EVERYMAN CHESS Alexander Raetskymeeting e4 Fed up having to defend with Black? Annoyed by all those irritating white systems? Then this is the book for you! Russian International Master Alexander Raetsky draws upon his wealth of experience gained playing on the tough international tournament circuit to supply you with an all- in-one solution to your problems. The reader is provided with a complete repertoire for Black against 1 e4, based on the ever-reliable Sicilian Defence. Lines suggested are dependable and promise Black dynamic counterplay. The variations are also easy to learn: this book is especially useful for players who have neither the time nor inclination to learn reams and reams of the latest opening theory. ®= Acomplete defence to 1 e4 & Written by a battle-hardened expert 5 Ideas, strategies and tactics discussed for both sides Alexander Raetsky is a Russian International Master and an experienced competitor on the tournament circuit. He’s also a skilled writer and has been a frequent contributor to the famous Russian magazine 64 and the internationally renowned publication New In Chess. This is his first book for Everyman. EVERYMAN CHES ISBN ii www.everymanbooks.com Published in the UK by Everyman Publishers ple Distributed in the US by the Globe Pequot Press 181850044219 £14.99 $19.95THE IMMORTALIZERSmeeting |e4 by Alexander Raetsky EVERYMAN CHESS Everyman Publishers ple www.everymanbooks.comFirst published in 2002 by Everyman Publishers ple, formerly Cadogan Books ple, Gloucester Mansions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD Copyright © 2002 Alexander Raetsky The right of Alexander Raetsky to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Alll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data ‘A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85744 2199 Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, P.O Box 480, 246 Goose Lane, Guilford, CT 06437-0480. Al other sales enquiries should be directed to Everyman Chess, Gloucester Man- sions, 140A Shaftesbury Avenue, London WC2H 8HD tel: 020 7539 7600 fax: 020 7379 4060 email: dan@everyman.uk.com website: www.everyman.uk.com EVERYMAN CHESS SERIES (formerly Cadogan Chess) Chief advisor: Garry Kasparov Commissioning editor: Byron Jacobs Typeset and edited by First Rank Publishing, Brighton. Production by Book Production Services Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd., Trowbridge, Wilt- shire.CONTENTS Introduction White Plays with d2-d4 (1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 AE 5 Dc3 e6) YNaurk one Four Knights: Main Line with 7 Ad6+ Four Knights: Main Line with 7 ££ Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 Four Knights: 6 Axc6 Four Knights: 6 2e2 and 6 a3 Four Knights: 6 &e3 Four Knights: 6 g3 White Avoids d2-d4 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rossolimo Variation 3 Sicilian Closed Sicilian Morra Gambit Grand Prix Attack 2.3 Index of Complete Games 13 21 36 52 61 68 77 101 127 134 140 152 158INTRODUCTION pele ro hit This book was written together with my close friend and co-author Maxim Chetverik (with whom I have written on the Petroff Defence, the Albin Counter-Gambit, and the Catalan Opening; his help here was price- less). The idea is to give club and tournament players a chance to build a serious opening repertoire with as little memorisation as pos- sible. We have built up an opening repertoire which is solid and yet active. Every line starts with a brief introduction to highlight the main important strategic themes dealt with in the chapter. Stil, this is a theoretical work where there is a possibility to be well pre- pared for serious games. When we found it prudent and felt we had the space for it, we have dealt in depth with the theoretical branches in a position, but mainly we have tried to focus on the most important lines, seen from a practical point of view. We have also given some different possi- bilities in the main line. In the position after 1 ed c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 D6 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS &b4 7 a3 Lxc3 8B xc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 243 see following diagram we have decided to give both 10...0-0 (the main line) and 10..d4 as options. Not be- cause we believe they are of precisely equal value, but because chess is a game and is to be played to win. Therefore a surprise weapon can come in handy if you expect your opponent to be familiar with your main line. Remember, however, that even though your opponent might have prepared for the game, this docs not mean that he will be just as capable as you in playing the positions which arise once the theory ends. te ai mee a Mg ‘Usty The choice of The Four Knights Variation was made after conversation with our editor Byron Jacobs. The reason why we chose this lesser known variation is simple. Though it is perfectly playable and will not face serious threats on its right to existence in the coming century, it has not been covered seriously in any book for a very long time. Stil, it has 5Meeting 1 e4 been used by two modern world champions (Kramnik and Zsuzsa Polgar)! Against the Rossolimo (2 DB Zc6 3 &b5), we have decided on one of the main lines with 3..e6 and 4...ge7, which is in the repertoire of many top class grandmasters. The only place we abandon fashion is against the closed systems with 2 Dc3, where we have chosen to recommend 2...e6 fol lowed by ...d7-d5, instead of the more tradi- tional 2...2c6 and ...g7-g6. This line is, in my opinion, no worse than the traditional sys- tem, and will probably become fashionable in the not too distant future. Still, you might be blessed by the advantage of surprise and find your opponent on foreign territory in his own favourite system. One of the great strengths of this book is that it is not only a repertoire book for the main lines. It is, of course, possible to substi- tute the Sicilian Four Knights with a variety of other main lines. There is the Sveshnikov (6...5), the Classical (5...d6), the Accelerated Dragon (4...g6), the Kalashnikov (4...e5) and the Paulsen (4..c6). There are good books available on all of these openings, but they only cover about half the games you will play in the Sicilian. This book also covers the other half. I would very much like to thank Nikolay Kizimenko and Sergey Sergienko for their practical assistance towards this book. I would also like to express my admiration 1 have for my wife Elena, who managed to remain calm in the months I was working on the book. Finally, I would also like to express my gratitude to Jacob, although I don’t have enough words to express it fully. Positive criticism is very welcome. Please sends your comments to the address alex_raetseky@hotmail.com. And if you would like to see the author in the flesh, you should maybe consider participating in the Voronezh Chess Festival, starting every year on June 12th. Voronezh is located about nine hours south from Moscow by train and has fantastic weather in the summer. For more information use the e-mail address given above. Alexander Raetsky Voronezh January 2002CHAPTER ONE Four Knights: Main Line with 7 Ad6 + 1 ed o5 2 DF3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 246 5 Dc3 06 6 DdbS Wb4 7 Adé+ 7 BadG+ was frequently played in the for- mative years of the Four Knights Variation, but nowadays is a regular visitor only to ama- teur competitions, The check is seductive: after 7...2xd6 8 Wxd6 Black feels uncom- fortable without the bishop, while if 7..8e7 Black loses the right of castling, However, let’s look closer at the position after the se- quence 7.07 8 DxcB+ BxcB SN Ae Ue ww wy how ‘The white knight has made five moves to exchange an undeveloped and inactive bishop, while bringing the black rook to the half-open c-file. Black’s advantage in devel- opment is obvious and the awkward place- ment of the black king is an inexpensive price for this, especially as the king can easily be evacuated to his native kingside if neces- sary. All in all, the situation is preferable for Black — as we shall see in Games 1 and 2. ‘Therefore White has tried supporting the centralised knight by 8 ££ (Games 3 and 4). However, after 8...05 9 Df5+ &f8 Black will shortly make the advance ...d7-d5 with the better prospects as the bishop on c8 now takes aim on the white knight. It is possible to conclude that the move 7 Jd6+ is a harm- less one, after which White is struggling for equality. Game 1 Sanz-Jordan Cataluna 1999 1 e4 c5 2 Di3 Ac6 3 dé cxd4 4 Dndd DIG 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS &b4 7 Ad6+ Here 7 e5 and 7 £2g5 are also possible. Let us consider them one at a time, With the pawn sacrifice 7 e5 White has- tens the development of the queen’s bishop, but that alone is not enough for an advan- tage. Nevertheless, Black should proceed circurnspectly. After 7 €5 the moves 7...xe5 8B BE d6 9 a3 Lxc3+ 10 Dxc3 look almost forced.Meeting 1 e4 White intends Wd1-d2 and 0-0-0. After 10..a6 11 Wd2 b5 12 0-0-0 257 Black has developed the wrong side of the army and now punishment comes!: 13 @xb5! axb5 14 Rxe5 0-0 (14..dxe5? 15 Mxb5+ He7 16 Wb4+ and White wins) 15 Wxd6 and White had an extra pawn and a won position in Polzin-Poppner, Berlin 1994. After 10..0-0 11 Wd2 We7 12 0-0-0 De8 13 Abs Dgo 14 Rxd6 Dxd6 15 Wrd6 Wad6 16 Dxd6 White has won back the pawn and is positionally preferable, Schaefer-Stein, Dortmund 1991. Appatently, it is more expedient to give back the extra pawn at once, in order to complete mobilisation of the remaining forces. For example, 11..Dd5!? 12 Dxd5 exdS 13 Wxd5 Wi6 14 &c3 265 with an active game for Black. Against the straightforward pin, 7 2g5, it is simplest to ask the intentions of the bishop at once with 7...6 (if 7..Wa5?! 8 2xf6 gxf6 9 a3 &xc3+ 10 Axc3, Black’s kingside pawn structure is spoiled and this is felt much more with the dark-squared bishop missing) 8 xfo Wxf6 9 a3 9 Dd6+ Be7 and 9 Dc7+ Bd8 are both bad for White since c3 is under attack; eg. 9 Dc7+ Sd8 10 Dxas Lxc3+ 11 bxc3 loses to 11..Waxc3+ 12 de2 Da4t) 9..2c5 when Black can develop smoothly and has the advantage of the two bishops. 7...8e7 8 Axc8+ ‘The attempt to maintain the knight on d6 with 8 £4 is considered in Games 3 and 4. 8...2xe8 9 2d2 White does not want Black to spoil his queenside pawn chain with 9...2xc3 and is therefore ready to sacrifice the pawn on e4. 9 £243 is considered in Game 2. 2 “e ay x Y 9...d5 This is the thematic move, pushing for- ward in the centre. However, Black is per- fectly developed and can also continue 9.nkexc3 10 Sxc3 Dxed 11 Rxg7 WaS+ 12 c3 Ehg8 as in Mason-Mieses, Paris 1900. Due to his strong development, Black has a good game. After 13 &h6 Dxc3!? 14 bxc3 Wac3+ 15 Qd2 WeS+ 16 Le (not 16 Le2? @d4! with a lot of threats) Black can, if he so desires, finish the game by repetition of moves with 16..Wc3+ ete 10 exd5 Dxd5 11 Dxd5+ ‘The attacking move 11 Weg4 does not threaten 12 Wxg7 so much as 12 Dxd5+ and 13 &xb4+. This is best met by 11..2xc3 12 bxc3 Wd and Black’s lead in development guarantees him a strong position. 11...Wxd5 12 &xb4+? This loses a pawn, but after 12 c3 Bc5 White has problems with his development. 12...Dxb4 13 Wxd5 Now it is too late for 13 c3 in view of 13...Wed+, winning. 13...Dxc2+ 14 ted2 exd5 15 Het Ab4 Black has an extra pawn in the endgame. ‘The rest is a matter of technique and here, t00, Black was clearly superior. 8Four Knights: Main Line with 7 \d6+ 16 Be2 Dc6 17 He3 Sd6 18 Bhe1 Ae7 19 294 Bxc3 20 Bxc3 Dc6 21 f4 Hes 22 b4?! Hed! 23 bS De7 24 a3 Exta 25 &e2 DcB 26 Bc3 Db6 27 Hci Had 28 Hal Dc4+ 29 &c3 cS 30 eds Ma3+ 31 we2 bxb5 32 Bb1+ wc6 33 Sxe4 dxe4 0-1 Game 2 Buchenthal-Rosen Germany 1979 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Ac6 3 da cxda 4 Axdd IG 5 Dc3 e6 6 DAdbS Lb4 7 Ad6+ he7 8 AxcB+ Exc8B 9 Ld3 d5 10 exdd 10...Wxd5! Black wisely elects to finish his develop- ment and so clears the d8 square for the king’s rook. After 10..Axd5? 11 0-0 Dxc3 12 bxc3 &xc3 13 Hb1 We7 14 Ba3+ He8 15 Wh5 (Fink-Griinberg, Dortmund 1988) the black king is stuck in the centre and the rook on h8 is left out of the game, all in all leaving White with a dangerous initiative. 110-0 &xc3! This move deforms White's queenside pawn structure. It seems dangerous to give up the two bishops, but because of his per- fect development and the centralisation of his forces, Black is not worse. 11...Wh5 leads to a slightly inferior endgame; for example, 12 Waxh5 Zxh5 13 Det De5 14 Le2 Df 15 Dxf6 exf6 16 c3 Bc5 17 24 Bhd8 18 Bedi as in Fischer-Pavey, New York 1956. 12 bxe3 Bhd8 13 Bb1 Baron-Krivokapic, Paris 1993 saw 13 Ba3+ Se8 14 Whi Hc7 15 2b5 (threatening 16 Wb4) when Black successfully defended with 15..Ag8 (15..Ded! is probably even stronger, e.g. 16 Wb4 Dd6 and everything should be okay) 16 Wb4 Dge7 17 Lxc6+ Wac6 18 Wet Wrxc3 19 &xe7 Hxe7 20 Wad+ Hed7 and now the attempt to win back the pawn resulted in immediate disaster: 21 Wrxa7?? Wal! 0-1 13...0d7 14 223+ we8 15 Wel a6 To prevent 16 Bb5. 16 c4 Wh5 17 £4 a5 Finally Black can begin to take advantage of the pawn weaknesses in his opponent’s camp. 18 c5 Was! Ss ZL, ves At V2, ADE pet un i ” ea a 5 rele 7, ae “ol mie J, a ROR — ORS j mse We Ww ny Because of White’s defective pawn struc- ture, the power of his bishops is not felt at all. White’s only chance lies in an attack against the king. 19 #5 Ded 20 fxe6 fxe6 21 Bd1 Bxc6!? This interesting combinational continua- tion is not the strongest. Centralisation was preferable: 21..Wd4+ 22 &h1 Ded! 23 xed Weed 24 Hxd7 dxd7 when Black has the better arrangement of pieces. 22 2e27! White should have chosen one of two ba- sic continuations: either 22 RQg6+ hxg6 23 Exd5 Hcxd5 when Black has sufficient com- 9Meeting 1 e4 pensation for queen; or 22 BxcS Wxc5+ 23 h1 De3 when Black has the initiative to compensate for the exchange. 22.,.0d2! 23 Bb4? Tt was necessary to accept an inferior end- game after 23 Bxd2 Wad2 24 Wxd2 Exd2 25 Lixc5 Hxe2 26 Exb7, 23.03 The invasion of unfriendly black pieces into the enemy camp makes a strong impres- sion, White is lost. 24 Bia We5 25 Ef2 Dded 26 Exd7 Dxd7 27 &b2 Dxt2 0-1 Game 3 Anderssen-Paulsen Leipeig 1876 1 ef c5 2 DIS Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 26 5 De3 e6 6 AdbS Oba 7 Ads+ he7 8 ata It is characteristic that in this, one of the first games with the variation, the great Adolf Anderssen prefers not to exchange the knight for the bishop, but to keep it in the centre, 8...e5 9 Dt5+ #8 10 Lg5 The most natural continuation. The pawn sactifice 10 2d2 is considered in Game 4, 10...d5! Black is well prepared to play this. 11 exd5 After 11 @xf6 Wxf6 12 Wxds @xf5 13 exf5 Hd8 14 Wed (absolutely bad is 14 Wed?! Edd 15 WbS We5! 16 Hdl Be4+ 17 Be2 Wxg2 18 Het WES with advantage to Black) 14..Hid4 15 We3 Wx65 Black has an easy game. 11...Wxd5! This is more enterprising than 11...2xf5 12 dxe6 bxe6 13 &d3 with approximately equal chances. 12 De3 Wa5?! Black goes astray here. Even though he wins a pawn, he gets into trouble as he lacks development. The exchange of queens prom- ised the best prospects: 12...Wxd1+! 13 Dxd1 Det 14 Le3 Da4 15 Bd3 B65 when Black's initiative develops almost by itself. Seminara- Alpern, Buenos Aires 1992 continued 16 a3 @xc3 17 bxc3 (or 17 BxfS Axd1+ 18 Sxd1 Dxf5 19 axb4 Dxe3+ 20 fixed We7 with a favourable rook endgame for Black) 17..xd3 18 Bxd4 (18 cxd32! @a5 achieves nothing) 18...exd4 19 axb4 Sxc2. Here the players agreed a draw, but in fact that Black has a more pleasant position. 13 Dc4 &xc3+ 14 bxe3 Wxe3+ 15 2d2 Wd4 16 c3 Wea+ Probably the queen should remain on the d-file, ie. 16..Wid5. 17 203 Dd5 18 13 Wha+ 18..Dxe3 is unfortunately impossible be- cause of 19 WdGH. 19 212 Wd8 20 Wb3 fit G A Ly Vu ® 4, Z Y ae mse mone ses After a long journey the black queen comes home again. Meanwhile White has improved the position of his pieces. Perhaps it was now necessary to prepare the introduc- tion of the c8-bishop into the game by 20... We7, 20...0f4 21 Hd1 We7 22 g3 Ae6 23 2g2 g6 24 0-0 97 25 Bel We7 26 Bas The alternative plan is to move the knight to d5 via e3 in preparation for £3-£4. 26...f6 27 Dd6 DgS Black is trying to develop his bishop. 28 DxcB 10Four Knights: Main Line with 7 \d6+ But White does not allow it. 28...Bhxc8 29 Bb5 b6 30 £4!? This is the style of Anderssen! Opening lines, he does not care about pawns. 30...017 After 30..exf4 31 gxf4 Wxf4 32 Bp White’s initiative is rather dangerous. 31 fxe5 fxe5 31..Dfxe5 deserved attention, 32 Bf1 Qd6? Now White wins back the pawn with ad- vantage. Black should play 32...8 with the amusing simplification 33 We6 Dg5 34 Wxc6?! (correct is 34 We4 with the initiative) 34..Db3H 35 Bhi Wxc6 36 Rxc6 Bxf2 when Black has good chances to draw. 33 Gxc6 Wxc6 34 ExeS A'S?! 35 g4 Wi3 36 He7+ &h8 37 gxf5 Wo4+ 38 293 Hed 39 fxg6 Hd8 40 Wxc4! 1-0 Deflecting the queen. The king is defence- less, Black resigned due to 40..Wxc4 41 Re5+ LS 42 exh7 mate. Game 4 Cipolli-Limp Braggl 2000 1 e4 cB 2 Af3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 D6 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS 2b4 7 Ad6+ be7 8 2f4 e5 9 DS+ S18 10 Rd2 fxe3 11 &xc3 11...d5! The greedy 11..Axe4?! was tried in Can- toni-Zon, Venice 1883. After 12 We4 ps 13 £4! De6?! 14 fxe5 Wy5 15 Le2 Wrg4 16 Rxgt h5 17 LE g6 18 Ddo Se7 19 0-0-0 b6 20 Hhfl Black was under strong pressure. Black should have made a temporary piece sacrifice with 13..d5! 14 fxg5 d4, even though after 15 &d2 g6 16 2d3 White is more active. 12 exd5 Dxd5 13 De3 Axc3 13..Re6 14 AxdS Wad5 15 WxdS Bxd5 promises Black less, as White has the wo bishops and a flawless pawn structure. 14 Wxd8+ DxdB 15 bxc3 2e6 ‘The game has passed through the middle- game without stopping and has gone directly from the opening into the endgame. White’s queenside pawn chain is spoiled, as fre- quently happens in the Four Knights Varia- tion, In the middlegame this weakness is usually compensated by better development and threats against the black king (especially due to the dominance of the dark-squared bishop). Here these factors are absent and so White’s position is strategically difficult. 16 a4 This move loses time; White should have preferred the developing move 16 &c4. 16...2c8 17 0-0-0 te7 18 b2 The knight against bishop endgame after 18 Da5+ Rxd5 19 Bxd5 des is also favour- able to Black. 18...Hc5 19 cf Dc6 20 Dd5+ Oxd5 21 exd5 AdaMeeting 1 e4 iia oo . ans oN B ae ‘Y White has created a passed pawn, but the pawn is not dangerous as it is easily block- aded. So instead of advancing the passed pawn to its own death, White should have played more precisely with 22 4. 22 d6+?! be6 23 c3 DfS 24 d7 HdB 25 94 Dd6 26 £03 g6 27 Hhe1 15 This stops White’s planned countesplay with {2-4 and after the d7-pawn falls the struggle practically comes to an end. 28 gxf5+ gxf5 29 He3 Exd7 30 Bh3 e4 31 &bS Hg7 32 Bh6+ Eg6 33 Lxh7 @®xb5 34 axb5 Exb5+ 35 dc2 Eg2 36 d2 ve 37 c4 Eb6 38 c3 14 39 c5 Ec6 40 dd4 b6 41 cxb6 axb6 42 Eh4+ Hg4 43 Bh8 Bd6+ 44 dc3 Bxd2 45 Sxd2 &f3 0-1 Points to Remember 1) 7 Dd6+ is initially tempting for White, but we can conclude that it’s too elaborate to offer White any chance of an advantage. Indeed, following 7..cee7 8 Dxc8+ Bxc8 most would prefer Black’s lead in develop- ment to White’s bishop pair. 2) 7 DdGt &e7 8 Lf4 is trickier, but Black can equalise comfortably with 8..e5 9 DS SB, followed by a quick ..d7-d5.CHAPTER TWO Four Knights: Main Line with 7 2f4 1 e4 cB 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 D6 5 Dc3 e6 6 Ddbs 2b47 24 An early (though rather unsuccessful) em- ployment of this move was in Reggio- ‘Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1902. This aggressive attack on the sensitive c7-square (and the slightly less sensitive d6-square) is strategi- cally more reasonable than 7 DdG+, since 7 £4 is also a developing move. Some rather strong chess players (in particular Judit Pol- gat) have done their part in championing the move. In reply to 7 &f4 it is unprofitable to play 7.05, as 8 2g5 leads to an inferior (for Black) version of the Cheliabinsk Variation. Instead, a rather quiet game arises after 7..0-0 8 &c7 We7 9 2d6 Bxd6 10 Wades (the same position can arise from the mod- ern 6.251? 7 2F4 0-0 8 &c7 We7 9 Bd6 &xd6). White has a strong grip on d6 and stands better (see Game 5). So the main line involves the capture of the central pawn on 4 with 7...Dxe4 which gives rise to some very confusing positions. Play usually gravitates towards the following theoretical position: 8 W3 d5 9 Dc7+ SFB 10 0-0-0 Bxc3 11 bxe3 Itis also possible to reach this position by transposition of moves, as fequently occurs in practice. The black king is not as naturally placed as his white colleague. However, his pawn structure is much better and this factor fa- vouts Black after the most natural continua- tion 11...Bb8 Game 6 deals with the subsequent transi- tion into an endgame after 12 Dxd5 exd5 13 Wxed dxed 14 Hxd8+ Dxd8 15 2xbB ‘The tactical move 11...g5, with rather un- clear consequences, is considered in Game 7. Finally, Game 8 sees the central advance 11.5 — a good move which can be recom- mended for Black.Meeting 1 e4 Game 5 Pinski-Gdanski Polanica Zdroj 1999 1 04 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 16 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS Lb4 7 24 0-0 E A) as i a Be Y Compared with the 7...“Axe4 variation, the positions after 7...0-0 are relatively quiet. The bishop is not ideally placed on £4, so White begins a struggle for the d6 square. Black is safe from the immediate 8 Ac7 as after 8..c5 9 @xa8 exf4 the knight is trapped in the cor- ner and will subsequently be lost. After 8 a3 &xc3+ 9 Dxc3 d5! a position arises which is considered in Chapter 3. 8 &c7 8 &c7 is more exact than 8 Ld6 Sxd6 9 ®Dxd6 (or 9 Wxd6 a6 and White cannot play his knight to d6 as he would wish) 9..a6 10 Wa2 b5 11 0-0-0 Wb6 12 £ De8 13 db1 Dxd6 14 Wxd6 Bb7 15 Bd3 £6 16 £4 BE 17 Bhfl Bc8 18 BS We7 (Haag. Myagmarsuren, Polanica Zdroj 1972). Black has conveniently arranged his pieces and will be no worse in any potential endgame, while it is hard to see how White can co-ordinate fully. 8...We7 9 2d6 &xd6 10 Wxd6 a6 ‘This move forces the exchange of queens. The alternative 10..e8 leaves White with a choice. After 11 Whxe7 @xe7 12 0-0-0 £5 13 Dd6 Dxd6 14 Bxd6 fre4 15 Axes DLS 16 Bd2 ds 17 Dgs (Wabls-Hall, German Bundesliga 1999) White has a certain pres- sure on the central pawns. In the case of 11 Wea2 a6 12 Das Dxd4 13 Wadd bS 14 0-0-0 d6 15 h4 Bb8 16 a3 &b7 (Wedberg-Hall, Swedish Team Ch., 2000) we have a standard Sicilian position, and one quite acceptable for Black. 11 Wxe7 Dxe7 12 Ad6 DeB 13 Hd1 The struggle for control over d6 contin- ues. After the bishop, the queen and knight have occupied this square, it is the rook’s turn to join in. Perhaps it was more precise to play 13 0-0-0. 13...2xd6 14 Hxd6 b5 15 a4 b4 16 Dd1 Bas 17 13 White prophylactically protects the pawn on e4 in advance of the possible ...&c8-b7. Now 17...Sb7 can be answered by the move 18 Bol. 17.08 18 De3 Ac6 19 Le2 we7 20 Hd2 Black has achieved his goal and broken the blockade of the d-pawn. White can fight to keep the rook on d6 by 20 Ac4 but re- fuses, probably because of 20..a5 and 21.226. 20...a5! Controlling the c4-square — the only seri- ous square for the white knight. 21 #12 dé 22 Bhd1 2b7 23 Baa Dc6 24 H4ad2 Dad 25 Bd4 Dc6 26 Had2 Dab e-%s 14Four Knights: Main Line with 7 &f4 Game 6 Oll-Shabanov Kostroma 1985 1 e4 c5 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 AIG 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS Qb4 7 Of4 Axed 8 Ws ‘There are some alternatives here: a) It is clearly unprofitable for White to play 8 2d3 Axc3 9 bxc3 Ba5 when Black protects c7 and keeps the extra pawn. b) Nor is it good to for White to take the rook at once with 8 Dc7+ £8 9 @xa8?!, In an ancient game Reggio-Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1902, White was severely defeated: 9..WWE6! 10 WES Dxc3 11 Bd2? Daa! 12 Wa3 (12 Wxf6 Axc2 mate) 12..Wes+ 13 Be3 (13 Be2 Dxc2+ 14 SF ADxal secures an advantage for Black) 13..Dad+! 14 c3 @Dxb2 15 Wht (15 Wxd4 2xc3+ and Black wins) 15...Qxc3 mate! The co-operation of the black pieces makes a strong impression, but White’s hasty defeat was not predetermined. After the cor- rect 11 3, the attack 11..d4 is met by 12 RACH Bxd6 13 Wxc3 We5+ 14 Gd1 with unclear play; while if 11..Qe5 12 Wh3 (not 12 Bxe5? WxeS+ 13 @e2 Dxe2+ 14 axb4 Da4+ 15 We3 Dxc2+ and Black wins the queen) Black has a choice between a draw by perpetual check (12...a5 13 &d2 Des 14 Bxa5 Wxe2t 15 dedi Wd4+ 16 det WE24) or dangerous centralisation (12..Wxf4 13 axb4 @d5). In these variations the disorder of the white pieces is obvious. Therefore, instead of 9 @xa8 it is preferable to play 9 WES transposing back to the main continua- tion, 8...d5 Black prefers to improve his development rather than play 8..Axc3 9 bxc3 B25 10 Dao+ BB 11 0-0-0 when White has a strong initiative in return for the missing pawn, For example, 11...{6 12 &c4 &c7 13 Bhel &xd6 14 QxdG+ dg8 15 WhS g6 16 Who E7 17 £4 b5 18 2b3 a6 19 a3 We8 20 g4 and in Klovsky-Antoshin, USSR 1969, White suc- cessfully organised a decisive attack. 9 Dc7+ 9 0-0-0 &xc3 10 DcT+ is just a transposi- tion. 9...Sf8 The king quickly and correctly leaves the centre, where he risked coming under attack. The king is worse placed on c7: after 9..2e7 10 0-0-0 &xc3 11 bxc3 Hb8, the move 12 c4! undermines the d5-square with the passing threat 13 Wa3+. With the king on £8 Black could reply with the unpleasant 12...W6, but here after 12...£5 13 cxd5 e5 (an attempt to close the position) 14 Wxed! (14 dxc62! Wrxc7) 14...fxe4 (or 14...Whxc7 15 Wel! and Black is lost) 15 &g5+ White has the advan- tage. So Black’s wide choice (which he gets after 9.9218) is narrowed down to just 11...g5 12 Big3 5 13 Bet ET 14 Dxdd WaS (A.Kuzmin recommended 14...WE8!? 15 Db4 Sg6 16 Bhel a5) 15 Bhel exd5 16 Qxd5+ g6 17 Bxed! B68 18 Bxc6 Wa3t 19 Bb1 fred 20 Mxed+ Sho 21 We3 (A.Kuzmin-Timoshenko, USSR. 1984) and Black still has problems with the king. 10 0-0-0 &xc3 11 bxc3 Not good is 11 Dxa8? WaS 12 a3 (12 bxc3 Wa3+ just wins) 12.5! (bringing eve- ryone to the party!) 13 &e3 Be6 14 Sb1 $e7 15 Bd3 Bxa8 and Black has a decisive advantage (Prins-Gonzales, Havana 1952). 15Meeting 1 e4 11...8b8 The rook saves itself for now. This is the most natural continuation. Other more com- plex possibilities are considered in the games below. 12 Dxd5 White forces a transition into the end- game. After 12 Wxe4?! dxe4 13 Exd8+ Axd8 14 Dxe6+ Rxe6 15 Mxb8 a similar endgame occurs, only now Black has played the extra move ...£c8-e6! 12...exd5 13 Wxed dxe4 14 Bxd8+ DxdB 15 Oxbs This endgame is important for the evalua- tion of 11...8b8. White has the two bishops and the better development. But he also has a defective pawn structure, which will depre- ciate these advantages. In practice Black keeps the balance. 15...a6 16 &c4 2e6 17 Bd1 17 2b3 should not create any difficulties for Black. After an exchange on b3 White will restore his pawn chain but also lose the advantage of the two bishops. After 17...8e7 18 Hel £5 19 £3 Bxb3 (19...exf3 20 gxf3 BE7 is safer but also less dynamic) 20 cxb3 (with hindsight 20 axb3 appears to be more normal as the d3-square is no longer weakened) 20..De6 21 fxe4?! (this loses the exchange; 21 Be5! was better) 21..Dc5 22 exfS+ £7 23 Be5 Dd3+ (23..0d7! was more precise, gaining a tempo on the game) 24 @d2 Axe5 25 Sxe5 He8 a draw was agreed in Khasin- Bannik, Moscow 1961 17.207 18 Rd6+ bt6 19 Bd White tries vigorously to exploit his lead in development. However, Black has sufficient defensive resources. 19...2xc4 20 Exc4 te6 21 203 15 22 He7 Zg8 23 of h6 24 dd2 95 Black removes his pawns from the sev- enth rank to lessen White’s advantage of having a rook there. The better organisation of White’s pieces is insufficient for victory because of his defective pawn structure. 25 de3 He8 26 &cd LG 27 Add+ Sg6 28 Uc8 14+ 29 be2 E17 30 Hb8 g4 Reminding White of the opposing king- side pawn majority 31 g3 Dc6 Black sacrifices a pawn in order to ex- change rooks. 32 Uxb7+ Ze7 33 Exe7+ Dxe7 34 2e5 16After 34 gxf4 @f5 35 @e5 the two extra pawns will not bring White the victory, as all his pawns are isolated and weak. 34...fxg3 35 2xg3 DFS 36 c5 Se6 37 6 h5 38 c3 h4 39 f4 h3 40 c7 da7 41 Re5 %-% White cannot make progress. If his king advances on the queenside Black has the counterattack ...e4-e3!, answering fxe3 by ~-g4-g3! and the h-pawn becomes a passed pawn, Game 7 Rasik-Rogozenko Sas van Gent 1992 1 e4 05 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 DG 5 De3 e6 6 Adb5 b4 7 Af4 Axed 8 Wt3 d5 9 Dc7+ SFB 10 0-0-0 &xc3 11 bxe3 g5!? Four Knights: Main Line with 7 &f4 Black had no compensation for the exchange in J.Polgar-Hajkova Maskova, Novi Sad Women’s Olympiad 1990) 15 h4!? (now 15 Sxc6 fa! closes the ill-starred diagonal) 15..f4 16 WxgS Wxc7 17 Qxc6 bxc6 18 Wio+ Sp8 19 Edd e5 20 Bel Wg7 21 Wast Wis 22 We5+ with a draw according to Judit Polgar. Another line is 15 c4 £4 16 We3 d4 17 Axc6 bxc6 18 Bxd4 Wxc7 19 Bd8+ Wxd8 20 Wxh8+t, also with a draw. Certainly both players have other possibilities in this com- plex line, so nothing should be taken for granted. 12...Wxe7 This move forces a complex endgame. Black has little choice here as the alternative continuations 12..gxf4 13 Wrxé4 and 12..dxe4 13 Hxd8+ Dxd8 14 Be5 are no good at all 13 Qxe7 dxed ae p-( Y _ @ UV mo Bates" a “ae A Se aa eee SS The previous game showed that after the immediate 11..4b8 the rook comes under fire from the bishop on £4, Therefore Black makes a natural attack on the bishop, intend- ing to exchange it after 12 &g3 Dxg3 13 Wxg3 and only then continue 13...4b8. 12 Wxea After 12 &g3 (bad is 12 @xa8? Wa5! 13 &b2 gxf4) 12..Dxg3 13 Wrg3 Bb8 a very sharp position arises which is difficult to assess. One possible continuation is 14 2b5 65! (after 14..We7? 15 &xc6 bxc6 16 Dxes+ ixe6 17 Wxb8+ &g7 18 Wy3 Hus 19 Bhel VEN 1a mimi eee ns ae aie ‘ne BERG Y a NS ae i This position is important for the evalua- tion of 11..g5. White has a pair of strong bishops and a lead in development. Black, however, has an extra pawn and while White spends time to win back the pawn, Black will be able to develop his forces fully. After that the bad pawn structure (a2, c2, ¢3) will de- preciate White’s initiative. 14h4 ‘The game Gaponenko-Foisor, Romanian Team Ch. 1997 continued 14 2b5 %g7 (more precise is 14...f6 and 15...8£7 as in the main game) 15 h4 g4 16 &xc6 bxc6 17 Khel 17Meeting 1 e4 £6 18 Bxed e5 19 Kxed! fxe5 20 BxeS+ 47 21 &xh8 and White is two pawns up. Yet one of these is immediately lost and the other not very important, as it is part of an weak structure. After 21...0¢6 22 Le5 Sxa2 23 Hd6 2d5 24 3 He8 25 Ld4 gxf3 26 gxf3 He6 27 Exes the players agreed a draw. 14...94 15 2b5 16! This move prepares to bring the bishop into play at e6 while also restricting White’s dark-squared bishop. 16 Hhe1 e5 17 Bxed £e6 18 £4 gxf3 19 axf3 7 Black’s pieces are well co-ordinated and already he has nothing to fear. 20 Bad It was probably better to go at once into an opposite coloured bishop endgame with 20 &xc6 bxcé 21 £4. 20...Hhe8 21 2d6 a6 21..De7 was possible, trying to avoid the opposite-coloured bishop endgame. 22 2d3 bS 23 Bad i 2 tata” Di cals ae White's rook manoeuvre has landed it in an inferior position and Black’s chances are already preferable. 23.15 24 Bgl #6 25 Bg5 h6 26 gi Sd5 27 hd 217! Not 27...2xf3? 28 Hgo+ Yf7 29 OxfS and the bishops rage in full power! 28 14 Qxh5? Now the game quickly comes to an end with numerous simplifications. 28..e4 was necessary, after which the protected passed pawn would give Black some advantage. 29 fxe5+ Dxe5 30 2xe5+ bxe5 31 Zh1 &F7 32 Exh6 2e6 33 Bad Bcd 2-% Game 8 Martinez-Khenkin Alcobendas 1994 1 e4 c5 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 @'6 5 Dc3 e6 6 AdbS Lb4 7 Lt4 Axed 8 Wf3 d5 9 Dc7+ Lf8 10 0-0-0 &xc3 11 bxc3 e5 aia “aie ware a Sec talae 26 mt Another way to play against 7 Sf4. As well as limiting the white bishop’s strength on the crucial h2-b8 diagonal, 11...e5 also opens up a diagonal for the bishop on c8, Now after 12 Dxa8?! exf4 White loses some co-ordination and experiences difficulties. For example, 13 c4 (if 13 Wxf¢ Wa5 fol- lowed by ..Wa3+ is very dangerous for White) 13..WE6 14 Wa3+ De7 15 c3 Dxf2 16 Exd5 g6 17 Bd8+ dg7 18 Bxh8 dxh8 19 Bgl We5 with an overwhelming black ad- vantage in Paraminski-Macek, Pula 1998. 12 Dxd5 ‘The black pawn centre falls and routine play does not help anymore. In Turner-Thiel, Krumbach 1991, the centralisation of White's pieces after 12..exf4 13 Wxe4 WaS 14 Rc4 allowed him to win a beautiful game: 14.25 15 hd! &g4 16 hxg5! Wa3+ 17 Sb1 Bx 18 Hxh7! Bxh7 19 Wexh7 Se8 20 Aor ds 21 18We8+ ScT 22 Dds+ Bd6 23 Wxa8 Qxc2+ 24 Sexc2 Wad+ 25 2b3 Wed+ 26 ded2 and Black resigned. However, Black has a useful intermediate move in 12...g5! Be, S z £ N WI \ wy NY ~ WS \SN \ ~ ‘sa RS WY rl WN ~ [a> \N 13 &xg5 The alternative is to sactifice a piece by 13 We3, for which White achieves quick cen- tralisation and co-ordination of his pieces. But with good defence Black has good chances to consolidate. Exnst-Hector, Upp- sala 1985 continued 13..exf4 14 We5+ de8 (14.2982? loses immediately to 15 De7+) 15 Sc4 Deb 16 Bhet Ld7 17 Dxf4 We7 18 Wh5 £8? (correct was 18..Acd8 19 Dds Wa3+ 20 #1 Hc8 and Black should eventu- ally convert his superior position to a win) 19 Qxe6! Bxe6 20 Exes! Wa3+ (20...fxe6 21 DeGH and wins) 21 &b1 Wxc3 (21...fxe6 22 Had7 De7 23 Dxes+ dg8 24 WeS WET 25 Ed4! with a winning attack) 22 Ads Was 23 He3 and White has a great advantage. This game proves convincingly that Black needs to pay very close attention to the dangers in this line! Instead of 15 Bc4, more often seen is 15 &b5 Deb 16 Bhel (unprofitable is 16 Sxcé+ bxe6 17 Wre6+ Bd7) 16.247 17 Wado (17 Axf4 lets Black escape with useful simplifications, e.g. 17..We7 18 Dxe6 fxe6 19 Ed6 HB 20 &xc6 bxc6 21 g4 Bd8, Gon- zales-Li Zunian, Dubai 1986) 17...2lc8. This Four Knights: Main Line with 7 &f4 position is very interesting. White has sacri- ficed a piece but in return the black king is tapped in the centre. However, it seems difficult for White to strengthen his position. For example, 18 2 h5 (if 18..Ab8 19 Had! forces the knight to return to c6; 19,.Qxb5 is impossible because of 20 BxeGt!) 19 dal Zh6 20 h3 a6! (Gobel-Sepp, Netherlands 1987 finished in a draw after b8 21 Wes He 22 Wdc+ Be8 23 5) 21 Ba4 b5 22 23 and now it is pos- sible to remove the unfriendly knight from d5 by 22... De7. 13...Wxg5+ 14 b1 If queens are exchanged by 14 We3 Wrxe3+ 15 Dxe3, White has no compensa- tion for his spoiled pawn structure and should struggle for equality; eg, 15..2c6 16 Sct He7 17 Bhe1 Bhd8 and Black is better. 14.5 14...£e4 is pointless because of 15 W3. Therefore Black makes a way out for the king’s rook. A a a U ae cs Geer 15 ha Emms-Byway, British Ch, Eastbourne 1991 saw 15 Be? 265 16 h4 Woo 17 Ha2 Bc8 18 We3 Hh6 19 Bhd. Here Black could have taken the pawn on g2, and it is not clear whether White has any compensation for the sacrificed pawn. 15...Wg4 16 Wd3?! White does not sense the danger. It was necessary to exchange queens.Meeting 1 e4 16...215 17 Wd2 2d8 18 13 Wad! The threat is 19..xd5 20 Wxd5 Wxc2+ 21 gal Wxc3 mate. 19 Wi2 19...Dd4! 20 cxd4 Hxd5 21 2d3 Wb4+ 22 a1 Wc3+ 23 &b1 Zhe! The last piece enters the battle and the white king finds himself in a mating net. 24 &xfS Sb6+ 0-1 This game is an instructive example of a successful attack on the weakened white king position, which often arises after ...dxc3. Points to Remember 1) 7..0-0 is a solid move, but White probably keeps a small edge in the line 8 &c7 We7 9 £6. 2) In the main line 7..xe4 8 WE d5 9 DcT+ BB 10 0-0-0 Kxc3 11 bxe3, all of 11..8b8, 11..g5 and 11..e5 are perfectly playable for Black. The moves 11..1b8 and 11...g5 normally lead to level endgames, while 11...5 leads to a more complex middlegame position. 20CHAPTER THREE Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 At6 5 Dc3 e6 6 Ddb5 2b4 7 a3 Currently most people play just so! More- over, 7 a3 is often seen in games by the best chessplayers in the world. White gains a min- ute advantage; Black, on the other hand, trusts in the solidity of his position. Play is rather calm and there is a tendency for many games to end in draws. To play the resulting positions correctly it is necessary to have some precise strategic reference points; con- crete knowledge of lines and variations are of secondary importance. After 7...Lxe3+ 8 Dxe3 White gains the so-called advantage of the bishop pair, but he also allows the opponent to make the freeing break ..d7-d5. 8...d5 White sometimes declines to isolate the black d-pawn (9 &d3 ~ Game 9), but never- theless it is usual for White to play 9 exd5 exd5 Isolated d-pawn positions are key in the 7 a3 variation, But rather than a standard iso- lated queen’s pawn (QP) situation (ie. pawns on a2, b2, c2, £2, g2, h2 versus a7, b7, d5, £7, g7, h7), here we are dealing with a rarer pawn structure of a7, b7, d4, £7, g7, h7 as the black d-pawn almost always thrusts forward one more step. Moving the pawn to we Tae ee a we ‘— “@ mais a JA - “fe ae. a we Ke 1) With the black pawn on d5, a white piece (often a knight) normally occupies the d4-square and the power of such a blockader can be enormous. White can also use the c5- and e5-squares to attack the opponent. With the pawn on d4, the power of the blockading piece is lessened as it is harder to attack the enemy camp from d3, and the c4- and e4- squares are less important. 2) When playing against an isolated d5- pawn, White can answer Black’s pressure on the c-file with the strong move c2-c3. In the present case this move would merely ex- change the isolated pawn. 3) The pawn advance ...d5-d4 grabs space and the important d5-square falls into Black’s 21Meeting 1 e4 hands. He can then more easily manoeuvre his forces from one side of the board to the other. For example, ..Wd5 attacks the pawns on a2 and g2; on dé the queen would be less dangerous. However, pushing the pawn forward to d4 also has some important disadvantages: 1) With the pawn on d5 Black has strong control over the c4- and e4-squares. This is obviously not the case with the pawn on d4. 2) In the endgame the d4-pawn can easily be lost. For example: tm mia Ly a, See % is W In this position White to move wins. With his space advantage Black is less worried about playing with a knight versus light-squared bishop, which in other isolated pawn positions can be very unpleasant. Less desirable fox Black are single rook endgames, especially if White is able to organise a block- ade with dd3. Then it would be possible for White to threaten the pawn on d4 via the open e-file and penetrate into the black camp. But with the presence of both queens and rooks, the white pawn on c2 is just as weak as the d4-pawn. Black can choose between several differ- ent strategies: 1) Apply pressure down the half-open c- le. 2) Advance ...d4-d3, in order to either ex- change the isolated pawn or gain an outpost on d4 for the knight. 3) Exchange whichever white piece is on 3. After the recapture c2xd3 Black may stand better due to his space advantage 4) Transpose into an endgame with knight against dark-squared bishop. Practice has shown that this endgame is not at all danger- ous for Black. White, on the other hand, can choose to: 1) Free his position with the pawn move 2-c3 or c2-c4, Either advance can be effec- tive if White retains the advantage of the two bishops. 2) Simplify into a profitable endgame of some sort — this will often be a rook end- game. After 9 exd5 exd5 White sometimes pins the knight on £6 at once by 10 2g5 (Game 10), but usually he plays 10 243 0-0 Castling is not automatic, even though it is our main choice. Black can also test the pos- sible advantages of an early 10..d4 (Game 11). The move 10...We7+ has also been tried, but we have decided to limit ourselves to the two strongest opportunities here. The basic position arises after 110-0 In most cases Black immediately grabs space with the advance Wd when 12 Det is considered in Game 12, and 12 @e2 in Games 13 and 14. The Moldovian Grandmaster Dorian Rogozenko 22Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 has tried delaying ...d5-d4, taking time first to prevent 12 &g5 by the prophylactic 11...h6 (Games 15 and 16). Game 9 Shirov-Grischuk Linares 2001 1 e4 cB 2 DF3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DK6 5 Ac3 e6 6 AdbS 2b4 7 a3 xc3+ 8 Dxc3 d5 This move enables the development of the queen’s bishop. 8..0-0 can transpose to the usual positions (9 &d3 d5), but can also have independent significance after 9 Wd6!? We7 or 9..De8. After both moves White is slightly better. 9 &d3 White aims to complete the development of his kingside and chooses not to clarify the situation in the centre just yet. 9...d4 White offers to go into an endgame by al- lowing 9..dxe4 10 Dxed Dxe4 11 Bxet Wxd1+ 12 @xd1. However, this endgame is unpleasant for Black, as White has the bishop pair and a queenside pawn majority. Despite the appearance of opposite-coloured bish- ops, following 12...£5 13 Bxc6+ bxe6 14 &E4 BaG 15 Bel Bast 16 dct SE7 17 b3 Has 18 &c3 Bd7 19 c4 5 20 c2 cB 21 Hadi a6, Black does not have an equal game be- cause of the weakness of his a- and c-pawns and his dark squares. After 22 Exd7+ Sxd7 23 Hdl 2e6 24 2b6 Bcd 25 Bde £4 26 bc3 White went on to convert his advantage to a full point in Garcia-Khenkin, Reykjavik 1994. Nor do same-coloured bishops provide Black with equality. Fischer-Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 1959 saw 12..2d7 13 Be3 £5 14 BB 5 15 b4 0-0-0 16 Sct Ads 17 Qxd4 exd4 18 Hel Bhe8 19 &d2 Qb5 20 Exes Hxe8 21 a4 Sct 22 Bet dbs 23 c3 dxc3+ 24 Bxc3 O£7 25 a5 He7 26 Be3 Ha7+ 27 Ba3 He7 28 Hd8+ c7 29 Bh8 h6 30 dc3 a6 31 d4, Gradually the white pieces and pawns have all become better placed than their black counterparts. In the end Fischer was able to gain a full point from the accumula- tion of these small positional advantages. More interesting is 9..De5, uying to equalise by exchanging the bishop on d3. After 10 exd5 Dxd3+ 11 Wxd3 Dxd5 12 @Dxd5 Wrxd5 13 Wxd5 exd5 14 &e3 (Moldo- van-Chernov, Bucharest 1992) the opposite- coloured bishops rendered White’s advantage insignificant. In Christiansen-Alburt, Parsippany 1996 White tried 10 &bS+ 2d7 11 Wad ADcé 12 Rxc6 Bxc6 13 exdS Rxd5 (13..exd5? 14 &g5 makes the bishop on c6 look very bad; and 14..We7+ does nothing after 15 d2! intending 16 Hael) 14 Dxd5 Wad5 15 Wad5 ®Dxd5 and the knight versus bishop endgame is satisfactory for Black as he has no weak- nesses. 23Meeting 1 e4 Instead 11 Sxd7+ Wxd7 12 exdS Dxd5 13 Dxd5 exd5 (or 13...Wxd5 14 Wed5) cre- ates a typical position for the 7 a3 variation with no minor pieces other than knight ver- sus dark-squared bishop. These positions are generally without particular danger for Black. For example: 14 £4 Wes 15 Wd4 Acé 16 We3+ Web 17 0-0-0 0-0 18 Bhel WES 19 2g3 d4 20 Wet Wrxe4 21 Bxet £5 22 Reo £4 23 Sh4 BES 24 £3 Bhs 25 £2 Bxh2 26 Bet Bas 27 Bet g5 28 dd2 Bho 29 ded3 HE7 30 b4 a6 31 xd4 Axd4 with a draw in De Firmian-Khmelnitsky, Parsippany 1996. 10 Ae2 e5 This gain of space is logical. Black has a good arrangement of pieces so his position is not worse. White's only plan is to prepare £2- f4. 110-0 0-0 12 h3 A useful preventive move. After 12 Dg3 gd 13 Reo 14 £4 exf4 15 xf Dd7 (Lutz-Rabiega, German Bundesliga 2001) Black controls the important e5-square and keeps the balance. 12...He8 Preventing White from playing £2-£4 im- mediately by preparing counterplay against the white pawn on e4. 13 Dg3 e67! Black should expect 14 £4 and prepare to bring the knight to ¢5 with 13..d7 14 (4 exi4 15 Qxf4 Dde5 16 WhS £6, as in Po- nomariov-Korchnoi, Donetsk (Sth_match- game) 2001. Strongest is 17 BA Reb 18 afl with a complex struggle ahead. 14 £4 exf4 15 Qxf4 Dd7?! ‘Again with the idea of gaining control over e5, but such strategic play is no longer prudent. It is simply too slow. Shirov thinks that the best move here is the prophylactic 15...h6. 16 Whs! Now 16.6 (intending 17..Dde5) meets a strong objection in 17 eSI. 16...96 The dark squares are permanently weak- ened — this is especially dangerous for Black with the dark-squared bishop missing. But 16...2)88 is no picnic either due to 17 e5! with many threats. 17 Whe Wie Other moves are also unsatisfactory. Against 17...f6 Shirov had prepared the fol- lowing beautiful variation: 18 e5! (opening the diagonal for the light-squared bishop) 18..Dexe5 19 Dhs! We7 20 Rxe5 feS 21 Rxg6l hxg6 22 Wrg6+ Bhs 23 Ase Axfo 24 Bxt6 Wh7 25 Wes! Bps 26 Wre5 and White wins. 18 295 Wg7 19 Wh4 Ace5 20 &h6 Whe The black queen has occupied an original but not very good position. 21 D5! Bx 21...gxf5 22 exf5 is no improvement. 22 exfS ‘The strength of the light-squared bishop is 24Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 growing and Black feels compelled to ex- change it. 22...Axd3 23 cxd3 WeS ‘The advance (5-£6 was threatened. 24 Rta! Preparing to activate the dormant queen’s rook. 24...Dc5 25 Haf1 Dxd3 26 fxg6 fxg6 The rook is inviolable: 26...Dxf4 27 gxf7+ Bxf7 28 Axfs+ Sp8 29 We3+ whs 30 Hest and mate follows shortly. 27 Bf7 DcS 28 Hg7+ vhs 29 Ett7 A triumphant invasion of the rooks to the seventh rank. 29...De6 30 Uxg6 d3 31 Hg4 UgS 32 Bxh7+! 1-0 Game 10 Jones-Denker US Ch, Ventura 1971 1 ef cB 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dnd4 DIG 5 De3 e6 6 Ddb5 Lb4 7 a3 Axc3+ 8 Dxc3 d5 9 exd5 White aims for the isolated d-pawn posi- tions. 9...exd5 We know that Black should not be afraid of simplifications after 9..2xd5 10 Dxd5 Wxd5 11 Wxd5 exd5 as it is normally very hard for White to win this endgame. But on the other hand Black would have to defend and think only about making a draw. The active player prefers 9...exd5. After 9..Dxd5 many players choose 10 Qd2 rather than open things up for the bishop on c8. Then if 10..Axc3 11 &xc3 Waxd1+ 12 Bxd1 the two bishops and asym- metric pawn structure provide White with an advantage: 12...£6 13 f4 @d7 14 2c4 0.0.0 15 0-0 &c7 16 Edel Bhe8 17 BS Mc8 18 Bp3 He7 19 Ege} Bd6 20 b4 Dds 21 b5 Bed7 22 &d3 h6 23 Hy3 b6 24 bd and White went on to win in Fischer-Addison, US Ch., New York 1962. A similar endgame also arises after 10..0-0 11 Wh5 @f6 (other- wise White’s dangerous bishops will attack the king, as in Tal-Liberzon, Kislovodsk 1964: 11..Dxc3 12 Bxc3 &5 13 Ad3 g6 14 Who Weo 15 0-0 We7 16 We3 5 17 h4 h6 18 hxgS hxg5 19 £ Se6 20 $2) 12 Wh4 Waa, The move 10...Wh4 interferes with Wd1- AS, but is still not sufficient for equality. For example: 11 WE Dd4 12 Wa3 0-0 13 0-0-0 Ba8 14 93 Wed 15 h3 WES 16 Wxf3 Dxf3 17 Rg2 Dxd2 18 Bxd2 &f8 19 Bhdt Bbs 20 Dxd5 exdS 21 BxdS BxdS 22 Hxd5 and White won a pawn in Mecking-Van Riems- dijk, Sao Paulo 1972. 10 295 + Pian a “ wage is “— cone Drie BG White ingenuously pins the knight and threatens to win the pawn on d5, But White cannot win this pawn without cost. 10...0-0 The game Radulov-Rossolimo, Novi Sad 25Meeting 1 e4 1972 has shown that 10...d4 is premature: 11 We2+ Leo (11...We7?! 12 2xf6! destroys Black’s pawn chain) 12 0-0-0 h6 13 &h4 We7 (13..g5 14 2g3 We7 15 DbS is good for White) 14 xf Wét+ 15 bi Wexfo 16 Dds Was 17 Drs Who 18 Axes fre 19 Whst g6 20 Wet 0-0-0 21 ct Bue 22 het and White had pressure in the centre. 11 Re2 White can take the pawn, but Black gets good compensation thanks to his superior development: 11 &xf6 Wxf6 12 Wxd5 (12 Dxds West? 13 De3 Wrb2 is better for Black) 12..He8+ 13 Be2 Sgt 14 £3 Bad8 15 Wc5 Da4 with a strong initiative for Black. 11,..815 Black has developed the bishop conven- iently, taking advantage of the absence of its white counterpart from the b1-h7 diagonal. 11..Be8 is equivalent. For example, 12 0-0 d4 13 &xf6 (without this exchange the white knight has no place in the centre) 13...Wxf6 14 Dd5 Wd6 15 c4 Be6 (the alternative is 15..dxc3. 16 Axc3 with simplifications) 16 26 Had8 (16..De5!?) 17 Het h6 18 Bet De5 19 Wad4 Dxk3+ 20 gxf3 Lxd5 21 exd5 Exel+ 22 Hxel Wg6+ 23 ’hi WES and Black got his material back in Blalock- Fernando, Aveiro 2000, 120-0 44 13 a2?! White seems to have regretted playing the bishop to g5. But why should the knight suffer for it? Necessary was 13 Bxf6 Wxf6 14 Das Wa6 15 c4 dxc3 16 Dxc3 WEG 17 8 Had8 as in Kindermann-Chandler, German Bundesliga 1988. Black has the bet- ter of this symmetrical position thanks to his superior development. : 13..0c8 14 Qcl h6 15 &h4 Ded 16 Dd3 Dg6 Black has a space advantage, so he should not exchange pieces. As explained earlier, the knight on d3 only carries out defensive func tions. 17 £93 Wb6 18 Hb1 Hfd8 19 He Dea YUERY Up A 4 BER) Qe RM The black pieces are placed actively and harmoniously. Now White should attack the centralised knight on e4 by means of 20 263. 20 £17! WHE 21 He2?! ‘The pressure on the ¢2-pawn was appre- ciable, but White defends the pawn too clumsily. Preferable was 21 Hcl. 21...n5! 22 £3 Dxg3 23 hxg3 h4 24 g4 Bxd3 25 cxd3 Ata Black has an obvious positional advantage due to greater space and the superiority of his knight over the white bishop. 26 Hed Deé Instead of this obscure manoeuvre, there was a better and simpler move in 26..g5! with lasting domination. 27 Wd2 Dc5 28 Hee g5 29 b4? White defends poorly, needlessly weaken- ing the c3-square. 29...2a4 30 Bbe1 Ac3 31 @e2 Bes 32 26Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 2d1 eS 33 2b3? vt /37/, Y), Py w “ye Vy ‘fh, BO 27) i, ABT The bishop at last comes to a good diago- nal, but too late. Black has a tactical shot. 33...He2!! 34 Hxe2 Dxe2+ 35 Wxe2 Excl+ 36 #f2 Wa 37 2d1 Hal 38 a4 Sf8 39 We2 We3+ 40 Yf1 Hcl 41 Wb3 Wad2 0-1 Game 11 Fernandez Garcia-Illescas Pamplona 1991 1 e4 c5 2 Df3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxda De6 5 DS AG 6 Aic3 Lb4 7 a3 2xc3+ 8 Axc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 243 This move simplifies the position. 11 We2+ White tries to exploit Black’s delay in de- veloping. In the case of 11 De4 Axed 12 Lxed, the tactical possibility 12.25 is sufficient for equality; for example, 13 Qxf5 (a similar endgame arises after 13 WE Bxe4 14 Wxed+ We7 15 Wxe7+ @xe7) 13...Wa5+ 14 2d2 (after 14 c3 Wxf5 15 0-0 0-0 16 cxd4 Had8 17 Ge3 Hd5 18 Hci fds 19 Wb3 Wa7 Black can win the pawn back at a suitable moment and balance the chances) 14...Wxf5 15 We2+ We5 (also acceptable is 15..We6 16 WxeG+ fxe6 with an alteration of the pawn structure, but no extra weaknesses) 16 2£4 Wrxe2+ 17 dxe2 0-0-0 18 ed3 Bd5 19 Bhet HPS 20 Sg3 hS 21 hd a5 22 b4 Bd8 23 Habl axb4 24 axb4 b5 and a draw was agreed in Sakharov-Zaitsev, Alma Ata 1968. On 11 De2 it is probably preferable for Black to transpose to the main line by 11..0-0 12 0-0 Sgt — see Games 13 and 14. In the case of 11..22f5 12 0-0 &xd3 13 Wxd3, White effortlessly organises strong pressure against the d4-pawn. A classic ex- ample is the game Karpov-Kuzmin, Lenin- grad 1977, which continued 13...0-0 14 &g5 h6 15 &h4 Be8 16 Hadi Hc8 17 Hfet Heo 18 &f1 We7 19 &g3 Wh6 20 b4 with advan- tage to White 11,..2e6 12 Ded Dxed 13 Wed Wd5 This is virtually forced as the line-up of the d3-bishop and the e4-queen is very un- pleasant. 14 Wxd5?! Despite the amusing opposition of queens and bishops White should have kept his cool. It was obviously better to continue develop- ment with 14 &4, keeping all the advantages of his position. 14...2xd5 15 214 In the game Chiburdanidze-Barlov, Biel 1990, White played c2-c4 and opened the position when her two bishops gave her the advantage after 15 0-0 0-0 16 Het Bac8 17 Rd2 Be6 18 c4 dxc3 19 Rxc3 Has 20 Bed b6 21 Hadi. Black should have played 16..Bfe8 17 &d2 De5 to counteract this plan, 27Meeting 1 e4 15...0-0 15.921 16 Hel @d5 17 Bxe7 only benefits White. 16 0-0 Hfe8 17 Hfe1 16 This limits the scope of White’s dark- squared bishop and opens a road to the cen- tre for the black king. Probably White should play similarly with 18 3. 18 Bxe8+ Bxe8 19 Hd1 g5 20 293 217 2114 gxf4 22 Oxf4 296 “ ig on mA ee Gf yywd os alas aa om _ NY Aiming to exchange off light-squared bishops. The weak pawns are a problem for Black, but the pawn on {6 limits White’s dark-squared bishop and provides a healthy square on e5 for the black knight. 23 &f2 Here and on the next move, White could play 23 &b5 going into an opposite-coloured bishop endgame, in which it is practically impossible for Black to realise his minimal edge. 23...d897 24 Hd2 &xd3 25 Exd3 Hed 26 Hg3+ of7 27 2d2 DeS 28 h3 hd 29 he White has managed to get his rook to the seventh rank, but it does not do him any good. In fact, this rook gets stuck in the op- ponent’s camp and becomes the cause of White’s defeat. 29...%e6 30 Eg7 Dt7 31 Qd2 Hed 32 &b4?! Probably the white bishop is also on a wrong path. It was better to bring the rook back into play with 32 Hp8 or 32 Hg3. 32...a5 33 2f8 Hb5 34 ba b6 35 we2 a4 First he limits the bishop’s scope with uub7-b6, and now Black fixes the weak white pawn on a3. The position is becoming dan- getous for White. Again 36 Hp3 was the best chance. 36 hd3 Has Compared with White’s poor co- ordination, Black has absolutely nothing to complain about. 37 bS The endgame after 37 Bh7 DeS+ 38 @e2 Ha8 39 Bho Bes 40 Bp? Bxg7 41 Lxg7 Dc4 is hopeless for White. 37...2e5+ 38 de4? After 38 @e2 HxbS White only loses a pawn. Now he loses the bishop. 38...f5+ 39 Sf4 S16 40 Sg3 Dd7! 0-1 Game 12 Ki.Georgiev-Chandler Leningrad 1987 1 e4c5 2 Df3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4 Axa D6 5 Ac3 Ac6 6 DdbS Lb4 7 a3 Lxc3+ 8 @xc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 2d3 0-0 11 0-0 d4 Black grabs space, 11...h6 is investigated in Games 15 and 16. 12 Dea The prophylactic This natural move leads only to simplifica- tions 2812...215 13 295 If 13 Dg3, then Black exchanges the light bishops in the following way: 13..0g4 14 Be2 Bxe2 15 Dxe2 Wd5 and, in contrast to 13...$2xd3 14 Wxd3, we now see a centralised black queen, instead of a white queen. After 16 c3 dxc3 17 @xc3 WS Black had easy play in Serper-Kuzmin, Tashkent 1987. 13...2xe4 14 2xe4 h6 wy Ez a NY; \ ms \N \ sys ok ze Va . a ne Ae “a9 “t This deprives White of the advantage of the two bishops. Another good possibility is 14...Wid6, when 15 &xf6 Wxf6 leads to the same position, the only difference being the position of the h-pawn (h7 or h6), which is less than important. 15 aha Here White has an alternative in 15 Sxf6 Wxf6. If the position is then simplified so that only the heavy artillery remains, Black has no problems: 16 &xc6 bxc6 17 b4 a5 18 Wd3 Bf8 19 Bab axb4 20 axb4 Bad 21 Bfel g6 with obvious drawing tendencies in Weitzer-Prichoda, Getmany 1996. In Xie Jun-Polgar, Jaen (6th matchgame) 1996, Black skilfully neutralised her oppo- nent’s minimal initiative after 16 WE Wx 17 &xf3 Hac8 (aiming at the c2-pawn) 18 Hfel Bids 19 Hadi SB 20 SF Dad 21 Be2 Dc and now 22 Hed d3!? 23 cxd3 (23 Bxd3? Hxd3 24 cxd3 Dd2+ does not work) 23...Axb2 24 Eb1 Dxd3 25 Bad (not 25 Bxb7?? Belt 26 e2 Belt 27 Hd2 Bxes 28 Sxe4 Dc5+ and Black wins) 25..0c5 26 Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 Bxa7 Ha8 27 Bxa8 Hxa8 28 xb7 with a draw on the way. After 22 &xb7 Hb8 23 b3 (after 23 26?! Dxb2 White has some prob- lems in the inevitable rook endgame) 23..xb7 24 bxed Bc7 25 c3 Bxc4 again a draw is looking like the only result. Kudrin-Chandler, London 1987, saw in- stead 16 Hel Bad8 17 Wd3 De5 18 Wb3 b6 19 He2 g6 20 Bact &g7 21 Wb5 Bie8 22 &d3 Dxd3 23 Wxd3 and in this major piece endgame Black kept the balance by means of pressure against the c2-pawn: 23..Bxe2 24 Hxe2 Has 25 Hel Bes 26 h3 R&S 27 Wa2 h5 28 Edi Hc5 29 Hel He5 30 Hdl v2-¥. 15...g5 16 2xc6 bxc6 17 2g3 Wd5 a “ ie oe ee me i & es a ans This is a more interesting position than the ones atising after 15 Sxf6. Black has weakened his kingside but has also gained control over the centre. 18 £4 A vigorous attempt to exploit Black’s kingside weakening. The quieter move 18 Wd3 was played in the game Kaminski- Sorokin, Slupsk 1992, which continued 18..fe8 19 c4 We4 (keeping the passed pawn; if 19..dxc3? 20 Wxc3 and Black has problems) 20 Hadi Bad8 21 6 Wxd3 22 Bxd3 Dh5 23 Med Dxg3 24 hxg3 He2 and the rook endgame should end in peace. 18...De4 19 fxg5 In Kveinys-Sorokin, Poland 1992 the fol- lowing aggressive move was tested: 19 Wh5 Sg7 20 Hadi Had8 21 Bd3 c5 22 fxg5 hxgd 29Meeting 1 e4 23 c3 £5 24 cxd4 cxd4 25 Hfdl £4 26 Be when Black has a passed pawn and central- ised pieces, but a vulnerable king. 19...hxg5 20 Wd3 15 21 Had1 Had8 22 212 05 White needs to undermine the strong pawn duo on c5 and di. 23 c3! 23 b4?! weakens c3 and creates risks for White: 23..c3 24 Edel c4 25 Wh3 Det and Black is in control. 23...Wb3! Black sacrifices a pawn and maintains the initiative after the exchange of queens thanks to his more active pieces. 24 cxdd Wxd3 25 Exd3 c4 26 Mdd1 Bb8 27 21 If 27 Hcl Hxb2 28 Bxc4?, then White loses the exchange to 28...d2. 27...Exb2 28 Hct Bfb8! 29 2ba Not 29 Bxf5? Hb1 30 Bxb1 Hxbl as the passed c-pawn is very dangerous. Or 29 Bxcd?! He2! 30 2c3 £4 31 Bet Axc3 32 H4xc3 Hbb2 with a probable draw in the rook endgame, even though it looks more dangerous for White. 29...b5 30 Hxc4 a5 31 Bc8+ £47 32 Hc7+ bg6 33 No6+ $17 34 25 £4 Tf Black wanted to win, he could have tried 34. Eb17, 35 h4 White disrupts the harmony on the black kingside and gains a draw. 35...Ag3 36 Hel He2 37 Hc7+ dg6 38 Be7 Bbb2 39 M1xe2 Axe2+ 40 Lh2 gxh4 41 d5 %-% Game 13 Ernst-Van Riemsdijk Thessalonikei Olympiad 1984 1 e4 c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 DTG 5 Dc3 e6 6 DdbS 2b4 7 a3 &xc3+ 8 Dxc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 243 0-0 11 0-0 44 12 De2 White avoids simplifications and attacks the pawn on d4. 12.894 12..De5? 13 Axd4! Led 14 Le2 Qxe2 15 @xe2 does not work out for Black. Recently grandmasters have more often played 12...Wd5, which is another very popu- 30Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 lar continuation. White has two active plans: 13 De4 Wd6 14 DhS Axh5 15 Wyxh5 h6 16 &d2! 2d7 17 Bact Bfe8 18 £4! with the initiative on the kingside in Xie-Polgar, Jaen (8th matchgame) 1996, or 13 c4 dxc3 14 Dxc3 Wa 15 B4 Boa 16 Wb Dd4 17 b+ Wh5 18 3 Be6 19 Wb2 Hfd8 20 Hae! with pressure in Kamsky-Lobron, Dortmund 1993, 13 13 The other way to attack the d-pawn is by placing the bishop on b2 after 13 b4. The drawback is the weakening of c3. Wahls- Chandler, London 1987 continued 13...2e8 14 @b2 Dd5 15 Wd2 Bxe2 16 Rxe2 WES 17 28 Dc3 18 Bact Hed8 with sufficient counterchances for Black. ‘The third candidate move, 13 £g5, is to be found in Game 14. 13...2h5 14 Ata Another example is 14 &g5 Wd6 15 Wad2 Had8 16 Hadi Hfe8 17 Rh4 Lg6 18 Lxg6 hxg6 19 &£2 (White attacks the pawn on d4 with four pieces!) 19.45 20 Bfel (20 Rxd4? Bxe2 21 Wxe2 Df4 wins for Black, while after 20 Axd4 De4 21 keht Dxd4 22 Sxd4 Be2 Black has the initiative for sacri- ficed pawn) 20..e3 21 &xe3 Hxe3 22 3 Hde8 23 cxd4 Dxd4 24 Wxd4 Wxd4 25 Bxd4 Bxe2 26 Hxe2 Bxe2 with mass simpli- fication in Zapata-Chandler, Amsterdam 1987. 14...96 15 Dxg6 hxg6 White has gained the two bishops, but at the expense of weakening the ¢3 square. Black will use this to his benefit. 16 14 White wants to gain space for his pieces by means of £4-f5 so Black interferes with this plan, 16...De7 In the game Forgacs-Schwarz, Wiesbaden 1988, Black carelessly ignored his opponent's threats and tried to occupy €3 at once by 16..2d5. The game continued 17 £5! gxf5 18 Bx De3 19 Bxe3 ded 20 Wh! g6 21 Who Wa4 22 Bhs! Wg7 23 Wxg7+ dxg7 24 Hh3 ¢2 25 Hel and Black loses the e2-pawn. 17 Wf3 Wd5 18 2d2 Bfe8 19 Hae1 D5 20 Wxd5 Dxd5 Black has prepared the intrusion of his knight to 3, whereas the power of the white bishops is yet to be felt. atMeeting 1 e4 21 g3 Afe3 22 Ht2 He6 23 Bfe2 cB The attack on the ¢2-pawn, typical of this variation, is assisted by the dominating pawn ond4. 24 c3 dxc3 25 bxc3 25 Axe} Dxe3 26 Hxe3 Hxe3 27 Hxe3 c2 28 xc? Hxc2 is no worse for Black. 28...Ded 26 Hxe6 fxe6 27 Lxcd Hxcd 28 Bxe6 &h7 After 28.847 29 Hao Ato! (29...Dxc3? 30 Hd7+ is no good) 30 Hd4 Hxd4 31 cxd4 $e6 everything is all right. The white bishop and king are so inactive that Black’s pawn minus is without importance. 29 Bd6 Dxc3 30 Hd7 De2+ 31 tt2 Hdd 32 Exd4 Axd4 33 2c3 DbS 34 2b2 Dd6 35 be2 Ach 36 Sct bS 37 &d3 bg8 38 dd4 $47 39 Sc5 a6 40 a4 Se6 41 axbS axb5 42 xb5 Dd6+ 43 ob6 Ded 4-% The Brazilian International Master Her- man van Riemsdijk is a great connoisseur of this variation. Here he has provided a good model of how to play this kind of position. Game 14 Kudrin-Rogers Bayswater 1988 1 e4 c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 DIG 5 Dc3 6 6 DAdbS 2b4 7 a3 Qxc3+ 8 Axc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 2d3 0-0 11 0-0 d4 12 De2 294 13 295 Rien ‘ad an ats ‘As we have already seen in the previous game, 13 £3 weakens the e3 square. 13...Wa6 The black queen gets out of the pin and simultaneously the rooks are connected. 14 He Bfe8 15 Wd2 &xe2 Black removes the white knight, which wanted to go to g3 or £4. This exchange is characteristic for this variation. 16 Exe2 16 &£4 is not dangerous for Black either, eg. 16...Wa7 17 Bxe2 Bxe2 18 Wxe2 He8 19 Wet We6 and Black's pieces were actively placed in Kasparov-Grischuk, Cannes 2001. 16...xe2 17 Wxe2 He8 18 Wi3 Ded 19 wea Accepting the pawn is risky: 19 Wxb72! Dxd3 20 cxd3 We5 21 Ld2 Ags 22 £4 We2 23 W5 38 with a dangerous initiative. 19...Wb6 20 &xf6 Dxd3 21 Wg3 A drawn rook endgame arises on the board after both 21 cxd3 Wxfo 22 Wxf6 pxf6 23 Sf Bc8 24 Bel and 21 Wxd4 Wxfo 22 Wxf6 gxf6 23 cxd3 He2 24 Bb1 Ba2. 21... Waxf6 22 Wxd3 Whe tm are nn om a “a a : me ‘a Z This position is fairly standard. White pressures the pawn on d4; Black pressures the pawn on 2. After the exchange of these pawns the symmetrical structure has obvious drawing tendencies. 23 b3 g6 24 g3 Wc5 25 a4 a6 26 Ed1 nS 27 h4 bS 28 axb5 axbS 29 bg2 Wce6+ 30 Wf3 Wxc2 31 Exd4 Wce7 32 oe —_ 32Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 Wd5 We5 33 Wxe5 4-% Game 15 Krogius-Tal Riga 1958 1 04 c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxdd 246 5 De3 e6 6 DdbS 2b4 7 a3 Lxc3+ 8 Axc3 d5 9 2d3 0-0 10 0-0 hé 11 exd5 exd5 12 2f4 The most natural development. bishop occupies an active square. 12...d4 13 Db5 13 Bed is considered in Game 16. After 13 De2 Black should continue as in the game Morozevich-Rogozenko, Moscow 1990, with 13..Wd5 14 c4 (after 14 Dg3! Hes 15 Het Sd7 16 Be2 a5 17 WEl Bxe2 18 Wxe2 Be8 19 WEL DeS 20 &xe5 Wxe5 play has be- come easier and Black has no problems, Golod-Rogozenko, Alba Julia 1990) 14...dxc3 15 Dxc3 Was. The 814, ES Pili mad op om ay y ae Opening the position is usually favourable for the player with two bishops, but here Black is better co-ordinated and can com- pensate for the slight disadvantage: 16 &g3 (16 Wd2 Ba8 17 Bad! £¢4! is advantageous for Black only) 16..8d8 17 Xe2 Le6 18 ‘2.632! (the exchange of queens was prefer- able) 18..Wb6 19 Wel Ad4 20 Sd1 Bac8 (Black controls all of the board) 21 h4 Qb3! 22 We3 He8 23 Wd2 HBcd8 24 ht D2 25 Wel Dxal 26 Weal Qxd1 27 Dxdi Wad 28 Bxf6 Waf6 29 De3 Ha2 0-1. 13...Dd5 Black utilises d5 as an ideal square for the knight. 14 293 fe6 15 Ze1 Wd7 16 h3 Zads In Tal-Olafsson, Zurich 1959, Black played illogically: 16..a671 17 Ad6 Af6 18 WE Sh8 19 Hadt Dh7 20 Qxh7 Sxh7 21 3 dxc3 22 Bed We8 23 Wrxc3 De7 24 Bes 65 25 Bc7! and White ended up with a clear advantage. 17 Wf3 Dde7 The knight concedes d5 to the bishop. By strengthening the centre, Black prepates an advance of his pawns on the kingside. 18 Dd6 ds 19 WhS If 19 Se4, then 19...Sxe4 20 Axe4 (not 20 Eixed? £5 followed ...£5-f4!) 20..Wd5 with a strong position for Black. 19...15 20 Des 14 21 aha Black has won space on the kingside, but has also weakened the b1-h7 diagonal. The move 21...g5 is now impossible because of 22 Wsh6l, Therefore Black drives the white queen from her active position. 21...247! 22 Wb5 2d5! Not 22...g5? 23 Bxp5! a6 24 We5 and White keeps his attack on the black king. 23 &xe7 Dxe7 24 Wed The exchange of queens is not dangerous for Black: 24 Wxd7 Exd7 25 De5 Hc? and Black is fine. 24...0f5 25 Bed b6 26 2xf5 33Meeting 1 e4 White is forced to exchange queens as 26 Wh4 £31 is very dangerous for him. 26...bxe5 27 &xd7 Bxd7 28 b3 cB Chances are about equal in this endgame. The bishop is stronger than the knight, but the pawns on c5 and a7 are weak, and White controls the only open file. 29 Hae 2f7 30 Be7 Bxe7 31 Lxe7 &g6 ‘The c2-pawn is weak too! Black forces the exchange of rooks and the game ends in a tie. 32 He2 HeB 33 Bxe8+ 2xe8 34 De5 g5 35 &f1 bg7 36 we 2b5 37 a4 eB 38 Sd2 S16 39 Dg4+ wg6 40 f3 hd 41 De5+ 15 42 Ad3 c4 43 bxed Sxad 44 Dc5 LeB 45 Db3 be5 46 ted3 2g6+ 47 bd2 215 48 Da5 2d7 49 Db3 94 50 hxg4 hxg4 51 cS %-% Game 16 Kravchenko-Rogozenko Chisinau 1986 1 e4 cS 2 D3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 DIG 5 Dc3 e6 6 Ddb5 Lb4 7 a3 Lxc3+ 8 Axc3 d5 9 exd5 exd5 10 &d3 0-0 11 0-0 h6 12 2f4 da 13 Ded This move is seen more often. Compared with 11..d4 12 Qe4, Black can more easily keep the balance due to the exposed position of the white bishop on f4. Black will ex change the light-squared bishops and con- stantly threaten the pawn on c2. White must also watch out for the break ..d4-d3 after the blockading bishop on d3 has been traded off. 13...Dxe4 14 2xe4 WIG 15 293 15 Wd2 was played in Savin-Rogozenko, Eforie 1989, which continued 15.265 16 Biel Bie 17 xtS Wxf5 18 h3 a5 19 Bg3 a4 (this thrust on the queenside is rather typi- cal) 20 Wd3 Waxd3 21 cxd3 (the exchange of queens has altered the pawn structure and Black now stands better with his unshakeable knight at 6) 21...8xel+ 22 Bxel Ha5! (the rook conveniently enters play on the fifth rank) 23 £1 Bb5 24 He2 £6 25 Hel Bb3 26 Ba2 We7 and Black was better, though White managed to draw. 15...2f5 16 Het As usual, 16 &xc6 is not dangerous. 16...2xe4 17 xed Wt5 ipent 4, a A ane oe wo Y ¥ iy oa 18 Wa3 18 We2?! unexpectedly caused difficulties for White in Bakhmatov-Rogozenko, Sauleai 1988; 18..Wd5! (opening a path for the f pawn) 19 @£4? £5 20 He6 d3! (with the idea of ..\c6-d4!) 21 We3 dxc2 22 Bde We4 23 b3 We 24 b4 Hfd8 25 Wb3+ @h8 26 Bxds+ Bxd8 27 2e3 Ha3 28 Wat Bxe3 0-1. The thematic break ...d4-d3 has given Rogozenko more than one victory in this variation. 18...Wd7 18...Wd5 does not satisfy Black due to the possibility of c2-c4, 19 Zae1 f5 20 He6 £4 21 2h4 Hae8 22 Wg6 With this move White keeps control over 34Four Knights: Main Line with 7 a3 the open e-file. 22...Bxe6 Black tries to exploit the poor position of the white bishop and declines the slightly favourable endgame following 22..WE7 23 Waf7+ dxt7 24 Bxe8 Bxe8 25 Bxe8 &xe8. 23 Exe6 Wt7 24 Wed Wh5 25 g3 White had no choice, but now his king is in danger. The subsequent moves are forced. 25...Wd1+ 26 dg2 3+ 27 wh3 hd 28 Re7 Wiil+ 29 bh4 Wxf2 30 axis Wxh2+ 31 gS Wxg3+ 32 bxh5 Wh3+ 33 dg5 (2 34 2d6! V2] 18. Be’ “E oat o Pn mn Fa White threatens to play 35 He8+ and it seems as if he has deceived his opponent. However, Black had foreseen this and found a combination. 34...De7!! 35 Bxe7 If 35 &xe7 f1W and the weakness of the white king will tell. 35...Wh6+ 36 dg4 Wxd6 37 We2 W167? ‘An annoying mistake in an otherwise su- perbly played game! After 37..Wxe7 38 ‘Wye7 £1W Black has the better endgame. 38 He8+ &f7 39 Eh8! 1-0 ‘Threatening either We8+ or Bhi and wins. Points to Remember 1) If White delays exchanging pawns on d5 with 9 2d3, then Black has the option of playing as in Game 9 with 9...d4, or simply playing 9...0-0, after which White normally wansposes into the main line with a swift exchange on d5. 2) After 9 exd5 exd5, only 10 243 is a se- rious try for a white advantage. See Game 10 for alternatives. 3) 10...d4, as in Game 11, may be used as a surprise weapon. However, White should keep a small advantage if he plays precisely. 4) 12 Ded, as in Game 12, looks natural but Black can force simplifications leading to fairly level position. 5) 12 De2, as in Games 13-14, is the main line, after which Black should continue ac- tively with 12... 294. 6) 11...h6 (Games 15-16) seems like a per- fectly playable alternative to the more popu- lar 11.44, 35CHAPTER FOUR Four Knights: 6 Axc6 N/R 8 a 6 a a a:8 @ ‘Sa @ RRR], RRR 1 e4 c& 2 D3 Dc6 3 da cxdd 4 Dxdd 216 5 Dc3 e6 6 Dxcé This exchange is not usually to be recom- mended in the Sicilian as it helps Black create a strong centre. However, in this position White can use it to seize the initiative and fix the weak square dé. 6...bxc6 7 05 Dd 8 Ded! a ia KR ‘The primitive exchange 8 @xd5 cxd5 (Game 17) is also sometimes seen, although it does not cause Black any difficulties. After ..d7-46 Black has a central pawn majority and a convenient way to develop. With 8 De4, on the other hand, White creates the positional threat 2-4, attacking the cenwalised knight. After this White will play Ae4-d6+, forcing Black to relinquish the valuable dark-squared bishop. Therefore Black is obliged to fight vigorously against the vanguard of the white army: the e5-pawn and the knight on e4. To do this Black usu- ally plays ...£7-£5 or, less often, ...£7-f6, ..d7- d6 or ..d7-d5, while the black queen fre- quently attacks the e5-pawn from c7 or a5, or even from d4. Another serious problem for Black is the light-squared bishop, which is restricted by the central pawn complex. ‘Therefore, from rare ancient games and throughout the history of the Four Knights Variation, Black has mostly aspired to de- velop the bishop to a6. At first Black’s preferred system was 8...£5 9 exf6 Dxf6 but numerous examples have confirmed that White has a small advantage 36after 10 Dd6+ Bxd6 11 Wxd6. So players started to look at other intricate lines, such as those arising after 8..We7 9 £4 Wb6 or 9. Wat. After 8..Wa5+ 9 c3 5 10 exf6 Dxfo (Game 18), in comparison with 8...5 9 exf6 ®Dxi6, the inclusion of ...Wd8-a5 and c2-c3 is favourable for Black, as the developing move a5 supports the desired ...{2c8-a6. The alternative 9 &d2 (Game 19) has its own drawbacks in that b2 is weakened and the bishop blocks the white queen on the d-file. The struggle here is primarily of a tactical nature. In 1999, in a game between Kasparov and Leko, a new plan of development for the light bishop was investigated: 8...b7 fol- lowed by ...c6-c5 (or in reverse order). This idea at once became popular among the top grandmasters. Apart from Leko, Grischuk also defends this way, and Games 20 and 21 show that, with 8...2b7, Black successfully solves his opening problems. Game 17 Chernyshov-Chekhov Podolsk 1992 1 ef c5 2 D3 06 3 Dc3 Dc6 4 dd cxd4 5 Dxd4 Df6 6 Dxc6 The continuations 6 Se2, 6 &e3, 6 g3 and 6 a3 are considered in Chapters 5-7, while 6 Rf4 Bb4 7 DbS and 6 Lg5 Bb4 7 Dds reach positions covered via the move order 6 Dabs Qb4 etc. 6 &g5 has some independent significance, for example, 6...$2b4 7 Axc6 bxc6 8 2d3 (8 52! Wa5 9 exf6 Wxg5 leaves Black in control of the dark squares) 8..h6 9 &d2 d5 10 e5 @ad7 11 £4 a5 12 0-0 0-0 13 We2 He8 14 Bfel B26 15 Bxa6 Wh6+ 16 Sh1 Wxaé and Black safely completes his development without further problems (Tomes-Priehola, Litomnysl 1997) 6...bxc6 7 e5 Dd5 Four Knights: 6 Axc6 8 Dxd5 cxd5 ‘The strongest move. The pawn which grew up on the outskirts of the board (b7) has made full use of his talents and become a central pawn! Sometimes 8..exd5 is seen, with the idea that after ..d7-d6 it is possible to develop the bishop on the c8-h3 diagonal. However, the pawn structure is not as solid as after 8..cxd5, and White has a small but In this position White’s chances are based on an attack on the king. Black plans to put pressure on the half-open b- and c-files 9...We7 Perhaps the most ambitious continuation ‘The logical 9...d6 (to exchange the ¢5-pawn and take control of the centre) was seen in Larsen-Fries Nielsen, Aalborg 1989: 10 &£% dxe5 11 Bxe5 2d6 12 Sxg? Bg 13 &c3 37Meeting 1 e4 Exp? 14 WG We5 15 266 Wet 16 Wxpt Hxgd 17 Qxh7 Re7 18 Qxe7 Sxe7 19 Qd3 Eh4. White has won a pawn, but Black has some compensation due to his powerful pawn centre and the strong position of his rook on hi. The exchange of light-squared bishops with 9...€26, simplifying the position, is also typical of the variation. aaa ie amas ‘fl Black is okay after this, but it is not easy for him to create winning chances. After 10 0-0 &xd3 11 cxd3 d6 12 F4 g6 13 Le3 Rg7 14 Wad+ Wa7 15 Wad7+ @xd7 16 Bact a6 17 Bc3 Bhc8 18 Sd4 Bxc3 19 &xc3 a5 20 &f2 (Hearst-Pavey, New York 1954) the endgame is certainly not worse for Black. Therefore White usually plays 11 Wxd3 and after 11..Wc7 we have several possibili- ties. For example, 12 Hel Hc8 13 c3 g6 (normal in this line; from g7 the bishop pro- tects the king and attacks the e5-pawn) 14 Se3 &g7 15 V4 0-0 16 Wa6 Ba8 17 Bact Bic8 18 3 Wet 19 Wxcd Hxc4 20 Bl Heb 21 Be2 26 22 bd3 Bc5 23 Bc2 Hac8 24 Becl d6 and Black has a good endgame, Campora-Illescas, Buenos Aires 1993. White can also play 12 &£4 Bc8 13 ¢3 (13 We3 is an elastic move which does not commit the queenside pawns too soon, Nev- ertheless, after 13..g6 14 h4 hS 15 Bact &g7 16 Bfd1 0-0 17 Hd3 Wed 18 b3 Wa6 19 a4 Hc6 Black still succeeded in creating a queen- side weakening and won a pawn after 20 Bigs We8 21 c3 Wh8 22 2£6 Wxb3 in Ryt- shagov-Kharlov, Helsinki 1992) 13...£5 14 We3 he7 15 Hfd1 @e7 16 h4 Wd8 17 h5 Bc4 18 b3 Be4 19 Hud g5! and Black cap- tured the initiative with his creative play, Renet-Van der Wiel, Cannes 1990. 10 4 ‘This move weakens the dark squares, but other attempts to protect the e5-pawn also have drawbacks: a) If 10 &£4 Bb8! immediately attacks the unprotected b2-pawn. Now 11 bt?! Hxb2 12 Exb2 Wc3+ 13 de2 Wxb2 14 Wb1 Who loses a pawn (Marshall-Mieses, Monte Carlo 1903) and after the clumsy 11 Wel d6 12 exd6 Sxd6 13 Lxd6 Wxd6 14 0-0 0-0 15 4 a6 16 Bd1 Bfc8 Black is perfectly devel- oped and has the initiative, Schandorff- Sulava, Copenhagen 1982. b) After the natural 10 We2 the correct answer is 10..b4#! and White loses the tight to castle, having to play 11 Wl (11 3? &xc3+ is obvious) and now 11...2b8! is the most exact move! In the case of 12 h4, intending to bring the king’s rook into play, Black has the stun- ning double attack 12....c3! 13 bxc3 Wxc3 14 We 0-0 15 2b2 (15 He2 Weal 16 &h6 Waxe5+ does not work) 15..Exb2 16 Bh3 Wyxe5 17 Hel £5 18 Wad Wb8 19 Hp3 Hb4 20 Wa3 d6 and it was time for White to re- sign, Rigo-Horvath, Budapest 1980. Better is 12 £4 when we should not be 38afraid to imitate Black’s play in Shabanov- Filippov, Elista 1996: 12...$2c5!? 13 b3 0-0 14 h4 £61? 15 Wh5 £5 16 We2 Bb4! 17 c4 (if 17 Rd2 Bet! 18 xe fxet with compensation for the exchange) 17..dxc4 18 &xc4 a6 19 Bel Gf 19 &xa6 Bxf4 and White is very weak on the dark squares) 19...Wb6 20 g3 Qxc4 21 Exct Exct 22 bxct Web 23 &gi Hbs 24 @h2 Wes 25 Wd2 Wixct 26 Wxd7 Wrxa2 27 &h3 Wd5S and Black has an extra pawn, 10...d6 Possible is 10...$2c5, preventing castling. 110-0 White hopes to utilise his slight lead in de- velopment. After 11 We2 dxeS 12 Wxe5 Wre5+ 13 fxe5 Bb8 14 Bb1 Sc5 we have an approximately equal ending. 11.,.8e7 Apparently Black could accept the sacti- fice and continue 11...dxe5, although after 12 fxe5 Wre5 13 Qb5+ 2d7 14 Bxd7+ Sxd7 15 Ext7+ de8 16 Hel Mc5+ 17 Phi BB 18 Bel White's chances are a litle bit better because of the unreliable position of the black king. 12 We2 0-0 13 b3 White wants to use the bishop on the long diagonal. If instead 13 exd6 Qxd6 14 2c3 then 14...e5!? is interesting, 13...dxe5 14 fxe5 2c5+ Black chooses the wrong path. 14...a5, in- Four Knights: 6 Dxc6 tending ...a5-a4 and the exchange of the light- squared bishops with ...2c8-a6, deserves attention. 15 th 244? 15..a5 was still better. Now White gains a clear advantage by the following exchanges. 16 &xh7+! &xh7 17 Wd3+ %g8 18 Wxd4 Wxe2 White has a lead in development, and in the middlegame the opposite-coloured bish- ops normally favour the attacking player. 19 &a3 Hd8 20 £e7 Bd7?! 20...e8 was more cautious. 21 Exf7! 26! If 21..Sxf7 22 Bel+ WES (22.. jr W \\ WY & \ EIS U, Y Bs Se = It is necessary to unpin the knight. No good is 7..Wc7?! 8 exd5 exd5 9 0-0 &e7 10 £4 (also possible is 10 Axc6 bxc6 11 Dxd5 Dxd5 12 Wxd5 2d7 13 We4 with a winning advantage) 10..Wd7 (10..Wxf4 11 ADxc6 &e6 12 Hel gives Black a truly hard time) 11 WS 0-0 12 Hadi a6 13 Ba4 Bc5 14 Db3 a7 15 Axd5 Dxd5 16 Bxd5 and White has won a pawn, Vasiukov-Sermek, Bled 1989. 8 exdd Axd5 In the case of 8..exd5 9 0-0 &e7 we have a standard 1QP position. Here a2-a3 does not seem very useful and chances are approxi- mately equal; e.g, 10 Ab3 &g4 11 Leb 12 e3 0-0 13 &xc6 bxc6 14 Dat Dd7 Suetin- Manor, Berlin 1995) and now White insisted on controlling c5 and thus went astray: 15 Dac52! Who 16 Wd4 Ducd 17 Dxc5 LEG 18 Wad Wxb2 19 Hab1 We3 and Black had an extra pawn. 9 Dxd5 exd5 The mass exchanges after 9..Axd4 10 Sixd7+ Waxd7 11 Wadd Wad5 12 Wad5 exd5 are unprofitable for Black. In the endgame the isolated pawn is a weakness for which Black does not have compensation. 10 0-0 2e7 11 Db3 After 11 Hel 0-0 12 Db3 Meo 13, Rea Wh6 14 @d3 £6 15 c3, as in Ermenkov- Theofilopoulos, Hania 1993, Black could equalise immediately with 15...d4. 11...a6 12 &xc6 Played with the intention of blockading the black centre on the dark squares. A stan- dard IQP position would arise after 12 243 Reo. 12...bxc6 13 2e3 0-0 14 2c5 Hes May ty te ‘Ysy 15 Qxe7?! White hopes that his knight is better than Black’s bishop and plays to establish a block- ade on c5 and d4, as Nimzowitsch once ad- vised. It is a strategically correct decision, but White has underestimated Black’s tactical 59Meeting 1 e4 threats on the kingside. Stronger was 15 Het 15...Wxe7 16 Wd4 Wg5! Threatening 17...2h3. 17 We3 Hea! 18 Ad2 If 18 D4 c5l? 19 DB We7 and the black centre no longer looks at all weak. 18...2h3! , 7 Y Y Y UAZ GY GY , Vv 19 3?! White should have gone for the rook end- ing: 19 Wxh3 Wxd2 20 Wd3 Be2 21 Wxd2 Bxd2-22 Bact and Black’s advantage is tiny. 19...He2 20 Df3 Wg6 21 Bfet White does not try to protect the pawn, as. after 21 Bfc1 Hae8 all the black pieces would be excellently placed. 21...Exe2 22 Wb3 Wi6! A beautiful tactical twist that attacks b2 23 We3 Not 23 Wxc2?? Wxf3 with mate to follow. 23...h6 24 Ded d4!? ‘An interesting pawn sacrifice, the purpose of which is to get the inactive rook to the seventh rank. Also good was 24..e8 25 Dg We6 with a solid extra pawn. 25 Wxd4 Hd8 26 Wt4 Hdd2 27 Wxt6 axf6 28 2f3 Bxt2 All Black’s pawns are isolated and weak but his pieces are extremely active, and that is what matters most here. 29 Dh4 Exb2 30 Bact &g2! The bishop finds a clever route to the ideal square d5. 31 Eb1 2d5 32 Exb2 Exb2 33 He8+ fh7 34 HaB Hb6 35 a4 cS 36 Nes 2e6 37 &g2 Eb4 0-1 Points to Remember 1) Black should answer 6 @e2 with 6..d2b4, pinning the e4-knight and attacking the e4-pawn, If White defends e4, then Black should follow up with a quick ...d7-d5. 2) White’s most critical idea is the sacrifice the ed-pawn by answering 6...b4 with 7 0-0. Black should grab the pawn on e4 — Games 24 and 25 illustrate that Black is hold- ing his own in these lines. 60CHAPTER SIX Four Knights: 6 2e3 1 e4 05 2 O13 Deb 3 dd oxdd 4 Dxdd At6 5 Dc3 e6 6 Re3 ‘Admirers of the so-called English Attack sometimes play this strange move. In the Sicilian Scheveningen (1 e4 c5 2 DE d6 3 d4 cxdd 4 Dxd4 D6 5 Bc3 e6), Najdorf (5...26) and Classical (5...2c6), English chess players have invented a standard plan of develop- ment involving 3, £2-£3, Wd2, 0-0-0 and a pawn storm on the kingside with the g- and h-pawns. Although this scheme might seem somewhat crude, it is difficult for Black to defend and every top player has at some time investigated this plan. Once grandmasters play something, it is adopted by amateurs as well, especially those with an active style. The Four Knights Variation is a cold shower for these players. The standard move ..d7-d5 kills this attack. Instead, after 6 e3 &b4 the game can develop in a similar fash- ion to the 6 &e2 £b4 line investigated in the previous chapter. The main line 7 £d3 d5 is seen in Games 28 and 29, while White’s al- ternatives are investigated in Game 27. Game 27 Spassky-Hiibner Tilburg 1981 1 04 c5 2 Df3 06 3 d4 cxd4 4 Axd4 AE 7 Axc6 Amateurs will sometimes continue with 7 63 anyway, sticking stubbornly to their Eng- lish Attack. We should only be pleased to play against someone so in love with their pet system. Black, of course, replies 7..d5! and White is badly placed to meet this. After 8 Wa2 5 9 Dxc6 bxc6 10 exd5 Dxd5 White had serious problems in Lyubimtsev- Yagupov, St. Petersburg 2000. If instead 8 Qb5 Rd7 sets a trap: 9 0-0? (or 9 Rxcb x6 10 e5 Dd7 11 4 Wh4+ 12 g3 Wh3 13 We2 Ab6 with a good position for Black in Jongsma-Kujif, Haarlem 1993) 9..e5 10 ®b3? (the best defence was 10 Ade2 d4 11 Dd5 Dxd5 12 exd5 and White only loses a 67Meeting 1 e4 pawn) 10..d4 11 Dd5 dxe3 12 &xc6 bxc6 13 Dubé c2 14 Wre2 Wet 15 We Wxb4 with an extra piece, Dhar-Strutinskaya, Moscow Olympiad 1994. 7...bxc6 8 e5 Compared with 6 &e2 &b4 7 Axc6 bxc6 8 €5, the line with 6 &e3 is even less danger- ous, as the bishop is immediately exposed. Better is 8 &d3 which transposes to Game 28 after 8.45. 8...0d5 Also possible is 8..De4, as in the similar position with 6 £e2 (ee the notes to Game 23). The ancient game Yanovsky-Schiffers, Leipzig 1894 proceeded as follows: 9 Wd4 Wa5 10 Wxe4? (better is 10 a3! Bxc3+ 11 bxc3 Wxc3+ 12 Wxc3 Dxc3 13 dé and White has some compensation for the pawn as his bishop is very strong, though Black has no obvious weaknesses) 10...Rxc3+ 11 bxc3 Wac3+ 12 he2 Wral 13 63 15 14 Wee 0-0 and Black easily used his material advantage to gain a full point. 9 &d2 In comparison with 6 &e2 &b4 7 Axc6 bxc6 8 e5 Ad5 9 £d2, White has simply lost a tempo and of course Black has no prob- lems. 9...We7 10 4 If 10 ADxd5 &xd2+ 11 Wxd2 cxd5 Black simplifies the position and exchanges the d7- pawn for the e5-pawn; eg. 12 £4 Hb8 13 b3 d6 14 exd6 Wxd6 15 &d3 We5 and it is White who should be thinking about equal- ity, Sharp-Ippolito, Philadelphia 1999. 10... Wb6 Black takes control of the weakened a7-g1 diagonal and threatens 11...De3. 11 Wf3 0-0 12 a3 &xc3 13 bxc3 Spassky challenges Black to play 13...Wb2, which in fact deserved serious attention. In- stead Hubner chooses to increase the value of his knight. 13...0a6 14 2xa6 Wxaé 15 Wd3 White wants improve his pawn structure, even though Black can seize the b-file after 15..Wxd3 16 cxd3 Bibs. 15...Wadl? Still playing for the knight. 16 0-0 Zo ‘yy 2 Ay cy Uh, bee hae \ me b> \ > wy X SS \\ Vs N Ce wy el \ WW WY W). WY 16...f5 ‘The alternative advance ..c6-c5-c4 would give the knight the d5-square for eternity. But in this case White would play 17 5 and have good attacking chances on the kingside. 17 c4 DbE 18 c5 Dcd ‘The knight has found a new square. 19 &c3 19 Wixd7 HfeB 20 &b4 De3 is dangerous for White as the queen is in trouble after 21..Bd5. 19...2fb8 20 Wxd7 Hes White has won a tempo (&b2-c3) on the previous note. Now the game ends in a draw. 21 Hab1 Zad8 22 We7 Bc8 23 Wad7 Bcd8 -% 62Four Knights: 6 2e3 Game 28 Handoko-Yusupov Skien 1979 1 e4 cB 2 D3 Dc6 3 dé cxdd 4 Dxdd 2f6 5 Dc3 e6 6 Re3 Qb4 7 243 White protects the e4-pawn and simulta- ncously completes his development. Obvi- ously the correct move! 7...d5 Black still tries to seize the i once 8 Axc6 The naive 8 £3? is bad because of ®xc6 bxc6 and Black has a strong pawn centre. After 8 0-0 this plan does not have the same force: 8...05 9 Dxc6 bxc6 10 exd5 cxd5 11 &g5 with pressure on the pawns, Better is simply 8...£xc3 9 bxc3 dxe4 10 &b5 @d7 11 Rxc6 Bxc6 12 We2 We7 13 Bg5 Dd 14 c4 Db6 and White. has yet to prove that his initiative counterbalances the lost pawn, Meyer-Rogozenko, Dresden 1996. 8...bxc6 Here White has two essentially different plans: advance with e4-e5 or exchange on dS. In the latter case, after 9 exd5 exd5 the position is similar to the Scotch Four Knights variation: 1 e4 eS 2 3 Dc6 3 dt exd4 4 Dxd4 Rb4+ 5 Dc3 Dl 6 ADxcb bxc6 7 Rd3 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 gS 6, which is considered harmless for Black. And in our Sicilian line the white bishop is on ¢3 where it is less active, so clearly Black has no problems. After 9...cxd5, the evaluation of the posi- tion is dependent upon whether or not White succeeds in blockading the black pawn cen- tre. In Bergstrom-Zapolskis, Stockholm 1990, White achieved the blockade but at the cost of weakening his control over e4 and Black had sufficient counterchances: 10 &d4 0-0 11 0-0 &d6 12 £4 Da7 13 Whs 65 14 ht Lc5 15 De2 Dio 16 Wh Lxd4 17 Dxd4 Wo6 18 Db3 Lab. The other recapture, 9..Qxd5, would transpose to Game 29 but, besides that, it makes little sense! 965 The important feature of this position is the open di-h5 diagonal. After the standard .Dd7 White has the aggressive reply 10 We4. But Black also has another possibility, as played by the former World Champion Alekhine. 9...d4!? 10 exf6 10 Bd2 dxc3 11 bxe3 &a5 12 exto Wxf6 is not dangerous for Black. 10...dxe3 The stem game Gonzalez-Alekhine, Gijon 1944 saw 10...dxe3 (10... Wxf6!? has been little investigated) 11 0-0 (11 fxg7?? cxb2+ 12 fl bxalW 13 Wxal Bg8 is no good as 14 &xh7 RaG+ 15 gi Exg7! exploits the weakness of White’s back rank and wins the game) M1..cxb2?! (better is 11..Whxf6 12 b3 0-0 13 Wh5 g6) 12 fxg7 Bg8 13 Hb1 Bxg7 14 Bxb2 Wa5 15 g3 a5 16 c4 We5 17 Bb1 and White had a lead in development and a better pawn structure. 11 fxg7 Tf 11 WES exf2+ 12 PEl gxf6 13 Wrc6+ a7 14 Wed Wh6 and Black’s chances are better, Rujevic-Rogers, Surfers Paradise 2000. 11.exf2+ 12 &f1 After 12 Sxf2 Wd4+ 13 @f1 Waxg7 Black 63Meeting 1 e4 stands better with the bishop pair. 12...0g8 13 &xh7 This does not appear to be the strongest move. More interesting is 13 Wed, keeping the pawn and threatening 14 &xh7; eg. 13...Sxc3 14 bxc3 WEG 15 Wed (if 15 Wad 5! 16 Wif2 Waxf2+ 17 dxf2 Exg7 with a good endgame for Black) 15...2d7 16 Re4 €5 17 &£3 Bxg7 with approximately equal chances in Hector-Sax, Denmark 1994. 13...2xg7 In Soos-Karpov, Kecskemet 1991, Black consistently avoided the exchange of queens with 13..Wh4 14 2d3 (f 14 2xg8? Lact 15 @e2 Bd8 16 Wel Hd2 is killing) 14..Bxg7 15 WS 2b7 16 Wxf2 We7 17 Bel 0-0-0 and Black had full compensation for the pawn, 14 Wxd8+ &xd8 15 2d3 £5! Limiting the mobility of White's pieces on the light squares. 16 Dad The knight goes to the edge of the board and remains there for almost the entire game. Instead Schlosser-Fauland, Semriach 1987 saw 16 @xf2 e5 17 Hhel Bd6 18 &c4 Se7 19 He2 (19 g3 is more accurate) 19...Bg4 20 1b3? (This weakens the dark squares and, as is well known, pawns cannot go backwards! Also poor is 20 &b3 Ba6 21 Hd2 Qc5+ 22 Bel Be3 and Black wins, but after 20 Bd3 2e6 White can put up resistance despite the perfect co-ordination of Black’s pieces and pawns.) 20..c5+ 21 Bel (not 21 Bf dd!) 21..b4 22 ded2 (no better is 22 Exes+ 216 23 He3 Hed! 24 Hd2 Bxe3 25 xe3 xc3) and now 22...L¢6! would have won a piece after 23 Bxe6 (or 23 2d3 ed) 23...22d84, followed by ...Lxc3. 16...e5 17 Sxf2 e4 18 fc4 f4 19 Bhd1+ &¢7 20 Ba4 It seems that this curtails Black’s initiative after, for example, 20..e3+ 21 Bf Qd6 22 Bad. But with a second pawn sacrifice Black co-ordinates his forces and continues the attack. 20...e3+ 21 &f1 21...43! 22 gxf3 @h3+ 23 be2 Hes Better is 23...Hg2+ when 24 &xe3 loses to 24.,.He8t 25 Hed (25 ded? 268! threatening wwSth6 mate) 25...Rd2+ 26 dd4 (26 dd3? Bd8+ 27 Hd4 65 mate!) 26..Rd8+ 27 Be5 64Four Knights: 6 £e3 (or 27 Hec5 Bg5+ 28 Qd5 Byxds+ 29 os S65 and wins) 27..Bg5+ 28 df Beer 29 BET (or 29 Be7 Bb4+ and Black mates) 29...28f5+ winning a piece. In the case of 24 ¥d3 Black can continue either 24..e2 ot 24...c5 25 Hd5 Be8 26 BxcS+ Sxc5 27 Dxc5 and White has only dim chances of saving the game. 24 B47 Giving the white king a flight square at c4. 24,..g2+ 25 bd3 215+ 26 &c4 Bbs 27 c3 2d6 28 Be1 e2 29 2h5 Planning to attack the e-pawn with £3-f4. The direct 29 Bd2 is unsuccessful after 29.18 30 &h5 Bh8 31 Bet Rxg4 32 feet Mhxh2 and Black maintains the initiative 29...205 77 G7 cE 30 He4 White sacrifices the exchange to eliminate the black e-pawn and thus obtain chances of adraw. 30...2xe4 31 fxed Hxh2 32 Sxe2 293 33 Bg1 Bxe2 34 dd3! 34 Elxg3? drops a piece to 34..Bxe4+. 34...Re1 35 Hxg3 Hd8+ 36 &c2 Be2+ If 36..8xe4 37 Hg7+ Sb8 and the black king cannot pass the second rank to help the other pieces. However, the draw is inevitable in any case. 37 &b3 Bd7 38 Dc5 Et7 39 Egé Lb 40 &c4 Bh7 41 Eg8 dc7 42 Ha8 dd 43 Wd8+ &c7 44 La8 kd6 %-% Game 29 Saltaev-Beshukov Agios Nikolaos 1995 1 ef cB 2 D3 Dc6 3 da cxdd 4 Dxd4 DIE 5 Dc3 e6 6 Le3 Lb4 7 243 d5 8B exd5 Axd5 8...exd5 is seldom seen, as Black does not want to tisk sitting back with an isolated pawn blockaded by a white knight on d4. 9 Axc6 bxc6 Black is planning exchanges on c3 and ¢3. However, White has a slight lead in devel- opment and some quite good continuations. If 9..Dxe3 immediately, then 10 fxe3 bxc6 11 0-0 transposes to the main game. White can win a pawn by exchanging queens: 10 @xd8 Dxd1 11 Bxdi &xd8 12 &xh7+, but Black has good compensation after 65Meeting 1 e4 12.87 13 Be4 Hh4!?. Also interesting is 12..Be7 13 Ret Rd7!?, taking over the ini- tiative. 9...Axc32! does not oblige White to go into a slightly favourable endgame by 10 @xd8 Dxdi+ 11 Sxd1; instead he can con- tinue 10 Wed! bxc6 11 Wab4 Dd5 12 Wes with a clear advantage. 100-0 Another active move is 10 We4, but after 10...0-0 11 0-0 Black can simplify the posi- tion by 11..Rxc3 12 bxc3 Axe3 13 fxe3, destroying White’s pawn structure. The end- game is still far away and White’s lead in de- velopment gives him some initiative, but Black should be better with only a single pair of minor pieces left on the board. In Zigzid- suren-Schmidt, Polanica Zdroj 1973, Black chose to keep the tension with 11...f512. After 12 Wed Wd6 13 a3 Axe3 14 feed Bc5 15 xf We5 16 et Bxfl+ 17 Hxfl a5 18 Bxc6 Wxe3+ 19 Bhi a6 20 Wet Sxfl 21 Wre3 Bxe3 22 Lxa8 Kcl 23 Hel Bao 24 b4 &xa3 25 b5 &b4 26 bxa6 xc3 the result of the sharp struggle was an drawn endgame. Another idea is 10 &d2. we at ere eae A oe as x ie “a “@ eect ce Black often plays 10..2xc3 11 bxc3 Bd6 12 0-0 (12 Wh5I?) 12.00. Now in an his- torical game Andersen-Paulsen, Leipzig 1877, the anti-positional move 13 4?! caused White difficulties after 13...2c5+ 14 @h1 g6 15 BS We 16 We2 &b7 17 Hafl Hfes 18 Bg3 218 as Black has a solid position with < wi a ie < long-lasting strategic advantages. It was more prudent to organise active piece play with 13 Whs 65 14 Hfdi @h8 15 ct Bc5 16 Le3 WaS 17 Hd3 Bxe3 18 Bxe3 We5 19 2b3 We7 20 Hael Bf6 21 BeS fd7 22 We2 with strong pressure in Frolov-Filippov; Smolensk 2000. However, this time the advance of the E-pawn, 13...£57!, weakened Black’s position. More cautious was 13..g6, when after 14 Who Wc7 15 Hael c5 16 Bed 2b7 17 Bh4 £5 18 Kel Hfe8 Black successfully defended his position as in Basas-Delgado, Spain 1999. Black can also play 10...Rxc3 11. bxc3 Wr, keeping the strong knight on d5. After 12 0-0 0-0 13 Wh5 g6 14 Wh6 5 15 &p5 We6 16 Hael £5 17 c4 DEG 18 c5 a5 19 He2 &a6 White's initiative died away in Frolov- Beshukov, St. Petersburg 1994. 10 £d421 is even less successful, as after 10..Dxc3 White cannot play 11 bxc3 (as with 10 2d2) because of 11...Wxd4! and Black wins, while after 11 &xc3 Bxc3+ 12 bxc3 White has too few pieces to develop an initiative, and so stands worse because of the defects in his pawn structure. 10...Dxe3 Black can win a pawn by 10..@xc3 11 bxc3 &xc3 but risks losing the game; e.g. 12 Hb1 Wd5 13 Bb3 £6 14 c4 Wd7 15 WES 0-0 16 Bet Qb7 17 Bd We8 18 &c5 Has 19 Bxd8+ &xd8 20 Qxh7+ Yxh7 21 Whs+ g8 22 Bh3 Lh4 23 Wrh4 1-0 Paoli-Foltys, Vienna 1949. 66Four Knights: 6 &e3 11 fxe3 &xc3 Paoli-Kozma, Reggio Emilia 1964 saw 11...0-0 12 Bf4 2e7 13 WS Hbs 14 Bet 5 and the pressure on the F-file seems to be worthless. Stronger, however, is 12 Hxf7l? Pxf7 (not 12..Bxf7? 13 Qxh7+ and White wins the queen) 13 Wh5+ @e7 14 Wh4+ ed7 15 Wxb4 with a dangerous attack in Melnikov-Lucin, USSR 1967. 12 bxc3 0-0 13 Wi3 We7 Saltaev-Iskusnyh, Moscow 1996 ended in a quick draw: 13...Wd5 14 We4 Wes 15 Wd YorVa, After 15..Wxd4 16 cxd4 €5!? 17 dxe5 Be8 18 Bcd Be6 White's advantage is negli- gible. 14 Hab1 a5 15 We4 g6 15...£5 16 Wed BE7 17 We5 would create difficulties. 16 26 in ES: ane Y Using the newly created hole in the black king’s position. 16...2a6 17 c4c5 18 h4 White begins a promising attack with the aid of the b-pawn, but Black successfully defends by exploiting White’s own weak- nesses. 18...Nab8 19 Mbf1 2b7 20 Wg4 Wes 21 hS Wxe3+ Weaker is 21..Wxh5 22 Wxh5 gxh5 23 Eh6 with pressure. 22 B1f2 We1+ Black is satisfied with the repetition of moves, but he could play on with 22...£6!? 23 hxg6 fxg6 (23...hxg6? 24 ExgGH and mate will come!) 24 Wxe6+ (24 Exgo+? &hs leaves White with two rooks en prise) 24..Wxe6 25 Bxe6 Hb1+ and Black has a favourable endgame. 23 Hf1 We3+ 24 Hif2 Wel+ 25 2f1 We3+ %-% Points to Remember 1) 6.4, followed by a quick ...d7-d8, is the strongest antidote to 6 &e3. White gets no time to initiate the ‘English Attack’ set-up. 2) If White exchanges on d5, Black often recaptures with the knight; this hits both the knight on c3 and the bishop on 3. 67CHAPTER SEVEN Four Knights: 6 g3 1 e4 c5 2 f3 Dc6 3 da cxd4 4 Dxda IE 5 Dc3 e6 6 g3 The continuation 6 g3 is not the most popular but it can be used against many schemes, in particular against the Schevenin- gen, Dragon, Najdorf and Paulsen systems. Many chessplayers consider this set-up as a universal remedy against all branches of the Sicilian Defence. White plays g2-g3, 2fl-g2, 0-0 and then chooses a concrete plan accord- ing to arrangement of the black pieces. White does not strive for the maximum advantage from the opening, but creates a strategically solid basis for the middlegame. Against the Four Knights Variation the move 6 g3 also is quite satisfactory. The light-squared bishop on g2 protects the e4- pawn and gains in strength after the centre is opened up. In turn, Black has no serious problems in developing, and can spoil the white pawn structure with an exchange on 3, thus as a rule obtaining sufficient coun- terplay. ‘The continuation 6...&b4 7 &g2 d5 is similar to lines with 6 2e2 (Chapter 5) and 6 &e3 (Chapter 6), and is considered in Games 30 and 31. More flexible is 6...d5 (Games 32 and 33), when Black can not only continue with ...2f8-b4, transposing to 6....Sb4 lines, but has additional possibilities; for example, 7 g2 Ws (Game 33). Game 30 Glek-Maksimenko Varna 1989 1 ef 05 2 DIB Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Anda 26 5 Dc3 e6 6 g3 Lb4 7 Lg2 d5 8B exd5 8 ADxc6 bxc6 creates a compact black pawn centre and after the further 9 exd5 Black has a pleasant choice of recaptures. ‘The pawn sacrifice 8 0-0 &xc3 9 bxc3 Dxe4 10 Bxe4 dxet is also possible, and this position can arise (without g2-g3) from the 6 Ge2 variation (see Game 24). However, the weakening of the kingside light squares by g2-g3 makes the position favourable Black; eg. 11 Db5 0-0 12 Ba3 Wal? (also possible is 12..Wxd1 13 Baxd1 Bd8 14 Exd8+ Dxd8 15 Dc7 bs 16 Qd6 Ld7 17 Dxe6 Hc8 and Black is doing well) 13 &xf8 Wxb5 14 2d6 b6 15 Bet &b7 with full compensation for the pawn in view of the numerous weakness in the white camp, Van Kooten-Janssen, Arnhem 1996. 8...Dxd5 9 0-0 Here 9 Dxc6 makes mote sense as it sepa- rates the black pawns, and after 9..bxe6 10 0-0 &xc3 11 bxc3 transposes to Game 31. 68Four Knights: 6 g3 ‘The tempting alternative 10...a6 is justified after 11 Het 0-0 12 &d2 Dxc3 13 bxc3 La5, but gives White an additional tactical shot: 11 Axd5!? Qxfl (11..cxd5 12 Wd4 Bxfl 13 ‘Wrxg7 seems dangerous for Black) 12 We4!? Bxg2 13 Axb4 2d5 14 Wxg7 with unclear consequences. 9...xc3?! ‘This leaves White's light-squared bishop unopposed on the long diagonal, making life unpleasant for the black king, which is still vacationing in the centre. Better is 9...2xc3 as in Game 31. 10 Axcé! An historical example saw 10 bxc3 &xc3 11 Axc6 Wrxd1 12 Bxd1 2d7 13 Bbt Lxc6 14 &xc6+ bxc6 15 La3 Be5 16 Bb7 Has 17 He7+ 1.0 Denker-Mieses, Hastings 1945. This does not mean that 10 bxc3 is a good alternative to 10 @xc6. Black played well up till the careless 15...S2€5?, The correct move is 15...a5! intending to block the important 3-£8 diagonal and reach an equal rook end- game. Schubert-Dolmatov, Groningen 1977 continued 16 Hb7 &b4 17 &xb4 axb4 18 Hdd7 0-0 19 Hxb4 Bxa2 20 He4 Ha6 21 Hc7 g6 22 H4xc6 Bxcé 23 Hxcé dg7 with a drawish position. So 10 Axc6 is certainly the strongest. 10...bx06 Not 10..Whxd1? 11 Bxd1 Axd1 12 @xb4 and White wins, while if 10..Dxd1 11 Dxd8 Sxd8 12 Hxdi+ Se8 13 LF4 and White has a clear lead in development. 11 bxc3 &xc3 12 Qxc6+! 2d7 13 Wi! The correct move, allowing White to de- velop a strong initiative. 13...0c8? After 13...0-0.14 Wxe3 He8 15 &b2 £6 16 Lixd7! Bxc3 17 RxeG+ Ph8 18 Lxc3 White wins material. The only move was 13...&xal, though after 14 @xd7H Waxd7 (if 14...8xd7 White has a pleasant choice between the natural 15 Bd1+ de8 16 We6+ £8 17 Ba3+ Lg8 18 Bxd8+ Bxd8 19 c3 when the queen is stronger than the two rooks, and Glek’s stunning 15 @a3!?, eg. 15..d4 16 Ebi We8 17 Wef7+ dc6 18 WE3+ dc7 19 Bb4 with many threats) 15 Wxa8+ Wa8 16 Whxa7 0-0 17 &e3 BeS 18 c4 and with an extra pawn, White can play for a win. D “8 14 Wxe3 Qxc6 15 Wxg7 Wd5 16 £3! 69Meeting 1 e4 White protects the weakened light squares and has good winning chances due to his extra. pawn and control over the dark squares. Not 16 Wxh8+?? &d7 and White has to give up material to prevent mate. 16...We5+ 17 Bi2 Wis 18 Waa! White has all the threats, so of course he does not want to exchange queens. 18...2d8 19 We3! Bd1+ 20 g2 1-0 Threatening both 21 Wxc6 and 21 £3, Black decided he had had enough. Game 31 Brajovic-Nikcevic Catinje 1996 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 6 5 Dc3 e6 6 g3 2b4 7 2g2 d5 8B exd5 Dxd5 9 0-0 2xc3 10 Axc6 10 bxc3 was played in Mestel-Sveshnikov, Hastings 1977, but has not been tried again. After 10..Dxc3 11 Sxcé+ bxcé 12 WB Waxd4 (better is 12..d5 13 4 Ab6 with sharp play) 13 Wxc6+ Wd7 White could take a rook with 14 Wxa8 (instead of Mestel’s 14 Wsxc3) and Black has to prove that after 14..0-0 (or 14.._De2+ 15 &g2 0-0 16 Hb1!) 15 WES! he has sufficient compensation for the exchange. 10...bxc6 11 bxc3 2a6 Probably the only move. 11...0-02! allows White to play 12 c4 when his two bishops give him an advantage. 12 Bet 12 c4 Bxc4 13 Wd4 @xfl 14 Wxg7 has also been tested, Black needs to be careful, for example not 14.,.21f8? 15 2a3 De7 16 Rxc6+ Ducé 17 WxiB+ La7 18 Wa6+ bc8 19 Wxc6+ 1-0 Meyling-Holmsgaard, Copen- hagen 1993. Also unsatisfactory is 14...WE6 15 Wxf6 Dxf6 16 Rxc6+ Dd7 17 Lxa8 0-0 18 &£3 with good winning chances in Rodri- guez-San Segundo, Odessa 1990. But the endgame after 14...2xg2 15 Wxh8+ dd7 16 Wad8+ Hxd8 17 xg? c5 18 La3 web 19 Bel a5 is favourable for Black as his pieces are better co-ordinated, Szmetan-Vasiukov, Quito 1976. 12...0-0 Black has finished his development. He has control over the light squares and a bet- 70Four Knights: 6 93 ter pawn structure, which to a certain extent seems to counterbalance White’s bishop pair. It is risky to delay castling, as shown by Kveinys-Schebler, Goch 1992: 12..Wa5 13 4! De7 (or 13....Rxc4 14 Sb2 0-0? 15 Wad and White wins a piece) 14 2d2 Wc5 15 Bb! Has 16 Wet Wxed 17 @a5! Bd5 18 Wa3 and Black loses material. 13 203 13 c4 Mixed 14 Ba3 He8 is considered in the next note. 13...He8 14 Wda White can also consider 14 c4!? to open the long diagonal immediately, while after 14...xc4 15 Wg4 White gains a tempo to create threats on the kingside. Glek- Wiedenkeller, Prague 1985, continued 15...Qb5 (preferable was 15...26, although White’s initiative after 16 S2b2 g6 certainly compensates for the pawn deficiency) 16 Bb2 e517 24 Ba6 18 Bxe5 £6 19 2d4 Wie 20 Wh5 g6 21 WE 2c4 22 h4 with an obvi- ous advantage to White due to his strong bishops. 14,..WaS Exchanging queens by 14...Wf6 is another way to combat the dangerous threat c3-c4, but after 15 Wxf6 pxf6 16 c4! &xc4 17 Bed a6 18 c4 (or 18 Bgt+ Bh8 19 c4) White still has a strong initiative, while after 16..De7 17 Hes Dg6 18 &d6 White was slightly better in the endgame, Valiente- Piscicelli, Mar del Plata 1991. 18 &b2 15 WeS leads to equality: 15..Wxc5 16 Lxc5 Hec8 17 c4 Db6 18 Lxb6 axb6 19 5 bxc5 20 Be5 Med 21 Bxc5 Ld5 22 a4 Lxg2 23 fxg2 £8 Ostojic-Rossolimo, Monaco 1969. In Marinkovic-Bakic, Kladovo 1992, White tried 15 &b4 so that after 15...Axb4 his pawn structure might be repaired, but Black did not oblige: 15..Wad4 16 £c5 Wxc2 17 Bec Wg6 18 c4 5 19 Wb2 Ac7 (it was probably better to return a pawn by 19...Ab6, 20 &xb6 axb6 21 Wxb6 e4 with equality) 20 Wa3 Hed8 21 Wa4 e4 22 Wa5 Hd7 23 Be3 and White had the initiative for a pawn. UemYus meat mime f Bae oe ” att aa af, Yr i 15...Wb6!? Preventing White from using the long di- agonal. 16 Hab1 Zab8 17 a3?! If immediately 17 c4 Wxd4 18 Sxd4 Sxc4, then the a2-pawn is under attack. So White tries to prepare c3-c4 by moving the a- pawn, but it does not make a good impres- sion. 17...05 18 Wh4 Dxc3!? The rooks are usually stronger than the queen in the endgame, but here the black king is unsafe so White has some counter- chances. 19 &xc3 Wxb1 20 2e4 £5 21 Bxb1? Better is 21 Wg5 Wxel+ 22 Sxel fxe4 23 ‘We5 with chances to save the game. 21,,.xb1+ 22 bg2 fxed 23 Gh3 2f1+ 71Meeting 1 e4 Ui, VV L a Y ay My ay Be /, AS) 24 gd 06 24..H6l? deserves attention, limiting the freedom of the white queen. 25 &xe5 Instead of a sactificing a piece, White should activate the queen with 25 WeS Hb6 26 Wa2 with more chances to save the game. 28...Hxe5 26 Wd8+ £47 27 Wd7+ li, 4), W aoe 27.867? Missing an easy win. After 27..£8! the king escapes the checks. Now itis a perpetual. 28 Wd6+ He6 29 WI8+ we5 30 Wxc5+ S16 31 Wi8+ be5 32 Wcd+ S16 33 WIB+ %-% Game 32 Peng Xiaomin-Filippov Shanghai 2000 1 e4 c5 2 Af3 e6 3 Ac3 Dc6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Dxd4 Af6 6 g3 d5 7 exd5 Axd5 The position after 7..exd5 8 Lp? arises more often in the Closed Variation of the Sicilian Defence, by the move order 1 e4 c5 2 Dc3 c6 3 Age? Dcb 4 g3 d5 5 exd5 exd5 6 22, and now 6..Df6 7 d4 cxd4 8 Dxd4. But in this case, rather than 6...66, it is bet- ter for Black to gain space with 6...d4, as we examine in Chapter 10. 8 &g2 8 Ade2 did not prevent the damage of White’s pawn structure in Kaplan-Quinteros, San Paulo 1977: 8.&b4 9 Bg2 Dxc3 10 Wad8+ Dxd8 11 Dxc3 Mxc3+ 12 bxc3 Md7 13 Bot Bc8 14 0-0 &c6 15 MxcG+ Bxc6 16 Edi £6 17 Be3 b6 and the weak pawns are more important than White’s lead in devel- opment. After 8 Dxc6 bxc6 the line 9 Lg? &b4 10 0-0 leads back to Game 31, but 9...22612 may be a way to exploit the different move order. Also of independent importance is 9 De4, by which White avoids structural damage and prepares the advance c2-c4. Ostojic-Van Riemsdijk, Amsterdam 1989 continued 9.6 10 c4 Qb4+ 11 Dd? (if 11 La2, then 11..Wd4!? is interesting) 11..2c5 (or 11. Wid4!2) 12 We2 (perhaps it was necessary to repeat with 12 Ded) 12..2a6 13 3 0-0 14 Xg2 Had8 15 0-0 Bd4 16 DB L617 Les Wb3 18 Bfcl and now the black knight, after sitting en prise for eight moves, finally ac- knowledged the c4-pawn, but only to win it 72by 18..Db6. 9 Ded breaks a basic opening rule — by moving the one developed piece for the sec- ond time, White disregards his development. ‘Therefore Black can afford to play the sharp 9...£5 as, for example, in Sattarov-Rogozenko, correspondence 1994: 10 Dgs WEG 11 &g2 Ba6 12 c3 Hd8 with a clear advantage to Black, 8...Dxc3 This move deforms White’s pawn struc- ture, at the price of strengthening the bishop on g2. Instead 8...0b4 returns to the 6...b4 lines in Games 30 and 31. 8..Ddbé also saves Black from getting an isolated pawn and is quite acceptable; e.g. 9 @xcé Wrdl+ 10 Sxd1 bxc6 11 a3 Dd5 12 @xd5 exd5 13 Hel+ Me7 14 Mes Leb 15 xc? Sxe7 16 Gd2 Hhbs 17 b3 do 18 Bad1 a5 and Black is only slightly worse in the endgame, Glek-Krasenkow, Geneva 1994, 9 bxc3 Axd4 10 Wxd4 10 cxd4?! &b4+ is obviously not in White's favour. 10.267 Not 10..Wxd4?! 11 exd4 &b4+ 12 &d2 Bxd2+ 13 xd2 when White has the advan- tage as his pieces are much better placed, whereas the inability to castle is irrelevant in the endgame. 11 Wixd8+ &xd8 11..8xd8 is somewhat similar, eg. Four Knights: 6 g3 Movsesian-Chekhov, Germany 1996: 12 0-0 £6 13 c4 Bb8 14 c5 Be7 15 Me3 Sd8 16 Bret Ld7 17 Babi Bcf! (not 17...ec7? 18 SEH 5 19 HxeS fre5 20 Mxes+ SB 21 Axb8 exb8 22 Bxb7+ dc8 23 c6 and White wins) 18 £4 €2c7 19 £2 Bhe8 20 a4 268 and Black has defended accurately and eliminated White’s pressure. “ata 12 ata After 12 Bb1 &d6 13 @e3 Be7 Aogical is 13..€c7 to reinforce the queenside) 14 4 HS 15 c5 Bc7 16 0-0 bb 17 c4 BHT 18 6 828 19 Hb3 Bhd8 20 Ha3 a5 21 Bb3 Hdc8 22 Bd1 White had the initiative in the end- game, Dolmatov-Sveshnikov, Minsk 1979. 12...16 Black intends to block the diagonal with ..e6-e5 and then plant the king on c7 to de- fend the queenside. But White stops this. 13 Bd1+ be8 14 &c7 a5 73Meeting 1 e4 Trying to activate the a8-rook. 15 0-0 a4 16 Bb1 &7 Exf6 e3 40 He6 Hxf2+ 41 @h3 EF3 42 g2 Bf2+ 43 Dh3 4-% WRG ak U \N 17 Btd1 Not 17 &xb7?! Ha7 18 &xc8 Exc7 and it is now White who has problems. 17...a3 18 Bb3 Probably stronger is 18 £4, which inter- feres with Black’s plans. 18...e5 19 Oxb7 Ba7 20 2d5+ 2e6 21 Rxe6+ bxe6 22 Bb6+ #15 23 Abs Bas 24 Qd6 Ehd8 25 Bd3 2xd6 26 Mdxd6 Bxd6 27 Bxd6 Vay lyf Ae ee ) White has an extra pawn in the rook end- game, but Black is very active and the a3- pawn is potentially very dangerous. So White chooses to be careful. 27...Hc8 28 Hd3 e4 29 He3 we5 30 c4 Bxc4 31 Bxa3 Bxc2 32 h4 g6 33 Bas+ sbd4 34 Ba7 dd3 35 Bxh7 Bxa2 36 Lhe e2 37 Bxg6 Hal+ 38 92 Bf1 39 Game 33 Campora-San Segundo Spain Team Championship 1993 1 e4 cB 2 Af3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Anda DE 5 Dc3 Ac6 6 g3 d5 7 &g2 ER Aeoe a 74 a Y 7... Wb6 Besides the text move, Black can choose between 7...2b4 (returning to Games 30 and 31) and 7...dxe4. The latter allows White to simplify the position by 7..dxe4 8 Dxc6 Wxdi+ 9 Sxd1 bxc6 10 Axed Axed 11 Sxe4, after which his superior pawn struc ture gives him a small but clear advantage in the endgame. An ancient example continued 11..2b7 12 Be3 £5 13 2d3 0-0-0 14 He2 c5 15 Bhdl g6 16 Sct Qd5 17 Bact kc7 18 74c4 Bc6 19 Bd2 kb6 20 &c3 Hxdi 21 Exd1 Hg8 22 BbS Axb5 23 cxbS Kg7 24 a4 Lxc3 25 Hd6+ &c7 26 HeG+ bd7 27 bxc3 and White won, Wolf-Mieses, Hanover 1902. 8 Db3 ‘The active 7...WWb6 causes White some in- convenience. Of course 8 Axc6 bxc6 only strengthens Black’s centre. But apart from retreating the knight to b3, White can sacri- fice the b2-pawn by 8 &e3 with ensuing complications. Mestel-Van der Wiel, Mar- bella 1982 continued 8..Wxb2 9 Ddb5 &b4! 100-0 &xc3 11 bt Wra2 12 Dxc3 Wad 13 exd5 Dxd5 14 Zxd5 exd5 15 c4!? 15..d4 (15..dxc42! 16 Wado Wa8 17 Lxc6+ bxc6 18 WeS+ We7 19 Wxg7 B20 Wkxh7 with a strong attack on the exposed king) 16 Eb5!? Wa2 17 Bxd4 0-0 18 Bes £6 19 Bd5+ @h8 20 BhS and White has many threats, although after 20...g6 21 c5 Wa5 22 Four Knights: 6 g3 Bh4 265 23 gt g5 24 Bh3 &g6 Black was able to defend. If he so desires, Black can play more cau- tiously as in Romanishin-Tseshkovsky, Lvov 1979: 8.825 9 @a4 Wa5+ 10 c3 Bxd4 11 Sxd4 dxed 12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Bxed Bd7 14 0-0 De5 15 b3 0-0-0 16 We2 h5 17 We3 h4 18 We5+ Wrc5 19 Axcd Bc6 20 Bxc6 bxcb with a satisfactory position for Black. 8...d4 Black wants to gain space. 9 e517 Rather than continue to retreat, White conducts an interesting counterattack, which also opens the diagonal for his light-squared bishop. Instead, after 9 De2 5 10 0-0 Rpt 11 h3 Mxe2 12 Wxe2 Me7 13 Kd2 0-0 14 a4 Bb4 15 a5 We7 16 Bg5 Dd7 17 Wes ho 18 Aci Bac8 the chances are approximately equal in this difficult position, Svidler- Kharloy, Blista 1995. 9.007 9..Bxe5 10 Wxd4 Wxd4 11 Dxd4 leads to a quiet game in which White is slightly better, but 9..dxc3 10 exf6 gxf6 11. bxc3 Rd7 deserves attention. 10 De2 Bb4a+ 11.3 Weaker was 11 &d2 Dadxe5 12 0-0 d3 13 cxd3 Axd3 14 Bxb4 Ddxb4 and Black is well placed. Since 15 a3 ®d5! 16 Sxd5 exd5 17 Waxd5? loses a piece to 17...2e6, Black gets to keep his pawn and therefore the advantage. 75Meeting 1 e4 11...dxe3 12 bxe3 2c5 After 12.27 13 £3 We7 14 £4 b6 15 Ded4 Bb7 16 Dbs We8 17 0-0 0-0 18 We2 a6 19 Dd6 &xd6 20 exd6 Da7 21 Bact DbS 22 Bfd1 Black had problems in Kagan- ‘Arnason, Denmark 1982. 13 Dxc5 Wxc5 14 f4 0-0 15 a4 a7 27 I, Y White has a spatial advantage and a pair of strong bishops. However, his pawns are weak and his king is stuck in the centre. 15...d8 16 223 Wed If 16..We3 17 Wel and the black queen has nowhere sensible to go. 17 2d6 Dc5 18 0-0 Ded 19 &xed Wed White has finally managed to castle, but it has cost him his strong light-squared bishop. 20 Dd4 Dxd4 Black can win a pawn by 20..We3+ 21 22 Wxc3 22 DbsS but White would obtain sufficient compensation with his active pieces. 21 Wxd4 Wc6 Black plays to win. Nevertheless, all hopes come to an end with the exchange of queens. 22 We5 We8 23 WbS &d7 24 Wxb7 Rxa4 25 Bf2 &c6 26 We7 Wxe7 27 &xe7 Hd3 28 Hb2 h5 29 c4 a5 30 Had Hd4 31 cS Hed 32 &f2 Hb4 33 Bxb4 axb4 34 Bxa8+ £xa8 35 c6 &xc6 %4-% Points to Remember 1) The 6 g3 variation is deceptive as it’s more difficult to meet than it looks. 2) 6..d5 gives Black more options than 6..Lb4 7 &g2 d5 and Black looks safer in Games 32 and 33, where he refrains from playing the obvious ...b4. That said, these lines are also okay for Black, even if White has sacrificial possibilities (ee the note to White’s 14th move in Game 31). 76CHAPTER EIGHT Rossolimo Variation 104 c5 2 D3 Ac6 3 2b5 ‘Theoreticians associate this variation with GM Rossolimo, who was the champion first of France and then the USA in the middle of the twentieth century. However, 3 &b5 dates from long before Rossolimo, even as far back as the first international chess tourna- ment (London 1851) where the move was seen in the games Bird-Horwitz and Wil- liams-Mucklow. The variation appeared peri- odically in the games of the top players of that epoch; for example Winawer-Chigorin, London 1883: 1 e4 c5 3 AB Acb 3 Lb5 6. In his comments on his own game Nimzowitsch-Gilg, Kecskemet 1927, Nimzowitsch wrote that the move 3 &b5 ‘is much better than its reputation and gives at least convenient play.’ For a long time 3 &b5 was regarded as a way to avoid theoretical discussions, with White aiming to transfer the weight of the struggle from the opening to the middle- game, Now the situation has greatly changed. The elite of the world’s players, including Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand, have made use of 3 &b5, and the Rossolimo Variation is now at the sharp end of theory in the Sicilian Defence. However, it is not a tapestry of forced lines, but rather a network of strategic variations and is based not so much on con- crete moves, but instead on more general plans. After 3 &b5 Black has a rich choice of re- plies, of which 3...c6, 3..g6 and 3..d6 are the most preferred. The continuation 3...e6 best fits into the concept of our book — the cen- tral strategy based on the advance ...d7-d5. Therefore this chapter will be devoted solely to 3..e6. White then has two basic strategies. He can spoil the pawn structure immediately with 4 &xc6 or allow Black to keep it intact after 4 0-0 Dge7. The positions after 4 &xc6 bxc6 are diffi- cult to classify. The hostile armies do not rush to clash with each other, and there are many transpositional possibilities. White has three main continuations: 5 0-0 Dge7 6 b3 to develop the queen’s bishop on the flank (Game 34), 5 d3 with casting postponed (Game 35), and 5 0-0 Age7 6 d3 (Game 36). All these lines are strategically complex. After the exchange of his light-squared bishop White sets up his pawns on light squares so they do not hinder his pieces, while trying to restrain Black’s central pawns. White’s key breaks are a2-a3 and b2-b4 (intending to attack the isolated a7-pawn after ..cSxb4, a3xb4) and £2-f4. In turn Black hopes to make advantageous use of the two bishops in the middlegame, while with prudent play the 77Meeting 1 e4 avalanche of his central pawns can literally crush the opponent. In Games 37-40 White declines to ex- change with 4 &xc6, In the case of 4 Dc3, or more often 4 0-0 Dge7 5 Dc3, the reply «.Dc6-d4 is effective for Black as it is impos- sible to banish this knight with c2-c3, while after an exchange on d4 the white knight on 3 is attacked with tempo. The resulting posi- tions, reminiscent of Bird’s Defence to the Ruy Lopez (1 e4 05 2 DB Deb 3 LbS Dd4), are considered in Game 37. The converging lines 4 0-0 Dge7 5 Ac3 a6 6 Lxc6 Dxcé 7 4 cxd4 8 Axd4 We7 9 Het and 5 Hel 26 6 Sxc6 Dxcé 7 d4 cxd4 8 Dxd4 We7 9 Dc3 are considered in Games 38 and 39, while deviations after 5 c3 and 5 Hel are covered in the notes to Games 38 and 39 respectively. Finally, the popular continuation 5 3, plan- ning to create a pawn centre, is the subject of Game 40 Sometimes Black tries to avoid Rossolimo Variation by playing 2 D6 6. However, after 3 Dc3 Bc6 (other moves such as 3..d6 or 3..a6 do not fit into our repertoire) White may then play 4 &b5 and the position has transposed back to the Rossolimo. On the plus side, Black has avoided the lines with 4 0-0 Dge7 5 c3 and 4 Lxc6 bxc6, which may be useful if he wants to limit his opening repertoire. This scenario also arises via the Closed Variation: 2 Ac3 e6 and now White plays 3 D3. Incidentally, the majority of games in the line 2 DE Acé 3 &b5 06 4 0-0 Decl 5 De3 Dd4 (Game 37) arise via the Closed 2 Dc3 Dcé 3 Abs Add 4 AS e6 5 0-0 De7. These transpositional possibilities are highly characteristic of the Sicilian De- fence. Game 34 Bisguier-Gulko Los Angeles 1991 1 e4 cB 2 D3 DAc6 3 AbS e6 4 Axc6 bxc6 i \ eR \ be bit een \N oS W br N ws N \ \ WS WY \ e ~ Ww \ \ se Re Sy PP oN sy Re ae ANONYS) [ete 50-0 Before considering the development of the queen bishop to b2, we shall examine some rarer continuations: ‘The blocking 5 c4 leads to a manoeuvring game, and after 5...De7 6 0-0 Ag6 White has essentially two different plans, though neither offers any advantage. a) He can either allow ...e6-€5, e.g. Wahls- Fedorowicz, Groningen 1990: 7 b3 €5 8 @c3 Le7 9 De2 d6 10 Dg3 0-0 11 DSS V6 12 De3 Des 13 d3 g6 14 g3 Dhs 15 dep2 Vg7 16 Dh4 De4+ 17 Whi Deb and the knight goes on dé. b) Or he can advance in the centre with d2-d4, e.g. Bronstein-Byrne, Moscow 1971: 7 4 cxd4 8 Wid4 c5 9 We3 £67 10 Dbd2 £6 11 b3 Se7 12 Rb2 0-0 13 fel a5 14 a4 Sc6 15 Db1 Wh6 16 Da3 Wh7 17 Dd2 5 18 Dbs d6 19 3 Dts 20 Hadi Deo 21 Dei Dad 22 De3 Wa7 23 Wa3 g6 24 Dds a8 25 FA Yo-Yo 5 €5 secks to gain space, but is not sup- ported by appropriate development. Black can remove the e5-pawn by the standard 5..f6. Then 6 b3?! is a mistake: Klepikov- Bocharov, Novosibirsk 1999, continued 6..fxeS 7 Axes Wy5! 8 Ags Dfo 9 Dxso+ gxf6 (9..Waf6l2) 10 0-0 Bg8 11 WE d5 12 Wo3 Wxp3 (12..2d6!2) 13 feg3 5 14 Dc3 BE7 and Black is better. In the case of 6 0-0, Karlsson-Aagaard, Iceland 1999 saw an interesting attempt to 78Rossolimo Variation target 5: 6..Dh6 7 Hel AE7 8 d4 cxd4 9 Wad4 Le7 10 dA! (better is 10 LEAP freS 11 DxeS 0-0 12 Dd2 DxeS 13 Bxe5 do 14 Qxg7 5 with an unclear game) 10..0-0 11 Bc3 fxe5 12 DxeS 26 13 We3 Dxes 14 Qxe5 Bxe5 15 Wxed Wb6 16 Be2 BS 17 We3 @a6 18 Be3 BafB and Black is winning. Also possible is 6...fxe5 7 AxeS Af6 8 d3 Be7 9 £4.00 10 c4 We7 11 Ac3 do 12 DB Dh5 13 g3 e5!? 14 Dgs Bxg5 15 Wxh5 Be7 16 fxe5 Bxfl+ 17 Sxfl RG! 18 We2 dxes and in this sharp position Black has the bet- ter prospects, Sanduleac-Tomescu, Bucharest 1998. Sometimes White plays 5 b3 at once with- out hurrying to castle. After 5..De7 there are several interesting possibilities: a) 6 &a3!? prepares d2-d4 to challenge the opposing bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal. However, in Alavkin-Nachev, Ufa 1999, Black found a convincing riposte: 6..d6! (in- tending ...e6-e5 to sideline the a3) 7 €5 dxe5 8 Qxc5 e4 9 Ags? (better is 9 Agi Wea5) 9.65 10 BxfB Wags 11 Lbs Wxg2 12 Efl D4 with a winning position. b) On 6 hd, the move 6..d6, intending .€6-€5, is again good. For example, 7 &b2 5 8 32! (8 h5!2) 8..Dg6 9 d3 (9 d42! Bea! 10 dxc5 @xh4) 9...2e4 10 g3 WE 11 Abd2 hS 12 SFl d5 15 g2 Me7 14 Del Bas 15 We2 We6 with active play, Kovalevskaya- Manakova, Belgrade 2000. Or 7 h5 €5 8 d3 £6 9 Dbd2 Leb 10 Ded d5 11 De3 cl (a stan- dard sacrifice to destroy the pawn chain) 12 bxed dxe4 13 ded Wxdi+ 14 @xd1 Ac8 15 Bb1 &c5 16 de2 Dd6 17 Ad2 0-0 18 B 5 19 Dxf5 Dxf5 20 exfS ExfS with counter- play in the endgame, Fernando-Plaskett, Mondariz 2000. ©) If 6 e5, then Black can target the inter- fering pawn in typical fashion by 6..g6 7 h4 £6, when Brodsky-Shariyazdanov, Nov- gorod 1998 continued 8 &b2 Se7 9 d3 0-0 10 Dbd2 Axed 11 DxeS feS 12 xe5 d6 13 Bc3 e5 (not 13..Sxh4? 14 WhS Mxf2+ 15 Be2 h6 16 &xg7!) 145 h6 15 We2 Leo 16 0-0-0 Og5 with advantage to Black due to the strong bishop pair. d) After 6 &b2, the idea of 6..d6 and e6-e5 is now incorrect because of 7 5! and White has a small positional advantage. Pref- erable is 6...Dg6, as in German-Milos, Bue- nos Aires 1997: 7 h4 h5 8 €5 c4l? (or 8...SLe7 intending ...f7-f6) 9 bxc4 Bb8 10 &c3 c5 11 d3 Be7 12 Dbd2 5 13 exf6 gxfo 14 We2 BET 15 0-0 2b7 16 Bfel We7 17 We3 Ebg8 18 Ded e5 19 Bb2 d6 with compensation for the pawn. 7 &b2 Sometimes White ties 7 203, intending to exchange dark-squared bishops after d2- d4. So Black concentrates on solving the problem of his bad light-squared bishop and obtains good play. In Antunes-Franco, 79Meeting 1 e4 Seville 1992, Black opened the c8-h3 diago- nal for the bishop: 7...8e7 8 d4 cxd4 9 Wadd 0-0 10 Bxe7 Wxe7 11 c4 e5 12 We3 d6 13, Dc3 £5 14 exfS BxfS 15 Bfet Hac8 16 h3 Df4 with active play on kingside. If White tries 8 c3 to create a small pawn centre, then the bishop is well placed on the a6-fl diago- nal: 8...0-0 9 d4 cxd4 10 cxd4 2a6 11 Hel £5 12 €5 Ae4 13 Wa2 g5 14 Sxe7 Wxe7 with full play for Black, Antunes-Hernandez, Ma- tanzas 1992. Finally, in Damaso-Franco, Cienfuegos 1991, White played Sct-a3 and d2-d4 with a pawn on e5, so Black activated the bishop on the long diagonal: 7 5 Se7 8 2a3 0-0 9 d4 cxd4 10 Wxd4 (6 11 S&xe7 Wxe7 12 Abd2 fre5 13 Dxe5 Dl4 14 Bael c5 15 We3 &b7 16 Ded Hack 17 Ad3 Bxd3 Y2-Ya. 7.46 fe ‘an Unf Y Y ae moe OBS Be5 8d3 Re7 9 e5 transposes to the game. ‘An alternative plan is 8 d4, altering the pawn structure, After 8..cxd4 9 Wxd4 d5 10 exd5 exd5 11 c4 @b7 12 cxd5 Wxd5 13 Wet Wed 14 Wre4 Sxet 15 Dd4 ET a draw was agreed in Rozentalis-Kogan, Montreal 2000; but puzzling complications can arise after 9 Dydd €5 (quieter is 9..2e7 10 c4 0-0 11 Dc3 We7 12 Wa2 a6 13 Hadi £b7 14 £4 Bad8 15 Dde2 (5 16 ext Y2-Y2 Savon-Gulko, Vilnius 1975) 10 Des d5 11 Wh5 Le6 12 Dc3 Wes 13 Bad1 dxed 14 g4 (14 DdG+7? Bxdo 15 Bxd6 Og) 14..We7 15 Dxe4 £d5 16 Digs (better is 16 Hfel) 16..0-0-0 17 WeS+ db8 18 WE Dh4 19 We2 h5! 20 8 Wher 21 Phi hxg4 22 fet Dgo 23 c4 Dea 24 WES xe 25 Axed Hh3 26 Dg3 &d6 and Black is better, Gdanski-Z.Polgar, Polanica Zdroj 1991. 8...2e7 mga “a. ee sate" . VR es ; RORY 8 aAawee 943 9 exf6 eases the tension for Black: 9...Axf6 10 Bxf6 Wxf6 11 Dc3 0-0 12 Det We7 13 d3 d5 14 Dg3 5 15 h3 WE 16 Db2 a6 17 Dgs We5 18 Hel Bae8 19 He3 &c8 20 @h2 4 with active play, Tatai- Cherniaev, Cannes 1997. With 9 2a3 White completes his queen- side development, with the knight heading for c4. But Black may then exchange it, get- ting rid of the bad bishop on c8 as, for ex- ample, in Matsuura-Milos, Brasilia 1995: 9...0-0 10 Dc4 We7 (or 10...2a6 11 d3 Bxe4 12 dxe4 fe5 13 Axe5 Dxes 14 Rxe5 dé 15 &c3 Bf, Makarichev-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1983) 11 d3 @a6 12 Het Bf7 13 Wd2 Hav 14 Wa5? and now Black forced a favourable rook endgame by 14..WxaS 15 Dxa5 28 16 Det Bcd 17 dxc4 feS 18 Lxe5 (18 Had1!2) 18.85 19 He2 Exf3! 20 gxf3 DxeS 21 BxeS &c3 22 Bael Rxel 23 Exel Bxf3. Better is 14 Dd6!? with the idea 14...&xd6 15 exd6 Wxd6 16 Wa5. However, Black can answer 14..Axe5!? 15 Dxf7 Dxf3+ 16 gxf3 Bx£7 with compensation for the exchange. 9...c7 80Rossolimo Variation In this game Black refuses the mass ex- change on ¢5, although this plan occurs more often. Let’s consider the position after 9...0-0 10 Dbd2 fxe5 11 Axes Axed 12 Axe5 dé. 13 &b2 does not really try for an advan- tage, as after 13...c5 it is difficult to carry out the undermining £2-f4, so the bishop is blocked off on b2, leaving Black with a space advantage: 14 We2 Bf4 15 Act Spt 16 B h5 17 Baet B67 with good play in David- Kramnik, France 1993. So the bishop usually retreats to g3. Spassky-Gulko, Linares 1990, saw 13 &@g3 e5 14 We2 &g5 15 Det Lh6 16 £3 a5 17 a4 Ba7 18 @£2 Bat? 19 Be3 Bxc3+ 20 Wxe3 h6 21 Haet £e6 22 Wd2 Sd5 and Black has the freer game. But it is better to attack the pawn centre at once with 14 f4l?; after 14..exf4 15 Qxf4 2£6 16 Bb1 2£5 17 Shi Wa7 18 WE White is slightly better, Matu- lovic-Vojinovic, Herced Novi 1999. For Black, 13...g5!? is interesting, trying to restrain the &g3 with the help of 14...5. Consequently, 14 £4 again seems best. After 14...gxf4 15 Sxf4 e516 @h6 Bxfl+ 17 Wxfl Le6 18 WES We8 19 Bf Wh8 both sides have mutual chances, Gubanov-Cherniaev, St Petersburg 1997. 10 Bet This natural move is the main reason for some of White’s future difficulties. More interesting is 10 Wel!?, the point of which will be seen in the next note. 10...0-0 11 Dbd2 fxeS 12 Axed 12... DnB! ‘A noteworthy manoeuvre, by which Black evades the exchange of knights and threatens to gain space by ...d7-d6 and ...e6-e5. In this, plan to clamp and cramp it is important to keep pieces from being exchanged. This plan makes less sense against 10 Wel, as after 10..0-0 11 Dbd2 fxe5 12 Dxe5 ®Dh8 White can now play 13 f4, preventing ..€6-e5, So in Seifert-Ksieski, Jachranka 1987, there followed 12...Df4 13 g3 DdS 14 £4 do 15 Def3 Ld7 16 Det Hac8 17 c4 Df6 with very complex play. 13 g3 Hoping to play £2-f4, but only weakening the kingside. In Wach-Glek, Linz 1997, White tried 13 Wh5?, but after 13..d6 14 Dect Dg 15 He3 HS 16 Wal d5 17 Dad Qd6 18 Dl e5 19 c4 WET 20 Wel &a7 21 Des Hes 22 Hct Bf the white pieces have been rolled back and the black pieces control the board. Perhaps it is just difficult for White to find an acceptable continuation 13...6 14 Dg4 The knight tries to protect the weakened squares on the kingside. 14...05 15 Ded Wd7 Black transfers his queen to the kingside where it joins the attack. White has no coun- terplay and is compelled to defend. 16 £3 WI5 17 Sg2 Ag6 18 We2 2d7 19 &e1 81Meeting 1 e4 ‘The bishop has no future on b2 and there- fore goes to a more pertinent diagonal. How- ever, it is now easier for Black to advance 6-45, 19...Wh5 ‘Threatening 20..Bxf3 21 Wxf3 Sgt with a dangerous attack on the light squares. In protecting himself against this threat, White again weakens his position. 20 h3 WS Making room for the h-pawn to advance. 21 Bhi d5 22 Def2 hS 23 Dh2 h4 24 94 We ‘A colourful position! As White chokes, Black slowly prepares a decisive break- through. 25 2d2 Bf7 26 Bhg1 Ata+ 27 Oxia Wxf4 28 Sh1 2g5 29 Hae1 He8 30 Ad1 waa Provoking White to weaken his queenside. 31 c3 Wi4 32 De3 Hee7 33 Wg2 His 34 OS White must keep a constant watch against an opportunistic ..e5-e4. 34...Be6 After 34..2xf5 35 gxf Bx 36 WR White would be slightly liberated, but Black is not obliged to take the pawn straightaway. 35 Wi2 Wd2 36 Wxd2 If 36 Wxc5 S2f4! wins, so White is forced to exchange of queens, when he loses a pawn and with it the game. 36...2xd2 37 He2 &xc3 38 Hcl 244 39 14! 39...e4! Not 39..exf4? 40 Axd4 cxd4 41 Hxe6 Sxe6 42 Bxc6 when it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to win. 40 dxe4 Bxe4 41 De7+? &f7 42 Beet Bxe2 43 Hxe2 He8 0-1 Game 35 Sutovsky-Nataf FIDE World Ch., New Delhi 2000 1 e4 c5 2 AF3 Dc6 3 Qb5 eG 4 Qxcé bxc6 Ys, Z Ge Y Us 5d3 ‘An easily understandable move: White’s light-squared bishop has left the board, so the white pawns occupy the light squares. 5...De7 Since the two armies will not face battle 82Rossolimo Variation just yet, White has the chance to do his own thing, 6ha With the natural idea of driving the knight from g6 when it arrives there. White has several other possibilities: a) The provocative 6 Dg5 was first played by David Bronstein, Subsequently the Moldovian chess aficionados (Bologan, Ior- dachescu and others) have taken up its cause. White opens the road for the pawn and leaves the question of the king’s castling open. It is best for Black to persuade the white knight to retreat to h3 where it is less well placed. For example, 6..h6 7 Dh3 g6 8 Ld2 Bg7 9 Bc3 05 10 4 d5 11 DE2 d4 12 Bd? ext 13. Sxf4 0-0 14 g4 €h7, Svetushkin- Morylev, Bucharest 1998. Or 6...£6 7 Dh3 d5 (or 7.96 8 f4 &g7 9 De d6 10 c4 £5 11 Dd? €5 12 fred Bxe5 13 DS Mp7 14 Bd2 Qxb2 15 Hb1 2g7 16 Wel 0-0, Bronstein- Panchenko, Moscow 1979) 8 Ac3 Dgé 9 Wh5 2d6 10 Df4 (also possible is 10 £4 0-0 11 0-0) 10...Rxf4 11 Qxf4 0-0 12 2d2 5 Adams-Vaiser, French League 2001. In all cases Black has equal chances in a complex struggle. b) With the eccentric 6 Dh4, White in- tends to exchange the black knight when it appears at g6. 6 Db4 breaks two opening principles ~ the knight moves for the second time and moreover to the edge of the board — but this is not so important in such a slow position. _" ta After 6...g6 7 Axgé6 hxg6, if White grabs space with 8 e5, then Black has a tactical resource: 8..c4! 9 SF4 (if 9 dxct Wa5S+ and 10..Wrxe5) 9..Wb6 10 Dd2 cxd3 11 0-0 Wkxb2 and it is not easy for White to prove that he has full compensation, McShane- Tomescu, Arco 2000. 8 ¢5 is probably too ambitious. Instead, original play was seen in Bologan- Krasenkow, New York 1997: 8 &e3 d5 9 Dd2 Bd6 10 c3 a6 11 We2 £5 12 e5 Le7 13 0-0-0 SE7 14 DEB g5 15 h3 c4 16 dxc4 Lxc4 17 Dd2 Le2 18 Hdet 2b5 and in this sharp position Black’s attacking chances are better. Quiet manoeuvring occurred in Bo- logan-Sveshnikov, Moscow 1995: 8 We2 e5 9 c4 dé 10 Ac3 Be7 11 Le3 Lg5 12 0-0-0 Sixe3+ 13 Wre3 95 14. Wee 15 h3 We 16 83Meeting 1 e4 Bhel 2e6 17 &c2 Wxe3 18 Hxe3 Le7 with equality. c) 6 £42 is a slightly mysterious move, fa- voured by the Russian IM Hasangatin. The bishop is ready to play not only on the cl-h6 diagonal, but also on the long di- agonal after Sd2-c3. Generally White chooses his plan according to Black’s re- sponse. After 6...£6, the move 7 @h4 has a little more force, though White has no apparent advantage after 7...d6 8 £4 Wc7 9 0-0 @p6 10 Whs WE7 11 Dxg6 Wxg6 and now 12 WB e713 5 WET 14 €5 d5 for example, while the exchange of queens is doubtful for White: 12 Wxg6+?! hxg6 13 e5 c4! 14 dxc4 d5 15 Hel G7 16 Dc3 Bc5+ with strong play, Hasangatin- Somkin, Bor 2000. ‘An important position for the assessment of 6 22 arises after 6..Dg6 7 h4 h5 8 €5 £6 9 We2 (interesting is 9..2f7!? to cover the important g6 square) 9...Dxe5 10 Dxe5 fxe5 11 Wres Wes WET SE me a YAD LS + Dy of S \ WS SN me \ Y a = Ae The endgame is equal after 12 &c3 Wre5+ 13 Bxe5 dé 14 Be3 Be7 15 D2 e5 16 £4 exf4 17 Qxf4 Be6 18 Ded war, Nevednichy-Moskalenko, Nikolaev 1993. More interesting is 12 Wg3l?, sacrificing the b2-pawn in order to seize the initiative. In the recent game Hasangatin-Zambor, Presov 2000, Black could not solve his problems: 12..Waxb2 13 Wg6+ &d8 14 0-0 Waal 15 Ba5+ Be7 16 Bc3 Wxa2 17 Bxg7 Bxg7 18 Wxgi+ &d6 19 Wxh8 Wxc2 20 WxhS and the passed h-pawn is potentially dangerous. However, an earlier game Hasangatin- Sherbakov, Pardubice 1996 ended in a draw after 14,.Wd4 15 Dc3 Wed 16 Be5+ dc7 17 Bab! 2a6 18 WE7 WE 19 Qf4+ kas 20 Bg5+ Bc7 21 Lear Sas, 6...h5 7 We2 16! "ay ge oS hit S ANY 3 hy be \ ~ ws WS \ SS WS, Black intends next move to prevent the active advance e4-e5. Therefore White does not hesitate. 8 €5 fxe5 9 Wxe5 After 9 Dxe5 Black can successfully un- ravel the kingside and achieve good play: 9..d6 10 Act DG 11 Bg5 Le7 12 Vxe7 Wre7 13 Dc3 €5 14 0-0-0 Leb 15 &b1 Hbs 16 Hdel Dd4 17 Wd2 0-0, Shabanov- Arkhipov, Smolensk 2000. 9.015 10 Wea White withdraws the queen in anticipation of ..d7-d6, Instead Markovie-Perunovic, Subotica 2000 continued 10 2g5 Le7 11 Dc3 d6 12 We2 Hb8 13 b3 (if 13 0-0-0? the manoeuvre ...Wd8-a5-b4 is very unpleasant) 13.05 14 Des 0-0 15 c3 (0 prevent ...Df5- 4 after castling kingside; 15 0-0-0 a5 would have been too risky) 15..a5 16 Hdl a4 17 bxad g6 18 0-0 Ha8 19 We2 &e6 and the attempt to change the position with 20 d4?! was unsuccessful after 20...exd4 21 cxd4 el. 10...Bb8 11 De5? White underestimates the strength of Black’s reply. The preventative move 11 a3 84Rossolimo Variation was necessary, when Black should reply 11... Wa5+ 12 242 Whe. 11...2b4 12 c4 12...d5! 13 Wi3 Wie! After this pawn sacrifice Black’s pieces become very active. 14 Dxc6 Bb6! 15 Dxa7 The opening of the e-file gives White nothing: 15 cxd5 exd5 16 We2+ @e7 17 ®xal7 (or 17 Dxe7 Heo!) 17...Dd4! 18 Wal We5+ 19 Fl LA7 20 ad (or 20 Dc3 Bb7) 20,206. 15...2b7 16 Wd1 dxe4 17 2g5 We5+! With a disguised attack on the stray knight at a7, ie. 18 We2 Wh8! 19 Db5 cxd3 20 Wrd3 c4 21 Wed We5+ etc. 18 &f1 Wd5 19 Bh2 2d6 20 Ac3 Wxd3+ 21 Wxd3 oxd3 22 Bh3 Bxb2 ee? “e as te ae Sorat : Itis possible to summarise: Black has ex- changed queens, is a pawn up, has two passed pawns and more active pieces. In short, the game should soon be over. 23 Dab5 c4?! Immediately winning was 23...2g3! 24 Hxg3 (or 24 fxg3? Sxg2t) 24.Dxg3+ 25 fxg3 0-0+ 26 2 £4 e5, 24 Dxd6+ Axd6 25 e3 d7 26 Dad b5 27 Hae He8 28 14 26! Gradually Black destroys White's last standing defence. 29 Dc3 Hb2 30 He5 He2 31 Het Bxct+ 32 &xc1 g6 33 13 DS 34 Bes Ad5 35 ata Clearly White does not want to win the pawn if it costs the blockading knight, i. 35 Dyxd5 exd5 36 Bxd5+ Hc6. 35...2c8 36 aS Dxh4 37 Ha7+ &c6 38 a4 Sc5 39 &g5 DFS 40 g4 hxg4 41 fxg4 Dg3+! 42 het kha 43 Gd2 ob3 44 d1 Bh8 45 a5 Bh1+ 46 fet Bxe1+ 0-1 Game 36 Rozentalis-Shariyazdanov Neum 2000 1 e4 c5 2 AF3 Ac6 3 2b5 e6 4 &xcé bxc6 5 0-0 Se7 x RE. Pr SY \ ro Si N Ss “ \ . \ \\ ta NY 643 Sometimes White tries to create a pawn centre with c2-c3. For example, 6 Bel Dg6 7 3 Re7 8 d4 0-0 and now Timman-Rogers, Netherlands 1998 continued 9 Dbd2 cxd4 10 85Meeting 1 e4 cxd4 £5!? (this unusual way of attacking the pawn centre deserves attention) 11 Ab3 £a6 12 We2 fixed 13 Exet Bxf3!? 14 gxf3 WEB 15 Dc5 Bxc5 16 dc Wxf3 17 He3 WhS 18 Bg3 Dh4 and Black has a pawn for the ex- change, as well as better piece co-ordination to attack White's vulnerable king. Olenin- Belikov, Moscow 1996 saw instead 9 £3 cxd4 10 cxd4 £5 11 e5 Bb8 12 We2 2b7 (probably better is 12.4) 13 d5IP 5 (13..cxd5? 14 @xa7 Ha8 15 Qd4 is very unclear) 14 d6 &h4 15 Dbd2 Bc8 and in this complex position a draw was agreed. 6...Dg6 a iin ent pie teas te ia “ a -—" 7 D5 ‘The most vigorous continuation, clearing the way for the f-pawn to advance. In Galego-Golod, Neum 2000, after 7 Dbd2 Le7 8 Ac4 0-09 Rd2 La6 10 Bel £6 11 a3 Eb8, the typical advance 12 b4 was best for White: 12.S2xc4 13 dxed exb4 14 axb4 Qxb4 15 Q&xb4 Bxb4 16 Bxa7 HE7 with equality. Instead Galego played 12 Bb1 We7 13 BaS We8 14 Wd2 He8 15 h4 Dns! (the same idea as in Game 34) 16 €5 (proba- bly stronger is 16 De3) 16...fxe5 17 Dexes (17 Hxe5? d5 18 Ac3 Af7 19 Bh5 go) 17..d6 18 Dc4 e5 with an advantage to Black. After 7 e5 Black has the standard plan of challenging the e5-pawn with ...f7-£6. Thus he should not hurry to exchange on e5 as the pressure on the e-pawn ties the white forces down. White must be careful, for example: 7..£6 8 Hel &e7 9 Dc3 We7 10 We2 0-0 11 Wed?! fxeS 12 Dxe5 d5 13 We2 Axes 14 Wres Bd6 15 WhS 2d7 16 BA Bes 17 Wh4 BafB with a clear advantage to Black, 7...2e7 8 Wh5 e5 9 fa Less ambitious is 9 @c3 d6 10 De2 &xg5 De5 and Black has no problems, Gass- Mainka, German Bundesliga 1996. t a f tet a BE it Black has exchanged his dark-squared bishop and set up his pawns on dark squares. to the half-open F-file. 11 2e3 0-0 12 Ad2 Le6 13 Bf2 £7 is too well protected — but to transfer the knight to £5 via fl and g3 (or, if 13...Wd7, Cordoba-Franco Ocampos, Dos Hermanas 1998, White pursued the usual plan of ad- 15 Bxfo Wxf6 16 Bel We7 17 a3 Bes 18 Bxf8+ DxiB 19 b4 cxb4 20 axb4 WH7 21 c3 13.45 14 gxf6 Bxfé 15 Bxfé Wxt6 16 Ef1 We7 17 b3 BiB 18 Bxf8+ Dxi8 19 ‘After the exchange of rooks Black’s dou- bled c-pawns ensure that White has a slight Cvorovic-Kurajica, Solin 1998 11 Rxg5 £6 12 Le3 0-0 13 £4 exfd 14 Dx 9...2xg5 10 fxgS dé at tt OAC ms Ao AAG “iin & White’s chances, however, are preferable due ‘The point of this is not to double rooks — only after the preliminary 14 h3). In Ilescas vancing the b-pawn: 13 b3 £5 14 gxf6 Bxi6 Wa6 with approximately equal play. ars advantage, but no more than that. 86Rossolimo Variation 19..Wd7 20 h3 247 21 Wh4 De6 22 Wg4 Se8 23 c3 The knight on e6 is now unpinned and White does not want to allow it into d4, 23...2f8 24 Wg3 2t7 25 dh2 296 26 Dh4 Wi7 27 Wi3 We7 Black declines to exchange queens, as after 28 gxf3 White would then advance £3-f4. 28 Wg4 Wd7 29 Wxd7 Axd7 30 &g3 $t7 31 St3 a6 32 94 h6 33 04 The central black pawn group c5, 6, d6, €5 is blocked. White tries to play for a win, despite the opposite-coloured bishops. 33...816 34 2d2 &h7 35 2a5 d5 36 e7 It was better first to chase the black king from the centre with 36 Sd8+ @f7 Gf 36..€e6 37 DES) 37 Bc7. 36...218 37 2d8+ 217 38 Ab6 dxed+ 39 dxe4 De6 40 D5 ae sity 2 ai oe ase 2 40,..D95+? This pursuit of the h3-pawn is the cause of Black's defeat. It was necessary to ex- change the active white knight immediately by 40..Dd4H 41 e3 DxfS+ 42 exfS g6 43 fxg6+ Rxg6 44 Bxc5 Bb1 45 wd2 Let with an inevitable draw. 41 e3 Axh3 42 &xc5 Dgs 43 b4 h5 Hoping for 44 gxh5? Axed 45 dxe4 deo. 44 Dd6+ be6 45 gxhS kd7 46 a4 De6 47 Dt7 a5 48 Dxe5+ &c7 49 e7 axb4 50 Oxb4 c5 51 2c3 298 52 a6 &b7 53 23 a6 54 bg4 Dd4 55 Dd3 Db3 56 Db2 Lh7 57 $14 g5+ 58 he3 g4 59 e5 93 60 £13 cl 61 Let 1-0 Game 37 Speelman-Larsen New York 1990 1 e4 c5 2 D3 Dc6 3 Ab5 e6 4 0-0 Instead of castling immediately, White sometimes plays 4 ®c3, which also arises via the move order 2..06 3 Dc3 Dc6 4 &b5. After 4..Dge7, however, it is best to return to the game with 5 0-0. If instead 5 d4?! Axd4 6 Dxd4, then a version of the Tai- manov system has appeared on the board (2..Dc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Dxd4 e6 with ..Dge7), where the move £&b5 is a waste of time. Black has a nice game after 6..cxd4 7 Wxd4 a6 8 Lad (or 8 He2 Acé 9 Wa3 &c5 10 0-0 87Meeting 1 e4 0-0 11 a3 bS 12 Me3 d6 13 Bhi b7 14 4 Wh6, Djuric-Strikovic, Belgrade 1998) 8..b5 9 &b3 Dc6 10 Wd3 We7 11 Legs h6 12 Bh4 DeS 13 We2 Bb4 14 0.0 Act Gur- genidze-Georgadze, Tbilisi 1977. Another common response is 4... 44 when the exchange 5 Axd4 cxd4 is closely related to the Ruy Lopez, Bird’s Defence (1 4.5 2 AL Acé 3 Sb5 Dd4 4 Axd4 exd4). ‘The pawn on d4 constrains White, but is also a potential weakness. More importantly, as White has not yet casted, Black can play «Wg5 with a double attack on g2 and b5. White has wo choices: a) 6 Dbl, intending 6...We5 7 WF, is rare and does not create any problems for Black. For example: 7...0e7 8 d3 Wg6 9 g3 b6 10 D3 a6 and Black is fine. b) 6 De2 dates back to the ancient game Winawer-Andersen, Leipzig 1877, in which Black played 6..£6. Instead 6..Wg5 is the most obvious continuation, after which 7 Dxd4? loses a piece to 7..We5 8 3 5 9 b4 Who 10 We2 exdd 11 cxd4 Wxd4 12 Bbt Df6 13 0-0 &e7 14 Bb3 a6 and Black won, Velimirovie-Matulovic, Vrsac 1981. White must therefore allow the capture on g2and try to exploit the awkward situation of the black queen, Black should be careful. After 7 &d3 Wrxg2 8 Dg3 (threatening 9 B21), the resulting positions are complex, and White has a lead in development for the pawn. For example: 8..Wh3 9 b3 De7 10 Qb2 Dcé 11 We2 Wh4 12 0-0-0 Was 13 b1 d6 14 £4 Bd7 15 £5 (Mason-Maroczy, Monte Carlo 1903) or 9 c3 &c5 10 b4 2b6 11 &b2 De7 12 Whs WahS 13 DxhS (Var- nikov-Efimov, Prague 1985) and White has compensation. In the case of 7 a4 Wxg2 8 Dg3 Wh3 9 3 Qd6! 10 We2 (10 cxd4 &xg3 11 fxg3 We2) 10...Re5 11 cxd4 Lxd4 12 Ba3 Wh4 13 a5 DM6 14 Bat Be5 15 d3 a6 16 Bc4 0-0 White had insufficient compensation for the pawn in Tornai-Z.Horvath, Hungarian League 1995, Black is also better after 7 Sct Wag? 8 Do3 Wh3 9 c3 Kc5 (possible is 9...2d6, not provoking b2-b4) 10 b4 Bd6 11 cxd4 Bxg3 12 WS &xf2+ 13 Wxf2 Af and now in- stead of 14 &f1?! Wet (Rossolimo- Tartakover, Southsea 1949), it would have been better to play 14 gi Dxe4 15 Wi4 0-0 16 Wxe4 d5 17 WE dxc4 18 Bxg7+! dxg7 19 We5+ &h8 20 Wi6+ with a draw. Instead of taking on d4 White can either move or defend the bishop. The main line after 5 Bc4 De7 6 Axd4 cxd4 7 De2 Dc6 most often arises by transposition from 2 Dc3 Acb 3 Bb5 Dd4 4 Oc4 e6 5 AGB De7 6 Dxd4 cxd4 7 De2 co. os Here White’s chances are to be found on the kingside, while Black will play on the queenside — mainly on the half-open c-file. Thus it is favourable for Black to exchange White’s light-squared bishop and to activate his own light-squared bishop on the long 88