Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
',('jill/PI'
Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Editorial Panel:
GM K.Landa, GM M.Makarov
GM R.Ovetchkin
1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov
Technical Editor:
1M Semko Semkov
Translation by:
GM Evgeny Ermenkov
Book X
1.e4 c5 2.f3 c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 f6 5.c3
Chelyabinsk Variation
Alexander Khalifman
Bibliography
Repertoire books:
Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman
Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 2 : Anti-Nirnzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango
Volume 3 : Maroczy, English (1 . . . c5), Modern, Dutch
Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav
Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined
Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A. Khalifman
Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 . . . a6
Volume 2 : Ruy Lopez with 3 . . . a6
Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1 . . . c6, 2 . . . g6
Volume 4: 1. . . d6, 1.. .g6 . . . and others
Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 . . .b6 and other rare lines
Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 . . . Nf6, 2006
Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006
Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines
Volume 9: Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Paulsen and others
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman
Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti
Games collections
More details at www.chess-stars.com
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
various without 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 various; 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 without 8 . . . ie6
and 8 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 various;
9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8
Preface
Dear readers,
You are holding in your hands book ten of the series "Opening
for White According to Anand - l.e4". It is devoted mostly to the
Sveshnikov system, which is also popularly named as the Chelyabinsk
variation. Naturally, it is worth remembering that the move 5 . . . e7-e5
was played for the first time back in the year 1910 by great Lasker and
this opening system changed its name numerous times throughout the
years. The theory of that variation started developing rapidly during
the 70ies of the last century, thanks to the efforts of Evgeny Svesh
nikov, Gennadij Timoscenko and Alexander Panchenko (They all lived
in the city of Chelyabinsk during those years.) and it seemed that the
contemporary name should be most appropriate and logical.
In fact, starting from the seventies of the 20th century, the Chelyab
insk variation has never lost its popularity. The evaluation of that open
ing system has fluctuated between "100% reliable" to "almost refuted";
nevertheless, its theory has been developing intensely. Recently, the
"anti-Chelyabinsk" systems - 3.ib5 and 3.lt:lc3 are becoming top fash
ion and that only proves that the Chelyabinsk variation should be taken
quite seriously. Practically all the best chess players of the world have
contributed to the theory of that variation and the majority of them for
both sides at that.
Well, if we follow strictly the classical principles, it would hardly
be possible to classify Black's set-up as positionally correct. It looks
like White's undisputed dominance over the d5-outpost should pro
vide him with a stable advantage. Still, things are much more complex
in practice. Amazingly enough, Black always finds resources for ac
tive counterplay based on some already typical strategical maneuvers
around White's basic outpost on d5.
6
AKhalifman
14th World Chess Champion
Part!
1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3
rare 5th moves for Black
S . . . eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.igS
rare o;th moves for Black
Chapter l
tOxd4, b) 5
c7, c) 5 .l:b8
and d) 5 a6 .
The other possibilities for
Black usually transpose to po
sitions we have already stud
ied, for example: S . . . dS? ! 6.ibS
id7 7.exdS tOxd4 B.,hd7+ xd7
9.xd4 - see 4 . . . dS, Book 9,
Chapter 1; S . . .'IWaS 6.tOb3 c7 7.f4
and S . . . 1&b6 6.ttJb3 lead to 4 . . . 1&b6
- Book 9, Chapter 2 .
.
a) 5
tOxd4
6.xd46
That move is not so aesthetic
10
7.xb6
9.f4
axb6
8.e5
tOg4
(diagram)
White has a great space ad
vantage in the centre, while Black
has long-term weaknesses on
the queenside and that provides
b) 5
Vfc7
9.lLlc3 lLle5
6. tOdb5 !
White seizes the initiative.
6 ,..Vfb8
In case of 6 . . . Vfd8 7.tOd5 lLlxd5
8.exd5 a6 9.CiJc3 lLle5, White can
afford to continue with 10.f4
lLlg6 11.,ie3 d6 12.Vfd2 id7 13.
O-O-O Berger - Badilles, Ma
nila 1968.
lO .ie2 !
This flexible move is definitely
the best here. White continues the
mobilization of his forces, paying
11
Chapter 1
attention to the actions of his op
ponent.
10
e6
c) 5 . . . gb8
12 .te3 e5
13.Vd3 b5
Or 13 . . . .!e7 14.lLla4
14. 0 - 0 - 0 d6 15.h4
6 .!e3
6 . . . a6
12
7 .ie2 e5
S. Ci:Jb3 d6
White should be more than
happy after 8 . . . .ib4 9.,if3t
9. 0 - 0
In the game Borocz - Meszaros,
Szekszard 1995, White played
9.a4, but he did not need to be
afraid of the move b7-b5 .
.te7 1 0 .\Wd2t
6. Ci:Jxc6!
We will analyze both possible
captures: dl) 6 dxc6 and d2)
6 bxc6.
dl) 6
dxc6
d) 5
a6
S . . . e6
It is only a transposition of
moves after 8 . . . c.te8 9.0-0-0 and
there might follow: 9 . . . e6 - see
8 . . . e6; 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jh5; 9 . . .
b5 - see 8 . . . b5; 9 . . . !e6 - see 8 . . .
,ie6 ; 9 . . . Ci:Jd7 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jd7.
It is too risky for Black to play:
13
Chapter 1
B . . . ll:\hS 9.0-0-0+ .td7, Seibold Neuquen 1992, 13 . .te3. It is
- Neukum, Nuernberg 19BB (If more precise for Black to opt for
9 . . . 'i!?eB, then 10 . .tc7 ie6 1l.ll:\a4 9 . . . 'i!?eB, but then again lO.eS and
cB 12 .iaS German - Bertoni, if 10 . . . gS ! ? (or lO . . . e6 11 . .te2 .te7
Buenos Aires 1994), because of 12.ll:\e4 ll:\fB 13.h4 ll:\g6 14 . .tg3
lO .ll:\a4! bS (or lO . . . ll:\xf4 11.ll:\b6; Molnar - Kovacev, Kecskemet
10 . . . 'i!?eB 1l.ll:\b6 ig4 12.f3 dB 1990) 11.hgS ll:\xeS, Krebs 13.xdB + 'i!?xdB 14.ie3 .te6 15. Kluss, Germany 19B7, then White
can maintain his initiative with
ic4) 11.ll:\b6 a7 12 . .te3
the
help of 12.ll:\a4 ! ? if5 (or 12 . . .
Black would not solve his
ll:\d7
13.ie3 b S 14.ll:\c3;!;) 13.h3
problems if he fianchettoes his
king's bishop: B . . . ie6 9. 0-0-0+ gB 14.ie3;!;
'i!?eB lO ..te2 g6 11.a4 hS 12.aS ih6
9. 0 - 0 - 0 + 'i!?e8
It is not logical for Black to
13.hh6 xh6 14.f3 dB IS.ll:\a4
play: 9 . . . id7 lO.ll:\a4 bS l1.ll:\b6 a7
Socko - Lazar, Bastia 2 0 05.
White is clearly better af 12.f3 icS 13.ll:\xd7 xd7 14.id3
ter B . . . bS 9.0-0-0+ ll:\d7 (If 9 . . . R.Fischer - Kuberczyk, Cleveland
'i!?eB, a s i t was played i n the game 1964 - World Champion obtained
Kononen - Vuorimies, Finland the two-bishop advantage and he
2003, then White could have won the game subsequently.
chosen lO.eS ! ? ll:\g4 1l.ll:\e4 .tfS
In the game Kurenkov 12 .id3 dB 13 . .tg3) lO.eS e6 Jemelka, Olomouc 2 0 03, Black
11.ll:\e4 h6 12.ie2 'i!?c7 13.ll:\d6 tried 9 . . . ll:\d7 lO .ie2 .tcS 11 . .tg3
ixd6 14.xd6 Navara - Dalecky, bS. Here White should have con
Czech Republic 1997.
tinued with 12.eS ! ? 'i!?c7 13.ll:\e4 ie7
The best alternative for Black 14.ll:\d6 with a clear advantage.
to the main line B . . . e6 is the move
1 0 .ie2;!;
B . . . ll:\d7, which is aimed at the
preparation of the pawn-advance
e7-eS. White can refute that plan
with the move 9.0-0-0 with the
idea to follow with e4-eS. Now
after 9 .. .f6, White has lO.eS and
it would be in his favour if Black
plays lO . . . e6 1l . .tc4 'i!?e7 12.exf6+
gxf6, Semeniuk - Danielian, Vla
divostok 1994, 13.hel eS (or 13 . . .
ll:\b6? 14.he6 ! he6 IS.d6+-)
The endgame is better for
14.ie3, as well as 10 . . . 'i!?eB 11. White. After lO . . . bS (otherwise
exf6 gxf6 (or 1l ... exf6 12 . .tc4) Black must consider the possibil
12 . .te2 eS, Mavrich - Litovicius, ity ll:\a4) 11.d3 (The third rank is
14
7.e5 tLJg8
In the variation 7 . . . liJd5? !
8.liJxd5 cxd5 9.'lMfxd5 E:b8 1O .1c4
.
e6 11.'lMfd4 Black has no compen
sation for the pawn whatsoever,
Yahkind - Frawley, Plymouth
1984.
8 :i'f3 ! ?
White plays more often here
8.1c4,
.
but the move 8.f3 ! ? is
also very interesting. In essence,
it is a prophylactic move. White
is eyeing the c6-pawn in order
to prevent the pawn-advance d7d5.
8 . . . e6
d2) 6 . . . bxc6
9 .1d3 c7
Chapter 1
1l.VNhS;!; White maintains a stable
advantage.
1 0 . VNg3 tOe7
White is clearly better after
10 . . . dS 1l.exd6 VNxd6 12 . .tf4
Martins - Andre, Internet 2001
and he can counter 1O . . .f6 with
the simple move 1l.f4
Conclusion
The possibilities for Black, which we analyze in this chapter, are
played rather seldom in practice; therefore, White manages to obtain
a lasting opening advantage almost effortlessly.
Black plays a bit more often the move 5. . . a6, but after his oppo
nent's concrete reaction 6.ltJxc6! dxc6 7.VNxd8+ xd8 8. if4 or 6 . . .
bxc6 7.e5, w e have convinced you that White seizes the initiative for
long.
16
Chapter 2
6 . tLl db5 d6
The other possibilities for
Black - 6 . . . ib4+, 6 . . . ic5, 6 . h6
and 6 . . . a6 - are clearly worse. In
that case, after transposition of
moves, it all comes down to varia
tions, which we have analyzed in
Chapter 3 of the previous volume
(the system with the early 4 . . . e5)
- see the notes to Black's moves
5 and 7.
.
7.ig5
We will analyze now a) 7
ie6 and b) 7 a6.
The alternatives are evidently
weaker:
17
Chapter 2
It is bad for Black to play
7 . . . h6? 8.,bf6 gxf6 9.tLJd5+
Helmreich - Leibold, Germany
1986;
He loses a pawn without any
compensation after 7. . . i.e7? 8.
!xf6 gxf6 (8 ... i.xf6 9.tLJxd6+
@f8 1O.i.c4 Krumova - Villar,
Buenos Aires 1978) 9.tLJd5 0-0
(9 ... VNa5+ 1O.c3 Frank - Gertz,
Hessen 1990 ; 9 . . . @f8 1O.VNh5
Hartl - Resch, Niederbayern
1995; 9 . . . l:3b8 1O.tLJbc7+ @f8 11.
VNh5 Gresser - Loeffler, Split
1963) 10.tLJxe7+ VNxe7 (1O . . . tLJxe7
11.\1;!fxd6 i.e6 12.\1;!fxd8 l:3fxd8 13.
tLJc7 Rigolot - Delivre, France
1999) I1.VNxd6. After 11 . . . VNxd6 (or
11 . . . l:3d8 12.VNxe7 tLJxe7 13.i.d3
Schmidt - Baier, Strelasund 1997;
11 . . . .ie6 12 .\1;!fxe7 tLJxe7 13.0-0-0
Arakhamia-Grant - Paraskevai
dis, Lansing 1995) 12.tLJxd6 Black
fails to create any counterplay,
for example: 12 . . . J.e6 13.0-0-0
Kosmac - Ristov, Kranj 2004;
12 ... l:3d8 13.0-0-0 tLJd4 14.tLJb5
Diaz Joaquin - Strube, Hessen
1988; 12 . . . tLJd4 13. 0-0-0 .ig4
(about 13 . . . l:3d8 - see 12 . . . l:3d8)
14.l:3d3 Zaksaite - Zebelys, Rad
viliskis 1995; 12 . . . tLJb4 13. 0-0-0 !
(White regains his extra pawn
quite favourably.) 13 . . . tLJxa2+
14.@bl tLJb4 (14 ... .ie6 15.c3) 15.
J.c4 @g7, Papp - Nagy, Szeged
1998 (15 . . . tLJc6 16J3d3 Korniyuk
- Brozhik, Kiev 2 0 05) 16.c3 tLJc6
17.l:3d3 - and White maintains a
great advantage in all these varia
tions.
18
a) 7 i.e6
S.tLJd5 gcS
After the hasty 8 . . . ,bd5 9.exd5
tLJe7 (9 . . . tLJb8, Orozco - Cespedes,
Barranquilla 1995, 1O.,bf6 gxf6
11.i.d3 a6 12.tLJc3) White has
the powerful resource 10 .c3 ! In
view of the threats along the a4e8 diagonal, Black loses his cas
tling rights. In case of 1O . . . tLJexd5,
White follows with 11.\1;!fa4 @e7 (It
is a disaster for Black to try 11 . . .
\1;!fd7? 12.tLJxd6+ @e7 13.\1;!fxd7+
@xd7 14.tLJxf7+-, while if 11 . . . @d7,
then 12. 0-0-0 tLJb6 13.\1;!fb3-+ and
White has a dangerous initiative.)
12.0-0-0 a6 (12 ... tLJb6 13.VNb4)
13.l:3xd5 axb5, Dutreeuw - Ovezov,
Istanbul 2000, 14.VNb4 ! @e6 15.
l:3xb5, White is attacking in a
position with equal material. If
Black refrains from capturing his
opponent's central pawn, he does
not solve his problems either, for
example: 1O . . . VNb8 11.!xf6 gxf6
12.\1;!fa4 @d8 13.VNa5+ ! (This is an
9.c3 !
White i s not in a hurry to ex
change on f6 in order not to allow
counterplay on the g-file.
1l.ixf6!
That is the right time for that
exchange, because White needs to
capture the enemy bishop on d5
with his queen.
1l . . . Wlxf6
It would not work for Black
to try 1l . . . Wlb6? 12.exd5 Wlxb2
13.Wlc1+- (Jansa), and he loses a
piece.
In the game Jansa - Danek,
Czechoslovakia 1982, Black chose
1l . . . gxf6 12 .Ylfxd5 Ylfa5 (or 12 . . . b5
13.l'!d1 i.e7 14.lLlc2 Kosanski Hibner, Velika Gorica 2005; 12 . . .
Wld7 13.lLlc4 l'!d8 14.l'!dl Ranieri
- Guglielmi, Eporediese 2 0 01)
13.i.c4 l'!c7 14.Ylfxa5 lLlxa5 15.i.d5
l'!g8 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 l'!g5 18.f6 !
l'!f5 19.b4 ! lLlc6 (White would
have countered 19 . . . l'!xc3? with
20.lLlb1+-) 2 0.b5, and White
started decisive actions in that fa
vourable endgame.
9 . . . a6 1 0 .lLla3 hd5
It deserves attention for Black
to opt for lO . . . iLe7!?, but then af
ter 1l.hf6 hi6 12.lLlc4 ie7 (or
12 . . . hd5 13.Ylfxd5 Krajcovic Kysel, Slovakia 1994) 13.lLlcb6 (It
is also good for White to continue
19
Chapter 2
White has a clear positional
advantage, thanks to his reli
able control over the d5-outpost.
It was tried later: 14 . . . g6 15.lLlc4
lMfe6 16.lLlb6 :gc7 17.lMfd2 Mote
- Strenzwilk, USA 198 2 ; 14 . . . lMfg6
15.lLlc4 lLld8 16.lLle3 :gc5 17.d3
lLle6 18.lLlf5 f6 19.93 Suetin
- Sobura, Warsaw 1989; 14 . . . lLld8
(The transfer of the knight from c6
to f4 is Black's main idea.) 15.lLlc4
lLle6, Bors - Heiligermann, Hun
gary 2002, 16.lLle3 lLlf4 17.lMfd1 !
g6 18.!f3;J; and White keeps the
edge in all the variations.
b) 7 a6 8.lLla3
13.exdS
c!LJd4
14. 0 - 0 - 0
16.@b2
18.f4
c!LJbS
17.:ge1!
f6
b2) 8
.ie7? ! , b3) 8
b1) 8
h6? !
dS? !
b2) 8 . . . .te7? !
9.ttJc4! ttJd4
About 9 . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . .ie6.
It would not work for Black
to opt for 9 . . . ttJxe4? 1O.lLlxe4
hg5 11.ttJcxd6+ 'it>f8 12.%Vh5+The move 1O.hf6 is now a po
sitional threat for Black, because
after the capture on f6 with the
pawn, his bishop is misplaced on
the e7-square and that can be il
lustrated in the following varia
tions: 9 . . . b5 1O . .ixf6 gxf6 1l.ttJe3
0-0 (About 1l . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . .
iLe6 ; a s for 1l . . . ttJd4 - see 9 . . . ttJd4;
10 .bf6 ixf6
21
Chapter 2
It is not logical for Black to
try 10 . . . gxf6, in view of 1Vt'JdS.
Now, it is too dubious for him
to opt for 11 .. .fS? ! 12.c3 tLlbS
13.tLlcb6 l3b8 14.a4 Kopylov Kuzminykh,
Leningrad 19S1,
while White obtains a clear ad
vantage after 11 . . . ie6 12.tLlcb6
l3b8 (or 12 . . .,bdS 13.tLlxdS l3c8
14.c3 tLle6 1S.ie2 0-0 16.ig4 Se
gebarth - Szewczyk, DDR 1988)
13.c3 tLlc6 14. hS Zapata - Pa
redes, Merida 1991, the move 11 . . .
b S creates a target for attack on
the queenside and the under
mining move a2-a4 becomes quite
effective: 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 13.tLlxc8
l3xc8 14.c3 tLlc6 (or 14 . . . tLle6 1S.a4
Kolendo - Weber, Poland 1992)
lS.a4 Armas - Horvath, Buda
pest 1973.
1l.tLld5 ie6
It is unsatisfactory for Black
to follow with 11.. .ig4? 12.xg4
tLlxc2 + 13.d2 tLlxal 14.tLlcb6 b8
lS.i.c4 i.gS+ 16.c3 +- Coleman
- Behrmann, corr. 1996 - be
cause White captures two pieces
for a rook and he has a winning
position.
Black loses a pawn after
11 . . . 0-0? ! 12.c3 tLlc6 (or 12 . . . tLle6
13.tLldb6 b8 14.Wxd6 Korneev
- Fabregas, Badalona 1995; 12 . . .
i.g4 13.xg4 tLl c 2 + 14.d2 tLlxa1
lS.iLd3+- Bejaoui - Villanueva,
Istanbul 2 0 00) 13.tLldb6 b8 14.
Wxd6 Zuidema - Calvo, The
Hague 1961.
If 11 ... bS? ! , then 12.tLlcb6 b8
(or 12 . . . l3a7 13.tLlxc8 Wxc8 14.c3
22
12.tLlxf6 + !
This i s simple and strong.
Black is in a lot of trouble after ev
ery possible capture.
12
xf6
S. tDc3 eS 6 . tD dbS d6 7. gS
14.hc4 with a clear positional
advantage for White, T.Horvath
- Gladischev, Zalakaros 1995.
13.c3
It is also good for White to
try 13.tDxd6+ e7 14.c3 xd6
15.cxd4 exd4 16.'lWa4 Santiago Ruiz Luis, Asturias 1993, because
Black's too extravagant play can
hardly be justified.
b3) 8 . . . h6? !
12.c3 i.e7
After 12 . . . b5 13.tDce3 e7,
White has again the powerful re
source 14.a4
13.ie2
9 .hf6 'lWxf6
23
Chapter 3
9.tLlc4 !
White activates his knight, in
creasing the pressure against the
d6-pawn and he thus emphasizes
the effect of the possible exchange
on f6. Black has a choice here be
tween the outdated move a) 9 . . .
tLld4 and the contemporary line
b) 9 . . . gc8 !
At first, we will convince you
that White's task is much easier
after Black's other possibilities:
24
Chapter 3
1l . . . lDd4 12 .!d3 d7 (or 12 . . .
h S 13.lDcdS Kotronias - Tak
srud, Gausdal 1991; 12 . . . aS
13. 0-0 Westermeier - Hacker,
Germany 1979 ; 12 . . . l:kS 13.lDcdS
0-0 14.c3 Melnikov - Spanoche,
Eforie Nord 1999) 13.lDcdS .hdS
(or 13 . . . !dS 14.c3 lDc6 IS.f3
Pitkanen - Rantanen, Naantali
1997) 14.lDxdS .idS (or 14 . . . c6
IS.c3 lDe6 16.'iNf3 lDcS 17.!c2 lDd7
IS . .ib3 Muslic - Segovic, Pula
2002) IS.hS EkS (or 15 . . . 0-0
16.c3 lDc6 17 ..ie2 Gazik - Mate
jov, Slovakia 2001) 16.c3 lDe6 17.
!e2 Blau - Plater, Hilversum
1947;
ll . . . aS 12 ..id3 lDb4 (12 . . .
0-0-0 13.0-0 hS I4.lDcdS Wang
- Mai, Wuxi 2 0 05) 13.a3 lDxd3+
14.xd3 (White's control over the
dS and fS-outposts emphasizes
the superiority of his couple of
knights over Black's bishop pair.)
14 . . . EkS (14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.0-0
Ferreira - Romao, Portugal 1993)
15.0-0 gS 16.lDcdS cS 17.c3
Winterstein - Schwarz, Giessen
1991. All these variations confirm
that after Black captures on f6
with a pawn, his bishop is mis
placed on e7.
The game Hove - Graham,
Minnesota 1996, followed with
the move 9 . . . bS with the idea to
remove the rook from an eventual
threat on the b6-square. In that
case, White's best line seems to
be 10.lDdS! .hdS 1l ..hf6 'iNxf6 (or
1l . . . gxf6 12.xdS) 12.xdS and
he occupies the central outpost.
26
a) 9
d4
1 0 .hf6 xf6
1l.ttJb6 b8
It is insufficient for Black to try
the active line: 1l . . . d8 12.ttJcdS
ixdS 13.ttJxdS 'g6 14.f3 ie7 (or
14 . . . ttJc6 lS.ttJc7+ d7 16.ttJdS
Eiben - Kovari, Slovakia 1997)
lS.c3 ih4+ (It is not advisable for
Black to opt for lS . . . ttJe6 16.'a4+
d7 17.b4) 16.g3 hg3+ 17.hxg3
'xg3+ 18.d2 ttJxf3+ 19.c2
Husted - F.Hansen, Denmark
1991 and Black's threats have
been neutralized.
13.c3 .txd5
White can counter 13 . . . ttJc6
with the powerful argument
14.ttJxd5 e6
The endgame is worse for Black
after 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.'a4 'as (or IS . . .
ie7 16.g3 ! ? 0 - 0 17.ih3 Cygon
- Budt, Detmold 1976; lS . .E!:c 8
16.ie2 ie7 17.ig4 b8 18.0-0
Cravero - Grosse Kloenne, corr.
2000) 16.'xaS ttJxaS 17.ie2 ie7
18 . 0-0 c8 19J!fdl Telleria Braso, Uruguay 1988.
.
27
Chapter 3
b) 9
gc8 !
IO .txf6
'i'xf6
bl) IO
'i'xf6
1l.tLlb6
White should better refrain
from winning a pawn, because af
ter 1Vxd6+ hd6 12.'i'xd6 :1'ld8,
followed by lLld4, Black obtains an
excellent counterplay.
1l
gb8
12.tLlcd5 Y!Yd8
If 12 .. .'g6? ! , then 13.Yd3 ie7
28
13.c3
White takes control over the
d4-square and he is threatening
Ya4 in some variations.
13 ie7
14 . .tc40-0
About 14 . . . !g5 15.0-0 - see
14 . . . 0-0.
15.0-0.!g5
About 15 . . .<i.>hB 16.\We2 .tg5 (or
16 . . . g6, Salm - Henri, corr. 19B5,
17.a4 f5 1B.exf5 gxf5 19.f4;!;) 17.a4
- see 15 . . . .!g5.
White is clearly better after
15 . . . ixd5 16.&iJxd5 b5 17. .tb3 !g5
1B.\Wd3 @hB 19J3ad1 &iJa5 2 0.&iJb4
b6 2 1..!d5 Palevich - Schlos
ser, corr. 19B6.
17.ti'e2 g6
16.a4!
White has completed his de
velopment and he consolidates
his achievements on the queen
side.
16
@h8
Chapter 3
g6 (if 19 . . . lLle7? ! , then 20.lLlxe7
'Wxe7 21.he6 fxe6 2 2 .lLlc4 or
20 . . .Wxb6 21.lLlfS Nunn - Ma
nor, London 19B7) 2 0.ia2;:!; and
White's queenside initiative in
creases.
The move 17 'WeB ! ? is inter
esting here, just like on the pre
vious move, and it was played in
the game Janovsky - Sveshnikov,
Moscow 19B7. White can increase
the pressure against the d6square with 1B.ia2 ! ? idB 19.1Llc4
'Wd7 20.adl;!;
If Black plays 17 .. .fS without
preparation, then after 1B.exfS
i.xfS 19.aS e4, White has the pow
erful maneuver 2 0 .ib3 ! eB (It is
not any better for Black to try 20 . . .
lLleS 21.ic2 lLld3 22 .f4 exf3 23.
fuf3, or 2 0 ... lLle7 21.lLle3 ig6
2 2 .ie6 ! f6 23.Wg4;:!;, while in
case of 2 0 . . . WeB 21.ic2 idB, it is
good for White to continue with
22.ae1 lLlxaS 23.ixe4 he4 24.
Wxe4 hb6 2S.lLlxb6 'WbS 26.
'Wb4 ! ;:!; Perz - Necula, corr. 2001,
or 2 2J'!a4 ! ?;:!;) 21.ia4 ! - It be
comes clear that Black is incapa
ble of protecting his queenside.
There might follow 21.. .ih6 22.
ixc6 bxc6 23. lLlb4, or 21...eS
2 2 .hc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4 'WeB 24.lLlc4
e6 2S. lLlxa6 b7 26.lLlb4;:!; and
Black has no compensation for his
material losses.
..
18.l3adl i.h6
About 1B . . . aS - see 17. . . aS.
In case of the immediate move
1B . . .fS, Travi - Henri, corr. 1979,
19.exfS gxfS (After 19 . . . ixfS ! ?
30
21.f4 ig7
In the game Isupov - Che
khov, Orel 1996, Black chose
the less precise response 21...
gB. White could have put that
move under doubt with the line:
22 .fxeS ! dxeS (after 2 2 . . . lLlxeS, it
is very good for White to follow
with 23.id3 !) 23.lLlb4 ! Wxb6
(23 . . .ixc4 24.lLlxc4) 24.he6
lLld4 2S.cxd4 Wxe6 26.dxeS with
a great advantage for White.
2 2 .b4!;!;
(diagram)
That position was reached in
the game Herrera - Cifuentes
Parada, Cienfuegos 1996. After
22 . . . lLle7 23. lLlxe7 'Wxe7 24.he6
b2) lO
gxf6
...
11 .td3 !
.
31
Chapter 3
12 . . . i.g7 13.0-0 0-0 (or 13 . . . bS - see 12 . . . b6; 13 . . . he3 14.fxe3
14.tLlcdS fS lS.exfS hdS 16.tLlxdS :B:g8 lS.:B:f2 b6 16.d2 Blosze
gS, Hessmer - Eiselt, DDR - Oechslein, corr. 1996; 13 . . . tLlxd3
1974, 17.f4) 14.tLlcdS @h8 (or 14.xd3 i.xe3 lS.'<Mfxe3) 14.tLlcdS
14 . . .fS lS.exfS i.xdS 16.tLlxdS :B:cS i.xe3 lS.tLlxe3 Nielsen - Hald,
17.i.e4 Kasimdzhanov - Ben Farum 1993, Black fails to equal
tout, Metz 1997) lS.hS Herb ize despite the simplifications.
- Bouton, France 1999;
12 . . . aS 13. 0-0 :B:xc3 (or 13 . . .
b2a) 1l :B:g8
h S 14.lZlcdS Vehi - Riera, Man
That is the most popular alter
resa 1997) 14.bxc3 '<Mfxc3 lS.hS native for Black to the frequently
i.g7 16.a4 0-0 17.:B:ab1 '<Mfc7, Royd played line 1l . . . tLle7.
- LIvanov, North Bay 1994, 18.
12.0-0
tLldS d7 19.c3 lZlc6 20.:B:fel;
12 . . . :B:g8 13. 0-0 ih6 (13 . . . :B:g6
14.tLlcdS :B:h6 lS.c3 tLlc6 16.f3
i.g7 17.:B:adl Korchnoi - Secchi,
Cordoba 1960) 14.lZlcdS :B:g6 (or
14 . . .fS lS.exfS ixdS 16.tLlxdS gS
17.g3 tLlxfS 18.c3 :B:cS 19.b3 bS
2 0.a4 Ochoa - Pacheco, Linares
1978) lS.c3 tLlc6 16.tLlfS Poko
jowczyk - Quinteros, Polanica
Zdroj 1977. White's advantage is
12 ih6
indisputable in all the variations.
About 12 . . . lZle7 13.tLle3 - see
Black tries sometimes to con 1l . . . lZle7.
trol the dS-square with the move
It would be in favour of White
1l . . . tLlb4, but after 12.lZle3 ih6 if Black tries 12 . . . bS 13.tLle3 lZlb4,
(The line 12 . . . dS 13.exdS lZlxdS, Fossan - Qvortrup, Namsos 1995,
leads to a transposition of moves 14.lZlcdS
- see 1l . . . tLle7; after 12 . . . tLlxd3+ 13.
Black would not solve his
xd3 b6, Szalai - Klausen, corr. problems with the aggressive
1991, it is promising for White line: 12 . . . ig4 13.ie2 ih3 (if 13 . . .
to try 14. 0-0-0 and if 12 . . . '<Mfb6 fS, then 14.i.xg4 fxg4 lS.tLle3
13.0-0 ih6 14.tLledS hdS, as gS 16.tLlcdS Servat - Sakurai,
it was played in the game Alava Neuquen 1986; White maintains
- Tahkavuori, Jyvaskyla 1993, a stable edge after 13 . . . i.xe2 14.
then lS.tLlxdS tLlxdS 16.exdS and xe2 tLld4 1S.d3 Luecke - Bon
White has the initiative in a posi nmann, Cologne 1989) 14.tLle3
tion with opposite-coloured bish lZld4 (It is dubious for Black to try
ops.) 13.0-0 :B:g8 (about 13 . . . b6 14 .. .fS?! lS.exfS ih6 16.if3 Ped...
32
13.tDd5 ,tg4! ?
Th e other possibility for Black
is also in favour of his opponent
13 . . . 0,b4 14.0,xb4 hc4 1S.hc4
Elxc4, Andersen - Heim, corr.
1994, 16. 0,dS ! fS (16 . . Jixe4? 17.
'Wf3+-) 17.exfS 'WgS 18.0,e3
After 13 .. .fS, White has the re
source 14.'WhS ! il.f8 1S.0,cb6 f4 !
(Black has no choice - 1S . . . Elb8?
16. exfS+-) 16. 0,xc8 il.g4 17.'Wxh7
Elg7 18.'Wxg7! (but not 18.'Wh8
hc8oo) 18 . . . hg7 19.0,cb6 Matu
lovic - Arnason, Zemun 1983 and White has a clear advantage
with two rooks for a queen.
In case of 13 . . . hdS 14.exdS
0,e7, it is also good for White to
try 1S.'WhS il.f4 (or 1S . . . il.gS, Her
brechtsmeier - Steiger, Germany
1992, 16.h4 il.f4 17.'Wxh7) 16.
'Wxh7 I!?f8, Owczarzak - Stryjecki,
Poraj 1997 and here 17.0,e3 ! 'Wb6
(It is too risky for Black to open
the f-file: 17 . . . he3 18 .fxe3 0,xdS
19.il.e4) 18.0,fS 0,xdS 19J!adl
and he ends up in a very difficult
position.
16 .tf3 !
b2b) 1l . . . tDe7
Chapter 3
(the resource .th6 becomes even
more effective then) and he in
creases his control over the vital
squares dS and fS.
12.liJe3
White fails with the straight
forward line: 12.liJxd6+? xd6
13 . .tbS+ , because of 13 . . . tbc6.
12 . . . .th6
Opening of the centre with
12 . . . dS? ! 13.exdS tbxdS 14.tbcxdS
.txdS is too risky for Black. There
might follow lS.0-0 .te6 (Black
has also tried here lS . . . hS, Pribor
sky - Birklbauer, Aschach 200S,
16 . .tfS .te6 17.f3, as well as
lS . . . .tc6 16.hS .tcS 17. .tc4 e7,
Parkanyi - Rovid, Hungary 1998,
18.tbfS f8 19.E!ad1 E!g8 20 . .tdS)
16.f3 e7 17.E!ad1 .tg7 18 . .te4
E!c7 19.E!d3 Konguvel - George,
Chennai 2 0 0 0 and Black has
rather weak light squares.
Black has tested in practice
some other dubious lines like:
12 . . . d7? ! 13.Wf3 .tg7 14.tbcdS
.txdS lS.exdS a4 16.0-0 Ciric
- Eisinger, Oberhausen 1961, or
12 . . . hS? ! 13.0-0 b6 14.tbcdS
Kudrin - Fitzpatrick, Colum
bus 1987, or 12 . . . E!cS? ! 13.0-0
hS 14.tbcdS ! .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS
16.exdS Gligoric - Littlewood,
Hastings 1964.
In case of 12 . . . E!g8 13. 0-0, it
would be more prudent for Black
to choose the move 13 . . . .th6,
which we will analyze later - see
12 . . . .th6, since after his other at
tempts White obtains the advan
tage much easier, for example:
34
13.0-0!
White would not mind the ex
change on e3, since he would ex
ert powerful pressure along the
opened f-file.
13 . . . .ixe3
White maintains his advan-
Chapter 3
2 2 . !U2 gg7 (The king and rook
endgame after 2 2 . . . g6 23.xg6
gxg6 24.gafl Oliveira - Vitor,
Lisbon 1994, seems to be hope
less for Black, since he is a pawn
down.) 23.h8+ gg8 24.h3
Konguvel - Bhattacharyya, Cal
cutta 1994 and White remains
with a material advantage.
14.fxe3 'iHb6
Here after 14 . . . gg8 ? ! lS.gxf6
b6 16.c1 gg6 17.gf2 Barns
ley - Surroca, corr. 2000, Black
is simply left with a pawn down.
It is hardly advisable for him to
try 14 . . . ltJg8 ? ! lS.ltJdS hS 16.c3 fS
17.b3 Pujols - Elissalt, Cuba
1999.
15.f3 h5 !
Black wishes to acquire the
h6-square for his rook.
About lS . . . gg8 - see 13 . . . gg8.
It is hardly advisable for Black
to continue with lS . . . xb2? !
16.ltJdS hdS 17.exdS fS (or 17 . . .
e 4 18.xe4 eS 19.xf6 Tsesh
kovsky; 17. . . b6 18.gab1 c7 19.
xf6 gf8 20.c4 bS 21.cxbS ltJxdS
2 2 . f3 Fantin - Terrieux, France
2006) 18.hfS ltJxfS 19.xfS
Holmes - Shutler, Swansea 1987
- White is threatening to capture
on f7 as well as the double attack
- 2 0 .f6 .
I f l S . . . gc7, then 16.ltJd1 gg8
17.xf6 gg6, Mittermeier - Jan
zen, corr. 2001, 18.h4 and
White remains with an extra
pawn.
19.e4;!;
37
Chapter 4
38
a) 9 . . . ie6?!
Black allows his pawns to be
doubled on the f-file in the hope
of advancing f6-fS at some mo
ment, but in that case his light
squared bishop comes to fS in
two moves - icB-e6xfS, there
fore White wins a tempo in com
parison to the line 9.ixf6 gxf6 1O.
llJdS.
Chapter 4
1l . . . h6? - Black loses time
without any reason. 1VtJc2 fS (or
12 . . . ig7, Nekula - Kocab, Mora
via 2 0 03, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ttJce3 0-0
1S.'i;1fxa4 ttJe7 16.id3) 13.exfS
ixfS 14.ttJce3 ig6 (In answer to
14 . . . ie6, Chiburdanidze - Mer
lini, Buenos Aires 1978, it looks
strong for White to follow with
1S.a4 ! l3b8 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6
id7 18.id3 and Black has no sat
isfactory defence against 19.ifS
with the unavoidable exchange of
the light-squared bishops.) 1S.a4
l3b8 (or 1S . . . b4 16.aS ttJb8, Toth
- Sebe Vodislav, Paks 1998 and
after 17.'i;1fa4+ ttJd7 18.%Yxb4 ttJcS
19.ixa6+- Black loses plenty of
material.) 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6
%Yc8 18.'i;1fb3 Akhigbe - Liwat,
Saint Paul 2 000;
1l . . . ih6 - Black's bishop is
not useful on that square. 12.ttJc2
ixdS 13.'i;1fxdS ttJe7 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7,
Jimenez Alvarez - Llaneza Vega,
Gijon 2 0 0 0 and here after 15.l3d1
fS (or 15 . . . l3d8 16.lLlb4 %Yb7 17.'i;1ff3
0-0 18.id3 White is in total
control of the light squares in
the centre.) 16.exfS %YxfS (Black
should better refrain from 16 . . .
lLlxfS 17.lLlb4 f8 18.g3, because
he fails to discoordinate White's
pieces after 18 . . . %Yb7? 19.%YxfS !
'i;1fxh1 20.l3xd6+-) 17.%YxfS ttJxf5
18.g3 e7 19.ttJb4 Black's central
pawns are weak and his pieces are
too passive;
1l . . Jb8? ! - This development
of the rook is premature. 12.lLlc2
ixd5, Stertenbrink - Dornieden,
40
Chapter 4
Kosc - Formage, Debrecen 1992,
and here White's simplest solu
tion is 1S.tZlc4+-) 1S.tZlc4 Fressi
net - Bienvenu, Montlucon 1997.
al) 1l . . . f5
12.exfS hf5
After 12 . . ..bdS 13.WxdS tZle7
(It is evidently worse for Black to
opt for 13 . . . :1kS 14.tZlc2 and here it
is bad for him to try 14 . . . ElgS 1S.a4
tZlaS 16.axbS+- Abejon - Rivas,
Madrid 2004, as well as 14 . . . WgS
1S.tZle3 1le7 16.a4 0-0 17.axbS
axbS 1S.1lxbS tZldS 19.h4+- Ham
mond - De Roo, Germany 19S9.
It is more resilient for Black to de
fend with 14 . . . tZle7 1S.Wf3 Wd7 16.
tZle3 Wc6 17.Wxc6 + Elxc6, Kammer
- Leiser, Regensburg 1997, 1S.a4
bxa4 19.Elxa4, but even then he
can hardly prove any sufficient
compensation for the pawn, or
14 . . . Wb6 1S.tZle3 hS, Manninen Rauramaa, Finland 1995, and
here after 16.f6 Elh6 17.Wf3 Black
has problems with his develop
ment and his king stranded in the
42
13.Wf3
.
. , . ;
.I
III
.i.i
i .l.A).
'UN'
III
" .
13
1le6
a2) 1l ig7
.
12.!iJc2
12
f5
Chapter 4
14.i.d3 - see 12 . . . 0-0; in answer
to 13 .. .fS, Gasik - Gramcow, Lac
zna 2 002 , it seems logical for
White to continue with 14.ttJxe7
Wixe7 lS.exfS i.d7 16.ttJdS WidS
17.i.d3 and he remains with a
solid extra pawn. It is not better
for Black to try 13 . . . ttJxdS 14.exdS
i.d7 lS.i.d3 hS 16.Wif3 h4 17.i.fS
and his dark-squared bishop
has no active scope whatsoever,
Hardarson - S. Farago, Budapest
2 0 0S.) 14.i.d3 hS lS.0-0 WicS
16.Wif3 Elh6 17.h3 White has pre
vailed in the fight for the central
dS and fS-squares and after 17 . . .
wfS lS. Elfc1 Elg6 19.c4 b 4 20.ttJxe7
Wxe7 21.ttJfS+ hfS 22.exfS Elh6
23.cS-+ the presence of opposite
coloured bishops on the board
enhances White's attack, Mus
- Gaida, Poland 1991.
12 ... 0-0 - This is a natural
move. 13.ttJce3 ttJe7 (About 13 . . .
ElbS 14.i.d3 ttJe7 1S. 0-0 - see 13 . . .
ttJe7 14.i.d3 ElbS ; in answer to
13 . . . WhS, Alaverdyan - Ruzicka,
Volyne 2 0 03, it is logical for
White to deploy at first his pieces
according to the correct scheme
and to start then active actions
on the queenside with 14.i.d3
ElgS 1S.0-0 i.h6 16.a4; 13 . . .
WiaS? ! Roberts - Sanchez Carol,
corr. 2 0 04, Black's queen is mis
placed here, the only idea of the
move is to push bS-b4, but White
can parry that simply with 14.a3 !?
ElfeS 1S.i.d3 ttJe7 16.0-0) 14.i.d3
i.xdS (After 14 . . . ttJxdS 1S.exdS i.d7
16.WihS h6, Luchko - Dikinov,
44
15.:1I.d3
15 . . . ttJe7
15...:1l.xd5 16.ttJxd5 O-O?! (Black's
king comes now right under the
gun, but even after 16 . . . ttJe7 17.
:1I.e4 Ei:cB 1B.ttJxe7 'lWxe7 19.:1I.d3
45
Chapter 4
White maintains a stable edge
thanks to his superior bishop.)
17.'lWhS fS? (After 17 ... h6 1B.WfS
eB 19.J.e4 White cannot check
mate outright, but his pressure on
the light squares is tremendously
unpleasant for Black.) 1B.hfS h6
19.'lWg6+- J.Kozel - Vyboch, Ban
ska Stiavnica 2006.
15 . . . 0-0 16.'lWhS h6 (The move
17 . . .fS looks attractive, but it is
not the best. 17.lLlxfS xfS 1B.ixfS
hdS, Bonafede - Pechy, Venice
2003, and here after 19.dl ! J.f7
2 0.hh7+ @fB 21.'lWf3 dS 2 2 .J.g6
'lWf6 23.'lWxf6 ixf6 24.ixf7 @xf7
2SJxdS White has excellent
winning chances thanks to his
kingside pawns.) 17.J.e4 cB (It
is worse for Black to play 17. . . a7
18.d1 CiJe7 19. 0-0 CiJxdS 2 0.ixdS
eB, Wilhelm - Rudolph, Hessen
1996, because White's advantage
is obvious after 21.he6 xe6 22.
dS. Black's d6-pawn is weak
and White's knight is considerably
stronger than Black's bishop. It is
a disaster for Black to opt for 21...
fxe6? 2 2 . xd6+- and he remains
a pawn down with a destroyed
pawn-structure.) 1B.lLlfS hdS 19.
ixdS 'lWf6, Diviak - Macko, Slova
kia 2 0 03, after the natural reac
tion 2 0 . 0- 0 CiJe7 21.lLlxe7+ Wxe7
22 .WfS cS 23.adl White's
prospects are clearly superior, be
cause of his domination over the
light squares and Black's compro
mised king's position.
16.ie4 c8
16 . . . bB? ! - Black's king is
46
17.0-0 lLlxd5
Or 17 . . . cS 1B.a4 lLlxdS 19.
ixdS ixdS 20.lLlxdS 0-0 21.axbS
axbS 22 .'lWb3 'lWgS 23.a6 and
Black has problems protecting his
vulnerable pawns. 23 . . . e4 24.xd6
!eS 2S.d7 @hB 26. 'lWb4+- Struik
- van Kerkhof, Dieren 2003.
b) 9
VfaS+
1 0 .i.d2 Vfd8
Numerous games have ended
here with a repetition of moves 1l.igS aS+ 12 .id2 d8 13.igS.
This result however does not seem
logical, because White has occu
pied the central dS-square and he
has a slight lead in development.
1l.c4
This is the most principled
line, but it is also a bit risky. White
is trying to exploit his temporary
lead in development and he starts
active actions on the queenside.
Unfortunately, he has no advan
tage after the calm line: 1l.0.xf6+
xf6 12 .d3 g6 13.0-0 ie7 14.
c4, in view of 14 . . . g4 ! 1S.ie2
he2 ! 16.xe2 O-O ! ? Black en
joys an excellent game thanks to
the unfavourable placement of his
opponent's knight and White's at
tempt to centralize it turns out to
b2) 1l b4.
Chapter 4
would have been the line: 16 . . .
i.c6 17.f4 i.g7 1B.g4 with a dif
ficult position for him, but with
equal material - 17.ttJxd6+ fB
1B.ttJc4 Black has remained a
pawn down without any compen
sation in sight, Rahal - Cebada
Benitez, Sanlucar 2 001.) 13.ttJcb6
:gbB (The move 13 . . . ttJxd2? - loses
quickly after 14.ttJxaB ttJxf1 15.
ttJac7+ d7 16.g4+ 1-0 Peraza
Zalingen - Exposito Alfonso, Te
nerife 2006. The move 13 . . . h4?
- only looks active, but in fact it
leads to material losses. 14.i.e3
:gbB 15.a4 i.d7, Krayushkin
- Whitfield, Belfort 2005, and
here after 16.ttJxd7 xd7 17.:gc1 +
Black is incapable of protecting
his pinned knight.) 14.i.e3 ! i.b7
(It is also bad for Black to follow
with 14 .. .f5? 15.:gc1 i.b7 16.,ixa6
,ixa6 17.:gxc6 and White's at
tack is decisive. It is not to be rec
ommended to Black to play 14 . . .
ttJc5 15.ttJxcB :gxcB? 16.b4+- and
he loses the important a6-pawn,
or 15 . . . xcB 16.:gb1 ttJb4 17.ttJxb4
:gxb4 1B.a3 :gbB 19.i.c4 i.e7 20.b4
ttJe6 21.:gc1, Black's a6-pawn
is weak and White's pieces are
much more active. In case of 16 . . .
ttJe6 17.i.c4 i.e7 1B.0-0 0-0-0
19.a4 White restores the mate
rial balance and he obtains supe
rior prospects thanks to his cou
ple of powerful bishops and his
dangerous passed pawns on the
queenside.) 15.a4 ttJc5 (Black
would not change much with
15 . . .f5 16.:gc1 ttJc5 17.,ixc5 dxc5
4B
bl) 1l . . . liJxe4
This response by Black seems
to be the most natural - he cap
tures White's central pawn.
12.cxb5
12
ie6
49
Chapter 4
Some other moves have been
rarely tried here too:
12 . . . tLle7? ! 13.i.e3 ! EibB 14.i.c4
\WaS+ (about 14 . . . i.e6 - see 12 . . .
i.e6 13.i.c4 tLle7 14.i.e3 EibB? ! )
15.b4 ! \Wxa3 16.i.c1 tLlc3 17.\Wd2
\Wa4 1B.i.b3 tLlexd5 19.ha4 tLlxa4
20.\WxdS+- Black's two light piec
es cannot compensate sufficiently
the absence of the queen, because
of Black's lag in development,
Mikhalchishin - Timoscenko,
Tbilisi 1974;
The move 12 ... tLlxd2? Pereira
- Midugno, Caxias do SuI 1975,
enables White to obtain a far-ad
vanced passed pawn - 13.bxc6 !
tLlxfl (It is not any better for Black
to play "the active line": 13 . . . tLle4
14.c7 \wh4 15.g3 tLlxg3 16.fxg3
1Mfe4+ 17.f2 \Wxh1 1B.i.bS+-)
14.c7 \Wd7 (After 14 ... \Wh4 15.xf1
Eia7 16.\Wc2 \Wg4 17.tLlc4 i.e7 lB.
tLlcb6 +- White wins easily, be
cause of his passed c7-pawn and
his powerful knight on d5.) lS.tLlc4
1Mfc6 16.tLlcb6+- and Black loses
unavoidably plenty of material;
12 . . . tLld4 - This aggressive
move has brought to Black until
now only disappointing results,
despite the fact that it is not worse
than the main line: 13.b6 ! i.e7!
This strong move has not been
tried in practice yet, but it is the
only one, which enables Black to
hold the position. (In all other
cases, Black's situation is tre
mendously difficult: 13 . . . tLle6??
14.1Mfa4+ \Wd7 15.\Wxe4+- and he
loses a piece, Grabics - Schroter,
50
13 .ic4
.
13
tiJe7
Chapter 4
Spain 1998, it is also very strong
for White to follow with 17.ttJc7+ !
<ll e 7 18.ttJe3 ttJf6 19.ttJxa8 Wfxa8
2 0 . 0 - 0, or 18 . . . Eia4? ! 19.ttJed5+
<ll d7 2 0.b3 +- and after 2 0 . . . Eia3
2 1. Wfd3 , White not only restores
the material balance, but'he ob
tains a crushing attack against his
opponent's king.) 17.ttJc7+ ! <ll d7
(After 17 . . . <ll e7 1B.ttJe3 Eib8 19.
O-O White has excellent attack
ing prospects against Black's king,
stranded in the centre.) 1B.0-0
bxc4 (The other possibilities are
hardly any better for Black: 1B . . .
hc4 19.ttJxa8 hf1 20.Wfxfl and
Black's king will become an easy
prey of White's attack; or 18 . . .
Eib8 19.ttJxe6 fxe6 20.Wfb3 ! bxc4
21.Wfa4+ <ll e7 2 2 .Wfa7+ <llf6 23.
xb8 f5 24.a4 and it is in
conceivable how Black can fight
against White's passed a-pawn.)
19.ttJxa8 !h3 20.g3 .hil 21.i.e3
Wff5 2 2 .ttJb6+ <ll e 6 23 .d5+ <llf6
24.Eixfl White resores unavoid
ably the material balance and he
leads in development. His king
is much safer and his queenside
passed pawns are tremendously
dangerous.
13 . . . axb5 - That line used to
be considered as insufficient for
Black, but things are far from
simple. 14.ttJxb5 Eic8 ! (The move
14 . . . h4? - leads to a lost posi
tion for Black by force. 15.!e3
ttJxf2 16.ttJbc7+ <ll d 8 17.ttJxe6+
fxe6 18 .i.b6+ <ll e B 19.ttJc7+ <ll e 7
20.hf2 xc4 21.ttJxaB ttJb4 2 2 .
Wfe2 ttJd3+, Beliavsky - van der
52
14.!e3
14 . . . a5+
14 . . . ttJxd5? - This is a blunder.
15.hd5 Wfa5+ (It looks more te
nacious for Black to continue with
15 . . . hd5 16.xd5 ttJf6 17.c6+
ttJd7 18.Eic1+-, although even
then he is catastrophically behind
in development.) 16.<ll f1 Eid8 17.
i.c6+ <ll e7 18.he4+- Madl Gladisheva, Sibenik 2 0 06.
14 ... ttJc5?! - This move is
too passive. lS.0-0 ttJcB? 16.b4
axb5 17.ttJxbS ttJa6 l8.a4 1-0
Chapter 4
ganize a dangerous attack 2 2.fxe4
lLlxe5 23 . .b:e5 'i;Vxe5 24.'i;Va4+
- and here, depending on which
side Black's king goes, White
castles on the same side: 24 . . . e7
25.0-0-+, 24 . . . d8 25.0-0-0-+
with a very dangerous attack for
White in both cases. After 2 2 . . .
i.b4+ 2 3 . e2 White parries all
the threats, preserving the ex
tra exchange and his a7-pawn.)
2 2 JWe2 ! ? White's main threat
here is 23.'i;Vb5+, and Black has
great problems, because of his
undeveloped kingside and the
unsafe placement of his king.
22 . . . lLlc6 23.'i;Vb5 f6 24.b8+
e7 25. xa8 XeS 26Jcl ! - Af
ter that strong move, Black has
problems with his king and with
the development of his kingside.
In addition, White has a danger
ous passed a7-pawn and the fol
lowing variations confirm Black's
difficulties: 26 . . . t7 27.0-0 d7
28.i.b6 lLlb7 29.hl g8 30.b4+
and Black loses plenty of mate
rial; 26 . . . f6 27. 0-0 g8 28.b8
!J.e7 29.b6+- Black will capture
the a7-pawn indeed, but only at
the price of a piece; 26 . . . lLld3+
27.d2 lLlxcl 28.xcl lLlxa7 (In
answer to 28 ... d7, it is good for
White to follow with 29.dl ! 'i;Vg6
30 .xc6+ xc6 3Ul:xc6+- and
his pawn promotes.) 29.xa7
f6 30.'i;Vb7+- White has an ex
tra pawn and a crushing attack
against his opponent's king.
15.f1
15. e2 - That move used to be
54
15 . . gc8
.
Chapter 4
16 .!Ob6 hc4+
b2) 1l . . .b4
17.lLlbxc4 Yfl>4
12 .!Oc2
12 . . . .!Oxe4
This sharp move is the most
principled for Black, but he has
tried in practice some calmer
moves:
12 . . . gb8 ? ! - This move is a
loss of time. 13.Ad3 as 14. 0-0
Ae7 15.f4 ! ? lLld7 (It is too danger
ous for Black to opt for the line:
15 . . . 0-0 16.f5) 16.lLlce3 lLlc5 17.
Ab1 exf4 (after 17 . . . 0-0 18.f5t
13. 0, cxb4
13
ib7
Chapter 4
after 16.1Mfd2 ! ? gg8 (or 16 . . . .tb7
17.0-0-0 gg8 18.f3 f5 19.hd6)
17. 0-0-0 .tg4 18.f3 ie6 19.b3
as 2 0 .hd6 and White remains
with a solid extra pawn in both
variations.
e) 9 ie7
..
10.ixf6 !
This i s a standard method of
the fight for the d5-outpost.
10 gxf6?!
..
58
ll.e3
This is a calm and reliable
move. In anwer to 1l.c4, Black
can at least try the untested move
1l . . . J.e6 !?, with the following
eventual developments : 12.cxb5
ltld4 13.gel 0-0 14.bxa6 f5 Black is clearly ahead in
development and he is dominant
in the centre. This might turn
out to be a good compensation
for the couple of pawns, because
White fails to simplify the posi
tion with the line: 15.ltlxe7+
ygxe7 16.ltlb5 ltlxb5 17.hb5 fxe4+
and Black is already only a pawn
down.
ll . . . f5
That move is necessary now;
otherwise, he might not be able to
12.d3
12 . .1e6
..
Chapter 4
E!xg2? 14.'f3 E!gS IS.llJxe7+-)
14.e4
12 .. .f4 - This move is prema
ture, although it seems quite logi
cal, since it deprives White's knight
of a good square. 13.'WhS 0-0 (Or
13 . . . h6, Cukier - Lucena, Brazil
1994, this is a strange move and
after the simple reaction 14.g3 !
Black is faced with the unpleasant
choice between 14 . . . .!e6 IS.gxf4
exf4 16.llJxf4, remaining a pawn
down, without any compensation
for it, or 14 . . . fxg3 IS.hxg3 and
the pawns are equal indeed, but
Black has plenty of weaknesses
to worry about.) 14.g3 h8, van
Dommelen - Beekhuis, Leiden
1997, it is sensible for White to
capture the pawn, because Black
would have no compensation for
it: IS.gxf4 E!g8 (It is a diasaster for
Black to opt for IS . . . exf4? 16.llJf6 !
ixf6 17.eS+- and the checkmate
is unavoidable.) 16.fS
13.'Wh5 f4
13 . . . gS? ! - Black contin
ues to lose stempi and he fails
to complete his development.
14.h4 .!f6 IS.'Wh6 ixdS 16.exdS
e4 17.dxc6+- Diozu - Andreescu,
Bucharest 1993.
After 13 . . . E!c8 14.llJc2 f4 1S.g3
M6, Galego - Berend, Groningen
1982, White can win a pawn,
without being afraid of his oppo
nent's temporary activity - 16'gxf4
exf4 17.llJxf4 and Black cannot
centralize his knight with 17 . . .
llJeS, due t o 18.ixbS+ ! axbS 19.
llJxe6 'We7 2 0 .llJf4+- with quite
60
14.0-0 0-0
17.gxa4
Conclusion
We have analyzed in this chapter all weak optionfor Black against
9. ttJ d5, as well as the line 9 . . . i.e7 1 O . hf6 gxf6. The main drawback
of the last variation is that after 1 0 . i.xj6, Black does not respond with
the necessary move 1 0 . . . i.xj6, and he plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, analogously to
the variation a). Accordingly, similarly to variation a, he has prob
lems, connected with his inferior pawn-structure and the unfavour
able placement of his dark-squared bishop, which requires plenty
of valuable time to be activated. In all these variations, White often
manages to establish his knights on the dS and f5-squares and that
deprives completely Black of any counterplay. White's plan also in
cludes the undermining move o2-a4, with the idea to create objects
for attack on the queenside. Black has great problems to undouble his
pawns withf6-f5, but even ifhe manages to do that, White maintains
his advantage, since he succeeds in organizing active actions during
that time on the queenside.
Variation b) is often played with the idea to make a quick draw.
White however, can try to obtain the advantage, quite deservedly so,
with the help of the sharp line - 11.c4.
In variation bl), Black captures the e4-pawn indeed, but he falls
behind in development and he is completely unpreparedfor opening
of the game on the queenside. Still, White needs to play very accu
rately, Jor example the move 15. l!?e2, which used to be considered as
the best, would not provide any advantage for him. Meanwhile, he is
clearly better after 15. 1!?fJ..
In variation b2), Black plays 11. ..b4 and he does not allow his op
ponent to open the c-file, therefore his position looks more solid, al
though he has certain problems to organize counterplay. White main
tains a slight, but stable advantage practically in all the variations.
61
Part 2
1.e4 c5 2 . f3 c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 f6 5. c3 e5
6. db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8.a3 b5 9 . d5 .ie7 l O .J.xf6
J.xf6 11.c3
63
16.b3 h8
14
a5
15.ic4 gb8
64
Chapter 5
n.e3
This is the most natural move.
White prepares to centralize his
knight via the c2-square and to
follow that with the undermining
move a2-a4.
In this chapter, we will deal
with all responses for Black, be
sides the main lines 11 . . . 0-0 and
11 . . . llJe7 - Chapter 6, as well as
11 . . . ig5 - Chapter 7.
n . . . ih7
11 . . . g6? ! - That move is played
with the idea to redeploy the
bishop from one passive square
to another. IVtJc2 ig7 13.a4
bxa4 14. llJcb4 ib7? (It is better
for Black to play 14 . . . id7 15.Wlxa4
llJe7 16.\!Na5, although even
then he loses unavoidably his a6pawn. White can capture it under
most favourable circumstanc-
Chapter 5
fS - This seemingly active move dark-squared bishop is on gS and
enables White to have excellent not on e7. It is much more pas
game on the light squares in the sive there and if Black places it
centre, Klundt - Ostermeier, Bad on the most active position - gS,
Homburg 2 0 04, 13.a4! - This then White would have an extra
move is again the most energetic tempo in comparison to the simi
for White and Black is in great lar lines.
1l . . . lLlb8 - Black loses his con
trouble. It is terrible for him to try
13 . . . fxe4? 14.axbS lLlb8 1S.bxa6+-, trol over the d4-square and that
and White's advantage is evident, enables White to play aggres
thanks to his domination over the sively: 12.c4 ! ? aS + ? ! (It is not
dS and e4-outposts, in the line: any better for Black to opt for
13 . . . bxa4 14.lLlce3 a3 1SJ:1 xa3 fxe4 12 . . . 0-0 13.cxbS lLld7 14.,tc4 lLlb6
16.a4, or 14 . . .f4 1S.lLlc4 and 1S.0-0 ! ? and he either remains
Black has no counterplay and he without a pawn, or he must enter
has great problems protecting his the variation: 1S . . . lLlxc4 16.lLlxc4
queenside. After 13 .. J b8 14.axbS axbS 17.lLlcb6 l=1b8 18.lLlxc8 l=1xc8
axbS 1S.exfS hfS 16.lLlce3 ,te6 19 .e2. White's advantage of a
17.,td3 White occupies the light centralized knight against Black's
squares in the centre and Black passive dark-squared bishop is
is incapable of protecting his evident. It looks like Black's best
bS-pawn. 12 . . . ,te6, A.Tikhonov line is to centralize his knight too,
- Rogov, Kazan 2 0 04, 13.a4 l=1b8 although it has not been tried
14.axbS axbS lS.,td3;f;; Black's in practice yet 12 . . . lLlc6 13.cxbS
queenside is vulnerable and his lLld4 14.b6 0-0 1S.lLlc4;f;; and he
bS-pawn is weak, while White will still have problems to prove
dominates on the a-file and his that his compensation for the
centralized knights are very pow pawn is sufficient.) 13.d2 b4,
erful.) 13.a4 bxa4 (After 13 . . . l=1b8 Grazinys - Scholbach, Email
14.axbS, M .Andersen - Agusts 2000, after 13 . . . xd2+? 14.<;i{xd2
son, Gausdal 2 0 06, following 14 . . . ,tgS+ 1S.<;i{dl Black's queenside
axbS 1S.,td3 ,tgS 16.e2 Black is in ruins. White's most aggres
not only loses his bS-pawn, but sive line seems to be : 14.cS ! ? ,te6
White can even choose the ap (But not 14 . . . dxcS 1S.lLlc4 d8
propriate moment to capture 16.lLldb6 and Black loses at least
it.) 14.l=1xa4 as, Gara - Moshina, the exchange.) lS.lLlxf6+ gxf6
Balatonlelle 2000, and here af 16.cxd6 lLlc6 17.lLlc4 cS 18.l=1c1
ter lS.,tc4 l=1b8 16.b3;f;; there arise d4 19.e3 ! White has an extra
positions different from the main pawn and he forces unavoidably
line, which is dealt with in Chap the trade of queens on the e3ter 8, with the fact that Black's square. Later he captures there
66
Chapter 5
active bishop. The development
of the game illustrates how that
advantage can be increased. lB . . .
1Wb7 19.ttJdS ttJxdS 20.EixdS EibcB
21.Eiad1 1WaB 2 2 .a4! White opens
unavoidably files on the queenside
for his rooks and his light-squared
bishop will soon dominate on the
a2-gB-diagonal, its most aggres
sive possible placement. 22 . . . bxa4
23.1Wxa4 Eic6 24.EiaS Eib6 2S.b3
EicB 26 .ha6 Eixc3 27 ..ic4 1WfB
2B.Eia7+- Black loses unavoidably
his f7-pawn and White's position
is winning after that, although he
must still play accurately, Bures
- Radusinovic, Budva 2003.
11 ... EibB 12.ttJc2 as, Savon Lutikov, Odessa 1976 (Or 12 . . . .ib7
13.ttJce3 - 11 . . . .ib7 12.ttJc2 EibB
13.ttJce3 ; about 12 . . . ttJe7 13.ttJxf6+
gxf6 14 . .id3 - see 11 . . . ttJe7 12.
ttJxf6+ gxf6 13.ttJc2 EibB 14 . .id3,
Chapter 6; 12 . . ..igS - 11 . . . .igS,
Chapter 7; 12 . . . 0-0 - 11 . . . 0-0;
The move 12 ... g6, Antoniewski Stankova, Pardubice 1996, looks
too passive and White's most en
ergetic reaction seems to be the
standard 13.a4 ! 0-0 14.axbS axbS
lS . .id3t and Black has consider
able difficulties with the protec
tion of his bS-pawn. It is hardly
any better for Black to play 13 . . .
bxa4 14.ttJce3 Eixb2? lS.1Wxa4 .id7
16.1Wa3 EibB 17.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 1B.ttJdS
1Wh4 19.1Wxd6+- and White wins.
It is too passive for Black to try
14 . . . .id7? ! lS.1Wxa4 0-0 16.b4
and he has problems with his vul
nerable a6-pawn. Black would not
6B
12.lLlc2
13.lLlce3
12
lLlb8
13
lLld7
Chapter S
13 . . . gS ? ! - That activization
of the bishop is already too late,
because White can develop pow
erful initiative after 14.lZlfS g6
(It is hardly any better for Black
to opt for 14 . . . 0-0 lS.h4 f6,
J. Smith - Ver Nooy, Email 199B,
since White has a clear advantage
after the logical move 16.g4 ! , for
example after 16 . . . lZlc6 17.f3 e7
1B.0-0-0 cB 19.@bl White
dominates in the centre and he
has excellent attacking chances,
while in the variation: 16 . . . lZld7
17.gS xdS 1B.gxf6 he4 19.g4
xf6 20.xe4 Black's two pawns
cannot compensate fully his miss
ing bishop.) lS.h4 f4 (it cannot
be recommended for Black to try
lS . . . gxfS 16.hxgS fxe4 17.lZlf6+
@e7, V.Kalinina - Zatonskih, Bu
charest 199B, since after 1B.Elh6 ! ,
h e has great problems, for ex
ample in the line : 1B . . . dS 19.a4
d4 2 0 .b3 aS 2 1.c4. White
ends up with a huge lead in devel
opment and excellent chances to
finish the game off with a check
mating attack, while after lB . . .
lZld7 19.1ZldS+ hdS 2 0.xdS he
regains unavoidably his sacrificed
pawn and he has good attacking
prospects against his opponent's
king stranded in the centre.)
16.lZlf6+ xf6 17.lZlxd6+ @e7 lB.
lZlxb7 Ela7 (After 1B ... lZld7 19.93
b6 - it seems terrible for Black
to try 19 . . . h6 2 0.h3 - 2 0.dS
lZlf6 2 1.cS+ xcS 2 2 . lZlxcS h6
23.d3 Black has failed to trap
the knight on b7 and he has no
70
14.a4!?
14 . . . bxa4 1S.tLlxf6+
lS . . . tLlxf6
It is not preferable for Black to
try 15 . . . xf6 xf6 16.xa4 dB
(He has no compensation for the
pawn at all after 16 . . . E1dB 17.ha6
E1aB 1B.c4 ! ? 0-0 19. 0-0, or
1B . . . e6 19.tOd5 0-0 20. 0-0
and here Black loses quickly after
2 0 . . . E1fcB? 2 1.hb7! E1xc4 22.E1xaB +
tOfB 23.E1fa1 ! + - and he is left
without plenty of material un
avoidably.) 17.tOf5 0-0 (Black
fails to protect his numerous
weaknesses after 17. . . c7 1B.a5 ! ,
for example: 1 B . . . xa5 19.E1xa5
ic6 2 0 . tOxd6+ @e7 21.tOf5+ @f6
2 2 .f3+-, 1B . . . 0-0-0 19.ha6
xa5 2 0 . E1xa5 tOf6 2 1.f3+-, lB . . .
c5 19.xc5 lLlxc5 2 0.f3+- and
White should not have problems
with the realization of his extra
pawn after the transfer into the
endgame and in the variation:
1B . . . tOb6 19.0-0-0 E1dB 20.lLlxg7+
@fB 21.tOh5 he4 22.f4-4 Black
can hardly protect his king with-
16.xa4+ @f8
After 16 . . . d7 17.xd7+ @xd7
1B.f3;!; the endgame is clearly in
favour of White, because of his
active pieces and Black's weak a6pawn.
17.d3 g6 18. 0 - 0
Chapter S
Poland 1994. It is favourable for
White to enter an endgame here,
for example: 19.'fHc4 'fHxc4 (After
19 . . . b6 20Jla4;!; White has pow
erful queenside initiative, while
Black must still complete his de
velopment.) 2 0 .xc4 he4 (In
case of 20 . . . xe4 2 1.ixe4 ixe4
2VtJxd6 .tc6 23.f4 ! e4 24Jla5
White has a great lead in develop
ment; meanwhile Black's bishop
is restricted by his own pawns.)
Conclusion
In this chapter, we analyze Black's moves 11, which have not be
come popular, because they are not in the spirit of the Chelyabinsk
variation. White reacts practically always with the standard maneu
ver 12. tt:'l c2,followed by a2-a4 and a transfer of the knight to e3, or to
b4. In answer to11 . . . li:) bB, it is essentialfor White to exploit his lead in
development and to attack immediately Black's queenside with c3-c4.
The most popular move for Black here 11. .. .tb7, reduces his control
over the .f5-square and he must play very accurately afterwards. The
maximum that he can dream about in this line is to reach a worse
endgame without any chances of seizing the initiative.
72
Chapter 6
12.xf6+ gxf6
There arises a similar position
in the variation: 1O.xe7 tLJxe7 11.
ixf6 gxf6, but White's pawn is on
c2 and not on c3, so he has here
some additional possibilities.
13.c2 J.b7
That is the most logical move.
Black strives to advance either
d6-d5, or f6-f5, and in both cases,
the perfect place for his bishop is
on the ling diagonal.
13 . . . 0-0? ! - Black's king
would be quite uncomfortable
Chapter 6
sive pawn-offensive on the king
side.), here after the natural line:
16.exf5 e4 17.ie2 lDxf5 18.0-0-0
ie6 19.94 lDg7 20 .iMfh6 Black's
pawn centre has been blocked,
his knight on g7 will hardly join
the actions anytime soon and his
kingside is vulnerable.
13 . . . ie6 - That square is less
active for Black's bishop than b7
and after 14.a4 b8 15.axb5 axb5
16. lDb4 he has difficulties to un
dermine White's e4-pawn. 16 . . .
0-0 17.id3 iMfd7 18.0-0 h8,
Sandu - Macedo Rasgadinho,
Sautron 2 0 05, and here after
19.f4 lDc6 20.lDd5 Black should
better forget about his intentions
to exchange his weak pawns, be
cause his main task would be not
to get checkmated.
The move 13 . . . b8 does not
contribute to Black's possible
counterplay in the centre. 14.id3
f5 15.exf5 lDxf5, K.Szabo - Hi
degh, Hungary 2005, and here
following 16.iMfd2 g8 (The draw
backs of Black's position are much
more evident in the line: 16 . . . 0-0
17.0-0-0 lDh4 18.ie4) 17.ie4
ie6 18.0-0-0t Black has a ma
jority of pawns in the centre, but
they are immobile and they can be
attacked. The shelter of his king
can hardly be safe either.
The move 13 . . . d5 is not popu
lar at all, because it "freezes"
Black's central pawns. 14.iMff3 f5,
van Amerongen - Mihevc, Sas
van Gent 1990 , and here after
15.0-0-0 fxe4 (In case of 15 . . . ie6
74
Chapter 6
side threats seem dangerous, but
White can parry them with pre
cise moves, remaining with a sol
id extra pawn. 2 2 . 0- 0 e4 23.c6 !
a8 24.lLlb6 xc6 2S . .b:c6 E:b8
26.lLldS and Black's centre is so
vulnerable that he would lose un
avoidably another pawn.) 19.c4
dS 20. 0-0 d4, Olazarri - Gamar
ra Caceres, Guarapuava 1991, and
now White's best line seems to be:
21.lLlc2 lLlg6 (After 21.. .d3 22 .lLlb4
e4 23 .Wfd2 E:c8 24.b3 Black's
pawns will be blocked and they
will become a target for attack.)
2 2 .g3 gS 23.lLle1 g4 24.f3 h3
2S.E:f2t Black has some compen
sation for the pawn, because of
his extra space, but it can hardly
be sufficient. White needs to
strive for exchanges and his ad
vantage would increase consider
ably then.
14.i.d3
76
Chapter 6
a) 14 f5
.
15.exfS
15
...
hg2
17. . . bxa4
17 . . . b6 - After that move,
Black's defence is without any
bright prospects. 1B.axb5 axb5 19.
79
Chapter 6
llJxg8 22..ha4 .ha4 23.'xa4+
f8 24.0-0-0 llJxf6 2S.Wfh4
White's attack is quite dangerous,
possibly winning.
22.gxa4
Black
must protect
centre.
Chelyabinsk 1991.
18.llJe3 ic6
b) 14
d5
19.ic2 'i'd7
It is hardly better for Black to
80
15.exd5 'ti'xd5
Black activates his queen and
he prepares to castle long.
It is bad for him to play lS . . .
hdS? ! , because after 16.lLle3 !c6
17.c2, the defects of his king
side pawn-structure cannot be
compensated at all.
lS .. .fS?! - After that move
Black remains a pawn down with
out any compensation whatso
ever. 16.d6 lLldS (But not 16 . . . lLlc8
17.\We2 and here Black loses after
17 . . . e4? 18.,hbS+ axbS 19.\WxbS+
d7 2 0 .\WeS+-, while following
17 . . . 0-0 18.hfS lLlxd6 19.0-0-0
gS+ 2 0.YHe3, Black remains a
pawn down and the unfavourable
placement of his king deprives
him of any possibility to regain it.)
17.,hfS YHxd6, Fossan - Svensk,
Gausdal 1992. White's main task
here is to complete his devel
opment and to exploit the light
squares in the centre as outposts
for his pieces. His best line to do
that is: 18.YHf3 d8 19.0-0, fol
lowed by a2-a4 and active actions
on the queenside, or centralizing
the rooks.
lS . . . lLlxdS - Black comes un
der an unpleasant pin after that
move and he can get rid of it only
tactically, but at a price. 16 . .te4 fS
(It is bad for him to opt for 16 . . .
c8? Specht - Hirneise, Willin
gen 2 0 04 and Black fails to get
rid of the pin after 17.\Wf3 ! Now,
no matter how Black continues
- he loses: 17 . . . c7 18.0-0-0
d7 19.1Lle3 lLlxe3 20.xd7 \Wxd7
2 1.,hb7+-; 17 . . .fS 18.\WxfS \Wc7
19.'ti'f3+-; 17 . . . c4 18.0-0-0
e4 19.\Wxe4 \Wd7 2 0 .f3+- and
White has a decisive material ad
vantage in all the variations. The
move 16 . . . lLle3? ! - has not been
tried, since White obtains easily
an overwhelming advantage after
17.lLlxe3 ,he4 18.\Wg4. Black lags
in development and he risks com
ing under attack, while in the line :
17. . . YHxdl+18.xdl ,he4 19.f3 he
loses unavoidably his f6-pawn.)
17.hfS lLlf4 (After 17 . . . \WgS? 18.
YHf3, Black can get rid of the pin
only by trading queens, or by los
ing too many tempi for develop
ment.) 18. lLle3
Chapter 6
1b7 24.13g7 and White's piece
activity should be enough to settle
the issue, Marani - Kholemainen,
corr. 1991. The move 20 . . . 1c6,
Vitomskis - Rotariu, corr. 1989,
may look very solid, but as a re
sult of 21.Wlg4 Wlf6 2 2 . 0-0-0 13d8
23.13de1 ! Black is doomed to a
long and laborious defence, be
cause of his king stranded in the
centre.) 19.13g1 ! (After 19.1Llxg2
lLlxg2+ 2 0 . <.tfl YlYxd1+ 21.13xd1 lLlf4
2 2 .13e1! f6 23.13d1 !;!; White's pros
pects are slightly better, because
his bishop must be stronger than
Black's wonderfully placed knight,
because there will be actions on
both sides of the board. Natu
rally, White should expect more
from that position.) 19 . . . 1c6 (The
move 19 . . . Wlxd1 + - leads to a very
difficult endgame. 20.13xd1 1c6?!
21.13d6, in answer to 2 0 . . . 1f3, it
is bad for White to follow the "pre
computer time" recommendation
of GM Sveshnikov 2 1.1d7+?, be
cause of 21.. .<.te7 22.lLlfS+ <.td8=
and White can achieve nothing,
despite having a discovered check
at his disposal. The evaluation of
the position as very difficult for
Black is correct though and af
ter 2 1.13d7! 13d8 22.13xd8+ <.txd8
23.13g7 Black remains a pawn
down in the endgame, although
White must show good technique,
because his opponent's pieces are
quite active.) 2 0.Wlc2 <.tf8 (M
ter 2 0 . . . Wld6 2 1.13d1 Wlc7 2 2.1e4
Wib7 23.,txc6+ Wlxc6 24.WlfS f6
2S.13g7 Black's pieces lack coor82
16.lLle3
16 YlYe6
18.'i;Yc2
17.a4 :Bd8
About 17. . . e4 1B.1e2 :SdB
19.'i;Yc2 - see 17. . . :SdB 1B.'i;Yc2 e4
19.ie2.
17. . .fS? ! - This move is prema
turely active and Black's position
becomes very difficult, because of
his lag in development. 1B.axbS f4
19.bxa6 ic6 2 0.ic4 'i;Yg6 21.tLlg4 !
Now, the central files are opened
unavoidably. 21.. .f6 22 .'i;Ye2 hS (It
is too bad for Black to play 22 . . .
ixg2 23.:Sg1 ic6 24. 0-0-0+- and
18 . . . e4
IB . . . b4? ! - White obtains the
important c4-square after that
move. 19.1c4 1Wb6 (In case of 19 . . .
1WcB 2 0.'i;Yb3 0 - 0 2 1.'i;Yxb4 tLlg6
2 2 .1Wb6, Black's active pieces are
insufficient to equalize, Baklan
- Malakhatko, Ordzhonikidze
2000.) 20.aS 1Wc6 2 1.'i;Yb3 0-0
B3
Chapter 6
22.'lWxb4 tLlg6 23.0-0 tLlf4 24.f3
l"!d2 , Shabalov - Gamboa, New
York 2000, Black's pieces are
maximally active, but that is not
enough and after 25.l"!adl l"!fd8
26.l"!xd2 l"!xd2 27.Vffe7 White's
attack is decisive.
18 . . . tLld5? ! - That pawn-sac
rifice is rather dubious. 19.axb5
tLlxe3 (It is hardly better for Black
to try 19 . . . axb5 2 0.hb5+ <;t>f8
21.'lWd3 ! White wins important
tempi to complete his develop
ment thanks to that pin and Black
has difficulties obtaining coun
terplay, for example: 21.. .l"!b8
2 2 .tLlxd5 Vffxd5 23.f3 'lWc5 24.b4
'!Wb6 25.0-0-0 <;t>g7 26.<;t>b2.
White will prepare a pawn-offen
sive on the queenside, but he must
play accurately, because his king
is there. 21...tLlxe3 - That is an at
tempt by Black to attack White's
king at the price <;>f an exchange
sacrifice. 2 2 .'lWxd8 + <;t>g7 23.Vffd3
tLlxg2 + 24.<;t>d2 l"!b8 ! 25.l"!hgl 'lWb6
26. <;t>cl Black's temporary activ
ity has not achieved much and
White's advantage is clear - see
the following eventual develop
ments : 26 . . . Vffxf2 27.'lWg3+ 'lWxg3
28.hxg3 and White can easily ad
vance his pawns in the endgame,
thanks to his extra exchange, 26 . . .
<;t>h8 27.l"!a4 ! tLlf4 - it i s obviously
worse for Black to opt for 27 . . . Vffxf2
28.l"!fl Vffb 6 29.'lWf5 i.c8 30.Vffxf6+
'lWxf6 31.l"!xf6 l"!xb5 32.l"!xf7 and
White's rook and pawns are much
stronger than Black's discoordi
nated light pieces. 28.Vffd7 tLle2+
84
19 .te2
.
19
...
f5
Chapter 6
2 0 .axb5 f4 21. bxa6 J.c6
The move 21 . . . fxe3? - loses.
22.axb7 exf2 +, Wang - McKenzie,
Email 2003 and White's most ac
curate move seems to be 23.f1!
0-0 24.ga4 e3 (But not 24 . . .fS
25.i.c4 lLld5 26.'iNd2 ! e3 27.'iNd3
gfe8 28.ga8 e2+ 29.'iNxe2+-)
25.ge4 'iNf5 26.J.d3 'iNcS 27.'iNe2
lLlf5 28.g4+- and Black's far-ad
vanced pawns will soon be lost,
because they are not supported by
his pieces.
23
fxe3 24.fxe3
Conclusion
We analyze the move 1l . . . lLl e7 in this chapter. Its drawbacks are
evident - after the natural reaction 12. lLlxf6+ gxf6, Black loses his
couple of bishops and his kingside pawn-structure is considerably
weakened. Things are not so simple though, Black obtains some dy
namic pluses, since he gains access to the semi-open g-file and his
pawn-mass in the centre is compact and mobile. In connection with
that, White must organize quickly queenside pressure and he must
bring his knight on a3 closer to the centre. The line 13. lLl c2 seems to be
the best for him under the circumstances. After the natural response
13 . . . ib7 14. id3, there are only two principled linesfor Black - 14 .. .f5
- variation a, and 14 . . . d5 - variation b. Black's other possibilities, as
you can see in the variations of out analysis, do not pose any serious
problemsfor White in hisfightfor the opening advantage.
In variation a, Black disrupts his opponent's pawn-structure on
the kingside and he corrects slightly his own, but he loses plenty of
valuable time in doing that. White obtains a healthy lead in develop
ment, he occupies the g-Jile and seizes the initiative on the queenside
with the undermining move a2-a4, after which Black's monarch has
no safe shelter.
In variation b, Black ignores the defects of his pawn-structure and
he acts aggressively in the centre, advancing his e andf-pawns. White
is practically forced to sacrifice a piece in hisfightfor the advantage.
He obtains three dangerous passed pawns on the queenside and he
neutralizes Black's initiative on the kingside and in the centre. As
we can see in our analysis, Black can hardly contain White's passed
pawns.
87
Chapter 7
12".gb8.
12.tLlc2
This move not only prepares
the fastest possible advance a2a4, which is thematic for White
in his fight for the advantage, but
also it is important that he acti
vates his most displaced piece.
In this chapter, we will analyze
all Black's moves, except the most
88
Chapter 7
17 . . . 6 1B.lLlcb4, but here not
1B . . . .!d7?, because of 19.aS+-,
but 1B ... .!e6 19 . .txbS and Black
is without a pawn and he has
no counterplay.) 17.lLlcb4 lLlxdS
1B.lLlxdS d7 (That move looks
strange, but Black has great dif
ficulties after his other lines too:
1B . . .fS 19.exfS .!xfS 2 0 . .hbS ie6
2 1..ic4 White has an extra pawn
and an easy game on the light
squares. 1B . . . .!d7 19.0-0 .!c6 20.
lLlb4 id7 21.h3 The vulnerabil
ity of Black's bS-pawn ties up his
forces completely.) 19.h4 .!dB 20.
hS 7, Crouan - Piat, Montlucon
1997. Now, White's most aggres
sive line seems to be: 21.f3 ! ?
Ei:aB 22 .Ei:d1 ! ? Ei:a2 (It i s not bet
ter for Black to try 22 . . . gS 23.0-0
ie6 24.lLlf6+ WhB 2S.h6;j; and his
position is very unpleasant, due to
the weakness of his light squares
in the centre and on the kingside.)
23. lLlf6+ whB 24.ib1 Ei:a6 ! (That is
the only move - after 24 . . . Ei:xb2?
2S.lLlxh7! White's attack is
very powerful, for example : 2S . . .
Wxh7 26.hxg6+ WgB 27.g7! Wxg7
28.hS+- Black's d6-pawn is de
fenseless now, therefore White
checkmates - 2B ... Wf6 29.h6+
We7 3 0.xd6+ WeB 3VMfxdB# ; or
24 . . . Ei:a1 2S.lLlxh7! ) 2S . .!c2 gS !
(In answer to 2S . . . .!e6?, White
follows with the already familiar
motive 26.lLlxh7! Wxh7 27.hxg6+
and Black is helpless: 27 ... Wg7
2B.Ei:h7+ WgB 29.h5+-, 27 . . .
WgB 28.hS fxg6 29.hB+ wf1
3 0 .h7+ wf6 31.xb7+-) 26.0-0
90
Chapter 7
92
.te6? !
13.a4 bxa4
The alternatives for Black are
not any better:
About 13 . . . 0-0 - see 11. . . 0-0
1VtJc2 ,igS 13.a4 !e6 ;
13 . . . tLlaS? - That is a typical
bluff. Black loses a pawn without
any compensation. 14.axbS tLlb3,
Haugen - Harestad, Randaberg
1990, and here after White's pre
cise reaction 1SJ!a3 ! Black loses
material after the attractive line:
1s ... id2 + 16. 'tt> e 2 h4 17.tLlc7+
'tt> e 7 18.tLlxe6 xe4+ 19.tLle3+-,
therefore, he is forced to continue
with 1S . . . tLlcS 16.f3 - but White
remains with a solid extra pawn;
13 . . Jb8 14.tLlcb4 tLlxb4 (In
case of 14 . . . ixdS 1S.tLlxdS 0-0
16.axbS axbS, it looks very good
for White to play 17.h4, repel
ling Black's bishop from its ac
tive position - after 17 . . . .tf6
18.,id3 13e8 19.Wie2 b4 2 0.ibS
Black has great problems on the
light squares, Lyew - Vetter,
Email 2 0 0 2 . It is not preferable
for Black to try 17 . . . ,th6 18 J3a6
14.gxa4 a5
After Black's other moves, he
loses his a6-pawn without any
compensation:
14 . . . ixdS? ! 1S.exdS tLle7 16.
ixa6 0-0 17. 0-0 fS 18.tLlb4 f4,
Trabert - Opacic, Lido Estensi
2003, and here after 19.f3 ih4
20.13fa1 Wib6 2 1.,id3 White par
ries easily his opponent's kingside
activity and he remains with a
solid extra pawn;
14 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.ixa6 tLle7 16.
tLlcb4 ixdS, Pioch - Weider, Tar
now 1979, 17.exdS tLlg6 18.0-0 f5
19.,ic4 d7 20.tLlc6
15 .tb5 Ad7
Chapter 7
13.h4
White, in his stead, repels
Black's bishop to a less active po
sition.
13 . . . .th6
94
other
14.a4 bxa4
Black has not tried in prac
tice yet the move 14 . . . E!b8, since
after 15.lLlxe7 Wlxe7 16.axb5 axb5
17.lLlb4;!; he would have great
problems with the protection of
his b5 and d6-pawns, without any
counterplay whatsoever.
15.c!Llcb4!
White would not achieve much
with 15.E!xa4? ! lLlxd5 16.Wlxd5
i.e6 17.Wld1, and here after 17. . .
as 18 .i.b5+ @e7 19.0-0 Wfb6
20.c4 E!hf8 21.b4t he had a very
powerful initiative in the game
T.Airapetian - V.Tarasova, St.
Petersburg 2 0 07, but in the line:
17 ... Wfb6 ! 18.lLlb4 a5 19.lLld5 Wlxb2
20.i.b5+ d8+ Black not only
ends up with an extra pawn, but
his pieces are much more active.
b) 12 . . . c!Lle7
The
possibilities
for
bl) 15 .td7
This logical move forces White
to take extreme measures.
16-'xa4 ! ?
That positional sacrifice is
quite typical. It is absolutely cor
rect, because Black's bishop on
h6 is out of play. In answer to the
other principled line for White
- 16.g4 - Black has at his disposal
the interesting exchange sacrifice
- 16 . . . a5 ! ? 17.lLla6 lLlxd5 1B.Wfxd5
.tf4 19.WfxaB xaB 20.lLlc7+ We7
21.lLlxaB E!:xaB, and he not only
obtains a pawn for it, but his
queenside pressure is quite un
pleasant for White.
16
17.ti)xd5 .ixa4
In case Black declines accept
ing the sacrifice, there arise stan
dard positions with a slight initia
tive for White: 17 . . . a5 1B.E!:a1 ! 0-0
19 . .ic4!i; in answer to 1B ... E!:bB,
White can follow with the natural
line: 19.b3 0-0 20 . .tc4i, as well as
with the much sharper variation:
19.94 ! ? .if4 20.lLlxf4 exf4 21.xd6
E!:xb2 2 2.Wfe5+ .ie6 23 . .tb5+ WfB
24.0-0i
lLlxd5
Chapter 7
White has a powerful knight in
the centre and he has good chanc
es to win Black's a6-pawn, so all
that more than compensates his
exchange sacrifice. The run-up of
the game and the variations of the
analysis confirm that evaluation:
19
27.ti'c7 ti'f7
Black loses now after 27 . . .
l:!c8 ? ! 28.Wixd6 l:!xc4 29.exfS WixbS
30.l:!a7+-, but even after 27 . . .
l:!t7 28.Wixd6 .if8 2 9.Wic6 Wixc6
30.bxc6 a satisfactory outcome
of his defence is highly unlikely.
a5
2 0 .b5 gb8
It is not better for Black to de
fend with 20 . . . g6 21.b6 g7 2 2 .
g 3 fS 23.ttJc7! Wie7 24.ttJxa8 l:!xa8
2S.Wic6 l:!b8 26.ia6 and he would
have problems fighting against his
opponent's b6-pawn in a position
with material equality.
b2) 15
0-0
16.1ltxa4 a5
About 16 . . . lDxd5 17.lDxd5 a5
18.ib5 - see 17.ib5 lDxd5 18.lDxd5
- see 16 . . . a5 17. ib5 lDxd5 18.
lDxd5.
The move 16 . . . ib7 - leads to
a quiet game with a slight edge
for Whjite. 17.1lta5 1ltd7, Tairova
- Kovalevskaja, Bad Homburg
2007 (After 17 . . . lDxd5 18.lDxd5
<;t>h8 19.1ltxd8 l:!fxd8 2 0.ic4t
White's prospects are superior
thanks to his domination over
the d5-outpost and the possible
pressure against Black's a and d
pawns.), and now White obtains
a slight, but stable advantage af
ter 18.ic4 l:!fc8 19.1Dxe7+ V!1xe7
2 0.id5t. The main drawback of
Black's position is his bishop on
h6, which can hardly enter the ac
tions anytime soon.
17.ib5 tOxd5
The move 17 . . . ib7? ! - enables
White to force advantageous
simplifications. 18.tOc6 hc6 19.
lDxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.ixc6 l:!ab8 21.
l:!a2 - Black's dark-squared
bishop is very passive and it will
not be activated in the nearest fu
ture, while his d6 and a5-pawns
are weak. Instead, White's light
squared bishop is very powerful.
21...l:!fc8 2 2 .id5 l:!c5 23.g3 <;t>h8
24.0-0 f5? ! That attempt by Black
to organize some counterplay
leads to his swift demise, but he is
reluctant to stay completely pas-
18.tOxd5 ie6
18 .. .f5? ! - This move only
compromises the light squares
in the centre and on the king
side, while Black's counterplay is
non-existent after it. 19.exf5 hf5,
Aliavdin - Holmsgaard, Pardu
bice 2 007, and here White can
develop his initiative in the most
energetic fashion with the aggres
sive line: 20.g4 ! ie6 21.ic4 g6 (It
is not preferable for Black to opt
for 21.. .g5 2 2 .l1Je3 V!1f6 23.he6+
V!1xe6 24.11Jf5, since his bishop is
bound to remain passive on h6.)
2 2 .g5 ig7 23.tOf6+ l:!xf6 24.gxf6
wrxf6 25.V!1c6 White's king is not
so safe indeed, but Black's com
pensation for the pawn is insuf
ficient anyway, because there is
only too little material left on the
board.
18 . . . <;t>h8? ! - This move is con
nected with the idea to obtain
counterplay on the f-file, but it
would weaken the light squares
in the centre. 19.b4 f5 2 0 .ic6 l:!a7
21.exf5 hf5 22 .bxa5 id3 23.ib5
ixb5 (It is not better for Black to
try 23 . . . if5 24.0-0 ie6 25.ic6)
24.V!1xb5 White has an extra out
side passed pawn and a magnifi
cently deployed knight in the cen
tre, so his position is quite close to
97
Chapter 7
winning, Karjakin - Shirov, Wijk
aan Zee 2 0 07.
19.J.c6 E:bS
98
c) 12
gbS !?
13.a4
Black is well-prepared for this
operation indeed, but it is neces
sary for White in his fight for the
advantage.
13 bxa4
1l.c3 i gS 12 . lLl c2
14.tLlcb4
14 . . .td7
.
Chapter 7
makes Black's compensation for
the pawn insufficient and after
20 . . . i.h6? ! , Getz - B.Christensen,
Copenhagen 2 007, it deserves at
tention for White to continue with
the prophylactic move 2 Uc3,
preventing the sortie ofthe Black's
queen to the kingside - 21 . . . '!Wh4
2 2 . c4;
16 . . . aS 17.bS i.b7 (After 17. . . i.d7
1B.iWb3 '!WcB 19.1Dc3 i.dB 2 0.i.c4
i.b6 21. 0-0t Black has something
to brag about indeed: his dark
squared bishop is on the perfect
diagonal, but White has already
a passed pawn on the queenside
and he can start a kingside of
fensive pushing f2-f4 after some
preparation, Duijn - Lemmers,
Leeuwarden 1995. 17 .. .fS - This
move looks more aggressive, but
it weakens considerably the light
squares in the centre and on the
kingside. 1B .h4 i.f6 19.i.c4 whB
2 0 .'!We2 i.d7 21.exfS cB 2 2 . 0-0
h:h4 23.i.d3 White dominates
in the centre and his dangerous
passed bS-pawn provides him
with superior prospects, RYBKA
- THE BARON, Leiden 2006.)
1B.i.c4 whB 19.0-0 fS 20.exfS
xfS, P.Cramling - Tisdall, Glad
saxe 19B3, and here after 2 1.'!We2
cB 2 2 .i.d3 fB 23.i.e4 c5 24.
dU Black is helpless against
White's dominance over the light
squares in the centre and there
fore his position is without any
good prospects.
15.ha6 lLlxb4
1S . . . lDaS? ! - This move leads
100
16.cxb4!
This i s a n important moment.
Now, the placement of Black's
rook on b8 is pointless, because
his attack against the b4-pawn
is not as effective as that against
the b2-pawn. Meanwhile, the b4pawn is passed and it is ready to
advance at an opportune mo
ment.
16 . . . 0 - 0 17. 0 - 0 !c6
17. . . g6, Bilen - Chasovnikova,
Moscow 2006, This is a useful
move, because if White decides
to sacrifice the exchange analo
gously to the main line, his initia
tive would not be so effective. He
18.gxa4!
This is no doubt the best line
for White. He obtains an excellent
compensation for the exchange
thanks to his powerful knight
in the centre and his queenside
passed pawn.
101
Chapter 7
lS . . . J.xa4
Black is forced to accept the
sacrifice, because after 1B . . . d7
19.b5 .b:b5 2 0 . .txb5 xb5 2U!b4
the superiority of the knight over
the bishop is obvious and Black's
attempt to change the course of
actions with a queen-sacrifice led
to a lost position for him after 21 . . .
xb4 22.iLlxb4 gxb4 23.xd6 gb5
24.g3+- Perunovic - Milanovic,
Belgrade 2006.
19.tba4
19 ... VHeS
Black's defence is not any eas
ier if he enters an endgame. His
position is difficult too after the
alternatives:
19 ... ih6? ! - This move is con
nected with the idea to transfer
the queen to the kingside, but
Black does not obtain any coun
terplay with it. Instead, White's
passed pawn advances to the pen
ultimate rank. 20.b5 h4 21.b6
gfdB 2 2 .b7 Mr335 - crafty, In
ternet 1999;
19 ... whB ? ! - That is a loss
of time. 2 0 .c6 .td2 21.b5 i.a5
2 2 .i.b7 h4 (In case of 22 . . .
eB - the exchange o f queens
102
103
Conclusion
In this chapter, we analyze on of the modern lines of the Chely
abinsk variation 11. . . g5 - Black ensures the two-bishop advantage,
with the idea that it would compensate the defects of his pawn-struc
ture.
In answer to the strongest move for White 12.ti:J c2, (White central
izes his knight and prepares the crucial pawn-advance a2-a4, which
is aimed at exploiting the weakness of the light squares on the queen
side.) Black has tried in practice different moves and in this chapter
we analyze thoroughly: a) 12 . . . e6?!, b) 12 . . .tiJe7, c) 12 . . . '8bB.
It is worth mentioning that Black does not lose after some other
rarely played lines, but they all lead to positions without any good
prospects for him, while White's game is very easy on the weak
squares on both sides of the board.
The development of Black's bishop to the e6-square in variation
a, is no doubt premature, because at first, that square is not always
the best for that bishop - it must be deployed sometimes to b7, or d7
and secondly, Black thus weakens his a6-pawn and White develops
his initiative effortlessly with quite natural moves.
The logical move 12 .. . tiJe7 (Black fights immediately against
White's powerful centralized knight.) is analyzed in variation b. The
basic drawback of that move however is that White can play 13.h4!
repelling Black's bishop to the edge of the board and it cannot join in
the actions easily from there. After the practicallyforced line 13 . . . h6
14.a4 bxa4 15. lD cb4! Black has to make up his mind between several
possibilities:
In variation bl, he forces his opponent to sacrifice the exchange on
a4. White obtains numerous advantages as compensation - he has
complete control over the light squares in the centre and on the queen
side. His knight on as is all-powerful and he can create a passed pawn
on the queenside after he captures Black's weak a6-pawn. Then, it
would be practically material equality on the board. Accordingly,
Black's extra exchange cannot compensate completely all the defects
of his position.
In variation b2, Black obtains a more solid, but rather passive
position, practically without counterplay, but in a position with ma
terial equality. He tries to complete his development and he tries to
make a draw by simplifications. The disadvantageous placement of
104
105
Chapter 8
106
11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2
- Kuznetsov, Krasnodar 2004,
13.a4 bxa4 14J'ixa4;!;;
While after 12 . . . lDe7, White
should better provoke the appear
ance of weaknesses with the help
of the line: 13.lDxf6+ gxf6 14.id3
(We will mention here that we will
analyze later a line, which looks
rather similar: 12 . . J'ibB 13.h4 lDe7
14.lDxf6+ gxf6 lS.id3 - our read
ers will be easily convinced that
the absence of the pawn on h4 can
be advantageous for White as
well.). After the rather indifferent
move 14 . . . ie6 lS.lDe3 White's
advantage is doubtless and Black's
active attempts prove to be insuf
ficient for equality: 14 . . . dS 1S.exdS
xdS (It is not correct for Black to
try lS . . . lDxdS? ! 16.hS fS 17.hfS
ixfS 18.xfS lDf4 19.0-0) 16.
lDe3 e6, Jurasek - Svab, Plzen
1996, 17.hS ! fS (White is evi
dently better after 17 . . . e4 1B.ic2
fS 19.ib3 g6 20.h4 eB 21.
O-O-O) 1B.g4! That is a very
strong move now, since Black has
problems irrelevant of his choice
on the next move. 1B . . . g6
19.h4, or 14 . . . fS lS.exfS !xiS,
Janz - Lampe, Hamburg 1997
(but not lS . . . lDxfS? 16.f3+-)
16.ixfS lDxfS 17.g4+ lDg7 lB.
0-0-0 f6 (in case of 1B . . .fS, it is
good for White to play 19.b4;!;)
19.hf1 as (19 . . .fdB 20.lDb4;!;)
2 0.lDe3 b4 21.c4;!; and White has
some positional edge;
Finally, in case of 12 . . . g6 13.a4
bxa4 (or 13 . . . bB 14.axbS axbS
lS.id3 ig7 16.e2 gS 17. 0-0
a) 12
ie6
13.a4 bxa4
About 13 . . . bB 14.axbS axbS
lS.!J.d3 igS - see 12 . . . !J.gS.
In the line : 13 . . . lDaS 14.axbS
igS, Black relies mainly on 15.
bxa6? lDb3, but after lS.lDcb4
axbS 16.hbS bB 17.!J.d3 Roth
107
Chapter 8
- Konik, Chemnitz 1995, White
simply remains with an extra
pawn.
We must deal thoroughly with
the principled move 13 . . . !xdS.
White should play 14.exdS ! , and
later there might follow:
14 . . . ttJa7 (planning to capture
on bS with the knight) lS.ie2
\1;Yb6 16.axbS ttJxbS 17. 0-0 ttJc7
lS.l3a2 as (The endgame is very
difficult for Black after lS . . . \1;Yb3? !
19.ttJb4 \1;Yxd1 20.l3xdl) 19.ttJe3
cS, Lafond - Simon, Bischwiller
1999 (In case of 19 . . . igS 2 0 .ttJc4
\1;YcS, White has the tactical re
source 21.l3xaS ! l3xaS 2 2 .b4 xdS
23.bxaS l3dS 24.a4;:1;) 2 0.l3a4!
l3tbS (or 2 0 ... igS? ! 21.l3c4 a7
2 2 .ttJfS) 2 1.l3c4 \1;Ya7 2 2.c2;:1; White has a very promising game
on the light squares;
After 14 . . . ttJe7 lS.axbS, Black
has tried in practice lS . . . axbS
16.l3xaS xaS 17.ttJb4 (That is an
ideal square for the knight.) 17. . .
m 7 (The line : 1 7. . . \1;Ya4 lS.id3
xd1+ 19.xd1 l3aS 20.c2 l3aS
21.ttJc6 ttJxc6 22.dxc6 idS 23.
b4+-, led to a lost endgame for
Black in the game Gligoric Riego, Asuncion 1960.) lS .ie2 g6
19.0-0 igS 2 0 .\1;Yd3 l3bS 2 1.l3al
Chiburdanidze - Grigic, Vinkovci
19S2 and White has a clear ad
vantage, as well as lS . . . b6, Yt
teborg - Polenske, Hamburg
1999, 16.id3 axbS 17.l3xaS l3xaS
lS.0-0;:1;, followed by ttJb4 with
pressure against the weak pawn
on bS.
lOS
14.gxa4 a5 15.ic4 e7
Here, objectively Black's best
move is lS . . . igS, and we will study
it later - see 12 . . . igS.
White's task is much easier
after lS . . . !xdS? ! 16.!XdS m6
17.ttJe3 l3abS (In case of 17 . . . .ie7?,
as it was played in the game Kre
jcova - Kopecky, Klatovy 2003,
White could have punished Black
with lS.l3c4! l3acS 19.!xc6 l3xc6
20.ttJdS+- winning a piece. It can
hardly be recommended to Black
to opt for 17. . . xb2? ! lS.l3c4)
lS.0-0
In case of IS ... l3bS, Klundt Benko, Germany 1992, White can
follow with 16.l3a2;:1;, and after 16 . . .
igS, there arises a position from
the variation 12 . . . igS.
16.xf6+ gxf6
J.b7
16
The development of this bish
op to b7 is usually connected with
the maneuver of Black's knight
along the route c6-bS-d7-cS(b6).
That interesting plan was suggest
ed and introduced into practice,
at the beginning of the 70ies of
the past century, by GM Bukhuti
Gurgenidze.
aS
17. 0 - 0
13.a4 bxa4
It seems too artificial for
Black to play 13 . . . tiJa7? ! 14.axbS
tiJxbS 1S . .tc4 tiJc7 16.tiJce3 Tau
fratshofer - Ludwig, BRD 19S9,
while in case of 13 ... tiJe7, White
follows with the typical reaction
14.tiJxf6+ gxf6 1s.id3 dS (It is not
logical for Black to opt for 15 . . .
<ilhS 16.0-0 gS 17.tiJe3 Mou
lin - Lein, Philadelphia 2002.)
16.exdS YNxdS 17.tL'le3 YNe6 1S.axbS
axbS 19.aS xaS 20. 0-0;!; and
White ends up with a stable edge.
14.gxa4 tiJb8 !?
Th e other possibilities are not
of any separate value: about 14 . . .
.tgS - see 12 . . . igS; a s for 1 4. . . tiJe7
1S . .tc4 .tgS - see 12 . . . igS; 14 . . . aS
1S.ic4 tiJbS (or 1S . . .igS - see 12 . . .
igS; 1S . . . tiJe7, Henk - Schmitz,
17 J.xdS
Chapter S
Charleroi 1994, Black played 19 . . .
:gabS, but White should have
countered that with 2 0.\Wd3 !
1c6 (or 2 0 . . . \!;lIxb2? 21.:gb1 be4
22.:gxb2 bd3 23.:gxbS :gxbS 24.
bd3+-) 2 1.:ga2 \!;lIc5 22.:gdU,
preserving better prospects.
White is better after 17. . . lt:lc5
1S.:ga3 a4 19.1t:lcb4;!; Juhnke - Va
leinis, corr. 2005.
If 17 ... :ga7, then White in
creases his queenside pressure by
rather simple means : 1S.:gfa1 lt:lb6
(Black has also tried in practice
1S . . . bd5 19.bd5 \WbS 2 0.lt:lb4 !
Vrenegoor - van Oosterom, Am
sterdam 2005 - but he has failed
to maintain the material bal
ance. Instead of 19 . . . \WbS , Black
would not improve anything with
19 . . . lt:lc5 20.:g4a2 a4, because of
21.b4) 19.1t:lxb6 \!;lIxb6 2 0 .lt:lb4 !
:gbS (20 . . . :gfaS 21.lt:ld5 bd5 22.
bd5, and after the retreat of the
rook from as, White follows with
23.b4.) 2 1.:g1a2 .tg5 22 . .td5 with
an overwhelming advantage for
White.
In case of 17. . . g6 1S.:gfa1 ig7,
it is very good for White to contin
ue with 19.b4 axb4 20.:gxaS haS
21.cxb4 1b7 (or 21...lt:lf6 22.\Wd3;!;)
22.lt:lce3;!; - and White's position
is better thanks to his powerful
control over the d5-outpost and
his passed b-pawn, Vrenegoor
- Nijboer, Amsterdam 1994.
c) 12
b8
13.h4!
White plays more often here
the standard line : 13.a4 bxa4
14J':!xa4 lLld7+t, but that just helps
Black to achieve what he wanted
in the first place.
Therefore, I recommend an
other method and GM Viswana
than Anand used it quite success
fully in one of his games. White is
not in a hurry with the undermin
ing operation on the queenside
and he restricts his opponent's
possibilities.
13
Ab7
17.il.c2 a5
In case of 17 . . . !g7 18.hS, Black
would not achieve much with the
aggressive queen-sortie 18 . . . gS
- since after 19.f3;!; White had a
superior position in the game Al
dea - Moraru, Bucharest 2001.
16.J.d3 !
That is the ideal square for
White's light-squared bishop in
this situation.
16
g6
Conclusion
Therefore, we have analyzed all Black's possibilities besides the
most principled and strong 12 . . . '8b8 and 12 . . . g5. White obtains the
advantage in all the lines without too much of an effort and that ex
plains why all these lines are not so popular at all. White's opening
advantage is not so great indeed, but it is important that he can usu
ally transferfrom a better middle game into a superior endgame.
If we ignore the numerous possible transpositions of moves lead
ing to the variation with 12 . . . ig5, then it is very interesting for Black
to try the idea ofGM Gurgenidze, connected with the maneuver of the
knight along the route c6-b8-d7-c5(b6}. It is essential then, whether
Black with play at first 12 . . . !b7, or he would choose immediately
12 . ..ti:J b8. In the first case, White should not refrain from his the
matic break 13.a4, because then he manages to accomplish his ideal
deployment offorces thanks to the additional tempo. After 12 . . . ltJb8
however, it is not so easy for White, therefore I consider as more pre
cise the prophylactic move 13.h4!, which was tried successfully by
Viswanathan Anand.
112
Chapter 9
1e6, c) 13
13 ie7.
e7, d) 13 g6, e)
13.h4 !
This i s the most principled re
sponse by White. Practice has
shown that after the traditional
line: 13.ie2 igS 14. 0-0 as, Black
has nothing to be afraid of. In case
of 13.h4, his dark-squared bishop
is restricted and of course, it would
be a disaster for him to capture the
pawn - 13 ...ixh4? 14.'mlS+-
a) 13
a5
14.ce3 b4
This move is consequential,
but as we have already mentioned,
it involves some strategical risk.
There arise some other varia
tions after 14 . . . 1e6 - see 13 . . . 1e6
and 14 . . . g6 1S.g3 ig7 16.hS ie6
113
Chapter 9
17.!h3 - see 13 . . . g6 14.g3 ig7
15.h5 .!e6 16 . .!h3 as 17.tDce3.
It is too passive for Black to
play 14 . . . h8 15.f3 ie7 16.id3
ie6 17.tDf5 Reeve - Zubac, Rich
mond 2002, as well as 14 .. J;!e8
15.a4 b4 16.!b5 id7 17.f3 ie7
18.tDf5 Gaponenko - Manakova,
Tivat 1995.
In the game Schaefer - Guen
ther, Budapest 1995, Black chose
14 . . . ie7, and White should have
countered that with 15.a4 ! ? There
might follow 15 . . . b4 16 . .!b5 tDa7
(If 16 . . ..!d7, then 17.hc6 ixc6
18.cxb4 axb4 19.tDf5, and White's
knights are obviously stronger
than Black's bishops.) 17.cxb4,
and here Black solves his prob
lems neither with 17. . . tDxb5 18.
axb5 l3xb5 (18 ... axb4 19.13a7 if6
20 .e2) 19.e2 .!a6 20.tDc3 l3b6
21.b5 and White occupies the
d5-square, nor with 17. . . axb4
18 . .!c4 tDc6 19.a5;!; - White's
passed a-pawn is tremendously
dangerous. The other possibility
is - 15 . . . bxa4 16.xa4 ib7 (16 . . .
!d7 1 7. .!b5) 17.!b5 tDa7 18.
tDxe7+ Vlixe7 19 . .td3;!;. White has a
considerable positional advantage
in both lines.
114
15.!c4!
That is the ideal place for
White's light-squared bishop.
15 . . .bxc3 16.bxc3
Formally, the c3-pawn should
be a liability, but it controls the
all-important d4-square and Black
cannot attack it in the nearest fu
ture.
16 . . . .te7
Black loses a pawn without
sufficient compensation after 16 . . .
.te6 17.tDxf6 + ! ? xf6 18.xd6
l3bc8 19 . .!d5;!;
He has also tried in practice
16 . . . h6 17.g3 l3e8 18.Vlif3 !e6 19.
l3dU Zhou - Li, Suzhou 2006,
as well as 16 . . . tDe7 17.tDxf6+ gxf6
18.f3;!; Driamin - Polyakov, St.
Petersburg 1998, with a better
game for White in both cases.
b.
18 . . . tDa7
If 18 . . ..td7, then 19 ..tb5 l3c8
20.tDc4 Russo - Mohandesi,
Charleroi 2006.
19. 0 - 0 ;1;
15.1&f3
b) 13
.ie6
15 b4
14.lLlce3 a5
Black follows the same plan as
in variation a, but with a bishop
on the e6-square.
About 14 . . . 1e7!? - see 13 . . .
1e7.
The other possibilities are
quite dubious for Black: 14 . . . g6? !
1S.ltJxf6 + Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6 Beshu-
16 .ic4 bxc3
17.bxc3 a4
About 17 . . . i.e7 18.g3 - see 15 . . .
1e7.
In the game Yurtaev - Holm
sten, Helsinki 1992, Black chose
17. . . b2 18.g3 a4 19.0-0 i.e7
115
Chapter 9
20Jiab1 bS 2 1.Elxb2 xb2, but
White countered that with the
precise reaction 2 2 .d1 ! , and
that provoked a swift outcome of
the fight after 22 . . . a3 23.a4 ElcS
24 . .ia6 1-0.
14 . . . gxf6 15.ii.d3 d5
c) 13 . . "!be7
14.tbxf6 + !
This i s the right decision.
White compromises his oppo116
16.exd5
16
'ifxdS
18.VNh5 f5
In the famous game Kasparov
- Lautier, Moscow 1994, in which
that position was reached for the
first time, Black advanced his cen117
Chapter 9
tral pawn prematurely and he lost while against 19.94, Black has the
his control over the f4-square. M resource 19 . . . Wfg6 !
ter IS . . . e4? ! 19.ic2 b4 (In case of
19 Wfg6
About 19 . . . whS 2 0.ic2 b4
19 . . .fS 2 0.%YgS+ ! whS 21.%Yf4 b6
22. 0-0-0, Black loses imme 21.c4 e4 - see lS . . . e4.
In case of 19 . . . %Yxa2? 2 0 .WfgS+
diately after 22 . . . lDg6?, because
of 23.Wfh6 - threatening 24.hS, lDg6 2 1.ibl! Black is defense
while the move 23 . . . gS loses to less : 21.. .%YaS 2 2 . lDdS+-; 2 1 . . .Wfe6
24.,ib3+-, and Black's queen has 22.,txfS %Ya2 (22 . . . Wfe7 23.lDdS!
no square to retreat to.) 20.c4 WhS %YxgS+ 24.hxgS+-) 23.hS hfS
(20 .. .fS 21.WfgS+ whS 2 2 .%Yf4) (23 . . .f6 24.%Yg4+-) 24.%YxfS+21.0-0-0 fS 22.%YgS White
Black's position is very diffi
seized the initiative and he gave cult after 19 . . . b4? ! 2 0.WfgS+ whS
no respite to his opponent to the 21.ic4
end of the game. The thirteenth
2 0 .%Yf3 ! ?
World Champion finished off his
This move has not been tested
attack instructively and spectacu sufficiently, but it is very interest
larly: 22 . . . b6 23.hS c6? ! (Black ing and ambitious. Kasparov men
had better try 23 . . . gS 24.Wff4 tioned it in his comments about
Wfh6, Kasparov, at least exchang his game against Lautier. White's
ing queens.) 24.wbl cS 2S.h6 queen eyes Black's fS-pawn and
%YeS (2S . . . gS 26.dS +-) 26.hS ! that provokes him to play either
gS (26 . . . lDg6 27.dS+-; 26 . . . lDc6 eS-e4, weakening the f4-square,
27.lDg4 ! fxg4 2S.%Yg7+-) 27.lDg4 ! or ib7. In the latter case, Black
1 - 0 . Black resigned, since his po loses his control over the impor
sition was hopeless following 27. . . tant cS-h3 diagonal and that is es
xgS 2S.lDxeS xhS 29.dS+ lDgS sential in numerous variations.
30.lDxt7# , as well as after 27 . . .
White has a calmer and reliable
Wfe6 2S.dS+alternative, leading to a favour
able endgame for him - 2 0 .%YgS.
There might follow 20 .. .f6 (if 20 . . .
%YxgS 21.hxgS ie6, then 2 2 .g4 fxg4
23.xh7 bdS 24.h6;!;) 21.Wfxg6+
hxg6 2 2 .ic2 . White's advantage
is based on his extra queenside
pawn, his domination over the
d-file, as well as on Black's com
promised pawn-structure on the
kingside.
19. 0 - 0 - 0 !
If 22 .. .f4, then 23.lDdS lDxdS
The a2-pawn is untouchable, 24.xdS Wg7 (24 . . . ,ib7 2S.d6
11S
11.c3 0 - 0 12 . c2 b8 13.h4
hg2 26J3g1 f3 27.ixg6) 25.h5
gxh5 26J!xh5 b6 (26 . . . h8?
27.xh8 xh8 2 8.d8+ g7 29.
if5+-) 27.h7+ g8 28.d1
ie6 29.dh1 f5 30.1h6 Chorfi
- T.Olafsson, corr. 1999.
In the game Solozhenkin - Sit
nikov, Russia 1999, Black chose
22 . . . g7 and after 23.h5! g5 (23 . . .
f4 24.hxg6 !; 23 . . . gxh5 24.xh5
h8 25.xh8 xh8 26.d8 Solo
zhenkin) 24.h6+ h8 25.f3 he
had problems. It would be in fa
vour of White if he had played
23 . . . h8 24.hxg6 ie6 (24 . . . xh1
25.xh1 xg6 26.g4) 25.h7 +
xh7 26.gxh7 h8 27.d6;.t Sal
vador Marques - Rousselot, corr.
1994.
It is more precise for Black to
defend with 22 . . . b6, but then
White is not obliged to play the
hasty line 23.h5 g5 (White's h5pawn becomes a potential weak
ness.). It is preferable for him to
follow with the accurate 23.g3 ! ?
ie6 24.ib3 g7 (24 . . . ixb3 25.
axb3;.t), and only now 25.h5 f4
(25 . . . g5 2 6.ixe6 xe6 27.d7)
26.gxf4 exf4 27 . .!L'lc2;!; with a trans
fer of the knight to the d4-square
to follow. In the game Pletanek Tomecek, corr. 1996, Black played
24 . . . f7, and after 25.h5 gxh5
26.xh5 ixb3 27.axb3 e6=, the
centralization of his king equal
ized the game. White's play could
be improved with the line: 26.d7!
hb3 (26 . . . e8 27.a7;!;) 27.axb3
e6 28.xe7+ ! xe7 29.d5+
e6 (29 . . . d6 30.xb6 c6 31.
2 0 . . . b4
After 20 . . . e4? ! 21.Wff4 - the
defenselessness of the rook on b8
is the tactical motive behind the
move 20.Wff3.
Black can play 20 . . . ib7, with
out the inclusion of the moves
2 0 . . . b4 21.c4, but then 2 1.Wfe2
e4 2 2 .ic2 f4 23.h5 Wf6 (23 . . . Wfg5
24.Wg4;!;) 24 . .!L'lg4 Wfg5 (if24 . . . We6,
then 25.ib3) 25.b1;l; White's
prospects are better.
21.c4 .tb7
22.Wfe2 !
White's queen is better placed
here than on h3. There will soon
appear a black pawn on the e4square and it must be kept under
control.
22 . . . e4
In case of 22 . . . Wff6 ! ? 23.ic2
fd8, it looks attractive for White
to advance his rook-pawn, en
larging the scope of action of his
119
Chapter 9
rook: 24.hS gd4 (This is a seem
ingly attractive idea.) 2S.h6 gbdB
26.gxd4 d4 (If 26 . . . exd4, White
has the resource 27.1L1xfS ! lLlxfS
2B.g4) 27.ghS ! e4 2B.f3;!;, and
White is better.
23.ic2 f4 24.hS!
That i s a n important interme
diate move. It is now essential
where Black's queen will go.
24 gS
2S.'irJg4!
That move is necessary and it
had to be anticipated in advance.
2S
h6
14.g3 g7
d) 13 . . . g6 ! ?
It is only a transposition of
moves after 14 . . . !e6 15.i.h3 (15.
lDxf6 + ? ! Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6? Wlf3 !+)
15 . . . i.g7 (If 15 . . . hd5 16. xd5
lDe7, then it is good for White
to play 17.Wld3 d5 18.exd5 Wlxd5
19.xd5 lDxd5 2 0 . 0-0-0;l;; with
a slightly better endgame, as well
17.b3 ! ?, which prevents 17 . . .
d5? ! , i n view o f 18.0-0-0 d4
19.cxd4 exd4 2 0.f4) About 16.h5
- see 14 ... i.g7.
Black has not tested yet the
move 14 . . . h5, but it would not
solve his problems either. After
15.!h3 !e6 (Black complies with
that exchange only in that particu
lar case.) 16.lDcb4 lDxb4 17.lDxb4
White has the edge.
lS.hS J.e6
The fight develops in an
analogous fashion after 15 . . .
lDe7 16.lDce3 lDxd5 17.lDxd5 e6
18.hxg6 hxg6 19.!h3 Wld7 2 0 .he6
fxe6 21.lDb4 - see the comments
to the final position of the main
line (18.lDcb4).
16.!h3
The exchange of the light
squared bishops is in favour of
White, as a rule.
16 Wld7
.
Chapter 9
If 16 . . . b4, then 17.hxg6 hxg6
18.lDcxb4 bd5 (1B . . . lDxb4 19.
be6 lDxd5 2 0.bd5 llxb2 21.llb1
llxb1 22:xbl;!;) 19.1Dxd5 llxb2 20.
Wfcl;!; - White preserves his con
trol over the d5-square;
The exchange of the bishop
for White's knight does not solve
any problems either: 16 . . . bd5
17.Wfxd5 lDe7 1B.Wfd3 Wfb6 19.hxg6
hxg6 2 0.lld1 llbdB 21.lDe3;!; Leh
tioksa - Nokso Koivisto, Finland
199B ;
In the variation 16 . . . a5 17.
lDce3 lDe7 (In case of 17. . . Wfg5,
White forces his opponent to cap
ture on h3 with the help of the
line: 1B.lDc7! bh3 19.1lxh3 llfdB
2 0 .'J;'f1 b4 21.lDcd5 lldcB 22 .Wfa4
bxc3 23.bxc3 WfdB 24.@g2 lDe7
25.hxg6 hxg6 26.llhh1! J.Polgar
- Illescas, Leon 1996 and he ob
tains a great positional advantage,
thanks to his dominance over the
d5-outpost and the superiority
of his knight over the bishop. If
17 . . . Wfd7, then White should re
frain from the straightforward
line: 1B .hxg6 hxg6 19.1Df5? gxf5
2 0 .Wfh5 f6 !+ and he should pre
fer the calmer variation: 1B.h6 !
hB 19.g2, with a better game
for White. It would be too risky
for Black to try 19 . . .f5? ! , because
of 2 0 .exf5 gxf5 2 1.llh5 !) 1B.hxg6
hxg6 19.1Dxe7+ Wfxe7 2 0 .Wfd3;!;
and White has again a stable ad
vantage.
17.bxg6 bxg6
After 17 . . . bh3 1B.Wfh5 fxg6
19.Wfxh3 Wfxh3 20Jxh3;!;, or 17 . . .
122
lS.lDcb4!?;!;
In the game Barlow - van
Kempen, corr. 1997, White chose
1B.ig2, and after Black's precise
reaction 1B . . . b4 ! 19.1Ddxb4 lDxb4
20.lDxb4 a5, he even managed to
seize the initiative.
I believe that the new move
1B.lDcb4 leaves Black with fewer
active possibilities. See an exem
plary line, which shows that White
maintains a slight, but stable edge,
while Black must fight patiently to
equalize: 1B . . . lDxb4 19 .be6 fxe6
(Black's attempt to deflect his op
ponent's queen from the kingside
does not facilitate his defensive
task either: 19 . . . lDc2+ 2 0 .Wfxc2
fxe6 21.lDe3;!;) 20.lDxb4 a5 21.lDd3
Wffl (It is also possible to try 21...
llbcB 22 .Wfg4 llf6 23.0-0-0 Wfb7
24.@bl;!;, or 21.. .b4 22.cxb4 axb4
23.0-0;!;) 22 .Wfg4;!;
e) 13 .te7
.
15.YHf3 YHd7
14.!iJce3 J.e6
About 14 . . . a5 - see 13 . . . a5.
When Black's bishop is on
e7, it is rather untypical for him
to play 14 . . . g6? ! , Zinchenko Kruglyakov, Alushta 2006, 15.g3
J.e6 (15 .. .f5 16.h5 fxe4 17.hxg6
hxg6 18 .J.g2) 16.Y;Yf3 b4 (16 .. .f5
17.h5) 17.ic4
The move 14 . . . b4 enables
White to deploy his pieces quite
comfortably: 15.ic4 bxc3 16.bxc3
Y;Ya5 17.Y;Yd3 d8, Mijnheer Schenkeveld, Hoogeveen 2006,
18.g3
It might be interesting for
Black to try 14 . . . h6 ! ? Black thus
creates a real threat to capture
White's h4-pawn and he prevents
the advance h4-h5-h6. That move
was tested in the game Sevecek Joseph, corr. 1994, in which Black
solved successfully his opening
16.gdl
White has also tried the radi
cal solution 16.g4 id8 17.id3, but
after 17 . . . a5 ! oo, followed by b5-b4,
Black's counterplay is sufficient
123
Chapter 9
and tournament practice has con
firmed that.
The move 16Jdl seems to me
as a calmer solution and I advise
my readers to follow it. White de
ploys his forces optimally and he
refrains from drastic changes of
his pawn-structure.
16
18.h5 h6
That move is just obligatory;
otherwise White's rook-pawn will
advance even further.
After 18 . . . ixdS 19.itJxdS itJxdS
20J'1xdS, it would be a mistake for
Black to play 2 0 . . .fS?, because of
21.exfS E1xfS 22.E1xd6 ! Morawi
etz - Hoffmann, Norway 2 00S.
19. 0 - 0
(diagram)
19
.lb6
Chapter 9
31.. .b4 32J3aS) 30J!dU and
White occupies the d-file, or 26 . . .
fd8 27.d1 '.We6 (After 27. . . b6
28.dS !;!; White has the threat
- 29.g3.) 2 8.dS ! igS (It is quite
risky for Black to open the b1-h7diagonal, for example 28 . . . xdS? !
29.exdS d6 30 .id3 d8 31.ie4
wf8 32 .g3 igS 33.fS) 29.aU
(It also deserves attention for
White to try 29.id1 !?, followed by
30.ib3.) - and White has a slight,
but stable advantage and he can
increase his pressure without any
risk.
21.exfS tLlxdS
Naturally, it is bad for Black
to play 21...tLlxfS? 2 2 .xfS xfS
23.tLle7+-
22.l3xdS;!;
2 0 .f5 !
White exploits some spe
cific features of the position in
the process of solving strategical
tasks. It is amazing, but Black has
four possible captures now, but
they might all lead to the same
situation by a transposition of
moves.
20
...
ixf5
Conclusion
The prophylactic move 12 . . . gbB is still quite popular and it is prob
ably as strong as the main line 12 ... i.g5. The drawback of that varia
tion is that it is a bit slow and that enables White to restrict the mobil
ity of Black's bishop on f6 with the move 13.h4! The character of the
subsequentfight largely depends on Black's decision on move 13.
White counters 13 . . . tiJ e7 with 14. tiJxf6+! - and later he chooses an
aggressive plan, including castling long and a kingside attack. After
13 ... g6, the fight is not so sharp - White exploits Black's g6-pawn as
a target for attack in order to open the h-file and he strives to trade
advantageously the light-squared bishops.
Black's most precise defensive line is - 13 . . . i.e7. The adherents to
that variation did not come to that move so easy, but presently al
most everybody plays like that and the theory of that line has devel
oped tremendously. White must play with great resourcefulness in
order to create real problemsfor Black. In general, it can be seen that
there usually appear opposite-coloured bishops on the board, but as
our readers have already seen, that circumstance does not guarantee
Black any easy equality at all.
Generally speaking, the variation with 12 . . . gbB seems to be reli
able for Black, but White obtains an edge after an accurate play. In
some cases, that advantage becomes quite obvious after a transition
into an endgame. That implies that the White player should enjoy
playing endgames and possess good technique.
127
Chapter 1 0
a) 13 ... gb8
Black attempts to maintain
his pawn on b5, so that White's
bishop cannot occupy its most fa
vourable placement on the c4square. The main drawback of
that move however is that Black's
b5-pawn becomes a liability
and its defence overburdens his
forces.
a1) 15
a2) 15
lLle7.
a1) 15
.ie6
Chapter 1 0
the endgame, but still he has the
advantage, because his pieces are
evidently much more active.
16JNe2 !
In case of 16.ttJcb4 ttJxb4 17.
ttJxb4, White can transpose to
variation a2), but the move in
the text is better, because he
wins a pawn and Black has prob
lems proving any compensation
for it.
16
.txd5
..
19.1xb5
a2) 15 . . . e7
This is a logical decision,
Black fights for the important d5square.
16 . . . xd5
Black defensive task is much
more difficult after his other pos
sibilities :
16 . . . id7, Gauche - Bielefeldt,
Florianopolis 199B, This looks
like a loss of time in connection
with the fight for the d5-square
and White's most natural reac
tion seems to be 17. 0-0 xd5
IB.xd5 ic6 19.b3 d7 2 0Ja5
b7 2 1.a3 d7 2 2 . b4t, Black
is doomed to a difficult defence,
because of his weaknesses on b5
and d6;
16 ... ib7 - Black's bishop
will be very active here in case
he manages to push f7-f5, but it
would be rather easy for White
to exchange it on that diagonal.
17.xe7+ 'iNxe7 1B .0-0 f5 (It is
obvious worse fqr Black to play
the passive line: 1B . . . iaB 19.e2
g6 20Ja5 f5, Pavlik - Skaric, Su
botica 2 0 04, and here after 21.exf5
gxf5 2 2 .ixb5, or 2 1. . . e4 2 2 .hb5
l3xf5 23.l3fa1 ib7 24.ic4+ @hB
25.l3xf5 gxf5 26.id5 White re
mains with a solid extra pawn.
The move 1B . . . 'iNdB does not re131
Chapter 1 0
duce Black's difficulties, connect
ed with the protection of his b5pawn. 19.e2 m6 20Jfd1 !e7,
Reschun - Biedekoepper, St. Veit
1995, and now after 21.hb5 he4
2 2 .xe4 xb5 23.tLlc6 13b7 24.c4
b6 25.b4 White dominates in
the centre and on the queenside.)
19.exf5 e4 2 0.hb5 e3 21.!c4+
@h8 22.fxe3 Black's piece-ac
tivity does not compensate fully
his opponent's extra pawn and
after 2 2 . . . he3+ 23.@h1 e4 24.
1d5 White simplifies the posi
tion advantageously, Bindrich
- Arnhold, Leutersdorf 2000.
Things are hardly any better for
Black after the more active line:
22 ... xe3+ 23.@h1 hg2 + (In
the variation: 23 ... e4 24.e2
13xf5 25. xe4 he4 26.13xf5 hiS
27.tLlc6 Black has nothing to
counter his opponent's passed
pawns with.) 24.@xg2 e4+ 25.
f3 xc4 26. 13ael White's king
shelter does not look so safe in
deed, but Black can hardly exploit
that in any way, while he remains
a pawn down.
17.tLlxd5 .te6
17 .. .f5? ! - This move seems
active only at first sight. In fact, it
weakens a complex of squares in
the centre. After 18.exf5 e4 19.!c2 !
his 2 0 . 0- 0 d7 21.d4 Black
has problems with the protection
of his second rank, as well with
his vulnerable pawns on e4, d6
and b5, Stepanovic - Zacik, Slo
vakia 2 0 03.
18.tLlb4
132
18
d7
19. 0 - 0
White has the initiative, since he
can easily attack his opponent's
weak d6 and b5-pawns, while
Black has problems creating
counterplay. The following varia
tions prove how difficult Black's
position is:
24 . . .f5 25.exf5 gxfS 26.ixb5
xb5? 2 7.xb5 Eixb5 2 S.EiaS+133
Chapter 1 0
19
g6
2 0 .ti'e2 Uc8
Otherwise, Black can hardly
protect his b5-pawn :
20 . . . h5? ! 21.aS if4 2 2 .ixbS
Antognini - Lehmann, Winter
thur 2003;
2 0 . . .f5 - That move only cre
ates additional weaknesses. 21.
a6 ! @h8, Fabrega - Rodriguez,
Buenos Aires 1995, and here
after 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 2 2 . lLlc6 b7
23.ixb5 White not only wins
a pawn, but he creates powerful
pressure against his opponent's
central pawns.
b) 13
bxa4
14.gxa4
Chapter 1 0
on the queenside, moreover that 1S . . .ie7 16.l::i c4 ib7 17.exfS l::ixfS
Black's bishop on h6 can be hardly 1B.id3 l::ifl 19.1Llce3 - White's
transferred to a better placement pieces control the centre and
anytime soon, Ramus - Blanken they are tremendously active.),
berg, Internet 2001.) 20J'k7 'iNb3 and here White would control
(After 20 . . . 'iNbB 21.lLle7+ whB 2 2 . completely the light squares in
kB 'iNb6, Pott - Novoa, Internet the centre after the natural line:
2 0 04, White can play 23.lLlfS, 16.exfS .txis (It is not better for
winning a pawn and preserving Black to try 16 . . . l::ib B 17.b4 .txis
all his positional pluses.) 21.lLlcb4 1B.l::ixa6 l::i cB 19.lLlce3, or 17. . . lLle7
lLle6 2 2 J!:c 6 'iNxd1 23.l::ixd1 lLlcS 1B.g4 ib7 19.ig2 and White re
24.f3 l::i d B 2S.lLle7+ wfB 26.lLlfS mains with a solid extra pawn
id2 27.lLldS lLlb7 2B.l::i c7. The in both variations.) 17.g4 hc2
sequence of almost forced moves (The active move 17 . . . ie6 loses a
has led to a position in which the piece after 1B.gS lLld4 19.ig2 id7
difference in the activity of pieces 20.l::i a 2+-) 1B.'iNxc2 J.f4 19.id3
is obvious even to the naked eye. h6 2 0.ie4 - Black's pawns on
White's knight on dS controls the a6 and d6 are weak and his pieces
entire board and Black's attempt are passive and lack coordination.
to repel it from the centre would Meanwhile, he must take into ac
lead to considerable material count the possibility of the pawn
losses for him: 2B . . . g6 29.l::ixd2 break g4-gS, after which White
l::ib 1+ (After 29 . . . l::ixd2 30.lLlh6, will obtain excellent attacking
Black is forced to give back the chances.
exchange, because of the check
14 . . . lLlbB - Black plans to
mating threat: 30 . . . l::ixdS 31.exdS organize some counterplay by
lLlc5 32.l::ixf7+ WeB 33.l::ixh7+ transferring his knight to the cS
and White remains with a couple square. 1s.ic4 lLld7 16.'iNe2 lLlcS
of extra pawns in the endgame.) 17.l::i a3 ib7 1B.0-0 as 19.1::ifa1 a4
30.wh2 gxfS 31.lLlb4+- and Black - All that seems quite reason
loses at least a pawn and he will able, because Black fixes his op
be forced to defend passively, ponent's weak pawn on b2, but he
because of the unsafe placement gives up the control over the im
of his king, Read - Saarenpaeae, portant b4-square. (In answer to
corr. 1999.
19 . . . g6, Simonovic - Ning Chun
14 . . .fS? ! - This premature ac hong, Beijing 1997, it is possible
tivity leads to the occupation of for White to continue with 2 0 .b4
the central light squares by White axb4 21.l::ixaB haB 2 2 . cxb4 lLle6
and excellent attacking chances 23.g3;!; and the position is very
for him. 1S.h4 ! ih6, Huisman - unpleasant for Black, because
Delisle, Aix les Bains 2006 (After his pieces are very passive and
136
bt) t4
tLJe7 t5.c4
t5
tLJxd5
Chapter 1 0
of them is extra, but even in the
variation: 20 . . . tLlf4 2 UNb5 e4
22.tLld4, or 21.. .VNf6 2 2 .g3 tLlg6
23.VNd7 Black has no compen
sation for the pawn at all. White
must play very precisely, though.
16.,hd5 Ad7
That seems to be the most te
nacious defence for Black.
White's advantage is quite
evident in the variation: 16 .. J !a7
17.0-0 h8 18.VNe2 f5 19.tLlb4,
because he can capture the a6pawn at any moment and Black
has no counterplay in sight,
Pereira - Cadillon, Evora 2006.
16 . . J3b8 - It looks at first sight
that Black might obtain some
counterplay along the b-file after
that move, but following 17.tLlb4
VNb6 18.0-0 a5 19.tLlc6 Ad7 2 0 .
tLlxb8 ha4 21.'iNxa4 gxb8, Chatte
- Huisman, Romans 1999, White
can seize the initiative on the light
squares with the line: 22 .b4 axb4
23.gb1t. Here, the move 23 . . . g6? !
leads to a loss of a pawn for Black:
24.gxb4 'iNc7 25.ht7+ ! g7 26.
gxb8 'iNxb8 27.Ab3, while in case
of 23 . . . gd8 24.gxb4 VNc7 25.gb7
VNxc3 26.g3 h8 27.gxt7, despite
the considerable simplifications,
Black's defence will be long and
difficult.
17.a2 ga7
In answer to 17 . . . gb8, Back
lund - Zitin, Zagan 1995, White
can continue with the rather un
pleasant line for Black: 18.h4 if4
19.tLlb4 a5 20.tLlc6 ixc6 2 1.ixc6
'iNb6 2 2.id5;!; - and White controls
138
gfa8
25.ga4
id8
26.gdl
b2) 14
h8
1S .ic4
1S
tOe7
16. 0 - 0 f5
About 16 . . . ib7 17.ltlxe7 - see
14 . . .ib7 15.ic4 ltle7 16.0-0 h8
17.ltlxe7.
In answer to 16 . . . ltlg6, Betko
- Chmelik, Ruzomberok 1996, it
looks very aggressive for White
to continue with 17.ltlce3 a5
18.ltlf5
17.tOxe7 %Yxe7
The other capture is not better
for Black after 17 . . . .b:e7 18.ltle3
fxe4 19.id5 gb8 2 0 . .b:e4 White
has a total control over the light
squares in the centre and if Black
captures the pawn, he would come
139
Chapter 1 0
under a dangerous attack: 2 0 . . .
l:!xb2? 2 1.'i;h5 h 6 2 2 .'i;g6 The
light squares in Black's camp are
so weak that he can hardly sur
vive the attack. 22 . . . 'it>g8 23.Vh7+
'it>f7 24.id5+ 'it>e8 25.'i;g6+ 'it>d7
26.e6+ 'it>c7 27.l:!c4+-
15 .lc4
15 . . . a5
b3) 14 . . . ib7
and now:
16 . . . @hB (about 16 . . . aS - see
Chapter 1 0
K.Simonian - P.Lovkov, Rybinsk opponent's pawn structure on the
1997, as well as in the variation: kingside, for example 23 . . . xh6
1B . . . a5 19.tLJa3 ie7 20.tLJc4 fic7 (After 23 . . . gxh6 24.l3h4 l3gB 25.g3
2 U3fa1 +- Black's position was l3g7 26 .f3 Black loses a pawn.)
totally compromised and he was 24.fixh6 gxh6 25.l3b4 l3abB (It is
a pawn down, Nokso Koivisto hardly better for Black to try 25 . . .
l3f7 26.l3b6 l3gB 27.g3) 26.l3a1
- Eriksson, Turku 1996.
15 ... hB - That move is neces g7 27.f3 - Black has problems
sary if Black wishes to prepare f7- protecting his queenside weaknes
f5 and to try to seize the initiative ses and his doubled h-pawns are an
on the kingside. 16.0-0 f5 (The evident liability in his position.
move 16 . . . g6, Bartholomew 16.ia2 ic6
That is the most logical line for
Rhee, Las Vegas 2004, seems less
aggressive, but more solid than Black.
16 .. .f5, nevertheless Black might
In answer to 16 . . . l3cB, it is
have problems with the protection simplest for White to transpose
of his a6-pawn, for example after to the main line with 17.h4 ih6
17.b4 tLJe7 1B.d3 tLJxd5 19.hd5 1B.tLJce3 ic6 19.l3a3 he3 2 0 .tLJxe3
.hd5 20.xd5;l; White manages ib5 (Naturally, it is very bad for
to simplify the position and he Black to try 20 . . . ixe4? 2 1.fia4+-)
can easily activate his knight, 21.tLJf5.
while Black's bishop is not so use
16 ... hB - After that solid
ful, because he must take care of move, the idea to maneuver the
the protection of his weak a6 and knight to the edge of the board
d6-pawns. 16 . . . tLJa5 - after that looks senseless. 17.b4 tLJc6 1B.0-0
try, Black's previous move looks tLJe7, Brandl - Gindl, Poland 1991,
like a loss of a tempo. 17.ia2 ic6 and here after 19.tLJce3 ic6 20.l3a5
1B.l3a3 tLJb7 19.ic4 as 2 0 .b4 The ib5 21.c4 ic6 2 2 .d3 g6 23.l3dU
main drawback of Black's position White consolidates his position
is his knight on b7, which has no in the centre and he prepares to
moves whatsoever, Kukk - Tsvet break through on the queenside
kov, corr. 2 003.) 17.exfS l3xf5 (In with b4-b5, or c4-c5.
answer to 17 . . . tLJe7 1B.tLJxe7 fixe7,
Lipcak - Munk, Slovakia 2002,
White can preserve his extra pawn
with the line: 19.ie6 ic6 20.l3g4
as 21.lDe3) 1B.id3 l3fB 19.fih5
ih6 2 0 .tLJce3 tLJe7 21.lDxe7 fixe7,
Boeykens - Fletcher, Chalkidiki
2002, and here after 22.tLJf5 f6
23.tLJxh6 White compromises his
142
17 . . . ib5
Chapter 1 0
Todorovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1990,
and here after 2 6.h5 'lWg5 27.hxg6
1Wxg6 28.b4+- White has a de
cisive advantage, because of his
extra pawn and his powerful
knight.
19 . . . tLlb7 2 0.tLlf5 ge8 (In an
swer to 20 . . . tLlc5, Zontakh - Pisk,
Sala 1995, White can pose great
problems for Black with the move
21.c4, for example after 21.. . .td7
22.tLlxh6 + gxh6 23.'lWh5 tLlxe4
24.J.bl+- Black is under the
threat of a terrible attack and he
loses unavoidably several pawns.)
21.tLlxh6+ gxh6 2 2 .b4 .!d7 23.
'lWd2 +- - Black's pieces are pas
sive and his king is vulnerable,
Edwards - Blumetti, USA 1989.
2 0 .tLlxe3 gc8
White obtains a great advan
tage much quicklier after Black's
other moves.
In answer to 20 . . . ga7, Rechel
- Beshukov, Anapa 1991, it looks
very good for White to continue
with 2 1.b4 tLlb7 22.id5
20 . . . 'lWc7 - Black thus loses a
couple of tempi, but he deflects
his opponent's knight away from
the fS-square. 21.tLld5 'lWd8,
Quadri - Gallet, Email 2 0 01, and
here after 2 2 .h5 tLlc4 23.ixc4
ixc4 24.tLle3 ie6 25.h6 g6 26.
0-0 'lWgS 27.b4 'lWxh6 28.'lWxd6
'lWf4 29.'lWd3 White's queenside
pawns are tremendously danger
ous.
After 20 . . . tLlb7 21.id5 no
matter what Black's does, his po
sition remains terrible:
144
21.h5 !
The move 2 1.liJf5 has been
played much more often, but it
leads practically by force to a very
sharp endgame in which Black
manages to build an impenetra
ble fortress after precise play. 21...
liJc4 (21. . . liJb7 - This move leads
to a difficult endgame for Black.
22.'g4 f6 23.g5 l::! c7 24.xf6
gxf6 25.b4 Black's defence is
very difficult, because of his bad
knight and disrupted pawn-struc
ture. 25 . . . a5 26.bxa5 l::! a8 27.l::!h3
.!c4, Lanka - Krasenkow, Moscow
1989, and here the fastest road
for White to victory is 28.hc4
l::! xc4 29.a6 l::!xe4+ 30.l::! e 3 l::!xe3+
3 1.fxe3 liJd8 32.liJxd6+-) 2 2 .hc4
l::!xc4 23.liJxd6 (White maintains a
slight positional advantage after
23.f3 l::! c 6 24.d2;j; - despite all,
Black should succeed in equal
izing with accurate defence) 23 . . .
l::! d4 24.cxd4 xd6 25.f3 exd4
26. <M2 d3 27.'d2 Y;Yd4+ 28. i>g3
Chapter 1 0
a5 ! 35J'k1 a4! 36.Ei:e1 Ei:cB ! 37.Ei:c1
Ei:eB = . This variation is based on
the motive that Black's pawn ad
vances effortlessly from a6 to a4,
but White's play can be improved.
34.Ei:b3 ! - White does not allow
his opponent's pawn to come to
the a5-square and he is threaten
ing to give back the exchange gob
bling Black's passed pawn in the
process. 34 . . . Ei:cB - In case Black
ignores his opponent's threats,
for example after 34 . . . h6, then
after 35.Ei:b4 WfcS 36.Ei:xb5 !?, or
'Wxb5 37.Ei:xeB+ 'WxeB 3B.'Wxd3
White ends up with an extra pawn
in a queen and pawn ending and
he has excellent chances of ma
terializing it. Following 36 ... axb5
37.'Wxd3 b4 3B.f4, there are still
rooks left on the board, but Black
must fight long and hard for the
draw.
After 35.Ei:c3 Ei:eB 36.Ei:c1 a5 !
37.b3 h5! Black has failed to place
his pawn on a4 indeed, but White
has no real chances of breaking
that "fortress".
22.g4!
21 h6
...
22 ... d7
The move 22 . . . tLlc4 leads to
a difficult endgame for Black,
because of the vulnerability of
his pawns on a6, d6 and g7.
23.ixc4 ixc4 24.tLlf5 Vfff6 25.h4
xh4 26.Ei:xh4 Ei:bB (It is a di
saster for Black to try 26 . . . r;t>h7?
27.tLlxd6+-) 27.b4 Ei:b6 2B.Ei:g4
r;t>h8 29.Ei:xg7 e6 30.Ei:g3 White
has an extra pawn and he has
23.n4 Yfl>6
Black's defence is harder in
the endgame after 23 . . . V;Yxh4
24J3xh4 lDc6 2S.,idS lDb8 (It is
even worse for Black to opt for
2S . . Jb8 26J3xa6 l3fc8 27.h4+-)
26.l3h1 l3c7 27.@d2 !c8 28.!c4
l3d8 2 9.b4, because he cannot
create any counterplay, since his
pieces are tied up with the protec
tion of the pawns on a6 and d6.
147
Conclusion
In this chapter we have started analyzing the main lines of the
Chelyabinsk variation - 11 . . . 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 !gS 13.a4. Here, Black has
two possibilities, if he is reluctant to remain a pawn down - a) 13 . . .
'g b 8 and b) 1 3. . . bxa4.
In variation a, after 13 . . . 'gb8 14.axbS axbS 1S. !d3, there arises a
position, in which Black's weakness on bS is hurting. He has played
most of a1l 1S. . . ie6, but after 16. Yff e2!, White wins that pawn immedi
ately. Black can hardly prove any compensation for it. It is stronger
for him to play 1S .. . tiJe7, with the idea to facilitate his defence with
exchanges. Still, it is diffi.cultfor Black to activate his forces then, be
cause they are burdened with the protection of the bS-pawn and that
is well illustrated by the variations in the chapter.
Naturally, it is stronger for Black to capture 13 . . . bxa4. After
14. 'gxa4, he has numerous possibilities and the most popular line for
him is 14 . . . aS, which will be dealt with in the next chapters. Here, we
analyze Black's all other alternatives.
In answer to 14 . . . 'fl.b8 and 14 .. .j5, it is very good for White to play
1S.h4! in order to repel Black's bishop to a unfavourable position.
White obtains a great advantage in both cases by simple means. Black
tries sometimes the move 14 . . . liJ b8 too, but the maneuver of the knight
to the c5-square is too slow.
In variation b1, Black tries to facilitate his defence by simplifying,
but White then controls the light squares in the centre and he has pow
erful pressure against the a and d-pawns.
In variation b2, Black plays 14 . . . mh8, planning to open thef-file in
order to organize counterplay on the kingside. That leads to the occu
pation by White of the important central squares e4 and dS.
In variation b3, Black manages after 14 . . . ib7 1S. ic4 liJaS 16. ia2
!c6 17. 'ga3 ibS, to activate his light pieces and thatforces White to
act with maximum precision. In the main line, it is essentialfor him to
avoid the popular variation, in which he wins the exchange, because
there Black's chances of making a draw are considerable. Therefore,
the novelty of the Greek grandmaster V.Kotronias looks very attrac
tive - 21.h5!, and that move enables White to avoid the sharp varia
tions, creating pressure against Black's weak pawns in a rather calm
situation.
148
Chapter 11
b) 15
.te6, c) 15
'itJh8.
Chapter 11
White : lS . . . ia6 16.ixa6 xa6 17.
O-o Patrascu - Voin, Bucharest
2000.
In the game Yudkovsky - Al
cazar, Tallinn 1997, Black tried
to bring his knight to d7 and he
played lS . . . ltJbB, but that was
hardly the best way to accomplish
that plan. White could have em
phasized that with the line: 16.h4! ?
ih6 (The pawn is of course un
touchable: 16 . . . ixh4? 17.YNhS+-)
17.ltJce3. White is clearly better
after 17 . . . ltJd7 1B.ltJfS, or 17 . . . ltJa6
1B.ixa6 ! xa6 19.1tJg4, and Black
is in trouble even after the extrav
agant line: 19 . . . ic1 ! ? 20.ltJgf6+
gxf6 21.V;Yxc1 ie6 2 2 .V;Yh6 hdS
23.exdS fS 24.0-0. His relatively
best defence is 17. . . ixe3, but after
1B.ltJxe3 ltJa6 19.b4 axb4 20.cxb4;!;
White maintains a stable edge.
a) 15
J.b7
16. 0 - 0 tOb8
16 . . . cB?! - That is a dubious
move, because the weakness of the
as-pawn becomes critical. 17.V;Yd3
YNeB 18.fal Ferret - Hossa, In
ternet 199B.
In case of 16 ... 'it>hB 17.YNd3
(about 17.ltJce3 - see lS . . . 'it>hB)
17. . . g6 1B. ltJce3 White maintains
the advantage, Holm - Andersen,
Gladsaxe 1993.
Black has tried sometimes 16 . . .
ltJe7, but h e should hardly strive to
exchange light pieces in the cen
tre, because at the end he might
end up with a weak dark-squared
bishop against White's dominant
knight on dS. After 17.V;Yd3, there
might follow:
17. . . 'it>hB 1B.ltJce3 - see 15 . . .
'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7
1B.YNd3 ;
17. . . ltJxdS 1B.ixdS YNb6 19.b4
ixdS (The move 19 . . . ic6 loses a
pawn for Black: 2 0 .xaS Paehtz
- Drobka, Germany 2 0 0 2 .) 2 0 .
YNxdS acB (It i s not better for
Black to try 2 0 . . . fcB 21.c4 a7
22.fal Martincevic - Friedrich,
Wuerzburg 19B7.) 2 1.bxaS V;Yb2
(If 21.. .V;Yc6, then 2 2 .YNxc6 xc6
23.ltJb4 xc3 24.ltJdS Voicu Aydin, Marina d'Or 199B.) 2 2 .a2
YNxc3 23.a6 Shahade - Krapivin,
Budapest 2003.
Or 17 ... ic6 1BJa2 ltJxdS
(About 1B . . . 'it>hB 19.1tJce3 - see
lS . . . 'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7
1B.V;Yd3 ic6 19.a2 ; after lB . . .
YNbB 19.1tJxe7+ he7 2 0 .ltJe3, i t is
bad for Black to opt for 20 . . . dB?
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.gS 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 aS lS. i.c4
in view of 21.hf7! +- Mueller Apostu, Aschach 2 004, but even
after 2 0 . . . g6 21.i.dS Black's posi
tion remains very difficult. In case
of 18 . . . 'Sb8, it is good for White to
play 19.1Llxe7+ followed by 19 . . .
V!1xe7 2 0.b3, o r 1 9 . . . he7 2 0.b3
Svoboda - Tamaskovic, Slovakia
2000.) 19.hdS vgb6 (or 19 . . :c7
2 0 .'Sfa1 'Sab8 21.V!1c4 Braghetta
- Panizzi, Piacenza 2005) - and
in that situation, which happened
in the game Schussler - Kouatly,
Groningen 1977, White had to
emphasize his advantage with
20.lLla3 with the idea 21.lLlc4.
19.9xa8 ha8
Or 19 . . . vgxa8 20.cxb4 'Sc8
21.'Sa1 V!1b8 2 2 .bS cS 23.vge2
e6 24.cb4 Korsunsky - Ar
bakov, USSR 1978.
2 0 .cxb4 g6
In case of 2 0 . . . b6 21.xb6
vgxb6 22.'Sa1, White's advantage
becomes even greater, for ex
ample: 22 . . . vgc7 23.g3 g6 24.h4
i.d2 2S.bS iaS 26.e3 Dervishi
- Cacco, Padova 1999; 22 . . . ,ib7
23.g3 g6 24.h4 ,ih6 2S.,idS Der
vishi - Cacco, Padova 2000.
21.'Sdl g7
In the game Penna - Sender,
Internet 1998, Black tried 21 . . .
vgb8 2 2 .V!1g3 ,id8 23.lLlce3;!;, but
White was again better.
17.b4!
White creates a passed pawn
and he restricts the mobility of his
opponent's knight, depriving it of
the cS-square.
17
d7 18.ti'd3 axb4
lSI
Chapter 11
b) 15
.ie6
16. 0 - 0
18.&iJxe7! he7
If 18 . . . xe7, then 19 . .he6 fxe6
(It would not work for Black to play
19 . . . he3?, because of the inter
mediate move 20 ..id5+- and White
wins the exchange.) 20.&iJc4
The move 18 . . . he3, can be
neutralized by the precise reply
19.!d5 ! hd5 (otherwise White's
11.c3 0 - 0 12. 0,c2 !g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. "i!.xa4 a5 15. ic4
knight will go to c6 with tempo)
20.0,xd5 and White has a clear
advantage.
19.ti'e2;!;
b2) 16
. .
e7 17.ce3
lS.b3 .be3
17 . . . "i!.bS
About 17 . . . @h8 18.0,xe7! - see
16 . . . @h8.
Chapter 11
Black's pieces are discoordinated,
than White's ugly doubled central
pawns.) 2 0 .ttJfxe7+ he7 2 1.VUd3t
- White has a long-lasting initia
tive thanks to his active pieces and
the vulnerability of Black's pawns
on a5 and d6.
In answer to 1B . . . ttJcB, it de
serves attention for White to con
tinue with the aggressive move
19.VUa1 ! ? It is then bad for Black
to try 19 . . . ttJb6 20.l3xa5 ttJxc4
2 1.bxc4 l3aB 22.l3a3 bB 23.ttJf5
and White remains with an extra
pawn exerting strong pressure
against the d6-pawn, or 22 . . . he3
23.ttJxe3 l3cB 24.l3a4 VUc7 25.a3
and White's extra pawn is weak,
but Black's d6-pawn looks no
less vulnerable. 19 . . . he3 (That
exchange would not save the a5pawn for Black.) 20.ttJxe3 ttJb6
(After 20 . . .hc4 21.bxc4 ttJb6 - or
21.. .l3aB 2 2 .VUa3 Klundt - Ben
ko, Germany 1992 - 22.l3xa5 l3cB
23.c5 l3xc5 24.l3xc5 dxc5 25.a7
Black could have restored the ma
terial balance indeed, but White's
pieces would be much more ac
tive and that would provide him
with a clear advantage.) 21.l3xa5
ttJxc4 2 2 .bxc4 VUc7 23.l3a4 l3fcB
24.VUd1 ! ;!; (White transfers his
queen to the d3-square and from
there it will not only attack the
weakness on d6, but it will protect
his own pawns as well.) 24 . . . l3aB
25.l3b4 l3a2 (It would be a loss
of time for Black to play 25 . . . l3a3
26.VUd3 g6 27.l3fb1 l3a2 2B.h4
- he does not have any active plan
154
19.ttJxe3
19 .. :ifb6
Black has also tried here 19 . . .
id7 20.l3a2 ic6 2 1.VUd3 VUc7
22.l3fa1 l3aB 23.b4 axb4 24 ..bf7+ .
Now, he loses if he captures the
bishop 24 . . . wxf7 25.c4+ wg6
(Black should better defend with
25 . . . d5 26.exd5 l3xa2 27.dxc6+
wf6 2B.l3xa2 bxc3 29.ttJg4+ wf5
30.l3e2+-, but he would hardly
save the game in that line any
way.) 26.l3xaB ttJcB 27.e6+ 1-0
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4
Szarvas - Csorbai, Hungary 2001,
therefore Black must follow with
24 . . .'h8 25.cxb4 'Sab8 26.VNc4
Y;Vb6 2 7.i.e6 Y;Vxb4 28.Y;Vxb4 'Sxb4
29.f3 'Stb8, Muneret - Maia,
Email 2000, but after 30.'Sa7 he
has problems defending against
the threats along the seventh rank
as well as holding on to the d5pawn.
22 .i.xe6 b4 23 .bf7+
gxf7 24.cxb4 ti'xe4 25. Y;Vxd6
c) 15".mh8
Black retreats his king away
from the a2-g8 diagonal in ad
vance and he plans to continue
with the move f7-f5 at some mo
ment.
16.ljJce3
16" .i.xe3
Here, there are numerous pos
sibilities to transpose to other
variations : 16 . . . 'Sb8 17.b3 - see
15 . . . 'Sb8 ; 16 . . . id7 17. 0-0 - see
15 . . .i.d7; 16 . . . ie6 17. 0-0 - see
15 . . . i.e6.
After 16 ... liJe7 17. 0-0, we
reach again positions, which are
analyzed elsewhere:
17. . . ib7
18.Y;Vd3 - see 16 . . . ib7; 17 . . . ie6
18.liJxe7 - see variation bl; 17 . . .
id7 18.'Sa2 - see variation b from
Chapter 12.
16 . . . ib7 17. 0-0 liJe7 18.VNd3
i.c6 (It is clearly worse for Black
to opt for 18 . . . liJg6 19.93 'Sb8,
Gleichmann - V.Kaufmann, corr.
1990, because here after 2 0 .liJf5
ic6 21J!a2 White's pieces are
tremendously active in the centre,
while Black has his weaknesses on
as and d6 to worry about.) 19.'Sa2
ixe3 20.liJxe3 - see 16 ... ixe3.
It is just terrible for Black to
play 16 .. .f5? ! 17.liJxf5 hfS 18.exf5
'Sxf5, because of the counter
measure 19.h4 ! ixh4 (In case
of 19 . . . ih6 20.g4 'Sf8 21.g5+
Black loses a piece and if 19 . . .
ie7, then White plays 2 0 .id3
'Sf7 21.VNh5 VNg8 2 2 .ig6 iUf8
155
Chapter 11
23Jk4+-, and Black is helpless.
It is not any better for him to try
20 . . . e4 2 1.ixe4 l3e5 22.f4 l3e6
23. Wfg4+-, because White ends
up with a solid extra pawn and
he soon won in the game Duigou
- Flores, Email 1998.) 2 0.g3 !g5
(Black has no compensation for
the piece after the desperate line
20 . . . !xg3 21.fxg3 e4 2 2 .Wfg4+-,
Abdelmoumen - Karsdorp, Email
2 0 0 2 .) 21.l3xh7+ ! xh7 2 Vh5+
!h6 (or 2 2 . . . g8 23.lLlf6+ f8
24.Wff7#) 23.Wfxf5+ g6 (or 23 . . .
h8 24.id3 +-) 24.Wff7+ !g7 25.
!b5+-, and White wins.
In the game Bednarich Blagojevic, Nova Gorica 1997,
Black prepared and pushed f7-f5
with the help of the line 16 . . . g6
17. 0-0 f5 (about 17 . . . id7 18.g3
- see variation b from Chapter
12). We can recommend here
for White the move 18.d3 ! ?;\;,
fortifying the central pawn. It is
quite probable that the game may
transpose after that to some other
familiar variation (for example af
ter 18 . . . l3b8 19.b3 - see variation
b2a from Chapter 13).
19.exfS xfS
17.lLlxe3 e7
About 17 . . . l3b8 18.b3 - see 15 . . .
b8 .
IS. 0 - 0
2 0 .b4!
(diagram)
IS
f5
This is an improvement in
comparison to the game Tivi
akov - van Der Wiel, Netherlands
2000.
20
xe3
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have analyzed some lines, which are not so of
ten played by Black: a) 15. . . !b7, b) 15. . . !e6 and c) 15. . . h8. The more
recent andfashionable move 15... !d7 is dealt with in the next chapter,
while the move, which has long acquired the reputation to be the main
line - 15. . . '8 b8 is analyzed in Chapter 13.
Either the alternatives for Black transpose to other variations, or
they enable White to obtain a considerable advantage almost effort
lessly.
In variation a, White manages to create a passed pawn on the
queenside and he controls the centre too. Black has practically no real
counterplay and that provides White with long-term positional pres
sure in the centre and on the queenside.
Black's position is much more solid in variation b, but there the
vulnerability ofhis pawns on as and d6 is hurting him, while organiz
ing any effective counterplay is nearly impossible.
In variation c, Black is trying to accomplish the thematic pawn
advance j7-fS, and he plays 15. . . h8 in order to prepare it. Still, that
move does not help him obtain sufficient counter chances, because the
position is simplified considerably and his weaknesses on as and d6
become even greater liability.
157
Chapter 12
2) 16. 0 - 0 .
1) 16.ga2
16.tLlce3! ?
I believe this move provides
White with maximal chances of
obtaining an edge in the opening.
In order for you to understand
better the advantages of that
move, we will show you how Black
158
16
a4!
17. 0 - 0
Black's task to obtain coun
ter chances becomes easier after
White's other possibilities.
1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. lixa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
After the indifferent reaction:
17.VNd3 lLlaS 18.ibS? ! Black becomes even better after 18 . . . lLlb3 !
(with the terrible threats 19 . . . lLlc1
and 19 . . . id2 +) 19.0-0 (If White
defends against the fork with
19.1ia3, then he loses his b2-pawn
- 19 . . . lLlcS 2 0.VNc4 ixbS 21.'iNxbS
lib8+) 19 . . . lLlc1 ! + and Black wins
the exchange.
After 17.ibS, Black can im
mediately exploit the defenseless
ness of White's bishop and his
rook on a2 with the line: 17. . . lLlb4 !
18.lLldxb4 (The other possibili
ties are not any better for White:
18.cxb4 ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.lLlce3
ixe3 21.lLlxe3 lic8+, or 18.lLlcxb4
ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.g4 if4 21.lLlxf4
exf4 2 2 .VNf3 lie8 23.'iNxf4? dS+ and after the opening of the game
in the centre White risks end
ing in a disastrous position very
quickly.) 18 . . . ixbS 19.lLla3, Djukic
- Calistri, Cannes 20 07, and here
it is essential for Black to preserve
his light-squared bishop on the
board - 19 . . . id7! (In the game
after 19 . . . VNb6? 20.lLlxbS 'iNxbS
21.VNdS ! VNxdS 22.lLlxdS there
arose a standard endgame, quite
favourable for White, because of
his almighty knight on dS against
Black's "bad" dark-squared bish
op.) 2 0.VNxd6 (If White does not
accept the pawn-sacrifice, then
after 2 0 . 0-0 ie6 2 1.lia1 'iNb6
2 2.'iNd3 WfcS+ Black remains with
a bishop-pair in a superior posi
tion.) 20 . . . ie6 21.'iNxd8 liaxd8
2 2 .lia1 lid2 23.h4 if4 24.lLldS
17 lLla5
18 . .id3
After 18.ie2, White's e4-pawn
remains defenseless and Black
can exploit that outright with
the line: 18 . . . lLlb3 19.1Llce3 lLlcS
2 0.'iNc2 ic6 ! 21.ic4 ixe3 ! 2 2 .fxe3
(White is forced to comply with
that ugly capture; otherwise he
loses his central pawn.) 22 . . . h8+
- White has held on to the dS
square indeed, but his pawn
structure has been compromised
considerably, so that provides
Black with the advantage.
In case of 18 .lLlce3, Black fol
lows with 18 . . . ixe3 19.lLlxe3 lLlxc4
20.lLlxc4 W!b8 ! Now, White loses
after 21.lLlxeS? ie6-+, as well as
after 21.lLlxd6? lid8 2 2 .b4 ie6
23.lid2 ib3 ! -+ , or 21.Wfxd6?
ie6-+ . Therefore, he is forced to
simplify the game with the varia
tion: 21.lt:\e3 ie6 22.lixa4 Wfxb2
23.lixa8 lixa8 24.Wfxd6 Wfxc3=
with a complete equality.
18 . . . b3 19.cb4
If 19.1Llce3, then 19 . . . lLlc5 2 0 .
1S9
Chapter 12
Ac2 , Samuelson - Shabalov, Wa
shington 2006, and here Black's
simplest line is 2 0 . . . Ac6 ! ? (He is
threatening to capture 2 1 . ..he3
and White cannot take with his
knight, because of the vulnerabil
ity of his e4-pawn). After 21.VNf3
he3 2 2,ll) xe3 g6 23J'd1 f5?
Black begins active actions first.
2) 16. 0 - 0
That line creates more prob
lems for Black, but at the same
time, it presents him with numer
ous possibilities. It is amazing, but
even Teimour Radjabov has tried
different lines for Black here.
19 . . . c5
The arising position resem
bles very much the game Anand
- Radjabov, Monaco 2007, which
we will analyze a bit later (see the
variation 16.0-0 lLId4). The only
difference is that Black's knight
has come to the c5-square via a5,
winning an important tempo at
tacking his opponent's bishop on
c4. Now, it must retreat and Black
obtains an excellent game because
of that.
16 ... e7
That is the most logical reac
tion for Black, but it is by far not
his only one. We must analyze at
first his possible knight-moves :
16 . . . lLIb4 ! ? (Black takes the
a2-square from White's rook and
he opts for tactical play.) 17.ga3
(That is a quite natural move in
deed, but it deserves attention for
White to try here the typical po
sitional sacrifice for that scheme:
17.lLIcxb4 ! ? ha4 18.VNxa4 axb4
19.VNxb4 - and White has a pawn
for the exchange and an almighty
knight on the d5-outpost, as well
as a potentially dangerous passed
pawn along the b-file.) 17. . . lLIxd5
(In case Black refrains from the
immediate capturing on d5 in
favour of the intermediate move
17. . . l3c8? ! , he risks a lot, because
of the line: 18.cxb4 ! Here, in
case of 18 . . . l3xc4? ! White coun-
1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . ttJ c2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. Ac4 Ad?
ters with 19.bxa5 '8xe4 2 0 .a6 '8a4
21.'8xa4 ha4 2 2 .Wfe2 - and it
would be very difficult for Black to
fight against the powerful passed
a-pawn, while in case of 18. . .
axb4, then 19.'8a6 '8xc4 20.'8xd6
and White has the unpleasant
threats 21.'8xd7 and 21.ttJb6. In
the game Volokitin - Radjabov,
Biel 2 0 06, there followed 20 . . . b3
21.ttJce3 '8d4, and here instead
of 2 2 .xb3 Wfc8 ! 23.c2 Ae6 24.
'8c6 Wfb8 25.'8b1 ixe3 ! 26.ttJxe3
'8fd8? with sufficient counterplay for Black, it is much more
interesting for White to continue
with 22.Wff3 ! ? - he protects his
e4-pawn with that move and he
threatens 23.ttJf5, forcing his opponent to clarify his intentions
concerning his rook on d4. In case
of 22 . . . g6, White can activate his
passive rook with 23.'8al, while
following 22 . . . Ae7, White has at
his disposal the beautiful tactical
line: 23.'8xd7! Wfxd7 24.g3 ! The
appearance of the knight on f5
spells great trouble for Black. After 24 . . . '8xe4, White follows with
25.ttJf5 ! +- anyway and Black can
capture neither knight. It is bad
for him to play 24 . . . g6 25.Wfxe5
- because his rook and bishop are
hanging, while after 24 .. .f6 25.ttJf5
i.c5 26.ttJxd4 ixd4 27.Wfxb3
White remains with a solid extra
pawn and good winning chances.
Therefore, Black has nothing better than to enter an endgame with
heavy pieces, being a pawn down:
24 . . . Wfe6 25.ttJf5 if6 26.ttJxf6+
Chapter 12
16 . . . ltJd4 (You can see Black's than 1B.ltJce3 g6 19.'lWd3 f5 20.b3
great problems in that variation i.h6 21.l3d1 'lWh4 2 2 .f3, Anand in the game of the Indian grand Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07,
master against the greatest spe 22 . . . fxe4 23.fxe4 @g7oo) 1B . . . 'lWc7
cialist of that variation.) 17.l3a2 (White is slightly better too in
ltJe6 (The trade on c2 does not case of 1B . . . ie6 19.'lWd3;!;, followed
look so attractive to Black. His by 20 .l3d1.) 19JWh5 ! (White em
idea is to transfer his knight to phasizes the drawbacks of Black's
the c5-square, but it is not effec last move with that decision. He
tive either.) 1B.'lWe2 a4, Anand would not achieve anything much
- Radjabov, Monaco 2007 (Black after 19.'lWd3 ltJe7 2 0.l3d1 i.c6 21.
is faced with a dilemma. He can ltJd5 ltJxd5 22 .,hd5 ib5 23.'lWf3
fix White's pawn on b2, or he can i.d7= , as it was played in the
let it advance two squares for game Karjakin - Radjabov, Cap
ward in the line: 1B . . . ltJc5 19JUa1 d'Agde 2006.) 19 .. .f6 (Black is
ic6 2 0.b4 axb4 21.cxb4 l3xa2 forced to weaken his light
22.l3xa2;!;), and here the best so squares.) 2 0.ltJd5 (White goes
lution for White is to exchange back to the idea of placing his
immediately the light-squared knights on d5 and e3 under much
bishops after which Black's weak more favourable circumstances.)
nesses (the d5-square and the a4- 20 ... 'lWdB (or 2 0 ... 'lWa7 21.b4 i.e6
pawn) become even more vulner 22.ltJce3;!; with positional pressure
able: 19.ib5 ! (White played in the for White) 21.ltJce3;!;. The specifics
game 19.1tJcb4, and Black could of that position is that Black's
have countered that with the pawn is on f6 and not on f7 and
prophylactic move 19 . . . l3bB ! , im that is obviously in favour of
peding the realization of White's White.
idea.) 19 . . . ,hb5 20.'lWxb5;!;. White
17.l3a2
plans to attack Black's a4-pawn
with his heavy pieces and to ex
change Black's knight on c5 from
the d3-square.
Naturally, Black is not obliged
to play so aggressively and he can
opt for much calmer lines :
16 . . . @hB 17.ltJce3, that varia
tion will be analyzed after a differ
ent move-order - see 16.ltJce3.
In case of 16 . . . l3bB 17.l3a2 @hB,
17. . . l3c8 !
it is very good for White to play
The line: 17 . . . @hB 1B.ltJce3, will
1B.ltJde3 ! (This is more precise be analyzed later - see 16.ltJce3.
162
1l.c3 0 - 0 12.&iJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'i1.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
If 17. . . ic6, then IB.Yd3 lLlxdS
19.ixdS Yb6 2 0 .'i1.fal 'i1.abB 21.
lLla3 !;!; Schussler - Kouatly, Gro
ningen 1977 and White has the
powerful threat 2 2 .lLlc4.
It is a bit premature for Black
to try 17 . . . lLlxdS IB.,hdS 'i1.cB
19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight is head
ed for the c4-square in order to
attack Black's two weaknesses.)
19 ... a4 ! (It is weaker for Black to
play 19 . . . ie6? ! , Vescovi - Meck
ing, Sao Paulo 2000, because of
2 0.,he6 fxe6 21.Yg4, followed
by 2 1 . . . Yf6 2 2 . lLlbS dS 23.'i1.xaS,
or 2 1 . . .Ye7 2 2 . lLlbS 'i1.f4 23.Ye2;
in case of 19 . . . whB ! ? 2 0 .lLlc4 .tbS,
besides the reliable line 21.Yb3;!;,
White can try the principled vari
ation 21.lLlxaS ! ? ixfl 22.Yxf1 Yd7
23.lLlc4 'gc7 24.b4;!; with more
than sufficient compensation
for the exchange.) 2 0 .lLlc4 ! ibS
21.lLlxd6 (The exchange-sacrifice
is again possible here - 21.'i1.xa4! ?
ixa4 22.Yxa4 WhB 23.Ya6 .te7
24.'i1.aU) 2 1 . . .ixfl 22.Wxfl (But
not 2 2 . lLlxcB?, because of 22 . . .
ic4! +) 2 2 . . . 'gc7 23.lLlbS 'i1.cS 24.
Yxa4;!; with an edge for White.
17. . . 'gcB ! - That is the best de
fence for Black and White must
play very precisely in order to ob
tain the advantage.
(diagram)
18.Yd3 !
White would not achieve much
with IB.lLlxe7+ Yxe7 19.idS, rely
ing on the line: 19 . . . a4 (about 19 . . .
YdB - see 1 7. . . lLlxdS) 20.lLlb4 !
WhB 21.'i1.xa4 ! (That is once again
Chapter 12
18
ttJxd5 19.hd5 a4
2 0 .a6! ?
Now, capturing o n a4 i s again
on the agenda.
19 ... a4
2 0 . 0 - 0 c7 21.'Sdl :afdS
17 liJe7
bS
(diagram)
17. 0 - 0
I will have to remind you that
position might be reached after a
different move-order too - 16.
0-0 hB 17.liJce3, and it should
Chapter 12
19.exfS gxfS 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4
i.h4 22.g"hU and White has a
slight advantage.
The move 17 .. J3bS has not
been tested in practice yet. It is
interesting here to try for White
the original idea 18.Ya1 ! ? After
1S . . . llJe7 19.13xaS, it is not good
for Black to enter the variation
19 . . . llJxdS 2 0.hdS l3xb2 21.llJc4
with a clear advantage for White.
It is stronger for Black to play
19 . . . l3xb2 ! ? , but then White main
tains his initiative with the line:
20.llJxe7 he7 21.l3a7 l3bS 22.l3b1
i!xb1+ 23.Yxb1 .!gS 24.llJdS;!;. In
case of 1S . . . g6 (instead of 1S . . .
llJe7), White would follow with
19.Ya3 ! fS 2 0 . .!d3 !;!;, planning
21.llJc4 with powerful pressure
against the d6-pawn.
18.l3a2 !
That is usually the best square
for White's rook in that system.
18
a4! ?
20
.ixf5 21.exfS e4
11.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
22 .id5 e3! ?
c) 16
18.ga2 ! ?
After that move, Black must
consider the possibility of White
Chapter 12
xc1 38.xc1 'lWa3 39.b1 'lWa2
40.d1 'lWfl 41.tilxf6 'lWxf6 42.'lWc7
fl 1/2 Anand - Radjabov, Wijk
aan Zee 2007) 36 . . . a2 37.b1
'lWc2 38.gl - White has the ini
tiative thanks to the threat to pen
etrate with his rook to the penul
timate rank and the vulnerability
of Black's eS-pawn.
IS
tile7
1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 iLg5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. iLc4 iLd7
be well prepared to counter the
advance f7-f5, for example with
21.g3 f5 (That is the most prin
cipled decision for Black.) 22.exf5
gxf5 23.f4 idB (After 23 . . . exf4
24.gxf4 ie7 25.Wh1 'SgB 26.%Vh5;!;
- Black cannot obtain any effec
tive counterplay, because of his
new weakness on f5.) 24.'Sd1 'SgB
25.'h5;!; and Black's position
looks solid indeed, but he has no
counterplay. Therefore, White's
prospects are superior.
d) 16 ... e7 17.'Sa2
19.xe7 he7
If 19 . . . 'xe7, then not 2 0 .
'Sxa5? ! iLxe3 2 1.fxe3 %Vh4+, but
20.f5 iLxf5 21.exf5 e4 22. 0-0;!;
and White maintains his posi
tional advantage.
2 0 . 0 - 0 g6
In the game Pavlov - Kole
sov, Alushta 2 0 06, there followed
2 0 . . .f5 ? ! 21.exf5 iLxf5 22.%Vd5 ig6
23.'xa5 'xa5 24.'Sxa5, and
White reached an endgame with
an extra pawn.
21.'d3 a4 22.b4;!;
17. . . xd5
About 17 . . . iLxe3 18.xe3 - see
16 . . . iLxe3 ; as for 17 . . . WhB 1B.0-0
- see 16 . . . WhB.
In a game played between
computers some time ago, the
move 17 . . . a4 was tested, but after
1B.0-0 xd5 19.iLxd5 'SbB , Voy
ager 2.29 - The Crazy Bishop 37,
1999, White had the typical re
source 20.c4 iLb5 21.'Sxa4 iLxa4
22.%Vxa4;;, with an excellent com
pensation for the exchange due to
his dominance in the centre, his
control over the light squares and
his potentially dangerous passed
b-pawn.
About 17. . . 'SbB, Schwierzy Neumann, Germany 1991, 1B.b3
xd5 19.xd5 - see 17 . . . xd5.
In case of 17 . . . 'ScB ! ? , with the
idea to increase the pressure
along the c-file, White should re
frain from 1B.b3 ? ! a4 ! +t Ortiz Fer
nandez - Wendt, Calvia 2 0 04, but
he should play instead 1B.'d3 !
xd5 19.xd5, and later 19 . . . a4
169
Chapter 12
20 . .tb5 !;!;; , or 19 . . . b8 20.b3 ! a4
21.b4;!;;
18.xd5 g6
Black is preparing the pawn
advance f7-f5.
He has tested in practice some
other moves too, besides 18 . . . g6:
The original move 18 ... Wlc8? ! ,
was tried i n the game Prathamesh
- Ganguly, Mumbai 2003, but it
proved to be incorrect, because of
19.ttJb6 Wlc6 20.ttJxd7 xc4 (Black
loses a piece in the line 20 . . .
xe4+ 21..te2 fd8 2 2 .ttJb6 ab8
23.f3+-) 21.a4, and White wins
the exchange.
It is more solid for Black to opt
for 18 . . . 8 19.0-0 h8 (It is too
risky to lose the control over the
f7-square: 19 . . . c8 20.b3 a4, Than
nhausser - Cvetnic, corr. 2000,
2 1.h5 ! - Black loses after 21...
axb3? 2 2 . xa8 Wlxa8 23.ttJb6+-,
while in case of 2 1. . .h6, White fol
lows with 22.ttJf6+ ! hi6 23.Wlxf7+
h7 24.xd7 axb3 25.a8 Wlxa8
26.ixb3 xc3 27 . .te6 Wld8 28.
Wlf7 c7 29 . .tf5+ h8 30.g6
g8 31..te6+ h8 32.bl and
he has a powerful attack in a posi
tion with opposite-coloured bish
ops.) 2 0.e2 f5 21.exf5 xf5, as it
was played in the game Loskutov
- Iskusnyh, Arkhangelsk 1996. At
that moment, White had better
continue with 22 . .td3 f8 23.h4
.th6 24.!e4;!;; with a slight but sta
ble advantage.
In case of 18 . . . b8, White
can play 19.b3 g6 2 0 . 0- 0 h8
21.Wle2;!;; , and later 2 2 . fa1.
170
19.b3 h8
If 19 . . . a4, then 2 0 .b4;!;;
20.0-0
This is a reliable move indeed,
but it is worth having a look at the
aggressive line 2 0 .h4 ! ? This the
matic pawn-sacrifice is attractive
11.c3 0 - 0 12Ji'Jc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Bxa4 a5 15. i.c4 i.d7
in this situation (without a black
knight on the c6-square), because
after White pushes f2-f4 in some
variations, Black cannot capture
exf4, since he loses his control
over the d4-square. The drawback
of the situation for White is that
the exchange of the knights has
diminished his attacking poten
tial.
After 2 0 . . . hh4 21.g3, it is too
risky for Black to play 21.. .i.e7
2 2 .f4 'Bg8 23.'Bah2 'Bg7, in view of
24.f5 ! Here, Black is helpless after
24 . . . gxf5 25.exf5 .!c6 (25 . . . .!xf5
26.'Wf3+-) 26.'Wf3 ! f6 27.tLlxf6 ! +-,
or 24 . . . .!g5 25.'Wf3 ! gxf5 26.exfS
e4 (if 26 . . .f6, then 27.tLlxf6 ! i.xf6
28.'Bxh7+ ! 'Bxh7 29.'Bxh7+ Wxh7
3 0.'Wh5+ Wg7 3 1.'Wg6+-) 27.'Wf1 !
(This surprising maneuver settles
the issue.) 27 . . .i.f6 28.'Bh6 ! .!g5
29.'B6h5 a4 30 .b4 a3 31.i.a2 +-.
Black's relatively best defence is
24 . . . i.c6 25.'Wg4 .!g5 (or 25 . . . a4
26.fxg6 fxg6 27.'Wxg6 ! +-), but
then 26.tLlc7! 'Wf6 (or 26 . . . 'Wxc7
27.'Wxg5 gxf5
28.'Wf6
Wg8
29.'Wxf5+-) 27.tLlxa8 gxf5 28.'Wxf5
'Wxf5 29.exf5 has 30.f6 ! i.xf6
31.'B1 i.g5 32.'Bxt7 'Bxt7 33.i.xt7,
and White wins the exchange.
In the game Arnaudov - Yor
danov, Pleven 2 006, Black de
fended more precisely - 21.. . .!f6 !
2 2 .f4 'Bg8 ! (Black loses after 22 . . .
exf4? 23.'Bah2 fxg3 24.'Bxh7+
Wg8 25.'Wd2 +-, as well as follow
ing 2 2 . . . i.g7? 23Jah2 h6 24.f5 !
'Wg5 25.f6 'Wxg3+ 26.wd2 'Wg5+
27.Wc2 .!xf6 28.'8xh6+ Wg7 29.
20
f5 21.exf5 i.xf5
g6
Chapter 12
preparation of the advance of his
f-pawn.
17.b3 !?
This i s the most ambitious de
cision for White. The idea should
be well familiar to our readers.
White postpones his castling
short, planning to push h2-h4 at
some moment.
Meanwhile, White has a calm
er alternative. It is good for him
to opt for 17. 0-0 E1b8 (about 17 . . .
'it>h8 18.g3 - see 16 . . . 'it>h8) 18.E1a2 !
In the game Wallace - Kalini
tschew, Budapest 1995, Black
chose 18 . . . 'it>h8, but White could
have obtained the advantage with
the line: 19.93 f5 20.exfS gxfS (or
20 . . . .hfS 21.tLlxfS E1xf5 2 2.id3 E1t7
23.lMfg4;l;) 2l.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 ih6
23.'it>h1 tLle7 24.b3 tLlxd5 25.tLlxd5
ic6 26.lMfd3;!;; . It would be insuf
ficient for Black to equalize with
18 . . . tLle7 19.tLlxe7+ lMfxe7 2 0 .tLld5
lMfd8 21.g3;!;;
17 ... 'it>hS
lS.h4 !
This move i s played just at the
right moment, since the advance
of the h-pawn is even more effec
tive with a black king on h8.
172
lS . . . hh4
In case Black declines the gift
and he plays 18 . . . ih6? ! , then af
ter 19.E1a2 (It is also possible for
White to play 19.hS if4 2 0 .lMfd3;!;;)
19 ... tLle7 20.tLlf6 ! it becomes obvi
ous that he in a big trouble. M
ter 2 0 . . . .he3, White's simplest
reaction is 21.fxe3 ! ie6 (or 21...
tLlg8 22.tLlxg8 'it>xg8 23.lMfxd6)
22.hS ! g5 (In case of 22 . . . tLlg8,
White wins with 23.tLlxh7! 'it>xh7
24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.hxg6+ 'it>xg6 26.
lMfh5+ 'it>f6 27.lMfh7+- with an un
avoidable checkmate.) 23 . .he6
fxe6 24. 0-0 tLlg8 (or 24 . . . tLlc6
25.E1af2) 2S.tLlg4 E1xfl + 26.lMfxf1
lMfc7 27.c4 lMfb7 28 .lMfd1 lMfb4 (or
28 .. :xe4 29.lMfxd6+-) 29.h6
- and Black is left with numerous
weaknesses all over the board. He
lost quickly after 20 . . . ie6, which
was played in the game Timofeev
- Smirnov, Tomsk 2 0 06. There
followed 2 1.h5 .hc4 22. tLlxc4
ig5? (That move loses outright,
but Black's chances of saving the
game are not much greater after
22 ... 'it>g7 23.tLlg4, or 2 2 . . . tLlc6
23.tLldS) 23.hxg6 ! .hf6 24.lMfh5
1-0.
U is more logical for Black to
play 18 . . . .he3 ! ? 19.tLlxe3 tLl e7, but
then White obtains an advantage
with the help of an exchange sacri
fice: 2 0.lMfxd6 ! .ha4 2 1.lMff6+ 'it>g8
22 .bxa4 E1c8 ! (The alternatives for
Black are even worse: 2 2 . . . tLlc8?
23 . .hf7! +-; 22 . . . hS 23.lMfxe5;
22 ... E1b8 23.0-0) 23. tLlg4 (This
move forces Black to give back
11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '!l.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
some material. It is also good for
White to play 23. WlxeS lLIc6 24.'lWf4
Wlc7 2S.Wlxc7 '!l.xc7 26.ibS;i;;) 23 . . .
lLIfS (that i s a n only move) 24.exfS
Wlxf6 2S.lLIxf6+ 'it>g7 26.lLId7 '!l.xc4
27.f6+ 'it>g8 28.lLIxf8 'it>xf8 29.'it>e2 !
'!l.e4+ (or 29 . . . '!l.xa4 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8
31.'!l.bS !; 29 . . . '!l.xc3 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8
31.'!l.bS !) 30.'it>d3 '!l.f4 31.'!l.eU and
White has good chances of win
ning that rook and pawn ending.
19.93 ig5
White maintains a long lasting
initiative in a position with mate
rial equality if Black retreats his
bishop to other squares :
19 . . . if6 20.lLIf5 ig7 (About
2 0 . . . ig5 - see 19 . . . ie7 20.lLIfS
ig5; after 2 0 . . . ie6 21.lLIxd6 igS
2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcS;i;; Black has
no active prospects whatsoever.)
21.lLIxd6 1L1d4 2 2 . '!l.a2 ic6 (It is not
any better for Black to play 22 . . .
ie6 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4
2S.Wld3;i;;) 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4
exd4 2S.f4t White's position is su
perior, because of his dominance
in the centre and Black's passive
bishop on g7.
19 . . . ie7 2 0 .lLIf5 igS (It seems
too dangerous for Black to try
2 0 . . . hfS 21.exfS igS 22.'lWg4 and he has great problems to fight
against White's centralized and
well-coordinated forces.) 21. lLIxd6
ie6 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcSt The
material is equal and White's
pieces are more active and much
more harmoniously placed.
Chapter 12
25.Wfc2 ! ?;; - and White has more
than sufficient compensation for
the sacrificed pawn. He can increase the pressure by trebling his
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have dealt with one of the mostfashionable and
not so well analyzed lines of the Chelyabinsk variation, which was
introduced into the high-level tournament practice by GM Teimour
Radjabov.
Presently, after 15. . . j,d7!? White often encounters problems in his
attempts to obtain an advantage in the opening. Therefore, we have
analyzed in this chapter three possibilities for White and the most in
teresting are 16. 0 - 0 and 16.ti:Jce3!? In the first case, White must be
ready to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, positional compensation
and long-lasting initiative. The second possibility looks quite promis
ing too. White can continue with an aggressive gambit plan advanc
ing his h-pawn. That idea is particularly effective when Black's bishop
is on d7.
174
Chapter 13
16.b3
This move fortifies the light
squared bishop and it defends the
hanging pawn. Now, Black has a
choice. Sometimes he chooses a)
16 .te6, but still he plays much
more often b) 16 lt>h8. Before
beginning our analysis of these
lines, we will pay some attention
to Black's alternatives.
Chapter 13
played in the game Brener - Kos
tic, Internet 2 0 05, in view of
17.lLlxe7+ ! ? and Black is forced
to capture on e7 with his bishop
and after 17. . . he7 IB.O-O id7
19J:!a2 a4 (That is an attempt by
Black to get rid of his weakness.)
2 0.bxa4 Vfic7 21.lLle3 ig5 22 .Vfid3
EifcB 23.id5 Vfixc3 24. 'l;![xc3 Eixc3
25.a5;!; and the endgame is better
for White, because of his passed
a-pawn. Black cannot play 25 . . .
he3? 26.fxe3 ie6 27.a6 hd5
2B.exd5 EiaB 29.Eibl+-, since the
rook and pawn ending is winning
for White.
a) 16 . . . ie6
17. 0 - 0 cj;>h8
In case of17. . . lLle7, White's most
principled reaction is IB.lLlxe7+ ! ,
a s it was played i n the game Nij
boer - van Kooten, Dieren 19B4,
and after IB . . . he7 19.lLle3;!; White
obtained a stable advantage. Black
would not change the evaluation
of the position with IB . . . Vfixe7, in
view of 19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight
176
11.c3 0 - 0 12. &Dc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '1l.xa4 a5 15. i.c4 '1l. b8 16.b3
18.&Dce3
That is a natural move, pre
venting the advance f7-f5.
18" .g6
About 18 . . . d7 19.e2 - see
17 . . . d7.
Naturally, White is clearly
better after 18 . . .f5? 19.exf5 hf5
20. &Dxf5 E1xf5 2 1.i.d3 E1f8, Incedi
- Strelicka, Svetla nad Sazavou
1998, 2 2 .h4! i.f4 (or 22 . . . hh4?
23.h5+-) 23.g3 i.h6 24.c2 g6
2 5.h5 and Black's kingside ends
up in ruins.
If 18 . . . he3 19.&Dxe3 &De7, then
20.he6 fxe6 21.&Dc4t Comp ZChess
- Jaulin, Aubervilliers 1999.
21" .ih4
White would have a comfort
able blocking game after the ex
change on e4.
22.E1d2 f4
19.f3 ! ?
This interesting idea was
successfully tried in the game
Radulski - Nataf, Vrnjacka Banja
2005. It is very difficult for Black
to prove that the advance of his
f-pawn is good for him when
White's queen is on the f3-square.
On the contrary, Black only cre
ates new weaknesses after that.
23.&Dg4 'iNn
24.&Dh2 !
177
Chapter 13
This is a very powerful maneu
ver. White transfers his knight
along the route g4-h2-f3; mean
while the queen goes back to the
queenside in order to exert pres
sure against Black's weaknesses
there.
..
h8
17.tLlce3! ?
The move 17. 0 - 0 has been
played in numerous games, but
lately White encounters real
problems to obtain any opening
advantage. After Black's most
energetic reaction 17 .. .f5 ! 1B.exf5
.txf5 19.tLlce3 .tg6oo he has excel
lent prospects and that evaluation
was confirmed by a lot of games
played at the highest possible
level.
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3
I advise my readers to avoid
the main lines just at that mo
ment and to try to reach not so
well analyzed positions, which are
quite interesting and with good
prospects for White. The move
17.lOce3 ! ? restricts Black's pos
sibilities, since it does not allow
the immediate move O-fS. The
drawback of that move is that
Black can get rid of his potentially
bad dark-squared bishop, but as
we are going to see, things are far
from easy for him after similar de
velopments. We will analyze here
bl) 17 .txe3 and b2) 17 g6.
About 17. . .ie6 18.0-0 g6
19.Y;Yf3 - see 16 . . . ie6.
If17 ... lOe7, then 18.lOxe7. Here,
it will not work for Black to play
18 . . .he3? 19.1Oxc8 ic5 20.lOxd6
hd6 21. 0-0 Mijovic - Gavric,
Sutomore 2 0 04, since White
ends up with a solid extra pawn.
Black's position remains difficult
even if he captures on e7: 18 . . .
Y;Yxe7 19.lOd5 Y;Yd8 2 0 . 0-0 id7 (or
20 . . .f5 21.exfS ixf5 2 2.Y;Ye2 id7
23.'8a2 ic6 24.'8d1 '8a8 25.Y;Yd3
Y;Yd7, Arzumanian - V.Kuznetsov,
Pardubice 2006, 26.lOb6 Y;Yg4 27.
idS e4 2 8.Y;Ye2 and White main
tains his advantage, because of
the numerous pawn-weakness
es in Black's camp.) 21.'8a2 f5
2 2 .exf5 ixf5 23.Y;Ye2 '8c8 24.'8fa1
k5 2 5.b4;!; Bakr - Mamedov, Ad
ana 2006, and White has a pow
erful passed b-pawn, or 18 . . .he7
19.0-0 ig5 2 0 .lOfS! (The position
with bishops of opposite colours
bl) 17 .txe3
This is a straightforward at
tempt by Black to solve his open
ing problems. He forces White's
knight to abandon the central d5outpost and then Black advances
0-f5 without the preparatory
move of his knight-pawn.
Chapter 13
28.c5 ! ? (The alternative for White
is - 28J3xe5 l'!xc4 29.l'!d4 l'!xd4
30.cxd4 i.d3 31.g4 fxg3 32 .hxg3;!;
and he has considerable chances
of materializing his extra pawn.)
28 ... i.c6 29.l'!d6 e4 30.g3 g5 31.l'!a7;!;
- White's rooks are very active
and Black's defence is difficult.
In the game Obukhovski - Ka
legin, Kaluga 1981, Black refrained
from capturing on e4 and he pre
ferred the aggressive move 2 1 . . .
f4. There followed 2 2 .ttJf1 l'!f6 2 3 .
ttJ d 2 g 5 24.l'!da1 g4 25.l'!xa5 l'!h6
26.l'!b5 l'!a8 27.l'!xa8 xa8 28.l'!b6
ttJc8 29.l'!b4;!;. White won a pawn,
while Black's pieces were incapa
ble of supporting effectively the
pawn-offensive on the kingside.
2 0 .exfS i.xf5
The move 2 0 . . . ttJxf5 may seem
attractive for Black, but White can
counter it with 2 1.ttJxf5 i.xf5 (2 1 . . .
l'!xf5 2 2 .d5 i.b7 23.xa5 Wlg5
24.i.d5 Bindrich - Jefic, Obre
novac 2 0 04) 22.d5 Maidla
- Puittinen, Helsinki 1993, and
Black fails to keep the material
equality.
21
22J!d2 l'!b6
The move 2 2 . . . l'!f6?, Vombek
- Pavlidou, Sibenik 2 007, can be
countered by White with 23.ttJg4 !
l'!g6 24.i.f7
23.al
White exploits his heavy pieces
with maximal effectiveness.
It is also interesting for him to
try 23.l'!e1 ! ? c7 24.i.f1 ! , freeing
the c4-square for his knight.
23
21.l'!a2 !
This is an important moment.
180
i.e4
c7 24.l'!fdU
11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3
White exerts powerful long
term positional pressure. That
position was reached in the game
Buczinski - Surin, Email 2000,
and it followed with 24 ... '8c6
2S.'h1(It is also good for White
to play immediately 2S.;Va3 ! ?)
2S . . . ;Vb6 (It is more resilient for
Black to defend with 2S . . . lLlfS
26.lLlxfS ixfS 27.;Va3 '8dB 28.h3;l;
and White has only a slight advan
tage.) 26.;Va3 lLlfS 27.lLlxfS '8xfS
2 B .'8e2 '8f4 29.f3 i.g6 30.'8ed2
'8f6 31.'8dS, and Black's situation
was absolutely critical.
b2) 17 g6
18. 0 - 0
b2a) 18
f5
Chapter 13
19.Y6d3 ! ?
This i s a n original decision.
White should not be in a hurry to
clarify the situation in the centre.
It is much more popular for him to
play the move 19.exfS. Let us see
what might happen later. It is not
good for Black to play here 19 . . .
MS 20.lZlxfS gxfS (or 2 0 . . J!xfS
21.g3 i.h6 22 .i.d3 f7 23.!e4
Sott - Novotny, Klatovy 1998)
2 1.Y6hS e4 2 2 . fa1 !f6 23.g3 !g7
24.f4;!;
It is stronger for Black to opt
for 19 . . . gxfS, after which White
has two possibilities.
He obtains no advantage
with 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.lZlc2 (but not
21.lZlxf4? '!Wb6 2 2 .Wfd3 e8-+ Ma
karova - Sterliagova, Serpukhov
2 0 03), because of 21 . . . id7! (That
is an important inclusion for
Black, since the usual move 21 . . .
lZleS i s not s o convincing.) 2 2 . a3
lZleS 23.lZlxf4 lZlxc4 24.bxc4 b2,
and White has nothing better
than to maintain the balance with
the line: 2S.lZld3 b8 26.f4=
It is more promising for White
to play 2 0 .WfhS ! i.d7 21.fal !
(In the first game, i n which that
variation was played, White
tried 2Vh1? ! , but after 21.. .ie8
22.'!Wh3 f4 23.i.d3 '!Wd7FF Ham
douchi - Cherniaev, Cannes 1997,
he had nothing to brag about. It
is not advantageous for White to
continue with 21.a3 e4! 22 .f4? !
exf3 23.xf3 lZleS 24.g3 h6 2S.h4
ie8 26.'!Wd1 f4 27.h3 id7!+,
as well as 21.a2 ie8 22. '!Wh3 f4
182
11.c3 0 - 0 12.ti:Jc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 'Sb8 16.b3
e2 28.lLlxe2 lLlxc4 29.bxc4 fxe2
30.'Sxe2 g6+ Black is even bet
ter.) 24 . . . lLlxa5 25.'Sxa5 f3 26.g3;;
- and White has a sufficient
compensation for the exchange,
but not more than that. Besides
2 2 .d1, White can play passively
2 2.lLlfl 'Sg8 ! 23.e2 'Sg6 24.<tt>h 1
f8 25.'S4a3 'Sh6 26. <tt>g l g7
2 7.lLlg3 e5oo and although the
position remains unclear, Black
has the initiative.
So, all these lines show that
after 19.exf5, Black manages
somehow to solve his problems,
although not effortlessly, there
fore I consider the move 19.d3 ! ?
more precise.
19
...
f4
Chapter 13
2 0 .tZlc2 f3
After 20 . . . h4, White can be
gin to concentrate cold-bloodedly
his forces against Black's a6-pawn,
since it is evident that Black's at
tacking resources are insufficient,
for example: 2U'!fa1 illfg5 22 .b5
Elxb5 23.illfxb5 h3 24.tZle1 hg2
25. ttJxg2 f3 26.illffl
21.g3
Black's f3-pawn is a potential
weakness.
21. illfd7
22.fal
184
11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'gxa4 a5 15. ic4 'gb8 16.b3
23 . . . 'gf6, but then 24.lLlel !xe3
(24 . . . 'iffh S 2 S.b4! axb4 26.'ga8)
2S.'iffx e3 ig4 26.'iffgS i>g7 27.idS
id7 2 8 .'iffe 3;!;, and once again
Black is faced with a difficult and
laborious defence.
b2b) 18
ih6
19.'iffd3
If White plans to exchange on
fS, then he should better choose
the prophylactic move 19. i>hl and
that is a good alternative for him.
After 19 . . .fS 20.exfS gxf5 21.f4,
Black must make up his mind.
There might follow:
21 . . . 'iffh 4? ! (This is a dubi
ous decision.) 2 2 .ie2 e4, Ding
- Rybenko, man Bator 2002,
23.'gc4! id7 24.'ggl and amaz
ingly enough, Black is in a zugz
wang in a board full of pieces! His
position is very bad too after 24 . . .
Chapter 13
(The bishop on bS is untouchable
as before. ) 23 . . . %!Ig6 24.llJcb6 gg8
2S.ga2 (The g2-square has been
fortified just in time.) 2S . . . .te8
26 . .!a4 gg7 27.llJc4 'lWe6 28.gaf2;l;
with a positional advantage for
White.
19 f5
2 0 .gdl ! ?
A similar position (only with
the inclusion of the moves .td7
and ga2) was played in the game
Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee
2 007, and we analyzed it in out
previous chapter. White should
better follow the plan, which was
realized successfully by the Indi
an grandmaster, in this position
as well.
20
f4
Conclusion
In our final chapter, we have dealt with practically the main line
of the Chelyabinsk variation, which is frequently played more than
a quarter of a century. Tournament practice has shown that White's
natural way of developing his initiative - 16 . . . rJJ h 8 17. 0 - 0 , does not
promise him much after 17.. .j5, because Black thus manages to activate
his forces. White's attempts to neutralize his opponent's counterplay
by exchanges often lead to an almost complete exhaustion ofavailable
resources. Therefore, I believe that at the contemporary stage of de
velopment of that variation, White's hope of obtaining an advantage
should befocused on a relatively new plan, based on keeping the posi
tion relatively closed. That is the idea behind the move 17. &iJce3! - it
not only prevents the immediate advance 17.. .j5, but what is tremen
dously important is that Blackfails to accomplish the typicalfreeing
maneuver with the line: 17. . . ,he3 18. &iJxe3 &iJe7 19. 0 - 0 j5 2 0 .exj5
&iJxj5 21. &iJxj5 ixf5 22. V!JdS, since he thus loses his as-pawn.
Later, White must hold on to his blocking construction on the cen
tral outposts e4 and dS. That plan might seem a bit slow; neverthe
less, it is very unpleasantfor Black, because he cannot coordinate his
pieces in that situation. The connection between his two flanks has
been disrupted. The variations we have analyzed show that Black's
counterplay on the kingside is not so dangerous for White if he plays
carefully, while Black will have problem with his compromised pawn
structure to the end of the game. He will need to find improvements
in this variation!
187
Index of Variations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 . . . llJxd4 . . . . . . . .
5 .. :Wc7 . . . . . . . . . .
5 . . . E:b8 . . . . . . . . . .
5 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
11
12
13
various . . . . . .
7 . . . .te6 . . . . . . .
7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . .
b1) 8.llJa3 d5 .
b2) 8.llJa3 .te7
b3) 8 .llJa3 h6 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 ... llJd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 . . . E:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b1)
1O.ixf6 xf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b2)
10 . .txf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 24
. . . . . . . . 26
. . . . . . . . . 28
. . . . . . . . . . 28
. . . . . . . . . . 31
b)
188
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 . . . .te6 1O .,hf6 gxf6 1l.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a1)
1l.c3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a2)
1l.c3 .tg7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 . . . a5 1O . .ld2 d8 1l.c4 various. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b1)
1l.c4 llJxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b2)
1l.c4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
39
42
43
47
49
56
Index o/ Variations
Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2.f3 c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 4.xd4 f6 5.c3
e5 6.db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.a3 b5 9.d5 .te7 1 0 ..txf6 .txf6
11.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
a)
b)
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3
13 . . . .tb7 14 . .td3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6
14 ..td3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
14 . .td3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0
a)
b)
c)
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . ttJe7 13.h4 ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.ttJcb4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bl)
15.ttJcb4 J.d7 . . . . . . . . . . .
b2)
15.ttJcb4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . .
12 . . . b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
93
94
95
96
98
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6
12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7
12 ... ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9
12 . . . ttJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0
a)
b)
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
13 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
13 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5
189
Index o/ Variations
c)
d)
e)
13 . . . c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6
13 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1
13 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2
a)
b)
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . . l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 . . .bxa4 14.l3xa4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b1)
14.l3xa4 c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b2)
14.l3xa4 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.l3xa4 ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b3)
.
.
.
.
.
.
128
128
135
137
138
140
a)
b)
c)
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 . . . 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
149
150
152
155
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
16.l3a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8
16.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0
16.c!tJce3 .txe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4
16.c!tJce3 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5
16.c!tJce3 l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7
16.c!tJce3 c!tJe7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 9
16.c!tJce3 g 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1
190
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 . . . 'lth8 17.c!tJce3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b1)
17. c!tJce3 i.xe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b2)
17.c!tJce3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
175
176
1 79
1 79
181
Games collections
Bogoljubow.
The Fate of a Chess Player
by S. Soloviov, 280 pages
Detailed biography and
200 commented wins
The Endgame
by GM Marat Makarov 2007
180 pages
272 pages
For contacts :
E-mail: soloviov@chess-stars.com; semkov@chess-stars.com
Published by Chess Stars
Printed in Bulgaria