d7) 11...e6 12 b4 ( or or 12 £a2 ¤c6 13 a5 ¤b4 14 £a4+ ¤d7 15 ¢d2 ¥d6ƒ with initiative ) 12...¤c6 13 ¤a2 £b8 14 ¥d2 ¤e4 15 ¦c1 £b7 and White has to be careful to equalise) 7 cxd5 ( in in case of 7 ¥d2 Black can achieve a good play after 7...e6 8 a4 a5 9 ¥e2 h6 10 0-0 ¥d6 11 ¤e5 0-0 12 ¦ac1 ¤bd7) 7...cxd5 8 ¥d2 e6 9 ¤e5 This position arose in the game Iskusnykh − Neelotpal/Chennai 2004, 2004 , which continued 9...¤fd7 This retreat allows White to carry out a promising idea. (9...¥d6?! can be met by a rather annoying 10 £a4+, the White queen has already left the d1-square so Black is not worried about g2 −g4 so he can probably play without 9...h6, which can transpose the game to the line 6. cd5 , that's why 9...¤bd7!? deserves serious attention, keeping the g4 −square under control as well as keeping the rook protected after 10 £a4 ¦a8) 10 £a4! ¦a8 11 g4! ¥g6 12 h4ƒ and Black faced some concrete problems on the K −side. 6...cxd5 7 ¤e5 h6
a) 7...e6? is a serious mistake due to 8 g4 ¥g6 9 h4 and Black is in trouble: 9...h6 10 ¤xg6 fxg6 11 ¥d3 ¢f7 12 £f3 ¥b4 13 g5 hxg5 14 hxg5 ¦xh1+ 15 £xh1 ¤fd7 16 £f3+ ¢g8 17 ¥xg6+ − with decisive advantage b) After 7...¤bd7?! 8 £b3 Black faces problems problems to secure his pawns. For example, 8...¦b8 9 ¤xd7 ¥xd7 (9...£xd7? 10 ¥xa6) 10 ¤xd5 ¤xd5 11 £xd5 e6 12 £e5 (12 £b3!?) 12...¦c8 13 ¥d3 ¥b4+ 14 ¢e2 0-0 and Black has got some compensation thanks to his advantage in development but White's chances still seem to be preferred. 8 £b3 The main drawback of the Black bishop sortie is that his Q −side now lacks protection. 8...¦a7 This ugly move is almost forced. (8...b5? is bad due to 9 a4, destroying the Black's Q −side. ) ) 9 ¥d2 e6 10 ¦c1 White has already alrea dy created a serious threat − Qb3 Qb3−a4 followed by Nc3 − b5! 10...¤bd7 10...¤bd7 11 ¤a4!? A fresh idea of Ketevan Ketevan Kakhiani. ( we we considered 11 ¥b5!? ¥d6 12 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 13 ¤xd7 ¢xd7 14 ¤a4² in the game Vaganian − Frolov/RUS−chT Togliatti 2003 ) 11...¤xe5 (11...¥d6 looks safer but after 12 ¥b4!? White's chances are preferable ) 12 dxe5 ¤d7 13 ¤b6!! This wonderful resource already gives White almost decisive advantage: 13...¤xb6 14 ¥a5 f6 15 ¥xb6 £b8 16 exf6 gxf6 17 ¥e2 ¥g6 18 0-0 ¦a8 19 ¦c7+ − and so on.
6 c5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ + ppz z ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+pz Pp+ Pp+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy This pawn advance has recently become popular. At first sight it does not look promising to close the position having the bishop on c1 but White is hoping that the lack of space for manoeuvring will make it more difficult for Black to defend his Q −side. A simple approach 6 cxd5 gives White reasonable chances to maintain a small advantage thanks to his lead in development. However, Black is usually satisfied with his position: 6...cxd5 7 ¥d3 e6 8 ¤e5 ¥b7 9 0-0 ¤bd7 10 f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ qkv q wkv l r0 r t0 9+l+n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+ +ps n +0 9+p+ps N + 0 9 + P z P z +0 9+ NLz N sLz P + 0 9Pz P + +Pz P0 P0 9t R LQ+Rm L vQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 10...¥d6 (The alternative 10...¥e7 looks more passive but Black can find some interesting ideas behind it: 11 £f3 White takes control over the e4 −square to prevent a typical ...Nf6−e4. (11 ¥d2 0-0 12 ¦c1 is also worthy of consideration. In the game Aleksandrov − Amonatov/Bled (ol) 2002 Black failed to equalise after 12...¤e4 13 a4 (13 ¤xe4 dxe4 14 ¥b1 ¦c8 is fine for Black ) 13...b4 14 ¤xe4 dxe4 15 ¥c4² with advantage) 11...0-0 12 a3 ¤b6!? ( in in case of 12...b4 13 axb4 ¥xb4 14 ¥d2 a5 15 ¦fc1 £e7 16 ¥e1 ¦fc8 17 ¥h4 £f8 18 ¤xd7 ¤xd7 19 f5² White gets better chances , Black has also tried 12...¦c8 but it is really interesting to keep the the c8−square free for the knight ) 13 ¥d2 ¤c8!? followed by ...Nc8 −d6 with a good play, Vaganian − Sakaev/RUS−chT Togliatti 2003) 2003) 11 ¥d2 ¤e4 Black immediately places his knight on the strong e4 − square. (A natural 11...0-0 was also tested. 12 ¥e1 (an interesting 12 £b1!? was tried in the game Kozul − Tkachiev/EU−ch Istanbul 2003, 2003, which continued 12...¤b6!? (12...b4 does not promise a full equality: 13 ¤a4 h6 14 a3 £e7 15 ¦c1 bxa3 16 bxa3 ¦ab8 17 ¥b4 ¥a8 18 ¥xd6 £xd6 19 £c2 and White has got better chances ) 13 ¥e1 g6 14 a4 b4 15 ¤e2 ¤e4 16 a5 ¤d7 and here 17 £d1!? seemed the more promising, trying to win the b4 − pawn after 17...f6 18 ¤f3 £e7 19 £b3 followed by Ra1-a4) 12...¤e4 Here 13 £f3!? deserves attention among other possibilities: 13...¤df6 (13...f5 is an alternative: 14 ¤e2 ¦c8 15 g4!? ¥xe5 16 fxe5 f xe5 £g5 17 h4 £xg4+ 18 £xg4 fxg4 19 ¤f4 ¦fe8 20 ¥e2 g3 21 ¥d3² with better chances for White ) 14 ¤e2 (14 ¥h4 is not so dangerous for Black: 14...b4 15 ¤e2 a5÷ with acceptable play ) 14...¤e8!? ( a routine 14...¦c8!? comes into mind ) 15 £h3 ¥e7 16 ¦c1 ¤8d6 ¤ 8d6 17 ¥b4 ¤f5 18 ¥xe7 £xe7 19 g4 ¤fd6÷ with unclear play) 12 a4! A clever idea − before taking on e4 White gets c4−square for the bishop. (12 ¦f3!? is interesting but it does not look very convincing. Then possible is 12...0-0!? (12...f6 is risky as White can try to launch direct attack by 13 ¥xe4!? dxe4 14 ¦g3 although the position is not clear at all ) 13 ¦h3 f5„ with acceptable play) 12...b4 13 ¤xe4 dxe4 14 ¥c4 0-0 This position arose in the game Kozul − Movsesian/Bled (ol) 2002 which continued 15 a5!? ¤f6 16 f5 ¥d5 and here 17 fxe6!? deserved serious attention: (17 ¥xd5?! exd5 18 £e2 £b8 19 ¦ac1 £b7 20 ¥e1 ¦fc8 21 ¥h4 ¦xc1 22 ¦xc1 ¦c8 was fine for Black ) 17...fxe6 (17...¥xe5 is risky: 18 dxe5 ¥xc4 19 e7! £xe7 20 exf6ƒ with initiative ) 18 ¥e2²
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ q w rk+0 r tk+0 9+ + + z pp0 pp0 9p+ lps l vps n +0 9z P +ls N + 0 9 p z Pp+ P zp+ +0 9+ + P z + 0 9 P z LL+Pz L vL+Pz P0 P0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy White's chances are slightly preferable.
6...¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppz ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+pz Pp+ Pp+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy There are some other options. The development of the light −squared bishop is quite logical but it does not really help to solve the problems. 6...¥f5 looks suspicious − in many cases this move may help White to seize initiative or gain space advantage on the K −side. In the game Dreev − Ni Hua/Moscow 2004 he secured the better chances by 7 ¤e5! ¤e 5! h5!? 8 £b3! ¤g4 and here the energetic 9 e4! looked more promising. while in case of 6...¥g4 White can start his plan of the Q −side penetration by 7 £b3!, intending to double his major pieces along a −file after a2−a4. (7 h3 can also promise somewhat better chances for White: 7...¥xf3 (After 7...¥h5 White can try a straightforward 8 g4 ¥g6 9 ¤e5 ¤fd7 10 ¤xg6 hxg6 11 e4!? (11 ¥g2²) 11...b4 12 ¤e2 dxe4 13 ¤g3 e5 14 ¤xe4 exd4 15 £xd4 ¤xc5 16 £xd8+ ¢xd8 17 ¤g5 with annoying initiative in the endgame) 8 £xf3 (8 gxf3!? is also an interesting option: 8...e6 9 f4 ¤bd7 10 ¥d2 g6 11 b4 and White looks better ) 8...¤bd7 This position arose in the game Zvjaginsev − Lautier/Poikovsky 2004 which continued 9 g4!? e5 with a complex play in which White's chances look slightly better) 7...¤bd7 (7...¥xf3 8 gxf3 does not make Black's life easier: 8...e6 ( unfortunately unfortunately Black cannot keep Q −
side closed as 8...a5? fails to 9 ¤xb5!, while after 8...g6 White continues in a typical manner: 9 a4 ¤bd7 10 £a3 and so on ) 9 a4 ¤bd7 10 £a3 ¦c8 11 ¥d2 g6 12 axb5 axb5 13 £a6 ¤b8 14 £a5 ¥e7 15 £xd8+ ¦xd8 16 ¤a2 with a clear advantage) 8 a4 ¥xf3 a) Black also tried other options: 8...e6 9 £a3 ¦b8 10 axb5 axb5 11 £a6 £c7 12 £a7 £c8 13 £a6 £c7 14 ¥d2 ¥e7 15 ¤a2 0-0 16 ¤b4 ¦fc8 17 £a5 and White is slowly increasing pressure over the Black's Q −side b) 8...e5!? is a principled attempt: 9 ¤a2!? ¤e4 10 ¤d2 £f6 11 f3 (11 ¤xe4!? dxe4 12 ¤b4 deserves attention ) 11...£h4+ 12 g3 ¤xg3 13 hxg3 £xh1 14 fxg4 £g1 15 ¤b4 £xg3+ 16 ¢d1 £xg4+ 17 ¥e2 £g1+ 18 ¤f1 exd4 19 ¤xc6 ¥xc5 20 £xd5± with a superior position but this line should be studied more thoroughly. 9 gxf3 e5 10 £a3 The game Hillarp Persson − Arlandi/Calvia (ol) 2004 continued 10...¦c8 11 axb5 axb5 12 ¥h3 exd4 13 exd4 ¥e7 14 £a5! A key idea in this set −up − White exchanges queens, after which he can be sure about his king and can concentrate on his plans: penetration through a −file and pressure over the c6 − pawn. Black's main problem is that that his minor pieces pieces are are too limited by White's White's pawns. 14...0-0 15 £xd8 ¦fxd8 16 ¦a6 and Black's Q −side has eventually been destroyed. 6...g6 is a popular option. 7 ¥d3 a) White also tried some other options: 7 ¥d2 a5!? 8 a3 (8 ¤e5!? ¤fd7 9 f4²) 8...¥g7 9 b4 0-0 10 ¥e2 (10 ¥d3 ¦e8 11 0-0 ¥g4 12 bxa5 e5! is okay for Black ) 10...¤e4 with a good play for Black b) 7 b4 a5 8 bxa5 £xa5 9 ¥d2 b4 10 ¤b1 ¤e4 has been tested tested in the game game Khenkin − Motylev/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 11 a3 ¤xd2 12 ¤fxd2 b3!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nl+kv nl+kv l r0 r t0 9+ + pp+p0 z pp+p0 9 +p+ +p+0 9w q Pp+ z Pp+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9z Pp+ Pp+ P z + 0 9 + N s PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t RN+Qm RN+Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
A rather unexpected decision − at first sight Black gives up his pawn for nothing! However, it helps him to keep the Q−side closed and the rook on a8 active. Besides he is going to create pressure over the White d4 − pawn after a typical typical ...e7−e5. 13 £xb3 ¤d7 14 £c3 £xc3 15 ¤xc3 e5 16 ¤b3 exd4 17 exd4 ¥g7 18 ¢d2 ¤f8! 19 ¥d3 ¤e6 20 ¤e2 ¦a4! 21 ¢c3 ¥d7 22 f4 ¢e7 23 ¦he1 ¦b8© and Black has brought all his pieces into play and achieved sufficient compensation compensation for the pawn. c) In the position after 7 £b3 a5 8 ¤e5 ¥g7 Levon Aronian recently introduce a rather unexpected and fairly interesting 9 ¤xb5!? White gets strong pawns on the Q−side but his attempts to make progress will be connected with a certain risk since he is playing without a piece. 9...cxb5 ( in in the game Aronian − Bu Xiangzhi/Aeroflot Open Moscow 2005 Black included 9...a4!? 10 £b4 cxb5 11 ¥xb5+ ¢f8÷ with a very
complicated play ) 10 ¥xb5+ ¢f8 11 0-0 ¥a6 12 a4 ¤e4 ( in in the game Rustemov − Sakaev/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 White has obtained excellent compensation for the piece after 12...¥c8 13 f3 ¥e6 14 ¥d2 h5 15 ¦fc1 ¢g8 16 c6©) 13 ¤d3 ¥b7 14 f3 ¤f6 15 ¤e5 £c7 16 ¥d2© This position has been tested in the game Aronian − V.Popov/Aeroflot Open Moscow 2005. 2005 . White's space advantage and strong Q −side pawns always promise very good compensation compensation for the piece. 7...¥g7 8 b4!? (White also tried 8 h3 0-0 9 0-0 ¤bd7 (9...¥f5?! 10 ¥xf5 gxf5 seems dubious. White's dark −squared bishop is restricted restrict ed but a damage of the K −side pawn structure would be more important. The game Radjabov − Bacrot/Cap d'Agde 2006 continued 11 ¤e5 ¤fd7 ( Another Another route for the knight 11...¤e4!? was maybe stronger ) 12 ¤d3!² with better chances for White) 10 ¦e1 a5 (10...£c7!? deserved attention as well ) ) 11 a3 £c7 12 e4 dxe4 13 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 14 ¥xe4 ¦d8 15 £e2 ¤f6 16 ¥c2 ¥e6 and Black has achieved acceptable play) 8...¥g4 9 ¥b2 ¤bd7 10 ¤e2 £c7 11 a4 0-0 The game Aronian − Volkov/RUS−chT Sochi 2005 continued 12 ¦a2 ¦a7 13 h3 ¥xf3 14 gxf3² and in the struggle White has proved that the space advantage still gives him the better chances despite the position looks too closed for his bishops.
7 b4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppz ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+pz Pp+ Pp+ + 0 9 P z P z + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9P+ + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R LQm L vQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Before proceeding with a2 −a4 White has to stop ...b5− b4. Another way to start Q −side actions is 7 £b3 but here Black has a good way to keep the Q− side closed by playing 7...a5! (7...¦b8 is strongly met by 8 e4 b4 9 ¤xd5! (9 ¥f4 is less clear: 9...bxc3 10 ¥xb8 cxb2 11 ¦b1 £a5+ followed by 12...Nxe4 with complicated play ) 9...cxd5 This position arose in the game Mrva − Schwarz/Piestany 2004. 2004 . It seems that 10 exd5!? was the more promising − Black faced serious problems to find squares for his pieces: 10...g6 11 ¥c4 ¥g7 12 0-0 followed by Bc1-f4 with dominating position) 8 e4!? A principled attempt − White is trying to gain an advantage in development. 8...a4 (8...b4!? was also worthy of consideration: 9 e5 (9 ¤xd5 cxd5 10 e5 a4 11 £xb4 ¤e4 looks fine for Black ) 9...bxc3 10 exf6 cxb2 11 £xb2 gxf6 12 ¥f4÷ with a compensation for the pawn but Black is not so bad) 9 £c2 b4 This position was tested in the game Gershon − Svetushkin/Athens 2004. 2004 . Here 10 ¤xa4 seemed critical for the assessment of Black's idea: 10...¤xe4 11 ¥d3 ¥a6 12 ¥xa6 ¦xa6 13 0-0² and White's chances look slightly preferable.
White also tried some other options with idea to prevent or prepare something in reply to ...e7−e5: 7 ¥d2 e5 ( or or 7...a5 8 a3 £c7 9 b4 e5 10 ¤xb5!? ¤xb5! ? cxb5 11 ¥xb5 exd4 12 exd4 ex d4 ¥e7 13 00 0-0 14 ¥g5© with excellent compensation for the pieces thanks to the space advantage and very strong Q −side pawns ) 8 dxe5 ¤g4 9 e6!? fxe6 10 ¤d4 ¤df6 11 ¤xc6 £c7 12 ¤d4 e5÷ with a very complicated play 7 h3 £c7 8 g4 e5 9 g5 ¤g8 10 e4 b4 11 ¤a4 dxe4 12 ¤d2 ¤e7 13 ¤xe4 ¤f5 14 ¥c4 exd4÷ is very unclear and acceptable for Black. The modest 7 a3!? deserves serious attention − White still intends to build his pawn chain but does does not give give Black a chance to attack attack it immediately. A possible possible play is 7...£c7 8 b4 e5 9 dxe5 ¤xe5 10 ¥b2 and here in the game Lputian − Bareev/RUS−chT Sochi 2006 it was more accurate to play 10...¤xf3+ ( after after 10...¥e7?! 11 ¤xe5 £xe5 12 ¤a4! £e4 13 ¤b6 ¦b8 14 ¤xc8 ¦xc8 15 £d4! White has obtained a clear advantage ) 11 £xf3 ¥e7², keeping a worse but playable position.
7...a5! Obviously Black shouldn't wait for White's a2 −a4.
8 bxa5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppz ppz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ n s +0 9z Ppz Ppz Pp+ Pp+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9P+ + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R LQm L vQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A logical reaction − White is going to play on the Q−side so he avoids closing it.
8...£xa5!? An immediate 8...e5 is alternative: 9 ¥d2 e4 10 ¤g1
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ n s +0 9z Ppz Ppz Pp+ Pp+ + 0 9 + Pp+ P zp+ +0 9+ N s P z + 0 9P+ L v PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KLs KLs NR0 NR0 xiiiiiiiiy These pawns chains were built before both sides completed their development so both players are facing the same problem of finding squares for their pieces. The game Dreev − Korotylev/RUS−ch Moscow 2004 continued 10...¦xa5 10...¦x a5 11 a4 bxa4 12 ¦xa4 ¦xa4 13 £xa4 £c7 14 ¤a2! ¥e7 15 ¤b4 ¤b8 16 ¤e2 0-0 17 ¤c3²
XIIIIIIIIY 9 nl+ n sl+ rk+0 r tk+0 9+ q w lpz l vpz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ n s +0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ + 0 9Qs N Pp+ P zp+ +0 9+ N s P z + 0 9 + L v PPz P zPz P0 P0 9+ + KL+R0 m KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
with somewhat better chances for White but Black is certainly not bad.
9 ¥d2 9 £b3!? is worthy of consideration
9...b4 10 ¤b1 This deep retreat of the knight is better than 10 ¤e2 ¤e4÷ and White cannot comfortably continue the development of his K −side.
10...¤e4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kv l r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppz ppz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ + +0 9w q Pp+ P zp+ + 0 9 p z Pn+ P zn+ +0 9+ + PN+ z PN+ 0 9P+ L v PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t RN+Qm RN+Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy At first sight it is not so clear what White is playing for − his pieces are rather passive while Black is going to advance his e − pawn. However ....e7−e5 cannot break White's pawn chain d4−c5, which gives secures White's space advantage and restricts Black's minor pieces − see the game Kir.Georgiev − Erenburg/Gibraltar Masters Caleta 2005 for details.
11 a3!? A new idea − first of all White clarifies the situation on the Q−side. 11 ¥e2 is another option: 11...e5 12 0-0 ¤xd2 13 ¤bxd2 ¥e7 (13...exd4 14 exd4 ¥e7 15 ¤e1 0-0 16 ¤c2² gives White a small advantage ) 14 ¤e1 0-0 15 ¤c2 and here can think about 15...¦b8!?÷ with quite acceptable play.
11...¤xd2 12 ¤fxd2 ¦b8 13 ¥e2 e5 14 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9 rl+kv r tl+kv l r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9 +p+ + +0 9w q z Ppz Ppz p + 0 9 p z P z + +0 9z P + P z + 0 9 + NLz N sLz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t RN+Q+Rm RN+Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy ²/= In the game Kir.Georgiev − Erenburg/Gibraltar Masters Caleta 2005 White eventually outplayed his opponent but Black's position is quite playable.
Chebanenko System/2 early e2 e3 −
−
...b7 b5 b2 b3 [D10] −
−
Last updated: updated: 02/10/05 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤c3 ¤f6 4 e3 a6 5 ¤f3 b5 6 b3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ + ppz z ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+p+p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+Ps N PN+ P zN+ 0 9P+ + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R LQm L vQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 6...¥g4 6...¥f5 This continuation is not very popular. 7 ¤e5!? An interesting attempt to clear drawbacks of the Black bishop sortie. (A normal 7 ¥d3 would also promise a small advantage. For example: 7...¥xd3 (or 7...e6 8 0-0 ¤bd7 9 ¥xf5 exf5 10 ¥b2 ¥d6 11 £c 6) 12 ¤a4 g6 (12...¤e4 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 £c2 b4 (11...g6 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 ¤xd5! ¤xd5 14 £c6) £c6) 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 £c6± with a certain advantage) 8 £xd3 e6 9 0-0 ¥e7² with a slightly worse position for Black ) 7...h6 (7...e6 is suspicious due to 8 g4 ¥g6 9 h4, but 7...¤fd7!? is maybe not so bad. ) ) 8 g4! This energetic move is useful both for the development and for the future K −side actions. 8...¥h7 9 ¥g2 e6 10 0-0 ¥e7 11 f4 and White has achieved better chances in the game Kramnik − Bareev/Monte Carlo 2003.. 2003
7 ¥e2 In case of 7 h3 ¥xf3 White should probably play 8 gxf3 ( Black Black obtains excellent play after 8 £xf3 e5! 9 dxe5 ¥b4 10 ¥d2 ¥xc3 11 ¥xc3 ¤e4 with initiative ) 8...¤bd7 9 f4
Nevertheless his chances chances look slightly better better after after 9...e6 10 c5 ¤g8 ( or or 10...g6 11 ¥b2 a5 12 £c2 ¥g7 13 0-0-0²) 11 ¥b2 ¤e7 12 a4 ¤f5 13 axb5 axb5 14 ¤a2! g6 15 ¤b4² with a small advantage but Black can obviously hold the balance in such a closed position.
7...¤bd7 8 0-0 e6 9 h3 Sometimes White plays 9 ¥b2 immediately: 9...¥d6 (9...¥e7 was tried in the game Avrukh − Sakaev/EU−Cup Bugojno 1999. 1999. After 10 ¤e5 ¥xe2 11 ¤xe2 £b6!? 12 £c2 0-0 13 ¦fc1 dxc4!? 14 bxc4 ¤xe5 15 dxe5 ¤d7 16 ¤g3 bxc4 17 ¦ab1 £c7 18 £xc4 ¦fc8„ White has got some initiative but Black's position is quite acceptable ) 10 ¤e5 ( In In case of 10 h3 ¥f5!? is interesting, but for some reason it is not very popular retreat. In the game Stefansson − Van den Doel/Antwerpen 1998 White has not achieved too much after 11 ¤h4 ¥e4 12 f3 ¥g6 with quite playable position ) 10...¥xe2 11 ¤xe2 £c7! This clever idea promises a good play for Black. ( In In the game Chekhov − Volkov/Moscow 1996 Black tried to solve his problems in simple fashion − by attacking both the knight on e5 and the bishop on b2 with his queen on b8, probably hoping to force favourable exchanges: 11...bxc4 12 bxc4 £b8 However, by playing 13 centralised £c2! White sacrificed a pawn, seized a strong initiative against his rival's centralised king, and finished the game with an excellent and well −calculated attack: 13...¤xe5 14 dxe5 ¥xe5 15 ¥xe5 £xe5 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 £c6+ ¢e7 18 £b7+! ¤d7 19 ¤d4 £d6 20 ¤c6+ ¢f6 21 f4!‚ and so on , 11...¦c8 would be similar to the game Stohl − Velicka/SVK −chT
1996, in which White has played an extra move h2 −h3 but it does not change the 1996, general course of the game very much ) 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 ¦c1 £b8!= In the game Avrukh − Dautov/Istanbul (ol) 2000 the control of the c −file gave White nothing significant.
9...¥h5 9...¥f5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ qkv q wkv l r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9+p+p+l+ 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+Ps N PN+P0 P zN+P0 9P+ +Lz PP+0 PP+0 9t R LQ+Rm L vQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
is a rare but interesting option. 10 ¥d3 ¥b4!? Probably the best continuation. (10...¥d6 does not promise an easy life for Black due to 11 ¥xf5! exf5 12 £c2 b4 (12...g6? 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ¤xd5! ¤xd5 15 £c6) 13 ¤e2 g6 14 a3 and Black gets real problems on the
Q−side) 11 ¥b2 (11 ¤e2!? is another possibility: 11...¥xd3 12 £xd3 0-0 13 ¥b2 £b8 14 ¦fc1 ¥d6 15 ¦c2 ¦a7 16 ¦ac1² with a typical small advantage for White ) 11...¥xd3 (Here 11...0-0 is a principled and maybe the better alternative: 12 ¥xf5 ( or or 12 a3 ¥d6 13 £c2 ¥xd3 14 £xd3 £e7 15 ¦fc1 ¦fc8 with acceptable play for Black ) 12...exf5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 £d3 g6 15 ¤e5 £c7 16 a4 White has got some initiative on the Q − side but Black can probably defend with accurate play.) 12 £xd3 0-0 13 ¦fc1 ¥d6 Nothing could be achieved by 13...dxc4 14 bxc4 ¤b6 15 ¤d2², while 13...bxc4 14 bxc4 £e7 ( 15 ¦c2 dxc4 16 £xc4 c5 17 ¦ac1 cxd4 18 ¤xd4 ¤e5 19 £e2 ¥a3 20 f4 ¤g6 21 ¤c6² gives White the better chances ) 14 ¦c2 ¦c8 ( A direct attempt 14...dxc4 15 bxc4 bxc4 16 £xc4 c5 was not fully equalising as after 17 ¦d1² White already had all his pieces in action , but 14...bxc4!? 15 bxc4 £a5 is interesting − in this variation it is easier for Black to get the f8−rook into play ) 15 ¦ac1 dxc4!? ( It It was already too difficult to stand for the tension: 15...£a5? was just bad due to 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 ¤xd5!) 16 bxc4 b4 17 ¤e4 ¤xe4 18 £xe4² White's superiority in center should promise him some advantage, Gelfand − Acs/Budapest 2003. 2003.
10 ¥b2 The immediate 10 ¤e5 is the less common option, which may lead to the main line. 10...¥xe2 11 ¤xe2 is the less common option, which may lead to the main line. Besides, Black has a concrete and interesting option: 11...dxc4!? A concrete and interesting attempt to prove that the order of moves White has chosen is not much promising. a) 11...¤xe5 is not the most popular but still playable continuation: 12 dxe5 ¤d7 ¤ d7 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ¥b2 This position arose in the game Wells − Epishin/Catalan Bay 2004,, which continued 14...¥e7 (14...¥c5!? deserves serious attention. Then Black 2004 can prevent an appearance of the White queen on the K −side by playing 15 ¤f4 £g5! 16 ¦c1 0-0 17 ¦c2 ¦fc8 with acceptable play ) 15 ¤f4!? An interesting idea − White does not want to encumber the long diagonal and concentrates concentr ates on K −side actions. ( in in case of 15 ¤d4 we can transpose to the game I.Sokolov − Franco Ocampos/ESP −chT Lanzarote 2003 after 15...£b6 16 £g4 0-0 17 f4²) 15...0-0 16 £g4² and White has got better chances although Black's position position is still rather solid b) Black Black can transpose into the main line by playing 11...£c7 12 ¥b2 ¥d6 and so on. c) the same main line can be also reached via 11...¥d6 as 12 ¤xc6 £c7 is fine for Black 12 ¤xd7 (12 bxc4 ¤xe5 13 dxe5 £xd1 14 ¦xd1 ¤d7 looks fine for Black , 12 £c2 can be strongly met by 12...¤xe5 12...¤xe 5 13 dxe5 £d3! 14 £xd3 cxd3 15 ¤f4 ¤d5 16 ¤xd3 0-0-0! with excellent play for Black ) 12...£xd7 13 bxc4 In the game Epishin − Charbonneau/Reykjavik 2004 Black continued 13...c5! ( After After 13...¥e7 14 c5! 0-0 15 £c2 £d5 16 f3 e5 17 e4 £c4 18 £xc4 bxc4 19 ¥a3 ¦fd8 20 ¦fd1 ¤d7 21 ¦ac1± White gets a clear advantage ) 14 ¥a3!? (14 ¥b2 does not promise any advantage for White: 14...cxd4 15 ¥xd4 bxc4 16 £c2 ¥e7 17 £xc4 00 18 ¦ab1 ¦fc8=) 14...cxd4 15 ¥xf8 ¢xf8 and here White could have thought about the more ambitious 16 ¤xd4! bxc4 17 ¦c1 ¦c8 18 £e2© and Black may not be able to secure his king and connect the rooks without serious concessions. Yet, this continuation certainly requires thorough analysis for more precise conclusion.
10...¥d6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ qk+ q wk+ r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+pv lps lps n +0 9+p+p+ +l0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+Ps N PN+P0 P zN+P0 9Pv L +Lz PP+0 PP+0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy In the game Radjabov − Braga/Bled (ol) 2002 Black tried to solve the problems without any concessions by 10...£b8 but it was strongly met by a very energetic 11 ¤e5! ¥xe2 12 £xe2 ¤xe5 13 dxe5 ¤d7 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 ¦fd1! ¥e7 ( still still 15...¤xe5!? deserves serious attention: 16 e4 d4! 17 ¦xd4 ¥c5 followed by ...0-0 although White's advantage is beyond doubts ) 16 £g4 g6 17 ¤e2 ¤xe5?! (17...0-0 seemed to be safer. White could have tried 18 e4!? (18 £f4²) 18...¤xe5 19 £f4 ¤d7 20 exd5ƒ with better chances.) 18 £f4 f6 19 e4!ƒ with annoying initiative. 10...¥e7 is another possibility: 11 ¤e5 ¥xe2 12 ¤xe2 ¤xe5 With the bishop on d6 this option not available. 13 dxe5 ¤d7 14 ¤d4 The game I.Sokolov − Franco Ocampos/ESP−chT Lanzarote 2003 continued 14...£b6 15 £g4 0-0 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 f4² and White has got better chances.
11 ¤e5 ¥xe2 12 ¤xe2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ qk+ q wk+ r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+pv lps lps n +0 9+p+ps N + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+P+ P z +P0 9Pv L +Nz PP+0 PP+0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...£c7!? The most popular continuation.
12...¦c8 does not solve the problems completely: 13 £d3 0-0 14 ¦fc1 ¤e4 15 cxd5 cxd5 16 ¦xc8 £xc8 17 ¦c1 £b7 18 ¤xd7! £xd7 19 £c2² with a small advantage for White thanks to the control of the c −file, Stohl − Velicka/SVK −chT 1996. 1996. 12...bxc4!? is a fresh and fairly interesting idea: 13 bxc4 0-0! The point of previous move − with the b−file opened White cannot take the c6 − pawn for free. 14 £c2 a) 14 ¤xc6?! is met by 14...£b6 15 c5 £xc6 16 cxd6 ¤b6 ¤ b6 (16...£xd6=) 17 ¥a3 ¤c4 18 £d3 ¤e4 with excellent play for Black b) White White can also try to achieve a small advantage advantage by 14 ¦b1 £c7 15 ¤xd7 £xd7 16 £a4 ¦fb8 (16...¤e4!?) 17 ¥a3!? ¥xa3 18 £xa3² 14...£c7 15 ¤d3!? ¦fc8 ( in in the game Kir.Georgiev − Movsesian/Calvia (ol) 2004 Black preferred 15...¤e4!?, which deserves attention but does not change the position much ) 16 c5 ¥e7 17 ¦fb1 ¦cb8 18 ¥c3² Thanks to his space advantage White White has achieved a slight edge in the game Najer game Najer − Kobalia/RUS−ch sf Kazan 2005 but 2005 but it is extremely extremely difficult to break Black's defence here. On the other hand, Black cannot hope to get more than half a point...
13 cxd5 cxd5 14 ¦c1 £b8 15 ¤xd7
XIIIIIIIIY 9rw q +k+ r0 r t0 9+ +N+pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lps l vps n +0 9+p+p+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+P+ P z +P0 9Pv L +Nz PP+0 PP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy This capture has recently become the main continuation. Black has a choice − to weaken control over the center or to deprive himself of the castling. It should be mentioned that White can realize this idea only with pawn on h3. 15 ¤c6 would promise only a slight edge for White: 15...£b7 16 £d3 0-0 In the game Onischuk − Malakhov/Poikovsky 2004 White continued 17 ¦c2 ( in in case of 17 f3 ¦ac8 18 ¤e5 ¥e7 19 £d2 ¤xe5 20 dxe5 ¤d7 21 ¤f4 b4 22 ¥d4 a5 Black has no problems ) 17...¦ac8 18 ¦fc1 ¤b8 19 ¤xb8 ¦xc2 20 £xc2 ¦xb8 21 £c6 ¤e8 and Black should hold such position although in the game he failed.
15...¤xd7 15...¢xd7 is an interesting alternative but it probably does not solve the problems completely. 16 f3 £b7 17 ¤f4 A logical continuation. White is simply going to transfer his knight to c5 − then Black can hardly capture it as it gives White a very comfortable c5−square for the rook.
a) 17 £d3 has been tried in some games: 17...¢e7 (17...¦hc8?! was strongly met by 18 e4! and after 18...£b6?! 18...£b6?! 19 ¢h1 ¥e7 20 e5 ¤e8 21 £xh7± White gets a big advantage ) 18 ¤c3 (18 ¦c2 ¦hc8 19 ¦fc1 ¦xc2 20 ¦xc2 ¢d7 21 ¥c1 ¦c8 is fine for Black ) 18...b4 19 ¤a4 £b5 20 £d2 ¦ac8 21 ¤c5 ¦hd8 22 a4 bxa3 23 ¥xa3 ¢e8 24 ¦c3 ¤d7² and Black can defend this slightly worse position b) The immediate 17 e4 looks interesting but it seems to be not so clear as well: 17...dxe4 18 d5 £xd5 19 fxe4 £xe4÷ with complicated play 17...¦hc8 (17...¥xf4?! does not look very good − Black parts with his important bishop and now the White rook would be comfortably placed on c5. The game Ovsejevitsch − Braun/Budapest 2003 continued 18 exf4 ¦ac8 ( or or 18...¤h5 19 f5! exf5 20 £d2 f4 21 ¥a3ƒ and Black faces problems ) 19 ¦c5! £b8 20 £d2 g6 21 ¥a3 ¦he8 22 ¦fc1 and White has achieved a big advantage) 18 ¤d3²
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+r+ + +0 9+q+k+pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lps l vps n +0 9+p+p+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+P+Nz PP+P0 PP+P0 9Pv L + +P+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
and White keeps a certain advantage.
16 e4!
XIIIIIIIIY 9rw q +k+ r0 r t0 9+ +n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lp+ l vp+ +0 9+p+p+ + 0 9 + PP+ P zP+ +0 9+P+ + +P0 9Pv L +Nz PP+0 PP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy White takes a good opportunity to advance his e − pawn, getting space advantage.
16...dxe4
This principled but risky approach is recently under the test. 16...0-0 17 e5 gives White a small advantage: 17...¥e7 18 ¦c3!? A fresh idea − White takes an opportunity to transfer his rook to the K −side. ( after after 18 ¤g3 £b6 19 £g4 ¦ac8 20 ¤h5 g6 21 ¤f4² White has got better chances in the game I.Sokolov − Kristjansson/Reykjavik 2003 ) 18...¦c8 19 ¦g3
XIIIIIIIIY 9rw qr+ qr+ +k+0 9+ +nv lpz lpz pp0 pp0 9p+ +p+ +0 9+p+pz P + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+P+ + RP0 R tP0 9Pv L +Nz PP+0 PP+0 9+ +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
Thanks to the possible K −side activity White keeps the better chances but Black's defensive resources and counter chances should not be underestimated, Tregubov − Bacrot/FRA−chT Bordeaux 2003. 2003 . 16...b4!? deserves attention. After 17 e5 ¥e7 18 ¤f4 0-0 19 £g4 £b7 20 h4² a typical position with small advantage for White arises. arises. 16...¤b6 does not solve the problems: 17 e5 ¥e7 18 ¤f4 g6 19 ¤d3 0-0 20 £d2 ¦c8 21 ¦xc8+ £xc8 22 ¦c1± White gets a certain advantage.
17 d5 0-0 17...e5?! is dubious due to the simple 18 ¤g3 and in case of 18...¤f6 White took strong initiative by 19 ¤f5ƒ
18 dxe6 ¤c5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rw q + rk+0 r tk+0 9+ + +pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lP+ l vP+ +0 9+ps n + + 0 9 + +p+ +0 9+P+ + +P0 9Pv L +Nz PP+0 PP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
Again Black had a little choice as 18...fxe6 was unsatisfactory for him: 19 ¤g3 e3 ( after after 19...¥xg3 20 £xd7 Black was losing both e − pawns ) 20 £g4 ¦f7 21 fxe3 ¥xg3 22 ¦xf7 ¢xf7 23 £xg7+ ¢e8 24 ¦f1+ − and White wins
19 ¤f4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rw q + rk+0 r tk+0 9+ + +pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lP+ l vP+ +0 9+ps n + + 0 9 + +ps N +0 9+P+ + +P0 9Pv L + PP+0 P zP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy A rather unexpected and interesting idea − an invention of Krishnan Sasikiran. 19 £d4 ¤xe6 20 £xe4 ¦e8 looks fine for Black 19 exf7+ ¦xf7 20 £d5 is also not dangerous: 20...¤d3 21 ¦b1 ¥h2+ 22 ¢h1 ¥c7 23 ¤d4 £e8 24 ¤e6 ¤f4! 25 ¤xf4 ¦d8! 26 £e6 ¥xf4 27 £xa6 ¦a8 28 £b6 ¦xa2 and White White has to play carefully to equalise.
19...¦a7!
XIIIIIIIIY 9 q w + rk+0 r tk+0 9t r + +pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lP+ l vP+ +0 9+ps n + + 0 9 + +ps N +0 9+P+ + +P0 9Pv L + PP+0 P zP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy A good idea − Black gets his passive rook into the defence. The alternative 19...¥xf4 does not completely solve the problems: 20 ¦xc5 (20 exf7+ ¦xf7 21 ¦xc5 e3) 20...fxe6 21 £g4 ¦f7 (21...e5 22 g3 £d6 23 b4) 22 g3² and White captures the e4− pawn, maintaining the advantage. 19...¤xe6 does not equalise as well: 20 ¤xe6 fxe6 21 £g4 e5 22 £xe4 with a certain advantage.
19...fxe6 has been tried in the game Sasikiran − Sakaev/Copenhagen 2003, 2003 , which continued 20 £g4 e5 21 ¤e6 ¤xe6 22 £xe6+ ¢h8 23 ¦c6² White has achieved certain advantage.
20 ¥d4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9 q w + rk+0 r tk+0 9t r + +pz pp0 pp0 9p+ lP+ l vP+ +0 9+ps n + + 0 9 + Lps L vps N +0 9+P+ + +P0 9P+ + PP+0 P zP+0 9+ RQ+Rm R tQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy This interesting idea promises a small advantage for White. A straightforward approach 20 ¤h5 can probably be parried: 20...¤xe6 20...¤ xe6 (20...fxe6 is also not so clear: 21 ¥d4 and here in the game Acs − Movsesian/WCh Tripoli (m/1) 2004 Black should have opted for 21...¤d3! and thorough analysis do not show how White could achieve winning chances ) 21 ¤f6+!? Otherwise Black seems to be fine. 21...gxf6 22 £g4+ ¤g5 ( Obviously Obviously not 22...¤g7?? 23 ¥xf6+ − ) 23 ¥xf6 h6 24 ¦c6! This position arose in the game Acs − Movsesian/WCh Tripoli (m/4) 2004. 2004 . It looks like after the cool 24...¦e8! White had nothing more than a draw after 25 f4!? exf3 26 ¥xg5 f5 ( or or 26...¥h2+ 27 ¢h1 hxg5 28 £xg5+ ¢f8 29 £h6+ ¢g8=) 27 £xf5 ¥h2+ 28 ¢h1 hxg5 29 ¦g6+ (29 £xg5+ ¦g7 30 £d5+ led to the same result: 30...¢h8 31 ¦h6+ ¦h7 32 ¦xh7+ ¢xh7 33 £h5+) 29...¦g7 30 ¦xg7+ ¢xg7 31 £xg5+ with perpetual check. 20 £d5!? is a recommendation by Sasikiran and perhaps it can also promise small advantage for White.
20...¥xf4 The only move.
21 ¥xc5 ¥xc1
XIIIIIIIIY 9 q w + rk+0 r tk+0 9t r + +pz pp0 pp0 9p+ +P+ +0 9+pv L + + 0 9 + +p+ +0 9+P+ + +P0 9P+ + PP+0 P zP+0 9+ lQ+Rm l vQ+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy 22 ¥xa7 Perhaps 22 ¥xf8!? £xf8 23 £xc1² can secure a small advantage for White.
22...£xa7 23 exf7+ ¦xf7! This is stronger than 23...£xf7 24 £xc1² and Black has eventually failed to hold balance in the game Kharlov − Leitao/WCh Tripoli 2004 although the position should still be drawish.
24 £xc1 £c7 Black's task is to place his major pieces actively, not getting stuck to his e4 − pawn, at the same time preventing White's activity since it would be dangerous for his king. The game Gyimesi − Movsesian/CRO−chT Rabac 2004 continued
25 £b2 ¦d7 26 £e2 £f4
XIIIIIIIIY 9 + + +k+0 9+ +r+ pp0 p zp0 9p+ + + +0 9+p+ + + 0 9 + +pw q +0 9+P+ + +P0 9P+ +Qz PP+0 PP+0 9+ + +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy and Black faced no problems.
Chebanenko System/3 various ideas −
[D15] Last updated: updated: 17/11/04 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 5 cxd5 A rather interesting idea − White transposes into the Slav Exchange type of position with the move ...a7−a6 already played. Yet, in most cases it is not so bad for Black. It seems that 5 £c2 can be strongly met by 5...dxc4 6 e4 (6 a4 ¥g4 is good for Black ) 6...b5 a) 7 ¥e2 gives Black the time for development: 7...e6 (7...¥g4 seems to be weaker: 8 a4 ¤bd7 9 e5 ¤d5 10 axb5 axb5 11 ¦xa8 £xa8 12 ¤g5ƒ with initiative ) 8 0-0 (8 e5 ¤d5 9 ¤e4 ¤d7 is fine for Black ) 8...¥e7 9 a4 ¥b7 10 e5 ¤d5 11 ¤e4 h6 12 b3 cxb3 13 £xb3 0-0 ∓ and Black is completely OK. This type of position would be arisen in the Noteboom variation but there the Black bishop is usually not quite stable on b4 while White has the possibility to capture on b3 in one step. b) 7 a4 7...e6! Black is not worried worried about his b5− pawn and transposes into the Noteboom type of position. (7...¥b7 let White to take initiative by 8 e5 ¤d5 9 e6! fxe6 10 ¤e4ƒ White has not only broken the opponent's pawn structure − the e6− pawn prevents prevents his neighbour on e7 to move and so Black has got problems with development and poor connection between his flanks. Yet, things are still not so clear, Bareev − Kir.Georgiev/ECC Halkidiki 2002. 2002 . ) ) 8 axb5 ( A slow play should not bother Black
very much: 8 ¥e2 ¥b7 followed by ...Nbd7 and so on but perhaps White should have preferred this way. ) ) 8...cxb5 9 e5 ( here here 9 ¤xb5 is just worse as Black wins the e4 − pawn after 9...axb5 10 ¦xa8 ¥b7 followed by ...Bb7xe4 ) 9...¤d5 10 ¤xb5 axb5! The point of Black's idea − he gives up the exchange but quickly gets all his pawns into play. 11 ¦xa8 ¥b7 b1) Other possibilities possibilities were even worse: 12 ¥g5?! ¥b4+ (12...f6!? 13 ¦a7 £b6 14 ¦xb7 £xb7) 13 ¤d2 £c7 (13...f6!? 14 ¦a7 £b6 15 ¦xb7 £xb7 16 exf6 gxf6 17 ¥h6 ¤c6 18 £e4 £f7) 14 ¦a1 ¤c6 15 £e4 £b6∓ with a big advantage b2) 12 ¦a1?! ¤b4 13 £d2 (13 £d1?! ¥e4) 13...¥e4 (13...¥xf3!? 14 gxf3 ¤8c6 ∓ ) 14 ¢d1 ¤8c6ƒ with strong initiative. b3) 12 ¦a7!? White is trying to put at least one piece actively. 12...¤b4 13 £d1 This position arose arose in the game Gelfand − Bacrot/Albert (m/5) 2002. 2002 . It seems that Black could have achieved a big advantage by Black could have achieved a big advantage by 13...¥xf3! R.Scherbakov 14 gxf3 ( unfortunately, unfortunately, 14 £xf3? was impossible due to 14...¤c2+ 15 ¢d1 £xd4+ 16 ¢xc2 £xa7) 14...¤8c6 15 ¦a3 ¤xd4 16 ¦c3 £d5∓ with superior position. Other noteworthy possibilities are 5 ¤e5 and 5 g3
5...cxd5 6 ¥g5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+ + n s +0 9+ +p+ L v 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy We thoroughly considered this active bishop's sortie without preliminary c4xd5 but in that case White often sacrifices the c4 − pawn. 6 ¥f4 ¤c6 is just a transposition to the Slav Exchange − see D10 Slav Exchange/1 Various lines.
6...¤e4 This is probably the best reaction. 6...e6 7 e3 ¥e7 8 ¥d3 gives White a small but comfortable edge, as was shown in a number of games. For example, 8...b5 9 0-0 ¥b7 10 £e2! 0-0 11 a4 b4 12 ¤b1 ¤c6 13 ¤bd2 ¤a5 14 ¦fc1²
7 ¥h4 Creating obstacles in Black's K −side development.
7...¤c6 7...£a5 gives more active possibilities for White: a) 8 ¤d2!? is interesting but it seems that Black can achieve a good game by 8...¤xc3 9 bxc3 ¤c6 10 £b3 e5!? e5!? 11 e3 exd4 12 exd4 ¥d6 13 ¥g3 ¥xg3 14 hxg3 ¥f5!? 15 ¦h5 (15 £xb7? could be strongly met by 15...£xc3! 16 £xa8+ ¢e7 17 £b7+ ¢f6 18 ¦d1 ¦b8! and White has to give up his queen as 19 £c7? is losing to 19...¦e8+ 20 ¥e2 ¦xe2+! 21 ¢f1 £c2!-+) 15...¤e7 and Black is fine. b) 8 £b3 8...e6 8... e6 9 e3 ( White White has also tried some other possibilities: 9 ¤g5 looks strange: 9...¤xc3 10 bxc3 ¥e7 11 ¤f3 ¥xh4 12 ¤xh4 0-0 with good play 9 a3 can be well met by 9...¥d7!? 10 e3 ¤xc3 11 £xc3 £xc3+ 12 bxc3 ¤c6 13 c4 dxc4 14 ¥xc4 ¤a5 15 ¥e2 ¦c8 16 ¤e5 ¥a4³ with better chances for Black 9 9 ¦c1!? deserves attention: 9...¤c6 10 e3 ¥d6 11 ¥d3 f5 12 ¥g3 ¤xg3 13 hxg3² hxg3² and White has got a slight edge ) b1) 9...¤c6 9.. .¤c6 allows White to complete the development: 10 ¥d3 (10 a3 does not prevent 10...¥b4!? and 11 ¦c1 ¥xc3+ 12 bxc3 0-0 13 ¥d3 b5 14 0-0 ¥d7 is acceptable for Black ) 10...f5 (10...¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¥d6 12 ¥g3 £c7 13 e4²) 11 0-0 ¥d6 12 ¦fc1 0-0 13 ¥g3 ¤xg3
14 hxg3² with a small advantage b2) 9...¥b4 10 ¥d3!? An interesting attempt. (10 ¦c1 is harmless for Black: 10...¥d7 11 a3 ¥xc3+ 12 bxc3 ¥b5! 13 ¤e5 ¤c6 and Black has no problems at all. ) 10...¤xc3 (10...¥xc3+?! is too risky: 11 bxc3 ¤xc3 12 0-0ƒ with annoying initiative. ) ) 11 a3 ¤c6 12 0-0 b2a) 12...¤e4 is a natural alternative: alternative: 13 13 axb4 £xb4 14 £c2 0-0 (14...f5?! 15 ¦xa6!) 15 ¥xe4 dxe4 16 £xe4 ¥d7 (16...£xb2 17 ¥g3ƒ gives White a rather annoying initiative as Black is late in development ) ) 17 ¤g5!? f5 18 £b1² with idea Qb1-a2 and White's chances look preferable. b2b) 12...£a4!? A principled continuation. 13 £xa4 ¤xa4 14 axb4 ¤xb2 ( In In case of 14...¤xb4 15 ¥e2 ¥d7 16 ¦fc1ƒ White achieves achieve s more than enough compensation for the pawn. ) ) 15 ¥e2© A lead in development promises White Whit e a good compensation for the pawn but Black is also quite satisfied with his position. The game Ljubojevic − Bacrot/Bled (ol) 2002 continued 15...¤c4 15...¤ c4 16 ¥xc4 dxc4 17 b5 ¤a7 ( After After 17...¤e7 18 ¦fc1 ¥d7 19 bxa6 ¦xa6 20 ¦xa6 bxa6 21 ¦xc4ƒ White seized some initiative. ) 18 bxa6 b5!÷ with sharp and complicated play.
8 e3 £a5 8...¥g4 does not solve the problems completely: 9 ¥d3 ¤xc3 10 bxc3 £d7 11 0-0 e6 12 c4 dxc4 13 ¥xc4² with advantage. 8...£b6 looks suspicious: 9 ¥d3 ¥f5 10 0-0 ¤xc3 11 bxc3 ¥xd3 12 £xd3 e6 13 ¦ab1 £c7 14 ¥g3 £d7 15 ¦b6 ¥e7 16 ¦fb1 ¤a5 17 c4 dxc4 18 £c3 £a4 19 d5ƒ with initiative.
9 £b3 £b4!
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+n+ + +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 q w Pn+ P zn+ L0 L v0 9+Qs N PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R + KL+R0 K mL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy This exchange offer has recently become the main Black's option.
10 £xb4 10 ¥e2 is harmless for Black: 10...¥f5 11 £xb4 ¤xb4 12 0-0 e6 13 ¤xe4 ¥xe4 14 a3 ¤c6 ¤ c6 15 ¤d2 ¥g6 16 ¦fc1 ¢d7 (16...¥d6 17 ¦c3 ¢d7 18 ¤b3 b6 19 ¦ac1 ¦hc8 20 ¤d2²) 17 b4 ¥e7 18 ¥g3 ¦hc8 19 ¤b3 b6 and Black is OK 10 £c2 comes into consideration but it looks like Black can achieve a good play here, too: 10...¥f5 (10...£a5!? is also not bad: 11 ¤d2 ¤b4 12 £b3 ¤xd2 13 ¢xd2 e6 14 ¥e2 ¤c6 and Black is OK ) 11 ¥d3 £a5 12 £b3 and now Black can simply go back by 12...£b4!?÷
10...¤xb4 11 ¦c1 ¥f5 11...¤xc3?! is weaker: 12 bxc3 ¤c6 13 c4 dxc4 14 ¥xc4 e6 15 0-0 ¥e7 16 ¥g3 0-0 17 e4² with certain advantage.
12 a3 ¤xc3 13 ¦xc3 ¤c6²
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ +kv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+n+ + +0 9+ +p+l+ 0 9 + P z + L0 L v0 9z P R t PN+ P zN+ 0 9 P z + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9+ + KL+R0 m KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
The position is symmetrical but the advantage in development may promise the edge for White, Bacrot − Kir.Georgiev/Bled (ol) 2002. 2002 .
Chebanenko System/4 5. a4 [D15] −
Last updated: updated: 01/11/03 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 a6 5 a4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9P+Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9 P z +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy This simple pawn advance deserves attention − it may also promise better chances for White. Now almost every Slav system can arise with the inclusion of the moves a4 and ...a6. Perhaps Black can find an appropriate one? Notice that it's more difficult for Black to realise the idea of dxc4 and b7− b5 now because White can take on b5 twice!
5...e6 5...g6 is very similar to the Schlechter variation of the Grunfeld Defence. In my opinion, it is more reasonable for Black to keep the bishop on the diagonal f8 −a3 since it is tempting to establish control over the b4 square. The bishop's fianchetto is a rather passive set−up: 6 e3 ¥g7 7 ¥e2 0-0 8 0-0 ¥g4 9 £b3 ¦a7 10 a5 e6 11 h3 ¥xf3 12 ¥xf3 ¤bd7 13 ¦d1 £c7 14 e4 with the initiative, Ehlvest − Miles/Biel 1996.
6 ¥g5 6 g3 is the alternative, transposing to Catalan positions.
6...¤bd7
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9+ +p+ L v 0 9P+Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9 P z +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 7 e3 7 cxd5 is an alternative. a) 7...cxd5 is less popular. After 8 e3 £a5 9 ¥d3 ¤e4 a rather strange mixture of the Cambridge Springs and the Exchange Slav may have arisen. Here Rafael Vaganian introduced an interesting plan, connected with a direct kingside attack: 10 0-0!? ¤xg5 ( acceptance acceptance of the sacrifice looks dangerous: 10...¤xc3 11 bxc3 £xc3 12 ¦c1 £a5 13 £c2 with a strong initiative ) 11 ¤xg5 ¤f6 12 f4!? ¥b4 13 ¦c1 0-0 14 £e1 ¥d7 15 £h4 h6 16 ¤f3 ¦fc8 17 g4!‚ and smashed his formidable opponent in brilliant style, Vaganian − Shirov/Istanbul (ol) 2000 b) 7...exd5 8 e3 ¥e7 9 ¥d3 0-0 10 £c2 ¦e8 11 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qr+k+0 qr+k+0 9+p+nv lpz lpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ L v 0 9P+ P z + +0 9+ NLz N sLz PN+ PN+ 0 9 PQ+ P zQ+ PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R + +Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy
The position is very similar to the Carlsbad Variation but the addition of the moves a4 and ...a6 changes things. White has no minority attack here (b2 − b4− b5) and should try other plans. The game Kramnik − Gelfand/Novgorod 1997 continued by 11...¤f8 12 ¦ae1 ¥e6 13 ¤e5² with a small but lasting edge.
7...£a5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kv l r0 r t0 9+p+n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9w q +p+ L v 0 9P+Pz P + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9 P z + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy This position reminds me of the Cambridge Springs now. With the inclusion of the moves ...a7−a6 and a2−a4 the arrangement ...£a5 and ...¥b4 looks more stable since White White has no a2−a3 resource, but some other ideas are still there. 7...¥b4 8 ¥d3 £a5 can be well met by 9 0-0! and now it is very risky for Black to accept the gift: 9...¥xc3 ( Yet, Yet, the other options Black tried in this position were not quite successful: 9...dxc4 10 ¥xc4 ¥xc3 11 bxc3 £xc3 12 £e2 0-0 13 a5 £b4 £ b4 14 e4 ¦e8 15 ¦fb1 £f8 16 ¥c1! g6 17 ¥a3 £g7 18 ¥d6 h6 19 ¦a3 ¤h5 20 ¤e5+ − and Black is running out of ¥x c4 ¥xc3 12 bxc3 £xc3 £ xc3 13 £e2 £a5 14 e4 £ £h5 h5 15 ¥g3 0-0 16 a5 moves 9...h6 10 ¥h4 dxc4 11 ¥xc4 ¦e8 17 ¥d6 ¤f8 18 h3± and White is dominating ) 10 bxc3 £xc3 11 c5!? White has not only got a lead in development − the dark −squares in Black's camp are too vulnerable now. By the way, this is not so only the attempt to take control over the dark squares as to lock up the Black queen by 12. a4 −a5! 11...£a5 12 £c2 0-0 13 ¤e5 and Black has found himself in trouble, Shipov − Malakhov/Moscow (ch) 2003.. 2003
8 cxd5!? 8 ¤d2 ¥b4 9 £c2 c5 is known to be the main line but this simple capture is maybe the more promising.
8...¤xd5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kv l r0 r t0 9+p+n+pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+p+ +0 9w q +n+ L v 0 9P+ P z + +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9 P z + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 8...exd5 is not quite logical − the move ...Qd8−a5 is just unnecessary in the Carlsbad structure.
9 e4!? An interesting and ambitious approach − White sacrifices a pawn to get a lead in development. Yet, perhaps a slow 9 £c2 ¥b4 10 ¦c1 may also promise better chances for White. For example, 10...¤7b6 11 e4 ¤f6 12 ¥d2 c5 13 dxc5 £xc5 14 ¥d3 ¤c4 15 0-0 ¤xd2 16 £xd2 £h5 17 e5 ¤d5 18 ¥e4 ¤xc3 19 bxc3 ¥c5 20 ¦b1 0-0 21 ¥xb7 ¥xb7 22 ¦xb7± with a healthy extra pawn.
9...¤xc3 10 bxc3 ¤f6 11 ¥d3 The more straightforward 11 e5 does not promise much due to 11...¤e4 12 ¥d2 c5!
11...£xc3+ 12 ¢e2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kv l r0 r t0 9+p+ +pz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9+ + + v L 0 9P+ PP+ P zP+ +0 9+ qL+N+ q wL+N+ 0 9 + +Kz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Q+ +R0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...£a5
In the game Kharlov − Iskusnykh/Moscow 2003 Black unsuccessfully tried 12...£b2+?! and after 13 ¥d2 a5 14 ¦b1ƒ White has got more than enough compensation for the pawn.
13 £c2 ¥e7 14 ¥d2 14 ¦ab1 £d8 (14...¤xe4?? failed to a rather unexpected 15 ¥xe7! ¤c3+ 16 £xc3 £xc3 17 ¥b4+− ) 15 ¥d2 a5 may give some benefit for Black.
14...£d8 15 a5©
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ qk+ r0 r t0 9+p+ lpz l vpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ps n +0 9z P + + + 0 9 + PP+ P zP+ +0 9+ +L+N+ 0 9 +Qv LKz LKz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R + + +R0 xiiiiiiiiy White has certainly got excellent compensation for the pawn but Black can also play. More practical tests are required.
Chebanenko System/5 5. c5 [D15] −
Last updated: updated: 31/10/06 by R.Scherbakov
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ¤f3 ¤f6 4 ¤c3 a6 5 c5
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ + 0 9 + P z + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A popular way to deprive Black of his usual queenside play ...b7 − b5. On the other hand this makes it easier for Black to carry out the freeing ...e7 −e5.
5...¤bd7 There are also some alternatives. 5...g6 was popular some years ago but these days Black tries to play more actively. Then possible is 6 h3 ¥g7 7 ¥f4 0-0 8 e3 ¤bd7 9 ¥e2 with better chances chances for White 5...¥f5!? is an interesting approach. Black places his bishop very actively on f5 entrusting the role of defending the pawn on b7 to the rook on a7! 6 £b3 ¦a7 7 ¥f4 ¤bd7 8 h3 h6!? 9 e3 g5 10 ¥h2 ¥g7² with counter chances, Kramnik − Shirov/Vienna 1996. 1996 .
6 ¥f4 ¤h5
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+nz ppz ppz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ + +0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ +n0 9 + P z L v +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 7 e3 The retreat 7 ¥d2!? deserves serious attention: 7...g6 a) the immediate retreat 7...¤hf6!? is still not proved to be bad for Black but he is maybe not so attracted by the thought of giving White one, even not quite significant, tempo in the opening. Then possible is 8 £c2!? £ c2!? a1) 8 b4 g6 9 £c1!? is also interesting − White is going to exchange dark −squared bishops! The game Granda Granda Zuniga − Leitao/Villa Martelli 2005 continued 9...¥g7 Perhaps Black should have still prevented White's idea by playing a modest 9...h6!?, ( Perhaps after which White should probably play 10 £c2!?) 10 ¥h6² and White has got the better chances. a2) 8 ¦c1 has recently become popular. White postpones his K −side development in order to secure his Q −side pawn chain. 8...g6 a21) 8...e5 does not solve all the problems: 9 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 10 dxe5 ¤g4 11 ¤a4 ¤xe5 12 ¥c3 (12 ¤b6 ¦b8 13 ¥f4² is a natural alternative, which could also promise better chances for White ) 12...f6 13 ¤b6 ¦b8 14 ¤xc8 ¦xc8 (14...£xc8!? 15 ¥xe5!? fxe5 16 e4! is also better for White ) 15 g3 £d7 16 h4 and White has achieved the better chances in the game Topalov − Bacrot/Sofia 2006. 2006. a22) 8...£c7 can be well met with 9 g3 g6 10 ¥f4 £d8 11 ¥g2 ¤h5 12 ¥g5 ¥g7 13 0-0 0-0 14 e4 dxe4 15 ¤xe4 ¤ xe4 ¤df6 16 ¤c3² with stable advantage for White 9 h3 £c7 (An alternative 9...¥g7 is playable but it does not equalise: 10 ¥f4 0-0 11 e3 ¤e8 or 11...¤e4 12 ¥e2 ¤xc3 13 bxc3 b6 14 cxb6 £xb6 15 0-0²) 12 ¥e2 ¤c7 13 0-0 ¦e8 14 ( or ¤a4 ¤b5 15 £b3 h6 16 ¦fd1 ¢h7 17 ¤e5 ¤xe5 18 dxe5² with a certain advantage) 10 g3 ¥g7 The game Gagunashvili − Nakamura/Turin (ol) 2006 continued 11 ¥g2 0-0 12 ¥f4 £d8 13 0-0 ¤h5 14 ¥d2 f5 15 ¤a4 e5 16 dxe5 ¤xe5 17 ¤b6 ¦b8 18 ¥c3 ¤f7 19 e3 ¥e6 20 b4 £e8 21 a4 ¤f6 22 £e2² and White has maintained his advantage − he has got good prospects for his pieces and a simple plan of the Q −side pawns advance. 8...g6 ( the the principled 8...e5 does not solve the problems: 9 dxe5 ¤g4 10 ¤a4 £e7 11 ¥g5! £e6 12 e3 with a certain advantage for White , 8...£c7 8...£c7 also fails to equalise: 9 e4 dxe4 10 ¤g5 h6 11 ¤gxe4 ¤xe4 12 ¤xe4 ¤f6 13 ¤xf6+ exf6 14 ¥c4± with a clear advantage ) 9 e4 ( a preliminary 9 h3!? deserves serious attention: 9...£c7 10 e4 ¤xe4 11 ¤xe4 dxe4 12 £xe4
¤f6 13 £e5! £xe5+ 14 dxe5 ¤d5 15 ¥c4 ¥e6 16 ¤d4 ¥g7 17 ¤xe6 fxe6 18 f4² with a certain advantage in the endgame ) 9...¤xe4!? This capture seems more precise − Black
immediately exchanges one knight, getting f6 −square for the other. (in the game Damljanovic − Dautov/Calvia (ol) 2004 Black preferred 9...dxe4 10 ¤g5 h6 (10...¥g7!? 11 ¥c4 0-0 deserved attention. Here White can force a draw by 12 ¥xf7+ ¦xf7 13 ¤e6 £e8 ( of of course, not 13...£a5?? 14 ¤xe4 £b5 15 a4+ − ) 14 ¤c7 £f8 15 ¤e6= with repetition of moves but the question, of course, is whether White can get better chances in this line) 11 ¤gxe4 ¥g7 12 ¥c4 ¤xe4 13 ¤xe4 and White has maintained the better chances) 10 ¤xe4 dxe4 11 ¤g5 (11 £xe4 ¤f6 followed by ...Bc8−e6 is OK for Black ) 11...¥g7 12 ¥c4 0-0 Then possible is 13 £b3!? e6 14 ¤xe4 ¥xd4 15 0-0-0 ¤xc5 16 ¤xc5 ¤ xc5 ¥xc5 17 ¥h6 £f6 18 ¥xf8 ¥xf8 with a good play for Black. b) 7...£c7!? also deserves attention − this move was played by Garry Kasparov in the line 7. Bg5!? h6 8. Bd2 − see the game Sasikiran − Kasparov/Bled (ol) 2002 8 e4 dxe4 9 ¤xe4 ¤df6 (9...¥g7 may lead to the same positions. However, the knight's move seems to be more precise as Black often uses the vacant g7−square to improve the position of his h5 −knight: 10 ¥c4 ¤df6 11 ¤c3 (11 ¤xf6+!? may just be a transposition to 9 ...Ndf6 ) 11...0-0 12 0-0 (12 h3!?) 12...¥g4 13 ¥e3² with small but stable advantage for White) 10 ¤xf6+ As often in similar situations White has a choice. The capture on f6 wins a tempo but helps Black to get rid of one extra knight headed to the d5−square. (A retreat 10 ¤c3 is also worthy of consideration. consideration. It leaves Black with awkwardly placed knight on h5 but gives him time for development: 10...¥g4 ( an an immediate 10...¤g7?! is strongly met by 11 £b3 ¤f5 12 ¥c4 e6 13 0-0 ¥g7 14 ¥f4 with a clear advantage for White ) 11 ¥e3 ¤g7 12 ¥c4 (12 h3 ¥xf3 13 £xf3 ¤f5 14 ¦d1 ¥g7 15 ¥c4 0-0 16 0-0 e6 looks acceptable for Black ) 12...¥e6 13 ¥e2 ¤f5 14 ¥f4 ¤d5 15 ¥e5 f6 16 ¥g3 h5!? 17 ¥d3 ¤b4 18 ¥xf5 ¥xf5 19 0-0 g5 20 h4 g4 21 ¤e1 with a roughly equal play) 10...¤xf6 11 ¥c4 ¥g7 12 0-0 0-0 The game Lautier − Malakhov/Poikovsky 2004 continued 13 £b3 ¥g4 14 ¤e5!ƒ with a promising position for White 7 ¥e5 looks harmless for Black: 7...¤xe5 8 dxe5 ¤f4 9 £d2 ¤g6 10 e4 e6 11 ¤a4 ¥d7 12 ¥d3 (12 ¤b6 could have been strongly met by 12...¥xc5! 13 ¤xa8 dxe4ƒ with better chances for Black ) 12...£c7 and here White should already play something like 13 exd5 ( after after 13 £c3? ¤f4! White cannot keep everything under as 14 0-0?? loses to 14...dxe4-+) 13...cxd5 14 ¤b6 ¦d8 15 ¥xg6 hxg6 16 b4÷ with unclear play 7 ¥g5!? is interesting − White provokes the advance of the h − pawn. 7...h6 8 ¥d2 (8 ¥h4 gives Black a comfortable play: 8...g5 9 ¥g3 ¤xg3 10 hxg3 ¥g7 11 £d2 e5 12 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 13 dxe5 ¥xe5 and so on ) 8...¤hf6!? a) Black has also tried other possibilities. 8...g6?! gives an easy play for White: 9 e4 dxe4 10 ¤xe4 ¥g7 11 ¥c4² with a certain advantage b) 8...e5?! does not look very good as after 9 dxe5 dxe5 ¤xc5 10 e3 e3 the knight on h5 does not feel itself very comfortable c) 8...£c7!? A flexible but maybe not completely equalising move. 9 e4 dxe4 10 ¤xe4 ¤df6 This position arose in the game Sasikiran − Kasparov/Bled (ol) 2002. 2002. In my opinion, it was better to continue 11 ¤xf6+!? gaining a tempo for development: ( after after 11 ¤c3 ¥e6 12 ¤e5 g6 13 £f3 ¦d8 14 ¥e3 Black found an excellent way to get his knight back into play: 14...¤g7!? 15 ¥c4 ¥xc4 16 ¤xc4 ¤e6! with a good play ) 11...¤xf6
12 ¥c4, also preventing the manoeuvre ...Bc8 −e6. After 12...¥f5 (12...¥g4?! is dubious: 13 £b3! e6 14 ¤e5² with a clear advantage ) 13 0-0 e6² Black achieves a solid position but I suppose White's chances are still preferable. preferable. 9 £c2 (9 ¥f4 does not look promising. Black can think about 9...¤h5 (9...g5!? is also worthy of consideration: 10 ¥g3 ¥g7 11 e3 ¤h5 12 ¥d3 ¤xg3 13 hxg3 e5 14 ¥c2 £e7„ with good counter chances ) 10 e3 b6 11 cxb6 ¤xf4 12 exf4 £xb6 13 £d2 e6 14 ¥d3 ¦b8 15 ¦b1 c5 with excellent play for Black) 9...£c7 ( after after 9...g6 White could think about 10 ¥f4 and in case of 10...¤h5 11 ¥e5!? Black cannot play ...f7 −f6 since he has already committed ...h7−h6 ) 10 e4 dxe4 11 ¤xe4 ¤xe4 12 £xe4 ¤f6 13 £c2 ¥e6 14 ¥d3² This position was tested in the game Topalov − Kasparov/Linares 2004. 2004. White's chances look preferable but Black is also not bad.
7...g6
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+nz pp+p0 pp+p0 9p+p+ +p+0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ +n0 9 + P z L v +0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy The immediate 7...¤xf4 has also been tried: 8 exf4 b6 Black has to somehow break White's pawn chain to get space for his pieces. 9 cxb6 ( An An attempt to keep the pawn chain by 9 b4 does not promise much: 9...g6 10 ¥d3 ¥g7 11 ¦c1 0-0 0- 0 12 0-0 a5 13 b5 ¥b7 14 ¤a4 bxc5 15 ¤xc5 ¤xc5 16 ¦xc5 cxb5 17 ¥xb5 ¦c8 and Black is fine ) 9...£xb6 10 ¥d3!? White clearly shows his intention to play for development advantage rather than for the restriction of Black's pieces. (10 £d2 can be met by 10...e6 11 ¦c1 c5!? A principled although rather risky counter strike. (11...¦b8 12 ¤a4 £b4 13 £xb4 ¥xb4+ 14 ¢d1² gives White a small but stable advantage in the endgame according to the tournament practice ) 12 ¤a4 £a7 13 dxc5 (13 f5 c4 14 fxe6 fxe6 15 b3 ¥a3 is good for Black ) 13...¤xc5 14 £d4!? (14 ¤xc5 does not bother Black much: 14...¥xc5 15 ¥d3 ¥d6! 16 0-0 0-0 and so on ) 14...¤xa4 14...¤ xa4 15 ¦xc8+ ¢d7 16 £xa4+ (16 ¦xa8?! fails to 16...£xd4 17 ¤xd4 ¥b4+, 16 £xa7+ ¦xa7 17 ¦c2 f6 is just fine for Black ) 16...¢xc8 17 £e8+ (17 ¤e5 does not promise much: 17...£c7 18 ¥xa6+ ¢d8 19 0-0 ¥d6 with a good play ) 17...¢c7 18 £xf7+ ¢d6 (18...¢b8 19 £xe6 ¥b4+ 20 ¢d1² looks a bit better for White ) 19 ¤e5 g6 and White should already agree to the repetition of moves after, for example, 20 £f6 ¥e7 21 ¤f7+ ¢d7 22 ¤e5+ ¢d6=) 10...£xb2 (Otherwise White White seizes the initiative for free: 10...e6 11 0-0 c5 ( or or 11...¥d6 12 ¤a4 £a7 13 f5ƒ) 12 ¦e1! ¥e7 13 f5ƒ and so on) 11 ¦c1 This situation is quite typical: Black has won a pawn at the cost of development. White cannot win it back or create threats immediately immediately but the point is
that he will get more resources for actions in some moves. then it will be the time to think about concrete options. However, Black's defensive resources should not be underestimated − for example, he always has one important extra defender − the king. Of course, it may also become a target − everything depends on the skill of each player... 11...e6 a) 11...g6 11...g 6 12 0-0 ¥h6!? looks rather interesting. However, White could still maintain his initiative by 13 £a4! £b7 (13...¥xf4?! 14 ¦c2 £b8 15 £xc6 ¥b7 16 £a4 £d8 17 ¦b1 ¦b8 18 ¤e2ƒ) 14 ¦c2 ¦b8 15 ¤e2 ¤b6 16 £xc6+ £xc6 17 ¦xc6 ¥d7 18 ¦c7² with a certain advantage in the endgame b) A straightforward 11...e5?! can be well met by 12 fxe5 ¥b4?! 13 0-0! ¥xc3 14 £a4! and Black faces material losses 12 0-0 ¥a3 (In case of 12...¥d6 White can play 13 ¤a4 £b4 (13...£b7 14 ¤e5 0-0 15 £c2ƒ, 13...£a3 14 f5ƒ) 14 f5 0-0 15 fxe6 fxe6 16 ¦xc6ƒ with annoying initiative) 13 ¦c2!? (13 £a4!? is also interesting: 13...£b4 14 £xb4 ¥xb4 15 ¤a4 ¥d6 16 f5 ¥b7 17 fxe6 fxe6 18 ¦fe1ƒ with initiative but perhaps Black can defend better in this line ) This position arose in the game Onischuk − Zatonskih/USA−ch San Diego 2004, 2004, which continued 13...£b8 ( Apart Apart from other possible retreats 13...£b7!? was worthy of serious consideration ) 14 ¤e5ƒ and White has got the better chances.
8 h4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+nz pp+p0 pp+p0 9p+p+ +p+0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ +n0 9 + P z L v P0 P z0 9+ N s PN+ P zN+ 0 9Pz P + PP+0 P zP+0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A recent development in this line − White keeps in mind both ¥f4 −h2 and the further h − pawn advance in case of Black's capture on f4. 8 ¥d3 ¥g7 9 0-0
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qk+ qk+ r0 r t0 9+p+nz ppv ppv lp0 lp0 9p+p+ +p+0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ +n0 9 + P z L v +0 9+ NLz N sLz PN+ PN+ 0 9Pz P + PPz P zPz P0 P0 9t R +Q+Rm K 0 xiiiiiiiiy is a natural alternative: 9...0-0 (A direct 9...f6!? is interesting but risky. 10 h3!? e5!? (after 10...¤xf4 11 exf4 e5 Boris Gelfand found an excellent way to exploit the advantage in development and other pluses of his position: 12 f5!! e4 13 ¥xe4! dxe4 14 ¤xe4 0-0?! (14...¥f8!? seemed to be more stubborn ) 15 £b3+ ¢h8 16 ¤d6 and Black found himself almost paralyzed, Gelfand − Movsesian/Polanica Zdroj 2000) 2000 ) 11 ¥h2 e4 Here White can choose between 12 ¥xe4 ( and and 12 g4 exd3 13 gxh5) 12...dxe4 13 ¤xe4 0-0 14 ¤d6 − in both cases White Whit e keeps chances chanc es for an advantage but Black has also achieved something to be satisfied with) 10 h3 (10 ¥g5!? deserves attention, securing the bishop. 10...¦e8 Intending to play ...Qd8 −c7 and ...e7−e5. Now White has a wide choice. 11 ¤d2 A rather unexpected idea − White is going to stop ...e7− e5 by the radical f2 −f4! (11 e4 deserves attention among other possibilities: 11...dxe4 12 ¥xe4!? (12 ¤xe4 was also tried but without much success: 12...¤df6 13 ¤xf6+ ¤xf6 14 ¥c4 ¤d5 15 h3 ¥e6 16 £b3 £d7! with idea ...Nd5−c7 with a good play ) 12...¤df6 13 ¥c2 ¥e6 14 ¦e1 ¤d5 ¤ d5 15 £d2² with a small advantage) 11...¥f6!? This idea is rather typical for this type of position. ( the the immediate 11...b6 deserves attention: 12 cxb6 £xb6 13 ¤a4 £a7 14 ¤b3 e5„ with a counterplay although White's chances were still preferable ) 12 ¥xf6 ¤hxf6 13 f4 b6 This position arose in the game Svetushkin − Bacrot/Bled (ol) 2002, 2002, which continued 14 b4!? a5 15 a3 ¥a6 and here White could have probably maintained a slight edge by playing 16 ¤f3²) 10...¤xf4 11 exf4 Now Black can almost forget about the freeing ...e7 −e5 but another program advance ...b7 − b6 is coming. 11...b6!? (11...¦e8?! seems to be less precise as after 12 £c2 White is able to keep the position closed: 12...£c7 13 g3 b6 14 b4 a5 15 a3² with better chances, Pr.Nikolic − Safin/FIDE WCh KO, Moscow RUS (1.2) 2001.. , , A preliminary 11...£c7!? is worthy of consideration: 12 f5!? b6 13 cxb6 ¤xb6 14 2001 fxg6 hxg6 15 ¦c1² with a slight pressure but Black looks fine ) 12 cxb6 £xb6 13 ¤a4 £a7!? An active place for the queen. 14 ¦c1!? ( in in the game Banikas − Zagrebelny/Bled (ol) 2002 White unsuccessfully tried 14 £c1 ¥xd4 15 £xc6 ¥f6 16 £xd5 ¥b7 17 £xd7 ¦fd8 18 £c7 ¥xf3 19 £xa7 ¦xa7 and Black has achieved more than enough compensation for the pawn ) 14...¥xd4 15 ¥xg6 ¥xf2+! 16 ¦xf2 hxg6 17 ¤d4 (17 ¦xc6 ¤f6÷ is good for Black ) 17...¥b7 18 f5!?© White has got an excellent compensation for the pawn but Black has a lot of defensive resources.
8...¤xf4
After 8...¥g7 9 ¥h2 0-0 10 ¥e2² White's chances look preferable.
9 exf4
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+nz pp+p0 pp+p0 9p+p+ +p+0 9+ Pp+ P zp+ + 0 9 + P z P z P0 P z0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P + PP+0 P zP+0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 9...¥g7 Perhaps the other options are more precise. Both 9...£c7!? 10 g3 ¥g7 and 9...h5!? 10 ¥d3 ¥g7 11 ¦c1 0-0 deserve attention. Here White can try a tempting 12 f5 but itit does does not not promise promise much: 12...gxf5 13 13 ¥xf5 ¤f6 14 ¥b1 ¥g4 15 £d3 e6 16 ¤e5 ¥f5 17 £f3 ¥xb1 18 ¦xb1 ¤d7!? 19 £xh5 (19 ¤xd7 £xd7 20 ¦d1 e5÷ is also far from clear ) 19...¤xe5 20 dxe5 £c7 21 f4 f6! 22 exf6 ¦xf6 23 g3 e5!„ and Black has achieved good counter.
10 h5 A preparatory 10 £d2!? is worthy of consideration: 10...b6 (10...h5!?) 11 cxb6 £xb6 12 ¦c1 and in case of 12...0-0 (12...¦b8!?) 13 ¤a4 £a7 White can achieve a clear advantage by 14 h5 a5 15 hxg6 fxg6 16 g3 ¤f6 17 ¤c5 ¥f5 18 ¥d3 e6 19 ¤e5±
10...b6 11 cxb6 £xb6 12 £d2
XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+ r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppv ppv lp0 lp0 9pw qp+ qp+ +p+0 9+ +p+ +P0 9 + P z P z +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P Q w PP+0 P zP+0 9t R + KL+R0 K mL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 12...¦b8!? looks interesting but actually the benefit is not so clear as in some cases the Black rook falls under the attack: A straightforward 12...c5 does not solve the problems. Black is trying to get counter chances by using his bishops at full power but it costs him a pawn: 13 ¤xd5 £e6+ 14 ¤e3 cxd4 15 ¤xd4 £e4 (15...£d6 16 ¦d1 £xf4 fails to 17 ¤c6! e6 18 ¥e2 £c7 19 ¤c4!+− ) 16 ¦d1 0-0 17 hxg6 hxg6 18 ¥e2 The game Gyimesi − Saiboulatov/Cappellee la Grande 2004 continued 18...¦b8 (18...£xf4 was strongly met Saiboulatov/Cappell by 19 ¤c6 ¥f6 20 ¤d5 £xd2+ 21 ¦xd2+ − with a tangible material advantage for White ) 19 b3 This position might also be reached if Black included 12 ...Rb8 13. b3. 19...e5 20 fxe5 ¤xe5 21 ¤f3± White can hardly be dissatisfied with his extra pawn although the pair of bishops and the reduced number of pawns on the board gives Black drawish chances.
13 b3
XIIIIIIIIY 9 rl+k+ r tl+k+ r0 r t0 9+ +nz ppv ppv lp0 lp0 9pw qp+ qp+ +p+0 9+ +p+ +P0 9 + P z P z +0 9+Ps N +N+ 0 9P+ Q w PP+0 P zP+0 9t R + KL+R0 K mL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 13...¤f6!?
Here 13...c5 is also not quite sufficient: 14 ¤xd5 £e6+ 15 ¤e3 cxd4 16 ¤xd4 £e4 17 ¦d1 ¦b6 ( here here a rather logical 17...0-0 18 ¥e2 could be a transposition to the previous line ) 18 hxg6 hxg6 19 ¦xh8+ ¥xh8 20 £c2 £xc2 21 ¤dxc2 ¥c3+ 22 ¢e2 ¤f6 23 ¦d3± with a clear advantage for White thanks to his healthy extra pawn.
14 hxg6 hxg6 In the game Paragua − Movsesian/World Cup Khanty Mansyisk 2005 Black's unfortunate capture 14...fxg6?! 14. ..fxg6?! has led to the position without any counterplay after 15 ¤e5 ¤g4 16 ¤a4 £c7 17 ¦c1 ¤xe5 18 fxe5 0-0 19 ¥d3±
15 ¦xh8+ ¥xh8 16 ¦c1²
XIIIIIIIIY 9 rl+k+ r tl+k+ l0 l v0 9+ + pp+ z pp+ 0 9pw qp+ qp+ np+0 n sp+0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 + P z P z +0 9+Ps N +N+ 0 9P+ Q w PP+0 P zP+0 9+ R t KL+ K mL+ 0 xiiiiiiiiy Thanks to the better control over important squares White keeps a small advantage.
Chebanenko System/6 5. Bg5 [D15] −
Last updated: updated: 09/03/06 by R.Scherbakov
1 ¤f3 d5 2 d4 ¤f6 3 c4 c6 4 ¤c3 a6
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ + 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R v LQm LQm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 5 ¥g5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ n s +0 9+ +p+ L v 0 9 +Pz P + +0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy This ambitious bishop's lunge looks quite logical. While Black makes a quiet pawn move White develops develo ps another piece. piece . Usually it leads to very complicated play when White is ready to sacrifice material for some positional advantages.
5...dxc4!?
This interesting counter action has recently brought down a popularity of the ambitious 5. Bg5. An alternative alternati ve 5...¤e4 5...¤e 4 leads to a very complicated play, which seems favourable for White: 6 ¥f4 (6 h4!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ + +0 9+ +p+ L v 0 9 +Pz Pn+ Pn+ P0 P z0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9Pz P +Pz PP+0 PP+0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy
is a well−known alternative. Now Black has a lot of possible moves. 6...f6 a) 6...h6 does not solve the problems − the inclusion of the moves h2 −h4 and h7−h6 seems to be in White's Whi te's favour favou r as his plans are often connected with kingside activity: 7 ¥f4 ¤xc3 (7...¤d7 8 ¤xe4 dxe4 9 ¤d2²) 8 bxc3 dxc4 9 g3 ¤d7 10 ¥g2 b5 11 0-0 ¥b7 12 ¤e5© b) 6...¤xc3 7 bxc3 dxc4 8 g3 b5 (8...¥e6 9 ¥g2 ¤d7 10 0-0 ¥d5 11 £b1 £b6 12 £c2 ¤f6 13 ¤e5 h6 14 e4!ƒ) 9 ¥g2 ¥b7 10 a4 ¤d7 11 0-0 f6 12 ¥f4 ¤b6 13 £b1 e6 14 e4© with excellent compensation for the pawn in both cases. 7 ¥f4 ¤xc3 (7...£a5 does not solve the problems because of the cool 8 ¥d2 (8 £b3? can be strongly met by 8...e5! 9 dxe5 d4! 10 £c2 dxc3 and Black is winning: 11 b4 ¥xb4 12 £xe4 0-0 13 e6 £xa2!-+ and so on ) 8...¤xd2 9 ¤xd2 e6 10 e3 ¥e7 11 ¥d3 0-0 12 £c2 f5 13 g4!± with a clear advantage.) 8 bxc3 dxc4 9 g3 The bishop's fianchetto fianchetto is quite usual here as it would be rather passive on e2. 9...£a5!? 10 £c1 ¤d7 The main drawback of the advance ...f7 −f6 is that it weakened the square e6 and the complex of light squares on the kingside − for example, after the possible opening of the position after e2−e4 and d4−d5 in the future, Black's king would feel itself uncomfortable uncomfortable on g8. Thus the idea to justify it by an active ... e7 −e5 is logical. 11 ¥g2 e5 12 dxe5 fxe5 13 ¥e3 This position arose in the game Filippov − Burmakin/Russian Cup Final, Kazan 2001. 2001 . After the dubious 13...¥a3?! (13...¤f6!? deserved attention, moving the knight to d5 first ) ) 14 £c2 ¥c5 15 ¥xc5 £xc5 16 £f5!ƒ White seized a rather annoying initiative) 6...¤xc3 7 bxc3 dxc4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz pp0 pp0 9p+p+ + +0 9+ + + + 0 9 +pz P L v +0 9+ P z +N+ 0 9P+ +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 8 g3 (8 e4 looks no less dangerous for Black but generally White's bishop has better prospects on the long long diagonal g2−a8. After 8...b5 9 ¤e5 a strange looking idea of Sergei Volkov is quite interesting: 9...£a5!? After 10 ¥d2!? ( in in case of 10 ¦c1 g6! 11 £f3 f6 the typical 12 £g3?! is impossible because after 12...fxe5 13 ¥xe5 ¥h6! the rook is attacked and White is in trouble: 14 ¦c2 £a4 15 ¦e2 0-0 16 ¥xb8 ¦xb8 17 £xb8 ¥g4 18 £e5 ¥xe2 19 ¥xe2 £c2-+) 10...¤d7! (10...£c7?! is weaker: 11 £f3 e6 12 ¥f4! f6 13 ¤xc4!? e5 14 dxe5 bxc4 15 ¥xc4ƒ with a strong initiative, R.Scherbakov − Volkov/Ekaterinburg 1999 ) 11 ¤xc6 £c7 12 ¤b4 ¥b7÷ with quite acceptable play for Black, Gormally − Volkov/Port Erin 2000) 2000 ) 8...b5 The main line. (8...g6 was tried in the game Anand − Shirov/Dos Hermanas 1997. After 9 ¥g2 ¥g7 10 ¤e5 ¥e6 11 £b1! £c8 (11...f6!?) 12 a4 a5 (12...g5!?) 13 0-0 0-0 14 ¦a2 followed by ¦a2 − b2 White enjoyed strong pressure over the Black's queenside) 9 ¥g2 ¥b7 10 ¤e5 This knight's lunge is connected with interesting sacrificial ideas. 10...f6 11 ¤xc4!? g5!?
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs n qkv q wkv l r0 r t0 9+l+ p z +p0 9p+p+ p z +0 9+p+ + p z 0 9 +Nz P L v +0 9+ P z + P z 0 9P+ +Pz PLz PLz P0 P0 9t R +Qm K +R0 xiiiiiiiiy
( It It seems that 11...bxc4?! gives White a strong initiative: 12 ¦b1 e5 13 ¦xb7 exf4 14 £b1!ƒ) A
critical position of the variation. The game Anand − Shirov/Monte Carlo 1997 continued by 12 ¥e3!? (12 ¥xb8 has been played before but Black was able to achieve good play: 12...bxc4 13 ¦b1 ¦xb8 14 ¦xb7 ¦xb7 15 ¥xc6+ ¦d7 16 £a4 e6 17 0-0 ¥d6 18 £xa6 ¢f7 19 ¥xd7 £xd7 20 £xc4 ¦b8 and White can probably hold the position after 21 £d3!=) 12...bxc4 13 ¦b1 £c7 14 h4 ¤d7 15 hxg5 fxg5 16 ¥xg5ƒ White has got only one pawn for the sacrificed piece but all his long −range pieces have great
potential. Furthermore, all Black's Black's pieces are badly placed placed and cannot be activated activated easily. Furthermore his pawn structure is weakened almost everywhere and it's very difficult to find a safe place for the king. So it seems that White's initiative and positional pluses of his position give him more more than sufficient compensation for the the piece.
6 a4 h6 Every possibility Black has tried here deserves attention: 6...¥e6 6...¤d5 6...¥f5
7 ¥h4
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+p+ ppz p zpz p 0 9p+p+ n s p0 p z0 9+ + + + 0 9P+pz P + L0 L v0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9 P z +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 7 ¥xf6 exf6 followed by ¥e6 looks fine for Black 7 ¥d2!? is worthy of consideration. Then possible is 7...¥e6 8 a5 g5!? 9 e4 ( after after 9 e3 ¤bd7 10 £c2 ¦c8 11 ¤a4 g4 12 ¤h4 c5 Black's chances look preferable ) 9...¤bd7 with complicated play.
7...b5!
XIIIIIIIIY 9rs nlw nlw qkv qkv l r0 r t0 9+ + ppz z ppz p 0 9p+p+ n s p0 p z0 9+p+ + + 0 9P+pz P + L0 L v0 9+ N s +N+ 0 9 P z +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9t R +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy A strong idea. 7...e6 can be met by 8 e4 (after 8 e3 b5! 9 ¥xf6 gxf6 10 axb5 cxb5 11 ¤xb5 axb5 12 ¦xa8 ¥b4+ 13 ¤d2 ( the the dubious 13 ¢e2?! gave Black the better chances in the game Van Wely − Topalov/Wijk aan Zee 2006, 2006 , which continued 13...¥b7 14 ¦a1 f5 15 ¤e5 ¦g8 16 f4 ¤c6 17 ¤f3 ¤a5 18 ¢f2 ¤b3ƒ with an annoying initiative ) 13...¥b7ƒ Black obtained excellent play in the game Van den Doel − Van der Wiel/Rotterdam 1999) 1999 ) 8...b5 The Botvinnik variation variati on with inclusion of the moves a2 −a4 and ...a7−a6 should be in White's favour as the possibility to open the file for the rook on a1 is important. After 9 e5 g5 10 ¤xg5 hxg5 11 ¥xg5 White's chances are preferable.
8 axb5 cxb5 9 ¤xb5 A principled continuation. 9 e4 ¥b7 is fine for Black.
9...axb5 10 ¦xa8 ¥b7
XIIIIIIIIY 9Rs n qkv q wkv l r0 r t0 9+l+ ppz p zpz p 0 9 + + s n p0 p z0 9+p+ + + 0 9 +pz P + L0 L v0 9+ + +N+ 0 9 P z +Pz PPz PPz P0 P0 9+ +Qm KL+R0 KL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy 11 ¦a7!?
11 ¦a1 can be met strongly met by 11...e5! ( the the simple 11...e6!?© is also not bad similar to the game Van den Doel − Van der Wiel/NED −ch, Rotterdam 1999 ) and after 12 e3 (12 dxe5?! leads to problems: 12...¥b4+ 13 ¤d2 £d4! 14 exf6 £xb2 15 fxg7 (in the game Borwell − O'Connor, EMail 2003 Black obtained a clear advantage after 15 ¦c1 c3 16 ¦xc3 ¥xc3 17 fxg7 ¦g8! (17...¥xd2+ 18 £xd2 £b1+ 19 £d1 £b4+= is only a perpetual ) ) 18 f3 (18 e4!? ¦xg7 19 ¥d3!? was probably the most stubborn defence ) 18...¦xg7 19 e4 ¦g6-+ with powerful play) 15...¦g8 16 ¥f6 £xf6 17 ¦b1 ¤a6 ∓ and White faces serious problems since he is too late in development) 12...¥b4+ 12...¥b4+ 13 ¢e2 e4 14 ¤d2 ( or or 14 ¤e5 ¤c6 15 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 16 £c2 0-0) 14...0-0© Black gets excellent compensation for the exchange.
11...£b6 12 ¦xb7 White prefers to give the exchange back to gain time for development. 12 ¦a1 can be met by the same 12...e5!?© 12.. .e5!?©
12...£xb7 13 e3 e6 13...g5!? 14 ¥g3 e6÷ comes into consideration as well
14 ¥xf6 ¥b4+ 15 ¢e2 gxf6÷
XIIIIIIIIY 9 n s +k+ r0 r t0 9+q+ +p+ 0 9 + +pz p p0 p z0 9+p+ + + 0 9 lpz l vpz P + +0 9+ + PN+ z PN+ 0 9 P z +Kz PPz PPz P0 P0 9+ +Q+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy Black cannot be proud of his K −side pawn structure but, on the other hand, White cannot be happy with his development − the chances seem to be roughly equal, San Segundo − Luther/Bled (ol) 2002. 2002 .
