�

CllessStilrs
',('jill/PI'

Chess Stars
www.chess-stars.com
Editorial Panel: GM K.Landa, GM M.Makarov
GM R.Ovetchkin
1M I.Smikovski, 1M S.Soloviov

Technical Editor: 1M Semko Semkov

Translation by: GM Evgeny Ermenkov

Author Khalifman's photograph by Elisabeth Karnazes

Cover design by Kalojan Nachev

Copyright © Alexander Khalifman 2007

Printed in Bulgaria by "Chess Stars" Ltd. - Sofia

ISBN13: 978954878264-7
 Opening for White According to
Anandl.e4

Book X

1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3

Chelyabinsk Variation

Alexander Khalifman
14th World Chess Champion
Bibliography

The Complete Sveshnikov Sicilian by Yakovich, Gambit 2005

The Sveshnikov Reloaded by Rogozenko, Quality Chess 2005

Other CHESS STARS books

Repertoire books:
Opening for White According to Kramnik l.Nf3 by Khalifman
Volume 1a: Old Indian, rare lines in the Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 1b: The Classical Variation, 2006
Volume 2 : Anti-Nirnzo-Indian, Anti-Queen's Indian, English, Knight Tango
Volume 3 : Maroczy, English (1 . . . c5), Modern, Dutch
Volume 4: Queen's Gambit Accepted, Slav, Semi-Slav
Volume 5: Queen's Gambit Declined

Opening for White According to Anand 1.e4 by A. Khalifman

Volume 1: Petroff, Ruy Lopez without 3 . . . a6
Volume 2 : Ruy Lopez with 3 . . . a6
Volume 3: Caro -Kann; 1 . . . c6, 2 . . . g6
Volume 4: 1. . . d6, 1.. .g6 . . . and others
Volume 5: Alekhine's Defence, 1 . . .b6 and other rare lines
Volume 6: The French Defence 3.Nc3 dxe4, 3 . . . Nf6, 2006
Volume 7: The French Defence 3.Nc3 Bb4, 2006
Volume 8 : The Sicilian, Paulsen-Kan and rare lines
Volume 9: Kalashnikov, Taimanov, Paulsen and others
Opening for Black According to Karpov by Khalifman
Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Catalan, English, Reti
Current theory and practice series:
The Queen's Gambit Accepted by Sakaev and Semkov
An Expert's Guide to the 7.Bc4 Gruenfeld by Sakaev, 2006
Challenging the Sicilian with 2.a3 ! by Bezgodov
The Safest Sicilian by Delchev and Semkov, 2006
The Sharpest Sicilian by Kiril Georgiev and At. Kolev, 2007
Games collections

More details at www.chess-stars.com

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Part 1. Rare Lines

l.e4 c5 VM3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3

1 various without 5 . . . e5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0
2 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 various; 7 . . . a6 8.lLla3 without 8 . . . ie6
and 8 . . . b5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
3 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 5 . . . e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 various;
9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Part 2. Chelyabinsk Variation

1.e4 c5 2 .lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4 lLlf6 5.lLlc3 e5 6.lLldb5 d6 7.ig5 a6
8.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 ie7 1O.hf6 ixf6 11.c3

5 various without 11...lLle7, 11 . . . ig5 and 11 . . . 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6 11. . . lLle7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7 11 . . . ig5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8
8 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 various without 12 .. J�b8 and 12 . . . ig5 . . . . . . 1 0 6
9 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
10 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 �b8 ;
13 . . . bxa4 14.�xa4 without 14 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
11 11 ... 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 various . . . 149 .

12 11 . . . 0-0 12. lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 id7 . . . . . . 158
13 11 . . . 0-0 12.lLlc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�xa4 as 15.ic4 �b8 . . . . . . . 175

Index of Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8

5
 Preface

Dear readers,

You are holding in your hands book ten of the series "Opening
for White According to Anand - l.e4". It is devoted mostly to the
Sveshnikov system, which is also popularly named as the Chelyabinsk
variation. Naturally, it is worth remembering that the move 5 . . . e7-e5
was played for the first time back in the year 1910 by great Lasker and
this opening system changed its name numerous times throughout the
years. The theory of that variation started developing rapidly during
the 70ies of the last century, thanks to the efforts of Evgeny Svesh­
nikov, Gennadij Timoscenko and Alexander Panchenko (They all lived
in the city of Chelyabinsk during those years.) and it seemed that the
contemporary name should be most appropriate and logical.

In fact, starting from the seventies of the 20th century, the Chelyab­
insk variation has never lost its popularity. The evaluation of that open­
ing system has fluctuated between "100% reliable" to "almost refuted";
nevertheless, its theory has been developing intensely. Recently, the
"anti-Chelyabinsk" systems - 3.ib5 and 3.lt:lc3 are becoming top fash­
ion and that only proves that the Chelyabinsk variation should be taken
quite seriously. Practically all the best chess players of the world have
contributed to the theory of that variation and the majority of them for
both sides at that.

Well, if we follow strictly the classical principles, it would hardly

be possible to classify Black's set-up as positionally correct. It looks
like White's undisputed dominance over the d5-outpost should pro­
vide him with a stable advantage. Still, things are much more complex
in practice. Amazingly enough, Black always finds resources for ac­
tive counterplay based on some already typical strategical maneuvers
around White's basic outpost on d5.

6
 My work with this book was a rather complicated task by itself. My
colleagues asked me often (sometimes ironically, sometimes with gen­
uine interest) whether I had managed to refute the Chelyabinsk varia­
tion and when that refutation would be published? Here, I must admit:
no, I have not refuted the Chelyabinsk variation. Frankly speaking, I
have not even tried to do that. As far as my experience and my under­
standing of chess are concerned, Black's opening set-up has a sound
strategical basis and it can never be refuted outright. Having that in
mind, I decided to try something different and that was to systematize
the amassed material and knowledge and to point out the most un­
pleasant lines for Black.

In the first part of our book, we have analyzed some lines, which
do not belong exactly to the Chelyabinsk variation (That is some rare
tries for Black on move five after l.e4 c5 ViJf3 llJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.llJxd4
llJf6 5.llJc3.), as well as some not so popular sidelines of the Sveshnikov
variation. All these opening systems have long been outside of the fa­
vourable recommendations of theory and quite deservedly so. We did
not need to add anything principally new, but still White should play
very precisely. I hope that we have pointed out clear-cut and logical
ways of obtaining the advantage for White in the opening.

The second part of the book comprises in fact its focus in the aspect
of common sense. It deals with positions, which are being tested prac­
tically every month at all possible levels of competition. I agree com­
pletely with the majority of the grandmasters, who consider that the
greatest problems which Black must face nowadays in the Chelyabinsk
variation are in the system 5 . . . e5 6.llJdb5 d6 7.ig5 a6 8.llJa3 b5 9.llJd5
ie7 1O.hf6 hf6 1l.c3. I have not tried to change radically any theo­
retical evaluations, but I have managed to discover some new ideas and
I have to tell you that Black will need to solve difficult problems after
them.

AKhalifman
14th World Chess Champion

7
 Part!

1.e4 c5 2 . tLlf3 tLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tLlxd4 tLlf6 S.tLlc3

rare 5th moves for Black

S . . . eS 6.tLldbS d6 7.igS

rare o;th moves for Black

7. . . a6 8.tLla3 ie6; 8 . . . bS 9.tLldS

rare 9th moves for Black

9 . . . ie7 10.ixf6 gxf6

ed to. We deal with some rarely

Black has not made up his
mind yet what system of develop­
ment he will choose. He can still
play the Dragon variation or the
Scheveningen, but usually he opts
for that move order if he plans
to continue with the system S . . .
d 6 (We will analyze i t i n our next
volumes.), or with S . . . eS and that
is the system this book is devot-
played original lines in chapter 1
and several of them are quite ac­
ceptable for Black, despite looking
a bit extravagant, like for example
S . . J�!b8 ! ?
Following S . . .e S 6.llJdbS d6
7. .!gS, there arises the thematic
position of the Chelyabinsk varia­
tion, which can also be reached
via other move orders (for ex­
ample S . . . e6 6.llJdbS d6 7 . .!f4 eS
8 . .!gS). White obtains the dS-out­
post at a very early stage of the
game, but one of his knights after
7 ... a6 8.llJa3, remains temporarily
out of action.
The awkward placement of
White's pieces makes the Black

8
player reach almost automatically
for his b-pawn in that position.
He has some other possibilities
too and we analyze them in Chap­
ters 2 and 3. They are playable
too; nevertheless, White does not
have too many problems counter­
ing them.
In fact, only the move B . . . 1e6
requires certain precision from
White. After 9.tLlc4 l3cB 1O.1xf6 ,
following 1O . . .YlYxf6 1l.tLlb6, as
well as after lO . . .gxf6 1l.1d3 and
tLle3, Black comes under a long­
term positional bind.
In Chapter 4, we deal with
Black's last attempts to avoid the
main "tabia". The variation B . . . b5
9.tLld5 YNa5+ 1O.1d2 YlYdB, often
leads to a draw by a repetition
of moves (1l.1g5), but that does
not correspond to the objective
evaluation of the position. In case
of 1l.c4 ! , White seizes the initia­
tive and Black must play very
precisely in order to avoid the
worst.
As for the variation 9 . . . 1e7
1O.1xf6 gxf6, it has been practi­
cally closed. Black's bishop on e7
is deployed much worse than on
the long diagonal, so that move
order has disappeared from tour­
nament practice lately.
9
Chapter l l.e4 c5 2.tl)f3 tl)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.tl)xd4
tl)f6 5.tl)c3

and it has not been tested in prac­

In this chapter, we will discuss
some rarely played lines like: a)
5 ••• tOxd4, b) 5 ••• �c7, c) 5 .l:�b8
••
and d) 5 a6 . .••
The other possibilities for
Black usually transpose to po­
sitions we have already stud­
ied, for example: S . . . dS? ! 6.ibS
id7 7.exdS tOxd4 B.,hd7+ �xd7
9.�xd4 - see 4 . . . dS, Book 9,
Chapter 1; S . . .'IWaS 6.tOb3 �c7 7.f4
and S . . . 1&b6 6.ttJb3 lead to 4 . . . 1&b6
- Book 9, Chapter 2 .
a) 5 ••. tOxd4
This exchange is somewhat
premature and White centralizes
immediately his queen after it,
forcing his opponent to consider
the threat e4-eS.
6.�xd4�6
That move is not so aesthetic
tice. Still, it is quite consistent in a
way with Black's idea to seek sim­
plifications.
The other possibilities for
Black are at least not worse: 6 . . .
d6 7.ig5 leads t o the Rauzer sys­
tem, in a favourable situation for
White, because his queen has
come to the d4-square without
losing a tempo for the move �d2
- see 2 . . . d6 ; It is not good for
Black to play 6 . . . e6? 7.eS± Burke
- Calton, Flint 1992; after 6 . . . g6? !
White can follow with 7.eS tOh5
B.e6 ig7 9.ext7+ mxt7 10 .ic4+
e6 1l.�d3;!; Drbohlav - Krupkova,
Czech Republic 1999, but it is even
stronger for him to continue with
7.ic4 ! and if 7 . . . ig7, then B.eS
ttJgB, Kraft - Roesner, Germany
1994 (B . . . tOhS? 9.g4+-) 9. 0-0±
White ends up with a great lead in
development.
7.�xb6 axb6 8.e5 tOg4
9.f4±
(diagram)
White has a great space ad­
vantage in the centre, while Black
has long-term weaknesses on
the queenside and that provides

10
 l.e4 c5 2. CiJj3 CiJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. CiJxd4 CiJf6 5. CiJc3
White with a clear edge in the
endgame.
b) 5 Vfc7
•••
Black might have planned to
transpose to the Paulsen varia­
tion in that fashion, but it turns
out that the absence of the move
e7-e6 would not remain unpun­
ished.
6. tOdb5 !
White seizes the initiative.
6 ,..Vfb8
In case of 6 . . . Vfd8 7.tOd5 lLlxd5
8.exd5 a6 9.CiJc3 lLle5, White can
afford to continue with 10.f4
lLlg6 11.,ie3 d6 12.Vfd2 id7 13.
O-O-O± Berger - Badilles, Ma­
nila 1968.
7.tOd5 tOxd5 8.exd5 a6
That move restricts White's
possibilities a bit.
After 8 . . . lLle5, besides 9.ie2 a6
10.CiJc3 - see 8 . . . a6, White has the
resource 9.d6 ! ? exd6 1 O .f4 lLlc6 11.
,ic4 ie7 12. 0-0t Lisitsyn - Troit­
sky, Leningrad 1938. There arises
an analogous situation after 8 . . .
lLld8 - White has the pleasant
choice between 9.,ie3 a6 1O.CiJc3
- see 8 . . . a6 and the more aggres­
sive line: 9.d6 ! ? lLle6, Petrosian
- Bakhtadze, Tbilisi 1945, 10.ie3
a6 1l.lLlc3 1];Yxd6 12.1];Yxd6 exd6
13.a4±
9.lLlc3 lLle5
Black can hardly be happy af­
ter the passive move 9 . . . CiJd8, Or­
venyi - Steiner, Budapest 193 2 , in
view of 1O.ie3 e6 11.Wfd2±, while
after 9 . . . CiJe5, there arises a posi­
tion played for the first time in the
game Malmdin - Andersson,
Stockholm 1970 . White did not
act so convincingly later and the
same thing happened in some
other games subsequently. It is
quite easy to find an improvement
for White.
lO .ie2 !
This flexible move is definitely
the best here. White continues the
mobilization of his forces, paying
11
Chapter 1
attention to the actions of his op­
ponent.
10 ••• e6
The line 10 . . . g6? 1l.f4+- loses
a piece for Black. In case of lO . . . d6
11.f4 lLld7 (11 . . . lLlg6 12 . .te3±) 12.
.!e3 g6 (12 ... lLlf6 13.lLla4±) 13 . .td4
lLlf6 14.lLla4± the weakness of the
b6-square is considerable, while
after 10 . . . %l'c7, White has the pow­
erful response 11.%l'd4 ! ±, after
which Black has problems with
his development.
11. Vd4! lLlg6
Black's defence is difficult too
after 1l . . . b5 12.0-0 .!b7 13.l3dl±
12 .te3 e5
• It is not easy to understand
If 12 . . . %l'e5, then White should
better avoid the exchange with
13.%l'd2±, because Black's queen is
misplaced in the centre and it will
soon come under attack by White
with tempi.
13.Vd3 b5
Or 13 . . . .!e7 14.lLla4±
14. 0 - 0 - 0 d6 15.h4±
White has excellent middle
game prospects. The advance of
his h-pawn will emphasize the
unstable placement of his oppo-
12
nent's knight on g6; meanwhile
Black has not completed the de­
velopment of his pieces yet and he
risks coming under attack.
c) 5 . . . gb8
that move, but it cannot be refut­
ed either. White's task is to con­
tinue in a way Black's fifth move
might become useless.
6 .!e3
•
Black would not mind the
lines : 6 . .te2 e5 7.lLldb5 d6oo, or
6.lLlxc6 bxc6 7.e5 lLl d5 ! 8.lLlxd5
cxd5 9.%l'xd5 .tb'Too
6 . . . a6
If 6 . . . e5? ! , then 7.lLldb5± and
White is threatening to capture
on a7 as well as to penetrate with
the knight to the d6-square.
In the game Apicella - Murey,
Paris 1992, Black played 6 . . . e6,
but White should have countered
that with 7.lLldb5 ! .tb4 (In case
of 7 . . . %l'a5 8.f3 d5, White has the
powerful maneuver 9 . .tf4 ! e5
10 . .td2±, with a great advantage.)
8.a3 hc3+ 9.lLlxc3± White has an
excellent couple of bishops.
 l.e4 c5 2. Ci:Jj3 Ci:Jc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. Ci:Jxd4 Ci:Jf6 5. Ci:Jc3
After 6 . . . d6 7 . .te2 g6 8.0-0
.tg7 9.f4t Raetsch - Fronczek,
Bad Segeberg 2002, there arises
a position similar to the Dragon
variation, in which Black has lost
a tempo for the not so useful move
gb8.
7 .ie2 e5
•
Black lags in development, so
he should better refrain from the
line: 7 . . . d5 8.exd5 Ci:Jxd5 9.Ci:Jxd5
\Wxd5 1O.0-0±
S. Ci:Jb3 d6
White should be more than
happy after 8 . . . .ib4 9.,if3t
9. 0 - 0
In the game Borocz - Meszaros,
Szekszard 1995, White played
9.a4, but he did not need to be
afraid of the move b7-b5 .
9 • . • .te7 1 0 .\Wd2t
That is a typical Sicilian posi­
tion, but the purposefulness of the
move gb8 is rather questionable.
White's prospects are better.
d) 5 ••• a6
The drawback of that move is
that Black does not control the
central e5-square and White can
exploit that immediately.
6. Ci:Jxc6!
We will analyze both possible
captures: dl) 6 dxc6 and d2)
•••
6 bxc6.
•••
dl) 6 ••• dxc6
In this line, the opponents
enter an endgame right after the
opening. White is better, because
Black's king impedes the develop­
ment of his pieces, meanwhile his
queenside pawn structure is not
without defects.
7.\WxdS + c.txdS S .tf4 •
S . . . e6
It is only a transposition of
moves after 8 . . . c.te8 9.0-0-0 and
there might follow: 9 . . . e6 - see
8 . . . e6; 9 . . . Ci:Jh5 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jh5; 9 . . .
b5 - see 8 . . . b5; 9 . . . !e6 - see 8 . . .
,ie6 ; 9 . . . Ci:Jd7 - see 8 . . . Ci:Jd7.
It is too risky for Black to play:
13
Chapter 1

B . . . ll:\hS 9.0-0-0+ .td7, Seibold Neuquen 1992, 13 . .te3±. It is

- Neukum, Nuernberg 19BB (If more precise for Black to opt for
9 . . . 'i!?eB, then 10 . .tc7 ie6 1l.ll:\a4 9 . . . 'i!?eB, but then again lO.eS and
�cB 12 .iaS± German - Bertoni, if 10 . . . gS ! ? (or lO . . . e6 11 . .te2 .te7
Buenos Aires 1994), because of 12.ll:\e4 ll:\fB 13.h4 ll:\g6 14 . .tg3±
lO .ll:\a4! bS (or lO . . . ll:\xf4 11.ll:\b6±; Molnar - Kovacev, Kecskemet
10 . . . 'i!?eB 1l.ll:\b6 ig4 12.f3 �dB 1990) 11.hgS ll:\xeS, Krebs -
13.�xdB + 'i!?xdB 14.ie3 .te6 15. Kluss, Germany 19B7, then White
ic4±) 11.ll:\b6 �a7 12 . .te3± can maintain his initiative with
Black would not solve his the help of 12.ll:\a4 ! ? if5 (or 12 . . .
problems if he fianchettoes his ll:\d7 13.ie3 b S 14.ll:\c3;!;) 13.h3
king's bishop: B . . . ie6 9. 0-0-0+ �gB 14.ie3;!;
'i!?eB lO ..te2 g6 11.a4 hS 12.aS ih6 9. 0 - 0 - 0 + 'i!?e8
13.hh6 �xh6 14.f3 �dB IS.ll:\a4± It is not logical for Black to
Socko - Lazar, Bastia 2 0 05. play: 9 . . . id7 lO.ll:\a4 bS l1.ll:\b6 �a7
White is clearly better af­ 12.f3 icS 13.ll:\xd7 �xd7 14.id3±
ter B . . . bS 9.0-0-0+ ll:\d7 (If 9 . . . R.Fischer - Kuberczyk, Cleveland
'i!?eB, a s i t was played i n the game 1964 - World Champion obtained
Kononen - Vuorimies, Finland the two-bishop advantage and he
2003, then White could have won the game subsequently.
chosen lO.eS ! ? ll:\g4 1l.ll:\e4 .tfS In the game Kurenkov -
12 .id3 �dB 13 . .tg3±) lO.eS e6 Jemelka, Olomouc 2 0 03, Black
11.ll:\e4 h6 12.ie2 'i!?c7 13.ll:\d6 tried 9 . . . ll:\d7 lO .ie2 .tcS 11 . .tg3
ixd6 14.�xd6± Navara - Dalecky, bS. Here White should have con­
Czech Republic 1997. tinued with 12.eS ! ? 'i!?c7 13.ll:\e4 ie7
The best alternative for Black 14.ll:\d6± with a clear advantage.
to the main line B . . . e6 is the move 1 0 .ie2;!;
B . . . ll:\d7, which is aimed at the
preparation of the pawn-advance
e7-eS. White can refute that plan
with the move 9.0-0-0 with the
idea to follow with e4-eS. Now
after 9 .. .f6, White has lO.eS and
it would be in his favour if Black
plays lO . . . e6 1l . .tc4 'i!?e7 12.exf6+
gxf6, Semeniuk - Danielian, Vla­
divostok 1994, 13.�hel eS (or 13 . . .
ll:\b6? 14.he6 ! he6 IS.�d6+-) The endgame is better for
14.ie3±, as well as 10 . . . 'i!?eB 11. White. After lO . . . bS (otherwise
exf6 gxf6 (or 1l ... exf6 12 . .tc4±) Black must consider the possibil­
12 . .te2 eS, Mavrich - Litovicius, ity ll:\a4) 11.�d3 (The third rank is

14
 l.e4 cS 2. liJj3 liJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. liJxd4 liJf6 S. liJ c3
an additional field of activity for
White's rook.) 1l . . .E!a7 (or 11.. .1c5.
12 .E:hd1.1b7 13.e5 liJd5 14.1g5;t
. -
and Black has great problems) in
the game Janssen - van der Wiel,
Netherlands 1978, White chose
12.1f3
. E:d7 13.E:hd1 .1e7 14.1d6, .
but Black could have countered
that with 14 . . . hd6 15.E:xd6 E:xd6
16.E:xd6 e5 ! = , taking into account
the fact that the c6-pawn was pro­
tected indirectly (17.E:xc6 @d7). It
is more precise for White to play
12.e5! liJd5 13.1d2. ! and despite
the fact that the position seems
to be relatively simple, Black has
difficult problems to solve, for
example: 13 . . . liJxc3 (otherwise
White deploys his knight to the
e4-outpost and he prepares grad-
ually c2-c4) 14.E:xc3 c5 (or 14 .. .
.1b4 15.E:xc6 @d7 16 .1e3±; . 14 . . .
E:d7 15.E:xc6.1b7 16.1f3 . !±) 15 .1e3
. 8 :i�'f3 ! ?
E:c7 16.1f3
. b4 (Black has no other
counterplay left - you should not
forget that he has lost his castling
right already.) 17.E:d3 c4 18.1b6 . !
cxd3 19.hc7 dxc2 20.@xc2± -
White has good winning chances
in that endgame.
d2) 6 . . . bxc6
Black captures with his pawn
towards the centre, but he un­
avoidably loses tempi and that
leads him to a considerable lag in
development.
7.e5 tLJg8
In the variation 7 . . . liJd5? !
8.liJxd5 cxd5 9.'lMfxd5 E:b8 1O .1c4
.
e6 11.'lMfd4± Black has no compen­
sation for the pawn whatsoever,
Yahkind - Frawley, Plymouth
1984.
White plays more often here
8.1c4,
. but the move 8.�f3 ! ? is
also very interesting. In essence,
it is a prophylactic move. White
is eyeing the c6-pawn in order
to prevent the pawn-advance d7-
d5.
8 . . . e6
Black has nothing better. It is
good for him to opt neither for 8 . . .
d5? ! 9.exd6 'lMfxd6 10 .1f4 . e 5 (or
1O . . . 'lMfd7 1l.1c4±
. A.Potapov - Ka­
zantzis, Korinthos 2 0 00) 1l.'lMfe4
f6 12 .1c4±,
. nor for 8 . . . 'lMfc7? ! 9.1f4
.
e6 1O.liJe4± Recklingloh - Hisker,
Passau 1997.
9 .1d3 �c7
•
Following 9 . . . liJe7 1O.0-0 liJg6
15
Chapter 1

1l.VNhS;!; White maintains a stable

advantage.
1 0 . VNg3 tOe7
White is clearly better after
10 . . . dS 1l.exd6 VNxd6 12 . .tf4±
Martins - Andre, Internet 2001
and he can counter 1O . . .f6 with
the simple move 1l.f4±
11. 0 - 0 tOg6 12.f4;t;
(diagram)
White's eS-pawn cramps Black his camp, therefore the position
and if he pushes d7-d6, he would should be evaluated in favour of
only create new weaknesses in White.

Conclusion

The possibilities for Black, which we analyze in this chapter, are

played rather seldom in practice; therefore, White manages to obtain
a lasting opening advantage almost effortlessly.
Black plays a bit more often the move 5. . . a6, but after his oppo­
nent's concrete reaction 6.ltJxc6! dxc6 7.VNxd8+ �xd8 8. if4 or 6 . . .
bxc6 7.e5, w e have convinced you that White seizes the initiative for
long.

16
Chapter 2 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5
This move was discovered
by the second World Champion
Emmanuel Lasker, who tried it
back in the year 1910 against Karl
Schlechter in game nine of their
match for the world crown. White
did not react in the most princi­
pled fashion indeed - he played
6.lDb3, but it was a very interest­
ing game and after a lively fight, it
ended in a draw. The new idea did
not gain popularity outright and
for a period of several decades,
the variation was out of the tour­
nament practice. It came back
triumphantly during the 70ies of
the past century, when the system
with 5 . . . e5, was often and what is
even more important quite suc­
cessfully played by the grandmas­
ters from Chelyabinsk Evgenij
Sveshnikov and Gennady Timo­
scenko. Nowadays, this is one of
the most reliable systems in the
Sicilian Defence and its popular­
ity is surpassed only by the Naj­
dorf system.
The move 5 . . . e5 has a solid
positional basis - it wins a tempo
for development and it does not
let White obtain an advantage in
the centre. Black weakens the d5-
square indeed and that becomes
the key-point of the developing
fight.
6 . tLl db5 d6
The other possibilities for
Black - 6 . . . ib4+, 6 . . . ic5, 6 . h6
. .
and 6 . . . a6 - are clearly worse. In
that case, after transposition of
moves, it all comes down to varia­
tions, which we have analyzed in
Chapter 3 of the previous volume
(the system with the early 4 . . . e5)
- see the notes to Black's moves
5 and 7.
7.ig5
We will analyze now a) 7 •••
ie6 and b) 7 a6.•••
The alternatives are evidently
weaker:
17
Chapter 2
It is bad for Black to play
7 . . . h6? 8.,bf6 gxf6 9.tLJd5+­
Helmreich - Leibold, Germany
1986;
He loses a pawn without any
compensation after 7. . . i.e7? 8.
!xf6 gxf6 (8 ... i.xf6 9.tLJxd6+
@f8 1O.i.c4± Krumova - Villar,
Buenos Aires 1978) 9.tLJd5 0-0
(9 ... VNa5+ 1O.c3± Frank - Gertz,
Hessen 1990 ; 9 . . . @f8 1O.VNh5±
Hartl - Resch, Niederbayern
1995; 9 . . . l:3b8 1O.tLJbc7+ @f8 11.
VNh5± Gresser - Loeffler, Split
1963) 10.tLJxe7+ VNxe7 (1O . . . tLJxe7
11.\1;!fxd6 i.e6 12.\1;!fxd8 l:3fxd8 13.
tLJc7± Rigolot - Delivre, France
1999) I1.VNxd6. After 11 . . . VNxd6 (or
11 . . . l:3d8 12.VNxe7 tLJxe7 13.i.d3±
Schmidt - Baier, Strelasund 1997;
11 . . . .ie6 12 .\1;!fxe7 tLJxe7 13.0-0-0±
Arakhamia-Grant - Paraskevai­
dis, Lansing 1995) 12.tLJxd6 Black
fails to create any counterplay,
for example: 12 . . . J.e6 13.0-0-0±
Kosmac - Ristov, Kranj 2004;
12 ... l:3d8 13.0-0-0 tLJd4 14.tLJb5±
Diaz Joaquin - Strube, Hessen
1988; 12 . . . tLJd4 13. 0-0-0 .ig4
(about 13 . . . l:3d8 - see 12 . . . l:3d8)
14.l:3d3± Zaksaite - Zebelys, Rad­
viliskis 1995; 12 . . . tLJb4 13. 0-0-0 !
(White regains his extra pawn
quite favourably.) 13 . . . tLJxa2+
14.@bl tLJb4 (14 ... .ie6 15.c3±) 15.
J.c4 @g7, Papp - Nagy, Szeged
1998 (15 . . . tLJc6 16J3d3± Korniyuk
- Brozhik, Kiev 2 0 05) 16.c3 tLJc6
17.l:3d3± - and White maintains a
great advantage in all these varia­
tions.
18
a) 7 i.e6
•••
This move is a sensible alter­
native to the main line 7. . . a6. The
Moldavian master O.Chebanenko
practiced it about half a century
ago.
S.tLJd5 gcS
After the hasty 8 . . . ,bd5 9.exd5
tLJe7 (9 . . . tLJb8, Orozco - Cespedes,
Barranquilla 1995, 1O.,bf6 gxf6
11.i.d3 a6 12.tLJc3±) White has
the powerful resource 10 .c3 ! In
view of the threats along the a4-
e8 diagonal, Black loses his cas­
tling rights. In case of 1O . . . tLJexd5,
White follows with 11.\1;!fa4 @e7 (It
is a disaster for Black to try 11 . . .
\1;!fd7? 12.tLJxd6+ @e7 13.\1;!fxd7+
@xd7 14.tLJxf7+-, while if 11 . . . @d7,
then 12. 0-0-0 tLJb6 13.\1;!fb3-+ and
White has a dangerous initiative.)
12.0-0-0 a6 (12 ... tLJb6 13.VNb4±)
13.l:3xd5 axb5, Dutreeuw - Ovezov,
Istanbul 2000, 14.VNb4 ! @e6 15.
l:3xb5±, White is attacking in a
position with equal material. If
Black refrains from capturing his
opponent's central pawn, he does
not solve his problems either, for
example: 1O . . . VNb8 11.!xf6 gxf6
12.\1;!fa4 @d8 13.VNa5+ ! (This is an

important intermediate move.)
13 . . . Wd7 (13 ... b6 14.'1Wb4 lLlg6 15.
g3 a6 16.lLla3 Ylfc7 17.lLlc4 l'!b8 18.
lLle3±) 14.c4a6 15.lLlc3W1c716.Wla4+
Wd8 17.iLd3±; lO . . . lLlg6 1l.Wla4
We7 12. 0-0-0 a6 13.lLld4 ! (White
has new tactical motives at his
disposal with a black king on e7.)
13 . . . Wld7 (Black's position is not
to be envied after 13 . . . exd4? 14.
l'!e1+ lLle5 15.f4 Wld7 16.Ylfxd4+-)
14.iLb5 ! Ylfc8 15.id3± Jansa -
Kostic, Vrnjacka Banja 1981; lO . . .
a 6 (This i s Black's relatively best
chance.) 1l.hf6 gxf6 12 .Ylfa4 !
Wd7! (There is nothing else left.)
13.lLla3 + b5, Raszka - Mrozek,
Katowice 1995 (After 13 . . . Wc7, it
is interesting for White to try 14.
O-O- O ! ?;!;) 14.Ylfg4+ f5 15.Ylfh5;!;
9.c3 !
White i s not in a hurry to ex­
change on f6 in order not to allow
counterplay on the g-file.
9 . . . a6 1 0 .lLla3 hd5
It deserves attention for Black
to opt for lO . . . iLe7!?, but then af­
ter 1l.hf6 hi6 12.lLlc4 ie7 (or
12 . . . hd5 13.Ylfxd5± Krajcovic -
Kysel, Slovakia 1994) 13.lLlcb6 (It
is also good for White to continue
5. lLl c3 e5 6. lLl db5 d6 7. i.g5
with 13.lLlxe7!? Wxe7 14.lLle3;!; Si­
pos - Angyalosi, Hungary 2 0 0 0)
13 . . . l'!b8 and there arises by trans­
position a situation, which we will
analyze later in the variation 7 . . .
a 6 8.lLla3 ie6.
1l.ixf6!
That is the right time for that
exchange, because White needs to
capture the enemy bishop on d5
with his queen.
1l . . . Wlxf6
It would not work for Black
to try 1l . . . Wlb6? 12.exd5 Wlxb2
13.Wlc1+- (Jansa), and he loses a
piece.
In the game Jansa - Danek,
Czechoslovakia 1982, Black chose
1l . . . gxf6 12 .Ylfxd5 Ylfa5 (or 12 . . . b5
13.l'!d1 i.e7 14.lLlc2± Kosanski -
Hibner, Velika Gorica 2005; 12 . . .
Wld7 13.lLlc4 l'!d8 14.l'!dl± Ranieri
- Guglielmi, Eporediese 2 0 01)
13.i.c4 l'!c7 14.Ylfxa5 lLlxa5 15.i.d5
l'!g8 16.0-0 f5 17.exf5 l'!g5 18.f6 !
l'!f5 19.b4 ! lLlc6 (White would
have countered 19 . . . l'!xc3? with
20.lLlb1+-) 2 0.b5±, and White
started decisive actions in that fa­
vourable endgame.
12. Wlxd5 ie7 13.ie2 0 - 0
14. 0 - 0 ;1;
19
Chapter 2
White has a clear positional
advantage, thanks to his reli­
able control over the d5-outpost.
It was tried later: 14 . . . g6 15.lLlc4
lMfe6 16.lLlb6 :gc7 17.lMfd2± Mote
- Strenzwilk, USA 198 2 ; 14 . . . lMfg6
15.lLlc4 lLld8 16.lLle3 :gc5 17.�d3
lLle6 18.lLlf5 �f6 19.93± Suetin
- Sobura, Warsaw 1989; 14 . . . lLld8
(The transfer of the knight from c6
to f4 is Black's main idea.) 15.lLlc4
lLle6, Bors - Heiligermann, Hun­
gary 2002, 16.lLle3 lLlf4 17.lMfd1 !
�g6 18.!f3;J; and White keeps the
edge in all the variations.
b) 7 a6 8.lLla3
•••
Besides 8 . . . ie6 (Chapter 3)
and the main line 8 ... b5, Black has
also tried in practice bl) 8 dS?! ,
b2) 8 ••• .ie7? ! , b3) 8 •••
b1) 8 ••• dS? !
Black plays analogously to the
so-called Pelican variation, which
arises after the hasty exchange
8 . .ixf6?! gxf6 9.lLla3 d5 ! ?+t and
presents Black with sufficient
counter chances. Here however,
White is not obliged to exchange
on f6.
20
9.c!LJxdS ha3 1 0 .bxa3IMfaS+
1l.'flYd2 !
The exchange of queens is un­
avoidable, White remains with a
bishop pair and an extra pawn,
and he has a great advantage in
that endgame.
1l 'flYxd2+ 12.hd2 c!LJxdS
•••
Or 12 . . . 0-0 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6,
Galdunts - Knoll, Vienna 2 0 06,
14.0-0-0 !e6 15.'it>b2 :gfd8 16.
!d3±
13.exdS c!LJd4 14. 0 - 0 - 0
.if5 lS.c3 :gc8
Black would not change much
with 15 . . . lLlb5 16.:ge1 f6, as it
was played in the game Ghinda
- T.Horvath, Rimavska Sobota
1975. White should have played
the simple line: 17.f4 0-0-0
(or 17 . . . e4 18.g4 ! .ixg4 19.:ggl±)
18 .fxe5 :gxd5 19.c4 :gc5 20.'it>b2±,
and Black's position would re­
main too difficult.
16.@b2 c!LJbS 17.:ge1! f6
18.f4±
•••
h6? !
White's considerable advan­
tage is doubtless. That evaluation
was confirmed in the game Sax -
Velimirovic, Rio de Janeiro 1979,
which followed with 18 . . . 0-0?

19.c4 gfe8 (19 . . . exf4 2 0 . .tb4+-;
19 . . . ttJd6 20 . .tb4+-) 20.g4 ! +-,
and White won a piece. It would
have been more resilient for Black
to defend with 18 . . . e4 19.c4 ttJd6
2 0.gc1 b6, Preuss - Koch, Moron
2004, 21..ie3±, but even then, he
would have no reasons to be too
optimistic.
b2) 8 . . . .te7? !
That is hardly the best decision
for Black. He does not prevent the
centralization of White's knight
on a3 and that contradicts one of
the main strategical ideas of the
Chelyabinsk variation.
9.ttJc4! ttJd4
About 9 . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . . .ie6.
It would not work for Black
to opt for 9 . . . ttJxe4? 1O.lLlxe4
hg5 11.ttJcxd6+ 'it>f8 12.%Vh5+-
The move 1O.hf6 is now a po­
sitional threat for Black, because
after the capture on f6 with the
pawn, his bishop is misplaced on
the e7-square and that can be il­
lustrated in the following varia­
tions: 9 . . . b5 1O . .ixf6 gxf6 1l.ttJe3
0-0 (About 1l . . . iLe6 - see 8 . . .
iLe6 ; a s for 1l . . . ttJd4 - see 9 . . . ttJd4;
5. ttJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. iLg5
11 . . . %Va5 12 .iLd3 iLe6 13.0-0± Hir­
schhorn - van Rooy, Perth 1994.)
12.ttJcd5 'it>h8 13.iLe2 gg8 14.c3
.tf8 15 . .tg4!± Gabran - Ryzhkov,
corr. 1974.
In case of 9 . . . iLg4 (with the
idea to provoke f2-f3), as it was
played in the game Hofrichter
- Dawid, Freiberg 1999, White's
best line seems to be 1O.%Vd2 ! ttJd4
11.iLd3 h6 12.hf6 .ixf6 13.ttJd5
iLg5 14.ttJce3± with an advantage
for him.
It might be interesting for
Black to try the gambit line
9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1O.hf6 hf6 ! (about
10 . . . gxf6 1l.ttJd5 b5 12.ttJce3 - see
9 . . . b5), but that would not solve
his problems either: after 11. %Vxd6
%Vxd6 (If 11 . . . ttJd4, then 12 . .td3
.id7 13.ttJd5± Korneev - Maze,
Elgoibar 2 005. It is in favour of
White if Black tries 11 . . . .ie6 12.
0-0-0 %Vxd6, Popovic - Todo­
rovic, Novi Sad 2000, 13.gxd6±,
or 12 . . . %Ve8 13.ttJd5±; 11 . . .iLe7
12.%Vxd8 gxd8 13.ttJd5± Escott
- Ellison, COIT. 1993.) 12.ttJxd6
.ie6 (or 12 . . . gd8 13.ttJxc8 gaxc8
14.iLd3± Tucci - Calgaro, COIT.
1998), as it was played in the game
Dueball - Roeder, Germany 1981,
White can continue with 13 . .td3
ttJb4 (or 13 . . . g6 14.ttJd5±; 13 . . . iLe7
14.ttJf5 .ic5 15.gf1 gfd8 16.0-0-0
g6 17. ttJ e3±) 14. 0-0-0 b5 (or
14 . . . .te7 15.ttJxb7 ttJxa2+ 16.ttJxa2
ha2 17.b3±) 15.'it>bl± - and Black
has no compensation for the sac­
rificed pawn.
10 .bf6 ixf6
•
21
Chapter 2
It is not logical for Black to
try 10 . . . gxf6, in view of 1Vt'JdS.
Now, it is too dubious for him
to opt for 11 .. .fS? ! 12.c3 tLlbS
13.tLlcb6 l3b8 14.�a4± Kopylov -
Kuzminykh, Leningrad 19S1,
while White obtains a clear ad­
vantage after 11 . . . ie6 12.tLlcb6
l3b8 (or 12 . . .,bdS 13.tLlxdS l3c8
14.c3 tLle6 1S.ie2 0-0 16.ig4± Se­
gebarth - Szewczyk, DDR 1988)
13.c3 tLlc6 14. �hS± Zapata - Pa­
redes, Merida 1991, the move 11 . . .
b S creates a target for attack on
the queenside and the under­
mining move a2-a4 becomes quite
effective: 12.tLlcb6 l3b8 13.tLlxc8
l3xc8 14.c3 tLlc6 (or 14 . . . tLle6 1S.a4±
Kolendo - Weber, Poland 1992)
lS.a4± Armas - Horvath, Buda­
pest 1973.
1l.tLld5 ie6
It is unsatisfactory for Black
to follow with 11.. .ig4? 12.�xg4
tLlxc2 + 13.�d2 tLlxal 14.tLlcb6 �b8
lS.i.c4 i.gS+ 16.�c3 +- Coleman
- Behrmann, corr. 1996 - be­
cause White captures two pieces
for a rook and he has a winning
position.
Black loses a pawn after
11 . . . 0-0? ! 12.c3 tLlc6 (or 12 . . . tLle6
13.tLldb6 �b8 14.Wxd6± Korneev
- Fabregas, Badalona 1995; 12 . . .
i.g4 13.�xg4 tLl c 2 + 14.�d2 tLlxa1
lS.iLd3+- Bejaoui - Villanueva,
Istanbul 2 0 00) 13.tLldb6 �b8 14.
Wxd6± Zuidema - Calvo, The
Hague 1961.
If 11 ... bS? ! , then 12.tLlcb6 �b8
(or 12 . . . l3a7 13.tLlxc8 Wxc8 14.c3
22
tLl e 6 lS.a4± Ortega Magallanes -
Ottenweller, corr. 1999) 13.tLlxc8
�xc8 14.c3, and later 14 . . . tLlc6
lS.a4 �b8 (lS . . . 0-0 16.axbS axbS
17.,bbS± Durao - Hasan, Skopje
1972) 16.axbS axbS 17.tLlxf6+ gxf6
(17. . . �xf6 18.l3a6± Pierrot - Mi­
nervino, Argentina 1996) 18.WdS
tLle7 19.,bbS+ �f8 2 0 .Wd3± Kun
- Heiligermann, Hungary 1993,
or 14 . . . tLle6 lS.a4 ! 0-0 (lS . . . �b8
16.axbS axbS 17.i.e2 tLlcS 18.�c2
0-0 19. 0-0± Klenk - Tudosa,
Germany 1998) 16.axbS axbS 17.
,bbS l3b8 18.c4 tLld4 (18 . . . tLlf4
19. 0-0 tLlxdS 20.�xdS± Morovic
- Sisniega, Santa Catalina 1987)
19. 0-0± Averbakh - Korchnoi,
Tula 19S0. The undermining
move a2-a4 is White's standard
resource to break Black's defence
on the queenside in similar situ­
ations.
12.tLlxf6 + !
This i s simple and strong.
Black is in a lot of trouble after ev­
ery possible capture.
12 ••• �xf6
Or 12 . . . gxf6 13.c3 ,bc4 (13 . . .
�c8 14.tLle3 tLlc6 lS.i.c4 tLl e 7 16.
Wd3± Raivio - Jensen, corr. 1997)

14.hc4± with a clear positional
advantage for White, T.Horvath
- Gladischev, Zalakaros 1995.
13.c3
It is also good for White to
try 13.tDxd6+ �e7 14.c3 �xd6
15.cxd4 exd4 16.'lWa4± Santiago -
Ruiz Luis, Asturias 1993, because
Black's too extravagant play can
hardly be justified.
13 .hc4 14 .hc4 tDc6 15.
••• • can counter 13.tDcb6 with 13 . . .
O -O ± - White has a long-lasting
advantage, thanks to his reliable
control over the d5-outpost and
Black's backward d6-pawn, Zei
- Scuderi, corr. 1999. Meanwhile,
White can increase his pressure
against the f7-square bringing his
heavy pieces. Black's defence will
be difficult and possibly fruitless.
b3) 8 . . . h6? !
That is a rarely played line, af­
ter which there arise typical situ­
ations in which the move h7-h6 is
not so useful for Black.
9 .hf6 'lWxf6
• White could have countered that
In case of 9 . . . gxf6, White can
choose between 10.tDd5 f5, Her­
rmann - Gusseinow, Sebnitz
S. tDc3 eS 6 . tD dbS d6 7. �gS
1998 (After 1O . . . b5 11.c3, it is too
risky for Black to continue with
11 . . .f5 12.exf5 hf5, in view of
13.Wff3± Farah - Serafim, Mar del
Plata 1992, while if 11 . . . i.e6, then
simply 12.tDc2± Chiburdanidze
- Merlini, Buenos Aires 1978
- and the move h7-h6 turns out
to be just a loss of time.), 11.exf5
�5 12.tDc4 i.e6 13.c3 ! (Black
tDb4 ! oo) 1 3 . . . i.g7 14.tDcb6 �b8 15.
�e2± and 1O.tDc4 f5 (or 1O . . . ,te6
11.tDe3±) 1l.exf5 i.xf5 12.tDe3 �e6
13.i.c4 ! ?± Kozakov - Garcia Ro­
man, La Roda 2007 and White
has a much superior game in both
variations.
1 0 .tDd5 Wfd8 U.tDc4 i.e6
The game Alexopoulos - Ka­
tranas, Kallithea 1978 , followed
with 1l . . . b5 12.tDcb6 �b8 13.tDxc8
�xc8 , and here White could have
played 14.a4±
12.c3 i.e7
After 12 . . . b5 13.tDce3 �e7,
White has again the powerful re­
source 14.a4±
13.ie2±
White has a stable edge. In
case of 13 . . . 0-0 14. tDxe7+ Wfxe7
15.Wfxd6 'lWh4 16.'lWd3 �ad8 17.
'lWe3± Black has no compensa­
tion for the pawn. In the game
Moiseev - Backwinkel, Germa­
ny 1995, Black tried 13 . . . b5, but
with 14.tDxe7!? �xe7 15.tDe3±,
and Black would have lost his cas­
tling rights.
23
Chapter 3 1.e4 c5 2.li)f3 li)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.li)xd4
e6 5.li)c3 e5 6.li)db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
8.li)a3 ie6
The English master H. Bird
first played this ancient line in the
19th century and later, during the
sixties of the past century, it was
a regular opening weapon of GM
B.Larsen. Sometimes the name of
that line is connected with these
two players.
9.tLlc4 !
White activates his knight, in­
creasing the pressure against the
d6-pawn and he thus emphasizes
the effect of the possible exchange
on f6. Black has a choice here be­
tween the outdated move a) 9 . . .
tLld4 and the contemporary line
b) 9 . . . gc8 !
At first, we will convince you
that White's task is much easier
after Black's other possibilities:
24
White has a clear advantage
after the anti-positional move 9 . . .
!xc4? ! 1O.!xc4 �e7 11.0-0 0-0
12.!xf6 ixf6 13.tLld5± Unzicker
- Dunphy, Madrid 1957.
The line 9 .. .'I&c7? ! can hardly
be recommended (Black's queen
is misplaced here.) 10.h:f6 gxf6
11.tLle3 tLle7 12 .�d3 h5 (or 12 . . . �h6
13.0-0 !xe3 14.fxe3± Kosmac
- Varga, Bled 1996) 13.'lWf3± Byv­
shev - Reshko, Leningrad 1957.
The move 9 . . . b5? ! looks seem­
ingly active, but it only creates
weaknesses for Black, since White
can undermine his opponent's
queenside pawns with a2-a4 at
an opportune moment. There
might follow: 1O.!xf6 gxf6 (In
case of 10 . . . 'lWxf6, White should
not play 11.tLlxd6+ !xd6 12 .'i&xd6
tLld4 13.i.d3 'lWg5;;, since it is
much stronger for him to follow
with 11.tLle3 ! tLld4 12.tLlcd5 !xd5
13.tLlxd5 'lWg6, Podlesnik - Starc,
Bled 1994, 14.f3± or 1l . . . 'lWd8
12.tDcd5± with an advantage for
White, Bednarski - Kavalek, Kra­
kow 1984.) 11.tLle3.
 S.liJc3 e5 6 . tiJdbS d6 7.�gS a6 B. ttJ a3 �e6 9. ttJ c4
Black has tried numerous
possibilities here, but he fails to
equalize in any of them:
About 11 . . . �e7 - see 9 . . . ie7;
The line 11 . . . ttJd4 12.ttJcd5
f5, loses the exchange for Black
after 13.exf5 ttJxf5 14.ttJxf5 M5
15.'1Wf3 ! hc2 16.ttJc7+ V!ixc7 17.
'lWxa8+ �e7 18.'lWxa6± Casella -
Simpson, Long Island 1995;
It is too passive for Black to
play 11 . . . �g7 12.id3 0-0 13.0-0
:E!c8 14.ttJcd5± Melnikov - Vik.
Ivanov, St Petersburg 2006;
If 11 . . . ttJe7, as it was played in
the game Brondum - Andersen,
Copenhagen 1979, then 12 .'lWf3
ig7 (12 ... ttJg6 13.ttJcd5±) 13.�d3±;
Finally, in case of 11 . . . �h6
12.ttJcd5 he3 13.ttJxe3 ttJe7 (It is
too risky for Black to opt for 13 . . .
'lWa5+ 14.c3 0 - 0 - 0 15.,te2 ttJe7,
Opychaneyj - Jarmoluk, Ar­
gentina 1993, 16.a4 b4 17.:E!cl±)
White counters with the the­
matic line 14.a4! b4 (Black would
not solve his problems with 14 . . .
bxa4 15.:E!xa4 d5, Ellison - Nichol­
son, Port Erin 2000, because of
16.V!if3±) 15.'lWf3± Honfi - Piket,
Wijk aan Zee 1970 and he obtains
a clear advantage.
After 9 . . . �e7? ! White plays 10.
�6 gxf6 11.ttJe3. That position
has been tested numerous times
in practice, but the results were
terrible for Black.
Here are some of the possible
developments:
About 11 . . . 'lWd7 12.ttJcd5 �d8
13.'lWh5 hd5 14.ttJxd5 ttJd4 15.�d3
- see 11 . . . ttJd4;
11 . . . 'lWb6 ? ! (That is a loss of
time.) 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 ...
'lWxb2 13.:E!bl V!ixa2 14.ttJc7+ �d7
15.ttJxa8 :gxa8 16.:E!xb7±) 13.c3±
Esplana - Alosilla, Peru 1999;
11 . . . 0-0 12.ttJcd5 �h8 13.�e2
:E!g8 14.0-0± Leiros Vila - Lucas,
corr. 1985;
11 .. .l�k8 12.ttJcd5 hd5, Suetin
- Olbrich, Moscow 1991 (about
12 . . . b5 - see 11 . . . b5; 12 . . .f5 13.exf5
hd5, Nunn - Cox, Norway 1972,
14.ttJxd5±) 13.exd5 ttJb8 14.
�d3±;
11 ... b5 12.ttJcd5 'lWa5+ (or 12 . . .
:E!c8 13.c3 ttJa5 14.a4± Wasnetsky
- Nosal, Mannheim 1990 ; 12 . . .
:E!b8 13.,te2 'lWd7 14.�g4± Maucci
- Plazaola, Buenos Aires 2 0 02)
13.c3± Dolgener - Gierden, Dort­
mund 1988;
25
Chapter 3
1l . . . lDd4 12 .!d3 �d7 (or 12 . . .
h S 13.lDcdS± Kotronias - Tak­
srud, Gausdal 1991; 12 . . . �aS
13. 0-0± Westermeier - Hacker,
Germany 1979 ; 12 . . . l:kS 13.lDcdS
0-0 14.c3± Melnikov - Spanoche,
Eforie Nord 1999) 13.lDcdS .hdS
(or 13 . . . !dS 14.c3 lDc6 IS.�f3±
Pitkanen - Rantanen, Naantali
1997) 14.lDxdS .idS (or 14 . . . �c6
IS.c3 lDe6 16.'iNf3 lDcS 17.!c2 lDd7
IS . .ib3± Muslic - Segovic, Pula
2002) IS.�hS EkS (or 15 . . . 0-0
16.c3 lDc6 17 ..ie2± Gazik - Mate­
jov, Slovakia 2001) 16.c3 lDe6 17.
!e2± Blau - Plater, Hilversum
1947;
ll . . . �aS 12 ..id3 lDb4 (12 . . .
0-0-0 13.0-0 hS I4.lDcdS± Wang
- Mai, Wuxi 2 0 05) 13.a3 lDxd3+
14.�xd3 (White's control over the
dS and fS-outposts emphasizes
the superiority of his couple of
knights over Black's bishop pair.)
14 . . . EkS (14 . . . 0-0-0 IS.0-0±
Ferreira - Romao, Portugal 1993)
15.0-0 �gS 16.lDcdS �cS 17.c3±
Winterstein - Schwarz, Giessen
1991. All these variations confirm
that after Black captures on f6
with a pawn, his bishop is mis­
placed on e7.
The game Hove - Graham,
Minnesota 1996, followed with
the move 9 . . . �bS with the idea to
remove the rook from an eventual
threat on the b6-square. In that
case, White's best line seems to
be 10.lDdS! .hdS 1l ..hf6 'iNxf6 (or
1l . . . gxf6 12.�xdS±) 12.�xdS± and
he occupies the central outpost.
26
Meanwhile, Black's rook is mis­
placed on bS.
After the not so well analyzed
variation 9 . . . h6 10 ..bf6 �xf6 (It
is illogical for Black to play 10 . . .
gxf6?! 1l.lDe3± Tarnowski - Fa­
bian, Glucholazy 1963 and White
remains with a clear advantage.)
l1.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS;t Ribli - Zinn,
Zalaegerszeg 1969, there arises a
situation quite similar to the one
we will analyze later after 9 . . . �cS
1O . .hf6 'iNxf6 11.lDb6 �bS I2.lDcdS
- see variation hI. The difference
is only that Black's pawn is on h6
and that is much rather in favour
of White, because Black's counter­
play is connected with the pawn­
advance f'7-fS and it would lead
to an additional weakening of his
light squares on the kingside.
a) 9 ••• �d4
This move used to be popu­
lar. Presently it has almost dis­
appeared from practice and the
reason is that Black's centralized
knight will be repelled later with
the move c2-c3 and he can hardly
prevent that.
1 0 .hf6 �xf6
 5JiJc3 e5 6 . ttJ db5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJ a3 ie6 9. ttJ c4
Black has problems after 10 . . .
gxf6 1l.ttJe3 f5 (about 1l . . Jk8
12 .id3 - see 9 . . Jk8 ; 1l . . . !h6
12 .id3 .b:e3 13.fxe3 ttJc6 14.§'f3±
Wolff - Shtern, USA 1986) 12.exfS
ttJxfS 13.ttJxfS ixfS, because of
14.§'f3 §'c8, Trautz - Adamczyk,
COIT. 2 0 03 (Black loses immedi­
ately after 14 . . . §'d7? lS.ttJdS+-,
White is clearly better too follow­
ing 14 . . . .b:c2 15J3c1 ig6 16.§'xb7t)
15.ie2 ! ? ie7 (It is too dangerous
for Black to try lS . . . hc2 16J!c1
ia4 17. 0-0 ic6 18.ttJdS±, or 16 . . .
J.g6 17. 0-0±) 16.0-0-0;1; with
initiative for White.
1l.ttJb6 �b8
It is insufficient for Black to try
the active line: 1l . . . �d8 12.ttJcdS
ixdS 13.ttJxdS §'g6 14.f3 ie7 (or
14 . . . ttJc6 lS.ttJc7+ �d7 16.ttJdS±
Eiben - Kovari, Slovakia 1997)
lS.c3 ih4+ (It is not advisable for
Black to opt for lS . . . ttJe6 16.§'a4+
�d7 17.b4±) 16.g3 hg3+ 17.hxg3
§'xg3+ 18.�d2 ttJxf3+ 19.�c2±
Husted - F.Hansen, Denmark
1991 and Black's threats have
been neutralized.
12. ttJcd5 §'d8
Black would lose his castling
rights after 12 . . . §'g6 13.ttJc7+ �d8
14.ttJxe6+ fxe6 lS.§'d3± Daurelle
- Fanghui Feng, corr. 1998, or
12 . . . §'h4 13.ttJc7+ �d8 14.ttJxe6+
fxe6 lS.§'d3± Kraujunas - Lind­
berg, COIT. 1997.
13.c3 .txd5
White can counter 13 . . . ttJc6
with the powerful argument
14.§'a4 ! , while in case of 14 . . . i.e7?
(about 14 . . . .b:d5 lS.l2JxdS - see
13 . . .ixdS) he has the strong re­
sponse 15.ixa6 ! ixdS 16.ttJxdS
�a8 17.§'bS+- Mueller - Zunker,
Oberursel 1972.
14.ttJxd5 �e6
The endgame is worse for Black
after 14 . . . l2Jc6 1S.§'a4 §'as (or IS . . .
ie7 16.g3 ! ? 0 - 0 17.ih3± Cygon
- Budt, Detmold 1976; lS . .E!:c 8 .
16.ie2 ie7 17.ig4 �b8 18.0-0±
Cravero - Grosse Kloenne, corr.
2000) 16.§'xaS ttJxaS 17.ie2 ie7
18 . 0-0 �c8 19J!fdl± Telleria -
Braso, Uruguay 1988.
15.g3 ie7 16.a4!? 0-0 17.
i.h3 �e8 18.0-0;l;
This position was reached in
the game Tal - Wade, Reykjavik
1964. The eighth World Cham­
pion obtained a great positional
advantage and he won the game
promptly, with some assistance
from his opponent, indeed - 18 . . .
M8 19.aS ttJgS 20.ifS g6? (Black
blundered the exchange here.)
2 1.id7! �e6 2 2 ..b:e6 fxe6 23.ttJb6
hS 24.§'e2 ie7 2S.f4 ttJf7 26.fS
1-0.
27
Chapter 3
b) 9 ••• gc8 !
This is an idea of GM Larsen.
Black completes the development
of his queenside and he takes the
c-file under control.
IO .txf6
• lLlxd3 27.%Yxb5+-) 2 2 .%Ya5+ We8
We will analyze bl) IO •••
and b2) IO gxf6. ••
bl) IO ••• 'i'xf6
Black does not allow doubling
of his pawns, but he enables his
opponent to deploy his knights on
the important b6 and d5-outposts
with tempo.
1l.tLlb6
White should better refrain
from winning a pawn, because af­
ter 1V�xd6+ hd6 12.'i'xd6 :1'ld8�,
followed by lLld4, Black obtains an
excellent counterplay.
1l ••• gb8
Black should better keep the
d8-square for his queen, there­
fore it is dubious for him to try
1l . . . :1'ld8 ? ! 12.lLlcd5 %Yg6 13.lLlc7+
We7 14.lLlcd5+ We8 15.%Yd3 ie7
16.0- 0-0± Eitel - Ennenbach,
Goch 1997.
12.tLlcd5 Y!Yd8
If 12 .. .'�g6? ! , then 13.Y«d3 ie7
28
(or 13 ... hd5 14.lLlxd5 !i.e7, Jabot
- Felber, corr. 1995, 15.lLlc7+ wd7
16.lLld5±) 14.lLlc7+ ! wd8 15.lLlcd5
and Black loses his castling rights.
White is better after 15 . . . We8 16.g3
h5 17. 0-0-0± Bindrich - Rovid,
Budapest 2 0 04, as well as follow­
ing 15 . . . f5 16.0-0-0 fxe4 17.Y«c3 !
ixd5 (or 17 ...:1'lf8 18.ha6 ! :1'lxf2
19.ixb7 l:bcb7 20.%Yxc6 :1'la7 21.a4
ig4 2 2 .lLlc4±) 18.lLlxd5 :1'lc8 19. wb1
:1'lf8 20.Y«b3 ! b5 21 .%Ya3 lLlb8 (It is
even worse for Black to play 21 ...
:1'lxf2 22.%Yxa6 :1'lxc2 23 .%Yb6+ We8
24.Wxc2 lLlb4+ 25.Wb1 e3+ 26.!i.d3
'i'xf6 23.Y«b6± - and Black had great
problems in the game Herrera
- Merino Garcia, Spain 1996.
13.c3
White takes control over the
d4-square and he is threatening
Y«a4 in some variations.
13 ie7
•••
After the careless line 13 ... g6? !
14.Y«a4 ! , the temporary weaken­
ing of the f6-square does not allow
Black to retreat with his bishop to
d7, otherwise White has a tacti­
cal strike on the a6-square: 14 . . .
ig7 15.ha6 ! hd5 16.lLlxd5 :1'la8
17.Y«b5 :1'lxa6 18.Y«xb7+- Cifuen­
tes Parada; 14 . . . !i.h6 15.ha6 ! 0-0
16.ib5 f5 17.0-0 wh8 18.:1'ladl±
Joecks - Chekhov, Germany
1997.
It is not so popular for Black
to play 13 . . . lLle7, because White
can choose between the calm line:
14.ic4 lLlxd5 15.Y«a4+ id7 16.
lLlxd7 %Yxd7 17.Y«xd7+ Wxd7 18.
 S.ciJc3 e5 6JiJdbS d6 7. !gS a6 8.tiJa3 ie6 9. &iJc4
ixd5;!; and the more ambitious 14.
\Wa4+ .!d7, Zesch - Priebe, Berlin
2002, 15.\Wb4! ? &iJxd5 16.&iJxd5;!;
with superior prospects.
14 . .tc40-0
About 14 . . . !g5 15.0-0 - see
14 . . . 0-0.
15.0-0.!g5
About 15 . . .<i.>hB 16.\We2 .tg5 (or
16 . . . g6, Salm - Henri, corr. 19B5,
17.a4 f5 1B.exf5 gxf5 19.f4;!;) 17.a4
- see 15 . . . .!g5.
White is clearly better after
15 . . . ixd5 16.&iJxd5 b5 17. .tb3 !g5
1B.\Wd3 @hB 19J3ad1 &iJa5 2 0.&iJb4
�b6 2 1..!d5± Palevich - Schlos­
ser, corr. 19B6.
16.a4!
White has completed his de­
velopment and he consolidates
his achievements on the queen­
side.
16 ••• @h8
Black has no other counter­
play except the pawn-advance
t7-f5, but he has tried some other
lines too.
It is only a transposition of
moves after 16 . . . a5 17.YlYe2 g6 lB.
�ad1 @hB - see 16 ... @hB, or 16 . . .
g6 17.\We2 @hB - see 16 . . . @hB.
It is insufficient for Black to
try 16 . . . .txd5 17.&iJxd5 &iJe7 1B.\Wb3
&iJxd5 19.ixd5 b6 2 0 .�fd1 g6 21.
l3d3± Schmidt Schaeffer - Bra­
meyer, Germany 2 0 0 2 .
After 16 . . . &iJe7, Ciolac - San
Marco, Bethune 1992, White can
play simply 17.a5;!;
It deserves attention for Black
to opt for 16 . . . YlYeB ! ? White's most
principled reaction seems to be
17.&iJc7 YlYe7 1B.&iJxe6 fxe6 19.YlYg4,
threatening Black's e6-pawn. The
move 19 . . . l3beB can be countered
by White with the line 20 . .!xe6+
YlYxe6 2 1.\Wxg5±, while in case of
19 ... &iJdB, White maintains his
initiative with 2 0.g3 !h6 21.l3ad1
�f6 22.l3d3;!; Tong - Lim, Singa­
pore 1990.
17.ti'e2 g6
Black has numerous possibili­
ties here, but neither of them is
sufficient for equality.
He can try to redeploy his
knight to the kingside with 17 . . .
&iJe7 1B.a5 &iJg6, but that enables
White to attack successfully his
opponent's backward d6-pawn
19.13fd1 ih6 2 0.&iJe3 &iJf4 2 1.\Wf3
g6 22 ..txe6 fxe6 23.&iJec4± Wise
- Leveille, corr. 1992.
The prophylactic move 17. . .
as has its drawbacks a s well. In
case of 1B.l3ad1, White is better
after 1B . . . g6 19 . .ta2 ! f5 (or 19 . . .
&iJe7 2 0 .\Wb5±; 1 9. . . .th6 20.&iJc4 f5
21.exfS gxf5 2 2 .&iJdb6±) 20.exf5
gxf5, Friedman - Hausrath, Gro­
ningen 1996, 21.&iJc4 f4 22 .f3;!;, as
well as following 1B . . . .th6 19.@h1
29
Chapter 3
g6 (if 19 . . . lLle7? ! , then 20.lLlxe7
'Wxe7 21.he6 fxe6 2 2 .lLlc4± or
20 . . .Wxb6 21.lLlfS± Nunn - Ma­
nor, London 19B7) 2 0.ia2;:!; and
White's queenside initiative in­
creases.
The move 17 'WeB ! ? is inter­
.•.
esting here, just like on the pre­
vious move, and it was played in
the game Janovsky - Sveshnikov,
Moscow 19B7. White can increase
the pressure against the d6-
square with 1B.ia2 ! ? idB 19.1Llc4
'Wd7 20.�adl;!;
If Black plays 17 .. .fS without
preparation, then after 1B.exfS
i.xfS 19.aS e4, White has the pow­
erful maneuver 2 0 .ib3 ! �eB (It is
not any better for Black to try 20 . . .
lLleS 21.ic2 lLld3 22 .f4 exf3 23.
fuf3±, or 2 0 ... lLle7 21.lLle3 ig6
2 2 .ie6 ! �f6 23.Wg4;:!;, while in
case of 2 0 . . . WeB 21.ic2 idB, it is
good for White to continue with
22.�ae1 lLlxaS 23.ixe4 he4 24.
Wxe4 hb6 2S.lLlxb6 'WbS 26.
'Wb4 ! ;:!; Perz - Necula, corr. 2001,
or 2 2J'!a4 ! ?;:!;) 21.ia4 ! - It be­
comes clear that Black is incapa­
ble of protecting his queenside.
There might follow 21.. .ih6 22.
ixc6 bxc6 23. lLlb4±, or 21...�eS
2 2 .hc6 bxc6 23.lLlb4 'WeB 24.lLlc4
�e6 2S. lLlxa6 �b7 26.lLlb4;:!; and
Black has no compensation for his
material losses.
18.l3adl i.h6
About 1B . . . aS - see 17. . . aS.
In case of the immediate move
1B . . .fS, Travi - Henri, corr. 1979,
19.exfS gxfS (After 19 . . . ixfS ! ?
30
2 0.id3 ie6 21.ie4 lLle7 22.aS;:!;
White has a slight, but long-last­
ing pressure.) White has the re­
source 20 .lLle3 ! he3 (or 20 . . .
'We7 2 1.he6 Wxe6 2 2 .lLlec4 �bdB
23.f4 ! .tf6 24.'Wd2 ! ?;:!;) 21.fxe3
hc4 (This exchange is in favour
of White: 21.. .'Wxb6 2 2 .ixe6 lLle7
23.aS ! WcS 24.'Wd3 f4 2S.Wxd6±,
or 22 .. .f4 23.�xd6 fxe3 24.�d7!
�xf1+ 2S. Wxfl �fB + 26.We1! lLlbB
27.�f7 �xf7 2B.ixf7 lLld7 29.Wg4
lLlf6 30.WgS e4 31.h3±) 2 2 .lLlxc4
�f6 23.'Wd3 'Wg8 24.'WdS;:!; - and
White is better, because of his
dominance over the dS-outpost
and Black's pawn-weaknesses on
d6 and fS.
19.Whl f5 20.exfS gxf5
In case of 2 0 . . . ixfS, Reinaldo
- M.Garcia, Nigran 1997, White
can follow with 21.id3 ie6 2 2 .
ie4;:!;
21.f4 ig7
In the game Isupov - Che­
khov, Orel 1996, Black chose
the less precise response 21...
�gB. White could have put that
move under doubt with the line:
22 .fxeS ! dxeS (after 2 2 . . . lLlxeS, it
is very good for White to follow
with 23.id3 !±) 23.lLlb4 ! Wxb6
(23 . . .ixc4 24.lLlxc4±) 24.he6
lLld4 2S.cxd4 Wxe6 26.dxeS± with
a great advantage for White.
2 2 .b4!;!;
(diagram)
That position was reached in
the game Herrera - Cifuentes
Parada, Cienfuegos 1996. After
22 . . . lLle7 23. lLlxe7 'Wxe7 24.he6
 5.tiJc3 e5 6.l1:J db5 d6 7.fig5 a6 B. ttJa3 fie6 9. ttJ c4
'lNxe6 25.a5 :B:be8 26.ttJd5t White
obtained a stable positional edge.
Black would not have solved his
problems with 22 . . .hd5 23.ttJxd5
e4. White has the undermining
move 24.g4! and after 24 . . . fxg4
25.'lNxg4 YMc8 (or 25 . . . :B:g8 26.:B:gl±;
25 . . . b5 26.axb5 axb5 27.fib3±;
25 . . . ttJe7 26.:B:g1 ttJf5 27J!de1 b5
28.axb5 axb5 29.fib3±) 26.'lNe2
YMf5 27.:B:g1 fih6 28.:B:g4t - Black
has problems in all the varia­
tions.
b2) lO ...gxf6
This move is much more pop­
ular. Black opens the g-file and he
plans to deploy his king's bishop
to h6.
11 .td3 !
. 12 . . . YMb6 13.ttJcd5 'lNxb2 14.
That is the precise move order.
White is not in a hurry to place his
knight on e3, because Black can
counter that with 11. ..fih6. After
1l . .td3, we will analyze b2a) 11 ...
gg8 and b2b) 11 ttJe7.
•••
About 1l . . .fig7 12.0-0 0-0
13.ttJe3 ttJe7 - see 1l ... ttJe7.
It is premature for Black to
play 1l . . . .th6? ! in view of 12 .YMh5.
The game Stevanovic - Schinis,
Yerevan 1996, followed with 12 . . .
.tg7 13.0-0 ttJe7 14.ttJe3 'lNb6 15.
ttJcd5 hd5 16.exd5±. It would be
interesting for Black, but still not
quite correct if he tries 12 . . . fif4 ! ?
13.g3 ttJd4 14.gxf4 fixc4 15. 0-0-0
YMa5 (or 15 ... b5 16.�b1 b4 17.hc4
:B:xc4 18.ttJd5±) 16.hc4 :B:xc4 17.
:B:d3± with an advantage for
White.
The move 1l . . . ttJd4? ! is not
justifiable for Black, just like on
move 9. The position after White's
natural move 12.ttJe3 has been
tested numerous times. His plan
is simple - he must complete his
development and then occupy the
d5-outpost and push c2-c3. Black
has nothing real to counter that
plan with, for example :
12 . . . 1ih6 13.0-0 0-0 (about
13 . . J:1g8, see 12 . . . :B:g8) 14.ttJcd5±
Dely - Flesch, Hungary 1965;
12 ... h5 13.0-0 h4 (or 13 . . .
fie7 14.ttJcd5± Guerrero - Regue,
Catalunia 1997) 14.ttJcd5 fig7
15.c3 ttJc6 16.'lNf3 ! :B:h6 17.ttJf5
hf5 18.exf5 ttJe7 19.ie4± Bron­
stein - Pilnik, Moscow 1956 ;
ttJxf6+ �d8 15. 0-0± Hjartarson
- Friojonsson, Iceland 198 0 ;
31
Chapter 3

12 . . . i.g7 13.0-0 0-0 (or 13 . . . bS - see 12 . . . �b6; 13 . . . he3 14.fxe3

14.tLlcdS fS lS.exfS hdS 16.tLlxdS :B:g8 lS.:B:f2 �b6 16.�d2± Blosze
�gS, Hessmer - Eiselt, DDR - Oechslein, corr. 1996; 13 . . . tLlxd3
1974, 17.f4±) 14.tLlcdS @h8 (or 14.�xd3 i.xe3 lS.'<Mfxe3±) 14.tLlcdS
14 . . .fS lS.exfS i.xdS 16.tLlxdS :B:cS i.xe3 lS.tLlxe3± Nielsen - Hald,
17.i.e4± Kasimdzhanov - Ben­ Farum 1993, Black fails to equal­
tout, Metz 1997) lS.�hS± Herb ize despite the simplifications.
- Bouton, France 1999;
12 . . . �aS 13. 0-0 :B:xc3 (or 13 . . . b2a) 1l :B:g8
...

h S 14.lZlcdS± Vehi - Riera, Man­ That is the most popular alter­

resa 1997) 14.bxc3 '<Mfxc3 lS.�hS native for Black to the frequently
i.g7 16.a4 0-0 17.:B:ab1 '<Mfc7, Royd played line 1l . . . tLle7.
- LIvanov, North Bay 1994, 18. 12.0-0
tLldS �d7 19.c3 lZlc6 20.:B:fel±;
12 . . . :B:g8 13. 0-0 ih6 (13 . . . :B:g6
14.tLlcdS :B:h6 lS.c3 tLlc6 16.�f3
i.g7 17.:B:adl± Korchnoi - Secchi,
Cordoba 1960) 14.lZlcdS :B:g6 (or
14 . . .fS lS.exfS ixdS 16.tLlxdS �gS
17.g3 tLlxfS 18.c3 :B:cS 19.�b3 bS
2 0.a4± Ochoa - Pacheco, Linares
1978) lS.c3 tLlc6 16.tLlfS± Poko­
jowczyk - Quinteros, Polanica
Zdroj 1977. White's advantage is 12 ih6
•••

indisputable in all the variations. About 12 . . . lZle7 13.tLle3 - see

Black tries sometimes to con­ 1l . . . lZle7.
trol the dS-square with the move It would be in favour of White
1l . . . tLlb4, but after 12.lZle3 ih6 if Black tries 12 . . . bS 13.tLle3 lZlb4,
(The line 12 . . . dS 13.exdS lZlxdS, Fossan - Qvortrup, Namsos 1995,
leads to a transposition of moves 14.lZlcdS±
- see 1l . . . tLle7; after 12 . . . tLlxd3+ 13. Black would not solve his
�xd3 �b6, Szalai - Klausen, corr. problems with the aggressive
1991, it is promising for White line: 12 . . . ig4 13.ie2 ih3 (if 13 . . .
to try 14. 0-0-0± and if 12 . . . '<Mfb6 fS, then 14.i.xg4 fxg4 lS.tLle3
13.0-0 ih6 14.tLledS hdS, as �gS 16.tLlcdS± Servat - Sakurai,
it was played in the game Alava Neuquen 1986; White maintains
- Tahkavuori, Jyvaskyla 1993, a stable edge after 13 . . . i.xe2 14.
then lS.tLlxdS tLlxdS 16.exdS± and �xe2 tLld4 1S.�d3± Luecke - Bon­
White has the initiative in a posi­ nmann, Cologne 1989) 14.tLle3
tion with opposite-coloured bish­ lZld4 (It is dubious for Black to try
ops.) 13.0-0 :B:g8 (about 13 . . . �b6 14 .. .fS?! lS.exfS ih6 16.if3± Ped-

32
 5. 0,c3 e5 6 . 0, db5 d6 7. il.g5 a6 8. 0, a3 il.e6 9. 0, c4

ersen - Nilssen, Aarhus 200S.) but White could have countered

in view of the accurate response that by transferring into a fa­
by White 1S.l!?h1 il.e6 16.il.d3 il.h6 vourable endgame with the line :
17.0,cdS;l; Kindermann - Ahmels, 16.l!?h1! he3 17.liJxe3 f4 18.gxh3
Germany 1982, with a better game fxe3 19.fxe3 'WgS 20.Elg1 'Wxg1+
for him. 21.'Wxg1 Elxg1+ 2 2 . Elxg1 l!?e7 23.
13.tDd5 ,tg4! ? c3±
Th e other possibility for Black
is also in favour of his opponent
13 . . . 0,b4 14.0,xb4 hc4 1S.hc4
Elxc4, Andersen - Heim, corr.
1994, 16. 0,dS ! fS (16 . . Jixe4? 17.
'Wf3+-) 17.exfS 'WgS 18.0,e3±
After 13 .. .fS, White has the re­
source 14.'WhS ! il.f8 1S.0,cb6 f4 !
(Black has no choice - 1S . . . Elb8?
16. exfS+-) 16. 0,xc8 il.g4 17.'Wxh7
Elg7 18.'Wxg7! (but not 18.'Wh8 16 .tf3 !
•

hc8oo) 18 . . . hg7 19.0,cb6± Matu­ The principled line: 16.0,xb4

lovic - Arnason, Zemun 1983 - he3 17.fxe3 il.xg2 18.Elf2 he4+
and White has a clear advantage 19.1!?f1 'Wd7 2 0.il.d3 'Wh3+ 21.I!?e2
with two rooks for a queen. il.g6 ! oo leads to a rather unclear
In case of 13 . . . hdS 14.exdS position.
0,e7, it is also good for White to 16 . . . tDxd5 17. tDxd5;!;
try 1S.'WhS il.f4 (or 1S . . . il.gS, Her­ Black's temporary activity has
brechtsmeier - Steiger, Germany been neutralized and White's
1992, 16.h4 il.f4 17.'Wxh7±) 16. prospects are superior.
'Wxh7 I!?f8, Owczarzak - Stryjecki,
Poraj 1997 and here 17.0,e3 ! 'Wb6 b2b) 1l . . . tDe7
(It is too risky for Black to open
the f-file: 17 . . . he3 18 .fxe3 0,xdS
19.il.e4±) 18.0,fS 0,xdS 19J!adl±
and he ends up in a very difficult
position.
14.ie2 ih3 15.tDce3 tDb4!?
Black has an original possibil­
ity to deflect his opponent from
protecting the g2-square, but it
has not been tested in practice yet.
In the game Klundt - Oechslein, Black forces his opponent's
Germany 1982, he chose 1S .. .fS, knight to retreat to the e3-square

33
Chapter 3
(the resource .th6 becomes even
more effective then) and he in­
creases his control over the vital
squares dS and fS.
12.liJe3
White fails with the straight­
forward line: 12.liJxd6+? �xd6
13 . .tbS+ , because of 13 . . . tbc6.
12 . . . .th6
Opening of the centre with
12 . . . dS? ! 13.exdS tbxdS 14.tbcxdS
.txdS is too risky for Black. There
might follow lS.0-0 .te6 (Black
has also tried here lS . . . hS, Pribor­
sky - Birklbauer, Aschach 200S,
16 . .tfS .te6 17.�f3±, as well as
lS . . . .tc6 16.�hS .tcS 17. .tc4 �e7,
Parkanyi - Rovid, Hungary 1998,
18.tbfS �f8 19.E!ad1 E!g8 20 . .tdS±)
16.�f3 �e7 17.E!ad1 .tg7 18 . .te4
E!c7 19.E!d3± Konguvel - George,
Chennai 2 0 0 0 and Black has
rather weak light squares.
Black has tested in practice
some other dubious lines like:
12 . . . �d7? ! 13.Wf3 .tg7 14.tbcdS
.txdS lS.exdS �a4 16.0-0± Ciric
- Eisinger, Oberhausen 1961, or
12 . . . hS? ! 13.0-0 �b6 14.tbcdS±
Kudrin - Fitzpatrick, Colum­
bus 1987, or 12 . . . E!cS? ! 13.0-0
hS 14.tbcdS ! .txdS lS.tbxdS tbxdS
16.exdS± Gligoric - Littlewood,
Hastings 1964.
In case of 12 . . . E!g8 13. 0-0, it
would be more prudent for Black
to choose the move 13 . . . .th6,
which we will analyze later - see
12 . . . .th6, since after his other at­
tempts White obtains the advan­
tage much easier, for example:
34
13 . . . E!gS? ! 14.�f3 tbg6 lS. wh1 hS
(or lS . . . tbh4 16.�e2±) 16.tbcdS±
Dely - Szilagyi, Budapest 1974.
White maintains a clear edge
after the rather modest line for
Black: 12 . . . .tg7 13. 0 - 0 0-0 (about
13 ... �b6 - see 12 . . . Wb6; 13 . . . tbg6
14.tbcdS .txdS lS.tbxdS hS, Kroe­
ner - Eiselt, DDR 1974, 16.�f3±)
14.�f3 E!e8 lS.tbcdS tbg6 16.g3±
Almasi - Rovid, Budapest 1993 .
It is more principled for Black
to try 12 . . . �b6 and White must
sacrifice a pawn in answer to that
13. 0-0! �xb2 (about 13 . . . .th6
14.tbcdS - see 12 . . . .th6; it is in­
consistent for Black to play 13 . . .
.tg7 14.tbcdS .txdS lS.exdS 0 - 0
16.�hS tbg6 17.tbfS± Borngaess­
er - Gelzenleichter, Dortmund
1987, or 13 . . . E!g8 14.tbcdS .txdS
lS.tbxdS tbxdS 16.exdS h6 17.a4±
Fishbein - Agdestein, Stavanger
1989 and he ends up in a dif­
ficult position.) 14.tbcdS. After
14 . . ..txdS, both captures seem to
be reasonable for White, but still
it looks better for him to opt for
lS.tbxdS ! ? tbxdS 16.exdS. White's
bishop is much stronger than
its counterpart is, while Black's
doubled extra pawn is completely
immaterial. There might follow
16 . . . �d4 (about 16 . . . E!c7 17.�f3
We7 18.a4 ! Wd4 - see 16 . . . �d4)
17.�f3 We7 (It is not better for
Black to try 17 . . . .tg7 18.a4 E!c7
19.E!fd1 �cS 20.E!abl± Coleman
- R.Thomas, Internet 1997; in
case of 17 . . . Wh4 18.E!ab1 bS, White
has the resource 19.a4 ! ± Wit-
 5.tiJc3 e5 6JiJdb5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. ttJa3 ie6 9. ttJ c4
tmann - Krustkalns, corr. 1976;
it is only slightly better for Black
to continue with 17. . . h5 ! ? 1B.l:!ab1
b5, but even then the endgame
is better for White after 19.a4 !
�xa4 2 0.l:!a1 �g4 2 1.'�xg4 hxg4
22.!'bca6±, or 19 . . . %Yg4 20.%Yxg4
hxg4 21.axb5 axb5 22.l:!xb5± La­
kos - S.Horvath, Hungary 1997)
1B.a4 ! (That is an important in­
termediate move.) 1B . . . l:!c7 (or
1B ... ih6 19.1:!fb1 l:!c7 20.l:!a3 id2
21.l:!ab3 %Ya7 22.l:!b6± Paulucci
- Perez, corr. 19B O) 19.1:!fd1 %Yc3
(19 . . . �h4 20.l:!db1 l:!gB 21.l:!a3 !
�g4 2 2 .ixh7±) 20.l:!ab1 �a5 21.
�e4± Mednis - Lombardy, Pasa­
dena 197B. It is quite evident that
White's initiative is powerful. His
pressure along the b-file and his
control over the light squares pro­
vide him with a more than suffi­
cient compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn.
13.0-0!
White would not mind the ex­
change on e3, since he would ex­
ert powerful pressure along the
opened f-file.
13 . . . .ixe3
White maintains his advan-
tage effortlessly in case of 13 . . . l:!c5
14.%Yf3 ig5 15.ttJcd5± Lau - Enz-
mann, Dresden 1997, or 13 . . . ttJg6
14.g3 ,be3 15.fxe3 h5 (or 15 . . . %Yb6
16.%Yf3±) 16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 h4
1B.%Yg4± Kozamernik - Mlacnik,
Bled 2000, or 13 . . . �b6 14.ttJed5
ixd5 15.exd5 ig7 (but not 15 . . .
%Yxb2? 16.ttJe4+-) 16.%Yg4 0-0
17.ttJe4 c;t>hB 1B.ttJg3± Alves - Li­
mayo, corr. 1997.
It looks more logical for Black
to play 13 . . . l:!gB. After 14.�f3, the
following line is clearly in his fa­
vour: 14 . . . l:!g6? ! 15.ttJcd5 ttJc6
16.c3 c;t>fB 17.%Yh5 c;t>gB 1B.ttJf5±
Bresciani - Agnelli, Bratto 1997.
Therefore Black must choose
between 14 . . . ttJg6 15.g3 ttJf4 ! ? ,
Kosten - Ammann, London
19BB and here White could have
maintained his positional pres­
sure with the line : 16.ttJcd5 c;t>fB
(or 16 . . . ixd5? ! 17.ttJxd5 ttJxd5
1B.exd5±) 17.l:!fd1 ttJxd3 1B.l:!xd3
ixe3 19.ttJxe3t;
or 14 . . .ixe3 15.fxe3 �b6 (If
15 . . . l:!g6, then 16.ttJd5 and Black
has serious problems in all the
variations : 16 . . . ttJxd5 17. exd5
ig4 1B.%Yf2±; 16 . . . ixd5 17.exd5
l:!h6 1B.c4 �b6 19.1:!f2± Becker
- Krege, Ditzingen 2003; 16 . . .
ttJgB 17.h3 c;t>fB 1B.a4± Hamil­
ton - Goldsmith, Adelaide 19BO)
16.ttJd5 ixd5 17.exd5 f5 (Black
fails to protect his pawn any­
more: 17 . . . l:!c7 1B .l:!ael±; 17 . . . ttJg6
1B.c;t>hl± Suresh - Mahesh, Co­
chin 2 000.) 1B.ixf5 ttJxf5 19.�xf5
�xe3 + 20.c;t>h1 l:!c7 2 1.�xh7 �g5
35
Chapter 3
2 2 . !U2 gg7 (The king and rook
endgame after 2 2 . . . �g6 23.�xg6
gxg6 24.gafl± Oliveira - Vitor,
Lisbon 1994, seems to be hope­
less for Black, since he is a pawn
down.) 23.�h8+ gg8 24.�h3±
Konguvel - Bhattacharyya, Cal­
cutta 1994 and White remains
with a material advantage.
14.fxe3 'iHb6
Here after 14 . . . gg8 ? ! lS.gxf6
�b6 16.�c1 gg6 17.gf2± Barns­
ley - Surroca, corr. 2000, Black
is simply left with a pawn down.
It is hardly advisable for him to
try 14 . . . ltJg8 ? ! lS.ltJdS hS 16.c3 fS
17.�b3± Pujols - Elissalt, Cuba
1999.
15.�f3 h5 !
Black wishes to acquire the
h6-square for his rook.
About lS . . . gg8 - see 13 . . . gg8.
It is hardly advisable for Black
to continue with lS . . . �xb2? !
16.ltJdS hdS 17.exdS fS (or 17 . . .
e 4 18.�xe4 �eS 19.�xf6± Tsesh­
kovsky; 17. . . �b6 18.gab1 �c7 19.
�xf6 gf8 20.c4 bS 21.cxbS ltJxdS
2 2 . �f3± Fantin - Terrieux, France
2006) 18.hfS ltJxfS 19.�xfS±
Holmes - Shutler, Swansea 1987
- White is threatening to capture
on f7 as well as the double attack
- 2 0 .�f6 .
I f l S . . . gc7, then 16.ltJd1 gg8
17.�xf6 gg6, Mittermeier - Jan­
zen, corr. 2001, 18.�h4± and
White remains with an extra
pawn.
16.ltJd5 .b:d5 17.exd5 gh6
IS.gabl �a5
36
In the game Tseshkovsky
- Chandler, Minsk 1982, there
followed 18 . . . gc7 19.c4 fS and
White countered that with 2 0 .b3
(It was also good for him to play
20.�hl ! ?±, preventing fS-f4.)
20 . . .f4 (it is even worse for Black
to play 20 . . . e4? ! 2 1.�f4 gg6
2 2 .,te2±) 21.gbe1 ltJg8 (or 21.. .fS
22.�hl±) 22.�h1 fxe3 23 .�g3 !
(White is not in a hurry to cap­
ture the e3-pawn and he is trying
to provoke at first the weakening
move f7-f6.) 23 . . . �f8 24.�gS!
f6 2S.�h4 gg7 26.,tfS ggS (The
exchange of queens would not
change the evaluation of the po­
sition 26 . . . �d4 27.�xd4 exd4
28.gf4 ggS 29.�h3 d3 30.gd4±)
27.,te6± White obtained a great
advantage.
19.e4;!;
Black has too many weakness­
es and his pieces lack coordina­
tion. White's advantage is indis­
putable because of that.
It is too dangerous for Black
to opt for 19 . . . �xa2? 20.�e3 gh8
21.�b6 !± (de Firmian).
His best chance is 19 . . .fS and
after 2 0.a3 f4 (after 20 . . . �f8, de
 5. tD c3 e5 6 . tiJdb5 d6 7. i.g5 a6 B . tiJ a3 i.e6 9 . tiJ c4

Firmian - Matulovic, Vrnjachka lLlg6 (but not 27 . . . :gxd5? 28.exd5

Banja 1983, White's simplest re­
action would be 21.c4±) 21.b4!
'\1;l(b6+ (21. . . '\1;l(xa3? 22 .i.b5+-) 2 2 .
�h1, White preserves his edge af­
ter 22 . . . llJg6 23.c4 lLlh4 (23 . . . YNe3
24.YNxe3 fxe3 25.g3±) 24.YNh3 YNd8
25.c5 ! dxc5 26.bxc5 :E!xc5, Hess
- Zdziubany, DDR 1987, 27.g3 !
'\1;l(xd5+ 29.�g1 YNd4+ 30.:E!f2
'\1;l(xd3 31.'\1;l(c8+-) 28.:gxb7±, while
in case of 22 . . . h4, White follows
with 23.c4 YNa7 24.:E!fc1 b6 (24 . . . h3
25.g3;!;) 25.:E!b3;!;. White prepares
gradually the pawn-advance c4-
c5 and Black would be forced to
defend passively.

Conclusion about Chapters 2 and 3

The lines we analyze in these chapters are characterized by the

fact that Black postpones the move b7-b5 and that enables White to
improve quickly the placement of his knight on a3.

Among the numerous possibilities for Black to avoid entering the

main line of the Chelyabinsk variation (B. . . b5), only the move B . . . i.e6
can be considered as a serious alternative for him with chances of
obtaining counterplay. In case of 9. lLlc4! :E!cB! l O . il.xj6 YNxf6, there
arises a situation in which White has the possibility of deploying his
knight on b6 and then offortifying it there with the pawn-march a2-
a4-a5, preserving a considerable space advantage on the queenside.

In case Black plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, White places his knight on e3 and he

impedes the pawn advances d6-d5 andf6-f5 for Black. Therefore, his
active counterplay is reduced only to ih6 and '\1;l(b6. White maintains
superior prospects too, but he must play precisely. It is also important
that if Black captures on e3, White recaptures there with hisf2-pawn
and his pressure along the open f-file becomes rather unpleasantfor
Black. White's unprotected b2-pawn proves to be poisoned in numer­
ous lines.

37
Chapter 4 1.e4 c5 2.lLIf3 lLIc6 3. d4 cxd4 4.lLIxd4
e6 5.lLIc3 e5 6. lLI db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
8.lLIa3 b5 9.lLId5

Republic 1992 , 12 .tLJc2 tLJc5 13.

We can see on the diagram the
basic position of the Chelyabinsk
variation. In this chapter we will
analyze all Black's sensible moves
as well as after the most logical
and popular move for him 9 •••
J.e7 and White's obligatory move
1 0 .txf6 - the dubious line for
• better for Black to try 12 . . . tLJe7
Black 1 0 gxf6? ! - variation c).
•••
He has also tried among the rare­
ly played moves a) 9 J.e6?! and
•••
b) 9 . . :�a5 + .
The other possibilities for
Black seem to be even weaker:
9 . . . J.d7? ! , Popovic - Erkan,
Tallinn 1997, lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3
!g7 IVt�c2 f5 13.exf5 ixf5 14.
tLJce3 - see 9 . . . ie6;
9 . . . tLJd4?! - Black helps his
opponent to centralize his knight
with tempi. lO.c3 tLJe6 1l.ixf6
gxf6, Trefny - Inneman, Czech
YHf3± Black's central pawns are
immobile and they restrict the
scope of action of his dark-squared
bishop;
9 . . . ib7? ! - The absence of
Black's bishop from the c8-h3 di­
agonal helps White to control the
fS-square. lO.ixf6 gxf6 11.c3 ig7
(It is terrible for Black to play 11 . . .
ic8?, Balz - Sickert, Verden 1999,
since he loses two crucial tempi
and after White's most energetic
reaction 12 .ixb5 ! axb5 13.tLJxb5�,
Black comes under a crushing at­
tack.) 12 .tLJc2 0-0 (It is hardly any
13.YHg4 �g8 14.tLJxe7 'ifixe7 15.
tLJe3±) 13.id3 tLJe7, Brandstetter
- Eberhard, Austria 1995 and
here after 14.tLJxe7+ 'ifixe7 15.
tLJe3± White controls the d5 and
f5-squares and he has good at­
tacking prospects against Black's
compromised kingside;
9 . . . h6? ! - That is an obvious
loss of time. 10.hf6 gxf6 11.c3 f5
(About 11.. .ie6 12 .tLJc2 - see 9 . . .
ie6; i n answer t o 11.. .ig7, Dhar
Barua - Aguedo, Santiago 1990,
White is totally dominant in the

38
 5.tlJc3 e5 6. llJdb5 d6 7. ig5 a6 B. llJa3 b5 9. llJ d5
centre after 12.'i;Yf3 0 - 0 13.llJc2
ie6 14.llJce3±; 11...l3gB - That is
an attempt to organize some
counterplay along the g-file. 12.
Wf3 !!g6 13.h3 l3bB 14.llJc2 as,
Kroeger - AMueller, Germany
1991 and here after IS.llJce3± it
becomes obvious that the rook on
g6 has no good scope of action,
while Black's positional defects
are evident.) 12.exfS ixf5 13.Wf3
id7 (It is a disaster for Black to
opt for 13 . . . ie6 14.llJxbS axbS
IS.ixbS l3cB I6.llJb4+- Farah - Se­
rafim, Mar del Plata 1992 and now
even after his most tenacious de­
fence 16 . . . e4 17.Wxe4 dS IB.Wd4
ixb4 19.WxhB+ ifB 20.0-0+­
White's rook with pawns is much
stronger than Black's passive cou­
ple of light pieces.) 14.llJf6+ We7,
Firnhaber - Kirmse, Rostock
2 0 0 2 and here after IS.id3 ie6
(It is even worse for Black to play
IS . . . l3cB 16.llJxd7+-, or IS . . . ig7
16.llJxd7 Wxd7 17.ie4+-) 16.llJdS+
wd7 17.llJc2 WbB IB. O-O± Black's
king remains stranded in the cen­
ter an he is in for a big trouble;
9 .. JThB ? ! - Black determines
the placement of his rook a bit
too early. 1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 fS
12.exfS ixfS, Mohr - Peterwag­
ner, Austria 1995, 13.Wf3 WcB
(It is not preferable for Black to
try 13 . . . ie6 14.llJf6+ We7 IS.llJc2
ih6 16.l3dl± and White domi­
nates in the centre.) 14.llJf6+ WdB
1S.g4 ie6 (1S . . . ie7 16.gxfS ixf6
17.0-0-0 Wd7 1B.llJc2±) 16.llJc2
ie7 17.ig2± Black has no active
prospects due to the vulnerable
position of his king.
a) 9 . . . ie6?!
Black allows his pawns to be
doubled on the f-file in the hope
of advancing f6-fS at some mo­
ment, but in that case his light­
squared bishop comes to fS in
two moves - icB-e6xfS, there­
fore White wins a tempo in com­
parison to the line 9.ixf6 gxf6 1O.
llJdS.
10.ixf6 gxf6 lt.c3
We will see now the moves al)
It . . .f5 and a2) It . . . ig7.
Black has also tried in prac­
tice:
1l . . . ie7? ! 12.llJc2 - see 9 . . . ie7
1O.ixf6 gxf6 1l.c3 ie6 12.llJc2,
variation c;
1l ... hS? - That move does not
contribute to the development of
Black's pieces. 12.llJc2 ixdS, Zor­
ko - Serdt, Ptuj 2005 and here
White's most aggressive reaction
seems to be 13.exdS llJ e7 (or 13 . . .
llJaS I4.b4 llJb7 1S.a4±) 14.a4 bxa4
1S.llJb4 Wd7 16.ixa6± and White
remains with an extra pawn and a
superior development;
39
Chapter 4
1l . . . h6? - Black loses time
without any reason. 1VtJc2 fS (or
12 . . . ig7, Nekula - Kocab, Mora­
via 2 0 03, 13.a4 bxa4 14.ttJce3 0-0
1S.'i;1fxa4 ttJe7 16.id3±) 13.exfS
ixfS 14.ttJce3 ig6 (In answer to
14 . . . ie6, Chiburdanidze - Mer­
lini, Buenos Aires 1978, it looks
strong for White to follow with
1S.a4 ! l3b8 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6
id7 18.id3 and Black has no sat­
isfactory defence against 19.ifS
with the unavoidable exchange of
the light-squared bishops.) 1S.a4
l3b8 (or 1S . . . b4 16.aS ttJb8, Toth
- Sebe Vodislav, Paks 1998 and
after 17.'i;1fa4+ ttJd7 18.%Yxb4 ttJcS
19.ixa6+- Black loses plenty of
material.) 16.axbS axbS 17.l3a6
%Yc8 18.'i;1fb3± Akhigbe - Liwat,
Saint Paul 2 000;
1l . . . ih6 - Black's bishop is
not useful on that square. 12.ttJc2
ixdS 13.'i;1fxdS ttJe7 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7,
Jimenez Alvarez - Llaneza Vega,
Gijon 2 0 0 0 and here after 15.l3d1
fS (or 15 . . . l3d8 16.lLlb4 %Yb7 17.'i;1ff3
0-0 18.id3± White is in total
control of the light squares in
the centre.) 16.exfS %YxfS (Black
should better refrain from 16 . . .
lLlxfS 17.lLlb4 �f8 18.g3±, because
he fails to discoordinate White's
pieces after 18 . . . %Yb7? 19.%YxfS !
'i;1fxh1 20.l3xd6+-) 17.%YxfS ttJxf5
18.g3 �e7 19.ttJb4± Black's central
pawns are weak and his pieces are
too passive;
1l . . J�b8? ! - This development
of the rook is premature. 12.lLlc2
ixd5, Stertenbrink - Dornieden,
40
Germany 1984 and here after
13.exdS ttJe7 14.a4 ih6 1S.lLlb4±
Black has problems with the pro­
tection of his queenside pawns;
1l . . . l3g8 - Black's rook has no
good scope of action on the g-file,
because White can play g2-g3 at
any moment. 12 .ttJc2 ixdS (12 . . .
fS - That pawn-advance i s pre­
mature too. 13.exfS ixfS, Ciampi
- Antonischki, Italy 1998, 14.'i;1ff3 !
l3g5 1S.lLlf6+ �e7 16.h4+- and
White wins material; 12 . . . l3c8 ? !
- This move compromises Black's
queenside, Blimke - Korp, Rima­
vska Sobota 1992 , 13.a4±; 12 . . . ig4
- Black simply loses time, since the
trade of the light-squared bishops
is of course favourable for White.
13.ie2 ic8?! 14.lLlce3 ih6 1S. 0-0
�f8, Petters - Sanchez Carol,
corr. 2004, 16.ig4 ixe3 17.ixc8
'i;1fxc8 18 .fxe3± Black is incapable
of defending his weaknesses on
the f-file. After 12 . . . ih6 13.lLlce3
ixe3 14.lLlxe3 lLlaS 1S.'i;1fhS± he
has no compensation for his
numerous weak pawns, Bentel
- Hildenbrandt, Email 1997.)
13.%Yxd5 lLle7 (The move 13 . . . l3c8
- compromises Black's queenside
and after 14.a4 'i;1fb6 1S.axb5 ttJe7
16.'i;1fb3 l3a8 17.g3± he remained a
pawn down without any counter­
play, Butze - Matjusjinskij, corr.
1984.) 14.'i;1fd3 'i;1fd7, Huber - Re­
uschl, Nuremberg 2005 and here
after 15.l3d1 �7 (The endgame
is difficult for Black in case of
15 .. .fS 16.exfS 'i;1fxfS 17.%YxfS lLlxf5
18.id3±) 16.g3 fS 17.ig2± and
 S.tijc3 eS 6 . tiJ dbS d6 7. igS a6 B.ltJa3 bS 9.ltJdS
White is much better prepared for
opening of the centre;
1l .. Jk8 12.ltJc2 fS (About
12 . . . ig7 13.ltJce3 - see 11 . . . ig7
12.ltJc2 l'k8 13.ltJce3; 12 . . . hdS? !
- Black has problems protecting
his queenside pawns after that
exchange. 13.exdS ltJe7 14.a4 :1!c5
lS.axbS axbS, Baumegger - Her­
zog, Austria 1996, 16.ltJa3 ih6
17.hbS+ �f8 18. 0-0± White's
pieces are much more active and
he has an extra pawn. It would be
very dangerous for Black to re­
capture it: 18 . . . :1!xdS 19.WlhS �g7
2 0.ic4+-, or 18 . . . ltJxdS 19.b4
ltJxc3 2 0.Wlh5+-; The move 12 . . .
:1!b8 - enables White t o play ac­
tively on the queenside, Botter­
ill - Littlewood, Coventry 1970,
13.a4 bxa4 14.ltJce3±, or 13 . . .
f5 14. axbS axbS 15.exfS !xfS 16.
ltJce3±) 13.exf5 !xf5 14.ltJce3
ig6 (after 14 . . . ie6 lS.a4 hd5? !
16. ltJxdS Wlh4 17.axbS+-, Black
falls behind in development con­
siderably and he loses at least a
pawn, Marduhajev - Wendland,
Germany 1998) 15.a4 ig7 (It
is not better for Black to opt for
15 . . . :1!b8 16.axbS axbS, Reppen
- Steinskog, Copenhagen 2006,
after 17.l'�a6 Wlc8 18.Wlf3+- he has
hardly any appropriate defence
against 19.:1!xc6, for example
18 . . . e4 19.Wlf6 :1!g8 2 0 .ie2 hS 21.
0-0+- and Black is practically
s1.'lli emated completely.) 16.axbS
axbS 17.h4 !± It is quite useful for
White to include that move and
Black failed to find successful de-
fence. 17 . . . h5 18.!xbS �f8 19.:1!a6
ltJb8 2 0 .:1!a7 ltJc6 21.!xc6 :1!xc6
22 .Wla4 :1!c8 23.ltJe7 1-0 Gallagher
- Hannaske, Eupen 1993 ;
11 . . .!xd5 12.exdS ltJe7 (After
12 . . . ltJb8 13.id3 ltJd7 14.0-0±
White has a total control over the
light squares. Black cannot acti­
vate his pieces with the line : 14 . . .
fS lS.hfS WIgS, Jones - Schmug­
gerow, Chicago 1989, because af­
ter the simple reaction 16.!xd7 +
�xd7 17.c4 :1!g8 18.g3+- he has
no compensation for the pawn.
Black would not fare any bet­
ter if he fights for the f5-square
with 12 . . . ltJa7 13.id3 h5 14.ltJc2
ih6 15.0-0± Tsyvarev - Koro­
Yin, St Petersburg 1997. Black is
in trouble too following 12 . . . ltJa5
13.id3 :1!cB 14.0-0 h5 15.ifS±,
his main problems is his bad
dark-squared bishop and the lag
in development. After 15 . . . :1!cS?
16.b4 :1!xc3 17.ltJbl :1!c4 18.bxaS
Wlxa5 19.1tJd2+- Black has lost a
piece and he has not solved any
problems at all, Sharma - Islam,
Chennai 2004.) 13.ltJxb5 :1!b8 (It is
too risky for Black to try to regain
his pawn with 13 . . . Wlb6 14.ltJa3
Wlxb2 15.Wla4+ �dB 16.WlaS+
�d7 17.:1!bl Wlxa2 18.:1!b7+ 1-0
Perez Diaz - Mateo Lopez, Mala­
ga 2000. His compensation for
the pawn is rather dubious after
13 . . . ig7 14.ltJa3 0-0 15.ie2 f5
16. 0-0± Castelfranchi - Corvi,
Rome 1991.) 14.ltJa3 Wla5 (Black
loses following 14 . . . :1!xb2 15.Wla4+
Wld7 16.Wlxa6 �d8 17.ib5 Wlc7,
41
Chapter 4
Kosc - Formage, Debrecen 1992,
and here White's simplest solu­
tion is 1S.tZlc4+-) 1S.tZlc4± Fressi­
net - Bienvenu, Montlucon 1997.
al) 1l . . . f5
Black accomplishes that the­
matic advance, but White is well
prepared for it.
12.exfS hf5
After 12 . . ..bdS 13.WxdS tZle7
(It is evidently worse for Black to
opt for 13 . . . :1kS 14.tZlc2 and here it
is bad for him to try 14 . . . ElgS 1S.a4
tZlaS 16.axbS+- Abejon - Rivas,
Madrid 2004, as well as 14 . . . WgS
1S.tZle3 1le7 16.a4 0-0 17.axbS
axbS 1S.1lxbS tZldS 19.h4+- Ham­
mond - De Roo, Germany 19S9.
It is more resilient for Black to de­
fend with 14 . . . tZle7 1S.Wf3 Wd7 16.
tZle3 Wc6 17.Wxc6 + Elxc6, Kammer
- Leiser, Regensburg 1997, 1S.a4
bxa4 19.Elxa4±, but even then he
can hardly prove any sufficient
compensation for the pawn, or
14 . . . Wb6 1S.tZle3 hS, Manninen -
Rauramaa, Finland 1995, and
here after 16.f6 Elh6 17.Wf3± Black
has problems with his develop­
ment and his king stranded in the
42
centre, while he remains a pawn
down anyway.) 14.Wf3 dS (The
other possibilities for Black do
not seem natural: 14 . . . ElbS? 1S.f6
tZlg6 16.Wc6+ 1-0 Coelho - Jacob,
Brazil 2004; 14 . . . 1lh6, Wallace -
Tulevski, Penrith 2 0 03, 1S.f6 tZlg6
16.Wc6+ @fS 17.Eld1+-; 14 . . . WcS
1S.f6 tZlg6 16.1ld3 Ela7 17.tZlc2 Elc7
1S.tZlb4+- Schutt - Dini, Brazil
2003; 14 . . . ElcS, James - Taylor,
Telford 2004, 1S.f6 tZlc6 16.tZlc2
dS 17. 0-0-0± and Black has no
compensation for the pawn, be­
cause his centre is vulnerable.)
1S.tZlc2 1lh6 (1S . . . Wb6, Chovanec
- Hamarat, Internet 2 0 04, 16.tZle3
e4 17.Wf4 EldS 1S.f6 tZlgS 19.a4± -
Black's compensation for the
pawn is evidently insufficient)
16.Eld1 e4 17.WhS Wd6 1S. 1le2 ElgS
19.Wh3 EldS 2 0 . 0- 0± Del Rio An­
gelis - Castaldo, Bratto 2 0 03.
13.Wf3
.
.I �III � §�. ,� . �; •
. ,. . 'UN'
III • .i.i
i .l.A). • •
iif$a p":\ jijj % 1. .
iif$a
• i ."l-HL.� •
�
• • • •
" .j B .'i¥.
fJ �f� • B fJ B
� f . 1f4l% �i.. 1i
�
13 ••• 1le6
It is a disaster for Black to
play 13 . . . WgS? 14.tZlc7+ @d7 1S.
tZlxa8+- Buttner - Coronel, Bue­
nos Aires 2003. He would not save
the game either with the line: 13 . . .
1ld7? 14.tZlf6+ @e7 1S.1ld3 1lg7 (or
 S. !iJc3 eS 6.!iJdbS d6 7. j.gS a6 B. !iJa3 bS 9. !iJ dS
1S . . .l:!a7 16.�e4+-) 16.!iJxd7 VNxd7
17.�e4 gac8 18.i.fS+- Sadykov
- De Silva, Doha 2003.
After 13 ... j.g6 14.!iJf6+ @e7 1S.
!iJdS+ @e8 16.id3 j.g7 17. 0-0
@f8 18.!iJc2 VNgS, Schemmann -
Karppa, Internet 2004, White ob­
tains a total control over the light
squares in the centre with 19.!iJc7
VNe7! 20.hg6 V!!xc7 21.�e4±
14.�f6+ q;e7 15.�c2 J.h6
The move 1S . . . dS? ! - is too
optimistic. Here, Black has
problems protecting his central
pawns. 16.gd1 e4 17.VNf4 VNb8? !
(This move loses, but even af­
ter the more tenacious line: 17 . . .
J.g7 18.!iJxdS+ ixdS 19.!iJe3 !iJd4
2 0 .V!!g S+ @f8 21.VNxdS± White
preserves his extra pawn and
superior development.) 18.VNh4
!iJeS 19.!iJxdS+ @d6 20.VNxe4 fS
2 1.!iJc7+ 1-0 Johannsen - Papen­
kordt, Bad Sooden 2 003.
It is hardly better for Black to
try 1S . . . gc8 16.!iJe3 J.g7, Ptlich­
thofer - Trefzer, Wuerttemberg
1998, and here after 17.!iJfdS+
@f8 18.j.d3 !iJe7 19.!iJxe7 VNxe7
2 0 . 0-0±, Black's defence is dif­
ficult, because of the vulnerable
placement of his king.
16.gdl VNfS (16 . . . gc8? 17.ltJe4
fS 18.ltJxd6+- Olives - Serra­
no, Palma de Mallorca 2002)
17.�d5+ .ixdS 18.ti'xd5 @d7
19.J.d3± - The light squares in
Black's camp are catastrophi­
cally weak and his king is unsafe,
moreover that the coordination of
his pieces is not to be envied. The
game ended very quickly: 19 . . .
!iJe7 2 0.hbS+ axbS 21.VNxd6 +
@c8 2 2 .VNd7+ @b8 23.ti'xbS+ @c8
24.VNcS+ @b8 2S.gd7 1-0 Isonzo
- Bonaccorsi, Letojanni 2001.
a2) 1l ig7 ••.
This move looks the most natu­
ral - Black is preparing to castle.
12.!iJc2
12 ••• f5
About 12 . . . gb8 13.!iJce3 !iJe7
14.J.d3 - see 12 ... !iJe7 13.!iJce3
gb8 14.J.d3.
12 . . . gCS? ! - This rook is not
useful on that square. 13.!iJce3
!iJe7 14.J.d3 ixdS 1S.exdS VNd7
16.ti'f3± Z.Almasi - Bigonnet,
Bastia 200S.
12 ... !iJe7 - Black fights for the
dS-square with that logical move.
13.!iJce3 1"lb8 (About 13 . . . 0-0
43
Chapter 4
14.i.d3 - see 12 . . . 0-0; in answer
to 13 .. .fS, Gasik - Gramcow, Lac­
zna 2 002 , it seems logical for
White to continue with 14.ttJxe7
Wixe7 lS.exfS i.d7 16.ttJdS WidS
17.i.d3± and he remains with a
solid extra pawn. It is not better
for Black to try 13 . . . ttJxdS 14.exdS
i.d7 lS.i.d3 hS 16.Wif3 h4 17.i.fS±
and his dark-squared bishop
has no active scope whatsoever,
Hardarson - S. Farago, Budapest
2 0 0S.) 14.i.d3 hS lS.0-0 WicS
16.Wif3 Elh6 17.h3± White has pre­
vailed in the fight for the central
dS and fS-squares and after 17 . . .
wfS lS. Elfc1 Elg6 19.c4 b 4 20.ttJxe7
Wxe7 21.ttJfS+ hfS 22.exfS Elh6
23.cS-+ the presence of opposite­
coloured bishops on the board
enhances White's attack, Mus
- Gaida, Poland 1991.
12 ... 0-0 - This is a natural
move. 13.ttJce3 ttJe7 (About 13 . . .
ElbS 14.i.d3 ttJe7 1S. 0-0 - see 13 . . .
ttJe7 14.i.d3 ElbS ; in answer to
13 . . . WhS, Alaverdyan - Ruzicka,
Volyne 2 0 03, it is logical for
White to deploy at first his pieces
according to the correct scheme
and to start then active actions
on the queenside with 14.i.d3
ElgS 1S.0-0 i.h6 16.a4±; 13 . . .
WiaS? ! Roberts - Sanchez Carol,
corr. 2 0 04, Black's queen is mis­
placed here, the only idea of the
move is to push bS-b4, but White
can parry that simply with 14.a3 !?
ElfeS 1S.i.d3 ttJe7 16.0-0±) 14.i.d3
i.xdS (After 14 . . . ttJxdS 1S.exdS i.d7
16.WihS h6, Luchko - Dikinov,
44
Krasnodar 2001, White's consid­
erable advantage can be best em­
phasized with the accurate move
17.i.fS±; it is not preferable for
Black to try 14 . . . ElbS lS.0-0 WhS,
Zacik - Kovarik, Slovakia 2002,
after 16.Wif3 i.xdS 17.exdS ttJg6
lS.g3± Black's pieces are deprived
of any active prospects; 14 . . . WhS
lS.Wif3 ttJg6 16.h4 i.xdS 17.exdS±
Black's central pawns have been
blocked and his knight has no
reliable squares, his bishop is
a sorry sight and it resembles a
pawn. His attempt to free his po­
sition led him to a swift demise
after 17 .. .fS lS.ttJxfS Wif6 19.hS
ttJf4 20.h6+- Suarez Real - Bar­
rio Garcia, Spain 1996. Black has
problems too following lS . . . ttJgS,
Beltre - Saez, Balaguer 2 0 01, af­
ter 16.0-0 ElbS 17.Elfdl± his pieces
are tied up with the protection of
the f6-pawn and they have no ac­
tive prospects.) lS.exdS Wid7 (It
is possibly best for Black to try
lS .. .fS 16.i.xfS ttJxfS 17.ttJxfS WigS
lS.Wif3 e4 19.Wih3±, although
even then he can hardly claim any
compensation for the pawn, Fe­
her - Domotor, Zalakaros 1995,)
16.0-0 fS? - This move blunders a
pawn, but after 16 . . . ttJg6 17.WihS±
Black's defence is problematic
anyway - 17.i.xfS ttJxfS 1S.Wig4
whS 19.WixfS+- Garcia Martinez
- Rodriguez Bachiller, Alcala de
Henares 2006.
12 . . . hdS 13.WixdS (After 13.
exdS ttJe7, Black has more chanc­
es to advance his f6-pawn, in
 5.tDC3 e5 6.tDdbS d6 7. :1I.g5 a6 B.tDa3 b5 9.li:Jd5
comparison to the case when he
postpones the exchange on d5.)
13 . . . ttJe7 14.'lWd3 d5 (The move
14 . . . 'lWb6? ! - looks strange, be-
cause his queen does not par­
ticipate in the preparation of the
pawn-advances d6-d5 and f6-f5,
C.Mamedov - Davidov, Baku
2 0 01, 15.:1I.e2 0-0 16.0-0 Ei:fdB
17.ttJe3±; after 14 . . .f5 15.exf5 d5,
van den Doel - Darnstaedt, Berlin
1993 , White's most reliable line
seems to be 16.:1I.e2 0-0 17. 0-0
'lWd7 1B.:1I.g4± and Black will have
problems proving that his centre
compensates fully the pawn defi­
cit. After 14 . . . 'lWd7 15.ttJe3 :1I.h6,
Duda - Kucera, Liberec 2005,
White must calmly complete
his development, without being
afraid of the trade of the passive
bishop of his opponent. 16.:1I.e2
:1I.xe3 17.fxe3 ! 'lWe6 1B.O-O±. He
must act in an analogous fashion
in the variation: 14 . . . Ei:a7 15.ttJe3
:1I.h6, Baze - Manohar, Kalama­
zoo 2003, 16.:1I.e2 'lWb6 17. 0-0±
and White's doubled e-pawns will
impede Black to protect his weak­
nesses successfully.) 15.0-0-0
dxe4 16. 'lWxe4 'lWbB, Dluzniewski -
Grabek, Augustow 1997, and here
after 17.ttJe3 :1I.h6 1B.g4± White
prevents the advance of Black's
f6-pawn and he maintains a clear
advantage thanks to his superior
development and his better pawn­
structure.
13.exf5 :1l.xf5 14.ttJce3 .!e6
14 . . . :1I.d7? ! - Black's bishop
does not control the d5-square
from here, Mader - Kranabet­
ter, Austria 1992 , 15.:1I.d3 ttJe7
16.:1I.e4±
It is possible for Black to try
14 . . . :1I.g6 15.h4 ! h5 (It is not pref­
erable for him to opt for 15 . . . h6
16.h5 :1I.h7 17.:1I.d3 :1l.xd3 1B.'lWxd3
Ei:bB 19.Ei:h3±. The central squares
are in White's hands and Black
has no counterplay in sight, Ghy­
sels - Yurtseven, Innsbruck 1977;
while after 17 . . . e4 1B.:1I.xe4 :1l.xe4
19.'lWg4± White regains his piece,
remaining either with a huge
lead in development, or with an
extra pawn, Todorovic - Rodic,
Obrenovac 2 0 04) 16.a4 bxa4? (It
is better for Black to follow with
16 . . . Ei:bB 17.axb5 axb5 1B.Ei:a6±,
or even 16 . . . b4 ! ? 17.cxb4 ttJd4
1B.:1I.e2±, although it would be
too hard for him to prove that his
compensation for the pawn is suf­
ficint.) 17.'lWxa4 1-0 Firt - Adam­
cik, Moravia 1996.
15.:1I.d3
15 . . . ttJe7
15...:1l.xd5 16.ttJxd5 O-O?! (Black's
king comes now right under the
gun, but even after 16 . . . ttJe7 17.
:1I.e4 Ei:cB 1B.ttJxe7 'lWxe7 19.:1I.d3±
45
Chapter 4
White maintains a stable edge
thanks to his superior bishop.)
17.'lWhS fS? (After 17 ... h6 1B.WfS
�eB 19.J.e4± White cannot check­
mate outright, but his pressure on
the light squares is tremendously
unpleasant for Black.) 1B.hfS h6
19.'lWg6+- J.Kozel - Vyboch, Ban­
ska Stiavnica 2006.
15 . . . 0-0 16.'lWhS h6 (The move
17 . . .fS looks attractive, but it is
not the best. 17.lLlxfS �xfS 1B.ixfS
hdS, Bonafede - Pechy, Venice
2003, and here after 19.�dl ! J.f7
2 0.hh7+ @fB 21.'lWf3 dS 2 2 .J.g6
'lWf6 23.'lWxf6 ixf6 24.ixf7 @xf7
2SJ�xdS± White has excellent
winning chances thanks to his
kingside pawns.) 17.J.e4 �cB (It
is worse for Black to play 17. . . �a7
18.�d1 CiJe7 19. 0-0 CiJxdS 2 0.ixdS
�eB, Wilhelm - Rudolph, Hessen
1996, because White's advantage
is obvious after 21.he6 �xe6 22.
�dS±. Black's d6-pawn is weak
and White's knight is considerably
stronger than Black's bishop. It is
a disaster for Black to opt for 21...
fxe6? 2 2 . �xd6+- and he remains
a pawn down with a destroyed
pawn-structure.) 1B.lLlfS hdS 19.
ixdS 'lWf6, Diviak - Macko, Slova­
kia 2 0 03, after the natural reac­
tion 2 0 . 0- 0 CiJe7 21.lLlxe7+ Wxe7
22 .WfS �cS 23.�adl± White's
prospects are clearly superior, be­
cause of his domination over the
light squares and Black's compro­
mised king's position.
16.ie4 �c8
16 . . . �bB? ! - Black's king is
46
bound to remain in the centre
after that move. 17.CiJxe7 'lWxe7
1B.!c6+ @fB 19. 0-0 fS 2 0 .idS f4
21.he6 Wxe6 2 2 .CiJdS �cB 23.Wf3
hS 24.a4± and despite the fact that
Black has managed to advance f7-
fS, his position remains difficult,
due to his passive bishop and the
unsafe king, Zaragatski - Schalk,
Cologne 2 0 04.
Following 16 ... CiJxdS 17.hdS
ixdS 1B.WxdS 0-0, Hitzgerova
- Werner, Crailsheim 2000, it
seems attractive for White to
continue with 19.�dl± winning
Black's d6-pawn.
17.0-0 lLlxd5
Or 17 . . . �cS 1B.a4 lLlxdS 19.
ixdS ixdS 20.lLlxdS 0-0 21.axbS
axbS 22 .'lWb3 'lWgS 23.�a6± and
Black has problems protecting his
vulnerable pawns. 23 . . . e4 24.�xd6
!eS 2S.�d7 @hB 26. 'lWb4+- Struik
- van Kerkhof, Dieren 2003.
18.hd5 hd5 19.'lWxd5 �c5
20.�M3±
White maintains a stable edge
due to his better development
and the domination over the light
squares in the centre, Yegiazarian
- AI Ghasra, Yerevan 1996.
 5. 0.c3 e5 6.0.db5 d6 7. �g5 a6 8. 0.a3 b5 9. 0. d5
b) 9 • • • VfaS+
The grandmaster from Che­
lyabinsk G.Timoscenko, who is
living presently in Slovakia, made
a great contribution to the theory
of this variation. Sometimes Kas­
parov and Radjabov tried that
line . . .
1 0 .i.d2 Vfd8
Numerous games have ended
here with a repetition of moves -
1l.igS �aS+ 12 .id2 �d8 13.igS.
This result however does not seem
logical, because White has occu­
pied the central dS-square and he
has a slight lead in development.
1l.c4
This is the most principled
line, but it is also a bit risky. White
is trying to exploit his temporary
lead in development and he starts
active actions on the queenside.
Unfortunately, he has no advan­
tage after the calm line: 1l.0.xf6+
�xf6 12 .�d3 �g6 13.0-0 ie7 14.
c4, in view of 14 . . . �g4 ! 1S.ie2
he2 ! 16.�xe2 O-O ! ? Black en­
joys an excellent game thanks to
the unfavourable placement of his
opponent's knight and White's at­
tempt to centralize it turns out to
be just a loss of time: 17.0.c2 �fc8
18.cxbS axbS 19.f3 dS+ Black has
no weaknesses at all and his piec­
es are much more active, Chek­
masov - Krohalev, corr. 2000.
Black has two main possibili­
ties here - the most popular bl)
1l 0.xe4, and the most reliable
•••
b2) 1l b4.
•••
His alternatives do not look
convincing:
About 1l . . . 0.d4 12.cxbS 0.xdS
13.exdS - see 11. . . 0.xdS? ! 12.exdS
0.d4 13.cxbS;
1l . . . ig4?? Radchenko - Rza­
kuliev, Russia 2004, this grave
blunder is punished after 12.
0.xf6+ �xf6 13.�xg4+-;
1l . . . bxc4?! - That exchange is
favourable for White, because it
enables him to bring into action
his knight on a3. 12.0.xc4 0.xe4
(After 12 . . . 0.xdS 13.exdS 0.q4 14.
id3 �b8 1S.0-0 fS 16.f4± Black
falls behind considerably in devel­
opment and his centre is unstable,
Reschun - Erlbeck, Finkenstein
1994. It is not any better for Black
to opt for 12 . . . �b8 13.�gS 0.d4
14.hf6 gxf6 1S.id3 id7 16.0-0
ig7? - the least of evils for Black
47
Chapter 4
would have been the line: 16 . . .
i.c6 17.f4 i.g7 1B.�g4± with a dif­
ficult position for him, but with
equal material - 17.ttJxd6+ �fB
1B.ttJc4± Black has remained a
pawn down without any compen­
sation in sight, Rahal - Cebada
Benitez, Sanlucar 2 001.) 13.ttJcb6
:gbB (The move 13 . . . ttJxd2? - loses
quickly after 14.ttJxaB ttJxf1 15.
ttJac7+ �d7 16.�g4+ 1-0 Peraza
Zalingen - Exposito Alfonso, Te­
nerife 2006. The move 13 . . . �h4?
- only looks active, but in fact it
leads to material losses. 14.i.e3
:gbB 15.�a4 i.d7, Krayushkin
- Whitfield, Belfort 2005, and
here after 16.ttJxd7 �xd7 17.:gc1 +­
Black is incapable of protecting
his pinned knight.) 14.i.e3 ! i.b7
(It is also bad for Black to follow
with 14 .. .f5? 15.:gc1 i.b7 16.,ixa6
,ixa6 17.:gxc6� and White's at­
tack is decisive. It is not to be rec­
ommended to Black to play 14 . . .
ttJc5 15.ttJxcB :gxcB? 16.b4+- and
he loses the important a6-pawn,
or 15 . . . �xcB 16.:gb1 ttJb4 17.ttJxb4
:gxb4 1B.a3 :gbB 19.i.c4 i.e7 20.b4
ttJe6 21.:gc1�, Black's a6-pawn
is weak and White's pieces are
much more active. In case of 16 . . .
ttJe6 17.i.c4 i.e7 1B.0-0 0-0-0
19.�a4± White restores the mate­
rial balance and he obtains supe­
rior prospects thanks to his cou­
ple of powerful bishops and his
dangerous passed pawns on the
queenside.) 15.�a4 ttJc5 (Black
would not change much with
15 . . .f5 16.:gc1 ttJc5 17.,ixc5 dxc5
4B
1B.,ixa6±) 16.,ixc5 dxc5, Ramirez
- Glimmerveen, Dos Herma­
nas 2 0 04, and here after White's
natural reaction 17.,ixa6 �d6 lB.
i.b5± Black has problems com­
pleting his development, because
he loses after the natural line: lB . . .
i.e7? 19.:gd1 0-0 2 0.,ixc6 ,ixc6
21.ttJxe7+ �xe7 2 2 .�xc6 +-;
11. . . ttJxd5? ! - White obtains
dangerous queenside passed
pawns after that move. 12.exd5
ttJd4 (The other possibilities for
Black are hardly any better: 12 . . .
ttJa7? ! - This knight i s too passive
here. 13.cxb5 :gbB 14.bxa6 :gxb2
15.ttJc4 :gbB 16.i.e3 �e7, Limon­
nikov - Mirthouk, corr. 1995, and
here after 17.:gb1! �c7 1B.:gxbB
�xbB 19.�b3 +- Black's passive
knight is lost unavoidably; 12 . . .
ttJe7? ! - Black maintains the ma­
terial balance after that move, but
he falls behind in development.
13.cxb5 ttJxd5 14.iWf3 ! i.e6 15.bxa6
ttJf6 16.i.b5+ i.d7 17.,ixd7+ ttJxd7
1B.ttJb5 :gcB ? ! 19.a7+- Riabtsev
- Ekdyshman, Nizhnij Novgorod
1999. It would be more tena­
cious for him to opt for 1B . . . :gxa6 !
19.�e2 ! ttJc5 2 0 . 0- 0 i.e7 21.b4
ttJe6 22.a4± although here White's
queenside pawns seem to be much
more dangerous than Black's cen­
tral pawns.) 13.cxb5 i.e7 (The
move 13 . . . �h4 - looks very ag­
gressive, but Black's other pieces
are not well prepared to support
any premature active actions.
14.i.d3 i.e7 15. 0-0 0-0 16.bxa6
f5, Plotek - Michel, Nachod
 5. liJc3 e5 6. liJdb5 d6 7.1g5 a6 8. liJ a3 b5 9. liJ d5
1999, and here after 17.1e3, Black
seems to be beyond salvation, for
example: 17 . . . 1J.xa6 1B.1J.xa6 l3xa6
19.1J.xd4 exd4 2 0.'lWe2 +-, or 17 .. .f4
1B.1J.xd4 exd4 19.l3e1+- and Black
has no compensation for the pawn
in both these variations.) 14.ic3
0-0 15.bxa6 f5 (It deserves at­
tention for Black to try 15 . . . 'lWb6 ! ?
16.liJc4 'lWc5 17.b4 'lWxd5 1B.liJe3
'lWc6 19.13c1 d5, Oeller - Bletz,
corr. 1993, White must exploit
his extra pawn on the queenside
with a maximal effect and after
2 0 .a4! Black can hardly prove
that he has any compensation for
it, for example: 20 . . . 'lWd6 21.b5
ie6 2 2 .id3± White's pawns are
ready to advance at any moment,
while Black's powerful knight on
d4 can be captured at ease. Or
20 . . . 'lWh6 21.b5 ia3 22.l3b1 ic5
23.'lWd2 l3dB 24.ia5± and the ac­
tivity of Black's pieces is insuffi­
cient to equalize, while after 21 . . .
ic5 2 2 .1J.xd4 ! 1J.xd4 23.'lWd2 ie6
24.ie2± White's pawns are ready
to continue with the offensive.)
16.id3 f4 17.1J.xd4 exd4 1B.0-0
f3 19.93±. Black has problems
proving that the vulnerable posi­
tion of White's king is a sufficient
compensation for the sacrificed
pawns. 19 . . . ig4 (The move 19 . . .
1J.xa6? ! - i s too greedy and it only
leads to favourable simplifica­
tions for White. 2 0.1J.xa6 l3xa6
21.liJb5± Black loses unavoidably
his d4-pawn and later he would
have problems with the protec­
tion of his f3-pawn, for example:
21.. .'lWeB 2 2 .liJxd4 'lWh5 23.l3e1
idB 24.l3e3 ib6 25.l3xf3+-; 19 . . .
'lWd7 - This move i s a n attempt by
Black to checkmate immediately.
20.l3e1 1J.xa6 21.1J.xa6 l3xa6 2 2 .l3e6
l3a5 23.'lWe1 idB 24.'lWe4± Black
has no chances of equalizing, be­
cause of his weak pawns on d4, d6
and f3.) 20 .l3e1 if6 (It is essential
that Black's checkmating attempt
does not work after 20 . . . l3f6
21.liJc2 l3h6 22.liJxd4 'lWeB 23.liJc6
'lWh5 24.liJxe7+ @hB 25.h4+-)
21.'lWc2 h5 22.liJb5 l3cB (It seems
more resilient for Black to defend
with 22 . . . h4 23.'lWc7 l3xa6 24.'lWxdB
l3xdB 25.a4+-, although even then
it is far from clear how he can fight
against White's passed pawns.)
23.'lWa4 h4 24.liJxd4+-, Black is
already three pawns down and he
has no attacking chances in sight,
Schneider - Varela, Buenos Aires
2003.
bl) 1l . . . liJxe4
This response by Black seems
to be the most natural - he cap­
tures White's central pawn.
12.cxb5
12 ie6
•••
49
Chapter 4
Some other moves have been
rarely tried here too:
12 . . . tLle7? ! 13.i.e3 ! EibB 14.i.c4
\WaS+ (about 14 . . . i.e6 - see 12 . . .
i.e6 13.i.c4 tLle7 14.i.e3 EibB? ! )
15.b4 ! \Wxa3 16.i.c1 tLlc3 17.\Wd2
\Wa4 1B.i.b3 tLlexd5 19.ha4 tLlxa4
20.\WxdS+- Black's two light piec­
es cannot compensate sufficiently
the absence of the queen, because
of Black's lag in development,
Mikhalchishin - Timoscenko,
Tbilisi 1974;
The move 12 ... tLlxd2? Pereira
- Midugno, Caxias do SuI 1975,
enables White to obtain a far-ad­
vanced passed pawn - 13.bxc6 !
tLlxfl (It is not any better for Black
to play "the active line": 13 . . . tLle4
14.c7 \wh4 15.g3 tLlxg3 16.fxg3
1Mfe4+ 17.�f2 \Wxh1 1B.i.bS+-)
14.c7 \Wd7 (After 14 ... \Wh4 15.�xf1
Eia7 16.\Wc2 \Wg4 17.tLlc4 i.e7 lB.
tLlcb6 +- White wins easily, be­
cause of his passed c7-pawn and
his powerful knight on d5.) lS.tLlc4
1Mfc6 16.tLlcb6+- and Black loses
unavoidably plenty of material;
12 . . . tLld4 - This aggressive
move has brought to Black until
now only disappointing results,
despite the fact that it is not worse
than the main line: 13.b6 ! i.e7!
This strong move has not been
tried in practice yet, but it is the
only one, which enables Black to
hold the position. (In all other
cases, Black's situation is tre­
mendously difficult: 13 . . . tLle6??
14.1Mfa4+ \Wd7 15.\Wxe4+- and he
loses a piece, Grabics - Schroter,
50
Hungary 2002; 13 ... EibB? 14.i.e3
i.b7 lS.tLlc7+ �e7 16.hd4 exd4
17.\Wxd4+- Black is without a
pawn and his king is stranded in
the centre, Halas - Kasioura, Pi­
raeus 1999; 13 . . . i.b7? ! 14.tLlc7+
�d7 lS.i.e3 tLlfS 16.1Mfg4 g6 17.
tLlxaB hS 1B.\Wh3 \WxaB 19.i.d3±
Black's compensation for the ex­
change is evidently insufficient,
Dervishi - Avdic, Halle 1995; 13 . . .
\Wh4? ! - This move only looks ag­
gressive. After the forced move
14.i.e3, Black loses quickly by
playing 14 . . . i.e7 lS.hd4 i.g5 16.
g3 tLlxg3 17.fxg3 \We4+ 1B. �f2
\WxdS 19.i.g2 e4 2 0 .he4 1-0
Pacher - Balko, Tatranske Zruby
2006. It was somewhat better for
him to try 14 . . . i.b7 lS.tLlc7+ �dB
16.hd4 exd4 17.1Mfxd4±, but even
then his compensation for the
pawn would be rather dubious,
due to his centralized king, Kjar­
tansson - Skrondal, Espoo 2006;
13 . . . tLlxd2 ? ! 14.tLlc7+ �e7 15.\Wxd2
EibB 16.Eic1 i.e6 17.\WaS± White
has a clear advantage thanks to
his powerful passed pawn and
Black's unsafe king, Ilievski - Og­
njanovic, Yugoslavia 1994.) 14.
i.e3 ! (It is too risky for White to
capture the rook as you can see in
the following variation: 14.tLlc7+
�fB lS.tLlxaB i.h4 16.i.e3 \wf6
17.g3 tLlf3+ lB. �e2 tLld4+ and if
White wishes to play for a win, he
must begin a march with his king:
19.�d3 \wfS 20.�c4 dS+ 21.�b4
i.e7+ 22.�aS tLlc6+ 23.�a4 d4--t,
or he must try to prove he has
 S. tiJ c3 e5 6. tiJ dbS d6 7. j,gS a6 B. tiJ a3 bS 9. tiJ dS
some compensation for the queen
in the line: 19.hd4 ig4+ 20.�e1
hd1 21.b7 �e7+) 14 . . . 0-0 lS.j,c4
tiJf6 16.0-0 �bS 17.hd4 exd4
lS.tiJxe7+ VNxe7 19.VNxd4:t Black
will capture White's passed b6-
pawn indeed, but his queenside
pawns are weak and the endgame
is better for White.
13 .ic4
. 14.j,e3 tiJxc4 (The move 14 . . . �bS?
13 • .• tiJe7
13 . . . tiJd4? ! - This aggressive
move is in the spirit of the varia­
tion, but that is insufficient for it
to be considered as strong. 14.b6 !
�cS lS.tiJc7+ �xc7 (Black should
better give up the exchange im­
mediately; otherwise his king
would remain in the centre and
he would be forced to give up the
exchange after lS . . . �e7 16.�cl±)
16.bxc7 VNxc7 17.he6 fxe6 1S.0-0
tiJxd2 19.VNxd2 dS, Maas - Schulz,
Internet 2 0 03, and here White
obtains a considerable advantage
following 2 0 . �ac1 VNb6 21.tiJc2
VNxb2 2 2 .VNe3 ! tiJxc2 (It looks too
passive for Black to play 22 . . . tiJc6
23.tiJe1 tiJdS 24.tiJd3±) 23.VNe2
id6 24.�xc2 VNbS 2S.�b2± and
he is faced with an unpleasant
choice - to give up his a6-pawn,
or to leave his king in the centre,
where after VNhS+ it will come un­
der the attack of opponent's heavy
pieces.
13 . . . tiJaS - Black captures
White's light-squared bishop
and he wins a pawn, but his king
remains in the centre for long.
- is a loss of time and it would
lead to Black's swift demise, Rup­
precht - Hertel, Bayern 2 0 0 0 ,
lS.bxa6 ! tiJxc4 16.VNa4+ Here,
no matter how Black interposes
against that check, he loses mate­
rial : 16 . . . VNd7 17.a7 �aS lS.tiJc7+
�dS 19.VNxd7+ hd7 20.tiJxaS +­
White has already an extra ex­
change and he has goos chances
of collecting another piece for
his a7-pawn, or 16 . . . id7 17.VNxc4
VNaS+ lS.b4 VNxa3 19.VNxe4 fS 2 0 .
a7+- White i s threatening not
only axbSVN, but also VNc4 with an
attack, or aSVN, followed by a fork
on the c7-square.) lS.tiJxc4 axbS
(It is worse for Black to play lS . . .
tiJcS? ! 16.b6 hdS 17.VNxdS �cS
lS.0-0± and White ends up with
a huge lead in development and a
powerful passed pawn, while after
lS . . . VNd7?, Suran - Buchar, Nym­
burk 1997, White wins immedi­
ately with the line: 19.hcS �xcS
20.VNaS + �e7 21.b7+- with deci­
sive material gains, or 19 . . . dxcS
2 0 .b7+-) 16.j,b6 ! VNgS, Marjano­
vic - Nathanail, Korinthos 1999
(In answer to 16 ... VNbS, Calzetta
Monica - Hernando Inmaculada,
Sl
Chapter 4
Spain 1998, it is also very strong
for White to follow with 17.ttJc7+ !
<ll e 7 18.ttJe3 ttJf6 19.ttJxa8 Wfxa8
2 0 . 0 - 0±, or 18 . . . Eia4? ! 19.ttJed5+
<ll d7 2 0.b3 +- and after 2 0 . . . Eia3
2 1. Wfd3 , White not only restores
the material balance, but'he ob­
tains a crushing attack against his
opponent's king.) 17.ttJc7+ ! <ll d7
(After 17 . . . <ll e7 1B.ttJe3 Eib8 19.
O-O± White has excellent attack­
ing prospects against Black's king,
stranded in the centre.) 1B.0-0
bxc4 (The other possibilities are
hardly any better for Black: 1B . . .
hc4 19.ttJxa8 hf1 20.Wfxfl± and
Black's king will become an easy
prey of White's attack; or 18 . . .
Eib8 19.ttJxe6 fxe6 20.Wfb3 ! bxc4
21.Wfa4+ <ll e7 2 2 .Wfa7+ <llf6 23.
�xb8 �f5 24.a4± and it is in­
conceivable how Black can fight
against White's passed a-pawn.)
19.ttJxa8 !h3 20.g3 .hil 21.i.e3
Wff5 2 2 .ttJb6+ <ll e 6 23 .�d5+ <llf6
24.Eixfl± White resores unavoid­
ably the material balance and he
leads in development. His king
is much safer and his queenside
passed pawns are tremendously
dangerous.
13 . . . axb5 - That line used to
be considered as insufficient for
Black, but things are far from
simple. 14.ttJxb5 Eic8 ! (The move
14 . . . �h4? - leads to a lost posi­
tion for Black by force. 15.!e3
ttJxf2 16.ttJbc7+ <ll d 8 17.ttJxe6+
fxe6 18 .i.b6+ <ll e B 19.ttJc7+ <ll e 7
20.hf2 �xc4 21.ttJxaB ttJb4 2 2 .
Wfe2 ttJd3+, Beliavsky - van der
52
Wiel, Moscow 1982 , the sequence
of forced move has ended and the
accurate move 23. <llf1 +- enables
White to realize easily his extra
rook.) 15.0-0 i.e7! (After 15 . . .
ttJxd2 16.Wfxd2 ttJd4 17.ttJxd4 Eixc4
1B.ttJb5;!;; White's queenside pawns
are much more mobile than
Black's central pawns.) 16.!e3
0-0, Fatalibekova - Semenova,
Poland 1976, and here after GM
Sveshnikov's recommendation 17.
a4 ! ?;!;; White's prospects seem to
be superior; nevertheless the po­
sition remains quite complicated
and Black's defensive resources
should not be underestimated.
14.!e3
14 . . . �a5+
14 . . . ttJxd5? - This is a blunder.
15.hd5 Wfa5+ (It looks more te­
nacious for Black to continue with
15 . . . hd5 16.�xd5 ttJf6 17.�c6+
ttJd7 18.Eic1+-, although even
then he is catastrophically behind
in development.) 16.<ll f1 Eid8 17.
i.c6+ <ll e7 18.he4+- Madl -
Gladisheva, Sibenik 2 0 06.
14 ... ttJc5?! - This move is
too passive. lS.0-0 ttJcB? 16.b4
axb5 17.ttJxbS ttJa6 l8.�a4 1-0
 S. I1Jc3 e5 6 . l1J dbS d6 7. j.gS a6 B. l1Ja3 bS 9. l1J dS
Dgebuadze - Darnstaedt, Berlin
1995.
14 . . J:!bB? ! - That is not the
most active position for Black's
rook. IS.0-0 axbS 16.l1JxbS !xdS
(It is not to be recommended to
Black to try 16 . . . l1JxdS 17.hdS
�xbS 18.Wla4 Ad7 19.Wlxe4 f5
20.Wlc4 f4 21.id2 ! �xb2 2 2 .it7+
We7 23.ixf4 !±, because not only
White's pawn-structure is superi­
or, but he has better development
and good attacking prospects.)
17.hdS l1JxdS lB.WlxdS l1Jf6 19.Wlc4
Ae7 2 0.l1Jc7+ wfB 21.�fdl hS, Pe­
trushin - Timoscenko, Tbilisi
1974 (After the "greedy" line:
21...�xb2 2 2 .a4 WlcB 23.aS l1JeB
24.�dc1 +- Black seems helpless
to cope with White's passed as­
pawn.), but here Black will need
to stop his oppionent's connected
passed pawns, which is tremen­
dously difficult: 2 2 .b4 ! Wld7 23.a4
�cB 24.�ac1 WgB 2S.bS+-
14 . . . �cB ? ! - G.Kasparov played
like that, as early as 19B7 and he
had fantastic results then, so that
move was even more popular
than 14 . . . WlaS+, but it created less
problems for White. IS.Ab6 ! ? Wld7
16.bxa6 ! ! - This capturing obvi­
ously refutes the entire variation,
but White still needs to play very
precisely. 16 . . . �xc4 (The move
16 . . . l1JxdS - is without any sting
- 17.!XdS hdS IB.WlxdS I1Jf6
19.V;VaS ! ± White follows all that by
castling and later he occupies the
c-file and realizes his extra passed
a6-pawn.) 17.a7! ixdS (After 17. . .
I1JxdS lB.aBWl+ �cB I9.Wlaa4 I1Jxb6
20.V;Vxe4± Black's two light pieces
are not sufficient to compensate
the missing queen.) IB.l1Jxc4 !
(But not IB.WlxdS? I1JxdS I9.aBWl+
�eB 2 0.V;VxdS I1Jf6 ! + and Black's
centre advances ominously.) IB . . .
iaB ! (The move I B . . . Wlc6? - los­
es in view of 19.�cl ! + - ; IB . . . WlbS
19.V;Vb3 ! ± White's a7-pawn is very
dangerous, so his rook is stronger
than his opponent's two light piec­
es; moreover that Black lags in de­
velopment. IB . . .j.b7 - This square
is not so suitable for the retreat
of the bishop. 19.f3 ! lDcB 2 0 .fxe4
he4 21.0-0 lDxb6 2 2 .lDxb6 Wlxa7
23.V;Vb3 fS 24.�ael± and because
of the threat 2S.�xe4 ! with a
checkmating attack, Black fails
to complete his development,
while in the line: 19 . . . dS 20.l1JxeS
WlbS 21. V;Vb3± White not only re­
mains with a material advantage
and a passed pawn, but he leads
considerably in development as
well.) 19.f3 dS (It is not better
for Black to play 19 . . . lDcB 2 0 .fxe4
he4 21.0-0 ie7 2 2 .ie3± - since
he has no compensation for the
exchange.) 20.lDxeS V;Ve6 (In an­
swer to 20 . . . WlbS, Bergsson - As­
geirsson, Reykjavik 2 00S, White
should better transfer into an
endgame with the line: 21.Wlb3 !
lDd6 2 2 .V;VxbS+ I1JxbS 23.a4 lDd6
24.b4± and Black will have great
problems to fight against his
opponent's queenside passed
pawns.) 21.ic7! lDcS (The move
21.. .l1Jc6? ! - enables White to or-
S3
Chapter 4
ganize a dangerous attack 2 2.fxe4
lLlxe5 23 . .b:e5 'i;Vxe5 24.'i;Va4+
- and here, depending on which
side Black's king goes, White
castles on the same side: 24 . . . �e7
25.0-0-+, 24 . . . �d8 25.0-0-0-+
with a very dangerous attack for
White in both cases. After 2 2 . . .
i.b4+ 2 3 . �e2± White parries all
the threats, preserving the ex­
tra exchange and his a7-pawn.)
2 2 JWe2 ! ? White's main threat
here is 23.'i;Vb5+, and Black has
great problems, because of his
undeveloped kingside and the
unsafe placement of his king.
22 . . . lLlc6 23.'i;Vb5 f6 24.�b8+
�e7 25. �xa8 £XeS 26J�cl ! - Af­
ter that strong move, Black has
problems with his king and with
the development of his kingside.
In addition, White has a danger­
ous passed a7-pawn and the fol­
lowing variations confirm Black's
difficulties: 26 . . . �t7 27.0-0 �d7
28.i.b6 lLlb7 29.�hl �g8 30.b4+­
and Black loses plenty of mate­
rial; 26 . . . �f6 27. 0-0 �g8 28.�b8
!J.e7 29.�b6+- Black will capture
the a7-pawn indeed, but only at
the price of a piece; 26 . . . lLld3+
27.�d2 lLlxcl 28.�xcl lLlxa7 (In
answer to 28 ... �d7, it is good for
White to follow with 29.�dl ! 'i;Vg6
30 .�xc6+ �xc6 3Ul:xc6+- and
his pawn promotes.) 29.�xa7
�f6 30.'i;Vb7+- White has an ex­
tra pawn and a crushing attack
against his opponent's king.
15.�f1
15. �e2 - That move used to be
54
considered as the best for a long
time, but after 15 . . . �c8 16 .�d3
lLlc5 ! ? Black's prospects would be
at least equal, Kozirev - Somkin,
Che1yabinsk 2000.
15 . . gc8
.
After 15 . . . �b8 16. �cl, Black
can choose between two equally
srtrong possibilities :
16 . . . lLlxd5 - This is the first. (It
is obviously worse for Black to play
16 . . . .b:d5 17.!J.xd5 lLlf6 18 .ib3 d5,
Kacheishvi1i - Stajkov, Stockerau
1993, and he can hardly protect
the vulnerable light squares in
his camp and his unsafe king in
the centre. After 19.b6!±, Black
loses, for example in the line:
19 . . . d4 20 .!J.a4+ lLld7 21.�c7 �d8
22.lLlc4+-) 17.!J.xd5 lLlf6 18 .i.c6+
lLld7, Nevednichy - Croenne, La
Fere 2003, and here White's most
aggressive continuation seems to
be 19.1Llc4 �c7 (Following 19 . . .
ixc4+ 20.l'l:xc4 axb5 2 1.'i;Vd5 i.e7
22 .�c3 !� Black's king remains
in the centre, he has a weakness
on b5 and his pieces are disc­
cordinated. White has an excel­
lent compensation for the pawn.)
20.�a4 axb5 (In case of 2 0 . . .
 S,CiJc3 eS 6 . l:iJ dbS d6 7. igS a6 B. l:iJa3 bS 9. l:iJ dS
ixc4+ 21.B:xc4 axb5 2 2 .ixb5 'i«dB
23.id2 ! + - White's huge lead in
development should be decisive.)
21.ixb5 �dB (The move 21 . . . d5 - is
less resilient. 22.l:iJa5 �d6 23.B:c6
�4 24.B:xe6+ fxe6 25.ixd7+ @t7
26.'i«xb4 B:xb4 27.b3+- White's
two light pieces together with
his queenside passed pawns are
doubtlessly stronger that Black's
rook. It is even worse for Black
to opt for 23 . . . �e7 24.B:a6 'i«f6
25.l:iJc6+- and he would need to
give up the exchange.) 22.l:iJa5
B:aB 23.l:iJc6 B:xa4 (or 23 . . . 'i«cB
24.'i«d1 �7 25.a4±) 24.l:iJxdB
B:xa2 25.l:iJxe6 fxe6 26.B:c7 B:a1+
27.icl± Black's central pawns are
potentiallt strong indeed, but they
would not be sufficient to com­
pensate the exchange, which he
would unavoidably lose.
The move 16 . . . 1:iJf5 - is the sec­
ond possibility for Black. 17.'i«d3
I:iJc5 1B.ixc5 dxc5, Peschlow
- Guthrie, Biel 2005, and here
White obtains a huge advantage
after 19.b6 B:dB 20.l:iJc7+ ! (It is
essential for White to deprive his
opponent of castling; therefore he
should refrain from 20.g4? ! ixd5
21.ixd5 I:iJd4 2 2 .b7 ie7 23.l:iJc4
�c7 24.�e4 O-Of±, or 2 2 .l:iJc4 �5
23.�e4 ie7 24. @g2 O-Of± and in
both cases, Black is at least not
worse.) 20 . . . @e7 21.l:iJd5+ @eB
(After 21.. .ixd5 22.�xf5 'i«xb6
23.�xe5+ �e6 24.'i«c3± Black's
king is weak and he lags in de­
velopment.) 2 2 .g4 I:iJd4 (It is not
better for Black to try 22 . . . ixd5
23.ixd5 1:iJd4 24.l:iJc4 �5 25.'i«e4
ie7 26.@g2±, because his power­
ful knight on d4 does not com­
pensate his lag in development
and White's dangerous passed
pawn.) 23.l:iJc7+ @e7 24.ixe6
fxe6 (After 24 . . . l:iJxe6 25.�xa6
'i«d2 26.B:e1+- Black can hardly
counter his opponent's powerful
passed pawn.) 25.l:iJc4 'i«xa2 26.
@g2 g6 27.l:iJxe5± White's huge
lead in development will soon
turn into a decisive attack.
It is hardly any better for Black
to opt for 17. . . l:iJxe3 + (instead of
17 . . . l:iJc5) 1B.'i«xe3 I:iJf6 19.b4 I:iJxd5
(After 19 . . . �dB 20.l:iJxf6+ gxf6
21.bxa6± Black has a hard task
coping with White's a6-pawn.)
20 .ixd5 'i«b6 (Now, the line : 2 0 . . .
'i«dB 21.ic6+ id7 22 .bxa6± looks
even worse for Black, than in the
previous comment.) 21. �xb6 B:xb6
2 2 .B:c6 B:xc6 23.ixc6+ id7 24.
ixd7+ @xd7 25.bxa6 d5 26.l:iJc2
id6 27.@e2± White has consoli­
dated his position and his pawns
would gradually advance. After
1B . . . l:iJd2+ 19.@g1 B:cB (Or 19 . . .
I:iJxc4 20.l:iJxc4 �xa2? 2 1.'i«a7+-,
alternatively 2 0 . . .'i«dB 21.l:iJcb6
ixd5 22.l:iJxd5 axb5 23.l:iJc7+ @e7
24.f4� and White has a danger­
ous attack on the weakened light
squares.) 2 0 .b4 I:iJxc4 21. B:xc4 !
'i«a4 22.B:xcB + ixcB 23.'i«c1 ib7
24.l:iJc7+ @dB 25.bxa6 ixa6 26.
I:iJxa6 'i«xa6 27.h4 !± White's rook
enters the actions first and it
should decide the outcome of the
game.
55
Chapter 4
16 .!Ob6 hc4+
• b2) 1l . . .b4
Black would not fare any bet­
ter after 16 . . J:!b8 17.VNc2 .!Of6 18.
he6 fxe6 19 . .!Obc4 VNc7 (In case
of 19 . . . V9b4 2 0.Ad2 'lWc5 21.b4
VNc7 22 .bxa6± White preserves a
solid extra pawn and good attack­
ing prospects.) 2 0.bxa6 lLled5 21.
'lWa4+ 'lWd7 (The move 21 ... 'it>t7 -
loses by force after 22.lLlb5 lLlxe3+
23.fxe3 VNc5 24.a7 ga8 25.gc1 'it>g8
26.b4 VNc6 27.'lWa5+-) 22 .a7 ga8
23.VNxd7+ 'it>xd7 24.lLlb5 'it>c6 25.
a4 lLlxe3 + 26.fxe3+- White is to­
tally dominant on the queenside.
17.lLlbxc4 Yfl>4
S.Andersson - Novoa, Inter­
net 2 003.
Here, the most energetic line
for White seems to be: 18.bxa6!
gxc4 19.1Llxc4 'lWxc4+ 2 0 .ti'e2
�a4 21.a7 .!Od5 22.gc1± and his
passed a7-pawn should be suffi­
cient to win the game.
In our work with this varia­
tion, we have used analyses by the
grandmasters from Chelyabinsk
E.Sveshnikov and R.Sherbakov as
well as by the famous theoretician
from Brazil - Luis Roberto Da
Costa Junior.
56
This line was considered un­
satisfactory for Black for a long
time, but things were far from
clear; moreover, it looked like
White had greatest difficulties to
obtain a considerable advantage
just there.
12 .!Oc2
•
Naturally, White should not
fall into the trap - 12.'lWa4? Ad7
13.lLlb5 lLlxd5-+
It is not good for White to play
12.lLlxb4? lLlxb4 13.hb4 lLlxe4+
and Black dominates in the cen­
tre and White's attempt to make a
double attack leads to a quick pun­
ishment for him after: 14.'lWd5?
'lWb6 ! 15.'lWxa8 'lWxb4+ 16.'it>e2
'lWd2 + 17.'it>f3 lLlg5+ 18.'it>g3 VNf4#
12 . . . .!Oxe4
This sharp move is the most
principled for Black, but he has
tried in practice some calmer
moves:
12 . . . gb8 ? ! - This move is a
loss of time. 13.Ad3 as 14. 0-0
Ae7 15.f4 ! ? lLld7 (It is too danger­
ous for Black to opt for the line:
15 . . . 0-0 16.f5±) 16.lLlce3 lLlc5 17.
Ab1 exf4 (after 17 . . . 0-0 18.f5t
 5. 0, c3 e5 6 . 0, db5 d6 7. ig5 a6 8. 0,a3 b5 9. 0, d5
White's kingside initiative may
turn into a powerful attack) 18.0,fS
hfS (In the line: 18 . . . if6 19 . .txf4
hfS 2 0 .0,xf6+ 'lWxf6 21.exfS 0,eS
2 2 .ic2± White's bishop should be
much more powerful than Black's
knight.) 19.exfS O-O? (It is better
for Black to play 19 . . . if6 20.0,xf6+
- see 18 . . .if6 19.hf4 hfS 2 0 .
0, xf6 + ) 2 0 .hf4 0,eS 21.heS !
Now, White has a crushing attack
and at the end, he wins material,
which is more than sufficient to
win the game. 21 . . . dxeS 22.f6 hf6
23.Eixf6 ! gxf6 24 . .tfS ! h6 2S.'lWg4+
@h8 2 6.'lWh4 @g7 27.'lWg3 + @h8
2 8.'lWe3+- White has two pieces
for a rook and Black's king posi­
tion remains quite unsafe, Kunte
- Rahman, Sri Lanka 2001;
12 ... aS - This is a solid move.
13.!gS .te7 14.0,xe7 0,xe7 (In
answer to 14 . . . 'lWxe7 lS.0,e3 !e6,
Andres Gonzalez - Lopez del
Alamo, Aviles 1999, it seems logi­
cal for White to play 16.0,dS hdS
17.cxdS 0, d4 18.id3 0-0 19. 0-0
h6 - it is too risky for Black to
continue with 19 . . . a4 2 0.f4t, since
the pawn-shelter of his king will
soon be compromised - 2 0.ie3
1!fc8 21.f3;1; Black's position seems
solid, but White's bishops look
quite capable of destroying it in
the future.) lS.'lWd3 ib7 16.f3 'lWc7,
Gavrikov - Ziegler, Gothenburg
2000, 17.0,e3 0-0 18.'lWd2 @h8
19 . .!e2;1; - Black has no coun­
terplay, despite the fact that his
situation looks stable enough.
Meanwhile, White has an evident
dominance in space and the two­
bishop advantage.
13. 0, cxb4
13 ••• ib7
About 13 . . . id7 14. 0,xc6 ixc6
lS.!e3 - see 13 . . . ib7 14.0,xc6
hc6 15.ie3.
13 . . . 0,xb4 14.ixb4 0,f6 (It is
worse for Black to play 14 . . . a5? !
lS.h3 0,c5 16.'lWe2 0,e6 17.Eid1
Eib8 18.g3±, since his d6-pawn is
weak and the coordination of his
pieces has been disrupted. 18 . . .
0,c7 19.cS ! ? 0,bS? - The least of
evils for Black would have been
the line: 19 . . . 0,xdS 20.EixdS ie6
2 1.Eid2 f6 22.cxd6±, although
even then he would have no com­
pensation for the sacrificed pawn
- 2 0 .'lWxbS+ Eixb5 2 1.hbS+ !d7
2 2 .c6 1-0 O.Rubtsova - M.Mi­
lovanovic, corr. 1979. The entire
variation was considered dubious
for Black, based on that game.)
lS.0,xf6+ gxf6 ! ? , Muharemagic
- Cardelli, Internet 2003 (Af­
ter the natural move 15 . . . 'lWxf6
16.id3 ie7 17. 0-0, Black's pawns
are weak; nevertheless, his posi­
tion looks rather solid.), and here
White obtain an obvious edge
57
Chapter 4
after 16.1Mfd2 ! ? gg8 (or 16 . . . .tb7
17.0-0-0 gg8 18.f3 f5 19.hd6±)
17. 0-0-0 .tg4 18.f3 ie6 19.b3
as 2 0 .hd6± and White remains
with a solid extra pawn in both
variations.
14.tDxe6 ixe6 lS.J.e3 gb8
16.b4 J.e7
This position was reached in
the game Bardason - Tritschler,
Email 1999. White's most logi­
cal reaction seems to be the move
helping the quickest possible de­
velopment of his pieces. 17 .td3 •
tDf6 (After 17 . . . hd5 18.cxd5 f5
19.a3±, or 17 . . .f5 18.a3 0-0 19.
0-0 hd5 20.cxd5 YGd7 21.gcl±
Black has serious problems with
the protection of his a6-pawn.)
18.1Mfb3 e4 (It is hardly any bet­
ter for Black to enter an endgame,
because after 18 . . . ltlxd5 19.cxd5
ib5 20.a4 hd3 21.ygxd3 gxb4
2 2 .1Mfxa6 0-0 23.0-0 1Mfb8 24.a5;!;
White's powerful passed as-pawn
provides him with superior pros­
pects.) 19.tDxe7 ygxe7 20.J.e2;!;.
White enjoys a couple of strong
bishops in a calm position and he
has excellent chances of creating
a powerful queenside pressure.
58
e) 9 ie7
.•.
10.ixf6 !
This i s a standard method of
the fight for the d5-outpost.
10 gxf6?!
•..
That is an unfavourable line
for Black, because in the variation
9.hf6 gxf6 1O.ltld5, he usually
develops his bishop to the long
diagonal. It is too passively placed
on the e7-square.
ll.e3
This is a calm and reliable
move. In anwer to 1l.c4, Black
can at least try the untested move
1l . . . J.e6 !?, with the following
eventual developments : 12.cxb5
ltld4 13.gel 0-0 14.bxa6 f5� -
Black is clearly ahead in
development and he is dominant
in the centre. This might turn
out to be a good compensation
for the couple of pawns, because
White fails to simplify the posi­
tion with the line: 15.ltlxe7+
ygxe7 16.ltlb5 ltlxb5 17.hb5 fxe4+
and Black is already only a pawn
down.
ll . . . f5
That move is necessary now;
otherwise, he might not be able to
 S.tiJc3 eS 6 . tiJ dbS d6 7. 1gS a6 B. tDa3 bS 9. tD dS
accomplish that thematic move at
all.
About ll . . . hS? ! 12.tDc2 1e6
13.tDce3 - see 1l . . . 1e6 12 .tDc2 hS
13. tDce3.
After 11. . . 0-0?! 12 .1d3 1e6
13JWf3 �h8 14.tDc2 l'!g8 1S.tDce3
tDb8 16.a4± Black's pawn-mass
in the centre is static and weak,
he has no counterplay and he has
problems on the queenside, Sigu­
rjonsson - Lombardy, Jerusalem
1967.
1l . . . 1e6? ! 12.tDc2 fS (It is ter­
rible for Black to play 12 . . . 1xdS?
13.'1WxdS l'!c8, Hidegh - Rakac­
zki, Hungary 1997, because after
14.a4+- Black is incapable of pro­
tecting his queenside. It looks also
bad for him to opt for 12 . . . l'!b8? !
13.tDce3 'IWd7 14.�d3 hS, J.Lukacs
- Borbely, Kobanya 1996, after
1S.�f3± Black can hardly protect
his kingside pawns. It is not to be
recommended to Black to try 12 . . .
hS? ! 13.tDce3 l'!b8, M.Dizdarevic
- Djelaj, Adelaide 2 003, 14.a4±;
12 . . . 0-0 13.a4 bxa4, Karbovnik
- Rost, France 1997, and here af­
ter 14.tDce3 l'!b8 1S.�xa4± Black
will hardly save his a6-pawn and
he has no counterplay at all.)
13.exfS �S 14.tDce3 196 (It is
not better for Black to continue
with 14 . . . 1e6 1s.1d3 19S, Foglar
- Vrnata, Nachod 1999, and now
after 16.�e4 0-0 17.tDfS± Black
is likely to lose material fighting
against White's knights, while af­
ter 16 . . . ixe3 17.tDxe3 l'!c8 18.0-0
'IWh4 19.f4± Black misses badly his
dark-squared bishop.) 1S.1d3 e4
(In answer to 1S . . . 1gS, Breslavs­
kaya - Pastushenko, Kramatorsk
2001, White can immediately
occupy the fS-outpost. 16.tDfS
�S 17.1xfS tDe7 18.h4 ! and here
following 18 . . . tDxdS 19.�xdS 1e7
2 0 . 0-0-0± White dominates
over the light squares and in case
Black accepts the pawn-sacrifice
18 . . .1xh4 19.1'!xh4 tDxfS 20.l'!h3�
he has problems fighting against
White's active pieces, for exam­
ple: 20 . . . tDe7 21.tDf6+ �f8 2 2 .
'IWd2 h S 23.l'!d3 d S 24.0-0-0±
and White regains unavoidably
his pawn, maintainiong obviously
more activity.) 16.1c2 1gS 17. 0-0
0-0 18.f4 exf3 19.'IWxf3± Korneev
- Molina Morena, Berga 1995.
12.�d3
12 . .1e6
..
12 . . . 1b7? ! - Black loses a pawn
and he has no compensation for it
in sight. 13.exfS± �d7? 14.tDb6+­
Laqua - Bastian, Willingen 2004.
12 ... l'!g8 - Black's rook is
thus activated, but he loses the
fS-pawn, Stepanovic - Sazhina,
Trencin 1995, 13.exfS 19S (Black
fails to regain his pawn after 13 . . .
S9
Chapter 4
E!xg2? 14.'�·f3 E!gS IS.llJxe7+-)
14.�e4±
12 .. .f4 - This move is prema­
ture, although it seems quite logi­
cal, since it deprives White's knight
of a good square. 13.'WhS 0-0 (Or
13 . . . h6, Cukier - Lucena, Brazil
1994, this is a strange move and
after the simple reaction 14.g3 !
Black is faced with the unpleasant
choice between 14 . . . .!e6 IS.gxf4
exf4 16.llJxf4±, remaining a pawn
down, without any compensation
for it, or 14 . . . fxg3 IS.hxg3± and
the pawns are equal indeed, but
Black has plenty of weaknesses
to worry about.) 14.g3 �h8, van
Dommelen - Beekhuis, Leiden
1997, it is sensible for White to
capture the pawn, because Black
would have no compensation for
it: IS.gxf4 E!g8 (It is a diasaster for
Black to opt for IS . . . exf4? 16.llJf6 !
ixf6 17.eS+- and the checkmate
is unavoidable.) 16.fS±
13.'Wh5 f4
13 . . . �gS? ! - Black contin­
ues to lose stempi and he fails
to complete his development.
14.h4 .!f6 IS.'Wh6 ixdS 16.exdS
e4 17.dxc6+- Diozu - Andreescu,
Bucharest 1993.
After 13 . . . E!c8 14.llJc2 f4 1S.g3
M6, Galego - Berend, Groningen
1982, White can win a pawn,
without being afraid of his oppo­
nent's temporary activity - 16'gxf4
exf4 17.llJxf4± and Black cannot
centralize his knight with 17 . . .
llJeS, due t o 18.ixbS+ ! axbS 19.
llJxe6 'We7 2 0 .llJf4+- with quite
60
favourable simplifications for
White.
After the move 13 . . . b4 - the
b-file is opened, but Black's task
does not become any easier.
14.ll:lc4 bxc3 IS.bxc3 E!b8 (It is
even worse for Black to play 15 . . .
ixdS 16.exdS llJaS 17.llJe3 'Wc7
18.0-0 f4 19.1lJfS h6 20 . .!c2 +-,
because the light squares in his
camp are catastrophically weak
and White will explot the b-file,
Firt - Karlik, Karvina 1987.)
16.0-0 fxe4 17.ixe4 llJaS 18.llJce3
E!bS 19.E!adl± White has reliably
occupied the important outposts
on dS and fS, Sakic - Smith, corr.
2 004.
13 . . . .!f8 - Black transfers his
bishop to a more active position
with that move, but he loses valu­
able time in doing that and his
opponent occupies the dS and fS
squares in the meantime. 14.llJc2
.!g7 IS.llJce3 f4 16.llJfS± Luzikov
- Zuttis, Vladivostok 1995.
14.0-0 0-0
The diagrammed position
was reached in the game Sandi­
pan - Lalic, Ubeda 2 0 0 1. White
must immediately organize ac-
 5.&i:Jc3 e5 6 . &i:Jdb5 d6 7. i.g5 a6 B. ttJa3 b5 9. ttJdS

tive actions on the queenside, 16.a4 bxa4 17.�xa4±) 16.a4 bxa4

taking advantage of the fact that
Black's light pieces are presently
misplaced. 15.�c2 f5 (The other
moves are not any better for Black:
15 . . . l!?h8 ? ! 16.ttJxf4 exf4? 17.e5+-;
15 . . J'!b8 16.a4 bxa4 17J!xa4 �xb2
18J'!xa6 ttJb8 19.�a7±; 15 . . . �a7
17.gxa4± - Black has managed
to advance his f-pawn indeed, but
his position is considerably worse.
His pieces are passive, he has no
counterplay and his queenside is
endangered, while his king is un­
safe as well.

Conclusion

We have analyzed in this chapter all weak optionfor Black against

9. ttJ d5, as well as the line 9 . . . i.e7 1 O . hf6 gxf6. The main drawback
of the last variation is that after 1 0 . i.xj6, Black does not respond with
the necessary move 1 0 . . . i.xj6, and he plays 1 0 . . . gxf6, analogously to
the variation a). Accordingly, similarly to variation a, he has prob­
lems, connected with his inferior pawn-structure and the unfavour­
able placement of his dark-squared bishop, which requires plenty
of valuable time to be activated. In all these variations, White often
manages to establish his knights on the dS and f5-squares and that
deprives completely Black of any counterplay. White's plan also in­
cludes the undermining move o2-a4, with the idea to create objects
for attack on the queenside. Black has great problems to undouble his
pawns withf6-f5, but even ifhe manages to do that, White maintains
his advantage, since he succeeds in organizing active actions during
that time on the queenside.
Variation b) is often played with the idea to make a quick draw.
White however, can try to obtain the advantage, quite deservedly so,
with the help of the sharp line - 11.c4.
In variation bl), Black captures the e4-pawn indeed, but he falls
behind in development and he is completely unpreparedfor opening
of the game on the queenside. Still, White needs to play very accu­
rately, Jor example the move 15. l!?e2, which used to be considered as
the best, would not provide any advantage for him. Meanwhile, he is
clearly better after 15. 1!?fJ..
In variation b2), Black plays 11. ..b4 and he does not allow his op­
ponent to open the c-file, therefore his position looks more solid, al­
though he has certain problems to organize counterplay. White main­
tains a slight, but stable advantage practically in all the variations.

61
 Part 2
1.e4 c5 2 . � f3 � c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5. � c3 e5
6. � db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9 . � d5 .ie7 l O .J.xf6
J.xf6 11.c3
The development of the theory
of the Chelyabinsk variation fol­
lows in fact two main schemes for
White. He tries from time to time
to break Black's defence in the
system 9.ixf6 gxf6 lO.lDdS. For a
while, it looked like that the entire
variation might become history,
but it proved to be quite solid,
coming back from oblivion, so
then White returned to the more
solid set-up, which this book was
devoted to.
We will try to summarize for
you what is essential in this sys­
tem at the level of common sense.
Black's main trump cards are his
bishop pair and some lead in de­
velopment. White relies on his
space advantage and the key fac-
62
tor is his construction - pawn
e4+tLldS, which has a vital block­
ading function. It is of paramount
importance for Black to break
that blockade in order to activate
his pieces. He attacks the dS and
e4-squares, while White tries to
hold on to them at least until he
completes the mobilization of his
forces.
Generally speaking, in that
variation Black as a rule makes
almost always the same moves
- 0-0, igS, tLle7, l3b8, Wh8, fS
etc. The order of moves might be
different and there are important
nuances in practically each differ­
ent case. Sometimes however, it
may all come to a transposition of
moves.
In Chapter 5, we analyze some
rarely played lines for Black on
move 11. Original positions may
arise only after 1l . . . 1b7, followed
by tLlb8-d7, so that Black's set-up
resembles a bit the Najdorf varia­
tion. This is all connected howev­
er with a certain loss of time and
he fails to accomplish that plan
 successfully, because White can in particular the position with
reach a superior endgame with bishops of opposite colours (white
precise play. bishop on d5) is rather unpleasant
Chapter 6 deals with the move for Black to defend (variation b).
11...llJe7. That is a quite purpose­ 11 0-0 12.llJc2
••.

ful line for Black. White cannot

keep the light pieces blockade of
the d5-outpost, since his knight
on a3 has not entered the actions
yet. There are some drawbacks
of that line for Black too. After
1 2 .llJxf6+, he loses his two-bishop
advantage and his pawn-structure
is compromised. White obtains a
lead in development, his king is
safer and he seizes the initiative This is the main line of the
with accurate play. entire system. In Chapter 8, we
The variation 1l . . . ig5 12.llJc2 analyze some of the not so popu­
llJe7, which we analyze in Chapter lar lines for Black and just like
7, used to be quite popular once in Chapter 5, White should pay
- it was like an improved version attention to the idea for Black
of the idea 1l . . . llJe7. Still, after the to transfer his knight along the
correct reaction for White 13.h4! route c6-b8-d7, followed by llJc5
ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.llJcb4, Black or llJb6.
fails to obtain an effective coun­ The move 12 .. J'!b8, has been
terplay. White's strategy is based dealt with in Chapter 9 and it is a
on two main ideas. The first is tough nut to crack. It was played
that he can sacrifice the exchange numerous times by E.Sveshnikov
for Black's light-squared bishop. and M.Dvoretzkij at the dawn of
In that case, his knight on d5 be­ the development of the system.
comes practically the master ofthe White's queenside actions, con­
board and that in connection with nected with the break a2-a4 are
the possibility to create a passed impeded, because his b2-pawn is
pawn on the queenside provides hanging. Black used to solve all
White with more than sufficient his problems for a while. Only
compensation for the exchange later White managed to find the
(variations a and c). The second right path. If Black does not ac­
important point is that tourna­ tivate his bishop - then White
ment practice has shown that the should prevent that radically
total exchanges do not guarantee - 13.h4 ! According to the data­
for Black any easy draw, because base, that move was played for

63
the first time in the game Nunn
- Wirthensohn, Cleveland 1979,
and it was considered until today
to be the most unpleasant coun­
ter measure against Black's move
order.
12 .tg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.�4
••.
14 ••. a5
That is the most popular line
for Black, but it is not the only
one. His other possibilities are
analyzed in Chapter 10 and I rec­
ommend to you to pay a close at­
tention to the alternative 14 . . . ib7.
Black succeeded in obtaining sat­
isfactory game until recently, but
in the game �otronias - Timosh­
enko, Thessaloniki 2 0 07, that
variation was dealt a mortal blow.
After a series of precise moves,
among which we must men­
tion 18.h4 ! , and that of course
combined with the "know-how"
of Vasilios �otronias - 21.hS ! ,
White seized the initiative and
pressed his advantage home con­
vincingly.
15.ic4 gb8
64
In Chapters 11-12, we have seen
Black's attempts to avoid entering
the main line. We must pay atten­
tion to the move 1S . . . id7 (Chapter
12) - because recently Teimour
Radjabov played it several times.
The theory of that line continues
to develop, but in general, it be­
comes clear, in the variations we
analyze, that White's chances of
obtaining the advantage are quite
real.
16.b3 �h8
That is the main "tabia" of the
variation and our final Chapter
13 is devoted to it. The lines af­
ter 17. 0-0 fS, have been analyzed
quite thoroughly before and they
do not promise White any real ad­
vantage. Still, he has a good alter­
native to castling in the move
17. ltJce3!? In that case, White
manages to preserve his blocking
construction in the centre and
that is essential for him to prevent
Black's piece counterplay. Later
White can take care of Black's
weak as-pawn.
Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2 . ti)f3 ti)c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ti)xd4
e6 5.ti)c3 e5 6. ti) db5 d6 7 .ig5 a6
8.ti)a3 b5 9.ti)d5 .ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6
n.e3
This is the most natural move.
White prepares to centralize his
knight via the c2-square and to
follow that with the undermining
move a2-a4.
In this chapter, we will deal
with all responses for Black, be­
sides the main lines 11 . . . 0-0 and
11 . . . llJe7 - Chapter 6, as well as
11 . . . ig5 - Chapter 7.
n . . . ih7
11 . . . g6? ! - That move is played
with the idea to redeploy the
bishop from one passive square
to another. IVtJc2 ig7 13.a4
bxa4 14. llJcb4 ib7? (It is better
for Black to play 14 . . . id7 15.Wlxa4
llJe7 16.\!Na5±, although even
then he loses unavoidably his a6-
pawn. White can capture it under
most favourable circumstanc-
•
•
es.) 15.Wlxa4 E1cB 16 .ha6 ha6
17.llJxc6 Wld7 IB.llJa7+- Black
loses plenty of material, Robson
- Navarro Guerrero, Brazil 2005.
11 . . . ih4 - It would be too dif­
ficult for Black to organize real
pressure against the f2-pawn.
12 .llJc2 E1bB, S.Fernandez - New­
ton, corr. 2002, and here after
13.g3 ig5 14.ig2 0-0 15. 0-0 llJe7
16.llJxe7+ Wlxe7 17. llJb4t White
has a clear-cut plan for actions on
the queenside, while Black has no
active prospects.
11 . . . i.e7? ! - That is a typical
loss of time, since Black's bishop
is passively placed here and its
transfer to a more active posi­
tion would need tempi. 12 .llJc2
0-0 (Black's options are not any
better: in answer to 12 . . . ig5,
Tormo - Linares Quero, Oropesa
del Mar 1999, White's most ac­
tive move seems to be 13.a4 and
if 13 . . . E1bB, then 14.axb5 axb5 15.
id3 0-0 16.Wle2± and Black will
have problems protecting his b5-
pawn, while if 13 . . . bxa4 - then af­
ter 14.llJcb4 id7 15.Wlxa4 llJe7 16.
%Va5±, or 15 ... llJd4 16.%Vdl± he will
lose for sure his a6-pawn; 12 . . .
65
Chapter 5

fS - This seemingly active move dark-squared bishop is on gS and

enables White to have excellent not on e7. It is much more pas­
game on the light squares in the sive there and if Black places it
centre, Klundt - Ostermeier, Bad on the most active position - gS,
Homburg 2 0 04, 13.a4! - This then White would have an extra
move is again the most energetic tempo in comparison to the simi­
for White and Black is in great lar lines.
trouble. It is terrible for him to try 1l . . . lLlb8 - Black loses his con­
13 . . . fxe4? 14.axbS lLlb8 1S.bxa6+-, trol over the d4-square and that
and White's advantage is evident, enables White to play aggres­
thanks to his domination over the sively: 12.c4 ! ? �aS + ? ! (It is not
dS and e4-outposts, in the line: any better for Black to opt for
13 . . . bxa4 14.lLlce3 a3 1SJ:1 xa3 fxe4 12 . . . 0-0 13.cxbS lLld7 14.,tc4 lLlb6
16.�a4±, or 14 . . .f4 1S.lLlc4± and 1S.0-0 ! ?± and he either remains
Black has no counterplay and he without a pawn, or he must enter
has great problems protecting his the variation: 1S . . . lLlxc4 16.lLlxc4
queenside. After 13 .. J �b8 14.axbS axbS 17.lLlcb6 l=1b8 18.lLlxc8 l=1xc8
axbS 1S.exfS hfS 16.lLlce3 ,te6 19 .�e2±. White's advantage of a
17.,td3± White occupies the light centralized knight against Black's
squares in the centre and Black passive dark-squared bishop is
is incapable of protecting his evident. It looks like Black's best
bS-pawn. 12 . . . ,te6, A.Tikhonov line is to centralize his knight too,
- Rogov, Kazan 2 0 04, 13.a4 l=1b8 although it has not been tried
14.axbS axbS lS.,td3;f;; Black's in practice yet 12 . . . lLlc6 13.cxbS
queenside is vulnerable and his lLld4 14.b6 0-0 1S.lLlc4;f;; and he
bS-pawn is weak, while White will still have problems to prove
dominates on the a-file and his that his compensation for the
centralized knights are very pow­ pawn is sufficient.) 13.�d2 b4,
erful.) 13.a4 bxa4 (After 13 . . . l=1b8 Grazinys - Scholbach, Email
14.axbS, M .Andersen - Agusts­ 2000, after 13 . . . �xd2+? 14.<;i{xd2
son, Gausdal 2 0 06, following 14 . . . ,tgS+ 1S.<;i{dl± Black's queenside
axbS 1S.,td3 ,tgS 16.�e2± Black is in ruins. White's most aggres­
not only loses his bS-pawn, but sive line seems to be : 14.cS ! ? ,te6
White can even choose the ap­ (But not 14 . . . dxcS 1S.lLlc4 �d8
propriate moment to capture 16.lLldb6± and Black loses at least
it.) 14.l=1xa4 as, Gara - Moshina, the exchange.) lS.lLlxf6+ gxf6
Balatonlelle 2000, and here af­ 16.cxd6 lLlc6 17.lLlc4 �cS 18.l=1c1
ter lS.,tc4 l=1b8 16.b3;f;; there arise �d4 19.�e3 !± White has an extra
positions different from the main pawn and he forces unavoidably
line, which is dealt with in Chap­ the trade of queens on the e3-
ter 8, with the fact that Black's square. Later he captures there

66

with his pawn and Black would
be deprived of the counterplay
connected with the weakened d4-
square.
11 . . . �e6 IV'ilc2
12 . . . hdS (Black's other lines are
less purposeful, or they do not lead
to any original positions. About
12 . . . t'iJe7 13.t'iJxf6+ gxf6 14.a4 -
see 11 . . . t'iJe7 12 .t'iJxf6 gxf6 13.t'iJc2
ie6 14.a4, Chapter 6; about 12 . . .
igS - see 11 . . . �gS, Chapter 7 ; as
for 12 . . . 0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0; The
move 12 . . . l3b8? Zandeisakhani -
Majul, Santa CruzdeTenerife2001,
leads to the disruption of Black's
pawn-structure after 13.t'iJxf6+
gxf6 - in case of 13 .. .'\!;l/xf6?
14.�xd6+- Black has no compen­
sation for the lost pawn - 14.t'iJe3
0-0 IS.id3±; 12 . . . l3a7 - That
method of activating the rook
seems a bit awkward. 13.a4 l3b7? !
14.axbS axbS IS.l3a6± Krajcovic
- Kouba, Trencianske Teplice
2005; it is slightly better for Black
to play 13 . . . bxa4 14.t'iJce3 0-0 15.
�xa4 t'iJb8 16.ic4;1;, or even 15 . . .
t'iJe7 16.t'iJxf6+ gxf6 17.ic4;1; al­
though in these lines Black's a6
and d6-pawns are obviously weak
9.ti:Jd5 �e7 1 O . ix.f6 ixf6 11.c3
and he has no real counterplay;
12 . . . �4 - This looks like the
strongest move, leading to origi-
nal lines. 13.a4 0-0 14.g3 �gS
IS.h4 �6 16.axbS hdS 17.exdS
t'iJe7 18.bxa6±. Black has insuffi­
cient compensation for the pawn
indeed, but White must play very
precisely, because of his somewhat
compromised kingside, Schaetz
- Adaszewski, Leutersdorf 2006.
After the best line for Black: 13 ...
13b8 14.axbS axbS IS.�d3 0-0 16.
0-0;1; his bS-pawn is weak and his
counterplay is nowhere in sight.)
13.�xdS t'iJe7 (But not 13 ... 13c8 ? ! ,
Cipolli - Zdanowski, Sao Caetano
do SuI 1999, in view of the ag­
gressive line: 14.a4! t'iJe7 IS.�3
0-0 16.axbS axbS 17.hbS± and
Black has no compensation what­
soever.) 14.�b3 0-0 IS.ie2 �6
(After IS . . . g6 16.0-0 �g7 17.a4
bxa4 18.13xa4 as 19.t'iJe3± Black's
queenside pawns are weak and
his light pieces are more passive
than their counterparts, Gonczi
- Kiss, Hungary 1996. Black does
not achieve much after the break
in the centre IS . . . dS 16J!dl d4,
Nogga - Steinhart, Mainz 1989,
since after 17.cxd4 exd4 18.f4 t'iJc6
19. 0-0;1; the d4-pawn not only
needs protection, but it impedes
the activization of Black's pieces,
while White has active prospects
in the centre and on both sides of
the board.) 16.0-0 l3ab8 17.l3fdl
l3fd8 18 .t'iJb4;1; White occupies the
dS-square and he has a slight, but
stable edge thanks to his more
67
Chapter 5
active bishop. The development
of the game illustrates how that
advantage can be increased. lB . . .
1Wb7 19.ttJdS ttJxdS 20.EixdS EibcB
21.Eiad1 1WaB 2 2 .a4!± White opens
unavoidably files on the queenside
for his rooks and his light-squared
bishop will soon dominate on the
a2-gB-diagonal, its most aggres­
sive possible placement. 22 . . . bxa4
23.1Wxa4 Eic6 24.EiaS Eib6 2S.b3
EicB 26 .ha6 Eixc3 27 ..ic4 1WfB
2B.Eia7+- Black loses unavoidably
his f7-pawn and White's position
is winning after that, although he
must still play accurately, Bures
- Radusinovic, Budva 2003.
11 ... EibB 12.ttJc2 as, Savon -
Lutikov, Odessa 1976 (Or 12 . . . .ib7
13.ttJce3 - 11 . . . .ib7 12.ttJc2 EibB
13.ttJce3 ; about 12 . . . ttJe7 13.ttJxf6+
gxf6 14 . .id3 - see 11 . . . ttJe7 12.
ttJxf6+ gxf6 13.ttJc2 EibB 14 . .id3,
Chapter 6; 12 . . ..igS - 11 . . . .igS,
Chapter 7; 12 . . . 0-0 - 11 . . . 0-0;
The move 12 ... g6, Antoniewski -
Stankova, Pardubice 1996, looks
too passive and White's most en­
ergetic reaction seems to be the
standard 13.a4 ! 0-0 14.axbS axbS
lS . .id3t and Black has consider­
able difficulties with the protec­
tion of his bS-pawn. It is hardly
any better for Black to play 13 . . .
bxa4 14.ttJce3 Eixb2? lS.1Wxa4 .id7
16.1Wa3 EibB 17.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 1B.ttJdS
1Wh4 19.1Wxd6+- and White wins.
It is too passive for Black to try
14 . . . .id7? ! lS.1Wxa4 0-0 16.b4±
and he has problems with his vul­
nerable a6-pawn. Black would not
6B
equalize with 14 ... .igS lS.1Wxa4
.id7 16.1Wxa6 0-0 17.b4 he3
1B.ttJxe3 Eib6 19.1Wd3±, or 16 . . .
Eixb2 17.ttJc4 EibB 1B.ttJxd6 + I!ifB
19 . .ic4± and in both cases White
has a solid extra pawn and more
active pieces.), here the weaken­
ing of Black's queenside can be
best exploited with the sudden
retreat - 13.ttJa3 ! ? ttJa7 (It is not
preferable for Black to try 13 . . .
b 4 14.ttJc4 .igS - after 1 4 . . . 0-0
lS.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 16.1Wxd6± he can
hardly prove sufficient compen­
sation for the pawn - lS.h4! and
here after lS . . . .ixh4? 16.Eixh4
1Wxh4 17.ttJc7+ I!idB 1B .1Wxd6+
.id7 19.Eid1+- White wins, while
in the variation lS . . . .ih6 16.1Wa4
.ib7 17.Eid1 0-0 1B.ttJdb6± Black
loses his d6-pawn. It looks like
the most accurate defence for him
is lS . . . .ie7 16.ttJxe7 I!ixe7 17.ttJe3t,
but it leads to a position in which
Black's queenside pawns are ob­
viously weak and he will need to
spend some tempi to evacuate his
king away from the centre.) and
now White should consider the
aggressive line 14.c4 ! ? bxc4 (Af­
ter 14 . . . b4 lS.1Wa4+ .id7 16.ttJbS
0-0 17. .id3 ttJxbS 1B.cxbS .ie6
19.ttJxf6+ 1Wxf6 2 0 . 0-0t White
has a passed pawn on bS, while
Black's as and d6-pawns are
weak.) lS.hc4 ! ? Eixb2 ! (It is
worse for Black to play lS . . . 0-0
16.b3 .igS 17. 0-0 .ie6 1B.1Wd3t
and White's prospects are bet­
ter, because of Black's vulnerable
queenside pawns.) 16 . .ib3 .ia6

17.lLlc4 hc4 1B.hc4 0-0 19. 0-0
ig5 2 0.Wfa4� Black's extra pawn
seems immaterial. Meanwhile, it
would not be so easy for White
to prove that his compensation is
good enough not only for equality,
but also for more. He must attack
the V-pawn in order to engage his
opponent's forces with its protec­
tion and he may eye the weak a5-
pawn as well.
12.lLlc2
12 ••• lLlb8
About 12 . . . lLle7 13.lLlxf6+ gxf6
14.id3 - see 1l . . . lLle7 12.lLlxf6+
gxf6 13.lLlc2 ib7 14 . .id3, Chapter
6; 12 . . . .ig5 - see 1l . . . ig5, Chapter
7; as for 12 . . . 0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0.
12 ... g6, Mittermayr - Bittner,
Aschach 1995, Black is planning
to deploy his bishop passively on
the g7-square with that move,
13.a4 bxa4 14J:�xa4 0-0 15 . .ic4;!;
12 .. JkB, Just - Grunau, Du­
isburg 2 0 04, and here White's
standard pawn-break on the
queenside is even more effective
13.a4 bxa4 (After 13 . . . b4 14.lLlcxb4
etJxb4 15.lLlxb4 he4 16.ha6 �c5
17. .ib5 + <JifB 1B. 0-0± White's
passed pawn might be advanced
9. lLl dS ie7 1 O . ixf6 ,ixf6 11.c3
far ahead, while the opponent
would strive to complete his de­
velopment.) 14.�xa4 as 15.lLlce3
.ig5 16 . .ic4;!; White's pieces are
perfectly deployed on the queen­
side and in the centre.
12 . . . �bB 13.lLlce3 lLla5? ! - This
move enables White to begin a
queenside offensive with tempi,
Skorobogaty - Turecki, Augus­
tow 1996, 14.b4 ! hd5 (After 14 . . .
lLlc6 15.a4 lLla7 1 6 . .id3± Black can
hardly coordinate his pieces with­
out losing some queenside pawn.)
15.lLlxd5 lLlc6 16.a4± and White
has a stable advantage, thanks to
his powerful centralized knight
and his queenside initiative.
13.lLlce3
That is a quiet move. White im­
proves the placement of his knight
and he postpones the pawn-break
a2-a4.
13 ••• lLld7
The move 13 . . . g6? ! - presents
White with tempi for the assault.
14.a4 bxa4 15.'I&xa4+ .ic6 16.'1Wa5
0-0 17 . .id3± and White has pow­
erful pressure on the queenside
and in the centre, Murariu - Go­
gin, Budva 2003.
69
Chapter S
13 . . . �gS ? ! - That activization
of the bishop is already too late,
because White can develop pow­
erful initiative after 14.lZlfS g6
(It is hardly any better for Black
to opt for 14 . . . 0-0 lS.h4 �f6,
J. Smith - Ver Nooy, Email 199B,
since White has a clear advantage
after the logical move 16.g4 ! , for
example after 16 . . . lZlc6 17.�f3 �e7
1B.0-0-0 �cB 19.@bl± White
dominates in the centre and he
has excellent attacking chances,
while in the variation: 16 . . . lZld7
17.gS �xdS 1B.gxf6 he4 19.�g4
�xf6 20.�xe4± Black's two pawns
cannot compensate fully his miss­
ing bishop.) lS.h4 �f4 (it cannot
be recommended for Black to try
lS . . . gxfS 16.hxgS fxe4 17.lZlf6+
@e7, V.Kalinina - Zatonskih, Bu­
charest 199B, since after 1B.Elh6 ! ,
h e has great problems, for ex­
ample in the line : 1B . . . dS 19.a4
d4 2 0 .�b3 �aS 2 1.�c4±. White
ends up with a huge lead in devel­
opment and excellent chances to
finish the game off with a check­
mating attack, while after lB . . .
lZld7 19.1ZldS+ hdS 2 0.�xdS± he
regains unavoidably his sacrificed
pawn and he has good attacking
prospects against his opponent's
king stranded in the centre.)
16.lZlf6+ �xf6 17.lZlxd6+ @e7 lB.
lZlxb7 Ela7 (After 1B ... lZld7 19.93
�b6 - it seems terrible for Black
to try 19 . . . �h6 2 0.�h3± - 2 0.�dS
lZlf6 2 1.�cS+ �xcS 2 2 . lZlxcS �h6
23.�d3± Black has failed to trap
the knight on b7 and he has no
70
compensation for the pawn in
that endgame. It is hardly any bet­
ter for him to continue with lB . . .
�b6 19.�dS Ela7 20.�cS+ �xcS
21.lZlxcS EldB 22.Eldl±) 19.�dS
�c6 2 0 .�cS+ �xcS 21.lZlxcS lZld7
22.lZld3 �h6 23.lZlb4 ElcB 24.a4±
and he remains a pawn down with
a vulnerable queenside, Vasquez -
Dominguez Garcia, Seville 1994.
The move 13 . . . 0-0 - enables
White to organize an offensive on
the kingside. 14.�f3 ! ? �gS lS.Eld1
g6 (After lS . . . lZld7 16.lZlfS lZlcS
17.h4±, Black's bishop has no good
square to retreat to.) 16 .h4 he3
17.�xe3 lZld7 (In case of 17. . . hdS
1B.ElxdS �c7 19.hS lZld7 2 0 .�e2t
White's bishop is stronger than
Black's knight, since there will be
fight on both sides of the board.)
1B.hS lZlf6 (Or 1B . . . �xdS 19.ElxdS
lZlf6 20.Eld3 and here after 20 . . .
lZlxhS 21.�h6 lZlf6 2 2 .g4 �e7 2 3 .
�e2-+ White has a crushing king­
side attack, while in the line 23 . . .
�c7 2 1.�e2 EladB 2 2 .�dl± White's
king is much safer than its coun­
terpart.) 19.1Zlxf6+ �xf6, Stano­
joski - Todorovic, Pancevo 2003
and now after 2 0 .hxg6 fxg6 (Or
20 . . .hxg6? 2 1.Elxd6 ! ± and White
remains with a solid extra pawn,
because Black cannot capture the
rook 21.. .�xd6? 2 2 .�h6+-) 2l.f3
EladB 22.a4t and White has pow­
erful queenside initiative. Black
can hardly exploit the placement
of White's king in the centre, be­
cause the central files are closed.
14.a4!?

This is the most aggressive
line for White. He emphasizes the
vulnerability of Black's queenside
pawns.
14 . . . bxa4 1S.tLlxf6+
lS . . . tLlxf6
It is not preferable for Black to
try 15 . . . �xf6 �xf6 16.�xa4 �dB
(He has no compensation for the
pawn at all after 16 . . . E1dB 17.ha6
E1aB 1B.�c4 ! ? 0-0 19. 0-0±, or
1B . . . �e6 19.tOd5 0-0 20. 0-0±
and here Black loses quickly after
2 0 . . . E1fcB? 2 1.hb7! E1xc4 22.E1xaB +
tOfB 23.E1fa1 ! + - and he is left
without plenty of material un­
avoidably.) 17.tOf5 0-0 (Black
fails to protect his numerous
weaknesses after 17. . . �c7 1B.�a5 ! ,
for example: 1 B . . . �xa5 19.E1xa5
ic6 2 0 . tOxd6+ @e7 21.tOf5+ @f6
2 2 .f3+-, 1B . . . 0-0-0 19.ha6
�xa5 2 0 . E1xa5 tOf6 2 1.f3+-, lB . . .
�c5 19.�xc5 lLlxc5 2 0.f3+- and
White should not have problems
with the realization of his extra
pawn after the transfer into the
endgame and in the variation:
1B . . . tOb6 19.0-0-0 E1dB 20.lLlxg7+
@fB 21.tOh5 he4 22.f4-4 Black
can hardly protect his king with-
9. tO d5 ie7 1 O . hf6 ixf6 11.c3
out losing material.) 1B.tOxd6
E1bB, Iordachescu - Timoshenko,
Romania 2004 (The other possi-
bilities are not any better for
Black: 1B . . . tLlc5 19.tOxb7 tOxb7
2 0.ic4±, or 1B . . . �c7 19.�a3 tOc5
20.tOxb7 tOxb7 2 1.ie2 E1fdB 2 2 .
0 - 0 E1d2 23.if3± and h e has no
compensation for his sacrificed
pawn in both variations.) and here
White's advantage is considerable
after 19.E1d1 tOc5 (19 .. .'�c7 20.�c4
�b6 2 1.b4±) 2 0 .�c4 �b6 2 1.b4
lLle6 (After 2l...tOa4 2 2 .�b3 tOc5
23.�b1 tOe6 24.ic4± White has
not only an extra pawn, but more
active pieces too.) 2 2.ie2 E1fdB
23.tOxb7 E1xd1+ 24.hd1 �xb7 25.
O-O± White has completed his
development and despite the con­
siderably reduced material he has
excellent chances to press his ad­
vantage home.
16.�xa4+ @f8
After 16 . . . �d7 17.�xd7+ @xd7
1B.f3;!; the endgame is clearly in
favour of White, because of his
active pieces and Black's weak a6-
pawn.
17.�d3 g6 18. 0 - 0
18 . . .�c7, Protaziuk - Swol,
71
Chapter S

Poland 1994. It is favourable for 21.he4 tLlxe4 22.f3 �g5 (Black

White to enter an endgame here,
for example: 19.'fHc4 'fHxc4 (After
19 . . . �b6 20Jla4;!; White has pow­
erful queenside initiative, while
Black must still complete his de­
velopment.) 2 0 .�xc4 he4 (In
case of 20 . . . �xe4 2 1.ixe4 ixe4
2VtJxd6 .tc6 23.f4 ! e4 24Jla5±
White has a great lead in develop­
ment; meanwhile Black's bishop
is restricted by his own pawns.)
loses after 22 . . . d5? 23.tt:'lb6+-; it is
also bad for him to play 22 . . . Elc8 ? !
23.tt:'lb6 Elc6 24.Elxa6 tLlc5 25.tt:'ld7±
and White wins the exchange. His
pieces are considerable more ac­
tive in the variation: 22 . . . tt:'lc5
23.Elfdl <J;; e7 24J�xd6t) 23. tLlxd6
<J;; e7 24.tLlc4 f6 25.ga5;!; White's
prospects are superior thanks to
his better piece-coordination and
Black's weak a6-pawn.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we analyze Black's moves 11, which have not be­
come popular, because they are not in the spirit of the Chelyabinsk
variation. White reacts practically always with the standard maneu­
ver 12. tt:'l c2,followed by a2-a4 and a transfer of the knight to e3, or to
b4. In answer to11 . . . li:) bB, it is essentialfor White to exploit his lead in
development and to attack immediately Black's queenside with c3-c4.
The most popular move for Black here 11. .. .tb7, reduces his control
over the .f5-square and he must play very accurately afterwards. The
maximum that he can dream about in this line is to reach a worse
endgame without any chances of seizing the initiative.

72
Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5 6. � db5 d6 7.ig5 a6
8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 ie7 10 . .txf6 .ixf6
11.c3 �e7
This is a standard maneuver
for Black with the idea to repel
White's knight from its perfect
deployment on the d5-outpost.
Black is not afraid of his doubled
f-pawns, because he plans to ob­
tain good game thanks to his pow­
erful centre.
12.�xf6+ gxf6
There arises a similar position
in the variation: 1O.�xe7 tLJxe7 11.
ixf6 gxf6, but White's pawn is on
c2 and not on c3, so he has here
some additional possibilities.
13.�c2 J.b7
That is the most logical move.
Black strives to advance either
d6-d5, or f6-f5, and in both cases,
the perfect place for his bishop is
on the ling diagonal.
13 . . . 0-0? ! - Black's king
would be quite uncomfortable
on the kingside, due to his com­
promised pawn-structure there.
14.id3 f5 (The other thematic
pawn-advance would be detri-
mental to Black's prospects - 14 .. .
d5 15.exd5, and here after 15 . . .
f5 16.tLJe3 e4 17.J.c2 tLJg6 18.d6±
he has no compensation for the
pawn, Wieczorek - Gromczak,
Wroclaw 2004. In the variation:
15 ... Wfxd5 16.�e3 �e6, Jurasek -
Svab, Plzen 1996, White has the
aggressive possibility 17.�h5 e4
18.J.c2 J.b7 19.0-0±, after which
Black's defence would be very dif­
ficult, because of his bad pawn­
structure on the kingside and his
passive pieces. White is threaten­
ing to open files on the kingside
with f2-f3 at the moment and he
has even active prospects on the
queenside with the help of the
pawn-break a2-a4.) 15.Wfh5 d5,
Massoni - Battesti, Bastia 2 0 04
(It is not preferable for Black to
try 15 . . . wh8 16.exf5 tLJd5, Svidin­
sky - Kosov, st. Petersburg 2 007,
since after White's active move
17.Wfh6 ! ? tLJf6 18.0-0-0 �g8 19.
tLJe3± he remains with an extra
pawn and he can begin a mas-
73
Chapter 6
sive pawn-offensive on the king­
side.), here after the natural line:
16.exf5 e4 17.ie2 lDxf5 18.0-0-0
ie6 19.94 lDg7 20 .iMfh6± Black's
pawn centre has been blocked,
his knight on g7 will hardly join
the actions anytime soon and his
kingside is vulnerable.
13 . . . ie6 - That square is less
active for Black's bishop than b7
and after 14.a4 �b8 15.axb5 axb5
16. lDb4± he has difficulties to un­
dermine White's e4-pawn. 16 . . .
0-0 17.id3 iMfd7 18.0-0 �h8,
Sandu - Macedo Rasgadinho,
Sautron 2 0 05, and here after
19.f4 lDc6 20.lDd5± Black should
better forget about his intentions
to exchange his weak pawns, be­
cause his main task would be not
to get checkmated.
The move 13 . . . �b8 does not
contribute to Black's possible
counterplay in the centre. 14.id3
f5 15.exf5 lDxf5, K.Szabo - Hi­
degh, Hungary 2005, and here
following 16.iMfd2 �g8 (The draw­
backs of Black's position are much
more evident in the line: 16 . . . 0-0
17.0-0-0 lDh4 18.ie4±) 17.ie4
ie6 18.0-0-0t Black has a ma­
jority of pawns in the centre, but
they are immobile and they can be
attacked. The shelter of his king
can hardly be safe either.
The move 13 . . . d5 is not popu­
lar at all, because it "freezes"
Black's central pawns. 14.iMff3 f5,
van Amerongen - Mihevc, Sas
van Gent 1990 , and here after
15.0-0-0 fxe4 (In case of 15 . . . ie6
74
16.exd5 ixd5 17.iMfe3 iMfd6 18.lDb4±
Black falls behind in development
and he has problems in the centre
and with the safety of his king.)
16.iMff6 0-0 17.iMfxe5 ie6 18.h4±
Black's central pawns are static,
therefore White can attack them
later in the endgame. Meanwhile,
Black's king is endangered with
queens present on the board.
13 .. .f5 - Black improves his
pawn-structure with that move
indeed, but his pawns in the cen­
tre and on the queenside need
protection and the shelter of his
king is not reliable. Black's bishop
will hardly get access to the long
diagonal. After 14.exf5,
Black has tried in practice both
captures :
14 . . . lDxf5 - He wishes to de­
ploy his bishop on b7, Breitenbach
- Lee, corr. 1990, but White can
prevent that with natural moves :
15.id3 iMfg5 (15 . . . d5? ! - Black oc­
cupies the centre, but he would
have problems on the queenside,
because of his lag in development,
16.a4±; 15 . . . ie6 - Black's bishop
is not so active here as on the long
diagonal and after 16.0-0 �g8

17.a4 lLlh4 18.g3, he has difficul­
ties obtaining counterplay, for ex­
ample: 18 . . . @f8 19.1Llb4 i.g4 20.
i.e2 i.xe2 2 UWxe2 bxa4 2 2.lLldS±
and almost all his pawns are weak
and his king is rather unsafe.
Black does not have anything real
on the kingside either, or 18 . . .
bxa4 19.1Lle3 .ib3 2 0.WThS 'MfgS
21.WTe2 lLlg6 2 2 .'Mff3 l'!d8 23.c4±
and despite the fact that Black has
an extra pawn, his position is very
difficult - his bishop is a sorry
sight, his knight can hardly be ac­
tivated, his king is vulnerable and
his queenside pawns are weak.
The advance of his f-pawn might
lead to its loss 21.. .fS? 22.@hl lLlg6
23.lLlxfS+- and Black's king has
become even more endangered.)
16.i.e4 l'!a7 17. 0-0 l'!g8 (It is pos­
sible for Black to try 17 . . . 0-0
18.lLlb4 .ib7 19.hb7 l'!xb7 2 0 .'MfdS
l'!b6 2 1.f4 exf4 2 2 .'Mfe4± and he
has completed his development,
but at the price of having numer­
ous weaknesses.) 18.g3 hS 19.a4 !
bxa4 2 0.hfS ! - White emphasiz­
es the advantages of his position
with that not so obvious exchange.
20 . . . 'MfxfS (The other capture is
much worse for Black after 20 . . .
hfS 2 1.'Mfxd6 l'!b7 22.l'!fel f6
23.'Mfc6+ l'!d7 24.lLle3+-, not only
he loses all his queenside pawns,
but his king comes under a dan­
gerous attack.) 2 1.lLle3 'Mfg6 22.
WTxa4+ @f8 23.l'!fdl± Black can
hardly exploit the weakness of the
light squares on White's queen­
side, but he must worry about the
1l.c3 lLle7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLlc2
protection of his own d6 and a6-
pawns.
14 . . . i.xfS - This move is much
more natural. His bishop would
not go to b7 anyway, so Black de­
velops it to another active posi­
tion and he leaves his knight in
control of the dS-square. IS.a4
0-0 (Or IS . . . l'!b8 16.axbS axbS
17.i.d3 e4 18.i.e2 l'!g8 19.1Lle3
i.g6 2 0.l'!a6± lLlfS 21. 0-0 lLlxe3
22 .fxe3 +- Mahia - Bulacio, Ar­
gentina 1988; IS . . . bxa4, Bachar
- Bousios, Greece 1984, 16.lLle3
'Mfd7 17.'Mfxa4 WTxa4 18.l'!xa4 as
19.b4±; 16 . . . i.e4 17.WTxa4+ i.c6 18.
WTa3 0-0 19.1'!dl dS 2 0 .i.e2 fS
- 2 0 . . . lLlg6 21.WTcS± - 21.0-0 f4
22.lLlc4 'Mfc7 23.lLlaS l'!f6 24.l'!fel
e4 2S.i.g4 l'!b8 26.c4t. Black has
also tried in practice the less logi­
cal line: IS . . . i.xc2 16.WTxc2 0-0
17.i.d3 @h8 18.0-0 l'!b8 19.axbS
axbS 20.l'!a7 fS, Tsuboi - Cruz,
Sao Paulo 2 004, and here after
21.l'!fal± White's pieces are much
more active, his king is safer and
his bishop is doubtlessly stronger
than Black's knight.) 16.lLle3 i.e6
17.axbS axbS 18.i.xbS l'!b8 (Black
has also tested 18 . . . l'!xaI 19.WTxal
fS - it is hardly any better for him
to advance his central pawns,
after 19 . . . dS 2 0 . 0-0 d4 21.cxd4
exd4 2 2 .lLlc2 'MfdS 23.i.d3± Black's
passed d4-pawn has been blocked
reliably, therefore his compen­
sation for the sacrificed pawn is
insufficient - 2 0.WTa6 f4 21.lLlc4
lLlfS, Olazarri - Espinosa Flores,
Guarapuava 1991, Black's king-
75
Chapter 6
side threats seem dangerous, but
White can parry them with pre­
cise moves, remaining with a sol­
id extra pawn. 2 2 . 0- 0 e4 23.�c6 !
�a8 24.lLlb6 �xc6 2S . .b:c6 E:b8
26.lLldS± and Black's centre is so
vulnerable that he would lose un­
avoidably another pawn.) 19.c4
dS 20. 0-0 d4, Olazarri - Gamar­
ra Caceres, Guarapuava 1991, and
now White's best line seems to be:
21.lLlc2 lLlg6 (After 21.. .d3 22 .lLlb4
e4 23 .Wfd2 E:c8 24.b3± Black's
pawns will be blocked and they
will become a target for attack.)
2 2 .g3 �gS 23.lLle1 �g4 24.f3 �h3
2S.E:f2t Black has some compen­
sation for the pawn, because of
his extra space, but it can hardly
be sufficient. White needs to
strive for exchanges and his ad­
vantage would increase consider­
ably then.
14.i.d3
In this position, Black has
played most of all a) 14 . . . f5 and
b) 14 d5, but he has tested
••.
some other moves too :
1 4 . . . hS? ! - This moves impedes
the activization of Black's pieces,
Blankenberg - Reiter, Internet
76
2001, 1S.lLle3 fS (It is possibly
better for Black to opt for 1S . . . dS
16.Wff3 d4 17.cxd4 exd4 18.�xf6
E:g8 19.1LlfS lLlxfS 2 0 .WfxfSt and
he regains the pawn, but after
20 . . . E:xg2 21.We2 ! E:gS 2 2 .Wff4
Wfe7 23.E:g1 f6 24.h4± White is
clearly better, because his king's
shelter is safer and in case of a
transfer to an endgame, Black's
pawns would be quite vulnera­
ble.) 16.exfS dS 17. 0-0 d4 18.cxd4
exd4 19.f6 dxe3 2 0 .fxe7 WfdS 21.f3
�cS 2 2 .Wfe2± White's e7-pawn
and Black's e3-pawn would be an­
nihilated unavoidably and White
would remain with material ad­
vantage and a safer king.
14 . . . lLlg6?! - This move en­
ables White to block his oppo­
nent's pawn-mass in the centre.
1S.lLle3 hS (After 1S . . . lLlf4 16.g3
lLlxd3+ 17.�xd3 Wfc7 18.0-0 Wfc6
19.f3± Black has no counterplay
at all and he must worry about
the protection of his weak d6 and
f6-pawns.) 16.Wfb3 lLlf4 17.�c2
�c7 18.0-0-0 0-0-0 19.E:d2 E:d7
20J!hd1 E:hd8 21.a4± Black's piec­
es are forced to protect passively
his numerous weaknesses, Eberth
- Szekeres, Sarospatak 1994.
14 . . . �6 - Black prepares cas­
tling long, but his queen is not so
active on that square. 1S.lLle3 dS
16.�f3 0-0-0 17. 0-0 d4 18.cxd4
exd4 19.lLlfS lLlxfS 2 0.WfxfS+ Wfe6 (It
is almost the same after 20 . . . wb8
21.a4 �e6 22.Wff4+ Wfd6 23.Wfd2±)
21.�f4 �eS 2 2 .Wfd2 E:hg8 23.a4 fS,
Y.Gruenfeld - Kouatly, Brussels

1985, and here White's most en­
ergetic way to increase his advan­
tage is 24.axb5 ! fxe4 (After 24 . . .
he4 25.he4 fxe4 26.bxa6 �d5
27.'!&b4+- Black's king is so bare
that it seems to be beyond salva­
tion.) 25.bxa6 �c6 26.gfcl �d7
(The other possibilities are not any
better for Black: 26 . . . gg6 27.\&b4
- and here he loses after 27. . . �d7
28.�c6 �xc6 29.�b5+-, as well
as following 27 . . . �dg8 28.�xc6+
�xc6 29.'I&b7+ �d8 30.\&xc6 exd3
31.a7+ - ; 26 . . . �d6 27.a7 �d7 28.
�xc6 �xc6 29.\&e2+-. Black must
not only parry the threats against
his "centralized" king, but he
must fight against White's far­
advanced passed pawn.) 27.�xc6
�xc6 28.\&c2 + �d6 29.he4�
and White has a dangerous attack
in a position with material equal­
ity.
The move 14 . . . �g8 - looks
more natural, because Black can
use the g-file, besides his possible
active actions in the centre. 15.
lDe3 d5 (About 15 .. .fS 16.exf5 - see
14 . . . f5 15.exf5 �g8 16.lDe3.) 16.\&f3
f5 (The alternatives for Black are
worse: 16 . . . d4? ! 17.cxd4 '1&xd4 18.
O-O-O± White has a great lead in
development and he can exert
powerful pressure against his op­
ponent's vulnerable kingside
pawns. 16 . . . \&d7? ! - That pawn­
sacrifice is rather dubious and
Black can hardly prove any com­
pensation for it, Paehtz - Bun­
zmann, Binz 1995, 17.exd5 f5 -
after 17 . . . lDxd5? 18.M5 'l&d6 19.
11.c3 lDe7 12. lDxj6 gxj6 13. lDc2
0-0-0+- Black loses at least a
piece. 18.lDxf5 hd5 19.!e4 he4
20.\&xe4 �d8 21.lDxe7 'l&d2 + 2 2 .
� f1 �xe7 23.\&xe5+ �f8 24.gel±.
After White's rook on hI enters
the actions, Black's position would
become completely lost.) 17.lDxf5
lDxf5 18.'I&xf5 'l&g5 (Black loses
here after 18 .. J �g5 19.\&f3 �c8,
Pritchett - Littlewood, England
1985, 20.0-0! f5 21.exf5 e4
2 2 .\&e3+- and not only he has
lost material, but his king is en­
dangered. It is not better for
Black to try 18 . . . �xg2 19.h4 dxe4,
Den Heyer - De Vriese, corr.
1989, because after 2 0 .!xe4 !xe4
2 1.\&xe4 �g7 22.�dl± White has
much superior piece-coordina­
tion and excellent attacking
chances against Black's vulnera­
ble king.) 19.exd5 hd5 2 0 .\&xg5
�xg5 21.�gl �xg2 22.�xg2 hg2
23.a4 0-0-0, Dibley - Anders­
son, corr. 2001, and now White
creates great problems for his op­
ponent with the modest retreat of
the bishop 24.!e2 ! �d6 ! (It is
worse for Black to play 24 . . .�c6
25.axb5 axb5 26.�a7! id7 27.b4 !
and he loses his b5-pawn.) 25.axb5
axb5 26.�aS ! ? �h6 27. hb5 �xh2
(But not 27 . . . �b7 28.�e2 ! f6
29.�a6 ic6 30 .b4± and White
ends up with an extra pawn and
he can advance easily his passed
pawns.) 28 .!a6 + �d7 29.�xe5±
White's prospects are clearly su­
perior thanks to his extra pawn.
He must watch carefully however
Black's passed h-pawn.
77
Chapter 6
a) 14 f5 ••.
Black eliminates his oppo­
nent's e4-pawn from the centre
with that move and he creates nu­
merous weaknesses for White on
the kingside.
15.exfS
15 ... hg2
This is the most natural move
for Black; otherwise, he remains
without a pawn and he will hardly
prove sufficient compensation
for it.
15 . . . lLld5? ! Lukov - Pelletier,
Lyon 1995, Black relies quite
naively that his actively placed
knight would be sufficient to
compensate the missing pawn,
but here after White's most ac­
curate move 16.f3 YNg5 (After 16 . . .
�g8 17.g3± Black's knight has no
access to the f4-square and he is
a pawn down. It is not better for
Black to try 16 . . . lLlf4 17.g3 lLlxd3+
18.YNxd3 �f6 19.0-0-0 0-0-0
20.�hel±, because he has been
forced to trade his active knight,
while White remains a pawn up
with a much safer king.) 17.g3
lLle3 (The simplifications are fa­
vourable for White after 17 . . .
78
h5 18.!e4 lLle3 19.1Llxe3 YNxe3+
2 0.YNe2 YNxe2+ 21.@xe2±, because
Black's pawn centre looks im­
pressive, but it does not compen­
sate the sacrificed pawn.) 18.YNe2
lLlxf5 19.hb5+ ! axb5 20.YNxb5+
@f8 21.YNxb7 �xa2 (After 21...�a4
22 .YNd5 @g7 23.�d2 +- White
should win easily with his extra
queenside pawns.) 22.@e2 �xa1
23.�xal± and White's pieces are
much more active, besides his ex­
tra pawn.
15 . . . e4? ! - This move just clos­
es the operational diagonal for
the bishop. 16.!e2 lLlxf5 17.a4 e3
(After 17 . . . �g8 18.axb5 e3 19.i.f3
exf2 + 20. @xf2± Black's compen­
sation for the pawn is evidently
insufficient. He maintains the
material balance with the line 17 . . .
bxa4 18.0-0 YNg5 19.�xa4±, b e he
cannot create any serious threats
on the kingside in that variation
and his king is rather unsafe and
the majority of his pawns are
weak.) 18.0-0 �g8 19.!f3 �e7
20.lLlxe3 lLlxe3 2 1.fxe3 0-0-0 2 2 .
axb5+- Black i s not only several
pawns down, but his king is very
weak, Yeo Min Yang - Iwasaki,
Vietnam 2 003.
15 ... d5 - Black's central pawns
look beautiful, but he closes the
long diagonal for his bishop with
his last move. 16.YNh5 �b6 17. 0-0
�g8 18.�fe1 YNf6 19.1Lle3 e4 20.tf1
�g5 2 1.YNd1 �d8, Sindik - Zeleni­
ka, Tucepi 1996, and here White
should better start active actions
on the queenside, repelling at first

Black's well placed rook. 22 .h4
�gB 23.a4 b4 (It looks much
worse for Black to continue with
23 . . . i.c6 24.axb5 ,hb5 25.'Wh5±
and White remains with more ac­
tive pieces and an extra pawn.)
24.�b3 ! a5 25.cxb4 d4 (Black's
pieces are so discoordinated that
his compensation for the missing
pawns is insufficient after 25 . . .
axb4 26.�xb4 iaB 27.i.b5+ wfB
2 B.a5 d4 29.�edl± and White's
threat - 30.�a4 ! looks extremely
unpleasant for Black.) 26.�ad1 !
dxe3 27.i.b5+ lbc6 (After 27 . . .
i.c6 2B.�xdB+ WxdB 29.'Wxe3�
White has three pawns for the
piece and excellent attacking
chances.) 2B.'Wxe3 �xd1 29.�xd1
'Wxf5 30 .'Wd4 ! ± and in connection
with the threat of a checkmate in
one, Black can hardly find an ap­
propriate defence. He loses, for
example after 30 . . . wfB 31.'Wd6+
Wg7 32 .,hc6+-, the pieces are
equal, but Black's king is bare and
he has lost too many pawns.
15 . . . �gB - After that logical
move Black again remains a pawn
down and his centre is much
rather a weakness than strength.
16.lbe3 d5 17.�e2 d4 (In answer
to 17 . . . 'Wd6, G.Sax - Tatar Kis,
Balatonlelle 2 0 04. White's most
natural reaction seems to be lB.
0-0-0 and Black has several
possibilities, but they all seem
to be insufficient. After 1B . . . �h6
19.wb1 f6 20.h3 0-0-0 21.a4±
White not only has an extra pawn,
but a clear-cut plan for actions on
11.c3 lbe7 12. lbxf6 gxf6 13. lb c2
the queenside. In the variation:
1B . . . 0-0-0 19.�he1 d4 2 0.cxd4
exd4 2 1.lbc2 �d7 2 2 .g3± White
has an extra pawn and a safer king
and he can attack Black's vulner­
able d4-pawn. The move 1B . . . d4
- seems to be the most aggres­
sive, but after 19.1bg4 e4 2 0.,he4
�f4+ 2 U�d2 dxc3 22.lbf6+ wfB
23.bxc3± White has two extra
pawns and a considerable lead
in development.) 1B.lbg4 'Wd6,
Schilling - Bensiek, corr. 1995,
and here it looks most natural
for White to complete his devel­
opment with the line : 19.0-0-0
i.d5 (The alternatives are not any
better for Black: about 19 . . . e4
2 0.,he4 - see 17 . . . 'Wd6 1B.0-0-0
d4 19.1bg4 e4 2 0 .,he4; 19 ... ,hg2
20.�hg1 i.d5 2l.f6 ! ? Black loses
his central pawns irrelevant of
where his knight would retreat:
21...lbg6 2 2 .lbxe5±, or 21.. .lbc6
22.lbxe5±) 20.i.e4 0-0-0 (It is
not to be recommended to Black
to try 20 . . . i.c4 2 1.�f3 0-0-0
22.f6 lbg6 23.�hel± and he re­
mains a pawn down with a weak
centre and a vulnerable king.)
21.f6 lbg6 22.�hel± Black's pieces
are active indeed, but he has no
compensation for the pawn, be­
cause his central pawns need pro­
tection.
16.�gl ib7 17.a4
(diagram)
17. . . bxa4
17 . . . �b6 - After that move,
Black's defence is without any
bright prospects. 1B.axb5 axb5 19.
79
Chapter 6

llJxg8 22..ha4 .ha4 23.§'xa4+

�f8 24.0-0-0 llJxf6 2S.Wfh4�
White's attack is quite dangerous,
possibly winning.

!lxa8+ .has 20.llJe3 WfcS 21.!lg7

!lf8 (The move 21...llJdS - seems
to be the most resilient, but after
22.§'f3 �e7 23.f6+! llJxf6 24.llJf5+
�e6 2S.§'h3 idS! 26.llJh6+ �e7
27.Wfh4� White's pieces are quite 20 .f6 �g6, Hadraba - Brand­
active against his opponent's king ing, corr. 1996 and now after
and he has an excellent compen­ the natural line: 21..ixa4 ha4
sation for the pawn. Black should 22.gxa4± Black must protect
worry how to parry the threat both his a6 and d6-pawns, while
- 28.llJg4, winning a piece.) 22.f6 White's pieces have an excellent
llJg6 23.llJfS �d7 24..hbS+ �e6 outpost in the centre - the dS­
2S.§'g4 �xf6 26.,td7+- and Black square. Meanwhile, Black's king
is defenseless against the numer­ is rather unsafe and its counter­
ous threats 26...!lh8 27.h4 h6 part is excellently placed in the
28.hS 1-0 Brodsky - V.Osipov, centre.
Chelyabinsk 1991.
18.llJe3 ic6 b) 14 ••• d5
After 18...dS?! 19.§'xa4+ ic6
20.§'b4 §'b8 21.§'cS §'a7 22.§'a3
§'c7 23.f6 llJc8 24.!lgS± White is
clearly better not so much due
to his doubled extra pawn, but
because of his active pieces and
pressure against his opponent's
centre, Szczepankiewicz - Krebs,
Email 2000.
19.ic2 'i'd7
It is hardly better for Black to This is the most popular move.
opt for 19...§'b8 20.f6 !lg8, Ber­ Now, all Black's pieces can be­
zinsh - Kretek, Mlada Boleslav come active. The main drawback
1992 and here after 21.!lxg8+ of that move though is that his

80

kingside pawn-structure will re­
main compromised for long.
15.exd5 'ti'xd5
Black activates his queen and
he prepares to castle long.
It is bad for him to play lS . . .
hdS? ! , because after 16.lLle3 !c6
17.�c2±, the defects of his king­
side pawn-structure cannot be
compensated at all.
lS .. .fS?! - After that move
Black remains a pawn down with­
out any compensation whatso­
ever. 16.d6 lLldS (But not 16 . . . lLlc8
17.\We2 and here Black loses after
17 . . . e4? 18.,hbS+ axbS 19.\WxbS+
�d7 2 0 .\WeS+-, while following
17 . . . 0-0 18.hfS lLlxd6 19.0-0-0
�gS+ 2 0.YHe3±, Black remains a
pawn down and the unfavourable
placement of his king deprives
him of any possibility to regain it.)
17.,hfS YHxd6, Fossan - Svensk,
Gausdal 1992. White's main task
here is to complete his devel­
opment and to exploit the light
squares in the centre as outposts
for his pieces. His best line to do
that is: 18.YHf3 �d8 19.0-0±, fol­
lowed by a2-a4 and active actions
on the queenside, or centralizing
the rooks.
lS . . . lLlxdS - Black comes un­
der an unpleasant pin after that
move and he can get rid of it only
tactically, but at a price. 16 . .te4 fS
(It is bad for him to opt for 16 . . .
�c8? Specht - Hirneise, Willin­
gen 2 0 04 and Black fails to get
rid of the pin after 17.\Wf3 ! Now,
no matter how Black continues
11.c3 lLle7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLl c2
- he loses: 17 . . . �c7 18.0-0-0
�d7 19.1Lle3 lLlxe3 20.�xd7 \Wxd7
2 1.,hb7+-; 17 . . .fS 18.\WxfS \Wc7
19.'ti'f3+-; 17 . . . �c4 18.0-0-0
�e4 19.\Wxe4 \Wd7 2 0 .f3+- and
White has a decisive material ad­
vantage in all the variations. The
move 16 . . . lLle3? ! - has not been
tried, since White obtains easily
an overwhelming advantage after
17.lLlxe3 ,he4 18.\Wg4±. Black lags
in development and he risks com­
ing under attack, while in the line :
17. . . YHxdl+18.�xdl ,he4 19.f3± he
loses unavoidably his f6-pawn.)
17.hfS lLlf4 (After 17 . . . \WgS? 18.
YHf3±, Black can get rid of the pin
only by trading queens, or by los­
ing too many tempi for develop­
ment.) 18. lLle3
18 . . . ,hg2 (The other capture is
not any better, after 18 . . . lLlxg2+
19.1Llxg2 ,hg2 20.�gl, Black has
tried several options, but neither
of them is satisfactory for equal­
ity: 20 . . . \WdS? 2 1.�xg2 ! \Wxg2 22.
\Wd6+- Black can avoid being
checkmated only at the price of
substantial material losses, J.Diaz
- Morella, Isla 1999; 20 . . . YHxdl+
21.�xdl .tf3 22.�d3 !c6 23.�d6
81
Chapter 6
1b7 24.13g7± and White's piece­
activity should be enough to settle
the issue, Marani - Kholemainen,
corr. 1991. The move 20 . . . 1c6,
Vitomskis - Rotariu, corr. 1989,
may look very solid, but as a re­
sult of 21.Wlg4 Wlf6 2 2 . 0-0-0 13d8
23.13de1 !± Black is doomed to a
long and laborious defence, be­
cause of his king stranded in the
centre.) 19.13g1 ! (After 19.1Llxg2
lLlxg2+ 2 0 . <.tfl YlYxd1+ 21.13xd1 lLlf4
2 2 .13e1! f6 23.13d1 !;!; White's pros­
pects are slightly better, because
his bishop must be stronger than
Black's wonderfully placed knight,
because there will be actions on
both sides of the board. Natu­
rally, White should expect more
from that position.) 19 . . . 1c6 (The
move 19 . . . Wlxd1 + - leads to a very
difficult endgame. 20.13xd1 1c6?!
21.13d6±, in answer to 2 0 . . . 1f3, it
is bad for White to follow the "pre­
computer time" recommendation
of GM Sveshnikov 2 1.1d7+?, be­
cause of 21.. .<.te7 22.lLlfS+ <.td8=
and White can achieve nothing,
despite having a discovered check
at his disposal. The evaluation of
the position as very difficult for
Black is correct though and af­
ter 2 1.13d7! 13d8 22.13xd8+ <.txd8
23.13g7± Black remains a pawn
down in the endgame, although
White must show good technique,
because his opponent's pieces are
quite active.) 2 0.Wlc2 <.tf8 (M­
ter 2 0 . . . Wld6 2 1.13d1 Wlc7 2 2.1e4
Wib7 23.,txc6+ Wlxc6 24.WlfS f6
2S.13g7± Black's pieces lack coor-
82
dination and his king is vulner­
able, while all White's pieces are
well deployed.) 2 1.ie4 13c8 (The
move 21.. .Wld7 - leads to favour­
able simplifications for White.
22 .13d1 Wlb7 23.f3 Wib6 24.YlYd2
he4 2S.fxe4 13g8 26.Wld6+ YlYxd6
27.13xg8+ <.txg8 28.13xd6± and
White enjoys a stable advantage
in the endgame, due to his active
pieces, Dietrich - Fritsche, In­
ternet 2 003.) 2 2 .13d1 Wlf6 23.lLlfS
1a8? (Naturally, after 23 . . . 13g8
24.13g3± Black's defence would be
difficult too, but that would have
been the least of evils for him.)
24.Wib3 13c4 2S.Wla3+ and in the
game Knebel - Satici, Email 2 003,
Black resigned in view of the
variation: 2S . . . b4 26.WlaS ! 13xe4+
27.<.tfl lLle6 28 .Wlxa6+- and he
must give up plenty of material in
order to avoid the checkmate.
16.lLle3
16 YlYe6
•••
That is evidently the best
square for Black's queen in the
centre, but he has tried in practice
some other retreats too :
16 . . . YlYc5 17.WlhS b4? ! Garro
Beraza - Llaneza Vega, San Se-

bastian 2 007, Black opens volun­
tarily files on the queenside, but
that leads to great problems for
him, because of his lag in devel­
opment. (It is more reliable for
Black to follow with 17. . . 0-0-0
1B.0-0-0 b4 19.c4;;!;;) , and here af­
ter 1B.0-0 ! ? bxc3 19.bxc3 'i;Yxc3? !
2 0.1c4--+ White's pieces are tre­
mendously active;
16 . . . 'i;Yc6 17.'i;YhS 0-0-0 (It
looks strange for Black to try
17 . . . e4 1B.ic2 fS, Stopa - Kuzi­
ola, Bartkowa 2002, because af­
ter 19.tLlxfS tLlxfS 20.1WxfS± he
has just nothing for the sacrificed
pawn.) 1B.0-0-0 'i;Ye6, K.Szabo
- LAlmasi, Budapest 2005,
and White obtains an obvious
edge after active queenside ac­
tions: 19.a4 1c6 (After 19 . . . bxa4
2 0 .ic4 'i;Yb6 21.1Wxf7± Black's
pawn-structure is evidently com­
promised.) 20.axbS axbS 21.1We2
'i;Yb3 22.'i;Yg4+ @b7 23.ic2 1We6
24.'i;Yb4± and Black has no satis­
factory defence against White's
main threats - 2S.c4 and 2S.1b3.
17.a4 :Bd8
About 17. . . e4 1B.1e2 :SdB
19.'i;Yc2 - see 17. . . :SdB 1B.'i;Yc2 e4
19.ie2.
17. . .fS? ! - This move is prema­
turely active and Black's position
becomes very difficult, because of
his lag in development. 1B.axbS f4
19.bxa6 ic6 2 0.ic4 'i;Yg6 21.tLlg4 !
Now, the central files are opened
unavoidably. 21.. .f6 22 .'i;Ye2 hS (It
is too bad for Black to play 22 . . .
ixg2 23.:Sg1 ic6 24. 0-0-0+- and
11.c3 tLle7 12. tLlxf6 gxf6 13. tLl c2
his king comes under a checkmat­
ing attack, or 23 .. .f3 24.ibS+ WfB
2S.1Wc4+-) 23.tLlxeS fxeS 24.'i;YxeS
White has four pawns and more
than sufficient compensation for
the piece, in addition to Black's
unsafe king. 24 . . . 'i;Ye4+ (After 24 . . .
:Sh7 25.0-0-0+- i t seems im­
probable that Black would manage
to protect his king against White's
mounting threats.) 2S.'i;Yxe4 ixe4
26. 0-0± It would be too difficult
for Black to fight against White's
queenside pawns. Black can hard­
ly organize any counterplay ei­
ther. 26 . . . :Sh7 27.:Sfe1 1c6 2B.b4
:Sg7 29.g3 :SgS 30.:Sab1+- Black's
pieces are discoordinated and he
is helpless against White's passed
pawns, Bauer - Nataf, Marseille
2 001.
18.'i;Yc2
18 . . . e4
IB . . . b4? ! - White obtains the
important c4-square after that
move. 19.1c4 1Wb6 (In case of 19 . . .
1WcB 2 0.'i;Yb3 0 - 0 2 1.'i;Yxb4 tLlg6
2 2 .1Wb6±, Black's active pieces are
insufficient to equalize, Baklan
- Malakhatko, Ordzhonikidze
2000.) 20.aS 1Wc6 2 1.'i;Yb3 0-0
B3
Chapter 6
22.'lWxb4 tLlg6 23.0-0 tLlf4 24.f3
l"!d2 , Shabalov - Gamboa, New
York 2000, Black's pieces are
maximally active, but that is not
enough and after 25.l"!adl l"!fd8
26.l"!xd2 l"!xd2 27.Vffe7� White's
attack is decisive.
18 . . . tLld5? ! - That pawn-sac­
rifice is rather dubious. 19.axb5
tLlxe3 (It is hardly better for Black
to try 19 . . . axb5 2 0.hb5+ <;t>f8
21.'lWd3 ! White wins important
tempi to complete his develop­
ment thanks to that pin and Black
has difficulties obtaining coun­
terplay, for example: 21.. .l"!b8
2 2 .tLlxd5 Vffxd5 23.f3 'lWc5 24.b4
'!Wb6 25.0-0-0 <;t>g7 26.<;t>b2±.
White will prepare a pawn-offen­
sive on the queenside, but he must
play accurately, because his king
is there. 21...tLlxe3 - That is an at­
tempt by Black to attack White's
king at the price <;>f an exchange­
sacrifice. 2 2 .'lWxd8 + <;t>g7 23.Vffd3
tLlxg2 + 24.<;t>d2 l"!b8 ! 25.l"!hgl 'lWb6
26. <;t>cl± Black's temporary activ­
ity has not achieved much and
White's advantage is clear - see
the following eventual develop­
ments : 26 . . . Vffxf2 27.'lWg3+ 'lWxg3
28.hxg3± and White can easily ad­
vance his pawns in the endgame,
thanks to his extra exchange, 26 . . .
<;t>h8 27.l"!a4 ! tLlf4 - it i s obviously
worse for Black to opt for 27 . . . Vffxf2
28.l"!fl Vffb 6 29.'lWf5 i.c8 30.Vffxf6+
'lWxf6 31.l"!xf6 l"!xb5 32.l"!xf7± and
White's rook and pawns are much
stronger than Black's discoordi­
nated light pieces. 28.Vffd7 tLle2+
84
29.ixe2 i.c6 3 0.'lWd2 ha4 31.i.d3
i.d7 32 .b4± and despite the ma­
terial equality White can easily
create threats against the enemy
king. In case of a transition into an
endgame, White's passed pawns
look much more dangerous than
Black's pawns.) 20.fxe3 l"!g8 (It is
worse for Black to play 20 . . . axb5
21.hb5+ <;t>f8 2 2 . 0 - 0 l"!g8 23.l"!f2
Vffb 6, because of 24.i.fl ! and White
practically forces a transfer into
an endgame. 24 . . . 'lWxe3 25.'lWcl
'lWxc1 26.l"!xcl <;t>e7 27.b4;t - and
White is slightly better, because
he can advance easily his queen­
side pawns. In the game Eiben
- Swan, Email 2 0 04, Black failed
to counter that altogether: 27 . . .
i.e4 28.c4 f5 29.c5 f4 30.c6 l"!d4
31.l"!b2 ! - After that strong move,
White's rooks support the pawns
and Black can hardly counter that
in any way. 31.. .l"!c8 32 .b5 <;t>d6
33.g3 ! fxg3 34.hxg3 l"!g8 - Black
loses too after 34 . . .f5 35.i.g2
l"!d3 36.ixe4 fxe4 37.b6+- and
White's pawns promote - 35.i.g2
and Black resigned, since after
the trade of the bishops White's
pawns are unstoppable.) 21.i.e4 !
- That is the most reliable move
for White. He exchanges his op­
ponent's active bishop and he
obtains the advantage thanks to
his superior pawn-structure. 21...
he4 22.'lWxe4 l"!g4 (or 2 2 . . . axb5
23.0-0 l"!g6 24.l"!a8±) 23.'lWf3 e4
24.Vffe 2 axb5 25.'lWxb5+ <;t>f8 26.
0-0 l"!d2 27.l"!f2 l"!xf2 28.<;t>xf2
l"!g5, H.Stefansson - Holmsten,

Reykjavik 2 0 0 2 and here after
29.'ige2 1'!d5 30.1'!aB+ �g7 31.1'!a4
f5 32.1'!d4± White remains with a
solid extra pawn.
19 .te2
. and he cannot get rid of the pin
19 ... f5
Black's best chance is to ad­
vance quickly his central pawns;
otherwise, White's queenside ac­
tivity would force him to defend.
His prospects of obtaining coun­
terplay then would be minimal,
due to his inferior pawn-struc­
ture.
19 .. .'�e5 ? ! - This move en­
ables White to obtain power­
ful queenside initiative. 20.axb5
axb5 21.1'!a5 ic6, D.Doroshenko
- A Glazkov, Krasnodar 2 006,
and here it deserves attention
for White to continue his of­
fensive with 2 2 .c4 ! ? 'i9c7 23.b4
bxc4 24.0-0 0-0 25.'i9b2 %Vd6
26.ixc4±. White has a stable ad­
vantage, because of his dangerous
passed pawn on the queenside
and Black's compromised king's
position.
19 . . . ic6 20.axb5 axb5 21.c4!
- White acts very aggressively
and Black has no time to advance
1l.c3 iLle7 12. iLl;if6 gxf6 13. iLl c2
his f-pawn. 21...bxc4 22.0-0 0-0
(It is much worse for Black to
try 22 . . . id5 23.iLlxd5 iLlxd5 24.
ixc4 0-0 25.%Vb3 1'!d6 26.1'!fdl±
without material losses.) 23.ixc4
%Ve5 24.b4 f5 25.1'!a5 %Vf6 26.1'!d1
1'!aB 27.1'!xaB ixaB 2 B.%Va2 f4 29.
iLlg4 'i9g7 30.ixf7+ ! �hB 31.%Val±
White has a solid extra pawn in­
deed, but it would not be so easy
for him to realize it, because of the
considerably reduced material,
Krueger - Knebel, Email 2 0 04.
19 ... 0-0 ! ? - That pawn-sac­
rifice is interesting, but obvi­
ously insufficient. 20.axb5 axb5
21.ixb5 f5 22 .ic4 (It looks very
attractive for White to try to ex­
change queens, but after 2 2 .'�e2
f4 23.%Vg4+ iLlg6 24.'�xe6 fxe6f±
Black's position seems formida­
ble.) 22 . . . 'ige5 23.%Vb3 ic6 24.'i9b4
f4 (It is not advisable for Black
to opt for 24 . . . 1'!bB 25.1'!a5 'i9c7
26.%Vc5 1'!xb2 27.0-0±, since White
wins the f5-pawn and Black's king
shelter is unreliable.) 25.1'!a5 %Vc7
26.iLlg4 iLlg6 (Black should refrain
from capturing the b2-pawn, be­
cause of the variation: 26 . . . 1'!bB
27.'�c5 1'!xb2 2B.0-0 iLlg6 29.1'!a6
1'!cB 30.iLlh6+ �g7 31.iLlf5+ �f6
32.iLld4+- and he loses a piece.)
27.%Vc5 f3 2B.g3 �hB 29. 0-0±
Black is a pawn down and he can
hardly exploit the vulnerability of
White's king position; therefore
after 29 . . . 'i9cB 30.iLle3, Black re­
signed 1-0 Zundel - Inglander,
Email 2001.
B5
Chapter 6
2 0 .axb5 f4 21. bxa6 J.c6
The move 21 . . . fxe3? - loses.
22.axb7 exf2 +, Wang - McKenzie,
Email 2003 and White's most ac­
curate move seems to be 23.�f1!
0-0 24.ga4 e3 (But not 24 . . .fS
25.i.c4 lLld5 26.'iNd2 ! e3 27.'iNd3
gfe8 28.ga8 e2+ 29.'iNxe2+-)
25.ge4 'iNf5 26.J.d3 'iNcS 27.'iNe2
lLlf5 28.g4+- and Black's far-ad­
vanced pawns will soon be lost,
because they are not supported by
his pieces.
22 .tc4 'iNg6 23. 0 - 0
• pawns easier with less pieces on
2 3. . .'iNgS, Pakenas - Necula,
Email 2002, 24.'iNe2 fxe3 (Black
would not achieve much if he
declines accepting the sacrifice
- 24 .. .f3? 25.'iNc2 lLlf5 26.gfdl
lLlxe3 27.fxe3±) 25.fxe3 0-0 26.b4
.td5 (Black loses after 26 . . . lLlf5?
27.gf4+-, while in case of 26 . . .
lLldS 27.hd5 gxdS, o r 27. . . ixd5
28.gaS± - 28.c4 gd3 29.ga5 ! fS
30.bS± he fails to capture his oppo­
nent's e3-pawn, because White's
passed pawns are already too far
advanced.) 27.gaS 'iNg6 (The al­
ternatives are not any better for
Black: 27 . . . �h8 28.hd5 gxd5
29.gfal±; or 27 . . . 'iNh6 28.ixd5
28 . . . gxd5 29.'iNg4+ 'iNg6 30 .'iNxg6+
hxg6 31.gxdS lLlxd5 32 .b5± and
Black seems completely helpless
against White's pawns; 28 . . . lLlxd5
29.'iNg4+ 'iNg6 30.'iNxg6+ hxg6 31.
gdl ! lLlxe3 32.gxd8 gxd8 33.a7
ga8 34.b5 lLlc4 3S.ga6 �g7 36. �f2
f5 37.gc6± - Black will need to
give up his knight and then he can
hardly stop White's connected
86
passed pawns. The other possibil­
ity is not better for Black either:
31...lLlxc3 32.gxd8 gxd8 33.a7 ga8
34.�f2 �f8 35.�el r!de7 36.�d2±
and White wins the knight and
he reaches a rook ending with an
extra pawn and excellent winning
chances.) 28.ixd5 gxdS (White
has good chances to press his
advantage home after 28 . . . lLlxd5
29.a7 lLlxc3 30 .'iNc2 lLldS 31.a8'iN
lLlxe3 32.'iNcxe4±) 29.gxd5 lLlxd5
30 .b5± White advances his passed
the board. Now, Black loses after
30 . . . lLlxc3 31.'iNc4 'iNg7 32 .gcl+-,
but he can hardly offer any seri­
ous resistance in the other lines
either.
23 ••• fxe3 24.fxe3
White has excellent compensa­
tion for the piece. 24 0 - 0 , Kos­
•••
tal - Kuta, Czech Republic 2003,
(Black's position is very dangerous
too in case of 24 . . . lLldS 25.a7 0-0
26.'iNf2 lLlb6 27.i.b3 i.b5 28.gfdl
i.d3 29.gaS±, while the move
2S ... lLlxe3 loses outright: 26.a8'iN
has 27.'iNa4+ i.c6 28.ixf7+ 'iNxf7
29.'iNxc6� and White remains
with three extra pawns by force:
 1l.c3 lLl e7 12. lLlxf6 gxf6 13. lLl c2

2 9 . . . \Wd7 30.\Wxe4+ \We7 31.\Wc6+ Black's other possibilities : 25 . . .

\Wd7 3 2.\Wc5 ! lLlxfl 33.\We5+), and
here it looks very interesting for
White to try 2S.\We2 ! �f5 (About
25 . . . �g5 2 6.b4 - see 23 . . . �g5
24.�e2 fxe3 25.fxe3 0-0 26.b4.
White's advantage is obvious after
gd7 26.b4±; 25 . . . lLlc8 26.ga5±)
26.gaS �d6 27.idS ! hdS 28.
gxdS± and after the trade of the
bishops, Black will have great
problems coping with his oppo­
nent's passed pawns.

Conclusion

We analyze the move 1l . . . lLl e7 in this chapter. Its drawbacks are

evident - after the natural reaction 12. lLlxf6+ gxf6, Black loses his
couple of bishops and his kingside pawn-structure is considerably
weakened. Things are not so simple though, Black obtains some dy­
namic pluses, since he gains access to the semi-open g-file and his
pawn-mass in the centre is compact and mobile. In connection with
that, White must organize quickly queenside pressure and he must
bring his knight on a3 closer to the centre. The line 13. lLl c2 seems to be
the best for him under the circumstances. After the natural response
13 . . . ib7 14. id3, there are only two principled linesfor Black - 14 .. .f5
- variation a, and 14 . . . d5 - variation b. Black's other possibilities, as
you can see in the variations of out analysis, do not pose any serious
problemsfor White in hisfightfor the opening advantage.

In variation a, Black disrupts his opponent's pawn-structure on

the kingside and he corrects slightly his own, but he loses plenty of
valuable time in doing that. White obtains a healthy lead in develop­
ment, he occupies the g-Jile and seizes the initiative on the queenside
with the undermining move a2-a4, after which Black's monarch has
no safe shelter.

In variation b, Black ignores the defects of his pawn-structure and

he acts aggressively in the centre, advancing his e andf-pawns. White
is practically forced to sacrifice a piece in hisfightfor the advantage.
He obtains three dangerous passed pawns on the queenside and he
neutralizes Black's initiative on the kingside and in the centre. As
we can see in our analysis, Black can hardly contain White's passed
pawns.

87
Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6
8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .ie7 1 0 .J.xf6 J.xf6
11.c3 .ig5
Black plays that move about
twice less frequently than 11 . . .
0 - 0 . Meanwhile, i t often comes to
a transposition of moves. Some­
times he tries to create counter­
play on the queenside, saving a
tempo for castling, or he attempts
to remove his opponent's central­
ized knight with liJe7, having in
mind that White cannot capture
the bishop on f6, because it is not
there.
12.tLlc2
This move not only prepares
the fastest possible advance a2-
a4, which is thematic for White
in his fight for the advantage, but
also it is important that he acti­
vates his most displaced piece.
In this chapter, we will analyze
all Black's moves, except the most
88
natural and of course the most
popular - 12 . . . 0-0.
He plays most often in prac­
tice a) 12" .ie6, b) 12."tLle7, c)
12".gb8.
The other moves do not lead
immediately to great difficulties
for Black, but they are less popu­
lar, because he has problems ob­
taining counterplay:
12 .. .fS? ! - It looks like Black
has some counter chances after
that move, since he opens the f­
file. The main drawback of that
try however, is that Black weak­
ens the light squares in the centre
and he falls behind in develop­
ment. 13.h4 ! ie7 (The other tries
are hardly any better for Black:
13 . . . ih6? ! - this move loses a
pawn. 14.Y;VhS+ wf8 IS.exfS ga7
16.id3± Black not only remains
a pawn down, but his king is
stranded in the centre, Pribila
- Boran, Piestany 2004; 13 . . .
if6 - After that move, White can
deprive his opponent of the two­
bishop advantage at any moment.
14.exfS ixfS IS.liJce3 ie6 , Barbet
- Tache, Clichy 2 0 03, this is the

right time for capturing the bish­
op. After 16.lLlxf6+ §'xf6 17.§'xd6
lLle7 1B.ie2± White ends up with
a solid extra pawn and Black is
forced to compromise his pawn­
structure: 16 . . .gxf6 17.Y;![f3 lLlaS
1B.id3 lLlc4 19.ifS± - After the
exchange of the light-squared
bishops, Black has the almost
impossible task to protect his nu­
merous pawn-weaknesses and his
attempt to trade all light pieces
leads to a catastrophe after: 19 . . .
lLlxe3 2 0 .he6 ! lLlc2 + 21.<j;ld2
<j;le7 2 2 .ig4 lLlxa1 23.§'b7+ <j;lfB
24 . .thS+- White regains his sac­
ri:ticed rook and he traps Black's
knight.) 14.a4 gbB 1S.axbS axbS
16.exfS hfS 17.lLlce3 ie6, Schir­
rmacher - Freyberg, Berlin 2006,
now White can keep his oppo­
nent's monarch in the centre for
long with aggressive actions.
1B .ga6 Y;![cB 19.Y;![f3 id7 2 0.id3
g6 21.hS±;
12 . . . g6? ! - This is a solid move,
but it is absolutely useless for
Black in his aim to organize some
counterplay. Besides, it creates a
target for White on the kingside if
he advances his h-pawn. 13.a4
11.c3 ig5 12. lLl c2
13 . . . gbB (In answer to 13 . . . bxa4,
Middelburg - Rijnaarts, Leiden
1999, it looks very energetic for
White to play 14.h4, for example:
14 ... .tf6 1S.lLlce3 0-0 16.Y;![xa4
ib7 17.hS± and he has occupied
all the key-squares in the centre
and he has excellent attacking
chances, or 14 . . . ih6 1S.gxa4 lLle7
16.lLlf6+ <j;lfB 17.ic4 <j;lg7 1B.y;![f3±
and Black's position seems quite
dangerous, while after 15 . . . 0-0
16.hS igS 17.lLlce3 lLle7 1B.ic4t
White's kingside initiative is very
powerful. Even if Black manages
to parry it somehow, he has no
compensation for his weak queen­
side pawns.) 14.axbS axbS 15.id3
0-0 16.Y;![e2 lLle7 (Black can
hardly prove any compensation
for the pawn after 16 .. .f5 17.hb5
lLle7 1B.lLlcb4 lLlxd5 19.exd5± and
White's queenside passed pawns
are very dangerous, while Black
has no real threats on the king­
side, crafty - Warcraft, Internet
199B. The other retreat is clearly
worse: 16 . . . lLla5? ! - Black's knight
is hanging here and that enables
White to start decisive actions
with 17.h4 ixh4? ! 1B.gxa5 Y;![xa5
19.9xh4 §'dB, Mijovic - Anicic,
Bar 2005. Here, White can em­
phasize his advantage with the
simple line: 2 0 .g3 f5 21.exf5 hf5
22.hf5 gxf5 23.lLlce3±, or 2 2 . . .
gxf5 23.§,h5 gb7 24.lLlce3± and
in both cases, White's central­
ized knights are much stronger
than a rook and a pawn. It looks
more reliable for Black to opt for
B9
Chapter 7
17 . . . �6 1B.lLlcb4, but here not
1B . . . .!d7?, because of 19.�aS+-,
but 1B ... .!e6 19 . .txbS± and Black
is without a pawn and he has
no counterplay.) 17.lLlcb4 lLlxdS
1B.lLlxdS �d7 (That move looks
strange, but Black has great dif­
ficulties after his other lines too:
1B . . .fS 19.exfS .!xfS 2 0 . .hbS ie6
2 1..ic4± White has an extra pawn
and an easy game on the light
squares. 1B . . . .!d7 19.0-0 .!c6 20.
lLlb4 id7 21.h3± The vulnerabil­
ity of Black's bS-pawn ties up his
forces completely.) 19.h4 .!dB 20.
hS �7, Crouan - Piat, Montlucon
1997. Now, White's most aggres­
sive line seems to be: 21.�f3 ! ?
Ei:aB 22 .Ei:d1 ! ? Ei:a2 (It i s not bet­
ter for Black to try 22 . . . gS 23.0-0
ie6 24.lLlf6+ WhB 2S.h6;j; and his
position is very unpleasant, due to
the weakness of his light squares
in the centre and on the kingside.)
23. lLlf6+ whB 24.ib1 Ei:a6 ! (That is
the only move - after 24 . . . Ei:xb2?
2S.lLlxh7!� White's attack is
very powerful, for example : 2S . . .
Wxh7 26.hxg6+ WgB 27.g7! Wxg7
28.�hS+- Black's d6-pawn is de­
fenseless now, therefore White
checkmates - 2B ... Wf6 29.�h6+
We7 3 0.�xd6+ WeB 3VMfxdB# ; or
24 . . . Ei:a1 2S.lLlxh7! �) 2S . .!c2 gS !
(In answer to 2S . . . .!e6?, White
follows with the already familiar
motive 26.lLlxh7! Wxh7 27.hxg6+
and Black is helpless: 27 ... Wg7
2B.Ei:h7+ WgB 29.�h5+-, 27 . . .
WgB 28.�hS fxg6 29.�hB+ wf1
3 0 .�h7+ wf6 31.�xb7+-) 26.0-0
90
Ei:a6 ! 27.Ei:a1;j; White exchanges his
opponent's only active piece and
he maintains somewhat better
prospects, due to the vulnerability
of Black's kingside;
12 . . ..!d7, Magem Badals -
F.Fernandez, Monzon 19B7, Black
is trying to prevent the standard
pawn-advance a2-a4 with that
move, but still White's most ener­
getic line is 13.a4 !
13 . . . bxa4 (After 13 . . . Ei:bB 14.axbS
axbS 1S . .!d3 0-0 16.0-0;J; - see
13 . . . Ei:bB 14.ab ab 1S . .!d3 .!d7 16.
0-0.) 14.Ei:xa4 Ei:bB 1S.lLla3 ! as
(Black must protect the pawn,
after 1S . . . 0-0? ! 16.Ei:xa6 Ei:xb2
17.lLlc4, in the variation 17. . .
Ei:bS 1B.lLlxd6 Ei:b2 19.1Llc4 Ei:bB
2 0.ie2±, as well as in case of 17 . . .
Ei:bB 1B . .!e2 Ei:aB 19.Ei:xaB �xaB
20.lLldb6 �b7 21.lLlxd7 �xd7 22.
�xd6 �xd6 23.lLlxd6± Black re­
mains a pawn down and he has
no compensation for it in sight.)
16.ibS;J; Black has weak pawns
on as and d6, his light squares
on the queenside are vulnerable
and his pieces are too passive in
order to compensate these weak­
nesses;

12 . . . lLlbB - Black transfers his
knight to a more active position.
13.a4 bxa4, McTavish - Peckford,
Toronto 1992, and here it seems
most aggressive for White to con­
tinue with the intermediate move
14.h4 ! ?
1 4. . . ,hh4 (It i s less logical for
Black to refrain from capturing
that pawn, after 14 . . . ie7 IS.lLlce3
0-0 16.Eixa4 .ie6 17.b4± he can
hardly complete his development
without material losses. It is hard­
ly any better for him to try 14 . . .
ih6, i n view o f IS.g4 t ; now Black
can save his bishop in three ways :
after IS . . .if4 16.lLlxf4 exf4 17.WI'dS
Eia7 IB.WI'd4 Eie7 19.WI'xg7 Eixe4+
20.lt>dl EifB 21.ig2± - his pieces
are placed quite disharmoniously
and all his pawns are a sorry sight.
In the variation IS .. .f6 16.lLlce3
0-0 17.WI'xa4± the light squares
in Black's camp are very weak,
while in the line IS . . . g6 16.hS id7
17.hxg6 hxg6 IB.WI'f3� White's
compensation for the pawn is
more than obvious, since Black
has problems completing his de­
velopment.) IS.lLlce3 igS (15 . . .
ie7 - This move looks too passive
ll.c3 .ig5 12. lLl c2
and after 16.WI'xa4+ id7 17.WI'a3
0-0 IB.lLlxe7+ Wl'xe7 19.1LldS Wl'e6
20 ..ic4± Black has great worries
protecting his d6-pawn, because
his queenside is not well-devel­
oped and the open h-file might be
dangerous for his king.) 16.WI'xa4+
id7 (After 16 . . . lt>fB 17.lLlc4�
White's lead in development is
obvious.) 17.WI'a3 0-0 (In the line:
17 ... lLlc6 IB.WI'xd6 ie7 19.1Llxe7
Wl'xe7 20.WI'xe7+ It>xe7 21.b4±
Black's main trump - his bishop
pair has been liquidated. The
endgame is very unpleasant for
him, because White has powerful
queenside pressure and he domi­
nates in the centre. After 17 . . . ic6
IB.lLlfS 0-0 19.WI'xd6± the pawns
are equal indeed, but White's
pieces are tremendously active.)
IB.WI'xd6 lLlc6 19.ic4;!; Black can
hardly neutralize his opponent's
piece activity without positional
concessions or material losses ;
12 . . . ib7 - This move is mostly
connected with the further trans­
fer of the knight to cS, via the
d7-square. 13.a4 bxa4 14.Eixa4
lLlbB. That is the most logical line
for Black. (About the moves 14 . . .
0 - 0 - see 1 1 . . . 0 - 0 ; a s for 1 4 . . . aS
IS.ic4 0-0 16.0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0,
Chapter 11; about 14 ... lLle7 IS.ic4
0-0 16.0-0 - see 11 . . . 0-0, Chap-
ter 11) IS . .ic4 lLld7 16.b4 ! ? This
alternative to the more popular
move 16.WI'e2, deserves serious at­
tention, since White does not let
his opponent's knight to its most
advantageous placement.
91
Chapter 7
Black has tried here:
16 . . .'�cB ? ! - That is a step to
the wrong side. 17.'Wd3 'Wc6? (This
is a continuation of the maneuver,
which was started on the previous
move.) 1B.bS 'WcB, Barglowski -
Markos, Oropesa del Mar 1999,
here, after the natural try 19.bxa6
.ic6 2 0 J3al± White is left with a
far-advanced passed pawn as a
result of the rather strange roam­
ing of Black's queen;
16 . . . lLlb6 17.lLlxb6 'Wxb6 lB.
.idS 0-0 19.0-0 hdS (After 19 . . .
EiacB 20.Eia3 hdS 21.'WxdS 'WbS
2 2 .EidU White's prospects are
better, because of his pressure
against Black's vulnerable a6 and
d6-pawns.) 20.'WxdS 'WbS 21.Eifa1 !
- Black has great problems after
that precise move. 21...EiacB (It is
hardly better for Black to try here
21...'WxdS 2 2 .exdS EiacB 23.Eixa6
Eixc3 24.Eic6 ! ±) 22.Eixa6 'We2 23.
Ei6a2 Eixc3 (In the variation: 23 . . .
'Wc4 24.'Wxc4 Eixc4 2S.bS Eixc3
26.Eibl± White's passed bS-pawn
is very dangerous and his knight
has an access to the dS-square,
via b4.) 24.lLle3 'Wd3, Berndt -
Babula, Germany 1999, and here
92
after 2S.Eid1 'WxdS 26.lLlxdS Eib3
27.g3± White has the classical
advantage of an excellent central­
ized knight against a passive
bishop;
16 . . . 0-0 - This is a logical
completion of Black's develop­
ment and he postpones the fight
for the dS-outpost for several
moves. 17. 0-0 as - Black wishes
to get rid of his weak pawn, but
his defence is still too difficult
(About 17 . . . lLlb6 1B. lLlxb6 'Wxb6
19 . .idS - see 16 . . . lLlb6 17.lLlxb6
'Wxb6 1B.idS 0-0 19.0-0. After
the other possibilities for Black,
White's prospects remain superi­
or too: 17. . . WhB - Black prepares
to organize some counterplay
by advancing his f-pawn, but
that is too slow. 1B .'Wd3 as 19.
Eifa1 axb4 20.EixaB haB 21.cxb4±
Botsvin - Frolyanov, Cherepovets
2001; 17 . . . g6 - Black has no time
to create threats on the kingside
- White's queenside offensive is
faster and he controls the centre.
1B.lLlce3 whB 19.'Wd3 as 2 0.Eifa1
axb4 2 1.EixaB haB 2 2 . cxb4± Ste­
fansson - Crocodile, Internet
1995.) 1B.'Wd3 lLlb6 ? ! 19.1Llxb6
'Wxb6, Dolzhikova - Kernazhitsky,
Kiev 200S, now, Black has great
problems with the protection of
his as-pawn and after the natural
line: 20 .idS ! hdS (or 20 . . . EifbB
21.bxaS±) 21.'WxdS EiacB (It is not
advisable for Black to try 21 . . . 'Wc7
22.c4± and he loses his as-pawn.)
22 .bxaS 'Wb2 23.lLlb4±

a) 12 ••• .te6? !
The development of that piece
seems slightly premature.
13.a4 bxa4
The alternatives for Black are
not any better:
About 13 . . . 0-0 - see 11. . . 0-0
1VtJc2 ,igS 13.a4 !e6 ;
13 . . . tLlaS? - That is a typical
bluff. Black loses a pawn without
any compensation. 14.axbS tLlb3,
Haugen - Harestad, Randaberg
1990, and here after White's pre­
cise reaction 1SJ!a3 ! Black loses
material after the attractive line:
1s ... id2 + 16. 'tt> e 2 �h4 17.tLlc7+
'tt> e 7 18.tLlxe6 �xe4+ 19.tLle3+-,
therefore, he is forced to continue
with 1S . . . tLlcS 16.f3± - but White
remains with a solid extra pawn;
13 . . J�b8 14.tLlcb4 tLlxb4 (In
case of 14 . . . ixdS 1S.tLlxdS 0-0
16.axbS axbS, it looks very good
for White to play 17.h4, repel­
ling Black's bishop from its ac­
tive position - after 17 . . . .tf6
18.,id3 13e8 19.Wie2 b4 2 0.ibS±
Black has great problems on the
light squares, Lyew - Vetter,
Email 2 0 0 2 . It is not preferable
for Black to try 17 . . . ,th6 18 J3a6
11.c3 ,ig5 12 . tLl c2
tLle7, Schenning - Schenning,
Veldhoven 1991, after White's
natural reaction 19.,ie2 tLlxdS
2 0.WixdS± Black loses one of his
weak pawns.) 1S.tLlxb4 bxa4?,
Korneev - Puigdemont, Badalona
1995 (Black should better play
1S . . . �b6 16.axbS axbS 17.13a6 �b7
18 .,td3t preserving some chances
for successful defence), and now
after 16.tLlc6 Wfb6 17.tLlxb8+ ­
White's material advantage i s de­
cisive.
14.gxa4 a5
After Black's other moves, he
loses his a6-pawn without any
compensation:
14 . . . ixdS? ! 1S.exdS tLle7 16.
ixa6 0-0 17. 0-0 fS 18.tLlb4 f4,
Trabert - Opacic, Lido Estensi
2003, and here after 19.�f3 ih4
20.13fa1 Wib6 2 1.,id3± White par­
ries easily his opponent's kingside
activity and he remains with a
solid extra pawn;
14 . . . 0-0? ! 1S.ixa6 tLle7 16.
tLlcb4 ixdS, Pioch - Weider, Tar­
now 1979, 17.exdS tLlg6 18.0-0 f5
19.,ic4 �d7 20.tLlc6±
15 .tb5 Ad7
•
About 1S . . . 13c8 16J3C4 ,td7
17.h4 - see 1S . . . !d7 16.13c4 13c8
17.h4.
16.gc4 gcS l7.h4 .te7
After 17 . . .!h6 18.tLla3 0-0 19.
Wia4 tLlb8 2 0.ixd7 13xc4 21.tLlxc4
tLlxd7 22 .�c6+- White occupies
all the key-squares in the centre
and he obtains a material advan­
tage too.
IS.tLlce3 g6 19.ti'a4 tLlbS
93
Chapter 7
Diaz - Lares, Mexico 1991.
The most energetic line for White
in the diagrammed position is:
2 0 . c!Llb6! llxc4 21.c!Llexc4 ixb5
22.Vxb5+ �f8 23.h5+- Black's
queenside has been crushed and
he has not completed his devel­
opment yet. His knight is under
arrest; therefore, he has no coun­
terplay at all.
b) 12 . . . c!Lle7
This move is thematic. Black
wishes to remove White's knight
from its excellent placement in
the centre.
13.h4
White, in his stead, repels
Black's bishop to a less active po­
sition.
13 . . . .th6
The other possibilities
94
Black are doubtlessly worse: 13 . . .
i.xh4? - this move loses b y force.
14.E!xh4 lLlxd5, Suarez Pousa
- Soto, Los Barrios 1995, and
here after 15.Wfxd5 i.e6 16.Wl'b7
E!b8 17.Wlc6+ �f8 18.0-0-0 E!b6
19.WlcS+- White ends up with an
extra knight; 13 . . . lLlxd5? 14.Wfxd5
i.e6 15.Wlc6+ i.d7 16.Wfxd6± White
has a solid extra pawn.
14.a4 bxa4
Black has not tried in prac­
tice yet the move 14 . . . E!b8, since
after 15.lLlxe7 Wlxe7 16.axb5 axb5
17.lLlb4;!; he would have great
problems with the protection of
his b5 and d6-pawns, without any
counterplay whatsoever.
15.c!Llcb4!
White would not achieve much
with 15.E!xa4? ! lLlxd5 16.Wlxd5
i.e6 17.Wld1, and here after 17. . .
as 18 .i.b5+ @e7 19.0-0 Wfb6
20.c4 E!hf8 21.b4t he had a very
powerful initiative in the game
T.Airapetian - V.Tarasova, St.
Petersburg 2 0 07, but in the line:
17 ... Wfb6 ! 18.lLlb4 a5 19.lLld5 Wlxb2
20.i.b5+ �d8+ Black not only
ends up with an extra pawn, but
his pieces are much more active.
for

Black has tried to solve his
problems in the diagrammed po­
sition with bl) 15 .td7, or with
•••
the help of b2) 15 0 - 0 .
•••
bl) 15 .td7 •••
This logical move forces White
to take extreme measures.
16-'�xa4 ! ?
That positional sacrifice is
quite typical. It is absolutely cor­
rect, because Black's bishop on
h6 is out of play. In answer to the
other principled line for White
- 16.g4 - Black has at his disposal
the interesting exchange sacrifice
- 16 . . . a5 ! ? 17.lLla6 lLlxd5 1B.Wfxd5
.tf4 19.WfxaB �xaB 20.lLlc7+ We7
21.lLlxaB E!:xaB�, and he not only
obtains a pawn for it, but his
queenside pressure is quite un­
pleasant for White.
16 ••• lLlxd5
Black can reach much calmer
positions with the line: 16 . . . a5
17.lLlxe7 axb4 (About 17 . . . Wfxe7
1B.lLld5 WfdB 19.E!:a1 ! - see 16 . . .
lLlxd5 17.lLlxd5 a5 1B.E!:al.) 1B.E!:xaB
WfxaB 19.1Lld5 0-0 20.cxb4 E!:cB !
This line is the best for Black,
according to GM Sergey Karja-
11.c3 ,tgS 12. lLl c2
kin. (After 20 . . . .tc6 21 . .tc4 .txd5
22 . .txd5 �a6 23J�h3 !± White
has an extra passed pawn and
his king is much safer in the cen­
tre than Black's castled king is. It
is not preferable for Black to try
the seemingly active move 2 0 . . .f5
21..ic4 WhB 22.exf5 hiS 23. 0-0±,
since White has occupied reliably
the light squares in the centre and
Black has no compensation for
the pawn.) 21.lLle7+ WhB 22.lLlxcB
Wfxe4+ 23 . .ie2 Wfxb4+ 24.Wf1
.txcB 25.Wfd5 !;!; It is not easy for
White to win with his extra ex­
change; nevertheless, Black is
doomed to a long and very unre­
warding defence.
17.ti)xd5 .ixa4
In case Black declines accept­
ing the sacrifice, there arise stan­
dard positions with a slight initia­
tive for White: 17 . . . a5 1B.E!:a1 ! 0-0
19 . .ic4!i; in answer to 1B ... E!:bB,
White can follow with the natural
line: 19.b3 0-0 20 . .tc4i, as well as
with the much sharper variation:
19.94 ! ? .if4 20.lLlxf4 exf4 21.�xd6
E!:xb2 2 2.Wfe5+ .ie6 23 . .tb5+ WfB
24.0-0i
18.ti'xa4+ WfS 19.b4�
95
Chapter 7

White has a powerful knight in 27.ti'c7 ti'f7

the centre and he has good chanc­ Black loses now after 27 . . .
es to win Black's a6-pawn, so all l:!c8 ? ! 28.Wixd6 l:!xc4 29.exfS WixbS
that more than compensates his 30.l:!a7+-, but even after 27 . . .
exchange sacrifice. The run-up of l:!t7 28.Wixd6 .if8 2 9.Wic6 Wixc6
the game and the variations of the 30.bxc6± a satisfactory outcome
analysis confirm that evaluation: of his defence is highly unlikely.
19 ••• a5
It is logical for Black to try
to save his a-pawn, otherwise
White's compensation for the ex­
change is more than obvious: 19 . . .
g 6 2 0.,ba6 fS 2 1.bS�, o r 1 9 . . .'l1;lfc8
2 0 .ie2 g6 21.0-0 �g7 22J!al�
2 0 .b5 gb8
It is not better for Black to de­
fend with 20 . . . g6 21.b6 �g7 2 2 .
g 3 fS 23.ttJc7! Wie7 24.ttJxa8 l:!xa8 28.exf5! Wixc7 29.ttJxc7 gxf5
2S.Wic6 l:!b8 26.ia6± and he would 3 0 .ga6 l:!f7 31.tlJd5 + - Black's
have problems fighting against his d6 and fS-pawns are very weak,
opponent's b6-pawn in a position while White enjoys a practically
with material equality. complete control over the light
21.g3 ! g6 22 .th3 �g7 23.
• squares. This makes us evaluate
0 - 0 gf8 24.l:!al �h8?! Black's position as lost, Karjakin
Black's only chance of sav­ - Radjabov, Warsaw 2 0 0S.
ing the game is to try to activate
his pieces - 24 . . .fS 2S.exfS gxf5 b2) 15 ••• 0-0
26.WixaSt
25.Wixa5 Wie8 26.c4 f5
The alternatives are not
any better for Black: 26 . . J�a8?!
27.Wixa8 Wixa8 28.l:!xa8 l:!xa8 29.
b6+- and he would have to give
up a rook for the b6-pawn; 26 . . .
l:!b7 27.Wib4± Black must stop
somehow White's passed pawn;
meanwhile he must protect his
weakness on d6 and his bishop is That is the calmest line for
incapable of coming to the queen­ Black. He completes his develop­
side, which makes his defence tre­ ment and although he would have
mendously difficult. problems obtaining counterplay,

96

he relies on the solidity of his po­
sition. It is far from easy for White
to win against such an approach.
16.1ltxa4 a5
About 16 . . . lDxd5 17.lDxd5 a5
18.ib5 - see 17.ib5 lDxd5 18.lDxd5
- see 16 . . . a5 17. ib5 lDxd5 18.
lDxd5.
The move 16 . . . ib7 - leads to
a quiet game with a slight edge
for Whjite. 17.1lta5 1ltd7, Tairova
- Kovalevskaja, Bad Homburg
2007 (After 17 . . . lDxd5 18.lDxd5
<;t>h8 19.1ltxd8 l:!fxd8 2 0.ic4t
White's prospects are superior
thanks to his domination over
the d5-outpost and the possible
pressure against Black's a and d­
pawns.), and now White obtains
a slight, but stable advantage af­
ter 18.ic4 l:!fc8 19.1Dxe7+ V!1xe7
2 0.id5t. The main drawback of
Black's position is his bishop on
h6, which can hardly enter the ac­
tions anytime soon.
17.ib5 tOxd5
The move 17 . . . ib7? ! - enables
White to force advantageous
simplifications. 18.tOc6 hc6 19.
lDxe7+ V!1xe7 2 0.ixc6 l:!ab8 21.
l:!a2± - Black's dark-squared
bishop is very passive and it will
not be activated in the nearest fu­
ture, while his d6 and a5-pawns
are weak. Instead, White's light­
squared bishop is very powerful.
21...l:!fc8 2 2 .id5 l:!c5 23.g3 <;t>h8
24.0-0 f5? ! That attempt by Black
to organize some counterplay
leads to his swift demise, but he is
reluctant to stay completely pas-
1l.c3 ig5 12. I1J c2
sive. 25.b4 ! l:!xc3 26.bxa5 f4 27.
a6 V!1a7, Pushkarev - Gladyszev,
Sochi 2 006, and here White ex­
ploits the vulnerability of Black's
last rank, winning by force with
the line: 28.l:!b2 ! l:!f8 29.l:!b7 V!1c5
30.a7+-
18.tOxd5 ie6
18 .. .f5? ! - This move only
compromises the light squares
in the centre and on the king­
side, while Black's counterplay is
non-existent after it. 19.exf5 hf5,
Aliavdin - Holmsgaard, Pardu­
bice 2 007, and here White can
develop his initiative in the most
energetic fashion with the aggres­
sive line: 20.g4 ! ie6 21.ic4 g6 (It
is not preferable for Black to opt
for 21.. .g5 2 2 .l1Je3 V!1f6 23.he6+
V!1xe6 24.11Jf5±, since his bishop is
bound to remain passive on h6.)
2 2 .g5 ig7 23.tOf6+ l:!xf6 24.gxf6
wrxf6 25.V!1c6± White's king is not
so safe indeed, but Black's com­
pensation for the pawn is insuf­
ficient anyway, because there is
only too little material left on the
board.
18 . . . <;t>h8? ! - This move is con­
nected with the idea to obtain
counterplay on the f-file, but it
would weaken the light squares
in the centre. 19.b4 f5 2 0 .ic6 l:!a7
21.exf5 hf5 22 .bxa5 id3 23.ib5
ixb5 (It is not better for Black to
try 23 . . . if5 24.0-0 ie6 25.ic6±)
24.V!1xb5± White has an extra out­
side passed pawn and a magnifi­
cently deployed knight in the cen­
tre, so his position is quite close to
97
Chapter 7
winning, Karjakin - Shirov, Wijk
aan Zee 2 0 07.
19.J.c6 E:bS
White has a forcing line in the
diagrammed position: 2 0 .b4 (He
can also continue in a calmer fash­
ion: 2 0 .b3 'it>h8, An.Volokitin -
Ar.Timofeev, Spain 2 006, because
after 2U�a2;t Black has no active
prospects and that is confirmed
by the following exemplary varia­
tion : 21.. .fS 22.exfS gnS 23.0-0
gf4 24.lLlxf4 hb3 2S.YMxaS ha2
26.Wfxa2 hf4 27.g3± The light­
squared complex is very weak in
Black's camp. His bishop is out of
action and his d6-pawn is vulner­
able.) 2 0 axb4 21.cxb4 .txd5
•••
(Black must capture the b4-pawn;
therefore it is worse for him to
follow with 21. . . 'it>h8 2 2 .bS hdS
23.hdS Wfd7 24.ic6 YMg4 25.0-0
Wfxh4 26.Wfb3± - and despite the
extra pawn, Black's position is al­
most beyond salvation. His rooks
are very passive and his bishop
can hardly come back to the g1-
a7 diagonal. 26 .. .fS 2 7.g3 Wfd8 28.
exfS id2 29.YMa3 ! igs 30 .YMd3
Wfc7 31.ga6+- White's pieces are
tremendously active in a posi-
98
tion with material equality, Gan­
guly - Khader, Abu Dhabi 2007)
22 .txd5 Wfb6 23. 0 - 0 Wfxb4,
•
Dominguez Perez - Jakoven­
ko, Foros 2007, and here after
24.%Yd7 'it>hS 25.E:a6t White has
a powerful initiative. Black's bish­
op is out of action and he either
loses his f-pawn, or he must push
it forward, which compromises ir­
revocably the light squares on his
kingside.
c) 12 ••• gbS !?
Black understands perfectly
that White's plan is connected
with the pawn-advance a2-a4, so
he tries to organize some counter­
play along the b-file.
13.a4
Black is well-prepared for this
operation indeed, but it is neces­
sary for White in his fight for the
advantage.
13 bxa4
•••
The other possibilities for
Black lead to a transposition of
moves: about 13 . . . ie6 14.lLlcb4
- see 12 . . . ie6 13.a4 gb8 14.lLlcb4,
variation a; as for 13 . . . 0-0 - see
11 ... 0-0.

14.tLlcb4
14 . . .td7
. Jakovenko - Wang Yue, Ergun
It is essential for Black to pre­
serve his a4-pawn in order to
create some counterplay. There­
fore, it is worse for him to play
14 . . . tLlxb4 15.cxb4 ! - this move
is much stronger than capturing
with the knight, since now the
rook on b8 does not attack the
vulnerable b2-pawn, but instead
it is restricted by the well-pro­
tected b4-pawn. 15 . . . 0-0 (about
15 . . . id7 16.ha6 - see 14 . . . id7
15.ha6 lLlxb4 16.cxb4! ) 16.l3xa4
and here:
16 . . . Wfd7? ! - This is a strange
move. Black loses a pawn as well
as his main trump - the two­
bishop advantage. 17.ha6 ha6
18.l3xa6 l3fc8 19. 0-0± White has
an extra pawn and his omnipo­
tent knight on d5 makes his posi­
tion almost winning, Damjanovic
- Svicevic, Kladovo 1994;
16 . . . ie6 ? ! - This move looks
more natural, but after 17.ic4
Wfd7 18.b3 �h8 19.0-0;1; Black
loses unavoidably his a6-pawn
and his active prospects are no­
where to be seen. 19 .. .f5 (Black's
1l.c3 i gS 12 . lLl c2
only possible counterplay can be
connected with opening of the
f-file.) 20.exf5 l3xf5 21.l3xa6 e4
2 2.lLle3 ! he3 23.fxe3 hc4? (It
is much better for Black to play
here 23 . . . l3xf1+ 24.lMfxf1 d5 25.lMff4
l3d8 26.if1±, and although he has
no compensation for the pawn in
that variation either, he maintains
some chances of successful de­
fence.) 24.bxc4 l3xf1+ 25.lMfxf1+­
2006;
After 16 . . . ib7 17.ixa6 ixd5 (It
is evidently worse for Black to try
17 . . . ic6 18.b5 hb5 19.ixb5 l3xb5
20.b4 lMfc8 21. 0-0± and the dom­
inance of the centralized knight
over the bishop makes White's
advantage obvious, Edelstein -
Rinaldi, corr. 1992.) 18.lMfxd5 lMfd7
19.b3 id8 20.0-0 ib6 21.�h1
�h8 22.f3;1; White has an extra
passed pawn, despite its being
doubled, and he has neutralized
Black's possible kingside coun­
terplay with his last move. Black
failed to cope with the problems
of his defence 22 . . . id4 23.id3
lMfe6 24.lMfxe6 fxe6 25.ic4 l3fe8
26.l3a6± and despite the oppo­
site-coloured bishops, Black was
doomed to a long and very diffi­
cult defence, Palac - Gagarin, Za­
dar 2005;
16 . . .f5 - This is an interesting
pawn-sacrifice with the idea to ob­
tain counterplay on the kingside.
17.exf5 hf5 18.ha6 id7 19.13a3
�h8 20. 0-0;1; The vulnerability
of the light squares in the centre
99
Chapter 7
makes Black's compensation for
the pawn insufficient and after
20 . . . i.h6? ! , Getz - B.Christensen,
Copenhagen 2 007, it deserves at­
tention for White to continue with
the prophylactic move 2 U�c3,
preventing the sortie ofthe Black's
queen to the kingside - 21 . . . '!Wh4
2 2 . �c4±;
16 . . . aS 17.bS i.b7 (After 17. . . i.d7
1B.iWb3 '!WcB 19.1Dc3 i.dB 2 0.i.c4
i.b6 21. 0-0t Black has something
to brag about indeed: his dark­
squared bishop is on the perfect
diagonal, but White has already
a passed pawn on the queenside
and he can start a kingside of­
fensive pushing f2-f4 after some
preparation, Duijn - Lemmers,
Leeuwarden 1995. 17 .. .fS - This
move looks more aggressive, but
it weakens considerably the light
squares in the centre and on the
kingside. 1B .h4 i.f6 19.i.c4 whB
2 0 .'!We2 i.d7 21.exfS �cB 2 2 . 0-0
h:h4 23.i.d3± White dominates
in the centre and his dangerous
passed bS-pawn provides him
with superior prospects, RYBKA
- THE BARON, Leiden 2006.)
1B.i.c4 whB 19.0-0 fS 20.exfS
�xfS, P.Cramling - Tisdall, Glad­
saxe 19B3, and here after 2 1.'!We2
�cB 2 2 .i.d3 �fB 23.i.e4 �c5 24.
�dU Black is helpless against
White's dominance over the light
squares in the centre and there­
fore his position is without any
good prospects.
15.ha6 lLlxb4
1S . . . lDaS? ! - This move leads
100
to material losses. 16.�xa4 ha4
17.'!Wxa4+ wfB 1B.0-0 �aB, Sanz
Barrionuevo - Sanchez Cuchillo,
Burriana 1990, White wins easily
here with the line: 19.�a1 ! lDb7 (It
is not better for Black to defend
with 19 . . . lDc4 2 0.iWbS lDd2 21.lLlc6
'!Wd7 2 2 .lDb6 +- and after White
captures his opponent's rook on
aB, he will remain with an extra
piece.) 20.h:b7! �xa4 21.�xa4+­
Black has no satisfactory defence
against 22.�aB, therefore White
will end up with two light pieces
and a pawn against a rook.
1S . . . 0-0? ! - This move los­
es a pawn. 16.�xa4 lLlxb4 (The
pawn-advance 16 . . .fS? ! - com­
promises the light squares in
the centre. 17.exfS e4 1B.h4 ! ih6
19.1Dxc6 hc6 20.�c4 i.aB 2UlcB
'!WaS 22.�xbB �xbB 23.i.c4 �xb2
24. 0-0± White not only has an
extra pawn, but he has excellent
attacking prospects thanks to his
centralized pieces and Black's
vulnerable kingside, M.Sorokin
- Gutman, USSR 197B.) 17.�xb4
'l&aS 1B.i.c4 '!WcS 19.�xbB �xbB
20.b3t White has won a pawn, but
he lags a bit in development, so in
answer to 20 . . . i.bS, it is very good
for him to opt for 2 1 . 0 - 0 ! hc4
22.bxc4 'l&xc4 23.'I&g4 h6 24.h4
i.dB 2S.g3 i.b6 26.wg2t White
has powerful positional pressure,
thanks to his centralized knight
and Black should play very care­
fully. The imprecise move 26 . . .
i.cS?, enabled White t o activate
his rook with 27.�b1 �fB 2B.�b7±

Golubev - Gubajdullin, Moscow
2006.
Following 15 . . . tiJe7, Droess­
ler - Hauschild, Germany 2004,
it is sensible for White to at­
tack his opponent's weak pawn
with 16.tiJe3 ! ? he3 17.fxe3 'ilVb6
18JWd3 f5 19.0-0 0-0 (It is hardly
better for Black to try here 19 . . .f4
20.@h1 0-0 21.exf4 exf4 22 .!c4+
@h8 23.eS±) 2 0 .exf5 ixfS 21.%Vd2;!;
- and White has somewhat better
chances, due to the vulnerability
of Black's d6 and a4-pawns.
16.cxb4!
This i s a n important moment.
Now, the placement of Black's
rook on b8 is pointless, because
his attack against the b4-pawn
is not as effective as that against
the b2-pawn. Meanwhile, the b4-
pawn is passed and it is ready to
advance at an opportune mo­
ment.
16 . . . 0 - 0 17. 0 - 0 !c6
17. . . g6, Bilen - Chasovnikova,
Moscow 2006, This is a useful
move, because if White decides
to sacrifice the exchange analo­
gously to the main line, his initia­
tive would not be so effective. He
1l.c3 !g5 12. tiJ c2
can continue without sacrifices,
though: 18.b3 ! ? axb3 (or 18 . . .
ic6 19J1xa4 ha4 2 0.bxa4 'ilVd7
2 1.id3±) 19.%Vxb3 ie6 2 0.ic4;!;
- White has somewhat better
chances, because of his active
pieces and the dominance over
the central d5-outpost.
17. . . 'ilVe8 - This move prevents
the exchange sacrifice indeed, but
it dooms Black to a long defence
without any bright prospects.
18 .b3 axb3 (After 18 . . . ic6 ? ! -
White's exchange sacrifice is very
effective. 19J%xa4 ha4 2 0 .bxa4±)
19.%Vxb3 ie6, Corrales - Gon­
gora, Santa Clara 2 0 07, and now
after 20.E1fdU White controls the
centre and his queenside passed
pawn is ready to advance at any
moment. Black's only possible
counterplay is connected with t7-
f5, but that compromises the light
squares on the kingside.
18.gxa4!
This is no doubt the best line
for White. He obtains an excellent
compensation for the exchange
thanks to his powerful knight
in the centre and his queenside
passed pawn.
101
Chapter 7
lS . . . J.xa4
Black is forced to accept the
sacrifice, because after 1B . . . �d7
19.b5 .b:b5 2 0 . .txb5 �xb5 2U!b4±
the superiority of the knight over
the bishop is obvious and Black's
attempt to change the course of
actions with a queen-sacrifice led
to a lost position for him after 21 . . .
�xb4 22.iLlxb4 gxb4 23.�xd6 gb5
24.g3+- Perunovic - Milanovic,
Belgrade 2006.
19.tba4
19 ... VHeS
Black's defence is not any eas­
ier if he enters an endgame. His
position is difficult too after the
alternatives:
19 ... ih6? ! - This move is con­
nected with the idea to transfer
the queen to the kingside, but
Black does not obtain any coun­
terplay with it. Instead, White's
passed pawn advances to the pen­
ultimate rank. 20.b5 �h4 21.b6
gfdB 2 2 .b7± Mr335 - crafty, In­
ternet 1999;
19 ... whB ? ! - That is a loss
of time. 2 0 .�c6 .td2 21.b5 i.a5
2 2 .i.b7 �h4 (In case of 22 . . .
�eB - the exchange o f queens
102
is in favour of White. 23.ga1
.tdB 24.VHxeB gxeB 25.i.c6 gfB
26.ga6± Black's extra exchange
is absolutely immaterial and his
pieces are so cramped that he
has no active prospects. 26 . . . g6
27.b6 f5 2B.exf5 e4 29.b7+- Abn
- Bewersdorff, Germany 2001.)
23.b4 .tdB 24.�xd6 i.g5, Zapata
- C.Lopez, Cali 2 0 01, Black's
position is nearly hopeless after
White's active move 25.ttJb6 ! , for
example: 25 . . . gbdB (Black would
not fare any better after his oth­
er possibilities 25 . . . gfdB 26.�c7
�g4 27.ttJc4 �d7 28.�xd7 gxd7
29.i.c6 gd4 30.ttJxe5±; or 25 . . .
gfeB 26.g3 �g4 27.i.d5± and in
both cases his pieces remain to­
tally passive.) 26.ttJd7 gfeB (Or
26 .. .f5 27.VHcS gfl - after 27 . . .
.te7? 28.�c7+- Black loses plenty
of material. - 2B . .tc6 fxe4 29.g3
�h5 30.ttJxe5± White obtains
unavoidably a third pawn for the
exchange.) 27.i.c6 i.e7 2B.�xe5
.b:b4 29.�d4± Black's defence
will be very difficult, because his
rooks are stuck to the last rank
and White has two pawns for the
exchange, one of them being a
dangerous passed pawn;
19 . . .f5 - This move weakens
the light squares on the kingside.
20.exf5 gxf5 2 1.i.d3 gfB (Follow­
ing 21.. .gfl 2 2 .b5i - Black has
problems fighting against his
opponent's active pieces. 22 . . .
�fB 23.h4 i.f4 24.h5± White
dominates in the centre and he
can create threats on both sides

of the board, Toth - Pechy, Tri­
este 2 0 04.) 2 2 .bS VNd7 23.Wle4 g6,
L'Arni - Moser, Augsburg 2002,
White controls the centre and
he can prepare the development
of his initiative at leisure, after
24J:1a1 VNfS 2S.Wle2 VNfl 26.!e4;!;
Black must consider the possible
advance of his opponent's passed
pawn as well as his eventual king­
side offensive with g2-g3, followed
by the advance of his h-pawn;
19 . . . g6 - It was considered for
a long time that Black could equal­
ize after that move. 20.Wlc6 id2
21.bS iaS 2 2.ib7 f6 ! - This is the
only move, because Black brings
his rook on f8 to the defence of his
queenside. 23Jk1! (In the game
Barua - B.Lalic, Ubeda 1998,
White continued with 23.b4? !
ib6 ! 24.ltJxb6 l::!fl 2S.l::! d1 l::!fxb7
26.l::!xd6 Wlxd6 27.VNxd6 l::!xb6=
and the position was already look­
ing rather drawish.) 23 . . . l::!fl (It is
worse for Black to play 23 . . . id2? !
24.l::! c 2 WlaS 2S.g3 ib4 26.VNa6 !
<;t>h8 27.l::! c4 id2 28.b4 VNd8 29.
b6+-, since his pieces are help­
less against White's queenside
onslaught.) 24.ic8 l::! a7 2S.h4;!;
Black has prevented the advance
of White's b-pawn indeed, but he
has no active prospects. Mean­
while, White has excellent attack­
ing chances on the kingside.
11.c3 !g5 12. ltJ c2
2 0 .Wlxe8 gfxe8 2l.b5 f5
The diagrammed position was
reached in the game Anand - Van
Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2006. In his
comments, Anand recommended
how White should develop his
initiative in the most energetic
fashion: 22.h4! - White must
obtain the control over the c-file.
22 ixh4 23.gc1 fxe4 24.b6
•••
gfS 25.g3 ig5 26.gc6 id2
27.b7 iel 28.gc2 ! ? chf7 (It is
not better for Black to opt for 28 . . .
e 3 29.fxe3 <;t> fl 30Jk8 <;t>e6 31.e4
if2 + 32 .<;t>h1 ia7 33.ltJb4 <;t>d7
34.!bS+ che6 3S.l::! c7±, since he
cannot maintain the material bal­
ance anymore and in addition he
cannot capture White's danger­
ous b7-pawn.) 29.chfl ia5 3 0 .
b4 che6 (Black loses too after
30 . . . id8 31.l::! c8 igS 32.ltJb6+-)
3l.bxa5 chxd5 32 .ib5! + - Black
is completely helpless against
White's two connected far-ad­
vanced passed pawns.
103
 Conclusion

In this chapter, we analyze on of the modern lines of the Chely­

abinsk variation 11. . . �g5 - Black ensures the two-bishop advantage,
with the idea that it would compensate the defects of his pawn-struc­
ture.
In answer to the strongest move for White 12.ti:J c2, (White central­
izes his knight and prepares the crucial pawn-advance a2-a4, which
is aimed at exploiting the weakness of the light squares on the queen­
side.) Black has tried in practice different moves and in this chapter
we analyze thoroughly: a) 12 . . . �e6?!, b) 12 . . .tiJe7, c) 12 . . . '8bB.
It is worth mentioning that Black does not lose after some other
rarely played lines, but they all lead to positions without any good
prospects for him, while White's game is very easy on the weak
squares on both sides of the board.

The development of Black's bishop to the e6-square in variation

a, is no doubt premature, because at first, that square is not always
the best for that bishop - it must be deployed sometimes to b7, or d7
and secondly, Black thus weakens his a6-pawn and White develops
his initiative effortlessly with quite natural moves.

The logical move 12 .. . tiJe7 (Black fights immediately against

White's powerful centralized knight.) is analyzed in variation b. The
basic drawback of that move however is that White can play 13.h4!
repelling Black's bishop to the edge of the board and it cannot join in
the actions easily from there. After the practicallyforced line 13 . . . �h6
14.a4 bxa4 15. lD cb4! Black has to make up his mind between several
possibilities:
In variation bl, he forces his opponent to sacrifice the exchange on
a4. White obtains numerous advantages as compensation - he has
complete control over the light squares in the centre and on the queen­
side. His knight on as is all-powerful and he can create a passed pawn
on the queenside after he captures Black's weak a6-pawn. Then, it
would be practically material equality on the board. Accordingly,
Black's extra exchange cannot compensate completely all the defects
of his position.
In variation b2, Black obtains a more solid, but rather passive
position, practically without counterplay, but in a position with ma­
terial equality. He tries to complete his development and he tries to
make a draw by simplifications. The disadvantageous placement of

104
his bishop on h6 is especially emphasized in that variation. In the
critical position, arising after Black's move 19, White has the pleasant
choice between the move, whichforces the issue immediately - 20 .b2-
b4 and the calmer line - 2 0 .b2-b3. Thefirst line leads to considerable
simplifications - there are only kingside pawns left on the board, but
the presence of heavy piece emphasizes the different power of the op­
posite-coloured bishops and that dooms Black to a fight for a draw
without any active prospects. In the second case, White is not in a hur­
ry to create a passed pawn on the queenside and because of that, there
remain many more pawns on the board. In that case, Black must con­
sider the possible advance of his opponent's b-pawn at any moment
and he must take care about the protection of his weak as-pawn too.

In variation c) 12. . . '!i.bB, Black tries to save a tempo by postponing

his castling, with the idea to create some counterplay on the b-file. He
plans to counter White's thematic break a2-a4, by exchanging bSxa4
and exerting pressure against the b2-pawn. Despite that, White, in
his fightfor the opening advantage, is forced to sacrifice temporar­
ily a pawn with 13.a4,followed by 13 . . . bxa4 14. &iJcb4! - he covers the
b-file in that fashion and he gobbles unavoidably Black's a6-pawn.
The key moment in that variation is the possibility for White to cap­
ture c3xb4! in answer to c3xb4!. After that, Black's rook is restricted
in its movements by his opponent's b4-pawn and it is much easier
for White to protect that pawn than the b2-pawn. Later, after White
captures Black's a6-pawn, he creates a passed pawn along the b-file.
It is essential for White to control the dS-outpost, since he needs to
have a piece there. Just like in variation bl, it is a classical resource,
in his fightfor the advantage, to exchange at an opportune moment
his rookfor Black's light-squared bishop.

105
Chapter 8 1.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
8.�a3 b5 9. �d5 J.e7 1 0 .ixf6 J.xf6 •

11.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2

We have to mention that there

You can see on the diagram
one of the critical positions of the
Chelyabinsk variation. White cen­
tralizes his knight; he increases
the pressure in the centre, plan­
ning to advance the undermining
move a2-a4. He will thus create
weaknesses on Black's queen­
side, freeing the c4-square for
his pieces (it would be used most
probably by White's light-squared
bishop).
How can Black counter that
plan?
In this chapter, we will ana­
lyze some rarely played lines like
a) 12 .ie6, b) 12 .ib7 and c)
•.• •.•
12 �b8, while the next chap­
••.
ter will be devoted to the popular
move 12 . . .l'(bB .
will arise numerous transposi­
tions of moves, leading to the
variation 12 . . . .igS, which is in fact
the main line. We will study it at
the end.
At first, we will pay some at­
tention to several quite unusual
possibilities for Black:
About 12 . . J!a7 13.a4 bxa4
14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . i.gS;
About 12 ... �hB 13.a4 bxa4
14.E:xa4 i.gS - see 12 . . . .igS;
It is too passive for Black to
play 12 . . . .ie7? ! 13.a4 bxa4 (If 13 . . .
E:bB 14.axbS axbS, a s i t was played
in the game Rossato - Belotti,
Pellestrina 1979, then 1S.i.d3, and
it would be too risky for Black to
opt for 1S .. .fS 16.exfS hfS 17.i.xfS
E:xfS in view of 1B.E:a6±) 14.E:xa4
i.b7 (or 14 . . . aS 1s.ibS ! ? ib7 16.
O-O± Gara - Moshina, Balaton­
lelle 2000) 1S.i.c4± Neiksans -
Gvatua, Rimavska Sobota 1996 -
and White has accomplished his
plan and he is clearly better;
It is not so good for Black to
continue with 12 . . . .id7, A Panov

106

- Kuznetsov, Krasnodar 2004,
13.a4 bxa4 14J'ixa4;!;;
While after 12 . . . lDe7, White
should better provoke the appear­
ance of weaknesses with the help
of the line: 13.lDxf6+ gxf6 14.id3
(We will mention here that we will
analyze later a line, which looks
rather similar: 12 . . J'ibB 13.h4 lDe7
14.lDxf6+ gxf6 lS.id3 - our read­
ers will be easily convinced that
the absence of the pawn on h4 can
be advantageous for White as
well.). After the rather indifferent
move 14 . . . ie6 lS.lDe3± White's
advantage is doubtless and Black's
active attempts prove to be insuf­
ficient for equality: 14 . . . dS 1S.exdS
�xdS (It is not correct for Black to
try lS . . . lDxdS? ! 16.�hS fS 17.hfS
ixfS 18.�xfS lDf4 19.0-0±) 16.
lDe3 �e6, Jurasek - Svab, Plzen
1996, 17.�hS ! fS (White is evi­
dently better after 17 . . . e4 1B.ic2
fS 19.ib3 �g6 20.�h4 �eB 21.
O-O-O±) 1B.g4! That is a very
strong move now, since Black has
problems irrelevant of his choice
on the next move. 1B . . . �g6
19.�h4±, or 14 . . . fS lS.exfS !xiS,
Janz - Lampe, Hamburg 1997
(but not lS . . . lDxfS? 16.�f3+-)
16.ixfS lDxfS 17.�g4+ lDg7 lB.
0-0-0 �f6 (in case of 1B . . .fS, it is
good for White to play 19.�b4;!;)
19.�hf1 as (19 . . .�fdB 20.lDb4;!;)
2 0.lDe3 b4 21.c4;!; and White has
some positional edge;
Finally, in case of 12 . . . g6 13.a4
bxa4 (or 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS
lS.id3 ig7 16.�e2 �gS 17. 0-0
11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2
i.h3 1B .f3± Chase - Mason, Las
Vegas 1996) 14.�xa4 !J.g7 (or 14 . . .
�bB?! lS.ha6±; about 1 4. . . aS
lS.!J.c4 !J.gS - see 12 . . . !J.gS; as for
14 . . . igS - see 12 . . . igS) lS.ic4
as (In the game Sluka - Vaculik,
Litomysl 1996, Black chose 15 . . .
!J.b7, and White's simplest reac­
tion would have been 16.0-0 lDe7
17.lDce3;!;) 16.0-0 �bB 17.b3;!; Sol­
leveld - Rijnaarts, Hengelo 1999.
There arises a standard situa­
tion, quite favourable for White,
because Black's bishop on g7 is
bound to remain very passive.
a) 12 ••• ie6
Black determines the place­
ment of his bishop a bit prema­
turely and he does not prevent
the move a2-a4. Considering the
immediate exchange on dS, it has
certain drawbacks too and we will
prove that.
13.a4 bxa4
About 13 . . . �bB 14.axbS axbS
lS.!J.d3 igS - see 12 . . . !J.gS.
In the line : 13 . . . lDaS 14.axbS
igS, Black relies mainly on 15.
bxa6? lDb3, but after lS.lDcb4
axbS 16.hbS �bB 17.!J.d3± Roth
107
Chapter 8
- Konik, Chemnitz 1995, White
simply remains with an extra
pawn.
We must deal thoroughly with
the principled move 13 . . . !xdS.
White should play 14.exdS ! , and
later there might follow:
14 . . . ttJa7 (planning to capture
on bS with the knight) lS.ie2
\1;Yb6 16.axbS ttJxbS 17. 0-0 ttJc7
lS.l3a2 as (The endgame is very
difficult for Black after lS . . . \1;Yb3? !
19.ttJb4 \1;Yxd1 20.l3xdl±) 19.ttJe3
�cS, Lafond - Simon, Bischwiller
1999 (In case of 19 . . . igS 2 0 .ttJc4
\1;YcS, White has the tactical re­
source 21.l3xaS ! l3xaS 2 2 .b4 �xdS
23.bxaS l3dS 24.�a4;:1;) 2 0.l3a4!
l3tbS (or 2 0 ... igS? ! 21.l3c4 �a7
2 2 .ttJfS±) 2 1.l3c4 \1;Ya7 2 2.�c2;:1; -
White has a very promising game
on the light squares;
After 14 . . . ttJe7 lS.axbS, Black
has tried in practice lS . . . axbS
16.l3xaS �xaS 17.ttJb4 (That is an
ideal square for the knight.) 17. . .
m 7 (The line : 1 7. . . \1;Ya4 lS.id3
�xd1+ 19.�xd1 l3aS 20.�c2 l3aS
21.ttJc6 ttJxc6 22.dxc6 idS 23.
b4+-, led to a lost endgame for
Black in the game Gligoric -
Riego, Asuncion 1960.) lS .ie2 g6
19.0-0 igS 2 0 .\1;Yd3 l3bS 2 1.l3al±
Chiburdanidze - Grigic, Vinkovci
19S2 and White has a clear ad­
vantage, as well as lS . . . �b6, Yt­
teborg - Polenske, Hamburg
1999, 16.id3 axbS 17.l3xaS l3xaS
lS.0-0;:1;, followed by ttJb4 with
pressure against the weak pawn
on bS.
lOS
14.gxa4 a5 15.ic4 �e7
Here, objectively Black's best
move is lS . . . igS, and we will study
it later - see 12 . . . igS.
White's task is much easier
after lS . . . !xdS? ! 16.!XdS m6
17.ttJe3 l3abS (In case of 17 . . . .ie7?,
as it was played in the game Kre­
jcova - Kopecky, Klatovy 2003,
White could have punished Black
with lS.l3c4! l3acS 19.!xc6 l3xc6
20.ttJdS+- winning a piece. It can
hardly be recommended to Black
to opt for 17. . . �xb2? ! lS.l3c4±)
lS.0-0±
In case of IS ... l3bS, Klundt -
Benko, Germany 1992, White can
follow with 16.l3a2;:1;, and after 16 . . .
igS, there arises a position from
the variation 12 . . . igS.
16.�xf6+ gxf6
17.ixe6! ? White does not
need to exchange there right
now, but he must try to provoke
an immediate crisis. 17 fxe6 •••
18.�g4+ �f7 19. 0 - 0 ;j; Simacek
- Choleva, Czech Republic 1997.
The defects of Black's pawn­
structure are quite evident and
his king is rather unsafe. White's
advantage is doubtless.

b) 12 ••• J.b7
The development of this bish­
op to b7 is usually connected with
the maneuver of Black's knight
along the route c6-bS-d7-cS(b6).
That interesting plan was suggest­
ed and introduced into practice,
at the beginning of the 70ies of
the past century, by GM Bukhuti
Gurgenidze.
13.a4 bxa4
It seems too artificial for
Black to play 13 . . . tiJa7? ! 14.axbS
tiJxbS 1S . .tc4 tiJc7 16.tiJce3± Tau­
fratshofer - Ludwig, BRD 19S9,
while in case of 13 ... tiJe7, White
follows with the typical reaction
14.tiJxf6+ gxf6 1s.id3 dS (It is not
logical for Black to opt for 15 . . .
<ilhS 16.0-0 �gS 17.tiJe3± Mou­
lin - Lein, Philadelphia 2002.)
16.exdS YNxdS 17.tL'le3 YNe6 1S.axbS
axbS 19.�aS �xaS 20. 0-0;!; and
White ends up with a stable edge.
14.gxa4 tiJb8 !?
Th e other possibilities are not
of any separate value: about 14 . . .
.tgS - see 12 . . . igS; a s for 1 4. . . tiJe7
1S . .tc4 .tgS - see 12 . . . igS; 14 . . . aS
1S.ic4 tiJbS (or 1S . . .igS - see 12 . . .
igS; 1S . . . tiJe7, Henk - Schmitz,
11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJ c2
Germany 19S6, 16.0-0;!;) 16.0-0
tiJd7 17.YNe2 - see 14 ... tiJbS.
IS.J.c4 tOd7 16.YNe2
White has deployed his forces
harmoniously and he has forti­
fied his central pawn with his last
move. Now, if Black places his
knight on c5, White's rook would
retreat to a2 and then he would
advance b2-b4 with tempo.
16 ••• aS
About 16 . . . .tgS - see 12 . . . .tgS.
White obtains a very good
position after 16 . . . tiJb6 17.tiJxb6
YNxb6 1S.tiJb4 as 19.tiJdS ixdS
2 0.ixdS;!;
17. 0 - 0
17 J.xdS
•••
Black fails to solve his prob­
lems by simplifying the position.
About 17 . . . igS - see 12 . . . igS.
In case of 17. . . tiJb6, White fol­
lows with 1S.tiJxb6 YNxb6 19.tiJe3 !
Here it is too risky for Black to
grab his opponent's central pawn:
19 . . . ixe4 2 0 .idS ! ? ixdS 21.tiJxdS
YNc6 (or 21 . . . YNdS 2 2 . l3fal± fol­
lowed by b2-b4) 2 2 .tiJxf6+ gxf6
23.l3h4 �fbS 24.f4� - and Black's
monarch is seriously endangered.
In the game Ahn - Vandevoort,
109
Chapter S

Charleroi 1994, Black played 19 . . . \Wb6 22.\Wb5+-) 2 2 .ib5 ! \!;lIxc3

:gabS, but White should have 23.lt:le3+-, and his knight is
countered that with 2 0.\Wd3 ! trapped.
1c6 (or 2 0 . . . \!;lIxb2? 21.:gb1 be4 21. lt:le3 \Wb6 22.1d5;!;
22.:gxb2 bd3 23.:gxbS :gxbS 24.
bd3+-) 2 1.:ga2 \!;lIc5 22.:gdU,
preserving better prospects.
White is better after 17. . . lt:lc5
1S.:ga3 a4 19.1t:lcb4;!; Juhnke - Va­
leinis, corr. 2005.
If 17 ... :ga7, then White in­
creases his queenside pressure by
rather simple means : 1S.:gfa1 lt:lb6
(Black has also tried in practice
1S . . . bd5 19.bd5 \WbS 2 0.lt:lb4 !± In the game van Delft - Jelen,
Vrenegoor - van Oosterom, Am­ Groningen 1996, White obtained
sterdam 2005 - but he has failed better chances. After he places his
to maintain the material bal­ knight on the c4-outpost, Black
ance. Instead of 19 . . . \WbS , Black will have problems with the pro­
would not improve anything with tection of his d6-pawn, There fol­
19 . . . lt:lc5 20.:g4a2 a4, because of lowed 22 . . . a4 23 .g3 :gbS 24.lt:lc4
21.b4±) 19.1t:lxb6 \!;lIxb6 2 0 .lt:lb4 ! \Wc7 25.:gdU. White will soon try
:gbS (20 . . . :gfaS 21.lt:ld5 bd5 22. to create another weakness in his
bd5±, and after the retreat of the opponent's camp. He can use his
rook from as, White follows with h-pawn in order to accomplish
23.b4.) 2 1.:g1a2 .tg5 22 . .td5± with that task.
an overwhelming advantage for
White. c) 12 ••• �b8
In case of 17. . . g6 1S.:gfa1 ig7,
it is very good for White to contin­
ue with 19.b4 axb4 20.:gxaS haS
21.cxb4 1b7 (or 21...lt:lf6 22.\Wd3;!;)
22.lt:lce3;!; - and White's position
is better thanks to his powerful
control over the d5-outpost and
his passed b-pawn, Vrenegoor
- Nijboer, Amsterdam 1994.
18.h:d5 �b6 19.h:a8 lt:lxa4
2 0 .1c6 ! It:lc5 This is a variation of the same
It is a mistake for Black to play idea as in the previous line. The
2 0 . . . lt:lxb2? 21.:gb1 \Wc7 (or 21... difference is that Black does not

110

lose time for the move !b7, and
he will attack faster White's e4-
pawn.
13.h4!
White plays more often here
the standard line : 13.a4 bxa4
14J':!xa4 lLld7+t, but that just helps
Black to achieve what he wanted
in the first place.
Therefore, I recommend an­
other method and GM Viswana­
than Anand used it quite success­
fully in one of his games. White is
not in a hurry with the undermin­
ing operation on the queenside
and he restricts his opponent's
possibilities.
13 ••• lLld7 14.lOce3 lOc5 15.g3
Ab7
Black loses after 15 . . . lLlxe4?
16.!g2+-
16.J.d3 !
That is the ideal square for
White's light-squared bishop in
this situation.
16 ••• g6
Black only loses addition­
al tempi with 16 . . . lLla4, Muel­
ler - Raijmaekers, Email 1998,
17.�d2 ! ? lLlb6 18 .!c2 Eic8 (or 18 . . .
lLlc4 19.lLlxc4 bxc4 2 0.b4;!;) 19.Eidli
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. lLl c2
- it is essential that White main­
tains reliable control over the d5-
outpost.
After 16 . . . a5 (with the idea to
follow with b5-b4), White should
continue with the accurate line :
17.a3 !c6 18 .!c2 g6 19.�e2 !g7
20.h5;!; Cioara - Moraru, Bucha­
rest 1999.
17.il.c2 a5
In case of 17 . . . !g7 18.hS, Black
would not achieve much with the
aggressive queen-sortie 18 . . . �gS
- since after 19.�f3;!; White had a
superior position in the game Al­
dea - Moraru, Bucharest 2001.
18.a3 Ag7 19.h5;!;
That position arose in the
game Anand - Kramnik, Monaco
1994. The Indian grandmaster
did some wonderful prophylac­
tics and it bore fruit after 19 . . . !c8
(19 . . . �g5, Schuetze - Sandner,
corr. 2005, 20.�f3;!;) 2 0.hxg6 fxg6
21.�e2 Eia7 22.Eih2 Eiaf7 23.�xb5
ia6 24.�b6 lLld3+ 25.ixd3 ixd3
26.�xd8 Eixd8 27.Eih4 h5 28.
Eidl±. Anand ended up with an
extra pawn in the endgame and
gradually he pressed his advan­
tage home.
111
 Conclusion

Therefore, we have analyzed all Black's possibilities besides the

most principled and strong 12 . . . '8b8 and 12 . . . �g5. White obtains the
advantage in all the lines without too much of an effort and that ex­
plains why all these lines are not so popular at all. White's opening
advantage is not so great indeed, but it is important that he can usu­
ally transferfrom a better middle game into a superior endgame.
If we ignore the numerous possible transpositions of moves lead­
ing to the variation with 12 . . . ig5, then it is very interesting for Black
to try the idea ofGM Gurgenidze, connected with the maneuver of the
knight along the route c6-b8-d7-c5(b6}. It is essential then, whether
Black with play at first 12 . . . !b7, or he would choose immediately
12 . ..ti:J b8. In the first case, White should not refrain from his the­
matic break 13.a4, because then he manages to accomplish his ideal
deployment offorces thanks to the additional tempo. After 12 . . . ltJb8
however, it is not so easy for White, therefore I consider as more pre­
cise the prophylactic move 13.h4!, which was tried successfully by
Viswanathan Anand.

112
Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2 . lLlf3 lLlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.lLlxd4
e6 5.lLlc3 e5 6 . lLl db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
S.lLla3 b5 9.lLld5 J.e7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 •

H.c3 0 - 0 12.lLlc2 gbS

Black has the following possi­

bilities now: a) 13 a5, b) 13
••• •••

1e6, c) 13 ••• �e7, d) 13 g6, e)

•••

13 ie7.
•••

About 13 . . . l3e8 14.lDce3 1e7

This prophylactic idea ap­
peared in the middle of the 70ies
of the last century. That mysteri­
ous rook-move prevents the the­
matic advance a2-a4, since after
13.a4 bxa4, White's b2-pawn is
hanging. Meanwhile, Black for­
tifies the bS square and he can
think about the possibility a6-aS.
The move 12 .. J�b8 - is the most
interesting alternative to the main
line 12 . . . igS.
13.h4 !
This i s the most principled re­
sponse by White. Practice has
shown that after the traditional
line: 13.ie2 igS 14. 0-0 as, Black
has nothing to be afraid of. In case
of 13.h4, his dark-squared bishop
is restricted and of course, it would
be a disaster for him to capture the
pawn - 13 ...ixh4? 14.'mlS+-
- see 13 . . . 1e7.
The following line contradicts
the main ideas of that opening:
13 . . . h6? ! 14.g3 as, Dani - Pal,
Zalakaros 1996 C14 . . . g6 1S.1h3±
Pierrot - Tovillas, Mar del Pla­
ta 2 007), in view of 1S.lDce3 b4
16.ic4± and White maintains a
clear advantage.
a) 13 ••• a5
It seems quite logical for Black
to advance his couple of pawns on
the queenside, but that has some
drawbacks too. He loses his con­
trol over the bS and c4-squares
and that enables White to deploy
his forces comfortably and to in­
crease his pressure in the centre.
14.�ce3 b4
This move is consequential,
but as we have already mentioned,
it involves some strategical risk.
There arise some other varia­
tions after 14 . . . 1e6 - see 13 . . . 1e6
and 14 . . . g6 1S.g3 ig7 16.hS ie6

113
Chapter 9
17.!h3 - see 13 . . . g6 14.g3 ig7
15.h5 .!e6 16 . .!h3 as 17.tDce3.
It is too passive for Black to
play 14 . . . �h8 15.�f3 ie7 16.id3
ie6 17.tDf5± Reeve - Zubac, Rich­
mond 2002, as well as 14 .. J;!e8
15.a4 b4 16.!b5 id7 17.�f3 ie7
18.tDf5± Gaponenko - Manakova,
Tivat 1995.
In the game Schaefer - Guen­
ther, Budapest 1995, Black chose
14 . . . ie7, and White should have
countered that with 15.a4 ! ? There
might follow 15 . . . b4 16 . .!b5 tDa7
(If 16 . . ..!d7, then 17.hc6 ixc6
18.cxb4 axb4 19.tDf5±, and White's
knights are obviously stronger
than Black's bishops.) 17.cxb4,
and here Black solves his prob­
lems neither with 17. . . tDxb5 18.
axb5 l3xb5 (18 ... axb4 19.13a7 if6
20 .�e2±) 19.�e2 .!a6 20.tDc3 l3b6
21.b5± and White occupies the
d5-square, nor with 17. . . axb4
18 . .!c4 tDc6 19.a5;!; - White's
passed a-pawn is tremendously
dangerous. The other possibility
is - 15 . . . bxa4 16.�xa4 ib7 (16 . . .
!d7 1 7. .!b5±) 17.!b5 tDa7 18.
tDxe7+ Vlixe7 19 . .td3;!;. White has a
considerable positional advantage
in both lines.
114
15.!c4!
That is the ideal place for
White's light-squared bishop.
15 . . .bxc3 16.bxc3
Formally, the c3-pawn should
be a liability, but it controls the
all-important d4-square and Black
cannot attack it in the nearest fu­
ture.
16 . . . .te7
Black loses a pawn without
sufficient compensation after 16 . . .
.te6 17.tDxf6 + ! ? �xf6 18.�xd6
l3bc8 19 . .!d5;!;
He has also tried in practice
16 . . . h6 17.g3 l3e8 18.Vlif3 !e6 19.
l3dU Zhou - Li, Suzhou 2006,
as well as 16 . . . tDe7 17.tDxf6+ gxf6
18.�f3;!; Driamin - Polyakov, St.
Petersburg 1998, with a better
game for White in both cases.
17.g3 !e6 18 .�a4!
White's queen occupies a very
comfortable square with tempo,
although it is good for him to
follow with 18. Vlif3 - see variation
b.
18 . . . tDa7
If 18 . . ..td7, then 19 ..tb5 l3c8
20.tDc4± Russo - Mohandesi,
Charleroi 2006.
19. 0 - 0 ;1;

White has managed to restrict
his opponent's light pieces and
prevent his real counterplay.
Black's as and d6-pawns are weak
and he must be prepared for a dif­
ficult passive defence. In case of
19 . . . ltJc8, White follows with
20.�abl±, occupying the b-file
(Black cannot play 20 . . . 1d7?, be­
cause of 21.�xb8 ! ha4 22.�xc8 !
Wld7 23.�c7 +-). It is relatively
best for Black to try 19 . . . hdS 20.
ltJxdS ltJc8 21.�ab1 ltJb6 2 2.'�c6;!;,
but White is still better.
b) 13 ••• .ie6
This development of the bish­
op is typical for the Chelyabinsk
variation in general, therefore this
line does not lead to any original
positions and it often transposes
to other variations.
14.lLlce3 a5
Black follows the same plan as
in variation a, but with a bishop
on the e6-square.
About 14 . . . 1e7!? - see 13 . . .
1e7.
The other possibilities are
quite dubious for Black: 14 . . . g6? !
1S.ltJxf6 + Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6± Beshu-
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ltJc2 �b8 13.h4
kov - Skatchkov, Perm 1997; 14 . . .
ltJe7? ! 1S.ltJxf6+ gxf6 16.1&f3± Vo­
uldis - Sutovsky, Holon 1995;
14 ... 1&d7? ! 1S.ltJxf6+ gxf6 16.Wlf3±
Berelovich - Samoilov, Alushta
1999.
After 14 ... hdS 1S.ltJxdS b4, as
it was played in the game Oliver
Serrano - Alvares, Calvia 2006,
White should have continued with
16.ha6 bxc3 17.bxc3 1&aS 18.1c4;!;
- and Black's partial piece-activ­
ity would not compensate his sac­
rificed pawn.
15.1&f3
White's alternative here is
- 1S.ltJxf6 + ! ? (This move has not
been tried in practice.) 15 . . . Wlxf6
16.1&xd6 �fc8 17.1e2;!;. I think that
Black's temporary threats do not
compensate his missing pawn.
15 b4
•••
In case of 1S . . . i.e7, White fol­
lows with 16.g3 b4 17.i.c4 bxc3
18.bxc3 1&d7 19.0-0 �fc8 20.�fdl;!;
Baumann - Gueroff, corr. 1996.
He has a stable positional advan­
tage. There arise similar positions
in variation a.
16 .ic4 bxc3
•
It is in favour of White if Black
plays 16 . . . a4 17.g3 a3 18.b3 bxc3
19.1tJxc3 ltJd4 2 0 .1&d1 WlaS 21.�c1
�bc8 2 2 . 0-0 1&a8 23.ltJcdS± Kor­
neev - Ramos, El Sauzal 2 0 03.
17.bxc3 a4
About 17 . . . i.e7 18.g3 - see 15 . . .
1e7.
In the game Yurtaev - Holm­
sten, Helsinki 1992, Black chose
17. . . �b2 18.g3 a4 19.0-0 i.e7
115
Chapter 9
20Jiab1 �bS 2 1.Elxb2 �xb2, but
White countered that with the
precise reaction 2 2 .�d1 ! , and
that provoked a swift outcome of
the fight after 22 . . . a3 23.�a4 ElcS
24 . .ia6 1-0.
18.g3 @h8 19. 0 - 0 ;t
In the game Betko - Lasanda,
Slovakia 1995, Black had great
problems. After the move he
played - 19 . . . .ie7, White's best
would be 20. ElabU
c) 13 . . "!be7
That is a standard method of
neutralizing White's knight on dS,
but in this case Black fails to solve
his problems in the opening.
14.tbxf6 + !
This i s the right decision.
White compromises his oppo-
116
nent's pawn-structure on the
kingside and that naturally en­
dangers his king. He plans to fol­
low with castling long. In general,
that is rather untypical for the
Chelyabinsk variation, but it is
quite promising in this position.
Tournament practice shows that
Black's defence is difficult.
14 . . . gxf6 15.ii.d3 d5
Black is forced to advance his
d-pawn, or his f-pawn; otherwise,
White deploys his knight on e3
with an overwhelming advantage.
Black's alternative to the main
line is - lS .. .fS. After 16.exfS
hfS (16 . . . dS 17.f6 ttJg6 lS.ttJb4±
Pletanek - Prachar, corr. 1996)
17.hfS ttJxfS lS.�d3 �d7 (It is
hardly any better for Black to try
lS ... �cS, Traut - Scholz, corr.
1996, 19.94 ttJe7 2 0.�xd6 �xg4
21.ttJe3±, or lS . . . �f6 19.0-0-0
ElfdS, T.Olafsson - Sanchez Ser­
rano, corr. 199S, 2 0 . ttJb4±. White
is clearly better after lS . . . ttJe7
19.0-0-0 Elb6 2 0 .ttJe3± Sorri
- Nokso Koivisto, Finland 1997.)
19. 0-0-0;1; (Kasparov) and White
is threatening g2-g4 with initia­
tive.
Instead of 16 . . . hfS, Black
plays more often 16 . . . ttJxfS, but
then 17.�hS e4 (only move) IS .
.ie2, and White obtains a com­
fortable blocking position. There
might follow IS . . . dS, Salzmann
- Strebel, Email 2 0 0 0 , 19.0-0-0
Elb6 20.ttJe3 ! ? ttJxe3 (20 ... Elh6
2 1. ElxdS ! ElxhS 22.ElxdS Elxh4 23.
Elxh4 ttJxh4 24.Eld6;t) 2 1.fxe3;1;;

1B . . . lLlg7 19.VNh6 l3b6, Hjartarson
- Schandorff, Reykjavik 1997,
20. 0-0-0 dS 2 1.Wld2;1;; 1B . . . Wle7,
Belotti - Leoncini, Montecatini
Terme 1995, 19. 0-0-0;1;; 1B . . . aS,
Borge - Schandorff, Denmark
1995, 19.'1Wg4+ lLlg7 (Black pro­
tects indirectly his e4-pawn. It is
not good for him to play 19 . . . lt>hB
2 0 .Wlxe4 !XeB 21.Wld3±) 20.Wlf4;1;
16.exd5
16 ••• 'ifxdS
The move 16 . . . 1L1xdS, seems to
be a mistake after 17. WlhS, but in
the game Jedryczka - Debowiak,
Czestochowa 199B, Black played
like that and the fight continued
with 17 . . . f5 1B.ixfs ixfS 19.VNxfS
lLlf4. This original idea is insuf­
ficient, however. White obtains
an advantage by force in the end­
game after 20.l3dl ! ? lLlxg2+ 21.
It>e2 lLlf4+ 22.1t>f3 Wle7 23.l3d7
VNe6 24.VNxe6 lLlxe6 (24 . . . fxe6 25.
lLlb4±) 2S.l3g1+ It>hB 26.l3dS f6 27.
lLlb4;1; - Black's king is stranded
on the hB-square, while White
has occupied the open files and he
has a superior pawn-structure.
In the game Vuckovic - Kerek,
Guarapuava 1995, Black opted
11.c3 0 - 0 12. 1L1 c2 l3b8 13.h4
for 16 .. .fS. White should have
played here 17.'ifhS VNxdS (about
17 . . . 1L1xdS - see 16 . . . 1L1xdS; 17 . . . e4
1B.WlgS+ lLlg6 19 . .te2 VNxdS 2 0 .
lLlb4 'ifcS 2 1.l3dU) 1B.VNgS+ lLlg6
19.1L1b4 ! , and that would lead to a
situation similar to the main line
(16 . . . VNxdS), except that White's
knight had chosen another route
and it was much better at that.
Black cannot be happy with the
line: 19 . . . VNcS 2 0.ixfS±, or 19 . . .
VNe6 20.hS f6 (It i s a disaster for
Black to try 2 0 . . . VNe7? 21.'ifh6+-,
while if 2 0 ... e4 2 1..tc2 f6, then
2 2.VNe3, and it would not work for
Black to play 2 2 . . . 1L1eS? in view of
23 . .tb3 lLlc4 24.VNg3+-) 21.VNxfS !
WlxfS 2 2 .ixfs ixfS 23.hxg6 hxg6
24.1L1xa6±. Black's relatively best
defence is 19 . . . VNb7 2 0.hfS f6
21.Wlg4 hfS 22.VNxfS l3bdB (It
is too risky for Black to follow
with 22 . . . VNxg2 23.0-0-0±, since
White's attack is crushing.), but
after 23.1L1d3;1; White preserves
his extra pawn without any seri­
ous compensation for Black.
17. 1L1e3 'llYe 6
Some other lines have been
tried: 17 . . . VNd7 1B.VNe2 fS 19.
0-0-0 Wle6 2 0 .g4! f4 21.1L1fS±
Grube - Heide, COIT. 1996; 17. . .
Wlc6, Rigo - Zojer, Banska Stia­
vnica 2006, 1B.'ifc2 ! ± - it is es­
sential for White to prevent f6-fS.
18.VNh5 f5
In the famous game Kasparov
- Lautier, Moscow 1994, in which
that position was reached for the
first time, Black advanced his cen-
117
Chapter 9

tral pawn prematurely and he lost while against 19.94, Black has the
his control over the f4-square. M­ resource 19 . . . Wfg6 !
ter IS . . . e4? ! 19.ic2 b4 (In case of 19 Wfg6
•••

19 . . .fS 2 0.%YgS+ ! whS 21.%Yf4 �b6 About 19 . . . whS 2 0.ic2 b4

22. 0-0-0, Black loses imme­ 21.c4 e4 - see lS . . . e4.
diately after 22 . . . lDg6?, because In case of 19 . . . %Yxa2? 2 0 .WfgS+
of 23.Wfh6 - threatening 24.hS, lDg6 2 1.ibl! Black is defense­
while the move 23 . . . �gS loses to less : 21.. .%YaS 2 2 . lDdS+-; 2 1 . . .Wfe6
24.,ib3+-, and Black's queen has 22.,txfS %Ya2 (22 . . . Wfe7 23.lDdS!
no square to retreat to.) 20.c4 WhS %YxgS+ 24.hxgS+-) 23.hS hfS
(20 .. .fS 21.WfgS+ whS 2 2 .%Yf4±) (23 . . .f6 24.%Yg4+-) 24.%YxfS+-
21.0-0-0 fS 22.%YgS± White Black's position is very diffi­
seized the initiative and he gave cult after 19 . . . b4? ! 2 0.WfgS+ whS
no respite to his opponent to the 21.ic4±
end of the game. The thirteenth 2 0 .%Yf3 ! ?
World Champion finished off his This move has not been tested
attack instructively and spectacu­ sufficiently, but it is very interest­
larly: 22 . . . �b6 23.hS �c6? ! (Black ing and ambitious. Kasparov men­
had better try 23 . . . �gS 24.Wff4 tioned it in his comments about
Wfh6, Kasparov, at least exchang­ his game against Lautier. White's
ing queens.) 24.wbl �cS 2S.h6 queen eyes Black's fS-pawn and
%YeS (2S . . . �gS 26.�dS +-) 26.�hS ! that provokes him to play either
�gS (26 . . . lDg6 27.�dS+-; 26 . . . lDc6 eS-e4, weakening the f4-square,
27.lDg4 ! fxg4 2S.%Yg7+-) 27.lDg4 ! or ib7. In the latter case, Black
1 - 0 . Black resigned, since his po­ loses his control over the impor­
sition was hopeless following 27. . . tant cS-h3 diagonal and that is es­
�xgS 2S.lDxeS �xhS 29.�dS+ lDgS sential in numerous variations.
30.lDxt7# , as well as after 27 . . . White has a calmer and reliable
Wfe6 2S.�dS+- alternative, leading to a favour­
able endgame for him - 2 0 .%YgS.
There might follow 20 .. .f6 (if 20 . . .
%YxgS 21.hxgS ie6, then 2 2 .g4 fxg4
23.�xh7 �bdS 24.�h6;!;) 21.Wfxg6+
hxg6 2 2 .ic2 . White's advantage
is based on his extra queenside
pawn, his domination over the
d-file, as well as on Black's com­
promised pawn-structure on the
kingside.
19. 0 - 0 - 0 ! If 22 .. .f4, then 23.lDdS lDxdS
The a2-pawn is untouchable, 24.�xdS Wg7 (24 . . . ,ib7 2S.�d6

11S

hg2 26J3g1 f3 27.ixg6±) 25.h5
gxh5 26J!xh5 �b6 (26 . . . �h8?
27.�xh8 �xh8 2 8.�d8+ �g7 29.
if5+-) 27.�h7+ �g8 28.�d1
ie6 29.�dh1 f5 30.�1h6± Chorfi
- T.Olafsson, corr. 1999.
In the game Solozhenkin - Sit­
nikov, Russia 1999, Black chose
22 . . . �g7 and after 23.h5! g5 (23 . . .
f4 24.hxg6 !±; 23 . . . gxh5 24.�xh5
�h8 25.�xh8 �xh8 26.�d8± Solo­
zhenkin) 24.h6+ �h8 25.f3± he
had problems. It would be in fa­
vour of White if he had played
23 . . . �h8 24.hxg6 ie6 (24 . . . �xh1
25.�xh1 �xg6 26.g4±) 25.�h7 +
�xh7 26.gxh7 �h8 27.�d6;.t Sal­
vador Marques - Rousselot, corr.
1994.
It is more precise for Black to
defend with 22 . . . �b6, but then
White is not obliged to play the
hasty line 23.h5 g5� (White's h5-
pawn becomes a potential weak­
ness.). It is preferable for him to
follow with the accurate 23.g3 ! ?
ie6 24.ib3 �g7 (24 . . . ixb3 25.
axb3;.t), and only now 25.h5 f4
(25 . . . g5 2 6.ixe6 �xe6 27.�d7±)
26.gxf4 exf4 27 . .!L'lc2;!; with a trans­
fer of the knight to the d4-square
to follow. In the game Pletanek -
Tomecek, corr. 1996, Black played
24 . . . �f7, and after 25.h5 gxh5
26.�xh5 ixb3 27.axb3 �e6=, the
centralization of his king equal­
ized the game. White's play could
be improved with the line: 26.�d7!
hb3 (26 . . . �e8 27.�a7;!;) 27.axb3
�e6 28.�xe7+ ! �xe7 29.�d5+
�e6 (29 . . . �d6 30.�xb6 �c6 31.
11.c3 0 - 0 12 . � c2 �b8 13.h4
�xh5 f4 32.gxf4 �xb6 33.�f5±)
30.�xb6 �b8 31 . .!L'la4 bxa4 32.
bxa4 �h8 33.�h4 !;.t with consider­
able winning chances in the rook
ending. These variations show
that Black must fight long and
hard for a draw.
2 0 . . . b4
After 20 . . . e4? ! 21.Wff4± - the
defenselessness of the rook on b8
is the tactical motive behind the
move 20.Wff3.
Black can play 20 . . . ib7, with­
out the inclusion of the moves
2 0 . . . b4 21.c4, but then 2 1.Wfe2
e4 2 2 .ic2 f4 23.h5 Wf6 (23 . . . Wfg5
24.Wg4;!;) 24 . .!L'lg4 Wfg5 (if24 . . . We6,
then 25.ib3±) 25.�b1;l; White's
prospects are better.
21.c4 .tb7
22.Wfe2 !
White's queen is better placed
here than on h3. There will soon
appear a black pawn on the e4-
square and it must be kept under
control.
22 . . . e4
In case of 22 . . . Wff6 ! ? 23.ic2
�fd8, it looks attractive for White
to advance his rook-pawn, en­
larging the scope of action of his
119
Chapter 9
rook: 24.hS gd4 (This is a seem­
ingly attractive idea.) 2S.h6 gbdB
26.gxd4 �d4 (If 26 . . . exd4, White
has the resource 27.1L1xfS ! lLlxfS
2B.�g4±) 27.ghS ! e4 2B.f3;!;, and
White is better.
23.ic2 f4 24.hS!
That i s a n important interme­
diate move. It is now essential
where Black's queen will go.
24 •gS
•••
If 24 . . . Wff6 ? ! , then 2S.1L1dS !
lLlxdS ( 2 S . . . .ixdS 26.cxdS±) 26.
Wfxe4! ± - and in connection with
the checkmating threat on h7,
White regains his material with
interest and Black's position re­
mains very difficult. In this varia­
tion, you can see the tactical re­
sources behind White's move 2 2 .
His task becomes much more
difficult after 24 . . . �h6. It turns
out that the discovered check is
not so dangerous for White, so
he can play 2S.1L1dS lLlxdS (It is
weaker for Black to opt for 2S . . .
f3+ 26.�e3 �xe3+ 27.1L1xe3 fxg2
2B.ghg1 gfdB 29.gxg2+ , and later
29 . . . 'it>fB 3 0J'3dgl±, or 29 . . . 'it>hB
30.gxdB+ 13xdB 31.13gS±. It is
hardly any better for Black to try
2S . . . .ixdS 26.cxdS fS 27.d6 f3+
28.�e3 �xe3+ 29.fxe3 lLlc6 30.
gxf3 exf3 31.13hg1+ 'it>hB 32.d7±
- and White's passed pawn is
very powerful, while Black's king
is endangered.) 26.cxdS f3+ (It is
rather unsafe for Black to avoid
the trade of queens: 26 .. .fS 27.d6
or 26 . . . 13feB 27.ghe1 fS 2B.f3 �xhS
29.d6;;) 27.�e3 �xe3+ 2 B.fxe3,
120
and White ends up in a slightly
better endgame. The fight might
continue like that: 2B . . . fxg2 29.
13hgU; 2 B . . . gfeB 29.13d4;!;; 29 . . .
gbcB 29.'it>b1 gfeB 30.gh4;!; - and
in all the variations Black's pawn­
weaknesses are quite obvious;
nevertheless, White's victory is
not guaranteed at all.
2S.'irJg4!
That move is necessary and it
had to be anticipated in advance.
2S ••• h6
It is too dubious for Black to
play 2S . . .f6?! 26.�e6+ gO (26 . . .
'it>hB 27.Wfxe7 fxe3 2 B .fxe3 �xe3+
29.'it>bl±) 27.1L1g4 'it>fB (If 27 . . .f3+
2B.lLle3 WfeS, then 29.�xeS fxeS
30.gxf3 gxf3 31.13d7±, while in
case of 27. . . gbfB, White has the
tactical strike 2B.lLlxf6 + ! �xf6
29.Wfxf6 gxf6 30.gd7±. It is insuf­
ficient for Black to play 27 . . J'3eB
2B.ia4 gefB 29.ghg1 ! ?±) 2B.ghe1
f3+ 29.1L1e3 �eS (29 . . . fxg2 30J'3g1
WfxhS 31.gxg2±) 30 .�xeS fxeS 31.
gxf3 gxf3 32.1L1g4± - and the end­
game is difficult for Black.
It is also in favour of White, if
Black plays 2S . . . �xg4 26.1L1xg4 fS
27. 1Ll eS;!;

26.'ibgS+ bxgS 27.c!Llg4 f5
28.c!LleS;l;;
White has the initiative, al­
though Black has defensive re­
sources. Here, it seems too risky
for him to play 28 . . . e3 29.lDd7
hg2 3 0 . �hgl±. It is more reli­
able for Black to continue with
28 . . . �fd8, but White maintains
his advantage even then after
29.h6 wh7 (29 . . . e3 30 .fxe3 fxe3
31.�h5±) 30.�xd8 �xd8 31.lDt7
�g8 32.�dU threatening to pen­
etrate along the open d-file.
d) 13 . . . g6 ! ?
This move i s quite popular.
Black plans at first to retreat with
his bishop to g7 and to follow that
eventually with lDc6-e7. The ob­
vious defect of the move is that
11.c3 0 - 0 12. lD c2 �b8 13.h4
White has the possibility to open
the h-file.
14.g3 �g7
It is only a transposition of
moves after 14 . . . !e6 15.i.h3 (15.
lDxf6 + ? ! Wlxf6 16.Wlxd6? Wlf3 !+)
15 . . . i.g7 (If 15 . . . hd5 16. �xd5
lDe7, then it is good for White
to play 17.Wld3 d5 18.exd5 Wlxd5
19.�xd5 lDxd5 2 0 . 0-0-0;l;; with
a slightly better endgame, as well
17.�b3 ! ?±, which prevents 17 . . .
d5? ! , i n view o f 18.0-0-0 d4
19.cxd4 exd4 2 0.f4±) About 16.h5
- see 14 ... i.g7.
Black has not tested yet the
move 14 . . . h5, but it would not
solve his problems either. After
15.!h3 !e6 (Black complies with
that exchange only in that particu­
lar case.) 16.lDcb4 lDxb4 17.lDxb4±
White has the edge.
lS.hS J.e6
The fight develops in an
analogous fashion after 15 . . .
lDe7 16.lDce3 lDxd5 17.lDxd5 �e6
18.hxg6 hxg6 19.!h3 Wld7 2 0 .he6
fxe6 21.lDb4 - see the comments
to the final position of the main
line (18.lDcb4).
16.!h3
The exchange of the light­
squared bishops is in favour of
White, as a rule.
16 Wld7
.••
Black plans to recapture on e6
with his pawn, in order to repel
White's knight away from the d5-
outpost.
We must study some other
possibilities too:
121
Chapter 9
If 16 . . . b4, then 17.hxg6 hxg6
18.lDcxb4 bd5 (1B . . . lDxb4 19.
be6 lDxd5 2 0.bd5 llxb2 21.llb1
llxb1 22:�xbl;!;) 19.1Dxd5 llxb2 20.
Wfcl;!; - White preserves his con­
trol over the d5-square;
The exchange of the bishop
for White's knight does not solve
any problems either: 16 . . . bd5
17.Wfxd5 lDe7 1B.Wfd3 Wfb6 19.hxg6
hxg6 2 0.lld1 llbdB 21.lDe3;!; Leh­
tioksa - Nokso Koivisto, Finland
199B ;
In the variation 16 . . . a5 17.
lDce3 lDe7 (In case of 17. . . Wfg5,
White forces his opponent to cap­
ture on h3 with the help of the
line: 1B.lDc7! bh3 19.1lxh3 llfdB
2 0 .'J;'f1 b4 21.lDcd5 lldcB 22 .Wfa4
bxc3 23.bxc3 WfdB 24.@g2 lDe7
25.hxg6 hxg6 26.llhh1!± J.Polgar
- Illescas, Leon 1996 and he ob­
tains a great positional advantage,
thanks to his dominance over the
d5-outpost and the superiority
of his knight over the bishop. If
17 . . . Wfd7, then White should re­
frain from the straightforward
line: 1B .hxg6 hxg6 19.1Df5? gxf5
2 0 .Wfh5 f6 !+ and he should pre­
fer the calmer variation: 1B.h6 !
�hB 19.�g2, with a better game
for White. It would be too risky
for Black to try 19 . . .f5? ! , because
of 2 0 .exf5 gxf5 2 1.llh5 !±) 1B.hxg6
hxg6 19.1Dxe7+ Wfxe7 2 0 .Wfd3;!;
and White has again a stable ad­
vantage.
17.bxg6 bxg6
After 17 . . . bh3 1B.Wfh5 fxg6
19.Wfxh3 Wfxh3 20J�xh3;!;, or 17 . . .
122
fxg6 1B.be6+ Wfxe6 19.Wfe2;!; (van
Kempen) White's position is quite
comfortable.
lS.lDcb4!?;!;
In the game Barlow - van
Kempen, corr. 1997, White chose
1B.ig2, and after Black's precise
reaction 1B . . . b4 ! 19.1Ddxb4 lDxb4
20.lDxb4 a5, he even managed to
seize the initiative.
I believe that the new move
1B.lDcb4 leaves Black with fewer
active possibilities. See an exem­
plary line, which shows that White
maintains a slight, but stable edge,
while Black must fight patiently to
equalize: 1B . . . lDxb4 19 .be6 fxe6
(Black's attempt to deflect his op­
ponent's queen from the kingside
does not facilitate his defensive
task either: 19 . . . lDc2+ 2 0 .Wfxc2
fxe6 21.lDe3;!;) 20.lDxb4 a5 21.lDd3
Wffl (It is also possible to try 21...
llbcB 22 .Wfg4 llf6 23.0-0-0 Wfb7
24.@bl;!;, or 21.. .b4 22.cxb4 axb4
23.0-0;!;) 22 .Wfg4;!;
e) 13 .te7
•.•
That is Black's most reliable
line. He avoids weakening of his
kingside and retreats his bishop

to e7 with the idea to follow that
with the development of his other
bishop to e6, the queen to d7 and
the maneuver i.d8-b6 and to play
at some moment !iJe7. I have to
mention that it is not easy at all
for White to obtain a serious ad­
vantage in that line.
14.!iJce3 J.e6
About 14 . . . a5 - see 13 . . . a5.
When Black's bishop is on
e7, it is rather untypical for him
to play 14 . . . g6? ! , Zinchenko -
Kruglyakov, Alushta 2006, 15.g3
J.e6 (15 .. .f5 16.h5 fxe4 17.hxg6
hxg6 18 .J.g2±) 16.Y;Yf3 b4 (16 .. .f5
17.h5±) 17.ic4±
The move 14 . . . b4 enables
White to deploy his pieces quite
comfortably: 15.ic4 bxc3 16.bxc3
Y;Ya5 17.Y;Yd3 �d8, Mijnheer -
Schenkeveld, Hoogeveen 2006,
18.g3±
It might be interesting for
Black to try 14 . . . h6 ! ? Black thus
creates a real threat to capture
White's h4-pawn and he prevents
the advance h4-h5-h6. That move
was tested in the game Sevecek -
Joseph, corr. 1994, in which Black
solved successfully his opening
11.c3 0 - 0 12. !iJ c2 �b8 13.h4
problems. White had however,
the excellent possibility 15.Y;Yh5 ! ?
(instead of the schematic 15.g3).
After 15 . . . i.e6 (15 . . .b4 16.J.c4±)
16.ie2 b4 17.i.g4 bxc3 18.bxc3±
White plans to organize a danger­
ous attack with if5, !iJg4, �h3. In
case of 18 . . . 'it>h7 19.if5+, Black
loses after 19 . . . g6?, because of
2 0.!iJg4 ! +-
If 14 . . . �e8, Horcman - De
Saint Germain, corr. 1998, then
15.Y;Yf3 its 16.h5 h6 17.id3 !iJe7
18 .ic2± with slightly better pros­
pects for White.
15.YHf3 YHd7
About 15 . . . a5 16.g3 - see 13 . . .
ie6 14.!iJce3 a 5 15.Y;Yf3 ie7 16.g3.
In case of 15 ... b4, White is not
obliged to accept the challenge
and enter the line: 16.ixa6 bxc3
17.bxc3 YHa5 18.ic4, Lunde - Man­
sfield, corr. 1996, 18 . . . i.d8+t. It
would be much simpler for him to
play 16.ic4 bxc3 17.bxc3±, reach­
ing the standard position.
16.gdl
White has also tried the radi­
cal solution 16.g4 id8 17.id3, but
after 17 . . . a5 ! oo, followed by b5-b4,
Black's counterplay is sufficient
123
Chapter 9
and tournament practice has con­
firmed that.
The move 16J�dl seems to me
as a calmer solution and I advise
my readers to follow it. White de­
ploys his forces optimally and he
refrains from drastic changes of
his pawn-structure.
16 ••• .ld8 17 .le2 c!lJe7
•
There might arise a large scale
exchange of light pieces on the
dS-square rather soon. There will
remain opposite-coloured bish­
ops on the board, but that would
not guarantee any easy equality
for Black at all, since there will
be queens and rooks left on the
board. It is essential to understand
that White must strive to capture
on dS with a piece and not with
a pawn, in order to sustain the
pressure against the d6-square.
The exceptional case is when he
can create threats against his op­
ponent's king by opening the bl­
h7 diagonal.
18.h5 h6
That move is just obligatory;
otherwise White's rook-pawn will
advance even further.
After 18 . . . ixdS 19.itJxdS itJxdS
20J'1xdS, it would be a mistake for
Black to play 2 0 . . .fS?, because of
21.exfS E1xfS 22.E1xd6 !± Morawi­
etz - Hoffmann, Norway 2 00S.
19. 0 - 0
(diagram)
19 ••. .lb6
That is the most popular move
for Black, but I am not convinced
that it is the best.
124
There is another idea, which
deserves a great attention - to
remove the queen from the d7-
square, with the aim to free
squares for the light-squared
bishop and to create the positional
threat of capturing White's knight
on dS. Let us see what might hap­
pen in that case:
The move 19 .. .'\Wb7! ? has been
tested in the game Kurmann
- Zinchenko, Istanbul 2 00S. In­
stead of the rather modest move
2 0.a3, White could have played
20.itJfS, after which Black is faced
with a choice. He can reach simi­
lar positions to the main line with
the variation: 2 0 . . . ixfS 21.exfS
itJxdS 22.E1xdS;!;, or 2 0 . . . itJxfS
21.exfS hdS (21.. .�d7 2 2 .f6±)
22.E1xdS;!;. In case of 20 . . .ixdS
21.itJxe7+ ixe7 2 2 . E1xdS;!; White
maintains his edge again. It looks
like Black can solve his problems
with the help of 2 0 . . . itJxdS, but
after 21.itJxd6 (The exchange­
sacrifice looks too optimistic
- 21.E1xdS? ! ixdS 22.exdS g6!+)
21. . . 'lWc6 22.exdS 'lWxd6 23.dxe6
'lWxe6 and White turns out to be
better prepared for the opening of
the central file. There might fol-
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . llJ c2 l3bB 13.h4

low 24.�dS ! ? �fS (The endgame

is rather unpleasant for Black af­
ter 24 . . . �xdS 2SJ3xdS .tf6 26J3d6
as 27J3dS !;!;; in case of 24 . . . V«f6,
it is good for White to react with
2S.V«d6 ! .tb6 26.�xf6 gxf6 27J3d6
l3fd8 ! ? 28.l3fd1 @g7 29.ig4;!;; if
24 . . . l3e8, then 2S.V«e4! if6 26.l3dS
l3bd8 27.l3fdlt, and White in­
creases his pressure with queens 2 2.id3?! igS 23.ic2 b4 ! 24.llJxd6
present on the board.) 2S.V«d7! l3fd8c;o and Black had no problems
(The trade of queens would enable at all.
White to penetrate on the open Instead of 22 .id3, it is stron­
file.) 2S . . . �xd7 (2S . . . �f4 26.�g4 ger for White to play 22.�g3 !?, so
ib6 27.�xf4 exf4 28.l3d6;!;) 26. that after 22 . . . ixfS 23.exfS igS
l3xd7 ib6 27.l3fd1 l3fd8 28.@f1 24.l3dS;!; he can obtain the typi­
@f8 29.ig4 l3xd7 30.l3xd7 l3d8 cal pawn-structure for that varia­
31.l3b7t. White can play for a win tion. Black has at his disposal
in that endgame without any risk an interesting possibility - 22 . . .
whatsoever. Black's queenside igS ! ? (temporary pawn-sacrifice)
pawns are vulnerable and the f7- 23.llJxd6if4 (23 . . . ha2 24.�xeS±)
square is potentially very weak. 24. V«f3 ixa2 . The first impression
Quite recently, in the game is that Black has no problems, but
Karjakin - Yakovich, Sochi 2007, White's resources have not been
Black tried a new move 19 . . . V«c8 ! ? exhausted yet. After 2S.l3a1 ! �xd6
and after 2 0 .llJxe7+ he7 21.llJfS (2S . . . ie6 26.l3xa6 b4 27.c4;!;) 26.
(White has no advantage after l3xa2 and there arises the usual
21.b3 igS ! ? 22.l3xd6 �xc3 23.l3xa6 material ratio (opposite-coloured
he3 and in the game Jakovenko bishops with heavy pieces on the
- Ivanchuk, Foros 2 007, the op­ board) and White maintains the
ponents agreed to a draw in that initiative. There might follow
position, since White's attempts 26 . . . �e6 27.l3fa1 l3b6 28.g3 igS
to play for a win would have been 29.�f5 ! �c6 (if 29 . . . �xfS 30.exfS
fruitless, for example: 24.�xe3 l3a8, then 31.l3aS b4 32 .c4±, and
�xe3 2S.fxe3 l3a8 26.hbS l3xa6 Black's queenside pawns will be
27. l3xa6 l3a8 28.ic4 hc4 29.bxc4 an easy prey for White. In case
l3xa2 30.l3c1 @f8 = , or 28.ib7 l3xa2 of 29 . . . l3e8, White follows with
29.idS l3b2 30.l3a1 hdS 31.exdS 30.�xe6 l3exe6 31.c4, and Black is
l3xb3= and the rook endgames are faced with a difficult choice: 31. . .
quite drawish in both cases.) 21 . . . l3ec6?! 32.cxbS axbS 33.l3a8+ @h7
�c7 34.l31a7+-; 31.. .bxc4 32 .hc4±;

12S
Chapter 9
31.. .b4 32J3aS±) 30J!dU and
White occupies the d-file, or 26 . . .
�fd8 27.�d1 '.We6 (After 27. . . �b6
28.�dS !;!; White has the threat
- 29.g3.) 2 8.�dS ! igS (It is quite
risky for Black to open the b1-h7-
diagonal, for example 28 . . . �xdS? !
29.exdS �d6 30 .id3 �d8 31.ie4
wf8 32 .g3 igS 33.�fS±) 29.�aU
(It also deserves attention for
White to try 29.id1 !?, followed by
30.ib3.) - and White has a slight,
but stable advantage and he can
increase his pressure without any
risk.
2 0 .�f5 !
White exploits some spe­
cific features of the position in
the process of solving strategical
tasks. It is amazing, but Black has
four possible captures now, but
they might all lead to the same
situation by a transposition of
moves.
20 ... ixf5
About 2 0 . . . �xfS 21.exfS AxdS
22.�xdS - see 2 0 . . . ixfS.
After the trade on dS, White
will capture with his rook, taking
advantage of the defenselessness
of Black's queen on d7: 20 . . . �xdS
126
21.�xdS ! AxfS (It is obviously bad
for Black to play 2 1 . . . .txdS? 2 2.'.Wg4
'.WxfS 23.exfS ! ± threatening 24.f6
and 24.�d1.) 2 2 .exfS - see 20 . . .
!xfS, o r 2 0 . . . !xdS 21.�xdS ! �xdS
(about 21...�xfS 2 2 .exfS - see
20 . . . .txfS) 22.'.Wg4 �xfS 23.�xfS
tLlf6 24.�d1 �fd8 2S.g3;!; Korneev
- Khairullin, Sochi 2 0 06. Black's
queen-sacrifice for a rook and a
piece can enable him only to fight
for a draw at best.
21.exfS tLlxdS
Naturally, it is bad for Black
to play 21...tLlxfS? 2 2 .�xfS �xfS
23.tLle7+-
22.l3xdS;!;
There has arisen a standard
position again. There are op­
posite-coloured bishops on the
board and White has occupied
the dS-outpost and he has excel­
lent possibilities for active ac­
tions on both sides of the board.
The fact that Black's bishop is on
the queenside, creates prerequi­
sites for the effective pawn-ad­
vance fS-f6. In the game Zontakh
- Nakhapetiane, Moscow 2007,
Black chose 22 . . . e4 23.'.Wxe4 �fe8
24.'.Wf3 �e7 2S.id3±, but his
 11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 gbB 13.h4

pawn-sacrifice was not justified. gfd8 26.gfdU Kurmann - Wid­

Black has also tried 22 . . . �e7 23.f6 mer, Zug 2005 - and White has
�xf6 (23 . . . gxf6?! 24.i.d3 gfe8 considerable winning chances in
2 5.i.e4±) 24.Wlxf6 gxf6 25.gxd6 that endgame.

Conclusion

The prophylactic move 12 . . . gbB is still quite popular and it is prob­

ably as strong as the main line 12 ... i.g5. The drawback of that varia­
tion is that it is a bit slow and that enables White to restrict the mobil­
ity of Black's bishop on f6 with the move 13.h4! The character of the
subsequentfight largely depends on Black's decision on move 13.
White counters 13 . . . tiJ e7 with 14. tiJxf6+! - and later he chooses an
aggressive plan, including castling long and a kingside attack. After
13 ... g6, the fight is not so sharp - White exploits Black's g6-pawn as
a target for attack in order to open the h-file and he strives to trade
advantageously the light-squared bishops.
Black's most precise defensive line is - 13 . . . i.e7. The adherents to
that variation did not come to that move so easy, but presently al­
most everybody plays like that and the theory of that line has devel­
oped tremendously. White must play with great resourcefulness in
order to create real problemsfor Black. In general, it can be seen that
there usually appear opposite-coloured bishops on the board, but as
our readers have already seen, that circumstance does not guarantee
Black any easy equality at all.
Generally speaking, the variation with 12 . . . gbB seems to be reli­
able for Black, but White obtains an edge after an accurate play. In
some cases, that advantage becomes quite obvious after a transition
into an endgame. That implies that the White player should enjoy
playing endgames and possess good technique.

127
Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2 Jl�f3 ltlc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. ltlxd4
e6 5.ltlc3 e5 6.ltldb5 d6 7 . .ig5 a6
8.ltla3 b5 9.ltld5 J.e7 1 0 ..ixf6 .ixf6
11.c3 0 - 0 12.ltlc2 .ig5 13.a4

pawn here. 14.axb5 axb5 15.b:b5

The diagrammed position is
often encountered in contempo­
rary tournaments. Black is happy
that he has the two-bishop advan­
tage, some lead in development
and seemingly a very solid posi­
tion. White, in his stead, is try­
ing to prove that his control over
the central squares, the domi­
nation over the d5-outpost and
his queenside initiative is worth
much more than Black's above­
mentioned achievements.
Black has tried in this posi­
tion to preserve his b5-pawn with
a) 13 . . . gb8, but he has played in
practice most of all b) 13 . . . bxa4.
He has experimented with
some other moves as well, but
they can hardly be called logical:
13 . . . i.e6?! - It is not easy to
understand why Black gives up a
gxal 16.�xal hd5 17.exd5 liJe7
IB.liJb4 \Wb6 19.�a6± and White
remained with a solid extra pawn
in the game A.Zaitsev - Podchu­
farov, Tula 2 0 0 0 ;
1 3 . . . b4? ! 14.liJcxb4 liJxb4 15.
cxb4 f5 16.i.c4 wh8 17.exf5 hf5
18 . 0-0± White controls reliably
the light squares in the centre and
he will soon have two connected
passed pawns on the queenside,
Voelker - Hager, Bayern 2 0 0 2 .
a) 13 ... gb8
Black attempts to maintain
his pawn on b5, so that White's
bishop cannot occupy its most fa­
vourable placement on the c4-
square. The main drawback of
that move however is that Black's
b5-pawn becomes a liability
and its defence overburdens his
forces.
14.axb5 axb5 15.i.d3
White's plan is rather simple.
He wishes to attack Black's b5-
pawn with all his pieces and to
occupy the a-file, while later his
actions will depend on circum­
stances.

128

Black has played here mainly
a1) 15 .ie6, but it looks like his
•••
most resilient defensive move is
a2) 15 ••• lLle7.
He has tried too:
lS . . .fS? ! - This move weakens
the light squares in the centre and
on the kingside and it enables
White to exchange advantageously
the light-squared bishops. 16.exfS
.hiS (After 16 . . . e4?, the opening
of the e-file does not compen­
sate Black's loss of two pawns.
17.he4 l:!eB, Urbina - Caminos,
San Salvador 2 0 03, and here after
18.lDde3 ! +- White not only pre­
serves his couple of extra pawns,
but he creates some dangerous
threats.) 17.hfS l:!xfS 1B.0-0 e4
(In answer to 1B VNcB, Krantz -
•..
W.Schmidt, Esbjerg 1976, White
can play 19.YHg4 idB 2 0 .VNe4± and
he establishes total control over
the light squares in the centre of
the board.) 19.1Llce3 l:!eS 20.lLlg4
l:!eB, Holzschuh - Brener, Oster­
burg 2 0 06, after 20 . . . l:!fS 21.l:!e1±
Black has great problems with
the protection of his e4-pawn,
but here after 21.l:!a6 ! VNcB 22.lDc7
YHxc7 2 3.YHdS+ �hB 24.l:!xc6 YHd7
2S.h3± White simplifies the posi-
1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . lD c2 ig5 13.a4
tion quite favourably and Black
loses unavoidably one of his weak
pawns on e4, d6, or bS;
15 ... �hB - That move seems
to be just a loss of time. 16.VNe2
lLle7 17.lLlxe7 YHxe7 1B.lLlb4 ib7
19.0-0 VNe6, Ganguly - Buscar,
Guelph 2 0 05, and here after 2 0 .
l:!aS± Black loses his bS-pawn and
he obtains no positional pluses
for it;
lS . . .id7 - This bishop is
much more passive here than on
e6, but still the bS-pawn is safer.
16.0-0 g6 17.l:!a6 l:!b7 1B .VNe2 YHbB
19 .l:!fa1 t Black has no active coun­
terplay at all and White can easily
improve his position, for example
with g2-g3, followed by h2-h4,
AGoldberg - Schlachetka, COIT.
19B2;
lS ... lDaS, Bacic - Milinkovic,
Nova Gorica 2005 that is not the
best square for Black's knight.
His defence is not any easier after
16.lDcb4 ie6 (16 . . . id7 - It looks
like Black admits his mistake.
17. 0-0 lDc6 1B.lDxc6 hc6 19.YHb3
VNd7 20.l:!aSt White has a long­
lasting initiative thanks to his
domination over the dS-outpost,
the a-file and his pressure against
the weak bS-pawn.) 17. 0-0 l:!b7
1B .YHc2 g6 19.1:!a2± White has
occupied the a-file and he is evi­
dently ahead of his opponent in
the creation of concrete threats.
a1) 15 ••• .ie6
That is the most popular move
for Black, but it is hardly the best.
129
Chapter 1 0
16JNe2 !
In case of 16.ttJcb4 ttJxb4 17.
ttJxb4, White can transpose to
variation a2), but the move in
the text is better, because he
wins a pawn and Black has prob­
lems proving any compensation
for it.
16 .txd5
.•.
Black has considerable diffi­
culties after his other moves too:
Following 16 . . .fS 17. 0-0 ixdS
18.exdS ttJe7 19.ixbS §'b6 2 0.ttJa3
§'b7 21.c4± Black loses a pawn
without any compensation at all,
Wajnberg - B.Johnson, Email
1999;
After 16 ... ttJe7 17.ttJcb4 ttJxdS
18.exdS .id7, Diesen - Gvein, Oslo
2006, it deserves attention for
White to continue with 19.ttJc6 ! ?
ixc6 (After 1 9 . . J'!a8 2 0 . 0-0±
Black obtains no compensation
for the eventual loss of his bS­
pawn.) 20.dxc6 %!ib6 (In the vari­
ation 2 0 . . . dS 21.0-0 e4 2 2 .ixbS
%!ib6 23 . .ia4 §'xb2 24.§'xb2 13xb2
2S.13ablt White's passed c6-pawn
looks quite threatening.) 21.Wfe4
g6 2 2 . 0-0 13fc8 23.§'g4 id8 24.
ie4;!; White's c6-pawn might be­
come a considerable asset only in
130
the endgame, but still he has the
advantage, because his pieces are
evidently much more active.
17.exd5 tOe7 18.tOb4 f5
This is the most popular move
for Black. He does not wish to de­
fend passively and he tries to seize
the initiative on the kingside.
18 . . . Wfe8 - Black fails to pre­
serve his bS-pawn in that fashion
and he does not achieve anything
with the transfer of his queen to
the kingside, 19.0-0 fS 20.13aS
e4 21.ixbS Wfg6 2 2 .f4± Black's
kingside counterplay has reached
its dead end and White has re­
mained with a solid extra pawn
in the game Skrochocka - Baran,
Krynica 2 001.
18 ... §,d7 19.0-0 ttJg6 2 0 .
,hg6 ! ? hxg6, Ba1cerak - Eikeland,
Porsgrunn 1996, and here after 21.
ttJc6 13b7 22.13aS± Black loses his
bS-pawn and his kingside coun­
terplay is nowhere to be seen.
18 . . . Wfb6 19.§'hS h6 2 0 .h4 g6?,
Muhren - Shiraliyeva, Oropesa
del Mar 2001, Black had bet­
ter try here 20 . . . if6 21.§'g4 13a8
2 2 . 0-0±, but White still would
maintain a stable advantage
thanks to the vulnerability of the
light squares on Black's kingside.
Now, after 21.§'f3 ! 13a8 2 2 . 13xa8
13xa8 23.We2 .ti4 24.g3 e4 2S.
§'xe4 ieS 26.hS+- Black manag­
es to save his bishop indeed, but
he pays a dear price for that. He
has remained without a pawn and
under a dangerous attack.
19.1xb5

19 Vlb6, Vilaltella - Porta,
.• •
Spain 1999 (In answer to 19 . . . e4,
White obtains a considerable edge
with the line: 2 0 . 0-0 Vlb6 21.id7
@hB 2 2 J �a6±. It is even worse for
Black to play 21 . . J�f6 2VlJc6!
�xc6 23.dxc6 d5 24.Vla6 Vlc7 25.
�a7+-, since the presence of op­
posite-coloured bishops on the
board does not facilitate his de­
fence, because White's c6-pawn is
too difficult to be stopped. 25 . . .
if4 26.�xc7 hc7 27J�a7 ie5
2B.b4 1-0 O'Donovan - Gilbert,
Saint Vincent 2 005.), and here
White can improve his position
considerably by transferring his
bishop to the centre with: 2 0 .id7
�g6 (or 20 . . J �aB 21. 0-0±) 21.
ie6+ @h8 22. 0 - 0 �f4 23.'iNa6
'iNc7 24.g3±. If Black plays 24 . . .
�xe6, then after 25.dxe6, White's
knight obtains an excellent out­
post in the centre of the board,
otherwise the knight-maneuvers
would turn out to be a loss of
time.
a2) 15 . . . �e7
This is a logical decision,
Black fights for the important d5-
square.
J1.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 ig5 13.a4
16.�cb4
16 . . . �xd5
Black defensive task is much
more difficult after his other pos­
sibilities :
16 . . . id7, Gauche - Bielefeldt,
Florianopolis 199B, This looks
like a loss of time in connection
with the fight for the d5-square
and White's most natural reac­
tion seems to be 17. 0-0 �xd5
IB.�xd5 ic6 19.�b3 �d7 2 0J��a5
�b7 2 1.�a3 �d7 2 2 . �b4t, Black
is doomed to a difficult defence,
because of his weaknesses on b5
and d6;
16 ... ib7 - Black's bishop
will be very active here in case
he manages to push f7-f5, but it
would be rather easy for White
to exchange it on that diagonal.
17.�xe7+ 'iNxe7 1B .0-0 f5 (It is
obvious worse fqr Black to play
the passive line: 1B . . . iaB 19.�e2
g6 20J�a5 f5, Pavlik - Skaric, Su­
botica 2 0 04, and here after 21.exf5
gxf5 2 2 .ixb5±, or 2 1. . . e4 2 2 .hb5
l3xf5 23.l3fa1 ib7 24.ic4+ @hB
25.l3xf5 gxf5 26.id5± White re­
mains with a solid extra pawn.
The move 1B . . . 'iNdB does not re-
131
Chapter 1 0
duce Black's difficulties, connect­
ed with the protection of his b5-
pawn. 19.�e2 m6 20J�fd1 !e7,
Reschun - Biedekoepper, St. Veit
1995, and now after 21.hb5 he4
2 2 .�xe4 �xb5 23.tLlc6 13b7 24.c4
�b6 25.b4± White dominates in
the centre and on the queenside.)
19.exf5 e4 2 0.hb5 e3 21.!c4+
@h8 22.fxe3± Black's piece-ac­
tivity does not compensate fully
his opponent's extra pawn and
after 2 2 . . . he3+ 23.@h1 �e4 24.
1d5± White simplifies the posi­
tion advantageously, Bindrich
- Arnhold, Leutersdorf 2000.
Things are hardly any better for
Black after the more active line:
22 ... �xe3+ 23.@h1 hg2 + (In
the variation: 23 ... �e4 24.�e2
13xf5 25. �xe4 he4 26.13xf5 hiS
27.tLlc6± Black has nothing to
counter his opponent's passed
pawns with.) 24.@xg2 �e4+ 25.
�f3 �xc4 26. 13ael± White's king
shelter does not look so safe in­
deed, but Black can hardly exploit
that in any way, while he remains
a pawn down.
17.tLlxd5 .te6
17 .. .f5? ! - This move seems
active only at first sight. In fact, it
weakens a complex of squares in
the centre. After 18.exf5 e4 19.!c2 !
his 2 0 . 0- 0 �d7 21.�d4± Black
has problems with the protection
of his second rank, as well with
his vulnerable pawns on e4, d6
and b5, Stepanovic - Zacik, Slo­
vakia 2 0 03.
18.tLlb4
132
Black's position looks reliable
enough, but he has weak pawns
on b5 and d6 and his defence is
not easy at all.
18 �d7
•.•
That is the most popular move
for Black, but it is much rather
not the best.
18 . . . 13b7 - This is not the best
square for Black's rook. 19.0-0 g6
(About 19 . . . �d7 2 0 .13a6 - see 18 . . .
�d7 19.0-0 g 6 20.13a6.) 2 0 . 13a6 f5,
Sermier - Crouan, Sautron 2001,
and here after 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .�e2
�d7 23.tLlc6 f4 24.f3± Black loses
his b5-pawn and his chances of
organizing anything real on the
kingside are just negligent.
18 . . . 13b6 - Black's rook pro­
tects both weak pawns from here,
but it remains rather passive.
19.0-0 g6 (After 19 . . . 1f4?! -
Black's dubious idea of organizing
a piece attack against the enemy
king leads to considerable mate­
rial losses for him. 2 0.g3 �g5? 21.
@h1 .tg4 22.gxf4 �h5 23.f3+- Ro­
zkov - Istrebin, Orsk 2 0 0 2 . After
19 . . . m8, Black's position remains
passive. 19.13a5 g6 2 0 .�e2 13c8,
Wege - Marth, Wiesbaden 1992,
and here White should not be in a

hurry to win a pawn and he should
better exploit the fact that its pro­
tection ties up Black's forces. He
should improve the position of his
pieces with the line: 2 1.�fal, for
example after 2 1 . . . ic4 22.ixc4
bxc4 23.g3±, or 21.. .id7 2 2 .ibl!
ie6 2 3.ia2± Black maintains the
material balance, but he cannot
activate his pieces.) 2 0.'i;lfe2 'i;lfd7
2 1.�a5 EifbS 22.EifaU - Black's
position looks solid, but he has no
active counterplay in sight, Trygs­
tad - Gvein, Oslo 2006.
IS ... EiaS ! - This is the most
natural move, because Black sim­
plifies the position and he im­
pedes White's attack against his
weaknesses, Ehlert - Kuehl, Kap­
peln 1990, and now after 19.EixaS
�xaS 2 0 . 0-0 EibS 21.'i;lfe2 'i;lfb7
2 2 .g3 g6 23.h4 idS 24.Eialt
White has the initiative, since he
can easily attack his opponent's
weak d6 and b5-pawns, while
Black has problems creating
counterplay. The following varia­
tions prove how difficult Black's
position is:
24 . . .f5 25.exf5 gxfS 26.ixb5
�xb5? 2 7.�xb5 Eixb5 2 S.EiaS+-
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ljj c2 ig5 13.a4
The position has been simplified
and White should not have great
problems to realize his extra
pawn;
24 . . . ib6 ! ? - That is the most
active placement of Black's dark­
squared bishop. 25.ixb5 ic5
(The rook and pawn ending is
very difficult for Black after 25 . . .
ixf2 + 26. c.t>xf2 'i;lfb6 + 27.c.t>el !
�xb5 28.�xb5 Eixb5 29.Eia6 d5
30.exd5 ixd5 31.ljj xd5 Eixd5 32.
b4± White's pawns are far ad­
vanced and Black must fight hard
for the draw, for example: 32 .. .
Eid3 33.c4 Eixg3 34.b5+-, or 32 .. .
f5 33.c4 Eid4 34.Eic6 �d3 35.b5
Eixg3 36.b6+- and White's pawns
are unstoppable in both cases.)
26.ia6 'i;lfd7 27.�d2;j; White will
not realize his extra pawn easily,
but Black still does not have a full
compensation for it;
24 . . . c.t>g7 25.ljj a6 EicS (or 25 . . .
EiaS 26.ixb5 ig4 27.�d3 ib6
28.�f1 ! ?;j;) 26.ixb5 f5 27.ljj b 4 !
Eic5 2S.id3;j; and White has an
extra pawn, but Black's pieces are
active and its realization will be
rather difficult.
19. 0 - 0
133
Chapter 1 0
19 ••• g6
Black's only possible coun­
terplay is connected with the ad­
vance f7-f5. That is not so easy to
prepare, though.
The immediate move 19 .. .f5?
is obviously premature and leads
to White's complete control over
the light squares in the centre.
20.exfS ixf5 21.ixfS �xfS 22.�a6
Ae7? (Black could have main­
tained some illusion of a resis­
tance only with the line: 22 . . . �f6
23.WidS+ @h8 24.�a8±) 23.lLlc6
�bf8 24.Wid5+ @h8 25.�a7 1-0
Ortiz Fernandez - Blanco Fer­
nandez, Oviedo 2004.
19 ... @h8 ? ! 2 0.Wie2 fS, van Al­
fen - Plukkel, Haarlem 2001, and
here after 21.exf5 ixf5 22.ixfS
�xf5 23.�fdl± White has a great
advantage, because of his control
over the centre after the trade of
the light-squared bishops.
19 . . . �b7 2 0 . �a6 �fb8 21.Wie2
l3b6 22.l3xb6 �xb6 23.�al± Black
has succeeded in exchanging a
pair of rooks indeed, but he still
fails to protect his b5-pawn. 23 . . .
Wib7? (After 23 . . . g 6 24.�a5±
White wins a pawn.) 24.ixbS !e7
2S.Ac4 ixc4 26.'!Wxc4+- White's
pieces are much more active and
he has an extra pawn too, Jadoul
- Fournell, Luxembourg 1987.
In answer to 19 . . . id8, Ahn
- Sprenger, Germany 1999, it de­
serves attention for White to con­
tinue with 2 0.Wie2 ! ? , and if Black
continues with the transfer of his
bishop, then after 20 . . . !b6 21.�a6
134
ic5 22.lLlc6 ! �a8 23.�xa8 l3xa8
24.ixb5 '!Wc7 25.b4 !b6 26.c4± he
will remain a pawn down.
19 . . . �fc8, Kriens - J. Larsen,
Soro 1982, and here after 2 0 .'!We2
!d8 21.l3a6 �cS 2 2 .�faU Black's
position is solid, but quite pas­
sive.
2 0 .ti'e2 �Uc8
Otherwise, Black can hardly
protect his b5-pawn :
20 . . . h5? ! 21.�aS if4 2 2 .ixbS±
Antognini - Lehmann, Winter­
thur 2003;
2 0 . . .f5 - That move only cre­
ates additional weaknesses. 21.
�a6 ! @h8, Fabrega - Rodriguez,
Buenos Aires 1995, and here
after 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 2 2 . lLlc6 �b7
23.ixb5± White not only wins
a pawn, but he creates powerful
pressure against his opponent's
central pawns.
2U!a5 ic4 22.l3fal �b7 23.
ixc4 bxc4 24.�dU
Black's weak c4 and d6-pawns
need protection and he has prob­
lems activating his pieces. In the
diagrammed position, in the game
Zapata - Hazim, Santo Domingo
2001, Black tried to obtain some

kingside counterplay with the
line: 24 f5? ! , but White could
•••
have increased his advantage con­
siderably with 25.exfS gxf5 (It is
just terrible for Black to try 25 . . .
'lWxf5 26.13xd6+-) 26.13xe5 dxe5
27.l1bcd7 gxd7 28.g3 gd2 (Af­
ter 28 . . . e4 29.'lWh5 13g7 30.h4 .tc1
31.%Yxf5 13e8 32 .%Yb5+- Black's
pawns are so weak and his king
is unsafe, so the position can be
evaluated as winning for White.)
29.'lWxe5 13f8 3 0 .tL'lc6 gxb2 31.
'lWe6+ Wh8 32.otIe5± - White
has a material advantage and an
excellent piece-coordination.
b) 13 ••• bxa4
This is the most popular move
for Black. He complies with the
appearance of a weak pawn on his
queenside, but opens the b-file in
order to organize some counter­
play.
14.gxa4
We will analyze thoroughly
here: bl) 14 otIe7, b2) 14
••• •••
wh8 and b3) 14 J.b7. •••
The main line here for Black
- 14 . . . a5, will be dealt with in
the following chapters. The oth-
1l.c3 0 - 0 12 0. c2 ig5 13.a4
.
er moves like 14 . . . 13a7; 14 . . . g6 ;
14 . . . ie6 - have been analyzed in
Chapter 8 (see 12 . . . ga7; 12 . . . g6
and 12 . . . ,te6 accordingly).
Black has tried other possibili­
ties too :
In answer to 14 . . . 13b8, White
is not obliged to transpose to the
main lines with 15.b3 as 16.,ic4,
but he can instead repel Black's
bishop to a unsatisfactory posi­
tion with the line : 15.h4 ! .ih6
(Naturally, after 15 . . . ,ixh4? ! 16.
%Yh5 ixf2 + 17.Wxf2 h6 18.b4
f5 19.,tc4± Black's compensa­
tion for the piece is insufficient,
Solleveld - Prange, Vlissingen
2003.) 16.,ixa6 13xb2 (Following
16 . . . ,td7 17.ga2±, Black remains
a pawn down in comparison to
the line with gxb2 and he has
obtained nothing for it, Volzhin
- Chevallier, Metz 1994.) 17.,ixc8
%Yxc8 18J�c4 '!Wb7 (It is not any
better for Black to try 18 . . . %Yb8
19.0-0 0.a5 20.13b4 gxb4 21.cxb4
0.c6 22.%Yd3±, because White
has a great advantage thanks to
his powerful knight in the cen­
tre and his outside passed pawn,
Iordachescu - Sawatzki, Berlin
1995.) 19.0-0 0.d8 (After 19 . . .
wh8 20.0.db4 0.xb4 2 1.'lWxd6 ge8
2 2 .0.xb4± White has a solid extra
pawn, Scheuermann - Cartagena,
Email 1999. It is hardly better
for Black to continue with 19 . . .
ge8 20.0.cb4 0.xb4 21.cxb4 'lWd7
2 2.%Yf3± - and White has an al­
mighty knight on the d5-outpost
and a dangerous passed pawn
135
 Chapter 1 0

on the queenside, moreover that 1S . . .ie7 16.l::i c4 ib7 17.exfS l::ixfS

Black's bishop on h6 can be hardly 1B.id3 l::ifl 19.1Llce3± - White's
transferred to a better placement pieces control the centre and
anytime soon, Ramus - Blanken­ they are tremendously active.),
berg, Internet 2001.) 20J'k7 'iNb3 and here White would control
(After 20 . . . 'iNbB 21.lLle7+ whB 2 2 . completely the light squares in
�kB 'iNb6, Pott - Novoa, Internet the centre after the natural line:
2 0 04, White can play 23.lLlfS±, 16.exfS .txis (It is not better for
winning a pawn and preserving Black to try 16 . . . l::ib B 17.b4 .txis
all his positional pluses.) 21.lLlcb4 1B.l::ixa6 l::i cB 19.lLlce3±, or 17. . . lLle7
lLle6 2 2 J�!:c 6 'iNxd1 23.l::ixd1 lLlcS 1B.g4 ib7 19.ig2± and White re­
24.f3 l::i d B 2S.lLle7+ wfB 26.lLlfS mains with a solid extra pawn
id2 27.lLldS lLlb7 2B.l::i c7±. The in both variations.) 17.g4 hc2
sequence of almost forced moves (The active move 17 . . . ie6 loses a
has led to a position in which the piece after 1B.gS lLld4 19.ig2 id7
difference in the activity of pieces 20.l::i a 2+-) 1B.'iNxc2 J.f4 19.id3
is obvious even to the naked eye. h6 2 0.ie4± - Black's pawns on
White's knight on dS controls the a6 and d6 are weak and his pieces
entire board and Black's attempt are passive and lack coordination.
to repel it from the centre would Meanwhile, he must take into ac­
lead to considerable material count the possibility of the pawn­
losses for him: 2B . . . g6 29.l::ixd2 break g4-gS, after which White
l::ib 1+ (After 29 . . . l::ixd2 30.lLlh6, will obtain excellent attacking
Black is forced to give back the chances.
exchange, because of the check­ 14 . . . lLlbB - Black plans to
mating threat: 30 . . . l::ixdS 31.exdS organize some counterplay by
lLlc5 32.l::ixf7+ WeB 33.l::ixh7+­ transferring his knight to the cS­
and White remains with a couple square. 1s.ic4 lLld7 16.'iNe2 lLlcS
of extra pawns in the endgame.) 17.l::i a3 ib7 1B.0-0 as 19.1::ifa1 a4
30.wh2 gxfS 31.lLlb4+- and Black - All that seems quite reason­
loses at least a pawn and he will able, because Black fixes his op­
be forced to defend passively, ponent's weak pawn on b2, but he
because of the unsafe placement gives up the control over the im­
of his king, Read - Saarenpaeae, portant b4-square. (In answer to
corr. 1999. 19 . . . g6, Simonovic - Ning Chun­
14 . . .fS? ! - This premature ac­ hong, Beijing 1997, it is possible
tivity leads to the occupation of for White to continue with 2 0 .b4
the central light squares by White axb4 21.l::ixaB haB 2 2 . cxb4 lLle6
and excellent attacking chances 23.g3;!; and the position is very
for him. 1S.h4 ! ih6, Huisman - unpleasant for Black, because
Delisle, Aix les Bains 2006 (After his pieces are very passive and

136

White's passed b4-pawn is poten­
tially quite dangerous. 19 . . . @h8
2 0 .b4 axb4 21.l3xa8 .has 22.cxb4
tLJe6 23 .g3 �b7 24.1l;Yd3 g6 2S.h4;!;
Traut - Polakovic, corr. 1996 ;
23 . . . ll;Yb8 24.bS �d8 2S.tLJce3 tLJd4
2 6.'i;!Ta2 .tgS 27.b6± White's far
advanced passed b6-pawn pro­
vides him with clearly better pros­
pects, Goldberg - Goetz, Germany
1995.). After 2 0 .tLJcb4, Black has
tried 2 0 . . . �6 21.f3 1l;YgS, Techen
- Dores, corr. 1993, and here after
2 2.l3d1 g6 23 .tLJb6 'i;!Te3+ 24.@fl± it
turns out that Black loses a pawn,
without any compensation. It is
hardly any better for him to opt
for 20 . . . g6 21.tLJd3 tLJb3 22 . .hb3
axb3 23.l3xa8 .has 24.tLJ3b4 fS
2S.'i;!Tc4± and the weak pawn on b3
will soon be lost, while Black's at­
tempt to obtain some counterplay
with the line: 2S . . JU7 26.exfS gxfS
2 7.tLJc6 hc6 28.'i;!Txc6 1l;Yd7, Vrblja­
nac - S.Yudin, Heraklio 2 004,
leads after 29.ll;Yb6 e4 30.'i;!Txb3
f4 31.'i;!Tc4+ - to a lost position for
him. He is helpless against the on­
coming march forward of White's
b2-pawn.
bt) t4 ••• tLJe7 t5.�c4
11.c3 0 - 0 12. tLJ c2 ig5 13.a4
t5 ••• tLJxd5
White occupies the light
squares in the centre after that
move.
About 1S . . . aS - see 14 . . . aS; as
for 1S . . . @h8 16.0-0 - see 14 . . .
@h8 1 S. .tc4 tLJe7 16. 0-0; 1 S . . . �b7
16.0-0 - see 14 . . . ib7 1S.ic4 tLJe7
16.0-0.
1S ... id7 16.l3a2 @h8 (Black has
no compensation for the pawn in
the line: 16 . . . l3c8 17.tLJxe7+ .he7
18.ha6 l3a8 19.ic4 l3xa2 2 0 . .ha2
ibS, Morris - Hoxie, New York
1991, and here after 21.tLJa3, it is
just terrible for Black to try 2 1 . . .
1l;Yb6 22.1l;Yb3+-. White has a clear
advantage after 21.. .'i;!Tb8 22 . .tdS
ia6 23.b4±, but even after 2 1 . . .
ia6 2 2 .ic4 ib7 23.idS .ta6 24.
tLJc4±, or 2 2 ... ixc4 23. tLJxc4 1l;Ya8
24.0-0 1l;Yxe4 2S.tLJxd6± White
ends up with a solid extra pawn.)
17. 0-0 tLJc8, Zapata - Gamboa,
Neiva 200S, and here it is not
clear what Black has to do in or­
der to counter White's extra pawn
after 18.l3xa6 l3xa6 19.ha6 tLJb6
20.tLJcb4±
1S . . . ie6 - Black can hardly
prove any worthwhile compen­
sation for the sacrificed pawn
after 16.l3xa6 l3xa6 17 . .ha6 hdS
18.exdS fS (or 18 . . . 1l;YaS 19. tLJb4±)
19.0-0 tLJg6, Schlitter - Gropp,
Herborn 1994, and now, follow­
ing 2 0.'i;!Te2 e4 21.tLJd4 'i;!Te7 2 2 .g3
tLJeS 23.lLlc6 1l;Yf6 24.lLlxeS 'i;!TxeS
2S.f4 exf3 26 .'i;!TxeS dxeS 27.l3xf3±
White's pawns look much more
dangerous, moreover that one
137
Chapter 1 0

of them is extra, but even in the the light squares, while Black's
variation: 20 . . . tLlf4 2 UNb5 e4 defence will be rather difficult,
22.tLld4±, or 21.. .VNf6 2 2 .g3 tLlg6 because of his weak a5-pawn.
23.VNd7± Black has no compen­
sation for the pawn at all. White
must play very precisely, though.
16.,hd5 Ad7
That seems to be the most te­
nacious defence for Black.
White's advantage is quite
evident in the variation: 16 .. J !a7
17.0-0 �h8 18.VNe2 f5 19.tLlb4±,
because he can capture the a6-
pawn at any moment and Black 18. 0 - 0 'iNb6, Szuecs - Ho­
has no counterplay in sight, gye, Hungary 1994, and here
Pereira - Cadillon, Evora 2006. White has a very powerful ma­
16 . . J3b8 - It looks at first sight neuver 19.tLla3 ! ? 'iNe5 2 0 .tLle4;!;.
that Black might obtain some Black has great problems neutral­
counterplay along the b-file after izing his opponent's pressure, for
that move, but following 17.tLlb4 example: 2 0 ib5 21.b3 a5
•••

VNb6 18.0-0 a5 19.tLlc6 Ad7 2 0 . 22. VNg4 if6 23.gfal, and in the
tLlxb8 ha4 21.'iNxa4 gxb8, Chatte variation: 23 ,he4 24.,he4
•••

- Huisman, Romans 1999, White gfa8 25.ga4 id8 26.gdl±

can seize the initiative on the light
squares with the line: 22 .b4 axb4
23.gb1t. Here, the move 23 . . . g6? !
leads to a loss of a pawn for Black:
White has a powerful initiative on
the light squares, while Black has
no counterplay whatsoever. Also,
in the line : 23 a4 24.ga3 gb8
•••

24.gxb4 'iNc7 25.ht7+ ! �g7 26. 25.b4 VNe7 26. tLlb2± it is obvious
gxb8 'iNxb8 27.Ab3±, while in case that Black would lose his a4-pawn
of 23 . . . gd8 24.gxb4 VNc7 25.gb7 sooner or later.
VNxc3 26.g3 �h8 27.gxt7±, despite
the considerable simplifications, b2) 14 ••• �h8
Black's defence will be long and
difficult.
17.�a2 ga7
In answer to 17 . . . gb8, Back­
lund - Zitin, Zagan 1995, White
can continue with the rather un­
pleasant line for Black: 18.h4 if4
19.tLlb4 a5 20.tLlc6 ixc6 2 1.ixc6
'iNb6 2 2.id5;!; - and White controls

138

It would be difficult for Black
to prepare f7-f5 without that
move.
1S .ic4
• 15 . . . gb8 - This move leads to
The complications are rather
unclear after 15.h4 ih6 16.g4
if400
1S ••• tOe7
About 15 . . . a5 - see 14 . . . a5.
In answer to 15 . . . ltla5, Smeets
- van der Wiel, Hilversum 2007,
White obtains a slight but stable
edge after 16.h4 ih6 17.ltlce3 i!b8
18 .id3;!;, and here in case of 18 . . .
.b:e3 19.1tlxe3 .ie6 20.i!a3 ltlb7
2 1.b4;!; Black has problems bring­
ing his knight on b7 into the ac­
tions, while in the variation: 18 . . .
gxb2 19.%!fa1 gd2 20 . .ic4 ltlxc4
21.gxc4 gxd5 2 2 .ltlxd5;!; his two
bishops are not enough to com­
pensate the exchange, because
of the wonderful position of his
opponent's knight, for example
after 22 .. .f5 23.\!:Va3 fxe4 24.gxe4
ifS 2S.gb4 %Ye8 26.c4± White
has consolidated his position and
Black has no active prospects.
The move 15 . . . g6 creates a
target for White on the kingside.
16.%!fe2 ltla5 17.h4 ih6 18.h5;!;
(White controls the centre and
he can organize active actions on
both sides of the board much eas­
ier than his opponent.) 18 . . . .ig5,
Toth - Laszlo, Hungary 1996, and
here after 19.1tlce3 id7 20.ga1
.b:e3 21. ltlxe3 ltlxc4 22.%Yxc4 ie6
23.%!fd3 %!fb6 24.0-0t Black has
compromised the dark squares on
his kingside and the light squares
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. ltlc2 ig5 13.a4
in the centre. Meanwhile his
pawns on a6 and d6 are very weak
too.
the exchange of the weak pawn
on a6, which is favourable for
Black indeed, but White manages
instead to create powerful pres­
sure against Black's vulnerable
d6-pawn. 16.b4 a5 17. 0-0 axb4
18.ltlcxb4 .id7 19 .ga6;!; and despite
some simplifications, Black's de­
fence is difficult, because White's
pieces on the queenside are quite
active. 19 . . . ltla5 2 0 .ie2 ic8 21.
ga7 ib7? ! (It would be more te­
nacious for Black to defend with
21.. .id7 22 .%!fc2;!;, but he will have
problems then as well.) 2 2 .%!fa4
ga8 23.gxa8 %Yxa8 24. ltlb6 %Ya7
25.ltlc4 ga8 26. ltlxd6± and the
position is almost winning for
White, because of his extra pawn
and active pieces, Zapata - Re­
mon, Cienfuegos 1983.
16. 0 - 0 f5
About 16 . . . ib7 17.ltlxe7 - see
14 . . .ib7 15.ic4 ltle7 16.0-0 �h8
17.ltlxe7.
In answer to 16 . . . ltlg6, Betko
- Chmelik, Ruzomberok 1996, it
looks very aggressive for White
to continue with 17.ltlce3 a5
18.ltlf5±
17.tOxe7 %Yxe7
The other capture is not better
for Black after 17 . . . .b:e7 18.ltle3
fxe4 19.id5 gb8 2 0 . .b:e4± White
has a total control over the light
squares in the centre and if Black
captures the pawn, he would come
139
Chapter 1 0
under a dangerous attack: 2 0 . . .
l:!xb2? 2 1.'i;¥h5 h 6 2 2 .'i;¥g6� The
light squares in Black's camp are
so weak that he can hardly sur­
vive the attack. 22 . . . 'it>g8 23.V«h7+
'it>f7 24.id5+ 'it>e8 25.'i;¥g6+ 'it>d7
26.�e6+ 'it>c7 27.l:!c4+-
IS.id5 �b7, Hartikainen -
Saastamoinen, Finland 1998, and
now after 19.exf5 l:!xf5 2 0 .l:!b4
hd5 21. ti'xd5 l:!afS 22.l:!b7±
White dominates in the centre
and his opponent's pawns on a6
and d6 are very weak.
b3) 14 . . . ib7
Black leaves his pawn on a6
and it is even more vulnerable
there, but he considers it more
important to preserve his control
over the b5-square. Meanwhile,
140
he keeps the a5-square free, so
that he can activate his knight.
15 .lc4
•
This is a standard move. White
exploits the fact that his opponent
does not have a pawn on b5 and
he places his bishop on the most
active position. His main task is to
keep the control over the impor­
tant d5-outpost.
15 . . . �a5
Black is trying to activate his
knight, taking advantage of the
somewhat unstable placement of
White's pieces on the queenside.
It is only a transposition to the
main line, analyzed in Chapter 11,
if Black plays 15 . . . a5 16.0-0 - see
14 . . . a5 15 . .lc4 ib7 16.0-0.
15 . . . g6 - That is a reliable,
but a bit passive move, Susnik
- Breznik, Bled 2000, and here
after 16. 0-0 !£Je7 17.lLlce3 a5 18.
lLlxe7+ 'i;¥xe7 19.lLld5;!; there arises
a standard position with a slight
but stable advantage for White,
because of his queenside pressure
and his reliable hold on the cen­
tre.
15 . . . !£Jb8 - This move is con­
nected with the idea to deploy the
knight on c5. 16.0-0 !£Jd7 (about
16 . . . a5 - see 14 . . . a5 15 . .lc4 .lb7
16.0-0 !£Jb8, Chapter 11) 17.V«e2 a5
(about 17 . . . !£Jc5 18.l:!a3 a5 19.1:!fa1
- see 17 . . . a5) 18.l:!fa1 'it>h8 (about
18 . . . lLlc5 19.1:!a3 - see 14 . . . !£Jb8
15.�c4 lLld7 16.V«e2 lLlc5 17.l:!a3
ib7 18.0-0 a5 19JUal) 19.b4
axb4 20.E1xa8 has 21.cxb4 hd5
(It is too bad for Black to play 21...

liJb6? 2 2 .liJxb6 V:Yxb6 23 . .txf7±,
because White remains with an
extra pawn. It is not preferable
for Black to try 21 . . . liJf6 22.liJxf6
\wxf6 23.bS±, since White's passed
pawn is supported by his pieces
and it is very dangerous. In an­
swer to 21 . . . .tb7, Svatos - Babula,
Czech Republic 199B, it is possible
for White to follow with 22.liJce3
liJf6 23.liJxf6 \wxf6 24.liJdS;!; with
a considerable advantage, be­
cause of the dominance over the
dS-square and the possibility of
advancing the b-pawn.) 2 2 .ixdS
liJb6 23 . .tc6 fS 24.exfS dS, Mat­
suura - Pacheco, Sao Paulo 1995,
after 24 . . . \WcB 2S.b5 \WxfS 26.liJe3±
Black's pawns remain immobile
and it looks quite energetic for
White to opt for 2SJ:'!a6 ! d4 (Black
is lost after 2S . . J:'!xfS 26.\WbS liJcB
27J:!aB l3fB 2B.ixdS+-) 26.V:Yd3
\Wc7 2 7.bS± and White has excel­
lent chances of materializing his
extra pawn.
lS . . . liJe7 - White is much bet­
ter prepared for the fight for the
important dS-outpost. 16.0-0
and now:
16 . . . @hB (about 16 . . . aS - see
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJ c2 .tg5 13.a4
Chapter 11) 17.liJxe7 \Wxe7 (Black
should avoid the line 17 . . .ixe7
1B . .tdS V:Yd7 19.1iJe3 l3fbB 2 0 .b4±,
because after the unavoidable
exchange of the light-squared
bishops, White's knight on dS
would control too many impor­
tant squares. In addition, Black's
a6-pawn remains too weak, Bezo
- Krajcovic, Trencianske Teplice
2 0 0S.) 1B.idS as 19.1iJa3 l3abB
20.l3xaS± and White remains
with a solid extra pawn, Manik
- Chmelik, Slovakia 1995;
16 ... l3bB - Black has great
problems with the protection of
his a6-pawn after that move.
17.liJxe7+ V:Yxe7 1B.\We2 V:Yd7 19.
l3fa1 ic6 20. l3b4± Dorer -
L.Webb, Internet 2 004;
16 ... l3a7 - The idea to place
the heavy pieces into the corner
will hardly find too many follow­
ers. 17.V:Yd3 \WaB 1B.l3fal± Purgar
- Racki, Delnice 200S;
16 ... liJxdS 17.ixdS ixdS? (It is
more accurate for Black to defend
with 17. . . \Wd7 1B.l3aS \Wc7 19.13a2
l3fbB 2 0.V:Yd3±, although White
still maintains his edge, because
of his control over the dS-outpost
and the possible pressure against
Black's weak a6 and d6-pawns.)
1B.V:YxdS± - White has man­
aged to trade advantageously the
light-squared bishops and Black's
defence is very problematic. He
failed to survive after 18 . . . .te7
19.1iJb4 \Wb6 20.l3fa1 l3fcB 21.\Wd3
as 22.liJdS+-, since White had de­
cisive material gains in the game
141
Chapter 1 0

K.Simonian - P.Lovkov, Rybinsk opponent's pawn structure on the

1997, as well as in the variation: kingside, for example 23 . . . �xh6
1B . . . a5 19.tLJa3 ie7 20.tLJc4 fic7 (After 23 . . . gxh6 24.l3h4 l3gB 25.g3
2 U3fa1 +- Black's position was l3g7 26 .f3± Black loses a pawn.)
totally compromised and he was 24.fixh6 gxh6 25.l3b4 l3abB (It is
a pawn down, Nokso Koivisto hardly better for Black to try 25 . . .
- Eriksson, Turku 1996. l3f7 26.l3b6 l3gB 27.g3±) 26.l3a1
15 ... �hB - That move is neces­ �g7 27.f3± - Black has problems
sary if Black wishes to prepare f7- protecting his queenside weaknes­
f5 and to try to seize the initiative ses and his doubled h-pawns are an
on the kingside. 16.0-0 f5 (The evident liability in his position.
move 16 . . . g6, Bartholomew - 16.ia2 ic6
Rhee, Las Vegas 2004, seems less That is the most logical line for
aggressive, but more solid than Black.
16 .. .f5, nevertheless Black might In answer to 16 . . . l3cB, it is
have problems with the protection simplest for White to transpose
of his a6-pawn, for example after to the main line with 17.h4 ih6
17.b4 tLJe7 1B.�d3 tLJxd5 19.hd5 1B.tLJce3 ic6 19.l3a3 he3 2 0 .tLJxe3
.hd5 20.�xd5;l; White manages ib5 (Naturally, it is very bad for
to simplify the position and he Black to try 20 . . . ixe4? 2 1.fia4+-)
can easily activate his knight, 21.tLJf5.
while Black's bishop is not so use­ 16 ... �hB - After that solid
ful, because he must take care of move, the idea to maneuver the
the protection of his weak a6 and knight to the edge of the board
d6-pawns. 16 . . . tLJa5 - after that looks senseless. 17.b4 tLJc6 1B.0-0
try, Black's previous move looks tLJe7, Brandl - Gindl, Poland 1991,
like a loss of a tempo. 17.ia2 ic6 and here after 19.tLJce3 ic6 20.l3a5
1B.l3a3 tLJb7 19.ic4 as 2 0 .b4± The ib5 21.c4 ic6 2 2 .�d3 g6 23.l3dU
main drawback of Black's position White consolidates his position
is his knight on b7, which has no in the centre and he prepares to
moves whatsoever, Kukk - Tsvet­ break through on the queenside
kov, corr. 2 003.) 17.exfS l3xf5 (In with b4-b5, or c4-c5.
answer to 17 . . . tLJe7 1B.tLJxe7 fixe7,
Lipcak - Munk, Slovakia 2002,
White can preserve his extra pawn
with the line: 19.ie6 ic6 20.l3g4
as 21.lDe3±) 1B.id3 l3fB 19.fih5
ih6 2 0 .tLJce3 tLJe7 21.lDxe7 fixe7,
Boeykens - Fletcher, Chalkidiki
2002, and here after 22.tLJf5 �f6
23.tLJxh6 White compromises his

142
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12. lLlc2 ig5 13.a4

17.ga3 ! the b7-square.) 21.�f3 id3 (After

White must play accurately, 21.. .ixe3 22.lLlxe3 lLld3 23.ge2
since after 17.gb4? ! lLlb7 18.lLla3 lLlf4 24.gd2 �f6 2S.Wh1 ,tc6
as 19.9c4 lLlcS+ his pieces are 26.gaS �g6 27.,tb1 gfd8 28.ic2±
awkwardly placed and discoordi­ Black's counterplay is over, while
nated. his weaknesses remain on the
17 . . . ib5 board.) 22 .,tb1 ixb1 23.gxb1
That is the most natural move ixe3 24.�xe3;!; and the position
for Black, since he thus prevents has been simplified indeed, but
his opponent's king from finding Black still has problems. He must
a safe haven on the kingside. either withstand a powerful pres­
17. . . wh8?! - This is just a halfsure against his a6-pawn, or al­
measure. 18.0-0 ibS (Black can­ low White to create a dangerous
not be happy with his position af­ passed pawn.
ter 18 . . .fS 19.exfS gxfS 2 0.lLlde3 ! 17 . . . lLlb7 - Black's knight will
gf8 2 1.,tdS gc8 2 2 .b4± - he loses be long out of action after that
his a6-pawn and he can hardly move. 18 .b4 as 19.0-0 axb4
prove sufficient compensation 20.cxb4 ibS 2 1.geU Fontaine
for it.) 19.ge1 lLlb7 (After 19 . . . fS - Palmblad, Stockholm 2 0 03.
20.exfS gxfS 21. lLlde3 gf8 22 .b4 18.h4 ih6
lLlb7 23 . .tdS± White sends his About 18 . . .if4 19.1Llce3 ixe3
opponent's knight to its most pas­ 20.lLlxe3 - see 18 . . . ih6 19.1Llce3
sive position and he can easily at­ ixe3 20.lLlxe3.
tack Black's queenside weakness­ 19.1Llce3
es, Houtman - Gallet, Internet
2 004, it looks like Black's most
reliable line is 19 . . . lLlc4 2 0 .ixc4
ixc4 21.lLlce3 ibS 2 2 .g3 as 23.
h4;!;, although even then White
maintains a stable advantage
thanks to his active pieces and the
dominance over the dS-outpost.)
20.lLlce3 (White has the edge too
after 2 0 .b4 as 2 1.ib3;!;) 20 . . . lLlc5
- Black tries to bring his knight 19 . . . i.xe3
into action and that is his most The other moves are worse for
logical line. (It is bad for him to Black, because he has problems
opt for 2 0 . . . ixe3 21.lLlxe3± Melao protecting his d6-pawn.
- Paessler, corr. 2000, as well as 19 . . . whB 20.lLlf5 lLlc4 2 1.ixc4
20 . . . a5 2 1.ic4 id7 2 2 .b4;!; - and ixc4 22.b3 ib5 23.c4 id7 24.
Black's knight is stuck for long on lLlxd6 g6 2S.c5 f5, Kaminski -

143
Chapter 1 0
Todorovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1990,
and here after 2 6.h5 'lWg5 27.hxg6
1Wxg6 28.b4+- White has a de­
cisive advantage, because of his
extra pawn and his powerful
knight.
19 . . . tLlb7 2 0.tLlf5 ge8 (In an­
swer to 20 . . . tLlc5, Zontakh - Pisk,
Sala 1995, White can pose great
problems for Black with the move
21.c4, for example after 21.. . .td7
22.tLlxh6 + gxh6 23.'lWh5 tLlxe4
24.J.bl+- Black is under the
threat of a terrible attack and he
loses unavoidably several pawns.)
21.tLlxh6+ gxh6 2 2 .b4 .!d7 23.
'lWd2 +- - Black's pieces are pas­
sive and his king is vulnerable,
Edwards - Blumetti, USA 1989.
2 0 .tLlxe3 gc8
White obtains a great advan­
tage much quicklier after Black's
other moves.
In answer to 20 . . . ga7, Rechel
- Beshukov, Anapa 1991, it looks
very good for White to continue
with 2 1.b4 tLlb7 22.id5±
20 . . . 'lWc7 - Black thus loses a
couple of tempi, but he deflects
his opponent's knight away from
the fS-square. 21.tLld5 'lWd8,
Quadri - Gallet, Email 2 0 01, and
here after 2 2 .h5 tLlc4 23.ixc4
ixc4 24.tLle3 ie6 25.h6 g6 26.
0-0 'lWgS 27.b4 'lWxh6 28.'lWxd6
'lWf4 29.'lWd3± White's queenside
pawns are tremendously danger­
ous.
After 20 . . . tLlb7 21.id5± no
matter what Black's does, his po­
sition remains terrible:
144
21.. .1Wc7 2 2 .'lWg4 .!d7 23.tLlf5
ixf5 24.exf5 �h8 25.f6 gg8
26.h5± Lopez Paz - Sueiro Coro­
nado, Cuba 1998 ;
21 . . . 1Wb6 2 2 .1Wg4 tLlcS, Joao
- Moskov, corr. 1995, the threat
to check from the d3-square
seems dangerous, but in fact it
is harmless for White. 23.ixa8
�a8 24.h5 tLld3+ 25.�f1 tLlxb2+
26.�g1± White has an extra ex­
change and excellent attacking
chances;
In answer to 2 1 . . .gb8, Saxe
- McCollum, USA 1998, it is very
strong for White to continue with
22.b4 as 23.h5 axb4 24.cxb4 1Wb6
25.tLlfS id7 26. 0-0± and he pre­
serves excellent attacking pros­
pects, while Black's knight is a
sorry sight;
21.. .ga7 2 2 .b4 - Black can
hardly defend against the simul­
taneous attack on the kingside
and his a6-pawn, 22 . . . aS (It is not
any better for Black to try 22 . . .
'lWb6 23.tLlf5 tLld8 24.'lWd2 tLle6
25.c4 .!d7 26.0-0 tLlf4 27.tLlxd6 !
tLlxd5 28.'lWxdS J.e6 29.'lWxe5 'lWxb4
30.gg3+-) 23.ixb7 gxb7 24.
�aS± White a has a solid extra
pawn and after he brings his rook

on h1 into the actions, his position
will be winning, De Holanda - Ri­
vas Romero, Email 1999.
21.h5 !
The move 2 1.liJf5 has been
played much more often, but it
leads practically by force to a very
sharp endgame in which Black
manages to build an impenetra­
ble fortress after precise play. 21...
liJc4 (21. . . liJb7 - This move leads
to a difficult endgame for Black.
22.'�g4 �f6 23.�g5 l::! c7 24.�xf6
gxf6 25.b4± Black's defence is
very difficult, because of his bad
knight and disrupted pawn-struc­
ture. 25 . . . a5 26.bxa5 l::! a8 27.l::!h3
.!c4, Lanka - Krasenkow, Moscow
1989, and here the fastest road
for White to victory is 28.hc4
l::! xc4 29.a6 l::!xe4+ 30.l::! e 3 l::!xe3+
3 1.fxe3 liJd8 32.liJxd6+-) 2 2 .hc4
l::!xc4 23.liJxd6 (White maintains a
slight positional advantage after
23.f3 l::! c 6 24.�d2;j; - despite all,
Black should succeed in equal­
izing with accurate defence) 23 . . .
l::! d4 24.cxd4 �xd6 25.f3 exd4
26. <M2 d3 27.'�·d2 Y;Yd4+ 28. i>g3
Analyzing that position, it looks
like the seemingly attractive
1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJ c2 .!g5 13.a4
move 28 ... f5, would not bring
Black anything promising: 29.l::! e 1
f4+ 30.i>h2 Y;Yf6 (The move 3 0 . . .
g5? i s a fruitless attempt t o play
for a checkmate. 31.hxg5 h6 32 .g6
l::!f6 33.l::!c3+- Zagrebelny - Ko­
chetkov, Moscow 1995.) 31.Y;Yf2
l::! c8 (Black would not fare any
better after 31. . .l::! d 8 32 .e5 �e7,
Timoshenko - Dubinka, Alushta
2000, and White's advantage can
be emphasized with the transfer
of his rook to the a3-square. The
quickest way to accomplish that
is 33.l::! c3 h6 34.i>g1 i>h7 35.�d2
�xh4 36.l::! c7± - White has lost
his h4-pawn indeed, but he has
coordinated his pieces and his
passed pawn is no less danger­
ous than its black counterpart is.)
32 .e5 l::! c 2 (After 32 ... �e6 33.l::! c 3±
White's pieces are much more ac­
tive and that means Black has no
compensation for the exchange.)
33.exf6 l::!xf2 34.l::!c3 ! i>t7 (The
alternatives for Black lose quick­
ly: 34 . . . gxf6? 35.l::! e7 :Bc2 36.:gxc2
dxc2 37.l::! c7+-, or 34 . . . d2? 35.
:Be7+-) 35.fxg7 i>xg7 36.:ge6±
Black's passed d3-pawn is seem­
ingly dangerous, but in fact it is a
liability, which need permanent
protection. Meanwhile, his king is
unsafe too. White must play very
accurately, though.
Still, GM Y.Yakovich has
found an amazing defensive re­
source here: 29 . . . fxe4 ! ? 30.:gxe4
�d6 31.i>f2 �c5 32 .:ge3 �d4 !
33.g3 l::! e 8 and White cannot get
rid of the pin, for example: 34.:Bc3
145
Chapter 1 0
a5 ! 35J'k1 a4! 36.Ei:e1 Ei:cB ! 37.Ei:c1
Ei:eB = . This variation is based on
the motive that Black's pawn ad­
vances effortlessly from a6 to a4,
but White's play can be improved.
34.Ei:b3 ! - White does not allow
his opponent's pawn to come to
the a5-square and he is threaten­
ing to give back the exchange gob­
bling Black's passed pawn in the
process. 34 . . . Ei:cB - In case Black
ignores his opponent's threats,
for example after 34 . . . h6, then
after 35.Ei:b4 WfcS 36.Ei:xb5 !?, or
'Wxb5 37.Ei:xeB+ 'WxeB 3B.'Wxd3±
White ends up with an extra pawn
in a queen and pawn ending and
he has excellent chances of ma­
terializing it. Following 36 ... axb5
37.'Wxd3 b4 3B.f4±, there are still
rooks left on the board, but Black
must fight long and hard for the
draw.
After 35.Ei:c3 Ei:eB 36.Ei:c1 a5 !
37.b3 h5! Black has failed to place
his pawn on a4 indeed, but White
has no real chances of breaking
that "fortress".
21 h6
...
This move seems necessary.
The other attractive line for
Black is not any better for him
at all: 21.. .tLlc4 2 2 .ixc4 ixc4
23.h6 g6 24.tLlxc4 Ei:xc4 25.'Wd3
'WcB (In case of 25 . . . Ei:c6 26.Ei:xa6
Ei:xa6 27.'Wxa6 'Wg5 2B.0-0 Ei:dB
29.'Wb6± Black has no compensa­
tion for the sacrificed pawn. His
defence will be very difficult too
in the line 25 . . . Wfb6 26.0-0 Ei:c6
27.'Wd2 Ei:bB 2 B.b4±. The mate-
146
rial is equal indeed, but Black's
weaknesses on a6 and d6, com­
bined with the unsafe situation of
his king would not promise him
any real chances of equalizing.)
26.0-0 'Wc6 27.Ei:fa1 'Wxe4 (After
27 . . . Ei:a8 28 .f3 'Wb6+ 29.r;t>h2 Ei:c6
30.'Wd5±, or 29 . . . Wfc6 30.Ei:a5 r;t>f8
31.Ei:d5± Black's pieces remain
quite passive and his queenside
pawns are weak, so he is doomed
to a laborious defence without
any counterplay.) 2B.'Wxd6 'Wh4
29.Ei:xa6 Wfxh6 30.Ei:aB e4 31.'Wd5
Ei:cc8 32.Ei:xc8 Ei:xc8 33.'Wxe4 'Wd2
34.Ei:bl± White ends up with a sol­
id extra pawn, but he must show
good technique on order to realize
it, since Black's pieces are active.
22.�g4!
22 ... �d7
The move 22 . . . tLlc4 leads to
a difficult endgame for Black,
because of the vulnerability of
his pawns on a6, d6 and g7.
23.ixc4 ixc4 24.tLlf5 Vfff6 25.�h4
�xh4 26.Ei:xh4 Ei:bB (It is a di­
saster for Black to try 26 . . . r;t>h7?
27.tLlxd6+-) 27.b4 Ei:b6 2B.Ei:g4
r;t>h8 29.Ei:xg7 �e6 30.Ei:g3± White
has an extra pawn and he has

good chances of pressing his ad­
vantage home.
23.n4 Yfl>6
Black's defence is harder in
the endgame after 23 . . . V;Yxh4
24J3xh4 lDc6 2S.,idS lDb8 (It is
even worse for Black to opt for
2S . . J�b8 26J3xa6 l3fc8 27.h4+-)
26.l3h1 l3c7 27.@d2 !c8 28.!c4
l3d8 2 9.b4±, because he cannot
create any counterplay, since his
pieces are tied up with the protec­
tion of the pawns on a6 and d6.
24.b4 lDc6 25. 0 - 0 !e6
The game Kotronias - Timosh­
enko, Thessaloniki 2 007 followed
with 26 .id5 �b8 (Black would
• he improves his position. 31.
not fare any better after 26 . . . aS
27.lDc4 V!!c7 28 .bxaS±) 27.gfa1±
- White's advantage is more than
obvious: Black has no counterplay
and he must defend passively his
11.c3 0 - 0 12 . lD c2 .ig5 13.a4
queenside weaknesses, mean­
while his king is rather unsafe too.
White will be threatening soon
lDfS. He coped with the realiza­
tion of his advantage skillfully:
27,..V!!c7 28.c4 @b8 (Black fails
to activate his pieces with 28 . . .
lDc6 29 . .ixc6 V;Yxc6 30.l3xa6 V!!b 7
31.bS .ixc4 32.lDfS+-) 29.�f5
hf5 (Black loses too after 29 . . .
V;Yd7 3 0 . .ixe6 fxe6 31.lDe7 gxc4
32 .lDg6+ @g8 33.lDxf8 @xf8 34.
V!!g4 l3xb4 3S. l3f3+ @g8 36.l3f6+­
and the pawns he has for the ex­
change start falling one after an­
other.) 3 0 .exf5 �d7 (Black could
have sustained some "illusion" of
resistance with the line: 30 . . . v!!d 8
31.V!!g4 V;YgS 32.V!!xgS hxgS 33.l3d1
lDc6 34.l3bl±, although the su­
premacy of White's bishop over
Black's knight is more than obvi­
ous. Meanwhile, Black's queen­
side pawns are vulnerable and he
must consider the possibility of
White advancing his b-pawn after
�a6+- and the game was soon
over after. 31,..�f6 32.ga7 Yfl>6
33.gb7 V!!d4 34. V!!xd4 exd4 35.
ixf7 ga8 36.gxa8 �a8 37.f3
1-0
147
 Conclusion
In this chapter we have started analyzing the main lines of the
Chelyabinsk variation - 11 . . . 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 !gS 13.a4. Here, Black has
two possibilities, if he is reluctant to remain a pawn down - a) 13 . . .
'g b 8 and b) 1 3. . . bxa4.
In variation a, after 13 . . . 'gb8 14.axbS axbS 1S. !d3, there arises a
position, in which Black's weakness on bS is hurting. He has played
most of a1l 1S. . . ie6, but after 16. Yff e2!, White wins that pawn immedi­
ately. Black can hardly prove any compensation for it. It is stronger
for him to play 1S .. . tiJe7, with the idea to facilitate his defence with
exchanges. Still, it is diffi.cultfor Black to activate his forces then, be­
cause they are burdened with the protection of the bS-pawn and that
is well illustrated by the variations in the chapter.

Naturally, it is stronger for Black to capture 13 . . . bxa4. After

14. 'gxa4, he has numerous possibilities and the most popular line for
him is 14 . . . aS, which will be dealt with in the next chapters. Here, we
analyze Black's all other alternatives.
In answer to 14 . . . 'fl.b8 and 14 .. .j5, it is very good for White to play
1S.h4! in order to repel Black's bishop to a unfavourable position.
White obtains a great advantage in both cases by simple means. Black
tries sometimes the move 14 . . . liJ b8 too, but the maneuver of the knight
to the c5-square is too slow.

In variation b1, Black tries to facilitate his defence by simplifying,

but White then controls the light squares in the centre and he has pow­
erful pressure against the a and d-pawns.

In variation b2, Black plays 14 . . . mh8, planning to open thef-file in

order to organize counterplay on the kingside. That leads to the occu­
pation by White of the important central squares e4 and dS.

In variation b3, Black manages after 14 . . . ib7 1S. ic4 liJaS 16. ia2
!c6 17. 'ga3 ibS, to activate his light pieces and thatforces White to
act with maximum precision. In the main line, it is essentialfor him to
avoid the popular variation, in which he wins the exchange, because
there Black's chances of making a draw are considerable. Therefore,
the novelty of the Greek grandmaster V.Kotronias looks very attrac­
tive - 21.h5!, and that move enables White to avoid the sharp varia­
tions, creating pressure against Black's weak pawns in a rather calm
situation.

148
Chapter 11 1.e4 eS 2JiJf3 ttJe6 3.d4 exd4 4. ttJxd4
e6 S.ttJe3 eS 6.ttJdbS d6 7.i.gS a6
S.ttJa3 bS 9.ttJdS i.e7 1 0 .i.xf6 .bf6
11.e3 0 - 0 12.ttJe2 i.gS 13.a4 bxa4
14.gxa4 as lS.J.e4

- see variation a from Chapter

White placed his bishop on a
promising diagonal after having
exchanged his opponent's bS­
pawn and now Black must make
a choice.
In this chapter we will ana­
lyze Black's attempts to avoid the
popular lines IS . . . id7 and 15 . . .
E:bB, and these are: a) 1 5 ib7,
b) 15 ••• .te6, c) 15 ••• 'itJh8.
IS . . . lLle7 - This move usually
leads to a transposition of moves.
16.lLlce3 he3 (The alternatives
for Black transpose to other lines :
16 . . . ie6 17. 0-0 - see variation b;
16 ... 'itJhB 17.0-0 - see variation
c; 16 . . . id7 17.E:a2, or 16 . . . lLlxdS
17.lLlxdS id7 IB.E:a2 - see varia­
tion d from Chapter 12) 17.lLlxe3
.tb7 (About 17. . . 'itJhB IB.0-0 - see
variation c; as for 17 . . . id7 IB.E:a2
12.) IB.'Wd3 Wfb6 (About IB . . . ic6
19.E:a2 - see variation a from
Chapter 12; IB . . . 'itJhB I9.0-0 - see
IS . . . \f{hB 16.lLlce3 he3 17.lLlxe3
lLle7 IB.O-O ib7 19.'Wd3 ; the
move IB . . . lLlcB - leads to simpli­
fications, which are favourable
for White. 19.1LldS lLlb6 2 0 .lLlxb6
Wfxb6 21.0-0 ic6 2 2 .E:a2 'Wb7
23.Wfxd6 he4 24.f3 Wfc6 2S.Wfxc6
hc6 26.b3:t - Black's as-pawn is
vulnerable, so he is forced to con­
tinue simplifying. 26 . . . a4 27.bxa4
E:xa4 2B.E:xa4 ha4 29.E:al ic2 ,
Viktorsson - Albano, Email 2002,
and here after 30.E:aS E:eB 31.idS
••• 'itJfB 32.c4± White's passed pawn
becomes very dangerous.) 19.b3
E:fcB 2 0 . 0-0 ia6 2 1.E:a3 hc4
22.lLlxc4 'WcS 23.E:fal± and Black
loses unavoidably his as-pawn,
Vega Gutierrez - Linares Quero,
Oropesa del Mar 2001.
It is again only a transposition
of moves after IS . . . g6 16.0-0 'itJhB
(or 16 . . . E:bB 17.b3 - see IS . . . E:bB)
17.lLlce3 - see IS . . . \f{hB .
The trade o f the light-squared
bishops is clearly in favour of

149
Chapter 11
White : lS . . . ia6 16.ixa6 �xa6 17.
O-o± Patrascu - Voin, Bucharest
2000.
In the game Yudkovsky - Al­
cazar, Tallinn 1997, Black tried
to bring his knight to d7 and he
played lS . . . ltJbB, but that was
hardly the best way to accomplish
that plan. White could have em­
phasized that with the line: 16.h4! ?
ih6 (The pawn is of course un­
touchable: 16 . . . ixh4? 17.YNhS+-)
17.ltJce3. White is clearly better
after 17 . . . ltJd7 1B.ltJfS±, or 17 . . . ltJa6
1B.ixa6 ! �xa6 19.1tJg4, and Black
is in trouble even after the extrav­
agant line: 19 . . . ic1 ! ? 20.ltJgf6+
gxf6 21.V;Yxc1 ie6 2 2 .V;Yh6 hdS
23.exdS fS 24.0-0±. His relatively
best defence is 17. . . ixe3, but after
1B.ltJxe3 ltJa6 19.b4 axb4 20.cxb4;!;
White maintains a stable edge.
a) 15 ••• J.b7
In general, the development of
that bishop on the long diagonal is
not so typical for the Chelyabinsk
variation. In this particular case,
that maneuver should be connect­
ed with the transfer of the knight
via the route c6-bB-d7.
150
16. 0 - 0 tOb8
16 . . . �cB?! - That is a dubious
move, because the weakness of the
as-pawn becomes critical. 17.V;Yd3
YNeB 18.�fal± Ferret - Hossa, In­
ternet 199B.
In case of 16 ... 'it>hB 17.YNd3
(about 17.ltJce3 - see lS . . . 'it>hB)
17. . . g6 1B. ltJce3± White maintains
the advantage, Holm - Andersen,
Gladsaxe 1993.
Black has tried sometimes 16 . . .
ltJe7, but h e should hardly strive to
exchange light pieces in the cen­
tre, because at the end he might
end up with a weak dark-squared
bishop against White's dominant
knight on dS. After 17.V;Yd3, there
might follow:
17. . . 'it>hB 1B.ltJce3 - see 15 . . .
'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7
1B.YNd3 ;
17. . . ltJxdS 1B.ixdS YNb6 19.b4
ixdS (The move 19 . . . ic6 loses a
pawn for Black: 2 0 .�xaS± Paehtz
- Drobka, Germany 2 0 0 2 .) 2 0 .
YNxdS �acB (It i s not better for
Black to try 2 0 . . . �fcB 21.c4 �a7
22.�fal± Martincevic - Friedrich,
Wuerzburg 19B7.) 2 1.bxaS V;Yb2
(If 21.. .V;Yc6, then 2 2 .YNxc6 �xc6
23.ltJb4 �xc3 24.ltJdS± Voicu -
Aydin, Marina d'Or 199B.) 2 2 .�a2
YNxc3 23.a6± Shahade - Krapivin,
Budapest 2003.
Or 17 ... ic6 1BJ�a2 ltJxdS
(About 1B . . . 'it>hB 19.1tJce3 - see
lS . . . 'it>hB 16.ltJce3 ib7 17. 0-0 ltJe7
1B.V;Yd3 ic6 19.�a2 ; after lB . . .
YNbB 19.1tJxe7+ he7 2 0 .ltJe3, i t is
bad for Black to opt for 20 . . . �dB?
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.gS 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 aS lS. i.c4
in view of 21.hf7! +- Mueller -
Apostu, Aschach 2 004, but even
after 2 0 . . . g6 21.i.dS± Black's posi­
tion remains very difficult. In case
of 18 . . . 'Sb8, it is good for White to
play 19.1Llxe7+ followed by 19 . . .
V!1xe7 2 0.b3±, o r 1 9 . . . he7 2 0.b3±
Svoboda - Tamaskovic, Slovakia
2000.) 19.hdS vgb6 (or 19 . . :�c7
2 0 .'Sfa1 'Sab8 21.V!1c4± Braghetta
- Panizzi, Piacenza 2005) - and
in that situation, which happened
in the game Schussler - Kouatly,
Groningen 1977, White had to
emphasize his advantage with
20.lLla3± with the idea 21.lLlc4.
17.b4!
White creates a passed pawn
and he restricts the mobility of his
opponent's knight, depriving it of
the cS-square.
17 ••• �d7 18.ti'd3 axb4
Black cannot be happy with his
position after 18 . . . g6 19J�fa1 axb4
20J!xa8 has 21.cxb4± Cutillas
Ripon - Pfretzschner, COIT. 1994,
or 18 . . . �b6 19.�xb6 V!1xb6 20.l3fa1
axb4 21.'Sxa8 'Sxa8 22.'Sxa8+ has
23.cxb4 g6 24.,idS± Kalod - Pisk,
Brno 1994, or 18 .. . '�h8 19.'Sfa1
axb4 20.'Sxa8 has 21.cxb4 g6
22.'Sa6± Vehi - Jose Abril, Bar­
celona 2000.
19.9xa8 ha8
Or 19 . . . vgxa8 20.cxb4 'Sc8
21.'Sa1 V!1b8 2 2 .bS �cS 23.vge2
�e6 24.�cb4± Korsunsky - Ar­
bakov, USSR 1978.
2 0 .cxb4 g6
In case of 2 0 . . . �b6 21.�xb6
vgxb6 22.'Sa1, White's advantage
becomes even greater, for ex­
ample: 22 . . . vgc7 23.g3 g6 24.h4
i.d2 2S.bS iaS 26.�e3± Dervishi
- Cacco, Padova 1999; 22 . . . ,ib7
23.g3 g6 24.h4 ,ih6 2S.,idS± Der­
vishi - Cacco, Padova 2000.
21.'Sdl �g7
In the game Penna - Sender,
Internet 1998, Black tried 21 . . .
vgb8 2 2 .V!1g3 ,id8 23.lLlce3;!;, but
White was again better.
22.�c3;!; - White controls
reliably the dS-outpost and he
exerts pressure against his oppo­
nent's backward d6-pawn, Seme­
niuk - Gurgenidze, Saratov 1981.
Black has failed to organize any
counterplay, but his position is
still relatively solid.
lSI
Chapter 11
b) 15 ••• .ie6
This decision is too schematic.
Black did not need to determine
the placement of his bishop so
early.
16. 0 - 0
We will analyze now bl) 16 . . . .
�h8 and b 2 ) 16 ... �e7.
About 16 .. .l:'ib8 17.b3 - see 15 . . .
�b8.
Black plays only very seldom
16 . . . m8 17.b3 &iJe7, Bobras -
Lukasiewicz, Poland 1996, 18.
&iJxe7+ he7 19.&iJe3;!;, as well as
16 .. J�ia7 17.�e2 g6 18.l:'ifal �b7
19.b4;!; Potrykus - Kuhl, Germany
1992.
bl) 16 �h8 17.�ce3 &iJe7
•••
About 17 ... �b8 18.b3 - see 15 . . .
l3b8.
17 . . .f5? ! - That move is too
dubious and White increases
his advantage with quite natural
moves. 18.exfS hfS 19.&iJxf5 l3xf5
2 0.,id3± and Black has lost his
two-bishop advantage and he has
presented White with complete
dominance over the centre and
the light squares, Auvray - Gol­
ubeva, Sibenik 2007.
152
After 17 ... l3a7 18.�e2 �d7 19.
�fa1 l3b8 20.b3;!; White keeps his
pressure, Teuschler - Schweiger,
Gleisdorf 1996.
In case of 17. . . g6, it is interest­
ing for White to play 18. �f3 !?, and
after 18 . . . �b8 (The move 18 .. .f5,
Yukhno - Vl.Kovalev, Illichevsk
2006, looks more logical, but it
only leads to exchanges, which
are favourable for White. Here
after 19.exf5 gxf5 20.&iJc7! .hc4
21.l3xc4 e4 22 .�h5 �xc7 23.�xg5
�e7 24.�xe7 &iJxe7 25.l3c7± Black
has many pawns in the centre in­
deed, but he has problems pro­
tecting them. Or 21. Wlxc7 �xc6
22 .�d5± and Black has too many
weaknesses to worry about and
his king is endangered too.) 19.b3,
there arises a position, which we
will analyze in Chapter 13.
18.&iJxe7! he7
If 18 . . . �xe7, then 19 . .he6 fxe6
(It would not work for Black to play
19 . . . he3?, because of the inter­
mediate move 20 ..id5+- and White
wins the exchange.) 20.&iJc4±
The move 18 . . . he3, can be
neutralized by the precise reply
19.!d5 ! hd5 (otherwise White's
 11.c3 0 - 0 12. 0,c2 !g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. "i!.xa4 a5 15. ic4
knight will go to c6 with tempo)
20.0,xd5± and White has a clear
advantage.
19.ti'e2;!;
That is even more precise than
19.ti'd3, as it was played in the
game Fruebing - Becker, Will­
ingen 2 0 06, since White does
not have any problems with the
protection of his b2-pawn. The
situation has clarified and White
is better, because Black's weak­
nesses are too obvious. Still, it
would be far from easy for White
to break Black's resistance in that
position.
b2) 16 . • . �e7 17.�ce3
17 . . . "i!.bS
About 17 . . . @h8 18.0,xe7! - see
16 . . . @h8.
Black's alternatives are insuf­
ficient to equalize:
17 . . . "i!.c8, Nadvesnik - Berke,
Busevec 2 0 05, 18.0,xe7+ Vffxe7 (or
18 . . . ixe7 19.ixe6 fxe6 20.Vffb3±)
19.he6 fxe6 20.0,c4±;
17 . . . !d7 18."i!.a2 a4 (In case
of 18 . . . !c6, Beltz - Sickert, Seb-
nitz 2002, White should capture
19.0,xe7+ and Black has problems
after 19 . . . he7 20.!d5±, as well
as following 19 . . . Vffx e7 2 0 .0,f5±)
19.0,xe7+ Vffxe7 2 0 .id5 "i!.a6 (After
20 . . . "i!.ab8 21.0,f5 !xEs 2 2 .exf5;!;
Black's a4-pawn is very weak.)
21.b4t;
17. . . !xe3 18.0,xe3 0,c8 (After
18 . . . id7, Nicholas - Hansell, Wit­
ley 2000, White can play 19."i!.a2
ic6 20.Vffd 3± transposing to vari­
ation a from Chapter 12 - and the
fact that Black's pawn is on as in
this case and not on a4 is even
better for White.) 19.he6 fxe6
20.b4 "i!.f7 21.Vffb 3± and Black los­
es at least one of his weak pawns,
Schneider - Martens, Hamburg
1999.
lS.b3 .be3
18 . . . 0,c6? ! - This move looks
very strange, because the knight
was there several moves ago,
Behling - Sandek, corr. 1989,
and here White's most ener­
getic line seems to be attacking
the d6-pawn with 19.0,f5 0,e7 (It
is hardly better for Black to try
19 . . . @h8 20.0,de3 ixe3 21.fxe3
Vffb 6 2 2 .Vffd 2 hc4 23."i!.xc4 0,d8
24.b4±, because the weakness on
d6 is much more important, while
153
Chapter 11
Black's pieces are discoordinated,
than White's ugly doubled central
pawns.) 2 0 .ttJfxe7+ he7 2 1.VUd3t
- White has a long-lasting initia­
tive thanks to his active pieces and
the vulnerability of Black's pawns
on a5 and d6.
In answer to 1B . . . ttJcB, it de­
serves attention for White to con­
tinue with the aggressive move
19.VUa1 ! ? It is then bad for Black
to try 19 . . . ttJb6 20.l3xa5 ttJxc4
2 1.bxc4 l3aB 22.l3a3 �bB 23.ttJf5±
and White remains with an extra
pawn exerting strong pressure
against the d6-pawn, or 22 . . . he3
23.ttJxe3 l3cB 24.l3a4 VUc7 25.�a3±
and White's extra pawn is weak,
but Black's d6-pawn looks no
less vulnerable. 19 . . . he3 (That
exchange would not save the a5-
pawn for Black.) 20.ttJxe3 ttJb6
(After 20 . . .hc4 21.bxc4 ttJb6 - or
21.. .l3aB 2 2 .VUa3± Klundt - Ben­
ko, Germany 1992 - 22.l3xa5 l3cB
23.c5 l3xc5 24.l3xc5 dxc5 25.�a7±
Black could have restored the ma­
terial balance indeed, but White's
pieces would be much more ac­
tive and that would provide him
with a clear advantage.) 21.l3xa5
ttJxc4 2 2 .bxc4 VUc7 23.l3a4 l3fcB
24.VUd1 ! ;!; (White transfers his
queen to the d3-square and from
there it will not only attack the
weakness on d6, but it will protect
his own pawns as well.) 24 . . . l3aB
25.l3b4 l3a2 (It would be a loss
of time for Black to play 25 . . . l3a3
26.VUd3 g6 27.l3fb1 l3a2 2B.h4±
- he does not have any active plan
154
in sight, while White's extra pawn
is reliably protected.) 26.�d3 g6
27.l3d1 Wg7 2B .h4 VUe7 29.g3 �f6
30.l3d2t - and now White repels
his opponent's active rook from
the second rank and he seizes the
initiative, or he forces his oppo­
nent to exchange his most active
piece after which Black has prob­
lems proving compensation for
his sacrificed pawn. His attempt
to activate his queen with 30 . . .
l3xd2 31.�xd2 VUf3 3 2 .�xd6 �xe4
33.c5 VUf3 34.VUxe5+ VUf6 35.�d4±
only leads to a position in which
White has two extra pawns and
excellent chances of turning them
into a full point.
19.ttJxe3
19 .. :ifb6
Black has also tried here 19 . . .
id7 20.l3a2 ic6 2 1.VUd3 VUc7
22.l3fa1 l3aB 23.b4 axb4 24 ..bf7+ .
Now, he loses if he captures the
bishop 24 . . . wxf7 25.�c4+ wg6
(Black should better defend with
25 . . . d5 26.exd5 l3xa2 27.dxc6+
wf6 2B.l3xa2 bxc3 29.ttJg4+ wf5
30.l3e2+-, but he would hardly
save the game in that line any­
way.) 26.l3xaB ttJcB 27.�e6+ 1-0
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4
Szarvas - Csorbai, Hungary 2001,
therefore Black must follow with
24 . . .'�h8 25.cxb4 'Sab8 26.VNc4
Y;Vb6 2 7.i.e6 Y;Vxb4 28.Y;Vxb4 'Sxb4
29.f3 'Stb8, Muneret - Maia,
Email 2000, but after 30.'Sa7± he
has problems defending against
the threats along the seventh rank
as well as holding on to the d5-
pawn.
2 0 .b4 axb4 21.'Sxb4 ti'c6
Black's position remains dif­
ficult even after the more resil­
ient line: 21.. .Y;Vd8 2 2 .VNb3 'Sxb4
23.cxb4 ixc4 24.liJxc4± and
White's outside passed pawn
looks very dangerous.
22 .i.xe6 �b4 23 .bf7+ • 1990, because here after 2 0 .liJf5
gxf7 24.cxb4 ti'xe4 25. Y;Vxd6±
White's passed pawn was decisive
for his quick victory in the game
Passerotti - Rivera Kuzawka, Lu­
zern 198 2 .
c) 15".mh8
Black retreats his king away
from the a2-g8 diagonal in ad­
vance and he plans to continue
with the move f7-f5 at some mo­
ment.
16.ljJce3
16" .i.xe3
Here, there are numerous pos­
sibilities to transpose to other
variations : 16 . . . 'Sb8 17.b3 - see
15 . . . 'Sb8 ; 16 . . . id7 17. 0-0 - see
15 . . .i.d7; 16 . . . ie6 17. 0-0 - see
15 . . . i.e6.
After 16 ... liJe7 17. 0-0, we
reach again positions, which are
analyzed elsewhere: 17. . . ib7
18.Y;Vd3 - see 16 . . . ib7; 17 . . . ie6
18.liJxe7 - see variation bl; 17 . . .
id7 18.'Sa2 - see variation b from
Chapter 12.
16 . . . ib7 17. 0-0 liJe7 18.VNd3
i.c6 (It is clearly worse for Black
to opt for 18 . . . liJg6 19.93 'Sb8,
Gleichmann - V.Kaufmann, corr.
ic6 21J!a2± White's pieces are
tremendously active in the centre,
while Black has his weaknesses on
as and d6 to worry about.) 19.'Sa2
ixe3 20.liJxe3 - see 16 ... ixe3.
It is just terrible for Black to
play 16 .. .f5? ! 17.liJxf5 hfS 18.exf5
'Sxf5, because of the counter
measure 19.h4 ! ixh4 (In case
of 19 . . . ih6 20.g4 'Sf8 21.g5+­
Black loses a piece and if 19 . . .
ie7, then White plays 2 0 .id3
'Sf7 21.VNh5 VNg8 2 2 .ig6 iUf8
155
Chapter 11

23Jk4+-, and Black is helpless.

It is not any better for him to try
20 . . . e4 2 1.ixe4 l3e5 22.f4 l3e6
23. Wfg4+-, because White ends
up with a solid extra pawn and
he soon won in the game Duigou
- Flores, Email 1998.) 2 0.g3 !g5
(Black has no compensation for
the piece after the desperate line
20 . . . !xg3 21.fxg3 e4 2 2 .Wfg4+-, 21.lLlc2± Black fails to organize
Abdelmoumen - Karsdorp, Email any real counterplay, while his
2 0 0 2 .) 21.l3xh7+ ! �xh7 2 V�h5+ pawns on d6 and as are vulner­
!h6 (or 2 2 . . . �g8 23.lLlf6+ �f8 able.
24.Wff7#) 23.Wfxf5+ g6 (or 23 . . . If 18 . . . ib7, then 19.Wfd3 f5,
�h8 24.id3 +-) 24.Wff7+ !g7 25. Vicioso - Davidoff, corr. 1999
!b5+-, and White wins. (About 19 . . .ic6 2 0 .�a2 - see 15 . . .
In the game Bednarich - id7 16.lLlce3 �h8 17. 0-0 ixe3
Blagojevic, Nova Gorica 1997, 18.lLlxe3 lLle7 19.13a2 ic6 2 0 .
Black prepared and pushed f7-f5 �d3 .), and here i t looks very good
with the help of the line 16 . . . g6 for White to continue with 20.exf5
17. 0-0 f5 (about 17 . . . id7 18.g3 d5 21.ib3;\;, and Black will hardly
- see variation b from Chapter manage to regain his pawn.
12). We can recommend here 19.exfS �xfS
for White the move 18.�d3 ! ?;\;,
fortifying the central pawn. It is
quite probable that the game may
transpose after that to some other
familiar variation (for example af­
ter 18 . . . l3b8 19.b3 - see variation
b2a from Chapter 13).
17.lLlxe3 �e7
About 17 . . . l3b8 18.b3 - see 15 . . .
�b8 .
IS. 0 - 0 2 0 .b4!
(diagram) This is an improvement in
IS f5
••• comparison to the game Tivi­
About 18 . . . !d7 19.13a2 - see akov - van Der Wiel, Netherlands
variation b from Chapter 12. 2000.
The move 18 ... g6, Omtvedt 20 ••• �xe3
- Tjolsen, Oslo 2006, is too slow, Black's position is difficult
since after 19.Wfd3 f5 2 0 .�d1 f4 following 20 . . . �b6 2 1.bxa5 �a5

156
 11.c3 0 - 0 12JiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 as 15. !c4

22.'8xaS '!WxaS 23.ltJxfS .hiS 24.

'!Wxd6 '8c8, because after the pre­
cise reaction by White 2S.'8dl!
h6 26.!a6± - he can exploit the
defenselessness of Black's last
rank.
21.fxe3 '8xf1 + 22.hf1 ti'b6
23.�d2;!; -
(diagram)
White maintains his positional
advantage despite the simplifica- and d6, while his counterattack
tions. Black's pieces are forced against the e3-pawn is almost im­
to protect the weaknesses on as material.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have analyzed some lines, which are not so of­
ten played by Black: a) 15. . . !b7, b) 15. . . !e6 and c) 15. . . �h8. The more
recent andfashionable move 15... !d7 is dealt with in the next chapter,
while the move, which has long acquired the reputation to be the main
line - 15. . . '8 b8 is analyzed in Chapter 13.
Either the alternatives for Black transpose to other variations, or
they enable White to obtain a considerable advantage almost effort­
lessly.

In variation a, White manages to create a passed pawn on the

queenside and he controls the centre too. Black has practically no real
counterplay and that provides White with long-term positional pres­
sure in the centre and on the queenside.

Black's position is much more solid in variation b, but there the

vulnerability ofhis pawns on as and d6 is hurting him, while organiz­
ing any effective counterplay is nearly impossible.

In variation c, Black is trying to accomplish the thematic pawn­

advance j7-fS, and he plays 15. . . �h8 in order to prepare it. Still, that
move does not help him obtain sufficient counter chances, because the
position is simplified considerably and his weaknesses on as and d6
become even greater liability.

157
Chapter 12 1.e4 c5 2 . �£J �c6 3 . d4 cxd4 4. �xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 fie7 1 0 ..ixf6 .ixf6
11.c3 0 - 0 12. �c2 fig5 13.a4 bxa4
14.�xa4 a5 15.J.c4 J.d7

can react against White's most of­

ten played lines : 1) 16.ga2 and
2) 16. 0 - 0 .

This move was played as early
as in the 70ies of the past century,
but it became popular only lately,
since GM Teimour Radjabov test­
ed it successfully at the highest
level. Presently, it can still be con­
sidered as not so thoroughly ana­
lyzed. Black eyes White's rook on
a4 and in some lines he plans to
advance his rook-pawn a5-a4, in
order to provide it with adequate
protection and to fix White's
pawn on the b2-square. Similar
developments may turn out to be
rather unfavourable for White.
16.tLlce3! ?
I believe this move provides
White with maximal chances of
obtaining an edge in the opening.
In order for you to understand
better the advantages of that
move, we will show you how Black
1) 16.ga2
The idea of that move is evi­
dent. White takes care of the
safety of his rook and he retreats
it in advance against the possible
attack from the bishop on d7.
16 ••• a4!
That is the best reaction for
Black. He plans the maneuver
tLlc6-a5-b3, after which he can
even seize the initiative in some
lines.
17. 0 - 0
Black's task to obtain coun­
ter chances becomes easier after
White's other possibilities.

158
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. lixa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
After the indifferent reaction:
17.VNd3 lLlaS 18.ibS? ! Black be-
comes even better after 18 . . . lLlb3 !
(with the terrible threats 19 . . . lLlc1
and 19 . . . id2 +) 19.0-0 (If White
defends against the fork with
19.1ia3, then he loses his b2-pawn
- 19 . . . lLlcS 2 0.VNc4 ixbS 21.'iNxbS
lib8+) 19 . . . lLlc1 ! + and Black wins
the exchange.
After 17.ibS, Black can im­
mediately exploit the defenseless­
ness of White's bishop and his
rook on a2 with the line: 17. . . lLlb4 !
18.lLldxb4 (The other possibili­
ties are not any better for White:
18.cxb4 ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.lLlce3
ixe3 21.lLlxe3 lic8+, or 18.lLlcxb4
ixbS 19.h4 ih6 2 0.g4 if4 21.lLlxf4
exf4 2 2 .VNf3 lie8 23.'iNxf4? dS+ -
and after the opening of the game
in the centre White risks end­
ing in a disastrous position very
quickly.) 18 . . . ixbS 19.lLla3, Djukic
- Calistri, Cannes 20 07, and here
it is essential for Black to preserve
his light-squared bishop on the
board - 19 . . . id7! (In the game
after 19 . . . VNb6? 20.lLlxbS 'iNxbS
21.VNdS ! VNxdS 22.lLlxdS± there
arose a standard endgame, quite
favourable for White, because of
his almighty knight on dS against
Black's "bad" dark-squared bish­
op.) 2 0.VNxd6 (If White does not
accept the pawn-sacrifice, then
after 2 0 . 0-0 ie6 2 1.lia1 'iNb6
2 2.'iNd3 WfcS+ Black remains with
a bishop-pair in a superior posi­
tion.) 20 . . . ie6 21.'iNxd8 liaxd8
2 2 .lia1 lid2 23.h4 if4 24.lLldS
lixb2 2S.lLlc4 lic2 = , and the best
that White can dream about is a
draw in that position.
17 lLla5
•••
18 . .id3
After 18.ie2, White's e4-pawn
remains defenseless and Black
can exploit that outright with
the line: 18 . . . lLlb3 19.1Llce3 lLlcS
2 0.'iNc2 ic6 ! 21.ic4 ixe3 ! 2 2 .fxe3
(White is forced to comply with
that ugly capture; otherwise he
loses his central pawn.) 22 . . . �h8+
- White has held on to the dS­
square indeed, but his pawn­
structure has been compromised
considerably, so that provides
Black with the advantage.
In case of 18 .lLlce3, Black fol­
lows with 18 . . . ixe3 19.lLlxe3 lLlxc4
20.lLlxc4 W!b8 ! Now, White loses
after 21.lLlxeS? ie6-+, as well as
after 21.lLlxd6? lid8 2 2 .b4 ie6
23.lid2 ib3 ! -+ , or 21.Wfxd6?
ie6-+ . Therefore, he is forced to
simplify the game with the varia­
tion: 21.lt:\e3 ie6 22.lixa4 Wfxb2
23.lixa8 lixa8 24.Wfxd6 Wfxc3=
with a complete equality.
18 . . . �b3 19.�cb4
If 19.1Llce3, then 19 . . . lLlc5 2 0 .
1S9
Chapter 12
Ac2 , Samuelson - Shabalov, Wa­
shington 2006, and here Black's
simplest line is 2 0 . . . Ac6 ! ? (He is
threatening to capture 2 1 . ..he3
and White cannot take with his
knight, because of the vulnerabil­
ity of his e4-pawn). After 21.VNf3
he3 2 2,ll) xe3 g6 23J'�d1 f5?
Black begins active actions first.
19 . . . �c5
The arising position resem­
bles very much the game Anand
- Radjabov, Monaco 2007, which
we will analyze a bit later (see the
variation 16.0-0 lLId4). The only
difference is that Black's knight
has come to the c5-square via a5,
winning an important tempo at­
tacking his opponent's bishop on
c4. Now, it must retreat and Black
obtains an excellent game because
of that.
2 0 .Ac2 a3 ! 2U:�xa3 gxa3
22.bxa3 VNa5=
White has not achieved any­
thing in the opening. There might
follow 23.a4 ga8 24.�e3 ha4
25.�c4 hc2 2 6.VNxc2 VNc7 27.�d5
VNc6 28.l3b1 Ad8 = . We must as­
sume that in the variation 16.l3a2,
Black equalizes easily.
160
2) 16. 0 - 0
That line creates more prob­
lems for Black, but at the same
time, it presents him with numer­
ous possibilities. It is amazing, but
even Teimour Radjabov has tried
different lines for Black here.
16 ... �e7
That is the most logical reac­
tion for Black, but it is by far not
his only one. We must analyze at
first his possible knight-moves :
16 . . . lLIb4 ! ? (Black takes the
a2-square from White's rook and
he opts for tactical play.) 17.ga3
(That is a quite natural move in­
deed, but it deserves attention for
White to try here the typical po­
sitional sacrifice for that scheme:
17.lLIcxb4 ! ? ha4 18.VNxa4 axb4
19.VNxb4� - and White has a pawn
for the exchange and an almighty
knight on the d5-outpost, as well
as a potentially dangerous passed
pawn along the b-file.) 17. . . lLIxd5
(In case Black refrains from the
immediate capturing on d5 in
favour of the intermediate move
17. . . l3c8? ! , he risks a lot, because
of the line: 18.cxb4 ! Here, in
case of 18 . . . l3xc4? ! White coun-
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12 . ttJ c2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. Ac4 Ad?
ters with 19.bxa5 '8xe4 2 0 .a6 '8a4
21.'8xa4 ha4 2 2 .Wfe2± - and it
would be very difficult for Black to
fight against the powerful passed
a-pawn, while in case of 18. . .
axb4, then 19.'8a6 '8xc4 20.'8xd6
and White has the unpleasant
threats 21.'8xd7 and 21.ttJb6. In
the game Volokitin - Radjabov,
Biel 2 0 06, there followed 20 . . . b3
21.ttJce3 '8d4, and here instead
of 2 2 .�xb3 Wfc8 ! 23.�c2 Ae6 24.
'8c6 Wfb8 25.'8b1 ixe3 ! 26.ttJxe3
'8fd8? with sufficient counter-
play for Black, it is much more
interesting for White to continue
with 22.Wff3 ! ? - he protects his
e4-pawn with that move and he
threatens 23.ttJf5, forcing his op-
ponent to clarify his intentions
concerning his rook on d4. In case
of 22 . . . g6, White can activate his
passive rook with 23.'8al±, while
following 22 . . . Ae7, White has at
his disposal the beautiful tactical
line: 23.'8xd7! Wfxd7 24.�g3 ! The
appearance of the knight on f5
spells great trouble for Black. Af-
ter 24 . . . '8xe4, White follows with
25.ttJf5 ! +- anyway and Black can
capture neither knight. It is bad
for him to play 24 . . . g6 25.Wfxe5±
- because his rook and bishop are
hanging, while after 24 .. .f6 25.ttJf5
i.c5 26.ttJxd4 ixd4 27.Wfxb3±
White remains with a solid extra
pawn and good winning chances.
Therefore, Black has nothing bet-
ter than to enter an endgame with
heavy pieces, being a pawn down:
24 . . . Wfe6 25.ttJf5 if6 26.ttJxf6+
Wfxf6 27.ttJxd4 exd4 28.Wfxb3;!;)
18.hd5 (It is also possible for
White to play 18. Wfxd5 Ae6 19.
�d3 �c7 20 .Ad5 '8ab8 21.b4
axb4 22.ttJxb4, but after 22 . . .
�c5 23.he6 fxe6 24.'8a6 '8fc8 !
25.�xd6 Wfxd6 26.'8xd6 '8xc3;!;
White has only minimal chances
of winning, mostly thanks to his
superior pawn-structure. There-
fore, it is better for him to capture
on d5 with the bishop.) 18 . . . '8b8
19.'8a2 ! ? (It deserves attention for
White to slow down with the ad­
vance of the b-pawn for a while.
He should better double his rooks
along the rook-file first. That is
much trickier than the immedi­
ate straightforward line: 19.b4
axb4 20.ttJxb4 ! Ab5 21.'8e1 Wfe7
22 .�f3 '8fc8 23.'8eaU, although
even then White maintains some
minimal edge, thanks to his pres­
sure against the V-square and
the threat of penetrating to the
seventh rank.) 19 . . . a4 (If Black
refrains from that move and he
plays instead 19 . . . g6, then af­
ter 2 0.Wff3 ! ? Wfc7 21.'8faU White
would go back to the plan with
b2-b4.) 20.ttJb4 g6 21.'8xa4 ! ha4
22.Wfxa4;!;. White has accom­
plished the thematic exchange
sacrifice for that variation and he
maintains superior prospects. He
dominates on the a-file and his
bishop on d5 restricts the mobil­
ity of Black's rooks considerably.
White will follow with advancing
his queenside pawns after retreat-
ing his knight from b4.
161
Chapter 12

16 . . . ltJd4 (You can see Black's than 1B.ltJce3 g6 19.'lWd3 f5 20.b3

great problems in that variation i.h6 21.l3d1 'lWh4 2 2 .f3, Anand -
in the game of the Indian grand­ Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2 0 07,
master against the greatest spe­ 22 . . . fxe4 23.fxe4 @g7oo) 1B . . . 'lWc7
cialist of that variation.) 17.l3a2 (White is slightly better too in
ltJe6 (The trade on c2 does not case of 1B . . . ie6 19.'lWd3;!;, followed
look so attractive to Black. His by 20 .l3d1.) 19JWh5 ! (White em­
idea is to transfer his knight to phasizes the drawbacks of Black's
the c5-square, but it is not effec­ last move with that decision. He
tive either.) 1B.'lWe2 a4, Anand would not achieve anything much
- Radjabov, Monaco 2007 (Black after 19.'lWd3 ltJe7 2 0.l3d1 i.c6 21.
is faced with a dilemma. He can ltJd5 ltJxd5 22 .,hd5 ib5 23.'lWf3
fix White's pawn on b2, or he can i.d7= , as it was played in the
let it advance two squares for­ game Karjakin - Radjabov, Cap
ward in the line: 1B . . . ltJc5 19JUa1 d'Agde 2006.) 19 .. .f6 (Black is
ic6 2 0.b4 axb4 21.cxb4 l3xa2 forced to weaken his light
22.l3xa2;!;), and here the best so­ squares.) 2 0.ltJd5 (White goes
lution for White is to exchange back to the idea of placing his
immediately the light-squared knights on d5 and e3 under much
bishops after which Black's weak­ more favourable circumstances.)
nesses (the d5-square and the a4- 20 ... 'lWdB (or 2 0 ... 'lWa7 21.b4 i.e6
pawn) become even more vulner­ 22.ltJce3;!; with positional pressure
able: 19.ib5 ! (White played in the for White) 21.ltJce3;!;. The specifics
game 19.1tJcb4, and Black could of that position is that Black's
have countered that with the pawn is on f6 and not on f7 and
prophylactic move 19 . . . l3bB ! , im­ that is obviously in favour of
peding the realization of White's White.
idea.) 19 . . . ,hb5 20.'lWxb5;!;. White 17.l3a2
plans to attack Black's a4-pawn
with his heavy pieces and to ex­
change Black's knight on c5 from
the d3-square.
Naturally, Black is not obliged
to play so aggressively and he can
opt for much calmer lines :
16 . . . @hB 17.ltJce3, that varia­
tion will be analyzed after a differ­
ent move-order - see 16.ltJce3.
In case of 16 . . . l3bB 17.l3a2 @hB, 17. . . l3c8 !
it is very good for White to play The line: 17 . . . @hB 1B.ltJce3, will
1B.ltJde3 ! (This is more precise be analyzed later - see 16.ltJce3.

162
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.&iJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'i1.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
If 17. . . ic6, then IB.Y«d3 lLlxdS
19.ixdS Y«b6 2 0 .'i1.fal 'i1.abB 21.
lLla3 !;!; Schussler - Kouatly, Gro­
ningen 1977 and White has the
powerful threat 2 2 .lLlc4.
It is a bit premature for Black
to try 17 . . . lLlxdS IB.,hdS 'i1.cB
19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight is head­
ed for the c4-square in order to
attack Black's two weaknesses.)
19 ... a4 ! (It is weaker for Black to
play 19 . . . ie6? ! , Vescovi - Meck­
ing, Sao Paulo 2000, because of
2 0.,he6 fxe6 21.Y«g4, followed
by 2 1 . . . Y«f6 2 2 . lLlbS dS 23.'i1.xaS±,
or 2 1 . . .Y«e7 2 2 . lLlbS 'i1.f4 23.Y«e2±;
in case of 19 . . . whB ! ? 2 0 .lLlc4 .tbS,
besides the reliable line 21.Y«b3;!;,
White can try the principled vari­
ation 21.lLlxaS ! ? ixfl 22.Y«xf1 Y«d7
23.lLlc4 'gc7 24.b4;!; with more
than sufficient compensation
for the exchange.) 2 0 .lLlc4 ! ibS
21.lLlxd6 (The exchange-sacrifice
is again possible here - 21.'i1.xa4! ?
ixa4 22.Y«xa4 WhB 23.Y«a6 .te7
24.'i1.aU) 2 1 . . .ixfl 22.Wxfl (But
not 2 2 . lLlxcB?, because of 22 . . .
ic4! +) 2 2 . . . 'gc7 23.lLlbS 'i1.cS 24.
Y«xa4;!; with an edge for White.
17. . . 'gcB ! - That is the best de­
fence for Black and White must
play very precisely in order to ob­
tain the advantage.
(diagram)
18.Y«d3 !
White would not achieve much
with IB.lLlxe7+ Y«xe7 19.idS, rely­
ing on the line: 19 . . . a4 (about 19 . . .
Y«dB - see 1 7. . . lLlxdS) 20.lLlb4 !
WhB 21.'i1.xa4 ! (That is once again
the already familiar exchange­
sacrifice.) 21 . . . ixa4 2 2 .Y«xa4, with
good prospects for White, for ex­
ample: 22 . . . g6 23.lLlc6 Y«d7 24.b4
fS 2S.bS fxe4 26.Y«xe4 Y«c7 27.g3;!;
Aliavdin - Voitsekhovsky, Sochi
2 0 07, or 22 . . .fS ! ? (That is an at­
tempt by Black to organize active
counterplay on the kingside.) 23.
exfS 'i1.xfS 24.lLlc6 Y«c7 2S.g3 (It is
useless for White to play 2S.ie6? ! ,
because of 2S . . . 'i1.f4.) 2 S . . . 'gcfB
26.l!>g2 Y«b7 27.Y«c2 ie3 2B.f3;!;
It is much stronger for Black
to play 19 . . . 'i1.cS ! (He leaves his
pawn on as, controlling the b4-
square and he prevents the ex­
change-sacrifice.) 2 0 .b4 (After
2 0.b3 'i1.xc3 21.'i1.xaS ie6 2 2 . lLlb4
'i1.fcB+, as it was played in the game
Anand - Radjabov, Mainz 2006,
Black's position was even slightly
preferable. White has no advan­
tage after 20.Y«d3 ibS 21.c4 id7
22.'i1.fal a4=) 20 . . . 'i1.xc3 2 1.bxaS
ibS 22.'i1.el (or 22.a6 Y«a7oo) 22 . . .
'i1.fcB 23.lLle3 Y«a7 24.Y«f3 'i1.Bc7
2S.'i1.aaloo. This position is with
mutual chances, since White's
dominance over the dS-outpost
and his passed a-pawn is balanced
by Black's active pieces.
163
Chapter 12
18 ••• ttJxd5 19.hd5 a4
In case of 19 . . . �b6, as it was
played in the game Magyar -
Ponnath, Germany 1999, White
had the powerful counter mea­
sure 2 0 .ttJa3 ! (threatening 21.
lDc4, and both Black's as and
d6-pawns would be hanging)
20 . . . �c5 (In case of 20 . . . �c7, it is
very strong for White to play
21.lDb5 ! hb5 22.�xb5±, and
his bishop is much stronger
than Black's dark-squared bishop
in the arising position.) 2U:ifa1
�h8 22.lDc4 a4 23.�xa4 ! ha4
24.�xa4;!; - White's queenside
pawns are ready to advance with
tempo.
2 0 .�a6! ?
Now, capturing o n a4 i s again
on the agenda.
2 0 ... �c7 21.ttJb4 �h8 22.
�xa4! ha4 23.�xa4;!;
There might follow 23 . . . �b6
24.�a1 f5 25.�a6 ! �xa6 26.�xa6
fxe4 27.he4;!; - and after the ex­
change of queens, White can cen­
tralize his king and advance his
queenside passed pawn. It looks
like Black has great difficulties to
cope with his problems.
164
So, we are convinced now that
the move 16.�a2 should not worry
Black too much because of 16 . . .
a4 ! , while after
16.0-0, White has a slight po­
sitional pressure, but in order to
maintain it he must be ready to
sacrifice the exchange. That sacri­
fice is promising indeed, but it is
still not so well analyzed.
After 16.lDce3, Black has tried:
a) 16 ... h:e3, b) 16 . . . �h8, c)
16 ... �b8, d) 16 . . . ttJe7 and e)
16 . . . g6.
a) 16 . . . h:e3
That is a principled move, but
it is a too straightforward attempt
at solving the problems in the
opening.
17.ttJxe3 ttJe7 18.�a2 ic6
19.�d3 !
In the game Hamid - Mu­
ralidharan, Chennai 2 0 04, White
played 19.1Dd5 hd5 2 0.hd5,
and Black could have solved his
problems with the line: 20 . . . �c8
21.0-0 �c5 ! = ' White should not
have provoked exchanges on d5.
19 ... a4
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 �g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. �c4 �d7
It is much worse for Black to
play 19 . . . liJg6 2 0 .g3 a4, Kasperek
- Nikel, Internet 2005. It is es­
sential that Black has lost his
control over the d5-square and he
has failed to activate his knight.
After 21.id5 ixd5 22.�xd5 liJe7
23.�d3 �b6 24.0-0 'SfdB 25.'Sfa1
�3 26.�c4± Black's pawns on a4
and d6 remain very weak, while
White can easily protect his back­
ward b2-pawn.
2 0 . 0 - 0 �c7 21.'Sdl :afdS
22.ib5! , and here it is in fa­
vour of White if Black plays 22 . . .
�b6 23.hc6 �xc6 24.�c4;1;, as
well as 22 . . . d5 23.ixc6 dxe4 24.
1Wxe4 'Sxd1+ 25.liJxd1 1Wxc6 26.
�xe5;1;. This last variation leads to
a position in which White has an
extra pawn indeed, but his pieces
are placed a bit awkwardly. Black
can hardly exploit that, though.
b) 16 ••• �bS
(diagram)
17. 0 - 0
I will have to remind you that
position might be reached after a
different move-order too - 16.
0-0 �hB 17.liJce3, and it should
be noted that White should not be
in a hurry to play 17.h4? ! , because
of 17 . . . he3 1B.liJxe3 liJe7 19.'Sa2
�c6 2 0.�g4 d5 ! oo Volokitin - Ra­
djabov, Cap d'Agde 2006.
17 liJe7
•••
In case of 17 . . . ixe3 1B.liJxe3
liJe7 19.'Sa2 �c6 2 0.�d3, Black
still has problems. It is bad for him
to try 20 . . . 'Sa7? ! , Garcia Martinez
- Almeida, Mexico 1991, 2 1.b4 ! f5
22.exf5 d5 23.�b5 e4 24.�e2±, it
is too passive for him to opt for
20 . . . �c7 21.'Sd1 'SadB (Black's oth­
er rook must take care about the
V-pawn.), March - Saez, Oropesa
199B, 22.'Sda1 ! ? �7 23.liJd5 ixd5
24.exd5 'SaB 25.b3± - Black has
great problems protecting his a5-
pawn. If 20 .. .f5 21.exf5 d5, then
White can counter Black's active
strategy with the line : 2 2 .ib5 !
d4 23.hc6 liJxc6 24.liJc4 �d5,
and here 25.'Sa4 e4 26.�d1 �c5
27.cxd4 liJxd4 2B. liJe3;1; Kravt­
siv - Kolesov, Alushta 2 0 07, or
25.f3 ! ?;1; - and White has an extra
pawn in both variations with ex­
cellent winning chances.
Black cannot solve his prob­
lems with the move 17 . . . g6, Stano­
joski - Dinev, Stip 2002, 1B.g3 f5
165
Chapter 12
19.exfS gxfS 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4
i.h4 22.g"hU and White has a
slight advantage.
The move 17 .. J3bS has not
been tested in practice yet. It is
interesting here to try for White
the original idea 18.Y«a1 ! ? After
1S . . . llJe7 19.13xaS, it is not good
for Black to enter the variation
19 . . . llJxdS 2 0.hdS l3xb2 21.llJc4±
with a clear advantage for White.
It is stronger for Black to play
19 . . . l3xb2 ! ? , but then White main­
tains his initiative with the line:
20.llJxe7 he7 21.l3a7 l3bS 22.l3b1
i!xb1+ 23.Y«xb1 .!gS 24.llJdS;!;. In
case of 1S . . . g6 (instead of 1S . . .
llJe7), White would follow with
19.Y«a3 ! fS 2 0 . .!d3 !;!;, planning
21.llJc4 with powerful pressure
against the d6-pawn.
18.l3a2 !
That is usually the best square
for White's rook in that system.
18 ••• a4! ?
This i s a purposeful line for
Black. He has several alternatives,
though:
The line 1S . . . he3 19.1lJxe3,
leads to a transposition of moves
- see 17 . . . he3 ;
166
In the game Zawadzka - Zhi­
galko, Warsaw 2 0 0S, there fol­
lowed 1S . . . g6 19.b3 he3 (It is
insufficient for Black to try here
19 . . . a4 2 0 .bxa4 Y«aS 21.llJxe7 he7
2 2.Y«d2;!;) 20.llJxe3 i.c6 21.l3d2
(It would be interesting to test
21.VUd3 ! ?, so that after 21.. .fS
22.l3d1 f4 23.llJc2 f3, White can
exploit the tactical nuances of the
position by playing 24.llJd4 ! t)
21.. .llJcS (After 21.. .he4 2 2 . l3xd6
Y«c7 23.l3d7 Y«cS 24.Y«d2;!;, fol­
lowed by l3d1, White occupies re­
liably the central d-file.) 2 2 .'!dS
VUc7. In this position, White can
increase his pressure in the centre
with 23.VUf3 f6 24.l3fdU;
After 1S . . . llJg6, Fragakis - Pa­
padopoulos, Greece 2 00S, White
should better play 19.1lJfS hfS
20.exfS llJe7 21.Y«d3;!;
19.tilxe7 Y«xe7 2 0 . tilfS
This move leads to a position
with opposite-coloured bishops
and Black's attempt to seize the
initiative backfires, as we are go­
ing to see.
20 ••• .ixf5 21.exfS e4
It is even weaker for Black to
play 21...Y«d7? ! 22 .VUg4 h6 23.Y«e4±
 11.c3 0 - 0 12. liJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
22 .id5 e3! ?
• advancing his h-pawn. Mean­
That i s the best chance for
Black, because after 2 2 . . . 'Sa5, then
White plays 23.'Se1 e3 24.b4 'Sa7
25.fxe3 a3 26.Wd3±, and Black's
position is very difficult.
23.fxe3 Wxe3+ 24.<!>hl
gab8 25.Wxa4 Wd2 26.gdl
gfe8 27.Wd4 gel+ 28.gxel
Wxel+ 29.Wgl;t
White has parried the threats
along the first rank and he has a
material advantage. Naturally, it
would be far from easy for him
to win with his extra pawn in that
position.
c) 16 ••• gb8 17.b3 <!>h8
18.ga2 ! ?
After that move, Black must
consider the possibility of White
while, White maintains his edge
even after castling short, for
example: 18.0-0 g6 19.Wd3 f5
20J�a2 ih6 21.'Sd1 Wh4 2 2 .f3.
In the first game, in which
that variation was played Topalov
- Kasparov, Leon 1998, there
followed 22 . . . ie6 23.liJf1 fxe4
24.Wfxe4 (It is also possible for
White to play 24.fxe4, Wiersma ­
Goeldi, Triesen 2006, but it seems
to me that in this case keeping
the queens on the board should
rather be in favour of Black.) 24 . . .
Wxe4 25.fxe4 'S t7 26J�f2 (White
can preserve an additional couple
of rooks with 26.h4 ! ? Wg7 27.'Sd3,
with the idea to follow with liJh2-
f3, or liJd2-f3, but the move in
the game is simpler.) 26 . . . Wg7
27J�xt7+ ixt7 28.wf2 liJd8 29.'Sa1
liJe6 30.gxa5 liJc5, and here White
maintains a clear advantage after
31.'Sa7! (Instead, he played in the
game 31.liJg3 liJxb3, and Black
avoided the worst.) 31...liJxe4+
32.Wf3 liJg5+ 33.We2±
After 22 ... Wfg5, Black is not
out of the woods : 23.liJf1 Wfd8
24.wh1 f4 25.liJd2 ig5 26.ib5
liJb4 27.liJxb4 hb5 28.c4 hc4
29.liJxc4 'Sxb4 3 0.Wd5;t;. He man­
aged later to save the game in­
deed, but the character of the fight
would hardly satisfy Black: 30 . . .
Wfc7 31.liJxd6 if6 32.'Sxa5 'Sxb3
33.gc5 Wfb8 34J'kc1 'Sb2 35.We6
Wfb3, and here it deserves atten­
tion for White to continue with
36.liJc4 ! ? (or 36.Wd7 'Sc2 37.liJe8
167
Chapter 12
�xc1 38.�xc1 'lWa3 39.�b1 'lWa2
40.�d1 'lWfl 41.tilxf6 'lWxf6 42.'lWc7
�fl 1/2 Anand - Radjabov, Wijk
aan Zee 2007) 36 . . . �a2 37.�b1
'lWc2 38.�gl - White has the ini­
tiative thanks to the threat to pen­
etrate with his rook to the penul­
timate rank and the vulnerability
of Black's eS-pawn.
IS ••• tile7
This is the most logical solu­
tion.
It is too dangerous for Black
to play 18 . . . g6? ! , because White
can counter that with 19.h4 ! hh4
2 0 .g3. That resource of seiz­
ing the initiative is often used in
similar positions. Here, the cir­
cumstances are especially favour­
able for White. The second rank
is free and it can be exploited to
bring the rook on a2 into the at­
tack. Black's problems can be il­
lustrated by the following exem­
plary variations: 20 . . .�f6 2 1.f4
exf4 2 2 .gxf4 .ih4+?! 23.@f1 fS
24.�ah2 + - ; 2 0 . . . �e7 21.f4 �g8
2 2 .�ah2 �g7 23.fS �gS 24.'lWf3+-;
2 0 ... �gS 2 1.f4 exf4 22.�ah2 h6
23.gxf4+- and White's threats are
decisive in all the variations.
168
It is premature for Black to
play 18 . . . fS 19.tilxfS �S 20.exfS
�xfS 21.h4 ! ? �e7 (In case of 21...
.ih6? 2 2 .g4 ! +-, followed by 23.gS,
Black loses a piece.) 2 2 .�d3 e4
(The light squares are already very
weak and Black is reluctant to en­
ter the variation 22 . . . �fl 23.�e4±)
23.he4 �eS 24.�e2± Skok - Bol­
sunovsky, Evpatoria 2006.
White is clearly better after
18 . . . �h6 19.tilg4 'lWh4 2 0 .h3 fS
21.exfS hfS 2 2 .tilde3 .ie4 23.0-0
if4 24 . .idS;!; Nisipeanu - Apel,
Germany 1995.
In the game Krokay - Ba­
ran, Krynica 2 0 0 1, after 18 ... �a8
(In fact, Black admits his mis­
take on move 16 with that deci­
sion.) 19.0-0 tile7, the opponents
agreed to a draw, but White's po­
sition was obviously better. He
could have tried the line: 2 0 . tilxe7
he7 21.tilfS;!;
The move 18 . . . ie6 - seems
rather strange, because then Black
did not need to develop his bishop
to d7, since he could have put it
on e6 in one move. 19.0-0 'lWd7
(It is not better for Black to opt
for 19 . . . g6 20 .g3 'lWd7 2 1.'lWd3 fS
22.exfS gxfS 23 .f4 e4 24.'lWe2 .id8 ,
Grazinys - Halwick, corr. 2000,
because after 2S.@g2 tile7 26.�b1
tilxdS 27.ixdS �c8 28.'lWd2 �cS
29.c4;!; the exchange of the light­
squared bishops is unavoidable
and White will fortify his knight in
the centre of the board.) 20.'lWe2
g6, Schreber - Halwick, corr.
2001, and no doubt, White must
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 iLg5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. iLc4 iLd7
be well prepared to counter the
advance f7-f5, for example with
21.g3 f5 (That is the most prin­
cipled decision for Black.) 22.exf5
gxf5 23.f4 idB (After 23 . . . exf4
24.gxf4 ie7 25.Wh1 'SgB 26.%Vh5;!;
- Black cannot obtain any effec­
tive counterplay, because of his
new weakness on f5.) 24.'Sd1 'SgB
25.§'h5;!; and Black's position
looks solid indeed, but he has no
counterplay. Therefore, White's
prospects are superior.
19.�xe7 he7
If 19 . . . §'xe7, then not 2 0 .
'Sxa5? ! iLxe3 2 1.fxe3 %Vh4+, but
20.�f5 iLxf5 21.exf5 e4 22. 0-0;!;
and White maintains his posi­
tional advantage.
2 0 . 0 - 0 g6
In the game Pavlov - Kole­
sov, Alushta 2 0 06, there followed
2 0 . . .f5 ? ! 21.exf5 iLxf5 22.%Vd5 ig6
23.§'xa5 §'xa5 24.'Sxa5±, and
White reached an endgame with
an extra pawn.
21.§'d3 a4 22.b4;!;
Black's pawns on a4 and d6
are weak. White has deployed his
forces quite harmoniously and he
controls reliably the central d5-
outpost. These factors guarantee
his advantage.
d) 16 ... �e7 17.'Sa2
17. . . �xd5
About 17 . . . iLxe3 18.�xe3 - see
16 . . . iLxe3 ; as for 17 . . . WhB 1B.0-0
- see 16 . . . WhB.
In a game played between
computers some time ago, the
move 17 . . . a4 was tested, but after
1B.0-0 �xd5 19.iLxd5 'SbB , Voy­
ager 2.29 - The Crazy Bishop 37,
1999, White had the typical re­
source 20.�c4 iLb5 21.'Sxa4 iLxa4
22.%Vxa4;;, with an excellent com­
pensation for the exchange due to
his dominance in the centre, his
control over the light squares and
his potentially dangerous passed
b-pawn.
About 17. . . 'SbB, Schwierzy -
Neumann, Germany 1991, 1B.b3
�xd5 19.�xd5 - see 17 . . . �xd5.
In case of 17 . . . 'ScB ! ? , with the
idea to increase the pressure
along the c-file, White should re­
frain from 1B.b3 ? ! a4 ! +t Ortiz Fer­
nandez - Wendt, Calvia 2 0 04, but
he should play instead 1B.§'d3 !
�xd5 19.�xd5, and later 19 . . . a4
169
Chapter 12
20 . .tb5 !;!;; , or 19 . . . �b8 20.b3 ! a4
21.b4;!;;
18.�xd5 g6
Black is preparing the pawn­
advance f7-f5.
He has tested in practice some
other moves too, besides 18 . . . g6:
The original move 18 ... Wlc8? ! ,
was tried i n the game Prathamesh
- Ganguly, Mumbai 2003, but it
proved to be incorrect, because of
19.ttJb6 Wlc6 20.ttJxd7 �xc4 (Black
loses a piece in the line 20 . . .
�xe4+ 21..te2 �fd8 2 2 .ttJb6 �ab8
23.f3+-) 21.�a4±, and White wins
the exchange.
It is more solid for Black to opt
for 18 . . . �8 19.0-0 �h8 (It is too
risky to lose the control over the
f7-square: 19 . . . �c8 20.b3 a4, Than­
nhausser - Cvetnic, corr. 2000,
2 1.�h5 ! - Black loses after 21...
axb3? 2 2 . �xa8 Wlxa8 23.ttJb6+-,
while in case of 2 1. . .h6, White fol­
lows with 22.ttJf6+ ! hi6 23.Wlxf7+
�h7 24.�xd7 axb3 25.�a8 Wlxa8
26.ixb3 �xc3 27 . .te6 Wld8 28.
Wlf7 �c7 29 . .tf5+ �h8 30.�g6
�g8 31..te6+ �h8 32.�bl± and
he has a powerful attack in a posi­
tion with opposite-coloured bish­
ops.) 2 0.�e2 f5 21.exf5 �xf5, as it
was played in the game Loskutov
- Iskusnyh, Arkhangelsk 1996. At
that moment, White had better
continue with 22 . .td3 �f8 23.h4
.th6 24.!e4;!;; with a slight but sta­
ble advantage.
In case of 18 . . . �b8, White
can play 19.b3 g6 2 0 . 0- 0 �h8
21.Wle2;!;; , and later 2 2 . �fa1.
170
Following 18 . . . �h8, as it was
played in the game Miciak - Skar­
ba, Slovakia 1996, it would be
good for White to try 19.b3 ! , af­
ter which 19 . . . g6 would lead to a
transposition of moves - see 18 . . .
g6, while i n case o f the immedi­
ate 19 .. .f5 20.exf5 hi5 21.0-0;!;;
- White would preserve a slight
but stable advantage, despite the
fact that Black had managed to
push f7-f5, without preparing it
first with g7-g6. White's plan in­
cludes the transfer of his bishop
to the e4-square and Black has
problems countering that. The ex­
change of the light-squared bish­
ops will make the presence of the
knight on d5 even more effective
and if Black counters the move
!d3 with the advance e5-e4, then
his light-squared bishop will be
forced to protect later that new
weakness.
19.b3 �h8
If 19 . . . a4, then 2 0 .b4;!;;
20.0-0
This is a reliable move indeed,
but it is worth having a look at the
aggressive line 2 0 .h4 ! ? This the­
matic pawn-sacrifice is attractive
 11.c3 0 - 0 12Ji'Jc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Bxa4 a5 15. i.c4 i.d7

in this situation (without a black 'Bh7+ Wg8 30 .'Wd2 +-; White is

knight on the c6-square), because clearly better too after 22 . . . h5
after White pushes f2-f4 in some 23.f5 Wg7 24.'Bf2 ! �) 23.'Bah2
variations, Black cannot capture 'Bg7co. White has compensation
exf4, since he loses his control for the sacrificed pawn for sure,
over the d4-square. The drawback but it would be far from easy for
of the situation for White is that him to break Black's defence. In
the exchange of the knights has this particular game, he failed to
diminished his attacking poten­ do that, though.
tial. 20 ••• f5 21.exf5 i.xf5
After 2 0 . . . hh4 21.g3, it is too In case of 21. . .gxf5, White
risky for Black to play 21.. .i.e7 follows with the thematic move
2 2 .f4 'Bg8 23.'Bah2 'Bg7, in view of 2 2.f4;1;;
24.f5 ! Here, Black is helpless after
24 . . . gxf5 25.exf5 .!c6 (25 . . . .!xf5
26.'Wf3+-) 26.'Wf3 ! f6 27.tLlxf6 ! +-,
or 24 . . . .!g5 25.'Wf3 ! gxf5 26.exfS
e4 (if 26 . . .f6, then 27.tLlxf6 ! i.xf6
28.'Bxh7+ ! 'Bxh7 29.'Bxh7+ Wxh7
3 0.'Wh5+ Wg7 3 1.'Wg6+-) 27.'Wf1 !
(This surprising maneuver settles
the issue.) 27 . . .i.f6 28.'Bh6 ! .!g5
29.'B6h5 a4 30 .b4 a3 31.i.a2 +-.
Black's relatively best defence is 22. 'We2;1;; - and White ends
24 . . . i.c6 25.'Wg4 .!g5 (or 25 . . . a4 up with a slight positional ad­
26.fxg6 fxg6 27.'Wxg6 ! +-), but vantage. Black has pushed t7-f5
then 26.tLlc7! 'Wf6 (or 26 . . . 'Wxc7 indeed, but he has not equalized
27.'Wxg5 gxf5 28.'Wf6 Wg8 completely yet.
29.'Wxf5+-) 27.tLlxa8 gxf5 28.'Wxf5
'Wxf5 29.exf5 has 30.f6 ! i.xf6 e) 16 ••• g6
31.'B£1 i.g5 32.'Bxt7 'Bxt7 33.i.xt7±,
and White wins the exchange.
In the game Arnaudov - Yor­
danov, Pleven 2 006, Black de­
fended more precisely - 21.. . .!f6 !
2 2 .f4 'Bg8 ! (Black loses after 22 . . .
exf4? 23.'Bah2 fxg3 24.'Bxh7+
Wg8 25.'Wd2 +-, as well as follow­
ing 2 2 . . . i.g7? 23J�ah2 h6 24.f5 !
'Wg5 25.f6 'Wxg3+ 26.wd2 'Wg5+
27.Wc2 .!xf6 28.'8xh6+ Wg7 29. Black begins the immediate

171
Chapter 12
preparation of the advance of his
f-pawn.
17.b3 !?
This i s the most ambitious de­
cision for White. The idea should
be well familiar to our readers.
White postpones his castling
short, planning to push h2-h4 at
some moment.
Meanwhile, White has a calm­
er alternative. It is good for him
to opt for 17. 0-0 E1b8 (about 17 . . .
'it>h8 18.g3 - see 16 . . . 'it>h8) 18.E1a2 !
In the game Wallace - Kalini­
tschew, Budapest 1995, Black
chose 18 . . . 'it>h8, but White could
have obtained the advantage with
the line: 19.93 f5 20.exfS gxfS (or
20 . . . .hfS 21.tLlxfS E1xf5 2 2.id3 E1t7
23.lMfg4;l;) 2l.f4 exf4 22.gxf4 ih6
23.'it>h1 tLle7 24.b3 tLlxd5 25.tLlxd5
ic6 26.lMfd3;!;; . It would be insuf­
ficient for Black to equalize with
18 . . . tLle7 19.tLlxe7+ lMfxe7 2 0 .tLld5
lMfd8 21.g3;!;;
17 ... 'it>hS
lS.h4 !
This move i s played just at the
right moment, since the advance
of the h-pawn is even more effec­
tive with a black king on h8.
172
lS . . . hh4
In case Black declines the gift
and he plays 18 . . . ih6? ! , then af­
ter 19.E1a2 (It is also possible for
White to play 19.hS if4 2 0 .lMfd3;!;;)
19 ... tLle7 20.tLlf6 ! it becomes obvi­
ous that he in a big trouble. M­
ter 2 0 . . . .he3, White's simplest
reaction is 21.fxe3 ! ie6 (or 21...
tLlg8 22.tLlxg8 'it>xg8 23.lMfxd6±)
22.hS ! g5 (In case of 22 . . . tLlg8,
White wins with 23.tLlxh7! 'it>xh7
24.ixe6 fxe6 2S.hxg6+ 'it>xg6 26.
lMfh5+ 'it>f6 27.lMfh7+- with an un­
avoidable checkmate.) 23 . .he6
fxe6 24. 0-0 tLlg8 (or 24 . . . tLlc6
25.E1af2±) 2S.tLlg4 E1xfl + 26.lMfxf1
lMfc7 27.c4 lMfb7 28 .lMfd1 lMfb4 (or
28 .. :�xe4 29.lMfxd6+-) 29.h6±
- and Black is left with numerous
weaknesses all over the board. He
lost quickly after 20 . . . ie6, which
was played in the game Timofeev
- Smirnov, Tomsk 2 0 06. There
followed 2 1.h5 .hc4 22. tLlxc4
ig5? (That move loses outright,
but Black's chances of saving the
game are not much greater after
22 ... 'it>g7 23.tLlg4±, or 2 2 . . . tLlc6
23.tLldS±) 23.hxg6 ! .hf6 24.lMfh5
1-0.
U is more logical for Black to
play 18 . . . .he3 ! ? 19.tLlxe3 tLl e7, but
then White obtains an advantage
with the help of an exchange sacri­
fice: 2 0.lMfxd6 ! .ha4 2 1.lMff6+ 'it>g8
22 .bxa4 E1c8 ! (The alternatives for
Black are even worse: 2 2 . . . tLlc8?
23 . .hf7! +-; 22 . . . hS 23.lMfxe5±;
22 ... E1b8 23.0-0±) 23. tLlg4 (This
move forces Black to give back
 11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '!l.xa4 a5 15. ic4 id7
some material. It is also good for
White to play 23. WlxeS lLIc6 24.'lWf4
Wlc7 2S.Wlxc7 '!l.xc7 26.ibS;i;;) 23 . . .
lLIfS (that i s a n only move) 24.exfS
Wlxf6 2S.lLIxf6+ 'it>g7 26.lLId7 '!l.xc4
27.f6+ 'it>g8 28.lLIxf8 'it>xf8 29.'it>e2 !
'!l.e4+ (or 29 . . . '!l.xa4 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8
31.'!l.bS !±; 29 . . . '!l.xc3 30.'!l.bl 'it>e8
31.'!l.bS !±) 30.'it>d3 '!l.f4 31.'!l.eU and
White has good chances of win­
ning that rook and pawn ending.
19.93 ig5
White maintains a long lasting
initiative in a position with mate­
rial equality if Black retreats his
bishop to other squares :
19 . . . if6 20.lLIf5 ig7 (About
2 0 . . . ig5 - see 19 . . . ie7 20.lLIfS
ig5; after 2 0 . . . ie6 21.lLIxd6 igS
2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcS;i;; Black has
no active prospects whatsoever.)
21.lLIxd6 1L1d4 2 2 . '!l.a2 ic6 (It is not
any better for Black to play 22 . . .
ie6 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4 exd4
2S.Wld3;i;;) 23.1LIxf1+ '!l.xf1 24.cxd4
exd4 2S.f4t White's position is su­
perior, because of his dominance
in the centre and Black's passive
bishop on g7.
19 . . . ie7 2 0 .lLIf5 igS (It seems
too dangerous for Black to try
2 0 . . . hfS 21.exfS igS 22.'lWg4� -
and he has great problems to fight
against White's centralized and
well-coordinated forces.) 21. lLIxd6
ie6 2 2 . lLIb7 Wfb8 23.lLIcSt The
material is equal and White's
pieces are more active and much
more harmoniously placed.
2 0 .f4 exf4 21.gxf4 ih4+
22.i>f1�
We have already seen similar
pawn-sacrifices. This position has
not been tested in practice yet.
The analysis shows that White's
prospects are excellent. Black's
d6-pawn is hanging in some lines
and his queen's rook cannot assist
in the defence of his king (his own
bishop stands in the way).
There may arise the following
developments:
22 . . . if6? ! 23.'!l.a2 i>g7 (Af-
ter 23 . . . ig7 24.'!l.ah2 h6 2S.'lWe2±
White is threatening 26.'!l.xh6 + !
followed by 27.'lWh2.) 24.eS !
lLIxeS (It is hopeless for Black
to opt for 24 . . . dxeS 2S.lLIxf6
Wlxf6 26.Wlxd7+-, or 2S . . . i>xf6
26.'!l.xh7 +-) 2S.fxeSixeS 26.'!l.g2±;
2 2 . . .fS 23.exfS ixfs 24.lLIxfS '!l.xfS
2S.ie2 ! (White's bishop is re­
deployed to another diagonal in
order to free the fourth rank for
maneuvers of the rook.) 2 S . . . gS
(or 2S . . . '!l.a7 26.ig4 '!l.f8 27.'!l.c4±)
26.if3;i;; - Here, it is too bad for
Black to play 26 . . . gxf4? because of
27.ie4 '!l.eS 28.Wlg4+-;
2 2 ... '!l.g8 (That is the most te­
nacious defence for Black.) 23.'!l.a2
'!l.g7 24.'!l.ah2 ie7 (In case of 24 . . .
if6?! White plays again 2S.e5 !±)
173
Chapter 12

25.Wfc2 ! ?;; - and White has more heavy pieces along the h-file, or
than sufficient compensation for by advancing his f4-pawn, plac­
the sacrificed pawn. He can in- ing his queen on the f2-square in
crease the pressure by trebling his advance.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have dealt with one of the mostfashionable and

not so well analyzed lines of the Chelyabinsk variation, which was
introduced into the high-level tournament practice by GM Teimour
Radjabov.
Presently, after 15. . . j,d7!? White often encounters problems in his
attempts to obtain an advantage in the opening. Therefore, we have
analyzed in this chapter three possibilities for White and the most in­
teresting are 16. 0 - 0 and 16.ti:Jce3!? In the first case, White must be
ready to sacrifice the exchange for a pawn, positional compensation
and long-lasting initiative. The second possibility looks quite promis­
ing too. White can continue with an aggressive gambit plan advanc­
ing his h-pawn. That idea is particularly effective when Black's bishop
is on d7.

174
Chapter 13 l.e4 c5 2 . �f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4. �xd4
e6 5.�c3 e5 6.�db5 d6 7.J.g5 a6
8.�a3 b5 9 . � d5 J.e7 1 0 . .bf6 J.xf6
11.c3 0 - 0 12.�c2 ig5 13. a4 bxa4
14.�xa4 a5 15.ic4 �b8

The position arising after 16 . . .

In this chapter, we will analyze
the main and the most popular
line of the Chelyabinsk variation.
Black's last move looks the most
natural, since he has improved
the placement of his rook and he
has avoided the pin along the a­
file with tempo. The next idea on
his agenda is to prepare and ac­
complish the thematic pawn-ad­
vance fl-f5.
16.b3
This move fortifies the light­
squared bishop and it defends the
hanging pawn. Now, Black has a
choice. Sometimes he chooses a)
16 .te6, but still he plays much
•••
more often b) 16 lt>h8. Before
•••
beginning our analysis of these
lines, we will pay some attention
to Black's alternatives.
.td7 17.t2)ce3 ! ? was analyzed thor­
oughly in our previous chapter
- see 15 . . . .td7.
In case of 16 . . . .tb7 17.ltJce3
It>h8 18.0-0 ltJe7 19.'lWd3 he3
20.ltJxe3, there arises again a
transposition to other lines - see
16 . . . lt>h8 17.ltJce3 he3.
After 16 . . . g6 17. 0-0, original
positions can be reached only af­
ter 17 . . . lt>g7 (The move 17 . . . lt>h8
leads to the main line - see 16 . . .
It>h8 .), but it i s not easy t o rec­
ommend such a move, because
Black's king is not comfortable
on the g7 -square after standard
developments in the game. There
might follow 18.'lWe2 .te6 19.1t>h1
'lWd7, and here in the game Jan­
turin - Kamenets, Decin 1998,
White had to play 2 0 .ltJce3, and
then to counter 20 .. .f5 with the
standard reaction 21.exfS gxf5
2 2.f4 exf4 23.ltJxf4 hf4 24.lM'4
hc4 25.'lWxc4;!;, creating a maxi­
mal number of pawn-islands for
the opponent.
Black cannot equalize with
the move 16 . . . ltJe7, which was

175
Chapter 13
played in the game Brener - Kos­
tic, Internet 2 0 05, in view of
17.lLlxe7+ ! ? and Black is forced
to capture on e7 with his bishop
and after 17. . . he7 IB.O-O id7
19J:!a2 a4 (That is an attempt by
Black to get rid of his weakness.)
2 0.bxa4 Vfic7 21.lLle3 ig5 22 .Vfid3
EifcB 23.id5 Vfixc3 24. 'l;![xc3 Eixc3
25.a5;!; and the endgame is better
for White, because of his passed
a-pawn. Black cannot play 25 . . .
he3? 26.fxe3 ie6 27.a6 hd5
2B.exd5 EiaB 29.Eibl+-, since the
rook and pawn ending is winning
for White.
a) 16 . . . ie6
This move is not flexible, be­
cause the e6-square is not always
optimal for Black's bishop.
17. 0 - 0 cj;>h8
In case of17. . . lLle7, White's most
principled reaction is IB.lLlxe7+ ! ,
a s it was played i n the game Nij­
boer - van Kooten, Dieren 19B4,
and after IB . . . he7 19.lLle3;!; White
obtained a stable advantage. Black
would not change the evaluation
of the position with IB . . . Vfixe7, in
view of 19.1Lla3 ! (White's knight
176
is headed for the c4-square in or­
der to attack both Black's weak
pawns.) 19 . . . Vfic7 2 0.he6 fxe6
21.lLlc4 ie7 22.Eixa5 Vfib7 23.Vfid3
Vfixb3 24.Eia7t. Black has man­
aged to regain his pawn indeed,
but White maintains the initiative
as before.
Inthevariation 17. . . Vfid7 1B.Vfie2
(It is also interesting for White to
try IB.'l;![h5 h6 19.Vfie2;!; Carvajal -
Mieles Palau, Cali 2001, provok­
ing weakening of the light squares
in Black's camp in case he goes for
the standard pawn-advance fl­
f5.) IB . . . cj;>hB 19.1Llce3 g6 2 0 .cj;>hl
f5 21.exf5 gxf5 2 2 .f4 ih6 23 .Vfih5
.txf4 24.lLlxf4 exf4 25.lLld5 lLle5,
it looks like Black has come very
close to equality, but following
26.Eixa5 lLlxc4 27.bxc4;!; Acher -
Lazar, Mureck 199B, White main­
tains a slight advantage, because
Black's king is rather unsafe.
After 17. . . g6 IB.lLlce3, it is
more reasonable for Black to
opt for IB . . . cj;>hB - see 17 . . . cj;>hB,
while the premature activity lB . . .
f5? ! when Black's king i s under
X-ray is not so good for him.
White follows with 19.exf5 gxf5
20.f4 exf4 21.lLlxf4 hc4 2 2 .lLlxc4
.hf4 23.'l;![d5 + ! cj;>g7 24.Eixf4 Eif6
25.Eif3;!;, and he obtains good at­
tacking chances. White is better
too after IB . . . .ih6, Zaslavsky -
Dragicevic, Budva 2 003, 19.'l;![f3 ! ?
cj;>hB (but not 1 9 . . .f5? 20.exf5 gxf5,
because of 21.lLlb4! +-) 2 0 .EidU
- and the game develops in the
spirit of the main line 17. . . cj;>hB.
 11.c3 0 - 0 12. &Dc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '1l.xa4 a5 15. i.c4 '1l. b8 16.b3
18.&Dce3
That is a natural move, pre­
venting the advance f7-f5.
18" .g6
About 18 . . . �d7 19.�e2 - see
17 . . . �d7.
Naturally, White is clearly
better after 18 . . .f5? 19.exf5 hf5
20. &Dxf5 E1xf5 2 1.i.d3 E1f8, Incedi
- Strelicka, Svetla nad Sazavou
1998, 2 2 .h4! i.f4 (or 22 . . . hh4?
23.�h5+-) 23.g3 i.h6 24.�c2 g6
2 5.h5± and Black's kingside ends
up in ruins.
If 18 . . . he3 19.&Dxe3 &De7, then
20.he6 fxe6 21.&Dc4t Comp ZChess
- Jaulin, Aubervilliers 1999.
19.�f3 ! ?
This interesting idea was
successfully tried in the game
Radulski - Nataf, Vrnjacka Banja
2005. It is very difficult for Black
to prove that the advance of his
f-pawn is good for him when
White's queen is on the f3-square.
On the contrary, Black only cre­
ates new weaknesses after that.
19" .f5 2 0 .l':tdl
No doubt, it deserves atten­
tion to analyze the tactical possi­
bility: 2 0 . exfS gxf5 21.&Db4!?, but
after correct play from both sides,
there arise simplifications after
which White has a symbolic extra
pawn, but the position is evident­
ly quite drawish : 21.. .e4 2 2 . &Dxc6
exf3 23.&Dxd8 hc4 24. &Dxc4 fxg2
25.E1dl hd8 26.b4 axb4 27J�xb4
E1c8 28.&Dxd6 E1xc3 29.E1b8 Wg7
30.'1l.xd8 E1xd8 31.&Dxf5+ wf6 3 2 .
E1xd8 Wxf5=
2 0 " .'iNd7 2 1.h3
It is necessary for White to
take the g4-square under con­
trol. He should not be in a hurry
and he should test his opponent
how he is going to solve the prob­
lem with the juxtaposition of the
pawns on f5 and e4. The line:
21.'iNg3 id8 2 2 .exf5 gxf5 23.f400
leads to an unclear position with
mutual chances.
21" .ih4
White would have a comfort­
able blocking game after the ex­
change on e4.
22.E1d2 f4
Black closes the kingside with
the idea to organize a direct attack
there.
23.&Dg4 'iNn
24.&Dh2 !
177
Chapter 13
This is a very powerful maneu­
ver. White transfers his knight
along the route g4-h2-f3; mean­
while the queen goes back to the
queenside in order to exert pres­
sure against Black's weaknesses
there.
24 ....td8 25.�dl h5 26.tLlf3;!;
White has created a concealed
tactical threat, which was realized
in the abovementioned game.
After Black's mistake 26 .. J�gB?
27.tLlxf4 ! (This is beautiful and
strong.) 27. . . exf4 (The position
is hopeless for Black after 27. ..
.txc4 2B.f'!xc4 '&xf4 29.f'!xc6+-)
2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29.f'!xc4 tLle7 30.
tLlg5 '&fB 31.'&d4+ '&g7 32.tLlf7+
�h7 33.tLlxdB+- and Black should
better resign.
After 26 . . . �h7, it works
again for White to continue with
27.l2lxf4 ! exf4 2B.f'!xd6 .txc4 29.
f'!xc4+-
It is better for Black to play
26 . . :lWeB, but White can coun­
ter that with 27:�'a1 (with the
idea '&a3) and later for example:
27. . . g5 2B.l2lxg5 ! .td7 (or 2B . . .
.txg5 29.tLlc7±; 2B . . . .txd5 29.exd5
.txg5 30.dxc6±) 29.h4 '&g6 30.f3
17B
.txg5 31.hxg5 '&xg5 32.l2lc7 '&e7
33.f'!aa2 ! .teB 34.tLlb5 f'!f6 35.'&dl
f'!dB 36.f'!d3;!;. Black's attack is not
so dangerous anymore; mean­
while White has prepared to triple
his heavy pieces along the d-file in
a classical fashion.
b) 16 ..• �h8
This is the most popular and
logical move for Black. He re­
moves his king away from the
a2-gB diagonal and that is neces­
sary for the preparation of f7-f5.
Meanwhile he has not made up his
mind yet whether he would push
immediately his bishop pawn, or
he would precede that with the
move g7-g6.
17.tLlce3! ?
The move 17. 0 - 0 has been
played in numerous games, but
lately White encounters real
problems to obtain any opening
advantage. After Black's most
energetic reaction 17 .. .f5 ! 1B.exf5
.txf5 19.tLlce3 .tg6oo he has excel­
lent prospects and that evaluation
was confirmed by a lot of games
played at the highest possible
level.
 1l.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3
I advise my readers to avoid
the main lines just at that mo­
ment and to try to reach not so
well analyzed positions, which are
quite interesting and with good
prospects for White. The move
17.lOce3 ! ? restricts Black's pos­
sibilities, since it does not allow
the immediate move O-fS. The
drawback of that move is that
Black can get rid of his potentially
bad dark-squared bishop, but as
we are going to see, things are far
from easy for him after similar de­
velopments. We will analyze here
bl) 17 .txe3 and b2) 17 g6.
••• •••
About 17. . .ie6 18.0-0 g6
19.Y;Yf3 - see 16 . . . ie6.
If17 ... lOe7, then 18.lOxe7. Here,
it will not work for Black to play
18 . . .he3? 19.1Oxc8 ic5 20.lOxd6
hd6 21. 0-0± Mijovic - Gavric,
Sutomore 2 0 04, since White
ends up with a solid extra pawn.
Black's position remains difficult
even if he captures on e7: 18 . . .
Y;Yxe7 19.lOd5 Y;Yd8 2 0 . 0-0 id7 (or
20 . . .f5 21.exfS ixf5 2 2.Y;Ye2 id7
23.'8a2 ic6 24.'8d1 '8a8 25.Y;Yd3
Y;Yd7, Arzumanian - V.Kuznetsov,
Pardubice 2006, 26.lOb6 Y;Yg4 27.
idS e4 2 8.Y;Ye2 and White main­
tains his advantage, because of
the numerous pawn-weakness­
es in Black's camp.) 21.'8a2 f5
2 2 .exf5 ixf5 23.Y;Ye2 '8c8 24.'8fa1
�k5 2 5.b4;!; Bakr - Mamedov, Ad­
ana 2006, and White has a pow­
erful passed b-pawn, or 18 . . .he7
19.0-0 ig5 2 0 .lOfS! (The position
with bishops of opposite colours
is clearly in favour of White.) 20 . . .
id7 2 1.'8a2 (It deserves attention
for White to play 21.'8a1 ! ? , in or­
der to place later his rook on d1.)
2 1 ... hf5 22.exf5 '8c8 23.Y;Yf3 '8c5
24.'8d1 Y;Yc7 25.g3;l; Wang Hao
- Iv.Popov, Yerevan 2 0 07 - and
Black must be prepared for a long
and laborious defence.
bl) 17 .txe3
•••
This is a straightforward at­
tempt by Black to solve his open­
ing problems. He forces White's
knight to abandon the central d5-
outpost and then Black advances
0-f5 without the preparatory
move of his knight-pawn.
18.lOxe3 lOe7 19. 0 - 0 f5
The other possibility for Black
here is 19 . . . ib7 2 0.Y;Yd3 f5 (but not
20 . . . Wd7? 21.'8d1 '8bd8 22.'8xa5
Y;Yc6 23.lOd5+- Schoene - Helm­
bold, Willingen 2 0 0 1), but White
has at his disposal the powerful
argument 21.'8d1 ! It becomes clear
now that after 21.. .1xe4 2 2 .Y;Yxd6
Y;Yxd6 23.'8xd6, Black has great
problems in the endgame, for ex­
ample 23 .. .f4 24.lOfl lOc8 25.'8d2
lOb6 26.'8xa5 lOxc4 27.bxc4 '8bc8
179
Chapter 13
28.c5 ! ? (The alternative for White
is - 28J3xe5 l'!xc4 29.l'!d4 l'!xd4
30.cxd4 i.d3 31.g4 fxg3 32 .hxg3;!;
and he has considerable chances
of materializing his extra pawn.)
28 ... i.c6 29.l'!d6 e4 30.g3 g5 31.l'!a7;!;
- White's rooks are very active
and Black's defence is difficult.
In the game Obukhovski - Ka­
legin, Kaluga 1981, Black refrained
from capturing on e4 and he pre­
ferred the aggressive move 2 1 . . .
f4. There followed 2 2 .ttJf1 l'!f6 2 3 .
ttJ d 2 g 5 24.l'!da1 g4 25.l'!xa5 l'!h6
26.l'!b5 l'!a8 27.l'!xa8 �xa8 28.l'!b6
ttJc8 29.l'!b4;!;. White won a pawn,
while Black's pieces were incapa­
ble of supporting effectively the
pawn-offensive on the kingside.
2 0 .exfS i.xf5
The move 2 0 . . . ttJxf5 may seem
attractive for Black, but White can
counter it with 2 1.ttJxf5 i.xf5 (2 1 . . .
l'!xf5 2 2 .�d5 i.b7 23.�xa5 Wlg5
24.i.d5± Bindrich - Jefic, Obre­
novac 2 0 04) 22.�d5± Maidla
- Puittinen, Helsinki 1993, and
Black fails to keep the material
equality.
21.l'!a2 !
This is an important moment.
180
White must attack both his oppo­
nent's pawn, one after another, in
order to break his defence. In the
game Santo-Roman - Blaskowsk,
Sudlohn 1981, White did not
play in the best possible fashion
and he could have become even
worse if after 21.�a1 d5 2 2 .l'!d1
i.d7 23.l'!xa5 dxc4 24.l'!a7, Black
had played 24 . . . cxb3 ! 25.�b2 (25.
l'!dxd7 b2 26.�b1 Wlb6 27.l'!xe7?
�g6-+) 25 . . . ttJc6 26. l'!axd7 �e8
27.l'!7d6 e4+
21 i.e4
•••
In case of 21.. .Wlb6 2 2 . ttJd5
ttJxd5 23 .�xd5 i.d7? ! (The passive
defence is also hopeless for Black.)
24.Wlxa5± Pokazanjev - Malina,
Kemerovo 2 0 07, Black remains a
pawn down.
22J!d2 l'!b6
The move 2 2 . . . l'!f6?, Vombek
- Pavlidou, Sibenik 2 007, can be
countered by White with 23.ttJg4 !
l'!g6 24.i.f7±
23.�al
White exploits his heavy pieces
with maximal effectiveness.
It is also interesting for him to
try 23.l'!e1 ! ? �c7 24.i.f1 ! , freeing
the c4-square for his knight.
23 ••• �c7 24.l'!fdU
 11.c3 0 - 0 12. tiJc2 i.g5 13.a4 bxa4 14. '8xa4 a5 15. ic4 '8b8 16.b3
White exerts powerful long­
term positional pressure. That
position was reached in the game
Buczinski - Surin, Email 2000,
and it followed with 24 ... '8c6
2S.'�h1(It is also good for White
to play immediately 2S.¥;Va3 ! ?)
2S . . . ¥;Vb6 (It is more resilient for
Black to defend with 2S . . . lLlfS
26.lLlxfS ixfS 27.¥;Va3 '8dB 28.h3;l;
and White has only a slight advan­
tage.) 26.¥;Va3 lLlfS 27.lLlxfS '8xfS
2 B .'8e2 '8f4 29.f3 i.g6 30.'8ed2
'8f6 31.'8dS±, and Black's situation
was absolutely critical.
b2) 17 g6•••
Black usually plays like that,
preparing the pawn-advance fl­
fS, being reluctant to part with his
bishop pair.
18. 0 - 0
White can try to fortify his po­
sition in the centre without cas­
tling with 1B .¥;Vd3 fS 19.f3, but that
is far from being safe, for exam­
ple: 19 . . . ih4+ 2 0 . '�e2 ! ? (Black is
better after 2 0.g3 f4 21.lLlf1 igS+)
2 0 . . .f4 (It is not so effective for
Black to continue with 2 0 . . . fxe4
2 1.¥;Vxe4 i.fS 2 2 .lLlxfS gxfS 23.¥;Vc2
¥;VgS 24.g3 ¥;Vg7 2S.'8eU) 21.lLlf1
¥;Vd7 2 2 . @d1 ¥;Va7oo
It has become very fashion­
able lately for White to play ag­
gressive lines with h2-h4. He
can try 1B.h4 ! ? right now, but
the consequences of that move
are absolutely unpredictable. We
will have to remind our readers
that we recommend that method
of seizing the initiative only con­
sidering some concrete features
of the position. For example, in
the Radjabov variation, which we
analyzed in out previous chapter,
Black's bishop was on the d7-
square and it was covering the
seventh rank for Black's queen
rook. That circumstance was
quite advantageous for White's
attacking chances; therefore, we
recommended h2-h4 in numer­
ous lines.
After 1B.0-0, Black usually
chooses between b2a) 18 . . . f5
and b2b) 18 i.h6.
...
About 1B ... ie6 19.¥;Vf3 - see
16 . . . ie6.
b2a) 18 f5
•••
Black is playing quite system­
atically according to his plan.
181
Chapter 13
19.Y6d3 ! ?
This i s a n original decision.
White should not be in a hurry to
clarify the situation in the centre.
It is much more popular for him to
play the move 19.exfS. Let us see
what might happen later. It is not
good for Black to play here 19 . . .
MS 20.lZlxfS gxfS (or 2 0 . . J!xfS
21.g3 i.h6 22 .i.d3 �f7 23.!e4±
Sott - Novotny, Klatovy 1998)
2 1.Y6hS e4 2 2 . �fa1 !f6 23.g3 !g7
24.f4;!;
It is stronger for Black to opt
for 19 . . . gxfS, after which White
has two possibilities.
He obtains no advantage
with 2 0 .f4 exf4 21.lZlc2 (but not
21.lZlxf4? '!Wb6 2 2 .Wfd3 �e8-+ Ma­
karova - Sterliagova, Serpukhov
2 0 03), because of 21 . . . id7! (That
is an important inclusion for
Black, since the usual move 21 . . .
lZleS i s not s o convincing.) 2 2 . �a3
lZleS 23.lZlxf4 lZlxc4 24.bxc4 �b2,
and White has nothing better
than to maintain the balance with
the line: 2S.lZld3 �b8 26.�f4=
It is more promising for White
to play 2 0 .WfhS ! i.d7 21.�fal !
(In the first game, i n which that
variation was played, White
tried 2V�h1? ! , but after 21.. .ie8
22.'!Wh3 f4 23.i.d3 '!Wd7FF Ham­
douchi - Cherniaev, Cannes 1997,
he had nothing to brag about. It
is not advantageous for White to
continue with 21.�a3 e4! 22 .f4? !
exf3 23.�xf3 lZleS 24.�g3 h6 2S.h4
ie8 26.'!Wd1 f4 27.�h3 id7!+,
as well as 21.�a2 ie8 22. '!Wh3 f4
182
23.i.d3 Wfd7 24.!fS Wff7 2S.i.e6
WfhS 26.WfxhS ixhS 27.lZlc4 lZld8
28.i.d7 i.f7 29.�d1 ixdS 30.�xdS
�xb3 31.g3 lZlb7=) He attacks
Black's as-pawn and the fl-square
is free for White's knight. What
should Black do?
He loses after 2 1 . . .f4? because
of 22 .i.d3 ! +-. In case of 21 . . . i.e8,
White regroups his forces com­
fortably with 2 2 .'!Wd1 ! f4 23.lZlfl
e4 (This move weakens the a1-h8
diagonal, but White is clearly
better after 23 . . .f3 24.gxf3 ! !hS
2S.!e2 �g8 26.wh1 if7 27.lZlg3;!;)
24.lZld2 ig6 2S.i.fl e3 (In case of
2S . . . �e8, it is completely safe for
White to play 26.lZlc4 e3 27. lZlxaS
lZlxaS 28.�xaS exf2 + 29.wxf2 i.e4
30 .Wfd4+ �eS 31.b4±) 26.lZlf3;!;,
and he neutralizes his opponent's
activity and he obtains the advan­
tage.
We must also analyze the
move 21...e4 ! , since it poses the
greatest problems for White. If
22 .Wfd1, then 22 . . .f4, and later it
is possible to play 23.�c2 '!We8 !
(This is more precise than 23 . . .
f3 24.g3 '!We8 , since then White
has the resource 2S.�de3 ! ? with
the idea after 2S . . . '!WeS, to re­
group his forces with the help of
26.i.dS ! , combining his threats
with the indirect protection of the
c3-pawn: 26 . . . '!Wxc3? 27.�c4+-;
26 ... �bc8 27.ixc6 ixc6 28.�xaS
'!Wg7 29.c4±) 24.�xaS (White is
practically forced to sacrifice the
exchange, because after 24.�d4
lZleS 2S.�xaS f3 2 6.g3 e3 27.�Sa2
 11.c3 0 - 0 12.ti:Jc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'Sxa4 a5 15. ic4 'Sb8 16.b3
e2 28.lLlxe2 lLlxc4 29.bxc4 fxe2
30.'Sxe2 �g6+ Black is even bet­
ter.) 24 . . . lLlxa5 25.'Sxa5 f3 26.g3;;
- and White has a sufficient
compensation for the exchange,
but not more than that. Besides
2 2 .�d1, White can play passively
2 2.lLlfl 'Sg8 ! 23.�e2 'Sg6 24.<tt>h 1
�f8 25.'S4a3 'Sh6 26. <tt>g l �g7
2 7.lLlg3 �e5oo and although the
position remains unclear, Black
has the initiative.
So, all these lines show that
after 19.exf5, Black manages
somehow to solve his problems,
although not effortlessly, there­
fore I consider the move 19.�d3 ! ?
more precise.
19 ... f4
About 19 . . . ih6 - see 18 . . . ih6.
In case of 19 . . . fxe4 2 0 .�xe4,
White achieves what he is after.
The computer game The King
- The Baron, Leiden 2006, con­
tinued with: 20 . . . ie6 21.�d3
�d7 2 2 .ibS! he3 23.lLlxe3 hb3
24.'Sxa5 �b7 2 S.hc6 �xc6 26.'Sa6
�b6 27.�xb6 �xb6 28.�b1 - and
Black came under a deadly pin
and following 28 . . . �a8 29.c4 �a3
3 0.c5 ! dxc5 31.�c3 <tt> g8 32 .�xe5
�e6 33.�xc5± White gradually
realized his extra pawn. If 20 . . .
ifS, then 21.lLlxf5 gxf5 2 2 .�e2
�d7 23 .�h5 �g7 24.�d1;!; with su­
perior prospects for White.
Black's attempt to advance
the f-pawn as quickly as possible
should not worry White too much
- 19 . . . he3 20.�xe3 f4 2 1.�d3 f3,
because after 2 2 .g3, he maintains
the advantage after the straight­
forward line 22 . . . h5 23.�d1 h4 24.
lLle3 ! with the following eventual
developments 24 . . . hxg3 25.hxg3
�f6 26.lLld5 �f8 27.b4 ! <tt>g 7 28.b5
lLla7 (It would not work for Black
to play 28 . . . �g5 29.bxc6 �h8, be­
cause of 30.lLlf6 ! �xf6 31.�xa5+-)
29.�da1 ib7 30.�xa5 lLlc8 31..lb3
�d7 3 2.id1 hd5 33.exd5 �g4
34.�la4±, or 22 . . . .le6 23.�e1 �d7
24.�e3 .lg4 25.�d1 ! ? <tt> g7 26.�d3
h5 27.lLle3 �f6 28.�a2:t
It would be interesting for
Black to try 19 . . . .le6 ! ? Here, in
comparison to the variations we
have analyzed before with a black
bishop on e6, White's queen is on
d3 and not on the f3-square. Now,
White can fight for the advantage
with the help of the move 2 0.�d1 ! ?
(not weakening the shelter o f his
king) 20 . . . �d7 21.f3 �a7 22.<tt>h 1
he3 23. lLlxe3 hc4 24.�xc4 f4
25.�xc6 fxe3 26.c4:t, or with the
help of the already well tested line
20.f3 ! ? ih6 21.�d1 fxe4 22.�xe4
if5 23.lLlxf5 gxf5 24.�e2 �b7 25.
<tt>h 1 lLle7, Aginian - Kucypera,
Mureck 1998, and later 26.�d3 !
lLlg6 27.�da1±
183
 Chapter 13
2 0 .tZlc2 f3
After 20 . . . �h4, White can be­
gin to concentrate cold-bloodedly
his forces against Black's a6-pawn,
since it is evident that Black's at­
tacking resources are insufficient,
for example: 2U'!fa1 illfg5 22 .�b5
Elxb5 23.illfxb5 �h3 24.tZle1 hg2
25. ttJxg2 f3 26.illffl±
21.g3
Black's f3-pawn is a potential
weakness.
21. illfd7
••
White is better after 21.. .h5,
Szilagyi - Balogh, Hungary 2 001,
22.Elfa1 h4 23.ttJe1 hxg3 24.hxg3
�g4 25.�b5±
In the game Brundisch - Il­
inca, ICCF 2 0 03, Black played
21.. .�h3 22.Elfa1 illfc8 23.ttJe1 �g4
(White can counter 23 . . . illfg4, with
the line: 24.ttJc7! illfd7 25.ttJxf3
Elxf3 26.illfxf3, and he wins the ex­
change: 26 . . . illfxc7 27.g4±, or 26 . . .
�g4 27.illft7±), and here White
could have combined his threats
against the pawns on d6 and f3
with the variation: 24.ttJe3 ! ? �h3
(or 24 . . . he3 25.illfx e3±) 25.ttJ3c2
�g4 26.illfxd6 Elf6 27.illfd 3±
22.�fal
184
It also deserves attention for
White to test here 2 2.Eld1 ! ? �d8
(or 22 . . . illfh 3 23.tZlde3 �e7 24.b4
axb4 25.cxb4±) 23. ttJe1 illfg7 24.
Eld2 (threatening 25.ttJxf3) 24 . . .
�g5 (It i s bad for Black t o play im­
mediately 24 . . . �g4, because of 25.
ttJe3.) 25.Elda2 �g4 26.h4 �h6 27.
ttJe3, and here after 27 ... he3 28.
illfxe3 illfd7 29.El2a3 (freeing the
bishop from the protection of the
b3-pawn), as well as following 27...
�h3 28.ttJf1 and then ttJh2, Black's
defence would be very difficult.
22 ... illfh3 23.tZlde3±
It is not so hard to understand
here that Black will fail to check­
mate White's king, so that means
that his aggressive play will back­
fire and the key-role in the evalu­
ation of the position will be de­
cided by other factors. After 23 . . .
Elf4? ! White plays 24.illfd5 ! �a6 (It
is bad for Black to opt for 24 . . . �d7
25. �f1 illfh 6 26.illfx d6+-) 25.1lNd1
(Black was hoping for 25.ha6?
Elh4! 26.gxh4 �f4-+) 25 . . . Elh4 (or
25 . . . Elbf8 26.illffl±) 26.illfxf3 �b7
27.illfh 1 Elh6 28.illfg 2± and White
ends up with a clear advantage. It
is more reliable for Black to play
 11.c3 0 - 0 12.tiJc2 ig5 13.a4 bxa4 14. 'gxa4 a5 15. ic4 'gb8 16.b3
23 . . . 'gf6, but then 24.lLlel !xe3
(24 . . . 'iffh S 2 S.b4! axb4 26.'ga8±)
2S.'iffx e3 ig4 26.'iffgS i>g7 27.idS
id7 2 8 .'iffe 3;!;, and once again
Black is faced with a difficult and
laborious defence.
b2b) 18 ••• ih6
That is a logical preparatory
move. Black is not in a hurry to
advance his f-pawn and he re­
treats his bishop to a safer square.
At least, there it would not come
under attack with tempo after f2-
f4. The drawback of that move is
that it is a bit too slow.
19.'iffd3
If White plans to exchange on
fS, then he should better choose
the prophylactic move 19. i>hl and
that is a good alternative for him.
After 19 . . .fS 20.exfS gxf5 21.f4,
Black must make up his mind.
There might follow:
21 . . . 'iffh 4? ! (This is a dubi­
ous decision.) 2 2 .ie2 e4, Ding
- Rybenko, man Bator 2002,
23.'gc4! id7 24.'ggl and amaz­
ingly enough, Black is in a zugz­
wang in a board full of pieces! His
position is very bad too after 24 . . .
'gg8?! 2S.'f3.xc6 ixc6 26.lLlxfS+- ,
as well as following 24 . . . 'gbc8
2S.g3 'iffd8 26.g4 fxg4 27.ixg4±,
or 24 . . .ixf4 2S.g3 !xg3 26.'gxg3
lLleS (or 26 .. .f4 27.'gxe4+-) 27.'gc7
'gg8 28.'gxd7 'gxg3 29.lLlxfS %Vh3
30.lLlxg3 'iffxd7 31.lLlxe4± - and
White has a winning position in
all the variations.
After 21.. .id7, Fomichenko -
Mamjan, Krasnodar 2 0 0 2 , 22.'gal
ig7 23.'iffd 2;!; White has a slight
edge.
21.. .lLle7 22.'iffh S lLlxdS 23.lLlxdS
ixf4 (It is even more dangerous
for Black to play 23 . . . ig7 24.'gfal !
- since 24 . . . 'ga8 will b e countered
by White with 2S.b4, while if 24 . . .
exf4, then 2S.'gxaS ieS 26.'ga7
l3b7 27.'ga8± Ibragimov - An­
dreev, Tomsk 1997, and again
Black is faced with big problems.)
24.lLlxf4 exf4 2S.'ifff3 ib7 26.%Vxf4
ie4 27.'gdU - Black has so many
pawn-islands that he must com­
ply with passive defence.
Finally, in case of 21...'iffe 8, as
it was played in the game Saunina
- Savushkina, Orsk 2000, White
has at his disposal a tactical re­
source - 2 2 .ibS! and following
22 . . . id7 (The exchange-sacrifice
22 . . . 'gxbS? 23.lLlc7 'iffg 6 24.lLlxbS
ixf4 is not convincing in view
of 2S.'gaxf4 ! exf4 26.lLld5 with a
variation like 26 . . . ia6 27.lLlxf4
'ifff6 28.c4 ixb5 29.cxb5 lLld4
30.b6 'gb8 31.lLlh5 'iffe5 3 2.'gel
'iffc5 33.'ge7+-, which illustrates
Black's difficulties. If 22 . . . exf4,
then 23.lLlc4 ig7 24.'geU) 23.lLlc4 !
185
Chapter 13
(The bishop on bS is untouchable
as before. ) 23 . . . %!Ig6 24.llJcb6 gg8
2S.ga2 (The g2-square has been
fortified just in time.) 2S . . . .te8
26 . .!a4 gg7 27.llJc4 'lWe6 28.gaf2;l;
with a positional advantage for
White.
19 f5
•••
Black can play 19 . . . .td7, forc­
ing White's rook to abandon the
fourth rank. In that case after
2 0 .ga2 fS, the game transposes
to the Radjabov variation - see
1S . . . .td7 16.llJce3 gb8 17.b3 �h8
18.0-0 g6 19.%!Id3 fS 20J�a2 .th6.
2 0 .gdl ! ?
A similar position (only with
the inclusion of the moves .td7
and ga2) was played in the game
Anand - Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee
2 007, and we analyzed it in out
previous chapter. White should
better follow the plan, which was
realized successfully by the Indi­
an grandmaster, in this position
as well.
20 ••• f4
It is not so good for Black to
play 2 0 . . . 'lWh4, when his rook is
on a4 (analogously to the above­
mentioned game), because of
21.exfS e4 (or 21.. .hfS 2 2 .llJxfS
gxfS 23.%!Ie2, and Black cannot
play 23 . . . gbf8? due to 24 . .!b5+-)
2 2.'lWfl gxfS 23 . .tbS. If 23 ... llJa7,
then 24 . .ta6 ! .!d7 25.gxaS f4 26.
llJc4 f3 27.g3 %!Ig4 28.llJde3±, and
White ends up with extra materi­
al. It is also insufficient for Black
to opt for 23 . . . llJeS? ! 24.f4 gxbS
2S.'lWxbS .!d7 (In case of 2S . . . hf4
186
26.llJxf4 'lWxf4 27.'lWe2 gg8 28.�h1
%!Ih6 29.llJdS llJg4 30.h3 e3 31.gfl±
Black's attack reaches its dead
end.) 26.'lWfl ha4 27.bxa4 llJd3
28.g3 %!Id8 29.gb1 'lWd7 3 0 .gbS;l;
- White has managed to occupy
important key-squares.
Whenever Black is not in a
hurry to clarify the situation in
the centre, then as I have already
mentioned, the White players
should follow the example of the
games Topalov - Kasparov, Leon
1998 and Anand - Radjabov, Wijk
aan Zee 2 007. At first, White must
take care of some prophylactic
- ga4-a2 and f2-f3 with the idea
to stabilize the centre and to pro­
tect his second rank in case Black
plays actively on the kingside. Af­
ter that, he should start attacking
Black's weaknesses and mostly
his pawns on as and d6.
21.llJc2 fJ 22.g3 M7 23.�2;l;
A similar situation arose
in variation b2a. Black has no
real attacking prospects, White
will soon exert pressure against
Black's weaknesses, and his f3-
pawn has just become one more
of them.
 Conclusion

In our final chapter, we have dealt with practically the main line
of the Chelyabinsk variation, which is frequently played more than
a quarter of a century. Tournament practice has shown that White's
natural way of developing his initiative - 16 . . . rJJ h 8 17. 0 - 0 , does not
promise him much after 17.. .j5, because Black thus manages to activate
his forces. White's attempts to neutralize his opponent's counterplay
by exchanges often lead to an almost complete exhaustion ofavailable
resources. Therefore, I believe that at the contemporary stage of de­
velopment of that variation, White's hope of obtaining an advantage
should befocused on a relatively new plan, based on keeping the posi­
tion relatively closed. That is the idea behind the move 17. &iJce3! - it
not only prevents the immediate advance 17.. .j5, but what is tremen­
dously important is that Blackfails to accomplish the typicalfreeing
maneuver with the line: 17. . . ,he3 18. &iJxe3 &iJe7 19. 0 - 0 j5 2 0 .exj5
&iJxj5 21. &iJxj5 ixf5 22. V!JdS, since he thus loses his as-pawn.
Later, White must hold on to his blocking construction on the cen­
tral outposts e4 and dS. That plan might seem a bit slow; neverthe­
less, it is very unpleasantfor Black, because he cannot coordinate his
pieces in that situation. The connection between his two flanks has
been disrupted. The variations we have analyzed show that Black's
counterplay on the kingside is not so dangerous for White if he plays
carefully, while Black will have problem with his compromised pawn­
structure to the end of the game. He will need to find improvements
in this variation!

187
Index of Variations

Part 1. l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 . • . . . . . 8

Chapter 1 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3

a) 5 . . . llJxd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
b) 5 .. :Wc7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
c) 5 . . . E:b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
d) 5 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7 . .tg5
various . . . . . .
a) 7 . . . .te6 . . . . . . .
b) 7 . . . a6 . . . . . . . . .
b1) 8.llJa3 d5 .
b2) 8.llJa3 .te7
b3) 8 .llJa3 h6 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 .te6 9.�c4
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a) 9 ... llJd4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
b) 9 . . . E:c8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
b1) 1O.ixf6 �xf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
b2) 10 . .txf6 gxf6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4 l.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7..tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
a) 9 . . . .te6 1O .,hf6 gxf6 1l.c3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
a1) 1l.c3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
a2) 1l.c3 .tg7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
b) 9 . . . �a5 1O . .ld2 �d8 1l.c4 various. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
b1) 1l.c4 llJxe4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
b2) 1l.c4 b4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

188
 Index o/ Variations

Part 2. 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3
e5 6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 ..txf6 .txf6
•

11.c3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Chapter 5 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 1 0 . .txf6 .txf6 11.c3
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11 . . . ib7 12.ttJc2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.ttJdb5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3
ttJe7 12.�xf6 gxf6 13.�c2
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3
13 . . . .tb7 14 . .td3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6
a) 14 ..td3 f5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
b) 14 . .td3 d5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0

Chapter 7 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 .te7 10 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3
• •

J.g5 12.�c2
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
a) 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
b) 12 . . . ttJe7 13.h4 ih6 14.a4 bxa4 15.ttJcb4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
bl) 15.ttJcb4 J.d7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
b2) 15.ttJcb4 0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
c) 12 . . . �b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 8 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7. .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 10 . .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3
0 - 0 12.�c2
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 6
a) 12 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7
b) 12 ... ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9
c) 12 . . . ttJb8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0

Chapter 9 1.e4 c5 2.�f3 �c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.�xd4 �f6 5.�c3 e5

6.�db5 d6 7 .tg5 a6 8.�a3 b5 9.�d5 J.e7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 1l.c3
• •

0 - 0 12.�c2 l::tb8 13.h4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
a) 13 . . . a5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 3
b) 13 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 5

189
Index o/ Variations

c) 13 . . . c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 6
d) 13 . . . g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 1
e) 13 . . . i.e7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2

Chapter 1 0 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4. c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS

6.c!tJdbS d6 7 .igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS .ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3
• •

0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 .igS 13.a4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
a) 13 . . . l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
b) 13 . . .bxa4 14.l3xa4 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
b1) 14.l3xa4 c!tJe7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
b2) 14.l3xa4 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
b3) 14.l3xa4 ib7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

Chapter 1 1 1.e4 cS 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS

6.c!tJdbS d6 7.i.gS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6 11.c3 •

0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.i.c4

various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
a) 15 . . . i.b7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
b) 15 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
c) 15 . . . 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Chapter 1 2 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS

6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 11.c3 •

0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.gxa4 as lS.i.c4 id7

16.l3a2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 8
16.0-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 0
a) 16.c!tJce3 .txe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 4
b) 16.c!tJce3 'lth8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 5
c) 16.c!tJce3 l3b8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7
d) 16.c!tJce3 c!tJe7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 9
e) 16.c!tJce3 g 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 1

Chapter 13 1.e4 c5 2.c!tJf3 c!tJc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c!tJxd4 c!tJf6 S.c!tJc3 eS

6.c!tJdbS d6 7.igS a6 S.c!tJa3 bS 9.c!tJdS ie7 1 0 .ixf6 .txf6 11.c3
0 - 0 12.c!tJc2 igS 13.a4 bxa4 14.�a4 as lS.ic4 gbS 16.b3
various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
a) 16 . . . ie6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
b) 16 . . . 'lth8 17.c!tJce3 various . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79
b1) 17. c!tJce3 i.xe3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79
b2) 17.c!tJce3 g6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

190
 Games collections

My One Hundred Best Games

by Alexey Dreev 300 pages,
biography, colour photos

Bogoljubow.
The Fate of a Chess Player
by S. Soloviov, 280 pages
Detailed biography and
200 commented wins

Capablanca. Games 19 0 1 - 1224

Second Revised Edition, 368 pages

Capablanca. Games 1925 - 1939

Second Revised Edition, 360 pages
 A Chess Library for Practical Players.
The Endgame
by GM Marat Makarov 2007
180 pages

The Sharpest Sicilian

A Black Repertoire with l.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6
by Kiril Georgiev and Atanas Kolev, 2007,
272 pages

Opening for White According to

Kramnik, Vol.1a
by Alexander Khalifman 2006, 308 pages

For contacts :
E-mail: soloviov@chess-stars.com; semkov@chess-stars.com

Published by Chess Stars

Printed in Bulgaria