Sunteți pe pagina 1din 292

The Queen's Indian

Jouni Yrjola and Jussi lelia

MAI~IBIITI

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2003

Copyright © Jouni YrjoHi and Jussi Tella 2003

The right of Jouni YrjoHi and Jussi Tella to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and wi thout a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent pur- chaser. A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from the British Library.

ISBN 1 901983900

DISTRIBUTION:

Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN. Tel +44 (0)20 89864854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com USA: BHB International, Inc., 302 West North 2nd Street, Seneca, SC 29678, USA.

For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit Chess titles) please con- tact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, P.O. Box 32640, London W14 OJN. E-mail info@gambitbooks.com Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com

Edited by Graham Burgess Typeset by John Nunn Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wilts.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Gambit Publications Ltd

Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler Chess Director: GM John Nunn Editorial Director: FM Graham Burgess German Editor: WFM Petra Nunn

Contents

Symbols

 

4

Introduction

 

5

1

Strategic Introduction

 

8

2

The Miles Variation: 4 i.f4 (and 4 i.g5)

 

15

3

4 e3

21

4

4 tbc3 i.b7: 5

tg5

and Others

 

42

5

The Nirnzo Hybrid:

4 tbc3

tb4

5 'ii'b3 or 5

tg5

51

6

Petrosian Variation: 4 a3

 

92

7

Petrosian Main Line: 4 a3

tb7

5 tbc3

118

8

The Old Main Line: 4 g3

tb7

173

9

4 g3 i.a6: Alternatives to 5 b3

 

215

10

4 g3

ta6

5 b3: Miscellaneous 5th Moves for Black

242

11

The Main Line: 4 g3

ta6

5 b3 i.b4+

 

262

Index of Variations

 

285

Symbols

+

check

Ech

European championship

++

double check

Echt

European team championship

#

checkmate

ECC

European Clubs Cup

!!

brilliant move

Ct

candidates event

good move

IZ

interzonal event

!?

interesting move

Z

zonal event

?!

dubious move

OL

olympiad

?

bad move

 

jr

junior event

??

blunder

worn

women's event

+-

White is winning

rpd

rapidplay game

±

White is much better

tt

team tournament

t

White is slightly better

sim

game from simultaneous display

=

equal position

corr.

correspondence game

+

Black is

slightly better

adv

advanced chess (man + machine)

=+=

Black is

much better

1-0

the game ends in a win for White

-+

Black is

winning

liz-liz

the game ends in a draw

Ch

championship

0-1

the game ends in a win for Black

Cht

team championship

(n)

nth match game

Wch

world championship

(D)

see next diagram

Wcht

world team championship

 

Introduction

Writing a book about a major chess opening such as the Queen's Indian in the database era is a huge task. There are thousands of games in the data- bases, and almost every week new grandmaster examples appear from re- cent tournaments. It is especially hard to write a book about the whole open- ing within the ideology of a 'com- plete' opening book, instead of a more lightweight book containing selected games and examples, without even trying to be comprehensive. For this book we have tried to find a delicate balance between educational values and completeness, between in- troducing some of the classic games and their standard ideas and plans in different variations of the Queen's In- dian, and offering a survey of recent developments in the key variations. There are games in the Queen's Indian that every chess-player should know, played by the all-time greats in world championship matches and super-tour- naments, and we have tried to keep these among the material as much as possible. However, much of the mate- rial is from the last few years, espe- cially in the most popular variations today, such as the Petrosian line (4 a3). When deciding how to allocate space within the book, we have also incorpo- rated some speculation about future

trends. For example, 4 e3, regarded as one of White's most peaceful options against the Queen's Indian, has been quite popular lately, and because of that we decided to give it slightly in- creased weight in the pages of this book. Also some fighting variations (4 g3 .ta6 5 b3 b5, for example), in which it is hard to see any major theo- retical problems, get some extra space in the pages of this book. It is hard to predict how aggressively the Queen's Indian will be handled by top grand- masters in the next few years, but club players will probably value this ap- proach when trying to find new fight- ing ideas for their Queen's Indian repertoire.

History

The Queen's Indian Defence starts

the moves 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e6 3

tiJf3 b6 (D). The name of the opening comes from the fianchetto of Black's queen's bishop, and the fact that it is one of the 'Indian' defences, charac-

terized by Black attempting to control the centre with his pieces rather than immediately establishing a pawn pres- ence there. The Queen's Indian is a very re- spected opening at top level and many of the world champions and current

with

6

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

6 THE QUEEN'S INDIAN top players have employed the open- ing to some extent in their

top players have employed the open- ing to some extent in their repertoire. There are not many world champion- ship matches without a single Queen's Indian. The basics of the opening were developed early in the 20th century, just after the first world war, by play- ers like Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Nim- zowitsch and Samisch. At that time 4 g3 and 4liJc3 were White's standard options. The extremely important a3 variations were popularized only in the early 1960s by Tigran Petrosian, although they had been tried earlier by players such as Flohr, Sultan Khan and Alekhine.

It needs to be noted that the Queen's Indian does not on its own provide the full basis for a black repertoire against

1 d4. If White chooses 3liJc3, 3

b6?!

is not a good move because of 4 e4

and thus Black normally chooses the

of little brother of the Queen's Indian which does not demand so much theo- retical knowledge but it is not quite so well respected either. Also, against 1 liJf3 or 1 c4 Black can start with the

moves

b6 in almost

any order, heading for similar posi-

tion-types.

liJf6,

e6

and

Variations

The historical main line has been 4 g3. 60% of the Geller book from 1991

was devoted to 4 g3 material. The allo- cation of space within our book was originally planned according to the popUlarity of variations during the last seven years. This has changed a lot and the percentage of 4 g3 games is now below 40%. Inside the main line 4

i.a6 has replaced the

i.b7.

ing for the Queen's Indian main line the best candidate is 4 g3 i.a6 5 b3 i.b4+ 6 i.d2 i.e7 7 i.g2 c6 but this line is also rather dull and getting rather exhausted theoretically. The drawing percentage at top level is 60% or even more. Of course 5 b3 is not the only move and alternatives such as 5 liJbd2 are increasing in popularity. This is why especially the Petrosian variations, 4 a3 and 4liJc3 i.b7 5 a3,

old main line 4

g3, the move 4

If you are look-

Nimzo-Indian (3

i.b4). These two

have gained a lot of popularity during

openings together form a very solid

the last twenty years. Also, some play-

and popular repertoire against 1 d4. The less popular choices for a Nirnzo- Indian player against 3 liJf3 are the

ers like to avoid the Petrosian main line with the Nimzo-Indian hybrid line 4liJc3 i.b4 and then 5 i.g5 or 5 'ii'b3.

Bogo-Indian

(3

i.b4+),

Queen's Gam-

These variations have been popular

bit Declined

(3

d5) and Modem Ben-

because they lead to quite sharp play

oni (3

c5). The Bogo-Indian is a kind

and offer winning chances for both

INTRODUCTION

7

players. The move 4 e3 has suddenly become much more popular during the last couple of years, probably because of the flexible nature of the play, fo- cusing on the knowledge of the stan- dard position-types of the Queen's Indian instead of memorized theory. There is also the rather rare line 4 i.f4, popularized by Tony Miles but also played occasionally by other strong players, which may suit those who like to avoid main-line theory.

Related Opening Systems

The following openings are related to the Queen's Indian in some way, or lead to positions that a Queen's Indian player would benefit from studying. 1) Nimzo-Indian Defence is the usual repertoire partner and there is the hybrid line that can arise from Nimzo move-order: 1 d4 tLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3 i.b4 4 tLlf3 b6. 2) Bogo-Indian Defence is a reper- toire choice and there are some similar position-types or even straight trans- positions in the 4 g3 line. 3) The Queen's Gambit Declined (l d4 d5 2 c4 e6), especially the Tarta- kower Variation in which Black fian- chettoes his queen's bishop, can lead

to very closely related positions. Black often ends up with hanging pawns in the Tartakower. The popular line 4 tLlc3 i.b7 5 a3 d5 6 i.g5 is the closest relative to the Tartakower. Also, there are lines (such as 4 g3 i.a6 5 b3 c6 6 i.g2 d5) which are pretty close to the Catalan. 4) The English Opening very of- ten produces Hedgehog formations similar to Queen's Indian Hedgehogs. Some English Opening lines are suit-

able repertoire choices and there are some transpositions. Especially the following line is popular: 1 tLlf3 tLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3 c5 4 g3 b6 5 i.g2 i.b7 6 0-0 i.e7 7 :el!? (7 d4 cxd4leads to a

kind of Hedgehog) 7

9 d4 and we have a Queen's Indian line. 5) The Modern Benoni is an ac- tive repertoire choice but also in the Queen's Indian it is surprisingly usual to have a possibility to go into a Ben- oni formation where Black has the queenside majority.

d5

8 cxd5 exd5

In the following chapter we shall consider some typical position-types, before moving on to variation-by- variation coverage in the subsequent chapters.

1 Strategic Introduction

The Queen's Indian Defence can lead to an extremely rich set of different pawn-formations. The opening is very suitable for a player who has a good knowledge of general chess middle- game strategy, including strategic pawn-chains and central pawn-forma- tions. It is of course important for all chess-players to study the most typical middlegame pawn-formations such as the IQP, hanging pawns and Hedge- hogs, and this is especially vital for a Queen's Indian player, since this open- ing's theory does not revolve around forcing variations, like some sharp Si- cilians, but about middlegame pawn- formations. Although there are books devoted solely to one or two of these formations, we list the most common pawn-formations and give the basic information about them:

1) Hanging Pawns

Black has the pawns side-by-side on the fifth rank on semi-open files (c5, d5) and they cannot be supported by other pawns, since Black doesn't have a b-pawn or an e-pawn any more. This

pawn-formation usually arises if Black

has played

Black feels it necessary to play

avoid being left with a backward pawn. Sometimes Black leaves the c-pawn

d5

and after cxd5 exd5,

c5 to

on c6 but this may leave a passive bishop on b7 and White always has the possibility of a minority attack start- ing with b4.

w

the possibility of a minority attack start- ing with b4. w Tukmakov - Aseev USSR Ch

Tukmakov - Aseev

USSR Ch (Odessa) 1989

The hanging pawns cover a lot of central squares and they can become a strength if Black can freely organize his pieces behind them to support their advance by tactical means. Pushing the d-pawn at the right moment can give attacking chances, especially if the ex- change of the light-squared bishops weakens White's king position. It is in White's interest to put pres- sure on the pawns as early as possible. If one of the pawns has to advance too early, they lose their flexibility and there is a base for a white piece in front of the other pawn. Especially the

STRATEGIC INTRODUCTION

9

advance of the c-pawn to c4 can be a disaster because White occupies d4

and the b7-bishop dies. This can be ac- ceptable only if there is a weak b2- pawn in White's camp. It sometimes happens that White plays e4 to force

In this case White gets a pawn-

majority on the kingside, which can playa role if the black d-pawn can be

safely blockaded. Sometimes White

can also play b4 to force

c4, creating

a mobile pawn-majority on the queen- side. There are some general rules with a lot of exceptions of course. Piece ex- changes usually favour White, who wants to exert positional pressure and reduce Black's attacking power. Thus the hanging pawn positions in the line

4 g3 i.a6 5 b3 i.b4+ 6 i.d2 i.xd2+

are usually favourable for White. It is usually better for White to have his king's bishop on the long diagonal, ex- erting pressure on d5, than on e2 or d3. Also, the queen's knight is much more influential on c3 than on d2. In the line

4 g3 i.a6 5 liJbd2 d5 we can see many examples where White attempts to ac- tivate the d2-knight by the very stan- dard pin trick liJc4. In the previous diagram White's pieces are optimally placed to exert pressure on the d5- pawn but at first sight it seems Black has defended everything. White gets the upper hand with 16liJc4! liJb4 (as played in the game) 17 liJa5!. Note that hanging-pawn formations are very common in the Queen's In- dian, and indeed sometimes it is White who has the hanging pawns. This can happen after 4 e3, for example. The

d4.

comments above still apply in that case, but usually when White takes the hanging pawns his position is a bit more active than Black's and thus his play focuses on the positive features of the hanging pawns. In particular, the early central pawn-break d5 is a standard theme in positions where White has the hanging pawns.

2)

Isolated d-Pawn

Often Black has a difficult choice be- tween hanging pawns and an isolated d-pawn when White takes on c5. One such case arises after 4 g3 iLa6 5 liJbd2 d5 6 i.g2 i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 cxd5 exd5 9 liJe5 c5!? 10 dxc5 (D).

B

i.g2 i.e7 7 0-0 0-0 8 cxd5 exd5 9 liJe5 c5!? 10 dxc5 (D). B Tregubov

Tregubov - Jakobenko

Russian Cht 2002

Now it is perfectly viable to take with the b-pawn but Black has also

tried 1O

liJbd7 a few times, without losing a single game. Black has active pieces and exerts pressure against e2. Often Black's domination of the e4-square

compensates well for White's control

i.xc5!? llliJb3l:te8 12liJd3

10

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

of d4. The game continued 13 .tgS h6

14 .txf6 tbxf6 IS ~el ~c8 16 e3 tbe4

and White found nothing better than

17 tbbxcS bxcS 18 tbf4 .tb7, reaching

an equal position with hanging pawns. The key factor is the piece activity of the side with the isolated d-pawn. Again, exchanges are not usually in his favour, which explains the move

13 .tgS above. The best example of

the advantageous IQP is the line 4 e3

.tb7 S .td3 cS 6 0-0, where Black's

common plans with 6

or 6

to allow White too much activity, as

Black is not yet fully developed.

cxd4 7 exd4 dS

.te7 7 tbc3 cxd4 8 exd4 dS seem

3)

Hedgehog

The Hedgehog is a very typical forma- tion in the Sicilian Defence and Eng- lish Opening. There can also occur many different forms of Hedgehogs in the Queen's Indian.

B

Koborov - Psakhis

Ohrid Ech 2001

A Hedgehog is a pawn-formation as shown in the diagram where the

black c-pawn has been exchanged for

the white d-pawn, and Black builds a

defensive line of pawns on his third

rank, waiting for the right moment for

some kind of pawn-break, usually

or chettoed both bishops but they can also be developed to e2 and e3, for ex- ample. The knight usually likes to be

on c3 instead of d2. Here the black pieces are on the squares where Black usually wants to put them. The queen's knight is generally worse on c6, de- spite the conventional wisdom that the player with less space should usually seek exchanges. There can be many plans for White depending on the placing of his pieces. In the diagram position the slow king- side attack starting with the advance of the g-pawn suggests itself and was in fact quite successfully executed in this game. Another plan that is some- times effective is the central eS thrust. If the light-squared bishops are ex- changed, then it is often important for Black to control the long diagonal with his queen. White may have good plans on the queenside too. Sometimes it is effec- tive to advance the a-pawn to as to ex- change off the b6-pawn, which is an important support pillar of the black fort. There are many examples of this plan in the line 4 g3 .ta6 S tbbd2 .tb7 6 .tg2 cS 7 e4!.

dS,

bS

eS.

Here White has fian-

4)

'Closed Hedgehog'

This is a less common but nevertheless important set-up: a sixth-rank defence

STRATEGIC INTRODUCTION

11

without the exchange of Black's c- pawn for White's d-pawn. Usually this would allow White to dominate the centre by making the e4 advance, but in the 4 g3 line we have some positions where Black controls e4 with his pieces.

B

Topalov - Adams

Franlifurt 2000

This type of position occurs fre- quently in the games of Michael Ad- ams, and it was also used a lot by

Polugaevsky and Romanishin. Black has given up the bishop-pair to control the e4-square and the long h l-a8 diag- onal. Of course White does not want to exchange the light-squared bishops, so his only reasonable plan is to mis- place some pieces in order to achieve the e4 advance. The game continued

14 Ji.f1 cS ISltJd2 Ji.b7 16 b4

a3 17 ~b3 cxd4 18 Ji.xd4 eS and Black was fine. In this sort of position,

Black has to avoid opening up the game for White's bishops, but the ad- vance of the a-pawn, together with a well-timed central break, is usually a good plan.

13

a4!

5) Benoni Structure

One of the most common sidelines for Black in most Queen's Indian

attacking

White's d-pawn. Usually the evalua-

tion

White's possibility of playing dS and forming a Benoni structure. White has more central pawns, and he usually supports the centre with e4, aiming for an eS pawn-break. Black has a queen- side pawn-majority, and the soundness

on

variations is the early

cS,

of the

cS

plan

depends

of Black's play often depends on the freedom of his queenside pawns to ad- vance.

w

This position is from the Tiviakov Variation (4 g3 Ji.b7 S Ji.g2 Ji.e7 6 0-0 0-0 7 ltJc3 ltJa6!?), where Black's

play focuses on the

knight is usually quite good on a6 in the Benoni structure, as it has logical

square c7 available, sUPl'orting

and attacking dS. However, the major problem for Black is the placement of his bishops: in the standard Benoni (1

d4ltJf6 2 c4 cS 3 dS e6) Black usually fianchettoes his dark-squared bishop, and it remains the best black piece,

cS plan. Black's

bS

12

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

controlling the al-h8 diagonal, which

is already open thanks to White's early

d5 advance. Also the light-squared bishop is badly placed here, as it is striking against a brick wall in the shape of White's d5-pawn, which can be reinforced with e4 if need be. The bishop would even be better placed on c8, controlling the sensitive f5-square

and planning

It is worth noting that the Benoni is

a very sharp pawn-structure. With an

IQP, the evaluation of the position nor- mally varies between ;t to =, but in the Benoni it can be anything from +- to +

without either side having made any obvious blunders. There are a number of good examples of Benoni structures that are very good for White, but also Black has found it useful sometimes. The most notable example, besides the diagram above, is the 4 a3 variation

with 4

cxd5 g6, which has been tried even by

Kasparov himself.

Ji.g4

in some cases.

c5 5 d5 Ji.a6 6 ~c2 exd5 7

6) Open d-File

The diagram below is an example of a pawn-formation that frequently arises in both the Queen's Indian and the Nimzo-Indian. White has not found any other advantage than the asym- metrical pawn-formation, which he

has reached by playing an early dxc5,

to which Black has responded

White has fewer pawns in the centre than Black, which is a disadvantage in itself, but Black's pawns are not very

bxc5.

mobile because of the semi-open d-file which White is quick to use. Black, on

the other hand, enjoys a semi-open b- file, but if White can play b3 to secure the queenside pawn-chain a2-b3-c4 he can expect few problems on the queen- side. Actually, this seems to be a curi- ous case of the old Finnish chess joke being more than true: everything de- pends on whether a3 has been played yet.

w

In itself the plans for both players

are quite clear in this pawn-formation:

White plays along the d-file, exerting pressure against Black's backward d6- pawn, and sometimes opening the cen- tre with an e4-e5 pawn-break. Black tries to hold his centre with logical

l:Ifd8, get counterplay

along the b-file with

example, and look for op-

portunities to open the centre with a

pawn-break. However, there is

one major benefit for both players:

the position is not symmetrical, which means that the player who understands the pawn-formation better will always have winning chances, unlike some 'drawing' variations of the Queen's Indian that feature symmetry and tend towards sterile equality.

and

moves such as

'tWb6

l:Iab8, for

d5

STRATEGIC INTRODUCTION

13

7) Pre-Hanging Pawns Structure

Finally there are two pawn-structures which are not as clearly distinct as the pawn-formations discussed above, but which have been common in some particular variations or a number of new games. The first of these is illus- trated in the diagram below:

w

This is actually a standard position in the 4 e3 variation, before the final pawn-formation has been resolved.

bxc5

there is a hanging-pawns structure.

but after the

reply lDxd4! the IQP pawn-formation is not usually very good for him, since the b7-bishop remains quite ineffec-

tive. Therefore, the pawn-formation often remains unchanged for a while, as both sides manoeuvre. White usually starts with develop- ment, placing his rooks on c1 and dl, and building up pressure against the black central pawns, as if there were already hanging pawns. Besides this, he can plan i.a6 and i.xb7, softening

Black may play

White may play dxc5, and after

cxd4,

the defence of the fixed d5-pawn. Also i.f5 and i.xd7 or even the direct lDb5 and lDe5 attacks are possible some- times. It seems that the pawn-forma- tion offers White the benefits of the hanging-pawns structure, without Black having the opportunity to play for a

break with

Black, however, should seek to alter the structure, mainly with a well-timed

d4.

cxd4.

Black can also try to take con-

trol of the centre with

lDdf6, for example. But it seems that Black should take very good care of the central pawns, especially d5, and keep his minor pieces active.

lDe4

and

8) Doubled c-Pawns

One standard pawn-structure in the Nimzo-Indian is a closed centre with White having doubled c-pawns. The whole Samisch Variation of Nimzo- Indian (l d4lDf6 2 c4 e6 3lDc3 i.b4 4 a3 i.xc3+ 5 bxc3) revolves around this theme. This pawn-structure is also worth discussing in a Queen's Indian context, mainly because of the Nimzo Hybrid, 4lDc3 i.b4 5 i.g5, which was especially popular in the 1980s.

B

14

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

White has doubled c-pawns. There are some clear benefits: the c3-pawn supports the centre very well, and White has the advantage of the two bishops. However, by not taking care of the centre White may find his pawns as a target of quick attack by Black, with

standard moves such as

c5,

ttJc6,

ttJa5

and

i.a6.

The Queen's Indian differs slightly from the Nimzo-Indian when consid- ering this pawn-structure. Black has not yet played any of the central moves

and it takes some time for

him to finalize the closing of the cen- tre. The c4-pawn is not weak at the moment, as White has ttJd2, for ex- ample, planning f3 and e4 and sup-

porting the c4-pawn. Generally this pawn-structure is again a model ex- ample of structures where the better player, knowing the benefits of his side of the position, will win, as the pawn-formation will remain unbal- anced for a long time, probably the rest of the game.

c5

or

e5,

2 The Miles Variation: 4 i f4 (and 4 ~g5)

The variation starting with 1 d4 tiJf6 2 c4 e6 3 tiJf3 b6 4 i.f4 can be rightly called the Miles Variation, after the late Tony Miles, who employed the variation constantly during the 1970s and 1980s. He created a whole new branch of theory, and scored many fine wins. However, the right methods of defence for Black were discovered, and the whole variation became un- popular and drawish. However, being drawish at top level doesn't necessar- ily mean that it is unplayable at club level, and this variation can be a very useful little opening tool to be used when something special or unexpected is necessary. The variation with 4 i.g5 was em- ployed a lot more in the early days of the Queen's Indian, but nowadays the best White can hope for with it is a transposition to other Queen's Indian variations with the move i.g5 already played.

Typical Positions and Plans

In the following position we see the basic plan of the 4 i.f4 line: White wants to develop his bishop outside the pawn-chain, and use it to support the central advance and moves like

B

and use it to support the central advance and moves like B tiJe5, and control the

tiJe5, and control the h2-b8 diagonal. This set-up, if allowed, creates good attacking chances for White.

w

diagonal. This set-up, if allowed, creates good attacking chances for White. w Miles - Unzicker Johannesburg

Miles - Unzicker

Johannesburg 1979

16

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

This diagram shows one of the stan-

dard equalizers for Black, starting Iwith

the moves 4

0-0 7 a3 i.e7 8 ttJc3 d5 9 cxd5 ttJxd5

10 ttJxd5 i.xd5. Black has played an

intermediate check on b4, and when White has responded with ttJfd2 Black has just developed calmly, and White's pieces, especially the f4-bishop and the d2-knight, have become slightly passive. Black should have enough ac- tivity for easy play.

i.b7 5 e3 i.b4+ 6 ttJfd2

Besides Tony Miles there have been some other strong players who have used this variation quite frequently, such as the free-thinking grandmasters Gretarsson and Agdestein.

1 d4 ttJf6 2 c4 e6 3 ttJf3 b6 4 i.f4 The Miles Variation, named after Tony Miles (1955-2001). The variation can be recommended to those who want to travel their own paths as early

as possible. 4 i.g5 is an old variation, from the early days of the Queen's Indian, which nowadays usually leads to variations starting with 4 ttJc3 i.b45 i.g5. Here are some examples of the independent variations, in which Black should have

(D) and

no special problems: 4 then:

a) 5 ttJbd2 develops the knight to a

passive square, and loses control of

d4. Black has the 10gica15

c5! 7 e3 i.e7 8 i.e2 cxd4 9 exd4 ttJc6

10 0-0 d5 11 cxd5 ttJxd5 12 i.xe7

ttJdxe7 13 'iWa4 0-0 and Black is al-

ready better, Maloberti-Lemer, Metz

i.b7

h6 6 i.h4

1998.

al- ready better, Maloberti-Lemer, Metz i.b7 h6 6 i.h4 1998. i.b4, and Black has 5 i.xf6

i.b4,

and Black has 5

i.xf6 7 ttJc3 i.xf3 8 gxf3 c5 9 d5

i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 leads to a curious

pawn-structure, but Black at least has

'iWf6 11 'iWd2 e5

d6 + Barlov-Gligoric, Svet-

no worries after 1O

6 ttJc3 (6 i.xf6

b)

5 a3 loses a move to stop

i.e7

12 l:!,gl

proving that

ozarevo 1990) 6

White had his priorities wrong as a3 is

now just a loss of move. After 7 i.xe7

'Wixe7 8 'iWc2 f5 9 e3 d6 10 i.d3 ttJxc3

11 'iWxc3 ttJd7 Black has equalized,

Marder-Amir, Istanbul OL 2000.

c) 5 e3 h6 6 i.h4 (6 i.xf6 'iWxf6 7

i.e2 g6! positions the dark-squared bishop on the long diagonal, and after 8 ttJc3 i.g7 9 e4 0-0 10 0-0 d6 Black has at least an equal position, Raj- csanyi-Romanishin, Helsinki 1992)

and then:

ttJe4!,

7 ttJbd2? (7 ttJfd2 =;

7 ttJc3 transposes to Line B2 of Chap-

8 i.g3 g4 is a famous

trap, winning a piece, which was first seen in Tarrasch-Bogoljubow, Goth- enburg 1920.

7 i.d3 ttJe4 8 i.xe7

ter 5)

cl)

6

7

i.b4+

g5!

c2)

6

i.e7

'Wixe7 9 'iWc2 ttJg5 and Black equalizes with the standard exchanging ma-

noeuvre, Tal-Lutikov, Piimu 1971.

THE MILES VARIATION: 4 iLj4 (AND 4 iLg5)

17

We now return to 4 iLf4 (D):

B

iLj4 (AND 4 iLg5) 1 7 We now return to 4 iLf4 (D): B 4•.•i.h7 Also

4•.•i.h7

Also here Black may try 4

i.M+:

a) S liJbd2 i.b7 6 g3!? is an inde-

pendent try, avoiding transpositions:

are

possible) 7 a3 i.xd2+ 8 'it'xd2 d6 9 i.g2liJe7 100-0 h6 11 ltfel 'it'd7 12 ltadl i.e4 13 'it'c3 'it'c6 14 i.el and

6

liJc6

(6

i.xf3!?

and 6

cS!?

White has a minimal advantage due to the bishops, Groszpeter-Csom, Hun- gary 1984.

b) SliJfd2liJhS 6 i.g3 i.b7 7 a3 (7

5 e3

Or:

a) S liJbd2 weakens White's con-

trol of d4, and Black equalizes easily

cS 6 dxcS (6 e3 i.e7 7 i.d3

i.xcS 7

e3 0-0 8 i.e2 dS 9 0-0 liJc6 = Troeger- Becker, Frankfurt 1938.

b) S liJc3 allows Black more tar-

and Black has no

gets with S

problems if he plays actively. 6 'it'b3

and then:

d6 8 i.e2

liJe4 9 0-0 i.xc3 10 bxc3 ;!; Korchnoi-

Tarjan, Lone Pine 1981) 8 i.d3liJxc3?!

9 bxc3 i.e7 10 e4 ± Korchnoi-Hiibner, Merano Ct (10) 1980.

7 e3liJe4 8 i.d3 i.xc3+

9 bxc3 d6 10 'it'c2 fS 11 dS!? with the

initiative in Seirawan-Dzindzichash- vili, USA Ch (Berkeley) 1984.

i.xc3+ 7 'it'xc3 0-0 8 e3 d6

9 i.e2liJbd7 10 h3 'fie7 11 ltdl .l:tfd8

12 0-0 cS! with counterplay, Chris-

tiansen-Ribli, Linares 1981.

with S 0-0 8 h3

cxd4 9 exd4 dS =) 6

i.M

bl)

6

aS?!

7 e3liJe4 (7

b2)

6

i.a5

b3) 6

e3 g6 8 a3 liJxg3 9 hxg3 i.f8! 10 liJc3

5•••i.h4+

 

i.g7 llliJf3 d6 12 'it'c2liJd7 13 i.e2

Alternatively:

a6 14 .l:tdl 'it'e7 IS 0-0 cS =+= Richter-

a)

S

cS?!

is a mistake, as White

Wells, Wiirzburg 1996; Black's bish-

plays dS anyway: 6 dS exdS 7 liJc3 a6

ops are strong on the long diagonals)

7 liJxg3 8 hxg3 i.f8! (the bishop still belongs on the long diagonal) 9 liJc3 g6 10 lic2 i.g7 11 e3 0-0 12 g4! dS (a

surprisingly sharp position has arisen from this drawish line) 13 cxdS exdS 14liJf3 cS IS O-O-O!? (IS ltdl is a less risky option according to I.Sokolov)

IS

16 exd4 liJc6 (I.Sokolov-

Adams, Prague rpd 2002), and now I.Sokolov gives 17 i.bS!? a6 18 i.xc6 i.xc6 19 lth4 ;to

cxd4

(7

9 i.gS gives White good attacking prospects) 8 cxdS d6 9 e4 ± Miles-

Hort, Tilburg 1978.

b) Black may also try the natural

S

liJxg3 7 hxg3 d6 8 'fic2 h6 9 liJc3 cS

10 i.e2, Tsiganova-Dabrowska, De-

brecen worn Echt 1992, is another ba-

i.e7 7 i.xe7

sic set-up for White) 6

'it'xe7 8liJc3 d6 9 i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 liJf6

(10

and then 6 i.gS (6 i.g3!?

8liJbSliJdS is a better try, but

dxc4

liJhS!?

fS!?

Raaste) 11 M! (11 'fic2 cS

18

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

12l:tad1 cxd4 13 lbxd4lbc6 14 'iVa4 lbxd4 15l:txd4l:tfd8 16 :tfd1lbe8 is a fairly balanced position, but after 17 'iVa3!?, as in the game Akopian-Pan- chenko, Moscow 1992, White may

12 a3 (12

13 'iVb3lbe4

'iVb1!? Raaste) 12

l:td2

l:tfc8 17 'iVd1 and Black equalized with

the precise 17

nen-Nyysti, Helsingin Sanomat 2002.

claim a minimal pull) 1l c5

lbbd7

14 lbxe4 iLxe4 15 l:tfd 1 l:tab8 16

d5!

in the game Karttu-

(D) is a natural develop-

ing move and another main line, which

gives Black a good game:

c)

5

iLe7

w

c1) 6lbc3lbh5 forces the exchange

of the bishop: 7 iLg3 d6 8 iLd3 lbd7 9 'iVc2 (9 0-0 g6! 10 h3 lbxg3 11 fxg3 0-0 = Spassky-Karpov, Montreal 1979)

c6 11 d5! ;\;)

11 'tlVxe4 = Miles-Andersson, Amster-

dam 1978. c2) 6 h3 and Black has a choice:

has been regarded as a

sound option, but it does not appear to

be the clearest equalizer, since White now has the unbalancing 7 dxc5! (7 lbc3 cxd4 8 lbxd4 0-0 9 lbdb5 lbe8, Miles-Kupreichik, Reykjavik 1980, and then 10 lbd6 lbxd6 11 iLxd6lba6

9

g6 10 iLe4 iLxe4 (10

c2l) 6

c5

8lbc3 0-0 9 iLe2 d6 10 0-0

'iVb6 11 'tlVc2 lbc6 12 l:tfd1 l:tfd8 13 l:td2l:tac8 14l:tad1, as in Gretarsson-

Johannessen, Reykjavik 2000. Even

though this might not offer White any advantage, his plan of exerting some pressure on the centre is at least easy to play.

0-0 7 lbc3 d5 8 cxd5 with

a further choice:

leads to the most

famous game in this variation: 9 iLd3

c5 (9

10 0-0 a6 11lbe5l:te8 12

'iVf3 iLd6 13lbg4!? was more unclear in Miles-Larsen, Tilburg 1978) 10 0-0

12 lbxc6

lbc6 11 lbe5 c4? (ll

iLxc6 13 exd4 ;\;) 12 iLc2 a6 13 g4!

and White has a strong attack, Miles- Spassky, Montilla 1978.

=) 7

bxc5

c22) 6

c221) 8

lbbd7

exd5?!

cxd4

c222) 8

lbxd5

9lbxd5 and then:

is good: 10 iLd3

iLb4+ (10

h6 13 0-0 'tlVe7 14l:tfd1l:.d8 15 a3 a5

16 iLb5 iLc6 17 l:.xd8+ ~xd8 18 :td 1

gave White pressure in Mliki-Valkes- almi, Finnish Ch (Jarvenpaa) 1980) 11

'it>e2 iLd6 12 iLxd6 cxd6 13 'iVc2 h6

14l:thc1 (14 iLh7+ 'it>h8 15 iLe4lbc6

16 iLxd5lbb4! 17 'iVa4lbxd5 18l:thc1

f5 19 l:tc2 liz-liz Meduna-Gligoric,

Sochi 1986) 14

:c3 lbd7 and basically only a draw is ahead here, Miles-Reshevsky, Lone Pine 1979.

15 'iVb3 iLb7 16

c5 11 dxc5 iLxc5 12 'tlVc2

c2221) 9

iLxd5

iLc6

10 iLd3 (10 a3 c5

11 dxc5 iLxc5 12 ~xd5 iLxd5leads to

an equal endgame: 13 :tcl l:i.c8 14

iLd3 iLb7 15 'it>e2lbd7 16.i:f.hdllbf6

= Bareev-Hsu, Moscow OL 1994)

~a5+ 11 'it>e2 c5 12 dxc5 l:.d8

and Black's initiative guarantees him

c2222) 9

'tlVxd5

1O

THE MILES VARIATION: 4 !iJ.f4 (AND 4 ~g5)

19

at least equality, Lputian-Andrianov, Jurmala 1983.

We now return to S

~b4+ (D):

w

Jurmala 1983. We now return to S ~b4+ (D): w 6 ttJfd2 As the main line

6 ttJfd2 As the main line is a pretty clinical draw, there might be a bit more to play with after 6 ttJbd2!?; for exam-

ple, 6

dS!? Geller) 7 ~d3 (7

i.e2 ~e7 8 h3 cS 9 dxcS bxcS 10 0-0

ttJc6 11 l::tcl ~b6 12 ~c2 l::tac8 13

l:f.fdll::tfd8 14 a3 h6 IS ttJbl dS = Nik- olic-Leko, Ter Apel1996) and then:

8 0-0 i.xd2 9 ttJxd2

ttJbd7 10 ~c2 leaves White with two

bishops and the advantage: 1O

i.gS cS 12 dxcS bxcS 13 ttJe4 i.xe4

14 i.xe4l::tb8 ISl::tfdll:tb6 l6l::td2 ;!; De Waal-Baklan, Antwerp 1999.

8 i.e2 i.g6 allows

White to exchange the bishop again: 9 a3 i.e7 10 ttJeS d6 11 ttJxg6 hxg6 ;!;

Teske-Lentrodt, Passau 1999.

8 cxdS exdS 9 0-0 i.e7 10

ttJeS cS and now, for example, the ac-

0-0 (6

a)

7

d6?!

g6 11

b)

7

i.e4?!

c)

7

dS

exd4 ttJc6 is a clinical equalizer from the man who knows all about equaliz- ing, Miles-Andersson, Buenos Aires OL 1978.

'7

i.e7

7 i.xd2+!? is another possibility:

8 ttJxd2 dS 9l::tc 1 ttJbd7 10 b4 dxc4 11

ttJxc4 ttJdS 12 i.g3 fS! with active play and a nice light-square grip, Ras- tianis-Kengis, Vilnius 1979. S ttJc3 (D)

B

grip, Ras- tianis-Kengis, Vilnius 1979. S ttJc3 (D) B S•.•dS Black decides to playa QGD pawn-

S•.•dS Black decides to playa QGD pawn-

as White's knight

structure with

dS,

is badly placed on d2. '

8 cS?!

is not recommended: 9 dS!

exdS 10 cxdS d6 (1O

ttJxdS 12 ~f3 ttJc7 13 ~b7! ± Miles-

Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1979) 11 e4 ttJbd7 12 i.e2 ttJe8 13 ttJc4 ± Zsu.Pol- gar-Kindermann, Pardubice 1994. 9 cxdS ttJxdS 10 ttJxdS i.xdS 11

~c2

i.xdS 11 ttJxdS

11 l::tc1 is another option, which

tive 11 ~f3 ~c8 12 g4!? is unclear,

leads to the same position-type: 11

cS

Rivas-Yudasin, Leningrad 1984.

12 dxcS i.xcs (l2

bxcS!?) 13 .tc4

6

0-07

a3

 

.tb7 (l3

i.xc4 14 ttJxc4 ~xdl+ IS

7

i.d3 dS

(7

i.xg2!?;

7

i.e4!?) 8

'it>xdl ttJd7 16 'it>e2;!; Miles-Ligterink,

20

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

a symmetrical pawn-formation and

equal play, Miles-Hubner, England vs W.Germany 1978. 1l ••.cS

simple as the

main line: 12 i.xd6 cxd6 13 i.d3 h6 140-0 liJd7 15 %:tac1 %:tc8 16 'iVa4 %:tc7,

and now Geller suggests 17 e4!? i.a8 18 b4 t. 12 dxcS i.xcs (D)

not as

11

i.d6

is

The pawns are symmetrical, and Black has good activity and no weak- nesses, so it is clear that White has no opening advantage.

13liJe4

The latest try didn't change any- thing: 13 i.d3 h6 140-0 liJd7 15 %:tfdl

liJf6 16 liJe4liJxe4 17 i.xe4 i.xe4 18

'iWxe4 'iWh4 19 ~7 a5 20 b4 axb4

axb4 %:txal 22 %:txal i.xb4 23 'iWxb6 112-112 Meduna-Brynell, Leon Echt

2001.

21

13•

Miles-Unzicker, Johannesburg 1979.

liJd7

14 %:tdl 'iWc8 15 i.d3

Now 15

f5

16liJg5 h6 is unclear.

Conclusions

The Miles Variation is not popular at the moment, and Black should have many ways to reach quiet and equal

i.b7 5 e3, besides

positions. After 4

the standard 5

i.e7 8liJc3 d5, Black has 5

0-0 7 liJc3 d5 8 cxd5 liJxd5, opening the position for active play, and even

aiming to gain the bishop-

5

pair. However, as a surprise weapon this variation might be a good choice

for White every now and then, since an equal position doesn't necessarily mean a boring short draw. 4 i.g5 usually transposes to varia- tions starting with 4 liJc3, as White has no advantage in the independent lines.

i.b4+ 6liJfd2 0-0 7 a3

i.e7 6 h3

liJh5!?,

3

4 e3

1 d4liJf6 2 c4 e6 3liJf3 b6 4 e3 is gen- erally regarded as a peaceful variation, and usually theoretical works, assess it as equal and place little emphasis on it. However, it should be noted that legendary players of totally opposite styles, namely the positional Vasily Smyslov and the dynamic Paul Keres, both adopted the variation in the 1950s, so there must be some real ideas be- hind it. The main idea of the variation is not to win by memorizing tons of theory, but by choosing a complex middle- game in which both players have to chart their way by their general middle- game knowledge. Keres used to play 4 e3 in an attacking manner, and he had many games with an IQP advancing to d5 opening lines, or hanging pawns showing their dynamics (d5 with a sacrifice). Smyslov relied on more po- sitional middlegame themes, usually increasing the pressure on the centre in a position where his opponent had pawn weaknesses.

Typical Positions and Plans

The following position shows the plans for White in the variation with Black

5

i.d3 i.b4+ and exchanging his bishop; for example, after 6liJbd2 0-0 7 0-0 c5

playing either 4

i.b4+

or 4

i.b7

B

6liJbd2 0-0 7 0-0 c5 playing either 4 i.b4+ or 4 i.b7 B Khalifman - Romanishin

Khalifman - Romanishin

Ischia 1996

8 a3. White's dark-squared bishop on the al-h8 diagonal remains strong, and the battle focuses on White trying to open the long diagonal, and Black try- ing to neutralize the bishop.

trying to open the long diagonal, and Black try- ing to neutralize the bishop. Solozhenkin -

Solozhenkin - Sammalvuo

Helsinki 2002

22

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

This is the main position-type if

isolated pawn position, so he has to

Black plays an

early

c5

and

cxd4;

seek other means of defence.

it arises after 4

it.b7

5 it.d3 c5 6 0-0

it.e7 7 ttJc3 cxd4 8 exd4 d5 if White responds with the immediate 9 cxd51 ttJxd5 10 ttJe5, starting active play. White has an isolated queen's pawn, and the play focuses on the middle- game themes with such a pawn-struc- ture. Usually White's minor pieces are very active in this variation, and be- cause of this Black has to be very care- ful in the opening phase.

w

this Black has to be very care- ful in the opening phase. w Solozhenkin - Agopov

Solozhenkin - Agopov

Jyviiskylii 2001

This is one of the standard central

pawn-formations of the variation in

c5.

which Black plays

ttJbd7

and

B

of the variation in c5. which Black plays ttJbd7 and B Tella - Harjula Jyviisky/ii 1996

Tella - Harjula

Jyviisky/ii 1996

This diagram shows a standard po-

and

sition of the

White has the central pawn couple c4 and d4, and his play focuses on keep-

ing the pawns mobile, and increasing the pressure with his minor pieces.

Black tries to manoeuvre his pieces to attack the white centre, with moves

c5

ttJc6 variation.

such as

it.g7

and

ttJe7-f5.

The ex-

change

dxc4

usually eases White's

play, because the advance d5 becomes possible. The position is generally re- garded as close to equal, but it is by no means dead for either of the players.

White has played cxd5, opening the c-file and the fl-a6 and h3-c8 diago-

nals, and he intends either the ma- noeuvre it.a6 exchanging the bishops

The following diagram shows the critical position-type of the 4 e3 varia- tion. Black has played the more active

and weakening the blocked d5-pawn,

it.d6,

and he has plans like

ttJe4

or ttJe5 and it.f5, attacking Black's

with

f5

and

"fie7,

nc8

and

c5

central minor pieces. Black would like

cxd4 is not

good because it leads to an inferior

to stop these plans, but

available. White tries to build pres- sure against the backward c7-pawn, together with tactical ideas like ttJe5

4

e3

23

w

Malaniuk - Hjartarson

Tilburg rpd 1993

4

i

b7

4

i

b4+

5 lbbd2 i

b7

is similar to

Line

A. Then:

 

a)

6 i

d3

transposes to Line A.

b)

6 a3!? is the sharpest continua-

tion. 6

i 7 'iWxd2 can

xd2+

be classi-

fied as a Bogo-Indian, so here are just a few examples:

and in this the-

matic position Black has tried many ways to achieve counterplay against White's bishops:

0-0 lbbd7 10 b4lbe4

bI)

7

0-0

8 i

e2

bll) 8

d69

 

(10

'iWe7

11 i

b2

~fd8 12 ~fdl c5 13

or positional manoeuvres like lbe2-

bxc5

dxc5 14 a4 ~ac8 15 'iVc2 cxd4 16

g3-f5.

The 4 e3 variation has been played by many strong players occasionally. These players include the already men- tioned Keres and Smyslov, as well as modem players like Yusupov, Bareev, Malaniuk and Solozhenkin. Bareev's win against Leko is the latest example from the highest level, and Solozhen- kin has used the variation many times with success against slightly weaker opposition.

1 d4lbf62c4e63lbf3 b64e3(D)

B

exd4 'iWb4 17 lbd2 'iVd6 18 'iVb3 ;!;

Gelfand-Kosashvili, Tyniste 1995) 11

'iWc2

14 f3 ~fd8 15 ~dl d5! 16

'iVb2! cxb4, Gelfand-Anand, Dortmund 1996, and now 17 e4! 'iVe7 18 cxd5

exd5 19 e5 bxa3 20 'iVb3lbf8 21 i xa3

gives White full compensation and an

'iVxd2 'iVg5

(12 lbd2 lbxd2 13

c5

12

i

b2

easy game) 12

.f5 14 dxc5 bxc5 15 lbd2 'iVg5 16

f4 'iVg6 17 i

plements a key idea to emphasize the dark-squared bishop: 14 dxc5 bxc5 15

d3 i

f5 16 b5lbd6 17lbe5lbb6 (Gel-

~c8 13 ~adl d5! (or

13

f3

;!;) and now White im-

fand-Macieja, Polanica Zdroj 1998), and now 18 a4 'it'g5 19 cxd5 c4 20

i

9 b3 d5!? (a new ap-

proach to this position instead of the

normal

10 0-0 lbbd7

e2

i

xd5

21 i

f3

favours White.

lbbd7)

b12) 8

d6

a5

and

11 i

14lbxd7lbxd7 (14

b2

c5 12 ~fdl 'iWe7 13lbe5 ~fd8

~xd7 15 'iVel ;!;)

Gelfand-Korchnoi, Vienna 1996, and

with 15 a4!? ~ac8 16 :tac1 White can

continue to pressure Black with his

bishops.

24

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

b13) 8

liJe4

9 'i!Vd3 dS

10 b3 as

c: S•••.te7

30

might be safer: 11 .tb2 (11 0-0 a4 12

D: S•••dS

38

b4liJd6 13 cS .ta6 14 'iWc2 .txe2 IS 'i!Vxe2liJc4 and Black had no problems

Alternatives:

in Gershon-Macieja, Bermuda 2001)

12 ':c1 .ta6 13 'iWc2 axb3 14

ll

a4

starts central action pre-

maturely: 60-0 fS 7 liJfd2! and now

a)

S

liJe4

'i!Vxb3liJc6 IS .tc3 "ile7 16.tb4liJxb4

7

:iih4!? looks most natural, because

17 axb4 cS 18 dxcS bxcS 19 bS .tb7 =

7

te7?

(Simagin-Goldenov, USSR

Yusupov-Nikolic, Barcelona 1989.

Ch (Moscow) 19S2) 8 .txe4 fxe4 9

d6 8 b4liJbd7 9 .tb2 0-0 10

.te2liJe411 'iWd3 fS 120-0 :f6! 13 dS

':g6! (13

± with the

b2)

7

eS?

14 liJh4!

'iWhS+ g6 10 'iWg4leaves Black a pawn down for nothing.

d6leads to a passive but sta-

b)

S

idea liJxfS, Miles-Mascarifias, Lugano

1986) 14 dxe6 liJf8 IS cS! (IS liJel

ble position-type, which is slightly better for White: 6 liJc3 liJbd7 7 0-0

liJxe6 16 f3 "ilgS! 17 f4 'iWh4 18 'i!Vc2

.te7 8 e4! h6 9 a3

eS

10 dS liJf8

11

':h6 19liJf3 'iWhS 20 cS bxcS 21 ':adl gS 22 h3 g4 23 liJh2 'iWh4 wins for Black, Twardon-Nikolenko, Katowice

'iWe2 gS!? 12 b4 liJg6 13 g3 .tc8

liJe 1 as IS bxaS ':xaS 16 .td2 .td7 17 a4 and White has the better pawn-

14

1993) IS

liJxe6

16 cxd6 cxd6 (Black

structure and a space advantage, Tella-

has interesting attacking chances) 17

':adl

liJh3! 0-1 Gelfand-Illescas, Madrid 1996. This game had, of course, quite a large effect on the popularity of the

variation. S .td3 (D)

to>h8

18 liJel?? liJ6gS 19

to>hl

B

S .td3 (D) to>h8 18 liJel?? liJ6gS 19 to>hl B Now: A: S tb4+ 24 B:

Now:

A:

S

tb4+

24

B:

S

cS

26

Koskela, Helsinki 1997.

(Black adopts a King's In-

dian stance, but his b7-bishop remains quite passive and this makes it diffi- cult for Black to equalize) 6liJc3 .tg7

7 0-0 (7 e4!? d6 8 .tf4 0-0 9 'i!Vd2 liJbd7 10 .th6 eS 11 dS ;1; Harikrishna-

0-0

(7

Kunte, Kelamabakkam 2000) 7

8 e4 d6 9 ':elliJbd7 1O.tn

a6 11 h3 h6 12 'iWc2 cS!? (12

was met effectively with 13 dS eS 14 g3 fS? IS liJh4! ± in Kacheishvili-

Sakaev, Linares 2001) 13 dS eS 14

.te3 liJhS IS 'iVd2

c)

S

g6

dS!?)

liJh7?!

to>h7

;1;.

A)

S.•

tb4+

6liJbd2

6 .td2 .txd2+ 7liJbxd2 0-0 8 e4 d6 90-0 eS 10 dS as 11 a3liJa6 12 .tc2 c6 13 ':bl bS! = Ehlvest-Vaganian, Erevan OL 1996.

6.••0-0

4

e3

25

Or:

Vegas FIDE 1999) 12

cxd4 13 tLlxd4

a)

6

.lbe4 7 0-0 f5 8 'ili'c2 i.xd2

tLle5 14 i.a6 tLle4 15 i.el 'ikg5 (or

(8

9 tLlxd2 'ili'g5 10 e4 0-0 11 d5 c6 12 tLlf3 'ili'h5 13 dxe6 dxe6 14 tLlg5 with the initiative in A.Petrosian-Rigo, Dortmund 1992) 9 tLlxd2 'ili'h4 10 f3

tLlf6 (1O

tLlc6 13 c5 with a clear space advan-

tLlxd2 11 i.xd2 0-0 12 b4

tLlxd2 presents the centre to White:

tage and the two bishops, Petrosian- Taimanov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1951)

11 b4 tLlc6 12 i.a3 and White has a

space advantage, for which Black has not found clear compensation.

15

tLld616

'iie2 tLlf5 17 i.c3;!;) 16 f4

'ikg6 17 fxe5 tLlc5 18 i.g3 tLlxa6 19 tLlf5! with a strong attack, Kasparov-

Butnorius, Moscow tt 1979.

i.e7 9 b4 gives White either

a space advantage or nice activity:

c5 10 bxc5 bxc5 11 .l:.bl

i.a6 12 tLle5 cxd4 (12

gis) 13 exd4 'ikc8 14 .l:.b3 tLlc6 (Ken- gis-Kiselev, Barnaul 1988) 15 cxd5!?

Ken-

b) 8

bl) 9

'ikc8!?

tLlxe5 16 dxe5 tLlxd5 17 tLle4 i.xd3 18 'iixd3 gives White attacking possibili-

b)

6

c5 7 a3 i.xd2+ 8 i.xd2 and

ties according to Kengis.

then:

b2)

9

tLlbd7

10 i.b2 c6 11 i.c3

bl)

8

d6

is possible, but generally

c5 12 bxc5 bxc5 13 l:tbl ;!; Yusupov-

too slow: 9 i.c3 0-0 10 dxc5! bxc5 11 'iVc2 tLlbd7 12 0-0 a5 13 .l:.adl .l:.a6

(13

Shipov, St Petersburg 1993) 14 tLlg5 h6

15 tLle4 tLlxe4 16 i.xe4 i.xe4 17 'ikxe4

a4 18 .l:.d2 with some pressure for White, Yusupov-Salov, Linares 1992.

tLle4

f6 11 tLld2 i.g6 12 dxc5 0-0 14 0-0 'ikc7 15 .l:.c1

14 tLld2 'ike7 15 f4! ;!; Dreev-

h6

b2)

8

9 i.xe4! i.xe41O i.c3

bxc5 13 b4 ;!; Portisch-

Timman, Rotterdam 1989. 70-0 c5 (D)

Ivanchuk, Linares 1991.

w

7

d5

8 a3 and then:

 

a)

8

i.xd2

gives White the advan~

8a3!

tage ofthe two bishops and lots ofplay on the dark squares: 9 i.xd2 tLlbd7

10 i.xc4 tLlbd7 11 'ike2

tLle4 12 i.el! c5 13 .l:.dl 'ikc8 14 tLle5 cxd4 15 tLlxd7 'ikxd7 16 .l:.xd4 'ili'c7 17 f3! ± Purgin-Kazantsev, St Petersburg 2000) 10 cxd5 i.xd5 11 b4 c5 12.l:.c 1 !

(9

dxc4?!

(12 i.c3!? c4 13 i.c2 tLle4 14 i.el f5

15 tLle5 tLlxe5 16 dxe5 iVg5 17 f4 ~g6

White should seek the bishop-pair

bxc5

9 b3 d5 10 i.b2 tLlbd7 11 'ikc2 ;!; Pet-

rosian-Platonov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1969) 9 a3 a5 10 b3 d5 11 i.b2 tLlc6 12 'ike2 d4 13 exd4 (13 e4?! e5 14 tLlh4 g6 15 g3 i.c8 is better for Black, Groszpeter-Knezevic, Tmava 1983)

again. Instead, 8 dxc5 i.xc5 (8

13

tLlxd4Ieads to equality.

26

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

 
9••• d6

9•••d6

 

b) 12 ]:tel !:tfe8 13 tiJd2 eS! 14

bxcS (14 'ilVc2!? exd4 IS exd4 a6 is un-

B

clear) 14

exd4!

IS exd4 dxcS 16 dS

bS liz-liz Tibensky-Stocek, Lazne Boh-

danec 1997.

 
 

12

cxd4

13 exd4

13 i.xd4 !:tfd8 (13

eS

14 i.b2 e4

IS i.e2 !:tfe8 16 'iVb3 tiJeS 17 !:tfd1 as 18 i.d4 tiJfd7 19 !:tael t Mchedlish- viIi-Kristjansson, Leon Echt 2001) 14 !:tel tiJeS IS i.n dS 16 cxdS !:txdS with counterplay, Hellsten-Rozentalis,

9

tiJe4

10 b4 (10 i.e1!? d6 11 b4

Malmo 1997.

tiJd7 12 a4 fS 13 as !:tb8 14 axb6 axb6

 

13

dS

IS tiJd2 !:ta8 16 f3 tiJc3 17 !:txa8 'iVxa8

Or:

18 'iVb3 tiJa2119 i.g3 tiJxb4 20 i.xd6

a)

13

bS 14 cS tiJdS IS 'iVc2 with

!:td8 21 i.e2 was unclear in Dreev-

an advantage to White.

 

Izeta, Oviedo rpd 1991) 1O d6 11 'ilVc2

 

b)

13

tiJdSI4cxdS1Wxc31StiJc4!

fS 12 bxcS dxcS 13 i.el tiJd7 14 i.b2 is much better for White, Ivanov-Sok-

eS 16 dxeS dxeS 17 tiJd6 i.xdS 18 i.xh7+ ~xh7 191WxdS tiJf6 20 'iVb7

olin, USSR 1989.

t.

10b4

 

14

cS bxcS1S dxcS

 
 

IS

bxcS tiJe4!

16 1Wc2 tiJxc3

17

10 dxcSl? looks possible. 10.•.tiJbd7 11 i.c3 'ilVc7 Or:

a)

1l

!:te8

12 tiJd2 !:tc8 13 !:tel

!:tc7 14 !:tel tiJf8 IS a41? gave White a

1Wxc3 eS! is equal. IS.•.eS The position is unclear according to

Avrukh.

nice queenside advantage in Khalif- man-Romanishin, Ischia 1996.

b) 1l

'iVe7

12 tiJd2 !:tfc8 13 ':c1

a6 14 'ilVe2 dS IS dxcS bxcS 16 !:tfdl cxb4 17 axb4 dxc4 18 tiJxc4 ± Miles- Sunye, Linares (Mexico) 1994.

12 tiJd2!?

Or:

12 i.b2 !:tfe8 13 i.e2 eS 14 !:tel

cxb4 (14

bxcS 17 bxcS dxcS 18 dxcS tiJf4 19 i.c4 'iic6 20 'iib3 ± Dreev-Epishin, Tilburg 1994) IS axb4 as with coun- terplay.

IS exd4 tiJhS 16 cS!

a)

cxd4?!

B)

S

cS

(D)

20 'iib3 ± Dreev-Epishin, Tilburg 1994) IS axb4 as with coun- terplay. IS exd4 tiJhS 16

4

e3

27

With this move Black aims for an

IQP structure immediately by playing

cxd4

and

60-0

dS.

7 dS! exdS 8

cxdS ltJxdS 9ltJxdS ii.xdS 10 ii.xg6 ±;

7 0-0 transposes to the main

line) 7 exd4 ii.b4!? 8 0-0 ii.xc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 .:tel d6 is an acceptable addi-

tional option for Black, Volodin-Ku- drin, Moscow 1995, so White has no need for this move-order.

6ltJc3 cxd4 (6

ii.e7

g6?!

6

12 ltJg4 ii.g7 13 .:tel

'ii'd7 14 'ii'h3! fS IS ltJeS ± K.Berg- Barbero, Copenhagen 1991 .

'ii'c7 11 ltJc3 ltJf6 12 'i'h3

ltJc6 and now White implements a

thematic idea which seems to be quite

ii.d6 14

.:tac1 with the initiative for White) 14

IS .:tad1 ii.cs

16 ii.e3 'ili'd6 17 ii.g6! gives White the

.:tfe1 iLe7?! (14

strong: 13 ii.f4! 'ili'd8?! (13

a12) 11

a2)

1O

f6

ltJxd4

advantage) IS ltJxf7! ± Tella-Raaste, Finnish blitz Cht 1996.

6.•.ii.e7

b)

6

g6!?

is usually possible in

Alternatives:

flexible Queen's Indian positions. The

7 exd4 dS is prema-

ture since Black is not developed: 8

10

ii.bS and 9

10

i.bS+ ~f8 loses the right to castle: 11 'iVhS g6 12 ii.h6+ ~g8 13 'ii'f3 ii.f6 14 ltJc3 'ii'e7 IS .:tac1 ± Kurajica-Ze1cic, Pula 1999) 10 'ii'hS! (D) and then:

are bad for Black, while 9

10 ii.bS .:tc8 11 'ii'a4

cxdS! ltJxdS 9 ltJeS a6 (9

a)

6

cxd4?!

ltJc6

ltJd7

ii.e7

B

plan is to place both of his bishops on the long diagonals, and then fight for

the central squares. 7ltJc3 (7 dS!? bS 8 dxe6 fxe6 9 cxbS is a position akin to some Benko Gambit variations, and Black's strong centre usually compen-

sates for the pawn: 9

11 .:td1ltJbd7 12ltJc3 0-0 13 e4! 'ii'c7

14 ii.gS .:tae8 IS .:tac1 ltJg4 16 h3 ltJgeS 17 ltJxeS ltJxeS with enough compensation for Black, Golod-Green-

feld, Givatayim 1997) 7

is a positional error: 8 dS! exdS 9 cxdS ii.g7 10 e4 0-0 11ltJd2 ±) and then:

ii.g7

10 'ii'e2 dS

ii.g7

(7

d6?!

bI) 8 e4 aims for a Hedgehog for-

mation. 8

lOii.e3 ltJc6!?is an in-

teresting novel approach: Black tries

to play

nor pieces. 11 ltJxc6 (11 f4 d6 1/2- 1 /2

dS and exchange some mi-

cxd4

0-0

9 ltJxd4 and then:

bll) 9

a1)

10

g6 11 'i'f3 and here:

Rashkovsky-Poluliakhov, Cappelle la Grande 1995; with complicated play

all)

l1

fS

12 .:tel and now not

in a Hedgehog position) 11

ii.xc6

12

12

i.g7?!

losing at once to 13 ii.xfS!

14 ii.xe6! +-) 14

ltJxg6+! with a winning attack, so

exfS (or 13

ii.xeS

Black should probably try 12

ltJd7.

14 b4

'i'b7 IS 'i'f3 and Black's position is

not comfortable) 13 cxdS exdS 14 eS d4 IS exf6 'ili'xf6 16 ltJe4 ii.xe4 17

.:tc1 dS!

(12

'i'b8

13 f4!

d6

28

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

i.xe4.l:!.ae8 18 i.c6 .l:!.e6 and accord- ing to Avrukh Black equalizes.

10 f4 (10 i.c2!? a6 and

now piece play in the centre with 11 liJf3 0-0 12 i.f4 liJe8 13 e5 gives

White no special advantage: 13

14 exd6 'iWxc4 with an unclear posi-

tion, De1chev-Gelfand, Moscow FIDE

2001) 10

a6 with a standard Hedgehog posi- tion, in which both players have their pros and cons, Malaniuk-Hracek, Brno

0-0 11 liJf3 liJbd7 12 'iVe2

b12) 9

d6

'iVc7!

1993.

b2) 8 d5 exd5 9 cxd5 liJxd5 with a

choice:

b21) 10 liJb5!? is a less played al-

0-0

llliJd6 i.c6 (1l 12liJxb7liJf6

13 liJxc5 bxc5 14 'iWc2 d5 15 b3 ±

Palliser-Plaskett, Hampstead 2001) 12 e4liJc7 13 i.g5 i.f6 14 'iVd2 with an attack in Safin-Janssen, Dieren 1997.

b22) 10 liJxd5 i.xd5 11 i.xg6 bxg6

12 'iWxd5liJc6 (the tactical play has re-

sulted in White having a better pawn- structure, but Black has good activity

on the long diagonal and even on the h-file and the kingside) 13 e4 'iVe7 14 i.f4 (14 i.g5 'iVe6 15 'iWd2liJe5 is good

l:!.h5!?

Black gets enough counter-chances:

15 'iWd2 0-0-0 16l:tfelliJe5 17 i.xe5

i.xe5 18 h3 i.c7 and now White has to try 19 b4!? cxb4 20 .l:!.acl, when the

attack compensates for the sacrificed pawn, Rashkovsky-Poluliakhov, Cap- pelle la Grande 1995. 7liJc3 (D)

for Black) and by playing 14

ternative worth a closer look: 10

~c7

7 cxd4

Again, Black has some important alternatives:

B

~c7 7 cxd4 Again, Black has some important alternatives: B a) 7 0-0?! 8 d5 exd5

a)

7

0-0?!

8 d5 exd5 9 cxd5liJxd5

(otherwise after 10 e4 Black has two

dead bishops on b7 and e7) 10 liJxd5 i.xd5 11 i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 12 'iWxd5liJc6

13 e4! (the most logical move in this

position) 13

liJb4 (15

in this case Black is in deep trouble: 16

'i!i'xd7 'iVxf5 17 ~xc6 'iVxf4 18 .l:!.fel i.f6 19 .l:!.e2 with an advantage) 16 'iWd2.l:!.xf5 17 .l:!.ael ± Tyomkin-Her- gott, Ottawa 1998.

is more to the point, but

White should again get some advan-

tage with the active 8 cxd5!? exd5:

bl) 9 dxc5!? bxc5 10 i.b5+ and Black has no ideal response:

.'iii'f8 11 b3 liJc6 12 i.b2

'iVd6 13 .l:!.c1 .l:!.c8 (13

+- Motwani-Karolyi, Groningenjr Ech 1980/1) 14 'i!i'e2 with pressure against

Black's central pawns. b12) 1O i.c6 11 i.xc6+ liJxc6 12

~a4 'ilVd7 13 .l:!.dl .l:!.d8

i.g5 0-0 16 i.xf6 i.xf6 17 liJd5 liJe5

(Lerner-Loginov, Graz 1998), and now

18 liJxf6+ gxf6 19 1Wa3 offers White

slightly better possibilities.

'i!i'e8

14 i.f4 f5 15 exf5

.'i!Vf7 is a better try, but even

b)

7

d5

bll) 10

l:!.d8?

14liJa4!

14 e4 d4 15

10 dxc5

i.xc5 11 'iVe2liJc6 12l:tdlliJe7 13 a3

b2) 9 i.b5+ i.c6 (9

'it>f8

4

e3

29

"fic7 14 b4 ± Denker-Buehl. USA

.'i!Vc7? 11

ttJeS i.xbS? 12 ttJxbS 'fid8 13 ttJd6++ +- Barle-Loviscek, Nova Gorica 2(02)

12 dxcS

1990) 10 'fia4 i.xbS (10

11 'fixbS+ 'ilVd7 (l1

ttJbd7

a6 13 'fic6! l:tc8 14 'ilVa4 bxcS IS l:tdl

± Dizdar-Grosar. Bled 1994) 12 ttJeS 'ii'xbS 13 ttJxbS (this ending was tested in an old classic. and White should get

14 l:tdl (14

the advantage) 13

a4!? is another option: 14

ttJc6 i.f6 16 as 0-0 17 ttJcxa7 with an

advantage) 14

IS ttJc6 l:tfe8 16

ttJbxa7 i.f8 17 i.d2 l:te6 18 dxcS bxcS

19 i.c3 ;t Petrosian-Keres, USSR Ch

(Moscow) 19S1.

ttJa6

ttJd7

IS

0-0

8 exd4 (D)

B

USSR Ch (Moscow) 19S1. ttJa6 ttJd7 IS 0-0 8 exd4 (D) B 8 d5 (D) 8

8

d5

(D)

8

0-0

allows White to grab space

in the centre with 9 dS!. which should guarantee him the advantage:

exdS 10 cxdS ttJxdS 11 ttJxdS

i.xdS 12 i.xh7+ ±.

10 ttJd4!? (10 i.c2 i.b4

11 ttJe4 exdS 12 ttJxf6+ "fixf6 13 cxdS

i.a6! 14 i.d3 i.xd3 IS "fixd3 ;t Lalic-

Pliester, Isle of Man 1995) 1O

i.f4 l:.e8 12 nel i.cs 13 ttJb3 i.b4 and now White claims the initiative

a) 9

b)

9

h6

a6 11

with 14 l:te3!? exdS IS l:txe8+ 'fixe8 16 ttJxdS ttJxdS 17 cxdS i.xdS 18 'iihS!. Balashov-Shabalov,lunnala 1985.

i.b4 10 ttJe4 i.e7 11 l:tel

exdS 12 cxdS ttJxdS gives White at-

tacking chances; e.g.: 13 ttJg3!? ttJc7

14 ttJeS ttJe8 IS ttJfS i.f6 16 'iIVg4

'>i;>h8 17 'fih3!, Lukacs- Vadasz, Buda-

pest 1991.

d6

11 dxe6 fxe6 12 i.g3 ttJcS 13 ttJd4 eS

14 ttJfS g6 IS ttJe3 ttJhS. Malaniuk-

Tiviakov. Moscow 1992. and in this position White has 16 i.e2! ttJxg3 17

hxg3 i.gS 18 ttJedS! with pressure on

the light squares) 11 cxdS d6 12 a3

IS

ttJc7 13 i.c4 bS 14 ttJxbS ttJxbS

ttJxdS 16 i.g3 i.f6 17 l:tbl l:tc8

18 l:tel and White has a minimal ad-

vantage because of his slightly better pawn-fonnation, Keres-Parma, Bever-

wijk 1964.

c) 9

d)

9

ttJa6

10 i.f4! exdS (lO

txbS

w

Bever- wijk 1964. c) 9 d) 9 ttJa6 10 i.f4! exdS (lO txbS w 9 cxd5!

9 cxd5! It is best for White to opt for an IQP

structure, as his other options are too

10 bxc4

ttJc6 11 i.e3 0-0 is unclear. because Black gets counterplay against White's central pawns, Malaniuk-A.Shneider,

passive. 9 b3 0-0 (9

dxc4

30

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

Kaspala 1992) 10 i.b2liJc6 transposes to note 'a' to White's 10th move in Line C2. 9••.liJxd5 10 liJe5 Or:

a) 10 i.bS+ i.c6 11 i.c4 0-0 12

'iVe2 liJxc3 13 bxc3 i.dS! is equal, as

White's central pawn may easily be- come a target for Black's counterplay, Gurevich-Yudasin, USSR Ch (Kiev)

Black's counterplay, Gurevich-Yudasin, USSR Ch (Kiev) 1986. b) 10 'ili'a4+ i.c6 11

1986.

b)

10 'ili'a4+ i.c6 11 i.bS'ii'd7 12

Claesen-V an de Berkmortel, Belgian

liJxdS 'ili'xdS! 13 i.xc6+ liJxc6 14 i.e3 0-0 and by playing on the light squares

Interteams 2000. Because of this op- tion, this variation is not to be recom-

with IS

bS Black has a nice position.

mended to Black.

10

•0-011

'ili'h5

14•.•liJf6 15liJe2 'iVa4 16 i.g5

11

'ili'g4 liJf6 (l1

liJxc3

12 bxc3

Now:

liJd7 13 i.h6 i.f6 14 .l:1adl 'ili'e7 IS f4 'iith8?! 16 'ili'hS! g6 17 i.xf8liJxf8 18 'ili'e2 ± H0i-Agopov, Gausdal2002) 12

'ili'h4 transposes to the main line.

is bad: 17 i.xh6! gxh6

18 'ili'xh6 .l:.d8 19 i.g6 .l:1f8 20 liJf4

fxg6 21 liJfxg6 1-0 H0i-Mednis, Co-

penhagen 1991.

a)

16

h6?

1l

liJf6

b)

16

l:.d8?

17liJc3 'ili'e8 (l7

'i!i'b4

11

fS?!

12 i.c4 and

ll

g612

'ili'h3

18

.l:.ael! ±; 17

'iIi'd4

18 .l:.ael! ±) 18

liJxc3 13 bxc3 liJc6 14 liJg4 both give

White a clear positional advantage.

12 'ili'h4liJe4

i.xf6 i.xf6 19 'ii'xh7+ 'iitf8 20 i.bS!

liJd7 21 liJxd7+ .l:.xd7 22 'ii'h8+ 'iite7

23 'ii'xe8+ .l:.xe8 24 i.xd7 'iitxd7 and

Or:

White wins, Solozhenkin-Sammalvuo,

a)

12

liJc6?

is a classic mistake:

Helsinki 2002.

13 i.gS g6 14 i.a6! liJxeS IS dxeS 1-0 Ree-Piket, Breda 2001.

liJbd7 13 .l:.dl .l:.e8 (another

idea for Black is 13

leaves Black's pieces tied down.

b)

12

g6!?) 14 i.bS!

13 'ili'h3 'ili'xd4 (D)

Quite a critical position, with many examples.

c)

16

g6!

is a major improvement:

17 .l:.fe I!? (17 i.h6 .l:.d8!; 17 .l:.fc1

'ili'aS!) 17

i.xc6 20 I:tadl and White's strong at- tacking chances compensate for the

pawn.

C)

liJc618liJc3 'ili'd419liJxc6

14

i.f4

5

•i.e7

6 0-0 0-0 7 liJc3

14

liJxf7!? seems to give White a

small advantage: 14

l:.xf7

IS i.xe4

Both players have developed logi- cally, and now Black starts to fight for

i.xe4 16 'ili'g4 liJd7 17 i.e3 liJf6 18 i.xd4 liJxg4 19 liJxe4 .l:1f4 20 .l:.fel,

the centre.

7

d5

(D)

4

e3

31

w

4 e3 3 1 w 12 4Je2! .Jtd6 13 4JeS cS 14 17 ~d2 4Je6 18

12 4Je2! .Jtd6 13 4JeS cS 14

17

~d2 4Je6 18 'iih6l:!.c8 19 ':xc8 ~xc8 20 4JfS with an attack in Kurajica-

Karpov, Tilburg 1994) 11 4Jg3 and here:

13l:!.cl a6 14 'ili'c2

12

f3 4JgS IS 4Jg3 cxd4 16 exd4 g6

4Jdf6 11

Jtd6

b211) 12

~f6?!

4Jxg3 IS hxg3 (IS .Jtxh7+ 'lith8 16

fxg3!? ~h6 17 .Jtd3 ~xe3+ 18 'lithl is

16 .JtfS

'iVe7 is only slightly better for White)

not clear) IS

'iVh6?

(1S

h6

White's main plan is to support the

8b3

16 g4! l:!.fe8 17 g3! ± with strong

central pawns, and develop.

attacking ideas after 'litg2, Malaniuk- Danielsen, Espergrerde 1992.

Or:

b212) 12

fS!?

13 4JeS ~e7 is un-

a)

White's alternative plan with a

clear according to L.B.Hansen.

 

quick e4 is not dangerous: 8 ~e24Jbd7

pov, Riga 1975.

b22) 1O l:!.e8 lIl:!.cl a6 (1l

Jtf8?!

9 e4 dxe4 10 4Jxe4 cS! 11.l:tdl ~c7 12 i.gSl:!.fe8 13 dxcS bxcS! 14l:!.d2 h6 IS i.M 4Jxe4 16 .Jtxe4 .JtxM 17 4JxM i.xe4 18 ~xe4 l:!.ad8 1/2- 1 /2 Tal-Kar-

12 4Je2 .Jtd6 13 .JtbS! a6 14 .Jtc6 .Jtxc6 IS J:!.xc6 J:!.e6 16 'iVel ± Kharitonov- Mitenkov, Moscow 1995; White has strong positional pressure) 12 4Je2 (12 4JeS!?, as suggested by Ernst, is a

b) White can also decide the central

pawn position at once: 8 cxdS exdS

4JxdS gives up the centre: 94JxdS

exdS 10 b3 4Jd7 11 .Jtb2 cS 12l:!.c ll:!.e8

(8

13 ~e2 a6 14 .l:.fdl with an advantage

to White, Novkovic-Vadla, Pula 2001)

and then:

bl) 94JeS!?cSlOb3(1O~f34Jc6

11 ~h3 l:!.e8 12l:!.dl g6 13 .Jta6 ~c7

14 .Jtxb7 'iVxb7 is absolutely OK for

Black, Averbakh-Gulko, Moscow 1968)

1O

4Je4!? 11 .Jtb2 cxd4 12 exd4 4Jd7

13

l:!.el .Jtb4 14 .Jtxe4 dxe4 IS 4Jxd7

~xd7 16 a3 .Jtxc3 17 .Jtxc3 fS is at least equal for Black, Henneberke-

Orbaan, Amsterdam 19S0. b2) 9 b3 4Jbd7 10 .Jtb2 and then:

4Je4 11 4Je2! (11 ':el!?

has been tested in a high-level game:

b21) 1O

more active idea: 12

4Jd7 14 f4 with a complicated posi-

.Jtd6 13 4Jg3 g6! and Black

is OK, I.Sokolov-Almasi, Groningen

tion) 12

4JxeS

13 dxeS

1994.

We return to 8 b3 (D):

B

.Jtd6 13 4Jg3 g6! and Black is OK, I.Sokolov-Almasi, Groningen tion) 12 4JxeS 13 dxeS 1994.

Now:

32

THE QUEEN'S INDIAN

Cl: 8.••lDbd7 32 We now return to 9 c5 (D): C2: 8 c5 33 el)
Cl: 8.••lDbd7
32
We now return to 9
c5 (D):
C2:
8
c5
33
el)
8
lDbd7
This is a very common set-up: the
d7-knight supports
c5, but otherwise
the knight might remain slightly pas-
sive.
r 9 i.b2 c5
Alternative set-ups:
a)
9
lDe4
is premature: 10 ~e2 f5

(1O

is met by the thematic 13 i.a6! i.xa6

14 'iYxa6, when Black has many weak

squares, Martinovic-Ristic, Vrnjacka Banja 1983) 11 ~acl lDxc3 (l1 a6

13 a3 ~f6 14 b4 keeps

the queenside mobile with an advan-

tage to White, Gonzalez Rodriguez-

Saldano, Mancha Real 2001) 12 i.xc3 c6 13 b4 i.d6 14 c5 and White has reached an advantageous Stonewall position, as Black's b7-bishop remains passive, Kosyrev-Rapoport, Tallinn U-18 Ech 1997.

a6 10 ~cl (10 ~e2!? is logi-

cal: 10

'iYe7 13 lDbl i.d6 14 lDe5 dxc4 15 lDxc4 ~fc8 16 lDxd6 lDxd6 17 lDd2 with two bishops and some advantage,

Ibragimov-Chernin, Odorheiu Secui-

esc 1993) 10

i.b4 11 ~ac1 'fie7 12 cxd5 exd5

12 ~fdl i.d6

b)

9

lDe4

11

~fdl i.b4

12 ~ac1

lDe4

(1O ~e8 11 ~e2

This is the basic position of the

variation: the pawns are symmetrical, but White's c3-knight and d3-bishop are both more active than their black

counterparts.

10~c1

Here it is White who has to choose the main set-up:

a) The normal clarifying plan 10

cxd5 is not to be recommended here,

because Black can respond 1O

11 lDxd5 i.xd5 and White has not

managed to get any advantage: 12.1:.c1

:c8 (12

~xc115 ~xcllDc5 16 i.bl 'iYa8! with counterplay, Nikolic-Van Wely, Mo-

naco Amber blindfold 2000) 13 ~e2

lDf6 14 i.a3 i.xf3 15 ~xf3 ~c7 16 i.b2 cxd4 17 ~c7 ~xc7 18 i.xd4 ~d8

19 ~e2 lDd5 20 i.c4 i.f6! 21 i.xd5

lDxd5

cxd4!?

13lDxd4~c814~e2

c5 12 ~fdl 'iYb8 13 cxd5 exd5 14

~xd5 22 i.xf6 gxf6 23 .l:tdl liz-liz

i.f5! cxd4 15lDxd4 and this IQP situ-

Hodgson-Hertneck, Zillerta11993.

ation clearly favours White, Irzhanov-

b)

10 ife2 is an active central plan,

Barus, Dubai 1996) 11 ~c2 f5 12lDe2

played first by Keres:

 

i.d6 13 lDe5 i.xe5! 14 dxe5 lDdc5 15

bl) 1O

lDe4?! is premature here:

cxd5 lDxd3 16 ~xd3 i.xd5 17 lDf4

11

cxd5! exd5 12 .l:tfd1 iLf6 (12

 

lDxc3

lDc5 18 ~c3 .1:.f7 is unclear, Gelfand-

13

i.xc3 ':'c8

14 ~ac1 ':'c7

15

dxc5

Short, Brussels Ct (6) 1991.

bxc5 16 ~c2 g6 17 e4! with a clear

4e3

33

positional advantage, Larsen-Radu- lov, Leningrad IZ 1973; Black's cen- tral pawns are disrupted) 13 ~a6! 'iVc8

14 ~xb7 'iVxb7 15 J::tac1 and White

has a better pawn-structure, Sprag-

gett-Bandza, Torcy 1991.

dxc4 11 bxc4leaves White

with more pawns in the centre, and

12 J::tadl J::tad8 13 d5! a6 14 dxe6 fxe6 15 tbg5 "iVc6 16 f4! gave him an attack in Keres-Spassky, Goth-

b2)

1O

~c7 11

b) 1O

tbe4 11 cxd5 exd5 12 tbe2!

':'c8 13 tbg3 cxd4 14 i

xd4

tbdc5 15

~e2 ~f6 16 tbh5! ~xd4 17 ~xd4

tbe6

'iVxd4 f6 21 ~g4 is good for White, Flear-Beudaert, Bordeaux 2001.

18 ~al 'iVe7

19 tbd4 tbxd4 20

11 cxdS exdS 12 ~e2 (D)

12 tbe2!? is another plan: 12

tbe4

13 tbe5 tbd6 14 tbf4! (this is usually

a good place for the knight, putting

15 bxc4 tbxe5

pressure on d5) 14

c4

enburg

IZ 1955.

16