Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Title page
KEY TO SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION
AFTERWORD
1
THE HYPER ACCELERATED website: www.thinkerspublishing.com
DRAGON
by
Raja Panjwani
www.thinkerspublishing.com
Managing Editor
Romain Edouard
Proofreading
Daniël Vanheirzeele
Graphic Artist
Philippe Tonnard
Cover design
Iwan Kerkhof
Typesetting
i-Press ‹www.i-press.pl›
ISBN 978-94-9251-034-1
D/2018/13730/16
e-mail: info@thinkerspublishing.com
2
Key to Symbols used!
! a good move
? a weak move
!! an excellent move
?? a blunder
!? an interesting move
?! a dubious move
□ only move
= equality
∞ unclear position
⩲ White stands slightly better
⩱ Black stands slightly better
± White has a serious advantage
∓ Black has a serious advantage
+- White has a decisive advantage
-+ Black has a decisive advantage
→ with an attack↑with an initiative
⇆ with counterplay
Δ with the idea of
⌓ better is
≤ worse is
N novelty
+ check
# mate
© with compensation for thesacrificed material
3
INTRODUCTION
J.R.R. Tolkien
9...Qxc3!! 10.Qxc3
My Favorite Sicilian 10.bxc3 Nxd2 11.Bxd2 bxc6µ
10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 bxc6µ
I was introduced to the Accelerated Dragon Beyond simple tricks like this one, I found
when I was ten years old, more than seventeen that the positional themes of the opening were
years ago. It was arguably my first ‘serious’ fairly easy to digest; for example, dark square
defense against 1.e4: prior to then I would develop control, central breakthrough (especially ...d7-d5),
my pieces in a manner my father and I called queenside expansion, as well as the typical
‘P-Play’ (the ‘P’ deriving from our family name) favorable and unfavorable endgames which tend to
but which I later discovered is widely known as arise. As I have matured as a player, my
the Hippopotamus Defence. He and I were of perspective on this opening has correspondingly
similar strength at the time, and we studied the transformed, but my respect and appreciation for
opening together from the then recently published, its strength has only been enhanced. This book is
and now classic, Accelerated Dragons by IMs an attempt to convey my current understanding
Donaldson and Silman. and approach with black.
What drew me to the opening initially was I have always felt that the Accelerated
the abundance of cheapos I could set up for my Dragon does not get its due respect among the
opponents in the early stages of the game, which Sicilians. Even its prodigal brother, the
even experts and masters seemed unprepared for. un-accelerated Dragon, had its time in the
The following was always one of my favorites: spotlight when it was used by Kasparov to twice
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 defeat (and twice draw) Anand in their 1995 PCA
5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.Qd2? World Championship match. Why then, has the
Accelerated Dragon — the theoretically no worse
8.0-0 off, and much safer of the two (I like to think of it
8...Nxe4! 9.Nxc6 as the only Sicilian where Black needn’t worry
about getting mated in 25 moves) — historically
9.Nxe4 Qxd2+ 10.Bxd2 Nxd4µ been only an occasional guest in top events, and,
unlike every other respectable Sicilian, never
occupied the central battlefield of a World
Championship match?1 Part of the discrepancy is
a vestige of the old (pre-1970s) dogma that in the
Sicilian, to avoid suffocation, Black must prevent
White from obtaining a ‘clamp’ pawn center
4
(pawns on e4 and c4). Indeed, the Maroczy Bind evaluations are more accurately ‘=’ but more
(5.c4) has always been the bane of the Accelerated importantly ‘easier to play for Black’, a factor
Dragon’s existence. However, while this attitude which should not be underestimated especially
towards the Sicilian may have been justifiable half considering the increasingly short time controls,
a century ago, Black has since demonstrated and 2) There is plenty of unexplored terrain, which
counterattacking prospects against the e4/c4 clamp cannot be easily navigated by the positional
in a variety of structures, as in the Hedgehog, dictums we are brought up with, because the
Kalashnikov, Kan, Taimanov, and certainly no less Accelerated Dragon is a genuinely nonstandard
in the Accelerated Dragon. opening. This means that there is a competitive
I suspect that computers have deterred advantage to those who work out its unusual
many potential devotees away from the nuances, unlike in, say, the Najdorf or Sveshnikov
Accelerated Dragon. Computer evaluations in the where it often feels like the strategic ideas are all
main lines tend to fluctuate between +0.25 and well known, and only concrete novelties are yet to
+0.5, which plausibly leads to the rationale that be discovered (if it is unclear what I mean by this,
playing the Accelerated Dragon instead of the I hope it isn’t by the end of the book!).
Berlin or Marshall — where evaluations are closer The Accelerated Dragon State of Mind
to +0.15 — is like playing with a small handicap
straight out of the opening. Things, however, are
not so simple. Computers evaluate each position A friend of mine (a strong IM) recently
by objective features, without regard for subjective commented to me that if he could be certain that
factors which are very often more important in his opponents wouldn’t play the Maroczy bind, he
tournament chess. Machines systematically ignore would always play the Accelerated Dragon instead
the value of, for example, being able to follow one of his usual (un-accelerated, but I sometimes
of a small number of thematic plans, irrespective teasingly prefer ‘un-playable’) Dragon, because
of what the opponent does, saving on clock time as White can’t play the critical Yugoslav Attack
well as risk of mishandling the position. This sort against the Accelerated Dragon (despite this being
of human element is unaccounted for by the lesson #1 of the Accelerated Dragon, a surprising
engine, resulting in an inflated estimation of number of masters have not gotten the memo).
White’s chances. In this regard, there are “However”, he continued, “in the Maroczy, Black
similarities between the Accelerated Dragon and is just playing for a draw, you can never win!” A
the King’s Indian Defense — another opening loyal defender of my beloved pet opening, I
notoriously bastardized by the engine. King’s insisted he had it all wrong, and that I welcome the
Indian devotees are used to seeing +0.5 computer Maroczy in must-win games with Black. “That’s
evaluations, but they are not discouraged because really weird dude, you’re probably the only one”
they recognize that there is a narrow margin of was his retort, but I think when it comes to the
error for White, and to err is human. The same can Accelerated Dragon, there’s a requisite state of
be said for the Accelerated Dragon. mind needed in order to properly handle it —
Fortunately, the tide of fashion is turning, some players have had a conversion experience
and contemporary Accelerated Dragon experts like after catching a glimpse of its incredible power,
(super) Grandmasters Tiviakov, Mamedov, while others haven’t. Plausibly as a result of this,
Iturrizaga, and Malakhov have demonstrated that from my experience there is a peculiar
this opening can be a reliable counter to 1.e4 even camaraderie among Accelerated Dragon
against top opposition. Recently, in fact, World practitioners. Whereas Najdorf ‘bros’ espouse a
Champion Magnus Carlsen upheld the Black side Darwinian angst that their novelty on move 25 in
of a Maroczy to put a halt to Caruana’s 7-0 run in the Poisoned Pawn variation will be discovered,
the 2014 Sinquefield Cup. I predict a bright future used, and rendered useless by their colleagues, I
for this opening, for many reasons, but most of all have found that Accelerated Dragon players enjoy
because 1) The resulting positions are difficult for discussing their ideas with each other. A personal
computers to properly assess- many ‘+=’ anecdote of mine is fairly typical: in the final
5
round of the 2013 US Masters tournament I was in Accelerated Dragon (specifically the Black side of
a must-win ‘money game’ with Black against the Maroczy) ‘state of mind’ is, to borrow Suba’s
Cuban GM Abreu, and I noticed GM Rauf phrase, an appreciation for the “hidden dynamic
Mamedov (a leading expert on the Black side of factors” in each position which compensate for the
the Accelerated Dragon) was taking an interest in static deficiencies (again, the best way to ‘sense’
the Maroczy Bind on my board. I won the game in these is by studying the opening — the variations
a tense struggle, and afterwards when I was in this book are meant to illustrate these factors).
collecting my prize, Rauf kindly congratulated me Moreover, as a long time Hedgehog player myself,
on the win and took an interest in the 15...e6 line I I must say that in my opinion, Black has much
played (see chapter 5), which he said he hadn’t more freedom in the Maroczy than in the
studied before. I told him I was not too happy with Hedgehog; for instance, in the Hedgehog, it is
the more popular 15...Qb6, but he asserted that usually unfavorable for Black to exchange queens,
from his analysis Black has no problems there — whereas in the Maroczy (and the Accelerated
“it’s equal” he said. His confident proclamation Dragon more broadly), White often takes pains to
was just the nudge I needed to look closer into avoid exchanging queens so as to not lose the
some of the lines I thought were undesirable for initiative, and that is a liability which contributes
Black, and on closer inspection I realized to the “rigidity” (another apt term of Suba’s) of
(unsurprisingly) he was right! White’s position. Terms like ‘elastic’ and
While this elusive ‘state of mind’ is ‘counterattacking potential’ will be interspersed
somewhat ineffable, and better grasped from throughout this book — they are much more
experience than anything else (if I am successful informative than reductive evaluations like ‘=’.
then the contents of this book will convey An Inclusive Opening
precisely this), I think it is helpful to think of the
Maroczy as a close cousin of the Hedgehog. I
understand the ‘philosophy’ of the Hedgehog in One of the remarkable things about the
terms of how Mihai Suba describes it in his Accelerated Dragon is its appeal to players with
excellent Dynamic Chess Strategy. It is worth vastly different styles. Compare Bent Larsen, the
quoting him at length. epitome of dynamic, offbeat, risky chess, with
“White’s position looks ideal. That’s the Sergei Tiviakov, who claimed in an interview
naked truth about it, but the ‘ideal’ has by recently that his style has been shaped most by
definition one drawback — it cannot be improved. Petrosian (who was a great Accelerated Dragon
...In the early 1970s, the successes of Karpov and devotee himself), Smyslov, and Karpov — both
Andersson showed that [Hedgehog] positions are these players have championed the Accelerated
not only playable but offer as many winning Dragon as their main weapon against 1.e4 and yet
chances as any other opening. This was in glaring their styles are in many ways polar opposites of
conflict with classical strategy. White enjoys more each other! How can this be? I think the answer to
space, better development [and] his position has this question is subtle and instructive. I think that
no weaknesses. How is it possible that Black not when playing the Accelerated Dragon it ‘feels’
only resists in these positions but sometimes wins? like you are playing White, not Black (albeit in a
The only plausible answer lies in the hidden hypermodern manner). What I mean is, in chess,
dynamics of the positions. After the opening, White tends to be the one to control the tempo of
White’s position has all the qualities of a the game — usually it is White who chooses
successful picture, but lacks concrete possibilities whether to enter into an opposite side castling
for improvement. Within our terminology, it is situation, or to exchange pieces early on and
rigid (not elastic). Black’s position, in contrast, maneuver around in a simplified middlegame, or
‘looks’ bad but has greater scope for invoke the center as the locus of battle, ensuring
improvement.” (p. 26) king safety above all.2 Furthermore, Black usually
This description applies equally well to the needs to play accurately to not end up slightly
Maroczy. In fact, you might say that the worse, or at least give the initiative to White. The
6
situation is, to the well prepared Accelerated King’s Indian:
Dragon player, precisely the reverse: in the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6
Maroczy, for example, there are half a dozen i) 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.Nxd4
different ways for Black to develop, and players of Nc6
diverse styles can choose the one which suits them ii) 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 cxd4 8.Nxd4
best (or vary their choice depending on practical Nc6
considerations). Black controls the tempo and Benoni/Benko Gambit:
determines the character of the struggle, which is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6
why it is so effective in must-win games. 5.Nc3 g6 6.e4
Furthermore, unlike in many 1...e5 openings, or in 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 c5 4.Nc3 (4.d5
most other Sicilians like the Kan, Sveshnikov, or either 4...b5 or 4...e6) 4...cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.e4
even the Najdorf, White’s choices are rather Symmetrical English:
limited if he does not want to end up slightly 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7
worse out of the opening. In practice, White meets 5.e4 Nc6
the Accelerated Dragon with either the Maroczy 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7
Bind or the 7.Bc4 variation; this is simply not so in 5.e4 Nc6
the Najdorf where every single reasonable move is Of course, there is no obligation on
a viable candidate from the starting position of the Accelerated Dragon players to deploy these
Najdorf (6.h3, 6.Rg1, 6.g3, 6.f3, 6.Be3, 6.f4, defences in order to allow for transpositional
6.Be2, 6.Bc4, 6.Bg5, 6.a4, and that is not even to possibilities — Tiviakov has been a lifelong
mention variations therein), and the margin for Nimzo-Indian/Queen’s Indian devotee as a
White error is far greater (for example 6.Be2 e5 counterexample — but I have found it useful to
7.Nf3!? is a serious challenge to the Najdorf but play these systems in tandem myself.
6.Be2 Bg7 7.Nf3?! is just dubious against the One more point on the topic of move
Accelerated Dragon). orders: since the Accelerated Dragon (especially
The above may sound a little hyperbolic, the Maroczy) can come about from so many
and I would like to make it clear from the outset different move orders, I have taken some liberties
that I am not claiming that ‘Black is better’ in the with the games in this book to convert the initial
Accelerated Dragon; to do so would be dishonest. moves to the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 ‘Hyper-Accelerated
My claim is a serious one: the character of the Dragon’ move order we will be focusing on. I
Accelerated Dragon is that of a White opening. In have done this, following a not uncommon
fact, the Accelerated Dragon reversed is a White practice, purely for didactic purposes — I don’t
opening, called the English, and is fashioned by want readers happy with their 1.d4 defenses to be
most of the top players in the world, including confused by transpositions from openings they
Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, Anand, Giri, and don’t play.
others: the exact piece arrangement occurs with About This Book
colors reversed (and a tempo up) after 1.c4 e5 2.g3
Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nc3,
as well as 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 This book presents a repertoire for Black
4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nc7 7.0-0 e5 after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 — the Hyper-Accelerated
(reversed Maroczy). I have enjoyed playing this Dragon. I am relatively lax about distinguishing
‘reversed Accelerated Dragon’ with White as well. between ‘Accelerated Dragon’ (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6
In addition to being inclusive in the above 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6) and ‘Hyper-Accelerated
sense, that it can suit players of diverse styles, and Dragon’, and I use the two interchangeably unless
also that it can be a coherent complement to a 1.c4 to emphasize move order nuances, for example,
repertoire with White, there are many interesting “the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon avoids the
ways that the opening ‘fits’ with defenses against Rossolimo”. However, this is not merely ‘a’
1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3, and can often directly transpose Hyper-Accelerated Dragon repertoire, it is my
from them. repertoire, and I present the material as such, from
7
a first person perspective, making brazen use of they are free online), and search the position with
my own games and offering personal anecdotes an Accelerated Dragon player (I gave you a list
and opinions. This stylistic choice risks my above) as Black to see how they have chosen to
coming across as presumptuous and at times even play the position. Ideally you’ll find a model game
boastful, but my hope is rather that the that you can recall whenever you face the system;
conversational mode of presentation makes readers after all, when it comes to rare systems like 2.Na3
feel as though I am their tour guide through what it is foolish to memorize concrete variations since
might otherwise feel like an insurmountable you’ll never remember them anyway, but the key
labyrinth of variations. Further on the point of ideas of a model game you can. Even in the main
stylistic choices, I am regrettably not sufficiently lines of the Accelerated Dragon, don’t try to
skilled in writing without gender-specific memorize the moves given in this book as if they
pronouns, so please regard all generic references are the ultimate truth. They aren’t. Your learning
to ‘he’ as ‘s/he’ (or alternative) and so on. will be enhanced if you actively seek out novelties
I provide as much information as I think is of your own, and try to understand how the
necessary for readers to play this opening with various positional ideas for both sides fit together.
Black; however, this is absolutely not meant to be To make this book as valuable to the
an anthology on the opening. I make no claim to Petrosian-style (risk-averse) Accelerated Dragon
cover every conceivable variation White can play. player as to the Larsen-type (risk-craving), I have
Any attempt at such, couched under the heading of recommended two systems against each of the
a ‘complete repertoire’ would not only be 7.Bc4 and Maroczy Bind variations. I hope at least
misleading, but in this day and age obsolete. This one of these suits you. For those among you who
is not to say that opening books are altogether will embark on the risky course (‘My System’
obsolete; on the contrary, as inundated with against 7.Bc4 and the Breyer Variation of the
information as we all are nowadays, it can be Maroczy), may I caution you to do so with a
enormously helpful to have an author divulge realistic attitude towards the cost of risk-taking in
opening secrets from their years of experience chess. It is in the (mathematical) nature of
which would not easily be gathered from a risk-taking that it increases the variability of
database search. outcomes — both good and bad. The mature risk
What is obsolete is the attempt to taker is mindful of this, cognizant that their
thoroughly and comprehensively ‘prove equality’ risk-taking is compatible with their aims and
with Black, and more importantly for our purposes justifications. This was the attitude of Bent Larsen.
it is antagonistic to the spirit of the Accelerated If you would like to play the Accelerated Dragon
Dragon, which is that of an opening refusing to be ambitiously, with a tolerance for risk, keep in
evaluated on static grounds alone. As Jonathan mind the following description of Larsen, given by
Rowson instructs in his Seven Deadly Chess Sins, Reshevsky: “He is a firm believer in the value of
“You need to assess not only the position as it surprise. Consequently, he often resorts to dubious
stands but the position as it has changed and how variations in various openings. He also likes to
it is likely to continue to change”. (p.75) So, I am complicate positions even though it may involve
not a big fan of evaluations like ‘=’ or ‘=+’ or ‘+=’ considerable risk. He has a great deal of
(though I capitulate to these at times) because ‘=’ confidence in his game and fears no one. His
makes me think of a draw and ‘+=’ makes me feel unique style has proven extremely effective
like I ought to be satisfied with a draw as Black, against relatively weak opponents but has not been
when in reality Black can very much be optimistic too successful against top-notchers.” Alas, this is
about his position despite such evaluations, and the risk-taker’s predicament, but far from
that is why I prefer evaluations like “counterplay” discouraging it, I am thankful for the risk-takers
or “mutual chances”. among you who resist the ‘genetic’ drift of our
If you encounter a variation not covered in chess community towards timidity and
this book, for example 1.e4 c5 2.Na3, my general results-oriented pragmatism.
prescription is this: find a database (no excuses, I sincerely hope you find this to be an
8
enjoyable and enriching experience.
9
CHAPTER 1 immortal games of past champions like Geller and
Karpov provide textbook illustrations of successful
‘Classical’ 1.e4 play. In contrast, the Be2
CLASSICAL VARIATION (Be2) (Classical) variation against the ordinary,
un-Accelerated Dragon is rather harmless for
Black, the Yugoslav Attack being its critical test.
As Accelerated Dragon players, we are in an even
more favorable situation than ordinary Dragon
players when it comes to the Classical variation,
because we can choose to transpose to harmless
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 variations of the Classical Dragon by opting for
5.Nc3 Nc6 ...d7-d6 at opportune moments, and in some lines
we can strike with ...d7-d5 directly, saving a full
tempo compared with analogous lines in the
Dragon. Despite the fact that this system offers
White no advantage, it is still seen in about 15% of
Accelerated Dragons (the other 85% are nearly
evenly distributed between the Maroczy and Bc4
variations), the bulk of which occur at the club
level.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7
5.Nc3 Nc6
Contents
1. 6.Nb3, 6.Nde2
2. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.sidelines & 7.Be2 d5!?
3. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.sidelines
4. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0
1
6.Nb3
We begin with the variation which This move tends to be played later on
epitomizes the Accelerated Dragon philosophy. In anyway in the Be2 system, in order to hinder
most defenses to 1.e4, White has the option of Black from playing ...d7-d5 (note that the Maroczy
playing a ‘Classical’ variation by developing the and Bc4 variation both target the d5-square), so
light squared bishop to e2. This is particularly the some players prefer to play 6.Nb3 directly without
case in Sicilians like the Najdorf, Scheviningen committing the Bishop to e3.
and Taimanov, but also in other defenses like the 6.Nde2
Pirc/Modern and Alekhine. In all these systems,
the Classical Variation offers White serious
chances to obtain an opening advantage, and the
10
This is not part of the Be2 system so I just 10.h3
mention it in passing. Some people who like to a) 10.Nd5 d6 11.Bg5 (11.h3 Nd7 12.c3 e6
fianchetto their light bishop in other Sicilians play 13.Nb4 Nxb4 14.cxb4 Nb6³ Polgar,Z
this ‘Chameleon’ line; such variations are apt (2550)-Georgiev,V (2615) Matinhos 1994)
against tamer Sicilians like the Najdorf, not the 11...Nd7 12.c3 Re8 13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 Nb6
unforgiving Accelerated Dragon. 15.Nb4 Bb7 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.b3 a5 18.Nc2 b4= 1–0
6...Nf6 7.g3 (57) Kuzmin,G (2540)-Macieja,B (2460) St
(7.a4 d5!N 8.exd5 (8.Nxd5? Nxe4µ) Petersburg 1996;
8...Nb4 9.Nf4 (9.Ng3 0-0 10.Bc4 Qc7 11.Bb3 b) 10.Bf4 d6 11.Qd2 b4 12.Nd5 Ng4
Rd8„) 9...Bf5 13.Rab1 Nge5 14.b3 e6 15.Ne3 Qa5µ;
10...b4 11.Nd5 Ba6 12.Re1 Nxd5 13.exd5
Na5
9.Bg5
13
2 (10.Nxc6?! bxc6 11.Qxc6 Bd7³) 10...Bd7„)
8...e5!
17.gxf3
(17.Qxf3 d4! 18.Bd2 Be6 19.Re1 Qb6µ)
17...d4! 18.Bf4
(18.cxd4?! Bf5 19.d5 Rc8 20.h4 b5 21.Nb1
b4!µ)
18...dxc3 19.Qxd8 Rxd8 20.bxc3 Bxc3
21.Rd1 Be6 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Nb1 Bd4 24.a3
Rc8 25.Kg2 Rc2 26.Nd2 Ra2=
7...d5!?
12.0-0
11.Bf3
(11.d6 Bf5 12.Nd4 (12.dxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd4
Rfd8µ) 12...Qxd6=)
11...b6N
a) 11...Bg4 12.Bxg4 Nxg4 13.Qxg4
(13.Bd4 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Nf6=) 13...Nxc2+
8.Nb3 14.Ke2± (14.Kd2±);
b) 11...Bf5 12.Nd4 Nfxd5 13.Nxf5 Nxc3
We previously considered this move 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Nxe7+ Kf8 16.0-0 Nxc2
coupled with Bc1–g5; here Black proceeds in 17.Bc5 Bd4 18.Nc6+ Bxc5 19.Nxd8 Rxd8
essentially the same way. 20.Rac1 Ne3 21.Rfe1!±;
8.Qd2?! d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5 12.d6 Bg4 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Qxg4 Nxc2+
(10.0-0-0 Nxe3 11.Nxc6 Qxd2+ 12.Rxd2 15.Ke2 Nxa1 16.Rxa1 Qxd6 17.Rd1 Qxh2 18.Bf4
Nf5 13.Nb4 Bh6–+ 0–1 (13) Salimbagat,R f5 19.Qf3 Qh4 20.Nd4 e5 21.Bg3±
(2269)-Panjwani,R (2393) World Open 2016) 9.0-0
10...Nxd4! 11.Nxe7+
(11.Bxd4 Qxd5 12.Bxg7 Qxg2! 13.Bxf8 9.f4 Be6 10.g4
Qxh1+ 14.Bf1 Qe4+ 15.Be2 Kxf8µ)
11...Qxe7 12.Bxd4 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 Re8
14.Qe3 Qb4+ 15.Qd2?!
(15.c3 Qa4µ)
15...Rxe2+ 16.Kxe2 Bg4+ 17.f3 Re8+
18.Kd1 Qxb2 19.Rc1 Qb6–+
8...d6!
18
13...Rxc3!–+ Just thirteen moves and
White is toast.;
11.g4 Na5 Another thematic idea to keep
in mind. 12.f5
10.f4
10.Qd2 d5=;
10.Nd4 d5 11.Nxe6
(11.exd5 Bxd5=) 12...Bc4!
11...fxe6 12.exd5 exd5= (12...Bd7?! We were happy to move back
10...Rc8 to d7 when the knight’s arrival on e5 was
imminent but here White’s attack is too fast.
13.Nd2 (13.g5? Rxc3!µ) 13...Nc6 14.Rf2 Ne5
15.g5 Ne8 16.h4‚)
13.g5
(13.Bd3 Nxb3 (13...Nd7 14.Bxa7∞)
14.axb3 Bxd3 15.cxd3 d5! 16.g5? d4µ)
13...Nd7
13...b4!N
12.Rd1 Ng4„
12...b5 13.Rd1
20
20...Nd8! 21.b3 Ne6 22.Nd4 Nd5 23.f5
Nef4 24.Qg3 Nh5 25.Qf3 Qa8©
21
4 13.c4 d4 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.Bd2 Rxb7 16.b4 e5=)
10...Nxd4
(10...Qxd5 11.Bf3 Qc4 (11...Qa5 12.Nxc6
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 bxc6 13.Qc1 Rb8 14.c3 c5 15.Rd1 White is not
5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d5 better, but our current world champion has taught
us with his games that enduring even mild
unpleasantness such as this can be made to be a
Herculean task.) 12.Nxc6 (12.Be2 Qb4³) 12...bxc6
13.c3 Bf5 14.Qb3 (14.Be2 Qe6 15.Qa4 Rfb8
16.Bc4 Qc8 17.Bb3 Be6=) 14...Qa6 15.Bc5 Rab8
16.Qa3 Qxa3 17.Bxa3 Rfc8=)
11.Bxd4
(11.Bc4 e5 12.c3 Be6=)
11...Qxd5 12.Bxg7 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 Kxg7
14.Rd2
(14.Bf3 Be6=)
14...Be6 15.Rfd1 Rfc8 16.a3 Rab8=
9...bxc6 10.e5
14...c5!
15.Bxc5 Rdc8=
23
CHAPTER 2
7.Bc4: ANTI-YUGOSLAV
VARIATION
16.bxc3 Ne5³
Since this variation is discussed, tempo up, 16...Ne5 17.Qd2 gxf5! 18.exf5 f6!„
in the chapter on the Be2 (Classical) Accelerated
Dragon, here we will only consider attempts by
White to take advantage of the extra tempo with
aggressive play. If White sticks to slow
maneuvering, the extra tempo will be diluted over
time.
11.f4
29
2
Played in Grischuk-Ivanchuk, London Black vacates the a5-square for his knight,
Candidates 2013. After that game, I considered leaving White with the only piece in ‘no man’s
this move to be the critical test of this entire land’ (the 5th rank).
variation. However, I now consider it to be 10...Nxd5!? 11.exd5 Ne5 12.h3 Qa6„;
harmless, and not just because of 10...Qd8!. 10...Re8 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.c3 Bd7
10.f3 This move is played often, but it is (12...Ne5?! This was Ivanchuk’s choice,
clearly inferior to 10.h3, because Black can and it turned out okay for him — though he lost
continue in the same way as he does in the main the game, it was due to the clock rather than the
line, except White will eventually lose a tempo position. White, however, could have posed
when he inevitably plays f3-f4. 10...Bd7 serious problems with 13.f4! 13.f4! (13.h3 Qa6
(10...Nxd4 This is playable but 14.Nc2 Nd3 15.Qf3 Be6 16.Bd4 Bxd4 17.Nxd4
unnecessary. 11.Bxd4 Be6 12.f4 (12.Nd5 Bxd5 Bc4= 1–0 (39) Grischuk,A (2764)-Ivanchuk,V
13.exd5 Nd7 14.c3 Bxd4+ 15.Qxd4 Rfe8 16.Rfe1 (2757) London ENG 2013) 13...Ng4 14.Bc1!±
a6 17.Re2 Qc5 18.Qxc5 Nxc5 19.Rae1 Kf8 Black’s knight is stranded on g4, and White’s
20.Bc2 b5=) 12...Qa6!? 13.Re1 Qc6 14.Nd5²) b3-bishop will coordinate with his f1–rook to
11.Qd2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6 13.Rad1 Nd7= target f7 after f4-f5.)
13.f4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Qxd4 Qc5=
11.Nxf6+
12.c3
34
4 Nxd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qd2 Rfe8 17.Bh6 Bf6
18.Bg5 Bg7 19.Bh6 Bf6 1/2–1/2 (19) Brkic, A
(2573)-Mamedov,R (2653) Sarajevo BIH 2010;
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 b) 12.Nd5 Rfe8 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3
5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb3 Rcd8 15.Qd2 Bc8 16.Rad1 Nd7 17.Bd4 Nc5
d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Re1 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qe3 e5!= 0–1 (62) Mehar,C
(2246)-Kuzubov,Y (2626) Gurgon IND 2009;
12...Qh5
a) 12...Qc7?! 13.Bg5! Na5 14.Bxf6 exf6
15.Nd5² 1/2–1/2 (54) Petrosian,T
(2627)-Mamedov,R (2640) Bursa TUR 2010;
b) 12...Rfe8 13.Qd2 b5 14.a3 Qa6 15.Bg5
Qb7 16.Rad1 Na5 17.e5±
13.Qd2
a) 13.Nd5 Nd7 (13...e6 Black should be
fine here as well. 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.c3 Ne5
16.Nxe5 dxe5=; 13...Nxe4 14.Bf4 Nc5 15.Rxe7 20...Kf8! 21.f3
Bxb2 16.Rb1 Bg7∞) 14.c3 e6 15.Nf4 Nc5 (21.Bg3 Nd7 22.Red1 Nb6 23.Bxe5 Nxc4
16.Qxd6 Nxe4 17.Qd1 Nc5 18.Bc2 Nd7=; 24.Bxc4 Rxc4³)
b) 13.Bg5 Nd7 14.Nd5 e6 15.Ne7+ Nxe7 21...Nd7 22.Red1 Nc5³;
16.Bxe7 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 18.Bxd6 Ne5 19.Bxe5 12.Qd3 Played by GM Timofeev, but as
Bxe5 20.Bd5 Bc3 21.Bxb7 Bxe1 22.Qxe1 Qxa2 best I can tell the Queen just becomes a target to
23.Bxc8 Rxc8 24.Ra1 Qxc2 25.Rxa7 Qc1 1/2–1/2 either ...Nf6-d7-c5 or simply ...Nc6-e5 12...Be8
(25) Kurnosov,I (2602)-Bacrot, E (2722) Moscow (12...Ne5 13.Qe2 Qa6!=)
RUS 2009; 13.Rad1 Nd7 14.Nd5 Qd8!= 0–1 (43)
13...Nd7 14.Rad1 Timofeev,A (2657)-Malakhov, V (2690) Tomsk
(14.Bh6 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nce5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 RUS 2006;
17.Qg5 Nf6„ In addition to winning the c3-pawn, 12.Nd5 This is Negi’s recommendation. He
White’s b3 Bishop will be vulnerable to Black’s only considers 12...Nxd5 and 12...Qd8, but it
...a5-a4.) seems to me that Black’s best is 12...Re8!
14...Bxc3! 15.bxc3 Nce5 16.Nxe5 dxe5
17.Bg5 Nf6
38
unnecessary. 15.Bxd4 (15.cxd4 e6!=) 15...Bxd4
16.Qxd4 (16.cxd4 e6!=) 16...Qc5 17.Qd2 Bc6
18.Rad1 Rad8=)
15.Nb5 (15.f4 Na5=) 15...Qb8 16.a4 a6
17.Nd4 Na5 18.Ba2 Qc7=
12...Nh5!N
23.f6 16.Qd3
(23.fxg6 hxg6 24.Bxb7 Rb8 25.Bd5 e6 (16.g4 Rd8 17.f5 d5 18.g5 Nh5 19.fxg6
26.Bb3 a5 27.Rad1 Nxb3 28.axb3 d5 29.Ra1 Rxb3 fxg6 20.Bf2 Kh7„)
30.Rxa5 Rxb2 31.Ra7 Be8 32.Ra8 Kf8 33.Rc1 16...Rd8! This move saves the day. Black
Rb7 34.Rcc8 Re7=) indirectly defends the g6 pawn. 17.g4 (17.Qxg6?
23...e5 d5!µ) 17...e6 18.Rad1 (18.f5 gxf5 19.gxf5 Qxf5
(23...Bc6 24.Bxc6 bxc6 25.fxe7±) 20.Qxf5 exf5=) 18...d5 19.Bf2 Ne7= Preventing
24.Bxb7 Rb8 25.Bf3 a5 26.b3 h5 27.Rac1 f4-f5. Things are at a standstill; it is hard to see
Be6 28.Rc7 Kh7 how either side makes progress, but Black is
certainly no worse.;
13.Nd5 Re8 Black maintains his threat to
win the f4 pawn, as its defender on d5 can be hit
with ...e7-e6. 14.g4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Nxf4 16.Nxf4
e5 17.Nxg6 exd4 18.Nf4 Qg5 19.Qf3 Be5 20.Rf1
Be6=
13...Qd8!
19...Qf8!
43
avoid taking on d5 then we should — here White’s
weak e4 pawn more than compensates for the
doubling of our f-pawns in the event that White
takes on f6. 14.f5
a) 14.Nxf6+ exf6³;
b) 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nxf6+ exf6 16.Qxd6
Rxe4 17.Rad1 (17.Qxf6?? Re2 18.Rf2 Rxf2
19.Kxf2 Qd2+–+) 17...Kg7µ;
c) 14.Qd3 Nd7 15.Rad1 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4
Qc5=;
14...Bxd5 15.exd5 Nd7
(15...b5?! An odd recommendation of
Donaldson and Silman. This move seems
altogether wrong-headed. 16.c3²)
16.Kh1 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Ne5 18.f6 Nd7!³ In Black is slightly better. 19.f5 Qe5 20.Rde1
the long run, White’s dark squared weaknesses b5 21.Nd5 Nh5 22.Re3 a5 23.f6+ Kh8 24.a3
will tell. Bb7–+ White’s initiative has run out of steam and
13...Nd7 Black is ready to collect the f6 and thereafter the
e4 pawn.
13...Rad8 This is the recommendation of (24...Qxb2 25.Ne7 Ba8 26.Qxb5 Nxf6–+
Donaldson and Silman, but their problems with 27.Qg5 Nxe4 28.Qh4 Qe5?? (¹28...g5 29.Qh6
13...Nd7 can be solved. Qg7–+) 29.Rxf7!± Morozevich,A
14.Bxg7 Kxg7 (2760)-Carlsen,M (2864) Moscow 2013);
15.Qd4+ Kg8 16.Kh1
(16.Rf2 Qc5 17.Qd3 b5 18.Bd5 Bxd5
19.Nxd5 e6 20.Nc3 Nf6„; 16.Rad1 Qc5=)
16...Qc5 17.Qd3 Nf6
15.Kh1
44
for later on) breathes new life into this variation.
15...Nc5 This is currently the most popular
move but I believe it too much neglects Black’s
kingside, as the following game illustrates.
16.Qd4+ Kg8 17.Rae1 Nxb3 18.axb3 Qc5 19.Qd2
Rad8 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 Rc8 22.c3 Qb5 23.f5!
16.Nd5!?
47
CHAPTER 3
7.Bc4: MY SYSTEM
11.a3
(11.f4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 e6! (Black 17...Qb8! 18.Ne2 Be5 19.Rab1 Qb4!
is also to be preferred after 13...Bb7 14.Rc1 e6 20.Nc3 c4 21.Ba2 Rfd8µ 0–1 (36)Ruiz-Panjwani,
15.Bxc6 dxc6 16.c3 e5!) 14.Bb3 (14.Nxc6 dxc6 SPICE Cup 2013).
15.Bc4 Bxb2µ) 14...Bb7„ …15.f5? gxf5 16.exf5? 10...Ne8 11.f4 d6
Qe5–+) (11...d5 12.0-0 Nc7 13.Qf3 a5 14.Bb6²)
11...Na5 12.f4 d6 The usual way to meet 12.0-0 Qc7
White’s f2-f4.
(12...Bb7!? 13.e5 Ne4 14.Nd5 (14.Nxe4
Nxb3 15.Nxb3 Bxe4³) 14...Qd8 15.Nf3 (15.Ba2
e6µ) 15...Nxb3 16.Bb6 (16.cxb3 d6µ) 16...Qb8
17.Bc7 Qe8 18.cxb3 Ng3 19.Re1 Nh5∞)
13.Qd3
(13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bb7µ)
13...Bb7 14.Rad1 Rac8³ ‘
18.fxe5 dxe5³
18...d5! 19.fxe5 Qxe5 20.Bd4
20.exd5 Rae8–+
20...Qxe4µ
53
12...Na5?! (¹12...Bb7 13.h4 h5 This It took me a while to realize that Black
transposes to our main line.) 13.h4‚ 13...h5 We should keep his knight on c6 to prevent White
will see similar positions later on, except with from playing this move, on account of ...Nxd4
Black’s knight on c6. winning a piece. Allowing White Be3-h6 in this
a) 13...Bb7?! 14.h5 In this system it is way is enough of a concession to turn a
almost always unwise for Black to allow White dynamically equal position into a difficult one for
h4-h5. 14...Rac8 (14...b4 15.Na4 Nxe4 16.fxe4 Black. (14.g5 Ne8„))
Bxe4 17.hxg6 Nxb3+ 18.axb3 fxg6 19.Qh2±) 11.g5
15.Kb1±
11...Nh5
15...Nxg4 16.fxg4 Nxb3 17.Nxb3+–; (11...Ne8 Playable but not the best. 12.Nd5
b) 13...d5!? It is worth researching this Qd6 (12...Qe5 13.c3± Na5?? 14.Bf4+– This is
move further; why the knight is better on h5) 13.Qd2²)
14.Bh6± 12.Nd5 Qe5 13.c3 Na5! 14.Ne2 (14.Bc2
Nc4µ) 14...Nxb3 15.axb3 (15.Qxb3 e6 16.Ne7+
Kh8³) 15...Bb7„
10...b5
56
17.h4 e5 18.Nf5 Fear not! 18...Ne8! A slight inaccuracy. White should start
19.Ne3 (19.Qg5 f6 20.Nh6+ Kg7 21.Nf5+ Kh8³) with 12.h4, so as to ensure that Black plays
19...d4 20.Nc4 f6=) ...h7-h5; in this line Black can get away without it.
15...bxc3 16.Qh6 Rfc8! 12...Na5!
(12...Rac8 13.g5 Nh5 14.Nd5²; 12...e6!?
Black can transpose to the main line with this
move. 13.h4 h5 etc.)
13.Kb1
a) 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Rac8„ Black’s
queenside attack is too fast for White (14...b4
15.Nd5 Nxb3+ 16.axb3 Nxd5 17.exd5 Rac8
18.d6!∞);
b) 13.g5 Nh5³ Black has a knight on each
rim, but it is White’s position which is dim.;
c) 13.h4 Rfc8!
64
16...Nd6! Computers rarely suggest this as Alas, at least as often as computers
their first choice (including here) but from my uncover hidden beauties for us, they ruin our fun
perspective, if I can get away with this maneuver with flawless defense, insisting that chess played
then I’m playing it 17.Qh2 (17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Qxd6 correctly settles down to a draw. 28.Qe2 Na3
Qxd6 19.Rxd6 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rxf3 21.Bb6 Nc4 29.Rc1 Nb5 30.Rd3 Bf8= Apparently 0.00 but we
22.Bxc4 bxc4 23.Rxd7 Bxe4=) 17...e5! 18.Nb3 needn’t continue along these lines, as 15.Bh6 must
Nac4 19.Bf2 a5 not be permitted earlier on.))
15.Bf4
a) 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bf4 Qb7 17.Be5 b4!
18.axb4
66
they used to think that the more talented player has
a moral responsibility to initiate aggression!
15.Bh6 White invites simplifications which
yield no advantage 15...Bxh6 16.Qxh6 Nxd4
17.Rxd4 Qe5!
70
Appendix (12.0-0 b5 13.Rfe1 d6 14.a3 Rb8 15.Red1
Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Rab1 Bb7 18.Nde2 d5³)
12...b5 13.a3 Bb7 14.Kb1
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 (14.Ba2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.Nb3 a5
5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 17.Qd3 Qxd3 18.Rxd3 b4³)
Qc7 10.Qd2 Na5 14...d5!
15.exd5
This may (with further research) turn out to (15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.exd5 Nxb3 17.Nxb3
be playable (and if my mainline runs into Bxc3 18.bxc3 Bxd5–+)
problems this is a serious fallback to research 15...Nxb3 16.Nxb3 Nxd5µ;
further) but I prefer to continue developing before 11.g4
committing the knight. In the early stages of
developing this system I tried out all kinds of
move orders, and ultimately realized that Black
should keep the knight on c6 so as to deter White’s
Be3-h6 as long as possible (when ...Nc6xd4 would
win a piece).
11.0-0-0
11.Bg5 e6!
11...b5!
(11...e6?! If Black is intent on this 10...Na5
variation then he should prefer 11...b5 instead.
12.h4 (12.0-0-0 b5 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 b4
15.Nce2 Bb7 16.h4 Nxb3+ 17.axb3 Rfc8∞
12.h4!
12...Bb7
(12...Nc4?! This should ‘feel’ wrong;
Black needs to harness more potential energy
An isolated instance where Black can before striking. 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.g4‚)
allow White to play h4-h5. 13.a3
(13...h5?! Black would ideally like to (13.g4 The position is very rich, and Black
prevent White’s h4-h5 but since Black’s knight is has many possibilities. I’ll just show a couple of
on a5, White now has 14.Bh6!‚ White threatens them. 13...Rac8 (13...e6 14.h4 (14.Nde2?! d5
Nd4-f5, so the following is forced 14...e6 15.g5 Nh5 16.exd5 b4 17.Ne4 exd5 18.Bxd5
15.Rhe1! Nxb3+ (15...d6?? 16.Bxe6+–) 16.axb3 (18.Nc5? d4! 19.Bxd4 Bxf3 20.Bxg7 Nxg7
73
21.Nd7 Rad8 22.Rhf1 Nxb3 23.axb3 Rxd7
24.Qxd7 Qxd7 25.Rxd7 Bxe2µ) 18...Rad8 19.Bf4
Qb6 20.Be3 Qb5 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7 22.Nd6+ Rxd6
23.Qxd6 Nc4 24.Qc7+ Kg8 25.Bc5 Na3+ 26.Kc1
Qxe2 27.Bxf8 Qe3+ 28.Rd2 Bxb2+ 29.Kxb2
Qxd2 30.Bh6 Qd4+ 31.Kb3 Qd5+ 32.Kb2 Qd4+
33.Kb3=) 14...d5! 15.e5 (15.g5 Nh5 16.exd5 Nxb3
17.cxb3 b4 18.Ne4 Bxd5„) 15...Nd7 16.f4 Nc4
17.Qe1 (17.Bxc4 dxc4 18.Rhf1 Nc5„) 17...Nc5
18.h5 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 g5!!„
74
12...Nxb3+ 13.Bh6!
(12...e5?? 13.Nf5+– Beware of this!;
12...Nc4? Too soon, Black needs to harness more This poses Black the most problems when
potential before striking 13.Bxc4 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 the knight is on a5.
bxc4 15.h4+– White is too fast, Black has no 13.g4!? Bb7 14.Bh6‚
counterplay.) (14.g5 Ne8 15.Kb1 Nd6! 16.Nd5 Bxd5
13.Nxb3 17.Bxd5 Rac8³ 18.Qd3 e6 19.Bb3 Ndc4 20.Bc1
(13.axb3 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 b4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 d5! 21.exd5 Rfd8 22.Nxe6 fxe6 23.Qxg6 Na3+
16.exd5 e5! 17.Nf5 gxf5 18.Qg5+ Kh8 19.Qf6+ 24.Ka1 Nxb3+ 25.cxb3 Qc2–+)
Kg8=) 13...Nxb3+ 14.axb3
13...Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Bb7„
14.Nxb3 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Bb7 16.a3 Rac8
17.Kb1 a5„
14...Bb7 15.g4 e6 16.b4!±
75
CHAPTER 4
76
This is not the most challenging line for Black intends to continue with the at first
Black, but since it has been played by Keres, Tal, glance unbelievable, but in this book thematic,
Korchnoi, and Carlsen, it has earned our serious ...Nf6-e8-d6, followed by ...f7-f5.
attention. White usually waits for Black to play 10.f3
...Bc8-d7 before retreating this Knight, because
Black’s two most common ways of countering 10.Bf4 This deters Black’s ...Ne8-d6 idea
Nc2 are either a) ...Nf6-d7-c5, often capturing on but after ...Nf6-e8 Black may instead gain a tempo
c3 with the g7 bishop (an option made available by on the f4-bishop after ...Ne8-c7-e6. Also, White’s
White’s departure from d4), or b) ...Bc8-e6 (which f4-bishop is under X-ray attack from Black’s f8
is not recommended when White’s knight is on rook after an eventual ...f7-f5. 10...Rc8 11.Ne3
d4) and quickly targeting the c4 pawn with Ne8 12.f3
...Ra8-c8, ...Nc6-e5, etc. The latter of these plans (12.Ng4?? h5 13.Ne3? e5–+
will be covered when we discuss the ‘Main Line’ Herman-Panjwani, New York 2014)
Maroczy. Here I will go over two additional 12...Nc7 13.Ned5 Ne6 14.Be3 f5 15.exf5
systems for the reader who wishes to take Rxf5„
advantage of White’s premature retreat.
6...Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 b6
27.a4
(27.Bb4 Preventing ...Re8-e2 on account of
Rd3-d8+. 27...gxf3 28.gxf3 Rxa2=)
79
27...Ree2 The following variation is 13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Kh1 e6 15.Qe1
remarkable: 28.Kh1! Rxg2 29.Bd5 Ba6 30.Re3!
Bxf1 31.Re8+
15...Kh8
(15...d5!? 16.cxd5 exd5³)
31...Bf8 16.Ne3 Nfd4
(31...Kh7 32.Be4#) (16...Ncd4 17.Bd3 Nxe3 18.Bxe3 d5?!
32.Rxf8+ Kg7 33.Rg8+ Kf6 34.Rf8+ Kg7 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Rd1 Nf5 21.Bxf5 Rxf5 22.Bd4²
35.Rg8+ Kh7 36.Be5!! gxf3 37.Rh8+ Kg6 1–0 (46) Hebert,J-Panjwani,R Montreal 2013)
38.Be4+ Kh5 39.Bxf3+ Kg5 40.Bxg2 Bxg2+ 17.b3 d5!³
41.Kg1=; 11...Nd6
10.Rb1 Ne8 11.Qd2 Nd6 12.f3 f5 13.Nb5
fxe4 14.Nxd6 exd6 15.Qxd6 Ne5 16.f4 Nd3 A significant branching point for this
17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Re8© 0–1 (38) variation. White’s attempts in the database are not
Tseshkovsky,V (2555) -Gufeld,E (2535) Vilnius convincing, but I have found a new move
1975. (12.Nd4) which does present Black with some
10...Ne8 problems. Fortunately, they are not
insurmountable.
11...Bxc3!? 12.bxc3 d6 13.Bh6 Ng7 14.f4
Re8 15.Bg4∞
12.Nd4N
11.Be3
13.c5
(13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Bf2 Bh6 15.Qe1 (15.Qd1
e6 16.g4 Nfe7 17.Bg3 d5 18.cxd5 Nxd5 19.Nxd5
exd5„) 15...e6 16.Rd1 Qe7 17.g4 Ng7 18.Bg3
Bf4=)
13...bxc5 14.Bxc5 fxe4 15.fxe4 Rxf1+
16.Rxf1 Ne5 17.Bxd6 Qb6+ 18.Kh1 Qxd6=;
12.c5 bxc5 13.Bxc5 f5 14.Bxd6 exd6
15.Kh1 Qh4 16.g3 Qh3 17.exf5 Be5 18.Rg1
Ne7!„;
12.Nb5 Bxb2 13.Rb1 Be5 14.f4 Bg7 18.Rad1 Nd4
15.Nxd6 exd6 16.Qxd6 Re8 17.Qd3 Na5 18.Bf3
Rc8³ 0–1 (37) Minasian,A (2478)-Aronian,L The position is equal, even if White has the
(2528) Ohrid 2001. ‘better half’ of it. Things will eventually fizzle out;
12...Rc8! the following is a sample.
19.Nb5 Nxb5 20.cxb5 d5 21.f4 Qe7
22.fxe5 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxe5 24.Bf3 Re8 25.Rd1
Kg7=
83
Ng6!=) 8...f5!
17...Nd4 18.Bh5 Qg5!
As is so often the case in this opening,
Black’s play is contrary to basic chess principles;
usually one is supposed to castle before such
breaks. Then again, White’s king isn’t castled
either.
The only top-level game continued as
follows: 8...0-0 9.0-0 f5 10.exf5 gxf5?! This
misses the point; Black should recapture with the
knight! (10...Nxf5=) 11.f4 d5! 12.cxd5 exd5
13.Rf3 Be6 14.Bd3 Rc8 15.Rg3 Rf6! 16.Bd2 Rg6
17.Qe1 Bf7 18.Kh1 Qd7 19.Qf2 Re8 20.a3 Nc8!
21.Re1 Rxe1+ 22.Bxe1 Nd6µ 1/2–1/2 (56)
Yanofsky,D-Stoltz,G Karlovy Vary 1948.
9.h4
85
3
86
Bent Larsen used to prefer 9...Ne6, but I A tricky move, not least of all because the
think 9...e5 offers more chances for counterplay response recommended by the computer at even
based on Black’s occupation of the center. high depths (11...Qh4) is a blunder due to a
Computers generally tend to prefer White in the brilliant double-rook sacrifice demonstrated by
Breyer, but from my experience even 2600+ GMs former Women’s World Champion Nona
find it very uncomfortable to ‘play around’ Gaprindashvili more than 40 years ago!
Black’s d4 knight, which (invariably) leads them 11.0-0 d6 12.Qd2
to mishandle White’s position. This line has a very (12.Nb5 Nxb5 13.cxb5 Be6 14.Qd2
Sveshnikov Sicilian feel to it. Fischer taught us (14.Bf3?! Bc4=) 14...f5 15.Bg5 Bf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6
that “you have to give squares to get squares”; 17.Qxd6 Rfd8 18.Qc7 Rd7 19.Qc5 fxe4 20.Bc4
Black has opted to relinquish control over the light Rd4 21.Bxe6+ Qxe6=)
squares (especially d5) in order to stake a claim 12...Be6= White can obtain this position
over the all-important d4 square. This is the first with his bishop more appropriately placed on d3.
significant branching point for White: he will In fact, my computer recommends that White play
either develop routinely with Bd3, 0-0, Qd2, etc., 13.Bd3 here.
or he will attempt to immediately take advantage (12...f5?!
of Black’s weaknesses with 10.Nb5. We consider
these options in the coming chapters, but we begin
with an underrated sideline.
10.Be2
87
Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 gxf5 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.c5!±) 13...f4
14.Bf2 g5 15.Nb5?! Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 a6 17.Nc3 g4
18.fxg4 Qg5 19.h3 h5„)
11...Nxb5!
88
17.Kh1! Rxa8 18.f4²) 16.0-0 (16.Kf1 Be3©)
16...Bf4 17.g3 Bxg3 18.hxg3 Qxg3+ 19.Kh1 Qh3+
20.Kg1=;
12...exd4 13.Bxd4 Qxe4 14.Bxg7 Qxg2
(14...Kxg7 15.0-0±)
15.Qd4!! Engines have difficulty seeing
this brilliant motive several moves in advance, but
humans, especially after Anderssen-Kieseritzky
1851 (better known as “The Immortal Game”),
know to look for such ideas. 15...Qxh1+ 16.Kd2
Qxa1 17.Qf6! 1–0 (17)
Gaprindashvili,N-Servaty,R Dortmund 1974.
12.cxb5 d6 13.0-0 Be6=
89
4
13.exd5
90
(13.cxd5 Nxb5 14.Bxb5 Qxe4 15.0-0 Rd8
16.Rfd1 Bd7=)
13...Bh3!! 14.Bxd4 exd4 15.gxh3
(15.0-0 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qg4+ 17.Kh1 Qf3+
18.Kg1=)
15...a6 16.Nd6
(16.Na3 Bh6 17.Qc2 Qxh3©)
16...Qe7+ 17.Ne4 f5 18.0-0-0 fxe4
19.Rhe1 b5 20.Rxe4 Qc7©
12...d6
91
5 presumably 10...d6 was never played because it
was thought to lose a pawn in this way.
11.Be2!?
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7
5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4
9.Qd1 e5 10.Nb5
11...Qa5+!
(11...Nxb5?! This transposes to an inferior
version of our main line. 12.cxb5 Be6 13.0-0 0-0
(13...d5 14.exd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 Bxd5 16.Rfd1
Be6 17.Bf3+–) 14.Qd2 d5 15.exd5 Qxd5 16.Qxd5
Bxd5 This is a position from our main line except
there Black plays ...e5-e4 instead of ...0-0. 17.Rfd1
Be6 18.Bf3²)
12.Bd2
(12.Qd2
10...d6!N
14.g3
(14.h3 0-0 15.Qc1 f6 (…...g5) 16.0-0
(16.g3 Bxg3 17.fxg3 Qxg3+ 18.Ke2 Qg2+–+;
16.c5 Be6„) 16...Bxh3 17.f4 (17.gxh3 Qxh3–+)
17...Qg3 18.Rf2 Bxg2! 19.Rxg2 Qxd3 20.fxe5
13.Nxd4 dxe5 21.Bh6 Rf7 22.Qc2 Qxc2 23.Rxc2 f5„
(13.0-0 0-0 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Qb3 Be6
16.Bd3 Qc7 transposes to 13.Nxd4.; 13.Be3 a6
14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bc1 f5„)
13...exd4 14.Qb3 0-0 15.Bd3 Be6 16.0-0
Qc7 17.Qa3
18...b5!„;
12.Bf4?! f5! 13.exf5 0-0³
12...Qa5+ 13.Ke2 Be5!
95
19.Bc3 Qb6 20.Qxb6 axb6 21.Bxe5 dxe5
22.Rhxf1 Kf7 23.Rfe1 Ke6 24.a3 Rhc8 25.Re2
Ra5 26.Rae1 Rc4=
19...0-0 20.Bxe5 dxe5
23.Rhe1
(23.Qxe4 Qc5+ 24.Kf1 Bh3 25.Qd3 Qe5
26.Qd5+ (26.Re1 Rd8 27.Qc2 Qe3 28.gxh3
Rd2–+) 26...Qxd5 27.cxd5 Bxg2+ 28.Kxg2 Rxe2+
29.Kg3 Re3 30.Rhf1 Rd3 31.Rad1 Rfxf3+
32.Rxf3 Rxd1=)
23...exf3 24.Bxf3 Bxc4 25.Qxe8 Rxe8
26.Rxe8+ Kg7 27.Ree1 Bf7
26...e4!! 27.Rd8+
97
6
98
This nuance was preparation; I doubt I 23.Bd1
would have come up with the subtlety of luring
White’s bishop to b6 over the board. 22.Bb6 Rc8! 23.fxe4 Rdd2 24.Kf1 Bg4 25.Bxg4 Rf2+
Black threatens ...Bg7-h6. 23.Rad1 Bf6 Preventing 26.Kg1 Rxg2+ 27.Kh1 Rxh2+ 28.Kg1 Rcg2+
White from trading rooks with Rd8+, and 29.Kf1 Rxg4–+
preparing ...Be6-c4. 23...Rb2 24.Kf1?!
(23...Bh6? 24.Rd8+ Rxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8
26.Bxd8±) 24.fxe4 Rdd2 25.Bf3 Rxa2µ
24.b4?! Bb3! 25.Rb1 24...Rdd2 25.Re2 e3!
(25.Bg4 Rc3 26.Rb1 Bg5„)
25...Bc3 White’s last chance to achieve
equality. 26.Rxb3?
(26.Rd7 Bc2 27.Rf1 Bxb4 28.f3 exf3
29.Bxf3 Bf5 30.Rd4 Bc3 31.Bxa8 Bxd4+ 32.Bxd4
Rxa8 33.Bf6=)
26...Bxd2 27.g4 Bg5! 28.b5 axb5 29.Bxb5
Bd8 30.Bd7 Rcb8 31.Bc6 Ra6–+ 0–1 (39)
Gorovets,A-Panjwani ,R Greensboro 2016.
18...0-0
99
7
12.Qd2
18.Qxd6
(18.Rae1 Qh5 19.h4 (19.Qxd6 Bf7µ)
19...Qf7 20.Qxd6 Bf5 21.Bxf5 Qxf5³)
18...Bf5 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Qd5+ Kh8
21.Bxf4
Witness the battle between two former
101
World Chess Champions (though Smyslov got his or go for f2-f4. Black generally has three ways of
title the year after this game was played). meeting Nc3-e2: capture on e2, ignore it and play
Botvinnik masterfully outplayed Smyslov but let ...b7-b5, or retreat ...Nd4-c6. Which of these Black
him get away with a draw in the end. plays will depend on the concrete timing of
12...Be6 13.b3 a6 14.Bb1 Rb8 15.Kh1 b5 White’s Nc3-e2; sometimes all three options are
viable for Black. In response to f2-f4, Black will
either (and not both this time) play ...f7-f5, or he
will capture on f4 and re-route his knight from d4
to e5 via c6. Of course, Black should not ‘do
nothing’; he should remain flexible so as to be able
to play either ...f7-f5 or ...b7-b5 depending on
what White does. Black’s a8 rook will either be
placed on c8 or b8. Black’s Queen usually goes to
d7, but as we will see it can also find a home on
e7,c7, or a5. An important disclaimer is in order
before we continue: computers favor White by
approximately +0.4 in most lines. However, when
one presses the computer to formulate a plan, it is
totally at a loss: while maintaining its +=
16.cxb5 axb5 17.Qd3 b4 18.Nd5 Bxd5 evaluation, it recommends shifting White’s pieces
19.exd5 Qa5 20.Qc4 Rb5 21.Bd2 Rfb8 22.Qc8+ back and forth aimlessly. So, my point is, do not
Bf8 23.Qd7 R5b7 24.Qg4 f5 25.Qh3 Qxd5µ be discouraged by the engine’s prejudice — it has
1/2–1/2 (46) Smyslov,V-Botvinnik,M Moscow similar biases against the King’s Indian and other
1956. respectable openings as well.
12...Be6 13.Rad1
13.Rac1 a6
103
(16.a4 f5„; 16.f4 exf4 17.Nxf4 Qd7 18.h3 17...Nxe2+! Without knights on the board
Ne5=) 16...Qe7!? (16...f5!? 17.exf5 (17.f3 f4 Black’s d5-square is less of a weakness. 18.Bxe2
18.Bf2 g5 19.Bb1?! g4! 20.Qxd6? Qe8µ) 17...gxf5 Qe7 19.Bb6 Rd7 20.a4 f5 21.exf5 gxf5„;
18.f4 (18.f3 Qe8 19.Bb1 Rd8 20.Nc3 Qf7 21.Nd5 13.Nd5
Kh8„) 18...Qe8 19.Nc3 Rd8 20.Nd5²) 17.Bb1
(17.Bb6 Bf6 18.Qb2 Bg5 19.Rb1 f5 20.Nc3 Qg7„)
17...Rbd8 18.f3 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Nc3 Qf7
21.Nd5² Anything can happen, but objectively I’d
say White has better chances.;
15.f3
(15.Ne2 Nxe2+ (15...Nc6!? 16.Rfd1 Qe7
17.Bb1 Rfd8 18.Bb6 Rd7 19.Nc3 Qf8 20.Be3
Nd4„) 16.Bxe2 Rc6!
17...Qb6
(17...Qd7 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.Qd3 Re7 20.f4
Bf6 21.Re2 Rfe8 22.Rfe1 Kg7
14...Rc8!
The aforementioned slightly better, but 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Qc7 22.Bf4 Rfe8
with some accuracy drawn rook endgame starts 23.Bg5 Rd7 24.Rf2 h5 25.Bf4 Qc5=;
here. Black’s first task is to decide where to place b) 15.f3 Rac8 16.Ne2 (16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Ne2
his rooks. I give some sample variations, but I b5=) 16...Nc6 (16...Nxe2+!? 17.Bxe2 Rfd8 18.a4
make no claim to ‘solve’ this endgame. 21...Rfc8! Qe7 19.Qb4 f5 20.Rd2 Rc6 21.Rfd1 f4 22.Bb6
(21...Rab8 22.Qxd4 Qxd4 23.Rxd4 Rb2 Rd7
24.Rxd6 Rxa2 25.g3 Rc8 26.Rc1 Rc5 27.Rc3 Ra4
28.Rd8+ Kg7 29.Rd7 Raxc4 30.Rf3+–)
22.Qxd4 Qxd4
(22...Qc5 23.Qxc5 Rxc5 24.Rxd6 Rxc4
25.Re1 Rc2 26.a3 Rc3 27.Ra1 (27.a4 Rc4 28.a5
Ra4 29.Rd5 Rb8=) 27...Rac8 28.f3 R8c6 29.Rxc6
Rxc6=)
23.Rxd4 Rab8 24.g3!
(24.f3 Rb2 25.a3 Ra2 26.Rb1 Rxa3 27.Rb6
Ra4 28.Rbxd6 Raxc4 29.Rxc4 Rxc4 30.Rxa6 h5=)
24...Rc6 25.Rfd1 a5 26.Rxd6 Rxc4 27.e5
Rb2 28.a3 Rc5 29.Rf6 Rb7 30.e6 fxe6 31.Rxe6
Rc3 32.a4 Ra3 33.Ra6 Rxa4 34.Rd5 Kg7
35.Raxa5 Rxa5 36.Rxa5 h5=;
14...Qc7!? This was Dzindzichashvili’s White only has four pieces capable of
choice against my compatriot GM Lesiege in attacking the d6-pawn, and Black has four
1993. With the queen on c7, Black can respond to potential defenders. If White triples on the d-file
Nc3-e2 with either ...Nd4xe2 or ...Nd4-c6, since and aims for c4-c5 then Black will be able to
the d6-pawn can be defended in one move by obtain counterplay against White’s weak pawn on
107
b3 (with ...Qe7-f7 for example). A sample 19.Qxd6
variation may continue as follows. 23.a5 g5 24.h3 (19.Nc3 Qd7 20.Na4 (20.Nd5 Qb7=)
h5 25.c5 dxc5 26.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 27.Qxc5 Rxc5 20...Rc6 21.Rc1 Qb7 22.Rxc6 Qxc6 23.Qd3 d5
28.Rxd7 Bxd7 29.Rxd7 Rxa5 30.Rxb7 Bf8=) 24.exd5 Bxd5 25.Rc1 Qa8 26.Nb6 Be4! 27.Qc4
17.Bb1 Rfd8 18.a4 Rd7 19.f4 (19.Nc3 Nd4„) Qb7=)
19...exf4 20.Nxf4 Qa5=; 19...Qxd6 20.Rxd6 Rc2 21.Nc1 Ra8
15...exd4 16.Ne2 Bg4 17.f3 Bd7 18.Bb1 22.Rfd1 Bf8 23.R6d2 Rac8 24.Nd3 f6
(18.a4 b5 19.cxb5 axb5 20.axb5 Rfb8=)
18...b5
108
109
Appendix
14.Bb1 f4!
(14...Nxb5 15.axb5 fxe4 16.Qg4± 1/2–1/2
(36) Honfi,K-Zaitsev,A Budapest 1963)
15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Ra3 Qf6 17.f3 a6 18.Nc7
Rac8 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.cxd5 Rc5 21.Bd3 a5=
12...Bb7
I was pleasantly surprised to come across 12...Re8!? 13.Rfe1 Bb7 14.Rad1 a6 15.b3
this very rare idea in a book on pawn structures by Bc6
Andy Soltis. Soviet (grand) masters of the 1950s
and 1960s like Simagin, Bagirov, Aronson, and
Veresov developed some truly original ideas in
this system. Even if their crafty maneuvers are
ultimately ‘too good to be true’, it is instructive to
play over their games to get a feel for this system.
Black plans to continue with ...Bc8-b7, ...Rf8-e8,
...Ra8-c8, followed by ...Bf8-c5/...Nd4-e6, or
...Re8-e6-d6! I envy them for playing chess in the
pre-computer era; the analysis of this variation
must have brought them such joy. Computers do
spoil the fun a little, but there is no clear refutation
of the idea either.
12.Qd2
This is another typical idea of this line:
12.Nd5?! Bb7 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 d6 Black plans to leave the pawn on d7, so the bishop
15.Qd2 Ne6 16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Bxd5 18.exd5 is well placed on c6 from where it defends (and is
Nc5 19.Rf3 f5!³ 0–1 (69) Byvshev,V-Simagin,V defended by) the d7 pawn and prepares ...b6-b5.
Moscow 1952; 16.f3 Re6!?
12.a4 Bb7 13.Nb5 (16...Ne6 17.Qf2 Rb8 18.Nd5 b5 19.Bb6
(13.a5 bxa5 14.Qa4 Bc6 15.Qxa5 Qxa5 Qc8 20.Ba7 Rb7 21.Be3 Qb8 22.Qh4 Bxd5
16.Rxa5 Rfb8=) 23.exd5 Nf4 24.Bxf4 exf4 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8
13...f5! 26.Qxf4²)
17.Bf1 f5 18.Ne2 fxe4 19.fxe4 Nxe2+?!
(19...Rd6!?
110
Kh8 19.b4 Na6 20.a3 Rfd8 21.Nc3 Nc7 22.Qd6
Qxd6 23.Rxd6 Rac8 24.Rd3 Ne6 25.Bxe6 dxe6
26.Rxd8+ Rxd8 27.Nb5 1/2–1/2 (27)
Roizman,A-Veresov,G Minsk 1955)
16.Nc3 Bf8! 17.exf5 gxf5 18.a3 Bc5
15.f3
(15.fxg6?? Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Bxf3–+)
15...gxf5 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.cxd5 e4„
13...Ne6
13...Bc6!?
15...Rf7! Black’s idea is to exchange dark
squared bishops with ...Bg7-f8-c5. Computers tend
to make us pessimistic about such maneuvers, but
in this particular position science and aesthetics
coincide.
(15...f4 16.Bf2 Qe7 17.c5 Nxc5 18.Bc4+
111
14.f4 18.Nb5 This is one reason Black’s rook
(14.b3 Ne6 15.Bc2 Re8 16.b4 Rc8 17.Bb3 would have been better placed on a8.
Nd4 18.f3 Bf8 19.Bxd4 exd4 20.Ne2 b5 21.Nxd4 (18.e5 Nc5 19.Qf4 Nb7 20.Nb5 Bxb5
bxc4 22.Bxc4 Ba4 23.Bb3 Bxb3 24.Nxb3 Qb6+=) 21.Qxf7+ Kh8 22.cxb5 Nxd6 23.exd6 Qh4 24.g3
14...exf4 15.Bxf4 Ne6 16.Bd6 Qd4+ 25.Qf2 Qxf2+ 26.Kxf2 Re6 27.Bc4 Rf8+
(16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Qe7 18.Nd5 Bxd5 28.Kg2 Rxf1 29.Bxf1 Bf8=)
19.exd5 Ng7=) 18...a6 19.Na7 Ra8 20.Nxc6 dxc6 21.e5²;
16...Re8 17.Kh1 Nc5 18.Qf2 Kh8 19.Qxf7 13...f5
Qg5 20.Bc2 Nb7 21.Nb5 Nc5=;
13...Rc8?! 14.b3 Bc6
11...Bc6?! 12.b4!²;
11...a5 12.b3!
(12.a3 a4 13.c5 dxc5 14.Bxc5 Bc6 15.Qe3
11.Qd3! Qc8 16.f3 (16.Bxe7 Re8 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.f3
Qe6©) 16...Qe6 17.Rfd1 Rfd8=)
This is not a new move, it was first played 12...Bc6 13.a3 Nd7
in Smyslov-Pirc 1956 (1–0); for some reason it has (13...b6 14.b4 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7
not caught on. I owe Kevin Spraggett for revealing 16.Qd4+ Kg8 17.f4²)
its strength to me. White’s basic idea is to 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.b4 axb4
prophylactically defend the e4-pawn so that (15...b6²)
...Bd7-c6 can be met with b2-b4! White usually 16.axb4 Qb6 17.b5
wants to wait for Black’s bishop to be on c6 before
playing b2-b4, because the weak c4-pawn is under
less pressure when Black’s bishop is on c6 as
opposed to e6. In general Black wants to prevent
White from playing b2-b4 (at least) until his
knight has landed on c5, so the central theme of
this variation is White trying to achieve b2-b4 and
Black trying to either prevent it or render it
premature. Unfortunately, nothing seems to work
for Black. I will present the following lines
without comment, because I am recommending we
avoid this altogether, but I encourage the reader to
try to find improvements on my analysis, and to at
least skim through the ensuing variations to get a
feel for which positions are playable for Black and 17...Rxa1
which are to be avoided. (17...Ne5 18.Qd2 Bd7 19.Na4 Qa7 20.c5
11.b4 Be6 12.f3 Nd7 13.Nd5 Bxd4+ dxc5 21.Qd5 Qb8 22.Nxc5±)
14.Qxd4 Bxd5 15.cxd5 a5 16.a3 axb4 17.axb4 18.Rxa1 Ne5 19.Qd2
Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Qc7= (19.Qc2 Bd7 20.Nd5 Qd4 21.Rd1 Qc5
11...a6!? 22.Nxe7 Re8 23.Nd5 Bxb5=)
19...Bd7 20.Na4!
(20.Nd5 Qc5 21.Qe3 (21.Nxe7 Nxc4
22.Qc3+ Ne5 23.Qxc5 dxc5 24.f4 Bg4=) 21...Rc8
22.Qc3 (22.Nxe7 Nxc4=) 22...e6 23.Ne3 f6
115
24.Qd2 Be8 25.Rd1 Nf7 26.Bg4 Bd7=) Ra4!©) 14...Bxb5 15.Nxb5 e5 16.Ba7 d5 17.Bc5
20...Qc7 d4 18.Qd3 Re8 19.b4±)
(20...Qa7 21.c5 dxc5 22.f4 c4+ 23.b6±) 13.Rfd1
21.f4 (13.a4 a5 14.Rfd1 Bc6 15.Nd5 Re8!
(21.Qd4 g5 22.h4 h6=) (15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bb5
21...Ng4 Nc5 19.Rac1 f6 20.f4²) 16.Nb6 (16.b3 Nd7
17.Bxg7 Kxg7=) 16...e5 17.Bc3 Nxe4 18.Nxa8
Nxc3! (18...Qxa8?! 19.Be1 Nc5 20.b4 (20.Rxd6
Ne6©) 20...axb4 21.Bxb4 Bf8 22.a5±) 19.bxc3
Qxa8 20.Rxd6 Bf8 21.Rdd1 e4©)
13...Bc6
22.Rd1!
(22.Qd4+ e5 23.Qb6 Qxb6+ 24.Nxb6 Nf6
25.Rd1 Be6 26.Bf3 Rb8! (26...exf4 27.Rxd6 Rb8
28.e5 Ne8 29.Rd4 g5 30.Nd7 Rd8 31.Bxb7 Rxd7
32.Rxd7 Bxd7 33.b6 Kf8 34.Bd5±) 27.Rxd6 Ne8
28.Rd1 exf4 29.e5 (29.c5 g5 30.h3 Nc7 31.Rb1 14.Rac1
Ne8∞) 29...f6 30.exf6+ Nxf6 31.h4 h6 32.Rd6 Kf7 (14.a4 a5 15.Nd5 Re8 (15...Bxd5 16.cxd5
33.Nd5 Bxd5 34.Bxd5+ Nxd5 35.cxd5 Rc8 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bb5 Nc5 19.Rac1 Qd8
36.Rd7+ Kf6 37.Rxb7 Rd8 38.Rb6+ Kf5 39.d6 g5 20.f4 f6 21.Rc3 Rc8 22.Rdc1 Rg8! 23.R1c2 b6
40.hxg5 hxg5 41.Rc6 Ke5 42.b6 Rxd6 43.Rxd6 24.b3 Qf8! 25.Rc4 Kh8 26.g3 g5=; 15...e5 16.Bb6
Kxd6 44.Kf2 g4 45.b7 Kc7 46.Ke2 Kxb7 47.Kd3 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Nd7 18.Rac1 Nxb6 19.Qxb6 Bf6
Kc6 48.Ke4 f3 49.gxf3 gxf3 50.Kxf3 This was not 20.g3 Bd8 21.Qb5 Qa7 22.Qd7 Qb8 23.Rd3 Bb6
a game, I just wanted to analyze at least one 24.Rb3 Rd8 25.Qb5 Bd4 26.Qxb7 Qxb7 27.Rxb7
variation ‘down to kings’ in this book.) Rdb8 28.Rxb8+ Rxb8=) 16.Nb6 e5 17.Bc3 Nxe4
22...Nf6 23.Qd4 Bc8 24.e5 18.Nxa8 Nxc3 19.Qxc3 Qxa8 20.Rxd6 e4©)
(24.Nc3 e5=) 14...b5
24...dxe5 25.fxe5 Nd7 26.e6+ Nf6 27.exf7 (14...e5 15.Bb6 Nd7 16.Nd5 Bxd5
e5 28.Qc3 17.Rxd5±)
(28.Qc5²) 15.Nd5 Bxd5
28...Be6 29.c5 Nd5 30.Qb2 Bxf7 31.Bf3± (15...Re8 16.cxb5 Bxd5 17.exd5 axb5
12.b4! 18.Qb3 b4 19.Rc4± 1–0 (31) Gurevich,I
(2475)-Taylor Chicago 1992)
12.a4 a5 13.Nd5 16.cxd5 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd4+ Kg8
(13.Rfd1 Bc6 14.b3 Nd7 15.Rab1 Nc5 19.Bg4 Nf6 20.Bh3 Qa7 21.Qd3 a5 22.g3 Rfb8∞;
16.Qe3 Bxd4 17.Rxd4 e5 18.Rd2 Qe7=) 12.f3
13...Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 15.Qe3 Bxd4
16.Qxd4 Ra6=;
12.Qe3 Qb8!?
(12...b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 (14.Nxb5
116
13.a4 b6 14.Rfd1 Bc6 15.b4 a5 16.b5
Bb7=;
12.Rfd1 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 Bxb5
15.Qxb5 Nxe4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Bf3 Rb8 18.Qd3
Nc5=
12...Be6
12...Rb8
(12...b5?! 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 Ra4
15.Nc3 (15.Na3 Qb8!©; 15.Be3 Bxb5 16.Qxb5
Qa8=) 15...Rb4 16.Rab1 (16.b3 Nxe4 17.Bxg7
Nc5 18.Qe3 Kxg7 19.Nd5 Rb8= Instinctively,
White appears to be better because of the
connected passed pawns; however, those pawns
are easily blocked and the dark squared
weaknesses in White’s position shouldn’t be
discounted.) 16...Qb8 (16...Nxe4 17.Bxg7 Nc5
18.Qe3 Kxg7 19.Nd5 Rb8 20.b4 Na4 21.b5 Nc5
22.Rfd1 Be6 23.Bc4 f6 24.Qd4 Bxd5 25.Bxd5
Qb6∞) 17.b3
15.exd5
The logic of this move is similar to 10.Nc2: 15.Qd3 (15.Bd3 a5 16.Rcf2 Nd7 17.Qg4
since White has more space, he wants to avoid Nc5 18.Bc2 Bd7 19.Qd1 Be6 20.Nd5 Kg7 21.b3
exchanges to keep Black’s position cramped. Bxd5 22.Qxd5 f6 23.a3 Qb6 24.Rb1 Qc6=) 15...a5
Furthermore, the ‘soft’ c4-pawn can be defended 16.Rd2 Ne8 17.Bd1 Qb6 18.Rdf2 Rd8 19.Bg4 Nc7
by Nb3-d2, as it often is by Nc2-a3 in the 10.Nc2 20.h4 Na6 21.h5 Nc5 22.Qc2 Qb4 23.Nd5 Bxd5
line. 24.exd5 e4 25.Be2 (25.Rf6 Nd3 26.b3 a4„)
10.Rc1 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 25...a4∞)
12...Bc6 13.Bxf6
a) 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxe5 Nd7 15.Bd4 e5!?
(15...Re8!? 16.Rc2 e5 17.fxe5 Nxe5„) 16.fxe5
Qg5 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Qxc1 19.Qxc1 Bxc1
20.Rxc1 Nxe5 21.Rc7 (21.d6 f6µ) 21...f6 22.Rxb7
(22.d6 Rac8 23.Rxb7 Rf7 24.Rxa7 Rxa7 25.Bxa7
Rc2µ) 22...Rf7 23.Rb5³;
b) 13.Qd3 e5 14.Be3 exf4 15.Bxf4 Bxf4
16.Rxf4 Nd7=;
13...exf6
118
14.Qd4 This was American prodigy 18...f5! 19.exf5 Bxc3
Ruifeng Li’s choice against me. (19...gxf5 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Qxd5
a) 14.Qd2 Re8 15.Bf3 Qb6+ 16.Kh1 Rad8 22.Bxa6=)
17.g3 Bg7 18.Rc2 Qc5 19.Nd5 a5=; 20.bxc3 gxf5 21.Rde1
b) 14.Kh1 We follow one of my games a) 21.Qg3+ Kh8 22.Qg5 Rg8 23.Qf6+ Rg7
here. 14...Re8 15.Bd3 Qb6 16.Rc2 a5 17.Rd2 a4 24.g3 (24.Bxf5?? Bxg2–+) 24...Qxa3=;
18.Bb1 Bf8 19.b3 axb3 20.axb3 Ra1 21.Nd5 Bxd5 b) 21.Qh4 Re6³;
22.Rxd5 Qe3? (22...Rxe4 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rdxd1 21...Qxa3 22.Bxf5 Qxc3µ Ruifeng Li —
f5 25.Bd5 Bg7 26.b4 Bf6 27.b5 Kg7=) 23.Rf3 Raja Panjwani, Philadelphia 2014 (0–1);
(¹23.c5!) 23...Qa7 24.Qc2 f5 25.Rf1 Rxe4 10.f3 (As with the 11.Qd3 line which we
(25...fxe4 26.f5 e3 27.fxg6 hxg6 28.Rxf7 avoided by playing 9...Bd7 instead of 9...Nxd4,
Rxb1+–+) White prophylactically defends the e4-pawn in
anticipation of ...Bd7-c6). 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 a5 If
White plays ordinary developing moves like
12.Qd2 here then we will transpose into material
we will discuss later, so we will just consider
attempts by White to obtain immediate play.
(11...Bc6?! 12.b4²)
12.c5
(12.b3 Bc6 13.a3 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7
15.Qd4+ Kg8 16.b4 Qb6 17.Qxb6 Nxb6=)
12...dxc5 13.Bxc5 Bc6
119
14.Qb3 Black immediately targets White’s b3
(14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Bxe7 Rd2=; 14.Rc1 knight and threatens to gain further space on the
Nd7 15.Be3 a4 16.Qc2 Qa5=) queenside with ...a5-a4 and ...Qd8-a5.
14...Nd7 15.Be3 Qb8! 16.Rad1 a4 17.Qc4 11.Nd2
Rc8 18.Nd5 Bf8!
11.f3?! a4 12.Nd2?! a3 13.bxa3 Ng4
14.fxg4 Bxc3µ;
11.a3 a4 12.Nd2 Qa5= Ideas for Black
include ...Be6/...Nd7-c5 or alternatively
...e7-e5/...Nc6-d4.
11...Bc8!
120
...f7-f5 because that would undouble White’s
e-pawns, but White has nothing constructive to do
either. Black can literally play ...Ra6-a8-a6-a8 and
wait for White to do something.
22.Bxe6
122
16...dxe5 17.Bxa7 Qc7 18.Bf2 Be6!
19.Nb5 Qb7 20.Nd6 Nxe4!³;
11.Rc1 Ne5
16.Qd2!
14.Nd5
(14.b4 Qd8³ White’s c4-pawn falls.)
14...Qd8 15.Bd3
(15.f5 Bd7 16.Bxa7 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Bc6
18.Qd3 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Be5=)
15...Nbd7 16.Nd4 Bg4=;
13.g4 Nb4!
(13...Nb8!?)
14.Nxb4 Qxb4 15.a3 Qa5 16.Nd5 Nxd5 18...Nxb3! 19.Rxb3 Qxc4 20.Rfb1 Qxe4
17.exd5 Bd7= 21.Qe2 Rc4 22.Na3 Rxa4 23.Rxc3 Rxa3 24.Rbc1
13...Qa6! Rxc3 25.Rxc3 a5=
16...Bd7 17.f5 Qa5 18.Nd4 Rfe8! 19.Rcd1
13...Nb4?! 14.Nxb4 Qxb4 15.b3²; a6 20.a4 Ne5
13...Nb8?! 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6
16.Nd4² Note that were White’s rook not on c1 the 20...Be5 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 Bxd4
127
23.Bxd4 Nxd4 24.Rxd4 Bc6 25.Nb6 Rcd8
26.Rfd1
(26.b4 e5 27.fxe6 Rxe6=)
26...a5 27.c5²
21.h3 Bc6²
128
4 13.Rae1
130
in many variations prevents Qd2-g5.
17.Rh3 h5 18.Ne3
16...Bxd5
(16...Qa5!? This was my choice against
Barbosa. 17.Qe3 (17.b4!? axb3 18.Qb2+ Nf6
19.axb3 Qd8 20.Rxa8 Qxa8=; 17.Qxa5 Rxa5
18.Nxe7 Bxe4µ) 17...Qc5 18.Qc3+ e5?! (18...Nf6!
19.Nxf6 exf6 20.Bf3 b5=) 19.Rad1 Rae8 20.f5
(20.Bg4 Nb6 21.Nxb6 Qxb6 22.Rxd6 Qc5
12...Nd7 23.Rfd1 Bxe4=; 20.fxe5! Nxe5 21.b4 axb3
22.axb3±) 20...Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Qc7 22.Qd2 Nf6
12...a5 It is hard to say which move order 23.Rxd6
— 12...a5 or 12...Nd7 is more accurate. In practice
neither is because they will quickly transpose.
13.b3 Nd7 14.Be3 Nc5 transposes to 12...Nd7.
13.Bf2!?
132
20...f5! 21.Re3 Nf6 22.Bf3 Rfe8 23.Rae1 (18...Rfd8 19.Rfc1! Preventing Black’s
b5! 24.cxb5 Rab8= freeing ...d6-d5.)
13...a5 14.b3 Nc5 15.Rab1 e6 19.Rfd1 d5! A long forcing variation
results in equality. 20.exd5 exd5 21.Qxd5 Qxe2
15...Qb6 16.a3 Qd8 This has been played a 22.Bxc5 Bf8! 23.Bxf8 Rc2 24.f4 Rd8!! 25.Qf3
few times by Tiviakov and Larsen. Black is sitting Qxf3 26.gxf3 Rxd1+ 27.Rxd1 Kxf8 28.Rd7 Rxa2
back and waiting for White to ‘do something’ like 29.Rxb7 Rb2 30.Ra7 Rxb3 31.Rxa5 Rxb6=
b3-b4 in which case Black at present has adequate 16...Be5 17.Nb5
counterplay. That being said, if White calmly
continues developing then eventually he will
achieve a favorable b3-b4, and by ‘wasting’ time
with ...Qd8-b6-d8 Black’s counterplay has been
stalled. (16...Nxb3?? 17.Qd1!+– Note that if
White’s bishop were on e3, this would not be
possible.) 17.Bd1!?
(17.b4?! axb4 18.axb4 Ra3„)
17...b6 18.Bc2 Qb8 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.b4²
16.Rfd1
133
Since White does not possess a knight to
plant on d5, Black is able to go for the ...e6-e5
push, which also unleashes pressure on the weak
e4-pawn.
21...Rfd8 22.Rbd1
(22.g4!? This would have been a better try
for Macieja. 22...e5 23.f5 Bf6 24.Qf3²)
22...Rac8 23.a3 Bh6! 24.Bg4 Rc7
Zaninotto should have maintained some pressure
on the c-file.
(24...Rb8? 25.b4 axb4 26.axb4 Nxe4
27.Qxe4 f5 28.Qf3 (28.Qe1 fxg4 29.Bh4 g5
30.fxg5 Bxg5 31.Bxg5 Qxg5 32.Qxe6+±)
20.Rc4?! 28...fxg4 29.Qxg4± Macieja-Zaninotto, Najdorf
(20.Qe3 Rad8 21.f4 Bg7 22.g4 Bh6! 23.g5 Memorial 2016)
Bg7 24.Bg4 f6!³) 25.Qf3
20...d5! 21.exd5 exd5 22.Bh4 Qc7 (25.b4 axb4 26.axb4 Na4³)
23.Qxd5 Bxh2+ 24.Kh1 Rae8 25.Bf1 Re6 26.Qg5 25...e5! 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 Na4 28.Qb3
Re5 27.Qf6?? Rh5 28.Rg4 Nc3 29.Bxb6 Nxd1 30.Rxd1 exf4 31.Bxc7 Qxc7
(28.g4 Be5 29.gxh5 Bxf6 30.Bxf6 Qg3 32.Qd5 Rb8 33.Be2 f3! 34.gxf3 Bf4=
31.Bg2 Ne6 32.Rg4 Qf2–+) 22.Rbd1 Rad8 23.e5
28...Be5 29.Qc6 Qxc6 30.bxc6 f5 31.Rc4
g5–+ 0–1 (37) Findlay,I-Panjwani,R Calgary 23.Bf3 e5 24.g3 Rfe8„
2016. 23...dxe5
19.Qe3 b6 20.f4 Bg7
23...d5 24.Rc2 Rc8
20...Bf6!? is also possible. (24...f6 25.Bh4 g5 26.exf6 Rxf6 27.Bxg5
21.Rd2 Bxg5 28.fxg5 Rf5 29.h4²)
25.Rdc1 f6 26.Bh4 Bg7 27.a3²
24.Qxe5 Bg7 25.Qe3 Rxd2 26.Rxd2
Rd8=
19...Bxg3
(19...Qe7 GM Maze probably wanted to
avoid a draw (with 19...Bxg3) so chose to play on
this way. 20.Nd1 b6 21.Nf2 Rad8 22.Nd3 Bg7
(22...f5 23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Rf1 Bg7=) 23.Rc2 f5
24.exf5 Rxf5 25.Rf1 Rdf8 26.Ne1 h5 27.Bh6 e5 The second most popular move. GM
28.Bxg7 Kxg7 29.Qc3 Ne6µ 0–1 (68) Lenderman played this against me in 2013. My
Makka,I-Maze,S Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011) game against him will be our main line in what
20.hxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kh1 follows.
(21.Kf1 f5 22.Bxc5 dxc5 23.Qe3 fxe4 15...e6
24.Nxe4 Bxe4 25.Qxe4 Rf5! 26.Qxe6+ Kh8 (15...b6 An interesting recommendation of
27.Qe3 Raf8–+) Khalifman’s which is a perfectly viable alternative
21...f5 to 15...e6. Black intends the crafty maneuver
...Ra8-a7-d7. I played this against GM Kovalyov
in 2013; I was unsuccessful in that game but it was
not due to the opening. 16.Rfd1
(16.Bd1 Not the last time we will see this
idea. 16...Qb8!?
a) 16...e5?! 17.Bc2 Ra7 (17...Ne6 18.Rfd1
Nd4 19.Bxd4 exd4 20.Ne2 Qh4 21.g3 Qh5
22.Nxd4±) 18.Rfd1 Rd7 19.a3 Ne6 20.b4 f5
21.Nd5 Nd4 22.Bg5±;
b) 16...e6 This deserves further research.
17.a3 a4 18.b4 Nb3 19.Bxb3 axb3 20.Qb2 d5∞
(20...Ba4 21.Rfd1 Qc7 22.Bd4 Bh6 23.Nxa4 Bxc1
24.Qxc1 Rxa4?? 25.Bf6™+–);
17.a3
22.Bxc5!
(22.Qe1 Qh3+ 23.Kg1 fxe4 24.Bxc5
exf3–+)
22...dxc5 23.Rf1™ Black can give a
perpetual whenever he wants, it’s just a matter of
137
17...a4! (17...b5 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 Ne6 17.Bf1 (17.Nb5 Rd7 18.Nd4 Bb7 19.Rb1
20.Nxb5 Bxb5 21.cxb5 Ra3 22.Re1 Qxb5 23.Be2 e5 20.Nb5 f5„; 17.Nd5 Rd7 18.Bg5 f6 19.Be3 e6
Qb7 24.Kh1 Be5 25.Rc2 Rxe3 26.Qxe3 Qxb4²) 20.Nc3 f5 21.exf5 Rxf5 22.f4 Qh4 23.g3 Qh3
18.b4 (18.bxa4 Bxa4 19.Bxa4 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Nxa4 24.Bf1 Qh5 25.Be2=) 17...Rd7 The following is
21.Qd4 Nc5 22.Bh6 Ne6 23.Qc3 Re8 24.f4 f6 my game against Kovalyov. 18.Qc2 e5 (18...e6
25.f5 Nc5 26.fxg6 hxg6 27.Rxf6 exf6 28.Qxf6 19.a3 a4 20.b4 Nb3 21.b5 Bb7 22.Nxa4±) 19.a3
Ra7 29.Qxg6+ Kh8=) 18...Nb3 19.Bxb3 axb3 Ne6!
20.b5 Bb7 21.Qb2
138
18.Qe3 (18.Kh1 Rfe8 19.Nxd6?? Red8–+) (23.Qxd6?? Qg5–+) 23...Bf3!!–+
18...Bxb5! We have come across the resulting Gorgeous.;
structure in the 13.Bf2 line. 19.cxb5 Rac8 20.f4 16...Be5
(20.Rfd1 Rfe8 21.Qf2 Qc7 22.Be3 b6 23.f4 Bg7
24.Bf3 Qe7= Black is ready to continue with
...d6-d5.) 20...Bg7 21.e5 Rfe8 22.exd6 Qxd6
23.Rfd1 Qf8!
16.Rfd1
143
31.Rc8+ Kg7 32.Bc5 Bc3=;
16.Nb5
26...f5! 27.a3
(27.exf5 gxf5 28.Be3 d5 29.Bxc5 bxc5
30.b6 Rde7 31.Bb5 Rd8 32.Rxc5 Bxh2 33.Rdc2
Bg3=)
27...a4 28.exf5
(28.b4 Nb3 29.Bxb3 axb3µ) 19.exf5 Rxf5!
145
(19...gxf5 20.Nb5 (20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4
Rad8 22.Rd2 e5 23.Qf2 Ne6 24.Re1 Kh8 25.Bf1
Qg7„ 0–1 (39) Jakovljevic,V-Leon Hoyos,M
Cento 2011) 20...Rfd8 21.Nd4²)
20.Nb5
(20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 Rd8= Black has
ideas of ...e6-e5 and ...Nc5-e6-d4. Black’s
weakened d5-square is less of an issue than
White’s weakened d4-square because Black has a
light-squared bishop to guard his weak square.)
20...Bxb5 21.cxb5 Raf8! 22.Qxa5
19.Nd4
(19.Bg5 f6 20.Be3 g5 21.Nd4 Be8„ Black
has ideas of ...h7-h5, ...g5-g4, ...Be8-g6. White is 18.h3
solid but already on the defensive.) (18.g3 Qf6µ The f3-pawn falls.)
19...d5! 20.cxd5 exd5 21.Qc1 Ne6 22.Nxc6 18...Qg3 19.Bd3 f5 20.exf5 Nxd3 21.Qxd3
bxc6 23.Qxc6 d4 24.Bf2 Rac8 Bxf3–+ Shvayger,Y-Socko,M, Baku 2016;
17.Nb5?
25.Qa6
(25.Qa4 Ng5! 26.f4?? Nxe4 27.fxe5 Victims of the following include IM Danny
Nc3–+) Rensch and GM Peter Heine Nielsen! 17...Qh4!
25...Rc2 26.Bf1 Qg5! 18.g3 Bxg3 19.hxg3 Qxg3+ 20.Kf1 Nxe4! 21.fxe4
(26...Rxa2 27.Ra1 Rxa1 28.Rxa1 d3 f5µ;
29.Rd1 Qb4 30.Rxd3 Rxd3 31.Qxd3 Bd4= 17.a3
1/2–1/2 (46) Nyback-Sorensen 2008)
27.a4?
(27.Qxa5?? Rxf2–+; ¹27.Bd3 Rxa2 28.Ra1
Rb2 29.Rxa5 Nf4„ Computers give a way for
147
Black’s last move accompanied a threat of In the database Black plays his Queen to f6
...Qd8-h4, which is enough for equality, but it is about equally as often, but I tend to prefer my
far more effective if White’s knight has been Queen on e7 as a general rule unless there is
driven away from c3. 17...Qf6!? something concretely favorable about placing it on
(17...Qh4!? 18.g3 Bxg3 19.hxg3 Qxg3+ f6.
20.Kf1 Qh3+ 21.Ke1 Qh4+ 22.Bf2 Qh1+ 23.Bf1 17...Qf6 18.Nb5
Qxf3 24.Qe3 Qxe3+ 25.Bxe3 Nxe4 26.Nxe4 Bxe4 (18.Rbc1 Rad8 19.Bf1 g5„)
27.Bd3 Bc6=) 18...Rfd8 19.Nd4 Bf4 20.Bf2²
18.Bd4 18.a3
(18.Nb5? Qh4! 19.g3 Bxg3 20.hxg3
Qxg3+ 21.Kf1 Nxe4! 22.fxe4 f5–+) 18.Nb5 f5 19.exf5 exf5! 20.Qd2?
18...Bxd4+
(18...a4 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.b4 Nb3 21.Qe3
Nd4 22.b5 Bd7∞)
19.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 20.Rxd4 Rfd8 21.b4
(20.Bd4 Ne6=)
20...Ne4!! 21.Qe1
(21.fxe4 Qh4–+)
21...Bxb5 22.fxe4 Bc6 23.exf5 Bxh2+
(21.Bd1 e5 22.Rd2 Ne6=) 24.Kxh2 Qxe3µ
21...e5! 22.Rd2 axb4 23.axb4 Ne6 24.b5 18...f5 19.exf5
Be8 25.Nd5 Nd4=
17...Qe7
148
It is usually a challenge to decide how to 23.fxe4
recapture on f5 but here Black has an
embarrassment of riches — not only are all three 23.Bd3 Rxf3! 24.gxf3 Qg5+ 25.Qg3 Qe3+
recaptures playable, Black can even opt for none 26.Qf2 Qg5+=
of the above with 19...Qf6!?. 23...Nxe4 24.Bd3 Re5 25.Bxe4 Bxe4
19...Rxf5 26.Nxe4 Rxe4=
149
CHAPTER 6
4.Qxd4 VARIATION
150
We have here just a normal Dragon 9.Nxd7
structure for Black where White’s pieces are
misplaced. 11.Bg5 h6 12.Be3 (12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.e5 Here 9...Qxd7 is the most popular move by
Bf5µ; 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Nh5³; 12.Bd2 Nd7„) a 6:1 margin but it looks to me that Black
12...Ng4 13.Bf4 Bb7=; struggles to equalize there. Giving up the two
b) 6.Qa4?! Nxe4! (6...b6 7.e5 Bb7∞ bishops is already a concession Black has to live
Arribas Lopez-Leon Hoyos, New Orleans 2016) with in this line; he should rush to finish his
7.Qxe4 (7.Bxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxe4 Nc6³) 7...axb5 development with 9...Nxd7 rather than spend
8.Qe5 f6 9.Qxb5 Qa5+ 10.Qxa5 Rxa5³; several tempos on queen moves as he must after
6...axb5 7.exf6 Nc6 8.fxe7 9...Qxd7.
(8.Qd3 b4! 9.0-0 e6³; 8.Qh4 exf6 9.0-0 d5 9.Nxc6 Donaldson and Silman give this as
10.Re1+ Be6 11.Nc3 b4 12.Nb5 Bg7 13.Bh6 0-0 += however... 9...Qb6!N A nice little novelty
14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Nbd4 Qd6µ) which renders 9.Nxc6 harmless. We wait to see
8...Qxe7+ 9.Qe3 where White puts his f1–bishop before we decide
how to take back on c6.
(9...Bxc6 10.Bb5² Black is slow getting
developed and castled.)
10.Qb3
(10.Bb5 bxc6! 11.Bc4 Bg7 12.0-0 0-0
13.Bb3 c5 14.Qc4 Rac8„)
10...Bxc6 11.Qxb6 axb6 12.f3 Bg7 13.Be2
0-0 14.Be3 Nd7
151
The Nd7/Bc6/b7 are a common trio in the This new move (with the idea of castling
Accelerated Dragon — all three pieces are queenside) was tried by GM Popilski in 2016. It
mutually defended and they exert control over has some bite, so Black should be accurate here.
important central squares. 15.Kf2 Bxc3! 16.bxc3 10...Bg7
Ra3„ (10...Nb6!? 11.Qe4 Bg7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.h4
9...Nxd7! Qd4=)
11.0-0-0 0-0
9...Qxd7 10.Be3 Bg7 11.Rd1 Qg4 a) 11...Qc8 12.h4 h5 13.Rg1!? (13.Qf4!?‚)
(11...Qc8 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 a6 14.Qf4 Qf5 13...Nb6 14.Qe4 0-0 15.g4 hxg4 16.h5‚
(¹14...e6 15.Bf3 Rd8 16.g3²) 15.Qxf5 gxf5 16.Na4 b) 11...Nb6!? tr. 10...Nb6;
e6 17.c4 Rfd8 18.Bb6 Rxd1 19.Rxd1± 1–0 (67) 12.h4!
Rausis,I (2600)-Turner,M (2493) Fagernes NOR (12.Bb5 Nb6 13.Qe4 Qc7=
2015) Popilski-Perelshteyn, Dallas 2016)
12.Qb3! 12...Nb6!
(12.Rd4 Qf5! (12...Qc8 13.Bb5 a6 (12...h5? 13.g4±)
14.Bxc6+ Qxc6 15.Qxc6+ bxc6 16.Ke2 0-0 13.Qe4 Qd4 14.Be3
17.Rhd1 e6 18.Rc4 Nd5 19.Bd4 Rfc8 20.Bxg7
Kxg7 21.Rc5 Rab8 22.b3² 1–0 (43) Erdos,V
(2651)-Gledura,B (2395) Zalakaros HUN 2014)
13.Bd3 Qe5 14.Rb4 Qc7 15.Bb5 0-0 16.Rc4 Rfc8
17.0-0 e6 18.Bf4 Qb6 19.Be3 Qc7= 0–1 (36) Wei
Yi (2706)-Bu Xiangzhi (2681) China CHN 2015)
12...0-0 13.h3 Qb4 14.Be2 Qxb3 15.cxb3
Rfd8 16.Bf3 a6 17.Ke2 Rxd1 18.Rxd1 Rd8
19.Rxd8+ Nxd8 20.b4²
10.Bb5
10.Bd2
14...Qb4!
(14...Qxe4 15.Nxe4 Rfd8 16.Rxd8+ Rxd8
17.Bxb6 axb6 18.c3²)
15.Qxb4 Nxb4 16.h5
(16.a3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 N4d5=)
152
16...Rfd8=
10...Bg7!
153
2 11.Nxe5 Nxe5µ
6...Nd5 7.Qe4
6.Qa4
Black’s knight is less vulnerable on b6 than
6.Qc3 Ne4! it is on b4 in the 7...Ndb4 line, and it is also better
(6...Nd5!?) placed on b6 than c7 because it deters White’s
7.Qe3 d5 8.exd6 Nxd6³; Bf1–c4. What I like most about this line for Black
6.Qh4? Nxe5! 7.Nxe5 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 is that White has to be extremely accurate to not
Qxe5+³; immediately be worse — there are a lot of ways to
6.Qe3? Ng4 7.Qe4 d5! go astray.
7...Ndb4?! This is the most popular move,
even though Sutovsky basically refuted the system
ten years ago. 8.Bb5 Qa5 9.Nc3
9.Bf4
This used to be thought of as better for
Black (for example Donaldson and Silman say 9.Bg5?! d5! 10.exd6 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxd6
“Black has a distinct advantage”) but the optics are 12.Bb5 f6 13.Bf4 e5³
misleading: White has a clear advantage. 14.Qxh7 9...d5!
Nc2 15.Rd1±)
10.0-0 0-0 11.a3 d5 12.exd6 Bf5 As we have seen, this is the central motive
for Black in this variation. 9...0-0 10.0-0-0 d5
11.exd6 Bf5? (¹11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bf5∞) 12.dxe7±
10.exd6 Bf5
17.Be3
(17.Rfe1 Bxc2 (17...Bxf3!? 18.gxf3 g5
19.f4 Rhg8 20.fxg5 fxg5 21.f4 Rd6 22.Bxg5 h6
156
15.h4
159
CHAPTER 7 on move two (1.e4 c5 2.c3) or on move three (1.e4
c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3), so for convenience and
consistency I recommend a line for Black which
ANTI-SICILIANS: ALAPIN AND works against either of these. The Morra Gambit
MORRA (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4
cxd4 4.c3), a sister to the Alapin, has recently seen
a revival, especially at the club level, thanks to the
publication of IM Esserman’s masterpiece
“Mayhem in the Morra”.
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3
1.e4 c5
11...Ne5!
167
2
1.e4 c5 2.c3
168
19.Qa8+ Kc7 20.Qa5+ Nb6 21.N1c2™ 21...Ne2+
22.Kh1 Rd3³) 18...Nd5!
7...Nh6
8...Nh6!? (7...Nf6 I tend to prefer my knight on f6,
(8...Nf6 Black may prefer this mode of but as I have said, it is usually a matter of taste.
development; it is largely a matter of taste. I think 8.Nc3 Qd6=)
many IMs and GMs prefer ideas with ...Ng8-h6 8.Nc3 Qd8 9.Bf4 0-0 10.0-0 Nf5 11.d5 a6
because they lead to positions which their lower 12.a4 Nd7 13.Qb3 b6 14.Rad1 Bb7 15.Rfe1 Rc8=
171
1/2–1/2 (29) Hort,V (2560)-Spraggett,K (2540) analysis of 6...e6 in case the reader is interested.
San Bernardino 1992; 7.b4!
5.Na3 cxd4 6.Nb5 Na6 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 a) 7.Be3 Nf6
8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.Ngf3 Bg7 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.0-0 Nc7
12.Bc4 Nfd5 13.Re1
8.Nf3
a1) 8.Bd4 Be7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.Nbd2 Rd8
13...f6! Black flexes his muscles; the center 11.Kc2 Nd5 12.Bc4 Nc6 13.Rhe1 Nxd4+ 14.cxd4
is his for the taking. 14.a4 a6= b6 15.Bxd5 Rxd5 16.b4 Bb7©;
5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1 a2) 8.Na3 Nbd7 9.Nb5 (9.Bb5 Ng4 10.c6
bxc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8©) 9...Nd5 10.Nf3 Nxe3+
11.fxe3 Ke7 12.b4 a5©;
8...Be7 9.Na3 0-0 10.Nb5 Nd5 11.Kc2
Nxe3+ 12.fxe3 a5 13.Nd6 Nd7 14.b4 Nf6 15.Nxc8
Rfxc8 16.Kb3 b6 17.Bc4 (17.cxb6 Ne4 18.b7
Rxc3+ 19.Kb2 Rb8–+) 17...bxc5 18.b5 Ne4„;
b) 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.b4 Ne7
10.Kc2 Bg7 11.Nd2 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd5 13.Bb2 b6
14.c6 (14.cxb6 N7xb6³) 14...Ne5 15.b5 a6 16.a4
Nc4 17.Ne2 Nc7 18.bxa6 Rfc8µ;
7...Bg7 8.Kc2
6...Nf6
14.Bc4
(14.b5 Nb8!=)
14...axb4 15.Bxd5 Na5+
(15...exd5 16.cxb4 Re8 17.b5 Na5+ 18.Kc3
Bd7 19.Nd4²)
16.Kc2 exd5 17.cxb4 Bf5+ 18.Kc3
(18.Kb2!±)
18...Nc6 19.a4 d4+ 20.Nxd4 Nxd4
21.Kxd4 Rfd8+ 22.Kc4 b5+ 23.cxb6 Rac8+
24.Kb3 Be6+ 25.Kb2 Rd4 26.Ra3 Rxb4+ 27.Ka1
Rxb6=
7.Nf3
174
3
177
13.Rc1
(13.Nc7+ Kf8 14.h4 (14.Nxa8 Nc2+ 6...Bh6 7.dxc5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Bxe3
15.Ke2 cxd4–+) 14...Qf4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.cxd5 9.fxe3²;
cxd4µ) 6...Nf6 7.c4 Qd6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Be2²
13...Qf4 14.g3 Qb8 15.a3 Na2 16.Ra1 a6 7.dxc5
16.Kf1
180
4 0-0
14...b5! 15.Nxb5
(15.Bc5 bxc4 16.Bxb4 cxb3 17.Bxe7 Re8
8.Na3 18.d6 Be6)
(8.Be3 Qa5 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Na3 0-0 11.Nc4 15...Nfxd5 16.Rxa7 Nxe3 17.Rxa8 Nxf1
Qc7 12.Qc1 Nd5 13.Bh6 e5=) 18.Kxf1 Ba6 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Nc3 Bxc4+
8...Nf6 9.Nb5 0-0 10.Be3 Qf5=; 21.bxc4 Nd3=
7.Na3 cxd4 8.Nb5 7...Qd8!
(8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nb5 0-0³)
8...Qd8! 9.Nfxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Nf6 The queen turns out to be happier on d8
11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qb4 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6 14.a3 than d6 because it won’t come under attack from
0-0 15.0-0 Nd5 16.Bc4 Bc6 17.Rd1 e6=; White’s Nb1–a3-b5 or Nf3-g5-e4.
7.Be3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Qa5 10.0-0 7...Qd6 8.d5 Nd4
181
(8...Ne5 9.Ng5! (9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Nc3 Nf6
11.Bh6 Bd7 12.h3 0-0-0=) 9...Nh6
9.Nc3
10.Ne4 (10.Nc3 Nf5 11.Nge4 Qc7=)
10...Qb6 11.Nbc3 Nf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.b3 Nd4 9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.0-0
(13...Qd8 14.Bb2 b6 15.Qd2 Bb7 16.Rae1²) (10.Nd2 e5! (10...e6!? 11.Ne4 exd5
14.Bb2 Bd7 (14...f5 15.Na4±) 15.f4 f5 16.fxe5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kf8∞) 11.0-0 (11.f4 exf4
fxe4 17.e6±) 12.0-0 Ne7=) 11...Ne7 12.Re1 0-0 The position is
9.Nxd4! rich, and offers mutual chances. 13.Bf1 b6 14.a4
(9.Nc3 Nxf3+ 10.Bxf3 Nh6 11.0-0 Nf5„) Nf5 15.a5
9...cxd4 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Na3!
183
As in the Breyer Variation of the Maroczy, 31...f3!! 32.gxf3 Qf4 33.Qb7 Rab8
Black’s knight on d4 is a nuisance for White to 34.Nxe6 Rxb7 35.Nxf4 Rxe1+ 36.Rxe1 gxf4=
play around. The following variations illustrate 22...Bxd4
some possible ways the game might continue, but
in general Black can probably just figure things
out over the board from here. The position is
roughly equal.
15.Rc1
184
5
185
said, I recommend 5...Nc6 because I don’t like (12.Be2 Rd8=) 12...Rd8 13.Qe2 Nd5 14.d4 cxd4
Black’s position after 5...Bg7 6.Nbd2! which is not 15.Ncxd4 Nxd4 16.cxd4 Bf6!= (16...e6? 17.Bg5²);
the case here, so some readers may prefer to allow b) 9.Nb5 0-0 10.Re1 Rd8 11.d4 Bg4! 12.h3
this line rather than allowing a delayed Rossolimo Bh5!
with 3...Nc6.
6.Bc4 This is Sveshnikov’s
recommendation (following up with: 6...Qe4+
7.Be2). 6...Qe4+ 7.Be2
a) 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Bxe2 (8.Kxe2 a6!=)
8...Nf6 9.d4 (9.Nb5 Nd5=) 9...cxd4 10.Nxd4 0-0
11.0-0 Rd8 12.Rd1 Bd7 13.Bf3 Nc6=;
b) 7.Kf1 Be6 8.Be2 Nc6 9.Ng5 Qf5
10.Nxe6 Qxe6 11.Qb3 Qd7=;
7...Nf6 8.0-0
7.Bc4
13.fxe3 Nc6=
13...Qf4 14.d5 exd5 15.Bxd5 Na6 16.Rc1
Qf6=
187
188
6 whatsoever. 5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Nxd8 7.Nd4 Bg7
8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Rd1
Nxd4 12.cxd4 f5 13.Nc3 Ke6! 14.d5+ Kf7=;
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Nc6 5.exd5 Qxd5 This transposes to 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Nc6.)
5...cxd4 6.cxd4 Bg4 Black has ideas of
...Qd8-b6, ...Ng8-h6-f5, etc. The position plays
itself. 7.Be2
a) 7.Nbd2 Nh6 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Nxf3 Nf5
10.Qa4 (10.g4 Ng7=) 10...a6 11.Bd3 Qd7 12.Bxf5
Qxf5 13.Qb3 Qd7=;
b) 7.Bb5 Qb6 8.Bxc6+ Qxc6 9.0-0 e6
10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Bg7 12.Nc3 Ne7 13.Bg5 Nf5
14.Ne2 h6 15.Bd2 0-0=;
7...Nh6 8.Nbd2
189
Black is ready to set up the ‘V’-structure 9.e5
with ...h7-h5, and it is unclear whether White has (9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 cxd4 11.cxd4 g5 12.Bg3
anything other than defensive ambitions. Nh5„)
4...Bg7 9...Nd5 10.c4 Nc7 11.dxc5 Qxc5 12.b3 d6
13.Bb2 Bg4=;
5.Bxc6?! This is premature, as Black
planned to expend a tempo next move with ...a7-a6
inducing White to take on c6. 5...dxc6=
5...a6!
5.0-0
190
6...dxc6! 18.Nc4 Nxd4 19.Bxe7 Qd5 20.Bxf8 Rxf8
21.Nxd4
White wishes the c-pawn were on c2; on c3 (21.Ne1 c5³)
it obstructs the natural square for the knight, and 21...Bxd4=;
also weakens the d3-square. The only way for 7.d4?! cxd4 8.cxd4 Bg4 9.Nbd2 Qxd4!
White to make sense of his position is to play for 10.Qb3 Qd7 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.f3 Qd4+ 13.Kh1 Bc8
d2-d4. 14.Rd1 Qa7³
6...bxc6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 0-0 7...Bg4!? 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nf6
10.Re1 d6 11.h3 Rb8 12.Qc2 Qb6 13.b3²
7.d3 9...e5 10.a4 a5 11.Na3 Ne7 12.Be3 b6
13.Nc4 0-0 14.Qg3 f6 15.Rfd1²
7.h3 Qd3! 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Re3 Qd8 10.d4 0-0 10.Rd1 0-0 11.d4 cxd4 12.cxd4
11.Nbd2 cxd4 12.cxd4
191
hole on d5. For his part, White will seek
dark-squared holes like d6 and c5 for his knight,
but Black’s dark squared bishop can protect these
squares, whereas White’s dark-bishop cannot
protect White’s corresponding weaknesses on the
light squares.
14...f5!? 15.e5 Nb5 16.Nb3 e6 17.Nc5 f4
18.Bc1 Nxd4 19.Qe4 Qe7∞
15.Rac1 f5 16.e5 Nb5 17.Qf4
17.Nc4? f4!µ
17...Nc7 18.Nc4 Nd5 19.Qf3 Rf7=
192
AFTERWORD suited me perfectly: not only was it full of new
ideas, and I was pretty sure I would surprise some
of my opponents, but it is also much easier to
remember than most openings.
The reason for this chapter is to show off
the impact that Raja’s book has had in just one
year since its publication. I have selected eleven
Celebrating Raja’s Contributions: games involving Grandmasters, including four of
A Year in Review, by GM Romain Edouard my own, all played after the publication of Raja’s
book, in variations Raja recommends. Some of
Raja’s most powerful novelties from the book
have now been played, for example his 10...d6! In
the Breyer Maroczy (see Andersen-Demuth 2018)
We initiated discussions with Raja about and 12...h5! followed by 13...e6! in the ‘Panjwani
the idea of a book on the Hyper Accelerated System’ of the 7.Bc4 variation (see
Dragon during the Reykjavik Open in 2014 (we Petrov-Kapnisis 2017). Still, some of the most
noticed his original handling of the opening from original ideas of the book have not yet been tested
some of his games), and it took us two full years to in practice; for example, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4
finalize a mutually agreeable contract. We had a cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Nc2 e6!?.
great feeling about Raja, who was writing In his Introduction Raja predicted a bright
excellently in our correspondences, well trained by future for the Accelerated Dragon, and that it
his studies at Oxford University. Still, he had would take its place among other respectable
never written any chess book and wasn’t a GM yet Sicilians. This seems to be happening already:
(though he has completed his GM norms since who would have thought that Sveshnikov Sicilian
writing his book) — which means he was players such as Boris Gelfand would consistently
relatively unknown to our European audience. meet the anti-Sveshnikov 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3
However, after Raja sent me a sample of his work, with 3...g6! and enter into a favorable Accelerated
I immediately asked our Managing Director, Dragon (since the Maroczy is no longer possible)?
Daniel Vanheirzeele, to try to find an agreement Of course, everything has not been rosy; whenever
with him, as I judged the material outstanding. a serious theoretical work like Raja’s is completed,
I was very happy when a deal was finally analysts rush to find improvements and new
signed, and continued being pleased with the challenges.
material I was receiving from Raja. Besides the Several new systems for White have been
great quality of the contents, I was also impressed introduced into practice in many respects as a
how clean his delivered work was — making my response to Raja’s work. For example, one of
managing editor’s job way easier, as I did not have these is the so-called ‘10.h3 line’ in the Maroczy:
to do too many edits before sending the material to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6
our typesetter! As a company, we are very proud 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.h3!?.
of the final product: Raja’s book has met and far Canadian Grandmaster Kevin Spraggett (a former
exceeded our already high hopes, and reviews coach of Raja’s) published some preliminary
have been overwhelmingly positive. analysis on his blog, and readers are invited to
In addition to being a success for Thinkers, search for improvements for both sides. I have
and a success for Raja, on a more personal note I recently played this line myself with White. When
have benefitted from Raja’s book in my own I asked Raja his thoughts on this system he
games. I like to be able to change my openings admitted it is currently a serious challenge (though
from time to time, especially from the black side, not to the Breyer of course) but he also said that
but doing so has one big disadvantage: the more this is just ‘business as usual’ in research (chess or
openings you play, the less you tend to remember otherwise): for a certain period one variation looks
about them. Raja’s ‘revisited’ Accelerated Dragon threatening, then computers continue to improve
193
and new ideas are found to combat it, as well as 12...Bb7
different move order nuances.
Raja also pointed to the recent trend in the I forgot that 12...e6 was Raja’s
Maroczy for Black players to play an early recommendation here, but my move is fine as
...Qd8-b6 as in 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 well.
Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Qb6!? with the idea that after 12...e6 13.a3 Bb7„ Raja gave this variation
7.Nb3 Qd8 White will either play 8.Nc3 and allow with the remark that “Superficial developing
8...Bxc3+!? or play 8.Qd2 in which case the 10.h3 moves on White’s part have allowed Black to take
line is no longer playable since the Queen goes to over the initiative: ...d7–d5 is now imminent”.
c2 in that line (so far White players have not tried 13.Qf2 b4 14.Na4 d5!
8.Qc2!?). He understands that many Black players
will be unhappy with a repetition out of the Black is already on the favorable side of
opening, but Raja has little sympathy for them, equality.
and he thinks that if White is strong enough and 15.exd5 Nxb3 16.d6 Qxd6
deeply prepared enough to play the 10.h3 line
successfully (it isn’t a piece of cake to convert the 16...exd6 Computers prefer this with a
slight edge White gets in those lines!) then Black slight edge for Black: 17.Nxb3 Nd5 18.Bd4 Bxd4
should not fear a repetition against such an 19.Rxd4 Rfe8³.
opponent (and such an opponent probably doesn’t 17.Nxb3 Qc7
want a repetition either!).
Take a look at some important games (in
chronological order) that were played throughout
the last year thanks to Raja’s book. You will also
discover a few slight improvements I’ve pointed
out. Enjoy!
1
K. Drozdowski (2461)
R. Edouard (2622)
Warsaw 2017
18...Nd5µ
19.Nd3 Nd5 20.Bd4 e5 21.Bc5 Rfb8³
194
14.Qf3 Nf4
14.gxh5!?
Black had every reason to avoid repetition White is the first to deviate from Raja’s
and play on himself. After all, Black is up a pawn. analysis in the book.
28...Qc7 14...Nxh5 15.Nde2 Ne5³ 16.Rh3?!
29.Bb6=
29...c5?
1–0
3 16...Rfc8
M. Petrov (2426)
S. Kapnisis (2469) 16...d5! 17.exd5 exd5µ 18.Nxd5? Bxd5
Athens 2017 19.Bxd5 Rfd8! 20.Qb4 Rac8 21.Nc3 Nf6 22.Qb3
(22.Bb3 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Qd7+–+) 22...b4–+
17.Bd4 Qb8?!
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 Too slow. Very strong was 17...b4 18.Na4
Qc7 10.Qd2 b5 11.0-0-0 Bb7 12.h4 h5 13.g4 e6 a5! 19.Nb6
196
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6
5.e4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4
9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 b6!?
18.Qg5!?²
18...Nc4 As I had tried the more solid 11...d6
earlier, I decided to surprise my opponent with this
fresh alternative suggested by Raja, which I
considered very reliable.
12.Ne2 Ne6 13.Qd2 Bb7 14.f3 f5 15.Rad1
Qf6
19.Bxc4 Rxc4?
21.Rfe1 d3!=
20.c5+ Rf7 21.cxd6 Rxc1 22.Bxc1 Be5²
½–½
6
198
O. Kurmann (2467) Bf4 is why Black must sacrifice with 15...Nxe4!!]
A. Demuth (2547) 15...Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Bxb2 17.Rd1
Bad Ragaz 2018 (17.Rb1?! Ba3 18.0-0! Be6µ) 17...Be6 18.Qxc5
Qxc5 19.Bxc5 Bf6 20.Bxe6 fxe6=
12...Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5µ 14.Qxb4 Nxb3
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 15.Qxb3 Rb8 16.Qa2
5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 a6 9.f3
Qc7 10.Qd2 b5 11.a4 b4
16...Qa5+
18...Qxb2?!
0–1
7
L. Bruzon Batista (2673) 18.Bxd4
R. Edouard (2612)
Saint Louis 2018 18.exf5 Nxf5=
18...fxe4
1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 An important inbetween move.
5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 18...exd4 19.exf5 gxf5 Black ’s kingside
9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d6 12.Qd2 Be6 13.b3 (pawns) are broken. 20.Rde1±
a6 14.Rad1 19.Bxe5 Bxe5 20.Bxe4 Qg4! 21.Rde1?!
14...Qd7
200
22.g3 32.Rc2 Qe3+?!
22.h3 Rf4 Black has full compensation: in I could have instead posed serious
such opposite color bishop positions, the pawn problems with 32...Rf8! 33.Rd2 (33.Rf2 Qa1+
count is less important than the activity of the 34.Kg2 Rxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Qxa2+µ) 33...Rf5! 34.Kg2
pieces. 23.Bc2 Raf8 24.Re2 Bd4 25.Kg1 Bc5= h5 35.Qd4 Kg7 36.Qxe5+ Rxe5µ White’s rook is
22...Bxg3! 23.fxg3 Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Qxe4+ passive; Black will probably end up winning the
25.Qg2 d5 pawn and retain practical winning chances.
33.Qxe3 Rxe3 34.Kf2
½–½
201
18...Bxf4! This is the best way for Black to
equalize. In general Black is happy to exchange
these dark-squared bishops; as long as White has
nothing immediate then Black’s sounder pawn
structure and dark square control will tell.
[18...Qb6+?! This was Raja’s
recommendation, which has now been corrected.
19.Kh1 Bxf4 20.Rxf4 Qxb2 21.Rc2 Qb6
202
20.Nd5 (20.Rf1 Be6 21.Nxa4 Qa5 22.b3 22...f6 23.exf6 exf6 24.Qh4 Kg7 25.Nxc5
Nxc4 23.Bxc4 Bxc4 24.Rxc4 b5 25.Rd4 bxa4 h5 26.h3 Bf5 27.Nxa4 Qd4 28.Rc7+ Kh6 29.Qxd4
26.bxa4 Rab8=; 20.Nxa4 Bd7 21.Nc3 Qb6+ Rxd4 30.Nc3²
22.Kh1 Qxb2 23.Rc2 Qa3³) 20...Be6 21.Nf6+ Kg7 17...Nxb6 18.f4
22.Qd4 Qc7=
16.Qxd4 Qb6 18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.cxd5 e6 20.Rc7 exd5
21.exd5 Bf5! 22.Rxb7?! Rfb8 23.Rb5 Bd7!
24.Rxb8+ Rxb8³
18...Be6 19.Nb5 Rfc8 20.b3 axb3 21.axb3
17.Qxb6
9
Wei Yi (2734)
S. Shankland (2671)
Liaocheng 2018
203
1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4
5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 a6 9.0-0
Unnecessarily direct.
27...Rec8 28.Qxb4 axb4 29.Rd2 Rc2
30.Rfd1 Kg7µ
28.Rxd2 a4 29.Re1 Kf8³
10...d6!N
Shank land slowly loses his way, I give the This is the first published game with Raja’s
rest of the game without notes since this is not novelty. As he mentions in his book though, he
meant to be a discussion on rook endings. played it twice in unpublished tournament games
36...Rb7 37.Kg2 Rcb5 38.Rdd3 Ke8 (wins) against GM Gorovets and WGM Nemcova.
39.Rf3 Rc5 40.Rd2 Rbb5 41.Rfd3 Kd7 42.Rf3 f6 11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Bxd4 Qa5+ 13.Ke2 Be5
43.Rfd3 Ke8 44.Kh2 Kf7 45.Kg2 f5 46.f4 Kf6 14.f3 f5
47.Kf2 Rb4 48.Re2 Re4?! 49.Kf3 Rxe2
50.Kxe2= Rc2+ 51.Ke3 e5 52.dxe6 Kxe6 53.Kd4
d5? 54.Rc3!± Rd2+ 55.Ke3? Rg2 56.Kd4 Rd2+
57.Kc5! d4 58.Rf3 Rd1 59.Kc4 Kd6 60.Rd3 Re1
61.Rxd4+ Kc6 62.Rd3 Re4+ 63.Rd4 Re3 64.Rd3
Re4+ 65.Kc3 Kc5 66.Kd2 Kb4 67.Re3 Rd4+
68.Rd3 Re4 69.Rd6 g5 70.hxg5 h4 71.gxh4 Rxf4
72.h5 Rh4 73.h6 Rh5 74.Rd8
1–0
10
M. Andersen (2589)
A. Demuth (2538)
Berlin 2018
15.exf5
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 15.Qd3 Raja gives this as his main line.
5.e4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4 15...Bxf5 16.Kf2 0-0-0
9.Qd1 e5
16...0-0!? Panjwani.
I can testify that Adrien played this line 17.Rc1
thanks to Raja. He had bought the book a couple
205
17.Be2? Bc2!³ Panjwani.
17...Kb8 18.Be2 Rhe8
22...Rde8?!
½–½
11
A. Pichot (2564)
R. Panjwani (2456)
Montevideo 2018
206
19.Bxe5 dxe5
For the final game of this chapter I decided
to include one of Raja’s from the recent
tournament where he achieved his final
Grandmaster norm. Even after publishing all his
analysis for the public, he still trusted his pet
system in an important encounter with GM Pichot!
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6
5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4 8.Qxg4 Nxd4
9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 d6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qd2 Be6
20...Qa5!=
20...d3∞
21.Qe7 Rfe8 22.Qg5 b4! 23.Qg4 Rac8
24.Bd3 Rc3 25.Bc4 Qf5
16.Qb4
25...Kh8! Black can try for an advantage:
16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bf4 Qb6 18.Qb4 Be5 in such opposite colored bishop endgames it is
207
often favorable to sacrifice a pawn for activity. ½–½
26.Bxe6 d3 27.Rad1 Rd8 28.Bc4 d2³
26.Qxf5
208
209