EC for Tine we Grigory Bogdanovich w “' @ % Ne y Wy b } yt & eae cy = yy” nNGrigory Bogdanovich THE ZUKERTORT SYSTEM: A Guide for White and Black ch MONGOOS It Prods© 2010 Grigory Bogdanovich English Translation © 2010 Mongoose Press All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Publisher. Publisher: Mongoose Press 1005 Boylston Street, Suite 324 Newton Highlands, MA 02461 info@mongoosepress.com www.MongoosePress.com ISBN 978-1-936277-05-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2010934331 Distributed to the trade by National Book Network custserv@nbnbooks.com, 800-462-6420 For all other sales inquiries please contact the publisher. Translated by: Sarah Hurst Layout: Andrey Elkov Editor: Jorge Amador Cover Design: Kaloyan Nachev Printed in China First English edition 0987654321CONTENTS Foreword by Artur Yusupov. Introduction . The Subject of Our Serious Study PART |: Play for White CHAPTER 1: A Piece Attack. A. The Black Monarch’s Residence on the Kingside. B. The Black King on the Run... CHAPTER 2: Opening Up the a1-h8 n Disgeried tees i CHAPTER 3: Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan CHAPTER 4: A “Psychological” Attack by White's Kingside Pawns . CHAPTER 5: Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns.............. A. White Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns... B. Black Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns CHAPTER 6: Play with an Isolated d-Pawn A. White Has an Isolated d-pawn.... B. Black Has an Isolated d-pawn... CHAPTER 7: A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority CHAPTER 8: A Position “Suffocated at a Distance”.... CHAPTER 9: White's Plan with e3-e4 PART II: Play for Black CHAPTER 1: The Bishop Hunt CHAPTER 2: “Hooray for Being Primitive!” CHAPTER 3: An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside ............ 164 CHAPTER 4: |s it Possible to Perplex White with ...\Wb6?...... CHAPTER 5: And the Little Kid Asked: “Check on a5 - Good or Bad?”CHAPTER 6: Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance ........ 186 CHAPTER 7: Half a Kingdom for a Horse... on e4! ... CHAPTER 8: Following Capablanca’s Recipe... vs CHAPTER 9: “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main fF gunmen CHAPTER 10: Black Builds a “Cabin” CHAPTER 11: “Reviving” the Light-Squared Bip with the Schlechter-Lasker Method ... CHAPTER 12: A Delicate Question: Who Benefits from an Early Pawn Trade on d4?............... 272 CHAPTER 13: The “Exchange Square” on e5 --- 282 CHAPTER 14: isthe ...2\c6-b4 Maneuver ReallySo Derigeiaus tor wita?._..298 SUPPLEMENTARY GAMES. Tactical Methods and ‘Strategic Themes. BibliographyForeword Once, back when I was playing in the Soviet Junior Championship, a game that was being played on a board next to me caught my eye. White had developed his bishops to b2 and d3 and his knights to f3 and d2, had created an attack and was confidently winning. My neighbor’s game made a strong impression on me, but my opening repertoire at the time began with the move e2-e4... Many years later, in the European Team Championship in Plovdiv in 1983, I wanted to experiment as White and I remembered that episode. The “novelty” turned out to be successful and I won two colorful games with the “new” system. I was faced with an unexpected problem: what to call this new opening, of which I'd only just become an admirer. The official name, “Queen’s Pawn Opening,” didn’t suit me, of course. In honor of the famous German grandmaster Zukertort, who played a number of brilliant games and from time to time used the system 1. d4, 2. £3, and 3. 3, I started calling the new system the Zukertort Opening. Some time later (but “drops of water will eventually wear away a stone”) the new name for the interesting opening system caught on. T have now been using the Zukertort in practical play for over 25 years, and with its help I have achieved some rather good results. Of course, this isn’t the most active system, but it is based on the good positional concept of fighting for the center and it has every right to exist. Even many strong opponents of mine have found themselves unprepared for its novel problems, falling into bad positions right off the bat. Cer- tainly, if White manages to implement the main strategic idea — placing the knight on e5 and reinforcing it there, and maintaining control over the e4 square — then Black will have nothing to celebrate! Ofcourse, the Zukertort isn’t some kind of universal weapon. So against the Slav or the King’s Indian Defense it’s better to look for more active variations. But if your opponent prefers to play the Queen’s Gambit or the Nimzo-Indian, then the Zukertort is a good alternative to the standard openings. I’m very pleased that many chessplayers have followed my example and included the Zukertort in their opening Tepertoire.The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black Unfortunately, I still have not managed to start writing a book about this opening, although I gladly show specific variations to my students. So Grigory Bogdanovich decided to compensate for this gap in the literature and has written a very interesting work on this fascinating opening. Readers will get the opportunity not only to fa- miliarize themselves with the different variations and setups, but also to study many typical middlegame ideas that have universal value. Artur Yusupov July 2010Introduction Dear Reader: If you play the Zukertort System in the Queen’s Pawn Opening, I advise you to read the book that you hold in your hands. With few exceptions, and despite its popularity, theorists haven’t favored this opening with their attentions. In faimess I should note that in 2008, when Thad already prepared my book for dis- cussion with the publisher, two books came out, by Richard Palliser (Starting Out: d-Pawn Attacks) and David Rudel (Zuke ’Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolu- tionized). But then there is a great deal of material in these two titles that is not relevant to our subject. While its cousin, the Colle System, has been spoiled by the attention of theoreticians, and more than one book has been devoted to it, the Zukertort System, like Cinderella, is waiting for its day. I was also waiting for one of the grandmasters who play the opening, like Artur Yusupoy, to write a book about it. But, alas... And then I decided to fol- low the advice of the famous English novelist and politician Benjamin Dis- raeli: “When I want to read a book, I write one.” I had long been planning to eliminate this inequity: you won’t find such detailed coverage of the Zukertort System anywhere else. I’ve been playing this system fora long time, and I love it, and that’s why I always keeptrack of eve- rything that has to do with it, wherever that may be. Since I have an inclination towards analytical work, I’ve always tried to understand it from every angle. And you will see that in the Zukertort System there is no use for the recommendations of theoreticians who write according to the standards of a well-known phrase from that masterpiece of Soviet cinema, Gentlemen of Fortune: “Don’t go there, go there!”: or of “doctor theoreticians” with their advice: “play a2-a3 to avoid a headache.” This doesn’t only apply to the Zukertort System, of course, but also to other openings. The history of an opening, just like the history of anything, has its inconsis- tencies. Consider the name, for example: the “Colle-Zukertort System.” Those who have some familiarity with it will wonder immediately: what’s Colle doing here? According to the computer data- bases he only played it a couple of times, and then not the main lines of the system. And I would also ask: what was Zuker- tort’s contribution to the system that is named after him? Again according to the databases and also the thick books about Zukertort, we can see that the subject of our discussion occupies a meager place in the story of its creation. But it was worth it for him to shine in this opening field, and the magic of his name worked: it will be associated with this opening setup forever. Neither Colle nor Zukertort re- 9The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black searched or invented this system. And to judge by the number of games played, another person is no less significant, and perhaps even more so: Akiba Rubinstein exceeds them both put together. That’s why inthe West the Zukertort System is sometimes known as the Rubinstein At- tack. And if you look at our day, then the contribution to the development of the Zukertort System by Grandmaster Yu- supov (in no way the least of the modern chess elite) is much greater than the “ser- vice” to it given by the aforementioned gentlemen. So the Zukertort System has also acquired a third name among “the masses”: the “Yusupovka.” However, we have not set out to reinvestigate the name of the system; we'll just accept everything as it’s been settled on. The theoreticians of the past proba- bly noticed a certain similarity in the ar- Tangement of White’s pieces: pawns on d4and e3, a bishop on d3, knightson d2 and f3. Andthe difference doesn’t appear to be very great: it’s all in the positioning of the b- and c-pawns, and in the avail- able spots for developing White’s dark- squared bishop. So they decided to call White's setup with d4, e3, 2f3, 2.d3 the Colle System. The setup with apawnon ¢3 is the Colle-Koltanowski System; the setup with the pawn on b3 is the Colle- Zukertort System, and sometimes also the Yusupov-Zukertort System. In her domestic opening nomenclature Russia always goes her own way, establishing the following names respectively — the Colle System and the Zukertort System. These are the ones we will follow. Again according to the databases, this setup was first used for White by W.N. Potter 10 and Joseph Blackburne. Moreover, they both made one of the main moves in the Zukertort System — #f3-e5! Here are those games: Blackburne J. — Minckwitz J. Berlin 1881 1, d4d52. Df3 Df 3. €3 e6 4. b3 The game Potter W.N. — Blackburne J., London 1876, continued: 4. 2d3 2d6 5. c4 0-0 6. 0-0 b6 7. b3 2b7 8. b2 Abd? 9. Abd2 Hes 10. Hes ALB 11. £4. The deployment of the white pieces corresponds to the Pillsbury for- mation in the Zukertort System, and Black has refrained from playing ...c7- cS. Blackburne remembered this game and repeated the plan five years later! 4..2e7 5. &b2 5. And after 6. 2£d3!? there is a rabiya from the Zukertort System on the board. 6..Ac6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Hel b6 9. Abd2 2b7 10. HeS Lo8 11. Adf3 Ad7 12. Axd7 Wxd7 13. dxeS bxe5 14. c4 We7 15. Hel dxod 16. Hxe4 (517. Wal 2d6 18. Hha We7 19. BhS Abd 20.Lxg? Wxg7 21, Hgs Wxgs 22. Axgs Axd3 23. Bdi Le5 24. Yb Abd 25. Ha7 Hc7 26. Wal Dd5 27. Exe7 2xc7 28. Dxe6 Ef7 29. YhS 2b6 30. e4 D6 31. Wg5+ Oh8 32. exfS Ad7 33. WhsS He? 34. Wha Bt7 35. Wg3 2c6 36. Wa6 2 bS 37. 24 8 38. a4 2.26 39. a5 &xa540. Gxa6 2b6 41. Se8+ As 42. ‘&g2, and here Black gave up the fight. Digging around the databases I found the following game Mahescanda — Co- chrane J., played even earlier than the above games, way back in 1851: 1. d4 dS 2. 23 e6 3. e3c5 4, 2.d3 Do 5.0-0.8 ¢7 6. c4.0-0 7. b3 cxd4 8 exd4 Aic6 9. & b2 b6 10. a3 h6, and here White brought his knight out to a less characteristic square for the Zukertort System, c3, instead of d2. We'll see later on that even in the Zukertort System the knight can also be developed to c3, so this position can cer- tainly be associated with the Zukertort System. And do you know where this game was played? In Calcutta! So India isn’t only the birthplace of elephants and chess, but also of the Zukertort System! It’s quite possible that some meticulous chess historian will discover an even ear- lier game played with the Zukertort. The contribution of the players I’ve named consists of the fact that it was they who were the first to place the bishop in an active position on d3. And subsequently it was this deployment of the bishop to d3 that became the axis around which the theory of this system turns. By the way, the course of play with the bishop on e2 cannot be associated with the Zukertort System. So a ques- tion arises for the authors of the two- Introduction volume Queen’s Pawn Opening, Anatoly Karpov and Nikolai Kalinichenko, who believe: “...that the most beautiful game with an early e2-e3, b2-b3 and &cl-b2 was played, without a doubt, by the First Candidate [Zukertort - GB],” and they reference the game Zukertort — Black- bume, London 1883. Ina formal sense this assertion may be correct, but how is the Zukertort Sys- tem relevant here? The bishop on e2 is a completely different line of play (true, in some subvariations the bishop may find itself on e2 temporarily when it’s chased from the d3 square), andthe au- thors themselves in their chapter dedi- cated to the Zukertort System examine it only in the variation where Black’s light-squared bishop comes out to g4. But that variation can be viewed as a way for Black to avoid playing on Zukertort territory. Some writers on our theme in- clude the development of the bishop to e2 — if they even mentionit at all — only as a completely “foreign body.” Many of the great chessplayers of the past played this system. How valu- able is an endorsement from names like Alekhine, Bogolyubov, Gunsberg, Capablanca, Levenfish, Maréczy, Mar- shall, Pillsbury, Rubinstein, Tarrasch, Tartakover, Teichmann, Flohr, Schlech- ter, Euwe, and Janowski? Tigran Petro- sian and Vasily Smyslov used it in their time. Among the modern chess elite it is constantly used by Artur Yusupov and Michal Krasenkow. Mark Taimanov, Rafael Vaganian, Maia Chiburdanidze, Susan Polgar, Teimour Radjabov, and many other well-known grandmasters 11The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black have used it brilliantly. So there is some- thing to use as an example. What attracts us to the Zukertort System? In the conclusion to my book on the Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein Sys- tem in the Sicilian Defense, | wrote that Nimzowitsch’s invention interested me because you didn’t have to memorize long forced variations. In passing I'll add the comment by Mark Dvoretsky, that “your opening repertoire should be built on the capabilities of your own memory.” So in the Zukertort there’s no need to put your memory to the test. The Zukertort System looks, figuratively speaking, like a sailboat (the pawn struc- ture that is characteristic of the system and the typical piece setup) with many sails (the plans, methods, and maneu- vers that are inherent in and work specif- ically in the Zukertort System). A player of the Yusupovka must be a good “sail- or” inorder to steer these kinds of boats. Moreover, the “wind” often changes di- rection — that is to say, Black’s reactions to White’s play are extremely varied and demand specific knowledge and skills of the latter. Sometimes a small “gust of wind,” in other words some insig- nificant little technique on Black’s part, can overturn the “sailboat” and lead to defeat. That’s why it’s very important to know not only the strategy ofthe system, butalso its tactics. This is the objective that the author sought when writing the book — to re- flect the slightest nuances in the prac- tical material, and not just general dis- cussions. Therefore, in addition to the general contents, the author brings in 12 a list of “Tactical Methods and Strate- gic Themes.” The need for this list was provoked by the circumstance that no matter what plan we undertake in the Zukertort System, any of the elements of this list may be encountered in it. Of course, we can argue about the correct- ness of their classification, but the main purpose of the list is to draw the reader’s attention to one possibility or another for both sides in the Zukertort System. Up until now, emphasis has mainly been placed on a traditional presentation of the theoretical material, with the move order taking priority. Move order is very important, of course, and in the Zuker- tort System in particular. But the gener- alized conclusion of some theoreticians that you should make the move a2-a3 as soon as possible, and not “bI-d2, is ex- tremely dubious. The Zukertort System is multifaceted, and trying to channel it into a narrow rut is a very bad idea. In this book you will encounter themes suchas the Pillsbury formation, the long diagonal (al -h8), the strategic diagonal (b1-h7), and others. When writing this book, I started from the assumption that the reader has a sufficient grasp of general chess theory. Practical play shows that this system requires familiarity with some areas of general chess theory, such as how to play with or against hanging pawns and iso- lated pawns, among others. It would also be useful to be aware of certain opening variations, for example, the Queen’s Indian (£CO code E14), into which the Zukertort System sometimes trans- poses. I’ve already said that the Zuker- tort System is distinguished by its stronginterweaving of plans and the multifac- eted improvised methods, that is to say, techniques and elements of play. And more time is required from the reader to master them than when you're studying other opening variations and openings. Remember: “Knowledge is achieved at a slow walk, not a fast gallop.” This book will also be very use- ful to those who just want to improve their positional play. The reality is that in the Zukertort System you use “the kind of method of play where most of your attention goes not on calculating individual moves, but on drawing from general principles.” Richard Réti called this method “position play.” The goal of position play is to create the precondi- tions for carrying out a combination, for a decisive game, or simply to obtain (or increase) some kind of advantage. Re- member the words of Emanuel Lasker: “Position play is preparation for combi- national play.” For coaches it will make the creation of your students’ opening Tepertoire considerably easier, if they are already familiar with the elements of position play. A little about the materials dedicated to the Zukertort System. It’s very im- portant to know who they come from. Some theorists latch on to any problem just so that they can write something. For them the most important thing is to jot anything down as quickly as possible and rush it to press. They find out what they need and don’t need at the touch of a button on the computer keyboard, add stock phrases, and hand the latest “pie” they’ve half-baked to the publisher. And Introduction my doubts only increase when I see that they have never played the opening they’re writing about. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, coaches whose students play this orthat variation. They “livethrough” them together with their charges, but I have observed that they don’t really like to share their knowledge, for completely understandable reasons. I always read the works on opening theory by GM Evgeny Sveshnikov with great interest. In the first place, his belief in what he plays makes a convincing impression on the reader. Secondly, it feels like he himself has lived through everything that he writes about. He doesn’t write about anything and everything, although his knowledge and playing strength give him the right to do that. Of the works dedicated to the Zuker- tort System I would single out a book by the American author David Rudel, Zeke ’Em: The Colle-Zukertort Revolutionized (Thinkers’ Press, 2008). Its main virtue, as the author tells us at the beginning of the book, is that it is the first to be com- pletely dedicated to the Colle-Zuker- tort System. Never mind the fact that it contains a great deal of material that is irrelevant to our topic. We'll come back to that. A second, no less important vir- tue of the book is that the author is very enthusiastic about this subject and no shoddy work is evident. And this endears me to Rudel’s book. On the other hand, not everything impresses. Here, too, it’s appropriate to recall another saying: “Don’t shoot 13The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black the piano player; he’s doing the best he can.” I’m very well aware that on that score my book, too, contains shortcom- ings, but the most important thing is this absence of shoddy work. In the Ameri- can author’s book the main emphasis is on what we may call the philosophy of the Zukertort System, which is also crucial for understanding it. Moreover, I think that it can be a wonderful supple- ment to my book, or (soas not to offend anyone) vice versa. But, as nothing can be ideal, I’m not in complete agreement with the author here, either. Above all, as I’ve pointed out, a great deal of space in the book is taken up by material that is irrelevant to the Zukertort System. So, for example, what do variations in the Slav Defense (pp. 130-146) have to do with the Zukertort? I also noticed the author’s fondness for statistics. Of course, “statistics know everything!” But statistics are statistics, and there are very few games, and their analysis isn’t exactly packed with detail. Right after Rudel’s work, Richard Palliser’s book Starting Out: d-Pawn At- tacks (Everyman Chess, 2008) came out. Here we have a book by a professional chessplayer, and he takes a different ap- proach to presenting the material. It is also distinguished by a conscientious treatment of the subject and a stress on key points in the development of the theory of the Zukertort System. Pallis- er’s book is dedicated not only to the classical Zukertort System, but also to other openings in which the Zukertort setup can be used. There was also a book by Ken Smith and John Hall, Winning with the Colle System, published by Chess Digest. It too has a chapter on the Zukertort Sys- tem. True, the authors of this work call it the Colle-Zukertort System. We won’t repeat ourselves, as we've already dis- cussed the matter ofthe opening’s name. Much has happened since it came out, and also only a small number of pages are dedicated to the Zukertort System. Atthe end of this book you’ll find a bibliography. It contains a list of all the books and magazines that the author worked through. Yes, really “worked through,” and not on the principle that, “We read a book so we can say that we've read it.” And all the points that are wor- thy of attention have been reflected in this book. I didn’t want to make a com- pilation — I either gave the information as a supplementary note with an indica- tion of authorship, so as not to be a pla- giarist, or else I included it in the course of the discussion. T hope that I’ve persuaded you, dear reader, to start studying the Zukertort System. It will help you to improve both your play and your results. Enjoy your excursions into this opening which, no doubt, will improve your chess health!The Subject of Our Serious Study 1, d4d5 2, Df3 Afé 3, e3 “The idea of this variation is to take possession of the eS square and, after occupying it with a knight, to start an attack against the enemy king. Black, meanwhile, tries to take the initiative on the other flank and, when he gets the chance, make sound use of his queen’s bishop.” That, in the most general terms, is how Alexander Alekhine char- acterized the Zukertort System. 3...€6 In our book we'll only be examin- ing the Zukertort System in its classical form, i.e. with the move ...e7-e6, which to a large extent determines the strategy of play for the opposing sides. The main weakness of this move, as in the French Defense, is that Black has the “light- squared bishop problem.” The Zukertort System can be used, in principle, against any opening setup by Black, as it’s uni- versal. But it can’t always be effective, otherwise opening theory wouldn’t ex- ist and there would only be the Zuker- tort System. That’s why, as a rule, theo- tists relate only those: variations where it works and that are typical for it. So, for instance, after 3...c5 4. b3 Dc6 5. 2b2, Black can play 5...&g4!?, and the main ideas for White in the Zukertort System simply don’t work. John Watson and Eric Schiller, the authors of the book How to Succeed in the Queen Pawn Openings (Trafford, 2006), are of the same opinion. John Cox, in his book Dealing with d4 Deviations (Everyman Chess, 2005), also considers the line where the light-squared bishop comes out to f5 or g4 independent of both the Colle System and the Zuker- tort System. Richard Palliser additionally thinks that bringing out the bishop to f5 or g4 gives Black an “easy game” if White sticks to the Zukertort System. He, too, declines to examine this continuation. And you are amazed when you read the following in the book by Anatoly Karpov and Nikolai Kalinichenko: “However, the ideas in apparently (to judge by their name) different systems are, in essence, extraordinarily similar. The only differ- ence is that in the Zukertort System the bishop temporarily stays on c8, and inthe Nimzo- Indian, as we see, it can be devel- oped to g4. The rest is identical...” What on earth is the meaning of the phrase, “...in the Zukertort System the bishop temporarily stays on c8”? Despite my long acquaintance with one of the au- thors of this bit of wisdom, I have to call things as I see them. The whole point is that after ...e7-e6 this poor devil ofa bish- op often can’t find a worthy use behind the fence of black pawns, and often finds itself in secondary roles for a long time, and sometimes remains a mere extra all the way through to the end of the game. At the same time, once it comes out to g4 it immediately jumps into the middle of the battle, neutralizing White’s threats on the bl-h7 diagonal. And then naturally, the game scenario changes fundamen- 15The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black tally, and similar issues arise only in a few situations. After 5...2.24" it is difficult for White to count on getting an advantage by sticking to the Zukertort System. In gen- eral, as I said above, it’s very doubtful that the variations with Black’s light-squared bishop coming out to a useful spot (the g4 or f5 squares) have a connection with the Zukertort System. That’s why with this move order for Black, 3...c5, White has to be very careful and react in some other way to Black’s plotting. By way of illustration, Watson and Schiller bring in the game Perissinotto C. = Zurla M., Bologna 1991: 3...2.24 4. b3 e6 5. &d3 c5 (5...De4!?) 6. 22 exd4 7. exd4 Dc6 8. 0-0 He8 (On this theme there are two other games that once again confirm that once Black brings out his light-squared bishop to g4 it’s better if White doesn’t try for the Zukertort Sys- tem: 8...2.d6 9. Abd2 (9. Hel 0-0 10. a3 BoB 11. Abd2 Sh5 12. h3 24 13. 4 2.g6 {with the maneuver ...2.c8-g4-h5-26, which Savielly Tartakover vividly described as “a deparnre to distant lands,” Black neutralizes White’s play on the important b1-h7 diagonal, and furthermore the white pawn remains weak, as it has lost its main defender — the d3-bishop} 14. Df1 De4 15. Des? DxeS 16. dxeS Wh4 and White is defenseless, Mendoza A. — Bachmann A., Aguascalientes 2007] 9...0-0 10. a3 Hc8 11. Wel &f4 12. Hes DxeS 13. dxeS Dd7 14. £3 [14. g3) 14..2h5 (14... QMS!2 15, Bxf5 exfS 16. g3 Wh6+ 17. Bhi Bxc2] 15. B2 Ws 16. Afl 2g6 17, &xg6 hxg6 18. Gh1 &xe5, and Black wona pawn in Rogmans J. — Karpatchev A,, Charleroi 2005, and with it the game) 9, Dbd2 (according to Watson and Schil- 16 ler, Black is already better) 9...2.d6 10. Ecl s2f4! (exclamation mark by Watson and Schiller. As we can see from these games, the move is characteristic of this variation: now the bishop can’t be cut out of the action on the kingside by the move 4)f3-e5 [of course, after the knight frees itself from the pin], and it’s also pleasant for it to work along the cl-h6 diagonal) 11. £e2 Ded}, and Black has the advan- tage. 4, 2d3 05 In principle, the theory ofthe Zuker- tort System starts out from the assump- tion that there is a black pawn on cS. In 90 percent of the cases that’s true, but there are games in which Black refrains from ...c7-¢5 for a while, or never plays it at all. The fact is that, knowing what difficulties await him, Black might go for different schemes: either by saving a tempo on.,..c7-c5 or by playing a “Black Zukertort” (see Part II, Chapter 3). 5.b3 Incontrast to the Colle System, where White plays c2-c3, securing a retreat square for the light-squared bishop in the event of...c5-c4, in the Zukertort System White not only anticipates Black’s threat, but also immediately prepares a parking spot for the dark-squared bishop. Now we have the starting point of the Zuker- tort System. While White’s aims in this position are fairly transparent — put the bishop on b2, open the al-h8 diagonal, and throw all your pieces at your oppo- nent’s king, with the rocket battery of the two Horwitz bishops firing with terribleforce — Black is at a crossroads. Where is his queen’s knight better placed — on c6, or d7? Where is the dark-squared bishop best developed, on d6, e7, or hidden away ina “cabin” on g7? Or perhaps he should express his love for an early check like an amateur? Or maybe start hacking away at d4 right away, swordsman-style. As we can see, Black has many roads to choose from. Incidentally, White’s subsequent play depends on this choice too. So it’s with these questions that we'll begin our investigation. But before going into the main material I should point out that, after 1. d4 D6 2. DB e6 3.3 c5 4. 2d3 d5, White sometimes provokes Black into ..c5-c4 by immediately playing 5. 0-0: The Subject of Our Serious Study A debatable decision. After 5...c4 Black not only chases White’s bishop away from its aggressive post, but also grabs some space. What does White seek in return? First, Black must react care- fully to White’s action on the queenside. Below we'll see what kind of nuance this is. Secondly, after Black plays ...c5-c4 the white pawn on d4 will solidly cover the center, providing an opportunity for its e-pawn brother to demonstrate some activity — e3-e4 — and untying White’s hands on the kingside. And what does Black need with all this? The fact is that seizing space with ...c5-c4 enables Black to create serious counterplay on the queenside. Therefore 6. Le2bS Here’s that very nuance: Slow play after this move isn’t desirable, as White will get the better pawn structure, for example 6...Dc6 7. b3 exb3 (it is nec- essary to trade pawns, as 7...b5 is bad because of 8. a4) 8. axb3 (White already has a nice position thanks to his supe- rior pawn. structure) 8...2.d6 9. 2a3 0- 0 10. c4 He8 11. Sxd6é Wxd6 12, Ac3 (12. ¢5!? intending “bl -c3-b5-d6) 12... b6 13. Wel a5?! (13...2b7 £) 14. Abs (Rotstein E. — Hermann W., Cologne 2000) 14...Wd7 15. DeS DxeS 16. dxe5 Ded 17. cxdS Bab 18. dxe6 Exe 19. Hai +; or 6...Abd7 7. b3 b5?! (now it was necessary to agree to 7...cxb3 8. axb3) 8. a4 exb3 9. axb4 bxc2 10. Yxe2 2b7 11. Dbd2 £46 12, a3 8xa3 13. Exa3 0-0 14. Bfal Wb6 15. Ya2 Bics 16. &f1 (weaker is 16. 2xa7 Exa7 17. Wxa7 Has!) 16...We7 17. Db3 Ded, and here in Kurajica B. — Palac M., 17The Zukertort System: A Guide for White and Black Medulin 1997, White could already take the pawn with 18. EXxa7 as 18...Bxa7 19. Wxa7 Ha8 doesn’t work because of 20. Zell; finally 6...2.d6 7. b3 b5? (here we go again: better is 7...cxb3 8. axb3) 8. a4 bxa4 9. bxe4 dxo4 10. 2.xc4 Baumgart S. — Eichner M., Germany 1997. 7. b3!2 White immediately tries to wreck his opponent’s entrenched pawns. But there is also another frequently en- countered strategy for White associated with the Pillsbury setup, which we’ll talk about in more detail below. Here’s how the game Najdorf M. — Hounie F, Mar del Plata 1946, went: 7. He5 @bd7 8. f4 Bb7 9. Dd2 Ld6 (play turned out less successfully for White in the following recent game: 9...2e7 10. Adf3?! [White voluntarily declines to fight for the e4 square, while it’s pre- cisely in this structure that the advance e3-e4 can be very effective. Now is not a good moment to undermine Black’s queenside, ie. 10. b3? c3 11. Adf3 b4 12. a3 aS, and after Black occupies e4, White’s dark-squared bishop can’t get into play] 10...Ae4 11. a4?! [another unsuccessful move: in addition to the e4 square, Black also takes space on the queenside] 11...b4, and later on in Adly A. — Rublevsky S., Tripoli 2004, Black's space advantage on the queen- side made itself felt) 10.c3 0-0 11. We2 We7 12. 2£3 Db6 13. e4 Bac8 14. exdS exd5 (14...bxd5!?) 15. g3, and in the subsequent maneuvers Najdorf simply did a number on his opponent, not run- ning into any powerful resources. T.2.B7 8.04 White’s play is also organized by keeping pawns on the a-file, for exam- ple: 8. bxe4 bxc4 9. Dc3 Abd7 10. Hbl Qc6 11. e4!? (White rushes to open up the center, as Black’s king is stuck there) 11...dxe4 (It would be interesting to see what would have happened if Black had first taken the pawn with the knight. Does White really feel comfortable in the variation 111...2xe4!? 12. Axed dxed 13, Dd2c3) 12. Hd2 Was 13. 2.b2 bs 14. Ded Dxed 15. Lxc4 Ld6 16. d5!? exd5 17. &.b5 BxbS 18. DxbS Uxbs 19. S.xfo Wd7 20, S.xg7 Bg8 21, Wd4 (also after 21. 2.d4 an impressive draw could be obtained: 21...Wh3 22. g3 &xg3 23. fxg3 Exg3+ 24. hxg3 Wxg3+) 21...16 22. 2xf6 Exg2+ 23. xg? Wed+ 4-14, Diz- dar G. — Chandler M., Jarmala 1983, 8...26 9.3 After the series of trades 9. axbS axbS 10. Hxa8 sxa8 11. bxe4 bxe4, neither side could achieve anything tangible in the game Maréczy G. — Nimzowitsch A, Goteborg 1920. 9...bd7 10. Dbd2 Le7 M1. La3 0-0 12. We2 2c6 13, Wh2 with an ap- proximately equal game in Kurajica B. — Bareey E., Sarajevo 2003,Part I Play for WhiteChapter | A Piece Attack A. The Black Monarch’s Residence on the Kingside White often attacks only with pieces on the kingside, dispensing with the pawns. In the first phase he transfers his pieces to the kingside. In the second phase he cre- ates various threats in order to provoke weaknesses in Black’s position. Then in the final phase, exploiting the weak points in his opponent’s defenses, he launches the decisive attack. The usual scenario is that Black holds the position, but a protracted defense leads to mistakes that can’t be corrected. Yusupov A. — Scheeren P. Plovdiv 1983 1, d4 Df 2. DB e6 3. e354, 2d3 65 5, b3 Dbd7 6. 2b2 b6 7. 0-0 27 8. Desi? The mark of respect after this move hasn’t been placed there for no reason. You only have to recall the saying of the very experienced Tartakover: “A knight on eS is a great master of space; mate follows on its heels.” 8...a6 “Two for the price of one”: First, Black is preparing to advance the pawns on the queenside — ...b6-b5 and ...c5S- c4; secondly, he prevents a check from White’s bishop on bS. So, for example, now 8...De4 would be bad due to 9. 2bS Def 10. WB, and as a result Black has only lost time. White, besides the gift in the form of additional tempi for development, has also created a terrible threat, for example on 10...a6? there fol- lows 11, &xd7+ Qxd7 12, Wxt7# (the variation with the preliminary exchange 8...2\xe5? and after 9. dxe5 Black plays 9...Be4 isn’t even worth talking about due to 10. &b5+). 9, Dd2 5 Black adopts a very simple plan, which we'll talk about in Part II, Chap- ter 6. Its main drawback in this game 21Part I. Play for White is that development isn’t finished. The counter-plan employed by Yusupov can be considered one of the most effective in this variation. 9...De4 is bad because of the varia- tion pointed out by Susan Polgar: 10. @xd7 Yxd7 (10..Dxd2 11. Dxbol? GB) 11. &xe4 dxe4 12. Ded (threaten- ing a fork on b6) 12...4c6 13. dxeS bxeS (White has the advantage, as he has the better pawn structure: on the queenside he has three pawns against two black pawns, and without the help of the piec- es they can create a passed pawn in the endgame; and on the kingside, thanks to the fact that Black has doubled pawns on the e-file, the white pawnseasily hold off Black in a pawn ending. Of course, all this discussion ofthe long-term prospects inspires anguish in view of Nigel Short’s saying: “In modern chess there’s more concern about pawn structure. Forget it: mate decides everything.” Giving check- mate is a more enjoyable pastime. But still, when defensive technique in mod- em chess has lulled you into the idea: T'll play how I play, Pll go wherever I'll be safe — that’s rather a dangerous thing. White’s superiority in the above variation is also determined by his better develop- ment, and moreover Black has to think about how to complete his development on the kingside. [Bad are both 13...2.xc5 because of 14. 2x7; and 13...\xc5 be- cause of 14. &.d4.]). 10. Axd7!? Weaker is 10. dxc5 because of 10... ®xc5, attacking White’s important bishop. 22 10...xd7 In the event of 10...2xd7, White plays 11. c4, undermining Black’s cen- ter. This is very dangerous for the second player, as he is behind in development. IL. dxcSt? White opens up the major al-h8 diagonal. One of the main weapons in the hands of followers of the Zukertort — opening up the al-h8 diagonal — has been allocated its own chapter due to its importance. (See Chapter 2.) The idea is clear: to bring White’s dark-squared bishop into the game. 1... 2xe5 12. W3 In the game Adly A. — Taleb M., Dubai 2005, White used a plan involving an e3-e4 advance. See Part I, Chapter 9: 12. a4 b4 (12...bxa4?! 13. Hxad is dubi- ous, as White puts strong pressure on the a-pawn) 13. Wf3 We7 14. e4 (Wor- thy of attention in this position is Yusu- pov’s plan, in which White can hope for succcess: 14, ¥/g3!? 0-0 15. Of3. After 14. e4 mass exchanges follow, when the tightful result of the game is a “draw from exhaustion of the organism,” as Tartakover put it.) 14...dxe4 15. Dxe4 Dred 16. Bxe4 xed 17, Yxed 0-0 18. Had1 with an equal game. 12....e7 Worthy ofattention is 12...4e7. True, after 13. ¥/g3 0-0 (Smith and Hall point out an interesting opportunity after 13... Qd6: 14. Wxg7 Hes 15. Wexi6! Exg2+16. Gxg? d4+ 17. Be4 Waf6 18. 2xb7, and it’s even somewhat uncomfortable to talk about White’s compensation for the queen) 14. a3, White’s pieces are more active; I might also add that on 12...d4 there follows the straightforward 13. 4e4. Susan Polgar came up with the following variation: 13...2\xe4 14. 2xe4 Bxed 15. Bxed4 Hd8 16. fadl +. 13, &/g3 0-0 14. B13 White not only brings the knight into the attack on the kingside, but also takes control of the e5 square, not giving Black the opportunity to. play ...e6-e5. White’s last three moves, transferring his pieces from the center to the flank, are completely in line with Tartakover’s vivid expression: “Order to the center —take the king’s fortress by storm.” 14...hac8 Smith and Hall think that in this po- sition Black should play 14...h6. After this move Richard Palliser suggests 15. DeS We7 16. f4, when White controls the situation on the queenside and in the center, while on the kingside he has good preconditions for an attack. 15. Dg5 (threatening the h7-pawn) 15...26 15...n6? is bad because of 16. 2h7!. 16. 4#/h4 (with the simple threat of 17. £f6 and 18. Wh7#) 16...h5 Moves suggested by our “silicon friends” such as 16..2fe8 are difficult Chapter 1. A Piece Attack for a human to find, as they’re very far from obvious. 17. Sadi Directed against 17...2e4. Worthy of attention is 17. Wd4!?, tying Black down to the long diagonal. 17...Dh7? 17..4c7 (Yusupoy) 18. Yd4 Yes 19. Bid Aga. 18. &xh5! One of the most beautiful sacrifices typical of the Zukertort System, but: “The most miraculous thing about chess is that there’s absolutely nothing miracu- lous about it.” We won’t recall who said these words, but we’ll bring in an expla- nation of them by Tartakover, who noted, “_.. how quickly here a creative moment turns into a purely technical one. So, for example, the player who used a ‘smoth- ered mate’ for the first time, by means of a queen sacrifice... no doubt acted under the influence of great inspiration. Howev- er, since then this motif has participated 23Part I. Play for White assomething elementary and self-explan- atory in countless combinations. In gen- eral, many forms of sacrifice have already become routine — for example, sacrific- ing a pawn to open upa line or sacrificing the exchange based on the law of rela- tive strength. Something more striking is required for today’s sophisticated chess strategists — for example, sacrificing a major piece (a rook or a queen) or several pieces in a row — to really make an im- pression on them.” We’ll add only that in the 80 years since those words were said, such brilliant sacrifices are already being used asan ordinary technical method, es- pecially by those who have long been ac- quainted with the Zukertort System. 18..,.2xg5 Clearly 18...gxh5 is impossible be- cause of the mate 19. &.xh7. 19, 2xg6 6 19...fxg6?? 20. Wxg6+ wins. 20. f4 White wins the piece back with a continuing attack. 20...Wg7 21. fxgS Dxgs 22. hd Ded Also losing is 22...9h7, ie. 23. Bd4 £5.24. Qxh7+ Wxh7 25. Hed+ figs 26. Wxg4+ and mate on the next move. 23, S.xed dxed 24. Eff 1-0. In the guise of worrying about con- trol over the e5 square, White can dou- 24 ble the queen and rook on the e-file, and moreover his knights are eyeing e5 and g5. This white piece setup is a pre- condition for a surprise tactical attack should Black lose control over the e6 and {7 squares. Salvadori G. - Menén- dez S., Spain 1998, went: 1. d4 Df6 2. ALB e6 3. e3 5 4. 2d3 d5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 exd4 7. exd4 2e7 8& a3 0-0 9. Dbd2 b6 10. 2b2 Lb7 11. We2 Hes 12. Bael He8?!. The first step towards the edge of the abyss — the f7 square is weakened. 13. @g5 Black should have been on the lookout for this move, but now 13.,.h6?2, and we have in front of us a model position for a typical knight sacrifice on {7: White’s major pieces are concentrat- ed on the e-file, and the vulnerability of Black’s castled position means that the f7 square is available to the white knight: 14. @xt7! WaT (after 14..58x17? 15. Wxeb6+ Of8 16. &g6 Black can’t avoid mate) 15, &g6. Asa result of this simple combination, White has obtained a sig- nificant advantage. History repeated itself in the follow- ing game: Ferris §. - Huynh A., Can-berra 2002: 1. d4 Af6 2. AFB 6 3. 3 5 4, £43 d5 5. b3 Dcé 6. 2b2 cxd4 7. exd4 &b4+ (for the maneuver 6...cxd4 and 7....£b4+ see Part II, Chapter 12) 8. Dbd2 0-0 9. 0-0 He8 10. Hel We7 11, a3 2d6 12. DeS b6 13. Ddf3 aS 14. We2 2b7 15. h3 De7??. Instead of Bogolyubov’s maneuver (more about which below), with this move Black has invited the “hara-kiri maneuver”: 16. Dxf! wxfF 17. Dgs+, and Black resigned because of the variation 17... 88 (17... £8 18. Dxe6+ +—) 18. Wxe6+ Gh8 19. D17+ Hg 20. Axd6+ Fans of beautiful combinations should be careful when carrying them out, as (for example) after 20. Dh6+ Wh8 the “impressive” queen sacrifice 21. 4g8+ is refuted by 21...2exg8, and the black queen controls the f7 square. 20...2h8 21. xe8 with an easily winning posi- tion for White. In his arsenal of typical tactics White also has an impressive bishop sacrifice on h7, which is based on a “dream plan,” as Susan Polgar called it. Langer M. — Ros- tlivy M., Czech Republic 1996: 1. d4 2f6 2. DPB d5 3.€3e6 4. 2.d3.c5 5.b3Dc66. Chapter |. A Piece Attack 2b2 exd4 7. exdd 2b4+ 8 c3 2.a5?! (af- tera check on b4 the black bishop usually retreats to d6 or e7) 9. Dbd2 0-0 10. 0- 0 He8 11. We2 &c7. The dark-squared bishop has returned to the diagonal on which it usually works, but with the loss of a tempo. True, there is a little plus: when the opportunity arises, he can take White’s e5-knight with his own knight without having to worry about a fork on e5. 12. DeS We? 13. f4 2d7 14, BB. “Rush to the flank!” 14... Hed8 15. 2h3. White has completed the ideal deploy- ment of his pieces to carry out the attack in the “dream plan”: the knight on e5; the rook transferred to the h-file via fl- f3-h3; the queen on the dl-h5 diagonal always ready to join in the assault on the black king; and the light-squared bishop patiently waiting in ambush to dart to the h7 square, which is drawing the white pieces to itself like a magnet. Everything in this plan is good: all that’s needed is permission from Black to carry it out. 15...¥44/8?, And Black gives the blessing: 16. &xh7+! and Black resigned, as taking on h7 leads to unavoidable mate: 16...Axh7 17, YhS Wes 18. Yxh7+ SPB 19. 203+. 25Part I. Play for White Now let’s look at a game on the same theme, this one played by Argentinian grandmaster Miguel Najdorf: Najdorf M. — Rossetto H., Mar del Plata 1942: 1. d4 DIG 2. AL e6 3. e3 b6 4. 2.43 2b7 5, 0-045 6.b3 2e7 7, 2b2 0-08. Abd2 59. AeS Dcé6 10. f4 Hc8 11. a3 Already threatened was ...2ic6- b4, and White has to part with his light-squared bishop, which generally isn’t favorable for him. We’ll see this opportunity for Black more than once in this book. A separate section (Part Il, Chapter 14) has been assigned to the black knight’s maneuver to b4. 11...exd4 12. exd4 Ye7 13. c3 White makes provision against the black knight’s jump to e4, asin the event of trades on e4 and e5 the white c-pawn is defenseless. It can also be defended with Hal-cl. See Part II, Chapter 7. 13...De8 After 13...Be4 14. Dxe4 DxeS, White obtains good chances foranattack on the kingside with the Zwischenzug 15. Dior. 14. We2 2d6 In this situation the automatic 14... f5 allows White to obtain an attacking position, for example: 15. @df3 D6 (after 15...Dxe5 16. fxe5, Black’s e4- knight doesn’t make it, and the closed center allows White to prepare for a decisive assault on the castled position of the black king without any particular 26 difficulty) 16. Ags Dd8 17. HB (17. 41?) 17...n6 (17...Be4 18, Dxh7!) 18. Bh3! Ded (18...hxg5? 19. txg5 Aga 20. Wxed! fxgd 21. 2h7+ Gh8 22. Hg6) 19. Wh5, and White has a strong at- tack. 15. Hael Ye7 16.b4 Also possible is 16. Bf3 immediately, as the pawn on a3 is immune to capture. In this case the “dream plan” goes into action, for example: 16...2xa3? 17. Sxh7+! Gxh7 18. Bn3+ Ygs 19. Whs with inescapable mate. 16...a5 17. Ef3 Das? By his lack of resistance, Black has “persuaded” his opponent to undertake one of the main combinations in the Zukertort System: 18. Qxh7+! Ghs Black can’t avoid mate after 18... Sxh7 19, Bh3+ &g8 20. Wh, 19. Hh3 Df 20. Daf3 Dxh7 21. D5, and Black gave up the fight. 1-0The Pillsbury Formation The Pillsbury setup is one of the basic piece arrangements in the Yusupovka during both a piece attack and a pawn attack by White. A typical indicator of the Pillsbury setup is the white pawn triangle — d4/e3/f4 — topped by the knight on e5. However, in the Pillsbury attacking plan there is a white pawn on c3 (a Stonewall-type pawn structure), reinforcing White’s center, and in this case White’s dark- squared bishop stays on the sidelines for a while. The Zukertort System takes this deficiency into account. Instead of playing c2-c3, White fianchettoes the dark-squared bishop with b2-b3 and &b2, where it lurks awaiting its time. At first 1 thought that Isidor Gunsberg was the first person to put the Pillsbury formation into “circulation” in his game against Amos Bur at London 1887. But then I found the game Potter WN. — Blackbume J., London 1876 ()), where there appeared on the board not only the Pillsbury formation, but also, we might say, the Zukertort System. itself. (See the Foreword.) So, why then do I name this piece configuration after Pillsbury — especially as, if you believe the databases, he first came across this setup much later than Potter? It’s just that the universally known name Pillsbury has already become linked with the theory of this deployment plan. By the way, famous theoreticians of the past — in particular Siegbert Tarrasch (“As is well known, Pillsbury placed his knight on eS in every Queen’s Gambit, and there, with a pawn to the right of it and a pawn to the left of it, it flaunted Chapter 1. A Piece Attack itself. as a symbol of future victory”) and Savielly Tartakover — associated this setup with Pillsbury’s name. A similar thing happened with the name of the Zukertort System. But for us the name of the system isn’t as important as how to play it, so let’s continue with the matter at hand. The kingside is the strategic direction of play for White. Let’s start with one of the early games with this setup between two top players: Janowski D. — Lasker Em. Berlin 1910 1. d4.d52. DB AG 3. e364. 2d3 5 5. 0-0 Deb Why does Black bring his knight out to c6, and not to d7? Developing the knight to d7 looks more flexible, and it doesn’t block access to the a8-h1 di- agonal by his own light-squared bishop, which is very relevant in the battle for the crucial e4 square. If you read this book to the end you'll understand why. For now let’s just say that developing the knight to c6 gives Black many more op- portunities to equalize. Here Black could play 5...c4. We al- ready looked at this direction of play in the previous chapter. See Kurajica — Ba- reev, Sarajevo 2003. 6.b3 2d6!? By the end of the book we’ll come to understand when it’s better to place the dark-squared bishop on d6, and when on 27Part I. Play for White e7. For now we'll talk in general terms. On d6, the bishop supports the freeing pawn advance ...e6-e5, and is sometimes ready to sacrifice itself in order to eliminate the very important white knight on eS. The drawbacks: Black can’t take the e5- knight with his queen’s knight, as with the bishop on d6 and the knight on f6 there's a fork; in some variations White opens the diagonal with a tempo by means of dxc3, attacking the bishop; sometimes the battery of the black queen and bishop on d6 can be subjected to attack after @b1-c3(a3)-bS. A black bishop on e7 is passive, of course, but in this case Black both avoids the defects listed above and defends the knight on {6; and sometimes the need arises to control the h4-d8 diagonal. 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Abd2 We7!? The start ofa maneuver that Emanuel Lasker observed Carl Schlechter playing in his game against Salwe at the Hamburg tournament of 1910 not long before the match; and Schlechter in turn was evidently familiar with the game Salwe — Rotlewi, L6dz 1909. Later Max Euwe spoke warmly of this maneuver. For more detail on this maneuver see Part II, Chapter 11. 9. Ae5 White prevents ...e6-e5, after which Black equalizes. See Part II, Chapter 9. 9...Bd8 Schlechter preferred to leave this rook in place — see Part II, Chapter 11. 28 In passing we'll mention the popular misconception that exists to this day, that the line 9...cxd4 10. exd4 £a3!?, which was first encountered in the game Bogolyubov-Capablanca, New York 1924 (see Part II, Chapter 8), eliminates all of Black’s problems. We’ll see in due course that it isn’t all that simple. 10. a3 247 Black sometimes develops his bad bishop via d7, and later to bS with an attempt to trade off White’s “nasty” bishop, which, as a rule, is met by White’s clear opposition, expressed in the move ¢2-c4; or else it follows the route d7-e8-g6(h5), and it makes sense that the black f-pawn should move from its starting square, with an urgent desire to force its white “brother-in-arms” into an exchange. In addition to which, in this situation it’s difficult to develop the bishop to b7, as after ...b7-b6 the c6- knight is left unguarded. 11. f4 So, we have on the board the basic configuration of white pieces that we call the Pillsbury formation. Later on, White can take the game in several directions depending on what Black does. The first is the “dream plan” we saw above, ie., White transfers his rook to h3 by the route fl-f3-h3, and subsequently applies the techniques that we already know. Sometimes, if Black objects to his opponent’s intentions, White puts his rook on g3, where it still occupies a good attacking position.The second direction of play, which White uses in this game, is to transfer his queen to the h3 square, and later to bring the knight into the game via Ae5S-g4 or @\d2-f3-g5. The rook can also be involved in carrying out this plan. The third direction of play is an attack by the white pawns — g2-g4-g5 or f4-f5. Sometimes the h-pawn also gets into the act. (See Part I, Chapter 4.) And the last direction isthat White can ram the castled position of the black king with the f-pawn: f4-f5- f6. We'll also encounter this plan of play on more than one occasion. Finally, [’ll say that in all these plans it’s possible to open up the main al-h8 diagonal. See the next chapter. It’s also possible for White to play in the center with ¢2-c4, but in this case he should bear in mind the possibility of getting hanging pawns and the black army coming to life. That’s why the plans of play for White listed above, in my opinion, look safer and more logical for White, which is very important for players who like to conduct an attack “comfortably.” 11...28 12. UB Chapter 1. A Piece Attack The queen’s move to 3 is often necessary for two reasons — apart from the fact that that it’s on the way to h3, it also takes control of the e4 square. 12,..2d7 13, Yh3 DB Black has moved away his knight, his main defender, to a solid place. The reality is that its post on {6 is very unstable: White was threatening to march the g-pawn forward — g2-g4-g5 — orto open up the al-h8 diagonal with the threat of eliminating the f6-knight with the b2-bishop. 14. Dass In the game Hartston W. — Kosten A, Torquay 1982, White took a different path: 14. ¥g3 f6 (after 14...Ag6, White has the following opportunity: 15. ®Dxg6 hxg6 16. AF3 with the threat of ADE3-g5 and Wg3-h4) 15. dxcS (White chooses the attacking plan associated with opening up the al-h8 diagonal, which has been allocated a chapter of its own due to its importance; see Part I, Chapter 2) 15...2xc5 16. Ded 2p6 17. b4 &b6 18. Hael He8 19. Bhi (19. 43) 19...f5 20. Hes (a “devourer of tempi” — Nimzowitsch’s name for the knight that has been attacked twice by the f-pawn, allowing Black to win time — has returned to his favorite pasture, the eS square) 20...2\xe521. &xe5a5 22. Df3 axb4 23. axb4 Ha3 with an unclear position. (Incidentally, the b4-pawn was inedible because of the following variation: 23...4xb4? 24. Hb1 Wa5 25. Eb5 Wa7 26. Bibl Ad7 27. Hxb6 Axb6 28. 2d4 +-.) 29)Part 1, Play for White 14.16 15. Ded ‘Contemporary chess analysts suggested continuing the attack with the move 15. 2h4!?, which assumes that the piece sacrifice will be accepted. Let’s see what happens if Black gets greedy and takes the knight: 15...fxeS (15..Hac8!?, and if, for example, 16. g4!?, then 16... ®Db8 with the threat of 17...c4) 16. fxe5 Sc7 17. BxfSt! Wxf8 (or 17..8xf8 18. Bfl+ W7 (18...g8 19. &xh7+!) 19. Wxe6 with a big advantage) 18. Ef 27 (18..N¥e7 is also bad because of 19, S&xh7+! &xh7 20. Df5+ and so on; true, after 18...Wxfl+!? 19. Gxfl &f7 material equality is preserved, and Black holds on) 19. &xh7+!? @xh7 20. AB+ Hg8 21. Dgs eB 22. Wh7+ WEB 23. Wh8+ Ge? 24. Yxe7 &d7 25. Bxf7+ De7 26. Wi6. White not only returns the sacrificed material, but also gains something with the continuing attack. And I haven’t yet found a clear answer to the reasonable question, “What if Black doesn’t accept the sacrifice?” 15,..296 16. 2xg6 Dxg6 17. dxeS Lxe5 Threatening 18...Axf4. 18. Dd4 With the counter-threat 19. Axe6! Wxe6? 20. Dh6+. 18...f5 Black should pay attention to this opportunity to win time by chasing the e5-knight. But at the same time he 30 should bear in mind the possible bishop sacrifice on h?. This possibility will be examined below. 19. Dxe6 bxe6 20. DeS DxeS 21. Bxe5!? Clearly not 21. fxe5? — the dark- squared bishop should, as a rule, patrol the long diagonal. 21...2xa3 22. Ef 2d6 23. 2b2 ae Lasker suggested the immediate 23... es. 24, Hab Hac8 25. Xg3 tv Inthe case of 25...¢5 26. fxe5 &.xe5 27. &xe5 Wxe5 28. Hxa7, a draw also ensues. 26. Wh6 Threatening 27. &xg7 Hxg7 28. Elxg7+ Wxg7 29. Wxe6+. 26...e5 27. fxeS QxeS 28. Axes Wxe5 29, Exe6 Htc? 30. W16! Wxi6 31. Exf6, and the game ended ina draw on move 45. In the next game White wasn’t afraid of parting with his lovely knight on e5: Fries-Nielsen O. — Hellsten J. Copenhagen 1996 1. d4 D6 2. DL e6 3. e3 cS 4. 2.43 d5 5. 0-0 Ac6 6. b3 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. ADbd2 We7 9, DeS HB 10, a3 Dd7It’s this move order (and not 10...2.c8- d7) that Efim Bogolyubov suggested. 1. 14 DB “With the move ...f7-£6 Black chases the knight away from its dominating position and then develops by means of ... c8-d7-e8 and ...g7-g6. Black’s play after this is preferable” — Bogolyubov. But, as we'll see now, the position isn’t simple and the attacking potential of the white pieces is also great with this arrangement of the black pieces. 12. WhS (6 13. B13 Yes. White hasa clearadvantage after 13... fxe5 14. fe &.xe5 (playingtohold onto the material leads to immediate defeat, for example: 14...2.c7 15. Bxf8+! Sxf8 16. Efl+ +—) 15. dxeS. 14, Wh4 exd4 The e5-knight is still untouchable: 14...fxeS 15. fxeS Dgé (15.227 16. BxfB4+! +-) 16. WhS cxd4 (16.207 17, Bh3 +—) 17. Bh3 and there’s little chance of repelling White’s attack. 15. exd4 hS On 15...Ae7 Smith and Hall give the following variation: 16. &2xh7+ Axh7 17. Bh3 fxeS 18. Wxh7+ O47 19. fxeS 207 20. Efl+ @fS 21. g4 with a winning position. After 15...f5 it wouldn’t be easy for White to attack. 16. Bafl fxeS Chapter 1. A Piece Attack 16...De7!? (Baburin) 17. H3#2 fxeS 18. fxe5 DFS 19. Bxf5 exfS 20. exd6. 17. fxeS Le7 18. Yg3 2d7 19. Hira des 20. Dt3 Yds Again using the analytical findings of Smith and Hall: 20...8c7 21. Ags Bac8 22. Hf? (22. Df7!? GB) 22...26, and here we’ll leave their analysis and suggest a shorter path to victory: 23. Axg6!? Dxg6 24. Wd3 +-. Here White missed an opportunity to end the game in his favor more quickly: 21. Eixf8+! 2.xf8 22. Yg6 28 23. Wh7+ GIT 24, Ql, and Black has to choose between getting mated and losing his queen. In the next game, after 10...f6 a problematic position again arose. The question is whether White is correct to sacrifice her bishop on h7. Zaitseva L. — Rubtsova T. Sochi 1983 1, d4.Df6 2. DPB d5 3, €3 6 4. 243 31Part I. Play for White 05 5. b3 2d6 6. 2b2 Ac6 7. Abd2 0-0 8. a3 We7 9. eS Ad7 The plan of development for the black pieces suggested by Euwe deserves attention. Despite Black’s slow development, White can’t lunge in and refute it. 10. £4 £6 In Podolnjak T. — Adzié M., Betiéi 1994, Black decided to chase the e5- knight with the move ...f7-f6 only after securing his king's position: 10..2e8 11. 0-0 DFS 12, Whs oxd4 (after 12... f6, White can continue to build up augment the attack, for example with 13. Hf3, as the knight on eS is inedible for the time being: 13...fxeS 14. fxe5 26 [14.807 15. Bxf8+ +—] 15. exd6 Wxd6 16. dxc5 WxcS 17. 2xg6 Dxg6 18. Hf? +—) 13. exd4 g6 (on 13...16 White coolly continues to bring new pieces into play: 14. Hf3) 14. Whé f6 15. Hg4 (White has to move his knight away, otherwise he’ll simply be left a piece down) 15... g7 16. h4 2e7 17. DB 2.7 (17...f5? 18. Dh6+ Lhs 19, De5 +) 18. Hael Ads 19. Dh6+ Ghs 20. 24 b5?! (20...ADf7 looked logical, with an effort not only to reduce his opponent’s attacking potential, but also to leave his pieces less congested) 21. 35 £5 22. Des 2d6 23. Wi2 &xe5 24. Hxe5 (24. dxeS!?) 24...Db7 25. c4 bxe4d 26. bxe4 &c6 27. c5, and White obtained a big advantage. For 10...2xe5?! 11. dxe5, see the notes to Salwe G. — Schlechter C., Hamburg 1910, in Part I, Chapter 11. 32 An excursion by the black queen to the kingside is dubious: 10...Wh4+ 11. 23 Wh3 (Draga’evié G.A. — Marié M., Budva 1996. White continued 12. Y13, castled long, and obtained a promising position, with black queen bearing most of the blame for this for staying out of play. The move 10...f5 looks solid, without any risk. In this case White will most likely choose the plan with ¢c2-c4 after first castling. Returning to the game: 1. 2xh7+?! As the “post-mortem” showed, this piece sacrifice is incorrect. 11...oxh7 12, WhS+ eB 13. Dg6 We8 14, dxc5 In Kekki P. — Kosmo S., Finland 2008, White decided to move the queen’s knight over to the kingside first with 14. 43, but in this case, too, Black plays 14... e7, and his chances inthe coming battle look much better: 15. @fh4 (following 15. Wh8+ £7 16. Axf8, Black shouldtake on f8 with the queen, defending the g7 square, as 16...2xf8? loses to 17. dxc5 Bxc5 18. Dgs+!) 15..cxd4 16. exd4 Dxg6 17. Dxge f5 18. Whst G7 19. DxfB WwtB 20, Whs+ dps, and Black has two pieces for a rook. 14...2)xe5? Black blunders. The second player proceeded correctly with 14...e7! in Bruno A. — Messa R., Imperia 1984. See Part II, Chapter 11. On the other hand, 14...&xc5 isn’t so clear, as in this case White retains an attacking position: 15. Af e5 (15... Be7? loses immediately, for example: 16. Wh8+ {7 17. Des+ fkes [17... Sxg6 18. Wh7#] 18. Yxg7#) 16. fxeS &xe3 (16...fxe5? 17. Des; 16... @dxe5? 17. Dfxe5 Dxe5 18. &xe5) 17. Wh8+ Gf7 18. Whs. The position after 14...2.c5 requires detailed analysis. Then again, we must ask whether it is necessary, considering that Black has the strong move 14...\e7!. 15. AB De?? Clearly 15..@e4 isn’t a saving move either, but at least it doesn’t lose immediately: 16. Dg5 DxgS 17. fxg5 e5 18. 0-0 £5 19, Bad! 2e6 20. g4 with a very strong attack. Black also faces a very difficult defense after 15...Wd8 16. 0-0 Ded 17, Aes Axes 18. fee5 e5 19. c4. 16. Wh8+ fT 17. AgS+!, and Black resigned. 1-0 Chapter 1. A Piece Attack Still, bearing in mind Black’s opportunity on move 14, before going for the bishop sacrifice on h7 White should have considered the configuration of the black pieces. See the notes to Vospernik Z. —Potochnik P,, Slovenia 1996 (Part I, Chapter 4). See also Euwe-Rubinstein, Ostrava 1923, in the supplementary games section. The next game was played by mail. Correspondence games differ from over-the-board games in their playing conditions: in an analytical game it’s much more difficult to deceive your opponent. White nevertheless went in for a positional bishop sacrifice on h7 in Russell — Hoffmann J., USA corr. 1992: 1. d4 D6 2. DB e6 3. e3 c5 4. b3 Heb $. 2.43 b6 6. 2b2 2b7 7. 0-0 Le7 8. Dbd2 0-09. a3 d5 10. DeS De8 U1. £416 After 11...£5 White can continue 12. g4, and now Black has to think about reinforcing the f5 square, as the course of play after 12...fxe4 13. Yxe4 does not favor his cause. 33Part I. Play for White 12, 2xh7+2! Gxh7 13, WhS+ Yes 14, Dg6 £5 15. AB It’s all very unclear if White goes into play with a ratio of rook plus n-number of pawns against two minor pieces, for example: 15. Wh8+!? Yf7 16. Dxf8 Bx8 (16...D16? 17. Yxg7+ Gxg7 18. @xe6+, and White has armed himself with pawns for good reason; while after 16...Ac7 17. dxc5 Wxf8 18. Wh5+ Sg8 19. cxb6 axb6 20. @f3 White doesn’t have as many extra pawns, but he has kept his queen) 17. 23, and White's attack continues. 15...D66 16. Yh8+ eT 17. Ages+ Not so good now is 17. Dxf8 Wxf8 18. Dgs+ Hes 19. WxB+ GxfB 20. dxc5 Qd8. No queens. 17...DxeS 18. DxeS+ Ye 19. Wxg7 We7 20. dxc5 bxeS 21. Wg6+ With 21. Efd1 it was possible to try and hold the black king in the center, and with a subsequent c2-c4 to start destroying Black’s pawn center. 21.8 22. DIT+ eB 23. Ags a7 24. Had Wh6 25. Dh? Dxh7 26. Wxh7 Hae8, and Black was a piece up. This game showed, taking into account White’s opportunity on move 15, that with a black piece configuration like the one in the game under examination a bishop sacrifice on h7 is quite possible. Inthe next game we focus on White’s cavalry attack. 34 Sorokin G. — Zagrebelny S. Viadivostok 1995 1. d4 Df 2. DEB e6 3. e3 D6 4. 2.43 Qb7 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 2.d6 7. 2b2 0-08. De5 c5 9. Dd2 Dc6 10. a3 He8 11. 4 Det Bogolyubov’s maneuver: the knight is transferred from the queenside to the kingside, where on the g6 square: it becomesa champion indefense ofits king. In some lines its route can go through f5. This is undertaken in combination with a flank development of the light-squared bishop. Why? The queen’s knight is needed not only to fortify the position of the castled king, but also to free up the hl - a8 diagonal for the light-squared bishop, which by X-ray action supports the intended key move in Black’s defense: ... &\f6-e4. In addition to which, by leaving the c-file the knight allows Black’s major pieces to organize pressure on it. We will encounter this maneuver many times. We should point out that the first flash of the aforementioned maneuver was encountered in the game Rubinstein A. — Znosko-Borovsky E., St. Petersburg 1905. 12. 3 White takes control of e4, as Black already threatens to play ...2\f6-e4 followed by ...f7-f5. 12...We7 With the threat of ...c5-c4. 13. dxe5 bxe5 14. DgdDuring a piece attack on the black king’s castle, White often goes for the maneuver @f3-e5-g4, inorderto remove the main defender in Black’s order of battle. Clearing the long diagonal doesn’t hurt, either. 14...De8 14. Dxgd 15. Wxps Dg6 16. Wh3 and then the knight joins the game: 2-13-25. 15. Wh3 £5 16. D3! d4 16...2f6 17, Zgs fxg5 18. &xh7+ Shs 19. Wh4 Degs with an ongoing attack; White also isn’t short material. 17, Dgs bo 18. Axh6+! This knight sacrifice, through the king’s pawn cover, looks very promising when you take into account the opening of the g- and h- files on which White’s major pieces are starting to work. But if you also bear in mind that — with the material ratio crashing Chapter 1. A Piece Attack being a rook for two pieces — White has a good pawn return on investment and also the opportunity to open up the long diagonal, then his desire to tear off the black king’s armor is understandable. 18...gxh6 19. Axe6 19. &xh6!? doesn’t look bad, either: 19...66 (19...267 20. 2.04 with a strong attack) 20, Wh7+ Sf 21. Whs+ Ags 22. Uxt6+ Dexi6 23. Axeb+ WE7 24. @xc7 Dxc7 25. exd4, and with this many pawns White can look to the future with optimism. 19...4d7 20. DxfB G xfB 21. Yxh6+ Dg7 22, Wi6+ Ses 23, exd4 Dds 24, Wes Le7 25, Yg3 26 26. 2cd+ Gh7 27, Had1 Dhs 28, Wh3 &6 and, in this position, after 29. £2.43 Black would be unlikely to. remain standing. I should add that in the course of the game White had several equivalent ways to continue the attack. So in this game White won the battle of the opening. In the next game Black was slow to castle, and White immediately got his f- pawn going. 35Part I, Play for White Egorenkov I. — Nepomniachtchi I. Rybinsk 2008 1. d4.d5 2. DMS 5 3. €3 06 4. 243 M6 5. 0-0 2e7 6. b3 Dbd7 7. 2b2b6 8. Abd? 2b7 9. DeS e7 10. f4 a6 After 10...0-0, play can go into the usual lanes of the Zukertort System, but Black decides either to do something prophylactic, so that there is no chance of a bishop check on b5S and possibly also a pin on the a4-e8 diagonal, or to start preparing for a pawn attack on the queenside (which we’ll discuss in Part II, Chapter 6). In turn White decides not to put off his attack on the black king but to start it immediately. Tl point out right away that Black can’t play 10...Qe4?, as in this case White does something similar to the game Capablanca — Bernstein, New York 1913. See Part II, Chapter 7. 11. ®xe4 dxe4 (11..4xe5 is bad, too, because of 12. d6+ [it’s also possible to just take the pawn 12. AxcS] 12... Wxd6 [12...2xd6 13. fxeS Qe7 14. Wh5] 13. fxeS We7 14. WhS, and by inducing the move 14...26 White obtains a big positional advantage) 12. &b5!?. B. The Black King on the Run 11. £5 26? Black succumbs to White’s provocation, and once again ignores 11...0-0, after which White would have had to search for a way to keep developing his attack. 12. fxe6 fxe6 13. Dxd7! Axd7 On 13...xd7, White plays 14. dxc5. 14. Wed 14. dxc5 is also good. 14...cxd4_ 15. Wxe6, and White’s victory is merely a matter of time. ‘We've seen that Black’s king feels uncomfortable on his own wing. Sometimes, in order to avoid White’s kingside attack, the black monarch runs to the opposite flank. ‘Yusupov A. — Savchenko B., Moscow 2007, went: 1. d4 Df6 2. DE3 e6 3. e3 dS 4, 2.3.05 5. b3 Dbd7 36 Let’s look at a few other games featuring the evacuation of the black king to the queenside: 5...Ac6 6. 0-0£e7 7, 2b2 We7 8 a3b6 9. Dbd2 2b7 10. Aes AxeS 11. dxe5 Ad7 12. f4 (12. Wed 26 13. 4 0-0-0 14. We2 Dds?! and now, in Lemariczyk T. — Henrich T., Germany 1999, White could have seized the initiative with c2-c4; although for the sake of fairness I should point out that Black could also have created counterplay with 14...£6!?) 12._.£5(12...0- 0-0 13. We2 [13. c4!? £6 14. exd5] 13...f6 14. exf6 [perhaps it was worth trying 14. Wed] 14...2xf6 15. 2x16 gxf6 16. e4 04 and, in the game Loiterstein M. — Sosa R, Argentina 1992, Black initiated some double-edged play) 13. exf6 &xf6 14. &xf6 (14. Wh5+!? 26 [14.07 15. Lxf6+ Dxf6 16. Yg5 Bags 17. cd! with the initiative] 15. &2xg6+ @e7 16. S.xfo+ Bxf6 17. Wes! White didn’t see this strong move, else he would have gone in for this variation). After 14... @®xf6 15. We2 0-0-0 16. e4 Hb8 17. e5 Dad7 18. Wed DPB 19. Hael g6, Black succeeded in building a line of defense, Bogdanovich G. — Geyer B., Germany 1997. 6, 0-0 b6 7. 2£b2 2b7 8. Abd? 2e7 9. De5 Dxe5 10. dxe5 Ad? 10...e4 is bad because of 11. @xe4 dxe4 12. 2b5+, and Black, at a minimum, is doomed to artificial castling. IL. f4 Omitting c2-c4 allows Black to obtain counterplay on the kingside: 11. Wed 26 12. £4 (12. Hadi We7 13. £40-0- 014. ca! h5 15. We2 Egg 16. exdS 2 xd5, 17. De4 with an advantage for White Chapter 1. A Piece Attack in Hagenstein A. — Hein A., Germany 2003) 12...We7 13. Bacl (White is better after 13. c4!? 0-0-0 14. cxd5 2 xd5 15. Ded, although Black can dig in) 13...0-0-0 14. fd (again it was worth considering 14. c4!?) 14...h5 15, We2 gS and Black obtained counterplay in the game Kaufmann H. — Trommsdorf F., Bad Wildbad 2000. 11.87 In Nystrom L. = Morant P, Turku 2002, Black first made the prophylactic move 1 1...26, and only then ran his king over to the queenside, also not choosing the most auspicious moment for this: 12. e4 (12. c4!?) 12...We7 13. exdS &xd5 14. Ded 0-0-0? (14...c4!9 15. bxcd Bxed 16. &.xe4 dB 00) 15. Ad6+ &xd6, and in this position the best continuation was 16. &a6+! &b7 (16...b8 17. exd6 and now not 17...Wxd6 because of 18. 2xh8 Hxh8 19. c4) 17. exd6 Web 18. &xb7+ Gxb7 19. &xh8 with a winning position. Black can try to prevent the further advance of the white f-pawn with 11... f5, but by continuing according to Marshall (see Part I, Chapter 3) with 12. c4!? White obtains the advantage, ie. 12.28 13. We2 Dgé (the black knight’s unsuccessful maneuver allows White to immediately start scalping the black king) 14. cxd5 &.xd5 15. e4 (White proceeds strictly in accordance with the Marshall plan) 15...fxe4 16, &b5+ Gf 17. £5, with a decisive attack in Okhotnik V. — Ranfagni S., Pedavena 2005. 12. We2 37Part I, Play for White White can also intimidate Black on the queenside right away with 12. a4, as happened in Adly A. — Divijan L., Heraklio 2002: 12...a6 13. Yg4 g6. And nowthe Marshall planthatwe mentioned above goes into action. 14. c4!? d4 (now the white knight is aiming for e4; after 14...0-0 15. cxdS &xd5 16. e4 White is better) 15. We2 dxe3 16. He4 Axed 17. Qxe4 Hb8 18. Wxe3 0-0 19. £5! Dxes (on 19...exf5 there follows 20. &xf5, and Black can’t take the bishop, as in that case he loses his queen: 20...gxf5? 21. Wg3+ Hh8 22. e6+) 20. 16 Ded 21. Wh3, and White has won a piece. 12...0-0-0 If Black castles short with 12...0-0, then White activates the Marshall plan, starting with 13. c4!? (see Chapter 3). 13. a4 Besides the very logical game move, 13. c4 also deserves attention. 13...g5 14. a5 bxaS 38 If 14...gxf4, then White can choose between the Zwischenzug 15. axb6 and 15. Bxf4 as in the game. 15. S.a6 gxfd 16. Ext White takes on f4 with the rook, so as to bring it into the attack on the queenside as quickly as possible. 16...hf8 Black didn’t want to risk taking the second pawn 16...2)xe5 because of 17. &xb7+ Gxb7 18, WbS+ Gc8 19, Wab+ Hbs 20. S.xe5 Wed 21. Xxa5, when his king is in danger. 17. Hfad Dbs 18. &2xb7+ Wxb7 19. Exa5S 2c6 20. EbS Wd7 21. 213 &e7 22. a3 Eb8 23. Hxe5!, and White has won a pawn, also getting a positional advantage. We can conclude that castling long doesn’t give Black any peace. He has to create counterplay as quickly as possible, otherwise White can develop a dangerous attack in that sector with the energetic moves a2-a4 and c2-c4. By the way, Emanuel Lasker thought that, “Black's counterplay doesn’t develop in the appropriate manner” if Black castles long. See the notes to Omearat A. — Sadvakasov D., Dubai 2002, in Part [I], Chapter 9. There, we find the interesting game Hoffman A. — Hernando J., Internet 2000, in which White’s procrastination permitted Black to build a strong attack.Chapter 2 Opening Up the al -h8 Diagonal White’s attacking possibilities increase if he opens up the long al-h8 diagonal. In this case it isn’t easy for Black to defend — the possible clearing of the diagonal, like the sword of Damocles, keeps him in a state of tension, and very often he prefers to exchange on d4 immediately in order to block the diagonal. In the next game not even the great Nimzowitsch could withstand the pressure from the white pieces. Dus-Chotimirsky F. — Nimzowitsch A. Karlsbad 1907 1. d4d5 2. Df3 €6 3. e3 D6 4. Dbd2 5 5.b3 Ac6 6. 2b2 2d6 7. 243 0-0 8. 2369. DeS Zb7 10. [4.6 Black starts moving his queenside pawns to chase White’s light-squared bishop from its active position on d3. This plan is examined in Part II, Chapter 6. 11. B13 bS Threatening ...c5-c4. 12. dxe5S This would seem to obstruct us, but it’s the one thing White needs. 12... x05 13. 0-0 Be8 The tempting 13...4/b6? doesn’t work, for instance 14. @xc6 (also possible, of course, is 14. Hael, but it’s notas convincing) 14...2xe3+ 15. @hl Sxc6 16. £xf6 gxf6 17. &xh7+! and nothing can save Black. 13...Dd7 14. Dxc6 & x6 15. Wh3 £5 (15...h6 16. b4 &b6 17. Db3) 16. DL Sxe3+ 17. Ghi. 14. Wg3 Closely related to the main game is Salgado R. — Hart M., corr. 1983: 14. b4!? &e7 (it made sense to leave the bishop on the gl-a7 diagonal: 14...b6, although White retains something of an advantage in this case, too) 15. Wg3 AxeS 16. &xeS Dek 17. Db3 with a positional edge for White thanks to the opportunity to play on the dark squares. I have to point out 39)Part I. Play for White White’s knowledge of the classical Zukertort System. 14...DxeS 15. Bxe5 246 16. 2d4 We7 On the offer to repeat moves 16... &c5, White could play 17. &b2, also with a promising position. 17. b4 26 17...Ae8, in order to play ...f7-f5, is followed by 18. ®b3 with an occupation of the cS square. Black’s last move weakens the position of his king. He wanted to free his knight from the pin so as notto be mated on g7. Of course, 17... 6 didn’t lead to defeat, but it created the preconditions for it. 18, Yg5 Dea? Now he should have played 18... 4\d7, but Nimzowitsch doesn’t want to retreat. 19. Axed dxed 20. 2.16 h6 21. Wh4, and White won. In the game Mikac M. — Susnik M., Slovenia 1995, White’s whole attack was supported by the dark-squared bishop: 1.d4d52. AfBc5 3. 3 e6 4. b3 Dl 5. 243 Dc6 6. 2b2 2.d6 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Dbd2b6 9. DeS 27 Black should play close attention to White’s opportunity to open the long diagonal and get his knight through to 40 f6: if he leaves the f6-knight undefended even for a second, he can quickly obtain the worse position, as happened in the following game: 9...%4c72! 10. Dxc6 Web 11. dxeS WxeS (11..bxc5? is very bad because of 12. &xf6 gxfé 13. We4+ hs 14. Wh4 £5 15. Wi6+ ee8 16. 4, and the transfer of the rook via fl-f3-g3 followed by mate can be prevented only at the price of great material loss. White hasto prove his advantage after 11...2.xc5, but the result is still in no doubt: 12. 2.xf6 gexf6 13. Wed+ Ghs 14. Bh £5 15. b4 2d6 16. Wi6+ Gg8 17. f4 Oxb4 18. 83 He$ 19. Hg3+ 218 20. AF 2c3 21. Des Bxe5 22. fkeS 2b7 23. Bh3) 12. Sxf6 exf6 13. Wh5 £5 14. g4 (there have been those who wanted to limit themselves to perpetual check after 14. We5+ Ghé 15. Wot tg8 16, Wg5+) 14... Wh8 15, DB Wh 16. exf exf5 17. h3 We3 18. Ada, and Black’s kingside is severely weakened, Smith D. — Ferrero M., corr. 2004. But White should also be wamed: taking on f6 must bring concrete results, otherwise Black can obtain dangerous play against White's king on the half-open g-file. 10. a3 We7 11. 4 Bad8 Events unfolded under a different scenario in Kovaéevié V. — Dizdar G., Sarajevo 1983: 11...2e7 12. dxc5 (A hasty move; another possibility — the move 12. 13? — is useful as a rule, as White takes control of the e4 square, but in this case after 12...c4 it drops a piece. So before putting the queen on £3 White should look around and see whether he’s losing a piece; Richard Palliser recommends transferring the rook immediately by the route fl-f3-h3, and he doesn’t fear theChapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal possibility of sacrificing the exchange, as in this case White would have sufficient compensation: 12. Hf3!? Hed [12...c4 13. bxed! dxc4 14. Ddxes 2xf3 15. xf3] 13. 2xe4 dxed 14. Bh3. A plan involving play in the center may be worthwhile: 12. c4!?, This may turn out to be a position where White has hanging pawns. We'll examine this case later) 12...bxeS (after 12...2xc5!? itbecomes clear why I don’t like White’slast move: now he has to defend the e3-pawn, and after 13. #3 [clearly 13. 2g4 doesn’t work because of the loss of the e3-pawn; 13. We2 AfS with the initiative] 13...Df5 14, Bael d4 15. e4 a5 followed by ...Df5- 3, Black has counterplay) 13. Ag4 @d7 (in order to evaluate the variation 13..e4 14. Dyed (14. Bxe4] 14..dxe4 15. 24 1 advise you to take a look at Part I, Chapter 7, Section 2) 14. f5 exfS 15. xf5 AxfS 16. EXxfS (6 (17. Dh6+ was threatened: for example, 16...Hae8 is met by 17. Dh6+! Wh8 18. Lxg7+!, etc.) 17. c4 Des 18. @xeS &xe5 19. Bxe5 fxeS 20. Wed d4 with an unclear position. 12. e2 White didn’t want the unclear complications that would have ensued after 12. Wf3 c4. 12...De7 13. dxcS It’s time to open up the long diagonal. 13...bxc5 After 13...2xc5?! White can undertake some favorable play on the queenside: 14. b4 2.46 15. c4, 14. Des White is playing consistently in a manner characteristic of the Zukertort System: after opening up the long diagonal with the knight maneuver DeS-g4, he attacks the black king’s main defender — the f6-knight. 14..De4 14... 2xe4 15. Wxed Deo 16. ALB and the cooperation between the knight and the queen (gS, Wh5) brings Black a great deal of unhappiness. 15. Axed dxed 16. 204 Preventing ...f7-f5 for the time being. 16...2)65? Inthe “Yusupovka, ” the knightissent to f5 with the aim either of transferring it to d6 to take control of the e4 square, or (with Black’s bishop on c5) to exert pressure on the e3-pawn when there’s a Pillsbury formation on the board. In this case e4 is also occupied by a pawn, and the black bishop is on d6, not only not attacking the white pawn on e3, but also rendering the f5-knight useless by taking away d6. The typical place for the queen’s knight when carrying out the Bogolyubov maneuver is the g6 square: 16...Dg6, and after 17. fS exf5 18. BxfS White’s pieces are in active positions, but there’s still a long way to go until the decisive combinations. 16...2d5 was worthy of attention, in order to make a if7-£5 possible. 41Part I. Play for White Black’s last move allows White to carry out a knight sacrifice on f6 that is effective, but run-of-the-mill for the Zukertort System: 17, Dt6+! Ghs After 17...9xf6 18. We4+ Dg7 19. &xf6, matters also end with mate. 18, WhS gxf6? I think that 18...h6 doesn’t save Black either: 19. g4 and White has a very strong attack. 19, 2xf6+ Dg7 20. Bf3!! 2 Black didn’t see this move. Shifting the rook over to h3 ends the battle. But on taking it 20...exf3 there follows 21. 23, and we can lower the curtain. In this game, the paralyzing strength ofthe dark-squared bishop displays itself in all its glory: the knight is pinned and the f7-pawn is blocked by the bishop, not giving Black’s pieces the chance to come to the aid of their king. In the following game I advise you to watch how the plan of action for the white pieces works against other black setups. Black has used an unsuccessful piece configuration — the bishop on e8 never manages to get into the game. See Part II, Chapter 11. Olesen M. — Shirazi K. Chicago 1992 1. d4.d5 2. DB Af6 3. €3 e6 4, 243 5 5. b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 246 7. 2b2 0-08. Dbd2 247 9. a3 Inthe game Schlechter C. — MiillerJ., Copenhagen 1907, Black left his f6-knight defenseless, and the opening of the long diagonal had to lead to a win for White: 9. c4Wc7? (both astrategic mistake — inthe prelude to the possible opening-up of the c-file the queen will feel uncomfortable on c7; anda tactical one, that should also decide everything) 10. dxeS! (the knight on 6 is left defenseless, allowing White to crack Black’s pawn rampart) 10....2xc5 11. &xf6 gxf6 12. cxdSexd5 13. &2xh7+! g7 (worse is 13... xh7 14. We2+ Hg7 15. Wxe5; after Black’s move in the gameChapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal it wouldn’t have been bad for White to play 14. Ybl, so that following &h7- f5 he could trade off the light-squared bishops and decrease Black’s attacking potential). 9.208 10. DeS Le8 11. (4 Wh6? Black brings his queen out to b6, forcing White to think about defending the d4-pawn. He wants to deflect White from his aggressive plans on the kingside, and he’s also threatening ...c5-c4. For more on this possibility for Black, see Part II, Chapter 4. As it turned out, Black’s last move loses the game. 12. dxe5!? Looking through the game to the end, the impression is created that after this move the horse has already left the barn. At least, I couldn’t find a defense for Black. 12...Wxe5 On 12...8xc5, White plays similarly to the game: 13. Axc6 2xe3+ 14. Gh] Axc6 15. 2xf6. 13. Axc6 Wxe3+ 14, Ohl 2xc6 15. &xf6 Bxf4 The bishop can’t be taken, for example: 15...gxf6 16. Bf Wd4 17. c3, and now Black hast o part with his queen toavoid being mated in a few moves. 16. Yg4 2h6 17. Kael 17. Bad 1!? is still strongest here, but White is playing for beauty’s sake. 17...Wxd2 18. He2 WaS 19, He3 Obs? After 19...Yd2 Black might put upa fight, but he could not save the game. 20. WhS, and Black resigned. 1-0 In the next game the same attacking mechanism for White was launched, but with a different “entourage”: Landero V. — Lépez E. Corr. 1989 1,44 Df6 2. Df3 e6 3.3054, 24305 5.b3 Ac6 6. a3 2d6 7. 2b20-08. Dba2 b6 9. 0-0 2.b7 10. HeS We7 11. f4 Hads 3Part I. Play for White 12, dxe5!? It’s still too early for 12. Axc6 Yxc6 13. dxcS because of 13...d4!_ 12...2xe5 The main idea is that 12...2.xc5? meets a typical combination for this variation, with which we’ve already become familiar: 13. Axcé! Bxe3+ 14. Hhl YWxcé 15, 2x66 exf6 16. Yg4t+ Bhs 17. Wh4 £5 18. Wet Sys 19. 263, winning. 13. fxeS DxeS 14, Exf6t Destroying the black king’s main defender. 14...exf6 15. Wh5 Efed 15...296 16. &.xf6 with Wh6. 16. Yxh7+ ©1817. Bfl Ge7 17...f5 loses: 18. Whs+. exb6 axb6 19. 44 18, Wg7 a7 No help is 18...2d7 because of 19. 2xf6+ Dxf6 20. Hxf6, and Black might escape mate, but not the loss of material. Now the most solid continuation was 19. 2bS+ 8 (everything else is very bad: 19...2.c6 20. 2 xe5 Wxe5 21. Gxf7+ He? 22. 2xc6+; or 19..Ac6 20. 2xf6 Eps 21. Wxf?t+ tc8 22. Wxc?t+ wxc7 23. &xd8+) 20. &xe8 Hxe8 21. exb6 axb6 22. Hxf6 Wxe2 23. 2 xe5 Wxd2 24. Wxdf7, with a winning position. Pay attention in the next game tothe Bogolyubov trap, based on the opening of the al-h8 diagonal (typical for this yariation), into which inexperienced players fall. Bogolyubov E. — Andersen Prague 1931 1. DB Ale 2. d4 b6 3. e3 2b7 4. 243 e6 5. 0-0 &e7 6. Dbd2 d5 7. Des 0-0 8. b3 c5 9, 2b2 DAbd7 10. #3 Hes 11, adit? One of the key moves in the Bogolyubov trap. 11...4c7 12, Yh3 White has set the snare, and with his next move Black walks right into it. 12...£d6? Now Black must either lose a piece or get mated.Chapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal 12...De4 is also bad because of 13. Dxd7 Wxd7 14. dxcd (14. Sxed dxet 15. dxc5 is good for White too) 14...Ag5 15. Wg3 f6 16. cxb6 axb6, when White is a pawn up with a pleasant position. 13, Dxd7! Wxd7 14, dxeS bxe5 15. 2xf6 gxf6 16, Yxh7 The diagonal is opened up with d4xcS, thenthe knighton foiseliminated with 2b2xf6, and White’s remaining pieces — the light-squared bishop, the queen, the rook, and sometimes the second knight — are thrown at the weakened position of the black king. Players of both White and Black should pay attention to this, one of White’s main threats! 1. d4.c6 2. Df3d5 3. e3 Afe 4. 243 5 5. b3 Dc6 6. Lb? Ld6 7. Dbd2 a6 8.a3b5 9. 04 Hb8 10. Hb1 0-0 11. Des We7 12. £4 Wb6 13. Ddf3 De8 14. Ags 26 An effective element of White’s attack (the white queen on hS isattacked by the black g-pawn), based on opening up the al-h8 diagonal, was encountered in a little-known game that I found on the Internet: Svinarey M. — Yakobyants Kh., Tskhakaya 1982: In the diagram position, Black’s last move 14...26, defending the h7 square, turned out to be a horrible mistake. White’s beautiful reply quickly ended the game: 15. dxeS (above all the diagonal must be opened up) 15...2.xe5 16. Axc6 (clear it completely!) 16...4xe6. And now there follows the stunning 17. Wh5!!, when evidently the queen can’t be taken with 17...gxh6 because of 18. &xh7#. The attacking picture in this game very much reminds me of Yusupov A. — Scheeren P., which we saw in Part I, Chapter 1. One of the most colorful combi- nations in the Zukertort System is the double bishop sacrifice, which has been dubbed the Lasker combination, as it was first seen in the game Lasker Em. — Bauer J., Amsterdam 1889. The fol- lowing game shows that the Lasker com- bination is a risky undertaking: 45Part I. Play for White Shereshevsky M. — Vladimirov E. Daugavpils 1978 1. d4 Df6 2. DB e6 3. e3 cS 4. 2.43 d5 5. b3 2e7 In Plante M. — Gilman A., Montréal 2000, Black saved himself before the double bishop sacrifice: 5..Ac6 6. 0-0 2d67. 2b2 0-08 Abd2 b6 9. Aes 2b7 10. a3 a6 (if White goes for the double bishop sacrifice, he can put his foot in it, as happened in Dumitrache D. — Musat A., Bucharest 1993: 10..!e7 11. f4 Dd7 12. xd7 [more restrained is 12. 2f3, i.e. 12...£5 13. Dxd7 Wxd7 14. dxcS &xe5 {R. Palliser thinks that 14...bxc5! 15. B.g3 d4 16. Ded L.c7 17. b4!? e5 is better, with a complicated game} 15. Bg3 Ef7 16. b4 #76. WAS?) 16... 207 17. DB, and in Fronezek B. — Leibbrand U.- M., Baden-Wiirttemberg 1992, White obtained an advantage, but whether it was enough to turn into something more tangible is questionable] 12... Wxd7 13. dxcS &xec5 [With 13..bxc5 Black reinforces his center, but at the same time loses an additional defensive resource in the form of the opportunity to take the e3-pawn with his bishop. Next we’ll bring in the game Barret S. — Callet E., Nimes 2009, without detailed investigation. In some places White could have played more strongly and in other places Black could have. ‘We'll give the game in full to show how events can unfold in conditions of “real combat”: 14. &xh7+ Gxh7 15. Wh5+ heg8 16. &xg7 16 (After 16...axg7 17. We5+ Bs 18. Hf3 f6 19. Ba3+ WA7, no forced win for White is evident, and it's difficult to predict the result with such an 46 unusual material imbalance. In the event of 16..£5, White's attacking potential grows thanks to the possibility of quickly bringing his knight into play via Dd2- f3-g5} 17. 2.xf8 Exf8 {possibly better is 17...L.f8; this requires further analysis} 18. 213 Bf7 19. Bh3 Bg? fthe game goes in a different direction if Black moves his kingaway to the center: with 19... f8and 9 f8-e7} 20. DB 28 21. Dh4 Hh7 22. Wedt 2g? 23. Bf £5 24. Wg3 Ae7 {24...d4!?} 25. DF3 Bxh3 26. Wxh3 d4 27. exd4 cxd4 28. Dgs Ads 29. Bh7+ HB 30. We6 Dw 31. h4 2d 32. Hel Ded? 33. Qh7+ Yg8 34. Bxed!, and Black resigned.] 14. &xh7+ Wxh7 15. Whs5+ we 16. &xg7 [Interestingly, Smith and Hall evaluate this position as winning for White, while pragmatic practice refutes the assertions of “weak- sighted old theory.” Let’s see this for ourselves! ]: 16...f5 [here Black could also have stocked up on material: 16...&xe3+ 17. Bhi £5 18. Wh3+ (78. BF Wxg7 19. E34 x3 20. hxg3 27; 18. Bxf8Erf8 19. HYf3 Bixd2 20. Hg3 wy7 21. Who+ He 22. Ug7 LxfH} 18.17 19. BxfB Exf8 20. Wh5+ Ye7 and Black won inChapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal Borensztajn D. — Souza Marco A., Rio de Janeiro 2002] 17. &xf8 [17. &h6é has also been suggested; in this case Black can play 17...%4h7 or 17...&xe3+, but it hasn’t been possible to find decisive continuations] 17...&xf8 [as we've already seen, 17...&xe3+ also works] 18. Hp (18. Wh8+ we? and the king gets away fromthechecks] 18...¥41719.8h6+ We7 20. Wxg7+ dxg7, and Black’s two pieces turned out to be stronger than White’s rook and two pawns) 11. f4 b5 12. dxc5 &xc5 13. Y3 (Also typical of this variation is the transfer of the rook via the route E{fl-f3-h3(g3): 13. Bf d4 [Opening up the center looks goad, at least in accordance with the theoretical Tecommendation: — on a flank attack, reply with a breakthrough in the center] 14. Hh3 dxe3 [better is 14...Axe5 15. fxeS (15. Bxh7+? Dxh7 16. WhS 5) 15...dxe5 16. @hl (16. 2xh7+? Dxh7 IT. Bh5 exd2+ 18. Gh] Be4—+} 16... Wd5 /16...exd2? 17, exf6} 17. Hp3 exd3 18. exf6 96 19. Yxd2 with an extremely murky position. Or 14...26 15. Axc6 &xc6 16. e4 with unclear play.] 6g8 17. Dhl exd? {17..e2 18. Yel+—} 18. Dxc6 +—] 16. Whs exd2+ 17. Sf 14+ 18. xd] Yxdi+ 19. Wxdl. Here there’s no defense left. Next followed: 19... Ae7 20. Dd7 Hfds 21. Whs Bed 22. We5 Df5 23. Wxed &e7 24, Axh7! xh7 25.g4and Black laid down hisarmson the next move in the game Csiszar C. — Papp G., Balatonlelle 2006.) 13..Axe5 14. BxeS Dd7 15. &xh7+ Gxh7 16. Wh5+ &g8 17. &xg7 £6? (any of three other continuations would have yielded a draw: 17...9xg7 18. Yg4+ Gh7 19. Bhs 17...2xe3+ 18. Ohl xg? 19. West = 17...f5 18. Bf3 @xg7 19, Re3+ &f6 20. Wh7 Hg8 21. Wh4+ t7 22. Yh7+ ote =) Here, too, White obtained a decisive advantage by means of 18. &.h6!? & xe3+ 19. Shi DeS 20. 2131. 6. 2b2 0-0 7. Abd2 bé 8. 0-0 2b7 9. DeS Ac6 10. a3 a5 11. £4 Dd7 12. Axc6 2xc6 13. dxeS 2x5 After 13...2xe5!2, I couldn’t find a successful finish to the Lasker combination. ge matetae May) "yy oe - Wi, MY, poe , a | y Now the “dream plan” starts to work: 15. &xh7+! Dxh? [15...Oh8 16. &d3+ 14, Qxh7+ Gxh7 15. Whs+ hes 16. 2xg7 £5 47Part I. Play for White 16...coxg7 17. We4t Wh? (17... Gh8 loses: 18. Bf Se? [18...Af6 19. Bh3+ Dh7 20. Wh5 +—] 19. Bn3+) 18. Eif3. White has the draw sewn up and is trying to win: 18..4f6 19. 2h3+ Wh6 20. 2f3, with an unclear position. 17. £h6?! Stronger is 17. Ef3, and White can still “fish in troubled waters,” for example: 17..-Af6 (17... xg7 18. Bg3+ O16 19. Wh7 Hes 20. Yh4+ G7 21. Wh7+ with perpetual check) 18. 2xf6 Exf6 19, Bg3+ 18 20. Wh7 seb 21. Heg7 Wd6 (worse is 21...2xe3+ 22. Ghl Wa6 [22...2xd2? 23. Whs+ Gi 24. Wh8) 23. Bel 2xd2 24. Wy8+ WH 25. Exe6+ td8 26. Bxi6 Wxg8 27. Hd6+ Ge8 28. Bxg8+, and Black has to fight for a draw) 22. Hel, and White has two pawns plus an attack for his piece, but there’s nothing concrete in the foreseeable future. So draw your own conclusions. After the game move in the game, however, Black should have won. 17...2xe3+ 18. Shi &f6 19. BB Wxal+ 19...2xf4!?. 20, Afi &d4 After this move Black no longer has a win. He still could have fought for a win with 20.2.2. 21. Wg6+ 227 21...9h8 loses to 22. 2xf8 2g7 23. Q.xg?+ Wxg7 24.8h3+ Gy8 25. Wxe6+ 48 £8 26. BhS, and in this position “etc.” looks completely appropriate. 22. 2xg7 Wrg? 23. Wxeb+ E07 23...Wi7 24. Bg3+ Gh8 25, Bh3+ bg8 =. 24. Wxe6 WB 25. Hg3+ Wh8 26. Eh3+ gs It’s dangerous for Black to play for a win: 26..2h7 27. Exh7+ Gxh7 28. Wxd7+, and White starts taking Black’s pawns, in addition to which his king is exposed. 27, Hig3+, and the players agreed a draw. “A The ghost of Lasker also had an invisible presence in the next game. And, as often happens in such cases, Black went to the scaffold meekly here, whereas in fact it wasn’t so simple: Filatov L. — Mayer S. Philadelphia 2000 1. dd. d5 2. DB Al6 3. e3 e6 4. 2.43 Be7 5. 0-0 0-0 6 b3 c5 7. 2b2 b6 8. Dbd2 &.b7 9, DeS Abd? 10, f4 We7 11. a3 In this situation, when Black has brought his queen’s knight out to d7 and not c6, and there was no threat of ...2c6-b4, White needed this move, as they say, like a fish needs a bicycle. IL...a6 12. We2 bSChapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal Here Black could have decided on 12...Ded 13. Axd7 Wxd7 14. 2xe4 dxet 15. dxc5 &xc5. See the consequences of the knight’s jumping to e4 in more detail in Part II, Chapter 8. 13. Axd7 Dxd7 Clearly the variation 13...xd7? 14. dxc5 &xc5 doesn’t suit Black, and then following the plan that’s already been worked out: 15. &xf6 gxf6 16. &xh7+! &xh7 17, Whst+ Sg7 18. We4+ Gh7 19. Hf3 with unavoidable mate. 14...Axc5? When there is a choice, this is always bad. Here Black has three ways to take thec5-pawn. And he picks the wrong slip of paper out of the bag! As the analysis below shows, the drawbacks of the move are; first — it takes the knight further away from the defense of the kingside (this should really put you on your guard!), and now it can’t cover the king when the need arises with the maneuver ...)f6- h7; and second — the knight is covering the c-file for the queen, and there can be variations, after White sacrifices his bishop on h7, when the black queen can defend the h7 square from c2! Ifthe c5-pawn is captured witheither the queen or the bishop, Black gets an additional defensive resource in the form of taking the e3-pawn with check! But now we'll elaborate on all our arguments and turn to our “silicon friend” for help: 14...Sxc5 15, Sxh7+ Wxh7 16. Whst gs 17. Lxg7 Bxe3+ (17...16 18. 213 (18. We6? Des! —+] 18..Des (18... &xe3+ 19, Hxe3 Wb6 20, Hael Yxg7 21. Bhi Bf? 22. Exe6 Wes (22...W/2 23. He7 Haff 24. Wad GAs 25. L103 +-} 23. H6e3 +—] 19. fxeS Wxg7 20. Bg3 Wxg3 [20...2xe3+ 21. Hxe3 +—] 21. hxg3. Black doesn’t get mated, but there’s a solid advantage on the white side.) 18. Gh1 (6 (18...xg7 19. West Oh7 20. Bf3 +-) 19. Bh6 (19. go? De5! 20. fxeS Wag7; after 19. HAS 2 xf4 [19...De5? 20. Wh8+ +—] 20. Wh8+ G7 21. Wh7 Ses 22. Ext Wxt4 23. Axf8 DxfB 24. Wxb7 a double-edged position arises in which any result is possible) 19...De5 (19...Ab6 20, BA +—) 20. fxeS Sxh6 21. Wxh6 We7 22. Wh3 £5, and the worst is behind Black, but he’s a pawn down and looking at an unpromising endgame. It seems that Black won’t get out of this. Correct is 14...¥xe5!, and in thiscase Lasker’s combination doesn’t bring the expected results, for example: 15. b4 (15. Sxh?7+ Gxh7 16. Wh5+ oes 17. 2xe7 Wrxe3+ [17...koxg7? 18. Wedt! {Susan Polgar suggests the following way for White to continue the attack: 18. Bf3"Yxc2 19. 49Part L Play for White Hg3+ Wed 20. Hxg6+ firgd, and she thinks that Black.is already better. Correct. But 18. ed is stronger, as it leads to a win for White. By the way, instead of 18... We2 Black can play the even stronger 18... 2g8} 18...29h8 19. BAS Df 20. Bh3+ Dh7 21. Ghd Wxe2 22. e4 +—-] 18. Ghl Sxg? [18...f5 19. Yg6 +—] 19. B63 da, and it seems that the best White can do is agree to perpetual check) 15...We7 16. &xh7+ (After 16, BF3 [S. Polgar] Black isin danger, and if he recklessly plays 16... 267, then the “double-headed Hydra” — the Lasker combination and the “dream plan” — blows Black’s position to smithereens: 17. &xh7+! &xh7 18. Eh3+ &g8 19. WhS Sh4 20. &xg7! &Sxg7 21. Yg4+ and White wins. It only remains to addthatafter the accurate 16... f5 White’s advantage vanishes instantly, and everything has to start again from seratch.) 16..%9xh7 17. Wh5+ gs 18. Qxg7 hxg7 19. Wet Ons 20.28 Die 21. Bh3+ Sh7 22. Bxh7+ (You have to agree to perpetual check, otherwise after 22. WhS Sha! [22...Yxc2? 23. ef] 23. Exh4 £6 you'll find yourself in a tough situation without even knowing how you got there!) 22...%xh7 23. Wh5+ with perpetual check. 15. 2xh7+! Sxh7 16. GhS+ gs 17. &xg7! Gxg7 17...£6 18. 26 Bf7 19. 2h6+ Shs 20. Wxf7 +—. 18, Wg4+ Inthe previous game the black queen was on d8, and so taking with the knight on ¢5 (13...c5!) would have been a 50 good reply to White’s combination, as on a check by the white queen on g4 Black had the possibility of fencing it in with the bishop — ...&g5. Here, though, Black’s queen is on c7 and he doesn’t have this defensive move. And due to 18...8h8 18...0f6 19. We5. 19. 2f3, Black gave up the fight. 1-0 The Lasker combination also visited the recent Olympiad in Dresden. Nodirjanova N. — Beddar K. Dresden 2008 1 d4.d5 2. AB ALG 3. e3 6 4. 2.43 2d6 5. 0-00-06. b3 Dbd7 7. 2b2.c5 8. Abd2 b6 9. Des Ye7 10. 4 2b7 Sowe have a position in which White can go into the Lasker combination. ‘We'll see now whether or not this decision is correct. 11. Dxd7 First of all, we clear the long diagonal. 11...2Dxd7 11..84xd7? is bad because of 12. dxe5 and Black is forced to retreat her bishop to e7, escaping with the loss of one pawn, otherwise she’ll be punished by means of the now-familiar White attacking maneuver, for example: 12...Chapter 2. Opening Up the al-h8 Diagonal LxcS? 13. 2.xf6 exfo 14. Wgd+ hs 15. Wh4 fxe3+ 16. Bh £5 17. Wie+ bes 18. 13, and White wins. 12, dxe6 2x05 After 12...2xc5 13. 2xh7+ Gxh7 14. Whs+ Sg8 15. 2x7 f6 16. 2xf8, White continues her offensive, with a rook and two pawns for two pieces. 13. &xh7+ Sxh7 14. WhS+ gs 15, 2xg7 2xe3+ 15...f6? fails to 16. Hf3, and the rook’s entry into the attack decides the game. 16, Oh1 £6 17. Se In this situation, 17. 2h6! is stronger. 17...2.xf4 18, Bafl? A move that should lead to defeat for White. Here White had her last chance to get out with the move 18. Hel, for example: 18...0xg7 19. Zg3+! 2xg3 20. We4+ with perpetual check, as Black’s king cannot go to f7 because of Ye6+, and the fire of White’s attack bums with renewed intensity. 18...xg7 19. Exf4, and here with the move 19,..@e5! Black could refute White’s play. In order to master the subject of the Lasker combination you should definitely have a look at Part II, Chapter 3, and in the notes to the game Hodgson — Polgar you'll find the matchup Dizdarevié — Miles, Biel 1985. You won't regret it! Opening up the long diagonal also played a decisive role in the games Flohr — Em. Lasker, Moscow 1936 (see the supplementary games section), and Polgar — Varga, Hungary 1991 (see Part II, Chapter 13). 51Chapter 3 Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan Often, aftertrading piecesoneS, a pawn structure arises featuring the characteristic pawn triangle e3/e5/f4(d4). In this case the game acquires its own peculiarities: Janowski D. — Esser Paris 1910 1. d4d5 2. Af3c5 3. 3 e6 4. 2d3 Ac6 5. 0-0 Af6 6. b3 2d6 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Dbd2 b6 9, Aes AxeS7! Black is prepared to part with his bishop, as the white knight on e5 is a very unpleasant character — the pride of the Pillsbury formation! Paraphrasing Josef Stalin’s very gloomy expression, “No man, no problem!”, we can say, “No knight on e5, no problem!” Note that 9...Axe5? is of course impossible because of the trivial fork 10. dxeS. The issue of exchanging pieces on e5 is examined in Part II, Chapter 13. 10. dxe5 Jd7 11. 4 £6 Black’s prospects aren’t terribly bright, as White’s pieces are already preparing to hit his virtually undefended king. On 11...f5 White can either con- tinue as in the game or play the Marshall 52 plan!? I ask politically literate players not to strain themselves too much but just to look at the next game. 12. exf6 Axf6 13. DB Db 14. HeS Retreating the bishop 14. 22 in or- der (after 15. a2-a3) to return to the ini- tial arrangement doesn’t work because of the variation 14...2.a6 15. c4 dxc4. Also White probably didn’t want to lose time. 14...Dxd3 15. exd3 Dd7 Instead of finishing his development and organizing his defenses, Black con- tinues playing for exchanges. Further- more, with opposite-colored bishops White’s attack only increases in strength. 16, Wed DixeS 17. 2.xe5 We7 18, EFS White’s attack develops by itself. 18...26 19. 64 2.b7 20. Hel dxed 21. dxed Had8Chapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan Black, too, has done everything by the book: he’s opened the d-file and occupied it with a rook. But... 22. hd! A typical enlistment of the h- pawn in the destruction of the black king's pawn cover, especially as in Black’s castled position there’s a “hook” (or as Tarrasch put it, a “land- mark to attack”) — the g6-pawn. That’s why Black always has to be careful about moving his pawns on the kingside. 22...f7 As White buildsupa fearsome attack, the Black king goes on the run. As was even pointed out in contem- porary commentaries, the attempt to include the bishop in the defense of the kingside ends with the loss of a piece: 228 6 23. hS 2e8 24. hxgs &xg6 25. £5 exfS 26, exfS Wd7 27. Wed+ (Tijd- schrift v. d. Nederlandeschen Schaak- bond 1910). 23. hS Hg8 24. bxg6+ Eixg6 After 24...hxg6 25. Hh3 O48 (25... Ge8 26. £5 — Tifdschrifi) 26. Bh6 you wouldn't envy Black here, either. 25. WhS &e8? In a panic it’s very difficult to think where you have to runto. Strange asit may seem, 25...8g8 would have offered a more stubborn defense. But here White could quickly end the game with the move: 26. £5!?, and Black can’t avoid losing material. Aneffective method of play for White in situations where the pawn structure is fluid is the Marshall plan, which was first demonstrated by the leading American player of the early 20" century. Marshall F. — Leonhardt P. Pistyan 1912 1. d4.d5 2. 213 c53. 3 e64. Abd2 M6 5. £.d3 2e7 6. 0-0 Dc6 7. b3 0-0 8. 2b2 b6 9. DeS DxeS 10. dxeS DeB 11. £426 12. 23 Nowitwas already possible to carry out the plan we've examined: 12. c4.2.b7 (after 12...dxe4 13. Axed [or 13. &.xc4 £7 14. We2a6 15. a4 Wc? 16. e4 threatening f4- £5] 13...8b7 14. Yc2 White has clear play: the queen’s rook can be placed on d1 and a knight jump to d6 is threatened; there is also the straightforward e3-e4 with a subsequent f4-f5) 13. cxd5 (also promising is 13. e4 d4 [13..2c7 14. exdS exd5 15. We2] 14. Wed, except that White’s dark- squared bishop has to rejoin the game by 53Part I, Play for White going back to cl) 13...exd5 14. e4 with initiative for White. 12...0g7 13. Bh3 £5 14. Ye2 Marshall didn’t take the pawn en passant 14. exf6, evidently because of the variation 14...2xf6 15. 2xf6 Wxf6 16. Df eS 17. fxeS We7 18. Bhd, after which the black pieces are activated. 14...26 Black’s play is logical: after reinforcing the kingside, he plans to obtain counterplay by advancing pawns on the opposite flank. Moreover, with the modified Pillsbury setup White won’t have the opportunity to open up the long diagonal with dxc5_ 15. c4!? Oneofthemain movesinthe Marshall plan: White begins to undermine Black’s central pawn triangle (d5/e6/f5) while preventing ...b6-bS: 15,,.2b7 16, Hdl 54 To intensify the pressure on the d- file the queen’s rook needs to be placed on dl. 16...8d7 17. exd5!? White needs not only to weaken Black’s pawn backbone in the center, but also to make available the c4 square, from which the black king may be threatened in the future. 17...exd5 18, e4!? The move deserves attention because it leads to interesting complications; moreover, slow play by White gives Black time to reinforce his position: After 18. Ded We7 19. Dd6 2xd6 20. exd6 Wxd6 21. S&e5 We7, White has compensation for the pawn in the form of the wonderful bishop on eS, but Black’s position is strong, and moreover he controls the center, 18...fxe4 19, Dxe4 A bold decision, but | won't give it any encouraging punctuation marks, as it’s really the only move.‘Chapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan 19...De6 19...dxe4?? 20. 204+. 20. Wea? Instead of this, 20. f5!? was stronger: 20...24 (20...2xf5 is bad because of 21. D+ 2xf6 22. exf6; 20...Exf5 isa little better, but also after 21. A f6+ &xf6 22. &xfS Black is down the exchange, although it’s true that he has good compensation in the form of a strong center) 21. Yg4 Axh3+ 22. Wxh3 WxfS (22...BxfS 23. Dg3) 23. @f6+ Ext 24. Sxf5 ExfS with an unclear position on the board. After the game move, however, White should lose. 20...2ixf4 21. Exh7 Exgd 22. Af6+ &xf6 23. Bxd7 2c8, and this position was lost for White. Still, in this game the Marshall plan presented a new direction of play for White with the modified Pillsbury setup, which was taken up by Akiba Rubinstein and then other players. In the next game Rubinstein, in accordance with the Marshall plan, destroys Black’s pawn triangle (d5/e6/ 5) with c2-c4 and e3-e4. Rubinstein A. — Treybal K. Baden-Baden 1925 1. DBAS 2. d4 e6 3. €3 Dl6 4. Sad 5 5. b3 Dcé 6. Lb2 Ld6 7. DAbd2 @b4 Black achieves nothing with this knight lunge, as after 9. a3 the white bishop can return to its usual post without tempo loss. But in this game the bishop turns out to be fine on e2, too. 8. Re2 We7 Sometimes Black links the early knight jump to b4 with a subsequent occupation of the e4 square by the second knight (see more on this idea by Vasily Panov in Part II, Chapter 7), but here this undertaking doesn’t look so attractive. 8...cxd4 9. exd4 Ded 10. Dxe4 dxe4 11. Dd2 FS (relatively best; the move 11...€3 is linked to the pawn sacrifice 12. fxe3 Wh4+ 13. fl, but the h2-pawn can’t be taken and there’s no apparent compensation for the invested pawn; while 11...c7 also leads to the loss ofa pawn, for example 12.3 d3+ 13. &xd3 exd3 14, Ded) 12. Ded, and White has achieved, as Tartakover put it, “if not a real advantage, then a moral one.” 8..He4 without a preliminary exchange of pawns on dé also leads to 55Part I. Play for White an better game for White, for example: 9. Ded dxe4 10. Ad2 £5 11. dxcS Bxe5 12. 25+. 9. a3 Dc6 10. AeS 2xeS 1. dxeS @d7 12.1465 On 12...f6 Rubinstein advises playing 13. D3. As we saw in the previous game, Janowski preferred capturing on f6 ina similar position. 13. c4!? Rubinstein is playing _ strictly according to the Marshall plan. 13...0-0 Clearly, 13...dxe4 is unacceptable because of 14. 2)xc4, when the knight occupies the d6 square. And who could like that? 14, 0-0 Db6 15. We2 dxed 16. Axed ®xe4 17, Axed DdB Black transfers the knight to f7 so as to control d6. 56 18. ed! Gh8 19. Hadd Ad7 20. exfS exfS 21. Hd6! 206 21...2f7 can’t be played because of 22. Exd7! Wxd7 23. 6. 22. Hfdl DMT 23. &xt? Wext7 24. 6, “After this the game was strategically decided. Possession of the only open line and the fearsome position of the bishop guarantees victory for White” — Rubinstein. In the game Bogolyuboy E. — Rellstab L., Bad Nauheim 1936, we again encounter the Marshall plan, but as played by Efim Bogolyubov: 1. d4d5 2. DB Af6 3. e3 e6 4. La3 5.5. b3 Deb 6. &b2 Le7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. ®e5 Dxe5 9. dxeS Ad7 10. Dd2 With the queen sortie 10. Yh5 White could provokea weakness in the position of Black’s castled king. 10...65 1. £4 E67‘Chapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan 12. cat? An automatic move by White with a transformation of the Pillsbury formation. 12.218 13. We2 2d7 14, Hadl The second important move in the Marshall scheme, which White almost always needs to play. 14...2c6 15. exd5 2xd5 16. ¢4 White continues the systematic de- struction of Black’s pawn fortifications in the center. The moves 12. c4 and 16. e4 are linked by a unity of purpose: one doesn’t work without the other. 16...fxe4 17. xed In this case the illogical-looking 17. ®xe4!? is also O.K. Illogical, because in principle you have to trade off the light- squared bishops and invade on d6 with the knight. After 17...Wb6 (17...2xe4? is bad because of 18. &.xe4 Yb6 19. £5 with a powerful attack) 18. Gh] Bd8 19. Ac3 &c6 20. £5, White is on the offensive. 17...S.xe4 18. Dxed After 18. Wxe4 We7 (18...W4d5 19. Wxd5 exd5 20. £5 25 21. e6 He7 +) 19. Dec, White also has an advantage. 18...\We7 19. g4 19. 5 exf5 20. Ad6 is stronger, as Black must retreat into deep defense. 19...2g6 20. We Hxf4?! Nowit’s Black who misses hischance to switch to counterattack with the move 20...Dxf4!?. 21. Wxe6+ Gh8 22. Ad6 Wes 23. Exf4 We2t!? 24, Gxg2 Zxfd+ 25. &g3 Dxe6 26. Dxb7, and White, after winning a pawn, had good chances of a win, but alas... In the next game White followed Marshall’s “ordinances” and _ easily obtained a winning position. 37Part I. Play for White Pytel K. — Vanéura Z. France 1993 1. d4. Af6 2. D3 b6 3. Abd2 £7 4, 23 e6 5. 2.43 d5 6. 0-0 Dbd? 7. b3 2e7 8, 2b2 59. DeS DxeS 10. dxeS Dd7 10...2e4 doesn’t work because of 11. 2b5+ Gf8 12. Axed ded 13. Yxd8+ Exd8 14. Bfdi Hd5 15. c4, and the white rook invades Black’s camp. IL. f4 g6?! Black was probably afraid of £4-f5, and decided to put up roadblocks. On 11...0-0 White could hardly play 12. £5, but would have continued as in the game or with 12. Wh5. 12. c4 5? This only weakens Black’s position. 13, exd5 &xd5 14, e4! Everything according to Marshall. 14...fxed 15. Dxed 0-0 16. Dc3 cs? An oversight in a difficult position. 17, Dxd5 exd5 18, 2a6 The rest is a matter of technique. In the next game White had no dif- ficulties with his choice of playing plan, as he was familiar with the general prin- ciples of play in these kinds of positions: 58 Bogdanovich G. — Lasslop U. Crailsheim 2005 1. d4 Af 2. AFB e6 3. €3.d5 4. 2.d3 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2e7 7. 2b2 We7 8. a3 b6 9, Abd2 2b7 10. DeS DxeS 11, dxe5 Ad7 IL...Bed4? 12. &xed dxed 13. ed, and White wins a pawn. 12. f4 26 13. c40-0 In the event of 13...0-0-0 White plays as in the game Yusupoy — Savchenko, Moscow 2007. See Part I, Chapter 1. 14, Ye2 Black is grist to White’s mill: not only extending the radius of his opponent's dark-squared bishop’s actions, but also making it easier to undermine Black’s pawn bastions. 15. exdS xdChapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan 15...exd5 isn’t too sweet either, for example 16. e6 Abs 17. £5. 16. e4 2b7 17. 2c4 fxed 17...¥4c6 is better. 18. 2xe6+ Sg7 On 18...22h8 there would have followed 19. fxe4 with an overwhelming position. 19. Act Gh6 20, Ye3 Had8 21. DxeS And now, as Tartakover used to say in such cases, Black “is left with only one reply: I resign.” In the next game White decides to “come in from the side”: Yermolinsky A. — Shaked T. New York 1998 1. DPB 5 2. b3 d5 3. e3 An accurate move order. On 3. &b2, according to Mikhail Botvinnik’s recommendation 3...f6 would have followed with a subsequent ...e7-e5. 3,..2f6 4, 2b2 06 After Black places a pawn on e6, closing the path to freedom for his light- squared bishop, White can boldly go into a Yusupovka. 5. d4 De6 6. Dbd2 2e7 7. 243 0-0 8, 0-069. a3.2.b7 10. We2a5 A useful move, especially in those cases when White has played a2-a3 and is initiating action with c2-c4. See the notes to White’s move 13. Sometimes an exchange of the light-squared bishops is possible after ...2b7-a6. 11. Des Des Black has already grasped where this is heading and prepares to occupy e4 with his knight. 12. £45 The Anti-Pillsbury doesn’t look bad against the Pillsbury! eae 13. g4 White uses the move g2-g4 fairly often to crack Black’s pawn chain in the Zukertort System, as with a closed center a weakening of his own king’s position is not very dangerous for him. From the previous games we know that undermining Black’s pawn bases in the center in accordance with the Marshall plan is very promising but, in this situation, after 13. c4 Black obtains 59Part I. Play for White serious counterplay on the queenside, for example: 13...a4!? (13..Ad6 14. exd5 exd5 15. Hacl with a complicated game) 14. cxdS exdS (14...2)xe57! 15. fxeS 2xd5 16. bxa4 cxd5 17. 4 fxe4 18. ®xe4 Bxad 19. Bxf8+ Sxf8 20. Wed Be7 21. Bf, and Black’s position is very worrisome) 15. bxa4 c4 (15...Hxa4? 16. 2bS; 15...AxeS 16. fxeS, and Black has no time to take the a-pawn as his f5-pawn must be defended), and the following variation is hardly likely to suit White: 16. Adxe4?! dxe4 17. Bxcd+ Gh8 18. D7+ Bxe7 19. 2x7 Adb. 13...Dd6 One of the little-noticed advantages of situating the dark-squared bishop on 7: the knight lands on e4 via d6 without hindrance. 14. Wig? Dxes Out of harm’s way — White was already threatening to open the long diagonal. For example, the placid 14... a4?! would have been answered with 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. exfS Axes 17. 2xe5. Black’s light-squared bishop is activated in this case, of course, but the benefits that White gains should outweigh that. 15. dxe5 Ded Right on time. 16. Bad] We8 17. gxf5 exfS 18. xed dxed 19. Ded 2a6, and White’s small edge wasn’t enough to win. When the Pillsbury formation is modified by an exchange on e5, the long diagonal for White’s dark-squared bishop is extended, as the d-pawn shifts to the e5 square. This circumstance sometimes makes White think about trying to clear a path for the e5-pawn, bringing in the f-pawn to carry out this idea, and if necessary even going for a sacrifice on the key £5 square. Summerscale A. — Giménez Andorra 1991 1, d4.d5 2. Df3 Df 3. e3 6 4, 2.43 5 5. b3 De6 6 &b2 Le7 7. Dbd2 0-0 8. 0-0 b6. 9. DeS Dxe5 10. dxe5 Dd7 11.64 Inthe modified Pillsbury setup, aside from the Marshall plan White can start an attack with f4-f5, if Black is late with ww f7-£5. 11...2b7 An attempt by Black to solve his problems with the help of a French-type undermining move ended lamentably: 11...f6 12. 23 fxeS (on 12...£5 White acts according to the Marshall plan: 13. c4) 13. DxeS DxeS 14. 2xeS 26? (a serious mistake; Black could have stayed afloat by taking control of the h5 square with 14... We8. Now, though, a quick dénouement follows) 15. W h5 g6 (after 15...h6 16. 4g6 Ef7 17. Wh7+ G18 18, 2g6, Black has a choice: to either give up the exchange, or after 18...2¢d7 19. g4 be subjected toa very powerful attack, the result of which is probably predetermined) 16. 2xg6 hxg6 17. Wxg6+ Wh8, and now follows theChapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan took’s decisive arrival: 18. Hf3. And on the next move Black laid down his arms in the game Shaw J. — Paul B., England 2008. After 11...f5 Black also has to contain White’sinitiative: 12. exf6 (White canalso play as per Marshall: 12. c4 Ab8 [12... 8b7 13. cxd5 &xd5 14. e4 fxed 15. Dixed He8 16. WhS g6 17. Wh3 Wes, and in this position from Adly A. — Magnusson B., Reykjavik 2006, White could have immediately obtained a big advantage with 18. 2\d6! 2.xd6 19. exd6 c4 (White also has a big plus after 19...2sf6 20. Hae I} 20. bxc4 &xc4 21. Bael] 13. We2 [Most likely it’s best to fight for an advantage by means of 13. cxd5!?, for example 13... exdS fto 13.4xd5 White can reply 14. Bcd &b7 15, Wed, then seize the d-file after Lad 1 and the automatic move e3-e4} 14. ed and White has the initiative. After the game move, Black equalizes.] 13... cb 14. a3 d4 Bigg A. — Hinks-Edwards T, England 2003) 12...&.xf6 13. Wh5 hé (13...g6 is better — R. Palliser; 14. 2xf6 [14. &xg6? is bad because of 14...4e7!] 14... Axf6) 14. Qed We (after 14... 2xe5 15. fxe5 Wg5 in Seredkin A. — Paulsen V., Norway 1997, White could have obtained the initiative by playing 16. 2xf8+!? @xf8 17. Wxg5 hxgs 18. DF3) 15. 2.96 Ye7 16. DES B.a6 17. 242 Hfas 18. et, and game Rotstein E. — Shlakman I., Arco 2001, White developed a dangerous attack on the kingside. 12, Bhs The purpose of this move is to provoke a weakness in Black’s castled position. 12...96 13. Yh3 White shuffles his queen to a modest position. On 13. ¥/h6, where the queen is “relentless,” as Tartakover put it, 13... Be8 can ensue followed by ....2.e7-£8, and White loses a tempo on the queen retreat. 13...b5 With the idea of playing ...c5-c4, but Black’s idea meets with an effective refutation. 14, &xb5!? WaS 15. 2xd7 Wxd2 16. 22 Wb4 17. a3 W6 18. f5t Threatening f5-f6 and Wh6. 18...ex5 I think that White’s tasks would have been more difficult after 18...exf5 19. Axf5 d4 (19...8c8 20. Ext? x7 21. £xc8 and White attacks with material equality) 20. Hf2, when Black stays afloat. 61Part I. Play for White 19. Exfs! White “starts talking seriously”! 19...exf5 19...Had8 20. HhS Exd7 21. Hxh7 doesn’t save Black. 20. &.xf5h6 Anything else is even worse. 21. e6! I have to say that opening up the long diagonal in the Zukertort System is like a bolt of lightning for Black. That’s why many people playing Black are often already in a panic after the first few moves, and trade on d4 to avoid this “act of God.” 21...2.85 21...fke6 22. Wxh6 +. 22.8 ! fxe6 22...2.xf6 23. Wxh6 +—. 62 23. 2xe6+ With oblique fire on the king’s position. 23...08f7 23...7h7 24, WHS. 24. &xgS, and Black made a few more graveside moves: 24...hxg5 25. Ef Hafé 26. Bf6 &g7 27. Wh6+ 1-0. The next duel develops the theme of the previous game. Belfiore D. — Juarez E. Buenos Aires 1992 1. d4 D6 2. €3.e6 3, DL3b6 4, 2d3 27 5. 0-0 &e7 6. Dbd2 d5 7. Des 0-0 8.b3 c5 9. 2b2 Deb 10. a3 DxeS An important moment requiring attention. Another alternative involving an exchange on eS is for Black to take first with his d4-pawn: 10...cxd4, when some Yusupovka enthusiasts prefer to go for an in-between capture on cé: 11. ®xc6 &xc6, and only then 12. exd4, obtaining a pawn structure sporting some pluses. The main benefit is that it’s trickier for Black to get counterplay. If 11. exd4 is played immediately, then Black — after first trading off the knights on eS — sends his other knight to c5, and White either has to allow the exchange of his bishop for Black’s knight, or remove his bishop from the key d3 square, or else play b3-b4, creating a “hook” for Black to hang his play on‘Chapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan on the queenside. Black can also act capriciously and simply place the knight on e4. The second variation, 11. exd4, is examined in Part II, Chapter 13. M1. dxe5 Ad7 For 11...2e4!?, see Part II, Chapter 13. 12. Whs Events unfolded differently in the game Bottino A.— Kulesar M., Budapest 1998, but the main lever of the attack was the same: 12. f4 26 13. Wg4 Hes: 14, £5! exf5 15. Eixfs! 8 16. Bxf7? (Here it’s relevant to recall Tartakover’s quip: “White plays beautifully, but unsuccessfully.” Correct is the less impressive 16. e6! f6!7 [16...xe6? is bad because of 17. Exf7! xf7 18. Hfl+ 266 19. Wha Ses 20. 2xf6 We7 21. &xg6! with a winning position; 16... fxe6 looks slightly better, but isn’t too sweet, either, for instance 17. Bxf8+! 2x68 18. 2xg6 He7 19. 2xh7+ Yxh7 20. Wh4+ 2h6 21. 2f6, when after winning back the rook White is left a pawn up and has an attack to boot] 17. Sb5 R818, Lxe8 Lxe6 19. Bc6 Lxf5 20. WF3 Hc8 21. &xd5+, and White is simply better, though the worst is over for Black) 16...xf7 (16...2c8 doesn’t work because of 17. e6! Dxe6 [17... &xe6 permits a beautiful finale: 18. Hg7+ Wh8 19. Bxh7+!] 18. 2xg6!, and Black is defenseless) 17. Hfl+ wg8 18. W£4 D d7? (losing; after the correct 18... Sc8! Black defends; 19. 417+ e7h8 20. e6+ d4) 19. WI7+ Bhs 20. e6+ D6? (it still wasn’t too late to challenge White with 20...d4, for example: 21. exd7 Hf8 22. We6 Exfl+ 23, &xfl, and White is better for the moment) 21. Exf6!, and Black resigned. 12...g6 13. Wh3 We7 14. f4.a6 15. f5t Aided by this “lever” White explodes Black’s position. 15...exf5 16, Exf5! c4 16..Wc6 17. e6 f6 (17...Yxe6? allowsa beautiful end: 18. Yxh7+! ©xh7 19. HhS+ sg8 20. Hh; Black can try 63Part I. Play for White and sneak his king out of the battle zone, for example 17...fxe6 18. Bh5! Gf7 (18...gxh5 19. &2xh7+!) 19. Bxh7+, and the black king hides behind its subjects, but the only question facing White now is how best to exploit his advantage) 18. Exf6 Axio 19. 2x6 Yxeb 20. Yxeb fxe6, and White must do some sustained work to take advantage of the better coordination of his pieces. Only 16...f6 would have caused problems for White in developing his attack, 17. Bhs? 17. bxe4! dxe4 18. 2xe4 bs (18... gxf5? loses immediately: 19. Wg3+ Hh8 20. e6+ +—; 18...4c6 only delays the timing of the resignation: 19. e6 fxe6 20. HhS Gf7 21. Kxn7+ Yes 22. 2d3 and, as they say, way to go) 19. 2xf7+! with an attack that Black is hardly likely to refute. 17...gxh5? What would Tartakover have said about Black’s last move? — “Hypnotized by a weak move!” After 17_..c3! it’s quite possible that Black is already better, for example: 18. &cl (on 18. Exh? there follows simply 18...Wxe5, and White can resign; 18. x26 doesn’t help White either, for example: 18...fxg6 19. Ye6+ Dh8 20. Wxe6 Afe 21. exfo 2xf6, the position looks sharp, but Black should win) 18...2xeS (18...cxd2? is a mistake because of 19. &b2! Axe5 20. 2xe5 2 d6 21. 26 2e7 22. Bd4 (22. Be Bd6 =] 22...c5 23. Exh? &xd4 24. exd4 We 64 25. Bhd or 25. Wh4, and White is better) 19. Bxh7 &f6 with a sharp position, but White must think about how to finish developing his queenside, as without it the attack on the kingside is doomed. Now, the game ends quickly. though, 18. Wg3+ 25 18...eh8 19. 06+ +- 19. Wxgs+ Gh8 20. Hf Hgs 21. WxhS Hg7 22, Ext7 Kags 23. Yxh7+!, and Black congratulated his opponent on his victory. Readers have probably noticed that I often give games by lower- rated players. The reality is that high- rated players rarely make mistakes from which the main mass of players could extract lessons. Andsometimesthe games of ordinary players serve as a source of new ideas; not presenting them to the public would be a major methodological omission. Some theoreticians are guilty of chess snobbishness. The idea of the double sacrifice on f5, which has been encountered in a game between ordinary players, should be introduced into the arsenal of players of any strength who play the Yusupovka. And finally ~ Tartakover’s opinion on the game we examined above: “Sacrifices either tum out to be correct accidentally, or... your opponent trips up!” We should mention one more possibility for Black: he sometimes creates a diversion with the queen on the kingside with the aim of deflecting White‘Chapter 3. Transforming the Pillsbury Formation; The Marshall Plan from carrying out his main plan. Practice shows that nothing good awaits him. Petrovs V. — Treybal K. Podébrady 1936 1. d4.d5 2. DB Af6 3, 3 6 4. 2.43 55. b3Ac6 6. 2b2 2d6 7. DeS 2 xe5 8.dxeSDd7 9. f4 9..nd+7! General opening theory frowns on early queen forays, especially not in this situation, when Black’s other pieces can’t support their queen. 10. 3 Wh3? Black could return the queen home with the move 10..We7. In some opening variations, the following idea is used: the queen gives check to provoke the opponent into moving his pawns — pawns can’t go backwards — and then returns to her own camp. But Black persists, and as a result risks falling into a difficult position. 11. Of) WHS 12. Dd? £6 The lunge 12...2\b4?! is met with 13. e4, and after 13...dxe4 14. Bg? 3 15. De4 0-0 16. a3 you don’t even know what to suggest for Black. 13. edt? Bg6 13...dxe4 14. D4 Weg6 (14...0-0? 15. Dd6 Yg6 16. DxcB loses a piece) 15. Dd6+ Ge7 16. &e2 with a very strong attack. 14. exdS 14. 2d3!? Abd 15. 2e2. 14...ed 15. 2.43 £5 16. DEL 16. ¢3 0-0 17. W413 doesn’t look bad either. 16....4b6 and, in this position after 17, 2a3!? c4 18. 2e2, an appreciable advantage has been obtained. As we saw in this game, the wayward black queen actually helped White to develop his initiative in the center. And all of Black’s difficulties occurred because he violated one of the fundamental principles of playing the opening: don’t bring your queen out so early in the game. 65Chapter 4 A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns When the center is closed, White can assail Black’s kingside by advancing the pawns in front of his own king, as in this case His Majesty is safe. It’s very difficult for Black to withstand this kind of “psychological attack.” Maréczy G. — Blake H. Hastings 1923 1. d4 D6 2. Df c5 3. €3 6 4. 2.d3 d5 5. b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 cxd4 Generally speaking, a hasty decision. The fact is that now Black can’t undertake the “liberating” advance ...e6- 5, asafter 6. exd5 White can control the e5 square with his major pieces. On the subject of the early exchange of pawns on d4 see Part II, Chapter 12. 7. exd4 246 8. 2b2 0-09. a3b6 10. ADbd2 Zh7 11. Ye2 This same position was encountered some ten years later in the model game Alekhine — Rosselli Del Turco, Zirich 1934. See the supplementary games section. I1...2e8 12, DeS We7 13. f4 Hfe8?! 14.213 66 As we already know, transferring the rook to h3(g3) is one of the main elements of White’s plan in his play on the kingside. 14... 49182! Black’s last two moves to restructure his pieces are unsuccessful, as practice has shown. Palliser recommends 14...26!2 15. Eh3 Dh! and 16...f5. It’s all correct, but with the move ...f7-f5, I believe so as to later transfer the hS knight to e4, it isn’t so simple, for example 16. Wed4!?. Here the intended 16...f5 gives White a big advantage: 17. Axg6! fxg6 (White has a powerful attack after 17... hxg6 18, Wxg6+ 2g? 19.263 & xf4 20. Bel) 18. Axe7+ Hxe7 19. Bxh5 2xf4 20. Al. That’s why Black first has to retreat his knight away to g7, and only then play ...f7-£5. In this case White has a substantial positional achievement,‘Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns as the black knight can’t reach e4 19, Hip2 immediately. With his last three moves White 15. Eh3 has brought his rook, which had been quietly dozing on the queenside, into Threatening &xh7+ and Yh3(+). the attack. Now the threat of f4-f5 will always be hanging over Black. 15...26 19...2¢7 On 15...h6, White also throws the g-pawn into the fray to meet the h6 Black puts his rook on the seventh “hook.” rank to defend the f7-pawn. 20. Adf3 Degs? On the more stubborn 20...Ac6, the energetic thrust 21. f5!? could follow, or once again 21. gS. 21. Dgst Threatening Mgxf7 and Axg6. 21...h6 16. ga “The position looks, the combination finds...” (Tartakover). White starts moving the pawns in front ofhisking, which isdangerous todo when the center is open. The Zukertort System allows White to proceed without worrying about the center, as it’s safely closed. 16...4g7 17. Bf De7 Black reinforces his control over f5. 18. Bf2 Bhs Black prudently takes his king off the 22. Dexf7 +! Exf7 23. Dxg6+ Gh7 g-file, which could come open. 2A, DEB+ Gh 25. Dg6+ Gh7 67Part I. Play for White White simply gains time. 26. DeS+ Shs 27. g5! White begins, as Tartakover would have put it, the “scalping” of the black king. 27... 2xe5 On 27...De4 Susan Polgar suggested the beautiful variation 28. gxh6é Wf6 29. Wed! 2 xe5 30. We7+H. 28. xf Sexf6 28... Wxf6 29. freS We7 30. £26. 29, xg7, and Black resigned a few moves later. In the following game, GM Mark Taimanov hews strictly to the classical Zukertort, and wins easily. Taimanov M. — Dalmau O. Stockholm 1995 1. DB Af6 2. b3 c5 3. 2b2 Acé 4. 3 e6 5.d4d5 6. 243 So we reach a classic position from the Zukertort System. Note the cunning move order White has used: It allows White to avoid inconvenient directions of play on Black’s part. 6...b6 7, 0-0 exd4 8 exd4 2d6 9, DeS Bb7 10. Dd2 We7 11. Ye2 0-0 It’s still too soon for 11...2b42! because of 12. &b5+. 68 12. a3 Now White has to prevent the black knight from landing on b4. 12...a6 13. {4 Hid 14. EES g6 15. Bh3 218 16.3 After constructing the typical piece configuration, White reassigns the function of defending the c-pawn to the dark-squared bishop, as it’s possible that the black knight might land on e4, when. as a result of mass exchanges the white c2-pawn could be left undefended. See Part II, Chapter 7. 16...2.¢8 17. Hf Priorto launcing decisive operations, White brings out the queen’s rook. 17...De8 Black in turn also prepares to meet White’s attack adequately, and to that end he executes the main defensive maneuver: the black knight moves away, letting the f-pawn move forward,‘Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns and then aims for e4. See Part II, Chap- ter 7. 18...f5 19. Hg3 Up till now White has been playing according to a well-established plan, but now he has to display some independent thinking. The purpose of White’s last move was to open up the g-file and let the h-pawn move forward to shatter the king’s pawn cover. 19... f6 20. gxf5 exfS 21. ha! 21...2xe57! Not only allowing White to open the f-file, but also giving him the opportunity to create a powerful pawn center. 22. fxeS De?! Black is relying on his kingside pawn fence, but he forgets that White’s pawn center is more important, and that the long diagonal is coming open. 23. 2xe4! dxed 24. 5! Creating a pawn weakness on g6. White’s attack develops of its own accord. 24... Ye6 25. c4 bS 26. hxg6 hxg6 27. dst The beginning of the end! 27...9b6+ 28. Yg2 bxed 29. e6 Moves _ like explanation. this require no 29...2g7 30. Eixg6 Ha7 31. Zxt5 e3 32. Ded Over the last few moves we are dazzled by the plethora of possibilities for ending the game. 32.298 33. Err Hist? 34. ext7+, and Black resigned. 1-0 In the next game, the white pawn’s march tog paved the way forthe knight to invade on f6 or h6. Trying to escape the worst, Black created new weaknesses. 69Part I. Play for White Lobron E. — Adams M. Dortmund 1996 1. d4 Df6 2. DIB e6 3. e3c54. Ld3 dS 5. b3 exd4 Such an early exchange looks logical only when followed up with a bishop check on b4, otherwise it’s difficult to find an explanation for it. The fact is that it eliminates other promising battle plans for Black against the Zukertort System. For more details see Part II, Chapter 12. 6. exdd 2b4+ 7. c3 Le7 8, 0-0 0-0 9. Dbd2 Strategically similar in essence to the following game: 9. We2 a5 10. a4 b6 11. He5 Afd7 (11...2a6 is impossible because of 12. &xa6 Exa6 13. Dc6 winning the exchange) 12. f4 g6 (at this point Black had a chance to trade off the light-squared bishops: 12...2\xe5 13. fxeS £a6 14. 2xa6 Axa6, but White’s position is better here, too) 13. #\a3!? &b7 (now exchanging on e5 with 13... xe5 is no longer playable because of the weakened dark squares on the kingside) 14. AbS @f6 (White has brought out his queen’s knight to b5, and not to d2, so Black decides to occupy e4 with his knight) 15. g4 (15. £5!? exfS 16. 2h6 He8 17. Bxf5 2.18 [17...exf5 18. Exfs +—] 18. £5, and things are bad for Black) 15... ADbd7 16. 8e3 Ded 17. Vxed ded 18. £5 exfS 19. gxfS £.g5 20, Axd? &xe3+ 21. Wxe3 Wxd7, and in the game Hoffman A. — Paglilla C., Buenos Aires 1988, after 22. c4 and d4-d5 White would have gained a huge advantage. 70 9...b6 10. We2 aS 11. a4 2a6 12. Sbs Sb7 After 12...&.xb5!? 13, axb5, mattersare not so clear. The game move is probably an error, as White keeps his light-squared bishop which actively participates in the destruction of the black king’s pawn cover. And Black’s light-squared bishop is then just a spectator. 13. &b2 Acé 14. Hel He8 15. Ladi We7 16. 243 Efe8 17. Lbi g6 18. Des 218 19. 14.297 Black has fianchettoed his dark- squared bishop, hoping that the “cabin” will help him to defend successfully. This plan of defense is examined in Part II, Chapter 10. 20. Y12 De7 Black wants to transfer his knight to d6 via the route Ae7-f5-d6, and then occupy e4. With his next move White not only thwarts Black’s plan, but also brings the g-pawn into the attack. 21. g4!? Dc6 22. Bhd Ad7 23. He3 Wd8 24. 25 h5?!Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns 24...2\dxe5 25. fxe5 looks safer, and he can then play 25...h5, but in this case, too, White could target not only the g6 and h5 squares, but also the f7-pawn. What’s more, White has the f6 square at his disposal, towards which the white rookcan strive, as it would be inadvisable for Black to take the exchange. Based on these considerations, 24... &)f8 looks preferable. 25. Dxget A combination typical of the Zukertort System: giving up two pieces for a rook, but at the same time getting asufficient number of pawns. The main thing is that the black king’s pawn cover is destroyed. 25...£xg626. 2xg6 De7 White is also much better after 26... 448 27, &.xe8 (27. 2.d3 De7 28. Yxhs DES) 27... xe8 28. £5. 27. 2xe8 Uxe8 28. Hxe6 DB It’s also worse for Black after 28... W7, for example 29. Hdel AfS 30. Wh3 DPB 31. Bxb6. 29. Exb6 White has a big advantage. In the next example, White starts a pawn offensive on the kingside with his pieces in virtually the same positions as in the previous game, but he gets to it via an unusual move order. Kovatevié V. — Faragé I. Hastings 1983 1. d406 2. DB c5 3. e3 Df 4. 23 d5 5. b3 Zcé 6. 0-0 2e7 7, Lb2 0-0 8. bd? exd4 9. exd4 b6 10. Hel 2.b7 11. a3 Hc8 12. He3 It would now be a mistake to implement the plan in which the knight occupies e5 supported by f2-f4. First, because that plan looks illogical, to say the least. In this case the rook’s move to el is unnecessary, and the move #d1-e2 worked fine to control over the e4ande5 squares. And secondly, in this situation Black can occupy e4 with his knight, ie. 12, DeS" AxeS 13. dxeS (13. Bxes doesn’t help, either, in view of 13...4c7 14. Hel [the rook must retreat, as 14. Hcl is answered by 14...d6, and the h2-pawn is lost) 14...Qe4, and after multiple takes on e4 White loses the ¢2- pawn) 13...Ae4 14. &xe4 (the variation 14. @xed dxed 15. xed xed 16. Hxed Wxdi+ 17. Hxd! Exc2 clearly doesn’t suit White) 14...dxe4 15. c4 (as we saw 71Part I. Play for White above, in the event of 15. Z\xe4 the ¢2- pawn is lost) 15...f5 16. exf6 &xf6 17. We2 Add 18. Bxd4 Wxd4 19. DEl bs, and Black equalized in Dokutchaev A. — Pihlajasalo A., Finland 2008. 12..Dg4 After 12...6, 13. De57! occupying 5 with the knight looks hasty once again, as now Black obtains e4 in return: 13...AxeS 14. dxe5 (Black also settles one4 after 14. HxeS c7 15. He2 Hed) 14... Ded 15. DFE (15. Dxed? dxed 16. Sxed4 Wxdl+ 17, Exdl 2xe4 18. Bxe4 Exc2 with a big advantage for Black) 15...Ac5 16. Bfl (16. Ad4, as played by Rubinstein in a similar situation, deserves attention) 16...2a6, and in Bistrié F — Sher M., Bled 1991, Black traded his bad light-squared bishop for White’s good one. 13. Be2 We7 14, Stl Dbs Shifting Black’s queen to the kingside looks dubious, as it finds itself in a restricted space, while it’s hardly possible to create anything significant with just two pieces: 14...Wf4 15. g3 Wh6 16. h3 Af6. Black can hide his queen in the “cabin,” of course — ...7- g6, ...Wg7 — but in this case White, as we saw above, can play as in Maréczy — Blake, Hastings 1923, and obtain good attacking chances on the kingside. 15. 3 Df6 16. Bel Abd? 17. Wh3 h6 18, Dh4 Dh7 19. f4 It is difficult to calculate the ramifications of 19. 2\g62!. 72 19....2xh4 20. Wxhd Dhi6 Inthis position White has undertaken a transfer of the queen to f3 and only then started to move the g-pawn. In my opinion, a different plan in preparation for pushing this pawn is more promising: 21. ¢3 (above all, we free the light- squared bishop from the need to defend the c-pawn) 21...Hfe8 22. Hf (the rook will defend the f-pawn) 22...0f8, and only now does the g-pawn begin its march to g5: 23. g4. No counterplay is evident for Black on either the queenside or the center. He faces a difficult defense on the kingside. Now here’s a game where the outcome of the battle was more or less decided by the march of White’s g- pawn, allowing the white knight to gain a foothold on f6: Vospernik Z. — Potochnik P. Slovenia 1996 1. d4.d5 2. Df3 D66 3. €3 5 4. b3 06 5, £d3 Dc6 6. Sb2 Ld6 7. DAbd2 0-0 8.a3b6 9. DeS Lb7 10. 0-0 We7 11. f4 Had8 12. WH3 DesChapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns 13, g4 BxeS Black can’t chase the white knight away with 13...f6?, as a thematic bishop sacrifice follows: eo) ve. 14, &xh7+! Gxh7 15. Wh3+ hs 16. Dg We? 17. DfB exd4 18. Wh8+ G7 19. Yh7 La6 20. Dgs+! fxgs 21. fxgS+ & xf1 22. Exfl+ Af6 23. ext & es 24. QxfB AxfB 25. Web+ Wd7 (25... WAT 26. fxg7!) 26. fxg? with a winning position for White. 16... d7 is bad too: 17. Df3 cxd4 18. Digs! fxgs 19. Wh8+ G7 20. fxes+ Df6 21. WhS!, and despite the two extra pieces Black’s condition is grim: The move 13...f6 doesn’t work in this situation because of the poor position of the black pieces. But in a different configuration (see Zaitseva L. — Rubtsova T., Sochi 1983, in Part I, Chapter 1), after Black’s f-pawn attacks White’s e5-knight, White has to weigh everything up before deciding to sacrifice the bishop. 14. dxe5 dd 15. Wh3 g6 16. g5! Now a powerful supporting square has been secured on f6 for the white knight. 16...Dg7 17. Ded 5 18. exhS AS 19. Di6+ Gh8 20. ed Ne3 21. 263, and subsequently White put his queen on g5, and the h-pawn blew up the position of the black king after h2-h4-h5. Sometimesa white pawn that reaches 85 is sacrificed: Hoffman A. — Urday H. Alicante 1989 1. d4e62. DB AL 3. e3 b6 4. 243 2b7 5. 0-0:d5 6. b3 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. De5 DbdT 8...05 9. Qd2 Dc6 10, a3 Bc8 11. fa cxd4 12. exd4 Me? (in the following game White also offers the g-pawn, but Black sensibly declines it: 12...26 13. We2 We7 14, Bf DhS 15, g4 Dg? 16, Bh} b8?! (Black often makes unsuccessful moves in the main line of the Zukertort System, as it isn’t easy for him to find his way around a situation in which there’sa 73Part I. Play for White lack of counterplay] 17. g5 £6 18. Dg4!? &\h5 [Black turns away the Trojan horse, otherwise the game could end roughly like this: 18...fxg5? 19. &xg6! hxg6 20. Dh6+ Gh7 21. DAS+, and it’s time for Black to resign] 19. Exh! gxh5 20. Axfo+ Exfé 21. exfo Wxf6 22. Yxhs, and the black king found itself in greater danger than the white king in Gagloshvili R. — Dusek M., Ceské Budéjovice 1996) 13. We2 (Black was threatening to hop into e4 with his knight) 13...&b8: 14. g4! (very timely; the slow 14. 3 would have allowed Black to create defensive redoubts, for example 14...Df5 15. 4 Dd6 16. g5 Dfe4, and it isn’t easy for White to attack, Perié S. — Lazaro A., Figueres 2004) 14..84c7 15. Hacl (Black was again threatening 15...e4, when after the exchange White couldn’t take the black pawn on e4, as he would lose his c2-pawn) 15...87h8 16. 2f3 Age 17. g5 DhS 18. Hcfl (now that the black knight no longer threatens to occupy e4, the queen’s rook comes into play on the kingside) 18...@)xe5 (better is 18... We7) 19. txeS We7 20. Ye3 (White has managed without a sacrifice and isalready planning his 22 move, apparently). 20... 74 Hice8 21. Hh3 g6 22. Hest Hc8 (clearly taking the rook with 22...2xf6 leads quickly to mate after 23. gxf6 and We3- h6.) 23. Hxh5!. In the game Barbero G. — Liao Y, Mercedes 1979, Black resigned because of 23...gxh5 24. Eth6, when he’s left defenseless. 9, We2 cS 10. Adz We7 11. Hadi Hac8 12. £4 g6 13. g4 Efd8 14. g5 De8 15. Hf2 exd4 16, exd4 &xe5 wr Y), gy wine a i 17. fxe5!? White sacrifices the pawn based on the following ideas: first, 17. dxeS didn’t suit him because of 17...2¢5, and Black gets White’s light-squared bishop in exchange, as a result of which the c2 square falls. But the worst part for White is that by playing ..d5-d4 the black pieces break into White’s camp via the newly opened hl-a8 diagonal. Secondly, and more pleasantly, he gets wonderful compensation in the form of the weakening of his opponent’s dark squares. 17...49xg5+ 18. Hg2 We7 19. DAB Dg7 20. Lcl (6 21. exf6 Dxi6 22. 295 Hs 23. Wes We 24, Hel Da7Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns 24,..Ded!?, 25, Wel DS 26. Ah4 Gh 27. DB We7 28. 2x65 exfS 29. Bhd WI 30. &f4 Reb 31. DeS AxeS 32. 2xeS+ As a result of all the maneuvers, White has obtained the opportunity to play with opposite-colored bishops, which enhances his attack. 32... g8 33. Wh6 2c8 34. hd! Now the h-pawn also goes into battle, with the aim of smashing the black king’s pawn cover. 34...He8 35. hS Ws 36. Yt4 SF7 Black’s king goes on the run. 37, Ef3 e7 38. hxg6 38. He3 td7 39, Bxc6 wxcé 40. hxg6 hxg6 41. Hxg6+ isn’t as strong, as it isn’t clear whether White can win. 38...hxg6 39. 2h3!? 7 40. 2h7+ 40. c4!?, 40...2e7 41. Xgh2, and subsequently by playing c2-c4 White steered the game to victory. The white h-pawn often serves as a battering ram against the black king’s pawn cover, but at the same time it also fulfills the function of “bouncer.” In the next game Black’s queen’s knight comes to the aid of its sovereign, and the white h-pawn immediately goes for it: Gunsberg I. — Chigorin M. La Habana 1890 1. DPB d5 2. d4 Afo 3. €3 06 4. 2.43 2d6 5, b3 DAbd7 6. Lb2 0-0 7. DAbd2 Hes As a rule, Black’s rook move to e8 is unsuccessful, as White is coveting the e5 square and almost immediately lays claim to it with @f3-e5. Chasing it away with the move ...f7-f6 isn’t easy, as White always has the bishop sacrifice on h7 in reserve. The upshot is that tempi have been expended uselessly, the {7 square has been weakened, and the retreat square on e8 has been taken up bya rook. In any case, the queen’s knight can be transferred to g6 by the Bogolyubov maneuver. 8. Dest See the previous note! 8...D68 9. f4 cS 10. 0-0 a6 11. 23 bs 75Part I, Play for White Black undertakes a counter-plan, advancing his queenside pawns. See Part II, Chapter 6. 12. dxc5!? We've already seen that opening the al-h8 diagonal (Part I, Chapter 2) is one of the best methods in the struggle against Black’s queenside pawn offensive, especially if White controls es. 12...2xe5 13. Hg3 Dge Bh3+ hS 22. Wxg6) 18. hxg6 with sharp play. 15, Dfl Dxh4?! Black unexpectedly takes the pawn at the most inappropriate moment. He could have included his queen’s rook in the defense of his king with 15... &a7, when the entire battle is still ahead. Now, though, White’s attack doesn’t need any nudging, but develops of its own accord. 14, hd! Black has transferred his queen’s knight to g6, and appears to have provided solid cover for his king. In order to hit him White: brings his h- pawn into the fray. 14...9b6 Black doesn’t risk taking the f4-pawn, as in that case White obtains a dangerous attack: 14...A\xf4 15. W43 Ag6 16. 2xg6 fxg6 (16...hxg6 17. hS gxh5? 18. 2\c6!) 17. hS We7 (17... DxhS? 18. Wt7+ Shs 19, Axg6+ hxg6 20. Sxg7+ Axg7 21. 76 16. 2xf7! Witness the consequences of Black’s reckless seventh move. 16...8xf7 17, &axf6 gxf6 17.58 x16 18. WhS Dg6 (18... Df3+ 19. gxf3 &xe3+ 20. g2+—) 19. xh? +. 18. Wh5+ he7 19. Wxhd 2d72! Not Black’s best move in a difficult position.‘Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns 20. Hg7+ d6 21. x6 &xe3+ 22. ®xe3 Uxe3+ 23. Sfl! Had8 24. Hel, and White soon won. Sometimes Black decides on a kingside attack, and in this case White can switch to “aggressive defense,” to use Hans Kmoch’s phrase. Rubinstein A. —Salwe G., Lédz 1903, went: 1. d4 45 2. 013 AK6 3. e3 e6 4. 243 €5 5. b3 Deb 6. Lb2 2.A6 7. 0-00-08. Dbd2 exd4 9. exdd DbS 10. 23 96 10...£5 is better, with a subsequent ... Hed, or ...2h5-f6-g4 as played by Black in Capablanca — Corzo, La Habana 1901. 11. DeS 27 12. f4 Ag? Worthy of attention is 12...f5 with a repositioning of the knight to e4 via ...2\g7-h5-f6-e4. Black decides to put it behind his kingside pawns so that it can support their attack while also defending the e6-pawn. But his idea tums out to be unsuccessful. 13.43 £5 14. Ye2 £08 15. Adf3Hc8 16. Sh White frees up the gl square for the took, from where it will support the advance g3-g4. 16...h6 17. We3 Preventing ...26-25. 17...2e7 18. gl g5 19. gd! According to the principle that attack is the best form of defense. Rubinstein’s counterattack in this game is very reminiscent of Capablanca’s play against Corzo, La Habana 1901 (see Part IL, Chapter 3). 19...gxf4 19...fxg4 20. @xg4 (Susan Polgar suggests 20. fxgS gxf} 21. exhé and the final position doesn’t raise any questions, but what if instead of 20... exf} Black plays 20.25?) 20...Ext4 21. Axh6+ &h8 22. Bafl and Black is beyond salvation. 20. Wxfd QgS 21. Dxgs hxgs 22. ‘Wg3 £423. Wh Threatening mate. 23...DxeS 24, Wh7+ GAT 25. dxeS With the threat of 26. 26 and 27. We7. 25...21g8 77Part L. Play for White Tt looks like the black royal will slip away from the warm embraces of the white pieces, but... 26. a4! White frees up a3 for the dark- squared bishop so that it can take part in the final phase of the attack. 26...b6 27. 2.43 Hc5 28. Yg6+ SB 29. Wi6+! Tartakover: “A miracle of simplicity — isn’t that where the greatest chess art is found?” 29...Wx16 30. exf6, and Black soon capitulated. Until this point we have examined games in which White’s kingside pawn assault was accompanied by the presence ofaknightoneS. Nowlet’slook atagame in which White organizes a pawn attack against the black king without bringing his knight out to 5 (in this case, Black loses the possibility of exchanging on e5 when after dxe5 the black knight goes from {6 to c5; see Part II, Chapter 13), ‘then places the c2-pawn on c3, shifts his queen to the kingside, and with her ‘support the white g- and h-pawns storm the black king’s fortifications, while the f-pawn remains in its initial position. Guseinoy A. — Sideif-Sade F. Baku 1983 1. d4 D6 2. DB e63.e3e54, 243 45 5, b3 2e7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. 2b2 cxd4?! 78 A pawn exchange in the center this early benefits White. See Part II, ‘Chapter 12. 8 exd4 De6 9. Dbd2 b6 10. Ket Qb7 11, a3 Dic8 12. We2 He7 13, Hadl A little flyin the ointment in White’s purposeful play — the rook move to dl turns out to be unnecessary in his subsequent play. 13...4e8 14, We3 Transferring the queen to the kingside. 14...20d8 15. Wd a5 16. Bes White prepositions his rook on the third rank, and puts the second one on e| tocontrol the e-file. 16... ed7 17. ¢3 Freeing up the light-squared bishop from the function of defending the c- pawn. 17...218 18. Edel Ec7 19. Ghd e720. Wh3 h6 Black begins a maneuver to exchange the f6-knight for the white one on f3. White can only be happy about this desire of Black's: first, the black king’s main defender goes away of its own volition; and second, the move ...h7-hé creates a “hook” in Black’s castled position. 21. g4 Dh7 22. W_2 Dgs 23. ha Dxf3+ 24, Dxf3Chapter 4. A “Psychological” Attack by White’s Kingside Pawns The place of its vanished colleague is taken by the other knight, which was standing around with nothing to do, as the black pieces aren’t threatening to occupy the e4 square. 24...2.6 25. 25 hxgs 26. Axes 2 f4 26...e5 27. 2h7+ GB (27... Hhs is bad because of 28. Wf3 with the decisive addition of the white queen to the attack) 28. WE e4 29. Wh, and Black has no defense against White’s onslaught. 27, BPS Q.xgs 28. Wxg5 Wd7 Black rushes to the defense of his monarch, but he is no longer in any condition to help it. 29, Hig3 £5 30. Wel! White brings his dark-squared bishop into play on his opponent’s hopelessly weakened dark squares. 30...WI7 31. 2f4 Be7 32. 5 HB 33. 2b5 The immediate 33. h6 also wins. 33...2idd7 34, h6 gxh6 35, Yxh6+, and Black resigned a few moves later. This is one of the best games illustrating the strength of the Zukertort System, and even Black’s hesitation underscores how difficult it is for him to defend against White’s systematic play! 79Chapter 5 Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns “Hanging pawns” are two connected pawns on the same rank, not defended by other pawns. In the Zukertort System, White often goes for play with hanging c- and d-pawns, as sometimes there is no evident promising action on the kingside against the black king. And only opening up play in the center, and correspondingly on the long al-h8 diagonal, allows him to create real threats against Black’s king. I should add that in addition to the above, central hanging pawns also control key squares in the center with all the ensuing consequences of this, while on the adjacent half-open files White can both exert pressure on Black’s position and transfer his major pieces to other sectors of the board. But hanging pawns also have their faults, as they must be defended with pieces since defense with other pawns is impossible. Above all, the side with the hanging pawns must ensure their defense, and their advance must be supported by pieces. In the Zukertort System, hanging pawns can also be created for Black. Whatare the plans for each side in a game featuring hanging pawns? Play for White: 1. A pawn breakthrough in the center: d4-d5. \n this case it’s not only the dark- squared bishop that gets into play on the long diagonal, but also the d-pawn itself, sowing confusion in Black’s ranks. 2. In the Pillsbury formation, the f-pawn advance (..,f7-f5) intensifies White’s attack on the kingside. 3, With an advance of the a-pawn (a2-a4-a5), White weakens Black’s queenside with subsequent pressure on his opponent’s pawns on this flank. A pawn march to aS is most effective if Black has already played ...b7-b6. Play for Black: 1, Pressure on the hanging pawns, and if one of them advances, then a blockade can be organized. 80Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns 2. Accurately situate your pieces so that they’re up to the task of meeting White’s breakthrough d4-d5. 3. Undermining White’s central hanging pawns with the e- or b-pawns. 4. Simplify the game, as it’s easier to exploit the drawbacks of the hanging pawns in the endgame. We should point out that if it Black who has the hanging pawns, the plans for each side are reversed. A. White Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns First and foremost, we should note that positions with hanging white pawns can come out of the Pillsbury setup. In this case White gains additional chances from letting the f-pawn move, as occurred in the following game: Tibensky R. — Bouaziz S. Slovakia 1997 1. d4 Dl6 2. APB €6 3. e354. 243 d5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. Dbd2 Ye7 9. DeS &.d7 10. a3 a5 U1. 04 dxed 12. bxed Efd8 13. £4 The Pillsbury setup makes its appearance. 13...2¢8 14. We2 2b8 15. Ohl exd4 16. Axc6 2xc6 17. exd4 Here the players have additionally obtained a position with hanging pawns in the center. A small peculiarity: the white f-pawn is also taking part in the battle for the center, ready to let the rook through via Efl-f3-h3(g3) and to serve as a battering ram on Black’s castled position, 17.247 18. Lael 26 19. Ye3 Now 19, d5!? already looked good. 19... 2.68 The a3-pawn is untouchable: 19... &xa3? 20. &xa3 Yxa3 21, &xh7+. 20. 45! A typical breakthrough in positions with hanging pawns. It has lots of benefits: creating a passed pawn, flinging open the al-h8 diagonal, and driving back the black pieces. 20...2a4 81Part I. Play for White 20...exd5 is poor because of 21. Wh3 Wel 22. & xf6!. 21. 2.xf6 Yxf6 22. Des 22. We4!? We6 (22...26 23. 5!) 23. c5! wins even more quickly. 22....d8 23. £5 Now the f-pawn finds a use for itself. 23...exd5, He has to part with the exchange. Anything else is even worse, for example: 23...e5 24. £6 26 25. Wh3 He7 26. cS with an overwhelming advantage. 2A, D6+ gxf6 25. Yxe8t+ Yxe8 26. Exe8+, and White made good on his material advantage. The next game is a good example of the fact that the d4-d5 breakthrough is White's most effective weapon with hanging pawns: Castafieda G. — Zaw W. Istanbul 2000 1 d4 Df6 2. D3 e6 3. e3c54, 2d3 d5 5. b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 22 0-0 8. 4 exd4 9. exdd dxc4 10. bxe4 b6 11. Dbd2 11. 4c3 is good too, but the knight on d2 has its pluses, in particular as it defends the c4-pawn, against which Black’s play is often directed. 82 11....2b7 12. Hel Moving the king’s rook to el is good for White not only when he has hanging pawns, as the rook prevents an “undermining” move by Black’s e-pawn and reinforces the d4-d5 breakthrough; but also when his opponent has hanging pawns, as it supports the undermining of Black’s center pawns with the move e3-e4, and moreover, if Black's queen is on e7, then the breakthrough ...d5-d4 is generally impossible because of the opposition of the rook and the queen. 12...Re7 13. Kel He8 14. a3 He8 15. fl He7 16. dS! Once White has properly situated his pieces it’s the right time for decisive action, especially as the tactics also support this course. 16...2d7 16...exd5 17. 2 xf6 gxf6 (17...2.x16 is no better, for example 18. Hxe8+ Wxe8 19. exd5) 18. exdS Ed7 (18...De5 19.Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns ®xeS fxeS [19...xcl 20. Wg4+ with a quick mate] 20. Wh5, and Black is hardly likely to escape): 19, dxc6! Hxd3 20. Wxd3 Wxd3 21. exb7 Wd7 22. He8 Exc8 23. Hxe7! and after this impressive move the game switches to a purely technical phase, albeit a long one. 17. We2exdS 17...DaS 18. Ags with a strong attack. 18. 2xf6 gxf6 White ultimately won the game, but 19. Dh4!? was the strongest move here, for example 19...dxe4 20. &xh7+! and mate is not far off. In the next game White went for a sacrifice of a central pawn: Kovatevié ¥. — Popovié P. Zagreb 1985 1. d4 D6 2. DF e6 3. e354. 243 45.5, b3 Wa5S+ This early queen sortie is covered in Part II, Chapter 5. 6. c3 Dc6 7. 0-0 Le7 8. &Lb2 Ye7!? 9. c4t? Directed against ..e6-e5, and with the opening of the c-file when the opportunity arises, then the queen on c7 will feel uncomfortable. 9...0xdd Another direction of play is 9...dxe4 10. bxe4., 10. exdd dxe4 11. bxe4 0-0 12. Dbd2 b6 13. Hel 2b7 So there’s a position with hanging pawns on the board, somewhat different from that in the previous game, but the strategy of play is mostly the same: open up the center with d4-d5, even if this requires a pawn sacrifice. 14. Bet In the following game a pin on the c-file and the weakness of the eighth rank served as a basis for the d4-d5 breakthrough: 14. We2 Hfd8 15. Hfel Hac8? (it was necessary to move the queen away, with 15...Wf4, from the dangerous opposition of the white rook on cl, as happened in the game under investigation) 16. d5! exd5 (16...2b4 17. &b1 was more stubborm, but then again you wouldn’tenvy Black here, either) 17. 2xf6 Lxf6 18. exdS DAd4 (18...8xd5? 19. We8+!) 19. Wed De2+ 20. Wre2, and in the game Voinov A. — Guseva O., 83Part 1. Play for White Ufa 2004, White won a piece and with it the game. 14...Lad8 15. &b1 WHat? 16.45?! In this game the advance d4-d5 doesn’t yield immediate dividends. Before moving a pawn you should always remember Nimzowitsch’s advice: “If you intend to advance one of your hanging pawns, don’t do it until you can see at least a hint of the initiative in the new position that arises as a result of the advance; there’s never any reason to subject yourself to the danger of a complete and hopeless blockade...” But here White even sacrifices a pawn! White played more circumspectly in the following game and obtained good chances on the kingside: 16. a3 Efe8 17. We2Wh6 18. Hedl 2 .d6 19.h32.b8 20. Ded De? 21. dd Dred 22. Bxet ALS 23. Bed (Markus R. — Panman H., corr. Netherlands 1997). 16...exd5 17. exdS DxdS 84 After 17...Exd5!? White may have regretted the fact that he rushed the breakthrough in the center, as 18. Hxc6 doesn’t work because of 18...2xc6 19. Exe? Hfd8, nor does 18. 2c4 because of 18...Wxe4, 18. Bcd Wad6 19. Ded Whe Black doesn’t want to move the queen away toa safer place that’s further from the king. After 19...8b8 this variation is possible: 20. 2g3 Hfe8 (20... e3is nothing for White to worry about because of 21. &xh7+ Gh8 [21...Yxh7 22. Wb1+] 22. Wel Axed 23. &xg7+! with an irresistible attack) 21. Yc2 26 22. Bxe6 +. 20. 2cl Wg6 21. 2d2 £5 22. Ags Shs 23. Yb3 23. Yel. 23,..2a8 24, h3 2c5% In the end Black can’t stand the tension and makes a blunder. 25, Axf5! BxfS 26. Bxe5 bxc5 27. hd with an advantage for White. In the next example, despite the absence of White’s dark-squared bishop, the central pawn breakthrough d4-d5 doesn’t lose its strength, especially as Black dilly-dallied somewhat with the development of his queenside. I should also point out that developing the queen’s knight to c3 has its advantages in comparison with developing it to d2.Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns Conquest S. — Hraéek Z. Germany 1996 1. d4 Df6 2. DB e6 3. e305 4. 2d3 Ac6 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 2d6 7. Q2b2 We7 8.04 If White tries to stop the black e-pawn from advancing (“a fruitful opening idea,” as Tartakover put it; see Part II, Chapter 9) with 8. eS, or after 8...0-0 to prevent the Capablanca maneuver (Part II, Chapter 8) by continuing 9. a3, then Black can follow Max Euwe’s recommendation 9...d7!?, and on 10. f4 play 10...f6, forcing White to give up the e5 square. 8...0-0 9. Be3 On c3 the knight is good not only because it’s closer to the center, but also because it supports the d-pawn’s movement. 9...0xdd Black’s attempt after 9...dxe4 10. bxc4 to free up his play with 10...e57! is dubious. In Castafieda G. — Volokitin A, Swidnica 1998, White obtained an edge with 11.5 @xd5 12. exdS e4 13. dxe6. 10. exdd dxcd In Yusupov A. — Schlésser P., Germany 1997, in contrast to the main game White decided to arrange his major pieces differently with the queen on b2 and the queen’s rook on d1. The game continued 10...2a3 11. Wel 2xb2 12. Wxb2 dxc4 13. bxe4 Hd8 14. Bad| b6: 15. d5! (hesitating over advancing the d-pawn allows Black to complete his development, when the forward thrust won’t be as effective, if it’s even possible at all) 15...8a5 (15...exd5 16. Axd5 Dxd5 17. cxd5 Da5 18. Bfel Wd6 19. &e5 with the initiative) 16. Bfel Yc5 17. Ded Dxed 18. Lxe4 2b7 (White also has a strong attack after 18...2xe4 19, We2 Bb8 20. Ags) 19. Dgsth6 (19... 36? 20. Wi6 Bs 21. Axh7!) 20. &h7+ Gh (20...Hf8 is no use either because of 21. Dxf7! Oxi? 22. Wes) 21. DAxfi+ xh? 22. Wo2+ Yg8 (22...26 23. Bxe6 Hg8 24. Ycl WS 25. He7!) 23. Axh6+! gxh6 24. Wg6+ G8 25. Yxh6t wes 26. Wy6+ HB 27. Wi6+ dys 28. Hes, and Black waved the white flag. 11. bxe4 2a3, After opening up the al -h8 diagonal, White’s dark-squared bishop becomes extremely dangerous, so Black judges that it’s good to trade it off. In this case there is also more room for the black pieces. 85Part I. Play for White 12, Bb 12. Wcl!? asin Yusupov — Schlésser, giving the queen’s rook the subsequent opportunity to occupy d1 in support of the d-pawn, doesn’t look bad. 12...Axb2 13. Exb2 248 The main difficulty in this type of position for Black, and one often encountered in different branches of the Queen’s Gambit, is that his queenside’s development is held up. That’s why very often he doesn’t manage to prepare for White’s breakthrough in the center. 14, Bel b6 15. d5!? Aa5 16. Yb1 Yds Black shies away from opposing the white rook. The attempt to finish queenside development after 16...b7 17. Ebe2 Hac8 18. &f5 Hxc4 (on 18... xed there follows 19. Bxe6! fxe6 20. Sxe6+ Wh8 21. &xc8witha bigplusfor White) 19. dxe6 .2xf3 20. exf?7+ Yxi7 21. &e6 leads to a material advantage for White. 86 White stays on topafter 16...2a6, for example 17. Ab5 Wd? 18. AeS. 17. Dgs 96 White is also better after 17...h6 18. 2h7+ GB 19. Dxf7 (19. dxe6) 19... x7 20. Hbe2. 18. dxe6! Wxd3 19. e7 La7? 19... d4 20. e8W+ Dxe8 21. Bxe8+ eg7 22. Wel is preferable, although White has strong threats in this case too. 20. Adst There are no questions left after this strong move — the outcome of the game isclear. White should be careful going into a position with hanging pawns, because Black can also attack, especially as his bishops are often aimed at the white king’s castled position. In the next game White evidently forgot about this warming and the ex-world champion created another masterpiece: Gavrikov V. — Smyslov V. Moscow 1985 1.4452. AB Alo 3. e3e64. 243 5 5. b3 De6 6. Lb2 Ld6 7. 0-0 We7 8. a3 b6 For 8...e5!? see Hoffman A. — Hernando J., Internet 2000, in the notes to Omearat A. — Sadvakasov D., Dubai 2002 (Part II, Chapter 9).Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns 9. c4 207 10. De3 a6 11. Hel In this pawn structure, it’s very important to get established in the center in a timely manner, as the central exchange determines who will play with the hanging or isolated pawns. So when you’re maintaining the tension in the center don’t forget that that tension can also give you a shock. Therefore it’s better to offer to discharge it yourself. So, for example, after 11. dxcS bxc5 12. cxd§ exd5 a position similar to the one in the game Petrosian T. — Razuvaev Y., Moscow 1983, arises, with several differences: 1) Black still hasn’t castled — atime factor; 2) the black queen is on c7, which isn’t a good idea with the white rook on cl (true, on the other hand its position on c7 creates a battery directed at White’s castled position); 3) there’s already a white pawn on a3, which means that Black has no knight hop to b4 with a tempo, and White is prepared for the thematic undermining of the hanging pawns with b2-b4. And if you take into account the fact that in the game we’re looking at White’s play could have been stronger, then God himself would order you to go into this position! 11...cxd4!? Black was first to sense the “moment of truth” and exchanges pawns in the center. 12. exd4 0-0 13. Dat 24 14, Desr Before setting up the knight on e5 (or, for Black, on e4) you should always consider the possibility that your opponent might take on e5, changing the pawn structure in the center. So, for example, in the Zukertort System after the white d-pawn moves to e5, control over c5 disappears, at which square the second knight could aim. The problem of exchanging pieces on e5 is relevant with various pawn structures: see Part II, Chapter 13. Evidently White should have opted for 14. c5, for example: 14...b5 (14... bxe5 15. AxcS) 15. Ab6 Hae8 16. &cl!? with obvious pluses in White’s position. 14...dxc4 15. bxed A position with hanging pawns has arisen momentarily, only to sink into oblivion on the next move. 15...Dxe5 16. dxeS Black not only breaks up White’s hanging pawns, which in itself is beneficial to him, but also switches to the counterattack. 16.6 17, 21? White is playing “solidly,” refusing to weaken his castled position. But it’s 87Part I. Play for White precisely the game move that allows Black to develop a very strong attack. After 17. 13 Dgé instead, we have a double-edged position on the board. 17... fd8 18. Yb3- All other queen retreats also lead to advantage for Black. 18...2g4 White already has no defense, and his next move allows Black to end the game beautifully. 19...8a3tt An unexpected addition of the rook to the attack on White’s king. There’s even a word in German chess slang for this rook maneuver with its turn towards the flank: Schwenkungsmanéver. 20. Yxb6 20. Wxd3 2h2+ 21. Ghl Axf2+ mp 88 20...2ixh3! 21, 2d4 21. Wxe6 leads to mate: 21...h2+ 22. &h1 @xf2. But now the bishop’s windmill maneuver decides: 21...&h2+ 22, Gh QxeS+, and White decided to stop the windmill without waiting for the obvious: 23. @g1 Qh2+ 24. Gh Le7+. In the game we have just examined, Black chose an auspicious moment to break up White's hanging pawns. But in the ensuing struggle White can still gain the upper hand, and chess history has seen such cases, for example the game Portisch L. — Simagin V., Budapest 1961. In the next game Black exploits the inadequate defense of one of the hanging pawns (White had brought his knight out to ¢3 instead of d2, from where he could have solidly defended the c4-pawn), and White had to choose between losing the c4-pawn and weakening his castled king. White chose the latter in Franco Z. — Sokolov A., Pamplona 1994: 1 d4.d5 2. Df3 Df 3. e3 e6 4. 243 2d6 5. b3 b6 6, 2b2 2b7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. 04059. Ac3 An invitation by Black to create his own hanging pawns deserves attention: 9. cxd5!?. But here Black doesn’t mind White having the hanging pawns. 9...exd4!? 10. exd4 De6 11. Ye2Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns Ifyou don’t want to play with hanging pawns, then you can play 11. cxd5, but then you shouldn’t think about any kind of advantage. 11...2e8 IL...dxe4 12. bxe4 Bc8 13. Hadi (this game reached the current position via a different move order, but at this particular moment we’re interested in how play goes with hanging pawns) 13...2)b4 (13...267 leads to the loss of a pawn: 14. cS! &c7 [the opposition of White’s rook and Black’s queen prevent him from accepting the pawn sacrifice 14...bxc5? because of 15. dxc5 LxeS 16. Bxh7+] 15. 2xa6 Lxaé 16. Wxa6, Janowski D. — Kostié B., New York 1918) 14. 2b &xf3! 15. gxf3 (15. Wxf3 drops the c4-pawn) 15...2b8 (a hesitation; the software immediately gives the following variation: 15...A\fdS! 16. Dxd5 (16. cxd5? Wg5+ 17. Shi We —+) 16...Dxd5 17. Wed Bgs+ 18. 24 Who 19. h4 Exc4 with a huge advantage for Black. After the move in the game, though, White, having sacrificed a pawn, succeeded in straightening out his position, and the game dragged on for a long time.) 16. a3 Wc7 17. f4 (17, Wes Wxe4) 17...Wxl4 18. 3 DAcé 19, Be4 with compensation for the pawn, Tarrasch §. — Nimzowitsch A., Hamburg 1910. 12. Hadi He8 13. Lfel White could take control of b4 with 13. a3, but the position is equalized after 13...dxce4 (13...2a5 14. 5!) 14. bxc4 e5!?, for example 15. dxeS (15. d5? Qd4!) 15...DxeS 16. DxeS HxeS 17. Wad2 Eh5 (17...e8) 18. &xh7+ Yxh7 19. Wxd6 Wxd6 20. Bxd6 Exc4 =. With the text move White prevents the thematic undermining of the hanging pawns, as will become evident from the notes to the next move. 13...0b4 Now 13...dxe4 14. bxe4 e5 no longer works because of 15. dxe5 Axes 16. @xeS Hxe5 17. &xh7+ Dxh7 18. Yxes QxeS 19, Hxd8+ Exd8 20. HxeS, and White is a pawn up. 14. Ab1 14. cxd5 Afxd5 favors Black, as does 14, DeS Dxd3 15. Wxd3 & a6, 14...dxe4 15. bxo4 15...£.xf3!? Black starts typical play for this class of position, to which both players ofboth White and Black should pay attention. 16. gxf3 89Part L Play for White The pawn sacrifice 16. Wxf3 Exc4 looks dubious. This kind of pawn structure (after 16. gxf3) has been encountered again and again. But in this game Black put his bishop on dé6 right away, and not on e7, thus winning an important tempo for intensifying the pressure on the h2-b8 diagonal. Black’s subsequent play serves as a template for the struggle against an opponent’s hanging pawns. 16...2b8 17. Ded DhS 18. Ags Df 19. wt 19...b5!? Without waiting for the automatic advance of the white pawn with d4- d5, Black starts playing according to the idea that undermining the hanging pawns with the b-pawn is one of the most effective weapons in the battle against them. 20. d5 Black meets 20. a3 with 20...bxc4!? 21. axb4 c3; and on the principled 20. cxb4 the simple 20...2\c2 doesn’t look bad. 90 20...bxe4 21. dxe6 Dbd3, and Black enjoys a large advantage. The game ended fairly quickly: 22. exf6+ &xf7 23. Hixe8 Wxe8 24. 2cl Ge5 25. 2x4 @xf4 26. 215 He 27. Yel g6 28. &c2 We6 29. Ded Yg7 30. WaS Gh6 1-0. Continuing the discussion that was started by the previous game: Peralta F. — Panno O. Villa Ballester 2001 1, d4d5 2, D3 DI 3, e3 e6 4, 243 c5 5, b3 Dc 6. 2b2 Le7 7. 0-00-08, c4cxd4 9. exd4b6 In Ko&ié D. — Krivokapié M., Budapest 2007, Black essayed an early knight sortie to b4 to make it difficult for White to arrange his pieces conveniently: 9..b4 10. 2e2 b6 IL. Be5 Qb7 12. Ac3 dxe4 13. bxe4 Bc, with a complicated game. 10. Ac3 2b7 A tabiya located at the intersection of ECO El4 and the Zukertort System. 11. Be2 11. Hcl is played more often, so that after the knight attacks the bishop it is possible to retreat to bl without shutting in the queen’s rook: 11...2c8 12. a3 (in the game Grétarsson H. — Salmensuu O., Reykjavik 2000, Black played as in Franco — Sokolov, but at the crucial moment couldn’t find the way to victory: 12. We2 Ab4 13. 2b1Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns dxe4 14. bxc4 &xf3 15. gxf3 dé 16. hl AhS [up till now it’s all going the way Sokolov played it] 17. Wed f5 [17...g6] 18. Wxe6+ Ghs 19. 2x5, and in this position Black obtained a decisive advantage with the move 19... Wh4l?, ie. 20. Wxd6 Bxfs 21. Wxb4 Wh3 with a mating attack; in the game Keres — Smyslov, Ziirich 1953, White decided not to part with the c4-pawn: 12. Hel [In the run-up to ...Ac6-b4, White prepares the fl square for his light-squared bishop, from where it will look after the ¢4-pawn, as before. But there’s a drawback to this piece configuration: the bishop has left the strategic diagonal.] 12...2\b4 13. &f1 [After 13. &b1 Black boldly takes the c4-pawn with 13...dxe4 14. bxc4 Hxe4 15. d5 AbxdS 16. Wd3 Het? (Black switches to counterattack} 17. De2, and in this position from Payen A. — Sammalvuo T., Helsinki 2002, with 17...2)f4!2 Black tipped the balance in his favor: 18. Axf4 Wxd3 19. Axd3 &xf3] 13...He4 14. a3 fin Zeller F — Slobodjan R., Dudweiler 1996, Black obtained an attacking position after inaccuracies from both sides: 14. Ae5 &g5 15. Bal 2h4?! 16. Dxed4 dxed 17. a3 Da 18. b4 (18. Wed) 18...Dd8 19. Wad f6 20. Ag4 h5 21. He3 f5 22. g3 &g5 23, d59! £4! with an attack] 14... ®xc3 15. Bxc3 [one small thing was lacking for the queen’s rook to get to the kingside: taking the knight away from f3 and, of course, from eS] 15... Ach 16. Aes Dxes 17, Exes £6 18. E£h5 [White is threatening to carry out the “dream plan,” when the first shot will be fired by the hS-rook: 19. Zh7! Oh7 20. WhS wg8 21. Hh3; Smyslov’s next move is aimed at preventing his opponent’s crafty ideas] 18.26 19. 23n3 dxc4: moment in the decisive game in David Bronstein’s eyewitness commentary to this event: “Smyslov’s intuition hadn't deceived him, he [The made the best move, as analysis subsequently proved. But how did he come to it? What is the mechanism of grandmasters’ intuition, if we can put it like that? Of course, the move in the game arose as a result of a deep study of the position. First, Black has opened up the diagonal for his bishop and has created the opportunity to transfer it via e4 to f5 or g6. Secondly, the d-file has opened and the opportunity has arisen, by placing the queen on d5, to attack the g2 square or simply take the d4-pawn. Thirdly, a passed pawn has materialized on the c-file for an instant, which can advance to c3 and cut off the diagonal for the dangerous bishop... Meanwhile the rook is out of the battle, and now the main threat of ...g6xh5 has become realistic. If, for example, 20. bxc4, then 20..gxh5 21.@xh5 £e4. | wonder what would happen if Black took the 91Part I. Play for White rook immediately, though? Wouldn’t he be saved after 19...gxh5 20. Wxh$ He8, opening up a gap for his king to escape through? It turns out that White would cut off his path with the sneaky maneuver 21. a4! threatening 2.b2-a3. For example: 21..Wd6 /21...dxc4 22. Wxn7+ Sf8 23, 203+ He7 24.2 g3)22. cS and then: 22...bxcS /22..Yd8 23. c6 Exc6 24. £43 Bd6 25. Wh 2xd4 26. G.d3; 22, Sf 23. Gxch7+ GIB 24. cxb6 Sxdd 25. 3 Wxf3 26. £.a3+ 25 27. QxcS+} 23, Wh6 2e7 24. Wxh7+ GB 25. dxeS.”] 20. Hxh7 [The tournament situation forced Keres to reject a drawing variation: 20. Wg4 c3 21. &xc3 Eixc3 22. Hxc3 Wxd4 23. Wxd4 2xd4 24. He7 gxh5 25. Hxb7] 20...c3 21. Wel (21. &xc3 doesn’t work because of 21... Exc3; nor does 21. 2.cl because of 21... Wadd] 21...Wxd4: [On 21...cxb2? there follows an elegant combination with a thematic clearing of a square: 22. Who Wxd4 23, Bh8+! S&xh8 24. Wh7#] 22. Who Etfd8!, and Black has beaten back his opponent’s attack) 12...He8 (After 12... W6, White obtains a pawn majority on the queenside: 13. c5 Wb8 [13...bxc5 14. 92 @bS W8 15. dxc5] 14. b4 bxeS 15. dxeS [15. bxc5] 15...e5 16. 25 Bed8 17. b5 Da5 18. Dad Ved 19. c6 08 20. xe5 WxbS 21. c7 Hde8 22. Ac3 with an edge for White in Djurhuus R. — Bjarnason S., Bergen 2001. In the next game Black broke up White’s hanging pawns with a typical method, and the latter also blundered a pawn away: 12...dxe4 13. bxe4 aS 14. DeS Ad7 15. We2 DxeS 16. dxeS &c5 17, Bfd! [transferring the knight to e4 also deserved attention: 17. Dest? Wh4 18. Ad6] 17...Wh4 18. Ze4? [and now this move leads to the loss of a pawn; the knight’s path to the d6 square went via b5: 18. 2b] 18...2xe4 19. xed Qxf2+! 20. Wxi2 Wxe4, and subsequently in Gulko B. — Rashkovsky N., Lvov 1965, Black made good on his material advantage.) 13. Hel 218 14. Dad dxc4 15. bxed 26 16. H.c2 297 (by fianchettoing his dark- squared bishop, Black has strengthened his castled position in light of White’s possible center breakthrough with d4- d5) 17. Hd2 Das 18. Des Ad7 19. fl DxeS 20. dxeS Wc7 (in this game, too, Black manages to break up White’s hanging pawns, but in return the latter obtains a strong square on d6) 21. Ac3 (White could rid himself of the weak pawn with 21. cS, for example 21...bxc5 22. Hd7, when to avoid the worst Black must repeat moves: 22...Wc6 23. Hd6 We7 24. Hd7; although it’s true that Black could avoid this variation with 21...Hed8) 21...Dxe4? (21... Hed8!?) 22. &)b5 Yc6 23. xa7, and in Vaganian R. — Shereshevsky M., Minsk 1972, White obtained an advantage. 11...Db4 12. 2b1Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns In contrast to the previous game, here White shuts in the queen’s rook with his bishop retreat. 12...dxe4 13. bxe4 13....2xf3 14. gxf3 14. Wxf3? Wadd 15. a3 Dab 16. Wb7?!. White was counting on this double attack, but Black has foreseen everything: 16...Qd6! 17. Wexa6? Sxh2+! 18. Gxh2Wh4+ 19. bel Ded, and White can resign, Strater T. — Van Den Doel E., Germany 2002. 14...Wxd4 4... He8 15. Hdl g6 16. Ded Bc8 17. a3 Dab 18. 2a2 2£8 19. Gh 227, and draw, Peralta — Volzhin A., Saint Vincent 2001. 14.QhS 15. a3 Da6 (15..Dc6? 16. Wed +—: 15.2461? 16. Wed (16. axb4? Wg5+ 17. Bhi Wr —+] 16. £5 17. Wxe6t+ Wh8 18. Ae2 Wg5+ 19. g3 (19. Gh &xh2 —+] 19... 2xg3 20. fxg3 @xg3, and not only is Black up the exchange, but he has also destroyed the white king’s pawn cover) 16. Wed g6 17. De? S.f6 18. 2a2 Wd7 19. Bad1, andin Peralta F. — Mellano S., Punta del Este 2001, White snuffed out Black’s attack on the kingside. 15. Ded Wa8 15... 87 16. Dxf6-+ ext (16...2.x16 17. &xf6 gxf6 18. &xh7+ Yg7 19. Ohl &h8, with unclear play, is better, as after 18...&xh7 19. edt, the move 19...f5? is bad because of 20. Wh4+ &g7 21. Yg5+ Gh7 22. Ghl Was 23. Whs+ Gg7 24. Had1, and White obtains a solid material advantage; while if Black doesn’t cover the check with 19...f5, then White’s strong attack also persists).) 17. @hi e5, and now in Litwin J. — Koroéciel A., Polanica Zdrdj 2005, White won quickly with 18. f4!2, Le. 18...Wh3 19. Bgi+ Wh8 20. Hg3 Who 21. 25. 16. Hdl We7 17. Axf6+ 2x6 17...gxf6 is bad, for example 18. hi Uf 19. Bel+ Ghs 20. Hg4, and in Danieli E. — Mosca L., Venice 1997, Black resigned due to the following variation: 20..Wh6 21. We4 Bad8 22. Wxh7+!. 93Part I. Play for White 18. &2xh7+ 18. 2xf6 gxf6 19. &xh7+ &g7 (19... ©&xh7 is poor because of 20. Ye4+ and Black can’t avoid large material losses) 20. Hd4 (Black is slightly better after 20. &e4 Bh8) 20. .Bh8 21. Bg4+ GB 22. Wb2 (22. {4 Hxh7 23. Wed) 22... Exh? (22...a5) 23. Wxb4+ Wes 24. We2 witha more pleasant major-piece ending for Black, Grigorian K. — Karpov A., USSR Championship, Moscow 1976. 18,..2h8 18...xh7? 19. Wea+ des 20. £.xf6 +. 19. Sed White started to attack in Roche W. — Cafferty B., corr. England 1958., but had to resign after 19. &xf6 gxf6 20. We3? Wes. 19...had8 20. f4 Hxdl+ 21. 8xd1 Og8 22. 2xf6 Uxf4 23. Qe7 Wxed 24. &xb4, and White’s material advantage should bring him victory. It’s also a good idea to know some tactical methods that are encountered in these kinds of positions. Bogdanovich G. — Randt K.-H. Leipzig 2003 1, d4.d5 2. Df3 e6 3. €3 c5 4. b3 ANG 5. 2d3 Qe7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Abd2 bé 8. 2b2 2b79, DeS Abd7 10. W413 94 We've already seen the transfer of the queen via Wd1-f3-h3 in our examination of the Pillsbury formation. This maneuver can also be undertaken without the move f2-f4, and with this there is a disguised Bogolyubov trap, which has already been discussed above. 10...He8 11. Wh3 White wants to win a pawn with ®eSxd7 and d4xcS, when Black has no time to reply ...b6xc5 because of the threat of &b2xf6, and the h7-pawn is left undefended, IL... DB Black has figured out White’s idea, and guards the h7-pawn. 12. Hadi White now doesn’t rule out the possibility of playing with hanging pawns, in which case the rook is well placed on dl. 12...a6 13. Ddf3 Threatening 14. g5 with sights on the weakness at f7. 13...26d7 Automatic occupation of the e4 square by Black with 13...e4 drops a pawn, as the Bogolyuboy trap continues to work, for example: 14. dxcS AxcS (the location of White’s queen’s rook on dl doesn’t allow Black to take the white c5-pawn with the bishop or with the b-Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns pawn, as the opposition of the rook and the queen makes itself felt: 14...bxc5 15. Rxe4 16 16. &xh7+!). But now Black falls out of the frying pan into the fire: 15. WhS! (the absence of a rook on £8 is having an effect: there’s nothing to defend the {7 square with — it can only be covered, but that doesn’t help) 15... 96 (15...Dg6 16. Axf7! Oxf7 17. Yxh7, with a rout, is also bad) 16. Axf7!! (see Yusupoy — Scheeren, Plovdiv 1983, above): 16..Gxd7 (16..gxh5 can’t be played because of mate: 17. Dh6) 17. 2.xg6+! (by sacrificing two pieces, White clears a path to the enemy king for his queen and dark- squared bishop. 17...hxg6 18. Wh8 eS (after 18...2f6 19. Ags+! He7 20. &xf6+, White reaches the black queen) 19. AxeS+ Geb, and in this position White can choose between continuing to play for mate with 20. c4, or simply taking the black queen without risk after 20. ¥g8 or 20. Wh3 followed by a knight fork on {7. 14. c4 Black has covered all the approaches to his king, so White decides to support the kingside attack with play in the center. 14...exd4 15. exd4 dxe4 16. bxe4 White very much wanted to relieve the central tension and play with hanging pawns, as with this kind of white piece configuration their breakthrough in the center greatly strengthens the attack on the kingside. 16...DxeS 17, Axes £6 18. Het Dg6 19. Ded Le7 Typically forasituation with hanging pawns, Black could have prevented White’s pawn breakthrough in the center with the undermining move 19...b5!?, even if it meant sacrificing a pawn, for example 20. cxb5 axb5S 21. AxbS Hf8, and now White needs to be careful. 20. ds! It’s time! 20...exd5 21. exd5 2.46? 95Part L Play for White Black q circumstance which White exploits immediately; 21...4d6 wasbetter. White has the advantage in this case too, but he still has to prepare the field for decisive action. After the game move, there’s no more need to think about that — just to act. loses control over f6, a 22. Hxe8+ With this Zwischenzug the black queen is deflected from the defense of the f6 square, after which White undertakes a combination that’s typical when an opponent has a shattered castled position. 22... Wxe8 23. &xg7! After this bishop sacrifice, the {6 and h6 squares become accessible to White’s queen and knight. Black is defenseless. 23...Wad 23...xg7 is met by the trivial 24. Who+ Gh8 25. Af. 24. Hel Yba 96 On 24.,.8xg7, White wins with 25. Wh6+ Wh 26. L.xz6 fre6 27. D1. 25. Xb Wf4? 26. 26+, and Black resigned, as on 26...%xg7 there follows 27, DhS+, White didn’t reinvent the wheel in this game, as you can confirm by taking a look at Ingbrandt J. — Bengtsson B., Sweden 1985, in Part II, Chapter 6. Inthe game MilesA.— Muresan M., Dubai 1986, White didn’t even have to move his center pawns, he could decide the outcome of the battle with a banal tactic, first provoking a weakness in the vicinity of Black’s king: 1 d4d5 2. DB Af 3, 3 6 4, 2.43 c5 5, b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 a6 7. Abd? cxda?! Black is playing illogically, in my opinion. Black usually links the move ..a7-a6 with a pawn attack on the queenside, but after the exchange on d4 there is no more talking about that; see Part II, Chapter 6. It does prevent check by the white bishop on b5 after a possible ....c6-b4, but Black never did carry out that maneuver. Black usually ties the exchange on d4 in witha bishop check on b4; see Part II, Chapter 12. But Black couldn’t carry this out either. White can only welcome Black’s play here. 8. exd4 2e7 9, £b2 0-010. c4 dxed 11. bxe4 247 12. Hel Be8 13. Bei There’s no need to be in a hurry here. As has already been said, above allChapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns the side with the hanging pawns must support them with pieces. 13...He8 14. DeS Wh6 15. Lal Bed8 16. Ddf3 h6 Black didn’t want the white knight to get to g5, but with her last move she weakened the castled king’s position. Now White starts building a Y+2 battery on the b1-h7 diagonal with the subsequent elimination of the f6-knight, either by means of d4-d5 and &xf6, or with the maneuver HeS-g4, after which the h7 square is left undefended. Whereupon Black has to play ...27-g6 to cover the dangerous diagonal, further weakening the position of the castled king, Here it’s relevant to recall the law of “vibration of the chessboard” formulated by Tartakover: “every square can be responsible for the weakness of any other square!” The move ...h7-h6 provoked a weakness in the other squares in the castled position of the black king. 17. 2bl 2a3 18. He3 Aba 19. @xd7 Lxd7 20. Bb3 Wa8 21. He2 2e7 22, We2 White has created a threat: d4-d5, Salxf6, and White’s queen drops in on the black monarch’s position. 22...86 Black cuts off the dangerous diagonal, but at the same time further weakens the position of the castled king. Now the only thing that has to be done is to deflect the f7-pawn, the only defender of its colleague on g6: 23.3. White can already play 23. Hxe6!? ®b4 (23...fxe6 24. Wrgot G18 25, Wrxhot wes 26. We6+ ef 27. ds with a victorious attack) 24, We2 fxe6 25. Wxe6+ %g7 26. dS, and Black is hardly likely to hold onto her material advantage, while White’s threats are very dangerous, for example 26...2\bxd5 (if Black doesn’t destroy her opponent’s infantry strike force in the center, then White will carry out his own dark deeds on the kingside unhindered) 27. 2xg6! EP 28. cxdS HxdS 29. &c2 Wd7 30. Wea If7 31. Wg6+ GiB 32. Wxhb+. 23...2)h7, and in this position White could now take the e6-pawn without fear:Part I. Play for White 24, Exe6!?, as after 24...fxe6 25. Wxg6+ Black is mated. Inthe Zukertort System, Black has to try not to move the pawns on the kingside unnecessarily. Remember the warning of the wisest player in the whole of chess history, Tartakover: “The gods themselves are powerless against weaknesses!” In opening theory, there are fundamental games that are sometimes relied on for a very long time, as the problems of that variation are so deeply illuminated in them. And if in addition they take place between great players, the amount of attention paid to them should be commensurate: Keres P. — Taimanoy M. Moscow 1951 1. d4d5 2. 2f3 216 3. e3 06 4, 243 5 5. b3 2e7 6. 2b2 Ac6 7. 0-0 b6 8. 4 2b7 This position can be reached via different move orders, for example ECO codes E14 or A47. 98 9. De3 dxed 10. bed exd4 11. exdd 0-0 12. We2 It made sense first to put the queen’s rook on cl, so that after ..c6-b4 the bishop to bl could retreat without blocking the rook: 12. Xc1 Hc8 (In the following game Black made a clever king move, creating a threat to the d4- pawn: 12...8h8 13. We2 [White fails to react to Black’s trick, and continues to play keeping the usual piece setup; 13. Qbi!? deserved attention] 13...2\xd4 14. Dxd4 Wxd4 15. De4 [White obtains decent compensation after 15. Ad5 We 16. Dxe7 Wxe7 17. Be3 Bids 18. 2b1 Sac8 19. Bh3, with an attack] 15...4d7 16. Ags [16. Axf6 2xf6 17. Qxf6 exf6 18. &xh7 We6l] 16...6 [16... Weé] 17. 4 BcSt [17...Bad8!?] 18. Shi Ad4 19. Ba3 Bcd 20. 2b2 Ad4 21. 2a3 Hfd8 22. cdl Wes 23. AB Q&xf3 24. Hxf3 Hac8, and Black was left a pawn up in Payen A. — Belov A., St. Petersburg 1998. Instead after 12...2.d6 a typical position with hanging pawns is obtained, but White has an extra tempo as Black’s dark-squared bishop arrived on d6 in two moves: 13. We2 Hc8 14. De [thanks to the extra tempo, White prevents a typical maneuver by Black in these kinds of positions: ...2\c6-b4 fol- lowed by ...2.b7xf3] 14...Db4 15. Axd6 Wad6 16. a3 Hfd8 17. Bfdl a5 18. Hb1 n6 19. Hes Wc7 20. &xb4 axb4 21. We3 Ha8 22. Bxb4 Sxa2, and here in Polgar S. — Computer Mephisto Berlin 68020, The Hague 1995, White obtained an advantage with 23. Bdbl) 13. We2 (13. Bel!?; 13. a3) 13...b4 (13...4d6 14. Hfdl Hfds8 15. 2b) Das 16. Hes 2f8 17. Abs Ws 18. dS [18. Dxf7!?Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns &xf7 19, d5 with a very strong attack] 18...exd5 19. Axf7 Bes [19..eexf7 20. 2xf6+—] 20. WH dxc4? [20...d4 is bet- ter, when after 21. Dh6+ Gh8 22. Wh3 White attacks, but there’s no quick rout of Black on the horizon. There’s only a draw with the checks 22. f7+, 23. ®hG+ and so on.] 21. Dh6+! GWhs: 22. Wxf6l! gxf6 23. &xf6+ 227 24, Hd? Wes 25. Df7+ 1-0, Vaisman V, — Stefanov P, Romania 1979) 14. bl (White doesn’t want to part with his bishop after 14. De5, and he also has to reckon with 14...4d4) 14... 2.xf3 15. gxf3 (15. Wxf3 is tied to a pawn sacrifice which for now doesn’t bring White anything: 15...2xc4 [15...Wxd4? is bad due to 16. 2d5!] 16. d5 [after 16. a3 DAbdS 17. 2a2 He7 18. AxdS @xd5 19. Bxc7 Oxc7, Black was left a pawn up in Lehtinen A. — Issakainen A, Finland 1996] 16..bxd5 17. Eifdl (17. Qxd5 Wxd5 18. Bxed Wxed 19. Wb7 dS 20. Wxa7 cS 21. Wd7 @e3 22. Hcl, and in Sydor A. — Tomaszewski R., Poland 1980, Black played 22...We2 when after 23.43 White held his ground; much stronger was 22...We4 23. fxe3 &xe3+ 24. Ohl Axcl 25. &xcl We2 26. Wd4 WH+ 27. Wel Wxgl+ 28. dxgl Hd8, and Black should win] 17...Wc8 [17.25 18. Hd4 We7 isn’t bad, and in Agiiera J. — Toledo FJ., Spain 1999, Black seized the initiative and kept the extra pawn] 18. De4 Bxcl 19. Bxcl Wd7 20. Bg3 c8, and in Czebe A. — Koneru H., Budapest 2001, Black completed her development with a material plus and a strong position) 15...A\c6 (15...2.d6!?; 15...We7 16. Ded Wa [the immediate 16...DhS deserves attention, as Igor Bondarevsky advised playing in asimilar position; see commentary to the main game below] 17. Efdl [17. We3!?] 17... Hfd8 18. We3 Wh4 19. Zg37! 2.d6 20. We27! DhS 21. a3 Df4 22. Wl Dc 23. d52 DeS 24. LxeS Axes 25. dxeb fxeé was Marisescu I. — Lengyel F, Nyiregyhdza 1996. Black has a better pawn structure and active pieces. True, we should point out that White helped Black with his unsuccessful moves 19, 20, and 23.) 16, d5 Ad4 17. Wd3 AfS 18. Bfel (18. bS!?) 18...hS 19. Bed Die 20. We2 LcS 21. dxe6 Dd4 22. exf7+ Eixf7 23. Wd3 with double-edged play in Yakovich Y. — Voitsekhovsky S., Sochi 1997. In order to prevent the maneuver of Black's knight to b4, 12. a3 Ec8 has also been played (12...26 [A critical move: now the long al-h8 diagonal will echo. It would make more sense for Black to “build a cabin” in the position without ..d5xc4, as in this case there are no threats associated with the opening of the long diagonal.] 13. We2 a5 [13... Dxd4? 14. Dxd4 Wrd4 1S. Dds +—] 14. Hadl Be8 15. DeS Dd7 16. Dg 99Part L Play for White [16.Axd7!? Wxd7 17. dS] 16...2.68 17. De3 Wh4 18. g3 Wh3 19. B.e4 Bxe4 20, Axed £5 21. Hes Wh6 22. f4 2g7 23. @f3, and in Schlechter C. — Tarrasch S., Ostend 1907, peace was concluded despite White’s obvious advantage) 13. We2 &xd4? (Black takes the poisoned pawn, and the game should have ended in a few moves. After 13...2a5 the entire battle would still lie ahead.) 14. Axd4 Wad4 15. Dds YS 16. Bxi6 &xi6, and here in Stahlberg G. — Gligorié S., Saltsjébaden 1948, with 17. Bed! White could have ended the game in his favor immediately. 12...He8 This method is encountered quite often in positions with hanging pawns: the player who is expecting a pawn breakthrough by his opponent (in our case d4-d5) places his rook on the e-file to exploit its opposition to the enemy queen, Let’s look at some other possibilities for Black in anticipation of the thematic pawn breakthrough in the center: 12... Hc8 13. Bad! (13. a3) 13...ab4 14. bl &xf3 15. gxf3 (in this position no one has sacrificed a pawn with 15. 4xf3 Eixc4; at least, I didn't find any games like that in my database) 15...¥c7 (15... &d6) 16. a3 Dc6 17. Abs We 18. d5 (18. &cl) 18...a6 19. dxc6 axbS 20. exbS 2.46 21. Hxd6! Wxd6 22. Bal (22. We2!? 0) 22...2dS 23. Wd3 £5 24, Ba2 Efd8 25. &xd5 Wxd5 26. Wadd Bxdd (26...exd5 27. 2.d4 +—) 27. Axd5 exd5 28. &d4 +— was Danner G. — Bawart M., Austria 2005. 100 The pawn on d4 can’t be taken, which Alatortsev indicated back in the day: 12...Dxd4? 13. @xd4 Wxd4 14. Bast Wes 15. Lxf6! &xf6 (15...gxi6 16. Woea+ Dh8 17. Wh4 £5 18. Dxe7+—) 16. We4t—, 12...b4! 13. &b1 (13. Bédl Dxd3 14. Exd3=) 13...2xf3 14. gxf3 (14. Wxf3 Wrxd4 15. a3 Dab 16. Wh? -[16. dl Wed 17. Yb7 2c5! with a strong attack — Bondarevsky] 16...2&d6! 17. Wxa6 Sxh2+) 14..Wxd4 15. Ded. Keres evaluated this position as unclear, but later Bondarevsky demonstrated convincingly that it’s dangerous for Black to take the d4-pawn, giving as proof the following variations: 15...4%d8 16. Hdl We7 (16.7 17. a3 Deb 18. Wad3 Dch8 19, Wd4 5 [19...f6 20. Dgst, 19... 2)f6 20. Axfo+ 2 xf6 21. Yxa8 (27. &xh7+!GB}21...Bxd8 22. Bxd8+ 2 xd8 23. Bed +—] 20. YdS We7 21. Ac3 is clearly in White’s favor) 17. Dxf6-+ 2.xf6 (17...gxf6 18. &h1 with a strong attack, for example 18..Wf4 (18. fd8 19. Hel+ Gf8 20. 2xh7] 19. Hdd Bho 20. Hd7 (20. Hg4+!? GB 20...8h8 21. Wed Ege 22, Bhd We6 23. Bxh7+ Sxh7 24. Whd4+ +—] 20...2c5 21. &e4 Bad’ 22, Belt+ Gh8 23. Yd2!) 18. Sxh7+ Shs (after 18...&xh7 19. Yed+ White has a very strong attack, for example 19...&g8 20. 2xf6 gxfé (20...¥4c5 doesn’t help due to 21. We4 26 22. Wh4 Wns 23. Wxhs gxhS 24. Se7 Dc? 25. Hacl Bfe8 26. Qd6] 21. West Hn7 22. whi Hes 23. Wh4+ og7 24, Belt G88 25, Bxg8+ xg 26. Whé) 19. &e4 Bad8 (19... Sxb2 20. Yxb2 Acé6 21. Wbs likewise favors White, and Black should give up the exchange with 21...Ae5, as 21...Hfc8Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns. is met by 22. 2x6 Wxc6 23. Hd8-+) 20, £4 Eixd1 + 21. Wadl! Wes (21...8d8? 22, Whst Se8 23. &xf6 ext 24. Who £5 25. Gh1) 22. YP Has 23. Whn3+ wes 24. 2xf6 gxf6 25. Wh6, etc. “So, in the event of 14. gxf3, Black can’t take the d4-pawn. However, at his disposal there is the positional continuation 14...hS, to create counterplay on the kingside. Conclusion: Black should play 12...2b4” — Bondarevsky. 13. Efi He8 14. Hack Yd6 14...b4 15. &bl Sx 16. xB (16. gxf3 2d6) 16...Bxc4 17. d5 exd5 18. a3 Dc6 19. Ba2 . 15. 2b1 Wes 16. d5! exdS In the game White played 17. cxd5. We'llgodown the route that Bondarevsky recommended: 17. Axd5 DxdS- “If 17..Wh6, then 18. Hel with a clear advantage” — Bondarevsky. All well and good, but is it enough to win? Let’s go a little deeper into the variation: 18...Sf8 19. Axe7 Axe? 20. 2a3 Ys (20...Afg8 21. HeS Hed& 22. c5 bxeS 23. Exc$ is weaker, as the inclusion of White’s other rook in the play tips the game in his favor) 21. 2xe7 &xf3 22. gxf3 Dd5 23. cxd5 Excl 24. 2c? Bxel+ 25. Wxel West 26. &xgs Hxel+ 27. &g2 HeS White has an edge, but it’s highly unlikely he can make good on it. 18. exdS 26 18...d4 is better, when after 19. Dxd4 2d6 20. Yh5 2621. Bxc8 2 xc8 22. 3 Wxd4 23. Yxh7+ Gxh7 24. Bxd4 Hel+ 25. &g2 White has an advantage, but it’s a long way to victory. 19. Ye2 As Keres demonstrated, 19. dxc6 leads to an equal position, for example: 19...Bxe2 20. xb? BPS (20...8b8 21. eS! HxeS 22. AxeS g6 (22... Wxe5 23. Eec8+ We8 24. Hdcl 2e5 25. Hxes+ Exe8 26. Hel +—] 23. Ad7 Byb7 24. g3 +-; 20...xcl 21. Excl &d8 22. Hes Yd6 23. g3 Hxb2 24. Sedt—; 20...Hce8 21. &xf6 (21. He8? &xb2 22. Edd& Wel+ 23. Hxcl Bxd8 24. Be8 Hee8 F] 21... gxf6 22. He8 7 23. bay Wxb8 24. Exb8 Hxb8 25. g3 +) 21. 2a3 e722. Bxe7 Bxe7 23. Hc8 26 24. bow Wxb8 25. Exbs Hxb8 =. 19...2.xb2 20. dxe6 2xcl 21. Wxh7+ 8 22. cxb7 Hed8 23. Yh8+ Ge7 24. Belt d7 25, 265+! Gxt 25.807 26, Bxe8+—. 101Part I. Play for White 26. Hxe8 Hxe8 27. Wxe8+ Yxe8 28. b8W+ with a decisive advantage for White. The next game is interesting not only because of the players’ double- edged opportunities when playing with hanging pawns, but also because of the minefields encountered along the way. Radjabov T. — Beliavsky A. Moscow 2002 1.d4d52. AB In the game Beilin M. — Khasin A., Moscow 1949, we should pay attention to Black’s inaccurate move 9: 2. c4 e6 3. AB 064. 3 Ai6 5. Abd? 56. b3 Acé 7. Bb2 2d6 8. 243 0-0 9. 0-0 Ye7?! (Black usually gets this position with the queen on e7 and his turn to move, but as he lost a tempo — the c-pawn took two moves to reach c5 — White has a chance to make life complicated for him. 9... exd4 10. exd4 b6 is more accurate.) 10. dxeS (fans of the bishop pair cango into the following line: 10. cxdS Axd5 11. Ded cxd4 12. Axd4 DAxd4 13. Dxd6 Wxd6 14. &xd4) 10...2xc5 11. 2xf6 Wxi67! (after 11...gxf6 12. cxdS Ab4 13, De4 DxdS 14. AxcS WxcS Black is slightly worse, but material is equal) 12. exd5 exdS 13. &xh7+ &xh7 (13... Gh8 is better, retaining the bishop pair, especially as in the situation that has arisen it would be useful for Black to have the king’s bishop controlling the dark squares) 14. Wec2+ 25 15. WxcS, White has both a material and a positional advantage. 102 2.216 3. €3 06 4..2.d3.05 5. b3 Acé 6. &b2 Ad6 7. 0-0 0-0 8 Dbd2 Ye7 9. 4 The same position as in Beilin — Khasin, but now it’s Black’s move, and he succeeds in exchanging pawns. 9...exdd In this position, in addition to the game move Black has also played 9... b6 and 9.248, and play later leads to the main position, for example: 10. a3 oxd4 11, exd4 b6 12, We2 (White had an interesting opportunity to seize the initiative by exploiting the c6-knight’s undefended condition: 12. cxd5!? exd5 [12...Axd5 fails to 13. We2] 13. Hel WES 14, DeS &b7 15, WE and Wh3) 12...2b7 13. Des dxc4 14. bxct (14. BDadxcd!?) 14..Axe5 15. dxeS Ad7 (15...Wd7!9) 16. DH Des 17. 2c2 Das with an unclear position, Grinshpun E. — Gershon A., Israel 1999. 10. exd4 b6 Instead ofthe text, Blackcould follow in Capablanca’s footsteps and play 10... a3 11. Wel (here it was possible to try and obtain a pawn majority on the queenside, and simultaneously cut off the opponent’s queen by means of a quick return to his camp: 11. &xa3!? Wxa3 12. c5!? Ab4 [On 12...b6 White plays 13. Well? Wxel (13...Wa5 is weaker because of 14. a3 bxc4 15, b4!} 14. Efxcl S2b7 15. hbS Bic8 16. De5 bxe5 17, &xc6 Bxc6 18. Axcé Exc6 19. dxeS5, and White’s pawns on the queenside are more dangerous thanChapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns Black’s central ones. We should point out that 18. Hxc5 looks no less strong. ] 13. &b1 [13. &e2 might be better, as immediate occupation of e4 by Black with 13...2e42! looks suspicious because of 14. Axe4 dxe4 15. De5!?] 13...8d7 [13..b6 14. Wel Wxel 15. Excl with a subsequent a2-a3 and b3-b4.; 13...4b2 isn’t threatening to White because of 14. a3! and the rook is inedible — 14...Wxal? 15. &xh7+] 14. Wel Wxcl (after 14... Was 15. a3 White forms a pawn majority on the queenside with tempi] 15. Exel a5 16. a3 2c6 17. &d3, and White has a slight advantage) 11...&xb2 12. Wxb2 b6 13. Hacl &2b7 14. c5 a5 15. a3 (after 15. e5!? White has the initiative: 15...2fe8 [with 15... bxc5 16. Axc6 &xc6 17. Bxc5 £b7 18. Hfcl White has an advantage] 16. cxb6 @xe5 17. dxe5 Ad7, but whether White can turn his initiative into something more is the question, and Black has his own assets, in particular the protected passed pawn on d5) 15...2a6 16. 2xa6 Exa6 17. b4 axb4 18. axb4 bxc5 19. dxe5?! (after this move White could have problems; 19. bxcS is more: solid) 19...2b8 20. Yc3, and here in Kurajica B. — Morovié F, Solin 1999, Black was too shy to take the b4-pawn with 20... Bxb4, after which White would have had to prove the worth of his sacrificial offering. 11. a3 IL, Des &b7 12. Axc6 Bxc6 13. 5 bxe5 (13...2.07 14. b4) 14. dxc5 7 (it’s dangerous for Black to take the pawn on cS with 14...2.xc5?! because of 15. Hcl, with simultaneous threats on the c-file and to the h7-pawn) 15. Hel (better might be to advance the queenside pawns immediately: 15. a3) 15...e5 16. &f1 (the bishop would be more actively placed on fS: 16. 2f5) 16... fe8 17, DPB (17. b4) 17... Ded 18. b4 Hab8 19. a3 a5. White can’t defend the b4-pawn, and he decides to fish in troubled waters: 20. bS Wxc5 21. Exe4 dxe4, and Black has a decisive advantage, Tolonen L. — Berzinsh R., Tampere 1999. IL....2b7 12. Hel Hfd8 13. h3 When the solid move h2-h3 is made, I always recall Tartakover’s apt remark, “A little window for the king is an attribute ofa strategy of ‘conveniences.’” 13...Bac8 14. We2 dxe4 15. bxe4 Now we have finally arrived at the position under discussion. 15... £8 16. Des 16. De4!?. 16...2e8 103Part I. Play for White After 16...2f4 Black should have considered the consequences of taking on h7: 17. &xh7+ or 17. Dxh7+. 17, Dded Dxed 18. Yxed g6 19. Wh4 h6 20, Ded In this position White had a typical opportunity for a breakthrough in the center: 20. d5!?: 20...exdS 21. exdS eS (21...De5? 22, De4) 22. dxc6 hxgs (after 22...2.xb2 23. exb7 &xal 24. Bxal Ecd8 25. Ae4, further Black resistance is hopeless) 23. exb7 Hb8 24. Wxg5 &xb2 25. Hxe8, and the only question is: can Black save his skin? 20...Re7 21. Di6+ 2x6 22, Yxi6, and it isn’t easy for Black to defend. B. Black Has Hanging c- and d-Pawns In the game Nosenko A. — Karjakin S., Alushta 2001, Black, with hanging pawns in the center, unsuccessfully positioned his pieces and left the kingside undefended, which White exploited effectively: 1. Df3 d5 2. b3 AMG 3. 2b2 e6 4. 3 R75. 40-06. 24305 7. Abd2 Ac68. 0-0 b6 9.23 2b7 10. We2 Hc8 11. idl MW. Bad) We7 12. De5 Aad 13. dxc5 bxe5 14. c4 Hed8 15. £2 Dee 16. exdS exd5 17. xed (At the first chance, White breaks up Black’s hanging pawns, leaving him with a weak c5-pawn. Plus a tactic has turned up that he didn’t notice.) 17...dxe4, and here in the game Mokatsian A. — Zhukhovitsky S,, Yerevan 1981, after 18. \d7!? Bfe8 104 (18...Eixd7 19. Wg4 +) 19. Wed 26 20. Wh3, White could have increased his positional advantage. 1L...We7 12. dxe5 bxe5 On 12....xc5 the same move as in the game, 13. c4, would most likely have followed, as 13. e4 is bad because of 13... Ded 14. Bf Dd4. 13. e& Dad7 14. exd5 exd5 15. Hack Eds 16. 2b1 YsChapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns Black is methodically removing his pieces from the kingside, but on the other hand the opposition of the white rook on c1 and the black queen is dangerous for him. 17. h4 A multi-purpose move: now White can exploit the wonderful outpost for the knight on g5 when the time is right, and ifhe doesn’t feel like that he can ad- vance his h-pawn further, taking the g6 square away from the black knight; and if that isn’t enough for him he can also disturb the black king’s pawn cover a little with hS-h6. 17... NB 18. hS Aes?! Allows White to regroup his pieces before the decisive events. 19. 2651? 2d6? And this move is already a mistake, after which White obtains an advantage. He should have played 19...Hic7 20. Yd3 20, Wd3 h6 Black moves his pawn away from White’s sights, but he goes from the frying pan into the fire. In the complete absence of defenders the black king falls prey to an attack: 21. 2xe6! fxe6 22, L.xgi! Destroying the last pathetic remnant of the king’s shield, 22...4xg7 23. We6+ GHB 24. Wxh6+ we8 24...%e7 25. Dg5 with a winning attack. 25. Wxe6+, and readers can do some training on their own regarding how to conduct an attack on a king that’s stuck in the center. In the next game Black sharpened the play by moving his pair of hanging pawns, and an inaccuracy by White on move 17 allowed him to activate 105Part I. Play for White his pieces and switch to a complicated endgame with a slight advantage: Petrosian T.V. — Razuvaev Y. Moscow 1983 1. dé Df6 2. Df3 e6 3. e3d54. 243 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-0 8. 04 b6 9. De3 2b7 10. exdS In the game Danielian E. — Kosteni- uk A., Crete 2008, after 10. dxc5 bxc5 White stopped halfway to the creation of Black’s hanging pawns, and played 11. Bel (after 11. cxd5 exd5 there’s a topical position) when Black had the opportunity to avoid a discussion of the battle with hanging pawns, channel- ing the game into a comfortable course: 11...d4 12. AbS e5 13. exd5 exd5 (13... cxd5!? Kosteniuk) 14. Axd6 Wxd6 with a complicated game. 10...exd5 11. dxe5 bxe5 So, Black now has hanging pawns. 22, Eel 12. Dh4 DeS (now with 12... d4!? Black could already switch to the counterattack) 13. &c2 Ag6 14. @S Bc? 15. Bad 2b6, and here in Schramenko A. — Mayer M., Bad Dirkheim 1997, White could immediately start laying siege to the hanging pawns: 16, WI? He8 17. a3 (simplifying the position also deserves attention, i.e. 17. 2xf6 Yxfo 18. Ah6+ Of8 19. Wxf6 exf6: besides the fact that exchanging pieces and transitioning to an endgame is in principle favorable to 106 the side fighting the hanging pawns, here White has also done some damage to Black’s pawn structure) 17...2e6 18. b4 either breaking up the hanging pawns, or after 18...c4 getting the opportunity to blockade them by placing white pieces on the dark squares. 12...d4 12...b4 13. Be2 (13. RbI!?) 13... c8 (now it was possible to sacrifice a pawn with 13...d4, for instance 14. exd4 cxd4 15. Dxd4 Ws 16. g3 [16. h3 &h2+ 17. Ohl Bd8 H) 16...2d8, and Black has good compensation for the pawn in the form of piece activity) 14. a3 Dab 15. AbS &b8 16. b4!? Ded (if Black accepts White’s pawn sacrifice now, then after 16...cxb4 17. Exc8 2 xc8 18. Wal bxa3 19. &xa3 He8 20. Abd4 White wins the pawn back, and is left with a better position) 17. bxcS Daxc5 Keletevié N. — Sokolov A., Martigny 1999. Black has the isolated d5-pawn, a weakness which is compensated for by his piece activity. We’ll look at play with isolated pawns in the next chapter. 13. DbSChapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns After 13. exd4 Axd4 14. Axd4 exd4 15. DbS 24 a double-edged position on the board has arisen. 13...2e7 14, exd4 a6 15. 45 15. 2c3!?, After the move in the game, Black manages to transfer the knight from f6 to f4, where it hovers over White’s castled position. 15...Oxd5 16. Ac3 Df 17. 2c 17, Be4!? is better, neutralizing Black’s threats on the long diagonal, for example: 17...f5 18. 2d5+ Gh8 with a double-edged position. 17,..2d4 18. Dxdd exdd 19. Ded xg? 20, Yxdd xdd 21. Dxd4d 21. 2xd4? Dh4t. 21.216 22. Efd1 Efe’ 23. Sal @\h4, and Black managed to exploit the drawbacks of White’s position (the pin on the al -h8 diagonal and the white king’s weakened position). In the next game a typical advance by one of the hanging pawns, ...dS-d4, was a prélude to one of the most brilliant combinations in chess. Nimzowitsch A. — Tarrasch S. St. Petersburg 1914 1.d4d52. 3353. cde64. e3 Df 5. 2d3 Zc6 6. 0-0 246 7. b3 0-0 8. &b2 b6 9. Dbd2 Via a different move order (than the Queen’s Gambit) the game has arrived at a position that canalsoarise when playing the Yusupovka. A slight difference from the previous game: White has brought his knight out to d2, not to c3. But the main idea with hanging pawns — the ...d5-d4 breakthrough in the center — was also carried out in this game. 9,..S2b7 10. Hel We? 11. exd5 exdS 12. hd Some commentators think that forcing a weakening of the castled black king isn’t worth two tempi. A debatable claim! 12...g6 13. Dbfs Had8 14. dxeS bxe5 A classical position with hanging pawns in the center. 15. 2b5?! As it turned out, the start of a du- bious plan. Nimzowitsch probably intended to carry out a classical un- dermining of Black’s hanging pawns with &b5xc6 and b3-b4. But, with his next move, Black prevents White's crafty ideas, So it may have been bet- ter to look for another possible plan of play for White: in positions when your opponent has central hanging pawns, it can be good to put a rook on the e- file if your opponent’s queen is on it, as in our case: 15. Hel. This not only prevents the ...d5-d4 advance, but also prepares to play e3-e4 himself when the opportunity arises. 107Part I. Play for White Mikhalchishin and Stetsko think that, “15. h3 was more circumspect.” It’s also true in this case that Black has a promising position after 15...2b4 16. 2b1 Ba6 17. Hel Dd3 18. 2xd3 2xd3. 15...Ded!? 16. 2x06 How else can this operation, exchanging a bishop for a knight, be explained? Evidently Nimzowitsch thought that his light-squared bishop was coming up against a strong obstacle formed by the black f7-, g6-, and h7- pawns, and decided to give it up for the black knight, which could have taken the first opportunity to cover the weakened al-h8 diagonal (...2\d4, ...2e5). 16...2xc6 17. Ye2 17. b4 doesn’t work because of 17... 2b5 18. bxcS AxeS. 17...Dxd2 18. Dxd2 After 18. Yxd2 d4 19. We2 (19. exd4 Sxf3 20. gxf3 Wh4 —+) 19.3 20. Wdl, White has a worrisome position, butit isn’t all so simple. “Black already has a local advantage on the kingside,” writes J. Nunn, “because White doesn’t have any defender pieces there. However, 18...4/h4 is ineffective be- cause of 19. 2) f3, and the kingside receives reinforcement. Tarrasch’s next move also brings the c6-bishop into the attack.” 18...d4! 19. exd4 After 19. g3 dxe3 White also parts with a pawn, and the last obstacle along the hl - a8 diagonal is cleared for the black pieces. But had White known what awaited him, he would have gone into this variation. 19. Efel helps White to avoid catastrophe, but not difficulties: 19...Efe8 (the fierce attack has dissipated, as the white king escapes via fl under cover of its subjects: 19...2xh2+ 20, Gxh2 &xg2 [White wins the pawn back after 20...dxe3 21. Bxe3 Wd6+ 22. gl Wxd2 23. 223] - 21, xg2 Wg5+ 22. Sfl) 20. Dé Wes 21. f4 Wg4. Black is on the offensive. 19. e4 has also been suggested for White here, although Black has an advantage after, for example, 19...Bfe8. But again White would have managed to avoid the kind of rout seen in the game. 108Chapter 5. Play with Hanging c- and d-Pawns 19... 2.xh2+! Black starts the combination named after Lasker. The combination with the double bishop sacrifice was first encountered, as I’ve said above, in the game Lasker — Bauer, Amsterdam 1889. The preconditions for this com- bination are Horwitz bishops, your op- ponent’s weakly-defended castled po- sition, and the opportunity to quickly bring the major pieces into the attack. The Lasker combination starts with a bishop sacrifice for the h-pawn, but in this case it can also start with a sacri- fice of the other bishop, with the same result: 19...2xg2! 20. &xg2 We5+ 21. Ghi (21. G13 Bek 22. Bel Wert 23. bg? He? —+) 21...W44, and White’s position is hopeless. With a peaceful escalation of the situation, 19..%h4, White could not only defend himself, he could even surprise Black given the chance: 20. g3 Wh3 21. Ded £5? 22. Wedt+ He? 23. Wxf7+!. 20. Sxh2 What 21. gl 2xg2! 22. 8 22. &xg2 also loses, for example: 22..Wed4+ 23. h2 HdS 24. Wxcd EhSt 25, Yxh5 Wxh5t 26, &g2 Wes+ and 27...¥d2 with a decisive advantage. 22... fe8 22..M4e32? would have been a horrible blunder because of 23. Hed, and now it is White who is winning. 23. Ded 23. Bfel Hxel+ 24. Exel Wxel+25. Gxg2 We2+ 26. &g3 Eds 27. f4 Bhs 28. Wel Wh2+ 29. S13 Hh3+ 30. Bed We2+ 31. SeS Yc, with unavoidable mate, doesn’t save him either. 23...9hi+ Ofcourse not 23...2.xf1?24.d5!, and the battle rages with renewed strength. 24, Gf2 Oxf 25.05 After 25. Exfl Wh2+ White drops the queen. The “last-gasp” check 25. A\f6+ also loses. 25.15 26. We3 Wg2+ 27. wed Eixed+! 28. fixed f4+ Tarrasch misses the opportunity to announce mate in three: 28...Yg3+! 29. 2 YN2+ 30. Yd Ye2. Then again, the path chosen by Tarrasch leads to victory too. There’s nothing surprising about the fact that chessplayers, includ- ing the very best ones, miss the optimal solution in the heat of the battle. 29, &xi4 HAB+ 30. SeS Wh2+ 31. Seb He8+ 32. &d7 2b5 There’s your dogmatist Tarrasch! In. this game Nimzowitsch made several dubious moves in confirmation of his opponent’s thesis: “mistakes never come singly.” 109Chapter 6 Play with an Isolated d-Pawn Modern players have long since feared having an isolated pawn. Knowing very well that in the endgame, as a rule, an isolated pawn is a source of troubles, they utilize its positive aspects in the middlegame. Let’s recall them. As an ex- ample we’ll take an isolated white pawn on d4, and a corresponding black pawn on e6 or c6: First ofall, it brings White a space advantage in the center; secondly, it gives him the opportunity (thanks to open diagonals and adjacent half-open files) to place his pieces in active positions, and in particular he can benefit from occupying the e5 square with a knight, where it hangsover Black’s position; and thirdly, it can serve as a powerful battering ram after d4-d5. The isolated pawn’s weaknesses are obvious: it has to be defended by pieces, and the square in front ofit isa convenient parking spot for enemy pieces. Another very un- pleasant feature of the isolated pawn is that the player having it needs to be concerned about the endgame, since simplification, asa rule, will benefit the opponent. Everything that’s been said above applies equally to Black if he has an isolated pawn. Will you play with an isolated pawn, or will your opponent always bear in mind Tartakover’s apt remark: “An isolated pawn spoils the mood of the whole board”? A. White has an Isolated d-Pawn As we have seen, White often plays c2-c4. When Black exchanges pawns on c4, White can recapture with the b-pawn, and the game enters play with hanging pawns; see the previous chapter. But if his knight is already on d2, White can take on c4 with the knight and play with an isolated d-pawn. In chess theory a great deal of space has been devoted to 110Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d- Pawn this kind of position, and additional study of the problem only helps when playing the Zukertort System: Rubinstein A. — Flamberg A. E6dé 1906 1. d4.d5 2. Df3 Df6 3. e3 6 4. 243 €5 5. b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 exdd 7. exd4 &e7 8. Qb2 0-09. Abd2 Yb67! Some attention has been paid to the early queen sortie to b6 in Part II, Chap- ter 4, but without a preliminary exchange on d4. Anatoly Karpov and Nikolai Ka- linichenko praise Black’s last move. They argue as follows: “9...4b6!? with the aim of preventing his opponent from estab- lishing his knight on e5. In order to chase away the queen, White has to undertake c2-c4, and this, in tum, leads to the cre- ation of an isolated pawn on d4.” First and foremost, I’ll point out that there’s nothing fatal about an isolated pawn, despite Tartakover’s wise remark quoted above, and the game in this subsection is confirmation of that. By the way, by bringing in as proof their discussions of that game, the aforementioned authors didn’t even make an attempt to investi- gate it: apparently everything was smooth sailing. Evidently they thought that “the great Akiba” was without sin. While in fact a simple analysis with the aid of a “technical expert” shows that there can even be spots on the sun. And then we have to ask Black a question: for how long does he intend to keep his strongest piece in the backwaters of the empire just to prevent the knight from getting to e5? In this situation, Black’s last move pres- ents no direct threats, so it can’t be called successful. Efim Bogolyubov said of one such case featuring the irrational use of the queen’s strength: “No offense meant, but any dilettante could handle such a strong and, at the same time, valuable piece as the queen more sensibly.” 10. el Another argument for those authors is the game Smyslov V. — Van Der Wiel J., Haninge 1989: 10. ¢4 dxc4 (after 10... a8 he has to reckon with the possibil- ity of White’s getting a pawn majority on the queenside: 1 1. c5) 11. @xc4 Wd8 (Black evidently didn’t want to put his queen onc7 with an open file. Then both sides enaged in maneuvers up till move 20, which we'll pass over without com- mentary.) 12. Hcl 2d7 13. a3 Hc8 14. De3 Db! 1S. Hxc8 Bxc8 16. We2 2d7 17. Bel Dcé6 18, b4 a6 19. Bd hé: 20. h3 (Instead of the text move, White could make a typical try for play with an isolated pawn: 20. d5!?, obtain- ing a very promising position, for exam- ple 20...exd5 21. AxdS Zxd5 22. 27+ 11Part I, Play for White h8 23, Hxd5. What can we say? Black isin danger.) But here Black replied 20... Wc8, and the game soon ended inadraw. We won't draw hasty conclusions on the basis of White’s missed opportunity, but we cansay that Black didn’t ruin White’s life with his early queen sortie to b6. In the game Guseinov A. — Zilber- man Y, Moscow 1983, we can observe how White prepares for the d4-d5 break- through, and Black’s nervesgive out — he “corrects” his pawn structure, that is to say, he refuses to play against an isolated pawn: 10. a3 Bd8 11. c4 dxe4 12. Dxc4 We? 13. We2 2d7 14. Bfel 2e8 15. Had! Hac8 16. b4 a6 17. e3 b5 18. 2b1 26.19. £a2 Dd5 (Let’s look at a continu- ation that a more composed player might have chosen. For example, 19...a5, which looks logical with the bishops aimedat the queenside and the white a- and b-pawns also looking very tempting. And now on White’s part there follows the expected 20. d5 [a classic, typical move in posi- tions with an isolated pawn] 20...exd5 [20...AxdS would give us the pleasure of replying with an impressive exchange sacrifice: 21. Exd5!, and from here on you yourself can make fun of Black’s po- sition) 21. &xf6 &xf6 22. Axd5 Bd6 23. bxaS Dxa5 24. 2d, and we won’t pro- long the play so as not to horrify the pub- lisher with protracted variations. We'll only say: it’s very difficult for Black.) 20. @xd5 exdS (The position is almost sym- metrical, but his superior piece deploy- ment, the weakness in Black’s castled position — {6 and h6 — and the initiative give White the yellow jersey) 21. He5 2.8 22. Hed De7 (the attempt to cover the weak squares with 22...27 is re- 112 futed with this nice variation: 23. &xd5! Bixd5? 24, Wxe8+! Exe8 25, Bxe8+ 218 26. Df6+ dg7 27. DxdS Wd7 28. Dt6 and White has an advantage that’s visible even with the naked eye) 23. 2cl We2 24. Wes (24. WI3!? Wxa2 25, 2g5!) 24... Dc6 25. Wi6 2g7, andbycontinuing 26. @®h6+ Wh8 27. &g5! White could have obtained a position to proudly show his friends afterwards. 10...847 LL. 4 A few more words about the “great standing” of the queen on b6. Despite the declarations of my esteemed col- leagues, White can still go to e5 with his knight: 11. Aes Dxd4 12. Dde4!? dxe4 (12...W07 13. &xd4 dxe4 transposes) 13. &xd4 We7 (13.805? is bad be- cause of 14. Axc4 We7 15. 2.xf6 gxf6, for example: 16. b4! [After this far-from-obvious move, Black can’t avoid losing mate- tial. The idea is to deflect the opponent’s dark-squared bishop from. its influence over the e3 square, via which the el-rook will join the attack on the kingside.] 16... &xb4 [other bishop moves don’t work‘Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn either, for example 16...2d6 17. A\xd6 Wxd6 18. &xh7+, and Black is left with- out his queen; or 16...2b6 17. Axb6 Wxb6, and then asin the main variation; the retreat 16...2e7 also doesn’t change anything — White carries out the same conclusive combination] 17. &xh7+ [Tartakover would probably have said of the events on the board: “A glance to the left {the pawn sacrifice on b4 — GB}, an explosion to the right {the bishop sacri- fice on h7 — GB}"] 17... xh7 18. Bhs+ shg7 19. We4+ Gh7 20. He} [For the sake of this move White sacrificed his b- pawn: transferring the rook to the h-file is possible, after which Black can feel free to resign.]) 14. @xd7 or 14. Ded, or 14. S.c4. Of course, we can’t say that White has obtained anything extraordi- nary. But we can be certain that with his queen sortie to b6 Black hasn’t been able to put a bridle on the white knight on f3, and furthermore White cangoto eS with his knight, choosing a more favorable moment. I had a look at this tactical pos- sibility in the game Soule — Ramanan, corr, 2001. See Part II, Chapter 4. LL...dxed He must take on c4, otherwise White can get a pawn majority on the queen- side. See Part I, Chapter 7. After break- ing through on c4, White starts to cre- ate threats to Black’s queen. And Black got all these lovely things because of his hasty queen sortie to b6. 12. Dxed We7 13. Hei Wid? Black doesn’t like the opposition of his queen and the white rook on the ¢- file. 13... fd8 14. ZceS is more solid, and you can see a possible subsequent course of play in the next game. Without finishing his development, Black takes his queen into his opponent’s garden, but this is well protected, and punish- ment must follow without delay, espe- cially as Black’s other pieces aren’t po- sitioned very successfully, in particular his light-squared bishop. 14. Dce5! First of all White slams the cage door shut, and the black queen finds herself enclosed in asmall space that’s well cov- ered by the white pieces. 14...2fd8, Black has no way to organize a re- treat path for his queen: 14...26 15. Bc4 Wh6 16. Dxd7 Dxd7 17. dS! with a win- ning position for White, i.e. 17...exd5 18. Bxe6!. In the game, 15. 3? Wh6 was played, finishing in a draw. Based on this continuation the aforementioned au- thors concluded that the game logically ended in a draw. A draw?! We can re- ply: “What kind of draw is that?!” After Black’s move 13(!!!) he loses by force! 113Part L Play for White 15. Bea! This “X-ray” addition of the queen’s rook to the hunt for the enemy queen immediately eliminates all doubts. Of course, it isn’t easy to find this kind of move during a game, but in quiet office conditions, when your “silicon friend” is humming rhythmically next to you, the task is eminently feasible. 15... 9h6 White is also winning in the event of 15...Ab4, for example 16. Hxb4 (or 16. &b1 &c6 17. Bxc6 Axc6 18. cl Eixd4 19. Axd4 Wxd4 20. Dxc6 Wxdl 21. DxeF+) 16...2xb4 17. Bcl Bxel 18. .2.xf4, and White is a piece up. 16. 201 WhS The queen can, of course, be saved with 16...¢5, but after 17. xg5 the out- come of the duel is still in no doubt. 17. Axc6 2xc6 18. Hxc6! bxe6 19. Hes Wed 20. h3, and the queen has no retreat squares, In the next game it becomes very clear how dangerous White’s threats are in positions featuring an isolated pawn. Polgar S. — Costa F. Brocco 1987 1.4 d5 2. AS e6 3. €3 Af 4. 2.43 05 5.b3 Wa5t 6. c3 cxd4 7. exd4 2e7 8. 0-0 De6 9. 22 0-0 10. Abd2 Ha8 11. Let We 12. c4 b6 13. Hel dxed 14. A 114 A plan with hanging pawns in the center also deserves attention. After 14. bxc4!?, the breakthrough d4-d5 is threat- ened, and all of White’s pieces are aimed at the black king. White chooses a plan in which she’s left with an isolated d-pawn. The advantage of this strategy is that White’s queen’s knight very quickly occu- pies an active position in the center, while when playing with the hanging pawns it remains out of play for a long time. 14,..b7 14...2b7 15. Aces Wd6 (15...ac8 16. 4g5, and it isn’t easy for Black to defend: 16...28 17. d5! exd6 18. Dxc6 &xc6 19. 2.5 Wb7 20. 2xf6 &xf6 21, )xh7, and the only thing left to do is to resign) 16. @xf7! @xf7 17. Ags+ Sgs 18. ¥c2 with a strong attack. This is why Black decided to take his queen off the c-file and out of harm’s way. 15. Dees Black still hasn’t completed his de- velopment, and White’s queen’s knight is already on e5, waiting for its brother on g5, and the white pieces hang omi- nously over Black’s position.Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn 15..Db4 16, 2b1 2d7 17. Ags 208 18. Be3 Without philosophizing too deeply, White transfers her rook to the king- side. 18...96 19. Hp3 218 20. 223 Ya6 21. WES Wxa3 22. Wxf6 2—7 Black had a good opportunity to transfer his pieces from the queenside to the king’s defense: 22...2.d5!? 23. W13 We7. Of course, White could still pour gas on the fire with 24. h4, but Black’s position is very sturdy. And if White doesn’t manage to create an attack, she'll have difficulties in an ending with an isolated pawn. 23. 13 £6? Black can’t stand the tension of the struggle and goes astray. After 23..ac8 the outcome of the battle would still have been difficult to predict, as it’s bad to take the pawn with 24. 2\gxf7 because of 24...Hcl!. After the text move, White had several good continuations, includ- ing 24. Ac4, 24. Axg6, 24. &xg6!?, and the one that she chose: 24, Dxh7! Gxh7 24...fxe5 25. Qf6+ and White wins. 25. WhS+ 25. &xg6+! is stronger. 25... g8 26. 2xg6 fxeS 27. Axe Exe8 28, WeS 1-0. Mate is unavoid- able. Now another extremly instructive game, demonstrating the possibilities for the player playing with the isolated pawn: Yusupoy A. — Andersson U. Elista 1998 1. d4.d5 2. DPB Al 3. e3 e6 4. &d3 5 5.b3 Ac6 In the game Yusupoy E. — Kim Oi- Sin, Willingen 2003, the G M’s daughter showed by her play that she’d absorbed her dad’s lessons well: S...cxd4 6. exd4 (for the early exchange of pawns on d4, see Part II, Chapter 12) 6...2\c67. 2b2 2.d6 8. 0-0 We7 9. Abd? 0-0 10. c4b6 11. Hel &b7 12. exd4 (in the very old game Marshard — Trotsenburg, Am- sterdam 1916, White embarked on an attack on Black’s king with the same typical isolated pawn breakthrough, and the latter couldn’t stand the pres- sure and made a mistake: 12, Bel Hac8 13. Des Wd8 14. cxds AxdS 15. Wh5 Df 16. Wh3 De7 17. Hxc8 ®xe8? (17....2.xe8!?] 18. d5! [one of the main methods in play with an isolated 115Part I. Play for White pawn: it sacrifices itself for the sake of opening the long diagonal] 18...2xd5 19. c6! [the knight could also leap away elsewhere] 19...2xc6 20. &xf6 1-0) 12...Axd5 (on 12...exd5 the same move ensues as in the game) 13. De (Besides the fact that the e5-knight is a harbinger of ill fortune for Black, there’s also an unpleasant pin on the c-file. Smyslov warns: “It’s important to see a check, a fork and a pin.” As this game showed, Black didn’t see two elements of this maxim, while White’s eyes were evidently trained on those very things.) 13...ac8 14. De4 & xe5?! (Now White’s isolated pawn finds new pastures, securing strong squares in the center [d6] and in close proximity to her opponent’s king, at 6.) 15. dxe5 Af 16. &bl £a6 17, Bel Age?! 18. Wh5 We7 19. Afo+! gxf6 20. exf6, and Black resigned. Demonstrating this kind of play at such a young age is very cool! 6. 2b2 Le7 7. 0-00-08. c4 cxdd 9. exd4 b6 10. Ac3 2.b7 A position from ECO E14, Black can try to pressure the c4-pawn with 10... £a6 (D40), but White keeps control over c4 thanks to a tactic: 11. Hel Bas 12. De5 He8 13. We2 dxc4 (13.47? immediately is bad because of 14. cxd5! 2xd3 15. Axd3 2 d6 (15...Axd5?? 16. @xd5) 16. dxe6 &xh2+ 17. Yh with advantage for White) 14. bxc4 Wec7 15. Ab5!?. 11. Bet He8 12. Hel He8 12...Db4 13. Bf1 Ded 14. a3 Dxc3 116 15. Bxe3 Bc6 16. cxdS Wxd5 17. &c4 (a pawn sacrifice looks dubious: 17. 2d3% Axd4 18. &xh7+ Yxh7 19. Wxd4 Wxd4 20. Axd4 216 (20... Exc3!?] 21. 2d3 Hfd8, and in Van Der Werf M. — Van Den Doel E., Enschede 1994, White could break loose only at the price of irreversible positional con- cessions) 17...&4h5 (This is more solid. If the queen is left in the center, then the possible variations are unpleasant for Black: 17...Wd6 18. d5 a5 [after 18...exd5 19. &xd5 the black queen would feel uncomfortable in the center of the board] 19. Hd3 (19. Ad4 &xd5 {not the very best reply, but then the posi- tion isn’t simple} 20. DbS Vd7 21. Bh3 {6 22. 2.3! 26 {White has a strong at- tack after 22...h6 23. Wg4} 23. xh7! Sed {Black is mated even more quickly after 23...8xh7? 24. WhS+) 24. Hxed Gxh7 25. Hdd Wes 26. Whs+, and Black resigned in Zhidkov V. — Gulko B., USSR 1971, as on 26...%%g? there follows 27. Hg4 and there’s no de- fense] 19...Aixc4 20. bxe4 Hfd8, and here in Lukacs P. — Atalik S., Budapest 1991, White could have won with 21. BeS Wed 22. Bxg7! Sxg? 23. Hed, from which point the reader can train his ability to conduct an attack on the king) 18. d5 (White decides not to push his luck and rids himself of his isolated pawn) 18...exd5 19. Wxd5 Wxd5 20. @xd5 with equality, Shariyazdanov A. — Chernyshov K., Djakovo 1994. 13. cxd5 Axd5 14, DxdS YxdS White had some pressure after 14... exd5 15, &f5in Yusupov A. — Renet O., Gennady 1993)Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn 15. 204 Wd6 In the game Portisch L. — de Firm- ian N., Reggio Emilia 1990, Black didn’t guess right with his queen retreat and went down in flames with 15...Wd7?. Now Portisch carries out one of his fin- est combinations: 16. Exc6! (White wants to secure the eS square for his knight — remem- ber what Tartakover said at the begin- ning of the book about a knight on e5) 16...&xc6 17. Hes Yb7 18. &xh7+! GR (18..Gxh7 19. Yhs+ Ges 20. Wxt7+ Dh7 [20..Gh8 21. He3 +-] 21. Be3 xg? 22. Bg3 216 23. Ad7 +-) 19. WhS &b4 (19...2d6 doesn’t work: 20. 2 g6! fxg6 21. Wh8+ He7 22. Wxe7+ Ga8 23. Df7+; variation given by Karpov and Kalinichenko) 20. 2.43 26 (20...&xel 21. 2a3++—) 21. hot Ge7 22. dS! Axel (22...2xd5 23. Wh4+ +—) 23. 2a3+ Sd8 24. What c7 25. dxc6 Wa8 26. WE b5 27. &c5 Bod8 28. Wxf7+ HB 29. &xb5 a6 30. (Wd7+! 1-0. The final position deserves a diagram: Alternatively, 15...Wh5 16. dS Bcd8?! (16...exd5!2 17. WxdS WxdS 18. &xdS transposes to the main game) 17. dxc6!? Exd! 18. cxb? Hxel+ 19. Bxel, and White won in San Segundo P. = Villavi- cencio A., Las Palmas 1996, but Black possibly could have played better. This requires further investigation. 16. d5 exdS 17. WxdS Wxd5 17...2a5?? 18. Exc8 Exc8 19. Sxh7+! Bxh7 20.Dg5+ Gh6 21. xl? &xg5 22. Wxe7+, and Black resigned in Kovaéevié B. — Nikolac J., Medulin 1997. The reader can easily convince him- or herself of the correctness of this decision. 18. &xd5 8! 19. hd Why to h4 and not h3? Weshall soon see. 19...f6!? Ulf Andersson is evidently wary of the unusual type of /uft, and with this move he happily avoids the traps that had thereby been set. But in another 117Part I. Play for White case the rash 19...a5 was immediately punished: 20. &xb7, and in Yusupov A. — Rodriguez A., Novi Sad 1990, Black didn’t want to beat a dead horse and resigned. Variations from Karpov and Kalinichenko with my comments: 20... Excl (20...2xb7 21. &xg7+! dxg7 22. Exe8 Exc8 23. Exe7 is even worse, and White isn’t so much eyeing Black’s queenside as the kingside because of the terrible threat Af3-g5, and by the way it’s precisely now that it becomes clear why Yusupov flung the little window wide open with h2-h4, instead of timidly with B. Black Has an Isolated d-Pawn h2-h3: he secured a strong square for the knight on g5) 21. Bxcl “xb? 22. He7 Dc5 23. Hxa7. Of course, it was possible to try and save this position. Then again, as Fischer said: “Every player resigns in hisown way.” After Black’s accurate last move the game quickly came to its logical conclu- sion: 20. hS Aa 21. S.xb7 Dxb7 22. Add Exel 23. Exel 2c5 24. Gf Dd6 25. BY. Sometimes Black enters play with an isolated pawn, where he has just as much chance of obtaining a decent game as with hanging pawns. It all depends on how successfully he can position his pieces. And, of course, the arrangement of the white pieces isn’t unimportant either: if some of White’s pieces are poorly positioned, this circumstance strengthens Black’s play. So before going into a position with an iso- lated pawn, all the pros and cons should be weighed up. In the game Kurajica B. — Zambrana O., Las Palmas 2005, Black voluntarily entered a position with an iso- lated pawn: 1, 44.45 2. DB Afe 3. €3 06 4. 243 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 Le? 7. 2b2 0-08. Dbd2 b6 9. a3 2b7 10. Ye2 Dd? 11. c4 6 12. Habl 12, Bacl a6 13. Hc2 We7 14. Bfcl fds and a complicated position arose with approximately equal chances, Petran P. — Monin N., Buda- pest 1993, 12...Be8 13. Efel Hc8 In positions where the white and black c- and d-pawns meet head to 118 head, it’s very important for both White and Black to decide on the move (...)exd in a timely manner. This decision will determine who will be playing with the hanging pawns or an isolated pawn — you or your opponent. You should foresee this situation, and even in the first moves bring your pieces out to their optimal squares in light of possible fu- ture exchanges in the center (for exam- ple, where to put the queen’s knight: on c3 or d2?). Now Black could throw the ball into White’s court by playing 13... exd4!?, and after 14. exd4 He8 15. b4 dxc4 16. 2xc4 28, White is now play-Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn ing with an isolated pawn and all its im- plications. 14. exd4exd4 15. Yfl DB After 15...cxd4 16. Axd4 (or 16. exd4) 16...2xd4 17. 2xd4 2xd4 18. exd4, we can’t talk about any kind of se- rious advantage for either player. 16. 2 £5 Hc7 17. Wd3 cxd4 Black himself goes into a position with an isolated pawn in hopes of seiz- ing the initiative. 18. Dxd4 Dxd4 19. &xd4 g6 20. 2h3 De6 21. Axf6 Experience playing positions with an isolated pawn on d5 for Black shows that, in principle, trading off the dark- squared bishops favors White, as in that case it’s easier for him to control d4. But in our case, Black is already pre- pared for a d-pawn advance, and White will be forced to exchange on e6. In this case the d5-pawn loses its isolated status with all its pros and cons. Based on these thoughts, 21. &xe6 fxe6 22. £4 deserved attention. 21...Wxf6 22. DB Be3 23. Ws Bd8 24. 2xe6 fxe6 Obviously the position after 24... Wxe6 25. 2d4 didn’t suit Black, as the white knight is clearly stronger than the black bishop. 25. Ebel E18 26. Wad 26...057! The critical moment. Black had evaluated the position correctly when he decided to play with an isolated pawn. In return he seized the c-file and obtained pressure on the f-file. His only poorly positioned piece is the bishop. Remember Tarrasch’s remark: “If one piece is poorly positioned, the whole game is poor.” True, GM Al- exander Kotov, despite the fact that he wrote good books, for some reason took this literally: “Few people under- stand this principle of Tarrasch’s.” But we digress. This is the situation we have in front of us. The poor position of the bishop should nudge Black into a cor- rect solution of the position: 26...d4!?_ The reader will then see that Black is looking really rather good. 27. Exc3 Wxc3 28. Wada!? Wxb3 29. Des The main drawback in Black’s posi- tion is the unreliable position of his king in conjunction with the separation of his queen and bishop from the area where the events are unfolding. And White 119Part I. Play for White brings only two pieecs into the attack on his opponent’s king. 29...\xa3? Loses. 29...Bc8!? 30. Wg4 Be8 31. ®Dxg6 hxg6 was correct, when the game should end in a draw. Now, though, after 30. Dgat? White would have had a winning po- sition: 30...h5 30...97f7 31. WE4+ cogs (31...e8 32. Wb8+) 32. Wes h5 33. Afb+, and then as in the main variation below. 31. Df6+ ST 32. Ah7T HeB 33. Wi6+ Se8 34. Yxe6+ Ye7 34...8d8 35. Wxb6+ Hc7 36. Dgs +. 35. Di6+ Ld8 36. Wxb6+ and White continues the attack with equal material. In the next game White takes down Black’s isolated pawn play with accurate moves (10. exd5!? and 15. dxeS!?): Bareev E. — Léké P. ‘Wijk aan Zee 2002 L. d4 Df6 2. 04 e6 3. AL b6 4. €3 Qb7 5, 243 d5 6. b3 Abd? 7. 0-0 2d6 120 8. De3 0-0 9, Qb2 5 10. exd5!? exdS 11. Bel Be8 On 11...&e7 I can recommend ad- hering to the game Kurajica B. — Gran- da Zufiga J., Groningen 1997: 12. Abs 2b8 13.4 15!? a6 (here playing 13..2d8 hasbeen suggested, but after 14. Yc2 a6 15. Dc3 the position was still evaluated as being in White’s favor) 14. c3 2.46? (In this position theoreticians unani- mously advise playing 14...2d8, and after 15. &xd7 @xd7 16. dxeS DxcS the entire battle is ahead. Now, though, Black is left a pawn down.): 15. &xd7! Axd7 (15...\Wxd7 16. Dad Wb5 17. dxeSbxc 18.8 xf6 exf6 19.4, and we have on the board a rare instance when the celebrated bishop pair is unable to hold off the cavalry, I very much liked the phrase in one of Mark Dvoretsky’s books: “White has two bishops. But not yet the ‘advantage of the bishop pair.’” Very often, even experienced players put their trust in the two bishops without. considering the actual circumstances on the board.) 16. dxc5 bxc5 17. AxdS Web 18. Df4!, and White needed exactly 10 moves to prove his advantage.‘Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn 12. 215 12. De2 We7 13. Ag3 26 14. 2b5 Bed& 15. dxcS bxe5 16. b4! (in com- plete accordance with the tenets of the theory of hanging pawns) 16...cxb4 17. Wadd g7 18. 8 xd7 Bxd7 19. Ah4 (19. Whd!?) 19... Ye6 20. Dhf5+! gxfS (20... Sg8) 21. HhS+ with a winning position for White, Hassan A. — Gavrilov A., Olomouc 2005. 12.,.8e7 12...De4 13, dxc5 Axc3 14. Bxc3 (14. 8d3!?) 14.bxe5 15. Bo2 Af, and there’s a relevant position with hanging pawns on the board, Danner G. — Soko- lov A., Ostrava 1994. So study positions with hanging pawns. 13. e2 For now 13. “\b5 2b8 gives noth- ing concrete, as Black hasn’t made the “fateful” move ...a7-a6. See Kurajica — Granda above. 13...He4 14, Efd1 White is slightly better after 14. dxe5!? AdxcS 15. Bfdl g6 16. £h3. 14...2ad8?! Here one commentator advised playing 14...Hac8, and another 14... &\df6, but all that matters is that after the move in the game White obtains an advantage. 15. dxe5!? DdxeS Black has to go into a position with an isolated pawn, as after 15...bxc5 16. xd5 he’s a pawn down. 16. b4 Daé After 16...2d7 17. AxdS &xd5 18. Eixd5 White wins a pawn. 17. a3 White has a nice position. Black has a knight on the rim at a6 and an isolated pawn on dS. Inthe next game White forces Black to play with an isolated pawn, and later gives him the opportunity to correct his pawn. structure, obtaining other posi- tional pluses in exchange: Portisch L. — Onischuk A. Biel 1996 L d4 Df6 2. 4 e6 3. DFS b6 4. 3 D7 5. 2.43 d5 6. b3 2.46 7. 2b2 0-0 8. 0-0 c5 9. exdS exdS: Strange as it may seem, the move 9... @xd5 has turned out to be a very rare one. Black doesn’t want to deal with with an isolated pawn or hanging pawns. Why does virtually no one play like this? Let’s look at the only game that I managed to find: 10. dxe5 2. xe5 11.43 Ad7 (Black al- ready has to reckon with b2-b4 by White, and therefore he has to carefully consider the move 11...a5) 12. Abd? (12. b4) 12... D7f6 13. Hes (13. b4? Dxe3!?) 13.28 14. We2 We7 (14..a5) 15. b4 2d6 16. BDdc4 &b8 17. bS, and in Shchekachev 121Part I. Play for White A. — Goldgewicht L., Cannes 1995, White managed to obtain something of a space advantage. Then again, Black didn’t have to concede that to White, as he had more than one opportunity to play _.a7-a5. Black’s position is constricted, but strong. White didn’t demonstrate anything convincing in that game. 10. Ac3 Ac6 IL. Der? Precision. Now Black is on the bring of playing with either hanging pawns or an isolated pawn. Whatever fate has in store. In this game that meant an isolated pawn. In KneZevié M. — Balashov Y., Reykjavik 1984, White played the carefree 11. Hcl ?!, and Black immediately eliminated the danger of getting an isolated pawn, ob- taining a promising position: ] 1...cxd4!12. Axd4 Dxd4 13. exd4 Ded 14. ALS 2H 15. He2 a6 16. He3 £5. 1...We7 In Portisch L. — Sokolov A., Li- nares 1989, Black voluntarily accepted the isolani, relying on the activity of his 122 pieces, but at the same time he allowed a tactic on White’s part. As to whether it was a blunder or an attempt to con- fuse his opponent with complications, history is silent: 11...e8 12. Hcl Ded 13. BDg3 exd4 14. Dxd4 Axd4 15. &xd4 Wh4?!. It was possible not to al- low the tactical blow on the next move, of course: 16. &xg7!? (16. &xe4!?) 16...He6. And now analysis shows that White could have obtained a strong attack which Black would hardly be likely to survive due to the weakness of the al-h8 diagonal: 17. &xe4!? dxe4 18. ®b2 Hd8 (direct attack doesn’t work, for example 18...2h6 19. h3 2x23 20. Wd4!, and White switches to counter- attack) 19, e2, and again let’s check the direct, apparently logical continu- ation of play for Black: 19...2h6 20. h3 2xg3 21. fxg3 Wxg3 22. Wed Uxe3+ (22... 2.d5 23. Wd4; 22... 18 23. Bed 1 Wxe3+ 24. Gh2 with a withering at- tack) 23. Bf2 He 24. We7 Lab 25. Wed £6 26. Web+ Gh8 27. Ye7 Hed 28. Hc7. The variation has turned out to be rather long, of course, but try to refute it.Chapter 6. Play with an Isolated d-Pawn ‘ 12, Dg3 g6 13. Hel Ded 14. dxeS With the threat of 18, 8.06 and 19. b4. xeS 17...Hac8 18. Axed dxed 19. Ye3 14...bxc5? isbad because of 15.2xe4 dd?! dxe4 16. Axe4 2xh2+ 17. Dxh2 Wxed 18. Ded. 19...f6 20. Bc4+ hg? 21. Ags Bd6 leads to unclear play. After 14...Axc5 Black also has an isolated pawn. 20. exdd Axd4 21. Yxdd Exdd 22. xd4, and withsuch a completely favor- 15. a3 a5 16. 2bS Hfd8 17. Ye2 able material ratio White went on to win. 123Chapter 7 A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority The advantage of a queenside pawn majority lies in the opportunity that it pro- vides to quickly create a passed pawn (which, of course, has to be supported by piec- es). With exchanges and a transition to the endgame, the role of the queenside pawn majority grows. All else being equal, a passed pawn on the queenside will attract your opponent's forces to that sector. So, for example, let’s take an ideal case for the player who has a queenside pawn majority. In this case the defending side’s king has to go to the queenside to hold back the enemy passed pawn, leaving its kingside open to raids from the enemy. Quite often, after exchanging the black c5-pawn for the white d4-pawn, White plays c2-c4, and if Black doesn’t exchange pawns on c4 then his opponent plays c4- c5, obtaining three pawns against two on the queenside (example | below). In another case, with exchanges on the e4 square Black’s d-pawn moves sideways and he gets doubled pawns on the e-file, with White obtaining a pawn majority on the queenside (example 2). Let’s have a look at them in the order given. 1) Levenfish G. — Eliascheff M. St. Petersburg 1914 1, d4.d5 2, DB e5 3. 3 6 4. 243 Ac6 5. b3 Af6 6. 0-0 In Dizdarevic E.— Motylev A., Saint Vincent 2005, faced with the threat of a “majority,” Black opted for a piece sac- rifice: 6. c4 Wc7 7.0-Ocxd4 8. exd4 27 124 9. Ac3 Db4 10, Le2 (this game came to the current position via a different move order) 10...22e7 (many years ago, in this position Capablanca, evidently knowing how repulsive such a majority could be, went a different way but got into a mess: 10...dxc4 11. bxc4 £7 12. a3 Abd5 [also after 12...2c6 13. AbS White is wonderful] 13. cxdS Wxe3 14. 2.d2 We7 15, dxe6 2xe6 16, &b5+ and White had the initiative in ZukermanChapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority I, — Capablanca J.R., Baden-Baden 1938) 11. a3 Acé6 12. c5 b6 13. b4 0-0 14. b5 @xd4. He certainly didn’t want to see c5-c6 on the next move; also now after 15. Wxd4!?, instead of 15. Dxd4, White’s position is preferable, as analy- sis has shown. 6...2.46 7. 2.b2 exdd As we'll see later in Part Il, Chap- ter 9, 7...¥c7 looks logical, either to undertake the liberating pawn advance ..€6-e5, or to carry out the maneuver: .cSxd4, ...2\c6-b4 exchanging White’s light-squared bishop. Given this, 8. Ga3!? deserves consideration. In prin- ciple, the move 7...cxd4 can be consid- ered hasty, except when Black plays his knight to e4 as early as the next move. And, of course, a subsequent check on b4 would look very strange, as the bishop takes two moves to get to b4. For more detail about the early exchange of pawns see Part II, Chapter 12. 8. exd4 0-09. Abd2 We7 In the following game White cre- ated a pawn majority on the queenside thanks to a tactic: 9...4c7 10. c4 b6 11. cl We7 12. &b1 2b7 13. c5!? bxcS 14, dxeS &f4 (not 14...2.xc5? because of 15. &xf6 exfé 16. Woc2) 15. Bel a5 16. Wc2 g6 17. Yc3 &xd2?! (it’s not so clear after 17...e5 18. g3 d4) 18. Wxd2. The white bishop controls the long di- agonal, Black has recklessly traded off his dark-squared bishop, and Black’s central pawns are at a standstill: White is better. 18...De8, and in this position from Holm S, — Pedersen T., Esbjerg 2008, White could have increased his advantage with 19. 2d4. 10. a3 Has 10...e5 doesn’t work because of the trivial variation 11. dxeS Axe5S 12. Axes BxeS 13. Hel Ded 14. Bxe5 Axes 15. Qxh7+ (15. £42 West) 15...xh7 16. WhS+ hs. 1. We2 Le7 12. Bid Dd7 13. 04 Wf6 14. Hel It’s very important not toallow ...e6- eS, after which Black usually equalizes. 14... D8 15. 5 White has obtained a pawn major- ity on the queenside. Now he must get it moving without delay, and preferably without allowing counterplay by Black in the center (,..e6-¢5), 15...Dg6 16. Lxe6 16. g3!?, 125Part I. Play for White 16...hxg6 17, b4 a6, and now with the immediate 18. 23, followed by a3-a4 and b4-b5, White could have exploited his superior pawn structure much soon- er than he did in the game. If in the previous game Black him- self allowed White to create a queenside majority, then in the next game a great German player was able to achieve this with the help ofa tactical idea: Tarrasch S. — Harmonist M. Nuremberg 1898 1.d4d5 2. D13 Af6 3. e3e6 4. 243 b6 5. 0-0 2.46 6. b3 0-0 7. 2b2 2b7 8. Dhd2 Abd7 9. DeS He8 10. f4 c5 1. W3 We7 12, Wes White sets the trap that we're already familiar with, 13. 2d7, 14. dxe5, and 15, ££6 winning a piece. 12...exd4 13. exd4 h6 Now Black could start the battle for the e4 square with 13...2.b4, as 14. c3 is hardly likely to be good for White, for example 14...2xc3 15. Dxd7 Dxd7 (15...xd7? is bad because of 16. 2xc3 Bxc3 17, &xh7+!) 16. Hacl &xb2 17. Exc? & xd4+ 18. hl Hxc7 19, 2xh7+ Gxh7 20. Yd3+ hg8 21. Yxd4, and, despite the approximate material equal- ity, White's position is alarming. 13..De4 14. Dxed ded 15. £c4 is weaker, and with ...f7-f5 Black wouldn’t succeed in preventing of the white f- pawn’s advance, as his e6-pawn would 126 be left undefended. We’ll talk about this tactical point in more detail in Part II, Chapter 7. 14, Bacl a6 15. c4 Yb3 Yi a 27, We £ In this position, too, as Tarrasch indicated, White should continue 16. ®xd7. The immediate 16. c5 is also good, but in that case White should rely on a Zwischenzug. 16...&xe5 (on 16...2e4 17. ®xe4 there may follow [17. &xe4 2xe5 — 16.2e5] 17...2.xe5 18. DgS (18. fxeS is also good: 18...dxe5 19. 2e2 bxcS 20. dxe5 Dxe$ (20,..Eixc521.ExcSAxc5 22. &a3 Bc8 23, 2hS, and Black can’t de- Send the c5-knight and the f7 square at the same time} 21. a3 Dd7 22. 2xf8 Eats and, although Black has re-established material equality by taking the e5-pawn, White’s chances in the coming battle are better] 18...2.6 19. Dh7 Hfe& 20. Axf6+ @®xf6 21. b4, and after closing the pawn chain on the queenside White obtains a big advantage. Note that Black can’t play 21...De4 now because of 22. &.xe4 dxed 23. d5!) 17. fxeS Ded 18. &xe4 dxed 19. Hf with a dangerous attack.Chapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority 16...Dxd7 17. 5! The pawn is untouchable thanks to the mate threat on g7. 17...2e7 17...bxc5? 18. dxe5, and Black loses apiece. Now White fortifies the cS-pawn with 18. b4 and obtains a pawn majority on the queenside. This tactical method (17. c5!) with the aim of obtaining a queenside pawn majority is typical of the Zukertort System. In the next game we see that a pawn majority on the queenside is a very se- rious argument in White’s case, and he can even allow himself to go for an ex- change sacrifice: Bogdanovich G. — Nippgen G. Germany 2001 1. d4 Df6 2. Df3 e6 3. e3b6 4. Dbd2 2b7 5, 243 5 6. 0-0 d5 7. b3 exd4 8 exd4 Dc6 9. 2.b2 2d6 10. Ye2 Black has missed his moment to oc- cupy e4 with his knight, and White takes control of it; moreover, his opponent has made this task easier by with his hasty pawn trade on d4. 10...0-0 11. a3 It was time to make this move, as .-2\c6-b4 was threatened: White has no interest in giving up his bishop. But in general, deciding when to move a2- a3 is an extremely difficult question for White. After the game move we have a position from Alekhine — Rosselli Del Turco, Ziirich 1934 (supplementary games section) and Mardéczy — Blake, Hastings 1923 (see Part I, Chapter 4). 11...28c8 12. De5 He? 13. f4 We7 14. E13 Etes 15. 23 White isn’t inventing anything new. This “dream plan,” as Susan Pol- gar termed it, requires no promotion. “Zukertorters” know it well. Now that the rook has shifted to h3, there’s the threat of a bishop sacrifice on h7 and WhS. Of course, you’d have to be na- ive to rely solely on the success of this maneuver. It’s an incidental thing. But when Black eliminates White’s trans- parent threat, the search for stability be- gins for both players — can the artistry of White’s attack overcome Black’s de- fenses? 15...6 16.4 Now 16. g4 is considered the classi- cal continuation ofthisattack, but White chooses his favorite plan: pursuing a 127Part L Play for White pawn majority on the queenside. More- over, he’s a bit worried about Black’s rook battery on the c-file. There’s also the possibility of the black knight’sjump- ing to e4 at an inconvenient time; White can’t take it, as that would lose him the ¢2-pawn, and Black’s major pieces drop in on the second rank. And that’s why he made the move in the game. 16.,.2a5 17, Yh An essential part of White’s plan, the point of which will become clear later. 18. Exh5! White’s exchange sacrifice wipes out Black’s counterplay on the kingside. 18...gxh5 19. c5! Now White’s move 17, which looked strange at first sight, makes sense: the double capture by Black on c5 occurs without a check, and he simply forks two. black pieces with b3-b4. 128 19... 2xe5- 19...bxc5 20. dxc5 Eixc5 is followed by 21. &xh7+!, opening up the black king’s position. 20. Wxe5 f5 21. b4 White has closed the pawn chain. The next stage is to get it moving, but meanwhile paying close attention to the kingside, preventing any feeble attempts at counterplay by Black. 21... De6 22. We2 DdB 23. Db3 White isn’t distracted from his main task: getting the pawn majority marching. on the queenside. But for this it needs to be supported by pieces. 23....2.06 24. b5 LeB While White isn’t paying attention to the black pawn on h5, Black, on the contrary, has wasted time defending it. Perhaps it would have been better for him to try and use the h5-pawn as a bat- tering ram by advancing it. 25. a4 Wf6 26. Bel 26. aS looks more logical. 26...227 27. a3 Heé 28. Wed Whd? A blunder. An exchange of queens left him with defensive chances. 28... Wxes!?, 29, Qxf5! DETChapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority 29...exf5 30. Wxe8+ +—. 30. &xe6 He7 31. LxdS He8 32. 06 Has 33. Wxe8+! Yery simple, but stylish! 33...Hxe8 34. Hxe8+ og7 35. Qf8+, and Black resigned due to 35... £636. 2e7+. In the next game, where Zukertort had only just started using the system named after him, White obtained a 3-1 pawn majority on the queenside. Moreover, it’s interesting that Zuker- tort was playing this game against someone who before him had himself already configured his pieces in simi- Jar fashion: Zukertort J. — Blackburne J. London 1883 1. d4e6 2. DB D6 3. e345 4. 2.43 &e7 5, 0-0 0-06. b3 Even in those long-ago times, a strategy such as obtaining a queenside pawn majority with a subsequent at- tempt to advance the pawns was prac- ticed very frequently. Let’s have a look at a game by a well-known player of the time: 6. c4 Abd7 7. b3.c5 8 Ab2 cxd4 9. exd4 He8?! (Black shouldn’t allow White to get a queenside pawn major- ity, and so he should have played 9... b6. Also after 10. We2 &b7 11. Ac3 either he plays to keep the center by means of 11...8c8 or, after 11...dxe4 12. bxe4, he does battle with White’s hanging pawns. See Part I, Chapter 5.) 10. c5 @f8 (A natural reaction to the c-pawn’s crossing of the line of de- marcation [the white c5-pawn, or the corresponding black c4-pawn] is an immediate attack by his pawns on the queenside [...b7-b6 and ...a7-a5 for Black, or respectively b2-b3 and a2-a4 by White] See the chapter, “The Sub- ject of Our Serious Study.” But in this case White launches an advance under favorable conditions: first, a counter- attack by the b6- and aS-pawns won’t succeed, as the al-rook is already de- fended by the bishop from b2; second- ly, White controls the e5 square, and in such cases there isn’t anything bad for White in the move ...e6-e5; and third- ly, Black doesn’t control the c6 square, so playing ...c5-c6 could completely freeze Black’s queenside: 10...b6 11. b4 (11. c6!?] 11...bxe5 [11...a5? 12. c6! #8 13. bS] 12. bxeS, and the protect- ed c5-pawn in combination with the weakened a4-e8 diagonal and White’s control of the e5 square speak to his clear advantage. [We should point out that White would have rather played 129Part I. Play for White 12, dxe5, but at this point his control over e5 is insufficient for that, as it al- lows Black to obtain counterplay after 12...e5!?, for example 13. AxeS Axes 14. QxeS AxcS!]) IL. Abd2 Dgé 12. 93 2d7 13. Bel (13. b4!? is more pre- cise) 13...2f6 (Black could have ex- ploited White’s inaccurate last move and obtained counterplay by playing 13..,e5!2) 14. Hel (White has a sud- den thought and doesn’t allow Black to free himself with the move ..e6-e5. From here on there is no further need to comment: White simply advances his pawns on the queenside after suit- able preparation.) 14...\df8 15. b4 Ad7 16. a4 We7 17. Yb3 Hec8 18. bS Wes 19. £a3 He7 20. Hol Afes 21. aS a6? (In a difficult position it’s hard not to make a mistake!) 22. c6! bxc6 23. b6, and in von Bardeleben K. — Minckwitz J., Breslau 1889, White obtained a strategically winning posi- tion. 6...c5 7. 2b2 Dc6 8. Dba? cxd4 9. exd4 b6 10. c4 Ga6 11. Hel He8 12. Eel Das 13. DeS 2b4?! 14, c5!? &xd3? 130 After 14...£b7 the whole battle still lies ahead, but now White obtains a pawn majority on the queenside. 15. Dxd3 Lxd2 16. Yxd2 Ded 17. We3 HeS 18, £3 Af6 19. He2 Dd7 20. Becl bxc5 21. dxcS Db8 22. Ae5 f6 “after 22...Dbc6 23. Axc6 DAxc6 (on 23...Exc6 there follows 24. 23) I wanted to continue 24. b4, as Black can- not take the pawn because of 25. Yc3!” — Zukertort. 23. c6!? He7 Black can’t take the stress of the struggle, and makes a mistake. After 23...d4 White would still have work to do. 24. Yd2 24. Wel is more accurate, as after the game move Black could dig in with 24.. Ded. 24...fxeS? 25. WxaS Wc8 26. Lxe5 He? 27. Lxbs Wxb8 28. c7 Wc8 29. Wxa7, and White took the game to vic- tory. In this next game, played between two well-known grandmasters, White makes use of his queenside pawn ma- jority, combining threats on both wings; while as in the previous game, the ratio of pawns on the queenside was 3-1. (We should note that the relevant position for the Zukertort System was reached from another opening.)Chapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority Bareev E. — Lautier J. Wijkaan Zee 2002 16. He3 2187! After 16...dxe4 17. bxed we have a position with hanging pawns. Some commentators have recom- mended 16...Red8!?, After 17. cxd5 @xdS 18. DxdS HxdS, White has a playable isolated d-pawn position. See the previous chapter. 17. b4 a6 “17...dxe4 18, d5 leads to an advan- tage for White” — Bareev. For example: 18...De7 (18...exd5? 19. &xf6 gxf6 20. We2 +-; or 18...Axd5 19. Ags with a very strong attack) 19. dxe6 fxe6 20. 4g5 with a dangerous attack. 18. c5 g6 19. Ye2 bxe5?! “19.28.87 is more accurate, and on 20. 2.d3 only then play 20...bxc5” — Ba- reev. If instead of 20. &d3 White plays 20. exb6, then Black plays 20.../d6 and then after 21 ...2\b8 takes the b6-pawn. 19...Wc7!? has also been considered, and after 20. 2.d3 Ba8 (20...b5 21. AedS + Klimov) 21. He5 AxeS, the position has been evaluated as slightly better for White. 20. dxc5 &p7 20...e5 21. &a2 Hed§ 22. Hedi d4 23. De4 + Klimov. 21. 243 “21. adl? d4 (21...A.xb4 22. 2e5 and Wb2 ) 22. Dc4. By then playing b4-b5, White obtains practical winning chanc- es” — Bareev. 21...WaT7 Here 21...2h5 has been suggested, but after 22. &xg7 Df4 23. Yd2 Axd3 24. Wxd3 Gxg7 25. a4 the white pawns on the queenside start moving, while Black’s center pawns are at a standstill. It is unlikely that he can hold the posi- tion. 22, DeS DxeS 23, QxeS Dd7 24, Qxe? Sxg7 25. Ded Bareev doesn’t approve of this move, and suggests that, “25. f4!? left a big ad- vantage.” But, asshown in the game, 25. 4 is also very strong. 25...e5 26. Yd2 Ys On 26...£5 Klimov gives the follow- ing winning variations for White: 27. Who+ dogs (27..Gh8 28. Sxfs exfS 29. D6 He7 30. Axd7 Exd7 31. c6 131Part I. Play for White Eig? 32. cxb7 Wxb7 33. Web H8gs 34. Wxe5) 28. &xf5 exfS 29. Wes+ Ohs8 30. Ate Axfo 31. Yxi6+ Ses 32. He3 f4 33. Bic3t. 27, Bh6+ 27, Wg5!? Heb (27...f6 28. Wh6+ Gh8 29. Lxg6 He7 30. LFS) 28. bs! is even stronger. 27...% 98 28, &xa6! It’s already been possible to stop the game commentary a couple of times and show continuations that are virtually winning for White. But from the system- atic point of view we've dragged it out to this point to demonstrate the power of White’s queenside pawn majority. 28...2.xa6 29. 6 DB 30. Di6+ hs 31. c7 Sbs 31...8xc72? 32. Dxes. Exc? Wxc7 33. 32. HeS Wad 33. HaS Web 34. AS Deb 35. Af6 DAfs 36. ALS A banal gain of time. 36...De6 37. Hel 2c4 38. D6 AB, and here 39, @\xd5 was strongest, after which White should win thanks to his passed pawns on the queenside. 2) The second type of pawn structure in this variation usually arises after Black plays ...A\f6-e4, and a piece trade takes place one4. 132 Puranen J. — Tuominen R. Finland 1999 L d4e6 2. DAB Af 3. e3 d5 4. 243 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. a3 b6 9. Dbd2 2b7 10. Aes De7 1. We2 Det Now White obtains a pawn majority on the queenside, and Black’s last move allows White to get it. By playing ...Af6- e4 Black avoids White’s attacks, but new problems lie in store: White’s pressure on. the queenside and on the open d-file. a w Lay cre Apt Bae | ‘Bane 12. 2xed!? White unhesitatingly parts with this bishop, as most importantly with this capture he wins a tempo. 12...dxe4 13. dxc5 bxeS 13...2xc5, preserving the unity of the pawns on the queenside, is better. 14, Sd We? 15. Dded ads In some situations the pin 15...8a67! is a highly effective defense for Black.Chapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority But in this case it doesn’t work: 16. Yg4 £5 (16...8xc4? 17. Axcd Sxh2+ 18. Shi, and the piece can’t be saved) 17. Wes Dd5 18. Dxd6 Yxd6 19. c4, and White has a big plus. 16. Axd6 Zxd6 17. Exd6 Wxd6 18, Hai Ya6? A serious mistake: when one player has a stable positional advantage, as a tule there’s no need to exchange queens, as it’s this piece that can cause the most trouble for the opponent. We should point out that in this pawn structure White’s positional advantage consists of the following: he can create a passed pawn on the queenside without help from his pieces, while Black can’t do the same on the kingside. 19. Wxa6 &xa6 And now to all of Black’s woesa tac- tical trick by White is added. 20. Dd7 He8 21. Axes! Black can’t take the knight because of back-rank mate. Given that Black has no counterplay, White has no difficulties finishing the job. Inthe previous game, Black opposed White’s pawn majority on the queenside with his a- and c-pawns. As practice has shown, it’s better for Black to play with his a- and b-pawns. In the follow- ing game we'll only look at the mecha- nism by which White obtains a favorable structure: Fuentes M. — Arencibia J. Cuba 1991 1. d4d52. DB Al 3. e3 e6 4. 2d3 5 5. b3 Abd7 6. 2.b2 £.d6 7. 0-00-08. Dbd2 b6 9. DeS 2.b7 10. 4 Ded? Black makes a decision to occupy e4 at an inappropriate moment, as now White is almost forced to transition to a favorable ending. 11. &xe4!? It’s possible to take with the knight 11. Dxed, when after 11...dxe4 12. 2c4 AxeS 13. dxe5 2e7 14. Ye2 White hasa plan to advance his g-pawn with the idea of supporting the breakthrough f4-f5. After 11. xd? Wxd7 12. &xe4 dxe4 13, Ac4 Hfd8 (13...8.e7 14. dxcS Wxd1 15. Bfxdl &xc5 16. 2a3, and there’sa position from the game on the board) 14. Dxd6 Wxd6 15. Wg4 White is also better, but the “pursuit of happiness” will only be possible with queens on the board, as, for example, playin an ending with opposite-colored bishops is com- pletely uninspiring. 133Part I. Play for White I1...dxe4 12. Ddest 12. Dxd7 Wxd7 13. Dc4 Had’ is weaker (After 13...2e7 14. dxeS Wxdl 15. Eifkd! 2&xcS 16. 223 there’s a position from the main game on the board. Again the pin of the knight with 13...2.a6 fails to achieve its aim: 14. dxcS &xc4 15. Wd4 eS. Black brings in a tactic to help him, but after 16. fxeS 2.xfl 17. exd6 Wg 18. Exfl bxc5 19. Wd5 you wouldn’t envy him de- spite the material advantage: he has weak pawns on the queenside, while White has a passed d-pawn and a powerful bishop.) 14, Dxd6 (after 14. dxc5 2xc5 15. Wxd7 Bxd7 16. &£a3 26, Black succeeds in pinning the white knight) 14...8xd6 with aroughly equal position, Puranen J. — Sa- limaki J., Espoo 1996. 12...2e7 12...AxeS 13. fxe5 (In Muse D. — Frani¢ M., Rabac 2004, after 13. dxeS &c7 [13...4e7] 14. Bed Bed 15. Zadl Rd5 16. Dd6 2xd6 17. exd6 6 a com- plicated position arose, in which Black pinned down White to the defense of his d-pawn. But in my opinion the alterna- tive 13. Dxd6!? Wxd6 14. fxeS We? [14... Wd7? 15. dxcS Wxd1 16. Haxd1 with a big advantage for White] 15. 4g4 should interest White.) 13...2.e7 14. Yg4bS 15. Bd6 &xd6 16. exd6 £5 (16...\Wxd6? 17. dxc5) 17. Wg3 c4? 18. d5! eS 19. &xe5, and in Mariotti S. — Faragé I., Budapest 1975, White obtained an advantage. In- cidentally, instead of White’s last move, 19.e5!? doesn’t look bad. 13, Dxd7 Wxd7 14, dxeS Yxdl 15. Eixdl 2xc5 16, 243! 134 The point of White’s last few moves is to trade off the dark-squared bishops and enter an ending with a favorable mix of pieces and pawn structure. 16...£2xa3 17. Dxa3 White has good endgame prospects, but you won’t take down Black bare- handed either. In the previous game White achieved the better pawn structure, but at the price of significant simplifications, and there Black has decent chances of a favorable outcome. In the next game White tries to keep the queens on the board: Janowski D. — Jaffe C. New York 1917 1. d4.d5 2. D3 Af 3. e3 06 4. 2d3 5 5, b3 Dcé 6. 2b2 Le7 7. 0-00-08. Dhd2 b6 9. AeS 2.b7 10. 4 Dbs Here Black has also engineered a clash between his knight and the d3- bishop after a preliminary exchange of pawns on d4, as in this case White doesn’t have the opportunity to obtain a favorable pawn structure as in the main game: 10...cxd4 11. exd4 Abs 12. &e2 Bed!? (Evidently it’s not worth delaying the occupation of e4, as in that case White obtains dangerous play, for example 12...2c8 13. c3 Ac6 [In the game Zhuravlev A. — Popov V., Smolensk 2005, Black undertook an unsuccessful knight maneuver which allowed White to obtain an advantage: 13...4)a6%! 14. &d3 Qc7, and hereChapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority with the move 15. f5!? White could haye put Black in a difficult position, for example 15..De4 (I5...exf5 16. AxfSt} 16. fxe6 Axe6 17. Axed dxe4 18. £04 2 {6 fon 18...2.dSasacrifice on Sf7 also follows 19. xf?! Exf7 20. Dxf7 Bxf7 21. Yh5+ with a winning position for White} 19. Dx?! &xi7 20. Whs+ Ge7 21. Bxf6 Hxi6 22. 2a3+ Sd7 23. QbS+ Heb (23.2.6 24. Yd5++-} 24. dS Ge7 25. dxch &xc6 26. Yes+ {26..d1? 2.xb51} 26...4b7 27. &xc6+ &xc6 28. Wxed+ and White has win- ning chances] 14. 2.43 2.46 [now 14... S\e4! is already too late, i-c. 15. Axe4 Dxe5 16. Af6+ &xf6 17. fxe6 Be7 {White is also better after 17...225} 18. Wed Wd7 19. Rael Heeg 20. He3 f5 {20...g6 is more stebborn, but the result of the game is unlikely to change} 21. exf6 Hxf6 (21... 2xf6 22. 2a3 Be7 23. Luyg8+ Ey8 24. 43, and, as the com- mentators like to say, with an irresist- ible attack} 22, Bh3, and White soon won in Breivik L. — Timman T., Am- sterdam 2005] 15. ¥f3 [Above all you have to take control of the e4 square. We should note that, in the battle for e4, the c-pawn is solidly defended, as it’s on the c3 square. Details in Part Il, Chapter 7] 15...2e7 [with the Bo- golyubov maneuver Black starts to cre- ate a defensive redoubt] 16. Hael [the queen’s rook relieves the queen of her cares about controlling e4] 16...¢6 17. Wh3 hS [Black not only prevents g2- 24, but also prepares stations for his knights on f5 and g4] 18. Adf3 Afs 19. ®gs5 &xe5?! [We can say that this move is dubious with a fair degree of certainty, as White could subsequent- ly undertake a straightforward tacti- cal attack. If Black wants to snuff out White’s growing threats with 19... Ded, however, then White can choose between two continuations: Either 20. xed dxe4 21. g4, or 20. Axed dxed 21. &xe4, In neither case is there any visible compensation for the pawn.] 20. fxeS Agd. Alternatives for Black: 1) 20...Ae4 as before doesn’t give any compensation for the pawn. 2) After 20...2h7, White also has an opportunity to attack: 21. @xh7 @xh7 22, &ixf5 exfS 23, Exf5! [A plan exploit- ing the weak dark squares in the castled position of the black king also looks sol- id: 23, &cl!2} 23...gxf5 24. Wxhs+ Hg7 25. e6 W6 26. He3 Hh8 (26...We26 27. Hg3 +; 26...f4 27. Hes Hh8 28, We4+ G18 29. Ba3+ hes 30. exf7+ Wxi7 31. EfS +—] 27. Bg3+ Of8 28, 2a3+ Ges. And ifin this position White has a move like 29, h3, then it’s clear that he’s do- ing well! 3) On 20...Ae8 White plays 21. 2xf5 exfS [21..WxgS 22. Bxre6! fxe6? 23. Wxe6+ g7 24. Wd7+ +—] 22. e6 with a big advantage for White. 4) If 20...2d7, then 21. 2xf5 Wxg5 lif 21...exf5, then 22. Wg3 with a sub- sequent e5-e6, and Black’s defensive structures fall apart] 22. &xe6 also with a big White edge. As can be seen from these variations, the game move looks more solid. Now 21, &xf5 exf5, and in the game Yusupov A. — Psakhis L., USSR Cham- pionship, Moscow 1983, for some rea- son White rejected an impressive but obvious tactical blow: 135Part L Play for White mor yy sta o = a < YL Yi, Vii = Re a ah 22. Hxf5!, and taking the rook is bad. But also in the event of various crafty re- plies by Black White obtained an advan- tage: 22...We7 [It’s bad to take the rook with 22...exf5? because of 23. Yxh5. Af- ter 22...Hc6 23. e6 fxe6 24. Axf8+ WB 25. Wp Wd6 {Leaving the queen on the file is dangerous for Black, as in this possible variation: 25... 8f5 26. Sc} 2.c8 27, Bf1c2 28, Bf4 B/5 29.4 b8 Yd 30. Yxa7, and Black is defenseless. After 25.2.8 26. h3 D6 27. Lfl there is a very unpleasant pin on the f-file. On 25... We7 the move 26. Df3 looks very strong for White, and on 26...8h7 there is 27. A3 Df6 28. DeS with a double attack on the c6-rook and the g6-pawn.} 26. Yxd6 Exd6 27. xe6 the position has simpli- fied, but the extra pawn, the threat of c3-c4, and various tactical threats give White good chances of winning.] 23. Wh4 Bce8 [After 23...gxf5 White obtains a decisive advantage thus: 24. 2.a3! Yc7 {The bishop is untouchable: 24..%xa3 25. Yxh5} 25. Wxh5 £6 26. We6+ hs 126...84g7 loses, for example: 27. 8ixg7+ hxg7 28. De6+ SL7 29. Df8 Bxc3 (29... LUG8 30. 6+ Ge8 31. Bxf88f8 32. e7+ Ge8 33. h3 DAG 34, Keb is also bad, and despite the approximate material 136 equality Black's position is hopeless) 30. 06+ Ge8 31. Dd7 with a subsequent h2- h3, D6, and e6-e7 winning.) 27. 246 We 28. Wxg7t+ Wxe7 29. Aeb+ Wi7 30. Dxf8 fxeS 31. h3 Af6 32. Hxes] 24. 23 f6 25. Dh3, and White is left a pawn up, plus Black has a weakened castled position. By the way, Black can’t return the pawn now: 25...fxe5 26. Wxe7 Hxe7 27. Exf8+ ©xf8 28. 223. A very inter- esting game, both from the standpoint of the playing styles for White and Black in the Zukertort System, and for its tacti- cal nuances. It took place between two top players, one of whom is a “fashion leader” in the Zukertort System.) 13. a3 c6 (13...2a6?! [The strange knight move to the edge of the board can be explained by the desire to transfer it to d6 via ...Ac7-e8-d6, where it will support its colleague. But White doesn’t have to wait for this reinforcement of Black’s position, and immediately starts decisive actions.] 14. f5!? De7 15. fxe6 Axeb 16. Dxed dxed 17. 2c4 Sf6 18. @xf72! [an unsuccessful move, as it turned out, while after 18. d5!? Dc5 19. Acb &xc6 20. 2xf6 gxf6 21. dxc6 White has an obvious advantage] 18...©xf7 19. d5 &g5 20. h4 Hujo J. — Marini M., Slovakia 2001. And now 20...2)f3+!? would have won immediately.) 14. £43 (in this situation it no longer helps White to move the f-pawn, as after the exchange on e5 Black’s position comes to life: 14. £5 Dxe5 15. Dyed (15. dxe5? BcS+] 18...dxe4 16. dxe5 exf5 17. Bxf5) 14...f5 15. Dxc6 (in the event of 15. 4)df3!2, Black doesn’t manage to trans- fer his light-squared bishop to e8 right away) 15...2xc6 16. Af3 2d6 17. Hes Be8 18. a4 (Black’s “fortified sector”Chapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority due to the diamond d5-e6-f5-De4 must be attacked with 18. c4!?, The move in the game is the start of a covert maneu- ver by White with the aim of obtainii a knight-versus-bishop ending with a favorable pawn structure, but he didn’t manage to achieve the latter.) 18...We7 19. Wel a5 20. Axed fxe4 21. 243 2 xa3 22. Wxa3 Wxa3 23. Hxa3 Bc8 24. 04 id8, and in Krasenkow M. — Delchev A., Leén 2001, despite his proudly po- sitioned knight on eS, White was forced to think about how best to extinguish Black’s initiative. UL. Be2 Ded 12. a3 12. Axe4 dxe4 isa position from Yu- supov — Dorfman, Germany 2001 (see next game) and Yusupov — Spiridonov, Plovdiv 1983, Part II, Chapter 7. 12...0c6 13. Dxed!? This exchange allows White to obtain a favorable central pawn structure. 13...dxe4 13...Axe5 drops a pawn after 14. @xe5. 14. Dxcb 2x06 15. Wd Now White could play 15. dxc5!? fxe5 (after 15..bxc5 16. YWxd8 Efxd8 17. Hfdl White has the better pawn structure, and good chances to take ad- ‘vantage of the queenside pawn majority) 16. Yel with c2-c4 and Wel-c3. 15...2.16 16.c4We7 Karpov and Kalinichenko recom- mend 16...cxd4 17. Saxd4 &xd4 18. exd4 W6 19. We3 Had8, “and so on.” ‘We can argue about whether White has the more pleasant position, but no way can we say “and so on.” 17. dxe5 Qxb2 18. Wxb2 xcs 18...bxc5?! is dubious because of 19, b4. 19. We3 fas 20. b4 We7 21. Hfdi Exdi+ 22, Hxdi Has 23, Baa te 24. g3 White is preparing a reliable shel- ter for his king on f2. “Foresight in the chess battle, its timely appearance, is indubitably a very useful thing” — Peter Romanovsky. 24... 18 25. bS 2.67? After 25...Le8 26. c5 bxc5 27. Exd8 Wrxd8 28. Wxc5+ We7, Black would have retained the a7-pawn. 26. ¢5 bxcS 137Part I, Play for White Clearly he didn’t want to allow the white pawn to advance further with 26...2d5 27. c6, but it was possible to organize some kind of resistance. Now, though, everything ends very quickly. 27. Exd8+ Wxd8 28. Gxe5+ S28 29. xa7, and White took the game toa successful conclusion. The next game also ran its course un- der the motif of an onslaught by White, and judging from everything that hap- pened it’s unlikely that anyone would want to repeat this game, despite its drawn result. Yusupov A. — Dorfman J. Germany 2001 1. d4 D6 2. D3 e6 3. 3 c5 4. &.d3 d5 5. b3 Acé 6. 0-0 2e7 7. 2b2 0-08. Dbd2 Db4 9, &e2b6 Now Black could try to take the bull by the horns immediately and play 9... Se4 in line with Vasily Panov’s recom- mendation. (See Part II, Chapter 7.) But there is a big difference here: Black hasn’t yet exchanged pawns on d4. And this circumstance gives White the op- portunity to obtain a queenside pawn majority: 10. a3 Ac6 (the Zwischenzug 10...@)xd2? leads to the loss of a pawn after 11. Wxd2 Da6 12. 2xa6 bxaé 13. dxeS, and Black can’t reply 13...2xc5? because of 14. Wc3) 11. dxcS &xe5 (af- ter 11...Axc5 12. c4 dxc4 13. &xe4, the c5-knight is poorly placed) 12. ®e5 (12. c4!?) 12... DxeS (12...Dxd2 13. Dxc6 bxc6 14. Wxd2 f6 [14...We7 is bad be- 138 cause of 15. We3 6 16. b4, and White wins a pawn] 15. c4 &d6 £) 13. Dxe4 dxe4 (Schiller E. — Santalla A., Internet 2003) 14. Wxd8!? Hxd8 15. &xe5. That’s why it’s better for Black to trade first on d4: 9...cxd4 10. exd4, and only then play 10...2e4- In addition, this version of Panov’s idea is better, since White doesn’t have the chance after 11. &)xe4 dxe4 to put his knight on g5. 10. AeS Another promising idea is 10, a3!? Be6 11. d3 &b7 12. We2as in Prusi- kin M. = Luther T., Deizisau 2000. See Part I, Chapter 9. 10...2b7 11. £4 11. a3 Dc6 12. £4 (12. 2d3 Dxes 13. dxe5 e4, and in this case White’s pros- pects are far from cheerful; see Part II, Chapter 13) 12... Hed 13. Axed dxed 14. c4(in the previous game we already said that 14. Axc6!? Axc6 15. dxcS BxcS 16. Wel, attempting to exploit the pawn majority on the queenside, deserves. at- tention) 14...A\xe5 15. dxe5, and in Pytel K. — Luther T., France 2004, the players arrived at a position in which neither of them had anything worth mentioning. They soon agreed a draw. 11...Qed4 12. Axed dxes 13. Wd2 Yusupov A. — Spiridonoy, Plovdiv 1983, went 13. a3 Dd5. See Part II, Chapter 7. 13...f6 14, Dgd We8 15, a3 DebChapter 7. A “Repulsive” Queenside Pawn Majority 16. dxeS!? White is playing to obtain a queen- side pawn majority. 16....2.x05!? As we've already discovered, asa rule it’s bad for Black to be left with a- and c-pawns: 16...bxe5?! 17. Ye3. 17. b4 27 18. Bad] Bf7 19.\Ye3 19, Yd7!?. 19...2£8 20. Yb3 De7 21. Haz 21. f5!? may be stronger: We can give this illustrative variation: 21...Ad5 (21...8.d5 22, 04 26 23. Bas! Wxd8 24. fxe6 e8 25. c5 +; 21...exfS 22. Bxf6 +—; 21...Axf5 22. Bed Bd5 23. HxdS! +) 22. Hd2 aS (22...exf5 23. @xfo+ exf6 24, &c4 +) 23. Bid! exfS (23...axb4 24. fxe6 Wxe6 25. axb4) 24. ®f2, and Black’s position is worse due to the weakness of the a2-g8 diagonal. 21.245 22, 04 Le6 23, Hf Wes 24. bS 2b7 25. AL DS The problems are already starting for White: his pawns on the queenside are at a standstill, and Black has his eye on the e3-pawn. 26. Led &e5 27. Qxf5 He has to part with his bishop so as not to give up the d-file with 27. He2. 27...exf5 28. 2.44 218 29. Hel 208 30. c5 &e6, and in this position Yusupov agreed toa draw, evidently having conclud- ed that his small advantage wasn’t enough to win. Despite the drawn result, and tak- ing into account White’s opportunity 21. f5!?, Yusupov’s plan was promising. The games we have examined show that White’s strategy involving the estab- lishment of a queenside pawn majority is dangerous for Black, so it’s best for the second player, if possible, not to allow thisdangerous weapon to get into White’s hands, If we can add just one word to the well-known saying by Goethe, it would come out as: “There’s nothing more re- pulsive than a pawn majority.” As true for Black as it is for White. 139Chapter 8 A Position “Suffocated at a Distance” Black very often exchanges on e5, and after this trade one of the pawns (the d- pawn or the f-pawn) movesto the eS square, from where it controls d6. The d6 square can also be controlled by a white pawn on c5, where it can get to, for example, when the queenside pawn majority is established. In that case White gets a good opportu- nity to put a knight on d6. I don’t think there’s any need to explain how threatening aknight on that square can be. It wasn’t for naught that Tartakover called a position with a pawn on c5 and a knight on d6, “a position that is being suffocated at a dis- tance.” Alonso E.— Martin A. Madrid 2005 1. DB D6 2. dd d5 3. e3 e6 4. 243 5 5. b3 cxd4 6. exd4 Dcé6 7. 0-0 We7 8.a3 2d6 It’s probably still too early for 8... Ded because of 9. Bxed (9. c4; 9. Hel £5) 9..dxe4 10. Ags £5 11. Dc3, and White has the initiative. How dangerous is it? We need to check this. 9. Hel White takes control of the e4 and e5 squares. True, we haven't yet looked at ...De4 for Black on move 7. We've become somewhat distracted: our task in this chapter is different, and on the 140 question of battling for e4 you should turn to Part II, Chapter 7. 9...0-0 10. 2b2 He8?! On the subject of this move, see the game Bondarenko — Belokon, Moscow 1993, in Part II, Chapter 12. 11. DeS White forbids ...c6-e5. 11....218 12. Dd2 g6 13. Dees 297 14. 04 B6 15. Hel Wb7 15..dxc4? is bad because of 16. Eixed!; and so is 15...b7, for example 16. exdS Dxd5 17. &b5 Dide7:Chapter 8. 18. &xf7! (A typical knight sacrifice on f7 in positions with an isolated pawn. It’s useful to look at a game by Mikhail Botvinnik, for example, Botvinnik — Batuev, Leningrad 1931, or Botvinnik — Vidmar, Nottingham 1936, which took place in more complex situations. The preconditions for this knight sacrifice area weakly defended f7 square — in this case it’s guarded only by the king — and the speedy inclusion of the queen and second knight in the attack.) 18..9xf7 19. Dg5+ Hes 20. Axes Wd6 21. Zixe7 &xg7 22. d5+, with a winning position. Returning to the main game: 16. c5!? A Position “Suffocated at a Distance” Forming a pawn majority on the queenside. 16...bxe5 17. Axc6!? A good Zwischenzug: White lures the black queen to c6 in order to win time to transfer his knight to d6. 17..N9xe6 18. dxe5 18. Hest. 18...47 19, 2xg7 xg? 20. Ddd Now White wins two tempi, thanks to his 17" move. 20...We? 21. Abs Wd 22, Ads In these cases Tartakover liked to quip, “The knight has burst in.” 22... 48 23. b4. The white majority on the queenside is ready to dash forward, with the beautiful knight on d6 taking down ev- erything in sight. Black is behind in devel- opment, an extremely important circurm- stance: Black can’t get his pawns moving in the center without losing material White has a strategically winning position. The next game convincingly demon- strates the power of a knight on d6, which literally hung over Black’s position. Plaskett J. — Sadler M. London 1991 1. d4 d5 2. Df3 e6 3.3 DK 4. 243 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 246 7. 2b2 0-0 8. 141Part I. Play for White a3 2d7 9. Dbd2 exd4 10. exd4 He8 11. De5 a6 12. We? De7 13. f4 Age 14. 24 With a stable center, White begins a pawn attack on the kingside; on this pos- sibility for White see Part I, Chapter 4. 14...2b5 Black offers to trade off the light- squared bishops, and White almost always refuses. This is understandable — White’s bishop is one of the main pieces in his attacking scheme, while Black doesn’t know how to situate his “poor devil.” 15. c4! dxe4 16. bxc4 2c6 17. 25 2xe5 Black probably didn’t want to go into an unclear variation: 17...d7 18. Axg6 hxg6 19. &xg6, and 19...fxg6 is bad be- cause of 20. Wxe6+, but after 19...Yc7 it isn’t allso clear. 18. fxeS Dd7 19. We3 Despite the weakened position of his king (the consequence of the g-pawn thrust), White is O.K., as he controls the center, which is supported by his bishops. Black decides to discount the strength of White’s center pawns. 19...b5?! 20. ¢5 Black seems to have achieved his goal: the d4-dS breakthrough isn’t threatened, but now White gets a won- derful strongpoint on d6. 20...Dh4 21. Ded DS 142 White also has a clear advantage af- ter 21...8xe4, 22. Exfst 22. Wf4, too, can be played without risk but the move in the game is more interesting. 22...exf5 23. Ad6 So White has achieved a position (pawn on cS and knight on d6) of “suf- focation at a distance,” and here there’s also support from the e5-pawn. In other words — en garde! 23.007 24, &xf5 We7 25. 6 Gh8 Black’s position is also difficult after 25...fxe6 26. Wxe6+ Yxe6 27, xe6+. 26. Bel fxe6 27. 2.xe6 H13 28. Wd2 28. Well? 28...4418, and now by playing 29. g6 White would have quickly obtained a decisive advantage, for example 29... DFG 30. dS 2a8 31. DR+.Chapter 9 White’s Plan with e3-e4 The possible results of implementing this plan are twofold: White might obtain a queenside pawn majority or manage to advance his e-pawn to eS, driving away the black king’s main defender, the f6-knight, thereby creating favorable conditions for akingside attack. Furthermore, in the event of the d-file’s opening, a strongpoint for the white pieces is created at d6. Rosselli Del Turco S. — Lasker Em. Zirich 1934 1. 44.45 2. APB e6 3. 23 Al6 4, 243 5 ‘We should point out that the e3-e4 advance must be undertaken at the right time. So in the following game White’s haste led immediately to equality: 4... Se7 5. b3 0-0 6. &b2 Abd? 7. Abd2 b6. Note that by saving a tempo on the ...€7-¢§ advance, Black has almost fin- ished his development, while the white king is still in the center. In these con- ditions White begins active maneuvers: & e471 dxed 9. Axed £07 10. We2, and in this position from Gonzdlez Rodri- guez J. — Hernandez R., La Habana 2003, Black could get to White’s light- squared bishop with 10...2\d5, by play- ing ...2\f4 or ...2\b4 on the next move. Black preferred to exchange twice on e4 and equalized. 5, b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 We7 7, 2b2 246 8. Dbd?2 0-0 9. dxc5 2&xe5 10. c4 We7 11. a3 d8 12. b4 2.46 13. Yc2 h6 14. Eta A plan involving the achievement of a queenside pawn majority deserves attention: 14. cS .c7 15. b5 a5, and now White has to take control of e5 with We2-c3 or Df3-e5. 14...247 15. e4 15. c5 27 16. bS a5 17. De Pal- liser. 15...dxe4 16. Axed @c7 17. Be2 2e8 18. e5!? (see diagram next page) 18...2d7 18...Dd5 19. Wed £5 20. exfs Dxf6 transposes to the game. 143Part I. Play for White 19, Wed (5 White is better in other lines, too: 19...¢6 20. Bac; or 19...2)820. bs Das 21. Dd6!? &xd6 22. exd6 Bxd6 23. a4. 20, exf6 Dxf6. White is better. How- ever, Black can’t be taken down bare- handed, and White’s task is to find a good plan to build on his successful opening. In the next game, thanks to a mistake by Black we have ourselves a classic and instructive example of a bishop sacrifice on h7. The plan with White’s e3-e4 is dangerous because the e-pawn reaches e5 if allowed, chasing away the black king’s main defender, the f6-knight: Antoshin V. — Bradvarevié A. Sochi 1966 1. dd d5 2. DB Al 3. e3 06 4. 243 5 5. b3 Dc6 6. Lb2 Le7 7. Abd? 0-08.23 a6 9. 0-Ob5 10. dxc5 2xc5 11, e4!? 27 IL...dxeS is more solid. After 12. xe4 ®Dxe4 13. 2xe4 2b7 (13..4xd1? is bad, 144 as White’s rook arrives on the seventh rank 14, Sfxdl 2b7 15, Hd7 Babs 16. Eixb7 xb? 17. £xc6, and White gets two minor pieces for the rook) 14. Ye2, and even if White is better, it’s not by much. 12. e5!? White has implemented one of the main ideas of the plan with e3-e4 — taking the £6 square away from the black pieces. 12.047 12...AhS!?, with a subsequent ...27- g6, is stronger. 13. We2 2a7 With this arrangement of forces Black often plays 13...&e7 to take con- trol of the g5 square. 14. b4 ‘We treasure the light-squared bishop more than anything else in the world. 14...Db6 15. Hael!?As we'll see later, a very farsighted move. 15...Dc4 16. Ll 2b8? The prophylactic moves 16...h6 or 16...g6 would have made White’s coming combination impossible. Now, though, there follows an instructive combination with certain peculiarities. 17. Axed First we should open up the cl-h6 diagonal for the dark-squared bishop. 18, 2xh7+! Chapter 9. White’s Plan with e3-e4 The most common piece sacrifice in the Zukertort! 18...Gh8 Accepting the sacrifice also leads to grim consequences for Black, for exam- ple: 18...&xh7 19. @g5+. Now, charac- teristic of the combination with a bishop sacrifice on h7, the black king has two retreat routes: g6 or 28. 1) After 19...%998 Black will have to decide very soon whether to give up his queen or to be mated: 20, WhS He8 (to avoid mate it was possible to part with the queen by playing 20...W4g5, but it’s six of one or half a dozen of the other) 21. Waé7+ Oh8 22. WhS+ wgs 23. Wh7+ &f8 24, Wh8+ we7 25. Wxg7#. 2) 19... g6 20. Wed Dxe5 21. Exes (here’s where White’s move 15 has proved useful) 21...f5. Now let’s give a long and almost forced sample variation: 22. Exe6+ 2if6 23. Wh3 Exe6 24. Dxe6 W6 25. Hel e526. Dgs £4 27. Wh7+ Gxes 28. 4+ gd 29. Exes WreS 30. 3+ wg3 31. Wg6+ and it’s mate next move. 19. Ags g6 20. Wed DxeS 21. Whe 7 22. 4 Our silicon assistant shows that 22. &xe6+ is much stronger. A knight sac- rifice opening up a line. 22...fxe6 23. Wh6+ &f7 24. &g5. Black can’tavoida serious material deficit. But Black won’t be saved after the human move in the text, either. 22...2aT+ 23. Vhl Dd7 24. £5! There is no defense. Black resigned. 145Part I. Play for White In the following modern-day duels, Black obtained a position from the pre- vious game, but with an extra tempo due to the fact that his queen went to e7 im- mediately, without first stopping on c7. Ibragimov I. — Ivanov S. Kazan 1995 1. d4d5 2. DPB Aso 3. e3 6 4, 243 5 5, b3 Dc6 6 Lb2 £6 7, 0-0 0-08, Abd2 We? 9. dxeS 2xcS 10. 4 A preliminary 10. c4 is probably prefer- able to the immediate 10. e4, for example: 10...Ab4 (10...b6 11, a3 dxed 12, Axed Bxe4 13. &xe4 Hd8. Here White had an interesting opportunity in Lputian S. — Tavadian H., Irkutsk 1983: 14. Yxd8-+1? Wxd8 15. &xcé Bb8 16. Zidl We 17. &e5, re-establishing material equality with a favorable material ratio.) 11. e5 Ded 12. h3 (it was probably possible to prevent the exchange of the bishop with 12. &e2) 12... ®xd3 13. oxd4 @h6 14, a3 Was 15. b4 2e7 16. Db3 2.d7 17. Yd2 Hc8, and each player’s position has its pluses, Peregudov N. — Kiriakov P, Perm 1997. 10...2a3 Black is following Capablanca’s pre- scription. See Part II, Chapter 8. 11. &xa3 11. Bel 2 xb2 12. Yxb2 Has 13. Bfdl (13. e4 can’t be played yet because of 13... dxed, and it’s necessary to part with the bishop) 13...h6 14. acl e5, and in Sergeev V. — Gutman G., D&din 1998, White, ina slightly better position, opted for a pawn. 146 sacrifice, counting on the activity of his pieces: 15. cxdS Exd5 16. 24 Had 17. b42! Dxb4 18. Ab3 Bxa2 19. Yxes Wxes 20. Dxe5 &e6 21. Bxe6 fxe6 and, while White can easily win back the e-pawn, the endgame is very unclear. The big question is whoin this case will take better advantage of their pawn pairs — e and f, aand b? 1L...\8ixa3 12. e4!? dxed On the impatient 12..b4 White can choose between the clever 13. £1 Wb27! 14. exd5 exdS (14..Wxal? 15. Qxh7+!) 15. a3 Dab 16. exd5 with an extra pawn, or the solid 13. Ye2. 13. Qxed We7 14. We2 eS 15. @x6+ Wxf6 16. Led He8 17. Hfel 2f5 18, 2.xc6 bxeb White also comes out a pawn up after 18...Wixe6 19. AxeS Wc? 20. Yb2. 19. AxeS He6 20. f4 Who 20...Hae8 21. WA2. 21, WA2 £6? A mistake:Now after 22. Dxc6! Exc6 23. Wf3, White could have obtained a decisive ad- vantage. Black’s play hasn’t been flaw- less in these games, but we can see none- theless that the e3-e4 advance in com- bination with c2-c4 gives White some initiative. Accurate play is required from Black so that White’s initiative doesn’t grow into something bigger. In the next game, after bringing his e-pawn into play, White created hanging pawns for Black, one of which later fell. Prusikin M. — Luther T. Deizisau 2000 1. d4.e6 2. DB d5 3. 3 Af6 4. 2.43 5 5, b3 Ac6 6, 0-0 2e7 7. 2b2 0-0 8, ®Dbd2 Dba In this situation, Black gains nothing from this knight maneuver if he doesn’t link it with a subsequent jump by his second knight to e4. After 9, 22 b6 10. a3 Ac6 11. 243 2b7 we arrive at one of the main fabiyas of the Zukertort System. 12, We2 We7 12..Hc8 13. AeS Dd? (White wins a pawn after 13...2e47! 14. Dxed Dxe5S 15. DxcS, but at the same time Black can ruin the “look” of the castled king’s position: 15...bxe5 16. dxe4 c4 17. bxc4 dxc4 18. &xc4 Yb6 19. 25 (19. 2d3 xg? 20. Bibl 2a8 +) 19...a6 20. 243 xg? 21. Bibl 2b7 22. 2d4 Web 23. ‘Chapter 9. White’s Plan with e3-e4 e4, but White has an advantage here, too) 14. Axd7 Wxd7 15. dxeS bxe5 (15... &xc5 16. c4) 16. e4 dxe4 (16...2d4) 17. Wxed g6 18. Wid Dd4 (a move that is pleasant in all respects: it cuts off the long diagonal and at the same time opens up another major diagonal for his bish- op, while the knight on dé is in active) 19. Hfel Hfe8 20. Had! 2d6 21. Wg4 £59! (Black is playing too optimistically; 21...We7 is better) 22. Wh3 5? (22... &2f4) 23. Ded He6?! (23...sd5 has been suggested, but this move doesn’t save Black either, for instance 24. c3 De6 25. @xd6 DF 26, Who Wxd6 27, 24 Web 28. Hxd5! with a decisive advantage for White. Nor would you envy Black after the somewhat better 23...Hc6 24. &f1 We7 25. DxeS QxeS 26. Bcd+ Hg7 27, f4) 24. Dxd6 Hxd6 (24...Wxd6 25, 3 +—) 25. Hxe5, and in Shengelia D. — Rojas L., Cappelle la Grande 2006, White later made good on his material advantage. In Balashov Y. — Ambartsumova K., Moscow 2007, White played e3-e4 only after the complete centralization of his major pieces: 12...8e8 13. Had! (In this position White can undermine Black’s center and the c-pawn with 13. Hfd1 We7 14. Hacl Had8 15.4 dxe4 16. @xc4 Wb8 17. dxc5 [with the regu- lation opening-up of the long diagonal, White ruins Black’s pawn structure, at a minimum] 17....2xc5? [17..-bxc5 was better. In that case White has a posi- tional edge. After the text move, how- ever, White obtains a strong attack.] 18. Hes Le7 [after 18...h6 19. &xf6 gxf6 20. xf?! White has a strong attack with a draw in hand) 19. &xf6 2xf6, 147Part I. Play for White and here in McGowan D. — Grant J., Oban 2005, with 20. &xh7+!? White would have obtained a big advantage) 13...We7 14. Bfel (White puts his rooks on the d- and e-files, as the plan with the advance e3-e4 suggests opening up precisely these lines. If he undermines Black’s center with c2-c4, though, as we saw in the game examined above, the queen’s rook on cl looks good, especially if Black’s queen is on the c-file.) 14...Had8 (Black could spoil White’s plans by playing 14...cxd4. In that case the move by White’s queen’s rook to dl would have been unneces- sary, as he would have to play 15. exd4 as it’s unfavorable to him to go into the variation 15. Qxd4 Zxd4 16. Qxd4 because of 16...e5!7, On the other hand, after 14...cxd4 15. exd4 a pawn structure arises in which it’s not easy for Black to obtain counterplay, and the unnecessary rook move to dl isn’t such a big loss of time for White.) 15. &b5 Ad7 16. dxc5 bxcS 17. e4!? DB (on 17...d4 White plays 18. e5 with good kingside prospects) 18. h4 (With the advance of the outside pawn to hS, White kills two birds with one stone: he doesn’t let the black knight get estab- lished on g6, and he provokes a weak- ness in the black king’s position) 18... Wbé!? 19. hS hé (Black prefers not to allow a weakness on the long diagonal after hS-h6) 20. AeS DAxeS 21. Axes Bd? (21...2.c6 is better; after Black’s move in the game White could imme- diately obtain a big advantage) 22. exd5 &xd5 (22...exd5 loses immediately to 23. &xd7 Hxd7 24. Wg4), and in this position by playing 23. &xd7 White would have obtained a big advantage, 148 ice. 23...Exd7 24. Wed £6 (24....28 is answered by 25. Zed!) 25. 2 f4 Wf 26. c4, and Black loses the e6-pawn. Back to Prusikin — Luther: In this position White had a choice between 13. c4 and 13. eS, but he chose a third path: 13. dxeS!? Opening up the long diagonal before all else. 13...bxcS 14. e4. aS One of Black’s possible plans. See Part II, Chapter 6. The move 14...d4 allows White’s queen’s knight to come into play imme- diately: 15. @c4 (15. 5) 15...Ad7 16. e5 Ba5 17. DxaS Was 18. Lael Yc7 19. Gel Qxf3 20. gxf3 Hfes 21. Gh Ds 22. Bgl, and Black has to think about defending, Shengelia D. — Pavasovié D., Deizisau 2004. 15. Eifel a4 16. exdSStronger than 16. e5: the diagonal is opened for the dark-squared bishop, and the black pawns in the center are hanging. 16...exd5 17, 2bS With the simple threat of winning a piece at the right moment after &b5xc6 and We2xe7. 17...axb3 18. Dxb3 White can’t win a piece: 18. 2.xc6 Wxc6 19. Wxe? Hie8 20. Aes Exe? 21. Axc6 Bxel+ 22. Bxel &xc6 23. exbé, af- ter which the game’s interest decreases. 18...2a7 It’s already necessary to defend the e7-bishop. 19. a4 4.20. 23 Ads 20...4b6 21. Y8c4, and the c5-pawn is beyond salvation. 21, 2xe5 &xc5 22. DxcS 2a8 23. De6!? fxe6 24. Yxe6+ Gh 25. Yxd5 Abd 26. WS! YB 27. Wes 2xf3 28. gxf3, and White’s material advantage ultimately made itself felt. And now let’s have a look at a case when White undertakes e3-e4 without the preliminary exchange of the d-pawn for Black’s c5-pawn because Black has developed his knight to d7 and can re- capture on c5 with tempo, attacking White’s bishop: Chapter 9. White’s Plan with e3-e4 ‘Wu Wenjin — Bu Xiangzhi Yongchuan 2003 L d4 Afé 2. DB d5 3. €3 e6 4. 2.43 c5 5. 0-0 Dbd7 6. b3 Le7 7. Dbd2 b6 8. We20-09. 2.b2 2b7 10. e4 Alexander Finkel considers this move dubious, explainin that, “The black pieces are positioned very conve- niently, and so this opening up of the center can’t be a good thing.” 10. c4 leads toa position from ECO D30, with an extra tempo for Black be- cause he got his c-pawn to c5 in one move. 10. DeS takes us to positions that are examined in other sections, 10...dxe4 It’s still better not to let the white pawn reach eS. 11. Axed DAS After 11..xe4 the number of pieces sharply declines, and by the 149Part I. Play for White players’ mutual agreement, so conse- quently this route is the path to a draw: 12. Bxed Bxed 13. Uxed 216 14. fd! We7 15. c4 Had’ 16. Hd2 cxd4 17. &xd4 Bxd4 18. Hxd4 Afé with complete equality, Koitla H. — Leito P., Tallinn 2000. 12. Bfdi Black had a slight advantage after 12. dxc5 Af 13, We3 DAxd3 14. Wxd3 (14. cxd3 @xc5 15. Dxc5 is better and it’s necessary to play 15...bxc5, as 15...2.xc5 16. We5 hardly suits Black) 14...2xc5 15. 2x5 &xc5 16. idl We? in Jeschke D. — Zumsande M., Germany 2000. 12.04 13. Ye3 YWe7, and now after 14, dxeS Zxd3 15. exd3 DxcS 16, acl an approximately equal position arose. From this game you get the im- pressionthat the plan with e3-e4 doesn’t work with a black knight on d7. In the next game White also played e3-e4 in a situation when there hadn’t yet been exchanges in the center: Rubinstein A. — Kostié B. Géteborg 1920 1, d4d5 2. 23 Af6 3, e3 6 4. 2.43 5.5. b3 Ac6 6 2b2 2.46 7. 0-00-08. Dba? Ve? 9. c4 b6 10. Kel 2b7 Here Black could have avoided White’s next move by playing 10...cxd4 11. exd4 27. IL. e4!? 150 Given accurate play by Black, there’s nothing terrible threatening him. ..dxe4 12. Axed cxd4 13, Dxd4 @xd4 14. Dxd6 Yxd6 15. Lxd4 Bras? Surprising carelessness, as White’s next move is obvious. After 15...Wc6 White is better, but it’s too early to talk about a win. 16. 2.xf6 exf6 16...xd3 17. Bea t-. 17. Wgd+ Dhs 18. &xb7! £518...8xh7 19. e3+—-. 19. GhS &g7 20. Hed W421. Be3+ Sf8 22. He8+ Se7 23. He7 Kes 24. 2g8 Wed 25. Hal, and Black resigned. White has also advanced his e-pawn with the support of a knight on c3. A very rare variation. Tylor T. — Alexander C.H.O’D. Hastings 1937 1. d4 DF6 2. DMB 5 3. 3 d5 4. b3 65. 2d3 Dc6 6. Bb2 2d6 7. 0-0 Ye? 8. Ac3 8 Ba3!? witha later c2-c4. 8...a6 9. dxcS &xc5 10. e4d4 Black decides to cut offthe al-h8 di- agonal, as 10...0-0 is dangerous because of 11. e5, for example 11..@xe5 (he has to take the pawn, as if the f6-knight Tetreats there follows the classic bishop sacrifice on h7: 11..Qd7 12. &xh7+ Sxh7 13. Dgs+ Who [13...Hg6 14. Wad3+ 5 (14..texg5 15. Bclt +—} 15. exf6+ &xe5 16. h4+! Sxh4 17. Scl +=] 14. Sci Gg6 15. Yd3+ £5 16. Yg3 Was 17. De2 DdxeS 18. 2d2 Wb6 19. @f4+ Sf6 20. Yh4, and Black can’t get away from his “responsibility;” or 11...He8 12. 2xh7+ Gxh7 13. Dgs+ g6 14. Wa3+ £5 [14...bxgs 15. Bel+ Chapter 9. White’s Plan with e3-e4 +-] 15. exf6+ doxgs 16. h4+ Gxh4 17. &cl with unavoidable mate; finally 11... Ded 12. Sxh7+ Gxh7 [12...Gh8 13. 2d3 Dgxes? 14. DAxd5! +—] 13. Ags+ gs 14. Bxgd Yxed 15. Dad 2d4 16. AB We? 17. Bxd4 eS 18. Wes exd4 19. 4b6, and despite the material equality Black faces a difficult defense) 12. Axe5S Wrxed 13. Dad Wd6 14. Dxc5 Yxc5 15. Qxf6 pxf6 16. Wed+ hs 17. Whe £5 18. Wot Sg8 19. Hael (we are no lon- ger talking about the possibility of per- petual check) 19...d4 20. c3, and White wins back the pawn and continues to at- tack for free. Black chose a different path in Kekki P: — Johansson J., Finland 2006. He decided to play with an open cen- ter: 10...dxe4 11. Qxe4 &e7 (after 11... Dxed 12. Bxe4 0-0 13. Dgs f5 14. &xc6 bxc6 [14...%xc6 15. Wh5 h6 16. We6 +-] 15. Wh5 h6 16. £3, White is better) 12. c4 (it wouldn’t be a bad thing to spoil Black’s “look” with 12. @xf6+!?) 12...2.d7 13. Ye2 Dxe4 14. &xe4 0-0, with a fully defensible posi- tion for Black. 11. Se2 e5, and in positions of this type the undermining move 12. ¢3 usu- ally follows, with a complicated posi- tion. Drawing conclusions, we can say that the plan with the e3-e4 advance is very playable with a black knight on c6, and at the same time we should take guidance from Prusikin — Luther. 151Part IT Play for BlackChapter | The Bishop Hunt As we've already seen, the d3-bishop is one of the key pieces in White’s setup in the Zukertort System. It’s not only aimed at Black’s kingside, but it also cements the first player's queenside, defending the ¢2-pawn, making it difficult for Black’s major pieces to break through to White’s camp on the c-file. And Black, lacking coun- terplay, is forced to constantly think about defending his monarch. For this reason, Black never stops trying to rid himself of this nasty white piece. He either triesto.cut off the b1-h? diagonal with ...2f6-e4 and then ...f7-£5, or to knock the bishop off its post at d3 with a pawn roller on the queenside (...a7-a6, ...b7-b5, ...c7-c5-c4). We have already encountered these possibilities for Black and will look at them in more detail later. But now let’s have a look at other kinds of ways to hunt down White’s light-squared bishop. First off we should devote some attention to the early foray of the black knight to b4: Rabinovich I. — Bogolyubov E. U1. De3 Dxd3 12. Yxd3 Moscow 1924 1. d4 Al6 2. DB €6 3. e354. 243 d5 5. 0-0 Ac6 6. b3 2d6 7. 2b2 0-0 8. DeS UcT 9. £4 exd4 10. exdd Db4 White has lost a very significant piece, which was not only important for an attack on the kingside, but also served as the main defender of the c2- pawn, virtually reducing to nothing all of Black’s efforts to obtain counterplay on the c-file. That’s precisely why Black puts a great deal of effort into eliminat- ing this bishop. On the other hand, after trading off the bishop that is important to White, the story doesn’t end there — of which we may convince ourselves in Part II, Chapter 14. And throughout this book we have encountered situa- 155Part II. Play for Black tions in which White gave Black a drub- bing without his light-squared bishop. 12...2.d7 13. Dxd7 An unsuccessful move: exchanging off the powerful knight on e5 for the pointless black bishop can’t possibly be applauded. 13...Wxd7 14. £5 Bac8 15, fxe6 fxe6 16. a3 Og4, with good play for Black. When undertaking a knight maneu- ver, Black has to be careful not to mess it up. The reality is that sometimes the bishop can retreat to e2, and the pawn on c2 becomes inedible: Daus P. — Fischer K. Correspondence 2001 1. d4 Df6 2. DPB €6 3. e3c5 4, 243 d5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-026 7. 2b2 exd4 Forthe consequences of this early ex- change, see Part I], Chapter 12. A more accurate move order is 7...0-0 & De5 (or 8. a3 Wc7, and White can’t prevent .-26-e5) 8...84c7 9. f4, and only now 9... exd4!?, when after 10. exd4 Black plays 10...Ab4. 8. exd4 0-09. Dbd2?! To 9. a3?! Black can reply 9...2e4!?. On the banal 9...Wc¢7, White plays 10. Bel, preventing the ...e6-e5 advance. Correct is 9. Hell? Ab4 10. fl Ded 11. c4f5 12. Ac3 Ad7 13. a3 Acé 156 14. exd5 (14. c5) 14...Axe3 15. Bxc3 exd5, with a slight positional advantage for White. 9...2b4 In the game Térrega — Lonewolf, corr. 1991, White thought that the c2- pawn couldn't be taken, evidently for- getting the old saying, “He that mischief hatches, mischief catches!” The game continued 9...¥c7 10. Hel?! (White decides to prevent ...e6-e5. After 10. a3 Black gains equality with 10..e5 11. dxe5 AxeS 12. DxeS &xeS 13. BxeS Wxe5; it’s possible to fight for an advan- tage with 10. c4, for example 10...e5 11. exdS Dxd4 [11...Axd5 12. dxeS Axes 13. DxeS &xeS 14. Wh5! £5 15. Hacl Ws 16, Axc8 Axc8 17. &.xf5 &xb2 18, Wxh7+ G8 19. 26, and despite his extra rook Black is hardly likely to avoid defeat] 12. Hel with an edge for White.) 10...Ab4: 11. 2e2? (it was sensible to accept the fact that the bishop had to be ex- changed, and continue fighting for the initiative with 11. eS) 11..Axe2 (IL...Wxc2!? isn’t bad, either) 12. cl Axel! 13. Exc? Axf3+ 14. Axf3 &xc7, and the game entered the technical phase, as they say. 10. 22 We? 11. a3 White sets a very simple trap. 1L...Ac6 Black, of course, refuses the booby- trapped gift and returns to the safety of his camp to support the planned ad- vance of the e-pawn. It’s bad to take the ¢2-pawn, for example: 11...2\xc2? 12. Bel; or 11...Wxe2? 12. Wxe2 Axc? 13. Ba2 247 14. Hcl Bac8 15. 243. 12. 2d3, and White has returned his bishop to its rightful place. But we should point out that Black now attained an equal game by playing 12...e5. In the next example, Black forced White to play c2-c4, taking away his main attacking piece configuration with the bishop on d3. In this case White can pursue other promising Chapter |. The Bishop Hunt courses of action: a pawn majority on the queenside, or hanging pawns in the center: Bogdanovich G. — Broberg H. Germany 2005 1. d4.d5 2. D3 Af 3. e3 6 4. 243 05 5. b3 Ac6 6. Lb2 exd4 7. exd4 246 8. Dbd2 With 8. a3!?, White could have pro- tected his bishop on d3 from the black knight’s harassment. 8...Db4 9. Ser 9, &b5+ gives nothing, as Black sim- ply blocks with 9...S2d7, and White has derived no benefit from this check. 9...We7 After 9...0-0 10. a3 Dc6 11. 243 we have one of the main fabiyas on the board, and White hasn’t lost any tempi. The desired advance ...e6-e5 is linked to a pawn sacrifice: 11...e5. See Salwe G. — Olland A., Karlsbad 1907, in Part II, Chapter 12. 157Part II. Play for Black 10. ¢4 An attempt to keep the attacking plan on course by means of 10. c3 would have allowed Black to undertake the freeing advance ...e6-e5, ie., 10...2ic6 11. 0-0 0-0 12. 2.43 e5, 10...b67! The drawback of this move is that after retreating the knight to c6 it’s no longer defended by the b-pawn, mean- ing that Black can have problems due to a pin on the c-file, bearing in mind that his queen is on c7. 10...0-0 is better, but he still doesn’t manage to avoid a white queenside pawn majority — assuming, of course, that he doesn’t choose to give White hanging pawns. But that’s a dif- ferent story altogether. 11. 0-0 Now White could obtain an advan- tage with 11. a3!? Dc6 12. Bel &b7 13. cxdS Axd5 (White is also better after 13...exd5 14. eS 0-0 15. 2b5 Axes 16. dxe5) 14. Be, and various positional benefits are guaranteed for White. 11...0-0 12. a3 Dc6 13. Hel 267 14. ¢5 2f4, and now after 15. b4 a6 (15...bxc5 16. b5 He7 17. dxc5 is also good for White) 16. g3 White was for preference. For more on the black knight’s maneuver ...Dc6-b4, see Part II, Chapter 14. In this opening there is something “French” about Black’s light-squared 158 bishop: asin the French Defense, it isn’t distinguished by any particular activ- ity. So sometimes Black gets subversive ideas about killing two birds, that is to say trading off the light-squared bish- ops — thereby both ridding himself of his stunted piece and removing White’s biggest trump. The idea is very simple in its execution: after ...b7-b6. play ...2.c8- a6. Bogdanovich G. — Teuber A. Leutersdorf 2007 1. d4.d5 2. DB Afe 3. €3 06 4. 243 5 5, b3 b6 6. 2b2 2a6 7. c4l? An obvious move. T.0xd4 In the following game, 7...Abd7 could be seen either as a blunder or as a pawnsacrifice to keep White’s king in the center: 8. cxd4 &xd3 9. dxe6 Ba6 10. exd7+ Wxd7 11. Ac3 (11. Abd2) 11...e7 (White’s tasks are more com- plicated after 11...2d8) 12. dxcS &xc5 (if Black did want to extract something worthwhile from the position, he should have done this with the queens on the board, i.e. 12...4g4) 13. Yxd7+ Dxd7 14. 0-0-0, and in the game Zivkovié D. — Danojlié P, Belgrade 2008, White came out of the opening a pawn up and his king was safely situated. 8. exd4 2b4+ 9, Dhd2 Acé In Pilgaard K. — Haiberg N., Den- mark 1991, after 9...0-0 10. 0-0 bd7 11. a3 Qd6 12. DeS dxe4 13. Ddxed,play switched to an isolated pawn for White (see above) in circumstances where Black’s light-squared bishop didn’t occupy the best position. 10. 0-0 0-0 11. AeS a5?! Black played better in Osmanovié K. — Dra&ko M., Sarajevo 1981: 11...2xeS 12. dxeS 2\d7, with an unclear game. 12. Daf White has cast nets with rather large holes in them, but nevertheless Black contrives to get caught! 12...He8 Black should have exchanged pawns on c4 first: 12...dxc4 13. bxe4, and only then 13... — although here, too, af- ter 14. Hel White has an advantage, and Chapter 1. The Bishop Hunt Black’s light-squared bishop would look better on b7. 13, cS! &xd3 14, Dxd3 and Black resigned, as 14...bxe5 is met by 15. a3. The opening trap used in this game isn’t mine. I spotted Zukertort using it and simply made a more useful version of it. See Zukertort J. — Blackbume J., Lon- don 1883, in Part I, Chapter 7. 159Chapter 2 “Hooray for Being Primitive!” Sometimes Black simply copies White’s moves for the time being. No, don’t be surprised, even this “childish” method of play for Black is encountered. For advo- cates of the simplest moves, Nimzowitsch once jokingly (or perhaps seriously) tossed out the slogan: “Hooray for being primitive!” Theory started to react negatively to this kind of “disgraceful” method of playing the opening. And the textbooks con- tain enoughexamples in which the punishment of someone who plays “monkey see, monkey do” is savored. And indeed, if White has the right to stay a step ahead, in that case he’ll give mate sooner. So that style of play is considered very risky. But, if you play like that up to a certain point — up to the critical point — the wise Tartak- over would have said: “Recognizing the crisis in time, that’s the greatest mystery of success.” Then again, in our case Tartakover could be referring to Black or White equally. Before we examine the “copying process,” I want to war you right away that some of the games given arrived at positions of interest to us without the oppo- nent’s copying moves, although they can also be reached by the copying method. For us, what’s important is to understand when the “moment of truth” arrives in this or that position in the Zukertort System: Ahlers B. — Burg T. Amsterdam 2004 1, d4d5 2. AB Af 3. 3. 64. 243 2d6 5. b3 If you’re starting to suspect that there’s a copycat sitting opposite you, you can hold off from the Zukertort tabiya for a while and send the game in another direction: 5. Abd2 Abd7 6. 0-0 (6. e4 dxe4 7. Axed Dxed 8. Qxet Dio = Przepiorka D. — Pleci I., Li¢ge 1930; 160 or 6. b3 e5!? 7. dxeS Axes 8. &b2 We7 [8...Axd3+ is also good] 9. h3 0-0 10. 0-0 £d7 with an equal game, Janowski D. — Schlechter C., Ostend 1907) 6...0- 0 (6...e5 7. ef dxed 8 Axed Axed 9. xed exd4 10. Yxd4 V6 Thomas R. — Hempson P., Bristol 1968 [10...0-0 is weaker, for example 11. 25 {6 {IL... 8e7? 12. &xh7+} 12. &e3 (White is already better, being ahead in develop- ment and eyeing a weakness in Biack’s castied position} 12...2sc5 13. Yc4+ (73. B.d54+!? 806? 14, Yxc5!4—}13...2.06Chapter 2. “Hooray for Being Primitive!” 14. Bd5 Bxd5 15. WxdS+ Bhs 16. Had! b6 Salwe G. — Alapin S., Vienna 1908, when White could have achieved an advantage with 17. b4!?, ie. 17...Dd7 {17..2a4 18, 4b3 Yes (18...b5 19. 04 We8 20. c5 Re5 21. 2d4+) 19. Bfelt} 18. dé in light of the weakness of the light squares in Black’s position], and here 11. &2g5!? deserved attention, i.e. 11...Wxd4 12. Dxd4 0-0 13. DFS with the initiative) 7. Bel (If7. Ye2 or 7. b3, then 7...e5! follows immediately; while on 7. c4 again the symmetrical 7...c5, and after 8. b3 Black comes out of imita- tion mode: 8...cxd4 9, exd4 b6 10. &b2 2b7 11. Ye2 We? 12. Aes Ba3 13. &c3 &b4 14. &2b2 £a3, and in Minev N. — Tolush A., Warsaw 1961, the play- ers made peace. It’s interesting that a top player like Richard Réti “copied” in the following game up to till move 7. I repeat: it’s a very plausible method, but only up toa certain point, when you have to suspend the copying process: 7. e4 ¢5 (7...dxe4 8. Dxe4 Dxed 9. 2xe4 DMG {9...e5 is bad because of 10. dxeS Dxe5 I]. QxeS BxeS 12. 2xh7+, and Black isa pawn down} 10. We2 {10. 2g5} 10... ®xet 11. Wxe4 Se7 12. 244 £6 13. Bad! We7 14.b3a5 15. Bfe1 248 16.c4 WaT /16...a4 17. d5} 17. d5 b6 18. We3 Wh4 19. BeS! Le7 20. 2c3 {20. Dd4y} 20... We 21. Wxe5 &xc5 22. dxe6 Exd1 23. Bxd| &xe6 24. Bd8+ 28 25. Ad4 c5 26. Abs Hd7 27. Bxd7 &xd7 28. eS QxbS 29. exbS c4 30. bxe4 Be5 31. fl, and Black ceased all resistance in Salwe G. — Réti R., Vienna 1908] 8. Hel dxed [the player with the stronger nerves can hold the line 8...2e8; see 7... Hes] 9. Dxe4 Dxed 10. Bxe4 exd4 11. Wxd4 and, after 11...2f6 12. 2g5 Be7 13. Bd3 Wxd4 14. Dxd4 Le5 15. Db3, White has a slight advantage. White can probably think up something more com- plicated, too.) 7...He& 8. e4 e5 9. exdS exd4 (here it’s already possible to get off the copying rails, but after 9...xd5 10. Dc4 exd4 11. Dxd6 cxd6 White is bet- ter.) 10. De4 Dxe4 (Black could have avoided material losses by means of 10...2b4 11. Bd2 Bxd2 [11...Dxd5 12. Degs D716 (12...h6 loses because of 13. LAT+ BIB 14. Rxb4+ Dxb4 15. Dxf7! Bxel+ (15...80xf7 16. Wxd4 +—) 16. Wel Qxf7 17. Wxb4 +—} 13. Hxe8+ Wrxe8 14. &xb4 Dxb4 15, &e4 DAbdS {15.6 16. Dxe6 fre6 +} 16. Bxd5 Dxd5 17. Wxd4 c6 18. Bel Ws 19. c4 DG 20. Des e6 21. Dxe6 fxe6 and White is better] 12. Wxd2 Axd5 13. 2e4 {Here White can no longer play as in the previous line, or rather that leads only toa draw: 13. DegsS Hxel+ 14. Exel h6 15. 2h7+ HB 16. Dxt7 Sxi7 17. Bxd4 D7f6 18. DeS+ BB 19. Dg6+ G7 20. DeS+ =) 13...D7b6 14. 2b3 Bed 15. @xd4, and White’s pieces are in stable, active positions, which cannot be said of the black pieces. Black hasn’t achieved equality yet.) 11. &xe4 Af6 12. Wxd4 (12. &g5!) 12.94 13. &g5, and in the game Bolduan M. — Witt A., Wies- baden 1996, White “acquired” a pawn. 5...6 6. Sb? &b7 7. 0-0 In the game Bogdanovich G. — Gutsche, Leutersdorf 2007, White serenely played 7. bd2, and after 7... ®bd7 8. De5 De4 Black’s irritating tactic succeeded, yielding equality, as White couldn’t find the “right words.” Now he had to play 9. 2xe4!? dxe4 10. 161Part II. Play for Black bs Bxe5 11. dxeS a6 (11...c6? 12. Le2 WeS 13. 0-0 Dxes 14. h4 WHS 15. Wd6 Bad7 16. Yc? Ac5 17. b4 Hc8 18. Yd6 hardly suits Black) 12. & fl. That’s all! No more copying — the copy paper is all used up! This position isn’t easy and re- quires independent thought. 7...0-0 8. Des After 8 c4 c5 we are: already in a variation from ECO E14. 9. cxd5!? (The crisis! And White sensed it. After 9. 2c3 Black can end the monotony and play 9...0xd4!?, when it’s now White who'll be playing with the hanging pawns: 10. exd4 c6 11. WYe2 [If you don’t want to play with hanging pawns, you can play 11. exd5, but in that case the copycat’s play is justified, as here it is difficult for White to muddy the waters. And if so, then there’s nothing here for him to go fishing with!) 11...Be8 12. Had! Hc8 13. Bfel Ab4 14. QbdI1 dxe4 15. bxc4, and we have a posi- tion with hanging pawns from the game Franco Z. — Sokolov A., Pamplona 1994. See Part I, Chapter 5.) 9...exd5 (There can’t be any more copying of moves. Of course, if you like the variation 9...cxd4 10. dxe6 dxe3 11. exf7+, then have at it. White likes it too! You can alsosteer away from repetition in a different manner with 9...xd5, but no one has played that yet. And ifit hasn’t been played, we won't spend any time on it. We'll only point out that White would have the initiative here.) 10. 4c3, and in Portisch L. — Onischuk A., Biel 1996, a position where Black has an isolated pawn soon arose. See Part I, Chapter 6. 8...2e4 162 9. £3 Here I can give the following advice: if you see that your opponent intends to keep copying your moves for the time be- ing, then it makes sense to slow down the development of your queen’s knight. The reality is that if White’s queen’s knight were on d2 now, Black could simply trade horses, simplifying the position. But now he must either part with his dark-squared bishop or retreat empty-handed. 9... 2xe5!? It’s no longer possible to repeat moves, as in all variations White obtains astrong attacking position, for example: 9...f6 10. fxe4 fxeS (10...dxe4 11. &c4 fxeS 12. Rxe6+ Wh8 13. Hxi8+ Yxf8 [13...Rxf8 14. Wed exd4 15. Dd2] 14. We4 Dc6 1S, Dd2) 11. BxfB+ xis (11....xf8 12. Wed 1) 12. dxeS S05 13. exds Axe3+ 14. Phi Axd5 15. Ac3. Black can’t be saved in this position, but to make this clear to everyone, given that there’s material equality, we will continue the variation a little further: 15...8c6 (the attempt to complete his development more quickly with 15...Chapter 2. “Hooray for Being Primitive!” 2c6 doesn’t help either, for example 16. Axd5 exd5 17. Wh5 Sh6 [17...26 18. 2xgél] 18. e6 Db4 19. Bfl Wes 20. &xh7+ Gxh7 21. 7 Yes 22. Be6, and here everything ends) 16. Wg4 We7 17. Be4 (White could already win a pawn now with 17. 2c4, with an ongo- ing offensive) 17...Ad7 18. D+! Shs 19. 2e4 gxf6 20. 2xc6 Hd8 21. 2xd7 Wxd7 (21...E.xd7 loses even more quick- ly: 22. exié WI7 23. Wed) 22. exfo WH? 23. Hdl Hxd1+ (on 23...2g8? there is the beautiful queen sacrifice 24. 4 g7+!) 24. Wxdl, and Black is beyond salva- tion, as the {6-pawn ties the black queen to the last rank. In Dzagnidze N. — Tahirov F, Ba- tumi 2001, Black returned his knight to its place: 9...Af6 10. d2. So, the placid flow of events has been disrupted. Black has retreated in disgrace. And we could stop here, as the critical point has passed, but the game nevertheless ended in an extremely interesting and instruc- tive way. A good addition to the topics we've already looked at! 10...c5 11. Ye2 We7 12. c4 Dbd7 13. f4 Ded 14. cxdS @xd2 (14...exd5 15. Axed dxed 16. 25 +) 1S. @xd7 Dxfl (15... xd7 16. dxeb Wxe6 17. Wxd2 +): 16. Afo+! gxf6 (nor does 16...Gh8 17. Axh7 Afe8 [17...Axe3 18. Ags!) 18. Wh5 &g8 19. dxcS &xc5 20. Dgs! save him either, as White rips Black's position to shreds) 17. Yg4+ ths 18. dxcS Be5 19, Wh3 £5 20. AxeS+, and Black resigned a few moves later. 10. dxe5 Ac5, and Black managed to get out of the copying rut without vis- ible losses, but White’s position is pref- erable. To conclude, I want to say that this very simple but unusual method for achieving equality is quite acceptable, as White also has to exhibit both vigilance and innate cleverness to avoid ending up in the drawing harbor. 163Chapter 3 An “Aggressive Defense” for Black On the Kingside Public opinion on the theory of the Zukertort System has concluded that the kingside is White’s bailiwick. But sometimes Black remembers that attack, or “ag- gressive defense” as Hans Kmoch put it, is the best form of defense and he himself begins an attack on the kingside. This situation is quite unpleasant for White: he’s aways had the “serve” in that area of the board, and now he has to think about how to neutralize Black’s threats. One ofthe first people to encounter this plan by Black was a very young José Raul Capablanca. Capablanca J.R. — Corzo J. La Habana 1901 1. d4.d52. D13c53.e3 Dc 4.b3 e6 5, 2b2 Df6 6. Abd2 exd4 7. exd4 2d6 8, 2430-0 9, 0-0 DhS 10. 23 £5 With his last two moves, Black tele- graphs his intentions clearly — to quickly mate the “kid” — and for that he needs to attack on the kingside. 11. DeS DIE 12. f4 A move that puts e4 at Black’s dis- posal. Without that move, White could at any moment drive the knight away from e4 with f2-f3. In general, it's worth noting that after ...f7-f5 Black has the maneuver .)h5-f6-e4 in reserve, reinforcing his 164 position. 12. c4!?, attacking Black’s cen- ter, deserved attention. But an advance of the black pawn to f4, unsupported by pieces, didn’t put White in any danger. Moreover, in that case the squares e4 and g4 would become inaccessible to Black, and White’s light-squared bishop would come to life. But in any case White should pay attention to Black’s actions on the kingside, and perhaps that’s why Capa- blanca decided to nip his opponent's ag- gressive ideas in the bud. 12...2.xe5?! The decision to go in for this ex- change was probably based on a desire to attack his opponent with the pawns in front of his king. In that case it would be desirable for the center to be closed.Chapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside 13, fxeS Dad Black still had an opportunity to put his knight on e4: 13...De4. Vasily Panov didn’t like this move because of 14, Sxed! fxed (14...dxe4 15. Dc) 15. Exf8+ Wxt8 16. We2 “withanattack for White.” True, he doesn’t explain what this attack consists of: whether an attack in the center with c2-c4, or seizing the f-file and playing on the kingside. But Black won’t be sitting around twiddling his thumbs, either. In general, it’s diffi- cult to say that 13...2e4 is a bad move. 14, We? Wh6 15. Af3 Threatening 15...2d4 or 15... De. 15,..d7 Black rejects the main maneuver for Black in the Zukertort — 15...b4 — and now his opponent has to decide which bishop to leave on the board: either to play 16. £43 Hd8 17. &xb4 Yxbd, orto ignore his opponent's last move, choos- ingsome other plan. 16. a3 Aimed against ...2ic6-b4. 16...@h8 17. h3 Abe 18. Ye DAN 19. &g2 g5?! A risky undertaking, White is ready to meet his opponent’s intrigues on the kingside fully armed. 19...2e7. In this position ...ac8 has been suggested, witha later ...2.bS, eliminating the main defender of the c2-pawn, the d3-bishop. By the way, later Capablanca resorted to this maneuver on more than one occa- sion when playing Black in similar posi- tions. 20. g4! De? 20...f4 is poor because of 21. h4!, and Black’s fortification on the kingside quickly falls apart. 21, We3 Hg8 22, Hael Dg 22...b5!?, and after 23. c4, then 23...2xc4!. 23, exf2 Dfd+ 24. Gh2 Dxd3 25. Wxd3 exf5 26. c4t White starts to open up the long di- agonal with the decisive addition of his dark-squared bishop into the game. 26...We6 Capablanca advised 26...Wa6, which evidently wouldn’t have saved Black ei- ther. But by playing 26...24!? Black could have turned the game around. Perhaps researchers into Capablanca’s work 165Part II. Play for Black could devote some time to this possibil- ity for Black and they'll discover all the secrets of this position. 27. exdS Wxd5 28. e6! 2bS 28...&xe6? 29. Bxed!. In this position, the adult Capablanca admitted that he should have played 29. YYd2 (the young Ca- pablanca preferred the spectacular 29. Wb5), with an easily winning position, for example 29...2xfl (on 29...d8 there follows 30. HeS) 30. exf? Hef8 (if 30...Wxf7, then White plays 31. d5+ Eg? 32. @xgs Wg6 33. Be6) 31. DAxgs with irresistible threats. Now let’s have a look at a game in which Black advances his pawn to £4. Matlak M. — Pastor K. Czech Republic 2000 1. d4d52. Af3 e6 3. e354. b3 Acé 5. a3 Af 6. 2b2 Le7 7. Dbd2 0-0 8. 2.3 exd4 9. exd4 AhS 10. g3 £5 11. 0-0 Af6 12. Bel 166 The immediate 12. c4!?, not losing time on the rook move, is better. 12...Ded 13. c4 247 14. b4 Le8 15. co) Heedless of the kingside, White cre- ates a pawn majority on the queenside. 15...2hS 16. 2e2 a6 Black must take prophylactic mea- sures, as White was threatening b4-b5 and Df3-e5. 17, Doar Here White could try and rearrange his pieces, starting with 17. @g2, in which case events could develop thus: 17...f4 (He needsto hurry with this move; 17...2.16 18. Bel Bxe2 19. Dxe2 is weaker, as Black’s knight is chased away from e4 with f2-f3. Black’s weak backward pawn on e6 and White’s queenside pawn majority allow Us to evaluate the position as favoring the latter.) 18. Y¥e2 /d7. The position is un- clear. For example, try this fun variation: 19, &d3 fxg 20. fxe3 Bxf3+ 21. Dxf3 2x3 22. Gxf3 Bret 23. &g2 Beet 24. Wx? 2x2 25. Yxf2 &f6 26. Hadl. 17...£4 18. Ef1 Qed 19. Hg2 Wes 20. Dfd2 265 21. ¢4 (see diagram next page) 21...03+!1? Black sacrifices a pawn for the initia- tive. 22. Bxf3 Dud? 23. Dxd2Chapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside 23. Wxd2 is even worse because of 23...4g6 24, h3 hS with a very strong at- tack. 23... g6 24. Hel 2.43 25. 02 29s 26. &.xd3 Wxd3 27. Db3 Wes 28. Hes 47 29, Wa3 Wh6 30. We2 Objectively speaking, White al- ready should have been seeking to re- peat moves: 30. Wh3 Wg6 31. Wd3, but Black could also decline White’s offer by playing 31...4f6. 30...Haf8 31. 201? 31. Bh31?, 31... Axel 32. Dxel Dxd4 33. Ye3, and here Black would have obtained an advantage with 33...2f4!2. In this game we saw how dangerous Black's plan involving the f-pawn’s ad- vance can be. That’s why White must keep a careful eye on Black’s activities on the kingside and not forget about prophylactic measures. If Black wants to attack on the king- side, the following plan to seize the initia- tive by saving tempi can be recommend- ed for him: Instead of playing ...c7-c5 or losing time on the complicated maneuver -Df6-hS, ...£7-15, ...Qh5-f6-e4, but im- mediately places his knight on e4; but in that case he should bear in mind the con- sequences of his knight being captured on e4, with a change in the pawn structure. Black is playing the Zukertort System in reverse. I call it the “black Zukertort.” It doesn’t matter that there’s a slight whiff of plagiarism here. We're taking it, pri- marily, from ECO E14. And besides, the boundaries of opening variations are rel- ative, and very often they give each other a hard shove. Hodgson J. — Polgar S. Brussels 1985 1. d4.d52. Af3 Df6 3. e3 6 4, 243 Dbd7 5. 0-0 2.46 6. Abd2 0-0 7. 04 b6 8 b3 2b7 9, 2b2 If White plays 9. Ye2 to stop the black knight from getting to e4, then Black can switch to queenside play with 9.65, 9...WeT And now have a look at the Lasker combination as executed by English grandmaster Tony Miles: Dizdarevié E. — Miles A., Biel 1985, continued 9... Ded 10. We2 (In Najdorf M. — Bal- ashov Y., Wijk aan Zee 1973, White brought his queen out to e2, but the game is interesting not for that circum- stance, but rather because Balashov 167Part II. Play for Black obtained a favorable pawn structure: 10. We2 We7 11. Hadi Bad8 12. Dbl [White moves his knight away from the exchange so that later he can chase away the e4-knight with f2-f3] 12...f5 13. He5 [It would seem that White has nearly carried out his plan, but only al- most. Balashov outstrips the Argentin- ian grandmaster, and with a character- istic Zukertort System maneuver he ob- tains a queenside pawn majority.] 13... SixeS!? 14, dxeS DecS 15. Bc2 dred 16. bxc4 Led. A few moves later Black agreed a draw, although his position was preferable thanks to his better pawn structure. In Laketi¢é G. — Ikonnikov V., Chelyabinsk 1992, Black obtained a pawn majority on the queenside withthe maneuver that we looked at in Fuentes — Arencibia, Part I, Chapter 7: 10. Bcl £5.11. DeS Sxe5!? 12. dxedS AdeS 13. Se2 Axd2! 14. Wxd2 dxc4 15. Wxd8 Efxd8 16. &xc4 &a6! [Black already has a positional advantage thanks to his superior pawn structure] 17. 2.d4 &xc4 18. Exc4 a6 19. Bc6 Hac8 20. Bfel &f7 21. b4 Hd7 22. b5 Ab8 23. H6c4 5 24. bxc6 Hde7. Black won back the pawn, then traded off the rooks and took the game to victory. Note how, in the “black Zukertort,” strategies were used that are typical of the Zukertort System as played by White.) But let’s return to the game, which is as differ- ent from the ones we’ve just examined as Mozart’s Seventh Symphony is from Chopin’s Funeral March: 10...f5. In this position White has mainly played either 11. cxd5, or 11. Ae5. Moreover, Black’s results have been more success- ful. Both 11. Hacl and 11. Hfd1 have been encountered, where White won 168 thanks to a blunder by Black as early as on the next move. But White played an- other, seemingly at first glance appro- priate, move: 11. Had1?. Such moves Tartakover described as, “A carefree cliché.” Interestingly, the position after 11. Bad] was encountered in the game Kempinski R. — Parligras M., Antalya 2004, in which the grandmasters im- mediately signed a peace accord! But the position is in fact almost hopeless for White. Let’s see what a masterpiece the English grandmaster created where others agreed a draw: 11...D)xd2!? 12. xd2? (We can say that this is the losing move. Taking with the rook gave him chances of staying alive: 12. Hxd2 dxc4 13. &xc4 &xf3 14. gxf3 [14. &2xe6+? loses a piece to 14... Bhs 15. gxf3 fon 15, 2xd7 Black sac- rifices his bishop with 15...2.xh2+ 16. Gxh2 Yad+ 17, Sg Sed, leading to unavoidable mate} 15...4g5+ 16. Gh Who] 14...2xh2+ 15. Bhi [An enter- taining variation follows on 15. &xh2?, Check out 15...Wh4+ 16. &g2 Wg5+ 17. Gh Hf 18. &xe6t+ Hxeo 19. cd Bh6+ 20. Yg2 b5! (Black deflects White’s queen from the a2-g8 diagonal,Chapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside as his newly unleashed rook on e6 deliv- ers the final biow ...e6-g6} 21. Wd5 Weot! fwith this precise move, Biack doesn’t let White tie up the f5-pawn} 22. Gh2 c6, and White is forced to part with his queen to avoid mate.] 15... Wh4 16. Bfdi [In this situation, too, it is bad to take the e6-pawn, for example 16. 2xe6+ Gh8 17. Hel fe 18. 2 xfS {other replies also lose: 18. Hg2 2d6+ 19, gi Bxe6 and Black is a piece up; 18. 2xd7HA6 19. Yxf5 xg 1+ 20.Yh3 Sxf2 21. Bxh4d Uxh4+ 22. Gg2 2x03 with a winning position for Black} 18... Bxglt+ 19. Sxgl Wg5+ 20. Bg4 Bx 21. Wed Haf8, and White has no satis- factory defense] 16...Wh3 17. &2f1 Wh5 18. 2£.g2 Af, and White can’t advance on the kingside, for example on £3-f4 there is &h2xf4 winning a pawn, while Black can calmly reinforce his position. But still, taking with the rook on move 12 was less unpleasant than the move in the game.) 12...dxe4!2 (Above all, with his last two moves Miles opens up the long h1-a8 diagonal) 13. Axc4 (Let’s have a lookat other captures: a. First of all we should note that after 13. Wxc4 Black first chases the white queen away from e6 with 13...d5,andthencontin- ues his combination: 14. Ye2 &xh2+ 15. Sxh2 Wh4+ 16. ogi 2xg2, when we have a position from the game that we'll see later. b. Black’s tasks are more complicated after 13. &xc4. Now get teady for a long variation — there’s no way to avoid it: 13...@xh2+. So, the wheel of the Lasker combination is turning! 14. Gxh2 Wh4+ 15. Hel &xg2, and thanks to the fact that the light-squared bishop is on c4 and not on d3, White wins a tempo to capture on e6. This circumstance allows him to avoid a mating attack, but not to save the game: 16. &xe6+ [16. &xg2 loses because of 16...4g4+ 17. Ghi Efe; while the win for Black is more com- plicated after 16. 3, for example 16... Efe 17. Hed fxe4 18. Wxeg2 Be6 19. Wxe6 fafter 19. 2xe6+ Hxe6 20. Ya2 WyS5+ 21. Gf2 exf3 White's position is also difficult} 19...hxg6 20. & xe6+ 18! 21. Bxd7 Wg3+ 22. whl e7, and White can resign] 16...&h8 17. £3 [17. 4 is bad because of 17... 3] 17...2h3 18. De4 (on 18. Hf2 there follows the simple 18...%g3+; while in the event of 18. Yxc7, the winning variation is a bit longer: 18... f6 19. YWh2 Hg6+ 20. Hh! 2g2+ 21. Sel Qxf3+] 18...Axfl 19. &xd7 [19. Exfl also loses, for ex- ample 19...fxe4 20. 2xd7 Hf6 21. Wh2 fafter 21. 8 f2Hg6+ 22 2¢44g5 23. Eel (23. d5 23...exf3) 23...n5 Black is left the exchange up, and White’s king is in as much danger as before} 21... g5+ 22. Gh Bhé 23. Bh3 BPs 24. 4 Whs 25. Sg2 Hite 26. f5 He6 27. Hf2 Bc2! — Tartakover would probably have re- flected this decisive inclusion of the rook with a diagram! — 28, Xxc2 W13+ 29. Sgl Hxh3 30. Yxh3 Wxh3, and despite the fact that this ratio of ma- terial often saves the weaker player, or can even take him to victory, in our case White should lose] 19...2a6. The white knight is in the center of the board and has eight retreat squares, but they all drop material, and White tries any trick to prevent material equality: 20. Wf2 We? 21. 2c6 fxed 22. 2xed [after 22. &xa8 all the black pieces are aimed at White’s king, and even his extra piece can’t help him: 22...2xf3 23. Wg2 Wh4 169Part II. Play for Black 24, Bxe4 Hy3 25. d5 2e2] 22...We5+ 23. Wg2 Wxe3+, and Black’s material advantage is slight, but enough to win. c. We should also point out that the pawn capture 13. bxc4 allows Black to carry out the Lasker combination in its classical form.) 13...2xh2+! 14. &xh2 Wh4+ 15. Sgl: 15...23! (A wonderful and not so obvious move, with which the English GM blockades the f-pawn. Instead 15... &.xg2 is much weaker, leading to an un- clear game. And the game move is much more subtle than the second move of the Lasker combination. We looked at games in Part I, Chapter 2, in which the Lasker combination was carried out, but there the f6 square, which corresponds to the f3 square in our game, was con- trolled by the opponent’s pieces. And so Miles’s move wouldn’t work.) 16. d2. Instead if: a) 16. Bd? YWg4 17. 93 Wh3—-+. b) 16. fel Bf 17.211 Bh6-+. ¢) 16. gxf3 Wg5+ 17. Gh] Bf -+. d) 16. S02 Bxp2 17. Gxg2 (17. 3 Wp3 18. Hr 2n3+ 19. hl Yxt2-+) 17... g5+ 18. hi Bf -+. e) 16. e4 Hf —+. 170 Returning to the game: When a mi- nor piece cuts offthe second (orseventh) rank, you can then boldly sacrifice the second bishop, as the defending player can’t bring his major pieces to the king’s defense by advancing the f-pawn. 16... &xg2! 17. £3 (The attempt to bring the queen into the battle zone via the h2-b8 diagonal doesn’t help either: 17. &xg2 Wed+ 18. Bhi Bf 19. Wxe7 es! —+) 17...f6 18. 2c4. White hurries to free up the second rank so that he can include his queen in the defense of the kingside, but a with the simple bishop retreat 18... #23 Black retains an important attack- ing piece . White resigned here as a re- sult of the following variation: 19. &h2 Eg6+ 20. Phi 222+ 21. Gel AxB+. Yabba-dabba-doo! 10. AeS Ded 11. Hel In the following game, Black used the same plan with an f-pawn advance: 11. Axd7? Wxd7 12. Hel £5 13. exdS Bxd2 14, Wxd2 exd5 15. g3:Chapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside 15...f4! 16. exf4 2 xf4 17. exfa Wedt, and in Vaganian R. — Onischuk A., Poikovsky 2005, Black ended the game with perpetual check. After 11. 2xe4 dxed 12. 2xd7 Wxd7 13. We2 £5 14. c5, it isn’t easy to evalu- ate the position. 11... We have a reversed Zukertort Sys- tem on the board, and with his last move Black switches to a reversed Pillsbury setup. Zukertorters should pay atten- tion to this option for Black’s play, and it’s also possible to transpose to it from other opening variations. 12. Dd 12. f4 deserves attention, switching to an Anti-Anti-Pillsbury! 12...Ead8 On the verge of the possible open- ing of the d-file, Black occupies it with a rook. 13. @xd7 Fans of playing with the bishop pair could go into the variation: 13. cxd5 exd5 14. Acé Axc6 15. Bxc6, which also suits Black. 13...2.xd7 14. We2 The attempt to lay a minefield with the aim of preventing a later advance by the black f-pawn, for example with 14. 23, has its drawbacks. In this case Black can lift his plan of play from the original White side of the Zukertort System. 14...f4 15. exf4 Exf4 16. DeS OxeS 17. dxe5 Ac5 18. 2b1 dxe4 19. bxed We5 20. £3 Dad 21. 05? 21. 2al? is bad because of 21... &xf3!. After the relatively better 21. a3, Black would probably play 21... Efd4 with the better position, but the whole battle would still lie ahead. 21...2b4 22. h4 22. f4 is better, as after the game move Black could have ended the contest im- mediately with 22...Exh4, and no satis- 171Part II. Play for Black factory defense for White is to be seen. Black’s method of play in this game in reply to the Zukertort System deserves attention. Like cures like! In the next game, with his active moves in the combat zone White enabled an attack by Black on the kingside: Dus-Chotimirsky F. — Marshall F. Karlsbad 1907 1, d4.d5 2. Df3 06 3. e3 c5 4. b3 cxdd 5, exd4 Af6 6, 2d3 Dc6 7. 0-0 27 8, 2b2.0-0 9. Dbd2 DhS 10. Hel In the previous games, White didn’t allow the black knight to reach f4: 10. g3 £5. In this game we see another possible plan. 10...2f4 11. 2f1 2d7 12. g3 With 12. 2e5!? White could cool his opponent’s attacking fervor. 12...2\g6 13. h4?! On the brink of an attack by Black with ...f7-f5-f4, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to disturb Black’s center with 13. c4!?. But asa result of the “active” move in the game it turned out that White weakened his castled position. 13...2.46 14. a3? The purpose of this move isn’t clear. White loses time instead of trying to extinguish Black’s initiative. With that aim, again 14. 4\e5!? didn’t look bad, 172 Br example Wie 1S hes 2S 16. 23, with a complicated position. 14...15 15. Ags B16 16. Daf3?! White underestimates Black's at- tacking chances. It was possible to close the position with the move 16. f4!?, as 16...Axd4? doesn’t work because of 17. @hl!. The second important factor is that in the event of 16. f4 the black knights can’t reach e4 quickly. 16...h6 17. Qh3 £4 By opening the f-file, Black forces White to switch over to defense. 18. gd fxg 19. fxg WES 20. 243? In a difficult position, White makes the decisive mistake. After 20. Afg! it was still possible to stay afloat somehow. 20... g4 21. DeS DAxhdt 22. Gh2 ®xe5 23. dxeS DB+, and Black soon prevailed. Inthe next game, Black seizes the e4 square early on, and with energetic play he shows that he was prepared to storm White’s fortress in the event the latter castled short. White considered it best to withdraw to the opposite flank: Gagloshvili R. — Shariyazdanov A. Krasnodar 1997 1. d4.d5 2. DB Ase 3. €3 06 4. 23 5 5. b3 Zcé6 6. a3?!Chapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside If we throw out all the “could haves” and “would haves,” we have to admit that White’s last move was hasty, as it al- lows Black immediately to deviate from the main line in the Zukertort System, in which he usually has to conduct a dif- ficult battle. In the game Pedersen E. — Norwood D., London 1986, Black also went for an early occupation of the e4 square, but the first player’s correct reaction (under- mining Black’s center with 9. c4) allowed White to obtain a strong initiative: 6. 0-0 xd4?! 7, exd4 S.e7 8. 2.b2 (8, Dbd2!?, not allowing the black knight toseize the e4 square) 8...Ae4 9. c4!? 0-0 10. Ac3 (Better than the routine 10. Abd2, as now in some variations White will have the threat of @xd5) 10...g5 (10...f5 11. exd5!? &xc3 [Black has to part with his e4-knight, as 1 1...exd5 would be met by 12. AxdS!; see the notes to White’s move 8] 12. 2.xc3 exd5, and White takes the e4 square) 11. e5!? Axd4 12. f4 t. 6...exd4!? For further details on the early ex- change of pawns on d4, see Part II, Chapter 12. 7. exdd 2d6 In Kosashvili Y. — Gruenfeld Y., Ris- hon le Zion 1994, Black attacked the castled white king with a small force, in addition to which in comparison with the main game he lost a tempo (his bishop reaching d6 in two moves), yet he was still able to get the position moving. True, when the smoke cleared White was a pawn up. We won’t do any real finger- pointing — our main task is to show that Black’s plan of attack against White’s castled position is dangerous for the lat- ter: 7...2e7 8 2b2 0-0 9. 0-0 Hed 10. Bel £5 11. Dbd2 £.d6 12. c4 Wie 13. b4 Whe 14. Afi g5 15. He5 (after the white knight cuts off the h2-b8 diagonal, Black Teally has only two pieces participating in the attack, and White can also take the e4-knight out of play at any time) 15...4h4 16. g3 (it was also possible to avoid weakening the castled position: 16. We2!?) 16..Wh3 17. 13 (if White plays 17. exdS exd5 18. £3, then Black can go for a knight sacrifice: 18...f4!? [after 18... ®f6 19. Wel f4 we get a position from the game] 19. fxed & xe5 20. dxe5 3 with double-edged play) 17...2f6 (on 17...f4 White replies 18. He2 [taking the knight is bad: 18. fxe4? 2xe5 19. dxed f3 20. Wa? f2t+ 21. Vhi frelY 22. Yxel dt] 18.216 19. Hg? with a clear advantage) 18. Wel f4 19. cxd5 exd5 (19...xd5!?) 20. Axc6 bxe6 21. Yxc6 g4 22. Be2 Whs 23. Wxd6 gxf3 24. 2x3 (24. 2dl) 24. WB 25. Wxld Ded (25...Wxf4) 26. Waf3 Bxf3, and now it wouldn’t be bad for White to play 27. e3, when Black would have to fight for the draw. & 2b2 If White wants to prevent Black from occupying e4, and plays 8. We2 or 8. &bd?2, then Black manages to carry out a freeing advance of the e-pawn. See Salwe — Olland, Karlsbad 1907, in Part II, Chapter 12. On 8. 0-0, as in the game, it’s also better for Black to immediately oc- 173Part II. Play for Black cupy e4: 8...De4 (8...e5 doesn’t work anymore because of 9. dxe4 Axe5 10. Hel (stronger than 10. Axe5, i.e. 10... Bxe5 11. Hel Bed 12. B2b5+ Ger: clearly this position also favors White, but Black still has some chances to make a nuisance of himself] 10...2\e4 11. 2b5+ Ac6 12. c4, and things look bad for Black) 9. c4 (9. &xe4 yields nothing for White, for example 9... dxe4 10, Qg5 £e7) 9...0-0 (or 9...£5 immediately, when White can try and get her queenside pawns moving: 10. c5 &c7 11. b4, and it cannot be said with complete certainty which isworth more here, the notorious pawn majority on the queenside, or Black’s counterat- tack on the opposite flank) 10. £.b2 (In Paneque P. — Frometa Z., Matanzas 1993, after 10, We2 £5 11. 2c3 Black obtained a position in which the main positive factor for her wasn’t so much the opportunity to attack her oppo- nent’s king, as the circumstance that White didn’t get the pleasure of travel- ing along the main roads of the Zuker- tort System. The move 10. c5 with the aim of obtaining a pawn majority on the queenside is relevant as before.) 10...f5 11. Ac3 He? (after 11...2.d7 in Kura- jica B. — Kovaéevic A., Ljubljana 2004, the players agreed to a draw, but I think that after 12. cxdS Dxc3 13. &xc3 exdd White would have had a slight but solid advantage, as the e5 square was at his disposal) 12. He5 (after 12. Ye2 247 13. HeS Bxes 14. dxeS Dgé 15. exd5 ®xe3 16. &xc3 D4 17. WF Axd5, the position in Nagy C. — Havasi T., Hun- gary 2003, is close to equal) 12...2\xc3 13. &xc3 Hg6?! 14. Zixg6 hxg6 (asa re- sult of the unsuccessful exchange Black 174 is left with a backward pawn, and the subsequent attempt to obtain counter- playalso fails) 15. Xe1 Wh4 16. 23 Wes 17. h4 W6 18. f4. White has eliminated the possibility of counterplay on the kingside for Black, established a weak- ness on e6, and now starts to create a pawn majority on the queenside, which he subsequently took advantage of with a simple pawn advance: 18...2d7 19. Wd2 Bac8 20. ¢5, Sismanis A. — Pa- pathanasiou An., Aghia Pelagia 2004. 8...Ded!? 8...0-0 is weaker, asthen White takes control of e4 with 9, @bd2, and 9...¢5?! isn’t enough to equalize: 10. Axe5 He8 11. f4. See Part II, Chapter 12, Salwe G —Olland G, Karlsbad 1907. 9. Dbd2 For 9. c4, see the notes to White’s move 8. 9.5 10. We2 WI6 11. 04 0-0 12. b4 a6 13. Db3 It’s quite possible that White’s playChapter 3. An “Aggressive Defense” for Black on the Kingside could be reinforced with 13. c5!?, when after 13...24 14. Db3 it’s difficult for Black to reach the white king, plus the pawn majority on the queenside has some significance. 13...g5 14. Dfd2 On the provocative 14. h3, 14...247! is bad because of 15. hxgd fxg 16. 2xe4, and White breaks up Black’s position. To obtain a queenside pawn majority and stabilize the situation in the center, it’s possible to play 14. cS first, and only after Black’s bishop retreats with 14... fcT7 (14...2.f4 15. g3) to play 15. h3, when we have a position with “dynamic equality,” as they say in opening manu- als. 14...g4 15. 0-0-0 Knowing how the rest of the game went, we can suggest that it would have been more solid for White to play 15. 2xe4 now, when after 15...fxe4 (15... dxe4 16, h3 leads to double-edged play) 16. Yxg4+ Gh8 17. Ye2 the position on the board is very similar to the game, but ina safer variation. 15...a5 16. 2xed fxed 16...dxe4!? 17, dS 25 is not bad ei- ther; White’s king is feeling uncomfort- able. 17. Wxgd+ Gh8 18. bS a4!? 19. bxe6 axb3 20, c5 2.4, In this sharp position it turned out that Black’s king was hiding in a safe spot, his pieces have more oppor- tunity to reach the white king, and White went for an incorrect piece sacrifice. The result was fair — Black won! This game shows that a timely occupation of the e4 square by Black enables him to wrest the initiative from White on the kingside, taking away one of the main trump cards in the Zukertort System. But preliminary analysis shows that White hasn’t had his last word yet, either, in the variation with an early black knight sortie to e4. On the whole, we can say of the plan for Black with ...2)f6-e4 and the advance of the f- pawn that it’s quite dangerous for White, and that if possible it is better for him not to surrender control of e4. 175Chapter 4 Is it Possible to Perplex White With ...4/b6? Even at an early stage Black can bring his queen out to b6, keeping aneye on the white d4-pawn and establishing the threat of ...c5-c4. The idea behind the queen sortie is to disrupt the intended development of the white pieces. But it comes back like a boomerang to Black’s position, as, for example, he has to develop his light- squared bishop to d7. As practice has shown, it’s better for Black to refrain from violating one of the basic principles of play in the opening — making a queen move at such an early stage of the game: Danieli E. — Zanellato L. Bratto 2004 1. d4.d5 2. AfS e6 3. 3 c5 4. 243 DIG 5. b3 Dc6 6. 0-0 Let’s see how a still very young Ca- pablanca fought against the experienced player Corzo, who had decided to con- fuse the boy with a pseudo-active queen move. The game was played in Havana in 1901: 6. 2b2 Wb6 7. Abd2 04 8. Be? (White reacts calmly to Black’s provoca- tive play) 8...cxb3 (Black decides to clarify immediately the situation on the queen- side, resigning himself to White’s enjoy- ing the better pawn structure. Sooner or later he will have to do this. Such are the fruits of his opening adventure.) 9. axb3 2d6 10. 0-0 0-0 11. c4 (the drawbacks of the early queen outing can already be felt: a fork is threatened, and generally 176 it’s not clear what it’s doing on b6) 11... 2b4 12. 2.3 (the bishop safely returns to the place that fate has prepared for it in the Zukertort System, and White’s pawn structure also instills confidence in him) 12...2d7 13. Yc2 (playing to seize the center with 13. e4!? deserves at- tention, based on the tactical point that Black can’t take the d4-pawn: 13...2.xd2 14. @xd2 @xd4 [14..dxe4 15. Axed] 15. e5! Hed [if you retreat with 15...Ae8 you lose the exchange with 16. £a3, but if you go to e4 you “lose your head”) 16. c5!) 13...Bac8 14. eS! £2 xd2 (the grown man picks up the gauntlet thrown at him by the boy; 14...\We7 was more cautious) 15. Wxd2 Wxb3. It’s difficult to explain this crazy move. And now the simple 16. &a3! would have put everything in its place at once. 6...4b6?!Chapter 4. Is it Possible to Perplex White with ...Yb6? A preliminary exchange on d4, which reduces the effect of the early queen sor- tie, has also been encountered: 6...cxd4 7. exd4 &.d7 8. a3 Wb6, but in that case White can calmly put his bishop on b2: 9, &b2, as there’s no longer the threat of ...c5-c4. 9.8 10. Abd2 £e7 IL. Hel 0-0 12. Des Axd4 13. Ade4 dxc4 14. 2xd4 We7 15. Dxc4 Soule L. — Ra- manan N., corr. 2001. White is slightly better. See also Rubinstein A. — Flam- berg A., £6dz 1906, in Part Chapter 6. Black has also brought his queen out to bé at a later stage of the game: 6...2.¢7 7, &b20-0 8. Abd2 Whé 9. c4 (Luring one of Black’s pieces to c5 also deserves attention. In that case the automatic c2-c4 by White becomes valid: 9. dxcS WxeS [9...&xc5 10, a3 Be7 11. c4] 10. 4 followed by Hcl) 9...Ab4 (9...cxd4 10. exd4 dxe4 11. Dxc4 Weds 12. We2 [12. Bel] 12..b4 13. 2b1 b6, and in Rothen H. — Karlsson L., Sweden 1996, there arose a playable position with an isolated pawn for White) 10. &b1 cxd4 11. @xd4 (in my opinion, the possibility of playing with hanging pawns shouldn’t be ruled out: 11. exd3 dxc4 12. bxe4 (12. @xc4] 12...d3 13. 2c3) 11.28 12. exdS Dbxd5 13. Ac4 c7 14. Be2 2d7 with better chances for White, Polgar S. —Van Riemsdijk H., Amsterdam 1990. (see diagram) 7. Bb2 Inthe game Vidal J. — SumarJ., Mar del Plata 1967, White went in fora pawn sacrifice with 7. Dbd2!? cxd4 8 exd4 @xd4 9. &b2, and had compensation in the form of full development, while Black has hardly started to mobilize: 9... Acb (9...Dxf3+ 10, Wrxf3 Be7 11. 04 0-0 isn’t bad either, but the move in the game is stronger) 10. a3 (so long as the black king is in the center, it’s not out of place to disturb the opponent’s cen- ter pawns: 10, c4!?) 10...e7 11. We2 0-0 12. Hae! 2d7 13. Dgs e5!? (Black is drawing strength from the position; generally speaking, trading his center e-pawn for White’s outside a-pawn isn’t favorable, but with that White’s dark- squared bishop, one of his most impor- tant attacking pieces, leaves the board) 14. BxeS DxeS 15. WxeS 2xa3 witha material plus for Black. Black can fall imperceptibly slowly into a difficult position after 7. dxc5, for example: 7...2xe5 8. &b2 2e7 9. Abd2 0-0 10. a3 We7 11. c4b6 12. Bel &b7 13. exd5 DxdS, and in this position from Tikhnenko A. — Asrian A., Kimry 2004, White could have seized the initia- tive with 14. £b5 (14. We2 should also be examined) 14,..Eac8 15. 4d4, and Black has to disentangle himself from the resulting situation. 7.04 177Part II. Play for Black Black drives away White’s bishop, as 8. bxc4 can’t be played because the bishop on b2 would be lost. 8.202 247 It’s also necessary to examine 8... 2d6 oreven 8..Ded4. After 8..cxb3 play can go in the fol- lowing direction: 9. axb3 2e7 10. Abd2 0-0 11. He5!? (An interesting situation: the position is slightly different from the Zukertort fabiya as the white a-pawn has been exchanged for the black c-pawn, and the purpose of the black queen on b6 isn’t clear; and White’s light-squared bishopcan return tod3 atany moment; yet White con- tinuesto stick to hisguns despite these dif- ferences inthe position) 11...2)xe$ 12. dxe5 7 13. c4!?. This typical “undermining” move for the Zukertort System also works here, especially as the position of the black queen on b6 only strengthens its impact. 13...f6 14. cxd§ (14. 2\f3!? may be stron- ger) 14...xe5, and in the game Webster R.—Lloyd A., England 2005, there was an interesting continuation for White: 15. &xe5!? fxeS 16. Zic4 Was, and now 17. d6 or 17. 2.3, in either case with 178 advantage for White. In fairness, we should point out that Black could also have played better on his 14"" move with 14...exd5. 9. DeS DxeS 10. dxeS Ded 11. Add We7 After 11...&c5 the knight is trapped: 12.13 Dg5 13. hd. 12. f3 cxb3? Black didn’t want to play 12...4\c5, as after 13. bxe4 dxe4 14. 2 xc4 he’s left a pawn down. But the move in the game leads to a forced loss: 13. fxed! bxe2 14. Yel exblY 15. Wxe7 Wxed 15...b4. 16. Exf7!, and White soon won. See also Part I, chapter II, wherein the game Olesen M. — Shirazi K., Chicago 1992, Black employed an early queen sortie in less favorable conditions. Early forays by the queen may be justified in some opening systems, but in the Zukertort she’s poorly placed on b6.Chapter 5 And the Little Kid Asked: “Check on ad — Good or Bad?” Sometimes Black gives a queen check on aS even in the first few moves, to pro- voke the reply c2-c3, blocking the diagonal for White’s dark-squared bishop. In that case White loses one of his main attacking arrangements, which we looked at in Part L But this early queen sortie also has its flaws. First, the queen on a5 is located in a very constricted area of the board, which sometimes allows White to carry out com- binations thanks to this circumstance, as happens in the next game. Secondly, the black queen, being off in the boondocks over on the queenside, can’t participate in the defense of the kingside. Asa rule, the black queen has to return to the area where the action is. Krasenkow M. — Rechlis G. 6...De6 Ohrid 2001 In Yusupov A. — Short N., Dortmund 1. d4 Df6 2. DEB e6 3. e3c54.2d3 1997, Black rushed to exchange in the 45 5.b3 WaS+ center: 6...cxd4?! 7. exd4 (Now it’s clear that Black was in too much of a hurry with this trade. White’s dark-squared bishop is still in its starting position, and now White can send it to the king- side, where it will be more useful than on the al-h8 diagonal obstructed by white pawns.) 7...Ac6 8. 0-0 &e7 (Black can’t stop the white knight from reaching e5, for example 8...\Wc7 9. Hel 2.d6 10. We2 b6 (don’t play 10.,.d7) 11, De5 Hilmer F — Ritter U., Dortmund 2000) 9. es xe5?! (Again, Black rushes, and as a 6.03 result White manages to provoke a weak- ness on Black’s kingside. If Black castles For 6. Abd2, see the next game. immediately with 9...0-0, then White, ex- 179Part II. Play for Black ploiting Black’s mistake on move 6, can bring his bishop out to an attacking posi- tion: 10. Ye2 [the immediate 10. 2g5 is also possible, when after 10...\Wc7 (JO... Hes? 11. B99 Qrf6 12. Qxh7+H 1. Bel (77. Ye2} 11...b6 12. 23, he can play ¥ h3 with good prospects for attack] 10...2.d7 11. 25 Bfd8 12. 2xf6 2xf6 13. &xh7+!, and in Zaitseva L. — Stja- zhkina O., Orel 1995, Black preferred to be a pawn downwith 13...&f8 than to go into the variation 13...xh7 14. Whs+ Og8 15. Wxt7+ Gh8 16. Axd7 Wc7 17. Wh5+; 9..M4c7 10. f4b6 = Yusupov) 10. dxe5 Dd? 11. Wg4 g6 12. Hel (+ Yusu- pov) 12...h5 13. We2 &f8. Here Yusupov recommends 13...¥c7!? + with a sub- sequent ...b7-b6; he is probably correct to advise Black to bring the queen back toward home, as there is nothing for it to do on a5. After the game move, Yusupov thinks that White should play 14. £b2, examining the following variation: 14... We7 (14... Abs 15. 2d2b5 16. Df Wb6 17, dé a6 18. a4 with a better game for White, Kuiper J. — Barlow J., corr. 2002) 15. Dd2 b6 16. c4 dxc4 (16...2.b7 17. acl GB) 17. xc4 with the initiative. In the game Malaniuk V. — Ilinéié Z., Arad 2006, Black coordinated his early queen outing to a5 with a pawn advance on the same wing: 6...2e7 7. 0-0 0-0 8, 2.b2 cxd4 9. exd4 bS 10. Abd2 Wh6 (White is betterafter 10...b4 11.c4; there- fore Black retreats his queen to enable the infantryman on a7 to join the offensive) 11. Ye2 2.d7, and in this position, by playing 12. Ae5 2e8 13. £4, White could have mounted an attack on the kingside, while there’s nothing particularly evident for Black on the queenside. 180 7.0-0 Se7 7.8407 8. 212 (8. c4!2) 8...cxd4 (in Rack M. — Sassmannshausen M., Gies- sen 1992, White employed an interesting plan based on a pin on the c-file: 8...b6 9. @bd2 exd4 10. cxd4!? [A non-standard approach to the position: White wants to exploit the poor placement of the black queen] 10...2b7 11. Hel 2d6 12. Des Axe5 [12...0-0 13. Adf3 BxeS (13...06 also favors White: 14. Dxcé6 Bxc6 IS. De5 Bxe5 16. dxeS Dd7 17, Bxh7+4 14. dxeS Ded (14..d7 15. Qxh7+! Gxh7 16. Dg5+Gh6 17, gd Ddxes 18. Wh4+ G6 19. £4 and Black can resign} 15. &xe4 dxe4 16. De5 Ba6 17. Bel £3 18. 2.43 with a big edge for White] 13. dxe5 Dd7 14. DPB Wd8 15. 2b5 c8 16. &xc6 &xc6 17. Dd4 £.b7 18, Exc8 Wxc8 19. &a3 Dxe5, and now the stron- gest way to continue the attack would be 20. f4!? and f4-f5) 9. exd4 (after 9. cxd4 White can’t exploit the pin on the c-file, asthe black b-pawn is still on b7 and sol- idly defends the c6-knight) 9...2e7 10. Dbd2 0-0 11. e2 b6 12. Hes Dxes 13. dxeS Dd? 14. c4!? De5 15. exd5 exdS 16. Gacl and the white pieces are more ac- tive, Hei C. — Inkiov V., Gausdal 1990. 8. 2b2 In Dergatschova-Daus A. — Weise M., Boeblingen 2003, Black played very badly, and it might not have been worth bringing in such agame, but the poor po- sition of the black queen was illustrated so dramatically that I decided to show it: 8. Des Dxe5S?! (even if to an insignifi- cant degree, this enables White’s initia- tive to develop) 9. dxe5 Dd7 10. 4 (we‘Chapter 5. And the Little Kid Asked: “Check on a5 — Good or Bad?” examined this pawn structure in detail in Part I, Chapter 3) 10...f5 (10...2b6 re- stricts the black queen’s free space even further) 11. c4 (White is playing accord- ing to the Marshall plan) 11...dxe4 12. 2xc4 Db62?, and now immediate pun- ishment follows: 13. 2d2, and White caught Black’s queen. 8...0-0 8...4c7!? (There’s nothing for the queen to do on a5, and now White has to reckon with ...e6-e5. In addition, Black can return to his basic piece con- figuration: ...b7-b6, ...2c8-b7. It’s clear that with his queen on a5 he can’t carry out this plan, as his main piece is in a “mousetrap.”) 9. c4!? (aimed against ...€6-e5, and when the opportunity aris- es to open the c-file, and then the queen on c7 will feel uncomfortable) 9...cxd4 (another direction of play is 9...dxc4 10. bxe4) 10. exd4 0-0 (10...dxe4 11. bxc4 leads to hanging pawns; see Part [, Chapter 5) 11. c3 Bd8 12. Ye2 Db4 13. 2b1 b6 14. a3 Ac6 15. b4 2.7, and here, in Martinsen S. — Berelovich A., Bergen 2002, White could have obtained a promising game featuring a queenside pawn majority with 16. c5!?, although Black could have prevented this with 15...dxc4!?, 9. Dbd2 Has 9...Me7 10. c4 Hd8 11. Hel cxd4 12. Axd4 (12. exd4 deserves attention: In that case White may get either hang- ing pawns or the opportunity to obtain a queenside pawn majority. We looked at both these cases in Part I With ei- ther choice, White had good chances of obtaining an advantage.) 12...2xd4 13. Sxd4 (13. exd4!?) 13...e5 14. cxd5 Ybs8 (McDonald N. — Piket J., Groningen 1986) 15. 2b2!?. 10. We2 Sd7 I. AeS Qe8 12. f4 The Pillsbury formation makes its appearance on the board. White intends to transfer his rook to h3 with strong threats. 12...cxd4 12...Bac8 13. Bf b5?! 14. Bh3 hé (14...b4? 15. &xh7+! Bxh7 16. Whs, and Black’s prognosis is grim) 15. Axc6 ®xc6 16. dxcS, and White is already a pawn up, as 16....2.x¢5 loses material to the elementary fork 17. b4. 13. exd4 223? Black decides to use Capablanca’s maneuver (see Part II, Chapter 8) to trade off the dark-squared bishops. But he didn’t take into account the fact that his queen is on the a5 square. And this, as they say in Odessa, is “two big differ- 181Part II. Play for Black 14, b4! Here White had a good tactical op- portunity — which, incidentally, often arises in the Zukertort System with the black queen on a5 — to obtain a de- cisive advantage: 14. Decd!? dxc4 15. @xe4 as in Marshall — Duras, Karls- bad 1911. See the notes to Smyslov — Podgaets, Odessa 1974, in Part II, Chapter 12. 14...Yad 15. &xa3 xa3 16. Db1 Wad 17. 2c2 Wa6 18. bs Axd4 19. exd4 &xb5 20, 2d3 2xd3 21. Yxd3 Wxd3 22. Axd3, and White eventu- ally made good on his material advan- tage. In the next game White covered with the knight, which in my opinion can only bring him needless difficulties. Yusupoy A. — Miles A. London 1984 1. 44. Df6 2. DEB €6 3. 3 cS 4. 243 d5 5. b3 Wa5+ The idea of a queen check on a5 was already expressed by Edward Lasker in his book Chess Strategy. He writes that Black “...can retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing moves... but in the follow- ing way: If White plays b2-b3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns on d4 and checks with the queen on a5. Now White has the unpleasant choice between 2.cl-d2 and ¢2-c3. The for- mer must be bad, being contrary to the 182 intended plan of development with b2- b3. The latter blocks the very diagonal on which the bishop was meant to op- erate. White can open up the diagonal by playing c3-c4 after castling, nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the c-pawn twice, since Black must move his queen again from a5, where she has no future. But in any case there remains the drawback that White was forced to play the c-pawn, whilst before he had the option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.” 6. Abd? exdd Black gets nothing from the lunge 6...De4%: 7. 0-0 4039! (7...£5 is also in White’s favor, for example 8 “eS g6 9. 13) 8. Wel Ac6 9. Lb2 cxd4 10. exdd a3? 11. Ded! (in the previous game we already talked about this knight jump to the c4 square when the black queen is on a5) 11...dxc4 12. &xc3, and Black was left both a pawn down and behind in development, Sailer W. — Link U., Ger- many 1998. 7. exd4 £.b4 8. 0-0 8. &b2!? &c3 9. Wel 0-0 10. 0-0 &c6 11, Edl (11. a3 can’t be played immediately because of 11...2\xd4!) 11...$d7 12. a3 Efd8 13. b4 sxb2 14. Wxb2 We7 15. c4 dxc4 (Black ex- changes pawns on c4, as the threat of White’s creating a pawn majority on the queenside has emerged. We suggest that on 15...Wf4 White play 16. cS &e7 17. He1 {taking control of e4] 17...Dg6, and White gets his pawn majority on theChapter 5. And the Little Kid Asked: “Check on a5 — Good or Bad?” queenside moving with 18. b5) 16. @)xe4 Bac8 17. Hacl ¥b8 and a complicated position with an isolated pawn for White has arisen, Garcia P. — Griinberg H.-U., Polanica Zdréj 1985. 8.23 9. bat? Finding himself in a difficult posi- tion, White opts fora pawn sacrifice. 9.807 After9...xb4 10. bl Be7 (10...Was 11. BbS Wd8 12. Bb3 Wc7 13. £a3 with compensation) 11. Bb3 b4 (11..4c7 12. &a3) 12. 3 &d6 13. c4, and White has compensation for the pawn. There’s only one inconvenience: you always have to prove that the compensation exists! Black can try to take the d4-pawn, but in that case White has compensation too, according to Yusupov: 9...'b6 10. Ebi Dc (10...2xd47! 11. Dxdd Wadd 12. Ded Wes [12...Axe4? 13. Bb5+] 13. f4 with a strong attack — GB) I1. 2b3 S.xd4 12. bS!. And finally, Black can take the b4- pawn with the bishop: 9...&xb4. Here opinions are divided: some speak of compensation for White, while others cast doubt on that. Basically this re- quires practical testing, but the question is whether anyone will want to go into this variation as White. 10. Eb1 De6 11. LbS Yusupov thinks that anything else is bad. IL...a5 Black probably didn’t like 11...8d7 because of the following continuation: 12. &xc6 Sxc6 13. bS £d7 14. 223, and he has problems castling short. Be- sides that, White’s dark-squared bishop is extremely dangerous. 12, bxa5 0-0 13. 2.3 Hd8 14. 25. Yusupov evaluated this position as un- clear. Black can check with his queen on a5 after first bringing his knight out to c6: Zarubin P. — Makarichev S. Kolontaevo 1994 1. dé. Df6 2. DB e6 3. e345 4. 2d3 5 5.b3 De6 6. a3 After 6, £b2 we must reckon with the variation 6...Wa5+ (It’s also pos- sible to play 6...2d6 7. ®e5 [7. a3 We7] 7...We7 8. £4 cxd4 9. exd4 Abd immediately; Black used this cun- 183Part II. Play for Black ning move order in the game Kokié D. — Dra’ko M., Belgrade 1998: 6... Wec7!? [Black demonstrates his inten- tion after ..@f8-d6 to undertake a “fruitful opening idea,” that is to say, 6-5; see Part II, Chapter 9.] As we'll see later, an immediate c2-c4 is a good counter to Black’s ideas: 7. c4. But there’s one nuance in the position — instead of 0-0 White played &b2, and in that case the maneuver with the queen check on a5 doesn’t look bad for Black: 7...cxd4 8. exd4 Wa5S+!? 9. bd? [on 9. 23, Black plays 9...2.b4, immediately achieving hisaim of trad- ing the dark-squared bishops and giv- ing White hanging pawns] 9...dxc4!? {more accurate than the immediate 9...2a3 10. Wel {White could try for @ pawn majority on the queenside with 10. &xa3 xa 11. c5} 10...2.xb2 11. Wxb2 Ded?! 12. Axed dxed 13. He5 0-0 fafter 13...DAxe5 14. dxeS it’s dif- ficult to defend the e4-pawn} 14. 2\xc6 bxc6 15. 0-0 f5 16. b4!?, and in Hoff- man A. — Sisniega M., Sevilla 1992, White got the opportunity to play on the dark squares] 10. bxc4 2a3 11. Wb3 &xb2 12. Wxb2 Wb4 13. Wel 0- 0 14. 0-0 Eds. A typical position with hanging pawns for White, although he doesn’t have his dark-squared bishop, which usually reinforces his play in these cases. And Black can count this circumstance as one of his assets.) 7. ¢3 (White gets a completely playable position after 7. Abd2, too, as we have already seen; although it’s true that in that case Black manages to trade off dark-squared bishops), and after 7... We2!? 8. 0-0 Le7 9. c4, we have a po- sition from Martinsen — Berelovich, 184 examined above in the first game of this section. If White wants to avoid the variations given above, he needs to play 6. 0-0. 6...4a5+ 7, Abd2 If White covers the check with his bishop 7. 22, then one of the main positions may occur with Black having an extra tempo because the white bishop reached b2 by a roundabout route: 7... We78. 20348. c4!?) 8...b69. Abd? 2e7 10. 0-0.2.67 11, 2.b2.0-0 12. He5 Belfer J. — Yermolinsky A., Chicago 1995. 7...0xd4 7...De4 8. 0-0 Axd2 (if he plunks the knight on c3 with 8...4c3, Black constantly has to bear in mind the white knight’s jump to c4 that we have already mentioned: 9. Yel 27 10. &b2 0-0 [10...AbS 11. dxc5] 11. Ac4!, and White wins a pawn; if 8...f5 9. dxcS Wxc5 [9... &xcS? 10. b4 &xb4 11. Db3 +—] 10. 2b2, and White is slightly ahead in de-Chapter 5. And the Little Kid Asked: “Check on a5 — Good or Bad?” velopment) 9. &xd2 We7 10. c4 with initiative for White, Baumhackel M. — Fuhrmann M., Dortmund 2003. 8 exd4 We3 9. Zbl Axdd 10. Axd4d 10. &b21? Axf3+ 11. Wxf3 deserved attention. 10... Wxd4 1. Des U6 After 11...2d7 12. &.b2 Yb6 13. 2g, White has compensation for the pawn. 12, Dxf6+ gxf6 13, WES White has compensation for the pawn, but can he make anything of it? Black’s check on a5 with the knight on d7 is less effective than when the knight is on c6. A knight on c6 exerts pressure on d4, and can also jump to b4 at the right time: 1. d4 Di6 2, Df3 e6 3. e3 d5 4, 2d3 5 $.b3 Abd7 6. 2b2 Was+ 7. Dbd2 Ded 8. 0-0 8. Bxed dxed 9. Ags cxd4! 10. exe4 dxe3 is bad — Sozin. 8...f5 Nenarokov — Sozin, match 1929. According to Sozin, here White should have played 9. c4!, undermining Black’s center. In the supplemental games sec- tion, see Bogdanovich G. — Inkiov V., Swidnice 1997, where Black played .. 4d8-a5 with the aim of occupying e4 with his knight. 185Chapter 6 Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside _ Pawn Advance If White chooses the plan associated with a kingside attack, then Black (assum- ing, of course, that he doesn’t want to sink into deep defense) launches a counterat- tack on the opposite flank. In that case, the c-pawn serves as a battering ram which can drive the white bishop away from its comfortable post on d3 and also open the c-file. White needs to be careful and keep in mind these possibilities for Black. In the next game, White ignored Black’s preparations and paid dearly for it. Maréczy G. — Bogolyubov E. New York 1924 1, d4d5 2. Df3 Df6 3. €3 e6 4, 2.43 5 5. b3 Acé6 6. 0-0 In Gulyaev A. — Skuridin E., Tskhakaya 1985 (I found it on the Internet), Black also embarked on a c-pawn advance, but he couldn’t ex- ploit his achievement: 6. &b2 b6 7. a3 (White could wait on this move and play 7. 0-0, as on 7...We7 he need not play 8. a3, considering that then after 8...2d6 he couldn’t occupy eS with his knight. Therefore he should play either 8, @e5!? or 8. c4. Either way, Black doesn’t manage to carry out the strategic advance of the e-pawn.) 7... b7 8. De5 Dxe5 9. dxe5 Ad7 10. 0- 0 We7 11. f4 c4 (In his notes to this game, Gulyaev considers this move dubious. In my view, the reason for 186 Black’s difficulties lies in his subse- quent poor play): 12. &e2 (after 12. bxc4 dxc4 13. Se2, Black’s light-squared bishop is activated) 12...cxb3?! (This move looks hasty: above all, because White again gets the d3 square at his disposal — a very convenient spot for White’s light- squared bishop. Nor is it evident who has the greater need to open the c-file.Chapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance And after 12...2e7 13. Ac3 a6, the situation on the board isn’t so clear.) 13. cxb3 &c5?! (Again unsuccessful: it’s difficult for Black to hold out on 5. 13...Dc5 is also bad: after 14. b4, he has to return to d7, as 14...2\e4 15. &b5+ is very unpleasant for Black.) 14. Wad2 Hc8 15. Ac3 0-0 (fighting for the cS outpost by means of 15...a5 is risky, as after 16. DbS Wb8 17. b4 Black still had to retreat, and he gives up the b5 square) 16. Hacl ¥b8? (simply an oversight; the variation 16... fd8 17.b4 e7 18. DxdS De5 19. Axe7+ Wxe7 20. Wel Ad3 21. &xd3 Exd3 looks better, with good chances of holding the position) 17. b4 @e7 18. e4. White wins Black’s center pawn, avoiding a massive exchange of pieces. Later on he made good on his advantage. 6...2.46 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Des De7!? Bogolyuboy rejects one of Black’s main arguments in the Zukertort Sys- tem: 8...Wc7!? 9. f4 cxd4 (In Janowski D. — Teichmann R., San Sebastian 1911, Black deviated from the “gen- eral line,” the maneuver ...d8-c7 and ...2\c6-b4, and also tried to take the e4 square with 9...2\e4?. Punishment followed immediately: 10. &xe4! dxe4 11, 2c3 cxd4? [Black saw the variation 11...f5 12. Dbs Wa’ 13. Axc6 bxcb 14. @xd6 Wxd6 15. 243, and decided to pre-emptively rid himself of the “prob- lem” pawn on c5) 12. Db5 [12. exd4 is weaker because of 12...Axd4, although White also preserves his advantage in that case] 12...¥4d8 [better is 12...4b8] 13. Dxc6 bxc6 14. Wxd4 eS 15. Wxd6 exb5 16. Wxe5 f6 17. WxbS, and White is two pawns up.) 10, exd4 @b4, trad- ing off White’s dangerous bishop. But then again, thanks to this decision by Black, the theory of the Yusupovka has been enriched by a new strategic method. I placed the sign “!?” after the game move as an evaluation of Bogolyubov’s whole idea, but in this situation, of course, it was necessary to try and eliminate the opponent’s light- squared bishop. 9. Dd? b6 10. £4.27 11. WE White prevents Black’s main defen- sive maneuver, ...2\f6-e4. 11...2c8 The black rook is ready to support the e-pawn, 12. Ded In situations where Black’s light- squared bishop and the white queen are on the same diagonal (h1-a8), the latter has to be careful, as, for example, on the “typical” 12. g4?! there follows the no less typical 12...c4! 13. bxc4 dxe4 14. 187Part II. Play for Black Wxb7 cxd3 with excellent counterplay for Black. 12...Dxgd 13. xed Dg6 14. D3 White’s attack starting with 14. &xg6?! is dubious, for example 14... hxg6 15. Bf3 cxd4 16. Ags Be7 17. &xd4 Exc2!, and now 18. 2\xe6? fails to 18..8#c8!. So it’s not worth it for White to part with the bishop that holds together his queenside, as can Black breaks through to the second rank. 14.05.15, Yhs 2e7 16. Ags was threatened. 16. 24 ‘White rushes. It made sense to give his light-squared bishop the opportunity to stay on the strategic diagonal with 16. 3). 16...04 17. gxf5. Ofcourse, 17. 2.e2 doesn’t stand out, especially if Alekhine himself didn’t like it. But still, it’s not all so cut and dried, 188 as they like to say these days. Let’s have a look: 17...cxb3 (17...fxg4 18. Yxed with sharp play) 18. £d3!? (Alekhine overlooked this strong move; he only ex- amined 18. cxb3? He2, which naturally is bad for White) 18...bxc2 19. gxf5 exfS 20. &xf5, with an unclear game. 17...Dxf4! 18. exf4 exd3 19. DgsS On 19. cxd3, Black plays simply 19... Exf5 with a subsequent incursion of his other rook onto the second rank, and White has to change over to defense. 19...2.xg5 20, fxg5 And here, in Alekhine’s opinion, the decisive continuation would have been 20...Eiaf5, for example: 21, Exf5 exfS 22, exd3 We7! 23. Wf3 He2 24. Ebi (24, &cl Bxcl+, etc.) 24...Wxg5+ 25. Wg3 Wa2 26. 2.031427. Yh3 2.08, and White is defenseless. In the next game, Black managed to bring her “secret ideas” to life thanks to White's carelessness: Pham Le Thao Nguyen — Arutyunoya D. Beijing (Blitz) 2008 1. d4 Df6 2. DPB c5 3. €3 e6 4. b3 d5 5, 2b2 Ge7 6. 2.43 0-0 7. 0-0 b6 8. Abd2 Lb7 9. DeS De6 10. f4 He8 11. a3 a6, and in this position White decided to take e4 under her control: 12. Wf3?. Now there followed a typical tactical blow from Black, which White needed to foresee in the battle for the e4 square.Chapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance I2...04! 13. &e2? After 13, Axc6 2.xc6 14. 8.2 c3 15, &xc3 £b7 16. Abl Ae4 White avoids dropping material, but Black’s position is better. After the game move, though, White could be left a piece down. 13...c3! 14. 2xc3 DxeS 15. fxeS, and now by playing 15...Aed! Black could have achieved a material advantage. If in the previous example the c- pawn was supported by a rook, in the next game Black creates the threat of ..c5-c4 by advancing pawns on the queenside (...a7-a6, ...b6-b5), thus driv- ing White’s light-squared bishop away from its active position. Zaitsev V. — Jakovenko D. Neftekamsk 2000 1. d4 D6 2. DP e6 3. e3b6 4. 243 2b7 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 2d6 7, 2.b2 0-0 8. De5 5 9. Dd2 Dc6 10. a3 a6 11. WH bS 12. Dxc6 2 xc6 Black threatens ...c5-c4. 13. dxeS! A strong move, well known for a long time. See Yusupov — Scheeren in Part I, Chapter 1; and Dus-Choti- mirsky — Nimzowitsch in Chapter 2. White not only eliminates the threat of ..c5-c4, but also opens up the al-h8 diagonal, obtaining an excellent at- tacking position. It’s very important in this case for White to take control of cS and eS. 13...2x¢5 And now White could have obtained a promising position with 14, 4g3!?, ie. 14..We7 15. b4 Ba7 (15...2.d6? is bad because of 16. © xf6!) 16. Wh4 (with the transparent threat of 17. 2xf6 and 18. Wxh7#; the simple 17. 2xh7+ is also threatened) 16...h6 17. £3. Now we can draw some conclusions: White controls the cS and eS squares; Black doesn’t get the chance to cut off the al- h8 diagonal; White’s bishops are aimed at Black’s castled position; and mean- while it isn’t clear what Black’s bishops are doing. So there can’t be any doubt about White’s advantage. 189Part II. Play for Black In the previous example, the trade of White’s d-pawn for Black’s c-pawn was connected with White’s later play on the kingside. In the next game White ties that pawn trade to a subsequent central- ization of his pieces and opening up of the center: Gelashvili T. — Magalashvili D. Tbilisi 2008 1. Df3 D6 2. e3 6 3. b3 2e7 4. d4 d5 5, 2.d3 0-0 6. 0-005 7. Zb2 Acé 8. Dhd2b6 9. a3 2.b7 10. We2.a6 11. Hdd bs Now, by playing 11...cxd4 12. exd4, Black could place White’s 11" move in the not-very-successful category. The fact of the matter is that, given White’s strategy associated with a kingside at- tack, the rook isn’t well situated on dl. And if he wants to switch to play with hanging c- and d-pawns by playing c2- c4, then in that case the king’s rook is better placed on el. 12. dxe5 2xe5 Worse is 13...b4 14. a4 (14. Dgsl? 86 [14...d4 15. Axh7!] 15. Wr3 +) 14... Bad 15. Ded g6 16. cxd5 exd5 (16... @xd5? 17. Yh5! remember Yusupov — Scheeren!) 17. W£3 &e7 18. Yh3 with a clear advantage for White, Mufié G. — Eperjesi L., Rijeka 1986. 14, bxe4 h6 15. Hack 2e7 16. cxd5 Bxd5 After 16...exd5 17. Ab3, to all his problems Black would have added the difficulties associated with an isolated d-pawn. From this point, the game contin- ued 17. Ac4 Aad 18. Aces Wes, and Black managed to save aslightly inferior position. However, had the white knight taken a different route with 17. Ded!?, Black would have had a very difficult time. After 17...2/b8 (weaker is 17... Wb6 18. Hb! a7 19. Dd4 Mads (19... Axd4 20. Bxd4 Wb8 21. Wb2 +] 20. Wed De5 21. Yg3, with a strong attack for White) there would have followed 18. HeS, and Black would have had to part with one of his bishops. White will be playing with his two bishops aimed at the enemy king, and Black faces a dif- ficult defense. White’s play in this game deserves at- tention. True, there is a slight problem — see the note to Black’s move 11. In the game Ingbrandt J. — Bengts- son B., Sweden 1985, a very effective demonstration was given of how to fight against Black’s crafty ideas:Chapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance 1. d4.e6 2. DP3 Af6 3. e3 b6 4. 2d3 2b7 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 2d6 7. De5 0-08, 2b2 c5 9. Dd2 Ac6 10. a3 HeB 11. £4 De The plan involving the ¢~pawn’s ad- vance, supported by the queen’s knight, enjoys no popularity. We have previously come: across that possibility for Black; see Part I, Chapter 5, notes to Nosen- ko — Karjakin, Alushta 2001: 11...@a5 12. dxc5 bxc5, and in this position (en- countered in Hassan A. — San Segundo P.,, Bled 2002) Richard Palliser suggests 13, Wel, keeping an eye on Black’s a5-knight and intending to transfer the queen over to the kingside. 12, 883 We7 13. Wh3 bs? After 13..cxd5 14. exdS Med 15. Hadf3, or 15. Bxe4 dxed 16. c4 f5, the game takes a different direction, which will be examined below. Now, however, after the move in the game there follows a forced varia- tion leading to a decisive advantage for White. 14. Dgdt The opening move ofa typical attack on the kingside, after which it’s difficult to suggest anything for Black. 14...De4 15, dxe5 A no less typical opening-up of the al-h8 diagonal. 15...2xc5 16. 2xe4 16. &xg7!? first is also possible. The transposition doesn’t change the result. 16...dxe4 17. &xg7! With a bishop sacrifice, White de- stroys the g?-pawn which was covering the f6 and h6 squares — a typical Zuker- tort System attack. 17...2xe3+ 18, Ghi (5 After taking the bishop 18...%xg7, the @+) pair, essential in this case, comes into the matter: 19. Wh6+ @h8 191Part II. Play for Black 20. Wi6+ wg8 21. Dh6s#; while 18... £xd2 meets with 19. 2e5. 19. &e5, and we can put a period here. In the next game Black used an im- provement by comparison with the pre- vious game: he played ...b6-b5 a move earlier, not giving White time for play on the kingside. Krasenkow M. — Yu Shaoteng Wijk aan Zee 2002 1. d4.e6 2. DAB Afo 3. e3 b6 4. 23 2b7 5. 0-05 6. b3 2.6 7. DeS 0-0 8. 2 5 9. Ad2 Acé 10. a3 He 11. £4 De 12. Y13 bs? In recent times Black has again been giving this move some attention. 13. dxeS No one has yet risked taking with 13. 2xbS. In that case Black starts action on the queenside, which is undoubted- ly good for him: 13...cxd4 (13...WaS is 192 weaker: 14. We2 cxd4 15. b4 Wc7 [also in White’s favor is 15...¥/d8 16, &.xd4 Exc2 17. &d3] 16. 2xd4 Yxe2 17. &xa7 with a material plus for White) 14. 2xd4 Exe? 15. Wdl He8 16. 2.43 with complex play. White has another possibility, 13. c3, Tetaining his solid center as in the clas- sical Colle System. And now White can calmly shift his attention to Black’s king- side. But in that case, after 13...c4 14. bxcd4 bxc4 15. &.c2, Black also has some- thing to do on the queenside. (We should point out that 15. 2x4?! doesn’t work because of 15...dxc4 16. Yxb7 Bb8.) 13...2xe5 14, Hael In Le Kieu Thien Kim — Hou Y., Beijing (active) 2008, White decided to remove her king from the dangerous gl- a7 diagonal, but Black obtained good play there, too: 14. Whi f5 15. Hael Hc7 16. Wh3 d4!? 17. exd4 &xd4 18. &xd4 Wxd4, and Black’s pieces were posted very actively. In another game White, after plac- ing his queen on g3, decided to threaten Black on the long diagonal: 14. 93 DES (14... Ded) 15. &xf5 exfS 16. Hadl We7 17. b4 2b6 18. Hel, and in this position from Radjabov T. — Koneru H., Cap d'Agde 2008, Black missed her op- portunity to exploit the poor position of the white queen on g3. By playing 18... @Dh5! 19, Wh3 £6! Black would have ob- tained a clear advantage. The attempt by White to create threats on the critical bl-h7 diagonalChapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance with 14, Wh3 leaves Black on top, but in that case he has a typical tactical as- sault in store deflecting the black knight from the defense of h7: 14...2\f5!? (In an earlier game Black fell into the afore- mentioned tactic: 14...Ae4 15, Bad1!? [As we already know, this is one of the key moves in the Zukertort configura- tion suggested by Bogolyubov] 15...8c7 [Black avoids White’s obvious threat to capture on e4, but failsto notice another hidden tactical possibility for White. The best reply was the “horse move” 15.2652] 16. Dd7! DS? [White is better after 16...Wxd? 17. Dxe4. After 16...Bfd8 17. Axc5 Wxc5 18. b4, White combines play on the dark squares with threats on the kingside and an undis- puted advantage. After Black’s move in the game, White wins in impressive fashion.] 17. Axe4 &xe3+ [on 17...dxe4 there follows 18. @f6+! gxf6 19. Wg4+ with unavoidable mate] 18. Gh f6 [18...dxe4 19. f6+! +—5 18...Wxd7 19. A+ +—-] 19. Dexf6+ exf6 20. DxiB Exxf8 21. &xf5, and White soon won in Vasilevich T. — Hou Y., Beijing [active] 2008.) 15. &xf5 exfS 16. Ghl (White should have gone for a pawn sacrifice in order to acquire substantial positional pluses: 16. b4!? 2.b6 17. Ab3 Hxe2 18. 2.44, and his control of the dark squares plus Black’s bad light-squared bishop offer good compensation for the miss- ing pawn) 16...d4!? 17. Yxf5 (Black has a big advantage after 17. exd4 &xd4 18. Qxd4 Yxd4) 17...dxe3 18. Ddf3 Led with a big advantage for Black, Vasilev- ich T. — Hou Y., Beijing (blitz) 2008. In the game Kosié D. — Dinger F, Budapest 2008, White followed Susan Polgar’s recommendations: 14. b4 &b6 15. Ghi (Polgar examines 15. &d4 &xd4 16. exdS De4 with a complicated game) 15...Ae4 16. Axed dxed 17. Bxe4 Bxed 18. Wed Was (18...Wd2!?) 19. Wxd5 Axd5 20. Ad7 Bfd8 21. Axbé axb6 22. 2d4 Hxc2, and the game was eventually drawn. 14. Bfel!? 25 15. Dfl, with an un- clear game. 14.25 15. Gh3 15. 49! Dxe3 16. Bxe3 d4 17. Bed Axed 18. Bxe4 (18. Axed £5 19. exfS exfS: 20. D+ gxi6 21. Wxb7 fkeS F) 18...d3+ 19. Dhl Sxed 20. Wxed dxc2 = Finkel. 15...De4 15...d4!? 16. exd4 2xd4+ (16..Dxd4 17. Dga! 00) 17. Bxd4 Wxd4+ 18. Ohl oo Finkel. 16. Dxe4 dxed 17. QxbS 2.xe3+ 18. Hxe3 Wb6 19. Dps After 19. Zife1!? (suggested by Sum- merscale) 19...4xb5 (19...2xe3? 20. BDad7 WxbS 21. Di6-+! gx 22. Wy3+) 20. c4, White can preserve material equality, but the position remains more pleasant for Black. 19...2xe3 20. Yxe3 YWxbS and Black suddenly offered a draw, which White certainly wasn’t going to tum down. 193Part II. Play for Black As we saw in the previous games in this section, opening the long diagonal is a very effective means of combat- ing Black’s plan with an advance of the queenside pawns. That’s why it’s es- sential to pay attention to the following game, in which one of the experts and authors of a book on the Zukertort Sys- tem encounteredan interestingapproach to counterplay on the queenside: Palliser R. — Houska M. England 2001 1. 44 45 2. DB DFG 3. €3.06.4. 2.43 05 5. b3 Dbd7 6. 040 Se7 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Dbazb6 9. DeS 27 10. 813 a6 1. Had An important move with a transfer of the queen to h3, along the way setting the Bogolyuboy trap we learned in Part L On 11. ¥h3, Palliser recommends the following maneuver for Black, think- ing that everything should be O.K. for him: 11...Ae4 12. £3 Dgs 13. Yes 16 14, Dxd7 Gxd7. 1L...8e7 12. Bhd With the threat, already well known to us, of playing ®xd7, dxc5, and &xf6, followed by mate on h7. 12...g6 13. Daf White can switch to the Pillsbury setup: 13. f4 Axe5 14. fxeS Hed 15. &xe4!?, White thereby obtains a pawn majority on the queenside, examined in Part I, Chapter 7: 15...dxe4 16. dxc5 (16. ¢3) 16...2xc5. Taking with the pawn 16...bxc5%! is bad in such cases, as 194 arule. But to 16...¥4xc5 there is 17. Ac4 threatening £23, &xe7, and Dd6. After the bishop recapture, White can reply on the weakness of the d6 square and the dark squares around the black king. 13...0xe5!2 Pay attention: before continuing the pawn advance on the queenside, Black closes and bolts the long diagonal, re- moving one of White’s trumps — the opening of the al-h8 diagonal. 14. dxe5S White can get the long diagonal open, but at the price of simplifying the position, i.e. an exchange of the last pair of knights, when it will be more diffi- cult to attack; 14. AxeS Zid7 15. Axd7 Wxd7 16. dxc5 bxe5 17. e4. 14...Dd7 15. 04 bS 16. exdS 2. xdS 17. e4 2b7, and Black obtained coun- terplay thanks to his queenside pawn majority. There’s also another method of combating Black’s plan: White simply occupies the c4 square himself, thereby avoiding Black’s threat of ...c5-c4: Rotstein E. — Schmid H. Dresden 2001 1, d4.d5 2. 3 Af6 3. DB e6 4. 243 5 5.b3 Abd? 6, 2b2 Se7 Smith and Hall offer an amus- ing variation after the impatient 6...b.Chapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance Black wants to create the threat of ...c5- c4 without preparation, thinking that the b5-pawn is untouchable. But then there is 7. &xb5 Bast 8 Dc3 Hed 9. 0-0! Axc3 10. Bxd7+ &xd7 11. Wad2 exd4 12. Axd4 2b4 13. a3, and White not only gets the piece back, but he wins a pawn. 7. Nbd2 a6 7...0-0 8. 0-0 a6 9. Des Dxe5 10. dxeS Dd7 11. f4 bS 12. c4 (White was more aggressive in the following game: 12. Wh5!? g6 13. Wh6é Bes [If Black does choose a plan involving an advance of the c-pawn, then it must be imple- mented at the first opportunity: 13...c4!? 14. B68 He8 15. Bh3 fs. It’s interest- ing to note that deflecting forces as a diversion on the queenside can lead to tragic consequences, for example: 13... Was? Chapter 3.] 14. A 218 15. Yh3 2p7 16. Bad] &b7 17. Dgs h6 18. &xg6!?. Black’s hesitation with the advance of the c-pawn allows White to muddy the waters: 18...fxg6 19. Axe6 We? 20. Ac7 Db6 21. Axa8 Sxa8 22. e4 (22. £5 exfS 23. Exf5 £) 22...d4 with double-edged play in Danner G. — Steiner B., Ober- wart 2001) 12...bxc4 13. bxe4 Db6 Yu- dovich — Blumenfeld, USSR 1934; 14. Wc2! 8. 0-0 D5 9. e4 14. f5!!, and Black’s position is be- yond redemption, for example 14...exf5 15. BxfS £6 16. Bhs He? 17. &xg6. We already talked about this opportunity for White to conduct an attack with a trans- formation of the Pillsbury setup in Part I, 9...2b8 9...bxc4!? 10. bxc4 0-0, with an ap- proximately equal game. 10. Aes!? Yh6 White hasthe initiative after 10...2\xe5 11. dxeS Dd7 12. cxd5 exd5 13.6. U1. Dxd7 Qxd7 12. exdS exd5 13. dxc5 2xe5 14, Af3, and White is on top. Another example of the reciprocal advance of White’s c-pawn: 195Part II. Play for Black Adly A. — Neverov V. Abu Dhabi 2003 1. DfB b6 2. d4 e6 3. e3 AMG 4. 2d3 d5 5. b3 c5 6. 2b2 Ac6 7. a3 2d6 8. eS Bb7 9. Dd2 Yc7 10. £4 a6 11. 0-0 De7 12. Bel Here, with Black’s development in- complete, White had an opportunity to start some action with 12. Ag4!?. 12...2e8 13. Ye2bS 14.04 14...bxe4 14...dxe4 15. bxe4 0-0 (15...bxc4 16. Dexc4 0-0 17. Axd6 Gxd6 18. dxcS ExcS 19. BeS Wd5 [19...We6 20. Ac4 Hck 21. 24 Ed5 22, Wb2 Bbs 23. Hes +—-] 20. Ded Wd8 21. Bfd1. White has placed his pieces in attacking positions in the center, and Black is unlikely to be able to get out of the rain without getting drenched.) 16. exbS axbS 17. dxcS &xeS 18. Ab3 Wd6 19, DxcS Exc$ 20. &.xbS and White wins a pawn, meanwhile retaining all the posi- tive aspects of his position. 15, bxe4 Wb6 196 15...dxe4 16. Dexed cxd4 17. e4 Bc5 (17...S0xf4 18, 5 +—) 18. e5 Dfds 19. Ddo+ +-. 16. Ebi Wa7 17. Db3 0-0 18. dxeS 2x5 19. DxcS WxeS 20. 2d4 We7, and here with the move 21. Efcl!? White could pose insoluble problems for Black, for example 21...2)f5 (21...dxe4? is bad because of 22. Hxe4) 22. &xf5 exf5 23. 5, and Black cannot avoid los- ing material. For his part, Black also has at his disposal a strategy for active play on the queenside based on pushing the a-pawn to a4. In the next game White decides to refute Black’s plan by playing in the cen- ter, but it tums out that his opponent’s pieces are well positioned. Remon A. — Ruban V. La Habana 1990 1. d4 D6 2. AB d5 3. e3 6 4. 243 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 Le7 7. a3 0-0 8. 2b2b6 9. Dbd2 2b7 10. Ye2 aS 1. EfdiChapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance White decides to play in the center. I prefer switching to the Pillsbury for- mation. It’s another matter that White hasn’t yet managed to achieve any spe- cific successes, but positions with an ad- vanced black a-pawn and the Pillsbury structure turn out to be complicated, plus a small amount of practical mate- rial has accumulated. Let’s have a look at what we have for now with the white knight on eS: 11. HeS!? Be7 (After an immediate 11...a4¢ White again didn’t manage to achieve anything real: 12. 2bS [Practice shows that White doesn’t get anything from a pawn hunt. Per- haps 12. f4!? is better, switching to the Pillsbury formation.] 12...2a7 13. bxa4 e414, Dbl [it’s also possible to try and keep the extra pawn another way: 14. Eifb1 DxbS 15. axb5 Wo7 16. c3 Bad 17. Wd1 Efa8, and the white pieces are tied up on the queenside, Middendorf F. — Weischede T., Germany 1988] 14...2e4 15. £3 Dd6 16, Dc3 £6, and White’s ex- tra pawn is a purely symbolic advantage for him; the game Keene R. — Anders- son U., Teesside 1972, ended in a draw. Instead in the game Trapl J. — Ambroz J., Frenstat pod Radhostem 1982, Black sacrificed a pawn: 11...Axe5 12. dxeS @d7 (after 12... Ae4 13. 2xe4 dred, we get a structure that was examined in Part II, Chapter 13] 13. a4 ¢4 [Black doesn’t want a trench defense, for example af- ter 13...f5 14. c4 his pieces come up against his own pawns, and White sub- sequently continues playing according to the Marshall plan: f2-f4, c4xd5 and e3-e4; see Part I, Chapter 3. So he de- cides to activate his pieces, even at the cost ofa pawn.] 14. bxe4 Zie5. Black has achieved his aim: his pieces have come into play, but it’s hardly possible to count on more than equality. We should point out that the attempt by Black to switch to the pawn structure examined in Part II, Chapter 13 with the move 11...cxd4 is thwarted by an in-between exchange on 06: 12. Axc6 &xc6 13. exd4) 12. f4 a4 13. Hf3 (The plan encountered in the very old game Rabinovich I. — Alatortsev V., USSR Championship, Leningrad 1934-35, is interesting: 13. f5!2. See the supplemental games section. The typi- cal maneuver featuring the opening of the long diagonal that was examined above also deserves attention: 13. dxc5 bxce5 14. Dg4) 13...26 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Hh3 d4 16. Axc6 &xc6 17. Hf Dds 18. Dc4, and in this complicated posi- tion in the game Miles A, — Ponomariov R., Hastings 1999, the players decided not to tempt fate and agreed to a draw. IL...a4 12. 04 cxd4 13. exd4 13, cxd5!? Dxd5 14. Dxd4 xd 15. S&xd4axb3 16. DAxb3 2xa3 17. Ye4, and the attacking position of his pieces com- pensates. White for his missing pawn. 13...axb3 14. Axb3 dxed 15. 2x04 ®aS 16. ZxaS Exa$. Nothing con- crete has appeared yet for White, but the pluses of Black’s position are obvious: the opportunity to play against the white a- and d-pawns. Against the plan we have examined for Black, White could tum to the Pills- bury formation, which will serve him faithfully in this variation. The following game is further proof of this assertion. 197Part II. Play for Black Vaganian R. — Adams M. Moscow 2004 1. d4 Df6 2. DP e6 3. e3b6 4. 243 Qb7 5. 0-0.d5 6. b3 2d6 7. 2b2 0-0 8. DeS 5 9, Dd2 De6 10, a3 a5 Black wants to start play on the queenside to deflect White from his ag- gressive ideas on the kingside. But White isn’t paying attention to Black’s activi- ties yet, and switches to the Pillsbury setup. 1. f4 11...De7 In Ristié N. — Todorovié G., Cetinje 1992, Black decided to establish con- tact with his opponent’s forces on the queenside immediately: 11...a4 12. dxc5 (after 12. 2b5 Aa7 13. bxa4, the posi- tion is close to the position from Keene — Andersson; see the previous game) 12...bxc5 13, &bS &xeS 14, fkeS Ad7 15. &xa4 Ddxe5 16. Wh5 f6 (16...26 17. @f3 and you have to play 17...f6 anyway) 17. Hadl We7 18. 214 Age 19. 8f3 Bf? 20. Bh3 #8 21. 2b5 e5, and 198 a complicated position has arisen. Each player has his pluses in the coming play. 12. 2B White is acting in accordance with the plan that has been worked out. 12...exd4 On 12...c4, White could essay a very promising exchange sacrifice: 13. bxc4 dxed 14. Ddxcd @xf3 15. Wxf3. 13, Sxd4 A non-standard solution. Usually White plays 13. exd4, but Vaganian re- captures on d4 with the bishop so as to leave the long diagonal accessible. 13...2xe57! You should always approach a piece trade on ¢5 with caution. Before ex- changing you should evaluate the con- sequences of the changed situation on the board, and take simple tactics into account too, of course. So, in our case Black didn’t consider the one or the other.Chapter 6. Black’s Counterplay with a Queenside Pawn Advance 14. fxeS! It would seem that this move con- tradicts the previous one, but in fact it’s a concrete solution to the problem. It soon becomes clear that Black no longer has a workable defense. 14...Ded And suddenly it turns out that Black has only one more or less acceptable move. So, for example, on 14...d7? Black should probably lose because of the immediate bishop sacrifice 15. Sxh7+!?, ie. 15...Gxh7 16. Bh3+ &g8 17. Wh5 f6 (17.15? 18. Df) 18. BA DxeS 19. 2xeS DFS 20. 22. On 14.8 there isalso 15. &.xh7+ +. 14... Ded 15.Hh3 Dh 16. Whs, and what can Black do against the g-pawn’s march? We can forget about 14...h5?? alto- gether, thanks to the simple 15. g4+—. 15. Bh3 AfS 16. &xed!? dxed 17. Dea Tactical oversights smoothly flow over into strategic ones. It becomes clear that the white knight can occupy the d6 square without restraint. 17...2)xd47! Black’s position is already difficult, for example, there’s this variation: 17... bS 18. Dd6 DAxd6 19. exd6 f6 (19... Wxd6? 20. WhS f6 21. Wxh7+ E7 22. 2xf6!) 20. Wh5 h6 21. Yxb5, and the white queenside pawns determine the outcome of the game. 18, exd4 2c6 19. Ad6 ‘We already examined the transfer of the knight to d6 in the first part of the book. This game also serves as a good example of that theme. 19...Wg5 20. Be3 2.5 21. Be3 Wid 22. e4, and White made good on his ad- vantage. The plan with an advance of the a-pawn also gives Black the opportunity to trade off the light-squared bishops by means of ...2.c8(b7)-a6. See the game Lobron E. — Adams M. in Part I, Chap- ter 8. An interesting way to obtain coun- terplay with the help of an a-pawn march was encountered in the game Kritz L. — Kunin V., Mainz 2006: 1. 403 d5 2. e3 Df6 3. b3e64, 2b2 Le7 5. d4 0-0 6. 243 Dbd7 7. Abd? aSN. The symbol for a theoretical novelty is completely appropriate here, and not because it hadn’t been encountered before. The point is that this is a com- pletely new use of an old idea. Above all, let’s consider that Black doesn’t waste time developing his light-squared bishop, but immediately advances his a-pawn. The second factor is that Black doesn’t play ...c7-c5, which up until then was considered virtually automat- ic. But the c5 square will still come in handy for Black! 199Part II. Play for Black 8. DeS a4 9. Ebl. Now if Black pushes his pawn to a3, White’s dark- squared bishop will have a wonderful re- treat square. White also probably wanted to avoid a rook trade. Now, in hindsight, we can say that the e5-knight should have been rein- forced with 9. f4, which as arule is good 200 for White. Then on 9...2\xe5 he could recapture with the f-pawn. 9...2)xe5!? 10. dxe5 2d7. And here’s the second important moment: Black’s knight gets the opportunity to harass one of White’s main attacking pieces. 11. WhS. The attempt to keep the light-squared bishop doesn’t give White anything good, for example 11. c4 Ac5S 12. 2 dxc4. 11...g6 12. Wh6 AcS 13. hd. Here White could have kept the light-squared bishop with 13. Se2, but after 13...axb4 14. axb4 b6 followed by ...sc8-a6, Black still takes that important piece off the board. 13...axb4 14, axb4 Zxd3+ 15, cxd3 He8 16. D13 218 17. Wid We7 18. 2c3 Ha2, and Black went on the attack.Chapter 7 Half a Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! There’s nothing ideal in the world. This truism also refers to opening strategies. The Zukertort System is not flawless either. One of the constant concerns for White when playing the Yusupovka is the e4 square, and for Black it is the main trump card in his strategy to neutralize the activity of the white pieces. It turns out that even after White’s 1. d2-d4, the e4 square becomes a weakness. In his brilliant book The Art of Defense, published way back in 1927, Hans Kmoch introduces us to this issue. Above all we should note that he draws a distinction be- tween a concrete weakness — the weakness of a pawn — from an abstract weakness —the weakness of an unoccupied square. Let’s listen to him: ‘We'll now look at the question of whether with 1. d4 White creates, ifnot a con- crete weakness, then at least an abstract one. The weakness may only consist of the fact that the pawn that has advanced ceases to fulfill the functions that were charac- teristic of it on its starting square. The initial function of the d-pawn was possession of the ¢3 and e3 squares, and when desired the c4 and e4 squares, in the event of an advance to d3. The 3 and e3 squares are less important, as they are sufficiently defended regardless. In this respect the c4 and e4 squares are far more important; and so, with 1. d4 they lose the possibility of a very valuable defense. With this both of the indicated squares, although not yet becoming entirely weak, are nevertheless weaker than they were before. As applied to the ¢4 square this circumstance has no significance yet. As soon as the e-pawn has advanced, it has obtained defense from the bishop and, furthermore, it may be strengthened by an advance of one step by the b-pawn. Moreover, it is not a center square in the narrow sense and so is of less. significance. The e4 square is incomparably more important than c4. But now this square is very seriously weakened by the move 1. d4. It is not directly defended by the bishop, like the c4 square, and it cannot count on sucha good defense from neighbor- ing pawns, as the ¢4 square can. The reality is that the move b2-b3, which is essential in some cases, is almost always completely safe, and the b3 square is rarely selected in advance as a position for any of the pieces. Furthermore, the b-pawn does not serve 201Part II. Play for Black any particular purpose on its starting square. The situation with the f-pawn is com- pletely different. Only in rare cases, and especially rarely in the opening stage, can it be used for the defense of ¢4 by means of the advance f2-f3 with any kind of benefit. First, the 3 square is already allocated for the development of the knight, which is why it should remain clear, and secondly, the f-pawn in its starting position covers the diagonals on e! and g! and thereby providesa valuable defense of the king’s position. From this it follows that the move 1. d4 unquestionably weakens the e4 square! But does it create areal weakness? Avery accurate “philosophical” (shall we say) basis for one ofthe main issues in the Zukertort System! So let’s investigate the last question in Kmoch’s excerpt. But first we should note that advancing the f-pawn weakens not only the diagonals mentioned by Kmoch, but also indirectly the h2-b8 diagonal. The fact is that Black’s dark-squared bishop often “works” along this line, and with the inclusion of his queen in the game, and God forbid not a knight on e4 too, White’s castled king will be very difficult to defend, as cutting off the diagonal with the g3-pawn may not help. So, let’s assume that Black has been reading the book by the Austrian theoreti- cian and turns his attention to the e4 square. He immediately spots an impressive defensive maneuver: ...2f6-e4 and ...f7-£5, which coincidentally can serve as the basis for a kingside counterattack. This maneuver is good for Black for several rea- sons: first, by playing ...\f6-e4 and reinforcing it with ...f7-f5, Black neutralizes his opponent’s very dangerous light-squared bishop; secondly, the f7-pawn gets out of the way, enabling Black’s pieces to come to the defense of the kingside; thirdly, if necessary the black king can rush over to the queenside. This maneuver is one of the main counterarguments for Black to White’s setup in the Zukertort, and it can be carried out in different ways. Let’s start examining it with an old recommendation by Panov, who, knowing the classics well, probably spotted his idea in the old game Janowski — Jaffe, New York 1917, which today’s chess has modernized with a pre- liminary exchange of pawns on d4: Lehmann C. — Bush R. B72) Germany 1998 Wie awa is yy ‘a7 2 1. DB Af 2. d4e6 3. e354, 2d3 Fyy Ys Ayy He6 5. 0-0 dS 6. b3 2.46 7. Abd2 exd Ws, gi Ws V Pay, i gs The issue of the early exchange of ENG Ui, pawns on d4 is examined in Part II, Chapter 12. 8, exdd Db4 9, He2 Ded 202Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! 10. 2b2 10. Axe4 dxe4 11. g5 merits atten- tion. The ensuing complications are in White’s favor, for example 11...f5 (11... We? also gives White an edge: 12. Axe4 Sxh2+ 13. Ghl SF4 [13..Axc2 14, Ebl!2] 14. 2b5+) 12. 2b5+ Ac6 (12... 2d7 13. Dxe6) 13. 3 0-0 14. d5, and White has the initiative. 10...0-0 11. a3 Ac6 12. 243 £5, and in this position 13. e4!?, with a complicated game, deserves attention. As we have just seen, Panov’s recom- mendation consists of occupying e4 as soon as possible, for which purpose the bishop is first driven away from d3 (a2- a3 hasn’t been played yet). But if we take into account the fact that White can improve his play on move 10 (10. ed!?), then evidently Panov’s idea doesn’t work. If Black intends to occupy e4 withhis knight, then he has to bear in mind the fact that in that case White can obtain a queenside pawn majority. (See Puranen — Tuominen in Part I, Chapter 7.) Let’s have a look at Malaniuk V. — Sulskis S., Bydgoszcz 1999: 1. d4 Df6 2. DP €6 3. 3 b6 4. 23 2b7 5. 0-0 d5 6. b3 246 7. £.b2 0-0 8. DeS 59. Dd Des In this game the black knight’s jump to e4 was justified only thanks to a tac- tical ruse and... White’s excessive cau- tion! x WY N 10. xed dxed 11. Decd exd4 12. @xd6 Yxd6 13. 2xd4 eS 14. Ded Instead of this move, 14. &b2!? de- served attention, but then White’s pawn majority on the queenside doesn’t guar- antee him an easy life, as Black’s coun- terplay on the kingside after ...f7-f5-f4 looks fairly dangerous. But it only ap- pears that way. Let’s have a look: a) 14..Qd7 drops a pawn to 15. Dyed. b) 14...Hia6 15. cd, and a pin on the a6-f! diagonal is not possible for the time being. c) 14... d8 15. Ded We7 16. Wed Qd7 17. Bfd1, and White gets out of the 203Part II. Play for Black pin. There can’t even be any thought of an attack by Black on the kingside yet. d) 14...2a6 15. c4 £5 16. Abl Yeo (with this pawn structure, simplifying the game favors White: 16...!4xd1 17. Exdl Bc6 18. 23) 17. Ba3 Be8 18. c3 or 18. £3, with better chances for White either way. e) 14...4e6 15. Wh5 £5. In this posi- tion White can delay the plan to exploit his pawn advantage on the queenside, and start promising play on the opposite flank: after, for instance, 16. {3 exf3 17. &xf3, the move 18. 8/xh7+! is already threatened. White has a serious initia- tive. 14... Ye6 15. DxeS £6 16. Ded & a6!, and White cannot hold on to his extra pawn. The game ended in a draw. Before occupying e4 with his knight, Black should consider the following pos- sibility for White: an exchange on e4, the opening ofthe al-h8 diagonal, and a dou- ble attack by the queen on the e4-pawn and the g?7 square with the threat of mate: Perié S. — Ivanov J. Sautron 2002 1. d4 Df6 2. DPB e6 3, e3 05.4. 243 d5 5. b3 Acé In the game Jedjini P-Blagojevi¢ N., Belgrade 2008, Black went for a super- early 5...2e49!, After 6. &.xe4 dxed 7. SBe5, Black had difficulties developing his kingside because of the cut-off e4- pawn, which has to be watched: 7...cxd4 8 exd4 Ad7 (8...2e7 9. Wed Wxd4 10. 204 Wxg7 Wxal 11. Wxh8+ 268 12. Wee +-) 9. 0-0 AxeS 10. dxeS WdS (10... Wadd 11. Hxdl £&d7 12. Da2 4) 1. Qb2 &d7 12. We? 0-0-0 13. Hdl bs 14, Hxd5 &xe2 15. Hxd8+ Gxd8 16. ®Dc3, and the e4-pawn falls. 6. a3 2.46 7. 2b2 0-08. Aes Hed? Y oe 9. Dxc6! bxc6 10. Axed dxed 11. dxe5 &xc5 12. “gd threatening both to mate on g7 and to win the e4-pawn. Ob- viously Black preferred the latter. In Capablanca J.R. — Bernstein J., New York 1913, Black also rushed to occupy e4 with his knight, but he should have done this after castling: 1. d4 d5 2. AL3 D6 3. e3 Dbd7 4. 243 €6 5. b3 2d6 6. 2b2 c5 7. DeS Wel 8. £46 8...0-012, 9. 0-0 &b7 10. Ad2 ed? He need to play 10...0-0. Now, how- ever, White obtains a big positional ad-Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! vantage by force, thanks to the pin of Black’s knight on the a4-e8 diagonal. IL. Dxed dxed 12. QS! 2xeS 13. fxeS! 0-0? After this move we can say that Black’s position is hopeless. 13...2.d8, is better, but White has a clear advantage there, too. 14. 2xd7 Wxd7 15. dxcS Uxd1 16. Baxdl Bras Black doesn’t break out after 16... bxeS 17. Bd7, either (in this position Susan Polgar suggests 17. 2.43 Bac 18. d7, but with there such a big advantage there isn’t much difference between the suggested variations): 17...4c¢8 (17... &c6 18. Bc7 Back 19. Btxt7!) 18. Bc7 c4,and now 19. a3. 17, exb6 axb6 18. a4 HdS 18....&.a6 19. c4 and, with three white pawns on the queenside against a single black one, plus the weak black pawn on b6, White has an easy win. 19. Haat More accurate than the immediate 19. c4 because of 19...2d3, although White has an obvious advantage in this case, too. 19... 8 20. c4 Heads 20..Bxd4 doesn’t help: 21. &xd4 Ba6 22. Bal 26 23. Hdl we7 24. 2b2 Has 25. Hd6 iic8 26. dé, etc. 21. Exd8+ Exd8 22. 2d4, and White soon won. White can use the Bogolyubov trap in the battle for the e4 square: Polgar S. — Mai Thi H. Novi Sad 1990 1, d4 Df6 2, Df d5 3. €3 6 4. 243 5 5. b3 Dbd7 6. 0-0 Le7 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Abd2 b6 9. DeS Lb7 10. W13 Be’ 11. Zadi! White is preparing to repel an incur- sion on e4 by the black knight. In that case the queen’s rook should be placed on dl. The incredibly beautiful duel Hartston — Upton, England 1984, is closely interwoven with the Polgar game: 11. Wh3 xeS (In Van Der Werf M. — Tondivar B., Leeuwarden 2001, Black played 11...4.e4 immedi- ately, and after 12. f3 [it waspossible to set the Bogolyubov trap: 12. Had] and with the “automatic” reply our trap 205Part II, Play for Black works; 12...W07? 13. Dxd7!2 Wxd7 14. dxe5, and White wins material, as 14...2ig5 15. Wg3 £6 £15...bxc5? 16. h4 is even worse, as Black comes out a piece down} 16. cxb6 leaves him a pawn up] 12...2g5 13. Wg3 £5? [A mistake. It was necessary to play 13...cxd4 or 13...2xe5. In the game Kovaéevié V. — Nickoloff B., Toronto 1990, after 13...f6 the situation could have been limited to a slight edge for White, but the temptation to occupy e4 led Black into trouble: 14. Dxd7 Wxd7 15. Had) bS 16. dxcS QxcS 17. f4 2d6 18. Wed Bed (18...Af7 was correct, as White can't take the pawn on f6 19. &.xf6? be- cause of 19... \h6} 19. Dxe4 dxe4 20. &xb5! with a small plus for White] 14. h4? [A reciprocal mistake by White. White could obtain an advantage by a method indicated by Palliser: 14. Bxd7!? Wxd7 15. dxe5 bxeS 16. h4 c4 17. bxc4 2b4 18. Had! &xd2 19. Bxd2 dxc4 20. &xc4! Wxd2 21, Wxgs Ec7 22. &xe6+ Gh8 23. h5 with a winning attack for White] 14...A\xe5 15. dxeS @f7 16. hS, and Black was better af- ter 16...b5. Now in Flament A. — Grill M., France 2007, Black didn’t rush to occupy e4, and first of all defend- ed against the Bogolyubov trap with 11...h6. Then came 12. Hadl a6 13. c4 We7 14. f4, and Black decided to occupy e4 at last, but first exchanged on e5, which allowed White to obtain a big advantage: 14...2\xe5? 15. dxeS e4?, and now by following the clas- sic game Flohr §. — Lasker Em., Mos- cow 1936 [see the supplemental games section], White obtained a decisive advantage: 16. exdS! exdS 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. 2c4 Bed8 [18...2c6 is no 206 help: 19. e6 £6 20. Hd7!] 19. e6 f6 20. &d7 Bxd? 21. exd?7+ Hh8 22. Edi, and Black can’t hold this position.) 12. dxeS De4 13. Had! (threatening 14. Dxe4, when after 14...dxe4 White plays 15. &b5 followed by Ed7) 13... Dgs (13...Weo7) 14. Whd (In Johan- sen D. = Joshi C.G., Adelaide 1987, Black fell into the above trap: 14. &g3 £5.15. f4 Ded? [15...D47!2] 16. Dxet dxed [16...fxe4 17. &xe4 with an extra pawn] 17. &bS. And here Black acted according to Tartakover’s observation: “To avoid losing a piece, many players resign the game.”) 14...g6 (A fateful move! On the other hand, forewarned is forearmed!) 15. We2 (other than e4, the black knight doesn’t have a retreat square, and White, by playing f2-f4, can force him to go there, when the rest is as in the previous note) 15... We7 (Black eliminates White’s threat: his queen moves out of the danger- ous opposition with the white rook. Knowing what was in store for Black, we could suggest 15...f5 for him.) 16. c4 (as we already know, c2-c4 is one of the main weapons in White’s arse- nal in the battle for the center) 16... f5 17. f4 (the continuation 17. exf6 Qxf6 suits Black just fine) 17...2e4 (It would seem that Black’s position in the center is rock-solid: his knight on e4 is reinforced by two pawns. What devotee of the Zukertort Sys- tem doesn’t know how unpleasant this Black setup is for White?! Tartakover would have said of subsequent events on the board: “Black seems to have survived the worst already. But now a ‘combinational miracle’ intrudes into the game.”):Chapter 7. Halfa Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! 18. cxdS! exdS 19. Dxe4 fxe4 20. &xe4!! (The wonderful combination in this segment reminds me of the game Marshall F — Leonhardt P., Pistyan 1912. See Part I, Chapter 3.): 20... fd8 (On 20...dxe4, White re- plies 21. We4+ Hf7 [if the black pawn were on g7, it was possible to move the kingaway to h8: 22. e6 threatening Hd7]. Or 20...Eicd8 21. £5! dxe4 22. We4+ Og? [22...Wh8 23. e6+ Hf6 24. Hd7 +—] 23. {6+ Gh6 (23..2xf6 24. exf6+ Gh 25. Exd8 Wxd8 26. Web +—] 24. Web Sic8 25. Wxe7 Wxe7 26. fxe7 Exfl+ 27. Exfl He 28. Hf 2d7 29. e6 2b5 30. g4 Eixe7 31. Hf7 He8 (31...Hxe6 32. h4 +—] 32, hd Eig 33. e7 +-) 21. f5! (White pursues the attack brilliantly!) 2L...dxe4 22. We4+ Wg? (22...eh8 23. e6+ +—) 23. f6+ 2xf6 (after 23...Gh6 24. We2 the reader can see for him- self that Black can’t save the game) 24. exf6+ G8 25. Bxd8+ Wxd8 26. £7 Wd2 27. We6! Wxe3+ (27...Wxb2 28. Wd6+ g7 29. f8W+ isno help) 28. Gh Bd3 29. Wxe8+! &xc8 30. 227+!, and after this impressive move Black resigned. IL...We7 12. Wh3 h6 Black doesn’t manage to reinforce her position on e4 after a preliminary exchange on e4: 12...Axe5 13. dxed Ded 14, f3 Des 15. Wed. Black avoids the first trap, but... 13. 4 Dea? ..falls into the second one! Now White lures the black king to the d-file, trades on e4, and with gain of tempo (an attack on the queen) opens the d-file, winning a pawn: 14, Dxd7! Wxd7 207Part II. Play for Black After 14...xd2 15. @xf8 @xfl 16. &)xe6, Black is left two pawns down. 15. xed dxed 16. dxe5 BbS 16...8&xe5 doesn’t work because of 17. Axed. 17. Ded QxcS 18. Wigs 16 On 18...26 White plays 19. Yh4 and Wf6, with avery dangerous attack. 19. Wxe6+ Gh8 20. Hd7 He6 21. Wed, hitting the bishop on b7 and threatening mate on g7. Black resigned. In the next game the Bogolyubov trap worked again, but now under dif- ferent conditions: Singh P. — Das S. Mumbai 2008 1. d4 d5 2. AB Df 3. 3 e6 4. b3 246 5. 243 Dbd7 6. 2b2 v6 7. 0-0 2Qb7 8. Dbd2 0-0 9. We2 5 10. Des Ded 11. Badd £5 12. 2xe4 fixed 13. Wed Sts? On the surface this move looks like playing for an interception, but in fact it’s a mistake, after which White, at a minimum, will be left with extra mate- rial. Correct was 13...2.f6!. (see diagram) 14, Axd7! Starting to uncover the opposition of the rook and queen. 208 14...Wxd7 15. dxeS Opening the long diagonal and con- tinuing to unload the d-file. 15...bxcS 15...S.x05 16. Dxed4. 16. Dxedt Clearing the last obstacles on the d- file. 16...dxe4, and the finale on the theme of a very simple deflection: 17. Exd6, and White is much better.Chapter 7. Halfa Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! The preliminary exchange on eS fol- lowed by ...2\f6-e4 can lead to difficul- ties defending the e4-pawn, as it can’t be reinforced with ...f7-f5 because of the en passant capture e5xf6. Smyslov V. — Mariotti S. Venice 1974 1, DPB c5 2. b3 Dc6 3. 2b2 d5 4. e3 06 5. d4 Df6 6. 2d3 Be7 7. Abd2 0-0 8. 0-0 b6 9. DeS Ab7 10. 4 AxeS You can’t just come down and oc- cupy e4: 10...He4 11. Axed DxeS 12. ®xc5, and Black is down a pawn. So Black decides to support his knight jump to e4. But if he ties the capture on e5 to a subsequent ...4\f6-e4, then he must weigh up all the pros and cons, else he may be left without the e4-pawn. 11. fxeS!? Ded 12. Lxed dxed 13. 13.28 13...&g5 14. Rael &h4 (14...f5?! 15. exf6) 15. He2 (White didn’t want to weaken his castled position with 15. g3, as after the e4-pawn disappears the hl-a8 diagonal starts to tell) 15...845 16. Bid Wxed 17. xed Se7 18. Axed, and White won a pawn in Striter T. — Costello C., Hastings 1996. 14. c4 14. Qxe4? is bad because of 14... exd4, and the c2-pawn is under attack. 14...cxd4 15. 2x4 15. exd4? QeS! 16. dxcS Wxd2 17. &f2 We3 with a complicated game — S. Polgar. 15...205 16. Rxe5 HxeS 17. Axed Exe5 Black could preserve material equal- ity another way, too, but in that case he also obtained a worse rook ending, for example: 17.,.2xe4 (S. Polgar) 18. Wxed We7 19. Wi4 Wed 20. Bad. 18. Df6+ Yh8 19. ad] Ye7 20. 2d7 20, Ad7? Best. 20...\WeS 21. Bd! 21, Bxb7? Wxe3+ 22. Whi gxf6. 21...2.xg2 22. Ded xd The endgame is lost for Black after 22...axf1 23, DxeS Wxd4 24, exd4. 23. exdd Hgs 24. Hfxt7! 8 24...Bxf72? 25. Hd8+. 209Part II, Play for Black 25, Uxf8+ xf8 26. xg? Hxgd+ 27. Sf3 with a winning rook ending for White. When undertaking the maneuver, it’s very important for Black not only to occupy e4 with the knight in good time, but also to support it with ...f7-f5. In the next game White punishes Black for hesitating to play ...f7-f5, which allowed him to open the f-file by playing 19. f5. Yusupov A. — Spiridonoy N. Plovdiv 1983 1, d4 Df6 2. Df3.e6 3. e3 cS 4. 243 d5 5. b3 Zc6 6. &b2 2e7 7. 0-0 0-08. Dhd2 b6 9, AeS Ab4 10. 2e2 27 11. f4 Now White could return the bishop to a fighting post with 11. a3 Dc6 12. 2d3, but after 12...A\xe5 13. dxeS Ded White gets a position that is not easy to win. See Part II, Chapter 13, Langeweg — Sosonko. U...Ded 12, Axed dxed 13. a3 @ds After 13...2\c6 we have a position from Pytel K. — Luther T, France 2004, and Janowski D. — Jaffe C., New York 1917. See Part II, Chapter 7. 14, Wd2 Hes Instead of this move, Black could re- inforce the e4-pawn by moving his f-pawn with baby steps, first attacking the “de- vourer of tempi” — the e5-knight: 14...f6 210 15. Ded £5 16. AeS, with a position that is difficult to evaluate. We'll only point out that 15. 2c4 would hardly suit White. 15. 04 Di6™ An unsuccessful retreat, as it inter- feres with ...f7-f5. Instead 15...2.c7!? is better. 16. Hadl 2.462! 17. dxcS White not only opens up the long diagonal, but also obtains a queenside pawn majority, which can be exploited when the opportunity arises. See Part I, Chapter 7. 17...2xe5 18. Ye3 We? 19. £51? Now the f-file is opened and the King’s rook comes into play. After 19, 2g4 Black defends with the move 19...2e8; while 19. Ad7 is refuted by the counterattack 19.,..2xe3+!, 19...exf5 20. Hxf5Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! Here Black could have stopped to think, and perhaps it would have been worth trying to trade off the took, but he was tempted by material, after which there probably was no salvation: 20....2.xa3? 21, 2xa3 Yxa3 22, Exf6t Destroying the king’s pawn cover. 22...exf6 23, Qed He6 24. Dxf6+ Exf6 25. Wxi6 Uxh3 26. SEZ Wad. Black’s position was terrible anyway, but this mistake only hastens his demise. 27. WgS+ Gh8 28, We7 1-0. Black can conduct the battle for e4 by changing the order in which he de- velops his pieces, first fianchettoing his light-squared bishop, which will support ...2sf6-e4 from the b7 square, and only then completing the development of his other pieces. A second important point: pay attention to White’s moves 12 and 13, which typify his maneuver in the struggle for e4: Yusupov A. — Dautov R. Essen 2000 1. d4 Df6 2. Df3 e6 3. e3 D6 4. 2.3 2b7 5. 0-005 6. Dest? In Brkljaéa A. — Abramovié B., Bel- grade 2007, White ignored Black’s tricks and first completed his development: 6. b3 Abd7 7. 2b2 Le7 8. Abd2 0-0 9. c4!?(Aknight jump toe5nolonger yields any advantage: Miles A. — Nogueiras J., La Habana 2001, continued 9.‘e5 Ded 10. \xd7 [On 10. £4 there follows 10... @xd2 11. Yxd2 f5 with the closingofthe position. Nor does White have anything to hang his hat on after 10. Zxe4 dxe4 11. 2b5 Dyxe5 12. dxeS Wxdl 13. fxd! Hifd8, Gruchacz R. — Meyer J., New York 1979] 10...Wxd7 11. c4 xd? 12. Wxd2 dxe4 13. &xc4 c5 with equality) 9...He4 10. We2 (10. Hel) 10...Axd2 (Black surrenders e4. There’s another direction of play associated with the bat- tle fore4: 10...2df6, But 10...f5!? is also principled.) 11. “xd2 g6 (Of course, in some cases it is possible to weaken the al-h8 diagonal, if you still have your dark-squared bishop on the board. 11... £59! is dubious because of 12. cxd5 &.xd5 13. e4 fxed 14. Dxed. The continuation 11...h6 12. cxdS exdS 13. Hael cS 14. 3, with a subsequent 2.f5 and Hfdl, is more solid; or 11...2)f6 12. cxd5 exd5 13. 23, and the knight aims for e5.) 12. Had] Hc8 13. e4 c6?! (timid; 13...c5 is more active) 14. Hfel Wc7 15. Af3 216 (This allows White to grab space, close the center, and, in the absence of any real counterplay for Black, start an at- tack on the kingside. 15...dxe4 16. 2xe4 [16. Hixed c5 17. He3] 16...)f6 offered 211Part II. Play for Black better chances, but in this case, too, the weakening of the castled position with .27-g6 makes itself felt.) 16. e5! 2e7 17. cxdScxd5 18. Yd2 Bfeg 19. hat, and White’s attack triumphed in the end. 6.2.6 6...2\e4 has hardly ever been en- countered. In that case White can kick the black knight away to either {6 or d6 with f2-f3, and later, at a convenient time, play f3-f4, winning at least one tempo. But this latter move is included in White’s plans, as a rule. 7. £3 (The black knight can also be beaten back with 7. Wf3, ie. 7...2id6 [nor are the black pieces very well positioned, either, after 7... WF & WhS] 8 De3, and White has not only outpaced Black in develop- ment, but he has also successfully placed his pieces in active positions. The pluses aren’t that great yet, but with time they may gain in importance.) 7....d6 (7... M6) 8. f4 Ded 9, Sxe4 ded 10, Wh5 We7 (10...26 is bad due to 11. xg! fxg6 12. YeS) 11. £5 Ad7 12. fxe6 Axes 13. Wes free +. White’s task is more complicated if Black calmly completes development, without unnecessary gestures, for ex- ample 6...2e7 7. Dd2 0-0 (again 7... e4 looks rushed, for example 8. ¥/f3 Dd6 9. e4 [9. WhS] 9...0-0 10. exdS &xd5 11. Yh3 £5, and here in Dizdar G. — Blatny P., Stary Smokovec 1985, after 12. ¢4 &b7 13. Zdf3 White could have obtained some advantage) 8. Wf3 (On 8. fa Black could occupy e4 immediately: 8..Ded4 9. c4 [White’s lunges are eas- ily fended off: 9. Wh5S f6 10. Aged f5 11. 212 De5 Ad7 12. Hdf3 Ddf6, Beseda R. — Biolek R., Czech Republic 2003] 9... {6 [9...2d7 10. cxd5 Dxd2 fon 10...exd5 White play asin the main game: 11.@xe4 dxed 12, 2.04} 11. 2xd2 (1. Dxd7 de- serves attention: 11...2\xfl (11..%4xd7 12. dxe6 Yxe6 [active play is even worse: 12.85 13. exf7+ Bag? 14. Yxai2} 13. &xd2, and Black is a pawn down) 12. dxe6 Dxe? (the situation is a little more complicated after 12...Axh2 13. Dxf8) 13. Bxe3 fre6 (13..Ee8?? 14, exf7+ Sag? 15. Wb3+) 14. Dxf8 Brf8, and things are a little more pleasant for White} 11...Axe5 12. fxeS Wad5 13. Wed c5 14. Ef £5 15. exf6 Exf6, and Black equal- ized in Yusupov A. — Zamicki P., Min- neapolis 2005] 10. Mef3 c5 11.b3 Ad7 12. 2.62, andin Agamaliev G. — Roghani A., Tehran 2003, the players arrived at a complicated position that could go ei- ther way) 8...Abd7 (8...c5 9. b3 We7 [9...cxd4 10. exd4d Abd7 (10...c6) 11. Wh3 Ded 12. £3 ZxeS 13. dxeS g6 (13... f5!? 14, feed dxe4} 14. fxe4 dxe4 15. Dxed 2 xed 16. 2h6 &xd3 Cavatorta F — Ricci A., Arco 1999; 17. cxd3!?] 10. Wh3 Dc [10...Abd7 11. 2b2 Hes? 12. Dxd7 Wxd7 13. dxeS bxeS 14, 2xf6 Sxf6 15. Bxh7+ Wi 16. Badl, and subsequently in Csiszar C. — Lazar An., Balatonlelle 2001, White made good on his extra pawn and positional pluses] 11. @xc6 &.xc6 12. 8.b2 exd4 13. exd4 Wi 14. 2f3 Wed? 15. &xh7+! and White is a pawn up, Bogdanovich G. — Hane- winkel W., Leipzig 1996. Or 8...2\c6 9. a3 8.d6 10. Wg3 De? 11. Wh3 c5 12.63 ed, and in Petrosian T. — Furman S., USSR Championship, Moscow 1957, Black successfully established his knight on e4. See the supplemental games sec-Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! tion.) 9.b3 @xeS 10.dxe5Ad7 11. Wh3 86 12. &b2 Ac (We have already dis- cussed this knight maneuver) 13. Hadi (13. &e2) 13...a5 14. f4 Dxd3 15. exd3 a4, and in Greet A. — Rowson J., Scar- borough 2004, Black obtained counter- play on the queenside. After 6...bd7 7. £4 g6 (7...De4! 8, &b5 Def6 9. £5 t) 8. b3, we get a posi- tion from Yusupov A. — Anand V., Lin- ares 1991. See Part II, Chapter 10. 7, Dar 7. £40-0 8. Dd2 Ded 9. c4 Dd? (AF- ter this move, the white pieces create strong pressure on f7 along the a2-g8 diagonal, pinning down Black’s forces to the defense of the f7-pawn. This sit- uation can be avoided with 9...f5!?.) 10. exd5 exdS 11. Dxe4 dxe4 12. 204 DG 13, Wb3 Wes (after 13...We7 Black has to reckon with White’s dark-squared bishop transferring to h4: 14. 2.d2 Had 15. Bel BxeS [15...c5 16. Qh4 witha very unpleasant pin] 16. fxe5 [captur- ing with the d-pawn also deserves at- tention, for example 16. dxe5 @d5 17. Hdl WcS 18. Bhd Dxe3?! f18...d7 is better, but in that case too White has an advantage after 19, 8.¢2} 19. &xf7+ Gh8 20. Bxd8 with a decisive edge] 16...Ad5 17. a4 c5 18. Hdl Wes 19. £2 cxd4! 20, Elxd4 Ae7 21. &xt7+! with a big plus for White, Dizdar G. — Browne W., Reykjavik 1988) 14. 2d2 and White is slightly better, Yusupov A. — Dra’ko M., Sarajevo 1984. Note that in the battle for e4 White didn’t have to fesort to the main configuration of the Zukertort System. 7.ucDbd7 8. f4 5 9.3 0-0 10. b2 exd4 Acritical decision. Now, in the event of an exchange of minor pieces on e4, the black pawn on d5 moves to e4, which makes the pair of white pawns (c and d) moremobile (as Nimzowitsch would say, a “qualitative pawn superiority”). And after an exchange of minor pieces on 5, the e-pawn also joins them. That is. now very dangerous for Black, as shown by examining the game. Moreover, it will be easier for White to attack Black’s pawn if he doesn’t manage to reinforce it with ..£7-£5. 11, exd4 Ded 12. Axedt? dxed 13. Ret? With his last two moves GM Yusupov demonstrates another method of fight- ing for the e4 square: Black can’t play ..f7-5 for now, and the threat of f4-f5 also looms. 13...a6 The move 13...Af6, which was en- countered in the game Narciso M. — 213Part II, Play for Black Komaroy D., France 2000, leads to the immediate opening of the f-file: 14. f5 (as we've already seen, the moves &c4 and f4-fS are connected by a single logi- cal chain) 14...exf5 15. Exf5 a6 16. a4 dS (16...8d5? is also bad because of the simple 17. Exf6!) 17. Ye2 (17. Bxf7 was also examined, but the consequenc- es of that sacrifice are unclear) 17...bS!?, and in the end the case was closed with perpetual check. 14, a4. 2.45 Otherwise Black can’t play ...f7-f5. 15, We2a5 A white bishop on c4 is dangerous for Black, as it enhances the effect of the f- pawn’s advance. But Black can’t trade it off either, as this exchange leads to the loss of the e-pawn: 15...2xe4 16. Dxc4 @fé 17. Ad2. After the move in the game, White scurries his light-squared bishop away from the exchange, and now Black’s bishop on dS will only fa- cilitate the advance of the white pawns in the center. 16. 2b5 Axes White is also clearly better after 16... Di6 17. c4 2b7 18. #5 exf5 19. Bxf5. 17. fxeS 2b4 18.04 Ob7 19. Had1 WeS 20.d5 LcS+ 21. Gh] e3 22. Bs Wh4 23, Xg3 Had8 24. d6 hs 25. Sf f5 An attempt at liberation which leads to immediate defeat. 214 26. exf6 ext 27, Exf6t The pin on the long diagonal allows White to end the game impressively. 27...Ext6 28. Wed! The white queen joins the attack with tempo, as Black has to react to the “deflection,” 28...Wh6 29. Wxe6 HafS 30. d7 e2 31. Qxf6+ Wxf6 32. Hg8+! 1-0. Based on this game, we see that, prior to es- tablishing his knight on e4, Black must evaluate the consequences of the chang- es in his pawn structure. In the game Lindqvist T. — Pu- hakka E., Salo 1993, with 12. &c4!? White denied Black the opportunity to reinforce the e4-pawn with ...f7-£5, and later conducted an attack similar to that in Yusupov — Spiridonov, Plo- vdiv 1983, i.e. he began by opening the f-file:Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! 1. d4.d5 2. DB Aso 3. €3 06 4. 243 Abd7 5. b3.c5 6. 0-0 2e7 7. &b2 0-08, Abd2 b6 9. DeS 2b7 10. £4 In Nikoladze $. — Maisuradze N., Tbilisi 2000, Black’s ill-timed occupa- tion of e4 and the subsequent trade on e5 enabled White to mount a strong kingside attack with &d3-c4 and f4- £5, which are typical in this situation: 10, WH We7 11. Wh3 h6 12. f4 Ded 13. Axed dxed 14. Bcd DxeS 15. dxeS “06? (Palliser thinks that Black should have played 15...a6!, offering the following variation: 16. £5! b5S 17. f6 [17. fxe6!? GB] 17...bxc4 18. Wed g6 19. Yh4 &xf6 [White is also bet- ter after 19...Hfe8 20. fxe7 Wxe7 21. Wxh6 cxb3 22. axb3 — GB] 20. exf6 h7 21. bxc4, and “the f6-pawn will create problems for Black in future”) 16. £5! b5 (after 16...exf5 17. Wxfs We8 18. e6 £6 [18...fxe6 loses immedi- ately: 19. Wxe6+ Gh7 20. Bxf8 Wxf8 21. Efi] 19. Bad1, Black’s position is unenviable) 17. f6 bxc4 18. Bf4! &h7 (18...Bfe8 19. Hg4 g6 20. Yxh6 2f8 21, Bxgé+ fxg6 22. Wxg6+ Ghs 23. 7 with unavoidable mate) 19. fxe7 Hg8 20. xf? with a winning position for White. 10...He4 11. Axed Almost 40 years earlier, the plan in the game we’re examining was en- countered in the duel Guimard C. — Lundin E., Groningen 1946, where White’s capture of the a2-g8 diagonal decided the outcome: 11. Ye2 Hc8 12. Dyed deed 13. 2b5 Dxe5 14. dxes Wel: 15. f5! (by opening the f-file, White doesn’t give Black any breathing space) 15...exf3 16. 2.4! (16. Exf5 is weaker, as in that case Black succeeds in cutting off the dangerous diagonal with 16...8d5!) 16...2.cd8 (the attempt by Black to grab material looks fairly dangerous: 16...267! 17. e6! [White not only opens up the long diagonal, but also secures himself an outpost on d7 for his major pieces) 17...f6 18. g4! [now he starts to destroy the king’s pawn cover] 18...%9g7 (18... fxe4? loses: 19. Hadl] Bcd8 /19...2ce8 20. Bd? Wc6 21. Wdl Yc8 22. Exot, with a rout} 20. &xf6! (20. Ebgf6 wins too}; while after 18...©h8 19. 25 White obtains a powerful attack] 19. gxf5, and White regains material equality while keeping his big positional advantage) 17. HxfS 2d5 18. Sxd5 HxdS 19. Wed 26 20. Bf2 Wc6 21. Hafl Web 22. Wxed 16 23.3 fxeS 24. Hxf8+ &.xf8 25. c4 Bd2 26. & 03! Bd8 (26...2.xa2? 27. Yas! Ye7 28. WdS+!) 27. Yxes Wxe5 28. &xe5, and White won a pawn. Of course, that achievement doesn’t yet amount to vic- tory, and both sides could have improved their play in places, but the course of the game shows that White is digging in the right direction. 215Part II. Play for Black 11...dxe4 12, 2041? Now Black can’t play ...f7-f5, as the e6-pawn is left undefended. 12...D6 In Rumiantsey A. — Rodkin F, St. Petersburg 2004, Black tried to chase the white bishop away from c4 with 12... a6, but White nipped his opponent’s machinations in the bud: 13. a4 (White could already obtain a better ending, ie. 13. Dxd7 Wxd7 14. dxcS Wxdl 15. Eaxd! &xc5, with more or less has an extra pawn on the queenside; see Part I, Chapter 7) 13.268 14, We2 (14. £5!?) 14...2b8% (Black already has a wor- tisome position, and in addition he is undertaking an unsuccessful regrouping of his pieces that allows White to open the f-file immediately and attack the {7 square. We should point out that after the knight exchange 14...@)xe5 15. dxe5, White can play g2-g4 and f4-f5 with an attack on the kingside.) 15, f5!? exfS 16. ExfS Qd5 17, &xdS Wxd5 18. Bafl Web 19. di Wxd5 20. Ag6 Web 21. @®xf8 Hxf8, and White eventually made good on his material advantage. 216 13. £5 Dd5? Leads to an unnecessary weakening of his position. After the “normal” 13... exfS 14. Exf5, the whole battle still lies ahead. 14. fxe6 fxe6 In Braunlich T. — Lin K., Bartlesville 2009, Black pinned his hopes on tactical complications, and as a result fell under a crushing attack: 14...2xe3 15. exf7+ Gh8 16. Yh5 Wd6 (16...Axfl 17. Ags) 17. dxeS bxe5 18. Zadl! Axd1 19. Axd1 Wf6, and here White could have ended the game even faster than he actually did with 20. 2d3!, threatening totransfer the rook to the kingside, after which there’s no salvation. If Black takes the rook, then after 20...exd3 21. &xd3 mate is unavoidable. 15. Wed Bd6 16. dxcS bxeS 17. 4\d7, and Black soon resigned. If White hasn’t yet played f2-f4, then he has the opportunity to chase the black knight away from e4 with f2-f3 (a tech- niquewe have already seen), as happened, for example, in the following game: Bogdanovich G. — Knorzer M. Crailsheim 2006 1. d4. D6 2. DF3 e6 3. e3 dS 4. 243 5 5. b3 Dc6 6. 2b2 Le7 7. DAbd2 0-0 8.a3 If White plans to bring his queen out to f3 then this move must be made in or-Chapter 7. der to prevent ...2\c6-b4, as the bishop can’t retreat because the c2-pawn would be left undefended. 8...b6 9. DeS Ob7 10. Wi3 We? 11. wh3 The starting position of the Bogo- lyubov trap, but Black evidently avoids it “in the course of events.” 1L...g6 In Gonzalez D. — Soto S., Murcia 1997, after the preliminary exchange in the center 11...cxd4 12. exd4, Black de- fends from White’s threat to push the h- pawn, but in this case too White’s pres- sure on the castled black king doesn’t let up — rather, on the contrary, it intensi- fies due to the possibility of bringing the dark-squared bishop into the attack along the cl-h6 diagonal: 12...h6 13. 0- 0 Hac8 14. Bael DxeS 15. dxeS Ded (After 15...2d7 White can continue the game thus: 16. b4 a5 17. He3 axb4 18. Eg3 Ghs 19. D3 with a strong attack, for example: 19...bxa3? 20. &cl, and Black can resign. For more detail on play in the event of an exchange on e5 see Part II, Chapter 13.) 16. &xe4 dxe4 17. c4b5 18. Dxed bxc4d 19. DGS+!? Ghs? (Black blunders. 19...2.xf6 was correct, for example 20. exf6 gxf6 [20...c3? 21. cl +] 21. &xfo Wf and, although White is better, there no direct path to vietory,) 20. 2.c1!? Web 21. £3 Wes+ 22. Wh1 Sxf6 23. exi hS 24. fxg7+ Sxg7 25. Wei+ Gf6 26. Sh6 Heys 27. Whd+ S26 28. 2.4 16 29. Hxe6 Wis 30. He7, and Black can no longer save his posi- tion. Halfa Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! 12. 0-0 Ded After 12..AxeS 13. dxeS Ded, White should take with the bishop if he wants to have something to work with: 14. &xe4 dxed 15. Bid]. On 14. AB there follows 14...c4!, while after 14. ®xe4 dxe4, White’s queen is outside the combat zone. See Part II, Chap- ter 13. 13. Adf3f5 14. DAxcé &xe6 15. Aes 216 16. £3 A knight one e4 like this can’t be tol- erated, which is why we chase it away, thanks to the fact that the f-pawn hasn’t moved yet. 16...2g5 17. Wes AT 18 Ags 208 19. D16+ Sg7 After 19...27h8 20. Wh4 h5 21. e4 the game switches to a state of play usually marked by the “unclear” symbol. 20. DhS+ Gh6? 217Part II. Play for Black Reiveating (rh fleadicateminienan, to the loss of a pawn: 20...@h8 21. Af4 He8 (21... 8e7 22. cd!) 22. dxc5+. But after the king returns to its pre- vious stopping place, White can choose between 20...7g8 21. fd withaslightly better position; or 21. f6, agreeing toa Tepetition. 21. D4 We? 22, ed! He has to open the way to the enemy king. 22...0xd4 22...fxe4 also loses, for example 23. fxed dxed 24. Sc4 2d7 25. dS Ado (25...exd5 26, AxdS Wh4 27, Yc3 +—) 26. Dxg6 Exfl+ 27. Bxfl hxg6 28. 2.16 Te 23, exdS 2xd5 24. DxdS exd5 25, Wat &e7 25...We5 26. Wxd4 +—. 218 26. Uxd4+ Wh 27. WxdS, and White soon won. Inthe next game Black tried to plunk his knight on e4 without having to weak- en his castled position with g- or h-pawn moves, and here’s what that negligence led to: Danner G. — Gerber R. Switzerland 1996 1. d4.d5 2. D3 Alo 3. €3 06 4. 2.43 5 5, b3 Dbd?7 6, 0-0 2e7 7. 2b2 0-08, Abd2 b6 9. AeS 2b7 10. 913 Ye7 11. Wh3 Des?! An unsuccessful move, after which White chases the black knight away from the action. Instead 11...26!?, as in the previous game, would have been better. 12. dxe5 Ded 13. 3!? Thanks to this move, White clears the enemy pieces off the strategic diagonal. 13,..Dg5 14, Ug hé Black could still lash out with the move 14...b5. After Black’s move in the game, White obtains the better game. 15. hd Dh7 16. 4 Lads 17. £5! with a strong attack for White. Inthe next game, after an early pawn trade on d4 White first provokes ...f7-£5, which Black had intended to make any- way, and then, after defending e4 withChapter 7. Halfa Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! f2-f3, starts playing against the back- ward e-pawn: Schlechter C. — Bardsz Z. Pistyan 1912 1.d4d52. Df3e63.e3 Af64. Abd2 Dbd7 5. 2.43 c5 6. b3cxd4 7. exdd 246 8 2b2 0-0 9. 0-0 b6 10. DeS 2b7 11. Bel We7 12.23 De8 Black lets the f-pawn advance in or- der to occupy e4 later with its support. But he did not consider the fact that the e-file is open, and that the white f-pawn is on its starting square. 13, He3 £5 White threatened to bring the “dream plan” to life: for example, on the move 13...He8, which Black often makes against the Zukertort System, there follows a combination which is al- ready familiar to us: 14. 2xh7+! &xh7 15. Bh3+ eg8 16. Bhs. Black has avoided direct threats to his king, but now Schlechter starts fo- cusing on the weak e6-pawn: 14. Dxd7 Wxd7 15. AB Dw 16. ®e5 LxeS 17. Exes Hae8 18. £3! Let’s summarize: Black’s efforts to control e4 have turned into a positional weakness on e6. 18....208 19. Yd2 WET 20. a4t Bringing the dark-squared bishop into play. 20...c0h8 21. Ele2 a6?! Now Blackalso needs to keep an eye on the a6-pawn. 22, 2a3 Hg8 23. 2d6 Dd7 24. Bael WHE 25. 2e5 Axe 26, BxeS White’s advantage is evident: Black has weak pawns on e6 and a6. Now 27. &f5is threatened. 26...\d8? It was still possible to put up some resistance with 26...Bef8. Now, though, the game ends swiftly: 27. We2 Black must part with either the a- pawn or the f-pawn. 27.,.2ef8 28, 2.xa6, and White made good on his material advantage. If Black establishes a knight on e4, then White can start to undermine Black’s foundations in the center with c2-c4: Salwe G. — Speijer A. Hamburg 1910 1. d4d52. D3 Df6 3. e3 e64. £43 5 5. b3 Deb 6. Lb2 Des 6...&e7 7. 0-0 cxd4 (the continu- ation 7...0-0 8. @bd2 b6 with a sub- sequent ....2c8-b7 leads to the main tabiya in the Zukertort System) 8 exd4 219Part II. Play for Black Bed 9. c4!? (Susan Polgar also draws attention to this move) 9...f5 10. c3 0- O11. cxd5 Axc3 (White must be forced to give up the e4 square, as 11...exd5? meets with 12. xd5!) 12. 2xc3 exdS (after 12...Wxd5 13. 2c4 Was 14. ds, White opens the long diagonal with a clear advantage) 13. Hel 2f6 14. Aes Wh6 15. WP! 2e6 (15..Axd4 is bad because of 16. Wxd5+ Deb 17. &xf5, and White is up a pawn) 16. Axc6 (the f5-pawn can’t be taken, as after 16. AxfS RxfS 17. Wxfs Bxed5 18. Web+ Gh8 19. dxeS the f2-pawn is left unde- fended) 16...Wxc6 17. Hacl Bac8? (af- ter the correct 17... Wd6, the entire bat- tle would still be ahead of us) 18. Ye3! (simultaneously defending the cl-rook and attacking the e6-bishop, and then a bishop move to c3 is decisive) 18...2d7 19. &b4, and in Janowski D. — Wolf H., Hanover 1902, White cashed in on his material advantage. White claimed victory, but somewhat unconvincingly thanks to Black’s horrible blunder. White has to look for an improvement on his play starting at move 13, and possibly even at move 10. 7. 0-0 £5 8.a3 In my view, this simply loses time. After Black has reinforced his knight on the e4 square, White’s main attacking plan doesn’t work, and in that case there is no need to secure a parking spot for the light-squared bishop on d3. 8. c4!? right away is better. 8.916 9. Dbd2 9.412, 220 9...2.d6 10. c4 Wh6 11. dxe5 Dxe5 12, We2 12. &c2 also looks good. 12...Dxd3 13, Yxd3 Difficulties defending the cen- ter pawns have suddenly appeared for Black, and he undertakes a spirited counterattack. 13...e5 14. Wxd5 e4 15. DeS 2xe5 16. 2xe5 Le6 17. WS, and White was left a pawn ahead, with no threats to his king. What conclusion can we draw from this game? Start bothering Black’s “dia- mond” (d5/e6/fS/Ae4) as quickly as possible (c2-c4!2), We've already come across this method for White to fight against Black’s “fortified zone” on more than one occasion. We can add that White can also play on the king- side starting with g2-g4 — see Janowski — Rubinstein, Prague 1908, in the sup- plemental games section.Chapter 7. Halfa Kingdom fora Horse ...on e4! Inthe next game, ata critical moment Black secures himself a knight move to e4. Had White taken the knight, the center would have opened up, the white king would have been exposed, and his c2-pawn would have fallen; then Black could have reinforced the knight with ...f7-f5, closing up the center, and leaving all the attacking force of the white pieces to founder upon the black knight: Konarkowska-Sokolov H. — Pachman L. Palma de Mallorca 1989 1.d4 Df6 2. Df3 e6 3. 3.05.4. 2d3 d5 5. b3 Ac6 6. a3 Be7 7. 0-0 0-0 8. Qb2 b6 9. Abd2 2.b7 10. eS exd4 11. @xe6!? You resort to this in-between knight trade as White when you don’t want to play with the pawn structure investigat- ed in Part II, Chapter 13. 11....2x06 12, exdd With this pawn structure, it’s a more complicated proposition for Black to obtain counterplay. 12...b5 13. We2 Wh6 14. £4 A forced march by the g-pawn to 25 deserved attention, to chase the knight away from f6, whence it was preparing to jump to e4, and getting it further away from the: defense of its king In addition, after the move in the game White loses the possibility of controlling e4 with f2-f3. 14...2.d6 15, Bh Bfe8 16. W132! Losing time. 16. 4 immediately is better. 16...2ac8 17. Kael White now has to solve the problem of defending the c2-pawn. This could be done with one of three moves: 17,3; 17. Hacl; 17. Ere. 17... 847 18. g4? See the note to the previous move. Gy y ee 3 ag FY La nie 18...Ded! Thanks to White’s careless play, Black has managed to carry out his main 221Part II. Play for Black defensive maneuver — occupying e4 with his knight. 19. He2 19, 2xe4? dxe4 20. Bxe4 2xe4 21. Wxe4 Wxc2, and now it’s possible to speak only of an advantage for Black. 19...f5, and by reinforcing the knight on e4 with the f-pawn, Black has ob- tained ample play. In the next game White was already prepared to start destroying the black king’s castle, but Black managed to avoid a powerful attack with a timely pawn sacrifice after 21...2\e4!?. Bogdanovich G. — Donchenko A. Eschborn 2003 1. d4.d52. AB e6 3. e354. b3 Df 5. &d3 Le7 6. 0-0 0-0 7. Abd2 b6 8. &b2 2b7 9. DeS Dbd7 10. W413 cxdd 11. Dxd7!? A fairly important moment when playing the Zukertort System, to which we should pay some attention. White prefers not to enter the variation 11. exd4 Zxe5 12. dxeS Dd7 13. Wh3 g6, and Black’s fortress is fairly solid. We should add that in this case the c5 square is accessible to the black knight, from which it can either attack the d3- bishop or jump to e4, Plus, the black d- pawn can advance whenthe opportunity arises, freeing up the hl-a8 diagonal for the queen and bishop. Basically, Black gets counterplay. Later on, in Part II, 222 Chapter 13, we’ll revisit the problem of trading on e5. Black has more problems after 13... h6, ie. 14. £41? (14. Had1 is weaker, as happened in Yusupov A. — Kempinski R., Germany 2008, whichafter 14...Ac5 15. 2e2 We7 16. 2d4 Hfd8 17. c3 Des soon ended in a draw) 14...2c5 15. 2e2 aS 16. Bd4 Ba6 17. Bael Wd7 18. 3 Sxe2 19. Bxe2 Back 20. Be3 b5? (Nev- ertheless, prophylactic moves aren’t a bad thing, and in this position especially. Now, though, White’s offensive develops of its own accord.) 21. &g3 Yh? 22. £5! (Rotstein J. — Frohne G., Essen 2000), and now 22...exfS 23. Exg7+ &xg7 24. e6+ is impossible. And while Black couldn’t take the pawn, White advanced it to {6 on the next move, after which his opponent's castled position quickly col- lapsed. 1L....Wxd7 12. exd4 12. &.xd4 Wd6 and then ...c6-e5. Unlike in Yusupov — Scheeren (see Part I, Chapter 1), White doesn’t succeed in taking control of the eS square.Chapter 7. Half a Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! 12...2.b4 13. 63 2.46 14. Zfel White transfers control of e4 to the took, to release the queen from this hu- miliating job. 14...Efe8 15. Yh3 h6?! There was no need for this move, and now a hook appears in Black’s position. White begins rearranging his pieces for a decisive attack on the king- side. Black should have played 15...a5 immediately. 16. Zadi 16. c4 is possible, and Black can give White hanging pawns, but in that case a breakthrough by the white pawns in the center is very dangerous. See Part I, Chapter 5. 16...a5 If Black has counterplay anywhere, it’s on the queenside, so he starts an at- tack by the pawn minority. 17.a4 On 17. f3 there would have been 17...a4 and the a-file comes open. 17...2a6 18. 2b1 Babs It was probably also possible to play .b6-b5 immediately. We should point out that the game was played at a fast time control. 19. DEB bS 20. DeS We7 21. Bel 21...Ded!? The decision of an experienced chessplayer: with this pawn sacrifice, Black pours cold water on White’s at- tack. Continuing to play on the queen- side, ignoring White’s actions on the opposite wing, could have had unhappy consequences for Black, for example: 21...bxa4d 22. &xh6 gxh6 (22...Exb3 23. gs Wc7 24. 2xf6 gxf6 25. Ags, and it’s very bad for the second player) 23. Wah6 WHS 24, Wixi Yg7 25. Uh4 with a very strong attack for White. The black knight’s jump to e4 is one of Black’s main lifelines in the Yusupovka. By the way, a similar sacrifice was undertaken in Flohr — Vidmar, Bled 1931. See the supplemental games section. 22. Bxed dxed 23. axbS 2xbS 24. Exe4 28 25. 4 25. Hed!?. 25...a4 White could still hope for something with 26. Hg4. But now, after 26. bxad Qxad 27. Edel 22, White doesn’t 223Part II. Play for Black have to “deal with” the question of how to win. In conclusion we'll note: if Black manages to place his knight on e4, then he shouldn’t voluntarily abandon this extremely important square and open the strategic b1-h7 diagonal for White’s light-squared bishop. Bruzén L. — Timman J. Curaco 2005 1, d4 Df 2. DEB e6 3, e3 5 4. 2.43 d5 5, b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08, @Dbd2 b6 9. a3 Lb7 10. DeS De7 11. £4 With the move in the game, White allows Black to occupy e4. But he can bring his queen out to f3 to stop the en- emy knight from reaching this strategic point. In that case we should give some attention to the game Bagirov V. — Ko- chyev A., Leningrad 1989, in which Black weakened White’s control of e4 by trading off the light-squared bish- ops, and, incidentally, removing the c2- pawn’s main defender: 11. Wf Agé6. The goal of the Bogolyubov maneuver isn’t only to contest the e4 square, but also, by transferring the knight to g6, to shield the monarch’s “chest,” and an offer to exchange pieces on that same square is also possible. (After 11...2c8 we have on the board a position from Rubinstein A. — Bogolyubov E., Géte- borg 1920, in which Black didn’t get to reinforce the e4 square, but the battle- field situation was fairly muddled. See the supplemental games section.) 12. Wh3 cdx4 13. Dxgé hxg6 14. exd4: 224 14...2h5!? (Black shows a precise route to equality. In Rubinstein — Bo- golyuboy, Black proceeded without suc- cess, fighting for e4 to the bitter end: 14... Hc8 15. Hfel Bc7 16. Of3 Hed 17. Des Axe5 18. dxeS DcS 19, da Wd7 20. b4 e4, and finally his kingside play brought victory to White.) 15, g3 a5!? 16. a4 (the attempt to avoid an exchange of light- squared bishops with 16. fd is met by 16...24) 16...£a6 17. &xa6 (it’s also pos- sible to go 17. c4, of course, and play with hanging pawns, but then Black has his counterplay) 17...iixa6, and the players agreed to a draw a few moves later. After 11. We2 De4 12. &xe4 deed 13. dxe5 bxc5, White obtains a pawn majority on the queenside. See Puranen J. — Tuominen R. in Part I, Chapter 7. 11...De4 12. Ye2 Anyone who doesn’t fear leaving their opponent the bishop pair may be interested in 12. Dec4!?, The idea, after 12.,.S07 13. S&xe4 dxe4 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Wed, is to obtain a queenside pawn majority (see Part I, Chapter 7) and some initiative on top of that.Chapter 7. 12...£6 13. Def3 13. Dec4!? Axd2 (13..Ac7 14. Axed dxe4 15. dxeS!? bxcS. “It’s not easy to improve White’s pieces and Black should be fine here” — Palliser. 16. Whs Was 17. Wed 2a6 18. Bid Bad8 19. Sf2 +) 14. Dxd22. 13, &xe4 dxe4 14. Decd Bc7 15. dxe5 bxc5 +. 13...H.c8 14.04 As we have already said, when Black is about to anchor his knight on e4 with .f7-f5, it’s useful for White to start un- dermining Black’s center with c2-c4. 14...Dxd27! Black’s e4-knight blocked the dan- gerous b]-h7 diagonal. It was better to maintain the tension in the center with 14... Wes. Half a Kingdom for a Horse ...on e4! 15, @)xd2 He8?! Black hopes to get in ...e6-e5, but as the course of the game showed, that venture was unfeasible. 16. Hadi 16. dxcS!? bxcS (16...&xe5 17. b4 &d6 18. e4 +) 17. Badl +. 16...4e7 Commentators have suggested 16... oxd4 17. exd4 25 with an unclear game. Now, however, White gets an advantage. 17. dxeS!? bxeS 17...&xc5 also leaves White on top, for instance 18. b4 id6 19. Wed (19. Wh5!? £5 20. H1!? Finkel) 19.236 (after 19...e5 20. exd5 Dxd5 [20...2xd5 21. Ded &xe4 22, Axed +] 21. Ded, White’s pieces, unlike Black’s, are po- sitioned very effectively) 20. 2.xg6 hxg6 21. Wxgé dxe4 22. Dxe4, and White is a pawn up with active pieces. After Black’s actual move, White could have obtained a positional advan- tage: 18. WhS £5 19. D3. The threats of the 4+) pin are very dangerous, White’s dark-squared bishop has seized the long diagonal; Black’s pawn triangle is unstable because of the move c2-c4 by White; and the black knight is poorly positioned. 225Chapter 8 Following Capablanca’s Recipe It’s no secret that the vast majority of chessplayers (apart from those eccentrics who prefer to wander down their own chess paths) above all watch what “elite” play- ers are doing. Any “fruitful opening idea” promulgated by the top practitioners is instantly seized upon by players at lower levels. And, of course, when a chess “idol” of the early twentieth century, such as Capablanca, suggested a new plan for devel- oping the black pieces in the Zukertort System (with the help of which he brought down a titan like Bogolyuboy), then it already seemed to many people that an “anti- Zukertort vaccine” had been found — particularly as the world champion had tested it himself. But the Zukertort “virus” mutated, and it continues to “afflict” those who fight against the Zukertort System. But first things first. At the first supertournament of the twentieth century, Capablanca suggested de- veloping the black pieces according to the following scheme: ...2\c6, .2d6, and ...We7 followed by ...&a3. Bogolyubov E. — Capablanca J.R. New York 1924 1. d4 Df6 2. D3 dS 3. e3 e6 4. 243 5 5. b3 Dc6 6, 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. Abd2 “8. a3! We7 9. Des is more ac- curate, preventing the following ex- change operation and retaining some initiative”? — Garry Kasparov. An ob- solete but suprisingly sprightly view- point. In this chapter we'll discover that even if White allows an exchange of the dark-squared bishops, Black has 226 to play accurately in order to equal- ize, and it’s really quite hard to lose as White, given a certain amount of circumspection. Secondly, the recom- mended move 8. a3 isn’t strong, but generally dubious in terms of the battle for the initiative, as it takes an impor- tant square away from the knight. (It does apply to the black piece configu- ration involving ...Wc7, ...Ac6, and ...4.d6.) Some semblance of the initia- tive after 8. a3 with asubsequent c2-c4 is easily extinguished by Black, as he plays ...Wd8-c7 (and not ...\Wd8-e7) and ...e6-e5, while in this case thereChapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe can’t even be any talk of playing Df3- e5. I’m getting ahead of events a little: you'll find out about this problem in more detail in the next chapter. As TV announcers say: “Stay tuned!” 8...We7!? Now White has a choice: which of two threats (...e6-e5, or ..cSxd4 and ...4,d6-a3) to prevent” In my view, the lesser of these two evils is the exchange ofthe dark-squared bishops. This trade is certainly good for Black, despite the fact that his dark-squared bishop is theoreti- cally active and its counterpart, which sits behind its own pawns, is bad. But the truth is that the b2-bishop not only cov- ers the dark squares on the queenside, it is also one of the key pieces in White’s attacking plan: in the first place, it con- trols the e5 square by “X-ray” action; and in the second, the threat of flinging open the long diagonal hangs constantly over Black. For students of the Zukertort, this remark by Karpov and Kalinichenko is very important: “...why does Black place his queen on e7 immediately, and not after a preliminary exchange on d4? The explanation is quite simple. If Black plays 8...cxd4! 9. exd4 We7, then White can calmly reply 10. a3!, not fear- ing 10...e5 due to 11. dxeS AxeS 12. Dxe5 Qxe5 13. Bel — after which 13... Ded 14. Bxe5 Dres 15. A2xh7+! Oxh7 16, Wh5+ Sg8 17, Yxe5 and 13...De4 14.Bxe5 Wed 15.Axed dred 16.Sxe4 are equally bad.” 9. De5 The attempt by Zukertort System supporters to prevent the exchange of the dark-squared bishops with 9. a3 has yet to achieve anything concrete. In that case Black, following Capablanca’s rec- ipe, undertakes the liberating advance of hise-pawn inthe center: 9...e5! 10. dxc5 (an attempt to refute Capablanca’s idea; after 10. dxeS “\xe5 Black’s position is as easy as pie) 10...2xc5 11. b4 2d6 (11...&b6 12. b5) 12. c4 (after 12. e4 d4 White has no advantage, Przezdziecka M. — Vasilevich T., Ekaterinburg 2007) 12...dxe4(12...e4 leads to unclear conse- quences: 13. & xf6!? gxf6 (13...Yxf6 14. Saxed dxed 15. Dxe4 &xh2+ 16. Dxh?2, and at first glance no compensation for Black for the pawn is apparent] 14. cxd5. exd3 [14...exf3 15. dxc6 fxg? 16. Oxg2 Wes (16... Bh8 17, 2xh7l) 17. f4 Uxe3 18. Hf3, and punishment awaits no mat- ter where the black queen goes, i.e. 18... We? 19. He3+ Bhs 20. &xh7, with a hopeless position for Black] 15. dxc6, when the pluses of White’s position still probably outweigh the virtues of Black’s position) 13. Axe4 Hdl? (13...2c7 14. bS e4 15. &xf6 gxf6 16. 2xed4 [after 16. 227Part II. Play for Black bxo6 exd3 /76.,.exf3? 17, Wf} 17. cxb7 2xb7 18. Wxd3 we don’t even have to talk about compensation, as the position of the black pieces is awful; that’s why taking with the bishop on e4 looks more solid] 16...Wxe4 17. bxc6 Wxe4?! 18. exb7 &xb7 19. Bel &xh2+ 20. Axh2 and White is better) 14. Yc2 a6 (the variation 14...&2xb4 15. Dfxe5 DxeS 16. BxeS Bc5 17. Bxf6 Wxf6 18. 2xh7+ G8 19. &e4 looks suspect for Black) 15. AgS h6 16. He4 2c7 17. Axfo+ \4xf6 with an unclear position, Boissel B. — Holmberg R., corr. 1998. 9...0xdd 9...WWc7!2 10. Ddf3 cxd4 11. Axcé (11. exd4 Db4!) 11...bxe6 12. exd4 aS also leads to equality, Conquest S. — Lu- ther T., Paris 1995. The move 10. 2df3 doesn’t bother Black. But 10. £4!? (see Yusupov — De Boer below) causes him much more trouble. 10. exd4 2.a3!7 11. &xa3 For 11. Wel, see below. 228 IL..Wxa3 For a long time, the theory of this variation gave the nod to Black, pointing to his play on the c-file and the weak- ness of White’s queenside dark squares. But recent games (see below) convince us more and more that when White goes into this position he isn’t risking any- thing in particular, whereas Black needs to be extremely careful. 12. Dav Savielly Tartakover, most likely im- pressed by the present game, basically sug- gested sealing the c-file with 12. Axc6. 12...82d7!? “Tn the game Yates F — Mardczy G., The Hague 1921, here the too-hasty 12... &b4 was played, after which White, by continuing 13. Wel! WaS (13...Wxcl 14. Efxcl Dxd3 15. exd3!) 14. Yd2 Wbé 15. c4, immediately freed himselfand strength- ened his position” — Tartakover. There are also modern games with the move 12... b4, but they haven’t added anything substantial to the theory of this variation. 13. Dxc6 ‘We'll point out that 13. Wel can lead immediately after 13...Wxcl 14. Hfxcl to a position from Bakre T. — Potkin V., Abu Dhabi 2006, in which, as they say, there was nothing for either player to grab on to. The position is not as harmless as it might appear, and the following two games illustrate that: 13. Hel Wd6 (In‘Chapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe Letov A. — Bashkov V., Pavlodar 1991, the d3-bishop could again decide the fate of the game: 13...Hac8 14. Axc6 Exc6 15. He (15. c4!?] 15..He3 16. He3 Hfck 17. Wf 2e8?. Black sets a trap into which he himself could fall. Now White could have gone for the typical bishop sacrifice: 18. &xh7+!? Bxh7 19. Exc3 Yb2, and it seems that White has “fallen for it,” but... 20. Wxf7+!! xf? 21. Bxc8+ D8 22. Bel Wxd4 23. Dd7 winning the piece back, with better chances for White.) 14. Dxc6 Axc6 15. DeS. As a result of Black’s toothless maneuvers, White has retained the pride of his position, the bishop on d3, which later made itself felt very forcefully, as often happens in this system: 15...2d7 16. He3 @\xeS 17. dxeS Wa7? (17...84d8!2) 18. &xh7+! Gxh7 19, WhS+ dg8 20. Bh3 16 21. exfe Axi 22. Wh8+, and White made good on his material advantage in Askaroy M. — Kiselev A., Rybinsk 1997. 13...2xc6 14, Wd2? “Tt made much more sense here to play, for example: 14. Wel! Wb4 15. Wd2 Wbé 16. eS, etc.” — Alekhine. 14... Zac8 15. ¢39! The position isn’t lost for White, but his subsequent play led to an unhappy result, and the words of Garry Kasparov are confirmation of this: “Nowadays you couldn’t even imagine a grandmas- ter in the world’s top 10 (or perhaps even 100) losing this position as White.” Of course, we — all the other chessplayers —are mere “tourists,” and can lose any position, but the position we're discuss- ing is irrelevant here. It’s just that here it’s difficult for White to count on a re- spectable result. 15...a6 Alekhine praised this move with an exclamation mark. Black is paving the way for the bishop trade, not only free- ing the ¢c-file for his major pieces, but it also forcing his opponent to confirm the weakness of the e4 square. Kasparov, though, gives preference to 15...Wa5!?, and then 16. a4 (16. DeS 2b5!) 16... Ded 17. Rxed dred 18. Des Ld5 19. b4 Wd8 20. a5 (6 21. Dg4, with a more pleasant game for Black. 16. DeS Sbs! 229Part II. Play for Black 17. £3? Both Kasparov and Susan Polgar pro- pose 17. c4!. Perhaps Bogolyubov didn’t wish to play with hanging pawns after 17... dxc4 18. bxc4. But White’s position is ac- tually verygood! It’s quite possible that he simply got excited about some deep idea, which happens fairly often even among high-level players. We should note that the exchange 17. &.xb5 axbS favors Black as the a-file comes open. 17... 2xd3 18. Dxd3 He7 Storm clouds are starting to gather over the c3-pawn. 19. Hacl Hfc8 20. He2 Dek! “Black wants to transfer his knight to b5, intensifying the pressure on the c3 and d4 squares” — Panov. 21. Biel Ad6 Now White can only dream about playing c3-c4. 22, eS?! 22. AcS is stronger. 22...WaS 23, a4?! It’s interesting to compare the opin- ions of two great players about this move, who evaluate its necessity differently, though not the result. (a) “A new weak- ness, after which there is no longer any defense. It was still possible to try to save the queenside with the maneuver e5- 230 d3-c5-a4” — Alekhine. (b) “Only this subsequent weakening of the queenside can prevent the threat of 23...b5 24. 4 Wxd2 25. Bxd2 f6!, winning the c-pawn (on 23. d3 first, 23...b6 would have fol- lowed and then ...44b5)” — Tartakover. 23... 46! 24. Dd3? Of course, White’s position is dif- ficult. So, for example, on 24. b4 there would have followed, as Alekhine in- dicated, 24...a5! 25. bS Zic4. However, passive defense of the b-pawn wasn’t the energetic Bogolyubov’s style. In this position, Capablanca calmly took the pawn with 24...xb3!, and quickly made good on his material ad- vantage. Now let’s have a look at a more suc- cessful plan for White: the d4-pawn is backed up immediately with c2-c3, and then a purposeful transfer of pieces to the kingside takes place: Hei C. — Danielsen H. Denmark 1995 1. d4.d5 2. AB Ale 3. e3 e6 4. 2d3 5 5. b3 Ac6 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. Abd2 We7 9. DeS exd4 10. exd4 2a3 11. &xa3 Wxa3 12. €3!? (see diagram next page) 12,547 Black can only be saved by seeking counterplay on the queenside, but prophylactic moves (for example 12...‘Chapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe h6?!) only boost White’s kingside pros- pects, as they create a “hook” in Black’s castled position: 13. f4 2.d7 14. g4! Yb2 (it’stoolate now for 14...Hac8: 15.25 hxe5 16. fxg Dxes 17. gxf6! Dxd3 [17..Exc3 isalso bad because of 18. fxg6) 18. Yg4 6 19. Wh4 Bfe8 20. 243) 15. Hcl! Wxa2 16. g5 hxgs 17. fxeS AxeS 18. gxfo 2g6 (18... ®xd3 doesn’t improve matters: 19. We4 26 20. We5) 19. Hc2 Was 20. Whs 2b5 21. c4 26 22. Df3 1-0, Broker C. — De Wolf B., ICCF e-mail 2001. An interesting pawn sacrifice was encountered in Hoffmeyer F — Krause U., Germany 1993. Black decided not to accept the gift, probably rightly. The course of the game is interesting for the determination of White’s play, while Black didn’t put up the best defense: 12... WaS 13. Hcl 2d7 (After 13...Wxa2 we have a position from Tibensky R. — Ves- selovsky S., Bo 2005, in which White could try to catch the black queen that’s so keen on the pawns: 14. xc6 [Susan Polgar recommends 14. f4 with an at- tack on the kingside, considering it good compensation for the pawn. But I think that the concrete move 14. 2xc6 is stron- ger. 14. £4 Was 15. Hf Wb6 /15...2e7. In Sailer W. — Gnegel B., Germany 1995, Black started building a defensive structure with the move 15...g6. The problem with this move is that now after an exchange on eS, if Black wants to bring his pieces to the king’s defense, he has to advance the Spawn. And in that case, after an en pas- sant capture Black gets a weak pawn on e6 and a set of weak dark squares at eS, f6, 27, and h6, which did happen in this game: 16. Hh3 DxeS 17. fre5 De8 18. Df3f6 (18... 2.7? loses quickly: 19. Yd2 5 20. Yh6 BY7 21. Dg5) 19. Wel We7 20. Bn4 We7 21. exf6 Dxf6 22. De5, and White has a big positional advantage.} 16. “el Be7 fon 16...g6 White, having placed his major pieces on the h-file, provokes new weaknesses in his opponent’s castled posi- tion with 17, Ghd Gg7 18. 1h3 5 (18... DAS 19. g4) 19. Yg5, and Black faces a protracted defense} 17. g4 Dg6 18. 25 @Ad7 19. Hh3 £5 20. gxf6 Exf6 21. 2xg6 h6 {Black is also losing after 21...hxg6, for instance 22. hd DxeS 23. Yh8+ Sf7 24 freS BS 25. Bh7} 22, Ug3 DEB 23. 2d3 £247 24. Ded 1-0, Donnelly M. — Karelin E., corr. 1998] 14...bxc6 15. b4, and the black queen is trapped. In order to free Her Majesty Black has to make material and positional concessions, for example: 231Part II. Play for Black 15...a5 [15...2.d7 16. Ab3] 16.b3! c5 17. dxc5 a4 18. a5, and Black is highly unlikely to be able to save this position) 14. f4 Hac8 (And now it’s also dangerous to take the pawn, for exam- ple 14...Wxa2 15. b4 a5? 16. 2b1 Wa3 17. Dec4!. In Hei C. — Rasmussen S., Silkeborg 2008, White decided to strengthen his position on the queen- side first, but later he simply started to attack and was left back at square one: 14...2e7 15. a4 [White rejects the tried and true 15. 2f3!2, when the a2-pawn remains inedible: 15...W/xa2? 16. Hal Wb2 17. 2bl, and the black queen is trapped. By advancing the a-pawn, White wants to force Black to retreat into deep defense.) 15...Bac8 16. 43 [16. Bf3] 16.26 17. b4 Wd8 18. a5 [18. b5] 18...2e8 19. Bel Adé 20. Wh3 &g7 21. Adf3 Hc7 22. 24 Bhs 23. Wg3. White is preparing f4-f5, but Black succeeds in organizing his de- fenses: 23...2c8 24. Dh4 b6 25. axb6 axb6 26. Bfl [6 27. £5 [After 27. Aef3 ®e4 28. Wel the game would take on the character of trench warfare.] 27...25 [27...fxeS? 28. f6+] 28. fxe6 [28. Dg? exf5 29. exfS DexfS 30. Wh3 Dh4 and Black switches to counterattack] 28... gxh4 29. Wf4 Dg6, and Black defends while retaining his material advantage) 15, Bf We7 16, He2 (Slowing things down. It’s possible to play 16. Bh3 im- mediately, as 16...@xd4? fails to 17. @xd7!) 16...2e7 17. Bh3 g6 (17...Dg6 may have been preferable) 18. 24 &g7 19. gS Afgs (19...2n52! didn’t save him: 20. Exh5 gxhS 21. Yxh5 with a strong attack; after 19...2se8 Black also retreats into defense) 20. Wel Af5 21. Axf5 exfS 22, Wh4 h5 23. gxh6+ Gh7 232 24. Ddf3, with an irresistible attack by White. In the game Abergel T. — Lutz C., France 2004, Black chose queenside counterplay by advancing his a-pawn. We looked at this plan of play for Black in Part II, Chapter 6: 12...a5 13. f4.a4 14. Ecl (White decides toavoid an exchange of major pieces after opening the a-file. But we should point out that in the event of trades on the a-file White also retains a clear advantage, for example 14. Adf3 axb3 15. axb3 Wxal 16. W4xal Exal 17. &xal; Susan Polgar recommends 14. Ws or 14. Whi) 14...axb3 (taking the pawn is dangerous: 14...W4xa2 15. b4 Ad7 16. Axc6 Axc6 17. Hc2 Wa3 18. We2 Ded 19. Dbl Wb3 20. Hb2 Axc3 21, &xh7+) 15, axb3 We7 16, Bf3 247 17. Eth3 (with the familiar threat of a bishop sacrifice on h7 followed by ¥¥n5) 17...g6 18. Wel DhS 19. We3 DxeS 20. fxeS £5 21, exf6 Exf6, and Black man- aged to hold the position. However, the balance of the game showed that here, too, Black is in defensive mode. 13, (4 Back In the game Hulak K. — Spiridonov N., Opatija 1985, Black brought his queen over to defend the kingside. We already came across this type of defense in Maréczy — Blake, Hastings 1923; see Part I, Chapter 4. Spiridonov didn’t manage to equalize either: 13...Wd6 14. Hf3 (White brings his rook up for the attack. Now he can conduct the of- fensive according to the following plan: g2-g4-g5, then a bishop sacrifice on h7, after which the rook and queen join inChapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe the attack with Bf3-h3+ and Wd1-hS. In Evans G. — Gomes C., 1999, White attacked another way: 14. Wf3 Hac8 15. Wh3 [threatening 16. @g4] 15...26 [after 15...h6 16. 24 White also has good chances for an attack thanks to the hook at h6] 16. Zacl a6 [he needed to deny the h6square to White’s queen with 16... g7!?] 17. Wh6 [Storm clouds gather over Black’s king. White threatens to shift his rook to h3 and then either the f6-knight is deflected via the already fa- miliar maneuver AeS-g4, or the g-pawn moves forward to drive away the lone defender of the black king.] 17...2e7 [it was already necessary to add the queen to the defense of the kingside: 17... Exfd8!? 18. Ddf3 W418) 18. Ddf3 DfS 19. 2Qxf5 exfS 20, Dgs 2e6?! 21. Bf Hfes: Now there follows a combination to destroy the king’s castled position which is typical for the Zukertort System. White clears the h-file for his major piec- es, Usually it’s the light-squared bishop which is taken to the sacrificial altar, but this time it’s the knight’s turn. 22. @xh7! Dxh7 23. Bh3 We7 24. Yxh7+ G8 25. Bel! Ge7 (25... b6 26. Ad7+! S&.xd7 27. Wh8] 26. Zxi7!, and White is winning.) 14,..Efc8 15, Bh3. White has created the threat of 16. &xh7+ @\xh7 17. Wh5, and Black defends against it by cutting off the bI-h7 diagonal: 15... g6 16. Ohl (or 16. Adf3 Le8 17. Ags &c7 18. Wel Wis 19, Wh4 We7 and the black queen has arrived to assist the king in good time) 16...2e8 17. Wel Ws 18. Wh4 Wg7 19. Bfl Bc? 20. 24 (20. £5!? exf5 21, &xf5) 20...hS, and Black’s po- sition is passive, though defensible. He faces a tough road ahead. It’s also impossible to rule out a speedy march by the white g-pawn, sowing confusion in Black’s ranks: 13...Bfe8 14. g4 (14. £5 leads to un- clear consequences, and White could only obtain an advantage thanks to the timid 14...£¢8?! [14...AxeS!? 0] 15. fxe6 fxe6 16. Dg4 Ad7, and now in Breivik L. — De Boer S., Amsterdam 2005, with 17. Wf3 White could have driven Black into a difficult position: 17...2D18 (17... We? is bad, ie. 18. Wh3 Lg6 (18..g6 19. Bae} 19. 2x6 hxg6 20. Hae! 218 21. Df3, and it’s hard to believe that Black could hold this po- sition] 18. Bae! We7 19. Yxf8+ Yxf8 20. Sxh7+ Wxh7 21. Exf8 with advan- tage to White) 14...2e8 (In May W. — Keskowski T., corr. 2000, Black threat- ened the c3-pawn with 14...Wa5, cal- culating that this would distract White from his aggressive ideas on the king- side, but White unexpectedly went for a pawn sacrifice: 15. b4 Wa3 16. Hel!? ®xe5 17. fxe5 Hxe3 18. Bxc3 Wxc3 19, ®b3 Axgd (19...De4? is bad because of 20. Wf! Hf8 21. &.xe4, and Black is down a piece) 20. Wf3 (threatening 21. &xh7+] 20... Gh8 21. Wxgd Wxd3 22. 233Part II. Play for Black Dc5 We3+ 23. Ohl Le8 24. DAxeb! g6 25. Wh4 Wed+ 26, Wxed dxe4 27. Ac7 Hc8 28. Axe8 Exe’ 29. Exf7 with a winning ending for White) 15. g5 &d7 16. 2f3 Dexes 17. fxeS 26 18. Hel Was (On 18...44xa2 White can start to rede- ploy his knight to 24. The gaping dark- square holes around Black’s king; the fact that his pieces are poorly arrayed for defense; the half-open f- and h-files for White’s major pieces — White gets all this just for a pawn! With the text move Black tries to deflect White from his kingside offensive by pressuring the ¢3-pawn.) 19, &bl b5 20. Afi b4 21. 4 dxc4 22. bxcd Hd8 23. Wel ALB 24, W/42, and in Danner G. — Beim V., Vi- enna 1996, White obtained a decisive advantage, as Black could not block the enemy knight’s path to d6, f6, or h6 without sustaining huge material losses. 14, 3 96 15. Wel og7 16. Hh3 8087! 17. Daf3 Ahs With 17...Wb2 Black could attach himself to White’s rook and c3-pawn, deflecting his opponent from action on the kingside, ie. 18. Hcl Ab4 (18... Wxa2 is dubious: 19. f5 exfS 20. &xf5 gxf5? 21. Wg3+, and White is winning) 19. &b1, and White has to think about how to revive his attack. 18. Bd2 A good move: the a2-pawn is now guarded, the b2 square is no longer ac- cessible to Black, and — when the op- portunity arises — after f4-f5 the white queen can get to hé immediately. 234 18...De7 19. 24 Was 20. Hel 2b5 21. Sbi hS?! Black’s nerves fail him under pressure. 22, Dgs BelB 22...hxg5 23. Exh8 Exh8 24. Bexf7. 23. £5!, By destroying the black king’s cover, White has built up a very strong attack, which Black couldn’t repel. As the previous game showed, if Black allows White to reinforce the knight on eS with f2-f4, then a pains- taking defense of his home bases on the kingside awaits him. Now let’s move on to a plan for Black involving an ex- change on e5, which not only reduces the number of attacking pieces, but also undermines White’s center. Jovanié O. — Podlesnik B. Bled 2001 1. DB DM 2. d4 6 3. e305 4. 2d3 d5 5, b3 Ac6 6 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-08. Dbd2 We7 9. DeS exdd 10. exd4 2.a3 11. &xa3 Yxa3 12. 3Chapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe 12...2xe5 Black rushes to make the exchange. If he allows White to play f2-f4, then the mutual capture will already lead to the opening of the f-file. 13. dxe5 Dd? Black switches to playing with the pawn. structure examined in Part II, Chapter 13. 14. Bhs In this position, 14. Bel doesn’t look bad for White. Then Black — who Jags considerably in development — has to keep his eyes peeled to avoid go- ing back to square one. Susan Polgar evaluates this position as slightly bet- ter for White, pointing to the main flaw in Black’s position: his light-squared bishop is caught behind its own pawns. 14...b6. A principled move to finish mobilizing his pieces as quickly as possible, without unnecessary ges- tures, and start counterplay. Did Black have other arguments to try? (The possibility of winning time to develop the queenside by means of a cavalry jump has been verified, but in that case White gets additional shots: 14..Ac5 15. 2c2 d7 [an attempt by Black to free himself by means of 15...f6 16. exf6 Exf6, as in the game Morris-Hill R. — Campeanu A.-V., Gibraltar 2008, gave White another opportunity to clog up his opponent’s center] 16. He3 and after the careless 16...2.c6? a concealed “jab” follows: 17. ba! Hed [17...Ad7 18. b5! Bxb5 19. e4, winning a piece. Nor does 17... Dad 18. bt &xb5 19. c4 help, either And 17...2a6 also meets with 18. b3.] 18. &xe4 dxe4 19. bS &xb5 [19..2e8 20. Zixe4] 20. c4, and White obtained a decisive advantage in Abergel T. — Vallin G., France 2004. Black has tried to bring his queen closer to the theatre of combat with 14...8%c5, secretly hoping to obtain counterplay on the f-file: 15. Hel f6 [if 15..£5 immediately, then there was a high probability that White wouldn’t want to take en passant, and Black would have had to abandon the dear hope of counterplay on the f-file] 16. Yh5S h6 [Enviable stubbornness! After 16...f5 we could talk not about the stubbornness of a person, but about the stubbornness of the position. Now, though, trouble with the e6-d5 pawn pair lies in store for Black, as White controls e5.] 17. exf6 @xf6 18. Yg6 &d7 19. “£3 Abergel T. — Olivier J.-C., Nice 2003. In Peschel A. — Lamby P.,, Germany 2005, Black pro- ceeded similarly to Abergel — Lutz: 14... a5!? 15. Yc2 h6 16.c4c5 with aslight edge for White.) 15. #e3 (Palliser exam- ines only 15. ¥c2, and on the careless 15...h62? 16. b4! Sa6 17. £h7+ with a 235Part II. Play for Black subsequent bl the queen is trapped. But if Black reacts correctly with 15... 26! 16. b4?! a6 17. 2xg6 hxg6 18. Ab1 d3! 19. Wxd3 Yb2, then the queen trap trick doesn’t work, and it is White who has problems.) 15...2.a6 16. ¢4 (16. c2 deserves attention, tempting Black with the opportunity to start play against the c3-pawn. Then 16...Zac8 17. Af. People who get swept off their feet can fall into an unpleasant story here, for example: 17...Wb2? 18. Hb! Wa3 (18... Wxa2 19. Hal] 19. &xh7+! and then as in the textbooks.) 16...dxc4 17. bxc4 We7 18. WhS g6 19. Whé £5 20. exf6 Wxf6 Klimets E. — Drozdov N., St. Pe- tersburg 2002. The position is “mutually interesting” for both players. Palliser suggests 14. Af3, offering this variation: 14...h6 (14...2cS fails to the typical bishop sacrifice: 15. 2xh7+ Gxh7 16. Ags+ Sys 17. gd f5 18. Wh4; while after 14...f6 15. exf6 Dxfé 16. We2, White’s position is for prefer- ence, given the weakness of the e6-pawn and the d4 and eS squares) 15. 2b1 b6 (15,..2d8!? 16. Wd3 DfB GB) 16. Wad {5 17. exf6 Axf6 18. Ye3, and White is certainly better, but bearing in mind the possible improvement for Black on move 15, we can say that White is unlikely to obtain anything concrete this way. 14...26 ‘Watson and Schiller’s recommenda- tion requires testing: 14...h6! (their ex- clamation mark) 15. Af3 (15. We2 b6 16. Hfcl 2b7 and ...ac8) 15...Ac5 16. Le2b6 17. Ad4 B06 18. Biel Hac8 =. They consider the move 14...£5 possible 236 too. However, I don’t like that move: after 15. exf6 xf6 16. We5, White has an advantage, as he can now organize pressure on Black’s immobilized d- and e-pawns. 15. Wg5 h6 Black can win the c3-pawn with 15... Wb2 16. Af3 Wxc3, but in that case, too, White obtains an attack on the black king as compensation: 17. Wh6 Hd8 Fuentes J. — Rey Ardid R., Ma- drid 1942 (on 17...He8 18. 2b5! White eliminates a potential defender of the h7-pawn, and after @\f3-g5 Black can’t avoid losing material; or 17...f6 18. Qxg6! hxg6 19. Wxg6+ eh8 20. Hael Wb4 21. He3 We7 22. Dg5! with a win- ning attack) 18. Had] @f8 (18...xe5? 19. Dgs Wer 20. Wxh7+ BiB 21. Hel with a strong attack) 19. Efe! 2d7 20. h4, and White has compensation for the pawn in the form of attacking prospects on the kingside. 16. Wg3 White shouldn’t have passed on cap- turing the pawn 16. Wxh6!?, for exam- ple:Chapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe 16...Axe5 17. Bael Dxd3 (17... Wd6 18. Sbl Agd [18..Bd8 19. f4 with the initiative] 19. Wh4 f5 20. Df3 and White has a positional advantage) 18. He3 Dfa 19. Wxf4 We7 20. 04 Ed8 (20...dxe4 21. @xc4 and Black has trouble developing his pieces; for example, 21...8.d7? is bad because of 22. We7, and Black has to give up the b7-pawn to avoid dropping a piece) 21. &fel, and White is better. 16... g7 17. Df3 eT 18. hd DcS 19. 2.02 b6 20. Dd4 2 b7 21. f4h7 22. £5 exf5 23. 2xf5 Hae8 A playable position with mutual chances has arisen, and it’s hardly pos- sible to say with any certainty that one player or other has an advantage. But, as we've seen, in the course of the game White could have played more strongly, specifically with 16. Yxh6!?. Theory is not crazy about 11. Wcl. White would rather not trade bishops on a3, after which, as we saw above, he has to watch out for an invasion of the queenside dark squares by the black queen. That’s why White prefers to con- trol the situation on that wing himself; in that case the queen is deflected from play on the other flank. The strategy also changes: White is playing with hanging pawns. White’s attempt to attack on the kingside with hanging pawns in the center looks risky — but, as practice has shown, difficulties lie in store for Black in this case, too. Nogueiras J. — Gonzalez C. Cuba 1991 1. dd D6 2. D3 e6 3. e3 dS 4. 2d3 65 5. b3 Dcé 6. 0-0 2d6 7. 2b2 0-0 8. Abd2 We7 9, DeS exd4 10, exd4 Sa3 Tartakover didn’t consider Janowski’s recommendation 11. Wel very tempt- ing, but as the games that have been played since have shown, it isn’t easy for Black to meet this move. 11...2.xb2 12. Yxb2 Susan Polgar likes White’s position after the bishop trade on b2. She gives the following general direction of play for White: f2-f4, and the queen’s rook shifts over to the kingside via the route Hal-el-e3-g3, with anattack. 12...2.47 12..8c7 13. Hacl 247 14. Bfel Hac8 15. Adf3 Hfd8 (nothing comes of the knight lunge 15...Ab4: 16. &fl, and the pawn can’t be taken with 16...2xc2? because of 17. Hed] andthe knight suc- 237Part II. Play for Black cumbs) 16. h4 2e8 17. g3 Was 18. a3 De 19. c4 dxc4 20. bxc4 We? 21. 2fl Bc6 22. 2g? Hb8 23. Hed DxeS 24. ®xe5 Dd7 25. Ags Abb 26. De3 Dc8 27. dS, and White was for preference in Kovaéevié V.— Stone R., Toronto 1989. 13. a3 The game move looks more logi- cal than 13. c3: 13..Bfc8 14. f4 g6 15. Adf3 Des 16. 2xe4 dxed 17. Ad2 (17. @xc6!?) 17...5, Askarov M. — Toma- shevsky E., Rybinsk 1997, and here after 18. Adc4!? b5 19. Axcé &xc6 20. Aes an unclear position would have arisen. 13... Lac’ Tartakover advised all this for Black back in the day. 13...4d6 14. Hael a6 15. f4 De7 16. 24 &bS (Black made his moves 14 and 16 according to Capablanca, aiming to deprive White of the light-squared bishop and to initiate action on the c- file. Naturally White doesn’t like this craftiness, and that’s why he’s forced to go into play with hanging pawns.) 17. c4dxed4 18. bxc4 26 19. He3 Had8 20. Eh3 2ig6 (20...Wxd4+ 21. Wxd4 xd4 22. g5 De4 23. Axcb Axd2 24. Axe7+ Wh8 25. Bxh7) 21. g5 De& 22. Ab3 a4 23. Ac5 &c6, and in this position in Lobron E. — Georgiev K., Wijk aan Zee 1985, White could have obtained an advantage after 24. @xb7 &xb7 25, Wxb7 Wxde+ 26. Whi Dd6?! 27. 843, threatening a fork on c6 and the ad- dition of the queen to the attack with Whs. 238 14. £4 Wa8 15. c4 dxod 16, bxed b6 17, Daf He7 18, Wi2 cB 19. Hadi De7 20. Hel 2b7 20...W4d6 21. a4 2b7 22. a5 with an unclear position. 21. Abi Wa8 22. Dh4 2e4 23. Bad 24. g4 2b725. fSexfS 26. DxfS Axi 27. WxtS We8 28. Wxe8 Hexc8 29. Eft h6 30. hd He7 31. Bf4, and White, who controls the center, is better. An idea for Black where he declines to trade dark-squared bishops deserves attention: Yusupoy A. — De Boer S. Netherlands 2007 1. d4 d5 2. DP e6 3. e3 cS 4. b3 De 5. &b2 Di6 6. A326 7. 0-0 0- 08 Dbd2 We7 9. Aes cxd4 10. exd4 Wet? With 10.243, the game would have gone along smoothly, but suddenlyChapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe Black turns away from that path. After the actual game move, White can’t repel both of Black’s threats — ....c6-b4 and ...2c6xeS — at the same time. Ll. f4!? White played more weakly in Kosi¢ D. — Todorovié G., Yugoslavia 2001: 11. Hel Db4 12. He3 (12. 2a3 comes to nothing because of 12...Wa5) 12...2)xd3 13. Bxd3 &d7 14. Bh3 bS 15. Afl a5 16. Ag3 Hfc8 17. Bel Se8 18. AhS @®xhS (18..De4!?) 19. WxhS h6 20. We? a4. Black has the initiative on the queenside, in addition to the potential of the bishop pair. In Cabrilo G. — Kovatevié A., Zlati- bor 2006, White overestimated his pos- sibilities and landed in a worse position: 11. Axc6 bxc6 (After 11...2xh2+7! 12. Whi bxc6 13. g3 Bxg3 14. fxg3 Yxg3 15, Wf3, Susan Polgar evaluates this position as slightly better for White. I'd rather be White after 15..Wh4+ 16. gl.) 12. Df3 (still an “equal opportu- nity” position) 12...c5 (12...a5 also leads to equality, for example: 13. c4 2a6 {13...a4 14. Wc2 h6%! and in the game Ingbrandt J. — Berg E., Sweden 2000, Black’s last move opened a window for White to get an advantage, for example 15. c5 2e7 16. We2 or 16. bxa4!?, Even the direct 16. b4 probably yielded a more promising position for White.] 14. Bel b4[14..2e7 15. Bel a4 16. Des Wb7 17. &al axb3 18. axb3 Dd7, and White’s position was a little more pleasant in Conquest S. — Luther T,, Paris 1995] 15. He2 a4 16. Bel axb3 17. axb3, and in Breivik L. = Martyn R., Amsterdam 2005, the players soon split the point. In addition, Black can try 12...0g4!?, This interesting and provocative move was encountered in the game Bokuchava — Gagunashvili M., Pasanauri 1997: 13. &xh7+ [White takes the bait. Af- ter 13.h3 Df (13...Ah2 14. Bel Dxf3+ 15. Wxf3 is also possible, with an equal position} 14. We2 @hS, Black starts bothering White on the kingside, while White should be doing the same. We'll add that the h3 square is often occupied by White’s major pieces during an attack on Black’s king, but here some foot sol- dier with a rifle takes an important posi- tion away from the long-range artillery.] 239Part II. Play for Black 13...Qxh7 14. DgS+ Yg6l? [the posi- tion is roughly equal after 14...g8 15. Waxed @xh2+ 16. Sh 2 £4] 15. Gxed 2xh2+ 16. Gh Bi 17. Yxf4 &xf4, and Black’s position is preferable.) 13 dxc5 &xc5 14, Be5 (14. Wel Ded 15. xed dxed 16. &xg7 Gxe7 17. Ye5+ with perpetual check — Kosten) 14... 2d6 15. &xf67! exf6. White went into this line probably thinking that he’d compromised the black king’s position. Practice shows, though, that opening the g-file, control over the e5 and g5 squares, and a Horwitz bishop aimed at the opponent’s castled king favor the player who enjoys all these virtues. All else being equal, of course: 16. c4. This is only grist for Black’s mill, as the hl-a8 diagonal opens up. 16...dxc4 17. 2xc4 Ed8 18. We2 2b7, and Black tured the advantage of his position into a full point. 1L..Db4 With 11...8%b6 Black should bear in mind the old saying: “He that mischief hatches, mischief catches!” The reality is that Black can win a pawn, but that measure will be associated with a huge amount of risk: 12. hl (12. c3 AxedS [after 12...2xe5 13. fxe5 @xe5 Black wins a pawn, but White has compensa- tion] 13. fxe5 &xe5 14. Bh (14. Bel!? 2d6 15. Wh4 ho 16. Bxf6! &e7 17. Ded!) 14...2d6 15. Yel [White didn’t need to delay the exchange sacrifice: 15. Eixfé!? gxf6 16..2.xh7+ Sxh7 17, Who+ Ge? (17.88 18. Bfl +—} 18. Wet +. And at first in this position I wanted to write, “with a very strong attack.” Usu- ally in these kinds of positions the game 240 ends with White giving perpetual check, as the rest of his pieces can’t join the attack immediately. Basically, just one tempo is missing. If the rook were on fl there would be no question. It’s also clear that the black pieces are very poor- ly placed. Perhaps one tempo wouldn’t be enough for him to come to the aid of his king? Let’s find out! 18...h7 /18.. DAs 19. fl Hgs 20, Yh4+ Yg7 21. Wf6+ transposes to the same position} 19. Hf 2g8 20. Wh4+ be7 21. Wxi6+ @h7 22. Yxf7+ Be7 23. Wh5+ Sgs 24. We8+ Gh7 25. Hf Wic6 (25...Ye7 loses quickly because of the minor pieces unex- pectedly joining the attack: 26. \e4!dxe4 27, &cI threatens mate after Lh6. The attempt to free himself with 25...e5is futile: 26. Wh5S+ Gg8 27. Ebb Sf8 28. Hhs+ Eg8 (after 28...8¢7 29, Ye8+ D6 30. EAG+ the black king is driven away to a lovely square where it can lay down its life) 29.8h6+ G70. Gh7+Hg7 31. SAS+ Geb 32. WeS+ Le7 33, Lh6+ Gf 34. WAS+ Bg5 35. h3+ Bf 36. 83} 26. Whs+ Sg8 27. Bh6 S88 28. Bhs+ Figs (28.67 29. Gh4+ G7 30. Wi f2+ Og6 31. D3} 29. Wh6+ GAT 30. Wh7+ ig? 31. Whs+ Sf 32, Wh4+ Sg6 33. )f3, and the white knight joins the at- tack on the black king. Black’s position is hopeless. I went into the position after Black’s move 14 in such detail because, first of all, an exchange sacrifice there wins immediately; and secondly, similar situations on the board featuring a king- side piece attack by White are encoun- tered very often, and from the methodi- cal point of view the analysis given will be useful to anyone who is studying the Zukertort System.] 15...4c7 16. Wh4 h6 Skobe M. — Riznar H., Bled 1992;Chapter 8. Following Capablanca’s Recipe 17. Bxf6!, and White attacks with a draw in hand) 12...Axd4 13. Dde4 dxc4 14. @xc4 We7 15. Dxd6 Wxd6 16. &xd4 with a formidable position for White. 12. Bf3 @xd3 13. exd3!? This voluntary doubling of pawns, with the aim of controlling the center squares, is a common strategic tech- nique. Now Black loses his main defen- sive maneuver: ...A\{6-e4 and ...f7-15. 13...4e7 13...4.d7. 14.3 White probably needs to make this move so as toavoid trading dark-squared bishops. The reality is that the b2-bishop covers the dark squares on the queenside and defends the d4-pawn. But the d6- bishop can hardly expect to receive any compliments. For now its usefulness is limited to just the possibility of knock- ing the e5-knight out of play. But, after the move in the text, White gets some- thing to worry about in the form of the a3-pawn, which will pin down the rook onal — and, oh, how that piece will be needed on the kingside! In Bogdanovich G. — Pfrommer C., Bad Mergentheim 2009, White decided totakeachance, al- though the risk, strictly speaking, wasn’t very great: 14. Bh3 Bd8! (Black’s first actual independent move tumed out to be unsuccessful, as now his. opponent starts to dictate the game. The question of how to evaluate the position after 14... a3 15. &xa3 Wxa3 remains open.) 15. &df3! (now 15...&d7 doesn’t work be- cause of 16.AgS Be8& 17.Dxh7! DAxh7 18.WhS and so on) 15...h6 16. g4! (the symbol is an exclamation mark, but for Zukertorters this move is routine) 16... ®h7 17. g5! f6 (17...hxg5? is refuted by 18. Hxh7! @xh7 19. @xg5+, and the queen joins the cavalry attack. Defeat isn’t far off!) 18. gxf6 (after 18. gxh6?! Black has chances to repel the attack and end a piece up) 18...Wxf6 (Clearly 18...gxf6 is bad because of the simple 19. Sg3+. Here 18...Axf6 requires atten- tion, although in this case, too, White’s prospects are clear.) 19. Hg3 2d7 (it’s not about extra pawns — after 19...4xf4 20. &cl Wie 21. Ded WER 22. Afes White has a very strong attack) 20. Ag4 We6 (20...Wxf4 is as bad as before due to 21. Qel) 21. Afes Whs (there clearly aren’t enough forces for decisive action, and withhis next few moves White brings his remaining major pieces into play) 22. We2 Se 23. Hfl wh8 24. We2 Hac8 25. Ae3!? QxeS (the only move; there’s no other way to repel the threats of 26. Hh3 and 26. Exg7) 26. dxe5 d4 27. De4 (short on time, White goes with the moves he previously intended to make, not noticing what is probably the 241Part II. Play for Black strongest move, 27. W/xb7) 27...2c6 28. Wf2 Bs 29. Ad6. Once again we have Tartakover’s “suffocation at a distance” scenario: 29...cd8 30. Yxd4 (30. 2xd4!? is probably even stronger) 30...2\g5 31. We3 Af7 32. Ded WES, and here White evidently should have continued 33. a3! with a big advantage. 14,..247 14.447 15. Bh3 Hd8 16. Whs DR. 15, 2h3 Efd8 16. Afl 2e8 17. De3 242 With his queen’s knight’s maneuver d2-fl-e3, White is not only ready to support an advance of his g-pawn, but, no less importantly, he has taken control of ¢2, through which the enemy’s major pieces could have invaded White’s camp. 17...g6 18. g4 DAT 19. g5 £5 20. gxf6 @xi6 21. Wh1 Hac8 22. Ygl Ghs 23. Ga 23. Dxg6t. 23...20724, Dxg6+ 2 xg625.Yxg6 Hig8 26. Who Was 26...De4. 27. £5 with double-edged play. To draw some conclusions from this chapter: Capablanca’s recipe certainly helps Black to stay afloat, but it doesn’t promise him an easy life. Whitestill hasn’t said hisfinal word, butthen again, neither has Black. And in general, is it possible to talk about anything being final? Well, that’s a question for philosophy.Chapter 9 “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument Now we come to the main impediment to White's success in the Zukertort Sys- tem. Black positions his pieces according to the plan ...2\b8-c6(d7), ...2.f8-d6, and ...ti'd8-c7, with the aim of supporting the advance ...e6-e5, which Black strives for in the Yusupovka as in many other closed openings. Tartakover called the strategic idea involving the e-pawn’s advance “a fruitful opening idea.” Let’s have a look at what he had to say about it in his book, Lessons of Chess Strategy: “It is even more important than for White, for one who is playing second not to lose this strategic thread, if he wants to deal successfully with the difficult task of eliminating the advantage of the first move. “Black can manage to achieve this only gradually, so long as he doesn’t burn his bridges and descend into some desperate countergambit.... “But as a refutation of all these counterattacks has already been found, experi- enced masters avoid them, replacing them with the search for a strategically well- prepared liberating blow. “In the majority of open games (1. e4 ¢5) the empirical rule that Black can only finally overcome his opening difficulties when he has managed to make the move .d7-d5 (or ...d6-d5), winning space, can serve as an example in this respect. On the contrary, in half-closed and closed games the moves ...c7-c5 or ...e6-e5 hold the most promise for Black in terms of success. “...[A]bove all we should point out that if White pursues his usual aggressive aims with e3-e4 (undermining the center, opening the e-file, and so on), then Black often has to limit himself to more modest aims by making the move ...e6-e5 (for example, freeing the bottled-up c8-bishop, or forcing the simplification d4xeS or the blockage d4-d5) and be satisfied with temporarily equalizing the game.” 243Part II. Play for Black The plan of development for Black that we'll look at now, if not a refutation of the Yusupovka, at least forces White to deviate from his main course of attack and switch to play with c2-c4. Ja¢imovié D. — Zeléié R. Struga 1995 1. d4 D6 2. DE e6 3. e3 d5 4, 2d3 Dbd7 If Blackintends to develop his pieces according to the plan ..Wc7, ...2d6 and ...2\c6/d7 with a subsequent ...e6- e5, then it’s better to look at the move ..Dc6, as it creates two threats (...e6-e5 and ...2\c6-b4) which White can’t pre- vent simultaneously, except by resorting to the move c2-c4. 5.0-0 If Black brings his knight out to d7, then it’s better for White to stick to the move order from the game Capablanca — Bernstein, New York 1913, i.e. first fianchetto the queen’s bishop in order to place the knight on e5 when neces- sary: 5. b3 c5 (In the following game Black violated folk wisdom — “don’t rush into hell before your father” — and undertook dark-squared bishop maneu- vers before the c-pawn came into play. Of course, he wasn’t required to lose in this case, either, but we should remem- ber the consequences of such haste: 5... Ab4t 6. c3 Bd6 7. 04 e5 [7...He4 8. 0-0 0-0 9. 2b2 b6 10. Abd2 267 11. DeS Dxd2 12. Yxd2 Wh4 13. £4 Dle 14. oxdS (14. Bf9 dxed (14... 2xe5 15. dxeS5 Ded 16. Yc2 c5 [16.48 17. Hadi; 16.4 e7 17. exdSexd5 18. fS with an active position for White}; 14...2\e4 244 15. &.xe4 dxe4 16.h3 Ye7 17.8296 [17..,f6 18. Wh5 freS (18...g6 19. Dxg6 +—} 19. Gxh7+ Bf7 20. Bg3+—] 18. Ded with an unclear position.) 15. a3 Woxh3 16. gxh3 exd3 17. Yxd3, and White is up material. But the question is, can it be converted into a win 2} 14... exd5 15. Hacl with a roughly equal po- sition, Lebel P. — E] E., Cannes 2007] 8.c5 2x5? (8...2e79. Dxes DxeS 10. dxe5 Ad7 11. 2b2 AxcS 12. 2c2, and White’s prospects are brighter, thanks to the e- and f-pawn phalanx] 9. dxcS e4 10. c6! bxc6? [Black loses his nerve; after 10...2b8!? 11. cxb? &xb7 he is worse, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet] 11. 44!, and in Najdorf M. — Donner J.-H., Amsterdam 1950, White retained his extra piece.) 6. 262 £.d6 7. Des!?, and after 7...We7 8. £4, White eliminates the threat of'...e6-e5 in the first stage. In the interests of fairness we should point out that Black’s sixth move was inaccu- rate. Instead of 6....2.d6, 6...¥4c7 is more accurate, in which case, if White wants to block up the e5 square with 7. Ae5, Black can then trade there either imme- diately or after a preliminary exchange on d4. With the bishop on d6, though, this exchange is inadvisable because of the fork. After 6...%c7 White has to combat Black’s intrigues with 7. c4. See below, notes to Legky — Mikhalevsky. 5.5 6. b3 £46 The passive 6...2.e7 dooms Black to a long and difficult struggle for equality.Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument 7, Rb2 We7 8. Dbd2 8...e5!? Delaying this move is undesirable: 8...0-0, and with 9. c4 White calls the ..e6-e5 advance into question. True, in that case both sides have to be prepared to play positions with hanging pawns; see Part I, Chapter 5. 9...b6 (Black has missed a good opportunity to free up his play, Now on 9...e5?! there may follow 10. exd5 exd4 after 10...cxd4 11. exd4 exd4 12. De4 AcS (Dobrzhanskaya I. — Koshtenko V., Alushta 1999} 13. 2.xd4!? ®xd3 14. Wxd3 AxdS 15. &xg7 White has a big advantage] 11. exd4 Axd5S [1]...cxd4 12. 2xd4 AxdS 13. Ded was better, but White is on top here, too] 12. Hel Df4 13. He4 [13. Bb1!9] 13... @xd3 14. Wxd3 24 15. Hc2 b6 16. dxc5 @xe5 17. Axc5 (17. Bxc5!? bxcS 18. Degs g6 19. Ded, with a strong at- tack, was much stronger] 17...bxc5 18. Weo3 £6 19. YxeS Wxc5 20. HxeS, and in Rubinstein A. — Berger J., Karls- bad 1907, White won a pawn and later made good on this small material edge. If we consider the fact that White’s play could have been improved on move 17, then we can say that Black’s hesitation with the move ...e6-e5 leads to advan- tage for White.) 10. cxd5 (10. Bcl &a6 11. We2 Hae8 12. b4 e5 13. bxcS bxc5 14. dxeS @xeS [better is 14...2xe5] 15. &xeS BxeS 16. cxdS £b7 17. 2b5 (White wants to obtain a slightly more complicated endgame, as after 17. Ac4 Ad6 18. We2 AxdS 19. Axd6 Bxd6 20. Wxc5 WxeS 21. ExcS &xa2 22. Hal 4d5 he also wins a pawn, but convert- ing that into a win with play on only one flank is extremely problematic] 17...He7 18. De4 d6 19. Bid! 2xd5 20. Dxd6 Wxd6 21. &c4 &xf3 22, Axd6 &xe2 23. &xe2, and now in Sherbakov V. — Ve- kshenkov N., Novosibirsk 1996, after 23...&c7 White would have been slightly better) 10...exd5 (10...2)xd5%! 11. Ded Be7 12, dxcS DxcS 13. DAxcS BxcS [White has a positional advantage after 13...bxe5] 14. Ags with a dangerous initiative for White) 11. Hcl (White de- cides to focus on his opponent’s hanging pawns. There is another path associated with an attempt to seize the initiative, in which the pawn center disappears: 11. e4!? exd4 [according to Palliser, af- ter I1...dxe4 12, Axed Axed 13. 2xe4 2b7 14. dxcS &xc5 15. &xb7 Wxb7 16. Wd3 or 16. Hel!?, White has a slight initiative] 12. Hcl fafter 12. exdS AxdS 13. Hcl Wb8 14. &xd4 2b7, Malaniuk V. — Kholmoy R., Tallinn 1983, Black has to be on the alert, else White may be the first to attack on the kingside: 15. Des 24 16. Bedl!? He52! 17. Dxes xe5 18. Wh5] 12...Wb8 13. exd5 AcS 14, &b1 ADxd5% (14...2b7 is better] 15. Ded! Dfa 16. Kel! [White prefers the initiative to a pawn] 16...d3 17. Axc5 &xeS [17...bxc5 18. &xd3 2b7 245Part II, Play for Black 19, 2c4, and White has an advantage] 18. S&xd3 Axd3 19. Wxd3 £6 [19...8d6 loses the exchange, but at the same time Black obtains a certain amount of com- pensation: 20. Wed 2a6 21. b4 &xb4 22. Re5 Bies 23. Yxa8 Bxa8 24. & xd6 2xd6] 20. Exc5! bxc5 21. Be7 We4 22. Wd5+ Reb 23. Exe6 Wh8 24. Wxcs, and in Voiska M. — Vajda S., Tusnad 2005, White obtained a big advantage.) 11...b67 12. h3 (in Baumhackel M. — Déottling G., Dortmund 2000, after 12. We2 Bfeg 13. Wbl Hed 14. h3 Ddfo 15. dxeS bxcS 16. 2bS Black had a diffi- cult position with hanging pawns) 12... Efe 13. Wc2 Bac8 14. dxcd bxc5 15. RS Bod’ 16. Hfdl g6 17. &xd7 Axd7 18. We3 £6 (18...De5) 19. e4 Des (19... dxed!? 20, De4 0) 20. exdS Bxd5 21. Bel W672! 22. Ded AxB+ 23. Wxf3 xed 24, Hxed Bxed 25. Yxed with ad- vantage for White, Koneru H. — Singh S., Calicut 2003. In the interests of fair- ness we should point out that Black got cold feet on her move 19, and her move 21 was a mistake. 9. dxeS AxeS 10. AxeS 10. &b5+ Ge7. What impertinence! But no one has punished it yet. 246 11. 2e2 (In my view, in this position the defiant presence of the black king in the center can hardly be punished with such “strong” moves. But 1. e4!? stands out: I1...dxe4 [11...d4 12. DxeS Qxes 13. g3] 12. Bel &g4 [12...exf3 13. Ac4 Se6 14. Bxe5 looks risky for Black, and White is better, but by how much needs to be tested] 13. Dxe4 @xf3+ O, when “only” moves start coming — that fact should always put you on your guard! 14. exf3 & xh2+ [14.26 15. Dxd6 Wxd6, and after 16. Wcl or 16. We2, White has a dangerous initiative] 15. &g2, if evaluated according to the template, then there’s double-edged play. But if you evaluate it honestly: there ought to be something for White here!) 11...2.d8 12. Wel Reb 13. c4-dxcd 14. bxc4 h6 15. Edi Gf8, and in Dizdar G. — Banikas H., Turin 2006, Black moved his king away from the center. 10....2.xe5 11. 2xe5 Now, aftera preliminary exchange on e5, the check on bS isn’t all that danger- ous anymore: 11.2 bS+ HS (After 11... d7 12. &xe5 WxeS 13. &xd7+ Dxd7 14. 4 (14. Wed £5) 14.276 15. cxd5 Wxd5 16. e4, White has a slight initia- tive. Or 11...%7e7!?: We have already seen that White hasn’t refuted this bold move by Black. 12. Sxe5 WxeS 13. Af Wc7 and, despite the black king’s location in the center of the board, White has no way of reaching it, Svensson B. — Kretz J., Goteborg 1993) 12, &xeS Wxes 13. We2g6 (13...s224!2) 14. Hael &eg7 15. e4, and following mass trades on e4 the game Yusupov A. — Chandler M., Hast- ings 1990, soon ended in a draw.Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument 11...WxeS 12, c4 0-0 13. Ye2 Le6 14, exd5 &xd5 15. e4 £e6 Here Black could sacrifice a pawn in a better version than happened in the game: 15...c4!? 16. bxc4 2.06 5. 6. DIB WhS 17. e5 Ads 18. Wxe5 19, We3 Wed 20. Del 20. g3!?. 20...2ad8 21. 2e4 245, and after 22, &xdS HxdS 23. g3 White could have obtained a slight advantage. In the next game Black brings his knight out to c6, and not d7, and equal- izes easily, Omearat A. — Sadvakasov D. Dubai 2002 1. d4 D6 2. AB 5 3. e3 d5 4.3 e6 5, 243 Dc6 6. a3 6. 2b2 Qd6 7. 0-0 (If White tries to prevent Black’s planned advance with 7. Des Wec7 8. f4, then there follows the “right hook” 8...cxd4 9. exd4 Ab4, eliminating White’s dangerous bishop. That’s why it’s better for Black to bring his knight out to c6. 10. 0-0 [10. &b5+ d7 11. &xd7+ @xd7 12. Da} a6 13. c4 with a roughly equal game, Bogda- novich G. — Dreyer E., Germany 2005] 10.,,2)xd3 11. cxd3 [so that e4 is inhos- pitable to the black knight] 11...0-0 12. &d2, and in Berezjuk S. — Vavrak P., Slovakia 1999, Black obtained an extra tempo compared to Yusupov A. — De Boer in Part I], Chapter 8, thanks to the fact that his queen arrived on ¢7 in one move. But whether this tempo would help Black to resist the plan in the in- dicated game needs to be confirmed by practice.) 7...We7 (7...0-0) 8. 2a3!? is Akiba Rubinstein’s idea — see below (8. c4 —see below, notes to Legky — Mikha- levsky, Montréal 2003): 8...a6 9. c4 (Susan Polgar suggested changing the order of moves in Rubin- stein’s maneuver somewhat — first ex- changing pawns on cS, and only then playing c2-c4: 9. dxeS!?. After this move it’s still too early to talk about Black’s equalizing: 9...2xcS 10. c4 We7 [the hasty 10...dxc4?! only brings the white pieces closer to the center with 11. Axe, and if we take into account the lag in development, the position of the black pieces on the c-file, and the greedy looks of the white bishops on the kingside, then we can summarize: misfortune can’t be far off for Black] 11. exd5 @xd5 [after I1...exd5 there’s a debatable position with an isolated pawn] 12. Dc4 0-0 13. Hcl, and White is ahead in development) 9...¥e7 (In Rubinstein A. — Perlis J., Ostend 1907, 247Part II. Play for Black Black played 9...cxd4 and after 10. exd4 dxc4 [Giving White a choice: accept ei- ther hanging pawns or an isolated pawn. Rubinstein chose the latter. We'll point out that 10...0-0 11. cS is probably worse and White is better, with a pawn major- ity on the queenside and control of e5, Richardson A. — Horton J., England 2004. For details on how White can make the most of his advantage, see Part I, Chapter 7.] 11. @xe4 [11. bxe4 also looks very promising: 11...b6 {after HI...0-0 12. c58.e7 13. Dc4, the situation on the board recalls the idea of “suffoca- tion at a distance ”} 12. d5 or even 12. c5] 11...0-0 12. 2ife5 b5 13. Axdé Wxd6 14. a4 [We need to test the immediate cap- ture on c6: 14. Dxc6!? Wxc6 15. Hel] 14...b4 15. Dic4 [15. Dxc6l? Wxc6 16. Bcl] 15...We7 16. Bel fafter 16. De3, Black can offer White a repetition: 16... Wd6 (16..2d8 17. Hel 2b7 18. Dgd and White has some initiative} 17. De4 We7] 16...2b7 17. Wc2 WF 18. 23 WES, 19. Ad2 Axd4! 20. Axf3 Dxf3+ 21. Ghi Dd4t 22. Sel Dxc2 23. Bxc2. Rubinstein made a draw, but White was left with an unpleasant aftertaste from this game. True, there were other ways to develop the initiative, but I haven’t found anything convincing yet. Most likely Rubinstein’s idea works better with hanging pawns, i.e. on move 11 he should have played bxe4.) 10. Ac2 dxc4 11. bxc4 e5 (on 11...0-0, 12. He5 would be rather unpleasant for Black) 12. d5 Dba 13. Dxb4 exb4 14. c5!? 2xeS 15. DxeS 0-0 (15..,2xd5? 16, Bcd) 16. 04 (16. Bel) 16....Ad7 17. Axd7 &xd7 18. e5, and White obtained an advantage in Lebron E. — Motwani P., Vienna 1991. 248 Now for some advice. The game we've just examined forces us to think: is it really so essential for White to hur- ry up and play a2-a3, as some theorists suggest? The a3 square can be useful, as we've seen. The move a2-a3 should be made based on the actual situation on the board, not automatically! 6...2d6 After 6...cxd4 7. exd4, it’s also diffi- cult for Black to engineer ...e6-e5. See Salwe G. — Olland A., Karlsbad 1907, Part II, Chapter 12, but he can seize e4. See Gagloshvili — Shariyazdanov, Kras- nodar 1997, Part II, Chapter 3. 7, 2b2 We7 8. Dbd2 8. 0-0 e5 (After 8...0-0 Susan Polgar doesn’t recommend 9. dxc5 &xc5 10. &xf6 gxf6, as Black configures his piec- esas follows: ...g8-h8, ...Ef8-g8, ...f7- £5, ...€¢5-e7-f6, obtaining promising play. However, it’s not all smooth sailing for Black here, either. See Marks — Mc- Beth, Glasgow 2008, below.) 9. dxeS (9. dxeS &xe5 10. b4 £46 11. Dc3!? a6 [IL..e4? 12. Abs! Wd7 13. 2 xf6] 12. e4 with an unclear game) 9... xe5 10. 2b5+ 2d7 11. 2xd7+ Dexd7 12. c3 We6 13. De2 0-0-0. Black’s unexpected decision to move his king over to the queenside evidently unsettled White, and his next move was already a bad one: 14. Dg3 (after 14. b4!? a double-edged game would have ensued) 14...g6 15. c4 dxo4 16. bxc4 h5 17, Wb3? (the decisive mistake, after which Black’s steamroller hits the white king’s fortifications un- hindered) 17...h4 18. De2 h3 19. WS,Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument and in this position from Hoffman A. — Hemando J., Internet 2000, with 19... Wed Black would have obtained a very strong attack. In order to make Black’s planned ...€6-e5 advance more difficult, the im- mediate 8. c4 cxdd 9. exd4 dxcd4 10. bxc4 0-0 11. Be3 a6 12. 0-0 has also been encountered, producing a complicated hanging-pawns position for White: 12... 8d8 13. De4 (White could try to prevent Black’s freeing advance ...e6-e5 with 13. c5or 13. Hel) 13...2xe4 14. &xe4 e5 with an equal game, Mishuchkov N. — Rodin M., Orel 1996. 8...e5!? 8...0-0 looks like a hesitation, for example: 9. dxe5 (This continuation is more energetic than 9. 0-0, after which Black easily achieves equality: 9...cxd4 [9...e5 10. dxcS BxeS 11. e4 7. cd} 11.4 {71.2947 12. exd5 Axd5 13. Qxh7+ &xh7 14. Dg5+, Papp J. - Ki- ruba A., Budapest 2005, also looks good} 12. Bel {if White did want to play on the e-file, then he should have started with 12. b4 Be7 13. bS Da 14. c3, although it’s tree that Black's position is fairly solid here, too} 12...a5 13. 3 dxc3 14. Exc3, Unger M. — Galje H., Bad Worishofen 2008] 10. exd4 e5 11. dxe5 Axe5 12. DxeS 2xe5 13. Sxe5 WxeS, and Black equalized in Malaniuk V. — Psakhis L., Batumi 1999) 9...2.xc5 10. b4 (10. &xf6 exf6 11. c4!? (11. 0-0 Hd 12. Yb?! (12. Dd4} 12..Des 13. Dxes fees 14. c4e4 15. 2e2 Wes 16. Hdl 2d7 17. fl dxc4 18. &xc4.a5 19. a4 2.c6, and Black’s position is for preference, Bena- res R. — Soppé G., Sao Paulo 2001] 11... eS (11...dxe4] 12. AxeS WxeS 13. 0-0 bé6 [13...4d8] 14. 23 [14. cxd5!2] 14... Wh5 15. cxd5 Waxd5 [15...exd5 16. £e2, and White has a positional advantage] 16. Ye2 2.b7 [16...£5? is bad because of 17. e4!; 16... WhS 17. b4 26 {77.27 18. Yc7, and the white queen has a field day in the opposing camp} 18. Efd| 2b7 19. &.xh7+, and White wins a pawn] 17. Bxh7+ Hg7 18. Bid) Whs 19. Bed &xe4 20. Yxed, and in Marks A. — Mc- Beth M., Glasgow 2008, White won a pawn with a strong king position, while the black king’s position doesn’t look particularly great) 10...2e7 11. ¢4 dxe4 12. Axc4 (12. &xc4) 12...b5 13. Aced Dxe5 14. Bxe5 Wh6 Bogdanovich G. — Zumsande M., Hamburg 2006, and after the quiet 15. 0-0 White would have had a slight advantage. 9. dxeS 9. dxeS SxcS 10. e4 (or 10. 26S e4 11. Des 0-0 12. Axcé bxeb 13. Be2 a5 with equality, Vasiljevié D. — Petrovié P., Belgrade 2003) was played in Mikha- levski V. — Plaskett J., Internet 2004. The game continued 10...0-0 (10...44) 249Part II, Play for Black 11, 0-0 Ha8 12. We? ®e4, with acom- plicated position. 9...2xeS 10. AxeS &xe5 11. 2xe5 WxeS 12. 0-0 On 12. &b5+ the reply is simply 12... 2d7. 12...0-0 13.4 Hd8 13...2.24!?, 14, Ye2 2g4, with a good position for Black. Sometimes White embarks on vari- ous stratagems to prevent Black from playing ...e6-e5. To this end, White adopts the following scheme: above all he refrains from developing his queen’s knight to d2 and first plays ¢2-c4, and only afterward lets his knight go to c3, creating the threat of 2\c3-bS. This plan is particularly good if the black queen is already on c7 and his dark-squared bishop is on d6. Black is forced to waste a tempo on the not particularly useful move ...a7-a6. Legky N. — Mikhalevsky A. Montréal 2003 1. d4e6 2. DB ALG 3. e3 454. 23 5 5. b3 Ac6 5..Qbd7 6, 0-0 (Once Black’s queen’s knight comes out to d7 and there’s no threat of it landing on b4, 6. 2.b2!? deserves attention, for example 6...Wc7 7. c4!? Bd6 8. Bc3 dxe4 [White 250 is also better after 8 ..a6 9. cxd5 exd5] 9. bxc4 a6 10. 0-0 0-0 [10..e52! 11. dxeS @xe5 12. Dxe5 SxS 13. £412] 11.2, and we have a position from Arencibia — Delgado that leads to a complicated game. This move order prevents Black from getting active play, as occurred in Cvitan O. — Gofshtein Z. See these two games below.) 6...W4c7 7. 2b2 246 & c4 dxc4 (...b6 9. De3 a6 10. exdS exd5 [Brown S.A. — Shaw K., Paisley 1995; this is an almost forced variation, as 10...Dxd5 11. Dxd5 exd5 12. dxc5 Dxe5 13. Qxg7 Hp8 14. 26 Bh3 15. Des &xh2+ 16. Yh favors White] 11. e4!? exd4 [L1...dxe4 12. Dxe4 0-0 13. dxe5 &xc5 14. Zfg5] 12. Dxds Axds 13. exdS 0-0 14. Hel, and White’s ad- vantage is indisputable. After 8...0-0 9. exd5 exd5 [following 9...Axd5 10. a3, White is ahead in development] 10. dxe5 &xc5 [10...2xc5? is bad because of 11. &xf6 gxf6 12. Dc3, and Black’s pawn structure is damaged; 10...Y4xc5] 11. 4c3 we cansay that White has com- pleted his mobilization. Black is clearly behind in this regard, and his pieces are poorly positioned to boot: the queen and bishop on the c-file can come under fire from White’s major pieces; the d7- knight has to watch over its colleague; and then, when the opportunity arises, White can shatter Black’s castled posi- tion with b2xf6. The isolated pawn on d5 doesn’t enhance his position, either. Evidently 8..0-0 only creates problems for Black. Then there is 8... e5!?, This move deserves attention and requires deeper analysis. For the time being, though, the “flight plan” below shows that White’s play can be improved upon:Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument 9. dxeS [The attempt by White to play beautifully must end badly, for ex- ample: 9. 39! e4 10. dxcS Zxc5 11. Abs Ye? 12. Bxf6 exf6 (12... YB? 13. Bc2 exf3 14, Wxd5} 13. Be? exf3 14. Bxd6+ Wxd6 15. &xf3, and two pawns for a piece and the flaws in Black’s pawn structure do not provide enough compensation for White] 9...xe5 10. @xe5 &xe5 11. 003 dxcé4 [11...2.xh2+ 12. Ohl BeS (12..dxe4 is bad: 13. Dxed Dg! 14. (3 Wd 15. fog! Lxdl 16. Haxd! WgF 17, Dd5! Axd5 (17... yg? 18. Bxg7Lg8 19. Df6+ Dxf6 20. 255+ Dd7 21. Bxd7+ Gad8 22. Bh3+ Ge7 23. Bb2, and Black can’t save the bishop on h2, so White has a big edge) 18. Exd5 0-0 19. Hafs Yh4 20. HAS Yixed 21. ixh2, and White is much better} 13. B®xd5 DxdS 14. BxeS Wes 15_ exd5, and White has an advantage thanks to the fact that he has a chance to get his d-, e- and f-pawns moving, thereby seiz- ing the center] 12. &xc4 &g4 13. Ad5 (13. £312 Ha8 14. We2 Qxh2+ fif the light-squared bishop retreats, then White plays 3-4, and a subsequent advance of the e- and f-pawns augurs great danger for Black} 15. Ohi Wg3 {On 15.208 White plays 16. £4, and the black bishop is in.a cage. In order to free it, Black has to make a different kind of concession.} 16. fke¢ Wha 17. g3 &xg3+ 18. Gel, and Black will have three pawns for a piece, but there are lots of pieces on the board, plus it’s not clear how he can get at the white king. It seems that White’s chances in the coming battle are better.] 13...2xh2+ 14. Ohl Qxdl 15. Dxc7+ 2xc7 16. Hfxd! Hd8 17. Bxd8+ Gxd8 18. &.xf6+ exf6 19. &.xi7, and in Cvitan O. — Gofshtein Z., Zagreb 1993, the players agreed to a draw.) 9. bxc4 0-0. (9...e57! looks rushed: 10. c3 a6 11. @®d5 (11. dxe5!? DxeS 12. DxeS Bxe5 13. 4+] 11..2xd5 12. exd5 o4 [White is better after both 12...cxdd 13. exd4 and 12...exd5 13. exd4 0-0 14. Hel] 13. dxeS Dxe5 14. BxeS Bxe5 15. Dxes Wxe5 16, &xe4+ Filip M.— Kozma J., Prague 1954) 10. 2103 a6 11. 4¥c2h6 12. Had cxd4 13. exd4 bS 14. cS Ge7 15. We2 (the tempting move 15. De5 is as- sociated with a pawn sacrifice) 15...2b7 with a complicated game, Arencibia W. — Delgado N., La Habana 2001. 6.0-0 In Kurtenkov A. — Pantaleev D., Belgrade 1991, White launched decisive actions without first removing his king from the center: 6. &b2 We7 7. c4 dxo4 (7...0xd4 8 exd4 &b4+ (for 8...Was+!?, see Part II, Chapter 5, notes to Zarubin — Makarichev] 9. Dbd2 b6 10. 0-0 0-0 11. Bel Wd62! 12. a3 2xd2 (12...2xa3? 13. c5] 13. Uxd2 Aed 14, Wc2 +, Pytel K. — Kuciel W., Gorzéw 2008) 8 bxc4 &e7 (if the bishop is placed on d6, he will have to contend with White’s threat of Ab1-c3-b5) 9. Ac3 0-0 10. d5 exdS 251Part II. Play for Black 11. exdS c4?! (Black’s pawnsacrifice was supposed to seize the initiative, but he miscalculates. After 11...e5!? instead, things are not so clear.) 12. &xc4 a5 13. 2d3 Ded 14. Sxcd Wed 15. We2 Wb4 16. 0-0, and later White tumed his extra pawn into a win. 6...8¢7 7.04 7. a3 2d6 (I have serious doubts about Karpov and Kalinichenko’s posi- tive evaluation of an attempt by Black to undertake 7...e5 before the dark-squared bishop comes out. What concerns me above all is, why aren’t the strongest players in a hurry to make: this move? Perhaps because of the game Bauza L. — Guimard C., Mar del Plata 1954: 8. dxeS Dxe5 9. Dxe5!? [Play was weaker in the following modern game: 9, &b5+ Ac6 (9...2.d7 is also possible} 10. &b2 2e6 11. Abd2 fafter 1. Bxf6 £96, Black — who enjoys the bishop pair, control of the center squares, and the op- portunity to exert pressure on the white king’s castled position with his major piec- es via the g-file — can look to the future with confidence} 11...8.e7 12. De5 0-0 252 13. &xc6 bxc6 14. f4 Had& 15. £5 Bc8 16. gd Dred 17, Yxg4 £6, and Black was better in Moskow E. — Tissir M., Reykjavik 2006] 9...W4xe5 10. Ha2 2d6 [Possibly the best reply for Black. So, for example, after 10...224 White seizes the initiative: 11. &2b5+ 2d7 12, Sb2 Web 13. Sxd7+ Bxd7 fafter 13...Yxd7 14, Bxf6 gxf6 15. c4, White has a clear positional superiority} 14. Dc3 Db6 fon H4...Df6 there follows 15. DHS ¥c6 16. 26 gxf6 17. c4, and again White’s posi- tion is better} 15. a4 Bd8 fafter 15...0-0- O, Black will still have to worry about the safety of his king: 16. a5 Da8 17. a6 66 18. 65, and White has good chances of cooking up an attack} 16. aS, and White is the first to start attacking moves, while Black hasn’t even completed his de- yelopment yet.] 11. f4 We7, and here White, by continuing 12. c4!? dxc4 13. bxe4 0-0 14. 2\c3, would have obtained a very promising position due to the threat of e3-e4-e5.) 8. c4 0-0 (8...dxc4 9. bxc4 e5 10. 2\c3 a6, and here in Rae- va E. — Voiska M., Pernik 2007, White blocked up the position with 11. d5 and obtained an unclear game. While she could use the fact that the black king is stuck in the center with 11. Ad5!? Wd8 (11... 2xd5 12. cxd5 He7 13.dxe5 2 xe5 14. Bes Wxes 15. Bc2 Yxd5 16. 2b2, even in this position you can’t even be- gin to say that White has compensation for the pawn. The question is something else: does Black have a jump?] 12. Yc2, with a better position for White.) 9. &2b2. The game Polgar S. — Yudasin L., Munich 1991, arrived here by transposi- tion: 9...cxd4 10. exd4 e5!? 11. dxe5 (11. exd5 Dxd4; 11. cS e4 12. cxd6 Yxd6) 11...AxeS 12. DxeS BxeS 13. BxedChapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument WeeS 14, 2d? Apd 15. Hel Wd6 (15... We7 16. We2 dxc4 17. Wxc4 Wxc4 18. &xc4 with an equal game in Kurajica B. — Razuvaev Y., Oberwart 1991) 16. Wc2 Hac8, with equality. 7. &b2 cxd4 (7...2.d6 8. 04 [for 8. ®a3!?, see the previous game, notes to White's sixth move] 8...cxd4 [8...dxe4 9. bxe4 exd4 fin Digdar G. — Sax G., Vinkavci 1993, the black queen’ssee-saw- ing resulted in the loss of a pawn: 9..%4 b6 10. Yel Qb4 11. 2e2 BA7 12. Dbd2 We7 13. dxcS 2e7 (after 13..2.xc5 14. Rxf6 gxf6 15. Ded &e7 16. 452, White has a dangerous initiative) 14.63 Dc6, and though a bad one, White’s extra pawn helped him to win} 10. exd4 2.e7 {playing it safe} 11. De3 Db4 12. Dos Was 13. Sebi 0-0 14. a3 Acé 15. We2 fthreat- ening d4-d5, 2.b2-f6, and 4 c2-h7 with mate} 15...26 16. Bdl a6 17. Bc3 Das 18. 2a2 We7 19. d5! Bd8? (Black prob- ably didn’t want to capture the pawn with 19...2\xe4 because of the variation 20. Rxcd Yxc4 21. d6 2d8 22. Dest 4cS 23. d7 Bxe5 24. Dd5 Qxd5 25. Lxe5 Qxd7. At first glance Write has a big ad- vantage, but on the other hand Black is only a pawn down. And the knight in the center!? After the game move, however, Black’s situation is desperate.} 20. De4, and in Dzagnidze N. — Javakhishvili L., Baku 2002, White gained a big advan- tage] 9. exd4 b6 10. Abd2 [Why White didn’t make the routine move 10. 2c3!? here remains a mystery. In that case he would have obtained a dangerous initia- tive, for instance 10...a6 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Hel+ De? (12... 2e6is bad because of 13. 2f5Dd8 14. Bel; while after 12. G8 13. h3, Black has to think about how to peform artificial castling against the backdrop of White’s growing initiative} 13. De5 0-0 14. W3, and it’s too early yet to talk about Black equalizing] 10... 2b7 11. We2 0-0 12. Had! Hac8 13. De5 Bids 14. f4 We? 15. £5 dxc4, and here in Vaisser A. — Yap A., Hungary 1985, White chose hanging pawns with 16. bxe4. And after 16...exf$ 17. Dxc6 Wxe2 18, & xe2 we have an equal ending on the board. In my view, playing this position with an isolated pawn but very active pieces is far more promising for White: 16. ®dxc4!?,) 8. exd4 (White has less chance of obtaining an advantage after the knight trade: 8 Axd4 @xd4 9. &xd4 [In the game Urday H. — Dok- hoian Y., Pamplona 1991, after 9. exd4 Ad6 10. h3 0-0 11. Bd2 Bd7 12. o4 dxe4 13. bxc4 there was a complicated position with hanging pawns for White. Black’s chances are not worse.] 9...2.d6 [9...e5!2 Karpov, Kalinichenko] 10. f4 [10. h3 e5 11. &b2 0-0 12. Dd2 e4 13. Re2 Bh2+ 14. Ghl Le5 with equality, Vojtek V. — Veli¢ka P., Tatranské Zruby 2003] 10...e5 11. fxeS &xeS 12. Bb5+ Ge7 13. Axes Wes 14. Yd4 Dgd with “forced equalization of the game” in Dizdarevié E. — Volokitin A., Sarajevo 2005) 8...Ab4 @....d6 9. Da3 a6 10. c4 [a position from Rubinstein — Perlis; see notes to the previous game] 10...0-0 11. Bel [11. c5!?] 11...ad7 12. Aes Bad8 13. De2 sec8 14. ¢5 (14. WH3] 14...2e7 (14...2xe5!? 15. dxeS Dd7] 15. b4 26, and here in Schmidt W. — Becker N., Germany 1989, it wouldn’t be bad for White to play 16. Axc6 bxc6 (16... ¥xc6 17. a4 +] 17. We2 followed by a queen- side pawn advance) 9. c4 (in Lonéar R. — SuSkovié M., Zadar 1999, White man- 253Part II. Play for Black aged to obtain a pawn majority on the queenside: 9. 2.b5+ 2d7 10. 2xd7+ @xd7 il. a3 Bc6 [11..4xe2 looks perilous for Black] 12. c4 Af6é 13. Ac3 Be7 14. cS) 9...2xd3 10. Yxd3 2e7 (10...dxe4 11. bxc4 deserved attention, butnow White creates a queenside pawn majority; see Part 1, Chapter 7) 11. ¢5!? b6 (In principle, this reaction is correct: you have to attack the white pawns im- mediately, otherwise White will bring up the other queenside pawns.) 12. Hcl 0-0 13.b4 Hed 14. Dc3 bxe4 15. dxed Dxe3 16. &xc3 fo 17. bS Wd8 (taking the cS- pawn is dangerous: 17...Wxc5 18. 2xf6 Wed6 19. Ags g6 20. Wh3 h5 21. Bxe7 Wxe7 22. Wp3, and White has a big po- sitional advantage) 18. 2.64 e5 19. Wb3 Gh8 20, c6 d4 21. a4 Axb4 22. Wxb4 Sgd 23, Dd2 Wes 24. a5 We6 25. a3 (it’s possible to advance the b-pawn im- mediately: 25. b6!?) 25...d3 26. b6, and Black resigned a few moves later in the game Matlék M. — Weglarz L., Zako- pane 2000. 7...dxe4 In Yusupoy A. — Volokitin A., Ger- many 2006, Black — evidently aware of the white queen's knight’s unpleasant maneuver — put his bishop on e7: 7... 8e78. 2b2 cxd4 9. exd4 dxc4 10. bxe4 and the game can already be included in the section on hanging pawns, but we're giving it to the end here so as not to split things up: 10...0-0 11. c3 &d8 (Black is ready for White’s d4-d5 breakthrough, as, for instance, 11...b62! looks dubious [McKay R. — Gourlay I., Stirling 2002] because of 12. d5!?) 12. Hel (Black doesn’t seem to have any- 254 thing to worry about inthe move 12. 5, recommended by Karpov and Kalin- ichenko, because he put a rook on d8 in good time) 12...b6 13. d5!? Ab4 (The pawn is immune to capture. Karpov and Kalinichenko give this line: 13... exd5? 14. cxd5 Ab4 [14...Axd5?? 15. @xd5 Bxd5 16. &xh7+!] 15. Dds Wb7 16. d6! @xd3 17. dxe7!) 14. De4 (White can look for chances in the complica- tions starting after 14. 2)b5, and then comes this variation: 14...Wb7 15. Ags [15. d6?! is universally rejected, as af- ter 15...Axd3 16. Wxd3 De8 there are problems with the defense of the d6-pawn] 15...h6 16. Hed Afxds 17. cxd5 Exd5 18. Ded6 S2xd6 19. Dxd6 Exd6 20. &h7+ Yxh7 21. Yxd6 Dd5 22. WeS {6 23. We4+. There is mate- rial equality, but the two pawns that should compensate for being down the exchange are on opposite flanks, and this circumstance favors White. Inci- dentally, the author of the variation, Richard Palliser, himself also thinks that in the final position Black most likely lacks sufficient compensation for the exchange. Perhaps we should look more closely at 16...2e8 afterall.) 14...exd5 (14...Dxe4 15. &xe4 £5 also requires testing) 15. Axf6+ 2xf6 16. xf6 (If you sacrifice the bishop on h7 first, and then take on f6 after an in- between check on b1, then we arrive at the final position of the game, but with the black king on g8. Additional inves- tigation is necessary to determine how substantial this difference is, Palliser offers this variation: 16. &xh7+ &xh7 17, Wo1+ He8 18. 2x6 gxf6 19. Yxb4 dxe4 20. He4 Le6 21. Yc3 Hd5!) 16... gxf6 17. 2xh7+ Yxh7 18. Wi+ g7Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — Black’s Main Argument 19, Wxb4 dxc4 20. Hed a5, and in this sharp position the players agreed to a draw. 8 bxed 2d6 Once again, an early 8_..e5?! looks extremely suspect: 9. Ac3 2p4 10. d5 @b8? (White is also obviously on top after the relatively better 10...\b4) 11. DbS Was 12. Wa4 27 13. Dxe5, and in Diesen M. — Whatley A., Dallas 2003, White obtained a winning posi- tion. 9, De3 a6 10. &b20-0 11. d5 Ae7 The move 11...2b4 has its own pluses, 12. We2 12. dxe6 doesn’t look bad either, for example: 12...2xe6 13. h3 Dg6 14. Dgs Bad8, and here in Legky N. — Oms J., La Reunién 1997, after 15. Dxe6 fxe6 16. f4 White obtained a very promising position. 12...h6 13. Hadi with a complicat- ed game, but White’s pieces are slightly better placed, and he has predomi- nance in the center. A plan involving c2-c4 and AbI-c3 yields no noticeable advantage, but, at least, by comparison with Omearat — Sadvakasov, where af- ter 8...e6-e5 a dull position appared on the board, here we have positions full of fight. And that fact should be some- thing that cheers White up! The plan examined in this section is considered virtually a refutation of the Zukertort System, and we have convinced our- selves in these games that it isn’t easy for White to fight for an advantage with this development plan for Black. But still, I'll again advise you to also pay attention to Akiba Rubinstein’s idea in the games Rubinstein — Perlis and Lo- bron — Motwani. I think we can dig up something there! Black can begin the strategic config- uration of his pieces with an early queen sortie: Salwe G, — Leonhardt P. Karlsbad 1907 1. d4.d5 2. DPB 06 3. 3 Df6 4. 243 5 5, b3 Wc7!? The queen occupies this post not only to support the intended ...e6-e5, but also to create the threat of ...cS-c4. 6. 2b2 Routine development to prevent the advance of Black's c-pawn doesn’t work here: 6. Abd2 Ac6 (after 6...Dbd7 7. 255Part II, Play for Black 2b? bé [the attempt by Black to bring the “fruitful opening idea” to life faster only creates problems for him: 7...2.d6 8. 04 {If White wants to have anything to count on, then he shouldn’t hesitate with this advance, i.e., on 8. 0-0 there follows &...e5!?, already seen above} 8...0-0 fon &...e5, White obtains an advantage thus: 9. cxd5 exdS (9...exd5 is even worse: 10. exd5 cxd5 fafter 10...2xd5 11. 0-0 0-0 12. Bed cxd4 13. Bel White’s initia- tive takes on threatening proportions} 11. We2+ Yf8 [11.2.7 is bad because of 12. Eel, and the white pieces develop fu- rious activity] 12. Axd4d@xd5 13. \bS Wd6 14. Dxd6Yxd6 15. Dc4 Heb [af ter 15..N49b4+ 16. Sf, Black is hardly likely to save the game} 16. Ld] and, de- spite the fact that Black has managed to preserve material equality, his position is very difficult because of his catastrophic lag in development) 10. exd5 0-0 (White isalso better after 10...e4 11. 2xe4Dxe4 12. Qxe4) 11. Bel, and in Fenoglio V. — da Silva Rocha A., Buenos Aires 1935, White obtained better development on top of his material advantage} 9. Z.cl eS 10. dxeS (10. cxd5!? is more accurate} 10...Axe5! {10...2.xe5!7} 11. Bxe5!? BxeS 12. exdS AxdS 13. Axes (13. Wc2!?} 13...\xeS 14. ExcS, and White won a pawn in Beckmann K. — Wag- ner R., Recklinghausen 1999, although it’s true that in this case he manages to complete his development] 8. 0-0 &.d6 9. c4 0-0 10. cxd5 exdS and positions arise that we examined earlier in this chapter in Jaéimovié — Zeléi¢) 7. a3 oxd4 8. exd4 (8. Axd4 5!) 8...Axdd! 9. @xd4 We5+, and in Gotkowski M. — Bulski K., Wista 1998, Black won a pawn, But if White prefers not to part 256 with the pawn, and plays 7. &b2 in- stead, then after the maneuver 7...cxd4 8. exd4 “b4, already well known to us, Black manages to rid himself of the bothersome white bishop. Black’s threat can be parried with 6. c4, when the second player has to be on the alert, lest he slide imperceptibly into a difficult position, as occurred in the following game: 6...cxd4 7. exd4 Abst 8 Ld2 Dcb 9. 0-0 &xd2 10. Wxd2 0-0 11. Ac3 Has (after 11...dxe4 12. bxe4 White gets hanging pawns, but faster development defines his advan- tage) 12. c5 b6 (it’s too soon for 12...e5: 13. Db5 We? 14. AxeS DxesS 15. dxes WrxeS 16. Efel +) 13. b4 bxc4 (the pawn can’t be taken: 13...2xb4? 14. 2b5) 14. bxo4 Hb8 (14.05 15, DbS We? 16. D@xeS Dxe5 17. dxeS favors White) 15. @b5 Draga¥evié A. — Chelushkina I., Vnjatka Banja 2005. Preventing ...c5-c4 is also possible with 6. eS, i.e. 6...Ac6 7. 2b2 Axes 8. dxeS 27 9. f4 b6 (9...c4 10. bxc4 dxc4 is better, as it frees not only the a3-f8 diagonal, but also the key cS square) 10. @d2 &b7 11. 0-0 with a slight advantage for White, Mitjavila J. — Garcia Gil J., Catalonia 2000. For the plan of play for White see Part I, Chapter 3. 6...04 We're examining an early queen sortie to c7 in combination with this fundamental move. All other moves come into the lines that we have exam- ined above.Chapter 9. “A Fruitful Opening Idea” — 7. bxed dxe4 8. Le2 We already have the first positive results of the “annoying” black pawn thrust: the white bishop is forced to leave its “commanding height” on d3. 8...b5 Black’s Main Argument After 8...Dbd7 9. Dfd2 (9. 0-0) 9... b5 10. a4 &b7 11. 23 bxad (we also need to check the possibility 11-..b4!?) 12. Hxad 4b6, in Salo H. — Pulkkinen K., Helsinki 1993, White had the better pawn structure, but was slightly cramped on the queenside. 9. 3 White want to risk going into the variation 9. a4 b4 10. c3 a5, when we are “in the dark.” 9...2b7 10. 0-0 246 11. a4 a6 12. 8a3 Dbd7 13. Bxd6 Wxd6 14. Ha3 Wd5 15. Yb1 2c6, and in this posi- tion, with 16. “b4!? White could have prevented Black from castling, which should cast the latter into deep thought. 257