spanish - Time to get classy · C60-C99: Spanish Written by GMs Nigel Davies, Tony Kosten, Victor Mikhalevski & Olivier Renet Last updated Wednesday, April 20, 2011 XIIIIIIIIY

C60-C99: Spanish

Written by GMs Nigel Davies, Tony Kosten, Victor Mikhalevski & Olivier Renet

Last updated Wednesday, April 20, 2011

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

ometimes called the Ruy Lopez instead, after the Spanish priest who first studied 1

e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 back in 1561, this is still generally considered to be White's

strongest line.

S

All the game references highlighted in blue have been annotated and can be downloaded in PGN form using the PGN Games Archive on www.chesspublishing.com.

Contents

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

3...a6

3...¤f6 4 0-0 ¤xe4 (4...¥e7 Steinitz Defence [C66] 4...¥c5 Classical Berlin − 3...Nf6 [C65]) 5 d4 ¤d6 Berlin Defence − 4...Nxe4 [C67]

3...¤d4 Bird's Defence [C61] 3...f5 Schliemann [C63] 3...¥c5 Spanish 3...Bc5 [C64] 3...¤ge7 Spanish Other 3rd moves [C60]

4 ¥a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4 ¥xc6 dxc6 5 0-0 f6 (5...¥g4 Exchange Variation − Intro [C68]) 6 d4 Exchange

Variation −5.0−0 f6 6.d4[C69]

4...¤f6

2

4...d6 5 c3 (5 ¥xc6+ Spanish 4...d6 5.Bxc6+ [C73], Spanish 4...d6 5.0−0 [C72] 5 0−0 Spanish 4...d6 5.0−0 Nf6 [C79] ) 5...¥d7 (5...f5 Spanish 4...d6 5.c3 [C74]) 6 d4 Delayed Steinitz − 4...d6 5.c3 Bd7 [C75] & [C76]

4...b5 5 ¥b3 ¤a5 Spanish − Various 4th moves[C70]

5 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

5 £e2 ¥e7 (5...b5 6 ¥b3 ¥c5 Worrall Attack - 4...Nf6 5.Qe2 [C77]) 6 c3 Worrall - 5...Be7

6.Qe2 [C86] 5 d4 Spanish 5...Be7 − Intro [C84] 5 d3 b5 6 ¥b3 ¥e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 ¤bd2 d6 9 c3 ¤a5 10 ¥c2 c5 11 ¦e1 ¦e8 Closed

Variation - 9.d3 [C90]

5...¥e7

5...¤xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ¥b3 d5 8 dxe5 ¥e6 9 c3 (9 ¥e3 Open Variation − Intro & 9 Be3 [C80], 9.¤bd2 Open Variation - 9.Nbd2 [C82], 9 £e2 Open Variation − Keres Variation [C81]) 9... ¥e7 Open Variation − 9 c3 Be7 [C83], 9... ¤c5 & 9... ¥c5 Open Variation − 9 c3 Bc5 & 9...Nc5 [C82]

5...b5 6 ¥b3 ¥b7 Archangel - 4...Nf6 5.0−0 b5 [C78]

6 ¦e1

6 ¥xc6 dxc6 Delayed Exchange [C85]

6...b5

6...d6 Spanish - 5...Be7 6.Re1 d6 [C87]

7 ¥b3

3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-zppvlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...d6

7...0-0 8 c3 (8 a4 Anti−Marshall [C88]) 8...d5 9 exd5 ¤xd5 10 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 11 ¦xe5 Marshall Gambit [C89]

8 c3 0-0 9 h3

9 d4 Central Attack - 9.d4 [C91]

9...¤a5

9...¤b8 Breyer's Variation - 9...Nb8 [C95] 9...¥b7 Zaitsev Variation - 9...Bb7 [C92]

10 ¥c2 c5

10...d5!? Gajewski Variation − 10...d5!? [C96]

11 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzp-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+P0 9PzPL+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...£c7

11... ¤d7 Chigorin - Various 11th moves [C96]

12 ¤bd2

4

12 d5 Chigorin Mainline - 12 d5 & Intro [C97]

12...cxd4 13 cxd4

Chigorin mainline - 12...cxd4 [C99]

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

5

Spanish − Other 3rd moves [C60]

Last updated: 12/04/06 by Olivier Renet

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 ¤ge7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppsnpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Cozio Defence, which has been adopted by Bent Larsen and Ivan Sokolov. A major alternative is 3...g6 which has also been used by many strong players including

Smyslov and Pillsbury and can transpose into the Cozio, for example 4 d4 a) After 4 0-0 ¥g7 5 c3 Black's most accurate move order is 5...a6 (5...d6 6 d4 ¥d7

7 dxe5 ¤xe5 8 ¤xe5 dxe5 9 £b3 was very unpleasant for Black in Shaposhnikov,E−Bryzgalin,K/St Petersburg RUS 2002 (24)) 6 ¥a4 d6 7 d4 ¥d7 which transposes into C75.

b) 4 c3 a6 5 ¥c4 (5 ¥a4 is a Steinitz Deferred) 5...d6 6 d4 ¥g7 7 0-0 £e7 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 b3 ¥e6 10 ¥d5?! very artificial and probably wrong, Karjakin,S−Govciyan,P/Montpellier FRA 2006, 10...0-0-0!

4...exd4 5 ¥g5! (5 ¤xd4 ¥g7 6 ¥e3 ¤f6 7 ¤c3 0-0 8 f3 (8 0-0 ¤e7! was Mackenzie,G−Steinitz,W/London 1883 (48)) 8...¤e7! 9 0-0 c6 10 ¥d3 d5 gave Black a good game in Teichmann,R−Pillsbury,H/Hastings 1895 (30).) 5...¥e7 6 ¥xe7 £xe7 7 ¥xc6 (7 0-0 £c5 8 ¥xc6 dxc6 9 £xd4 £xd4 10 ¤xd4 ¥d7 11 ¤c3 0-0-0 was Rozentalis,E−Sokolov,I/Yerevan 1996 (57)) 7...dxc6 8 £xd4 ¤f6 9 ¤c3 (9 0-0 0-0

10 ¤c3 ¦d8 11 £e5 £xe5 12 ¤xe5 ¦e8 13 f4 b6 gave Black adequate play in Nisipeanu,L−Azmaiparashvili,Z/Las Vegas 1999 (44)) 9...¥g4 10 ¤d2 c5 11 £e3 0-0-0 12 h3 ¥d7 13 0-0-0 ¥c6 14 g4 ¦he8 15 ¦he1 was about equal at this stage in Shirov,A−Azmaiparashvili,Z/Montecatini Terme 2000 (46).

4 0-0

6

Alternatively White can play 4 c3 when 4...¤g6?! (or 4...g6 is better, 4...d6 5 d4 ¥d7 6 0-0

¤g6 7 d5 was slightly better for White in Rozentalis,E−Roussel Roozmon,T/Montreal CAN 2004 (43).) 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 ¥e7 7 ¤c3 was very good for White in Blackburne,J−De Vere,C/British Championship 1868 (12).

Black should meet 4 ¤c3 with 4...g6 5 d4 ¥g7 6 ¥g5 f6 7 ¥e3 a6 8 ¥a4 b5 9 ¥b3 was unpleasant for Black in Levenfish,G−Tartakower,S/Carlsbad 1911 (13)

4 d4 exd4 5 ¤xd4 g6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzppsnp+p0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

(5...¤g6 6 0-0 ¥c5 7 ¥e3 ¥xd4 8 ¥xd4 £g5 is another way to play it for Black − see

Kosztolanczi,G−Csapo,Z/Hungarian Team Championship 1993 (10).) 6 ¥g5 ¥g7 7 c3 h6 8 ¥h4 0-0 9 0-0 ¤xd4 10 cxd4 c6 11 ¥c4 g5 12 ¥g3 d5 13 exd5 ¤xd5 and Black stood well in the game Grigoriev,N−Alekhine,A/Soviet Championships, Moscow 1920 (25).

4...g6 5 c3 ¥g7 6 d4 exd4 7 cxd4 d5 8 exd5 ¤xd5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+n+-+p+0 9+L+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¦e1+

9 ¥g5 £d6 10 £e2+ ¥e6 11 ¤bd2 0-0 12 ¤e4 £b4 was annoying for White in Timman,J−Spassky,B/Bugojno 1986 (40).

7

9...¥e6 10 ¥g5

10 ¥xc6+ bxc6 11 ¥g5 £d6 12 ¤bd2 0-0 13 £c1 ¦fe8 14 ¤e4 £b4 15 ¥d2 £b5 was OK for Black in Gelfand,B−Dreev,A/Moscow 1989 (41).

10...£d6 11 ¤bd2 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zppzp-+pvlp0 9-+nwql+p+0 9+L+n+-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 ¤e4 £b4 13 ¥xc6 bxc6 14 £c1 ¥f5!?

was played in the interesting theoretical game, Sion Castro,M−Sokolov,I/Leon 1995 (35).

8

Bird's Defence [C61]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 ¤d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-snP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Bird's Defence, which recently made something of a comeback when Vassily Ivanchuk,

Vladimir Malaniuk and others started playing it.

4 ¤xd4

The critical reply, displacing Black's pawn structure. After 4 ¥c4 ¥c5 5 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 6 c3 ¥b6 7 d4 £f6!? Black had a reasonable game in

Fontaine,A−Motwani,P/Brussels, Belgium 2001 (17).

4...exd4 5 0-0

White can prevent ...¥c5 with 5 ¥c4 but then 5...¤f6 (5...¥c5? 6 ¥xf7+ ¢xf7 7 £h5+) 6 £e2 ¥c5 7 e5 0-0! is possible because 8 exf6 ¦e8 wins the queen − see Zagrebelny,S−Malaniuk,V/Tashkent 1987 (23).

5...¥c5

9

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+ntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+Lvl-+-+-0 9-+-zpP+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's best move. 5...c6 6 ¥c4 ¤f6 7 £e2 (7 ¦e1 d6 8 c3 ¤g4 is well met by 9 £e2! Bird's Variation−

Analysis/2005) 7...d6 8 c3 b5?! (8...dxc3 is reasonable) 9 ¥b3 dxc3 10 ¤xc3 a5? 11 d4 and with 12.e5 looming Black was in serious trouble in Short,N−Kimber,B/England 1975 (17).

5...£h4 6 d3 ¥c5 7 ¤d2 ¤e7 8 e5! ¤g6 9 ¤e4 ¥e7 10 ¤g3! threatened the awkward 11.¤f5 in McShane,L−Costagliola,M/London 1997 (15).

A weird and wonderful possibility is 5...h5 when 6 c3 ¥c5 7 cxd4 ¥xd4 8 ¤c3 c6 9 ¥c4 ¤f6 10 ¤e2 ¥b6 11 e5 d5 was fine for Black at this stage in Leko,P−Morozevich,A/Moscow RUS 2002 (47).

6 d3 c6 7 ¥a4 a5!?

Threatening to trap the a4−bishop. 7...d6 is more usual.

8 c3 b5

Renet−Jirka/Pardubice open 2006, when

9 ¥b3! d6 10 a4

looks strong for White.

10

Schliemann Gambit [C63]

Last updated: 24/08/10 by Victor Mikhalevski

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+-zpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+-zpp+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Schliemann Defence, a one−time favourite of Boris Spassky and David Bronstein

and Black's most aggressive third move alternative.

4 ¤c3

The main line White develops quickly in the hope of exploiting Black's laggard development. Taking the gambit pawn with 4 exf5 gives Black a good game after 4...¥c5!? (An

intriguing alternative to the simple 4...e4 5 £e2 £e7 which also gives Black a good game) 5 ¥xc6 dxc6 6 ¤xe5 ¥xf5 7 £h5+?! g6 8 ¤xg6 hxg6 9 £xh8 and although White had won the exchange he lagged fatally behind in development in the game Schiffers,E−Chigorin,M/St Petersburg 1878 (12).

4 d3 is simpler to play, but also has some venom, 4...fxe4 5 dxe4 ¤f6 6 0-0 ¥c5 7 £d3 this is preferred in both Kaufman and Greet's repertoire books, and stops Black from castling kingside. (7 ¥xc6 bxc6 8 ¤xe5 0-0 9 ¥g5 £e8 10 ¥xf6 ¦xf6 11 ¤d3 ¥d4 12

c3 ¥b6 13 ¤d2 with a battle between Black's bishops and White's knights and extra pawn, Macieja,B−Radjabov,T/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2007.) 7...d6 8 £c4 £e7 9 ¤c3 ¥d7 10 ¤d5 ¤xd5 11 exd5 ¤d4 White had a long−term plus, but Black managed to hold the draw in Carlsen,M−Radjabov,T/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2008.

11

4...fxe4

The so−called 'Bulgarian Variation' with 4...¤d4 is interesting, for example 5 ¥a4 (5

¥d3!? could be more dangerous, as in Dvoirys,S−Mihailidis,A/Ano Liosia GRE 2000 (11).) 5...c6 (5...¤f6 6 0-0 ¥c5 7 ¤xe5 also favours White) 6 0-0 (6 exf5!) 6...b5 7 ¥b3 ¤xb3 8 axb3 b4 led to complex and double−edged play in Lane,G−Sulskis,S/Port Erin IOM 2003 (29).

5 ¤xe4 d5

5...¤f6!? This move, named the Tartakower Variation, is a strong alternative. 6 £e2 (Olivier Renet indicates that 6 ¤xf6+! £xf6 7 £e2! is stronger: 7...¥e7 8 ¥xc6 dxc6 9

¤xe5 ¥f5 10 0-0! Black can't take the pawn on c2, so White waits to see on which side Black will castle before arranging his pawns in the center. If Black castles short White will put his pawns on d4 and c3 with the idea of putting the bishop on f4. If Black castles long, White will put his pawns on d3 and f4.) 6...d5 7 ¤xf6+ gxf6 8 d4 ¥g7 9 dxe5 (9 c4!? ¥g4! Morozevich,A−Aronian,L/Monte Carlo MNC 2006.) 9...0-0 10 ¥xc6 (10 e6 could transpose, but allows 10...¤e5!? 11 0-0 c6 (11...¥xe6 Polgar,J−Radjabov,T/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008) 12 ¥d3 ¥xe6 13 ¤d4 ¥g4 14 f3 ¥d7 see Shirov,A−Gozzoli,Y/Mainz GER 2010.) 10...bxc6 11 e6 ¦e8 12 0-0 ¦xe6 Black has two potentially potent bishops, but a ragged structure. The rook is well placed here, and both helps the centre advance, and then defends a6, Shirov,A−Radjabov,T/Odessa UKR 2007.

6 ¤xe5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9zppzp-+-zpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+psN-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main line. A solid way for White to play the position is with 6 ¤g3 after which 6...e4 (6...¥g4 is

best intending ...£d6 followed by ...0-0-0) 7 ¤e5 £f6 8 d4 exd3 9 0-0 and White's lead in development led to a decisive attack in Visser,Y−Hommeles,T/Leeuwarden NED 2002 (18).

6...dxe4 7 ¤xc6 £g5

12

7...£d5 8 c4 £d6 9 ¤xa7+! is strong − see the analysis in the Morozevich game.

8 £e2 ¤f6 9 f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zppzp-+-zpp0 9-+N+-sn-+0 9+L+-+-wq-0 9-+-+pzP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPPzPQ+PzP0 9tR-vL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¤xa7+! first, is stronger, 9...¥d7 10 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 (10...¢xd7 11 £b5+ exchanges

queens)

9...£xf4

Black has to accept the pawn otherwise he will be clearly worse.

10 d4

10 ¤e5+ transposes after 10...c6 11 d4 £h4+ 12 g3 10 ¤xa7+ is the other critical line, 10...¥d7 11 ¥xd7+ ¢xd7 12 £b5+ ¢e6 13 £xb7

¥d6 with a big advantage in development.

10...£h4+ 11 g3 £h3 12 ¤e5+ c6 13 ¥c4 ¥e6 14 ¥g5

This is all theory, White is better because he has a better pawn structure (the pawn on e4 is weak), and a very strong knight on e5. But practice has shown that Black's position is very solid − see Blauert,J−Simonsen,O/Klaksvik 2002, and the notes to the Morozevich−Aronian game for further details.

13

Spanish 3...Bc5 [C64]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¥c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+ntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+Lvl-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

4.0-0

After 4.c3 it's dangerous to play 4...£f6 (Black should probably settle for 4...¤f6 .) because of 5.d4! (5.0-0 transposes below) 5...exd4 6.e5 and if 6...¤xe5 then 7.£e2

4...¤ge7

4...¤d4 5.¤xd4 (this can also be met by 5.b4!? − for example 5...¤xf3+ 6.£xf3 ¥d4 7.c3 ¥b6

8.£g3 £f6 9.d3 h6 10.¤a3! was unpleasant for Black in Emms,J−Payen,A/London v Paris match 1994 (35) as White's knight is en route for d5.) 5...¥xd4 6.c3 ¥b6 7.d4 c6 8.¥e2!? Vachier Lagrave,M−Wells,P/Liverpool ENG 2008.

4...£f6 5.c3 ¤ge7 6.¦e1 (The quiet 6.d3 is harmless after 6...h6 7.¥e3 ¥b6 8.¤bd2 0-0 9.¤c4

d6 − see Meijers,V−Safin,S/NK Open, Dieren, The Netherlands 2002 (30)) 6...0-0 7.d4 exd4 8.e5 £g6 9.cxd4 ¤xd4 10.¤xd4 £b6 won a pawn but saw Black fall way behind in development in Nijboer,F−Baramidze,D/'Harmony' Tournament, Groninge 2002 (29).

4...d6 is the most popular move here, 5.c3 ¥d7 6.d4 ¥b6 and Black can develop his king's knight to e7 if he prefers, to both avoid the annoying pin with ¥g5, and prepare ...¤g6.

5.¤xe5

14

5.c3 is the alternative, and is probably stronger, 5...¥b6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 ¤xd5 9.¦e1+ ¥e6 10.¥g5 £d6 11.¤bd2 h6 (11...0-0 12.¤c4 £b4 13.a4 is also unpleasant) 12.¤e4 £b4 13.¥xc6+ bxc6 14.£c1 hxg5 15.£xc6+ ¢e7 16.a3 and wins, as 16...£xb2 17.¤exg5 ¤f4 18.£e4

5...¤xe5 6.d4 c6 7.¥e2 ¥d6 8.dxe5 ¥xe5 9.¤d2

9.¤c3 0-0 10.f4 is more to the point, although 10...¥c7 11.¥e3 d5 is reasonable.

9...¥c7

and Black achieved a very comfortable development in Fressinet,L−De Vreugt,D/Olympic Capital Young Masters 2000 (28).

15

Classical Berlin − 3...Nf6 & 4...Bc5 [C65]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.0-0

A way of avoiding things like the Berlin Defence (4.0-0 ¤xe4) is to protect the e−pawn with 4.d3, but as White often needs to play this pawn to d4 this can amount to a loss of tempo. An interesting game arises after 4...¥c5 (4...d6 5.c3 (5.0-0 will probably transpose) 5...g6 (5...¥e7 6.0-0 0-0 7.¤bd2 ¥d7 8.¦e1 ¦e8 9.¤f1 ¥f8 10.¥a4 h6

11.¤g3 ¤e7 12.¥b3 ¤g6 13.d4 c5! Carlsen,M−Anand,V/Bilbao ESP 2010.) 6.0-0 (6.¥g5 ¥g7 7.¤bd2 0-0 8.¤f1 ¥d7 9.¤e3 h6 10.¥h4 £e8 is the game Krasenkov,M−Yuldashev,S/Istanbul Olympiad, Turkey 2000 (25).) 6...¥g7 7.d4 (7.¥g5!? is an interesting plan, Balogh−Berkes/Pardubice CZE 2007) 7...¥d7 8.¦e1 0-0 was fine for Black in Berkvens,J−Mikhalevski,V/Essent Open, Hoogeveen, Hollan 2000 (14)) 5.0-0?! (5.c3 is more accurate, 5...0-0 6.0-0 d6 7.¤bd2 a6 8.¥a4 (8.¥xc6 bxc6

9.¤c4 h6 10.b4 ¥a7 as in Hracek,Z−Kramnik,V/Eurotel Trophy, Prague 2002 (23).) 8...¥a7 9.h3 ¤e7 10.d4 ¤g6 11.¦e1 b5 12.¥c2 ¥b7 13.¤f1 ¦e8 14.¤g3 d5 an attempt to simplify the position, Karjakin,S−Jakovenko,D/Odessa UKR 2010.) 5...¤d4! (5...d6 6.¤c3 ¥g4 7.¤a4 ¤d7?! 8.¤xc5 ¤xc5 9.¥e3 £f6 10.¥xc6+ bxc6 11.¥xc5

dxc5 left Black with a horrific pawn structure in Short,N−Harikrishna,P/Gibraltar 2004 (45)) 6.¤xd4 ¥xd4 7.c3 ¥b6 which is very comfortable for Black, 8.¢h1!? (8.¥g5?! looks aggressive, but as Black hasn't castled yet the bishop can become a target, 8...h6 9.¥h4 c6 Howell,D−McMahon,D/Bunratty Open 2000, 8.¤d2 is the most logical, but then 8...c6 9.¥a4 0-0 and ...d5 is at least equal) 8...c6 9.¥a4 Handke,F−Kosten,A/Montpellier 2006, 9...d5!

4.£e2 also defends e4, 4...¥c5 the most popular, 5.c3 0-0 6.d3 ¦e8 7.¥a4 d5!? Gashimov,V−Kramnik,V/Monaco MNC 2011.

4...¥c5

16

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+n+-sn-+0 9+Lvl-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

5.c3

An important alternative is 5.¤xe5 after which 5...¤xe4!? (5...¤xe5 6.d4 a6 7.¥e2 (7.¥a4 b5 8.¥b3 ¥xd4 9.£xd4 d6 is fine for Black) 7...¤xe4 8.dxc5 ¤xc5 9.£d4 d6 10.f4 ¤g6 11.£xg7 ¥f5 12.¤c3 (12.g4 is critical) 12...£h4 and Black had good counterplay in Szuk,B−Resika,N/Budapest 1999 (20).) 6.£e2 ¤xe5 7.£xe4 (7.d4!? ¥e7 (7...£e7 Kamsky,G−Topalov,V/Sofia BUL 2009) 8.dxe5 ¤c5 9.¤c3 0-0 10.¥f4 Shirov,A−Fedorchuk,S/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2009) 7...£e7 8.d4 (8.¤c3 ¤g6 9.£xe7+ ¤xe7 10.¦e1 put Black under pressure in Short,N−Parker,J/Birmingham ENG 2002 (26)) 8...¤c6! 9.£g4!? h5! 10.£g3! (10.£xg7

¥xd4 11.£g3 a6! and Black was fine, Svidler,P−Ivanchuk,V/Moscow RUS 2009)

10...¥xd4! 11.¤c3! with the initiative, Gashimov,V−Topalov,V/Linares ESP 2010.

Once again the quiet 5.d3?! fails to make much of an impression after 5...¤d4! see above.

5...0-0 6.d4 ¥b6 7.¥g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-vln+-sn-+0 9+L+-zp-vL-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRN+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17

White has a major alternative in 7.¦e1 d6 8.a4 (8.h3 h6 9.¥e3 ¥d7 10.¥a4 ¦e8 was fine for Black in Stefansson,H−Sokolov,I/Kopavogur rapid, Iceland 2000 (28)) 8...a5 9.h3 h6 10.¥xc6 bxc6 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.£xd8 ¦xd8 and Black was doing fine in the endgame in Georgiev,K−Mitkov,M/Istanbul Olympiad, Turkey 2000 (20).

7...h6

Black can also play 7...d6 immediately and keep ...h6 in reserve.

8.¥h4 d6 9.£d3!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zppzp-+pzp-0 9-vlnzp-sn-zp0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-vL0 9+-zPQ+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRN+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has tried several alternatives, but without managing to put a dent into Black's

soundly constructed position. For example: a) 9.¥xc6 bxc6 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.£a4 £d6 12.¦d1 £e6 13.¥xf6 £xf6 14.¤a3 ¥g4

15.¦d3 ¦fd8 16.£c2 ¦xd3 17.£xd3 ¦d8 18.£e2 ¥xf3 19.£xf3 £xf3 20.gxf3 ¦d2 gave Black the better endgame in Psakhis,L−Parker,J/Isle of Man 1999 (37).

b) 9.a4 a5 10.¦e1 exd4 11.¥xc6 bxc6 12.¤xd4 ¦e8 13.¤d2 (13.¤xc6 £d7 14.¥xf6 £xc6

would win back the pawn with a good game) 13...c5 14.¤c2 g5 15.¥g3 ¥b7 gave Black excellent counterplay in Lanka,Z−Sokolov,I/Europ. Team Ch., Batumi 1999 (37).

c) 9.¤bd2 exd4 10.¥xc6 dxc3 11.¥xb7 ¥xb7 12.bxc3 g5 and once again Black had very active play − see Kreiman,B−Finegold,B/Philadelphia USA 2002 (17).

9...¥d7

9...£e7 is more popular, 10.¤bd2 ¤b8 to bring the knight to a better square, (10...¤d8 is another similar idea) 11.¦fe1 c6 12.¥a4 ¤bd7 13.¤c4 ¥c7 14.¤e3 ¦e8 15.¤f5 £f8 which unpins the f6−knight, ready for ...¤h5.

10.¤bd2 a6 11.¥c4

11.¥xc6 ¥xc6 12.¦fe1 leaves Black short of counterplay.

18

11...exd4 12.cxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+pzpl+pzp-0 9pvlnzp-sn-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+LzPP+-vL0 9+-+Q+N+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...g5?

Risky.

13.¤xg5!

13.e5!? This move sets new problems for Black, Kosteniuk,A−Onischuk,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2005.

13...hxg5 14.¥xg5 ¢g7 15.e5!!

Here Topalov twice played 15.¤b3 against Leko, and lost.

15...dxe5 16.¦ae1!!

and White won, Knebel,W−Daus,P/ICCF−CL/0406/B1 2005.

19

Steinitz Defence [C66]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 ¤f6 4 0-0 ¥e7

This is probably Black's most accurate move order, getting White to play 5.¦e1 before adopting a Steinitz formation with 5...d6.

After the immediate 4...d6 White can try to do without this move, for example 5 d4 (5 d3

¥d7 6 c3 is slower, Hou Yifan−Jonkman,H/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007) 5...¥d7 6 ¤c3 (Or 6 d5 as in Rowson,J−McKay,R/Marymass Open, Scotland 2002 (35))

6...¥e7 7 ¥g5 exd4 8 ¤xd4 0-0 9 ¥xc6 bxc6 10 £d3 ¤g4 11 ¥xe7 £xe7 12 f4 f5 13 ¦ae1 gave White a strong initiative in Reti,R−Sterk,K/Vienna 1910 (20).

5 ¦e1 d6 6 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-vlpzpp0 9-+nzp-sn-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can also play 6 c3 in order to build a pawn centre, for example 6...0-0 7 h3 ¤d7 8

d4 ¥f6 led to a typical and complex Spanish in Mannion,S−McKay,R/Scotland 1993 (34).

6...exd4

Black can also delay this exchange by playing 6...¥d7 but after 7 ¤c3 he can not longer wait as 7...0-0 loses material after 8 ¥xc6 ¥xc6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 £xd8 ¦axd8 11 ¤xe5 etc. (see Green,E−Gibbons,R/New Zealand Ch. 2000 (17)).

7 ¤xd4 ¥d7 8 ¥xc6 bxc6 9 ¤c3 0-0 10 £f3 ¦e8 11 ¥g5 h6 12 ¥h4

20

was Almasi,Z−Horvath,C/Hungarian Ch., Hungary 1995 (40) and now Black should probably have played the immediate

12...¤h7

His 12...¦b8 proved ineffective in the game.

21

Berlin Defence − 4...Nxe4 [C67]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 ¤f6 4.0-0 ¤xe4 5.d4

For years this has been considered to be the most promising treatment for White, but possibly this view will change.

5.¦e1 is an altogether more direct and aggressive treatment, hoping to launch a direct attack on Black's king. Black must defend with great care, for example 5...¤d6 (5...¤f6 6.¤xe5 ¥e7! Carlsen,M−Anand,V/Kristiansund NOR 2010) 6.¤xe5 (6.¥xc6

dxc6 7.¤xe5 is very comfortable for Black as in Wuts,H−Motwani,P/Eksakt Weekender, Tilburg 2001 (30)) 6...¥e7 (After 6...¤xe5 7.¦xe5+ ¥e7 White can lead the game along similar lines to 6...Be7 7.Bd3 by playing 8.Bd3, but he has an interesting alternative in 8.d4!? as in De Vere,C−Steinitz,W/Dundee 1867 (27))

7.¥d3 (7.¥f1! is stronger, in my opinion, 7...¤xe5 8.¦xe5 0-0 9.d4 ¥f6 (9...¤e8

10.c4 Fedorchuk,S−Petkov,V/Metz FRA 2007) 10.¦e1 ¤f5 11.c3 d5 12.¥d3! with an edge, see Jones,G−Ni Hua/Liverpool ENG 2007.) 7...0-0 8.¤c3 ¤xe5 9.¦xe5 ¥f6 (9...c6 10.£f3 g6 (10...¤e8 11.b3 d5 12.¥b2 ¥d6 is simpler) 11.b3! also proved to be very dangerous for Black in Reinderman,D−Timman,J/Wijk aan Zee 1999 (49)) 10.¦e3 ¦e8 (White also has the initiative after 10...g6 11.£f3 − see Nezhmetdinov,R−Kotkov,Y/Krasnodar 1957 (25)) 11.¤d5 ¥g5 12.f4 ¥h6 (12...¦xe3 13.dxe3 ¥h6? 14.£h5 was horrible for Black in Savic,M−Abramovic,B/Banja Koviljaca YUG 2002 (27)) 13.¦h3 c6 14.¤e3 and Black was under pressure in McShane,L−Nielsen,P/Hastings ENG 2003 (20).

5.£e2!? ¤d6 (5...¤f6 might offer hopes of a 'cleaner' equality.) 6.¥xc6 dxc6 7.£xe5+ £e7 8.£a5! gave Black problems in Short,N−Timman,J/London ENG 2008.

5...¤d6

22

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+nsn-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...a6 is an attempt to reach an Open Spanish, after 6.¥a4 b5, whilst avoiding the

Exchange Variation. White can vary with 6.¥xc6 critical, (Another possibility is 6.¥d3 but then 6...d5 7.¤xe5 ¤xe5 8.dxe5 ¥f5 (8...¤c5 also seems OK for Black − see Brynell,S−Wedberg,T/Orebro 2000 (73)) 9.£e2 £d7 10.¤d2 ¤c5 was fine for Black until he got too ambitious in Rozentalis,E−Korchnoi,V/Copenhagen 1996 (35)) 6...dxc6 7.£e2 (7.¤xe5 ¥e7 8.¦e1 ¤d6 (8...¤f6 is OK here too) 9.¥g5 ¤f5 10.¤c3 0-0 11.¥xe7 ¤xe7 12.¤e4 ¥f5 13.c3 £d5 14.¤g3 ¦ae8 and at this point Black was doing OK in the game Kulaots,K−Wedberg,T/SWE 2002 (48).) 7...¥f5 8.¦e1! (8.¦d1 see Rausis,I−Wedberg,T/Upplands Vasby 2000 (47))

8...¥b4?! 9.c3 ¥d6?! 10.£c2! and Black is losing, Ivanchuk,V−Carlsen,M/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2008.

The other way to play the Berlin is with 5...¥e7 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9zppzppvlpzpp0 9-+n+-+-+0 9+L+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPn+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.£e2 (6.dxe5 0-0 7.£d5 ¤c5 8.¥e3 a6 9.¥xc5 axb5 is Makarichev,S−Vladimirov,B/USSR

1975 (39)) 6...¤d6 7.¥xc6 bxc6 (Trifunovic's old line 7...dxc6!? is still quite intriguing, for example 8.dxe5 ¤f5 9.¦d1 ¥d7 10.e6!? tempting, but (10.¤c3 is clearly better, and, 10.g4!? is also dangerous, see Hamdouchi,H−Kosten,A/Montpellier 2008) 10...fxe6 11.¤e5 ¥d6 12.£h5+ g6 13.¤xg6 ¤g7 14.£h6 ¤f5 15.£h3 (15.£h5 ¤g7 repeats) 15...¦g8 16.£xh7 ¦g7 17.£h5 £f6 18.¤e5+ (18.£h8+? is a computer move! 18...¢f7 19.£xa8 £xg6 Black is already winning, see Big MC−Tony Kosten/CSS Freestyle Tournament 2007, 18.¤f4+?!

23

Huebner,R−Vogel,R/Germany 1986, 18...¦f7!) 18...¢e7 19.¤g4 £g6 with wild complications − see Svidler,P−Morozevich,A/Wijk aan Zee 2005.) 8.dxe5 and now: 8...¤b7 (8...¤f5 9.£e4 (9.¤c3 0-0 10.b3 d5 was comfortable for Black in Repkova Eid,E−Vladimirov,E/Beirut 2000 (47)) 9...g6 10.¤d4 ¤xd4 11.£xd4 d5!? (11...0-0) 12.exd6 0-0 13.¥h6 ¥f6 14.£c5 ¦e8 15.dxc7 £xc7 wasn't clear in Ulibin,M−Vladimirov,E/Podolsk 1992 (21), despite White's quick win.) 9.¤d4

a) 9.¤c3 0-0 10.¦e1 ¤c5 11.¤d4 (11.¥e3 ¤e6 12.¦ad1 d5 13.exd6 cxd6 14.¤d4 ¥d7

15.¤f5 d5 16.¤xe7+ £xe7 17.£d2 was Karpov,A−Korchnoi,V/World Championship (2) Merano 1981 (57). and now 17...£f6 would have been about equal) 11...¤e6 12.¤xe6 fxe6 was double−edged in Anand,V−Timman,J/Wijk aan Zee 1999 (40).

b) 9.¦e1 0-0 10.b3 ¤c5 11.¥b2 ¤e6 12.¤c3 f6 was fine for Black in Lau,R−Smagin,S/Berlin 1990

c) 9.c4 introduced by Zukertort in 1868, 9...0-0 10.¤c3 f6 11.¦e1 fxe5 12.£xe5 ¥f6 13.£g3! Adams,M−Howell,D/London ENG 2010.

9...0-0 10.¤c3 ¥c5 probably best, Black prepares to liquidate the annoying knight before bringing his knight to e6, (10...¤c5 11.¦d1 £e8 12.¤f5 ¤e6 13.¤e4 ¥d8 14.£g4

f6 was Gormally,D−Cherniaev,A/Hastings 2003 (45) and now 15.¤c5 would have been critical) 11.¦d1 ¦e8 12.¥f4 ¥xd4 13.¦xd4 d5 (13...¤c5 is also OK) 14.b4!? Black wants to play ...¤c5−e6, and so White stops this, see Grischuk,A−Malakhov,V/Elista RUS 2007.

6.¥xc6

White has also tried 6.dxe5 ¤xb5 7.a4!? but after 7...¤bd4 (or 7...d6 8.e6!? fxe6! 9.axb5

¤b4! Ghaem Maghami,E−Navara,D/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010) 8.¤xd4 ¤xd4 9.£xd4 d5!? 10.exd6 £xd6 11.¦e1+ ¥e6 12.£e4 £b4! Black was doing well in Papatheodorou,T−Kapnisis,S/Greek Team Ch., Athens 2000 (27).

6...dxc6 7.dxe5 ¤f5

Black can also consider 7...¤e4 8.£e2 ¥f5 9.¥e3 and now 9...¥c5 is the most solid

(9...£e7 10.¤a3 g5 11.¤c4 ¥g6 12.¤d4 was very dangerous for Black in Machulsky,A−Malaniuk,V/Alma−Ata, 1989 (15).)

8.£xd8+

8.£e2 is an attempt to avoid the Berlin endgame. 8...¤d4 (8...¥e6 Sali,Z−Mikhalevski,V/Edmonton 2009, when 9.¦d1 makes sense.) 9.¤xd4 £xd4 10.h3 (10.¦d1 ¥g4!) 10...¥f5 should be fine for Black but he lost quickly due to carelessness in Froeyman,H−Duhayon,Y/Belgian Interclubs 2000.

8...¢xd8

24

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lmk-vl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+-zPn+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This endgame is often called 'The Berlin Wall' as Black's defences are so hard to breach.

9.¤c3

9.¥g5+ ¥e7 10.g4 proved to have more bark than bite in Kovac,B−Meszaros,T/Szentgotthard HUN 2001 (20).

9.h3 is rare, 9...¥d7 10.¦d1 (10.¤c3 h6 transposes to 9...h6, below) 10...¢c8 11.g4 ¤e7 12.¤g5 ¥e8 Ganguly,S−McShane,L/Wijk aan Zee NED 2011.

9...¢e8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvl-tr0 9zppzp-+pzpp0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-+-zPn+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

One of the eternal questions in this line is where Black should place his king. The move 9...h6 suggests that it will go to the queenside after 10.h3 ¥d7 (10...¥e6 is

provocative, Shirov,A−Vallejo Pons,F/Arvier ITA 2010) 11.b3 (11.¦d1 threatens e6, 11...¢c8 12.¦d3 b6 13.b3 ¤e7! 14.¥b2 c5 Gruenfeld,Y−Mikhalevski,V/Haifa 2010,

11.¤e4 a rare move, 11...b6 12.b3 ¢c8 13.¥b2 c5 with good play, Polgar,J−Topalov,V/Mexico City MEX 2010) 11...¢c8 (11...a5 12.¥b2 b5?! is not a good idea − see Kalezic,B−Vajda,S/"Lasker" GM−tournament, Budapest, 2001 (14),

11...c5 12.¦d1 ¢c8 13.a4!? Svidler,P−Ponomariov,R/Astrakhan 2010) 12.¥b2 b6 (12...¤e7 13.¦ad1 c5 will transpose) 13.¦ad1 ¤e7 14.¦d2 (14.¦fe1 c5 15.¤e2 ¤g6

25

Anand,V−Nakamura,H/London ENG 2010) 14...c5 15.¦fd1 ¥e6 16.¤e2 g5 17.¦d8+ (17.h4 g4 18.¤h2 h5 19.¦d8+ transposes) 17...¢b7 18.¦xa8 ¢xa8 19.h4 g4 20.¤h2 h5 21.¦d8+ ¢b7 22.¤f4 ¤g6 23.¤xe6 (23.g3 c4 and Black had a solid game in Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Game 3/10, ChessClassic match 2001) 23...fxe6 24.g3 White's plan is clear: he's going to create a passed pawn on the kingside using his pawn majority, Grischuk,A−Eljanov,P/Odessa UKR 2009.

Black can also play an immediate 9...¥d7 10.b3 (10.h3 ¢c8 11.b3 b6 (11...h6 12.¥b2 ¤e7

13.¦ad1 c5 will transpose to 9...h6) 12.¥b2 ¥e7 (12...a5?! allows White to roll with the dangerous kingside majority, Hou Yifan−Ruan Lufei/Wuxi CHN 2006) 13.g4 ¤h4 14.¤xh4 ¥xh4 15.f4 f5 was also fine for Black in Womacka,M−Harikrishna,P/Gibraltar 2004 (26)) 10...¢c8 11.¥b2 a5 12.h3 h5 13.a4 ¥e7 and Black held the game quite easily in Emms,J−Howell,D/Gibraltar 2004 (34).

9...¤e7 10.h3 h6 (10...¤g6 was preferred by Topalov, against Kasimjanov in San Luis ARG 2005) 11.¥e3 ¤g6 12.¦ad1+ ¢e8 13.a3 ¥e7 14.¦fe1 White is ready to continue ¤d4 and f4, see Shirov,A−Levin,F/Katernberg GER 2005.

10.h3

10.¤e2 A relatively rare continuation, which was introduced by Gligoric in 1958. 10...b6 11.¤f4 ¥b7!? 12.¦d1 ¦d8 with equality, Vallejo Pons,F−Aronian,L/Linares ESP 2010.

10...¥e7

Kramnik's choice, but Black has several alternatives here: 10...¥b4 11.¤e4 ¥e6 12.c3 ¥f8?! (12...¥e7) was probably too ambitious and White took

the initiative after 13.g4 ¤e7 14.¤g3 ¤g6 15.¦e1 ¥d5 16.¤d4 in Rowson,J−Miles,A/Redbus Knockout, Southend 2000 (35).

10...¤e7 11.¦e1 ¤d5 12.¤e4 h6 13.¥d2 c5 is also reasonable for Black but he must be careful with his development being so backward. In Timman,J−Ferguson,M/Kilkenny Masters 1999 (23) he wasn't careful enough.

10...a5 gains some space on the queenside, where Black has his pawn majority, 11.g4?! McDonald,N−Motwani,P/Eksakt Masters, Tilburg 1996.

10...b6 This relatively rare continuation was introduced by the Spanish GM Narciso Dublan in 1999, but in view of his two losses it found no followers till it was picked up by Kramnik in 2007, and one year later by Carlsen, and brought Black good results in 2007−2008. 11.¦d1 ¥b7!? 12.¥f4 ¦c8 13.a4! (13.g4

Stellwagen,D−Carlsen,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009.) 13...¤e7 14.a5 with advantage, Polgar,J−Carlsen,M/Kristiansund NOR 2010.

10...h5 is a rare continuation aimed against g4, which has gained some attention this last two years, 11.¤e2 (11.b3 ¥e7 12.¥b2 ¥e6 Shirov,A−Anand,V/Bilbao ESP 2010)

11...¥e7 12.¥g5 ¥e6 Carlsen,M−Jakovenko,D/Dortmund GER 2009.

11.¥g5 ¥xg5 12.¤xg5 h6 13.¤ge4 b6 14.¦fd1 ¢e7 15.¢h2 h5

and Black had a very solid position in Anand,V−Kramnik,V/Leon 2002 (20).

26

Exchange Variation − Intro [C68]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥xc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+L+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Exchange Variation was a favourite of two of the greatest World Champions in

history, Emanuel Lasker and Bobby Fischer. White gives up the bishop pair in order to obtain the better pawn structure − after a subsequent d2−d4 he will obtain a qualitatively superior pawn majority on the kingside.

4...dxc6 5.0-0 £d6

This has been quite popular with aggressively minded players, though there are several other ways of trying to mix it up:

a) 5...¥e7 6.¤xe5 a) 6.d3 ¥f6 (6...f6!? 7.¥e3 ¥g4! Black provokes h3 in order to create an attack on

the kingside by means of ...g5−g4, 8.¤bd2 £d7 9.b4 g5 10.£b1 ¤h6 Karjakin,S−Aronian,L/Bilbao ESP 2009) 7.¥e3 ¤e7 is very solid − see Brynell,S−Grivas,E/Leningrad 1989 (30)

b) On the other hand 6.¤c3 ¥f6 7.£e2 is a very enterprising and dangerous line − see Zhang Zhong−De Vreugt,D/Wijk aan Zee NED 2003 (33)

6...£d4 7.£h5 ¥e6 (7...g6 is quite playable, but Black wants more) 8.d3 ¤f6 (8...£c5!?)

9.¤f3 £xe4 10.£xf7+ ¥xf7 11.dxe4 ¤xe4 12.¦e1 and Black was under strong pressure in Brynell,S−Hector,J/Linkoping 2001 (46)

b) 5...¥g4 6.h3 h5!? is an enterprising and challenging line which may yet re−emerge as an argument against 5.0-0, 7.d3 £f6 8.¤bd2 (8.¥e3 is also possible, for example

27

8...¥xf3 9.£xf3 £xf3 10.gxf3 ¥d6 11.¤d2 ¤e7 12.¦fb1 f5 13.b4 a5 14.a3 as in Kasimdzhanov,R−Adams,M/Tripoli 2004 (40)) 8...¤e7 9.¦e1 ¤g6 (9...¥e6!?

didn't work in Radjabov,T−Shirov,A/Turin ITA 2006) 10.d4 ¤f4! (10...¥d6 11.c3?!

¤f4 White found himself in trouble in Schnabel,R−Pokorny,Z/Krkonose Open, Czech Republic 2000 (19).) 11.hxg4 (11.dxe5 £g6 is also easy for Black, Nisipeanu,L−Kasimdzhanov,R/Godesberg GER 2005, 11.¢f1!? freeing the g1-square for the knight and thus preparing 12 hxg4 is interesting, but was never tested at the GM level.) 11...hxg4 12.g3! gxf3 13.£xf3 ¤e6 14.dxe5 £xe5 15.£f5 (15.¤b3 g6 16.¥d2 c5 Karjakin,S−Shirov,A/Odessa UKR 2010) 15...£b5! Vachier Lagrave,M−Shirov,A/Baden−Baden GER 2010.

c) 5...¥d6 is a simple and natural developing move favoured by British GM Mark Hebden. After 6.d4 (Black must also take care against 6.c3!? as in Wittmann,W−Kosten,A/Jenbach 2008) 6...exd4 7.£xd4 f6 8.c4?! (8.¥e3 ¤e7 9.¤bd2 ¥e6 is the mainline) 8...c5 9.£c3 ¤e7 10.¥e3 0-0 11.¤bd2 £e8 Black obtained excellent play in the game Pujos,S−Hebden,M/Lausanne Master Open, Switzerland 2000 (20).

d) 5...¤e7 6.¤xe5 £d4 7.£h5 (7.¤f3 £xe4 8.¦e1 £g6 9.d4 ¥g4 left Black comfortably placed in Tonoli,J−Motwani,P/Strombeek−Bever rapid 1999 (31).) 7...g6 8.£g5 is critical 8...¥g7 9.¤d3 f5 10.e5 c5 11.b3 £g4!? Caruana,F−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2010.

e) 5...£f6 is a recent preference of Adams, Morozevich and Ivan Sokolov, and as such deserves further tests. After 6.d4 exd4 7.¥g5 £d6 8.¤xd4 ¥e7 (8...¥d7 prepares long castles, 9.¤c3 £g6 10.£d2 ¥e7 if this exchange is necessary then the entire line with 9...£g6, if not 5...£f6, is dubious, (10...f6? was beautifully refuted in Jakovenko,D−Inarkiev,E/Odessa UKR 2010) 11.¥xe7 ¤xe7 12.¦ad1 with a plus, Radjabov,T−Mamedyarov,S/Astrakhan RUS 2010.) 9.¥xe7 (9.¥e3 ¤f6 10.f3 c5

Black is looking for an endgame, Ivanchuk,V−Navara,D/Prague CZE 2009)

9...¤xe7 10.¤c3 ¥d7 (10...0-0 was less good in Magem Badals,J−Adams,M/Pula 1997 (45)) 11.¤b3 £xd1 (11...0-0-0!?) 12.¦axd1 0-0-0 13.¤d2 b6 14.¤c4 ¥e6 15.¤e3 was better for White in Fressinet,L−Adams,M/Bordeaux 2000 (60).

6.¤a3

There's also the quiet 6.d3 after which 6...¤e7 7.¥e3 ¤g6 8.¤bd2 c5 9.a4 b6 10.¤c4 £e6 11.¤g5 £f6 12.£h5 was a bit better for White in Kasimdzhanov,R−Adams,M/Tripoli 2004 (48).

6...b5

28

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+kvlntr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+pwq-+-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9sN-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

An ambitious but risky move which hopes to show that the knight on a3 is badly placed. Another way to play it is with 6...¥e6 7.£e2 f6 8.¦d1 c5 (8...0-0-0 is possible here, 8...¥g4

a pet line of GM Romanishin, who introduced this idea in 1993. 9.h3 ¥h5 10.d4 0-0-

0! 11.¥e3 £e6! Black doesn't seem to have any problems here, Hammer,J−Eljanov,P/Novi Sad SRB 2009) 9.c3 0-0-0 10.d4 cxd4 11.cxd4 ¥g4 12.¥e3 exd4 13.¦xd4 £e7 and the position was double−edged in Rowson,J−Ehlvest,J/Blitz play−off, World Open 2002 (28).

7.c3 c5 8.¤c2 ¤e7

8...¥b7 9.d4 ¤f6?! (9...cxd4) 10.¦e1 was good for White in Rozentalis,E−Nickoloff,B/North Bay 1994 (16).

9.a4 b4

9...¥b7 is probably safer

10.¤e3 ¤c6 11.cxb4 cxb4 12.b3 ¥e6 13.¥b2 f6 14.¦c1

and White had some pressure in the game Godena,M−Hebden,M/Linares Zonal Tournament, 1995 (21).

29

Exchange Variation − 5.0-0 f6 6.d4 [C69]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥xc6 dxc6 5.0-0 f6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+pzp-+-zpp0 9p+p+-zp-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.d4 exd4

6...¥g4 one of Black's most solid systems, 7.dxe5 (7.c3 ¥d6 (7...£e7!? worked well for Black in Caruana,F−Ivanchuk,V/Caleta ENG 2011) 8.¤bd2 (8.¥e3 ¤e7 is the mainline.) 8...¤h6! as the c1-h6 diagonal is closed Black brings the knight to f7, where it's more flexible than on e7. (8...£e7 leads to a tense middlegame as in Rausis,I−Berzinsh,R/Bern 2000 (28)) 9.£b3 b5 10.h3 ¥d7 Recuero Guerra,D−Mikhalevski,V/Zürich 2009.) 7...£xd1 8.¦xd1 fxe5 9.¦d3 is the main line, and leads to a complex endgame (9.¤bd2 this move is considered rather harmless, 9...0-0-0 10.¦e1 ¥d6 (10...¦e8 11.h3 ¥h5 12.g4 ¥f7 13.¤g5 ¥g6 14.¤df3 h6 15.¤h4 ¥h5!

a very nice move refuting White's play, Maze,S−Winants,L/Belgium BEL 2006.) 11.h3 ¥h5 12.¤h4 see Vydeslaver,A−Mikhalevski,V/Israeli league 2011.) 9...¥d6 10.¤bd2 ¤f6 11.¤c4 0-0! Geller's move is sufficient for equality, see Karjakin,S−Caruana,F/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010.

7.¤xd4 c5 8.¤b3

An alternative is 8.¤e2, keeping the knight on a better circuit. Play might continue 8...£xd1 9.¦xd1 ¥d7! this the best plan, to castle long quickly, 10.¤bc3 0-0-0 11.¥e3 ¦e8 12.¦d2 ¥c6 13.¦ad1 b6 14.f3 (14.¥f4 ¤e7 15.g4? ¤g6 16.¥g3 h5! was good for Black in Brunner,L−Adams,M/Biel 1993 (36), 14.¤f4 ¤h6 15.¤fd5 ¤g4

30

Black avoids an exchange on h6 and brings the knight to a nice square on e5, Vachier Lagrave,M−Ivanchuk,V/Cap d'Agde FRA 2008., 14.a4!? is an aggressive continuation which was introduced by Radjabov, see Guseinov,G−Werle,J/Dresden GER 2008) 14...¤e7 15.¤f4 ¤g6 16.¤h5 ¤e5 17.b3 c4 (17...f5!?

is interesting, see Sand,R−Allahverdiev,A/Porto Carrras GRE 2005.) 18.¤d5 a5!? gave Black counterplay in Kasimdzhanov,R−Grischuk,A/Tripoli 2004 (73).

8...£xd1 9.¦xd1 ¥g4

This subtlety, which is played in order to force the move f3, is essential here. 9...¥d6?! 10.¤a5 ¥g4?! resulted in an unexpected debacle for Black in the game

Hort,V−Shelandinov,A/Havana, 1967 (12).

10.f3 ¥d7 11.¤c3 0-0-0 12.¥f4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vlntr0 9+pzpl+-zpp0 9p+-+-zp-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+NsN-+P+-0 9PzPP+-+PzP0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...c4 13.¤a5

13.¤d4 ¤e7 14.¦d2 ¤g6 is harmless for Black − see Kotronias,V−Adams,M/Chalkidiki 1993 (50).

13...¥c5+

This move wins a tempo thanks to Black's ninth.

14.¢f1 b5 15.¤d5

15.a4 ¤e7 16.axb5 ¥xb5! Now Black can use the d−file, Mader,M−Bojkov,D/Pforzheim GER 2005.

15...¤e7

15...c6?! 16.b4! proved to be very dangerous in Timman,J−Adams,M/Belgrade 1995 (36).

31

16.¥xc7 ¤xd5 17.¦xd5 ¢xc7 18.¦xc5+ ¢b6 19.b4 cxb3 20.¤xb3 ¥e6

and Black had enough compensation to hold the draw in Shirov,A−Adams,M/Tilburg 1996 (61).

32

Spanish − Various 4th moves [C70]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 b5

4...f5 is the Delayed Schliemann, 5 d4! exd4 6 e5 ¥c5 see Almasi,Z−Shirov,A/Monte Carlo 2003.

4...g6 was introduced by Steinitz, 5 d4 b5 (5...exd4) 6 ¥b3 exd4 7 ¤xd4 Karjakin,S−Ponomariov,R/Nice FRA 2010.

5 ¥b3 ¤a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+-zpp+pzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9snp+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The so−called Norwegian Variation. It found favour with fans of the bishop pair such as

Mark Taimanov and Bobby Fischer. They both used it extensively before discovering the Sicilian.

6 0-0

The direct 6 d4 exd4 7 £xd4 looks dangerous for Black but is well met by 7...¤e7! − see Addison,W−Fischer,R/New York 1963 (38).

6...d6 7 d4 ¤xb3 8 axb3 f6 9 ¤c3

33

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+-zp-+-zpp0 9p+-zp-zp-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+PsN-+N+-0 9-zPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White has an interesting alternative in 9 c4!? which is probably best met by 9...b4!,

stopping White's knight from coming to c3. After 9...¥b7 10 ¤c3 ¤e7 11 £e2 White had a good game in Fischer,R−Johannessen,S/La Habana (ol) 2/242 1966 (36).

In an earlier game Fischer played 9 ¤h4 and although he won Black could have improved the defence − see Fischer,R−Walker,R/US Junior Ch., 1957 (20).

9...¥b7 10 ¤h4

The main alternative is 10 £e2 after which Black should probably meet 10...g6 11 ¥e3 c6 12 dxe5 with 12...dxe5. Instead of this 12...fxe5 is very risky after 13 ¤g5 ¥e7 14 f4 − see Pavlovic,M−Agdestein,S/Catalan Bay ENG 2003 (28).

10...£d7

10...¤e7 11 dxe5 dxe5 12 £f3 £d7 13 ¦d1 £e6 14 ¤d5 produced a complex game in which White had the initiative in Anand,V−Agdestein,S/Baguio City 1987 (38).

11 ¤d5 ¤e7 12 £h5+ ¢d8 13 c4 ¤xd5 14 cxd5 g6 15 £f3

and White's position was the more comfortable in Short,N−Sulskis,S/Bled 2002 (46).

34

Spanish 4...d6 5.0-0 [C72]

Last updated: 21/05/08 by Tony Kosten

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+pzp-+pzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5 0-0 ¥g4!?

A very sharp move of independent significance − Black is prepared to sacrifice a piece! 5...¥d7 6 d4!? (6 c3 transposes into 5.c3 lines.) 6...exd4 (6...b5 7 ¥b3 ¤xd4 8 ¤xd4 exd4 9

£h5 is dangerous for Black) 7 ¤xd4 b5 8 ¤xc6 ¥xc6 9 ¥b3 ¤f6 10 ¤c3 ¥e7 11 ¦e1 0-0 12 a4 with an edge, Leko,P−Mamedyarov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006.

6 h3 h5 7 d4

A simpler choice for White may be 7 ¥xc6+ bxc6 8 d4 as in Shirov,A−Sokolov,I/Wijk aan Zee NED 2004 (26).

7...b5 8 ¥b3 ¤xd4 9 hxg4

35

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlntr0 9+-zp-+pzp-0 9p+-zp-+-+0 9+p+-zp-+p0 9-+-snP+P+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤xb3 10 axb3 hxg4 11 ¤g5 £d7 12 c4

12 £d3!? Gashimov,V−Grischuk,A/Baku AZE 2008, when 12...c6 is best.

12...¦b8 13 ¦xa6

13 £d5 is an attempt to head for safety, but after 13...c6 14 £xf7+ £xf7 15 ¤xf7 ¢xf7 16 ¦xa6 ¤f6 17 ¦e1 bxc4 18 bxc4 d5!, Black was very actively placed in De Firmian,N−Sokolov,I/2nd Milk Tournament, Selfoss 2003 (31).

13...f6 14 ¤c3 fxg5 15 ¤xb5

was all very entertaining in Smirnov,P−Yandemirov,V/20th ECC, Izmir 2004 (97).

36

Spanish 4...d6 5.Bxc6+ [C73]

Last updated: 29/11/03 by Davies,Nigel

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6 5 ¥xc6+ bxc6 6 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+pzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...exd4!?

Paul Keres' speciality. 6...f6 tends to be more popular here, but is not necessarily better.

7 £xd4

7 ¤xd4 c5 8 ¤f3 (8 ¤e2 ¤f6 9 ¤bc3 ¥b7 10 ¤g3 g6! saw Black take the initiative in Daskalov,G−Keres,P/Tallinn 1971 (41)) 8...¤f6 9 0-0 ¥e7 10 ¤c3 0-0 11 ¦e1 ¥b7 12 h3 ¤d7 13 ¤d5 ¥f6 was fine for Black in Spassky,B−Keres,P/USSR (ch) 1973 (25).

7...c5 8 £d3 ¤e7

37

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-snpzpp0 9p+-zp-+-+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+Q+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¤c3

9 c4 ¤c6 10 h3 ¥e7 11 ¤c3 0-0 12 0-0 ¦e8 13 b3 ¥f6 gave Black a very comfortable game in Suess,A−Keres,P/Dortmund 1973 (72).

9...¦b8 10 b3 ¤g6 11 0-0 ¥e7 12 ¤d5 ¥f6 13 ¤xf6+ £xf6

and Black was certainly no worse in the game Mecking,H−Keres,P/Petropolis 1973 (17).

38

Spanish 4...d6 5.c3 [C74]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvlntr0 9+pzp-+pzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

5 c3 f5

The sharp Siesta Variation. In this position 5...¥g4 isn't good because 6 h3 ¥h5 7 d3 ¤f6 8 ¤bd2 ¥e7 9 ¤f1 b5 10

¥b3 d5 11 £e2 d4 12 g4 shut Black's light−square bishop out of the game in Volokitin,A−Howe,D/Copenhagen DEN 2002 (23).

6 exf5

6 d4 fxe4 7 ¤g5 exd4 8 ¤xe4 ¤f6! Réti,R−Capablanca,J/Berlin 1928 (21).

6...¥xf5 7 0-0

7 d4!? is a dangerous alternative, 7...e4 8 d5 exf3 9 £xf3 Kasparov's idea, see Grischuk,A−Najer,E/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2007.

7...¥d3 8 ¦e1 ¥e7

39

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+ntr0 9+pzp-vl-zpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+-+-+0 9+-zPl+N+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9 ¥c2

White's main alternative is 9 ¦e3

9...¥xc2 10 £xc2 ¤f6

and Black had adequate counterplay in Polgar,J−Timman,J/Malmo, Sweden 2000 (30).

40

Delayed Steinitz − 4..d6 5.c3 Bd7 [C75]

Last updated: 16/08/03 by Nigel Davies

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6

The Delayed Steinitz Defence.

5 c3 ¥d7 6 d4 ¤ge7 7 ¥e3!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+pzplsnpzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-vLN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRN+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The automatic 7 0-0 gives Black chances of play on the kingside after 7...¤g6 8 ¦e1

¥e7 9 ¤bd2 h6 10 ¤f1 ¥g5 − see Oim,T−Keres,P/Parnu 1971 (26).

7...¤g6 8 h4!?

A most interesting plan with which White aims to inhibit Black's traditional kingside play.

8...h5 9 g3 ¥e7 10 d5 ¤b8 11 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 12 ¤fd2 ¤f6 13 f3

and Black found it difficult to get counterplay in Topalov,V−Yusupov,A/Novgorod 1995 (33).

41

Delayed Steinitz − 4..d6 5.c3 Bd7 6.c3 g6

[C76]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6 5 c3 ¥d7 6 d4 g6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvlntr0 9+pzpl+p+p0 9p+nzp-+p+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 0-0

7 ¥g5 f6 8 ¥e3 ¤h6 9 h3 ¥g7 10 ¤bd2 ¤f7! 11 0-0 0-0 12 ¦e1 £e7 (12...£e8 is probably better, threatening 13...¤xd4.) 13 b4 ¢h8 14 ¥c2 ¤cd8 and Black had a promising game in Sokolov,A−Spassky,B/Montpellier (ct) 1985 (37).

7...¥g7 8 ¦e1 b5

42

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+ntr0 9+-zpl+pvlp0 9p+nzp-+p+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9L+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

8...¤ge7 9 ¥e3 0-0 10 ¤bd2 £e8 (10...h6 is playable here) 11 ¥b3 b6 12 dxe5 dxe5 13

¤c4 ¢h8 14 £c1 ¥g4 15 ¤g5 h6 16 h3 ¥d7 17 ¤f3 ¢h7 18 a4 f5?! 19 exf5 gxf5 and now the brilliant 20 ¤fxe5! ¤xe5 21 ¤xe5 ¥xe5 22 ¥xh6 led to a memorable win for Karpov as White against Spassky (Bugojno 1986).

9 ¥c2

This might be inaccurate, 9 ¥b3 is best, when 9...¤f6 transposes to [C79].

9...exd4!?

9...¤f6 10 dxe5 ¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 dxe5 12 ¥e3? Karjakin,S−Mamedyarov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006, and now, as Keres demonstrated, 12...¤g4 13 ¥c5 £h4 14 h3 ¥f8! is strong.

10 cxd4 ¥g4 11 ¥e3 ¤ge7

Black's plan is basic, he wants to castle followed by ...f5 with lots of play.

12 ¤c3 0-0 13 ¦c1 ¢h8!?

13...f5 worked well in Ivanchuk,V−Mamedyarov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006, but White can improve.

14 £d2 ¥xf3 15 gxf3

with advantage, Anand,V−Mamedyarov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008.

43

Worrall Attack − 4...Nf6 5 Qe2 & 5 d3

[C77]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 £e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzPQzPPzP0 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Worrall Attack. Tiviakov has played this way and it's quite an interesting move.

White protects his e−pawn and the delay in castling can be quite useful. 5 d3 is solid, 5...d6 (5...b5!? by playing an early ...b5 Black wants to be able to hit out

with ...d7−d5, dispensing with ...d6 altogether, 6 ¥b3 ¥e7 7 a4!? ¥b7 8 ¤c3 b4 9 ¤d5

¤a5 10 ¤xe7!? Perunovic−Banikas,H/Kavala GRE 2007, when 10...¤xb3! 11 cxb3

£xe7 is good for Black) 6 c3 g6! the lack of immediate pressure on the centre allows Black to set up a fianchetto, 7 0-0

a) 7 ¥g5!? ¥g7 8 ¤bd2 h6 9 ¥h4 0-0 10 ¤f1 ¤e7! 11 ¤e3 g5!? with aggressive play on the kingside, Cabrera−Ponomariov/Pardubice CZE 2007

b) 7 ¤bd2 ¥g7 8 ¤f1 0-0! 9 ¤g3 (9 ¥g5?! d5! Carlsen,M−Caruana,F/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 9...b5 with equality, Reeh,O−Levin,F/Muelheim Nord GER 2006.

7...¥g7 8 ¦e1 0-0 9 ¤bd2 ¤d7 This idea to transfer the knight to e6 via c5 in order to stop d4 has been known for more than 60 years. 10 ¥xc6 (10 b4 Smirin,I−Mikhalevski,V/Philadelphia 2009., The main lines goes 10 ¤f1 ¤c5 11 ¥c2 ¤e6 12

¤g3 £f6=) 10...bxc6 11 d4 exd4! 12 cxd4 c5 Black is fine, Kritz,L−Mikhalevski,V/Biel 2010.

44

5...b5 6 ¥b3 ¥c5

This is Black's most challenging treatment, making it as hard as possible for White to play d2−d4.

6...¥e7 [C86] can be answered by 7 d4 d6 8 c3 0-0 (After 8...¥g4 White can play 9 ¥e3 as 9...¤xe4? loses to 10 ¥d5) 9 ¤bd2 when the attempt to increase pressure on d4 with 9...¥g4 is simply met by 10 h3

7 c3 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+pvl-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-zPQzPPzP0 9tRNvL-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 7...d6 White played rather timidly and inconsistently with 8 h3?! (8 d3) 8...¥e6 9

¥c2 0-0 10 b4?! and found himself worse after 10...¥b6 11 a4 d5 in Robertson,I−Motwani,P/Dundee 1995 (18).

8 d3 d6 9 ¥g5 ¥e6 10 ¤bd2 £e7?! 11 ¥d5!

and Black was under pressure in Paehtz,T−Vladimirov,E/Lausanne SUI 2001 (19).

45

Archangel − 4...Nf6 5.0-0 b5 [C78]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...b5

The astonishing 5...¤g4?! is the Krol Variation, which scores highly for ingenuity but probably not much for correctness. After 6 h3 h5 7 c3 ¥c5 8 d4 ¥a7 9 ¦e1 (9 hxg4

hxg4 10 ¤g5 d6 was murky in Van Dijk,H−Krol,W/IECG 2002 (28).) 9...d6 10 ¤a3 ¥d7 11 ¥xc6 bxc6 12 ¤c4 Black was under serious pressure in Stillerud,L−Krol,W/IECG 2002 (30).

5...¥c5 can transpose, 6 c3 b5 (6...0-0 7 d4 ¥a7 8 ¥g5 Tal's idea, 8...h6 9 ¥h4 exd4!

Naiditsch,A−Onischuk,A/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2009) 7 ¥c2!? the advantage of this move is that White is ready to attack the b5−pawn very quickly, but the disadvantage is it lets Black play ...d5. (7 ¥b3 is the note to the next move) 7...d5 8 d4 dxe4 9 dxc5 (9 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 10 dxe5 £xd1 11 ¦xd1 ¤g4 12 ¥xe4 ¤xf2 13 ¥c6+ ¢e7 14

¦d5 ¥b6 all this has been played before and White never managed to find any advantage in the endgame with the exchange for one pawn, see Hracek,Z−Delchev,A/Sibenik CRO 2006) 9...£xd1 10 ¥xd1 exf3 11 ¥xf3 e4 12 ¥e2 ¥g4 Black had no problems in Hou Yifan−Shen Yang/Wuxi CHN 2006.

6 ¥b3 ¥c5

46

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-zpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+pvl-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Recently this has been all the rage with the discovery that in the line after 7.c3 Black

recovers the pawn with a good game. 6...¥b7 7 c3 a) 7 d3 is the most frequent try nowadays − it leads to manoeuvering games

where White hopes that Black committed himself too soon by placing his bishop on b7, 7...¥c5 (7...¥e7 8 ¤c3 transposes to C84) 8 ¤c3 (8 a4 0-0 9 ¥g5?! h6 10 ¥h4 g5!

energetic and good, Handke,F−Barkhagen,J/Stockholm SWE 2003) 8...d6 9 a4 ¤a5 10 ¥a2 b4 11 ¤e2 Carlsen,M−Beliavsky,A/Wijk aan Zee, Netherlands 2006, when Black should prefer 11...¦b8 perhaps.

b) 7 d4 ¤xd4 8 ¤xe5 ¤xb3 9 axb3 ¤xe4 Maclean,D−Flear,G/Oxford 1979 (12). c) 7 ¦e1 ¥c5 8 c3 (8 ¤xe5?! ¤xe5 9 d4 ¤fg4 10 dxc5 £h4 won quickly for Black in

Fontaine,A−Motwani,P/"Friendly" game, Brussels 2000) 8...0-0 9 d4 ¥b6 10 ¥e3 exd4 a very dangerous line (10...d6 is safer) 11 cxd4 ¤a5 12 ¥g5 ¤xb3 13 £xb3! and White won brilliantly, see Negi,P−Spoelman,W/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007.

7...¤xe4 8 d4 ¤a5 9 ¥c2 exd4 10 b4 (White can also try to keep the initiative with 10 ¤xd4 when Black's best is probably 10...c5 11 ¤f5 d5 (11...£f6 12 ¤d2 d5 13 ¤xe4

dxe4 14 ¤g3 ¥e7 15 ¤xe4 £c6 16 £h5 g6 17 £h3 gave White a strong initiative in Svidler,P−Christiansen,L/Bermuda BER 2003 (31)) 12 ¤d2 g6 13 ¤g3 ¥e7 14 ¤dxe4 dxe4 15 £e2 0-0 was fine for Black in Karjakin,S−Hector,J/Moscow RUS 2004 (50)) 10...¤c4 11 ¥xe4 ¥xe4 12 ¦e1 d5 13 ¤xd4 (13 £xd4 ¥e7 14 £xg7

¢d7!? 15 £xf7 £e8 16 £xe8+ ¦axe8 gave Black the better endgame in Ernst,T−Hector,J/Skara SWE 2002 (30).) 13...c5! 14 bxc5 ¥xc5 15 f3 0-0 16 fxe4 dxe4 17 ¦xe4 (17 ¢h1!? is best met by 17...¦e8 as in Nunn,J−Beliavsky,A/Amsterdam 1990 (40).) 17...£d5 18 ¦h4

a) White's main alternative is 18 £f3 b4 (18...¤e5 19 £f5 ¦ae8 20 ¤d2 b4 also seems to be fine for Black as in Koch,J−Degraeve,J/Narbonne 1997 (60)) 19 ¤d2 bxc3 20 ¤xc4 f5 gave Black a good game in Emms,J−Rausis,I/Le Touquet 1992 (28).

b) For 18 £d3 see Howell,J−Mortazavi,A/Cappelle la Grande 1991 (30). 18...¦ad8 19 £d3 (After 19 ¤d2 Black gets counterplay with 19...¤e3 20 £f3 ¤f5 as in

Vehi Bach,V−Mikhalchishin,A/Groningen 1990 (42).) 19...f5 20 ¥g5 ¦de8 (For 20...¦d6 see Ulibin,M−Hauchard,A/Santiago 1990 (47).) 21 ¤d2 ¤e5 22 £f1 f4 23 ¢h1 ¤g6 24 ¦h5 ¥xd4 25 cxd4 h6 and Black had adequate counterplay in Dvoirys,S−Beliavsky,A/Leningrad 1990 (53).

47

7 a4

7 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 8 d4 ¥xd4 9 £xd4 d6 is fine for Black − see Trifunovic,M−Petronic,J/Serbian Championship 2000 (26)

7 c3 d6 8 d4 (8 a4 might be a good way to transpose to the mainline) 8...¥b6 and now 9 a4 (9 dxe5 ¤xe5 10 ¤xe5 dxe5 11 £xd8+ ¢xd8 12 ¥xf7 ¥b7 and Black recovers the e−pawn with good chances.) 9...¥g4 (9...¦b8 transposes to the mainline) 10 h3 ¥h5 11 ¥g5! is promising, see Palac,M−Adams,M/Dresden GER 2008.

7...¦b8 8 c3 d6

8...0-0 9 d4 ¥b6 10 axb5 axb5 11 dxe5 ¤g4 12 ¥f4 (12 ¤a3 ¤cxe5! is Anand's improvement, 13 h3 d6!) 12...£e8!? is a rare line, but effective, 13 ¤a3 (13 ¤d4?

Svidler,P−Khalifman,A/Moscow RUS 2005) 13...¤cxe5 14 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 15 ¤xb5 Dominguez,L−Bruzon,L/Santa Clara CUB 2006, when I think 15...d6 is best.

9 d4

9 axb5 axb5 10 d3 was introduced at the top level by Alekseev. Instead of concrete tactical play White opts for a slow positional struggle. 10...0-0 11 h3 ¤e7 12 ¤a3 ¤g6 13 ¤c2 h6 14 ¦e1 ¥b6 15 ¤e3 c6 approximately equal, Kamsky,G−Morozevich,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009.

9...¥b6 10 ¤a3

10 a5!? is a new idea, renouncing the attack on the b5−pawn. 10...¥a7 (10...¤xa5 11 ¦xa5

¥xa5 12 dxe5 forces 12...¤g4 when 13 ¥g5 is dangerous for Black) 11 h3 (11 ¥e3!? is probably best met by 11...¦a8) 11...0-0 12 ¥e3 threatening to take on e5 and exploit the loose a7−bishop to win a pawn, (12 ¦e1 h6 13 ¥e3 ¦a8 transposes below) 12...exd4!? (12...¦a8 is safer, 13 ¦e1 ¥b7 14 ¤bd2 ¦e8 (14...¤d7 15 ¥d5

Aagaard,J−Godena,M/Bratto ITA 2007, 14...h6 15 ¥c2 Fedorchuk,S−Shirov,A/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2009.) 15 ¤g5 ¦e7!? Anand,V−Shirov,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 13 cxd4 ¤xe4 the critical pawn snatch (13...h6 14 ¤c3 favours White with his mobile centre, see Zhigalko,S−Golubenko,V/Sibenik CRO 2007)

14 £c2! £e8 15 ¤c3! White relies on his development advantage, and the slightly awkward placement of Black's pieces, particularly the queen, Timofeev,A−Halkias,S/Dresden GER 2007.

10 axb5 axb5 11 £d3!? the thematic idea of putting the queen on d3 has hitherto been rather neglected, 11...0-0 12 ¥g5 Sutovsky,E−Shirov,A/Poikovsky RUS 2008.

10...0-0

48

XIIIIIIIIY 9-trlwq-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9pvlnzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9P+-zPP+-+0 9sNLzP-+N+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...¥g4 Shirov was the first to introduce this move order against Topalov back in 1996,

but it often transposes to the main line by 11 axb5 axb5 12 ¤xb5 0-0

11 axb5 axb5 12 ¤xb5

This the critical position of the variation. Black has tried many moves, but it seems that White has found an adequate answer against each of them.

12 ¦e1 ¥g4 13 d5 ¤e7 was fine for Black in Zhao Zong Yuan−Chapman,M/Gold Coast AUS 2001 (16).

12...¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9-vlnzp-sn-+0 9+N+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+l+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9-zP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

After 12...exd4 13 cxd4 ¥g4 14 ¥a4 the bishop supports the knight on b5 and Xrays the

e8−square to hinder the rook or the queen from using it, (14 ¥c2 d5 Azarov,S−Ganguly,S/Nakhchivan 2003, 14 ¦a4 £e8! was fine for Black in Short,N−Ganguly,S/Gibraltar 2004 (35).) 14...d5 15 e5 ¤e4 16 ¥e3 f6 17 £c2 ¤b4 18 £b3 ¥a5 19 ¤d2! the key manoeuvre, Kramnik,V−Topalov,V/Monaco 2004.

13 ¥c2

49

13 ¦e1 Ivanchuk introduced this line against Shirov back in 1997, 13...¥xf3 14 gxf3 ¤h5 15 ¢h1! the most flexible, 15...£f6 (15...exd4 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 cxd4 c5 18 ¦g1

Black came under pressure on the g−file in Short,N−Ganguly,S/FIDE World Cup, Hyderabad, Ind 2002 (39).) 16 ¦g1 exd4! 17 ¥g5! £e5 18 ¥d5! dxc3! Black sacrifices a piece for a few pawns and obtains good compensation, 19 ¥xc6 cxb2 20 ¦b1 ¥xf2 21 ¦g2 ¦b6 22 ¥d7!? introduced by Smeets, (22 £d5 Ivanchuk,V−Shirov,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 22...¥c5 23 £c2 h6! with wild complications, Nepomniachtchi,I−Shirov,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2011.

13 d5 ¤e7 14 ¥c2 ¤g6 15 h3 ¥xh3! the best practical chance and loads of fun, see Korneev,O−Ragger,M/Leoben AUT 2007.

13...¥xf3

13...exd4 14 ¤bxd4 ¤xd4 15 cxd4 ¥xf3 16 gxf3 ¤h5 17 ¦a4! (17 ¢h1 £f6 18 ¥e3 ¤f4 19

¦a4! with advantage, Adams,M−Leko,P/Miskolc HUN 2005.) 17...£f6!? 18 ¥e3 g6! Inarkiev,E−Leko,P/Astrakhan RUS 2010.

13...h6 14 d5 ¤e7 15 h3 ¥h5 16 ¢h1!! the two exclamation points were given by Leko, Leko,P−Morozevich,A/Cannes 2002.

13...d5 14 h3! Olivier Renet's idea, which was tried in Ivanchuk,V−Shirov,A/Foros UKR 2006.

14 gxf3 ¤h5 15 f4!

15 dxe5 Karjakin's move, 15...£h4 16 exd6 Ganguly,S−Gareev,T/Calcutta IND 2004, and now 16...¤e5! is very dangerous for White, Black threatens ...£h3.

15 ¢h1 £f6 16 ¦g1 Palac,M−Shirov,A/Arvier ITA 2010.

15...¤xf4

15...£h4 might be better.

16 ¥xf4 exf4 17 £g4 £f6 18 ¦a6!

White wants to bring his knight to c4, without allowing Black to play ...¦a8 and pin the knight on a3, Carlsen,M−Shirov,A/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2008.

50

Spanish 4...d6 5.0-0 Nf6 [C79]

Last updated: 29/11/03 by Nigel Davies

1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 d6 5 0-0 ¤f6 6 c3 ¥d7 7 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+pzpl+pzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...g6 8 ¦e1

8 ¤bd2 £e7 9 ¦e1 ¥g7 10 ¤f1 (10 dxe5 ¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 dxe5 12 ¥xd7+ ¤xd7 13 ¤f3 0-0-0 14

¥e3 f5! saw Black take the initiative in Jansa,V−Keres,P/Luhacovice 1969 (38))

10...0-0 11 ¥g5 h6 12 ¥h4 £e8 13 ¥c2 ¤h5 14 ¤e3 ¦c8!? and a tough struggle was in prospect in Jansa,V−Psakhis,L/Bor 1985 (48).

8 ¥xc6 ¥xc6 9 dxe5 ¤xe4 10 ¤bd2 is recommended by some books, but doesn't get anywhere after 10...¤c5

8...b5

8...£e7 is less good here because of 9 d5 followed by ¥xd7+, c3−c4 and ¤b1-c3.

9 ¥b3

51

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zpl+p+p0 9p+nzp-snp+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Keeping an eye on f7. 9 ¥c2 failed to get anywhere after 9...¥g7 10 dxe5 ¤xe5 11 ¤xe5 dxe5 12 ¥g5 (12 ¥e3

¤g4 13 ¥c5 £h4 14 h3 ¥f8 15 ¥e3 ¤xe3 16 ¦xe3 ¦d8 was already better for Black in Parma,B−Keres,P/Yerevan 1971 (42)) 12...h6 13 ¥h4 £e7 14 ¤d2 ¦d8 with equality in Shamkovich,L−Keres,P/Riga 1968 (18).

9...¥g7 10 h3

10 ¤bd2 0-0 11 h3 ¦e8 12 ¤f1?! exd4 13 cxd4?! ¤xe4 led to a clear advantage to Black in Fogarasi,T−Davies,N/Budapest 1993 (29).

10...0-0 11 ¥g5 h6 12 ¥h4 £c8!? 13 a4 ¤h5 14 axb5 axb5 15 ¦xa8 £xa8 16 dxe5

led to equality and a quick draw in Matulovic,M−Keres,P/Sarajevo 1972 (18).

52

Open Variation − Intro & 9 Be3 [C80]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¤xe4

The Open Ruy Lopez leads to a more tactical game than a lot of the later lines. XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9+pzpp+pzpp0 9p+n+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+n+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

6 d4

6 ¦e1 should be harmless for Black after 6...¤c5 7 ¤c3 ¥e7 (but beware of 7...¤xa4 8

¤xe5 ¤xe5 9 ¦xe5+ ¥e7 10 ¤d5 as in Voronova,T−Phuong,V/Istanbul Olympiad, Turkey 2000 (13).)

6...b5

The tricky Riga Variation, with 6...exd4, leads to the better endgame for White after 7 ¦e1 d5 8 ¤xd4 (8 ¥g5!? is a fascinating alternative for which I refer you to Joszef Palkovi's Analysis/Riga Variation 2003 (24)) 8...¥d6 9 ¤xc6 (9 £f3?! 0-0 10 ¤xc6

bxc6 11 ¥xc6 ¥xh2+ 12 ¢xh2?! soon led to a winning game for Black in Almasi,Z−Varga,Z/Tucepi 1996 (49)) 9...¥xh2+ 10 ¢h1 £h4 11 ¦xe4+ dxe4 12 £d8+ £xd8 13 ¤xd8+ ¢xd8 14 ¢xh2 ¥e6 15 ¥e3 (15 c3 was fairly harmless in Tolnai,T−Varga,Z/Budapest 2000 (21)) 15...f5 16 ¤c3 ¢e7 17 g4, as in the famous game Capablanca,J−Lasker,E/New York 1915 (69).

Another move which crops up now and then is 6...¥e7 but then 7 ¦e1 f5 (7...b5 8 ¦xe4 d5 9

¤xe5 ¤xe5 10 ¦xe5 was good for White in Smirin,I−Piket,J/Wijk aan Zee 1994 (23)) 8 dxe5 0-0 9 ¤c3!? put Black under strong pressure in Kristiansen,J−Smyslov,V/Copenhagen 1985 (43).

53

7 ¥b3 d5

A refreshing alternative is 7...¥e7!?, for example 8 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 9 dxe5 ¥b7 10 £g4 0-0 11 ¦e1 d5! gave Black good counterplay in Sammalvuo,T−Norri,J/Helsinki, Finland 1995 (20).

8 dxe5

This has been White's automatic choice for the last century or so, but it's not the only move.

8 ¤c3!? is an interesting gambit option after which 8...¤xc3 9 bxc3 e4 (9...¥e7 is much safer) is very risky because of 10 ¤g5 − see Stephenson,N−Dilworth,V/Durham v. Cheshire County Match 1964 (17).

8...¥e6 9 ¥e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-vLN+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRN+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This move is currently trendy, and offers good chances of an advantage.

9...¥c5

This is interesting, allowing the exchange of dark−squared bishops. 9...¥e7 is sound, 10 c3 transposing to [C83]. 9...¤a5 Black tries to play with the c−pawn as early as possible but this is always

dangerous without developing first. 10 ¤bd2 ¤xd2 11 £xd2 c5 12 ¥g5! ¤xb3 13 axb3 £d7 14 c3 White is planning to play b4 to liberate the d4−square for the knight, see Sebag,M−Radulski,J/Cappelle la Grande 2006.

9...¤c5?! (Korchnoi) 10 ¤c3 ¤xb3 11 cxb3! ¥e7 12 ¦c1 with a plus.

10 £e2 £e7

10...¥xe3 11 £xe3 ¤a5 12 ¤c3 ¤xc3 13 £xc3 ¤c4 14 ¥xc4 bxc4 15 b4 and Black found himself saddled with a bad bishop in Korneev,O−Martinez Lizarraga,M/Madrid Open, Spain 2000 (29).

54

Perhaps Black should give preference to 10...0-0 transposing to the Keres line, [C81].

11 ¦d1 ¦d8 12 ¤bd2 ¥xe3 13 £xe3 £c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trk+-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+pwqpzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-wQN+-0 9PzPPsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14 £e2 ¤xd2 15 ¦xd2 0-0 16 ¦ad1 ¤a5

A simple and sound idea,

17 ¦d4

White now uses the d4−square to mount an attack, Kryvoruchko,Y−Simacek,P/Olomouc CZE 2006.

55

Open Variation − 9.Nbd2 [C80]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0 ¤xe4 6.d4 b5 7.¥b3 d5 8.dxe5 ¥e6 9.¤bd2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPPsN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤c5

9...¥e7 10.¦e1!? (10.c3 transposes to [C83]) 10...¤c5 11.c3 d4 Shirov,A−Ivanchuk,V/Sofia BUL 2009.

10.c3 d4

This allows White a dangerous but controversial piece sacrifice. 10...¥g4 is seen in [C82]. 10...g6?! I can't recommend this idea despite Marin's best efforts to revive it. Almasi,Z−

Marin,M/Reggio Emilia ITA 2008. 10...¥e7 11.¥c2 0-0 12.¦e1 d4 transposes to 9 ¥e7. 10...¤xb3 this was introduced by Beliavsky in 1977, but scores very badly for Black and

so it's rather rare, 11.¤xb3 ¥e7 12.h3 0-0 Adams,M−Short,N/London ENG 2009.

11.¤g5

56

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+psn-zP-sN-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The smoke has cleared around this move, Tal's idea, and we now know it leads to a

forced draw. 11.¥xe6 ¤xe6 12.cxd4 ¤cxd4 13.a4! Karpov broke Korchnoi's resistance with this

move and won the match in Merano in 1981. 25 years later it is still considered one of the most dangerous lines against the Open Spanish, and needs accurate handling by Black, (13.¤e4 is the old main line, 13...¥e7 14.¥e3 ¤f5 15.£c2 0-0

16.¤eg5!? Adams,M−Golod,V/Germany GER 2011) 13...¥b4 a very modern approach (13...¥c5?! 14.¤e4 ¥b6 15.¤fg5! an energetic attacking thrust − see De Firmian,N−Timmermans,I/Copenhagen DEN 2002 (21), 13...¦b8 14.axb5 axb5

15.¤e4 ¥e7 16.¥e3 ¤f5 led to equality in Nijboer,F−Reinderman,D/Dieren NED 2007) 14.axb5 ¤xb5 15.£a4 the most challenging move. (15.£b3 ¥xd2!? very provocative, (15...a5 16.£c4 ¤bd4 17.¤xd4 £xd4 18.£c6+ ¢e7 19.¤f3 £d7 20.£c2 h6

21.¦d1 £b5 and Black wriggled out in Volokitin,A−Nakamura, Biel 2005)

16.¦xa6!? Sutovsky,E−Mikhalevski,V/Ashdod ISR 2006.) 15...¥xd2 (15...¥e7 is passive, see the brilliant game Almasi,Z−Mikhalevski,V/Heviz HUN 2008)

16.¥xd2 0-0 17.¦fd1 c5 Jakovenko,D−Mikhalevski,V/Novi Sad SRB 2009.

11...£xg5

The sharpest, although there is 11...¥d5 12.¤xf7 ¢xf7 13.£f3+ ¢e6 14.£g4+ as in Polgar,J−Mamedyarov,S/Bled Olympiad, Slovenia 2002 (23).

12.£f3 0-0-0

Black players could investigate 12...¥d7 13.¥xf7+ ¢e7 14.¥d5 ¤xe5 15.£e2 d3 16.£e1 ¦e8 17.f4 £g4 18.fxe5 ¢d8 as in Cheparinov,I−Mikhalevski,V Internet 2003, although I believe that White has the advantage after 19.¤b3! ¢c8 20.£e3

13.¥xe6+ fxe6 14.£xc6 £xe5 15.b4

57

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vl-tr0 9+-zp-+-zpp0 9p+Q+p+-+0 9+psn-wq-+-0 9-zP-zp-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-vL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.cxd4 £xd4 16.b4 £xb4 17.a4 was the double−edged continuation of Ehlvest,J−

Korneev,O/Reykjavik Open 2004 (50). Current theory suggests this is fine for Black.

15...£d5 16.£xd5 exd5 17.bxc5 dxc3 18.¤b3 d4 19.¥a3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+ktr-vl-tr0 9+-zp-+-zpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+pzP-+-+-0 9-+-zp-+-+0 9vLNzp-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can also try 19.¦d1 when 19...d3 20.¥e3 ¥e7 (20...d2!? is critical and seems fine)

21.¥d4 proved to be difficult for Black in Grigoriants,S−Danilovic,A/Moscow 1997 (41).

19...g6

This has been popular of late, though it's not clear that it's much different to 19...¥e7, for example 20.¥b4 ¥f6 21.a4 ¢d7 (21...bxa4 22.c6 d3 23.¦xa4 d2 was Ninov,N−Dimov,K/Correspondence 1995 (41)) 22.axb5 axb5 23.¦a6 brought about complex play in Timman,J−Smyslov,V/BRD 1979 (55).

The experimental 19...¦d5 was tried in Naiditsch,A−Rogers,I/Wijk aan Zee 2003 (40).

20.¥b4 ¥g7 21.a4 d3!

58

A reasonable alternative is 21...bxa4 22.c6 d3 23.¦xa4 d2 when Black managed to draw in Hracek,Z−Haba,P/Lahucovice CZE 2003 (38).

More interesting is 21...¢d7 22.axb5 axb5 23.¦fd1 (23.¦ad1 ¢e6 24.¦fe1+ ¢d5 25.¥xc3

¢c4 was complex in Shirov,A−Timman,J/Wijk aan Zee 1996 (49)) 23...¢e6 24.¦ac1 ¦he8?! (24...¦d5 is critical) 25.¢f1 ¢f5 26.c6! was good for White in Kasparov,G−Shirov,A/Linares 2001 (38).

22.axb5 d2 23.bxa6

The most dangerous move. 23.c6 ¢b8 is fine for Black − see Shirov,A−Anand,V/Mainz 2004 (42).

23...c2 24.¤xd2 ¥xa1 25.¦xa1 ¦he8 26.¦c1 ¦e4

and Black had sufficient counterplay in Morozevich,A−Ponomariov,R/Biel 2004.

59

Open Variation − Keres Line [C81]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¤xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ¥b3 d5 8 dxe5 ¥e6 9 £e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9PzPP+QzPPzP0 9tRNvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The Keres Variation.

9...¥c5

Alternatively, 9...¥e7 10 ¦d1 0-0 11 c4 is the point, exploiting the pin on the d−file, 11...bxc4 12 ¥xc4 ¥c5! (12...£d7 13 ¤c3 ¤xc3 14 bxc3 f6 15 exf6 ¥xf6) 13 ¥e3 ¥xe3 14 £xe3 £b8! 15 ¥b3 Ivanchuk,V−Nakamura,H/Cap d'Agde FRA 2008.

10 ¥e3

This often arises from the move order 9 ¥e3 ¥c5 10 £e2, instead.

10...0-0

This is a very safe way to play and I believe that Black has real chances to equalize.

11 ¦d1

60

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+pvlpzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-vLN+-0 9PzPP+QzPPzP0 9tRN+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This plan seems to give White the slightly more comfortable game and as such he has

scored well in practise.

11...¥xe3

11...d4 12 ¥xe6 fxe6 13 ¥c1 ¤xf2 14 £xf2 ¤xe5 15 ¢h1± 11...¤a5 12 ¤bd2 ¥xe3 13 £xe3 transposes. 11...¦e8!? 12 c4 d4! 13 ¤c3 Balogh,C−Korchnoi,V/Paks HUN 2007, when 13...¤xc3!

14 bxc3 bxc4 15 ¥xc4! dxe3! is a speculative queen sacrifice.

12 £xe3 ¤a5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+-+l+-+0 9snp+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+L+-wQN+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRN+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This idea is rather solid and Black should hold..

13 ¤bd2 ¤xd2 14 ¦xd2 c6 15 ¦e1 £c7 16 c3 ¦ae8

16...¦ad8 the rook is misplaced here, 17 ¦d4 c5 18 ¦h4 Felgaer,R−Kaidanov,G/Khanty Mansiysk 2005.

17 £g5!?

61

A new idea to control the f5−square, and prepare ¤d4.

17...h6 18 £g3

Kotronias,V−Mamedyarov,S/Warsaw 2005, which is a very instructive game to help understand White's plans in the Open Spanish.

62

Open Variation − 9 c3 Bc5 & 9...Nc5 [C82]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¤xe4 6 d4 b5 7 ¥b3 d5 8 dxe5 ¥e6 9 c3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9+-zp-+pzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...¤c5

9...¥c5 is an important alternative, 10 ¤bd2 (10 £d3 0-0 11 ¤bd2 is Amonatov,F−Korchnoi,V/Sochi RUS 2007, when 11...f5 is the standard move) 10...0-0 11 ¥c2 (11 £e2 doesn't promise any advantage, 11...¥f5! Motylev,A−Caruana,F/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009) 11...f5 this usually leads to big complications, (11...¤xf2!? is the Dilworth Variation. 12 ¦xf2 f6 13 exf6 ¥xf2+ 14 ¢xf2 £xf6, 11...¥f5 12 ¤b3 ¥g4 13 ¤xc5

¤xc5) 12 ¤b3 ¥b6 13 ¤fd4 ¤xd4 14 ¤xd4 ¥xd4 15 cxd4 f4! 16 f3 ¤g3 see Garcia,G−Mikhalevski,V/Miami 2008.

10 ¥c2 ¥g4

An ambitious move.

11 ¤bd2

11 ¦e1

11...£d7

63

Another possibility is 11...¤e6 12 ¦e1 ¥c5 The point of Black's move order is that he can now place his bishop on this more active square. 13 ¤f1 ¥h5 14 ¤g3 ¥g6 15 h4 d4!? Tibor Karolyi's recommendation, 16 ¥g5 (16 ¤g5 ¥xc2 17 £xc2 d3 gave Black good play in Van den Doel,E−Sokolov,I/Netherlands NED 2008.) 16...£d7 17 cxd4 ¤cxd4 with complex play, Karjakin,S−Flear,G/Hastings ENG 2002.

11...¥e7 12 ¦e1 0-0 13 ¤b3! This line is rather dangerous for Black, as I know from personal experience. (13 h3 ¥h5 14 ¤f1 ¦e8 15 g4!? White soon wins the d−pawn but practise has shown that Black has plenty of compensation, Guliyev,N−Graf,A/Ourense ESP 2007) 13...¤e6 14 £d3 g6 15 ¥h6 ¦e8 16 £e3! After this precise move Black experiences problems, White's idea is to play ¤fd4 to create a better pawn structure, 16...a5 17 ¤fd4 ¤cxd4 18 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 19 cxd4 c5 (19...¦c8 Palac,M−Jussupow,A/Turin ITA 2006.) 20 dxc5 Sutovsky,E−Svetushkin,D/Subotica SRB 2008.

12 ¦e1 ¦d8 13 ¤f1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-trkvl-tr0 9+-zpq+pzpp0 9p+n+-+-+0 9+psnpzP-+-0 9-+-+-+l+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtRNmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The knight frees the c1-h6 diagonal so the dark−squared bishop can develop. 13 ¤b3 ¤e6 14 £d3?! is somewhat artificial and Black got a good game after 14...¥h5

15 ¤fd4 ¤cxd4 16 cxd4 ¥g6 17 £e2 a5! in the game Spangenberg,H−Salas,C/Buenos Aires zonal, Argentina 2000 (39).

13...¤e6

13...¥e7 14 ¤e3 ¥h5 15 ¤f5 0-0 (15...¤e6?! 16 a4! Spoelman,W−Mikhalevski,V/Budva 2009) 16 b3 ¦fe8 and Black's pieces were working well together in Jens,J−Piket,J/Dutch Interclubs, Hengelo 2000 (32).

Krasenkov recommends 13...d4 in order to exploit White's omission of 13.¤b3.

14 a4 b4 15 a5 ¤a7

15...d4

16 ¤g3 bxc3 17 bxc3 ¤b5 18 h3

64

was good for White in Ramesh,R−Ledger,D/British Ch., Torquay, England 2002 (33).

65

Open Variation − 9 c3 Be7 [C83]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0 ¤xe4 6.d4 b5 7.¥b3 d5 8.dxe5 ¥e6 9.c3

The old mainline.

9...¥e7 10.¥e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+l+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+LzP-vLN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRN+Q+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This can also arise from 9 ¥e3 ¥e7 10 c3. Alternatives: 10.¤bd2 is the other main option, 10...0-0 (10...¤c5 11.¥c2 d4 12.¤b3 (12.cxd4!? White

is hoping to obtain a slight edge in an endgame, 12...¤xd4 13.¤xd4 £xd4 14.¤f3

£xd1 15.¦xd1 0-0 16.¥e3 ¦fd8 17.¦dc1! h6! Saric,I−Nielsen,P/Aix−les−Bains FRA 2011, 12.¦e1 transposes to 10 ¦e1 in [C80]) 12...d3 13.¤xc5 (13.¥b1 is more ambitious, 13...¤xb3 14.axb3 ¥f5!? 15.b4 0-0 16.¦e1 £d7! (16...£d5 Karjakin,S−Mamedyarov,S/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2009, 16...¥g6!? 17.h3 a5! equal, Shirov,A−L'Ami,E/Wijk aan Zee NED 2011) 17.h3 ¥g6! Shirov,A−Caruana,F/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010) 13...dxc2 14.£xd8+ ¦xd8 15.¤xe6 fxe6 16.¥e3 ¦d5! 17.¦fc1 ¤xe5 18.¤xe5 ¦xe5 19.¥d4! inviting the rook to g5 where it isn't very well placed, (19.¦xc2 Klovans,J−Korchnoi,V/Arvier ITA 2006)

19...¦g5 20.¦xc2 ¢f7 21.¥e3! ¦d5 (21...¦g4 22.b3 with a small edge, Adams−Smeets/Pardubice CZE 2007) 22.c4 bxc4 23.¦xc4 with an obvious structural advantage, Nisipeanu,L−Svetushkin,D/Predeal ROU 2007.) 11.¥c2

a) 11.¦e1 ¤c5 12.¤d4!? (12.¥c2 allows 12...d4) 12...¤xd4 13.cxd4 ¤d3! the earliest game with this move involved Alekhine in 1914! (13...¤xb3 14.¤xb3 a5

66

15.£c2 White hopes to retain a pull due to the presence of some weak points in the black camp along the c−file, Svidler,P−Sutovsky,E/Crete GRE 2007) 14.¦e3 ¤f4! Alekhine's preference, (14...¤xc1 15.¦xc1 c5 16.dxc5 ¦c8 looks dubious in view of 17.¦d3! (17.¦ec3?! Shirov,A−Carlsen,M/Moscow RUS 2007, when 17...d4!

makes sense.) 17...£c7 18.¥xd5 ¥xc5 19.¤b3) 15.¥c2 c5 16.¦g3! ¤g6! Almasi,Z−Timman,J/Paks HUN 2010.

b) 11.£e2 is an old continuation played by Botvinnik against Euwe in 1934, 11...¤c5 12.¤d4 £d7 (12...¤xd4 13.cxd4 ¤xb3 14.¤xb3 see Vachier Lagrave,M−L'Ami,E/Wijk aan Zee NED 2007, Tartakower, Euwe and later Keres and Korchnoi preferred 12...¤xb3 ) 13.¥c2 ¥g4 14.£e3 ¤xd4 15.cxd4 ¤e6 Black is ready to play ...c5, Smirin,I−Mikhalevski,V/Israel 2009.

11...f5 12.¤b3 the most popular move. (12.¤d4 ¤xd4 13.cxd4 c5 Adams,M−Carlsen,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008) 12...£d7 13.¤bd4 (13.¦e1 Timofeev,A−Mikhalevski,V/Budva 2009) 13...¤xd4 14.¤xd4 c5 15.¤xe6 £xe6 16.f3 ¤g5 A key position which has been tested many times. Most of the time Black is able to hold the fort here despite allowing White the potential slight advantage of the bishop pair − strong players use this line to equalize, 17.a4 The most popular continuation, which has been known since 1923. White opens the a−file for his rook and creates a tactical threat, 17...¦ad8 (17...g6 see Parligras,M−Vallejo Pons,F/Baden Baden GER 2007.) 18.axb5 axb5 19.¦a7!? Naiditsch,A−Mikhalevski,V/Budva 2009.

10.a4 ¤c5!? 11.axb5 ¤xb3 12.£xb3 axb5 13.¦xa8 £xa8 14.£xb5 0-0 Black completes development and has the bishop pair to at least partially compensate for his pawn, Morozevich,A−Carlsen,M/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2007.

10.¦e1 this is historically rare, 10...0-0 11.¤d4 £e8!? 12.¥c2 ¤xd4 13.cxd4 f5! thematic in this type of position, the central knight is maintained and Black obtains breathing space, Gashimov,V−Svetushkin,D/Moscow RUS 2007.

10...0-0

10...¤c5 11.¥c2 ¤d7 a pretty safe line for Black, which usually leads to a dry position with minimal chances for White to fight for an advantage. 12.¦e1 temporarily sacrificing the pawn, (12.¥d4 holds the centre, 12...g5!? with sharp play, Arencibia Rodriguez,W−Vallejo Pons,F/Calvia ESP 2007) 12...¤dxe5 13.¤xe5 ¤xe5 14.¥d4 ¤g6 the main line,

a) 14...¤c6 15.¥xg7 ¦g8 unclear, Sandipan,C−Shabalov,A/Moscow RUS 2006 b) 14...f6!? the new way of handling the position for Black introduced by Acs,

15.¥xe5 (15.a4!? b4 16.f4!? this move sets more problems for Black than the unimpressive (16.cxb4 as chosen by Svidler) 16...¥g4 17.£d2 Adams,M−Timman,J/London ENG 2008) 15...fxe5 16.£h5+ ¥f7 17.£xe5 ¢f8 18.¤d2 ¥d6! with equal chances in Adams,M−Greenfeld,A/Catalan Bay ENG 2007.

15.¥xg7 ¦g8 16.¥xg6 ¦xg7 17.¦xe6 hxg6 18.¦e2 see Balogh,C−Mikhalevski,V/Khanty−Mansiysk 2010.

11.¤bd2 £d7

67

11...¤xd2 is also played, 12.£xd2 ¤a5 Navara,D−Polgar,J/Prague CZE 2010.

12.¦e1

12.¥c2 f5 13.exf6 ¤xf6 14.£b1 ¢h8! Black has overall done quite well from this position, see Akopian,V−Filippov,A/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2007.

12...¦ad8

12...¤xd2 13.£xd2 ¤a5 14.¥g5!? This move was recommended by Keres a long time ago, 14...c5 in the Open Variation Black has to careful about allowing his queenside majority to become too rigid, (14...¥xg5 15.£xg5 ¤xb3 16.axb3 ¥g4

Inarkiev,E−L'Ami,E/Kusadasi TUR 2006) 15.¥c2 ¤c4 16.£d3! The threat of mate forces Black's hand, Jakovenko,D−Sutovsky,E/Poikovsky RUS 2007.

13.¥c2 ¥f5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-trk+0 9+-zpqvlpzpp0 9p+n+-+-+0 9+p+pzPl+-0 9-+-+n+-+0 9+-zP-vLN+-0 9PzPLsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is considered to be Black's best choice although it leads by force to an ending

where White can constantly press thanks to his better structure. 13...¤xd2 14.£xd2 ¥f5 15.¦ad1 ¥xc2 16.£xc2 leaves White with a small advantage.

This was confirmed in the games Khalifman−Mikhalevski 1997 and Golod−Mikhalevski 1997 where Black was twice on the verge of losing.

14.¤xe4 ¥xe4 15.¥xe4 dxe4 16.£xd7 ¦xd7 17.e6 fxe6 18.¤d2 ¤e5 19.¤xe4

This is the critical position of the line, White's knight is very strong.

19...¤d3 20.¦e2 ¦f5

68

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-zprvl-zpp0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+p+-+r+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-zPnvL-+-0 9PzP-+RzPPzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This is a well−known endgame with slightly better chances for White.

21.¢f1

21.f3 Korneev,O−Mikhalevski,V/Montreal CAN 2006.

21...¢f7 22.¦d2 c5 23.f3

Leko,P−Akopian,V/Astrakhan RUS 2010.

69

Spanish 5...Be7 − Intro [C84]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0

5.d4 first, might be more accurate, as it avoids the Open Spanish, Archangel, etc. 5...exd4 6.0-0 ¥e7 then transposes.

5...¥e7 6.d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzppvlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Alekhine and Keres both used to like 6.¤c3 and it is becoming popular again from an

Archangel move order. A good way to meet it is with 6...b5 7.¥b3 ¥b7 (7...d6 8.d3

0-0 9.¤d5 ¤a5 10.¤xe7+ £xe7 as in Verlinsky,B−Levenfish,G/Soviet Championships, Moscow 1924 (28)) 8.d3 0-0 9.¥d2 (9.¤d5 ¤a5 10.¤xe7+ £xe7 is Salov,V−Malaniuk,V/Tallinn 1981 (22)) 9...d6 10.a4 (10.¤d5! ¤xd5 11.¥xd5 White has a very small advantage here but it should not be underestimated, Khairullin,I−Khalifman,A/Moscow RUS 2006) 10...¤d4!? (Bologan's 10...¤a5

11.¥a2 b4 12.¤d5 ¤xd5 13.exd5 c5 14.c3 b3! is good) 11.¤xd4 exd4 12.¤e2 c5 13.¤g3 Motylev,A−Tomashevsky,E/Moscow RUS 2005, when 13...£d7 with the idea of ...¥c6, to force a decision on the a−file, looks interesting.

6.d3 b5 (6...d6 7.c3 0-0 8.¦e1 b5 (8...¤d7!? plans ¤b6 followed by ...f5, 9.d4 (9.¥e3

Caruana,F−Korchnoi,V/Gibraltar 2011.) 9...¥f6 10.¥e3 ¤b6 Gashimov,V−Najer,E/Wattenscheid GER 2011.) 9.¥c2 ¥b7 (9...¦e8 10.¤bd2 ¥f8 covers the f5−square.) 10.¤bd2 ¦e8 11.¤f1 ¥f8 12.¤g3 g6 13.d4 ¥g7 Kobalia,M−Mikhalevski,V/Aix les Bains 2011.) 7.¥b3 d6 8.a4 ¦b8 (8...¤a5 used to be the favoured response here, 9.axb5 ¤xb3 10.cxb3 0-0 Black's bishops and better pawn

70

structure offer sufficient compensation for the pawn, 8...¥d7 9.¥d2 b4 10.c3 0-0 is also good, Navara,D−Aronian,L/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010) 9.axb5 axb5 10.¤c3 0-0 11.h3 ¤b4!? an entirely new and original idea, the knight exploits tactical points to help protect d5 − ¤d5 is White's main strategical idea in such positions. 12.¤e2 c5 13.¤g3 ¥e6 and Black scored a sparkling victory, Carlsen,M−Aronian,L/Elista RUS 2007.

6...exd4

An alternative is 6...¤xe4 when 7.¥xc6?! (7.¦e1 is probably best) 7...dxc6 8.£e2 ¥f5 9.dxe5 0-0 gave Black excellent play in Anand,V−Piket,J/Melody Amber Rapid 1997 (13).

6...b5 7.¥b3 d6 (7...exd4 8.e5 ¤e4 9.¥d5 ¤c5 10.¤xd4 is bad for Black − see Petronic,J−Savic,M/Yugoslavian Championship 2000 (15)) 8.c3 ¥g4 9.h3 ¥xf3 10.£xf3 exd4 11.£g3 gives White good compensation for the pawn. (less good is 11.¦d1

as in Lobron,E−Hort,V/Dortmund 1982 (22).)

7.¦e1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzppvlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9L+-zpP+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7.e5 forces a pawn structure similar to some lines of the Italian 3 Knights. 7...¤e4

8.¤xd4 0-0 (8...¤xd4 9.£xd4 ¤c5 is also fine for Black but he has to be careful, see Martin,A−Rayner,F/Guernsey 1988 for the dangers Black can face if his play is inaccurate.) 9.¤f5 d5 10.¥xc6 (10.exd6 ¥xf5 11.dxe7 ¤xe7 leads to complete equality.) 10...bxc6 11.¤xe7+ £xe7 12.¦e1 ¦e8 13.f3 ¤d6!? to quickly attack e5, (13...¤c5!? Black plans to put his bishop on f5 and his knight on e6, 14.b3 ¤e6

15.£d2 £c5+ 16.£f2 £d4 the ending is pleasant for Black due to his active possibilities on the queenside, Gashimov,V−Ivanchuk,V/Antalya 2004.) 14.¥f4 (14.b3?! f6! Bielczyk,J−Kholmov,R/Pardubice 1994) 14...¥f5 15.¤d2 ¤b7 the knight looks strange, but in many cases can come back to the ideal square on e6, Petrov,A−Kholmov,R/Pardubice 1998.

7...b5 8.e5

71

8.¥b3 d6 9.¥d5 ¤xd5 (9...¥d7 is less incisive − see Michalek,J−Sosna,J/Extraliga, Ostrava 2000 (24)) 10.exd5 ¤e5 11.¤xd4 0-0! (11...¥d7 12.¤c3 0-0 and Black had a good game in Chereches,M−Karolyi,T/Budapest HUN 2001 (19).) 12.a4!? ¥g4!? Black tries to induce White to play f3, slightly weakening his position, Perez,L−De la Paz,F/Santa Clara 2005.

8...¤xe5 9.¦xe5 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9+p+-tR-+-0 9L+-zp-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most solid, on the other hand it only gives an equal game. 9...bxa4!? 10.¤xd4 0-0 White now has many tactical tricks, 11.¤f5 (if 11.¥g5 then

11...¤d5 is correct, 11.£f3 could be very tricky as well, 11...¦b8 12.¤f5 ¦e8 13.£g3

g6) 11...¦e8 12.¥g5 d6 13.¤xe7+ ¦xe7 14.¥xf6 gxf6 this position looks a bit dangerous at first sight but White is under developed and has no time to exploit Black's weaknesses, see Baratosi,D−Malaniuk,V/Timisoara ROM 2006.

10.¦e1 bxa4 11.¤xd4 ¥d7 12.£f3 0-0 13.¤c6 ¥xc6 14.£xc6 d5

and Black's activity outweighs the damage to his pawn structure − see Namyslo,H−Motwani,P/Cappelle la Grande Open 1996 (26) for an example.

72

Delayed Exchange [C85]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¥xc6

The delayed exchange on c6 hopes to demonstrate that the position of Black's knight on f6 is less than optimal and that it's worth losing a tempo to watch it go there. To some extent this is true, but the knight can reposition itself on d7 without too much inconvenience.

6...dxc6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzp-vlpzpp0 9p+p+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

7 £e1

Probably White's must interesting move, but not the only one: a) 7 d3 is solid, for example 7...¤d7 (7...¥d6!? is a good alternative, 8 ¤bd2 (8 d4 looks

strong, but Black can equalize with the simple 8...¥e7!) 8...¥e6 9 b3 ¤d7 10 ¥b2 c5 Kamsky,G−Aronian,L/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006) 8 ¤bd2 0-0 9 ¤c4 f6 (9...¥f6

10 ¥d2 ¦e8 is also a reasonable plan but after 11 ¥c3 I don't like the 11...¦e6?! of Schussler,H−Karklins,A/New York Open 1987 (21).) 10 ¤h4 ¤c5

73

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+pzp-vl-zpp0 9p+p+-zp-+0 9+-sn-zp-+-0 9-+N+P+-sN0 9+-+P+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

(Instead, 10...g6 11 ¥h6 ¦f7 12 f4 led to a quick white crush in Hort,V−

Westerinen,H/Orebro 1966 (27).) 11 ¤f5 ¥xf5 12 exf5 £d5 13 £g4 ¦fe8 14 ¦e1 and now 14...¦ad8 is a solid looking move with approximate equality (14...e4 did not work out well in the game Ivanchuk,V−Kramnik,V/Monaco MNC 2002 (38).)

b) 7 ¤c3 has not been seen much lately, but Black must know what he's doing. For example 7...¥g4 (7...¤d7 8 d4 exd4 9 £xd4 is nice for White − see Soltis,A−Halfdanarsson,J/Haifa 1970 (34)) 8 h3 ¥h5 9 g4 (9 £e2 is a quiet way for White to play it − see Wolff,P−Kavalek,L/USA (ch) 1985 (38)) 9...¤xg4 (9...¥g6 10 ¤xe5

¥xe4 has the reputation of being bad for Black but this is not clear − see Vaskan−Klovans,J/USSR 1966 (32)) 10 hxg4 ¥xg4 11 £e2 (11 ¢g2 ¥c5 gave Black a very dangerous attack for the sacrificed piece in Large,P−Littlewood,P/London 1983 (25)) 11...£d6 12 £e3 ¥h3 13 ¤h4 ¥xf1 14 ¤f5 £f6 15 ¢xf1 was far from clear in Conquest,S−Stefansson,H/Hafnarfirdi 1992 (68).

7 £e2 is sometimes played too, but I recall super−GM Michael Adams saying to me several years ago that he reckons 7...c5! is absolutely fine for Black. Two key points are:− (i) It counters the idea of ¦d1 then d2−d4 by White

(ii) 8 ¤xe5 can be well−answered by 8...£d4

7...¤d7

Black can also play the immediate 7...c5, for example 8 ¤xe5 £d4 9 ¤f3 £xe4 10 £xe4 ¤xe4 11 ¦e1 ¤f6 was fine for Black in Blatny,P−Ehlvest,J/New York USA 2003 (49).

Black can also play first 7...¥e6 when he achieved a solid position after 8 b3 (8 ¤xe5 £d4

echoes the final point in the previous notes accompanying White's 7th move.) 8...¤d7 9 ¥b2 f6 10 d4 ¥d6 11 ¤bd2 (11 c4 c5 is OK for Black,, 11 dxe5 fxe5

followed quickly by ...0-0, especially to make full use of a freshly−opened f−file.) 11...0-0 12 £e2 £e8 (12...b5 13 c4 was nice for White in Plaskett,J−Sasikiran,K/Hastings 2000 (38)) 13 dxe5 (13 ¤c4!?) 13...fxe5 14 ¤g5 was only slightly better for White in Rechel,B−Motwani,P/Groningen Open, The Netherland 1990 (30).

7...£d6 8 d4! intending 8...exd4?? 9 e5

74

8 b3 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzpnvlpzpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+-zp-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+P+-+N+-0 9P+PzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvL-wQRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Stopping d2−d4 by White. 8...0-0 9 ¥b2 ¥d6 10 d4 (10 d3 ¦e8 11 ¤bd2 ¤f8 12 £e3 c5 Plaskett,J−Davies,N/4NCL,

West Bromwich 2004 (17)) 10...exd4 11 ¤xd4 ¦e8 (Both 11...£h4!? and, 11...£f6!?

look interesting here.) 12 ¤f5 proved to be very dangerous in Blatny,P−Goldin,A/Martinovsky Memorial, USA 2002 (28).

8...f6 9 ¥b2 0-0 10 d4 exd4 11 ¤xd4 ¤c5 12 ¤d2 ¦e8 13 £e3 was played in the game Plaskett,J−Pein,M/Southend ENG 1999 (17) and would also have been reasonable for Black had he now played 13...¥f8 .

9 ¥b2 ¥d6 10 d3

White can also play 10 a4 but after 10...¦b8 11 ¤c3 0-0 12 ¤d1 ¦e8 13 ¤e3 b5 Black was well placed in Hodgson,J−Hebden,M/Telford ENG 2003 (74).

10...0-0 11 ¤bd2 b5 12 £e3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zpn+pzpp0 9p+-vl-+-+0 9+pzp-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+P+PwQN+-0 9PvLPsN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...h6 13 g3 ¦e8

75

and Black was OK at this stage in Plaskett,J−Emms,J/London 1989 (35).

76

Worrall − 5...Be7 6.Qe2 [C86]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 £e2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzppvlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzPQzPPzP0 9tRNvL-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This, the so−called Worrall Attack, can also be reached via 5.£e2. A favourite of Paul

Keres and Alexander Alekhine it recently found favour with Britain's Nigel Short.

6...b5 7 ¥b3 0-0

7...d6 will normally transpose after 8.c3 0-0, though it can have some independent significance after 8 a4 (8 c3 ¥g4 committal (8...¤a5 9 d4!? was an experiment tried in Alekhine,A−Rey Ardid,R/Zaragoza 1944 (23), 8...0-0! transposes to the mainline) 9 h3 ¥h5 10 ¦d1 0-0 11 d3 d5? Mamedov,R−Naiditsch,A/Moscow RUS 2007, when White can win with the obvious 12 g4 ¥g6 13 g5 ¤h5 14 ¥xd5) 8...¥g4 9 c3 0-0 10 h3 (10 ¦d1 b4 11 a5 d5!? gave Black counterplay in Alekhine,A−Schmidt,P/Salzburg 1942 (33)) 10...¥d7 (10...¥h5 11 d3 ¤a5 12 ¥c2 c5

13 axb5 axb5 14 g4 left Black's bishop shut out of play in Kashdan,I−Reshevsky,S/New York 1940 (55)) 11 d4 £c8 12 ¦d1 b4 13 cxb4 (13 a5)

13...exd4 14 ¤xd4 ¤xb4 15 ¤c3 c5 gave Black enough counterplay in Kashdan,I−Reshevsky,S/USA 1942 (39).

8 c3

Another possibility is 8 ¦d1 though after 8...¦e8 9 c3 d5 White should avoid the 10 exd5 of Leenhouts,K−Geirnaert,S/Hengelo 2001 (19) in favour of 10.d3.

77

Interesting too is 8 d4!? after which 8...d5 9 dxe5 ¤xe4 10 c3 ¥e6 11 ¤bd2 ¤c5 12 ¥c2 d4 13 ¥b1!? led to sharp play in Alekhine,A−Zollner,H/POL 1942 (34) (see C83).

8...d6

White should meet 8...d5 with 9 d3 (9 exd5 ¥g4 10 dxc6 e4 is very dangerous − see Foltys,J−Keres,P/Salzburg 1943 (30)) and then try to force Black to clarify the central tension with either ...dxe4 or ...d4. After the further moves 9...¥b7 (9...dxe4

10 dxe4 gave White an easy game in Alekhine,A−Junge,K/POL 1942 (28)) 10 ¦e1 (10 ¦d1 ¦e8 11 ¤bd2 ¤a5 12 ¥c2 c5 13 ¤xe5 led to considerable chaos in Davies,N−Nunn,J/Hastings 1987 (33)) 10...¦e8 11 ¤bd2 ¥f8 12 a3 h6 White should probably play 13 ¥a2 (13 h3 is less logical − see Moor,R−Jenni,F/Young Masters tourn., Switzerland 2001 (19).)

9 ¦d1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-zPQzPPzP0 9tRNvLR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The immediate 9 d4 is also possible, but the restrained text has its advantages.

9...¤a5

9...¥e6 10 d4 ¥xb3 11 axb3 exd4 12 cxd4 d5 13 e5 ¤e4 14 ¤c3 and White had the better game in Strikovic,A−Shirov,A/Val Maubuée 1990 (23).

10 ¥c2 c5 11 d4 £c7 12 ¥g5

12 dxe5 dxe5 13 ¤bd2 ¦d8 gave Black easy equality in Kaminski,M−Davies,N/Liechtenstein 1993 (26).

White's most interesting move is 12 d5

12...¥g4 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 ¤bd2 ¦fd8 15 ¤f1 ¤h5

And Black had equalised in Alekhine,A−Keres,P/Salzburg 1942 (57).

78

Spanish − 5...Be7 6.Re1 d6 [C87]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 d6

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqk+-tr0 9+pzp-vlpzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A little played line which is nevertheless quite interesting. Omitting ...b7−b5 has some

pros and cons. 6...0-0?? loses a pawn to 7 ¥xc6 dxc6 8 ¤xe5

7 c3

White can also play 7 ¥xc6+ bxc6 8 d4 but 8...exd4 (8...¤d7!?) 9 ¤xd4 ¥d7 gives Black a solid game.

7...¥g4 8 d3 ¤d7

79

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqk+-tr0 9+pzpnvlpzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9L+-+P+l+0 9+-zPP+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black wants to control the center with ...¤c5−e6, but his main idea is to change his

black bishop via g5.

9 h3

9 ¥e3 ¥xf3 10 £xf3 ¥g5 was quite reasonable for Black in Anand,V−Short,N/Dortmund 1997, but White has an edge.

9...¥h5 10 ¥e3 h6!?

This is better than 10...¥xf3 11 £xf3 ¥g5 12 ¥xc6 bxc6 13 ¤d2 0-0 14 £g4 ¥xe3 15 ¦xe3 with a small plus for White.

11 g4!? ¥g6 12 ¤bd2

Topalov,V−Mamedyarov,S/Wijk aan Zee NED 2006.

80

Anti−Marshall [C88]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 0-0

Sweden's Johnny Hector has experimented with 7...¥b7, for example 8 d4 (One of Black's ideas is to meet 8 c3 with 8...d5 9 exd5 ¤xd5 10 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 11 ¦xe5 ¤f4)

8...¤xd4 9 ¤xd4 exd4 10 e5 ¤e4 11 £f3 0-0! 12 ¦xe4 c5 as in Stefansson,H−Hector,J/'Sigeman & Co.', Sweden 2002 (22).

8 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zppvlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+L+-+N+-0 9-zPPzP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Traditionally this has been the most popular way to sidestep the Marshall (which occurs

after 8.c3 d5), but it isn't the only way. Lev Psakhis and others have favoured 8 h3 i.e. 8...¥b7 9 d3 (9 c3 allows a kind of

Marshall anyway after 9...d5 − see Men,B−Kaidanov,G/Cardinal 1992 (27).) 9...d6 a) 9...d5!? on the current evidence this Marshall−like gambit is fine for Black, 10

exd5 ¤xd5 11 ¤xe5 (11 a4!? Leko,P−Jakovenko,D/Elista RUS 2008) 11...¤d4 see Ivanchuk,V−Svidler,P/Foros 2008.

b) 9...¦e8 is also popular. 10 a3 ¤a5 this Chigorin−like set up is the most popular system for Black against the

8.h3 Anti−Marshall, a) 10...£d7 intending the manoeuvre ...¤c6−d8−e6, is a solid system that has

caused White players many headaches. 11 ¤c3 (11 ¤bd2 ¦fe8 12 c3 d5!

Gashimov,V−Aronian,L/Linares ESP 2010) 11...¦fe8 12 ¤e2 ¤d8 13 ¤g3 ¤e6 14 c3 (14 ¤f5 ¥f8 15 ¤g5?! d5 Le Quang,L−Deepan Chakkravarthy,J/Cebu City

81

2007., 14 ¥a2 c5 15 ¥d2!? planning a future c2−c4 thrust, Gashimov,V−Kamsky,G/Baku AZE 2008) 14...c5 15 d4 commencing central operations is the most popular option, but I get the impression that Black often gets a good game after resolving the tension in the centre. (15 ¥a2!? is a logical move, preparing the standard b2−b4, Gashimov,V−Miton,K/Marseille FRA 2008) 15...exd4 16 cxd4 d5 17 e5 ¤e4 18 ¤f5 Al Modiahki,M−Deepan Chakkravarthy,J/Cebu City 2007.

b) 10...h6 11 ¤c3 ¦e8 12 ¤d5 see Grischuk,A−Kamsky,G/Khanty Mansyisk RUS 2005.

c) 10...¤b8 11 ¤bd2 ¤bd7 12 ¤f1 ¦e8 13 ¥a2 ¥f8 14 ¤g5!? delaying ¤g3 in order to quickly play f4, Gashimov,V−Ivanchuk,V/Astrakhan RUS 2010.

11 ¥a2 c5 12 ¤bd2 ¤c6 13 ¤f1 ¥c8! this looks like the simplest, bringing the bishop to e6 to neutralise White's light−squared prelate, 14 ¥g5 (14 c3 ¥e6 15 ¥xe6 fxe6 16 b4

d5 Kamsky,G−Bacrot,E/Jermuk ARM 2009) 14...¤e8 (14...¥e6 15 ¥xf6 White is more then willing to give up the bishop pair if it means he gets a little more control over the d5−square, 15...¥xf6 16 ¤e3 ¥g5 17 ¤d5 ¥h6 18 b4 Gashimov,V−Bacrot,E/Baku AZE 2008) 15 ¥d2 (exchanging dark−squared bishops by 15 ¥xe7

¤xe7 16 ¤e3 doesn't look right, Anand,V−Kasimdzhanov,R/Leon 2005) 15...¤c7 (15...¥e6 see Anand,V−Aronian,L/Linares 2007.) 16 ¤e3 ¥e6 17 ¤d5 a5 18 a4! is a typical method to force ...b4 after which White can gradually manoeuvre his knight to c4, Gashimov,V−Ponomariov,R/Dagomys RUS 2008.

8 a3!? White prepares a possible retreat for the bishop on a2, and can consider a later b4, 8...¥c5!? 9 c3 d6 10 d4 ¥b6 reaching a typical Archangel position where White has his pawn on a3 instead of a2, Carlsen,M−Aronian,L/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2008.

8 d4 ¤xd4 (8...d6 is considered to be safer, 9 c3 ¥g4 with transposition to C91) 9 ¤xd4 The most popular continuation. (9 ¥xf7+ This way White wins a pawn, but Black obtains counterplay. 9...¦xf7 10 ¤xe5 ¦f8 11 £xd4 c5 Black has to play fast in order to justify the pawn sacrifice, see Kamsky,G−Anand,V/Nice FRA 2009.) 9...exd4 10 e5 ¤e8 11 c3 dxc3 12 ¤xc3 d6 13 £f3 ¥e6 14 ¤d5 ¦c8 15 ¥f4 reaching the critical position of this line, see Leko,P−Aronian,L/Jermuk ARM 2009.

8...¥b7

8...b4 thanks to the efforts of GM Grischuk this move, together with Black's next few moves, has become part of a very reliable system. 9 d4!? a very interesting try against this line, White simply plays with the c4−square in hand and the better structure, (9 d3 d6 10 a5 ¥e6 11 ¤bd2 £c8 is the impressive Hou Yifan−Harikrishna/Pardubice CZE 2007, 9 a5 is a relatively rare line, 9...d6 10 c3 ¦b8 11

¥c4 ¥e6 12 ¥xa6 ¦a8 Karjakin,S−Svidler,P/Dresden GER 2008) 9...d6 10 dxe5 ¤xe5 (10...dxe5 11 £xd8 ¦xd8 12 ¤bd2 ¥d6 Karjakin,S−Aronian,L/Nalchik RUS 2009) 11 ¤xe5 dxe5 12 £f3 ¥b7 13 ¤d2 few games have reached this position but White has a good score, see Ivanchuk,V−Aronian,L/Sochi RUS 2006.

9 d3 d6

82

9...d5!? White's move order is intended to stop the Marshall Gambit, so it is interesting that Black tries it anyway. On the one had White has played the solid d3 instead of c3, but on the other Black has played ...¥b7. 10 exd5 ¤xd5 11 axb5 axb5 12 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 13 ¤xe5 ¤d4 with compensation, Ivanchuk,V−Bacrot,E/Odessa UKR 2007.

10 ¤bd2

Kasparov prepared this move for his 1993 encounter with Nigel Short. At one time everyone used to play 10 ¤c3 when the knight often comes to g3 via e2. 10 c3!? Delaying ¤bd2 to free up a retreat for the light−squared bishop on c2, 10...¤a5

11 ¥c2 c5 12 ¤bd2 g6!? Palliser,R−Gormally,D/Scarborough Open 2006.

10...¤a5

The Chigorin approach is the most popular here. 10...h6 is slightly risky, 11 ¤f1 ¦e8 12 ¤g3 ¥f8 13 c3 Dvoirys,S−Plachetka,J/Cappelle

la Grande Open 2007.

11 ¥a2 c5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+l+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzp-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-+P+N+-0 9LzPPsN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12 ¤f1 ¦e8

12...b4 13 c3 ¦b8!? 14 cxb4! cxb4 15 ¥d2 and White won convincingly in Svidler,P−Jenni,F/Baden Baden GER 2006.

13 ¤e3 g6 14 ¥d2 b4 15 ¤g5 ¦f8 16 ¤g4!

and White had good attacking chances in Kasparov,G−Vladimirov,E/Europe vs. Asia Rapid Match, B 2001 (25).

83

Marshall Gambit [C89]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 0-0 8.c3 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Marshall's sharp counterattack.

9.exd5

9.d4!? is one way of avoiding the mega−theory of the Marshall Attack, 9...exd4 10.e5 ¤e4 11.¤xd4!? Belov,V−Akopian,V/Moscow RUS 2007.

9...¤xd5

9...e4?! is a dubious alternative, met by 10.dxc6 exf3 11.g3! not the most popular, but a safe line, (11.£xf3 ¥g4, 11.d4!) 11...¦e8 12.d4 ¥g4 13.¥g5 Nakamura,H−Short,N/London ENG 2010.

10.¤xe5 ¤xe5 11.¦xe5 c6

84

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+p+-+-+0 9+p+ntR-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-zP-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQ+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

When Marshall first introduced this gambit he played 11...¤f6 and lost. Afterwards he

decided that 11...c6 was an improvement. 12.h3 (12.d4 ¥d6 13.¦e1 ¤g4 14.h3 £h4

15.£f3 transposes) 12...¥d6 13.¦e1 ¤g4 14.£f3 £h4 15.d4 ¤xf2 16.¦e3 (Capablanca played 16.¦e2 in the well−known stem game Capablanca,J−R− Marshall,F New York 1918.) 16...¤d3! Sjugirov,S−Akylbekov,N/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010, when 17.g3! is best.

12.d4

The main line, but White has several alternatives: 12.d3 has become very popular of late, 12...¥d6 13.¦e1 ¥f5 (the idea is that after

13...£h4 14.g3 £h3 15.¦e4 £f5 White's rook is protected by the pawn on d3 − see Anand,V−Adams,M/Dortmund, Germany 2000 (45). (15...£d7 Kotronias,V−Sokolov,I/Caleta ENG 2009) ) 14.£f3 £h4 (14...¦e8!? failed to equalise in Shirov,A−Onischuk,A/Poikovsky 2008) 15.g3 £h3 16.¥xd5 (16.¤d2!? ¦ae8

17.¤e4 blocks the e−file and prepares to develop the c1-bishop and coordinate the rooks, but leads to a fairly equal endgame, Polgar,J−Aronian,L/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008) 16...cxd5 17.£xd5 (17.a4!? Nakamura,H−Adams,M/London ENG 2010) 17...¦ad8 18.£g2 £h5! (18...£xg2+ 19.¢xg2 ¥xd3 aims to draw the endgame, 20.¥e3 ¥e4+ the latest word, which was introduced by Aronian's second, Sargissian, against Bacrot, (20...¦fe8 see Stellwagen,D−Harikrishna,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008) 21.¢f1 (21.f3 ¥c6 and with a series of precise moves Black equalised in Bacrot,E−Aronian,L/Kallithea GRE 2008.) 21...¥c6 22.¤d2 f6 with drawing chances, Bacrot,E−Aronian,L/Dresden GER 2008.) 19.¥e3 ¥h3!? 20.£h1 f5 with attacking chances for the two pawns, 21.¥b6 ¦d7 22.£d5+ ¢h8 23.¤d2 ¥xg3 24.£xd7 ¥f4 25.£b7 ¥xd2 26.¥d4 ¦g8 27.¦e7 ¥c1 28.¦e1 ¥f4 29.¦e3 ¥xe3 30.¥xe3 h6!? (30...¦e8 see the brilliant game Smeets,J−Bacrot,E/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008, 30...£g4+ 31.¢h1 f4 32.¦g1 £c8 leads to an ending an exchange up) 31.£c7 ¦e8 Sutovsky,E−Jakovenko,D/Poikovsky 2008.

12.¦e1 ¥d6 13.g3!? a speciality of Moldovan no.2 Iordachescu, (13.d4 and, 13.d3 both transpose to other lines) 13...¥f5 (13...£d7 14.d4 £h3 transposes to the mainline)

14.d4 £d7 15.¥e3 ¦ae8 16.¤d2 ¥g4 17.£c2 (17.£b1 see Naiditsch,A−

85

Gustafsson,J/Dresden GER 2007) 17...¥f5 18.£c1 the critical position, see Anand,V−Svidler,P/Mexico City MEX 2007.

12.¥xd5 is the so−called Kevitz Variation after which 12...cxd5 13.d4 ¥d6 14.¦e3 £c7!? is an interesting alternative to 14...£h4 − see Mithrakanth,P−Yurtaev,L/Goodricke Open, Calcutta 2000 (28).

12...¥d6 13.¦e1

After 13.¦e2 £h4 14.g3 £h3 15.¤d2 ¥f5 16.a4 ¦ae8 Black obtained good compensation for the pawn in Kotronias,V−Adams,M/Chalkidiki, Greece 1992 (21).

13...£h4 14.g3 £h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+LzP-+-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.¥e3

White has a major alternative in 15.¦e4 which prevents ...¥g4 and threatens to eject Black's queen from h3 with ¦h4. Black usually replies with 15...g5 after which 16.£f1 (16.£e2 f5 17.¥xd5+ cxd5 18.¦e6 f4!! was a stunning novelty played in Ponomariov,R−Anand,V/Linares 2002 (28)., An interesting alternative is 16.£f3

¥f5 17.¥c2, sacrificing the exchange in order to take the initiative. Admittedly this did not work out too well after 17...¥xe4 18.¥xe4 £e6 19.¥xg5 f5 in the game Topalov,V−Adams,M/Bosna SuperGM, Sarajevo 2000 (42)) 16...£xf1+ this has been preferred recently, Black tries to exploit his advantage in the endgame. He hopes to quickly get to the seventh rank, (16...£h5 is more natural, but Black has been suffering after 17.¤d2 ¥f5

a) 17...¤f6 Todorovic,J−Vajda,L/Herceg Novi MNE 2006, when I think that 18.£e2! is strong

b) 17...f5!? this move is under a cloud at the moment, 18.¥d1! (18.¦e1 f4 19.¤e4 Almasi,Z−Gyimesi,Z/Hungary HUN 2006, (19.¥d1 f3! Vachier Lagrave,M−Svidler,P/Donostia ESP 2009) and now 19...¥h3!? ) 18...£h6 (18...g4 19.¦e1

Motylev,A−Beliavsky,A, Wijk aan Zee NED 2006, when Finkel suggests

86

19...¦a7!) 19.¦e1 f4 20.¤e4 ¥c7 21.¥d2! ¥f5 22.¤c5 ¥d6 (22...¦f7!? Shirov,A−Akopian,V/Carlsbad CZE 2007) 23.¥f3 and White won nicely, Galkin,A−Nielsen,P/Dresden GER 2007

18.f3 introduced by Kramnik in the World Championship match against Leko in Brissago 2004. (18.¥xd5? led to a major upset in the game Korchnoi,V−Silver,J/Santa Monica 1977 (21)) 18...¤f6 (18...¦ae8 equalised in Vachier Lagrave,M−Adams,M/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010) 19.a4!? a strong move, giving the exchange for a pawn and a strong centre, (19.¦e1 led to a bad loss for White in Kramnik,V−Leko,P, Brissago 2004, 19.£g2 £g6 20.¦e3 ¦ae8 21.¤e4 is the latest try, see the note to Shirov,A−Akopian,V) 19...¤xe4 20.¤xe4 and now 20...£g6 looks best. (20...¥xe4 Kurnosov,I−Azarov,S/Kusadasi TUR 2006)

21.¤xd6 £xd6 22.¥xg5 £g6 with fairly balanced chances Shirov,A−Aronian,L Moscow 2006) 17.¢xf1 ¥f5 (17...h6 18.¤d2 ¥f5 19.¦e1 now that the g5−pawn is protected the rook must retreat, Volokitin,A−Ponomariov,R/Foros UKR 2006)

18.¤d2! this the point of this line, White can win some tempi thanks to the weakness of the pawn on g5. 18...¦ad8 (18...¦ae8 this move is not the best because White is not forced to move his rook, 19.f3! see Motylev,A−Sargissian,G/Moscow RUS 2006) 19.f3!? ¥xe4 20.fxe4 ¤c7 21.a4! a strong improvement, (21.¤f3?!

Grigoriants,S−Lalic,B/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2007) 21...h6 22.¢g2 ¦d7 23.h4! White is attacking all over the board, Jakovenko,D−Zhang Zhong/Ergun CHN 2006.

15.¤d2 is a plausible looking move, but after 15...¥g4 16.f3 ¥xg3! Black won quickly in the game Quinn,D−Hussain,N/Istanbul Olympiad, Turkey 2000 (24).

15.£e2 is gaining in popularity, 15...¥d7!? a recent idea from the French GM Fressinet, (15...¥g4 16.£f1 ¦ae8 (16...£h5 17.¤d2 is rare, 17...¦ae8 (17...¤f4!? might not be enough for equality, see So,W−Megaranto,S/Olongapo City PHI 2010) 18.f3 f5!? So,W−Gupta,A/Wijk aan Zee NED 2009.) 17.¦xe8 £xf1+ 18.¢xf1 ¦xe8 19.¥d2 Covering the e1-square White defends against 19...¥h3+ and 20...¦e1 mate, Volokitin,A−Inarkiev,E/Budva MNE 2009.) 16.£f1 £f5 (16...¦ae8 17.¦xe8 (17.£xh3 ¦xe1+ 18.£f1 transposes) 17...£xf1+ 18.¢xf1 ¦xe8 19.¥d2 ¤b6 20.¥e3 ¤d5 21.a4!? (21.¥xd5 Kamsky,G−Bacrot,E/Nalchik RUS 2009)

21...¤xe3+ 22.fxe3 ¦xe3 23.axb5 axb5 24.¦a6 Leko,P−Jakovenko,D/Dortmund GER 2009) 17.¥e3 (17.¤d2 ¦ae8 18.f3 ¤f6 19.a4 c5! Black creates counterplay in the centre, 20.¦xe8 ¦xe8 21.¤e4 ¦xe4 22.fxe4 (22.¥c2 also seems to lead to a draw, Svidler,P−Grischuk,A/Moscow RUS 2009) 22...£xe4 23.¥f4!? ¥c6! 24.d5 c4! which appears to lead to a forced draw, Dominguez Perez,L−Leko,P/Wijk aan Zee NED 2010.) 17...¦ae8 18.¤d2 h5 Black's idea is to create pressure on the kingside by means of ...h4 and ...£g6, (18...¦e7!? to double rooks, Ni Hua−Adams,M/London ENG 2009) 19.£g2 h4 Alekseev,E−Aronian,L/Nalchik RUS 2009.

15...¥g4

87

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvl-+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzP-vL-zPq0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9tRN+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's usual move, but not the only one. Black played 15...¦a7!? in the game Zaragatski,I−Plachetka,J/Mitropa Cup, Saint−

Vincent 2001 (28), which had the idea of simply doubling rooks on the e−file.

16.£d3 ¦ae8 17.¤d2 ¦e6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zPq0 9PzP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Spassky's Variation, Black prepares to double rooks on the e−file. 17...f5 is the most direct try for Black, but after correct defense White stays ahead,

18.f4! ¢h8 (18...g5?! the Pawn Push variation, 19.£f1 £h5 20.£g2 (20.fxg5 ¦xe3

21.¦xe3 f4 22.¦f3! maybe White's best, see pawn push Analysis two/2005) 20...gxf4 21.¥xd5+ cxd5 (21...¢h8 22.¥xf4 ¥xf4 23.¥xc6 ¥e3+ 24.¢h1 ¦e6 25.¥f3! R.Fischer!)

22.£xd5+ ¢g7 23.¥xf4 ¥xf4 24.gxf4 ¢h8 25.¤f1 is the start of pawn push Analysis one/2005) 19.¥xd5 cxd5 20.£f1 £h5 21.£g2 ¦e4 22.h4! White's strategy is simple: to defend on the kingside while the rook attacks the black pawns on the queenside.

17...£h5 Thanks to Sargissian this line has a chance to become the main line. 18.¥c2 this prevents ...¥f5,

a) 18.a4 ¦e6 transposes. b) 18.£f1 ¦e7 was introduced in Dortmund 2007 by Leko. 19.a4 (19.¥xd5 led to a

draw in Bacrot,E−Inarkiev,E/Elista RUS 2008) 19...¦fe8 20.¥xd5 £xd5 21.axb5

88

axb5 22.£g2 with a small advantage, 22...£xg2+ 23.¢xg2 h5!? (23...f6

Inarkiev,E−Leko,P/Elista RUS 2008) 24.¦ec1 Anand,V−Aronian,L/Wijk aan Zee NED 2011.

18...f5 19.f3! ¥h3 20.¥f2 ¤f4! a strong novelty, (20...£g5 Sutovsky,E−Heimann,A/Kallithea GRE 2008) 21.gxf4 ¥xf4 22.¥g3 £g5! 23.¥b3+! (23.¤f1

h5! see Efimenko,Z−Sargissian,G/Dresden GER 2008.) 23...¢h8 24.¤f1 h5 Ni Hua−Sargissian,G/Dresden GER 2008.

18.a4

18.c4? ran into the powerful 18...¥f4! in Kuzmin,G−Malinin,V/Sudak 2002 (22). 18.£f1 is likely to transpose, 18...£h5 19.f3!? this was introduced at the top level by

Kramnik, (19.a4 bxa4! (19...¦fe8 20.axb5 axb5 is the mainline) 20.¦xa4 f5 21.f4 ¦fe8 Again this is the best choice for Black. little by little we arrived at a critical position, see Fleck,J−Wegner,H/Germany 1990.) 19...¤xe3 (19...¦f6 20.£g2!

Naiditsch,A−Sargissian,G/Kallithea GRE 2008, 19...¥f5 20.¤e4 ¥xe4 21.fxe4 ¦xe4

22.¥d1 allows White to win an exchange, see Bacrot,E−Jakovenko,D/Kallithea GRE 2008) 20.£f2 ¤d5 21.fxg4 £xg4 22.£f3! gives White a marginal edge in any ending, 22...£g5 23.¦xe6 fxe6 24.¤e4! an important intermediate move, 24...£g6 25.£d3! (25.£e2 Kramnik,V−Aronian,L/Yerevan ARM 2007.) 25...¥e7 (25...h5!? was tried in Jakovenko,D−Bacrot,E/Dortmund GER 2009) 26.¦e1 £f5 Naiditsch,A−Onischuk,A/Kallithea GRE 2008.

18...£h5

After 18...f5 the critical line is 19.axb5! (For 19.£f1 £h5 see Renet,O−Nunn,J/European Team Ch., Haifa 1989 (22).) 19...f4 20.¥xf4 ¥xf4 21.¦xe6 ¥xe6 22.bxa6 with 4 strong pawns against a piece.

19.axb5

The plausible 19.¥d1? allowed 19...¤xe3 20.fxe3 ¥xg3! in Shulingkamp,M−Kaidanov,G/New Orleans Open 1992 (21).

19...axb5

89

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9-+pvlr+-+0 9+p+n+-+q0 9-+-zP-+l+0 9+LzPQvL-zP-0 9-zP-sN-zP-zP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main position of this line.

20.£f1

20.¤f1 is an alternative, for example 20...¥f5 21.£d2 (21.£d1 ¥g4 22.£d2) 21...¥h3!? (21...¦fe8 22.¥xd5 cxd5 23.£e2 gave White what chances that were going in Del Rio Angelis,S−Hebden,M/Port Erin IOM 2003 (61).) 22.¥d1 £g6 23.¥f3 £f5! Shirov,A−Aronian,L/Bilbao ESP 2009.

20.¥d1? ¥xd1 21.¦axd1 f5 and Black had a strong attack in the game Hellers,F−Sokolov,I/Haninge 1989 (30).

20.c4 is Tal's move.

20...¦fe8

20...¥h3 21.¥d1! £f5 22.£e2 Ivanchuk,V−Grischuk,A/Sochi RUS 2005.

21.¥xd5 £xd5 22.h3 ¥h5

Threatening ...¥xg3. 22...¥f5 23.£g2 £xg2+ 24.¢xg2 Even in this endgame White found it very difficult to

prove any advantage in Leko,P−Kasimdzhanov,R/Linares ESP 2005.

23.£g2 £xg2+! 24.¢xg2 f5 25.¤f3 f4!

Nisipeanu,L−Leko,P/Dresden GER 2008.

90

Closed Variation − 9.d3 [C90]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3

There is an interesting alternative in 8 a4, for example 8...¦b8 9 axb5 axb5 10 c3 0-0 11 d4 was nice for White in the game Kobalija,M−Dervishi,E/European Individual Ch., 2001 (27) as after 11...¥g4? 12 d5! the knight on c6 is lost.

8...0-0 9 d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzPP+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

This quiet move has some poison − White will delay d3−d4 until he has completed his

development. Once again 9 a4 is possible, with Black falling into the above mentioned trap after

9...¦b8 10 d4 ¥g4? 11 axb5 axb5 12 d5 in the game Martin Gonzalez,A−Mundet,J/Spanish Ch., Barcelona 2000 (12).

9...¤a5 10 ¥c2 c5 11 ¤bd2 ¦e8

91

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqr+k+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzp-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zPP+N+-0 9PzPLsN-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Probably Black's best and most flexible move. A good alternative is 11...¤c6 after which 12 ¤f1 was answered by the aggressive

12...d5!? in the game Beshukov,S−Vajda,L/European Club Championship 2000 (33).

Less good is 11...£c7?! because it doesn't serve any particular purpose when e5 is not under pressure − see Teichmann,R−Schlechter,C/Carlsbad 1911 (25).

Also dubious is 11...¥g4?! 12 h3 ¥h5 because the h5 bishop is shut out of play after 13 ¤f1 ¤c6 14 ¤g3 − see Munn,W−Jeffrey,A/Glasgow Congress 1965 (20).

12 ¤f1 ¥f8

Black can also prevent ¥g5 before retreating his bishop to f8 with 12...h6 13 h3 (13 d4

exd4 14 cxd4 ¥g4! 15 d5 ¤c4 gave Black good counterplay in Emms,J−Short,N/Gibraltar 2004 (94).) 13...¥f8 14 a3 ¤c6! 15 b4 (15 d4?! gave Black a good game in Mahdi,K−El Taher,F/Dubai Open, 2001 (26).) 15...d5!? 16 exd5 ¤xd5 17 ¥d2 ¥b7 Bologan,V−Karjakin,S/Mainz GER 2010.

12...¥b7 13 ¤g3 g6 14 ¥g5 ¤d7 Hansen,E−Mikhalevski,V/Edmonton 2009.

13 ¤g3 g6 14 ¥g5 ¥g7 15 £d2 ¥b7

and a complex middlegame was in prospect in Nunn,J−Howell,D/Mind Sports Blitz Tournament 1999 (66).

92

Central Attack − 9.d4 [C91]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6

7...0-0 8 d4 d6 9 c3 is an alternative move order that avoids the Marshall Attack.

8 c3 0-0 9 d4

This line has become popular recently for three reasons: first, it is very useful to surprise your opponent nowadays, second, this line can be used as very good anti−Marshall weapon, third, it is much faster to learn this line than to become acquainted with all the subtleties of the long mainlines.

9...¥g4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+l+0 9+LzP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

10 ¥e3

Black can neutralise 10 d5 with 10...¤a5 11 ¥c2 £c8!, the move that essentially put 10.d5 out of business. Black will still play ...c6 as in the other line, but defers it for one move in order to be able to retreat the g4−bishop to d7 without having to fear the reply ¤xe5 (11...c6 is the older line, 12 h3 after this move, if Black wants to retain his bishop the only available squares are c8 or h5. (12 dxc6 £c7 13 h3 ¥h5 Karpov's line, (13...¥c8 transposes below) 14 ¤bd2 ¦ad8! the most precise, (14...¤xc6 15 ¤f1 ¦ad8 16 ¤e3 is in time to hinder ...d5, Kuzmin,G−Lukacs,P/Budapest 1978) 15 £e2 ¤xc6 16 ¤f1 ¦fe8 and Black was OK in

93

Popov,V−Karpov,A/Riga 1968) 12...¥c8 (12...¥h5 left Black's light squared bishop out of play in the game Stein,L−Rodriguez Gonzalez,J/Havana Olympiad 1966 (33).) 13 dxc6 £c7 14 ¤bd2 £xc6 15 ¤f1 ¤c4 (15...¥e6 is less usual, 16 ¤g3 (16 ¤g5 HYDRA−Adams,M/London ENG 2005) 16...¦fe8 17 ¤g5 (17 ¤h4

d5! a new gambit which gives Black good chances, Kamsky,G−Grischuk,A/Khanty Mansyisk RUS 2005) 17...¥d7 18 a4 Gashimov,V−Roiz,M/Novi Sad SRB 2009.) 16 £e2!? this looks more flexible than (16 ¤g3 see Timman,J−Spassky,B/Montreal 1979 (31)) 16...h6?! 17 ¤g3 ¦e8 18 ¤h4 with advantage, Stein,L−Kavalek,L/Caracas 1970.) 12 h3 (12 ¤bd2 c6 13 b4 forcing the knight to retreat, 13...¤b7 14 dxc6 £xc6 15 ¥b2 ¤d8 16 ¤f1 £b7 (16...¤e6

Ponomariov,R−Svidler,P/Panormo 2001) 17 ¤g3!? Kamsky,G−Karjakin,S/Mainz GER 2010.) 12...¥d7 13 ¤bd2 c6 14 dxc6 £xc6 15 ¤f1 ¤b7 and Black had nothing to fear in the game McShane,L−Sokolov,I/Bundesliga 2002 (37).

10...exd4

10...¤a5 looks better for White after 11 dxe5 ¥xf3 12 £xf3 dxe5 13 ¥c2 because of his bishop pair − see Gallagher,J−Vijayalakshmi,S/Gibraltar 2004 (33)

10...¥h5!? should transpose. 10...¥d7 might be a good surprise weapon, 11 ¥c2 ¤g4 12 ¥c1 ¥h4 see Ootes,L−

Mikhalevski,V/Biel 2010.

11 cxd4 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+-sn-+0 9+p+p+-+-0 9-+-zPP+l+0 9+L+-vLN+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRN+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The other main line is 11...¤a5 12 ¥c2 c5 (12...¤c4 13 ¥c1 c5 is another way to play it

for Black, 14 b3 ¤b6 15 ¤bd2 ¤fd7 (15...¦c8 − see Grischuk,A−Sokolov,I/Bled Olympiad, Slovenia 2002 (46)) 16 h3 ¥h5 17 g4 ¥g6 18 d5 (18 ¤f1 d5 19 e5 led to a famous finish in Tal,M−Portisch,L/Biel (izt) 1976 (37)) 18...¥f6 19 ¦b1 ¦e8 with Benoni−style play in Dominguez,L−Bologan,V/Poikovsky RUS 2005 (52)) 13 h3 (13 dxc5 dxc5 14 ¤c3 is not as innocuous as it seems, Timofeev,A−Tseshkovsky,V/Moscow RUS 2005 (89)) 13...cxd4 this is supposed to be best, but it is not so clear, (13...¥xf3!? 14 £xf3 cxd4 15 ¥xd4 ¤c6 aims to gain time at the cost of the bishop pair, Shomoev,A−Romanishin,O/Warsaw POL 2005 (40),

94

13...¥h5 14 ¤bd2 cxd4 15 ¥xd4 ¤c6 16 ¤b3 was better for White at this stage in Swathi,G−Davies,N/Gibraltar 2004 (34).) 14 ¥xd4 ¥h5 15 g4 ¥g6 16 ¤c3 but White went on to win convincingly in Dominguez,L−Inarkiev,E/Tripoli 2004 (32).

12 e5 ¤e4 13 h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+n+-+-+0 9+p+pzP-+-0 9-+-zPn+l+0 9+L+-vLN+P0 9PzP-+-zPP+0 9tRN+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The most precise. White can also play the immediate 13 ¤c3, for example 13...¤xc3 14 bxc3 f5! (14...¤a5)

15 ¥f4 (15 £c1 is Grischuk,A−Short,N/Wijk aan Zee NED 2005 (34)) 15...g5!? 16 ¥c1 ¤a5 17 ¥c2 ¤c4 as in Sandipan,C−Hebden,M/Gibraltar 2004 (34).

13...¥h5 14 ¤c3 ¤xc3

14...¥b4 is strongly met by 15 ¤xd5 (15 ¦c1 ¥xc3 16 bxc3 ¤a5 17 ¥c2 f5! in the game Mordue,T−Hebden,M/4NCL, Birmingham 2000 (25).) 15...¥xe1 16 £xe1 ¥xf3 17 gxf3 ¤g5 18 ¢g2 with good compensation for the exchange.

15 bxc3 ¤a5

15...£d7!? is an interesting alternative, 16 ¥c2! is probably strongest (16 g4!? ¥g6 17 ¤d2

a5! 18 f4 a4 19 ¥c2 ¥xc2 20 £xc2 f5 and Black won a superb attacking game in Shirov,A−Ivanchuk,V/Foros UKR 2007.) 16...¤d8 17 a4 ¤e6 18 g4 ¥g6 19 ¥f5 ¦fc8 20 h4 mounting a kingside attack, Nisipeanu,L−Naiditsch,A/Heviz HUN 2008.

16 ¥c2 ¤c4 17 g4 ¥g6 18 ¥f5

95

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-+-+l+0 9+p+pzPL+-0 9-+nzP-+P+0 9+-zP-vLN+P0 9P+-+-zP-+0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18...a5

18...¥xf5 19 gxf5 f6! 20 e6 £e8 brought about dynamic equality in Grischuk,A−Sokolov,I/Mainz GER 2003 (31).

19 £d3

19 ¥f4!? this move was introduced by Sznapik against Van der Sterren in 1984. The idea is to play h4 and after ¥xh4 to play on the h−file with ¢g2 and ¦h1, 19...b4 20 h4 ¥xf5 21 gxf5 f6! with this move Black takes the initiative, Smirnov,P−Sorokin,M/Tomsk 2004 (49).

19...b4 20 ¦e2 ¦a6

A multi−purpose move to control e6 and prepare play on the b−file with ...¦b6 followed by ...£b8.

20...¤xe3 Black tries a new plan, he wishes to attack White's center with ...c5, see Timofeev,A−Smirnov,P/Sochi RUS 2005 (44).

21 ¢g2 ¦b6 22 cxb4 axb4 23 ¦ae1

see Svidler,P−Delchev,A/Plovdiv 2003, and the brilliant finish.

96

Zaitsev Variation − 9...Bb7 [C92]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3

This move stops ...¥g4, and so d4 will come with more force.

9...¥b7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-trk+0 9+lzp-vlpzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+P0 9PzP-zP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The so−called Zaitsev Variation, which has been all the rage since it was taken up by

Anatoly Karpov.

10 d4

10 d3 ¦e8 11 ¤bd2 h6 12 ¤f1 ¥f8 is nothing much for White, Cheparinov,I−Tkachiev,V/Dresden GER 2007.

10...¦e8

10...¤d7 is relatively uncommon, Black protects the e5−pawn and prepares 11...¤a5, 11 d5 (11 ¤bd2) 11...¤a5 12 ¥c2 c6 13 dxc6 ¥xc6 Shirov,A−Rusev,K/Arvier ITA 2010.

11 ¤bd2

97

One of the drawbacks of this line from a practical point of view is that White can repeat moves with 11 ¤g5 ¦f8 12 ¤f3 if he wants.

11...¥f8 12 a4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqrvlk+0 9+lzp-+pzpp0 9p+nzp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9P+-zPP+-+0 9+LzP-+N+P0 9-zP-sN-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The critical move, but it is very tactical and requires lots of preparation. 12 d5 avoids the great complications of the mainline, 12...¤b8 (After 12...¤e7 13 ¤f1 h6

14 ¤3h2 c6 15 ¤g4 ¤xg4 16 hxg4! White later used the open h−file and the new g−pawn to attack Black's kingside in Dolmatov,S−Ibragimov,I/Dortmund 1992 (31).) 13 ¤f1 ¤bd7 14 ¤3h2! the knight heads for g4 to exchange the black defender of d5, while the other knight is kept ready to go to e3, (14 ¤g3 ¤c5 15

¥c2 c6 16 b4 ¤cd7 17 dxc6 ¥xc6 18 ¥b3 was all played in a game Lalic,B−Emms,J/London League 1999 (31) and now Black should have ruled out ¤g5 ideas with 18...h6) 14...¤c5 (14...¦c8!? is a refreshing new idea, 15 ¤g4 (15 ¥g5

was effective in Ni Hua−Leon Hoyos,M/Reggio Emilia ITA 2008) 15...¤xg4 16 £xg4 Leko,P−Ivanchuk,V/Moscow RUS 2008) 15 ¥c2 c6 16 b4 ¤cd7 17 dxc6 ¥xc6 18 ¥g5 h6 (18...£c7 is also popular, 19 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 20 ¤g4 ¤xg4 (20...¥e7

21 ¤xf6+ ¥xf6 22 ¥b3 and Black was crushed, Almasi,Z−Navara,D/Reggio Emilia ITA 2008.) 21 hxg4 ¥e7 22 ¤e3 ¥g5 Shirov,A−Karjakin,S/Odessa UKR 2010.) 19 ¥xf6 ¤xf6 20 ¤g4 ¤xg4 21 £xg4 ¦c8 22 ¥b3 ¥d7 23 £f3 ¥e6 24 ¦ed1 £g5 25 ¦d3 £f4 26 £e2 ¥xb3 27 axb3 d5 28 exd5! (28 ¦xd5 Leko,P−Adams,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008) 28...e4 29 ¦e3 and Black was in trouble, Kamsky,G−Adams,M/Baku AZE 2008.

Another possibility is 12 ¥c2 g6 the mainline, as preferred by Karpov, (12...h6 13 d5

introduced by GM Savon in 1962, 13...¤e7 14 b3 c6 15 c4 cxd5 16 cxd5 ¤d7 Black prepares ...f5, Ivanchuk,V−Morozevich,A/Nice FRA 2009.) 13 d5 (after 13 b3

Black hit back with 13...d5!? in the game Tseshkovsky,V−Beliavsky,A/Tashkent 1980 (41).) 13...¤b8 14 b3 c6 15 c4 ¤bd7 16 ¤f1 Jakovenko,D−Inarkiev,E/Jermuk ARM 2009.

12 a3 not a critical move, White simply wants to prepare a retreat for the light−squared bishop on a2, or c2 (when ...¤b4 would never be possible), and continue with b4, and maybe ¥b2. 12...h6 is prudent (12...¤b8? 13 ¤g5! and wins Bauer,C−Renet,O/Aix−les−Bains 2007.) 13 d5!? ¤b8 14 ¤h2 ¤bd7 (14...c6 Topalov,V−

98

Morozevich,A/Nice FRA 2009) 15 £f3 £c8 16 ¤df1 Karjakin,S−Grischuk,A/Bilbao ESP 2009.

12 ¤g5!? ¦e7 13 d5 ¤b8 (13...¤a5 14 ¥c2 c6 is a good alternative, see Nakamura,H−Svidler,P/Amsterdam NED 2010) 14 ¤f1 Kamsky,G−Topalov,V/Sofia BUL 2009.

12...h6!

12...exd4 13 cxd4 ¤b4 leads to very complex positions which were thoroughly explored in the Kasparov − Karpov matches.

12...£d7 is an older line, 13 axb5 axb5 14 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 15 d5 Haba,P−Nikolic,P/GER 2005

13 ¥c2 exd4 14 cxd4 ¤b4 15 ¥b1 c5 16 d5 ¤d7!

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqrvlk+0 9+l+n+pzp-0 9p+-zp-+-zp0 9+pzpP+-+-0 9Psn-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+P0 9-zP-sN-zPP+0 9tRLvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black's last move introduces two different plans.

17 ¦a3 c4 18 axb5 axb5 19 ¤d4 £b6

19...¦xa3 This move was introduced by Karpov in the stem game Kasparov−Karpov, World Championship match 1986 (14). 20 bxa3 ¤d3 21 ¥xd3 cxd3 22 ¥b2 Kasparov's move. (22 ¤xb5 £a5 23 ¤d4 £c3! and Black eventually equalised, Shirov,A−Karjakin,S/Bilbao ESP 2009) 22...£a5 23 ¤f5 g6! Grischuk,A−Karjakin,S/Bilbao ESP 2009.

20 ¤f5 ¤e5 21 ¦g3 g6 22 ¤f3 ¤ed3 23 ¥e3

23 £d2!? was successful in Anand,V−Adams,M/San Luis ARG 2005.

23...£d8

The queen has to be ready to go to f6 to defend g6.

99

24 ¥xh6

24 ¤xh6+!? Olivier Renet writing notes to Anand − Adams right back in 2005 suggested that this was probably best, 24...¥xh6 25 ¥xh6 £f6 Timofeev,A−Inarkiev,E/Novokuznetsk RUS 2008.

24...£f6 25 £d2 ¤xe1 26 ¥xf8

With sharp tactics − Black will need to give his queen for several white pieces, but the end result is always a draw by repetition.

26...¤xf3+ 27 ¦xf3 gxf5 28 ¦xf5 £g6 29 ¦g5 £xg5 30 £xg5+ ¢xf8 31 £h6+ ¢g8 32 e5

32 £xd6 RYBKA−ZAPPA/Mexico City MEX 2007.

32...¤d3!

and with care Black draws, Shomoev,A−Khalifman,A/Moscow RUS 2008.

100

Closed − Various 9th moves [C92]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ¤d7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zpnvlpzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+P0 9PzP-zP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A solid system which has been played by such notables as Anatoly Karpov and Peter

Svidler. Black prepares to bring his bishop to f6 where it can put pressure on the d4 square.

Alternatively: 9...a5!? Is an interesting variation favoured by Paul Keres in the past and more recently

by Victor Kupreichik and Sergei Smagin. 10 d4 a4 11 ¥c2 ¥d7 12 ¤bd2 ¦e8 13 ¤f1 h6 14 ¤g3 ¥f8 15 ¤h2 ¤a5 Wolff,P−Razuvaev,Y New York 1989.

9...¦b8!? is a semi−useful waiting move which has been played a few times by the young Polish player Gajewski, 10 d4 exd4 11 cxd4 d5 12 e5 ¤e4 13 ¤bd2 ¥f5 Kurnosov,I−Naiditsch,A/Dresden GER 2007, when 14 ¥c2 is critical.

Amongst Black's other possibilities it's worth mentioning 9...£d7, 9...h6 and 9...¢h8 .

10 a4

10 d4 ¥f6 11 a4 ¥b7 would come to the same thing, though Black might also consider 10...¤b6.

10...¥b7 11 d4 ¥f6 12 axb5 axb5 13 ¦xa8 £xa8 14 d5 ¤a5 15 ¥c2 ¤c4 16 b3 ¤cb6

101

and Black had very reasonable play in the game De Firmian,F−Svidler,P/North Sea Cup, Esbjerg, Denmark 2000 (46).

102

Breyer's Variation − 9...Nb8 [C95]


1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0 ¥e7 6.¦e1 b5 7.¥b3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 ¤b8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+LzP-+N+P0 9PzP-zP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The main idea behind the Breyer Variation is that Black will reactivate his queen's

knight (which is often a problem in the Closed Spanish) to d7, where it will not obstruct the queen's bishop which he intends to fianchetto at b7.

10.d4 ¤bd7 11.¤bd2 ¥b7

Black must be careful to avoid 11...¦e8?? 12.¥xf7+ as happened in the game Fluvia Frigola,J−Delgado Pico,L/Paretana, Spain 2000 (13).

12.¥c2

12.a4 c5 (12...¦e8 deserves attention, 13.¥c2 ¥f8 with transposition to a later line) 13.¥c2 (13.d5 c4! 14.¥c2 ¤c5 15.¤f1 (15.a5!? Polgar,J−Navara,D/Prague CZE 2010)

15...£c7 16.¤g3 was fine for Black in Polgar,J−Kasparov,G/Expo Blitz Internet match, Hun 2000.) 13...¦e8 14.d5 c4 15.b3 cxb3 16.¤xb3 £c7 17.¥d3!? a logical pawn sacrifice, see Topalov,V−Adams,M/Novi Sad SRB 2009.

12...¦e8

Black has a solid alternative in 12...c5 13.d5 (13.¤f1 is possible here too, 13...cxd4 14.cxd4

exd4 15.¤xd4 ¦e8 Smeets,J−Carlsen,M/Nice FRA 2010.) 13...g6! (13...¤e8 14.¤f1 g6

103

15.¥h6 ¤g7 16.¤e3 ¤f6 17.a4 was better for White in the famous game Karpov,A−Gligoric,S/Leningrad Interzonal 1973 (63)) and now 14.a4 ¤h5 15.¤f1 ¥f6 16.b3 ¥g7 was fine for Black in Torre,E−Gligoric,S/Manila 1974 (40).

13.¤f1

13.b3 ¥f8 14.d5 c6 15.c4 ¤b6 16.¥d3 ¤fd7 17.¥a3 cxd5 18.cxd5 f5 undermined the d5 pawn and gave Black excellent counterplay in Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Monaco MNC 2002 (37).

13.a4 ¥f8 14.¥d3 c6 15.b3 a) 15.¤f1 seems less accurate, see Vachier Lagrave,M−Sasikiran,K/Moscow

RUS 2010 b) 15.b4 is gaining more and more popularity, 15...¦c8!? (15...¤b6 16.axb5 cxb5!?

see Shirov,A−Carlsen,M/Bilbao ESP 2010) 16.axb5 cxb5 17.¥b2 d5! 18.exd5 exd4! Black has fully equalised, Anand,V−Carlsen,M/London ENG 2010.

15...g6 (15...£c7 16.¥b2 g6 (16...¦ac8 17.axb5! cxb5 18.c4! Karjakin,S−Tomashevsky,E/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010) 17.£c2 Cheparinov,I−Alekseev,E/Elista RUS 2008) 16.¥a3

a) 16.£c2 £b6 Portisch and Spassky successfully defended this rare line with the black pieces (16...£c7 17.¥a3 transposes) 17.¥b2 ¤h5 18.¥f1 exd4 (18...¤f4!?

Ivanchuk,V−Kamsky,G/Nice FRA 2009) 19.cxd4 d5 20.exd5 cxd5 21.¦xe8 ¦xe8 is equal, Vallejo Pons,F−Topalov,V/Linares ESP 2010.

b) 16.¥b2 ¥g7 (16...¤h5 Djukic,N−Mikhalevski,V/Novi Sad SRB 2009) 17.£c2 ¦c8 18.¦ad1 (18.¥f1 Petrosian,T−Khairullin,I/Moscow RUS 2011.) 18...¤h5 19.¥f1 ¤f4 Sebag,M−Koneru,H/Doha QAT 2011.

16...£c7 (16...¤h5 introduced by Lev Psakhis back in 1981, 17.¥f1 ¤f4 18.£c2 Anand,V−Kamsky,G/Nice FRA 2009) 17.£c2 ¥g7 (17...¤h5 Jakovenko,D−Svidler,P/Moscow RUS 2008.) 18.¦ad1 ¦ac8 bringing the queen's rook into play before opening the centre, Anand,V−Leko,P/Nice FRA 2009.

13...¥f8 14.¤g3

14.¥g5 An extremely rare line, though it was played by Tal, Timman and Short. 14...h6 15.¥h4 ¥e7 (15...exd4 16.cxd4 c5 see Gashimov,V−Navara,D/Sestao ESP 2010.) 16.¤g3! (16.¥g3 Vachier Lagrave,M−Beliavsky,A/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2010)

16...g6! (After 16...g5 17.¥xg5 hxg5 18.¤xg5 ¥f8 19.¤f5 White develops a dangerous initiative.) 17.£d2 Gashimov,V−Carlsen,M/Nanjing 2010.

14...g6

104

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqrvlk+0 9+lzpn+p+p0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+NsNP0 9PzPL+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...c6!? 15.¤f5 £c7 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.¤h2 c5 Black is intent on organising his

development without touching his g−pawn. It's almost as if he is trying to demonstrate that the knight on f5 is no big deal, see Anand,V−Morozevich,A/Morelia/Linares MEX/ESP 2007.

15.b3

Another major line of the Breyer runs 15.a4 and the last year or so has witnessed a discernible resurgence of interest in this old main line, 15...c5 16.d5 c4! Black's problem in this line is that his pieces will sometimes run out of space, so that possession of c5 for his knight, eyeing both b3 and d3, is an essential asset. 17.¥g5 h6 18.¥e3 ¤c5 19.£d2 (19.¤d2 is an interesting continuation, see Vaja,A−Mikhalevski,V/Chicago 2010) 19...h5 (The old move is 19...¢h7 when the critical reply is the direct 20.¤h2 (20.¦a3 ¦b8 21.¦ea1 ¦e7 gave Black a solid game in Spassky,B−Portisch,L/Geneve (m/3) 1977 (67)) 20...¥g7 21.¦f1 h5 22.f3 £e7 23.¥g5! £f8 24.f4! and White whipped up a dangerous attack in Spassky,B−Portisch,L/Geneve (m/9) 1977 (40)) 20.¥g5 (An interesting alternative is 20.¤g5 but this seems to be well met by 20...¥h6 (20...¥g7 may also be OK, see Short,N−Spassky,B/Montpellier (ct) 1985 (57)) 21.f4 h4 22.fxe5 ¦xe5 23.¤f3 ¥xe3+ 24.£xe3 ¤xd5! as in Nunn,J−Beliavsky,A/Linares 1988 (62)) 20...¥e7 21.¦a3 (21.¥h6 ¤h7 22.¦a3 ¦b8 23.¦ea1 ¥c8 should have been solid enough in Dorfman,J−Van der Sterren,P/Andorra (zt) 1998 (45)) 21...¤fd7 (The modern preference, but I am sceptical about the transfer of Black's knight to the queenside after having played ...h6−h5. The older 21...¦b8 plan may be better, for example 22.£e3 ¤h7 23.¥xe7 £xe7 24.¦ea1 ¥c8 gave Black a very tough position in Kavalek,L−Spassky,B/Torino 1982 (56)) 22.¥e3 ¥f6 (22...£c7 23.¤g5 ¤b6 24.a5!?

a declaration of kingside intent which seems justified by Black's knight excursion, Timofeev,A−Azarov,S/European Championship, Plovdiv 2008)

23.¦ea1 £e7 (23...¤b6 left Black skating on very thin ice in Georgiev,K−Ponomariov,R/Moscow 2001 (40). (40)) 24.£d1 ¤b6 was Sulskis,S−Sargissian,G/Batumi 2002, when 25.axb5 axb5 26.¦a5 would have been interesting.

105

15.¥g5 was introduced at the top level by Spassky and was then picked up by Fischer in his return match against Spassky in 1992. 15...h6 (15...¥g7 16.£d2 £e7 17.b3 c6

18.¦ad1 £f8 19.a4 putting pressure on the queenside, Karjakin,S−Kamsky,G/Nice FRA 2009.) 16.¥d2 ¥g7 (16...c5 is less popular, 17.d5 c4 Black takes some space on the queenside and prepares ...¤c5, Polgar,J−Avrukh,B/Natanya ISR 2009.) 17.a4 Karpov's move, which was introduced in 1971 in his training (!) match against Korchnoi. 17...c5 18.d5 c4 19.b4 introduced by Fischer in his return match against Spassky in 1992, 19...cxb3 20.¥xb3 see Balogh,C−Mikhalevski,V/Jenbach 2009.

15...d5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqr+k+0 9+lzpn+pvlp0 9p+-zp-snp+0 9+p+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+PzP-+NsNP0 9P+L+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

In the sixties, this sharp counter trust in the center was not considered necessary, and

15...¥g7 was preferred. 16.d5 ¤b6 Although this is the main line, it might be a slight error in view of White's reply. The knight is not particularly well placed on b6. Black has several alternatives, all of which deserve consideration:

a) 16...¦c8 is the latest fashion, 17.¥e3 a1) 17.c4 used to be the main line, in order to support the d5−pawn. 17...c6

18.¥d2 (hinders ...¤b6) 18...¤c5 (18...a5 Karjakin,S−Harikrishna,P/Motril ESP 2008) 19.¦b1 £c7 20.¥e3 a5 21.¥xc5!? Akopian,V−Alekseev,E/Elista RUS 2008.

a2) 17.¥d2 c6 18.c4 transposes 17...c6 18.c4 £c7 Black threatens to exploit the hanging position of the c2−bishop.

(18...¤b6 19.£e2 cxd5 (19...bxc4?! Vachier Lagrave,M−Harikrishna,P/Dresden GER 2008) 20.cxd5 ¤bxd5 Spassky's novelty, 21.exd5 ¤xd5 Black scores well here, see Tseitlin,M−Avrukh,B/Haifa ISR 2008) 19.¦c1 b4 20.£d2 a5 21.¥b1 (21.¤h4?! the knight will be misplaced on h4, Smeets,J−Roiz,M/Dresden GER 2008) 21...c5 was fine for Black at this stage in Anand,V−Van der Sterren,P/Wijk aan Zee 1998 (51).

b) 16...¥f8 17.¥g5 h6 18.¥e3 c6 19.c4 a5 (19...£a5!?) 20.£d2 ¢h7 21.¤h2 and now Black should probably have tried 21...a4!? rather than 21...b4 in Polgar,J−Spassky,B/Budapest m2 1993 (40).

106

c) 16...£b8!? 17.¥e3 c6 18.c4 £c7 19.¦c1 bxc4 20.bxc4 and now 20...a5 was probably the best (rather than 20...¤c5?! as in Smirnov,P−Socko,B/Halkidiki 2002 (49).)

17.¦b1! c6 18.c4 and White had an edge in Leko,P−Beliavsky,A/Bled 2002 (39). Black should not forget that he has a solid alternative in 15...c5 after which 16.d5 ¤b6

17.¥d3 is the game Van den Doel,E−Van der Sterren,P/Leeuwarden 2001 (39). This is similar to 12...c5 13.¤f1 and can arise from this line by transposition.

15...a5!? is a new idea of Kamsky's, 16.¥d2!? (16.¥d3 doesn't seem to promise much, 16...b4 17.cxb4 axb4 Smeets,J−Svidler,P/Nice FRA 2010.) 16...¦b8!? 17.¥d3 b4 18.£c2 d5!? increasing the central tension, Leko,P−Carlsen,M/Wijk aan Zee NED 2008.

16.¥g5!?

16.exd5 ¤xd5 17.dxe5 ¤xc3 18.£d3 ¤d5 was fine for Black in Polgar,J−Beliavsky,A/Munich 1991.

16...h6 17.¥h4 g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wqrvlk+0 9+lzpn+p+-0 9p+-+-sn-zp0 9+p+pzp-zp-0 9-+-zPP+-vL0 9+PzP-+NsNP0 9P+L+-zPP+0 9tR-+QtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

A critical position for the Breyer. 17...dxe4?! looked dubious after the game Polgar,J−Spassky,B/Budapest (m8) 1993.

18.¤xg5 hxg5 19.¥xg5 exd4!

This is considered to be the best try. 19...dxe4 20.¥xe4! scared people to death after the game Sherzer,A−Lesiege,A/Biel

1993.

20.e5 ¦xe5 21.¦xe5 ¤xe5 22.cxd4

107

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-wq-vlk+0 9+lzp-+p+-0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9+p+psn-vL-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+P+-+-sNP0 9P+L+-zPP+0 9tR-+Q+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22...¤c6!

Other moves lose quickly, e.g. 22...¤g6 23.£f3 ¥e7 24.¤f5 ¥a3 25.h4 ¥c8 26.h5 ¤f8 27.¤h6+ ¢g7 28.£g3+−

23.£d3!?

23.¤h5!? ¥e7 24.¥xf6 ¥xf6 25.£d3 straight to the point! Shirov,A−Mamedyarov,S/Moscow RUS 2006, but White only managed a perpetual.

23.¤f5? is a mistake which allows the sleeping bishop on b7 to come into the game by 23...¥c8 Polgar,J−Mamedyarov,S, Hoogeveen NED 2006.

23...¤b4 24.£f3 ¥e7

Grischuk,A−Mamedyarov,S/Moscow RUS 2006, when

25.¥f5

is the most dangerous move.

108

Gajewski Variation − 10...d5!? [C96]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ¤a5 10 ¥c2 d5!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9snp+pzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zP-+N+P0 9PzPLzP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The novelty everyone is talking about! Black plays a sort of Marshall in two goes (he

has already played ...d6!) with his knight on a5. White has the h3 move 'for free', but does this help him?

10...c5 is the classical Chigorin's line.

11 exd5

The most popular, but White does have tempting alternatives: 11 d4 Bacrot suggested that this move is best, and he may yet be proved right. 11...dxe4

(11...¤xe4 is also playable 12 dxe5 f5!? 13 exf6 ¥xf6 Kotronias,V−Lie,K/Malmo SWE 2008) 12 ¤xe5 c5 13 ¥e3 (13 ¥g5!? ¥b7 14 ¤d2 cxd4 15 cxd4 ¦e8!? Black is OK, Dominguez Perez,L−Carlsen,M/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2007., 13 ¤d2!? cxd4 14

¤xe4 dxc3 15 £f3! is a dangerous forcing line, see Kravtsiv,M−Brkic,A/Gaziantep TUR 2008) 13...¥b7 14 ¤d2 £c7 15 £b1 (15 ¥f4 leads to sharp complications, Almasi,Z−Stevic,H/Plovdiv BUL 2008.) 15...cxd4 16 ¥xd4 ¥d6 17 ¤g4 winning the e4−pawn, can Black get enough counterplay? See Kononenko,D−Gajewski,G/Pardubice CZE 2008.

11 ¤xe5 looks like one of the weakest in this position, 11...dxe4 12 b4!? ¥d6! 13 d4 exd3 14 ¥xd3 ¥xe5! Black concedes one of his bishops to accelerate his development, Leon Hoyos,M−Miton,K/Lubbock USA 2007.

109

11...e4 12 ¤g5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vlpzpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9snp+P+-sN-0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zP-+-+P0 9PzPLzP-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White's first choice. White can also snatch the pawn, 12 ¥xe4 ¤xe4 13 ¦xe4 ¥b7 14 d4 ¦e8!? rather than

capturing the pawn straight away Black develops and protects the e7−bishop. This gives Black the option of capturing on d5 with his queen (which connects the rooks and sets up a battery along the h1-a8 diagonal) and also with his offside knight, by ...¤c4−b6xd5 (14...¥xd5 15 ¦e1 £d6!? led to a crushing victory for Black in Onischuk,V−Drozdovskij,Y/Kharkov UKR 2007, ( but I prefer 15...¥d6 )

) 15 ¥f4 (15 ¤bd2!? Goh Wei Ming−Timothy Chan Wei Xuan/60th National Championship 2008 2007) 15...¤c4 16 b3 (16 ¦e2 Adams,M−Carlsen,M/Khanty−Mansiysk RUS 2007, when 16...£xd5 looks strongest.) 16...¤b6 Durarbeyli,V−Kosten,A/Cappelle La Grande FRA 2008.

12...¤xd5 13 ¤xe4

13 ¤xh7? loses to 13...¢xh7 14 ¥xe4+ ¢g8 15 ¥xd5 £xd5 16 ¦xe7 loses to 16...¥xh3! 17 £f3 (17 gxh3? £g5+) 17...£xf3 18 gxf3 ¦ae8

13...f5 14 ¤g3 f4 15 ¤e4

15 ¤h5!? is another critical line, that has yet to be tried, again see the notes to Wang Hao−Jones,G.

15...f3

White has won a pawn but Black has a small lead in development, and more pertinently his f−pawn is menacing the white king,

16 d4 fxg2

110

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-zp-vl-zpp0 9p+-+-+-+0 9snp+n+-+-0 9-+-zPN+-+0 9+-zP-+-+P0 9PzPL+-zPp+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17 ¤g3 £d6

Stevic's move 17...g6! could be even stronger.

18 £d3!?

18 ¥e4 was the brilliant stem game Kuznetsov,V−Gajewski,G/Pardubice 2007.

18...g6 19 ¤e4 £e6!?

with sharp play, where Black nearly won a brilliancy, Wang Hao−Jones,G/Liverpool ENG 2007.

111

Chigorin − Various 11th moves [C96]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ¤a5 10 ¥c2 c5

Chigorin's line. 10...d5!? is seen in Gajewski's Variation.

11 d4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzp-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-zP-+N+P0 9PzPL+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11...¤d7

The Keres Variation, which reasons that putting the knight on d7 is every bit as useful as having the queen on c7.

There are a number of interesting alternatives here: a) 11...¦e8 sacrifices the e5 pawn and has been favoured recently by Mark Hebden, for

example 12 dxe5 dxe5 13 ¤xe5 ¥b7 14 £f3 ("Nunn's Chess Openings" gives 14

¤d2 ¥d6 15 ¤ef3 £c7 16 b3 ¦ad8 17 ¥b2 as slightly better for White, but Black certainly does have actively−placed pieces for the pawn) 14...¥f8 15 ¥f4 (An interesting line is 15 ¤g4 ¤xe4 16 ¦xe4 ¥xe4 17 ¥xe4 ¦xe4 18 £xe4 £d1+ 19 ¢h2 £xc1

20 £xa8 £xb2 but White is winning after 21 ¤e5! which threatens 22.¤d7 or 22.£d5. Perhaps Black must settle for 15...¤xg4 followed by ...¦e6 which seems to offer some compensation.) 15...¦e6 16 ¤g4 ¤xe4!! is an excellent new move

112

unveiled in Naumann,A−Hebden,M/Golombek Memorial, Paignton, England 2000 (22).

b) 11...¥b7 also offers the e5 pawn, but White can do well by declining it with 12 d5 when the bishop on b7 bites on granite. See Kasparov,G−Grischuk,A/Cannes FRA 2001 (43) as an example of the problems Black can face here.

c) 11...¤c6 12 d5 ¤a5 is a tough system used extensively by Romanishin − see Pinski,J−Romanishin,O/Koszalin 1999.

12 ¤bd2

The natural 'Lopez' move, but one which walks into the fascinating 'Graf Variation'. There are several alternatives:

a) 12 dxc5 is a simple, practical move, but does it give anything after 12...dxc5 13 ¤bd2 (13 b3 gives White nothing, Karjakin,S−Howell,D/Mainz GER 2010) 13...¥b7 (After the older 13...f6 White should play 14.¤h4! rather than 14 ¤f1 ¤b6 15 £e2

¥e6 which was nice for Black in the game Horvath,A−Graf,A/Dresden 2001) 14 ¤f1 Alternatively White can play:

a) 14 £e2 ¦e8 (14...£c7 15 ¤f1 ¤c4 16 b3 ¤d6 wasn't bad either in Al Modiahki,M−Davies,N/Port Erin IOM 2003 (21)) 15 ¤f1 ¤c4 which was rather good for Black in Kolev,A−Graf,A/Skopje 2002

b) 14 b3 ¦e8 15 ¤f1 ¥f8 16 ¥g5 f6 led to equality in Moreno Carnero,J−Davies,N/Port Erin IOM 2003 (30).

14...¤c4 15 ¤g3 (15 b3 ¤d6 is what Black wants, so instead White concentrates on improving the positioning of his own pieces.) 15...¤d6 ("Nunn's Chess Openings" mentions 15...g6 16 ¤h2, perhaps to be followed by £f3.) 16 £e2 ¦e8 17 ¦d1 £c7 and Black had a solid game in Ehlvest,J−Bykhovsky,A/Reykjavik Open, Iceland 2000 (32).

b) 12 b3 is a flexible waiting move which was recently tried by Kasparov. Black should probably avoid giving up the centre with 12...cxd4 (12...£c7 13 d5 ¤b6 14 g4 c4 15

b4 ¤b7 16 ¤bd2 a5 gave Black counterplay in Luther,T−Davies,N/Port Erin IOM 2003 (49)) 13 cxd4 ¤c6 14 ¤c3 exd4 15 ¤d5 ¤de5 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 £xd4 ¥f6 (17...¥xh3 18 f4 ¤c6 19 £c3 gave White more than enough for the pawn in Ivanchuk,V−Yuldashev,S/FIDE World Cup, Hyderabad, India 2002 (33)) 18 ¢h1 ¥xh3 19 gxh3 White should have won in the game Kasparov,G−Ponomariov,R/Moscow 2002 (27).

c) Closing the centre with 12 d5! looks strong: 12...¤b6 Black threatens to undermine it with ...f7−f5. (12...¤c4 is a new idea, but probably not too good, Sutovsky,E−Acs,P/Paks HUN 2005) 13 ¤bd2 (13 b3 f5 was good for Black in Hunt,A−Davies,N/Blackpool ENG 2003 (31), In the game Fischer,R−Keres,P/Curacao 1962 White prevented ...f5 with 13 g4 but stood worse after 13...h5 14 ¤h2 hxg4 15

hxg4 ¥g5 etc.) 13...f5 (13...g6!? 14 b4!? cxb4 15 cxb4 ¤ac4 16 ¤xc4 ¤xc4 17 ¥b3 (17 ¥h6 Leko,P−Mamedyarov,S/Moscow RUS 2006) 17...¤b6?! Anand,V−Carlsen,M/Linares 2007 (, better 17...¥d7 ) ) 14 exf5 ¥xf5 15 ¥xf5 ¦xf5 16 ¤e4 this is the key position of the whole line, (16 b4!? worked well in Howell,D−Graf,A/Dresden GER 2007) 16...£d7 (16...£e8 an improvement that Adams has prepared specially 17 ¤fg5! and Black was crushed, Leko,P−Adams,M/Miskolc

113

HUN 2005., 16...¢h8 is analysed in Keres Analysis/2006) 17 b3! Leko,P−Kramnik,V/Miskolc HUN 2005 (17 ¤fg5 also worked well in Acs,P−Gschnitzer,O/GER 2005.)

12 ¢h1!? Kramnik's semi−waiting move, 12...exd4!? (12...¥b7 13 d5 is the point, Kramnik,V−Ponomariov,R Linares 2003) 13 cxd4 ¥b7 14 ¤c3 the downside to Black's early capture on d4 is that it allows this ideal development of the knight, Enders,P−Graf,A/Koenigshofen GER 2007.

12...exd4

A new and interesting way to treat this position. The old way to play it was with 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 ¤c6 14 ¤b3 a5 15 ¥d3 ¥a6 16 d5

¤b4 17 ¥f1 (17 ¥b1 is worse, Motylev,A−Mamedyarov,S/Sochi RUS 2006)

17...a4 18 ¤bd4 a nice tactical trick which leads to White getting the better pawn structure, 18...exd4 19 a3 ¤xd5 20 exd5 as in Anand,V−Piket,J/Wijk aan Zee 1999, but now Mamedyarov showed that Black can equalize with 20...¤e5!

13 cxd4 ¤c6 14 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+nvlpzpp0 9p+nzp-+-+0 9+pzpP+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-+-+N+P0 9PzPLsN-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White can also consider 14 e5 − see Ariel,D−Graf,A/New York 1998. 14 ¤b3 gave White nothing after 14...a5 15 e5 dxe5 see Bacrot,E−Almasi,Z/Sestao ESP

2010.

14...¤ce5 15 ¤xe5

15 a4 ¦b8 16 axb5 axb5 17 ¤xe5 transposes, and may be more precise.

15...¤xe5 16 a4!

White has also played 16 f4, the most direct move. 16...¤g6 17 ¤f3 f5 18 e5 (For the innocuous 18 £e2 see Enders,P−Graf,A/Heringsdorf 2000.) 18...dxe5 19 fxe5 ¥b7 20 d6 ¥h4 21 ¦f1 (21 ¦e2 ¥g3 was complex but rather good for Black in

114

Ponomariov,R−Beliavsky,A/Moscow 2002.) 21...¥g3 22 ¤g5 with advantage, Butunoi,A−Davies,N/Corres 2003 (29).

16...¦b8

16...b4 17 f4 ¤g6 18 ¤c4 a5 19 e5! was good for White in Schulze,M−Davies,N/Corres 2003.

16...¥d7!? (this would not be possible if White had played 15 a4) 17 f4 ¤g6 18 ¤f3 ¥h4 19 ¤xh4 £xh4 20 f5 ¤e5 21 ¦f1 ¦fe8 22 ¢h2 bxa4 23 ¦a3 planning a kingside build−up in Ivanov,A−Friedel,J/Ledyard USA 2008.

17 axb5 axb5 18 f4 ¤g6 19 ¤f3 ¥h4

19...f5!? is risky, 20 exf5 ¥xf5 21 ¥xf5 ¦xf5 22 g4!? ¦xf4 23 ¥xf4 ¤xf4 24 £d2! the neat tactical point, when Black is on the edge of a precipice, see Kosten,A−Postny,E/Andorra la Vella AND 2007.

20 ¦f1

20 ¤xh4 £xh4 21 f5 gains space on the kingside but gives Black's knight the beautiful e5 square, 21...¤e5 22 ¦f1 ¥d7 23 ¥f4 ¦a8 24 ¦xa8 (24 £d2 Anand,V−Ponomariov,R/Chess Classic, game no.6, Germany 2002 (36).) 24...¦xa8 25 ¥xe5!? a forcing way to strive for more than just a balanced game, Kotronias,V−L'Ami,E/Malmo SWE 2007.

20...¥g3 21 f5 ¤e5 22 ¤g5! ¤d7!

This is clearly best. 22...¥h4? Anand,V−Bruzon,L/Leon ESP 2006, 23 f6! Winning.

23 e5!? ¥xe5 24 ¤xh7 £h4!?

For Olivier's preference 24...¤f6! see the analysis in the Bruzon game.

25 ¤xf8 ¢xf8 26 £f3 ¤f6 27 ¥f4!

with advantage, Gashimov,V−Schandorff,L/Crete GRE 2007.

115

Chigorin Mainline − 12 d5 & Intro [C97]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ¤a5 10 ¥c2 c5 11 d4 £c7 12 d5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-wq-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzpPzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zP-+N+P0 9PzPL+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White immediately closes the position, and in general we reach positions where White

tries to attack on the kingside. This move has the advantage of avoiding all the sharp lines starting with 12 ¤bd2 ¦d8!? An interesting move which hopes to counterattack on the d−file with a later ...d6−d5.

a) Black can also precede it with an exchange on d4, but 12...cxd4 13 cxd4 ¦d8 is covered under C99.

b) 12...¤c6 is an old variation which has a bad reputation, 13 d5 ¤d8 14 a4 opening the a−file with advantage, Korneev,O−Postny,E/Evora POR 2006

c) 12...¥e6 is a very rare line, 13 d5 ¥d7 14 ¤f1 c4 15 b4! (15 g4 Robson,R−Gareev,T/Philadelphia USA 2009) 15...¤b7 16 g4!? Vachier Lagrave,M−Postny,E/Eppingen GER 2009.

13 d5 a) 13 b3 cxd4 (13...¥d7) 14 cxd4 transposes into C99. b) 13 ¤f1 cxd4 14 cxd4 transposes into C99. 13...c4 14 ¤f1 (14 ¦e3!? is interesting − see Leko,P−Kasimdzhanov,R/Yerevan 2001

(33).) 14...¤b7 15 g4!? A very direct approach. (15 ¤g3 a5 16 ¤h2 ¤c5 17 f4 b4 18

¤f3 ¦b8 gave Black counterplay in Kindermann,S−Yusupov,A/Hamburg 1991 (41).) 15...h5 16 ¤3h2 hxg4 17 hxg4 ¤h7 18 f4 was double−edged in Firman,N−Golod,V/Lvov 2001 (37).

116

12...¥d7

The most flexible move, and probably the best choice. Black usually transfers his knight to the kingside via b7−d8 and f7.

12...¤c4 as in many Closed lines Black has a problem with his knight on a5, and so this is played to bring it back to b6, 13 b3 ¤b6 14 a4 ¥d7 15 a5 ¤c8 16 c4 g6 (16...b4

Black closes the queenside to fight on one front. The best he can get is a difficult draw, though, 17 ¤bd2 g6 18 ¤f1 ¤h5 19 ¥h6 ¦e8 20 £d2 ¥f8 21 g4! Now Black cannot exchange the dark−squared bishop and White stays on top, Adams, M−Ivanchuk,V/Tripoli 2004) 17 ¤c3 ¤h5 18 ¤e2 ¦e8 19 ¦a2 ¥f8 20 g4 White gains even more space and prepares to go for the black king, Topalov, V−Shirov,A/Linares 2004.

12...c4 13 b4 a young Kasparov played this move back in 1976, 13...cxb3 14 axb3 ¥d7 15 ¥d3! Gashimov,V−Inarkiev,E/Astrakhan RUS 2010.

13 b3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9+-wqlvlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snpzpPzp-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PzP-+N+P0 9P+L+-zPP+0 9tRNvLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White loses a tempo in order to kill Black's counterplay on the queenside. 13 ¤bd2 c4 If White does not play b3, Black can quickly bring his knight to c5 and

create counter play on the queenside, 14 ¤f1 ¤b7 15 ¤3h2 a) 15 ¤g3 ¤c5 16 ¤h2 a5 17 £f3 b4 18 ¤f5 ¥xf5 19 £xf5 ¦fb8 shows how

Black should attack on the queenside, Kozlov,V−Tseshkovsky,V/Aktjubinsk 1985

b) 15 g4 h5!? the most reactive, 16 gxh5!? (16 ¤3h2 g6 17 ¥h6 ¦fe8 18 £f3 £d8 19

¤e3 h4! with the idea of playing on the dark squares with ...¤h7 and ...¥g5, see Megaranto,S−Avrukh,B/Amsterdam NED 2005) 16...¥xh3 17 ¤3h2 £d7 18 £f3 ¤c5 19 h6!? White hopes that his space advantage will enable him to better cope with a general opening of lines on the kingside, Sulskis,S−Efimenko,Z/Dresden GER 2007.

15...a5 16 f4 ¤c5 Black doesn't need to take on f4 and his plan is to attack quickly with ...b4−b3, Karjakin,S−Aleksandrov,A/Saint Vincent ITA 2005.

13...¦fe8

117

I like this subtle move. Black anticipates White's plan on the kingside and waits before playing ...¤b7.

13...¤b7 14 ¤bd2 (14 c4 ¦fe8 15 ¤c3 g6 16 ¥d2 ¥f8 17 g4? is premature and it is very instructive to see how Black can counter attack in this case by 17...h5!

Ivanchuk,V−Radulski,J/Antalya 2004) 14...g6 15 ¤f1 ¤h5 16 ¥h6 ¦fe8 17 £d2 ¥f6!? it isn't easy for White to do anything on the kingside now, Karjakin,S−Delchev,A/Turin ITA 2006.

14 ¤bd2

14 ¢h2!? g6 15 g4 h5! 16 g5 ¤h7 17 ¦g1 now the kingside is blocked and Black should attack on the queenside, when I don't think that the position is dangerous for her, Sutovsky,E−Stefanova,A/Hoogeveen NED 2005.

14...g6 15 ¤f1 ¤h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+r+k+0 9+-wqlvlp+p0 9p+-zp-+p+0 9snpzpPzp-+n0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+PzP-+N+P0 9P+L+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtRNmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16 ¥e3 ¤b7 17 £d2 c4 18 b4 a5!

Excellent timing to start the counterplay on the queenside, see Ponomariov,R−Sasikiran,K/Mallorca 2004. This game is the reference for me and you should study it well.

118

Chigorin mainline − 12...cxd4 [C99]


1 e4 e5 2 ¤f3 ¤c6 3 ¥b5 a6 4 ¥a4 ¤f6 5 0-0 ¥e7 6 ¦e1 b5 7 ¥b3 d6 8 c3 0-0 9 h3 ¤a5 10 ¥c2 c5 11 d4 £c7 12 ¤bd2 cxd4 13 cxd4 ¦d8!?

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-wq-vlpzpp0 9p+-zp-sn-+0 9snp+-zp-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-+-+N+P0 9PzPLsN-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

The move 13...¥b7!? introduces another interesting option for Black, the so−called

Panov Variation. One recent game went 14 d5 ¦ac8 15 ¥d3 ¤d7 16 ¤f1 f5 17 exf5 ¤c5 18 ¥b1 ¤c4 19 a3? ¥f6 and Black had a strong initiative in Moreno Carnero,J−Kuzmin,A/Port Erin IOM 2003 (40).

A much more solid line is 13...¤c6 for example 14 ¤b3 (14 d5 closing the centre is also a logical try, 14...¤b4 15 ¥b1 a5 16 ¤f1 ¥d7 17 a3 ¤a6 18 ¤g3 Palliser,R−Gormally,D/British Rapidplay Championship, Halifax 2006, 14 a3 has been played by Anand, among others, 14...¥d7 Botvinnik's move, 15 d5 Berg,E−Getz,N/Moss 2010) 14...a5 15 ¥e3 a4 16 ¤bd2 ¥d7 (16...£b7 gave rise to a tough struggle in Del Rio Angelis,S−Agdestein,S/Port Erin IOM 2003 (69).) 17 ¦c1 this very solid line has come back into fashion recently, 17...£b7 (17...¦ac8 18 ¤f1 £b8

19 ¥b1 ¦c7 20 £d2 with advantage, Leko,P−Adams,M/Miskolc HUN 2005.) 18 ¤f1 (18 ¥d3!? exd4 19 ¤xd4 ¤e5 eventually led to a fantastic finish in Hamdouchi,H−Flear,G/Saint Affrique 2007, 18 £e2 targeting the b−pawn, Alekseev,E−Kamsky,G/Jermuk ARM 2009) 18...¦fe8 19 ¤g3 ¥d8 20 £e2 h6 21 dxe5! (21 ¦ed1 now it is difficult for Black to find a move, Volokitin,A−Rogic,D/Neum BIH 2005., 21 ¥d3 ¦b8 22 dxe5 ¤xe5 23 ¤xe5 dxe5 24 b4! fixing a permanent target on b5, Karjakin,S−Inarkiev,E/Baku AZE 2008.) 21...dxe5 22 ¥d3 Dominguez Perez,L−Svidler,P/Nice FRA 2010.

119

There is another very solid alternative in 13...¥d7, for example 14 ¤f1 ¦ac8 15 ¤e3 ¤c6 16 d5 (16 ¥b3 ¤a5 17 ¥c2 ¤c6 18 d5 ¤b4 was Leko,P−Short,N/Budapest 2003 (51)) 16...¤b4 17 ¥b1 a5 18 a3 (18 ¤d2?! was quite the wrong idea for White in McShane,L−Short,N/Catalan Bay ENG 2003 (46)) 18...¤a6 19 b4 ¦a8 (19...g6 is also interesting as in Bologan,V−Peng,X/Shanghai 2001 (55)) 20 ¥d2 ¦fc8 21 g4 g6 22 ¥d3 £b7 23 ¤f1 (an attempted improvement on the 23 ¢g2 of De Firmian,N−Piket,J/Amsterdam 1996 (56)) 23...axb4 24 axb4 ¥d8 25 ¤g3 ¤c7 and Black had reasonable counterplay in Kasparov,G−Piket,J/Internet 2000 (49).

14 ¤f1

If White senses danger on the d−file, then he may try 14 d5, but the very plausible continuation 14...¥d7 15 ¤f1 ¦dc8 16 ¥d3 ¤b7, planning ...¤c5, ...b4 & perhaps ...a5 too, looks highly satisfactory for Black.

Perhaps best is Khalifmann's recommendation 14 b3 ¤c6 (14...¤d7 15 ¤f1 exd4 16 ¤xd4

¥f6 17 ¥b2 was nice for White in Hracek,Z−Romanov,O/Pardubice 1998) 15 ¥b2 ¥b7

a) 15...exd4 16 ¤xd4 ¤xd4 17 ¥xd4 ¥e6 18 ¦c1 £a5 19 ¤f1! ¦ac8 (19...£xa2??

20 ¦a1, 19...¤e8!? Grischuk,A−Kasimdzhanov,R/Wijk aan Zee 2002) 20 ¤g3 (20

¥b1 is Goh Wei Ming−Milanov/playchess.com 2007) 20...g6? (much better and more solid is 20...¤e8, intending 21 ¤f5 ¥f8) 21 ¤f5! White was already almost winning in the clash Dervishi,E−Estrada Nieto,J/Aosta, Italy 2002.

b) 15...£b6 Stefansson,H−Almasi,Z/Crete GRE 2007 16 ¦c1 (16 d5!? is a new concept, see Al Modiahki,M−Greet,A/Gibtelecom Masters,

Gibraltar 2007, 16 a3 ¥f8?! 17 b4 plans to send the knight to a5, with a plus, Adams,M−Koneru,H/Merida ESP 2008) 16...£b6 17 ¤f1 (17 a3!? White wants to play b4 and ¤b3 or ¥b3, see Gashimov,V−Tseitlin,M/Cappelle la Grande FRA 2006, 17 d5 ¤b4 18 ¥b1 a5 19 ¤f1 White intends to go for an all out attack on the kingside with the moves g2−g4, ¤f1-g3−f5, a rook lift with ¦e3 and so on Zhigalko,A−Khairullin,I/St Petersburg RUS 2007.) 17...d5!? 18 exd5 ¤xd5!? (18...¦xd5 19 ¤e3 ¦dd8 Alekseev,E−Kazhgaleyev,M/Khanty Mansyisk RUS 2005, and now 20 ¤f5! is dangerous.) 19 ¤xe5 ¤xe5 20 dxe5! Grischuk,A−Smirin,I/Odessa UKR 2007.

14...exd4 15 ¤xd4

15 ¥f4 would stop Black from playing ...d5 on the next move, but instead he has other perfectly good alternatives such as 15...¤c4 or 15...¤c6 followed by ...£b6.

15 ¤g3!? is a speciality of Kotronias, deferring the capture on d4 to strengthen e4, 15...¤c6 16 ¥b3 d5!? see Kotronias,V−Hebden,M/Port Erin IOM 2007.

15...d5

120

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+ltr-+k+0 9+-wq-vlpzpp0 9p+-+-sn-+0 9snp+p+-+-0 9-+-sNP+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9PzPL+-zPP+0 9tR-vLQtRNmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16 e5 ¤e4

"Nunn's Chess Openings" stops at this point by giving the assessment of "unclear position".

17 ¥f4

17 f3!? ¤g5 (17...¥c5 produced a very complex game in Hellers,F−Polgar,Z/Enghien les Bains 1988 (29).) 18 ¤f5? Black completes his development easily, with all his pieces working harmoniously after this inaccuracy, Stojic,D−Zhang Zhong/Canberra AUS 2008.

And 17 ¥xe4? dxe4 18 ¦xe4 ¥b7 is almost suicidal for the owner of the poor pinned d4−knight.

17...¥c5 18 ¤e3 £b6 19 ¤b3 ¤xb3 20 ¥xb3 ¥e6 21 £d3 a5

and Black had good counterplay in Grischuk,A−Bologan,V/Enghien−les−Bains, France 2001 (25).

121

Documents

spanish - Time to get classy · C60-C99: Spanish Written by GMs Nigel Davies, Tony Kosten, Victor Mikhalevski & Olivier Renet Last updated Wednesday, April 20, 2011 XIIIIIIIIY